Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1302)         AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION MAY 6, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/99466388722   Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Town Council, the Council may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda.        REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS   COUNCIL REPORTS   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT  Update on Town Operations COVID-19 Town Update and Possible Discussion Thereon   The Mayor and Council may consider and/or take action on the items listed below: ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS   CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during “Call to Audience.” In order to speak during “Call to Audience” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.   PRESENTATIONS   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A.Minutes - April 1, 2020   B.Resolution No. (R)20-15, designating David Gephart as Chief Fiscal Officer, authorized to submit the Town's Annual Expenditure Limitation Report (AELR) to the Auditor General   C.Resolution No. (R)20-16, authorizing and approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Oro Valley and the Pima County Jail to provide officer coverage for video proceedings between the jail and the Court   REGULAR AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §9-463.05, TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CHARGED BY THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (The Council may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas. Council may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H)   ADJOURNMENT The Mayor and Council may, at the discretion of the meeting chairperson, discuss any Agenda item.   POSTED: 4/30/20 at 5:00 p.m. by pp When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. 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 least five days prior to the Council meeting at 229-4700.    INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted Public Hearing.  However, those items not listed as a Public Hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting.  Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice: 1. In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited. 2. Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online  https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can attend the meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application, Zoom, https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/99466388722 , or may participate telephonically only by dialing 1-312-626-6799 prior to or during the posted meeting. 3. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is highly encouraged to email your request to speak to Bluecard@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and town/city of residence in order to provide the Mayor/Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more efficiently during the Zoom meeting. 4.  All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter the meeting with microphones muted.  For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may choose whether to turn your video on or not.  If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the meeting as specified in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your hand.”  Those participating via computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during the Call to the Public or Regular Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who submit their names in advance.  For those participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the Chair that your hand is raised.  When you are recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have three minutes to speak before your microphone is again muted.  5. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Town Council for their consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov no later than sixty minutes before the public meeting.  Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the public body prior to the meeting. If you have questions, please contact Town Clerk, Mike Standish, at 520-229-4700 or email at mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov  Thank you for your cooperation.    Town Council Regular Session A. Meeting Date:05/06/2020   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Minutes - April 1, 2020 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with the following changes), the April 1, 2020 minutes.  Attachments 4-1-20 Draft Minutes  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION APRIL 1, 2020 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor (attended via phone) Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember (attended via phone) Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Josh Nicolson, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE    Mayor Winfield led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS    Town Clerk Mike Standish announced the upcoming Town meetings.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT COVID-19 Town Update and possible discussion thereon    Town Manager Mary Jacobs welcomed the Town's new Chief Financial Officer David Gephart and Human Resource Director Judy Boros. Ms. Jacobs reported that April 1st was Census Day and the Town's self-response rate was at 47.7%. Ms. Jacobs encouraged participation for those residents who had not completed the Census. Ms. Jacobs also reported that the Town's Information Technology Department was securing ZOOM to further assist with the continuation of Town business and public engagement. Ms. Jacobs and Oro Valley Police Chief Kara Riley provided an update regarding the COVID-19 pandemic that included information regarding training and preparedness, continuing operations, regional partnerships, video updates, conference calls, year-end reductions and project holds, staffing level 4-1-20 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 1  changes, telecommuting, essential businesses as defined in the Governor's proclamation, flexible budget development and laws regarding mandatory leave implemented as a direct result of COVID-19. Chief Riley recognized several groups including Pima County Law Enforcement leaders, Golder Ranch Fire District and their staff, the Oro Valley Community, and the men and women of the Oro Valley Police Department for their collaboration, generosity, kindness and dedication. Town Manager Mary Jacobs thanked staff for their dedication and work during this crisis. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the COVID-19 Town update. Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 5:45 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 5:49 p.m. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding the COVID-19 Town update.   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no informational items.   COUNCIL REPORTS    Councilmember Piña thanked first responders, business stakeholders, Town staff and colleagues for their help during the COVID-19 crisis. Councilmember Piña provided an update on the current procedures and staffing levels for the Water Utility Department implemented as a result of COVID-19. Councilmember Piña reminded citizens that the 2019 Water Utility Report was available on the Town's website. Councilmember Piña advocated for citizen participation in the Arizona Gives Day held on April 7, 2020. Arizona Gives Day is a statewide, 24-hour online giving campaign that helps people find, learn about and contribute to the causes they believe in while enabling nonprofits to share their stories and engage the community through a unique online giving platform. Councilmember Jones-Ivey encouraged citizens to donate laptops and other items to Amphi School district to help assist students perform their online schooling during this COVID-19 pandemic. Councilmember Jones-Ivey also encouraged citizens to stay home and follow social distancing during this time Vice Mayor Barrett provided an update of the Planning and Zoning Commission and provided information regarding their last meeting. Vice Mayor Barrett recognized educators for going above and beyond during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vice Mayor Barrett also encouraged citizens to participate in Arizona Gives day.   CALL TO AUDIENCE   4-1-20 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 2     No comments were received.   PRESENTATIONS    There were no presentations.   CONSENT AGENDA    Councilmember Jones-Ivey requested that item (B) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.   A.Minutes - February 28 and March 4, 2020      C.Resolution No. (R)20-13, authorizing and approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County, extending the terms of the existing IGA for Pima County to provide street naming and addressing services      D.Resolution No. (R)20-14, authorizing and approving Grant Contract No. 2020-405d-058 between the Oro Valley Police Department and the Governor's Office of Highway Safety for funding DUI/impaired driving enforcement related equipment – One (1) fully-equipped police package vehicle      E.Request for approval for conceptual art for Pusch Ridge Christian Academy, located east of Oracle Road between Calle Concordia and Linda Vista Boulevard       Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve Consent Agenda items (A), and (C - E)  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   B.Appointment of Judge Pro Tempore for the Oro Valley Magistrate Court       Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to appoint Hon. Michael Pollard and Matthew Randle as Judges Pro Tempore for the Oro Valley Magistrate Court.    Councilmember Jones-Ivey voiced her concerns regarding the possible lack of qualifications for one of the applicants. Oro Valley Magistrate Judge George Dunscomb addressed Councilmember Jones-Ivey's concerns. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the appointment of Judge Pro Tempore for the Oro Valley Magistrate Court.    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to appoint Hon. Michael Polard and Matthew Randle as Judges Pro Tempore for the Oro Valley Magistrate Court.  Vote: 5 - 1 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember (attended via phone) Joyce Jones-Ivey   REGULAR AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION REGARDING ACTIONS THE COUNCIL MAY TAKE TO ASSIST ORO VALLEY BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY THE COVID-19 VIRUS       Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a summary of actions the Town had taken to assist Oro Valley 4-1-20 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 3   Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a summary of actions the Town had taken to assist Oro Valley businesses affected by the COVID-19 Virus. Actions included: Provide resources for businesses Outreach to businesses Designated a Business Ombudsman Greater OV Chamber of Commerce contract amendment to assist with business resources for residents Provide significant Police Presence Business License late fees waived during crisis Waived fees for business repairs and emergency service permits Extending water disconnects and late fees for Water Utility services Skype Inspection testing Suspended regulations regarding the Town's temporary sign ordinances for businesses affected by the COVID-19 virus The following individual spoke on item #1. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1.   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TEMPORARY WAIVER AND OR MODIFICATION OF THE TOWN'S TEMPORARY SIGN ORDINANCES FOR BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY THE COVID-19 VIRUS       Councilmember Solomon clarified the reason for requesting agenda item #2.   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    Councilmember Rodman requested that future meetings be held remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember (attended via phone) Joyce Jones-Ivey to adjourn the meeting at 7:39 p.m.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried     _________________________________ Michelle Stine, MMC Deputy Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 1st day of April 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC 4-1-20 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 4  Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 4-1-20 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 5     Town Council Regular Session B. Meeting Date:05/06/2020   Submitted By:David Gephart, Finance Department:Finance SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)20-15, designating David Gephart as Chief Fiscal Officer, authorized to submit the Town's Annual Expenditure Limitation Report (AELR) to the Auditor General RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Arizona Revised Statutes Section 41-1279.07(E) requires each county, city, town and community college district to annually provide to the Auditor General, by July 31, the name of the Chief Fiscal Officer (CFO) the governing board designated to submit the current year's annual expenditure limitation report (AELR). The Auditor General's Office has recently updated the CFO designation form to require documentation of the governing board's official designation authorizing the individual to submit the AELR as the CFO, such as a board resolution or meeting minutes. Council's action approving the attached resolution designating David Gephart as the Chief Fiscal Officer authorized to submit the AELR satisfies this requirement. The AELR is prepared annually by the Town's independent auditors, Heinfeld Meech, and is required to be filed with the Auditor General's Office by March 31 each year, or nine months after fiscal year-end. The Town already submitted its AELR for last fiscal year prior to the March 31, 2020 deadline. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)20-15, designating David Gephart as Chief Fiscal Officer, authorized to submit the Town's annual expenditure limitation report (AELR) to the Auditor General. Attachments (R)20-15 CFO Resolution  RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DESIGNATING DAVID GEPHART AS CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER, AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT THE TOWN’S ANNUAL EXPENDITURE LIMITATION REPORT (AELR) TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, AND CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Pursuant to A.R.S. 41-1279(E), each county, city, town, and community college district is required to annually provide the Auditor General by July 31 the name of the CFO the governing board designated to submit the current year’s annual expenditure limitation report (AELR); and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, hereby designate David Gephart as Chief Fiscal Officer, authorized to submit the Town’s Annual Expenditure Limitation Report (AELR) to the Auditor General. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona as follows: SECTION 1. That David Gephart is designated as the Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town of Oro Valley, authorized to submit the Town’s Annual Expenditure Limitation Report (AELR) to the Auditor General. SECTION 2. The Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Legal Services Director, and Chief Fiscal Officer, or their duly authorized officers and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 6th day of May, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7 \@BCL@441687AD\@BCL@441687AD.docx Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/082609 2 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles Legal Services Director Date: Date:    Town Council Regular Session C. Meeting Date:05/06/2020   Requested by: George Dunscomb Submitted By:George Dunscomb, Magistrate Court Department:Magistrate Court SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)20-16, authorizing and approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Oro Valley and the Pima County Jail to provide officer coverage for video proceedings between the jail and the Court RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the IGA between the Town and the Pima County Sheriffs' Department for Jail staff to move OV prisoners from their cells to the video court room and back. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Town Magistrate has determined that obtaining the necessary video equipment to conduct remote hearings with individuals being held in the Pima County Jail, thus eliminating the need to physically transport them to the court for hearings, will be more cost effective, increase security, and minimize potential health-related issues associated with the current pandemic restrictions. This IGA allows the Magistrate Court to access the video system at the jail, reserves a specified time for those hearings one time each week, and provides for jail officers to be present to move the Oro Valley prisoners from their cells to the video courtroom, watch them during the hearing, give them their paperwork and move them back to their cells.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Town of Oro Valley is entering into an IGA with Pima County to provide video conferencing capabilities between the Pima County Jail Court Room and the Oro Valley Magistrate Court Room. Recent security staff changes and COVID-related challenges led to implementation of this solution. During the Court’s Operational Review conducted by the Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) in November 2019, the Court was informed by the AOC that they felt having a “bailiff” who wore an Oro Valley Police Department uniform violated the separation between the Court and the Administrative Branch of government. The review further concluded that OV's practice of using the sworn officer bailiff to transport prisoners by himself did not adhere to safety protocols.  Therefore, the bailiff position is being renamed “Court Security Officer” and will no longer have the ability to conduct prisoner transports. Because the state identified that having a sworn officer provide security in the courtroom was problematic, the Oro Valley Police Department was also no longer able to provide back-up security for the Court. As a result, the Court entered into an agreement with the Arizona Rangers to provide backup coverage and to transport in-custody defendants to the Court, at a cost of $200 per court session. Adding to an already complicated situation, the COVID-19 pandemic further increased risk of exposure to staff and members of the public during prisoner transport and in the courtroom for court hearings. As a result, video conferencing is a prudent solution to these challenges. The attached IGA between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County sets out the terms of the Town’s use of the jail facility and staff to conduct the in-custody hearings without transporting prisoners. FISCAL IMPACT: The initial video equipment cost $11,654.66 and was paid out of Court funds controlled by the Administrative Office of the Courts.  The IGA provides one officer, for one hour each week, 52 weeks a year at an hour rate of $33 for one hour, for a total projected expense of $1,731 per year.  At present, the Municipal Court has a contract with the Arizona Rangers to conduct transports, one time each week at a cost of $200 per court session, for an annual cost of $10,400, which was a cost added during the fiscal year due to the AOC review findings (and therefore not budgeted). The IGA is a significantly more cost efficient way to manage prisoner appearances. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)20-16, approving the IGA between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County for the use of video equipment and personnel at the jail. Attachments (R)20-16 Resolution  IGA with County for video court hearings 2020  RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PIMA COUNTY, AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR THE PROVISION OF VIDEO COURT HEARINGS OF MUNICIPAL PRISONERS ; AN D DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 11 -952, et. seq., the C ounty and municipal corporation participating jurisdictions may contract for services and enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley desires to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) with Pima County for the provision of video court hearings of municipal prisoners; and WHEREAS, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department Corrections Bureau shall provide the Town of Oro Valley’s Magistrate Court with a video court session between Oro Valley Magistrate Court and the Pima County Adult Detention Center; and WHEREAS, each video court session will be held weekly on Thursdays at 0830 hours for a period of one hour, unless a different schedule is otherwise agreed to by both parties ; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, for the provision of video court hearings of municipal prisoners; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is hereby approved. 2. That the Town Magistrate of the Town of Oro Valley and other administrative officials are hereby authorized to take such steps as necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. 3. The Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Legal Services Director, or their duly authorized officers and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 6th day of May, 2020. 2 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA _______________________________ Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: 3 EXHIBIT “A” INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND PIMA COUNTY FOR PROVISION OF VIDEO-COURT HEARINGS OF MUNICIPAL PRISONERS THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA), is entered into pursuant to ARS § 11-952 (as amended) by and between: THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Town”); and THE COUNTY OF PIMA, a body politic and corporate, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “County”). WHEREAS the Parties desire to enter into an agreement to provide video-court hearings for municipal prisoners; and WHEREAS the Town and County may contract for services and enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, et seq.; and WHEREAS the provision of video-court hearings for municipal prisoners will be in the best interests of the Parties and the citizens of Pima County. NOW THEREFORE, THE TOWN AND COUNTY HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The County of Pima’s Sheriff’s Department Corrections Bureau shall provide the Town of Oro Valley’s Magistrate Court with a video court session between Oro Valley Magistrate Court (OVMC) and the Pima County Adult Detention Center (PCADC). 2. PCADC will be responsible for pulling OVMC’s inmate files and preparing them for court, preparing their inmates for court, providing security in the courtroom, providing clerical support for court documentation and faxing required documentation back to OVMC. 3. OVMC shall fax PCADC’s Records Unit appropriate documentation on each OVMC defendant prior to the defendant leaving the video court session. 4. Each video court session will be weekly on Thursdays, beginning at 0830 hours. Both Town and County agree that this schedule may be changed based on either party’s need for more video court time, or based on other factors that could require a different schedule. OVMC shall complete the video court session no later than 0930 hours. Any hearing extending past 0930 hours shall be continued at a later date. 5. Town of Oro Valley will pay for one weekly hour of video court which will cover the cost of one Corrections Officer for one hour for security. The current salary rate for these employees is: Corrections Officer (1 hour) $33.29 Total for one hour: $33.29 6. “Town of Oro Valley Prisoner” shall mean any person who has been incarcerated as a result of a charge pending in the Oro Valley Magistrate Court, as a result of an agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and another jurisdiction to allow the person to serve his/her sentence locally, or has been sentenced pursuant to an order of the Oro Valley Magistrate Court and for whom the Town of Oro Valley has the legal obligation to provide or pay for prisoner housing (this Agreement does not create such an obligation, that obligation exists under current Arizona Law). A prisoner arrested by the Town of Oro Valley Police Department solely on another governmental entity warrant is not a Town of Oro Valley prisoner. 7. Criteria and Rules Governing Billing: a. A “billable video-court session” is defined as that period commencing at 0830 hours and ending at 0930 hours each Thursday, or any fractional part thereof. b. Should a “billable video-court session” not occur in any given week, the Town of Oro Valley will not be billed that week. c. The Town of Oro Valley will be billed monthly for these services. Invoicing for these services will be separate from the monthly incarceration billing invoice and must be paid separately. 8. Criteria for Assessment of Billing: a. The costs of a “billable video-court session” shall be based on the current rates of salary each involved class of employee currently earns. These rates are subject to increase as wages increase for the classification. b. County will give Town a thirty (30) day notice of any salary rate increase and Town will be billed accordingly. 9. County will submit a statement of Town of Oro Valley video-court session charges on a monthly basis. This statement shall provide information in chronological order as follows: billing period, dates of video court sessions, weekly costs of individual employees, weekly totals, and the monthly total bill. Any individual video court session charge contested shall be made known to the County within 30 days after receipt of the monthly billing. If the Town notifies the County of a dispute within 30 days of receipt of the monthly billing, the Town may withhold payment on those specific video court sessions for which billing is disputed until the dispute has been resolved. No dispute will be accepted if not made within 30 days after the receipt on the monthly billing. Disputes about the billing statement shall be jointly reviewed by both parties and satisfactorily resolved within 45 days of the monthly billing. All charges shall be paid within sixty days of receipt of the monthly billing, excluding contested charges. Contested charges shall be paid within 30 days of resolution of the dispute. Charges remaining unresolved after the 60-day period may be arbitrated by a mutually acceptable third party. Town agrees to pay interest on outstanding charges beginning on the 10th day after resolution of the billing at a rate of 10% per annum until paid. Town agrees that when a check is sent to County in payment of previously disputed charge, Town will attach an invoice detailing what specific charges are being paid. Town agrees that when funds are withheld due to a disputed charge, the specific charge being disputed, and the amount of payment being withheld, will be specified on an invoice attached to the payment check for the period in which the charge disputed was included. Town agrees to attach to each check submitted to County an invoice indicating the dates for which that check is to be applied. 10 This Agreement shall cover the time period from May 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020. This Agreement may be extended for four (4) additional one (1) year periods or any portion thereof. Any extension of this Agreement shall be by written amendment executed by the governing bodies of the parties. 11. Neither party shall be obliged to the other party for any costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement, except as herein provided. 12. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as either limiting or extending the statutory jurisdiction of either of the signing parties hereto. 13. To the extent permitted by law, each party agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the other, their appointed boards and commissions, officials, employees and insurance carriers, individually and collectively from all losses, claims, suits, demands, expenses, subrogation, attorney’s fees or actions of any kind resulting from all personal injury including bodily injury and death, and property damage occasioned during the term of this Agreement for acts or omissions of such party, its agents, officials, and employees. Each party represents that it shall maintain for the duration of this Agreement, policies of public liability insurance covering all of their operations undertaken in implementation of this Agreement, providing bodily injury limits of not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for any one person, of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for any one occurrence, and property damage liability to a limit of not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). The parties may fulfill the obligations of this Article by programs of self-insurance equivalent in coverage. 14. The parties agree to be bound by arbitration, as provided in Arizona Revised Statutes, § 12-1501 et. seq. to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement where the sole relief sought is monetary damage of $50,000 or less, exclusive of interest and costs. 15. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated with thirty days notice, if for any reason the Pima County Board of Supervisors does not appropriate sufficient monies for the purpose of maintaining this Agreement. In the event of such cancellation, County shall have no further obligation to the Town other than for services already provided. 16. Either party may, at any time and without cause, cancel this Agreement by providing ninety (90) days written notice of intent to cancel. 17. This Agreement is subject to cancellation for conflict of interest pursuant to the provisions of ARS § 38-511. 18. Each party to this Intergovernmental Agreement shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, standards, and Executive Orders, without limitation to those designated within this Agreement. The laws and regulations of the State of Arizona shall govern the rights of the parties, the performance of this Agreement, and any disputes hereunder. Any action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of Arizona in Pima County. Any charges in the governing laws, rules, and regulations during the terms of this Agreement shall apply, but do not require an amendment. 19. TOWN and COUNTY will not discriminate against any TOWN or COUNTY employee, client or any other individual in any way involved with the TOWN or COUNTY, because of race, age, creed, color, religion, sex, disability or national origin in the course of carrying out duties pursuant to this Intergovernmental Agreement. TOWN and COUNTY agree to comply with the provisions of Arizona Executive Order 99-4, which are incorporated into this agreement by reference as if set forth in full. 20. Each party shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) and all applicable federal regulations under the Act, including 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36. 21. This document constitutes the entire Intergovernmental Agreement between the parties and shall not be modified, amended, altered or changed except through a written amendment executed by the parties’ governing bodies. SIGNED AND ATTESTED THIS ________ DAY OF ____________________ 2020, ATTEST: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a municipal corporation ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Town of Oro Valley Clerk Mayor ATTEST: PIMA COUNTY, a body politic ____________________________________ ___________________________________ Clerk, Board of Supervisors Chairman, Board of Supervisors ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Date Date APPROVED AS TO FORM AND APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL AUTHORITY: LEGAL AUTHORITY: __________________________________ _________________________________ Town of Oro Valley Attorney Deputy County Attorney Legal authority: ARS § 11-201, ARS § 11-951 through 954,    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:05/06/2020   Submitted By:Amanda Jacobs, Town Manager's Office Department:Town Manager's Office SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §9-463.05, TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CHARGED BY THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RECOMMENDATION: No action is required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the February 19, 2020 regular Town Council meeting, Council approved the land use assumptions (LUA) and infrastructure improvement plans (IIP) sections of the development impact fee study prepared for parks, police, streets and water. The purpose of this agenda item is to present the Town Council with the Development Impact Fees and receive public comment. Arizona Revised Statutes state that a public hearing must be held on the proposed Development Impact Fees.   BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Development impact fees are assessed by the Town to fund one-time infrastructure improvements needed as a result of new growth.  These fees are accumulated to construct specific improvements or portions of improvements within the Town in accordance with the LUA and IIP adopted by the elected body.  The Your Voice, Our Future general plan specifies that new growth pay for itself. Development impact fees are the primary way in which that occurs. The last comprehensive update of the Town's impact fees was completed in 2014.  At that time, the Town adopted fees for parks, police, transportation and water.  In January 2019, the Town retained the services of TischlerBise to prepare the updated impact fee report. The detailed report was made available on the Town of Oro Valley website for public review on November 1, 2019, and the updated report was made available on March 9, 2020 (Attachment 1). Copies of the draft report were sent to various stakeholders to include the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, Metropolitan Pima Alliance, Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce, Larsen Baker LLC, Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. and the Arizona Multi-housing Association. Stakeholder meetings were held on November 18, 2019, and December 17, 2019. The development fees are included in the Development Fee Report chapter (pages 1-13). The Arizona Fee Comparison which was part of TischlerBise's January 8 presentation has been updated and can be found under Attachment 2. During the February 19 Council meeting, Council requested a comparison of non-residential fees, which can be found under Attachment 3. When comparing the non-residential fees, Oro Valley's proposed fees are competitive within the local market. Next Steps The following table illustrates the timeline for approval based on the State law's public participation process:     Meeting Date Public Hearing: Development Fees to Council Wednesday, May 6, 2020 Council Approve/Deny: Impact Fees Wednesday, June 17, 2020 75-day Waiting Period to Collect new Fees Monday, September 1, 2020 FISCAL IMPACT: Based on the TischlerBise draft report, the combined total of the fees would be approximately 7% decrease for residential uses, approximately 33% higher for retail/commercial and 18% decrease for office, industrial and warehouse uses. The TischlerBise draft report summarizes the proposed and current fees on page 12. SUGGESTED MOTION: A motion is not required by Council. This is a public hearing for comment only. Attachments Development Impact Fee Report - March 2020  AZ Fee Comparison Revised  Non-residential Fee Comparison  TischlerBise May 6 Presentation  DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development Fee Report Prepared for: Town of Oro Valley, Arizona March 4, 2020 4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240 Bethesda, MD 301.320.6900 www.tischlerbise.com Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1 ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION ......................................................................................... 1 Necessary Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 1 Infrastructure Improvements Plan ........................................................................................................ 2 Qualified Professionals ......................................................................................................................... 2 Conceptual Development Fee Calculation ............................................................................................ 3 Evaluation of Offsets ............................................................................................................................ 3 DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT ...................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 1: Recommended Calculation Methodologies .......................................................................................................... 5 A Note on Rounding .............................................................................................................................. 5 SERVICE AREA .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Current Development Fee Service Area ................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3: Proposed Development Fee Service Area ............................................................................................................. 7 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES ........................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4: Current Non-Utility Development Fees ................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 5: Current Residential Water Facilities Development Fees ....................................................................................... 8 Figure 6: Current Nonresidential Water Facilities Development Fees ................................................................................. 9 Figure 7: Current Irrigation Development Fees .................................................................................................................... 9 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES ...................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 8: Water Facilities Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current nonresidential) ..................... 11 Figure 9: Residential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) .................................................... 12 Figure 10: Nonresidential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) ............................................ 12 Figure 11: Single-Family Unit All Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) ................................. 12 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ....................... 13 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Proportionate Share ........................................................................................................................... 13 Figure PR1: Daytime Population in 2015 ............................................................................................................................ 14 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................................... 14 Figure PR2: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ................................................. 14 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................... 15 Park Land Improvements – Incremental Expansion ............................................................................ 15 Figure PR3: Park Land Inventory and Level-of-Service Standards ..................................................................................... 16 Park Amenities and Improvements – Incremental Expansion ............................................................. 16 Figure PR4: Park Amenities Inventory and Level-of-Service Standards ............................................................................. 17 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based ............................................................................................... 18 Figure PR5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ....................................................................................................... 18 PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS .............................................................................................. 18 Figure PR6: Projected Demand for Improved Park Land .................................................................................................... 19 Figure PR7: Projected Demand for Parks and Recreational Amenities .............................................................................. 20 Figure PR8: Necessary Parks & Recreational Improvements and Expansions ................................................................... 21 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona iii PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ............................................................................... 21 Required Offsets ................................................................................................................................. 21 Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees .......................................................... 21 Figure PR9: Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................... 22 FORECAST OF REVENUES .............................................................................................................................. 22 Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue ............................................................. 22 Figure PR10: Projected Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue ..................................................... 23 POLICE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...................................................... 24 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Proportionate Share ........................................................................................................................... 24 Figure P1: Police Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................................... 25 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................................... 25 Figure P2: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit .............................................................................. 27 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................... 27 Police Facilities – Cost Recovery ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure P3: Police Facilities and Level-of-Service Analysis ................................................................................................... 28 Figure P4: Police Facilities Service Unit Cost Summary ...................................................................................................... 28 Police Vehicles and Equipment – Incremental Expansion ................................................................... 28 Figure P5: Police Vehicles and Equipment Inventory and Level-of-Service Standards ...................................................... 29 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based ............................................................................................... 30 Figure P6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ......................................................................................................... 30 PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES ................................................................... 30 Figure P7: Projected Demand for Police Vehicles ............................................................................................................. 31 Figure P8: Necessary Police Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total) ........................................................................ 32 POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ........................................................................................................... 32 Required Offsets ................................................................................................................................. 32 Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................................... 33 Figure P10: Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees ................................................................................................ 34 FORECAST OF REVENUES .............................................................................................................................. 34 Development Fee Revenues for Police Facilities and Vehicles ............................................................ 34 Figure P11: Projected Police Development Fee Revenue ................................................................................................. 35 STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...................................................... 36 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................ 36 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Proportionate Share ........................................................................................................................... 36 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................................... 36 Service Units ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure S1: Summary of Service Units .................................................................................................................................. 37 Trip Generation Rates ......................................................................................................................... 37 Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-By Trips ................................................................... 37 Figure S2: Inflow/Outflow Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 38 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................... 38 Figure S3: Arterial Road Network Capacity and Usage ....................................................................................................... 39 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona iv Vehicle Trips ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure S4: Vehicle Trips ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 Average Trip Length ............................................................................................................................ 39 Figure S5: National Average Trip Lengths .......................................................................................................................... 40 Figure S6. Expected VMT in the Town of Oro Valley .......................................................................................................... 40 Figure S7. Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor ................................................................................................................. 41 Figure S8. Local Average Trip Lengths by Land Use ............................................................................................................ 41 Figure S9. VMT per Service Unit on Arterial Network ........................................................................................................ 41 Cost per VMT and Infrastructure Improvement Plan .......................................................................... 41 Figure S10: Street Facilities Improvement Improvements Plan ......................................................................................... 42 Figure S11: Cost per VMT Factors ...................................................................................................................................... 42 SERVICE UNITS, DEMAND, AND COST FOR SERVICES ......................................................................................... 42 Travel Demand Model ........................................................................................................................ 42 Figure S12: Projected Travel Demand Model ..................................................................................................................... 43 Figure S13: Adjusted Cost per Vehicle Mile of Travel/Vehicle Mile of Capacity ................................................................ 44 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based ............................................................................................... 44 Figure S14: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ....................................................................................................... 44 STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES .......................................................................................................... 44 Required Offsets ................................................................................................................................. 44 Figure S15: Offset for Excess Construction Sales Tax Revenue .......................................................................................... 45 Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................................... 45 Figure S16: Proposed and Existing Fees Comparison ......................................................................................................... 46 PROJECTED STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE .............................................................................. 46 Figure S17: Projected Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue ................................................................................... 47 WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...................................................... 48 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................ 48 Proportionate Share ........................................................................................................................... 48 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................................... 49 Figure W2: Water Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ............................................................................ 50 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY AND USAGE OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................... 50 Water Facilities Level-of-Service Standards ........................................................................................ 50 PROJECTED DEMAND FOR WATER FACILITIES ................................................................................................... 51 Figure W3: Water Facilities Level-of-Service Standards .................................................................................................... 51 Figure W4: Future Projections of Water Consumption ...................................................................................................... 52 WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................................................................ 52 Cost Recovery for Excess Capacity in Supply Projects ......................................................................... 52 Figure W5: Cost Recovery for Supply Projects ................................................................................................................... 52 Water Facilities Projects – Plan Based ................................................................................................ 53 Water Facilities Supply Projects – Plan Based .................................................................................... 53 Figure W6: Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Water Supply ............................................................................................ 53 Water Facilities Storage Projects – Plan Based ................................................................................... 53 Water Facilities Distribution Projects – Plan Based ............................................................................ 54 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based ............................................................................................... 54 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona v Figure W9: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ........................................................................................................ 54 WATER FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE ........................................................................................................... 55 Required Offsets ................................................................................................................................. 55 Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................................... 55 Figure W10: Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees .............................................................................................. 56 FORECAST OF REVENUES .............................................................................................................................. 57 Development Fee Revenues for Water Facilities ................................................................................. 57 Figure W11: Projected Water Facilities Development Fee Revenue .................................................................................. 57 APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................... 58 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 58 SERVICE AREA ............................................................................................................................................ 58 Figure A1: Current Development Fee Service Area ............................................................................................................ 59 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................... 60 Persons per Housing Unit .................................................................................................................... 60 Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing ........................................................................................... 61 Current Residential Estimates ............................................................................................................. 61 Figure A3: Oro Valley Population and Housing Estimates for 2018 and 2028 ................................................................... 61 Figure A4: Recent Residential Permits by Fiscal Year ........................................................................................................ 62 Residential Projections ........................................................................................................................ 62 Figure A5: Oro Valley Residential Development Projections ............................................................................................. 63 NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 63 Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development ..................................................................................... 63 Figure A6: Oro Valley Jobs Estimates for 2018 and 2028 .................................................................................................. 63 Figure A7: Oro Valley Employment Projections ................................................................................................................ 64 Nonresidential Floor Area by Type of Development ........................................................................... 64 Figure A8: Nonresidential Floor Area Estimates for 2018 and 2028 .................................................................................. 64 Figure A9: ITE Employee and Trip Generation Ratios ........................................................................................................ 65 AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIPS ............................................................................................................... 65 Trip Rate Adjustments ........................................................................................................................ 65 Commuter Trip Adjustment ................................................................................................................ 65 Figure A10: Commuter Trip Adjustment ............................................................................................................................ 66 Adjustment for Pass-By Trips .............................................................................................................. 66 Estimated Residential Vehicle Trip Rates ............................................................................................ 66 Figure A11: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type ................................................................................... 67 Functional Population ......................................................................................................................... 68 Figure A12: Functional Population ..................................................................................................................................... 68 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS .............................................................................................................. 69 Figure A13: Municipal Planning Area Projections and Growth Rates ................................................................................ 69 APPENDIX B: FORECAST OF REVENUES .................................................................................... 70 APPENDIX C: ARTERIAL STREET SEGMENTS INVENTORY ............................................................ 71 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 1 E XECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Oro Valley hired TischlerBise, Inc., to document land use assumptions, prepare an Infrastructure Improvements Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “IIP”), and update development fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-436.05 (hereinafter referred to as the “Enabling Legislation”). Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality for necessary public services. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Land Use Assumptions. The IIPs for each type of infrastructure are located in each infrastructure type’s corresponding section, and the Land Use Assumptions can be found in Appendix A. The proposed development fees are displayed in the Development Fee Report chapter. Development fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. The fee represents future development’s proportionate share of infrastructure costs. Development fees may be used for infrastructure improvements or debt service for growth related infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, development fees may not be used for operations, maintenance, replacement, or correcting existing deficiencies. This update of the Town’s Infrastructure Improvements Plan and associated update to its development fees includes the following necessary public services: • Parks and Recreational Facilities • Police Facilities • Street Facilities • Water Facilities This plan also includes all necessary elements required to be in full compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-436.05 (SB 1525). ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION The Enabling Legislation governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Arizona. Necessary Public Services Under the requirements of the Enabling Legislation, development fees may only be used for construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities that are necessary public services. “Necessary public service” means any of the following categories of facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and that are owned and operated on behalf of the municipality: water, wastewater, storm water, drainage, flood control, library, streets, fire and police, and neighborhood parks and recreation. Additionally, a necessary public service includes any facility, not included in the aforementioned categories (e.g., general government facilities), that was financed before June 1, 2011 and that meets the following requirements: 1. Development fees were pledged to repay debt service obligations related to the construction of the facility. 2. After August 1, 2014, any development fees collected are used solely for the payment of principal and interest on the portion of the bonds, notes, or other debt service obligations issued before June 1, 2011 to finance construction of the facility. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 2 Infrastructure Improvements Plan Development fees must be calculated pursuant to an IIP. For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, by law, the IIP shall include the following seven elements: • A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. • The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria. • The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed 10 years. • A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. Qualified Professionals The IIP must be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices. A qualified professional is defined as “a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst or planner providing services within the scope of the person’s license, education, or experience.” TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in the cost of growth services and is licensed to do business in Arizona. Our services include development fees, fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure financing analyses, user fee/cost of service studies, capital improvement plans, and fiscal software. TischlerBise has prepared over 900 development fee studies over the past 40 years for local governments across the United States. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 3 Conceptual Development Fee Calculation In contrast to project-level improvements, development fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or the entire service area (usually referred to as system improvements). The first step is to determine an appropriate demand indicator for the particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of service units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of persons per housing unit. The second step in the development fee formula is to determine infrastructure improvement units per service unit, typically called Level-of-Service standards, sometimes referred to as LOS. In keeping with the park example, a common LOS standard is improved park acres per thousand people. The third step in the development fee formula is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the formula would establish a cost per acre for land acquisition and/ or park improvements. Evaluation of Offsets Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of offsets is integral to the development of a legally defensible development fee. There are two types of offsets that should be addressed in development fee studies and ordinances. The first is a revenue offset due to possible double payment situations, which could occur when other revenues may contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure covered by the development fee. This type of offset is integrated into the fee calculation, thus reducing the fee amount. The second is a site-specific credit or developer reimbursement for dedication of land or construction of system improvements. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of the development fee program. For ease of administration, TischlerBise normally recommends developer reimbursements for system improvements. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 4 DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT METHODOLOGY Development fees for the necessary public services made necessary by new development must be based on the same level-of-service provided to existing development in the service area. There are three basic methodologies used to calculate development fees. They examine the past, present, and future status of infrastructure. The objective of evaluating these different methodologies is to determine the best measure of the demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation and can be used simultaneously for different cost components. Additionally, development fees for public services can also include the cost of professional services for preparing IIP’s and the related Development Fee report. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of development fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following paragraphs discuss basic methods for calculating development fees and how those methods can be applied. • Cost Recovery (past improvements) - The rationale for recoupment, often called cost recovery, is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built, or land already purchased, from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate capacity before new development can take place. • Incremental Expansion (concurrent improvements) - The incremental expansion method documents current level-of-service standards for each type of public facility, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. This approach assumes there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. Revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments to keep pace with development. • Plan-Based (future improvements) - The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified in a long-range facility plan and development potential is identified by a land use plan. There are two basic options for determining the cost per demand unit: (1) total cost of a public facility can be divided by total demand units (average cost), or (2) the growth-share of the public facility cost can be divided by the net increase in demand units over the planning timeframe (marginal cost). A summary is provided in Figure 1 showing the methodology for each of the facility and fee study types, as well as the service area and cost allocation method used to develop the IIP and calculate the development fees. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 5 Figure 1: Recommended Calculation Methodologies A Note on Rounding A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted using Excel software. Most results are discussed in the report using two, three, and four-digit places, 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). SERVICE AREA ARS 9-63.05 defines “service area” as follows: Any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan. The Town’s previous Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Study recommended one services area, shown below in Figure 2. Incremental Expansion Parks and Recreational Townwide Developed Parks, Park Amenities Development Fee Study N/A Population, Jobs Police Townwide Vehicles Development Fee Study Facilities Population, Nonres. Trips Street Townwide Arterial Lane Miles, Signalized Intersections Development Fee Study N/A VMT Water Townwide N/A Development Fee Study, Water Distribution, Storage and Supply CAP Water Allocation Gallons per Service Unit Facility Type Service Area Plan-Based Cost Recovery Cost Allocation Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 6 Figure 2: Current Development Fee Service Area Much of the land in Oro Valley is characterized by a built environment of dispersed, detached single family housing, transected by arterial roadways leading to concentrated nodes of businesses, institutions and commercial development with, largely single-family lots spread out to the northern edges. As a result of the development pattern, the Town relies on a variety of revenues and funding mechanisms to pay for public infrastructure and facilities which service residents. Oro Valley has embraced numerous policies and plans to guide future development, most notably the 2016 Your Voice, Our Future General Plan aimed at encouraging new development as much as possible to pay the proportional share of growth-related infrastructure improvements for area roads, parks, police, fire and public facilities. In light of the plan- specific policies outlined by the Town along with discussions with Town staff regarding anticipated development patterns and infrastructure needs, TischlerBise is recommending no changes to the Development Fee Service Area as displayed in Figure 2. The single Development Fee Service Area is supported first and foremost because, parks and recreation, police, and roadway infrastructure are intended to serve the entire Town with a standard level-of-service as opposed to bounded districts or subareas. As an example, referring to Figure 2, a new residential development in the northeast area is still likely to also utilize regional parks or police facilities located throughout Town. Furthermore, many services such as police and roadway infrastructure react to deployment changes over time based on migration patterns of people and are not necessarily restricted to specific geographic sub-zones. As such, TischlerBise is recommending all fees for these categories be assessed as a Townwide fee. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 7 Figure 3: Proposed Development Fee Service Area Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 8 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES Oro Valley’s current development fees are shown below in Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7. Demand for non-utility services (transportation, parks & recreation and police) is driven by the intensity of the use on those particular services; therefore, fees are assessed based on development type – Residential or Non- Residential; current non-utility fees are shown in Figure 4. The Town of Oro Valley assess Water Facilities development fees for water based on meter type — and include the following classifications: Single Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Commercial and Irrigation. Each of these categories include independent impact fee charges attributed to Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee (AWRDIF), which is related to alternative water resource projects such as Central Arizona Project and the Potable Water System Development Impact Fee (PWSDIF). Current Water Facilities fees are shown in Figure 5, 6 and 7. Figure 4: Current Non-Utility Development Fees Figure 5: Current Residential Water Facilities Development Fees Residential (per unit) Unit Type Transportation Parks Police Current Fees Single Unit $1,990 $856 $310 $3,156 Multifamily $1,231 $599 $215 $2,045 Mobile Home Park (per space)$649 $651 $234 $1,534 Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Land Use Type Transportation Parks Police Current Fee Hotel/Motel (room)$758 $0 $200 $958 Retail/Commercial $2,412 $0 $447 $2,859 Office & Other Services $1,822 $0 $156 $1,978 Industrial $983 $0 $65 $1,048 Warehouse $915 $0 $63 $978 Public/Institutional $1,379 $0 $118 $1,497 Residential OVWU Meter Size AWRDIF Fee PWSDIF Fee Total Fees 5/8" x 3/4"$4,045 $2,015 $6,060 3/4" x 3/4"$6,067 $3,022 $9,089 1"$10,111 $5,037 $15,148 1.5" standard $20,223 $10,074 $30,297 2" compound $32,356 $16,118 $48,474 Per Unit Cost $1,941 $967 $2,908 Source: Oro Valley Utility Impact Fees Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 9 Figure 6: Current Nonresidential Water Facilities Development Fees Figure 7: Current Irrigation Development Fees PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed fees are based on a policy-level concept that development fees should fund 100 percent of growth-related infrastructure, therefore the fees shown below represent the maximum allowable fees. Oro Valley may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown; however, a reduction in development fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital improvements and/or a decrease in Oro Valley’s level-of-service standards. All costs in the Development Fee Report are in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. If cost estimates change significantly over time, development fees should be recalibrated. Proposed development fees are shown below in Figures 8, 9 and 10. All tables show the proposed fee, the current fee and the total dollar change. Proposed utility development fees shown in Figure 8 are assessed per meter based on capacity ratios referenced from the American Water Works Association Manual of Water Supply Practices and apply a Demand Adjustment Factor calculated from 2017-2018 consumption data per nonresidential and irrigation meter classifications. Utilization of these capacity ratios replicate current fee methodologies and yield the Town a consistent comparison and approach. Further, and at the direction of staff, the Water Facilities development fees have been consolidated into a single fee. The relationship between infrastructure funded with current PWSDIF revenue and Irrigation Meter Size AWRDIF Fee PWSDIF Fee Total Fees 5/8" x 3/4"$7,280 $3,626 $10,906 3/4" x 3/4"$10,920 $5,440 $16,360 1"$18,200 $9,066 $27,266 1.5" standard $36,401 $18,132 $54,533 2" compound $58,241 $29,012 $87,253 3" compound $116,482 $58,024 $174,506 4" compound $182,004 $90,662 $272,666 6" compound $364,007 $181,324 $545,331 8" compound $582,412 $290,118 $872,530 Nonresidential OVWU Meter Size AWRDIF Fee PWSDIF Fee Total Fees 5/8"$5,258 $2,619 $7,877 3/4" $7,887 $3,929 $11,816 1"$13,145 $6,548 $19,693 1.5" standard $26,289 $13,096 $39,385 2" compound $42,063 $20,953 $63,016 3" compound $84,126 $41,906 $126,032 4" compound $131,447 $65,478 $196,925 6" compound $262,894 $130,956 $393,850 8" compound $420,631 $209,530 $630,161 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 10 infrastructure funded with AWRDIF revenue are very similar. Both are potable water resource driven and both are required to meet the demands of growth. As such, the infrastructure needs are being combined into one IIP resulting in the creation of one new development impact fee to replace the two existing impact fees. The new development fee will be known as the Water Facilities development fee. The Water Facilities development fee is intended to fund all types of water resources, the infrastructure to deliver those resources and any related debt including CAP capital infrastructure repayment costs. All other non-utility services (transportation, parks & recreation, police) are shown in Figures 9 and 10 based on residential or nonresidential development type. Development fees for residential development are assessed per dwelling unit, based on the type of unit. Nonresidential development fees are assessed per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 11 Figure 8: Water Facilities Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current nonresidential) Residential Residential Meter Size Proposed Fees Current Total Fees Change 5/8" $6,387 $6,060 $327 3/4" $9,569 $9,089 $480 1"$15,934 $15,148 $786 1.5" standard $31,846 $30,297 $1,549 2" compound $50,941 $48,474 $2,467 Per Unit Cost $2,044 $2,908 ($864) Nonresidential Meter Size Nonresidential Meter Size Proposed Fees Current Total Fees Change 5/8" $7,087 $7,877 ($790) 3/4"$10,619 $11,816 ($1,197) 1"$17,684 $19,693 ($2,009) 1.5" standard $35,347 $39,385 ($4,038) 2" compound $56,542 $63,016 ($6,474) 3" compound $113,062 $126,032 ($12,970) 4" compound $176,647 $196,925 ($20,278) 6" compound $353,273 $393,850 ($40,577) 8" compound $565,224 $630,161 ($64,937) Irrigation Meter Size $0 Irrigation Meter Size Proposed Fees Current Total Fees Change 5/8" $14,343 $10,906 $3,437 3/4" $21,503 $16,360 $5,143 1"$35,824 $27,266 $8,558 1.5" standard $71,627 $54,533 $17,094 2" compound $114,590 $87,253 $27,337 3" compound $229,158 $174,506 $54,652 4" compound $358,047 $272,666 $85,381 6" compound $716,072 $545,331 $170,741 8" compound $1,145,702 $872,530 $273,172 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 12 Figure 9: Residential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) Figure 10: Nonresidential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) To demonstrate the impact of the proposed development fees, the example in Figure 11 below contemplates all fees (Utility and Non-Utility) for a single-family unit, assuming a 0.625-inch water meter, in Oro Valley, representing a 4.8 percent increase. Figure 11: Single-Family Unit All Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) Unit Type Current Fee Proposed Fee Difference Single-Family $9,216 $9,383 $167 Nonresidential (per 1,000 square foot unless noted otherwise) Land Use Type Transportation Parks Police Proposed Fee Current Fee Difference Hotel/Motel (room)$839 $222 $227 $1,288 $958 $330 Retail/Commercial $2,567 $558 $680 $3,805 $2,859 $946 Office & Other Services $978 $708 $260 $1,946 $1,978 ($32) Industrial $498 $389 $130 $1,017 $1,048 ($31) Warehouse $175 $81 $50 $306 $978 ($672) Public/Institutional $1,294 $222 $350 $1,866 $1,497 $369 Residential (per unit) Unit Type Transportation Parks Police Proposed Fee Current Fee Difference Single-Family $1,660 $1,054 $283 $2,997 $3,156 ($159) Multi-Family $870 $762 $204 $1,837 $2,045 ($208) Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 13 PARKS AND RECREATION AL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(g) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP: “Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities on real property up to thirty acres in area, or parks and recreational facilities larger than thirty acres if the facilities provide a direct benefit to the development. Park and recreational facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of any facility that is used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas, arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses, clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand square feet in floor area, environmental education centers, equestrian facilities, golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes, museums, theme parks, water reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar recreational facilities, but may include swimming pools.” The Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP includes components for park amenities, park land improvements and the cost of professional services for preparing the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and related Development Fee report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for park amenities and park land improvement, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report. Service Area The Town of Oro Valley plans to provide a uniform level-of-service and equal access to parks and recreational facilities within the Town limits. The parks and recreation programs are structured and provided to make full use of Oro Valley’s total inventory of facilities. Therefore, the recommended service area for the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP is Townwide. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities from residential and nonresidential development. According to the U.S. Census Bureau web application OnTheMap, there were 8,201 inflow commuters in 2015, which is the number of persons who work in Oro Valley but live outside the Town. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure PR1, to derive Functional Population shares for Oro Valley. The estimated Town population in 2015 from PAG is estimated at 42,259. The study uses 2015 data because this the most recent year available for inflow/outflow data. Therefore, it is compared to the population estimate for the corresponding year. As shown in Figure PR1, the proportionate share is based on cumulative impact days per year. Oro Valley residents were allocated 365 days per year, for a total of 15,424,535 impact days. Inflow commuters were allocated 4 days per week, and 50 weeks per year, for a total of 1,640,200 impact days per year. Adding Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 14 the respective impact days of residents and inflow commuters (shown below in days) yields the total annual impact days for both residential and nonresidential categories. Residential’s proportionate share of the total impact hours is 90%, while the nonresidential share is 10%. Figure PR1: Daytime Population in 2015 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.” Figure PR2 displays the demand indicators for residential and nonresidential land uses. For residential development, the table displays the persons per housing unit for single-family (or single unit) and multifamily units. For nonresidential development, the table displays the number of employees per thousand square feet for four different types of nonresidential development. Figure PR2: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit Residential Development Single Family 2.09 Multi-Family 1.51 Source: Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential Development Industrial 1.63 Commercial 2.34 Institutional 0.93 Office & Other 2.97 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017 Housing Type Persons per Housing Unit Type Jobs per 1,000 Square Feet Residents Inflow Commuters Residential1 Nonresidential2 Total Residential Nonresidential 42,259 8,201 15,424,535 1,640,200 17,064,735 90%10% 1. Days per Year =365 2. 4 Days per Week x 50 Weeks per Year =200 Source: Pima Association of Goverments 2015 Population Estimate; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.6 Application, 2015. Cost Allocation for ParksCumulative Impact Days per Year Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 15 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Park Land Improvements – Incremental Expansion The summary of park land in Oro Valley is displayed in Figure PR3. Town-owned golf courses, regional parks, retention ponds, and conservation parks were excluded from the inventory. Oro Valley has a total of 389 acres of park land. The level-of-service for residential development is 0.0020 acres per resident, which is found by multiplying the total number of improved acres (99) by the residential proportionate share (90%) and dividing this total by the 2018 population (45,184). The nonresidential level-of-service is 0.009 developed acres per job, which is found by multiplying the total number of improved acres (99) by the nonresidential proportionate share (10%) and dividing this total by the number of jobs in 2018 (10,642). According to information provided by Town staff, the average cost to develop an acre of park land is $68,769. The cost per demand unit is determined by multiplying the level-of-service standard by the average development cost per acre. This results in a cost per person of $135.47 (0.0020 x $68,769) and $63.96 per job (0.0009 x $68,769). Because the Town of Oro Valley does not anticipate any substantial neighborhood or community park land purchases over the next 10 years (or, developers will be asked to dedicate a reasonable portion of land to the Town for development as park land), the cost of additional park land acquisition is not recommended for inclusion in the Development Fee Report and is excluded from the Town’s development fee calculations. Park land improvements—including but not limited to elements such as irrigation, landscaping, lighting or turf —however are included in the Fee with the expectation that the Town will maintain the current level-of-service through incremental improvements on existing but unimproved park land. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 16 Figure PR3: Park Land Inventory and Level-of-Service Standards Park Amenities and Improvements – Incremental Expansion The inventory summary of Oro Valley’s park amenities is displayed in Figure PR4. Oro Valley parks have 87 amenities that have a total replacement cost of approximately $18.3 million. Dividing the total replacement cost by the total number of amenities yields an average cost per improvement of $210,936. The current residential level-of-service is 0.00173 amenities per resident, which was obtained by multiplying the 87 amenities by the residential proportionate share (90%) and dividing this amount by the current population (45,184). Similarly, the nonresidential level-of-service is 0.0082 units per job (90 x 10% x 10,642). Multiplying the average cost per amenity ($210,936) by the residential and nonresidential levels-of-service results in a cost per person of $364.92 and $172.97 per job. Note that while the LOS Standards shown are rounded to the fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). Park Land Total Acres Improved Acres Canada del Oro 30 30 Jame D. Kriegh 29 29 West Lambert Lane 40 2 Naranja 213 30 Honey Bee Canyon 77 8 TOTAL 389 99 Improvement Cost per Acre1 $68,769 90% 45,184 0.0020 $135.47 10% 10,642 0.0009 $63.96 Nonresidential Share 2018 Jobs LOS: Developed Acres per Job Cost per Job Residential Nonresidential 2018 Population LOS: Developed Acres per Persons Cost per Person Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards Residential Share Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 17 Figure PR4: Park Amenities Inventory and Level-of-Service Standards Description Units Unit Cost Replacement Cost Restrooms (lighted)6 $215,000 $1,290,000 Playground (shaded)2 $150,000 $300,000 Accessible Playground (shaded)1 $150,000 $150,000 Covered Ramada (lighted)5 $90,000 $450,000 Covered Ramada (lighted)3 $50,000 $150,000 Soccer Fields (lighted)2 $210,000 $420,000 Softball Fields (lighted)4 $250,000 $1,000,000 Multiuse Field (lighted)4 $1,200,000 $4,800,000 Baseball Fields (lighted)3 $250,000 $750,000 Sand Volleyball 2 $25,000 $50,000 Horseshoe Pits 2 $1,000 $2,000 Concession Stand 2 $150,000 $300,000 Tennis Court 32 $140,000 $4,480,000 Basketball Court (lighted)1 $100,000 $100,000 Parking Lot (lighted)7 $340,000 $2,380,000 Walking Path 1 $54,400 $54,400 Racquetball Courts (lighted)4 $50,000 $200,000 Dog Park 2 $150,000 $300,000 Splash Pad 1 $875,000 $875,000 Archery Range (fixed)1 $150,000 $150,000 Archery Range (walk around)2 $75,000 $150,000 Total 87 $210,936 $18,351,400 * Average Cost Per Pool, Town of Oro Valley. Existing Amenities 87 Residential Share 90% 2018 Population 45,184 Amenities per Person 0.00173 Cost per Person $364.92 Nonresidential Share 10% 2018 Jobs 10,642 Amenities per Job 0.00082 Cost per Job $172.97 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 18 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Parks and Recreational Development Fees and IIP totals $15,268. Oro Valley plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per person is $4.39 and the cost per job is $1.71. Figure PR5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” As shown in Figure PR6 and PR7, the Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 5,991 persons and 1,831 jobs over the next 10 years. ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” These projected service units are multiplied by the current levels-of-service for the IIP components shown in Figure PR6 and PR7. New development will demand an additional 13 acres of improved park land. The park improvements totals demanded by new development multiplied by the respective costs suggests the Town will need to spend approximately $927,694 on new park land improvements to accommodate projected demand. Necessary Public Service Cost Assessed Against Proportionate Share Demand Unit 2019 2024 Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential 90%Population 45,857 48,989 3,132 $4.39 Nonresidential 10%Jobs 10,812 11,705 893 $1.71$15,268Parks Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 19 Figure PR6: Projected Demand for Improved Park Land The park amenities demanded by new development multiplied by the respective costs suggests the Town will need to spend $2.5 million on new park amenities to accommodate projected demand. Demand Unit Cost per Acre 0.002 Improved Acres Persons 0.001 Improved Acres Jobs Year Population Jobs Residential Acres Nonresidential Acres Total Acres Base 2018 45,184 10,642 89 10 99 Year 1 2019 45,857 10,812 90 10 100 Year 2 2020 46,536 10,985 92 10 102 Year 3 2021 47,192 11,160 93 10 103 Year 4 2022 47,820 11,340 94 11 105 Year 5 2023 48,413 11,522 95 11 106 Year 6 2024 48,989 11,705 97 11 107 Year 7 2025 49,557 11,892 98 11 109 Year 8 2026 50,112 12,082 99 11 110 Year 9 2027 50,648 12,275 100 11 111 Year 10 2028 51,175 12,473 101 12 112 10-Yr Increase 5,991 1,831 12 2 13 Growth-Related Expenditures =>$810,787 $116,907 $927,694 Total $927,694 Level of Service Need for Parks Infrastructure $68,769Park Land Improvements Type of Infrastructure Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 20 Figure PR7: Projected Demand for Parks and Recreational Amenities PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IIP ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Potential Parks and Recreational Facilities that Oro Valley may use development fees for in order to accommodate new development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure PR8. Demand Unit Cost per Amenity 0.0017 Amenities Persons 0.0008 Amenities Jobs Year Population Jobs Residential Units Nonresidential Units Total Amenities Base 2018 45,184 10,642 78 9 87 Year 1 2019 45,857 10,812 79 9 88 Year 2 2020 46,536 10,985 81 9 90 Year 3 2021 47,192 11,160 82 9 91 Year 4 2022 47,820 11,340 83 9 92 Year 5 2023 48,413 11,522 84 9 93 Year 6 2024 48,989 11,705 85 10 94 Year 7 2025 49,557 11,892 86 10 95 Year 8 2026 50,112 12,082 87 10 97 Year 9 2027 50,648 12,275 88 10 98 Year 10 2028 51,175 12,473 89 10 99 10-Yr Increase 5,991 1,831 10 2 12 Growth-Related Expenditures =>$2,185,293 $316,403 $2,501,696 Total $2,501,696 $210,936 Need for Parks Infrastructure Type of Infrastructure Level of Service Park Amenities Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 21 Figure PR8: Necessary Parks & Recreational Improvements and Expansions PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Required Offsets An offset is not necessary for the Parks and Recreational Facilities development fees because 10-year growth costs exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure PR10. Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for Parks and Recreational Facilities, including park amenities, park land improvements and pool facilities, and the professional services cost for the IIP and Development Fee Report are summarized at the top of Figure PR9. Updated development fees for Parks and Recreational Facilities are shown in the column with green shading alongside the current development fees, and the net change is shown in the far-right column. The proposed development fees for parks and recreation increased across all development types from the current fee amounts. Estimated Cost $1,500,000 Playground and Parking Lot $1,700,000 Multiuse Fields (lighted)$1,200,000 $150,000 Total $4,550,000 Improvement Park Infrastructure Improvement Plan Skate Park Dog Park Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 22 Figure PR9: Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation. Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue The top of Figure PR10 summarizes the growth-related cost of infrastructure in Oro Valley over the next 10 years (approximately $3.4 million for Parks and Recreational Facilities). Oro Valley should receive approximately $3.2 million in Parks and Recreational Facilities development fee revenue over the next 10 years if actual development matches the Land Use Assumptions. This yields a minor net deficit of approximately $209,000. Fee Component Cost per Person Cost per Job Park Land Improvements $135.33 $63.85 Park Amenities $364.76 $172.80 Development Fee Study $4.39 $1.71 TOTAL $504.48 $238.36 Residential (per unit) Development Type Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Fees Current Fee Increase / Decrease Single Unit 2.09 $1,054 $856 $198 2+ Units 1.51 $762 $599 $163 Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Development Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq Ft Proposed Fees Current Fee Increase / Decrease Hotel/Motel (room)0.93 $0.22 $0 $0.22 Retail/Commercial 2.34 $0.56 $0 $0.56 Office & Other Services 2.97 $0.71 $0 $0.71 Industrial 1.63 $0.39 $0 $0.39 Warehouse 0.34 $0.08 $0 $0.08 Public/Institutional 0.93 $0.22 $0 $0.22 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 23 Figure PR10: Projected Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue Growth Share Developed Park Land $927,694 Park Amenities $2,501,696 Development Fee Report $15,268 Total $3,444,658 Single Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $1,054 $762 $0.39 $0.56 $0.22 $0.71 per unit per unit per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft. Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 17,158 5,478 620 1,407 545 1,965 Year 1 2019 17,407 5,497 630 1,430 554 1,996 Year 2 2020 17,613 5,562 640 1,453 563 2,028 Year 3 2021 17,822 5,628 650 1,476 571 2,061 Year 4 2022 18,033 5,695 661 1,500 581 2,094 Year 5 2023 18,246 5,762 671 1,524 591 2,127 Year 6 2024 18,463 5,830 681 1,548 599 2,162 Year 7 2025 18,682 5,899 692 1,573 609 2,196 Year 8 2026 18,903 5,969 704 1,598 619 2,231 Year 9 2027 19,128 6,040 715 1,624 628 2,267 Year 10 2028 19,354 6,112 726 1,650 639 2,303 2,196 634 106 243 94 338 Projected Revenue $2,315,104 $483,066 $41,234 $135,594 $20,868 $239,304 $3,235,170 ($209,488) Fee Component 10-Year Increase Surplus/(Deficit) Projected Fee Revenue Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 24 POLICE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Police Facilities IIP: “Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training firefighters or officers from more than one station or substation.” The Police Facilities IIP and Development Fees includes components for police stations, police vehicles, and the cost of professional services for preparing the Police Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. Three different methodologies are utilized across the Police IIP. A cost recovery methodology is used for police facilities, an incremental approach is utilized for vehicles, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report. Service Area The Town of Oro Valley’s Police Department strives to provide a uniform response time Townwide. Therefore, a Townwide service area is recommended for the Police Facilities IIP. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends functional population to allocate the cost of police facilities to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is similar to what the U.S. Census Bureau calls "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction, but also considers commuting patterns and time spent at home and at nonresidential locations. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure P1, to derive Functional Population shares for Oro Valley. Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and 4 hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Oro Valley are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Oro Valley are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Oro Valley, the cost allocation for residential development is 78 percent while nonresidential development accounts for 22 percent of the demand for police facilities. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 25 Figure P1: Police Proportionate Share RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial/retail, industrial, and office/other services.” Figure P2 displays the ratio of service units to various types of land uses for residential and nonresidential development. The residential development table displays the persons per housing unit for single-family (or single unit) and multifamily units. TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for police facilities and vehicles. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial/retail developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for police from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the Demand Person Proportionate Hours/Day Hours Share Residential Estimated Residents 42,259 Residents Not Working 27,298 20 545,960 Employed Residents 14,961 Employed in Oro Valley 1,946 14 27,244 Employed outside Oro Valley 13,015 14 182,210 Residential Subtotal 755,414 78% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 27,298 4 109,192 Jobs in Oro Valley 10,147 Residents Employed in Oro Valley 1,946 10 19,460 Non-Resident Workers (inflow Commuters)8,201 10 82,010 Nonresidential Subtotal 210,662 22% TOTAL 966,076 100% Source: Pima Association of Governments 2015 Population Estimate; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.6 Application, 2015. Demand Units in 2015 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 26 demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, police development fees would be too high for office and institutional development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. Trip generation rates per average weekday are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 10th Edition 2017). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%. For commercial and institutional development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34% of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. In other words, 34% of trips to the average shopping center are already being counted because the shopping center is not their final destination, and therefore these trips must be discounted. The remaining 66% of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 33% of the vehicle trips. These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use. The ratio of service unit to development unit for each type of nonresidential development is calculated by multiplying the ITE trip generation rate by the trip rate adjustment factor to avoid double-counting trips, as discussed above. By way of example, the service unit to development unit ratio for a Commercial development is found by multiplying the ITE trip generation rate of 37.75 trips (per 1,000 square feet) by the trip rate adjustment factor of 33%, yielding an adjusted trip rate of 12.46 trips per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a 100,000 square foot commercial development would generate 1,246 primary destination trips per average weekday. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 27 Figure P2: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Police Facilities – Cost Recovery The Police Department recently opened a new Police Station, totaling 24,000 square feet of floor area. Prior to the opening of this facility, the Police Department was housed in a 15,165 square foot facility. As shown in Figure P3, the construction of this new station represents a substantial increase to the Town’s level-of-service. For example, the level-of-service per person in 2018 is 0.262 square feet per person. In 2019, with the construction of the new stations, the level-of-service person is 0.408 square feet per person. To ensure that new development is not correcting an existing deficiency, TischlerBise is utilizing a cost recovery method based on the total projected service units in 2033, the last year of debt service. As shown in Figure P3, the level-of-service per person is projected to be 0.349 square feet in 2033, an Type of Household Persons per Housing Unit1 Single-Family 2.09 Multi-Family 1.51 Type Trips per 1,000 Sq. Ft.2 Trip Rate Adjustment Adjusted Trips per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Industrial 4.96 50%2.48 Commercial/Retail 37.75 33%12.46 Institutional 19.52 33%6.44 Office and Other 9.74 50%4.87 Hotel (per room)8.36 50%4.18 1. Derived from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, 2017 2. ITE Trip Generation Rates, 10th Edition (2017). Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 28 increase of 25% over the current level-of-service. The level-of-service per nonresidential vehicle trip is projected to be 0.129 in 2033, an increase of 20% over the current level-of-service. Figure P3: Police Facilities and Level-of-Service Analysis As shown in Figure P4, the total facility cost (including principal and interest) totaled $2,549,274. The cost recovery portion of the Police Facilities development fee will be used to cover new development’s share of Police Station debt service payments. When this cost is spread over the projected service unit (population and nonresidential vehicle trips) in 2033 (the year the debt obligation is retired), the cost per person is $37.04 and the cost per nonresidential trip is $13.75. Based on the land use assumptions, it is projected that new development will generate development fee revenue of approximately $298,000 over the next 10 years. Figure P4: Police Facilities Service Unit Cost Summary Police Vehicles and Equipment – Incremental Expansion The first step in applying the incremental expansion method to Police Vehicles is determining the cost of new vehicles. The Town provided an inventory of police vehicles along with cost which is displayed in Facility Cost Proportionate Share Demand Unit Demand Units in 2033 Cost per Demand Unit 78%person 53,684 $37.04 22%nonres. trip 40,798 $13.75 10-Year Increase in Population 5,991 10-Year Increase in Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 5,534 10-Year Cost Recovery $297,984 Current Remaining Principal $2,549,274 10-Year Development Fee Revenue $297,984 Remaining Principal in 2028 $2,251,290 Oro Valley Police Station $2,549,274 Year Square Feet Residential Proportionate Share Residential Share of Square Footage Residential Service Units (Population) LOS per Person Nonesidential Proportionate Share Nonresidential Share of Square Footage Nonresidential Service Units (Vehicle Trips) LOS per Nonres. Trip 2018 15,165 78%11,829 45,184 0.262 22%3,336 32,153 0.104 2019 24,000 78%18,720 45,857 0.408 22%5,280 32,668 0.162 2033 24,000 78%18,720 53,684 0.349 22%5,280 40,798 0.129 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 29 Figure P5. The Oro Valley Police Department has an inventory of 129 vehicles, which have a total estimated replacement cost of $6 million. Dividing the total cost by the total number of units yields an average cost per unit of $46,563. The level-of-service standards and cost analysis for police vehicles are continued on the following page. The current residential level-of-service is 0.0022 units per resident, which was obtained by multiplying the 129 units by the residential proportionate share (78%) and dividing this amount by the current population (45,184). Similarly, the nonresidential level-of-service is 0.0009 units per vehicle trip. Multiplying the average cost per unit ($46,563) by the residential and nonresidential levels-of-service results in a cost per person of $102.44 and $41.91 per vehicle trip. Note that while the LOS Standards shown are rounded to the fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). Figure P5: Police Vehicles and Equipment Inventory and Level-of-Service Standards Description Number of Units Cost per Unit Replacement Cost Patrol Tahoe 62 $62,362 $3,866,470 Van 3 $35,000 $105,000 ID Truck 3 $55,023 $165,069 Motorcycle 8 $30,480 $243,840 CRU Truck 4 $30,688 $122,752 Specialty/Under Cover 8 $62,362 $498,899 C.V.A.P.5 $27,440 $137,200 Other-Crown Victoria, Impala, Camry 36 $24,095 $867,420 Total 129 $46,563 $6,006,650 Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards Existing Units 129 2018 Population 45,184 2018 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 32,153 Residential Share 78% Nonresidential Share 22% LOS per Person 0.0022 LOS per Nonresidential Trip 0.0009 Cost Analysis Cost per Vehicle $46,563 LOS: Vehicles per Person 0.0022 LOS: Vehicles per Vehicle Trip 0.0009 Cost per Person $102.44 Cost per Vehicle Trip $41.91 Source: Town of Oro Valley, AZ Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 30 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Police Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report totals $15,268. Oro Valley plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per person is $3.80 and the cost per nonresidential trip is $1.05. Figure P6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” The Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 5,991 persons and 5,534 nonresidential vehicle trips over the next 10 years, as shown in Figure P7. ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” As shown in Figure P7, this new development will demand approximately 18 additional units of vehicles. The 10-year total of the projected demand for new police vehicles/equipment is multiplied by the cost to determine the total cost to accommodate the projected demand over the next 10 years. The projected demand for additional police vehicles and equipment will cost approximately $846,050 in total. Necessary Public Service Cost Assessed Against Proportionate Share Demand Unit 2019 2024 Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential 78%Population 45,857 48,989 3,132 $3.80 Nonresidential 22%Trips 32,153 35,364 3,211 $1.05 Police $15,268 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 31 Figure P7: Projected Demand for Police Vehicles POLICE FACILITIES IIP ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Potential Police Facilities that Oro Valley may use development fees for in order to accommodate new development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure P8. Additional vehicles will be procured as necessitated by growth. Demand Unit Cost per Unit 0.0022 Units Per Person 0.0009 Units Per Nonres. Trip Year Population Nonres. Trips Residential Nonresidential Total Patrol Vehicles Base 2018 45,184 32,153 99 29 128 Year 1 2019 45,857 32,668 101 29 130 Year 2 2020 46,536 33,191 102 30 132 Year 3 2021 47,192 33,717 104 30 134 Year 4 2022 47,820 34,264 105 31 136 Year 5 2023 48,413 34,814 107 31 138 Year 6 2024 48,989 35,364 108 32 140 Year 7 2025 49,557 35,930 109 32 141 Year 8 2026 50,112 36,505 110 33 143 Year 9 2027 50,648 37,088 111 33 145 Year 10 2028 51,175 37,688 113 34 147 10-Yr Increase 5,991 5,534 13 5 18 Growth-Related Expenditures =>$614,166 $231,884 $846,050 Type of Infrastructure Level of Service Police Vehicles $46,563 Need for Police Vehicles and Equipment Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 32 Figure P8: Necessary Police Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total) POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Required Offsets The Town of Oro Valley will fund the new Police Station with a bond that will be retired using sales tax. Since new development will generate future sales tax that may be used to retire debt, TischlerBise has calculated an offset for the Police Facilities development fee. As discussed previously, the new Police Station will elevate the level-of-service for station space within the Town. The cost per service unit for the station component was determined based on the projected 2033 demand base, which would represent a 25% increase in the level-of-service for residential development and a 20% increase for nonresidential development. To determine the offset for future principal payments, TischlerBise obtained the amortization schedule for this debt. Given the fact this new facility results in an increase in the level-of- service, TischlerBise apportioned the share of future principal payments to residential and nonresidential development that is used to elevate the existing level-of-service (discussed above) and calculated a net present value of the offset. For example, the projected principal payment in FY2021-22 is $121,500. This payment is multiplied the Police Facilities proportionate share factors (shown in Figure P1) to determine the residential and nonresidential shares, which is then multiplied further by the projected level-of-service increase (25% for residential development and 20% for nonresidential development). These residential and nonresidential shares are then divided by the residential and nonresidential service units to determine the appropriate offset. As shown in Figure P9, projected future principal payments from residential development that is directed toward the level-of-service increase is $396,825. Annual principal payments are discounted using a net present value formula based on the bond interest rate of 3.02%. The nonresidential share is $89,540. This results in offset per person of $7.89 and $2.42 per nonresidential vehicle trip. Timeframe Estimated Cost 2020-2028 $846,050 Total $846,050 Police Infrastructure Improvement Plan Improvement Police Vehicles Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 33 Figure P9: Offset for Future Principal Payments Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees The proposed Police development fees are shown in Figure P10. Cost factors for police facilities, vehicles and equipment, and professional services are summarized at the top of the figure. The residential development fees are calculated by multiplying the $135.39 cost per person by the service unit ratios (persons per housing unit) for each housing type. Nonresidential development fees are calculated by multiplying the $54.28 per vehicle trip by the average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet ratios and the trip adjustment factors for each development type. Proposed development fees for Police increased for most all nonresidential development type and decrease slightly for residential from the current fees. Principal Payments Residential Share (x25%)Population Debt Cost Per Capita Nonresidential Share (x20%) Nonres Vehicle Trips Debt Cost Per Trip End 2018-2019 $77,250 $15,064 45,857 $0.33 $3,399 32,668 $0.10 2019-2020 $114,500 $22,328 46,536 $0.48 $5,038 33,191 $0.15 2020-2021 $117,750 $22,961 47,192 $0.49 $5,181 33,717 $0.15 2021-2022 $121,500 $23,693 47,820 $0.50 $5,346 34,264 $0.16 2022-2023 $125,000 $24,375 48,413 $0.50 $5,500 34,814 $0.16 2023-2024 $129,000 $25,155 48,989 $0.51 $5,676 35,364 $0.16 2024-2025 $132,750 $25,886 49,557 $0.52 $5,841 35,930 $0.16 2025-2026 $136,750 $26,666 50,112 $0.53 $6,017 36,505 $0.16 2026-2027 $141,000 $27,495 50,648 $0.54 $6,204 37,088 $0.17 2027-2028 $145,250 $28,324 51,175 $0.55 $6,391 37,688 $0.17 2028-2029 $149,500 $29,153 51,687 $0.56 $6,578 38,288 $0.17 2029-2030 $154,000 $30,030 52,188 $0.58 $6,776 38,898 $0.17 2030-2031 $158,750 $30,956 52,679 $0.59 $6,985 39,522 $0.18 2031-2032 $163,500 $31,883 53,190 $0.60 $7,194 40,156 $0.18 2032-2033 $168,500 $32,858 53,684 $0.61 $7,414 40,798 $0.18 Total $2,035,000 $396,825 $89,540 3.02%3.02% $7.89 $2.42 Discount Rate Net Present Value Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 34 Figure P10: Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation. Development Fee Revenues for Police Facilities and Vehicles Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the proposed Police development fees and that development over the next 10 years is consistent with the Land Use Assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. As shown in Figure P11, the 10-year costs of police facilities and vehicles total approximately $2.0 million, and approximately $1.05 million will be collected from development fees. The result is a deficit of approximately $1.0 million. This deficit is due to the share of costs for the new Police Station that is attributable to the existing development base. Cost per Person Cost per Nonres. Trip $37.04 $13.75 $102.44 $41.91 $3.80 $1.05 ($7.89)($2.42) $135.39 $54.28 Residential (per unit) Unit Type Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Fee Current Fee Increase / Decrease Single Unit 2.09 $283 $310 ($27) Multifamily 1.51 $204 $215 ($11) Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Land Use Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends Trip Rate Adjustment Proposed Fee Current Fee Increase / Decrease Hotel/Motel (room)8.36 50%$227 $200 $27 Retail/Commercial 37.75 33%$0.68 $0.45 $0.23 Office & Other Services 9.74 50%$0.26 $0.16 $0.10 Industrial 4.96 50%$0.13 $0.07 $0.07 Warehouse 1.74 50%$0.05 $0.06 ($0.01) Public/Institutional 19.52 33%$0.35 $0.12 $0.23 Fee Component Substation Debt Vehicles and Equipment Offest for Future Principal Payment Total Development Fee Study Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 35 Figure P11: Projected Police Development Fee Revenue Infrastructure Cost for Police Facilities Growth Share $1,198,500 $846,050 $15,268 $2,059,818 Police Facilities Development Fee Revenue Single-Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $283 $204 $0.13 $0.68 $0.35 $0.26 per unit per unit per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft. Hsg Unit Hsg Unit KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 17,158 5,478 620 1,407 545 1,965 Year 1 2019 17,407 5,497 630 1,430 554 1,996 Year 2 2020 17,613 5,562 640 1,453 563 2,028 Year 3 2021 17,822 5,628 650 1,476 571 2,061 Year 4 2022 18,033 5,695 661 1,500 581 2,094 Year 5 2023 18,246 5,762 671 1,524 591 2,127 Year 6 2024 18,463 5,830 681 1,548 599 2,162 Year 7 2025 18,682 5,899 692 1,573 609 2,196 Year 8 2026 18,903 5,969 704 1,598 619 2,231 Year 9 2027 19,128 6,040 715 1,624 628 2,267 Year 10 2028 19,354 6,112 726 1,650 639 2,303 2,196 634 106 243 94 338 Projected Revenue $621,541 $129,605 $13,831 $164,924 $32,759 $87,883 $1,050,544 ($1,009,274) Projected Fee Revenue Surplus/(Deficit) Fee Component Substation Debt Police Vehicles Development Fee Report Total Year Ten-Year Increase Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 36 STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(e) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Street Facilities IIP: “Street facilities located in the service area, including arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted plan of the municipality, traffic signals and rights- of-way and improvements thereon.” The Street Facilities IIP includes components for arterial street improvements and the cost of professional services for preparing the Street Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for arterial and related street improvements, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report. Service Area The service area for the Street Facilities IIP is Townwide, however due to the probability of incremental development outside existing Town limits, Oro Valley may want to enter into development/annexation agreements, or use some other instrument with prospective developers working outside established Town limits which may include payments to the Town to help cover the cost of street infrastructure improvements and/or mitigation measures that are determined to be necessary. METHODOLOGY Street Facilities development fees use an incremental expansion methodology and allocate capital costs to residential and nonresidential development based on vehicle miles of travel using average weekday vehicle trips and average trip lengths. This methodology allows Oro Valley to maintain the current level- of-service standard as growth occurs. Development fee revenue collected using this methodology may not be used to replace or rehabilitate existing improvements. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. Trip length, trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors are used to determine the proportionate impact of residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses on the Town’s street network. RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.” Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 37 Service Units The appropriate service unit for the Street Facilities development fees is vehicle miles of travel (VMT). VMT creates the link between supply (roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new development). Components used to determine VMT include: trip generation rates, adjustments for commuting patterns and pass-by trips, and trip length weighting factors, are discussed further in this section. Figure S1: Summary of Service Units Trip Generation Rates For nonresidential development, the trip generation rates are from the 10th edition of the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2017). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). As an alternative to using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. This is explained in more detail in Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions. Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-By Trips To calculate Street Facilities Development Fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%. As discussed further below, the development fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 63% to account for commuters leaving Oro Valley for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, weekday work trips are typically 31% of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50% of all trips). As shown in Figure S2, the Census Bureau’s web application OnTheMap indicates that 87% of resident workers traveled outside the Town for work in 2015. In combination, these factors (0.31 X 0.50 X 0.87 = .13) support the additional 13% allocation of trips to residential development. Single Units 210 8.20 HU 63%5.17 3.10 Multifamily 220 4.30 HU 63%2.71 3.10 Industrial (KSF)110 4.96 KSF 50%2.48 1.94 Commercial / Retail (KSF)820 37.75 KSF 33%12.46 1.99 Institutional (KSF)520 19.52 KSF 33%6.44 1.94 Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 KSF 50%4.87 1.94 Local Trip LengthDevelopment Type ITE Code Weekday VTE Dev Unit Trip Adj Adj Trip Rate Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 38 Figure S2: Inflow/Outflow Analysis For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34% of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66% of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 33% of the trips. These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use. ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” As shown in Appendix C, the Town of Oro Valley provided an inventory of arterial road segments, including segment lengths, lane quantities, and annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts. Multiplying each segment’s length by the number of lanes yields the number of lane miles per segment. The Town’s arterial road network consists of 118.5 lane miles. By multiplying the traffic counts and segment lengths, the daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is obtained. The sum of each arterial road segment’s VMT is 383,580. Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters 1 Employed Residents 14,961 Residents Working in Oro Valley 1,946 Residents Working Outside Oro Valley (Commuters)13,015 Percent Commuting out of Oro Valley 87% Additional Production Trips2 13% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 63% 1. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application (version 6.6) and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2015. 2. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2009)*, published in December 2011 (see Table 30), home-based work trips are typically 30.99 percent of “production” trips, in other words, out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, LED OnTheMap data from 2015 indicate that 87 percent of Oro Valley workers travel outside the town for work. In combination, these factors (0.3099 x 0.50 x 0.87 = 0.1347) account for 13 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (13 percent of production trips) for a total of 63 percent. *http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml ; Summary of Travel Trends - Table "Daily Travel Statistics Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 39 Figure S3 documents the capacity of Oro Valley’s arterial road network. According to Town staff, the Town’s arterial streets operate at a Level-of-Service A, and the average number of lanes for arterials is roughly 4 lanes. A mile segment of a 4-lane arterial street with a Level-of-Service A should maintain a daily volume of 12,600 vehicles, or 3,150 vehicles per lane mile over a 24-hour period. Given the incremental expansion methodology used in this analysis, and the Town’s current level-of-service (LOS A), the baseline VMC/VMT ratio for any incremental expansion method is 1.0 (i.e., VMC=VMT). Figure S3: Arterial Road Network Capacity and Usage Vehicle Trips Figure S4 shows the calculation of vehicle trips generated by existing development. When the average weekday VTE and Trip Adjustment percentages (shown in Figure S1) are multiplied by the development unit quantities for Oro Valley from the Land Use Assumption in Appendix A (housing units and nonresidential KSF), the total number of vehicle trips generated by existing development is determined. As shown in Figure S4, this totals 135,631 adjusted vehicle trips. Figure S4: Vehicle Trips Average Trip Length For the incremental expansion methodology, it is necessary to determine the average trip length on the Town’s arterial network. To do this, national trip generation rates and average trip lengths from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey are used to determine expected VMT on the Town’s transportation network. Figure S5 shows average trip lengths from the National Household Travel Survey (2017).1 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Travel Survey. URL: http://nhts.ornl.gov 118.5 3,150 383,580 383,580 1.00 VMC/VMT Ratio Total Vehicle Lane Miles Capacity per Lane Mile (LOS A) Total Vehicle Miles of Capacity Existing Vehicle Miles of Travel Single Units 210 8.20 HU 63%88,638 Multifamily 220 4.30 HU 63%14,840 Industrial (KSF)110 4.96 KSF 50%1,537 Commercial / Retail (KSF)820 37.75 KSF 33%17,533 Institutional 520 19.52 KSF 33%3,514 Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 KSF 50%9,570 135,631 2018 Dev UnitsDevelopment Type ITE Code Weekday VTE Dev Unit Trip Adj Total Adjusted Vehicle Trips Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 40 Figure S5: National Average Trip Lengths The national average trip length needs to be adjusted to reflect actual local demand on the Town’s arterial network. To do this, TischlerBise first determines expected demand (VMT) on the Town’s complete transportation network using the above national travel demand characteristics. Average daily trips from existing development in each land use category are multiplied by the applicable average trip lengths. Figure S6. Expected VMT in the Town of Oro Valley Because expected VMT reflects anticipated travel demand from Town development on the entire roadway system, it is therefore higher than actual VMT on the arterial system in the Town. To calibrate demand on the arterial system, expected travel demand is compared to actual VMT obtained from the Town of Oro Valley. The ratio between actual and expected VMT provides a local adjustment factor that can be applied to national average trip lengths by type of land use. The local adjustment factor is shown in Figure S7. Land Use National Average Trip Lenght (miles) Residential 12.32 Industrial 7.70 Commercial/Retail 7.90 Institutional 7.70 Office and Other 7.70 * U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Transportation Survey, adjusted for land use Land Use ADT National Avg Trip Length (miles) Expected VMT Single Units 88,638 12.32 1,092,023 Multifamily 14,840 12.32 182,828 Industrial 1,537 7.70 11,838 Commercial/Retail 17,533 7.90 138,507 Institutional 3,514 7.70 27,054 Office & Other 9,570 7.70 73,687 Total 1,525,937 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 41 Figure S7. Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor As shown in Figure S8, the national average trips lengths are adjusted to reflect local conditions. Figure S8. Local Average Trip Lengths by Land Use Using the above factors, VMT per service unit is calculated, shown below in Figure S9. Figure S9. VMT per Service Unit on Arterial Network Cost per VMT and Infrastructure Improvement Plan Figure S10 contains a list of planned transportation projects including intersection improvements and multi-modal facilities which Oro Valley plans to construct over the next 10 years. The total estimated cost of these projects includes a credit of $2.86 million for street development impact fees which were collected between 2014 and 2018 but have not yet been spent. Actual Local VMT on Arterials*383,580 Expected Local VMT^1,525,937 Actual to Expected VMT 0.251 * Town of Oro Valley 2018 Inventory ^ TischlerBise analysis Type National Avg Trip Length (miles) Local Adj. Factor Local Trip Length Residential 12.32 0.251 3.10 Industrial 7.70 0.251 1.94 Commercial/Retail 7.90 0.251 1.99 Institutional 7.70 0.251 1.94 Office and Other 7.70 0.251 1.94 Hotel (per room)7.70 0.251 1.94 Sources: National trip length from 2017 NHTS and TischlerBise; local adjustment from Figure S9. Single Units 210 8.20 63%5.17 3.10 16.00 Multifamily 220 4.30 63%2.71 3.10 8.39 Industrial (KSF)110 4.96 50%2.48 1.94 4.80 Commercial / Retail (KSF)820 37.75 33%12.46 1.99 24.74 Institutional (KSF)520 19.52 33%6.44 1.94 12.47 Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 50%4.87 1.94 9.43 Hotel (per room)310 8.36 50%4.18 1.94 8.09 Warehousing (KSF)150 1.74 50%0.87 1.94 1.68 Development Type ITE Code Weekday VTE Trip Adj Adj Trip Rate Local Trip Length VMT per Service Unit Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 42 Figure S10: Street Facilities Improvement Improvements Plan A cost per vehicle mile of capacity (VMC) is calculated based on the average cost per lane mile of $429,245 and the average lane capacity of 3,150 average daily vehicle trips (per 1 lane mile). This results in a $136.27 cost per VMC. The incremental expansion methodology assumes the ratio of VMC to VMT is 1, therefore the cost per VMT is also $136.27. Figure S11: Cost per VMT Factors SERVICE UNITS, DEMAND, AND COST FOR SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” TischlerBise created an aggregate travel model to convert development units within Oro Valley to vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. This includes the factors discussed above, as well as average trip length, and is shown in Figure S12. Travel Demand Model ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” Cost per Lane Mile $429,245 Capacity per Lane Mile 3,150 Cost per VMC $136.27 Location Description New Lanes Distance Lane Miles Total Project Cost La Cholla Blvd, Tangerine Rd-Lambert Ln Road Widening 2.0 3.0 6.0 $1,700,000 Shannon Rd, Tangerine Rd-Naranja Dr New Road 2.0 1.0 2.0 $1,000,000 Lambert Ln. .5 mi E of Shannnon-Rancho Sonora Road Widening 2.0 1.0 2.0 $1,000,000 Rancho Vistosto & Woodbume Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $750,000 Oracle Rd & Rams Field Intersection Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $750,000 Moore Rd La Cholla Blvd Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $900,000 Moore Rd -extension E of Rancho Vistoso Blvd New Road & Intersection 2.0 2.0 4.0 $1,026,840 Moore Rd & La Canada Dr Intersection Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $1,200,000 Glover Rd Multi Use Path Multi-modal facility 0.0 0.3 0.0 $150,000 Glover Rd south half widening Road Widening 1.0 0.3 0.3 $500,000 Total 14.25 $8,976,840 $2,860,095 $6,116,745 14.25 $429,245 2018 DIF Balance Total Cost Lane Miles Cost per Lane Mile Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 43 Projected development in Oro Valley over the next 10 years, and the corresponding need for additional lane miles is shown in Figure S12. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert project development into average weekday vehicle trips. New development in Oro Valley will generate 18,599 trips. ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” The travel demand model inputs above (Figure S9) are used to derive level-of-service in Vehicle Miles of Travel and future needs of lane miles. A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. As shown in Figure S12, based on the increase in vehicle miles of travel (51,323), the Town of Oro Valley would need to construct an additional 16.3 lane miles of arterials to accommodate projected development over the next 10 years in order to maintain current level-of-service. Figure S12: Projected Travel Demand Model ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Multiplying the increase in number of lane miles (16.3) by the cost per lane mile from Figure S10 ($429,245) results in a 10-year cost of approximately $6.99 million attributed to arterial lane miles. However, the Town of Oro Valley only expects plans to build approximately 14.25 lane and intersections, at a net cost of $6.1 million, which yields an adjusted cost per VMT of $119.18. 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 Single Units 17,158 17,407 17,613 17,822 18,033 18,246 19,354 2,196 Multifamily 5,478 5,497 5,562 5,628 5,695 5,762 6,112 634 Industrial KSF 620 630 640 650 661 671 726 106 Commercial / Retail (KSF)1,407 1,430 1,453 1,476 1,500 1,524 1,650 243 Institutional 545 554 563 571 581 591 639 94 Office & Other (KSF)1,965 1,996 2,028 2,061 2,094 2,127 2,303 338 Single Unit Res Trips 88,638 89,924 90,989 92,067 93,157 94,261 99,985 11,347 Multifamily Unit Res Trips 14,840 14,891 15,068 15,246 15,427 15,609 16,557 1,717 Industrial Trips 1,537 1,562 1,586 1,612 1,638 1,664 1,801 264 Commercial Trips 17,533 17,815 18,102 18,389 18,687 18,985 20,554 3,021 Institutional 3,514 3,569 3,624 3,680 3,742 3,805 4,116 603 Office & Other Trips 9,570 9,722 9,878 10,036 10,197 10,361 11,216 1,646 Total Nonresidential Trips 32,153 32,668 33,191 33,717 34,264 34,814 37,688 Total Vehicle Trips 135,631 137,483 139,247 141,030 142,848 144,685 154,230 18,599 VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel 383,580 388,732 393,602 398,524 403,535 408,600 434,903 51,323 25,021 Additional Lane Miles 1.64 1.55 1.56 1.59 1.61 1.72 16.3 Growth-Related Cost $702,066 $663,621 $670,815 $682,823 $690,203 $737,272 $6,993,749 10-Year Increase DevelopmentAverage Weekday Vehicle TripsNEED Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 44 Figure S13: Adjusted Cost per Vehicle Mile of Travel/Vehicle Mile of Capacity Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Report totals $15,268. Oro Valley plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost is $0.61 per vehicle mile of travel. Figure S14: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Required Offsets The Arizona Development Impact Fee Act requires consideration of any ‘excess” construction sales tax that may be used to fund growth-related capital facilities. The Town has a construction sales tax rate of 4 percent, of which 1.5% is in excess of the Town’s regular sales tax rate of 2.5%. However, the Town accounts for all sales tax within its General Fund, so there is no dedicated portion directed towards growth-related capital improvements. However, the Town does have a policy of allocating a minimum of 5% of the Town’s estimated excise tax collections to fund capital needs including asset repair and maintenance, subject to Council approval and funding availability. For purposes of the development fees, an offset for “excess” construction sales tax is provided for the Street Facilities development fee although at present, any construction sales tax directed toward capital improvements is dedicated to debt service payments for capital facilities that are not development fee eligible or credits have already been evaluated. The Town of Oro Valley provided a 5-year projection of total construction sales tax, which totals $21.6 million, or $4.3 million on an average annual basis. The “excess” portion of that sales tax totals $8.1 million, or $1.6 million annually. As stated previously (an in more detail in Appendix B), much of this revenue is already committed to non-development fee eligible debt obligations. However, in keeping with the Town’s policy of allocating 5% of sales tax collections, TischlerBise has provided an offset for 5% of the “excess” construction sales tax, which results in an offset per VMT of $16.05. IIP Cost $6,116,745 10-Year Increase in VMT/VMC 51,323 Cost per VMC $119.18 Necessary Public Service Cost Assessed Against Proportionate Share Demand Unit 2019 2024 Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential All Development Nonresidential All Development 388,732 413,714 24,982 $0.61VMTTransportation$15,268 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 45 Figure S15: Offset for Excess Construction Sales Tax Revenue Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees The existing Street Facilities development fees and how much they differ from the proposed development fees are shown in Figure S16. Cost factor for road improvements and professional services are summarized at the top of the figure. Proposed fees represent a decrease across all categories of development. Residential development fees are expressed per housing unit. Nonresidential development fees are expressed per square foot of floor area. The Street Facilities development fees are calculated by multiplying the $103.74 net cost per VMT/VMC by the VMT per development unit for each land use type. Construction Excess 5% of Excess Annual VMT Sales Tax (4%)Portion (1.5%)Portion Increase FY 20/21 $4,550,000 $1,706,250 $85,313 4,923 FY 21/22 $5,099,004 $1,912,127 $95,606 5,011 FY 22/23 $4,762,470 $1,785,926 $89,296 5,065 FY 23/24 $3,709,964 $1,391,237 $69,562 5,114 FY 24/25 $3,535,596 $1,325,849 $66,292 5,193 Total $21,657,034 $8,121,388 $406,069 25,305 Avg. Annual $4,331,407 $1,624,278 $81,214 5,061 Offset per VMT $16.05 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 46 Figure S16: Proposed and Existing Fees Comparison PROJECTED STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE Projected fee revenue shown in Figure S17 is based on the development projections in the Land Use Assumptions (see Appendix A) and the updated Street Facilities development fees (see Figure S16). Expenditures on arterial street improvements are derived from the anticipated need for approximately 14.25 new lane miles over the next 10 years (see Figure S10) at a cost of $6.1 million. Anticipated development fee revenue is approximately $800,000 less than expenditures due to the offset for “excess” construction sales tax revenue. Input Variables $119.18 $0.61 ($16.05) $103.74 Residential Development (per Housing Unit) Development Type VMT per Development Unit Proposed Fees Current Fee Increase / Decrease Single Unit 16.00 $1,660 $1,990 ($330) Multifamily 8.39 $870 $1,231 ($361) Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Development Type VMT per Development Unit Proposed Fees Current Fee Increase / Decrease Hotel/Motel (room)8.09 $839 $758 $81 Retail/Commercial 24.74 $2.57 $2.41 $0.15 Office & Other Services 9.43 $0.98 $1.82 ($0.84) Industrial 4.80 $0.50 $0.98 ($0.49) Warehouse 1.68 $0.17 $0.92 ($0.74) Public/Institutional 12.47 $1.29 $1.38 ($0.09) Cost per VMT/VMC Development Fee Study Net Cost per VMT Offset for "Excess" Construction Sales Tax Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 47 Figure S17: Projected Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue Growth Share Within 10 Yrs. $6,116,745 $15,268 $6,132,013 Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue Single Unit Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $1,660 $870 $0.50 $2.57 $1.29 $0.98 per unit per unit per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft. Hsg Unit Hsg Unit KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 17,158 5,478 620 1,407 545 1,965 Year 1 2019 17,407 5,497 630 1,430 554 1,996 Year 2 2020 17,613 5,562 640 1,453 563 2,028 Year 3 2021 17,822 5,628 650 1,476 571 2,061 Year 4 2022 18,033 5,695 661 1,500 581 2,094 Year 5 2023 18,246 5,762 671 1,524 591 2,127 Year 6 2024 18,463 5,830 681 1,548 599 2,162 Year 7 2025 18,682 5,899 692 1,573 609 2,196 Year 8 2026 18,903 5,969 704 1,598 619 2,231 Year 9 2027 19,128 6,040 715 1,624 628 2,267 Year 10 2028 19,354 6,112 726 1,650 639 2,303 2,196 634 106 243 94 338 $3,645,692 $551,768 $52,984 $622,471 $121,068 $330,549 Projected Development Fee Revenue $5,324,532 Total Expenditures $6,132,013 Surplus/(Deficit)($807,481) 10-Year Increase Year Fee Component Total Arterial Street Improvements Development Fee Study 10-Year Projected Revenue Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 48 WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(a) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Water Facilities IIP: “Water facilities, including the supply, transportation, treatment, purification and distribution of water, and any appurtenances for those facilities.” The Water Facilities IIP includes components for the plan-based development of various improvements to integrate the delivery of additional CAP water needed to serve future growth. The Town completed a master plan in 2006 which provided recommended system improvements to allow for the initial delivery of CAP water allocation. Beginning in 2012, the Town began delivering a portion of this water allocation through the Tucson Water distribution system and, in 2024, the Town will significantly expand their CAP water deliveries through the Northwest Recharge, Recovery, and Delivery System (NWRRDS). The project will result in a transition from majority well supply to a more balanced well and CAP water supply and will require a significant change in the way the distribution system is operated and how water is delivered across the system. These changes are required to accommodate the water demands attributed to growth and to ensure that groundwater pumping stays below 5,000 AFY as an established target identified in the Master Plan. In 2018, the Town adopted the Potable Water Master Plan (the Master Plan) which provides a 10-year planning horizon road map for the Town Water Utility. The Master Plan includes infrastructure improvements that will benefit existing customers as well as future growth. The relationship between infrastructure historically funded with PWSDIF revenue and infrastructure funded with AWRDIF revenue are very similar. Both are potable water resource driven and both are required to meet the demands of growth. As such, the infrastructure needs are being combined into one IIP resulting in the creation of one new development impact fee to replace the two existing impact fees. The new development impact fee will be known as the Water Facilities Development Impact Fee. The Water Facilities Development Impact Fee is intended to fund all types of water resources, the infrastructure to deliver those resources and any related debt including CAP capital infrastructure repayment costs. Upon the completion of the 10-year infrastructure improvement plan (IIP), the Town will have the capacity to deliver 4,960 acre-feet per year (AFY) of CAP water into the main service area which will reduce groundwater pumping from 5,320 AFY to 4,400 AFY thereby complying with the Town’s targeted groundwater production goal of no more than 5,000 AFY. The Master Plan identifies a number of system improvements required to accommodate future growth, including new wells, storage, pipelines and approximately 20 separate NWRRDS projects to allow integration of additional CAP supply into the distribution system. In addition to these costs, the cost of professional services for preparing the Water Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report have been included. Service Area Because new development in Oro Valley will connect to the Town’s water system, the service area for Water Facilities IIP is Townwide. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 49 The Water Facilities IIP and development fees are assessed on both residential and nonresidential development as both types of development create a burden for additional water facilities. Customers by land use are used to determine the proportionate share of this burden. In 2017-2018, approximately 82% of water connections in Oro Valley were for single family residential units, accounting for approximately 75% of the average daily demand. Approximately 12% of connections were for multifamily housing and nonresidential connections, accounting for approximately 13% of the average daily demand. Irrigation use accounts for the remaining 12% of use. As shown in Figure W1, equivalent residential service unit factors for commercial/industrial meters recognize these types of meters use far more water on average than a comparably sized single family water meter. For example, a typical single family meter demands 0.28 acre feet a year, whereas commercial/industrial users in Oro Valley demand 0.31 acre feet annually, which is 1.11 times the single family residential equivalent. Figure W1: Water Facilities Consumption Data and Service Unit Capacity Factor RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.” Water Facilities development fees are assessed by meter. Therefore, capacity ratios by meter size are the appropriate demand indicator for Water Facilities. Capacity ratios equate 5/8" (0.625) meters to the average day gallons per single-family residential unit. Utilizing average day gallons is the most efficient way to show a direct relationship between development units, usage, and system capacity. The nonresidential Water Facilities development fees are calculated by multiplying the number of gallons per single-family unit by the capacity ratio for the corresponding size and type of water meter, which are provided by the American Water Works Association (2012) and shown in Figure W2 below. Total# SU Total Water Use % Annual Water Use per SU AF per SU per Year SU Capacity Factor Single Family 19,918 1,812,556,000 75%91,001 0.28 1.00 Multi-Family 1,002 112,985,000 5%112,759 0.09 0.32 Commercial 1,967 200,660,000 8%102,013 0.31 1.11 Irrigation 1,351 277,513,000 12%205,413 0.63 2.25 Total 24,238 2,403,714,000 100% Source: TOVWU Classification and Consumption 2017-2018 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 50 Figure W2: Water Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY AND USAGE OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Water Facilities Level-of-Service Standards The Town delivers a combination of groundwater and CAP water wheeled through the Tucson Water distribution system to meet its potable water demands within its service area. The existing water distribution system consists of approximately 366 miles of public water mains, 13 storage reservoirs and 24 pump stations. In 2017, the Town main service area potable water production consisted of 5,069 acre- feet of groundwater (73 percent of total production) and 1,842 acre-feet of CAP water (27 percent of production). The Town manages 17 active wells with a total approximate pumping capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The well demand fluctuates daily, but according to the Master Plan, typical well demand during average day conditions is approximately 4 MGD, and during peak day conditions typically increases to 8 MGD. All of the wells are permitted by ADWR as recovery wells, which allows the use of recharge credits to offset its annual replenishment obligations as determined by the state’s Assured Water Meter Size (inches)Capacity Ratio** 5/8" 1.00 3/4" 1.50 1"2.50 1.5"5.00 2" 8.00 3" 16.00 4" 25.00 6" 50.00 8" 80.00 **AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 51 Supply (AWS) rules. In addition to the wells, the Town receives approximately 2,600 AFY of CAP water wheeled through the Tucson Water distribution system, which based on the IIP will increase to 4,960 AFY upon completion of the NWRRDS project. Finally, the Town is served by 13 storage reservoirs representing 10.45 million gallons (MG) of storage for the distribution system. The Town maintains operating storage criteria of 1.25 times average day demand. PROJECTED DEMAND FOR WATER FACILITIES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” Current water consumption and number of connections area shown in Figure W3. Figure W3 also shows the ratio of connections to housing units and jobs for residential and nonresidential development. These standards are used for calculating future demand shown below in Figure W4. Figure W3: Water Facilities Level-of-Service Standards Residential 4,965,907 19,918 249 0.94 Nonresidential 549,753 1,967 279 0.19 Irrigation 760,310 1,351 563 0.06 Total 6,585,518 24,238 272 1. 2018 Oro Valley Water Utility Water Classification by use. Connections per HU/JobTypeAverage Gallons per Day1 Connections1 Gallons per Connection per Day Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 52 Future projections of water connections and consumption are shown in Figure W4, divided between residential and nonresidential development. Water connection projections are derived from the connections per HU/Job ratios in Figure W3 and the projected growth contained in the Land Use Assumptions (Appendix A). Over the next 10 years, it is projected there will be an increase of 2,811 residential connections and 344 nonresidential connections. Water consumption projections were derived using the Gallons per Day per Connection ratios in Figure W3. As shown in Figure W4, this will result in an estimated additional 892,818 gallons of water consumption per day by 2028. Figure W4: Future Projections of Water Consumption WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Cost Recovery for Excess Capacity in Supply Projects In 2007 the Town acquired 3,557 acre feet of additional CAP water to meet the water demands for future growth. As of December of 2019, the Town’s Water Utility has calculated that of the original 3,557 acre feet earmarked for growth, approximately 3,000 acre feet (2,678,227 gallons per day) remains available. Based on current consumption rates, this remaining capacity can serve additional 10,715 equivalent service units. Remaining debt for this water allocation is $3,436,451. Therefore, the Water Facilities development fee includes a cost recovery component shown in Figure W5, which recognizes the original acquisition in the form of a cost recovery of $320.74 per service unit ($3,436,451/10,714=$320.74). Figure W5: Cost Recovery for Supply Projects Service Units Avg. Gallons per Day Service Units Avg. Gallons per Day Base 2018 6,585,518 20,920 1,967 1,351 24,238 1 2019 6,683,971 21,236 1,999 1,370 24,605 367 98,453 367 98,453 2 2020 6,783,305 21,554 2,031 1,389 24,975 370 99,335 737 197,788 3 2021 6,879,749 21,862 2,064 1,408 25,335 359 96,443 1,097 294,231 4 2022 6,972,664 22,157 2,098 1,426 25,681 346 92,916 1,443 387,146 5 2023 7,061,071 22,435 2,132 1,443 26,010 329 88,407 1,772 475,554 6 2024 7,147,290 22,705 2,167 1,459 26,331 321 86,219 2,093 561,772 7 2025 7,232,676 22,972 2,202 1,475 26,649 318 85,386 2,411 647,158 8 2026 7,316,460 23,232 2,237 1,491 26,961 312 83,784 2,723 730,942 9 2027 7,397,895 23,484 2,274 1,506 27,264 303 81,436 3,026 812,378 10 2028 7,478,336 23,731 2,311 1,521 27,563 299 80,441 3,325 892,818 892,818 2,811 344 170 3,325 3,325 892,818 Source: TischlerBise, using Average Day Demand factors, Figure W3 and projected development shown in Figure A13. Residential ConnectionsYearAvg. Gallons per Day Nonresidential Connections Irrigation Connections Total Service Units Annual Increase Cumulative Increase 10-year Change Cost Recovery Summary: Supply Projects Year*Description Remaining Capacity (AF)Capacity (GPD)Cost 2007 Growth-Related CAP Water Entitlement 3,000 2,678,227 $3,436,451 Total Cost $3,436,451 Gallons of Capacity (GPD)2,678,227 Additional SU 10,714 Cost per SU $320.74 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 53 Water Facilities Projects – Plan Based The Town recently completed the 2018 Water Utility Potable Water Master Plan which identifies a variety of projects required to meet the water demand of future growth through the anticipated integration and increase of CAP water deliveries into the system. As identified in the Master Plan, the cost of the various projects is attributed to existing deficiencies and those improvements required to serve future growth. The following projects are directly related to Water Facilities and include a combination of supply, storage, transmission capacity expansion to meet future growth demands of the system. The total cost of improvements planned over the next 10 years is $39,549,923 million ($6.3 million for supply projects, $19.4 million for storage and $13.8 million for distribution). As is discussed below, each project provides additional fixed system capacity which corresponds to fee levels and the duration that the fee will be imposed. Water Facilities Supply Projects – Plan Based Illustrated in Figure W6, Water Facilities supply projects identified by Oro Valley staff will add an additional 1,400 Acre Feet of capacity, able to provide for 5,143 service units with a total cost of $6.3 million. The Town has been collecting development fees in anticipation of developing these projects and as a result maintains an existing Water Facilities balance of $14.8 million which is proportionately applied to the supply projects resulting in a net cost of supply projects of $3.9 million and shown in Figure W6. The resulting cost per acre foot of supply is $4,021 and cost per service unit is $1,125.80 ( $3,937,882 / 5,143 = $1,125.80). Figure W6: Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Water Supply Water Facilities Storage Projects – Plan Based The Town has identified and plans on activating a variety of new storage facilities over the next 15 years to help meet additional water demand from new development. Figure W7 shows each new storage element, cost, reduction of existing impact fee balance, net cost and added average capacity in acre feet per year. The new storage projects will have a net growth related cost of $12.1 million and will add an additional 1,400 AFY of capacity. Dividing the net cost by the total added capacity yields a cost per acre foot of capacity of $10,453 and a cost per service unit of $2,926.93. Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Supply Year Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre-feet) Net Cost per AF Service Units Cost per Service Unit (ERU) 2018-2019 Steam Pump D-Zone Well $1,500,000 ($562,409)$937,591 484 $1,937 1,729 $542.41 2018-2023 (P)Program Management Support Services $1,050,000 ($393,686)$656,314 1,440 $456 5,143 $127.62 2019-2020 (P)Well Improvement Analysis and Recovery Permits $150,000 ($56,241)$93,759 1,440 $65 5,143 $18.23 2020-2021 (P)Well Drilling and Testing $300,000 ($112,482)$187,518 1,440 $130 5,143 $36.46 2022-2023 (P)Construction Permitting, Drilling, Development and Testing $1,500,000 ($562,409)$937,591 1,440 $651 5,143 $182.31 2022-2023 (P)Well Equipment Design and Site Improvements $1,800,000 ($674,891)$1,125,109 1,440 $781 5,143 $218.77 Source: 2018 TOVWU Potable Water Master Plan $6,300,000 ($2,362,118)$3,937,882 $4,021 Total Cost per SU $1,125.80 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 54 Figure W7: Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Storage Water Facilities Distribution Projects – Plan Based Ten distribution related projects identified by staff all work in concert to help meet additional water demand from new development. Figure W8 shows each component associated with the new distribution architecture cost and added capacity in acre feet per year. Water Facilities distribution projects will in total will add an additional 1,400 acre feet of capacity, able to support water distribution for 5,143 service units with a total net cost of $8.6 million. The resulting cost per acer foot of distribution capacity is $7,112 resulting in a cost per service unit of $1,991.43. Figure W8: Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Distribution Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Water Facilities Development Fees and IIP report totals $30,536. Oro Valley plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year water meter connection projections, the cost is $21.73 per meter. Figure W9: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation Necessary Public Service Cost Assessed Against Proportionate Share Demand Unit 2019 2024 Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential Nonresidential 26,010 $21.7324,605 1,405Connections100%$30,536Water Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Distribution Year Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre-feet) Net Cost per AF Service Units Cost per Service Unit (ERU) 2020-2021 Moore Road F-Zone Interconnect $750,000 ($281,205)$468,795 807 $581 2,882 $162.66 2019-2024 Water Plant 14 Booster Capacity Expansion $250,000 ($93,735)$156,265 161 $971 575 $271.77 2019-2020 (P)Pipeline Design (Recovery Water & Transmission)$660,692 ($247,719)$412,973 1,440 $287 5,143 $80.30 2021-2023 (P)Pipeline Construction $4,320,000 ($1,619,738)$2,700,262 1,440 $1,875 5,143 $525.05 2018-2019 (Ind.)Pipeline Route Study and Preliminary Design $120,000 ($44,993)$75,007 1,440 $52 5,143 $14.58 2019-2020 (Ind.)Pipeline Easement Acquisition $450,000 ($168,723)$281,277 1,440 $195 5,143 $54.69 2019-2020 (Ind.)Pipeline Design $600,000 ($224,964)$375,036 1,440 $260 5,143 $72.92 2024-2025 (Ind.)Pipeline Construction NWRRDS to La Canada Res.$5,880,000 ($2,204,643)$3,675,357 1,440 $2,552 5,143 $714.65 2024-2025 (Int.)Interconnect to Tangerine Rd.$270,000 ($101,234)$168,766 1,440 $117 5,143 $32.82 2024-2025 (Int.)Interconnect to Lambert Lane $510,000 ($191,219)$318,781 1,440 $221 5,143 $61.99 $13,810,692 ($5,178,172)$8,632,520 $7,112 Total Cost per SU $1,991.43 Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Storage Year Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre-feet) Net Cost per AF Service Units Cost per Service Unit (ERU) 2019-2023 Palisades C-Zone Storage Tank and Pipeline $4,250,000 ($1,593,492)$2,656,508 1,120 $2,372 4,000 $664.13 2028-2033 Pressure Zone G Storage Expansion $8,000,000 ($2,999,515)$5,000,485 1,120 $4,465 4,000 $1,250.12 2028-2033 Pressure Zone G, H and I Storage Expansion $4,000,000 ($1,499,757)$2,500,243 1,120 $2,232 4,000 $625.06 2019-2020 (P)Forebay Design $99,231 ($37,206)$62,025 1,440 $43 5,143 $12.06 2021-2023 (P)Forebay Reservoir Construction $900,000 ($337,445)$562,555 1,440 $391 5,143 $109.39 2020-2021 (Ind.)Shannon Rd Forebay Reservoir And Booster Station Prop $240,000 ($89,985)$150,015 1,440 $104 5,143 $29.17 2019-2020 (Ind.)Forebay Reservoir Booster Station Design $90,000 ($33,745)$56,255 1,440 $39 5,143 $10.94 2020-2021 (Ind.)Shannon Rd Forebay Reservoir and Booster Station Design $180,000 ($67,489)$112,511 1,440 $78 5,143 $21.88 2021-2022 (Ind.)Booster Station Construction Forebay Res.$300,000 ($112,482)$187,518 1,440 $130 5,143 $36.46 2022-2024 (Ind.)Shannon Road Forebay Res. Construction $840,000 ($314,949)$525,051 1,440 $365 5,143 $102.09 2022-2024 (Ind.)Shannon Road Forebay Res. Construction $540,000 ($202,467)$337,533 1,440 $234 5,143 $65.63 Source: 2018 TOVWU Potable Water Master Plan $19,439,231 ($7,288,533)$12,150,698 $10,453 Total Cost per SU $2,926.93 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 55 WATER FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE Required Offsets A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Water Facilities development fees because 10-year growth costs approximates the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure W11. Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees The proposed Water Facilities development fees for Water Facilities are shown in Figures W10. For a single family residential 5/8”-inch water meter, the proposed fee is found by multiplying the cost per ERU ($6,249.40) by the AWWA capacity ratio (1.0) and the demand adjustment factor (1.0) and adding the $21.73 fee study cost per meter (see Figure W9). Equivalent residential service unit factors for commercial/industrial meters recognize that these types of meters use more water on average than a comparably sized single family water meter. For example, a typical single family meter demands 0.28 acre feet a year, whereas commercial/industrial users in Oro Valley demand 0.31 acre feet annually, which is 1.11 times the single family residential equivalent. The development fee for irrigation and nonresidential meters is determined by multiplying the cost per service unit by the meter capacity ratio and the demand adjustment factor then adding the cost per meter of $21.73. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 56 Figure W10: Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees Demand Factor per Service Unit (1 EDU)Component Supply $1,125.80 Storage $2,926.93 Distribution $1,991.43 Excess Capacity CAP Water $320.74 Net Capital Cost per Service Unit $6,364.89 Cost Factors per Connection Fee Study $21.73 Share Net Capital Cost per Meter $21.73 Proposed and Current Utility Development Fees (PWSDIF) Residential Residential Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5/8" 1.00 1.00 $6,387 $6,060 $327 3/4" 1.50 1.00 $9,569 $9,089 $480 1"2.50 1.00 $15,934 $15,148 $786 1.5" standard 5.00 1.00 $31,846 $30,297 $1,549 2" compound 8.00 1.00 $50,941 $48,474 $2,467 Mulit-Family (Per Unit)N/A 0.32 $2,044 $2,908 ($864) Nonresidential Nonresidential Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5/8" 1.00 1.11 $7,087 $7,877 ($790) 3/4" 1.50 1.11 $10,619 $11,816 ($1,197) 1"2.50 1.11 $17,684 $19,693 ($2,009) 1.5" standard 5.00 1.11 $35,347 $39,385 ($4,038) 2" compound 8.00 1.11 $56,542 $63,016 ($6,474) 3" compound 16.00 1.11 $113,062 $126,032 ($12,970) 4" compound 25.00 1.11 $176,647 $196,925 ($20,278) 6" compound 50.00 1.11 $353,273 $393,850 ($40,577) 8" compound 80.00 1.11 $565,224 $630,161 ($64,937) Irrigation Meter Size Irrigation Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5/8" 1.00 2.25 $14,343 $10,906 $3,437 3/4" 1.50 2.25 $21,503 $16,360 $5,143 1"2.50 2.25 $35,824 $27,266 $8,558 1.5" standard 5.00 2.25 $71,627 $54,533 $17,094 2" compound 8.00 2.25 $114,590 $87,253 $27,337 3" compound 16.00 2.25 $229,158 $174,506 $54,652 4" compound 25.00 2.25 $358,047 $272,666 $85,381 6" compound 50.00 2.25 $716,072 $545,331 $170,741 8" compound 80.00 2.25 $1,145,702 $872,530 $273,172 1. AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M1, 7th Edition. 2. Based on local water demand Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 57 FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation. Development Fee Revenues for Water Facilities Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the proposed Water Facilities development fees and that development over the next 10 years is consistent with the Land Use Assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. As shown in Figure W11, the 10-year water improvement costs total $24.75 million and approximately $24.1 million will be collected from development fees. Figure W11: Projected Water Facilities Development Fee Revenue Costs for Water Facilities Expansion $6,300,000 $19,439,231 $13,810,692 Fee Study $30,536 TOTAL $39,580,459 Less AWR & PWS DIF Balances ($14,828,823) Net WRS System Facility Expansion Cost $24,751,636 Ten-Year Water Facility Development Fee Revenue $6,387 $10,619 $14,343 $21.73 per SU per SU per SU per connection Residential Nonresidential Irrigation Connections Base 2018 20,920 1,967 1,351 24,238 Year 1 2019 21,236 1,999 1,370 24,605 Year 2 2020 21,554 2,031 1,389 24,975 Year 3 2021 21,862 2,064 1,408 25,335 Year 4 2022 22,157 2,098 1,426 25,681 Year 5 2023 22,435 2,132 1,443 26,010 Year 6 2024 22,705 2,167 1,459 26,331 Year 7 2025 22,972 2,202 1,475 26,649 Year 8 2026 23,232 2,237 1,491 26,961 Year 9 2027 23,484 2,274 1,506 27,264 Year 10 2028 23,731 2,311 1,521 27,563 2,811 344 170 3,325 $17,953,073 $3,651,510 $2,443,332 $72,268 Total Revenue $24,120,183 Total Expenditures $24,751,636 Surplus / (Deficit)($631,453) Supply Projects Storage Projects Distribution Projects Year Ten-Year Increase Projected Revenue Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 58 APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For municipalities in Arizona, the state enabling legislation requires supporting documentation on land use assumptions, a plan for infrastructure improvements, and development fee calculations. This document contains the land use assumptions for the Town of Oro Valley’s 2019 development fee update. Development fees must be updated every five years, making short-range projections the critical time frame. The Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) is limited to 10 years for non-utility fees, thus a very long-range “build-out” analysis may not be used to derive development fees. Arizona Revised Statuses (ARS) § 9-463.05 (T)(6) requires the preparation of a Land Use Assumptions document which shows: “Projections of change in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service area over a period of at least 10 years and pursuant to the General Plan of the municipality.” TischlerBise prepared current demographic estimates and future development projections for both residential and nonresidential development that will be used in the Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and calculation of the development fees. Demographic data for FY 18-19 (beginning July 1, 2018) are used in calculating levels-of-service provided to existing development in the Town of Oro Valley. Although long- range projections are necessary for planning infrastructure systems, a shorter time frame of five to 10 years is critical for the impact fees analysis. TischlerBise used compound growth rates to produce conservative projections that increase over time. SERVICE AREA ARS § 9-63.05 defines “service area” as follows: “Any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan.” The Town’s previous Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Study recommended a single services area, shown below in Figure A1. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 59 Figure A1: Current Development Fee Service Area Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 60 Much of the land in Oro Valley is characterized by a built environment of dispersed, detached single family housing, transected by arterial roadways leading to concentrated nodes of businesses, institutions and commercial development from with, largely single-family lots spread out to the northern edges. As a result of the development pattern, the Town relies on a variety of revenues and funding mechanisms to pay for public infrastructure and facilities which service residents. Oro Valley has embraced numerous policies and plans to guide future development, most notably the 2016 Your Voice, Our Future General Plan aimed at encouraging new development as much as possible to pay the proportional share of growth- related infrastructure improvements for area roads, parks, police, fire and public facilities. In light of the plan-specific policies outlined by the Town along with discussions with Town staff regarding anticipated development patterns and infrastructure needs, TischlerBise is recommending no changes to the Development Fee Service Area as displayed in Figure A1. The single Development Fee Service Area is supported first and foremost because, parks and recreation, police, and roadway infrastructure are intended to serve the entire Town with a standard level-of-service as opposed to bounded districts or subareas. As an example, referring to Figure A1, a new residential development in the northeast area is still likely to also utilize regional parks or police facilities located throughout Town. Furthermore, many services such as police and roadway infrastructure react to deployment changes over time based on migration patterns of people and are not necessarily restricted to specific geographic sub-zones. As such, TischlerBise is recommending all fees for these categories be assessed as a Townwide fee. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Current estimates and future projections of residential development are detailed in this section, including population and housing units by type (single family versus multi-family units). Current (2018) estimates of housing units were obtained using annual housing unit permit data provided by the Town of Oro Valley’s Planning & Development Services department. Population estimates were derived from the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity (AOEO), 2018 Place Level Population tables along with 2016-2050 Sub-County projections and the persons per housing unit ratio derived from the 2017 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Persons per Housing Unit In 2010 the U.S. Census Bureau transitioned from the traditional long-form questionnaire to the American Community Survey, which is less detailed and has smaller sample sizes. As a result, Census data now has more limitations than before. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). For development fees in Oro Valley, “single-unit” residential includes detached units and townhouses that share a common sidewall, but are constructed on an individual parcel of land. The second residential category includes all structures with two or more units on an individual parcel of land. According to the Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. When persons per housing unit are used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. When persons per Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 61 household are used in the fee calculations, the development fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, this requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. TischlerBise recommends that development fees for residential development in the Town of Oro Valley be imposed according to a number of year-round residents per housing unit. For the development fee calculations, TischlerBise used the ACS results shown at the top of Figure A2 to indicate the relative number of persons per housing unit, by units in a residential structure, and the housing mix in Oro Valley. The ratio of persons per housing unit (PPHU) across housing types is 2.00. To estimate population for future years, however, PAG average annual growth rates are applied to base year population estimates and described further in this report. According to the 2017 ACS estimates, the share of multi-family housing in Oro Valley is approximately 16%. In 2017, approximately 13% of the housing stock in Oro Valley was vacant or used by seasonal residents. Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing Current Residential Estimates To estimate the current number of housing units, TischlerBise used building permit data from 2010 through 2018 provided by the Town of Oro Valley’s Planning & Development Services Department which were added to the total housing unit count from the 100 percent 2010 Decennial Census. Base year population estimates were derived from AOEO. These estimates are shown in Figure A3 below, along with 2028 projections. The estimates show there were 45,184 persons and 22,636 housing units in Oro Valley in 2018, and project 51,175 residents and 25,632 housing units by 2028. Figure A3: Oro Valley Population and Housing Estimates for 2018 and 2028 Figure A4 shows Oro Valley’s recent housing unit permit totals by fiscal year, provided by the Town’s Planning & Development Services. The average number of residential units permitted per year during this Single-Family Unit1 37,509 17,908 2.09 83.6%12% Multi-Family Unit 2 5,305 3,517 1.51 16.4%14% TOTAL 42,814 21,425 2.00 13% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates. 1. Includes detached, attached (townhouse), and manufactured units. 2. Includes duplexes, structures with two or more units, and all other units. Persons per Housing Unit Housing Units Vacancy Rate Housing MixPersonsUnit Type 2018 2028 2018 2028 22,636 25,632 45,184 51,175 Increase Housing Units Population 2,996 5,991 Source: Population-AOEO 2018 Population Estimates. 2019-2028 growth rates from AOEO. 2018 Housing derived from Oro Valley Building Permit Data. Housing projections based on population growth and 2017 ACS PPHU estimates. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 62 eight-year period was 287, although there was a high degree of variation from year to year. Single family permits have been steadily increasing from a low of 47 at the tail end of the Great Recession to a high of 338 in 2017, while multi-family unit permits appear to far more inconsistent ranging from a high of 646 in 2014 to zero in other years, but have averaged 101 per year over the time period. The general trend in housing unit permits is increasing. Figure A4: Recent Residential Permits by Fiscal Year Residential Projections To derive the 10-year housing unit projections, TischlerBise started with the 100 percent 2010 Decennial Census figure of 20,340 housing units and added the permit figures for fiscal years 2010-18 from Figure A4 (1,490 SF and 806 MF units = 2,296) resulting in a base year figure of 22,636 housing units. Housing unit estimates for 2018 through 2028 were calculated using the AOEO 2016-2028 population estimated average annual growth rate of 1.20 percent and applying the 2017 ACS PPHU figure of 2.00 across all housing types. The resulting annual growth in housing units for the 2018-2028 period is 299 units per year, shown in Figure A5. The 2010 through 2018 building permit data show an average of 287 total units per year and imply an average annual growth rate in housing units of 1.28 percent. These growth rates likely reflect the recent short-term increase in building activity and favorable economic conditions. According to Town building permit data, the housing mix of 76 percent single family units and 24 percent multi-family units was assumed to remain constant. Oro Valley is projected to add 2,996 housing units between 2018 and 2028. Oro Valley’s population projections, also shown in Figure A5, were derived by first establishing a base year population from AOEO and then applying their annual rate of growth projection of 1.20 percent. Oro Valley is projected to add 5,991 residents between 2018 and 2028. Year Single Family Multi-Family Total Cumulative 2010/11 47 0 47 47 2011/12 63 0 63 110 2012/13 217 144 361 471 2013/14 136 646 782 1,253 2014/15 142 0 142 1,395 2015/16 220 0 220 1,615 2016/17 338 0 338 1,953 2017/18 327 16 343 2,296 Avg.186 101 287 Source: Planning Division, Oro Valley, Arizona. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 63 Figure A5: Oro Valley Residential Development Projections NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In addition to data on residential development, the infrastructure improvements plan and development fees require data on nonresidential development in Oro Valley. Current estimates and future projections of nonresidential development are detailed in this section, including jobs and floor area by type. TischlerBise uses the terms “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development To estimate the current number of jobs, TischlerBise applied most recent, (2015) U.S. Census OnTheMap Longitudinal-Employer Household statistics for the Town of Oro Valley to the 2016-2026 Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity annual industry growth estimate for the area of 1.6 percent. Jobs were aggregated into one of four categories: Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, and Office & Other. These estimates are shown in Figure A6 below. Analysis estimates there were 10,642 jobs in Oro Valley in 2018, and the number of jobs will grow to 12,473 by 2028. Figure A6: Oro Valley Jobs Estimates for 2018 and 2028 Looking more closely at the projections, AOEO forecast 1.6% annual growth in employment per year between 2018 and 2028. Oro Valley’s 10-year job projections through 2028 are shown in Figure A7. The Multi Year Increments>>> Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year Population 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Increase Population 45,184 45,857 46,536 47,192 47,820 48,413 51,175 5,991 Housing Units 22,636 22,973 23,312 23,640 23,954 24,250 25,632 2,996 Population Single Family Population 39,585 40,175 40,770 41,345 41,894 42,414 44,834 5,249 Multi-Family Population 5,599 5,682 5,766 5,847 5,925 5,999 6,341 742 Total Population 45,184 45,857 46,536 47,192 47,820 48,413 51,175 Housing Units Single-Family 17,158 17,459 17,717 17,966 18,205 18,430 19,480 2,322 Multi-Family 5,478 5,513 5,595 5,674 5,749 5,820 6,152 674 2018 2028 Industrial Jobs 1,008 1,181 173 Commercial & Retail Jobs 3,296 3,864 568 Institutional Jobs 507 594 87 Office & Other Jobs 5,831 6,834 1,003 Total Jobs 10,642 12,473 1,831 Oro Valley Employment Increase Source: 2015 estimates from OnTheMap. Sector Growth rates (1.6%) based on AOEO 2016-2026 projections. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 64 Town is expected to add a total of 1,831 jobs by 2028, and 54 percent this job growth (1,003 jobs) is projected to come from the Office and Other Services jobs category. Figure A7: Oro Valley Employment Projections Nonresidential Floor Area by Type of Development Figure A8 indicates 2018 floor area estimates for the Town of Oro Valley grouped into four industry classifications: Industrial, Commercial/Retail, Institutional and Office/Other Services. Floor area by sector was derived from 2015 OnTheMap employment figures which were adjusted to 2018 by applying the AOEO employment growth rate of 1.6%. Utilizing 2018 employment estimates, TischlerBise then applied ITE square foot per employee figures to derive current estimated nonresidential floor area by industry sector. 2019-2028 projections utilize AOEO growth in employment and ITE factors in the same manner. Institutional uses have the highest square foot per job ratio at 1,076, followed by Industrial at 615 square feet per job, Commercial at 427 square feet per job, and Office & Other at 337 square feet per job. The last column in Figure A9 shows the ratio of jobs per 1,000 square feet from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2017). In total, Oro Valley is projected to add 781,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area by 2028. Figure A8: Nonresidential Floor Area Estimates for 2018 and 2028 Figure A9 shows the ITE’s ratios of jobs per 1,000 square feet and average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet, broken down by nonresidential land use category. Gray shading indicates the four nonresidential development prototypes used by TischlerBise to correlate Oro Valley’s projected job growth with nonresidential floor area growth and vehicle trips generated by development. Multi Year Increments>>> Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Increase Industrial 1,008 1,024 1,040 1,057 1,074 1,091 1,181 173 Commercial / Retail 3,296 3,349 3,403 3,457 3,513 3,569 3,864 568 Institutional 507 515 523 531 540 549 594 87 Office & Other Services 5,831 5,924 6,019 6,115 6,213 6,313 6,834 1,003 Total Jobs 10,642 10,812 10,985 11,160 11,340 11,522 12,473 1,831 Multi Year Increments>>> Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year Nonresidential Floor Area (KFS)2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Increase Industrial 620 630 640 650 661 671 726 106 Commercial / Retail 1,407 1,430 1,453 1,476 1,500 1,524 1,650 243 Institutional 545 554 563 571 581 591 639 94 Office & Other Services 1,965 1,996 2,028 2,061 2,094 2,127 2,303 338 Total 4,538 4,610 4,684 4,758 4,835 4,913 5,318 781 Source: 2018 Floor Area Estimate by sector , Base 2015 OnTheMap employment by sector. Employment Growth rates based on AOEO 2016-2026 growth projections. Sq. Ft. conversion from ITE 10th Edition (2017) Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 65 Figure A9: ITE Employee and Trip Generation Ratios AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIPS Average Weekday Vehicle Trips are used as a measure of demand by land use. Vehicle trips are estimated using average weekday vehicle trip ends from the reference book, Trip Generation, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2017. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). Trip Rate Adjustments To calculate street development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed further below, the development impact fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Commuter Trip Adjustment Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 63 percent to account for commuters leaving Oro Valley for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (see Table 30) weekday work trips are typically 31 percent of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50 percent of all trip ends). As shown in Figure A10, the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap web application indicates that 87 percent of resident workers traveled outside of Oro Valley for work in 2015. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.87 = 0.13) support the additional 13 percent allocation of trips to residential development. ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit1 Per Employee1 Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 130 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 3.37 2.91 1.16 864 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 710 General Office (average size)1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 720 Medical-Dental Office 1,000 Sq Ft 34.80 8.70 4.00 250 730 Government Office 1,000 Sq Ft 22.59 7.45 3.03 330 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 820 Shopping Center (average size)1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 1. Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Land Use / Size Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 66 Figure A10: Commuter Trip Adjustment Adjustment for Pass-By Trips For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail development attracts vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, ITE data indicate 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66 percent of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 33 percent of the trip ends. Estimated Residential Vehicle Trip Rates As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates, using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units, households, and persons) are available from American Community Survey data. Shown in Figure A11, custom trip generation rates for Oro Valley vary slightly from the national averages. For example, single-family residential development is expected to generate 8.20 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling – compared to the national average of 9.44 (ITE 210). Multi-family residential development is expected to generate 4.30 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling, which is lower than the national average of 5.44 (ITE 221). Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters 1 Employed Residents 14,961 Residents Working in Oro Valley 1,946 Residents Working Outside Oro Valley (Commuters)13,015 Percent Commuting out of Oro Valley 87% Additional Production Trips2 13% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 63% 1. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application (version 6.6) and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2015. 2. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2009)*, published in December 2011 (see Table 30), home-based work trips are typically 30.99 percent of “production” trips, in other words, out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, LED OnTheMap data from 2015 indicate that 87 percent of Oro Valley workers travel outside the town for work. In combination, these factors (0.3099 x 0.50 x 0.87 = 0.1347) account for 13 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (13 percent of production trips) for a total of 63 percent. *http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml ; Summary of Travel Trends - Table "Daily Travel Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 67 Figure A11: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type Owner-occupied 26,777 13,920 164 14,084 1.90 Renter-occupied 6,732 1,757 2,850 4,607 1.46 TOTAL 33,509 15,677 3,014 18,691 1.79 Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average Housing Households 3 Ends 4 Type of Unit Ends 5 Trip Ends Units 6 Oro Valley ITE 7 Single-Family 37,509 104,432 29,033 189,224 146,828 17,908 8.20 9.44 Multi-Family 5,305 12,067 4,476 17,931 14,999 3,517 4.30 5.44 TOTAL 42,814 116,500 33,509 207,155 161,827 21,425 7.60 1. Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 3. Total population in households from Table25033, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 6. Housing units from Table B25024, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 7. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Trip Ends per Unit 4. Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2017). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72). To approximate the average population of the ITE studies, persons were divided by 67 and the equation result multiplied by 67. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (2.29*persons)-81.02. 5. Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2017). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.93). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies, vehicles available were divided by 113 and the equation result multiplied by 113. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (3.94*vehicles)+293.58. Households by Structure Type 2 Vehicles Available1 Single- Family Multi-Family Total Vehicles per HH by Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 68 Functional Population TischlerBise recommends functional population to allocate the cost of certain facilities to residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure A12, functional population accounts for people living and working in a jurisdiction. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Oro Valley are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Oro Valley are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Oro Valley, the proportionate share is 78 percent for residential development and 22 percent for nonresidential development. Figure A12: Functional Population Demand Person Proportionate Hours/Day Hours Share Residential Estimated Residents 42,259 Residents Not Working 27,298 20 545,960 Employed Residents 14,961 Employed in Oro Valley 1,946 14 27,244 Employed outside Oro Valley 13,015 14 182,210 Residential Subtotal 755,414 78% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 27,298 4 109,192 Jobs in Oro Valley 10,147 Residents Employed in Oro Valley 1,946 10 19,460 Non-Resident Workers (inflow Commuters)8,201 10 82,010 Nonresidential Subtotal 210,662 22% TOTAL 966,076 100% Source: Pima Association of Governments 2015 Population Estimate; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.6 Application, 2015. Demand Units in 2015 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 69 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS Development projections for the Town are summarized in Figure A13. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. However, development fees methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to accurate development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts. If actual development is slower than projected, development fees revenues will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the Town will receive an increase in development fee revenue but will also need to accelerate capital improvements to keep pace with development. Figure A13: Municipal Planning Area Projections and Growth Rates Development projections are based on U.S. Census OnTheMap 2015 employment estimates with 2016- 2028 AOEO industry growth rates applied by sector for 2019 through 2028. TischlerBise used historical Town building permit data to estimate 2018 housing unit totals and AOEO 2016-2050 growth rates to project future population growth. Population data were converted to housing units utilizing Oro Valley’s PPHU size of 2.00 and job data were converted to nonresidential floor area using the methods described in this Land Use Assumptions document. Multi Year Increments>>> 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Cumulative Increase Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 10 Population 45,184 45,857 46,536 47,192 47,820 48,413 51,175 5,991 Housing Units 22,636 22,973 23,312 23,640 23,954 24,250 25,632 2,996 Jobs Industrial 1,008 1,024 1,040 1,057 1,074 1,091 1,181 173 Commercial / Retail 3,296 3,349 3,403 3,457 3,513 3,569 3,864 568 Institutional 507 515 523 531 540 549 594 87 Office & Other Services 5,831 5,924 6,019 6,115 6,213 6,313 6,834 1,003 Total Jobs 10,642 10,812 10,985 11,160 11,340 11,522 12,473 1,831 Nonresidential Floor Area (x 1,000) Industrial KSF 620 630 640 650 661 671 726 106 Commercial / Retail KSF 1,407 1,430 1,453 1,476 1,500 1,524 1,650 243 Institutional KSF 545 554 563 571 581 591 639 94 Office & Other Services KSF 1,965 1,996 2,028 2,061 2,094 2,127 2,303 338 Total Nonresidential KSF 4,538 4,610 4,684 4,758 4,835 4,913 5,318 781 10-Year Increase Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 70 APPENDIX B: FORECAST OF REVENUES SB 1525 requires that the infrastructure improvements plan include (Section 9-463.05.E.7): A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved land use assumptions, and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development as required in subsection B, paragraph 12 of this section. Only revenue generated by new development that is dedicated to growth-related capital improvements needs to be considered in determining the extent of the burden imposed by new development. As discussed in greater detail in the Legal Framework section, offsets against impact fees are warranted in the following cases: (a) new development will be paying taxes or fees used to retire debt on existing facilities serving existing development; (b) new development will be paying taxes or fees used to fund an existing deficiency, (c) new development will be paying taxes or fees that are dedicated to be used for growth-related improvements, or (d) excess construction sales tax. The analyses provided in the legal framework, street facilities, parks and recreational facilities, police facilities and water facilities sections of this report have identified that the only need for offsets is against the street facilities development fees for a portion of the “excess” construction sales tax and the police facilities development fees for future debt payments used to elevate the existing level-of service. The reasons for this conclusion are, in the order listed above, as follows. (a) The Town has no debt for past capacity-expanding street facilities and parks and recreational facilities included in the development fee calculations. The Town does have debt as part of the Municipal Operations Center and for the Aquatics Center, but neither facility is included in the development fee calculations. (b) The street facilities and parks and recreational facilities are all calculated on the basis of the existing, system-wide level-of-service (actually, a lower level-of-service in the case of transportation impact fees). Consequently, there are no existing deficiencies, and no offsets for deficiencies are warranted. As discussed above, the police facilities development fees have an offset for the portion of future debt used to elevate the existing level-of-service. (c) The only funding the Town has that is dedicated to capacity-expanding capital improvements is future regional funding for major road improvements. Since only the Town’s share of anticipated costs is used to determine the cost per service unit, so an offset for anticipated regional funding is not required. (d) An offset is provided for excess construction sales tax as defined by State law, and the offset is provided against the transportation impact fee. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 71 APPENDIX C: ARTERIAL STREET SEGMENTS INVENTORY Street Location Segment Length (Miles) Total Lanes Lane Miles Total AADT Vehicle Miles of Travel 1st Ave Oracle Rd to Lambert Ln 0.414 4.0 1.7 24,340 10,077 1st Ave Lambert Ln to Naranja Dr 0.365 4.0 1.5 15,746 5,747 1st Ave Naranja Dr to Tangerine Rd 0.997 4.0 4.0 15,746 15,699 Calle Buena Vista Calle Concordia to Hardy 1.000 2.0 2.0 3,533 3,533 Calle Concordia Calle Loma Linda to Calle Buena Vista 0.499 2.0 1.0 4,300 2,146 Calle Concordia Calle Buena Vista to Overlook 0.708 2.0 1.4 4,300 3,044 Calle Concordia Overlook to Hwy 77 0.708 2.0 1.4 4,300 3,044 Hardy Rd Calle Loma Linda to Calle Buena Vista 0.501 2.0 1.0 5,384 2,697 Hardy Rd Calle Buena Vista to Oracle Rd 0.534 2.0 1.1 5,384 2,875 Innovation Park SR -989 to Rancho Vistoso 1.248 2.0 2.5 6,000 7,488 La Canada Dr Oro Valley TB to Calle Concordia 0.505 4.0 2.0 11,749 5,933 La Canada Dr Oro Valley TB to Rancho Sonora 0.647 4.0 2.6 11,750 7,602 La Canada Dr Rancho Sonora Dr to Lambert lane 0.414 4.0 1.7 11,750 4,865 La Canada Dr Lambert Ln to Naranja Dr 0.997 4.0 4.0 14,658 14,614 La Canada Dr Naranja Dr to Tangerine Rd 0.971 4.0 3.9 10,382 10,081 La Canada Dr Tangerine Rd to Moore Rd 1.000 4.0 4.0 5,058 5,058 La Cholla Blvd 0.5 mi. S of Lambert to Lambert Ln 0.500 2.0 1.0 14,246 7,123 La Cholla Blvd Lambert Ln to Naranja Dr 1.007 2.0 2.0 10,669 10,744 La Cholla Blvd Naranja Dr to Tangerine Rd 0.966 2.0 1.9 9,870 9,534 La Cholla Blvd Tangerine Rd to Oro Valley TB 0.258 2.0 0.5 2,798 722 Lambert Ln La Cholla Blvd to Rancho Sonora 0.625 2.0 1.3 9,437 5,898 Lambert Ln Rancho Sonora Dr to La Canada Dr 0.369 2.0 0.7 9,437 3,482 Lambert Ln La Canada Dr to Highlands Dr 1.290 2.0 2.6 11,938 15,400 Lambert Ln Pusch View to 1st Ave 1.017 2.0 2.0 11,931 12,134 Linda Vista Linda Vista Widening E of Oracle Rd 0.100 2.0 0.2 2,798 280 Magee Road Northern Ave to Oracle Rd 0.219 2.0 0.4 14,146 3,098 Magee Road Oracle Rd to Town Limits 0.787 2.0 1.6 1,888 1,486 Moore Road La Cholla Blvd to Copper Spring Trl 1.558 2.0 3.1 3,621 5,642 Moore Road Moore Rd, Yellow Orchard -Mystic View 0.300 2.0 0.6 3,620 1,086 Moore Road Copper Spring Trl to Woodburne Ave.0.804 2.0 1.6 3,621 2,911 Moore Road Woodburne Ave. to Rancho Vistoso 0.286 2.0 0.6 3,621 1,036 Naranja Dr Naranja Two-Way Left Turn Lane 1.000 3.0 3.0 2,000 5,432 Naranja Dr Shannon Road to La Cholla Blvd 1.000 2.0 2.0 2,000 2,000 Naranja Dr La Cholla Blvd to La Canada Dr 0.998 2.0 2.0 7,883 7,867 Naranja Dr La Canada Dr to 1st Ave 2.020 2.0 4.0 3,977 8,034 Northern Ave.Magee Road to Camino Cortaro 0.496 2.0 1.0 8,440 4,186 Northern Ave.Camino Cortaro to Hardy Road 0.507 2.0 1.0 8,440 4,279 Pusch View Lane Lambert Lane to Oracle Road 0.644 4.0 2.6 5,926 3,816 Rancho Vistoso Tangerine Rd to Moore Rd 1.466 4.0 5.9 18,566 27,218 Rancho Vistoso Moore Rd to Sun City Blvd 2.447 4.0 9.8 3,481 8,518 Rancho Vistoso Sun City Blvd to Del webb Blvd 1.117 4.0 4.5 8,209 9,169 Rancho Vistoso Del webb Blvd to Innovation Park 0.815 4.0 3.3 12,938 10,544 Rancho Vistoso Innovation Park Dr to SR-77 0.414 4.0 1.7 12,932 5,354 Shannon Rd Lambert Ln to Naranja 0.985 2.0 2.0 2,582 2,543 Tangerine Rd Tangerine Rd, Shannon Rd-La Canada Dr 2.000 4.0 8.0 11,241 44,968 Tangerine Rd Shannon Rd to La Cholla Blvd 0.981 2.0 2.0 11,242 11,028 Tangerine Rd La Cholla Blvd to La Canada Dr 1.007 2.0 2.0 13,316 13,409 Tangerine Rd La Canada Dr to Mandarin Ln 1.580 4.0 6.3 18,640 29,451 Vistoso Comm Lp Rancho Vistoso Bd to Oracle Road 0.444 4.0 1.8 1,538 683 TOTAL 41.5 118.5 383,580 Single-Family Detached, Base Meter Fire Library Park Police Street Other Non-Utility Subtotal Water Water Resource Waste- water Utility Subtotal Total Fees Marana-South Saguaro Bloom $0 $0 $2,461 $0 $4,327 $0 $6,788 $838 $3,050 $3,930 $7,818 $14,606 Marana-South Cont. Reserve and Twin Peaks $0 $0 $2,461 $0 $4,327 $0 $6,788 $2,740 $3,050 $0 $5,790 $12,578 Marana-Northeast $0 $0 $2,461 $0 $4,291 $0 $6,752 $2,331 $3,050 $3,930 $9,311 $16,063 Marana-Northwest $0 $0 $2,461 $0 $3,719 $0 $6,180 $2,331 $3,050 $3,930 $9,311 $15,491 Tucson -Current Phase-In $303 $0 $1,935 $379 $4,838 $0 $7,455 $1,967 $300 $4,188 $6,455 $13,910 Oro Valley -Proposed $0 $0 $1,054 $299 $1,917 $0 $3,270 $6,387 $0 $4,188 $10,575 $13,845 Tucson -Proposed (08/27/19)^$359 $0 $2,848 $531 $3,237 $0 $6,975 $1,967 $300 $4,188 $6,455 $13,430 Oro Valley -Current $0 $0 $856 $310 $1,990 $0 $3,156 $6,060 $4,188 $10,248 $13,404 Tucson -Current Full Adopted $303 $0 $3,953 $379 $5,691 $0 $10,326 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,326 Casa Grande -Zone A $589 $0 $1,153 $179 $3,230 $233 $5,384 $0 $0 $4,557 $4,557 $9,941 Casa Grande -Zone B $589 $0 $1,153 $179 $3,230 $233 $5,384 $0 $0 $4,443 $4,443 $9,827 Coolidge $426 $0 $1,058 $0 $3,235 $0 $4,719 $0 $0 $2,183 $2,183 $6,902 Queen Creek $0 $1,004 $1,168 $609 $3,151 $0 $5,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,932 Maricopa $541 $0 $1,116 $277 $3,580 $0 $5,514 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,514 Eloy $0 $0 $895 $673 $1,348 $0 $2,916 $1,556 $0 $906 $2,462 $5,378 Sierra Vista $263 $0 $624 $359 $1,981 $0 $3,227 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,227 Sahuarita $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 *Wastewate fee for Tucson and Oro Valley is the Pima County wastewater fee ^ Single family unit size range of 1,751 to 2,000 sq. ft. (reflecting average size) Comparison of Non-Residental Development Fees 5,000 sf Retail/Commerical 20,000 sf Retail/Commerical 50,000 sf Retail/Commerical 100,000 sf Retail/Commerical Average Retail1 10,000 sf General Office & Other Services 500,000 sf Warehouse Gilbert 82,608 222,948 503,628 971,428 445,153 102,148 1,722,828 Marana 80,902 191,462 439,862 853,862 391,522 104,022 202,322 Tucson 46,723 150,628 358,438 704,788 315,144 40,828 257,088 Casa Grande 53,502 141,552 317,652 611,152 280,965 65,852 649,152 Chandler 54,726 137,376 302,676 578,176 268,239 71,476 652,176 Avondale 48,122 131,372 297,872 575,372 263,185 48,872 245,372 Oro Valley - Proposed 75,567 132,642 246,792 437,042 223,011 76,002 209,542 Oro Valley - Current 77,316 120,216 206,016 349,016 188,141 82,816 553,016 % Change for Oro Valley -2.26%10.34%19.79%25.22%18.53%-8.23%-62.11% *Water impact fees based on 2" meter for simplicity *Excludes WW Impact Fees. All other known impact fees included 1 Sorted High to Low on Average Retail Column Draft Development Fee Report Presentation May 6, 2020 Town of Oro Valley, AZ 2 TischlerBise TischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.com Apache Junction Avondale Buckeye Camp Verde Casa Grande Coolidge Dewey-Humboldt Eloy Flagstaff Florence Fountain Hills Gilbert Glendale Goodyear Kingman Maricopa Nogales Payson Pinetop-Lakeside Queen Creek Safford Sedona Sierra Vista Surprise Tucson Yuma 40-year consulting practice serving local government nationwide •Impact fees/infrastructure financing strategies •Fiscal/economic impact analyses •Capital improvement planning •Infrastructure finance/revenue enhancement •Real estate and market feasibility 3 Overview of Adoption Process Round One • Land Use Assumptions • Infrastructure Improvement Plans Round Two •Development Fees • Modify Based on Round One Input/Decisions •Revenue Projections • Required Offsets 4 Parks and Recreation •Service Area: •Townwide •Components: •Fee does not include a land component for additional parks •Emphasis on developing existing vacant park land and construction of additional park amenities 5 Draft Parks and Recreational Development Fees Fee C omponent Cost per Person Cost per J ob P ark Land Improvement s $1 3 5 .3 3 $63 .8 5 P ark Ameni ti es $3 6 4 .7 6 $1 72 .8 0 Devel opment Fee Study $4 .3 9 $1 .7 1 TOTAL $5 0 4 .4 8 $2 38 .3 6 Resi dential (per unit) Development Type Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Fees Current Fee Inc rease / Dec rease Si ngl e Uni t 2 .0 9 $1 ,0 5 4 $8 5 6 $1 9 8 2 + Uni ts 1 .5 1 $7 6 2 $5 9 9 $1 6 3 Nonresidenti al (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Development Type Jobs per 1,0 0 0 Sq Ft Proposed Fees Current Fee Inc rease / Dec rease Hot el /Motel (room)0.9 3 $0 .2 2 $0 $0 .2 2 Retai l /Commerc i al 2.3 4 $0 .5 6 $0 $0 .5 6 Offi ce & Other Servi c es 2.9 7 $0 .7 1 $0 $0 .7 1 Indust ri al 1.6 3 $0 .3 9 $0 $0 .3 9 Warehouse 0.3 4 $0 .0 8 $0 $0 .0 8 P ubl i c /Inst i t uti onal 0.9 3 $0 .2 2 $0 $0 .2 2 6 Police •Service Area: •Townwide •Components: •Police Station: Cost recovery •Police Equipment: Incremental expansion •Offset: •Future principal payments on station debt service 7 Draft Police Development Fee Cost per Person Cost per Nonres. Tri p $3 7 .04 $1 3.7 5 $1 0 2 .44 $4 1.9 1 $3 .80 $1.0 5 ($7 .89 )($2.4 2 ) $1 3 5 .39 $5 4.2 8 Residential (per unit) Uni t Type Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Fee C urrent Fee Inc rease / Dec rease Si ngl e Uni t 2 .0 9 $2 8 3 $31 0 ($2 7 ) Mul ti fami l y 1 .5 1 $2 0 4 $21 5 ($1 1 ) Nonresi dential (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Land Use Type A vg Wkdy V eh Trip Ends Trip Rate Adjustment Proposed Fee Current Fee Inc rease / Dec rease Hotel /Motel (room)8 .3 6 5 0 %$22 7 $2 00 $2 7 Retai l /Commerci al 3 7.7 5 3 3 %$0.6 8 $0 .45 $0 .23 Offi c e & Other Servi ces 9 .7 4 5 0 %$0.2 6 $0 .16 $0 .10 Industrial 4 .9 6 5 0 %$0.1 3 $0 .07 $0 .07 Warehouse 1 .7 4 5 0 %$0.0 5 $0 .06 ($0 .01 ) P ubl i c/Inst it uti onal 1 9.5 2 3 3 %$0.3 5 $0 .12 $0 .23 Fee C omponent Substat i on Debt Vehi cl es and Equi pment Offest for Future P ri nc i pal Payment Total Devel opment Fee Stu dy 8 Streets •Service Area: •Townwide •Components: •Roadway capacity and interchanges •Offset: •Excess portion of sales tax dedicated to capital projects 9 Proposed Streets Development Fees Input V ari ables $1 1 9 .1 8 $0 .6 1 ($1 6 .0 5 ) $1 0 3 .7 4 Residenti al Development (per Housing Unit) Development Type V M T per Development Unit Proposed Fees C urrent Fee Inc rease / Dec rease Si ngl e Uni t 1 6 .0 0 $1 ,6 6 0 $1 ,9 9 0 ($3 3 0 ) Mul ti fami l y 8.3 9 $8 7 0 $1 ,2 3 1 ($3 6 1 ) Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Development Type V M T per Development Unit Proposed Fees C urrent Fee Inc rease / Dec rease Hotel /Mot el (room)8.0 9 $8 3 9 $7 5 8 $8 1 Ret ai l /Commerci al 2 4 .7 4 $2.5 7 $2 .4 1 $0 .1 5 Offi c e & Ot her Servi ces 9.4 3 $0.9 8 $1 .8 2 ($0.8 4 ) Industri al 4.8 0 $0.5 0 $0 .9 8 ($0.4 9 ) Warehouse 1.6 8 $0.1 7 $0 .9 2 ($0.7 4 ) Publ i c/Inst ituti onal 1 2 .4 7 $1.2 9 $1 .3 8 ($0.0 9 ) Cost per VMT/VMC Devel opment Fee Study Ne t Cost pe r V M T Offset for "Exc ess" Construc ti on Sal es Tax 10 Water •Service Area: •Townwide •Components: •CAP water supply, storage and distribution: Plan-Based 11 Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees Demand Factor per Servic e Unit (1 EDU)Component Supply $1,12 5.80 Storage $2,92 6.93 Distri bution $1,99 1.43 Excess Capaci ty CAP Water $320.74 Net Capital Cost per Se rvice Unit $6,36 4.89 Cost Factors pe r Conne ction Fee Study $21 .7 3 Share Net Capital Cost per M eter $21 .7 3 Propose d and Curre nt Utility Developme nt Fees (PWSDIF) Residential Residential Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5 /8" 1.00 1 .0 0 $6,38 7 $6,060 $3 27 3 /4" 1.50 1 .0 0 $9,56 9 $9,089 $4 80 1 "2.50 1 .0 0 $1 5,934 $15,1 48 $7 86 1 .5 " standard 5.00 1 .0 0 $3 1,846 $30,2 97 $1,5 49 2 " compound 8.00 1 .0 0 $5 0,941 $48,4 74 $2,4 67 Mulit-Fami ly (Per Unit)N/A 0 .3 2 $2,04 4 $2,908 ($8 64) Nonresidential Nonresidential Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5/8" 1.00 1.11 $7,087 $7,877 ($790) 3/4" 1.50 1.11 $10 ,619 $1 1,816 ($1,197) 1"2.50 1.11 $17 ,684 $1 9,693 ($2,009) 1.5" standard 5.00 1.11 $35 ,347 $3 9,385 ($4,038) 2" compound 8.00 1.11 $56 ,542 $6 3,016 ($6,474) 3" compound 16.00 1.11 $113,06 2 $126,032 ($12,970) 4" compound 25.00 1.11 $176,64 7 $196,925 ($20,278) 6" compound 50.00 1.11 $353,27 3 $393,850 ($40,577) 8" compound 80.00 1.11 $565,22 4 $630,161 ($64,937) Irrigation Meter Size Irrigation Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5/8" 1.00 2.25 $14 ,343 $1 0,906 $3,437 3/4" 1.50 2.25 $21 ,503 $1 6,360 $5,143 1"2.50 2.25 $35 ,824 $2 7,266 $8,558 1.5" standard 5.00 2.25 $71 ,627 $5 4,533 $17,094 2" compound 8.00 2.25 $114,59 0 $8 7,253 $27,337 3" compound 16.00 2.25 $229,15 8 $174,506 $54,652 4" compound 25.00 2.25 $358,04 7 $272,666 $85,381 6" compound 50.00 2.25 $716,07 2 $545,331 $170,741 8" compound 80.00 2.25 $1,145 ,702 $872,530 $273,172 1. AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M1, 7th Edition. 2. Based on local water demand 12 Utility Fee Comparison: Current vs.Proposed Residential Residential Meter Si ze Proposed Fees C urrent Total Fees Change 5 /8 " $6 ,3 87 $6,06 0 $3 2 7 3 /4 " $9 ,5 69 $9,08 9 $4 8 0 1 "$15 ,93 4 $1 5 ,1 48 $7 8 6 1 .5 " standard $31 ,84 6 $3 0 ,2 97 $1 ,5 4 9 2 " c ompound $50 ,94 1 $4 8 ,4 74 $2 ,4 6 7 P er Unit Cost $2 ,0 44 $2,90 8 ($8 64 ) Nonresidential Meter Si ze Nonresidential Meter Size Proposed Fees C urrent Total Fees Change 5 /8 " $7 ,0 87 $7,8 77 ($7 90 ) 3 /4 "$10 ,61 9 $1 1,8 16 ($1 ,1 9 7) 1 "$17 ,68 4 $1 9,6 93 ($2 ,0 0 9) 1 .5 " standard $35 ,34 7 $3 9,3 85 ($4 ,0 3 8) 2 " c ompound $56 ,54 2 $6 3,0 16 ($6 ,4 7 4) 3 " c ompound $1 1 3,062 $1 2 6,0 32 ($12 ,97 0 ) 4 " c ompound $1 7 6,647 $1 9 6,9 25 ($20 ,27 8 ) 6 " c ompound $3 5 3,273 $3 9 3,8 50 ($40 ,57 7 ) 8 " c ompound $5 6 5,224 $6 3 0,1 61 ($64 ,93 7 ) Irrigation Meter Size $0 Irrigation M eter Size Proposed Fees C urrent Total Fees Change 5 /8 " $14 ,34 3 $1 0,9 06 $3 ,4 3 7 3 /4 " $21 ,50 3 $1 6,3 60 $5 ,1 4 3 1 "$35 ,82 4 $2 7,2 66 $8 ,5 5 8 1 .5 " standard $71 ,62 7 $5 4,5 33 $1 7,09 4 2 " c ompound $1 1 4,590 $8 7,2 53 $2 7,33 7 3 " c ompound $2 2 9,158 $1 7 4,5 06 $5 4,65 2 4 " c ompound $3 5 8,047 $2 7 2,6 66 $8 5,38 1 6 " c ompound $7 1 6,072 $5 4 5,3 31 $1 7 0 ,7 41 8 " c ompound $1,145 ,7 0 2 $8 7 2,5 30 $2 7 3 ,1 72 13 Town Fee Comparison: Current vs.Proposed Residential (per unit) Unit Type Transportation Parks Pol ic e Proposed Fee Current Fee Differenc e Si ngl e-Fami l y $1 ,6 6 0 $1 ,05 4 $2 8 3 $2 ,9 9 7 $3 ,1 5 6 ($1 5 9 ) Mul ti -Fami l y $8 7 0 $76 2 $2 0 4 $1 ,8 3 7 $2 ,0 4 5 ($2 0 8 ) Nonresidential (per 1 ,0 0 0 square foot unless noted otherwi se) Land Use Type Transportation Parks Pol ic e Proposed Fee Current Fee Differenc e Hotel /Motel (room)$8 3 9 $22 2 $2 2 7 $1 ,2 8 8 $958 $3 3 0 Ret ai l /Commerci al $2 ,5 6 7 $55 8 $6 8 0 $3 ,8 0 5 $2 ,859 $9 4 6 Offi c e & Ot her Servi ces $9 7 8 $70 8 $2 6 0 $1 ,9 4 6 $1 ,978 ($3 2 ) Industri al $4 9 8 $38 9 $1 3 0 $1 ,0 1 7 $1 ,048 ($3 1 ) Warehouse $1 7 5 $8 1 $5 0 $3 0 6 $978 ($6 7 2 ) Publ i c/Inst i tut i onal $1 ,2 9 4 $22 2 $3 5 0 $1 ,8 6 6 $1 ,497 $3 6 9 14 SF Unit Fee Comparison: Other Communities Single -Family De tached, Base Me te r Fire L ibrary Park Police Stree t Other Non-Utility Subtotal Wate r Wate r Resource Waste - water Utility Subtotal Total Fe es Marana-Northeast $0 $0 $2 ,4 61 $0 $4 ,291 $0 $6,75 2 $2 ,3 31 $3 ,0 50 $3 ,9 30 $9 ,31 1 $16 ,0 63 Marana-Northwest $0 $0 $2 ,4 61 $0 $3 ,719 $0 $6,18 0 $2 ,3 31 $3 ,0 50 $3 ,9 30 $9 ,31 1 $15 ,4 91 Marana-South Saguaro Bl oom $0 $0 $2 ,4 61 $0 $4 ,327 $0 $6,78 8 $8 38 $3 ,0 50 $3 ,9 30 $7 ,81 8 $14 ,6 06 Tuc son - Current Full Adopted 20 14 $3 0 3 $0 $3 ,9 53 $3 79 $5 ,691 $0 $10,326 $0 $0 $4,188 $4,188 $14 ,5 14 Tuc son - Current Phase-In $3 0 3 $0 $1 ,9 35 $3 79 $4 ,838 $0 $7,455 $1,967 $300 $4,188 $6,455 $13 ,9 10 Oro V all e y - Proposed $0 $0 $1 ,0 54 $2 83 $1 ,660 $0 $2,99 7 $6 ,3 87 $0 $4 ,1 88 $10 ,57 5 $13 ,5 72 Tuc son - Proposed (08/27 /19 )^$3 5 9 $0 $2 ,8 48 $5 31 $3 ,237 $0 $6,97 5 $1 ,9 67 $3 00 $4 ,1 88 $6 ,45 5 $13 ,4 30 Oro V all e y - Current $0 $0 $8 56 $3 10 $1 ,990 $0 $3,15 6 $6 ,0 60 $4 ,1 88 $10 ,24 8 $13 ,4 04 Marana-South Cont. Reserve and Twi n Peaks $0 $0 $2 ,4 61 $0 $4 ,327 $0 $6,78 8 $2 ,7 40 $3 ,0 50 $4 ,1 88 $5 ,79 0 $12 ,5 78 Casa Grande - Zone A $589 $0 $1,153 $179 $3,230 $233 $5,384 $0 $0 $4,557 $4,557 $9 ,9 41 Casa Grande - Zone B $589 $0 $1,153 $179 $3,230 $233 $5,384 $0 $0 $4,443 $4,443 $9 ,8 27 Cool i dge $426 $0 $1,058 $0 $3,235 $0 $4,719 $0 $0 $2,183 $2,183 $6 ,9 02 Queen Creek $0 $1,004 $1,168 $609 $3,151 $0 $5,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 ,9 32 Mari copa $541 $0 $1,116 $277 $3,580 $0 $5,514 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 ,5 14 Eloy $0 $0 $895 $673 $1,348 $0 $2,916 $1,556 $0 $906 $2,462 $5 ,3 78 Sierra Vi sta $263 $0 $624 $359 $1,981 $0 $3,227 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 ,2 27 Sahuarita $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 *Wastewate fee for Tucs on and Oro Valley is the Pima County was tewater fee ^ Single family unit siz e range of 1,751 to 2 ,0 00 s q. ft. (reflecting average s ize)