D
ATTENDEES : Mary Berent, City of Middleton, Chair
Brian Billingsley, City of Caldwell
Matt Ellsworth, City of Meridian
Jorge Garcia, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Norm Holm, City of Nampa
Leon Jensen, Canyon County Development
For Bonnie Ford-LeCompte
Kathy Knapp, for Tim Richard, Association of Canyon
County Highway Districts
Susan Mason, Boise State University
Christy Richardson, Ada County Highway District
Eric Shannon, Chamber of Commerce-Canyon County
Mary Shaw Taylor, City of Star
Deanna Smith, Public Participation Committee
Jenah Thornborrow, City of Garden City
MEMBERS ABSENT :
Leslie Toombs, Ada County Development Services
Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, Vice Chair
Stacey Yarrington, City of Kuna
OTHERS PRESENT :
Nichoel Baird Spencer, City of Eagle
Kelli Fairless, Valley Regional Transit
Paul Hiller, Chamber of Commerce-Ada County
Barr Smith, Idaho Power Company
Jennifer Tomlinson, City of Boise
CALL TO ORDER :
Eric Adolfson, COMPASS
Phil Choate, Idaho Transportation Department
Rick Domas, CH2M Hill
Joe Guenther, CH2M Hill
Ryan Head, COMPASS
Carl Miller, COMPASS
Marilyn Sampson, COMPASS
Timothy Wagner, CH2M Hill
Chair Mary Berent called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.

AGENDA ADDITIONS / CHANGES
None.
OPEN DISCUSSION / ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mike Wardle moved and Jenah Thornborrow seconded approval of the August 16, 2007
Minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
I
NFORMATION
/D
ISCUSSION
I
TEMS
A. Review Infill Land Survey
Carl Miller introduced the Infill Land Survey and reviewed the maps regarding infill and redevelopment of residential properties. The purpose is two-fold:
1. The land use model (UPlan) requires input of redevelopment properties:
 This can be derived from properties that are under-utilized and could be redeveloped at a higher density.
 It is important to identify those properties and get a realistic anticipation of redevelopment for the land use model.
2. A requested buildout requires:
 A realistic look at what areas can be redeveloped to meet their zoning potential; and
 Properties not used to their zoning potential are identified.
Mike Wardle said typically there are 3½ to 4 units on a standard subdivision acre. The additional capacity of 4-8 units is probably functionally impossible to redevelop. A trend density as well as a maximum capacity should be considered.
Leslie Toombs stated that zoning is not a good indicator because many of the rezones have development agreements limiting what goes into those areas and zoning is constantly changing.
Improvement to land values would be the most useful.
Carl Miller said he would implement the feedback into the land use model and buildout scenario. While this activity focused on Ada County maps, Canyon County would also be reviewed.
B. Guidance on Homebuyers Report
Carl Miller explained the Homebuyers Survey provided information about purchasers of residential properties in the area and additional research is necessary and asked for Committee input to identify which study would be most beneficial:
 a construction report,
 development of an economic model,
 report on housing diversity and affordability,
 an infill and redevelopment survey,

 a survey and report on the retirement population, or,
 a vacancy rate survey.
Committee comments were:
 A report on housing diversity and affordability showing patterns would be a natural transition from the Homebuyers Report. Although the economic model sounds good it will deplete the available funds before completion.
 The economic model would be helpful because it most closely approximates finding out where people are actually living and where they are working.
C. Guidance on Performance Monitoring Quarterly Report
Carl Miller stated the annual Performance Monitoring Report evaluates how we’re making progress towards the Communities In Motion goals. COMPASS will be providing quarterly updates to the report and would like Committee input on options:
 Option 1 is quarterly updates which would track changes since the last quarter. This would provide consistency, frequency and be automated.
 Option 2 would provide updates in a thematic approach. Each theme would be more comprehensive and provide more meaningful results.
Leslie Toombs preferred the themed approach and asked about increased costs. Carl Miller said most costs would be absorbed because the data is updated on an ongoing basis.
Matt Ellsworth asked how much change was expected on a quarterly basis. Carl Miller said some data would see change on a quarterly basis, but some data would not change and there would be very little to report on.
Mary Shaw Taylor preferred a combination of Option 1 and Option 2. Carl Miller said it would increase staff time and the report would become larger, but that is an option.
Susan Mason asked if these reports could complement other reports COMPASS provides instead of duplicating information. Mary Berent commented that COMPASS is starting to look more globally at all the studies that are being done and eliminate overlap.
D. Review CIM Implementation Guidebook
The CIM Implementation Guidebook is a tool to provide strategy for implementing Communities
in Motion. COMPASS is requesting specific comments to Carl Miller or John Cunningham by
November 17, 2007. The comments will be implemented into the revision.
E. Update on 2010 Census LUCA
Carl Miller provided an update on the status of the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) stating the concept was taken to the Regional Geographic Advisory Committee (RGAC) who voted to coordinate with local agencies to update the census addresses. Most member agencies indicated that COMPASS will take the lead role in reviewing those addresses and they will review the corrections at RGAC meetings. Carl said RGAC will be the lead committee in

updating the addresses. DAC will be review demographic trends after the 2010 Census results have been tabulated.
Jenah Thornborrow asked about confidentiality issues. Carl Miller responded that a signed confidentially agreement is required to allow agencies to review the corrections and provide input to the LUCA program.
O THER
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting is scheduled for January 31, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 9:40 a.m.