Minutes - 2007 - City Council - 10/09/2007 - Regular
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
October 9, 2007
REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Merrill calls the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. All present. A quorum
is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Dana Borgquist leads the Pledge of Allegiance
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Dana Borgquist, thanks the Council for the good years he has had
to serve in Eagle. I went to a school this summer and we had a Captain's test and I did pretty
well on the test and there is a promotion down the line for me. I think we are leaving you in
great hands with Brian Hippie and the team. I have been proud to be a part of the City of Eagle.
General discussion.
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. Claims Ae:ainst the City.
B. Re-aDDointment to the Board of Trustees of the Eae:le Public Librarv: The
Board of Trustees President is requesting the re-appointment of Nancy Marshall
to the Eagle Public Library Boards. She will be serving a five year term.
C. ADDointment to the Eae:le Arts Commission: The Mayor is requesting
Council confirmation of the appointment of Susan Roghani to the Eagle Arts
Commission. Ms. Roghani will be serving a three year term.
D. ADDointment to the Eae:le Arts Commission: The Mayor is requesting
Council confirmation of the appointment of Brooke Reche to the Eagle Arts
Commission. Ms. Reche will be serving a three year term.
E. Findine:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-I0-07&RZ-12-07-
Annexation And Rezone from RUT to R-E-DA - Tim Johnson: Tim Johnson
represented by Clint Hansen, PLS, with Land Solutions, PC, is requesting
approval of an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition-Ada
County Designation) to R-E-DA (Residential-Estates-one unit per two acres with
a development agreement). The 3.98-acre site is generally located on the south
side of Beacon Light Road approximately eight hundred feet (800') east of
Ballantyne Lane at 1651 West Beacon Light Road. (WEV)
F(7B). FP-07-07 - Final Plat for Cabra Creek Subdivision - Flvnn Holdine:s. nn
Holdings, LLC, is requesting final plat approval for Cabra Creek Subdivision, a
26-lot (23-buildable, 3-common) residential subdivision. The 13.63 acre site is
Page I
K ICOUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area'.rC-IO-09-07mindoc
located approximately 1,500 feet north of West State Street on the west side of
North Linder Road at 767 North Linder Road.
Mayor: We have a request from Staff to add Item #7B to the Consent Agenda.
So moved by Bastian. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
Bastian moves to remove the Claims Against the City from the Consent Agenda and add
approval to the end of the Agenda, as not all of the Council Mem bers have had a chance to
review the claims. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
Bastian moves to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Seconded by Guerber.
Bastian: AYE; Nordstrom: A YEj Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES........... ...
-DUE TO THE LENGTH OF THE CPA PRESENTATIONS, IT IS POSSIBLE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY WILL NOT BE OPENED TONIGHT. REGARDLESS, PUBLIC TESTIMONY
WILL ALSO BE OPEN ON OCTOBER 16, 2007, AT 6:00 P.M. -
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
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 I 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. This item was continuedfrom the September 25,2007 meeting. The applicant
presentation has been given, but the public hearing has not been opened. (NBS)
Mayor introduces the issue.
This was continued from the September 25, 2007 and we have heard this application but the
Public Hearing was not opened so we will move on to Item B.
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)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Planner Baird Spencer: Provides a brief overview.
Page 2
K:\COCNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes \\'ork Area\CC-IO-09-07min doc
Dan Richter, representing SunCor known as Avimor, presents a power point presentation and
provides an overview of SunCor and A vimor. A vimor is anticipated to take 30 or more years
to complete. It is important that the property be considered as one planning area. Our plan is
consistent with Eagle's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion density which will be in clustered
development.
Ashley Ford, WR Design, Project Manager, provides an overview of the application and
continues with the power point presentation.
Charles Vaughan, Principal of Environmental Services, provides his credentials, continues
with the power point presentation. Avimor is going to be developed using Habitat impact &
Mitigation Evaluation Process which has been developed in conjunction with the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game. Discusses the Natural Resources Key Issues. General
discussion.
Christen Petrick, I am a principal in SBF Water Engineering, provides his credentials,
continues with the power point presentation and discusses water resources for Avimor. United
Water Idaho will serve the core Avimor development and there will be on site resources.
Three different aquifers will supply water for the community, Willow Creek, Sandy Hill, and
Spring Valley. General discussion.
Ashley Ford, WR Design, I would like to focus on waste water, continues with the power point
presentation.
Dan Richter, I will stand for questions at this time. General discussion.
Kevin Wetland discusses the treatment plant and reuse. General discussion.
Mayor calls a recess at 7:25 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 7:45 p.m.
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
Public/Semi-Public for the BLM property. The +/- 2,000 acres site is located approximately '!.i
mile east of State Highway 16 and directly north of the Farmers Union Canal. (NBS)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to amend the Agenda and add as Item #7D. Executive Session for threatened
and pending litigation, Idaho Code, 2345(1), Lanewood. Seconded by Guerber. Bastian:
AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES.............
Planner Baird Spencer: Presents a power point and provides an overview of the Comp Plan
Amendment.
Rosemary Thomas, Field Manger for BLM, I think that the work that the City of Eagle is doing
to set aside this public land is very admirable. This fit really well with what Ada County wanted
to do. This is one of the most ideal uses to target this public land. Our land use process will
begin this winter and is open to the public. General discussion. M3 has proposed a land
exchange which has merit but BLM is not ready yet to move forward with a land exchange which
would take an amendment. The City can move forward on developing your application.
Nordstrom move to amend the Agenda and have Items #E 1 and 2 to be currently heard.
Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
Page 3
K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC -IO-09-07mindoc
E. SDecial Presentations:
Mayor introduces the issue.
I) Keith Allred, 2480 N. Edgewood, distributes copies, provides an overview of the process that
he has completed in regards to providing information to the citizens of Eagle on the Foothills
Report in regard to the Comp Plan. Discussion on the report that he has generated. General
discussion.
2) Dr. Don Reading
City Attorney Buxton introduces Dr. Reading and discusses his credentials. Dr. Reading will
provide an independent review.
Don Reading, 6070 Hill Road, I was asked by the staff to review the impact analysis of M3 and
to look at M3 and take a review of it stacking up against the comprehensive plan. Staff asked me
to look at it and tell them what I thought. Staff has made no changes to my report. Displays
overheads and discusses his report. General discussion.
General discussion on Dr. Reading's report and meeting procedures.
Discussion on M3 addressing Dr. Reading's report.
Mayor: s 9:30 p.m. and it looks like we will not get to public testimony tonight as our next
presentation will take an hour to an hour and half. All of this will be continued to the
October 16,2007 City Council meeting including Public Testimony.
D. CPA-6-07-Citv of Eae:le: The City of Eagle is proposing a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to achieve the following:
I) 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 issue.
Planner Baird Spencer: provides Council an overview of the Planning and Zoning
recommendation. Presents a power point and discusses the same. General discussion.
Mayor: We will continue with our agenda tonight and continue this portion of the meeting
to the October 16, 2007 City Council meeting.
Mayor calls a recess at 11 :20 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at ] 1 :35 p.m.
F. Resolution No. 07-30: A resolution of the City of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho adopting the
fee schedule for the purposes of section Title 7, Chapter lA of the City of Eagle for building
permits; and providing an effective date. (MM)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Building Official Mongelli: provides Council an overview of the building permits. These fees
have been published. The fee schedule was submitted to the Building Contractors Association
and we had no comment.
Mayor opens the Public Hearing
Mayor closes the Public Hearing
General discussion.
Page 4
K.\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\C'C-IO-09-07min.doc
Nordstrom moves to approve Resolution No. 07-30 as provided. Seconded by Guerber.
Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYEj Nordstrom: AYEj Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES................
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Ordinance No. 556 (Cabra Creek): 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.
Guerber 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 #556 be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber
reads Ordinance #556 by title only. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES.............. ...
Guerber moves that Ordinance #556 be adopted. Seconded by Nordstrom. Bastian: A YEj
Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYEj Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES......
B. FP-07-07 - Final Plat for Cabra Creek Subdivision - Flvnn Holdine:s. LLC: Flynn
Holdings, LLC, is requesting final plat approval for Cabra Creek Subdivision, a 26-lot (23-
buildable, 3-common) residential subdivision. The 13.63 acre site is located approximately 1,500
feet north of West State Street on the west side of North Linder Road at 767 North Linder Road.
Moved by Motion to the Consent Agenda.
C. Consideration of the cost of the burial of distribution lines alone: Floatine: Feather Road
from Eae:le Road to Ede:ewood Lane. (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
General discussion.
Bastian moves to do the Floating Feather project first. Seconded by Guerber.
Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES................
SA. Claims Ae:ainst the City.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to approve the Claims Against the City. Seconded by Nordstrom. Bastian:
A YEj Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: A YEj Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES.............
D. Executive Session for threatened and Dendine: Iitie:ation on Lanewood. Idaho Code.
2345<0.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to go into Executive Session for threatened and pending litigation on
Lanewood, Idaho Code, 67-2345(1). Seconded by Guerber. Bastian: A YEj Guerber: A YEj
Nordstrom: AYEj Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.............
Council goes into Executive Session at II :45 p.m.
Page 5
K.\fOUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporal)' Minutes Work Area\(T -10.09-07min doc
Council discusses threatened and pending litigation on Lanewood.
Council leaves Executive Session at 12:00 a.m.
Bastian moves to direct the City Attorney to appeal the PUC decision in the Lanewood case
and/or file for injunctive relief until the contract dispute between the City of Eagle and
Capital Development is settled. Seconded by Nordstrom. Discussion. Bastian amends his
motion to include United Water in the action. Second concurs. Bastian: AYEj Guerber:
AYE; Nordstrom: AYEj Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.............
Mayor: I have a meeting with Greg Wyatt on Thursday at II :00 p.m., he wants to look at
boundaries. General discussion. It looks like I have another meeting so I will reschedule this
meeting.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Discussion on the mobile office for The Landing at the church
property and discussion on the Conditions of Approval. General discussion on the blocking of
I sl Street. Discussion on the issuance of the Zoning Certificate. Further discussion.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYE: MOTION
CARRIES...........
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 12: 15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
1 Q(LA-IO ~~~~
--'SHARON K. BERGMANN .
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
.,...............
~~~. ~AGL ".
....~ O~ ......./:..
'" ~.. 00
110. .' ollAr~ooo .
::....:~ 00,
:: CJ{ 0 , _~ :.
\ (,,),....... \,..E: 0 ~
~G~()o.:t'.
.. Sv.."'.....::
.. ~ ..... ~.:
~ "'co.po~.. ,,-'J ....
iJl'<< ...... G" ..'
~"" $1'ATE o~ ~.'
'#1_" ,..-
.,'........,1
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT EAGLE
CITY HALL
Page 6
K.\COUNC1L\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-IO-09-07min.doc
INTER
OFFICE
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Attachment(s):
Copy To:
C6 — 7p 9-o7
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
Mayor Merrill and City Council Members
Nichoel Baird Spencer, AICP, Planner III
Foothills Transportation Analysis
October 8, 2007
Assumptions Sheet Provided by Mary Ann Waldinger of COMPASS
Comparison Table
Lane Configuration Map
Communities in Motion Volumes Map
Select Link Analysis Maps by Scenario
City Attorney, Zoning Administrator
Attached is an overview of the transportation impacts from various density alternatives within the
Foothills Planning Area.
The select link analysis is directional; the two directions were added together and averaged to get
an approximate accumulative impact at a specific point. Impacts are detailed for seven (7)
locations within, around and outside of the City of Eagle.
Four Density Scenarios were used:
Communities in Motion:
How much (%) of an impact does Eagle have on the system in 2030;
City Draft Plan:
How much impact (%) does the Draft City Plan have on the system in 2030;
City Draft Plan plus M3:
How much impact (%) does the combined plan have on the system in 2030;
City Plan plus M3 plus Avimor:
How much impact (%) does the combined plan have on the system in 2030;
It is assumed that the transportation impacts (% of trips) from the Foothills should be similar to
those of the City of Eagle in 2030 due to the similar number of units, location of housing
between SH 16 & SH55 and the location of major employers.
The analysis doe not show the overall impact of the combined City plan (existing City and the
Page 1 of 1
K:1Planning Dept\Impact Area120061Foothills\City COuncil heanngdraft Tranport Memo I duc
proposed foothills projects) but it does tell us how the land uses within the plan and individual
applications compare to the existing land uses within the City and provides support that the plan
is promoting trip capturing and more sustainable land uses than assumed under the CIM Plan.
Overall the City of Eagle for some time has questioned the overall growth assumptions for the
Valley and the Communities in Motion Plan. The CIM Plan assumes that development should
occur around the interstate and transit corridors; all other communities not on that corridor
should not grow. The truth is outlying areas, such as Eagle, will grow for they provide an
alternative to urban development and growth, 8+ units per acre. Eagle provides a moderated
growth and development pattern that focuses on community, employment and sense of place that
as a result see increased trip capture and a reduction on the overall regional; system by becoming
self-sustaining.
The indications of this transportation review are in support of the City's long-range vision of
live, work and play community. The Foothill plan provides a balance of land uses that
diminishes the historical transportation impacts seen by the City of Eagle to the regional system.
Development in the Foothills will have regional impacts but those impacts will be less than those
seen under current development practice in the City.
Page 2 of l
K:\Planning Deptllmpact Area120061Foothills\City COuncil hearing d \Tranpon Memo I doc
Roadway Project Differences
Between Communities in Motion and North Foothills Special Model Runs
North Foothills Special Model Runs
SH 55 - 6 lanes (3 travel lanes each direction) between SH
44 and Beacon Light Rd
SH 55 - 4 lane Expressway (grade -separated intersections)
between Beacon Light Rd and BoiselAda County line
All arterial / collector roadways in the north foothills
between SH 16 and SH 55 to accommodate potential
development
Linder Rd — 4/5 lane connection between Homer Rd to a
new north foothills arterial
Palmer Rd — 2/3 lane connection between Beacon Light Rd
to a new north foothills arterial
Communities in Motion
SH 55 - 4/5 lanes (2 travel lanes each direction - as is
today) between SH 44 and Beacon Light Rd
SH 55 - 2 lanes (1 travel lane each direction - as is today)
between Beacon Light Rd and Boise/Ada County line
North foothills arterials / collectors not included
Linder Rd connection to north foothills not included
Palmer Rd connection to north foothills not included
Model Analysis for North Foothills per the City of Eagle Request
Land Use Assumptions:
• 2030 Community Choices plus north foothills development
o Altemative 1: 2030 Community Choices plus 12,070 households and 9,502 jobs between SH 16 and
SH 55 and 6140 households and 1,725 jobs east of SH 55
o Altemative 2: 2030 Community Choices plus 15,370 and 12,189 jobs households between SH 16 and
SH 55 and 6140 households east of SH 55
o Altemative 3: 2030 Community Choices plus 12,070 households and 9,502 jobs between SH 16 and
SH 55 and Avimor only (less than 800 households and no jobs) east of SH 55
o Alternative 4: 2030 Community Choices plus 15,370 households and 12,189 jobs between SH 16 and
SH 55 and Avimor only (less than 800 households and no jobs) east of SH 55
North Foothills Model Forecasts
• The model forecasts the travel demand based on a set of assumptions about land uses, household travel
characteristics, roadway availability, and roadway characteristics.
• The model forecasts resulting from the different land use assumptions list above are first step to performing a
deficiency analysis. A deficiency analysis will assist in determining other transportation needs based on the
change in growth. These additional needs are not limited to the immediate area but could trigger needs
elsewhere and further "downstream".
• Roadway characteristics (i.e. lanes and speed) are in input to the model. Therefore, the model does not
determine the number of lanes needed to accommodate growth.
Models are tools — use the results responsibly
Page 1 of 2
Nichoel Baird
From: Szplett, Dave [Dave.Szplett@wgint.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:35 AM
To: Nichoel Baird
Subject: RE: Please confirm
Nichoel:
Your numbers are excellent.
I agree with their use for the public information.
2 Zane=less than 10,000
3 lanes = 10-20,000
4 lane= 20-30,000
5 lanes= 30-35,000
6 lanes=35,000 plus
The formally used daily traffic numbers for planning purposes are:
2 lane residential - < 2,000 because of home -owner complaints about noise and traffic
2 lane collector = 9,500 by capacity but ACHD policy (Section 7201.1.3) says only 8,500
2 lane arterial = 14,000
3 lane collector = 11,000
3 lane arterial = 17,000
4 lane collector = 18,500
4 lane arterial = 28,000
4 lane limited access arterial = 35,000 (signalized intersections)
4 lane limited access arterial = 70,000 (no intersections)
5 lane collector = 22,000
5 lane arterial = 33,000
6 lanes arterial = 38,000
6 lane limited access arterial = 110,000 (no intersections)
These are for LOS D.
Add about 15% more cars for LOS E.
The difference between arterial and collector numbers are the result of differences in the number of driveways, bus
stops, and pedestrian activity.
There is no difference is the street cross section (except for bike lanes).
COMPASS uses slightly different (i.e. lower) numbers in their Year 2002 Model Calibration Report.
sent this email during my normal moming break ( 9:30 to 9:45 AM).
I am not allowed (and having been wamed) to do this during normal work hours.
Dave Szplett
Page 2 of 2
Original Message
From: Nichoel Baird [mailto:nbaird@cityofeagle.org]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:06 AM
To: Szplett, Dave
Subject: FW: Please confirm
Dave, I am trying to work through the model run from compass are the numbers below an approximation of lane
size. I just need to code a map that Maryann gave me but I need to get this to number of lanes for the public.
They will not understand trips. Thanks!
Nichoel R. Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP
Planner III
City of Eagle
(208) 939-0227
(208)938-3854 (fax)
From: Nichoel Baird
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:01 AM
To: 'Mary Ann Waldinger'
Subject: Please confirm
MaryAnn,
Do these work as roadway break downs?
2 lane=less than 10,000
3 lanes = 10-20,000
4 lane= 20-30,000
5 lanes= 30-35,000
6 lanes=35,000 plus
Trips is great but the public will not understand it I need to convert it to the number of potential lanes.
Thanks!
Nichoel R. Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP
Planner III
City of Eagle
(208) 939-0227
(208)938-3854 (fax)
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
October 9, 2007 6:00 p.m.
NAME
PPS
l v-\ t,}c
G'
tickA.4 A. rrcl�
,_)6/'(Y
h ALA/
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
i= PSC-• —
f f . tZ I.1 ;E -1-'2-t- c'- i
Ali {) l •)( t. & N mit;-lL
in 1-) N Lcc--C1v
Z3 zrz /U • 5=r°
�!✓L N LG ��G /C 1!
/� Zi� '.3 6 /G
5-6'S ,LC5 ,GLc-L
FQ --(
W)/ /Z
(003 a N • 1(-Q<buy-,3
G14eA\ C `‘- -) , ?TT) 1 y
`-/=2s w• 6/1.4 / ,•(_/6- 116
YES/NO? PRO/CON
hl 6
No
C4 /L1
yds ewe 'E es -A1 SfF 200
7,1 C,, 276-7 • • st
1
Citi
/,,
I
1
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
October 9, 2007 6:00 p.m.
NAME
ivq (12 ')--E-: by
u
La-ik- ii-kKr13-e:r
IIVP,P (,(6.(/
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
WC& r'E IL -N 041(,rlL
i , vv IN int N
L Zz
A) • i (z�sf
/9 g3�
57r5 ,c5 %Lc 4Cs , y
3CW A /Z7 /-ems('
11 tI
6,636 N• D u/ c h (.L. Y, ii e v W �.
G (��Y b P3-)0-1
`I$2 5 (,v . 6,4-?
19CLg �L7
YES/NO? PRO/CON
NJ a
ti
1,Pes,dF 114 - S ,zod
—IV
�d
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
October 9, 2007 6:00 n.m.
NAME
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
'?7")()\ -,kA IV 1 ArA 71)1 S itc""e(k )67d7
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA -10-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a
Designation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation, Avimor
October 9, 2007 6:00 a.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA -8-06 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate
+/- 2,000 acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public
NAME
`
0( 1),
Iia Cb
L -r4 -6-v36\
46-Y,V
pe/t
October 9, 2007 6:00 D.M.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
Pio
Iry
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA -6 -07 -City of Eagle
October 9, 2007 6:00 a.m.
NAME
_0('-(4/t /J(EuYii
rY\ \ion /
/,del14, /Hi
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
3-31-0 1 % C ( C
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
C dd Oae,02--r-A J
l; i
/ �� ,
(' LCc +r 51 . , S,At, ;) t--(
�c S
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Ea2le
October 9. 2007 6:00 D.M.
ADDRESS/
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
t)
- l
ofkdim
J vli e47I(,ie
zz
/7
x/7 7-/9
TESTIFY TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
zt,
N6 fee
fi
/(of.51r3(,l5� 0,ZeY
51.5' 1-0 1 L C� O',
a7/53Oc-1 AI ?Au
g32s 64-
! 4 (l,Pl7
Szc-K;
(Lat(i,I\
1441,,,E,
t'(((d1
A
kj
l�
,»
o
N' O 70
r&)
AV 6
//D
NAME
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Ea21e
October 9, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
ti heti TtA N�
C I `l
Vl ��'s rl � ,, 5d eti ; t� c fit/, West c ��
CeJ
; I o ) c 2_1 ' z c,o J CG k ti
KelfrJ 1)t
1` J I /'"7Gv✓ Yr3
3
f\A.(74-43_4.c19(AiN
uJ
�M XECf)(/
65_
60 3b N iou1,3 ! e�
C� :1,1) dc3714 NJ U
13.39 X13 /74
g6v /e, e.:6/6
.11(9qcOW VC—f/Q-i -Rd /\1
5* -20
7s
AJcp ,4co
Aio
tic)
eiev
26 LZ 17/1117 /),‹ Yes (i J
pc) ( SA -6( ‘1
11Si-, 3 (
Y(S Cc�
tQ4L
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Emla
October 9, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
NAME
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
Resolution No. 07-30
October 9, 2007 6:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
FIRST NAME LAST NAME
(Gary Allen
(Terri Bath
Charlie
Wendel
Bill
John
JoAnn
Phil
Linda
Chris
Chris
Steve
Lori
Dan
Bruce
Jay
Bob
Guy
Baun
Bigham
Brownlee
Bruna
Butler
Choate
Clark
Colson
Danley
AFFILIATION
Connolly
Eagle Chamber of
Commerce
Contributors to
Foothills Report
CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY COMMENT ON DRAFT REPORT
Transportation,
Habitat/Open Space
Activity Center
Environmental
Conservation
Services, Inc.
Meridian School
District
M3
M3/SpinkButler
ITD
Meridian School
District
TetraTech
IACHD
Deckers
Den Hartog A(:HD
Friend Eagle Fire District
Meridian School
Gestrin District
Gibbons Ada County P&Z
'Harmon (Harmon Travel
Hendricksen
Habitat/Open Space
Facilities
Habitat/Open Space
Habitat/Open Space,
Foothills Landscape/Design
Review
Transportation
Transportation Committee
Facilities, Foothills
Landscape/Design Review
Transportation
Habitat/Open Space
I appreciate the tremendous amount of work it must have taken for you to get up to speed on these issues.
You really have a knack for assimilating information quickly.
I will say that I think you did a very good job in describing the present conditions, the comprehensive
planning process by both Ada County and the City of Eagle, the potential economic impacts and how the
proposed development will impact the existing infrastructure and needs that will be required to support
the proposed developments The Brief flows very well --I was able to follow it easily and it addresses
everything I could think of as the reader --nice job.
Please know that we believe your charge to pull together a short document covering what has been for us,
now, years of very detailed work on the M3 Eagle Sub -Area Plan, may have been impossible.
You did an amazing job synthesizing this. Many thanks
I'll be frank. The main source of my procrastination was the belief that it would take me hours to review
and comment on the brief. However, I feel that you've completed an excellent summary of the main issues.
As a result, I have very few comments.
I've read through your draft report, and I must say it is an excellent piece of work. I believe you have fairly
reported aspects from all sides of the issue.
Looks accurate to me.
First, I think you have a reasonable summary of the many perspectives surrounding development in the
foothills.
Contributors to
Foothills Report
I'm knocked out by your grasp of an exceedingly complex situation, your identification and articulation of
CJ Thompson NACFA Habitat/Open Space the paramount issues and your ability to translate all this into clear and comprehensible prose.
John Thornton Habitat/Open Space
Charles Trainor COMPASS Transportation
Sean Vincent IDWR
Alasya West Habitat/Open Space
Idaho Smart
Rachel Winer Growth
Mike Winkle Eagle Fire District
Your analysis is an excellent overview of the major issues and complexities.
Your draft is thorough and is a great attempt to come in and try to make sense of all of this.
cc /6- 9-07
zio to t '26
Fite:
of
Ben Johnson Associates, Inc.
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
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
than those presented in the Impact Analysis.
2
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.
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 1
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)
❑ Single Family • Single Family Attached 0 Multi -Family
Figure 2 depicts the number and value of residential units and the average price projected
to be constructed over the 20 -year period of development.
Number of Units
Figure 2
M3 Eagle Average Home Value
444 1 $250,000 1
i
2,400 $375,000 1
1,794 $450,000 1
1,630 $612,500 1
1.234 1 $800,000
652 $1,125,000
a
6 $1,375,000
so $500,000
1
$1,000,000
❑Average Home Value
$1,500,000
The first thing that strikes us is that while the residential units proposed by M3 -Eagle
vary in size and amenities, the projected price is uniformly at the top of the range of homes in
Ada 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. Figure 3 lays out this data.
4
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
H
000 0°'0 000 0c50 0c'0 0°'0 040 0f'
cv
O 6s �3 69 a •O
ra0 o ,1/4o ,.o ,`o .9 do 00
vc Po 000 000 000 000 000 000
N,, ca 00• gyp. 00. 00• 00, GsN.
Value of Housing Units
❑ 2006 Census Ei 2000 Census
The 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 units, compared to a owner -occupied 2006 base of 1,207 houses, or
19 percent of the existing stock.
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.
5
In terms of commercial development, the Impact Analysis assumes that 2.1 million
square feet of commercial space 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 corners 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 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. Moreover, the commercial area between Highways 55 and 16 is along a
road seldom used by travelers going to or from a destination point. 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.
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. 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. The only other alternative is to attract consumers from other areas,
which again seems unlikely given the location. 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.
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
S3,500,000
S3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$o
Figure 4
M3 Projected Assessed Value ($!1000)
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year from Project Start
0 Residential Assessed Value ($x1000) • Commercial Assessed Value ($x1000)
6
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. 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
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.
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.
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. This may well impact the City's annual budgets.
7
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8
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.
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.]
Table 7
Transportation Improvement Cost per Unit
Land Use Cost Estimate per Unit
Single -Family Dwelling 59,300 - 59,700 per unit
A.pa-tment 55,200 - 55.400 per unit
Condominium 54,400 - s4,600 per u nit
Office 512,600 - 513.200 per 1,000 SF
Retail 517,900 - $22,900 per 1,000 SF
He el 55,000 - 55,200 per room
9
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
Idaho Economics expects that, at full build -out of the project, the average assessed value per M3 -
Eagle student will 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.
Third, the text of the Impact Analysis states that there will be a need for 5 new elementary
schools, 2 middle schools, and 1 high 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.
10
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.
Consistency with the Foothills Comprehensive Plan
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.
Another slide shows the number of dwelling units reduced from 12,010 to 5,640, with a
maximum of 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.
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.
11
The Community Core area in the center of the project estimates a total of 1.3 million
square feet of commercial space plus a 500 unit hotel. This area comprises about 80 percent 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." 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.
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
Table 1
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
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). 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
14
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
15
Aempecu Ito! Bupsixa 941 uo special!
:uogyauuo am/Sea ue aol apnoi