DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 14, 2015 Meeting Station Boise Train Depot

Transcription

1 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, Meeting Station Boise Train Depot MINUTES I. Call to Order Committee Chair, David Yorgason, called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. II. III. Attendance: Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee Members: Tim Day, Jill Giese, Mary Holden, Amber Van Ocker, and David Yorgason were present. Committee members Anna Paseman and Bryan Wewers were absent. Staff: Karen Bledsoe, Tom Governale, Rob Lockward, Tonya Wallace, and Cheyne Weston were present. Merlani DeVries, minutes recorder. Action Items A. Minutes December 10, 2014 ACTION: A. VAN OCKER MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVE THE DECEMBER 10, 2014 MEETING MINUTES. SECONDED BY T. DAY. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Helen B. Lowder Neighborhood Park Increase T. Wallace explained that a memo was included in the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee (DIFAC) packet requesting an increase of $20,000 for the Helen B. Lowder Park. Construction costs increased last year when amenities were added. The additional $20,000 increase would complete sidewalks and pathways within the park. She explained that the fees in this planning area would be at risk in the next one to two years and instead of requesting an extension when that time comes, staff was requesting that the fees be used at this time to complete the Helen B. Lowder Park. C. Weston explained that they had an initial budget of $17,600 to complete pathways in the park and the hope was to stay within budget, but that the project would not exceed the $20,000. T. Wallace explained that there was $156,000 available in the account. D. Yorgason asked if the amount included the fees at risk that was mentioned. T. Wallace confirmed that it did.

2 Page 2 of 6 C. Weston also explained that one of the amenities that would need to be completed were horseshoe pits, which should be completed in the next few years the cost was expected be approximately the same as the pathways. D. Yorgason commented that pathways within parks were one of the most used amenities. He applauded staff that more pathways were being added to the park. ACTION: DISCUSSION: ACTION: A. VAN OCKER MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVE THE INCREASE OF THE HELEN B. LOWDER PARK DEVELOPMENT BY $20,000 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS AND PATHWAYS. SECONDED BY T. DAY. C. WESTON REQUESTED THAT A. VAN OCKER AMMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THE INCREASE NOT EXCEED $20,000. A. VAN OCKER MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVE THE INCREASE OF THE HELEN B. LOWDER PARK DEVELOPMENT BY $20,000, BUT NOT TO EXCEED THAT AMOUNT, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS AND PATHWAYS. SECONDED BY T. DAY. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. C. Pierce Park Acquisition T. Wallace explained that an opportunity had become available to acquire 2.1 acres of land in the Pierce Park area. While the acquisition was part of the Boise Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), it was not specifically planned for Fiscal Year (FY) She explained that, according to the last CIP the purchase was eligible for 65% funding from impact fees. The Department was requesting support and a recommendation from DIFAC to use $173,550 in impact fee funding to acquire the 2.1 acres. J. Giese asked where the location of the property was. R. Lockward explained that the location was on Pierce Park Road, north of Hill Road. D. Yorgason was surprised at the high cost for the acquisition and asked if land was being acquired at $130,000 per acre. T. Governale confirmed that the sale price was approximately $130,000 per acre and that he believed that it was negotiated down from original cost.

3 Page 3 of 6 T. Day asked if this land was entitled. R. Lockward confirmed that there had been an entitlement and that it had gone through a judicial review as well. It was entitled after neighbors were concerned with the height allowance of structures on this land. T. Day asked what the entitlement for the land was. R. Lockward explained that it had to go through Hillside review. He believed that there were between thirteen and fifteen units to be built on the property. D. Yorgason asked if the purchase was for the entitled ground. T. Day confirmed that the entitlement was approximately $17,000 per unit, which was a little high. J. Giese asked what entitlement meant. T. Day explained that it meant that land cost per unit would be around $17,000 per unit attributed to each individual unit and could be compared to land cost versus construction cost. T. Governale explained that one of the reasons the parcel was so attractive was that the land was where a park was really needed. There were other properties in the area, but they had more grade issues. He explained that 2.1 acres was fairly small for the development of a park and that he would be surprised if staff were to request more acreage in the future. Development would not be anytime soon. It was decided that it was best to acquire the land while there was opportunity to do so, there may not be an opportunity again for land this ideally located in this area. D. Yorgason asked if it was close to a lot of houses. T. Governale confirmed that it was close to many planned developments. D. Yorgason confirmed that these were planned developments that had not yet been built. D Yorgason asked what was DIFAC s authority regarding the land acquisition. He wanted to know if the Department was looking for a yes or no, or could the committee criticize the price per acre. T. Wallace explained that DIFAC was an advisory board and that Boise City Council (Council) would take into consideration DIFAC s advice. The next step would be for DIFAC s recommendation to go before Council and could be over-ridden by Council. T. Day asked what the property zone for this land was. R. Lockward was unsure. T. Day thought that at the price provided it was probably zoned at an R3 to support that price. There was a limited amount of R3 zones within Boise and the purchase price would support a condominium development, but would be high for an apartment development. A Van Ocker commented that DIFAC should be careful about getting too in depth regarding the acquisition as the City of Boise (City) have staff who were responsible for the acquisition of property. She explained that she felt that DIFAC s role would be to either accept this request and make a motion or that

4 Page 4 of 6 they don t and request that staff come back with a presentation regarding why this parcel was the one that was chosen. She suggested that DIFAC could table it and request more information in order to make sure that they were fulfilling their responsibilities. T. Wallace explained that Council and Boise City Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) negotiate the sale price when land becomes available. She explained that the request was for the use of $173,550 of impact fees toward the purchase of this land, because it was on Parks CIP, it was highly unlikely that Council would not acquire the parcel. A. Van Ocker asked if the sale was pending. D. Yorgason explained that it was in the contract stages. He explained that he supported that land be acquired for more parks to coincide with the CIP, but that he struggled with the price as it seemed high. T. Day commented that he supported the use of $173,550 in impact fees toward the purchase of this property, but that it was definitely in the higher end for parcels in the area. M. Holden commented that it would benefit the committee if in a future meeting it was explained how negotiations were done. She commented that she supported the use of impact fees to purchase the property. T. Governale explained that he was involved in the planning process, but not directly involved with negotiations. There had been discussion with Council regarding the parcel and Council supported purchase of the parcel as it fell within the Comprehensive Plan. ACTION: T. DAY MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVE 65% IMPACT FEE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $173,550 TO BE USED TOWARD PURCHASING OF 2.1 ACRES FOR THE PIERCE PARK ACQUISITION. SECONDED BY J GIESE. T. DAY, J. GIESE, M, HOLDEN, AND A. VAN OCKER APPROVED, D. YORGASON OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIED D. First Quarter FY 2015 Impact Fee Financial Reports T. Wallace explained that the first quarter financials were very strong. Looking at the construction data, most construction was still residential covering single and multi-family homes. November was the best month in five years. T. Wallace explained that there were two corrections that she had to make; one was removing $1,000 community garden operating cost as it would be covered by a grant, as well as adding signage for Marianne Williams Park which was impact fee eligible. She explained that corrected reports would be sent out.

5 Page 5 of 6 ACTION: A. VAN. OCKER MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVE THE FIRST QUARTER FY2015 IMPACT FEE FINANCIAL REPORTS. SECONDED BY M HOLDEN. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IV. Discussion Items A. Item Approval/Recommendation Process T. Wallace explained that Helen B. Lowder Park was presented to DIFAC in December, but a formal motion was not made to increase funding. Internally it went through to Council even though DIFAC had not yet recommended impact fee funding for the project. She explained that action items would be presented on the agenda, with a staff memo outlining the request in conjunction with supporting materials. She gave an example of supporting materials being a map of the Pierce Park acquisition. D. Yorgason agreed that maps of the area under discussion would be helpful. B. Fire CIP Changes T. Wallace explained that when she first presented the Fire CIP to DIFAC that she had mentioned that there were still changes in numbers that were being made. She explained that there would be more changes for all Fire, Police, and Parks and Recreation CIPs, until staff was ready for the public hearing stage. She commented that the goal was to present the most accurate CIPs during the public hearing process. T. Wallace commented that most changes to the Fire CIP were in the equipment category. It really did not change the Fire impact fees. She explained that in December the total gross cost amount was approximately $13.7 million and in January the new growth cost based upon updated cost numbers was $13.6 million. D. Yorgason asked if the change in numbers were based upon nonimpact fee items. T. Wallace explained that it was. C. Strategic Planning Session T. Wallace explained that there would be a strategic planning session on January 27, 2015 in which Council would be discussing policy issues primarily for Parks. The items had already been discussed with DIFAC and the Commission. The focus would be on Parks service levels which drive the CIP, which in turn would drive impact fees. The session would be to request guidance from Council for service levels changes in order to complete the CIP update. Questions for

6 Page 6 of 6 Council would include whether to change park planning areas and whether or not Council wanted to go have a 100% impact fee recovery rate. She explained that she did not believe that she would get firm decision from Council but would come back with some direction. She hoped that DIFAC members would be able to attend the strategic session. T. Wallace commented that in order to create the various scenarios, she had to estimate impact fees. D. Yorgason asked if there would be discussion on how impact fees were divided instead of just the final number. T. Governale suggested that staff provide a working session with DIFAC regarding what would be presented. R. Lockward explained that if DIFAC were at quorum it would have to be posted as a meeting. D. Yorgason asked T. Wallace when the information would be provided. T. Wallace explained that it would probably not be available until January 22 or 23. T. Day request the session packet be ed to him. It was decided that DIFAC would not meet as long as they received a copy of the packet that would be presented to Council. D. Member Update C. Weston announced that he would be retiring on February 17, On behalf of the committee, D. Yorgason thanked C. Weston for his service and congratulated him on his retirement. D. Yorgason asked if there was any other member update. C. Weston explained that Corbin Harp would be sworn in by Council on January 27, 2015 and that more information regarding C. Harp would be included in February s packet. V. IN THE MATTER OF ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 12:53 p.m. ACTION: A. VAN OCKER MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADJOURNS. SECONDED BY J. GIESE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.