Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2013-12-17 PreCouncil
~~E IDIAN<--- CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PRE-COUNCIL MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, December 17, 2013 at 5:00 PM City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 3. Hearing on the Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on an Impact Fee Individual Assessment Request by W.H. Moore Continued to January 28, 2014 Adjourned at 6:36 p.m. Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting Agenda -December 17, 2013 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 17, 2013, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, Brad Hoaglun, David Zaremba, and Keith Bird. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Stacy Kilchenmann. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and get tonight's meeting started. For the record it is Tuesday, December 17th. My daughter's birthday. And it's a few minutes after 5:00. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk. De Weerd: Item No. 2 is adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move adoption of the agenda as printed. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as printed. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Hearing on the Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on an Impact Fee Individual Assessment Request by W.H. Moore De Weerd: Item 3 is a hearing on the appeal of an impact -- of our administrator of the impact fee decision. I will turn this over to Stacy. Kilchenmann: Thank you, Madam Mayor. First I will turn it over to Ted, because Ted is the legal mind behind the mechanics of the operation. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 2 of 30 Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will refer you to a memo dated December 17th that sort of sets forth the legal parameters for the hearing before you tonight. I thought I'd walk you through that. This is the first time that you have actually heard an appeal of the impact fee administrator's decision. In your meeting packet you have the items that constitute the record that are listed on the first page of my memo. The appellant will probably be submitting additional written materials tonight that you can consider. The suggested order of testimony would be the appellant, who has the burden of proof, would make his presentation and, then, the impact fee administrator explains her decision and, then, the appellant has an opportunity for rebuttal. One thing that I do want Mr. Nary to make sure we get on the record when Mr. Seal gets up to make his presentation is that there is a required 15 day waiting period between the notice of the appeal hearing and the hearing itself. We are here tonight because the appellant has specifically requested tonight's date, so I'm going to ask them to waive that 15 day waiting period and any other irregularities without -- with regard to notice. And so that's all I have, unless anyone has any questions about process. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Ted? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Stacy. Kilchenmann: So, I believe Mr. Seal goes first. Correct, Ted? De Weerd: So used to doing staff reports first. Mr. Seal. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Seal: Yes. I don't know if I say good afternoon or good evening here. Mayor, Council Members, first what I'd like to do is I'd like to express my appreciation to the Council, to the Mayor, and the staff that allows us to have this heard tonight. I appreciate the help from staff throughout this whole process. They have been -- they have been very gracious. So, thank you. The other thing I wanted to mention before I get started with it -- I came in this morning, because I wanted to put some stuff on the overhead projector, but it doesn't show up particularly well, so I'm going to be doing a series of handouts. So, I apologize if I'm going to be giving you a lot of information, but I think it will be helpful. If I can first Ijust -- just to give you a little bit of overview, as you recall just for the project, as just kind of a refresher, if you recall, this is a 32 acre project. It is comprised of 48 single family homes and 220 apartment projects, one, two and three bedroom. Within the -- within the apartment project we have a 5,200 square foot community center with a fitness cardio, kitchen, and also game room. We have a 5,000 square foot pool. We have cabanas with the -- with the pool and fireplace and barbecues. We have Bocce ball, which I'm not sure what that is, but I guess one of these days I will find out. We have six ramadas, sand volleyball, playground, and approximately two and a half acres of open area. The unique feature of this is I think, if you may recall, was that the -- the extensive amenities that we are providing within this Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 3 of 30 project are also being able to be utilized by the single family residents. So, as I have said in the past, we don't have that bifurcation between single family and multi-family. So, when we started to go through the whole process and started to calculate our fees, one thing that -- that really caught our attention up front is our park impact fees total approximately 283,000 dollars. That's just park impact fees. We have a million and a half dollars in fees in total. And I think what was disturbing in the process was several things. First, we realize that there was no differentiation between a single family home for park impact fees and say, for example, a one bedroom apartment. Now, it's that one bedroom apartment would pay the same park impact fees as would a four or five bedroom apart -- house. Also, there was no mechanism within the park impact fee to recognize the fact that we were providing these amenities not only for the apartment, but also for the single family development. We thought that was a very unique feature. Third, we also realized that there was no mechanism there to benefit if you went above and beyond your normal required amenity, whether you could get any credit for that. So, hence, as a result of that, we decided to go ahead and submit for a -- for a park impact fee protest. Now, stepping back -- and this is something that I have never done before, as I bet the Council hasn't either. I started to look at it and I realized that it's very difficult to quantify how many amenities you put in, what are the costs, how they might impact or not impact a single family residence, even though they all reduce the burden of your parks system. So, what I did is I took the approach that we would look at the livable area and we felt that there would be a relationship between the livable area, whether that's an apartment or a single family, and the amount of people that lived in that livable area. So, in other words, a one bedroom apartment presumably, on average -- and I emphasize on average -- would have less people in it than a four or five bedroom apartment. So, we went in first and we looked at our project and we looked at the houses -- well, I should back up. We looked at the apartments -- and I need to correct something, because my narrative -- I used 1,008 square feet. It should be 1,088 square feet. It's the average size of our apartments for one, two, and three bedrooms. So, the average size that's 1,088 square feet. I, then, looked at the houses and I estimated about 2,500 square feet for a single family home. Keeping in mind that we haven't built all the homes, but we are looking at three to four hundred thousand dollar homes and that they presumably will be at least certainly 2,500. We are seeing much larger homes than that. So, based on that we came up with a ratio of a -- the apartments within Red Tail would be approximately 43 percent of the average size of a house within Red Tail. Now, to make sure whether or not that was -- that was comparable to the City of Meridian, then, I went the further step and I took all the homes within Meridian that have been sold over the last year, both new homes, existing homes, and the average size of those homes came in at 2,179 square feet. And, then, we looked at the average size of the apartment with Meridian, including ones that are currently under construction and we came up with an apartment size of approximately 953 square feet. Again, the ratio came into about 44 percent. So, we thought there is a -- a decent representation between our project and the City of Meridian. We felt that that approach was an equitable approach to look at what -- how you would allocate your -- your impact fees between single family and multi-family. I would say you can't do it on just the cost of amenities, but you can now look at it and say, okay, here is a quantifiable avenue in order to determine how to allocate or how to adjust impact fees Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 4 of 30 between apartments and homes. So, we thought that that was a good basis. Now, if I can go now to -- to the -- to Stacy, the fee administrator, I would like to respond to a few things in that in there. One, she mentions that if the impact fees lowers for some one, it goes up for someone else. We couldn't agree more. We think that that was an equitable way. That's a proportionate share. If you look at, for example, within -- within this valley, you work with ACHD. ACHD has an impact fee ordinance. They charge a different impact fee for a medical user than they do for warehouse. I guess it goes without saying, but because that warehouse user does not put the burden on the streets that a medical user does. So -- so, you know, there they do make an allocation. If we go to -- for example, down to the city of Boise -- and I will pass this out and, then, I will respond to it. De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan. Seal: Okay. If you look at the city of Boise and their park impact fee -- now, it's just that there is a difference in the impact. If you will look at down there at the bottom in the center, they, basically, break it out between single family residents, multi-family over 800 square feet and multi-family below 800 square feet. They actually had a study done to determine this. So, again, here is another example of an agency who is recognizing that you -- that you want to treat it based on the proportionate share. What is the impact. And there they recognize the apartments. I'm not suggesting that Boise is Meridian, but I think it's representative of this community and of this valley. So, you see another place where you're seeing where people can make adjustments. I understand there is other cities that don't, but Boise does, and I think that speaks to it. Then what I would like to do is -- if we can go to Stacy's letter, which is dated October 6, and go to page two of it and I will read the first paragraph to you. The first paragraph says: The census data tells us that, actually, there is little difference between the number of people living in rental properties -- and that's rental properties -- compared to single family owned residents. Based on the 2010 census, the average household size of an owner-occupied unit in Meridian was 2.97 and the average size of a renter occupied unit was 2.95. That is correct. And if I can show it here for you. Bird: How come when you have numbers it's always tiny? De Weerd: Could you make the numbers to be smaller? Bird: Did this come from our Finance Department? Seal: I apologize for that. I apologize. This is the 2010 census and tenure and if you look at -- at the yellow and you looked at -- towards the center, you will see average household size, owner occupied units, 2.95 and renter occupied units 2.97. Okay. Now, if you go into -- which is referenced into the census, this is the American Community Survey. Okay. This is what it's based on. And I'm not going to give you the whole thing, but again -- and I'm sorry to keep giving you papers, but I think this is -- this is a critical point. I will apologize, I only have one more. If you will go to number 17, you will notice it says here is this house, apartment, or mobile home -- and I apologize Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 5 of 30 for -- owned by you or someone else. Number two, owned by you or someone in the house. Number three, rented. If you go to the following page, which is number 18, it says what is the monthly rent for this home, apartment, or mobile home. I can't find -- and Iwill stand to be corrected if I'm wrong and I have some other stuff here, but I won't badger you with it. I can't find anything that differentiates between an apartment, a house, or mobile homes or a duplex when it comes to rental. So, if you go back, for example -- well, you can apply it now, but let's go back to 2010. We all recall that back in 2010 there was a substantial amount of homes on the market that were rented, because people bought them, thought they were going to make a lot of money, and turned around and realized they couldn't and the only option they had was that. So, what I'm saying respectfully -- and I'm not trying to denigrate the letter -- is that I think this number is misleading that, yes, the number is correct, but it doesn't actually reflect apartments. Again, if you go back to the city of Boise's letter, you will see that there is a differentiation. I have not been able to find anything that truly documents where it breaks out apartments. So, I bring that up and -- and certainly I would be glad to give you a copy of this, but I didn't think you wanted the whole questionnaire. The fee administrator mentions that it is difficult to design park impact fees that measure the value of something and provides so many tangible and intangible functions simultaneously. Again, I respectfully suggest that Boise is able to do it, Ada County is able to do it. I believe there is a mechanism. There is a mechanism, which if you want, equate it by square footage, to occupancy. So, I believe there is. And, finally, in the last paragraph of the letter it mentions that the criteria used to determine appeal does -- does the appeal reflect that new growth and development of the city pays proportionate share of park and recreational development necessary to serve new development. We are not standing here tonight asking that we don't pay it. All we are simply saying to you is we want to pay our proportionate share. We want to pay what's fair. We don't want to pay what's over. And, again, that's the same system that's applied in other impact fee ordinances. So, we are willing to pay it. Then what I'd like to do is I would like to address the -- the consensus letter and a couple of comments here if I can. On page two he mentions that amenities will not replicate the amenities in the Meridian parks. We agree and there was never an intent. But, again, I think it goes back to the fact that these amenities are reducing the burden on the park system. It should be acknowledged. It mentions that we are a luxury apartment complex with a higher price point. Again, I agree completely. What you as a city, respectfully, I think want to do is encourage apartment development, quality development, to come into this community and one way that -- that you want to do that is by charging fair for the park impact fees, not burden them with what I think may be additional park impact fees. It mentions that the system was designed for ease of administration and fairness. Again, I question is fairness here. I mean how can you charge somebody who is in a one bedroom or even a studio the same park impact fee as a single family, as a five bedroom, four bedroom house. That doesn't seem equitable to me, respectfully. It mentions that we have three bedrooms that are, essentially, the same size as a house. First, the majority of our units, as well as all apartment projects are one and two bedroom apartments. When you do get to three bedroom most people are looking for homes and even a three bedroom apartment still is not near the size of a -- of a single family house. And, then, finally -- and Iheard this throughout this thing. Finally it talks about that reducing impact fees for Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 6 of 30 multi-family is subsidizing single family development. I would turn that around 180 degrees and I would say, too, that apartment buildings are subsidizing it for single family. They are paying more than they should pay for it. So, again, in closing -- and I appreciate all your interest in this -- I would say all we are asking for is that we pay our equitable portion, that there be a recognition that there is a difference. Now, however you want to do that, whether it's square footage or some other mechanism, but I think the charge one shoe fits all philosophy I think is unfair and I think it puts a burden and I think potentially puts -- discourages apartment projects -- quality projects from coming into your city. And Ijust -- real quickly with closing -- and I mentioned this before and I will give this -- this is just -- I talked to the impact fee review committee awhile ago. I have a concern that what you're projecting, based on the consultant's numbers for growth in the future may be very conservative. I know you're reducing park impact fees in the future and I will leave this with you, because this right here indicates, for example, the amount of projects that are currently under construction right now, not completed. In other words, coming to next year and it's based on November's numbers. There is 790 units. Just apartment units. You're projecting in the neighborhood -- and it's on the last page -- 693 units in total next year. Now, I understand development has to close, but I think it's something to take in consideration and I will leave this with you. So, that -- that concludes my presentation. I'm certainly glad to answer any questions. I hope it hasn't been too confusing. I tried to hit on the high points. I would be glad to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan. Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Jonathan, you have mentioned several times your willingness to pay an equitable proportion of the impact fees and what in your mind is that? Seal: Well, Mayor, Councilman Rountree, as I put in here, I base it on the square footage, which came up to 40 some percent. Now, I would be very candid, I'm not expecting that that's what it's going to be. But, again, I was looking for some type of mechanism and as I said before, this is not something I do for a living. So, I was trying to look for some type of mechanism that I think would be objective, that you could quantify and that people could look at and say, okay, that's reasonable. You know, maybe there is a way of finding out on -- like Boise does -- on the number of occupants for apartment verses home on average. I was not able to find that. I don't know if it exists. I suppose you could find it. I know that Boise did a study on that. They commissioned themselves. So, I don't know if that answers your question, but I think there is an acknowledgment that there has to be an adjustment. Rountree: And what's the value of the amenities you are providing in this development? Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 7 of 30 Seal: I would have to check for you on that, Mayor and Councilman Rountree. It would be substantial, but I don't have the dollar amount. Rountree: I understand that. I just wondered if you knew Seal: Yeah. I can get that for you. In fact, I may be able to get that -- Randy, do you know? Okay. We can certainly get that for you. Rountree: A range that's close I'm good with. Seal: A lot of money. De Weerd: But I guess maybe to draw off of what Councilman Rountree just asked, what is the amount you're doing over and above what you're required to do? So, in the past sometimes the city looks to a piece of property or an amenity, because it would be a public benefit and so you're reimbursed by park impact fees. So, I would imagine the amount's over and above and we don't want a pool, by the way. So, I'm not asking for anything. Seal: Sure De Weerd: But if you could give an example of what that over and above is that might be something that Council could consider. Seal: Mayor and Council, you know, if you look at your amenity ordinance -- I mean you could do as simple as just a small pool, which I know you don't want. You could put some picnic tables that are considered an amenity. You could do a bike storage. You could do some barbecues. I mean you could go very cheap if you want. You could do the minimum amount of landscaping. I mean that's not what we wanted. We wanted to build a quality project here. We wanted something that would be representative of the city and in what, for example, Winston Moore has done here, as you well know. So, it's not that we are all terrific and we are doing this just for the kindness, but I -- so, I think it does attract people, but maybe it's away -- maybe there is a way -- and that's why I stepped back from that, but a way to incentivize development to put additional amenities in. I have been up here in front of City Council before where you said, look, we want you to have pathways from the street to the stores. We want this, so that we keep traffic off the road. Well, this is one -- this is one opportunity to reduce the amount of traffic that goes on the road and instead of people going to public parks they will stay there. They stay within their community. You know, I have been up before and say we want -- we want mixed use, we want single family, and multi-family and retail and everything else within there, so we can keep that. We are creating somewhere that environment, so -- but I don't know how you create that mechanism here. That's why I step back from that. De Weerd: Okay. That's fair. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 8 of 30 Seal: Okay. De Weerd: I was just trying to think out loud. That's always dangerous. Additional comments or questions from Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I will ask Jonathan. Jonathan, do you know of any other multi-family housing that has the amenities, like a swimming pool in it, in Meridian? I'm trying to -- I think maybe that we have got -- De Weerd: The one off of Eagle Road. Bird: That one off of Eagle Road is the only one. Seal: Mayor de Weerd, Councilman Bird, yeah, I think, you know, it -- it is fairly common and I think you're going to see more of those type of amenities. But I think what's also unusual in our particular project is that we are not only providing those amenities for the multi-family -- and I know I'm repeating myself, but we are doing it for the single family and so also when other people come over to visit those families they can use those amenities. The Regency and Gramercy Park I think it is, probably have those type of things. I didn't spend a lot of time on that, but I think more upgrading it, but maybe to also give other developers more incentive. And, again, if somebody's on the fence between Boise and Meridian, you know, things like this can be a real factor. I can tell you very honestly we came so close to not doing this project. I know I have been up here in front of you before and have said this before, that I think a lot of times the perception is developers just are printing money out there. Well, there may have been a time when that was the case, but it isn't anymore and we are fighting for every dollar we can. So, when you look at a 283,000 dollar park impact fee on top of the other fees, which we are not arguing, that hurts. That's a big fee. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Councilman Rountree. Rountree: What was that amount you just stated, the 283,000? What portion or what amount of that is related to the fees for your apartments? Seal: I'm sorry, Councilman Rountree, I didn't hear that. Rountree: What's the amount related to the apartments? Seal: That is the apartment. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 9 of 30 Bird: That is the apartments. That is the apartment. Rountree: All right. That's all I needed to know. Because you say total -- Seal: Yeah. I think I -- Rountree: There is more there than just the apartments. Seal: If you see the yellow there -- I can provide it to everybody if you want. I tried to eliminate the amount of paper here. But the yellow is the park impact fees, in addition to everything else that we are paying. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Council, any other questions? Bird: Not at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I didn't hear Mr. Seal acknowledge the 15 day time limit and that he's agreed to waive that, because they have actually requested this date to be heard. So, Mr. Baird mentioned on his opening he needs to acknowledge that. Seal: Mr. Nary, I didn't know I did, but that's fine with me. Like you say, this is a little bit different for me. So, I don't know what the procedure is here, but whatever I need to waive -- you know. Nary: Thank you. Seal: Sure. De Weerd: It's a new one for all of us, Jonathan, so -- Seal: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Jonathan. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. De Weerd: I will turn this over to Stacy. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 10 of 30 Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Mr. Seal, after a great deal of consideration I have denied this request the way the apartment -- this way? The request we have changed to remove 60 percent of the fees for the apartment portion of this project. So, I'm going to, basically, go through the reasons that the request was denied and just a little bit of history. Before -- we redid the impact fee plan in 2006 when the new statute allows to add police and fire. Prior to that the existing impact fee ordinance did allow a difference on dwelling units and if you look at those numbers you can see the single family was considered to be 2.93 person per unit and the multi-family 2.67 percent per unit. That was just a difference of nine percent. And that was based on figures I believe probably from the 2000 census, which was before the big growth spurt in Meridian. So, although we did agree and we did note that we will look at the census data, there is nothing that we could find that specifically says do you live in an apartment. Do you live in a duplex. Do you live in a four-plex. These are the best numbers we can find and when we look at this prior, it is based on 2000 numbers, we can see the responses and those numbers of people and the units haven't changed much regardless of whether we had more people living in rental units in Meridian now because of the recession than we did prior. So, just talking a little bit about the methodology behind calculating impact fee. It's -- it's a process that takes more than one number into calculation, so we talked a little bit about the population projections we used and those are on a ten year window. They may seem low, because you have to realize that they are based on ten years, not based just on one year and when we look back at history and we look how development growth has swagged through the decade of 2000s, you can see why we tend to be more conservative, because we have ups and downs and so we are trying to smooth that data out. So, if the parks department -- when we looked at how to do the impact fee ordinance, as with police and fire, we do try to keep it as clean and simple as possible, because if we put the burden on single family, single family won't be happy. If -- you know, it just creates -- somebody's not going to be happy the more complicated you make the process. So, again, as I said, we try to keep it simple, but fair. We have had -- since we implemented the -- the fee we have had over 862 multi-family dwelling units -- I think since 2005. Since 2006 when we eliminated that little differential between the two. We also -- we met with the impact fee committee and you will be hearing their recommendations later in January, but when they were asked about this issue there was no interest in changing the way the fee is calculated between the single and multi-family units and we do have representatives from the building community, the real estate community, et cetera, as part of that board -- as part of the advisory board. So, just -- just to respond to the specific points in the appeal, so one was square footage. Essentially they are claiming square footage equates to the number of people using parks and we feel like that you can't isolate square footage as a factor in determining demand for parks. So, they are saying that 60 percent less square footage means 60 -- lower the fee by 60 percent, which that fee that they want to forgive comes out to about 182,000 dollars. So, we don't think that the evidence we looked at really means that square feet has a direct relationship to the number of people living in a dwelling unit. So, we have used the data that we could find that both of us have talked about, the 2.97 and 2.98 that show the square -- the number of people living in a particular dwelling is close. I have some more data that I use often, so 2010, again, they come out to be very close. The U.S. census also does something Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 11 of 30 they call the American Community Survey, which I believe is the number Mr. Seal gave you. And, again, the owner occupied and renter occupied are very close. So, we have seen square footage doesn't necessarily equate to the fact that you have a lot of people living there. It can also equate to your household income and, in fact, research I did that seems to be more a direct correlation. But it would be nice if everybody who had a large family is automatically going to buy a large house, but those two factors don't necessarily go hand in hand. So, then, we looked -- why -- why do people use -- use the parks and recreation system. So, if we are saying we don't think it's strictly based on the number of people in a household why do they use it. So, again, we looked at household demographics, how old are the people, what's the household income, children, recreation presence, and, then, we just looked at a few of the activities that go on in our parks. Youth and adults work week. Youth baseball. It's huge. Youth baseball complex. Adult and youth sport leagues and volleyball, basketball, soccer, football. We have movie night. We very festivals. We have shelters so people can hold family reunions and social events and gatherings. We have community events in our parks, like the block party. All the Christmas events we just enjoyed. The Fourth of July celebration in the park. Concerts. Fun runs. Day camps. Skateboarding. Tennis. We can go on and on and on naming all the activities that take place in our parks. And, finally, there is evidence that parks add value to a community regardless of who uses them. So, simply by living in a community that has quality open space and activities available and it's improved esthetics increases the value for all of us, including developers, whether or not we actually set foot in the park. So, then, the other -- other part of the appeal was that this -- this project has quality on-site amenities. Again, research shows that since the '90s -- actually, beginning in the '80s the idea of common shared space at open space where pools and total use playgrounds are shared has been the wave of development and it is quite common in Meridian. I looked at a -- I looked at several websites talking just the City of Meridian and I'm going to read a quote from one of them that's fairly typical. It says the homes for sale in Meridian are mostly suburban type neighborhoods offering amenities such as walking paths, community parks, and swimming pools. And, then, we get into the question of what -- how do we define quality. What is quality? And that becomes a very esoteric thing that you could spend hours and hours trying to draw the line between the quality of one project and the quality of another project. So, again, back to the point of it, trying to apply the fee consistently. If you grant this fee reduction you have to make up 182,688 dollars and that has to be transferred from the General Fund into the Impact Fee Fund. So, we actually have to make a cash transfer of those funds. The ordinance -- the statute is written to make the fee whole, so we have to treat everybody equally. So, if we are going to reduce the fee that one group pays, we can't expect -- we can't just pass that on to other impact fee payers. And when we do something like this we defeat the whole purpose of impact fees that we always talk about, that growth should pay for itself and not burden existing residents, because we will be making that 182,000 dollars up from the General Fund. And, then, again, when we look at the whole issue that -- so, how do we change the fee? Should we -- should we change how we calculate it? We have to look at -- if we change the park fee do we look at fire and police impact fees, because there is no more impact to police and fire through apartments than there are from single residents, so do we just stop the whole process, dig back into it and change the whole Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 12 of 30 methodology? We don't think that's a good idea. So, this -- this last part is for Ted on follow up of what you do now, unless you have questions for me. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions for Stacy? Bird: I do, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Stace, on police and fire we have it by the square footage and we don't on parks. Is there a reason for that? Kilchenmann: Fire is based on -- it is a calculation that -- Cunningham: Fire and police the square footages only apply to commercial. So, there is a set fee for the residential. Bird: You're right. And in multi-family is -- you consider -- Cunningham: Residential. Bird: Residential. I don't -- but anyway. In our impact fee ordinance is there a -- a set amount that we have to maintain in there? If we have to -- if General Fund has to make up this for what we forgive, I don't think there is a general dollar amount set in there, is there? Kilchenmann: Well, when you -- when you adopt impact fee we go through a series of calculations and we accept -- so, we are looking at the one that we did in 2006. So, we said this is the amount of service we need to provide to maintain the service as it was. So, we have already been charging everybody who has paid an impact fee based on that calculation. So, it's not saying -- we are saying we need to collect a certain dollar amount, but if we don't have the growth, for example, we wouldn't collect that amount, but -- maybe, Ted, can you explain that more clearly? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when you see the CIPs in the methodology it identifies what percentage are impact fee eligible and what percentage are not impact fee eligible. For example, if you're building a community center you're serving existing population, so they reduce that percentage and the percentage it's reduced needs to be made up from other sources, such as donations of the General Fund. So, in your methodology there is an acknowledgement that anything that's not impact fee eligible will come from sources other than impact fees. Bird: The methodology was done. In 2006 when we -- when we had more building -- residential building permits in the month of March than we did in the whole year of 2010, 2011, 2009, we kept that methodology. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 13 of 30 Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, the number -- the population number we used in 2006 was based on a ten year window, so -- Bird: But you didn't know you was going into the worst recession that we have ever seen. Kilchenmann: I did. No. It was conservative. Bird: If you did you're the smartest person in Idaho. Kilchenmann: No. It was conservative, because -- and that's why this -- the current one is conservative and it's based on other factors besides population. It's also based on a level of service. So, it's like I said, Steve -- Steve, are you reaching for your microphone? No. So, when you set that service we all agreed that we needed five park acres that -- we have five park acres in Meridian and we wanted to maintain five park acres in Meridian. So, as we went forward we said more need to pay and that's money into the fund, so that we always keep -- and, actually, it's a ratio for parks. Five acres. So, everybody has been paying into the system based on that promise or agreement that we made. So, if we turn around and say, well, some now no longer have to pay that, we still owe all the people that already paid that we maintain the same level of service. De Weerd: Stacy, we used to have adiscount -- or a different rate for apartments and when this was updated it was apparently changed to be the same. Do you recall what the --the reasoning was behind that? Kilchenmann: That -- that slide that I put there, the difference, and the differential was so slight that the decision was just made that it was -- it made no sense to combine the two. There was no -- the factors that determined why people use parks are not just based on a number that says this many people live in an apartment or this house on this block is only 1,000 square feet and this block is 5,000 square feet -- this house. Because there is people -- I lived in a thousand square foot house and I use parks all time. There is people who are single and live in 3,000 square foot houses and they never go to the -- you know, it's -- it's just not -- we didn't feel like those two factors correlated with each other. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: If I'm understanding the issue, it's that our rules don't allow a difference between different types of dwelling units and that what's being suggested is that multi- family units should pay a smaller proportion and single family units should pay a higher proportion. In this case I would not come to the conclusion that if we reduce the cost on the multi-families that the difference would have to come out of the General Fund. The difference to me would come out of the single family dwellings in the same project, Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 14 of 30 where their cost would be increased, but that would be the balance and -- and I -- I didn't feel I heard him say that that cost should come out of somebody else's pocket. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, we need to make the decision within the current impact ordinance and there is no allowance that would allow you to go and increase the fee on those other single family units. My understanding -- and Mr. Seal can correct me if I'm misrepresenting, but the single family lots have been sold to individual builders. Those fees will be paid as those builders pull those individual permits. So, there isn't going to be a give and take, because I don't think you're dealing with the same owners in this -- in this complex. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Ted, your comments raise a question to me. What -- what area of the statute with respect to impact fees at the state level and our ordinances can we really utilize in making a decision? Obviously, we can't do it arbitrarily. Baird: You need to address the request that's been given to you and you're being asked to make a determination that the square footage and the quality of the amenity is more important than all the other factors that went into consideration in developing your impact methodology. The state statute lists out a number of different factors that go into that methodology and, quite frankly, neither side has gone into that. It's just based on the appellant's feeling that there is an injustice here and his request to address it with those two factors only and the city's position that we need to keep our ordinance whole and that those two factors alone don't warrant changing the fee. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: So, for my clarification the -- the question isn't whether the impact fee administrator followed the rules, our rules are clear that there is no distinction between single family and multi-family and her decision was in line with that. What's being questioned is whether our rules are fair, not whether the administrator judged accurately. Am I right about that? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, your opportunity to address that situation, if you feel it's important, would come next month when you are hearing the update that's currently in process of the impact fee ordinance. You would be changing the whole system. When we do get back to the concluding slides here, the question that you're being asked is which version of this more accurately represents the intent of the impact fee ordinance that development pay its proportionate share of the system improvements that are needed for growth, whether it's in keeping with the methodology in the ordinance or going simply on square footage Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 15 of 30 and quality of amenities. That's the question that's before you. And this language that's also on the screen comes directly from our ordinance that in order to overcome that burden of proof the appellant has to give you substantial evidence that in this case our methodology is in error. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Ted, we do have a -- coming up January 21st there a consolidated public hearing on the updates to the development impact fee and at that time they are going to hear about the impact fee committee and their findings and different things and it would be the Council determination, then, what that impact fee is going to be for police, fire, and parks. I'm trying to think, because, you know, thinking along the same lines as Councilman Zaremba, really, there is not a lot of room here to do much. I mean was she right or was she wrong in looking at our code and what relief can be given, if any, is -- it's pretty slim. My thinking is -- and my question to you is I think they have to pay their fee as part of their development process at the time certain things happen. Is there a way they can pay under protest and, then, if that fee changes and is reduced, then, they get that portion back. But, conversely, if Council determines we want a higher fee, you know, it's a roll of the dice possibly, but -- your thoughts on that. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, there is two issues there that you identified. De Weerd: Ted, is your -- is your mike on? Baird: Yes. I will speak more directly into it. Two issues there. The first one is that the fee is paid at the time that the building permits are pulled. If in the situation they are disagreeing with the current fee, they can pay under protest and a refund would be given based on the outcome of the appeal hearing. Now, next month when you change the fees, those are going to be effective at a minimum of 30 days after you approve the new fees. So, it's sort of mixing apples and oranges. But it does give you the opportunity to listen to the presentation from the impact fee committee from the consultant as to why we have had this methodology, why it's been working and why it's recommended that we continue to not make this distinction that you're being asked to make tonight. Madam Mayor, with my apologies, I'm going to leave the rest of the legal questions in Mr. Nary's hands. I have a matter I need to attend to. But thank you. If there are any last questions for me before I -- De Weerd: Any parting questions for Mr. Baird? Baird: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Ted. Jonathan, do you have additional comments in particular in response to what staff -- if any response is needed to what staff has brought up? Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 16 of 30 Seal: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Jonathan Seal. I think there is a couple things. You know, one of the things is -- is I know Stacy mentioned here that -- you know, about if you adjust the fees everybody is not going to be happy. Well, I know when we pay impact fees we are not happy when we have to pay for medical, but we also recognize that when we do a medical building we will pay for that. If we do a warehouse we will pay for that. So, again, we recognize -- we would rather not pay any impact fees period. I mean we would love to do that. But we are also realistic and, yet, we recognize, okay, we get charged a proportionate share based on the demand that we are putting whatever the public facility is. So, again, I keep going back to that is. There is probably many methodologies to come up with impact fees. Square footage to me is one. Income might be another. I don't know. Again, as I said to you, I'm not the expert in this, but I'm trying to make this as simple as possible. I also heard the comments of Stacy that I live in a small house and I had a lot of people living in it. Well, again, I emphasize the word on average. On average is what I'm -- I'm striving for here. On average, yes, you can have a one bedroom apartment and have three people in it. Probably all went to college at one time and had way too many. But on average a one bedroom apartment is not going to put the demand. Yes, that one bedroom apartment might go to a movie, might go to your Fourth of July thing, all the other various stuff that you do, but that may be one person and that four bedroom house that may be five people. So, again, I don't think that diminishes it. We are not saying that the amenities that we are putting in our project are going to eliminate the demand for other amenities out there, we are just saying, again, that we want to pay our proportionate share of that. Stacy also mentioned about the 2.95 -- point 297. Again, I bring up the same thing. There is not an acknowledgement in the census data that I can find anywhere that differentiates between an apartment, a single family home, a duplex or a multi-home as far as rental versus home ownership. So, to me that number is -- I say respectfully -- a misleading number and maybe a meaningless number. You know, Boise came in and they calculated something, so I think there is a mechanism. The way I look at it now is we are coming to you as one individual, as one developer saying we would like consideration on our request. I'm getting the sense now all of a sudden we are getting pulled into this whole impact fee ordinance thing and I don't think that's ever been our intention and my understanding is that was never what was intended. We are here today saying give us a fair break on it. The Mayor, the City Council, the staff as always been fair with us and I believe tonight you will also be fair with us and that's all we are asking for. We are not asking to try to get out of the impact fees. We are not asking to try to eliminate the fees or not pay what is our rightful share, but we don't want to pay more than what's our rightful share for the amenities within the community. So, I think, you know, some of the stuff is, frankly, is a little confusing the discussion here, but, you know, I'm just trying to find something simple here and I think it's something -- whatever happens tonight I think that Meridian needs to take a look at to be fair and not have apartment dwellers paying more than their pro rata share of what it should be. De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 17 of 30 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Jonathan, do you have any idea what -- in your apartment complex what the total square footage is, livable area? Seal: I'm sorry, what was that? Bird: What's the livable area total square footage? Seal: For all of them? Bird: Yeah. Seal: Nine -- 1,088 square feet on average. De Weerd: No. No. No. That's the average. Seal: Yes. Bird: What is the total? Seal: Oh, the total? Bird: What does one have to multiply 1,088 by? Seal: You know what, I think that if you -- Bird: I have a calculator. Seal: But I can tell you here. I mean we could calculate it for you, but it's 240. But, no, I don't have that. I'm sorry. That was one I wasn't prepared for. Okay. Bird: Two hundred thirty-nine thousand? Seal: Two hundred thirty-nine thousand. And, Councilman Bird, you mentioned the same, too, that police and fire and commercial do charge on a square foot basis. You know. And we are not here arguing for police and fire. We recognize that you can't -- you can't say, okay, a bedroom apartment should be allocated a half a police car. A police car can be affected by a one bedroom versus a three bedroom, versus a house, the fire department. So, we understand there you can't do an allocation. But I think you can with the parks. Or maybe it's square footage. I don't know. De Weerd: Any additional questions or further questions from Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 18 of 30 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Nothing other than I would like to get that -- that number of the cost of the amenities. And I have a question for Bill. What's our timeline on this appeal? Because I'm really not having all of this come together in an hour -- I'm not sure I want to make a hip shot on this and -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, I mean you can certainly continue the matter. As you heard Mr. Baird state, if the applicant, wishes to move forward with their project they can pay these fees under protest and get a reimbursement if the decision is to lower the fee. The other option that exists -- and, again, that's totally up to the application here -- is what I think, Council, you're faced with is you have an ordinance that's been in place for six years that they are now asking you to modify the methodology, which is very difficult six years in, versus six months in and you're also looking at this criteria again in a month and, again, this is totally the applicant's decision, but I mean, obviously, they can wait and pull their permits after your next decision point if they wanted to, but that's -- obviously, that's a financial decision they have to make under the new ordinance if you establish a new ordinance based on the criteria. So, I recognize you have got a lot of different parts here, but you can continue this if you wish. They can wait to move forward until your decision is final or they are allowed to pay the fee in protest and receive a reimbursement if that's your ultimate decision. De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Nary, you can also say that we have a six year old impact fee ordinance that needed to be updated and we are in the middle of that process, that this is raising some -- some legitimate questions that need to be considered under the new ordinance and I guess my question to you would be -- because this is -- this particular question and scenario has happened during that process can it be deferred to be determined through the updated process? Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, if I could -- and, Mr. Nary, if I could just interject. The impact fee methodology has not been changed, so we have gone through a study, we have met with the advisory committee two or three times. The advisory committee as approved the study. They have approved the methodology. We use new capital numbers. We use -- we use different level of service numbers. We have lowered the parks fee in that study, because the requirement for service has gone down. If -- if at the time you hear that and we decide to change the methodology, that can be done, but we need to go back, we need to completely recalculate the study. So, it's not like on January 21st we can -- if we change the methodology we are starting over again, which certainly can be done, but it will take awhile, because we would have to reconvene the advisory committee, they would have to look at new -- look at new methodology and look at new service levels and go forward from that point. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 19 of 30 De Weerd: And that's true, you did hit on it. This was -- there is a recommendation coming to the Council on the impact fees and the methodology to determine what that impact fee is. It's still ultimately the decision of the Council. Nary: Madam Mayor -- sorry De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Sorry. I was trying to guess when you were done. The original question was also about the change at this particular point in time. The testimony that's been in front of you is that when this ordinance was created back in 2007 square footage was considered in the discussion and rejected, because the evidence at the time did not consider that that was a valid method to determine level of service and the amount of people using the service. It is incumbent on the appellant today, based upon that finding that was already done and the ordinance that's been created, to bring you evidence that it should be different and based on objective evidence. Not anecdotal evidence. So, you do have to make a finding to -- based on what Mr. Seal has presented to you -- that he has presented evidence to show that square footage is a better calculation than what was originally created in the ordinance itself. Not that it's said -- not just that it seems better, but there is evidence to support that, because that's what the committee used to make a determination in 2007 and that's what the committee will bring to you in January going forward and on why methodology adopts the method it did. So, yes, going forward you could do that and you could consider square footage, you could ask those questions, you can have the committee revisit that if that's your direction, you're free to do that, but today the appellant's responsibility or burden is to bring you evidence that is a better methodology and it is more accurate as to what the intent of new growth paying for the cost of service. That's what -- that's what -- the finding you would have to make for today's hearing. De Weerd: Well -- and I guess the questions he did raise that Council needs to say if the methodology that he brought in questioning in how you determine there is a difference in the per household population based on census information, that rentals are -- are not as good a determining factor for that as was raised, where you equate it as apartments, homes, and trailers. So, I think there has been a question raised and that is for City Council to determine. Rountree: Madam Mayor, my -- my comment to that part of the equation is I'm not convinced with either argument that one is better than the other. It seems to me that they both -- and I appreciate Jonathan's effort and I wish he would have been here six years ago, but you weren't doing apartments. Seal: May not do it again. Rountree: Yeah. But having said that, I have no trouble with that piece, but the piece I have trouble with is saying, okay, we do have an instance where there is kind of an above and beyond effort on the part of this development for the subjective quality piece Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 20 of 30 that we don't see every day in these kinds of developments. We don't necessarily defer impact fees for developers, but when they do provide parks and park amenities in their developments that are utilized by the public we reduce the amount of money that we do collect from them in terms of impact fees; am I correct? Nary: Not necessarily, no, Council Member Rountree. And if that's evidence that you would like, as well as to when impact fee credits have been granted -- Bird: Credits. Yes. Nary: I mean we could certainly provide that to you. I don't recall that there is very many, but there has probably been some. Mr. Siddoway probably would know better than I would. De Weerd: More of late than -- Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, the only time we have done that is for a public park, where we have just given credit. De Weerd: Stacy, if you can wait for just a second. Steve was going to mention something and, then, I will call on you. Kilchenmann: He will have it covered. Siddoway: That's basically the point I was going to make. When park impact fees are given it's usually for improvements in public parks, that they are dedicating to the public. Developments often go above and beyond any requirements in providing swimming pools or additional amenities within their subdivisions that we would never give a park impact fee credit for. De Weerd: Did that help? Rountree: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Did you want to add anything? Seal: Madam Mayor, if I can -- Councilmen. I want to make -- I'd like to clarify one thing. I understand Mr. Nary can correct me if I am wrong. But in talking with Ted -- and, unfortunately, he's not here -- when I submitted my letter he deemed that to be a protest. So, as I understand it we already are -- have submitted a protest on this. So, the discussion was -- I think you talked about, you know, would we -- could we file a protest, pay the impact fee for the park and have a protest. My understanding we have already done that. So, I just -- if I'm wrong I stand to be corrected, but that's what Ted and I discussed when I submitted the letter. So, I just want to go on record on that. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 21 of 30 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Yes, please. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Fulmer: Yes. Randy Fulmer. 752 East Trinidad, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Fulmer: Thank you, Mayor and Council. I just wanted to make a couple of comments for your consideration. One, I would like to submit and request that the Council here consider some other methodology for determining park impact fees for multi-family compared to single family. When I spoke with Adam Orr, BCS, he was the consultant that was hired by the community impact fee committee to do the study, he stated to me verbally that nationally there is about 2.3 persons per unit in multi-family and about 3.1 persons per unit in single family. That's about 74 percent. And I think, really, that's the only equitable way to look at what the impact fee should be per dwelling unit is the number of individuals that are in those dwelling units and there is data that's available to computate that. Adam mentioned to me on the phone it could be done for the City of Meridian. It would take some time to do that, but the data is available. I think in contrast to the data that Stacy looked at it really just looked at rental dwellings and that's not a fair comparison. Just a few quick comments for your consideration. Number one, the park impact fees in the City of Meridian are greater than both the police and the fire impact fees combined, which those are essential services. When I sat in on the committee meetings there were really no questions asked at all in regards to the park impact fees or the park impact budget, which is a significant budget. Number two, park impact fees that are computated that are necessary over the next ten years are roughly ten million dollars that are supposed to be raised via impact fees or roughly a million dollars a year. Please take into consideration the amount of multi-family dwellings that are currently under construction in the City of Meridian and are slated under construction would raise in excess of a million dollars this year in fees and when you contrast that to the amount of single family in the City of Meridian compared to multi- family, there is roughly three times as many single family dwelling units as there are multi-family dwelling units. So, there is going to be -- Nary: Madam Mayor. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but this is going to get the record for appeal very messy. Fulmer: Okay. Nary: This is related to the future discussion, not that appeal that's in front of you tonight, and I don't want this record to get messier if you were to go beyond this hearing, so -- Fulmer: Okay. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 22 of 30 Nary: -- everything you're talking about isn't related to the appeal which is in front of the Council. This is a rebuttal opportunity for the appellant that the Mayor has granted you, but it has to be related to what we have talked about to this point. Fulmer: Okay. Nary: Sorry. Fulmer: All right. Thank you very much for the direction. But, again, I respectfully request that the Council at these consider an equitable methodology to look at individuals that dwell in multi-family contrast to the individual that dwell in single family -- I'm certain that there is more people that dwell in single family units than multi-family units and, thereafter, the impact fee should be less for multi-family. And the last thing I wanted to mention is that -- as Jonathan Seal had done, we did a significant amount of work and due diligence in order to develop multi-family in the City of Meridian and with all due respect if the impact fees aren't reduced we will not be able to develop more multi-family in the City of Meridian. It just does not mathematically make sense for us. So, I would petition the City Council consider that in regards to impact fees. Significant revenues are generated and economic well being from development. That's all the comments I have. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Fulmer: Any other questions that I could address? De Weerd: No. Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Oh. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would question something. I interpreted from what you said that parks are not equivalent with the safety services and I will have to say in that regard in my experience of having lived a lot of other places, that the way I'd put it, the communities that I have lived in that didn't put enough money into parks spent much more than that on police and jails and it's just -- it is part of our safety services that we provide and -- Fulmer: No, I -- Zaremba: -- and I don't think it should be short changed. Fulmer: Right. I did not question that. I just made the comment that budget for parks and recreation eclipses both the police and fire, which are essential services combined. De Weerd: Well, we do follow the state ordinance and how to establish that and it's very detailed and all the different criteria that the city has to meet that does establish a Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 23 of 30 level of service and park impact fees and the police and fire impact fees are -- are based on maintaining that level of service and the cost associated with that, so -- and parks and building them there is very capital intensive. So, conversely, on police and fire it's more budget personnel intensive, so -- but there is some of the differences. But, again, we will go into that when we open up the park impact fees for the -- the public portion and next month when we start that as well. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just a word of caution on the statement. You talked about the impact fees, raising them up, and, you know, you won't be doing anymore multi-family in Meridian. If you come to a lot of these meetings where there is multi-family involved, you would have a lot of people saying raise the fee, then, because I don't want them here. So, you better rethink that statement when you use that, because there would be a lot of people cheering that, unfortunately. And when we look at that we need a balance. We need single family. We need multi-family. But there would be a lot of people who would love to raise the fees because of that very issue, so -- Fulmer: Well, I appreciate that and I respect that. Thank you. Hoaglun: All right. But we do appreciate your comments. They are very helpful. Fulmer: Right. So, I guess, in short, if the impact fees for multi-family go down really dollar for dollar, single family would go up 33 cents for every dollar that multi-family goes down based on the average dwelling units in the city. So, thank you very much. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. So, Council, looking for your direction on this item on our agenda. Oh, yes, please, Mr. --Winston. Mr. Moore. Moore: Thank you. De Weerd: If you will -- Moore: My name is Winston Moore. I reside at 11665 Thomas Drive in Boise. You guys know me. We have been doing this for 30 or 40 years in your city. We have paid millions of dollars of fees literally and we have never before contested or protested or even questioned those fees. The reason that we are here tonight is, frankly, because of me. It apparently is the ordinance, at least in my mind, that needs some fixing. If we are talking about fairness and equitability, if you put two 220 unit apartments side by side and one of them has a million dollars worth of park-like amenities, the other one has nothing, you know the impact on the one without the park-like amenities is going to be much greater on the park system than the one with the amenities. In our case you're going to have several hundred families -- I don't know -- I won't say that they won't go to the parks, but they are a lot less likely to go to the parks when they have a park right in Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 24 of 30 their backyard and, you know, I will just boil it down, because you have been very gracious with your time tonight and we appreciate that. I just -- I just think that -- that the element of fairness is absolutely lacking here when right next door to our -- well, to my office anyway there is complex -- an apartment complex of about 60 units that have nothing. They have garages and covered parking and that's it. If there were four of those the same way, 240 units without any amenities, they are going to have a much greater impact -- negative impact on the -- on the park system than ours will with a park within the development. So, I just think that it's unfair -- I don't know the legal aspects of it, but I think maybe -- maybe the ordinance needs fixing, but in my respectful opinion it is absolutely unfair. Thank you for your time tonight. We appreciate it. De Weerd: Thank you, Winston. Council, any questions? Rountree: Winston, you have done a great job of explaining the predicament I'm feeling. Really. Moore: Thank you very much. Rountree: Thank you. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to discuss this further, I mean it's a -- it's a timing issue in some ways. You know, on January 21st we have the public hearing -- the report and public hearing that will be brought before Council. Then Councilman Rountree mentioned -- I'm uncomfortable making a decision on this right now based on the evidence, based on the ordinance -- well, we are kind of locked in. This has been in place. This is how the process works. You bring a very legitimate issue before the Council, but how do we rectify that? We can't necessarily go against our ordinance. I -- the evidence that -- that's presented by the hearing officer is such that -- how do we do that. What I have been trying to think of is, okay, if we are in the process of possibly changing the ordinance and how the fee structure is calculated for the different things, okay, and it's paid under protest and there is changes made, then, I think changes can be made, but what those are I don't know. When that will be done, as Stacy pointed out, it could take some time to do that, but -- so, I think the timing of everything is -- is really a conundrum right now. If the Council wants to go to -- to do something, but maybe -- maybe someone else has some ideas as to how to fix this. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess, Council Member Hoaglun, listening to what you're saying one alternative you could consider is -- and, again, it still Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 25 of 30 puts some burden upon the appellant here if they want to move forward. You can move this hearing out to either your January 21st meeting or beyond that -- again, they are still able to pay this under protest. If you make a determination as Council in January to either revisit the methodology, revisit the -- again, you have stated it correctly, it may put this out a month or two or longer and there is a waiting period in the statute that's required once you make a final decision or when the final ordinance comes, but, again, if the appellant is, you know, wanting to move forward and pay under the protest on the possibility that you come to a different conclusion based on the new ordinance that you have and you have moved this beyond that, you can, then, grant that relief, because you have -- if you -- basically, if you change the ordinance or the methodology after your January discussion and as Stacy said, very likely the impact fee committee would have to revisit it, there would have to be a different analysis and all those other factors that may come into play, but, ultimately, at the end of the day if this Council or the next Council changes the methodology in how the fees are calculated and does use what's purported here to be square footage as a factor or the additional amenities as a factor, and you move this further out, you can grant -- that Council can grant that relief at that point. That's the only way I can see on this one, because of the timing of it, that you can delay it to that point. But, again, the other option the applicant has is to withdraw the appeal and simply wait until you make a new decision based on the new evidence and, then, deal with the fee at that point and whatever that fee is, which may be less. Or bring evidence to you in January that a different methodology is appropriate. So, these are kind of your options I think you can do today. Rountree: Question for Jonathan. Seal: Jonathan Seal. Rountree: Do you need resolution momentarily in order for you to continue with the project or is this something that if we defer a final decision until after the impact fees hearing process is over. Seal: Mayor, Councilman Rountree, quite candidly, we will be pouring this project either way and maybe that's not an astute thing to say, but I have always shot straight with you, so I will shoot straight with you now. We are moving forward either way. I mean we are more than pregnant at this point. Rountree: Yeah. That's true. Seal: Yeah. So, from that standpoint, yes, we are. I'm just kind of sitting here right now and thinking sorry I started this thing. I am -- I am kind of confused at this point where we are going and what we are doing at this point. You know, I was under the impression that there is an impact fee ordinance protest and we submitted something and so I guess maybe naively I was sitting here thinking, okay, there will be a decision made and it will be a decision made on the merits of our case and all of a sudden we are now getting into what will be decided in January, February, or March and now it almost seems like I'm not sure where -- where the decision is going to be made and Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 26 of 30 when it's going to be made and maybe that's just my own ignorance in that, but I thought we would -- we would have the decision -- if not tonight here shortly on our particular thing. So, I'm kind of putting our self in a box and removed from the other decisions that might come down the road and I thought that the impact fee ordinance protest was a mechanism for that and it sounds tonight like maybe that's not the case. De Weerd: Well, Jonathan, I think it's a mechanism to first look at the ordinance as written and, you know, it's pretty straight forward. I think, though, we raise some good points that need to be considered, but those can't be concerned that the -- an ordinance that's already written and I think what the question is are those considerations because we are in the middle of rewriting something that has merit that can be considered in the update that can still retro back to your appeal. Did I explain that right? So, I think you're caught in an in between. If we weren't in the middle of updating it, it will be hard to substantiate the protest, but because we are it does give merit to the discussion and the consideration of the methodology and if we need to look at that. Otherwise, you would be retro -- under the last six years everyone that's paid an impact fee on a multi unit -- Seal: Right. De Weerd: -- and I don't know -- I'm not going to speak for the Council, but I don't think they want to go there. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would say that you're correct, that we have brought a lot into this and maybe it's more than what you're asking for, but as Councilman Hoaglun said, the timing is a little unfortunate. To me the issue is we would be required -- if we just looked at the situation today, we would be required to find that the impact fee administrator made an error in her decision and, frankly, I personally can't make that finding for me. I can't speak for the others. I think she followed the rules as we have them. What you bring up -- and the other people that have contributed, Mr. Moore and others -- is that perhaps the rule is unfair and where it gets confusing is we can't decide that tonight. We already have an ordinance and I think, again, Councilman Rountree's question, how much in a hurry are you. If you must have a decision tonight I already know you won't like my vote. Seal: Is that a hint? Zaremba: You know. And I probably won't like my vote. I would like to hear this subject out, because I think you raise a very legitimate issue. But it's not one that we can decide tonight and we already have it in the works to discuss that. So, I realize it's confusing to you probably and everybody else that we are bringing all this in, but we are in the process -- I'm repeating what other people have said. But the reason it's confusing is if we had to make the decision tonight I'm not sure it's the right decision. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 27 of 30 It's not the good one for you and maybe not the right decision for what we will do in the future, but we need to hear the discussion that's going to come up a month from now to make that decision. Seal: Right. Zaremba: So, I think that's why we asked do you really have to be in a hurry Seal: Well -- and, Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, you know, I guess I was looking at it -- and I understand there is complexities here and I respect that. So, what you're saying tonight doesn't surprise me. I mean I understand. If I was in your situation I would probably be thinking the same thing. But I -- you know, what dawned on me, too, is you look at Ada County highway impact fees, there is a mechanism to protest it and they can reduce impact fees for an individual project. I'm not an expert at impact fee ordinances, nor do I want to be, but I kind wonder if -- if that mechanism is also in this, because I understand the impact fee ordinance is a state ordinance, as I understand, or at least as I believe I understand. So, I know you're going to do what's best. So, I will leave it at that. Yeah, this has become more complex than I expected, honestly. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Just -- the ordinance is the problem and we should have taken care of this in 2006, to be flat truthful with you, and two of us were sitting on the Council at that time. We -- we fell down. We didn't ask the right questions. We didn't look at it the right way. And so I would have -- I would have no problem voting tonight on something, but I -- it's hard to -- it's hard to find findings of facts and conclusions of law on an ordinance that has been in place for ten years. Moore: Mayor and Council, if I might just quickly -- we don't need a decision tonight. It's a tough one for you folks. We appreciate your listening to us. I think that sincerely that the ordinance needs work. I think it needs fixing. I think you will do that. It will take some time. I would hope -- and legally I don't know about this, but I would hope that -- we will go ahead and pay the impact fee, we don't have any choice, but I would hope that when the impact -- when the -- yeah, when the ordinance is amended that if that new formula would result in a lower impact fee for us, that perhaps we could have a refund. Something to think about. But we don't need a decision tonight. Bird: Thank you. Seal: Unless it's a good one. Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor -- Madam Mayor, just one more point. This impact fee methodology and ordinance was not done in a vacuum and it was not done by staff, it Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 28 of 30 was done by members of our building and real estate community. So, there are, what, seven, eight people on our impact fees advisory committee and they -- De Weerd: And, Stacy, we will determine -- that like our city attorney said, I don't want to muddy the water, because that is pertaining to the update. Kilchenmann: Yeah. And I guess I just want to point out that it's -- they said they don't need a decision, but I was under the same understanding as Mr. Seal that we would do a decision tonight and that was one action and, then, move on. But it is muddy and unusual. De Weerd: And it's still up to Council's determination, so -- thank you, Mr. Seal. Seal: Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it. Bird: Thank you, Jonathan. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree . Rountree: I see two options. One deny -- to deny the protest based on lack of findings to support differences between the two. I think there is elements of this that don't make a finding with respect to the language of our ordinance possible. Or to leave -- leave this protest open until such time as we resolve the issues with this information and Jonathan's testimony as we look at redrafting the ordinance and I believe if we leave it open the protest is there and if things change, then, either a payment is deferred or a refund is in place or a payment is made in the amount that currently is established by ordinance. But I think there are only two decisions I could support tonight is either denying the protest -- and I don't think we want to go there, because I don't think you get another chance at protest and I think you want to keep the door open for reducing the fees -- the possibility of reducing the fees or a refund of fees. But that's my comments on where we are -- where I think we are. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Well -- and, Mr. Rountree, I think because we are in the midst of updating the protest is considered legitimate and -- but it is a risk. If -- if the fees goes up under the update then -- so, the protestor can determine that following this meeting if that's the direction that the Council goes to delay a decision on this pending the -- the outcome of the update to our impact fee ordinance and it's -- those, in my opinion, Mr. Rountree, are the two options on the table as our attorney has described as well. Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 29 of 30 Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor. One thing that the appellant would not be at greater risk to pay -- if the fee were to be higher they would not be at a greater risk to pay a new fee, because they have filed their application and paid the fees in protest under the current ordinance. So, if the Council were to change it and it would be higher. But if the Council were to either change the methodology or the fee just by its own methodology as I think already was stated by the CFO, it is lower is what's coming to you in January. If they just chose to pay that or the Council chose to lower that, they would have the ability to do it. The only thing I would suggest is if you want to set this past it you might want to set it to January 28th, so that way you will have heard it -- the presentation on the 21st, you will know the direction you have given and, then, you can make a decision on the 28th on whether to continue this matter further, because more information is being gathered, or you make a decision. The other thing is it will be incumbent -- because half of the Council will be new people to have -- for them to go back and review this hour and a half hearing to make sure they are able to make a decision, because there won't be any other way to do it, you will have three new people here to help make this decision as well. Rountree: Good way to get their feet wet. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: They asked for it, though, you know. They ran for office and this is what they wanted to do. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would lean towards not closing the appeal and precluding the continuation of the protest. I think it's fair to leave those open. If -- I think Councilman Rountree was right, if we denied the appeal tonight it's over. I don't believe there is an opportunity to appeal the appeal. So, my preference, having heard them offer not to be in a hurry, would be not to close it tonight. De Weerd: Okay. Well, then, do I have a motion? Bird: Was that a motion? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue this subject to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 28th, 2014. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013 Page 30 of 30 MOTION CARRIED: ALL A YES. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn our special meeting. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:39 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR TA DE WEERD DATE APPROVED G~¢4~¢~~~D AUCUS~~ ~c ATTEST: Cite of --- C '' ~~ ~ ~ , Ef IDIAN'~" pX0 JA E t A~F; ~I~l~ y , ~~ ~~~T E~ ° r +n e T ae ~S°Q~ae W ~_ ~LL sv ~~ p ~,~ ~ Y ~ LL. lil O -~ ® '- U U Table 1 1 . Housing Occupancy and Tenure: 2010 [For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Selected Appendixes at <www.census.gov/prod/cen201 State County County Subdivision Place Ada County ......................................................... Boise City CCD ............................................. Boise City cilY (PaM1) .................................... Eagle city (Pan) ........................................... Gartlen City city (Partj ................................. Kuna city (Part) .......................... _................ ~. Meridian city.._..._ ....................................... '~ Boise Hills CCD ............................................ ~ Boise City city (Pan) .................................... Eagle city (Part) ........................................... Hldtlen Spring CDP ..................................... i Eagle CCD.._..._....._ ........................ _.......... Boise City city (Pan) .................................... 1 Eagle city (Pan) ........................................... ' Garden Cily city (Pan) ................................. Star city (Part) ........................................_.... Kuna CCD ......................._............................ Kuna city (Pad) ............................................ i Orchard CCD ................................................ 'i Boise City city (Pan) .................................... ~ Kuna city (Pan) ............................................ I Adams County ..................................................... I Council CCD ................................................. li Council city .................................................. New Meadows CCD ...................................... New Meatlows city ...................................... Bannock County .................................................. Fort Hall CCO ............................................... Fort Hall CDP (partJ .................................... 1, Inkom CCD........__ ..............____.................. Inkom cilY (Part) .......................................... Pocatello city (Part) ..................................... i Pocatello CCD ............................................... '~ Chubbuck city .............................................. ~. Pocatello ciN (Part) ..................................... i Tyhee CDP .................................................. South Bannock CCD ..................................... Arimo city .................................................... Downey city ................................................. Inkom city (Pan)..._...._....._...__ ................. Lava Hot Springs city .................................. McCammon city .......................................... Pocatello city (Pan) ..................................... Bear Lake County ............................................... Georgetown CCD ................ _........................ I, Georgetown city..........._...._ ....................... I. Montpelier CCD ............................................. Bennington CDP ......................................... Montpelier city ............................................. Paris CCD ..................................................... Bloomington city._ ....................................... Paris city ...................................................... . 51. Charles city ............................................ Benewah County ................................................. Plummer CCD ............................................... Plummer city ............................................... SI. Manes CCD ............................................. Parkline CDP ............................................... St. Manes city .............................................. Tensed CCD......__ ....................................... De Smel CDP .............................................. Tensed city .................................................. Bln ham Count 9 Y .................................................. . i er Ben D .............................................. Aberdeen city .............................................. Alrid9e CCD .................................................. Atomic City CCD ........................................... Atomic City city ............................................ Blackfoot CCD ............................................... Blackfoot city (Part) ..................................... Firth CCD ...................................................... Basalt city .................................................... Flnh city ...................................................... Fort Hall CCD ................................................ 86 Idaho tal housing __units 667,796 ~~ 159,471 '~. 132,075 87,661 762 i 4,06111 2', 26,6741 i tal 579,408 148,445 122,877 80,997 716 3,6141 2 25,3021 Occupied housing Owner occupied ' Percent of ~ occupied housing '1 units Number, 404,903 69.9 101,639 fi8.5 ', 80,964 65.9' 48,682 60.1. 671 93.7 1,963 54.3 2 100.0', 19,445 76.9 units ' enter occu ed pi 1 174,505 46,806 41,913 32,315. 45 "~. 1,6511 0 5,857 Average household size 11, ~ Owner- Renter- occupied occupied units ' units - __. _____- 2.70 2.56 2.66 2.39 2.61 2.341 2.45 2.17 2.83 3.04 2.18 2.26 6.00 0.00 2.95 2.97 ~ ~ otal _______ __ 88,388 11,026 9,198 6,664 46 447 0 1,372 r « v Vaca t housing u ~ls ' ~ Vacancy ale For ~ I seasonal, 1 recrea- '; tional, or occasional Available Home- '1 use housing owner I Rental __ _-__- L 41,66011 4.8 3.1 8.5 1,018' 4.7 3.1 7.9 784 4.8 3.1 8.0 556 5.4 3.1 8.5 14 3.1 3.3 0.0 36. 8.0 3.0 13.3 01 0.0 0.0 (X) 135 3.4 3.0 4.7 2,116 2,013 1,820 90.41 193 2.93 2.71 103 26 2.3 2.3 2.0 491 478 450 94.1 28 2.99 2.50 13 4 0.6 0.4 3.4 0 0 0 (x) 6 a.oo o.o0 0 0 (x) (x) (x) 738 698 635 91.0 63 3.26 3.291 40 31 3.8 3.9 3.1 13,3841 12,434' 9,936 1 79.9 2,4981 2.75 2.80. 950 148 ~. 4.1 3.6 5.9 740 686 1, 495 72.2 191 '. 2.47 2.87 54 3 5.7 3.9 10.2 6,808', fi,353 5,099 80.31 1,254 2.87 2.58 455 79 '~. 3.8 3.4 5.7 1,368 1,264 1,079 85.4 ~' 185 2.14 2.82 104 271 4.3 4.0 6.1 2,087 ~ 1,919 1,412 73.6 507 2.93 3.23 ~ 168 14 5.3 4.9 6.4 6,427 6,023 4,885 81.1 ' 1,138 3.13 3.21 ' 404 13 4.1 3.5 6.8 5,093 4,767 3,810 79.9 957 3.17 3.21 326 7 4.5 3.8 7.2 5,469' 5,0981 4,034 79.1 1,064 2.77 2.60 371 47 4.2 2.5 10.2 3,808 3,543 '. 2,718 76.71 825 2.81 2.51 265 32 5.0 2.7 11.7 13 13. 7 53.81 6 2.57 4.67 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,636 1,748 1,386 79.3 362 2.26 2.27 888 6461 5.3 3.3 12.1 1,4091 1,003 791 78.9 212 2.21 2.17 40fi 2851 4.1 3.2 7.4 476 360 237 65.8 123 2.39 2.06 1' 116 56 6.9 5.1 10.1 1,227 745 595 79.9 150 2.33 241. 482 361' 6.8 3.4 18.0 264 201 136 67.7 65 2.38 2.63 63 14 12.1 4.1 25.0 33,191 30,682 20,817 67.8! 9,865 2.76 2.40 2,509 444 ''I 4.2 2.3 B.0 732 677 597 88.2 I 80 3.14 3.04 55 9 i 0.7 0.3 3.6 623 577 507 87.9 70 3.14 2.91 ~ 46 8 0.7 0.4 2.7 1,357' 1,293 1,183 91.5 110 2.84 2.78 ' 64 18 1.4 1.3 2.6 305 ~ 288 246 85.4 42 2.90 3.33 1 17 0 2.7 2.4 4.4 441 42 38 90.5 4' 2.11 1 2.00 2 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 28,600 26,714 17,381 65.1 9,333 2.74 2.39 1,886 130 ~ 4.4 2.5 7.8 4,961 4,732 '~ 3,324 70.2 i 1,408 3.08 2.60 229 23. 3.0 1.5 6.4 22,327 20,758 13,032 62.8 7,726 2.65 2.34 1,569 95 4.8 2.7 8.0 398 366 328 89.6 38 3.05 3.24 32 7 4.7 2.1 22.0 2,502 1,9981 1,656 82.9 342 2.68 2.45 504 2871 4.8 2.4 14.7 121 108 96 68.9 12 3.30 3.17 13 7 1.8 2.0 0.0 2901 255 197 77.3 5811 2.62 1.86', 35 8 5.2 3.0 11.9 D' 0 0 (X) 0 0.00 0.001 0 0 (X) (X) (X) 317 209 148 70.8 61 2.03 1.75 '~ 108 61 13.4 2.6 31.5 333: 287 228 79.4. 59 2.81 2.861 46 5 5.5 2.5 15.5 26 26 15 57.7 11 2.40 3.00 0 0 0.0 0.0 0,0 3,914 ~ 2,281 '' 1,855 81.3 ~, 426 2.65 2.46 1,633 1,2261 7.0 4.7 15.8 369 299 258 86.3 ~ 41 2.74 2.71 70 40 1 29 1.9 8.7 194 170 145 85.3 25 2.74 3.121 24 81 3.4 2.0 10.3 1,843 1 1,315 '~ 996 75.7 319 2.66 2.37 ~ 528 273 7.2 5.5 12.0 1 85 64 60 93.8 4 3.00 2.50. 21 9 4.3 3.1 20.0 1,2341 1,006 724 72.0 282' 2.66 2.28 228 46' 8.4 6.4 13.1 1,702 i 667 601 90.1 66 2.58 2.70' 1,035 913 ~ 8.3 4.4 33.0 120 1 74 67 90.5 7 2.75 3.14 46 42 2.6 /.4 12.5 299 202 172 85.1 ~ 301 2.55 2.50 97 55 11.0 5.0 34.8 138 531 47 88.7 6 2.34 3.50 85 61 22.9 11.3 58.8 4,629 3,837 ~ 2,942 76.7 895 2.40 2.42 792 4971 3.4 2.2 7.2 892 6561, 470 71.6 186 2.58 1 2.96 236 193 1.9 1.0 4.1 405 374 246 65.8 128 2.63 3.07 ~ 31 11 1.3 0.4 3.0 3,380 2,8861 2,259 78.3 62711 2.34 2.29 494 271 3.8 2.4 8.3 41 ' 38 27 71.1 11 ' 2.04 2.27 3 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,092 ~. 999 682 68.3 ~ 317 2.37 2.27 ' 93 I 14 5.4 3.1 9.9 357 295 213 72.2 82 2.61 2.22 62 33 2.9 1.8 5.7 59 54 30 55.6 24 3.63 2.75 5 1 5.3 0,0 11.1 69 I 58 37 63.8 21 ' 2.14 2.10 11 3 1.6 2.5 0.0 16,141 14,999 11,563 77.1',, 3,436 3.07 2.861 1,142 188' 3.0 1.5 7.8 1,140 1,028' 772 75.11 256 3.12 3.22 112 16 2.7 2.5 3.4 667 615 464 75.4 151 3.29 3.09 52 6 2.8 2.9 2.6 239 168 172 91.5 16 3.01 3.50 51 40'1 2.6 2.2 5.9 925 819', 656 80.1 163 3.18 3.63 106 401 27 7.5 7.3 48 17 ' 15 88.2 2 1.73 1.50' 31 1 28 5.6 0.0 33.3 5,552 5,1851 3,622 69.9 1,563 2.87 2.56 367 281 3.8 2.1 7.7 4,538 1 4,223 2,784 65.9 1,439 2.86 2.501 315 22 4.2 2.4 7.6 1,154 1,086 898 82.7 188 3.03 2.84 68 10 1.4 0.8 4.5 142' 132 712 84.8 ~'~ 20 2.88 3.55 10 0 2.2 0.9 9.1 173 168 117 69.6 57 ~ 2.97 2.55 5 1 T2 0.8 1.9 9821 88211 666 75.5 2161 3.18 3.281 100 61 4.8 0.6 15.7 Summary Population and Housing Characteristics U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census L~3 ~,;; RECE~v~~ ¢ "- i,.S ~... .,. ~ 6... . .t ~., ~31~~U65 ~ • ~ - • a. LAST MONTH, what was the cost IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did you or of electricity for this house, any member of this household receive How many automobiles, vans, and trucks apartment, or mobile home? benefits from the Food Stamp Program of one-ton capacity or less are kept at Last month's cost -Dollars or SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition home for use by members of this Assistance Program)? Do NOT include household? WIC. the School Lunch Prooram. or I assisrance rrom rooa uanKS. ^ None OR ^ Yes ^ 7 ^ Included in rent or condominium fee ^ No ^ 2 ^ No charge or electricity not used ^ 3 Is this house, apartment, or mobile home b. LAST MONTH, what was the cost ^ 4 of gas for this house, apartment, part of a condominium? ^ 5 or mobile home? ^ Yes -?• What is the monthly ^ 6 or more Last month's cost -Dollars condominium fee? For renters, answer only if you pay the I ~ ,,. Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this OR ~ t'None~" box.•LV . y. V house, apartment, or mobile home? ~ Monthly amount -Dollars ^ Included in rent or condominium Fee ^ Gas: from underground pipes serving the ^ Included in electricity payment ~ neighborhood entered above ^ Gas: bottled, tank, or LP ^ No charge or gas not used ®R ^ Electricity ^ Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. c. IN THE PAST 92 MONTHS, wi:et e.~as ^ None ^ Coal or coke the cost of water and sew ~~c gar .his ^ No ^ Wood ^ Solar energy ^ Other Fuel ^ No fuel used house, apartment, ar m;zUde home? If you have lived here less i~'~a:~ i2 months, estimate the cost. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home - Past 12 months' .o t - fJollars Mark (X) ONE box. -~ ~ ^ Owned by you or someone in this - ~ I IIVUJGIIVIU VVILII G IIIVI II~dI~C VI _ 7R ioanr inciuue Home equrry roans. ^ Owned by you or someone in this ^ ~!~cL.d~d in rent or condominiur fee household free and clear (without a ^ No charge mortgage or loanl? ^ Rented? 1 d. IPJ THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what was the ^ Occupied without payment of cost of oil, coal, kerosene, v~ood, etc., rent? -;• SKIP to C on the next page ~ for this house, apartment, or mobile home? If you have lived here less than 72 months, estimate the cost. Past 72 months' cost -Dollars OR ^ Included in rent or condominium fee ^ No charge or these fuels not used s 13193073 Answer questions 18a and b if this house, apartment, or mobile home is RENTED. Otherwise, SKIP to question 19. a. What is the monthly rent for this house, apartment, or mobile home? nn,,,,ai„ ~,,,,,~~„r _ n„u~.~ b. Does the monthly ^ Yes ^ No Answer questions 19 - 23 if you or any member of this household OWNS or IS BUYING this house, apartment, or mobile home. Otherwise, SKIP to E . About how much do you think this house and lot, apartment, or mobile home (and lot, if owned) would sell for if it were for sale? Amount -Dollars I What are the annual real estate taxes on THIS property? Annual amount -Dollars ^ Non What is the annual payment for fire, hazard, and flood insurance on THIS property? OR ^ None a. Do you or any member of this a. Do you or any member of this household have a mortgage, deed of household have a second mortgage trust, contract to purchase, or similar or a home equity loan on THIS debt on THIS property? property? ^ Yes, mortgage, deed of trust, or similar ^ Yes, home equity loan debt ^ Yes, contract to purchase ^ Yes, second mortgage ^ No ~ SKIP to question 23a ^ Yes, second mortgage and home equity loan ^ No -) SKIP to D b. How much is the regular monthly mortgage payment on THIS property? Include paymem only on FIRST mortgage or contract to purchase. Monthly amount -Dollars OR ^ No regular payment required -~ SK?, question 23a c. Does the regular monthly mortgan~ payment include payments €or real estate taxes on THIS property? ^ Yes, taxes included i~~ r,~ortgage payment ^ No, taxes pair; separately or taxes not requireri b. How much is the regular monthly t payment on all second or junior mortgages and all home equity loans on THIS property? Monthly amount -Dollars I ~ ro ~ OR ^ No regular payment required Answer question 24 if this is a MOBILE HOME. Otherwise, SKIP to E . What are the total annual costs for personal property taxes, site rent, on d. Does the ~.qulur monthly mortgage payment erciade payments for fire, hazard. ear flood insurance on THIS rJ .'es, insurance included in mortgage payment ^ No, insurance paid separately or nc insurance ~ Answer questions about PERSON 1 on the next page if you listed at least one person on page 2. Otherwise, SKIP to page 28 for the mailing instructions. ~~c~1~v~~J~ ~~ ~ ~ t _.. ~_,. ~ / CITY OF Cl/fE Jt~~r .~;-. f; f~j CITY CLERKS O F C f. ?~ MOUNTAIN STATES APPRAISAL AND CONSULTING, INC. 1459 Tyrell Lane, Suite B Boise, Idaho 83706 G. Joseph Corlett, MAI, SRA Maur(ce1. Therrien, MAI Kevin Ritter, CGA Jeff Vance, MAI Derek Newton, R7 Apartment Projects Under Construction 1 Proposed, November 2013 A review of city and county planning agencies and extensive research with developers and architects locally result in the following summary of projects under construction and proposed in Ada County. Projects Completed or Under Construction 1) Eagle/Ustick (M) 150 unit senior Completed July 2012 - 80% leased 2) Overland/Wells (M) 48 unit family Completed February 2012 3) Five Mile/Overland (B) 126 unit family Completed September 2013 4) Meridian/Ustick (M) 80 unit family Completed December 2012 5) Boise State (B) 90 unit student Completed July 2012 6) 12thlRiver (B) 53 unit senior Completed August 2012 7) Eagle/Fairview (M} 240 unit family 60% complete 8) Birch Lane -Can Ada (N) 112 unit family 50% complete 9} 12t"/Main (B) 36 unit singles 50% complete 10) Victory/Meridian (M) 220 unit family 10% complete 11) na'i~.:riU'i~niiJctl~l( (raj) vJ Unli ["2.+rilil~ ~~ef; ~Gi'~?Nl~te 12) O~/eriand/'J'Vei!s (i~.1} 278 unit farr;iiy 20v~~ corr~pfete 13) Five Mile/Overland (B) 82 unit family 40% complete 14) Vista/Rose Hill (B) 24 unit individual 10% complete 15) Fairview/Allumbaugh (B) 160 unit 4-plexes 20% complete 16) Gramercy/'JVsl1s (M) 18 unit family 60°'o c~?mplete TOTAL 1,751 Units Construction Start -Anticipated Within 6 Months 1) Overland -Cloverdale (B) 2) Parkcenter -Park (B) 3) Maple Grove -Emerald (B) 4) Birch/Can Ada (N) 5} Franklin; Linder (Ibt) 6) Florence/Five Mile (B) 7) Eagle;r.icr~1illan (f+.~l} 8) Linderira1crJiillan (Il1) 9) Meridian; Blue Heron (M) 10 Parkcenter-River (B) TOTAL 88 unit r'amily 73 unit family 56 uni±4-plexes 172 unit 4-plexes 48 unit family 56 unit 4-plexes 36 unit 4-plexes 84 unit 4-plexes 110 unit family 96 unit family 819 Units ~ ~~- Phone (208) 336-1097 Fax (208) 345-1175 E-mail: msa@appraiseidaho.com /~~. MOUNTAIN STATES APPRAISAL G.laseph Corlett, MAI, SRA AND CONSULTING, INC. Maurice J. Therrien,MAl 1459 T tell Lane, Suite B Kevin Ritter, CGA Y Jeff Vance, MAI Boise, Idaho 83706 Derek Newton, RT Sites For Sale or Preliminary Approval, Start Unknown i) Q,ierland -Linder (fvl) 200 unit family 2) Str~,~C Eagle -Ustick (fv1) 79 unit family 3) Meridian Village (~r1) 175 unit family 4) N'vV'C Eagle -Ustick (~Jl) i 00 unit family 5) Parkcenter -Highland (B) 288 unit family 6} State Street -Bogart (B) 120 unit est. family 7) Franklin -Ten Mile (Phs Ij (Mj 210 unit family 8} Ro~ral -Lusk (B) 176 unit student 9) 10` -Idaho (B) 64 unit individual 10) Meridian/McMillan (M} 200 unit family 11} 9`n/River (B) 130 unit individual 12) Royal/Dale (B) 130 unit student 13) Lusk/Yale (B} 162 unit student i=1) F airviev~,Stonehenge (iv1) 5o unit ~-plexes 15) Locust Grove/Franklin (C~1) 68 unit 4-plexes TOTAL x,158 Units B =Boise M =Meridian N = Nampa Phone (208) 336-1097 Fax (208) 345-1175 E-mail msa@appraiseidaho.com M N O N a' N N 0 ~ a M M N m n o00 ip a v m p^p N 00 00 O tp t~ a a 1~ m ~ m o~OO c v m m o0 7 M C N N O 01 W N Q1 M tl1 O V1 N m m oo ~n ~ M V N N n O ~ ~ n ~ ~-1 N 00 '-I M 1/1 N M O N N I~ N d' M C N N n o1OO n uNi ti M N t!1 IA a M a M O W e-1 H lp 00 e} M V .~ N m m N ~n m M a O7 N la0 H O O n V M a V' n ~p 0 o v ui a m a a t0 N Ql W m m l00 Q C T Ol M N M N ~ N N pal Q tmn N N a p] l0 ~p N p1 W M N 1l1 N W W N pl M N a~ O '-I vii O O M M N N W p1 O 1~ n O ~ m N ~ O' N pmp N M O V1 N lD ~ pl N M N M O N cP ~n ~n a a v o m m m .ti a n ~p o0 is .; m o vi N fa r a tp vi ~p oo m M N M Ql LL V1 10 d a d W ~ "' c O fv u. p r ~ ~., ~ 2 v .. > > " :: x° = o z i°- a r O W L7 C`Q ~m..I \~ Q Oq ^ C d 7 C O U L ~~ V 16 O/ G! K U m Lp ~ ~~ ~ 3,,,...777(, v .~ O r~ U U N rl O N Cl .j C 'V N Y fC G1 Y w t0 Ol C a C w W `N' 1 i6 d Y G7 V QJ ~ ~~ S ..~ MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird David Zaremba Brad Hoaglun Charles M. Rountree TO: FROM: RE: ~~E IDIAN ~-- Mayor De Weerd and Members of the City Council Ted Baird, Deputy City Attorney City Attorney/HR Department 33 E. Broadvvay Ave., Suite 308 Phone: 898-5506 Fax: 884-8723 William L.M. Nary City Attorney/HR Director Ted W. Baird Deputy City Attorney Emily Kane Deputy City Attorney Criteria for Hearing on Appeal of Impact Fee Administrator's Decision December 17, 2013 BACKGROUND: • On November 13, 2013, W.H. Moore (the "fee payer") made an individual assessment request that the parks and recreation impact fees for the Red Tail Apartments be reduced by 60%. • On December 6, 2013, the Meridian Development Impact Fee Administrator (Stacy Kilchenmann) issued a written determination denying the request. • The fee payer requested that the City Council hear this appeal of the fee administrator's decision. ITEMS IN THE APPEAL RECORD: 1. November 13, 2013 Individual Assessment Request from W. H. Moore Company. 2. December 6, 2013 Decision letter from the Impact Fee Administrator. 3. December 8, 2013 Letter from BBC Consulting Explaining Meridian's Impact Fee methodology. 4. August 28, 2006 Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans. 5. Undated Site Plan for the Red Tail Communities. The Fee Payer and the Fee Administrator may provide additional written materials up to the time of the hearing. The Impact Fee Ordinance is found at the Meridian City Code Title 10, Chapter 7. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR APPEAL: 1. Here is the suggested order for the appeal hearing: a. The appellant will present evidence in support of the appeal. b. The fee administrator will present evidence in support of the decision. c. The appellant will be given an opportunity for rebuttal. 2. The burden of proof in the appeal hearing shall be on the fee payer to demonstrate that the amount of the impact fee was not properly calculated by the City. (MCC 10-7- l OC). 3. The criteria used by the City Council shall be to determine whether the fee administrator's decision or the alternative decision offered by the fee payer "more accurately reflects the intent of the [City's impact fee ordinance] that new growth and development in the city pay its proportionate share of the costs of system improvements for [parks and recreation public facilities] necessary to serve new development." (MCC 10-7-10 D) 4. The City Council shall modify the amount of the impact fee "only if there is substantial evidence in the record that the fee administrator erred, based upon the methodologies contained in the impact fee study, the [impact fee ordinance] and/or the capital improvements plans. (MCC 10-7-10 D) 5. The City Council may affirm, reject, or revise the decision of the fee administrator. 6. The City council shall provide written findings of fact and conclusions within 15 days after the hearing. Final Report August 28, 2006 City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans Prepared for City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Prepared by BBC Research Si Consulting Tom Pippin and Laura Doze 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850 Denver, CO 80209-3827 In Association with Spink Butler, LLP JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan 251 E. Front Street, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83702 Galena Consulting Anne Wescott 1214 South Johnson Street Boise, ID 83705 ~ ~ RESEARCH HL CONSULTING :~~ r - ~• -___ AL J A Cy SULTING Table of Contents Report Background and Objectives ............................................................................................................1 Definition of Impact Fees ................................................................................................................2 Land Use and Demographics ..........................................................................................................6 Residential Data ..............................................................................................................................6 Nonresidential Data ........................................................................................................................9 Impact Fee Calculation Considerations .........................................................................................10 Current Assets and Capital Improvements Plans ...........................................................................10 Mechanics of Fee Calculations ......................................................................................................19 City Participation .......................................................................................................................... 23 Cash Flow Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 26 Other Funding Sources .................................................................................................................27 Implementation Recommendations ..............................................................................................28 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 30 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian ..................................8 Exhibit 2. Current and Projected Nonresidential Development .................................................... .10 Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 .............................................................. .13 Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 .............................................................. .14 Exhibit 5. Current Fire Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 .................................................................. .15 Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 ................................................................. .16 Exhibit 7. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 ....................................... .17 Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 ....................................... .18 Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 .................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 10. Police Impact Fee Calculation ..................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee Calculation ........................................................................................ 21 Exhibit 12. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation .............................................................. 22 Exhibit 13. City Participation -Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 .......................... 23 Exhibit 14. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan .................................. 24 Exhibit 15. City Participation -Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 .............................. 24 Exhibit 16. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan ..................................... 25 Exhibit 17. City Participation -Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016 ....................................... 25 Exhibit 18. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016 ....................... 26 Exhibit 19. Projected Cash flows-CIP Methodology ................................................................... 26 Exhibit 20. Summary of Impact Fees ............................................................................................ 30 Exhibit 21. City Participation Summary, 2006 to 2016 ................................................................. 31 BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT- I Table of Contents Attachments: 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 -Communities in Motion Appendix G -Collier's Year-End Real Estate Market Review Appendix H -Meridian FY 2005 Capital Improvement Plans BBC RESEARCH Si CONSULTING FINAL REPORT- II 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 Ciry'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. Communities in Motion report; Appendix G. Colliers' Year-End Real Estate Market Review; and Appendix H. Meridian FY 2005 CIP. Background and Objectives The City of Meridian (City) hired BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) in Apri12006 to calculate impact fees for police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. BBC was assisted by two Idaho-based subcontractors: JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan of Spink Butler, LLP and Anne Wescott of Galena Consulting. Spink Butler interpreted the requirements of the Idaho Code, updated the City's impact fee ordinance and assisted in all phases of the project. Ms. Wescott inventoried Meridian's current police, fire, and parks and recreation assets; established capital improvement replacement costs; helped the Ciry refine their Capital Improvement Plans; and assisted in all phases of the project. This document presents the maximum allowable fees based on the City's demographic data and infrastructure costs before credit adjustment; calculates the Ciry's monetary participation; examines the likely cash flow produced by the recommended fee amount; and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 1 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 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."` 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;4 ^ Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 8-year time limit if the governmental entity can provide reasonable cause;5 ^ Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements needed to serve new growth and development;6 ^ Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the capital projects fund.' See Section G7-8203(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 azeas, and related capital improvements; and public safety facilities, including law enforcement, fire, emergenry medical and rescue facilities. See Sections G7-8203(3), (24) and (28), Idaho Code. 2 See Section 67-8202, Idaho Code. s As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a defensible 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 Jordan, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollar v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). `See Sections G7-8202(4) and 67-8203(29), Idaho Code. ' See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. 6 See Sections 67-8204(1) and 67-8207, Idaho Code. ' See Section 67-8210(1), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH bt 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);8 ^ 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; ^ Identification of the growth-related portion of City Capital Improvement Plans;10 ^ Analysis of cash flow stemming from impact fees and other capital improvement funding sources;" ^ 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 ~z time; ^ 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.14 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 will be needed to a See Section 67-8205, Idaho Code. 9 See Section 67-8206(2), Idaho Code. ~° See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. ' ~ See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. " See Sections 67-8209 and 67-8210, Idaho Code. " See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. "See Sections 67-8204 and 67-8206, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 3 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.'G 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." 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.18 This study considers the planned capital improvements for the period between 2006 and 2016 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 reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project."`~ Practically, this concept requires Meridian to carefully project future growth and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and defensible 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. 15 As a compazison and benchmazk for the impact fees calculated under the Capital Improvement Plan approach, BBC also calculated the Ciry'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 standazd, this methodology guazds against using fees to correct existing deficiencies. The calculation of the City'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. 'b See Sections 67-8203(4) and G7-8208, 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. 1 a See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code. 19 See Section 67-8203(23), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St 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 land, 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 and Galena Consulting 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 2006 to 2016. This is consistent with the Impact Fee Act.21 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 planZZ 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 unit~3 of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvement."24 The service units chosen by the study team are all linked directly to residential dwelling units or nonresidential development square feet. '° See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Z~ The impact fee that can be chazged 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), G7-8208(1(0 and G7-8208(1)(p~, Idaho Code. 'Z An example of a spending plan, Meridian Parks Capital Improvements Plan FY 2005, may be found in Appendix J. "See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. 24 See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St 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."ZS 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 2006 through 201 G. Pursuant to Idaho State law, we gathered data on 20-year land use assumptions in Meridian, including population, households and employment. SeeAppendix E for the 20-year forecasts to 2026. However, the impact fee calculations in this report are based on the next 10 years of land use data to maintain consistenry 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; and the National Association of Homebuilders. Appendix E provides COMPASS' demographic spreadsheets and details any calculations performed by the study team to arrive at current or projected residential data. :s See Section 67-8208(1)(e), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, GAGE 6 Current and future households. To estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from COMPASS' 2006 document entitled Community Choices Forecast.• Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffzc Analysis Zones, updated 03121 /06. This document provides detailed data (from 2005 to 2030 in five year increments) on population, households and jobs by three Meridian-specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). However, data are collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and COMPASS states that the demographic area does not "match either city limits or areas of impact boundaries"26 For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at all, and other TAZs are only partially in the area of impact. However, it is true that Meridian's area of impact contains many of the same TAZs that are in COMPASS' Meridian demographic area. Based on 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.27 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 2030. 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 family and 45 percent multifamily housing units (see Appendix F). After discussing this land use allocation goal with Anna Canning and Steve Siddoway from the City's Planning Department, the study team concluded that this distribution would likely not be achieved within the time frame of the 10-year CIPs used in the impact fee calculations. Therefore, in the interim, we believe it is appropriate for the allocation of future housing units in Meridian to be based on trend data from the Communities in Motion report in Appendix F (72 percent single family and 28 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. zs Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about COMPASS Forecasts. ~7 Because the Ciry anticipates negotiations with Ada County for an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for Ada County to collect impact fees within the area of impact (AOI) on behalf of Meridian. An example of an IGA for the collection of park impact fees by Ada County for the benefit of Boise Ciry within Boise's AOI is found in Appendix F. BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 7 In addition, square feet 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 fire training tower, fire and police command vehicle, ladder fire truck and the firing range. The calculations of the growth-related percentage of these capital improvements is found on page 11. Based on national data, BBC used figures of 2,097 square feet for single family units and 1,063 square feet for multifamily units.28 These estimates reflect the average of national annual median square foot figures from 1999 to 2004 and represent the best available data. Exhibit 1 below presents the number of current (2006) and projected (2016) single family and multifamily units, and respective square footage estimates. Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian Total in .Total in Difference 2006 .2006 2016. to 2016 Housing Units ~~~ Single Family 20,053 25,537 5,485 Multifamily 2,282 9,931 7,649 Total Housing Units 22,334 35,469 13,134 Square Feet (Z) Single Family (units * 2,097 sq.ft.) 42,040,244 53,539,312 11,499,069 Multifamily (units * 1,063 sq.ft.) 2,426,219 10,559,390 8,133,171 Total Square Feet 44,466,463 64,098,703 19,632,240 Notes: (1) COMPASS for housing units and Communities in Mo[ion for allocation of housing units between single family and multffamily. (2) National Association of Homebuilders 5-year trailing average for square footage. Source: COMPASS, Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment byDemographicAreas and Traffic Analysis Zones (Excel worksheet, Updated 3/21/2006), National Association of Homebuilders, Characteristics of New Single Family Homes (1987-2004), City of Meridian, Communities in Motion and Impact Fee Study Team. Currently, there are an estimated 22,334 housing units in the City of Meridian, 20,053 of which are single family units and 2,282 of which are multifamily units. By 2016, the residential housing stock is projected to have increased by 59 percent (13,100 households) for a total of over 35,000 units. National Association of Homebuilders, average of median figures from 1999-2004, Characteristics ofNew Single Family Homes 1987-2004. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 8 Nonresidential data. Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, 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, vacanry rates, building counts, market rents, etc. 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 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 buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. To adjust for this underestimate of nonresidential square feet, the study team obtained City data on the square footage of new commercial development since 2003. 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. The study team calculated the percentage of new units since 2003 that were less than 10,000 square feet in size. As of March 2006, on average, 21 percent of the City's newly permitted nonresidential units were less than 10,000 square feet. Knowing this, Colliers tabulation represents 79 percent of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. By dividing Colliers square footage by 79 percent, the study team arrived at the current total of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the current nonresidential square feet. Future nonresidential development. No data exist for exact 2016 projections of nonresidential square footage in Meridian. Therefore, BBC developed a defensible method for calculating future nonresidential square footage. COMPASS' document, Community Choices Forecast.• Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Trafj'zcAnalysis Zones, 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 2016. Currently, there are 20,514 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet totals 6,544,830. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs in 2006 produces a ratio of 319 square feet per employee in 2006.29 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2016. 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 2016 (31,888) is multiplied by the square footage per employee (319). This produces a total of 10,173,758 nonresidential square feet in 2016. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the future nonresidential square feet. "This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time, and can be adjusted in future impact fee updates. The 319 square feet per employee is the study team s best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH bT CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 9 Exhibit 2 below shows the current and projected nonresidential development square feet. Exhibit 2. Current and Projected Nonresidential Development Nonresidential Square Feet Total in 2006 6,544,830 Total in 2016 (~) 10,173,758 Difference (2006 to 2016) 3,628,928 Note: (1) Assumes that nonresidential square footage grows in proportion to employment (319 square feet per employee). Source: COMPASS, Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones (Excel worksheet, Updated 3/21/2006), Colliers Year End Real Estate Mare[ Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Using the methodology described above, the increase in nonresidential square footage from 2006 to 2016 is approximately 3.6 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 2006 through 2016; ^ An allocation of investment to residential and nonresidential development, based on new residential dwelling units 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. 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.s30 The impact fee study team recommends a 10-year time period based on the Ciry's best available capital planning data. '° See Section 67-8208(1)(h). BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 10 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.31 The total cost of improvements over the 10 years is referred to as the "CIP Value" in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8. 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 the parks and recreation CIP (the only fee category with a fund balance), the City's current parks and recreation 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 on pre-planned growth-related capital improvements before spending future impact fee receipts on newly identified projects in the following CIPs.32 The forward-looking 10-year CIPs for the fire, police, and pazks and recreation depaztments each include some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth (e.g., the fire training tower, fire and police command vehicle, fire ladder truck and the firing range). The study team met with each department to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. The four capital improvements mentioned immediately above are calculated to be 31 percent growth- related. The 31 percent ratio is calculated by dividing the accumulated new square footage between 2006 and 2016 (residential and nonresidential) by the total square footage in 2016.33 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). The firing range, fire ladder truck, training tower and command vehicle should be sized according to population and peak period demand. The Ciry needs to size these facilities and vehicles to be able to accommodate the demand created by the current residents and the demand of future residents. It should be understood that growth will be paying only a portion of the cost of these facilities. The Ciry 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 pazticipation investment is approximately $14.7 million over the next ten years, or approximately $1.5 million per year. This investment includes $11.9 million of discretionary funding in connection with purely non-growth- 31 The Advisory Committee has discussed the extent to which "equipment," as opposed to "land and buildings," can be considered capital improvements eligible for impact fee consideration. Some Advisory Committee members expressed discomfort with personal property being impact fee eligible, but the Impact Fee Act allows a broad range of improvements to be considered as "capital" improvements, so long as the improvements have useful life of at least 10 years and also increase the service capacity of public facilities. See Sections G7-8203(28) and 50-1703, Idaho Code. 32 "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 a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. 3s The residential square footage is described in Exhibit 1 and the nonresidential square footage is described in Exhibit 2. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 11 related improvements, and $2.8 million of capital improvements, portions of which are not 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 exhibits 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-related capital 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."34 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 may be operating at a less than desirable 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. Specifically, the police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. The police department's targeted level of service, however, is one officer per 3.75 square miles. Therefore, the department is operating at a deficienry of .75 officers per square mile. The department does intend to increase the current level of service to the 3.75 officers per square mile. Because this is an increase in the level of service, any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation. "See Section 67-8203(17), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 12 The fire. department, on the other hand, is not currently operating at a deficient level of service. The current and targeted level of fire service is to respond to 90 percent of all calls within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710. The fire department plans on continuing this level of service; therefore, all growth-related capital improvements in the CIP represent a continuation of the current level of service and are impact fee eligible. Akin to the fire department, the parks and recreation department is not currently operating at a deficient level of service. The total number of currently developed acres is 183.92, which equates to 2.78 acres per 1,000 population. At 2.78 acres per 1,000 population, and a projected 2016 population of 105,411 (including area of impact), the parks department needs to add 109 acres over 10 years to keep the current service standard (2.78 x 105.4 = 293 acres minus the existing 183.92 acres = 109 acres). Current police assets. As is evident, 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. Exhibit 3 lists the current police assets. The police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets Source: Gity of Meridian Police Department. Type of Capital Improvement Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) Animal Shelter Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios) K-9 Training Facility K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) The one officer per 4.5 square mile service standard equates to a current investment of $106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). Police Capital Improvement Plan. Exhibit 4 on the following page lists the future capital improvements that are necessary to maintain the current level of service (i.e., one officer per 4.5 square mile) for future residential units and nonresidential development. Capital improvements not included in the fee calculation include any investments that assist in the augmentation of the service level to the point of reaching the goal of one officer per 3.75 square miles. The exhibit presents $1.3 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" times the "Shared Facility" percentage. BBC RESEARCH SL CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 13 Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201635 CIP Growth-Related Shared Facility Amount to Type of Capital Improvement Value times Portion times (% in fee) equals Include in Fees Infrastructure (2006 to 2016) Firing Range-Semi-Enclosed Building 32,000,000 31% 100% $626,374 Patrol Facility Expansion (157,248 100% 100% $157,248 Animal Shelter Expansion $140,000 100% 100% $140,000 Firing Range Land (2.5 Acres)til $275,000 31% 100% E86,126 Police Substation in Fire Station #6 IZ) $1,470,000 100% 5% $73,500 Police Substation in Fire Station #7IZ) $1,470,000 10096 S% $73,500 Police Communications Equipment (14 Radios) $63,280 100% 100% $63,280 Police Substation in Fire Station #S 131 $1,120,000 100% S% 356,000 Command Vehicle 1°7 $200,000 31% 50% E31,319 Tota12006-2016 CIP 56,895,528 57,307,347 Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study (32,500 100% 33% E10,833 Grand Total f6,928,028 f1,318,180 Note: (7) Cort per acre of land is 5710,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre at this point in time. (2) Total cost of land for station is 5350,000, based on recent land purchase for Station #S. Facilities are shared with the fire department. (3) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #5; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with fire department. (4) Command Vehicle is shared with the fire department. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The police CIP in Exhibit 4 includes five percent of the growth-related costs of three new fire stations. This modest cost allocation is intended to pay for a small police office in each fire station where personnel can write reports and interact with citizens. Similarly, the police CIP includes 50 percent of the growth-related cost of a new command vehicle that will be shared equally with the fire department, and should therefore bare a proportionate share of the cost. Finally, the Impact Fee Act allows the inclusion of equipment in the impact fee calculation, as long as the useful life of such equipment is 10 years or more. The police department has quantified the number of additional radios needed from 2006 to 2016 to support new officers required by new growth, and asserts that, based on historic usage, the department uses radios for 10 years or more before retiring these radios. The cost per acre for the firing range ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land that is priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. S5 Most of the capital improvements on the police CIP, as in the other CIPs in this study, are allocated 100 percent to new growth. There was discussion among the Advisory Committee members as to whether these capital improvements, which are in use throughout the service area or in the case of parks, potentially in use by all residents of the service area, should be completely allocated to new growth. There will be incidental benefits to existing development in connection with capital improvements paid for by new development (and vice versa). These incidental benefits will not undermine the impact fee scheme. See Section 67-8204(23), Idaho Code. The Advisory Committee may want to discuss this issue further and either leave the fee as proposed or recommend that the fee be adjusted downward to accommodate any unknown incidental benefit. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 14 Current fire assets. The fire department responds to 90 percent of all calls for service within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710, and is the department's current and future level of service. Exhibit 5 presents the current fire assets. Exhibit S. Current Fire Assets Type of Capital Improvement Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq. ft. Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. ft. Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. ft. Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft. Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 sq. ft. Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) 1986 Pierce Engine (306) 1993 Pierce Engine (304) 2000 Pierce Engine (302) 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 2006 Pierce Engine (30?) 2000 International Water Tender (320) 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) 1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342) 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) Equipment Opticom Traffic Signal Controls 16 Vehicle Radios 4 Base Station Radios Source: City of Meridian Fire Department. The current level of service equates to a current investment of $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 15 Fire Capital Improvement Plan. The fire department is not currently operating with deficiencies. The fire department plans on continuing this level of service, responding to 90 percent of all calls for service within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). Therefore, all growth-related capital improvements in the CIP represent the continuation of the current level of service and are impact fee eligible. Exhibit 6 reflects the future fire capital improvements needed to maintain the current level of fire service. Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 CIP Growth Shared Facility Amount to Type of Capital Improvement Value times Portion times (% in fee) equals Include in.Fees. Buildings Fire Station #51~i $1,120,000 100% 95% $1,064,000 Fire Station #6tz) $1,470,000 100% 95% $1,396,500 Fire Station #7 R) $1,470,000 100% 95% $1,396,500 Training Tower E480,000 31% 100% $150,330 Vehicles 3 New Engines (One per Station #S through #7) $1,230,000 100% 100% $1,230,000 ladder Truck $760,000 31% 100% $238,022 Additional Staff Vehicles $67,500 100% 100% $67,500 Additional Squad Vehicles $65,000 100% 100% $65,000 Command Vehiclelsl $200,000 31% SO% $31,319 Equipment Additional Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $190,000 100% 100% $190,000 Additional Base Radios $15,900 100% 100% $15,900 Additional Vehicle Radios $12,051 100% 100% $12,051 Additional Vehicle Extrication Equipment $60,000 0% 100% $0 Additional SCBA $57,000 0% 10096 $0 Additional Thermal Imaging Cameras $45,000 0`M 100% $0 Totallnfrastructure f7,242,451 $5,857,122 Fee•Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833 Grand Total $7,274,951 $5,867,955 Notes: (1) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #S; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with police department. (2) Total cost of land for station is 5350,000, based on recent land purchase for Fire Station #5. Facilities are shared with the police department. (3) Command Vehicle is shared with the police department. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with Fire Chief 4(10/06 and Impact Fee Study Team. The City is expected to purchase $7.3 million dollars in fire capital improvements, $5.9 million of which is impact fee eligible from 2006 to 2016. This amount includes 95 percent of the growth- related costs of three new fire stations (the remaining 5 percent reflects the cost of police ofi-ices in the station). Fifty percent of the growth-related cost of a new command vehicle will be shared with the police department, which should thus bare a proportionate share of the cost.36 36 'There was some discussion within the Advisory Committee that setting the CIP value, for a fire truck, for example, at its brand new replacement cost, is not appropriate because the Ciry could buy used trucks. We believe the consensus of the Committee was that the City's polity to purchase new equipment would continue. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 16 Current parks and recreation assets. The total number of currently developed park acres is 183.92, which equates to a service standard of 2.78 acres per 1,000 population. Exhibit 7 lists the Ciry's current parks and recreation assets that are responsible for the 2.78 acres per 1,000 population service standard. Exhibit 7. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2006 Type of Capital. Improvement Paths >x 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 kMini-Parks Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres) Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres) Season's Park (7 Acres) Chateau Park (6.75 Acres) 8th Street Park (4 Acres) Champion Park (6 Acres) Centennial Park (0.5 Acres) Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres) Cox Monument (0.25 Acres) Community Parks Heroes Park (30 Acres) Tully Park (18.5 Acres) Bear Creek Park (18.5 Acres) Storey Park (15 Acres) Urban Parks Meridian Settler's Park Developed (53 Acres) Source: City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. The level of service for parks and recreation equates to a current investment of $1,612 per residential unit (see Appendix D for calculation). BBC RESEARCH tx CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 17 Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan. Currently, Meridian's 10-year population growth would justify slightly more than 109 acres of new parks and recreation capital improvements at the current 2.78 developed acres per thousand population level of service, as described on page 13.37 Any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation. Exhibit 8 below lists the future capital improvements necessary to maintain the current level of parks and recreation service in the future. Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201638 .CIP Growth Shared facility Amount to Type of Capital Improvement - Value times Portion times (% in fee) equals Include in Fees Pathways § Trails Pathway Landscaping and Improvements (FY 2010) $75,000 0% 100% EO Neighborhood 8r Mini-Parks tt7 (n 4 New Neighborhood Parks (7.5 Acres Each) 52,550,000 100% 100% 52,550,000 Community Parks 137 1 New Community Park (33 Acres) $6,435,000 100% 100% $6,435,000 Hero's Park Development (Shelter, Playgrounds, Tennis Courts) f500,000 100% 100% 5500,000 Storey Park- Acquisition and Development of 1.44 Acres 141 5554,200 SO% 100% 5277,100 Large Urban Parks 131 1 New Large Urban Park (45 Acres) 58,775,000 100% 100% $8,775,000 Meridian Settler's Park-Final Phase Development 5425,000 100% 100% 5425,000 Parks Amenities Community Center 570,000,000 0% 100% EO Aquatks Center 51,500,000 0% 70096 EO Equipment 2 Mowers (1 Replacement and 1 Add'Rional Mower) E7 30,000 0% 1~% EO Total Infrastructure 530,944,200 518,962,100 Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study 532,500 100% 33% 510,833 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance 157 FY 20066eginning Fund Balance 5800,150 100% 100% f800,150 Grand Total 530,176,550 578,772,783 Note: (1) Land to be donated through development agreement and thus a likely source of impact fee credits. (2) 585,000 per acre in development costs based on recent City construction history. (3) f 195,000/acre in land and development costs (5110,000/acre average plus f85,000 in development costs). (4) Addition to existing park -acquired [o retain connectivity to future growth/neighborhoods. (5) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with parks and recreation staff and Impact Fee Study team. Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $30.2 million, of which over $18.2 million is impact fee eligible. 37 At the end of fiscal yeaz 2004, the Ciry was at a service level of 1.92 developed acres per thousand population. The increase in the level of service in the short time since 2004 is a result of several donations. Although some of the park acres are not developed today, the Finance Depaztment advised the study team that the Ciry has allocated funds to develop these pazk acres by the end of this year, which will bring the service level to 2.78 developed acres per thousand population. 3B The CIP breaks down the types of pazks facilities (i.e., pathways and trails; neighborhood and mini-pazks; community pazks; and lazge urban parks. However, the calculation for impact fees (see page 23) lumps all parks facilities together. There has been some discussion by the members of the Advisory Committee to the effect that the impact fee calculations should also be broken down into four parts, i.e., and the added together for the total pazks impact fee. The Advisory Committee should discuss. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 18 Mechanics of Fee Calculations Impact fees are calculated using the costs summarized in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8 and the demographic information from previous exhibits. 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 Ciry in serving new development; and ^ the availability of other sources of funding for system improvements (e.g., local improvement district assessments, general tax levies) 39 ^ Upon consideration of all these factors, the Advisory Committee may recommend that the City Council adjust the maximum allowable impact fee.40 Future land use assumptions. Exhibit 9 displays the City's incremental increase (from 2006 to 2016) 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. Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016 Note: (1) May not total due to rounding. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Square Percent Land Use Category Feet of Total Residential 19,632,240 84% Single Family 11,499,069 49% Multifamily 8,133,171 3590 Nonresidential 3,628,928 16% Total ~1~ 23,261,168 100% 39 See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code. 4o These factors are to be considered while the Ciry is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the adoption of an impact fee, credits may be calculated on aproject-by-project basis in connection with an individual assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 19 In 201 G, the City's residential development is expected to increase by 19,632,240 square feet, and the nonresidential development is estimated to increase by 3,628,928 square feet. Therefore, the future allocation of land uses is projected to be 84 percent residential and 16 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. The study team 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 squaze footage. Police impact fees. Exhibit 10 presents police impact fees of $85 per residential unit and $0.06 per nonresidential square foot. This represents the maximum allowable impact fee under Idaho's Impact Fee Act. Exhibit 70. Police Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Fxhibit 4. Police Capi[al Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain [fie current level of service. (2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016. Source: City of Meridian and impact Fee Study Team. Calculation of Impact Fees Future Value of Police Capital Improvements ~~~ $1,318,180 Future Land Use Percentage (2) Residential 840 Nonresidential 1696 Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $1,112,544 Nonresidential $205,636 Growth to 2016 Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $g5 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.06 The study team 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 ($106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot -see Appendix D). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10-Yeaz Police CIP is not overchazging new development for its proportionate shaze of new capital improvements. One reason that the CIP-based fees are lower than the City's current level of investment is that Meridian's K-9 Facility is not planned for expansion as growth occurs. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 20 Fire impact fees. Exhibit 11 calculates the impact fees for fire capital improvements based on the future growth projections and anticipated future capital improvement costs described in earlier exhibits. Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee Calculation. Notes: (1) See Fxhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Fxhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2076. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Calculation of Impact Fees Value of Future Fire Capital Improvements ~~~ $5,867,955 Future Land Use Percentage ~2~ Residential 84or5 Nonresidential 1696 Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $4,952,554 Nonresidential $915,401 Growth to 2016 Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $377 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.25 The maximum allowable impact fees for fire capital improvements total $377 per new residential unit and $0.25 per new nonresidential square foot. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts are quite similar to Meridian's current investment in fire infrastructure ($362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot). It is to be expected that the maximum allowable 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. The anticipated construction of the fire training tower is, in part, responsible for higher fire fees as compared to the current investment in Appendix D. The fire training tower is a large capital improvement unlike any current fire investment. Because growth has triggered the need for this facility, a portion of the cost of the fire training tower is 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 bt CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 21 Parks and recreation impact fees. Parks and recreation impact fees are shown in Exhibit 12, which is based on Exhibit 8 and demographic projections. Parks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Exhibit 7 Z. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Fxhibit S. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Calculation of Impact Fees Future Value of Parks St Recreation Capital Improvements (~) Future Land Use Percentage Residential Nonresidential Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential Nonresidential Growth to 2016 Residential (total dwelling units) Nonresidential (in square feet) Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,384 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A $18,172,783 100°x6 OR6 $18,172, 783 $0 13,134 3,628,928 The maximum allowable impact fee for parks and recreation capital improvements is $1,384 for any new residential unit. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amount is quite similar to Meridian's current investment in parks and recreation infrastructure ($1,612 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. The current parks and recreation impact fee, as of June 1, 2005, totaled $763.16 for a single family unit and $694 per multifamily unit. If the City adopts the new fees at the maximum amount shown in the exhibit above, the fees would increase 81 percent for single family units and 99 percent for multifamily units. An increase in fees of this magnitude is not uncommon and is justifiable if the nexus between the new development and future capital improvements remains intact. It is the study team's belief that the analysis of demographic data and Capital Improvement Plans has been thorough and that the rational nexus required by law has been maintained. It should also be noted that a portion of the fee difference is due to the dramatic increase in the cost of parkland in Meridian. The Ciry's current parks impact fee, for example, is based on an assumed land price and subsequent development cost significantly less than the $110,000 and $85,000 per acre, respectively, reflected in Exhibit 8. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 22 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. Exhibits 13 through 18 calculate the City's participation between 2006 and 2016. 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. Exhibit 13. City Participation -Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 CIP Amount to Shared City Value ~~~ less Include in Fees ~~~ less Facility Amount (z) equals. Participation (3) $6,928,028 - $1,318,180 - $3,978,667 = $1,631,181 Note: (1) Directly from Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (2) Calculated from Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount of repair/replacement/upgrade capital improvements and the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. If the City adopts the maximum police fees as calculated in this report, the City would potentially be responsible for approximately $1.6 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 4t Exhibits 14, 16 and 18 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. " There was some discussion in the Advisory Committee meetings of phasing-in the amount of the impact fees over a number of months or years. The Advisory Committee may decide to recommend this course. However, the Ciry would be required to fund (using sources other than impact fees) an amount equal to the difference between the total adopted impact fee and the amount of the phased impact fee. The concept of phasing-in the impact fees over time should not be confused with the "effective date" of the impact fee ordinance. Bylaw, the ordinance will not be effective for a grace period of thirty (30) days following adoption. Some Committee members have raised the possibility of extending this grace period; this should be discussed by the entire Advisory Committee. BBC RESEARCH Si CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 23 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 ofservice 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. Exhibit 14. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan Dollar Amount Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $0 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $1,631,181 Total $1,631,181 Source: Impact Fee Study Team. To maintain the current level of service, one officer per 4.5 square miles, the Ciry must contribute $1.6 million between 2006 and 2016. 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, no police capital improvements were purely non-growth. Therefore, the City must fund the entirety of the calculated participation amount. Exhibit 15 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). Exhibit 1 S. City Participation -Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 CIP Amount to Shared City Value ~~~ less Include in Fees ~~~ less Facility Amount ~2~ equals Participation ~3~ $7,274,951 - $5,867,955 - $324,667 $1,082,329 Note: (1) Directly from Fxhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (2) Calculated from Fxhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) City Participation amount is equal [o the amount for repair/replacement/upgradeond the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Based on the maximum fire impact fees calculated in this report, the City's participation amount could total just over $1 million. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 24 Exhibit 16 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). Exhibit 16. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan Dollar Amount Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $162,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $920,329 Total $1,082,329 Source: Impact Fee Study Team. In the above analysis, the Ciry has the discretion to contribute $162,000 toward capital improvements that are purely non-growth-related. In order for the impact fee study to maintain its integrity, however, the City must contribute approximately $920,000 to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. Exhibit 17 outlines the dollar amount that the Ciry should contribute, in addition to impact fee receipts, to parks and recreation capital improvements between 2006 and 2016. Exhibit 17. City Participation -Parks and Recreation Capital improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 CIP Amount to Shared City Value ~~~ less Include in Fees ~~~ less Facility Amount (2) equals Participation (3) $30,176,550 - $18,172,783 - $21,667 = $11,982,100 Note: (1) Directlyfrom &hibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (2) Calculated from Exhibi[ 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacemenUupgrade anct the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 25 Exhibit 18 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). Exhibit 18. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Pian Dollar Amount Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $11,705,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $277,100 Total $11,982,100 Source: Impact Fee Study Team. Of the $12 million of calculated City participation, $11.7 million is discretionary because the associated capital improvements have been defined as purely non-growth-related. However, $277,000 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 maximum allowable impact fees as presented in this study, prior to further consideration by the Advisory Committee. Exhibit 19 below displays the impact fee cash flow from 2006 to 2016, using the fees calculated by the CIP methodology. Exhibit 19. Projected Cash Flows -CIP Methodology Projected Cash Flow 2007 2011 2016 Projected New Residential Units 1,313 6,567 13,134 Projected New Nonresidential Square Feet 362,893 1,814,464 3,628,928 Cumulative Cash Flow $2,537,077 $12,685,386 $25,370,771 Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. If impact fees were adopted at the maximum amounts, the City would collect just over $25 million in impact fee revenues from 2006 though 2016. This amount is mathematically designed to finance the entire growth-related portion of Meridian's CIP. BBC RESEARCH SL CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 26 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 Ciry functions. General Obligation Bonds: With these bonds, the Ciry 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 maybe 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 Ciry entering into a working agreement with aquasi-public or private entity to help fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 27 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 Ciry 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,az 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 Ciry, 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 Ciry have an equal demand on the infrastructure because the parks, fire, and police department function most efficiently on a system- 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 a growth-related project in the CIP, the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollaz 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. ~'- See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208(1). BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 28 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 a developer constructs or contributes all or part of agrowth-related project 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 4s 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 payor that specifies the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement.44 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 Ciry 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 polity 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 whengrowth-related capital improvements are constructed, impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capital improvements are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth, 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. ;3 See Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code. ++ See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 29 Summary Using the CIP methodology, the state mandated approach, BBC calculated the total (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation) maximum defensible impact fee for residential units at $1,846 and $0.31 per nonresidential square feet as seen in Exhibit 20 below. This maximum fee is being presented to the Advisory Committee for its review and consideration in light of statutorily identified factors. Exhibit 20. Summary of Impact Fees Source: Impact Fee Study Team. Impact Fee Category Police Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $85 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.06 Fire Fees Residential (perdwelling unit) $377 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.25 Parks St Recreation Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,384 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A Total Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,846' Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.31 It is the study team's assessment that the City could reasonably charge impact fees of any amount up to the $1,846 per residential unit and $0.31 per nonresidential square foot. This amount is sufficient to pay for the growth-related portions of Meridian's Capital Improvement Plans. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 30 Summary of City participation. Exhibit 21 below summarizes the total amount the Ciry 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.. Exhibit 21. City Participation Summary, 2006 to 2016 Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. city Fee Category '. Participation Discretionary Amount (Purely Non-Growth Improvements) Police $p Fire $162,000 Parks & Recreation $11,705,000 Total $11,867,000 Required Amount (Partially Non-Growth Improvements) Police $1,631,181 Fire $920,329 Parks ~ Recreation $277,100 Total $2,828,610 Grand Total $14,695,610 The total amount the City would be required to contribute over 10 years, should the City adopt fees at the maximum amount, will be approximately $2.8 million. The required $2.8 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 $11.9 million; the City can choose not to fund this total amount, however, service levels could decrease. If the Ciry plans to fund all repair, replacement or upgrade capital improvements in addition to the required amount, the Ciry will need approximately $14.7 million over the next 10 years. This equates to $1.5 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 just over $280,000 per year in non-growth-related capital improvements that are impact fee eligible BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 31 APPENDIX A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances IDAHO TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHANTER 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 may be 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 agenry 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 agenry on an application for an individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee, including an explanation of 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. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 1 (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 polity 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. (1l) 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 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. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING f~PPENDIX f~, RAGE 2 (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)(8), 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)(8), 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. (I9) No system for the calculation of development impact fees shall be adopted which subjects any development to double payment of impact fees. (20) 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 occupanry within two (2) years of its destruction; (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 BBC RESEARCH Si CONSULTING APPENDIX f~, PAGE 3 (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 St CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 4 APPENDIX B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, BY REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, AND BY ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION, COMPUTATION AND PAYMENT OF A POLICE IMPACT FEE, A FIRE IMPACT FEE, AND A PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING AUTHORITY, INTENT AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR EACH OF SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS, REFUNDS, CREDITS AND WAIVERS RESPECTING SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, APPLICABILITY AND APPEALS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND 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, Galena Consulting and Spink Butler, LLP (collectively, "Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections for the period 2006 to 2026 in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements 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 July _, 2006 (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, including review and reliance on that certain City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, July 2002 (Resolution 02-382), as amended by Resolution Nos.: 03-401 and 03-409 (Parks and IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 1 Recreation System Plan-Action Plan); 04-454; and 06-505 (North Meridian Area) and that certain amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City on , 2006 (Resolution No. ~ (collectively, the "Comprehensive Plan"), 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 prepared by Consultant and 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 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 fmancing 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 police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees 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 WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the reasonable impacts of new growth and development on existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements, and the reasonable costs of Capital Improvements necessary to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to accommodate the additional demands and impacts of new growth and development; and WHEREAS, based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at 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, fire, 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, IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 2 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 Ciry's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Capital Improvements Plans have been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans have been presented to and reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss, review and hear public comments on the proposed Impact Fees set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby 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: The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as fmdings of the City Council. The existing Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby repealed and a new Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby adopted as follows: TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SECTION 10-07-01 Legislative Findings 10-07-02 Authority, Applicability, and Effective Date 10-07-03 Intent 10-07-04 Definitions 10-07-OS Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees 10-07-06 Payment of Impact Fees 10-07-07 Impact Fee Fund; Refunds of Impact Fees Paid 10-07-08 Exemptions From Impact Fees 10-07-09 Credits; Reimbursements 10-07-10 Appeals 10-07-11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee 10-07-12 Miscellaneous Provisions IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 3 10-07-01 -Legislative Findings The City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho fmds that: (a) Based on the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including but not limited to the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general governmental goal of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, and its area of City impact, it is necessary that the City's Public Facilities for: (1) park and recreation Public Facilities; and (2) public safety Public Facilities for law enforcement and fire to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and its area of City impact. (b) New residential and nonresidential growth and development imposes and will impose increasing and demands upon the Public Facilities. (c) The revenues generated from new residential and nonresidential growth and development often do not generate sufficient general funds to provide the necessary improvements of these Public Facilities to accommodate new growth and development. (d) New growth and development are expected to continue, and will place ever-increasing demands on the City to provide and expand the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. (e) The City has planned for the improvement of the Public Facilities in the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. (f) The creation of an equitable Impact Fee system would enable the City to impose a Proportionate Share of the costs of needed improvements to the Public Facilities to accommodate new growth and development, and would assist the City in implementing the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (g) In order to implement an equitable Impact Fee system for the Public Facilities, the City retained BBC Research & Consulting to prepare an Impact Fee Study for these types of facilities. The resulting document titled "The City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July _, 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), recommended for approval by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, is on file in the office of the city clerk of the City of Meridian. (h) The Impact Fee Study is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and uses the Levels of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for these Public Facilities. (i) The Impact Fee Study sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of new growth and development on the Public Facilities, and determines the cost of acquiring or constructing the improvements necessary to meet the demands for such Public Facilities created by new growth and development. (j) The Impact Fee Study uses a calculation methodology in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that is net of credits for the Present Value of revenues that will be IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 4 generated by new growth and development based on historical funding patterns and that are anticipated to be available to pay for System Improvements, including taxes, assessments, user fees, and intergovernmental transfers, and included consideration of the following factors: 1. The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; 2. The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; 3. The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; 4. The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; 5. The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; 6. Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; 7. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and 8. The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (k) The maximum allowable Impact Fees described in this Ordinance are based on the Impact Fee Study, and do not exceed the costs of System Improvements for the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development that will pay the Impact Fees. (1) The police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities included in the calculation of Impact Fees in the Impact Fee Study will benefit all new growth and development throughout the City, and it is therefore appropriate to treat all areas of the City and the area of city impact as a single Service Area for purposes of calculating, collecting and spending the Impact Fees collected. (m) There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts created by each type of development covered by this Ordinance and the Impact Fees that such development will be required to pay. (n) This Ordinance creates a system by which Impact Fees paid by new growth and development will be used to fmance, defray or to provide Capital Improvements for the Public Facilities in ways that benefit the development for which Impact Fees were paid. (o) This Ordinance creates a system under which Impact Fees shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies in Public Facilities, or to replace or rehabilitate existing Public Facilities, or to pay for routine operation or maintenance of those Public Facilities. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 5 (p) This Ordinance is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, concerning Impact Fee Ordinances. 10-07-02 -Authority Applicability and Effective Date (a) This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's general police powers pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Title 50, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (b) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all of the territory within the limits of the City and to any unincorporated areas of the City within the City's area of city impact where the City has executed an intergovernmental agreement with Ada County for purposes of collection or expenditure of Impact Fees pursuant to Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code, and other applicable laws of the State of Idaho. (c) This Ordinance is effective (the "Effective Date"), which Effective Date is at least thirty (30) days subsequent to the passage, approval and publication, according to law, of Ordinance No. ,which adopted the provisions hereof. (d) Applications for Building Permits received by the City prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendments hereto, adopting Impact Fees or amending or adopting any methodology by which Impact Fees are calculated, will be exempt from that portion of this Ordinance, or amendment enacted after such Building Permit application, if a valid Building Permit has been issued or construction has commenced prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendment. For Building Permits that expire or are revoked after the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the Feepayor shall be entitled to a refund of previously paid Impact Fees as provided further in Section 10-07-07, Meridian Code, provided that in the case of reapplication for Building Permit, the Impact Fee in effect at that time shall be paid. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Development Requirements for System Improvements shall be imposed by the City only by way of Impact Fees imposed pursuant to and in accordance with Section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, and this Ordinance. 10-07-03 -Intent (a) The intent of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City and its area of city impact. (b) The intent of this Ordinance is to be consistent with those principles for allocating a fair share of the cost of Capital Improvements to Public Facilities to serve new growth and development incompliance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (c) The intent of this Ordinance is that Impact Fees should be charged, collected, and expended for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of such categories of Public Facilities, which Capital Improvements are included in approved Capital Improvements Plans that list the Capital Improvements that maybe funded with Impact Fees. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 6 (d) The intent of this Ordinance is to ensure that: Public Facilities are available to serve new growth and development; new growth and development bears a Proportionate Share of the cost of police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities; to ensure that such Proportionate Share does not exceed the cost of the Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities required to serve new growth and development; and to ensure that the funds collected from new growth and development are used for Capital Improvements for Public Facilities that benefit new growth and development. (e) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to collect any monies from new growth and development in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for Capital Improvements to Public Facilities created by such new growth and development. (f) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that the Impact Fees be used to remedy any deficiency in police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements existing on the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or ever be used to replace, rehabilitate, maintain and/or operate any Public Facilities. (g) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that any monies collected from an Impact Fee deposited in an Impact Fee fund ever be commingled with monies from a different fund, or ever be used for Capital Improvements that are different from those for which the Impact Fee was paid. (h) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that Impact Fees be used for: (1) Construction, acquisition or expansion of Public Facilities other than Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (2) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements. (3) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. (4) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development to provide better service to existing Development. (5) Administrative and operating costs of the City unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans used to determine Impact Fees by a surcharge imposed by ordinance on the collection of an Impact Fee, which surcharge shall not exceed a Development's Proportionate Share of the cost of preparing the Capital Improvements Plans. (6) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-04 -Definitions IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 7 (a) "Affordable Housing" means housing affordable to families whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the Service Area. (b) "Building Permit" means an official document or certificate by that name issued by the City authorizing the construction or siting of any building. (c) "Capital Improvements" means improvements with a useful life of ten (10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a Public Facility. (d) "Capital Improvements Element" means a component of a comprehensive plan. (e) "Capital Improvements Plan" means a plan adopted pursuant to this Chapter that identifies Capital Improvements for which Impact Fees may be used as a funding source. (fl "City" means the City of Meridian, Idaho. (g) "City Council" means the legislative body of the City of Meridian, Idaho. (h) "Developer" means any person or legal entity undertaking development, including a party that undertakes the subdivision of property pursuant to Sections 50-1301 through 50-1334, Idaho Code and 11-6, Meridian Code. (i) "Development" means any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. (j) "Development Approval" means any written authorization from a Governmental Entity which authorizes the commencement of a Development. (k) "Development Requirement" means a requirement attached to a Development Approval or other governmental action approving or authorizing a particular Development including, without limitation, a rezoning, which Development Requirement compels the payment, dedication or contribution of goods, services, land and/or money as a condition of approval. (1) "Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion of a building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy, and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling Unit includes a Multifamily building, a mobile home, a Manufactured Home, a Modular Buildingand/or a moteUhoteUrooming house. (m) "Extraordinary Costs" means those costs incurred as a result of Extraordinary Impact. (n) "Extraordinary Impact" means an impact which is reasonably determined by the City to: result in the need for police, fire, and parks and/or recreation System Improvements, the cost of which will significantly exceed the sum of the Impact Fees to be generated from the Project; or result in the need for police, fire, parks and recreation System Improvements that are not identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 8 (o) "Fee Administrator" means the official appointed by the Mayor with the City Council approval to administer this Chapter. (p) "Feepayor" means a person who pays or is required to pay an Impact Fee or the Feepayor's Successor in Interest. (q) "Governmental Entity" means any unit of local government that is empowered by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, to adopt an Impact Fee ordinance. (r) "Impact Fee" means a 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. The term does not include a charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review or inspection costs associated with permits required for Development. (s) "Impact Fee Study" means the document entitled the "City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July 3, 2006, prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the City. (t) "Land Use Assumptions" means a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a twenty (20) year period. (u) "Level of Service" means a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for Public Facilities. (v) "Manufactured Home" means a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or is forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq. (w) "Modular Building" means any building or building component, other than a Manufactured Home, which is constructed according to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. (X) "Multifamily" means a building or portion thereof, containing two (2) or more Dwelling Units, excluding attached single-family townhouse units located on individual lots. (y) "Owner" means the person holding legal title to real property, including the local, state or federal government or any subdivision thereof. (Z) "Person" means an individual, corporation, governmental agency, business trust, estate, partnership, association, two or more persons having a j oint or common interest, or any other entity. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 9 (aa) "Present Value" means the total current monetary value of past, present or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials, construction or money. (bb) "Project" means a particular Development on an identified parcel of land. (cc) "Project Improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a Project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the Project. (dd) "Proportionate Share" means that portion of the cost of System Improvements determined pursuant to Section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and Section 10-07-05, Meridian Code, which reasonably relates to the service demands for Public Facilities of a Project. (ee) "Public Facility(ies)" means: (1) parks open space and recreation areas, and related Capital Improvements; and (2) public safety facilities, including law enforcement and fire facilities. (f0 "Service Area" means the territory within the limits of the City and the City's area of city impact. (gg) "Successor in Interest" means a Person who gains legal title in real property for which an Impact Fee is paid or a credit is approved pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance. (hh) "System Improvements," in contrast to Proj ect Improvements, means Capital Improvements to Public Facilities that are designed to provide service to a Service Area including, without limitation, the type of improvements the City has the authority to make as described in Section 50- 1703, Idaho Code. (ii) "System improvement costs" means costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of system improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs attributable thereto, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in Section 50-1702(h), Idaho Code, to provide additional public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. For clarification, system improvement costs do not include: (i) Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities other than capital improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans; (ii) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements; (iii) Upgrading, updating, expanding orreplacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; (iv) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to provide better service to existing development; (v) Administrative and operating costs of the governmental entity unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans, as provided in Section 67-8208, Idaho Code; or IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 10 (vi) Principal payments and interest or other fmance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except fmancial obligations issued by or on behalf of the governmental entity to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-OS -Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees (a) Any application for a Building Permit enabling the construction, and in the case of construction that does not require a Building Permit, any building that takes place on or after the Effective Date of this Chapter shall be subject to the imposition of Impact Fees in the manner and amount set forth in this Chapter. The methodology adopted for the purpose of determining police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees shall be based upon the assumptions set forth in the Impact Fee Study. (b) Impact Fees shall be required as a condition of approval of all residential and nonresidential Development in the Service Area for which a Building Permit is required and shall be payable prior to the issuance of any Building Permit (or installation permit in the case of a Manufactured Home) for a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential building. Except as otherwise provided herein, after the Effective Date of this Chapter, no Building Permit shall be issued until the Impact Fees described in this Chapter have been paid, unless the Development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Section 10-07-08 or approved credits are used to cover the Impact Fee, as set forth in Section 10- 07-09. The Fee Administrator shall have the authority to withhold a Building Permit or stop construction, as the case may be, until the appropriate Impact Fee has been collected. (c) A Feepayor required by this Chapter to pay .an Impact Fee may choose to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to either the Fee Schedule or subsections (d) through (f) below. If the Feepayor chooses to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to subsections (d) through (f) below, such Impact Fee shall be subject to the adjustment described in Section 10-07-09, if applicable. If the Project is a mix of those uses listed on the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fees shall be determined by adding up the Impact Fees that would be payable for each use as if it were a freestanding use pursuant to the Fee Schedule. (d) Individual assessment of Impact Fees is permitted in situations where the Feepayor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the established Impact Fee is inappropriate for the Project. Written application for individual assessment shall be made to the Fee Administrator at any time prior to receiving Building Permit(s). Late applications for individual assessment of Impact Fees may be considered for a period of sixty (60) days after the receipt of a Building Permit only if the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable prior to receipt of a Building Permit and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. Such independent Impact Fee calculation study for the Feepa3•or's Development shall be prepared at the Feepayor's cost by a qualified professional and contain studies, data and other relevant information and be submitted to the Fee Administrator for review. Any such study shall be based on the same methodology and the same Level of Service standards, improvements and costs used in the Impact Fee Study, and must document the methodologies and assumptions used. The City may hire a professional consultant to review any independent Impact Fee calculation study on behalf of the City, and may charge the reasonable costs of such review to the Feepayor. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 11 (e) Any independent Impact Fee calculation study submitted by a Feepayor maybe accepted, rejected or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating Impact Fees. The City shall not be required to accept any study or documentation the City reasonably deems to be inaccurate or unreliable, and shall have the authority to request that the Feepayor submit additional or different documentation for consideration in connection with review of any independent Impact Fee calculation. If such additional or different documentation is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the Impact Fees due in connection with Feepayor's proposed Development than the applicable Impact Fees set forth in subsection the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fee due under this Chapter shall be calculated according to such documentation. (fl The Fee Administrator shall render a written decision establishing the Impact Fees in connection with the individual assessment within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The decision shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fees, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fees are intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the following factors considered: (1) The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; (2) The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; (3) The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; , (4) The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; (5) The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; (6) Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; (7) The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and (8) The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (g) Certification of the Impact Fee for a Project maybe applied for in the following manner: (1) Written application may be made to the Fee Administrator not later than sixty (60) days after Development Approval by the City Council. Late applications for certification of the Impact Fee will not be considered unless the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable until after the time had run and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 12 (2) The Fee Administrator shall provide the Feepayor with a written Impact Fee certification for the Project within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The certification provided by the Fee Administrator shall establish the Impact Fee for the Project in question, so long as there is no material change to the Project as identified in the certification application or the Impact Fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of factors considered, and shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fee, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the factors considered, which factors are identified in subsection (f) above. (h) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination of an individual assessment or certification shall be made to the City as provided further in this Chapter. (i) The City recognizes that there may be circumstances where the anticipated fiscal impacts of a proposed Development are of such magnitude that the City may be unable to accommodate the Development without excessive or unscheduled public expenditures that exceed the amount of the anticipated Impact Fees from such Development. If the City determines that a proposed Development would create such an Extraordinary Impact on the City's police, fire, and/or parks and recreation Public Facilities, the City may refuse to approve the proposed Development. In the alternative, the City may calculate a pro rata share per Dwelling Unit, or square feet of nonresidential buildings, of the Extraordinary Impact and charge a reasonable Extraordinary Impact Fee that is greater than would ordinarily be charged. (j) If the City discovers an error in its Impact Fee formula that results in assessment or payment of more than a Proportionate Share, City shall, at the time of assessment on a case by case basis, adjust the Impact Fee to collect no more than a Proportionate Share or discontinue the collection of any Impact Fees until the error is corrected by ordinance. 1.0-07-06 - Pavment of Impact Fees (a) After the Effective Date of this Chapter all Feepayors shall pay the Impact Fees as provided by this Chapter to the Fee Administrator following application for a Building Permit and prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for a Dwelling Unit, or nonresidential building. (b) All Impact Fees paid by a Feepayor pursuant to this Chapter shall be promptly deposited in the Impact Fee Fund described in Section 10-07-07. 10-07-07 -Impact Fee Funds• Refunds of Impact Fees Paid (a) There is hereby established a police Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all police Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring police Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of police Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 13 (b) There is hereby established a fue Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all fue Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring fire Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of fire Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (c) There is hereby established a parks and recreation Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all parks and recreation Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring parks and recreation Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of parks and recreation Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (d) Each fund shall be aninterest-bearing account which shall be accounted for separately from other Impact Fee funds and from other City funds. Any interest or other income earned on monies deposited in a fund shall be credited to such fund. Expenditures of Impact Fees shall be made only for the category of System Improvements for which the Impact Fees were collected and as identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (e) Except as otherwise provided herein, monies from each fund, including any accrued interest, shall be limited to the financing of acquisition, expansion, and/or improvement of Capital Improvements, or for principal and interest payments on bonds or other borrowed revenues used to acquire, expand or improve such Capital Improvements, necessary to serve new growth and development. Impact Fees in each fund shall be spent within eight (8) years from the date such Impact Fees were collected on afirst-in/first-out (FIFO) basis. The City may hold the Impact Fees longer than the prescribed time period if the City identifies, in writing: (1) a reasonable cause why the Irnpact Fees should be held longer; and (2) an anticipated date by which the Impact Fees will be expended but in no event longer than eleven (11) years from the date the Impact Fees were collected. (fl The Fee Administrator shall prepare quarterly and annual reports to be provided to the Advisory Committee and the City Council, which reports shall: (1) Describe the amount of all Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility; and (2) Describe the percentage of tax and revenues other than Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility. (g) Funds shall be deemed expended when payment of such funds has been approved by the City. The Feepayor or Successor in Interest shall be entitled to a refund of the Impact Fee if: (1) service is available but never provided; (2) a Building Permit or permit for installation of a manufactured home is revoked or abandoned; (3) the City, after collecting the Impact Fee when service is not available, has failed to appropriate and expend the collected Impact Fees; or (4) the Feepayor pays an Impact Fee under protest and a subsequent review of the Impact Fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the Impact Fee paid exceeded the Proportionate Share to which the City was entitled to receive. (h) When the right to a refund exists, within ninety (90) days after the City determines that a refund is due, the City shall provide written notice of entitlement to a refund, to the Owner of record and the Feepayor who paid the Impact Fees at the address shown on the application for IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 14 Development Approval, or to a Successor in Interest who has notified the City of a transfer of the right or entitlement to a refund and who has provided to the City a mailing address. When the right to a refund exists, the City shall also publish the notice of entitlement to a refund within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the eight (8) year period after the date that the Impact Fees were collected. Such published notice shall contain the heading "Notice of Entitlement to Impact Fee Refund." (i) A refund shall include interest at one-half (1/2) the legal rate provided for in Section 28-22-104, Idaho Code, from the date on which the Impact Fee was originally paid. ~) In order to be eligible for a refund, a Feepayor, Successor in Interest or Owner of record shall file a written application for a refund with the Fee Administrator within six (6) months of the time such refund becomes payable under subsection (e) above, or within six (6) months of publication of the notice of entitlement to a refund, whichever is later. If a Successor in Interest claims a refund of Impact Fees, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been transferred to the claimant prior to issuing the requested refund. Refunds shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the date on which the Fee Administrator determines that a sufficient proof of claim for a refund has been made. (k) Any person entitled to a refund shall have standing to sue for a refund under the provisions of this Chapter if there has not been a timely payment of a refund as provided herein. 10-07-08 -Exemptions from Impact Fees (a) The following types of land Development shall be exempted from payment of the Impact Fees imposed by this Chapter: (1) Rebuilding or replacing a Dwelling Unit or the same amount of square feet of a nonresidential structure on the same lot and existing on the Effective Date of this Chapter provided that the rebuilt or replaced Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure does not increase the need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. If such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure was destroyed, such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure must be rebuilt or replaced and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of destruction. (2) Construction of an unoccupied, detached accessory structure, or addition of uses related to a Dwelling Unit unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of System Improvements. (3) Remodeling or repairing a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential structure in a manner that does not increase the need for police or fire or parks and recreation Public Facilities. (4) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot. (b) An Impact Fee will be assessed for installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home unless the Feepayor can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (1) that a Modular Building or Manufactured Home was legally in place on the lot or space IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 15 prior to the Effective Date of this Chapter; or (2) that an Impact Fee has been paid previously for the installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home on that same lot or space. (c) Developments determined by the City Council. that provide Affordable Housing may be exempt from the Impact Fee requirement, provided that the exempt Development's Proportionate Share of System Improvements is funded through a revenue source other than Impact Fees. (1) Current housing affordability guidelines. published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") shall be used to determine whether Dwelling Units in the Development qualify as Affordable Housing. (2) Affordable Housing Projects are required to demonstrate that they will provide Dwelling Units to eligible families based on HUD income and family size guidelines. (3) Providers of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units must demonstrate along-term commitment to provide Affordable Housing for a period of not less than twenty (20) years. (d) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination shall be made as provided further in this Chapter. 10-07-09 -Credits; Reimbursements (a) No Feepayor shall be required to construct, fund or contribute any Capital Improvement to meet the same need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed. All System Improvements constructed, funded or contributed for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed, over and above those required by the City in connection with new development, shall result in either a credit on future Impact Fees or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) for such excess to be paid by future Development that benefits from such System Improvements. However, no credit or reimbursement shall be provided for: (1) Project Improvements; (2) any construction, funding or contribution not agreed to in writing by the City prior to commencement of such construction, funding or contribution; and (3) any construction, funding or contribution of a type of Capital Improvements not included in the calculation of the applicable Impact Fee. (b) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project pursuant to Section 10-07-OS (d) through (f), credit shall be given for the Present Value of all tax and user fee revenue generated by the Feepayor within the Service Area and used by the City for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected. If the amount of such credit exceeds the Impact Fee for a Project, the Feepayor shall receive a credit on future Impact Fees. (c) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project, credit or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) shall be given for the Present Value of any construction of System Improvements or contribution of land or money required by the City from the Feepayor for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected, including System Improvements paid for through local improvement district assessments. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 16 (d) If credit or reimbursement is due to the Feepayor, the City and Feepayor shall enter into a written agreement, negotiated in good faith, prior to the construction, funding or contribution. The written agreement shall include, without limitation: a description of the construction, funding or contribution of System Improvements including, in the case of real property, a legal description of the real property; description as to how the System Improvements are to be valued; the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement; instructions as to how the Capital Improvements should be provided to the City to ensure full transfer of ownership; and the circumstances under which the credit or reimbursement is deemed effective. To assist in such reimbursement, the City shall continue to collect Impact Fees from other Developers whose proposed Developments will benefit from such construction, funding or contribution, and will promptly transfer such funds to the Feepayor. If a Successor in Interest claims a reimbursement or credit, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been conveyed to the claimant prior to issuing the requested reimbursement or credit. (e) Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of Impact Fees of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected in connection with any new growth and development until the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use approved credits is presented to the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the applicable Impact Fee otherwise due from the Feepayor and shall note in the City records the amount of credit remaining, if any. Upon request of the Feepayor, the City shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. If the credit has not been exhausted within eight (8) years of the date of issuance of the first Building Permit for which an Impact Fee was due and payable, or within such other time period as may be designated in writing by the City, such credit shall lapse, unless a refund of the remaining credit is applied for as set forth in Section 10-07-07(j) above. (fl Approved credits or reimbursement shall only be used to reduce the amount of the Impact Fee of the category for which the Impact Fee is otherwise due, and shall not be paid to the Feepayor in cash or in credits against any other monies due from the Feepayor to the City. (g) Credit for land dedications shall, at the Feepayor's option, be valued at: (1) one hundred (100) percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the Ada County Assessor; or (2) that fair market value established by an MAI appraiser reasonably acceptable to the City in an appraisal paid for by the Feepayor. Credit for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall be valued by the City based on complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates submitted by the Feepayor to the City, which estimates shall be revised as actual costs become available. The City shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if the City determines that such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs reasonably acceptable to the City as a more accurate measure of the value of the offered System Improvements to the City. (h) Approved credits for land dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the City in a form reasonably acceptable to the City at no cost to the City, and has been accepted by the City. Approved credits for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall generally become effective when: (1) all required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the City; and (2) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been completed in compliance with all applicable requirements of the IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 17 City. Approved credsts for the construction of System Improvements may become effective at an earlier date if the Feepayor posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit or escrow agreement in the amount and under terms reasonably acceptable to the City. (i) Credit may only be transferred by a Feepayor that has received credit to such Feepayor's Successor in Intere:st_ T'he credit maybe used only to offset Impact Fees for the same category for which the credit was issued. Credits shall be transferred by any written instrument clearly identifying whichc~edits are being transferred, the dollar amount of the credit being transferred, and the System Intprorements for which the credit was issued. The instnunent of transfer shall be signed by both the transferor and transferee, and a copy of the document shall be delivered to the Fee Administrator ~'ordocumentation of the transfer before the transfer shall be deemed effective. 10-07-10 - A The decisions of the ~e;e Administrator may be appealed as provided below: (a) Any Feepayorwho is or may be obligated to pay an Impact Fee, may appeal a decision made by the Fee Administrator in applying this Ordinance to the City Council's designee. Such decisions that may be appealed include: (1) The applicability of an Impact Fee to the Development. (2) The amount of an Impact Fee to be paid for the Development. (3) The availatbility, amount or application of any credit. (4) The amount of any refund, reimbursement or credit. A Feepayor may pay an Impact Fee under protest in order to obtain a Development Approval or Building Permit(s) and, by paying such Impact Fee, shall not be estopped from exercising the right of appeal provided Iserein, nor shall the Feepayor be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deemedto have been illegally collected. Upon final disposition of an appeal, the Impact Fee shall be: adjusted in accordance with the decision rendered and, if necessary, a refund paid. (b) In order to pursue an appeal, the Feepayor shall file a written notice of appeal with the City Council's designee wittiinfiReen (15) days after the date of the decision being appealed, or the date on which the Feepay~rsubmitted a payment of Impact Fees under protest, whichever is later. Such written application shall include a statement describing why the appellant believes that the decision was in error, together with copies of any documents that the appellant believes supports the claim. (c) The City Council's designee shall notify the Feepayor of the hearing date on the appeal, which notice shall be given no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall hear the appeal within tL-rirty (30) days after receipt of a written notice of appeal. The appellant shall have a right to be presecrt and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The Fee Administrator who made the decisiod under appeal shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of the decision. The burden of proof in any such hearing shall be on the IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 18 Feepayor to demonstrate that the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, reimbursement or refund was not properly calculated by the City. (d) The criteria to be used by the City Council's designee shall be whether: (1) the decision or interpretation made by the Fee Administrator; or (2) the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the appellant, more accurately reflects the intent of this Ordinance that new growth and development in the City pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System Improvements for Public Facilities necessary to serve new development. The City Council's designee may affirm, reject or revise the decision of the Fee Administrator, providing written fmdings of fact and conclusions, within fifteen (15) days after hearing the appeal. The City Council's designee shall modify the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, refund or reimbursement only if there is substantial evidence in the record that the Fee Administrator erred, based upon the methodologies contained in the Impact Fee Study, this Ordinance and/or the Capital Improvements Plans. The decision of the City Council's designee shall be fmal. (e) A Feepayor may request that the City enter into mediation by a qualified independent party to address a disagreement related to the Impact Fee for new growth and development. If both parties agree to mediation, costs for the independent mediation service shall be shared equally by the Feepayor and the City. Mediation may take place at any time during an appeals process and any time limitation relevant to an appeal shall be tolled. 10-07-11-Impact Fee Advisory Committee The City has established an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall continue to be composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by the City Council. Two (2) or more members of the Advisory Committee shall be active in the business of development, building or real estate, and two (2) members shall be appointed to the Advisory Committee who are not employees or officials of the City. The Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council and is established to: (1) Assist the City in adopting Land Use Assumptions; (2) Review the Capital Improvements Plans, and proposed amendments, and file written comments; (3) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plans; (4) File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the Capital Improvements Plans and report to the City any perceived inequities in implementing the Capital Improvements Plans or imposing the Impact Fees; and (5) Advise the City of the need to update or revise Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans and Impact Fees. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee, upon request, all fmancial and accounting information, professional reports in relation to other development and implementation of Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements Plans and periodic updates of the Capital Improvements Plans. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 19 10-07-12 -Miscellaneous 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 of this Ordinance. (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) 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: (1) the demand and cost assumptions and other assumptions underlying such Impact Fees are still valid; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) such System Improvements will benefit those Developments for which the Impact Fees were paid. (fl Violation of this Chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in the Meridian City 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 Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho Impact Fee Act, Sections 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 Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect. (i) This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days subsequent to this Ordinance's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon Title 10, Chapter 7, existing on the date hereof, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be repealed. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 20 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 2006. APPROVED: MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 21 EXHIBIT A FEE SCHEDULE 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: Maximum Allowable Fee (Full Cost Recovery Fee) Advisory Committee Recommendation Police Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non-Residential $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot Fire Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non-Residential Parks Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non-Residential $377.00 per Dwelling Unit $300.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.25 per square foot $ 0.20 per square foot $1,384.00 per Dwelling Unit $1,215.00 per Dwelling Unit $ N/A per square foot $ N/A per square foot Total Fees: Residential $1,846.00 $1,600.00 Non-Residential $ 0.31 $ 0.26 This Fee Schedule shall be in effect between , 2006, and December 31, 2007. On January 1, 2008 and on January lst of each year thereafter in which an Impact Fee is in effect, the amount of the Impact Fee shall be automatically adjusted to account for inflation increases in the cost of providing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to serve new growth and development utilizing an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from electing to maintain athen-existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fee or from electing to waive the inflation adjustment for any given fiscal year, or years. Any such action to determine an inflation factor shall be by the City Council resolution. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 22 APPENDIX C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist ~ 7J ~ b ~ Ci v ~ O ~I ~ b •~ O oNo ~ y~ I~1 .,~ o 0 V ~U°' "uu~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ V/ ++ i.i .~ U w en .~ ~ ^ ~ b .~ M ~ y v w+ N U ~ ~ '~ v ON v bA C w ° ~ ~ y U ~ N v y .~ ~ G U ~ °~ ~ a~ v a ~ ~ cd cd ca U ~ o ~tj Q ~Iy ~ ~ ~ W vi v SS v v oo p .O W ~ W 'bp ~ ~' ~ ~ O ~ ~ q ~ p ~,z7 Y ~ LL y v L'. '~ a+ N C3 v y v y ~ ~ U .~i a+ b A :~ N p N "-" ~. • U ~ H LL w U ~ . ~ v v ~ U .b v . U v O ~ ~' ~ ~ v N ,~ ~..~ '° ~ bA O. •~ ~ v~ H ~ b a~ N v O ~ a i v u bA O ' +v+ ti '~ v v C v c~ ~ P. v O v dp U+ •~ ~ .~ ~ W WO ~ v N ~p to Q U ~ 0 + bA •~ O U ~ ' ~ H y O v ~~ 'Cf v ~ y y y 7-I ~ N y.i yy V v O ~ ~ b A. ~ j 1-1 '~ O 0 ~ 5 " ~ ~ ,~ w ~ ~ ~ v O a v ~ en a i '3 ~ O ~ c~ ~ v O ~ N 0 O q~ L a i ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y C ~ v ~ ~ ~ y o ~ ~ ~ ~ v o ~ O bA bA ~ t'' ~ D, n ~ U C ' T " ~ ~ ~ ~ _ v Aa ~ v O C LL ~ ~ q . ~ O j 0 y ,~ ,, ~ O ~ cva W ~ . ~ O v U '~ ~ N cd ~ w .~ 6) - y y D, Q ~..~ ~i ~ y '~ L". O ~ q ~" Lam' w O d v ~ O v c3 ~ ~ ~ v ~' + a H 'C1 .p ~ ~ ~ ,b ,~ ~ ~ O ~ ~!! a^l. • ~ ~ .a yv~ O bO,p ~ ~ y~ N N ^ (V ,Sy ~ a~+ -I v i q A,,, y ~ ~ ~ C~ %~ sr cd W w H -. ~ a U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o o• 'n ~ ~ .a ~ ~ y ~ ~ 'b v O avi G C ~ te ~ ~ y " ~ v C avi U C '~c • .~ U ~"~ Q v s..~~ ,, 1 a «t y a i ~I '~ ~ 'J t'L Q .~ W y U •y ,~ ~ ~ G y' ~' y n O ~ ca :~ ~" v ~ ' ~ U v . ~ v "' pp v bA v bA U ,~ q v bA r j v G. C '~ ~ ..Jt"' ,~ .~ D v ~ O O y y , v c C H~ w ~ r~ V ~ ~ ~ N y N ~V' ~`~. v ~ ~O ~n j~ p ~ f3 ~C M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~~ U ~ '~ (~ 3~-I ~ U ~ O-r~ ~ ~ ( ~ • 7 -I • ~ v • • ~ Q O w o ~ ~ ~ d u ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~+ O Aa ~ ~ v ~ p ~ w,I ~ ~•" y W ~ ~ ~ ci V ~ tV '" U ~ ~ 'O ~/~) ~ ~, ~° p• U o cn ~ ~ p w ~ ~ .. v '%) N .~ L ' g w ~ ~ a ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ +~ o ~ o " o ~ `~ O ~ ~ •v ~+ ~ U o ~ ~ ,d y ~, '~i ~ ~ d= '~ W o N ~ O U ~ y 'C :% cad ~ o . w ~ ~ °" o v ~; N ~ v o ~ ~ . a w ~„~ N N N ~ N Q ..Ny ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ C O ~~ y ~ O bA v C O .C ~ L4 a`~i ~ • ~ ~ '+~ m p ~ ~ ~ c a ~ ~ l 'I `~' w - ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ h A. 0 i . 71 ti 4J v~ (~j.~ . y ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ Q GJ H I 3-I p v .O ``'' ~' 'b ti v °~ ayi ~ p ~ '~ w C .~ CL p y +'7 O ~ o a .~ ,~ i ~ ;~ a ;., y a v ~ ~ :~ ~ p v v ,B ao o a°u ° ,~ y ~ ~ Y a .i . A ~ A y ~ ~ ~ .a O ~ ~ O Aa'G O ~ bA C ~ ~ • U .~ r~,I/ Fil ~ u i" ~ O ~ a~ bA y Q ~, cryry 'O '~ ~' v a~ ' A `"' O u ~ p oo ~.+ ~ C ~ . ~ a) L". ~ ~ ~ ~ y H O ~ Lam` O .~ ." .,'~ 7 ~ b ~ u ' 'O ~; ~ 3 A. ~ :n O am '~ ~ w v `~ ~ .y . q v w ~' ~ ~~ v .~ ~ O O C~ Q O~ O ~" ~ O ~ C ~ +~' 'v ~o ° o ~ a C ~ ~ ~ i ~ O y u ~ 5S ~ i, ~ O v ~ A, ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ v C~ M C O bA y D y 1i h •., -~ p H ~ ~ O b c. . , w O C~ b ~" ~~. ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ °a .~.~ ~ ~~~~w ~ ~~ ~~ APPENDIX D. Current Service Standard Approach The Current Service Standard approach was used to calculate the City's current investment in capital improvement. 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 and Galena Consulting 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 exhibits 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). BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 1 Exhibit 3 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" times the "Shared Facility" percentage. Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets, 2006 Replacement Equity Shared Facility Amount [o. Type of Capital Improvement Value times Percentage (I ~ times (% in fee) equals Include in Fees Infrastructure Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) $4,000,000 45% 100% $1,800,000 Animal Shelter $140,000 100% 100% $140,000 Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios) $99,440 100% 100% $99,440 K-9 Training Facility $400,000 100% 100% $400,000 K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) tz) 5275,000 1 ~°~ 100% 5275,000 Total Infrastructure $4,914,440 $2,714,440 Fee-Related Research I ~ I Impact Fee Study 532,500 100% 33% $10,833 Grand Total $4,946,940 $2,725,273 Note: (7) tgwty percentage reflects tlebt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital improvement outright. (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The cost per acre for the K-9 Training Facility ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. Exhibit 3 lists approximately $4.9 million in replacement costs for the Ciry'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), $2.7 million would be impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX (], PAGE 2 Exhibit. 4 presents the current capital improvements identif ed by City staff for the fire department. Exhibit 4. Current Fire Assets, 2006 Replacement Equity Shared Facility Amountto Type of Capital Improvement Value times Percentage (~) times (% in fee) equals Include in Fees Facilities Fire Staton # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq. ft. (z) $1,851,642 100% 100% (1,851,642 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. ft (zl $1,114,150 100% 100% f 7,114,150 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. ft. (z1 $1,071,420 100% 100% $1,077,420 Fire Station # 4 (2575 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft Rl $1,120,017 100% 100% $1,120,017 Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) $ 357,000 100% 100% $357,000 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 sq. fL Rl (167,000 100% 100% $167,000 Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) f410,000 100% 100% $410,000 1986 Pierce Engine (306) (410,000 100% 100% $410,000 1993 Pierce Engine (304) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2000 Pierce Engine (302) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2002 Pierce Engine (301) f410,000 100% 100% (410,000 2004 Pierce Engine (303) Y410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2006 Pierce Engine (30?) (410,000 100% 100% f410,000 20001ntemationalWaterTender(320) f240,000 100% 100% $240,000 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351j (65,000 100% 100% $65,000 1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342) f65,000 100% 100% $65,000 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) $65,000 100% 100% $65,000 Equipment Opticom Traffic Signal Controls 4200,000 100% 100% f200,000 16 Vehicle Radios $64,272 100% 100% f64,272 4 Base Station Radios $21,200 100% 100% f21,200 Total Infrastructure $9,271,70t E9,277,701 Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% f 10,833 Grand Total f9,304,201 59,282,534 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. (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The City has approximately $9.3 million invested in fire improvement. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly all of the current investment would be impact fee eligible. The cost per acre for fire facilities ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX (J, PAGE 3 Exhibit 5 shows the City's current parks and recreation assets. Exhibit S. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2006 Replacement Equity Shared Facility Amount to Type of Capital Improvement Value times Percentage (t) times (%in fee) equals Include in Fees Paths & Trails (z) Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) 4233,200 100% 700% $233,200 Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) f220,000 100% 100% E220,000 Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) 4165,000 100% 100% f 165,000 Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) $121,000 700% 100% $727,000 Fotfiergil7 Pathway (1.0 Acre) $710,000 100% 100% (710,000 Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) (110.000 100% 100% 8710,000 Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) 427,500 100% 100% f27,500 Neighborhood & Mini-Parks ts> Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres) (2,784,000 100% 100% $2,184,000 Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres) 47,462,500 100% 700% f1,462,500 Season's Park (7 Acres) $1,365,000 700% 100% $1,365,000 Chateau Park(6.75 Acres) (1,316,250 100% 100% $1,316,250 8th Street Park (4 Acres) $780,000 100% 100% $780,000 Champion Park (6 Acres) $570,000 700% 100% 8570,000 Centennial Park (0.5 Acres) $97,500 100% 100% $97,500 Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres) E48,750 100% 100% $48,750 Cox Monument (0.25 Acres) $48,750 100% 100% 448,750 Community Parks ts> Heroes Park(30 Acres) $5,850,000 100% 100% 85,850,000 Tully Park (18.5 Acres) $3,607,500 100% 100% $3,607,500 BearCreek Park (18.5 Acres) $3,607,500 100% 100% E3,607,500 Storey Park (15 Acres) $2,925,000 100% 100% $2,925,000 Urban Parks ts) Meridian Setder's Park Developed (53 Acres) E10,335,000 700% 700% $10,335,000 Total Infrastructure 435,784,450 835,184,450 Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% f10,833 Impact Fee Fund Balance tai FY 2006 Beginning Fund Balance $800,150 100% 100% $800,750 Grand Total 436,017,100 535,995,433 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. (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be f 110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. (3) f195,000/acre in land and development costs, (4) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The City's replacement cost for the current parks and recreation improvements totals approximately $36 million. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly the entire current amount of investment would be impact fee eligible. The cost per acre ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 4 Exhibit 6 displays the City's current distribution of square footage between residential and nonresidential land uses, based on the demographic exhibits in the main report. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the vazious land uses. Exhibit 6. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 Note: (1) May not total due to rounding. Source: City of Meridian, Colliers International Boise and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2005 and Impact Fee Study Team. .Square Percent Land Use Category Feet of Total Residential 44,466,463 _ 87~k Single Family 42,040,244 82% Multifamily 2,426,219 5% Nonresidential 6,544,830, 13% Total (~) 51,011,293 100% Currently, 87 percent of total square footage in Meridian is comprised of residential development and the balance (13 percent) is nonresidential development. Impact fee calculation. Exhibits 7 through 9 present the impact fee calculation based on the improvement costs in Exhibits 3 through 5. 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. Exhibit 7. Calculation of Police Impact Fees Note: (1) See Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets. (2) See Exhibi[ 6. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Calculation of Impact Fees Current Value for Police Infrastructure ~~~ $2,725,273 Current Land Use Percentage (2) Residential 8785 Nonresidential 1396 Costs by Land Use Category Residential $2,376,438 Nonresidential $348,835 Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) 6,544,830 Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $106 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.05 Under the Current Service Standard approach, the City has a current investment in police improvements of $106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot. BBC RESEARCH SZ CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 5 Exhibit 8 below calculates the current investment in fire improvements under the Current Service Standard approach. Exhibit 8. Calculation of Fire Impact Fees Note: (i) See Fxhibit 4. Curtent Fire Assets. (2) See Fxhibit 6. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team Calculation of Impact Fees Current Value for Fire Infrastructure ~~~ Current Land Use Percentage (Z) 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) $9,282,534 8745 1345 $8,094,370 $1,188,164 22,334 6,544,830 $362 $0.18 As of 2006, the City has $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot invested in fire improvements. Exhibit 9 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. Exhibit 9. Calculation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Note: (t) See Fxhibit 5. Current Parks and Recreation Assets. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Impact Fee Calcultion Current Value for Parks tx Recreation ~~~ $35,995,433 Current Land Use Percentage Residential 10045 Nonresidential 046 Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $35,995,433 Nonresidential $0 Current Land Use Residential (total dwelling unitr) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) N/A Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential (perdwelling unit) $1,612 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A The City's current investment in parks and recreation improvement is $1,612 per residential unit. BBC RESEARCH 5T CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 6 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 2006 and 2016 current and forecasted residential land uses for the City of Meridian are based on COMPASS' demographic area as calculated in the Community Choices Forecast.• Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03/21 /06. The basis for the City's nonresidential square footage was Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2005. 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."z 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 Community Choices Forecast.• Households; Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and TraffzcAnalysis Zones, last updated on March 21, 2006. ~ Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), FreguentlyAsked Questions about COMPASS Forecasts. Z 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). The Community Choices forecast was updated this year and, as opposed to the Trend forecast that is updated annually, the Community Choices forecast is slated for its next update in July 2010. 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. Because data are collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), COMPASS states that the demographic area does not "match either city limits or areas of impact boundaries" 3 For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at all, and other TAZs are only partially in the area of impact. However, it is true that Meridian's area of impact contains many of the same TAZs that are in COMPASS' Meridian demographic area. Based on 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. s Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked QuestYOns about COMPASS Forecasts. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 2 City of Meridian Future ~anri Use Map ~., .~ ~, . L, , ~. g.~,_~~., ,_„~ r ~, w ,.(ti,.., ~.A~ N.G yF.~~.~. _,..- lar~md r 1._ ur.~,... ~.~~.. a .},~A ~:..~~.~.. , i.. ..~. i...a ~...,- G'via.v~ys ... NOTES i ~.:1. we.. -.. - u ._ .iu..~.. i Fi,Yia..i.~rn u~::. l.~:p .t6µi?U nwu~s f. 2CtY? e~n ~ - i::nU:l.t~a:m.~~nu'nrrnrra i~. ~. ~_ RN.rn:J Min:%:I Tt{ry rte. : ~ ~. 4 ~: a .n ... ~. . .. ., '" -- i i BBC RESEARCH SL CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3 BBC RESEARCH SL CONSULTING APPENDIX E, RAGE 4 The data below reflect the aggregated Traffic Analysis Zones that create the COMPASS-defined demographic areas in the report Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Tra~cAnalysis Zones. These data were the basis for current and future residential estimates/forecasts. 2005ESifmdes 2016 COmmurtitV Chdces : 1015 Canmurity Choices 2020 CammuMty Ctloices no8raptfleArta . Populalio-n; Househdds Jabs : Popdatron:' HouseMids Jobs". Population Households ' ... Jobs i Populatiolr Heusetloltls .bbs' . Iod SS3I 19L 13.A3f'. 54i~ 132 tfi.A62. 5x4! : 132 1fla9Z . 5d-0~ 1?." 1Li5s r{ralHenrt 01865 174D7 23.868' 0, 0'r 1r7t9 o.9S9! ._ d-.841 tON 25.28: 03411„__ iLS <5.612 vnlaNn 3868'.. 4, 71.7}J :$'a ~ 2762 38138 5,66 3,93 4tA23! 13555 SJ_3 ~3a14 S Ecd 6.583. 3073 55?9 5,7'R ~., 3U9A 6693' 7,07; 3.143 5ia?' 7.335 - 3.370 5,792. ithills _ ____.__,__ 96'7! 384 L'15 11:11 4145. 1]81! 10.515' ___ 1?32 f.81~ SO X13 s.7 I_ARS. MEad 8,075; 837v, 2.253 19,.F5 8055 2414'. 18631 _ 8513 2061 _ ~ t8.839 _ _ . BG6D': 3852 tkxasl _ T _ iB,31k - 729fi 1.135'. -~ 19;518_ ;730 d,587! 2Q, ~5; 8.263 4.or 11 21,128 8,651! S, ficA~' ilhea~ _ 37.fB2 15.02D 18,e29' _ 39 ub'. --- 15.269 19,9;9 40.557! 1ti350 21,041. _ 46.259 _ ~8de9' 22.719 dhtves! 3314}; 11035 3741: ' 33556', 131}73 f059t~ 427211 W,125 122:x1, ; 44,044 ?0558! 115"e7 98¢nch 67360 1s 5a d1.D45 6`0 48 ;:5510 45.87 "sf4 28,455 9-628 509 5 ~ 49,213 se Talat T-27607 _ 924 155,171 214985 99092 110020 ~ 20 977 10 274 L 050 _ 2790 1p9481~ 197.821' e~_ ~- 19,11(1 61 2l ~ , 7r,315 7 35579 25851 81 31 _ - ZA,216~ 4619 584' ~~-~~~- - -_~ .. . ti 7018 ~ 11919 ,ta ~ }7472 cl 1G3 _- __ ~7.e:S - 721{ 1937 : 21090 f9 407 ~Tdal, '. _.. _ 77Jri., _. 11tt~___.75T ' 32291 __.1x861) ..369! , $11~i -. ~-~ -_ Pi5?5!. . 3,419 . -62 '. (=enter VAenden 10.. r,>_ _. 1 9 a_ 1-.' z ___ ar. 151 r 'tn9 51.oyA 1TFN7 2g.?(~. sr,_62 -- 57 , si5 INaNMerd al _ ---- -~--- ;2117 --. a :; I. __~...--~- - = ,, ~ n t6] - ro, ^ .._,y ;~ ~7 -- g3.; 'f souN Merrdlan 9.x15 - 7GfiC ' ~ i - 2328. _ F - ~ - - s _ . _. ~ ° =f '.~~d - -.;•C- ,,. B2,997r . _ 21~-1PAPJ3~ ____80,16~_:_ _ 26r9Ai~ ~ _ X105,285 1i,71~~~T1>i~ it1517Ar.. _ ' 08`r,Si~; _3Fy ,FoaMlls Ru ai 29dt 1 bs 2~. s 0 ~! ~ 29Z: S,w3 1,281 bt nx, I ~i ;98, ___, _____, NartFoest Rural ___ __ 3,55 . _.__ 120°. 593 __ 58 5 - _-~ _... _____ i 3 697 __-Y 1x,129 _._ _____. 2987 ,118: _ ._ 0320 ____. ~ 3a~, 1,21 awlheasl Rural 21 t; B9. 735. >41 ~. 102. 747 "s58 109 747 291 121 -rvthwesl Real _ _ _ 5895 - 1961 1,541 e9 238 15rJ _ ~_ Bari ' >764 ifi13 9783 3193 19:3 iRunl foal ~ _ u eon _ _ 1 Js- 3111 ~_,_fs,fifi4 a.JOi s,Jao. i sD~~ T.os~ J,rra _ 2 A~1 __ ~ 9a~ e;ois Aaa COUnN TOta1 357918'; 134.366; 1881970 i01~,8 ••19 109,9iz 241.988'. J50~856~ 168,96 237573 x91723 182,_,554 957,y42f '. 'CentN Ca#x¢d _ .0.66; ~ 3..779 3.2DS. ~ 10.8=0i _ x,011 3,270: '__ 1L7f0; 4,323 3365; 12,491 d,807~ 3.516 '~,Dwrnlven Caldn~ell 4.4821 1503 d,l3t d,53i'; 1,51 4: 5.057 ' 4.739; 1,593 5514'':, _ 5,528. _ 1,809^5,631 ~' NaAheasi CJldyNi '. 9,74), 332D 20;5 ~, 15123' S 53 33!8' 17, 144 5,537 5177! ~'~ '~,F.atlh Caldn~e9 __ 8,745! Z. s5 6ffi' 11G°0: 5805 771' 13 rr5 4_87 i. Tip: ! ~WestCaldwell ~CatdVrdlTUai ,_, 6193 _ ]8,71 - _ 2123 _ 5.393 13816„ 11,78E o9t0 ~ __1$4fi8 _ - _-_ 2388 3593': 1698P 1Q075; 9305 _53,9773 _____ _- 2863 9507: . 79,189; 1$772 . 'Dw,ntaen Narcpa_... __.:.. 5,681: 2202 3525 6.GEA _ 3.781 3.963': __„6.550_ , _ ___2557 ___5Q02i ':. :East tJampl_ _ +6,01 i'', 5301, 6,634 0657 590 8 e?! 20,056, 6,683. 106%I ' 7ddMtdampa_ _ i 761'.. r-7 .. , . .r0_ 5,121 13.139 .. 4591 t0 196'. _-_. 1A. D52, .. _ 6.o.SS. 17074! ,: ~. Sarih Eaatdamya__ 2?977: - 7.567 3,638 - ?1314: - ;:93 4.0x1. s. P_Y 4L'd 5281 ' ;Nell Planya 51 fd6 11 D99 4,818 -3.493, - 12 98 5.643. 38619 19551 10553: Hem YTaQaI T _ 83818 289Y1 27 ~ 97092 73 391! ,36 7f? _ iDT4Jt _ 3P 17921 iWess qurat Crcenleaf Total ` _ BoutftRtlrY•Mdbr:Tatef f~. 1217 . 1,7101 : 7&7 4t 1A 1n 1155 _ .._._1716[ ' 053 115 292! _ X928 2.0A2~1 _ fi00 192 N~ 251 - ~ iNOMwest Rrral-Parma Tdnl i 1581' S77t t50. r 2131 778 287 .7,531 12881 6fi3 eARUeI•iglld~Yoml -1:. 16, . 4 75 _ : 1,019 - ~.. 567 222! :1682 _ 71 IdarUea.t RUrl islai 9.~6 3.'294_ 1435 1:).951 37-9 L'3: _ .. 1129 ^_afG' 12259 a2+i 3.1s I r.or~':ev Rural r,x~ s.7as 167x1 sn: 6.]79 ~,6 :~; ~ _ _-- ~ 15i~ , Ise' s;,7 ,a,.. '~ Zee _ath Rmal T'__.___ ____..._ x7 tca or.3. 1,339. 1a 3.° -_. __. _ 4..' 1,763 bG - 3,C:;D 1s3;; ;"td _ S,t4' ' 110 ''. . "'~st Rural Trial LtBF Q?~0' - 1 i?tq. a;rA, ~m37 rn?! ____ - _ _n=. -'? Ruxl'9afi.,J. •::" ~:,~. , ud~-:,__. tiiS--1~-.Ir'2 _ -... •:: ,1] !~{ 5~ ~8i~r ®~".6~ [A~ , ~ „s' ~~~?~ CanVOn COUMr_T_o[_af 167 ~ 57,55}_. x4437 2116411, , 68.854 54.T6S . 225.307 77.695 75~ _ • ;~2d^009_ . 3 83.711 98,373, ~R¢glonal Trial ,.___ 525y466;,____ _191_,r914 7J7y77_ _____60y260,_ 218,571 271,672'_ ~`_680,769~ _ 216,391 709 5, _ ____73d~,,,,631___ __ 266_736; 7A6~95..! 'Jnlr, tlo nut Tclud¢ pduGtim ¢mploymed, the m9~.i u;es n,mter 9f ~iudenl; to estimate Nips. ' Cd991A93 documsnt: Communsy Choices korxast Narse'toks, Popula[an arrdEmppymert by OerravgrapiNC8reas and rank Rna7ys1s2:anes~Excel Vrarisahe¢I, Vpdred 7'2172406). According to COMPASS' Community Choices report, the population in Meridian in 2005 was 62,997, households totaled 21,330 and there were 19,498 jobs in the demographic area. The data presented above are x112005 numbers. Data are only provided for 5-year increments beginning in 2005. Therefore, the study team calculated the annual percent change between 2005 and 2010 to estimate residential data in 2006. The study team used the same approach to calculate data for 2016 (necessary for the Capital Improvement Plan approach).4 4 Annual percent change = ((In(new population)-ln(old population))/number of years BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 5 The final table portrays how the study team arrived at 2006 and 2016 residential data. Residential Calculation for 2006 and 2016 Annual Annual Percent Change Percent Change 2005 2006 (2005-2010) 2010 2015 2016 (2015-2020) 2020 Population 62,997 66,029 4.8% 80,136 103,285 127,102 23.1% 114,479 Households 21,330 22,334 4.7% 26,992 34,747 35,469 2.1% 38,552 Jobs 19,498 20,514 5.2% 25,299 30,818 31,888 3.5% 36,660 Source: COMPASS Community Choices forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. 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 bt CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6 w x 0 z w Q 0 cV ~" "'C7 cb O v O .-[ ,-i N C O v II. m .-, n N v cd ~3 cC '~ .~ N O N C ~-+ V Z H J z 0 V The table below presents the annual percent change between 2025 and 2030, which is used to estimate residential data in 2026. Residential Calculation for 2026 Annual Percent Change 2025 2026 (2025 -2030) 2030 Population 127,163 128,772 1.3% 135,466 Households 42,761 43,329 1.3% 45,701 Jobs 42,814 43,647 1.9% 47,187 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact fee Study Team. The demographic data in 2026 are as follows: 128,772 persons, 43>329 households and 43,647 jobs. Nonresidential Data Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, 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 10,000 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 2003 that were less than 10,000 square feet in size. As of March 2006, on average, 21 percent of the City's newly permitted commercial units were less than 10,000 square feet. The following exhibit shows the Ciry data that were used to quantify the proportion of units less than 10,000 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 10,000 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, 10,000 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 10,000 or less. > 1 = "yes" (the average of all units was 10,000 square feet or less); 0 = "no" (the average of all units was not less than 10,000 square feet). 3) Tabulate the total square footage of the "qualifying" months with unit averages of 10,000 square feet or less. > Total square footage of "qualifying" months = 898,780 4) Determine the proportion of total square footage that can be attributed to buildings that are 10,000 square feet or less. > 898,780 total square feet of "qualifying" months / 4,186,186 total square feet of all commercial buildings = 21 percent. Knowing that 21 percent of the City's new commercial square footage was less than 10,000 square feet, the study team deduced that Colliers tabulation thus represents 79 percent (100 percent -21 percent) of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. The study team arrived at the final (2006) nonresidential square footage in Meridian by dividing Colliers number (5,170,416 square feet) by 79 percent. This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006. 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 2016. Currently, there are 20,514 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet totals 6,544,830. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs produces a ratio of 319 square feet per employee in 2006 (6,544,830 / 20,514).' 5 This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time. The 319 square feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING f~PPENDIX E, RAGE 10 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2016. 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 ofjobs in 2016 (31,888) is multiplied by the square footage per employee calculated on the previous page (319). This produces a total of 10,173,758 nonresidential square feet in 2016. See the spreadsheet below for details on the calculation of current and future nonresidential square footage. Current Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation Current Square Footage Calculation Total SFT per Colliers Report (all buildings greater than 10,000 SFT) 5,170,416 Total SFT including units over 10,000 SFT (see below for calculation) 6,544,830 Calculation of Total Current SFT 5,170,416 (Colliers) + x (SFT total of units less than 10,000) = y (total SFT) x = .21 y (21 percent of total square footage is less than 10,000 -see City data spreadsheet) Substitute y for x 5,170,416+.21y=y 5,170,416 = y-.21 y 5,170,416 = .79y 5,170,416/.79 = y y = 6,544,830 6,544,830 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005 and City of Meridian. Future Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation Future Square Footage Calculation 2006 Total SFT per Employee Employment 2006 SFT (2006 Employment/ 2006 SFT) 20,514 6,544,830 319 2016 2016 SFT Employment (2016 Employment *SFT per Employee) 31,888 10,173,758 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 11 AI~PENDIX F. Communities in Motion ~°~/'\ R d~ri I C.J P-J ,~. I I O i`d iv - i : M fV Ci t: ~~ /~ P+: 5 K' C] i~ I' ~ ". 9 F t ; i~t i> E r1 iJ ~~ p 3 C) Communities in Motion Executive Summary VISION We envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities are connected by an innovative, effective, multi-modal transportation system. GOALS Connections -Provide options for safe access and mobility in acost-effective manner in the region. Coordination -Achieve better inter-jurisdictional coordination of transportation and land use planning. Environment -Minimize transportation impacts to people, cultural resources, and the environment. Information -Coordinate data gathering and dispense better information. The Pressure of Growth The Co~nmzrtaitie.r in Motion: Regional L.ong- Range Transportation Plan considers future transportation needs for Ada, Canyon, Gem, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties - a diverse region with cities ranging in size from less than 100 residents to more than 200,000. Commuting from Gem, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties into Ada and Canyon counties has increased over the past 20 years. In 2000, more than half of Boise County's working population commuted into Ada or Canyon County. For Gem County, that percentage was 37 percent. Other travel pressures exist. Recreational travel is affecting Boise County, while Payette County faces heavy truck traffic along U.S. 95. But the traffic problems of today will pale in comparison to the problems in 2030. `SVhy? In part, because of population growth. The six-county region had slightly over 500,000 residents in 2000 according to the United States Census. By 2030, the population may swell to nearly 1 million or more. Jobs will increase as well and the location of these jobs will be critical. Many of the new Gem County residents make the commute into Treasure Valley via S.H. 16. Imagine that commute in 2030, when Gem County's population could double. Growth and what it means for our region's future is the reason for Co7aamunities ira Motion. Growth Scenarios This section relates to Question #1 on the comment form COMI'~SS and the Communities in Motion planning process made an extensive effort to look at how our region might develop. Using input from the public, agencies, elected officials and others, COhIP~SS developed t~vo growth scenarios: Trend and Community Choices. The Trend scenario reflects our future if we keep developing as we have over the past 40 years. Under Trend, much of the residential growth is at three units or so per acre. Growth will continue at current densities and will occur at the urban fringe, eventually consuming most of the land between the current cities. Community Choices, the preferred alternative in the draft plan, is a growth alternative that consumes less land, leaves more open space, offers housing choices and fosters the use of alternative transportation. Community Choices clusters growth inside the areas of impact, and emphasizes higher densities and mixed-uses with jobs, shopping and services closer to homes. Trend Communit Choices 125,400 acres 42,200 acres 72% single family 55% single family 20% new homes at transit density 52% new homes at transit density 20.7 Million Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel 19.6 Million Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel This table compares these two scenarios. Both scenarios provide for the same amount of growth. Community Choices: Provides a greater diversity of housing choices, such as patio homes, town homes, and apartments Increases the number of new homes at transit density, encouraging effective alternatives to driving Cuts 1 million daily vehicle miles of travel, easing traffic congestion and reducing fuel consumption Transportation Systems Proposed Communities in Motion focuses on two broad areas of investment: Transit and Roadways. Transit This section relates to Question #2 on the comment form The Community Choices scenario is much more likely to support transit, walking and biking. Two basic services could be feasible: 1) Fixed-guideways that could be light rail, commuter rail or bus rapid transit services. Fixed-guideways offer higher- speed transportation on separate travel 2 ways -areal benefit when the streets are congested. 2) Scheduled fixed-route services (buses operating on specific streets) that tie into the guideway systems. For most of the region covered by Cona~unitie.r in Motion, there is no bus service for the general population. Community Choices would increase transit services more than 10 fold. It would increase peak hour frequency to 15 minutes, expand Saturday services and add Sunday services. Commuter bus services would be implemented to Elmore, Payette, Gem and Boise counties. A rail or other fixed- guideway service would be implemented between Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and Boise with a bus rapid transit service between Eagle and Boise. Since most of the growth under Trend would be at densities that could not effectively support scheduled bus services it was not practical to propose a major expansion of services. Under Trend, there would be less than 400 hours of scheduled bus service per day, within the Treasure Valley area. Service would not exist on Sundays and would be greatly reduced on Saturdays. Even on weekdays, the service only would operate 12 hours per day, with a 30- minute interval in peak hour (6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m.) service. xo~d~~y~- This section relates to Question #3 on the comment form Roadway improvements will take place on regional corridors. These corridors are described in Chapter 4. Highlights: ^ S.H. 16 will be a major north- south expressway by 2030, connecting Gem County and I-84 ^ S.H. 44 will be improved to five lanes, including a bypass south of Middleton and frontage and backage roads ^ State Street will be a major transit corridor connecting Eagle into downtown Boise ^ U.S. 20/26 (Chinden) will be `videned and have enhanced access management. It could be an expressway from Caldwell to McDermott Road or further east. ^ I-84 between Caldwell and Gowen Road will be at least three to four lanes in each direction ^ Greenhurst-Lake Hazel will be a five-lane arterial connecting Middleton Road and I-84 Interchanges, overpasses and rail crossings are part of the corridor plan. ~~ith investment in roads and transit, the future network will be 23 percent over capacity by 2030, instead of 43 percent if Trend continues. r~bout 5 percent of the major roads are over capacity today. Financial Reality This section relates to Questions #2 and #3 on the comment form is realistic plan acknowledges financial realities. The federal government requires that the long-range plan include investments that reasonably close to our estimated revenues. Furthermore, we can't claim the entire pot for new projects. At least half the transportation funding will go into operations and maintenance. So when you look at the corridors in Chapter 4, you are going to see projects that can be funded with our available resources as well as those that cannot. Funding for transportation comes from three general sources: federal funds, state highway distribution account and local funds. Chapter 5 describes the source of funds used for transportation. The bottom line is that whether federal, state or local funds are involved, most of the dollars come from some kind of tax. Funding is not equally available, either. In some counties, there are very few resources in place to build new major roads. Our region is $629 million short of funding all the roads. For transit, we are $1.1 billion short. We started with a pot of $350 million, and most of the future costs of service will be for operations and maintenance. `~1hat do these large numbers mean for a resident of our region? The total shortfall could be met with additional revenues of less than X200 per household per year. Another way of looking at it would be by tax or fee effort. Such sources could raise the entire $1.7 billion needed for roads and transit. Vlore information can be found in Chapter 5. funds Needed Final Thoughts ~ plan is not a solution. It is a guidebook. Where do we want to be? How might we get there? What are the opportunities and costs? Implementing the plan is essential so it doesn't end up as another dusty document on a shelf. Between now and the next update in 2010, we will need to focus our efforts on putting our vision and goals into effect. The Trend scenario is already occurring. If we don't move forward with Conanauraitie.r in Motion it means we are willing to accept Trend. 4 APPENDIX G. Collier's Year-End Real Estate Market Review Year-End Real Estate Market Review ~flt;~ 1=~til Ir~d~sirial Ir~~~~tr~~r~t I ~r~c r~ Valle COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL o~,V'Sbl~n~o a z ~ ~ -- _ _~ AVE. J~/3 D ~~ G ~ K ~ Z Z z J Q ~ z O w C O ji U O w O N ~ a- 2 } W F Y F Q Q J Year~End 2Q0.5 Colliers International is pleased to present our 2005 year-end Market Report. 2005 was a very active and productive year for commercial real estate across the Treasure Valley. It was the first full year since the 2001 downturn in which the market was in full economic recovery. With a very strong population growth rate through- outthe valley and Conti Hued historic low unemployment, the market is not only showing strength, but the grovvth is healthyand sustainable. The office market has remained strong in downtown Boise. Class A vacancies were under 7%throughout 2005. The strong office market is positioned to finish absorbing new condominium space in the mixed-use Bobo development and the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, which is presently over 35% leased, and will be completed mid-year. The retail market can be described as strong and stable, with vacancies staying around 11 %overthe lasttwo years. While unanchored shopping centers have experienced some difficulties during 2005, activity remains strong around anchored centers. The Treasure Valley Marketplace at the Karcher interchange in Nampa will continue to be the big retail project in the valley during 2006 and 2007, with major tenants Costco,Target,and Kohl's alreadycommitted. The past year was an incredible year for multi-family real estate investment transactions, with over one million square feet and $69 million dollars in consideration. Cap rates for multi-family investment transactions inched down to 6.4% as Boise approached national rates. The investment market demand for industrial, retail, and office properties will continue to be high in 2006, as it was last year with local cap rates still above national rates, butthis margin is rapidlyshrinking. One of the most dramatic changes from 2004 to 2005 occurred in the industrial market, with vacancies tightening and prices starting to rise in the fourth quarter aftertwo years of stagnant growth. One of the biggest harbingers of 2006 was the announcement of the sale of one of the former Zilog buildings in Nampa to Micron, a 160,000 square foot building which will even furthertighten the market vacancy. The residential housing market was front and center in the Treasure Valley economy during 2005. Fears of a housing bubble burst in the valley have largely been dismissed, due to the continued population growth that is driving demand for new housing and the current lack of a buildable lot inventory. Last year was definitelythe bestforcommercialand residential real estate in recent memory. As we start 2006,a11 signs point to an equally good if not even better year. We at Colliers look forward to working with you again this year to provide you with superior real estate services. ~~ George Miff Managing Principal (~czliir-,:rr; Fw=«.~cr~, Lt_t, ~ " ' } ~) F ,~,~g, r~a~ ~ _ ~ ~ :_ ~: ~ The Boise market experienced declines in office vacancies and constant absorption throughout 2005. Vacancies in downtown Boise have finally dropped below the ten percent (8.1% Downtown and 9.5% Downtown Periphery) barrier that it has "~- been flirting with for the last year and a half, and class A direct vacancies have tightened to 6.7%. Leasing activity has been solid ~ in the downtown area and is expected to remain strong in the L, downtownZ and selected suburban areas during the first ~ quarter of 2006. The West Bench and Meridian submarkets, which includes the area around the Boise Towne Square Mall, have seen ~ the most leasing activity outside of the downtown area. One V anomaly in the Boise market is the lack of upward pressure on rents. Rents have been increasing at rates lower than would be o expected in an environment where there are both declining vacancies and rising construction costs. Lack of upward pressure ~:,. on rents has also made it more difficult to get new office building projects off of the ground. :~ _. ;,.tt ~ . ~ s Vacancies have tightened up dramatically in both downtown and suburban markets around Boise. The downtown central business district is currently at 8.1 % with downtown class A vacancy now at 6.74'0. The vacancy rate across all submarkets is 11.5%. Eagle continues to have one of the highest office vacancy rates among non-downtown submarkets at 25.1%, in part because of high rents and the low level of new construction as a percentage of the total in that submarket. Over the last year and a half it has been apparent that class A space downtown has been decreasing due to tenants seeking better quality space and the underlying strong economics of the valley. The only significant recent office projects have been office space in Bobo that was completed in the 4th quarter of 2005 and the 180,000 Banner Bank building which will be coming on-line in mid-2006. The market's ability to absorb the Banner Bank building will test whether the declining vacancies are due mostly to a lag in new space coming online, or if the market is really ready to absorb the new space. in either case, the downtown vacancy will more than likely stay the same or lower slightly over current levels as the new space is absorbed in 2006, but vacancies will remain low from a relative standpoint. 2005 OFFICE OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE Office Inventory by Submarket ^ Sot 9% Northwest 1% ~~ ®Central Bench 13% 35% 30°0 zs°r v v v zoso 6 ts~o t o% s% o% Office Vacancy by Submarket Eagle 2% ^ Meridian `8% `°~~ reel ~c~ o ;e ~~ O°~ cQe ~`Ya o~ Le c` o'~ 0 S2s.00 Szo.oo St s.oo Sto.oo Ss.oo So.oo ~e5~ zay~ eye ~~ A~ ac ta\ ~ ~ Average Office Asking Rates by Class ''~ cr el 5~ ,~~ 5` c`c ~e ~ ' c re °' c~ ~ ~~ e r~ ,°e e ry~ ec ~aA ° `a. ~ ¢` ~\ ` ~ J ~~ e O° cQ c`a ~° ~° ~° S1es ~ oy' L¢ c` ~ O° ^ Southwest ®West Bench 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 208.345.9000 ~ www.tolliersidaho.com ^ Dovntown ~ Periphery ^ Downtown 16% 29% ,rr . ._ a t ... . r .. „~ .. a.,.. ,m _ - Market asking rates for available. office listings are analyzed to get a feel for what the market will tolerate. While vacancies have been tightening across the valley, quoted rental rates have only inched up slightly. Current annual full service rents average $15.52 per square foot across ail submarkets, while Eagle continues to have the highest average asking prices at $20.74. Class A space in downtown Boise is averaging $18.67 which is only up slightly from July 2005's average rate of $18.44. Office spaces in the Central Bench and Northwest submarkets have the lowest asking prices at $13.59 and $13.30 respectively. All these figures are effectively higher by $1 to $3 because of inadequate tenant improvement allowances in most new buildings. If a tenant wants a deal, they must look to second generation space so as to avoid these tenant improvement costs. Increasingly, the market is seeing full service rents offered to potential tenants in vvhich janitorial service is excluded. Colliers International monitored the gap between full service rents with those excluding janitorial service and found tl~e over- all market difference to be $1.16 ($15.52 verses $14.36). ,~ a ~~~~~ ,_. a ,. ~a~ ,, ... , ..., .. z,. . A key indicator of the depth in the Boise office market in 2006 will be the rate of absorption of a new 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building in the heart of downtown. The successful leasing of this new space may signal other significant downtown building projects to move forward during 2006. One main growth feature of Boise is the rapid population expansion to smaller cities west of Boise. In these areas, several newer large suburban office and business parks will continue to see strong leasing activity, and construction in western suburban locations may lag behind demand. Demand will continue to be high in 2006 in suburban markets for businesses looking to own smaller buildings in the 2,500 - 7,500 square foot range. Vacancy by Suhmarkur 9 . ~ ~ ~ • , ., Downtown 3,351,714 263,044 15,971 279,015 55 8.3% Downtown Periphery 1,931,440 171,564 12,075 183,639 50 9.5% Central Bench 1,501,206 155,142 155,142 57 10.3% Northwest 157,293 30,629 30,629 5 19.5% Southeast 1,045,982 94,930 94,930 28 9.1% Southwest 433,063 63,002 63,002 19 14.5% West Bench 2,131,175 171,917 139,865 311,782 81 14.6% Ea le 262,005 65,770 65,770 14 25.1 Meridian 956,962 •:~~ 162,974 4,962 167,936 ;. 30 175"', VacancyRateincludessubleasespace Direct Vacancy Rate(exclerdingsubleasespace)=10.0% SOURCE: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Fuii Sarvira ~ckinn Rafne Fw Ruilrlinn f Ix~ Average FuIlService Asking Rates By _ ; I. ~~p' `' • • • • ~ , All Classes $15.19 $15.28 $13.59 $13.30 $16.50 $16.50 $15.24 $20.74 $17.67 $15.52 Class 'A' $18.67 $16.27 $15.50 n/a $17.67 $16.50 $16.13 $20.17 $18.20 $17.21 Class 'B'and's' $14.20 $14.04 $13.50 $13.30 $15.92 n/a $13.67 n/a $16.20 $14.26 une 'ti' bwldmg vacancy listed at 52.00 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Office Services George Iliff 208.472.2858 .~ ~ a. ~; •: ~vvn~c. LvLLICK~IIV ItKIV fiIIVIV HL 208.472.2842 ~~` ~.. -~ ~: j •: /m(7 1V e-!• ~.~: L .~ .N LL With ongoing residential growth expected in the southwest and western Treasure Valley through 2006, retail-oriented commercial real estate N/ili remain active and growing through 2006. Fears of a housing bubble in the Boise residential market have been largely ameliorated and that should secure a certain amount of retail growth overthenext several years. 2005 saw the beginning phases of a full overpass and interchange at Karcher Road in the city of Nampa and the development of the 65-acre Treasure Valley Marketplace northeast of the interchange. 2005 saw the opening of a new Edward's Cinema, P.F. Chang's, Ann Taylor Lcft, Joseph A. Banks, and numerous other new tenants as part of the Bobo redevelopment in downtown Boise. 2005 also saw the explosion of unanchored strip centers throughout the Treasure Valley. While most have been successful to date, there are warning signs that this segment of the market could encounter some setbacks in 2006. :~ ~. ~~ Colliers currently tracks 10.3 million square feet in retail centers, 10,000 square feet or larger throughout ten individual markets that include the cities of Boise, Meridian, Eagle, and Nampa. The West Bench of Boise, which includes the area around the mall, represents 25% ar over 2.5 million square feet of the inventory that Colliers monitors. This area remains a center of retail activity. .~~ ~ ~.N. Vacancy rates within theTreasureValley retail centers 10,000 square feet or larger have been very stable over the past six months, moving from 10.9% in July to 11.1% at the year's end. Over the past year, vacancies have shown some upward trend, increasing from 10.1% at the end of 2004. Vacancies have remained the highest in the northwest portion of Boise over the last six months, with current vacancy at 22.4%. The next highest vacancy is in Garden City at 16.8%. Eagle vacancy has increased slightly to 6.5% compared with 2.4% vacancy measured in July of 2005. ~s to Asking rates overall have only increased slightly since July and have been stable over the year. Retail market asking rates averaged $13.49 in July and currently average $13.70. This is just slightly higher than 2004 year-end estimates of $13.61. Top _ average asking rents are being seen in the North End of Boise ($18.25) and Southeast Boise ($17.45}. Nampa continues to see ~ the highest single asking rates with a $28 rent seen near the end of 2005. The lowest retail asking rates are currently being seen in the Central Bench area of Boise, which includes the area between €a I-84 and I-184. Retail Inventory by Submarket ec S~~ ~e Absorption Ranking by Submarket v i s.oo ~, a i o.ao 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 ~ Boise, Idaho 83702 ~ 208.345.9000 8 www.colliersidaho.com E Retail Vaeancy Rates & Asking Rents It is no surprise thatthe most active areas for retail during 2005 were the West Bench area in Boise, which includes the area around Boise Towne Square and Meridian. The West Bench mall area had a net absorption of over 100,000 square feet and Meridian followed closely behind with 90,000 square feet. a;;. ~. ~ : ~ ~~ ~ - Activity will be the strongest in Canyon County, at the Treasure Valley Marketplace and the Wal-Mart/Sam's Club developments. Including the anchor retailers, over 800,000 square feet of retail will be under construction by year's end. With the success of Bobo in downtown Boise, look for more mixed-use projects to be announced with retail office and residential components. Meridian will have at least two new projects with Kohl's anchoring one of the developments. Year-End 2005 2006 RETAIL OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE Expanded December 2005 Retail Statistics ~ =~f~iEf~B 3t ~, ~~ INVENTORY "' ~ ~""~ ~~.~,~ ~ '' RENTS 't `' ~ LOW HIGH _ AVERAGE _ Central Bench 1,024,018 135,068 13.2% $4.00 $17.00 $10.10 20 North End 199,010 9,503 4.8% $18.00 $18.50 $18.25 6 Northwest 442,037 98,891 22.4% $8.00 $15.35 $12.91 7 Southeast 1,294,713 190,85 7 14.7% $10.25 $ 23.00 $17.45 26 Southwest 1,154,539 77,089 6.7% $8.00 $21.00 $13.50 19 West Bench /Mall 2,567,428 353,243 13.8% $4.50 $24.00 $12.85 36 Ea le 443,170 28,933 6.5% $1 1.00 $17.50 $13.58 10 Garden City 512,953 86,022 16.8% $8.00 $13.00 $1 1.73 8 Meridian 1,877,786 91,205 4.9% $7.00 $20.00 $14.00 24 Nampa • • 809,397 10,325,051 73,004 ~ 9.0% '~ $7.00 $8.58 $28.00 $19.74 $12.45 $13.70 1c ~~~~~ 16.0 1 2.0 c ~ a v ~ 8.0% a~ a ,l .' ' S.2% 4.0% Percentage Vacant 12.8% 11.6% ~`' s~~ o ~ ~' ' 10.2 % ~, ~~ 1.6 % -'' 0 10.9 /o v ; v ~ ~, ~, ~ `~ ,,~ ~ 10.1/0 ~°, ,_ - , ..-- •~ ~~10.8% ~.~ 11.1 10.0% 10.2% ~ ` " y 9.9% 8.8% 8.9% 9.0% ~ ~. Fp ~. F~ ~. 99 9- L 9' L 9- ~ x.99 I9 ~p~ ~p ~p .9 ,g O OO ~ F a O~ ~3` °s 208.472.2847 ==a ~ e <::;l~er, i''ar~:gf_n, L.i.C Industrial Inventory by Submarket .t.r L c~ G .~ =F-+ {.~~:gFa,,l, ,j~~ v:C.tb Boise is still experiencing rapid residential and retail growth and, as well, the industrial market continued to expand during 2005. After a couple of stable years, the industrial market has experienced tightening vacancies with upward pressure on prices starting to be felt. Industries such as flooring, glass, roofing, and other construction-related businesses were active seekers of industrial space in the Boise market during 2005. Asking rates are on the rise, land availability is diminishing, and overall, the Boise Industrial market is healthy. I Colliers International tracks nearly 23 million square feet of industrial properties in buildings 10,000 square feet or larger. Nampa, with 4.5 million square feet, and the West Bench area of Boise, with 4.3 million square feet, are the largest submarkets that Colliers monitors. Meridian and Nampa have the highest industrial vacancy rates in the Valley,due primarilytothree largevacant manufacturing plants. Meridian is currently at 17.8% vacancy. Key vacancies in Meridian include the former Jabil building at 357,000 square f eet and 29,000 square feet in the Taylor West building. Nampa's industrial vacancy is currently at 13.8%. Vacancies include the 268,000 square feet in the former Zilog buildings; however, Micron's purchase of one of these buildings is imminent. The lowest industrial vacancy is currently in the Garden City Submarket with vacancy at 1.9%. Garden City was one of the most active areas of the Valley in 2005, even though its inventory is small at 800,000 square feet. ® Eagle 0.79% ^ Caldwell 8.38% ~ West Bench 18.89% ^Southwest 3.58% Garden City 3.67% / ~ Meridian / 10.16% ~ Nampa 19.79°~0 ®Airport 1 1.34% ^ Southeast / 9.54% \\ ^ Central Bench Northwest 7.90% 0.16% ^ Downtown 2.61 ^ North End ®Downtown 0.22% Periphery 2.94% Average Industrial Asking Rates by Submarket 3 s °.~o Industrial Vacancy Rate by Submarket 30% i 2005 INDUSTRIAL OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE z s °i° 0 % ~~: s eff a ~_ ~ ux ~ ~ ~ s tr ~ ti: ~ ~; ~ w ~ a' ~ r wa a {' ` i~ ecc, `os~c reel Ica r~e5~ rea5` ~es~ ec~r ~e~~ aA `~~ ae Qa P `~ +a~p Qo~ ~r e`Q ~°~,~ ~°~~ y°~~. ~°J~r ~es~6 `aa ~, ~aaae~ ~eia ~acc ~o ~c Qo z o °r° is °~ to °r° s°i° 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 ~ Boise, Idaho 83702 208.345.9000 ~ www.colliersidaho.com \Q°~` ec~ ~os~c reel ~cd rye`'` r~a5~r~e`'` ~~~cr \a~e~ ~a~e L.~ \aa~ a~Qa P ,erL~a~~ Ooh ~cQe~Q ~°~~`c ~oi~ y°~ ~°J~ ~eS~ La ~aaaec ~e~ t' .>,°~° o° Year-End 2005 r; ~a~a , }BAs 3< ~,a--~_:exsts~ ,x^r•.:~~ s..:c~., .~t~x:,:rl[.s~x'i<:'~t ~^z.~e~' ~_... Average triple net asking rates on available industrial properties began to show an upturn toward the latter part of 2005, due to a reduction of supply, as well as increases in construction and land costs on new projects. Average asking rates for quality warehouse distribution space are presently in the $0.42 - $0.45 N.N.N. per square foot range. These rates should remain constant throughout the first half of 2006. ,.. „. e a ~ __ ~,. With tightening vacancies and a limited variety of available industrial lease space, speculative building and build-to-suit projects may be rriore prevalent in 2006 than in 2005. Boise is also expected to see an increase in industrial condominiums to fit the needs of an increasing number of tenants seeking medium to smaller industrial spaces in the 2,000 to 5,000 square foot range that they can own. Vacancies will tighten in 2006, due to increased interest in large spaces such as the former Jabil, Zilog, and Aluma Glass buildings that have been on the market for some time. Meridian has continued to be a center of industrial leasing activity because of the decreasing supply and limited space variety in Boise. However, as Meridian's limited vacant space becomes absorbed, Nampa will see more and more activity. Further west of Boise, industrial leasing activity is also expected to experience more activity and interest during 2006. December 2005 Industrial Statistics At A Glance INVENTORY SF ~ r;~ e .5 = AVERAGE RENT* (NNN MONTHLY) Airport 2,607,843 313,700 ~ 12.0% -11.0% $0.43 Central Bench 1,816,896 113,756 6.3% -5.9% $0.53 Downtown 600,141 61,412 10.2% 2.5% $0.20 Downtown Periphery 675,810 77,775 11.5% 3.0% $0.36 North End 50,186 15,000 29.9% 29.9% $0.32 Northwest 37,801 0 0.0% 0.0% n/a Southeast 2,193,491 107,707 4.9% 3.0% $0.49 Southwest 823,906 84,048 10.2% -9.2% $0.43 West Bench 4,343,351 283,792 6.5% -0.8% $0.48 Caldwell 1,927,555 117,900 6.1% -1.2% $0.17 Eagle 182,740 21,064 11.5% -3.0% $0.57 Garden City 843,200 16,400 1.9% -13.3% $0.35 Meridian 2,335,668 415,469 17.8% -15.5% $0.55 Nampa $ _`~`~ 4,550,688 22,989,276 ~ 625,879 ( 13.8°% ~ 4~.7°ro ~_,.~._._ $0.35 $0.42 All rents quoted as monthly triple-net ]V VKC. t: LVLLItK]INItKNHIIVNHL COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Industrial Services !~ fn ~~ '~ 208.472.2834 208.472.2862 208.472.2829 • -r--+ L c~ G .F, a-+ Total Boise MSA (Ada and Canyon counties) investment transaction volume in 2005 maintained a similar level of activity as was witnessed in 2004. Forty-six transactions totaling $169,716,465 in consideration were tracked in 2005, compared with forty-nine and $153,497,710 changing hands during 2004. 1Nhile overall volume stayed reasonably constant between 2005 and 2004, there was a significant shift in the distribution of investment transactions, with multi-family transaction volume increasing by 72% from 2004 levels. These dramatic gains in multi- family transactions were offset by 22% and 20% declines in transaction dollars among office and retail respectively. Capitalization rates were also level, with rates averaging 8.0% during 2005 compared with rates at 8.1 % in 2004. Data gathered by Colliers International from the sale of forty-six investment properties in the Boise MSA during 2005, above $500,000 in consideration, was used to compile the following statistics. Properties that sold with no income stream were excluded from this analysis. f~ t~~, .., t~, 's~+ in 2006. In 2005, new construction costs were outpacing rent growth, but little new supply should help keep vacancy and absorption at or slightly below 2004 and 2005 levels. P,legatives -Movement of office space to western parts of the Treasure Valley may have a negative effect on the downtown office market during 2006. If new class A building space coming to market in 2006 absorbs slowly, it may send negative signals to investors and lending institutions. Colliers tracked thirteen retail investment sales during 2005, totaling $35,653,000 in consideration. Capitalization rates ranged from a high of 9.7% to a low of 5.7%, with a group average rate of 7.9%. Boise capitalization rates for retail properties are in line with the national estimate of 7.20/0. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $79 to $387, with a group average price per square foot of $190 and a weighted average price per square foot of $157. r~~ =~ The office leasing market stayed on track during 2005 with slowly declining vacancy rates. Vacancy rates have gone down in closely monitored areas of downtown with vacancies at 8.3%. New space downtown, the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, will be a good test to see if the market can absorb ne~ro premium space and continue with low vacancy rates. For 2005, Colliers tracked thirteen office investment transactions with total consideration of $53,275,495. Capitalization rates ranged from a high of 12.7% to a low of 7.0%, with a group average of 8.9% compared with 8.4% in 2004. Boise office capitalization rates are higher than the national estimate of 7.4% and Western United States of 7.2%. Property sizes ranged from 3,017 square feet to 106,000 square feet with a total of 408,922 square feet changing hands. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $52 to $239 ~Nith a median price per square foot of $140 and a weighted average price per square foot for the entire group of $130. Office Outlook. -Stable Positives- Even with decreasing vacancy rates and increased down- town absorption, there is still room for a decline in vacancy rates Retail investment transactions occurred primarily during the first six months of 2005 with only three monitored investment transactions meeting our analysis criteria since July first. Retail average pricing per square foot is currently higher in Boise ($190) than in Denver ($157) and Salt Lake City ($170). Retail Outlrx~k -Positive Positives -Unemployment in the Boise MSA has stabilized and remained at 3.5%, and the population continues to grow, which will keep up demand for service and retail businesses. Properties located near major traffic generators such as Wal-Mart and other big box centers will be the most attractive to investors. Negatives -Unanchored centers continue to be carefully scrutinized by tenants, lenders and prospective investors. The Treasure Valley market could see a slowdown in prospective building and retail transaction volume while owners work to lease new or currently under construction retail developments. One signal that investors will be watching for is if new retail developments are scaled back or put on hold. 2005 Year-End Investment Summarv 13 Office 408,922 31,456 53,275,495 4,098,115 $156 8.8% 13 Retail 227,241 17,480 35,653,000 2,742,538 $190 7.9% 4 Industrial 213,007 53,252 11,339,970 2,834,992 $53 8.8% 16 Multi-Family 1,033,638 55,532 69,448,000 3,612,188 $76 6.4% SOURCES: COLLIER S INTERNATIONAL, LANGSTON & ASSO CIATES, MOUNTAIN STATES APPRAISAL 55 West Front Street, Suite 300 ~ Boise, Idaho 83702 208.345,9000 ~ www.colliersidaho.com Year-End 2005 ~!~.k` r r (6i8r't.. Ei~~a I °3 ~ ~='l~`_i`j.,j.. Endustrial investment opportunities have been limited over the past two years with four transactions being monitored during 2005. Industrial investment sales during 2005 totaled $11,339,970 with 213,000 square feet being sold. Capitalization rates ranged from 7.6% to 11.0% with an average rate of 8.8%. Boise`s capitalization rate for industrial properties is above the national estimate of 7.6%. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $45 to $88 with a transaction average of $53 and a weighted average also at $53. The median price per square foot was $52.50. Industrial Outlook -Stable Positives -Limited industrial land availability will support current rental rates, restrict new development, and push capitalization rates down. Negatives -Investors seeking industrial-type buildings or warehouses will continue to have limited selection, and those that do come on the market will require thorough analysis of comparable sales and income potential. ~b.~~ - -, For 2005, Colliers tracked the sale of 1,097 units in sixteen proper- ties with a total consideration of $69,440,000. The multi-family transaction volume for 2005 jumped considerably compared with 2004 levels ($40,232,000). This is consistent with national trends in multi-family investment. Capitalization rates ranged from 8.2% to a low of 4.3% with a group average of 6.4%. Boise's multi-family capitalization rates for 2005 were just over the national estimate (6.2%). Transaction price per unit ranged from $37,500 to $98,500 with a sector average per unit price of $63,317. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $54 to $116 with a weighted average price per square foot for the entire group of $76. The same weighted average price per square foot was at $69 as of July. The second half of 2005 saw owners selling and investors purchasing smaller complexes at higher per square foot prices compared with the first six months of 2005. Multi-Family Outlook Stable to Strong Positives -Treasure Valley jobs and population will continue to grow with continued positive national attention being directed at Boise as a quality place to live and do business. As interests continue to inch up as a result of Federal Reserve fiscal policy, many possible first-time homebuyers may not feel the immediate urgency to purchase. Increased home values may also push young families or first-time buyers into rental options. There is still room for capitalization rates to decline to national levels. Negatives -Regardless of market conditions, home ownership is still often a better choice for many consumers. ~ ~ €?~(-..fir anti The Boise MSA will continue to grow with Census projections putting the estimated annual growth at just over two and a half percent (2.6%) which will translate into approximately 70,000 new residents relocating to the Boise MSA by 2010. In addition, the sustained population growth in the Boise MSA will mean approximately 30,000 new households in the local economy. Economy.com ranked Boise 46th out of 387 metro areas in expected employment growth and listed Boise as below the national average in costs to do business and cost of living. With solid economic indicators and national consensus that Boise is a growth market, the only question that remains is whether real estate investment will level off at or increase above 2004 and 2005 levels. Multi-family properties should continue to be strong as more owners look to take profits and place properties on the market. With recent industrial sales and the tightening of industrial vacancies, it is unlikely that the investment market will slow to 2004 levels, where there were no monitored industrial investment transactions. 2005 National Average Cap Rate Comparison ~^`~ 2002 2003 2004 2005 9.. ,,, 4 BOISE I NATIONAL BOISE NATIONAL BOISE NATIONAL BOISE NATIONAL I 8.3°'~ w 9.4% 8.8% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 8.8% 7.4% a,, T4-.:,•'' 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 8.5% 8.0% 7.9% 7.9°,ro 7.2% • 9.2?6 9.6% 8,??'0 8.9% n/a 8.4% 8.8% 7.6% e 8.5% 8.2% 9.0% 7.5% 7.6% 6.9% 6.4% 6.2% ~E1:1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~pitali ^TionratF ~s ~Cv;F.i to ~ -t~ ~~n. I Sage, Blue -Boise Capitalization rate is higher than national average. COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Investment Services SOURCE: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL REAL CAPITAL ANALYTICS r-r- ~-r C~s318,er F al ?y,,~<r~, LL.~;' ~" ... :.. __..„__ _.:.__ .__. _., z_. a--+ _ i,. . "R X: _- - _ _- ,. n ~ m.. ~'+~? ffi a4..e"'„ #-%ll'+.~x'3 d '§ ?t":r%EE~ ~ h., ni... 2005 was a booming year across the Treasure Valley, with increases in new home construction land development. The housing market was front and center in the valley's economic news, with recent Idaho Statesman headlines "valley's Home Sale Prices Soar" and "Building Fuels Valley Economy." This was also a year in which many were concerned that the housing market was near- ing abubble-breaking phase, but those fears have subsided because ofthe underlying strength of theTreasure Valley economy. ~~~~ ~,~ . Throughout the Treasure Valley, construction activity increased. According to the Construction Monitor, Ada County home sales increased by over 40% from 2004 levels to a total of 12,222. Canyon County saw an even larger increase of 67;'0, with 6,264 home sales during 2005. An interesting trend in Canyon County is that new home sales (as a percent of total home sales) have decreased from 52% in 2003 to 31 % in 2005, while ne~v home prices have increased by 41 %overthe same period. Canyon County is a more volatile market for new home developers, because consumers are choosing existing homes at higher rates. New home building in 2005 increased by 270% in Kuna, 127% in Star, and 90% in Middleton over 2004 levels. `;s }()~ '~is.3 t5~.)l.'i.; i.. ~r..1'! • £+1B'r~1 I ;i E~_i_} . 2~.',k`r _. - - With Boise-Nampa unemployment reaching a low of 3.0% in December and continued high in-migration to the Treasure Valley,the housing market looks buoyed to avoid a housing bubble burst. The over 10,000 new homes built in Ada and Canyon counties during 2005 reflect a 6% annual growth rate in housing inventory that correlates well with current Census Bureau population growth estimates of approximately 4% annually in Canyon County and 3% growth in Ada County since 2001. Concerns in the market have to do with the doubling of the price of development land and the entry into the land market of inexperienced investors with large sums of capital. The rising price and relative scarcity of new homes may start to have a negative effect on young and new homebuyers. Developers are also faced with the increased costs which include earth moving, pipe, asphalt, and the cost of materials for home building. This is one factor that has contributed to higher new home costs. Even with increased development costs, the factor that has created the most increase in finished home prices is the relative scarcity of lots and new homes. Demand created from people moving to the valley is emerging as the primary factor in higher home prices. '.?1s i Demand for homes will continue to lead a demand for the inputs, especially land. Speculators, investors and developers are all in the market chasing an ever-diminishing supply of developable land. In this market of rising land prices and ever-shorter terms, it will be important to pay attention to market fundamentals slach as employment and population growth. Colliers International's Land Group has rededicated itself to success through negotiations, and is working hard to assist acquisition clients in making profitable land purchase decisions. The top priority is selling land to the right buyers on the right terms for our listing clients. Sinale Family Home Sales 2003 ~.. 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 ` ~~~ - 7,110 ~ 8,648 12,222 3,059 3,750 6,264 ; 2,611 ~~~~~' 3,123 4,886 1,591 1,456 1,960 36.7% 36.1 % 40.0% 52.0% 38.8% 31.3% $194,644 $220,618 $246,671 $111,897 $129,386 $157,997 SOURCE: INTERMOUNTAIN MLS New Single Family Home Buildina Permits By City, 2003 - 2005 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 Boise ,. . Boise Garden City Ea le Star Kuna Meridian Nampa Caldwell Middleton ~~+ 752 87 440 107 243 1,450 1,199 602 117 ~~' 687 49 479 146 230 2,388 1,151 637 68 ~~ 989 49 520 546 522 3,245 1,398 941 ~ i?_9 SOURCE: CONSTRUCTION MONITOR COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Land Services Idaho 83702 i 208.345.9000 ~ www.colliersidaho.com :=cii vcr r'+~_zs ~. r;c~ro. I_~t_iw ~r,. p .~ !'t~ ~" PL.~[',7~~? @ ~t~e i*t.r}~± ~.~-. ¢,aY°i r" ~~?f ~,i'1'~''aU Wit. ~. __.. b ;. i 3" ~ e"'.' .., u .. _ Sun Valley's mountain resort community resides in Blaine County, with a population ofjust over 20,000, and includes the Wood River Valley towns of Hailey, Sun Valley and Ketchum. Real estate in Sun Valley is unique, in that the area contil7ues to be one of the premier resort destinations in the United States. ,. ~~€~ . I ~?~z~j 1 ~ ~i-t~~ai.. ~:`j i$~1`_ ~'?,~~~€t~-~ ~i~j°: '~ Year-End 2005 Development Corporation tasked vdith helping developers and residents to devise and implement good strategies for Ketchum commercial and residential development; 3) Two local area golf courses will be completed and ready for play this year, bringing increased exposure to winter desert residents looking for a summer alternative. The Sun Valley residential home market has traditionally been a vacation home market; however, the last three years have brought an increased trend toward primary home purchases, giving strength to a Single Family Home segment of over $1.5 million. While the second home market was strong, with low interest rates fueling the under $1.5 million Condo/Townhome market, the valley also saw many sales in the $7 million to $10 million range in 2005. Three primary market segments in Sun Valley are seeing new construction: in-town condominiums, high-end estates north and south of Ketchum, and subdivisions protected by codes and covenants. Developers have been encouraged to move forward with skillfully planned downtown projects as the City Council has taken a more supportive stance on the types of projects being approved. Homebuyers and those new to the area are exhibiting an increased desire to live in neighborhoods where property values are protected through rules and regulations, while the extremely wealthy are looking for estate properties and privacy. t f A.~., -- - ~~ w .w ... Condos and mid-valley single family homes will be hot properties in 2006, mainly because the majority of new construction is focused on condo projects in Ketchum and new home construction in the Golden Eagle and Valley Club areas. The coming year will also see more estate fot and estate home sales in the $5 million dollar and up range. Other issues affecting the Sun Valley real estate market in 2006 will be: 1) Airport selection and FAA approval of a new airport location to serve the Wood River Valley; 2) The formation of the Community jt.l~~_ ,~i:~ 1`0 ,~~ ,,,~` All commercial real estate sectors showed strength in 2005. The greatest number of lease transactions occurred in retail, both new businesses and relocation and upgrades. Ketchum is definitely seeing some interest from regional and national tenants. Hailey is growing commercially in response to the growing number of local residents moving down the valley for more affordable housing. Office leasing was also strong in Ketchum and Hailey. The light industrial sector is busy, as more mixed-use light industrial-zoned buildings are being erected in bath Ketchum and Hailey. The Ketchum light industrial zoning has been modified to allow for limited residential, and that property type is the current choice. Demand is high in Hailey, especially in Airport West, and this new construction is being quickly absorbed through leases and purchases. Ketchum's commercial core became a hot topic during the latter part of 2005, and the community has rallied behind Ketchum's comprehensive plan. From the illumination and renaming of streets to the continuity of sidewalks, the community is working hard to make Ketchum a more user-friendly town. Progress is being made through education relating to organization and resources, particularly that of creating a Community Development Corporation or'CDC' and Urban Renewal Districts. We expect to see results of Ketchum's hard work soon, with the redevelopment of the Williams Market site, a new hotel in Ketchum, new mixed- use development at McHanville, near St. Luke's Wood River Hospital, and mixed-use projects slated for mid to late 2006. The City of Ketchum is encouraging both development and historic preservation through the relaxation of building restrictions and other favorable incentives for developers, such as the implementation of Transfer of Development Rights, or'TDRs'. Range of Commercial Monthly Prices Per Square Foot r - -- tlY~6 t. ~ KETCHUM $1.35-$2.00 $1.75-$2.35 $1.00-$1.50 HAILEY $1.25-$1.50 $1.25-$1.50 $0.65-$1.10 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Sun Valley Office i au Kenny Matt Bogue Brokerage Services Brokerage Services r--r ,; Residential/Investment Residential Services Services 200 West Rivers Street, Suite 301 ~ Ketchum, Idaho 83340 208.726-1918 ~ www.colliersidaho.com • ~N _~, y u i, ;;rs i'~ ~ Vic, . ! ;, +,, ~.. . 0 George Iliff Managing Principal Industrial Services Steve Foster Associate Devin Pierce Associate Jeremy Wolf Associate Investment Services Rick Clark, CCIM, SIOR Principal David Wali Associate Cheryl Larabee Associate Brian Watt Transaction Coordinator John Starr Associate Ryan Cantlon Associate Office Services George Iliff Principal Lew Manglos Associate Wayne Slaughter Associate Craig Tribken Associate W. Brook Blakeslee Principal, Associate Mike Christensen Associate Lew Goldman Associate Accounting Services Daug Craft Director of Finance ::- Sun Valley Office Paul Kenny Brokerage Services Matthew Bogue Brokerage Services Todd Conklin Residential and Investment Services Bob Morrison Residential Services c r 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 ~ Baise, Naha 83702 ~ 208.345.8000 www.colliersidaho.carn Cory Read Director of Research Justin Vogel Research Services Melody Johnson Marketing Graphics /Brokerage Services Katie Collins Public Relations /Listing Coordinator Samantha Johnson Marketing Administration Lori Kurts Marketing Graphics Coordinator Multi-Family Services Chris Stroh Director ofMulti-Family Services Real Estate Management Services Thomas Siffermann Director of Property Services Patricia A. Zoot Senior Property Manager Marcie Epperson Lake Assistant Property Manager Larissa Schienle Assistant Property Manager Megan White Lease Administrator Brae Black Lease Renewal Specialist Your Success When the Boise and Sun Valley offices of Colliers International combine their talent, technology, and integrated real estate tools, something powerful happens. Together, we provide first-class commercial, investment and residential real estate services to businesses and private investors throughout all of Idaho. www.col I iersidaho.corn BOISE 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 208.345.9000 SUN VALLEY 200 West Rivers Street, Suite 301 Ketchum, Idaho 83340 208.726.1918 APPENDIX H. Meridian FY 2005 Capital Improvement Plans GENERAL FU]'~1ll PAI:KS' icrrrl' I~tEC'RTrt ~70V I~EPrll~? 1~4-i'~:'t~'7' OVERVI[;W The City's goal is a park system that features large multi-use community parks located so that no resident wilt be further than a mile from a park. These parks will provide a wide variety of both passive and structured (sports fields) activities for their immediate neighborhoods, The ultimate objective is to have these parks linked together with a system of vff-street trails. This concept is cal ed "the String of Pearls" with the parks as pearls and the trail systern the string. Supplementing this system will be neighborhood parks and mini parks maintained by private homeowner groups. PLANNII'JG BACKGROUND The City's Parks Department is relatively new. In the last four years there have been several studies that influenced the development and direction of the parks departrncnt. July 2000 - Comprehensive Parks & Recreation System Plan -This was the original planning document that established a design for the City's park system and established objectives for land acquisition, park development and management and ~perativns. • July 2002 -City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan -This docrment provides policies and direction ~n how the City should grow and devc lop. June 2003 -Park Impact Fee Ordinance -Revised based on 'T'itle 67, Chapter 82 of the Idaho Code which authnries the imposition of park development impact Pecs as an equitable program for planning and financing park improvements needed to serve new growth and development. August ZfJU3 -Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Systf~m Action Plan - Supplement to the original 2000 Comprehensive Plan, provides speci is recommendations on a layout plan for parks, open space, trails and other recreation facilities and a strategy for funding the Plan. Park Minimum 20,000 square feet Quarter-m do- Small ono tot parks designed to provide a small ptayground and open space witnrn a subdrorsion. Development and maintenance is generatly the responsibiliry of the land developer and hmm~mvnyr assoaalions. boyhood Perk Govan to fifteen acres Ono-hart md~ Srnalt parks designed Tor yon-supervisetl, ron•organized recreation activities. They have a combmatlon of playground and park activities. Generally developed by land developer and maintained by homeowner associations. r~unity Parks Fifteen to thirty acres Ona to two miles Larger parks teal provide acfve and strucWrod recreation opporlanilies. They nave parking, roslroom, and prcnlc lao+Ilties. rJrbart Parks Minimum fifty arses Entire Ciiy Largo parks that have space for ptayg roundo,eporta fields, picnic areas, restrooms, pathways, and soecialized facifitlea such as skate parks.. aquatic Iacitilies, tennis courts or indoor ro-cr0ation facilities. 12 •YARKS Generations Plaza .25 acres Small downtown plaza with seating and water feature Centennial Park .5 acres Downtown next to Boys & Girls Club, has a basketball court, picnic space, open grass area and else provides additional downtown parking Cox Monument .25 acres Small shelter heated at City Hall on Idaho & Meridian Total 1 acre HBORHOOD Chateau Park 6.75 arses Developed in 2002, grass areas and playground 'S equipment COMMUNITY PARKS 8th Street Park 4 acres Total 10 3!4 acres Storey Park 15 acres Tully Park 18.5 acres Grass areas and playground equipment EstabGShed park mature landscaping, ball fields, picnic facilities, and playground equipment New park with skate park, playround equipment, ball fields., and picnic facilites Bear Creek 18.5 acres New park with playground equipment, tennis oourts, half t(elds and picnic facilities Total 52 arses N PARKS Meridian Settlers Park 28 acres devlp New park with playground, ball fields and picnic facilities 32 acres undevlp Park with be 58 acres, currently half is developed Total 26 acres Fuller Park 25 acres Park land owned and operated by the Western Ada Settler's Park tit acre Recreation District Storey Park Swimming Pool 1 acre located within Storey Park Private Neighborhood Parks 50+ acres Small parks owned & operated by homeowners assns Clfy Golf Coureo 119 acres The City owns the golf course but has entered into a long term lease with a private contractor for the operation and maintenance. This lease ie for $fi,000 per year. ~{ ~~ rs;. r t fJ~" xt 1 ` ''y ° .r _ : a1 ~ ~y~..~ ti ~ ~ ~~, i . 'r: .r _ .. ~ ;~ Fr i ~~ PROJECTS IN PROCESS AiVD CAPITAL, IMP Based on historical data and calculations done to establish the park impact fee amount it costs the City $25,000 to purchase park land and $70,000 to develop park land. F,xpt::cleLl costs to finish an-going projects and new projects arc budgeted RUVEMENT PLAN based on those amounts. Projects are budgeted on a three year start to finish timeline. Donations of time and labor are included in park costs and shown later in this report a<5 revenue. .~ .~ •~ •• .. -. ~ • • r ~ NEIGHBORHOOD Autumn Fatre 7 acres $490,000 Located in Autumn Faire subdivision, parcel provided by PARKS dovclopcc The park is scheduled ID be wnlpleted in 2006. Kiwanis Park 9 acres $630,000 CIaSe to Mt View High Srhnnl, rnmpleted in partnership with l3aybreakers Kiwanis. The City will provide on-going maintenance and develop the park irrigation lake and trrigalion system and green up the Park. The Kiwanis Club will build the restroom and shelter buildings. Champion Park 6 acres $420,000 Located in the Park Stone subdivision near Eagle Rd and East Usfick Road. Completion is scheduled for 2005. Po1-;ce 5latlen Park 5 acres $350,000 Located west of the Meridian Police Station nn Watcrlower Ave. Slated for tlog training facility and remote Cat racin trackin , COMM3IINITY PARKS Lochsa Falls Park 30 acres 52,100,000 Located along Ten Mile Road between McMillian Road and Ghinden Boulevard. Scheduled for completion in 2010 McClermott 30 acres $2,100,000 Located near Che northeast corner of Cherry Lana and Gherry Ln Park Po1cDermoa Road. This is in the ulty's impact area rather (Bonsp Property) then in the City. City sewer and water are not currently available so developm©nt hoe not otnrtcd. Tha park is slated to be the site of the Meridian Lions Rodeo Grounds _ and an ice-skatin rink. URBAN ARK Settlers Park 58 acres 55,510,000 58 acre park located at the corner of Meridian Road and Usfick. The park development has been divided into two phases. Thrr first phase is wrnplete, the second phase is scheduled to be completed in 2006. The second phase will bn r..ompletad by Meridian Youth Adventure Island at Settlers Park $1,000,000 Handicapped accessible playground located in 5enlers Park phase I of the playground is complete, final c:omptetion is scheduled for 2006. Mdvontur0 Larw PWygrOmxt Yea §150,6C0 $364,000 5406,000 St 000 000 501P.M5 Park YeS " $3.Daa.Daa 51,231.:100 8500 [!n0 §692:631 $5,510,000 Kiwans oar. Yes $76 MTO §277,000 527lOW $530 000 Bear Creek Park Yes §709 809 $51.On0 , ~~ 600 Charrpron Park Yes $II 070 $198.200 $260,BOa $420 000 P9i~Ce Station Park Yas $I O.G00 $170,000 SS7tl.000 , 8350,000 Nv;~mn Fare Ycs $11,0:19 $183,C430 $236.C01H $49Q000 Lex:nsaPags Yes $147,009 $.SS0,000 Ea81,OCC• $481,000 $481,000 $2 SOO WO RkDerm0i2 - Ctluny Lar1e Pao Yes $463.a03 $I O:C00 San.O(nD $6TD.G90 5670.000 $870,pOp , , 563 400 51 CantOnnal Pzrk $75,000 , , 54wey Park $266,655 $20 000 $75,D00 OOwrttttOwn gees , CT.0 549 $306.865 7.5 acra Pa,k un~r.9: nl~iinrl Y~ . &187 500 $49.000 Pack Land Purchasa Fund Yes $20NP,009 , $250,000 $250.000 5250,000 5250:400 $250,tN10 $187,500 51 450.000 i3av4ka7 P.ak LarM Yes $709,444 $740..000 5700,000 , $2,100 000 Park Cepnrtnranl M2nn1 HrekLng §650,001} , $65D OM ReOrealbn Centro Yas $S00,r1C0 . $500 000 P8lhway L.antlscaPi n9 TOTALS S&016134 $3053500 53b38300 §2093631 52107 000 _ _ $t,6211,D00 $75 000 s1.n45,nn0 , $75 000 ;1Y,717.55i The parkland purchase fund is m aecumnlate money to Purchase park Land as it comes available. The $250,0(10 equates to about 10 tteres. Starting in fiscal year 2008 $700,000 per year is budge(ed to develop l0 acres t1f park land per year. 14 FUNDING There are three sources of funding available for park capital development; general re4~enue from the governmental activities, park impact feos, and partnerships and dun:rtiun. Y~u~lc impact fees are collected when a residential building permit is sold. These fees can be used only to develop new parks based on the underlying theory that new residents should help to pay for new parks built to serve them. The Idaho law governing the calculation of impact fees changed recently. The fee calculation factors in several variables; the amount of new park cost to be picked up by the general fund (proportionate share, the desired park acres per resident, the cost to purchase park land and the cost to develop it, the average cost of a house in Meridian, and number of persons per dwelli ng, Impact fees have become more and more important as the resource that has allowed Meridian to purchase and develop park land. The current i mpact fee is 5667 per residential building permit. Duc to the growth in building permits the City collected over $1,2 million in impact fees and fiscal year 2004, and will most likely do the same in fiscal year 2005. 'ftr~ calculation of the fee will be addressed annually or at a minimum every other year and the amount may be changed. General fund revenue has to come from the general tax funds used to operate Fire. Police, and other general government activities. From 1995 to 2004 the City spent several million dollars to purchase and develop 58 acres for a large urban park, Development is on-going and the park is not completed. From fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2004 the City has spent $1.0,402,175 on purchases of park. ]and and park development. Of this a-nount 38°!o has bern funded by the general fund, 42°Io by impact fees, and 20~l; by donations. Uc~nations come from developers, partnerships with community organizations, or volunteer fund raising efforts. IMPACT FEES $1,146,069 527,851 $347,315 $481,090 $773,554 5966,564 $3 742.443 DONATEONS $60,000 $82,962 $111,810 5323,108 $567,000 $228,391 $399,500 $1,772,771 GRANQTOTAI $8,882,204 Based on projections for sales of residential housing permits anti the park imprtct. fee. .staying the same the City will generate 57,926,464 from 2005 through 2010 from impact fee revenue for new park development. Donations of $4,084,000 are expected for the same time period. This includes; $800,000 for t~dventureland Playground, 51,200,000 for Settlers Park youth baseball Ce- lds, S435,70() for Kiwanis P1rk, $860,000 for Lorhsa Falls PAL soccer fields, $260,80 for Champion Park, .$187,500 donation of 7.5 acre parcel, and 5340,000 for the do~~ facility taxi remote car racing track near the police station, "1'he capital improvement plan for the same time period is 51-3,201,-131. This means the City will need to appropriate $4,081,748 tram the general fund or other sources if all projects in the capital improvement plan are completed. 15 Estimated Residmaial 2.000 1.800 7,683 7,467 ppg i p71 t Housing Permits , , park Impact Fie __ 5667 $667 0667 $6fi7 5667 $667 IMPACT FEES $639,969 $1,250,792 54,334,000 51,200,600 St,122..501 $976,489 $714,357 5685,676 Sb,036,fi63 $7,926.464 D~IATIQN$ $336,391 $390,600 $2,704,000 £1,520,000 y.970,000 54,08.7,OOp §4,711.691 C3ENERAL FUND $182,822 $7a X22 Sa,081,7a8 $4,339.092 GRAND TOTAL 514,201,41Y $16477,447 PR.I()RITIES The Parks. rind Recre~iticrn I~epartment's foal is 4 clweloped acres of parkland pex l4O(] p~tpulation, :\t the end of Fiscal year 24()4 thz City watt at 1.9Z developed acres per 1Ut10 population. Assuming that at the same time. period the City population was 50,000 the City would need 200 acres of parkland to meet the ~ acres per 1040 mark. The City has about a hundred acres of land scheduled to be developed in the next one to two years. At that time the City's population is projected to be up around bQ,(}40. T.he City would be about 4U acres chart of acre per capita goal. CHALLENGES In addition to purchasing and developing park land the City has to maintain parks. Impact fees cannot be used to maintain developed park land and donations are typically for one-time purchases, not on-going operating expenses. This means the entire cost of maintenance comes fi-am general tax dollars. In fiscal year 2004 the City spt;nt approximately $4,90(1 per acre to maintain its parks. Since the City had about IU7 acres of developed park. land & other City properties budgeted dollars far maintenance were $524,300. [f the City were at its goal acreage of 4 per 1.000, assuming the City had a population of 50,000 the cost of maintenance would be S9G4,000. These maintenance fiigures include only personnel and operating expense. In addition there are capital costs for eduiprnent and vehicles. The City plan~i tc) vigorously pursue donations and parutel~hip agreements ati well any ~~rant funding that mil;ht bo available. It is almost imperative that donations ~urd impact fees puy for park devclopiticnt while general fund d~llar,s are reserved tar the on-fining i7iaintcnance and operations of the developed parks. 1 fr 1117t'E l)EPr1RTr'~TF_-rVT ov~RVr>vw The City of Meridian hired its first full-time employee in 1977. sy the end of 2005 the IWleridian Fire Department will have 47 full time employees. In the 195(.)'s a rural. district was formed to serve the area outside the city limits. The rural district and the City combined forces to serve a S4 sduare mile •jurisdiction that stretches from the south channel of the Boise River to the north, Lake Hazel to the south. Cloverdale Road to the cast and iVlclllermott Road to the west. 1'h~ rural fire district tars pay for approximately 25~Ji cif the dcpartrncnt's cxpcns~ with city taxes paying for 75~7e. As the city limias expand the proportion paid for by the city is increasing. The rest of the funding comps from general fund tax reVen Ue. Currently the City has three fire stations with a fcnn•th one planner] to come on line in the fall c7f ?005. Fire Station #1 is a three bay fire station and includes the administrative offices. Fire Stations #2, #3, and #4 are two bay stations. Fire Station #1 is staffed with 1.2 firefighters, stations #2 and #3 have 9 firefighters while plans for station #4 call for a stall' of 12. The increase in staff for station #~3 is due to the City's plan to start adding a paramedic to each shift. Currertt oust to build a new fire station is over $1,000,000. If the City has to buy the land, versus having the land donated the cost can increase by up to $(50,000. Land for Firc Station #4 was donated by the developers of Thousand Springs. The cost of a fire engine is around X500,000. Flee Station ifi 540 E Franklin Fire Steiion #2 2401 N. Ten Mile Road Fire Station # 3 35b5 N Locust Road 1982 Pierce Engine 1986 Pierce Engine 1993 Pierce Engine 2000 Pierce Engine 2002 Pierec Engine 20D4 Pierce Engine l7 Transfor to Fro Truck Fund y,vo u,vvv $100,000 : °; .:: :$1,09tl,Ot}0 2006 Command Vehicle $45,000 Replace Vehicle $35,000 $g0,ppp 2007 Engine #4 $425,000 - " : ;; ." 5425,000 2008 Station 5 $1,0~5U,000 Engine #5 $435,000 $1;4$S;OOp' 2009 Sation #6 Land $130,500 ~"`" Engine #6 $460,000 Replace Engine $460,000. _ $1,050,500 2010 Station #6 $1,115.000 2012 LadderTrvck 2014 Training Tower 2015 2016 2017 201$ 2020 CHALLENGES As the City population increases rapidly the demand for safety services rslso increases. The cost of building a fire: station is small compared to cost to staff a fire station. Starting in fiscal year 2OOS the City made the decision to staff the fire stations with paramedics. The majority of fire calls are medical and the City felt that as tu•c is the first on scene it would he benefecial to have medical treatment administered immediately. This means the cost to staff a fire station and include paramedics is edging toward a a 1.0(10.(?O0. $650,000 As the table below show the cost of providing fire and first response medical services has increased steadily every year, between 25 to 30 percent not including the capital cast. "fhe general fund revenue for the same time period has increased at half that rate. It will become increasingly challenging to find the dollars to keep up with the cost. T'he cost of building Fire Station #4 is being picked up by the rural fire department which has allowed the City to build it faster then would have been possible otherwise. However, down the road the City might be reyuired t~ repay the rural fire district for the cost of the fire stations. Nate: ©nly two weeks of st:rffins cost far Stat.ian #4 were budgeted in fiscal year 2005. 1-iowever a full year of personnel cost. has been added to the table above to illustrate what the actual cast will be. $760 18 Replace Engine $550.000 $700,QOU GRAND 7aTAL $270,500 $3,955,000 $6,095,000 $10,320,500 PRIORITES Decisions to add stations are teased on an area`s pnpulalion, number ofcalJs, and resp~insc time. The goal is to keep response time tnider four to f5ve minutes. CHAii,I,ETtGES Since rapid growth is occurring simultaneously in many parts of Meridian it has been challenging to fund and build stations fast enough to serve everyone. Provision of paramedic services has became a challenge far the City and Ada County. The County has traditionally provided paramedic and ambulance services. The City made the decision to add paramedics to fire shifts due to concern with ambulance response times. It will still be necessary to transport patients in an ambulance which means that an ambulance service will have to respond in addition to the Riferidian 1:~ire Department. With the lowering of Medicare/Medicaid rates and escalating medical casts operating an ambulance/paramedic service at a breakeven has became very difficult. It will be important in the future that government agencies work together to find the most cost effective approach to provide the service. 19 ~t~~:>fi~F r~r~aRTn~L~~vf OVERVICW In June of 2002 the Meridian Police Department moved from their tiiny, cramped building and mobile office trailer into a $4,000,000 30„000 square foot station located at 1401 F Watertower. Currently the Police Department has 69 full time and 3 part time employees. 56 of those positions are pnlice afticers. The building 1;'uture capital needs will be vehicles and tcchiwloty rather then construction. The station was funded through judicial review/contrmation. This is a process where the City is allowed to take on debt based on approval from the court system. Normally city's can only tAke on debt for capital construction beyond a one year period through a public vale with a super majority voting for approval. However, if the need for the new facility is compelling enough it may be allowed by judicial confirmation. R~ccntly in [dahcj [his process has been cha(lens*ed by privato individuals ~tnd will probahly hecomc; obsolete. The City event through a trustee and released a bond issuance. In addition to principal and interest payments the City paid bond closing costs of over X100,000 ,furniture and fixture was designed for growth and no additional construction is planned. FC 3NDING Like the Fire Department the Police Department has experienced growth although the percent increases have not been as steep. costs of $440,000 and annual property tax of ~~t7,0(1Q. The following is the lease schedule. The trustee is Wells Fargo. CHALLBNGC:S. In addition to a citizen's challengc;.s of the judicial review process the tax exempt status of the station was challenged resulting in Ada County charging the City property tax. The City maintains that they own the land and have a capital lease purchase agreement with Wells Fargo and essentially have ownership and control of the building. This would make the building tax exempt as in the case with all public buildings. The City has modified the wording in the trust agreement and hopes to be relieved of the tax assessment in the future. 24 CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHU CERTIFIC:1'I'F,S QF PARTICIPATION, SGR115 2001 {LAW ENFbRCE~i/;NT BUILD Dated: August I, 2001 Serial Ma turities : ZUOZ-201D Tenn 7ti9aturities; Payment Ralanre Due )merest Principal Sis-rtxmths Date Principal Interest Total tJutstandiog IWS Rate Amount Interest ~4,odd doD -Feb 2002 SD SR2,Sh2.5O $R2.Sb2.50 S4.OOn,ODD 20n2 1-Aug 2002 5335,004 582,562.50 $417.Sb2.5D 53,bb5.00D 2002 3.SOUS~r $335.(H)0 $5,$62.SO 1-}<eb 2dt)3 Sd 57G,7t)n,(N) S`IG.7(M).0t) 53,bbS,U00 2003 $0.00 1-Aug 2(103 $3-15,00(3 $7b,7C}0.00 5421,7()0.01) 'e3,320,000 20(73 =I.UOOtIo S3AS,UUO ~6.90D.OU -Feb 2(~4 Sd $b9,800,00 $69.800.01.) $3320,000 200-3 50.00 t-Aug 2004 $3fi0,00d Sb9,R00,UD 5429,80U.UD $2,960,000 2004 4,0{)0~~ $3(i0,UU0 57,2DO.D( ) 1-r'cb 2005 $(1 $fi2,G01),Od $62.600.00 $2,960.000 2005 _ 50.40 I-Aug 2005 $375,000 Sb2,60O.00 5437.600.[}d 52,535,000 3005 4,pUdxfi 5375,UD0 $7,500.00 1-Peb 2006 5d 555,IOO.t)0 555,1(H).O0 S2.53S,000 2006 SO.OU i-Aug 20()b $340.D0D $55, 100.00 $445, I (X),D() 52,195,D00 2D06 4.OOD~T~ $390,000 57,800,00 t-Feb 2047 5(I ~~/,3UOA(1 $~~t7,3t10.UU $Z,195.UUU 2(107 50.00 i-Aug 2007 SRrUSA00 $47,300.0(1 $452,300.00 x1,790,000 20D7 4.000~;~ S4DS,OdD $8.100.(10 1-Peb 2003 50 $39,200.00 $39,20D.00 51,790,000 Z(N}R $OAO f-Aug 2003 5={30,000 539.200.00 $459?OU.C)0 51.370.000 2(X)8 4.2509e 5420,0(10 $8,925.00 I-Fen 2009 SO 53D,275.OU 530,275.D0 SI,370,(X)U 2009 SO,Op I-Aug 2009 5440AOU 53(.),275.00 $47Q275,d0 $930,000 2(X39 4.250m 5440,000 $4.350.00 1-Fc6 2010 $U 520,925.00 $20,925.00 $930,000 2010 SO.OU 1-Aug 201D $455,000 $20.925.00 $475.925.00 3-r75,U00 2010 4.5009 s~tSi.Ot}0 310.]37.50 I-Feb 2011 50 SIU.687.50 $10,687.50 5475,000 2011 50.00 I-Auk 2011 $475,(100 510,637.5(} $4f;S,C.,37 SD 50 201 I 4.50(1~m $475,000 $IO.bR7S0 So.oo so.do $o o So.oo $=1,400,000 5990.300.00 54,990,30.00 ~3,000A00 582,562.50 ~ll Jr~~.~iY'~lLVlJ 11[~I,I ~iY OVERVIEW The City has several administrative and strpport. positions. These include Planning and Zoning, Public Warks and the Building Department, Finance,l3illing, information Technology, the Mayor's Uffice, the City Clerk, City Attorney's Office, Human Resources and the City Council. Currently the (Tanning and Zoning Department, Public Warks and the Building Department rent office space and the rest of the departments are housed in City Hall located a 33 E Idaho. The current City Hall. was built in 1)87 and is 8,000 square feet. The City`s priority now is to build a new City Hall 4vith space for all of the service departments. Space needs are estimated to be around 48,000 square feet. The City's goal is to keep the City Hall in the downtown core to be a cornerstone of the, downtown revitalization movement. FuivDwc Building costs are estimated to be approximately a9 million. The cost will be split between the Cities general fund and the enterprise fund as space will be split equally between employees of the two funds. Eiach fund as adequate cash balances to pay for their portion outright, it will not be necessary to seek outside funding or debt. CHALLENGES The biggest challenge has been finding adequate space in the downtown care for the building and the necessary parking. 21