►
From YouTube: Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee
Description
November 10, 2021
A
All
right
we'll
get
this
started,
so
we
will
start
the
11
10
meeting
the
boise
development
impact
fee
at
12,
25
25
minutes
late.
I
do
apologize
pulled
in
a
direction,
I
couldn't
say
no.
I
had
to
be
there,
so
we
will
start
today's
business
with
the
minutes
from
october
13th.
A
B
A
D
All
right,
so
you
know.
D
Is
to
review
parks,
police
and
fire,
not
necessarily
in
that
order,
discuss
a
few
modifications
that
we
made
to
the
methodology
and
just
kind
of
the
underlying
assumptions
that
were
made
since
the
last
defact
meeting
and
then
just
to
note
it
for
the
record.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everyone
had
received
and
reviewed
the
chair's
email
on
his
comments
on
the
latest
improvement
plan.
D
Yes,
great
great
so
on
to
the
I
figured
it
makes
sense
to
break
this
down
by
department.
Just
makes
it
a
little
bit
more
manageable.
So
for
the
police,
10-year
cip,
no
changes
have
been
made
honestly,
probably
since
this
summer.
I
think
the
last
changes
we
made
were
some
of
the
growth
officer
changes
and
I
think
that
was
it,
and
so
I
guess,
are
there
any
remaining
questions
for
police
at
this
point.
A
D
Nothing:
okay,
hearing,
no
others!
You
know.
Is
there
a
motion
to
recommend
the
police
impact?
The
plan.
B
D
A
Hearing
none,
I
would
everyone
that
approves.
Please
say:
hi
hi
hi
any
nose,
not
hearing
any
nose.
Promotion
passes.
D
Great
thank
you
on
to
fire
and
and
this
one
sorry
this
is
a
little
confusing.
The
presentation
that
I
gave
last
month
showed
10.4
is
the
cost
for
station
and
report,
as
I
think
I
pointed
out
at
the
time
should
10.45.
D
So
the
the
revised
report
from
anne
reflects,
as
it
did
in
the
presentation
that
10.4
million-
and
that
was
the
only
change
since
our
october
meeting.
So
I
guess,
are
there
any
questions
for
the
chief
for
for
sean
before
we
take
a
vote
on
this
one.
B
You
know
this
was
the
one
that
that
dave
had
some
concerns
on
there's
a
concern
about
the
cost
of
the
the
fire
engines.
B
A
B
Think
dave
suggested
perhaps
putting
the
contingency
fee.
Basically,
in
the
cost
estimate,
it
was
kind
of
double
dipping.
D
Know
I
I
think
one
thing
there
is
either
it's
I
mean
my
non-legal
opinion
and
I'd
maybe
defer
to
anne
on
this
too.
D
But
if
it's
growth,
it's
growth
and
I
think
the
appropriate
place
to
revisit
this
would
be
if
we
get
to
the
project
and
in
fact
realize
we
do
not.
I
mean
because
sorry,
let
me
finish
that
before
I
go
to
the
next
one
and
revisit
once
we
know
what
the
the
actual
project
cost
will
be
and
because,
over
10
years,
we're
collecting
for
a
project.
That's
gonna
in
all
reality,
probably
be
budgeted
in
our
fiscal
year,
23
at
the
city.
So
within
12
months,
it's
not
like
the
collections
will
have
soared
out
of
control.
D
You
know
it's
not
like
we're
collecting
for
nine
years
and
in
that
tenth
year
building
the
station
we'd
be
able
to
adjust
the
plan
pretty
quickly.
So
that
would
be
my
two
cents
and
I
don't
know
if
you
have
thoughts
on
it.
But
again,
that's
just
you
know.
My
thinking
in
terms
of
you
know,
growth
pain
for
growth
versus
really
opinion
on
on
what
dave
was
suggesting.
E
I
understand
what
dave
was
suggesting
in
terms
of
double
dipping
and
that
we
will
have
the
inflationary
index
in
place
so
that
will
keep
up
with
construction
costs.
I
would
think
that
the
contingency
might
be
different
and
that
it
could
be
a
contingency
and
scope
and
not
necessarily
just
how
bids
come
in.
So
in
that
way,
I
could
see
that
contingency
being
different
and
not
captured
by
our
annual
inflationary
index.
A
So
I'd
like
to
add,
there
was
one
more
thing
that
dave
mentioned
was
the
building
cost
for
green
material.
There
was
spirited
discussion
between
jill
and
dave
on
this,
and
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
we
have
done
other
buildings
that
had
green
costs.
This
is
the
first
time
it
came
up
and
a
building
is
going
to
be
built
to
meet
the
code.
A
A
D
Right
on
to
parks
where,
where
there
were
a
couple
of
cleanup
changes,
so
I'll
actually
get
to
the
the
one
with
all
the
hairs
last,
so
we
increased
funding
for
veterans
park
to
660
from
262,
which
I
realized.
D
It
is
a
not
small
increase,
but
that's
just
and
jennifer
or
trevor
might
be
able
to
elaborate
on
this
one,
but
just
based
on
preliminary
estimates
now
that
we're
starting
to
to
work
on
get
work
towards
getting
bids
on
it.
Because
this
is
a
this
calendar
year
or
sorry.
This
fiscal
year
project,
just
the
the
costs,
are
going
to
be
wildly
in
excess
of
the
262.
That
was
in
the
2016
plan
and
then
on
frank
park.
B
D
You
know
when
it's
going
to
happen
and
who's
going
to
pay
for
it,
and
so
we
thought
starting
to
collect
on
a
project
that
we
don't
have
a
high
level
of
confidence
in
our
cost
timing,
etc
made
sense
to
only
put
in
what
we
know,
which
is
the
regional
cost
and
then
wait
for
a
subsequent
update,
not
necessarily
a
five-year
update.
D
But
you
know
a
one
or
two
year
out
update
to
the
plan
to
start
capturing
these
costs
and
reducing
all
the
harris
or
removing
the
other
harris
portion
because
it
reduced
the
acreage,
reduce
the
amount
of
vehicle
costs
that
we're
collecting
for
growth
by
about
fifty
thousand
dollars
to,
and
there
was
two
other
projects
that
nothing's
changed
just
flagging
them
because
they
could
be
more
expensive
than
what's
currently
in
the
plan.
D
F
Of
reducing
part
of
the
amount
of
money
going
to
molinar
park
is
that
did
that
did
anything
further
happen
with
molinar
park.
As
far
as
funding
is
concerned,.
D
I
thought
that
the
discussion
there
was
just
that
the
city
was
picking
up
a
portion
of
that,
but
I
apologize
if
I
just
missed
that
feedback
from
from
last
week
or
from
last
month.
Sorry.
B
Travis,
I
want
to
look
a
little
more
deeply
at
the
southeast
region
if
we
pull
the
so
if
the
city
has
decided
to
pull
alta
harris
out
of
the
southeast,
then
effectively,
there
are
no
projects
on
the
cip
in
the
next
10
years
for
the
southeast
part
and
I'd
hate
for
us
to
get
into
the
situation
where
we
have
a
10-year.
You
know
sort
of
five-year
at
least
impact
fee
structure,
with
nothing
in
that
region.
So
two
parts:
what's
the
balance
in
the
southeast
account.
B
Two,
if
it
is
likely
that
we're
going
to
be
doing
anything
parts
wise
in
the
southeast,
is
the
city
prepared
to
fund
all
of
them,
not
using
impact
fees.
Given
that
we're
not
going
to
be
collecting
them.
D
So
to
answer
the
first
question
the
southeast
is
currently
excuse
me,
I
think
it's
overdrawn
by
about
half
a
million
bucks
and
then
to
answer
your
question:
it's
not
that
there's
a
decision,
yay
or
nay,
either
way
on
all
the
harris.
It's
it's
just
open-ended
in
terms
of
who,
how
and
when
it
is
going
to
be
paid
for,
and
so
because
of
that
we
we
didn't
want
to
be
collecting
for
something
that
we,
we
can't
definitely
say
we're
going
to
do
at
some
point.
D
That
said,
and
again
I
defer
to
to
trevor
or
jennifer
if
they
want
to
chime
in
here,
but
I
believe
that
there
will
be
much
greater
clear
clarity
within
the
next
12
months,
and
so
I
would
not
imagine
us
waiting
until
another
five-year
update
to
start
collecting,
if
indeed
a
local
parks
being
put
down
here,
that
we'd
want
to
get
back
in
front
of
y'all
as
quickly
as
possible.
D
B
An
answer
I'm
still
not
entirely
thrilled
about
it.
The
development
in
the
southeast
portion
of
the
barber
valley
is
going
to
happen
in
the
next
year
or
to
year,
and
a
half
homes
are
springing
up
out
there
like
mushrooms
and
if
we
lose
next
year
to
year
and
a
half,
and
then
we
look
a
year
and
a
half
two
years
down.
B
E
D
D
Oh,
it's
the
sewell,
the
sioux
howl
is
down
in
that
area.
So
again
it's
not
that
we're
saying
that
the
the
area
is
perfectly
parked
and
doesn't
need
anything
else.
It's
just
the
classification
of
the
other
park
that
would
go
in
for
sure.
D
D
D
D
It
depends
obviously
on
on
the
on
the
rate
of
new
new
home
construction
in
the
area
and
whatever
the
final
costs
are
for
the
for,
whatever
whatever
if
any
park
is
going
in
there.
D
And
that
was
based
on,
I
believe,
4.2
or
4.8
million
of
of
the
local
park
for
all
the
local
park
fees
for
all
the
harris.
D
Yes,
so
again
it's
just
the
the
uncertainty
I
mean
so
there's
a
obviously
we
could
have
gone
two
ways.
One
was,
despite
the
uncertainty,
start
collecting
fees
for
precisely
some
of
the
reasons
that
were
just
mentioned
just
so
we
were
collecting
over
time.
D
You
know
worst
case
you're,
paying
off
the
the
negative
balance
from
you
know.
Like
you
know,
some
of
the
recent
parks
like
bowler,
which
was
just,
which
is
the
reason
why
we're
overdrawn.
Currently
you
know
so
we
could
have
done
that
or
pulled
it
out
until
we
know
more,
so
we're
not
collecting
fees
for
something
that
you
know
is.
D
So
so
that
is
the
the
remaining
fee
for,
for.
B
Gotcha
or
I
have
one
more
comment
on
this:
yes,
I'm
going
to
recommend
you
add
this
back
to
the
cip.
Travis
we've
got
in
the
cip.
You've
got
alta
harris
regional
amenities
under
the
regional
you've
got
the
accurate
green
belt,
underpass
you're
you're,
putting
two
things
in
the
cip
that
are
related
to
alta
harris
park.
B
F
Can
I
add
to
tony's
question:
is
that
is
there
a
negative
to
putting
it
back
in
the
cip?
I
I
guess
I'm
just
I.
I
recognize
there's
some
uncertainty,
but
I
feel,
like
I'm
still
add
a
little
bit
of
a
loss
for
what
the
uncertainty
is
and
I
tend
to
agree
with
tony
about
the
three-prong
approach.
So
I'm
just
I
apologize,
I'm
still
just.
D
No,
I
think,
look
ultimately,
I'm
I'm
just
a
reporter
of
of
you
know
the
current
situation,
but
there
are
possibilities
that
you
know
like
the
cid
and
and
harris
ranch
could
contribute
costs.
So
it's
it's
largely
again
the
source
of
the
funding.
That
is
the
question
you
know
and
to
a
certain
extent,
I
think
the
the
scale
and
scope
of
the
of
the
of
the
park
itself.
D
But
again
you
know
it
was.
We
thought
it
was
being
conservative
to
exclude
the
the
park,
but
but.
D
Y'all's
inclination
is
to
put
it
back
in.
We
can
do
that.
You
know,
or
you
know
the
other
thing
is
you
know
we
can
commit
to
revisiting
this.
You
know
within
a
year
once
we
have
greater
certainty
so
that
we
know
that
it's
not
well
we'll
get
to
it
when
we
get
to
it,
but
it's
dates
certain
that
we're
revisiting
this
topic
and
adding
it
or
not
depend
you
know
depending
on
what
we
know
you
know
one
year.
Hence.
A
A
D
A
And
I
do
like
the
idea
of
waiting
a
year
then
to
revisit
this.
D
A
G
I'm
not
really
aware
of
uncertainty
in
the
cost.
We
actually
did
this
project
last
year,
so
we
know
even
to
green
it
up
we're
looking
at
at
least
three
million
dollars,
and
then
we,
I
actually
have
pretty
good
numbers
for
all
the
amenities
in
this
park
as
well.
So
if
they're
varying
opinions
on
different
contributions
that
may
be
coming
in,
I
am
not
party
to
those
discussions.
G
B
Corbin,
that's
exactly
my
fear
that
if
we,
if
we
delay
here,
we
set
a
date
certain
to
look
at
it.
We
have
missed
the
window
for
collections
in
the
southeast.
There
are
very
people
who
are
going
to
be
here
here
will
not
have
been
the
ones
that
have
paid
for
that
growth.
It's
going
to
fall
on
the
rest
of
the
people
in
the
city
to
do
it.
D
Just
as
just
a
thought
would
it
address
these
concerns
if
we
kind
of
take
a
multi-pronged
approach,
which
is
one
put
in
the
the
three
million
dollars,
the
general
and
we'll
refine
the
cost,
because
I
don't
know
if
it
was
exactly
three
million
dollars
on
the
nose,
but
whatever
that
green
up
cost
was
include
that
in
the
plan
today,
so
that
we're
collecting
you
know
as
soon
as
this
plan
gets
approved,
to
commit
to
within
the
next
12
to
18
months,
revisit
this
particular
park,
the
funding
thereof,
the
cost
thereof
and
the
timing
thereof,
and
and
revisit
how
much
we
should
be
collecting
and
if
needed,
you
know,
adjust
the
fees
for
the
southeast.
D
Accordingly,
you
know-
and
I
I
guess
the
last
prong
to
that
is
you
know,
based
on
ultimate
funding
sources.
We
would
adjust
the
amount
of
impact
fees
we're
collecting,
obviously,
but
that
might
provide
a
little
bit
of
kind
of
compromise
right
now.
So
to
you
to
everyone's
point:
we're
not
missing
potentially
a
year
of
collections.
That
could
be
big
collections,
because
considering
we,
you
know,
I
think
a
green
up
would
be
the
obviously
the
first
step
here
at
a
minimum.
You
know.
A
D
D
That
and-
and
I
think
that
the
one
thing
you
know
just
to
keep
on
our
radar
was
just
how
high
the
fees
were
granted
it's
for
a
you
know,
an
area
with
they
would
have
a
great
park,
but
it
was,
it
was
the
the
highest
per
person
impact
fee
for
local
parks
in
the
city.
D
B
E
D
I
think
it
was
just
and
ann
can
speak
to
the
math
of
it,
but
I
think
it
was
just
the
relative
cost
and
scale
of
the
park
relative
to
the
projected
growth.
E
It's
it's
not
that
different.
I
mean,
I
think.
In
october
we
had
southeast
1500,
southwestern,
20s,
1233
west
bench
at
1207.,
north
river,
there's
not
as
much
in
the
plan
and
central
bench
there's
not
as
much
in
the
plan,
so
those
larger,
perhaps
growing
faster
areas-
yeah,
it's
just
if
we
didn't
put,
you
know,
4.8
million
in
each
of
them.
Equally.
I
think
that
that
amount
for
alta
harris
was
just
slightly
higher
or
was
being
divided
by
slightly
less
growth,
depending
on
and
and
yes,
that
we
don't.
G
E
I
I
would
believe
that
the
growth
projections
that
I
put
in
originally
that
came
from
compass,
probably
pretty
accurate
to
the
build
out
of
the
the
pud
or
the
special
use
plan
in
harris
ranch.
D
Yes,
I
mean,
I
guess
you
know
what
we'll
we
can
do,
obviously,
whatever
the
committee
recommends.
So
I
think
at
this
point
the
questions
are,
you
know:
do
we
go
back
to
what
was
in
there
last
month
for
alba
harris?
Do
we
do
that
for
both
regional
and
local?
D
D
I
mean
obviously
we're
not
collecting
at
all
it's
over
10
years,
but
you
know
we're
not
setting
a
fee
day,
one
based
on
costs
that
are
uncertain
and
could
be
overstated,
or
do
we
kind
of
split
the
difference
and
go
with
something,
that's
closer
to
just
the
green
up
costs
and
I'm
agnostic,
just
whatever
the
committee
recommends.
A
A
B
Yeah
the
reason
we're
in
this
boat
right
now
is
because
we
under
collected
in
the
last
period
we
couldn't
build
alta
harris
the
last
time
we
did
it.
I
don't
want
to
be
in
that
same
boat
five
years
down
the
road
thinking
and
for
the
southeast
part
and
alta
harris
is
still
not
done.
I'm
much
more
comfortable,
reverting
back
to
the
amount
that
was
in
though
I
do
know
it
increases
significantly.
F
D
Any
discussion
just
a
point
of
clarification.
Sorry,
is
that
for
regional
and
local,
or
are
you
only
focused
right
now
on
making
sure
we're
capturing
that
local
portion,
because
there
was
a
like
a
800
000
difference
on
the
regional
as
well.
B
A
All
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye,
aye
aye,
any
nation.
All
right
motion
is
passed.
D
Great
thank
you
on
to
the
the
ultimate
topic
and,
as
in
last,
not
being
most
important
so
and
our
meeting
last
month.
You
know
there
was
a
couple
of
things
that
we
talked
about
when
it
came
to
the
methodology.
D
You
know.
One
of
the
things
that
we
we
talked
about
were
you
know,
was
the
the
five
persons
were
in
the
largest
size
category?
Could
we
combine
the
top
two
size
categories
and
then
the
other
thing
that
wasn't
discussed
in
the
media
was
discussed
in
a
prior
meeting
was
at
one
point,
we'd
gone
from
about
32
percent
up
to
like
a
52
multi-family
development
over
10
years
and
looking
at
the
actual,
and
that
was
based
on
some
information
that
david
provided.
D
I'm
sorry,
kerry
jorgensen
had
provided
on
permits,
but
when
we
went
back
and
actually
looked
at
what
the
city
had
had
been
pulled
in
the
city
over
the
last
five
years,
it
averaged
about
42
percent.
D
The
one-year
sample
that
I
pulled
to
come
up
with
all
these
allocations
across
the
various
size
categories
also
worked
out
to
about
42
percent
so
and-
and
the
chair
did
address
this
in
his
comments
too-
that
he
was
okay
with
this,
but
moving
that
multi-family
split
down
to
42
percent,
which
obviously
changes.
D
This
total
size
growth
that
we
have
across
the
city
which
changes
the
square
foot
per
person
and
then
that
gets
into
you
know
the
discussion
we
had
last
week,
which
is
coming
up
with
new,
possibly
new
size
categories
and
for
certain
more
different
persons
for
household
assumptions.
D
So
the
issue
with
the
one
person
per
household
that
we
talked
about
in
the
small
size
category
is
that
it
resulted
in
a
lot
of
people
in.
D
We
have
a
population
growth
of
30,
000
people,
and
that
means
it's
roughly
756
square
foot
per
person
which
does
result
in
slightly
less
than
one
person
per
adu,
but
it
gets
us
a
lot
closer
to
one
than
we
were
before
and
the
other
advantage
of
doing
this
is
it
takes
that
larger
size
category
down
to
below
five
people
per
household,
as
opposed
to
the
you
know,
I
think
5.72
that
we
were
at
before,
and
it's
still
based
on
again
the
the
build
permits
that
we
saw
over
the
last
year.
D
You
know
plus
or
minus
two
and
a
half
percent.
It's
going
to
result
in
full
population
growth
capture,
in
other
words,
we'll
be
collecting
enough
impact
fees
relative
to
the
population
growth
and
just
to
give
you
a
slide
that
will
make
your
head
spin
just
to
quickly
walk
through
this.
So
this
is
the
current
methodology
up
top
and
you
can
see
that
the
square
foot
per
person
inconsistent,
the
the
persons
per
household
is
a
relatively
tight
band,
but
it
also
has
that
.63
per
in
the
adu
sized
units.
D
What
we
discussed
last
month
made
the
square
foot
per
person
consistent,
set
the
the
least
number
of
people's
per
household
at
one,
but
that
resulted
in
going
up
to
5.7
for
the
largest
categories
and
the
interesting
thing
is-
and
the
chair
pointed
this
out
and
some
email
correspondence
that
I
had
with
them
between
meetings-
is
that
these
larger
units
really
don't
get
that
much
utilization,
and
I
forget,
if
it
it
might
have
been.
I
forget
if
it
was
the
chair,
if
it
was
corbin
last
month,
it
suggested
well.
D
D
D
It
gives
you
very
close
to
one
person
in
an
adu
and
it
gives
you
a
significant
reduction
versus
what
we
were
looking
at
last
time
at
the
5.7
gets
you
down
to
4.81
in
the
in
the
largest
units.
D
So
that
was
the
the
change
in
methodology
and
again
I'd,
say
it's
more
of
a
tweak
based
on
our
discussions
last
week
versus
a
change.
You
know,
but
are
there
any
questions
on
on
this
part
of
the
impact
fee
plan.
E
A
This
one
yep,
so
I
mean
in
the
end,
that's
the
number
that's
going
to
be
scrutinized
by
people
and
I
do
feel
that's
there's
a
good
reason.
It
got
to
it
the
growth
of
how
many
square
feet
we're
building
divided
by
population
growth.
I
mean,
I
feel,
that's
fair.
Obviously,
you'll
probably
find
some
people
that
could
go.
Oh
you
should
have
done
it
a
better
way
but
find
a
way,
and
I
think.
E
A
A
D
B
A
B
Any
discussion
on
that
it
is
certainly
defensible
to
have
sort
of
a
linear
model.
The
756
feet
per
square
foot
per
person
seems
reasonable.
You
could
make
a
logical
argument
that
we
ought
to
be
following
something
more
like
a
logarithmic
model.
The
populations
really
fit
that
that
method
a
little
bit
better,
but
given
that
we
have
to
choose
a
methodological
choice,
I
think
this
one
is
defensible
and
I
like
it.
D
Great
so
and
I'll
put
mary
on
the
spot,
and
I
I
apologize
because
I
should
have
discussed
this
with
her
beforehand.
Since
we've
approved
all
the
components.
Do
we
need
to
have
a
final
motion
that
just
says?
Okay,
sorry,
for
the
record,
she
shook
her
head
now.
D
Okay,
all
right
great
well,
that
was
all
I
had.
You
know
I
appreciate
very
much
everyone's
help
over
the
last
feels
feels
like
it's
been
longer,
but
I
think
it's
only
been
five
or
six
months
to
get
here.
Much
appreciated
the
questions
help
make
it
a
better
plan.
So
we
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
B
A
Well
then,
I
believe
that
finishes
up
our
meeting
today.
Can
I
get
a
move
to
adjourn.