Minutes - 2007 - City Council - 10/16/2007 - Regular
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
October 16, 2007
REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Merrill calls the meeting to order at 6: I 0 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. All present. A quorum
is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: John Franden leads the Pledge of Allegiance
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
· Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one
motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Mayor, a
Councilmember, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda
will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the City Council.
· Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval
from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, or Design
Review Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda
approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Concrete Placine: ComDanv Payment ADDlication No.3 East Hills 1 Million
Gallon Reservoir: (VB)
B. ODen Container Permit: Smoky Mountain Pizza is requesting an open
container permit to be used November 8, 2007 from 5:00 p.m. to II :00 p.m. at
Evans Building Supply (931 State Street) for their customer appreciation event.
(SKB)
C. DR-33-07 - Common Area LandscaDine: within Eae:le Gatewav South
Subdivision - Cornerstone LLC: Cornerstone LLC, represented by Walter
Lindgren with Johnson Architects, is requesting design review approval of the
common area landscaping within Gateway South Subdivision. The site is
located on the southeast corner of East Riverside Drive and State Highway 44 at
1650 East Riverside Drive. (WEV)
D. DR-46-07 - Two Storv Multi-tenant Retail/Office/Residential Buildine: _ Old
Town I. LLC: Old Town I, LLC, represented by James Gipson with James
Gipson and Associates, is requesting design review approval to construct a
5, III-square foot two story multi-tenant retail/office/residential building. The
0.18-acre site is located on the west side of South 2nd Street approximately 150-
feet south of East State Street at 65 South 2nd Street. (WEV)
E. DR-47-07 - Master Sie:n Plan for a Multi-tenant Retail/Office/Residential
Buildine: - Old Town I. LLC: Old Town I, LLC, represented by Heather Pascua
with Life Style Interiors, is requesting design review approval of the master sign
plan for a multi-tenant retail/office/residential building. The 0.18-acre site is
located on the west side of South 2nd Street approximately ISO-feet south of East
State Street at 65 South 2nd Street. (WEV)
Page]
K:\COU:"JClL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work ArealCC _ ]0-] 6-07mindoc
F. DR-53-07 - Sine:le-tenant Office Buildine: within Castleburv West Business
Park - Steed Construction: Steed Construction, represented by Stan Cole with
Steed Construction, is requesting design review approval to construct a 7,800-
square foot single story, single-tenant office building. The 0.62-acre site is
located on the northwest corner of West Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and
North Meridian Road at 66] 5 North Meridian Road (within Castlebury West
Business Park). (WEV)
G. DR-54-07 - Two Buildine: Wall Sie:ns for Oasis Medical Center - Steed
Construction: Steed Construction, represented by Golden West Advertising, is
requesting design review approval to construct two (2) building wall signs for
the Oasis Medical Center Building. The 0.62-acre site is located on the
northwest corner of West Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and North Meridian
Road at 66] 5 North Meridian Road (within Castlebury West Business Park).
(WEV)
Guerber moves to add to the Consent Agenda as Item #5H. Open Container Permit for
Louie's Pizza and as Item #51. Open Container Permit for Louie's Pizza. Seconded by
Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
Bastian moves to approve the Consent Agenda as Amended. Seconded by Nordstrom.
Bastian: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.........
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
*These items were continuedfrom the October 9,2007 meeting. *
A. CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19_06_ M3 Eae:le - M3 Eae:le: M3 Eagle. represented
by Gerry Robbins, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include +/_ 6,005
acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating the following land use and zones: 40 Acres
Residential Rural (up to I unit per 5 acres), 1,627 acres Residential Estates (up to 1 unit per 2
acres), 470 acres Residential One (up to one unit per acre), 670 acres Residential Two (up to two
units per acre), 1,250 acres Residential Three (up to 3 units per acre), 670 acres Residential Four
(up to four units per acre), 770 acres Village Center, 88 acres Mixed Use, with an annexation
with Pre-Annexation Agreement, a rezone with a Development Agreement, Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Eagle City Code Section 8. The 6,005 acre site is generally located north of the
Farmers Union Canal and Homer Road, east of State Highway 16 and west of Willow Creek
Road more specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file with the City of
Eagle. (NBS) Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment Only.
B. CPA-I0-06 - ComDrehensive Plan MaD Amendment to establish a Desie:nation of
Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation. Avimor. LLC: Avimor, LLC., represented by
Robert Taunton, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Text Amendment to include +/_
23,320 acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating the following land uses: +/_ 7, I 00
acres Foothills Cluster Development (not to exceed 2 units per acre) and +/_ 16,220 acres
Foothill Conservation Development (I unit per 40 acres). The +/- 23,320-acre site is generally
located from Highway 55 on the east to Willow Creek Road via Big Gulch on the west, the
northern boundary is approximately five (5) miles north of the Ada/Gem County line, the
southern boundary abuts the Connolly and Kastera properties. Specifically described in the
meets and bounds description on file at the City of Eagle. (NBS)
C. CP A-8-06 - ComDrehensive Plan MaD Amendment to desie:nate +/_ 2.000 acres of
BLM land as Public/Semi-Public: The City of Eagle, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to establish a land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map of
Page 2
K \CQUt'-iCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC _ IO-16-07min.doc
Public/Semi-Public for the BLM property. The +/- 2,000 acres site is located approximately II.
mile east of State Highway 16 and directly north of the Farmers Union Canal. (NBS)
D. CP A-6-07-Citv of Eae:Ie: The City of Eagle is proposing a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to achieve the following:
1) Adoption of the Eagle Foothills Sub-area Plan and associated text and maps;
2) Adoption of Brookside Sub-area Plan and associated text and maps;
3) Update appropriate sections of the existing plan to ensue consistency with the proposed
amendments. (NBS)
Mayor introduces the issues. We have all of the amendments that are being proposed. I have
asked our Planner N ichole Baird Spencer to present her presentation again for those of you have
not been to a prior meeting. After this presentation I will open the Public Hearing. [want to
acknowledge that we do have your written testimony. We will keep the testimony open until
10:00 p.m.
General discussion on public hearing procedure.
Planner Baird Spencer: I am going to presents an overview what has taken place to date and I
will go over the transportation impact that was presented at the last meeting. Presents a power
point presentation, 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Eagle Foothills and discusses the
same. General discussion.
Mayor opens the Public Hearing
Mayor swears in John Franden, ACHD
John Franden, President of ACHD, Nichole laid out a lot of information and provided a lot of
information on transportation. It is absolutely essential that we have some density numbers for
the area you are addressing. We need to have what type of structure, residential versus
commercial and where they are going to be located as we are in the process of doing a massive
Transportation Plan and it is vital that we have this information.
Mayor swears in Ann Ritter
Ann Ritter, 1270 W. Beacon Light, I am the Trustee for the Meridian School District for the
Eagle and Star area. Displays overheads and provides an overview of the schools and the need
for new schools in the Eagle and Star area including the impact on the schools with foothills
development. There are currently 32,756 students in the Meridian School District. Bonding in
Idaho is the only way we can build schools. Discussion on building new schools and passing
school bonds. M3 did volunteer and did volunteer land for schools. The Meridian School
District declined the offer because of the terms. General discussion and an Eagle School District
and a Sub-District. We are looking into a Bond Sharing Fund but there is presently no legislation
that allows us to do this. General discussion.
Mayor swears in Sharon Pratt
Sharon Pratt, 415 Main Street, Emmett, I am a Gem County Commissioner; 1 am here to give you
some thoughts on the plan. We feel your plan is a plan that accommodates a lot of growth. Our
concerns are that this area boarders a very remote part of Gem County which is designated as
agriculture on our comp plan. We have not included doing any future land use planning in this
area. Our priority growth areas are closer to the City of Emmett. Discussion on development
around the city of Pearl. We neither oppose or approve the proposed plan. General discussion.
Mayor swears in Tim Brewer
Page 3
K.\COUNCIL\J\1INUTESITemporary Minutes \Vork Area\Cr-l0-16-07min doc
Tim Brewer, Director of the Land Trust of the Treasurer Valley, I would like to thank you and
your staff for inviting us in your early planning stages. Discussion on the Communities in
Motion process. I want to touch on the importance of collaboration, displays overheads and
discusses the same. Discussion on the BLM that the City is in the process of obtaining.
Discussion on a BLM land exchange.
Mayor swears in Charles Trainer
Charles Trainer, Community Planning Association, my comments will supplements comments
submitted September 20,2007. My concern is that some could assume that the roadways shown
for transportation are funded and they are not funded to date. Discussion on all of the projects in
the Plan that need funding. The Plan will be updated in 20] O. Discussion on the Communities in
Motion Plan. General discussion.
Mayor swears is Bob Niccolls
Bob Niccolls, 4238 N. Triple Ridge Place, I am here representing my family who reside in the
City and the Area ofImpact, and I have not endorsed any Candidates in the upcoming election, I
am totally neutral. Discussion on how the population will increase. Developers want their land
to be annexed into the City of Eagle and I would like to see the control as close as possible. I
continue to be impressed with what the City is doing. General discussion.
Mayor swears in Phillip Fry
Phillip Fry, 4122 Homer Road, right next to the North Foothills. Distributes written comments.
I think this is a great Comp Plan. I would like to see the Comp Plan reduced. Provides an
overview of his written comments and discusses conservation. General discussion.
Mayor swears in John Rogers
John Rogers, 2582 N. Eagle Road, I am a sales manager for SunCor, as a builder we do embrace
conservation and we have made various attempts to accommodate the citizens of Eagle. [have
seen the product of the efforts of SunCor elsewhere and A vimor is going to be their crown jewel.
My wife and I are new residents to Eagle and we are going to raise our children here so we have
a stake in the future of Eagle. I ask you to accept Avimor into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan.
General discussion.
Mayor swears in Christen Eschen
Christen Eschen, 864 W. Westchester, I have grown up in the area and for the last three years I
have worked in real estate. I wanted to become educated about M3. I am impressed with the M3
project. If you don't approve M3 you will still have the same traffic because of the development
in the area. Why do I like M3, 35% open space, equestrian space and vineyards. Discussion on
Eschen family wines. Discussion and sings about family wine.
Mayor calls a recess at 8:20 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 8:30 p.m.
Mayor swears in John Petrovsky
John Petrovsky, Chairman North Ada County Foothills Association, general discussion on
aspects of the Comp Plan. Discusses the difference between the Community Plan and the M3
plan. We are not now nor have we ever been against development in the foothills. Development
in the foothills is a negotiation. We ask that the City follow through with the Plan that developed
from the community process.
Mayor swears in C.J. Thompson
Page 4
K\COUNCIL\l\lINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\(,(,-IO-16-07min.doc
C.J. Thompson, 4831 Willow Creek Road, I am one of the founders of the North Ada County
Foothills Association. Discusses what the Association stands for. Discussion on what of
development is being proposed in the foothills. The Avimor Plan is the right way to develop in
the foothills, the M3 is not the way to develop in the foothills.
Mayor swears in Robert Mortensen
Robert Mortensen, 485 E. Riverside Drive, I am a resident of Star, I am a 5'" generation Idahoan,
and I am an avid outdoorsman. [am grateful to work for Avimor and SunCor, they do care about
conservation and wildlife. A master plan community is essential for the development of the
foothills. Property holders have the right to use it.
Mayor swears in Russell VanLiew
Russell VanLiew, 97 Fisher Street, [ am a vision person, holds up two green apples; we need to
compare apples to apples. There are a lot of discrepancies. One of my biggest concerns is Eagle
Road. There are many reports on Eagle Road, they say Eagle Road will be from 5 to 2 lanes, I'm
concerned about how many lanes will be on Eagle Road. Discussion on development for itself.
There are still a lot of questions out there, why not wait?
Planner Baird Spencer, discusses the map that is on the City website, that may is on the website
because it was part of the original plan. The most information that you have received is accurate
at this point in time. Discussion on Eagle Road. General discussion.
Russell VanLiew, reads into the record testimony from his wife, Theresa VanLiew.
Council Member Bastian displays all of the binders in regards to the comp plan and states that all
of this information is a public record and is available to everyone; all you have to do is make a
public records request to the City.
Mayor swears in Heidi Patterson
Heidi Patterson, 5529 W. School Ridge Road, my family has owned property in Eagle for over
30 years. Discussion on visualizing what the area would look like. I have sat in on meetings
since this spring and must compliment the Nichole and the City for their efforts. Growth will
happen and I want to compliment the City for the planning that they are doing. I support the
Comp Plan Amendment because Eagle is going to get the impact and they need to have the
control.
Mayor swears in Allison Gilbreath
Allison Gilbreath, 4838 Willow Creek Road, I shared this with the Planning and Zoning and I
want to share it with you. Reads an article from the 2006 Leadership Conference entitled Careful
What You Ask For, Arizona Growth Expert Warns into the record. Discussion on growth.
Mayor swears in Joan Lyons
Joan Lyons, 351 Knob Hill, I have lived in the foothills for 30 years. Discussion on M3 and the
vineyards. If the vineyards are not there then 500 hundred would be built there. Discussion on
growth.
Mayor swears in Lida Fry
Lida Fry, 4122 Homer Road, this affects me more than it affects most of the people here because
ACHD will want land for a road. I have talked to Ada County and they favor higher density than
the City. They also envision more commercial development. Ifthere is going to be development
in the foothills Eagle should plan it and not Ada County.
Page 5
K\COUNC1UMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CT-10-16-07mindoc
Mayor swears in Stew Churchwell
Stew Churchwell, 8625 Bill Burns Road, Emmett, I know that you have put a lot in the Comp
Plan. What I know something about is native plants, their restoration, and noxious weed issues.
My company started planting of native plants on the Avimor project. This is an effort to restore
wildlife habitat and prevent fires. Avimor has included significant open space on the project.
This is a remarkable commitment from SunCor and is far above the bar that Mr. Brewer talked
about earlier. They have done this because "they get it". Without this restoration this land is
going to burn and this threateneds the homes and communities.
Mayor swears in Saundra McDavid
Saundra McDavid, 1297 N. Chaucer Way, reads a prepared statement into the record.
Mayor swears in Rachel Weiner
Rachel Weiner, 910 Main Street, Boise, I am here representing Idaho Smart Growth. Members
of our organization will be affected by this plan. I am opposed for all of these applications to be
combined. We would ask that you separate these applications and vote on each of them. These
applications are not within the City of Eagle or the City Area of Impact. Eagle Code as adopted
are not applied to these applications. Discussion on the Comp Plan. Discussion on growth in the
foothills.
Mayor swears in AI Shoustarian
Al Shoustarian, Discusses the existing Comp Plan and the changes proposed in the Comp Plan.
Discusses what a comp plan should do. Developers should not have input on a comp plan. We
are doing things upside down. Infrastructure and public facilities are missing in the comp plan.
My suggestion is to have an outsider with no involvement draw the comprehensive plan.
Displays overheads and discusses the same.
Mayor swears in Gilbert Simpson
Gilbert Simpson, 837 Hialeah, I found the City's website informative. Displays a flyer from M3
that was on his doorstep. 1 grew up on property in the County that had a well and septic and that
property wasn't able to be developed until water and sewer was available. I would urge
proceeding slowly and try to envision a head of time. When you put development ahead of
infrastructure you have accidents, we need to look at transportation a head of time. 1 am happy
to say that the City of Eagle has not raised my taxes; maybe you should have to buy water
systems and city halls. Development needs to pay its way and I hope that the Legislature takes a
look at that.
Mayor swears in Guy Hendrickson
Guy Hendrickson, 1772 Lakemoor Way, thanks for creating the process for the foothills
development and I support what you are doing. I am worried about traffic. I think the City is in
the best position to manage that. I would like you to include all of the Avimor property. I would
like to see requirements for infrastructure. I would like to see the developers held hostage for the
infrastructure. 1 would urge you to approve the original plan and make the decisions on the
density. I would also like to see natural open space and trails. Separating out Avimor and M3 is
the right thing to do.
Mayor swears in Miguel Legarreta
Miguel Legarreta, 9505 N. Bethel Court, Boise, I am here representing the Ada County
Association of Realtors, I am here to ask some questions. Have the applicants followed
Page 6
K\CQLTNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-10-16-07mindoc
procedure and the appropriate process, have they met the necessary qualifications, are the
amendments comparable and compatible with the Comp Plan and was Idaho Law adhered to? If
these types of questions have been answered and the due diligence necessary has been done by
the Council then it would be appropriate to approve the amendment to the Comp Plan.
Mayor swears in Terry Christensen
Terry Christenson, ] 094 E. Covey Run Court, one of my main concerns is potential this could go
into the County. I am very pleased with Eagle and their eye for detail and the development in the
area. This is not going to happen over night and could be 30 years down the road before
something substantial is going to happen. We are here to focus on the Comp Plan. Change is
coming and having an opportunity to control that is inevitable.
Mayor swears in Michael Huffaker
Michael Huffaker, 1753 N. Chaucer Way, I support a lot of previous comments. Discusses the
music program at Eagle High School and the choirs. What kind of legacy are the developers
going to be leaving for us? We don't know what legacy they are going to leave and I am very
concerned about that. I am in favor of the City being involved in the process and it would be
important for the City to control this. I appreciate the work of Keith Allred. Mr. Allred's report
was full of cautionary statements. It is important to have all of the information available before
proceeding. General discussion.
Mayor swears in Eric McLaughlin
Eric McLaughlin, 1101 N. 15th, Boise, I am not a resident of Eagle but I grew up in the area.
started coming to the Eagle City Council meetings because I am involved in wine industries,
restaurants in the area and the wine district in Eagle. I am interested in the fact that M3 has
proposed a potential vine yard in their area. I contacted M3 to see if I could look at their
property in regards to developing vine yards. I was pretty amazed as how much viable and ideal
vine yard land is available in the area. The economic development and impact this would bring
to the area is great.
Mayor swears in Gary Cunningham
Gary Cunningham, 5900 Pearl Road, I am here to talk about the vineyard industry. I have
property that has vineyards that will produce 7,000 cases of wine this fall. There is good
vineyard ground on the M3 property and more importantly there is exceptional vineyard ground
north of Eagle.
Mayor: we will keep this Public Hearing open and continue it to October 23, 2007 at 6:00
p.m.
Mayor calls a recess at 10:20 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 10:30 p.m.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Ordinance No. 558 (Lonesome Dove): An ordinance annexing certain real property
situated in the unincorporated area of Ada County, Idaho, and contiguous to the corporate limits
of the City of Eagle, to the City of Eagle, Idaho; establishing the zoning classification of said real
property described herein; amending the zoning map of the City of Eagle to reflect said changes;
directing that copies of this ordinance be filed as provided by law; and providing an effective
date. (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Page 7
K.\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\(C-IO-16_07min doc
Nordstrom reads Ordinance #558 by title only. Nordstrom moves, pursuant to Idaho Code,
Section 50-902, that the rule requiring Ordinances to be read on three different days with
one reading to be in full be dispensed with, and that Ordinance #558 be considered after
being read once by title only. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES......
Nordstrom moves that Ordinance #558 be adopted. Seconded by Guerber. Bastian: AYE;
Guerber: A YEj Nordstrom: A YEj Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES................ ..
B. Discussion of reward monev for information on vandalized DroDertv. (SKB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to reward Steffan Russell and Marcus Ahrens, two teenagers who
cooperated with the Sheriff's Office to provide prosecution of individuals who vandalized
certain places within the City, and that they each share in the $500.00 award, $250.00 each.
Seconded by Nordstrom. Discussion. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYEj
Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Bastian moves to adjourn. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION
CARRIES...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
j Q, C<-L., \L.(J,,~
-SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
",..........,..
"",. ~ BAGl .....
" .\ 0 ......... ~ ".
,~, -..
I...""... ..OtlA 7'~... ... ".
.. r.. ~" .... .
= "-'e 0 .:
. . . .
: : c ,_' ;:: :
: .. ~ G p..\..~:o:
~,.. '. c.. P QI ~ ~
'" . /'v ~ ~<f(;J' .... ~
...~ ..~('ORPO"''''''.n'\ ,:;
'., ~' ........ \.V ,"
"" l';J TE O~ ""
" ,.,
""."11""
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT EAGLE
CITY HALL
Page 8
K:\COUNCIL\lvfINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\C'f -1 O~[6-07min_doc
OFFICE -MEDICAL OFFICE
�-1,000-400,000 S.F.
■
OFFICE
1,000-100,000 S.F.
OFFICE -MEDICAL OFFICE
1,000-400,000 S.F.
1
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
File:
Mr I o ZUU?
Comparison of the Projected Employment at 1,11: -;-Eagle
at Full Build -Out of the Project
to the Current Laraest Employers in the Bois, MSAite to:
Building 11 Ja i
Employer NameTotal Jobs Ft Sq Emolovmet Employee
Micron Technology, Inc. 10,600 2,377,000
577,000 1,074 537
St. Luke's Health System 6.400 500,000 4,000 125
Mountain Home Air Force Base 5,250
Boise School District 4,000
Hewlett-Packard Company 4.000
J.R. Simplot Co. 3.500 30,000 300 100
69.464 225 3 09
Projected Employment on the M3 -Eagle 3,492
Site at Full Build -Out of the Project
Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center 3 143 350,000 2,100 167
Meridian School District 2.875
Albertsons A SUPERVALU Company 2.730 244.000 na
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2.400
Boise State University 2.206
Qwest 1,800
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare 1,800
DIRECTV, Inc. 1.700
Citi Cards (A division of Citigroup) 1,450
Nampa School District 1,400
City of Boise 1.400
The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC 1,377
Ada County 1,360 322,825 na
Wells Fargo 1,335
Fred Meyer 1,200
Idaho Power Company 1 100 214,000 500 428
U.S. Bank 1,053
U.S. Postal Service 1.050
Idaho National Guard 1,000
T -Mobile USA, Inc. 850
Blue Cross of Idaho 800
MPC Computers 750
Mercy Medical Center 708
Regence BlueShield of Idaho 704
Winco Foods 700
Veterans Affairs Medical Center 700
Boise Cascade. LLC 700 62.300 564 110
Idaho Dept. of Commerce & Labor 690
Motive Power 670
West Valley Medical Center 525
Washington Group International 476 214.000 476 450
Plexus Corp. 400
Key Bank 357
M3 EAGLE
MAJOR EMPLOYER LOCATIONS
OFFICE -MEDICAL OFFICE
�-1,000-400,000 S.F.
■
OFFICE
1,000-100,000 S.F.
OFFICE -MEDICAL OFFICE
1,000-400,000 S.F.
1
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
File:
Mr I o ZUU?
Comparison of the Projected Employment at 1,11: -;-Eagle
at Full Build -Out of the Project
to the Current Laraest Employers in the Bois, MSAite to:
Building 11 Ja i
Employer NameTotal Jobs Ft Sq Emolovmet Employee
Micron Technology, Inc. 10,600 2,377,000
577,000 1,074 537
St. Luke's Health System 6.400 500,000 4,000 125
Mountain Home Air Force Base 5,250
Boise School District 4,000
Hewlett-Packard Company 4.000
J.R. Simplot Co. 3.500 30,000 300 100
69.464 225 3 09
Projected Employment on the M3 -Eagle 3,492
Site at Full Build -Out of the Project
Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center 3 143 350,000 2,100 167
Meridian School District 2.875
Albertsons A SUPERVALU Company 2.730 244.000 na
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2.400
Boise State University 2.206
Qwest 1,800
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare 1,800
DIRECTV, Inc. 1.700
Citi Cards (A division of Citigroup) 1,450
Nampa School District 1,400
City of Boise 1.400
The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC 1,377
Ada County 1,360 322,825 na
Wells Fargo 1,335
Fred Meyer 1,200
Idaho Power Company 1 100 214,000 500 428
U.S. Bank 1,053
U.S. Postal Service 1.050
Idaho National Guard 1,000
T -Mobile USA, Inc. 850
Blue Cross of Idaho 800
MPC Computers 750
Mercy Medical Center 708
Regence BlueShield of Idaho 704
Winco Foods 700
Veterans Affairs Medical Center 700
Boise Cascade. LLC 700 62.300 564 110
Idaho Dept. of Commerce & Labor 690
Motive Power 670
West Valley Medical Center 525
Washington Group International 476 214.000 476 450
Plexus Corp. 400
Key Bank 357
M3 EAGLE
MAJOR EMPLOYER LOCATIONS
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA -6 -07 -City of Eagle
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
/-", B /b// co 1_.& s
k 1 :Frj
44t -S 714
(_/1
Z'Al---7-11576//7:2:11(
CI-C-StkUCttdki k(CAA
V‹) iQ5C1 (1(44' Y -A,1)1
III-.aZ
trir
C,‘1\1c1.4.0,1
7/7 11 All
her.
')-&" fl
ftty'/'rG,
- of
(.06 W /JC/ -)41
q Tr, ,o/ e- Q d( e
5�
5>i ,r
/ //
age
4-44- 72 3 ►< K
LfIZ2 1JCi'Wy1
C
S
Ito"
y C-7 I
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation. Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA-6-07-Citv of Eagle
M o re.vi se -71
�1 \CV„/(4geZ"e,,.64t1--
S e‹,cLi airivelet,)/4
''d/
/ . c /--7, (
-1E/31(0,(1\_i
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
V_)(1 k3 )
3u rvc4C.4,
E LLI LL( f 1 7 /3 <K3 G/ `7
/303 z,'
yam, hfi�Z
-'3 s' 3 ?
1 1 I
1+15 t VZI6.:410. Crltitwcr�
/
✓ l, -o<!1 1f N
IV\MSkYMA
fyl vJ
!� �l e,,LLL
2
Lv 1A oG
101 v , . 1)(4, c ft._
hz \ 0— i7 sC
NC)
,,c
evO
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation. Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2.000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA-6-07-Citv of Eagle
October 16. 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
— Ur. ��l�r,4 i CC ta&--
J�
eCte
Y
1\ -VW cam.
Su_ A-
\CL{La( 1(
L,d1rx.-
512 72
•3$ -rte
7,55' -/3k3
X 7 4 2K-( k(5 r
- 5/ L A q
1)
EC-0—
es �L¢.
fi-r,-y
Cri. 3
1 G 2 C,, -J r.. 0--
6/3`?-. 6zgS
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
7c
YeS
Cro
\ 9
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eag
2. CPA -10-06 - Comnrehensive Plan Man Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation. Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment to desienate
+/- 2.000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA -6 -07 -City of Eagk
NAME
ttt�fuc(
/741 (7�/d M
/11,,11/2
/) L/ Gov2,)--\
/I/GCC en4t-a2
Y Tti‘i/
Cii-C((- i b-GC,ILLYk
1/00{A-53 Zcl-4\ _A\ S I
AL( I-ID4-1
J
C L1'Y �/ �, . N G1eivii
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
7 3 Z ' (/lc„ c((fi
[ a. /01 (
ID 8L-
71722 Ai e-1./(1-6.4(.:_
G'iu6( 7-t. 5 7L,_, F:l cs-s-W
`71LS
y -
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
�e
N 2 6 k
, 17 dir • (AA /
iicS ��q. n�e._
2 r7 (c C4N -K
\ 'CA .
A('
e`er,
Cy
S�
t�(C C_ -c cel
1((/ /. a:7 4C\ r( .. ►!-
6-'1 � cam, e/k Ce. It C yq ((1'
ff�
Fr r)
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eae1e
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA-6-07-Citv of Eaele
NAME
atuur rc4 (1 A 4 V 10
✓A� 5 hw 54Ur;o0
21 (110 vt .c 4.-
A L_(� ,7 0
f 1,/ 1,t.1'";lc71\()
)1t)eq (1(1.:
1)41 V 1?)CULk-t'
�f le
ii -`I
�
I
����� fu6:)s
ty
/ /A_ V-ey 0 o (Le„.
October 16. 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
I)-cf? At ()lower ti6•Ijie
r
837
(_) , J� mf vl) - TA/
1
o too•
&sLukz
`/
_5"-`1b j �r
'L
7zcif N -S P
0(1 (--cr-c-L
6o3 e
11-,373— V `u v r-eA1 c re r r it r i,
z,.; C,49 r ra m et- 6:11
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
\G S.
P,20
c,».1)
S
S
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Mao Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation. Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2.000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA-6-07-Citv of Eazle
NAME
P1
OLE= IL? I ��Ll
U•) (L l o" k),\
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
12u
le_
(S 70 . ( .1-0v L t( (RAL Lt
2 %T 0
2a( (,L (2�
x/) Com;i
Lev, e
7
/7 A.3 C,-r7idt Co „n .
V// W sky C,e'�Cd Z
�.7� A)
e-6(4--/ e ���
/ ZO S/0Llek,i<
(c/
/v2-) At n/k777/- 9i'6-74
�- L '- 0-04)
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA -6 -07 -City of Eagle
NAME
701\1-\ &AsL.
v4Q u 11 U 13 I CL•ti` kwl ecf f(
ll(4'{f (Ie (44.+cr,1rCrV'
gA+avie D
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
3 l„ (J -E -(G,_ „ 11
20 cfyA
Ltso\Wkr' GrusScc t74 �.
t( i7
V --km
7
Iz t kIr,sem.;
L r e cc,
ir-
i� cti cJI4
Z3 a 4- O
'I, )4 \ L LVA)
(S ,
ti ul
\_\J" -2_t_-1 Si '611 ici-f
/Uo
,Jo
Co v\
Ipk6
rry
C4TJ
Co
o
0 C o 1�
710 CO
NC eL J
EA (7 1 If
���/4
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eav
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to desisnate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA -6 -07 -City of Eagk
NAME
aSt
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
I V1R
L v >>•
-7)(z_ 1 �.
5-0 5 C LJ r c-Lac)L 6- l)
57i5 (O(Leet(62y
oc\.,,N
4741 /74/7
L a y 1 � r - „. t c)
l � I
,Z.2; - �''��l 11-N
- c\s, 0 `/ .r ' / f y `/
<�J
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
0 Y1
/: -/ '74 f'% C = /,
2 Lai
0 A/ (Gl% x' ze
//)
C t (—
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA-6-07-Citv of Eagle
NAME
1----iid Siul by Orr
October 16, 2007 6:00 D.M.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY.
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? 2, (PRO/CON
j7S E. Str-l=wcJtem
l9 , /L S36 Hi
210`1 av-(1/1
.2 Slc, E.13 C'aco,\
2 i Ce 2 IQ & v e L -OIs GU&k
hoau1n�� ��r, 4r' c a C-0011
jer
c; -67,re G471-
/\ 1oye( ?&1C o,p'
/qAJoo 7ij`',ocvq`
(1742
4S L) rf- 07
/d'JJ /V,
4,1
J
c., ��> :r)?LTi,
3 3
Pro
Y Co,t)
PR 6
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA -6 -07 -City of Eagie
NAME
elle L
K1L
A.2( ec( F/ !mac
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
1Fn (%), (3c 0 z.lar,
13 7-7 N /144 -iv): c/ e L-
�U2) SC.c1 4-u
moi`r'L6t4-7(Uc����c� i C%
/`) "7 .4/ix: sj cr
z-;fl1fr�/
ft 6/ G — h , c Cl C-' %i' ail • e C i vti
l
(",()1 (Cz.t' (/LcG'C
ti c c� «ll1'1 tcicd(c i
V
7Gtn(�'1, 06-r‘bu,4 'T64 Cold \kf(etl?cf
)./d/4 ik° PayQc zi6V ,c-71/&re
Lt,
3L lc���ucs (-)1
/4,
E� 2 eT
Nrs`T
0 `,_L „1,., C_ I -
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
y. Cog
11
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation. Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA-6-07-Citv of Eaule
October 16. 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
L7k
l�Qkik(
ta4.(_,S 4 ru c)
6d -'v , ,1
k71< -
f
f
Litw..ro. NAM-
\/14,,f/hp
cAl
/
3tivo _24-c 0(j_.,<
TESTIF
YES/N
A0
60)-
/k0
)279 L1,.
STI i kL (1 - le .
Z75 . (? 7e 40k- /=a /-
\\'`
1-
.2/20 ;ti)q6/4.-Vbg
4-53( (4)r 4
y
P4)
C
CoYN
CG/t/
cti
t4c-ki\
124,
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA -6 -07 -City of Eagle
NAME
-�� 731>c4 -U,#
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
�3c W rtt r"
B39- , � nr,es
5 . C or•^. -tn idu ue .14:AA
`1// 44/I SLS" / 3 > > ,,� 77/6;X-7/1) J v' C1
f377y /
cr E, 42&•—•
TESTIFY
YES/NO?
%
%flani t
PRO/CON
CILIA c
axe
6GN
zp % .11o,;,,, -/r7 C0%0 cvi cas I n
9cg1 n1 X115f 3&r , k37oz
/6 //D
ir GG 37/1/
iO 7/ _ ' ST4/_' ) e 3
3(,(t A, 0 CG&I
C r-�/
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eaple
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA -6 -07 -City of Eaele
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
(\;) K._)
�1e,4'(
11 11
het
PCAAA c
'`)105 1)«-62(',
f
r=_ A-6-
7 ;) Los Lau L Y
‘b7C N )Y6oi,e�2 (.�
L .0;:_.;2 \ 3 c7 G— ) I,'' a. --k ('t . rc -
J '-J
)/(/ � A 1, 2_ ((,v b`Eek e_iC(0+IIAto
64 GiG7).
i (-/ 4 2 10. c---c,ii, c - 1 ,,-:k L
Mi id/& -0
`ly
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
f>
N�
Ccs=
CooC� x
rio ccN
VlU
0U
Cur
co,J1
4-2 p 04
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
1. CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle
2. CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
3. CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
4. CPA-6-07-Citv of Eagle
NAME
/t-471ii R f��t�,ZC.L,
October 16, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
SY6 / th7/ /C (.'ti,
3 03 _S -7,-/t? ,,_ic AA) 061
/00 4-j
L O Uc) I I .1) 7
h C,
,l'c
Cif rl �*e4
c-3-'4
CC
Eagle City Hall
660 E. Civic Ln./P.O. Box 1520
Eagle, Idaho 83616
(208) 939-6813 (ext.201) fax (208) 939-6827
A memo from the Deputy City Clerk
To: Mayor & City Council
CC: City Clerk
From: Tracy E. Osborn, CMC
Date: October 16, 2007
Re: ADDITION TO AGENDA
Please add the following items to the Consent Agenda:
Item 5H: Open Container Permit for Louie's Pizza & Italian Rest. to be used for the
Chamber of Commerce After Hours Event of Mountain West Bank (1539 E. Iron Eagle
Rd.) on October 25, 2007 from 2:00 pm to 7:00 p.m.
Item 51: Open Container Permit for Louie's Pizza and Italian Rest. to be used for the
ribbon cutting event for Title One Corp. (868 E. Riverside Ste. 100) on October 23, 2007
from 2:00 pm to 7:00 p.m.
The applicant filed these applications at 4:30 today and is in hopes that Council will be able
to accommodate this late submittal so that the above mentioned may take place.
service with a smile!
C --'2-0 7
'lam.
EC;
CDrri
1111111111111110
P JThi
1
• . — ' _ ": -
The Eagle City,Councif wi
applicatiorisr
•
Zoning Cominsssion Rec9
• M3 M'Ap and Text A
City UM Recreatiod
4v in;or Map and Text Amendment
At r
by the Council for- inclusion into Dn CiAlsContnryfr
Plan.
CPA -08-06:
Planning &Zoning Com ss RecoMmex
a�: Recommended
,000 acres BLM p
•Public/Semi Public
4
'0) to approve the +-
to be designated
Ct7S
OF the Coun
= "
.:q1j)15/3?-111;
2
\
: . !
'SO323449000' ,<32,:y4,33 4?'
I SI/3252124M 50230110103-V I
SO326142306 17
317412
1/1 L2JrjJ
rl I
Two formal trail heads ,..rith parking
Educational s
specie
3
e 12 ?T' 1-4 CDLIfIdl
:
"":" "7. " •7- ;7'
jltgEgtjfl
e dty recognizes a mance of
foothills will crette. the need /or significant improvem
internally and externally tthrea.ThrimpCtIIOUI
adequately assessed and distributed among the land owners
foothills.
The City and land owners should W
establish a mechanism for the rev
transportation [Oct/ asSociated
Eagle Foothills..Ind the imptemen
• Work witft ACHD, 1TOand/othIt
er
aficif rtieS tO p
impact fees for
Foothills
All development
provision of base mu •
Those include: server imunrci pat tvater,
, All development within the • ." -
connect bathe City of Eagte
unless otherwise indicated
Development in the Foothill
impacts it will have to the
, • .
4
iitj .:1
• • r4.-4HIt i4r4,-...??-ents oox,: .4? tr+e total householc; pro!,
1.:2+ g-,ni,n,lu 202+11.
-
•-• •
it+ 4 ye.xf (A.ArDel 22+0,1 ao,i 2225 the corntrinecl number.
a.1.1 P-O0?+?niel tile.ifft?t+ +An 15 1.41. - 130,' O. of the groatt, pr0.1
. tee eily.e, oy tlTe next 25 to lo yea
to, 2'805 1,7=17. th• ..-Ner 5 ear) vi'ere tru.'.7. in tha
31W .-.,it De built -out in 23 V2,3,3
h .1 Ite1iqlx?. too :.-; :.2.77.:+m1ena:ve Plan.
, 12;21,401.S '0'01h -a e3r zroctl) projection pz-itv, 2005
312.31A ;Dr. caitfe 724c,—,i L'e projected unita. ev
ge":y .p+7 -r. -Nat.
Th.e. Cs...A.:77+,1.11N in Vici that Eagle from 2005 to 20
- n,31 e ? ern! Tile actual 10 year grov.tli rat.,
Pl+ --31Lict:1h r, foiecastixl growth.
1, ^.35 31 achieved 10 year arcmth ra
e.3 3 25 yez- acctrinuratve
,?te 11.4', 3 41‘...1.
w
Potential Ma County Unita
200D to 2C130
artektang Focenies)
• „
6c000
50000
0 t 40000
30000
70000
0
City
02006 2030I
W2003 2006
02000 00051
5
FJEirrrili PiE rinin J FEiccs
_ Jl
Priorities & Responsb' r
Foothills Pia
roundwater Protection & Supply ,:
urrent developer studies within t e area aro rag r g.
luation. All land uses are predinhadrrrtiera a?:tyd
•apage 9i„ IpWRalone.conts_watersgrts..
I _
!raffiC/Transpportation- at./ is working . ir n Aa -10 o a}'i.
oothills Transporiatiort St;dv &-vrith nip on the H i^/ 55 corn v. -
Ty. ACRO has asked tile Cityfor land. usesagd iialr t u.
rider, to move fan•iard t'iittf this study:n
uthoriiv_over Roads..
Open : Space; Preservation This plan tau sf,
(oration and minimum area for ha{ntafa L p ro,
Foothil(st The Gty is i.orkirg ciitfi I0 jr;_
r r '•J' ,lathe :regi . af•opert
City J> clrr 'J)cJrl
This EJJpli:JCiJn ; 'the ir!Cl'Jfiir! Jr CrJ=
FJJShllls =J the
U2dl_lte 'tC the `.ittirJg :pl In rc Jd !r J
intrE]strutrure/fJdlitiez, Jpen
tfJri p italt1Jr1, Jr1Cl i jrl 'l/illi:'. :.._
FJo'triill�.
6
Eagle Foothills Study Area
PiEirirling Pf Jc1;
Mr: r,f1S11E Df
•
•Prlvr'�� i>> l i.'i it lic ii�Jrin�s, Jr h flan
The Plan is base on upon t e opportuni
n r iri mam. -.
Draft City Foothi
Rewnirgencled by Eagle P&Z Commis
.2.1/fittirrw.r.JJ
-if111.:;:EL111111j-:n
11 I
8
Pi lairs 1l 'tie Urzift City P1_Jri
::II: J.J.J
-)
IJI:i :_ l_J lI'JJs iJIJI�IJ_
tymAr
9
_Eigle ryj?tiil1J -J r i iL: L
Rural Transe
4414111efinnsi/ 0 �of W
(oda, including Wools ansutaMe to
soniement duo to totggraooy, h
vegetation. 4i[lWes Egftl . ULM
noodMay
�J�Jc1J1 J!JJUIJJIJ rrEJroe: L
10
.:�f :'.! .; 511!1'1! �•._ ;Art w,
1'l EdV1JJftJJJrilLJJ!}
in!a�:,c,bn; ;GSlim Ji; i;l]�rifi�L Jr_J'J; 1._ is�fiilL.
11
. .1 acres localq.d • .
ter' •
re
. _
12
J';1J�r}J1
I�y'7f1'JlJ�Jt1Jr �!1S�Jt1tJPJPtlPJ!
JilJr��l'/JL'=J 'J�� i:��1J�f1JJI
,A.
,1JTlL1'gfJ&tlf1J tJkf1PJf1�J11
rJ Jt1.1Jf1JJPf1JJd r�Pl�JfS
Acres
Density
% res denbal
% non-residential
Sq ft of non-
residential
Neighborhood
Centers Bown Crossing
40-60 Acres 27
6 units/acre 5.6 units/acre
Min. 50% (110 units) 72%
Max 50% 28%
Max. 150,000 sq Ft. 45, 872 sq ft
13
/ )JJ _.. 1 -'"i =— r __ (sli r=r--rJE
Lliir Er, iiJ fJFhJer)
J �l� Jr1�'rJ> 111Jsi• jiil
rrJ C'JrnlrrJJrilhy r�rir�r
Community Centers Redstone
Acres 100-150 Acres
1 Density 0 units/acre
% resklential Max 2S%
% non-residential Max 100%
Sq ft of non -res Max. 350,000 sq Ft.
Access n --I.:e direct
State Nu
35 acres Center
65 Acres adjacent
res,denaal
7.46 units/acre (gross)
70%
30%
250.000 sq ft
80 & SH 224
14
ncJ_Jrr`/ PuL rii 1 Jr
1
Ada County Density Targets
Area Teva. acres minus open Develoomenl Target
space
A 13050 6 i
6 4 550 2 280
C 3 315 1,660
J 4 140 2 070
Total 25 055 12 530
tv ,:e Dense), Targets rn Area D includes exIsnng nouselg
I 1'4)- .'
.. -:' _-1JJt9JJJ'1111' `/a-11lJ1aJJ
�!y :Jj.+I_1!1JJJ j
IL) 11: Lj
�1JJ.IJJ NjJ4 • 3J1.6a4
'JJ 1111 : J fes.
15
FrJ r_-,Drii,-,trEilrit-s'o.1-.31p
JLJJ'1/1.7zip"
16
Lrzulr'Pliri'�li�i
Canstralned/natural areas Should
open spateareas. - recommenderl
Areas ween 15% being other aper space
In less constrained areas, open space may also Include -
golf courses, common areas, setbacks and buffers. —
POI eap nessedabze s
sbncardsfor auwelopmet
spat J#eas
r.l
r
Cin of Eagle
r0,11,11s Trod System
I
1
T
7.i) 1.11111'f,
31sip:ii J Lei �: °i1� Jr r:
17
Improvements Not In Communities in Motion
But needed for the City Foothills Plan
SH 55 - 1 additional lane each direction (from Hwy
44 to County line) & grade -separated intersections
between Beacon Lght Rd and Boise/Ada County line
North Foothills roadway network between SH 16 and
SH 55 to accommodate potential development
Under Rd - 4/5 lane connection between Horner Rd to a
new north foothills artenal
Palmer Rd - 213 lane connection between Beacon LIgnt
no to a -ew nprtn foothills artenal
11111_ ra! i/�:�
TiII�'JnJtyl JqJ l,i�; ay'JI%lr riri
Sill FIJFAJ rJ J FC;rISs(sjs f', I:. I, d �_-I
11/Bl./ -
kit/ n!Ju% Uig;
rH6israri iiffii thF..:...
18
Transportation Scenario
Wing Eagle Qty Ptan Gty Plan Pius M3
C104) 60.049 (oticianai IMO units)
. Model Year:
2030
•
Eagle Un11s-
10,688
Addihon.1
777
8,104,ona,
wr.1247,
105
48% growth
rale over 27
years
r1.TknenIj nual
i growth rate
Actual 8'I%
annual
9,0840 rate
Model Year
2030
Foothills
Units: 12,800
40400011
unks/771
474
202% growth
rate over 27
years
Annual
Growth ratr
2.5%
Actual: 8.4%
annual
oronth rare
•
Model Year: l•lotlel Year
2030 7030 •
' Foothills Foothills
10,1300 Unitr'
• .aildrionzl
rxlit(717
68.5
277'.5 or
rate over 77 1310 060)7
stars years
g3n, j,:trndmzruai
•
Actual: 8.4%
87700 .1
3.97 80)7
growth
el
r. P
AVifilDr
54 i4c1 um Imps. comP4,8,8 . 087 .
E•pl• In CM PLtn
...a
ita
.....
ma w
or NM
near.
2330. 30
5-4
•
100".
.
scan
a
....
..... •
soot
iv..
Nrethe
PaIL
Ilan
OvervIm
I.,
ka•
1,
19%
1,
411,
8.1,
37 V,
14,
0130130130
.........•:.
.4 ••••••
12100
..........., Ina
Carnmossywore
‘,....
88*
305*
254*
/12*
344*
114*
788*
irEiropDrLErcipri EAU-Th-1-1E1i/
_ -FriereviJI Pie mgrs.-. trips
Itiirrjer will be cEipti_iret.1 int'ne Cit/
thin ever PeTpre (less jr! th•a•
:rJ rpEitis 111110111)nd
":::rpt;t: stLirititrips fpt..-us in ry
`;'.iver Crp2;iiing
19
)
J r.
- Aci-JJ
EYE/ ter }Ei J 1.1,.;e2E, Did
lini S lrl r,r,„1-�" ;Ur'm..iri
;iri:l_
P. i5
rp with lTD & A
Formalize Access Management Plan; for SH ,4 & 20/26 -
Area Plan
Continue to work together on SI Corridor Plan (Including a
management as proposed m the Draft city Plan}
•
Move forward with the r crth Feel1115 Transportation Plan (esta
roadway needs & casts in the foothills)
Work to uY.ablish extraordinary impact
tee district, latecomers fees or
alternates funding options for on &off site improvement' associated with
the tooth IIs
Work with ACHD & ITD to establish a process for the r
development plans and phasing plans to Identify neves
improvements for inclusion in development agreeMen
Uy;,r.,r,;;,. i,r,lyd.i
TIP deveiopmeht and imprerrentaton for the existing city art
•ad typology & LOS)
a FM'h Afr111:
• _reR^11
•
�
+
�0SCA*
Qr6i. ®ir
rZtr
20
1m
1: a:LE: id
2J.Lid pJJ
11.1 !-jr_)!JJJ:r.I.,
JjI
:IL/111,,,11"J
JJr JJiJ11.1.11L!
-, J5JFS!•%'..,!1!!.1
!).11
h111 f....".7; S.; 1:0.1
•ft.ik•Ilf Ore erilliqn.'
. . „ .
odditional land use appiltdifottc, pp
labile heartnip ,
21
I'm CJ Thompson; 1 live in the foothills at 4831 Willow Creek
Road.
anted
nd/ h
e Pr cess
paki6uiar
k othr-eofte
e op • •rtu
been ore
f ',ringerp lic t
w of'one a •
nit, is j
• prop
timo
P s these remarks
st to
late
t • igh
ast or
etter or
ha. • een alto ed,
's 4- - hour • res = ntati n.
even it 1 run a lith over.
I'm one of the founders of the North Ada County Foothills Assn.
Some NACFA positions have been seriously misrepresented at
various points, so I want to reiterate our principles...which are
the same today as they were when we began 5 years ago.
Since then, we've had the same message:
We understand the community is growing.
We support solid planning for the entire foothills area.
We feel very strongly that existing neighborhoods—including the
rural and large -lot areas—must be protected. They should not be
collateral damage to new development.
We insist that growth pay its fair share. We oppose subsidizing
correction of development impacts through increases to our
taxes.
We believe that development should proceed only if we are very,
very sure that the water needed to serve new development will
not diminish supplies for current residents, especially those who
have private wells.
We advocate passionately that the beauty of our foothills be
preserved...that we must retain large expanses of contiguous
open space for wildlife and for the traditional recreation uses
that, due to the generosity of previous landowners, have existed
in our foothills for decades.
In short, NACFA has supported moderate, sensitive
development...such as clustering units and conservation
subdivisions...development that recognizes, perpetuates and
further promotes the community values that make Eagle the best
place to live in the entire Valley.
You've heard from two applicants about their plans for foothills
development...and those plans could not be more different. One
applicant listened to citizens, listened to the land and hopes to
blend with and enhance our community.
The second wants to transform our cherished foothills into a new
city...a city with 20 units an acre density...at who knows how
many stories...in some areas. A new city that, at best, cares
only grudgingly about resident wildlife...that nods at big game
and ignores raptors and smaller mammals.
You heard one applicant talk about 65-70% open space,
comprehensive wildlife studies, preservation and restoration of
habitat, protection of migration corridors, revegetation with
native and xeric species and minimal turf around houses.
► lc cO'C � � 4 tk,
The other applicant doesn't ..but does
u,00,4, 1.6 million square feet of commercial space, 500
hotel rooms and 2 golf courses.
You he
priori
on app cant - scriib his co pany' long hi
alit resid - tial c nstruct' • n.
h: othtrwill :ctuall
, d o sad":cent t
build j`ess tha 100 uses
public land—
tiers.
One applicant can easily explain how his proposal conforms to
the foothills plan coming out of the community. In fact, his plan
actually goes the community one better in critical areas like
open space and habitat.
You heard the other applicant slice and dice and spin...working
hard to convince you that his proposal meets even the minimums
of the community plan. And after all that talk, we're still left with
a proposal that violates the community plan on total number of
units, on number of units/acre, and on open space percentage.
Most objectionably, that proposal locates the most intense
development -1.3 million square feet of commercial space and
3400 houses -40 to 60% of the total houses requested -right
smack dab in the middle of the foothills...when the community
plan designates that very area as the priority location for open
space and habitat.
There's a right way and a wrong way to develop in the foothills.
The Avimor plan is the right way...over 30-40 years, blending the
new with the old and respecting the natural.
The M3 Eagle plan is the wrong way...imposing dense housing,
hotels, golf courses and mall -sized commercial space on this
treasured, vibrant environment. Do we really want Scottsdale
built in the foothills?
And let's tell it straight: The economics M3 Eagle submitted don't
pan out. With very limited analysis time, Dr. Reading found major
flaws which, for Eagle, changed M3's promised $30 million
surplus to, at best, breakeven. And Dr. Reading didn't talk about
the cost of the State Highway 16 upgrade, where the M3
development fronts. It's over $640 million. He didn't talk about
the over -crowding in our schools...or the hundreds of millions in
bonds for new schools added on to our property taxes.
Bottom line, Dr. Reading found big red flags analyzing the M3
economics.
In closing, 1 want to thank you for the incredible time and effort
the City—particularly Nichoel-has spent planning for the
foothills. The vision that emerged from the City's process
reflects the values of our community. However, 1 do urge you to
make one very important change: reconsider the open space
requirements and change the plan to better provide for wildlife
by returning to the 40% natural open space requirement the
subcommittee recommended. I think density bonuses may be
the way to get to there.
The community plan is an excellent beginning, from which we
need to address—specifically, in detail, and with implementing
ordinances and new funding vehicles—the hard issues of
transportation, schools, water, open space and habitat.
As 1 see it, the questions before you are essentially these: Will
you be faithful to your plan and your community? Will you make
sure that the right kind of development occurs in our foothills...or
will the first developer get a pass and start building Scottsdale,
Idaho? Please...leave a legacy to Eagle...one that cherishes our
traditions, our people, our wildlife and the beauty of our foothills.
Thank you for your attention.
1
Comments to Eagle's Comp. Flan update for N. Foothills
for 16 Oct. '07 by Phil Fry, phone 939-9267, EMAIL idphil@earthlink.net
This is a great Comp. Plan. Your review packets already have my May. comments to P&Z
on reducing the size, and various improvements, including commitments to visual
considerations, informing the public, and using eminent domain only for public uses. But
strategically, the Eagle Comp. Plan should have two primary goals for growth in the
foothills: the creation of a viable community not a sea of homes, and conservation of natural
resources including water, energy, air quality, waste management, beauty, and wildlife with
habitat. Your leadership could even start Eagle toward a more inspired goal, that of a self-
sufficient "green" community but that will take a more studied approach. I think many
residents would be supportive.
A viable community needs a sense of place, population concentration, isolation, and shared
interests including recreation, services, and schools. Eagle's planning is doing this well.
Density trades must allow the needed community densities, and should allow no homes in
huge wildlife corridors. The M3 & Avimor core developments provide the needed
concentration and must have lower density building spread through the foothills. Other
Eagle areas are missing some needed attributes and will only be homes unless Eagle can
provide better incentives.
Conservation of natural resources is becoming the crisis of our time, and requires upfront
economic incentives and penalties for resource usage, combined with building standards
requiring built-in resource efficiency. This Comp. Plan has many pleas for needed planning,
i.e. guidance and only a few business -as -usual conservation statements on monitoring
wells, dual water systems, pressure irrigation, basic fees, efficient irrigation, turf limits, effluent
reuse,.a-. These statements have little impact on conservation, and lack needed vision
and leadership. Eagle cannot afford to form more committees to study conservation issues
for years before even considering effective conservation. Eagle has talented staff who
already know good conservation approaches. Listen to them and start the needed
conservation now and make future adjustments as needed. The M3 -Eagle conservation
requirements are much more effective, and should be applied and back fit to the whole of
Eagle. Those 8,000 homes are just a start.
And if Eagle can't justify a commitment to conservation now, then what criteria will? If we
keep waiting for someone else to act, then no one will. The knowledgeable experts
believe we must start now ( e.g. see the movie "The 11th Hour"). And the cities have a
better chance to start a bottom up conservation because they are less hampered by the
business obligations and special interest lobbyists that have paralyzed for decades the
conservation efforts by Federal, State and County governments. And if Eagle waits for
obvious depletion, it is too late; you will have allowed Eagle to double in size with buildings
that will continue the depletion. It will then take 20 more years to build to new standards and
even longer to implement an effective hack fit (Arizona is almost 30 years into their back fit
of water usage and continues more. phased constraints). And ail that time the resource
depletion worsens. Now is the time to start conservation with Comp. Plan commitments,
not after we have lost our resources, just in case conservation is not yet needed.
Opinions on Issues:
Future developments in the foothills will impact Eagle residents quality of life!
Well of course, but this isn't solved by much that Eagle can do except slow it a few years
causing Tess Eagle control, less Eagle benefit and less local mitigation. The N. Foothills will
be developed eventually and impact us all. And the growth will be in Eagle and in the
2
valley. Idaho Power estimates growth to 2.4 million people (872,00D homes), and at the
present growth that could be in the 2070's. Compass's notoriously low estimates see the
valley nearly doubling to 825,000 people by 2030 with 100,000 added homes and that is
without any building in the foothills.
This growth will impact all our resources including transportation, wateri, power, air quality,
and wildlife. If the N. Foothills 30,000 homes are developed in Eagle, the developers will
fund much of the infrastructure and new residents will provide taxes for mitigation. Foothill
developments will also take pressure off developing precious farmland and reduce the
housing pressures driving cost increases. If the same development Mappens along the
present roads throughout the valley, then our taxes will pay"for much Tore infrastructure at
the more expensive costs of land and disruption in established neighborhoods and more
farmland will become hcusing sprawl. And either way we are all payirig for upgrading the
major roads.
I vote for the development now planned in Eagle,as the Comp. Plat.)promotes.
Future developments will impact water usage! Of course, but M3 studies using new
wells show that there is enough water for their 8,160 homes and even for the planned
30,000 homes. And any near term study by IDWR or U of I will use the same inputs to
reach similar conclusions. And many of the worried and vocal residents are on shallower
aquifers which have been studied by IDWR and many found to have' inadequate wells,
often in areas of poor water flow and maintained by surface irrigation. Most of us will be on
municipal water someday.
The problem here is that all municipal water users in the valley probably share the same
aquifer, and all building in the valley is using that water. . So the question is not Eagle's
30,000 new homes, but the shared impact of the Valley's additional 100,000 homes all
using that same or a connecting aquifer. No study is planned to look at that and no city or
county is going to provide the necessary coordination to mitigate sucli impacts. The U of
study is North of the Boise River as is the M3 study. And IDWR is still giving away water
rights as usual, has formed a committee to show an interest, and has proposed plans to
look at N. Eagle in 2009 to 2011?, if we send a lot of tax money.
And the recent IDWR claim that the valley will support 8-10 million homes is a reckless
exaggeration. I calculate this IDWR statement assumes we can veryiefficiently utilize every
drop of precipitation in the Boise Basin on an average season without regard for droughts,
future water allocation, underground losses to the Snake river, other basins, and geothermal
regions, and the needed development of a huge unfunded infrastructure of dams and
collecting basins (see Dept. of Interior 2006 report "Water 2025").
So this projected water impact requires a huge job by cities coordinating water conservation
policies, which isn'tgoing to happen, by IDWR aiding cities in coordinating water policy,
which "isn't their job", and legislature action, which isn't going to happen until we are see
significant long term aquifer loss (study the 1980 Arizona water laws in reaction to years of
falling aquifers and the tightening measures 27 years later). We need the political will now,
which Eagle can start in a commitment in this Comp. Plan.
For now we can only conserve, monitor wells and hope for the best.
Traffic will be unacceptable! Well of course and we will develop roads as usual only
long after needed. But the developments in the N. Foothills are not driving the traffic, its the
expected growth in the valley. This growth is just spreading part of the valley's growth to
the North vyhich will make the SH 55 and SH 16 widening and river crossings come earlier.
We will all still have worsening rush hour traffic on the bypass and traveling to Boise and
more people coming to' use Eagle's resources. The best we can do is use the increased
taxes from growth to add facilities in Eagle -- if the impacting developments are in Eagle.
Opinions on Conservation:
Eagle was much greener when I grew up here, when each home had much less impact on
the environment. My main concern is that future growth moderates use of the natural
resources including water, energy, air quality, waste management, beauty, and wildlife with
habitat. I am disappointed to see only small attempts in this Comp. Plan to promote
conserving anything. Eagle, like IDWR and Ada County, is encouraging growth with few
constraints, and plan no back fit of even those few constraints. M3's and Suncor's Arizona
experience propose much more effective conservation constraints which Eagle finds
attractive. But we all share the resources which are impacted, and to be effective, the same
constraints must be applied in all of Eagle and all of the valley. Again Eagle should be a
leader, because we have enjoyed the best quality of life in the Valley, and therefore have
the most to lose with declining resources. Again, conservation requires coordination with all
other valley governments. Such commitments start in this Comp. Plan.
Methods. Eagle, M3 Suncor and other valley governments are choosing the
bureaucratic approach to conservation: make lots of rules and new laws in a repulsive
maze of legislation. This method should require a large additional effort of monitoring and
enforcement, but certainly will force conformance to a city vision and is probably the only
way to implement standards for zoning, visual conformity, grading, parking, and open
spaces. But it inhibits individual creativity and vision. I am depressed and discouraged
when I read the Las Vegas and Arizona water laws. Also this bureaucratic method is
unfairly used because it forces implementation onto captive developers needing profits, it
doesn't effectively control homeowner changes, -and because voting residents will put up
with design rules which benefit them but don't don't back fit to them.
The fairest and most effective way for long term control of resource usage is through
consumer education and cost incentives with penalties controlled in the normal payment
process. Then city departments can make residents aware of the benefits and define the
adequate rates for typical resource usage, and penalties for excess usage. This
encourages residents to; keep their homes efficient, and encourages builders to engineer
efficient homes to sell them. Such incentives need considerations to prevent penalizing
agriculture, larger families and lower income families. And most importantly the cost
incentives and penalties must be set up NOW, before building occurs, to ensure that
efficiency is built in. Such rate incentives must also apply to all new Eagle building, and
apply to all older Eagle homes with reasonable delays to allow orderly back fit.
This Comp. Plan should',commit to let the residents decide what they can afford and how to
economize resource usage.
Water. We must start, conserving water now because many indications suggest 2030 as
a critical year. These include the Dept. of Interior 2006 report "Water 2025", Compass's
estimates of 100,000 more homes with usage of twice the M3 estimate of water now
exiting under Eagle, and many other considerations covered in my previous comment
papers. And 2030 is about the time all the buildings now being planned are inhabited and
consuming the resources. If we don't constrain aquifer use now it will not be constrained in
2030 and we will be trying to recover from overuse. Please don't burden future Eagle
governments with an impossible problem you can mitigate now!
How do we conserve water - with early application of water cost incentives as discussed
above and with building restrictions (Le. CC&Rs. LEEDS, or Energy Star). We must also
implement the same restrictions throughout Eagle, allowing older homes time to back fit
conservation. And we must coordinate all such water restrictions with;all valley
governments, which is the hardest political problem. But by 2040 ori 2050, contrary to
IDWR statements, I can only expect to see the start of Arizona likeroblems and the need
to back fit the conservation which Eagle could already have implemented.
Energy. Idaho Power keeps sending me plans to reduce my electrical cai usage because
added energy use will add more coal generators causing more planet warming, more earth
resource depletion and more air quality impacts. And Global electrical consumption is
expected to double by 2030. Future Eagle building must reduce energy usage in all
forms. This can be implemented with more laws requiring energy efficient buildings,
appliances and cars, and can be done more simply by city or county power bill surcharges
for excess use of power and raising gas taxes. The Statesman opines the 25 cent gas tax
is enough. I think Eagle should 'push for a gradual increase to much higher value with income
tax rebates for lower income families. This might even help our road construction crisis.
While this may require legislative approval, the Comp. Plan should commit to starting the
process. . Such constraints must also be applied to all of Eagle allowing some time to back
fit the necessary efficiency. Let the residents decide what they can afford by implementing
a power use surcharge NOW.
Air Quality. Studies show the key to air quality is reducing emissions and reducing
energy use. Studies found the most effective approaches, by order of least cost, are
energy efficient insulation, commercial vehicle emission controls and fuel economy, lighting
efficiency, efficient water heaters, and automobile emission controls Ond fuel economy. And
all these pay for themselves. I'll also add mass transit, which doesn't, pay for itself and
cannot work without more population density, but that could happen in M3's community but
nowhere else in Eagle.
Again cost incentives and resident education are more effective and easier to manage.
These can include valley wide gas taxes and penalties for excess energy use. Also the
Ada County emission testing is a good start, but must be extended to the whole valley
and improved. The Comp. Plan must promote these simple goals 'land promote
coordination with other valley governments to implement such minimum constraints, with
following ordinances.
Waste Management. Managing waste means creating less waste; by economic use of
our resources, and by recycling the waste we do generate, both trash and sewer. Again
education and economic incentives are the most effective. Eagle must start a commitment
to these goals in this Comp. Plan beyond the effluent reuse goat.
Beauty and Wildlife with Habitat. Preserving the natural beauty and wildlife in the foothills
is hopeless.in the long run except in isolated zones. Suburban residents will not put up
with rodents, predators and "weeds" on their property; for long. The best we can do is
educate, and concentrate the people to isolate them from the wildlifQ (see NACFAs "Frog
Diagram"). But for as long as possible the Comp. Plan and ordinances must support a
viable and balanced community of prey and predators, animals and birds, all with their
supporting habitat. We need to use the Plan's density transfers to ensure no homes exist
in huge wildlife corridors. We cannot just support federally designated animals and plants
because its required, they are all at risk. i see no way to provide economic incentives here ,
so only bureaucratic rules seem effective and need a commitment in this Comp. Plan.
This is an exciting time for our city of Eagle. We, today, right this minute, have a quality
of life that is attracting developers from all over the country. We've allowed many of
them to come to our city, convince us to change our comprehensive plan, and build the
developments that they want to build. But we're now bordering on the edge of over
taxing our schools, roads, water and air quality. All of which are things that will
diminish our quality of life. The developers won't continue to come here if we do that.
There are many concerns over the city's proposed comprehensive plan amendment that
has been presented to you. You have heard many of those concerns addressed here
tonight. I would like to focus on two concerns of mine. One is the plans for a city center
in the foothills. According to the 2007 Comprehensive plan, p 26, the city has taken
great care in preserving the downtown and central business district as the economic hub
of the city. On Page 191 of the same plan it states that we are to reject any development
that would establish another city center outside of the Central Business District. The
t� Central Business District is defined as the primary economic base for the City of Eagle.
��� The M3 Eagle q l incorporates depending on which report you look at, 1.6 — 211 7 )tri)
Million square feet of commercial area. In this commercial areaproposed—a-5-069i
r) -S .4(,, room hotel (our existing Hilton Garden Inn has a mere 98 rooms.) a hospital, an equestrian
c\41events center, a BSU satellite campus, community college, veterinary school; a performing arts r
�g facility, cemetery and a myriad of retail and restaurants/Combine this with the proposed L 1)(' Wi 1
4 -5,000 — 8,000 homes and this sounds like a city within a city. An M3 City. But M3 is ?meld/
the calling it a Village Center. On Page 32 of the plan it states the definition of a Village L.t 500
Pr°(c
Center. A village center contains an employment center with supporting residential,
commercial, quasi -public and business uses. All uses shall be within walking distance
from the employment center and should not distract from the Central Business District.
The M3 plan is spread out over 6000 acres; there is no way that it fits the requirement of
walking distance and we haven't heard anything from any mass employer that would
offer jobs at a pay scale to support the residents in the M3 development. I would feel
more comfortable with the M3 Commercial development if we were further along with
our own Central Business District in downtown Eagle. We haven't even heard the
presentation on the draft of the City's Urban Renewal Project. It is not time yet for a
commercial project of M3's magnitude to be developed in our foothills. Why don't we
wait and finalize the plans for our own city first. determine what we need to
compliment our Central Business District and then encourage that development in the
proposed annexed area to our North.
My second concern revolves around the community input that went into the creation of
the first draft of this plan. Councilman Bastian last week pointed out that hundreds of
residents on many committees spent thousands of hours and had an unprecedented part in
creating a foothills plan. What Councilman Bastian did not mention however, was that
the Planning and Zoning Commission promptly changed the plan. And then M3 changed
it again. The key concepts that were incorporated into the community -driven plan thus
were voided. Where now is the voice of the people who had worked long hours on
creating a foothills plan
The city's process should be as follows:
. .
1) The city approves a comprehensive plan that benefits the city and the city's
current residents.
2) The city works with a developer to build what the city envisions.
Unfortunately the city has allowed this process to progress backwards, with a developer
changing the city's comprehensive plan for their own financial gain, at the expense of our
residents. You likewise have people speaking here tonight in support of this
comprehensive plan amendment who are testifying solely to ensure their financial gain,
many of whom are not even Eagle residents. You as Councilmen have an opportunity at
the end of the public testimony to make the right decision. Approve the comprehensive
plan amendment as proposed by the citizen committees in conjunction with our city
planners and then direct the M3 developer to revise its own plan to resemble more closely the
guiding principles of the community -developed plan.
cc, /44, •07 \Ctut\o, 6Ac(S
5‘ii, \l0Ilz,
BOISE METRO
CHAMBER OF
OMMERCE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
KEY POINTS OFTHE 2006
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE,
TfitED `THE POWER OF
CHOICE CHARTING OUR
ECONOMIC, EDUCATION AND
ENVIRONMENT FUTURES'
Careful what you ask
for, Arizona growth ex-
pert marcs
(details, page 1)
One year later: $5 million
raised to promote Valley
economy
(details, page 1)
Top priority: get com-
munity college
(details, page 2)
Treasure Valley by the
numbers
(details, page 2)
Business is as business
does
(details, page 3)
Plan for open space
fust, then build
(details, page 3)
Theater and business
search for creativity
(details, page 3)
.f -
CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, ARIZONA
GROWTH EXPERT WARNS
Morrison Institute researcher says 40 years of expansion
has made Phoenix a hot city — literally
A top Western growth expert dis-
pensed sage advice, humor and regret at
the Leadership Conference, saying the
Boise metropolitan area could resemble
Phoenix in several decades.
In his keynote address, Grady Gam -
mage drew many parallels between his
home, Phoenix, and the Boise area.
"Phoenix and Boise are similar in
many ways. They're dominant urban areas
with economies built on call centers,
manufacturing, electronics and there are
conservative state politics," Gammage
told the 168 attendees at the confer-
ence, held at Sun Valley Inn from April
30 -May 2.
"The goals of our economic develop-
ment policies were to encourage people to
move to Phoenix and it didn't matter what
jobs drew them. You're far enough behind
us to ask if raw population growth alone is
a sufficient policy."
Gammage is a fellow attire Morrison
Institute for Public Policy, a think tank at
Arizona State University that provides In-
formation and recommendations to busi-
ness and political leaders.
Despite its reputation for sprawl,
Phoenix is reasonably compact, according
to Gammage, and has a higher overall
The future Treasure Valley? With a million people, it's hard to imagine the
Boise metro area is in the same place Phoenix was 40 yens ago.
density than Portland, Ore.
The scarcity of water discour-
ages leapfrog development. In fact,
the region is a leader in water con-
servation, retuming 4 million acre
feet of water underground In the
past decade and creating a huge
"bank" for future growth. Treated
wastewater is used on golf courses
and to cool a nuclear reactor.
Funding growth is easier be-
cause many capital projects re-
quire no public vote and others only
a simple majority.
But Phoenix struggles with its
self image, Gammage said:
"Some say it's a sea of red tile
roofs and stucco - like Taco Bell
ate the town."
But population is leveling off
and shrinkage is forecast Last
year, 60,000 homes were built ;
it's now down to 40,000. By
2025, more people will be leaving
Arizona than arriving.
(continued on page 2 bottom)
ONE YEAR LATER: $5 MILLION RAISED TO PROMOTE VALLEY ECONOMY
Valley Initiative for Prosperity to put Boise on footing with other regions competing for high paying jobs
The 2006 Leadership Conference was both
a celebration of success and acknowledgement
of the serious work that lies ahead for economic
development
The success was raising $5 million for the
Valley Initiative for Prosperity (VIP) a 5 -year effort
to compete with other metropolitan areas.
"This past year has seen a true metamor-
phosis in our business community- in one short
year, we have raised $5 million in the name of
economic initiative and growth," said Doug Arm-
strong, chairman of the Boise Valley Economic
Partnership. "Now, we must move forward and put
that money to use promoting our region to the na-
tion and world."
Local leaders are aware that some jobs con-
tribute more to the community than others and
they have designed ViP around creating 5,000 jobs
that pay 30 percent above the Idaho average. To-
ward that end, VIP seeks 25 new companies in the
"best fit" target profile: computers/electronics,
transportation, software, telecommunications,
recreation equipment manufacturing,
health care, biotechnology, nanotechnol-
ogy and entrepreneurs/startups.
ViP is also focused on retaining ex-
isting businesses and nurturing local start-
ups. Idaho's largest private employer, Mi-
cron Technology, started as a small local
company.
Paul Hiller, of the Inland Empire Eco-
nomic Partnership in Riverside, Calif., is
the new executive director of BVEP and will
be on board this fall.
2006 Leadership Conference Executive Summary ^- page 2
"Business andgovetnment
leaders have done a good job
thus far in securing and
growing our economy. The
challenge for us now is to
build on that foundation and
continue the success, while
safeguarding our environment
and quality of life. We've gone
as far as we can go in taking
air and water quality for
granted and we must now
seriously factor those into our
economic expansion efforts,
even as we reach for
international markets."
Dennis Johnson, United Heritage,
Conference Chairman
.9000.
"If we understand our place in
the global marketplace, we're
going to come up with our
own long-term economic
vision. The things that stick
out the most as red flags are
the workforce, medical costs
and being able to afford to live
and work in a place."
Elaine Clegg, Boise City
Councilmember
"We have political silos and
we have to figure out how to
get those silos to
communicate with one
another and implement all the
good ideas we're talking
about."
Doug Halligan, HDR Engineering
Top priority: Get a community. college
Experts warn lack of dedicated community college jeopardizes prosperity
In the prior 12 years of the Leadership Confer-
ence, land use and transportation have tended to be
the most urgent themes.
Not this year, where talk of a Treasure Valley
community college system was prominent in presen-
tations and brainstroming sessions. This summer, a
special Legislative committee is looking at the op-
tions for setting up and funding a regional or state-
wide community college system.
Jerry Evans, former Superintendent of Public
Instruction, told the conference that ldahoans cov-
ered much the same territory 25 years ago, when a
special committee recommended a statewide com-
munity college system.
"Since that time, there has been some tinkering
by the Legislature and State Board of Education, but
the bottom line is nothing has changed and the
Treasure Valley and state are hampered by the lack of
a meaningful community college system," Evans
said. "Hopefully this time they will make the right
decisions. We need to sit down and figure out how all
of the parts and pieces fit together and come up with
a plan for each of the six regions of Idaho to have a
community college."
John Hale, co-chair of the Intermountain Venture
Forum, said a community college is crucial to attract-
ing and keeping new businesses.
"One of the first things a company asks is, 'Do
you have a trained workforce,'" Hale said. "It affects
retention - Micron would love to expand but they
don't have the technicians they need. Something has
to start today."
Some of the lack of momentum on a community
college may come from the fact that higher education
seems well served already and other community col-
leges operate in Idaho said Julie Johnson, with the
University of Phoenix campus in Meridian.
George lliff of Colliers International said getting
a community college system in the Treasure Valley
isn't a question of will, but of leadership.
"There is the bricks and mortar available but we
need the leadership to better understand the costs
and this gets done," Iliff said. "What is the entry fee,
what is it going to cost to create a sufficient scope of
services and pay for professors and all the other
costs that go into it. We need to have some idea of
exactly what we're talking about"
Working out a funding system will be challeng-
ing, said Marc Johnson of the Gallatin Group.
"We can talk all day about changing the govem-
ment system for community colleges, but the folks in
those communities that have them have made a
long-term investment in the property tax system,"
Johnson said.
-Treasure Valley 011ie numbers -
The first annual Treasure Valley State of the
Region report was unveiled at the Leadership Confer-
ence.
"We hope this becomes a tool to use as a way
to start thinking like a Valley." said Boise State Uni-
-versity professor Gregory Hill, who presented the
report with professor Susan Mason.
The report, which looks at 49 economic, social
and environmental measurements, is among the
first products of the new BSU Institute of Community
and Regional Planning. The metro area is comprised
of Ada, Boise, Canyon, Gem and Owyhee counties.
Some interesting facts from the report:
The area saw a 110 percent population in-
crease from 1990 to 2000.
In the 2004 primary elections, Ada had the low-
estvotertumout. about 15 percent Gem had
the highest with about 42 percent.
Canyon saw the greatest'04'05 rise in as-
sessed property value, 17.9 percent.
• Out-of-state driver licenses surrendered to
Idaho increased 51 percent from '03-'05..
While much of the information in the report ex-..
ists in Census and local government files, this is the .:
first time any group has pulled all the information
together regionally in a single report. As the years
pass, the reports will provide the ability to compare
conditions over time and provide guidance to busi-
ness and government leaders.
•
CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, ARIZONA
WARNS (continued
lSammage sato the transience
suggests people live in Phoenix
fora while to cash in on the econ-
omy. Also, due to rising property
values, the median -income family
cannot afford the median home
price.
Urbanization has had serious
environmental consequences,
including an 11 degree rise in
Phoenix's average nighttime tem -
from page 1)
GROWTH EXPERT
perature. If daytime temperatures
increased that much, Phoenix
would become uninhabitable,
Gammage said. Ironically, higher
density—a top goal of most plan-
ning efforts—could exacerbate the
"heat island" effect.
The growth of Phoenix has its
origins in national policies to pro-
mote the settlement of the West
Large dams and water projects,
paid for by the federal govemment,
made urbanization possible.
"Some of our choices have
been good. We've built light rail
and have used local option taxes
in a way thatyou can't," Gammage
said. "Bu: J n... in,f 1 .u.: L. r.e •
thing you want to avoid. l don't
know if encouraging population is
all there is."
•
r. •:.`9". ., ♦....'t r.'�Il .� �. �... ,I Ff�:' .i':. .',i ,f•J .. •!I`I .tet' .. , .. . . .f::
,:i
ft • t. j'...:lli.l •..:!1 t,♦i:•+ji`.:
,1i •.. .if rii. .... � -. X11. -S. .•. .1 :1 i''. .••• .'• !:. t r• .
•
-.JILT: — .. :t:i .. 'f •t 1. .
•111, .-. w,•t'.. .r. •Il•
•
;• ?,1:
.., _ Iii,.... .ii: •t
..i• ts,:l::) .. .�� 17ri�i. F;'i ��1.1 t1';: i. t`: . ..1
•
.i'•i tet'
•
•
••. .. l;. X11. .. . 'iis .•ri .. ..ii ....J:.,.
•
•
: is
NOT GREEN EGGS AND HAM
NOT By Dr. Seuss
Teresa Van Liew
Do you like
the developers plan?
I do not like it,
Sam -1 -am.
1 do not like
the developers plan..
Would you like them
here and there?
I would not like them
here and there.
I would not like them
everywhere.
I do not like
the developers plan
I do not like it,
Sam -I -am.
Do you want more dirty air?
What's that you say? That you don't care?
I do not like that you don't care.
I do not want more dirty air..
1 do not like them
here and there.
I do not like them
everywhere.
I do not like the developers plan.
I do not like it, Sam -1 -am.
Would you crowd them in our schools? Would you allow them to make new
rules?
No new rules..
No crowded schools..
No more "I don't care"..
No more polluted air.
I would not want them here and there.
I do not want them everywhere.
I do not like the developers plan.
I do not like it, Sam -1 -am.
Would you? Could you?
Dry up our wells?
Aren't you hearing any warning bells?
You would, you could dry up the wells, right along with the real estate sales.
Gridlock. Road rage.
Dirty air. You don't care.
Higher taxes. Crowded schools. .
We speak up, but we're just fools.
We don't like the developers plan.
We don't like it, Sam I am.
1 am reduced to testifying in this rhyme,
Because when citizens talk ou ignore us most of the time.
i
i
(Aftwi --)h-L-41,vc
PROJECTED EAGLE FOOTHILLS SCHOOL COST
I Current Status
Eagle Elementary
Eagle Hills Elementary
Seven Oaks Elementary
Star Elementary
Eagle Middle School
Eagle High School
Galileo Math and Science
New construction:
Elementary
Middle school
High school
11 Existing Needs
6/1/06
Capacity Enrollment
428 502
388 476
740 701
380 532
1,000 1,253
1,800 2,076
700
650
1,000
2,000
Over (Under)
Enrollment
74
88
(39)
152
253
276
Preliminary plats already approved in Eagle area of impact as of 9/26/06:
Eagle
Star
Conversion assumptions:
Hence
and
Households
2,528
3,078
5,606
0.8
students
5,606 households =
4,485 students =
10/1/07
Enrollment
357
469
569
502
1,132
2,214
604
students per household
13 = students per grade level
4,485 students
345 per grade level
Over (Under)
Enrollment
(71)
81
(171)
122
132
414
(96)
Allocated by school:
Elementary school
Middle school
High School
Grade
Levels Students Capacity
6 2,070 650
3 1,035 1,000
4 1,380 2,000
13 4,485
Anticipated costs (construction and equipment only --not including land costs):
Elementary school
Middle school
High School
III Foothills Estimate
Cost per
School
$ 10, 762,157
$ 20,190,467
$ 53,499,854
Schools
Required
3.18
1.03
0.69
Total
Cost
$ 34,271,802
$ 20,896,201
$ 36,913,253
$ 92,081,257
Schools
Required
3.18
1.03
0.69
Based on actual cost of
Paramount Elementary
Heritage Middle School
Rocky Mountain High School
Based on the foregoing, this table represents the projected construction cost of Eagle foothills schools based on different densities:
Households
12,000
16,000
20,000
24,000
28,000
Students 1
9,600
12,800
16,000
19,200
22,400
Schools Required
Elementary Middle
6.8 2.2
9.1 3.0
11.4 3.7
13.6 4.4
15.9 5.2
High
Elementary
1.5 $ 73,360,976
2.0 $ 97,814,634
2.5 $ 122,268,293
3.0 $ 146,721,951
3.4 $ 171,175,610
Projected Cost
Middle High
$ 44,729,650 $ 79,015,169
$ 59,639,533 $ 105,353,559
$ 74,549,417 $ 131,691,948
$ 89,459,300 $ 158,030,338
$ 104,369,183 $ 184,368,728
Total
$ 197,105,794
$ 262,807,726
$ 328,509,657
$ 394,211,589
$ 459,913,520
IV Bonds
Bonds are the only method to fund school construction and require 66-2/3% voter approval to pass. Recent bond requests:
Voter
Approval Requested
Mar -95 Failed $ 27,400,000
Sep -95 Failed $ 14,700,000
May -96 73.77% $ 20,900,000
Sep -96 82.45% $ 26,995,000
Sep -00 87.06% $ 45,300,000
Sep -02 83.37% $ 57,200,000
Sep -06 72.22% $ 139,800,000
Total current bond indebtedness as of 411107 :
$ 246,755,000
Remaining legal debt capacity as of 4/1/07 $ 510,693,582
Prepared by:
Anne Ritter, Trustee
Meridian School District
10/4/07
G /O -/6.-o 7
LEGEND
Workgroup Scenario 1
Developable Areas
Open Space
Proposed Roads
= Proposed Traits
* Proposed Access Points
Area of Impact Boundary
Perennial Streams
Intermittent Streams
— Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
i — I
_ I County Line
K•
NOTES
This community values map focuses on the.
--Preservation of public lands
--Ustb a ndgelines
--Slopes in excess of 25%
--Existing trails
—Riparian areas
--Drainages
--Creating en east -west connection between
Highway 56 and Highway 16 to drninish the
impacts to downtown Eage
Scale: Graphic
0 0.5
Figure 14--Workgroup Scenario 1:
Community Values
EAGLE FOOTHILLS PLAN
CG /D-/ 'O7
LEG END
Workgroup Scenario 2
_ Developable Areas
■ Open Space
Proposed Roads
* Proposed Access Points
— Proposed Trails
Area of Impact Boundary
Perennial Streams
Intermittent Streams
— Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
—
_ t County Line
NOTES
Scenario 2 used the conrnunity values map as the
starting point and from there, used the resource
maps to better integrate:
•-Trading of public lands for a better open space
network
—Placing development in less visually sensitive
areas
—Establishing regional open space/wildlife corridors
--Providing and preserving a regional loop trail
system
--Creating an east -west connection between
Highway 55 and Highway 16 to dtmnish the
impacts to downtown Eagle
Scale: Graphic
0 05
Figure 15--Workgroup Scenario 2
EAGLE FOOTHILLS PLAN
Cc /0--/6 -07
Gem County Line
Residential Rural (1 unit/5 acres)
Foothills Residential
Community Centers (Mixed Use)
Transitional Residenital
Floodway
+25% Slope
Walk Radius
Potential Regional Open Space Overlay
City! BLM (Regional Park)
.BLM Ownership (Public/Semi-public)
N Roads
City of Eagle
Foothills Plan
P&Z Retoi nrt ieriudtion
trrrrrrrreIr 1111E11 enrrrrrnr. verevr err ennnn n rn , rrrrrrrtl
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
OCT 1 6 2007
File:
Ben Johnson Associates, jouteto
6070 Hill Road Phone: (208) 342-1700
Boise, ID 83703 Fax: (208) 384-1511
A REVIEW OF
M3 -EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST
ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Revised September 2007
Idaho Economics
With notations and rebuttal from John Church, Idaho Economics and
Gerry Robbins, M3 Companies
A REVIEW OF M3 -EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST
ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Revised September 2007
Idaho Economics
Introduction
This report will focus on Idaho Economics' September 2007 report "M3 -Eagle
Development: Demographic Forecast, Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis" (Impact Analysis).
This study was included in the binder submitted to the Eagle City Council on September 25,
2007. The report will analyze that Impact Analysis on two levels. First, we will examine the
assumptions that form the basis for the Impact Analysis's calculations of revenues and costs
accruing to local governmental units from the proposed development. Second, we will examine
the calculations of revenues and costs that lead to the net benefit estimates presented in the
Impact Analysis. Given the time constraints, only three major subdivisions of local government
will be explored in detail: the City of Eagle, the Meridian School District and the Ada County
Highway District (ACHD).
In general, a review of the calculations found some differences in values from various
sources of revenues and costs for each governmental unit, but these differences were relatively
small compared to the overall magnitude of the dollar amounts.
Our examination of the assumptions that underlie the Impact Analysis' conclusions,
however, tells a different story. Altering some of these assumptions to make them more
reasonable leads to significantly different levels of net fiscal impact for the governmental units.
•
•
•
Three of the assumptions that have a major effect on the net benefits are:
The assumed pace of development; i.e., full build -out over a 20 -year period
• Residential housing prices and demand
• Commercial development
The fact that the Impact Analysis looks only at O&M costs; no capital costs are
included in the calculations of net fiscal impact
The omission of costs that will be imposed on government entities lying outside
the geographical boundaries of the development
When a more reasonable build -out period is assumed, and when capital costs and costs to
outlying units of government are included, the result are significantly different net fiscal impacts
2
1 than those presented in the Impact Analysis._(Why is the build -out period shown unreasonable
and what does Dr. Reading considered reasonable? Our market research report suggests
1 that our absorption is reasonable and could actually be faster with certain product mixes.)
Impact Analysis
The September 2007 Revised Impact Analysis by Idaho Economics describes the M3 -
Eagle development and estimates the net benefits for various entities of local government. Net
fiscal impacts are derived by projecting additional revenues, using 2006 property tax levy rates
and revenue sources, and then subtracting the projected additional costs of providing public
services to residences of the M3 -Eagle development. The Impact Analysis submitted on behalf of
the potential developer found these net benefits to be universally positive. In the 20- year period
from the start of construction to full build -out, the Impact Analysis projects net fiscal impacts to
be:
City of Eagle
Ada County
Ada County Highway District
Ada County Emergency Medical Services
Meridian Joint School District #2
+$30.1 million
+$98.3 million.
+$72.8 million
+$3.9 million
+$163.5 million
This analysis focuses on three of these five governmental entities: the City of Eagle,
ACHD, and the Meridian School District. We will review the projected revenues for each of
these entities based on the development's projected five phases of construction. We will then
analyze the projected costs assumed in the Impact Analysis. Finally, we will examine the gaps in
the underlying assumptions made in the Impact Analysis, and the effects those gaps will have on
the resultant estimates of net benefit.
M3's Eagle development, both residential and commercial, is scheduled to be built in five
phases. The mix of residential versus commercial for each phase is presented in Figure 1 below.
(Commercial is not shown below.)
Figure 1
10
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
igur
e2
depi i 1 ['Single Family gi Single Family Attached ❑ Multi -Family
cts
the
number and value of residential units and the average price projected to be constructed over the
20 -year period of development.
M3 Eagle Residential Units by Phase
Phase 1 (Years Phase 2 (Years Phase 3
1,2) 3-7) (Years 8-12)
Phase 4
(Years 13-17)
Phase 5
(Years 18-20)
Figure 2
The first thing that strikes us is that while the residential units proposed by M3 -Eagle vary
Number of Units
M3 Eagle Average Home Value
444 1 S250,000 1
2.400 1 $375,000 1
1,794 1 $450,000
1,630 1 $612,500
1,234
$800,000 1
i
652 `-..; ';; i# Itf ,,_. •
61 ;1,100. tl:4304Z.":. $1,375,000
$1,125,000
$0 $500,000 $1.000.000 $1,500,000
Lp Average Home Value
in size and amenities, the projected price is uniformly at the top of the range of homes in Ada
11
County. (As it should be since Eagle has the highest home values in the county.) The M3 -
Eagle development projects that 43 percent of the residential units to be constructed will have
values above $600,000, with 658 units over $1 million.
The U.S. Census Bureau, through the American Community Survey (ACS), tracks the
values of owner -occupied housing annually by county. According to ACS, the number of owner -
occupied housing units in Ada County in 2006 with values of $500,000 or more is just 8,253 out
of a total of 99,067 homes, or 8.3 percent. (Eagle is different than Ada County.) Figure 3 lays
out this data. (This table should be for Eagle, not the County.)
Number of Housing Unit:
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000 -
10,000
5,000 -
0
Figure 3
Ada County 2000 and
2006 Owner Occupied Housing Units
000 000 000 000 ��O °,O °J�� 0
k2
6sOO ,,� ��0 ��� �p)0 Neq0�,b' cfc
t\ �o �a 6s p
cm O No \o No <o N0 00
,NQ) 000 000 OC) Opp Opp CP).
.z 4) 00' g0' O°' p�' pp' 6s'\'
cp 69� 6s3 62
Value of Housing Units
❑ 2006 Census
■ 2000 Census I
T
he Impact Analysis states that there will not be a significant impact on the region's housing
market from the projects' addition of 8,160 residential units over the 20 -year development period.
It uses a projection of population and household growth in Ada County and indicates that the
residential units planned represent just 7.5 percent of the household additions projected in the
county over the 2005 to 2030 period. However, this comparison is focused on the total number of
housing unit additions, not those at the price level of the homes M3 -Eagle is planning to build.
For example M3 -Eagle plans in the first two phases (the first 7 years of development) to add
1,244 residential units with values over $600,000. This would add 15 percent to the existing
stock of owner -occupied Ada County houses worth more than half a million dollars. For homes
with values over $lmillion, the first two phases of the M3 -Eagle development would add 233
12
units, compared to an owner -occupied 2006 base of 1,207 houses, or 19 percent of the existing
stock. (Again, this should be looked at for Eagle, not Ada County.)
This suggests a significant impact on the housing market for upper -end residential units.
If the market cannot absorb the impact, one of two things would happen: either M3 -Eagle would
shift to lower -price units — with lower property tax values but similar costs — or it would slow its
pace of development, which would in turn impact both revenues and needed services. (A true
planned community the size of M3 Eagle is designed for a wide range of housing types and
prices for maximum penetration into the marketplace and to avoid builders directly
competing with each other over a narrow range and creating a sterile community. This
would also slow absorption. Some housing types will naturally absorb at a faster rate than
others. If the pace of development is slower, wouldn't that impact services in a positive
way?
In terms of commercial development, the Impact Analysis assumes that 2.1 million square
feet of commercial space (This has been reduced to approximately 1.6 million s.f. plus a 500
room resort) will be constructed by the end of the 20 -year project. As an example of successful
commercial development in the area, it points to the Silverstone and El Dorado business parks at
the comers of Eagle and Overland Roads. There are, however, some striking differences between
these two business parks and the commercial construction M3 -Eagle proposes to undertake. Most
importantly, both Silverstone and El Dorado have immediate access to Interstate 84 and front on
heavily -traveled arterial roads.
The majority (now 55%) of the proposed commercial properties in M3 -Eagle, however,
are in the center of the development, away from Highways 55 and 16, and a significant distance
from an Interstate exchange. (However, they will be on the only planned arterial connector
between Highways 16 & 55 and on Linder Rd., which will be improved to an arterial and is
one of only two north/south roads in Eagle with a river crossing.) Moreover, the commercial
area between Highways 55 and 16 is along a road seldom used by travelers going to or from a
destination point. (What is the basis for this statement? Traffic studies project over 36,000
vehicle trips per day driving through the village center from M3 Eagle alone.) Consumers
of the planned commercial space, therefore, will have to be those wanting to patronize a specific
business, or people who live in the area. (Or drive -byes. We don't understand the point Dr.
Reading is trying to make.)
The situation is similar to that existing at Hidden Springs and Harris Ranch, where even in
a rapidly -growing valley, commercial development has been slower than expected. (No it is not.
Commercial areas in Hidden Springs and Harris Ranch are not on arterials, are very
localized, and are not supported by the population base that the commercial areas of M3
Eagle are.) What we have learned from those two developments is that businesses are reluctant
to invest in a particular area until they see a demand for their services already in place. Even with
a majority of the commercial space developed during the latter half of the project (see Figure 4), it
is problematic that business demand for the commercial space will keep pace with the projected
residential development. (What is the basis for this statement?) The only other alternative is to
attract consumers from other areas, which again seems unlikely given the location. (The village
13
center is envisioned as a unique, pedestrian oriented commercial area that may be tied to
the emerging wine industry. It will become a destination center as well as serve the entire
foothills. The commercial center along Highway 16 will benefit from its future designation
as an expressway, a proposed interchange, visibility, and drive-by traffic. Therefore, if
residential construction is slower than planned, commercial development will of necessity also be
slower due to a lack of demand. A slower pace of commercial development will impact not only
the development's projected revenues, but also the 3,492 jobs estimated to be associated with the
project. (The corollary is also true.)
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$o
Figure 4
M3 Projected Assessed Value ($11000)
rm
1 2 3 4 5
-
MP
1 • 'I
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year from Project Start
0 Residential Assessed Value ($x1000) • Commercial Assessed Value (Sx100-071
Fiscal
Impact
Under the assumption that the M3 -Eagle development will be built on its projected time
line, and at the property values as estimated, the Impact Analysis concludes that the net impacts
on the various units of government are all positive. There are, however, two significant gaps in
the Impact Analysis' underlying assumptions. The first is the failure to include capital
expenditures that governmental agencies will be required to make because of M3 -Eagles'
development and its accompanying population. (We are not clear as to what these capital costs
would be.) Instead, the Impact Analysis bases its conclusions only on projected operations and
maintenance (O&M) expenditures. A more detailed examination of the impact on each of the
governmental agencies — the City of Eagle, the Meridian School District and ACHD —
demonstrates that these capital expenditures will be significant. The second gap is an arithmetical
error that impacts primarily on the Meridian School District.
City of Eagle
14
The Impact Analysis estimates increased revenues to the City of Eagle from the M3 -Eagle
development coming from property taxes, franchise fees (electric, gas, cable, solid waste), state
sales tax revenue sharing, and building fees. According to the analysis, over the 20 -year build-
out, the City of Eagle would see total increased revenues from these sources of $91.1 million. It
must be remembered, however, that this projection is for the entire 20 -year period. During the
first two phases — projected to take 7 years — the estimated annual net benefit (revenues over
costs) ranges from $657 thousand the first year to $1.2 million in the seventh year. Because
service demands from the development will need to be met every year, it is critical to examine not
only the total projected revenues and costs, but also the revenues and costs from year to year, and
the impact these figures will have on the City's budget each year.
(Here Dr. Reading appears to not have thoroughly reviewed the M3 -Eagle Fiscal Impact
Analysis or missed the information. On page 38 and 39 within Tables 18(a) and 18(b),
respectively, are detailed annual projections of revenues and O&M expenses for the City of
Eagle due to the M3 -Eagle development. )
Given the assumptions of the pace and price of development, the calculation of revenues
in the Impact Analysis appear within reason. An attempt to replicate the calculations yielded
somewhat lower overall revenues from franchise fees and revenue sharing, but within 2 percent
over the 20 -year period for property taxes. The differences may be explained by the fact that the
Impact Analysis projected property construction spread throughout the year, while our replication
looked only at yearly totals. Because revenues are a direct function of the number and value of
the units constructed, they will vary with the pace and value of construction and its associated
revenues.
(Another difference is that the analysis also attempted to estimate the franchise fee revenues
that would originate from the M3 -Eagle development. This alone could have accounted for
the 2 percent difference from Dr. Reading's analysis.)
As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties for the City of Eagle are the pace of
development and the assumed values of the residential units. It is worth repeating here that
commercial development necessarily follows residential development. Therefore, if residential
development is slower than projected, commercial development will also be slower, and revenues
from both will be slower to come in. (Likewise, if residential development is faster than
projected, commercial development may also be faster, and revenues from both will be
faster to come in.) This may well impact the City's annual budgets.
The Impact Analysis calculates the net benefits to the City of Eagle based on an estimate
of O&M expenditures per person. Given the current population and the City's budget, it
calculates O&M spending at $253 per person per year. To calculate net benefits, the Impact
Analysis uses a higher figure of $275 per person. This figure, however, does not include capital
expenditures. (We are unclear what city capital expenditures would be attributed to M3
Eagle.)
15
Including capital costs, the City of Eagle's General Fund Budget for fiscal year 2007 is
$7.7 million. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Eagle in July of 2006 was
18,419. Based on these figures, the City of Eagle is actually spending a total of $419 per person
per year — a substantially higher number than that used in the Impact Analysis when capital
expenditures are included.
There are four points that need to be made in rebuttal to the above paragraph:
First:
We concur with Dr. Reading. The City of Eagle's fiscal year 2007 General Fund Budget
(including the capital expenditures that Dr. Reading refers to) is $7.7 million. However,
actual expenditures by the City of Eagle through August 2007 only total $5.9 million. With
one month remaining in the fiscal year the City of Eagle will have to spend nearly $1.8
million, or 23 percent of its annual budget, to match the amount that was budgeted and that
Dr. Reading cited in his report.
Moreover, a closer examination by Dr. Reading of the City's budget statistics would have
shown him that actual expenditures by the City of Eagle have consistently fallen short of the
amount budgeted.
From the table below it can be seen that the City of Eagle's actual General Fund Budget
spending has fallen short of the budgeted amount in the last two fiscal years and in all
likelihood fell short in the recently completed 2006/2007 fiscal year.
City of Eagle
General Fund Budget vs. Actual General Fund Soendinq
FY 2004/2005, FY 200512006, FY 2006/2007
City of Eagle
General Fund Budget
& Actual Spending FY 04105 FY 05!06 FY 06107
Annual Budget $4,912,412 $6,949,533 $7,693,860
Actual Annual Spending $3,804,571 $4,966,996 $5,904,160
Projected FY 06/07 Actual Spending $6,440,902
Shortfall from Budgeted Amount ($1,107,841) ($1,982,537) ($1,252,958)
Percent Shortfall from Budgeted Amount......... -22.6% -28.5% -16.3%
City of Eagle General Fund Budget actual spending through August 2007.
Source: City of Eagle Budget Report Fiscal Year 2008, Table entitled "Total Expenditures for All Funds",
there is no page number, however, it is the last page of the document.
16
*
In fiscal year 2004/2005 actual General Fund spending (including the capital costs that Dr,
Reading refers to) fell short of the budgeted amount by $1.11 million or 22.6 percent, in
fiscal year 2005/2006 General Fund spending (again including the capital costs that Dr.
Reading referenced in his report) fell short of the budgeted amount by $1.98 million or 28.6
percent. In fiscal year 2006/2007 the City of Eagle's General Fund spending with eleven
months of actual figures, and with spending in the last month of the fiscal year projected to
be the average of the previously completed eleven months, the actual General Fund annual
spending in fiscal year 2006/2007 would only total $6.44 million, or $1.25 million (16.2
percent) below the budgeted amount.
It is not correct to evaluate M3 -Eagle's fiscal impact on the City of Eagle upon budgeted
figures that are radically higher than the City's actual spending.
Second:
It is clearly stated in the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis that all dollar amounts are
expressed in 2006 dollars. Nevertheless, Dr. Reading proceeds to present figures from City's
FY 2006/2007. Clearly only three months of FY 2006/2007 are actually in 2006 the other
none months of the fiscal year are in 2007. While this may seem like a trivial point, it is not.
When the City prepared the FY 2006/2007 budget it had in mind the costs that it would
likely face in that year and that price inflation would increase those costs. The amounts
budgeted for FY 2006/2007 had some expected price inflation built in and most certainly the
City of Eagle's actual FY 2006/2007 General Fund spending reflected that price inflation
that occurred in 2007.
If one's goal was to make a fair comparison, an apples -to -apples comparison, of the fiscal
impact of M3 -Eagle one should at least use figures that are reflective of the same year. Using
the City of Eagle General Fund spending in FY 2005/2006 would be a closer apples -to -
apples comparison where both analyses are expressed in 2006 dollars rather than Dr.
Reading's use of the FY 2006/2007 figures.
Or, in the alternative, one would allow the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis to be
recalibrated to 2007 dollars (this would include all costs and revenue stream projections
being recalibrated to 2007 dollars and with those projections using many other parameters
that are reflective of conditions in 2007). Anything short of using the City's FY 2005/2006
General Fund spending figures or a complete recalibration of the M3 -Eagle projections is
not a fair comparison.
Third:
Dr. Reading's results are based on his conversion of the FY 2006/2007 General Fund Budget
dollars to General Fund Budget spending per capita for each Eagle resident by dividing
those budget amount by the US Census Bureau's mid year 2006 (July 1, 2006) population
estimate for the City of Eagle. By using the older, historic, July 1, 2006 population figure in
17
the denominator of the calculation of General Fund Budget dollars per capita,Dr. Reading
inserts an upward bias into his calculation.
We believe he should have made an adjustment to the estimated City of Eagle population to
have it match the time period associated with the FY 2006/2007 budget dollars that he was
using. A simple adjustment based upon the estimated population growth in the City of Eagle
between the mid -year 2005 Census Bureau figure (17,338) and the mid -year 2006 figure
(18,419) would have revealed that Census Bureau's estimated population for the City of
Eagle was increasing at a pace of nearly 91 persons per month in that time period. The mid-
point of FY 2006-2007 would be six months after the mid -year 2006 population estimate.
Therefore, adding an estimated additional six months of population growth to the figure
used in the denominator of his calculation of General Fund Budget spending per capita
would have decreased by an average of $13 per person (from Dr. Reading's $419 per capita
to a less bias result of $406 per capita).
Here again this adjustment to correct Dr. Reading's analysis removes a calculation that is
not trivial. Without this correction Dr. Reading's predicted costs that the M3 -Eagle
development would impose on the City of Eagle is overstated by more than $3.0 million over
the first twenty years of the project.
Fourth:
Dr. Reading states that we should be including capital costs in our calculation of impacts
instead of just O&M costs, however, we are unclear as to what capital costs borne by the
city would be directly attributable to M3 Eagle. Furthermore, M3 Eagle is building a
municipal water system to serve the property and turning it over to the City. There should
be an ongoing future positive revenue stream associated with ownership and operation of
this facility.
Conclusion:
We believe Dr. Reading's analysis of the costs of the M3 -Eagle development has some
flawed assumptions and does not present correct results:
1) Actual general fund spending should have been used to calculate the City's
General Fund Spending per capita, not budgeted amounts that are clearly not
representative of the real level of spending by the City.
2) Dollar budget amounts or dollar figures of the same base year should be used. In
this case 2006 dollars. The appropriate comparison would be to utilize the City of
Eagle's actual FY 2005/2006 General Fund spending in the numerator of Dr.
Reading's calculation of General Fund dollars per capita.
18
3) Population figures or estimates should be used that are of the same time period as
the dollar cost figures that are being converted to dollars per capita.
If these three corrections are made to Dr. Reading's analysis, the General Fund spending
per capita figure is significantly different than the $419 per capita cited in his report.
The City of Eagle's actual General Fund Spending in FY 2005/2006 (which includes the
capital costs that Dr. Reading referred to in his report) was $4.947 million. The US Census
Bureau estimated population in the City of Eagle as of July 1, 2006 was 18,419. Adjusting
the population figure to the mid -point of the City's FY 2005-2006 produces an estimated
population in the City of Eagle of 18,146. Dividing the City's actual FY General Fund
spending ($4.947 million) by the estimated population a mid -point of FY 2005/2006 (18,146)
produces a figure of $273.70 per capita for General Fund spending in the City of Eagle.
The M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis used a $275 cost per capita. Replacing the $275 per
capita figure used in the M3 -Eagle analysis with the $273.70 found above raises the net
fiscal benefit to the City by nearly $300,000 over the first twenty years of the project.
Using the $419 figure — and making no other changes to the Impact Analysis — the net
benefit of the project over a 20 -year period is essentially zero. Revenues and expenses are both
just over $90 million. Because the projected development of the project would double the current
population of the city it will result in additional capital investments, which should reasonably be
considered impacts of the development. The $419 per person figure is, therefore, a more accurate
value to use than the Impact Analysis' $275. Remember, too, that the value of M3 -Eagle's
residential housing could less than projected, resulting in lower revenues. The costs of the
population increase, however, would remain the same, resulting in a projection of negative net
benefit.
(The $419 per capita figure cited by Dr. Reading in the paragraph above has been shown to
be clearly incorrect. And, while the value of housing within M3 -Eagle could be lower than
that projected in the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis, it is equally true that it could be
higher than that projected.)
(Housing sales statistics from the Intermountain MLS and the Boise Metro Chamber of
Commerce database indicate that the average price of a single-family residential home in
Ada County has increased at an annual average compound rate of 7.7 percent per year over
the past 15 years (1991-2006). The general rate of inflation in the economy (as measure by
the Consumer Price Index) increased at an annual average rate of 2.6 percent per year. Ada
County's average single family home prices have increased at a pace that was 5.0 percent
per year faster than the general rate of price inflation in the economy.)
19
There is also a large body of evidence that indicates as a city grows from a small size and
a rural nature to a larger size with a more urban setting, city expenditures per person tend to
increase because people expect higher levels of service. As Eagle's population approaches
40,000, the cost per person of providing services may exceed the $419 currently spent. Although
it is beyond the scope of this analysis, a better predictor might be to look at the per -person
expenditures of other regional growing cities with populations around 40,000.
(Dr. Reading's speculation may be true that costs per capita may be higher in the future as
the City of Eagle becomes larger and its citizens demand higher levels of service. However, a
review of the General Fund Budget of the City of Twin Falls, Idaho (which had an estimated
July 1, 2006 population of 40,380) found that the average cost of government services per
capita was still lower than the $419 that Dr. Reading found above.)
(The table below depicts budget information from the City of Twin Falls and the average
expenditure per capita adjusted for services that are offered in Twin Falls but are not likely
to be offered by the City of Eagle.)
(It is true that the citizens of Eagle may demand a higher level of city services in the future.
If that is the case then all of the citizens of Eagle can decide to pay for the costs of those
additional services. However, to consider imposing the costs of these potential future
services preemptively on one portion of the city's residents is unfair. )
20
City of Twin Falls, Idaho
General Fund Bud let Information - FY 2006
City of Twin Falls, Idaho
FY 2006-2007 Tax Supported
General Fund Budget
(does not include special funds, comparable
to the budget figures cited by Dr. Reading, and
it includes capital expenditures)
$23,109,290
Less:
(items not likely to be in the City of Eagle budget)
Airport expenditures $978,012
Street Maintenance 3,581,844
Fire Department 3,231,120
Budget Amount Comparable $15,318,314
to the City of Eagle Budget *
Divided bv:
City of Twin Falls Population 40,380
(US Census Bureau estimate for July 1, 2006)
City of Twin Falls
FY 2006-2007 Budget Amount Per Capita $379
" It should be noted that the City of Twin Falls has a stand alone police
department and police and fire dispatch center separate from the facilities
for Twin Falls County although the Twin Falls Police Department utilizes
the detention facilities of the Twin falls County jail.
Souce: Twin Falls City Budget
ACHD
M3 -Eagle's Impact Analysis predicts a 20 -year net benefit for ACHD of $72.8 million,
including $46.1 million from property taxes and $39.3 million in impact fees. The analysis also
estimates that additional ACHD expenditures for the 20 -year period will be $12.6 million, but
again this includes only operating costs — no capital costs are included. In an attempt to address
this point, the analysis says that "(c)osts associated with the longer term capacity needs of the
transportation infrastructure are caused by many factors and circumstances which are better
examined in detailed traffic and engineering studies." [p. 46] The results of one such study,
discussed below, indicates a doubling of the population of Eagle will result in substantial
increased capital costs for transportation infrastructure.
21
For FY 2006 the ACHD budget shows M&O expenditures of $12.0 million out of a total
of $79.2 million. Capital Projects are budgeted to be $43.0 million, with other support services at
$24.2 million. Maintenance & Operations expenditures therefore comprise only 15.2 percent of
ACHD's budget. Capital costs account for 54.3 percent, and other support services 30.5 percent.
ACHD currently maintains and operates 2,050 miles of roads and streets in Ada County. Total
expenditures per mile, therefore, were $36,195 for FY 2006.
By contrast, the Impact Analysis uses only the M&O expense per mile, $7,992, in its
calculation of net benefit. If total expenditures per mile are used, expenses over the 20 -year
development period would equal $57.0 million rather than the $12.6 million used in the Impact
Analysis. This change reduces the net fiscal impact over the 20 -year period from $72.8 million to
$28.4 million.
(Properties within M3 -Eagle will be assessed and will pay impact fees to the Ada County
Highway District. In the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis these impact fees are projected to
total $39.3 million over the first twenty years of the project. What is not mentioned in the
M3 -Eagle analysis was the extraordinary impact fees and/or roadway improvements that
will paid by or provided by the developer to the affected highway entity — in this case either
ACHD or ITD. )
(Stanley Consulting has estimated that these offsite roadway improvements will cost the
developer $48.1 million in the first twenty years of the project — with $25.2 million in
estimated offsite improvements to the ACHD system and $22.9 million to the ITD roadway
system. )
(In addition, the developer will construct to ACHD specifications all of the collector and
arterial streets within M3 -Eagle, at an estimated cost of $34.8 million, and cede them to
ACHD upon their completion. )
(Now in reference to Dr. Reading's review of the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis as it
relates to ACHD:
(Dr. Reading states that M3 -Eagle analysis does not include the potential capital costs that
ACHD may incur due to the extra demands that M3 -Eagle may impose upon the ACRD
system. It is true the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis does not include estimates of the
necessary capital costs associated with offsite improvements to the roadway system. )
(The exclusion of the potential additional ACRD capital costs has been the norm and
accepted in the four planned communities that have been approved within Ada County. The
master planned communities have been: in Ada County; Avimor, Hidden Springs, and The
Cliffs, and within the City of Boise, Harris Ranch. As a matter of fact, The Cliffs Planned
Community, east of Boise, used an average ACHD O&M cost very similar to the $7,992 per
road mile used in the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis.)
22
(This has been the practice because; 1) The analysis of transportation infrastructure
impacts is complex and very specialized as the process of estimating future costs for that
infrastructure and, 2) Because the imposition of ACRD impact fees on newly constructed
residential and commercial properties is meant to ameliorate those incremental
infrastructure costs and 3) Because there will be further negotiations between the developer
and ACRD (or ITD, if that is the case) for additional offsite roadway system improvements
to be paid for by either extraordinary impact fees paid by the developer or for having the
developer construct the necessary offsite improvements. )
(Nevertheless, in Dr. Reading's review of the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis, he states that
the analysis falls short because "no capital costs are included". Further he disputes that the
O&M cost of $7,992 used in the M3 analysis is appropriate and that a more acceptable
figure of cost per road mile would be $36,195. This figure is derived by Dr. Reading from
ACHD's FY 2006 budget by dividing the agency's total spending — including capital costs—
divided by the number of road miles in the ACHD system at the end of that fiscal year. )
(However by taking this approach Dr. Reading not only includes all of ACHD's capital
costs, he asks the developer of M3 -Eagle or the future homeowner in M3 -Eagle to pay for a
portion of those capital costs twice.)
(In FY 2006 the ACHD budget shows total spending to be $79.2 million of which capital
projects account for 54.3 percent of that amount ---$43.0 million in the fiscal year. However,
a portion of those capital costs are already included in the M3 -Eagle analysis. Under Capital
Projects in the ACHD budget is a subcategory entitled Maintenance. This subcomponent of
the capital spending includes the districts costs associated with its annual chip sealing
program and the filling of roadway potholes and crack sealing. While it is a minor amount
of the total ACRD budget — 4.3 percent or $3.1 million in FY 2006— it is an amount already
included in the M3 -Eagle study as a portion of the $7,992 O&M cost per road mile figure.)
(Therefore, approximately $40.0 million in ACHD capital costs that Dr. Reading wants
included are in his opinion not accounted for in the M3 analysis. )
(What Dr. Reading fails to mention is that $19.6 million, or 49.0 percent, of the $40.0 million
of ACRD capital projects in FY 2006 will be attributable to impact fee related projects, or
an average amount of $9,561 per road mile in the ACRD system. In addition, there also was
nearly $1.8 million of Federal revenues that were spent by ACHD on capital projects in FY
2006. This translates to an average of $899 per ACRD road mile of Federal dollars spent on
ACHD capital projects in FY2006. Add to that capital projects valued at $1.2 million in FY
2006 where ACRD received revenues from other developers, cities, or agencies in a cost
sharing arrangement that was advantageous to ACHD and the other party. The value of
those capital expenditures for which ACHD received revenues under a cost sharing
arrangement averaged $609 per road mile in the ACHD system in FY 2006. )
(In total, capital spending originating from impact fee related spending, federal dollars
spent on capital projects, and monies received by ACHD in cost sharing arrangements with
23
other for capital improvement projects represented nearly $22.6 million, or an average of
$11,024 per ACHD road mile, in FY 2006. )
(ACHD Impact Fees are meant to "ensure that those who benefit from new growth and
development are required to pay no more than their Proportionate Share of the costs of new
public facilities under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District...". )
(Therefore, in Dr. Reading's analysis and recommended solution, the impact fees that
ACHD has already collected from developers, developers other than M3, and that ACRD as
spent on capital projects that ameliorate that other developer's impact on the ACHD system
are a part of the estimated fiscal impact of M3 -Eagle on the ACHD roadway system.
Further, in Dr. Reading's report he advocates that the Federal dollars and cost sharing
arrangement monies spent by ACHD on capital projects should also be included as part of
the costs that M3 -Eagle will impose on the ACHD roadway system. In total, over the first
twenty years of the M3 -Eagle project, Dr. Readings cost parameters would have had M3
paying ACRD nearly $17.4 million for capital projects that had already been paid for from
other sources. In addition, M3 -Eagle and its residents would have paid nearly $39.3 million
in impact fees to ACRD to ameliorate its impact on the ACHD roadways. )
(If Dr. Reading wants the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis to account for the capital costs
that it may impose upon the ACRD roadway system, then he should also include all of the
revenues that the M3 -Eagle development will bring to ACRD. These include the stream of
property revenues that ACRD will receive from the development (projected to be $30.0
million in the first twenty years) as shown in the M3 fiscal impact analysis along with an
estimated $393 million in impact fees over the first twenty years. They also include the
value of the streets and roadways within M3 -Eagle that will be deeded to ACHD upon their
completion (an estimated $34.8 million) and the offsite roadway improvements that the
developer has identified (a value of $25.2 million). )
(In addition, a fair comparison would also include other revenues that would originate from
M3 -Eagle to the benefit of ACHD. These include revenues that ACHD receives from the
annual registration of motor vehicles in Ada County. I estimate that revenues from auto
registrations of the residents of M3 -Eagle would add nearly $3.6 million to the positive fiscal
impact that M3 would have on ACED. One can add to that the additional revenues that
ACED would realize from the State of Idaho revenue sharing from the highway distribution
account and the sales tax account, an estimated $15.6 million and $1.1 million, respectively,
in the first twenty years of the M3 -Eagle project. In total another $20.2 million over the
first twenty years of the project. )
(The bottom line is that if I took Dr. Reading's figure of $36,195 per road mile --- that is
FY2006 total ACHD expenditures divided by 2,050 road miles --- and then subtracted the
capital projects that have already been paid from other sources --- impact fees, federal
funds, or cooperative agreements --the dollar cost per road mile falls to $27,610 per road
mile. Since the M3 -Eagle analysis already considers a cost of $7,992 per road mile, the
additional cost by Dr. Reading's method would be $19,618 per road mile or about $30.9
24
1
million over the first twenty years. Considering the $20.2 million in additional revenues that
ACRD would receive from M3 -Eagle (registration fees, additional State of Idaho highway
distribution fund dollars and state sales tax distribution dollars) and the projected ACHD
net fiscal surplus in M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis slips to $62.1 million over the first
twenty years of the project. It should still be noted however, that since M3 Eagle will
construct all the roads within the development and pay it's fair share of its offsite impacts
through impact fees and extra -ordinary impact fees, we are unclear as to what ongoing
capital costs would be attributable to M3 Eagle. M3 Eagle is not responsible for capital
costs to fix problems it did not create.)
Moreover, while it falls within the purview of the Idaho Department of Transportation
rather than ACHD, a detailed analysis of the actual costs would of necessity include the capital
and added M&O needs brought about by the additional traffic on Highways 16 and 55, in addition
to urban roads in Ada County. These increased costs will be imposed on all Ada County
residents, including those living in Eagle.
A recently released Highway 55 Joint Transportation Study undertaken for the Highway
55 Association Executive Committee projects the following costs on a per unit basis for the
Highway 55 corridor (Table 7). The study includes a disclaimer, which states that "(t)hese
estimates are for information only and should not be considered final. Significant analysis and
calculations need to be completed to determine the final costs. This would occur during
subsequent studies and preliminary design."[p.29.]
(The study includes a disclaimer that should have been paid closer attention to. According
to ITD the costs in this Tier 1 Study are very ballpark. In the ballpark is a home run over
the center field fence, a pop-up behind home plate, or a foul ball in left or right field. They
are all in the ball park but they are far away from each other. We are concerned that they
are being used to cast negativity on any new project that someone can object to. If one truly
believes these numbers then the next person that comes into the Eagle City Hall for a
building permit that will add traffic to SH 55 should have these costs imposed on them as a
condition of receiving their permit.)
(This was not intended to be a funding study, which will be completed separately, but
mainly considered the build -out of the developments along the SH 55 corridor and not the
build -out of the foothills. It should not have isolated M3 Eagle in a separate analysis
scenario and misstated its housing units as 10,300 instead of 8,160. It did not consider
alternative funding sources and included certain improvements (i.e. interchange at State St.)
that may not occur. It should also be noted that the impacts were derived from a wish list of
densities that may or may not be achievable. If densities are reduced, then corresponding
costs and impacts are also reduced.)
25
Table 7
Transportation Improvement Cost per Unit
Land Use Cast Estimate per Unit
S"ndle-Family Dwe ling 59,300 - S9,700 per unit
ADa'tment 55.200 - 55,400 per unit
Condominium 54.4x0 - s4,600 per unit
OFice 512,600 - 513.200 per 1,000 SF
Retail 517,900 - $ 22,900 per 1,000 SF
Ha:el 55,000 - 55,200 per room
1
Disclaimers aside, these estimates are at least an indication of what the costs may be of
M3 -Eagle's proportional share for highway improvement outside its geographical boundaries.
Using the average values of the ranges given in the above table and the residential and
commercial units projected to be developed over the 20 -year period, the cost of transportation
improvements to Highway 55 alone would exceed $100 million. This is may well be significantly
more than the net fiscal benefit projected to accrue to agencies responsible for fulfilling the
transportation needs caused by the development.
Meridian Joint School District #2
M3 -Eagle projects that it will add 4,620 students residing in 7,997 new residential housing
units to the Meridian School District by the end of the 20 -year project. The Impact Analysis
estimates that the net fiscal impact to the school district will be $163.5 million. This does not
include the capital costs needed to build new schools driven by the increase in enrollment, but
according to the study (Table 26(c)), there will be more than enough increased revenue to build
the necessary schools.
There are three problems we found with this analysis. First, there appears to be a
arithmetic error in the 20 -year net fiscal impact as carried forward to Table 26(c), which shows a
net fiscal impact of $340.1 million, rather than the $163.5 million net fiscal impact, without new
schools, as seen in Table 26(b). The net fiscal impact including new school construction, with
this correction, would by $176.6 lower.
Second, the Impact Analysis states that for the 2004-2005 school year, assessed property
value per average daily student attendance was nearly $276,348. It also says that "(1)argely
because of the expected 2,300,000 square feet of commercial floor space slated for M3 -Eagle.
(This has been changed 1.6 million square feet phis 500 hotel rooms.) Idaho Economics
expects that, at full build -out of the project, the average assessed value per M3 -Eagle student will
26
be close to $765,620." [p.57]. However, a slide submitted to the City Council on September 25
reduces commercial development at full build -out to 1.6 million square feet. This 30 percent
reduction in commercial development and associated property value could impact expected
revenues significantly for the Meridian School District as well as for other governmental units
impacted by the project.
(A reduction of the commercial development in M3 -Eagle from 2.0 million square feet to 1.6
million square feet reduces the projected to taxable value of the project by approximately
$99.0 million or about 2.2 percent. For the Meridian School District that reduction would
translate to a reduction of property tax revenues to the district of approximately $385,000
per year in the last five to ten years of the project or about 1.4 percent of the total amount of
property taxes that are projected to be collected in the first twenty years of the M3 -Eagle
development. )
Third, the text of the Impact Analysis states that there will be a need for 5 new elementary
schools, 2 middle schools, and lhigh school. Later in the analysis, however, in Table 26(c), there
is only 1 middle school listed. If the cost of the second middle school is included in the analysis,
it would increase the projected cost of school facilities by $20.2 million, for a total of $148.4
million.
(There is a typographical error in the text in the M3 -Eagle fiscal impact analysis which
states that there will be two middle schools. However, Table 26(c) which enumerates one
middle school is correct as are all of the cost estimates for school construction costs. There
will still be 5 elementary schools, but one will be a K-8.)
When this is measured against the expected $128.2 million in school construction costs, it
leaves a net benefit of $35.3 million over the 20 -year development period. With the addition of
the second middle school the net benefit would fall to just $15.1 million over the 20 year
development period, or less than $1 million per year. Once again, these values are based on the
expected property values, the commercial space developed, and the pace and value of building
that form the basis for the Impact Analysis. Any reduction in the value of the properties or
lengthening of the pace of building would reduce any net benefits. (The corollary is also true.)
(As a test of Dr. Reading's conjecture about a reduction in property values impacting the
Meridian School District, I constructed a scenario where I reduced the taxable value of the
M3 -Eagle development by about one-third, from a total taxable value of $4.4 billion to a
taxable value of $3.0 billion in the twentieth year of the project. Using these lower taxable
property values, and leaving all of the other parameters (number of students, cost per
student, etc.) unchanged, I recalculated the annual net fiscal impacts to the Meridian School
District. As one would expect, the net fiscal impact fell from a projected $169.3 million at
the end of twenty years with the higher taxable property value to a cumulative positive net
fiscal impact of $107.0 million after twenty years. )
27
(Thereafter, I constructed a simulation of the cost of school construction assuming that
schools would be constructed as the number of students, by type of school (Elementary
School, Middle School, and High School) residing in M3 -Eagle, reached about 80.0 percent
of a school's capacity. This process produced a projection of Elementary Schools being
constructed in the fifth, tenth, twelfth, and fifteenth year of the project. A Middle School
and High School were projected to be built in the twelfth and twentieth years, respectively.
At the end of twenty years it was projected that students from M3 -Eagle would be
responsible for a portion of the construction costs of one another Elementary School (30.0
percent) and another Middle School (40.0 percent).
(The cost parameters for the fully -equipped schools were obtained from the Meridian
School District: these were $10.8 million for an Elementary School, $20.2 million for a
Middle School, and $53.6 million for a High School. We still need to get the costs for a K-8
school.)
(Using the Meridian School District's 2005 issuance of school bonds as a template, a
simulation was constructed using the times when a new school was needed because the
demands originating from M3 -Eagle school bonds were issued for the estimated cost of the
new school plus an allowance for issuance costs associated with the bonds. Each year
thereafter for the twenty year term of the school bonds annual interest and principal
payments were subtracted from the projected net fiscal impact that the M3 -Eagle
development would have on the District. In the twentieth year it was assumed that bonds
would be issued for the construction of the High School and the construction of the 30.0
percent portion of the last Elementary School and the 40.0 percent portion of the second
Middle School. )
(The results of that analysis are attached. )
(The analysis shows that a positive net fiscal impact to the Meridian School District remains
as a result of M3 -Eagle development. At the twentieth year of the project with reduced
taxable property values and accounting for bond issuance expenses and interest, there
remains a positive net fiscal impact of $69.7 million to the Meridian School District. )
(This simulation shows that even a considerable reduction in taxable property values will
still leave the School District in positive territory throughout the forecast period. )
Consistency with the Foothills Comprehensive Plan
(Note: We question the usefulness and appropriateness of this entire section. Our economic
impact report is not meant to address land use patterns or consistency with the
comprehensive plan. Given the constraints of existing BLM land, we cannot locate a
significant activity center on Hwy. 16. We also question the validity of the City's reasoning
that our village center is placed inappropriately. It is located at the confluence of 2 future
arterials, one of which is the major east/west connector between Hwy. 16 & 55 which will
28
carry over 36,000 cars per day. Its centralized location will also capture trips interior to the
foothills rather than forcing traffic out to the highways.
In this section we will undertake a brief review of M3 -Eagle's proposed project and the
parameters currently set forth in the City's Foothill Comprehensive Plan. One problem with this
assessment is that projections of the development of residential units, commercial space, and
project amenities vary from source to source. For example, the Impact Analysis calculates
property tax revenue and building fees accruing to the City of Eagle based on commercial
development of 2.1 million square feet over the 20 -year period. However, a slide submitted to the
City Council dated September 25 sates that `enhancements' to the plan have reduced its
commercial size to 1.6 million square feet. (This number is correct in addition to 500 hotel
rooms.)
Another slide shows the number of dwelling units reduced from 12,010 to 5,640, with a
maximum of 8,160. (The 12,010 number is not relevant. Projected units are 5,640 to 8,160.)
This is a 45 percent difference in expected units. The Impact Analysis determination of net fiscal
impacts assumes the maximum number of 8,160 units. Such a large difference in expected units
has a significant impact not only on the projected revenues, population, and expenses of the
project, but also on the estimates of the development's density. Also, the September submittal to
the City Council also has a slide with a 500 -acre vineyard with accompanying residential areas
and a village center that are not found in either the Impact Analysis or on M3 -Eagle's website.
(The village center is detailed in the website and accounted for in the Impact Analysis. The
vineyards are conceptual at this time, but if viable, could raise property values with more
positive impacts.)
For these reasons, the following comments about the project as it relates to the City's
Foothill plan can only be based on our best guess of the estimates, which, in turn, are based on the
most recent information. As the definition of the project changes, its ability to meet the
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan may also change.
The commercial square feet of the project (whether 1.6 or 2.1 million) appear reasonable
for its location and size (with the continuing caveat that commercial must follow residential).
There is, however, some question as to the placement of the commercial and neighborhood
centers. Maps found on M3 -Eagle's website place the major commercial center in the middle of
the project, while the city's Comprehensive Plan indicates that major commercial developments
should occur at major intersections along Highways 16 and 55.
(Many of the September 25, 2007 slides associated with the M3 -Fiscal impact analysis were
prepared incorrectly. However, the correct materials were presented to the Mayor and City
Council via an overhead projector. Those tables presented in that fashion are a part of the
public record as is a notation that some of the slides were incorrect. )
29
The Community Core area in the center of the project estimates a total of 1.3 million
square feet of commercial space (reduced to 880,000 s.f.) plus a 500 unit hotel. This area
comprises about 80 percent (55%) of the planned commercial space and contains about 45
percent office space and 55 percent retail space.
In its September presentation to the City Council, however, an M3 -Eagle slide states that
the development will "(e)ncourage community scale commercial use to locate along SH 55 & 16
with the foothills to promote trip capture along the regional roadway system." (Actually, this
language is a goal from the draft Comprehensive Plan and does not refer to the
development. The reasoning for placing the village center in the location shown is stated
elsewhere.) This statement appears to fit the requirements of the Foothills Comprehensive Plan
better than does the map on M3 -Eagle's website or the slide submitted, which has the major
commercial development in the middle of the project, away from Highways 55 and 16. In
addition, M3 -Eagle's sub -area map, found on their website, shows 88 acres of a highway mixed
use business park with no commercial square feet listed. (The Highway Mixed Use Business
Park is planned for 600,000 s.f. of commercial space. This was shown in the slide
presentation and stated at the council meeting.)
If the plan is to put the majority of the commercial space in the community core, as
indicated on the website and in the slide, it would certainly be at odds with the city's
Comprehensive Plan. Commercial space located along highways 55 and 16, on the other hand, fit
better into the Comprehensive Plan's prescribed location for commercial space. Until the scope
and location of the proposed commercial properties and neighborhood centers are specifically
defined, it is difficult to determine how well they fit within the City's Foothills Comprehensive
Plan.
The project is designed so that most of the residential and commercial development is in
clusters, with significant open space. This approach fits with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The 6,005 total acres that comprise the project are divided into several areas, each with a different
mix of lot sizes and open space. Table 1 below outlines each sub -area.
12
M3 -Eagle Area Plan
Northern Residential Area 2,760 acres
Commerical 120,000 sq ft
Single Family Lots 4,919 Units
Single Family Attached 351 Units
5,270 1.91 per acre
1,015 acres open space or 36.8%
Southwestern Residential Area 407 acres
Commerical 0 sq ft
Single Family Lots 69 Units
Single Family Attached 0 Units
69 0.17 per acre
44 acres open space or 10.8%
Southern Residential Area 2,114 acres
Commerical 0 sq ft
Single Family Lots 128 Units
Single Family Attached 0 Units
128 0.06 per acre
1,006 acres open space or 47.6%
Commerical Core 636 acres
Commerical 1,334,171 sq ft
Single Family Lots 200 Units
Single Family Attached 1893 Units
Multi -Family 300
2,393 5.24 per acre
167 acres open space or 26.3%
Mixed Use - Highway 16
Units
88 acres
500 Units
500 5.68 per acre
Willow Creek 80 acres open space or 100%
Totals from Above
Acres 6,005
Units 8,360
Sq ft Commercial 1,454,171
Open space acres 2,312
Percent open space 38.5%
13
Table 1
(Note: The table above needs to be updated, or not even used since development summaries
are provided elsewhere for the individual planning areas. In the Totals, the number of units
should be 8,160, the square feet of commercial should be 1,600,000, the open space acres
should be 2,381, and the percent open space should be 39.7%.)
The city's Comprehensive Plan calls for an overall density in the foothills of about
one unit for every 2 acres (0.49 per acre based on 49,000 thousand acres and 24,241 units).
(There are no densities in the P&Z recommended plan, which is the only current plan of
record.) While the Southwestern and Southern area in the M3's project exceed this level, the
overall project comes in at between 0.94 and 1.36 units per acre [5,640 to 8,160 residential units
and 6005 acres]. The 0.49 units per acre contained in the Comprehensive Plan, however, includes
5,400 acres of BLM land. If all of the BLM land is included in M3 -Eagle's project, the units per
acre would vary between 0.49 and .76 units per acre. Therefore, for the project to meet the 0.49
units per acre prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan, all of the total of 5,400 BLM acres would
need to be credited to the project and the number of unit would have to be kept at 5,641, rather
than the 8,160 units considered in the Impact Analysis. (We don't understand this reasoning.
Regardless, this is not a valid analysis because there are currently no densities assigned to
the foothills in the plan. Everything in the above paragraph is hypothetical. The council
may or may not include densities in the plan and they may be higher than stated above.)
The city's Comprehensive Plan also indicates 40 percent of the gross area of a site should
be in open space. M3 -Eagle's development proposal appears to meet this goal, with 39 percent of
the area designated as open space. This level would be exceeded with the BLM land exchange of
880 acres that could be considered open space. The 39% open space includes the 880 acres.)
Finally, the submittal to the City Council indicates that the project is now considering a
specific vineyard and wine region within its development area. The would fit with the
Comprehensive Plan, which calls for an `Eagle Wine Region' in the foothills.
The above review should not be considered comprehensive. As additional information
about the project becomes known a more through analysis could be undertaken. The two major
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that appear to be at odds with the M3 -Eagle's development are
the placement of commercial space and the density requirement of 0.49 units per acre. (Again,
there are no density requirements in the plan. This statement is not valid.)
Conclusions
Based on our analysis, we believe the Impact Analysis submitted by M3 -Eagle is flawed
in five ways.
First, and perhaps most importantly, the Impact Analysis does not include capital
expenditures in its projections of the costs to various governmental units. Adding these costs
14
significantly changes the net benefits of the project. In the case of the City of Eagle, for example,
this one change alone reduces the net benefit from $30.1 million to zero. There would be similar
impacts for other governmental units impacted by the development. (Capital costs are not
included because we are not sure what they would be or how they would be attributed to M3
Eagle since M3 Eagle is building all its infrastructure. The Impact Analysis also doesn't
consider that M3 Eagle is building a municipal water system and turning it over to the City
with a revenue stream that should exceed costs. See more detailed comments in the body of
the report.)
Second, the Impact Analysis' projections of the rate of development and the value of the
residential properties are, in our view, too rosy. A slower pace of residential development — and,
of necessity, commercial development — would mean that revenues would come in more slowly.
There is no guarantee, however, that expenses would be cut proportionately, which might lead to
shortfalls in any given year. This would impact all of the governmental units affected by the
development. (The bases for these statements are unclear. This critique uses Ada County
value figures, which are different than the situation in Eagle. We are working with a
national market research firm with broad experience in master planned communities to
devise the right mix of housing types to maximize value and absorption, as well as flexibility
to address market changes over a long period of time. It stands to reason that if absorption
is slower then government services would be commensurate and certain costs would not be
incurred by the City.)
Even more significant, however, is the prospect that the residential units would not sell for
as much as the Impact Analysis assumes. This would reduce revenues to all entities while not
necessarily reducing expenditures, since the number of new residents would remain about the
same. (The corollary is also true.)
Third, the Impact Analysis fails to consider costs that will likely be imposed on
governmental entities outside the geographic bounds of the development. The most obvious
example is the additional capital and M&O costs related to the maintenance and improvement of
Highways 16 and 55, which could exceed $100 million, based on the one study cited above, over
the 20 -year period. (As stated earlier, this was not meant to be a funding study and
generalizes costs and impacts based on very aggressive density assumptions that may not
happen. If densities are reduced, impacts (and costs) will also be reduced.)
Fourth, the Impact Analysis' conclusions with regard to the Meridian School District
cannot be relied upon because of a mathematical error and the total cost of building new schools.
The results of these corrections leave the Impact Analysis's estimate of net benefits at less than $1
million per year. These inconsistencies may well have resulted from the project's evolving
design. (The mathematical error has been corrected and building costs have been accounted
for. This still results in a positive fiscal impact to the school district.)
Finally, while the development's allocation of open space is to be commended, other
aspects of the proposed project are less compatible with the city's Foothills Comprehensive Plan.
15
The most obvious is the location of the major commercial center in the middle of the project,
rather than at major intersections along Highways 16 and 55. Moreover, should the project go
forward with the number of units considered in the Impact Analysis, it would exceed the density
requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. (As stated earlier, the village center is ideally placed
along east/west and north/south arterials to capture trips internal to the foothills instead of
forcing traffic out to the highways. There are no density requirements in the
Comprehensive Plan. We also submit that lower densities in the foothills would not provide
a rosier economic benefit to the City. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
Circulation Plan still show significant infrastructure requirements that would then be
spread over less units that produce less revenue.)
Unfortunately, much of this analysis can aptly be described as shooting at a moving target,
given the design changes the project is obviously going through. Significant differences between
the Impact Analysis, M3 -Eagle's September presentation to the City Council, and its website —
particularly with regard to the number of units proposed and the amount and location of the
commercial space — make firm conclusions difficult. (These discrepancies have been
corrected.)
In our view, however — regardless of the specifics that eventually emerge — this analysis
raises enough red flags to suggest that at the very least, the City Council needs more information
before it can come to a reasonable conclusion about the net benefits of the project.
(We believe that with the clarifications, corrections, and additional information and analysis
presented, the project still shows positive economic benefits the City, ACRD and the School
District and that the Impact Analysis should stand on its own. We welcome the opportunity
to meet with Dr. Reading again after he has had a chance to review this information to
address and resolve and further issues.)
16
Simulation of Meridian School District Fiscal Impacts due to M3 -Eagle
Using a Reduced Total Taxable Value for Property Within the Project
and assuming the Issuance of School Bonds for School Construction
Protected Number of New Public Schools within M3 -Eagle
Using the Meridian School District's Assumption of 0.8 Students per Residential Household
School M3 -Eagle Bond Issuance Bond Earned
Year Type Share Amount Costs Proceeds Interest
0
1
2
3
4
5 Elementary 100% $10,800,000 $19,090 $10,780,910 $216,000
6
7
8
9
10 Elementary 100% 10,800,000 19.090 10,780,910 216,000
11
12 Elementary & 100% 31,100,000 54,972 31,045,028 622,000
13 Middle School 100%
14
15 Elementary 100% 10,800,000 19,090 10,780,910 216,000
16
17
18
19
20 Elementary & 30% $59,600,000 $105,349 $59,494,651 $1,192,000
Middle School 40%
& High School 90%
Total School Construction Costs $123,100,000
Assumed School Costs for School Construction and Equipment Elementary School, $10,762,157;
Middle School, $20,190,467; High School, $53,499,855. Land costs are not included.
School Capacities: Elementary, 650 students; Middle School, 1,000 students; High School, 2,000 students.
The Meridian School District's 2005 School Bond Issuance was assumed to be representative of the future
bond issues associated with the schhots projected above.
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Simulation of Meridian School District Fiscal Impacts due to M3 -Eagle
Using a Reduced Total Taxable Value for Property Within the Project
and assuming the issuance of School Bonds for School Construction
Protected Principal and Interest Payments for the Construction of New Schools within M3 -Eagle
Using the Meridian School District's Assumption of 0.8 Students per Residential Household
--I-
Elementary School #1
Principal Interest
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
$381,595 $513,046
397,783 496,859
210,280 480,947
218,821 472,536
227,362 463,783
235,904 455,146
245,665 445,710
394,122 435,576
469,774 416,582
564,949 395,576
592,607 368,091
622,298 338,461
653,209 307,346
686,155 274,686
720,320 240,378
756,519 204,362
Idaho Economics
793,938
833,798 126,839
875,691 85,149
$919,211 $41,365
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
166,536 F
Elementary School #2
Principal Interest
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
$381,595 $513,046
397,783 496,859
210,280 480,947
218,821 472,536
227,362 463,783
235,904 455,146
245,665 445,710
394,122 435,576
469,774 416,582
564,949 395,576
592,607 368,091
622,298
653,209
686,155
720,320
756,519
793,938
833,798
875,691
$919,211
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
338,461
307,346
274,686
240,378
204,362
166,536
126,839
85,149
$41,365
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Elementary School #3
Principal Interest
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
O 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
O 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
$381,595 $513,046
397,783 496,859
210,280 480,947
218,821 472,536
227,362 463,783
235,904 455,146
245,665 445,710
394,122 435,576
469,774 416,582
564,949 395,576
592,607 368,091
622,298 338,461
653,209 307,346
686,155 274,686
720,320 240,378
756,519 204,362
793,938 166,536
833,798 126,839
875,691 85,149
$919,211 $41,365
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
Middle School #1
Principal Interest
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
$717,257 $964,337
747,684 933,910
395,248 904,003
411,303 888,193
427,357 871,741
443,412 855,506
461,760 837,769
740,803 818,722
883,001 783,019
1,061,895 743,536
1,113,881 691,875
1,169,690 636,181
1,227,792 577,697
1,289,716 516,307
1,353,935 451,821
1,421,976 384,125
1,492,310 313,026
1,567,231 238,410
1,645,975 160,049
$1,727,777 $77,750
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
Year
Simulation of Meridian School District Fiscal Impacts due to M3 -Eagle
Using a Reduced Total Taxable Value for Property Within the Project
and assumina the Issuance of School Bonds for School Construction
Protected Principal and Interest Payments for the Construction of New Schools within M3-Eaale
Using the Meridian School District's Assumption of 0.8 Students per Residential Household
Elementary School #4
Principal Interest
0 0 0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
8 0 0
9 0 0
10 0 0
11 0 0
12 0 0
13 0 0
14 0 0
15 $381,595 $513,046
16 397,783 496,859
17 210,280 480,947
18 218,821 472,536
19 227,362 463,783
20-+ 235,904 455,146
21 245,665 445,710
22 394,122 435,576
23 469,774 416,582
24 564,949 395,576
25 592,607 368,091
26 622,298 338,461
27 653,209 307,346
28 686,155 274,686
29 720,320 240,378
30 756,519 204,362
31 793,938 166,536
32 833,798 126,839
33 875,691 85,149
34 $919,211 $41,365
35 0 0
36 0 0
37 0 0
38 0 0
39 0 0
40 0 0
Idaho Economics
30% Share of
Elementary School #5
Principal Interest
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
$114,478 $153,914
119,335 149,058
63,084 144,284
65,646 141,761
68,209 139,135
70,771 136,544
73,700 133,713
118,237 130,673
140,932 124,974
169,485 118,673
177,782 110,427
186,689 101,538
195,963 92,204
205,846 82,406
216,096 72,113
226,956 61,309
238,181 49,961
250,139 38,052
262,707 25,545
$275,763 $12,409
0 0
10% Share of
Middle School #2
Principal interest
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
$286,903 $385,735
299,074 373,564
158,099 361,601
164,521 355,277
170,943 348,696
177,365 342,202
184,704 335,108
296,321 327,489
353,200 313,208
424,758 297,415
445,552 276,750
467,876 254,472
491,117 231,079
515,887 206,523
541,574 180,728
568,790 153,650
596,924 125,210
626,892 95,364
658,390 64,019
$691,111 $31,100
0 0
50% Share of
NO School #1
Principal Interest
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
$1,893,840 $2,546,231_
1,974,180 2,465,891
1,043,611 2,386,923
1,086,001 2,345,179
1,128,391 2,301,739
1,170,782 2,258,872
1,219,228 2,212,041
1,956,013 2,161,747
2,331,470 2,067,479
2,803,820 1,963,229
2,941,084 1,826,823
3,088,441 1,679,769
3,241,854 1,525,347
3,405,360 1,363,254
3,574,921 1,192,986
3,754,576 1,014,240
3,940,286 826,511
4,138,108 629,497
4,346,022 422,592
$4,562,011 $205,291
0 0
3
Year
Simulation of Meridian School District Fiscal Impacts due to M3 -Eagle
Using a Reduced Total Taxable Value for Property Within the Project
and assuming the Issuance of School Bonds for School Construction
Protected Net Fiscal Impact of M3-Eaale on the Meridian School District
Net fiscal impacts from increased O&M expenses attributable to M3 -Eagle and after
Annual Principal and Interest Payments for Construction of New Schools Attributable M3 -Eagle
Total for All Schools
Projected to be Constructed
Annual Bond Debt Service Expense
Principal Interest Total
0 0 0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 $381,595 $513,046
6 397,783 496,859
7 210,280 480,947
8 218,821 472,536
9 227,362 463,783
10 617,498 968,192
11 643,448 942,568
12 604,402 916,523
13 688,595 889,118
14 792,311 859,359
15 1,210,105 1,336,283
16 1,983,002 2,245,366
17 2,005,295 2,157,779
18 1,769,998 2,067,806
19 1,923,934 1,987,930
20 4,307,608 4,985,219
21 4,497,902 4,794,724
22 3,607,683 4,600,339
23 4,088,591 4,437,355
24 4,455,024 4,249,908
25 3,829,938 4,053,607
26 4,007,748 3,877,733
27 5,027,268 3,690,275
28 5,615,240 3,443,193
29 6,327,310 3,177,366
30 5,674,872 2,870,184
31 5,958.920 2,586,440
32 6,255,041 2,288,494
33 6,570,015 1,975,742
34 6,897,777 1,647,241
35 6,278,098 1,306,948
36 4,775,391 1,001,682
37 5,015,139 762,913
38 5,267,120 512,156
39 $5,528,885 $248,800
40 0 0
s
0
0
0
0
0
$894,641
894,641
691,227
691,357
691,146
1,585,691
1,586,016
1,520,925
1,577,713
1,651,671
2,546,388
4,228,369
4,163,074
3,837,804
3,911,864
9,292,827
9,292,626
8,208,021
8,525,946
8,704,932
7,883,545
7,885,481
8,717,542
9,058,433
9,504,677
8,545,056
8,545,360
8,543,535
8,545,757
8,545,018
7,585,047
5,777,074
5,778.052
5,779,275
$5,777,685
0
Interest
Earned
on Bond
Proceeds
0
0
0
0
0
$216,000
0
0
0
0
216,000
0
622,000
0
0
216,000
0
0
0
0
1,192,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
From M3 -Eagle
Fiscal Impacts
Projected
Annual Fiscal
Surnlus/(DeficItj
$350,052
548,994
954,269
1,293,405
1,638,560
1,969,065
2,324,290
2,883,993
3,397,538
3,917,524
5,456,055
6,014,129
7,025,095
7,931,361
8,621,024
9,159,550
9,850,181
10,820,464
11,241,720
11,620,761
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
11,526,158
$11,526,158
Forecasted
Annual Fiscal
Surplus/(Deficit)
After Bond
Payments &
Interest Earned
$350,052
548,993.6
954,268.7
1,293,405.2
959,918.4
1,074,424.1
1,633,062.8
2,192,635.5
2,706,391.9
2,547,833.7
3,870,038.8
5,115,204.3
5,447,381.9
6,279,690.8
6,290,635.4
4,931,180.8
5,687,106.6
6,982,660.8
7,329,856.0
3,519,933.8
2,233,531.7
3,318,136.1
3,000,211.6
2,821,225.8
3,642,612.6
3,640.676.3
2,808,615.1
2,467,724.4
2,021,481.0
2,981,101.6
2,980,797.3
2,982,622.3
2,980,400.7
2,981,139.0
3,941,110.8
5,749,083.9
5,748,105.3
5,746,882.1
5,748,472.3
$11,526,158
4.
Cumulative
Annual
Fiscal
Surplusl(Deficitl
$350,052
899,046
1,853,315
3,146,720
4,106,638
5,181,062
6,814,125
9,006,761
11,713,152
14,260,986
18,131,025
23,246,229
28,693,611
34,973,302
41,263,937
46,195,118
51,882,225
58,864,886
66,194,742
69,714,675
71,948,207
75,266,343
78,266,555
81,087,781
84,730,393
88,371,069
91,179,684
93,647,409
95,668,890
98,649,991
101,630,789
104,613,411
107,593,812
110,574,951
114,516,062
120,265,146
126,013,251
131,760,133
137,508,605
$149,034,763
4
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
OCT 2 2 2007
File.
Route to:
TO: Nichoel Baird Spencer DATE: October 22, 2007
FROM: Gary Funkhouser
SUBJECT: Dr. Reading Economic Analysis
MEMO
The Reading report has taken the Tier 1 Highway 55 Transportation Study and presented the material
totally out of context. If Dr. Reading had interpreted the study as it was intended he would have realized
that the costs stated, included all roadways impacted by the development of the total foothills area
which included all the major roadways between SH55 and SH16 south of the Ada County Line to
Chinden Blvd. Not just SH 55 as Dr. Reading Stated before City Council.
The 55 study itself is misleading and could lead someone to interpret the increased costs of $100
Million was the direct result of the M3 development. The way the study was conducted, is that only the
developfnents adjacent to 55 were considered first and then they added in the M3 development. They
cost out the improvements necessary the same way and reported the increase cost increment as if it was
M3 only. If the M3 development was considered first then the increase cost could be attributed to the
Highway 55 Developers and not M3. The CONCLUSION section of the 55 report ties the developments
together and reports that both areas use the same arterial systems and both should be considered
together, but Dr Reading didn't pick up on that important fact.
When Stanley Consultants cost out impacts of M3 alone with out the Highway 55 developers, their
incremental costs attributed to M3 were less than $50 million.
The Highway 55 Study also used 10,300 units and 2.1 million square feet of commercial uses to come
up with the incremental cost for the M3 development. Since that time the requested uses have been
reduced. The current request is for 8160 units and 1.6 million sq ft of commercial. The traffic impact
results from this reduction are 25000 trips or equivalent to a new 5 lane roadway.
It would behoove Dr. Reading to examine his sources closer before reporting final conclusions.
If you would like to discuss this further. Please feel free to contact me.
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
oint School District No. 2
1303 E.Central Drive • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208) 855-4500 • Fax (208) 350-5962
17 October 2007
Mayor Nancy Merrill
City of Eagle
660 E. Civic Dr.
Eagle, ID 83616
Dear Mayor Nancy;
nf;aycr,' City Council
City Clerk
P & "Dept_
Bldg. Dept
Attorn ev
Engineer
RECEIVED & F1LI
CITY OF EAGLE
OCT 19 2007
Filer
Route tvv
This letter is written, as promised, to underscore that the data and testimony
presented to the city by Trustee Anne Ritter regarding Joint School District No.
2's growth projections, building costs, etc. for potential foothills development
represents the district's position. As Vice Chairman of the school board, Trustee
Ritter presented the facts, figures, and position of the school district.
Further, to underscore the substance our telephone conversation, the district has
been working with the M3 developers regarding the impact of their development
on the school district. M3 has reiterated its commitment to provide "any and all
land necessary for schools" in the development, a commitment enthusiastically
embraced by the district. Jointly, we have looked at current school construction
funding limitations in Idaho, and examined creative solutions that are in place in
other states. We will continue to work to support changes in Idaho law that
would enhance the ability to construct school buildings without total responsibility
being born by the tax payers through bonds that must be passed by the school
district.
Finally, it is important to also reiterate that the district does not support the M3
proposal to build the initial school in the M3 development, and to have the district
pay for the school through the purchase of school site land. This proposal poses
several challenges for the district, including, but not limited to setting an
obligation for a future board of trustees to repay the debt (purchase the land) at a
time when funds may not be available for this purchase. As a matter of long -held
practice, the board of trustees is careful not to obligate funds from future budgets
that would be beyond the responsibility of their current positions. As we
discussed, this is only one of several issues that make this proposal less than
desirable for the district.