Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minutes - 2023 - City Council - 02/23/2023 - Special
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES February 23,2023 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: GINDLESPERGER,PIKE,BAUN,RUSSELL. PRESENT-GINDLESPERGER,PIKE AND RUSSELL.ABSENT-BAUN.A quorum is present. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Pierce. 4. ADDITIONS DELETIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA:None 5. PRESENTATION: A. Eagle Animal Control Advisory Committee Presentation: The Animal Control Advisory Committee will present their recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. Tom Brengle,245 North Sun Valley Place,Eagle,Idaho. Brengle is on the Animal Control Committee and presents the Animal Control Committee recommendations to Eagle City Code Chapter 5. Jeff Rosenthal,Chief Executive Officer for the Idaho Humane Society(IHS), expresses that it is important to mirror State Code in addition to having your own Code. IHS will continue to utilize State Code.Dog bites will be routed through the court system. The updated Ordinance will be a big improvement. However,there are a few inconsistent mechanics regarding impounding of animals and rabies quarantining. IHS would like to submit more input to the City to be evaluated. General discussion amongst Rosenthal,the Committee and City Council. Cheryl Bloom,2153 Holly Brook,Eagle,Idaho,expresses that a Livestock Guardian Dog is exempt from being considered a dangerous dog under the Farmers Act provided it is performing its task. She addresses that there is a need for incorporation of language regarding service dogs. Bob Van Arnem, 3040 South White Post Way,Eagle,Idaho.Asks if it is the role of their Committee to get in to the idea of animal regulation within HOA's?If the State were to pass a statue and the City wanted to pass an Ordinance,what prevails? General discussion. The Mayor thanks the Committee for their efforts and states that they will put it out for a public hearing to receive input from the public. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 1: This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding concerns or comments they would like to provide to the City Council regarding subjects not on the agenda.At times,the City Council may seek comments/opinions regarding specific City matters during this allotted time. This is not the time slot to give formal testimony on a public hearing matter, land use application,or comment on a pending application or proposal. Out of courtesy for all who wish to speak, the City Council requests each speaker limit their comments to three(3)minutes. Page 1 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\CC Minutes Template.dotx No one in the audience chooses to speak. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. ACTIONITEM: Southwest Idaho Travel Association(SWITA)Tourism Grant Application: Economic Development Specialist,Tammie Halcomb, is seeking authorization to apply on behalf of the City for a grant to be used for marketing support for tourism in Eagle. The City's commitment for the grant shall not exceed 12.5%of the total grant. Staff is proposing staff time be used to meet the matching requirement. The Mayor introduces the item. Tammie Halcolm, Economic Development Specialist explains the collective match of 12.5%. Pike moves to approve action item 7A Southwest Idaho Travel Association (SWITA) Tourism Grant Application. Seconded by Gindlesperger.ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. B. Work Session to review new project submittals for FY 2024 to FY 2028.(NBS) Nichole Baird Spencer,Director of Long-Range Planning reviews new project submittals for FY 2024—FY 2028 and requests if any items need to be removed and then conduct a project comparison. C. Work Session on Park Impact Fee update as recommended by the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee.(NBS) Mike Davis,the City Engineer with HECO Engineers provides a summary on the Parks Development Impact Fee update. Baird Spencer states that the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee is recommending to Council a Park Impact Fee increase of$2080.00 per dwelling unit. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Gindlesperger moves to adjourn. Seconded by Russell.ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. Hearing no further business,the Council meeting adjourned at 4:40 pm. Page 2 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\CC Minutes Template.docx 411ysencsi s, idCMCT Y CITY CLERK APPROVED: J O PIERCE MAYOR AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT W W W.CITYOFEAGLE.ORG. Page 3 l(ACOUNCILWINUTMCC Minutes Template.docx 0 4-1 L O U N u ca U o E C- N U N +-+ a u L 1 � C L o O u 0 0 ^ Lcu Q O) E cu OU o w — o C c Q l7 (� c d cu co c = > n a, E .v v 75 o Q u ►° c a, U +O .0 O o � a o QJ a' N Eb a) LU 0 cu 7 U L Q. -0 A +' > C +�+ U °u' o 3 c) j v a) +' w +'' cu O_ L O c c o E a) ov � � Y ate' N E L+' S !6 y N d a .v L pp U m Y o aJ E v N _0 N C6 0 a c aJ p fO � � io NO a .E L � Vn "' `a v N v °0 a t E u L O c 8 O � 3 •� � Q `� ,n c '� a1 O N N +�+ aJ = N N v ro m a=i 0 L V) L L u O N '� u E _j Q ++ 4J u � - m ° aJ o a T 1 3 7 0 ^ — CL o O c c O on a) a, u a O ? c a; c +, +, Ln d _ N +� E o � a o " 6 3 E U E 0 O C w C L L a Z c ` C �. C _V Q C Q 0 E N a OM c0 + O O ro C v o v 4— to Q ro 3 E ns aJ O E a u O O O +1 u m N o `- O c v EE ov N � � —° me ,'� a E rho O E p M 0 a CII ° Q o Zo .E v O v v U � � U V a, U C m C 'a O MA L a.� a+ V U a C o C: L Gl O 4-+ N Q O N L O CLO m O J Y CL r-I o I O U I 41 O � L N U a; � U 'o C m c m E L � o F+ O m C h0 cu '2 'O � C 3 fO kn c � m M N U N N ( C O Q Q. N s- L O 41 V C L V h E N c M L c Lill c C o C A O E — O m O m U aE U a (n12 / 2� E �\ \) }� \n / 7 CL E m § y2 _ » / (\ > ) [ E 2 B > cu m » % m � ° $ 22 5 o 0 o -a o b � C � § /\ ƒ\ 0 § % \ fG) j7 m 2 m ( [ ° \ / k2 \ 0W0 k % 5 - _ ° , s %\ ) � } k __0 k LA § c � \ \ \ tw� / ' / ( \ w c \2 2_ \ : / 53 � � ` � M �\ \\ C g 0 \/ � ) k2\ \ \gi & � £5zI $ Eoo &te g \ g / 5 � , . . . . , , c / $ \ 2 \ '3 m $ g ) 2 3 R Ln t0 / 2 G = C � Q a r / E / k k 2 /O / fGLn ci § Ln k \Eƒ Ln \ \ g a) E ("U E U s � a e § ( t _= a U ` > ± o cu § _ _ g a e 5 Qj � — 5 ® u \ 3 - m o c 2 G O g u m & 2 Z \ o / o \ $ D r LA Ld e 2 2 = E % u u k a-c f « \ / u , E � ® mum , § \ Lr) 5 / % M Cu � c { 2 \ / § ƒ § ± t % \ � c / % ƒ B = u - _ � % cu Q 0 0 _ _ m _ % 0 » V \ § $ / .� / © § 5 § s \ � ' > \ Q 2 £ E # .c m m ± !EQ / u O £ � ° 5 % g : ; _ _ \ / . . . . a c E N O C /•L O ) O LL � v Y QJvi ru c Uo on C n E O Cp c v m (> � � J p m U aJ Va a) r c L 4� 3 LO = ra _ Y — to .Q C g -C m O a) L ra c c off a) vN L ro p a) ra -p c Of �° °' > rl +� ° c v v +J a) M a/ a) V ° Y Y Ln w L C a) �-•� a O !n 1 aJ C N 12 G! E N s LP) f"6 � LA n v + i v L o E _ t E c v 0 N c O W 41 c aJ c p c U 4J w +' U c O v 5 w .2 U 'E 0 N O Q 4J w V > L/) (n � N ro n3 V w u O a1 aJ a) c v v c c j v v c v v o O L a c 4-, u i 3 r- o � L) C o O ' o � � E aci ° U E a, O o to c Q� o QJ o L +o > v a v O v c Cu i N LJ c in O c =o N a O 1 �' o OI N 3 N O V Lf) ° n Lll L a' is +L c ° LA v ° a1 O L c ° O C ° r`o to Op = a + � a LA V) . . . • (n / E _\ \ 3 £ 0 » 2 E k D § m § § t 2 m U ro c cu 0 - / � $ ƒ ( ° % \ B t Swg E S n r a 'e � / � 0 7> 0 � /to % { � g 2 m � 5 § - 5 E u E [ E / \ § / u E z ± o0 _ 17 _ 0 CL / U 0 '� k E / y & k / k O ru E § - N / \ . \ 0 ) d , o ) } \ \ _ ` o E ° % } / n § § 2 k \ � / ) / W � 4 R S S ( 0 \ � m k � � � / } 7 \ \ § § E � a . \ \ / � ~ \ j ¢ § y Q � , m 2 � % . . , , 7 \ I f B d > % 0 � 2 E $ O p OD O \ r � } � � k % _ / _ 0 c = S q Q q V \ m $ G O = i Ln O § �§ _ 0 � d to s -0 � a 0 / 7 \ g % | § § S % M V) UD to § § _ } 2 V) $ % / &k § fo \ \ � / / ® � f �/ � E 2 2 Q � y 7 \ �� / q f 3 q � ) { / f q ) ƒ E § .. 0 2 § , c , - % 2 \ § § k g \ § \ 7 \ � lu ® Gu \E _\g ): }/ 7fE \/2 f}%a) CU %$f- %Q§ o � ° ® . /� CE \ Q $ m - �k AAu < u U ©LU ' { }L41) Ln / , HECO TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ENGINEERS SS\ONAL FN Date: February 7, 2023 4�' �GISTE,4?, 4 � To: City of Eagle- Mayor Pierce and City Council I 8823 From: Michael W. Davis, PE HECO Engineers—City Engineer �/ OF IMP PJ�� cygEl W.O Subject: Amendment/Update - igitally signed by Development Impact Fee Parks Michael Davis N Date:2023.02.07 14:57:48-07'00' EXECUTUVE SUMMARY The City of Eagle last completed a Development Impact Fee & Capital Improvement Plan in 2017. This amendment presents the cost update of the park development and land value costs included in the 2017 Development Impact Fee Study& Capital Improvement Plan (2017 Study) as well as a review of the existing developed park area.This amendment included the following: 1. Update the park development costs for the six park categories presented in Figure 6 of the 2017 Study. 2. Update land values based on appraisals recently completed in the Spring Valley Development. 3. Review of the City's existing developed park acreage and current value. 4. Estimate of the required acreage of developed parks based on existing population and maintaining the level of service previously established by the City. 5. Determine updated Park Impact Fee (IF). 6. Update the Capital Improvement Plan (Figure 8 of the 2017 Study). This amendment does not update or revise the Pathway Impact Fee presented in the 2017 Study pending further pathway/trailway planning by the City. Based on updated development costs, updated land costs, current developed park acreage, and the needed park development, the proposed Park Impact Fee is calculated to be $2,080 per dwelling unit. HECO Engineers Page 1 City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Cost Update(Parks) ANALYSIS A. Park Development Costs The 2017 Study provided park development costs for six different park categories. The park categories were not described in the 2017 Study, but they are defined in Table 1. Table 1. Park Category Descriptions Cost Designation • Development Non-Irrigated, Natural Parks Located in the Foothills; A—Foothills Park Development May include established nature trails - _ - ------- ------------ Non-Irrigated, Natural Areas Located in Floodways; B—Nature Park Development May include nature trails C—Lower Cost Development Sports Fields,Trails, Grass Play and Picnic Area Add to Designation C: Restroom, Covered Picnic Area, D— Moderate Cost Development Paved Walks, Structures, Concession Area Add to Designation D: Playground and Exercise E—Higher Cost Development Equipment, Water Feature, Sports Courts _ Add to Designation E: Gazebo, Velodrome, F—Special Use Amenities Amphitheater, Seating Each category has an estimated average development cost per acre based on the costs for the various amenities noted. The average development costs per acre (2016 dollars) presented in 2017 Study were adjusted to current development costs by using the Construction Cost Index (CCI) established in the cost estimating software, RSMeans.The ratio of the CCI values was used to calculate the current cost as follows: Current Cost = CClcurrent x COSt 2016 CCI2016 The CCI in 2016 was 191.1 and the CCI estimated for January 2023 is 273. A ratio of the indexes creates a multiplier ratio of 1.43. Multiplying this ratio by the costs in 2016 (Figure 6 of the 2017 Study) results in the current development costs shown in Table 2 below. HECO Engineers Page 2 City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Cost Update(Parks) Table 2. Park Development Costs, Less Land Costs Current Development Park Description by Cost Cost/Acre Foothills Park Development $14,500 Nature Park Development $23,000 Lower Cost Development $114,500 Moderate Cost Development $180,500 Higher Cost Development $248,500 Special Use Amenities $447,000 Note:Costs ore rounded to nearest$500 B. Land Value To update the costs of land used in the impact fee analysis, appraisals completed in November/December 2022 within the Spring Valley Development (Valnova) were referenced to determine a cost/acre to be used in the overall park land values. It is understood that property size can significantly influence the actual cost/acre, however, for this update a single representative value was used for the land value. The final appraisals represent different size parcels and differing characteristics. The representative appraisals referenced for this amendment are shown in Table 3 below. Table 3. Representative Appraisals Property Acreafe Value/Acre TBD N. Highway 16 28.44 $1,195,000 $42,000 Irrigated Land TBD Willow Creek 283.04 $2,970,000 $10,500 Foothills—Parcel 1 TBD Willow Creek 320.00 $2,400,000 $7,500 Foothills—Parcel 2 I Based on these appraisals, irrigated land was valued at $42,000 and dry foothill land was valued at the more conservative value of$7,500. For this analysis, the value of the dry foothill land was also used for the value of floodway land. The $7,500 per acre value is consistent with the value used in the 2017 Study. It should be noted that land value used in the City of Boise Development Impact Fee Study completed in February 2022,was estimated at$250,000 per acre.Given the high volatility of land sales in the valley, it is difficult to predict the value of land. Therefore, rather than speculate on possible higher land values, a conservative approach to use the values presented in the HECO Engineers Page 3 City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Cost Update(Parks) appraisals,which are based on the sales of comparable properties, was deemed appropriate for this analysis. C. Existing City Parks Since the 2017 Study, additional park lands have been developed by the City and undeveloped properties have been acquired increasing the City's value of the current park assets. Attachment A summarizes the City's existing parks and their land and improvement values. The City currently has 731.88 acres of undeveloped park property and 112.22 acres of developed parks.The land value of the existing park lands(developed and undeveloped)is$11,471,376 and the improvement value is estimated to be $15,283,814 for a total current value of parks of $26,755,190. It should be noted that the land values of the undeveloped parks currently owned by the City were included in determining the current asset value of the City's park system. With a current total asset value of parks of $26,755,190 and 112.22 acres of developed parks, the per acre value of the City's existing parks is$238,400. The estimated current population of the City is 33,960.The level of service adopted by the City is 3.3 acres per 1,000 people.The level of service for a population of 33,960 is 112.07 acres. When compared to City's current 112.22 acres of developed park area, the City has maintained the adopted level of service with a surplus of only 0.15 acres. HECO Engineers Page 4 City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Cost Update(Parks) D. Projected Growth and New Developed Parks A planning horizon of 10 years was considered in the 2017 Study and is used as the planning period for this amendment. The population growth over the next 10-year period is expected to be at a rate of 4.5%, based on the City's Comprehensive Plan. With this expected growth rate, it is estimated that the population in 2032 will be 52,738 people (an increase of 18,778 people).To maintain the same level of service of 3.3 acres per 1000 people, the City will need to develop approximately 61.97 acres of new parks. Adjusting for the very small surplus of 0.15 acres, a net new park acreage will need to be 61.82 by the year 2032. With a park value of$238,400 per acre, the total cost to develop 61.82 acres of park is $14,737,888. See Table 4 below for summary of the growth projections and new park requirements. Table 4. Park Growth Projections DevelopmentPark Acres New Park 0=��a s,, , Acres Costs 2022 33,960 112.07 2023 35,488 117.11 5.04 $1,201,536 2024 37,085 122.38 5.27 $1,256,368 2025 38,754 127.89 5.51 $1,313,584 2026 40,498 133.64 5.75 $1,370,800 2027 42,320 139.66 6.02 $1,435,168 2028 44,224 145.94 6.28 $1,497,152 2029 46,214 152.51 6.57 $1,566,288 2030 48,294 159.37 6.86 $1,635,424 2031 50,467 166.54 7.17 $1,709,328 2032 52,738 174.04 7.50 $1,788,000 Totals 61.97 $14,773,648 Less Surplus 0.15 $35,760 Net Totals 61.82 $14,737,888 HECO Engineers Page 5 City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Cost Update(Parks) E. Impact Fee Calculation The funds to develop the 61.82 acres of new parks will be collected from impact fees charged to new development since these costs will be entirely growth related. The costs for the development of the new park acreage in the amount of $14,737,888 is to be collected from the anticipated growth increase of 18,779 people. To collect on a residential basis, a typical household size of 2.65 people, based on the 2020 census, was used to establish the residential unit impact fee. The Impact Fee calculation is detailed in Table 5. Table 5. Impact Fee Calculation Population (2032) 52,738 Population (2022) 33,960 Population Increase (2023-2032) 18,778 New Developed Park Acreage Required 61.97 (to meet Level of Service=3.3 acres/1000 people) Existing Surplus Acreage of Developed Parks 0.15 Net Acreage of New Developed Parks 61.82 Value of Existing Parks per Acre $238,400 — -------_____---------- — New Park Costs New Park Costs = 61.82 Acres x$238,400 $14,737,888 Impact Fee per Capita $14,737,888 $784.82 IFcar — 18,778 People Impact Fee per Residential Unit (roundedto nearest$1) $2,080 /F= $784.81 x 2.65 People/Household It should be noted that adjustments in the estimated growth rate will not significantly change the impact fee collected to maintain the level of service. HECO Engineers Page 6 City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Cost Update(Parks) F. Proposed Capital Improvement Plan Using the above adjusted costs and updated land values, the values in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) shown in Figure 8 of the 2017 Study are updated below. Table 3. Draft Capital Improvement Plan t 1 • • ' . a,. .. Improvement Total CIP Growth Park Area Description Acres Land Value Value Value Related Portion Pamela Baker Park(Undeveloped) 18.35 City Owned $3,018,575 $3,018,575 100% Charlie Wood Park 12.84 City Owned $2,112,180 $2,112,180 100% Shooting Range 84.0 City Owned $20,874,000 $20,874,000 100% Foothills Park(Spring Valley) 519.04 City Owned $7,526,080 $7,526,080 100% Mace Park 3.2 City Owned $577,600 $577,600 100% Regional Sports Park (Hwy 16) 94.0 City Owned $23,359,000 $23,359,000 100% River Access Park(Site TBD) 1.0 $7,500 $164,500 $172,000 100% Maintenance Facility 2.0 City Owned $572,000 $572,000 35.6% Impact Fee Studies TBD 100% Total Amount of CIP Improvements $58,211,435 Note:Maintenance Facility must be funded using Proportionate Share criteria. Proportionate Share in IF Population Increase: 18,778 Projected Population: 52,738 Proportionate Share in IF: 35.6% HECO Engineers Page 7 City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Cost Update(Parks) ATTACHMENT A Existing Park Inventory and Value HECO Engineers Appendix A 0 0 0 0 0 O " o m v N n O 00 AA. to +� O O O^ O N N V1 O w LD� 1D a Ln co N N r- M > N � N iA O O O O Vt V1 O N U In 'i M N O N T l0 00 Q1 V1 O Q 00 00 fO � v N 00 0) CY) N � N 3 V? VT V? iA VT N .a y m f0 G� Ln L, N J O C) N > V 0000 r-4 N 3 O VT tom^ � N V G ] C O E Y � 0 0 o f Y a° l0 O N ate_. v_ 0 � a a m a) o o u N 01 m C h M N V1 A^ V? y/1 YOLn � O fC C, C) O in Q01 O CD N > y O V rq M V1 a) V � U Q in Q n (D r,00 V M Cll00 .q I Q t U rn to 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 Ln CD 0 0 0 e o 0 Ln 0 0 a) 00 fV O V a W 0 V1 'q 0 r` O In O N V) 0 0 0 O j C) >Z m 0 r, M w v v .I v tO tD kD 1-' o 00 0 r, 00 00 LO 0 Ln -O V O^ 1p l0 N V �--1 ro O O 00 r M ^ N LO fV r Lr V1 01 M Lr V1 .--1 7 rV C) Q1 V1 Vf N N N r\ M C r\ �q M V1 'q M ¢i Q m t/T y^j} M N N V? N N N N N N VT N V? V? V? J V? V VT O ' O _ H y U kn O V1 � V1 O 00 O �--� O N 00 O fV N r O 00 CD C) V1 C) C) O Oi p N M 00 V M ti M Vf f\ V N . O l0 w N N -I O M d = C Q M O rn 1-1 O N N C) Ln 00 M V Ql W .--1 O C:) M w c A > v L 00 C)LnO O V 'q N 0 o l0 O 0 Cp- o C) '� kO Vl V C) N > a C 1 10 N V I N V N u M � O m 7 > C p C C U C J ) 'V c L to3 01 L m p ) N p C N C a C p qp a v v v u _ o v °c 61 0 c o n $ a ar a a - a - - u v_ v v V1 ° ° .v o E v _ m o o > � = ^ Y 0 C a a " 'i o N Y > > > °0 n v Y .L Y p nm a m > a v �` • m -o Ili v - o m o - - v Q o `n 0 a o0 X a c v a ° Q — v a — ;: a O w v v o 0 W w OD O D D L 01 Y x Y C ~ ~ 0J V) m m m Y C w p r m c w i ° -a a °J ° a`� Y E a o v v m v o m Q d N ,[ Y Y m LL j Y - Y °_ MO 1`4 O m .- m O M F � U U 1 w V + kn 00 mm a s d Y Y Y Y d p d ° O X N cc 0 _O 0J Y Y Q w v v N w N -O C C m an d d Y Y d J _O u m Y 3 m O. O '6 O a c - in 01 in Y w 01 p 0 07 u m m O X C w ` fY0 O •0 m ~ O. C1. cu d m i Q/ m 3 i N m a0 2 J 0 > F �' 3 o m c° 3 y m a t 3 ' .° w a °° v a v v v 0>i u v o, O O y d m N � .0 'O W O V 110 m .a a m In O. D_ d 0 O N 'O 4/ O O 0 0 - Ci V 7 N m m L m L > m > cu 7lu� > m > 00 > > > > r+ - Q .w > m = a u w V1 0 Li Q a O x (7 = cr 0_ w w O O Q > Q FY 2024-27 Requests& Modifications CM CP Yearly Expanded New Expanded New increase FY24 $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ 500,000.00 $ 560,000 FY25 $ 190,000 $ - $ 3,200,000.00 $ - $ 3,390,000 FY26 $ 51,000 $ - $ $ - $ 51,000 FY27 $ 10,000 $ - $ $ - $ 10,000 FY28 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - Plan Increase I $ 251,000 $ 60,000 $3,200,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 4,011,000 1of1 61 Gl y y C _ O m E E 7 E 7 � � 7 J J J J J N N n (DGl > z z z z L m L Z Z Z 2 m L Z CL n• n. r. c c c 0 o O V m ` m J J V J J J J J J O. 7 Q 2 7 7 D a 2 D D D 7 7 Z) Z)E z E N z z z z z E N z z z z z z z z c c - c u° u° ° u L L L u u u � o o o 0 0 0 0 o o $ o o g o J Q Vl 'd Q N N N Vmf N V Q N N N N N N N Z N N •N 7 7 N O O O ti 'o u u J -0u u J J J .0 u a > > > 7 > j n 7 o m '�n m " « m r m O z 7 O z z z z z j 0 z z z z z z z zp ° p ^ p v O cm £ =3 E r• I. .. L L L V O V O O O O O u O O O O O O O 0 W c� z @ Z Z z z z cc� Z z z Z z z z z G � G r C c N r 0 a w O y p L N y O` 7 t�V N N N O N N ry N N N Q y yi LL 7 N Z LL LL LL LL N LL LL LL LL LL LL u c Y c Ol } C c � V U U E o C C E .v. w C m - a .- c o v y d a C °E u N m m O c E E o 0 o E o E o o ` E m 0 c 0.-0 -m d c_ Y m :. oz n m numrvi -uo ow o° o _ c - ou p O z E o uE ° 2 o 0 o Z L 0 m a mo 0 m o E cu Ep o o E E E EE E ° o o 0 u x o 000Ao u r u u $ u u coN 0oo r .n S .nry m a d o S J dV J J7 J7 J7 J7 ANdVC m 8. o o o O O O O OSO O Sov~i O' Ot 0 rvp p O Z Z z z Z Z N U O U U N N N N Vf N N ll� n N O n p p O O O O O o O v o -O o o g o o u o 00 0 $ 8 8 o r m ate+ O O r 7 O O O N O O gg gg O N E oo z ry o o o N 8 8 8 N v E m W W N lL N w y m c 00 m c 0 0 W y v O vni N L „ E N n n n ° c v N � � � o = m d o - LL LL LL u ,X a.10i a.10i 0 c .: E t 3 LL x° uti LL 0 Y 19 0 0 0 O N o 0 0 "r v n m o m 1p ai .9 `0 3 J w a •T• C w a W 0 0 m v 7 t� w .T. > j > j �i LL LL LL c o iu z iu "' E a E _ u o o z H ' z 'tr z z z z z E E E d - y o ' N 0 0 o c _ m L L t a= �. o ¢ 3 3 a oo w > t > > > ° a q a O O 0 :E o f o° a ~ v a 9 O f f u om N q a ¢ ° ' a 3 O - 0 voi V V` � � o.H 1' N u 0• o U a o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `w E z `w E z >" >" z u m E z z z z z z z z L X L X L X O W O W O W =^$o A ° u o N o Z o o a 0 o 0c «fm rcoE o ow N a E v v , N o` E ° 0 c jz > Eo m E o > u > = 00 j p ' � � c m ° . a o m zo O E y ^ 0 0 a z 0"v amEv o wEvM d o c u- m o Y ° 7�5 m v mo E. a 3 c 15 1 u c't=nyv>vtgv°c z 3> ` ° E ° u J o 0a ° o v No ` R Q ' ° M.o u r o «° o w i � E E $ t 38cvu °p 0 w c 0N ` � i `> n ` ou o oE LL ° u ny o ` ow 0 0 � ° o o Q qt NN y o m - c 'm =lw;nN n- vvm „ m E -ac c O LLd ; n ro P. 000 majm K a m E > pcc _ 0 ' ° 8 w c 2 E r ¢ o ° u oo o " ~ o °° o m w ao .° a 3 m o ? u cmo o Y cti n > m ov U c° m t 3 E a ° E i t ° o ° a „ x w o ° w $ nq o > « a Q o = v o q o uj N . w E _ wo0 1 o g m ¢ = o c 0 m oqw aoa u m V N e a >va$o p $o 7 LL oom v o u`o V tm zO u um u ° tm 0 ° 3 oo a E 0 I a awa1Emm°i V N O u o � o 3 0 W 3 3 3 3 0 u u u u u u z z z z z � Z u � u 0 v m m E m O W 00 j W u Y O ' w = Z R c ° m aui a -EE o a - oE z 02 a a§- E A u o 6 v N 2 J 2' m a n a W a OC N Z E = m U Z w n m m Y v _ _ c o .o - m y w L a a" n wxu m° (Q a` as �' u N V u -ui N v (n v v m u d w v T a o a a � uc c A u m v w o c c c � c (a c > w w v u w c c c c c c o - Quo o o o o n` d n` 4-1 'a um v E v E > m o z d o z 4-+ o z �^ - - _ H CL 1.L M L A\ J ~ N U m d V E v ++ 0>• m v N T o w o z w o a w Q o v W 0. EE m m m I , E v _ v v v v a Z N W Z > N IV N 6 V W Z N N iV N Z N O C N W N E u y a N L a u a � n• o_ m �+ a N t 0 v L u o 10 O a E v a 8 •N N Q M L V i CN L Y_0 � U 7 � C u v 0 E w °u o v v 0 0 � L � � c o p N oo O o O O O u oo 0 c N o m N N 0 p o O u o C y o O � rov O E N N N W H mN d Q � V � O1 L �n a, E L_ X � w W n a 0 0 c w 0 0 v v � c a a v s - 0 w w a' ua) U U O L U a � 3 a Z d V N laA E � z fB � v r V a 0 � 0 }� m � v � o o Q o v a a v E V oo Z w a o •� E w - z S.. a ra +, v v ca E V m - w Z Development Impact Fee & Purpose Capital Improvements Plan 2023 Update �� Previous Update Completed In 2017 • Elements To Update ✓AIIIIIIIIIIII. Park Development Costs ✓Land Values ✓Existing Park Acreage • ki ` e o Compare To Adopted Level Of Service(3.3 Acresl1000 People) ✓Projected Growth o New Acreage Of Developed Parks(Based On Maintaining Level Of Service) ✓Impact Fee Amount ✓Capital Improvement Plan • Update Is For Parks Only—Pathways Not Reviewed HECO ENGINEERS `�' 1- - 1 2 i � Park Development Costs I$ Park Development Costs 1 Previous2017 Update Established Development Costs FUsed st Increase Based On Construction Cost Index(CCI) Six Park Categories RSMeans Cost Estimating Software • CCI(2016)=191.1 CCI(2023)=273.0(Estimated) A-P 114 M11k Dewlap t Nonkrigated,Natural Arb lasted In Me fapMills; Mayimle—blbMa naturt trails Use Ratio Of CCI Values e-Nature Part Development Nonbrigand,Natural Neas laaated In Flapdw— a 1rc1—ratan[rails -IwerCwt Development Sports Fields,Trails,Grasa Play—P-1 Area ccic ren Add ro Designation C.keatroom,Covered Piank Mea, Cldrrent Cost= l X CD$t2D16 -M.—Cost Development yyed Walks g[rurturn Corcession Nea CCf2016 -Higter Coat Development Add to Designation D:Playground aM fxrplu F F em,Water Nature, ncwro CCIC—r— r-special uu Amen,,,. Aaa m Dn�gnadpn F:eaaaba velodrome, =1.43 Am meater•xan CLlzDle 3 4 1 S Park Development Costs lie Land Value t#? ,r • Current Development Cost Per Acre 1 Categories Of Land Used In Analysis o Irrigated p` o Dry Foothill o Floodway Foothill,Park Develop—nl $14,SW Land Valuation Sources Na[raPah Development $231aW_ o Appraisals Completed Through Valnova/City Negotiations Lower Cost Development $164,500 Mod C D velop—nt $180,5W TBDN NIA y16 29.44 ]S2,970,,—' $42,W0 High Co t D I pmartt - $248,500 I�a[ed Lad ......TBD W Ilbw C eekSpecial Liss A—Chas $447,000 W ce11 283.04 $10,500F th ll-P ---- ..MFB hill bw Creek 3W.W $7,SW Foothill-Parcel2 5 6 Land Value t Land Value • Categories Of Land Used In Analysis Used In Update Categories Of Land Used In Analysis Used In Update o Irrigated $42,000 o Irrigated $42,000 o Dry Foothill $7,500 o Dry Foothill $7,500 o Floodway $7,500 o Floodway $7,500 • Land Valuation Sources Land Valuation Sources o Appraisals Completed Through Valnova/City Negotiations o Appraisals Completed Through Valnova/City Negotiations 1 MN EMBERD N.HIghwniglted.Landay Highway 16 284d $119 l6 28.44 $1,195,000 S42AW ed Land $d2,000 TB TBD WIIb feek 28304 52,970,000 TBD WiIIow Creek 283.04 $2,970,000 sw.500 Foothdh-Parcell _ Foothdh-Parcell MD Willow Creek ---��- - TBD WiIIow Creek Foothill-Parcel 2 320.W $1,d(IU,OP sl sill Foothdh-Parcel2 320.W $2,dW,OW $7,500 O Note:City OfBoise-Land Value Eshmaled At$250,000/Acre :- Car deem.Wna impxv Faa SnOyam c•n.eii�mronsn aens.Fepwry i6.2033 AMIN 7 8 2 Me-! L Existing City Parks Existing City Parks ting ParkInventory Ex sting Park Value ;,7- " —— p ✓ Use Park Development Costs For Each Park Category DEVELOPED PMKS UNDEVELOPED P0UO3 hlendsM1lp Park 1.30 Part Arboretum Park 0.51 Pamela Baker Park FDMhllkt Park Development $14,500 d329 Plaza IXive Park 3.]0 CM1arlie Wood Park Nil—Park Davelppmem $23,000 Orval-i-Park 2.42 Ggle Regorel Park(Val rove) Lower Cost Development $164,500 HerIM{e Park 0.48 SM1ooUng Rar,ge/foothill Moderate Cost Development $3R0,500TeMI Undevekpad Pab ,. Hlaher Cost Development 5—,500 Reid Merrill Part -2 _ 5pediil Use Amenaies $447,000 nter .-1.Eater Park 4.67 Rlvervde Wlltlik Part(Merrill) 9.60 Fagle Sports C—Pka 63.40 TPW MYebpN hrYa 112.gg 9 10 Existing City Parks Mw Existing City ParksV. M� rE.,.fi.g1.,1v1alue Existing Park Value Use Park Deelopment Costs For Each Park Category ✓ Use Park Development Costs For Each Park Category ✓ Use Land Values Based On land Type ✓ Use Land Values Based On Land Type o Irrigated $42,000/Acre ✓ Total Value of Parks o Dry Foothill $7,500/Acre o Development Value: $15,283,320 o Floodway $7,500/Acre ,Land value: $11471,2501ea4«N•4.wed••4e .Pwnel o TOTAL VALUE'. $26,754,570 I,. V A trh" 11 12 3 Existing City Parks Existing City Parks Existing Park Value 'sting Park Value ✓ Use Park Development Costs For Each Park Category ;'✓ Use Park Development Costs For Each Park Category ✓ Use Land Values Based On Land Type ✓ Use Land Values Based On Land Type ✓ Total Value of Parks ✓ Total Value of Parks o Development Value: $15,283,320 o Development Value. $15,283,320 o Land Value: $11,471.2501Y-.o°°.oweaunue ekoea Deno] o Land Value: $11471.250U�,°eaem aeWeaurge.94pa°°riol o TOTAL VALUE: $26.754,570 o TOTAL VALUE. $26,754,570 ✓ Value Per Acre ✓ Value Per Acre _$26,754,570+11222 Acres=$238,400/Acre =$26,754,570+112.22 Acres=$238,400/Acre - ✓ Check Required Park Acreage To Maintain Level Of Service(LOS) o Current Population=33,960 o Req'd Park Acreage=33,960 x 3.3 Acres Per 1000 People=112.07 A- a ✓ Surplus Acreage=0.15 Acres 13 14 ,.°IEm[6N rvYs l6v aoWYw la am feowaNa[cbnl "- vn•,�a•[vaw 9Y WvY Projected Growth t sYn,rm sa.r,X Planning Horizon-10 Years SsmHo HXA50 ttaaX Swab° Comprehensive Plan Growth Rate(4.5%year) SYXAb XMab '"•fiD 511460 New Park Acreage Needed To Maintain LOS-61.97 Acres nun sa»..eo Development Costs For the New Park Acreage-$14,773,648 s.5a90 Xv.oN 3]57b nraw 3 33,960 113.0) 1 num SWo 3 3SA99 11].11 5.27 $1,201$36 un Yais Xsnas ,r wrw u- nb.sw N 37,095 127-39 5.2) $I.256,369 niaa° faesmo 212.6 127.s9 5.51 $1.31339a Y1ab Sm390 M26 40A93 13L61 5.)5 $1,3)0.9110 fXSJb Xllab 2027 42,320 139.G6 6.02 SMU.169 ua 2029 H,224 145.99 6.29 TlA9).152 2029 152.51 -7 $1.566.3M aas 2030 M,291 159.37 626 $3.H6A24 SO17 166.59 >.1> $Lm9 v�srar •oabroe X v..x.vain.ae.n.lY.cYrev„I.,,a v.u.l 573a,am 2032 SL739 1]4.09 7.50 $1.]99A00 t aa.naf sw.r-taNvrr�rrm.,,uY.,,..,uq.rm a,.,er,...e orals 514]73,6aa IN.bgaww.}snm°m®„ep..nm..,•,e,eauw nr.u.vc.ryervro u,v.e..a.,rcwrl,++.+,es.er.r..l...r.,.m.m..ay.. urplus 0'15 $35,>60 NN T9b6 61.62 $14A3 15 16 4 K4 Impact Fee Calculation hH Impact Fee Calculation tF? Population 120321 52,23a Population(2022) 33.M Population krra.ae 1x0x3-203x1 19,779 NeM pwbpe{park acre.{e..ir.{ 6192 Edatlry wrq»a,ana.{.ux D.v Wd parts 4.1i rea{e of New Oeuelope{parka 6l.Bx Ag 17 18 Impact Fee Calculation r Impact Fee Calculation H' �t.a blue of Eahtlry arks per Kre $33BA00 Mew park Cmas 514,73- kpaer iw pn Upu Sxe».ex 19 20 5 P;C�;apital Improvement Plan t Summary h$ IxpsaOxwt NW OP �Y •erea lae+Nlue yl Wa wlue Yb3atl ted Impact Fee /axala YYx hh NbeaMgadk 19.35 ci y Ownetl $1,013,575 $3,O1a,5). OuHla WooO Part U.. CM'Ownetl $2,112,130 $2,112,1MI 00% ,..+�2 MxVaa3 fOa 52.0 21 M1OMry Ynpxt fee IrYa CNnK) $330.50 5Yeo11n6 YnK 66.0 city Owned $20,876,000 $20,3 .1- 11— TOW ImPxt Pee $Z.O30.50 FOoM9k P1rk(5xivi,aUy) 51— Cih Owned $2,SZ6,060 57,526,U90 IOoIY Mxe Park 3.2 uh owned $577,6o0 $577,600 — Impact Fee History Y/ional Spxta Part(Hwy 161 9a.0 Cih OwnM 523,359,000 $23,359,060 100% YYWI Holman Slutly,— $Sa5.b9 $0.00 5..69 91ax a«eac Part lsHe Taol ].o $).Soo $1H,sao S1n,o90 1m1k 2001 UpNtt 51,712.1a 50.00 51,)52.1a Inlenance fa<INry 2.0 Clry Owned $SR,000 $S74000 35A1 2011 Update 51,31<.29 $0.00 $I,3K39 Y IFx Stutlwa 7. 2017 UP— 51,115.)2 $330.50 $]A1632 2023 Update $2,080.00 $330.50 $2AI/ 21 22 6