**AGENDA** III. CONSENT AGENDA 10:50 *A. Approve November 28, 2012 DAC Minutes pages 2-5 J. Lowe

Transcription

1 DEMOGRAPHIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 27, :45 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION COMPASS Board Meeting Room, 1 st Floor 700 N. East 2nd Street, Suite 200 Meridian, ID Notice: This packet contains only the documents listed with an asterisk (*) in the agenda. The entire packet, including all attachments is available at The online document requires Adobe Acrobat to read it; COMPASS homepage contains a free download link if you need a copy. The online document includes bookmarks at the left of the screen that are named to correspond to agenda items that have attachments. Clicking on a bookmark will take you directly to the named document. **AGENDA** I. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES 10:45 II. OPEN DISCUSSION/ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA 10:50 *A. Approve November 28, 2012 DAC Minutes pages 2-5 J. Lowe IV. ACTION ITEMS 10:55 *A. Elect 2013 Demographic Advisory Committee (DAC) Chair and Vice Chair page 6 11:05 *B. Recommend Approval of 2013 Population Estimates pages 7-9 J. Lowe C. Miller 11:20 *C. Recommend Approval of Smoothed Urbanized Area pages S. Moreno/C. Miller V. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS 11:30 *A. Comprehensive Plans/Zoning Buildout Evaluations pages C. Trainor 11:40 *B Development Monitoring Report pages S. Moreno 11:50 *C. Discuss Census Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) page 17 11:55 *D. Review Demographic Advisory Committee Bylaws pages :57 E. Debrief of Census Workshop C. Miller/I. Shives C. Miller VI. OTHER 11:59 A. The next DAC meeting Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 1:30 P.M. VII. ADJOURNMENT 12:00 *Enclosures Times are approximate. Agenda is subject to change. T:\FY13\800 System Maintenance\820 Committee Support\DAC\Agendas\Agenda docx 1

2 ITEM III-A DEMOGRAPHIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 28, 2012, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Meridian, ID ATTENDEES: **MINUTES** Nichoel Baird Spencer, City of Eagle Brian Billingsley, City of Caldwell, Vice Chair Brent Danielson, Ada County Development Services Chris Findlay, Ada County Development Community Wendy Howell, City of Kuna Kathy Knapp, County Highway District Jeff Lowe, Ada County Highway District, Chair Brian McClure for Caleb Hood, City of Meridian Carl Miller, COMPASS Jennifer Tomlinson, City of Boise Mark Wasdahl, Idaho Transportation Department MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Barker, Valley Regional Transit Chris Collins, City of Notus Chris Danley, Public Participation Committee Norm Holm, City of Nampa Dan Hunter, Canyon County Development Services Samia Islam, Boise State University Jana Jones, Chamber of Commerce-Ada County Tracy Kasper, Chamber of Commerce-Canyon County Christy Little, Ada County Highway District David Luft, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Nathan Mitchell, Mayor, City of Star Eric Shannon, Nampa Highway District No.1 Brad Snow, Idaho Power Company Jenah Thornborrow, City of Garden City OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Moreno, COMPASS MaryAnn Waldinger, COMPASS Jessica Wilson, COMPASS CALL TO ORDER: Chair Lowe called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES None. 1 2

3 OPEN DISCUSSION/ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve August 8, 2012 Meeting Minutes Brian Billingsley moved and Nichoel Baird Spencer seconded approval of the August 8, 2012 meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Receive Results for Incremental Allocation Carl Miller and MaryAnn Waldinger stated that COMPASS staff has developed an incremental forecast based on the approved CIM 2040 forecast. Incremental forecasts applied a rule-based approach by including recently issued residential building permits (June 2010 through December 2011), committed inventory (preliminary plats and vacant platted lots) and remaining growth basically, whatever is left to reach the 2040 household allocation. Once households are allocated at each increment they are multiplied by persons per household rate to calculate population. Incremental job forecasts were based on the level of growth between 2010 and 2040 by category retail, office, industrial, government, agriculture (decrease) and education jobs. Incremental forecasts do not need Board approval. B. Discuss Growth Tracking and Monitoring MaryAnn Waldinger said that in an effort to improve the collection and improve the quality of the preliminary plat data process, COMPASS staff is working on an end-ofyear data reconciliation process to make sure COMPASS has the most accurate preliminary plat data as possible. Staff is seeking feedback on some proposed processes related to this effort. COMPASS is organizing a system of tracking data to be used by the public, stakeholders, and the COMPASS Board. Main components of this reporting suite include: Communities in Motion 2040 Dashboard: an online, dynamic reporting system of the Communities in Motion 2040 performance metrics, including growth tracking, census data, and congestion management data. Communities in Motion 2040 Forecast Comparison: a TAZ-level accounting of growth and comparison to the Communities in Motion 2040 Forecast. Development Monitoring Report: an overview of development activity using building permit information collected from local jurisdictions. Performance Monitoring Report: a report that summarizes and evaluates factors to depict progress on meeting goals of the CIM plan. The Committee had no recommendations to staff, feedback was all positive comments. 2 3

4 C. Review Urbanized Area Carl Miller and Scott Moreno said that COMPASS is looking for direction on the adjusted or smoothed Urbanized Area boundary and will request a recommendation at a future DAC meeting. These adjustments do not change the Census Bureau designations or population figures. The proposed adjusted or smoothed Urbanized Area must include the Urbanized Area at a minimum. Adjustments to urbanized area boundaries must be approved by June 1, After discussion the Committee recommended COMPASS staff to bring a map, demonstrating the 2000 smoothed boundary and the 2010 official boundary at the next DAC meeting. D. Review Environmental Justice Walt Satterfield stated that Presidential Executive Order (February 1994) requires that every agency utilizing Federal funds consider Environmental Justice as part of its mission. There are three fundamental environmental justice principles: To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations. The two populations considered in Environmental Justice are minority and low income. COMPASS Methodology: The following methodology has been used by COMPASS since 2003 to determine Special Consideration Areas in Ada and Canyon Counties. These are areas with high percentages of minority and/or low-income populations. COMPASS has used block group or tract level data for this analysis, depending on available data sources. Minority/Ethnicity Those areas having above-average percentages of minority or ethnic populations compared to the county average. Low-Income Those areas with at least half of the households earning 60% of the county median household income or below. The Committee said that block group data is the most consistent and useful. E. Discuss Census and Demographics Workshop Carl Miller stated that COMPASS staff has arranged for three training sessions from the United States Census Bureau, intended for different audiences: Monday, February 25, 2013, 1:30pm, presentation to the COMPASS Board, COMPASS Board Room. Monday, February 25, 2013, 7pm, presentation as part of the 2013 COMPASS Education Series, COMPASS Board Room. 3 4

5 Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 9am, hands-on training in census programs and tools. Participants will be requested to bring a laptop and wifi will be available, COMPASS Board Room. COMPASS staff is looking for feedback to the content of the hands-on training. The census bureau offers the following training modules with each lasting approximately 1/2 to 1 hour: American Community Survey American FactFinder Data Tool Census 2010 Data and Products Census 101 Current Population Survey/Survey of Program Participation DataFerrett Data Tool Economic Census and Program Geographic Entities and Concepts Governments Data (State, Local and Tax Revenue) Housing Data Local Employment Dynamics Population Estimates and Projections The Committee asked for a half day workshop, and to address GIS usable format. Carl Miller said that the speaker will be providing informational material to take home. F. Review Demographic Advisory Committee Bylaws Carl Miller said that at the previous DAC meeting it was decided to review the current bylaws for any changes. Discussion: Include other organizations i.e.; realtors, IMAP program, banks, and Intermountain Gas, BCA. Send letter to staff member, not to the elected official, if not regularly attending meetings. Add review of development data. OTHER Next DAC meeting: February 27, 2013, at COMPASS. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Nichoel Baird Spencer moved and Brian Billingsley seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 3:19 p.m. T:\FY13\800 System Maintenance\820 Committee Support\DAC\Minutes\112812Minutes.docx 4 5

6 Item IV-A Demographic Advisory Committee The Demographic Advisory Committee (DAC) is responsible for demographic and development monitoring activities conducted at COMPASS, including recommendation of projects and/or research to be performed and evaluation of research proposals requested by COMPASS or other agencies. The committee helps develop and maintain the demographic projection data for Ada and Canyon Counties as used by COMPASS for transportation modeling activities. Representatives are from public and private agency staff concerned with demographic and related issues in Ada and Canyon Counties. Member Agency Participants Votes Ada County Development Services Brent Danielson 3 Ada County Highway District Christy Little 3 Jeff Lowe Boise State University Michail Fragkias 1 Canyon County Development Services Dan Hunter 3 Capital City Development Corporation Vacant 1 Canyon Highway District No. 4 Kathy Knapp 2 City of Boise Bruce Eggleston 3 Patricia Nilsson Jennifer Tomlinson City of Caldwell Brian Billingsley 2 City of Eagle Nichoel Baird Spencer 1 City of Garden City Jenah Thornborrow 1 City of Kuna Wendy Howell 1 City of Meridian Brian McClure 2 City of Middleton Darin Taylor 1 City of Nampa Norm Holm 2 City of Star Nathan Mitchell 1 Idaho Department of Environmental David Luft 1 Quality Idaho Transportation Department Mark Wasdahl 1 Nampa Highway District No. 1 Eric Shannon 1 Public Participation Committee Chris Danley 1 Valley Regional Transit Mary Barker 1 Ex officio Member Participants Chamber of Commerce Ada County Mark Tate N/A Chamber of Commerce Canyon Tracy Kasper N/A County COMPASS Carl Miller N/A Development Community Ada Greg Manship N/A County Development Community Canyon Chris Findlay N/A County Major Utilities (Idaho Power Company) Brad Snow N/A T:\FY13\800 System Maintenance\820 Committee Support\Membership Lists\2013 Committee Membership Lists\Demographic Advisory Committee.docx 6

7 MEMORANDUM ITEM IV-B TO: FROM: Demographic Advisory Committee Carl Miller, Principal Planner DATE: February 27, 2013 RE: Recommend Approval 2013 Population Estimates ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend approval of the 2013 population estimates. BACKGROUND: Local population estimates have a multitude of uses and an importance to policy makers, planners, and the public. These include being used as an indicator of an economic situation; for planning and evaluating many government programs, and for land development impacts on the transportation network. COMPASS develops population estimates for city and county jurisdictions in Ada and Canyon Counties. Since 1990, COMPASS has used a Housing Unit Method estimation model to update population estimates. This method is based on the premise that changes in the number of occupied housing units reflect changes in the population. This estimation process is broken into three distinct parts: geographic boundary modification, housing unit estimation, and household population estimation. STATUS: The 2010 Census population figures provide the base on which to estimate inter-decennial population estimates. The COMPASS Housing Unit Method of population estimates is calculated as: Current City Population = (Decennial Census Population + Population of Census Blocks Annexed) + (New Residential Units Permitted * HH Size by Demographic Area * Residential Occupancy Rate by Demographic Area) Household sizes and the residential occupancy rates are derived from the 2010 decennial data by demographic area. While 2011 American Community Survey data is not available for post-decennial census years, is only available at larger geographies, and has wide margins of error. Previous COMPASS population estimates can be found at: The DAC is requested to recommend the 2013 population estimate for the COMPASS Board. The COMPASS Board will be meeting on March 19, pc: Growth and Transportation System Monitoring CM:jw T:\FY12\600 Projects\620 Growth Trans Monitoring\Population\dacmmo-PopEst docx 7

8 2010 Population ** Increase Share of Region 2013 Percent of County Population* 2012 Population Ada Boise City 209, , ,671 1, % 43.0% 35.4% 35.0% Eagle 21,350 20,550 19, % 2.6% 3.4% 3.6% Garden City 11,070 11,020 10, % 2.5% 1.9% 1.8% Kuna 15,960 15,650 15, % 1.2% 2.6% 2.7% Meridian 81,380 78,290 75,092 3, % 8.1% 12.9% 13.6% Star*** 6,480 6,030 5, % 0.4% 1.0% 1.1% Unincorporated 60,930 60,400 59, % 11.9% 10.3% 10.2% Total County 406, , ,365 7, % 67.5% 67.8% Canyon Caldwell 47,580 46,800 46, % 6.0% 8.0% 7.9% Greenleaf ** % 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Melba % 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Middleton 5,860 5,630 5, % 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% Nampa 83,840 82,160 81,557 1, % 12.0% 14.0% 14.0% Notus % 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Parma 1,990 1,990 1, % 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% Wilder 1,530 1,530 1, % 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Unincorporated 50,270 50,390 50, % 10.6% 8.6% 8.4% Total County 192, , ,923 2, % 32.5% 32.2% Canyon and Ada C 599, , ,288 9,770 *2013 COMPASS Population Estimate **2010 Census Population Count *** The City of Star has 21 persons in Canyon County Population Estimate City and County Population Estimate for April 1, 2013 Areas Refer to Corporate Limits of Cities as of 1/1/2013 8

9 Year Boise Eagle Population Estimates by City Limits Ada County Garden City Kuna Meridian Star Unincorpor ated ,700 21,350 11,070 15,960 81,380 6,480 60, , ,730 20,550 11,020 15,650 78,290 6,030 60, , ,470 20,140 10,980 15,470 76,510 5,900 60, , (Census) 205,671 19,908 10,972 15,210 75,092 5,793 59, , ,630 21,370 12,670 15,900 75,290 6,110 61, , ,490 21,090 12,580 14,830 73,040 5,690 60, , ,503 20,951 12,352 14,261 71,866 5,548 57, , ,473 20,131 12,074 12,647 66,565 4,594 55, , ,219 18,428 11,914 10,587 56,108 3,028 53, , ,062 16,418 11,675 9,696 47,690 2,552 58, , ,931 14,144 11,589 8,649 42,481 2,243 58, , ,085 13,380 11,124 7,386 39,744 2,116 56, , (Census) 185,787 11,085 10,624 5,382 34,919 1,795 51, , ,327 7,923 9,659 4,007 28,679 1,378 52, , ,258 7,246 9,087 3,398 26,421 1,195 51, , ,647 6,590 9,018 2,919 24, , , ,493 6,236 8,769 2,584 21, , , ,443 5,405 7,891 2,246 18, , , ,996 4,669 7,082 2,065 16, , , (Census) 125,738 3,327 6,369 1,955 9,596 est , , (Census) 102,451 2,620 4,571 1,767 6,658 n/a 54, , (Census) 74,990 n/a 2,368 n/a 2,616 n/a 32, , (Census) 34,481 n/a 1,681 n/a 2,081 n/a 55,217 93, (Census) 34,393 n/a 764 n/a n/a n/a 35,492 70, (Census) 26,130 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24,271 50, (Census) 21,544 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 16,381 37, (Census) 21,393 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 13,820 35, (Census) 17,358 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 11,730 29, (Census) 5,957 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5,602 11, (Census) 2,311 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6,327 8, (Census) 1,899 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,775 4, (Census) 995 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,680 2,675 Canyon County Year Caldwell Greenleaf Melba Middleton Nampa Notus Parma Wilder Unincorpora Total , ,860 83, ,990 1,530 t d 50, , , ,630 82, ,990 1,530 50, , , ,600 81, ,990 1,530 50, , (Census) 46, ,524 81, ,983 1,533 50, , , ,870 82, ,060 1,740 51, , , ,560 81, ,030 1,710 51, , , ,151 81, ,996 1,682 51, , , ,575 76, ,921 1,582 51, , , ,166 72, ,891 1,502 50, , , ,868 67, ,851 1,491 49, , , ,606 63, ,808 1,484 49, , , ,235 58, ,792 1,481 48, , (Census) 25, ,978 51, ,771 1,462 45, , (Census) 18, ,851 28, ,597 1,232 37,165 90, (Census) 17,699 n/a 276 1,901 25, ,820 1,260 35,251 83, (Census) 14,219 n/a n/a n/a 20,768 n/a n/a n/a 26,301 61, (Census) 12,230 n/a n/a n/a 18,013 n/a 1,295 n/a 27,419 57, (Census) 10,487 n/a n/a n/a 16,185 n/a n/a n/a 26,925 53, (Census) 7,272 n/a n/a n/a 12,149 n/a n/a n/a 21,566 40, (Census) 4,974 n/a n/a n/a 8,206 n/a n/a n/a 17,750 30, (Census) 5,106 n/a n/a n/a 7,621 n/a n/a n/a 14,205 26, (Census) 3,543 n/a n/a n/a 4,205 n/a n/a n/a 17,575 25, (Census) 997 n/a n/a n/a 799 n/a n/a n/a 5,701 7, (Census) 779 n/a n/a n/a 347 n/a n/a n/a n/a est Total 9

10 MEMORANDUM ITEM IV-C TO: FROM: Demographic Advisory Committee Carl Miller, Principal Planner DATE: February 27, 2013 RE: Recommend Adjusted (Smoothed) Urbanized Areas ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend approval of the adjusted (smoothed) urbanized areas. BACKGROUND: The Census Bureau designates a new list of Urbanized Areas (UZAs) every 10 years, following the conclusion of each decennial census. The designation of UZAs by the U.S. Census Bureau has significant implications for the metropolitan planning process. The following FHWA Programs distinguish between urban and rural areas: Distribution of Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds: STP funds are split between large urban (TMA), small urban, and rural. STP- TMA funds can be obligated on projects within the planning area boundary. Expanding the UZA does not affect the amount of funds received that is still based on the population within the Census designated UZA. Highway Functional Classification: The highway functional classification system distinguishes both by type of roadway facility and whether the facility is located in an urban or rural area. Expanding the boundary of urban areas within the state may change some rural minor collectors to urban collectors, making them eligible as federal aid highways. However, the impact on apportionment of federal aid funding is insignificant. These adjustments do not change the Census Bureau designations or population figures. The proposed adjusted or smoothed UZA must include the UZA at a minimum. Adjustments to UZA boundaries must be approved by June 1, STATUS: COMPASS is looking for a recommendation on the adjusted or smoothed UZA boundary and will request approval of the COMPASS Board at a future meeting. Attachments: (1) pc: Growth and Transportation System Monitoring CM:jw T:\FY13\600 Projects\620 Growth Trans Monitoring\Census\Urban Area\dacmmo-UrbanArea docx 10

11 Proposed 2010 Urbanized Area Middleton Star Eagle Caldwell G ar de n Ci ty Meridian Boise Nampa Kuna Railroads Area of Impact Roads Regional_Centerline Proposed 2010 Urbanized Area Miles S:\PROJECTS\Maps\WebMaps\Ada-Can\bi-county_uaE.mxd 11

12 ITEM V-A MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Demographic Advisory Committee Charles Trainor, Principal Planner DATE: February 27, 2013 RE: Comprehensive Plan Review Action Requested: Review process to identify transportation needs tied to comprehensive plans and zoning. Background: At the December 11, 2012, the Blueprint for Good Growth Consortium (Ada County elected officials) requested some next steps to integrate land use and transportation in terms of adequate public facilities. What are the issues in comprehensive plan changes? How can infrastructure planning and programming be tied better to comprehensive plans? How are impact fees related to these needs? Tracking comprehensive plans and plan changes and evaluating them in terms of the approved growth scenario used for Communities in Motion 2040 is also a task assigned to DAC under its bylaws, specifically (DAC) shall review demographic assumptions, other pertinent development data and comprehensive plan updates on an annual basis to recommend improvements to the demographic process. (Article III.3) Status: Attached is a two page assessment of what has been done to date and potential next steps. The next steps are broken into two phases. The first phase could be done in FY2014 as part of member services under Task 701. The second phase would entail more staff time and has options to integrate the findings into comprehensive plans. This would likely need to occur in FY2015 following adoption of Communities in Motion Findings could be used to supplement Communities in Motion Attachment 1 pc: File 761 CT:jw T:\FY13\800 System Maintenance\820 Committee Support\DAC\Packets\dac buildout evaluation.docx 12

13 What has been done to date? A proposed adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) was developed for the Blueprint for Good Growth project by consultant Michael Lauer during It was not endorsed by the Technical/Steering Committee, which recommended a re-evaluation of the APFO process, with the intent to start with the comprehensive plans as the primary level of evaluation. This was presented to the Consortium in September 2008, and the Consortium directed additional work on the issues in conjunction with the Transportation Land Use Integration Project. A buildout analysis of comprehensive plans was initiated in 2009 and completed in early (See discussion below.) The buildout calculation was revised in June 2012 in coordination with the scenario planning process. An existing and approved development inventory process was reviewed and improved during A transportation influence area process was developed for use in traffic impact studies. This helps address interjurisdictional issues. A recent development review by COMPASS generated a comment by the local agency staff person that, if the development proposal was consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning, then approval was very likely. Lack of road capacity may not be a major factor in the agency s decision. This dovetails with comments made by participants on the BGG Technical/Steering Committee during the APFO development in late 2008 that initiating the APFO process during a specific development application is too late in the process. The developers may acquire land (options) and make investments based on the comprehensive plan and zoning. It also echoes the concerns voiced by the Technical/Steering Committee that comprehensive plans should be an integral part of any consideration. The current Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) process for the Ada County Highway District is based on growth forecasts developed by COMPASS for a year horizon. Note that under Idaho law impact fees must be based on a maximum 20- year forecast of growth. (Idaho Code (h)) The most recent forecast was for 2040, with a two county population of 1.05 million and employment of 462,000. But land use plans are not necessarily calculated for a 20 year horizon. In COMPASS conducted a quantitative analysis of the buildout of collective comprehensive plans in consultation with local agencies to interpret each comprehensive plan in terms of density by proposed use. This process resulted in a buildout population of 2.7 million, with no target date for when that growth would occur. Buildout employment was estimated at 1.7 million. The buildout for comprehensive plans was not tested for detailed transportation implications, however. No estimate of buildout was done for zoning. 13

14 Next steps 1st Stage The disparity between COMPASS 2040 forecast and buildout under comprehensive plans creates challenges for land use and transportation agencies when considering unplanned growth and extraordinary impact fees. Next steps could be: 1. Update the comprehensive plan buildout to reflect recent development approvals and comprehensive plan revisions. 2. Create a zoning buildout in consultation with land use agencies to provide densities for each zoning category. 3. Evaluate effects of these buildout estimates on arterial and higher transportation facilities in the region, with the following transportation scenarios: a. Existing and committed (including road and transit services funding under the Transportation Improvement Program) b. ACHD programmed improvements under its CIP c. VRT Valleyconnect d. Full implementation of Communities in Motion 2040 (CIM2040). 4. Given the extent of potential growth in areas lacking a well-defined roadway network, it may be necessary to create additional networks to obtain more reasonable results. This is of special concern in areas in southern Ada and Canyon Counties and foothills areas in the northern part of the region. 5. Compare traffic volumes for buildouts with the 2040 forecast. 6. Evaluate the identified deficiencies in terms of where funded improvements are planned (TIP, CIPs, etc.). Workday estimate: 45 workdays (Could be done under Task 701 or defer to FY2015.) Next steps 2nd Stage 7. Develop costs for facilities and services needed to address deficiencies. 8. Work with cities and counties to include these buildout estimates and transportation implications in their comprehensive plans. Cities and counties could expand the buildout implications to include other services such as water, sewer, solid waste, etc. 9. Cities and counties could categorize their land use plans in terms of: a. Within 20 years (growth limit for impact fee calculation) b. 21+ years (Not in impact fee calculation) 10. Include the buildout system as long-term preservation needs in CIM2040. Due to complexity of cost evaluations and specification of appropriate investments, the 2 nd Stage would be initiated in FY2015. All work would be reviewed through existing COMPASS committees, notably the Regional Technical Advisory Committee (RTAC) and the Demographic Advisory Committee (DAC). T:\FY13\700 Services\761 Blueprint for Good Growth\Consortium\packets\Feb 28\buildout evaluation.docx 14

15 ITEM V-B MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Demographic Advisory Committee Scott Moreno, Assistant Planner DATE: February 27, 2013 RE: Review 2012 Development Monitoring Report BACKGROUND: COMPASS collects building permit information from the city and county jurisdictions in the Treasure Valley and then compiles the data into an annual Development Monitoring Report. COMPASS also produces a shorter mid-year report that summarizes building permit activity for the first six months of the year and compares the data to activity for the same period last year. Building permits are tabulated at several levels of geography, including city limits, area of impact, demographic area, and traffic analysis zones. In addition, permits are geocoded, enabling staff to make maps of permit activity and prepare more detailed analyses of specific geographical areas when needed. Tables in the report show both residential and non-residential permits. New residential units are the most frequently used data; the report categorizes them into single family, multi-family, and mobile or manufactured home units. Residential addition or remodel permits are not included. Non-residential permits are separated into two main categories: new construction or additions and changes in use. Non-residential permits are further broken down into groups of commercial, industrial and public/quasi public permits. Tenant improvement permits are only included when they show a clear change of land use affecting traffic. STATUS: The 2012 DMR, the historical permit data spreadsheet, previous DMR s, and permit shapefiles are available on the COMPASS website at: According to the attached figure and table from page 3 of the 2012 DMR, total new construction permits issued in 2012 were 2,877 compared to 1,648 permits issued in This is a 43 percent increase in total permits between 2011 and Attachment (1): Figure 1 and Table 1: Total New Construction Permits Issued by Year. SM:jw T:\FY13\600 Projects\620 Growth Trans Monitoring\DMR\DAC-DMR Memo22713.docx 15

16 Figure 1: Total New Construction Permits Total New Construction Permits Issued by Year 14, % 12,000 11,288 90% # of Permits Issued 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 6,281 6,421 6,863 7,957 8,018 4,533 2,701 1,943 1,698 1,648 2,877 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% County Percent of Regional Total Permits Canyon County Ada County Total Permits 0% Table 1: Total New Construction Permits Ada County 3,709 3,593 4,432 5,515 7,953 4,668 2,987 1,760 1,473 1,331 1,366 2,240 Canyon County 2,572 2,828 2,431 2,442 3,335 3,350 1, Ada County % 59% 56% 65% 69% 70% 58% 66% 65% 76% 78% 83% 78% Canyon County % 41% 44% 35% 31% 30% 42% 34% 35% 24% 22% 17% 22% Total Permits 6,281 6,421 6,863 7,957 11,288 8,018 4,533 2,701 1,943 1,698 1,648 2,877 T:\FY13\600 Projects\620 Growth Trans Monitoring\DMR\DAC DMR Memo.docx 16

17 MEMORANDUM ITEM V-C TO: FROM: Demographic Advisory Committee Carl Miller, Principal Planner and Ian Shives, Assistant Planner DATE: February 27, 2013 RE: Discuss Boundary and Annexation Survey ACTION REQUESTED: Information and discussion of the 2013 Census Bureau Boundary and Annexation Survey. BACKGROUND: The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) annually to collect information about legal boundaries and geographic areas. The BAS is used to update and tabulate data for the decennial and economic censuses, and annual estimates and surveys such as the Population Estimates Program and the American Community Survey. As a service to member agencies, COMPASS has prepared the BAS for member agencies for the last seven years. Workdays have been assigned in the current Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for the current fiscal year (thru September 2013) to assist in the effort. STATUS: COMPASS has begun the process of updating the Census BAS. COMPASS needs to know by Monday, April 1, 2013 if you would like COMPAS to prepare BAS materials for your community. The final deadline for BAS transmittal to the Census Bureau is Friday, May 31, pc: Growth and Transportation System Monitoring CM:jw T:\FY13\600 Projects\620 Growth Trans Monitoring\Census\BAS\dacmmo-BAS docx 17

18 DEMOGRAPHIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS (Approved as Amended January 23, 2006) Article I NAME The name of this committee shall be the Demographic Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as COMMITTEE of the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) Article II COMPOSITION Voting Representatives 1. The COMMITTEE shall be composed of voting representatives as indicated in Table 1. Representatives should have demographic, economic, land use planning, land use development or other relevant technical experience. A quorum shall consist of one-third + 1 of the voting representatives listed in Table 1. Presence may be established by physical attendance at the meeting or by attendance via telephone, Internet or other remote technologies. All meetings must occur in a physical place to allow public attendance. 2. Voting privileges shall be accorded to those current representatives from COMPASS member governments. Each COMMITTEE member representing a COMPASS member government shall have the same weight of votes as enjoyed by that member on the COMPASS Board under the Joint Powers Agreement. Voting members authorized under these bylaws and not representing a COMPASS member shall be entitled to one (1) vote. When entitled to more than one vote, the member s votes may be exercised by separate persons or by one or more persons representing the member government. 3. Non-member voting representatives authorized under these bylaws are: a. Chamber of Commerce Representative Ada County b. Chamber of Commerce Representative Canyon County c. Major Utilities Representative d. Development Community Ada County e. Development Community Canyon County 4. The COMPASS Public Participation Committee (PPC) shall be entitled to appoint one of its members to sit on DAC. The PPC representative shall have one vote. 5. Nominations of the COMPASS member agencies representatives shall be made by the member agency and annually approved by the COMPASS Board. Nominations of the non-member representatives shall be made by the COMPASS Executive Director and approved by the COMPASS Board. Non-Voting Representatives 1. Non-voting representatives may be appointed to the COMMITTEE at the discretion of the voting representatives. Their attendance does not count toward establishing a quorum. Non-voting representatives receive full packets and notice of meetings and are recognized as full participants in discussions. A COMPASS staff person shall be a permanent non-voting representative. 2. Agencies or individuals interested in participating as non-voting representatives may request consideration by the COMMITTEE via written application. The COMMITTEE shall have the authority to grant or deny such membership, providing that at no time shall the number of non-voting representatives exceed the number of voting representatives authorized under these BYLAWS. 18

19 Article III DUTIES 1. The COMMITTEE shall be responsible for demographic and development monitoring activities conducted at COMPASS. Specific responsibilities include recommending projects and/or research to be performed, and evaluating research proposals requested by COMPASS or other agencies. 2. The COMMITTEE shall develop and maintain the demographic projection data for Ada and Canyon counties as used by COMPASS for transportation modeling activities. Duties include analyzing local development data, monitoring such data in reference to the currently adopted data sets, and collecting and evaluating similar nationwide research. 3. The COMMITTEE shall review demographic assumptions, other pertinent development data and comprehensive plan updates on an annual basis to recommend improvements to the demographic process. The basis of evaluation will be the adequacy of the demographic projections with regard to countywide planning activities. 4. The COMMITTEE shall provide technical assistance when requested for purpose of assisting COMPASS or member agencies in demographic monitoring or Census projects. 5. The COMPASS Board may use the COMMITTEE for purposes of special projects and/or analyses. These can include, but are not limited to, review and/or comment on demographic assumptions for major development proposals, demographic assumption questions, and other special studies as needed. 6. The COMMITTEE shall be responsible for assisting COMPASS staff in the education of neighborhood groups, policy boards, and other public citizens groups about demographic projections and monitoring. Article IV ORGANIZATION 1. Voting representatives of the COMMITTEE shall elect a chair and a vice-chair from the voting membership at their first scheduled meeting of each calendar year. 2. The COMPASS shall provide administrative support staff for the COMMITTEE. 3. Subcommittees may be established by action of the COMMITTEE. Article V MEETINGS AND ATTENDANCE 1. The COMMITTEE shall meet on an as-needed basis, with the provision that at least two meetings are held during each fiscal year. 2. Reasonable advance notice of all meetings shall be given by the Chairman to all representatives. All meetings shall be open to the public. 3. If a member has three successive unexcused absences a notice of termination will be sent to the member and, where appropriate, to the director of the represented agency. For members not representing a COMPASS member agency, a new voting member will be appointed by the COMPASS Executive Director after consultation with the COMMITTEE, contingent upon confirmation by the COMPASS Board. When the termination involves a COMPASS member agency representative, the member agency will be requested to appoint a new representative. Until such time as an appointment has been made in writing, the vote of the terminated member shall not be considered in determining a quorum. 19

20 Article VI AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS 1. These BYLAWS may be amended by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of the voting representatives present at a meeting subject to approval by the COMPASS Board. A BYLAWS change shall be presented for consideration at a regularly scheduled meeting of the COMMITTEE, however, voting shall be deferred until the next regularly scheduled meeting at which the BYLAWS change was proposed. T:\FY06\900 Operations\990 Direct Operations-Maintenance\Policies\DAC_bylaws.doc 20