Management Assistant Tory Schlievert presented a brief history of the item. She referenced concerns regarding Senate Bill 1406. She noted that the tentative adoption date for this item was September 3, 2008 with an implementation date of December 2, 2008.
Yvonne Dawson of TischlerBise began with a brief background of her firm. Ms. Dawson noted that development fees were one time fees that represented the financial share of the capital facility needs of new growth. She stated that the fees could be used:
~For capacity expansions of capital facilities.
~To provide infrastructure for growth.
However, she noted that development fees could not be used:
~As a fundraising mechanism.
~To correct existing deficiencies.
~For operations and maintenance expenses.
She stated that the Town must demonstrate:
~Impact:
*Fees may only be used to mitigate conditions created by the development that is
assessed the development fees.
~Benefit:
*Fees must be segregated from other funds and spent on facilities for which the fees
were charged.
*Fees must be spent within a specific time frame.
~Proportionality:
*Fees must be proportional with demand created by new development.
Ms. Dawson presented the Police Development Fee Methodology as follows:
| 95% | 5% |
| Residential Development | Non-residential Development |
| Persons per Housing Unit by Housing Type | Vehicle Trips per 1,000 Square feet of floor area |
| Training and Property Identification Facility cost per person | Training and Property Identification Facility cost per Trip |
| Land for Police Facility cost per person | Land for Police Facility cost per Trip |
| Police Vehicles/Equipment cost per person | Police Vehicles/Equipment cost per Trip |
| Development Fee Study Cost per Person | Development Fee Study Cost per Trip |
The Police Input Variables were noted as follows:
~Persons per housing unit
~Weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet
~Weekday vehicle trip ends per room
~Trip adjustment factors
~Cost factors
The maximum Police Development Fees Total Capital cost per demand unit was $227.34 per person and $6.43 per trip.
Maximum Supportable Development Fee Amounts
| Residential | Per Housing Unit | Per 1,000 sq. ft. | Per Room |
| Single Family | $513 | | |
| All Other Housing | $305 | | |
| Non-residential | | | |
| Com/Shop Center 50,001-100,000 Sq. ft. | | $144 | |
| Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 Sq. ft. | | $ 50 | |
| Business Park | | $ 41 | |
| Light Industrial | | $ 22 | |
| Warehousing | | $ 16 | |
| Manufacturing | | $ 12 | |
| Lodging | | | $ 18 |
| | | |
| c. |
Parks & Recreation (pgs. 8-17) |
Ms. Dawson presented the Parks and Recreation Development Fee Methodology:
~Persons per Housing unit defined by housing type multiplied by the Total Capital Cost per
person.
*Parkland Acquisition and Development cost per person
*Park amenities cost per person
*Recreational facilities cost per person
*Vehicles and equipment cost per person
*Development Fee study cost per person
The Parks and Recreation Input Variables were noted as follows:
~Persons per housing unit
~Level of Service
*Park land acquisition and development (incremental - expansion)
*Park amenities (incremental - expansion)
*Recreational facilities (incremental - expansion)
*Park vehicles and equipment (incremental - expansion)
*Development fee study
The maximum supportable development fee amounts were:
~Single family residential would be $2,699
~All other housing would be $1,607
It was noted that "pocket" parks were not included in the fees. Assistant Town Manager Jerene Watson noted that calculations for pocket parks were not meaningful due to the fact that such parks were not for Town wide use.
Discussion noted the following:
~Currently, there are 10+ acre parcels available for use as Town wide parks.
~Various sites surveyed were not on main roads or potential main roads.
~Developers would be required to provide/pay for a neighborhood park as well as
development fees for a regional park.
Ms. Dawson explained the equation for the Transportation Fee Methodology as: The Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends multiplied by Trip Adjustment Factors (i.e. commuting, pass-by trips, trip length adjustments) multiplied by the Total Capital Cost Per Vehicle Miles Traveled;
~Arterial Marginal Cost Road Improvements
~Arterial Average Cost Road Improvements
~Collector Average Cost Road Improvements
~Public Works facility
~Land for Public works Facility
~Vehicles and equipment
The Arterial Road Infrastructure Improvement Plan was presented as follows:
Arterial Capacity project that benefitted future development:
| Project Name & Location | New Lane Miles | Estimated Project Cost | State, RTA, 12.6% Funds | Total Local Share |
| La Canada Dr. extension (Tangerine Rd. to Moore Rd.) | 400 | $7,745,000 | $2,331,000 | $5,596,711 |
| | | Net Increase in VMT through 2025 | 175,297 |
| | | Marginal Cost per VMT | $ 31 |
| | | | |
Arterial Capacity Projects that Benefit Existing and future development:
| Project Name & Location | New Lane Miles | Estimated Project Cost | State, RTA, 12.6% Funds | Total Local Share |
| First Ave. (Oracle Rd. to Tangerine Rd.) | 3.6 | $12,375,028 | $ 1,500,000 | $10,875,028 |
| La Canada Dr. (Naranja Dr. to Tangerine Rd.) | 2.0 | $10,540,054 | $ 6,250,000 | $ 4,290,054 |
| La Cholla Blvd. (Overton Rd. to Tangerine Rd.) | 7.0 | $25,083,748 | $24,050,000 | $ 1,033,748 |
| Lambert Ln. (La Cholla Blvd. to First Ave.) | 5.2 | $17,977,977 | $ 6,400,000 | $11,577,977 |
| Tangerine Rd. (Shannon Rd. to La Canada Dr.) | 4.0 | $14,226,998 | $13,400,000 | $ 826,998 |
| TOTAL | 21.8 | $80,203,805 | $51,600,000 | $28,603,805 |
| | | VMT in 2025 | 561,183 |
| | | Average Cost per VMT | $ 50 |
| TOTAL | 25.8 | | | $34,200,156 |
| | | Cost Per Lane Mile (Local Share) | $ 1,325,601 |
| | | Cost Per VMT | $ 81 |
Collector Road Infrastructure Improvement Plan:
| Project Name & Location | New Lane Miles | Estimated Project Cost | State, RTA, 12.6% Funds | Total Local Share |
| Hardy Rd (Northern Ave./Calle Buena Vista to Oracle Rd) | 0.0 | $ 964,000 | $ 875,000 | $92,004 |
| Magee Rd. (Oracle Rd. to N.First Ave.) | 4.0 | $2,500,000 | $1,250,000 | $1,292,185 |
| Naranja Dr. (Shannon Rd. to La Canada Dr.) | 0.0 | $5,000,000 | $1,610,000 | $3,504,405 |
| TOTAL | 4.0 | $8,464,000 | $3,735,000 | $4,888,594 |
| | | VMT in 2025 | 78,624 |
| | | Average Cost per VMT | $ 62 |
| TOTAL | 4.0 | | | $4,888,594 |
| | | Cost per Lane Mile (Local Share) | $1,222,148 |
| | | Cost per VMT | $ 62 |
The Transportation Input Variables were noted as follows:
~Residential
*Weekday Vehicle Trips per Housing unit
~Non-residential
*Weekday Vehicle Trips per 1,000 Square Feet
~Trip Adjustment Factors
~Cost Summary
*Arterial Road Construction
*Collector Road Construction
*Public Works Facilities and Vehicles
| Arterial Construction Cost for an Average Trip Length | $190 | $106 | $117 |
| Collector Construction Cost for an Average Trip Length | $ 20 | $ 11 | $ 13 |
| Public Works Facilities and Vehicles Cost for an Average Trip Length | $107 | $ 60 | $ 66 |
| Total Capital Cost for an Average Trip Length | $317 | $177 | $195 |
The Maximum Transportation Development Fee Amounts were noted as:
| Residential | Per Housing Unit | Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. | Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. | Per Room |
| Single Family Detached | $1,908 | | | |
| All Other Housing | $1,314 | | | |
| Non-residential-Commercial/Shopping Centers | | | | |
| Commercial/Shopping Center 50,001-100,000 SF | | $3,963 | | |
| Other Non-residential | | | | |
| Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 SF | | | $1,526 | |
| Business Park | | | $1,244 | |
| Light Industrial | | | $ 680 | |
| Warehousing | | | $ 484 | |
| Manufacturing | | | $ 373 | |
| Lodging | | | | $549 |
Ms. Dawson closed with a summary of the Maximum Supportable Fees:
| Residential - Per Housing Unit |
| Parks & Recreation | Library | Police | General Gov’t | Transportation | Total |
| Single Family | $2,699 | $694 | $513 | $389 | $1,908 | $6,203 |
| All Other Housing | $1,607 | $413 | $305 | $232 | $1314 | $3,871 |
| Non-Residential - Per 1,000 SF of Floor Area | | | | | | |
| Comm./Shopping Ctr. 50,001-50,000 SF | N/A | N/A | $144 | $157 | $3,963 | $4,264 |
| Office/Industrial 25,001-50,000 SF | N/A | N/A | $ 50 | $245 | $1,526 | $1,822 |
| Business Park | N/A | N/A | $ 41 | $198 | $1,244 | $1,483 |
| Light Industrial | N/A | N/A | $ 22 | $145 | $ 680 | $ 847 |
| Warehousing | N/A | N/A | $ 16 | $ 80 | $ 484 | $ 580 |
| Manufacturing | N/A | N/A | $ 12 | $112 | $ 373 | $ 497 |
| Non-Residential - Per Room | | | | | | |
| Lodging | N/A | N/A | $ 18 | $ 28 | $ 549 | $ 595 |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
She stated that with the Cost Index:
~All costs were noted in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time.
~Arizona Legislation allowed for automatic adjustment on an annual basis without
a public hearing.
~The fees will be updated based on the Marshall Swift Valuation Index or the
Engineering News Record.
It was noted that:
~Fees could not be changed automatically to adjust for population numbers
posed by the census.
~It was recommended to review the development fees every 3 years.
Discussion ensued regarding:
~Roadway, Water Utility, and Alternative Water fees.
~Senate Bill 1406
*Would not disallow higher impact fees
*Would hold the fee steady for two years for a new development
~Impact fees would be discussed again on July 9, 2008.