HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (776) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
JUNE 25, 2008
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Discussion of the TischlerBise, Inc. Development Impact Fee Studies
a. Executive Summary (pgs. 1-7)
b. Police (pgs. 25-34)
c. Parks & Recreation (pgs. 8-17)
d. Transportation (pgs. 45-60)
e. Demographic Memo (pgs. 61-74)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 06/18/08
4:00 p.m.
cp
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If any person
with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk's Office at
(520)229-4700.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 1 of 2
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 06/25/08
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID ANDREWS, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN THE AREAS OF POLICE, PARKS
AND RECREATION, AND TRANSPORTATION
SUMMARY:
On August 1, 2007 the Town Council voted to contract with TischlerBise Inc. for Phase I of a development
impact fee feasibility/cost of service study to determine whether the Town could support the creation of
additional development impact fees. Based on land use and population data, interviews with staff, and
established demand factors, Paul Tischler of TischlerBise completed a comprehensive cost of service study and
provided a draft report of his findings.
The results of Phase I of the project were presented to Council on October 24, 2007. In his report, Mr. Tischler
recommended that the Town pursue fee development in the areas of police, parks and recreation, transportation,
library, and municipal facilities and equipment (now referred to as general government). TischlerBise estimated
the cost of these new development fees could range anywhere from $1,000 to $4,000, which would be used to
fund capital costs associated with maintaining current service levels as growth occurs.
On November 7, 2007 the Council chose to proceed with Phase II and asked TischlerBise to create a sound
methodology for formulating development impact fees in the five areas recommended to Council. Through the
data collection and analysis portion of the fee development process, TischlerBise has been able to provide
accurate data on the cost of maintaining the current levels of service for the areas selected and calculate legally
defensible impact fees for the Town that will require new growth to pay its proportionate share of capital costs.
On May 7, 2008, the Council adopted the notice of intent to establish new fees in the areas of police, parks and
recreation, transportation, library, and general government; however the Mayor expressed an interest in
spending additional time on each of the fees prior to the public hearing scheduled for July 16, 2008. This
evening will be the first of two study sessions to discuss the proposed development impact fees, with the library
fee and the general government fee to be discussed on July 9, 2008. If necessary, Yvonne Dawson of
TischlerBise is here to answer any of the questions that the Council may have in regards to the police, parks and
recreation, or transportation fees being discussed tonight.
The fee adoption schedule has changed due to the cancellation of the Regular Session meeting on August 20,
2008. Below is the revised schedule:
Study Session on proposed development impact fees April 23, 2008
Notice of Intent to adopt new fees May 7, 2008 (60 day waiting period)
Public Hearing on potential new fees July 16, 2008 (30 day waiting period)
Adoption of potential new fees September 3, 2008 (90 day waiting period)
Effective date of newly adopted fees December 2, 2008
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 2 of 2
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 06/25/08
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Copy of the police, parks and recreation, and transporation sections of the final report from TischlerBise
Inc.
avi j; 1440,./4.
David Andrews, Town Manager
TischleiBise 4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE S240 I BETHESDA, MD 20816
T: 800.424.4318 F: 301.320.4860
Fiscal,Economic & Planning Consultants 80 ANNANDALE ROAD I PASADENA, CA 91105-1404
T: 81 8.790.6170 1 F: 81 8.790.6235
WWW.TISCHLERBISE.COM
Executive Summary
The Town of Oro Valley,Arizona has contracted with TischlerBise to calculate development
fees for the following infrastructure categories:
• Parks & Recreation;
• Library;
• Police;
• General Government; and
• Transportation.
DEVELOPMENT FEE OVERVIEW
Development fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to
accommodate new development. A development fee represents new growth's fair share of
capital facility needs. By law, development fees can only be used for capital improvements,
not operating or maintenance costs. Development fees are subject to rigorous legal
standards, which require the fulfillment of three key elements: demand, benefit and
proportionality. First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it needs to be demonstrated that
new development will create a demand for capital improvements. Second, new
development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public
facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the fee paid by a particular type
of development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system
improvements.
The development fee methodologies established in this report show that:
• The capital facilities for which the fees are prepared are a consequence of new
development,
• Development fees will substantially benefit new development; and that
• Development fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital facility
service demands of new development.
Another general requirement common to development fee methodologies is the evaluation
of credits. Two types of credits should be considered: future revenue credits and site-
specific credits. Future revenue credits are necessary to avoid potential double payment
situations arising from a one-time development fee payment plus the payment of other
revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements.
Future revenue credits are dependent upon the development fee methodology used in the
cost analysis. As new development will provide front-end funding of infrastructure, there is a
potential for double payment of capital costs due to future principal payments on existing
Fiscal impact Analysis.Impact Fees• Revenue Strategies Economic impact Analysis•Fiscat software
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
debt, for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for interest payments if interest costs are
not included in the development fees.
The second type of credit is a site-specific credit for system improvements that have been
included in the development fee calculations. Policies and procedures related to site-specific
credits for system improvements should be addressed in the Town's development fee
ordinance. However, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for site-specific
credits or reimbursements only if they provide ystem improvements that have been included in the
development fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development
approval process are not eligible for credits against development fees.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Arizona's current development fee legislation requires that municipalities adopt an
infrastructure improvements plan prior to assessing new or modified development fees.
Development fees for municipalities in Arizona are authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes
(A.R.S.) 9-463.05. The complete legislation is included in Appendix 2 of this report.
Subsection E states that, "for each necessary public service that is the subject of a
development fee, the infrastructure improvements plan shall:
1. Estimate future necessary public services that will be required as a result
of new development and the basis for the estimate.
2. Forecast the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property,
financing, other capital costs and associated appurtenances, equipment,
vehicles, furnishings and other personalty that will be associated with
meeting those future needs for necessary public services and estimate the
time required to finance and provide the necessary public services."
Each development fee component in this report includes a corresponding Infrastructure
Improvements Plan (IIP). Based on development projections, the IIP illustrates projected
demand for public facilities, the amount of capital facility required to serve projected growth
and the associated capital costs to new residential and nonresidential development.
DEVELOPMENT FEE AND IIP CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES
TischlerBise evaluated several possible methodologies to determine the best measure of the
demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. This report
documents the appropriate methodology and demand indicators by type of development for
each IIP. The report documents the relationship between the IIP and the development fees.
Specific capital costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. The general
formula for calculating the development fees and corresponding IIP is shown in Figure 1.
The formula used to calculate each development fee is diagrammed in a flow chart at the
beginning of each section. Also, each fee category includes a summary table indicating the
specific factors used to derive the development fee. These factors are also referred to as
level-of-service (LOS) standards.
There are three basic methods used to calculate the various components of Oro Valley's IIP
and development fees. A plan-based method is best suited for public facilities that have
adopted plans or commonly accepted service delivery standards to guide capital
improvements. Under the plan-based methodology, there are two approaches considered.
lischlerBise
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
The average approach is used for projects that are the result of both new and existing
development. The planned costs are allocated to both new and existing development which
ensures that new growth only pays its share of the costs. The marginal approach is used for
projects that are the result of only new growth. The planned costs are allocated to the net
increase in new growth.
The incremental expansion method documents the current level-of-service (LOS) for each
type of public facility. LOS standards are determined using the Town's current inventory of
capital facilities and assets as well as current costs to construct or purchase comparable
facilities or assets. However, Oro Valley will not use the funds for renewal and/or
replacement of existing facilities. Rather the Town's intent is to use development fee
revenue to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new
development.
A third method, known as the cost recovery method, is best suited for facilities that have
been oversized in anticipation of growth and have excess capacity available. New
development would buy-in to the excess capacity of the facility. The rationale for the cost
recovery approach is that new development will pay for its share of the useful life and
remaining capacity of recently constructed facilities.
The generic formula used to calculate the IIP and development fee is diagrammed in Figure
1. The diagram starts in the upper left corner and progresses left-to-right and down through
the lower right corner.
lischlerBise
3
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 1. Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and Development Fee Formula
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
INFRASTRUCTURE FORECAST FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
Level-of- New Infrastructure
Service to be Provided x Development = Demanded by
to New Development Projections New Development
(e.g.acres per person, (e.g.new persons (e.g.total number of
square feet of facilities and/or jobs from acres,total number
per person and job) new development) square feet demanded
by new development)
COST FORECAST FOR NEW INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure Planned Cost Total Cost to Provide Projected Demand Cost per
Demanded by x per Unit of = Infrastructure to ± Units Served by = Demand
New Development Infrastructure New Development New Infrastructure Unit
(e.g.total number of (e.g.cost per acre, (total dollar amount) (e.g.new persons (e.g.cost per person
acres,total number cost per square foot and/or jobs from and/or per job to
square feet demanded of facility) new development) provide the new
by new development) infrastructure)
NOTE: The infrastructure forecast and cost forecast calculations are repeated for each component of the infrastructure category.
DEVELOPMENT FEE
Total Cost per Demand Units Development Fee
Demand Unit for x per Development = per Development
Complete IIP Unit Unit
(Includes all (e.g.person per (dollar amount by
components for the household,jobs per type of housing unit,
infrastructure category) square foot,trips per dollar amount per
housing unit/square square foot by type
foot) of nonresidential
development)
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT FEE CALCULATIONS BY FACILITY CATEGORY
As noted above, TischlerBise, Inc. calculated the IIP and development fees for five types of
public facilities in Oro Valley: parks and recreation, library, police, general government and
transportation. All types of development—residential and non-residential— create a demand
for capital facilities. This analysis determines those capital needs — and the related costs —
brought about by new development. The resulting IIP and maximum supportable
development fee amount represents each type of land uses' fair share of the capital cost for
different improvements. For parks and recreation and library, residential development is the
only type of land use that directly drives the need for additional facilities. The need for
police, general government and transportation improvements, however, is brought about by
both residential and non-residential development. Therefore, calculations for these
development fees are based on both residential and non-residential demand, with the
TischlerBise 4
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
resulting development fee amount reflecting each type of development's fair share of related
costs.
The following summarizes the methodologies used in each fee category. Also presented is
the maximum supportable development fee amount.
Parks and Recreation
The parks and recreation development fee is allocated to residential development. The fee
utilizes the incremental-expansion method for all fee components. The development fee is
calculated based on household size and the capital cost per person for parkland acquisition
and development, park amenities, park recreational facilities, park vehicles/equipment and
the parks and recreation component of the development fee study. The maximum
supportable development fee amounts for parks and recreation are: $2,699 for a single family
housing unit and $1,607 for all other housing types.
Library
The library development fee is allocated to residential development. The fee utilizes the
incremental-expansion method for all fee components. The development fee is calculated
based on household size and the capital cost per person for the library facility, land for the
library facility, collection materials and the library component of the development fee study.
The maximum supportable development fee amounts for library are: $694 for a single family
housing unit and $413 for all other housing types.
Police
The police development fee calculates new growth's contribution for the planned police
facility at the Municipal Operations Center, the land acquisition for the police facility, police
vehicles/equipment and the police component of the development fee study. As demand for
police facilities is driven by residents and businesses, the development fee is allocated to
both new residential and nonresidential development. The maximum supportable residential
development fee amounts for police are: $513 for single family housing units and $305 for all
other housing types. Non-residential development fees vary based on the use and/or size of
the development.
General Government
The general government development fee uses the incremental-expansion method to
calculate new growth's contribution for future general government facilities, general govt.
vehicles/equipment, transit vehicles and the general government facilities component of the
development fee study. As demand for general government facilities is driven by residents
and businesses, the development fee is allocated to both new residential and nonresidential
development. The maximum supportable residential development fee amounts for general
government facilities are: $389 for single family housing units and $232 for all other housing
types. Non-residential development fees vary based on the use and/or size of the
development.
Transportation
The plan-based method is used to calculate the road construction portion of the Town's
transportation development fee based on projects defined in the Pima County
Transportation Improvement Plan and the Regional Transportation Authority Regional
Transportation Plan. The development fee provides the per development unit cost for the
T 5
An1200, 771:=ZIEWX32=,..121,Fii.=EMLW,4,`,..k--,.....,--.'. ..''.*,.. Ise e ise
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
, ._-_- z -- -r. „� 9 ,,
�� .� ��- �� _,..
Town's planned expansion of its transportation system. The plan-based method is also used
to calculate the expansion of Public Works facilities at the Municipal Operations Center
Other fee components are calculated using cost recovery method (public works portion of
land acquired at Municipal Operations Center) and the incremental expansion method (road
vehicles and equipment). Demand for the transportation system is driven by residents and
businesses, so the development fee is allocated to both new residential and nonresidential
development. The maximum supportable development fee amounts for transportation are:
$1,908 for single family housing units and $1,314 for all other housing types. Noll-residential
development fees vary based on the use and/or size of the development.
SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS
Figure 2 provides a schedule of the maximum supportable development fee amounts for
residential and non-residential development in Oro Valley.
The development fees shown are for parks and recreation, library, police, general
government, and transportation. For a single family housing unit, the maximum supportable
development fee amount is $6,203 and for all other housing units, $3,871. Non-residential
development fees vary based on the use and/or size of the development. The maximum
supportable development fee for a commercial/shopping center from 100,001-200,000
sq. ft. is $3,654 per 1,000 sq. ft., while the maximum supportable development fee for
warehousing is $580 per 1,000 sq. ft. The maximum supportable development fee for a
lodging room is $595.
Figure 2: Schedule of Maximum Supportable Development Fees
Residential-Per Housing Unit
Parks and General
Recreation Library Police Govt. Transportation Total
Single Family $2,699 $694 $513 $389 $1,908 $6,203
All Other Housing $1,607 $413 $305 $232 $1,314 $3,871
Non-Residential-Per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area
Parks and General
Recreation Library Police Govt. Transportation Total
Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less N/A N/A $199 $209 $5,462 $5,870
Com/ Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF N/A N/A $172 $179 $4,745 $5,097
Corn/ Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF N/A N/A $144 $157 $3,963 $4,264
Com/ Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF N/A N/A $123 $139 $3,392 $3,654
Com/ Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF N/A N/A $105 $125 $2,883 $3,113
Office/ Inst 25,000 SF or less N/A N/A $59 $260 $1,789 $2,109
Office/ Inst 25,001-50,000 SF N/A N/A $50 $245 $1,526 $1,822
Office/ Inst 50,001-100,000 SF N/A N/A $43 $231 $1,301 $1,575
Office/ Inst 100,001-200,000 SF N/A N/A $37 $219 $1,109 $1,364
Business Park N/A N/A $41 $198 $1,244 $1,483
Light Industrial N/A N/A $22 $145 $680 $847
Warehousing N/A N/A $16 $80 $484 $580
Manufacturing N/A N/A $12 $112 $373 $497
Non-Residential-Per Room
Lodging N/A N/A $18 $28 $5491 $595
IIMEMINESSIEVOINEEMEF TischlerBise 6
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
All costs in the development fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed
inflation rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments should be made as part of the
recommended annual evaluation and update of development fees. The Town will use the
Engineering News Record Construction and/or Materials Cost Index for the annual update
of the transportation development fee. The Marshall Swift Valuation Service will be used to
annually update the remaining development fee categories (parks and recreation, library,
police and general government). The multipliers will be applied against the calculated
development fee. If cost estimates and/or growth projection change significantly, the Town
should redo the fee calculations.
A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted
using Excel software. Results are discussed in the report using one-and two-digit places (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 report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
Fiscal,Economic S,Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Police
METHODOLOGY
The plan-based method is used to calculate the training and property ID facility component
of the police development fee. The cost-recovery method is used for the land portion of the
fee. The other components of the police development fee are calculated using the
incremental expansion method, including police vehicles/equipment and the police portion
of the development fee study.
The Oro Valley Police Department serves both residential and non-residential development,
providing protection to residents and businesses. As shown in Figure 23, this development
fee is allocated on a per capita basis for residential development. For nonresidential
development, the methodology allocates the capital cost on a per nonresidential vehicle trip
basis. TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand
nonresidential demand indicator for police facilities and vehicles. Other possible
nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, do not accurately
reflect the demand for police facilities. If employees per thousand square feet were used as
the demand indicator, development fees would be too high for office/institutional
development. If floor area were used as the demand indicator, development fees would be
too high for industrial development.
Figure 23: Police Development Fee Methodology Chart
1 [
Residential Development Nonresidential Development
Persons Per Housing Unit Vehicle Trips Per 1,000
By Housing Type Square Feet of Floor Area
Training and Property ID Facility Training and Property ID Facility
Cost Per Person Cost Per Trip
Land for Police Facility Land for Police Facility
Cost Per Person Cost Per Trip
Police Vehicles/Equipment Police Vehicles/Equipment
Cost Per Person Cost Per Trip
Development Fee Study Development Fee Study
ost Per Person Cost Per Trip
r
TischlerBise 25
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTOR—RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL
The Oro Valley Police Department distinguished calls by residential and nonresidential land
uses. These results (shown in Figure 24), are used to determine residential and nonresidential
proportionate share factors. Of the 18,918 Oro Valley calls received during the sample
period that can be assigned to a land use, 17,916 calls (95%) were to residential land uses and
nonresidential uses accounted for 1,002 calls (5%).
Figure 24: Oro Valley Calls for Service by Land Use Type, Dec. 2006-Nov. 2007
Land Use Type Calls*
Residential 17,916 95%
Nonresidential 1,002 5%
Total 18,918 100%
*Source: Oro Valley Police Department
POLICE TRAINING AND PROPERTY ID FACILITY—PLANNED
The plan-based methodology is used to derive the police training and property ID facility
portion of the police development fee. Figure 25 provides the planned square footage and
the construction cost for the facility,which will be built at the planned Municipal Operations
Center at Rancho Vistoso.
As the facility will provide a level of service improvement, the demand for this facility is
generated both by existing and new development. The facility is expected to serve the Town
through 2025,which corresponds with the end of the Town's debt service for the facility.
To calculate the residential level of service, the square footage of the planned police facility
(22,026 sq. ft.) is multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor of 95% (see Figure
24) and then divided by the total population in 2025 of 54,641, resulting in .38 sq. ft. per
person. See the Appendix for detail on population projections. Nonresidential level of
service is calculated by multiplying the nonresidential proportionate share factor of 5% (see
Figure 24) and dividing by the total nonresidential average daily vehicle trips in 2025
(180,444), providing for .01 sq. ft. per trip. See the Appendix for detail on trip projections.
The police facility cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total
replacement cost of $6,995,095. This results in a police facility cost of $121.24 per person
($6,995,095 x 95%)/54,641 = $121.24) and $2.05 per trip (($6,995,095 x 5%)/180,444 =
$2.05).
"L c 75� w m�rcr _ _°a: . ,+� s-a;t 'r.€ ,qst, ,; ,fEat, -.., ••:4 �,,. .e T26
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
;e. _-.-_ ��� ,: -,�-_ -� :���.-^.€_�.::. sr#�� - :=. .a .--.•-- su..�:-ter .- _..gip_..::----_•-� .�-_ - -
Figure 25: Police Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards
Facility Year Sq.Ft. Replace.Cost/Sq.Ft." Replacement Cost
Training and Property ID 2010 22,026 $318 $6,995,095
TOTAL 22,026 $6,995,095
Proportionate 2025 Sq.Ft.per Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit
Residential 95% 54,641 54,641 population 0.38 $121.24
Nonresidential 5%_ 180,444 nonres trips 0.01 $2.05
*Source:Town of Oro Valley Rancho Vistoso Master Planning report,January 2008.
Figure 26 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for the planned police facility.
The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the
report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a
projected increase of 3,338 persons and 23,191 nonresidential trips. Based on the existing
LOS standards of.38 sq. ft. per person and .01 sq. ft. per nonresidential trip, this amount of
residential development will require approximately 1,274 sq. ft. and non-residential
development will require 150 sq. ft. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals
$452,328 over the next five years. Of this, $404,711 is attributable to new residential
development. This equates to $121.24 per person ($404,711/3,338 persons = $121.24). The
remainder, $47,618, is attributable to new nonresidential development. This equates to $2.05
per nonresidential trip ($47,618/23,191 trips = $2.05).
The Town's costs for the new police facility totals $5.1 million. The IIP illustrates new
growth's demand for the capital facility and associated costs through FY 2013. The police
facility is expected to serve existing and new growth through 2025, so the remainder of the
cost is attributable to existing growth and new growth during the FY 2014-2025 period.
ws+,a.xR"asci- -sG �s;3Tn313.v"3,'�,�,.:svfi, 4z<fi'_icsn:?i--•a ^1.,:.-#;.`°§�=ri4s-4ar.:rirAsii'._:-:se 4r:�-r�7.'P-'-. '.- ars'7'� 11�� 27
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
xt�"k.t'��.r"--'=. .---m�`�.,�:'«��-�'�:.;��:� -_-:-�'.rr�s;�w�.s....-..-+�,.__,_u.w,.v.,��a
Figure 26: Police Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520
Nonresidential Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Projections 102,025 106,639 111,658 116,178 120,697 125,217
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338
Net Change in Nonresidential Trips 4,614 5,019 4,519 4,519 4,519 23,191
POLICE FACILITY
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Planned LOS-Sq.Ft.per Person 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Planned LOS-Sq.Ft.per Nonres Trip 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
5-Year Total
Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Res.Development 241 258 258 258 258 1,274
Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Nonres.Development 30 32 29 29 29 150
Cost per Sq.Ft. $318 $318 $318 $318 $318
5-Year Total
Police Facility Cost For New Res.Development $76,514 $82,049 $82,049 $82,049 $82,049 $404,711
Police Facility Cost For New Nonres.Development $9,473 $10,306 $9,280 $9,280 $9,280 $47,618
TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $85,987 $92,355 $91,329 $91,329 $91,329 $452,328
POLICE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
5-Year Total
Police Facility Construction Cost $6,995,095 $6,995,095
Less Income from Development Fees $85,987 $92,355 $91,329 $91,329 $91,329 $452,328
NET DEFICIT $6,542,767
LAND FOR POLICE TRAINING AND PROPERTY ID FACILITY- COST
RECOVERY
The cost recovery methodology is used to derive the land for police training and property ID
facility portion of the police development fee. Figure 27 provides the acquired acreage and
original land acquisition cost for the police portion of the Municipal Operations Center site.
The Town acquired the site in 2005, and the Figure reflects the cost to acquire the police
portion of the site at that time. The police portion of the site corresponds with the share of
the debt issuance assigned to the general fund.
As the police facility will provide a level of service improvement, demand for this site is
generated both by existing and new development. The site is expected to serve the Town
through 2025, which corresponds with the end of the Town's debt service for the land
acquisition.
To calculate the residential level of service, the acreage of the site for the planned police
facility (2.2 acres) is multiplied by the residential proportionate share factor of 95% (see
Figure 24) and then divided by the total population in 2025 of 54,641, resulting in .00004
acres per person. See the Appendix for detail on population projections. Nonresidential level
of service is calculated by multiplying the nonresidential proportionate share factor of 5%
(see Figure 24) and dividing by the total nonresidential average daily vehicle trips in 2025
(180,444), providing for .000001 acres per trip. See the Appendix for detail on trip
projections.
= isc e Ise r _ s
28
;`,``- ti4t,:'. _-- _.'?_- .r'_'--"'-.'• -•.,__, -.-n°`?sra__.-,rpe.3*?�.rrr.t:.s._..i.ie. ... s °.t. ..__- _.--
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
.- �€:-,:"Y_-.:___ ,._ -. .u.- r....-: - :..•.,_ _. _"_ .. :,`.,:•..:_.,_.:*st 'a"e.''-g ';ac�""_'.c+-'. __��'f, tEan^.•:___ SiY`. -.. .. -f."'c`.-. ... -- = �� -_ d`_ €"-�`-��E�_.
The land for police facility cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the police
share of the original land acquisition cost of$787,405. This results in a land for police facility
cost of$13.65 per person ($787,405 x 95%)/54,641 = $13.65) and $.23 per trip (($787,405 x
5%)/180,444 = $.23).
Figure 27: Land for Police Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards
Acquisition Cost Police Share of
Sit:Area Yccr Acquired Acres Police Share Per Acre* Acquisition Cost
Future Police Facility at Municipal
Operations Center 2005 2.2 17% $357,197 $787,405
TOTAL 2.2
$787,405
Proportionate 2025 Acres per Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit
Residential 95% 54,641 population 0.00004 $13.65
Nonresidential 5% 180,444 nonres trips 0.000001 $0.23
*Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ.Police's share corresponds with current allocation of debt service associated with land acquisition bonds.
Figure 28 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for the site of the planned
police facility. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at
the back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years,
there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons and 23,191 nonresidential trips. Based on the
existing LOS standards of.00004 acres per person and .000001 acres per nonresidential trip,
this amount of residential development will require approximately .13 acres and non-
residential development will require .02 acres. The projected cost of this demanded
infrastructure totals $50,916 over the next five years. Of this, $45,556 is attributable to new
residential development. This equates to $13.65 per person ($45,556/3,338 persons =
$13.65). The remainder, $5,360, is attributable to new nonresidential development. This
equates to $.23 per nonresidential trip ($5,360/23,191 trips = $.23).
TischlerBise 29
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 28: Land for Police Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520
Nonresidential Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Projections 102,025 106,639 111,658 116,178 120,697 125,217
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change in Population 631 677 677 677 677 3,338
Net Change in Nonresidential Tris 4,614 5,019 4,519 4,519 4,519 23,191
LAND FOR POLICY FACILITY
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Cost Recovery LOS-Acres per Person 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004
Cost Recovery LOS-Acres per Nonres Trip 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001
5-Year Total
Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Res.Development 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.13
Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Nonres.Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Cost per Acre $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197
5-Year Total
Land for Police Facility Cost For New Res.Development $8,613 $9,236 $9,236 $9,236 $9,236 $45,556
Land for Police Facility Cost For New Nonres.Development $1,066 $1,160 $1,045 $1,045 $1,045 $5,360
TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $9,679 $10,396 $10,280 $10,280 $10,280 $50,916
Land for Police Facility Cost Per Person $13.65
Land for Police Facility Cost Per Nonres Trip $0.23
POLICE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT-INCREMENTAL EXPANSION
The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the vehicles/equipment
component of the police development fee. Figure 29 provides an inventory of current police
vehicles/equipment. Current replacement cost for vehicles/equipment is provided by the
Oro Valley Police Department.
To calculate the residential level of service, the 120 vehicles/equipment are multiplied by the
residential proportionate share factor 95% (see Figure 24) and then divided by the 2007
population of 42,551, resulting in .0027 vehicles/equipment per person. See the Appendix
for detail on the 2007 population estimate. Nonresidential level of service is calculated by
multiplying vehicles/equipment by the nonresidential proportionate share factor of 5% (see
Figure 24) and divided by the number of nonresidential vehicle trips in the Town in 2007
(63,428 trips), providing for .0001 vehicles/equipment per nonresidential average daily
vehicle trip. See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 nonresidential trip estimate.
The police vehicle/equipment cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the
total replacement cost of $4,122,632. This results in a police vehicle/equipment cost of
$91.76 per person (($4,122,632 x 95%)/42,551 = $91.76) and $3.44 per trip (($4,122,632 x
5%)/63,428 = $3.44).
TischlerBise 30
Fiscal.Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
-.z fie,-_-;F' Y-.�' e'.e4_�- .e+r.II_F-.-x_cc'+�-ate,•�.•t- -_ #'�S'.. --_ _'� - b�-'•�
_.- ..:... .... --_ _.... _..: _-.._..;'.'�4Y�' ...slq�• �_'.:3�..-__.-_'t #C'7 r_} - .ITOM1es"-4FS`^"45.-__ _-- -7-V;.1F
Figure 29: Police Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards
Type of Units in Unit Total Replacement
Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost
Marked Patrol Sedan 43 $43,885 $1,887,055
Marked DUI Patrol Sedan 2 $50,645 $101,290
Marked K-9 Patrol Sedan 4 $46,557 $186,228
Marked K-9 Patrol Truck 1 $52,526 $52,526
Marked Patrol SUV 4 $49,917 $199,668
Marked Patrol 1 1/2 Ton Truck 1 $47,361 $47,361
Marked Motorcycle 11 $28,112 $309,232
Unmarked Trucks 4 $24,978 $99,912
Large Sport Wagon 1 $45,031 $45,031
3/4 Ton Truck 1 $36,568 $36,568
Unmarked Mid-size Sedan 30 $24,302 $729,060
Unmarked Full-size Sedan 3 $34,582 $103,746
Unmarked Van 2 $17,942 $35,884
Command Post 1 $132,667 $132,667
ATV 1 $5,200 $5,200
Property and Indentification Vans 3 $26,793 $80,379
8 Passenger Van 1 $17,391 $17,391
15 Passenger Van 1 $20,460 $20,460
Trailers 6 $5,496 $32,974
TOTAL/AVERAGE 120 $34,355 $4,122,632
Proportionate 2007 Vehicles per Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit Demand Unit
Residential 95% 42,551 population 0.0027 $91.76
Nonresidential 5% 63,428 nonres trips 0.0001 $3.44
*Source:Oro Valley Police Department
Figure 30 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for police vehicles/equipment.
The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the
report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a
projected increase of 3,338 persons and 23,191 nonresidential trips. Based on the existing
LOS standards of.0027 units per person and .0001 units per nonresidential trip, this amount
of residential development will require approximately 8.92 units of vehicles/equipment and
non-residential development will require 2.32 vehicles/equipment. The projected cost of this
demanded infrastructure totals $386,132 over the next five years. Of this, $306,293 is
attributable to new residential development. This equates to $91.76 per person
($306,293/3,338 persons = $91.76). The remainder, $79,839, is attributable to new
nonresidential development. This equates to $3.44 per nonresidential trip ($79,839/23,191
trips = $3.44).
TischlerBise 31
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 30: Police Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520
Nonresidential Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Projections 102,025 106,639 111,658 116,178 120,697 125,217
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change in Population 631 677 677 ,677 677 3,338
Net Change in Nonresidential Trips 4,614 5,019 4,519 4,519 4,519 23,191
POLICE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per Person 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027
Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per Nonres Trip 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
5-Year Total
Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Res.Development 1.69 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 8.92
Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Nonres.Developm€ 0.46 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.45 2.32
Cost per Vehicle/Equipment $34,355 $34,355 $34,355 $34,355 $34,355
5-Year Total
Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Res.Development $57,907 $62,097 $62,097 $62,097 $62,097 $306,293
Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Nonres.Development $15,883 $17,280 $15,559 $15,559 $15,559 $79,839
TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $73,790 $79,376 $77,655 $77,655 $77,655 $386,132
Police Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Person $91.76
Police Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per Nonres Trip $3.44
POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The Town plans to update its development fees every three years to ensure the
methodologies, assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and
accurate. TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing this portion of the study in the
development fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to conduct this regular
update. The cost of this component ($11,300) is allocated to the projected increase in
population and nonresidential trips over the next three years. This results in a development
fee study cost per demand unit of $.70 per person and per nonresidential trip
($11,300/16,137 people and nonresidential trips = $.70).
POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES
Figure 31 shows level of service standards and cost factors for police development fees for
Oro Valley. Development fees for police are based on household size (i.e., persons per
housing unit) and average daily vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area for non-
residential development. Level of service standards are based on current costs per demand
unit for the training and property identification facility, land for the police facility, police
vehicles/equipment and the police component of the development fee study.
TischlerBise 32
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 31: Police Development Fee Input Variables
INPUT VARIABLES Residential Nonresidential
Persons Per Housing Unit
Single Family 2.26
All Other Housing 1.34
Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet
Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 110.32
Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 86.56
Corn/ Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91
Corn/ Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28
Com/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 41.80
Office/ Inst 25,000 SF or less 18.35
Office/ Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 15.65
Office/ Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34
Office/ Inst 100,001-200,000 SF 11.37
Business Park 12.76
Light Industrial 6.97
Warehousing 4.96
Manufacturing 3.82
Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Room
Lodging 5.63
Trip Adjustment Factors
Corn/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 28%
Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 31%
Corn/ Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 33%
Corn/ Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 36%
Corn/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 39%
All Other Nonresidential Development 50%
Cost Factors Per Person Per Trip
Planned Component for Police Training/Property ID $121.24 $2.05
Cost Recovery Component for Police Facility Land $13.65 $0.23
Incremental Expansion Component for Police Vehicles/Equip. $91.76 $3.44
Development Fee Study Cost $0.70 $0.70
Total Capital Cost Per Demand Unit $227.34 $6.43
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR POLICE
Figure 32 contains a schedule of the maximum supportable police development fees for Oro
Valley. Residential development fee amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per
housing unit for each type of housing by the total capital cost per person. For example, for
a single family unit, the persons per housing unit figure of 2.26 is multiplied by the total
capital cost per person of $227.34 for a development fee amount of $513 per single family
unit. The calculation is repeated for the all other housing type category. For non-residential
development, average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 sq. ft. are multiplied the applicable trip
adjustment factor, then by the total capital cost per trip. For example, for a
commercial/shopping center from 50,001 to 100,000 sq. ft., 67.91 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. is
multiplied by the trip adjustment factor of 33% and then by $6.43 per trip for a total
development fee of $144 per 1,000 sq. ft. This calculation is repeated for the remaining
nonresidential categories. Trip adjustment factors are discussed further in the Appendix.
TischlerBise 33
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 32: Police Development Fee Schedule
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS
Residential Per Housing Unit
Single Family $513
All Other Housing $305
Nonresidential Per 1,000 Sq.Ft.
Com/ Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less $199
Corn/ Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF $172
Corn/ Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $144
Com/ Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $123
Com/ Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF $105
Office/ Inst 25,000 SF or less $59
Office/ Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $50
Office/ Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $43
Office/ Inst 100,001-200,000 SF $37
Business Park $41
Light Industrial $22
Warehousing $16
Manufacturing $12 Per Room
Lodging $18
TischlerBise
34
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
r
. ---- �-�- �--�-..- - �- ��.--
- ._ '��<� ,�_ �-..t.-sem r ^r� . }s:-.__ *,�..-�-- � �� -- - - - - .�
Parks and Recreation
METHODOLOGY
The components of this development fee include parkland acquisition and development,
park amenities, recreational facilities, vehicles/equipment and the parks and recreation
component of the development fee study. The incremental expansion methodology is used
for all development fee components.
All capital costs have been allocated to residential development. Standards have been shown
on a per capita basis. Persons per housing unit is used to differentiate the development fees
by type of housing unit (see Appendix 1 for demographic information). All components in
this development fee have a Town wide service area.
Figure 3: Parks and Recreation Development Fee Methodology Chart
Parks and Recreation
Development Fee
. 1
Persons per Housing Unit Multiplied by Total Capital
By Housing Type Cost Per Person
Parkland Acquistion and Development
Cost Per Person
Park Amenities I
Cost Per Person
Recreational Facilities
Cost Per Person
Vehicles and Equipment
Cost Per Person
Development Fee Study I
Cost Per Person I
8
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
a....-r-.,e ,..3-+ams..s�+ o-.� •-:v+n.+e=..:t^-,a•e-R--xc-"scm^. se.zs�-+ar_.. e*x__._.-=°a?`s7i}`:.'..`e.`—Ram""'" ___.` •�. .:.3.^ _ _ _ - u'+'� ?.'...: _ — ,�is�w�r:+�"3.
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT—INCREMENTAL
EXPANSION
The parkland acquisition and development component of the parks and recreation
development fee is calculated using the incremental expansion methodology. Figure 4
provides an inventory of the Town of Oro Valley's developed (active) parkland. The current
acquisition cost for parkland is estimated at $49,000 per acre based on recent parkland
acquisition by Pima County. The cost per acre of development (grading and slope treatment)
is estimated at $68,769/acre based on the Town's plans for the Naranja Town Site, bringing
the total cost per acre to $117,769. This results in a total parkland value of approximately
$8,479,350.
To calculate the level of service (LOS) for parkland, 72 acres is divided by the Town's
population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (72 acres / 42,551 persons = .0017 acres per person,
or 1.69 acres per 1,000 persons). See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population
estimate. The parkland acquisition cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the
total parkland value of$8,479,350. This results in a parkland acquisition cost of$199.27 per
person ($8,479,350 / 42,551 = $199.27).
TischlerBise
9
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
a _. v-.C�. '.^craa::a-Yt�`3'S�F`i`''''-.+r.3i�+rt 3`_'•+J'?'eP+oS.,"a"f„ .. -s.MtP$`e.-.__, ... .... ,_..
Figure 4: Parkland Level of Service and Cost Standards
Parks Developed Acres*
Canada Del Oro Riverfront Park 20
James D.Kreigh Park 12
W. Lambert Lane Park 40
Total Developed Park Acres 72
Land Acquisition Cost/Acre** $49,000
Development Cost/Acre** $68,769
Total Cost/Acre $117,769
Acres x Price
Total Cost $8,479,350
Population in 2007 42,551
Acres per 1,000 residents 1.69
Land Cost Per Acre $49,000
Land Cost Per Person $199.27
*Source: Town of Oro Valley,AZ. Passive parkland(Naranja Town Site,
W. Lambert Lane Park,5 acres at Jame D. Kriegh Park, 10 acres at Canada
del Oro Riverfront Park)is not included.
**Source:Land acquisition cost based on recent parkland acquistion by Pima
County. The Town of Oro Valley expects that future land acquistion costs
will be comparable to those of the County. Development(grading and slope
treatment)cost based on Naranja Town Site Plans ($5,501,500/80 acres =
$68,769/acre).
T .
10
r-7,77-4.7-z7,;- ZZE2BEEINEELM=Z..M.- ,,-, --- ---.',---,--, --71=Via.WINJERM,Z= -- ,---",",, isc e Ise
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 5 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for parkland acquisition and
development. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1
at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five
years, there is a projected increase of 3,338 persons. Based on the LOS standard of.0017
acres per person, this amount of residential development will require approximately 5.65
acres of parkland. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $665,212
over the next five years. This is the equivalent of $199.27 per person ($665,212 /3,338
persons = $199.27).
Figure 5: Parkland Acquisition and Development Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change 631 677 677 677 677 3,338
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Incremental LOS-Acres per Person 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017
5-Year Total
Acres Demanded by New Development 1.07 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 5.65
Parkland Acquisition and Dev.Cost per Acre $117,769 $117,769 $117,769 $117,769 $117,769
5-Year Total
Parkland Acquisition and Dev.Cost For New Res.Development $125,764 $134,862 $134,862 $134,862 $134,862 $665,212
Parkland Acquisition and Development Cost Per Person $199.27
PARK AMENITIES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION
The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the park amenity component of
the parks and recreation development fee. Figure 6 lists the park amenities by Town park,
including lighted baseball and softball fields, lighted soccer fields, lighted racquetball court,
walking paths, lighted tennis court, horseshoe pits, lighted armadas, playgrounds, restrooms
and a dog park. Also shown is the estimated cost per amenity unit. Unit costs are from the
Town's plans for the Naranja Town Site.
To calculate the LOS for park amenities, 33.75 amenities is divided by the Town's
population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (33.75 amenities / 42,551 persons = .001 amenities per
person). See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The park amenity cost
per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total amenity value of$4,350,400. This
results in a park amenity cost of$102.24 per person ($4,350,400 /42,551 = $102.24).
TuschlerBise 11
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 6: Park Amenities Level of Service and Cost Standards
Lighted Lighted Lighted Lighted Lighted
Baseball, Soccer Racquetball Basketball Walking Tennis Horse- Lighted Play- Rest-
Parks Softball Field Field Court Court Path(Mi.) Court shoe Pit Ramada ground room Dog Park TOTAL
Canada Del Oro Riverfront Park 2 2 _ 1 0.75 1 2 3 1 2 14.75
James D.Kriegh Park 1 2 4 _ 2 3 2 1 15
West Lambert Lane Park 1.00 _ 1
Naranja Town Site 3.00 3
Total 3 4 4 1 4.75 1 2 5 4 4 1 33.75
Unit Cost* $250,000 $210,000 $50,000 $100,000 $54,400 $140,000 $1,000 $90,000 $150,000 $215,000 $150,000
Units x Cost $750,000 $840,000 $200,000 $100,000 $258,400 $140,000 $2,000 $450,000 $600,000 $860,000 $150,000 $4,350,400
Population in 2007 42,551
Amenities Per Capita 0.001
Cost Per Capita $102.24
*Source:Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department.Costs from plans for Naranja Town Site.
Figure 7 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for park amenities. The IIP is
calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the report and
the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a projected increase
of 3,338 persons. Based on the LOS standard of.001 amenities per capita, this amount of
residential development will require approximately 2.65 amenities. The projected cost of this
demanded infrastructure totals $341,292 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of
$102.24 per person ($341,292/3,338 persons = $102.24).
Figure 7: Park Amenities Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change 631 677 677 677 677 3,338
PARK AMENITIES
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Incremental LOS-Amenities per Person 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
5-Year Total
Amenities Demanded by New Development 0.50 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 2.65
Cost per Amenity $128,901 $128,901 $128,901 $128,901 $128,901
5-Year Total
Park Amenity Cost For New Res.Development $64,524 $69,192 $69,192 $69,192 $69,192 $341,292
Park Amenity Cost Per Person $102.24
0
TischlerBise 12
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION
The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the recreational facilities
component of the parks and recreation development fee. Figure 8 provides an inventory of
park recreational facilities. Current replacement cost is provided by the Town based on plans
for the Naranja Town Site.
TQ.,calculate the LOS ,for recreational facilities,_._.3 facilities is divided by the Town's
population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (3 facilities / 42,551 persons = .0001 facilities per
person). See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The recreational
facilities cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of
$37,517,900. This results in a recreational facilities cost of $881.72 per person
($37,517,900/42,551 = $881.72).
Figure 8: Recreational Facilities Level of Service and Cost Standards
Facility Park Facilities Replace. Cost/Facility* Replacement Cost
Outdoor Amphitheater Canada Del Oro 1 $34,795,900 $34,795,900
Swimming Pools (2) James.D.Kriegh 2 $1,361,000 $2,722,000
TOTAL/AVERAGE 3 $12,505,967 $37,517,900
Population in 2007 42,551
Facilities Per Capita 0.0001
Cost Per Capita $881.72
*Source:Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department. Costs from plans for Naranja Town Site.
Figure 9 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for recreational facilities. The
IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the
report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there is a
projected increase of 3,338 persons. Based on the existing LOS standard of .0001 facilities
per person, this amount of residential development will require approximately .24 facilities.
The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $2,943,309 over the next five years.
This is the equivalent of$881.72 per person ($2,943,309/3,338 persons = $881.72).
"'"Y ^r_E w--._ .-F' sxz-si�°&3?..�ti. 'Y:-:-. i r r%_;..
TuschlerBise 1 3
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
'? _..,�. _-_s.=_ 3-^.,..�.e-.�q �: .f^^-i �" �-"'E '_77, ..'. ? -" - r , "'K ''^3 •• "_a ...,-..,.^n--.Y-cs tea:,.--+..r te^a= _
Figure 9: Recreational Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change 631 677 677 677 677 3,338
PARK RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Incremental LOS-Facilities per Person 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
5-Year Total
Facilities Demanded by New Development 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.24
Cost per Facility $12,505,967 $12,505,967 $12,505,967 $12,505,967 $12,505,967
5-Year Total
Park Recreational Facilities Cost For New Res.Development $556,457 $596,713 $596,713 $596,713 $596,713 $2,943,309
Park Recreational Facilities Cost Per Person $881.72
PARK VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT—INCREMENTAL EXPANSION
The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the vehicle/equipment cost
component of the parks and recreation development fee. Figure 10 provides an inventory of
current park vehicles/equipment. Current replacement cost for Town park
vehicles/equipment is provided by the Town of Oro Valley.
To calculate the LOS for park vehicles/equipment, 14 units is divided by the Town's
population in 2007 of 42,551 persons (14 units /42,551 persons = .0003 units per person).
See the Appendix for detail on the 2007 population estimate. The park vehicle/equipment
cost per person is calculated in a similar fashion, using the total replacement cost of
$272,144. This results in a park vehicles/equipment cost of $6.40 per person (($272,144
/42,551 = $6.40).
TischlerBise 14
Fiscal,Economic Ec Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
= few.i�....a�+�w�isl�.�c.��,wc.ww.e,3�_.... + .._ _ _ _ _ - _
YGr_—..._ s.--..__... - 'c-�'�... -�-�: •�-..._ �".:_.. ._ S�t_ _• i � _ A^e-_p• ^--,-h%�-'t{..tom 0�3
Figure 10: Park Vehicles/Equipment Level of Service and Cost Standards
Type of Units in Unit Total Replacement
Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost
1/2 Ton Pickup Truck 3 $26,000 $78,000
3/4 Ton Pickup Truck 1 $28,050 $28,050
1 Ton Pickup Truck 1 $31,050 $31,050
Utility Tractor with Backhoe,Loader,and-vlowei -1 $30,166 - $30,166
Backhoe with 12" Bucket 1 $7,417 $7,417
Tractor 1 $18,419 $18,419
Bunker Rake 2 $18,706 $37,412
4wd utility vehicle 2 $14,210 $28,420
Aerifier 1 $6,221 $6,221
Fertilizer and sand spreader 1 $6,989 $6,989
TOTAL/AVERAGE 14 $19,439 $272,144
Population in 2007 42,551
Vehicles/Equipment Per Capita 0.0003
Cost Per Capita $6.40
*Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ
Figure 11 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for park vehicles and
equipment. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the
back of the report and the LOS and cost figures listed above. Over the next five years, there
is a projected increase of 3,338 persons. Based on the existing LOS standard of .0003
vehicles/equipment per person, this amount of residential development will require
approximately 1.10 vehicle/equipment. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure
totals $21,350 over the next five years. This is the equivalent of $6.40 per person
($21,350/3,338 persons = $6.40).
_ TischlerBise
1
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
-._..... --'--�-'.-.-.-y_._ --:€€'R•^-:-' .�__>.:,:mss"'. '3�€"-^-�...��-iRa.'A 33tr— -.--['s--!- �n,�,�'s^'� �+m- _-;r. _ -zT.s -_ '€-_'.�>� �-g
Figure 11: Park Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Population Projections 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change 631 677 677 677 677 3,338
PARK VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per Person 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
5-Year Total
Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Development 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 1.10
Cost per Vehicle/Equipment $19,439 $19,439 $19,439 $19,439 $19,439
5-Year Total
Park Vehicle/Equipment Cost For New Res.Development $4,036 $4,328 $4,328 $4,328 $4,328 $21,350
Park Vehicle and Equipment Cost Per Person $6.40
PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The Town plans on updating its development fees study every three years to ensure the
methodologies, assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and
accurate. TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing this portion of the study in the
parks and recreation development fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to
conduct this regular update. The cost of this component ($13,600) is allocated to the
projected increase in population over the next three years (2008-2011). This results in a
development fee study cost per demand unit of$6.85 per person ($13,600/1,985 people).
PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FEE INPUT VARIABLES
Figure 12 shows level of service standards and cost factors for the Oro Valley parks and
recreation development fees. Development fees for parks and recreation are based on
household size (i.e., persons per housing unit) and are charged to residential development.
Level of service standards are based on current costs per person for parkland acquisition and
development, park amenities, recreational facilities, park vehicles/equipment and the parks
and recreation component of the development fee study.
TischlerBise 16
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 12: Parks and Recreation Development Fee Input Variables
INPUT VARIABLES Residential
Persons Per Housing Unit
Single Family 2.26
All Other Housing 1.34
Level Of Service
Park Land Acquisition and Development(Incremental-Expansion)
Park Land Cost per Person $199.27
Park Amenities(Incremental-Expansion)
Park Amenities Cost per Person $102.24
Recreational Facilities(Incremental-Expansion)
Recreational Facilities Cost Per Person $881.72
Park Vehicles and Equipment(Incremental-Expansion)
Park Vehicles and Equipment Cost Per Person $6.40
Development Fee Study
Development Fee Study Cost Per Person $6.85
Total Capital Cost per Person $1,196.48
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION
Figure 13 contains a schedule of maximum supportable parks and recreation development
fees for Oro Valley. The amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit
for each type of unit by the total capital cost per person. For example, for a single family
unit, the persons per housing unit figure of 2.26 is multiplied by the total capital cost per
person of$1,196.48 for a parks and recreation development fee amount of$2,669 per single
family unit. The calculation is repeated for the all other housing category.
Figure 13: Parks and Recreation Development Fee Schedule
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS Residential
Development Fee per Housing Unit
Single Family $2,699
All Other Housing $1,607
TischIeise
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
�:.:s�-:#±�w.r -.4 `-,::: '--`. -.. -._ ---r.�-. -..:,?r^xr"g'"'_"'=_k.=a':�:--,_a.#_:'_, =c Utz -� _ -_. __ -_a" ,€e�a"- ^s^ss_-,>�- ,:z'�..•g? _ �.
��^�.- :
._ .-•cam ..:., '- _�r' �+..'--.._:.-... �T....._...- :.--... .. .. sar--.._:.,.:,-- __._ _._- __-_,-
Transportation
METHODOLOGY
The Town of Oro Valley transportation development fee is derived using a plan-based
methodology linked to the Pima Association of Governments Transportation Improvement
Plan 2008-2012 and the 20-year Regional Transportation Authority Regional Transportation
Plan (adopted in 2006). As shown in Figure 43, trip generation rates by type of development
are multiplied by the total capital cost per vehicle mile of travel (VMT) to yield the
transportation development fees. The methodology includes trip adjustment factors for
commuting patterns, pass-by trips and average trip length variation by type of land use.
TischlerBise
45
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
- =: f..*nor»-c- -^--moi -
Figure 43: Transportation Development Fee Methodology
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
By Type of Development
Multiplied by Trip Adjustment Factors
(Commuting, Pass-By Trips and Trip Length Adjustments)
Multiplied by Total Capital Cost
Per Vehicle Miles of Travel
Arterial Marginal Cost
Road Improvements
Arterial Average Cost
Road Improvements
Collector Average Cost
Road Improvments
Public Works
Facility
Land for Public Works
Facility
Vehicles and
Equipment
VEHICLE TRIPS
Vehicle trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation (Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 2003). Oro Valley's transportation development fees are based
on average weekday vehicle trip ends. 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
the development fees, 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%.
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.
TischlerBise 46
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
n -.eLi•ar
'e"S•R"'-
Adjustment for Journey-To-Work Commuting
Residential development has a higher trip adjustment factor of 63% to account for
commuters leaving Oro Valley for work (see calculation in Figure 44). According to the
National Household Travel Survey (see Table 29, Federal Highway Administration, 2001)
home-based work trips are typically 31% of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which
are 50% of all trip ends). Also, Census 2000 data from Table P27 in Summary File 3
indicates that 83% of Oro Valley's workers travel outside the Town for work. In
combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.83 = 0.13) account for 13% of production trips.
The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50% of trip ends) plus
the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (13% of production trips) for a total of 63%.
Figure 44: Trip Adjustment for Journey to Work Commuting
Share of Home Based Trips for Work 31%
Outbound Trips 50%
Workers Traveling Outside Oro Valley for Work 83%
Journey to Work Commuting Adj. 13%
Attraction Trips 50%
Journey to Work Commuting Adj. 13%
Residential Adjustment Factor 63%
Source: National Household Transportation Survey 2001 (Table 29)
and 2000 U.S.Census,Table P27.
Adjustment for Pass-by Trips
A simple trip adjustment factor of 50% has been applied to the office, public sector and
goods production categories. The commercial/retail category has a trip factor of less than
50% because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and
collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way
home from work, the convenience store is not their primary destination. As documented in
Trip Generation, there is an inverse relationship between shopping center size and pass-by
trips. Therefore, appropriate trip adjustment factors have been calculated according to
shopping center size. For this type of development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50
percent because retail uses attract vehicles as they pass by. For example, the ITE Manual
indicates that on average 45% of the vehicles entering shopping centers under 25,000 square
feet are passing by on the way to some other primary destination and 55% of the attraction
trips have the shopping center as their primary destination. Therefore, the adjusted trip
factor is 28% (0.55 x 0.50).
TischlerBise 47
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
, ..' . '.
Figure 45: Commercial/Shopping Center Trip Rates and Pass-By Adjustments
Weekday 72003 Data
Floor Area Commercial Commercial Shopping Centers General Office
in thousands Pass-by Trip Adj ITE 820 ITE 710
(KSF) Trips* Factor** Trip Ends Rate/KSF Trip Ends Rate/KSF
10 52% 24% 1,520 152.03 227 22.66
25 45% 28% 2,758 110.32 459 18.35
50 39% 31% 4,328--- 86.56 782 15.65
100 34% 33% 6,791 67.91 1,334 13.34
200 29% 36% 10,656 53.28 2,275 11.37
400 23% 39% 16,722 41.80 3,879 9.70
800 18% 41% 26,239 32.80 6,615 8.27
Source: Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,2003.
* Based on data published by ITE in Trip Generation Handbook(2004),the best trendline
correlation between pass-by trips and floor area is a logarithmic curve with the equation((-
7.6812*LN(KSF)) +69.293).
** To convert trip ends to vehicle trips,the standard adjustment factor is 50%. Due to pass-
by trips,commercial trip adjustment factors are lower,as derived from the following formula
(0.50*(1-passby pct)).
GROWTH-RELATED DEMAND FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
The Regional Transportation Authority Regional Transportation Plan identifies regional
transportation improvements needed to accommodate new growth through 2025. In
addition, the Pima Association of Government TIP list projects approved for construction
during the 2008-2012 time frame. These improvements will expand the street network by
29.80 lane miles, at an average cost of $1.32 million per arterial lane mile and $1.22 for
collector lane mile.
Figure 46 summarizes the cost of arterial system improvements that will be needed to
accommodate projected increases in traffic through 2025. Planned collector road capacity
improvements are listed in Figure 47. The top section of the Figure 46 lists those growth-
related arterial road projects needed to accommodate new development. As these projects
would not be constructed if the Town were to stop growing, construction cost are allocated
to the net increase in VMT from 2008-2025. These growth-related capacity projects have a
total cost of$31 per vehicle mile of travel. The bottom section of the figure presents arterial
capacity projects that will benefit existing and new development through reconstruction of
the existing road paired with a capacity expansion. Construction costs for these projects are
allocated to all VMT in 2025. These growth-related capacity projects have a total cost of$50
per vehicle mile of travel. This brings the total arterial construction cost to $81 per vehicle
mile of travel.
isc a Ike 48
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
,.- :.__. -- .--..14.��.-z._ ..-. _ •sw:'i -.-_- .__-+.P3^.�ri` :, _-- _.:�_�.:�.n`sc.�e-§k�sK2#�-'S_k+a€sa - -- _ 'e°3'a'F�___ ��c�z---2P?--__ '�-`.....�^'c-csrcr:Y.ea.*.^.fb.. - c��.a+.�,a.+..3
Figure 46: Arterial Road Infrastructure Improvements Plan
A.Arterial Capacity Projects That Benefit Future Development
State,RTA,12.6% Total
Project Name&Location* New Lane Miles Estimated Project Cost Funds Local Share
ILa Canada Dr.Ext.(Tangerine Rd.to Moore Rd.) 1 4.001 $7,745,0001 $2,331,0001 $5,596,711
TOTAL 4.00 $7,745,000 $2,331,000 $5,596,711
Net Increase in VMT through 2025 175,297
Marginal Cost Per VMT $31
B.Arterial Capacity Projects That Benefit Existing and Future Development
State,RTA,12.6% Total
Project Name&Location* New Lane Miles Estimated Project Cost Funds Local Share
First Ave.(Oracle to Tangerine) 3.60 $12,375,028 $1,500,000 $10,875,028
La Canada(Naranja to Tangerine) 2.00 $10,540,054 $6,250,000 $4,290,054
La Cholla Blvd.(Overton to Tangerine)** 7.00_ $25,083,748 $24,050,000 $1,033,748
Lambert Lane(La Cholla to 1st) 5.20 $17,977,977 $6,400,000 $11,577,977
Tangerine Rd.(Shannon to La Canada)** 4.00 $14,226,998 $13,400,000 $826,998
TOTAL 21.80 $80,203,805 $51,600,000 $28,603,805
VMT in 2025 561,183
Average Cost Per VMT $50
TOTAL 25.80 $34,200,516
Cost Per Lane Mile(Local Share) $1,325,601
Cost Per VMT $81
*Source:Pima Association of Governments,2008-2012 TIP Projects,Oro Valley.Also includes Oro Valley's construction management costs.
**These projects are also included in the Regional Transportation Authority's Regional Transportation Plan.
Figure 47 summarizes the cost of collector system improvements that will be needed to
accommodate projected increases in traffic through 2025. Figure 47 presents collector
capacity projects that will benefit existing and new development through reconstruction of
the existing road paired with a capacity expansion. Construction costs for these projects are
allocated to all VMT in 2025. These growth-related collector capacity projects have a total
cost of$62 per vehicle mile of travel.
Figure 47: Collector Road Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Collector Capacity Projects That Benefit Existing and Future Development
State,RTA,12.6% Total
Project Name&Location* New Lane Miles Estimated Project Cost Funds Local Share
Hardy Road(Northern Ave.\Calle Buena Vista to Oracle) 0.00 $964,000 $875,000 $92,004
Magee Road(Oracle Rd.to N.First Ave.) 4.00 $2,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,292,185
Naranja(Shannon to La Canada) 0.00_ $5,000,000_ $1,610,000 $3,504,405
TOTAL 4.00 $8,464,000 $3,735,000 $4,888,594
VMT in 2025 78,624
Average Cost Per VMT $62
TOTAL 4.00 $4,888,594
Cost Per Lane Mile(Local Share) $1,222,148
Cost Per VMT $62
*Source:Pima Association of Governments,2008-2012 TIP Projects,Oro Valley.Also includes Oro Valley's construction management costs.
TischlerBise 49
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
"eAt+eTn»rw.--.. -s_r'-�S,!.?'"y2z",9"-^.sa yam?'u+r..'a= 4"'^.`, zi-'4 as,:fe't-e-.r_;s,..+-�x_..�„*�rt"etlf"aYTS.. -.::'R'v J 4v - ::Gr. r..._- .x;'��•r-s._ee-
VEHICLE TRIPS FROM DEVELOPMENT IN ORO VALLEY
In addition to the cost per lane mile, development fees are determined by lane capacity and
travel demand factors such as the amount of new development, trip generation rates and
average trip length. Figure 48 summarizes projected travel demand data for Oro Valley
through the year 2025. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors, as used in the
development fee calculations, convert projected development into average weekday vehicle
_� trips on arterials,_indicated by.grey,shading in the middle section of Figure 48. At_the bottom .
of the table are data on projected Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and the need for additional
lane miles. A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is simply 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. This calculation is repeated in Figure 49 for collector roads.
Lane Capacity
Based on information provided by the Town, the transportation development fee is based
on an arterial lane capacity standard of 8,925 vehicles per lane and 8,000 vehicles per lane for
collectors.
Average Trip Length
Knowing the increase in vehicle trips,lane-miles need to accommodate future travel and lane
capacity, it is possible to derive the average trip length. The average trip length on planned
improvements is determined through a series of iterations using spreadsheet software
because the VMT calculations include the same adjustment factors used in the development
fee calculations (i.e., residential journey-to-work and commercial pass-by adjustments and
average trip length adjustment by type of land use (see below)). Given the projected number
of vehicle trips (summarized Figure 48, detail on assumptions provided in Appendix), arterial
lane capacity standard and projected need for 25.80 lane miles of additional arterial road
capacity (see Figure 46), TischlerBise derived an average trip length on planned arterial
system improvements in Oro Valley of 1.92 miles.'
I The basis formula for calculating the average trip length is to multiply the lane miles by the capacity and
divide by the number of trips.
ei,-.7:„€-.4,,,,,,r.4,t,. f=^- ...'-e. ,-. ,,.'0,,,--.....,...,: r{ ..... _,-,.,.,,Z.,,,,,t r'4°..f i. < - a.-. TaschIeise 50
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 48: Projected Travel Demand and Road Needs on Planned Arterial Roads
5-Year Increments
Oro Valley,AZ-Arterials 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 Cumulative
DEMAND DATA Increase
SF UNITS 15,873 16,123 16,373 16,673 18,173 19,673 21,173
ALL OTHER HOUSING UNITS 2,264 2,314 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364
RETAIL/COMM KSF 2,114 3,657 3,837 4,018 4,921 5,825 6,728
OFFICE/INST KSF 683 1,121 1,172 1,223 1,480 1,736 1,993
PUBLIC SECTOR KSF 1,062 1,062 1,072 1,127 1,235 1,235 1,235
GOODS PRODUCTION KSF 13 131 13 13 13 13 13
SF TRIPS 95,447 96,950 98,454' 100,258 109,277 118,297 127,317
ALL OTHER HOUSING TRIPS 9,560 9,771 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982
RETAIL/COMM TRIPS 47,370 81,950 85,998 90,047 110,292 130,536 150,781
OFFICE/INST TRIPS 6,266 10,284 10,755 11,225 13,578 15,931 18,284
PUBLIC SECTOR TRIPS 9,745 9,745 9,839 10,339 11,333 11,333 11,333
GOODS PRODUCTION TRIPS 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
TOTAL TRIPS 168,434 208,746 215,074 221,898 254,509 286,126 317,743
ARTERIAL ROAD VMT 330,936 385,886 396,001 406,910 459,289 510,236 561,183
ANL ARTERIAL ROAD LN MI 6.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 25.8
ANL ARTERIAL ROAD COST(Millions) $8.09 $1.59 $1.59 $1.72 $1.59 $1.59 $34.20
This calculation is repeated for collectors in Figure 49 based on the projected need for 4
miles of additional collector road capacity (see Figure 47), with a derived average trip length
on planned collector system improvements in Oro Valley of.27 miles.
Figure 49: Projected Travel Demand and Road Needs on Planned Collector Roads
5-Year Increments
Oro Valley,AZ -Collectors 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 Cumulative
DEMAND DATA Increase
SF UNITS 15,873 16,123 16,373 16,673 18,173 19,673 21,173
ALL OTHER HOUSING UNITS 2,264 2,314 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364
RETAIL/COMM KSF 2,114 3,657 3,837 4,018 4,921 5,825 6,728
OFFICE/INST KSF 683 1,121 1,172 1,223 1,480 1,736 1,993
PUBLIC SECTOR KSF 1,062 1,062 1,072 1,127 1,235 1,235 1,235
GOODS PRODUCTION KSF 13131 13J 131 13 13 13
SF TRIPS 95,447 96,950 98,454 100,258 109,277 118,297 127,317
ALL OTHER HOUSING TRIPS 9,560 9,771 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982
RETAIL/COMM TRIPS 47,370 81,950 85,998 90,047 110,292 130,536 150,781
OFFICE/INST TRIPS 6,266 10,284 10,755 11,225 13,578 15,931 18,284
PUBLIC SECTOR TRIPS 9,745 9,745 9,839 10,339 11,333 11,333 11,333
GOODS PRODUCTION TRIPS 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
TOTAL TRIPS168,434. 208,746 215,074; 221,898 254,509 286,126 317,743
COLLECTOR ROAD VMT 46,366 54,064 55,481 57,010 64,348 71,486 78,624
COLLECTOR ROAD LN MI 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 4.0
ANL COLLECTOR ROAD COST(Millions) $1.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $4.88
Average Trip Length Adjustment by Type of Land Use
The average trip length is weighted to account for trip length variation by type of land use.
As documented by the National Household Travel Survey (see Table 6 in the 2001
publication by the Federal Highway Administration), vehicle trips from residential
development, for home-based work trips, social and recreation purposes, are approximately
122% of the average trip length. Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial
development are roughly 68% of the average trip length while other nonresidential
development typically account for trips that are 75% of the average trip length.
lischlerBise 51
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY—PLAN-BASED
The plan-based methodology is used to derive the public works facility component of the
transportation development fee. Public Works will be expanding into the planned Municipal
Operations Center. Figure 50 shows the square footage for the public works share of the
facility and the corresponding costs for that portion of the facility. The construction cost is
provided by the Town. The facility is expected to serve the Town through 2025 when the
Town's debt service expires. Need fat- the facility is generated by new growth, so the costs
are allocated to the net increase in arterial vehicle miles of travel through 2025.
Figure 50: Public Works Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards
Facility Year Sq. Ft.* Cost/Sq.Ft.** Construction Cost
Public Works Space in Future
Municipal Operations Center 2010 17,060 $268 $4,564,091
TOTAL 17,060 $4,564,091
Net Increase in Arterial VMT through 2025 175,297
Sq.Ft.per VMT 0.097
Marginal Cost per VMT $26.04
*Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ. Square footage in planned facility less water operations and water utility
production space.
**Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ
Figure 51 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for public works facilities. The
IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the back of the
report and the LOS and cost figure listed above. Over the next five years, there is a
projected increase of 8,930 residential vehicle miles of travel and 55,313 nonresidential
vehicle miles of travel. This brings the increase in vehicle miles of travel over the next five
years to 64,243. Based on the planned LOS standard of.09 sq. ft. per VMT, this amount of
residential development will require approximately 869 sq. ft. and non-residential
development will require 5,383 sq. ft. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure
totals $1,672,648 over the next five years. This equates to $26.04 per VMT
($1,672,648/64,243 = $26.04).
The Town's cost for the new public works facility totals $6.9 million. The IIP illustrates new
growth's demand for the capital facility and associated costs through FY 2013. The public
works facility is expected to serve new growth through 2025, so the remainder of the cost is
attributable to new growth during the FY 2014-2025 period.
TischlerBise52
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 51: Public Works Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
VMT Projections-Residential 106,721 108,435 110,239 112,043 113,847 115,651
VMT Projections-Nonresidential 310,772 321,713 333,556 344,399 355,242 366,084
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change in VMT from New Res.Development 1,714 1,804 1,804 1,804 1,804 8,930
Net Change in VMT from New Nonres.Development 10,942 11,843 10,843 10,843 10,843 55,313
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Planned LOS-Sq.Ft.per Average Daily VMT 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
5-Year Total
Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Res.Development 167 176 176 176 176 869
Sq.Ft.Demanded by New Nonres.Development 1,065 1,153 1,055 1,055 1,055 5,383
Cost per Sq.Ft. $268 $268 $268 $268 $268
5-Year Total
Public Works Facility Cost For New Res.Development $44,637 $46,968 $46,968 $46,968 $46,968 $232,510
Public Works Facility Cost For New Nonres.Development $284,881 $308,340 $282,306 $282,306 $282,306 $1,440,139
TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $329,518 $355,308 $329,274 $329,274 $329,274 $1,672,648
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
5-Year Total
Public Works Construction Cost $4,564,091 $4,564,091
Less Income from Development Fees $329,518 $355,308 $329,274 $329,274 $329,274 $1,672,648
NET DEFICIT $2,891,443
Public Works Facility Cost Per VMT $26.04
LAND FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY-COST-RECOVERY
The cost recovery methodology is used to derive the land for public works facility portion of
the transportation development fee. Figure 52 provides the acquired acreage and original
land acquisition cost for the public works portion of the Municipal Operations Center site.
The Town acquired the site in 2005, and the figure reflects the cost to acquire the public
works portion of the site at that time. The police portion of the site corresponds with the
share of the debt issuance assigned to public works.
This site area for the public works facility will address demand generated by new
development. The site is expected to serve the Town through 2025,which corresponds with
the end of the Town's debt service for the land aquisition. The cost for the original site
acquisition is allocated to new VMT through 2025. To derive the cost per VMT, the original
site acquisition cost (public works share) is divided by the net increase in VMT through 2025
($2,357,500/175,297 VMT = $13.45 per VMT)
_ „ . _ lischierBise 53
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
.._ _- -.. _ ...-. -.-. -s._ _- _ _ t+.^n2, _ -.Y _.. '.v..-�__-_.e+,f_ -- :I?eib'C II3,'.' Breva{^^F•-�_1t"a -_ _
Figure 52: Land for Public Works Facility Level of Service and Cost Standards
Acquisition Cost PW Sluzre of
Site Area Year Acquired Acres PW Share Per Acre* Acquisition Cost
Future Municipal Operations Center 2005 6.6 50% $357,197 $2,357,500
TOTAL 6.6 $2,357,500
Net Increase in Arterial VMT through 2025 175,297
Acres per VMT 0.00004
Marginal Cost per.VMT _$13.45
*Source:Town of Oro Valley,AZ.Public Works share corresponds with current allocation of debt service associated with land
acquisition bonds.
Figure 53 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for land for the public works
facility. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from Appendix 1 at the
back of the report and the LOS and cost figure listed above. Over the next five years, there
is a projected increase of 8,930 residential vehicle miles of travel and 55,313 nonresidential
vehicle miles of travel. This brings the increase in vehicle miles of travel over the next five
years to 64,243. Based on the cost recovery LOS standard of .00004 acres per VMT, this
amount of residential development will require approximately .34 acres and non-residential
development will require 2.08 acres The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals
$863,977 over the next five years. This equates to $13.45 per VMT ($863,977/64,243 =
$13.45).
TischlerBise
Fiscal,Economic&Planning consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 53: Land for Public Works Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
VMT Projections-Residential 106,721 108,435 110,239 112,043 113,847 115,651
VMT Projections-Nonresidential 310,772 321,713 333,556 344,399 355,242 366,084
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change in VMT from New Res.Development 1,714 1,804 1,804 1,804 1,804 8,930
Net Change in VMT from New Nonres.Development 10,942 11,843 10,843 10,843 10,843 55,313
LAND FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Cost Recovery LOS-Acres per Average Daily VMT 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004
5-Year Total
Acres Demanded by New Res.Development 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.34
Acres Demanded by New Nonres.Development 0.41 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.41 2.08
Cost per Acre $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197 $357,197
5-Year Total
Land for Public Works Facility Cost For New Res.Development $23,056 $24,261 $24,261 $24,261 $24,261 $120,099
Land for Public Works Facility Cost For New Nonres.Development $147,150 $159,267 $145,820 $145,820 $145,820 $743,878
TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $170,207 $183,528 $170,081 $170,081 $170,081 $863,977
Land for Public Works Facility Cost Per VMT $13.45
TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT-INCREMENTAL
EXPANSION
The incremental expansion methodology is used to derive the vehicles and equipment
component of the transportation development fee. Figure 54 provides an inventory of the
Town's public works vehicles and equipment. Current replacement cost for transportation
vehicles and equipment was provided by the Town. Vehicle and equipment value is
estimated at $1,867,222 for a per VMT cost of $5.64 (1,867,222 /330,936 arterial VMT =
$5.64).
TischlerBise 55
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 54: Transportation Vehicles and Equipment and Level of Service and Cost
Standards
Type of Units in Unit Total Replacement
Vehicle/Equipment Service Replacement Cost* Cost
Compact Pickup Truck 3 $14,973 $44,919
1/2 Ton Pickup Truck 14 $26,000 $364,000
3/4 Ton Pickup Truck 2 $28,050 $56,100
1 Ton Pickup Truck 5 $31,050 $155,250
Lift Truck 1 $77,000 $77,000
Mid-size SUV 4 $28,123 $112,492
Full-size Sedan 1 $23,285 $23,285
Off Road Sweeper 1 $70,933 $70,933
Street Sweeper 1 $205,336 $205,336
Crack Sealer with Vacuum 1 $50,485 $50,485
Loader 1 $11,342 $11,342
Dump Truck 2 $83,847 $167,694
Motor Grader 1 $211,631 $211,631
Broom 1 $34,178 $34,178
Water Tank 1 $50,974 $50,974
Backhoe 1 $89,000 $89,000
Heavy Duty Lift 1 $9,758 $9,758
Wheel Loader 1 $117,759 $117,759
Water Trailer 1 $6,747 $6,747
Equipment Trailer 1 $8,339 $8,339
TOTAL/AVERAGE 44 $42,437 $1,867,222
VMT in 2007 330,936
Vehicles Per VMT 0.0001
Cost Per VMT $5.64
*Source: Town of Oro Valley,AZ
Figure 55 shows the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) for transportation
vehicles/equipment. The IIP is calculated using the development projections from
Appendix 1 at the back of the report and the LOS and cost figure listed above. Over the
next five years, there is a projected increase of 8,930 residential average daily vehicle trips
and 55,313 nonresidential average daily vehicle trips. This brings the total number of new
VMT over the period to 63,703. Based on the existing LOS standard of .0001
vehicles/equipment per VMT, this amount of residential development will require
approximately 1.19 vehicles/equipment and non-residential development will require 7.35
vehicles/equipment. The projected cost of this demanded infrastructure totals $363,474 over
the next five years. This equates to $5.64 per VMT ($363,474/63,703 VMT = $5.64).
TischlerBise 5 6
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure 55: Transportation Vehicles/Equipment Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
VMT Projections-Residential 106,721 108,435 110,239 112,043 113,847 115,651
VMT Projections-Nonresidential 310,772 321,713 333,556 344,399 355,242 366,084
'08-'09 '09-'10 '10-'11 '11-'12 '12'-13 5-Year Total
Net Change in VMT from New Res.Development 1,714 1,804 1,804 1,804 1,804 8,930
Net Change in VMT from New Nonres.Development 10,942 11,843 10,843 10,843 10,843 55,313
TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Incremental LOS-Vehicles/Equipment per VMT 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
5-Year Total
Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Res.Development 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0:24 1.19
Vehicles/Equipment Demanded by New Nonres.Developm 1.45 1.57 1.44 1.44 1.44 7.35
Cost per Vehicle/Equipment $42,437 $42,437 $42,437 $42,437 $42,437
5-Year Total
Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Res.Development $9,673 $10,178 $10,178 $10,178 $10,178 $50,386
Vehicles/Equipment Cost For New Nonres.Development $61,736 $66,819 $61,178 $61,178 $61,178 $312,088
TOTAL COSTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT $71,409 $76,998 $71,356 $71,356 $71,356 $362,474
Transportation Vehicles/Equipment Cost Per VMT $5.64
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The Town plans to update its development fees every three years to ensure the
methodologies, assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and
accurate. TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing this portion of the study in the
transportation development fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to
conduct this regular update. The cost of this component ($19,600) is allocated to the
projected increase in residential and non-residential vehicle trips over the next three years.
This results in a development fee study cost per demand unit of $.63 per VMT
($19,600/31,214 VMT).
TRANSPORTATION INPUT VARIABLES
Figure 56 shows the factors used to derive the transportation development fees for the
Town of Oro Valley. The total capital cost per average trip length by type of development is
derived from level-of-service components shown near the bottom of Figure 56. The capital
cost of the arterial average length trip is the product of the average trip length on planned
arterials multiplied by the trip length adjustment factor and the capital cost per arterial
vehicle mile of travel. Next, this calculation is repeated for collectors and then for the
planned public works facility, land for public works facility, vehicles and equipment and the
transportation component of the development fee study. For example, the capital cost of the
arterial average length trip from residential development is calculated as follows: the average
trip length in Oro Valley on planned arterial improvements of 1.92 miles is multiplied by the
residential trip length adjustment of 122% and then by the arterial capital cost per VMT of
$81, generating a cost per average residential trip length of$190. This calculation is repeated
with collectors. The capital cost of the collector average length trip from residential
TuschlerBise 57
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
development is calculated as follows: the average trip length in Oro Valley on planned
collector improvements of.27 miles is multiplied by the residential trip length adjustment of
122% and then by the collector capital cost per VMT of$62, generating a cost per average
residential trip length of$20. Next, the average trip length in Oro Valley on planned arterial
improvements of 1.92 is multiplied by the residential trip length adjustment of 122% and
then by the sum of the capital cost for the planned public works facility, land for the public
works facility, transportation vehicles and equipment and the transportation component of
the development fee study ($26.04 + $13.45 + $5.64 + $.63
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
r- t ,..s-:.-?a�s:W:;x�„s:rars.r#':�c..,>,�a.it ,..•#�µ'-:±sbes'- .-f'�t�t-p:'s--_...:_.-- :_.F�.sz __ .... :� .;.,r.-"'.,-. .-a._.
Figure 56: Transportation Input Variables
Commercial/
INPUT VARIABLES Shopping
Residential Centers
Other Nonres
Residential
Weekday Vehicle Trips per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached 9.57
All Other Housing 6.59
Nonresidential
Weekday Vehicle Trips per 1,000 Square Feet
Corn/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 110.32
Corn/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 86.56
Corn/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91
Com/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28
Corn/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 41.80
Office/Inst 25,000 SF or less 18.35
Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 15.65
Office/Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34
Office/Inst 100,001-200,000 SF 11.37
Business Park 12.76
Light Industrial 6.97
Warehousing 4.96
Manufacturing 3.82
Lodging 5.63
Trip Adjustment Factors 63% 50%
Corn/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 28%
Corn/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 31%
Corn/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 33%
Corn/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 36%
Corn/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 39%
Level of Service
Cost Summary
Arterial Road Construction
Arterial Average Trip Length(miles) 1.92 1.92 1.92
Average Trip Length Adjustment 122% 68% 75%
Capital Cost Per Arterial VMT $81 $81 $81
Arterial Construction Cost for an Average Trip Length $190 $106 $117
Collector Road Construction
Collector Average Trip Length(miles) 0.27 0.27 0.27
Average Trip Length Adjustment 122% 68% 75%
Capital Cost Per Collector VMT $62 $62 $62,
Collector Construction Cost for an Average Trip Length $20 $11 $13
Public Works Facilities and Vehicles
Average Trip Length(miles) 1.92 1.92 1.92
Average Trip Length Adjustment 122% 68% 75%
Public Works Facility Cost Per VMT $26.04 $26.04 $26.04
Public Works Facility Land Cost Per VMT $13.45 $13.45 $13.45
Transportation Vehicles Cost per VMT $5.64 $5.64 $5.64
Development Fee Study Cost per VMT $0.63 $0.63 $0.63
Subtotal $45.76 $45.76 $45.76
PW Facilities and Vehicles Cost for an Average Trip Length $107 $60 $66
Total Capital Cost for an Average Trip Length $317 $177 $195
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS FOR
TRANSPORTATION
Figure 57 shows the schedule of maximum supportable development fee amounts for.
transportation in the Town of Oro Valley. The amounts are calculated by multiplying the
, -z ... TischlerBise
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
vehicle trip ends for each type of development by the trip adjustment factor by the total
capital cost per average trip length. For example, for a single family unit, the vehicle trip rate
of 9.57 is multiplied by the adjustment factor of 63% and then multiplied by the total capital
cost of$317 for a development fee amount of$1,908 per single family unit. The calculation
is repeated for the all other housing unit category. Transportation development fees for
nonresidential development are shown on a per 1,000 square feet of floor area basis and by
room for lodging. Trip adjustment factors are discussed further in the Appendix.
Figure 57: Maximum Supportable Transportation Development Fee Schedule
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS
Residential Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $1,908
All Other Housing $1,314
Nonresidential-Commercial/Shopping Centers Per 1,000 Sq.Ft.
Com/Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less $5,462
Com/Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF $4,745
Com/Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $3,963
Com/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $3,392
Com/Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF $2,883
Other Nonresidential Per 1,000 Sq.Ft.
Office/Inst 25,000 SF or less $1,789
Office/Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $1,526
Office/Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $1,301
Office/Inst 100,001-200,000 SF $1,109
Business Park $1,244
Light Industrial $680
Warehousing $484
Manufacturing $373 Per Room
Lodging $549
TischlerBise 60
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Appendix 1: Demographic Estimates and Development Projections
As specified in Task 1 of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on
current demographic estimates and development projections that will be used in the
Oro Valley Development Fee Study. The following sections will review in detail the
residential and non-residential demand factors that will be used to calculate development
fees for the Town of Oro Valley.
Residential Estimates and Projections
PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT
A differentiation by type of housing is necessary to make residential development fees
proportionate and reasonably related to the demand for public facilities. Persons per
housing unit is an important demographic factor that helps account for variations in service
demand by type of housing. The best source of this data is the 2000 U.S. Census, Summary
File 3. The data for Oro Valley is shown in Figure Al below. Persons per housing unit
(PPHU) is distinguished from persons per household (PPH) as PPHU accounts for housing
vacancy.
Two housing unit categories are recommended based on the demographic characteristics of
Oro Valley: single-family and all other housing types. Single-family units, which include
unattached and attached single family units, have on average 2.26 persons per housing unit
and all other housing types have an average PPHU of 1.34.
TISCh lerBise 61
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure Al: Persons Per Housing Unit in Oro Valley
Units in Renter&Owner Combined
Structure Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU
1-Detached 25,025 9,814 10,660 2.35
1-Attached 1,459 823 1,080 1.35
Two 116 63 63 1.84
3-4 269 140 209 1.29
5-9 513 306 428 1.20
10-19 735 460 666 1.10
20-49 146 65 110 1.33
50 or more 826 441 470 1.76
Mobile Homes 416 216 309 1.35
Other 19 9 9 2.11
Total SF3 Sample Data 29,524 12,337 14,004 2.11
100-Percent Data 29,541 12,249 13,946 2.12
Vacant HU 1,667
Occupancy Rate 88%
Persons Per Housing Unit by Type-2000
Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU Hhld Mix Hsg Mix
Single Family 26,484 10,637 11,740 2.26 86% 84%
All Other Housing Types 3,040 1,700 _ 2,264 1.34 14% 16%
Total Less Group Quarters 29,524 12,337 14,004 2.39 100% 100%
Group Quarters'',740,41
Sample Difference (88) (58)
TOTAL 29,683 12,249 13,946
Notes to Tables
Source: 2000 U.S.Census,Summary File 3:Tables P1,P3,P9,H1,H3,H8,H30,H32,H33
2007 HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATE
To estimate housing units in 2007, TischlerBise reviewed the Town's building permit data
for residential construction over the past 8 years. During the 2000-2007 period, the Town
added 4,133 housing units, for an average of 517 housing units per year. The pace has
slowed over the last three years, with an average of 348 units annually over the 2005-2007
period. This is shown in Figure A2.
TuschlerBise 62
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
- 4
Figure A2: Oro Valley Residential Building Permits, 2000-2007
Average Average
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 2001-2007 2005-2007
Single Family 994 738 426 461 470 356 354 334 4,133 517 348
All Other Housing Types 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 994 738 426 461 470 356 354 334 4,133 517 348
Source:Years 2000-2001 from the U.S.Census,other years from the Town of Oro Valley.2007 data is through November.
Adding these new housing units to the existing stock of 14,004 occupied and vacant housing
units in 2000 (shown in Figure Al), the total number of housing units in the Town is
estimated at 18,137 in 2007 (15,873 single family and 2,264 all other housing types).
Figure A3: 2007 Housing Unit Estimate
2000 New Units Total 2007
Census 2001-2007 Housing Units
Single Family Detached and Attached 11,740 4,133 15,873
All Other Housing Types 2,264 0 2,264
Total 14,004 4,133 18,137
The Town expects that future single family housing construction will take place at a pace
somewhat slower than the 2005-2007 period (348 units/year). The Town expects to
experience 250 new single family units per year for 2008 and 2009. Beyond that point, the
Town expects that construction will rise to 300 units per year.
The Town has not experienced any multi-family development in the 2000-2007 period,
though it expects a small amount of new multi-family units to be constructed in the next few
years. At present, two multi-family projects are approved, though the developers have not
submitted building plans. The Town estimates that these projects will generate 50 multi-
family units in 2008 and 50 units in 2009. No multi-family projections are made for future
years.
Based on an analysis of existing developable land, expected rezoning and anticipated
annexations, the Town expects to reach buildout in 2020. Figure A4 presents projected
housing unit growth through 2020 by housing type.
Figure A4: Oro Valley Housing Unit Projections Through 2020
Base Year Five-Year Increments
HOUSING UNITS* Annual Growth 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020
Single Family See note below 15,873 16,123 16,373 16,673 18,173 19,673
All Other Housing Types 2,264 2,314 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364
TOTAL 18,137 18,437 18,737 19,037 20,537 22,037
*The Town expects 250 new single family units per year in 2008 and 2009.Beyond that,the Town expects construction to increase to a pace of 300 single
family units/year.Based on plans approved by the Town hut not yet permitted,the Town expects approximately 50 multi family units in 2008 and an
additional 50 units in 2009.No additional multi family units are projected.
TuschlerBise 63
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
State of Aric.zona 2007 Population Estimate
The Arizona Department of Economic Security estimates a population for the Town of
Oro Valley of 42,551 persons as of July 1, 2007. The breakdown of population by housing
type is estimated based on the existing mix of housing types.
Household Population Projections
To project future household population (Figure A5), TischlerBise multiplied the annual
increase in housing units from Figure A4 by the 2000 Census persons per housing unit by
housing type (shown in Figure Al). For example, in 2008, 250 new single family housing
units are multiplied by the persons per housing unit factor of 2.26. This generates an
estimated 564 new persons in Oro Valley. This is repeated for all other housing types (1.34
persons per housing unit) generating 67 additional Oro Valley residents. This brings the total
anticipated population growth in 2008 to 631 persons. Added to the 2007 State population
estimate of 42,551 persons, there will be an anticipated 43,182 persons in Oro Valley in
2008.
Figure A5: Population Estimates and Projections
Base Year Five-Year Increments
HOUSEHOLD POPULATION Persons per Housing Unit 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020
Single Family 2.26 39,221 39,785 40,349 41,026 44,410 47,794
All Other Housing Types 1.34 3,330 3,397 3,464 3,464 3,464 3,464
TOTAL 42,551 43,182 43,813 44,490 47,874 51,258
�: r
TischlerBise 64
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Nonresidential Estimates and Projections
In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of development fees requires
data on nonresidential construction in Oro Valley. The following sections show estimates
and projections of employment, nonresidential square footage and vehicle trips.
JOB &NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ESTIMATES , �~
TischlerBise obtained employment data for jobs located in the Town in 2007 from ESRI
Business Information Solutions. These estimates indicate that close to 5,800 persons were
employed in the Town in 2007. To this is added an additional 326 public sector/government
jobs based on input from the Town of Oro Valley,bringing the total estimated jobs to 6,091.
Using the Town's Business Navigator GIS database, Town staff estimated the square
footage of Town businesses by the following categories: commercial/retail, office, public
sector and goods production. As shown in Figure A6, the Town estimates there is
3.8 million square feet of nonresidential development in Oro Valley in 2007.
Figure A6:Job and Nonresidential Square Footage Estimates
2007 Pct at Nonres 2007 Nonres Floor
Jobs* Locations Area (rounded)**
CommerciaVRetail
Retail Trade 789
Arts,Entertainment and Recreation 316
Accomodation and Food Service 1,192
Subtotal 2,297 38% 2,113,782
Office
Finance,Insurance and Real Estate 1,070
Other Services*** 1,342
Subtotal 2,412 40% 682,903
Public Sector
Public Sector 1,065
Subtotal 1,065 17% 1,062,082
Goods Production
Agriculture&Mining 26
Utilities 20
Construction 138
Manufacturing 83
Wholesale Trade 50
Subtotal 317 5% 13,441
TOTAL at Nonresidential Locations 6,091 100% 3,872,208
*ESRI Business Information Solutions, 2007. 2007 Public sector employment increased to 1,065
from 741 (as reported by ESRI) based on input from the Town of Oro Valley.
**Town of Oro Valley,AZ
***Other services includes the following industries:administrative and support and waste
management and remediation,health care and social assistance and other service(except public
administration).
TischlerBise 65
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PROJECTIONS
The nonresidential square footage projection for 2008 reflects developments approved by
the Town, .including retail/shopping, office and high tech/bio tech projects. These are
shown in Figure A7. Nonresidential development in 2008 is expected to total 1.9 million
sq. ft. This represents a considerable increase over 2007, with nonresidential development
growing over 50% in one year from 3.8 million sq. ft. in 2007 to a total of 5.8 million sq. ft.
by the end of 2008.
Figure A7: 2008 Planned Nonresidential Development— Oro Valley,AZ
RetaiVShopping Square Feet
Oro Valley Marketplace 880,000
Steam Pump Village 300,000
Mercado del Rio 100,000
Beztak 32,000
Big Horn Commerce 30,000
Garden Gate Nursery 50,000
Mercado at Canada Hills 60,000
Oracle&Hardy 25,000
Palisades 40,000
Plaza at Vistoso 16,000
Unnamed 10,000
Subtotal-Retail/Shopping 1,543,000
Office and High Tech/Bio Tech Square Feet
Copeland Office Building 8,400
Easy Care 10,000
Miscellaneous 10,000
Pulte Home Headquarters 60,000
Sanofi-Aventis 110,500
Suffolk Hills 6,000
Ventana Medical Systems 134,000
Venture West Medical 100,000
Subtotal-Office and High Tech/Bio Tech 438,900
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL SQ. FT.-2008 1,981,900
*Source: Town of Oro Valley,AZ
lischlerBise 66
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
To project future nonresidential development beyond 2008, Town staff examined
nonresidential construction over the 2004-2007 time frame. As shown in Figure A8, an
average of 231,956 nonresidential sq. ft. was constructed annually over the four year period.
The Town anticipates that nonresidential development will return to this level in the years
following 2008. However, actual nonresidential construction is often built in irregular
intervals compared to residential development, with minor construction followed by large-
scale projects.
Based on feedback from the 'town, future development is allocated by type
(commercial/retail or office) based on the breakdown of planned development in 2008
(78% commercial/retail and 22% office). For the purposes of the projections, high tech/bio
tech is considered to be office space. Increases in public sector sq. ft. reflects the town's
planned construction of the 55,000 sq. ft. Municipal Operations Center (2010) and 10,000
sq. ft. addition to Town Hall (2009) and well as the addition of a middle school. No
projected increases are shown for the goods production category. The nonresidential square
footage projections are shown in Figure Al0 with job projections (discussed below).
Figure A8: Nonresidential Development Trends —2004-2007, Oro Valley,AZ
Average
2004 2005 2006 2007 2004-2007
New Nonresidential Sq.Ft. 401,977 57,050 261,102 207,695 231,956
Source: Town of Oro Valley,AZ
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
To convert future gross floor area of nonresidential development projections into
employment projections, average square feet per employee multipliers are used. These
multipliers are also used to calculate the number of average weekday vehicle trips from
nonresidential development in Oro Valley.
The far right column of Figure A9 show square footage per employee by land use type and
size. These multipliers are derived from national data published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI). The multipliers used
in the Oro Valley study reflect existing development in the Town, anticipating that future
development will be of a similar scale, and are highlighted in grey.
k. .- ------;---?. `a.,?-- T^.Exe -={=..r--------- , --- ---:.-r ,--, —4---::k..a NeB"a.-— —k '�'r4-:axY-"s -
TuschlerBise 67
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure A9: Floor Area Per Employee and Nonresidential Trip Rates
ITE Land Use/Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft
Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit** Per Emp
Commercial/Shopping Center
820 10K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 152.03 na 3.33 300
821 25K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 110.32 na 3.33 300
820 50K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 86.56 na 2.86 350
820 100K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft ;; 67.91 na 2.50 400
820 200K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 53.28 na 2.22 4S0
820 _400K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 na 2.00 500
General Office
710 10K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 22.66 5.06 4.48 223
710 25K gross floor area 1,000 SQ_Ft 18.35 4.43 4.15 241
710 50K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 15.65 4.00 3.91 256
710 100K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 13.34 3.61 3.69 271
710 _200K gross floor area _1,000 Sq Ft_ 11.37 _ 3.26 3.49 _ 287
Industrial
770 Business Park*** 1,000 Sq Ft 12.76 4.04 3.16 317
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 Sq Ft 2.50 56.28 0.04 22,512
150 Warehousing _1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.89 1.28 784
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
Other Nonresidential
720 Medical-Dental Office 1,000 Sq Ft 36.13 8.91 4.05 247
620 Nursing Home bed 2.376.55 0.36 na
_
610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 17.57 _ 5.20 3.38 296
565 Day Care student 4.48 28.13 0.16 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 14.49 15.71 0.92 1,084
320 Lodging _ room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na
* Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,2003.
** 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.
*** According to ITE,a Business Park is a group of flex-type buildings
served by a common roadway system. The tenant space includes a variety of uses
with an average mix of 20-30%office/commercial and 70-80%industrial/warehousing.
TuschlerBise
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Figure A 10 lists the projected nonresidential square footage and the number and type of jobs
in Oro Valley through 2020, based on the methodologies described above.
Figure A10: Nonresidential Square Footage and Job Projections
Base Year Five-Year Increments
Year=> 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020
jobs
Population* 42,551 43,182 43,813 44,490 45,167 45,844 46,520 47,197 47,874 51,258
Jobs** 6,091 11,766 12,473 13,364 14,028 14,693 15,358 16,022 16,787 20,109
Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 SF)***
Commercial/Retail 2,114 3,657 3,837 4,018 4,199 4,379 4,560 4,741 4,921 5,825
Office 683 1,121 1,172 1,223 1,275 1,326 1,377 1,429 1,480 1,736
Public Sector 1,062 1,062 1,072 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,235 1,235
Goods Production 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
TOTAL Floor Area 3,872 5,853 6,095 6,382 6,614 6,846 7,078 7,310 7,650 8,810
Employment**
SF/Employee
Commercial/Retail 400 2,297 6,155 6,606 7,058 7,510 7,961 8,413 8,865 9,316 11,575
Office 241 2,412 4,230 4,443 4,655 4,868 5,081 5,294 5,507 5,720 6,784
Public Sector 241 1,065 1,065 1,108 1,334 1,334 1,334 1,334 1,334 1,434 1,434
Goods Production 433 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317
TOTAL Jobs in Town 6,091 11,766 12,473 13,364 14,028 14,693 15,358 16,022 16,787 20,109
*2007 population estimate from the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
**2007 einployment estimate from ESRI Business Information Solutions,with 326 public sector jobs added to estimate per the Town of Oro Valley.Projections for
future years calculated by applying ITE eniployeni.ent by square feet factors to nonresidential square footage projections.
***2007 nonresidential floor area estimate from the Town of Oro Valley.2008 nonresidential floor area projection includes planned retail/shopping and office
development in Oro Valley.Nonresidential floor area for years beyond 2008 reflect trends of nonresidential growth in Oro Valley from 2004-2007,with additions for
planned Town projects for addition to Town Hall(2009)Municipal Operations Center(2010 and future middle school(2015).School nonresidential floor area
projections made using ITE trip rate for school.
AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIP ESTIMATES
Figure A11 below provide a summary of the residential and nonresidential vehicle trip
calculations used in this analysis.
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends are from the reference book, Trip Generation,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), in 2003. A "trip end"
represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were
placed across a driveway). Trip rates have been adjusted to avoid overestimating the number
of actual trips because one vehicle trip is counted in the trip rates of both the origination and
destination points. A simple factor of 50% has been applied to the office, public sector and
goods production categories. The residential category has a factor greater than 50% due to
journey-to-work trips outside the Town of Oro Valley. This is described in more detail in the
transportation portion of the report.
The commercial/retail category has a trip factor of less than 50% because this type of
development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example,
when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience
store is not their primary destination. The ITE Manual indicates that on average 33% of the
vehicles entering shopping centers under 100,000 square feet are passing by on the way to
some other primary destination and 66% of the attraction trips have the shopping center as
their primary destination. Therefore, the adjusted trip factor is 33% (0.66 x 0.50). The pass-
by adjustment factor varies by the size of the commercial development.
TischlerBise 69
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
There is an estimated average of 168,434 vehicle trips generated by existing development in
Oro Valley on an average weekday. As the table below indicates, residential development is
estimated to generate 105,007 vehicle trips and nonresidential development generates 63,428
vehicle trips on an average weekday.
Figure All: Average Daily Trips
Residential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday(2007)
Residential Units W
Assumptions
Single Family 15,873
All Other Housing Types 2,264
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Unit* Trip Rate Trip Factor
Single Family 9.57 63%
All Other Housing Types 6.72 63%
Residential Vehicle Trip Ends of an Average Weekday
Single Family 95,447
All Other Housing Types 9,560
Total Residential Trips 105,007
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Nonresidential Gross Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)** Assumptions
Retail/Commercial 2,114
Office 683
Public Sector 1,062
Goods Production 13
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1,000 Sq.Ft.* Trip Rate Trip Factor
Retail/Commercial 67.91 33%
Office 18.35 50%
Public Sector 18.35 50%
Goods Production 6.97 50%
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Retail/Commercial 47,370
Office 6,266
Public Sector 9,745
Goods Production 47
Total Nonresidential Trips 63,428
TOTAL TRIPS 168,434
*Trip rates are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual(2003)
*'Floor area estimates were derived using sq.ft.per employee factors from ULI and ITE
TischlerE3ise
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
,
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona-Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 2007-2020
Annual demographic and development projections for the development fee study are
summarized in Figure Al2 below. The Town of Oro Valley is projected to add
approximately 300 housing units and 670 persons per year over the next thirteen years. 0
TischlerBise projects an average annual increase in employment of 1,078 jobs and
approximately 380,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area.
Figure Al2: Development Projections 2007-2020
Base Year Five-Year Increments 2007-2020
2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 Total Increase Annual Increase
Housing Units 18,137 18,437 18,737 19,037 20,537 22,037 3,900 300
Household Population 42,551 43,182 43,813 44,490 47,874 51,258 8,707 670
Jobs 6,091 11,766 12,473 13,364 16,787 20,109 14,018 1,078
Nonresidential Sq.Ft.(1,000's) 3,872 5,853 6,095 6,382 7,650 8,810 4,938 380
Ave Wkdy Res.Vehicle Trips 105,007 106,721 108,435 110,239 119,259 128,279 23,272 1,790
Ave Wkdy Nonres Vehicle Trips 63,428 102,025 106,639 111,658 135,250 157,847 94,420 7,263
Housing Units
Single Family 15,873 16,123 16,373 16,673 18,173 19,673 3,800 292
All Other Housing Types 2,264 2,314 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,364 100 8
Jobs
Retail/Commercial 2,297 6,155 6,606 7,058 9,316 11,575 9,278 714
Office 2,412 4,230 4,443 4,655 5,720 6,784 4,372 336
Public Sector 1,065 1,065 1,108 1,334 1,434 1,434 369 28
Goods Production 317 317 317 317 317 317 0 0
Nonresidential SF(1,000's)
Retail/Commercial 2,114 3,657 3,837 4,018 4,921 5,825 3,711 285
Office 683 1,121 1,172 1,223 1,480 1,736 1,053 81
Public Sector 1,062 1,062 1,072 1,127 1,235 1,235 173 13
Goods Production 13 13 13 13 13 13 0 0
Ave Wkdy Vehicle Trips
Single Family 95,447 96,950 98,454 100,258 109,277 118,297 22,850 1,758
All Other Housing 9,560 9,771 9,982 9,982 9,982 9,982 422 32
Retail/Commercial 47,370 81,950 85,998 90,047 110,292 130,536 83,166 6,397
Office 6,266 10,284 10,755 11,225 13,578 15,931 9,665 743
Public Sector 9,745 9,745 9,839 10,339 11,333 11,333 1,589 122
Goods Production 47 47 47 47 47 47 0 0
TOTAL 168,434 208,746 215,074 221,898 254,509 286,126 117,692 9,053
TischlerBise 71
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
-'.:aa. ..rr..<«.s... ,"_"ywa _.-r'_.+-xm, _._.tr_^ 3r^._s7.=g.: Yi ^snz_s+^+�F,s^.xYdz-'.+s?s '-:T'-'°9';+' - s.ax3---�a--• "'-.'9'.,. .._��-r-";n9'- <_. _ - - ,
Appendix 2: Arizona Development Fee Legislation
Development fees for municipalities in Arizona are authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes
(A.R.S.) 9-463.05. The legislation is provided below.
A. A municipality may assess development fees to offset costs to the municipality associated
with providing necessary public services to a__ development, including the costs of
infrastructure, improvements, real property, engineering and architectural services, financin ,
g
other capital costs and associated appurtenances, equipment, vehicles, furnishings and other
personalty.
B. Development fees assessed by a municipality under this section are subject to the
following requirements:
1. Development fees shall result in a beneficial use to the development.
2. Monies received from development fees assessed pursuant to this section shall be placed
in a separate fund and accounted for separately and may only be used for the purposes
authorized by this section. Monies received from a development fee identified in an
infrastructure improvements plan adopted or amended pursuant to subsection D of this
section shall be used to provide the same category of necessary public service for which the
development fee was assessed. Interest earned on monies in the separate fund shall be
credited to the fund.
3. The schedule for payment of fees shall be provided by the municipality. The municipality
shall provide a credit toward the payment of a development fee for the required dedication
of public sites, improvements and other necessary public services included in the
infrastructure improvements plan and for which a development fee is assessed, to the extent
the public sites, improvements and necessary public services are provided by the developer.
The developer of residential dwelling units shall be required to pay development fees when
construction permits for the dwelling units are issued, or at a later time if specified in a
development agreement pursuant to section 9-500.05. If a development agreement provides
for fees to be paid at a time later than the issuance of construction permits, the deferred fees
shall be paid no later than fifteen days after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The
development agreement shall provide for the value of any deferred fees to be supported by
appropriate security,including a surety bond, letter of credit or cash bond.
4. The amount of any development fees assessed pursuant to this section must bear a
reasonable relationship to the burden imposed upon the municipality to provide additional
necessary public services to the development. The municipality, in determining the extent of
the burden imposed by the development, shall consider, among other things, the
contribution made or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees or assessments by the
property owner towards the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the
development fee.
5. If development fees are assessed by a municipality, such fees shall be assessed in a
nondiscriminatory manner.
6. In determining and assessing a development fee applying to land in a community facilities
district established under title 48, chapter 4, article 6, the municipality shall take into account
all public infrastructure provided by the district and capital costs paid by the district for
TischlerBise 72
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
_...,, __ ._. ..-:-�xatg ..___-3'.-._. -•':�.•-•>,f.. �€.#.':.�'.-#��`_.-,-' '-�;s:=+,#' z_.zaay �.- .- - _ - '- �,' 'o"TaaaTs�o:rz^_'- _ "T':'- --- t=sn:.r.�;a�sm.._' \
necessary public services and shall not assess a portion of the development fee based on the
infrastructure or costs.
C. A municipality shall give at least sixty days' advance notice of intention to assess a new or
modified development fee and shall release to the public a written report that identifies the
methodology for calculating the amount of the development fee, explains the relationship
between the development fee and the infrastructure improvements plan, includes
documentation that supports the assessment of a new or modified development fee and
identifies any index or indices to be used for automatic adjustment of the development fee
pursuant to subsection F of this section and the timing of those adjustments. The
municipality shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed new or modified development
fee at any time after the expiration of the sixty day notice of intention to assess a new or
modified development fee and at least thirty days prior to the scheduled date of adoption of
the new or modified fee by the governing body. A development fee assessed pursuant to this
section shall not be effective until seventy-five days after its formal adoption by the
governing body of the municipality. Nothing in this subsection shall affect any development
fee adopted prior to July 24, 1982.
D. Before the assessment of a new or modified development fee, the governing body of the
municipality shall adopt or amend an infrastructure improvements plan. The municipality
shall conduct a public hearing on the infrastructure improvements plan at least thirty days
before the adoption or amendment of the plan. The municipality shall release the plan to the
public, make available to the public the documents used to prepare the plan and provide
public notice at least sixty days before the public hearing, subject to the following:
1. An infrastructure improvements plan may be adopted concurrently with the report
required by subsection C of this section, and the municipality may provide for and schedule
the notices and hearings required by this subsection together with the notices and hearings
required by subsection C of this section.
2. A municipality may amend an infrastructure improvements plan without a public hearing
if the amendment addresses only elements of necessary public services that are included in
the existing infrastructure improvements plan. The municipality shall provide public notice
of those amendments at least fourteen days in advance of their effective date.
E. For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, the
infrastructure improvements plan shall:
1. Estimate future necessary public services that will be required as a result of new
development and the basis for the estimate.
2. Forecast the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, other capital
costs and associated appurtenances, equipment, vehicles, furnishings and other personalty
that will be associated with meeting those future needs for necessary public services and
estimate the time required to finance and provide the necessary public services.
F. A municipality may automatically adjust a development fee on an annual basis without a
public hearing if the adjustment is based on a nationally recognized index applicable to the
cost of the necessary public service that is the subject of the development fee and the
adjustment mechanism is identified in the report required by subsection C of this section.
The municipality shall provide public notice of those adjustments at least thirty days in
advance of their effective date.
TischlerBise 73
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona—Development Fee Study and Infrastructure Improvements Plan
G. Each municipality that assesses development fees shall submit an annual report
accounting for the collection and use of the fees. The annual report shall include the
following:
1. The amount assessed by the municipality for each type of development fee.
2. The balance of each fund maintained for each type of development fee assessed as of the
beginning and end of the fiscal year.
3. The amount of interest or other earnings on the monies in each fund as of the end of the
fiscal year.
4. The amount of development fee monies used to repay:
(a) Bonds issued by the municipality to pay the cost of a capital improvementpjroect that is
the subject of a development fee assessment.
(b) Monies advanced by the municipality from funds other than the funds established for
development fees in order to pay the cost of a capital improvementpj
roect that is the
subject of a development fee assessment.
5. The amount of development fee monies spent on each capital improvementpl
roject that is
the subject of a development fee assessment and the physical location of each capital
improvement project.
6. The amount of development fee monies spent for each purpose other than a capital
improvement project that is the subject of a development fee assessment.
H. Within ninety days following the end of each fiscal year, each tY
a
municipli shall submit a
copy of the annual report to the city clerk. Copies shall be made available to thep ublic on
request. The annual report may contain financial information that has not been audited.
I. A municipality that fails to file the report required by this section shall not collect
development fees until the report is filed.
J. Any action to collect a development fee shall be commenced within twoY ears after the
obligation to pay the fee accrues.
K. For the purposes of this section, "infrastructure improvements plan" means one or more
written plans that individually or collectively identify each public service that isp
pro osed to
be the subject of a development fee and otherwise complies with the requirements of this
section, and may be the municipality's capital improvements plan.
Sec. 2. Applicability
Section 9-463.05, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, applies to development
fees adopted or amended on or after the effective date of this act and shall not affect
development fees duly adopted or amended before the effective date of this act. The
effective date is September 19, 2007.
TuschlerBise 74
Fiscal,Economic&Planning Consultants