HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 05-31RESOLUTION NO.05-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION,ARIZONA,DECLARING AS PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK ENTITLED "APACHE JUNCTION CITY
CODE VOLUME II,LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,CHAPTER 7,ARTICLE 7-1,
DEVELOPMENT FEES",SECTION 7-1-2 ROAD DEVELOPMENT FEES.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA:
That certain document entitled "APACHE JUNCTION CITY CODE VOLUME II,LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE,CHAPTER 7,ARTICLE 7-1 DEVELOPMENT FEES",SECTION 7-1-2 ROAD
DEVELOPMENT FEES three copies of which are on file in the Office of the City
Clerk,is hereby declared to be a public record,and said copies are ordered
to remain on file with the City Clerk.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION,ARIZONA,THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,2005.
SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,2005.
Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN CONNELLY
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.05-31
PAGE 1 OF 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
to.3).oS
R.JOEL STERN
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.05-31
PAGE 2 OF 2
A
prepand for
THE CITY ••-iF
ACHE JUNCTION, ARIZ°
prepared by
cflann mn associates
AUSTIN, TEXAS
OCTO ER 2005
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................1
BACKGROUND .................................................................
ROADWAY EXACTIONS .........................................................
SERVICE UNIT ..................................................................2
SERVICE AREA .................................................................3
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................3
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM .....................................................5
COST PER SERVICE UNIT .......................................................9
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT .................................................11.
DEMAND AND COST SCHEDULE ...............................................13
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ...................................................18
.APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ...........................................19
APPENDIX B:STUDY COST ....................................................20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:MAJOR ROADWAY INVENTORY ....................................6
Table 2:TRAVEL AND DEMAND ON MAJOR STREET NETWORK .............9
Table 3:ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER LANE -MILE ...............10
Table 4:ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER LANE -MILE 11
Table 5:ROAD COST PER SERVICE UN IT ...................................11
Table 6:ANNUAL ROAD REVENUE ........................................12
Table 7:ROAD REVENUE CREDIT PER VMT ................................12
Table 8:ROAD NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ..............................13
Table 9:AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH ..........................................14
Table 10:ROAD SERVICE UNIT GENERATION BY LAND USE TYPE ..........15
Table 11:ROAD NET COST BY LAND USE TYPE .............................16
Table 12:POTENTIAL CHANGE IN ROAD FEES ..............................17
Table 13:DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE, 2005 ..................................19
Table 14:EXISTING NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ....................19
Table 15:STUDY COST PER SERVICE UNIT ..................................20
prepared by Duncan Associates
Clancy Mullen, Principal Author
13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 208, Austin, TX 78750
(512) 258-7347x204, clancy@duncanplan.com
INTRODUCTION
Development fees are a way for local governments to require new developments to pay a proportionate
of the infrastructure costs they impose on the community.In contrast to traditional "negotiated"
developer exactions, development fees are charges that are assessed on new development using a
standard formula based on objective characteristics, such as the number of dwelling units constructed
or vehicle trips generated.The fees are one-time, up -front charges, with the payment usually made at
the time of building permit issuance. Essentially, development fees require that each new development
project pay its pro -rata share of the cost of new capital facilities required to serve that development.
Since development fees were pioneered in states that lacked specific enabling legislation, such fees have
generally been legally defended as an exercise of local government's broad "police power" to regulate
land development in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The courts have
developed guidelines for constitutionally valid development fees and exactions, based on "dual rational
nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards. The standards set by court cases generally require that
a development fee meet a three-part test:
1)The need for new facilities must be created by new development (first prong of the dual rational
nexus test);
2)The expenditure of fee revenues must provide benefit to the fee -paying development (second
prong of the dual rational nexus test);
3)The amount of fee charged must not exceed a proportional fair share of the cost to serve new
development (rough proportionality standard).
While Arizona's development fee enabling act for municipalities, Sec. 9-463.05 A.R.S., reflects these
constitutional standards, it gives municipalities broad authority to impose development fees. The
primary requirement is that the amount of the fee must bear a "reasonable relationship to the burden
imposed upon the municipality to provide additional necessary public services to the development." In
addition, the fees must "result in a beneficial use to the development," and appropriate credits or offsets
must be provided for developer contributions, whether in cash or in kind.This enabling authority is
fairly unusual in that (1) it does not expressly list or limit the types of infrastructure for which
development fees can be developed, and (2) it does not set forth a specific methodology for the
calculation of the fees. Thus, Arizona municipalities can consider the use of development fees to help
finance any type of facility for which it can demonstrate a relationship between new development and
the need for additional capital facilities that result in "costs to the municipality."
A major constraint in the development fee enabling act is the time required to enact or increase
development fees.Following completion of the written study, a minimum of 164 days (more than five
months) must pass before the new fees can take effect.According to Sec. 9-463.05(C):
A municpaliy shall give at least sixty cfrys' advance notice of intention to assess a new or increased
development fee and shall release to the public a written report induding all documentation that supports
the assessment of a new or increased development fee. The munia'palio shall conduct a public hearing
on the proposed new or increased development fee at any time e'er the eNpiration of the sixty day notice
of intention to assess a new or increased development fee and at least fourteen days prior to the scheduled
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ duncan associates
October 24, 2005
Page 1
date of adoption of the new or increased fee by the governing body. A development fee assessed pursuant
to this section shall not be effective until ninety day O'er its formal adoption by the governing body of
the municOaliO.
BACKGROUND
The City of Apache Junction first adopted road impact fees on 13ecember 17, 1996, with the ordinance
becoming effective on March 1, 1997.The fees were phased -in over a two -month period, and were
assessed at 100 percent beginning May 1, 1997.Following an update study, a revised ordinance was
adopted on February 3, 1998, and the updated fees became effective on May 4, 1998. The most recent
update study was prepared in November 2001.The ordinance was adopted on May 7, 2002, and the
fees became effective on August 6, 2002.
ROADWAY EXACTIONS
While the provision of internal local and collector streets is clearly the responsibility of the developer,
improvements to the major road system, including arterials and major collectors, are typically funded
partially by the private sector and partially by the public sector. The private sector is required to dedicate
and construct planned arterials and major collectors that lie within or adjacent to a subdivision, while
state and local governments typically pay the cost of widening projects or new roads needed to
accommodate the off -site traffic impacts of new development. Road development fees are a means of
shifting the cost of off -site improvements to the new development that creates the need, while also
ensuring through development fee credits that no development is required to contribute more than its
proportionate share of the cost of major road facilities.
The City's subdivision regulations require that where a proposed subdivision includes a planned street
designated in the adopted Street Classification Plan, such street shall be platted and constructed in
conformance with the Plan. Arterials, including section line roads, must have a minimum right-of-way
(ROW) width of 100 feet and a minimum pavement width, excluding curbs, of 60 feet. Major collectors,
including mid -section line roads, must have a minimum ROW width of 80 feet and a minimum
pavement width of 48 feet.Collector streets must have a minimum ROW width of 60 feet and a
minimum pavement width of 40 feet.
SERVICE UNIT
Service units create the link between supply (roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new
development). An appropriate service unit for road development fees is vehicle -miles of travel (VMT)
during an average weekday. Vehicle -miles is a combination of the number of vehicles traveling during
a given time period and the distance (in miles) that these vehicles travel.The time period was chosen
based on the availability of data on average daily trips (AM).
The VMT that will be generated by a proposed development is determined, in general terms, by
multiplying the trip generation rate by the average length of a trip in miles. The total VMT on the major
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ diancenlassoclates October 24, 2005
Page 2
road system is determined by multiplying the length, in miles, of each road segment by the average daily
traffic count and summing the results for all roadway segments.
The supply side is represented by vehicle -miles of capacity (VMC).For a roadway, the VMC provided
is simply the product of the capacity of the roadway and the length of the roadway.The capacity
supplied by a road improvement is determined by multiplying the capacity of the new lanes by the length
of the road improvement.
SERVICE AREA
The City's road development fee currently applies city-wide.The updated road development fees will
not apply within the City's infill incentive districts. The infill districts are three areas along West Apache
Trail where the City desires to encourage infill and redevelopment (see Figure 1).The districts were
established by Resolution No. 04-25, adopted by the City on October 19, 2004.These areas are to be
excluded from the road development fee service area, meaning that no road development fees will be
collected in this area, and no road development fee funds will be spent on capital improvements in this
area.
Figure 1
INFILL AREA EXCLUDED FROM ROAD DEVELOPMENT FEES
METHODOLOGY
The current road development fee methodology is based on a modified "consumption -based" model.
The consumption -based model basically charges a new development the cost of replacing the capacity
that it consumes on the major road system.That is, for every service unit of traffic generated by the
development, the development fee charges the net cost to construct an additional service unit of
capacity. Since travel is never evenly distributed throughout a roadway system, actual roadway systems
require more than one VMC for every VMT in order to keep most road segments functioning at an
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ duneanlassociates
October 24, 2005
Page 3
acceptable level of service.Consequently, the consumption -based road development fee model
generally underestimates the full cost of growth.It is, however, a conservative, legally sound and
relatively simple approach to the calculation of road development fees.
While the consumption -based model is probably the most commonly -used approach for road
development fees in the nation, many communities have used other models.The most common
alternative is the "improvements -driven" model. The improvements -driven approach essentially divides
the cost of growth -related improvements required over a fixed planning horizon (or to build -out) by
the number new service units (e.g., VMT) projected to be generated by growth over the same planning
horizon in order to determine a cost per service unit.This approach requires a sophisticated level of
planning, as well as consideration of fiscal constraints in developing the capital improvements plan to
ensure that it does not include low priority, marginally -needed improvements. Despite these difficulties,
the improvements -driven model can come closer to capturing the full cost of maintaining desired levels
of service on most roadway segments than the consumption -based approach.
The consultant has developed a modification to the standard consumption -based road development fee
model that more accurately identifies the full growth -related cost of maintaining desired service levels,
while avoiding the difficulties associated with the improvements -driven approach. Essentially, the idea
is that new development should be required to pay for the cost to construct more capacity than it
directly consumes in order to maintain the system -wide ratio of capacity to demand. This methodology
has been used as the basis of road development fees in several other communities, including Atlanta,
Georgia, Rio Rancho, New Mexico and Larimer County, Colorado.
In the standard consumption -based model, the VMT generated by a development is multiplied by the
cost per VMC of new roadway capacity to develop the development fee.Implicit in this formula is the
conversion of the cost per VMC to a cost per VMT.In other words, the standard model implicitly
assumes that the ratio of VMC to VMT is One-to-one.The "modified" approach simply makes the
implicit VMC/VMT ratio an explicit part of the formula, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
ROAD DEVELOPMENT FEE FORMULA
FEE =VMT x NET COST/VMT
VMT =TRIPS x % NEW x LENGTH —2
NET COST/VMT =COST/VMT - CREDIT/VMT
COST/VMT =COST/VMC x VMCNMT
Where:
VMT =Vehicle -miles of travel placed on the major roadway system during an average week day
TRIPS =Average daily trip ends
% NEW =Percent of trips that are primary trips, as opposed to passby or diverted -link trips
LENGTH =Average length of a trip on major roadway system
÷ 2 =Avoids double -counting trips for origin and destination
COSTNMC =Average cost to create a new vehicle -mile of capacity (VMC)
VMCNMT =The system -wide ratio of capacity to demand on the major roadway system
CREDIT/VMT =Revenue credit_per VMT
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ chonceralassociates October 24, 2005
Page 4
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM
The City's road development fees are designed to cover the costs of capacity -expanding improvements
to the City's major roadway system.For the purpose of road development fees, the major roadway
system includes all City -maintained roadways designated as arterials or collectors in the City's adopted
Street Classification Map,which was most recently revised in July 2001. State -maintained roadways, which
in Apache Junction are limited to the Superstition Freeway and portions of Idaho Road and North
Apache Trail, are excluded from the definition of the major roadway system because the City has limited
responsibility for paying for improvements to state roads. In addition, responsibility for some boundary
roads is shared with the adjoining counties, and only one-half of the travel demand and capacity of such
roadways is considered to be part of the City's major roadway system. Developers required to construct
portions of the major roadway system are eligible for credit against their road development fees.
To determine system -wide demand and capacity on the City's major roadway system, an inventory of
all roadway segments that are included in the major roadway system and are located within the existing
City limits was prepared (see Table 1).Current daily traffic volumes were estimated for each roadway
segment from the most recent available traffic data.The daily volumes for each segment were then
multiplied by the length of the segment to determine existing VMT.
For each segment, existing VMC was determined by multiplying the length of the segment by the
capacity of the segment. The actual capacity of an individual roadway segment is affected by a host of
factors,including frequency of signalized intersections,signal timing,intersection configuration
(including turn lanes), lane width, percent of truck traffic, etc.The engineering analysis required to
precisely estimate the capacity of individual segments is generally not appropriate for development fee
analysis, however, both because it would be prohibitively expensive and because it is simply not practical
to do for future roadway improvements in advance of engineering design.Instead, the planning -level
capacity estimates adopted by the local government or used in a regional transportation model are
typically used to determine the approximate capacity of existing and future roadways for the purpose
of development fee calculations. The previous studies have used a generalized capacity estimate of 6,000
vehicles per day per lane as a reasonable approximation of the capacity of the City's major roadways,
and this capacity figure will continue to be used in this update.
The inventory of the City's existing major roadway system are summarized in Table 1.The existing
major roadway system is illustrated in Figure 2.•
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ dametwolossociates October 24, 2005
Page 5
Table 1
MAJOR ROADWAY INVENTORY
M g =
Length •# of % City
(mi.)Lanes Maint.ADT VMT VMC
Superstition
W Apache Trail
N Apache Trail
Broadway Ave
Southern Ave
Meridian Drive
Ironwood Drive
Idaho Road
Tomahawk Rd
Meridian -Ironwood
Ironwood -Idaho
Idaho -N Apache Trail
N Apache Tr -Tomahawk
Tomahawk -Goldfield
Goldfield -E. City Limits
Meridian -Ironwood
lronwood-N Apache Trail
W Apache Trail -Idaho
Meridian -Ironwood
Ironwood -Idaho
Idaho -Old West Highway
Old West Hwy -Tomahawk
Tomahawk -Goldfield
Goldfield -Arroyo
Meridian -Ironwood
Ironwood -1/4 mi. east
1/4 mi. east -Idaho
Idaho -Winchester
Winchester -Cactus
Cactus -Tomahawk
Tomahawk -Goldfield
McKellips-Lost Dutchman
Lost Dutchman -Superstition
Superstition -W Apache Tr
W Apache Trail -Broadway
Broadway -Southern
McKellips-Lost Dutchman
Lost Dutchman -Superstition
Superstition -W Apache Tr
W.Apache Trail -Broadway
Broadway -Southern
Southern -Superstition Fwy
Superstition Fwy-Baseline
Baseline -Elliot Align
McKellips-Lost Dutchman
Lost Dutchman -Superstition
Superstition -N Apache Tr
Superstition Fwy7Baseline
Lost Dutchman -SR 88
N Apache Tr -Superstition
Superstition Blvd -Broadway
Broadway -Old West Hwy
Old West Hwy -Southern
Southern -Superstition Fwjf
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.75
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.75
0.40
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
1.00
0.33
0.67
0.50
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
.100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
10,824
10,406
10,000
3,427
3,729
2,000
25,063
24,461
4,044
10,710
8,133
2,766
1,859
3,000
2,000
7,061
5,000
5,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
1,000
1,901
7,249
6,806
9,156
7,956
2,090
8,706
8,177
11,887
15,321
18,394
3,000
2,000
1,748
7,666
7,933
1,000
1,000
3,755
1,292
1,159
3,715
5,351
10,824
10,406
2,500
2,570
3,729
1,000
25,063
18,346
1,618
10,710
8,133
1,383
930
3,000
1M00
7,061
1,250
3,750
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
951
3,625
3,403
2,289
3,978
2,090
8,706
4,089
5,944
15,321
9,197
1,500
4,000
1,748
7,666
1,587
500
400
2,253
1,292
382
2,489
2,676
30,000
30,000
7,500
9,000
12,000
6,000
36,000
27,000
4,800
24,000
24,000
6,000
6,000
12,000
6,000
12,000
3,000
9,000
6,000
3,000
3,000
12,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
3,000
6,000
12,000
12,000
6,000
15,000
30,000
15,000
6,000
24,000
12,000
12,000
4,800
6,000
4,800
7,200
12,000
3,960
8,040
6,000
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ '01411A0M7D associates
October 24, 2005
Page 6
N41711=1 Segment
Length #1of % City
(mi.)Lanes Maint.ADT VMT VMC
Goldfield Road
Old West Hwy
Lost Dutchman
Tepee St
Cortez Rd
Delaware Ave
Baseline Rd
16th Avenue
S Royal Palm
San Marcos Dr
S Phelps Drive
Superstition Fwy-Baseline
Lost Dutchman -Superstition
Superstition -Broadway
Broadway -Old West Hwy
Southern -Superstition Fwy
Superstition Fwy-Baseline
W Apache Trail -Broadway
Broadway -Tomahawk
Tomahawk -Goldfield
Meridian -Ironwood
Ironwood -Idaho
Idaho -N Apache Trail
N Apache Tr -Goldfield
Meridian -Idaho Rd
Meridian -Delaware
Delaware -Ironwood
Ironwood -Idaho Rd
Old W Hwy -Lost Dutchman
Lost Dutchman -Superstition
Superstition -W Apache Tr
W Apache Trail -Broadway
Broadway -W 16th Ave
W 16th Ave -Southern
W City Limits -Meridian
Meridian -Ironwood
Ironwood -Idaho
Idaho -Tomahawk
Tomahawk -Goldfield
Delaware -Ironwood
Ironwood -San Marcos
San Marcos -Idaho
Idaho -S Royal Palm
Old West Hwy -Southern
Broadway -W 16th Ave
W 16th Ave -Southern
Apache Tr Intrsct-Broadway
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.90
0.55
1.16
1.00
1.00
1.40
0.60
2.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
2.75
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.15
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
7,000
1,000
17,000
17,000
8,000
4,893
3,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
706
633
639
1,000
1,232
3,044
2,899
2,994
0
3,013
2,474
1,330
1,570
747
1,000
2,000
2,000
1,000
2,000
3,082
3,000
8,056
1,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
3,500
500
15,300
9,350
9,280
4,893
3,000
2,800
600
2,000
353
317
639
2,750
1,232
1,522
1,450
1,497
0
452
2,474
1,330
1,570
747
500
1,000
1,000
500
2,000
1,541
1,500
4,028
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
15,000
6,000
21,600
13,200
27,840
12,000
12,000
16,800
7,200
24,000
6,000
6,000
12,000
33,000
12,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
0
1,800
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
6,000
6,000
12,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
Total 287 84 918,540
Source:Streets are City -maintained roadways identified as urban arterials or urban collectors in the City of Apache Junction Street
Classification Map; only road segments within existing City limits are included; number of lanes from Kirkham Michael,City of
Apache Junction Small Area Transportation Study,May 2004; boundary roads are shown at reduced "% City -maintained" to reflect
shared responsibility with adjoining county where applicable;ADT are 2004 average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes from City
Engineering Department, May 2004; vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) is product of length, % City -maintained and ADT; vehicle -miles
of capacity (VMC) is product of length, number of lanes, % City -maintained and daily capacity of 6,000 vehicles/lane.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ ellt111711011117)1associates
October 24, 2005
Page 7
1
r at a—r
W
•:•-•411129 41
1 '3 1
e
i.
111
—66 1-21.-111 -1 -1111.a3-`.."---11121V17
21IU
•
0-4,,>•32 -0 4 -64-0-0:4 -0 -0-ere-331.0-0
..9".01111.)•flIC00.1 3 3V1
Figure 3
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM
f l
,
.4MM.II•Vi
-13.-
8.9
Arterial
!ono* Collector
25 i 0 0*0 0 Freeway
j 0 6n 0 0 State Rte.
i
- -
-.?1,
I, •
25
51-0o340,3a4e4oi..3.3•34-6-3
t •
'7„.71
15
:1e6
3
31.3
1466.01E.A.A. i.4.9011
I
1 3
I is
7'77
11-
4:
36
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ duncan associates
October 24, 2005
Page 8
A comparison of existing VMT and VMC for each seg,inent indicates that none of the roadway segments
are currently operating over capacity.As described in the methodology section,however,the
appropriate level of service measure for a consumption -based road development fee is not a segment-
specific measure, but a system -wide measure. In fact, the City's existing major roadway system currently
provides over three units of capacity for every demand unit, as shown in Table 2. FIowever, a
considerably lower ratio of 1.5 -to -one is recommended for use in the development fee calculations.
Table 2
TRAVEL AND DEMAND ON MAJOR STREET NETWORK
Vehicle -Miles of Travel (VMT)
Vehicle -Miles of Capacity (VMC)
287,984
918,540
Current Ratio of System -wide VMC to VMT
Recommended VMCNMT Ratio
3.19
1.50
Source:VMT and VMC from Table 1.
COST PER SERVICE UNIT
The costs of adding new capacity to the major roadway network vary significantly from one community
to another. Local roadway design standards, including such things as landscaped medians for four -lane
arterials, can also significantly affect costs.
There are three major capacity -enhancing roadway improvements that were undertaken by the City with
proceeds from the 1998 bond issue.The three projects are Broadway from Meridian to Idaho,
Ironwood from Apache Trail to Superstition, and Superstition from Meridian to Idaho. All of these are
two-lane to four -lane widening projects. However, there arc a number of reasons why the cost per lane-
mile used in the fee calculations should not be based on the bonded amounts for these three projects.
First, these costs do not include the full cost of paving—the costs in the bond issue reflect a City subsidy
of the paving crews' labor. Second, engineering and contract administration costs are real costs of these
projects that are not reflected in the bond issue figures.Finally, the cost estimates do not include
landscaping costs, which are required by the City's development ordinance.
Because of these issues and the limited number of planned capacity projects, an alternative lane -mile
cost estimate was prepared based on unit construction cost and quantity estimates. The estimated cost
for new four -lane roads and two- to four -lane widening projects averages $871,016 per lane -mile, as
shown in Table 3.It should be noted that the cost estimation procedure does not include right-of-way
(ROW) costs.The City's current ordinance does not provide for credit against the road development
fees for ROW dedication, since ROW costs are not included in the fee.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ dItorposanti associa*.
October 24, 2005
Page 9
Table 3
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER LANE -MILE
Item
,
Unit l
Unit
Cost
New
Units
4 -Lane
Cost/Mile
Widen
Units
2 -4 -Lane
Cost/Mile
Excavation c.y.$2.31 15,644 $36,138 9,387 $21,684
Asphalt Concrete Pavement ton $55.39 7,656 $424,066 4,594 $254,462
Aggregate Base ton $13.85 21,859 $302,747 13,116 $181,657
Curb Er Gutter, Type A I.f.$13.85 10,560 $146,256 5,280 $73,128
Loop Detector for Signals ea.$1,154.00 12 $13,848 8 $9,232
Elect. Conduit 2" PVC intersect I.f.$5.77 320 $1,846 320 $1,846
Elect. Conduit 2" PVC st lights I.f.$5.77 10,560 $60,931 5,280 $30,466
Street Light Pole ea.$4,039.00 28 $113,092 14 $56,546
Pullbox (No. 7)ea.$346.20 8 $2,770 8 $2,770
Pole (Type R)ea.$5,139.00 8 $41,112 8 $41,112
Pole Foundation (Type R)ea.$2,077.20 8 $16,618 8 $16,618
Mast Arm (50 Ft)ea.$2,769.60 8 $22,157 8 $22,157
Traffic Signal Face (Type R)ea.$605.85 8 $4,847 8 $4,847
Pedestrian Pushbutton ea.$288.50 8 $2,308 8 $2,308
Control Cabinet (Type IV)ea.$17,310 2 $34,620 2 $34,620
Storm Drain Pipe, 24"I.f.$51.93 560 $29,081 560 $29,081
Storm Drain Pipe, 36"I.f.$80.78 5,280 $426,518 5,280 $426,518
Storm Drain Pipe, 48" w/headwall I.f.$126.94 400 $50,776 200 $25,388
Cross Drain, 45(6 CBC w/headwall I.f.$403.90 200 $80,780 100 $40,390
Catch Basin, MAG Det. 535 type F ea.$2,308.00 28 $64,624 28 $64,624
Manhole (C-18.10)(No. 3)ea.$2,885.00 14 $40,390 14 $40,390
Striping I.f.$1.38 31,680 $43,718 26,400 $36,432
Concrete Sidewalk, MAG Det. 230 s.f.$2.89 52,800 $152,592 26,400 $76,296
Landscaping mi.$131,556 1 $131,556 0.5 $65,778
Construction Cost per Mile $2,243,391 $1,558,350
Construction Cost per New Lane -Mile $560,848 $779,175
Average Construction Cost per New Lane -Mile $670,012
Project Administration/Legal (5%)$33,501
Engineering (Design Er Construction @ 15%)$100,502
Contingency (10%)$67,001
Total Project Cost per Lane -Mile $871,016
Source:Earth Tech, Inc., November 26, 2001, updated to current dollars using Engineering News -Record Construction Cost Index
(May 2005/February 2001 = 1.154)
This cost per lane -mile is somewhat lower than the cost per lane -mile used in the City's recent
transportation plan (see Table 4).Right-of-way costs have not been included in these cost estimates.
This slightly higher cost per lane -mile will be used in the road impact fee calculations.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ demeamlassociates October 24, 2005
Page 10
Table 4
ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER LANE -MILE
New
Lanes MVP
Lane-
Miles
Estimated
Cost
Cost/
Lane -Mile
New 6 -Lane Arterial
New 4 -Lane Arterial
Widen 4-6 Lanes
Widen 2-4 Lanes
6
4
2
2
31
3
24
21
186
12
48
42
$120,000,000
$9,000,000
$51,000,000
$63,000,000
$645,000
$750,000
$1,063,000
$1,500,000
Average $990.000
Source:Kirkham Michael,City of Apache Junction Small Area Transportation Study,May 2004..
The next step is to translate the average lane -mile cost into a cost per service unit.As noted in the
previous section, an arterial or collector roadway can accommodate about 6,000 daily vehicles per lane.
Dividing the average cost of a lane -mile by 6,000 vehicles per day yields the average cost per vehicle -mile
of capacity (VMC).Multiplying that by the system -wide ratio of capacity to demand results in the
average cost per vehicle -mile of travel (VMT), which is $248.15, as shown in Table 5.To this capital
cost, the cost of the development fee study, calculated in Appendix C to be $0.65 per vehicle -mile, can
be added.
Table 5
ROAD COST PER SERVICE UNIT
- - - - - - - - -,
Average Cost per Lane -Mile
Ca Gaci (Vehicles •er Lane ser Da )
$990,000
6,000
Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Capacity (VMC)
VMCNMT Ratio
$165.00
1.50
Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Travel (VMT)
Stud Cost •er VMT
$247.50
$0.65
Total Cost •er VMT $248.15
Source:Average cost per lane -mile from Table 4; capacity per lane
assumed; VMC/VMT ratio from Table 2.
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
To avoid double -charging, new development should receive credit in the fee calculations for the
additional outside revenues it will generate that will be available for capacity -expanding improvements.
The City receives several sources of outside funding for road improvements, including Highway User
Revenue Funds (HURF), Pinal County sales tax funds, state Local Transportation Assistance Funds
(LTAF), and state and federal highway funds.However, the City is a low priority for state and federal
highway funds and has received virtually no funding over the past several years.The Central Arizona
Association of Governments Transportation Improvement Program for fiscal years 2003-2007 provides
funding only for addressing drainage improvements at Weekes Wash.Current funding dedicated to
road maintenance and improvements amounts to about $4.3 million annually, as shown in Table 6.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ datinosan associates October 24, 2005
Page 11
Table 6
ANNUAL ROAD REVENUE
State Highway User Fees (HURF)
County Sales Tax
Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF)
Federal and State Hiahwav Funds
$2,800,000
$1,300,000
$178,100
$0
Total $4.278,100
Source:Actual FY 2003/04 revenues from City of Apache Junction,Annual
Budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.
In FY 1998-99, the City Council approved a $6 million bond initiative to fund street construction
projects, with the majority of the funding going for the three capacity -expanding improvements
identified earlier. The annual debt service on these projects is $752,000, which will be repaid primarily
with HURF funds, although road development fees can also be used for this purpose.The credit for
future road funding that will be generated by new development and used for capacity -expanding
improvements will be based on this funding pattern for the next several years.Assuming that future
funding will increase proportionately to growth in travel demand, the net present value of additional
outside funding for capital improvements expected to be generated over the next 20 years is estimated
to be $34.14 for each additional VMT generated by new development, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7
ROAD REVENUE CREDIT PER VMT
Annual Capital Funding
Existing VMT
$752,000
287,984
Annual Capital Funding per VMT
Present Value Factor (20 years at 4.44%)
$2.61
13.08
a of Capital Funding VMT $34.14
Source:Annual capacity project funding is FY 2004/05 street debt service
from City of Apache Junction,Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year July 1,
2004 to June 30, 2005,p. 107; present value factor based on 20 years at
discount rate of 4.44%, which is the average yield on 20 -year AAA tax-
exempt municipal bonds reported by bloomberg.com on May 17, 2005;
existing VMT from Table 2.
Deducting the revenue credit results in a net cost of $214.01 per vehicle -mile of travel generated by new
development, as shown in Table 8.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ associates
October 24, 2005
Page 12
Table 8
ROAD NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Total Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Travel
Revenue Credit per Vehicle -Mile of Travel
$248.15
$34.14
Net Cost Der Vehicle -Mile of Travel $214.01
Source:Capital cost from Table 5; credit from Table 7.
DEMAND AND COST SCHEDULE
The number of service units (or VMT) generated by specific land use types is a product of three factors:
1) trip generation, 2) percent primary trips and 3) trip length. The first two factors are well documented
in the professional literature, and the average trip generation characteristics identified in studies of
communities around the nation should be reasonably representative of trip generation characteristics
in Apache Junction.In contrast, trip lengths are much more likely to vary between communities,
depending on the geographic size and shape of the community and its major roadway system.
Average daily trip rates are based on information published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers'
(ITE)Trip Generation.In the 2001 update, the 1997 sixth edition of the ITE manual was used.This
update uses the 2003 seventh edition.Rates were established for specific land use types within the
broader categories of residential, retail/commercial, office/institutional and industrial land uses. Rates
are per dwelling unit, 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, or other appropriate unit of development.
Trip generation rates represent trip ends, or driveway crossings at the site of a land use.Thus, a one-
way trip from home to work counts as one trip end for the residence and one trip end for the work
place. To avoid over -counting, all trip rates have been divided by two. This places the burden of travel
equally between the origin and destination of the trip and eliminates double -charging for any particular
trip.
• Trip rates also need to be adjusted by a "primary trip factor" to exclude pass -by and diverted trips. This
adjustment is intended to reduce the possibility of over -counting by only including primary trips
generated by the development.Pass -by trips are those trips that are already on a particular route for a
different purpose and simply stop at a particular development on that route.For example, a stop at a
convenience store on the way home from the office is a pass -by trip for the convenience store. A pass-
by trip does not create an additional burden on the street system and therefore should not be counted
in the assessment of development fees.A diverted trip is similar to a pass -by trip, but a diversion is
made from the regular route to make an interim stop. The reduction for pass -by and diverted trips was
drawn from the ITE manual and other published information.
The average length of a trip on the City's major roadway system can be estimated by dividing total daily
travel demand (VMT) by the total number of average daily trips generated by existing land uses.As
shown in Table 9, the average trip length on Apache Junction's major roadway system is just over two
miles.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ dlanconlassociates October 24, 2005
Page 13
Table 9
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH
Land Use Type
•Existing ADT/Existing
Units Units Unit Trips
Single -Family
Multi -Family
Mobile Home
Retail/Commercial
Office/Institutional
Industrial/Warehouse
Dwelling
Dwelling
Dwelling
1,000 sq. ft.
•1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
7,238
2,618
20,252
2,108.037
603.569
264.056
4.79
3.36
2.50
12.45
5.51
2.99
34,670
8,796
50,630
26,245
3,326
790
Total Daily Trips
Total Daily VMT on Maior Road System
124,457
287,984
Averaae Trio Lenath (miles 2.31
Source:Existing dwelling units from Table 13; existing nonresidential square footage from
Table 14; average daily trip rates from Table 10 (retail is ADT times primary trip factor); total
existing VMT from Table 2.
The system -wide average trip length should be appropriate for residential, industrial and most office and
institutional uses, for which the home -to -work commute is the predominate trip type.On the other
hand, trip lengths for retail and some specialized uses tend to be determined by market area and
locational characteristics that are likely to be relatively similar from one community to the next.
Consequently, published and unpublished data from studies of other communities have been relied
upon to derive recommended trip lengths for such uses.
The result of combining trip generation, primary trip and trip length information is an equivalency table
that establishes the number of service units (VMT) generated by various land use types per unit of
development.The recommended equivalency table is presented in Table 10.The development fee
ordinance contains a provision allowing the option of independent fee determination studies for those
applicants who feel that their developments will have less impact on the need for road facilities than
indicated by the fee schedule.•
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ eilannazonlassocicttes October 24, 2005
Page 14
Table 10
ROAD SERVICE UNIT GENERATION BY LAND USE TYPE
Unit
Trip
Rate
Primary
Trips
Trip
Length VIVITLand Use
Single -Family Detached Dwelling 4.79 100%2.31 11.06
Multi -Family Dwelling 3.36 100%2.31 7.76
Mobile Home/RV Park Space 2.50 100%2.31 5.78
Assited Livin„g Facilit Dwellin i 1.08 100%2.31 2.49„',.
Reta1140omniercial-_
General Retail/Shopping Center 1000 sq. ft.21.47 58%2.31 28.77
Auto Sales/Repair 1000 sq. ft.16.67 75%2.31 28.88
Building Material/Lumber 1000 sq. ft.22.58 75%2.31 39.12
Convenience Store/Gas Station 1000 sq. ft.422.8 16%0.50 33.82
Discount Store 1000 sq. ft.24.61 48%2.31 27.29
Drive -In Bank 1000 sq. ft.123.25 27%0.75 24.96
Hotel/Motel Room 3.45 100%2.31 7.97
Movie Theater 1000 sq. ft.39.03 75%2.31 67.62
Nursery/Garden Center 1000 sq. ft.18.04 75%2.31 31.25
Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq. ft.248.06 30%0.50 37.21
Restaurant, Sit -Down 1000 9.ft.44.98 38%0.75 12.82..,R,.
Office/Institati na.-
General Office Building 1000 sq. ft.5.51 100%2.31 12.73
Medical Office 1000 sq. ft.18.07 100%2.31 41.74
Hospital 1000 sq. ft.8.79 100%2.31 20.30
Nursing Home 1000 sq. ft.3.05 100%2.31 7.05
Church/Synagogue 1000 sq. ft.4.56 100%2.31 10.53
Day Care Center 1000 sq. ft.39.63 24%0.75 7.13
Elementary School 1000 sq. ft.7.25 24%0.75 1.31
High School 1000 s . ft.6.45 50%0.75 2.42--,
litdu tne Wats ciii,----:`, -
General Light Industrial 1000 sq. ft.3.49 100%2.31 8.06
Warehouse 1000 sq. ft.2.48 100%2.31 5.73
Mini -Warehouse 1000 so. ft.1.25 100%2.31 2.89
Sources:Trip rates =1/2of trip ends on a weekday reported in ITE, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003; ADT for hotel/motel per room
averaged; primary trip factors for shopping center, convenience store, discount store, drive-in bank and restaurants from ITE,Trip
Generation Handbook,March 2001 (shopping center factor equals non -pass -by percentage based on formula for 200,000 sq. ft.
center less 10% for diverted trips); day care center primary trip factor from paper by Hitchens, 1990 ITE Compendium; primary trip
factors for other land uses assumed; average trip length from Table 9, other trip lengths assumed.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ duncanlassociates
October 24, 2005
Page 15
Based on projected travel demand by land use and the net cost per vehicle -mile of travel, the net costs
to provide major roadway capacity at the existing system -wide level of service per unit of development
are shown in Table 11.
Table 11
ROAD NET COST BY LAND USE TYPE
Land Use
I
IUnit
Daily
VMT
Net Cost
VMT
Net Cost
Unit
Single -Family Detached
1
Dwelling 11.06
per
$214.01
per
$2,367
Multi -Family Dwelling 7.76 $214.01 $1,661
Mobile Home/RV Park Space 5.78 $214.01 $1,237
Assisted Living Facility Dwelling 2.49 $214.01 $533.
Rita ilidcipme rcial „..,-.---,
-....-,.,,,•-J,--k•:.
General Retail/Shopping Center 1000 sq. ft.28.77 $214.01 $6,157
Auto Sales/Repair 1000 sq. ft.28.88 $214.01 $6,181
Building Material/Lumber 1000 sq. ft.39.12 $214.01 $8,372
Convenience Store/Gas Station 1000 sq. ft.33.82 $214.01 $7,238
Discount Store 1000 sq. ft.27.29 $214.01 $5,840
Drive -In Bank 1000 sq. ft.24.96 $214.01 $5,342
Hotel/Motel Room 7.97 $214.01 $1,706
Movie Theater 1000 sq. ft.67.62 $214.01 $14,471
Nursery/Garden Center 1000 sq. ft.31.25 $214.01 $6,688
Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq. ft.37.21 $214.01 $7,963
Restaurant, Sit -Down 1000 s•ft.12.82 $214.01 $2,744
Office lnsti uponal -,--.s•.,_
,-
__-
.:,...0!-: -•
General Office Building 1000 sq. ft.12.73 $214.01 $2,724
Medical Office 1000 sq. ft.41.74 $214.01 $8,933
Hospital 1000 sq. ft.20.30 $214.01 $4,344
Nursing Home 1000 sq. ft.7.05 $214.01 $1,509
Church/Synagogue 1000 sq. ft.10.53 $214.01 $2,254
Day Care Center 1000 sq. ft.7.13 $214.01 $1,526
Elementary School 1000 sq. ft.1.31 $214.01 $280
High School 1000 sq. ft.2.42 $214.01 $518
--
$c'-: _ ,-,;.•,.vk ,A:,":-.,-- •tadustriaito aiiiholii . :,..•' '•,
General Light Industrial 1000 sq. ft.8.06 $214.01 $1,725
Warehouse 1000 sq. ft.5.73 $214.01 $1,226
Mini -Warehouse 1000 sq. ft.2.89 $214.01 $619
Source:Daily VMT from Table 10; net cost per VMT from Table 8.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ duncanlassociates October 24, 2005
Page 16
If the revised road development fees are adopted at 100 percent of the net cost calculated in this report,
the fees would increase by just over one-third for most land use categories, as shown in Table 12.Of
course, the City Council has the option of adopting the updated fees at any percentage up to 100 percent
of these maximum fees.
Table 12
POTENTIAL CHANGE IN ROAD FEES
Land Use Unit
Current
Fee
Maximum
Fee
Potential
Increase
Single -Family Detached Dwelling $1,485 $2,367 59%
Multi -Family Dwelling $1,029 $1,661 61%
Mobile Home/RV Park Space $747 $1,237 66%
Assisted Living Facility ,-,Dwelling,u-$335 $533 59%
''.,.
Retail/eorhmerciat',.,x
4
-.
't
General Retail/Shopping Center 1000 sq. ft.$3,859 $6,157 60%
Auto Sales/Repair 1000 sq. ft.$4,360 $6,181 42%
Building Material/Lumber 1000 sq. ft.$4,619 $8,372 81%
Convenience Store/Gas Station 1000 sq. ft.$4,923 $7,238 47%
Discount Store 1000 sq. ft.$4,214 $5,840 39%
Drive -In Bank 1000 sq. ft.$3,908 $5,342 37%
Hotel/Motel Room $1,076 $1,706 59%
Movie Theater 1000 sq. ft.$9,076 $14,471 59%
Nursery/Garden Center 1000 sq. ft.$4,195 $6,688 59%
Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq. ft.$5,416 $7,963 47%
Restaurant, Sit -Down 1000 sq. ft.$1,866 $2,744 47%.,
pifice '4--•.:,Irtsiii..tOila oi .I.3 •,
General Office Building 1000 sq. ft.$1,709 $2,724 59%
Medical Office 1000 sq. ft.$5,603 $8,933 59%
Hospital 1000 sq. ft.$2,601 $4,344 67%
Nursing Home 1000 sq. ft.$729 $1,509 107%
Church/Synagogue 1000 sq. ft.$1,413 $2,254 60%
Day Care Center 1000 sq. ft.$1,038 $1,526 47%
Elementary School 1000 sq. ft.$157 $280 79%
High School 1000 sq.ft.$326 $518 59%
'-Industriat/War house ,
7-,-
„
General Light Industrial 1000 sq. ft.$1,082 $1,725 59%
Warehouse 1000 sq. ft.$769 $1,226 59%
Mini -Warehouse 1000 SQ.ft.$387 $619 60%
Source:Maximum fees from Table 11.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ duncanlossociates October 24, 2005
Page 17
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
In addition to substituting Table 11 for the road development fee schedule, the following amendments
should be made to the development fee ordinance to implement the updated road development fees.
ARTICLE 7-1 DEVELOPMENT FEES
SECTION 7-1-1 DEVELOPMENT FEES --GENERAL PROVISIONS
C.Service areas
I.The following development fee services arc hereby established:
a.For the purpose of road development fees, the service area shall be all of the
incorporated area of the City, with the exception of the three incentive infill
areas designated by the City in Resolution No. 04-25.Road development fees
shall not be collected from new development within the infill areas; nor shall
any road development fee revenue be used to fund capital improvements
located within the infill areas.
SECTION .7-1-2 ROAD DEVELOPMENT FEES
C.Use of Road Development Fees
1.The revenues from road development fees collected within the service area and accrued
interest on such revenues shall be used to finance project costs of qualifying major
roadway improvements, as determined by the City Council.
2.Qualifying road improvements are limited to improvements to the City's major roadway
system located within the service area.The City's major roadway system consists of all
City -maintained roadways or portions thereof that are classified as collectors or arterials
by the City of Apache Junction's adopted Street Classification Plan.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ duintosonlossociates October 24, 2005
Page 18
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
For the purposes of this study, the amount of existing development in the city must be estimated in
order to determine existing levels of service.Combining 2000 census data with 2000-2004 building
permit data allows us to develop a relatively precise estimate of current year-round dwelling units by
housing type.To this must be added the number of mobile home and recreational vehicle pads in
existing mobile home and RV parks that are only occupied during the peak season, as shown in Table
13.
Table 13
DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE, 2005
Housing Type
2000 2000-2004 Est. 2005
Units New Units Units
Single-family
Multi -family
Mobile home
6,044
2,348
14,379
1,194
270
173
7,238
2,618
14,552
Subtotal, Year -Round
Seasonal MH/RV Pads
22,771
5,700
1,637
268
24,408
5,700
Total 28,471 1,905 30,108
Source:2000 year-round units from U.S.Census;2000-2004 new units
permitted from City of Apache Junction; seasonal mobile home/RV pads from
count by GeoStat, Inc., August 1996 plus permit data from City.
Since the Census does not record information on nonresidential development, other data sources must
be used. Information from tax records indicates that Apache Junction had about 1.7 million square feet
of nonresidential development in 1995.Adding the amount of square footage authorized by building
permits issued since 1995, the current amount of nonresidential development is estimated to be about
3.0 million square feet, as shown in Table 14.
Table 14
EXISTING NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1995 1995-2005 Est 2005
Land Use Sq. Ft.Sq Ft.Sq. Ft.
Retail/Commercial
Office/Institutional
Industrial/Warehouse
1,162,598
440,299
128,550
945,439
163,270
135,506
2,108,037
603,569
264,056
Total 1,731,447 1,244,215 2,975,662
Source:1995 square feet from Pinal County Tax Assessor records, April 11, 1995;
square feet permitted since 1995 from City of Apache Junction,Development
Services Department, April 2005.
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ clumosonlassociates October 24, 2005
Page 19
APPENDIX B:STUDY COST
In addition to the direct cost of capital improvements, the City can also recover the cost of preparing
and updating the development fee study from development fees. Since the development fee ordinance
mandates that the study be updated every three years, the cost of this study attributable to road
development fees should be recovered from development fees over the next three years.Dividing the
development fee study cost by the projected number of new service units to be added over the next
three years results in the following cost per service unit.
Table 15
STUDY COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Road Development Fee Update Study Cost $17,250
Estimated New VMT, Next 3 years 26,704
Study Cost per New VMT 50.65
Source:New VMT based on total VMT from Table 2 and 3.0%
annual growth in dwelling units from 2000-2005 (see Table 13).
Road Development Fee Update
Apache Junction, AZ clenno savolassociates
October 24, 2005
Page 20