DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, Boise Depot - Meeting Station 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 (Committee) members: Jill Giese, Amber Van Ocker, Maximilian Teems, and David Yorgason were present. Corbin Harp and Anna Pirog were absent. City of Boise: Rob Lockward, Jennifer Tomlinson, and Tonya Wallace were present. Kristine Smith, minutes recorder. New Business A. Introduction The Committee members introduced themselves. M. Teems informed the Committee that he was a junior at Boise High School and that he lived in the Hidden Springs area. He explained that he was excited to serve on the Committee. B. Minutes August 12, 2015 A. VAN OCKER MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVE THE AUGUST 12, 2015 MEETING MINUTES. SECONDED BY J. GIESE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. C. Magnolia Park Green-Up - $200,000 Increase Jennifer Tomlinson, Park Planner, informed the Committee that Magnolia Park was located in the northwest corner of Boise off Bogart Lane. The park was located near Shadow Hills Elementary School and was estimated to be approximately one mile from the west boundary of the Boise City limits. The area was recently annexed into the Boise City limits. During the initial phases of planning for the park green-up, it was expected that the park would be composed primarily of green space. However, the Department since decided to include a park pond in the park master plan to address irrigation concerns. In addition to the development of a pond, there was a need for a pond pump. The initial bid for the park green-up came in at approximately $619,000, which was under the $700,000 budgeted. With the added pond and pump, it was
Page 2 of 6 estimated that there was a need for an additional $110,000. The Department was requesting an increase of $200,000 for the project to be expended from the impact fee account. The increase would go towards a project contingency and cover an increase in base bids for the park green-up, which was caused by exponential increases of construction costs. D. Yorgason questioned how large the pond would be. J. Tomlinson responded that she did not have the pond size available, but she knew that it would be less than one acre in size. J. Giese questioned if there would be dog off-leash opportunities in the pond. J. Tomlinson responded that the opportunity to make the site available for dog offleash use had been discussed by the Boise City Department of Parks and Recreation Commission; they supported the Department reviewing the possibility of allowing dog off-leash use at the site. J. Tomlinson continued that the Magnolia Park Project Manager was in discussions with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding the depth of the pond. It was estimated that the pond would be approximately sixty feet deep. There were some issues with water rights for the property, which was located between two different jurisdictions, which still needed to be addressed. D. Yorgason explained that he had recently developed ponds and there was a need to have water rights for evapotranspiration, which addressed concerns for ground water, used to supply the pond, which would be evaporated from the pond s surface water. The wider the pond, the more surface area there would be, resulting in an increase of evaporation. He questioned if concerns regarding the water rights had been resolved. J. Tomlinson responded that the Boise City Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks) Water Rights Analyst was still working to resolve concerns for the property s water rights. D. Yorgason confirmed that the increase was primarily due to an increase in construction costs. J. Tomlinson confirmed that the increase was due to increases in construction costs, as well as to the additional park pond amenity. D. Yorgason questioned if the pond size was larger than what was originally proposed. J. Tomlinson responded that the pond was not initially included in the park master plan, so the amenity was not included in the original park green-up budget. Tonya Wallace, Strategic Advisor, explained that based upon the financial analysis for the next ten years, it did not appear that the proposed increase in the project budget would impact other projects funded by the North River Planning Area account. While there may be projects that have an increase in costs, it was possible
Page 3 of 6 that other projects would have a cost savings. If costs continued to increase then there would be a need to reevaluate the proposed projects and the available funding. D. Yorgason explained that the additional amenity would result in less green space for both children and dogs. While he did not like to see costs increase on a project, the park had to be irrigated, so he understood the need for the increase. A. VAN OCKER MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVE THE INCREASE IN BUDGET FOR THE MAGNOLIA PARK GREEN-UP PROJECT BY $200,000, TO BE FUNDED FROM THE NORTH RIVER PLANNING AREA ACCOUNT. SECONDED BY J. GIESE. DISCUSSION: D. YORGASON REQUESTED THE DEPARTMENT SHARE THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION REGARDING THE DOG OFF-LEASH USE AT THE SITE, AS WELL AS THE OUTCOME REGARDING THE WATER RIGHTS FOR THE PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. D. Impact Fee Updates T. Wallace explained that included in the monthly packet was the City of Boise s (City) response to questions she received from the Building Contractors Association s (BCA), during a presentation, regarding the proposed changes to impact fees. Also included in the packet were two letters received by the City regarding feedback for the proposed changes. She explained that the letters were received on the same day the proposed changes were scheduled to go before Boise City Council (Council). The purpose of the presentation with Council was to prepare them for a public hearing that was scheduled to occur on September 29, 2015. However, after receiving additional feedback following the presentation, it was decided to reschedule the public hearing for a later date. T. Wallace reviewed the impact fee update process which started approximately one and half years ago. The purpose of the process was to revise and update impact fees collected from developers that had completed either residential or commercial developments. The reason impact fees were implemented was because it was believed that new residential and commercial development in the community created an impact on existing infrastructure and resulted in the need for additional infrastructure for Parks, the Boise City Fire Department (Fire) and the Boise City Police Department (Police) to fund projects related to growth.
Page 4 of 6 Calculations were done to determine the dollar amount a developer should be charged by each of the departments. It was an extensive process that included going through each of the different variables. Variables reviewed included the ten year projected growth, capital needs, as well as projects needed to support the existing levels for each of the three departments. The review resulted in a number of proposed changes to the impact fees, which were in the end stages of being proposed to Council for approval. The proposed changes had recently been presented to Council. There had been approximately five other planning sessions that had occurred with Council prior to the recent meeting to collect feedback on many policy decisions that needed to be made. The purpose of the presentations was to collect feedback, as well as provide the feedback that had been received from the public regarding the proposed changes. The received feedback from the public was largely based upon the presentation of the proposed changes to the BCA, which was primarily responsible for residential development, and the Association of Realtors. The feedback received from the last meeting with Council, was that there was a need to reach out to the commercial developers, to collect their input, on the proposed changes. There was City concern, specifically from the Boise City Department of Planning and Development Services (PDS) which was responsible for issuing development permits, regarding the recommendations for the proposed changes to the commercial development impact fees. It was explained that impact fees were only charged to commercial developers for Fire and Police; they were not charged for Parks--with the exception being for consideration of charging Parks impact fees for lodging. There was concern because previously, commercial development, regardless of the type of development, was charged a Police and Fire fee. The proposed changes included charging an impact fee that was specific to the type of commercial development that was going to occur; the three types of commercial development were industrial, retail, or office. The recommendation for the change was based upon an analysis on the demand for Fire and Police services for each of the different business types. The analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the service demand. Industrial had a significantly lower demand for services than the office and retail categories. A. Van Ocker questioned whom the City would ask for feedback on the commercial development impact fees from. T. Wallace responded that it was suggested that the City collect feedback from the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). D. Yorgason also recommended collecting feedback from BOMA. T. Wallace added that Council had concerns with not charging new lodging development a Park impact fee; she would complete some additional research on the collection of lodging impact fees that would be provided at a later time. It was also requested that additional information regarding affordable housing be
Page 5 of 6 collected, specifically to address what could be done to help support affordable housing in the City. The Committee was reminded that the City was authorized to grant waivers for affordable housing, so that impact fees wouldn t prohibit affordable housing developments. However, with any impact fee waiver program, there was a requirement that impact fees had to be replaced, so there was a need for another funding source to replace the waived fees. Overall, Council and the Mayor were supportive of recovering 100% of the impact fee calculation. However, a decision on the proposed changes would not be made until additional research was provided. The plan would be to have a follow-up work session with Council on September 29, 2015, rather than a public hearing, which was originally scheduled. T. Wallace reviewed the steps needed to calculate impact fees. The first was development of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which would determine the cost of development. Once the total cost was calculated, it would need to be determined how much of the cost represented new development to meet existing service levels. If service levels remained the same after development, then it was impact fee eligible. If the new development resulted in an increase to the service level, then the City would be responsible for identifying funding, other than impact fees, to pay for the new development. Once the amount of impact fees needed to pay for new development was determined, then it was divided by the number of new units included in the projected growth. Each unit was weighted based upon the type of development it was and the services that would be needed. For commercial development, the office and retail categories had a higher use of service when compared to the industrial category, so it was proposed that they be charged a higher impact fee. The foundation, for all of the changes, was the CIP and the City would not be able to move forward with the proposed changes to impact fees without the adoption of the CIP. D. Yorgason questioned if the CIP had been reviewed by the Planning-Zoning Commission. T. Wallace responded that the CIP had been reviewed, and was approved, by the Planning-Zoning Commission. D. Yorgason questioned if there was a date for when the CIP would be reviewed, with a request for approval, by Council. T. Wallace responded that the plan would be to have Council review the CIP at the same time they reviewed the proposed impact fee changes. D. Yorgason questioned if the original plan was to take both the impact fees and the CIP before Council on September 29, 2015, and clarified that they were going to be postponed. T. Wallace confirmed that both items were postponed and that there was not a date for when they would be reviewed with a request for approval yet set. T. Wallace reviewed what service levels were, and explained that there were many different standards for Parks, Fire, and Police. For Fire and Parks the level of service
Page 6 of 6 used was the current value of the assets, per person, in the population. In previous impact fee studies, the level of service for Parks was based upon acres per 1,000 people in the population, which was a nationally recognized level of service. What resulted from the use of acres per 1,000 people in the population as a measurement was a large number of undeveloped acres. The primary level of service, previously used for Fire, was response time. D. Yorgason questioned what number was used to determine the asset amount. T. Wallace responded that the replacement value of the asset was used. Police level of service was calculated differently than Parks and Fire. The value measured to determine service level was the square footage per officer. If each officer required a certain number of square feet, and it was anticipated that a certain number of officers would be needed to support the projected growth, then the number of needed officers could be multiplied by their required square footage needed, to determine the amount of new space which would be required to support growth. V. IN THE MATTER OF ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Committee at the time, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. A. VAN OCKER MOVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADJOURN. SECONDED BY J. GIESE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.