Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 03.04 City Council Regular Agenda City of Apache Junction, Arizona Meeting location: City Council Chambers 1U Z at City Hall Agenda 300 E.Superstition Blvd \gilONr Apache Junction,AZ City Council Meeting 85119 apachejunctionaz.gov Ph:(480)982-8002 Tuesday, March 4,2014 7:00 PM City Council Chambers A. CALL TO ORDER B. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. CONSENT AGENDA The council may, at this time, take single action on any or all items listed as consent agenda items. These may include, but are not limited to, acceptance of agenda, acceptance of minutes, appointments, acceptance of resignations and adoption of certain resolutions and other items which do not require a public hearing. The consent agenda is a timesaving device of which the mayor and city council is to receive documentation on these items from the city manager for their review prior to the meeting. Any member of the council may remove any item from the consent agenda for discussion and cause a separate vote on the matter later in the agenda. 1. 14-115 Acceptance of agenda. Consideration and action. Sponsors: Kathy Connelly 2. 14-116 Approval of minutes of regular meeting of February 18, 2014. Consideration and action. Sponsors: Kathy Connelly Attachments: ccmin 021814 February 18, 2014 minutes FINAL E. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS Awards,presentations from other organizations,proclamations issued by the mayor, and acknowledgement of distinguished guests and visitors, and staff presentation of receipt of grant or donated funds are permitted at this time. 3. 14-108 Presentation and award of check by VFW Post 9399 to Mayor Insalaco and Councilmember Waldron for Paws and Claws Care Center. Presentation. Sponsors: George Hoffman 4. 14-43 Formal presentation by mayor of certificates of graduation to the graduates of the 16th Citizen Leadership Institute. Presentation. Sponsors: Constance Halonen City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 City Council Meeting Agenda March 4,2014 F. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CURRENT EVENTS The mayor or any member of council may at this time present a brief summary of current events. However, no discussion shall take place on such items except for clarifying comments related to substance, time and location. G. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT The city manager, members of city staff or those individuals designated by the manager may present information pertinent to items under consideration or information related to the operation of the city. There shall however be no discussion at this time except for clarification inquiries. 5. 14-47 City manager's report. Presentation. Sponsors: George Hoffman H. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings required by applicable law shall be conducted by the council and any person shall be given the opportunity to speak.All remarks shall be addressed to the council as a whole and not to any member thereof. Such remarks shall be limited to five(5)minutes unless additional time is granted by the mayor. This time limitation shall not apply to applicants and their agents appearing before the council. 6. 14-119 Application for a special event liquor license for the Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley-Apache Junction Branch, for a fundraising event on April 12, 2014 at Dolce Vita Community Center, 3301 S. Goldfield. The next step in the procedure is for the council to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. Consideration and action. Sponsors. Kathy Connelly Attachments: 2014 boys&girls club april .CC 2014 boys&girls club april application 2014 boys and girls club april applicant letter 2014 boys&girls club april.dept 2014 boys&girls club april planning recommendatoin 2014 boys&girls club april pd recommendation 2014 boys&girls club april fire recommendation 2014 boys&girls club april building recommendation 7. 14-120 Consideration and action on proposed case PZ-1-14, an application by Walter Quanstrom, represented by Scott Olivier, requesting an appeal of the city's Landscape Code, pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 6 Landscaping, Section 6-1-7 Appeal to City Council. Consideration and action. Sponsors: Rudy Esquivias Attachments: PZ-1-14 CC PH 3-4-14 PZ-1-14 with all attachments City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 2 Printed on 611512026 City Council Meeting Agenda March 4,2014 8. 14-117 Consideration and action on proposed Ordinance No. 1397, case PZ-7-13, a request by the Hartley Residual and Sweeney Revocable Trusts, represented by Betty Sweeney, to rezone a 0.71-acre property located at 710 N. Ironwood Drive, from Local Business Zone (CB-1) and Multiple-family Residence Zone (CR-5)to General Commercial District (C-3). Consideration and action. Sponsors. Rudy Esquivias Attachments: PZ-7-13 CC PH 3-4-14 ORDINANCE NO. 1397 PZ-7-13 Pub Hrq staff rep w attach Ordinance No. 1397 FINAL 9. 14-118 Consideration and action on proposed Resolution No. 14-07, case SD-2-13, a request by Robb Tyler of Acer Homes LLC, for approval of the final subdivision plat for the Bel Agave Subdivision, located at the southest corner of E. 16th Avenue and S. Tomahawk Road. Consideration and action. Sponsors: Rudy Esquivias Attachments: SD-2-13 Final Plat CC PH 3-4-14 Final Plat Res.#14-07 Final Ordinance#1393 Final Pre-plat Res.#13-31 Resolution No. 14-07 FINAL 10. 14-114 Proposed Resolution No. 14-06, approval and adoption of the development fee study entitled "Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development Fees". Consideration and action. Sponsors: Brad Steinke Attachments: Staff Report(14-02-12 Dev Fee AIT) Resolution No 14-06(DevFeeStudy) Exhibit A-Final Draft Study Resolution No. 14-06 FINAL I. OLD BUSINESS The council shall consider any business that has been previously considered and which is still unfinished to include those items previously postponed or tabled. No member of the public shall be permitted to speak on these items unless invited to do so by the mayor after first submitting a written request-to-speak form with the city clerk. J. NEW BUSINESS The council shall consider any business not yet considered. No member of the public shall be permitted to speak on these items unless invited to do so by the mayor after first submitting a written request-to-speak form with the city clerk. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 3 Printed on 611512026 City Council Meeting Agenda March 4,2014 K. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF This item allows the mayor and city council to direct staff on specifically listed matters. L. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES, TIMES, LOCATIONS, AND PURPOSES 11. 14-59 Executive Session at 5:45 P.M. and Work Session at 7:00 P.M. for Monday, March 17, 2014. Sponsors: George Hoffman 12. 14-60 Executive Session at 5:45 P.M. for Tuesday, March 18, 2014. Other meetings if necessary. Sponsors: George Hoffman M. CALL TO PUBLIC At this time the public has the privilege to address the council with requests, communications, comments or suggestions relating to city business that are not listed on the agenda.All speakers must have already submitted a written "Request to Speak"form to the city clerk no later than the conclusion of the city manager's report portion of the agenda. If there is a group speaking on the same item, they should select a spokesperson.All such remarks shall be addressed to the council as a whole and not to any member thereof. The mayor is authorized to ask a speaker to stop speaking and leave the podium or to adjourn the meeting if anyone becomes disorderly, uncivil, makes personal attacks or continues to speak about items that are not within the jurisdiction of the city after being warned such issues are beyond the jurisdiction of the city to act. The council may not answer questions of the speaker, discuss the matter with one another, but may, at the conclusion: 1)respond to criticism by a speaker;2)ask the city manager to review a matter;3)ask the city manager to place the matter on a future agenda. Each speaker must approach the podium, speak into the microphone,provide their name and address. There is a three (3)minute time limit per speaker. N. ADJOURNMENT Copies of this agenda and additional information on any of the items listed above may be obtained from the City Clerk's office located at 300 E Superstition Blvd,Apache Junction,AZ 85119, Monday through Thursday from 7:00a-6:00p, excluding holidays. If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify Human Resources at(480) 474-2617 or(480) 983-0095(TDD)at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled time. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 4 Printed on 611512026 ►�P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard � 0 Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ _ 85119 Agenda Item No. 1. '+'Piz File ID: 14-115 Sponsor: Kathy Connelly Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Acceptance of agenda. Consideration and action. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 ►�P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard � 0 Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ _ 85119 Agenda Item No.2. '+'Piz File ID: 14-116 Sponsor: Kathy Connelly Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Approval of minutes of regular meeting of February 18, 2014. Consideration and action. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2014 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, was held on February 18, 2014, at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Insalaco called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilmember Wilson gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Evans led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Mayor Insalaco Councilmember Evans Councilmember Serdy Councilmember Waldron Councilmember Wilson (Vice Mayor Barker and Councilmember Rizzi were absent. ) Staff Present: City Manager George Hoffman Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Joel Stern Public Safety Director Tom Kelly Public Works Director Giao Pham Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell City Engineer Emile Schmid Assistant to the City Manager Matt Busby REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 1 OF 15 Others Present: Revenue Resource Manager Roger Hacker Program Coordinator Heather Patel Community Resource Unit Coordinator Constance Halonen Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA ) ) Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED; AND THAT ALL APPROPRIATELY FILED BID RESPONSES RECEIVED FOR PR-14- 03, LEASING, INSTALLATION, TRAINING AND SERVICE FOR MULTI- GENERATIONAL CENTER FITNESS EQUIPMENT DATED JANUARY 29, 2014, BE REJECTED AS NONE OF THEM MET THE MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO . 14-01, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE VALLEY METRO REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN ITS FISCAL YEAR 2014 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUND II PROGRAM, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO . 14-02, A RESOLUTION FO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AGAINST FAMILY ABUSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO . 14-03, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO . 92-18 IN ITS ENTIRETY, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO . 14-04, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, ESTABLISHING A COMPLAINT PROCEDURE FOR PROMPT AND EQUITABLE DISPOSITION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES AND CIVIL RIGHTS ACT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS, BE APPROVED. Councilmember Wilson SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 2 OF 15 The motion carried. Mayor Insalaco welcomed Boy Scout Troop #970 from Apache Junction. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS Revenue Resource Manager Roger Hacker briefed the council on the communities of Apache Junction and Gold Canyon and the Friends of the Library donating funds to provide FIDO bags for the police department and fire district. Ms . Marie Peck, 2750 E. Tanya, Cave Creek, addressed the council regarding the Fetch Foundation that raises funds for FIDO bags and presented the mayor with a large and small FIDO bag. Ms . Marta Saint-James and Ms . Maxine Brown named and thanked the donors of the funds for the FIDO bags . ANNOUNCEMENT OF CURRENT EVENTS Councilmember Wilson announced on February 8 the Arizona Driving Team Competition was held at the rodeo facilities . It is a horse and cart competition with various courses navigated. Competitors were from Arizona and as far away as Calgary, Canada. Councilmember Wilson thanked Corporal Reimann on behalf of a competitor at the Driving Team Competition for going above and beyond to help her. Councilmember Evans announced the second farmers' market was held last Saturday at Earth Heart Park and it was well attended. They will have one more on Cinco de Mayo. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS (continued) City Engineer Emile Schmid gave a brief presentation on the status of Idaho Road and Old West Highway intersection safety improvements . Councilmember Waldron asked how long it will take to complete the project once it is started. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 3 OF 15 City Engineer Emile Schmid stated it would take 60 to 90 days . He gave that window because of the size of the road and the intersection it is . Traffic control and keeping access open are the problematic parts . Councilmember Waldron commented it is definitely needed. This year there has been more accidents than in previous years . People are trying to shoot across . Chief Paul Bourgeois of the fire district briefed the council on the city being recognized as a "Heart Safe" city by the Arizona Department of Health Services and presented the mayor with a framed certificate from the Arizona Department of Health Services . CITY MANAGER' S REPORT City Manager George Hoffman commented on the Lost Dutchman Marathon and read comments from staff and competitors . He thanked the community for supporting the home rule option which allows the city to support these events and thanked Marta Saint- James and Curt Fonger for suggestions to enhance Silly Mountain. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPLICATION FOR A PERSON TRANSFER, LOCATION TRANSFER, LIMITED LIABILITY CO . , SERIES 9 LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DATE TREE ) ) City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on the item. Mayor Insalaco requested the applicant address the council . Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz, attorney and agent for the applicant, addressed the council . Councilmember Waldron asked if there is anyone listed on the application or in a management position with this business that is currently under investigation for a criminal offense. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 4 OF 15 Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz stated she is not aware of any. The owner of the property and the owner of the business is Tariq Husayno. He is with her tonight. Councilmember Waldron asked if he is the only one listed on the application. Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz stated that is correct. Councilmember Waldron asked if he is the manager of the business . Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz stated he is not. Councilmember Waldron asked who the manager is . Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz stated they have not yet filed his training as the manager. Every liquor license applicant has to designate a premises manager for the license . He has been the manager designated under the series 10 license. He has not yet been designated for the series 9 license. Mayor Insalaco opened the public hearing on the item. There being no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion. There being no further discussion, he called for a motion. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A PERSON TRANSFER, LOCATION TRANSFER, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SERIES 9 LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DATE TREE, SUBMITTED BY ANDREA DAHLMAN LEWKOWITZ, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL. Councilmember Evans SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 5 OF 15 The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None . NEW BUSINESS SCHEDULING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL ) Councilmember Wilson briefed the council on the item. Councilmember Evans commented it is a good idea. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Wilson MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD AND THE APACHE JUNCTION CITY COUNCIL: THAT WE HAVE A SET DOWN, WITH POSSIBLY SOME SNACKS OR SOMETHING, WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD TOWARDS THE END OF APRIL. Councilmember Evans SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . The motion carried. Councilmember Waldron commented the city manager looks perplexed. City Manager George Hoffman stated he had asked the school board what dates they had in mind and their response back was to find out what dates the city had in mind. They are interested in the concept and abstract. They are shy a couple of council members; he suggested they wait REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 6 OF 15 until the next meeting and prepare some dates that might work for it. PROPOSED CASE PZ-7-13, REQUEST BY HARTLEY RESIDUAL AND SWEENEY REVOCABLE TRUSTS TO REZONE A 0 . 71- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 710 NORTH IRONWOOD FROM LOCAL BUSINESS ZONE AND MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ) Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. Mayor Insalaco closed the item with no questions from the council . This was a discussion item only and he moved on to the next item. CASE SD-2-13, REQUEST BY ROBB TYLER OF ACER HOMES LLC FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE BEL AGAVE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 16TH AVENUE AND TOMAHAWK ROAD ) ) Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. Councilmember Waldron commented they eliminated those cul-de-sacs along the 19th Avenue alignment. It obviously looks like they will have better traffic flow through there, as well as the cul-de-sac in the middle, too. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they got rid of those cul-de-sacs and that cul-de-sac so there is a little more flow through the subdivision. They created a little open space buffer in one area. Mayor Insalaco commented it is nicer. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated there were improvements overall . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 7 OF 15 Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion on the item. This was a discussion item only and he moved on to the next item. CASE PZ-1-14, APPLICATION BY WALTER QUANSTROM REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE CITY' S LANDSCAPE CODE ) ) Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. Councilmember Waldron asked if the lot directly north of this one has an 8' fence . It is open, not a wall, and there is landscaping behind that. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they pointed that out in the staff report. One of the reasons the gentleman does not want to landscape the area is he thinks it will attract kids and vagrants . There is a residential neighborhood directly west of him. He does not want to create a no man' s land. Many of the other properties in this neighborhood that have been developed in recent years have, to some extent or another, complied with the landscape code. These are very narrow lots . They were originally platted as 25' wide by 170' deep. They have to join 2-3 of the lots together to make a viable construction site. They have had some properties in the neighborhood come before the council for planned development amendments or landscape code appeals . To his recollection they did require the applicants to do at least some landscaping. This part of the neighborhood is under a planned development zoning approved in the 90' s . It states strict compliance and limited the palate of uses . Part of the strict compliance is an appeal process . Other properties, even though narrow, have installed landscaping improvements . He thinks it is a nice neighborhood. Councilmember Waldron stated there is also a lot across the street and a few lots up with chain link that comes to the curb. He asked where that one is . There was general discussion between Councilmember Waldron and Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias as to where that lot was located. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 8 OF 15 Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated some of these buildings have been there since prior to the adoption of our zoning ordinance in the mid-90' s . Some have been built since. He suspects the ones that have landscape improvements are probably newer than 1995 or 1996, or they had a change of use or expansion of use. The Eagles across the street were not required to do a landscape improvement. They did do some modifications to their building but they were of a percentage where the landscape code did not kick in. Councilmember Waldron commented he cannot tell which business it is but it looks like a fairly new chain link fence. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias pointed to a property where they had been doing some recent improvements to their building. They put some concertina wire on the roof which caused some concern for one neighbor. He commented he thinks the one that got fenced in is a new business going in but he is not sure what kind of business it is . Councilmember Waldron commented it is by the palm tree with all the cell phone antennas; the realistic-looking one. There was general discussion between Councilmember Waldron and Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias as to where the cell phone, power palm tree is located. Councilmember Waldron commented the new chain link fence is on the third lot in from 22nd Street. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated he does not think that is a new building. Councilmember Waldron commented the building is not but the fence is . The only reason he is bringing it up is there is quite a mixture in there. There are different styles . There is no doubt the landscaping setback looks good on the ones that have done it. There is a storage facility to the north that has old chain link fence right up to the edge. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 9 OF 15 Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they did get a preliminary landscape drawing with it basically showing where they might put a couple of plants . They might put some more mature trees inside the wall . They would also need to do a landscape strip along the area where it backs up to residential properties . The retention area has yet to be designed. There is still some opportunity to put in some landscaping. They have a view fence in one area. Councilmember Waldron commented he was also concerned about where the sidewalk would normally go. There are weeds there. It would reasonable for him to mitigate those weeds whether there is a sidewalk there or not. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias agreed. He is thinking put some decomposed granite in there along with some plants and bougainvilleas so they get a little bit of a landscape texture outside the wall as well . Councilmember Evans commented she thought there was enough room for some landscaping to dress it up but not enough room for a sidewalk. In driving around some of our industrial neighborhoods, a lot of parking is between the rolled curb and the fence. They either need to have the sidewalk or some desert landscaping on that side. There is a fourplex just north of this building. They need to decide if they would rather have the sidewalk and landscaping on the inside with larger trees or just landscaping outside. One of the businesses on the east side of Coconino did do some small cacti and it looks very nice . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated the Eagles installed some cactus there . They have a couple of little patches . Councilmember Evans commented they need something to dress it up. Either one, the sidewalk or the cactus, would work very well . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is definitely on their radar. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 10 OF 15 Councilmember Waldron asked if he would be talking to him. There is a crack in the fence out front that should be repaired. Stuff like that drives him crazy. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated he would let him know. Mayor Insalaco closed the item with no further discussion. This was a discussion item only and they moved on to the next item. DIRECTION TO STAFF PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DONS ON PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE LOST DUTCHMAN MONUMENT ) Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell briefed the council on the item. Councilmember Serdy commented he wants to keep building on this . They are not supposed to discuss the other enhancements but hopefully there will be more and more. He was concerned about the parking as once they put the signs in people will want to come and look at it. It is something they need to talk about in the future . Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell stated they have talked to the Dons about further enhancements and ongoing maintenance. There are additional costs involved in the other enhancements and they are currently working on that. They are in preliminary discussions and are not far enough along to formalize them. They want to get the signage out of the way. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING THE LOST DUTCHMAN MONUMENT LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE FOCAL POINT IN DOWNTOWN APACHE JUNCTION: THAT THEY MOVE FORWARD TO FORMALIZE AN AGREEMENT TO PARTNER WITH THE DONS ON THE PURCHASE AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 11 OF 15 INSTALLATION OF WAYFINDING SIGNAGE AND THAT THE AGREEMENT BE BROUGHT BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL. Councilmember Evans SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES, TIMES, LOCATIONS, AND PURPOSES Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5 : 45 P.M. AND A WORK SESSION AT 7 : 00 P.M. BE HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2014, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESPECTIVELY; AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5; 45 P.M. BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. Councilmember Evans SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . The motion carried. CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Ms . Sue Ward, 2900 W. Superstition Boulevard, Silverado Estates, addressed the council regarding inspections not being conducted at the Silverado Estates clubhouse and some residences . Mr. Eugene Barin, 1303 E. 18th Avenue, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding no long form complaint being filed by the police on the activity that took place 19 days ago. Mr. Darryl Cross, 1018 N. Acacia, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding vegetation that was removed from the street side after the road was paved. He provided a petition from residents to replace the vegetation, granite and rock. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 12 OF 15 Ms . Margo DeJaynes, 1229 N. Acacia, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding the clearing of the vegetation on Acacia and was concerned why it was done and what will happen when it rains . Mr. Raymond Benkler, 888 N. Acacia, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding the devastation to his property of approximately a 5, 000 sq. ft. area involving vegetation removed and a protective berm being removed. Ms . Lina Bellenir, 16301 E. Jacklin, Fountain Hills, addressed the council to extend the appreciation from the residents of Silverado Estates for the actions taken thus far and they will continue to be diligent. Councilmember Wilson directed staff to look into the Acacia Road problem, return with the findings to the council, and determine what can or should be done . Councilmember Serdy commented he would like to add to maybe do a cease and desist if they are going to do this to any other roads in the future so they do not go too far and then have to reverse it. Councilmember Waldron requested an update on the Silverado Estates . City Attorney Joel Stern asked if that is for a future agenda item. Councilmember Waldron stated it is . ADJOURNMENT ) Mayor Insalaco adjourned the meeting at 8 : 17 p .m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows : 1 . Acceptance of Agenda. 2 . Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 4, 2014 . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 13 OF 15 3 . Consideration of request from the Parks and Recreation Department to reject the responses received to the bid for the replacement of fitness equipment at the Multi- Generational Center. 4 . Consideration of Resolution No . 14-01, recommending the city' s Fiscal Year 2014 Local Transportation Assistance Fund II allocation be directed to the Apache Junction Active Adult Center for support of transportation services and authorizing the mayor to sign a pass-through agreement. 5 . Consideration of Resolution No . 14-02, recommending the city sign a subrecipient agreement for the city' s Fiscal Year 2014 Community Development Block Grant allocation to be directed to Community Alliance Against Family Abuse for the rehabilitation of their domestic violence shelter and authorizing the mayor to sign a subrecipient agreement . 6 . Consideration of Resolution No . 14-03, recommending the city repeal Resolution No . 92-18 in order to update the city' s complaint and grievance procedure under Title II Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI Civil Rights Law of 1964 . 7 . Consideration of Resolution No . 14-04, recommending the city council adopt a new Title II Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI Civil Rights Law of 1964 complaint and grievance procedure . ACCEPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 . JOHN S . INSALACO Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 14 OF 15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, held on the 18th day of February, 2014 . I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 20th day of February, 2014 . KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 15 OF 15 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2014 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, was held on February 18, 2014 , at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Insalaco called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilmember Wilson gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Evans led the Pledge of Allegiance . ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present : Mayor Insalaco Councilmember Evans Councilmember Serdy Councilmember Waldron Councilmember Wilson (vice Mayor Barker and Councilmember Rizzi were absent . ) Staff Present: City Manager George Hoffman Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Joel Stern Public Safety Director Tom Kelly Public Works Director Giao Pham Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell City Engineer Emile Schmid Assistant to the City Manager Matt Busby REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18 , 2014 PAGE 1 OF 15 Others Present : Revenue Resource Manager Roger Hacker Program Coordinator Heather Patel Community Resource Unit Coordinator Constance Halonen Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA ) ) Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED; AND THAT ALL APPROPRIATELY FILED BID RESPONSES RECEIVED FOR PR-14- 03 , LEASING, INSTALLATION, TRAINING AND SERVICE FOR MULTI- GENERATIONAL CENTER FITNESS EQUIPMENT DATED JANUARY 29, 2014, BE REJECTED AS NONE OF THEM MET THE MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 14-01, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE VALLEY METRO REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN ITS FISCAL YEAR 2014 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUND II PROGRAM, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 14 -02 , A RESOLUTION FO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AGAINST FAMILY ABUSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 14-03 , A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-18 IN ITS ENTIRETY, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 14-04, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, ESTABLISHING A COMPLAINT PROCEDURE FOR PROMPT AND EQUITABLE DISPOSITION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES AND CIVIL RIGHTS ACT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS, BE APPROVED. Councilmember Wilson SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 2 OF 15 The motion carried . Mayor Insalaco welcomed Boy Scout Troop #970 from Apache Junction. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS Revenue Resource Manager Roger Hacker briefed the council on the communities of Apache Junction and Gold Canyon and the Friends of the Library donating funds to provide FIDO bags for the police department and fire district. Ms . Marie Peck, 2750 E . Tanya, Cave Creek, addressed the council regarding the Fetch Foundation that raises funds for FIDO bags and presented the mayor with a large and small FIDO bag. Ms . Marta Saint-James and Ms . Maxine Brown named and thanked the donors of the funds for the FIDO bags . ANNOUNCEMENT OF CURRENT EVENTS Councilmember Wilson announced on February 8 the Arizona Driving Team Competition was held at the rodeo facilities . It is a horse and cart competition with various courses navigated. Competitors were from Arizona and as far away as Calgary, Canada. Councilmember Wilson thanked Corporal Reimann on behalf of a competitor at the Driving Team Competition for going above and beyond to help her. Councilmember Evans announced the second farmers, market was held last Saturday at Earth Heart Park and it was well attended. They will have one more on Cinco de Mayo. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS (continued) City Engineer Emile Schmid gave a brief presentation on the status of Idaho Road and Old West Highway intersection safety improvements . Councilmember Waldron asked how long it will take to complete the project once it is started . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 3 OF 15 City Engineer Emile Schmid stated it would take 60 to 90 days . He gave that window because of the size of the road and the intersection it is . Traffic control and keeping access open are the problematic parts . Councilmember Waldron commented it is definitely needed. This year there has been more accidents than in previous years . People are trying to shoot across . Chief Paul Bourgeois of the fire district briefed the council on the city being recognized as a "Heart Safe" city by the Arizona Department of Health Services and presented the mayor with a framed certificate from the Arizona Department of Health Services . CITY MANAGER' S REPORT City Manager George Hoffman commented on the Lost Dutchman Marathon and read comments from staff and competitors . He thanked the community for supporting the home rule option which allows the city to support these events and thanked Marta Saint- James and Curt Fonger for suggestions to enhance Silly Mountain . PUBLIC HEARINGS APPLICATION FOR A PERSON TRANSFER, LOCATION TRANSFER, LIMITED LIABILITY CO. , SERIES 9 LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DATE TREE } ) City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on the item. Mayor Insalaco requested the applicant address the council . Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz, attorney and agent for the applicant, addressed the council . Councilmember Waldron asked if there is anyone listed on the application or in a management position with this business that is currently under investigation for a criminal offense . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 4 OF 15 i Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz stated she is not aware of any. The owner of the property and the owner of the business is Tariq Husayno. He is with her tonight . Councilmember Waldron asked if he is the only one listed on the application. Ms. Andrea Lewkowitz stated that is correct. Councilmember Waldron asked if he is the manager of the business. Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz stated he is not . Councilmember Waldron asked who the manager is . Ms . Andrea Lewkowitz stated they have not yet filed his training as the manager . Every liquor license applicant has to designate a premises manager for the license . He has been the manager designated under the series 10 license. He has not yet been designated for the series 9 license . Mayor Insalaco opened the public hearing on the item. There being no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion. There being no further discussion, he called for a motion. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A PERSON TRANSFER, LOCATION TRANSFER, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SERIES 9 LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DATE TREE, SUBMITTED BY ANDREA DAHLMAN LEWKOWITZ, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL . Councilmember Evans SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 5 OF 15 The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS SCHEDULING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL ) } Councilmember Wilson briefed the council on the item. Councilmember Evans commented it is a good idea. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Wilson MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD AND THE APACHE JUNCTION CITY COUNCIL: THAT WE HAVE A SET DOWN, WITH POSSIBLY SOME SNACKS OR SOMETHING, WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD TOWARDS THE END OF APRIL. Councilmember Evans SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . The motion carried. Councilmember Waldron commented the city manager looks perplexed. City Manager George Hoffman stated he had asked the school board what dates they had in mind and their response back was to find out what dates the city had in mind. They are interested in the concept and abstract . They are shy a couple of council members; he suggested they wait REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 6 OF 15 until the next meeting and prepare some dates that might work for it . PROPOSED CASE PZ-7-13 , REQUEST BY HARTLEY RESIDUAL AND SWEENEY REVOCABLE TRUSTS TO REZONE A 0 . 71- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 710 NORTH IRONWOOD FROM LOCAL BUSINESS ZONE AND MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ) ) Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. Mayor Insalaco closed the item with no questions from the council . This was a discussion item only and he moved on to the next item. CASE SD-2-13 , REQUEST BY ROBB TYLER OF ACER HOMES LLC FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE BEL AGAVE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 16TH AVENUE AND TOMAHAWK ROAD ) ) Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. Councilmember Waldron commented they eliminated those cul-de-sacs along the 19th Avenue alignment . It obviously looks like they will have better traffic flow through there, as well as the cul-de-sac in the middle, too . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they got rid of those cul-de-sacs and that cul-de-sac so there is a little more flow through the subdivision. They created a little open space buffer in one area . Mayor Insalaco commented it is nicer. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated there were improvements overall . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 7 OF 15 Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion on the item. This was a discussion item only and he moved on to the next item. CASE PZ-1-14, APPLICATION BY WALTER QUANSTROM REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE CITY' S LANDSCAPE CODE ) ) Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. Councilmember Waldron asked if the lot directly north of this one has an 8' fence . It is open, not a wall, and there is landscaping behind that . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they pointed that out in the staff report . One of the reasons the gentleman does not want to landscape the area is he thinks it will attract kids and vagrants. There is a residential neighborhood directly west of him. He does not want to create a no man' s land. Many of the other properties in this neighborhood that have been developed in recent years have, to some extent or another, complied with the landscape code . These are very narrow lots . They were originally platted as 25, wide by 170' deep. They have to join 2 -3 of the lots together to make a viable construction site . They have had some properties in the neighborhood come before the council for planned development amendments or landscape code appeals . To his recollection they did require the applicants to do at least some landscaping. This part of the neighborhood is under a planned development zoning approved in the 901s . It states strict compliance and limited the palate of uses . Part of the strict compliance is an appeal process . Other properties, even though narrow, have installed landscaping improvements . He thinks it is a nice neighborhood. Councilmember Waldron stated there is also a lot across the street and a few lots up with chain link that comes to the curb. He asked where that one is . There was general discussion between Councilmember Waldron and Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias as to where that lot was located. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 8 OF 15 Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated some of these buildings have been there since prior to the adoption of our zoning ordinance in the mid-90' s. Some have been built since. He suspects the ones that have landscape improvements are probably newer than 1995 or 1996, or they had a change of use or expansion of use . The Eagles across the street were not required to do a landscape improvement . They did do some modifications to their building but they were of a percentage where the landscape code did not kick in. Councilmember Waldron commented he cannot tell which business it is but it looks like a fairly new chain link fence . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias pointed to a property where they had been doing some recent improvements to their building. They put some concertina wire on the roof which caused some concern for one neighbor. He commented he thinks the one that got fenced in is a new business going in but he is not sure what kind of business it is . Councilmember Waldron commented it is by the palm tree with all the cell phone antennas; the realistic-looking one. There was general discussion between Councilmember Waldron and Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias as to where the cell phone, power palm tree is located. Councilmember Waldron commented the new chain link fence is on the third lot in from 22nd Street . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated he does not think that is a new building. Councilmember Waldron commented the building is not but the fence is . The only reason he is bringing it up is there is quite a mixture in there . There are different styles . There is no doubt the landscaping setback looks good on the ones that have done it . There is a storage facility to the north that has old chain link fence right up to the edge. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 9 OF 15 Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they did get a preliminary landscape drawing with it basically showing where they might put a couple of plants . They might put some more mature trees inside the wall . They would also need to do a landscape strip along the area where it backs up to residential properties . The retention area has yet to be designed. There is still some opportunity to put in some landscaping. They have a view fence in one area . Councilmember Waldron commented he was also concerned about where the sidewalk would normally go. There are weeds there . It would reasonable for him to mitigate those weeds whether there is a sidewalk there or not . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias agreed. He is thinking put some decomposed granite in there along with some plants and bougainvilleas so they get a little bit of a landscape texture outside the wall as well . Councilmember Evans commented she thought there was enough room for some landscaping to dress it up but not enough room for a sidewalk . In driving around some of our industrial neighborhoods, a lot of parking is between the rolled curb and the fence. They either need to have the sidewalk or some desert landscaping on that side . There is a fourplex just north of this building. They need to decide if they would rather have the sidewalk and landscaping on the inside with larger trees or just landscaping outside . One of the businesses on the east side of Coconino did do some small cacti and it looks very nice . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated the Eagles installed some cactus there. They have a couple of little patches . Councilmember Evans commented they need something to dress it up. Either one, the sidewalk or the cactus, would work very well . Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is definitely on their radar. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 10 OF 15 Councilmember Waldron asked if he would be talking to him. There is a crack in the fence out front that should be repaired. Stuff like that drives him crazy. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated he would let him know. Mayor Insalaco closed the item with no further discussion. This was a discussion item only and they moved on to the next item. DIRECTION TO STAFF PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DONS ON PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE LOST DUTCHMAN MONUMENT } } Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell briefed the council on the item. Councilmember Serdy commented he wants to keep building on this . They are not supposed to discuss the other enhancements but hopefully there will be more and more. He was concerned about the parking as once they put the signs in people will want to come and look at it . It is something they need to talk about in the future . Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell stated they have talked to the Dons about further enhancements and ongoing maintenance. There are additional costs involved in the other enhancements and they are currently working on that . They are in preliminary discussions and are not far enough along to formalize them. They want to get the signage out of the way . Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING THE LOST DUTCHMAN MONUMENT LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE FOCAL POINT IN DOWNTOWN APACHE JUNCTION: THAT THEY MOVE FORWARD TO FORMALIZE AN AGREEMENT TO PARTNER WITH THE DONS ON THE PURCHASE AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 11 OF 15 INSTALLATION OF WAYFINDING SIGNAGE AND THAT THE AGREEMENT BE BROUGHT BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL. Councilmember Evans SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES, TIMES, LOCATIONS, AND PURPOSES Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5 :45 P.M. AND A WORK SESSION AT 7 : 00 P .M. BE HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 3 , 2014 , IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESPECTIVELY; AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5 ; 45 P.M. BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014 , IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM . Councilmember Evans SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous . The motion carried. CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Ms . Sue Ward, 2900 W. Superstition Boulevard, Silverado Estates, addressed the council regarding inspections not being conducted at the Silverado Estates clubhouse and some residences . Mr. Eugene Darin, 1303 E. 18th Avenue, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding no long form complaint being filed by the police on the activity that took place 19 days ago. Mr. Darryl Cross, 1018 N. Acacia, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding vegetation that was removed from the street side after the road was paved. He provided a petition from residents to replace the vegetation, granite and rock. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 12 OF 15 Ms . Margo DeJaynes, 1229 N. Acacia, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding the clearing of the vegetation on Acacia and was concerned why it was done and what will happen when it rains . Mr. Raymond Benkler, 888 N. Acacia, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding the devastation to his property of approximately a 5, 000 sq. ft. area involving vegetation removed and a protective berm being removed . Ms . Lina Bellenir, 16301 E. Jacklin, Fountain Hills, addressed the council to extend the appreciation from the residents of Silverado Estates for the actions taken thus far and they will continue to be diligent . Councilmember Wilson directed staff to look into the Acacia Road problem, return with the findings to the council, and determine what can or should be done . Councilmember Serdy commented he would like to add to maybe do a cease and desist if they are going to do this to any other roads in the future so they do not go too far and then have to reverse it . Councilmember Waldron requested an update on the Silverado Estates . City Attorney Joel Stern asked if that is for a future agenda item. Councilmember Waldron stated it is . ADJOURNMENT ) Mayor Insalaco adjourned the meeting at 8 : 17 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1 . Acceptance of Agenda. 2 . Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 4 , 2014 . REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 13 OF 15 3 . Consideration of request from the Parks and Recreation Department to reject the responses received to the bid for the replacement of fitness equipment at the Multi- Generational Center. 4 . Consideration of Resolution No. 14-01, recommending the city' s Fiscal Year 2014 Local Transportation Assistance Fund II allocation be directed to the Apache Junction Active Adult Center for support of transportation services and authorizing the mayor to sign a pass-through agreement . 5 . Consideration of Resolution No. 14-02 , recommending the city sign a subrecipient agreement for the city' s Fiscal Year 2014 Community Development Block Grant allocation to be directed to Community Alliance Against Family Abuse for the rehabilitation of their domestic violence shelter and authorizing the mayor to sign a subrecipient agreement . 6 . Consideration of Resolution No. 14-03 , recommending the city repeal Resolution No. 92-18 in order to update the city' s complaint and grievance procedure under Title II Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI Civil Rights Law of 1964 . 7 . Consideration of Resolution No. 14-04 , recommending the city council adopt a new Title II Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI Civil Rights Law of 1964 complaint and grievance procedure. ACCEPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 , BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 . L,4:�,70�r—��_ JOAN S. NSALACO or ATTEST : KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 14 OF 15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, held on the 18th day of February, 2014 . I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present . Dated this 20th day of February, 2014 . KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18, 2014 PAGE 15 OF 15 ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard = Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ 85119 Agenda Item No. 3. '+PizoN►' File ID: 14-108 Sponsor: George Hoffman Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Presentation and award of check by VFW Post 9399 to Mayor Insalaco and Councilmember Waldron for Paws and Claws Care Center. Presentation. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard = Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ 85119 Agenda Item No.4. '+'Piz File ID: 14-43 Sponsor: Constance Halonen Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Formal presentation by mayor of certificates of graduation to the graduates of the 16th Citizen Leadership Institute. Presentation. 2014 Citizen Leadership Institute graduates: Gloria Brancaccio Gale Bruce Nancy Burgess Chester Burgess R.E. Eck Roxanne Heavens Wendy Miller Jason Moeller Gary Nelson Susan Ruffini Marit Runyon William Sherman Sandra Verdugo Heather Wright City of Apache Junction,Arizona Pagel Printed on 611512026 ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard = Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ 85119 Agenda Item No. 5. '+PizoN►' File ID: 14-47 Sponsor: George Hoffman Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting City manager's report. Presentation. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard � 0 Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ _ 85119 Agenda Item No.6. '+'Piz File ID: 14-119 Sponsor: Kathy Connelly Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Application for a special event liquor license for the Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley- Apache Junction Branch, for a fundraising event on April 12, 2014 at Dolce Vita Community Center, 3301 S. Goldfield. The next step in the procedure is for the council to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. Consideration and action. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 FEBRUARY 19, 2014 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THROUGH: GEORGE R. HOFFMAN, CITY MANAGER THROUGH: KATHLEEN CONNELLY, CITY CLERK FROM: JAN MASON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM FOR MARCH 4, 2014: APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE EAST VALLEY—APACHE JUNCTION BRANCH An application for a Special Event Liquor License has been submitted by Ms. Laurie Armstrong of the Boys & Girls Club of the East Valley — Apache Junction Branch for a fundraising event to be held on April 12, 2014, at the Dolce Vita Community Center ballroom, 3301 S. Goldfield, Apache Junction. Correspondence has been received from the planning division, police department and fire district, a copy of which is attached. Correspondence from the building division is pending and will be forwarded upon its receipt. The next step in the procedure is for the City Council to hold a public hearing on the application and make a recommendation for approval or denial to be forwarded to the State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES S CONTROL 800 W Washington 5th Floor Phoenix,Arizona 85007-2934 (602)542-5141 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EVENT LICENSE Fee= $25.00 per day for 1-10 day events only A service fee of$25.00 will be charged for all dishonored checks A.R.S. 44-6852 NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE FULLY COMPLETED OR IT WILL BE RETURNED. PLEASE ALLOW 10 BUSINESS DAYS FOR PROCESSING. "Application must be approved by local government before submission to DLLC USE ONLY Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. (Section#20) LICENSE # 1. Name of Organization: Boys a Girls Clubs of the east valley-Apache Junction Branch 2. Non-Profit/I.R.S. Tax Exempt Number: 8"550646 3. The organization is a: (check one box only) 0 Charitable Fraternal (must have regular membership and in existence for over 5 years) Civic Religious ❑ Political Party, Ballot Measure, or Campaign Committee 4. What is the purpose of this event?©on-site consumption ❑off site consumption (auction) ❑ both 5. Location of the event: Doke vita 3301 S.Goldfield Road Apache Junction Plnal 85119 Address of physical location(Not P.O. Box) City County Zip Applicant must be a member of the auaiifyinsr organization and authorized by an Officer.Director or Chairperson of the Or0nizaiton named in Quililft#1. (Signature required In section#181 6. Applicant: Armstrong Laurel E 12-07-1986 Last First Middle Date of Birth 7. Applicant's Mailing Address: 3165 W.Foothill Street Apache Junction AZ e5210 Street City State Zip 8. Phone Numbers: (4w )982-6381 (+e0 ) 9e2.6381 (M ) 9W4321 Site Owner# Applicants Business# Applicants hkxne# 9. Date(s) &Hours of Event: (see A.R.S.4-244(15)and(17)for legal hours of service) Date Day of Week Hours from A.M./P.M. To A.M./P.M. Day 1: 4/t212014 Saturday 4:00 P.M. 11:00 P.M. Day 2: Day 3: Day 4: Day 5: Day 6: Day 7: Day 8: Day 9: Day 10: September 2011 6131mbled individuals requiring special accommodations,please call(602)542-9027 10. Has the applicant been convicted of a felony in the past five years, or had a liquor license revoked? ❑YES E]NO (attach explanation if yes P�L 11, This organization has been issued a special event license fb days this veer, including this event (riot to exceed 10 days per year). 12. Is the organization using the services of a promoter or other person to manage the event?[]YES 0 NO If yes, attach a copy of the agreement. 13. List all people and organizations who will receive the proceeds. Account for 100%of the proceeds. THE ORGANIZATION APPLYING MUST RECEIVE 25%OF THE GROSS REVENUES OF THE SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR SALES. Name Boys&Girls Clubs of East Valley-Apache Junction Branch 100 Pe-ntw Address 1405 E.Guadalupe Ste 4,Tempe,AZ M81 Name Percentage Address (Attach additional sheet if necessary) 14. Knowledge of Arizona State Liquor Laws Title 4 is important to prevent liquor law violations. If you have any questions regarding the law or this application, please contact the Arizona State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control for assistance. NOTE:ALL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES MUST BE FOR CONSUMPTION AT THE EVENT SITE ONLY. "NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SHALL LEAVE SPECIAL EVENT PREMISES," 15. What security and control measures will you take to prevent violations of state liquor laws at this event? (List type and number of security/police personnel and type of fencing or control barriers if applicable) —#Police Fencing 10 #Security personnel 7 Barriers 16. Is there an existing liquor license at the location where the special event is being held? ❑YES Z NO If yes, does the e)dsting business agree to suspend their liquor license during the time period,and in the area in which the special event license will be in use? E]YESE]NO (ATTACH COPY OF AGREEMENT) Name of Business Phone Number 17. Your licensed premises is that area in which you are authorized to sell, dispense, or serve spirituous liquors under the provisions of your license. The following page is to be used to prepare a diagram of your special event licensed premises. Please show dimensions, serving areas, fencing, barricades or other control measures and security positions. SPECIAL EVW LICENSED PROMES DIAGRAM (This dkVnkm must be con~wMh this appdisadaz) Spedal Event DWgram: (Shaw dirrmwions,swvkV smog,wtW IAMBI type of+andowre and se=*posMons) N Show newa i cr stremb,tdgtm y,or nad if koWon doesn't have an Addr. EAU, ........... r L-Kuj%ty f� I �1 P'y LA J THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED ONLY BY AN OFFICER,DIRECTOR OR CHAIRPERSON OF THE GRE GA dIZEATtON NAMED IN QUESTION#1 18, 1, � �"Y 4: L" t Al S declare that I am an OfficsrlDirectorlChalroerson appointing the (Print full name) applicanthaW in question 6,to apply on behalf of the foregoing organization for a Special Evert Liquor License. X 9!!t� F-Ak5,4 r L;rr ce o ;t-9-N (m) (TiflelPosibon) (Dade) (Phone#} OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE E. SH�RWCBM of � + r' 02 County of NOTARY PUBLIC-State of Arizona The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this %. MARICOPA COUNTY cl My Comm.Expires December 11,2016 r �` Fe bru 4 t, 4 l DayorHfi Year My Commission expires on: / I1 1 `k-/'- -- ''�``'`�'—";6 V�' (Date) (Signature of NOTARY PUBLIC) THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED ONLY BY THE APPLICANT NAMED IN QUESTION#6 19. 1, Lalk e=e-A `TOSI S1 0 t'' + declare that I am the APPLICANT Bing this application as (Print full name 1' in Question 6. 1 have the application and the contents and all statements are true,coMaq and complete. J2 State of 71�Azo-llkbl County of X ` The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this shwoCARD SA SOSA l 4 NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZM A Day Month Year M1ad a Cosunt �P ish S' nature of NQT4 E3LIC You must obtain I-or Al aovernmeM aor>Ir+ovai. City or County MUST recommend ev2W and complete item #20. The local governing body may reauine addItional applications to be comoletied an ig jubmitted 60 days In advance of the event. Additional licensing fees may all so be required before approval may be granted. LOCAL GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL SECTION 20. I, hereby recommend this special event application (Govenwnerrt Official) (Title) on behalf of (City,Town or County) (Signature of OFFICIAL) (Data) FOR DLLQ DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Department Comment Section: (Employee) (Data) !Tim} t Data) ABOUT ARIZONANS FOR CHILDREN Arizonans for Children Inc. is incorporated as a 501 (c)(3) non-profit. They exist to facilitate opportunities and provide effective solutions to alleviate hardships and improve the fragile lives of the abused,abandoned,and neglected children in foster care. As of November 3 Oth, 2012, there are 14,200 children in Arizona foster care. The number is troubling and the reality is that tragically, far too many children continue to have their wellbeing jeopardized. While removing children from their dangerous family setting does provide immediate and necessary safety,entering the foster care system does not assure a"normal childhood."This challenging journey often involves multiple moves, inconsistent care giving, and emotional trauma stemming from feelings of helplessness and isolation. Furthermore, it is not unexpected for these children to also carry learning,behavioral and/or psychological disabilities. Arizonans for Children has developed programs designed to help stabilize and bring comfort to the complicated lives of foster children. Their programs are sensitive to the unique needs of children in protective custody, be it a foster care, group home or initial CPS setting. In addition to the priceless gifts of time, energy and love, AFC provides abused, neglected and abandoned children with: • Three Children's Visitation Centers located in Phoenix,Mesa end Peoria which provide safe and fun places for family visits. • Toys,clothing,toiletries and other special needs items. • Admission Tickets to sporting events,the Ballet,Arizona Diamondbacks,Phoenix Art Museum,etc. • New and used Luggage • Life Book Program • Tutor/Mentor Program • Boy Scout Program • Educational Classes: sewing,computer,dancing,cooking,Justice League,Financial Literacy • Special Events such as monthly birthday parties,Days of Beauty,swimming,bowling,ice skating,roller skating parties, laser tag,Enchanted Island,Train Park Picnic,Holiday parties etc. To learn more about this important organization,please visit www.arizonansfo rchild ren.or� I V— Thank you for your interest Pp Home of the Superstition Mountains February 12, 2014 Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley—Apache Junction Branch Attn: Laurel Armstrong c/o P.O. Box 1180 Apache Junction, AZ 85117 Dear Ms. Armstrong: Please be advised that your application for a Special Event Liquor License for the Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley—Apache Junction Branch for April 12, 2014 at 3301 S. Goldfield Road has been scheduled for a public hearing. The Apache Junction City Council will hold a public hearing on March 4, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 E. Superstition Blvd., Apache Junction, at which time recommendation for approval or disapproval will be made to be forwarded to Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. Your attendance is requested should council have any questions on this application. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact my office at (480) 982-8002. Sincerely, Kathleen Connelly City Clerk •Voice(480)982-8002 •FAX(480)982-7018 •TDD(480)983-0095 •www.ajcity.net 300 E. Superstition Boulevard, Apache Junction,AZ 85119 ---------- FEBRUARY 12, 2014 MEMORANDUM TO: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION APACHE JUNCTION FIRE DISTRICT THROUGH: KATHLEEN CONNELLY, CITY CLERK FROM: JAN MASON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE EAST VALLEY — APACHE JUNCTION BRANCH Ms. Laurel Armstrong has submitted an application for a Special Event Liquor License for April 12, 2014 at 3301 S. Goldfield Road, Apache Junction. Please conduct the necessary inspections and submit your recommendation be email by Wednesday, February 19, no later than noon, in order for this item to be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of March 4, 2014. Janet Mason From: Rudy Esquivias Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:52 AM To: Janet Mason Cc: Brad Steinke Subject: RE: Special event liquor license for boys and girls club Jan: The Planning Division has no objections to this one-time special event for the Boys and Girls Club. The Dolce Vita facilities have accommodated these types of events in the past with no problems of which we are aware. OU4 CJ5?UiVLq'6 Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Apache Junction 300 E. Superstition Blvd. Apache Junction, AZ 85119 480-474-2645 resquivias@ajcity.net SERVICE OVER AND ABOVE THE REST (Development Services Department office hours: Monday through Thursday from 7:00am to 6:00pm, closed Fridays and Holidays.) From: Janet Mason Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 4:25 PM To: Dennis Dixon; Rudy Esquivias; Jeff Robinson; John Suniga (ighn.s uniclacagifire.orcl) Subject: Special event liquor license for boys and girls club I have received a special event liquor license from the boys and girls club for April 12, 2014. In order to put this item on the March 4,2014 agenda, I need your department recommendations no later than noon on Wednesday, February 19. Thanks! MAW% Apache Junction Police Department Memorandum DATE: February 13, 2014 TO: Jan Mason, Deputy City Clerk Chief Thomas Kelly THROUGH: Captain Troy Mullendep)!;�, FROM: Lieutenant Jeff Robinson SUBJECT: Application for a special event liquor license for Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley Apache Junction Branch Mrs. Mason, I spoke to Mr. Ramon Elias, President of the Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley, who advised me that this would be the fourth consecutive year that this charitable event has been held at Dolce Vita, 3301 South Goldfield Road in Apache Junction, and there are no changes to the venue. Therefore the Police Department has no reason to decline the application for the liquor license as outlined in the application. Jeff Robinson Patrol and SWAT Operations Lieutenant District AQpre y�CC VV Arizona dtP • Apache Junction Fire District o°t"m1eRj� ppOUDLY SERVING 565 North Idaho Road, Apache Junction, AZ 85219 Phone (480) 982-4440, Fax(480) 982-0183 .,. �`)ternatipP� MEMORANDUM TO: Jan Mason,Deputy City Clerk City of Apache Junction 300 E. Idaho Road Apache Jct.,AZ. 85219 FROM: John Suniga,Deputy Fire Marshal DATE: February 18, 2014 SUBJECT: Application for Special Event Liquor License for 3301 S.Goldfield The Apache Junction Fire District has reviewed the application as noted above regarding the facilities at 3301 S. Goldfield for an event to be held on April 12, 2014. We have recently completed an annual fire and life safety inspection with no major violations found. We therefore would recommend approval of this application. Thank you for your notification on this matter. If you have any further questions regarding this inspection, please feel free to contact my office at 982-4440. Thank You. ATTN: Application Janet Mason From: Dennis Dixon Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:22 PM To: Janet Mason Subject: RE: special event liquor license for the boys and girls club I have no objection. From: Janet Mason Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:37 PM To: Dennis Dixon Cc: Kathy Connelly Subject: special event liquor license for the boys and girls club Dennis: I have not received your recommendation for this special event liquor license. I need this immediately if it is to go in this meeting packet. For quick reference,this is on April 12, 2014 at Dolce Vita. This recommendation was due no later than noon today. 1 ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard o Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ U =i 85119 Agenda Item No. 7. �Piz oN* File ID: 14-120 Sponsor: Rudy Esquivias Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Consideration and action on proposed case PZ-1-14, an application by Walter Quanstrom, represented by Scott Olivier, requesting an appeal of the city's Landscape Code, pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 6 Landscaping, Section 6-1-7 Appeal to City Council. Consideration and action. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 PP A�RF✓ � G,y 0 City of Apache Junction 9RlZO�P Development Services Department MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2014 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members THROUGH: George Hoffman, City Manager Brad Steinke, Dev. Services Director FROM: Rudy Esquivias, Senior Planner/Zoning Admin. SUBJECT: March 4, 2014 - City Council Public Hearing Item: Case PZ-1-14, an appeal of the City of Apache Junction Landscape and Screening Requirements by Walter Quanstrom, represented by Scott Olivier Summary: Attached please find an application by Walter Quanstrom, represented by Scott Olivier, requesting an appeal of the city' s Landscape Code, pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 6 Landscaping, Section 6-1-7 Appeal to City Council (Section 6-1-7 attached) . Specifically, the applicant is appealing Sections 6-1-5-B-3-b and 6-1-5-D-2-c. The subject site is located approximately 110 feet north of the northwest corner of W. Southern Avenue and S . Coconino Drive, in the Superstition Villa industrial subdivision (see aerials and Assessor map) . The site is currently vacant and to the best of staff' s knowledge has never been developed, except that several years ago a previous owner constructed a 6' masonry wall around the north, east and south perimeters of the property. A permit is not required to place or construct a 6' fence or wall around a vacant commercial or industrial property, and it is not uncommon for said vacant lots to be fenced (usually with chain link) for the purpose of keeping out trespassers . However, a property owner runs a risk of putting a fence or wall in an area which may later be required to be landscaped as part of a development proposal . It appears that such is the case with this property. The previous owner did not leave space for the required PZ-1-14 (LS Code Appeal by Quanstrom) Page 2 of 4 landscape setback area at the front of the property, which now causes an issue for the new owner wanting to develop the property. Proposal • The applicant wishes to develop the property with an industrial- type building, which he plans to use for personal purposes . He contends that the existing wall is very nice and he would prefer not to move the wall back to accommodate the required front yard landscape strip, which in the CI-1 zone is a 15' setback. He also contends that creating a front yard landscape area will just provide a place for kids to "hang out and vandalize" . In- stead, the applicant proposes to provide for alternative landscaping, as well as completely stucco the building which will be built on the property and the building on the property to the north of the site, which he apparently also owns . Planning Division Analysis : Section 6-1-5-B-3-b normally requires that in industrial zones, for properties not along major arterials, a minimum 10-foot deep landscaped yard be required (as already mentioned, in CI-1 the minimum front yard is 15' ) . Section 6-1-5-D-2-c requires that 6' walls not be located in front setback areas, and limits wall heights in said areas to 3 feet. Furthermore, the subject site is zoned CI-1/PD (Light Industry and Warehouse Zone by Planned Development) , pursuant to Ordinance No. 984 (attached) . Said ordinance required that the Landscape and Screening Requirements be "strictly applied to these parcels" . Although the lots in this neighborhood are quite small and narrow (usually two or more lots needs to be combined to create viable and functional development sites) , we note that other properties in the neighborhood have followed the Landscape and Screening Requirements; and a couple of properties were also granted PD amendments or landscape code appeals . However, we do not recall that Council has completely waived the front landscape strip requirements for any properties . There are still many undeveloped lots in this industrial and commercial neighborhood, so a decision in this case may affect the development of other similar properties . City Council Work Session At their work session on February 18, Council Members asked about other properties in the neighborhood getting recent PZ-1-14 (LS Code Appeal by Quanstrom) Page 3 of 4 improvements (some building renovations, fencing improvements, etc. ) . Staff commented that there were a number of properties which were developed before the City adopted its Landscape Code. However, since 1996, many properties have been developed in compliance with both the Planned Development regulations for the neighborhood as well as the Landscape Code . Council Members also noted that there was opportunity to install at least some landscaping between the curb and the existing wall . Staff agreed. Planning Division Recommendation If the City Council wishes to approve this request, then Planning Staff recommends that they include the following recommended conditions of approval as part of their motion. RECOMMENDED MOTION I move that the City Council (APPROVE/DENY) case PZ-1-14, an application by Walter Quanstrom, represented by Scott Olivier, requesting an appeal of the city' s Landscape Code, pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 6 Landscaping, Section 6-1-7 Appeal to City Council (Section 6-1-7 attached) . Specifically, the applicant is appealing Section 6-1-5-B-3-b, which normally requires a 15- foot-deep landscaped frontage, and 6-1-5-D-2-c, which normally prohibits walls taller than three feet in front yard landscape areas, for the subject property located approximately 110 feet north of the northwest corner of W. Southern Avenue and S . Coconino Drive, subject to the following conditions of approval : 1) The subject property shall be substantially developed within two (2) years of the approval of this appeal request, or the granted appeal shall expire without further legislative action. 2) All signage on the property shall comply with the City' s Sign Code . 3) All development on the property is subject to proper permits and inspections . 4) All development on the property is subject to compliance with all other adopted City codes and ordinances, PZ-1-14 (LS Code Appeal by Quanstrom) Page 4 of 4 including but not necessarily limited to, the City' s Zoning Ordinance, building permits and inspection requirements, Engineering Guidelines and Commercial Design Guidelines . 5) All other provisions of the city' s Landscape Code shall apply to this property, including the installation of a 10-foot-wide landscape strip inside the property' s west property line, the provision of adequate landscaped retention areas, and the installation of decomposed granite or hard surface parking (especially disabled parking) throughout the site . 6) Lastly, as trade-offs for the requested appeal, the developer shall provide for a fully-stuccoed building, two (2) 36" box trees and two (2) 24" box trees (palo verdes and/or tamarisks) planted just inside the east wall; and new terra cotta colored 1" minus decomposed granite and a minimum of four (4) five-gallon bougainvilleas provided outside the east wall between the wall and the curb. Attachments: - Appeal Application; - Property and neighborhood aerials; - Assessor's map of site; - Ordinance No. 984; - Section 6-1-7 Appeal to City Council; - Conceptual building elevations and site plan PPA�MF . ti U -�>> City of Apache Junction QR�z Development Services Department MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5 , 2014 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members THROUGH: George Hoffman, City Manager Brad Steinke, Dev. Services Director FROM: Rudy Esquivias, Senior Planner/Zoning Admin. SUBJECT: February 18 , 2014 - Work Session Agenda item: PZ-1-14 An appeal of the City of Apache Junction Landscape and Screening Requirements by Walter Quanstrom, represented by Scott Olivier Summary: Attached please find an application by Walter Quanstrom, represented by Scott Olivier, requesting an appeal of the city' s Landscape Code, pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 6 Landscaping, Section 6-1-7 Appeal to City Council (Section 6-1-7 attached) . Specifically, the applicant is appealing Sections 6-1-5-B-3-b and 6-1-5-D-2-c . The subject site is located approximately 110 feet north of the northwest corner of W. Southern Avenue and S . Coconino Drive, in the Superstition Villa industrial subdivision (see aerials and Assessor map) . The site is currently vacant and to the best of staff ' s knowledge has never been developed, except that several years ago a previous owner constructed a 6 ' masonry wall around the north, east and south perimeters of the property. A permit is not required to place or construct a 6 ' fence or wall around a vacant commercial or industrial property, and it is not uncommon for said vacant lots to be fenced (usually with chain link) for the purpose of keeping out trespassers . However, a property owner runs a risk of putting a fence or a wall in an area which may later be required to be landscaped as part of a development proposal . It appears that such is the case with this property. The previous owner did not leave space for the required PZ-1-14 (LS Code Appeal by Quanstrom) Page 2 of 3 landscape setback area at the front of the property, which now causes an issue for the new owner wanting to develop the property. Proposal : The applicant wishes to develop the property with an industrial- type building, which he plans to use for personal purposes . He contends that the existing wall is very nice and he would prefer not to move the wall back to accommodate the required front yard landscape strip, which in the CI-1 zone is a 15 ' setback. He also contends that creating a front yard landscape area will just provide a place for kids to "hang out and vandalize" . In- stead, the applicant proposes to provide for alternative landscaping, as well as completely stucco the building which will be built on the property and the building on the property to the north of the site, which he apparently also owns . Planning Division Analysis : Section 6-1-5-B-3-b normally requires that in industrial zones, for properties not along major arterials, a minimum 10-foot deep landscaped yard be required (as already mentioned, in CI-1 the minimum front yard is 15 ' ) . Section 6-1-5-D-2-c requires that 6 ' walls not be located in front setback areas, and limits wall heights in said areas to 3 feet . Furthermore, the subject site is zoned CI-1/PD (Light Industry and Warehouse Zone by Planned Development) , pursuant to Ordinance No . 984 (attached) . Said ordinance required that the Landscape and Screening Requirements be "strictly applied to these parcels" . Although the lots in this neighborhood are quite small and narrow (usually two or more lots need to be combined to create viable and functional development sites) , we note that other properties in the neighborhood have followed the Landscape and Screening Requirements ; and a couple of properties were also granted landscape code appeals . However, we do not recall that Council has completely waived the front landscape strip require- ments for any properties . There are still many undeveloped lots in this industrial and commercial neighborhood, so a decision in this case may affect the development of other similar properties . At their public hearing on March 4 , staff will present several recommended conditions, should Council wish to consider approving this request . PZ-1-14 (LS Code Appeal by Quanstrom) Page 3 of 3 Attachments: - Appeal Application; - Property and neighborhood aerials; - Assessor's map of site; - Ordinance No. 984; - Section 6-1-7 Appeal to City Council; - Conceptual building elevation and site plan CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION APPEAL OF LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS Owner/Agent Information: Name: Q4#%;iS7(Z Telephone: fy,93- 505- 3174 Address: G75/ Al 5v-tSe-,- f3/vd w-.?-:RD, /e ,AL 553a5 Property Information: Zoning Classification Current: Requested: Property Size: Ao, 000 ❑ acres )( square feet County Tax Assessor Parcel #: /v 2 -aka- 3(og0 Legal Description of Property (found on County Tax Bill Notices): SvPl✓RSTiT1c7---1 VILLA GoT ?&0 3lo'i 37Q e- 371 Address/Location of Property (if different from Owner Address, above): No A'DT>X65S A!-61 6!--J� REQUEST INFORMATION: Describe existing and proposed use of the subject property and building(s): /.►.,,�,�,r o-r 6x s-n - ?tL0 Posh A.7cw ! ,000 SC-' s H o P Describe the request: A S K V-36 -Fo R ✓AZ IAIA-LC F-2 a -A 15` i-.4;;-v>ccs 26Qy1ttEME--.)T Describe any special circumstances or conditions that exist which would cause strict application of the regulations to be an unnecessary hardship: 4v n rye-. 1`-e-zLc AL�Ert�✓ x l_ �MvS I-- HA- b 4-t- P ROPG R TY A-) I,a,JO,Z%?tED A3�vT G►Z� T� .X� A PGC KcT FOR 54HO01- KISS V K C 67--r- d- vA+".Z>k L/Z.c Describe anv other reasons for the request: to ra f� h Co.0 P�c7�tF SLR A/ i••d�`✓e EkiST/..y vfc.►Jr yEr �t1�zT t?oofC To 1"4?P-WJ4 �NT�R� NEIGH RHooD OFFICE USE ONLY Case No: Date Filed: Receipt No: Fee Amount: $ Application Received By: IIWe certify that: IIWe are the owner(s)of the property described in this application for landscape appeal and have submitted copies of deeds or title reports as proof of ownership. UWe have read the application instructions and have truthfully completed this application and that the City has the option of either approval or denial of this request following conduct of a Public Hearing. IIWe, being the owner(s) of the property in this application, have appointedOu�iEi� as my/our representative agent. IIWe have authorized him/her to do whatever is necessary to have this request considered favorably by the City of Apache Junction and agree that all correspondence relating to this matter should be delivered to him/her. PLE,AS4PRI N (2c�►� L Property Owner Namd Signature (P �4 z r aQ (�mth Street Address n� ('p 3 u —3 0 — 3 Z-q r Cit , State, Zip Telephone Property Owner Name Signature Street Address City, State, Zip Telephone Agent Name Signature t-7S1 A/ Sv&fznr Street Address 653o"z &49 3- 5 05- 3171 City, State, Zip �— Telephone STATE OF ARIZONA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this ) SS 7 day of it i Ci 20 1(1 COUNTY OF PINAL ) �— CATHY COOPER Notary Public,Stele of Arizona Marico a County Notary PUbIICI My Commission Expires • r December 01 , 2014 My Commission Expires: �Di Lo.111)V ( T`) �j CL cam, 0 x 1 ` . w • �W� � 4W,r. wuo F O Cd a I �w,� �wm ywui 11 x 5 2.L G O>y - '`.. R �W rJ��$W.N.. �WNtL rl A ce W �l - ,1 oNiNoDoO w M o .. ¢, m w w w w w w = w m ¢l m m u! u! m £ •�ily � .l `t •t 4 �. m o ~ �c C) O Q in ty)W ry y� LL LL u a � LL• LL IV LL j W t• !W` p u ,'wo , - � m R - W rn U f W y w � ul O + O iq q p�r`� LLLL'ri �o. 7iw 0 M1M1 LLi 3 G o - �r 'o l $N ,y' y U, i � ` �f3 u, .P- { �j Jiaf ieoa � i1µ¢ �� a� • $ I fo n" + � a�C • 0. — — LO N a yr L 1p L' c C o y lCp O c2 N G ^ v LA3 v u_ Ycl Q z — N A L > a c v a it o w � c_ A a a m E 0 p coN y LL N ° 3 ^ S > > c I m c N " o V a U a S Q a LL a C7 F t/! V1 w w m F f Q v c + « + + + + + + « + « + + + + « + o m N n > CL wt L L IL L., t d lo Lt' o 3 jr C N 3lvnlad ° W I- I ' 4 � 1 ' • yr. �, i � %�, .W ;�his Ht Q -•- � ter- - - �.-. - ,., r or CL 1 t -,%a —� �`•-,fir _ oNlNoDoD p ! �• tE o 3� u Irl► Q • • ;1 az L L 06o 1 , � t . irr, ^tom.-� 1 � !Jr �• L f �_ L�— x • iT—'�! attrel�*�er �ol....� _ ���'..r . [try - Q. c� 0 O o m L A C W a > - 3 o -� CL L p to m ai y u Y r T 2d y 2. m OI o Co y v 3 n n m N V O C C _T V N d 3 O q Gl L X O' Y O J y V] aH V a f ¢ a LL w a (7 F to to w w m � � D l l l l � •� to V m l� l! 1$ 131 ♦ r « +, l� �ij I� 1� N n Q, 31 ce 2 m| � L6 ) co , | j co ' _ , , . . K (; ) ) § , N § ' ■ §`§ 2 ! � R j 4 ■ a) > ` ' | \ , r . . \| § 2 z § : % & <)_ O § . k - | : ! h/ k ' . . . X $ � . FT , n !§ --- +eLa\&} -- — �s/���S "I OW ----j _._, _ � � - � / � , � ■ ¢ ƒ � _ � | � 9 _ - - - - - - � a ;_3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , , , , , ■ , ■ ; . ; � . % , / $ . , m 41 ¢ • 9 | � � ral )LLJ ! � ■ ■ « ■ ! ; ; !� , ■ � : , � ; y ■ ■ � � � � ! ■ D � _WUmmOOO \uj ` - \ � . � � . , � « � / LU @ \ �� ± ■ ■ , , § . � & ! � ■ ■ : � ■ ; ■ , ■ ■ � ■ ; ; _ ( � � ! ■ ■ ■ ! ! � ; � ■ ■ � Czzataw,» � � Ln ORDINANCE NO.984 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION , ARIZONA. AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ARIZONA ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF APACHE JUNCTION ARIZONA, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN REZONING CASE NO. PZ-96-19 FROM CB-2, GENERAL BUSINESS TO CI-1/PD, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS: AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT: SECTION I IN GENERAL The zoning district classification on the Zoning District Map City of Apache Junction Arizona_, for the parcel of land described as : Superstition Villa Subdivision, Lots 326 through 371 and 380 through 395; be and hereby is amended from CB-2, General Business , to CI-1/PD, Light Industrial by Planned Development: subject to the following stipulations: 1 . All proposed development , both new and expansion of existing , shall be reviewed by the Planninq and Zoninq Commission and the r;+„ Council according tc the requirements of ArtJcle 19 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Planned Development Zoning District. 2. Permitted uses for Case No. PZ-96-19 shall be as follows: Civic type uses Ambulance services Lodge, fraternal , and civic assembly Postal services Administrative services for nonprofit organizations Office: business , professional or semi -professional Insurance and real estate services ORDINANCE NO. 984 PAGE ONE OF THREE Any of the following , if conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building: Assembly/manufacturing of electrical components Upholstery shop Welding and/or machine shop (excluding punch presses over twenty (20) tons rated capacity, and drop hammer) Veterinary hospital Cabinet shop Instrument manufacturing Pottery manufacturing Sign shop Tire shop Other uses as deemed appropriate through the Conditional Use Permit process by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Ordinance No 940 Landscaping and Screening Requirements shall be strictly applied to these parcels . 4. The following lots in Superstition Villa Subdivision are affected by this rezoning action: Lots 326 through 371 . and 380 through 395, for a total of 62 lots SECTION II REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference are hereby repealed. SECTION III PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY If any section , subsection, sentence, phrase, clause or portion of this ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH 1997 . ORDINANCE NO. 984 PAGE TWO OF THREE SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 1RTH DAY OF MARCH 1997 . . e DOUGLAS COLEMAI Mayor ATTEST: �,- KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM FARRELL interim City Attornev ORDINANCE NO. 984 PAGE THREE OF THREE 10 Apache Junction - Landscaping (a) Electrical power lines are 12 5. The developer demonstrates kilovolt (kV) or less capacity; that undergrounding overhead lines and equipment will be an unusual and extreme economic hardship and (b) The width of property (i.e., the cost of undergrounding is disproportionate to the development site) frontage exceeds 150 feet; and aesthetic benefit resulting from the undergrounding. (c) The proposed development/ (b) In no case shall new utility service redevelopment is located along a major arterial (i.e., extensions from existing service/transmission lines to section line) road including Old West Highway, a proposed subdivision or nonresidential development/ Apache Trail, State Route 88, on any new private and redevelopment be exempted from the undergrounding public streets, or within any adopted redevelopment requirement. area. (4) Appeal. Applicants aggrieved by the (3) Required written request and approval decision of the Development Services Director or his criteria. All requests for exemption from this or her designee may appeal the decision to the City requirement must be presented in writing to the Council within 20 calendar days after the Development Services Director or his or her designee Development Services Director's or his or her prior to development or redevelopment approval by designee's decision has been made. the city. (Prior Document, § 6-1-6) (Ord. passed - -; Am. Ord. 1318, passed 7-1-2008) (a) The Development Services Director or his or her designee may exempt or :onditionally exempt a proposed development or § 6-1-7 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL. redevelopment from the requirement to place new and/or existing overhead lines and equipment (A) Any person affected by the application of underground after confirming any of the following: any provision of this Article may appeal either the interpretation or application of this Article to the City 1. The adjacent land on both Council. The authority of the City Council shall sides of the proposed development/redevelopment extend only to the interpretation of the provisions of property is developed with existing structures or this Article and to the granting of a variance or the buildings and has existing overhead lines and adjustment of the regulations to overcome practical equipment located along the property's public or difficulties and prevent unnecessary hardship in the private road frontage; application of the regulations contained in this Article. The City Council shall have the power to: 2. The character of existing development within the immediate area exhibits a (1) Interpret this Article when the meaning dominant pattern of existing overhead lines and of any word or phrase of a section is in doubt; when equipment; there is a dispute as to the meaning between the appellant and the Department of Development 3. The proposed development/ Services; or when the location of a boundary is in redevelopment is a minor addition or modification to doubt; and an existing site/building. MINOR is defined as a building addition of less than 25% of the existing (2) Authorize variances,at a duly convened building's gross floor area; public hearing, from the strict application of the provisions of this Article in such cases in which the 4. The proposed development strict application of the provisions would result in the results in a minor subdivision of 3 or less lots; or serious impairment of a substantial property right, upon a showing as required in divisions (C)(1)(a) through (C)(1)(c) herein, provided that the special Landscaping and Screening Requirements 11 circumstances applicable to the property are not owners as shown on the list submitted by the applicant self-imposed by the property owner, and further under the provisions herein above. provided that the long-term interests of the community are given full consideration. (C) (1) At a public hearing for a variance, the applicant at the hearing shall present a statement and (B) Application for either an appeal of an adequate evidence, in such form as the Council shall interpretation of the provisions of this Article or any require, showing that: permissible variance of regulations, as provided herein, shall be made by the affected person to the (a) There are special circumstances or City Council on forms provided. The application shall conditions attached to the property upon which the be filed in the office of the Planning Division of the proposed building, structure, wall, landscaping or Department of Development Services and shall be other improvement is sought to be placed or erected, accompanied by the following: which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other land, buildings or improvements on (1) Accurate plot plans and descriptions of other property in the neighborhood subsequent to the the property involved and the proposed use with adoption of this Article. In making this showing, the preliminary floor plans and elevations of all proposed applicant must show that the special circumstances buildings; applicable to the property are not self-imposed; (2) Evidence satisfactory to the City (b) The granting of the application is Council, of the ability and intention to proceed with necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of actual construction work in accordance with the plans substantial existing property rights where the shape of within 6 months after Council approval; the building site, topography, location of existing buildings or other conditions make strict compliance (3) A list showing the names and addresses with the regulations impossible without practical of all persons, firms or corporations appearing on difficulty or hardship. In making this showing, the public record as owning property within the area applicant must show that the practical difficulties or proposed to be affected and within 300 feet of any hardships are not self-imposed; and part of the property for which a variance is requested. The Planning Division shall satisfy itself as to the (c) The granting of the application will completeness of the list prior to setting a date for not materially affect the health, safety or welfare of public hearing; persons residing, working or otherwise located in the neighborhood, and will not be materially detrimental (4) A nonrefundable filing fee of$250 shall to the public welfare or injurious to property or be paid at the time of filing of the application. A improvements in the neighborhood. continuance of a case at the request of the applicant requires a nonrefundable filing fee of$125; and (2) The City Council may approve or deny any such application. In approving any application, (5) Upon determination of the completeness the Council may designate any conditions in of the application, the City Council shall proceed to connection therewith as will, in its opinion, secure hold a public hearing on the application. Notice of the substantially the objectives of the regulation or time and place of the hearing, including a general provision to which the variance is granted, but in no explanation of the matter to be considered and a case shall these regulations be reduced in such manner general description of the area, shall be given at least as to violate the intention and purpose of this Article. 15 days before the hearing by publication of the notice The Council, when granting such a request, shall set at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in forth in writing the conditions imposed in order to the city; by posting the notice in conspicuous places cause the minimum possible interference with the close to the property affected; and by depositing in the general purposes of this Article. United States mail notices thereof addressed to the 12 Apache Junction - Landscaping (D) It shall be unlawful to violate any condition upon which a variance has been granted, punishable pursuant to the provisions of Apache Junction City Code, Vol. I, § 1-1-11. Where any condition under which a variance has been granted is violated, the variance shall cease to exist and any permit issued thereon shall become null and void. (Prior Document, § 6-1-7) (Ord. passed - -) WOH1SNvno H31ldM 0 0 � •<^' tl0001q Jlr.tl tl0(%]11UJ4•r1 �t LO a LU r- LL O M rlrtl 1 CO CC) pq �f� o WOdISNvno bl3llVM 0 'Ha ONINOOOO 'S CD LL LL C3 W O .00,00 L w > u a UV0 OM180(3 N O Qd OU)z�O �OOG O JZO J Q F- O H n 0 II 0 (D I co O X o*WF .00,00CD -m z O $vSiE O o'- N Q ¢<oLL � FOEcc?, rl II yowM0000,§ L o Z z U o_o N _o o —{L — T O •- G yt �Q71 G $V S (3 0 Y G Y J 3 yp morwrl Y (A J Z Z Z Z v Q aadad N WHO HO WEz SO o�d <o l — ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard o Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ U =i 85119 Agenda Item No.8. �Piz oN* File ID: 14-117 Sponsor: Rudy Esquivias Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Consideration and action on proposed Ordinance No. 1397, case PZ-7-13, a request by the Hartley Residual and Sweeney Revocable Trusts, represented by Betty Sweeney, to rezone a 0.71-acre property located at 710 N. Ironwood Drive, from Local Business Zone (CB-1)and Multiple-family Residence Zone (CR-5)to General Commercial District (C-3). Consideration and action. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 pp pCHg Z City of Apache Junction gRIzoNP Development Services Department Date : February 19, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Through: George Hoffman, City Manager Brad Steinke, Development Services Director From: Rudy Esquivias, Senior Planner/Zoning Admin. Subject: March 4, 2014, City Council Public Hearing Item: Ordinance #1397, Case PZ-7-13, Rezoning by Hartley Residual Trust and Sweeney Revocable Trust/Betty Sweeney Background The above ownership entities, represented by Betty Sweeney, are proposing to rezone the . 71-acre property at 710 N. Ironwood Drive, from CB-1 (Local Business Zone) and CR-5 (Multiple-family Residence Zone) to C-3 (General Commercial District) . The proposal seeks to develop a site for a roofing company currently inside the City (Efficient Roofing) , which would consist of a small (12' x 441 ) office building and a storage yard. The applicants are requesting a straight C-3 zoning for the property and thus are not seeking any planned development deviations or zoning trade-offs . They propose to develop the site in compliance with all minimum requirements . Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation On January 28, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request (P&Z staff report and exhibits attached) . One neighbor did speak in opposition to the request at the public hearing, citing concerns about noise and light impacts to surrounding residential areas . The Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning by a vote of 6 to 0 (one Commissioner absent) , subject to all of Staff' s recommended conditions . The Commissioners did not feel that the proposed development would necessarily be any more intense than what is allowed there now under the existing commercial and multi-family zoning. PZ-7-13 (Sweeney) Page 2 of 2 City Council Work Session At their work session on February 18, the Council seemed generally receptive to the rezoning proposal and did not raise any specific concerns about the request. Staff presents Ordinance No. 1397 for the Council' s consideration, with the "straight zoning" conditions of approval as recommended by Staff and the Commission. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance No. 1397; PZ Staff Report from January 28, 2014, with all attachments. ORDINANCE NO. 1397 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP, CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING CASE PZ-7-13, A REQUEST BY THE MILLARD F. HARTLEY RESIDUAL TRUST, RUTH S . HARTLEY, TRUSTEE, AND THE MICHAEL E. AND BETTY M. SWEENEY REVOCABLE TRUST, MICHAEL E. AND BETTY M. SWEENEY, TRUSTEES, REPRESENTED BY BETTY SWEENEY, FROM LOCAL BUSINESS ZONE (CB-1) AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE (CR-5) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-3) ; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. WHEREAS, the subject property was rezoned by the City in the early 1980' s and was used for a taxicab business for a number of years, but has never otherwise been fully developed as a commercial property; and WHEREAS, the applicants have proposed to relocate a business already operating in the City on the site, and have proposed a development plan for the property to accommodate said business; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Apache Junction Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of rezoning case PZ-7-13 by a vote of 6-0, subject to certain basic conditions for the development of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the proposed rezoning conforms to all of the general criteria as specified in Section 1-16-5 C-3 Local Commercial District of the City of Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance, including compliance with the General Plan, integration with the surrounding neighborhood, adequate traffic accommodation, adequate public facilities, extension of infrastructure, and that the design and uses should result in enhancements to the social, built, and natural environments in the City. ORDINANCE NO. 1397 PAGE 1 OF 3 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I IN GENERAL That the zoning district classification on the Zoning District Map, City of Apache Junction, Arizona, for the parcel of land legally described as : Lot 26, Block 3, amended plat of Newtown Subdivision, according to the plat of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Pinal, County, Arizona, in Book 5 of Maps, Page 23A; Except the East 17 feet thereof (also known as Pinal County Assessor parcel number 101-02-080A) ; be and hereby is amended from Local Business Zone (CB-1) and Multiple-family Residence Zone (CR-5) to General Commercial District (C-3) , subject to the following conditions of approval : 1) The subject property shall be substantially developed within two (2) years of this rezoning approval, or the zoning may be subject to reversion by City Council legislative action pursuant to Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1 Zoning Ordinance, Article 1-13 Amendments and Changes, Section 1-13-11 Significance of Approval . 2) All signage on the property shall comply with the City' s Sign Code. 3) All development on the property is subject to proper permits and inspections . 4) All development on the property is subject to compliance with all other adopted City codes and ordinances, including but not necessarily limited to, the City' s Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Guidelines, Landscape and Screening Requirements, and Commercial Design Guidelines . SECTION II REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS : All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. ORDINANCE NO. 1397 PAGE 2 OF 3 SECTION III PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, phrase, clause or portion of this ordinance, or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconsti- tutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS DAY OF , 2014 . SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS DAY OF , 2014 . JOHN INSALACO Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: RICHARD JOEL STERN City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 1397 PAGE 3 OF 3 �Pp ACHE.i O ti� ti -- City of Apache Junction 4RIZONP Development Services Department PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT DATE: January 28 , 2014 CASE NUMBER: PZ-7-13 APPLICANTS/OWNERS: The Millard F. Hartley Residual Trust, Ruth S . Hartley, Trustee, and the Michael E. and Betty M. Sweeney Revocable Trust, Michael E. and Betty M. Sweeney, Trustees . REPRESENTATIVE: Betty M. Sweeney REQUEST: An application requesting rezoning approv- al for a roofing company business and accompanying storage yard. The devel- opment plan proposes to rezone the 0 . 71- acre property from CB-1 (Local Business Zone) and CR-5 (Multi-Family Residence Zone) to C-3 (General Commercial District) . LOCATION: The property is located approximately 250 ' south of the southwest corner of W. Superstition Blvd. and N. Ironwood Drive . GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential at 1 to 6 dwelling units per acre . The west +/-125 ' is zoned CR-5 , and the rest is zoned CB-1 . SURROUNDING USES : North: Single-family residence (zoned GR, General Rural) ; South: Single-family residence (zoned C-2 , Local Commercial) ; East : Vacant (zoned C-2) ; West : Single-family residence (zoned GR) . PZ-7-13 (Sweeney/Efficient Roofing) PAGE 2 OF 5 BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as Lot 26 of the Newtown Subdivision back in 1947 (see Zoning Map) . Newtown has always mostly been a single-family residential subdivision. In the early 19801s, the property was rezoned from GR to CR-5 and CB-1 . For several years, a taxi cab business operated out of an old home which existed on the eastern end of the lot . It does not appear that the property was ever developed with multi-family uses . Aerial imagery suggests that sometime in the early 1990 ' s the old home was removed from the property, leaving only the slab that exists there today (see site and neighborhood aerials) . To the best of staff' s knowledge, the property has been vacant since the early ` 90s . PROPOSAL The Efficient Roofing business is currently located just north and west of the subject site at 1721 W. Superstition Boulevard (just west of the 4-Sons) on a leased property. The business proprietor wishes to purchase the subject site of this rezoning, develop it and relocate his business to the site . He has already constructed a perimeter wall around the property. His intent is to further develop the property with a small modular office building, build additional screen walls to the north and south sides of the building and create a storage yard for his trucks to the west of the new building (see proposed site plan) . The parking area for customers will be on the east side of the building; and landscaped areas will be provided along the Ironwood Drive street frontage and also along the north and west perimeters, to further buffer the proposed commercial use from residential properties to the north and west of the site . Access to the site will be from Ironwood and the gate to the storage yard will be located to the south of the building . At a minimum, the storage yard will need to be improved with decomposed granite to mitigate dust emissions . Planning Staff Analysis and Findings Relationship to General Plan: The subject site and all of the surrounding properties (with the exception of the "community commercial" corners at Ironwood and Pz-7-13 (Sweeney/Efficient Roofing) PAGE 3 OF 5 Superstition) are designated by the General Plan as "MD" Medium Density Residential, maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) . Because of the size of the property ( . 71 acres) , this commercial rezoning request is considered a minor amendment to the General Plan. Zoning/Site Context : The proposed C-3 zoning is compatible with the commercial zoned properties at the intersection, although there is a residential zoned property between the site and the 4 Sons Convenience Store . Directly to the south of the site, there is a C-2 zoned property which is presently developed with a residential use . The roofing business is currently located on a property which is zoned CB-1 . Contractor storage yards are not normally allowed in the CB-1 zone . Relocating to the subject site and making use of the entire property for the roofing business requires rezoning . This is not a planned development rezoning request, so the property will be developed in compliance with all standard zoning and landscape regulations . Standard application of all regulations will also allow for any future uses allowed under the C-3 zone (see C-3 regulations attached) . The right-of-way on N. Ironwood Drive has already been dedicated and improved, but the developer may need to provide addition improvements such as a streetlight and a proper commercial driveway, per Public Works engineering requirements . Public Input : The applicants conducted a neighborhood meeting on November 6 , 2013 . Attached is a copy of the invitation letter, the sign-up sheet and meeting notes, as well as specific answers to the questions raised by the neighbors (per the Commission' s request) . Mrs . Sweeney and Mr. Craven (owner of Efficient Roofing) responded to the neighbors with regard to how this particular business plans to operate on the property. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session At their work session on January 14 , the Commissioners requested written follow-up to questions from the neighbors, which the applicants have provided (see attached) . There was also a question about the architecture of the building . The applicants PZ-7-13 (Sweeney/Efficient Roofing) PAGE 4 OF 5 contend that the proposed commercial modular building will be of good quality and it will be painted a two-tone color in compliance with the southwest color palette in the city' s Commercial Design Guidelines booklet . There were also questions about the types of conditions which could be recommended with the rezoning . Because this is not a planned development rezoning request, basically the Commission would be recommending in favor or against a "straight" C-3 rezoning request . In the recommended conditions of approval , Staff has included a reversion clause and we have re-iterated what some of the standard improvement requirements call for in this case . Planning Division Recommendation Planning Staff offers the following Recommended Motion, along with a few recommended conditions of approval, should the Commission wish to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council . RECOMMENDED MOTION I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council the (APPROVAL/DENIAL) of rezoning case PZ-7-13 , a request by the Millard F. Hartley Residual Trust, Ruth S . Hartley, Trustee, and the Michael E . and Betty M. Sweeney Revocable Trust, Michael E . and Betty M. Sweeney, Trustees , represented by Betty Sweeney, for a rezoning of their 0 . 71-acre property from CB-1 (Local Business Zone) and CR-5 (Multiple- family Residence Zone) to C-3 (General Commercial District) , subject to the following conditions of approval : 1) The subject property shall be substantially developed within two (2) years of this rezoning approval, or the zoning may be subject to reversion by City Council legislative action pursuant to Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1 Zoning Ordinance, Article 1-13 Amendments and Changes, Section 1-13-11 Significance of Approval . 2) All signage on the property shall comply with the City' s Sign Code . PZ-7-13 (Sweeney/Efficient Roofing) PAGE 5 OF 5 3) All development on the property is subject to proper permits and inspections . 4) All development on the property is subject to compliance with all other adopted City codes and ordinances, including but not necessarily limited to, the City' s Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Guidelines , Landscape and Screening Requirements, and Commercial Design Guidelines . Prepared l6y R y squivias Senior Plann Attachments: Exhibit #1 - PZ-7-13 Application Exhibit #2 - Vicinity and Zoning Map Exhibit 43 - Aerial image of property Exhibit #4 - Aerial image of surrounding neighborhood Exhibit #5 - C-3 Zone regulations Exhibit #6 - Neighborhood Participation Plan and Meeting Summary Exhibit #7 - Proposed site plan �QpCH�J EXHIBIT A: Planning and Zoning Application Form QAIZO�,P Office Use Only: Filing Date Staff Fees Received Case TYPE OF APPLICATION Annexation Abandonment(Plat/Easement/ROW) _Board of Adjustment _Cargo Container Permit _Certificate of Legal Nonconformity _Conditional Use Permit _Development Agreement _Development Plan Review _General Plan Amendment _Lot Splits,Joins&Adjustments _Ordinance Text Amendment _Planned Development Rezoning Preliminary/Final Plat Preliminary Development Review —Sign Permit Special Use Permit _Temporary Use Permits _Zoning Map Amendment Other Re SITE INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS/LOCATION 1-7 /y IV, .Z'goA P.,d ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER IC�-Ll"d�yfl3 GROSS AREA: ,'71 �C% NET AREA EXISTING ZONING BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST: APPLICANT INFORMATION y Property Owner(s) /4a/-,to . Address See t5e, . �/�J Qhc{ nt• �i��enf%r R��'� 1� Phone Number it Fax Number Email Applicant Contact Person/Project Manager Rt-(- -J Ski e e -I e/�'I / r, Address1� S Fn / / nJoo� ��CtiJ� /�� ' ,�—/l7 /� CZ/1✓IP� Phone Number 7S1) -?J3-2092 Fax Numberp�,6-IS/'0 9t,% Email � C�j� ,ram 1W'1SkfeeAd4l. 47— Architect/Engineer `�Q /.h GJ Address -)6)G'ev / oAc M"oS'Cz Az Phone Number60�)- 6% -__7 le�,Fax Number qgV- a87- y6)q Email (v zf,7t2 ri e ' ee/4 OWNERS SIGNATURE: DATE: J 3 8-29-12 version EXHIBIT B PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION FORM I/We certify that: I/We are the owner(s) of the property described in this application for rezoning and have submitted copies of deeds or title reports as proof of ownership. I/We have read the application instructions and have truthfully completed this application. I/We understand that the City has the option of either approval or denial of this request following conduct of a Public Hearing. I/We, being the owner(s) of the property in this application, have appointed e /i e as my/our representative agent. I/We have authorized him/her to do what er is necessary to have this request considered favorably by the City of Apache Junction and agree that all correspondence relation to this matter should be delivered to him/her. PLEASE PRINT /Za Y1 y�ly, ./L7/e - -1 Property Owner i� l-�cCi/ /�/ n it Address �' 7/ 2 G l�l[� /]A fi Phone Number y��r� f' 3 ""Fax Number Email /'S -"Z-pAux), C Al Property Owner P_ ` , S��t'� I Address / � T Phone Number�a w7a V/ Fax Number Email Property Owner 4'7�,'- S'✓�� 1 Addressr'C y/ S• /� li��< �`�t�-/.� /�L� 1����A e/ /`125 ��rt Phone Number a�-. 04%1Fax Number Email STATE OF ARIZONA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of z�e gmja-er 20 13 COUNTY OF PINAL Nota ublic n Expires: use BARNES 8-29-12 version �o�C� Pz 107 - 13 PROPOSED KEZONNG FRW C12.--5 (MULTt-rAMlLY nbioF-NCeS) Al D C13-1 (LOCAL Z0140 -TO G-3 G� EgXL GOM MV9C AL, U ) - 'TITION Es l� 57 I905 �8�1 C-2/Pt) - ;c�-t I C_333333�/P� - 24 �'- 71 J G 54'r 8 o-o 88 / [3 ;G — O - - _ !27 f n0 53 0 22 26 D 2� N C 32 25 r r D O .o 00 , 5T y J \[J 7A v _G 33 - - - - ''i -- - - - 24 — — — - o " m g ao a8 i 19 34 _ 93 23 0 ' cn 7-1 K 7 7 i OF IS -i 35 22 L� �I 4 17 ,0 36 21 0 16 44 A 5 37 20 15 138 14- — - - o� > SUBJECT SITE ZONING BOUNDARY (REMAINDER IS GENERAL RURAL) RESIOENTiAL. ZOWES: TH 1 cR-5 , CAR COMmeRCIAL Z(3NFS: ce- t j C-Z, C-ZjFV) G-3/Pp as � U a c a OOOMNOM CL G 0M h Hwy� _ •i ____ - ��J�l . AL O '• r L � oo ��� 1 hc'" o�zZ49 Cc- 30, IL CL gk'N ��G H N SON u z 0 w N � � n � 4 'f m rt� icn pr � .1) d ?j� ' • � � 5 n. 1.f 3' `�¢.a � , � .�o O a � n ` ' „ f •� - w . w u a ni id CL yy y C M y Q O 0 01 T 22 i- O u m A o N f0 a c c Nc T3 SCL ir 01Lno > j C ao w N u o y c y y y i ri 5 — i a v v G m m o ° w v x 'a -M 75 a N U n. E ¢ o. LL w n. t7 f in ,n w w m c m �; a a a . + ♦ a « a }! ♦ ♦. Ly 41 d6 A3 N N a > 3ceA JAI •bird^ f � • ` '. a .M �t•�� .�' i. s_ _ ems•" �' j1. WIz 40 goo 1 o q IJan �� s ip ! F taw f r r,r�r 1 . IL OppppjNp� E OOOMNOU -. � T , LPN .. �g w M roc o r�6 � ;r �• y. *74I L4 tv HIM �^• AMw S+!J•ktL�l;.L1y f10tl5 .,r— � I t' s I •-�' c o g w fp rn v c c 4-, NU � 0oNNo ' v � m m � o p a n v N ^ o > j E C .T� V A N D N 30 'ram•^ j' jl N ,CL U a E Q d LL w a 6 f V7 to w w ID ` « ♦ ♦ a 0 co 01 '� c Q. 3 A Y 116 Apache Junction - Zoning Ordinance § 1-164-5 Storage. (3) Side yard: 10 feet; All storage shall be within an enclosed building, (4) Accessory structure located in the rear unless otherwise noted. yard: 10 feet; (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0405) (5) When commercial uses are adjacent to a residential use or district, the following building § 1-16-4-6 Intensity of use. separation to property line shall apply: (A) Minimum lot size shall be 15,000 square Building Height Setback" feet. up to 25 feet 25 feet (B) Minimum lot width shall be 80 feet. over 25 feet 50 feet (C) Maximum floor area per business shall be ** This does not apply to accessory uses. 4,000 square feet for lots without rear alley access; 6,500 square feet for lots with dedicated rear alleys. (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0406) (B) Refer to Vol. II, Landscaping and Screening Requirements, for buffering and screening requirements. § 1-16-4-7 Site coverage. (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0409) Maximum site coverage by all buildings shall be 50% for lots without rear alley access; or 60% for lots § 1-16-4-10 Parking and loading. with dedicated rear alleys. (Prior Document, al 1 § 16.0407) Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided as required in Vol. II, Article 1-20, Parking, Loading, and Interior or Private Street Standards. § 1-16-4-8 Height. (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0410) (Ord. 350, pas d 3-7-1985) Maximum building height shall not exceed 20 feet; except that with the approval of a conditional use § 1-16-5 C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL permit, the height may be extended. DISTRICT. (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0408) § 1-16-5-1 Statement of legislative intent. § 1-16-4-9 Setbacks. The C-3 District is intended to create and (A) The following minimum setbacks shall b enhance commercial areas where a wide range of required: retail goods and services are permitted. Typically, the C-3 District would be applied where central area (1) Front yard: 20 feet; commercial facilities were desired in association with the administrative and office uses. Various (2) Rear yard: 25 feet for lots without rear applications of the C-3 District can create community alley access; 10 feet for lots with dedicated rear or regional shopping complexes, central business alleys; districts, certain highway oriented commercial uses, Commercial Districts 117 or small but highly diverse commercial development. (6) Eating, drinking and entertainment In addition, minimum lot sizes were established to establishments(sales of alcoholic beverages permitted, promote the clustering of commercial activities and to and includes drive-in types); facilitate the assembly of parcels for larger commercial developments. (7) Cart vendors: persons who engage in (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0501) the temporary selling or displaying of food and beverages utilizing a cart; § 1-16-5-2 Permitted principal uses. (8) Participant and spectator sports: indoor; (A) Residential use types. Residential use types (9) Printing, blueprinting, engraving; shall not be permitted in the C-3 District, except by planned development. (10) Radio and television stations(excluding transmitting towers); (B) Civic use types. (11) Repairs, services, consumer products; (1) Civic use types as permitted in the C-2 District; (12) Retail sales: (2) Ambulance services; (a) Gasoline dispensing stations, provided the following are complied with: has at least (3) Day care/schools: trade and vocational 1 street frontage having a minimum width of 150 feet; schools; and any pump island or canopy shall be located at least 30 feet from any property line; outside display, either (4) Lodge, fraternal and civic assembly permanent or temporary, of tires, oil and other (sales of alcoholic beverages permitted). auxiliary items for sale shall be permitted only if located on the pump island or at least 40 feet from the (C) Commercial use types. street property line; and no more than 1 display rack for each type of item is permitted; and (1) Commercial use types as permitted in the C-2 District; (b) Liquor stores. (2) Agricultural/horticultural sales and (13) Transient habitation:hotels,motels;and services; (14) Wholesale, storage and distribution: (3) Nurseries (outdoor display permitted); wholesale sales of products permitted for retail sales in the C-3 District and only incidental to retail sales of (4) Animal sales and services: veterinary the products on the premises; mini-warehouses, (large animals) kennel; provided that only storage is permitted and no retailing is permitted from these facilities. (5) Automotive and light equipment; cleaning; repairs; storage of automobiles, recreational (D) Uses similar to those listed in divisions (A) vehicles and boats; sales/rentals of auto and light through (C) of this section shall be permitted upon equipment, including motorcycles; determination by the Zoning Administrator that the 118 Apache Junction - Zoning Ordinance use is of the same general character as at least 1 of § 1-16-5-5 Operations and storage. those listed. (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0502) (Am. Ord. 784, All storage shall be within an enclosed building, eff. 5-3-1991; Am. Ord. 796, eff. 8-2-1991) unless otherwise permitted, and all storage of machinery, equipment or inventory shall be screened from view in accordance with the requirements as § 1-16-5-3 Permitted accessory uses. indicated in this Vol. II, Article 6-1, Landscaping and Screening Requirements, for buffering. Permitted accessory uses are the uses and (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0505) structures customarily incidental to permitted principal uses. (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0503) § 1-16-5-6 Intensity of use. Minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. § 1-16-5-4 Uses subject to a conditional use (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0506) permit. (A) Residential use types: Caretaker's § 1-16-5-7 Site coverage. residence. Maximum lot coverage shall be 60%; or 70% (B) Civic use types. depending on the proposed use and if, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, all other zoning (C) Commercial use types. requirements (such as parking and setbacks) can be satisfied, (1) Automotive and equipment: repairs, (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0507) heavy equipment; sales/rentals, farm equipment; (2) Construction sales and services (no § 1-16-5-8 Height. outdoor storage of materials); Maximum building height shall be 30 feet; except (3) Participant and spectator sports, that with the approval of a conditional use permit, the recreation and entertainment; outdoor; height may be extended. (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0508) (4) Scientific research and development laboratories; and § 1-16-5-9 Setbacks. (5) Unscreened display of any products for sale on the premises. (A) The following minimum setbacks shall be required: (D) Other uses. Other similar uses as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission (1) Front yard or any yard with a street to be no more detrimental or obnoxious than the uses frontage on a corner lot or multiple street frontage lot: listed in division (C) above. 25 feet; no more than 1 yard with street frontage on a (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0504) corner lot or multiple street frontage lot shall be required to be in excess of 25 feet. Commercial Districts 119 (2) Rear yard: 25 feet for lots without rear to the surrounding neighborhood and do not present a alley access; 10 feet for lots with dedicated rear poor image of the community. alleys. (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0601) (3) Side yard: 10 feet. § 1-16-6-2 Permitted principal uses. (4) When commercial uses are adjacent to a residential use or district, the following building (A) Residential use types. Residential use types separation to property line shall apply: shall not be permitted in the C-4 District, except by planned development. Building Height Setback** (B) Civic use types. Civic use types as permitted up to 25 feet 25 feet in the C-3 District. over 25 feet 50 feet (C) Commercial use types. ** This does not apply to accessory uses. (1) Commercial use types as permitted in the C-3 District: (B) Refer to Vol. 11, Article 6-1, Landscaping and Screening Requirements, for buffering and (2) Automotive and equipment: screening requirements. sales/rentals of automobiles, heavy equipment and (Prior Document, Ch. I § 16.0509) recreational vehicles(unscreened display of inventory permitted); repairs, heavy equipment; storage, § 1-16-5-10 Parking and loading. operating vehicles and equipment; (3) Boat sales (unscreened display of Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be inventory permitted); provided as required in Vol. II, Article 1-20, Parking, Loading and Interior or Private Street Standards. (4) Construction sales and services; (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0510) (Ord. 350, passed 3-7-1985) (5) Mobile home sales(unscreened display of inventory permitted); and § 1-16-6 C-4 HEAVY COMMERCIAL (6) Wholesale, storage and distribution of DISTRICT. goods permitted for sale at retail in the C-4 District and only as incidental to retail sales of the products on § 1-16-6-1 Statement of legislative intent. the premises. (D) Other uses. Uses similar to those listed in The C-4 District is intended to provide locations divisions (A) through (C) above shall be permitted in the city for the heaviest type of commercial uses, upon determination by the Zoning Administrator that highway-oriented commercial, or restricted light the use is of the same general character as at least 1 of industrial uses. Large lot requirements were those listed. established to facilitate the assembly of parcels for (Prior Document, Ch. 1 § 16.0602) large commercial development. Locations for C-4 Districts should be selected which provide protection Dear Neighbor and/or Property Owner, RE: Subject Parcel number: 101-02-080A We are having a neighborhood meeting to discuss the rezoning of our vacant land in the City of Apache Junction at 710 N. Ironwood. Efficient Roofing LLC will be purchasing and relocating to this address. Prior to this, the lot must be rezoned and the neighbors informed. Efficient Roofing has been located in the neighborhood for over three years and are looking forward to continuing to serve the Apache Junction community. As longtime residents and business owners they will be seeking your support. Attached you will find the footprint of the proposed new building and upgrades to the lot. Your are welcome to bring your comments and concerns to the meeting. When: Wednesday,November 6th,2013 Time: 6:00 P.M. Where: West USA Realty Revelation office Address: 5331 S.Superstition Mountain Rd.,Suite C-105, Gold Canyon AZ 85118 If you are unable to attend by would like to make a comment you can send it to me at: Betty Sweeney 2641 S. Falling Star Rd. Gold Canyon AZ 85118 Ila- ��Z - 7/ 7-3� 7/U I 71-o W�� - 3 7;Z `'Lan � Cf-A,jt✓► CF- , I ZI w Supp, ��,'�-.'v ,., UOZ ILI �3- i �v z o COMMUNITY MEETING NOVEMBER 6TH, 2013 6:00 P.M. IN ATTENDANCE: BETTY SWEENEY 710 N. IRONWOOD APACHE JUNCTION 480-983-7173 MIKE SWEENEY 710 N. IRONWOOD APACHE JUNCTION 480-983-7173 RANDY CRAVEN EFFICIENT ROOFING APACHE JUNCTION 602-803-6308 JUSTIN LOFLIN EFFICIENT ROOFING APACHE JUNCTION 602-803-6361 LEE MC CROCH 653 SAGUARO DR APACHE JUNCTION 715-927-3003 JACK JARDIN 653 SAGUARO DR APACHE JUNCTION 402-618-5685 JENNIFER KESNER 624 N IRONWOOD APACHE JUNCTION 480-262-6307 ANDY LIBERTY 624 N IRONWOOD APACHE JUNCTIN 480-262-6307 People arrived on time and everybody introduced themselves. Betty Sweeney opened the meeting at 6:15 by greeting everyone and showing the display of the large drawing of the property and the project. A full discloser of our plan was given. Questions and answers were as follows: #1 Jack Jardin who lives at 653 Saguaro Dr.told us that a cactus was knocked down during the fence construction on his property. Randy told him we would send the crew back over there to make it right. This was a small cactus and has been up righted and set to proper position. Owner was advised of the repair and pleased. #2 How far back from the street will the building be set was a question. The large copy of the drawing was shown and details were discussed to show the building will be set back 66.01 ft from street. #3 Neighbors concerned about Semi trucks or deliveries were assured there would absolutely be no deliveries or materials brought to the sales office. All materials are delivered from the vendor to the site where they are to be installed. 44 Storage of large trucks and stacks of roofing tiles and supplies were also a concern. Randy told the neighbors that the property was going to be used as their retail sales office and only company half ton pickup trucks were going to be stored on the lot. #S Jennifer Kesner of 624 N. Ironwood Dr was concerned about our plan of having razor wire on top of the 6 foot block wall. Her comment was it gives a prison effect. We listened and will look into raising the wall to a 8' height to deter break ins. #6 Alternate to razor wire is raising the wall 2 ft which pleased those in attendance. #7 Dark skies in the neighborhood was a concern. Neighbors did not like the idea of security lights on the site. We feel that night lights would be a disturbance to the neighbors and did not opt for them. #8 Motion detection lights will be used at the back of the building pointing down on the yard. #9 The question "will there be lights on the front of the building facing Ironwood" came up.Which we answered"No,we feel that facing Ironwood may distract passer by traffic,therefore small lighting facing the building will be optimal. #10 Fencing was discussed and by referring to large drawing which show it in detail that the office building,the gate and the wall on the north will serve as security. The area between the building and the sidewalk will be landscaped with decorative rock and shrubs to blend with existing saguaros. #11 Questions concerning the look of the building and our answers were:The building will be painted with a southwest theme, possibly a few wagon wheels and attractive front porch. The paint will be in a two tone with trim one color and body another. Both will be southwest friendly colors. The modular building being installed is not a shack, hand built or found in a field. It was professionally built to currant commercial code in 2012 with central a/c, bathrooms, it is prewired with up to date lighting and wiring. There are many outlets for telephone and computers. Meeting was adjourned at 7:30. Sincerely Betty Sweeney Pac-Van Floor Plans http://www.pacvan.com/floor-plans Solutions? Thous;ht-starters? Browse the floor plans inventory of your nearest Pac-Van office You may find precisely what you require. Or we can readily modify a plan for you-or custom design from scratch. 12 x 48 Mobile office with ADA restroom 2 Private offices & 1 main office 11,10 61 14'5 j '1.8 I " P. z.n. III 1 l � Plobito office specifications: Additional Pac-Van features: • IW48 Mohiir rtnrr wr,-F.-.-,-in • tam-nrr,.nal b ark the iocr ng • 125aripeleciKiii scrvu.e.:__:49 - lr4'nurn nArllonGd p,xa-nq %nit,%"Ir phas . I-wor,t.l �'/ • Nlon-p•essusetamklat!Ceskwps • Central heating arJ a r cond bOni ra • F.kn dr2w-t4 IuUrnp'Ile tisbnrM • )fib"mitt panel:iWrq • Ouff.mad%•self al:ove ea:3i desk • Debe-bolts 5 Wu,4y latch 9uas45 • ra"o.m plan table •AbA-LtsripJ,std test:coni ut extanw Jtr_r; Htraantai•,4diny�-ndo %.rJsr.nr hI1n�S.:.ec�tnry hose S narct tn-rrn. Standard Floor Plans portfolios are one click away. 1. Use the Office Locator (top left of page) to locate your closest Pac-Van Office. 2. Information for that Office will appear, including five categories of floor plans. Select your interest and click on a plan to view it. 3. For information on availability, pricing, modifications, customizing, etc., or for information on any aspect of portable, mobile or modular space and storage solutions, contact— Page 1 of 2 1 JO l Ja® y�q_cub..(-0 Ctu-cu-a.•la ® < voY0-a0-TOT may r102-0[-6 6uua 4t0 n]s w6u!ja au!6ua tMd =8 / rma ZSVNMa aen DIUGTV� une3irs olar�aa �vo NOISVM1 T�Sr�? rma r.ua ow+ooe JJMDT co,-rl aamuui eor XO JaYJB OA `` o al.nnt w i : _ y[y q W �NhC r � V• x x Ep �_YY:44 Ci �a• 3 3 ,C4$ Z 1i a; F ins �� � 55 3a a . a r Ah Z_ N� no,tiox, S s pp s Y a CC a 3^ap,�o�=, 9s ayqg '. pggpa o i'„: F Z Fi ZGna W t ei V 0 C9 W LL r s ti �!S ._ s x a a k ,59 p§ gQT g W Z� g omit � !_z ' r `^ �� 5" ` S• •YL�- AeoA C E a 3a a ygc ga€ga � �a a E' ' �� � r= � is ► a �`'yV� Yq Jill F I ► Ilh 5 •.- �� —<.-- �i.___ _� - _�_ ' Inlw K<C V'.<III< viM]....f0 i00 f �£ x� lit _ 6 9' 1, �4Q I %�i3�s�.. a..cl• �� w. fir 60_ i .W I I of e S � rI33 g g9g " }y . 7 AK I �d 1S A I I oil r •I 1CR R � I I - 8 '1 y L—n - n is 4 In w• '� k .-. _ luwo oo.�fnx.ee.z #Q. ORDINANCE NO. 1397 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP, CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING CASE PZ-7-13, A REQUEST BY THE MILLARD F. HARTLEY RESIDUAL TRUST, RUTH S . HARTLEY, TRUSTEE, AND THE MICHAEL E. AND BETTY M. SWEENEY REVOCABLE TRUST, MICHAEL E. AND BETTY M. SWEENEY, TRUSTEES, REPRESENTED BY BETTY SWEENEY, FROM LOCAL BUSINESS ZONE (CB-1) AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE (CR-5) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-3) ; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. WHEREAS, the subject property was rezoned by the City in the early 1980' s and was used for a taxicab business for a number of years, but has never otherwise been fully developed as a commercial property; and WHEREAS, the applicants have proposed to relocate a business already operating in the City on the site, and have proposed a development plan for the property to accommodate said business ; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014 , the Apache Junction Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of rezoning case PZ-7-13 by a vote of 6-0, subject to certain basic conditions for the development of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the proposed rezoning conforms to all of the general criteria as specified in Section 1-16-5 C-3 Local Commercial District of the City of Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance, including compliance with the General Plan, integration with the surrounding neighborhood, adequate traffic accommodation, adequate public facilities , extension of infrastructure, and that the design and uses should result in enhancements to the social, built, and natural environments in the City. ORDINANCE NO. 1397 PAGE 1 OF 3 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I IN GENERAL That the zoning district classification on the Zoning District Map, City of Apache Junction, Arizona, for the parcel of land legally described as : Lot 26 , Block 3 , amended plat of Newtown Subdivision, according to the plat of record in the Office of the County Recorder of Pinal , County, Arizona, in Book 5 of Maps, Page 23A; Except the East 17 feet thereof (also known as Pinal County Assessor parcel number 101-02-080A) ; be and hereby is amended from Local Business Zone (CB-1) and Multiple-family Residence Zone (CR-5) to General Commercial District (C-3) , subject to the following conditions of approval : 1) The subject property shall be substantially developed within two (2) years of this rezoning approval, or the zoning may be subject to reversion by City Council legislative action pursuant to Apache Junction Cit Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1 Zoning Ordinance, Article 1-13 Amendments and Changes, Section 1-13-11 Significance of Approval . 2) All signage on the property shall comply with the City' s Sign Code . 3) All development on the property is subject to proper permits and inspections . 4) All development on the property is subject to compliance with all other adopted City codes and ordinances, including but not necessarily limited to, the City' s Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Guidelines , Landscape and Screening Requirements, and Commercial Design Guidelines . SECTION II REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. ORDINANCE NO. 1397 PAGE 2 OF 3 SECTION III PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, phrase, clause or portion of this ordinance, or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconsti- tutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof . PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS '' DAY OF 2014 . SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS DAY OF , 2014 . Jay N INSALACO or ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: (-:�x a a?- I L� RICHARD JOEL STERN City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 1397 PAGE 3 OF 3 ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard o Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ U =i 85119 Agenda Item No. 9. �Piz oN* File ID: 14-118 Sponsor: Rudy Esquivias Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Consideration and action on proposed Resolution No. 14-07, case SD-2-13, a request by Robb Tyler of Acer Homes LLC, for approval of the final subdivision plat for the Bel Agave Subdivision, located at the southest corner of E. 16th Avenue and S. Tomahawk Road. Consideration and action. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 �P4 pCli�✓ y City of Apache Junction 4Rizo Development Services Department MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2014 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members THROUGH: George Hoffman, City Manager Brad Steinke, Dev. Services Director FROM: Rudy Esquivias, Senior Planner/Zoning Admin. SUBJECT: March 4, 2014 - City Council Public Hearing: Resolution #14-07, Case SD-2-13, Final Plat for "Bel Agave" Subdivision by Acer Homes LLC/Robb Tyler Summary Attached please find a copy of the proposed final plat submittal for "Bel Agave" subdivision, a CR-3/PD-zoned, 101-lot, conven- tional single family homes subdivision located at the southeast corner area of E. 16th Avenue and S . Tomahawk Road. Staff has reviewed the final plat and improvement plans for substantial compliance with the approved CR-3/PD concept plan approved by Ordinance No. 1393 and the preliminary plat approved by Resolution No. 13-31 (both attached) . Although there are some differences between the pre-plat and the final plat (such as the reduction of number of lots from 120 to 101, larger lots, the provision of more guest parking spaces, and the reconfig- uration of a couple of areas) , we believe that these changes are relatively minor and that overall, the final plat represents an improvement to the pre-plat. Outside agencies have also reviewed the plat and all major issues have been addressed. Planning Staff recommends conditional approval of the final plat, subject to the last-detail-related items listed in the attached resolution. Attachments: Proposed final plat Res. #14-07; Ord. #1393; Pre-plat Res. #13-31; approved Pre-plat and proposed Final Plat (large format attachments separate) RESOLUTION NO. 14-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR "BEL AGAVE SUBDIVISION", IN CASE SD-2-13, BY ACER HOMES LLC, REPRESENTED BY ROBB TYLER. WHEREAS, the subdivider in Case SD-2-13 proposes to plat a subdivision for 101 detached single-family homes under the name "Bel Agave", pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("'A.R. S . ") Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 6 . 2, and pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Ordinance, Section 1-15-6 CR-3 Single-Family Residence Zone, Article 1-19 Planned Development Zoning District, and Chapter 2, Subdivision Regulations; and, WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows : Parcel No. 1 : The North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-017) ; and Parcel No. 2 : The East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-005) ; and Parcel No. 3 : The West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-006) ; and Parcel No. 4 : The North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-015) ; and RESOLUTION NO. 14-07 PAGE 1 OF 3 WHEREAS, on August 6, 2013, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction approved Planned Development rezoning case PZ-3-13, Ordinance No. 1393, approving the CR-3/PD zoning and planned development concept plan for the 20-gross- acres property, upon a recommendation for approval with conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, on October August 6, 2013, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction approved the proposed preliminary plat request for the platting of the proposed "Bel Agave Subdivision", case SD-2-13, Resolution No. 13-31, upon a recommendation for approval with conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, this City Council now finds the final subdivision plat for "Bel Agave" to be in substantial compliance with A.R. S . Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 6 . 2, and pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Ordinance, Section 1-15-6 CR-3 Single-Family Residence Zone, Article 1-19 Planned Development Zoning District, Chapter 2, Subdivision Regulations, and Ordinance No. 1393 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that: The final subdivision plat for "Bel Agave" is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions : 1) The final plat map shall not be recorded until the developer submits the following items to the city' s Public Works Engineering and Development Services Departments : a) Subdivision improvement plans drawings incorporating all requested revisions; and b) Subdivision final plat mylar drawings incorporating all requested revisions; and c) Construction bond for the developer' s portion of the adjacent right-of-way improvements; and d) Relinquishment documents for federal patented easements (roads and utilities) no longer needed; e) Drainage and Retention Agreement, signed by the property owner; and f) Copy of Approvals to Construct Potable Water and Sewer from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. RESOLUTION NO. 14-07 PAGE 2 OF 3 2) Upon compliance with Condition 1 above, Staff is directed pursuant to A.R. S . Section 9-463 . 01 (J) to record the final plat with the Pinal County Recorder and to collect the final plat recording fee from the subdivider and remit such amount to the Pinal County Recorder. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS DAY OF 2014 . SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS DAY OF , 2014 . JOHN INSALACO Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: RICHARD J. STERN City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 14-07 PAGE 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1393 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP, CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM GENERAL RURAL ( "GR" ) TO CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES BY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ( "CR-3/PD" ) AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MAJOR AMENDMENT, FOR THE PRO- PERTIES DESCRIBED IN REZONING CASE PZ-3-13 , A REQUEST BY ACER HOMES L.L. C. AND PARPAC RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL. , REPRESENTED BY ROBB TYLER; REPEALING ANY CON- FLICTING PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. WHEREAS, the subject property consists of four (4) separate but adjacent 5-gross-acres parcels, of which Pinal County Parcel Nos . 103-20-005, 103-20-006 and 103-20-017 have never been rezoned or developed, and of which Parcel No. 103-20-015 was previously rezoned and platted (but not recorded) in 2006 for the Vista Meadows Subdivision, but was never developed; and WHEREAS, the submitted Planned Development Plan and preliminary plat for a future 120-lot single-family homes subdivision on the 20-gross acres subject property, to be called "Bel Agave" , proposes a density of 6 dwelling units per acre, which is in compliance the city' s current General Plan; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2013 the Apache Junction Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval of Planned Development rezoning case PZ-3-13 , subject to the submitted conceptual Planned Development plans and the conditions prescribed herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the proposed Planned Development rezoning request conforms to all of the general criteria as specified in Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Ordinance, Section 1-15-6, CR-3 Single-Family Residence Zone and Article 1- 19, Planned Development Zoning District (except as otherwise conditioned herein) , including integration with the surrounding neighborhood, adequate traffic accommodation, adequate public facilities, extension of infrastructure, and that the design and uses should result in enhancements to the social, built and ORDINANCE NO. 1393 PAGE 1 OF 6 natural environments in the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I IN GENERAL The zoning district classification on the Zoning District Map, City of Apache Junction, Arizona, for the parcels of land legally described as : Parcel No. 1 : The North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-017) ; and Parcel No. 2 : The East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-005) ; and Parcel No. 3 : The West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-006) ; be and hereby is amended from General Rural ("GR" ) to Conventional Single-Family Homes by Planned Development ( "CR- 3/PD" ) ; and That the approved Planned Development Plan (pursuant to Ordinance No. 1256 and Resolution No. 06-42) for the CR-3/PD- zoned parcel of land formerly platted for the Vista Meadows Subdivision and legally described as : Parcel No. 4 : The North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-015) ; ORDINANCE NO. 1393 PAGE 2 OF 6 be and hereby is amended to integrate said parcel into the proposed development plan for the Bel Agave Subdivision; all parcels above subject to the following conditions of approval : 1) Street improvements along the property' s S . Tomahawk Road and S . Wickiup Road frontages, such as extension of pavement and the provision of sidewalk, curb, gutter, streetlights, fire hydrants, landscaping, retention areas, etc. , normally required for CR-3-zoned subdivisions, shall be required as part of this planned development project, subject to approval by the City Engineer. Additional off-site improvements along the property' s East 18th and 19th Avenue frontages shall also be provided subject to the City Engineer' s determination at the time of final subdivision plat and improvement plans submittal . The developer shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way and cutoff corners as determined by the City Engineer. 2) Xeriscape landscaping shall be provided throughout the development, internal and external to the site, in accordance with the city' s landscaping and screening requirements, except as follows : A) A 10-foot deep landscape setback area shall be provided along Tomahawk Road (as measured from the edge of the ultimate right-of-way line) , wherein 250 of the required trees shall be 24" box and 250 of the required trees shall be 36" box; B) A 5-foot deep landscape setback area shall be provided along Wickiup Road (as measured from the edge of the ultimate right-of-way line) , wherein 500 of the required trees shall be 24" box; C) 5-foot deep landscape strips shall be provided along 18th and 19th Avenues, but plantings along these roadways shall only consist of shrubs, groundcovers and decomposed granite (sizes, numbers and densities shall comply with the city' s landscaping and screening requirements) . 3) Six-foot tall perimeter masonry walls shall enclose the proposed subdivision and decorative masonry walls shall ORDINANCE NO. 1393 PAGE 3 OF 6 be provided along the Tomahawk and Wickiup Road frontages, the design of which is subject to staff approval as part of the final landscape plans . The use of wrought iron view fencing along segments of this perimeter fencing is encouraged at the main entrance on Tomahawk, at the southwest and northeast corners (retention and wash entry areas) , and at other retention or open space areas for the purpose of featuring and highlighting the landscape elements and open spaces and providing a more open feel to the subdivision. 4) The developers of Bel Agave shall provide a clubhouse, swimming pool, barbecue and playground amenity areas, and pedestrian walking paths along the natural corridors . The barbecue and playground areas in particular shall be shaded for the mitigation of summer heat by drought-tolerant, low-water using trees . A complement of either 24" box Ironwoods or 24" box Rio Salado Mesquites shall be used in these amenity areas, with the Ironwood representing the first choice as it is slow growing, and the Mesquite as a secondary option as it is resistant to high winds and is a good shade tree. Play stations and usable open space shall be provided in compliance with the city' s Parks and Recreation standards for home owner association ( `WHOA" ) maintained areas . 5) Lots adjacent to drainage channels, retention basins or washes shall have fences separating them from these features for safety purposes; access gates may be provided to pedestrian walking paths . 6) The proposed homes shall include southwestern architectural features as illustrated in the City' s Design Guidelines and in the submitted elevations, and shall offer ground mounted air conditioning units and architectural treatments on all four sides of the buildings so as to preclude flat or blank facades, including pop-outs and roofline and color variations to add visual interest . 7) The developers shall offer at least 8 model types (four 1-story and four 2-story homes) with 3 elevation options each. Two-car enclosed garages and front yard landscape ORDINANCE NO. 1393 PAGE 4 OF 6 packages shall be provided for each home. Lots 77, 78, 79, 80, 88 and 92 shall be limited to 1-story homes . 8) All applicable permits shall be applied for and plans shall be designed to current City codes prior to any lot grading or construction on the lots . Inclusively, all applicable development fees shall be paid at the time of permits issuance on a per-building basis . 9) The preliminary and final plats shall reflect substantial compliance and consistency with the Planned Development concepts presented with case PZ-3-13 , incorporated by reference herein, and as otherwise specified through these conditions of approval, to include general layout, setbacks (10 ' front/18 ' to garage, 10 ' rear, 5' interior sides, 10' street side) , public and private rights-of-ways, easements and tracts, amenities, perimeter and interior lot separation walls, model types, landscaping and other improvements . 10) The rear yard patios shall be covered, shall meet setback requirements for the homes and shall at no time hereafter be enclosed. 11) All common areas, amenity areas, and tracts within and immediately adjacent to the proposed development, including perimeter walls and fences, and interior and exterior common area landscaping, shall be owned and maintained in good condition at all times by the owners or HOA of the proposed subdivision. 12) All-weather surface access drives for fire apparatus and other emergency providers shall be provided during construction of the development; and all construction vehicles and equipment shall be kept on the subject property. SECTION II REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS : All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. ORDINANCE NO. 1393 PAGE 5 OF 6 SECTION III PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, phrase, clause or portion of this ordinance, or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconsti- tutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof . PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 . SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 6TH DAY OF 2013 . HN S . INS LACO Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: C -- RICHARD JOEL STERN City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 1393 PAGE 6 OF 6 RESOLUTION NO. 13-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE "BEL AGAVE" SUBDIVISION, IN CASE SD-2-13, BY ACER HOMES L.L.C. AND PARPAC RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL. , REPRESENTED BY ROBB TYLER. WHEREAS, the subdivider in Case SD-2-13 proposes to subdivide Pinal County Assessor Parcel Numbers 103-20-005, 103- 20-006, 103-20-015 and 103-20-017, approximately 20 gross acres (collectively, the "property" ) , into 120 residential lots for single-family homes, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( 11A.R.S . " ) Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 6 . 2, and pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Ordinance, Section 1-15-6, CR-3 Single-Family Residence Zone, Article 1-19, Planned Development zoning District, and Chapter 2, Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, parcel number 103-20-015 was previously rezoned and platted in 2006 for a subdivision to be called Vista Meadows, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1256 and Resolution No. 06- 42, but the final plat was never recorded and the subdivision was never built; and WHEREAS, approval of this resolution effectively rescinds the final subdivision plat for Vista Meadows, formerly approved by Resolution No. 06-42 and allows for said property to be redesigned and integrated into the subdivision plat for the proposed Bel Agave Subdivision; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion held a public hearing regarding the preliminary plat for Case SD-2-13 and recommended approval of Case SD-2-13 by a vote of 3-1, with conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2013, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction approved Ordinance No. 1393, which approved a new rezoning and Planned Development Plan for the Conventional Single-family Homes by Planned Development ( 11CR- 3/PD11 ) zoned property; and WHEREAS, the Council finds this preliminary subdivision plat to be in compliance with the Apache Junction City Code, RESOLUTION NO. 13-31 PAGE 1 OF 4 Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 2, Subdivision Regulations, and Ordinance No. 1393 , which approved the rezoning and the Planned Development concept plan for the property; and WHEREAS, the property proposed to be developed with the Bel Agave Subdivision is legally described as follows : Parcel No. 1: The North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No . 103-20-017) ; and Parcel No. 2 : The East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No . 103-20-005) ; and Parcel No. 3 : The West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-006) ; and Parcel No. 4 : The North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-015) . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that: The preliminary subdivision plat for "Bel Agave" Subdivision, Case SD-2-13 , is approved subject to the following conditions: 1) All conditions of approval for the CR-3/PD-zoned property as approved pursuant to planned development rezoning case PZ-3-13 shall govern the design and subsequent improvements of the Final Subdivision Plat. RESOLUTION NO. 13-31 PAGE 2 OF 4 2) Within one year of Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval, the developers shall submit for formal review, the Final Subdivision Plat and improvement plans for the proposed subdivision. 3) Street improvements along S. Tomahawk and S . Wickiup Roads, including but not limited to, the extension of pavement and the provision of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streetlights, fire hydrants, landscaping, etc. , shall be designed and constructed according to the City of Apache Junction Engineering Guidelines . Additional off-site improvements along the property' s East 18th and East 19th Avenue frontages shall also be provided subject to the City Engineer' s determination at the time of final subdivision plat and improvement plans submittal . 4) The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ( "CCRs" ) for Bel Agave shall also include provisions to address the following: prohibition on owners using garages for personal storage to the extent that two normal passenger vehicles cannot be accommodated in them at all times; establishing a uniform system for garbage pick-up and mail-delivery; specifying that the home owners association ("HOA" ) is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the internal private streets, the common areas and the fencing and landscape improvements both internal and along the outside perimeter of the subdivision; and a prohibition on the use of fireworks in the subdivision. 5) The property owners shall disclose to all prospective buyers, prior to sale, that there are neighboring horse properties in the immediate area. 6) The developer shall work with and coordinate separately with all known utility companies which serve Apache Junction, to extinguish the 331 and 661 wide utility easements/federal patented easements which conflict with the design of the proposed subdivision, prior to or upon final plat approval. The City shall extinguish its rights to said easements for roadway purposes upon approval of the final subdivision plat or by separate instrument. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS DAY OF A"GU_17 2013 . RESOLUTION NO. 13-31 PAGE 3 OF 4 SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS $Tfl DAY OF Atlf,l15T 2013 . J N S . INS O ayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 . > 3 RICHARD J. STERN City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 13-31 PAGE 4 OF 4 RESOLUTION NO. 14-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR "BEL AGAVE SUBDIVISION" , IN CASE SD-2-13 , BY ACER HOMES LLC, REPRESENTED BY ROBB TYLER. WHEREAS, the subdivider in Case SD-2-13 proposes to plat a subdivision for 101 detached single-family homes under the name "Bel Agave" , pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( "A.R.S. " ) Title 9 , Chapter 4 , Article 6 . 2 , and pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Ordinance, Section 1-15-6 CR-3 Single-Family Residence Zone, Article 1-19 Planned Development Zoning District, and Chapter 2 , Subdivision Regulations; and, WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows: Parcel No. 1: The North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-017) ; and Parcel No. 2 : The East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27 , Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-005) ; and Parcel No. 3 : The West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-006) ; and Parcel No. 4 : The North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona (Parcel No. 103-20-015) ; and RESOLUTION NO. 14-07 PAGE 1 OF 3 WHEREAS, on August 6, 2013 , the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction approved Planned Development rezoning case PZ-3-13, Ordinance No. 1393 , approving the CR-3/PD zoning and planned development concept plan for the 20-gross- acres property, upon a recommendation for approval with conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, on October August 6, 2013 , the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction approved the proposed preliminary plat request for the platting of the proposed "Bel Agave Subdivision" , case SD-2-13 , Resolution No. 13 -31, upon a recommendation for approval with conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, this City Council now finds the final subdivision plat for "Bel Agave" to be in substantial compliance with A.R. S. Title 9, Chapter 4 , Article 6 . 2 , and pursuant to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Ordinance, Section 1-15-6 CR-3 Single-Family Residence Zone, Article 1-19 Planned Development Zoning District, Chapter 2 , Subdivision Regulations, and Ordinance No. 1393 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that : The final subdivision plat for "Bel Agave" is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions : 1) The final plat map shall not be recorded until the developer submits the following items to the city' s Public Works Engineering and Development Services Departments : a) Subdivision improvement plans drawings incorporating all requested revisions; and b) Subdivision final plat mylar drawings incorporating all requested revisions; and c) Construction bond for the developer' s portion of the adjacent right-of-way improvements; and d) Relinquishment documents for federal patented easements (roads and utilities) no longer needed; e) Drainage and Retention Agreement, signed by the property owner; and f) Copy of Approvals to Construct Potable Water and Sewer from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. RESOLUTION NO. 14-07 PAGE 2 OF 3 2) Upon compliance with Condition 1 above, Staff is directed pursuant to A.R. S . Section 9-463 . 01 (J) to record the final plat with the Pinal County Recorder and to collect the final plat recording fee from the subdivider and remit such amount to the Pinal County Recorder. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS -- ; DAY OF 2014 . SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS DAY OF 2014 . JJ�OayorHN INSALACO ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY� City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ��- I - RICHARD J. STERN City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 14-07 PAGE 3 of 3 ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard � 0 Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ _ 85119 Agenda Item No. 10. Piz File ID: 14-114 Sponsor: Brad Steinke Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Proposed Resolution No. 14-06, approval and adoption of the development fee study entitled "Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development Fees". Consideration and action. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 pQACME✓ y°z City of Apache Junction 1 0 Development Services Department To: Mayor and City Council From: Brad Steinke, Director of Development Services Date: February 19, 2014 RE: Resolution 14-06; Adopting the Development Fee Study: Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development Fees" Background: On January 215t, the city council held a public hearing on the "Development Fee Study: Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvement Plan". This draft study is the first step towards bringing the city's development fee program into compliance with state law. Table 1 outlines the public process timetable for review and approval of the new development fees. Table 2 compares the existing development fees with the proposed development fees. As you can see, the city's proposed development fees are significantly less than the existing fees. This reduction is a result of, among other things, changes in state enabling law, updated projections and demographics and an updated transportation study for the city. The preliminary draft of the study has been revised and updated to include the following: 1. Increased intersection improvement costs of$350,000 per intersection. 2. Park and Library fees are now being proportionately assessed to non-residential development. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that the council approve Resolution 14-06, adopting the "Development Fee Study: Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development Fees" dated March 4, 2014. Table 1: Protect Timeline March 41h 1. City Council adopts Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvement Plan. 2. City releases the draft development fees and provides notice of April 15, 2014, public hearing on the development fees and the development fee ordinance update on the City website. March 5th to April 4th Minimum 30 day comment period March 315t City Council work session on proposed development fees and development fee ordinance update. April 15th City Council public hearing on proposed development fees and development fee ordinance update. April 16th to May 15th Minimum 30 day comment period May 20th City Council adopts new development fees and development fee ordinance update. May 215t to August 3rd Minimum 75 day waiting period August 4th New fees become effective Table 2: Comparison Between Existing and Proposed Development Fees RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FEES (Assessed per residential unit) LIBRARY PARKS & REC POLICE STREETS TOTAL Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Single- $934 $721 $1,466 $1,801 $161 $294 $2,364 $6,323 $4,925 $9,139 Family Manuf. $654 $572 $1,027 $1,429 $113 $234 $1,895 $3,297 $3,689 $5,532 Home Multi- $748 $622 $1,174 $1,555 $129 $254 $1,856 $4,440 $3,907 $6,871 Family NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FEES (Assessed per square foot) LIBRARY PARKS & REC POLICE STREETS TOTAL Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Comm. $0.30 $0 $1.03 $0 $0.15 $1.80 $5.04 $13.63 $6.52 $15.43 Office $0.50 $0 $1.71 $0 $0.05 $0.68 $2.18 $5.68 $4.44 $6.36 Indus. $0.35 $0 $1.19 $0 $0.03 $0.27 $1.36 $2.26 $2.93 $2.53 RESOLUTION NO. 14-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT FEES . WHEREAS, A.R. S . § 9-463 . 05 requires a city to adopt, in conjunction with a development fee ordinance, a land use assumption and infrastructure improvements plan (the "study") ; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council, on January 3, 2014, gave staff direction to update the city' s development fees to include the study; and WHEREAS, the city has hired the consultant firm of TischlerBise to draft and present the study; and WHEREAS, TischlerBise has completed a draft of the study; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council, on January 21, 2014, held a public hearing on the study; and WHEREAS, the City has met all notice and public notice requirements set forth in A.R. S . § 9-463 . 05 on the study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE STUDY: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT FEES, ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A, BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS 4th DAY OF MARCH, 2014 . SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS DAY OF , 2014 . RESOLUTION NO. 14-06 PAGE 1 OF 2 John Insalaco Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: RICHARD JOEL STERN City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 14-06 PAGE 2 OF 2 DRAFT — DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Prepared for: City of Apache Junction, Arizona March 412014 ■ Ti hle sc ft Fiscal.Economic&Planning Consultant 4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240 Bethesda, MD 301.320.6900 www.tischlerbise.com DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] TischlefflisV —Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................................4 Arizona Development Fee Enabling Legislation.......................................................................................................4 NecessaryPublic Services.........................................................................................................................................5 InfrastructureImprovements Plan...........................................................................................................................5 QualifiedProfessionals..............................................................................................................................................6 DevelopmentFees..............................................................................................................................................7 CalculationMethodologies........................................................................................................................................7 ReportingResults...............................................................................................................................................7 Maximum Supportable Development Fees...............................................................................................................8 Comparison to Current Development Fees...............................................................................................................9 Library Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan...................................................................................11 Overview.................................................................................................................................................................11 ServiceArea............................................................................................................................................................11 ProportionateShare................................................................................................................................................11 IIPfor Library Facilities..........................................................................................................................................12 Analysis of Capacity, Usage,and Costs of existing public services........................................................................12 Levelof Service.................................................................................................................................................12 Costper Service unit........................................................................................................................................13 ExcludedCost...................................................................................................................................................14 Current Use and Available Capacity.............................................................................................................14 Ratio of Service unit to development unit...............................................................................................................14 Projected Service Units and Infrastructure Demand..............................................................................................14 LibraryFacilities Improvements Plan...........................................................................................................15 Maximum Supportable Library Facilities Development Fees.................................................................................16 Library Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study......................................................................................16 RevenueCredit.................................................................................................................................................16 Forecastof Revenues...............................................................................................................................................18 LibraryFacilities Cash Flow...........................................................................................................................18 Parks and Recreational Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan........................................................19 Overview.................................................................................................................................................................19 ServiceArea............................................................................................................................................................19 ProportionateShare................................................................................................................................................20 IIP for Parks and Recreational Facilities.................................................................................................................20 Analysis of Capacity, Usage,and Costs of existing public services........................................................................20 Parkland............................................................................................................................................................21 ParkImprovements.........................................................................................................................................22 RecreationalFacilities......................................................................................................................................23 Multi-Use Trails................................................................................................................................................24 ExcludedCosts.................................................................................................................................................24 Current Use and Available Capacity.............................................................................................................24 Ratio of Service unit to development unit...............................................................................................................25 Projected Demand for Services And Costs..............................................................................................................25 Parks and Recreational Facilities Improvements Plan................................................................................27 Maximum Supportable Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees........................................................28 �l 'r91- me 1 —Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study..........................................................28 RevenueCredit.................................................................................................................................................28 Forecastof Revenues...............................................................................................................................................30 Parks and Recreational Facilities Cash Flow................................................................................................30 Police Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan.....................................................................................31 Overview.................................................................................................................................................................31 ServiceArea............................................................................................................................................................31 ProportionateShare................................................................................................................................................31 FunctionalPopulation.....................................................................................................................................31 Serviceunits......................................................................................................................................................33 PoliceCalls for Service....................................................................................................................................33 IIPFor Police Facilities...........................................................................................................................................34 Analysis of Capacity, Usage,and Costs of existing public services........................................................................34 Vehicles..............................................................................................................................................................35 CommunicationsEquipment.........................................................................................................................36 ExcludedCosts.................................................................................................................................................36 Current Use and Available Capacity.............................................................................................................36 Ratio of Service unit to development unit...............................................................................................................37 Projected Demand for Services And Costs..............................................................................................................38 Police Facilities Improvements Plan..............................................................................................................40 Maximum Supportable Police Facilities Development Fees...................................................................................41 Police Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study........................................................................................41 RevenueCredit.................................................................................................................................................41 Forecastof Revenues...............................................................................................................................................43 PoliceFacilities Cash Flow..............................................................................................................................43 Street Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan......................................................................................45 Overview.................................................................................................................................................................45 ServiceArea............................................................................................................................................................45 ProportionateShare................................................................................................................................................47 IIPFor Street Facilities...........................................................................................................................................47 Analysis of Capacity, Usage, and Costs of existing public services........................................................................47 CurrentInventory............................................................................................................................................48 TripGeneration Rates......................................................................................................................................49 LaneCapacity...................................................................................................................................................52 CurrentLevel of Service..................................................................................................................................52 Costper Lane Mile...........................................................................................................................................56 ExcludedCosts.................................................................................................................................................57 Current Use and Available Capacity.............................................................................................................57 Ratioof Service Unit to Land Use..........................................................................................................................58 Projected Demand for Services And Costs..............................................................................................................60 MinorArterials.................................................................................................................................................60 Collectors...........................................................................................................................................................61 SignalizedIntersections...................................................................................................................................63 Street Facilities Improvements Plan.......................................................................................................................65 Maximum Supportable Street Facilities Development Fees....................................................................................65 Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study.........................................................................................65 RevenueCredit.................................................................................................................................................65 Forecastof Revenues...............................................................................................................................................67 —Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona StreetFacilities Cash Flow..............................................................................................................................67 Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services.................................................................................................69 Appendix B— Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees........................................................70 RevenueProjections................................................................................................................................................70 GeneralFund....................................................................................................................................................71 HighwayUser Tax(HURF)............................................................................................................................72 Appendix C-Land Use Assumptions............................................................................................................73 Summaryof Growth Indicators.....................................................................................................................73 ResidentialDevelopment.........................................................................................................................................75 Recent Residential Construction....................................................................................................................75 PersonsPer Housing Unit...............................................................................................................................76 Population Estimates and Projections...........................................................................................................77 Population and Housing Unit Projections....................................................................................................78 Nonresidential Development...................................................................................................................................80 Employment Estimates and Projections.......................................................................................................80 Nonresidential Square Footage Development.............................................................................................81 Nonresidential Floor Area and Employment Projections..........................................................................82 AverageDaily Vehicle Trips...................................................................................................................................84 TripRate Adjustments....................................................................................................................................84 Estimated Vehicle Trips in Apache Junction................................................................................................85 Demand Indicators by Size of Detached Housing.......................................................................................87 LandUse Assumptions Summary..........................................................................................................................87 Twhle�r8ise 3 DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Apache Junction has engaged TischlerBise to update its development fees for necessary public services pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes 9-463.05. Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality associated with providing necessary public services to a development. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure Improvements Plan. Development fees cannot be used for, among other things: projects not included in the Infrastructure Improvements Plan, projects related to existing development, or costs related to operations and maintenance. This Infrastructure Improvements Plan and associated update to the City of Apache Junction development fees include the following necessary public services: ■ Library ■ Parks and Recreation ■ Police ■ Streets This plan also includes all necessary elements required to be in full compliance with SB 1525. ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION Arizona Revised Statutes 9-463.05 (hereafter referred to as "development fee enabling legislation") governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Arizona. During the state legislative session of 2011, Senate Bill 1525 (SB 1525) was introduced which significantly amended the development fee enabling legislation.The changes included: ■ Amending existing development fee programs by January 1, 2012; ■ Abandoning existing development fee programs by August 1, 2014; ■ A new development fee program structure developed from a unified Land Use Assumptions document and Infrastructure Improvements Plan; ■ New adoption procedures for the Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and development fees; ■ New definitions, including "necessary public services" which defines what categories and types of infrastructure may be funded with development fees; ■ Time limitations in development fee collections and expenditures; and ■ New requirements for credits, "grandfathering" rules, and refunds. Governor Brewer signed SB 1525 into law on April 26, 2011. This update of the City's development fees will be in compliance with all of the new requirements of SB 1525. TW,hlerQ Ise 4 DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona NECESSARY PUBLIC SERVICES The City of Apache Junction currently collects development fees for the following infrastructure categories: ■ Library ■ Parks and Recreation ■ Police ■ Streets Under the new requirements of the development fee enabling legislation, development fees may be used only for construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities that are necessary public services. "Necessary public service" means any of the following categories of facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and that are owned and operated on behalf of the municipality: ■ Water Facilities ■ Wastewater Facilities ■ Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control Facilities ■ Library Facilities ■ Streets Facilities ■ Fire and Police Facilities ■ Neighborhood Parks and Recreational Facilities ■ Any facility that was financed before June 1, 2011 and that meets the following requirements: 1. Development fees were pledged to repay debt service obligations related to the construction of the facility. 2. After August 1, 2014, any development fees collected are used solely for the payment of principal and interest on the portion of the bonds, notes, or other debt service obligations issued before June 1, 2011 to finance construction of the facility. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Development fees must be calculated pursuant to an Infrastructure Improvements Plan (hereafter referred to as the "IIP"). For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, by law,the infrastructure improvements plan shall include the following seven elements: Element#1:A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. Element #2: An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. Element#3:A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. TwhIer 3iSle 5 DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona Element #4: A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. Element #5: The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria. Element #6: The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years. Element #7: A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue,federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved land use assumptions, and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS The IIP must be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices. A qualified professional is defined as "a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst or planner providing services within the scope of the person's license, education, or experience." TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in the cost of growth services. Our services include development fees, fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure financing analyses, user fee/cost of service studies, capital improvement plans, and fiscal software. TischlerBise has prepared over 800 impact fee studies over the past 30 years for local governments across the United States. Twhler$ISe DRAFT—Development Fee Study:Development Fee Report City of Apache Junction,Arizona DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES Development fees for the necessary public services generated by new development must be based on the same level of service provided to existing development in the service area. There are three basic methodologies used to calculate development fees.They examine the past, present, and future status of infrastructure. The objective of evaluating these different methodologies is to determine the best measure of the demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. ■ Cost recovery (past) is used in instances when a community has oversized a facility or asset in anticipation of future development. This methodology is based on the rationale that new development is repaying the community for its share of the remaining unused capacity. ■ Incremental expansion method (present) documents the current level of service for each type of public facility.The intent is to use revenue collected to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the current cost to provide capital improvements. ■ Plan-based method (future) utilizes a community's capital improvement plan and/or other adopted plans or engineering studies to guide capital improvements needed to serve new development. Figure 1 is a summary of methodologies, components and allocations used to calculate the IIP. Figure 1:Recommended Calculation Methodologies Methodology Type of Public Facility Cost Recovery •. • -• (Past) (Present) (Future) Libraries • Facilities Not Applicable Not Applicable • Developed Parkland • Park Improvements Parks and Recreation Not Applicable • Recreational Facilities Not Applicable • Multi-Use Trails • Vehicles Police Not Applicable • Communications Equipment Not Applicable • City Collectors Streets • Minor Arterial 0 Signalized Intersections Not Applicable Reporting Results Calculations throughout this IIP are based on analysis conducted using Excel software. Formulas and results are discussed herein using one-and two-digit place (in most cases), which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the memo (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis.) Ttschler$11-Se DRAFT—Development Fee Study:Development Fee Report City of Apache Junction,Arizona MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEES Based on the data, assumptions, and calculation methodologies in the Land Use Assumptions document and Infrastructure Improvements Plan,the proposed development fees are listed in the figure below. The proposed Development Fee schedule includes six categories of land uses, three each for residential and nonresidential. "Single Unit" includes detached and attached units both modular and manufactured that are constructed on a single lot. The "Single Unit— Manufactured Homes" is for single unit dwellings in mobile home parks. The "2+ Unit" category is the development fee assessed per unit for a structure with multiple dwelling units. Previous nonresidential development fee schedules established fees for Commercial and Office land uses based on size thresholds, and others for more specialized land uses. The proposed schedule establishes a per square foot fee for three general land use categories, the City will use to define all new nonresidential development. Figure 2:Maximum Supportable City of Apache Junction Development Fees Library Reacrrkeation Police Streets .- Residential Single Unit $934 $1,466 $1611 2,364 $4,925 Single Unit-Manufactured Homes $654 $1,027 $113 $1,895 $3,689 2+Unit $748 $1,174 $129 $1,856 $3,907 Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Floor Area----------------- Co $0.30 $1.03 $0.15 $5.04 $6.52 Office $0.50 $1.71 $0.05 $2.18 $4.44 Industrial $0.35 $1.19 $0.03 $1.36 $2.93 Source:TischlerBise TwhIer 3iSle 8 DRAFT—Development Fee Study:Development Fee Report City of Apache Junction,Arizona COMPARISON TO CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES The City of Apache Junction currently collects development fees for the following infrastructure categories: ■ Library ■ Parks and Recreation ■ Police ■ Streets The City's current development fee summary is shown below: Figure 3:City of Apache Junction Development Fees,Effective January 1,2012 Parks& I Police Streets Library Recreation current - Residential Single Unit $721 $1,801 $294 $6,323 $9,139 Single Unit-Manufactured Homes $572 $1,429 $234 $3,297 $5,532 2+Unit $622 $1,555 $254 $4,440 $6,871 Nonresidential[1] Commercial $0.00 $0.001 $1.80 $13.641 $15.44 Office $0.00 $0.001 $0.68 $5.681 $6.36 Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $0.27 $2.261 $2.53 The changes between the proposed fees and those effective as of January 1, 2012 are shown in the figure below. Note:the red figures in parentheses represent decreases in fee amounts. Figure 4:Changes Between City of Apache Junction Proposed and Current Development Fees Residential Single Unit $213 ($335) ($133) ($3,959) ($4,214) Single Unit-Manufactured Homes $82 ($402) ($121) ($1,402) ($1,843) 2+Unit $126 ($381) ($125) ($2,584) ($2,964) Nonresidential Commercial $0.30 $1.03 ($1.65) ($8.60) ($8.92) Office $0.50 $1.71 ($0.63) ($3.50) ($1.92) Industrial $0.35 $1.19 ($0.24) ($0.90)l $0.40 Twhleffi ise 9 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] TischlefflisV 10 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona LIBRARY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW ARS 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Library Facilities IIP as: "Library facilities of up to ten thousand square feet that provide a direct benefit to development, not including equipment, vehicles or appurtenances." The Library Facilities IIP includes facilities component, and the cost of preparing the Library Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study. Cost recovery is used to calculate the Library Facilities development fees. SERVICE AREA The City of Apache Junction plans to provide a uniform level of service and equal service for Library facilities throughout the City. As described in Apache Junction's 2010 General Plan Update, the City ensures, "that the library system...continues its role as a major cultural resource for the community." As a result,the service area for the Library Facilities IIP is citywide. Once development of Lost Dutchman Heights begins in earnest, it may become necessary to establish separate service areas for Library Facilities development fees. However, for the purposes of this five- year study window the City of Apache Junction is considered a single service area. PROPORTIONATE SHARE ARS 9-463.05 (13)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. As shown below, TischlerBise recommends daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Library Facilities from both residential and nonresidential development. According to U.S. Census bureau data from the LEHD OnTheMap utility, non-resident workers hold 86 percent (rounded)of jobs in Apache Junction. Therefore, of the 9,093 jobs in base year 2013, inflow commuters hold approximately 7,780. The proportionate share is based on cumulative impact days per year with the number of inflow commuters potentially impacting Library Facilities 250 days per year (5 days per week multiplied by 50 work weeks per year). The resulting proportionate share of demand is 87 percent from residential, and 13 percent from nonresidential users. Figure 5: Library Facilities Proportionate Share' 2013 Days of Cumulative Impact Proportionate Demand Total Impact Days per 37,300 365 13,614,500 87% Nonresidential [1] 7,780 250 1,945,048 13% Total Impact 15,559,548 [1] Nonresidential assumes 86 percent of 2013 Jobs are held by Inflow Commuters, based on LEHD data. Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2010 Decennial Census; U.S.Census Bureau,OnTheMap 6.1.1 Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 1 The share of jobs held by inflow commuters is shown as a rounded figure. However,the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places;therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis.) TW,hlerp Ise 11 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona lip FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, ARS 9-463.05(E) requires the IIP to include seven elements. The sections below detail each of these elements. (A forecast of new revenues generated by sources other than development fees can be found in Appendix B — Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees.) ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE,AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS 9-463.05 (E)(1) requires: "A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05 (E)(2) requires: "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." Level of Service The City completed an expansion of its Library facilities in 2008.The current inventory of Library facilities totals 31,444. The current inventory was built with excess capacity to serve future demand at the level of service established when the expansion began in 2006. The original facility was 20,949 square feet and served a combined total of 39,604 persons and jobs at a LOS of 0.529 square feet per service unit. The expanded facility is serving the 2013 base year population and jobs at an LOS of 0.678, demonstrating sufficient excess capacity to serve future growth. Figure 6: Level of Service—Library Facilities Step 1-Level of Service Service Year Level of Service Square Feet Service Units Level of Service Units 2006 Square Feet 20,949 - 39,604 = 0.529 Person 2013 per 31,444 - 46,393 = 0.678 per and 2026 Service Unit 31,444 - 58,974 = 0.533 Job Debt was issued in 2007 to help fund the expansion of Library facilities. As new development utilizes its proportionate share of the available capacity of the Library facilities, the City plans to have new development pay a proportionate share of the remaining debt, to be retired in 2026. As shown above, if no new Library facilities are added and development occurs at the rate shown in the approved Land Use Assumptions, the LOS for Library facilities will change over the remaining life of the debt service. The level of service is projected to change from 0.678 square feet per service unit, to 0.533 over the remaining life of the General Obligation bond used to fund the Library facilities expansion. Ttschler$iu1 12 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Because the projected 2026 level of service will be higher than the original planned level of service of 0.529 an LOS discount must be calculated to ensure new development does not pay for a higher level of service than promised to existing development. The calculation of a LOS discount is shown below. Figure 7: Level of Service Growth Share Step 2-Level of Service Adjustment 20061 2026 2026 Level of Service 0.533 - 0.529 - 0.533 = 0.79% Cost per Service unit Debt was issued in 2007 to help fund the expansion of Library facilities to the current square footage of 31,444. Since the original bond issuance, $390,871 of previously collected development fee revenue has been allocated to the debt obligation. The City plans to have new development pay for its share of the remaining obligation. The previously discussed level of service discount of 1 percent is applied to the remaining principal to calculate growth's share of the remaining obligation. As shown in Figure 8, after deducting the previously recouped portion, and the level of service discount, the growth share of remaining principal debt obligation on the Library facility is$5,068,624.2 Figure 8: City of Apache Junction 2007 Library Debt Service Step 3-Growth Share of Remaining Principal ObligationDebt Principal $5,500,000 - $390,871 X 0.79% _ $40,504 Step 3.5-Growth Share of Remaining Principal Pin�nci Discount of Obligation $5,109,129 - $40,504 = $5,068,624 TischlerBise projects the City of Apache Junction will add 8,244 net new residents and 4,337 new jobs between of 2013 and 2026 when the original bond obligation is retired. The share of the remaining principal is multiplied by the proportionate share factors discussed above and divided by the net increase in population and jobs, respectively,to calculate a cost per capita of$534.90 and cost per job of $151.93. Figure 9: Cost Recovery—Library Facilities Step 4-New Growth Service Units Service s Se rvice Units Unit 45,544 - 37,300 = 8,244 Person 13,430 - 9,093 = 4,337 Job Step 5-Cost per Service Unit Li bra ry Faci I ities Growth Share Proportionate Net Increase in Component Service Fee Component of Obligation Residential 068624 X 87% - 8,244 = $534.90 per Person Nonresidential $5, , X 13% 4,337 = $151.93 per Job 2 The figures are shown as a rounded figure. However,the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis.) Tw,hlerPise 13 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Excluded Cost Development fees in Apache Junction exclude costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage, and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulator standards. Current Use and Available Capacity According to City staff, Library facilities have surplus capacity to serve growth; therefore, a cost recovery methodology was used to calculate the growth share of future principal payments. RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ARS 9-463.05 (E)(4) requires: "A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial." The following table displays the residential and nonresidential factors used to establish a ratio of service unit to land uses. Figure 10: Library Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit Residential •• HousingLand Use Persons per Single Unit 1.73 Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21 2+Units 1.39 [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential Development Jobs per Land Use 1,00OSquare Commercial 2.00 Office/Institutional 3.32 Industrial/Flex 2.31 [2] Institute of Transportation Engineers.(2012).Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND ARS 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: "A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." Ttschler$iu1 14 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona ARS 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: "The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria." ARS 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: "The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years." TischlerBise projects the City of Apache Junction will add an additional 8,244 persons and 4,337 jobs over the 13-year course of the bond term. As existing and new development utilizes the available capacity of the Library facility at a level of service of 0.533 square feet per person, the available Library facilities will reach capacity in 2026.See Figure 11 for additional details. Figure 11: Projected Demand for Library Facilities Li bra ry Fa ci I ities =31,444SF Population &Jobs Planned LOS FacilitySF Capacity Base Yr 2013 46,393 0.533 24,736 6,708 1 2014 47,045 0.533 25,084 6,360 2 2015 47,749 0.533 25,459 5,985 3 2016 48,503 0.533 25,861 5,583 4 2017 49,311 0.533 26,292 5,152 5 2018 50,172 0.533 26,751 4,693 6 2019 51,092 0.533 27,241 4,203 7 2020 52,070 0.533 27,763 3,681 8 2021 53,110 0.533 28,317 3,127 9 2022 54,214 0.533 28,906 2,538 10 2023 55,384 0.533 29,530 1,914 11 2024 56,813 0.533 30,292 1,152 12 2025 57,883 0.533 30,862 582 13 2026 58,974 0.533 31,444 0 Source:TischlerBise.(2013). Development Fee Land Use Assumptions Library Facilities Improvements Plan The City of Apache Junction does not plan to use Library development fee revenue collected in the next five years to pay for any new expansion of Library facilities. Twhler$i'S- 1 15 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE LIBRARY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed development fees for Library facilities are shown in Figure 12. The development fees are calculated by multiplying the Persons per Housing Unit factors by the net capital cost per person for residential development, and the Jobs per Square Foot factors by the net capital cost per job for nonresidential development. Library Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study Included in the Library Facilities per service unit cost is the cost to prepare the IIP and Development Fee Study. See Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services for the detailed calculations. Revenue Credit Included in the maximum supportable development fee is a Revenue Credit of 0 percent.The unadjusted Library Facilities development fees per development unit would not generate more revenue over the next ten years, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, than the identified growth share of existing debt service of$3,912,982 (approximately 10-years of growth share payments, plus the IIP and Development Fee Study cost). To ensure that no more fee revenue is collected than the City plans to spend, the potential gross cost per service unit is reduced by the revenue credit to calculate the net capital cost per service unit. Based on the gross capital costs per service unit, the projected development fee revenue would equal $3,261,712. See Figure 12 and Figure 13 for additional detail. Therefore, no revenue credit adjustment is necessary for the Library Facilities development fees. Ttschler$iu1 16 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 12: Maximum Supportable Library Facilities Development Fees Library Facilities Level of Service and Infrastructure Costs Per Person LibraryFacilities $534.90 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost $5.29 GROSS CAPITAL COST $540.19 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $540.19 Library Facilities Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Housing Unit Persons per Cost per Development Fee Increase Unit Type Housing Unit[1] Person Proposed Current[2] (Decrease) Single Unit 1.73 X $540.19 = $934 $721 $213 Single Unit-Manufactured 1.21 X $540.19 = $654 $572 $82 2+Units 1.39 X $540.19 = $748 $622 $126 [1]Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2]Current Fee established in 2012 Library Facilities Level of Service and Infrastructure Costs Per lob LibraryFacilities $151.93 IlP and Development Fee Study Cost $1.24 GROSS CAPITAL COST $153.17 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $153.17 Library Facilities Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Cost per Development Fee Increase Nonresidential Land Use Jobs[3] lob Proposed Current[4] (Decrease) Commercial 2.00 X $153.17 = $0.30 $0.00 1 $0.30 Office 3.32 X $153.17 = $0.50 $0.00 1 $0.50 Industrial 2.31 X $153.17 = $0.35 $0.00 1 $0.35 [31 Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition(2012). [4]Cityof Apache Junction does not currently assess LibraryFacilities development fees on nonresidential development. Twhlefflise 17 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B - Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees contains a forecast of revenues other than development fees required by Arizona's enabling legislation. Library Facilities Cash Flow The cash flow shown in Figure 13 assumes implementation of the maximum supportable Library Facilities development fees and that development over the next ten years is consistent with the approved Land Use Assumptions described in Appendix C. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. The deficit shown in the revenue projection below represents the portion of debt service that will not be recouped through Library Facilities development fee revenue. Figure 13: Library Facilities Cash Flow Summary 10-Year Growth-Related Costs for Library Facilities Debt Service [1] $3,898,942 IlPand Development Fee Study $14,040 TOTAL $3,912,982 [1] Reflects onlygrowth share and 10-years of total remaining debtobligation. per Housing Unit Per Square Foot of Floor Area Year 000 Base 2013 21,199 1,904 1,117 1,823 348 Year 1 2014 21,402 1,922 1,148 1,881 357 Yea r 2 2015 21,628 1,942 1,180 1,941 367 Yea r 3 2016 21,875 1,965 1,213 2,003 377 Yea r 4 2017 22,148 1,989 1,247 2,067 386 Yea r 5 2018 22,444 2,016 1,282 2,132 397 Yea r 6 2019 22,766 2,045 1,318 2,200 408 Yea r 7 2020 23,115 2,076 1,355 2,270 419 Yea r 8 2021 23,492 2,110 1,393 2,342 429 Yea r 9 2022 23,897 2,146 1,432 2,417 441 Yea r10 2023 24,333 2,185 1,472 2,494 453 Ten-Yr Increase 3,134 281 355 671 105 Projected Fees (Rounded)=> $2,573,014 $210,188 $106,500 $335,311 $36,699 Total Projected Revenues $3,261,712 Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit) ($651,270) [1] Fee for Single Units shown represents a weighted average of the Single Unit and Single Unit-Manufactured fees. TwhI&BisP 18 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW ARS 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP as: "Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities on real property up to thirty acres in area, or parks and recreational facilities larger than thirty acres if the facilities provide a direct benefit to the development. Parks and recreational facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of any facility that is used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas, arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses, clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand square feet in floor area, environmental education centers, equestrian facilities, golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes, museums, theme parks, water reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar recreational facilities, but may include swimming pools." The Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP includes components for developed parkland, improvements to parks, multi-use trails, recreational facilities, and the cost of preparing the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study. The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the parkland, park improvements, multi-use trails, and recreational facilities components of the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP. SERVICE AREA The City of Apache Junction plans to provide a uniform level of service for Parks and Recreational Facilities throughout the City. As described in Apache Junction's 2010 General Plan Update, the City is, "a place that emphasizes outdoor enjoyment, provides a variety of recreational activities, and connects different population groups and residential neighborhoods." As a result, the service area for the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP is citywide. Once development of Lost Dutchman Heights begins in earnest, it may become necessary to establish separate service areas for Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees. However, for the purposes of this five-year study window the City of Apache Junction is considered a single service area. TwhIer 3i'Sle 19 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona PROPORTIONATE SHARE ARS 9-463.05 (13)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. As shown below, TischlerBise recommends daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities from both residential and nonresidential development. According to U.S. Census bureau data from the LEHD OnTheMap utility, non-resident workers hold 86 percent (rounded) of jobs in Apache Junction. Therefore, of the 9,093 jobs in base year 2013, inflow commuters hold approximately 7,780. The proportionate share is based on cumulative impact days per year with the number of inflow commuters potentially impacting Parks and Recreational Facilities 250 days per year (5 days per week multiplied by 50 work weeks per year). The resulting proportionate share of demand is 87 percent from residential, and 13 percent from nonresidential users. Figure 14: Parks and Recreational Facilities Proportionate Share 2013 Days of Cumulative Impact Proportionate Demand Total Impact Days per 37,300 365 13,614,500 87% Nonresidential [1] 7,780 250 1,945,048 13% Total Impact 15,559,548 [1] Nonresidential assumes 86 percent of 2013 Jobs are held by Inflow Commuters, based on LEHD data. Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2010 Decennial Census; U.S.Census Bureau,OnTheMap 6.1.1 Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics IIP FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, ARS 9-463.05(E) requires the IIP to include seven elements. The sections below detail each of these elements. (A forecast of new revenues generated by sources other than development fees can be found in Appendix B — Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees.) ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE,AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS 9-463.05 (E)(1) requires: "A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05 (E)(2) requires: "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." 3 The share of jobs held by inflow commuters is shown as a rounded figure. However,the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places;therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis.) Ttschler$i� 20 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona The existing public services included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP are developed parkland, park improvements, multi-use trails, and recreational facilities. Parkland The City currently has 98 acres of developed parkland serving a demand base of 37,300 persons and 9,093 jobs. The City currently leases from the Bureau of Land Management 2,049 acres of undeveloped open space within its municipal boundary. The leases are used to preserve open space for eventual purchase by the City. To calculate the development fees for parkland, only land already developed is used so as not to inflate the level of service provided by the City to its residents. The City plans to maintain the level of service for developed parkland that it provides to existing development. Thus, the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component of the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP. Based on the proportionate share analysis discussed above, residential development creates 87 percent of the demand for developed parkland, with nonresidential development accounting for 13 percent of the demand. The calculation to determine level of service for residential development is as follows: (98 developed acres X 87% proportionate share) / 37,300 population = 0.0023 acres per capita. This calculation is repeated for nonresidential development resulting in a LOS of 0.0014 acres per job. According to the Parks and Recreation Department of the City, it costs approximately $260,000 in infrastructure costs to develop an acre of parkland. To calculate the cost of developed parkland per service unit the cost per unit of $260,000 is multiplied by the per service unit LOS resulting in a developed acres cost per capita of$594.31, and per job cost of$364.28. Figure 15: Incremental Expansion-Developed Parkland Ste 1-Cost oer Comi2onent Other Parkland Developed Parkland Value[1] Acres Acre[11 Acres[2] Prospector Park125480,,'000 ,000 40 $260,000 225 Superstition Shadows Park ,000 23 $260,000 - Veteran's Memorial Park ,000 2 $260,000 Little League Facility ,000 3 $260,000 - Renaissance Point Retention Area ,000 8 $260,000 - Arroyo Verde Retention Area ,000 11 $260,000 Focal Point0,000 1 $260,000 City Ha I I Pa rk0,000 3 $260,000 City/County Retention Area0,000 3 $260,000 - Silly Mountain Park0,000 4 $260,000 196 Sheep Drive Trail - - - 1,628 TOTALS0,000 - 98 = 260,000 2,049 Ste 2-Level of Service Level ofService Acres Share Service Units Level ofService Unit Developed Parkland per Resident 98 X 87% - 37,300 = 0.0023 per Person Developed Parkland perJob X 13% - 9,093 = 0.0014 per Job Ste 3-Cost per Service Unit Cost per Component Se rvi ce Fee onent Acre Level ofService Cost Unit Developed,Parkland $260,000 X 0.0023 = $594.31 per Person X 0.0014 = $364.28 per Job Source:City of Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. [11 The total value forthe Cityof Apache Junction developed parkland is calculated based on the CostperAcre of$260,000 provided bythe Cityof Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. [21 Undeveloped acres are U.S.Bureau of Land Management lands within the City Ttwhler8ise 21 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Park Improvements The City of Apache Junction provides active and passive park improvements for use by the current population. Park improvements provided by the City include amenities for passive (ramadas) and active recreation (sports fields), playgrounds, equestrian fields, and restrooms. The City plans to maintain the level of service for park improvements that it provides to existing development. Thus, the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component of the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP. Based on the proportionate share analysis discussed above, residential development creates 87 percent of the demand for park improvements, with nonresidential development accounting for 13 percent of the demand. The calculation to determine level of service for residential development is as follows: (99 units X 87% proportionate share)/37,300 population =0.0023 units per capita.This calculation is repeated for nonresidential development resulting in a LOS of 0.0014 units per job. It costs the City approximately $88,485 per park improvement. To calculate the cost of park improvements per service unit the cost per unit is multiplied by the per service unit LOS resulting in a cost per capita of$204.32, and per job cost of$125.24. Figure 16: Incremental Expansion-Park Improvements Ste 1-Cost per Component Tota I Cost per Park Improvements Value Units Unit Ramadas(single) 537,500 3 $12,500 Ramadas(small group) $350,000 14 $25,000 Ramadas(large group) $245,000 7 $35,000 Shuffleboard Courts $60,000 3 $20,000 Horseshoe Pits $12,500 5 $2,500 Playgrounds $600,000 4 $150,000 Ball Fields $1,120,000 7 $160,000 Concession/Restrooms $1,200,000 6 $200,000 Tennis Courts $675,000 9 $75,000 Racquetball Courts $360,000 4 $90,000 Basketball Courts $210,000 3 $70,000 Volleyball Courts $32,000 4 $8,000 Soccer/Football Fields $480,000 3 $160,000 Skate Park $500,000 1 $500,000 Security Fencing $660,000 25 $26,400 Pool $z,218,000 1 $2,218,000 TOTALS $8,760,000 - 99 = $88,485 Source:City of Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. Ste 2-Level of Service Level fService Units Share Service Units Level ofService Un it Park Improvements•per Resident 99 X 87% - 37,300 = 0.0023 per Person Park Improvements perJob X 13% - 9,093 = 0.0014 per Job Step 3-Cost per Service Unit Cost per Component Se rvi ce Fee Component Unit Leve I of Se rvi ce Cost Unit Park Improvements $88,485 X 0.0023 = $204.32 per Person X 0.0014 = $125.24 per Job 22 T=hRWDise Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Recreational Facilities The City plans to maintain the level of service (LOS) for recreational facilities that it provides to existing development. Thus, the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component. The City currently maintains 42,834 square feet of recreational facilities to serve a current population of 37,300, and 9,093 jobs. For recreational facilities that are greater than 3,000 square feet in size, the development fee enabling legislation dictates that only 3,000 square feet of each facility can be used to calculate a level of service (for new development) and cost per service unit for the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and development fees. Based on the proportionate share analysis discussed above, residential development creates 87 percent of the demand for recreational facilities, with nonresidential development accounting for 13 percent of the demand. The calculation to determine level of service for residential development is as follows: (8,375 eligible square feet X 87% proportionate share) / 37,300 current population = 0.1953 square feet per capita. This calculation is repeated for nonresidential development resulting in a LOS of 0.1197 square feet per job. The cost per service unit is the product of LOS and the average cost per square foot $206 (rounded), resulting in a Recreational Facilities cost per capita of$40.24, and cost per job of$24.67. Figure 17: Incremental Expansion—Recreational Facilities Ste 1-Cost per Component Facility Value Feet Square Foot Park Ranger Office&City Conference Center $229,613 2,375 $97 Multi-Generational Building $8,385,861 36,850 $228 Superstition Shadows Aquatics Center $221,848 3,609 $61 TOTALS 8,837,322 - 42,834 = 206 Eligible Square Footage[1] 8,375 Ste 2-Level of Service Level of Service Square Feet Share Service Units Leve I of Se rvi ce Unit Square Feet per Resident X 87% - 37,300 = 0.1953 per Person Square FeetperJob 8,375 X 13% - 9,093 = 0.1197 per Job Ste 3-Cost per Service Unit Cost per Component ComponentFee . .. X 0.1953 = $40.24 per Person Recreational Facilities $206 X 0.1197 = $24.67 per Job Source:City of Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. [1]ARS 9-463.05(T)(7)(f),"Parks and recreational facilities do not include...community centers greaterthan three thousand square feet in floorarea..." TwhI&BIse, 23 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Multi-Use Trails The City of Apache Junction measures its inventory of multi-use trails in acres to adjust for trails of varying widths. As of 2013, the City maintains 17 acres of multi-use trails. The inventory is sufficient to meet current demand; therefore, an incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate level of service. Based on the proportionate share analysis discussed above, residential development creates 87 percent of the demand for multi-use trails, with nonresidential development accounting for 13 percent of the demand. The calculation to determine level of service for residential development is as follows: (17 acres X 87% proportionate share) / 37,300 current population = 0.0004 square feet per capita. This calculation is repeated for nonresidential development resulting in a LOS of 0.0002 square feet per job. To calculate the cost of multi-use trails per service unit the cost to develop an acre of trails ($5,000) is multiplied by the level of service resulting in a per capita cost of$1.98, and per job cost of$1.22. Figure 18: Incremental Expansion—Multi-Use Trails Ste 1-Cost per component Tota I Cost per Multi-Use Trails Value [1] Acres [2] Acre Silly Mountain Park $10,000 2 $5,000 Sheep Drive Trail System $65,000 13 $5,000 Arroyo Verde Open Space Area $5,000 1 $5,000 Renaissance Point Open Space $5,000 1 $5,000 TOTALS 85,000 - 17 = 5,000 Ste 2-Level of Service Pro p Leve I of Se rvi ce Acres Sha re Service Units Leve I of Se rvi ce Unit Multi-Use Trails per Resident X 87% - 37,300 = 0.0004 per Person Multi-Use Trails perJob 17 X 13% - 9,093 = 0.0002 per Job Ste 3-Cost per Service Unit ComponentCost per ComponentFee Multi-Use Trails $5,000 X 0.0004 = $1.98 per Person X 0.0002 = $1.22 per Job Source:City of Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. [1]The total value forthe Cityof Apache Junction multi-use trails is calculated based on the Cost per Acre of$5,000 provided bythe Cityof Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. [2]The CityofApache Junction measures its inventory of multi-use trails in acres to adjustfortrails of varying widths. Excluded Costs Development fees in Apache Junction exclude costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage, and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. Current Use and Available Capacity The current Parks and Recreational Facilities discussed above are fully utilized and there is no available capacity for future development. Ttschler$iu1 24 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ARS 9-463.05 (E)(4) requires: "A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial." The following table displays the residential and nonresidential factors used to establish a ratio of service unit to land uses. Figure 19: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit DevelopmentResidential HousingLand Use Persons per Single Unit 1.73 Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21 2+Units 1.39 [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential Development Jobs per Land Use 1,00OSquare Commercial 2.00 Office/Institutional 3.32 Industrial/Flex 2.31 [2] Institute of Transportation Engineers.(2012).Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ARS 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: "A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: "The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria." Ttschler$i� 25 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona ARS 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: "The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years." Growth projections for the City of Apache Junction suggest the City will add 5,811 new residents, and 3,180 new jobs, in the next ten years. In order to maintain current levels of service for developed parkland, park improvements, recreational facilities, and multi-use trails the City will need to make incremental investments. Shown in Figure 20 below are the acres and units needed to maintain current levels of service, and the total investment necessary for each Parks and Recreational Facilities component. Figure 20: Projected Demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities4 ImprovementsPa rks Service Unit (acr (un (S( Trails(acres) Res LOS Pe rs o n 0.0023 0.0023 0.1953 0.0004 Nonres LOS Job 0.0014 0.0014 0.1197 0.0002 Average Cost per Component .� ��� I. oil Projected Demand(Rounded)Service Units Parks Improvements Rec. Facilities Multi-Use Persons Jobs acres units (sq.ft. Trails acres Base 2013 37,300 9,093 98 99 8,375 17 1 2014 37,676 9,369 99 100 8,481 17 2 2015 38,094 9,655 101 102 8,597 17 3 2016 38,554 9,949 102 103 8,722 18 4 2017 39,059 10,252 104 105 8,857 18 5 2018 39,609 10,563 105 106 9,002 18 6 2019 40,206 10,886 107 108 9,157 19 7 2020 40,853 11,217 109 110 9,323 19 8 2021 41,552 11,558 111 112 9,501 19 9 2022 42,303 11,911 113 115 9,690 20 10 2023 1 43,111 1 12,273 1 116 1 117 1 9,891 1 20 Ten Yr Total 5,811 3,180 18 18 1,516 3 Cost of Parkland $4,611,921 Cost of Park Improvements $1,592,727 Cost of Recreational Facilities $312,273 Cost of Multi-Use Trails $15,385 4 The projected demand results are shown as rounded figures. However,the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis.) Tw,hlerPise 26 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Parks and Recreational Facilities Improvements Plan Lastly, identified below is an incremental plan for necessary Parks and Recreational Facilities improvements and expansions identified by City of Apache Junction as qualified for development fee revenue. As demand is generated for identified Parks and Recreational Facilities improvements, investments from this list will be made. Figure 21: Necessary Parks and Recreational Facilities Expansions ImprovementsPark and Facilities ProspectorPark 000 Parkland Demolition and Site Preparation $1,000,000 Landscape $33,000 Pavement,Curbs $300,000 Pavement,Curbs,Gutters,Walks $792,000 Improvements Restroom Building $200,000 Site Amenities - Improvements $1,610,000 Sheep Drive Parkland Pavement,Curbs $450,000 Improvements Site Amenities - Improvements $400,000 Multi-Use Trails Mulit-Use Trails $33,750 Parkland Irrigation $228,800 Demolition and Site Preparation $724,277 Electrical $175,000 Electrical Systems $597,500 Landscape $206,707 Pavement,Curbs $712,075 Pavement,Curbs,Gutters,Walks $554,535 Utilities $567,600 Improvements Restroom Building $600,000 Site Amenities - Improvements $1,389,100 ShadowsSuperstition 44 000 Parkland Pavement,Curbs $55,000 Improvements Site Amenities - Improvements $386,000 000 Improvements Site Amenities - Improvements $2,218,000 Recreational Facility Facility $250,000 $13,483,344 Source:City of Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Department TwhImB isY 27 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed development fees for Parks and Recreational Facilities are shown in Figure 22. The development fees are calculated by multiplying the Persons per Housing Unit factors by the net capital cost per person for residential development, and the Jobs per Square Foot factors by the net capital cost per job for nonresidential development. Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study Included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities per service unit cost is the cost to prepare the IIP and Development Fee Study. See Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services for the detailed calculations. Revenue Credit Included in the maximum supportable development fee is a Revenue Credit of 0 percent.The unadjusted Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees per development unit would not generate more revenue over the next ten years, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, than the identified growth-related necessary expenditures of $6,551,630 (necessary incremental expansions, plus the IIP and Development Fee Study cost).To ensure that no more fee revenue is collected than the City plans to spend, the potential gross cost per service unit is reduced by the revenue credit to calculate the net capital cost per service unit. Based on the gross capital costs per service unit, the projected development fee revenue would equal $6,006,812. See Figure 22 and Figure 23 for additional detail. Therefore, no revenue credit adjustment is necessary for the Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees. TW,b11M.11$iu1 28 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 22: Maximum Supportable Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service and Infrastructure Costs Per Person Parkland Cost Developed Parks $594.31 Park Improvements Cost Developed Parks $204.32 Recreation Facility Cost $40.24 Multi-Use Trails Cost $1.98 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost: $7.28 GROSS CAPITAL COST $848.13 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $848.13 Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Housing Unit Persons per Cost per Development Fee Increase Unit Type Housing Unit[11 Person Proposed Current 2 Decrease Single Unit 1.73 X $848.13 = $1,466 $1,801 ($335) SingleUnit-Manufactured 1.21 X $848.13 = $1,027 $1,429 ($402) 2+Unit 1.39 X $848.13 = $1,174 $1,555 ($381) [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2]Current Fee established in 2012 Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service and Infrastructure Costs Perlob Parkland Cost Developed Parks $364.28 Park Improvements Cost Developed Parks $125.24 Recreation Facility Cost $24.67 Multi-Use Trails Cost $1.22 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost: $1.71 GROSS CAPITAL COST $517.12 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $517.11 Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Schedule Cost per Development Fee Increase Nonresidential Land Use Jobs[3] Job FP roposed I Current[4] (Decrease) Commercial 2.00 X $517.12 = $1.03 $0.00 1 $1.03 Offi ce 3.32 X $517.12 = $1.71 $0.00 $1.71 Industrial 2.31 X $517.12 = $1.19 $0.00 $1.19 [31 Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition (2012). [4]CityofApache Junction does not currentlyassess Parks and Recreational Facilities developmentfees on nonresidential development. TwhImB ise 29 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B - Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees contains a forecast of revenues other than development fees required by Arizona's enabling legislation. Parks and Recreational Facilities Cash Flow The cash flow shown in Figure 23 assumes implementation of the maximum supportable Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees and that development over the next ten years is consistent with the approved Land Use Assumptions described in Appendix C. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure 23: Parks and Recreational Facilities Cash Flow Summary Ten-Year Growth-Related Costs for Parks and Recreational Facilities Parkland $4,611,921 Park Improvements $1,592,727 Recreation Facility $312,273 Multi-Use Trails $15,385 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost $19,324 TOTAL $6,551,630 per Housing Unit Per Square Foot of Floor Year 000 Base 2013 21,199 1,904 1,117 1,823 348 Year 1 2014 21,402 1,922 1,148 1,881 357 Year2 2015 21,628 1,942 1,180 1,941 367 Yea r 3 2016 21,875 1,965 1,213 2,003 377 Year4 2017 22,148 1,989 1,247 2,067 386 Yea r 5 2018 22,444 2,016 1,282 2,132 397 Yea r 6 2019 22,766 2,045 1,318 2,200 408 Year7 2020 23,115 2,076 1,355 2,270 419 Yea r 8 2021 23,492 2,110 1,393 2,342 429 Yea r 9 2022 23,897 2,146 1,432 2,417 441 Year10 2023 1 24,333 1 2,185 1,472 1 2,494 1 453 Ten-Yr Increase 3,134 281 355 671 105 Projected Fees (Rounded)=> $4,039,726 $329,894 $365,650 $1,146,764 $124,778 Total Projected Revenues $6,006,812 Cumulative Net Surpl us/(Deficit) ($544,818) [1] Fee shown for Single Units represents a weighted average of the Single Unit and Single Unit-Manufacturedfees Ttschler$iu1 30 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona . . OVERVIEW AIRS 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Police Facilities IIP as: "Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training police and firefighters from more than one station or substation." The Police Facilities IIP includes components for vehicles, communications equipment, and the cost of preparing the Police Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study. Incremental expansion is used to calculate the vehicles, and communications equipment elements of the Police Facilities IIP. SERVICE AREA The City of Apache Junction plans to provide a uniform level of service and equal service for Police Facilities throughout the City. As described in Apache Junction's 2010 General Plan Update, "the Apache Junction Police Department (AJPD) is a full service public safety agency, primarily carrying out police services within the jurisdiction of the City of Apache Junction." As a result,the service area for the Police IIP is citywide. Once development of Lost Dutchman Heights begins in earnest, it may become necessary to establish separate service areas for Police Facilities development fees. However, for the purposes of this five-year study window the City of Apache Junction is considered a single service area. PROPORTIONATE SHARE Functional Population AIRS 9-463.05 (13)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development.The Police IIP and development fees use a functional population concept to calculate a proportionate share in order to allocate the demand between residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is calculated based on characteristics of the residential population and workers in the City of Apache Junction. Place of residence and place of work data were analyzed to determine demand by type of land use using "person-hours." See Figure 24 below for the calculations. For residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non- working residents plus the non-working hours of resident workers. The portion of the population not working is estimated at 23,809 in 2010. (This is calculated by subtracting the Longitudinal Employer- Household Dynamics (LEND) web-based application OnTheMap estimate of employed residents of the City (12,031) from the 2010 decennial census population in 2010 (35,840)). For these residents, the full day (or 24 hours) is allocated to residential demand. According to the 2010 Census, workers who live in Apache Junction total 12,031. (Of the 12,031 employed residents, the U.S. Census estimates that 1,236 work in Apache Junction and 10,795 work outside the City.) For workers living in the City, two-thirds of the day (or 16 hours) is allocated to residential demand. Time spent at work (8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. Ttschler$i� 31 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona For nonresidential development, 8 hours per person is estimated for each worker. For the 1,236 estimated City residents working in Apache Junction and the 7,325 non-resident workers (estimated based on the number of jobs in the City minus resident workers), 8 hours of demand per day is allocated. Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation is 92 percent for residential development (763,912 person hours of residential demand out of a total 832,400 person hours) and 8 percent for nonresidential development (68,488 person hours of nonresidential demand out of a total 832,400 person hours). Shown in Figure 24 is the functional population calculation to assign demand hours per day by type of resident and worker in City of Apache Junction. Figure 24: Police Functional Population Proportionate Share Demand Person Proportionate Land Use Demand Units in 2010 Hours/DayHours Estimated Residents 35,840 Residents Not Working 23,809 24 571,416 Workers Living in City 12,031 City Residents Working in Apache Junction 1,236 16 19,776 City Residents Working outside of City 10,795 16 172,720 Residential Subtotal 763,912 92% Jobs Located in City 8,561 City Residents Working in City 1,236 8 9,888 Non-Resident Workers 7,325 8 58,600 Nonresidential Subtotal 68,488 8% TOTAL 832,400 100% Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2010 Decennial Census;U.S.Census Bureau,OnTheMap 6.1.1 Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics Twirler.$ISe 32 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Service units The Police Facilities costs are allocated to both residential and nonresidential development based on an analysis of incident by land use data (calls for service). For residential development, Police Facilities development fees are calculated on a per capita basis, and then converted to an appropriate amount by type of housing unit, based on persons per housing unit factors. For nonresidential development fees, TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for Police Facilities. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial/flex development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for Police services from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees would be too high for office and institutional development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. If floor area were used as the demand indicator Police development fees would be too high for industrial development. For more information regarding the calculation of nonresidential vehicle trips see the Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit section of this chapter. Police Calls for Service The proportionate share factors described above were applied to the 40,067 calls for service answered by the AJPD in calendar year 2012 to derive CFS per capita and CFS per nonresidential vehicle trip. See Figure 25 for more detail. Figure 25: Police Calls for Service by Land Use Step 1-Calls for Service by Land Use Proporti ona te Calls for Calls per Land Use Share Service [11 Land Use Residential 92% X 40,067 - 36,862 Nonresidential 8% X = I 3,205 Step 2-Level of Service Level of Service Land Use Service Units Leve I of Se rvi ce Unit Calls per Resident 36,862 - 37,300 = 0.9882 per Person Calls per Nonresidential Vehicle Trip [2] 3,205 - 27,000 = 0.1187 per Vehicle Trip [1]City of Apache Junction Police Department,Calls for service for calendar year 2012 i21 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips shown in rounded numbers 33 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona IIP FOR POLICE FACILITIES For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, ARS 9-463.05(E) requires the IIP to include seven elements. The sections below detail each of these elements. (A forecast of new revenues generated by sources other than development fees can be found in Appendix B — Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees.) ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE,AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ARS 9-463.05 (E)(1) requires: "A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05 (E)(2) requires: "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." The necessary public services included in the Police Facilities IIP are vehicles, and communications equipment. T[Jl.l lleffi«3 34 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Vehicles The City plans to maintain the current LOS for Police vehicles; thus the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component of the Police IIP. The City currently has 50 vehicles serving 37,300 persons and 27,000 nonresidential vehicle trips (rounded). Based on the current inventory, the proportionate share factors, and existing development, the steps to calculate the cost of Police vehicles per residential and nonresidential service units are shown in Figure 26. Figure 26: Incremental Expansion—Vehicles Step 1-Cost per Component Tota I Cost peVehicles Value [1] Units Unit r Patrol Vehicles $1,040,349 22 $47,289 Unmarked Patrol Vehicles $531,532 18 $29,530 Detention Vans $92,262 2 $46,131 Vans (Victims Svc&Comm) $70,632 2 $35,316 Motorcycles $128,734 4 $32,184 Mobile Command Van $319,8821 1 $319,882 SWAT Van $373,196 1 $373,196 TOTALS $2,556,587 - 50 = $51,132 Step 2-Level of Service • •.• Leve I of Se rvi ce Units Sha re Service Units Leve I of Se rvi ce Unit Vehicles per Resident 50 X 92% - 37,300 = 0.0012 per Person Vehicles per Nonresidential Vehicle Trip[2] 50 X 8% — 27,000 = 0.0001 per Vehicle Trip Step 3-Cost per Service Unit Cost per Component ComponentFee Police Vehicles-Residential $51,132 X 0.0012 = $63.06 per Person Police Vehicles -Nonresidential $51,132 X 0.0001 = $7.58 per Vehicle Trip Source:City of Apache Junction [1]Total Value in 2007,provided by The Cityof Apache Junction Police adjusted forinflation using 2007 and Feb 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics,CPI Index [2] Nonresidential Vehicle Trips shown in rounded numbers TwhiGI L7Ise 35 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Communications Equipment The City plans to maintain the current LOS for Police communications equipment; thus the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component of the Police IIP. The City currently has 170 units of Police communications equipment serving 37,300 persons and 27,000 nonresidential vehicle trips (rounded). Based on the current inventory, the proportionate share factors, and existing development, the steps to calculate the cost of Police communications equipment per residential and nonresidential service units are shown in Figure 27. Figure 27: Incremental Expansion—Communications Equipment Step 1-Cost per Component Tota I CostpeEquipment Value Units Unit r Radios $572,000 104 1 $5,500 Mobile Radios $335,296 62 1 $5,408 Dispatch Consoles 1 $60,000 4 1 $15,000 TOTALS $967,296 - 170 = $5,690 Source:City of Apache Junction Step 2-Level of Service • ... Leve I of Se rvi ce Units Sha re Service Units Level of Service Unit Comm.Equipment per Resident 170 X 92% — 37,300 = 0.0042 per Person Comm.Equip.per Nonres.Vehicle Trip [1] 170 X 8% - 27,000 = 0.0005 per Vehicle Trip Step 3-Cost per Service Unit ComponentCost per ComponentFee Police Comm.Equip.-Residential $5,690 X 0.0042 = $23.86 per Person Police Comm.Equip.-Nonresidential $5,690 X 0.0005 = $2.87 per Vehicle Trip [1] Nonresidential Vehicle Trips shown in rounded numbers Excluded Costs Development fees in Apache Junction exclude costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage, and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulator standards. Current Use and Available Capacity The current Police Facilities discussed above are fully utilized and there is no available capacity for future development. Taschler$(� 36 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ARS 9-463.05 (E)(4) requires: "A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial." Figure 28 displays the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses for residential and nonresidential development. The residential development table displays the persons per housing unit factors for single unit structures and multi-unit structures. For nonresidential development fees, TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for Police Facilities. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial/flex development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for Police services from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees would be too high for office and institutional development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. If floor area were used as the demand indicator Police development fees would be too high for industrial development. Vehicle trips are estimated using average weekday vehicle trip ends from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 9th Edition, 2012). A Vehicle Trip End represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicate that 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, for a commercial trip adjustment factor of 33 percent. These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use. Ttschler$iu1 37 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 28: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Units to Land Use DevelopmentResidential HousingLand Use Persons per Single Unit 1.73 Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21 2+Units 1.39 [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions DevelopmentNonresidential WeekdayTrip Land Use • Adjustment Commercial 42.70 33% 14.09 Office/Institutional 11.03 50% 5.52 Industrial/Flex 6.97 50% 3.49 [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2] Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2012).Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition [3] On an average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Commercial (including Retail) include a 34% pass-by adjustment to reflect 66%of trips are PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ARS 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: "A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: "The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria." ARS 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: "The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years." Twhleffi ise 38 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Growth projections, discussed in the Development Fee Land Use Assumptions, for the City of Apache Junction suggest the City will add 5,811 residents in the next ten years. Growth is projected to generate an additional 9,066 nonresidential vehicle trips. In order to maintain current levels of service for the Police Facilities the AJPD will need to add 9 vehicles and 29 units of communications equipment. These demands have an estimated cost of$625,198. See Figure 29 below for additional details. Figure 29: Projected Demand for Police Facilities Vehicles Comm.Equip. Service Unit (units) (units) Res LOS Person 0.0012 0.0042 Nonres LOS Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 0.0001 0.0005 Average Cost per Unit .10 .- Projected Service Units Vehicles Comm. Equip. Persons Nonres.Vehicle (units) (units) Base 2013 37,300 27,000 50 170 1 2014 37,676 27,789 51 172 2 2015 38,094 28,610 51 174 3 2016 38,554 29,450 52 176 4 2017 39,059 30,316 53 179 5 2018 39,609 31,200 53 182 6 2019 40,206 32,120 54 185 7 2020 40,853 33,073 55 188 8 2021 41,552 34,036 56 191 9 2022 42,303 35,038 57 195 10 2023 1 43,111 36,066 59 199 Ten Yr Total 5,811 9,066 9 29 Cost of Police Vehicles $460,188 Cost of Communications Equipment $165,010 Twhler 3iSP. 39 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Police Facilities Improvements Plan Lastly, identified below is the 10-year plan for necessary Police Facilities improvements and expansions identified by City of Apache Junction as qualified for development fee revenue. As demand is generated for identified Police Facilities improvements, investments identified below will be made. Figure 30: Necessary Police Facilities Expansions Necessary Public Service Division Units Total Vehicles Patrol 3 $116,000 Crime Scene Investigations 1 $51,000 Incremental Expansion 5 $268,107 Mobile Communications Equipment Patrol 10 $68,000 Telecommunications 8 $52,000 Stationary Communications System Patrol 2 $1,500 Telecommunications 2 $40,000 Crime Scene Investigations 1 $85,000 Dispatch Console Telecommunications 1 $115,000 TOTAL $796,607 Source:City of Apache Junction Police Department TwhImB ise 40 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed development fees for Police Facilities are shown in Figure 31. The development fees are calculated by multiplying the Persons per Housing Unit factors by the net capital cost per person for residential development, and the Vehicle Trips per Square Foot factors by the net capital cost per nonresidential vehicle trip for nonresidential development. Police Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study Included in the Police Facilities per service unit cost is the cost to prepare the IIP and Development Fee Study. See Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services for the detailed calculations. Revenue Credit Included in the maximum supportable development fee is a Revenue Credit of 0 percent.The unadjusted Police Facilities development fees per development unit would not generate more revenue over the next ten years, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, than the identified growth-related necessary expenditures of $641,352 (necessary incremental expansions, plus the IIP and Development Fee Study cost). To ensure that no more fee revenue is collected than the City plans to spend, the potential gross cost per service unit is reduced by the revenue credit to calculate the net capital cost per service unit. Based on the gross capital costs per service unit, the projected development fee revenue would equal $570,268. See Figure 31 and Figure 32 for additional detail. Therefore, no revenue credit adjustment is necessary for the Police Facilities development fees. Tw,hIerIQ,i�1 41 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 31: Maximum Supportable Police Facilities Development Fees Police Facilities Residential Level Of Service and Capital Costs Per Person Vehicle Costs $63.06 Communications Equipment Costs $23.86 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost $6.44 GROSS CAPITAL COST $93.36 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $93.36 Police Facilities Residential Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Housing Unit Persons per Cost per Development Fee Increase Unit Type Housing Unit 1 Person Proposed Current 2 Decrease Single Unit 1.73 X $93.36 = $161 $294 ($133) SingleUnit-Manufactured 1.21 X $93.36 = $113 $234 ($121) 2+Unit 1.39 X $93.36 = $129 $254 ($125) Police Facilities Nonresidential Level Of Service and Capital Costs Per Nonres Trip Vehicle Costs $7.58 Communications Equipment Costs $2.87 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost $0.31 GROSS CAPITAL COST $10.76 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $10.76 Police Facilities Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Housing Unit Cost per Development Fee Increase Nonresidential Land Use Vehicle Trips 1 Nonres Tri Prg&Med I Current 2 Decrease lifil (Per Square Foot of Floor Area) Commercial 14.09 X $10.76 = $0.15 $1.80 ($1.65) Office 5.52 X $10.76 = $0.05 $0.68 ($0.63) Industrial 3.49 X $10.76 = $0.03 $0.27 ($0.24) [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2]Current Fee established in 2012 TWA,IL rQise 42 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B - Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees contains a forecast of revenues other than development fees required by Arizona's enabling legislation. Police Facilities Cash Flow The cash flow shown in Figure 32 assumes implementation of the maximum supportable Police Facilities development fees and that development over the next ten years is consistent with the approved Land Use Assumptions described in Appendix C. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure 32: Police Facilities Cash Flow Summary Ten-Year Growth-Related Costs for Police Facilities Vehicles $ 460,188 Communications Equipment $ 165,010 IlPand Development Fee StudyCost $ 16,154 TOTAL $ 641,352 per Housing Unit Per Square Foot of Floor �1 'Com .15 i� industrial.05 0 .03 Year 000 Base 2013 21,199 1,904 1,117 1,823 348 Ye a r 1 2014 21,402 1,922 1,148 1,881 357 Year2 2015 21,628 1,942 1,180 1,941 367 Yea r 3 2016 21,875 1,965 1,213 2,003 377 Yea r4 2017 22,148 1,989 1,247 2,067 386 Yea r5 2018 22,444 2,016 1,282 2,132 397 Yea r 6 2019 22,766 2,045 1,318 2,200 408 Yea r7 2020 23,115 2,076 1,355 2,270 419 Yea r8 2021 23,492 2,110 1,393 2,342 429 Yea r9 2022 23,897 2,146 1,432 2,417 441 Year 10 2023 24,333 1 2,185 1,472 1 2,494 1 453 Ten-Yr Increase 3,134 281 355 671 105 Projected Fees (Rounded)=> $444,092 $36,249 $53,250 $33,531 $3,146 Total Projected Revenues $570,268 Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit) ($71,084) [1] Fee for Single Units shown represents a weighted average of the Single Unit and Single Unit-Manufactured fees. Twhler 3l-A! 43 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] TrxhIer 3i-."e 44 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona . . . . BMW OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... AIRS 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Street Facilities IIP as: "Street facilities located in the service area, including arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted plan of the municipality, traffic signals and rights-of-way and improvements thereon." The Street Facilities IIP includes components for street improvements and the cost of preparing the Street Facilities IIP and development fees. The cost recovery/buy- in methodology is used to calculate the minor arterial component; and an incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the collectors and signalized intersections components of the Street Facilities IIP. SERVICE AREA AIRS 9-463.05(T)(9) defines "service area" as follows: "any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan. " The City of Apache Junction plans to provide a uniform level of service for Street facilities throughout the City. As described in Apache Junction's 2010 General Plan Update, the City of Apache Junction ensures, "vital transportation and circulation infrastructure will be available to support easy access to jobs, schools, recreation, and regional travel." A May 2012 Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study conducted by Jacobs cataloged existing streets in Apache Junction, and found City of Apache Junction roadways operate at a level of service (LOS) at or above LOS C (except for a section of Apache Trail on which there exist intentional traffic calming design features). The current inventory of City of Apache Junction roadways has capacity to absorb additional vehicle miles traveled. In the next five years, the City expects development of the southern portion of the City, between Baseline Avenue and the incorporated municipal boundary, to develop as part of a master planned development: Lost Dutchman Heights. It will be necessary for City of Apache Junction to improve the City roadways to maintain circulation within the City. Once development of Lost Dutchman Heights begins in earnest, it may become necessary to establish separate service areas for Street Facilities development fees. However, for the purposes of this five-year study window the City of Apache Junction is considered a single service area, shown as within the "Study Area" indicated in Figure 33 below. Tw IIeffl« 45 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 33:Street Facilities Service Area Map FIGURE 2.19:AVERAGE DAILY OF • • 7-1 O Mc KelWR9tvtl—__. _______� ____________.___b_____.._.___ x n $ s $ 1 s E I 0 ) ~ 88 1 1 LoN Outchman Blyd I I I 1 _!Ter,..,. c 1 1 SUpe1.141T B1rd i � 1 1 Apache TO Sr i g 9 1 c iYo &o.rlway Ave li � I n E 1 o i fern Are � 1 a 1 I So<nh.rn Are 1 J easel—A— f0 700 ,1 •1 i MPD: Portalis LEGEND - `*LOS D -*�,, LOS A Study Area ^ Los C local Roadway _ 1 City Boundary v Los B County Island �" �� r^ JncoBs Source:Jacob.(2012)Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. TwI 11effi l se. 46 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona PROPORTIONATE SHARE ARS 9-463.05 (13)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors are used to determine the proportionate impact of residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses on the City's roadways. IIP FOR STREET FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, ARS 9-463.05(E) requires the IIP to include seven elements. The sections below detail each of these seven elements for the Street Facilities IIP. (A forecast of new revenues generated by sources other than development fees can be found in Appendix B—Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees.) ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE,AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS 9-463.05 (E)(1) requires: "A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05 (E)(2) requires: "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." Twhler$iSI- 1 47 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Current Inventory The City of Apache Junction has a total Street facilities inventory of 143.79 miles, made up of 106.49 miles of minor arterial streets and 37.30 miles of collector streets, all of which operate with a level of service at or above C, as reported by the 2012 Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. There are 18 signalized intersections maintained by the City of Apache Junction Department of Public Works. Figure 34:City-Maintained Street Facilities Inventory Road Miles La nes Lane Miles •... Miles La n e s Lane Miles Lost Dutchman Blvd 4.00 2 8.00 Meridian Dr. 2.10 2 4.20 Superstition Blvd 5.60 2-4 15.40 Delaware Dr 2.50 2-4 5.90 Broadway Ave 4.50 2-3 13.00 McKellips Blvd 3.50 2 7.00 Southern Ave 3.08 2-4 9.54 Ironwood Dr 1.00 2 2.00 Baseline Ave 4.20 2-3 8.60 Idaho Rd 1.10 2 2.20 Meridian Dr 3.00 2-4 6.75 Tomahawk Rd 0.60 2 1.20 Ironwood Dr 5.90 2-4 21.60 16th Ave 2.50 2-4 8.60 Idaho Rd 1.80 2-4 4.50 an Marcos Dr. 1.00 4 4.00 Tomahawk Rd 4.00 2-4 9.30 Phelps Dr. 0.50 2-3 1.20 Goldfield Rd 4.00 2-4 9.80 Royal Palm Rd. 1.00 1 1.00 Mountain View Rd 3.40 2 6.80 TOTAL 106.49 TOTAL 37.30 Signalized Intersections Count I City Maintained 18 Source:City of Apache Junction, Dept.of Public Works Source:Jacob.(2012)Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. The steps to calculate a current level of service for the City of Apache Junction Street facilities involve calibrating existing development to the arterial and collector street networks. To do so, development units by type are multiplied by adjusted vehicle trip ends per development unit. The factors used to calculate the current levels of service, expressed in Vehicle Miles of Travel (a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile), are discussed below, and shown in the Current Level of Service section after the discussion. Ttschler$i�1 48 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Trip Generation Rates Street Facilities development fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends, adjusted for commuting patterns and pass-by trips and weighted by trip length. Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 91h Edition, 2012). A Vehicle Trip End represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate Street Facilities development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed further below, the development fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Residential Vehicle Trip Ends As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e., vehicles available, housing units, households, and persons) are available from the 2011 ACS Estimates for Apache Junction. These data were used to derive custom average weekday vehicle trip ends by type of housing. As shown in Figure 35, custom residential trip ends per housing unit in Apache Junction are 5.60 for single residential units, and 4.40 for multifamily units, each of which are lower than the national average of 9.52 and 6.65 respectively. (Note: Housing unit estimates from the ACS will not equal decennial census counts of units, nor the land use assumptions. These data are used to derive the custom average trip ends by type of housing unit, as shown below.) Figure 35:Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type Cityof Apache Junction,AZ Households[21 Vehicles per Vehicles Units Household Available[1] Single Family Multifamily Total by Tenure A B C D=B+C E=A/D Owner-occupied 18,863 11,363 156 11,519 1.64 Renter-occupied 3,666 1,957 1,042 2,999 1.22 TOTAL 22,529 13,320 1,198 14,518 1.55 Housing Units[3]_> 18,248 1,597 19,845 Persons per Housing Unit=>I 1.73 1.39 [1]Vehicles available bytenure from Table B25046,American Community Survey,2011. [2]Households bytenure and units in structure from Table B25032, America n Community Survey,2011. [3]Housing units from Table B25024,American Community Survey,2011.0 Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average TripEndsper ITETripEnds Difference Households Ends Type of Housing Ends Trip Ends Housing per From F=Owner(B*E)+ G=Avg of Unit Unit ITE [4] [5] Renter(B*E) [6] [5],[6] H=G/[3] [7] Single Family Units 31,558 81,723 21,000 121,320 101,521 5.60 9.52 -3.92 Multifamily Units 2,212 7,611 1,529 6,319 6,965 4.40 6.65 -2.25 TOTAL 33,770 89,334 22,529 127,638 108,486 5.50 [4]Total population in households from Table25033,American Community Survey,2011. [5]Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). For single family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.91*LN(persons)+1.52). To approximate the average population ofthe ITE studies,persons were divided by57and the equation result multiplied by 57. For multifamily housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.47*persons)-64.48. [6]Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). Forsingle family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.81). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by77 and the equation result multiplied by77. For multifamily housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.94*vehicles)+293.58. [71 Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition(2012). IsOle L7ise 49 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Nonresidential Vehicle Trip Ends Vehicle trip ends for nonresidential development are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 91" Edition, 2012). The shaded categories in Figure 36 represent the proxy categories used to determine existing and projected trips from nonresidential development in the City of Apache Junction. Figure 36:The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Nonresidential Trip Ends,2012 ITE Land Use/Size Demand Weekday Trip Ends per Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Demand Unit* Employee* Dmd Unit** Per Emp Commercial/Shopping Center 820 lAverage 1,000 Sq Ft 42.70 na 2.00 500 General Office F710 Average 1,000 Sq Ft 11.03 3.32 3.32 301 Other Nonresidential 770 Business Park*** 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 8.11 2.77 2.93 342 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 13.22 4.50 2.94 340 565 Day Care student 4.38 26.73 0.16 na 550 University/College student 1.71 8.96 0.19 na 530 High School student 1.71 19.74 0.09 na 520 Elementary School student 1.29 15.71 0.08 na 520 Elementary School 1,000SclFt 15.43 15.71 0.98 1,018 320 Lodgi ng room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na 254 Assisted Living bed 2.66 3.93 0.68 na 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 Sq Ft 2.50 61.90 0.04 24,760 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.56 3.89 0.92 1,093 140 Manufacturing 1,000SclFt 3.82 2.13 1.79 558 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 6.97 3.02 2.31 433 * Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition (2012). ** Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates,except for Shopping Center data,which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers,published by the Urban Land Institute. Ttschler$i� 50 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Adjustment for Journey-To-Work Commuting Residential development in the City of Apache Junction has a trip adjustment factor of 64 percent to account for commuters leaving Apache Junction for work. According to the National Household Travel Survey(2011), home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of"production" trips, in other words, out- bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). The LED OnTheMap data from 2010 indicates that 90 percent of Apache Junction's employed residents travel outside the City for work. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.90 = 0.14) account for 14 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50% of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment(14%of production trips) for a total of 64 percent. Figure 37:Adjustment for Journey-to-Work Commuting Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters[1] Employed Residents 12,031 Residents Working in City 1,236 Residents Commuting Outside City for Work 10,795 Percent Commuting out of the City 90% Additional Production Trips [21 14% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 64% [1]U.S.Census Bureau,2010 OnTheMap Application(version 6.1.1)and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics [2]Outbound trip statistics from National Household Travel Survey,2009:Table 30 Adjustment for Pass-By Trips For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicate that 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 33 percent of the trip ends (see the Current Level of Service section). These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use. Trip Length Weighting Factor by Type of Land Use The Street Facilities calculation methodology includes a percentage adjustment, or weighting factor, to account for trip length variation by type of land use. As documented in Table 6 of the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, vehicle trips from residential development are approximately 121 percent of the average trip length. The residential trip length adjustment factor includes data on home-base work trips, social, and recreational purposes. Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial development are roughly 66 percent of the average trip length while other nonresidential development typically accounts for trips that are 73 percent of the average for all trips. TischlerBi IS,f� 51 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Lane Capacity In August 2006, Pinal County released the Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study Final Report. Recommendations made in the report sought to prepare the County's roadways for the forecasted population growth of an additional 250,000 over the course of 20 years. The study examined roadways within the County and established daily per-lane capacities for each classification of roadway. Daily per- lane capacities of roadways in Pinal County were established to be 8,700 for minor arterials and 7,500 for collectors. This equates to a weighted average capacity for the Apache Junction Street facilities of 8,400. Figure 38: Daily Per-Lane Capacity Existing Lane Daily Per-Lane Classification Miles [11 Capacity[2]* Minor Arterial 106.49 8,700 Collector 37.30 7,500 Minor Arterial &Collector 143.79 8,400 i11 City of Apache Junction, Dept.of Public Works i21 Pinal County Transportation Plan,2000 Update *Weighted Average Formula 106.49 X 81700 + 37.30 X 7,500 - 8,400 143.79 143.79 Rounded Current Level of Service Shown below are a series of figures demonstrating the calibration of existing development to the current inventory of City minor arterials, collectors, and signalized intersections. It is necessary to calculate each separately in order to then calculate the cost per service unit for each component. Twhleffi ise 52 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Minor Arterial Figure 39 shows the calibration of existing development to the current City minor arterial street network. Knowing the current lane mile inventory of 106.49, and the daily per-lane capacity (8,700) of the street network,TischlerBise, using a series of spreadsheet iterations, determined the common factor necessary to evenly distribute the vehicle miles of travel on the existing minor arterial network to be a weighted-average trip length of 7.92 miles (rounded). As shown in Figure 39 below, existing development within Apache Junction attracted an estimated 926,463 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) to minor arterials in 2013, based on the trip generation, trip adjustment, trip length factor and other assumptions shown. A VMT is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip lengths. Therefore, the current infrastructure standard is 1.15 lane miles per 10,000 VMT (i.e., 106.49 lane miles divided by 926,463 VMT expressed in ten-thousands). Figure 39: Existing Level of Service-City Minor Arterials Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Existing Development Development DeType[1] Unit v. Trip Ends per Adjustment Vehicle ,RESIDENTIAL 0 Single Unit 21,199 X 5.60 X 64% = 75,977 Multi-Unit 1,904 X 4.40 X 64% = 5,362 • Commercial KSF 1,117 X 42.70 X 33% = 15,733 Office KSF 1,823 X 11.03 X 50% = 10,055 Industrial KSF 348 X 6.97 X 50% = 1,213 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development Development Type Trips Length[4] Weighting Factor[51 ofTravel ,RESIDENTIAL 0 Single Unit 75,977 X 7.92 X 121% = 727,788 Multi-Unit 5,362 X 7.92 X 121% = 51,360 • • Step 3-Even Distribution Commercial KSF 15,733 X 7.92 X 66% = 82,202 of VMT on Existing Arterial Network Office KSF 10,055 X 7.92 X 73% = 58,106 Existing I •. Industrial KSF 1,213 X 7.92 X 73% = 7,007 - - TOTALVehicle Miles of Travel 926,463 = 106.49 X1 8,700 Step 4-Level of Service Vehicle Miles Level of Level ofService Units ofTravel Service Lane Miles per10,000VMT 106.49 — 92.6463 = 1.15 [1]Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. [2]Development Fee Land Use Assumptions ]3]Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,2012. [4]Avg.Trip Length(Rounded),expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel on the existing system [5]On on average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34%pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City ]6]City of Apache Junction,Dept.of Public Works [7]Pinol County Transportation Plan,2000 Update s Typical VMT calculations for development-specific traffic studies, along with most transportation models of an entire urban area, are derived from traffic counts on particular road segments multiplied by the length of that road segment. For the purpose of development fees,VMT calculations are based on attraction (inbound)trips to development located in the service area, with the trip lengths calibrated to the road network considered to be system improvements. This refinement eliminates pass-through or external trips,and travel on roads that are not system improvements(e.g.interstate highways). T[Jl.l lleffi« 53 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Collector Figure 40 shows the calibration of existing development to the current City collector street network. Knowing the current lane mile inventory of 37.30, and the daily per-lane capacity (7,500) of the street network,TischlerBise, using a series of spreadsheet iterations, determined the common factor necessary to evenly distribute the vehicle miles of travel on the existing collector network to be a weighted- average trip length of 2.39 miles (rounded). As shown in Figure 40 below, existing development within Apache Junction attracted an estimated 279,757 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) to collectors in 2013, based on the trip generation, trip adjustment,trip length factor and other assumptions shown. A VMT is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length. Therefore, the current infrastructure standard is 1.33 lane miles per 10,000 VMT(i.e., 37.30 lane miles divided by 279,757 VMT expressed in ten-thousands). Figure 40: Existing Level of Service-City Collectors Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Existing Development Deve I..me n t Dev. Trip Ends per Type[1] Unit Dev.Unit[2] Factors[3] Trips Single Unit 1 21,199 X 5.60 X 64% = 75,977 Multi-Unit 1,904 X 4.40 X 64% = 5,362 !NONRESIDENTIAL Commercial KSF 1,117 X 42.70 X 33% = 15,733 Office KSF 1,823 X 11.03 X 50% = 10,055 Industrial KSF 348 X 6.97 X 50% 1,213 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development Development,RESIType Tri ps Length[4] Weighting Factor[5] ofTravel Single Unit 1 75,977 X 2.39 X 121% = 219,764 Multi-Unit 5,362 X 2.39 X 121% = 15,509 �NONRESIDENTIAL Step 3-Even Distribution Commercial KSF 15,733 X 2.39 X 66% = 24,822 of VMT on Existing Arterial Network Office KSF 10,055 X 2.39 X 73% = 17,546 Existing Daily Per- Industrial KSF 1,213 X 2.39 1 X 73% - 2,116 .. TOTALVehicle Miles of Travel 279,757 = 37.30 X 7,500 Step 4-Level of Service I Vehicle Miles Level of Lane Miles per 10,000VMT 37.30 - 27.9757 = 1.33 [1] Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. [2]Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [3]Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,2012. [4]Avg.Trip Length(Rounded),expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel on the existing system [5]On an average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34%pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City i61 City of Apache Junction,Dept.of Public Works i71 Pinal County Transportation Plan,2000 Update IsOle L7ise 54 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Signalized Intersections Figure 41 shows the calibration of existing development to the current Street facilities network, which includes 18 signalized intersections. Knowing the current lane mile inventory of 143.79, and the daily per-lane capacity (8,400) of the street network, TischlerBise, using a series of spreadsheet iterations, determined the common factor necessary to evenly distribute the vehicle miles of travel on the existing street network to be a weighted-average trip length of 10.32 miles (rounded). As shown in Figure 41 below, existing development within Apache Junction attracted an estimated 1,207,836 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) in 2013, based on the trip generation, trip adjustment, trip length factor and other assumptions shown. A VMT is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length. Therefore, the current infrastructure standard is 1.19 lane miles, and 0.15 signalized intersections per 10,000 VMT(i.e., 18 units divided by 1,207,836 VMT expressed in ten-thousands). Figure 41: Existing Level of Service—Signalized Intersections Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Existing Development Deve I a p me n t Dev. Trip Ends per Adjustment Vehicle Type[11 Unit Dev.Unit[2] Factors [3] Tri ps Single Unit 1 2 11,199 X 5.60 X 64% = 75,977 Multi-Unit 1,904 X 4.40 X 64% = 5,362 !NONRESIDENTIAL Commercial KSF 1,117 X 42.70 X 330 = 15,733 Office KSF 1,823 X 11.03 X 50% = 10,055 Industrial KSF 348 X 6.97 X 50% = 1,213 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development Development Type Tri ps Length[4] Weighting Factor[5] ofTravel Single Unit 11 75,977 X 10.32 X 121% = 948,822 Multi-Unit 5,362 X 10.32 X 121% = 66,958 �NONRESIDENTIAL Step 3-Even Distribution Commercial KSF 15,733 X 10.32 X 66% = 107,167 of VMT on Existing Arterial Network Office KSF 10,055 X 10.32 X 73% = 75,754 Existing Daily Per- Industrial KSF 1,213 X 10.32 X 73% = 9,135 .. TOTALVehicle Miles of Travel 1,207,836 = 143.79 X 8,400 Step 4-Level of Service Level of Service Units of Tra ve I Service Lane Miles per10,000VMT 143.79 — 120.7836 = 1.19 Signalized Intersections per 10,000VMT 18.00 — 120.7836 = 0.15 [1] Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. [2]Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [3]Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,2012. [4]Avg.Trip Length,expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel on the existing system [5]On an average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34%pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City [6]City of Apache Junction,Dept.of Public Works [7]Pinal County Transportation Plan,2000 Update TwhlerB iS,e, 55 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Cost per Lane Mile Minor Arterials In 2006, the City of Apache Junction executed an intergovernmental agreement between the City and Pinal County concerning shared costs for the reconstruction and redesign of Ironwood Drive within the City limits of Apache Junction. The agreement defined the responsibilities and financial obligations of the City for its proportionate share of the project costs to improve and expand a 2.2-mile segment of the minor arterial Ironwood Drive, between Elliott Avenue and U.S. 60. The complete project involved improvements to the 4.4 miles of existing roadway including new payment, curb and gutters, drainage facilities, sidewalks, street lighting, and a center median, and increasing capacity by adding 4.4 miles. The nominal value of the City's proportionate share was calculated to be $10,685,714.This equates to a cost per lane mile of$1,214,286. Figure 42:Cost per Lane Mile for Minor Arterial Roadways Cost per Lane Mile Tota I Project Classification Project CostImproved Mi nor Arterial Ironwood Dr(El I iott Ave.to U.S.60) $10,685,714 - 8.8 = $1,214,286 Source:City of Apache Junction, Finance Department Collectors Included in the 2012 Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study were Street facilities improvements to collectors that would be necessary based on short/medium/long term development projections. A sample of short-term improvements identified in the Study was used to calculate an average cost per lane mile for Collectors. Shown below are four Street facilities improvements. In total, there are 3.76 lane miles of collector improvements with an estimated cost of $2,774,871 in 2013 dollars (i.e, not inflated over time). This equates to an average cost per lane mile of $737,998 per collector. Figure 43:Cost per Lane Mile for Collector Roadways Project Idaho Road (Roundup to Foothill) $1,108,269 16th Ave (Delaware to Cedar) $835,400 16th Ave (Cedarto Meridian) $277,067 16th Ave (Idaho to Winchester) $554,135 Planned Projects $2,774,871 Total Lane Miles Added 3.76 Cost per Lane Mile $737,998 [1] City ofApache Junction,Public Works Dept.; Jacobs.(May2012).Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. TwilleffiBise 56 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Signalized Intersections The City of Apache Junction's Department of Public Works provided a $350,000 estimate for the City's share of project costs for an average signalized intersection. Excluded Costs Development fees in Apache Junction exclude costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage, and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulator standards. Current Use and Available Capacity According to City staff, the Minor Arterial discussed above has surplus capacity to serve growth; therefore, a cost recovery methodology was used to calculate the growth share of future debt service. Collectors and signalized intersections are utilized based on documented levels of service; therefore, an incremental expansion was used. Ttschl 57 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO LAND USE ARS 9-463.05 (E)(4) requires: "A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial." Figure 44, Figure 45, and Figure 46 display the ratios of a service unit to various types of land uses for residential and nonresidential development. As discussed previously, Street Facilities development fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends, adjusted for commuting patterns and pass-by trips and weighted by trip length. Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 9th Edition, 2012). A Vehicle Trip End represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate Street Facilities development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points.Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed in the previous section, the development fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the demand for different types of Street facilities by particular types of development. Shown below are the Ratios for Minor Arterial roadways, Collector roadways, and Signalized Intersections. Figure 44: Ratio of Service Unit to Land Use- Minor Arterial Roadways Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Net New Development D-ve I a p m e nt Development Units[11 Trip Ends per Adjustment Vehicle Type[1] 2013 2023D- Single Unit 1 21,199124,3331 3,1341 X 5.60 X 64% = 11,232 Multi-Unit 1,904 2,185 281 X 4.40 X 64% = 791 • Commercial KSF 1 1,1171 1,4721 355 X 42.70 X 33% = 5,002 Office KSF 1 1,8231 2,4941 671 X 11.03 X 50% = 3,698 Industrial KSF 1 3481 453 105 X 6.97 X 50% = 365 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Net New Development Development Typ e Trips Length[4] Weighting Factor[5] of Travel RESIDENTIAL 0 Single Unit 1 11,2321 X 7.92 X 121% - 107,594 Multi-Unit 791 X 7.92 X 121% = 7,580 • Commercial KSF 5,002 X 7.92 X 66% = 26,137 Office KSF 3,698 X 7.92 X 73% = 21,374 Industrial KSF 365 X 7.92 X 73% = 2,112 Net New Vehicle Miles of Travel 164,796 [1]Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2]Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [3]Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: Trio Generation,Institute of Transportation [4]Avg.Trip Length,expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel on the existing system [5]On on average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34% pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City Tisolefise 58 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 45: Ratio of Service Unit to Land Use -Collector Roadways Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Net New Development Development Development 2023 Net New D- Single Unit121,199124,3331 3,1341 X 5.60 X 64% = 11,232 Multi-Unit 1,904 2,185 281 X 4.40 X 64% = 791 ON• Commercial KSF 1 1,1171 1,4721 355 X 42.70 X 33% = 5,002 Office KSF 1 1,8231 2,4941 671 X 11.03 X 50% = 3,698 Industrial KSF 1 3481 4531 105 X 6.97 X 509A = 365 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Net New Development Devel opme nt Vehi cle Avg Trip Trip Length Vehicle Miles RESIDENTIAL Single Unit 1 11,2321 X 2.39 X 121% = t Multi-Unit 791 X 2.39 X 121%•Commercial KSF 5,002 X 2.39 X 66% =Office KSF 3,698 X 2.39 X 73% =Industrial KSF 365 X 2.39 X 73% = Net New Vehicle Miles of Travel 49,762 [1]Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2]Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [3]Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential:Trio Generation,Institute of Transportation [4]Avg.Trip Length,expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel on the existing system [5]On an average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34% pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City Figure 46: Ratio of Service Unit to Land Use-Signalized Intersections Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Net New Development D eve I a p m e nt Development Units[11 Trip Ends per Adjustment Vehicle Type[1] 2013 2023 Net New D- Single Unit 21,199 24,333 3,134 X 5.60 X 64% = 11,232 Multi-Unit 1,904 2,185 281 X 4.40 X 64% = 791 Commercial KSF 1,117 1,472 355 X 42.70 X 33% = 5,002 Office KSF 1,823 2,494 671 X 11.03 X 50% = 3,698 Industrial KSF 348 453 105 X 6.97 X 50%1 365 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Net New Development Development Type Trips Length[4] Weighting Factor[5) of Tra ve I Single Unit 11,232 X 10.32 X 121% - 140,271 Multi-Unit 1 791 X 10.32 X 121% = 9,882 !NONRESIDENTIAL Commercial KSF 5,002 X 10.32 X 66% = 34,075 Office KSF 3,698 X 10.32 X 73% = 27,865 Industrial KSF 365 X 10.32 X 73%1 2,753 Net New Vehicle Miles of Travel 214,946 [1]Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2]Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [3]Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential:Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation [4]Avg.Trip Length,expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel on the existing system [5]On an average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34% pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City �� 59 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS AIRS 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: "A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services of facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." AIRS 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: "The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria." AIRS 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: "The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years." The projected need for additional lane miles and signalized intersections is a function of the ten-year development forecast (see City of Apache Junction Land Use Assumptions) and the existing infrastructure standards discussed above. As shown in the figures above, trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert projected development into average weekday vehicle trips. A typical vehicle trip, such as a person leaving a home and traveling to work, generally begins on a local street that connects to a collector street, which connects to an arterial road and eventually to a state or interstate highway. For the purpose of development fees, this progression of travel up and down the functional classification chain narrows the average trip length determination to the following question, "what is the average vehicle trip length of the streets development fee system improvements (i.e.,the same type of streets used to document current infrastructure standards)?" Minor Arterials In 2006, the City of Apache Junction executed an intergovernmental agreement between the City and Pinal County concerning shared costs for the reconstruction and redesign of Ironwood Drive within the City limits of Apache Junction. The agreement defined the responsibilities and financial obligations of the City for its proportionate share of the project costs to expand capacity by 4.4 lane miles of the minor arterial Ironwood Drive, between Elliott Avenue and U.S. 60. The complete project involved improvements to the existing roadway including new payment, curb and gutters, drainage facilities, sidewalks, street lighting, and a center median, and increasing capacity by adding two new lanes. Only a portion of the total project included capacity improvements; additionally, the capacity improvements were designed with excess capacity to absorb growth into the future. Ttschler$iu1 60 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona As new development occurs in the City of Apache Junction over the next ten years it will buy into its share of the Ironwood Dr. expansion by paying a growth share of the total project cost. The steps taken to calculate the portion of the total project cost that funded the 4.4 lane miles of capacity improvements, the projected net new VMT in the next ten years, the cost per net new service unit, and the cost per development unit are shown below. Figure 47:Cost Recovery-Minor Arterials Step 1-Cost of Capacity Improvements Cost per A•• • Lane Costof CapacityLane Mile Miles [1] $1,214,286 1 X 4.40 = $5,342,858 Step 2-10-Year Projected Growth in VMT on Arterials VMT in 2023 VMT in 2013 Net New VMT 1,091,259 926,463 = 164,796 Step 3-Cost per Service Unit Cost of Ca..city Net New Component p rove me nts VMT Cost $5,342,858 - 164,796 = 1 $32.42 1per VMT Step 4-Cost per Development Unit Per Vehicle Streets Level Of Service and Capital Costs Mile Traveled Minor Arterial Cost $32.42 GROSS CAPITAL COST $32.42 Arterial Street Facilities-Residential Development Fee Schedule VMT= [A] [8] IQ [D] [A]x]8]x]C]x]D] Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Arterial Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Development Trip Ends* Factors* on System* Factors* VMT VMi Fee Unit T e Single Unit 5.60 64% 7.92 Housing 121% 1 34.33 1 X $32.42 = $1,113 Single Unit-Manufacturedl 4.49 1 64% 1 7.92 1 121% 1 27.54 X $32.42 = $892 2+Unit 1 4.40 1 64% 1 7.92 1 121% 1 26.97 X $32.42 = $874 Arterial Street Facilities-Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Arterial Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Development Fee Trip Ends* Factors* on System* Factors* VMT]E] LVMT IF] [E]X(F]/1,000 Commercial 42.70 33% 7.92 66% 73.62 X $32.42 = $2.38 Office 11.03 50% 7.92 73% 31.87 X $32.42 = $1.03 Industrial 6.97 50% 7.92 73% 20.14 X $32.42 = $0.65 *See Figure 39: Existing Level of Service-City Minor Arterials Collectors As discussed above, existing development in Apache Junction generated 279,757 vehicle miles of travel on the existing 37.30 lane miles of collectors, which equates to a level of service of 1.33 lane miles per 10,000 VMT. The demand model below shows that if the current level of service is maintained, and new development between 2013 and 2023 occurs as projected (see the Land Use Assumptions), vehicle miles of travel on collector roadways will increase by 49,762. This net increase will generate demand for an additional 6.63 lane miles to maintain the current level of service. Twhler 3i 1 61 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 48: Incremental Expansion -Collectors 5-year increment--> Yea r-> Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2023 Increase DEMAND DATA[1] SI NGLE UNIT RES 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 24,333 3,134 MULTI-UNIT RES 1,904 1,9221 1,942 1,965 1,9891 2,016 2,185 281 COMMERCIAL KSF 1,117 1,1481 1,180 1,213 1,2471 1,282 1,472 355 OFFICE KSF 1,823 1,8811 1,941 2,003 2,0671 2,132 2,494 671 INDUSTRIAL KSF 348 3571 367 377 3861 397 453 105 SINGLE UNITTRIPS 75,977 76,705 77,515 78,400 79,378 80,439 87,209 MULTI-UNITTRIPS 5,362 5,412 5,469 5,533 5,601 5,677 6,153 RES TRIPS 81,339 82,117 82,983 83,933 84,979 86,116 93,362 12,024 COMMERCIALTRIPS 15,733 16,169 16,627 17,092 17,571 18,058 20,735 O FF I CE TRI PS 10,055 10,375 10,705 11,046 11,398 11,759 13,753 I N D USTRI AL TRI PS 1,213 1,244 1,277 1,312 1,347 1,383 1,578 NONRES TRIPS 27,000 27,789 28,610 29,450 30,316 31,200 36,066 9,066 TOTAL TRIPS 108,339 109,906 111,594 113,384 115,295 117,317 129,428 21,090 3,555 7,417 11,553 16,010 20,760 49,762 TOTAL VMT[2] 279,757 283,311 287,174 291,310 295,766 300,517 329,519 49,762 Lane Miles[3] 37.30 37.77 38.29 38.84 39.44 40.07 43.94 Annual Lane Mile Increase 0.47 0.52 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.87 Cost per Net increase Annual Capacity Cost(millions) $0.35 $0.38 $0.41 $0.44 $0.47 $0.64 in VMT* '0 $ 98.40 Source:TischlerBise [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2]See Figure 40:Existing Level of Service-City Collectors [3]See Figure 34:City-Maintained Street Facilities Inventory The projected demand for 6.63 lane miles equates to a total investment of$4.90 million, based on a cost per lane mile of$737,998 (see Figure 43). The formula to calculate a cost per net increase in VMT for the collectors component is calculated as follows: (6.63 lane miles X$737,998 cost per collector lane mile) / 49,762 net new VMT = $98.40 per VMT. The steps to calculate the collector fee component per type of development unit based on a cost per VMT of$98.40 are shown below.6 Figure 49:Cost per Development Unit-Collectors Per Vehicle Streets Level Of Service and Capital Costs Mile Traveled Col I e cto r Costs $98.40 GROSS CAPITAL COST $98.40 Collector Street Facilities-Residential Development Fee Schedule VMT= ]A] IN [C] ]D] [A]x[8]x[C]x[D] Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Collector Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Development Trip Ends* Factors* on System* Factors* VMT VMT Fee Unit Ty- (P&Housing Unit) Single Unit i 5.60 1 64% 1 2.39 1 121% 7 10.37 X $98.40 = $1,020 Single Unit-Manufactured 4.49 64% 2.39 121% 8.32 X $98.40 = $818 2,Unit 4.40 64% 2.39 121% 8.15 X $98.40 = $801 [1]Current Fee established in 2012 was for Single Familyand Manufactured Home.The average of both is entered here. Collector Street Facilities-Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Collector Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Development Fee Trip Ends* Factors* on System* Factors* VMT]E] VMT[F] ]E]X]F]/1,000 rrr Commercial 42.70 33% 2.39 66% 22.23 X $98.40 = $2.18 Office 11.03 50% 2.39 73% 9.62 X $98.40 = $0.94 Industrial 1 6.97 50% 1 2.39 1 73% 1 6.08 X $98.40 = $0.59 *See Figure 40:Existing Level of Service-City Collectors 6 The figures are shown as a rounded figure. However,the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis.) Tw,hlerPise 62 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Signalized Intersections As discussed above, existing development in Apache Junction generated 1,207,836 vehicle miles of travel on the existing 143.79 lane miles of street facilities, which equates to a level of service of 0.15 signalized intersections per 10,000 VMT. The demand model below shows that if the current level of service is maintained, and new development between 2013 and 2023 occurs as projected (see the Land Use Assumptions), vehicle miles of travel on the full Street facilities network will increase by 214,846. This net increase will generate demand for an additional three signalized intersections to maintain the current level of service. Figure SO: Incremental Expansion-Signalized Intersections 5-year increment--> Year-> Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2023 Increase DEMAND DATA[1] SINGLE UNIT RES 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 24,333 3,134 MULTI-UNIT RES 1,904 1,922 1,942 1,965 1,989 2,016 2,185 281 COMMERCIAL KSF 1,117 1,148 1,180 1,213 1,247 1,282 1,472 355 OFFICE KSF 1,823 1,881 1,941 2,003 2,067 2,132 2,494 671 INDUSTRIAL KSF 348 357 367 377 386 397 453 105 SINGLE UNIT TRIPS 75,977 76,705 77,515 78,400 79,378 80,439 87,209 MULTI-UNITTRIPS 5,362 5,412 5,469 5,533 5,601 5,677 6,153 RES TRIPS 81,339 82,117 82,983 83,933 84,979 86,116 93,362 12,024 COMMERCIALTRIPS 15,733 16,169 16,627 17,092 17,571 18,058 20,735 OFFI CE TRI PS 10,055 10,375 10,705 11,046 11,398 11,759 13,753 I NDUSTRIAL TRI PS 1,213 1,244 1,277 1,312 1,347 1,383 1,578 NONRESTRIPS 27,000 27,789 28,610 29,450 30,316 31,200 36,066 9,066 TOTAL TRIPS 108,339 109,906 111,594 113,384 115,295 117,317 129,428 21,090 15,347 32,024 49,881 69,121 89,630 214,846 TOTAL VMT[2] 1,207,836 1,223,183 1,239,860 1,257,717 1,276,957 1,297,465 1,422,682 214,846 Signalized Intersections 18 18 19 19 19 19 21 Annual Intersection Increase 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 Cost per Net increase Annual Intersection Cost(millions) $0.00 $0.35 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 in VMT* Source:TischlerBise [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [2]See Figure 41:Existing Level of Service-Signalized Intersections T[Whle Blise 63 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona According to the City of Apache Junction Department of Public Works, the average cost to construct a signalized intersection is $350,000. Based on the demand model the City will need to construct three new signalized intersections in the next ten years. This equates to a total investment of$1,050,000. The cost per net increase in VMT for signalized intersections is calculated as follows: (3 intersections X $350,000) / 214,846 VMT = $4.89 per VMT. The steps to calculate the signalized intersection fee component per type of development unit based on a cost per VMT of$4.89 are shown below. Figure 51:Cost per Development Unit-Signalized Intersections Per Vehicle Streets Level Of Service and Capital Costs Mile Traveled Signalized Intersection Costs $4.89 GROSS CAPITAL COST $4.89 Signalized Intersection Street Facilities-Residential Development Fee Schedule VMT= [A] [8] IQ [D] [A]x]8]x]C]x]D] Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Arterial Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Development Trip Ends* Factors* on System* Factors* VMT VMT Fee Unit T e (Per Housing Unit) Single Unit 5.60 141 10.32 121% 44.76 X $4.89 = $218 Single Unit-Manufactured 4.49 64% 1 10.32 1 121% 1 35.91 X $4.89 = $175 2+Unit 1 4.40 64% 1 10.32 1 121% 1 35.17 X $4.89 = $171 [1]Current Fee established in 2012was for Single Familyand Manufactured Home. The average of both is entered here. Signalized Intersection Street Facilities-Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Arterial Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Development Fee Trip Ends* Factors* on System* Factors* VMT LEI VMT[F] [E]X[F]/1,000 ire Commercial 42.70 33% 1 10.32 1 66% 1 95.98 X $4.89 = $0.46 Office 1 11.03 1 50% 1 10.32 1 73% 1 41.55 X $4.89 = $0.20 Industrial 1 6.97 1 50% 1 10.32 1 73% 1 26.26 X $4.89 = $0.12 *See Figure 41: Existing Level of Service-Signalized Intersections 64 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona STREET FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The May 2012 Final Report for the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study identified and prioritized capacity improvements that will be necessary as development occurs in the Development Fee Study service area. The report prioritized the first set of possible improvements (short-term improvements) necessary to accommodate a population of 60,000 people. Shown below is a list of Collector and Signalized Intersection capacity improvements identified as necessary to accommodate the projected growth in the City of Apache Junction over the next ten years. Estimated project costs were provided by the City of Apache Junction, and taken from the 2012 Study. As demand is generated for identified Street Facilities improvements, investments from this list will be made. For the effective period of this Development Fee Study, the City of Apache Junction does not plan to use development fee revenue on capacity improvements to new minor arterial roadways. Figure 52: Necessary Streets Expansions Infrastructure Improvements Plans Improvements Added 10-Year Projects Capacity Total 16th Ave(Delaware to Cedar) 1.1 Lane Miles $ 835,400 16th Ave(Idaho to Winchester) 0.8 Lane Miles $ 554,135 Winchester Road (16th to Southern) 1.5 Lane Miles $ 1,108,269 16th Ave(Cedar to Meridian) 0.4 Lane Miles $ 277,067 Idaho Road (Roundup to Foothill) 1.5 Lane Miles $ 1,108,269 Meridian Drive(Southern to Baseline) 2.0 Lane Miles $ 2,800,000 Intersection (Meridian Dr at Southern Ave) Intersection $ 2,710,000 Total $ 9,393,140 Sou rce:City of Apa che luncti on;Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study FinaI Re port May 2012. MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed development fees for Street Facilities are shown in Figure 53. Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study Included in the Street Facilities per service unit cost is the cost to prepare the IIP and Development Fee Study. See Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services for the detailed calculations. Revenue Credit Included in the maximum supportable development fee is a Revenue Credit of 0 percent.The unadjusted Street Facilities development fees per development unit would not generate more revenue over the next ten years, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, than the identified growth-related necessary expenditures of $11,316,169 (necessary incremental expansions, plus the IIP and Development Fee Study cost). To ensure that no more fee revenue is collected than the City plans to spend, the potential gross cost per service unit is reduced by the revenue credit to calculate the net capital cost per service unit. Based on the gross capital costs per service unit, the projected development fee revenue would equal $10,733,114. See Figure 53 and Figure 54 for additional detail. Therefore, no revenue credit adjustment is necessary for the Street Facilities development fees. Taschler$(-,(; 65 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 53: Maximum Supportable Street Facilities Development Fees Street Facilities Residential Development Fee Schedule [A] [8] IQ [D] [A]+[8]+[C]+[D] Development Fee per Housing Unit Fee Component Gross Required Development Fee Minor Signalized Dev.Fee Development Fee Revenue Credit Increase Arterials Collectors Intersections I Study per Unit 0% Proposed Current[1] 1 (Decrease) Unit Type (Per Housing Unit) (Per Housing Unit) Single Unit $1,113 $1,020 $218 $13 $2,364 $0.00 = $2,364 $6,323 ($3,959) SingleUnit-Manufactured $892 $818 $175 $10 $1,895 $0.00 = $1,895 $3,297 ($1,402) 2+Unit 1 $874 $801 $171 $10 $1,856 $0.00 = $1,856 $4,440 ($2,584) Street Facilities Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Square Foot of Floor Area Fee Component Gross Required Development Fee Minor Signalized Dev.Fee Development Fee Revenue Credit Increase Arterials Collectors Intersections Study per Unit 0% Proposed Current[1] 1 (Decrease) (Per Square Foot of Floor Area) (Per Square Foot of Floor Area) Commercial $2.38 $2.18 $0.46 $0.02 $5.04 $0.00 = $5.04 $13.64 ($8.60) Office $1.03 $0.94 $0.20 $0.01 $2.18 $0.00 = $2.18 $5.68 ($3.50) Industrial $0.65 $0.59 $0.12 $0.00 $1.36 $0.00 = $1.36 $2.26 ($0.90) [1]Current Fee established in 2012 included categories for Commercial,and Office land uses based on square footage,the average is entered here. Twhler 3i-A1 66 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B - Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees contains a forecast of revenues other than development fees required by Arizona's enabling legislation. Street Facilities Cash Flow The cash flow shown in Figure 54 assumes implementation of the maximum supportable Street Facilities development fees and that development over the next ten years is consistent with the approved Land Use Assumptions described in Appendix C. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure 54:Street Facilities Cash Flow Summary Ten-Year Growth-Related Costs for Street Facilities Minor Arterial Capacity Improvements $5,342,858 Collectors $4,896,589 Signalized Intersections $1,050,000 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost $26,722 TOTAL $11,316,169 per Housing Unit Per Square Foot of Floor 2+Units Commercial Office Industrial Year 000 Base 2013 21,199 1,904 1,117 1,823 348 Ye a r 1 2014 21,402 1,922 1,148 1,881 357 Year2 2015 21,628 1,942 1,180 1,941 367 Yea r 3 2016 21,875 1,965 1,213 2,003 377 Yea r4 2017 22,148 1,989 1,247 2,067 386 Yea r5 2018 22,444 2,016 1,282 2,132 397 Yea r 6 2019 22,766 2,045 1,318 2,200 408 Yea r7 2020 23,115 2,076 1,355 2,270 419 Yea r8 2021 23,492 2,110 1,393 2,342 429 Yea r9 2022 23,897 2,146 1,432 2,417 441 Year 10 2023 24,333 2,185 1,472 2,494 453 Ten-Yr Increase 3,134 281 355 671 105 Projected Fees => $6,817,819 $521,536 $1,789,200 $1,461,956 $142,603 Total Projected Revenues $10,733,114 Cumulative Net Surpl us/(Deficit) ($583,055) [1] Fee for Single Units shown represents a weighted average of the Single Unitand Single Unit-Manufactured fees TW,hlerQisW 67 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Trs himB ise Appendix A-68 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona APPENDIX A — COST OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The figure below displays each section of the IIP and Development Fee Study. Each necessary public service is assigned a cost, followed by the proportion that is assessed against residential and nonresidential. Then, it displays the increase in service units, between 2013 and 2018, and finally the cost per service unit to be assessed. (Because development fees are updated at least every five years, the cost is assessed against the service units for only 5 years.) Figure A55: IIP and Development Fee Report Parks and Recreation Development Fee Report Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Police Consultant Fee $19,324 $16,812 $2,512 Service Unit Person .. Increase in Service Units 2,309 1,470 Cost per Service Unit $7.28 Libroj3t Development Fee Repo ProportionateResidential Nonresidential Police Consultant Fee $14,040 $12,215 $1,825 Service Unit Person Job Increase in Service Units 2,309 1,470 Cost per Service Unit $5.29 $1.24 Police Development Fee Report Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Police Consultant Fee $16,154 $14,862 $1,292 Increase in Service Units 2,309 4,200 Cost per Service Unit $6.44 $0.31 Streets Development Fee Report ProportionateResidential&Nonresidential 00 Consultant Fee $26,722 $26,722 Increase in Service Units M8 89,630 Cost per Service Unit $0.30 Source:TischlerBise; Land Use Assumptions TtscfilI tse Appendix A-69 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona "APPENDIX FORECASTOF REVENUES OTHER THAN DEVELOPMENT ARS 9-463.05(E)(7) requires: "A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue,federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved land use assumptions, and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development as required in subsection B, paragraph 12 of this section." ARS 9-463.05(B)(12) states, "The municipality shall forecast the contribution to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees, assessments or other sources of revenue derived from the property owner towards the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the development fee and shall include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. Beginning August 1, 2014,for purposes of calculating the required offset to development fees pursuant to this subsection, if a municipality imposes a construction contracting or similar excise tax rate in excess of the percentage amount of the transaction privilege tax rate imposed on the majority of other transaction privilege tax classifications, the entire excess portion of the construction contracting or similar excise tax shall be treated as a contribution to the capital costs of necessary public services provided to development for which development fees are assessed, unless the excess portion was already taken into account for such purpose pursuant to this subsection." REVENUE PROJECTIONS Apache Junction does not have a higher than normal construction excise tax rate; therefore, the required offset described above is not applicable. The required forecast of non-development fee revenue that might be used for growth-related capital costs is shown below. General Fund revenues are highlighted in light purple. Highway User Taxes are highlighted in light blue. The forecast of revenues was provided by the City of Apache Junction Finance Department. Historical revenue data, obtained from the City's Comprehensive Annual Fiscal Reports, and discussions with staff, were correlated to the growth in population and jobs (as reported in the approved Land Use Assumptions.) Projected population plus jobs is the independent variable that drives each revenue forecast. Figure B56: Five-Year Revenue Projections Fiscal Year 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Sales Taxes $11,370,000 $11,503,119 $11,760,391 $12,036,089 $12,329,870 State shared vehicle license taxes $1,571,320 $1,836,791 $1,953,060 $2,001,458 $2,130,952 Unrestricted State Shared Sales Taxes $3,096,845 $3,121,409 $3,287,081 $3,421,119 $3,426,947 Unrestricted State Shared Income Taxes $3,998,490 $4,338,654 $4,421,000 $4,635,108 $4,916,459 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Highway User Taxes $2,329,805 $2,320,320 $2,407,003 $2,363,544 $2,447,819 County Shared Sales Taxes dedicated to Road Use in HURF $1,325,000 $1,488,890 $1,583,136 $1,622,368 $1,727,335 Source:City of Apache Junction, Finance Department TwAllerp ise Appendix B-70 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona General Fund The "General Fund Revenue in Nominal Dollars" chart shown in Figure B57 gives the impression that General Fund revenues available for capital investments are expected to remain flat or increase slightly over the next five years. When nominal dollars are converted to constant 2013 dollars (as shown in the "General Fund Revenue per Person and Job in 2013 Dollars" chart), to account for inflation, and then divided by persons plus jobs in Apache Junction, to "normalize" the amounts for population and job growth, the projected revenue is shown to remain flat or decrease. The revenue projections demonstrate there is no General Fund fiscal surplus available for growth-related capital improvements. An increase in operating, maintenance, and replacement capital costs will offset any projected increase in General Fund revenue available for capital improvements. Figure B57:General Fund Revenues by Source General Fund Revenue in Nominal Dollars N $14 c o $12 2 $10 Sales Taxes $8 $6 -**—Unrestricted State Shared $4 Income Taxes $2 Unrestricted State Shared Sales Taxes $0 tiO ti� (State shared vehicle license -VIPti� ti�ti3 �Oti� �53� taxes Fiscal Year General Fund Revenue per Person and Job in 2013 Dollars $350 $300 - $250 Sales Taxes $200 - $150 -I—Unrestricted State Shared $100 Income Taxes $50 State shared vehicle license taxes $0 O p � Unrestricted State Shared Sales I Al tiI �O'N 'LO1�y �O�h y �O,y�y Taxes Fiscal Year Source:City of Apache Junction, Finance Department;TischlerBise Ttschle�8ise Appendix B-71 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Highway User Tax(HURF) The City of Apache Junction accounts for Highway User Tax revenue in two categories, HURF and County Shared Sales Taxes dedicated to Road Use in HURF. The methodology described above was applied to each of these HURF revenue sources, with the results displayed in Figure B58. The "gas tax" funding pattern in Apache Junction has shown a gradual decline. Essentially, Apache Junction has increasing traffic, but decreasing dollars that are used for maintenance of existing Street Facilities. The projected HURF revenue will be offset by an increase in operating, maintenance, and replacement capital costs. Therefore, the City is not projecting a surplus of HURF revenue available for growth-related improvements. Figure B58: Highway User Tax Revenues Highway User Taxes in Nominal Dollars $4 $3 $z —Highway User Taxes $1 ��County Shared Sales Taxes$0 dedicated to Road Use in so titi ;�°` ti� y� HURF Fiscal Year Highway User Taxes per Person and Job in 2013 Dollars $100 $80 $6 Highway User Taxes $20 $p County Shared Sales Taxes dedicated to Road Use in ��1\1 �� titi 3� �� oy� HURF � Fiscal Year Source:City of Apache Junction,Finance Department;TischlerBise TW,h1erQ 1s3 Appendix B-72 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona "APPENDIX C - LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 9-463.05 (T)(6) requires the preparation of a Land Use Assumptions document, which shows: "projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service area over a period of at least ten years and pursuant to the General Plan of the municipality." TischlerBise prepared current demographic estimates and future development projections for both residential and nonresidential development that will be used in the Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and calculation of the development fees. Current demographic data estimates for 2013 are used in calculating levels-of-service (LOS) provided to existing development in the City of Apache Junction. Although long-range projections are necessary for planning infrastructure systems, a shorter time frame of five to ten years is critical for the development fee analysis. Arizona's Development Fee Act requires fees to be updated at least every five years and limits the IIP to a maximum of ten years. Therefore, the use of a very long-range "build-out" analysis is no longer acceptable for deriving development fees in Arizona municipalities. Summary of Growth Indicators Development projections and growth rates are summarized in Figure C59.These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. However, development fee methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to accurate development projections in the determination of the proportionate share fee amounts. If actual development is slower than projected, development fee revenues will also decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the City will receive an increase in development fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate capital improvements to keep pace with development. Development projections are calculated through a three-step process. First, TischlerBise used historic population, housing, and employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau, State of Arizona, and City of Apache Junction, to calculate base year 2013 estimates. Second, TischlerBise developed projected annual growth rates through discussions with staff, and examination of regional studies. Finally, TischlerBise calculated 20-year projections for population, housing units,jobs, and nonresidential square footage for each year beyond the base year 2013. See Figure C59 below for a summary of the base year estimates and 20-year development projections. Tw,hlerQLJ Ise Appendix C-73 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C59-Summary of Development Projections and Growth Rates Five-Yearincrements===> Cumulative Avg.Ann. Base Vr 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 is 20 Increme Increase 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2022 2023 202028 2033 2013-20013eas33 2013-2033 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Housing Units Unit Mix Si ngle Fami ly 92% 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 22,766 23,115 23,492 23,897 24,333 26,411 28,432 7,233 362 Multifamily 8% 1,904 1,922 1,942 1,965 1,989 2,016 2,045 2,076 2,110 2,146 2,185 2,372 2,554 650 32 TOTAL 23,103 23,324 23,570 23,840 24,137 24,460 24,811 25,191 25,602 26,043 26,518 28,783 30,986 7,883 394 NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Groh Nonres Floor Area(1,000 SF) Commercial(1,000 SF) 500 1,117 1,148 1,180 1,213 1,247 1,282 1,318 1,355 1,393 1,432 1,472 1,689 1,939 823 41 Office/Instit(1,000 SF) 301 1,823 1,881 1,941 2,003 2,067 2,132 2,200 2,270 2,342 2,417 2,494 2,917 3,412 1,589 79 Industrial/Flex(1,000 SF) 433 348 357 367 377 386 397 408 419 429 441 453 516 589 241 12 TOTAL 3,288 3,386 3,488 3,592 3,700 3,811 3,926 4,044 4,164 4,290 4,418 5,122 5,940 2,652 133 2013-2033 ANNUAL INCREASES(CityLimits 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 27-28 32-33 A Housin Units 221 246 270 297 323 351 380 411 441 475 421 454 394 Nonres Fl oor Area(1,000 SF) 98 102 105 108 111 115 118 120 125 128 149 174 133 Source:City of Apache Junction,Tischl erBise Growth Projections 2013-2033 City of Apache Junction,AZ 35,000 30,000 15,000 20,000 ----- 15,000 10,000 - 5,000 ----- 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 tHousing Units � Nonres Sq.Ft.(1,000s) Tischleffitse Appendix C-74 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Current estimates and future projections of residential development are detailed in this section, including population and housing units by type. Recent Residential Construction Development fees require an analysis of current levels of service. For residential development, current levels of service are determined using estimates of population and housing units. To estimate current housing units in the City of Apache Junction, TischlerBise obtained building permit information from the City.This information is then used to determine a base year estimate of housing units. Figure C60 shows residential building permit trends by number and type of housing units for the City of Apache Junction. Figure C60—Residential Building Permits in the City of Apache Junction,2007-2012 200 175 —*—Single Family 150 Mobile Home 125 ♦ +Multifamily 100 75 50 25 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Single Family 137 37 36 104 57 183 Mobile Home 112 86 39 27 17 63 Multifamily 8 0 0 0 0 88 Source:City of Apache Junction, Feb13,Building Permit Totals by Year Residential housing units, and building permit trends, by type are shown in Figure C61 below. To calculate total housing units, the distribution of 92 percent single family and 8 percent multifamily units was calculated from the 2011 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), 5-Year Estimates for Units in Structure. This distribution was applied to the total number of units reported by the 2010 decennial census (22,564) to get 20,748 single family units (including mobile homes), and 1,816 multifamily units in the City of Apache Junction in 2010. TwtlWtSe Appendix C-75 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C61—Residential Housing Units in the City of Apache Junction Building Permits[1] Average Single Family[2] 131 74 246 451 150 Multifamily[3] 0 0 88 88 29 Total 131 74 334 539 *Issued during calendar year 2010 Base Year 2013 Housing Units[4] Distribution[5] 2010 2011 2012 2013 Distribution Single Family 92% 20,748 20,879 20,953 21,199 92% Multifamily 8% 1,816 1,816 1,816 1,904 8% Total 22,564 22,695 22,769 23,103 ^Reflects the addition of issued permits [1] City of Apache Junction, (Feb13) Building Permits by Permit Type [2] Single Family includes detached,attached,and manufactured homes [3] Multifamily includes structures with 2ormore units [4] U.S.Census Bureau,2010 Decennial Census:DPI [5] U.S.Census Bureau,2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates:Table B25024 To estimate 2011, 2012, and 2013 housing units, the building permits issued each year were added to the housing units, starting with the 2010 census count. TischlerBise estimates the City of Apache Junction had 23,103 housing units at the start of base year 2013. The 2013 distribution of housing units by type of structure remains unchanged from the 2010 distribution. Persons Per Housing Unit According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit (PPHU) or persons per household (PPH) to derive proportionate share fee amounts. When PPHU is used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. When PPH is used in the fee calculations, the development fee methodology assumes a higher percentage of housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. TischlerBise recommends that development fees for residential development in the City of Apache Junction be imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit. This methodology assumes some portion of the housing stock will be vacant during the course of a year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, the City of Apache Junction had a 2011 vacancy rate of 27 percent. Persons per housing unit(PPHU) requires data on population in occupied units and the types of units by structure and bedroom count. The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a "long-form" questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which has limitations due to sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). For development fees in Apache Junction, there are two categories of "single- family" residential units. The first includes detached stick-built units and attached units (commonly known as townhouses, which share a common sidewall, but are constructed on an individual parcel of land). The second category is for single detached manufactured units (formerly known as mobile homes). The third residential category includes duplexes and all other structures with two or more units on an individual parcel of land. (Note: housing unit estimates from ACS will not equal decennial census counts of units.These data are used only to derive the custom PPHU factors for each type of unit). TrschlerB itif1 Appendix C-76 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C62 below shows the ACS 2011 S-Year Estimates for the City of Apache Junction. To calculate the PPHU, persons (33,770) is divided by housing units (19,845). Dwellings with a single unit per structure (detached, attached, and mobile homes) averaged 1.73 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures with multiple units averaged 1.39 persons per housing unit. The 2011 City of Apache Junction total persons per housing unit factor was 1.70. Figure C62—Persons per Housing Unity by Type of Housing Units in Renter&Owner Housing Persons Per Vacancy Structure Persons Households Units Hsg Unit Rate SingleUnit 18,870 6,600 7,776 2.43 15% Mobile Homes 12,688 6,720 10,472 1.21 36% 2+Units 2,212 1,198 1,597 1.39 25% Tota I 33,770 14,518 1 19,845 2011 Summary by House- Housing Housing Type of Housing Persons holds Units PPHU Mix Single Unit[1] 31,558 13,320 18,248 1.73 92% 2+Unit[21 2,212 1,198 1,597 1.39 8% Subtotal 33,770 14,518 19,845 1.70 Vacancy Group Quarters Population 139 Rate TOTAL* 33,909 14,518 19,845 27% Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates [1] Single Family includes detached,attached,and manufactured homes [2] Multifamily includes duplex and all other units with 2ormore units perstructure *Totals exclude units counted as "Boat, RV,van,etc." Population Estimates and Projections TischlerBise analyzed recent growth trends, reviewed the City of Apache Junction 2010 General Plan, and had discussions with staff. To calculate a 2013 year-round population, TischlerBise used annual Arizona Department of Administration Interim Intercensal July Population Estimates for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 to establish a recent growth trend of 1 percent. Based on these growth patterns and analysis conducted for the 2010 General Plan, the City of Apache Junction assumes there will be annual population growth. However, due to the continual effects of a slow economic recovery annual growth is expected to be low, and to grow slowly over the next decade. Figure C63 presents a summary of the population estimates and projections for the City of Apache Junction. Figure C63—Population Estimates and Projections for City of Apache Junction Annual July Population Estimates[1] Population Population Exponential Growth Estimate Projections[2] Rates 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2040 2009-12 2013-40 City of Apache Junction 35,833 35,828 36,539 36,928 37,300 56,472 1.01% 1.55% [1]Arizona Departmentof Administration,Interim Intercensal Population Estimates [2]2040 population projection from Arizona Departmentof Administration Pinal and Maricopa County2012-2050 Population Projections Low Series Year 2030 Projection used to assume similar growth rate of recent years. Tw,hlerBb Ise Appendix C-77 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona In December of 2012, the Arizona Department of Administration released County Population Projections, which assumed a low growth scenario for each County between 2012 and 2050. The City's sub-county share of Pinal and Maricopa County populations in 2012 were applied to the 2030 population projections for each county to estimate a 2030 City of Apache Junction population of 56,472. To add over 19,000 people between 2013 and 2030 would require annual residential building activity to double recent annual activity. Based on discussions with City staff, it was determined the 2030 population projection more accurately reflects a 30-year growth projection. To reflect the longer-term projections, and slow growth in the short term, TischlerBise applied a progressive annual growth rate beginning in 2014 with a rate of 1.01 percent. Each year the growth rate is increased by 0.05 percent until a 1.55 percent plateau is reached in 2024. See Figure C64 for more detail. Population and Housing Unit Projections TischlerBise used a two-step process to project housing units for each year past base year 2013. First, to calculate units added each year, the annual net population increase was divided by the PPHU factor (1.70). The total units estimate was then distributed by type of structure using the 2013 unit mix from Figure C61 above (92 percent single family and 8 percent multifamily). See Figure C64 below for a summary of population and housing unit projections. According to the 2010 General Plan, the City can absorb approximately 38,700 net new units using average/mid-range land use densities. At an average annual increase of 394 housing units, build-out of current City acreage will be met roughly in year 2048. The projected growth assumes that the estimated 2013 distribution between single family and multifamily units is held constant. Population and housing unit projections are used to illustrate the possible future pace of service demands, revenues, and expenditures. As these factors will vary to the extent that future development varies,there will be virtually no effect on the actual amount of the development fee. Appendix C-78 Twhler$i 1 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C64-Population and Housing Unit Projections for the City of Apache Junction,2013-2033 Persons Per Housing Unit 1.70 Population Projected Rate 1.01% 1.06% 1.11% 1.16% 1.21% 1.26% 1.31% 1.36% 1.41% 1.46% 1.55% Cumulative Avg.Ann. Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 11 20 Increase Increase 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2033 2013-2033 2013-2033 SUMMARY OF DEMAND PROJECTIONS(City Limits) TOTALYEAR-ROUND POPULATION 37,300 37,676 38,094 38,554 39,059 39,609 40,206 40,853 41,552 42,303 43,111 44,166 50,715 13,415 671 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 23,103 23,324 23,570 23,840 24,137 24,460 24,811 25,191 25,602 26,043 26,518 27,138 30,986 7,883 394 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Housing Units Unit Mix Single Family 92% 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 22,766 23,115 23,492 23,897 24,333 24,901 28,432 7,233 362 Multifamily 8% 1,904 1,922 1,942 1,965 1,989 2,016 2,045 2,076 2,110 2,146 2,185 2,237 2,5541 650 32 TOTAL 23,103 23,324 23,570 23,840 24,137 24,460 24,811 25,191 25,602 26,043 26,518 27,138 30,9861 7,883 394 2013-2033 ANNUAL INCREASES(City Limits) 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 32-33 1 Avg Annual Housing Units 221 246 270 297 323 351 380 411 441 475 620 454 394 Source:City of Apache Junction,TischlerBise TsOIeffl`se Appendix C-79 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Employment Estimates and Projections In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of development fees requires data on nonresidential square footage and employment (number of jobs) in the City of Apache Junction. TischlerBise analyzed recent employment trends, reviewed data provided by the City of Apache Junction, and had discussions with staff. According to an analysis conducted for the Apache Junction 2010 General Plan, the City expects to increases the jobs to population ratio from a 1:4 ratio in 2010 to a 1:3 ratio by 2030. TischlerBise used a six-step process to calculate a base year job estimate and projections for each year past the base. First, historic job estimates produced by the U.S. Census Bureau LEHD Program for City of Apache Junction were used to calculate a recent job growth rate of 2.03 percent. Second, the growth rate was used to estimate employment for 2011-2013. TischlerBise estimates the City of Apache Junction had 9,093 jobs for the base year of 2013. The 2030 job projection presented in the 2010 General Plan was discussed with staff to determine it more accurately reflects a 30-year projection. Third,to calculate jobs projections for each year past the base, the City of Apache 2010 General Plan data was used to calculate the projected jobs to population ratio of 1:3. Fourth, the ratio was applied to the 2040 population projection of 56,472 to calculate a 2040 job projection of 20,453. Fifth, the 2013 employment estimate was used in conjunction with the 2040 employment projection to calculate a long-term growth rate of 3.05 percent. Lastly, 3.05 percent was applied to each projection year past the base. Figure C65—Employment Trends in City of Apache Junction City of Apache Junction Employment Estimates Employment Exponential Growth Estimates[1] Projections[2] Rates 2004 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2040 2004-10 2013-40 City of Apache Junction I 7,S891 8,7091 8,5611 8,7351 8,9121 9,093 20,453 2.03% 3.05% [1]U.S. Census Bureau LEHD web-based application OnTheMop, "all jobs"2004-2010 [2]2010 Apache Junction General Plan,2030 job to population ratio(0.36)applied to 2040 population projection, Apache Junction Market Area adjusted to remove Gold Canyon Employment by Industry Type In addition to projecting total employment, as part of the City of Apache Junction 2010 General Plan Update process, the City analyzed employment trends and set economic development priorities for the future. City staff made three assumptions to project employment distribution. First, there will be employment growth. Second, the City will actively recruit a diverse set of target industries. Third, office/institutional jobs will grow at a faster rate (3.18%) than commercial/retail jobs (2.80%) and industrial/flex jobs (2.67%). Between 2013 and 2033, the City of Apache Junction expects to add over 7,479 jobs. Figure C66 shows the incremental shift in employment distribution to increase the share of office/institutional jobs to the projected total employment for City of Apache Junction. TtAppendix C-80 %7"9 81SA1 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C66-Employment Distribution by Industry Type City of Apache Junction Employment Estimates City of Apache Junction Estimates[1] Projections[2] 2010 2010 Share 2013 2013 Share 2033 Growth Rate Commercial/Retail 2,102 25% 2,233 25% 3,878 2.80% Office/Institutional 5,703 67% 6,057 67% 11,334 3.18% Industrial/Flex 756 9% 803 9% 1,360 2.67% TOTAL 8,561 100% 9,093 100% 16,572 3.05% [1]U.S.Census Bureau LEHD web-based application OnTheMap, "all jobs"2010. [2]City of Apache Junction,2010 General Plan adjusted for 30-year projections Nonresidential Square Footage Development Job estimates are used to estimate nonresidential square footage based on nationally recognized average square feet per employee data published by The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and shown in Figure C67 below. Figure C67-The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Employee and Building Area Ratios,2012 ITE Land Use/Size Demand Weekday Trip Ends per Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Demand Unit* Employee* Dmd Unit** Per Emp Commercial/Shopping Center 820 Average 1,000 Sq Ft 42.70 na 2.00 500 General Office 710 Average 1,000 Sq Ft 11.03 3.32 3.32 301 Other Nonresidential 770 Business Park*** 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 8.11 2.77 2.93 342 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 13.22 4.50 2.94 340 565 Day Care student 4.38 26.73 0.16 na 550 University/College student 1.71 8.96 0.19 na 530 High School student 1.71 19.74 0.09 na 520 Elementary School student 1.29 15.71 0.08 na 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 15.43 15.71 0.98 1,018 320 Lodgi ng room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na 254 Assisted Living bed 2.66 3.93 0.68 na 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 Sq Ft 2.50 61.90 0.04 24,760 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.56 3.89 0.92 1,093 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.82 2.13 1.79 558 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 6.97 3.02 2.31 433 * Tri P Generati on,I nsti tute of Tra ns portati on Engineers,9th Edition (2012). ** Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates,except for Shopping Center data,which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers,published by the Urban Land Institute. TischlerBise used 2012 data from the ITE to calculate the total nonresidential floor areas for three categories of development used in the calculation of development fees. To estimate current nonresidential floor area, 2013 job estimates by category were multiplied by ITE square feet per employee factors. It is estimated the City of Apache Junction has over 3 million square feet of Appendix C-81 Ttschler$i�1 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona nonresidential space in active use. Figure C68 shows the estimated square footage in 2013 for each major category of nonresidential development. Figure C68—Estimated Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area in City of Apache Junction, 2013 2010 City of Apache Junction[1] Square Feet 2013 Nonresidential Pct of Nonres Total Jobs Per Employee[2] Estd Jobs Floor Area Floor Area Commercial/Retail 2,102 25% 500 2,233 1,116,500 34% Office/Institutional 5,703 67% 301 6,057 1,823,141 55% Industrial/Flex 756 9% 433 803 347,928 11% TOTAL 8,561 100% 362 9,093 3,287,569 100% [1]U.S.Census Bureau LEHD web-based application OnTheMap, "all jobs" [2]Trip Generation Manual,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition (2012). Nonresidential Floor Area and Employment Projections Future employment growth and nonresidential development in the City of Apache Junction are projected based on information provided by City staff, and analysis of past trends in the City. To project employment for the City of Apache Junction, TischlerBise applied an annual growth rate of 3.05 percent for each year beyond the base year 2013 estimate of 9,093 jobs. The projected increase in employment was then used to project growth in nonresidential square footage using the Square Footage per Employee factors previously discussed. Results are shown in Figure C69. The City expects to add on average 374 jobs a year for the next twenty years. To keep pace with employment growth, the City should expect to add roughly 133,000 square feet of active nonresidential development each year. Twhleffl lse. Appendix C-82 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C69-Nonresidential Floor Area and Employment Projections in City of Apache Junction, 2013-2033 Employment Projections 3.05% Five-Year Increments===> Cumulative Avg.Ann. Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 15 20 Increase Increase 2013 2014 20150 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 2033 2013-2033 2013-2033 SUMMARY OF DEMAND PROJECTIONS(City Limits) TOTALJOBS 9,093 9,369 9,655 9,949 10,252 10,563 10,886 11,217 11,558 11,911 12,273 14,261 16,572 7,479 374 NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Growth Employment By Type Rate Commercial/Retai1 2.8% 2,233 2,295 2,360 2,426 2,494 2,563 2,635 2,709 2,785 2,863 2,943 3,378 3,878 1,645 82 Office/Institutional 3.2% 6,057 6,250 6,449 6,654 6,866 7,084 7,310 7,542 7,782 8,030 8,285 9,691 11,334 5,277 264 Industrial/Flex 2.7% 803 824 846 869 892 916 941 966 991 1,018 1,045 1,192 1,360 557 28 TOTAL 9,093 9,369 9,655 9,949 10,252 10,563 10,886 11,217 11,558 11,911 12,273 14,261 16,572 7,479 374 Nonres Floor Area(1,000 SF) Commerci a 1(1,000 SF) 500 1,117 1,148 1,180 1,213 1,247 1,282 1,318 1,355 1,393 1,432 1,472 1,689 1,939 823 41 Office/Instit(1,OOOSF) 301 1,823 1,881 1,941 2,003 2,067 2,132 2,200 2,270 2,342 2,417 2,494 2,917 3,412 1,589 79 Industrial/Flex(1,000 SF) 433 348 357 367 377 386 397 408 419 429 441 453 516 589 241 12 TOTAL 3,288 3,386 3,488 3,592 3,700 3,811 3,926 4,044 4,164 4,290 4,418 5,122 5,940 2,652 133 2013-2033 ANNUAL INCREASES(City Limits) 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 27-28 32-33 Avg Annual Jobs 276 286 294 303 311 323 331 341 353 362 422 491 374 Nonres Floor Area(1,000 SF) 98 102 105 108 111 115 118 120 125 128 149 174 133 Source:City of Apache Junction,TischlerBise Twllel'PL.iSe Appendix C-83 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............. Average Daily Vehicle Trips are used for the Streets development fee category as a measure of demand by land use. Vehicle trips are estimated using average weekday vehicle trip ends from the reference book, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2012. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). Trip Rate Adjustments Trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed below, additional adjustments are made to ensure the fees are proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Adjustment for Journey-To-Work Commuting Residential development in the City of Apache Junction has a larger trip adjustment factor of 64 percent to account for commuters leaving Apache Junction for work. According to the National Household Travel Survey(2009), home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of"production"trips, in other words, out- bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Data from the LEHD for 2010 indicate that 90 percent of Apache Junction's employed residents travel outside the City for work. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.90 = 0.14) account for 14 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50% of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment for a total of 64 percent. Figure C70—Adjustment for Journey-To-Work Commuting Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters[1] Employed Residents 12,031 Residents Working in City 1,236 Residents Commuting Outside City for Work 10,795 Percent Commuting out of the City 90% Additional Production Trips [2] 14% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 64% [1]U.S.Census Bureau,2010 CnTheMap Application(version 6.1.1)and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics [2]National Household Travel Survey,2009:Table 30 Adjustment for Pass-By Trips The basic trip adjustment factor of 50 percent is applied to the office/institutional, and industrial/flex categories. The commercial/retail category has a trip factor of less than 50 percent because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For an average size shopping center, the ITE (2012) indicates that on average 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66 percent of attraction trips have the shopping center as their primary destination, half of which are attraction trips. TwtlWtSe Appendix C-84 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Estimated Vehicle Trips in Apache Junction As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the ITE publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units, households, and persons) are only available collectively from the 2011 ACS 5-Year Estimates for Apache Junction. (Note: data from the ACS will not equal decennial census counts. These data are used only to derive the custom average weekday vehicle trip ends by type of housing unit, as shown below). Figure C71-Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type in City of Apache Junction Cityof Apache Junction,AZ Households[2] Vehicles per Vehicles Units Household Available[1] Single Family Multifamily Total by Tenure Owner-occupied 18,863 11,363 156 11,519 1.64 Renter-occupied 3,666 1,957 1,042 2,999 1.22 TOTAL 22,529 13,320 1,198 14,518 1.55 Housing Units[3]_>F 18,248 1,597 19,845 Persons per Housing Unit=>I 1.73 1.39 [1]Vehicles available bytenure from Table B25046,American Community Survey,2011. [2]Households bytenure and units in structure from Table B25032, America n Community Survey,2011. [3]Housing units from Table B25024,American Community Survey,2011.0 Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average TripEndsper ITETripEnds Difference Hholds[4] Ends[5] Type of Housing Ends[6] Trip Ends Housing Unit Per Unit from ITE Single Family Units 31,558 81,723 21,000 121,320 101,521 5.60 9.52 -41% Multifamily Units 2,212 7,611 1,529 6,319 6,965 4.40 6.65 -34% TOTAL 33,770 89,334 22,529 127,638 108,486 5.50 [4]Total population in households from Table25033,American Community Survey,2011. [5]Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). For single family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.91*LN(persons)+1.52). To approximate the average population of the ITE studies,persons were divided by57 and the equation result multiplied by 57. For multifamily housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.47*persons)-64.48. [6]Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). For single familyhousing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.81). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by77 and the equation result multiplied by77. For multifamily housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.94*vehicles)+293.58. As shown, a single family unit has an average daily trip rate of 5.60 per unit (compared to 9.52 from ITE), and a multifamily unit has an average daily trip rate of 4.40 trips per unit (compared to 6.65 per unit from ITE).Average daily trips are derived using these data. Figure C72 details the calculations to determine that existing development in the City, generates an average of 108,339 vehicle trips on a typical weekday. Residential development is estimated to generate 81,339 vehicle trips (75 percent) compared to 27,000 vehicle trips (25 percent) generated by nonresidential development. An example of the calculation is as follows for single family units: 21,199 single family units x 5.60 vehicle trips per day per unit x 64 percent adjustment factor = 75,977 total vehicle trips per day from single family units in the City. The same calculation is done for each land use type. TrschlerB iti�; Appendix C-85 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C72—Average Daily Trips from Existing Development in City of Apache Junction Base Year Residential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday* 2013 Residential Units Assumptions Single Family 21,199 Multifamily 1,904 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Unit* Trip Rate Trip Factor Single Family 5.60 64% Multifamily 4.40 64% Residential Vehicle Trip Ends of an Average Weekday Single Family 75,977 Multifamily 5,362 %of total Total Residential Trips 81,339 75% Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday** 2013 Nonresidential Gross Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.) Assumptions Commercial/Retail 1,117 Office/Institutional 1,823 Industrial/Flex 348 Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1,000 Sq.Ft.** Trip Rate Trip Factor Commercial 42.70 33% Office/Institutional 11.03 50% Industrial/Flex 6.97 50% Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday Commercial 15,733 Office/Institutional 10,055 Industrial/Flex 1,213 Total Nonresidential Trips 27,000 25% TOTAL TRIPS 108,339 100% *Trip rates are customized for City of Apache Junction.See accompanying tables and discussion. **Trip rates are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual(2012) Twhier$ISe Appendix C-86 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Demand Indicators by Size of Detached Housing As part of the development fee effort for the City of Apache Junction, TischlerBise further analyzed demographic data to present the option to refine the development fee schedule to be more progressive for residential development. This can be done by developing fees by size of housing unit, based on bedroom count, or by type of single unit (i.e., manufactured unit). Household size and vehicle trip rates can be derived using custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range from survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in files know as Public Use Micro-data Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS data are only available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the City of Apache Junction is in Arizona Public Use Micro-data Area (PUMA) 0800. Data are first analyzed for the PUMA area, and then calibrated to conditions in the City of Apache Junction. TischlerBise used AZ PUMA 0800 2011 ACS 1-Year Estimates to derive persons per housing unit factors by number of bedrooms as well as number of vehicle trips per unit factors by number of bedrooms. As shown in Figure C73, TischlerBise derived trip generation rates and average persons, by bedroom range and type, using the number of persons and vehicles available. Recommended multipliers were scaled to make the average value by type of housing for Arizona PUMA 0800 match the average value derived from ACS data specific to Apache Junction. As the number of bedrooms increases, trip ends and persons per housing unit increase as well. Figure C73—Average Persons and Trip Ends by Bedroom Range in City of Apache Junction Recommended Multipliers for Municipality[4] Persons Trip Vehicles Trip Average Housing Trip Ends per Persons per [1] Ends[2] Available[1] Ends[3] Trip Ends Units[1] Housing Unit Housing Unit Single Family0-3 Bdrms 1,331 3,682 970 5,642 4,6621 737 4.93 1.47 Single Family4+Bdrms 754 2,195 447 2,620 2,4081 245 7.62 2.51 Single Unit Subtotal 2,085 6,169 1,417 8,308 7,2391 982 5.60 1.73 SingleUnit-Manufactured 417 1,280 303 1,783 1,5321 259 4.49 1.21 Multifamily Total 110 317 39 4471 3821 4.40 1.39 GRAND TOTAL 2,612 7,766 1,759 10,539 9,152 1,304 [1]American Community Survey,Public Use Microdata Sample for AZ PUMA 0800(unweighted data for2011). [2]Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). Forsingle family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.91*LN(persons)+1.52). To approximate the average population in the ITE studies,persons were divided by5 and the equation result multiplied by5. For multifamily housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.47*persons)-64.48. [3]Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). Forsingle familyhousing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.81). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by7and the equation result multiplied by7. For multifamily housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.94*vehicles)+293.58. [4]Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average value bytype of housing for AZ PUMA 0800 match the average value for Apache Junction, derived from American Community Survey2011 data,with persons adjusted to the Citywide average of 1.73 persons persingle familyhousing unit. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARY Provided on the next page is a summary of annual demographic and development projections to be used for the development fee study. Base year estimates for 2013 are used in the development fee calculations. Development projections are used to illustrate a possible future pace of service demands and cash flows resulting from revenues and expenditures associated with those service demands. Twhleffi ISf' Appendix C-87 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C74-Land Use Assumptions Summary,City of Apache Junction Five-Yearincrements===> Cumulative Avg.Ann. Base Yr 1 2 3 4 9 30 15 20 Increase Increase 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 22 2023 2028 2033 2013-2033 2013-2033 SUMMARY OF DEMAND PROJECTIONS(City Limits) TOTALYEAR-ROUND POPULATION 37,300 37,676 38,094 38,554 39,059 39,609 40,206 40,853 41,552 42,303 43,111 46,965 50,715 13,415 671 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 23,103 23,324 23,570 23,840 24,137 24,460 24,811 25,191 25,602 26,043 26,518 28,783 30,986 7,883 394 TOTALJOBS 9,093 9,369 9,655 9,949 10,252 10,563 10,886 11,217 11,558 11,911 12,273 14,261 16,572 7,479 374 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Housing Units Unit Mix SingleFamiIy 92% 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 22,766 23,115 23,492 23,897 24,333 26,411 28,432 7,233 362 Multifamily 8% 1,904 1,922 1,942 1,965 1,989 2,016 2,045 2,076 2,110 2,146 2,185 2,372 2,554 611 32 TOTAL 23,103 23,324 23,570 23,840 24,137 24,460 24,811 25,191 25,602 26,043 26,518 28,783 30,986 7,883 394 NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Growth Employment By Type Rate Commercial/Retail 2.8% 2,233 2,295 2,360 2,426 2,494 2,563 2,635 2,709 2,785 2,863 2,943 3,378 3,878 1,645 82 Office/Institutional 3.2% 6,057 6,250 6,449 6,654 6,866 7,084 7,310 7,542 7,782 8,030 8,285 9,691 11,334 5,277 264 Industrial/Flex 2.7% 803 824 846 869 892 916 941 966 991 1,018 1,045 1,192 1,360 557 28 TOTAL 9,093 9,369 9,655 9,949 10,252 10,563 10,886 11,217 11,558 11,911 12,273 14,261 16,572 7,479 374 Nonres Floor Area(1,000 SF) Commerci a 1(1,000 SF) 500 1,117 1,148 1,180 1,213 1,247 1,282 1,318 1,355 1,393 1,432 1,472 1,689 1,939 823 41 Office/Instit(1,OOOSF) 301 1,823 1,881 1,941 2,003 2,067 2,132 2,200 2,270 2,342 2,417 2,494 2,917 3,412 1,589 79 Industrial/Flex(1,000 SF) 433 348 357 367 377 386 397 408 419 429 441 453 516 589 241 12 TOTAL 3,288 3,386 3,488 3,592 3,700 3,811 3,926 4,044 4,164 4,290 4,418 5,122 5,9401 2,652 133 2013-2033 ANNUAL INCREASES(City Limits) 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 27-28 32-33 Avg Annual Year-Round Population 376 418 460 505 550 597 647 699 751 808 716 773 671 Housing Units 221 246 270 297 323 351 380 411 441 475 421 454 394 Jobs 276 286 294 303 311 323 331 341 353 362 422 491 374 Nonres Floor Area(1,000 SF) 98 102 105 108 111 115 118 120 125 128 149 174 133 Source:City of Apache Junction,TischlerBise Me IIIIIII� W Appendix C-88 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Growth Projections 2013-2033 City of Apache Junction,AZ 60,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 — 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Year-Round Population t Housing Units Jobs Nonres Sq.Ft.(1,000s) Ttwhier8Ise AppendixC 89 RESOLUTION NO. 14-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT FEES. WHEREAS, A. R. S. § 9-463. 05 requires a city to adopt, in conjunction with a development fee ordinance, a land use assumption and infrastructure improvements plan (the "study") ; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council, on January 3, 2014, gave staff direction to update the city' s development fees to include the study; and WHEREAS, the city has hired the consultant firm of TischlerBise to draft and present the study; and WHEREAS, TischlerBise has completed a draft of the study; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council, on January 21, 2014, held a public hearing on the study; and WHEREAS, the City has met all notice and public notice requirements set forth in A. R. S . § 9-463 . 05 on the study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT THE STUDY: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT FEES, ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A, BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THIS 4th DAY OF MARCH, 2014. / SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS T � DAY OF I1-1 a iL o , , 2014 . RESOLUTION NO. 14-06 PAGE 1 OF 2 ,/,//,k V-;; Iy n I sa aco or ATTEST: elzl KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: C 4- t RICHARD JOEL STERN City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 14-06 PAGE 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT A DRAFT — DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT FEES i i Prepared for: City of Apache Junction, Arizona March 4, 2014 TischlerBise 4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240 Bethesda, MD 301.320.6900 www.tischlerbise.com DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Ttschle Bise DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................................4 Arizona Development Fee Enabling Legislatiarr.......................................................................................................4 NecessaryPublic Se°rvice..........................................................................................................................................5 Irrfrastruc tore Improvement: Plan...........................................................................................................................5 Qualified Prof ssionals........................ DevelopmentFees..............................................................................................................................................7 CalculationA1etlrode to ies........................................................................................................................................7 ReportingResults...............................................................................................................................................7 Maximum Supportable Developittent Fees...............................................................................................................8 Comparison to Current Development Fees...............................................................................................................9 Library Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan...................................................................................11 oz•erviezi..................................................................................................................................................................11 Service Area............................. ProportionateSlrare................................................................................................................................................11 IlPfor Library Facilities..........................................................................................................................................12 Analysis of Capacity, Usage,and Cosh of existing public services........................................................................12 Levelof Service.................................................................................................................................................12 Costper Service unit...............................­......................................................................................................13 ExcludedCost...................................................................................................................................................14 Current Use and Available Capacity.............................................................................................................14 Patio of Service etrrit to development unit...............................................................................................................14 Projected Serz,ict-Uriitr arrd Irrfrastrrectore Dertuajtd..............................................................................................14 Library Facilities Improvements Plan...........................................................................................................15 Maximrern Supportable Library Facilities Development Fees.................................................................................16 Library Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study......................................................................................16 RevenueCredit.................................................................................................................................................16 ForecastOf Rcverrtie! ...........................................................................................................................I.,.................18 LibraryFacilities Cash Flow...........................................................................................................................18 Parks and Recreational Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan........................................................19 Overvicu..................................................................................................................................................................19 ServiceArea............................................................................................................................................................19 ProportionateShare................................................................................................................................................20 111'for Park;and Recreational Facilities.................................................................................................................20 Anatysi:of Capac rty. Usa�tiZe, and Costs(if existing public sc'rvices................ .......................................................20 Parkland............................................................................................................................................................21 ParkImprovements.........................................................................................................................................22 RecreationalFacilities......................................................................................................................................23 Multi-Use Trails................................................................................................................................................24 ExcludedCosts.................................................................................................................................................24 Current Use and Available Capacity.............................................................................................................24 Ratio of Service unit to development unit....................... Projected Demand for Services And Costs..............................................................................................................25 Parks and Recreational Facilities Improvements Plan................................................................................27 A1a_rbnrun Supportable Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees........................................................28 TwhleIBi� 1 DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study ..........................................................28 RevenueCredit.................................................................................................................................................28 Forecastof Reven ties...............................................................................................................................................30 Parks and Recreational Facilities Cash Flow................................................................................................30 Police Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan .....................................................................................31 Overvical.................................................................................................................................................................31 SenviceA rea............................................................................................................................................................31 ProportionateShare ................................................................................................................................................31 FunctionalPopulation.....................................................................................................................................31 Serviceunits......................................................................................................................................................33 PoliceCalls for Service....................................................................................................................................33 IIPFor Police Facilities................................................................................................................. ......................34 Analysis of Capacity, Usati>e,and Costs of existing public services........................................................................34 Vehicles..............................................................................................................................................................35 CommunicationsEquipment.........................................................................................................................36 ExcludedCosts.................................................................................................................................................36 Current Use and Available Capacity.............................................................................................................36 Ratio of Service unit to development unit............. Projected Demand for Services And Costs..............................................................................................................38 Police Facilities Improvements Plan..............................................................................................................40 Maximum Supportable Police Facilities Oc-.velopment Fees...................................................................................41 Police Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study........................................................................................41 RevenueCredit.................................................................................................................................................41 forecastof Reivennes ....................................................................................43 PoliceFacilities Cash Flow..............................................................................................................................43 Street Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan......................................................................................45 Otvervieu..................••••............................................................................................................................................45 ServiceArea............................................................................................................................................................45 ProportionateShare................................................................................................................................................47 IIPFor Street FaciIities...........................................................................................................................................47 Analitsis of Capacity, Usage,avid Costs of existing public Services........................................................................47 CurrentInventory............................................................................................................................................48 TripGeneration Rates......................................................................................................................................49 LaneCapacity...................................................................................................................................................52 CurrentLevel of Service—...............................................................................................................................52 Costper Lane Mile...........................................................................................................................................56 ExcludedCosts.................................................................................................................................................57 Current Use and Available Capacity—..........................................................................................................57 Betioof Senvice Unit to Land Use..........................................................................................................................58 Projected Demand for Services And Costs..............................................................................................................60 MinorArterials.................................................................................................................................................60 Collectors...........................................................................................................................................................61 SignalizedIntersections...................................................................................................................................63 Street Facilities Improvements Plan.......................................................................................................................65 Maximum Stipportahle Street Facilities Development Fee,....................................................................................65 Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study.........................................................................................65 RevenueCredit.................................................................................................................................................65 Forecastof Re ventie°s...............................................................................................................................................6 7 TtSChlerBiS: 2 DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache lunctian,Arizona StreetFacilities Cash Flow..........................................................................•...................................................67 Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services.................................................................................................69 Appendix B— Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees........................................................70 RcrenuePrc>jccti(ins................................................................................................................................................70 GeneralFund....................................................................................................................................................71 HighwayUser Tax (HURF)............ ................................................................................... ........72 Appendix C-Land Use Assumptions............................................................................................................73 Summaryof Growth Indicators.....................................................................................................................73 ResidentialDevelopinent.........................................................................................................................................75 RecentResidential Construction....................................................................................................................75 PersonsPer Housing Unit...............................................................................................................................76 Population Estimates and Projections...........................................................................................................77 Population and Housing Unit Projections....................................................................................................79 NonresidentialDeg+eh)pnient...................................................................................................................................80 Employment Estimates and Projections.......................................................................................................80 Nonresidential Square Footage Development.............................................................................................81 Nonresidential Floor Area and Employment Projections..........................................................................82 Averakge DailY Vehicle Trips..................................................................................................................... .84 TripRate Adjustments....................................................................................................................................84 Estimated Vehicle Trips in Apache Junction................................................................................................85 Demand Indicators by Size of Detached Housing.......................................................................................87 Land Use Assumpti0111Z Sumnutrlil..........................................................................................................................87 TtSr hlet$tse 3 DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona SUMMARYEXECUTIVE The City of Apache Junction has engaged Tischler8ise to update its development fees for necessary public services pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes 9-463.05. Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality associated with providing necessary public services to a development. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure Improvements Plan. Development fees cannot be used for, among other things: projects not included in the Infrastructure Improvements Plan, projects related to existing development, or costs related to operations and maintenance. This Infrastructure Improvements Plan and associated update to the City of Apache Junction development fees include the following necessary public services: ■ Library ■ Parks and Recreation ■ Police ■ Streets This plan also includes all necessary elements required to be in full compliance with SB 1525. ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION Arizona Revised Statutes 9-463.05 (hereafter referred to as "development fee enabling legislation") governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Arizona. During the state legislative session of 2011, Senate Bill 1525 (S8 1525) was introduced which significantly amended the development fee enabling legislation.The changes included: ■ Amending existing development fee programs by January 1, 2012; ■ Abandoning existing development fee programs by August 1, 2014; • A new development fee program structure developed from a unified Land Use Assumptions document and Infrastructure Improvements Plan; ■ New adoption procedures for the Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and development fees; ■ New definitions, including "necessary public services" which defines what categories and types of infrastructure may be funded with development fees; • Time limitations in development fee collections and expenditures; and ■ New requirements for credits, "grandfathering" rules,and refunds. Governor Brewer signed SB 1525 into law on April 26, 2011. This update of the City's development fees will be in compliance with all of the new requirements of SB 1525. Tischletf3i-W 4 DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona NECESSARY PUBLIC SERVICES The City of Apache Junction currently collects development fees for the following infrastructure categories: ■ Library ■ Parks and Recreation ■ Police ■ Streets Under the new requirements of the development fee enabling legislation, development fees may be used only for construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities that are necessary public services. "Necessary public service" means any of the following categories of facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and that are owned and operated on behalf of the municipality: ■ Water Facilities ■ Wastewater Facilities ■ Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control Facilities ■ Library Facilities ■ Streets Facilities ■ Fire and Police Facilities ■ Neighborhood Parks and Recreational Facilities ■ Any facility that was financed before June 1, 2011 and that meets the following requirements: 1. Development fees were pledged to repay debt service obligations related to the construction of the facility. 2. After August 1, 2014, any development fees collected are used solely for the payment of principal and interest on the portion of the bonds, notes, or other debt service obligations issued before June 1, 2011 to finance construction of the facility. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Development fees must be calculated pursuant to an Infrastructure Improvements Plan (hereafter referred to as the "HP"). For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, by law, the infrastructure improvements plan shall include the following seven elements: Element#1: A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the casts to upgrode, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. Element #2: An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. Element#3:A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state,as applicable. Ttschle�f3ise 5 DRAFT—Development Fee Study City of Apache Junction,Arizona Element#4: A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. Element #5: The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria. Element #6: The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years. Element #7: A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue,federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capitol recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved land use assumptions, and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS The IIP must be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices. A qualified professional is defined as "a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst or planner providing services within the scope of the person's license,education,or experience." TischlerBise is a fiscal,economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in the cost of growth services. Our services include development fees, fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure financing analyses, user fee/cost of service studies, capital improvement plans, and fiscal software. TischlerBise has prepared over 800 impact fee studies over the past 30 years for local governments across the United States. DRAFT—Development Fee Study:Development Fee Report City of Apache Junction,Arizona DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES Development fees for the necessary public services generated by new development must be based on the same level of service provided to existing development in the service area. There are three basic methodologies used to calculate development fees. They examine the past, present, and future status of infrastructure. The objective of evaluating these different methodologies is to determine the best measure of the demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. ■ Cost recovery (past) is used in instances when a community has oversized a facility or asset in anticipation of future development. This methodology is based on the rationale that new development is repaying the community for its share of the remaining unused capacity. ■ Incremental expansion method (present) documents the current level of service for each type of public facility. The intent is to use revenue collected to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the current cost to provide capital improvements. ■ Plan-based method (future) utilizes a community's capital improvement plan and/or other adopted plans or engineering studies to guide capital improvements needed to serve new development. Figure 1 is a summary of methodologies,components and allocations used to calculate the IIP. Figure 1:Recommended Calculation Methodologies Methodology Type of Public Facility Cost Recovery - .. • -. (Past) (Present) (Future) Libraries • Facilities • Developed Parkland • Park Improvements Parks and Recreation . Recreational Facilities • Multi-Use Trails • vehicles Police , . • Communications Equipment Streets • Minor Arterial • City Collectors • Signalized Intersections Reporting Results Calculations throughout this lIP are based on analysis conducted using Excel software. Formulas and results are discussed herein using one-and two-digit place (in most cases), which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the memo (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis.) TischIciBisc DRAFT—Development Fee Study:Development Fee Report City of Apache Junction,Arizona MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEES ������������������������� ������ ���������� Based on the data, assumptions, and calculation methodologies in the Land Use Assumptions document and infrastructure Improvements Plan, the proposed development fees are listed in the figure below. The proposed Development Fee schedule includes six categories ofland uses, three each for residential and nonresidential. "Single Unit" includes detached and attached units both modular and manufactured that are constructed on a single lot. The "Single Unit — Manufactured Homes" is for single unit dwellings in mobile home parks. The ^J+ Unit~ category is the development fee assessed per unit for a structure with multiple dwelling units. Previous nonresidential development fee schedules established fees for Commercial and Office land uses based on size thresholds, and others for more specialized land uses. The proposed schedule establishes a per square foot fee for three general land use categories, the City will use to define all new nonresidential development. Figure o:Maximum Supportable City ov Apache Junction Development Fees Nonresidential Eomm ercial $030 $L03 $015 $5 041 $6.52 0braly Reneation Police Streets Development Fee Sowns:n=memise Twh �=��. DRAFT-Development Fee Study:Development Fee Report City of Apache Junction,Arizono COMPARISON TO CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES The City of Apache Junction currently collects development fees for the following infrastructure categories: ■ Library ■ Parks and Recreation ■ Police ■ Streets The City's current development fee summary is shown below: Figure 3:City of Apache Junction Development Fees,Effective January 1,2012 MENEM Residential - -T,75-6 Single Unit $721 $1,801 $294 $6,323 $9,139 Single Unit-Manufactured Homes $572 $1,429 $234 $3,297 $5,532 2+Unit $622 $1,555 $254 $4,440 $6,871 Nonresidentialf1l F mmercial $0.00 $0.00 $1.80 $13.64 $15.44 fice $0.00 $000 $0.68 $5.68 $6.36 dustrial $0.00 $0,00 $0.27 $2.26 $2,53 The changes between the proposed fees and those effective as of January 1, 2012 are shown in the figure below. Note:the red figures in parentheses represent decreases in fee amounts. Figure 4:Changes Between City of Apache Junction Proposed and Current Development Fees Residential Single Unit S213 (5335) ( 133) ($1959j ($4,211) Single Unit-Manufactured Homes 582 ($402) (5121) ($1,402) (tiL843i 2+Unit $126 (5381) (S125) ($2.584) ($2,9641 Nonresidential Commercial $0.30 $1.03 ($1.65) (S8.60) ($8-92) Office $0.50 $1.71 ($0.631 (53.50) ($1.92) Industrial $0.35 $1.19 (50.24) ($0.90)1 $0.40 TwhIerBise 9 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] TmOlef tse 10 Development Fee Study:infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona OVERVIEW ARS 9-463.05(T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Library Facilities IIP as: "Library facilities of up to ten thousand square feet that provide a direct benefit to development, not including equipment vehicles or appurtenances." The Library Facilities IIP includes facilities component, and the cost of preparing the Library Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study. Cost recovery is used to calculate the Library Facilities development fees. SERVICE AREA The City of Apache Junction plans to provide a uniform level of service and equal service for Library facilities throughout the City. As described in Apache Junction's 2010 General Plan Update, the City ensures, "that the library system...continues its role as a major cultural resource for the community." As a result,the service area for the Library Facilities lIP is citywide. Once development of Lost Dutchman Heights begins in earnest, it may become necessary to establish separate service areas for Library Facilities development fees. However, for the purposes of this five- year study window the City of Apache Junction is considered a single service area. PROPORTIONATE SHARE ARS 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. As shown below, TischlerBise recommends daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Library Facilities from both residential and nonresidential development. According to U.S. Census bureau data from the LEHD OnTheMap utility, non-resident workers hold 86 percent(rounded)of jobs in Apache Junction. Therefore, of the 9,093 jobs in base year 2013, inflow commuters hold approximately 7,780. The proportionate share is based on cumulative impact days per year with the number of inflow commuters potentially impacting Library Facilities 250 days per year (5 days per week multiplied by 50 work weeks per year). The resulting proportionate share of demand is 87 percent from residential, and 13 percent from nonresidential users. Figure 5: Library Facilities Proportionate Share' 2013 Days of Cumulative Impact Proportionate Demand Tota I Impact Days per Year Share Residential 37,300 365 13,614,500 87% Nonresidential [1] 7,780 250 1,945,048 13% Total Impact 15,559,548 [1] Nonresidential assumes 86 percent of 2013 Jobs are held by Inflow Commuters,based on LEHD data. Source; U.S.Census Bureau,2010 Decennial Census;U.S.Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.1.1 Application and LEHD origin-Oestination Employment Statistics 1 The share of jobs held by inflow commuters is shown as a rounded figure. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places;therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis.) Tw 11p"a- 11 Development Fee Study:infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apoche Junction,Arizono IIP FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, ARS 9-463.05(E) requires the IIP to include seven elements. The sections below detail each of these elements. (A forecast of new revenues generated by sources other than development fees can be found in Appendix B — Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees.) ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE,AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS 9-463.05 (E)(1) requires: "A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05 (E)(2) requires: "An analysis of the total copocity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." Level of Service The City completed an expansion of its Library facilities in 2008. The current inventory of Library facilities totals 31,444. The current inventory was built with excess capacity to serve future demand at the level of service established when the expansion began in 2006. The original facility was 20,949 square feet and served a combined total of 39,604 persons and jobs at a LOS of 0.529 square feet per service unit. The expanded facility is serving the 2013 base year population and jobs at an LOS of 0.678, demonstrating sufficient excess capacity to serve future growth. Figure 6: Level of Service—Library Facilities Step 1-Level of Service Service i Year Level of Service Square Feet Se rvi ce Un�ts Level of Service Uri�ts 2006 Square feet 20,949 - 39,604 0.529 Person 2013 per 31,444 - 46,393 = 0.678 per and 2026 Service Unit 31,444 - 58,974 = 0.533 Job Debt was issued in 2007 to help fund the expansion of Library facilities. As new development utilizes its proportionate share of the available capacity of the Library facilities, the City plans to have new development pay a proportionate share of the remaining debt, to be retired in 2026, As shown above, if no new Library facilities are added and development occurs at the rate shown in the approved Land Use Assumptions, the LOS for Library facilities will change over the remaining life of the debt service. The level of service is projected to change from 0.678 square feet per service unit, to 0.533 over the remaining life of the General Obligation bond used to fund the Library facilities expansion. TmehlerBise 12 Development fee Study:lnfrostructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Because the projected 2026 level of service will be higher than the original planned level of service of 0.529 an LOS discount must be calculated to ensure new development does not pay for a higher level of service than promised to existing development. The calculation of a LOS discount is shown below. Figure 7: Level of Service Growth Share Step 2-Level of Service Adjustment 20061 2026 2026 Level of Service Level of Se rVi ce Level of Service Level of Service Discount 0.533 0 529 0 S33 0.79% Cost per Service unit Debt was issued in 2007 to help fund the expansion of Library facilities to the current square footage of 31,444. Since the original bond issuance, $390,871 of previously collected development fee revenue has been allocated to the debt obligation. The City plans to have new development pay for its share of the remaining obligation. The previously discussed level of service discount of 1 percent is applied to the remaining principal to calculate growth's share of the remaining obligation. As shown in Figure 8, after deducting the previously recouped portion, and the level of service discount, the growth share of remaining principal debt obligation on the Library facility is$5,068,624.2 Figure 8:City of Apache Junction 2007 Library Debt Service Step 3-Growth Share of Remaining Principal Debt Obligation Recouped Principal $5,5 DO,000 $390,971 X 79V. $40,504 Step 3.5-Growth Share of Remaining Principal ObligationPrincipal Discount of $5,109,129 54QSCC = $5,068,624 TischlerBise projects the City of Apache Junction will add 8,244 net new residents and 4,337 new jobs between of 2013 and 2026 when the original bond obligation is retired. The share of the remaining principal is multiplied by the proportionate share factors discussed above and divided by the net increase in population and jobs, respectively, to calculate a cost per capita of$534.90 and cost per job of $151.93. Figure 9:Cost Recovery—Library Facilities Ste 4-New Growth 45,544 - 37,300 = 8,244 Person 13,430 - 9,093 = 4,337 lob Step 5-Cost per Service Unit Residential SS,068,624 x rs'° - 9,24.4 = $S34.90 per Person Nonresidential r ,.,. - 4,337 $151.93 per lob Z The figures are shown as a rounded figure. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis.) Tmhler8t,Se 13 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Excluded Cost Development fees in Apache Junction exclude costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage, and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulator standards. Current Use and Available Capacity According to City staff, Library facilities have surplus capacity to serve growth; therefore, a cost recovery methodology was used to calculate the growth share of future principal payments. RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ARS 9-463.05 (E)(4) requires: "A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to voriaus types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial." The following table displays the residential and nonresidential factors used to establish a ratio of service unit to land uses. Figure 10: Library Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit DevelopmentResidential Land Use Persons per Housing Unit til Single Unit 1.73 Single Unit-Manufactured 1.21 2+Units 1 1.39 [1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions DevelopmentNonresidential Jobs per Land Use 000 Feet[21 Commercial 2.00 Office/I nstituti ona 11 3.32 Industrial/Flex 1 2.31 [2) Institute of Transportation Engineers.(2012),Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND ARS 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: "A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their casts necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based an the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the casts of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." T=hlerBise 14 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona ARS 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: "The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria." ARS 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: "The projected demand for necessory public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years." TischlerBise projects the City of Apache Junction will add an additional 8,244 persons and 4,337 jobs over the 13-year course of the bond term. As existing and new development utilizes the available capacity of the Library facility at a level of service of 0.533 square feet per person, the available Library facilities will reach capacity in 2026.See Figure 11 for additional details. Figure 11: Projected Demand for Library Facilities Library Facilities =31,444 SF PopulationDemand Jobs Planned LOS ..city Base Yr 2013 46,393 0.533 24,736 6,708 1 2014 47,045 0.533 25,084 6,360 2 2015 47,749 0,533 25,459 5,985 3 2016 48,503 0.533 25,861 5,583 4 2017 49,311 0.533 26,292 5,152 S 2018 50,172 0.533 26,751 4,693 6 2019 51,092 0.533 27,241 4,203 7 2020 52,070 0.533 27,763 3,681 8 2021 53,110 0,533 28,317 3,127 9 2022 54,214 0.533 28,906 2,538 10 2023 55,384 0.533 29,530 1,914 11 2024 56,813 0,533 30,292 1,152 12 2025 57,883 0.533 30,862 582 13 2026 1 58,974 0.533 1 31,444 0 Source:TischlerBise. (2013).Development Fee Land Use Assumptions Library Facilities Improvements Plan The City of Apache Junction does not plan to use Library development fee revenue collected in the next five years to pay for any new expansion of Library facilities. 15 TwhletBUM' Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apoche Junction,Arizona MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE LIBRARY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed development fees for Library facilities are shown in Figure 12. The development fees are calculated by multiplying the Persons per Housing Unit factors by the net capital cost per person for residential development, and the lobs per Square Foot factors by the net capital cost per job for nonresidential development. Library Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study Included in the Library Facilities per service unit cost is the cost to prepare the IIP and Development Fee Study. See Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services for the detailed calculations. Revenue Credit Included in the maximum supportable development fee is a Revenue Credit of 0 percent.The unadjusted Library Facilities development fees per development unit would not generate more revenue over the next ten years, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, than the identified growth share of existing debt service of$3,912,982 (approximately 10-years of growth share payments, plus the IIP and Development Fee Study cost). To ensure that no more fee revenue is collected than the City plans to spend, the potential gross cost per service unit is reduced by the revenue credit to calculate the net capital cost per service unit. Based on the gross capital costs per service unit, the projected development fee revenue would equal $3,261,712. See Figure 12 and Figure 13 for additional detail. Therefore, no revenue credit adjustment is necessary for the Library Facilities development fees. Toch le.rBise 16 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements plan City of Apache Junction,Arizono Figure 12: Maximum Supportable Library Facilities Development Fees Library Facffities level of Service and Infrastructure Costs Per Person LibraryFacilities $534.90 IIP and Development Fee Study Cost $5.29 GROSS CAPITAL COST $540.19 j Revenue Cred-T 0% $0.00 NI7 CAPITAL CaST $540.19 Library Facilities Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Housing Unit Persans per Cast per Development Fee Increase Unit Type Housing Unit[1) Person Proposed Current I2) (Decrease) 51ngle Unit 1.73 X $540.19 = $934 $721 $213 Single Unit-Manufactured 1.21 X $540.19 = $654 $S72 $82 2+Units 1.39 X $S40.19 = $748 $622 $126 111 Development Fee Land Use Assumptions 12)Current Fee established in 2012 Library Facilities Level of Service and Infrastructure Costs Per Jo LibraryFacilities $1S1.93 IIP and Development Fee Study Cost $1 24 GROSS CAPITAL COST $IS3.17 Revenue Credrt 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $153.17 Library Facilities Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Cast per Development Fee Increase Nonresidential land Use Jabs J3J Job Aopoaed Current[4] (Decrease) 72-31 r Commercial 0 X $153.17 = $0.30 $0.00 $0.30 Office 1 X $153.17 = $0.50 $0.00 $O.SO Industrial X $153.17 = $0.35 $0.00 $0.3S [31 Tri Generation Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition(2012). 14)City of Apache Junction does not currently assess Li brary Facilities development fees on nonresidential development. Twhleffl 17 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B - Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees contains a forecast of revenues other than development fees required by Arizona's enabling legislation. Library Facilities Cash Flow The cash flow shown in Figure 13 assumes implementation of the maximum supportable Library Facilities development fees and that development over the next ten years is consistent with the approved Land Use Assumptions described in Appendix C. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. The deficit shown in the revenue projection below represents the portion of debt service that will not be recouped through Library Facilities development fee revenue. Figure 13: Library Facilities Cash Flow Summary 10-Year Growth-Related Costs for Library Facilities Debt Service (1] $3,898,942 IlPand Development Fee Study $14,040 TOTAL $3,912,982 [1] Reflects onlygrowth share and 10-years of total remaining debt obligation. per Housing Unit Per Square Foot of Floor Area Single Unit[11 2+Units Commercial Office $0.30 $0.50 Year rrr Base 2013 21,199 1,904 1,117 1,823 348 Ye a r 1 2014 21,402 1,922 1,148 1,881 357 Yea r2 2015 21,628 1,942 1,180 1,941 367 Year3 2016 21,875 1,965 1,213 2,003 377 Yea r4 2017 22,148 1,989 1,247 2,067 386 Year5 2018 22,444 2,016 1,282 2,132 397 Yea r 6 2019 22,766 2,045 1,318 2,200 408 Year7 2020 23,115 2,076 1,355 2,270 419 Year 2021 23,492 2,110 1,393 2,342 429 Year9 2022 23,897 2,146 1,432 2,417 441 Year 10 2023 24,333 2,185 1,472 2,494 453 Ten-YrJncrease 3,134 281 355 671 105 Projected Fees (Rounded)=> $2,573,014 $210,188 $106,500 $335,311 $36,699 Total Projected Revenues $3,261,712 Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit) ($651,270) [1] Fee for Single Units shown represents a weighted average of the Single Unit and Single Unit-Manufactured fees. TtSC II�ISID 18 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona !PARKS IMPROVEMENTSINFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW ARS 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP as: "Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities on real property up to thirty acres in area, or parks and recreational facilities larger than thirty acres if the facilities provide a direct benefit to the development. Parks and recreational facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of any facility that is used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas, arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses, clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand square feet in floor area, environmental education centers, equestrian facilities, gulf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes, museums, theme parks, water reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar recreational facilities, but may include swimming pools." The Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP includes components for developed parkland, improvements to parks, multi-use trails, recreational facilities, and the cost of preparing the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study. The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the parkland, park improvements, multi-use trails, and recreational facilities components of the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP. SERVICE AREA The City of Apache Junction plans to provide a uniform level of service for Parks and Recreational Facilities throughout the City. As described in Apache Junction's 2010 General Plan Update, the City is, "a place that emphasizes outdoor enjoyment, provides a variety of recreational activities, and connects different population groups and residential neighborhoods." As a result, the service area for the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP is citywide. Once development of Lost Dutchman Heights begins in earnest, it may become necessary to establish separate service areas for Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees. However, for the purposes of this five-year study window the City of Apache Junction is considered a single service area. 19 TmhIerBbMi Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona PROPORTIONATE SHARE ARS 9-463.05 (13)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. As shown below, TischlerBise recommends daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities from both residential and nonresidential development. According to U.S. Census bureau data from the LEHD OnTheMap utility, non-resident workers hold 86 percent (rounded) of jobs in Apache Junction. Therefore, of the 9,093 jobs in base year 2013, inflow commuters hold approximately 7,780. The proportionate share is based on cumulative impact days per year with the number of inflow commuters potentially impacting Parks and Recreational Facilities 250 days per year (5 days per week multiplied by 50 work weeks per year), The resulting proportionate share of demand is 87 percent from residential, and 13 percent from nonresidential users. Figure 14: Parks and Recreational Facilities Proportionate Share 2013 Days of Cumulative Impact Proportionate Demand Total Impact Days per Year Share Residential 37,300 365 13,614,500 87% Nonresidential [1) 7,780 250 1,945,048 13% Total Impact 15,559,548 [1) Nonresidential assumes 86 percent of 2013Jobs are held by Inflow Commuters,based on LEHD data. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census;U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.1.1 Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics IIP FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, ARS 9-463.05(E) requires the IIP to include seven elements. The sections below detail each of these elements. (A forecast of new revenues generated by sources other than development fees can be found in Appendix B — Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees.) ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE,AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES . ............................................. ARS 9-463.05 (E)(1) requires: "A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capocity of the existing necessary public services, which sholl be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." a The share of jobs held by inflow commuters is shown as a rounded figure. However,the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis.) TwhluBmi 20 Development fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apoche Junction,Arizono The existing public services included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP are developed parkland, park improvements, multi-use trails, and recreational facilities. Parkland The City currently has 98 acres of developed parkland serving a demand base of 37,300 persons and 9,093 jobs. The City currently leases from the Bureau of Land Management 2,049 acres of undeveloped open space within its municipal boundary. The leases are used to preserve open space for eventual purchase by the City. To calculate the development fees for parkland, only land already developed is used so as not to inflate the level of service provided by the City to its residents. The City plans to maintain the level of service for developed parkland that it provides to existing development. Thus, the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component of the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP. Based on the proportionate share analysis discussed above, residential development creates 87 percent of the demand for developed parkland, with nonresidential development accounting for 13 percent of the demand. The calculation to determine level of service for residential development is as follows: (98 developed acres X 87% proportionate share) / 37,300 population = 0.0023 acres per capita. This calculation is repeated for nonresidential development resulting in a LOS of 0.0014 acres per job. According to the Parks and Recreation Department of the City, it costs approximately $260,000 in infrastructure costs to develop an acre of parkland. To calculate the cost of developed parkland per service unit the cost per unit of $260,000 is multiplied by the per service unit LOS resulting in a developed acres cost per capita of$594.31, and per job cost of$364.28. Figure IS: Incremental Expansion—Developed Parkland Ste 1-Cost Der Comoonent Other Parkland Parkland ValLie[1] Acres Acre[2) Acrei(2] Prospector Park $10,400,ODD 40 1 $260,000 225 Superstition Shadows Park $5,98D,bob 23 $26b,bb0 - Veteran's Memorial Park $52D,DDD 2 $26D,DDD - Little League Facility $780,DDD 3 $26D,DDD Renaissance Point Retention Area $2,D8D,DDD 8 $26D,DOD - Arroyo Verde Retention Area $2,Bfib,bbb 11 $26D,bOb Focal Point $26D,DDD 1 $260,000 - CityHall Park $780,000 3 $260,DOD - City/County Retention Area s78D,DDD 3 $26D,DDD - SillyMountainPark $1,040,000 4 $260,000 19fi Sheep Drive Trail TOTALS 25,48D,DDD - 98 = 26D,OOD 2,D49 Ste 2-Level of Service Developed Parkland per Resident 98 X 87% - 37,3DD D,D023 per Person Developed Parkland perloh X 13% - 9,043 = 0.0D14 per Job Ste 3-Cost r Service Unit Developed Parkland $26D,DDD X D.D023 = $594.31 per Person X D.0014 = $364.28 per Job Source:City of Apache!unction,Parks and Recreation Dept. [1[The total value forthe Cityof Apache Junction developed parkland is calculated based on the Cost per Acre of$26D,DDD provided bythe Cityof Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. [2)Undeveloped acres are U.S.Bureau of Land Management lands within the City T=hier$i% 21 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Park Improvements The City of Apache Junction provides active and passive park improvements for use by the current population. Park improvements provided by the City include amenities for passive (ramadas) and active recreation (sports fields), playgrounds,equestrian fields,and restrooms. The City plans to maintain the level of service for park improvements that it provides to existing development. Thus, the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component of the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP. Based on the proportionate share analysis discussed above, residential development creates 87 percent of the demand for park improvements, with nonresidential development accounting for 13 percent of the demand. The calculation to determine level of service for residential development is as follows: (99 units X 87% proportionate share)/37,300 population = 0.0023 units per capita. This calculation is repeated for nonresidential development resulting in a LOS of 0.0014 units per job. It costs the City approximately $88,485 per park improvement. To calculate the cost of park improvements per service unit the cost per unit is multiplied by the per service unit L05 resulting in a cost per capita of$204.32, and per job cost of$125.24. Figure 16: Incremental Expansion—Park Improvements Ste 1-Cost er Com nent Ramadas(single} 537,500 3 SIZ,500 Ramadas(small group) 5350,000 14 $25,000 Ramadas(large group) S245,000 7 $35000 Shuffleboard Courts $60,000 3 $20,500 Horseshoe Pits S12,500 5 $2,500 Playgrounds $600.000 4 $15o,000 Ball Fields $1,120,000 7 $160,000 Concession/Restrooms $1,200,000 6 $200,000 Tennis Courts $675,000 9 $75,000 Racquetball Courts $160,000 4 $90,000 Basketball Courts $210,000 3 $70,000 Volleyball Courts $32,000 4 $8,000 5occer/Football Fields $480,000 3 $160,000 Skate Park 1 $500,000 5ecurityFenung 25 526,400 PoolLM 1 L $2,219,000 TOTALS $8,760,000 - 99 $88,485 Source:City of Apache function,Parks and Recreation Dept. Ste 2-level of Service Level of Scrv�cc- Units Share �(,rvc,Units L�,vl of Sr,ice unit Park improvements per Resident X 87% 37,300 = 0.0023 per Person Park Improvements perJob 99 X 13% - 9.093 = 0.0014 per Job Step 3-Cost per Service Unit Park improvements $88,485 X 0.0023 = $204.32 per Person X 0.0014 = $125.20 per lob 22 TwhIer IM' Development Fee Study:Infrostructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Recreational Facilities The City plans to maintain the level of service (LOS) for recreational facilities that it provides to existing development. Thus, the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component. The City currently maintains 42,834 square feet of recreational facilities to serve a current population of 37,300, and 9,093 jobs. For recreational facilities that are greater than 3,000 square feet in size, the development fee enabling legislation dictates that only 3,000 square feet of each facility can be used to calculate a level of service (for new development) and cost per service unit for the Parks and Recreational Facilities [IP and development fees. Based on the proportionate share analysis discussed above, residential development creates 87 percent of the demand for recreational facilities, with nonresidential development accounting for 13 percent of the demand. The calculation to determine level of service for residential development is as follows: (8,375 eligible square feet X 87% proportionate share) / 37,300 current population = 0.1953 square feet per capita. This calculation is repeated for nonresidential development resulting in a LOS of 0.1197 square feet per job. The cost per service unit is the product of LOS and the average cost per square foot $206 (rounded), resulting in a Recreational Facilities cost per capita of$40.24, and cost per job of$24.67. Figure 17: Incremental Expansion—Recreational Facilities Ste 1-Cost ner Comnonent Facility Valie Feet Squire .. Park Rangeroffice&CityConferenceCenter 5229,613 2,375 $97 Multi-Gone rational Building 58,385,861 36,850 $228 Superstition Shadows Aquatics Center $221,848 3,609 $61 TOTALS 8,937.322 - 42,834 = 206 Eligible Square Footage[1[ 8,375 Ste 2-Level of Service Eligible . . Level of Se rvi ce Square Feet Share Service Unit� Level of Service Unit Square Feet per Resident X 87% - 37,300 = 0.1953 per Person Square Feet per Job 8,375 X 13% 9,093 = 0.1197 per Job Ste 3-Cost ner Service Unit Cost per Component Se rvi Ce Fee onni Squire Fucit Level of Service Cost Unit • X 0.1953 = $40.24 per Person Recreational Facilities $206 X 0.1197 $24.67 per Job Source-City of Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. [11 AIRS 9-463.0S{T)(7)(f),"Parks and recreational facilities do not include...community centers greaterthan three thousand squarefeetin floorarea..." 23 Twh1et$ssL; Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Multi-Use Trails The City of Apache Junction measures its inventory of multi-use trails in acres to adjust for trails of varying widths. As of 2013, the City maintains 17 acres of multi-use trails. The inventory is sufficient to meet current demand; therefore, an incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate level of service. Based on the proportionate share analysis discussed above, residential development creates 87 percent of the demand for multi-use trails, with nonresidential development accounting for 13 percent of the demand. The calculation to determine level of service for residential development is as follows: (17 acres X 87% proportionate share) / 37,300 current population = 0.0004 square feet per capita. This calculation is repeated for nonresidential development resulting in a LOS of 0.0002 square feet per job. To calculate the cost of multi-use trails per service unit the cost to develop an acre of trails ($5,000) is multiplied by the level of service resulting in a per capita cost of$1.98,and per job cost of$1.22. Figure 18: Incremental Expansion—Multi-Use Trails Sten 1-Cost per Com nent Multi-Use Trails Value 111 Acres [2] Acre Silly Mountain Park $10,000 2 $5,000 Sheep Orive Trail System $55,000 13 $5,000 Arroyo Verde open Space Area $5000 1 $5,000 Renaissance Point Open Space $5,000 1 $5,000 TOTALS 85,000 - 17 Ste Z-Level of Service Pro PC .n3te 2013 Service Multi-Use Trails per Resident X 87% - 37,300 = 0,0004 per Person Multi-Use Trails per lob 17 X 13% - 9,093 = 0.0002 per Job Ste 3-Cost per Service Unit Cost per ,. Multi-Use Trails $5,000 X 0.0004 = $1.98 per Person X 0.00O2 = $1.ZZ per Job Source.City of Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. (11 The total value for the Cityof Apache Junction multi-use trails is calculated based on the Cost per Acre of$5,000 provided bythe City of Apache Junction,Parks and Recreation Dept. 12]The Cityof Apache Junction measures its inventory of multi-use trails in acres to adjust for trails of varying widths. Excluded Costs Development fees in Apache Junction exclude costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage, and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. Current Use and Available Capacity The current Parks and Recreational Facilities discussed above are fully utilized and there is no available capacity for future development. Tcschlerf3ise 24 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ARS 9-463.05 (E)(4) requires: "A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial." The following table displays the residential and nonresidential factors used to establish a ratio of service unit to land uses. Figure 19: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit Development7— Residential per HousingLand Use Persons Single Unit 1.73 Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21 2+Units 1.39 ]1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions DevelopmentNonresidential Jobs per Land Use 1,00OSquare Feet 121 Commercial 1 2.00 Office/I nstitutiona I 3.32 Industrial/Flex 1 2.31 [2) Institute of Transportation Engineers.(2012).Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ARS 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: "A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: "The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria." 25 TWhle-8ise Development fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona AIRS 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: "The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years." Growth projections for the City of Apache Junction suggest the City will add 5,811 new residents, and 3,180 new jobs, in the next ten years. In order to maintain current levels of service for developed parkland, park improvements, recreational facilities, and multi-use trails the City will need to make incremental investments. Shown in Figure 20 below are the acres and units needed to maintain current levels of service, and the total investment necessary for each Parks and Recreational Facilities component. Figure 20: Projected Demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities° Parks Improvements Rec.Facilities Multi-Use - Service Unit (a (u (sq.I Trails(acresp FRes L Person 0.0023 0.0023 01953 0.0004 Nonr,,OL'7os Job 0.0014 0.0014 0.1197 0.0002 Average Cost per Component •l ��� r• ��� Projected Demand Projected Service Units Parks Improvements Rec. Facilities Multi-Use Persons Jobs acres units (sq.ft. Trails acres Ba se 2013 37,300 9,093 98 99 8,375 17 1 2014 37,676 9,369 99 100 8,481 17 2 2015 38,094 9,655 101 102 8,597 17 3 2016 38,554 9,949 102 103 8,722 18 4 2017 39,059 10,252 104 105 8,857 18 5 2018 39,609 10,563 105 106 9,002 18 6 2019 40,206 10,886 107 108 9,157 19 7 2020 40,853 11,217 109 110 9,323 19 8 2021 41,552 11,558 111 112 9,501 19 9 2022 42,303 11,911 113 115 9,690 20 10 2023 43,111 12,273 116 117 9,891 20 Ten Yr Total S 811 3,180 18 18 1516 3 Cost of Parkland $4,611,921 Cost of Park Improvements $1,592,727 Cost of Recreational Facilities $312,273 Cost of Multi-Use Trails $15,385 The projected demand results are shown as rounded figures. However,the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis.) T- lerB� 26 Development Fee Study:Infrostructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Parks and Recreational Facilities Improvements Plan Lastly, identified below is an incremental plan for necessary Parks and Recreational Facilities improvements and expansions identified by City of Apache !unction as qualified for development fee revenue. As demand is generated for identified Parks and Recreational Facilities improvements, investments from this list will be made. Figure 21: Necessary Parks and Recreational Facilities Expansions Park and Facilities Improvements Planned Investments ProspectorPark 000 Parkland Demolition and Site Preparation $1,000,000 Landscape $33,000 Pavement,Curbs $300,000 Pavement,Curbs,Gutters,Walks $792,000 Improvements Restroom Building $200,000 Site Amenities - Improvements $1,610,000 Sheep Drive t Parkland Pavement,Curbs $450,000 Improvements Site Amenities -Improvements $400,000 Multi-Use Trails Mulit-Use Trails $33,7S0 9 Parkland I rri ga ti on $228,800 Demolition and Site preparation $724,277 Electrical $17S,000 Electrical Systems $597,500 Landscape $206,707 Pavement,Curbs $712,075 Pavement,Curbs,Gutters,Walks $554,535 Utilities $S67,600 Improvements Restroom Building $600,000 Site Amenities -Improvements $1,389,100 ShadowsiSuperstition r0r Parkland Pavement,Curbs $55,000 Improvements Site Amenities -Improvements $386,000 Rec Swim Center 111 Improvements Site Amenities -Improvements $2,218,000 Recreational Facility Facility $250,000 ,Grand Total Source:City of Apache!unction, Parks and Recreation Department T�lerf3ss� 27 Development Fee Study.Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed development fees for Parks and Recreational Facilities are shown in Figure 22. The development fees are calculated by multiplying the Persons per Housing Unit factors by the net capital cost per person for residential development, and the Jobs per Square Foot factors by the net capital cost per job for nonresidential development. Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study Included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities per service unit cost is the cost to prepare the IIP and Development Fee Study. See Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services for the detailed calculations. Revenue Credit Included in the maximum supportable development fee is a Revenue Credit of 0 percent.The unadjusted Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees per development unit would not generate more revenue over the next ten years, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, than the identified growth-related necessary expenditures of $6,551,630 (necessary incremental expansions, plus the IIP and Development Fee Study cost).To ensure that no more fee revenue is collected than the City plans to spend, the potential gross cost per service unit is reduced by the revenue credit to calculate the net capital cost per service unit. Based on the gross capital costs per service unit, the projected development fee revenue would equal $6,006,812. See Figure 22 and Figure 23 for additional detail. Therefore, no revenue credit adjustment is necessary for the Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees. Ttscfiier ise 28 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 22: Maximum Supportable Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service and infrastructure Casts Per Person Parkland Cost Developed Parks $594.31 Park Improvements Cost Developed Parks $204.32 Recreation Facility Cost $4D.24 Multi-Use Trails Cost $1.98 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost: $7.29 GROSS CAPITAL COST $848.13 Revenue Credit 0% $000 NET CAPITAL COST $848-13 Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Housing Unit Persons per Cast per Development Fee Increase Unit Type Housina Unit 1 I Person Pmpased I Current 121 I'Decrease, Single Unit 1.73 X $848.13 - $1,466 $1,801 ($335) Single Unit-Manufactured 1.21 X $848.13 = $1,027 $1,429 ($402) 2+Unit 1.39 X $848.13 = $1,1741 $1,555 ($381) [11 Development Fee Land Use Assumptions 121 Current Fee established in 2012 Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service and Infrastructure Casts Perlab Parkland Cost Developed Parks $364-28 Park Improvements Cost Oeveloped Parks $125.24 Recreation Facility Cost $24.67 Multi-Use Trails Cost $1.22 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost: $1.71 GROSS CAPITAL COST $517.12 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $517.12 Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Schedule Cast per Develapment Fee Increase Nonresidential LtUselobs 13] jab Proposed Current 14] (OecreaseJ err Commercial 2.O0 X $517.12 = $1.03 $0.00 51.03 Dffice 3.32 X $517.12 = $1,71 $0.00 $1.71 Industrial 2.31 X $517.12 - $1.19 $0.00 $1.19 131 Trip Generation Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition 12012). [41 Cityof Apache Junction does not currently assess Parks and Recreational Facilities development tees on nonresidential development. TwhletQuise 29 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona FORECAST OF RsVcmuc5 Appendix B — Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees contains a forecast of revenues other than development fees required by Arizona's enabling legislation. � Parks and Recreational Facilities Cash Flow The cash flow shown in Figure 23 assumes implementation of the maximum supportable Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees and that development over the next ten years is consistent with the approved Land Use Assumptions described in Appendix C. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or dovvx down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure 23:Parks and Recreational Facilities Cash Flow Summary Ten-Yeor Growth-Related Costs for Parks and Recreational Facilities Parkland $4,611,921 Park Improvements $1,592,727 Recreation Facility $312,273 Multi-Use Trails $15,385 TOTAL $6,SS1,630 Year Housing Units Added 5quare Feet Added fl,000) u°,p 2013 Year 2014 Yea'z zuzs Yea ry znzo Yea ro 2017 Yea,s 2018 Yea,o zoz* Yea,/ zozn Yea ro 2021 Yea,e znzz ,earzn unxa ron'r,/novme 3.134 znz 355 671 105 Projected Fees (nnwnoeo)~" g4'039./26 $329,894 $365,650 $1.146.764 $124,778 Total Projected Revenues $6,006.812 cumu|auvpmetsu,p|u,/(oen,.t) ($544'818) [z} Fee shown h,,sing|eUnits represents o weighted average p,the Single on/tand s/no/e Unit Manufactured fees K"��&�' z� oo�w°«oo����xe so Development Fee Study:Infrastructure improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona OVERVIEW ARS 9-463.05(T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Police Facilities IIP as: "Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training police and firefighters from more than one station or substation." The Police Facilities IIP includes components for vehicles, communications equipment, and the cost of preparing the Police Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study. Incremental expansion is used to calculate the vehicles, and communications equipment elements of the Police Facilities IIP. SERVICE AREA The City of Apache Junction plans to provide a uniform level of service and equal service for Police Facilities throughout the City. As described in Apache Junction's 2010 General Plan Update, "the Apache Junction Police Department (AJPD) is a full service public safety agency, primarily carrying out police services within the jurisdiction of the City of Apache Junction."As a result,the service area for the Police IIP is citywide. Once development of Lost Dutchman Heights begins in earnest, it may become necessary to establish separate service areas for Police Facilities development fees. However,for the purposes of this five-year study window the City of Apache Junction is considered a single service area. PROPORTIONATE SHARE Functional Population AIRS 9-463.05 (13)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. The Police IIP and development fees use a functional population concept to calculate a proportionate share in order to allocate the demand between residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is calculated based on characteristics of the residential population and workers in the City of Apache Junction. Place of residence and place of work data were analyzed to determine demand by type of land use using "person-hours." See Figure 24 below for the calculations. For residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non- working residents plus the non-working hours of resident workers. The portion of the population not working is estimated at 23,809 in 2010. (This is calculated by subtracting the Longitudinal Employer- Household Dynamics (LEND) web-based application OnTheMap estimate of employed residents of the City (12,031) from the 2010 decennial census population in 2010 (35,840)). For these residents, the full day (or 24 hours) is allocated to residential demand. According to the 2010 Census, workers who live in Apache Junction total 12,031. (Of the 12,031 employed residents, the U.S. Census estimates that 1,236 work in Apache Junction and 10,795 work outside the City.) For workers living in the City, two-thirds of the day (or 16 hours) is allocated to residential demand. Time spent at work (8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. 31 Tisch IPrBUrse Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache!unction,Arizona For nonresidential development, 8 hours per person is estimated for each worker. For the 1,236 estimated City residents working in Apache Junction and the 7,325 non-resident workers (estimated based on the number of jobs in the City minus resident workers), 8 hours of demand per day is allocated. Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation is 92 percent for residential development (763,912 person hours of residential demand out of a total 832,400 person hours) and 8 percent for nonresidential development (68,488 person hours of nonresidential demand out of a total 832,400 person hours). Shown in Figure 24 is the functional population calculation to assign demand hours per day by type of resident and worker in City of Apache Junction, Figure 24: Police Functional Population Proportionate Share Demand Person Proporti Land Use Demand Units in 2010 Hours/Day Hours •• Estimated Residents 35,840 Residents Not Working 23,809 24 571,416 workers Living in City 12,031 City Residents Working in Apache Junction 1,236 16 19,776 City Residents Working outside of City 10,795 16 172,720 Residential Subtotal 763,912 92% Nonresidential Jobs Located in City 8,561 City Residents working in City 1,236 8 9,888 Non-Resident Workers 7,325 8 58,600 Nonresidential Subtotal 68,488 8% TOTAL 832,400 100% Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2010 Decennial Census;U.S.Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.1.1Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics Tw 11�1 32 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Service units The Police Facilities costs are allocated to both residential and nonresidential development based on an analysis of incident by land use data (calls for service). For residential development, Police Facilities development fees are calculated on a per capita basis, and then converted to an appropriate amount by type of housing unit, based on persons per housing unit factors. For nonresidential development fees, TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for Police Facilities. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial/flex development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for Police services from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees would be too high for office and institutional development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. if floor area were used as the demand indicator Police development fees would be too high for industrial development. For more information regarding the calculation of nonresidential vehicle trips see the Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit section of this chapter. Police Calls for Service The proportionate share factors described above were applied to the 40,067 calls for service answered by the AJPD in calendar year 2012 to derive CFS per capita and CFS per nonresidential vehicle trip. See Figure 25 for more detail. Figure 25: Police Calls for Service by Land Use Step 1-Calls for Service by Land Use Proportiora te Calls for Calls per Land Use Sha re Service Ill Lard Use Residential 925% x 40,067 = 36,812 Nonresidentia! 8% x = 3,205 Step 2-Level of Service Calls per f Level of Service Lard Use Service Units Level of Service upit Calls per Resident 36,862 - 37,300 = 0.9882 per Person Calls per Nonresidential Vehicle Trip [21 3,205 - 27,000 = 0.1187 per Vehicle Trip [11 City of Apache!unction Police Department;Coils far service far calendar year 2012 [2]Nonresidential Vehicle Trips shown in rounded numbers T1.x.+1jC1 L7�. 33 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona IIP FOR POLICE FACILITIES For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, ARS 9-463.05(E) requires the IIP to include seven elements. The sections below detail each of these elements. (A forecast of new revenues generated by sources other than development fees can be found in Appendix B— Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees.) ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE,AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: "A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05 (E)(2) requires: "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." The necessary public services included in the Police Facilities IIP are vehicles, and communications equipment. T �C1 UM 34 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizano Vehicles The City plans to maintain the current LOS for Police vehicles; thus the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component of the Police 11P. The City currently has 50 vehicles serving 37,300 persons and 27,000 nonresidential vehicle trips (rounded). Based on the current inventory, the proportionate share factors, and existing development, the steps to calculate the cost of Police vehicles per residential and nonresidential service units are shown in Figure 26. Figure 26: Incremental Expansion—Vehicles Step 1-Cost per Component Tota I Cost per Marked Patrol Vehicles $1,040,349 22 mmm$47,289 Unmarked Patrol Vehicles $531,532 18 $29,530 Detention Vans $92,262 2 $46,131 Vans(Victims 5vc&Comm) $70,632 2 $35,316 Motorcycles $128,734 4 $32,184 Mobile Command Van $319,882 1 $319,882 SWAT Van L $373,1961 1 1 $373,19fi TOTALS $2,5S6,587 _ 50 = $S1,132 Step 2-Level of Service Leve I of 5e rvi ce U n i ts Sh a re service Units Level of Se rvi ce Unit Vehicles per Resident 50 x 92% - 31,30U = 0.0012 per Person Vehicles per Nonresidential Vehicle Trip [21 50 X 8% - 27,nnn - 0.0001 per Vehicle Trip Step 3-Cost per Service Unit ComponentCostper ComponentFee Police Vehicles -Residential $51,132 X 0.0012 $63.06 per Person Police Vehicles -Nonresidential $51,132 X 0.0001 = $7.S8 per Vehicle Trip Source:City of Apache Junction [1]Total Value in 2007,provided by The Cityof Apache Junction Police adjusted for inflation using 2007 and Feb 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics,CPI Index [2) Nonresidential Vehicle Trips shown in rounded numbers T=hler Lai ise 35 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache!unction,Arizona Communications Equipment The City plans to maintain the current LOS for Police communications equipment; thus the incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this component of the Police IIP. The City currently has 170 units of Police communications equipment serving 37,300 persons and 27,000 nonresidential vehicle trips (rounded). Based on the current inventory, the proportionate share factors, and existing development, the steps to calculate the cost of Police communications equipment per residential and nonresidential service units are shown in Figure 27. Figure 27: Incremental Expansion—Communications Equipment step 1-Cost per Component Tot-I Costper Portable Radios I $S72,0001 104 Mobile Radios $335,296 62 Oispatch consoles $60,000 4 LEM TOTALS $967,296 - 170 = $5,690 Source:City of Apache!unction Step 2-Level of Service Proporticra te 2013 Level of Se rv!ce Units 5ha re Service Units Le ve I of Se rvi ce Unit comm.EquipmentperResident 170 X 92% - 37,300 - 0.0042 per Person Comm.Equip.per Nonres.Vehicle Trip(11 170 X 8% - 27,000 = 0.0005 per Vehicle Trip Step 3-Cost per Service Unit ComponentCost per Component Service Fee P01ice Comm.Equip.-Residential $5,690 X 0.0042 = $23.86 per Person Police Comm.Equip.-Nonresidential $5,690 X 0.0005 = $2.87 per Vehicle Trip [11 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips shown in rounded numbers Excluded Costs Development fees in Apache Junction exclude costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage, and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulator standards. Current Use and Available Capacity The current Police Facilities discussed above are fully utilized and there is no available capacity for future development. Tischlemlfiiise 36 Development Fee Study:infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache!unction,Arizona RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ARS 9-463.05 (E)(4) requires: "A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential,commercial and industriol." Figure 28 displays the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses for residential and nonresidential development. The residential development table displays the persons per housing unit factors for single unit structures and multi-unit structures. For nonresidential development fees, TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for Police Facilities. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial/flex development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for Police services from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees would be too high for office and institutional development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. If floor area were used as the demand indicator Police development fees would be too high for industrial development. Vehicle trips are estimated using average weekday vehicle trip ends from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 9`h Edition, 2012). A Vehicle Trip End represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicate that 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, for a commercial trip adjustment factor of 33 percent. These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use. 37 TwhIerbise Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 28: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Units to Land Use Residential Development Land Use Persons per Housing Unit[11 Single Unit 1.73 Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21 2+Units 1.39 [1) Development Fee Land Use Assumptions DevelopmentNonresidential Land Use Ends [21 Adjustment[31 Vehicle Trips Commercial 42.70 1 33% 14.09 Office/Institutional 11.03 50% 5.52 Industrial/flex 6.97 50% 3.49 (1)Development Fee Land Use Assumptions (2]Institute of Transportation Engineers.(2012).Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition [3]On an average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Commercial (including Retail) include a 34% pass-by adjustment to reflect 66%of trips are PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ARS 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: "A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their casts necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the casts of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: "The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria." ARS 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: "The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years." Twh1 BM" 38 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Growth projections, discussed in the Development Fee Land Use Assumptions, for the City of Apache Junction suggest the City will add 5,811 residents in the next ten years. Growth is projected to generate an additional 9,066 nonresidential vehicle trips. In order to maintain current levels of service for the Police Facilities the AJPD will need to add 9 vehicles and 29 units of communications equipment. These demands have an estimated cost of$625,198. See Figure 29 below for additional details. Figure 29: Projected Demand for Police Facilities Vehicles Comm.Equip. Service Unit (units) (units) ResLOS Person 0.0012 0.0042 NonresLOS Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 0.0001 0.0005 Average Cost per Unit •'i Projected Service Units Vehicles Comm.Equip. Persons Nonres.Vehicle (units) (units) Base 2013 37,300 27,000 SO 170 1 2014 37,676 27,789 S1 172 2 2015 38,094 28,610 S1 174 3 2016 38,554 29,450 S2 176 4 2017 39,059 30,316 S3 179 S 2018 39,609 31,200 S3 182 6 2019 40,206 32,120 54 18S 7 2020 40,853 33,073 55 188 8 2021 41,552 34,036 56 191 9 2022 42,303 35,038 S7 19S 10 2023 1 43,111 1 36,066 1 S9 199 Ten Yr Total 5,811 9,066 9 29 Cost of Police Vehicles $460,188 Cost of Communications Equipment $165,010 f TtSr�1��tSE' 39 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizono Yr Y Police Facilities Improvements Plan Lastly, identified below is the 10-year plan for necessary Police Facilities improvements and expansions identified by City of Apache Junction as qualified for development fee revenue. As demand is generated for identified Police Facilities improvements, investments identified below will be made. Figure 30: Necessary Police Facilities Expansions Necessary Public Service Division Units Total Vehicles Patrol 3 $116,000 Crime Scene Investigations 1 $51,000 Incremental Expansion 5 $268,107 Mobile Communications Equipment Patrol 10 $68,000 Telecommunications 8 $52,000 Stationary Communications System Patrol 2 $1,500 Telecommunications 2 $40,000 Crime Scene Investigations 1 $85,000 Dispatch Console Telecommunications 1 $115,000 TOTAL $796,607 Source:City of Apache Junction Police Oepartment 40 TrschlerB Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apoche Junction,Arizona MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed development fees for Police Facilities are shown in Figure 31. The development fees are calculated by multiplying the Persons per Housing Unit factors by the net capital cost per person for residential development, and the Vehicle Trips per Squore Foot factors by the net capital cost per nonresidential vehicle trip for nonresidential development. Police Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study Included in the Police Facilities per service unit cost is the cost to prepare the IIP and Development Fee Study. See Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services for the detailed calculations. Revenue Credit Included in the maximum supportable development fee is a Revenue Credit of 0 percent.The unadjusted Police Facilities development fees per development unit would not generate more revenue over the next ten years, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, than the identified growth-related necessary expenditures of$641,352 (necessary incremental expansions, plus the IIP and Development Fee Study cost). To ensure that no more fee revenue is collected than the City plans to spend, the potential gross cost per service unit is reduced by the revenue credit to calculate the net capital cost per service unit. Based on the gross capital costs per service unit, the projected development fee revenue would equal $570,268. See Figure 31 and Figure 32 for additional detail. Therefore, no revenue credit adjustment is necessary for the Police Facilities development fees. 41 TwhIerE3ise Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 31: Maximum Supportable Police Facilities Development Fees Police Facilities Residential Level Of Service and Capitol Costs Per Person Vehicle Costs $63.06 Communications Equipment Costs $23.86 1113 and Oevelopment Fee Study Cost $6.44 GROSS CAPITAL COST $93.36 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $93.36 Police Facilities Residential Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Housing Unit Persons per Cost per Development Fee Increase Unit Type Housing Unit[11 Person sed Current 2 Decrease Single Unit 1.73 X $93.36 = $161 $294 ($133) Single Unit-Manufactured 1.21 X $93.36 = $113 $234 ($121) 2+Unit 1.39 X $93.36 = $129 $254 (5125) Police Facilities Nonresidential Level Of Service and Capital Casts Per Nonres Trip Vehicle Costs $7.58 Communications Equipment Costs $2-87 III)and Development Fee Study Cost $0.31 GROSS CAPITAL COST $10.76 Revenue Credit 0% $0.00 NET CAPITAL COST $10.76 Police Facilities Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Development Fee per Housing Unit cost per Development Fee increase Nonresidential Land Use Vehicle Tri s 2 Nonres Triped current 2 Decrease irr Commercial 14.09 X $10.76 = $0.15 $1.80 ($1.65) Office 5.52 X $10.76 = $0.05 $0.68 ($0.63) Industrial 3.49 X $10.76 = $0.03 $0.27 ($0.24} (1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions (2]Current Fee established in 2012 Twhieffl ise 42 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B - Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees contains a forecast of revenues other than development fees required by Arizona's enabling legislation. Police Facilities Cash Flow The cash flow shown in Figure 32 assumes implementation of the maximum supportable Police Facilities development fees and that development over the next ten years is consistent with the approved Land Use Assumptions described in Appendix C. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure 32:Police Facilities Cash Flow Summary Ten-Year Growth-Related Costs for Police Facilities Vehicles $ 460,188 Communications Equipment $ 16S,010 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost $ 16,1S4 TOTAL S 641,352 ®®® Indus trial Year +++ Base 2013 21,199 1,904 1,117 1,823 348 Year 1 2014 21,402 1,922 1,148 1,881 357 Yea r2 201S 21,628 1,942 1,180 1,941 367 Year 3 2016 21,875 1,965 1,213 2,003 377 Year4 2017 22,148 1,989 1,247 2,067 386 Yea rS 2018 22,444 2,016 1,282 2,132 397 Year 6 2019 22,766 2,04S 1,318 2,200 408 Year 2020 23,11S 2,076 1,3SS 2,270 419 Year 2021 23,492 2,110 1,393 2,342 429 Year 9 2022 23,897 2,146 1,432 2,417 441 Year10 2023 24,333 2,18S 1,472 2,494 453 Ten-Yr Increase 3,134 281 355 671 10S Projected Fees (Rounded)=> $444,092 $36,249 $53,2S0 $33,S31 $3,146 Total Projected Revenues $570,268 Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit) ($71,084) [11 Fee for Single Units shown represents a weighted average of the Single Unit and Single Unit-Manufactured fees. T�dtlerBssc: 43 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Tts�let8is►e 44 Development Fee Study:infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona i1111T-4 a M I , OVERVIEW ARS 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Street Facilities IIP as: "Street facilities located in the service area, including arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted plan of the municipality, traffic signals and rights-of-way and improvements thereon." The Street Facilities IIP includes components for street improvements and the cost of preparing the Street Facilities IIP and development fees. The cost recovery/buy- in methodology is used to calculate the minor arterial component; and an incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the collectors and signalized intersections components of the Street Facilities IIP. SERVICE AREA ARS 9-463.05(T)(9) defines "service area" as follows: "any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan. " The City of Apache Junction plans to provide a uniform level of service for Street facilities throughout the City. As described in Apache Junction's 2010 General Plan Update, the City of Apache Junction ensures, "vital transportation and circulation infrastructure will be available to support easy access to jobs, schools, recreation, and regional travel." A May 2012 Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study conducted by Jacobs cataloged existing streets in Apache Junction, and found City of Apache Junction roadways operate at a level of service (LOS) at or above LOS C (except for a section of Apache Trail on which there exist intentional traffic calming design features). The current inventory of City of Apache Junction roadways has capacity to absorb additional vehicle miles traveled. In the next five years, the City expects development of the southern portion of the City, between Baseline Avenue and the incorporated municipal boundary, to develop as part of a master planned development: Lost Dutchman Heights. It will be necessary for City of Apache Junction to improve the City roadways to maintain circulation within the City. Once development of Lost Dutchman Heights begins in earnest, it may become necessary to establish separate service areas for Street Facilities development fees. However, for the purposes of this five-year study window the City of Apache Junction is considered a single service area, shown as within the "Study Area" indicated in Figure 33 below. Ttschler8i�e 45 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache]unction,Arizona Figure 33:Street Facilities Service Area Map AGURE 2.19:AVERAGE DAKY LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS ' I► 8� a .c.�.!D..ra n.�r•.6...t f -r. a� � Q• . I rr .�9 y►i L � a t I ! Swtl•..n A., I MPD: Portalls �� a...D �.✓ cOS a iL15 n CC..My >is-•t JACOBS +eo• Source:Jacob.(2012)Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. T�schler�isc 46 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona PROPORTIONATE SHARE ARS 9-463.05 (13)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors are used to determine the proportionate impact of residential,commercial,office, and industrial land uses on the City's roadways. I I P FOR STREET FACILITIES For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, ARS 9-463.05(E) requires the IIP to include seven elements. The sections below detail each of these seven elements for the Street Facilities IIP. (A forecast of new revenues generated by sources other than development fees can be found in Appendix B—Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees.) ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY,USAGE,AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS 9-463.05 (E)(1) requires: "A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." T<.71r1 i1� 47 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apoche Junction,Arizona Current Inventory The City of Apache Junction has a total Street facilities inventory of 143.79 miles, made up of 106.49 miles of minor arterial streets and 37.30 miles of collector streets, all of which operate with a level of service at or above C, as reported by the 2012 Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. There are 18 signalized intersections maintained by the City of Apache Junction Department of Public Works. Figure 34:City-Maintained Street Facilities Inventory Road Miles Lanes Lane Miles Road Miles Lanes Lane Mile5 Lost Dutchman Blvd 4.00 2 8.00 Meridian Dr. 2.10 2 4.20 Superstition Blvd 5.60 2-4 15.40 Delaware Or 2.50 2-4 5.90 Broadway Ave 4.50 2-3 13.00 McKellips Blvd 3.50 2 7.00 Southern Ave 3.08 2-4 9.54 Ironwood Or 1.00 2 2.00 Baseline Ave 4.20 2-3 8.60 Idaho Rd 1.10 2 2.20 Mendian Or 3.00 2-4 6.75 Tomahawk Rd 0.60 2 1 1.20 Ironwood Or 5.90 2-4 21.60 16th Ave 2.50 2 4 8.60 Idaho Rd 1.80 2-4 4.50 San Marcos Dr. 1.00 4 4.00 Tomahawk Rd 4.00 2-4 9.30 Phelps Or, 0.50 2-3 1.20 Goldfield Rd 4.00 2-4 9.80 Royal Palm Rd. 1.00 1 1.00 Mountain View Rd 3.40 2 5.BO TOTAL 106A9 TOTAL 37.30 Signalized Intersections Count GtyMaintained 18 Source:City of Apache Junction; Dept. of Public Works Source:Jacob.(2012)Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. The steps to calculate a current level of service for the City of Apache Junction Street facilities involve calibrating existing development to the arterial and collector street networks. To do so, development units by type are multiplied by adjusted vehicle trip ends per development unit. The factors used to calculate the current levels of service, expressed in Vehicle Miles of Travel (a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile), are discussed below, and shown in the Current Level of Service section after the discussion. Tts�ler8i� 48 Development fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Trip Generation Rates Street Facilities development fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends, adjusted for commuting patterns and pass-by trips and weighted by trip length. Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 9" Edition, 2012). A Vehicle Trip End represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate Street Facilities development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed further below, the development fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Residential Vehicle Trip Ends As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis(i.e., vehicles available, housing units, households, and persons) are available from the 2011 ACS Estimates for Apache Junction. These data were used to derive custom average weekday vehicle trip ends by type of housing. As shown in Figure 35, custom residential trip ends per housing unit in Apache Junction are 5.60 for single residential units, and 4.40 for multifamily units, each of which are lower than the national average of 9.52 and 6.65 respectively. (Note: Housing unit estimates from the ACS will not equal decennial census counts of units, nor the land use assumptions. These data are used to derive the custom average trip ends by type of housing unit, as shown below.) Figure 35:Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type City of Apache Junction,AZ Households 121 Vehicles per Vehicles Units Household Available[2] Single Family Multifamily Total by Tenure A B c D=B+C E=A/D Owner-occupied 18,863 11,363 156 11,519 1-64 Renter-occupied 3,666 1,957 1,042 2,999 1.22 TOTAL 22,529 13,320 1,198 14,518 1.55 Housing Units [3]=>F18,248 1,597 19,64S Persons perHousingUnit-> 1.73 1.39 [1]Vehices available by tenure from Table 825046,American Community Survey,2011. 12)Households bytenure and units in structure from Table B25032, American Community Survey,2011. 131 Housing units from Table B25024,American Community Survey,2011. Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average Trip Ends per ITE Trip Ends Difference Households Ends Type ofHousing Ends Trip Ends Housing per From F-Owner{B•E)+ G=Avg of Unit unit ITE 14) [51 Renter IVE) 161 [51,[61 H=G/[31 17) Single Family Units 31,SSS 81,723 21,000 121,320 101,521 5.6o 9.52 -3.92 Multifamily Units 2,212 7,611 1,529 6,319 6,965 4.40 6.65 -2.25 TOTAL 33,770 99,334 22,529 127,638 L 109,496 S.50 [4]Total population in households from Table 25033,American Community Survey,2011. [51 Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). Forsingle familyhousing[ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(091•LN(persons)+1.52). To approximate the average population of the ITE studies,persons were divided by 57 and the equation result multiplied by 57. For multifamiiyhousing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.47•persons)•64.48. [6lVehicle trip ends based on vehicles available usingformuias from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). Forsingle familyhousing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99`LN(vehicles)+1.81i. To approximate the average number of vehicles in the iTE studies,vehicles available were divided by77and the equation result multiplied by 77. For multifamiiyhousing(ITE 2201,the fitted curve equation is(3.94•vehicles)+293.59. [71TrioGeneration Instituteof Transportation Engineers,9th Edition(2012). T��C1 L7� 49 Development Fee Study:infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Nonresidential Vehicle Trip Ends Vehicle trip ends for nonresidential development are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 9t" Edition, 2012). The shaded categories in Figure 36 represent the proxy categories used to determine existing and projected trips from nonresidential development in the City of Apache Junction. Figure 36:The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Nonresidential Trip Ends,2012 ITE Land Use/Size Demand Weekday Trip Ends per Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Demand Unit* Employee* Dmd Unit** Per Emp Commercial/Shopping Center S20 Aver a 11,000 Sq Ft 42.70 na 2.00 500 General Office F710 Aver 1,000 Sq Ft 21.03 3.32 3.32 3OT71 Other Nonresidential 770 Business Park*** 1,000 Scl Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 76D Research &Dev Center 1,000 Scl Ft 8.11 2.77 2.93 342 610 Hospital 1,000 S Ft 13.22 4.50 2.94 340 565 Day Care student 4.38 26.73 0.16 na 550 University/College student 1.71 8.96 0.19 na 530 High School student 1.71 19.74 0.09 na 520 Elementary School student 1.29 15.71 0.08 na 520 Elementary School 1,000 5q Ft 15.43 15.71 0.98 1,018 320 Lodging room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na 254 lAssisted Living bed 1 2.66 3.93 0.68 na 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 Scl Ft I 2.50 61.90 0.04 24,760 150 Warehousing 1,000 Scl Ftl 3.56 3.89 0.92 1,093 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Scl Ftl 3.82 2.13 1.79 558 110 ILight Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 1 6.97 3.02 2.31 433 ' Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition(2012). ** Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates,except for 5hopping Center data,which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers,published by the Urban Land institute. TmchkCI Law 50 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Adjustment for Jou rn ey-To-Work Commuting Residential development in the City of Apache Junction has a trip adjustment factor of 64 percent to account for commuters leaving Apache Junction for work. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2011), home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of"production" trips, in other words,out- bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). The LED OnTheMap data from 2010 indicates that 90 percent of Apache Junction's employed residents travel outside the City for work. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.90 = 0.14) account for 14 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50% of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (14%of production trips)for a total of 64 percent. Figure 37:Adjustment for Journey-to-Work Commuting Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters[1] Employed Residents 12,031 Residents Working in City 1,236 Residents Commuting 0utsi de City for Work 10,795 Percent Commuting out of the City 90% Additional Production Trips [2) 14% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 64% [11 U.S.Census Bureau,2010 OnTheMap Application(version 6.1.1[a nd LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (21 Outbound trip statistics from National Household Travel Survey,2009:Table 30 Adjustment for Pass-Sy Trips For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicate that 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 33 percent of the trip ends (see the Current Level of Service section). These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use. Trip Length Weighting Factor by Type of Land Use The Street Facilities calculation methodology includes a percentage adjustment, or weighting factor, to account for trip length variation by type of land use. As documented in Table 6 of the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, vehicle trips from residential development are approximately 121 percent of the average trip length. The residential trip length adjustment factor includes data on home-base work trips, social, and recreational purposes. Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial development are roughly 66 percent of the average trip length while other nonresidential development typically accounts for trips that are 73 percent of the average for all trips. TISMIX34fflise S1 Development Fee Study.infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Lane Capacity In August 2006, Pinal County released the Pinal County Small Area Transportation Study Final Report. Recommendations made in the report sought to prepare the County's roadways for the forecasted population growth of an additional 250,000 over the course of 20 years. The study examined roadways within the County and established daily per-lane capacities for each classification of roadway. Daily per- lane capacities of roadways in Pinal County were established to be 8,700 for minor arterials and 7,500 for collectors. This equates to a weighted average capacity for the Apache Junction Street facilities of 8,400. Figure 38: Daily Per-Lane Capacity Classification Miles 11] .. Minor Arterial 106.49 8,700 Collector 37.30 7,500 Minor Arterial &Collector 143.79 8,400 f11 City of Apache Junction, Dept.of Public Works f11 Pinai CountyTransportotion Plan,1000 Update 'Weighted Average Formula 10fi.49 X 8,700 37.30 X 7,500 = 8,400 143.79 14379 Rounded Current Level of Service Shown below are a series of figures demonstrating the calibration of existing development to the current inventory of City minor arterials, collectors, and signalized intersections. It is necessary to calculate each separately in order to then calculate the cost per service unit for each component. Tischlerg� 52 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona MinorArterial Figure 39 shows the calibration of existing development to the current City minor arterial street network. Knowing the current lane mile inventory of 106.49, and the daily per-lane capacity (8,700) of the street network,TischlerBise, using a series of spreadsheet iterations,determined the common factor necessary to evenly distribute the vehicle miles of travel on the existing minor arterial network to be a weighted-average trip length of 7.92 miles (rounded). As shown in Figure 39 below, existing development within Apache Junction attracted an estimated 926,463 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) to minor arterials in 2013, based on the trip generation, trip adjustment, trip length factor and other assumptions shown. A VMT is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length'. Therefore, the current infrastructure standard is 1.15 lane miles per 10,000 VMT (i.e., 106,49 lane miles divided by 926,463 VMT expressed in ten-thousands). Figure 39:Existing Level of Service-City Minor Arterials Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Existing Development Single Unit 21,199 X 5.60 X 64% = 75,977 Multi-Unit 1,904 X 4,40 x 64% = 5,362 Commercial KSF 1,117 X 42.70 X 33% = 15,733 Office KSF 1,823 X 11.01 X 50% = MOSS Industrial KSF 348 X 6.97 x So% = 1,213 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development Tynv Trips Length[41 Weighting Factor[51 of Travel RESI D�ve 10 P M e r t Ve h i c I e Avg,Th a Trip tcnEth Vehicle miles Single unit 75,977 x 7.92 X 121% = 727,768 Multi-Unit 5,362 X 7.92 X 121% = 51,360 • • Step 3-Even Distribution Commercial KSF 15,733 x 7.92 x 66% = 92,202 of VMT on Existing Arterial Network Dffice NSF 10,055 x 7.92 X 73% = 58,106 industrial KSF 1.213 x 7.92 x 73% = 7,007 TOTALVehicle Miles of Travel 926,463 106.49 xi 8,700 Step 4-Level of Service I Vehicle Miles Level of Lane Miles per 10,000 VMT 106.44 — 92.6463 = 1.15 (11 Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. (21 Development Fee Land Use Assumptions [31 Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: Trip Generation,institute of Transportation Engineers,2012. j41 Avg.Trip Length(Rounded),expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel an the existing system (SJ On on average weekday,half clot)trip ends ore inbovnd. Retail and institutional include 34%pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips). The residential odjvstment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City fb)City of Apache Junction,Dept.of ovblic Works 171 Pinal County Transportation Plan,2000 Update s Typical VMT calculations for development-specific traffic studies, along with most transportation models of an entire urban area, are derived from traffic counts on particular road segments multiplied by the length of that road segment. For the purpose of development fees,VMT calculations are based Dn attraction (inbound) trips to development located in the service area,with the trip lengths calibrated to the road network considered to be system improvements. This refinement eliminates pass-through or external trips,and travel on roads that are not system improvements(e.g.interstate highways). T1Ji.i 1� 53 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Collector Figure 40 shows the calibration of existing development to the current City collector street network. Knowing the current lane mile inventory of 37.30, and the daily per-lane capacity (7,500) of the street network,TischlerBise, using a series of spreadsheet iterations, determined the common factor necessary to evenly distribute the vehicle miles of travel on the existing collector network to be a weighted- average trip length of 2.39 miles (rounded). As shown in Figure 40 below, existing development within Apache Junction attracted an estimated 279,757 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) to collectors in 2013, based on the trip generation, trip adjustment, trip length factor and other assumptions shown. A VMT is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length. Therefore, the current infrastructure standard is 1.33 lane miles per 10,000 VMT(i.e.,37.30 lane miles divided by 279,757 VMT expressed in ten-thousands). Figure 40: Existing Level of Service-City Collectors Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Existing Development DevelopmentAvg Wkdy Veh Trip RESIDENTIALType 1i) Unit Dev.Unit 121 Factors 131 Trips Single Unit 21,199 X 5.60 X 64% = 75,977 Multi-Unit 1,904 X 4.40 X 64% = 5,362 • Commercial K5F 1,117 X 42.70 X 33% = 15,733 Office K5F 1,823 X 11.03 X 50% =1 10,055 Industrial KSF 348 X1 6-97 X 50% =1 1,213 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development Development Vehicle Avg Trip Trip Len gth Vehicle Miles Type Tri ps Length[4) Weighting Factor(51 ofTravel ,RE51DENTIAL ISingle Unit 75,977 X 2 39 X 121% = 219.764 Multi-Unit 5,362 X 2.39 X 121% = 15,509 :NONRESIDENTIALStep 3-Even Distribution Commercial KSF 15,733 X 2.39 X 66% = 24,822 of VMT on Existing Arterial Network Office KSF 10,055 X 2.39 X 73% = 17,546 Industrial KSF 1,213 X 2.39 X 73% = 2,116U. TOTALVehicle Miles of Travel 279,757 = 37.30 X 7,500 Step 4-Level of Service Vehicle Miles Level of Level of Service Units of Travel Se rvi ce. Lane Miles per 10,000VMT 37.30 - 27.9757 = 1.33 (1) Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Hames;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. (1)Development Fee Land Use Assumptians [3]Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: Trip Gam,Institute of Transportation Fngineers,2012. (4)Avg, Trip Length(Rounded),expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel an the existing system (S)On an average weekday,holf of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34%poss-by odiustment(i.e.66%ore primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City 1`61 City of Apache Junction,Dept.of public Works (7)pinal County Transportation plan,1000 Update Twhlerfiise 54 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Signalized Intersections Figure 41 shows the calibration of existing development to the current Street facilities network, which includes 18 signalized intersections. Knowing the current lane mile inventory of 143.79, and the daily per-lane capacity (8,400) of the street network, TischlerBise, using a series of spreadsheet iterations, determined the common factor necessary to evenly distribute the vehicle miles of travel on the existing street network to be a weighted-average trip length of 10.32 miles (rounded). As shown in Figure 41 below, existing development within Apache !unction attracted an estimated 1,207,836 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) in 2013, based on the trip generation, trip adjustment, trip length factor and other assumptions shown. A VMT is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length. Therefore, the current infrastructure standard is 1,19 lane miles, and 0.15 signalized intersections per 10,000 VMT (i.e., 18 units divided by 1,207,836 VMT expressed in ten-thousands). Figure 41: Existing Level of Service—Signalized Intersections Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Existing Development Avg WkdyVeh fro p Deve I opment Dev. Trip Ends per Adjustment Vehicle i Type [11 Unit Dev.Unit[21 Factors[31 Trips ,RESIDENTIAL I Single Unit 21,199 X 5.60 X 64% = 75,977 Multi-Unit 1,904 X 4.40 X 64% = 5,362 Commercial KSF 1,117 X 42.70 X 33% = 15,733 Office K5F 1,823 X 11.03 X 50% = 10,055 Industrial KSF 348 X 6.97 X 50% = 1,213 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development Development Vehicle Avg Trip Trip Length Vehicle mile5 Type Trips Length[41 Weighting Factor[51 of Travel Single Unit 75,977 X 10.32 X 121% = 948,822 Multi-Unit 5,3621 X 1D 32 X 121% = 66,958 ,NONRISIDENTIAL Step 3-Even Distribution Commercial KSF 15,733 X 10.32 X 66% = 107,167 of VMT on Existing Arterial Network Office K5F 10,055 X 10.32 X 73% = 75,754 Existing DailyPer- Industrial K5F 1,213 X 10.32 X 73. = 9,135 TOTALVehicle Miles ofTravel 1,207,836 = 143.79 X 8,400 Step 4-Level of Service Lane Miles per 10,000VMT 143.79 - 120,7836 = 1.19 Signalized Intersections p er 10,000VMT 18.00 - 120.7836 - 0.15 fl] Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor area in thousands. (Zl Development Fee Land Use Assumptions 131 Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,2012. (4l Avg.Trip Length,expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel an the existing system (5l On an average weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34%pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of em played residents commuting to jabs outside the City i61 City of Apache Junction,Oept.of Public Works [71 Pinal County Transportation Plan,2000 Update TMhle.rf31se 55 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Cost per Lane Mile Minor Arterials In 2006, the City of Apache Junction executed an intergovernmental agreement between the City and Pinal County concerning shared costs for the reconstruction and redesign of Ironwood Drive within the City limits of Apache Junction. The agreement defined the responsibilities and financial obligations of the City for its proportionate share of the project costs to improve and expand a 2.2-mile segment of the minor arterial Ironwood Drive, between Elliott Avenue and U.S. 60, The complete project involved improvements to the 4.4 miles of existing roadway including new payment, curb and gutters, drainage facilities, sidewalks, street lighting, and a center median, and increasing capacity by adding 4.4 miles. The nominal value of the City`s proportionate share was calculated to be $10,685,714.This equates to a cost per lane mile of$1,214,286. Figure 42:Cost per Lane Mile for Minor Arterial Roadways Cost per Lane Mile Total Project Miles Co5tperLane Classification • . . . _77 Mi nor Arterial IronwoodDr(ElIiottAve.toU.S.60) $10,685,714 - 8.8 = $1,214,286 Source:City of Apache Junction,Finance Department Collectors Included in the 2012 Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study were Street facilities improvements to collectors that would be necessary based on short/medium/long term development projections. A sample of short-term improvements identified in the Study was used to calculate an average cost per lane mile for Collectors. Shown below are four Street facilities improvements. In total, there are 3.76 lane miles of collector improvements with an estimated cost of $2,774,871 in 2013 dollars (i.e, not inflated over time). This equates to an average cost per lane mile of $737,998 per collector. Figure 43:Cost per Lane Mile for Collector Roadways . .I Project Idaho Road(Roundup to Foothill) $1,108,269 16th Ave (Delaware to Cedar) $835,400 16th Ave (Cedar to Meridian) $277,067 16th Ave (Idaho to Winchester) $554,135 Planned Projects $2,774,871 Total Lane Miles Addedl 3.76 Cost per Lane Mile $737,999— I1]City of Apache Junction,Public Works Dept.; Jacobs.(May 2012).Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study. Twh1w6m, 56 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Signalized Intersections The City of Apache Junction's Department of Public Works provided a $350,000 estimate for the City's share of project costs for an average signalized intersection. Excluded Costs Development fees in Apache Junction exclude costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage, and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulator standards. Current Use and Available Capacity According to City staff, the Minor Arterial discussed above has surplus capacity to serve growth; therefore, a cost recovery methodology was used to calculate the growth share of future debt service. Collectors and signalized intersections are utilized based on documented levels of service; therefore, an incremental expansion was used. 57 TWIIIerBisc Development Fee Study:infrastructure improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO LAND USE ARS 9-463.05 (E)(4)requires: "A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each cotegory of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of o service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial." Figure 44, Figure 45, and Figure 46 display the ratios of a service unit to various types Of land uses for residential and nonresidential development. As discussed previously, Street Facilities development fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends, adjusted for commuting patterns and pass-by trips and weighted by trip length. Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 9th Edition, 2012). A Vehicle Trip End represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate Street Facilities development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the Origin and destination points.Therefore,the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed in the previous section, the development fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the demand for different types of Street facilities by particular types of development. Shown below are the Ratios for Minor Arterial roadways, Collector roadways, and Signalized Intersections. Figure 44: Ratio of Service Unit to Land Use -Minor Arterial Roadways Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Net New Development Development De�elopment Units Ill Trip Ends per Adjustment Vehicle 2013 2021 IRESIDENTIAL Single Unit 121,199 24,333 3,134 X 5.60 X 64% = 11,232 Multi-Unit 1,904 2,185 281 x 4.40 x 64% = 791 • - Commercial K5F 1,117 1,472 355 X 42,70 X 33% = 5,002 Office KSF 1,923 2,494 671 X 11.03 X 50% 3,699 Industrial KSF 1 3481 4531 105 X 6.97 X 1 50% = 365 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Net New Develooment Sin le Unit 11,232 x 7.92 X 121% = 107,694 Multi-Unit 791 X 7.92 X 121% • Commercial KSF 5,002 X 7.92 X 66% = 26,137 Offi[e KSF 3,698 X 7.92 X 73% = 21,374 Industrial K5F 365 X 7.92 X 73% = 2,112 Net New Vehicle Miles of Travel 164,796 ill Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of floor oreo in thousonds. Devetopmenr Fee Land Use Assumptions 121 Development Fee Land Use Assumptions 131 Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential; Trio Generation,Institute of Transportation 14]Avg.Trip Length,expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of rrovel on the existing system [S]Dn an overage weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retoil and institutional include 34% pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residentiol odiustment factor occounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jobs outside the City 58 Ttschler jise Development Fee Study:infrostructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 45: Ratio of Service Unit to Land Use -Collector Roadways Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Nei New Development Avg WkdVVch Trip Development Development 2013 2023 ■ RESIDENTIAL Single Unit 1 21,1991 24,333 3,134 X 5,60 X 64% = 11,232 Multi-Unit 1,904 2,185 281 X 4.40 X 64% . 791 NONR ESI■ Commercial K5F 1 1,117 1,4721 355 X 42-70 X 33% = 5,002 Office X5F 1 1,8231 2,4941 671 X 11.03 X 50% 3,698 Industrial KSF 1 3481 4531 105 X 6.97 X 50% = 365 Step 2-Vehicle Miles of Travel from Net New Development Development Type Tnp� Length(41 Weighting Factor 151 of Tra ve I Sin le Unit 1 11,2321 X 2.39 X t Multi-Unit 791 X 2.39 X 1219,0 =NONH El■Commercial KSF 5,002 X 2.39 X 66% =Office KSF 3,698 X 2.39 X 73% =ndustrial KSF 365 X 2.39 X 73% = Net New Vehicle Miles of Travel 49,762 (11 Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Names;KSF•square feet of floor area in thousands. Development Fee Land Use Assumptions i2)Development Fee Land Use Assumptions 131 Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: TJrW Generation,Institute of Transportation f4f Avg.Trip Length,expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even distribution of vehicle miles of travel an the existing system IS]On an ouerage weekday,half of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34% pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%are primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents cammuring to jobs outside the City Figure 46: Ratio of Service Unit to Land Use-Signalized Intersections Step 1-Vehicle Trips Generate from Net New Development Development DevelopmPitt(Inits.(1) Trip Ends per Adjustment Vehicle 2013 2021 +- ,RESI■ Single Unit 2S 34 X 5.60 X ,4-, i 7l2 Multi-Unit 81 X 4.40 X ,4'c i9 Commercial KSF 55 X 42.70 X 33% 5,002 Office K5F 71 X i1.D3 X 50%Industrial K5F 105 X 6.97 X 5ON Stec 2•Vehicle Miles of Travel from Net New Development Development RESIDENTIALType Inp, Length 141 Weighting Factor 151 nf 1,3,T I Single Unit 11,232 X 10.32 X 121% = 140.271 I i-Unit 791X 10.32 X 121% 9,882mercial KSF 5,002 X 10.32 X 66% 34,075e K5F 3,698 X 10.32 X 73% 27,g65strial K5F 36S X 10.32 X 73% 2,753 Net New vehicle Mi ies of Travel 214,346 III Single Unit=SFD,SFA,and Mobile Homes;KSF=square feet of fioar area in thousands Development Fee Land Use Assumptions 111 Deuefopment Fee Lund Use Assumptions (3j Residential Devefapmenr Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential: Trio Generation,fnstitute of Transportation 141 4vg.Trip Length,expressed in miles,is the single factor that equates to the even dis rribution of vehicle miles of travel on the exis ring sys rem 151 On an average weekday,holf of all trip ends are inbound. Retail and institutional include 34% pass-by adjustment(i.e.66%ore primary trips).The residential adjustment factor accounts for 90%of employed residents commuting to jabs outside the City 59 Tts A 0 Vill 3 i � Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ARS 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: "A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services of facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable." ARS 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: "The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria." ARS 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: "The projected demond for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years." The projected need for additional lane miles and signalized intersections is a function of the ten-year development forecast (see City of Apache Junction Land Use Assumptions) and the existing infrastructure standards discussed above. As shown in the figures above, trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert projected development into average weekday vehicle trips. A typical vehicle trip, such as a person leaving a home and traveling to work, generally begins on a local street that connects to a collector street, which connects to an arterial road and eventually to a state or interstate highway. For the purpose of development fees, this progression of travel up and down the functional classification chain narrows the average trip length determination to the following question, "what is the average vehicle trip length of the streets development fee system improvements (i.e., the same type of streets used to document current infrastructure standards)?" Minor Arterials In 2006, the City of Apache Junction executed an intergovernmental agreement between the City and Pinal County concerning shared costs for the reconstruction and redesign of Ironwood Drive within the City limits of Apache Junction. The agreement defined the responsibilities and financial obligations of the City for its proportionate share of the project costs to expand capacity by 4.4 lane miles of the minor arterial Ironwood Drive, between Elliott Avenue and U.S. 60. The complete project involved improvements to the existing roadway including new payment, curb and gutters, drainage facilities, sidewalks, street lighting, and a center median, and increasing capacity by adding two new lanes. only a portion of the total project included capacity improvements; additionally, the capacity improvements were designed with excess capacity to absorb growth into the future. T�schle�f3; 60 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona As new development occurs in the City of Apache Junction over the next ten years it will buy into its share of the Ironwood Dr. expansion by paying a growth share of the total project cost. The steps taken to calculate the portion of the total project cost that funded the 4.4 lane miles of capacity improvements, the projected net new VMT in the next ten years, the cost per net new service unit, and the cost per development unit are shown below. Figure 47:Cost Recovery—Minor Arterials Step 1-Cost of Capacity Improvements Cost per Added Lane Cost of CapacityLane Mile Miles [1] $1,214,286 1 X 4.40 - $5,342,858 step 2-30-Year Projected Growth in VNrT on Arterials VMT in 2023 VMT in 2013 1,091,259 926,463 = 164,796 Step 3-Cost per Service Unit Cost ofCapacity . . $5,342,858 - 164,796 = $32.42 per VMT _ Step 4-Cost per Development Unit Per Vehicle Streets Level Of Service and Capital Casts Mile Traveled Mi nor Arlen al Cost $32A2 GROSS CAPITAL COST 532.42 Arterial Street Facilities-Residential Development Fee Schedule VMT= IAA 181 10 IDl [A]x181xICIx1D1 Weekday trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length cost Arterial Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per proposed Development Trip Ends' Factors' on System' Factors* VMT VMT Fee Onit T e Single Unit 5.60 64% 7.92 121% 34.33 X $32.42 = $1.113 SingleUnit-Manufactured 449 64% 7.92 121% D—S4 X $32.42 = $892 2+Unit 4.40 64% 7 7.9 1121% 1 26.97 X $32.42 = $974 Arterial Street Facilities-Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Arterial Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per proposed Development Fee Tri Ends' Fact os' on 5 stem' Factors' VMT Ej VMT Fi fEJXJFJ/1,t10g r,. mmercial 42.70 33% 7.92 66% 73.62 X $32.42 = $238 fice 11.03 50% 7.92 73% 31.87 x $32.42 = $1.03 dustrial 6.97 50% 7.92 73% 20.14 X $0.65 *See Figure 39:Existing Level of 5ervice-City Minor Arterials Collectors As discussed above, existing development in Apache Junction generated 279,757 vehicle miles of travel on the existing 37.30 lane miles of collectors, which equates to a level of service of 1.33 lane miles per 10,000 VMT. The demand model below shows that if the current level of service is maintained, and new development between 2013 and 2023 occurs as projected (see the Land Use Assumptions),vehicle miles of travel on collector roadways will increase by 49,762. This net increase will generate demand for an additional 6.63 lane miles to maintain the current level of service. IsOle [Jm 61 Develapment Fee Study:Infrastructure lmpravements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure 48:Incremental Expansion-Collectors S-yeor increment--> Year-> BaseYr 1 2 3 4 S 10 10-Year 2813 2014 2015 2016 2D17 2D18 ZD23 Increase DEMAND DATA[1) SINGLE UNIT RES 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 24,333 3,134 MULTI-UNIT RES 1,904 1,922 1,942 1,965 1,989 2,016 2,185 281 COMMERCIAL KSF 1,117 1,148 1,180 1,213 1,247 1,282 1,472 355 OFFICE KSF 1,823 1,881 1,941 2,003 2.067 2,132 2,494 671 I INDUSTRIAL KSF 3481 357 367 377 386 397 453 105 SI NGLE UNIT TRI PS 75,977 76,705 77,515 78,400 79,378 80,439 87,209 MULTI-UNIT TRIPS 5,362 5,412 5,469 5,S33 5,601 S,677 6,153 RES TRIPS 81,339 92,117 82,983 83,933 84,979 96,116 93,362 12,024 COMMERCIALTRIPS 15,733 16,169 16,627 17,092 17,571 18,058 20,735 OFFICE TRIPS 10,055 10,375 10,705 11,046 11,399 11,759 13,753 INDUSTRIAL TRIPS 1,213 1,244 1,277 1,312 1,347 1,383 1 S78 NONRESTRIPS 27,000 27,799 28,610 29,458 30,316 31,200 36A66 9,066 TOTAL TRIPS 108,339 109,906 111,594 113,394 115,295 117,317 129A28 21,090 3,55$ 7,417 11,553 16,010 20,760 49,762 TOTAL VMT[21 279,757 283,311 287,174 292,310 295,766 300,517 329,519 49,762 Lane Mil es[31 37.30 37.77 38.21 38.84 31.44 40.07 43.94 Annual Lane Mile Increase 0,47 0.52 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.87 Cost per Lane Miles 0.47 0.99 I.S4 2.13 277 663 Net kwease Annual CaPacity Cost(milli0ns) So.35 $0-38 $0-41 $0.44 $0.47 $0.64 it VMT• CUMULATIVE Capabty Cost imillions) $035 SO 73 $1,14 $1.58 S2LO491 $ 98.40 Source:TischlerBise [1)Development Fee Land Use AssumptiDns [2)See Figure 40:Existing Level of Service-City Collectors (3)See Figure 34:City-Maintained Street Facilities Inventory The projected demand for 6.63 lane miles equates to a total investment of$4.90 million, based on a cost per lane mile of$737,998 (see Figure 43).The formula to calculate a cost per net increase in VMT for the collectors component is calculated as follows: (6.63 lane miles X$737,998 cost per collector lane mile)/ 49,762 net new VMT = $98.40 per VMT. The steps to calculate the collector fee component per type of development unit based on a cost per VMT of$98.40 are shown below.6 Figure 49:Cost per Development Unit -Collectors Per Vehicle Streets level Of Service and Capital Costs Mile Traveled Collector Costs 598.40 GAOss cAl l rAL COST $9940 Collector Street Facilities-Residential Development Fee Schedule VMT= 141 (BI (Cf IDI JAI x181x(CIx(DI Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cast comector Cahpwfeife Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Dinvalapment Tnp Ends' Factors' on System' Factors- VMr VMT Fee unit r Sin le Unit a 5.60 64% 239 121% 1037 x 598.40 = $2,020 Single Un;t-Manufactured 449 6t2 2.39 121% 8.32 x 598.40 = $818 2+Unit 4.40 64% 2.39 121% 8.15 x $98.40 = $801 ili Current Fee established In 2012 was for Single Family and Manufactured Home The average of both is entered here Collector Sheet Facilities-Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Weekday Trip RMe Avg Miles Trip length Cost Coffector Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.rrip Weighting Per Proposed Demlopment Are Trip Ends' Factors' on System' Factors' VMT[E] VMT[F] [EPgFY2,6W Commercial 42.70 33% 2.39 66% 22,23 x $98.40 = $2-18 Office 11.03 SW 2.39 73% 9.62 x 598.40 = $0.94 industrial 6.97 5096 2.39 73% 6.06 x 598.40 = SC.59 See Figure 40:Existing Level Df Service-City Collectors 6 The figures are shown as a rounded figure. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefDre the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the Sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown here(due to the rounding of figures shown,not in the analysis.) NADrBise 62 TW Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Pion City of Apoche!unction,Arizona Signalized Intersections As discussed above, existing development in Apache Junction generated 1,207,836 vehicle miles of travel on the existing 143.79 lane miles of street facilities, which equates to a level of service of 0.15 signalized intersections per 10,000 VMT. The demand model below shows that if the current level of service is maintained, and new development between 2013 and 2023 occurs as projected (see the Land Use Assumptions), vehicle miles of travel on the full Street facilities network will increase by 214,846. This net increase will generate demand for an additional three signalized intersections to maintain the current level of service. Figure 50: Incremental Expansion-Signalized Intersections 5-year increment--> Year-> BaseYr 1 2 3 4 S 10 10-!'ear 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2023 Increase DEMAND DATA[1[ SINGLE UNIT RES 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 24,333 3,134 MULTI-UNIT RES 1,904 1,922 1,942 1,965 1,989 2,016 2,185 281 COMMERCIAL KSF 1,117 1,148 1,180 1,213 1,247 1,282 1,472 355 OFFICE KSF 1,823 1,881 1,941 2,003 2,067 2.132 2,494 671 INDUSTRIALKSF 348 357 367 377 386 397 453 10S SINGLE UNIT TRIPS 75,977 76,705 77,515 78,400 79,378 80,439 87,209 MULTI-UNIT TRIPS 5,362 5.412 5,469 5,533 5,601 5,677 6,153 RES TRIPS 91,339 92,117 82,983 83,933 84,979 86,116 93,362 12,024 COMMERCIAL TRIPS 15,733 16,169 16,627 17,092 17,571 18,0S8 20,735 OFFICE TRIPS 10,055 10,375 10,705 11,046 11,398 11,759 13,753 I NOU5TRIAL TRI PS 1,213 1,244 1,277 1,312 1,347 1,383 1,578 NCINRESTRIPS 27,000 27,789 29,610 29,450 30M6 31,200 36,066 9,066 TOTAL TRIPS 108,339 109,906 111,594 113,384 1 LS 95 117,317 129,429 21,090 15,347 32,024 49,881 69,121 89,630 214,846 TOTAL VMT[21 1,207,636 1,223,193 1,239,660 1,2$7,717 1,276,957 1,297A6S 1,422,682 214,846 Signalized Intersections 18 18 19 19 19 19 21 Annual Intersection Increase 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 Cost per Net increase AnnuaI Intersect on Cost(miIIiors) $000 $0,35 $0.00 SO= $0,00 $000 in VMT• 4.89 Source:TischlerBise (11 Development Fee Land Use Assumptions (21 See Figure 41:Existing Level of Service-signalized IntersectiDns Tisch Irel ifk% 63 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona According to the City of Apache Junction Department of Public Works, the average cost to construct a signalized intersection is $350,000. Based on the demand model the City will need to construct three new signalized intersections in the next ten years. This equates to a total investment of$1,050,000. The cost per net increase in VMT for signalized intersections is calculated as follows: (3 intersections X $350,000) / 214,846 VMT = $4.89 per VMT. The steps to calculate the signalized intersection fee component per type of development unit based on a cost per VMT of$4.89 are shown below. Figure 51:Cost per Development Unit—Signalized Intersections Per Vehicle Streets Level of service and Capital Casts Mile Traveled Signalized Intersection Costs $4.89 GROSS fAPlTA[CDST S4.M Signalized intersection Street Facilities-Residential Development Fee Schedule VMT= 1A) lei Icl 101 [A]XlelXlclxlol Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Arterial Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Development Trip Ends• Factor' on System• Factor' VMT VMT Fee Unit Tvpe Sin le Unit S.60 64% 10.32 121% 44.76 x $4.69 - $218 SingleUnit-Manufactured 4.49 64% 10.32 121% 35.91 x $4.89 = $175 21 Unit 4.40 64% 10-32 1 12rA 35.17 x $4.69 5171 11]Current Fee established in 2012 was for Single Familyand Manufactured Home. The average of both is entered here. Signalized Intersection Street Facilities-Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length Cost Arterial Component Vehicle Adjustment per Veh.Trip Weighting Per Proposed Deve lapment fee Trip Ends Factor' an System• Factor' VMT fEI VMT[FI [EIMIF)11,000 sir Commercial 42.70 33% 10.32 66% 9S.98 x $4.89 - $0.46 office 1103 50% 1032 73A 4155 x 54.89 = 50.20 Industrial 6.97 SO% 10-31 73% z6.z6 x $4-89 - S0.1z 'See Figure 41:Existing Level of service—signalized Intersections Tm i1INI QLJ 64 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvements Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona STREET FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ........ The May 2012 Final Report for the Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study identified and prioritized capacity improvements that will be necessary as development occurs in the Development Fee Study service area. The report prioritized the first set of possible improvements (short-term improvements) necessary to accommodate a population of 60,000 people. Shown below is a list of Collector and Signalized Intersection capacity improvements identified as necessary to accommodate the projected growth in the City of Apache Junction over the next ten years. Estimated project costs were provided by the City of Apache Junction, and taken from the 2012 Study. As demand is generated for identified Street Facilities improvements, investments from this list will be made. For the effective period of this Development Fee Study, the City of Apache Junction does not plan to use development fee revenue on capacity improvements to new minor arterial roadways. Figure 52: Necessary Streets Expansions Infrastructure Improvements Plans Improvements Added 10-Year Projects Capacity Total 16th Ave(Del a wa re to Ceda r) 1.1 Lane Miles $ 835,400 16th Ave(Idaho to Winchester) 0.8 Lane Miles $ 554,135 Winchester Road(16th to Southern) 1.5 Lane Miles $ 1, 008,269 16th Ave(Ceda r to Meri di an) 0.4 Lane Miles $ 277,067 Idaho Road (Roundup to Foothill) 1.5 Lane Miles $ 1,108,269 Meridian Drive(Southern to Baseline) 2.0 Lane Miles $ 2,800,000 Intersection (Meridian Dr at Southern Ave) Intersection $ 2,710,000 Total $ 9,393,140 Source:City of Apache Junction;Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Stud yFinaI Report May2012. MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed development fees for Street Facilities are shown in Figure 53. Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study Included in the Street Facilities per service unit cost is the cost to prepare the IIP and Development Fee Study. See Appendix A—Cost of Professional Services for the detailed calculations. Revenue Credit Included in the maximum supportable development fee is a Revenue Credit of 0 percent.The unadjusted Street Facilities development fees per development unit would not generate more revenue over the next ten years, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, than the identified growth-related necessary expenditures of $11,316,169 (necessary incremental expansions, plus the IIP and Development Fee Study cost). To ensure that no more fee revenue is collected than the City plans to spend, the potential gross cost per service unit is reduced by the revenue credit to calculate the net capital cost per service unit. Based on the gross capital costs per service unit, the projected development fee revenue would equal $10,733,114. See Figure 53 and Figure 54 for additional detail. Therefore, no revenue credit adjustment is necessary for the Street Facilities development fees. Twhiev1 U-1 S(: 65 f § _ � k � ( . 0 :. 4\ / } I # a § r\ oo 13 \ 2 £ 2 7 \ \ 2 \ 4co m k ; t § 2ui cu # 0 - tw § _ 2 r o o. \ 1 § § \ \ t Q � 2 J i + to \ / # § § 0)/ _ t - _ tom \ cu rn CAR f U. 9 . 0 _ m 2 § ! { ; m n $ m Q | E Q # a � 2 « t ' a66E o & E : § & E 3 § � ( A t CLLn u § Co © CD 00 co a cu 3 § J 7 k { 2 § ) k ( § § k 00 § } C F $ t $ ICE \ § 0 ' � 2 f = E ■ _ _ % ` � .� \ 2 f � \ \ \ aj/ \ \ Ln ± � k \ Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B - Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees contains a forecast of revenues other than development fees required by Arizona's enabling legislation. Street Facilities Cash Flow The cash flow shown in Figure 54 assumes implementation of the maximum supportable Street Facilities development fees and that development over the next ten years is consistent with the approved Land Use Assumptions described in Appendix C. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure 54: Street Facilities Cash Flow Summary Ten-Year Growth-Related Casts for Street Facilities Minor Arterial Capacity Improvements $5,342,858 Collectors $4,896,589 Signalized Intersections $1,0S0,000 IlPand Development Fee Study Cost $26,722 TOTAL $11,316,169 2+Units Industrial Year eii Base 2013 21,199 1,904 1,117 1,823 348 Year 1 2014 21,402 1,922 1,148 1,881 357 Yea r2 2015 21,628 1,94Z 1,180 1,941 367 Yea r 3 2016 21,875 1,965 1,213 2,003 377 Yea r 4 2017 22,148 1,989 1,247 2,067 386 Year5 2018 22,444 2,016 1,282 2,132 397 Yea r6 2019 22,766 2,045 1,318 2,200 408 Year? 2020 23,115 2,076 1,355 2,270 419 Yea r8 2021 23,492 2,110 1,393 2,342 429 Yea r9 2022 23,897 2,146 1,432 2,417 441 Yea r10 2023 24,333 2,185 1 1,472 2,494 453 Ten-Yr Increase 3,134 281 355 671 105 Projected Fees => $6,817,819 $521,536 $1,789,200 $1,461,956 $142,603 Total Projected Revenues $10,733,114 Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit) (S583,055) [1] Fee for Single Units shown represents a weighted average of the Single Unitand Single Unit-Manufactured fees TcschlerBi:� 67 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] i Tcsthier€iISU' Appendix A-68 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache!unction,Arizona .APPENDIX , — COST OF PROFESSIONAL The figure below displays each section of the IIP and Development Fee Study. Each necessary public service is assigned a cost, followed by the proportion that is assessed against residential and nonresidential. Then, it displays the increase in service units, between 2013 and 2018, and finally the cost per service unit to be assessed. (Because development fees are updated at least every five years, the cost is assessed against the service units for only 5 years.) Figure A55: IIP and Development Fee Report Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share 87% 13% Police Consultant Fee $19,324 $16,812 $2,512 Service Unit Person .. Increase in Service Units 2013-2018 2,309 1,470 Cost per Service Unit $7.28 $1.71 Libraly Development Fee Rena ProportionateResidential Nonresidential Police Consultant Fee $14,040 $12,215 $1,825 Service Unit Person .. Increase in Service Units +t 2,309 1,470 CostperService Unit $5.29 $1.24 Police Development Fee Rea= Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share 92% 8% Police Consultant Fee $16,154 $14,862 $1,292 Increase in Service Units No F 2,309 4,200 CostperService Unit $6.44 $0.31 Streets Deyelo. nment,Fpe Report Residential&Nonresidential Proportionate Share 00•. Consultant Fee $26,722 $26,722 Increase in Service Units 89,630 CostperService Unit $0,30 Source:TischlerBise;Land Use Assumptions TWA,Iet#3isf, Appendix A-69 Development Fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona MEMM APPENDIX • • FORECAST OF REVENUES OTHER THAN DEVELOPMENT FEES ARS 9-463.05(E)(7) requires: "A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than develapment fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue,federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved land use assumptions, and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development as required in subsection B, paragraph 12 of this section." ARS 9-463.05(B)(12)states, "The municipality shall forecast the contribution to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees, assessments or other sources of revenue derived from the property owner towards the capital casts of the necessary public service covered by the development fee and shall include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. Beginning August 1, 2014,for purposes of calculating the required offset to development fees pursuant to this subsection, if a municipality imposes a construction contracting or similar excise tax rate in excess of the percentage amount of the transaction privilege tax rate imposed on the majority of other transaction privilege tax classifications, the entire excess portion of the construction contracting or similar excise tax shall be treated as a contribution to the capital casts of necessary public services provided to development for which development fees are assessed, unless the excess portion was already taken into account far such purpose pursuant to this subsection." REVENUE PROJECTIONS Apache Junction does not have a higher than normal construction excise tax rate; therefore, the required offset described above is not applicable. The required forecast of non-development fee revenue that might be used for growth-related capital costs is shown below. General Fund revenues are highlighted in light purple. Highway User Taxes are highlighted in light blue. The forecast of revenues was provided by the City of Apache Junction Finance Department. Historical revenue data, obtained from the City's Comprehensive Annual Fiscal Reports, and discussions with staff, were correlated to the growth in population and jobs (as reported in the approved Land Use Assumptions.) Projected population plus jobs is the independent variable that drives each revenue forecast. Figure B56: Five-Year Revenue Projections Fiscal Year 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Soles Taxes $11,370,000 $11,503,119 $11,760,391 $12,036,089 $12,329,870 State shared vehicle license taxes $1,571,320 $1,836,791 $1,953,060 $2,001,458 $2,130,952 Unrestricted State Shared Sales Taxes $3,096,845 $3,121,409 $3,287,081 $3,421,119 $3,426,947 Unrestricted State Shared Incame Taxes $3,998,490 $4,338,654 $4,421,000 54,635,108 <4,9I6,459 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Highway User Taxes $2,329 805 $2,320,320 $2,407,003 $2,363,544 $2,447,8I9 County Shared 5oles Taxes dedicated to Road Use in HURF $1,325,000 $1,488,890 $1,583,136 $1,622,368 $1,727,335 Source:City of Apache Junction,Finance Department Trschle�8 Appendix B-70 � Development Fee Study:Infrastructure improvement Plan City of Apache Junction,Arizona General Fund The "General Fund Revenue in Nominal Dollars" chart shown in Figure B57 gives the impression that General Fund revenues available for capital investments are expected to remain flat or increase slightly over the next five years. When nominal dollars are converted to constant 2013 dollars (as shown in the "General Fund Revenue per Person and Job in 2013 Dollars" chart), to account for inflation, and then divided by persons plus jobs in Apache Junction, to "normalize" the amounts for population and job growth, the projected revenue is shown to remain flat or decrease. The revenue projections demonstrate there is no General Fund fiscal surplus available for growth-related capital improvements. An increase in operating, maintenance, and replacement capital costs will offset any projected increase in General Fund revenue available for capital improvements. Figure B57:General Fund Revenues by Source i � General Fund Revenue in Nominal Dollars i $14 ' . •�° , 2 $10 �+` ` pSalesTaxes $8 $6 Unrestricted State Shared Income Taxes $2 Unrestricted State Shared Sales Taxes 50 p L p, ro cb -}—State shared vehicle license �3Q? �h �A, �W� o�� 0��� o�h� oti-A, taxes ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti Fiscal Year I General Fund Revenue per Person and Job in 2013 Dollars $350 $300 $250 - --Sales Taxes $200 ., $150 �✓ Unrestricted State Shared $100 ,,;� Income Taxes ._ . . t�State shared vehicle license $50 taxes $0 y Unrestricted State Shared Sales 3N '� Taxes Fiscal Year Source:City of Apache Junction,Finance Department;TischlerBise T�1��tSE. Appendix B-71 Development fee Study:Infrastructure Improvement Plan City of Apache!unction,Arizona Highway User Tax(HURF) The City of Apache Junction accounts for Highway User Tax revenue in two categories, HURF and County Shared Sales Taxes dedicated to Road Use in HURF. The methodology described above was applied to each of these HURF revenue sources, with the results displayed in Figure B58. The "gas tax" funding pattern in Apache Junction has shown a gradual decline. Essentially, Apache Junction has increasing traffic, but decreasing dollars that are used for maintenance of existing Street Facilities. The projected HURF revenue will be offset by an increase in operating, maintenance, and replacement capital costs. Therefore, the City is not projecting a surplus of HURF revenue available for growth-related improvements. Figure B58:Highway User Tax Revenues Highway User Taxes in Nominal Dollars $4 $3 $2 —,—Highway User Taxes ;' $1 -County Shared Sales Taxes $0 dedicated to Road Use in 04 OHO Ob b° 'tit 'tip` IS, 'tip HURF c j Al °i titi ti3 ti�i IV ,ycQ ,ycQ ,ycQ ,�cQ �° do do ti° Fiscal Year Highway User Taxes per Person and Job in 2013 Dollars j $100 $80 i $60 --Highway User Taxes $20 $0 —0-County Shared Sales Taxes g p y ¢ dedicated to Road Use in ��Z N °titi~ 3~ Otih1 p HURF ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti Fiscal Year Source:City of Apache Junction,Finance Department;TischlerBise TischlerBrse Appendix B-72 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apoche Junction,Arizono "APPENDIX C - LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 9-463.05 (T)(6) requires the preparation of a Land Use Assumptions document, which shows: "projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service area over a period of at least ten years and pursuant to the General Plan of the municipality." TischlerBise prepared current demographic estimates and future development projections for both residential and nonresidential development that will be used in the infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and calculation of the development fees. Current demographic data estimates for 2013 are used in calculating levels-of-service (LOS) provided to existing development in the City of Apache Junction. Although long-range projections are necessary for planning infrastructure systems, a shorter time frame of five to ten years is critical for the development fee analysis. Arizona's Development Fee Act requires fees to be updated at least every five years and limits the IIP to a maximum of ten years. Therefore, the use of a very long-range "build-out" analysis is no longer acceptable for deriving development fees in Arizona municipalities. Summary of Growth Indicators Development projections and growth rates are summarized in Figure C59.These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. However, development fee methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to accurate development projections in the determination of the proportionate share fee amounts. If actual development is slower than projected, development fee revenues will also decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the City will receive an increase in development fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate capital improvements to keep pace with development. Development projections are calculated through a three-step process. First, TischlerBise used historic population, housing, and employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau, State of Arizona, and City of Apache Junction, to calculate base year 2013 estimates. Second, TischlerBise developed projected annual growth rates through discussions with staff, and examination of regional studies. Finally, TischlerBise calculated 20-year projections for population, housing units,jobs,and nonresidential square footage for each year beyond the base year 2013. See Figure C59 below for a summary of the base year estimates and 20-year development projections. Tcschlerf3i : Appendix C-73 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction, Arizona Figure C59-Summary of Development Projections and Growth Rates Flue Ye.r lnaremen 0...> 01-b Nn A11.Arrn. &aeff 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 9 10 is 20 M2- W ro 2013 2014 Sells ails 2027 2019 2012 7020 a021 2022 7025 Z020 1033 2013-2033 20M2033 RES3DENnAl UE RUpwE NOusinB Unnt Urtr Mir S�O�Famly 92% 21.199 21,102 21,628 21.875 12,148 22.441 22,766 23.115 23A92 23,391 t 4,334 26A 11 28Adt 7r233 161 Mult'a r�1, 8% 1.904 1.122 1542 1116% 1,989 2.016 2.045 2.076 2.110 2.146 2.195 2.372 2.554 650 32 ?G?AL 23,103 23,321 23.570 23.840 24,:37 24,460 24,811 25.191 25,602 26.043 26.51N 2R,7N3 311.966 7}43 394 NONRESRIEN2L 1 1710PWNr Urnvnh Nerves F144r Area)Sp08 5F) C4mmrrc r:alll.DOU SFi 300 1.127 1.148 1,180 1,213 1,247 1.232 1.318 1,355 1,393 1,132 1.172 1.639 1.939 421 41 OfM1nvilm.,ILO01:SF) 301 2.813 1,881 1,941 2,003 2,067 2.132 2.200 2170 2342 2.417 2.494 2,917 LA12 1,149 79 Intl65trla 2Flca)1,000 5F) 413 348 35, 367 377 386 3" 408 419 429 44l 453 516 589 Z41 12 TO T42 3299 3,386 ]ASS 3.592 3�nn 3.811 3.926 4.044 1.164 1.290 VA_ 52 8 5.122 5.940 2b ]33 2013-2033 ANNUAL eV C.Mia[k Limits 12 13 13.14 14.15 1516 16-17 17.18 18.19 19.20 ZO 21 21 22 22-2.3 1728 32f3 AM" H4us�n Unns 2Zl 246 270 Z97 173 351 380 ALL 44l 475 421 454 391 Nenves -A-Araa 1,0005c 98 102 105 1CB 1L1 115 ill 120 125 129 119 174 113 Source C.ry of Aperhe��mru nn,r�srnl vi 8�ry Growth Projections 2013-2033 City of Apache Junction,AZ 30 000 75Cnn - 20.000 15.000 1C.000 ._._..__... _ .. ... ......... ...._---.. 5,000 0 2013 1014 2015 7016 2017 Z019 2C19 2028 2021 2022 2C23 7024 Z075 282E 2027 2028 2OZ9 Z030 2031 Z032 2033 f N0Nsm8 Umis Names 59.11)1,00(s) TmzhIerf3il.� Appendix C-74 Deveiapment Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Current estimates and future projections of residential development are detailed in this section, including population and housing units by type. Recent Residential Construction Development fees require an analysis of current levels of service. For residential development, current levels of service are determined using estimates of population and housing units. To estimate current housing units in the City of Apache Junction, TischlerBise obtained building permit information from the City. This information is then used to determine a base year estimate of housing units. Figure C60 shows residential building permit trends by number and type of housing units for the City of Apache Junction. Figure C60—Residential Building Permits in the City of Apache Junction, 2007-2012 200 . 175 j —*—Single Family 150 —*—Mobile Home 125 ` —#--Multifamily 100 75 50 25 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Single Family 137 37 36 104 57 183 Mobile Home 112 86 39 27 17 63 Multifamily 8 0 0 0 0 88 Source:City of Apache Junction, Feb13,Building Permit Totals by Year Residential housing units, and building permit trends, by type are shown in Figure C61 below. To calculate total housing units, the distribution of 92 percent single family and 8 percent multifamily units was calculated from the 2011 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), 5-Year Estimates for Units in Structure. This distribution was applied to the total number of units reported by the 2010 decennial census (22,564) to get 20,748 single family units (including mobile homes), and 1,816 multifamily units in the City of Apache Junction in 2010. TtschierBsst* Appendix C-75 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C61—Residential Housing Units in the City of Apache Junction Building Permits[11 Average Single Family [2) 131 74 246 451 150 Multifamily[31 0 0 88 88 29 Total 131 74 334 539 "Issued during calendar year 2010 Base Year 2013 Housing Units[4] Distribution(5J 2010 2011 2012 2013 Distribution' Single Family 92% 20,748 20,879 20,953 21,199 92% Multifamily 8% 1,816 1,816 1,816 1,904 896 Total 22,564 22,695 22,769 23,103 ^Reflects the addition of issued permits [1] CityofApache Junction,(Fe b13) Building Permits by PermitType [21 Single FamiIyincludes detached, attached,and manufactured homes [3] Multifamily includes structures with 2 or more units [4]U.S.Census Bureau,2010 Decennial Census:DP1 [S] U.S.Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey S-Year Estimates:Table B2S024 To estimate 2011, 2012, and 2013 housing units, the building permits issued each year were added to the housing units, starting with the 2010 census count. TischlerBise estimates the City of Apache Junction had 23,103 housing units at the start of base year 2013.The 2013 distribution of housing units by type of structure remains unchanged from the 2010 distribution. Persons Per Housing Unit According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit (PPHU) or persons per household (PPH) to derive proportionate share fee amounts. When PPHU is used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. When PPH is used in the fee calculations, the development fee methodology assumes a higher percentage of housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. TischlerBise recommends that development fees for residential development in the City of Apache Junction be imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit.This methodology assumes some portion of the housing stock will be vacant during the course of a year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, the City of Apache Junction had a 2011 vacancy rate of 27 percent. Persons per housing unit(PPHU) requires data on population in occupied units and the types of units by structure and bedroom count.The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a "long-form" questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which has limitations due to sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses)- For development fees in Apache Junction, there are two categories of "single- family" residential units. The first includes detached stick-built units and attached units (commonly known as townhouses, which share a common sidewall, but are constructed on an individual parcel of land). The second category is for single detached manufactured units (formerly known as mobile homes). The third residential category includes duplexes and all other structures with two or more units on an individual parcel of land. (Note: housing unit estimates from ACS will not equal decennial census counts of units. These data are used only to derive the custom PPHU factors for each type of unit). TiSc. l«r*l-,f, Appendix C-76 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C62 below shows the ACS 2011 5-Year Estimates for the City of Apache Junction. To calculate the PPHU, persons (33,770) is divided by housing units (19,845). Dwellings with a single unit per structure (detached, attached, and mobile homes)averaged 1.73 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures with multiple units averaged 1.39 persons per housing unit. The 2011 City of Apache Junction total persons per housing unit factor was 1.70. Figure C62—Persons per Housing Unity by Type of Housing Units in Renter&Owner Housing Persons Per Vacancy Structure Persons Households Units Hsg Unit Rate Single Unit 18,870 6,600 7,776 2.43 15% Mobile Homes 12,688 6,720 10,472 1.21 36% 2+Units 1 2,212 1,198 1,597 139 25% Tota 1 33,770 14,518 19,845 2011 Summary by House- Housing Housing Type of Housing Persons holds Units PPHU Mix Single Unit[1] 31,558 13,320 18,248 1.73 92% 2+Unit[2] 2,212 1,198 1,597 1.39 8% Subtotal 33,770 14,S18 19,845 1.70 Vacancy Group Quarters Population 139 Rate TOTAL* 33,909 14,518 19,845 27% Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates [11 Single Family includes detached,attached,and manufactured homes [21 Multifamily includes duplex and all other units with 2 or more units per structure *Totals exclude units counted as "Boat,RV,van,etc." Population Estimates and Projections TischlerBise analyzed recent growth trends, reviewed the City of Apache Junction 2010 General Plan, and had discussions with staff. To calculate a 2013 year-round population, TischlerBise used annual Arizona Department of Administration Interim Intercensal July Population Estimates for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 to establish a recent growth trend of 1 percent, Based on these growth patterns and analysis conducted for the 2010 General Plan, the City of Apache Junction assumes there will be annual population growth. However, due to the continual effects of a slow economic recovery annual growth is expected to be low,and to grow slowly over the next decade. Figure C63 presents a summary of the population estimates and projections for the City of Apache Junction. Figure C63—Population Estimates and Projections for City of Apache Junction Population Population Ex onential Growth Annual July Population Estimates f1J P Estimate Projections 1`21 Rates 00' 2010 2011 2012 2013 2040 2009-12 2013-40 City of Apache Junction 3S,8331 3S,8281 36,539 36,9281 37,3001 56,472 1.01% 1.5596 [1)Arizona Depa rtment of Administration,Interim I ntercen sa I Population Estimates [2)2040population projection from Arizona DepartmentofAdministration Pinal and Maricopa County 2012-20SO Population Projections low5eries Year 2030 Projection used to assume similar growth rate of recent years. Appendix C-77 Tis ;II IE, 3i Development fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona In December of 2012, the Arizona Department of Administration released County Population Projections, which assumed a low growth scenario for each County between 2012 and 2050. The City's sub-county share of Pinal and Maricopa County populations in 2012 were applied to the 2030 population projections for each county to estimate a 2030 City of Apache Junction population of 56,472. To add over 19,000 people between 2013 and 2030 would require annual residential building activity to double recent annual activity. Based on discussions with City staff, it was determined the 2030 population projection more accurately reflects a 30-year growth projection. To reflect the longer-term projections, and slow growth in the short term, TischlerBise applied a progressive annual growth rate beginning in 2014 with a rate of 1.01 percent. Each year the growth rate is increased by 0.05 percent until a 1.55 percent plateau is reached in 2024.See Figure C64 for more detail. Population and Housing Unit Projections TischlerBise used a two-step process to project housing units for each year past base year 2013. First, to calculate units added each year, the annual net population increase was divided by the PPHU factor (1.70). The total units estimate was then distributed by type of structure using the 2013 unit mix from Figure C61 above (92 percent single family and 8 percent multifamily). See Figure C64 below for a summary of population and housing unit projections. According to the 2010 General Plan, the City can absorb approximately 38,700 net new units using average/mid-range land use densities. At an average annual increase of 394 housing units, build-out of current City acreage will be met roughly in year 2048. The projected growth assumes that the estimated 2013 distribution between single fomily and multifamily units is held constant. Population and housing unit projections are used to illustrate the possible future pace of service demands, revenues, and expenditures. As these factors will vary to the extent that future development varies, there will be virtually no effect on the actual amount of the development fee. Appendix C-78 firn Q O c o v ry e Q L d p m o m ID x M N O O M M a M c 1s' N W M O m N C a a 10 m T d m a d 7 = O ^ n n n o C U U N N d 4 O N a 10 Q !h n w O v i w m V ai M A y� N O O O w N 0 '..� 0 ry N M N M m in Oi 1.1 m .+ n m V ti .Mi O M .Mi d 0 v Ol N N m Q N ti N M 0 l n N Q M iD R N D ry C N Q N N N I v a a a y � ry m 0 m O N Q N N N O N Q T A N V1 IO N �"! N °° -i O m vi ID O C N a rl ON GO O m P M O O a N N O m M 7 N V ry N ry d m O Q 0 O t p0 O i V V O V N Q N M N N N Q m n m m n ~ O R N O _ O: •• T O Ol V N rl d N NN T N N N ry 'D �y n ro m m m n L {A O N O �D m �+ O n m N N v N d N M ry ry Ld q Y m 071 0 O M C � � N $ o N x = o m fa a s 3 h ` f0 ti .y o Q 0 O Z i O 2 Z 0 a d o Z 0 w U r� w ' q 4 e a E - lD ; w O O LL K u I a a m 2 � z ii a m 'o Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Employment Estimates and Projections In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of development fees requires data on nonresidential square footage and employment(number of jobs) in the City of Apache Junction. TischlerBise analyzed recent employment trends, reviewed data provided by the City of Apache Junction, and had discussions with staff. According to an analysis conducted for the Apache Junction 2010 General Plan,the City expects to increases the jobs to population ratio from a 1:4 ratio in 2010 to a 1:3 ratio by 2030. TischlerBise used a six-step process to calculate a base year job estimate and projections for each year past the base. First, historic job estimates produced by the U.S. Census Bureau LEHD Program for City of Apache Junction were used to calculate a recent job growth rate of 2.03 percent. Second, the growth rate was used to estimate employment for 2011-2013. TischlerBise estimates the City of Apache Junction had 9,093 jobs for the base year of 2013. The 2030 job projection presented in the 2010 General Plan was discussed with staff to determine it more accurately reflects a 30-year projection. Third, to calculate jobs projections for each year past the base, the City of Apache 2010 General Plan data was used to calculate the projected jobs to population ratio of 1:3. Fourth, the ratio was applied to the 2040 population projection of 56,472 to calculate a 2040 job projection of 20,453. Fifth, the 2013 employment estimate was used in conjunction with the 2040 employment projection to calculate a long-term growth rate of 3.05 percent. Lastly, 3.05 percent was applied to each projection year past the base. Figure C65—Employment Trends in City of Apache Junction City of Apache Junction Employment Estimates Employment Exponential Growth Estimates[1] Projections[2] Rates 2004 20082004-10 2013-40 City of Apache Junction 7,5891 8,7091 8,5611 8,7351 8,9121 9,093 20,453 2.03% 3,05% (11 U.S.Census Bureau LEND web-bosed application OnTheMop, "all jobs"2004-20I0 (21 2010 Apache Junction Generol Pion,2030 job to population ratio(0.36)applied to 2040 population projection; Apache Junction Market Area adjusted to remove Gold Canyon Employment by Industry Type In addition to projecting total employment, as part of the City of Apache Junction 2010 General Plan Update process, the City analyzed employment trends and set economic development priorities for the future. City staff made three assumptions to project employment distribution. First, there will be employment growth. Second, the City will actively recruit a diverse set of target industries. Third, office/institutional jobs will grow at a faster rate (3.18%) than commercial/retail jobs (2.80%) and industrial/flex jobs (2.67%). Between 2013 and 2033, the City of Apache Junction expects to add over 7,479 jobs. Figure C66 shows the incremental shift in employment distribution to increase the share of office/institutional jobs to the projected total employment for City of Apache Junction. Tischlue 141311"S Appendix C-80 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C66-Employment Distribution by Industry Type City of Apache Junction Employment Estimates City of Apache Junction Estimates Ill Projections(21 2010 Commercial/Retail 2,102 25% 2,233 25% 3,878 2.80% Office/Institutional 5,703 67% 6,057 67% 11,334 3.18% Industrial/Flex 756 9% 803 9% 1,360 2.67% TOTAL 8,561 100% 9,093 100% 16,572 3.05% [1]U.S.Census Bureau LEHD web-based application OnTheMap, "all jobs"2010. f2]City of Apache Junction,2010 Generol Plan adjusted for 30-year projections Nonresidential Square Footage Development Job estimates are used to estimate nonresidential square footage based on nationally recognized average square feet per employee data published by The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and shown in Figure C67 below. figure C67-The institute of Transportation Engineers, Employee and Building Area Ratios,2012 ITE Land Use/Size Demand Weekday Trip Ends per Emp Per Sq Ft Cade Unit Demand Unit* Employee* Dmd Unit** Per Emp Commercial/Shopping Center 820 JAverage 11,000 Ft 42.70 1 na 1 2.00 1 500 General Office 710 JAverage 1,000 N Ft 1 11.03 1 3.32 1 3.32 1 301 Other Nonresidential 770 Business Park*** 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 760 Research&Dev Center 1,000 5q Ft 8.11 2.77 2.93 342 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 13.22 4.50 2.94 340 565 Day Ca re student 4.38 26.73 0.16 na 550 University/College student 1.71 8.96 0.19 na 530 High School student 1.71 19.74 0.09 na 520 Elementary School student 1.29 15.71 0.08 na 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 15.43 15.71 0.98 1,018 320 Lodging room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na 254 Assisted Living bed 2.66 3.93 0.68 na 1S1 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 Sq Ft 2.50 61.90 0.04 24,760 150 Warehousing 1,000 Scl Ft 3.56 3.89 0.92 1,093 140 Ma nufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.82 2.13 1.79 558 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq F2 6.97 3.02 2.31 433 * Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition (2012). ** Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates, except for Shopping Center data,which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers,published by the Urban Land Institute. TischlerBise used 2012 data from the ITE to calculate the total nonresidential floor areas for three categories of development used in the calculation of development fees. To estimate current nonresidential floor area, 2013 job estimates by category were multiplied by ITE square feet per employee factors. It is estimated the City of Apache Junction has over 3 million square feet of Appendix C-81 TischIerBise Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona nonresidential space in active use. Figure C68 shows the estimated square footage in 2013 for each major category of nonresidential development. Figure C68—Estimated Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area in City of Apache Junction,2013 2010 City of Apache Junction[11 Squore Feet 2013 Nonresidential Pct of Nonres Total Jobs Per Employee(21 Estd lobs Floor Area Floor Area Commercial/Retail 2,102 25% 500 2,233 1,126,500 34% Office/Institutional 5,703 67% 301 6,057 1,823,141 55`Y0 Industrial/Flex 756 9% 433 803 347,928 11% TOTAL 8,561 1000/0 362 9,093 3,287,569 100% M U.S.Census Bureau LEHO web-based application OnTheMop, "oll jobs" (2i Trip Generation Manual,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition (2012). Nonresidential Floor Area and Employment Projections Future employment growth and nonresidential development in the City of Apache Junction are projected based on information provided by City staff, and analysis of past trends in the City.To project employment for the City of Apache Junction,TischlerBise applied an annual growth rate of 3.05 percent for each year beyond the base year 2013 estimate of 9,093 jobs. The projected increase in employment was then used to project growth in nonresidential square footage using the Square Footage per Employee factors previously discussed. Results are shown in Figure C69.The City expects to add on average 374 jobs a year for the next twenty years. To keep pace with employment growth, the City should expect to add roughly 133,000 square feet of active nonresidential development each year. Appendix C-82 TiSChIV-1fi' � � C CX � y a Q N n Q n N n �^ m N w CL Q � T N p ^ cx S y £ N C 'fi � nQ � n I+Pi � roa U N m m m .n .Pi T in m P e N N ^ n C C " W .. N .. a' M lb v m a e IE CX cm N y N LZ O cm T o W N h o N 01 G N C rl N C N m Q M N O W m ym N e N O •Y � P N �D n �n O w e N h VQ1 P N N Q O O ^ ti cD M O 10 O W N {�•J OI aW0 �C m a W ry C Q N m m a a N h a v n N ry W N ti 0 0 C N p w P ry l0 m P N S m � a� mg .o N a QP �Ovt oMnm N C P Y1 O ry P W � f N m ^ M ^ n P a �.f P N d P •+ N EN LU a m m h T n T W m P N O m r+ N Q ry IC A a et 9 4 4 00Q o � � 0 LL 41 Q LA t i a F _ — � p � gi. m.� a _ Zc ° a a Q d E by c z Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apoche Junction,Arizona AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips are used for the Streets development fee category as a measure of demand by land use. Vehicle trips are estimated using average weekday vehicle trip ends from the reference book, Trip Generation, 9" Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2012. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). Trip Rate Adjustments Trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed below, additional adjustments are made to ensure the fees are proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Adjustment for Journey-To-Work Commuting Residential development in the City of Apache Junction has a larger trip adjustment factor of 64 percent to account for commuters leaving Apache Junction for work. According to the National Household Travel Survey(2009), home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of"production"trips, in other words, out- bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Data from the LEHD for 2010 indicate that 90 percent of Apache Junction's employed residents travel outside the City for work. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.90 = 0.14) account for 14 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50% of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment for a total of 64 percent. Figure C70—Adjustment for Journey-To-Work Commuting Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters 11] Employed Residents 12,031 Residents Working in City 1,236 Residents Commuti ng Outside City for Work 10,795 Percent Commuting out of the City 90% Additional Production Trips [2) 14% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 64% Ill U.S.Census Bureau,2010OnTheMap Application(version 6.1.1)and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 12]National Household Travel Survey,2009:Table 30 Adjustment for Pass-By Trips The basic trip adjustment factor of 50 percent is applied to the office/institutional, and industrial/flex categories.The commercial/retail category has a trip factor of less than 50 percent because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For an average size shopping center, the ITE (2012) indicates that on average 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66 percent of attraction trips have the shopping center as their primary destination, half of which are attraction trips. T�� � Appendix[ 84 Development Fee Study:Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Estimated Vehicle Trips in Apache Junction As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the ITE publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e.vehicles available, housing units, households, and persons) are only available collectively from the 2011 ACS 5-Year Estimates for Apache Junction. (Nate: data from the ACS will not equal decennial census counts. These data are used only to derive the custom average weekday vehicle trip ends by type of housing unit, as shown below). Figure C71-Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type in City of Apache Junction City of Apache Junction,AZ Households(2) Vehicles per Vehicles Units Household Available(l) Single Family Multifamily Total by Tenure Owner-occupied 18,863 11,363 1S6 11,519 1.64 Renter-occupied 3,666 1,9S7 1,042 2,999 1.22 TOTAL 22,529 13,320 1,198 14,518 1.55 Housing Units[3]=>F 18,248 1,597 19,845 Persons per Housing Unit->I 1.73 1.34 (1)Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046,American Community Survey,2011. [21 Households by tenure and units in structure from Table 825032, American Community Survey,2011. 131 Housing units from Table B25024,American Community Survey,2011. Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average Trip Ends per ITETripEnds Difference Hholds[4] Ends[5) Type of Housing Ends[6] Trip Ends Housing Unit Per Unit from ITE Single Family Units 31,S58 81,723 21,000 121,320 101,521 5.60 9.52 -41% Multifamily Units 2,212 7,611 1,529 6,319 6,965 440 6.6S -34% TOTAL 33,770 89,334 22,S29 127,638 108,486 5.50 [41 Total population in households from Table2S033,American Community Survey,2011. [51 Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation[ITE 2012). For single family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(091'LN(persons)+1.52). To approximate the average population ofthe ITE studies,persons were divided by57and the equation result multiplied by 57. For multifamily housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.47'persons)-64,48. [6]Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012)_ For single family housing(ITE 2101,the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99'LN{vehicles)+1.81). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by 77 and the equation result multiplied by 77. For multifamily housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.94'vehicles)+293.58. As shown, a single family unit has an average daily trip rate of 5.60 per unit(compared to 9.52 from ITE), and a multifamily unit has an average daily trip rate of 4,40 trips per unit (compared to 6.6S per unit from ITE). Average daily trips are derived using these data. Figure C72 details the calculations to determine that existing development in the City, generates an average of 108,339 vehicle trips on a typical weekday. Residential development is estimated to generate 81,339 vehicle trips (75 percent) compared to 27,000 vehicle trips (25 percent) generated by nonresidential development. An example of the calculation is as follows for single family units: 21,199 single family units x S.60 vehicle trips per day per unit x 64 percent adjustment factor = 75,977 total vehicle trips per day from single family units in the City. The same calculation is done for each land use type. Appendix C-85 Ischlerf3s�: Development Fee Study.Land Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona Figure C72—Average Daily Trips from Existing Development in City of Apache Junction Base Yea r Residential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday* 2023 Residential Units Assumptions Single Family 21,199 Multifamily 1,904 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Unit* Trip Rote Trip Factor Single Family 5.60 64% Multifamily 4.40 64% Residential Vehicle Trip Ends of an Average Weekday Si ngl a Fa mi I y 75,977 Multifamily 5,362 %of total Total Residential Trips 81,339 75% Nonresidential Vehicle Trips an an Average Weekday** 2013 Nonresidential Gross Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.) Assumptions Commercial/Retail 1,117 Office/Institutional 1,823 Industrial/Flex 348 Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1,000 Sq.Ft.** Trip Rate Trip Factor Commercial 42.70 33% Office/Institutional 11.03 50% Industrial/Flex 6.97 50% Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday Commercial 15,733 Office/Institutional 10,055 Industrial/Flex 1,213 Total Nonresidential Trips 27,000 25% TOTAL TRIPS 108,339 100% *Trip rates are customized for City of Apache Junction.See accompanying tables and discussion. **Trip rates are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(1TE)Trip Generation Manual(2012) TischlerB Appendix C-86 Development Fee Study:Lond Use Assumptions City of Apache Junction,Arizona I Demand Indicators by Size of Detached Housing As part of the development fee effort for the City of Apache Junction, TischlerBise further analyzed demographic data to present the option to refine the development fee schedule to be more progressive for residential development. This can be done by developing fees by size of housing unit, based on bedroom count, or by type of single unit (i.e., manufactured unit). Household size and vehicle trip rates can be derived using custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range from survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in files know as Public Use Micro-data Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS data are only available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the City of Apache Junction is in Arizona Public Use Micro-data Area (PUMA) 0800. Data are first analyzed for the PUMA area, and then calibrated to conditions in the City of Apache Junction. TischlerBise used AZ PUMA 0800 2011 ACS 1-Year Estimates to derive persons per housing unit factors by number of bedrooms as well as number of vehicle trips per unit factors by number of bedrooms. As shown in Figure C73, TischlerBise derived trip generation rates and average persons, by bedroom range and type, using the number of persons and vehicles available. Recommended multipliers were scaled to make the average value by type of housing for Arizona PUMA 0800 match the average value derived from ACS data specific to Apache Junction. As the number of bedrooms increases, trip ends and persons per housing unit increase as well. Figure C73—Average Persons and Trip Ends by Bedroom Range in City of Apache Junction Recommended Multipliers tor Muni cipaIity[41 Persons Trip Vehicles Trip Average Housing Trip Ends per Persons per [11 Ends 121 Available(11 Ends 13) Trip Ends Units[1] Housing Unit Housing Unit Single Family0.3 Sdrms 1,331 3,682 970 5,642 4,662 737 4.93 1.47 Single Family4+Bdrms 754 2,195 447 2,620 2,408 245 7.62 2.S1 SingleUnit5ubtotal 2,08S 6,169 1,417 8,308 7,239 982 5.60 1.73 Single Unit-Manufactured 417 1,280 303 1,783 1,S32 2S9 4.49 1.21 Multifamily Total 110 317 39 447 382 63 440 1.39 GRAND TOTAL 2,612 7,766 1,7S9 10,539 9,152 1,304 Ill American Community Survey,Public Use Microdata Sample for AZ PUMA 0900(unweighted data for 20111. 121 Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012) Forsingle family housing(ITE 2101,the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.91'LN(person5)+1.S21. To approximate the average population in the ITE studies,persons were divided by Sand the equation result multiplied by S. For mul tifami ly housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.47'persons)-64.48. [31 Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). Forsingle family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99'LN(vehicles)+1.81). To approximate the average numberof vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by 7 and the equation result multiplied by 7. For multifami ly housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.94'vehicles)+293.S8. [41 Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average value by type of housingfor AZ PUMA 0800 match the average value for Apache Junction, derived from American Community Svrvey2011 data,with persons adjusted to the Citywide average of 1.73 persons persingle family housing unit. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARY Provided on the next page is a summary of annual demographic and development projections to be used for the development fee study. Base year estimates for 2013 are used in the development fee calculations. Development projections are used to illustrate a possible future pace of service demands and cash flows resulting from revenues and expenditures associated with those service demands. TlsctleffliSe Appendix C-87 00 c c° o a a N x 4 � x h c v y Q N « Q Q N ry Q Q W Q ^ N T O. Q aj z < o v M N O = rl a F � ti A A n '1 N b n N eel QL y N N t kn Qj O « W r m W n M n m a m a e 0 UN A Ql ry C N a u, Cu j Q Q ti Q N M pp vNi O N Q• .Oi O m ^ P� uml m T N .b+ N Q o yq .ri •i h O LC �1 .y a Q W N N O �P N _ry v 0 N a P Z ry a N Q N ry m C1 O O cm 0 m Q �L M .i O O ibil R O v ubi O m L't N T �I - M �n N a� m ry W m h a b ry h n b o C w at -i Ili .a. m .T, r � mN NNmo n m O a �" � omoo u j b M W P o0 N b W Oi N O T u+ N M N L u « a m N W b b q v;.q o a v v W b m n e v m o Q N O M M P ry ni b Pi « ^ a N N N N Q ry m C ry N ry O a M ti h M b •i �p m •V .+ N T ry O1 N ry b at rl ^ M pppa pp pp�� op ��pppp Y T rA w 0 P N O 00 O « + N O M N ry N ,9n O O m C Oi g N T N V1 M R Q � U Q � � m tA o O o O m o N a � Q Z z i ro s a u 0 O Ed U C Y c y Z e d g k ^ z 3 E^ N Ow[ S W z t O 1 C) cn a. N 00 QL 25 a c atu r- Qj r u CL Oj Qj Qj Oj :b O O O NO CU CU ar < ID ti ID ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard = Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ 85119 Agenda Item No. 11. '+PizoN►' File ID: 14-59 Sponsor: George Hoffman Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Executive Session at 5:45 P.M. and Work Session at 7:00 P.M. for Monday, March 17, 2014. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026 ►P�"E�c�, City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard = Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction,AZ 85119 Agenda Item No. 12. '+PizoN►' File ID: 14-60 Sponsor: George Hoffman Agenda Date: 3/4/2014 Index: In Control: City Council Meeting Executive Session at 5:45 P.M. for Tuesday, March 18, 2014. Other meetings if necessary. City of Apache Junction,Arizona Page 1 Printed on 611512026