►
From YouTube: Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee
Description
October 13, 2021
B
A
C
C
At
the
next
impact
fee
meeting
in
in
november
just
to
kind
of
try
to
keep
to
our
timeline
of
having
this
revised
plan,
at
least
moving
continuing
to
move
through
the
the
process
because
there's
you
know
as
you're
all
well
aware,
several
steps
past,
just
the
dfac
review
and
and
approval
you
know,
and
so
to
hit
our
goals.
We'd
like
to
get
this
kind
of
true
defect
next
month.
C
You
know
well
in
advance
of
the
next
meeting
so
that
everyone
has
a
chance
to
thoroughly
review
it.
You
know,
will
we
be
in
a
good
position
by
that
november
meeting,
so
that's
just
kind
of
at
a
high
level.
Some
of
the
you
know
our
goals,
and
hopefully
we
can,
you
know,
do
take
a
big
step
in
addressing
some
of
the
open
items
that
have
been
out
there
and
kind
of
circulating
for
the
last
couple
meetings.
So
please
don't
hold
back
with
questions.
C
A
C
And
sorry
still
rearranging
my
screens
here-
apologies,
so
the
first
thing
that
we
identified
is
we're
looking
at
holistically.
What
was
in
the
fire
planet
and
I
emailed
terry
jorgensen
between
the
last
two
meetings
just
to
see
you
know.
Is
there
any
given
particulars
that
we
needed
to
follow
up
on
just
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
questions
around
the
fire
plan
and
one
of
the
granted
one
of
the
smaller
items?
C
C
C
Just
in
our
internal
cip
is
653
000
and
that
compares
to
a
recent
meridian
order.
That
was
right
around
700..
So
we
don't
think
that
our
build
or
design
is
kind
of
how
to
control
or
anything
like
that.
It's
just
overall
cost
escalation
is
what's
contributing
to
the
changes,
and
then
this
kind
of
gives
you
a
little
bit
of
background.
In
terms
of
you
know
the
specific
ones
that
we've
bought
and
what
the
implied
inflation
is
to
get
you
to.
C
You
know
today's
dollars
and
then
the
difference
between
today's
dollars
is
653
and
the
amount
that
we
have
in
the
plan
at
780
is
really
just
the
equipment
that
you
need
for
a
new
engine.
That's
not
priced
into
just
a
replacement
engine
where
you
already
have
a
lot
of
the
equipment
that
goes
on
it,
so
that
gets
you
to
the
to
the
780.
A
Yes,
they're
not
joining
us
yeah
yeah,
you
keep
moving
forward.
Let's
stay
again,
let
me
just
back
up
for
a
second
travis,
thank
you
and
all
the
others
who
are
helping
generate
these
costs,
because
I
think
it's
really
important.
We
understand
the
cost
to
know
if
we're
supporting
the
plan
or
not.
So
we
appreciate
the
detail
you're
giving
us.
C
Oh
absolutely-
and
you
know,
like
I
said
at
the
outset-
hopefully
this
is
helpful
and
and
especially
your
input
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks.
Hopefully
that
allows
us
to
actually
be
answering
questions
rather
than
just
probably
creating
new
ones
so
on
to
the
station
itself.
So
just
start
with
the
the
high
level.
Is
you
know
in
the
old
plan
that
you
know
not
the
oil
plan?
Sorry,
the
last
draft
of
the
plan
that
you
saw
prior
to
the
september
meeting.
C
It
was
about
11
and
a
half
million
dollars
for
station
and
that's
it's
the
punch
line.
Is
it's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
lower
now,
as
you
probably
noticed
in
the
revised
plan
that
was
sent
out
at
about
the
actual
number,
is
about
10.4,
it's
still
a
little
bit
higher
because
we're
still
refining
costs
when
ann
went
to
press,
but
at
any
rate
you
know
we
we've
had
the
estimates
for
these
for
a
while
and-
and
I'm
sorry
before
I
move
on
to
that.
C
What
are
we
going
to
spend
at
the
time
we're
spending
it
because
that's
typically
how
we
build
our
budgets
internally
at
the
city,
so
we
had
not
right-sized
that
analysis
for
the
purposes
of
the
impact
fee
plan
which
did
result
in
that
overstatement
of
about
a
million
dollars
so
backing
up,
or
I
guess,
zooming
in
now
a
little
bit.
You
know
how
did
we
get
to
the
cost
of
10.4
million
and
really
given
where
we
are
in
the
plan?
C
The
best
estimate
that
we
can
come
up
with
is
just
what
we
have
done
recently
and
so
fire
station
9
was
really
the
most
relevant
example
that
we
could
come
up
with.
That
would
allow
you
to
kind
of
understand
how
we're
lining
line
iteming
out
all
of
these
costs,
and
you
can
see
how
they
stack
up.
It's
a
bigger
facility,
it's
sitting
on
a
much
larger
parcel
of
ground
which
should
allow
us
to
make
a
a
one-story
versus
two-story
building.
C
C
The
other
thing
to
note
with
station
nine-
and
it
relates
to
the
ff
ffe
that
you
see
at
the
bottom-
is
that
the
station
nine
was
a
rebuild.
So
there
was
already
fixtures
and
equipment-
well,
perhaps
not
fixtures,
but
at
least
equipment
furniture.
Things
like
that
for
a
station
and
not
not
obviously
what
you
would
pay
for
a
de
novo
build,
and
so
what
I
did
here
on
this
slide
at
the
bottom
here
is
you.
C
C
C
C
And
so
you
can
see
that
the
design
planning
work
is
going
to
be
roughly
in
line
with
where
station
nine
was
and
sorry,
then
the
second
column
here,
the
middle
one
and
I'm
gesturing
on
my
screen,
which
you
can't
see.
Unfortunately,
you
know
that's
just
taking
northwest
and
then
right
sizing,
I'm
sorry,
it's
taking
station
nine
and
then
right
sizing
it
for
the
for
the
northwest
project.
C
And
then
this
box
column
is
what
we're
actually
estimating
for
our
cost.
So
you
take
design
planning,
it's
probably
going
to
be
in
line
with
what
fire
station
9
was
you
take
site
construction?
It's
probably
going
to
be
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
lower
building
construction
is
going
to
get
you
about
seven
million
dollars,
which
is
which
is
indeed
higher,
but
that's
building
to
a
higher
eui
standard,
green
building
allowances.
Things
like
that
that
are
part
of
the
way
we're
designing
buildings
in
general,
not
necessarily
just
fire.
C
Actually
is
going
into
the
building
and
then
that
contingency
that
I
mentioned
before
and
then
down
at
the
bottom
is
where
I
I
kind
of
give
you
the
analysis
of.
If
you
take
the
10.4
that
you
grow
up
for
two
years
at
five
percent
a
year,
it
gets
you
to
that
old
number
that
we
had.
So
I
was
just
trying
to
reconcile
to
you,
know
the
ten
and
a
half,
I'm
sorry,
the
11
and
a
half
was
not
a
a
wrong
number.
C
A
A
D
C
I
do
so
I
think
I'd
like
to
partial
out
the
the
response
to
a
couple
people
on
the
call.
So
one
you
know
I
think
when
it
comes
to
you
know
the
the
land
being
larger.
That's
by
virtue
of
just
what's
available
in
the
market.
I
mean
that's
actually
based
on
you
know,
real-time
negotiations
that
we're
having
for
the
given
site
the
build
standards
again
like
and
then
I'll
ask
sean
or
the
chief
to
provide
some
more
color
here.
C
Aren't
you
know
you
know
we're
increasing
the
kind
of
fit
and
finish
of
fire
station,
it's
just
how
we're
building
buildings
in
the
city
and
then
you
know
I'd
leave
it
to
and
about
the
the
allocation
to
growth
relative
to
some
other
allocation,
and
so
I
guess
maybe
starting
off
with
sean
or
the
chief.
Do
you
have
any
comments
on
those
on
those
points.
F
Yeah
thanks
travis
I'll
jump
in
first
and
talk
about
fire
department,
operational
building,
layout
and
then
sean
I'll
flip
it
over
to
you
to
talk
about
city
code,
energy
code,
green
code,
etc,
and
what
that
does
to
cause
escalation
and
all
that
so
good
out.
I
guess
it's
afternoon
good
afternoon
everybody
hi
how
you
doing
dave.
I
would
love
to
just
to
say
you
know,
I'm
part
of
the
government.
Please
trust
me,
but
I
know
how
that
works.
So
we're
going
to
cover
this
in
detail.
F
So
let
me
talk
first
about
acreage
right,
so,
ideally,
the
ideal
acreage
size
that
I
would
look
for
is
is
one
to
one
and
half
acres.
Let
me
tell
you
why.
We've
we've
built
fire
stations
in
the
past,
I'm
going
to
bring
over
my
meridian
experience
this,
just
because
I
had
personal
experience
there
and
I'm
getting
personal
experience
here,
but
in
a
fire
station
acreage
size
that
is
too
small
that
prohibits
our
firefighters
from
being
able
to
do
some
of
the
ongoing
training
that
we
want
them
doing
every
single
day,
they're
working.
F
So
our
our
efficiency
on
a
fire
ground
relies
on
our
firefighters,
training
all
the
time,
meaning
they
don't
get
to
just
train
every
month,
but
it's
every
day,
and
so
when
we
have
enough
acreage
where
we
can
actually
deploy
a
hose
line,
we
can
run
ladders.
We
can
do
some
of
those
things
that
continues
to
keep
our
firefighters
trained.
F
Now
you
might
ask
you
got
that
beautiful
training
ground
and
yes,
we
do
it's
gorgeous
and
we
do
send
our
crews
down
there
for
their
monthly
training
where
we're
doing
company
training,
meaning
we
bring
three
engines.
The
battalion
chief,
a
ladder
truck
down
to
do
joint
company
training,
that's
essential
and
required,
but
they
also
have
daily
training
that
they
have
to
do,
and
we
don't
want
to
send
them
down
to
that
training
grounds
all
the
time
to
do
that
daily
training,
because
then
we're
pulling
them
out
of
their
their
response
area.
F
F
So
that's
just
size
of
acreage
to
answer
any
of
those
questions
on
the
blueprint
or
footprint
size
of
a
firehouse
and
some
escalations
you
might
see
in
size
one
it
does
depend
on
how
many
bays
we're
going
to
put
into
that
fire
station.
So
there
are
some
areas
where
three
bays
make
complete
sense.
So
I'll
speak
a
little
bit
to
the
northwest
station.
F
So
that
is
why
you
would
look
at
potentially
three
bays
in
a
station
like
that
versus,
let's
say
the
station
on
overland
station
eight,
where
we
house
only
an
engine
and
an
ambulance
that
only
needs
two
base.
So
that's
gonna,
that's
gonna
affect
the
size
of
that
footprint
and
then
going
inside
the
firehouse
itself.
There's
here's
some
changes
that
we've
seen
as
far
as
size.
We
have
learned
over
time
that
cancer
and
firefighters
don't
get
along,
even
though
we
have
high
cancer
rates
in
the
fire
service.
F
We
would
literally
hang
it
over
the
rafters
inside
the
garage
or
the
bay
in
which
we
also
had
diesel
fumes
that
were
permeating
through
that
bay,
and
we
realized
that's
not
really
healthy
for
our
firefighters,
so
we've
added
dedicated
rooms
for
that
we've
got
a
dedicated
room
for
the
workout
area.
We
expect
our
firefighters
to
say
it's
a
certain
level
of
fitness,
so
they
have
a
workout
room.
We
have
an
ems
room
where
we,
our
ems
gear
and
equipment
and
supplies.
F
F
We
try
and
build
the
right
amount
of
bedrooms
for
the
right
amount
of
people,
and
this
is
cert,
probably
a
philosophical
debate,
but
if
we
have
a
station
in
which
we're
going
to
have
three
bays
and
house
at
least
two
companies
in,
we
want
to
make
sure
we
build
the
bedrooms
to
a
capacity
that
can
accommodate
them.
Likewise,
we
have
bathrooms
that
would
accommodate
that
crew
size
as
well.
F
So
it's
really
based
upon
when
you
see
those
those
differences
in
station
layouts
and
how
many
square
feet
it's
based
upon
how
many
crews
we're
actually
going
to
have
in
that
station.
So
I
could
probably
go
on
for
a
long
long
time,
but
I
want
to
be
respectful
of
time
here
and
ann
knows.
I
could
talk
forever,
so
she's
going
to
tell
me
to
shut
up
pretty
soon,
so
sean
I'll
turn
over.
You
just
talk
about
code
and
energy
code
as
far
as
cost
and
cost
escalation.
G
Yeah
that
sounds
good,
so
kind
of.
In
summary,
I
just
say,
like
codes:
don't
ever
get
easier,
not
just
the
energy
code.
You
know
the
city
set
energy
targets,
so
all
of
our
facilities
are
kind
of
stretching
towards
those
targets,
but
it
kind
of
applies
to
all,
because
the
international
building
code
gets
more
strict
for
sizing
standards
like
with
time
everything
gets
just
more
expensive
and
it's
yeah.
I
don't
know
if
there's,
if
there's
any
more,
you
want
to
hear
about
that.
H
I
I
think
the
answer
to
the
question
about
what
is
gross
real
proportional
share
is,
is
philosophical
and
and
left
to
the
committee
members
to
make
a
recommendation
these,
as,
as
the
chief
has
explained,
these
aren't
the
same
kind
of
stations
that
we
were
building
in
the
past,
and
there
are
reasons
for
doing
that.
This
statute
is
not
clear
about
whether
or
not
the
changes
that
we
make
in
the
scope
of
a
station
over
time
for
a
variety
of
reasons
are,
are,
are
to
be
or
not
to
be
collected
by
growth.
H
But
I
think
we
see
enough
evidence
in
the
practice
that
the
the
state,
whatever
the
station
scope
is,
is
what's
recovered
from
impact
fees.
So
I
don't
think
there's
a
hard
legal
answer
or
a
hard
practical
answer.
Am
I
obviating
anything
yet?
I
think
it
really
is
a
policy
question
for
the
for
the
committee.
A
B
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
everybody's
time
travis.
Thank
you
for
the
information
chief.
Thank
you
for
your
information
was
wondering
if
we
could
know
the
new
station
12
or
proposed
station
12
location,
and
you
know
in
conjunction
with
where
it
will.
You
know
how
far
it
will
be
away
from
current
station
12.
This
is
off
of
highway
21.,
because
anybody
doesn't
know
where,
where
we're
talking
about,
and
then
I
was
follow-up
question
second
question
is
what
will
decide
if
it?
If
we
get
two
to
two
or
three
bays?
B
F
Yeah
great
question,
michael,
let
me
let
me
address
the
bait
question
first,
because
I
wasn't
sure
I
understood
your
first
one.
So
let
me
address
the
bay
question.
First,
I
I
would
say
at
this
point
in
time:
it's
not
adding
a
new
level
of
service.
It
is
actually
putting
into
those
bays
the
things
that
we
do
today
right,
so
the
number
of
bays
is
equivalent
to
the
threat
or
the
risk
in
that
area
that
we're
covering
right
so
in
the
northwest.
Let
me
just
go
to
there
because
that's
the
station
that
we're
talking
about.
F
We
have
a
very
strong
foothill
threat,
as
we
just
saw
in
the
fire
recently
in
that
northwest
corner
right,
but
we
also
have
commercial
development
along
state
street
and
residential
development
going
throughout
state
street
in
that
whole
area.
So
we
have
really
three
primary
threats
along
with
the
river,
so
I'll
say
four,
so
we
have
the
river.
We
have
foothills,
we
have
residential
and
we
have
commercial
and
that's
really
what
we're
covering
out
of
that
station.
F
D
F
That's
what
determines
two
or
three
it's
really
based
on
risk.
So
if
I
now
compare
against
overland
road
station
eight,
the
example
I
gave
before
that
station
does
not
have
a
direct
foothills
threat,
doesn't
really
have
a
direct
river
threat.
So
really
its
prime
function
is
ems
response
and
then
protecting
residential
and
commercial
fires.
That's
why
it's
only
two
bays
and
it
houses
an
engine
and
an
ambulance
to
hit
the
threats
in
that
particular
area.
B
F
F
I
So
I've
been
fairly
quiet
during
these
discussions
about
the
costs,
and
I
appreciate
everyone
on
the
committee's
desire
to
make
sure
that
we're
holding
everyone
accountable
to
you
know
to
managing
the
costs.
My
feeling
is
that
there
has
been
more
than
enough
justification
for
what
they're
proposing
and
that
estimating
high.
H
I
Our
current
construction
and
other
you
know
I
mean
you
just
never
know
what
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
get,
and
so
sometimes
you
have
to
pay
more
for
things,
because
you
have
to
get
the
more
expensive
one,
because
that's
the
one
that's
available
so
having
high
estimates
to
me
seems
prudent,
and
I
also
think
given
our
growth,
I'm
you
know
I'm
a
realtor.
I
get
calls
every
single
day
people
moving
here.
I
We
need
to
be
able
to
get
ahead
of
that
a
little
bit,
and
so
you
know
saving
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
then
three
years
from
now
we
have
to
do
something
different
to
grow
or
put
another
fire
station
somewhere,
because
we
didn't
plan
for
enough
growth
seems
silly.
So
it
feels
a
little
bit
like
we're
just
kind
of
nickel
and
diming
and
asking
for
and
to
be
honest
sort
of.
A
First
of
all,
I
agree
with
what
jill
is
saying
about
cost
increases.
I
totally
understand
that
my
my
primary
concern
is
how
much
should
growth
pay
for
a
level
of
service
is
an
important
factor
in
this
equation,
so
it's
cost,
and
so
I
absolutely
appreciate
all
the
effort
that's
gone
into,
showing
us
what
the
costs
have
been,
because
we
need
to
know
in
order
to
get
behind
this
plan.
We
have
to
know
what
the
costs
are
going
to
be.
A
Having
said
that,
I
do
see
a
couple
of
line
items,
maybe
I'll
point
to
one
that
talked
about.
Maybe
the
next
slide
green
energy
efficiency,
I'm
pretty
confident
green
energy
efficiency
has
nothing
to
do
with
growth,
and
so,
in
a
spirit
of
being
equally
blunt,
can
someone
please
explain
to
me
why
new
growth
is
playing
paying
for
green
building
standards.
C
And
just
yeah
I'll
ask
maybe
sean
to
clarify
what
I'm
about
to
say,
but
it's
it
has
to
do
more,
my
understanding
of
with
an
eui
standard,
not
necessarily
that
this
is
a
lead,
platinum
building
or
something
to
that
effect
that
we're
building
into
the
costs
here
but
sean.
Maybe
you
can
speak
a
little
bit
more
into
that.
G
A
All
over
all
of
our
buildings,
so
sean
I'll
ask
the
question:
if
travis
is
alluding
to
it,
what
are
we
building
this
green
standard?
Is
it
a
lead
silver?
You
said:
no,
it's
not.
What
is
the
eui
standard
you're
building
to?
Is
it
to
the
current
boise
city
code,
which
is
by
the
way
higher
than
the
state
code?
So
what
are
we
building
it
too?.
G
We're
building
the
targets
we've
set
so
far
and
we're
it's
a
little
premature,
because
we,
you
know
we
haven't
planned
or
not
any
of
the
pre-design
stuff,
the
concept
design,
but
we
think
this
one.
It
will
be
a
green
building
code.
All
city
buildings
have
to
be
green
building
code,
but
as
far
as
the
eui
standard,
it
would
probably
be
30
in
the
range
of
30.
G
A
A
A
C
Yeah,
it's
I
mean
the
the
numbers
right
around
800.
and
again
as
sean
was
saying
like
we're
in
pre-design,
you
know,
so
I
think
it's
all.
These
numbers
are
fairly
preliminary.
Hence
why
you
also
see
a
contingency
down
at
the
bottom.
Just
there's
a
lot
of
unknowns
given
where
we
are
in
the
process.
Right
now
sure
sure.
A
A
C
Yeah
and
to
be
clear,
the
contingency
isn't
for
these
annual
escalators
they're
more
related
to
the
you
know
the
number
of
bays
question
you
know
and
some
of
the
other
things
that
have
yet
to
be
sorted
out
just
given
where
we
are
in
planning,
as
opposed
to
saying
we're
trying
to
capture
annual
inflation,
as
opposed
to
you
know
some
of
the
things
we,
for
example,
that
that
could
be
may
be
considered
part
of
that
inflation
number
that
would
be
captured
in
a
contingency
right.
Is
you
can't
get
x
anymore
like
what
happened?
D
A
A
A
I'll,
just
maybe
clarify
what
I
think
I've
been
seeing
through
the
numbers
here.
It
seems
like
with
contingency
some
of
the
contingency
and
with
the
added
in
cost
for
energy
efficiency.
Over
and
above
current
levels
of
service,
there
may
be
about
a
eight
nine
hundred
thousand
dollar
difference.
Don't
know
what
that
is,
but
that's
approximately
the
ten
percent
of
the
total
cost,
and
so
one
thing
we
could
do
as
a
committee
here.
This
is
for
committee.
G
A
Maybe
it's
the
added
base,
maybe
it's
something
else,
but
really
it's
the
energy
efficiency.
It
seems
to
be
popping
off
the
screen
to
me
should
be
not
to
say
it's
not
needed,
it's
not
a
bad
policy.
It's
not
a
good
policy.
I
support
that
policy.
The
question
is,
who
should
pay
for
the
policy,
and
I
get
I
come
back
to
the
general
overall
taxpayers
or
through
the
general
fund
or
whatever
the
means
of
sources
are.
I
I
recognize
chief
niemeyer
has
clearly
articulated
the
needs.
A
Some
of
these
things
are
adding
levels
of
service,
adding
rooms
and
so
forth
that
are
not
in
current
fire
stations.
It's
not
to
say
the
need,
isn't
there
is
to
say
that
they're
increasing
level
of
service
and
who
should
pay
for
that,
and
so
those
are
my
comments,
jill
and
so
I'll.
Let
you
respond
to
that
and
then
I'll.
I
want
to
point
to
corbin
and
then
colleen.
I
So,
do
I
mean,
are
we
talking
apples
and
apples
on
this
meridian
station
versus
then
the
one
we're
going
to
build
in
the
northwest?
I
mean:
do
we
are
these
the
same
type
of
station?
Are
they
the
same
size?
I
mean
because
obviously,
smaller
station
higher
price
per
square
foot
bigger
station
lower
price
per
square
foot,
so
you
respond.
F
So
two
key
differences
just
coming
from.
As
far
as
the
the
rooms
that
I
talked
about
earlier,
the
dedicated
turnout
room,
the
wash
bay.
All
those
things
were
exactly
the
same,
we're
not
talking
any
differences
whatsoever,
the
two
biggest
differences
between
the
meridian
station
and
what
we're
talking
about
in
the
northwest.
F
I
I
support
it,
but
that
is
a
cost
increase
and
that's
a
cost.
It
is
a
cost
increase
as
compared
the
other
challenge
that
we
had
is
meridian.
We
hit
it
right
with
station
six.
We
we
weren't
in
crisis,
yet
with
regards
to
supply
and
demand.
We
had
readily
available
workforce
for
the
most
part
in
our
contractors
and
subs
we're
in
a
different
spot
today,
right
cost
escalation
through
spline
demand
and
some
of
those
challenges
which
you
all
know
very
well
you're
in
the
you're
on
that
side
of
the
house.
F
F
I
can
answer
that
one
too
dave.
The
answer
is:
yes,
we're
doing
a
remodel
on
station
six
right
now,
that's
the
one
on
franklin
road
right
by
coal,
road
right
in
front
of
bishop
kelly
and
yes,
we're
incorporating
all
those
changes
into
that
fire
station.
When
we're
done
with
that
one
station
five
is
next:
it's
our
oldest
station,
that's
going
to
be
a
tear
down,
remodel,
rebuild
and
that
will
incorporate
all
the
new
codes
into
it
as
well.
C
All
right,
the
only
thing
I
was
gonna
say
to
add
on
to
the
chief's
comment-
is
just
how
expensive
those
after
the
fact
upgrades
are
versus
address
it
up
front,
and
it's
kind
of
to
your
point.
It's
well.
This
wasn't
your
point.
It's
cheaper
up
front
to
do
it,
but
then,
in
the
long
run,
you're
also
saving
money
there.
So.
E
E
E
C
A
A
D
K
D
A
So
I
again,
I
follow
back
to
it's
not
a
matter
of.
Do
you
build
a
building
to
that
standard
or
not
who's
paying
for
it
right.
I
think
we've
all
heard
very
well
explained
from
the
chief.
You
have
added
rooms,
you
have
other
things
of
need
which
again
are
probably
increasing
level
of
service,
but
it's
not
to
say
it's
not
needed,
and
so
I
appreciate
that
level
of
comment
and
support.
A
Two
base.
Three
bays.
We
still
even
know
that,
but
maybe
I'm
trying
to
defend
all
the
fee
payers
out
there,
but
I
think
it's
pretty
easily
defensible
to
say
that
it's
okay
to
have
these
costs,
but
but
growth
shouldn't
pay
for
all
of
those
that
they're
adding
level
of
service
the
city
continues,
and
then
the
girls
pays
for
its
maintaining
level
of
service.
A
The
city
adopted
green
energy
standards,
free
energy
codes
and
so
they're
building
to
the
standards,
but
I
also
am
very
comfortable
to
study.
I
know
the
building
codes
fairly.
Well,
I
sat
on
the
state
building
code
board
subcommittee.
They
helped
draft
the
recommendations
to
the
state
code
board.
Who
then
was
adopted
by
the
state
legislature,
well
sort
of
that's
another
discussion,
but
then
each
city
adopted
those
codes
and-
and
I
know
where
boise
sits
on
them-
there's
the
residential
code
of
this
and
there's
a
commercial
code.
A
This
falls
over
the
commercial
code,
which
I
know
a
little
bit
less
about,
but
I
know
quite
a
bit
about
it.
They
talked
about
the
eui,
the
energy
standards,
green
building
standards.
What
was
the
gentleman's
name?
I
don't
see
them
up
on
sean
said
30
is
the
eui
number
30
is
not
the
commercial?
That's
not.
The
standard.
30
is
a
different
number.
The
lower
the
number
of
the
higher
energy
efficiency,
meaning
you
drive
to
zero-
is
net
zero.
A
That's
kind
of
the
concept
and
30
is
lower
than
the
commercial
standard,
and
so
that
tells
me
they're
wanting
to
build
it
to
a
higher
standard
than
what
even
the
boise
city
code
requires
for
commercial
buildings.
So
again,
I
I
struggle
with
having
growth
pay
for
something.
That's
a
higher
standard.
Maybe
we'll
go
there
in
the
future.
A
I
A
A
A
A
G
Yeah
green
building
code
is
required
for
any
city
administrative
type
of
building
government
building
I
mean
it
wouldn't
be
like
for
a
mechanical
pump
station.
Like
you
know
it's
hard
to
get
building
code
in
the
pub
station,
but
anything
the
city
builds
it's
optional
for
commercial.
They
could
build
to
it
and
then
there's
some
some.
A
C
C
C
So
it's
literally
the
bids
just
came
in
and
if
you
so,
if
you
include
a
small
contingency
just
to
deal
with
the
other
parts
of
the
project
for
which
we
don't
necessarily
have
a
bid
on
yet
you
know
we're
asking
for
a
280
000
increase
to
that
project,
which
would
take
the
total
impact
fees
for
the
I'm.
Sorry,
the
total
impact
fees
for
the
project-
and
this
is
a
poorly
worded
bullet
total
impact
fees-
would
be
670
grand
out
of
a
nearly
1
million
dollar
project.
C
The
other
overage
that
we're
seeing
is
on
mullinar
park
and,
and
here
there's
a
combination
of
it
was
there
was
an
overage
that
we
had
addressed
with
city
council
separately
already
that
drove
the
cost
of
1.55
distinct
from.
That
is
what
I
would
call
a
computational
error
on
my
part,
which
was
we
were
only
reflecting
somehow
for
a
long
time.
C
We
had
only
been
assuming
that
400
000
was
going
to
come
from
impact
fee
funds,
because
the
fund
balance
was
so
low,
and
so
we
continued
to
run
with
that
for
molinar,
as
the
total
impact
fee
cost.
Regardless
of
what
the
old
plan
said,
we
just
knew
that
we
didn't
have
the
funds,
and
so
the
capital
fund
was
going
to
have
to
cover
that
shortfall.
C
However,
in
looking
at
it
again,
well
sorry
just
to
continue
that
point,
and
so
since
this
was
a
21
project
that
is
no
longer
reflected
in
the
new
plan,
the
only
place
where
this
cost
was
being
picked
up
was
in
the
impact
fee
fund
balance
for
that
particular
planning
area,
and
so
only
400
was
being
reflected
in
that
closing
balance.
That
ian
was
using
to
adjust
what
we
need
to
collect
over
the
next
10
years
and
so
adjusting
for
the
the
full
project
cost.
C
You
know
it's,
it
would
be
1.55
like
I
just
said.
However,
you
know
the
original
park
plan
again
win
the
mulliner
project
under
which
the
mullinar
park
project
fell
against
the
2016
plan
that
called
for
the
1.1
million
of
funding,
so
we're
not
suggesting
that
the
full
1.5
is
being
paid
for
by
impact
fees.
We're
suggesting
we
just
revert
to
what
that
original
plan
was,
which
loses
some
of
the
escalation.
C
B
K
Thank
you,
so
this
amount
will
not
fully
build
out
the
master
plan
from
all
in
our
park.
We
are
still
absent,
escape
park,
football
facilities
and
a
couple
of
other
items.
So
I
think
what
the
thinking
is
is
that
this
will
cover
everything
that
we
have
under
construction
up
to
this
point
and
then
the
next
impact
would
be
plan.
We
would
look
at
picking
up
the
additional
amenities.
B
Yes,
although
I
I
wonder
if
the
same
logic
applies
to
building
parts
as
it
does
fire
stations,
does
it
make
more
sense
to
do
it
all
at
once
and
get
it
all
done
versus,
come
back
and
revisit
something,
that's
finished
and
then
add
to
it
later
on
down
the
road.
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
question
or
if
that's
just
a
statement,
if
jennifer,
travis
or
ann
have
thoughts
on
on
that.
K
A
A
A
C
Move
on
okay
in
the
interest
of
time-
and
I
don't
know
what
people
look
like
in
terms
of
time
constraint,
but
I'll
I'll
try
to
breeze
through
this,
but
put
your
hand
up,
and
I
can
slow
down
on
any
of
this.
So
we
talked
back
in
august
about
sure
the
chair
had
brought
up.
You
know:
are
we
going
to
be
collecting
enough
fees
based
on
the
size
ranges
that
we
use
for
our
graduated
system
of
impact
fee
assessment?
C
C
We
would
have
actually
been
missing
and
regardless
of
size
category,
we
would
have
been
under
collecting
by
a
pretty
substantial
margin
of
about
a
third,
and
the
interesting
thing
is
that
the
the
big
driver
here
and
and
chair
this
goes
a
little
bit
to
the
the
email
exchange
that
we
had,
which
was
you
know.
The
interesting
thing
is
that
very
good
sorry,
so
many
of
our
our
permits
and
look.
This
is
a
one-year
sample.
C
That
is
all
we
can
get
because
of
our
switch
from
one
system
to
another
in
term
for
our
building
permit
fee
our
building
permit
application,
but
at
any
rate,
do
do.
What
we
can
see
in
the
last
year
is
that
half
of
our
building
permits
are
under
1400
square
feet,
and
so
that's
obviously
not
a
lot
of
single
family
homes.
That
could
be
a
one-year
somewhat
statistical
anomaly,
because
a
large
project
or
two
downtown
multi-family
was
thrown
in
there,
and
so
it
skewed.
C
You
know
300
units
being
artificially
small
as
it
were,
but
regardless
you
know
we
looked
at,
you
know,
can
you
vary
the
size
and
does
that?
Allow
you
to
fully
collect
fees
and
that
really
wasn't
the
problem,
and
then
we
also
looked
at
the
other
thing
that
was
mentioned
in
the
september
meeting,
which
was
you
know
the
fact.
H
H
C
You
know
you
have
this
thing
where
you
have
more
per
square
feet
per
person
in
an
adu
than
in
the
next
size
range
up,
which
maybe
that's
true
it
just
it
just
seems
like
an
oddity,
and
then
this
is
mostly
just
recaps.
What
I
already
said
so
mostly
skip
it
outside
of
the
the
punch
line.
Is
you
know?
So?
What?
If
we
looked
at
it?
C
C
C
A
D
A
Travis
I'd
share
with
you,
I
don't
know,
maybe
for
next
time
you
interim
meaning
like
in
the
next
few
days.
You
can
probably
recreate
this
table,
but
there
is
a
study
that
I
pulled
some
information
from
the
national
association
of
homebuilders.
I
got
the
email
here.
They
they
contacted.
There's
an
american
housing
survey
of
2019.,
where
it
actually
has
a
number
of
people
per
household
by
square
footage
ranges,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
we
can
use
that
actual
data,
not
an
assumed
700
feet
per
person,
because
that's
5.62
is
not
accurate,
there's
not
5.62
people.
A
H
Let
me
find
myself
again,
I'm
lost.
Can
you
hear
me
we'll
try
that
meridian
and
boise
are
the
only
two
cities
who
break
it
out
by
the
size
of
the
unit
in
idaho?
It
is,
of
course,
always
done
that
way
for
streets,
but
for
parks.
It
generally
is
not
maybe
single-family
multi-family,
but
even
then
there's
some
arguments
about
finding
the
data
that
can
substantiate
that
as
travis
and
I
have
gone
through
this
methodology
and
really
tried
to
dig
down.
My
belief
is
as
long
as
the
data
we're
using
is
defensible.
H
It
is.
It
is
fine
with
me
and
I
I
feel
comfortable
using
this
methodology.
It
is
not
what
I
usually
use,
because
I
tend
to
try
not
to
make
more
assumptions
than
I
need
to,
because
I
always
fear
that
will
lead
to
more
challenges,
but
I
think
this
methodology
seems
to
have
worked
well
for
the
city
for
the
last
five
years.
So
while
it's
uncommon
in
idaho,
it's
it's
not
inappropriate.
H
Yes
again,
if
you
know,
if
we
condense
the
number
of
people
in
households,
particularly
on
the
higher
end,
that
will
shift
some
of
the
cost,
because
it's
all
per
person
so
right
now,
it's
a
broader
band
of
cost,
sharing,
it
would
condense
it,
and
so
each
of
the
categories
would
probably
pay
more.
If
we
were
to,
if
those
upper
range
persons
per
household
were
too
high.
I
And
what
are
other
cities
doing
outside
of
idaho,
because
my
understanding
hasn't
been?
I
was
on
the
committee
when
was
when
we
had
lots
of
painful
discussions
about
this.
It
was
because
other
cities
around
the
country
that,
were
you
know,
similar
size
and
so
forth,
were
using
this
methodology.
As
my
unders.
H
In
colorado,
utah
et
cetera,
I
don't
see
it
being
broken
out.
You
know.
Sometimes
it's
just
the
difference
between.
Are
you
working
with
a
firm
that
is
a
lot
of
economists
or
working
with
the
firm?
That's
a
lot
of
policy
analysts,
because
I
think
you
know
some
of
the
engineering
firms
or
economist
firms
that
do
this
work
do
tend
to,
like.
H
You
know,
to
drill
down
to
more
levels
of
information
right,
but
without
really
researching
that
I
I
couldn't
answer
conclusively
against
streets
is
always
broken
out
by
by
by
land
use
by
trip
generation
by
by
more
granular
data.
So
it
it
really
is
more
consistent
with
what
the
city's
policy,
what
your
policy
objective
might
be
in
this
area.
D
C
C
However,
when
you
look
at
the
high
end
of
the
range,
it
would
basically
stay
unchanged
at
3.,
and
so
you
would
have
no
change
for
the
largest
house
out
there,
but
the
smaller
denser
developments
that
are,
quite
frankly,
a
lot
of
what
the
you
know.
Larger
developers
are
building
in
these
multi-family.
C
Those
fees
would
be
tripled
again
rough
numbers,
not
saying
that
it's
exact,
but
I
mean
it
would
be
a
dramatic
shift
and
I
don't
want
to
say
burden
because
that
gets
into
a
you
know,
what's
fair
type
argument,
but
it
would
result
in
a
significant
change
in
how
fees
are
allocated
across
these
various
sizes.
So
apologies
for
the
digression.
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
ann's
point
about
one
of
the
big
implications
here.
I
A
So
so,
if
I
could
add,
jill
you're
exactly
right
and
this
still
would
have
a
reduced
fee,
it
just
wouldn't
be
as
substantially
reduced.
If
I
understand
what
travis
is
saying,
because
it's
still
it's
higher
than
what
they
pay
today,
but
a
700
square
foot
unit
would
still
pay.
Maybe
half
of
what
a
three
thousand
square
foot.
C
So
right
so
exactly
right,
so
today,
just
based
on
the
persons
per
household-
it's
roughly,
you
know
a
fifth
that
you
know
so
3200
square
foot
place
is
going
to
pay
five
times
as
much
under
our
current
methodology
again
going
through
the
numbers.
I
just
went
through
again.
That
would
only
be
twice
as
much
so
there's
just
a
lot
of
compression
in
the
relative
distribution.
A
A
I
A
C
C
C
I
A
I
G
I
A
So
jennifer,
I
just
can't
overheard
you,
but
I
think
he
said
that
the
split
before
was
only
one
split.
It
was
800
square
feet
above
or
below.
Is
that
correct
and
then
there's
the
healthy
discussion
which
I
was
a
part
of
and
all
the
members
of
the
council,
mary
and
jordan,
others
they're
the
ones
who
drove
this
split
into
this
many
categories
in
working
with
tanya
to
get
to
this
number
here.
So
the
number
before
we
split
800
square
feet
above
and
below,
is
what
you
remember:
okay,
okay,.
I
A
That's
correct
and
there's
really
multiple
committees,
the
community.
You
have
the
multi-family
builders
and
you
have
the
single
family
builders,
there's
two
different
groups
and
there's
now
a
trend
more
towards
the
town
home
product.
The
attached
products
are
kind
of
in
that
700
to
1400
square
foot
range
they'd,
be
the
category
two,
maybe
three,
which
is
why
as
travis
identified
half
or
more
than
half
of
all
the
buildings
being
built
in
boise
are
on
the
bottom
half
of
this
category
travis.
You
provided
some
numbers
to
me
just
earlier
today
and
it's
a
snapshot
in
time.
A
Because
if
we
have
these
categories
split
out
the
wrong
way,
then
all
of
a
sudden.
We
have
all
these
homes
and
units
over
here
in
the
700
or
a
thousand
square
foot,
but
we're
not
collecting
enough,
and
so
the
end
of
the
day.
We
won't
even
have
enough
for
the
fire
stations
in
two
years.
Three
years
from
now,
because.
A
A
These
are
big
increases,
I'm
just
being
bold
and
frank,
but
that's
I
want
to
ask
all
these
questions
because
it
needs
to
be
defensible
to
the
fee
payer
and
I
don't
care
if
it's
the
apartment
builder
or
the
4000
square,
foot
custom
home
room,
it
doesn't
matter
who
it
needs
to
be
defensible
to
all
builders
involved.
That's
where.
I
C
I
A
A
We
know
the
vacancy
rates
are
in
this
town
and
we
know
with
how
how
they
are
0.63,
just
didn't
make
sense,
and
so
the
other
numbers
might
be
actually
pretty
close.
It's
the
0.63.
That
was
the
concern.
Having
said
that,
I
don't
want
to
take
this
too
far
off
topic.
Corbin,
you
have
something
you
want
to
say,
then.
Maybe
we'll
jump
back
into.
E
E
E
E
So
I
like
the
idea
of
using
another
assumption
if
it's
that
national
see
what
those
national
numbers
look
like,
but
when
you
put
them
in
here
what
the
numbers
turn
out
there,
that
seems
good
to
see
if
we
can
keep
700
around
one
and
try
to
lower
3200
square
feet
to
something
we
would
assume
for
something
like
that.
So.
I
A
G
C
E
C
E
On
this
item,
actually
I
do
have
one
more
thing
going
back
to
that
700
square
foot.
There
was
a
talk
about
having
to
defend
your
numbers.
I
mean
that
was
something
that
would
people
would
look
at
and
go.
Why
was
700
chosen?
You
have
to
defend
that
pretty
heavily
for
using
the
national
average
of
something
and
those
numbers
look
right.
At
least
you
can
point
to
something
and
go
it
wasn't
our
assumption.
We
got
it
from
this
national
service.
A
A
That's
u.s
census
data,
that's
actual
hard
data
that
we
can
share
and
so
that'd
be
great.
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
to
jail.
Your
question,
the
whole
committee,
that's
my
sole
goal
is
to
make
sure
we
can
defend
these
numbers
to
anything
pair
of
any
category
of
price
point
or
square
footage
at
home.
That's
that's
really
what
I'm
trying
to
do
for
the
community?
C
No,
I
I
think,
just
in
terms
of
kind
of
how
I
let
in
like
is
there
follow-up
needed
between
now
and
the
next
meeting
and
and
I'm
not
sure,
if
rob's
still
on,
because
I
don't
want
to
get
into
some
sort
of
you
know
where
we're
having
non-public
debate.
But
you
know,
maybe
it's
just
a
quick
check-in
that
we
have.
I
can
com
pull
some
numbers.
C
It's
going
to
take
a
little
bit
of
time,
chair
as
I
was
explaining
to
you
those
on
how
we
track
the
multi-family
stuff,
but
you
know
and
kind
of
come
back
with
the
smorgasbord
of
options
you
know.
Do
we
want
to
do
this
assumption
based
on
the
nahb
numbers?
Do
we
want
to
do
this?
Maybe
with
some
data
that
we
get
from
compass,
some
blend
of
the
two
that
again
is
justifiable.
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
That
works
that
works,
and
just
you
know,
depending
on
how
we
come
out
on
this
person's
per
house,
so
I
mean,
I
guess,
the
the
persons
per
household
won't
change
any
of
the
underlying
cost
assumptions
that
we've
been
spending
most
of
our
time
discussing
it's
just
a
matter
of
how
those
costs
are
divvied
up
and
so
yeah.
I
mean
I
think
we
can
come
into
the
next
meeting
again
give
you
your
here's,
the
five
options
or,
however
many
there
are-
and
you
know
based
on
that
which
do
you
suggest
and
are
we
fine
moving
forward.