HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 14-06RESOLUTION 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
/14 , 2014.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-06
PAGE 1 OF 2
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN CONNELLY
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RICHARD JOELJOEL STERN
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 14-06
PAGE 2 OF 2
EXHIBIT A
• DRAFT - DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY:
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
INF .FASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
AND DEVELOPMENT FEES
Prepared for:
Citk of Apache Junction, Arizona
March 4, 2014
lischlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite 5240
Bethesda, MD
301.320.6900
www.tischlerbise.com
DRAFT — Development Fee Study
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
DRAFT — Development Fee Study
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................4
Arizona Development Fee Enabling Legislation .......................................................................................................4
Necessary Public Services .........................................................................................................................................5
Infrastructure Improvements Plan ...........................................................................................................................5
Qualified Professionals ..............................................................................................................................................6
Development Fees ..............................................................................................................................................7
Calculation Methodologies ........................................................................................................................................7
Reporting Results ...............................................................................................................................................7
Maximum Supportable Development Fees ...............................................................................................................8
Comparison to Current Development Fees ...............................................................................................................9
Library Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan ...................................................................................11
Overview .................................................................................................................................................................11
Service Area ............................................................................................................................................................11
Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................11
IIP for Library Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................12
Analysis of Capacity, Usage, and Costs of existing public services ........................................................................12
Level of Service .................................................................................................................................................12
Cost per Service unit ........................................................................................................................................13
Excluded Cost ...................................................................................................................................................14
Current Use and Available Capacity .............................................................................................................14
Ratio of Service unit to development unit ...............................................................................................................14
Projected Service Units and Infrastructure Demand ............................................................................................../4
Library Facilities Improvements Plan ...........................................................................................................15
Maximum Supportable Library Facilities Development Fees .................................................................................16
Library Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study ......................................................................................16
Revenue Credit .................................................................................................................................................16
Forecast of Revenues ...............................................................................................................................................18
Library Facilities Cash Flow ...........................................................................................................................18
Parks and Recreational Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan ........................................................19
Overview .................................................................................................................................................................19
Service Area ............................................................................................................................................................19
Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................20
IIP for Parks and Recreational Facilities .................................................................................................................20
Analysis of Capacity, Usage, and Costs of existing public services ........................................................................20
Parkland ............................................................................................................................................................21
Park Improvements .........................................................................................................................................22
Recreational Facilities ......................................................................................................................................23
Multi -Use Trails ................................................................................................................................................24
Excluded Costs .................................................................................................................................................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
lisch!efflisp,1
DRAFT — Development Fee Study
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study ..........................................................28
Revenue Credit .................................................................................................................................................28
Forecast of Revenues ...............................................................................................................................................30
Parks and Recreational Facilities Cash Flow ................................................................................................30
Police Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan .....................................................................................31
Overview .................................................................................................................................................................31
Service Area ............................................................................................................................................................31
Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................31
Functional Population .....................................................................................................................................31
Service units ......................................................................................................................................................33
Police Calls for Service ....................................................................................................................................33
IIP For Police Facilities ...........................................................................................................................................34
Analysis of Capacity, Usage, and Costs of existing public services ........................................................................34
Vehicles ..............................................................................................................................................................35
Communications Equipment .........................................................................................................................36
Excluded Costs .................................................................................................................................................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
Revenue Credit .................................................................................................................................................41
Forecast of Revenues ...............................................................................................................................................43
Police Facilities Cash Flow ..............................................................................................................................43
Street Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan ......................................................................................45
Overview .................................................................................................................................................................45
Service Area ............................................................................................................................................................45
Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................47
IIP For Street Facilities ...........................................................................................................................................47
Analysis of Capacity, Usage, and Costs of existing public services ........................................................................47
Current Inventory ............................................................................................................................................48
Trip Generation Rates ......................................................................................................................................49
Lane Capacity ...................................................................................................................................................52
Current Level of Service ..................................................................................................................................52
Cost per Lane Mile ...........................................................................................................................................56
Excluded Costs .................................................................................................................................................57
Current Use and Available Capacity .............................................................................................................57
Ratio of Service Unit to Land Use ..........................................................................................................................58
Projected Demand for Services And Costs ..............................................................................................................60
Minor Arterials .................................................................................................................................................60
Collectors ...........................................................................................................................................................61
Signalized Intersections ...................................................................................................................................63
Street Facilities Improvements Plan .......................................................................................................................65
Maximum Supportable Street Facilities Development Fees ....................................................................................65
Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Study .........................................................................................65
Revenue Credit .................................................................................................................................................65
Forecast of Revenues ...............................................................................................................................................67
2
DRAFT — Development Fee Study
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Street Facilities Cash Flow ..............................................................................................................................67
Appendix A — Cost of Professional Services .................................................................................................69
Appendix B — Forecast of Revenues Other Than Development Fees ........................................................70
Revenue Projections ................................................................................................................................................70
General Fund ....................................................................................................................................................71
Highway User Tax (HURF) ............................................................................................................................72
Appendix C - Land Use Assumptions ............................................................................................................73
Summary of Growth Indicators .....................................................................................................................73
Residential Development .........................................................................................................................................75
Recent Residential Construction ....................................................................................................................75
Persons Per 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
Average Daily Vehicle Trips ...................................................................................................................................84
Trip Rate Adjustments ....................................................................................................................................84
Estimated Vehicle Trips in Apache Junction ................................................................................................85
Demand Indicators by Size of Detached Housing .......................................................................................87
Land Use Assumptions Summary ..........................................................................................................................87
Ischlereise 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.
ENTURIE
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.
listhlerilise 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.
6
DRAFT — Development Fee Study: Development Fee Report
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
DEVELOPMENT FEES
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
I ,Methodology
Type of Public Facility
,
Cost Recovery
(Past)'
Incremental Expansion
(Present)
Plan Based
(Future)
Libraries
,
•Facilities Not Applicable Not Applicable
•Developed Parkland
•Park Improvements
Parks and Recreation Not Applicable Not•Recreational Facilities Applicable
•Multi -Use Trails
Police Not Applicable •Vehicles Not Applicable•Communications Equipment
Streets •Minor Arterial •City Collectors Not Applicable•Signalized Intersections
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.)
Tischl:a 7
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
Parks &I Total
Recreation Police Streets Development Fee
Residential iv.
Single Unit
Single Unit- Manufactured Homes
2+ Unit
$9341 $1,466 1 $161
$6541_$1,0271_$113
$7481 $1,174 1 $129,
$2,364
$1,856
$4,925
$3,689
$3,907
Nonresidential Per SqUare.FooroffIciorArea V t A
Commercial so.30i $1.03'
Office 1 $0.501 $1.71
Industrial $0.351 $1.19
$0.15i $5.04
$0.05i $2.18
$0.031 $1.36
$6.52
$4.44
$2.93
Source: TischlerBise
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
.,szo
•rPorks &
Recreation
Current
Development Fee
Residential
Nonre
Per Housing Unit
Single Unit
Single Unit- Manufactured Homes
2+ Unit
$721 $1,8011 $2941 $6,323
$5721 $1,4291 $2341 $3,297
$6221 $1,5551 $2541 $4,440
$9,139
$5,532
$6,871
ddential (11 I ------------Per Square Foot of Floor Area _
commercial L $o.*$0.00l $1.801 $13.64 $15.44
$0.Office 0011I -----+-$0.00 - - - -1 $5.68$0.681 $636
Industrial I $0.00,r -$0.001-$0.271 $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
Resid ntial I -----------------------Per Housin. Unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Single Unit $213 ($335)1 ($133) l ($3,959)($4,214)
Single Unit- Ma nufactured_Homes $82 ($402)!($121)_($1,402)($1,843)
2+ Unit $126
__
($381)!($125)($2,584)($2,964)
Nonresidential Per S. uare Foot o Floor Area
commercial- - - - -
Office
Industrial
$0.30
$0.50
$0.35
$1.71 I ($0.63)1
$1.19 1 ($0.24)1
($8.60)
($3.50)
($0.90)
($8.92)
($1.92)
$0.40
9
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
10
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
LIBRARY FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
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 (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 LEND 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 Sharel
Demand
KUM Days of
Impact
Cumulative Impact
Days per Year
Proportionate
Share
Residential 37,300 365
Nonresidential [1)7,780 250
13,614,500
1,945,048
87%
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
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.)
Ti memos 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
WEI •Level of Service Square Feet
Service
Service Units Level of Service Units
2006
2013
2026
Square Feet
per
Service Unit
20,949
31,444
31,444
39,604 =
46,393 =
58,974 =
0.529
0.678
0.533
per
Person
and
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.
Ttsdd 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
Level of Service
ELM
11281EISEMENI
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 Remainirut Principal
Debt Obligation
Principal Pr rji i s
Recouped by
Fees
Level of Service
CIERREMEil C11812111110
$5,500,000
Step 3.5
$390,871
- Growth Share of Remaini Principal
0.79%
Remaining
Principal
Level of Service
Discount
Growth Share
of Obligation
$5,109,129 $40,504 =$5,068,624
$40,504
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
2025 2013
Svrvrc P, ts Service Units
Net Increase in
Service
21418138
Miff
45,544
13,430
37,300
9,093
8,244
=4,337
Person
Job
Step 5 -Cost per Service Unit
Library Fecilities
Fee Component
Growth Share
of Obligation
.1Proportionate
I IShe in
Net Increase in
Service Units 35131
S se
Urn
Residential
Nonresidential $5,068,624 X 87%
X 13%
8,244
4,337
$534.90
$151.93
per
per
Person
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.)
Tischle OWE
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
sumo:
Residential Development
Persons per
Housing Unit [1]
Single Unit 1.73
Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21
2+ Units 1.39
[1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
Nonresiciential Development
Jobs per
Land ]Use 1,000 Squa re
Feet 12]„
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."
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
Library Facilities =31,444 SF
Base Yr 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017.
2018
2013 ,•
2021.
2020
2022
•;10•2023
'.,.•-
12 .,2025'
Population 2026 Demand for Remaining
8‘._lobs Planned LOS Facility SF Capacity
46,393 0.533
47,045 0.533
47,749 0.533
48,503 0.533
49,311 0.533
50,172 0.533
51,092 0.533
52,070 0.533
53,110 0.533
54,214 0.533
55,384 0.533
56,813 0.533
57,883 0.533
58,974 0.533
24,736 6,708
25,084 6,360
25,459 5,985
25,861 5,583
26,292 5,152
26,751 4,693
27,241 4,203
27,763 3,681
28,317 3,127
28,906 2,538
29,530 1,914
30,292 1,152
30,862 582
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.
isch!emse
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.
lischlease 16
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
NET CAPIE—"--7 —ALOIST..
Figure 12: Maximum Supportable Library Facilities Development Fees
Library Facilities Level of Service and Infrastructure Costs
Library Facilities
IIP and Development Fee Study Cost
IGROSSCAPITAL COST
Revenue Credit 0%
Per Person
$534.90
$5.29
$5470.19
$0.00INETCAPITAL COST $54-7 -10.1.9
Library Facilities Development Fee Schedule
Unit Type
Persons per
Housing Unit (1)
Single Unit 1.73
Single Unit - Manufactured 1.21
2+ Units 1.39
[1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
[2] Current Fee established in 2012
Library Facilities Level of Servke and Infrastructure Costs
Library Facilities
IIP and Development Fee Study Cost
'GROSSCAPITAL COST
Revenue Credit 0%
Cost per
Person
$540.19
$540.19
$540.19
Pala§
$151.93
$1.24
$153.271
$0.00
.$153.171
Library Facilities Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule
Nonresidential Land Use Jobs 31
per 1,0-0 SF ' -
Commercial 2.00
Office 3.32
Industrial 2.31
Cost per
Job
$153.17 l =
$153.17 =
X $153.17 =
J3I Trio Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition (20
[4] City of Apache Junction does not currently assess Library Facilities
development fees on nonresidential development.
Development Fee per Housina Unit
Development Fee
Proposed Current (2]
Increase
(Decrease)
$934 .$721 $213
$654 $572 $82
$748 $622 $126
Development Fee
Proposed Current (4)
Increase
Decrease
(Per Square Foot of Floor Area)
$0.30 $0.00 $0.30
$0.50 $0.00 $0.50
$0.35 $0.00 $0.35
Isch!erElisp 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
IIP and Development Fee Study $14,040
TOTAL $3,912,982
[1) Reflects only growth share and 10 -years of total remaining debt obligation.
Year
Base 2013
Year 1 2014
Year 2 2015
Year 3 2016
Year 4 2017
Year 5 2018
Year 6 2019
Year 7 2020
Year 8 2021
Year 9 2022
Year 10 2023
per lHousing
Single Unit [1]
$821 !
Housing Units
21,199
Unit
2+ Units
$748
Added
1,904
Per Square
Commercial
$0.30
Square
1,117
--IFoot of Floor Area 1
Office Industrial
$0.50 $0.35
Feet Added (1,000)
1,823 348
21,402 1,922 1,148 1,881 357
21,628 1,942 1,180 1,941 367
21,875 1,965 1,213 2,003 377
22,148 1,989 1,247 2,067 386
22,444 2,016 1,282 2,132 397
22,766 2,045 1,318 2,200 408
23,115 2,076 1,355 2,270 419
23,492 2,110 1,393 2,342 429
23,897 2,146 1,432 2,417 441
24,333 2,185 1,472 2,494 453
Ten-Yr Increase 3,134
Projected Fees (Rounded) =>$2,573,014
Total Projected Revenues
Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit)
281
$210,188
$3,261,712
($651,270)
355
$106,500
[1] Fee for Single Units shown represents a weighted average of the
Single Unit and Single Unit - Manufactured fees.
671
$335,311
105
$36,699
Tischleffte 18
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
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.
T hIe 19
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
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 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 Share3
Demand
I Days of
Impact
Cumulative Impact
Days per Year
Proportionate
Share
Residential 37,300 365 13,614,500 87%
Nonresidential [1]7,780 250 1,945,048 _13%
Total Impact 15559,548
[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.)
Ti 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
Step 1- Cost per Component Other Parkland
swum
Total Developed Costper Undeveloped
Value [11 Acres Acre [ l]Acres [2]
Prospector Park
Superstition Shadows Park
Veteran's Memorial Park
Little League Facility
Renaissance Point Retention Area
Arroyo Verde Retention Area
Focal Point
City Hall Park
City/County Retention Area
Silly Mountain Park
Sheep Drive Trail
TOTALS
$10,400,000
$5,980,000
$520,000
$780,000
$2,080,000
$2,860,000
$260,000
$780,000
$780,000
$1,040,000
$25,480,000 ÷
40
23
2
3
8
11
1
3
3
4
98 =
$260,000
$260,000
$260,000
$260,000
$260,000
$260,000
$260,000
$260,000
$260,000
$260,000
itCP L .OC1111,C
Proportionate 2013
Level of Service Acres ,Share Service Units
U60,000
225
196
1,628
2,049
SO N
Unit
Developed Parkland per Resident
Developed Parkland perlob 98 87%
13%
Step 3 - Cost per Service Unit
37,300
9,093
•0.0023
•0.0014
Cost ,c
Acre
Corvponvrt
Cost
Sn sri cc
Unit
Developed Parkland $260,000 X 0.0023
X 0.0014
$594.31
$364.28
Source: City of Apache Junction, Parks and Recreation Dept.
[1] The total value for the City of Apache Junction developed parkland is calculated based on the
Cost per Acre of $260,000 provided by the City of Apache Junction, Parks and Recreation Dept.
[2] Undeveloped acres are U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands within the City
per
per
Person
Job
per
per
Person
Job
Tischleiff.„-4 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
Step 1 - Cost per Component
rota
Value
Cost per
Units Unit
Ramadas (single)
Ra ma das (small group)
Ra ma das (large group)
Shuffleboard Courts
Horseshoe Pits
Playgrounds
Ball Fields
Concession/Restrooms
Tennis Courts
Racquetball Courts
Basketball Courts
Volleyball Courts
Soccer/Football Fields
Skate Park
Security Fencing
Pool
TOTALS
$37,500
$35o,000
$245,000
$60,0001
$12,500
$600,000
$1,120,000
$1,200,000
$675,000
3-360,000
$210,000
$32,000
$480,000
$500,000
$660,000
$-2,218,000
5-8,760,000 +
Source: City of Apache Junction, Parks and Recreation Dept.
3
14
7
3
5
4
7
6
9
4
3
4
3
1
25
1
99 =
$12,500
$25,000
$35,000
$20,000
$2,500
$150,000
$160,000
$200,000
$75,000
$00
$70,000
$8,000
$160,000
$500,000
$26,400
$2,218,000
Step 2 - Level of Service
Pr'oportionate 2013
Level of Service Units ;;Share Service Units
$88,485
Service
Un t
Park Improvements per Resident
Park Improvements per Job 99 87%37,300 0.0023
13%9,093 =0.0014
Step 3 - Cost per Service Unit
Cost per
Urn
'
LeLl of; Service
Corni pond ti
Cost
Service
Unrt
Park Improvements $88,485 X 0.0023
X 0.0014
•$204.32
•$125.24
per
per
Person
Job
per
per
Person
Job
11 22
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
MIME
Step 1 - Cost per Corn
Total
Valuei
Park Ranger Office & City Conference Center
Multi -Generational Building
Superstition Shadows Aquatics Center
TOTALS
Eligible Square Footage [1]
$229,613
$8,385,861
$221,848
8,837,322 +
-Square
Feet
2,375
36,850
3,609
42,834
8,375
Step 2 - Level of Service
Proportionate
Share
Cost per
Square Foot
$97
$228
$61
06
111171171=112111
Eligible
Square Feet
2013
Service Units 1.111111W1111111111
Service
Unit
Square Feet per Resident
Square Feet perJob
X8,375 X 87%
13%
Step 3 - Cost per Service Unit
Cost per Component
11118111 111=111113111111 111
X 0.1953 =$40.24 per Person
37,300 0.1953
9,093 =0.1197
Fee Component 1 1 1 =
S e rvi cc
Unit
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 greater than three thousand
square feet in floor area..."
per Person
per Job
Tisch *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
ZMIII1112111fflifilill
Step 1 - Cost per Component
Total
Value 11]
Silly Mountain Park
Sheep Drive Trail System
Arroyo Verde Open Space Area
Renaissance Point Open Space
TOTALS
$10,000
$65,000
$5,000
$5,000
El5,000 ÷
IMES
2
13
1
1
17
Step 2- Level of Service
MIMI=
Level of Service Acres Share
Cost per
Acre
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
,000
2013
Service Units Level of Service
Servic e
Unit
Multi -Use Trails per Resident
Multi -Use Trails per Job 17 87%
13%
Step 3 - Cost per Service Unit
Cost pe Component Service
Acre ,Level of Service Cost Unit
37,300 0.0004
9,093 =0.0002
1 = i r
Multi -Use Trails $5,000 X 0.0004
X 0.0002
$1.98
$1.22
per
per
Person
Job
Source: City of Apache Junction, Parks and Recreation Dept.
[1] The total value for the City of Apache Junction multi -use trails is calculated based on the
Cost per Acre of $5,000 provided by the City of Apache Junction, Parks and Recreation Dept.
[2] The City of Apache Junction measures its inventory of multi -use trails in acres to adjust for trails of varying widths.
Excluded Costs
per Person
per Job
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.
Tisditerike 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
F M =
Residential Development
I
Persons per
Housing Unit [1]
Single Unit 1.73
Single Unit - Manufactured 1.21
2+ Units 1.39
[1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
Nonresidential Development
Landl Use
Commercial
Jobs per
1,000 Square
Feet 121
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."
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
Res LOS
Nonres LOS
Base 2013
1 2014
2 2015
3 2016
4 2017
5 2018
6 2019
7 2020
8 2021
9 2022
10 2023
= L I M N
Person
Job
Average Cost per Component
Projected Service Units
Persons Jobs
Parks Improvements Rec. Facilities Multi -Use
(acres)(units)(sq. ft.)Trails (acres)
0.0023
0.0014
0.0023
0.0014
0.1953
0.1197
0.0004
0.0002
$260,000 I $88,485 I $206 I $5,000
Projected Demand (Rounded)
Parks Improvements I Rec. Facilities I Multi -Use
(acres)(units)(sq. ft.)Trails (acres)
37,300
37,676
38,094
38,554
39,059
39,609
40,206
40,853
41,552
42,303
43,111
9,093
9,369
9,655
9,949
10,252
10,563
10,886
11,217
11,558
11,911
12,273
98
99
101
102
104
105
107
109
111
113
116
99
100
102
103
105
106
108
110
112
115
117
8,375
8,481
8,597
8,722
8,857
9,002
9,157
9,323
9,501
9,690
9,891
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
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
"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.)
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
Park and Facilities Improvements
Prospector Park
Planned Investments
$3,935,000
Parkland
Demolition and Site Preparation
Landscape
Pavement, Curbs
Pavement, Curbs, Gutters, Walks
Improvements
Restroom Building $200,000
Site Amenities - Improvements $1,610,000
$1,000,000
$33,000
$300,000
$792,000
Sheep Drive Trail $883,750
Parkland
Pavement, Curbs
Improvements
Site Amenities - Improvements
Multi -Use Trails
Mulit-Use Trails
$450,000
$400,000
$33,750
Silly Mountain Park $5,755,594
Parkland
Irrigation
Demolition and Site Preparation
Electrical
Electrical Systems
Landscape
Pavement, Curbs
Pavement, Curbs, Gutters, Walks
Utilities
Improvements
Restroom Building
Site Amenities - Improvements
$228,800
$724,277
$175,000
$597,500
$206,707
$712,075
$554,535
$567,600
$600,000
$1,389,100
Superstition ShadoWs $441,000
Parkland
Pavement, Curbs
Improvements
Site Amenities - Improvements
$55,000
$386,000
Rec Swim Center $2,468,000
Improvements
Site Amenities - Improvements
Recreational Facility
Facility
$2,218,000
$250,000
Source: City of Apache Junction, Parks and Recreation Department
lisddetess 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.
lisch*Bisc 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
Parkland Cost
Park Improvements Cost
Recreation Facility Cost
Multi -Use Trails Cost
HP and Development Fee Study Cost:
1GROSS CAPITAL COST
Revenue Credit
Developed Parks
Developed Parks
0%
Per Person
$594.31
$204.32
$40.24
$1.98
$7.28
$848.13
$0.00
NET CAPITAL COST $84813
Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Schedule
Unit Type
Persons per
Housina Unit (11
Single Unit /.73
Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21
2+ Unit 1.39
[1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
[2] Current Fee established in 2012
Cost per
Person
$848.13
$848.13
$848.13
Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service and Infrastructure Costs
Parkland Cost
Park Improvements Cost
Recreation Facility Cost
Multi -Use Trails Cost
IIP and Development Fee Study Cost:
Developed Parks
Developed Parks
Development Fee per Housing Unit
Development Fee
Proposed Current 121
Increase
(Decrease)
%At $1,801 ($335)
$1,027 $1,429 ($402)
$1,174 $1,555 ($381)
Per Job
$364.28
$125.24
$24.67
$1.22
$1.71
IGROSS CAPffAL COST
Revenue Credit 0%
$517.12
$0.00
NET CAPITAL COST $517.12
Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Schedule
Nonresidential Land Use Jobs MI
pe-r;T:646-S-F-
Commercial 2.00
Office 3.32
Industrial 2.31
Cost per
Job
$517.12
XX
X $517.12 I
$517.12
$517.12
J31 Trio Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition (2012).
[4] City of Apache Junction does not currently assess Parks and Recreational
Facilities development fees on nonresidential development.
$517.12
$517.12
Development Fee
Proposed Current (4)
Increase
(Decrease)_
i (Per Square Foot of Floor Area)---1
$1.03 $0.00 $1.03
$1.71 $0.00 $1.71
$1.19 $0.00 $1.19
T o d * "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
Park Improvements
Recreation Facility
Multi -Use Trails
II P and Development Fee StudyCost
TOTAL
$4,611,921
$1,592,727
$312,273
$15,385
$19,324
$6,551,630
Base
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Projected
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Ten-Yr Increase
Fees (Rounded) =>
per-Housing Unit
Single Unit [1]
$1,289
Housing Units Added
21,199
21,402
21,628
21,875
22,148
22,444
22,766
23,115
23,492
23,897
24,333
2+Units
$1,174
1,904
1,922
1,942
1,965
1,989
2,016
2,045
2,076
2,110
2,146
2,185
Per Square Foot of Floor Area
Commercial
$1.03
Industrial
$1.19
Square Feet Added (1,000)
1,117
1,148
1,180
1,213
1,247
1,282
1,318
1,355
1,393
1,432
1,472
Office
1,823
1,881
1,941
2,003
2,067
2,132
2,200
2,270
2,342
2,417
2,494
348
357
367
377
386
397
408
419
429
441
453
3,134 281 355 671 105
$4,039,726 $329,894 $365,650 $1,146,764 $124,778
Total Projected Revenues $6,006,812
Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit)($544,818)
[1] Fee shown for Single Units represents a weighted average of the
Single Unit and Single Unit- Manufactured fees
Ti 30
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
POLICE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
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
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. 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 (LEHD) 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.
i schierei 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
Land Use
Residential
Demand Units in 2010
Demand Person Proportionate
Hours/Day Hours Share
Estimated Residents 35,840
Residents Not Working L,23,8091
Workers Living in City 12,031
City Residents Working in Apache Junction 1,236 16 1 .19,477B1
City Residents Working outside of City 10,7951 16 172,720i
24 5,71;416j
Residential Subtotal 763,912
Jobs Located in City
City Residents Working in City
Non -Resident Workers
8,561
7'.1,2361 8 I.;T:.1 '8081
8 F.,:.....,58;6601
Nonresidential Subtotal L:.....;68,48ä
TOTAL r.832,400''
Source:U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.1.1 Application
and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics
lisclilerBisc 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
11112M1131
Residential
Nonresidential
IProportioInate,Share !
92%
8%
Land Use
Calls for
Service (1]
40,067
Step 2 - Level of Service
1111111111M1
Land Use
Calls per
Land Use
36,862
3,205
NINECINEIZINE
2013
Service Units
Service
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 Vehide Trip
[1] City of Apache Junction Police Department; Calls for service for calendar year 2012
(21 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips shown in rounded numbers
°k a t f 33
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
11113 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.
Tisch
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
e rit
TOta I ,Cost per
Value Ell Units Unit
Marked Patrol Vehicles
Unmarked Patrol Vehicles
Detention Vans
Vans (Victims Svc &Comm)
Motorcycles
Mobile Command Van
SWAT Van
TOTALS
$1,040,349
$531,532
$92,262
$70,632
$128,734
$319,882
$373,196
22
18
2
2
4
1
1
$47,289
$29,530
$46,131
$35,316
$32,184
$319,882
$373,196
$2,556,587 +50 =$51,132
Step 2 - Level of Service
311Y51111=111111
Proportionate.
Share
2013
Service Units 1111871111VE171181
Service
Unit
Vehicles per Resident 50 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
1 = 1 1
Co t per
Unit '1 Level of Service
Component
Cost
Service
Unit
Police Vehicles - Residential $51,132 X 0.0012 =$63.06 Der Person
Police Vehicles - Nonresidential $51,132 X 0.0001 $7.58 Der Vehicle Trio
Source: City of Apache Junction
[1] Total Value in 2007, provided by The City of 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
maim 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
Portable Radios
Mobile Radios
Dispatch Consoles
TOTALS
Source: City of Apache Junction
Total
Value
$572,000
$335,296
$60,000
$967,296 +
104
62
4
170
Cost per
Unit
$5,500
$5,408
$15,000
Step 2- Level of Service
$5,690
Level of Service Eilig
P'roportionate
Share
2013
Service Units Level of Service
Service
LI lit
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
Cost Per Component
Cost
Service
Unit
Police Comm. Equip.- Residential $5,690 X 0.0042 =$23.86 De r 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.
Ti NUM 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.
T I S d i t e l e i
37
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Figure 28: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Units to Land Use
Land Use
Residential Development
Persons per
Housing Unit [1]
Single Unit 1.73
Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21
2+ Units 1.39
[1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
Nonresidential Development
11A/e+day Trip Trip
Enci.[2]Adjustment [3]
!I (a:)(b)
Commercial 42.70 33%
Vehicle Trips
(a X b)
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."
T h 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
Res LOS
Nonres LOS
SerVice Unit
Person
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips
Vehicles
(units)
0.0012
0.0001
Comm. Equip.
(units)
0.0042
0.0005
Base 2013
1 2014
2 2015
3 2016
4 2017
5 2018
6 2019
7 2020
8 2021
9 2022
10 2023
Average Cost per Unit
Projected Service Units
Persons Nonres. Vehicle
$51,132 $5,690
Projected Demand (Rounded)
Vehicles
(units)
Comm. Equip.
(units)
37,300
37,676
38,094
38,554
39,059
39,609
40,206
40,853
41,552
42,303
43,111
27,000
27,789
28,610
29,450
30,316
31,200
32,120
33,073
34,036
35,038
3,066
50
51
51
52
53
53
54
55
56
57
59
170
172
174
176
179
182
185
188
191
195
199
(Ten Yr Total 5,811 9,066 9 29
Cost of Police Vehicles $460,188
Cost of Communications Equipment $165,010
lisdded0 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 i Division
Vehicles
'Units Total
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
Source: City of Apache Junction Police Department
$796,607
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.
Ttscl*B*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
Vehicle Costs
Communications Equipment Costs
IIP and Development Fee Study Cost
1GROSS CAPITAL COST
Revenue Credit 0%
Per erfspn
$63.06
$23.86
$6.44
—73:761
$0.00
NET CAPITAL COST $93.36
Police Facilities Residential Development Fee Schedule
Unit Type
Persons per
Housing Unit (.1.1
Single Unit 1.73
Single Unit- Manufactured 1.21
2+ Unit 1.39
Police Facilities Nonresidential Level Of Service and Capital Casts
Vehicle Costs
Communications Equipment Costs
IIP and Development Fee Study Cost
IGROSS CAPITAL COST
Revenue Credit
Cost per
Person
$93.36
$93.36
$93.36
0%
Development Fee per Housing Unit
Development Fee Increase----.
Pr.opose.d Current (2.1 (Decrease)1111
= M E M $294 ($133)
MIIIIFSIM31 $234 ($121)
111.4111M $254 ($125)
Per Nonres Trip
$7.58
$2.87
$0.31
$10.761
$0.00
NET CAPITAL COST $1(1.76
Police Facilities Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule
Nonresidential Land Use Vehicle Tri s 1
per 1,000SF
Commercial 14.09
Office 5.52
Industrial 3.49
[1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
[2] Current Fee established in 2012
Cost per
Nonres Trip
$10.76
$10.76
$10.76
Development Fee per Housing Unit
Development Fee
Ifro ed Current 2
Increase
Decrease
(Per Square Foot of Floor Area
I naTI I $1.80 ($1.65)
[Ma I $0.68 ($0.63)
_,..1 $0.27 ($0.24)
Tischle e 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 $
Communications Equipment $
IIP and Development Fee Study Cost $
TOTAL $
460,188
165,010
16,154
641,352
Base
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Ten-Yr Increase
Projected Fees (Rounded) =>
per Housing Unit
Single Unit [1]
$142
2+ Units
$129
Housing Units Added,
21,199
21,402
21,628
21,875
22,148
22,444
22,766
23,115
23,492
23,897
24,333
1,904
1,922
1,942
1,965
1,989
2,016
2,045
2,076
2,110
2,146
2,185
Per Square Foot of Floor Area
Commercial
$0.15
Office
$0.05
Industrial
$0.03
Square Feet Added (1,000)
1,117
1,148
1,180
1,213
1,247
1,282
1,318
1,355
1,393
1,432
1,472
1,823
1,881
1,941
2,003
2,067
2,132
2,200
2,270
2,342
2,417
2,494
348
357
367
377
386
397
408
419
429
441
453
3,134 281 355 671 105
$444,092 $36,249 $53,250
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.
$33,531 $3,146
Ti NEMO 43
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
44
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
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.
Ti 45
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Figure 33: Street Facilities Service Area Map
FIGURE 2.19: AVERAGE DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS
1• •• •••••ri
j Lost DutchmanBent
I
Lost Dutchman Bent
Tee.
Sutter.• ••IWO
.• •e
...•i
Nohi
•Ave
a
.103. keel
Nolo
9
Stooderey Ave
a
UM keel
Southern A.
-LEGEND
.44.4Syys.LOS 0
LOS C
I
AsKflat SI
•••
e•j
PO 200
MPD: Portalis
...N... LOS A
Local Roadway
Study Ana
Ctty Boundary
County Island
Source: Jacob. (2012) Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study.
44 JACOBS
otocr!
lischtereise 46
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
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. 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."
Tisc i de r e i s e 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
Lost Dutchman Blvd
Minor Arterials
Miles
4.00
Lanes
2
1 ,Lane Miles
8.00
Superstition Blvd 5.60 2-4 15.40
Broa dway Ave 4.50 2-3 13.00
Southern Ave 3.08 2-4 9.54
Baseline Ave 4.20 2-3 8.60
Meridian Dr 3.00 2-4 6.75
Ironwood Dr 5.90 2-4 21.60
Idaho Rd 1.80 2-4 4.50
Tomahawk Rd 4.00 2-4 9.30
Goldfield Rd 4.00 2-4 9.80
Mountain View Rd 3.40 2 6.80
TOTAL 106.49
Signalized Intersections
City Maintained
Nimm
18
Source: City of Apache Junction;
Dept. of Public Works
Road
Meridian Dr.
Collectors
Miles
2.10
Lanes
2
Lane Miles
4.20
Delaware Dr 2.50 2-4 5.90
McKellips Blvd 3.50 2 7.00
Ironwood Dr 1.00 2 2.00
Idaho Rd 1.10 2 2.20
Tomahawk Rd 0.60 2 1.20
16th Ave 2.50 2-4 8.60
San Marcos Dr.1.00 4 4.00
Phelps Dr.0.50 2-3 1.20
Royal Palm Rd.1.00 1 1.00
TOTAL 37.30
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.
Tadderilise 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 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 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 [21 Vehicles per I
Vehicles Units Household 1i
Available [1]Single Family Multifamily Total by Tenure
A B C 0=134C 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] =>
Persons per Housing Unit =>
[1] Vehicles available by tenure from Table 825046, American CommunitySurvey, 2011.
[2] Households bytenure and units in structure from Table 1325032,
American Community Survey, 2011.
[31 Housing units from Table 825024, American CommunitySurvey, 2011.
18,248 1,597 19,845
1.73 1.39
.Persons In Trip Vehicles by Trip
Households Ends Type of Housing Ends
FODwner(B*0+
... 141 151 Renter(VE)[6]
Single Family Units 31,558 81,723 21,000 121,320
Multifamily Units 2,212 7,611 1,529 6,319
TOTAL 33,770 89,334 22,529 127,638
Average
Trip Ends
G= Avg of
151161
101,521
6,965
108,486
Trip Ends per
Housing
Unit
H= GM]
5.60
4.40
5.50
ITE Trip Ends
per
Unit
171
9.52
6.65
•
Difference
From
ITE
-3.92
-2.25
(4) Total population in households from Tab1e25033, American CommunitySurvey, 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 by 57 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 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 by 77 and the equation result multiplied by 77.For multifamily housing (ITE 220), the fitted curve equation is (3.94*vehicles)+293.58.
RI Trio Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition (2012).
Tactile:di*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 9th 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
ITE Land Use/Size Demand
Code Unit
commercial! Shopping Center
1810 .L000.SqFt
General Office
Engineers, Nonresidential Trip Ends, 2012
Weekday Trip Ends per Emp Per Sq Ft
Demand Unit*Employee*Dmd Unit**Per Emp
42:70 '2.500
710 lAirerage-:,.
Other Nonresidential
11,000 $q Ftr:.
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 Lodging 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 356 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 ' 0.07,1'3.02 , -,. -233,1.,..'1
*Trio 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.
lischleithse
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 11]
Employed Residents
Residents Working in City
Residents Commuting Outside City for Work
Percent Commuting out of the City
Additional Production Trips [2]
Residential Trip Adjustment Factor
12,031
1,236
10,795
90%
14%
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.
Tischkxthse 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
Classification
Minor Arterial
Existing Lane Daily Per -Lane
Miles [1]Capacity [2]*
106.49 8,700
Collector 37.30 7,500
Minor Arterial &Collector 143.79 8,400
[1] City of Apache Junction, Dept. of Public Works
[2] Pinal County Transportation Plan, 2000 Update
Weighted Average Formula
106.49
143.79
X 8,700 1+
Current Level of Service
37.30- X 7500 I=8,400
143.79 Rounded
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.
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
Avg Wkdy Ve
Development Dev.Trip Ends per
Type III Unit Des. Unit 121
RESIDENTIAL
Top
Adjustment Vehicle
Factors 1.31 Tops
Single Unit 21,1991X
MU
NONRESIDENTIAL
Commercial ICSF .
1,904
1,117
Office KSF 1,823
Industrial KSF 348
X
5.60 IX
4.40 X4.40
42.70
11.03
6.97
64%
33%
50%
50%
Step 2- Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development
75,977
5,362
15,733
10,055
1,213
Development Vehicle Avg Trip Top Length Vehicle Miles
Type Trips Length [raj Weighting Factor 151 of Travel
RESIDENTIAL
Single Unit
Multi -Unit
ZL1E111 11
Commercial KSF
75,9771XL
5,362
15,733
Office KSF 10,055
Industrial KSF 1,213
7.92 IX
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.92
X
1/X
12 X
ILIX1
TOTAL Vehicle Miles of Travel
121%1 =
121%
66%
73%
Step 4 - Level of Service
727,788
51,360
82,202
58,106
7,007
926,463 =
1171111EINtliffill U111
Vehicle Miles
of Travel
Level of
Sc cvi cc
Lane Miles per 10,000 WW1 106.49 92.6463 =1.15
(11 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] Final County Transportation Plan, 2000 Update
Step 3 • Even Distribution
of VMT on Existing Arterial Network
Existing Daily Per-
Lane Miles [hi Lane Ca pacify 171
106.49 8,700
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).
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 Trim Generate from Existing Development
Avg WkdY Ve
Development Dev.Trip Ends per,
Type [1]Unit Dev. Unit [2]
RESIDENTIAL
Trip
Adjustment Vehicle
Factors [3]Trips
Single Unit
Multi -Unit
ILJEM911111111111
Commercial KSF
21,1991X
1.9041 X1,904
1,117
Office KSF 1,823
Industrial KSF 348
5.60 IX
4.40
42.70
11.03
6.97
64%1 =
64%
33%
50%
50%
Step 2 - Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development
75,977
5,362
15,733
10,055
1,213
Development Vehicle Avg Trip Trip Length Vehicle Miles
Type Trips Length [4]Weighting Factor [5]of Travel,.IRESIDENTIAL
Single Unit
ulti-UnimmmmNONRESIDENTIAL
75,977
5,362
Commercial KSF
Office 1(5F
Industrial KSF
15,733
10,055
1,213
X
X
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.39
X
X
X
121%
121%
66%
73%
73%
219,764
15,509
24,822
17,546
2,116
TOTAL Vehicle Miles of Travel 279,757
Step 4- Level of Service
Vehicle Miles
of Travel
Level of
Semi cc
Lane Miles per 10,000 VMT 37.30 ÷ 27.9757 1.33
(1) Single Unit = SED, 5FA, and Mobile Homes; KW = square feet of floor area in thousands.
(21 Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
(31 Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions
Nonresidential:Trio 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
(61 City of Apache Junction, Dept. of Public Works
VI Pinot County Transportation Plan, 2000 Update
Step 3 - Even Distribution
of VIVIT on Existing Arterial Network
Existing Daily Per-
1 = 1 1 1 = I I
Tisch!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
Avg Wkdy1Veh Trip
Development Dev.Trip Ends, per Adjustment Vehicle
Type [1]Unit Dev. Unit [21 Factors [31 Trips
1RESIDENTIAL
Single Unit 21,1991X
Multi -Unit
21SEMINIII55M11
Commercial KSF
1,904
1,117
Office KSF 1,823
Industrial KSF 348
5.60 X
4.40 X
2.70 X
1.03 X
6.97 X
4.40
42.70
11.03
6.97
64%
33%
50%
50%
Step 2 - Vehicle Miles of Travel from Existing Development
Development Vehicle Avg Trip •Trip Length Vehicle Miles
Type Trips Length [4]Weighting Factor [5]of Travel
RESIDENTIAL 1 •
75,977
5,362
15,733
10,055
1,213
Single Unit
Multi -Unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Commercial KSF
Office KSF
Industrial KSF
75,9771X
5,3621X
3X
10,055 X
1,2131 X
10.32
10.32
10.32
10.32
10.32
121%
121%
66%
73%
73%
948,822
66,958
107,167
75,754
9,135
TOTAL Vehicle Miles of Travel 1,207,836
Step 4-Level of Service
MIP12111X2111111
Vehicle Miles
Units:of Travel
Level of
Service
Lane Miles per 10,000 VMT 143.79 120.7836 1.19
Signalized Intersections per 10,000 VMT 18.00 120.7836 0.15
(1) Single Unit = SFD, SFA, and Mobile Homes; KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands.
RI Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
(3) Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions
Nonresidential:Trio Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012.
141 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
Pinal County Transportation Plan, 2000 Update
Step 3 - Even Distribution
of VMT on Existing Arterial Network
Existing Daily Pet-
Lane Miles [6]Lane Capacity [7]
143.79 8,400
Tisch!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
AIRRIREIRMMI
Minor Arterial
Project
Ironwood Dr (Elliott Ave. to U.S. 60)
Total Project
Cost
$10,685,714
Miles
improved
I 8.8 1=
Cost per Lane
Mile
$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[l]
Idaho Road (Roundup to Foothill)
16th Ave (Delaware to Cedar)
16th Ave (Cedar to Meridian)
16th Ave (Idaho to Winchester)
Planned Projects
Total Lane Miles Added
Total Project
Cost [1]
$1,108,269
$835,400
$277,067
$554,135
$2,774,871
3.76
Cost per Lane Mile $737,998
[1] City of Apache Junction, Public Works Dept.;
Jacobs. (May 2012). Apache Junction
Comprehensive Transportation Study.
Todd 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.
lisch!erthse 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 96 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- Vehide Trips Generate from Net New Development
Avg \ /V kdy Ve h Trip
Development DevelopmentlUnits [11 Trip Ends per Adjustment
Type 111 2013 2023 ' Net New Den. Unit 121 Factors [31
RESIDE%I AL
Single Unit
Multi -Unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Commercial KSF
21,199
1,904
1,117
24,3331 3,134IX
2,1851 281 X2,1851 281
1,4721 355
Office KSF 1,823 2,4941 671
Industrial KSF 3,18 4531 105
Development
Type
RESIDENTIAL
Single Unit
Multi -Unit
NOEIRESIDENTI AL
5.60 IX
4.40
42.70
11.03
6.97
64%1 =
64%
33%1
50%
50%
Step 2 - Vehicle Miles of Travel from Net New Development
NEM
larie
11,232
791
5,002
3,698
365
I Vehicle .Avg Trip Trip Length Vehicle Miles
Trips I Length [41 Weighting Factor [51 of Travel
1
11,232
791
7.92
7.92
121%
121%
Commercial KSF 5,002 X 7.92 66%1 =
Office KSF 3,698 X 7.92 X 73%=
Industrial KSF 365 X 7.92 X 73%=
Net New Vehicle Miles of Travel
(I] Single Unit = SFD, SPA, and Mobile Homes; KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands.
Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
(2] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
13) Residential Development Fee Draft Land Use Assumptions
Nonresidential:Trip 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 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
107.594
7,580
26,137
21,374
2.112
164,796
Ti IteZ
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- Vehide Trips Generate from Net New Development
Development
Type [11
RESIDENTIAL
Single Unit
Multi -Unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Commercial KSF
Development Units Ill
2013 2023.Net New
21,199 24,333 3,134
1,9041 2,1851 2811X
1,1171 1,472 3551X
Office KSF 1,8231 2,4941 6711X
Industrial KSF 3481 4531 1051X
Avg Wk.dy Ve h Trip
Trip Ends per Adjustment Vehicle
Dew Unit [2]Factors DI Trips
5.60 IX
4.40 IX4.40
42.70
11.03
6.97
64%1 =
64%
33%
50%
50%
Step 2- Vehide Miles of Travel from Net New Development
11,232
791
5,002
3,698
365
Development
Type
RESIDENTIAL
Veti.cle Avg Trip
'Trips Length [4]
Trip Length
Weighting factor IS]
Vehicle Miles
of Travel
Single Unit
Multi -Unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Commercial KSF
Office KSF
11,232
791
5,002
3,698
Industrial KSF
X
X
X
X
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.39
X
X
X
X
121%
121%
66%
73%
X1 2.39 IXI 73%1 =
Net New Vehicle Miles of Travel
(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
PI 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-Vehlde Trips Generate from Net New Development
Avg Wkdy yeh
Development Development Units Ii)INN) Ends per
-Tope IN 2013 2023'Net New .De, Unit 121
111131=1111111
Single Unit
'
21,1991 24,333 3,134
Multi -Unit
Commercial KSF
1,904
1,117
2,1851 2811X
1,472 355 IX
Office KSF 1,823 2,4941 6711X
Industrial KSF 348 4531 1051X
DeVelopment
lYP't
RESIDENTIAL
Single Unit
Multi -Unit
IMEMEMIE
5.60
4.40
42.70
11.03
6.97
Fri p
Ac ju rime n
F cramsl 13j
64%1 =
64%
33%
50%
50%
Step 2- Vehlde Mlles of Travel from Net New Development
MEM=
1211112
11,2321X
7911X
Avg lop
Le,,g:Ir I
10.32
10.32 X
I,,,, Length
Weighting Factor IS]
121%
121%
Commercial KSF 5,002 X 10.32 IX 66%1 =
Office KSF 3,698 X 10.32 X 73%=
Industrial KSF 365 X 10.32 X 73%=
Net New Vehicle Miles of Travel
(.11 Single Unit = SFD, SFA, and Mobile Homes; KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands.
Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
11,1 Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
PI 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 al vehicle miles of travel on the existing system
(S) 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
32,489
2,289
7,892
6,454
638
49,762
WM=
MEE
11,232
791
5,002
3,698
365
Vehicle N,Iiles
of Travel
140,271
9,882
34,075
27,865
2,753
214,846
Tisch!59
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 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.
Ti 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
Lane Mile
$1,214,286
Added Lane
Miles [11
4.40
Cost of
Capacity
$5,342,858
Step 2- 10 -Year Projected Growth in VMT on Arterials
VMT in 2023
1,091,259
Cost of Capacity
Improvements
$5,342,858
A IIfiWLO
926,463
211111111MMIll
164,796
Step 3- Cost per Service Unit
Net New
VMT
164,796
Step 4 - Cost per Development Unit
Component
Cost
$32.42 per
Streets Level Of Service and Capital Costs
Minor Arterial Cost
per Vehicle
Mile Traveled
$32.42
Arterial Street Facilities - Residential Development Fee Schedule
(AI (C)(DI
VMT =
(A.1 x x x (DJ
Unit Type
Weekday
Vehicle
Trip Ends .
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Factors.
Avg Miles
per Veh. Trip
on System •
Trip Length
Weighting
Factors •vita
..(Per Housin•Unit)
Single Unit 5.60 64%7.92 121%34.33
Single Unit - Manufactured 4.49 64%7.92 121%27.54
2+ Unit 4.40 64%7.92 121%26.97
Arterial Street Facilities - Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule
Weekday
Vehicle
Trip Ends•
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Factors"
Avg Miles
per Veh. Trip
on System.
Trip Length
Weighting
Factors*
(r ,000 sq. ft.)
* See Figure 39: Existing Level of Service - City Minor Arterials
Collectors
II
Cost
Per
VIVIT
$32.42
$32.42
$32.42
Cost
Per
VMT[F]
$32.42
$32.42
$32.42
Service
Unit
VMT
'Aiterici•CiimPorkirt
Proposed Development
i ..;•Erle..-... • .-
L____(Per Housing Unit)_
731411.
...:?:$:80:1,-:::.
Aiteriakcarnprinerit -
-..,:.• ::.
ProPoSed,DeVelopniorit:Tee,
..,:jfitYlfrOgifiri -.
(per Square Foot of froor Area)
1,-.03;-
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.
Isdilease 61
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvements Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Figure 48: Incremental Expansion - Collectors
Year ->r Base Yr ,4-71 1 -E.-.2013 _2014 _2015
DEMAND DATA [1]
5 -year increment -->
4 ;:>":'5 10
20V 2018 2023
SINGLE UNIT RES 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 24,333
MULT1-UNIT RES 1,904 1,922 1,942 1,965 1,989 2,016 2,185
COMMERCIAL KSF 1,117 1,148 1,180 1,213 1,247 1,282 1,472
OFFICE KSF 1,823 1,881 1,941 2,003 2,067 2,132 2,494
INDUSTRIAL KSF 348 357 367 377 386 397 453
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 ._ __ __81,339 82,117 82,983 83,933 84,979 .86 116 93,362
COMMERCIAL-TRIPS 15,733 16,169 16,627 17,092 17,571 18,058 20,735
OFFICE TRIPS 10,055 10,375 10,705 11,046 11,398 11,759 13,753
INDUSTRIAL TRIPS 1,213 1,244 1,277 1,312 1,347 _1,383 1,578
NMIRES TRIPS ,...27,000.27,789 28,610 29,450 '30,316 ''31,200 36,066
TOTAL TRIPS
TOTAL VNIT [21
Lane Miles 131
108,339 109,906 111,594 113,384 115,295 117,317 129,428
279,757
37.30
Annual Lane Mile Increase
3,555
283,311
37.77
0.47
7,417
287,174
38.29
052
11,553
291,310
38.84
055
16,010 20,760 49,762
295,766
39.44
0.59
300,517
40.07
0.63
?29,519 I
43.94
0.87
I011130 11 MLR KIM
Annual Capacity Cost (millions
1 = 3
$0.35 $0.38 $0.41
50.5 !50.73 51.11
$0.44 $0.47
RIME
$0.64
REKIE
10 -Year"•'
Increase_,
3,134
281
355
671
105
12,024
9,066
21,090
49,762
Coat pet'
Net 88888se ,
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
Streets Level Of Service and Capital Costs
Collector Costs
per Vehicle
Mile Traveled
$98.40
GROSS CAPITAL COST $98.40
Collector Street Facilities - Residential Development Fee Schedule
(4)[B]
VMT =
ID)141 x [8]x(ci x(D)
Weekday Trip Rate Avg Miles Trip Length
Vehicle Adjustment per Veh. Trip Weighting
Trip Ends'Fachsrs•on System=Factors=VMT
Unit Type
5.60 64%
(Per Housin.
2.39
Unit)
121%
,
10.37Single Unit
Single Unit- Manufactured 4.49 64%2.39 121%8.32
24- Unit 4.40 64%2.39 121%8.15
Cost
Per
VMT
$98.413
$98.40
$98.40
111 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
Vehicle
Td Ends=
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Factors=
Avg Miles
per Veh. Trip
on S stem=
Trip Length
Weighting
Factors=VMT E
42.70 33%
(Per 1,000sq.
2.39
ft.)
66%22.23Commercial
Office
Industrial
11.03 50%2.39 73%9.62
6.97 50%2.39 73%6.08
* See Figure 40: Existing Level of Service - City Collectors
Cost
Per
VMT [F1
$98.40
$98.40
$98.40
18118=MIEMIllisIrcoRgaszmi
WAVIESES;g_TIVINEni
rt •Mf$801
r cillector Component i_71
Proposed DevelopmentlFee'
...,J1ElifINLISAL,C
(Per Square Foot of Floor Area)
IraffEri-MMEZD
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.)
lischkOlise 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 50: Incremental Expansion - Signalized Intersections
5 -year increment-->
Yea r ->17 11 -a ?Yi.'1 .2 7 -3 '7 '5 10
2013 -2014 2015 2016 2017 2018':2023
DEMAND DATA [1]
SINGLE UNIT RES 21,199 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 24,333
MULTI -UNIT RES
COMMERCIAL KSF
1,904
1,117
1,922
1,148
1,942
1,180
1,965
1,213
1,989
1,247
2,0161
1,282
2,185
1,472
OFFICE KSF
INDUSTRIAL KSF
1,823
348
1,881
357
1,941
367
2,003
377
2,067
386
2,132
397
2,494
453
SINGLE UNIT TRIPS
MULTI -UNIT TRIPS
RES TRIPS
COMMERCIAL TRIPS
OFFICE TRIPS
IN TRIPS
NONRES TRIPS
TOTAL TRIPS
75,977 76,705 77,515 78,400 79,378 80,439 87,209
5,362 5,412 5,469 5,533 5,601 5,677 6,153
81,339 82,117 82,983 83,933 84,979 86,116 93,362
15,733 16,169 16,627 17,092 17,571 18,058 20,735
10,055 10,375 10,705 11,046 11,398 11,759 13,753
1,213 1,244 1,277 1,312 1,347 1,383 1,578
27,000 27,789 28,610 29,450 30,316 31,200 36,6
108,339 109,906 111,594 113,384 115,295 117,317 129,428
TOTAL VMT 121 1,207,836
Signalized Intersections 18
Annual Intersection Increase
15,347 32,024 49,881 69,121 89,630 214,846
1,223,183
18
0.2
1,239,860
19
0.3
1,257,717
19
0.2
1,276,957 1,297,465 1A22482
19 19 21
0.3 0.3 0.4
3
Annual Intersection Cost (millions $0.00 $0.35
SO 00 1 !S d.3 S
Source: TischlerBise
[1] Development Fee Land Use Assumptions
[2] See Figure 41: Existing Level of Service - Signalized Intersections
$0.00 $0.00
Et111 11111111
$0.00 $0.00
KIEW 132
10-Yiat
IncreaSe •
3,134
281
355
671
105
12,024
9,066
21,090
214,846
Cost per ,.
Net Increase
In OW!
4.89
Tesdilereise 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
Streets Level Of Service and Capital Costs
Signalized intersection Costs
Per Vehicle
Mile Traveled
$4.89
GROSS CAPITAL COST
Signalized Intersection Street Facilities - Residential Development Fee Schedule
(A)IBI ICI
VMT =
(Aix x ICI x ID]
Unit Type
Weekday
Vehicle
Trip Ends*
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Factors*
Avg Miles
per Veh. Trip
on System •
Trip Length
Weighting
Factors*VMT
5.60
(Per Housing Unit)
Single Unit 64%10.32 121%44.76
Single Unit- Manufactured 4.49 64%10.32 121%35.91
2+ Unit 4.40 64%10.32 121%35.17
Cost
Per
VMT
$4.89
$4.89
$4.89
[1] Current Fee established In 2012 was for Single Family and Manufactured Home. The average of both is entered here.
Signalized Intersection Street Facilities -Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule
Weekday
Vehicle
Trip Ends*
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Factors*
Avg Miles
per Veh. Trip
on S stem*
Trip Length
Weighting
Factors*M T (E)
(Per 1,660,sq.r.
Commercial
Office
Industrial
42.70 33%10.32 66%95.98
11.03 50%10.32 73%41.55
6.97 50%10.32 73%26.26
* See Figure 41: Existing Level of Service — Signalized Intersections
Cost
Per
VMT (F1
$4.89
$4.89
$4.89
r -(Per Housing Unit)--
[$5
(Per(Per Souare Foot of Floor Area)
rsp-TA
lisch0r13*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
pliormEggz
Projects
16th Ave (Delaware to Cedar)
16th Ave (Idaho to Winchester)
Winchester Road (16th to Southern)
16th Ave (Cedar to Meridian)
Idaho Road (Roundup to Foothill)
Meridian Drive (Southern to Baseline)
Intersection (Meridian Dr at Southern Ave)
Total
Added
Capadty
1.1 Lane Miles
0.8 Lane Miles
1.5 Lane Miles
0.4 Lane Miles
1.5 Lane Miles
2.0 Lane Miles
Intersection
Year :
'Total
$835,400
$554,135
$1,108,269
$277,067
$1,108,269
$2,800,000
$2,710,000
$9,393,140
Source: City of Apache Junction; Apache Junction Comprehensive
Transportation Study Final Report 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.
Ischlereisc 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
(AI [B][DI _[A] + [ET+ [C] + [D]
Unit Type
Single Unit
Minor
Arterials
Fee Component
Signalized
Intersections:torsIntersectionsCollectors
$1,113 $1,020
Dev. Fee
Study
(Per Housing Unit)
$218 $13
Gross
Development Fee
per Unit
$2,364
Single Unit-Manufactured $892 $818 $175 $10 $1,895
2+ Unit $874 $801 $171 $10 $1,856
Street Facilities Nonresidential Development Fee Schedule
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Fee Component
Minor I I Signalized I Dev. Fee
Arterials I Collectors I Intersections I St
$2.38
(Per Square Foot of Floor Area)
$2.18 $0.46 $0.02
Gross
Development Fee
Per Unit
$5.04
$1.03 $0.94 $0.20 $0.01 $2.18
$0.65 $0.59 $0.12 $0.00 $1.36
Required
Revenue Credit
0%
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Required
Revenue Credit
0%
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Development Fee per Housing Unit
Development Fee
,...iffropPsed Current al
Increase
Decrease)
(Per Housing Unit)
$6,323 ($3,959)
-PdA___Ig.i..'d $3,297 ($1,402)
______$4A40 ($2,584)
Development Fee per Square Foot of Floor Area
Development Fee
4.;.Increase
Proposed Current (1)(Decrease)
L - - - - - - -Per Square Foot of Floor
$5 04 $13.64
Area)]
($8.60)
$5.68 ($3.50)
'31M2 $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.
"fisch*B*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
Collectors
Signalized Intersections
IIP and Development Fee Study Cost
TOTAL
$5,342,858
$4,896,589
$1,050,000
$26,722
$11,316,169
Base
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Ten-Yr Increase
Projected Fees =>
per Housing Unit 1
Single Unit
$2,175
KINERRI
$1,856
Housing Units Added!
21,199
21,402
21,628
21,875
22,148
22,444
22,766
23,115
23,492
23,897
24,333
1,904
1,922
1,942
1,965
1,989
2,016
2,045
2,076
2,110
2,146
2,185
Per Square Foot of Floor Area
Commercial
$5.04
Office
$2.18
Industrial
$1.36
Square Feet Added (1,000)
1,117
1,148
1,180
1,213
1,247
1,282
1,318
1,355
1,393
1,432
1,472
1,823
1,881
1,941
2,003
2,067
2,132
2,200
2,270
2,342
2,417
2,494
348
357
367
377
386
397
408
419
429
441
453
3,134
$6,817,819
281 355
$521,536 $1,789,200
Total Projected Revenues $10,733,114
Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit)($583,055)
[1] Fee for Single Units shown represents a weighted average of the
Single Unit and Single Unit - Manufactured fees
671 105
$1,461,956 $142,603
ToxiOrBise
67
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvement Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
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
Proportionate Share
Residential Nonresidential
87%RAM
Police Consultant Fee
= M E E
Increase in Service Units
Cost per Service Unit
$19,324
2013-2018
$16,812
Person
2,309
$7.28
$2,512
DTI
1,470
$1.71
Libtane.Demeloomeatieellepact
Proportionate Share
Residential Nonresidential
87%
Police Consultant Fee
kr1711=IIIII
Increase in Service Units
Cost per Service Unit
$14,040
2013-2018
$12,215
Person
2,309
$5.29
$1,825
1,470
$1.24
Police Development Fee Report
Proportionate Share
Residential Nonresidential
92%8%
Police Consultant Fee
PINIMIE110
Increase in Service Units
$16,154
2013-2018
$14,862
Person
2,309
$1,292
WIJIBLIMIE
4,200
Cost per Service Unit $6.44 $0.31
Streets Development Fee Report
Proportionate Share
Residential & Nonresidential
100%
Consultant Fee
RIMMIEZIR
Increase in Service Units
Cost per Service Unit
$26,722
2013-2018
$26,722
Vehicle Mile of Travel
89,630
$0.30
Source: TischlerBise; Land Use Assumptions
Tisch!If1:1
Appendix A - 69
Development Fee Study: Infrastructure Improvement Plan
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
APPENDIX B -
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 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
2013-14 2014-15
Fiscal Year
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
lischleathse 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 E157: General Fund Revenues by Source
0 $14
§ $12
E $10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
General Fund Revenue in Nominal Dollars
am:Sales Taxes
li(Unrestricted State Shared
Income Taxes
c -L ----Unrestricted State Shared Sales
Taxes
(12050State shared vehicle license
taxes1,fp 19 19 ,19N•
Fiscal Year
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
General Fund Revenue per Person and Job
in 2013 Dollars
A11,7_AI N
[ZtaUg'
.6°4'4)e •css`e p
Fiscal Year
ai4m.Sales Taxes
m14..Unrestricted State Shared
Income Taxes
simanState shared vehicle license
taxes
c lInrestricted State Shared Sales
Taxes
Source: City of Apache Junction, Finance Department; TischlerBise
TischleiBise 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
$2
$1
$0
4,0*sip 4>4>N,t"4?çjc cP1.rt.
Fiscal Year
,—Highway User Taxes
dEEORDCounty Shared Sales Taxes
dedicated to Road Use in
HURF
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Highway User Taxes per Person and Job
in 2013 Dollars
sI,
Fiscal Year
imimpHighway User Taxes
aCsoCounty Shared Sales Taxes
dedicated to Road Use in
HURF
Source: City of Apache Junction, Finance Department; TischlerBise
lischtertlise 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.
Appendix C - 73Tr
Development Fee Study: Land Use Assumptions
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Figure C59 - Summary of Development Projections and Growth Rates
L.2013.013,l joilt
AE510041143 DEVELOPMENT
Housing Units Unit MIA
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 26,411 28,432.;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
MTAL ;.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
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Growth !"
Noma Floor Area (1,000 SF).
Commercla I (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
Office/Instli (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
Industrial/Flex (1,000 SF)433 3411.357 367 377 386 397 408 419 429 441 453 516 589
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
ANNUAL INCREASES (ay WNW 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
Housing Units
Nonres Floor Area (1,000 SF)
Source: City of 00a che Janet' on, 0 sch( oral se
221 246 270 297 323 351 380 411 441 475 421 454
98 102 105 108 111 115 118 120 125 128 149 174
Five -Tear Incroments
202.2•20"F 203403
7,233
650
zxt4
823
1,589
241
,.2013-1033
ALMWANNI:
394
133
AMPMe*plp.-2033
362
32
394
41
79
12
133
Growth Projections 2013-2033
City of Apache Junction,AZ
35,000
....)
"
,•)".,..-,
0.,
30,000
25,000 •
20,000
15,060 •
10,000
S,000....*----)K-----)0E- - -X ----W
o
2013 2014 2015
.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
...IFHousing Units -1E- Nonres Sq. Ft. (1,000s)
Appendix C - 74lisddedlise
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
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
.—.Single Family
—*--Mobile Home
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.
Appendix C - 75
TschierBis' e
Development Fee Study: Land Use Assumptions
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Figure C61 — Residential
Building Permits (1)
Single Family [2]
Multifamily [3]
Total
Housing Units (4)
Single Family
Multifamily
Total
Housing Units in the City of Apache Junction
2010
Distribution [5]
, 2010*2011*2012*Total
*Issued during calendar year
Base Year
I 2010 2011 2012 TEN
20,748 20,879 20,953
1,816 1,816 1,816
Average
,150
29.
2013
Distribution"
21,199 •9296]
89411,904
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 2 or more units
[4] U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census: DP1
[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).
TischlerBise 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
Structure
Renter & Owner Housing
Units
Persons Per
Hsg Unit
Vacancy
RatePersonsHouseholds
•Single Unit 18,870 6,600 7,776 2.43 15%
Mobile Homes 12,688 6,720 10,472 1.21 36%
2+ Units i'-' . `.2,21Z-; ,, _1,198
s
' _ 1,597 '.1...39-:2596_,
Totalj 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 [21 -. 2,212 .', 1;198
,c -,e,1;597 .
..
,139 8%,
Subtotal 33,770 14,518 19,845 1.70 Vacancy
139Group Quarters Population 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 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
City of Apache Junction
Annual July Population Estimates [1]
2009
35,833
2010 1
35,828
2011
36,539
KEMIN
36,928
Population
Estimate
Klink
37,300
Population
Projections [2]
2040
56,472
[1] Arizona Department of Administration, Interim I ntercensai Population Estimates
[2] 2040 population projection from Arizona Department of Administration
Pi na I and Ma ricopa County 2012-2050 Population Projections Low Series
Year 2030 Projection used to assume similar growth rate of recent years.
Exponential Growth
Rates
2009-12 2013-40
1.01%'1.55%'
Appendix C - 77
Tischleithse
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.
ischleiBise Appendix C - 78
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%
rBas ,'', 5 "'__i 9
L2013 ; -1014 .2015 : 2016.2017.2018 .2819 ,2020 2021 '- 2022 "- 2823 -2024 2093 -
SUMMARY OF DEMAND PROJECTIONS (City Limits)
TOTAL YEAR-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
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
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
Multifamily 8%t 1,904;1,922 1,942 1,965 1,989 2,016 2,045 2,076 2,110 2,146 2,185 2,237 2,554
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 30,986
ANNUAL INCREASES (City Limits)
Housing Units
Source: City of Apache Junction, Ti schl erBi se
Cumulative
•inaease
20134633'
13,415
7,883
7,233
650
7,883
Arn;`,
*seise
.201372033'
671
394
362
32
394
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
221 246 270 297 323 351
20134033' :
Avg Ainiiat
380 411 441 475 620 454 394
liscl*Bise 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 LEND 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 Juncti on
City of Apache Junction
Estimates 111.1
2004
7,589
2008
8,709
2010
8,561
Employment Estimates
KUM
8,735 8,912 9,093
Employment
Projections (2)
2040
20,453
(1) U.S. Census Bureau LEHD web -based application OnTheMap, "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
Exponential Growth
Rates
2004-10 2013-40
2.03%;3.05%'
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.
lischledke 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
Estimates [1]
WEE 2010 Share
Employment Estimates
MEE 2013 Share
City of Apache Junction
Projections [2]
Growth Rate
Commercial/Retail 2,102
Office/Institutional 5,703
Industrial/Flex 756
25%
67%
9%i.
2,233 .
6,057
,803
25%
67%
9%
3,878
11,334
1,360
2.80%
3.18%
2.67%
TOTAL 8,561 100%9,093 I 100%16,572 3.05%
[1] U.S. Census Bureau LEND 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
Unit Demand Unit*Employee*Dmd Unit**Code
Commercial! Shopping Center
182-0 1Ayerage
General Office
limasq Ft
Sq Ft
Per Emp
2.00 I :SOO
716 -4Average -]1,000 Ft 11.03 3.32 -•332 -_ 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 Lodging MOM 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
*Trio 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 - 81lisdikaise
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
Office/Institutional 5,703
Industrial/Flex 756
TOTAL 8,561
25%
67%
9%
100%
500
301
433
362
2,233
6,057
803
9,093
1,116,500 1
1,823,141
347,928
3,287,569 100%
34%
55%
11%
[11 U.S. Census Bureau LEND 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.
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 305%Five -Year Increments ..---,-).
' ' 6.-': :. ,,,:7 -'- ,<8 .7 :-e 7 ''-iii:T7:7if'777:Zli:,-
2013 • - 2.014 • - 2015 -2016 .. • ,.,2017 r 20 18 .2019 ,;' 8020 ,--,2021 ..'. 2022,,,,2023.;',-:-,,2028 ,.-2033 -
SUMMARY OF DEMAND PROJECTIONS (City Limits),
TOTAL JOBS 1 9,093 1 9,369 9,655 9,949 10,252 10,563 10,886 11,217 11,558 11,911 12,273 14,261 16,572
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
Office/Institutional 3.2%I 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
Industrial/Flex 2.7%I 803:824 846 869 892 916 941 966 991 1,018 1,045 1,192 1,360
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
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
Offi ten nsti t (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
Industrial/Flex (1,000 SF)433 ‘348!357 367 377 386 397 408 419 429 441 453 516 589
TOTAL :3,288 i 3,386 3,488 3,592 3,700 3,811 3,926 4,044 4,164 4,290 4,418 5,122 5,940
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
Jobs
Nonres Floor Area (1,000 SF)
276 286 294 303 311 323 331 341 353 362 422 491
98 102 105 108 111 115 118 120 125 128 149 174
ramtulatIve
b e
2013-2033-
7,475
1,645
5,277
557
7.478
823
1,589
241
2,652
20132033
'Ave
374
133
Source: City of Apache Junction, Tisc hl erBi se
.Avg.Anii
2013:2033,
374
82
264
28
374
41
79
12
133
isth 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
Residents Working in City
Residents commuting Outside City for Work
Percent Commuting out of the City
Additional Production Trips [2]
Residential Trip Adjustment Factor
12,031
1,236
10,795
90%
14%
64%
[1] U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 OnTheMap Application (version 6.1.1) and
LEND 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.
Tochitaise 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
City of Apache Junction, AZ Households [2]
Vehicles Units
Available (1]Single Family Multifamily
Owner -occupied 18,863 11,363 156
Renter -occupied 3,666 1,957 1,042
TOTAL 22,529 13,320 1,198
Housing Units [3] =>
Persons per Housing Unit =>
(1] Vehicles available by tenure from Table 825046, American Community Survey, 2011.
[2] Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032,
American Community Survey, 2011.
[3] Housing units from Table 1325024, American Community Survey, 2011.
,Vehicles per
Household ;
Total 4yTenure
11,519 1.64
2,999 1.22
14,518 1.55
18,248 1,597 19,845
1.73 1.39
Single Family Units
Multifamily Units
Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip
,Hholcls [41 _,Ends [51 Type of Housing Ends [6]
31,558 81,723 21,000 121,320
2,212 7,611 1,529 6,319
TOTAL 33,770 89,334 22,529 127,638
•Average
Trip Ends
101,521
6,965
108,486
Trip Ends per
Housing Unit
5.60
4.40
5.50
ITE Trip Ends
,Per Unit
9.52
6.65
Difference
from RE
-41%
-34%
[4] Total population in households from Tab1e25033, 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 by 57 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 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 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 6.65 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.
liscI*1301 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 Vehlde Trips on an Average Weekday*2013
Residential Units
Single Family
Multifamily
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Unit*
Single Family
Multifamily
Residential Vehicle Trip Ends of an Average Weekday
Single Family
Multifamily
Total Residential Trips
,
nre;idential Vehld e Trips oh on Avirage WiekdaY***-:
Nonresidential Gross Floor Area (1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial/Retail
Office/Institutional
Industrial/Flex
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1,000 Sq. Ft.**
Commercial
Office/Institutional
Industrial/Flex
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Commercial
Office/Institutional
Industrial/Flex
Total Nonresidential Trips
Assumptions
21,199
1,904
Trip Rate Trip Factor
5.60
4.40
64%
64%
75,977
5,362 %of total
81,339 75%
2013 -
Assumptions
1,117
1,823
348
Trip Rate Trip Factor
42.70 33%
11.03 50%
6.97 50%
15,733
10,055
1,213
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)
Todgeisise 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
Single Family 0-3 Bdrms
Single Fami ly4+ Bdrms
Single Unit Subtotal
Single Unit- Manufactured
Multifamily Total
GRAND TOTAL
Recommended Multipliers for Municipality [4)
Persons Trip
[1)Ends [2)
Vehicles Trip
Available [1]Ends [3)
Average Housing
Trip Ends Units [1]
Trip Ends per Persons per
Housing Unit Housing Unit
1,331 3,682 970 5,642 4,662 737 4.93 1.47
7.62 2.51
5.60 _1.73
4.49 1.21
4.40 1.39
754 2,195 447 2,620 2,408 245
2,085 6,169 1,417 8,308 7,239 982
417 1,280 303 1,783 1,532 259
110 317 39 447 382 63
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 for 2011).
[2) 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 in the ITE studies, persons were divided by 5 and the equation result multiplied by 5.
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).For single 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 by 7 and the
equation result multiplied by 7.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 CommunitySurvey 2011 data, with persons adjusted to the Citywide average of 1.73 persons per single 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.
Appendix C - 87Tiinkaltalg.esekaaINICSIgkIL
Development Fee Study: Land Use Assumptions
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Figure C74 - Land Use Assumptions Summary, City of Apache Junction
SUMMARY OF DEMAND PROJECTIONS (City Limits)
TOTAL YEAR-ROUND POPULATION
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
TOTAL JOBS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Housing Units
Five-Year Increments
1:::2013 -.2014';1015'2016 2017 1018 , ' '2019 -2620 '2021 2022 ,,2033
;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
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
,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
Unit Mix
Single Family 92%.21,1991 21,402 21,628 21,875 22,148 22,444 22,766 23,115 23,492 23,897 24,333 26,411 28,432
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
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
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Growth
Employment By Type Rate
Commercial/Retail 2.8%" 2,2331 2,295 2,360 2,426 2,494 2,563 2,635 2,709 2,785 2,863 2,943 3,378 3,878
Office/Institutional 3.2%i 6,057 1 6,250 6,449 6,654 6,866 7,084 7,310 7,542 7,782 8,030 8,285 9,691 11,334
Industrial/Flex 2.7%:803:824 846 869 892 916 941 966 991 1,018 1,045 1,192 1,360
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
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
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
Industrial/Flex (1,000 SF)433 .348,357 367 377 386 397 408 419 429 441 453 516 589
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
Cumulative "
• Mae*
, 2013-2033 "
13,415
7,883
7,479
7,233
650
7,883
1,645
5,277
557
7.479
823
1,589
241
2,652
Avg. Ann.
Intrease
2013-2033
671
394
374
362
32
394
82
264
28
374
4 1
79
12
133
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
Year -Round Population
Housing Units
376 418 460 505 550 597 647 699 751 808 716 773
221 246 270 297 323 351 380 411 441 475 421 454
2013.2033
Avg Annual
671
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, Tisch] erBi se
IscHerEtise Appendix C - 88
Development Fee Study: Land Use Assumptions
City of Apache Junction, Arizona
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Growth Projections 2013-2033
City of Apache Junction, AZ
e
•
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
..41—Year-Round Population —M—Housing Units —ctr—Jobs Nonres Sq. Ft. (1,000s)
lischOre*Appendix C -89