Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item #1 Parks Capital Plan
/ ao", t*- \ CHUBBUCK 1 A A H A Memo To: Mayor England / City Council From: Rodney Burch, PWD (acting Parks Director) Date: March 23, 2022 Public Works Department 290 E. Linden, Chubbuck, ID 83202 208.237.2430 — Fax 208.237.2409 www.CityofChubbuck.us Re: Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fees Committee Members, Since the City Council adoption of Parks Impact Fees, the following fees have been collected: FY 2019 $13,424 FY 2020 $40,272 FY 2021 $220,857 FY 2022 YTD $204,135 To date, the Parks Impact Fee fund balance is $478,688. The project concepts shown in Appendix "A" represent the originally identified project from the initial CIP (Capital Improvement Plan). - Espie Water Education Center - Downtown Plaza — CDA Partnership - Miller Park The project concepts shown in Appendix "B" represent potential projects that may be added to the CIP. - New Day Dog Park - Canal Trails - New Day Trailhead — Skate Park The financial information shown in Appendix "C" represents current revenue received and projections of future revenue and CIP project expenditures. The original CIP is included for reference as Appendix "D". Appendix "A" Original CIP - Projects CONCEPT IMAGES: I March 2017 WATER YANK H0051 PAVILION [44'X37 RA15E D PLANTIERS FOR SHADE TREES ME AND STAIRWAY DDWN SLOPE PATH WAY THRDLIGH CONSERVATION AREA DONSERYATION KIUS1 URBAN ORCHARD, McKAY STREET Epie Park FLOW 11Water Education Center 0 CONCEPT MASTER PLAN I R PNODUCTION C A1'IRAICvLT10N 5 SAFETY AAR {POSED FACE SEATING STEPS —AOLJI;FR INFORMATION RIO6K 1 r ------- Concept Rendering - PLAN VIEW scale: 1,=36'x"' p' 15' I DARRIS STREET I I I I 1 I I L I IJ� JACKSON Lnfly 7ssRll. rs LEGEND: _ - ExlaGng 6ueleeas [� P -posed Busmoss IJ - Idaho CarAW Credal Union CHUSBUCK ROAD JW JACKSON Cain Msrna 4�el\ CI"1ubbuck City Downtown � 5 q 0 100 2Q CHUBBUCK CONCEPT MASTER PLAN :I I Scala 1"=10'-4" 1 0 A H a 77-- 19ELL- WAIsr! vAAAL 7-� SLIP A SCIDE I SLEDDING MILL Concept Master Plan - PLAN VIEW_ NORTH AROUNDThft AREA 1101Q 'A' TRO( V ANGELA STREET CONCEPT IMAGES: I -ED JACKSON Ld 10 IIUIUF.1r Miller Park CHUBBUCI( 1 0 A R 0 Appendix "B" Potential New CIP - Projects i Il 00t4CEPTUAL PHOTO,3WHS NEW DAY PARKWAY DECORA'nVE PVC FENCE'BLACK' MULTI-USER DRINKING FOUNTAIN DECORATIVE PARK AIVIENITIIE$ POSSMUE DOG AGIUTY COURSE �u�uu New Day Do CaNCEPT 1,AA#-'%'r'=CS Ml ANA COV ERIECSEATING ! PICNIC Parktk 1 0 A 4 u . . ..................... – - — – --------------- ----- JLD JACKSON LAND DESIaA. PC INCE RT MIC SLWE COVERED 9E4TININ IONIC TABU C—) 4' DOu mml &WV ET, CkT BENVbUYP 11 't-Milb P.—LION 3- -U... .. U— ENCEAT DQU8LffaAFETyGArE- a MAINTEI- - PUP HME EA ELLIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RQ— 0 20' 4V 1. DECORA'nVE PVC FENCE'BLACK' MULTI-USER DRINKING FOUNTAIN DECORATIVE PARK AIVIENITIIE$ POSSMUE DOG AGIUTY COURSE �u�uu New Day Do CaNCEPT 1,AA#-'%'r'=CS Ml ANA COV ERIECSEATING ! PICNIC Parktk 1 0 A 4 u . . ..................... – - — – --------------- ----- JLD JACKSON LAND DESIaA. PC INCE RT MIC SLWE COVERED 9E4TININ IONIC TABU C—) 4' DOu mml &WV ET, CkT BENVbUYP 11 't-Milb P.—LION 3- -U... .. U— ENCEAT DQU8LffaAFETyGArE- a MAINTEI- - PUP HME A fk Eq -.L-. _-I. I mm w Map 5.3 - Site Evaluations 1. Miller Park 2. Urban Park 3. Knudsen Area 4. Pine Ridge Mall 5. I.C.C.U. Overlay Area 6. MoWie Manor Area 7. Linear Paths - Bike 6 Pedestrian B. C�apell Extension 9. Northgate Area 10, East Bench Area Site ldwtifiar Proposed Linear Paths i Reach CityLimils 2D17 Existing Parkr, & Mairitainad Grass tWu-b-6uCkI-R7d]W Oak W&L AA ►: Fades Reached — Proposed Rcaaches % r _, Wopoxed Prowla . E Gey umlCs 2x22 .. I � r. � I ? •� 1 -. • t 17�r� ProyKt ! Pvrtneuf . -. Biller Libra Park � Library {A - II _€ • 'r• i r'J . % •r .'j a Jr. Ir�'r 1 •�4.rI1• �rf� �• •rte +x J New Day Parkway Skate Park and Mixed Use Commercial Area CONCEPT MASTER PLAN CHUBBIICK 1 0 R H 0 NEW DAY PARKWAY CONCEPT IMAGES u qrtm w -I L, Appendix "C" CIP — Financial Projections $1,000,000 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $ 600,000 $500,000 $440,000 $ 300,000 $ 200,000 $100,000 Actual Fees Collected 2019 — 2021 Projected Fees 2022 — 2028 Annual Fee Revenue O a 0 rN m in r. m M1 u7 o' ry ry N � n ry N a o _ a 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Impact Fee Fund Balance Assuming No Expenditures Impact Fee - Fund Balance o 0 R O � $5,000,000 r $4,500,000Gi 0 CA M in Ci M in $4,000,000 M N to $3,500,000 m N $3,000,000 e4 N N 11} $2,500,000 M Lnat Ir M H rq ifE Ln L il} $2,000,000 N $1,500,000un'-, In $1,000,000 IT un � n $500,000 1 N � �' -Ln 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Potential project lists shown for concept only. These projects have not all been prioritized or accepted for Impact Fee Funding. 2022 Potential Projects: Park Meadows Pavillions $ 40,000.00 Trueman Park - Partnership w/Development $ 75,000.00 New Day Trail Head @ Whitaker Road $ 300,000.00 Skate Park - CDA Partnership $ 100,000.00 2023 Potential Projects: P Bi -Centennial Restroom $ 150,000.00 Downtown Plaza - CDA Partnership $ 200,000.00 Dog Park $ 200,000.00 Neighborhood - Park Grant $ 25,000.00 Community Gardens $ 10,000.00 2024 Potential Projects: Pickleball Courts $ 75,000.00 Canal Trail - Funding Match $ 50,000.00 Miller Park- Funding Partnership $ 750,000.00 Neighborhood - Park Grant $ 25,000.00 2025 Potential Projects: MV] 00n Canal Trail - Funding Match $ 50,000.00 Hut Shelters - Misc Parks $ 75,000.00 Neighborhood - Park Grant $ 50,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,000,000,00 $500,000.00 Impact Fee - Ending Fund Balance Lq C) m ti r X1"1 ,y n � N 0 n n v o � to M 61 R N N ry P C QI V1 O N M Ln �4 V7 MV] 00n D C5 ri 4 m o m to v, M in N o N -4 N LO n L {ry Ln t14 q 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2021 2028 Appendix "D" Original CIP City of Chubbuck Parks & Recreation Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis September 2018 ZIONS ©© PUBLIC FINANCE,INC. ©© ©© City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© ME Contents MESection I: Introduction to the Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ............................................2 ProjectOverview.......................................................................................................................................................2 M■ Impact Fee Service Area............................................................................................................................................2 MEPopulation Growth....................................................................................................................................................2 PersonsPer Household (PPH)...............................................................................................................................2 ServiceUnits..............................................................................................................................................................3 MESection II: Parks Capital Improvement Plan...................................................................................................................4 ONSystem Improvements..............................................................................................................................................4 Existing Park Acreage and Amenities........................................................................................................................4 16- No Existing Park Acreage Inventor 4 NoExisting Park Amenities.........................................................................................................................................5 - Land Improvement Costs......................................................................................................................................5 ScheduleFor Improvements.................................................................................................................................5 FundingCapital Facilities...........................................................................................................................................6 HistoricFunding Sources.......................................................................................................................................6 BondFunding........................................................................................................................................................6 ImpactFees...........................................................................................................................................................6 Summary of Time and Price Differential...................................................................................................................6 Equityof Impact Fees................................................................................................................................................6 Section III: Parks Impact Fee Analysis............................................................................................................................7 ImpactFee Overview.................................................................................................................................................7 ParksLevel of Service................................................................................................................................................7 i.r Proportionate Share Analysis....................................................................................................................................7 Calculation of Proportionate Share......................................................................................................................7 Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit....................................................................................................................8 mir Credits Owed to Development..................................................................................................................................8 GrantFunding.......................................................................................................................................................8 Developer Dedications and Exactions...................................................................................................................8 DeficiencyCredit...................................................................................................................................................8 Individual Impact Fee Assessment............................................................................................................................9 Appendix......................................................................................................................................................................10 E 0M No No 1 No No or ©© ©© 00 ■■ 00 No on ■ o No ON No No it ME No City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis SECTION I: INTRODUCTION TO THE PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS PROJECT OVERVIEW Chubbuck City (the City) has commissioned Zions Public Finance, Inc (Zions) to put together a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) prior to imposing parks development impact fees authorized by Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Impact Fee Act). IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA Chubbuck is a city located in Bannock County, Idaho. It is immediately north of the City of Pocatello. At the 2010 census, the population was 13,922 and the 2016 population was estimated to be 14,644. The purpose of the Parks & Recreation Capital Improvement Plan is to provide Chubbuck with substantive planning for future capital infrastructure for which development impact fees may be used as a funding source including facility sizes, costs, funding, and allocation to growth. This information will be used as the basis of calculating the Parks & Recreation IFA. A CIP must be prepared before the City can adopt and assess a parks impact fee. This CIP and IFA have been prepared for a single, city-wide service area (Service Area). The same parks & recreation impact fee cost per capita will be assessed throughout the Service Area. The cost per capita is the relationship between the Service Area's population and park acreage, amenities, and improvement costs. The cost per capita will be discussed further in Section III: Parks Impact Fee Analysis. POPULATION GROWTH 2016 is the baseline year for population estimate used in this analysis as shown in Figure 1. By buildout the City anticipates have a resident population of approximately 40,238. FIGURE 1: POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS Year Population Annual Population Change Estimated Households Annual Households Change 2016 14,644 5,249 2017 15,072 428 5,402 154 2018 15,501 428 5,556 154 2019 15,929 428 5,709 154 2020 16,358 428 5,863 154 2021 1 16,786 428 6,017 154 2022 17,215 428 6,170 154 2023 17,643 428 6,324 154 2024 18,072 428 6,477 154 2025 18,500 428 6,631 154 2026 18,929 428 6,785 154 2027 19,357 1 428 1 6,938 154 Buildout 40,238 1 1 14,422 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD (PPH) Persons per household estimates are important for the parks impact fee calculation because the impact fee is calculated as a cost per capita and then applied to each type of residential development using the persons per household values shown below. FIGURE 2: PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES Development Single Family (2015 ACS) 2.79 Multi -Family (2015 ACS) 2.60 No ME Em ©© i ME 00 No No No 16 No ON No No IL_ No No 101 101 ME ME ME ON No No so .00 MIN 1010 ME ME SIX 1001 so so 101 101 101 101 City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis SERVICE UNITS A service unit is defined by the Impact Fees Act as a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements. In the case of parks impact fees, parks cost per capita is the basic unit for measuring the demand for services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the "cost per capita" and applied to each land use category according to the historic persons per household. Parks impact fees are assessed to residential land uses only. 3 No ©© City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis un 00 SECTION II: PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The Impact Fee Act allows that an impact fee be collected for the cost to construct system improvements which have 00 capacity to serve future growth. A system improvement is defined as an improvement which will provide service to a service area not an improvement than only serves one specific development. The system improvement must also have a useful life of ten or more years. System improvements which are impact fee eligible may be "buy -in" to the City's existing inventory of amenities and park acreage or may be future improvements within a twenty-year ■� planning horizon. The impact fee should be calculated to assess an impact fee for the proportionate share of system improvement costs which is available to serve future growth. The Parks CIP documents the City's impact fee qualifying existing and future expenditures. Qualifying system level improvements include neighborhood or community parks, public trails, open space, recreation centers, sports fields, and special use parks (such as fitness parks and skate parks). ■■ EXISTING PARK ACREAGE AND AMENITIES ■ EXISTING PARK ACREAGE INVENTORY No No ■M ■ ■ Figure 3 shows the City's existing parks acreage inventory listing each park location, the type of park, funding source, the year it was purchased/developed, and the cost of the parkland. Only community or neighborhood parks were considered system improvements and thus impact fee qualifying. Any land that was donated was excluded from the total qualifying acreage and parkland cost. FIGURE 3: EXISTING PARK ACREAGE INVENTORY Name Type of Park Total Funding Acres Community Parks Year Purchased Current Cost QualifyingPark Capell Park I Community 1 17.51 Grants orfunding 1 1996 $ 2,734,157 Yes Cotant Park I Community 21.11 Cash In Lieu of Park 1 1967 3,209,279 Yes Park Meadows Park I Community 1 8.21 City Funded 1 2002 1 916,727 1 Yes Stuart Park Neighborhood/Community 1 4.91 Cash In Lieu of Park 1 1958 279,001 Yes Neighborhood Parks Armstrong Park Neighborhood 1.6 Cash In Lieu of Park 1975 $ 26,645 Yes Bicentennial Park Neighborhood 0.0 Land was donated 1975 - No Bistline Park Neighborhood 1.2 Cash In Lieu of Park 1985 27,835 Yes Briarwood Park Neighborhood 1.5 Cash In Lieu of Park 1993 23,644 Yes Chase Park Neighborhood 0.8 Cash In Lieu of Park 1963 6,975 Yes Dalton Park Neighborhood 0.5 Cash In Lieu of Park 1997 2,138 Yes Espie Park Neighborhood 0.9 City Funded 1993 4,256 Yes Homestead Park Neighborhood 2.6 City Funded 2005 76,529 Yes Mary Harker Park Neighborhood 1.3 Cash In Lieu of Park 1975 17,127 Yes Heartland Park Neighborhood 2.2 City Funded 2004 53,445 Yes Heritage Park Neighborhood 2.7 Cash In Lieu of Park 1993 86,521 Yes Jerry Rowland Park Neighborhood 2.2 Cash In Lieu of Park 2003 52,438 Yes Larry Miller Park Neighborhood 2.3 Cash In Lieu of Park 2003 58,552 Yes Long Park Neighborhood 0.0 Land was donated 2013 - No Mary's Park Neighborhood 4.3 City Funded 1978 207,310 Yes Sample Park Neighborhood 0.0 Land was donated 2007 - No Sunset West Neighborhood 0.0 Land was donated 2006 No Tree Valley Park Neighborhood 0.8 City Funded 2000 6,862 Yes Totals 76.5 1 1 $ 7,789,442 4 No or Em ©© am ■. IL ■■ ■■ 101101 City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis EXISTING PARK AMENITIES Figure 4 shows the existing amenities and their cost. The City has invested over $3.3M in park amenities costs. Please see Appendix D for the detailed inventory of parks documenting where each amenity is located. FIGURE 4: EXISTING AMENITIES LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS Improvements Cost Total VALUE Gazebos, Pavillions, Bowery $ 384,588 Pavilion $ 20,000 7 $ 140,000 Memorial Gazebo 71,588 1 71,588 Small Pavilion with Picnic Tables 20,000 6 120,000 Bench 500 24 12,000 Covered Picnic Tables 2,000 4 8,000 Picnic Tables 1,000 33 33,000 Fields, Courts, Diamonds $ 674,000 Basketball Full Court $ 16,000 3 $ 48,000 Basketball Half Court 8,000 10 80,000 Tennis Courts 16,000 15 240,000 Ball field 30,000 10 300,000 Volleyball Court 2,000 3 6,000 Restrooms $ 150,000 Restroom building $ 50,000 3 $ 150,000 Other $ 2,119,624 Playground 50,000 19 950,000 Swing Set 12,000 16 192,000 Splash Pad 250,000 1 250,000 Concessions Stand 80,000 1 80,000 Horse Shoe Pits 3,262 2 6,524 Refrigerated Ice Skating Rink with Lights 100,000 1 100,000 Concrete Skating Rink 100,000 1 100,000 Paved parking area (per Stall) 1 1,2001 278 1 333,600 Gravel Non -Paved Parking Area 1 2501 30 7,500 Storage Structure /Tennis Service Shop 1 100,0001 1 1 100,000 Total $ 3,328,212 In addition to the inventory of qualifying park acreage and amenities, an improvement cost has also been included. The City has determined that each park requires an average of $2.25 per square foot for improvement costs such as ■■ landscaping. ■ ■ SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENTS The parks & recreation impact fees will be assessed according to historic dollars invested per capita and not be based on the cost of future improvements. However, Jackson Land Design, PC is currently in the final stages of completing the City of Chubbuck Parks Master Development Plan 2018 and has identified future park improvements the City nointends to complete in the near future. The parks improvement planned within the immediate horizon are as follows: ■■ Espie Park Water Education Center: Preliminary Cost Estimate: $841,500 Water education will be the theme of this 5 -acre community park that abuts the existing Espie Park on its west and north sides. The park will capitalize on the newly constructed City water tank, and provide additional amenities and ■■ attractions designed to educate park users on how a municipal water system operates, and to demonstrate how valuable water is in this high desert community. Additional amenities include a slide to link the top of the water tank with the patio below, a community garden, park benches strategically placed throughout the park, picnic pavilions and arbor shade structures, and restroom facilities. ■■ Chubbuck City Downtown Park: Preliminary Cost Estimate: $2,502,000 METhis park's classification will be that of a Community Park, and would consist of approximately ten (10) acres of area in the center of a new City Downtown. The park's function would be to provide a pleasing green space in the middle SO so 101 101 101 101 No ®© City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis un IN Mi of a new downtown area that would be bordered by a mixed use of restaurants, retail space, and large to medium ■. commercial businesses. This new park would consist mainly of passive recreation elements such as open lawn areas with lots of large shade trees and decorative shrub and flower beds. Wide walking paths with strategically placed benches and picnic tables would line these paths. ■■ Miller Park Preliminary Cost Estimate: $3,075,750 ■■ Currently, this park is undeveloped farm land that abuts several developing and proposed single-family home neighborhoods. The park's size and gentle topography provides a blank canvas to create a park that will serve current and future residents of this developing area. Central to the park is a 2 -acre lake that will have ADA access around the entire perimeter. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has indicated an interest in stocking this lake with a mixture of bass and bluegill fish to provide year-round fishing opportunities. Utilizing the fill material generated from ■■ lake excavation a gently sloped community amphitheater will be built and oriented to maximize views of the lake and park. Also, the remaining lake fill material will be used to slightly elevate the park's northeast corner to provide the elevated launch pad necessary for a proposed water slip & slide feature. The park would be looped by an 8' wide walking path. Along the looped path a series of exercise stations, park benches, and picnic tables would be placed. A 9 -hole frisbee golf course would be located mainly outside of the looped path around the park's perimeter. ■� FUNDING CAPITAL FACILITIES HISTORIC FUNDING SOURCES ■■ Parks can be funded in a variety of ways including tax revenues, impact fees, grants, bonds, etc. Tax revenues— property and sales—are the primary source of revenue for the City. The City has authority to collect a portion of the �C property and sales taxes within its boundaries. The revenues collected can cover the operational expenses, non- impact fee qualifying capital expenses, and other general needs of the parks department. ■■ BOND FUNDING ■, The Impact Fee Advisory Committee has recommended that bond costs (such as cost of issuance and interest) not be included in the impact fee calculation until the time that future bonds have been approved by the voters. There are no outstanding bonds related to the parks improvements and no future bonds are currently proposed. If a bond is proposed and approved in the future by City residents, then the impact fees will be revised at that time to include any additional bond costs. ■■ IMPACT FEES Impact fees have become an ideal mechanism for funding growth -related infrastructure. It is recommended that impact fees be used to fund growth -related capital projects as they help to maintain an adequate level of service ME and prevent existing users from subsidizing the capital needs for new growth. ■■ SUMMARY OF TIME AND PRICE DIFFERENTIAL The Impact Fees Act allows for the inclusion of a time and price differential to ensure that the costs incurred at a later date are accurately calculated. To account for this, 2018 project cost estimates for future projects can be ■0 inflated at 3% annually to a future value cost based on the year of anticipated construction; however, the parks & ■■ recreation impact fees are based on the current level of investment per capita, not based on the costs of future park improvements. Therefore, it was not necessary to include an inflation component in the parks & recreation impact fee calculation. ■■ EQUITY OF IMPACT FEES ■■ The impact fee calculations are structured to fund 100% of the growth -related portion of system improvements as presented in the impact fee analysis. Even so, there may be years that impact fee revenues cannot cover the annual growth -related expenses. Other revenues will be used to make up any annual deficits given gaps in development or ■■ other factors. Any borrowed funds are to be repaid in their entirety through impact fees at the time that impact fee ■■ funds become available. E1 1N1 1001 ■■ 6 ME 101 101 101 101 No ®© City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© ME SECTION III: PARKS IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW The impact fee for parks is calculated using growth projections, current populations and persons per household 00 projections, and existing and future parks acreage and amenities costs which have been described in Sections I & II Noof this document. The final components necessary to complete the impact fee analysis include: level of service (LOS), proportionate share analysis, impact fee cost per capita, impact fee cost per development unit, and proposed credits to development. Each of those components are discussed in the following section. No ■o No ON No ■ ■ ME No ME No no No ME ■■ WIN ■■ ■■ ■M 101101 101101 PARKS LEVEL OF SERVICE One key component of the impact fee calculation is the level of service. The level of service is the measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public facilities. In the case of parks impact fees that means current park acreage per 1,000 residents coupled with the parks & recreation amenities dollars invested per 1,000 residents. If the City did not continue to invest in new or expanded parks & recreation projects which have capacity to serve new growth, then the current level of service of 5.22 acres per 1,000 residents and $227,275 invested in amenities per 1,000 residents will drop and the level of service would be reduced over time. It is the intention of the City of Chubbuck to maintain the current level of service by continuing to invest in future parks & recreation land and amenities. FIGURE 5: CURRENT PARKS & RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE Parks Impact Fee Qualifying Parks & Recreation LOS - Current Inventory Acres Qualifying Cost Acreage LOS Per 1,000 Community Neighborhood 51.69 $ 7,139,163 24.78 650,279 3.53 1.69 Park Total 76.45 $ 7,789,442 5.22 Amenities Total Cost of Existing Amenities Amenities LOS Per 1,000 Amenities - $ 3,328,212 $ 227,275 Amenities Total - $ 3,328,212 $ 227,275 PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS As part of this analysis, the Impact Fees Act requires that the calculated impact fee be roughly proportionate and reasonably related to the development activity. Ideally, implementing an impact fee to pay for needed infrastructure places a burden on future users that is equal to the burden that was borne in the past by existing users. To determine the fair share an impact fee payer should pay for parks & recreation system capacity, a proportionate share analysis was performed as described below. CALCULATION OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE Figure 6 displays the proportionate share of the impact fee eligible costs for existing park acreage, amenities, improvements, and associated professional expenses. The total impact fee eligible costs are divided by the City's population to arrive at an impact fee per capita of $844.25. FIGURE 6: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION/IMPACT FEE COST PER CAPITA Total Impact Fee Eligible Park Acres (76.5 acres @$20,000) Population Cost $ 1,529,538 Served 14,644 $ Capita 104.45 Amenities Cost 3,328,212 14,644 227.27 Improvement Costs ($2.25 per Sq Ft) 7,495,501 14,644 511.85 Professional Expenses 10,000 14,644 0.68 Total Park Impact Fee Per Capita $ 844.25 No or Em ©© ism ME 00 No No ON No No it ME No ME No no ■ ■ ■■ No �� ME ME SIX 1001 so so 101 101 101 101 City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis IMPACT FEE COST PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT The land use plan provided by the City identified the persons per household for both single-family and multi -family residential units (see Appendix B). Parks & Recreation impact fees are assessed to residential land uses only. The parks & recreation impact fee per capita has been assigned to each residential land use according to the persons per household for that type of development as shown in Figure 7. FIGURE 7: RECOMMENDED PARKS & RECREATION IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT CREDITS OWED TO DEVELOPMENT Certain circumstances may result in the need to provide a credit to development. Impact fee credits are detailed below. GRANT FUNDING Any improvement donated to the City which the City has no obligation to repay is assumed to be donated to the City's residents through buildout. Therefore, if a capital facility is acquired through a grant or another source that does not require the City to pay for the project, then the value of that improvement would not be considered an impact fee qualifying cost. An impact fee should not be collected for a project or expense otherwise covered through a grant without an appropriate credit. If any grant funding is received for impact fee eligible expenses, then the impact fee will be reviewed at the time that the funding is received to account for any reduction in impact fee project costs. DEVELOPER DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS Developer exactions are not the same as grants (which should be credited from the impact fee). If a developer constructs a system improvement level park/amenity or donates land to the City for a system improvement park, then the value of the dedication is credited against that particular developer's impact fee liability. If the situation arises that a developer chooses to construct facilities in -lieu of impact fees, appropriate arrangements must be made through negotiation between the developer and the City on a case by case basis. An impact fee credit will be due to the developer and the dedication/exaction will be classified in the inventory as if it had been funded directly by the City through impact fees collected. If the value of the dedication/exaction is less than the development's impact fee liability, the developer will owe the balance of the liability to the City. If the value of the improvements dedicated is worth more than the development's impact fee liability, the City must reimburse the difference to the developer which can be done using impact fee revenues collected from other developments benefitting from the system improvement. DEFICIENCY CREDIT When the LOS calculation indicates there is an existing deficiency it is generally appropriate to include a deficiency credit in the impact fee calculation. The purpose of the deficiency credit is to avoid new growth from being required to fund their capacity through an impact fee and then also having to help pay to correct the deficiency for existing residents and essentially be double charged for their system capacity. To prevent this double charge being assessed to new growth, any appropriate deficiency credit is subtracted from the total impact fees owed to account for any deficiency projects paid for through other funding mechanisms which all City residents/businesses are required to pay (such as bonds, property tax revenue, or user rate revenue, when applicable to the project). The parks inventory does not have an existing deficiency; therefore, no deficiency credit is required at this time. 8 No ®© City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© JE IS INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT ME The Impact Fees Act states that the impact fee ordinance should include a process whereby the City shall allow a developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment of the proportionate share of development impact fees. The individual assessment process permits consideration of studies, data, and any other ■■ relevant information submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of the fee. For parks & recreation impact fees ■■ the variable that would be reviewed in the individual impact fee assessment would be the persons per household generated by the proposed development. Once the City and the developer have reviewed relevant information and determined the persons per household for the proposed development, then the City can calculate the individual impact fee assessment using the formula in Figure 8. ■o FIGURE 8: INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT FORMULA ■■ ImpactParks Non -Standard Multiply Number of Persons per Household by Impact Fee per Capita $844.25 IL ■ ■ ■ ■ 101101 W IL ■■ ■■ 101101 City of Chubbuck Parks Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis APPENDIX 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 APPENDIX A: POPULATION PROJECTIONS/ GROWTH IN DEMANDS Chubbuck City Parks CIP and Impact Fee Analysis A B C D E F G H Growth Projections Persons per Household Year mv Population Annual Population Change Estimated Households Annual Households Change 2016 14,644 5,249 2017 15,072 428 5,402 154 2018 15,501 428 5,556 154 2019 15,929 428 5,709 154 2020 16,358 428 5,863 154 2021 16,786 428 6,017 154 2022 17,215 428 6,170 154 2023 17,643 428 6,324 154 2024 18,072 428 6,477 154 2025 18,500 428 6,631 154 2026 18,929 428 6,785 154 2027 19,357 428 6,938 154 Buildout 40,238 14,422 A B C D E F G H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 APPENDIX B: FORECAST OF DEVELOPMENT UNITS Chubbuck City Parks CIP and Impact Fee Analysis A B C D E F G H I 1 TABLE B.1: Existing and Future Population, Residential Units, and Private Non Residential Floor Space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Source: City ofChubbuckGlSAnalysi, A B C D E F G H I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2016 Existing Development Pr Residential Units Population Current Persons per Household Total Units Population Units Population Buildout Persons per Household Total Units Single Family Multi -Family 10,117 4,527 2.79 2.60 3,622 1,739 27,800 12,438 9,964 4,784 37,905 16,960 2.79 2.60 13,586 6,523 Total 14,644 2.70 5,361 40,238 14,748 54,865 2.73 20,109 Private Non -Residential Units SF per Capita Estimated kSF SF per Capita Estimated kSF SF per capita Estimated kSF General Commercial Office Institutional 149.4 6.6 17.6 2,188 97 258 149.4 6.6 17.6 6,013 266 708 149.4 6.6 17.6 8,201 363 966 Total 174 2,543 6,987 174 9,530 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPENDIX C: EXISTING PARK ACREAGE Chubbuck City Parks CIP and Impact Fee Analysis A B C D G H L Existing Park Acreage Park Name .Year Community Parks Purchased Qualifying Capell Park Community 17.5 Grants or funding 1996 $ 2,734,157 Yes Cotant Park Community 21.1 Cash In Lieu of Park 1967 3,209,279 Yes Park Meadows Park Community 8.2 City Funded 2002 916,727 Yes Stuart Park Neighborhood/Community 4.9 Cash In Lieu of Park 1958 279,001 Yes Neighborhood Parks Armstrong Park Neighborhood 1.6 Cash In Lieu of Park 1975 $ 26,645 Yes Bicentennial Park Neighborhood 0.0 Land was donated 1975 - No Bistline Park Neighborhood 1.2 Cash In Lieu of Park 1985 27,835 Yes Briarwood Park Neighborhood 1.5 Cash In Lieu of Park 1993 23,644 Yes Chase Park Neighborhood 0.8 Cash In Lieu of Park 1963 6,975 Yes Dalton Park Neighborhood 0.5 Cash In Lieu of Park 1997 2,138 Yes Espie Park Neighborhood 0.9 City Funded 1993 4,256 Yes Homestead Park Neighborhood 2.6 City Funded 2005 76,529 Yes Mary Harker Park Neighborhood 1.3 Cash In Lieu of Park 1975 17,127 Yes Heartland Park Neighborhood 2.2 City Funded 2004 53,445 Yes Heritage Park Neighborhood 2.7 Cash In Lieu of Park 1993 86,521 Yes Jerry Rowland Park Neighborhood 2.2 Cash In Lieu of Park 2003 52,438 Yes Larry Miller Park Neighborhood 2.3 Cash In Lieu of Park 2003 58,552 Yes Long Park Neighborhood 0.0 Land was donated 2013 - No Mary's Park Neighborhood 4.3 City Funded 1978 207,310 Yes Sample Park Neighborhood 0.0 Land was donated 2007 - No Sunset West Neighborhood 0.0 Land was donated 2006 - No Tree Valley Park Neighborhood 0.8 City Funded 2000 6,862 Yes Totals 76.5 $ 7,789,442 A B C D G H L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 F] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 APPENDIX D: EXISTING AMENITIES Chubbuck City Parks CIP and Impact Fee Analysis A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Y Y 4J a a a NO O •� o O aJ Y � a) � 3 �_ a � 0 J 4-0 •C v0f O •� ++ ca �. M Q E GJ � > V O +�• cn E !r H t u W E L fC a, J +' *' V i a u m •L m O c0 _ 2 i Y N N L L CO = C 41 J f0 ~ LLI LLI Improvements Cost a Total VALUE Gazebos, Pavillions, Bowery $ 384,588 Pavilion $ 20,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 $ 140,000 Memorial Gazebo 71,588 1 1 71,588 Small Pavilion with Picnic Tables 20,000 1 2 1 1 1 6 120,000 Bench 500 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 24 12,000 Covered Picnic Tables 2,0001 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 8,000 Picnic Tables 1,0001 1 1 1 4 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 4 4 1 1 4 1 1 2 33 133,000 Fields, Courts, Diamonds $ 674,000 Basketball Full Court $ 16,000 1 1 1 3 $ 48,000 Basketball Half Court 8,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 80,000 Tennis Courts 16,000 8 4 2 1 15 240,000 Ball field 30,000 3 6 1 10 300,000 Volleyball Court 2,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6,000 Restrooms $ 150,000 Restroom building $ 50,000 1 1 1 3 $ 150,000 Other $ 2,119,624 Playground 50,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 950,000 Swing Set 12,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 192,000 Splash Pad 250,000 1 1 250,000 Concessions Stand 80,000 1 1 80,000 Horse Shoe Pits 3,262 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6,524 Refrigerated Ice Skating Rink with Lights 100,000 1 1 100,000 Concrete Skating Rink 100,000 1 1 100,000 Paved parking area (per Stall) 1,200 200 16 30 15 12 5 278 333,600 Gravel Non -Paved Parking Area 250 30 30 7,500 Storage Structure /Tennis Service Shop 100,0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100,000 Total $ 3,328,212 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 APPENDIX E: CURRENT PARKS LEVEL OF SERVICE Chubbuck City Parks CIP and Impact Fee Analysis 2016 Chubbuck City Population 14,644 A B C Current Park & Recreation Level of Service 0 Parks : Recreation LOS• Qualifying Cost Acreage LOS Per 1,000 Impact Fee Qualifying Parks Acres Community Neighborhood 51.69 24.78 $ 7,139,163 650,279 3.53 1.69 Park Total 76.48 $ 7,789,442 5.22 Amenities Total Cost of Existing Amenities Amenities LOS Per 1,000 Amenities - $ 3,328,212 $ 227,275 Amenities Total - $ 3,328,212 $ 227,275 A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 APPENDIX F: IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Chubbuck City Parks CIP and Impact Fee Analysis A B Calculation of Park Impact Fee Per Capita Ir 0 Total Impact Fee Eligible Park Acres (76.5 acres @$20,000) Cost $ 1,529,538 Population Fee Served 14,644 $ Per Capita 104.45 Amenities Cost 3,328,212 14,644 227.27 Improvement Costs ($2.25 per Scl Ft) 7,495,501 14,644 511.85 Professional Expenses 10,000 14,644 0.68 Total Park Impact Fee Per Capita $ 844.25 Calculation of Park Impact Fees by Development Type Impact Fee Calculation Fee Per Unit , Average Household Size/Total Single Family Residential (SFR) Units 2.79 Gross Park Impact Fee per SFR Household $ 2,355 Average Household Size/Multi Family (MFR) Units 2.60 Gross Park Impact Fee per MFR Household $ 2,195 Calculation of Non -Standard Park Impact Fees Multiply Number of Persons per Household by Impact Fee per Capita $844.25 A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CHUBBUCK CITY COMMUNITY PARKS & RECREATION SURVEY SUMMARY Chubbuck, Idaho ARCHITECTURE PARKS AND RECREATION Questions and Response Summary VCBO A R CHI TECTVRE Generally speaking, how would you rate the quality of life in the City of Chubbuck, as compared to other cities of comparable size? Much better Somewhat better About the same Somewhat worse Much worse 152 154 11. EC. 11C.C. 12C IdC 160 VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE In your opinion, are the services you receive from the City of Chubbuck worth the taxes you pay? (Consider police, fire, parks, sanitation, streets, water, etc...) Definitely yes ' . Probably yes Might or might not Probably not Definitely not i} 41:- i'.i} 80 100 120 1 O 160 1B0 200 VCBO A R CHI TECTVRE How important is public recreation and parks to you at the present time? Extremely important Very important Moderately important Slightly important Not at all important 20 40 BO BO 100 12C IdC 113C. III VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE Do City of Chubbuck park and recreation facilities meet your family's recreation needs? Definitely yes Probably yes Might or might not Probably not AMW 74 Definitely not 19 20 40 80 BO 100 120 140 180 1BO 200 220 244 260 VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE Do you have a City of Chubbuck park in your neighborhood? Yes Maybe 0 11 No G4 329 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 VCBO ARCHITECTURE From your perspective, does the City of Chubbuck have enough parks to serve the community? Definitely yes Probably yes Might or might not Probably not Definitely not 01 70 60 BO 104 120 140 160 1P-0 VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE The City of Chubbuck has a number of parks. We would like to know which of these you are aware of and use. Please drag and drop the facility listed on the left into the appropriate box, based on how often you or a family member uses the facility, or if you were unaware of the facility. Use often 0Armstrong Park (8 37 Boyd Street) (3%) 0 Bicentennial Park (300 Abraham Street) (B°lo) BistIine Park (701 East Chubbuck Road) (290) Briarwood Park (Eagle Road & Briarwood Street) (0°10) CapelI Park (5245 Park Lawn Drive) (11°10) Ch ase Park [4559 Pinewood Avenue] (31)/0) Cotant Park (825 Victor Avenue) (25%) 0 Dalton Park (400 Idealya Lane) (1%) 0 Espie Park (692 Darris Street) (2010) 0 Homestead Park (715 Dell Road) (4%) Mary Harker Park (5110 Kay Street) (1%) Heartland Park (967 Stripes Road) (1%) Heritage Park (1451 Pennsylvania Avenue) (4%) Jerry Rowland Park (405 Hampton Avenue) (201o) 0 Larry Miller Park (406 Hampton Avenue) (1%) 0 Long Park (550 Thomas Street) (0%) 0 Mary's Park (B54 Washburn Drive) (2010) 0 Park Meadows Park (4765 Galena Avenue) (1%) Sample Park (5415 Stuart Avenue) (6010) Stuart Park (6161 Stuart Avenue) (1 B%) III Sunset West Park (1360 Jena Drive) (3010) Tree Valley Park (8 10 Garden Drive) (11 %) VCDO ARCHITECTURE The City of Chubbuck has a number of parks. We would like to know which of these you are aware of and use. Please drag and drop the facility listed on the left into the appropriate box, based on how often you or a family member uses the facility, or if you were unaware of the facility. Use occasionally �Armstrang Park (8 37 Boyd Street) (41/°) 0 Bicentennial Park (300 Abraham Street) (12010) Bistline Park (701 East Chubbuck Road) (8%) Capell Park (5246 Park Lawn drive) (811/6) Briarwood Park (Eagle Road & Briarwood Street) (2%) Chase Park (4559 Pinewood Avenue) (311/o) FCotant Park (525 Victor Avenue) (13% Dalton Park (400 Idealya Lane) (1%) 0 Espie Park (592 Darris Street) (Wo) 0 Homestead Park (715 Dell Road) (6%) Mary Harker Park (5110 Kay Street) (2%) Heartland Park (967 Stripes Road) (2%) Heritage Park (10 51 Pennsylvania Avenue) (4%) Jerry Rowland Park (405 Hlampton Avenue) (1%) 0 Larry Miller Park (405 Hampton Avenue) (1%) 0 Long Park (550 Thomas Street) (1%) Mary's Park (854 Washburn Drive) (3%) 0 Park Meadows Park (4765 Galena Avenue) (3%) Sample Park (5415 Stuart Avenue) (4%) Stuart Park (5161 Stuart Avenu e) (1b%) UCBD Sunset West Park (1360 Jena Drive) (2%) Tree VaIIey Park (8 10 Garden Drive) (1%) l ARCHITECTURE The City of Chubbuck has a number of parks. We would like to know which of these you are aware of and use. Please drag and drop the facility listed on the left into the appropriate box, based on how often you or a family member uses the facility, or if you were unaware of the facility. Never use NArmstrong Park (837 Boyd street) (6%) 0 Bicentennial Park (3 00 Abraham Street) (5°l0) Bistline Park (701 East Chubbuck Road) (6%) Briarwood Park (Eagle Road & Briarwood Street) (6%) CapelI Park (5246 Park Lawn Drive) (51%) 6 Chase Park (4559 Pinewood Avenue) (5%) Cotant Park (625 Victor Avenue) (211/0) 0 Dalton Park (40D Idealya Lane) (4%) 0 Espie Park (692 Darris Street) (6010) 0 Homestead Park (715 Dell Road) (611/fl) Mary Harker Park (5110 Kay Street) (5%) Heartland Park (967 Stripes Road) (5010) Heritage Park (1451 Pennsylvania Avenue) (511/0) , Jerry Rowland Park (405 Hampton Avenue) (40/o) 0 Larry Miller Park (405 Hampton Avenue) (4%) 0 Long Park (550 Thomas Street) (4%) 0 Mary's Park (854 Washburn Drive) (5%) 0 Park Meadows Park (4765 Galena Avenue) (5%) Sample Park (5415 Stuart Avenue) (5%) Stuart Park (5161 Stuart Avenue) (2%') Sunset West Park (1360 Jena Drive) (49{0) Tree Valley Park (8 10 Garden Drive) (31/16) VCBTO The City of Chubbuck has a number of parks. We would like to know which of these you are aware of and use. Please drag and drop the facility listed on the left into the appropriate box, based on how often you or a family member uses the facility, or if you were unaware of the facility. Have not heard of NArmstrong Park (837 Boyd Street) (41/6) 0 Bicentennial Park (300 Abraham Street) (11%) Bistline Park (701 East Chubbuck Road) (29#o) Briarwood Park (Eagle Road & Briarwood Street) (51%) Capell Park (5245 Park Lawn Drive) (3%) a Chase Park (4559 Pinewood Avenue) (5%) 0 Cotant Park (625 Victor Avenue) (1%) 0 Dalton Park (400 Idealya Lane) (61/a) 0 Espie Park (692 Darris Street) (5°%) 0 Homestead Park (715 Dell Road) (3%) j Mary Harker Park (5110 Kay Street) (61/6) Heartland Park (967 Stripes Road) (51'4) Heritage Park (1x51 Pennsylvania Avenue) (50/0) Jerry Rowland Park (405 Hampton Avenue) (61/1o) 0 Larry Miller Park (405 Hampton Avenue) (7°%) 0 Long Park (550 Thomas Street) (7°%) 0 Mary's Park (854 Washburn Drive) (6%) 0 Park Meadows Park (4765 Galena Avenue) (5°%) Stuart Park (5161 Stuart Avenue) (1%) Sample Park (5415 Stuart Avenue) (4°%) Sunset West Park (1360 Jena Drive) (6%) Tree Valley Park (814 Garden Drive) W*) VCBO ARCHITECTURE In your opinion, should the City of Chubbuck provide additional outdoor recreational facilities? Yes No 0 50 100 131 150 200 250 2 C-0 VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE If yes, which of the following outdoor activities need to be provided? (Check all that apply) Picnic areas with covered areas Hiking trails Equestrian trails -u Playground equipment -11� Softball diamonds Baseball diamonds Open play fields Volleyball courts Soccer fields Golf course Nature center Tennis courts Basketball courts (standard) Basketball courts (lower) Biking trails Mountain biking trails Horseshoe pits Skateboarding area Barbeque grills -� Rock climbing area other VCBO A R CHITECTVRE This question has to do with your interest in outdoor recreation activities. During the past year... - Current Frequency 1 Relaxing in a Park 27.97% 99 22.88% 81 15.82% 56 23.45% 83 9.89% 35 354 2 Picnicking 13.35% 45 16.62% 56 13.06% 44 41.54% 140 15.43% 52 337 3 Using Playground Equipment 34.30% 118 16.57% 57 12.21% 42 15.99% 55 20.93% 72 344 4 Team Sports 27.58% 91 6.36% 21 11.21% 37 12.73% 42 42.12% 139 330 5 Golfing 5.10% 16 4.78% 15 7.32% 23 11.15% 35 71.66% 225 314 6 Playing Tennis 4.49% 14 5.45% 17 3.21% 10 15.38% 48 71.47% 223 312 7 Riding a Bicycle 28.41% 98 21.16% 73 10.72% 37 17.97% 62 21.74% 75 345 8 Off-Roading 7.72% 24 5.79% 18 7.07% 22 14.79% 46 64.63% 201 311 9 Skateboarding 2.29% 7 3.27% 10 2.29% 7 2.61% 8 89.54% 274 306 10 11 Camping Walking or Hiking 7.27% 46.84% 24 163 11.52% 19.25% 38 67 20.00% 13.51% 66 47 29.70% 10.92% 98 38 31.52% 9.48% 104 33 330 348 12 Nature Walks / Studying 20.25% 66 13.19% 43 16.87% 55 20.86% 68 28.83% 94 = 13 Horseback Riding 1.32% 4 2.30% 7 2.63% 8 9.21% 28 84.54% 257 304 14 Boating 6.07% 19 7.35% 23 8.95% 28 19.49% 61 58.15% 182 313 15 Swimming / Water Play 20.67% 68 21.88% 72 17.33% 57 20.06% 66 20.06% 66 329 16 Fishing / Hunting 7.69% 25 12.00% 39 16.62% 54 19.69% 64 44.00% 143 325 17 Barbecuing 27.52% 90 22.94% 75 15.29% 50 14.37% 47 19.88% 65 327 18 Other (specify) 20.00% 9 13.33% 6 2.22% 1 6.67% 3 57.78% 26 45 This question has to do with your interest in outdoor recreation activities. During the past year... - Future Frequency 1 2 Relaxing in a Park Picnicking 72.77% 69.86% 163 153 27.23% 30.14% 61 66 224 219 3 Using Playground Equipment 75.23% 161 24.77% 53 214 4 Team Sports 82.35% 168 17.65% 36 204 5 Golfing 82.41% 164 17.59% 35 199 6 Playing Tennis 80.93% 157 19.07% 37 194 7 Riding a Bicycle 58.14% 125 41.86% 90 215 8 Off-Roading 83.51% 162 16.49% 32 194 9 Skateboarding 90.10% 173 9.90% 19 192 10 Camping 68.87% 146 31.13% 66 212 11 Walking or Hiking 60.99% 136 39.01% 87 223 12 Nature Walks / Studying 67.13% 145 32.87% 71 216 13 Horseback Riding 86.73% 170 13.27% 26 196 14 Boating 80.60% 162 19.40% 39 201 15 Swimming / Water Play 62.96% 136 37.04% 80 216 16 Fishing / Hunting 76.30% 161 23.70% 50 211 17 Barbecuing 70.89% 151 29.11% 62 213 18 Other (specify) 82.93% 34 17.07% 7 41 VCBO A R CHI TECTVRE We would like to know, in general, what might prevent your participation in recreation activities? Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements, as they apply to you. 1 You do not have enough time. 14.79% 54 34.52% 126 22.47% 82 18.08% 66 10.14% 37 365 2 You do not have enough 5.10% 18 25.21% 89 21.81% 77 32.86% 116 15.01% 53 353 energy. 3 It is too expensive. 6.11% 22 25.28% 91 22.78% 82 25.56% 92 20.28% 73 360 4 You do not have transportation 2.82% 10 3.66% 13 8.17% 29 28.17% 100 57.18% 203 355 available. 5 You are not aware of available 6.94% 25 34.17% 123 25.28% 91 18.89% 68 14.72% 53 360 facilities. 6 You do not understand how to 2.23% 8 20.95% 75 21.79% 78 27.65% 99 27.37% 98 358 use the available equipment or facilities 7 You are not interested in 3.64% 13 12.32% 44 17.93% 64 30.25% 108 35.85% 128 357 available recreation opportunities 8 You do not have anyone to go 3.64% 13 14.57% 52 22.97% 82 29.13% 104 29.69% 106 357 with 9 You are satisfied with your 11.85% 43 30.03% 109 26.72% 97 23.97% 87 7.44% 27 363 current activities and interests 10 You do not like organized 4.79% 17 8.73% 31 25.35% 90 36.62% 130 24.51% 87 355 activities VCBO We would like to know how you feel about your community, its parks and recreation system, and other related items in the following statements. 1 Sports and recreation are 46.34% 171 40.38% 149 10.84% 40 1.63% 6 0.81% 3 369 important to me and/or my family 2 1 am satisfied with the recreation 10.87% 40 33.42% 123 31.52% 116 21.20% 78 2.99% 11 368 opportunities in my community. 3 There are sufficient opportunities 14.75% 54 34.70% 127 24.86% 91 21.31% 78 4.37% 16 366 for children. 4 There are sufficient sports and 10.14% 37 23.84% 87 31.51% 115 26.85% 98 7.67% 28 365 recreation activities for teens. 5 There are sufficient recreation 7.97% 29 22.80% 83 32.97% 120 30.49% 111 5.77% 21 364 opportunities for adults. 6 There are sufficient recreation 6.03% 22 11.23% 41 50.41% 184 22.74% 83 9.59% 35 365 opportunities for seniors. 7 There are sufficient parks in my 23.42% 85 43.80% 159 18.46% 67 12.40% 45 1.93% 7 363 community. 8 The parks in my community are 28.26% 104 42.93% 158 16.58% 61 8.42% 31 3.80% 14 368 well maintained. 9 There are sufficient playgrounds 22.38% 81 40.06% 145 14.09% 51 17.40% 63 6.08% 22 362 in my area. 10 There are sufficient play fields in 21.70% 79 35.71% 130 22.53% 82 15.93% 58 4.12% 15 364 my community. 11 1 would like more information about 23.12% 83 38.44% 138 27.30% 98 6.96% 25 4.18% 15 359 activities offered by the Department of Parks and Recreation. VCBO A R CHI TECTVRE Would you support a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails that would connect parks and other recreational facilities to neighborhoods, to the center of town, and possibly to other neighboring communities? Yes Maybe 39 No 37 0 50 140 154 200 250 300 VCBO ARCHITECTURE If available, would you use a trail network as an alternative mode of transportation, rather than your vehicle for some trips or activities? Yes Maybe No 74 6o ago 0 20 40 00 B0 100 120 1-00 100 1B0 200 224 244 VCBO ARCHITECTURE COMMUNITY ACTIVITY & RECREATION Questions and Response Summary VCBO A R CHI TECTVRE I VCBO A R CHI TECTUIR E Are you or other members of your household currently using any recreation, sports, fitness or aquatic facilities, including facilities in your home? Yes No 107 0 50 100 150 200 25C- 2CC• VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE From the following list, please check ALL of the recreation, sports, fitness, and aquatic facilities you and members of your household currently use. Private fitness clubs Church facilities Other public recreation centers 148 Ross Park Aquatic 151 Complex Pocatello Community Recreation Center Recreation programs in schools Idaho State University facilities Home fitness None, do not use facilities $a •I1. 60 BO 100 120 140 160 :&C. 2 C-C- VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE Which ONE of the following statements best represent how the recreation, sports, fitness and aquatic facilities that you are currently using meet your needs? Meets all of your 39 needs Meets some of yourneeds Does not meet any of your needs 0 20 40 80 BO 100 120 WU 1B0 180 240 224 VCBO A R CHITECTVRE Please select the activities or space types below that would best meet the needs of Chubbuck residents. Please note that you can select multiple options. (Once you have selected an image it will turn green. If you want to deselect that image, click on the same image two more times.) # Question Dislike Neutral Like 1 Outdoor Pool Facility 0.85% 51.41% 47.74% 2 After School Program 0.28% 62.99% 36.72% Area 3 Indoor Recreation 0.00% 36.16% 63.84% Center 4 Indoor Community 0.00% 56.50% 43.50% Activity Center 5 Indoor Pool Fun 0.56% 31.36% 68.08% 6 Indoor Pool - Fitness 0.56% 43.50% 55.93% P— T, K L VCBO ARCH ITECTl1RE Listed below are various specific community activity and recreation features. For each one, please indicate whether you think each of these features is very strongly needed, somewhat needed or not needed in the community. 1 Preschool program space P5 After school program space Youth and teen program space 6 Arts and crafts rooms [7 Senior citizen activity space 15.06% 50 32.83% 109 26.81% 89 25.30% 84 332 Iq 29.82% 99 38.86% 129 14.76% 49 16.57% 55 332 39.16% 130 37.05% 123 8.73% 29 15.06% 50 332 19.39% 64 38.18% 126 22.42% 74 20.00% 66 330 29.17% 98 37.50% 126 11.01% 37 22.32% 75 336 8 Child care area for children of parents using 34.64% 115 35.24% 117 14.46% 48 community facilities 15.66% 52 332 l 9 Gymnasiums for basketball, volleyball, etc 41.79% 140 36.42% 122 12.84% 43 8.96% 30 335 10 Dance rooms for tap & ballet, ballroom, and 21.08% 70 40.06% 133 23.19% 77 15.66% 52 332 square dancing 11 Multipurpose space (with kitchen) for classes, 31.83% 106 39.04% 130 17.12% 57 12.01% 40 333 meetings, receptions, and birthday parties 12 Aerobics I fitness space 31.02% 103 48.19% 160 12.05% 40 8.73% 29 332 13 Weight room cardiovascular equipment area 33.53% 111 41.09% 136 15.71% 52 9.67% 32 331 14 Racquetball handball I wallyball courts 32.42% 107 38.79% 128 18.48% 61 10.30% 34 330 or swimming I aquatics center 66.16% 219 20.85% 69 8.46% 28 4.53% 15 331 or running walking track L 53.13% 178 28.96% 97 12.24% 41 5.67% 19 335 k climbing wall 33.84% 112 34.74% 115 19.34% 64 12.08% 40 331 18 Gymnastics area 23.56% 78 38.67% 128 22.05% 73 15.71% 52 331 VCBO ARCHITECTURE Please rank the features listed below from most important (1) to least important (17) by clicking on each item and dragging it into the preferred location in the list. 1C.- A- 12- 10- 8- 6- 4- 2- 0— E 2- 10- 8- 6- 4- 2 - 0— U c6 Q U O Q O O L U fn ^a) LL 0.4 { .2.- . 7.dd `25 7.2 I U a) U I (n O N I — U O I 7 0) C I I .. U "— a) _ a) U I .L CO a) I — U O L O Q a) =_ O cB U C M COU E -- Y N n3 a) m U �' �' M j — E E O U N off$ � m >, Q E N U u > o f — CIO L U (9 N U_ O O U U CU O O > � a) L N O (U C C ca U U U O vim) U a) C cv N E U-0 a ca -0 U U E cu (n L (6 U O E C O O j U C Q L N O O L _ U a) C U O C L m O Q C " Q E C U O 73O CU C OCU .0 C/) VJ !Ev /n Cl CUU Q 2 U Y i CU L N LL ■ Mean C E E I I c a) N O U U CU C E Le VCBO ARCHITECTURE Listed below are various specific AQUATIC features. For each one, please indicate whether you think each of the features is strongly needed, somewhat needed, or not needed in Chubbuck. 1 Area for swim lessons 67.57% 225 21.92% 73 8.11% 27 2.40% 8 333 2 A warm water family oriented swimming center 64.74% 213 22.80% 75 9.42% 31 3.04% 10 329 12.61% [leisure pool] with features such as slides, 6.01% 20 333 23.77% 77 34.57% 112 30.86% 100 10.80% lazy river, water sprays for children and zero 324 44.38% 146 41.03% 135 9.73% 32 4.86% 16 329 depth entry so you can walk into the pools Warm water area for therapeutic purposes 45.62% ' 151 34.44% 114 15.71% 52 4.23% 14 331 4 Competition pool for swim I dive team use 27.96% 92 39.82% 131 22.80% 75 9.42% 31 329 5 An area with deep water 35.95% 119 37.46% 124 18.13% 60 8.46% 28 331 6 Diving boards 7 Spa with raised temperature 1 8 Lanes for lap swimming 9 Dry sauna and steam room 10 Area for water fitness 31.21% 103 41.82% 138 20.30% 67 6.67% 22 330 34.25% 112 36.70% 120 20.80% 68 8.26% 27 327 42.94% 143 38.44% 128 12.61% 42 6.01% 20 333 23.77% 77 34.57% 112 30.86% 100 10.80% 35 324 44.38% 146 41.03% 135 9.73% 32 4.86% 16 329 7. Q-1111'_S9iC1.:s7:i .-d dmfZV; W777_�i;l� Please select up to TWO reasons you or members of your household would use an aquatic center. Aquatic classes Competitive swimming Year-round recreation or leisure swimming Exercise 204 Therapeutic 72 purposes 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 M 284 VCBO A R CHITECTVRE New community activity and recreation spaces for Chubbuck could be designed to serve different groups of people. Please drag and drop each group into the appropriate box, based on how important it is to provide activity and recreation space for each group. Senior citizens Families Children Teenagers Young adults Adults 2C -C- 25C- Baa Very Important Somewhat Important ■ Not Important VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE The cost of operating the recreation components will need to be covered by some user fees. Which ONE of the following would you prefer? Annual family pass Annual adult pass Pay per visit Don't know I'm not wiling to pay to use the - center 34 M r,} 140 124 144 160 i7 120 VCBO A R CHI TECTVRE How should the cost for OPERATING a new community activity and recreation center be paid for? Please select ONE option. 100% through taxes Taxes should pay the majority of the costs and fees from 107 users the remaining costs Fees from users should pay the majority of the costs and taxes the remaining costs - 100% through user fees Don't know :M57 I.= 185 I i i I i 40 60 BO 100 120 14C. VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE Which ONE of the following statements best represents how often you think that you or other members of your household would visit a community activity and recreation center? Several times a week Once per week A few times a month Monthly Less than once a month Never 40 BO BO 100 120 140 VCBO A R CHITECTVRE Construction and operations of the community recreation center would likely require property tax support in addition to user fees. Please check the MAXIMUM AMOUNT you would be willing to pay in property taxes PER YEAR to support a community recreation center. $300 per year $240 - $288 per year $180 - $228 per year $120 - $168 per year Less than $120 per year No property tax funding �R ;iM101 1 F0 BO 90 100 VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE Would you support a TAX INCREASE in a future election, of the dollar amount you indicated above, to be used to construct and operate a new community recreation center with the features your household prefers? Would support (50%) Might support (20%) Not sure (14%) Would not support (17%) BO 100 120 1O 160 130 VCBO ARCHITECTURE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Questions and Response Summary VCBO A R CHI TECTVRE Are you a current resident of Chubbuck City? Yes No im ] 50 100 150 200 250 VCBO A R CHI TECTVRE Counting yourself, how many people live in your household? Average — 4.18 people per household 24% of respondents had 2 people / household 10% had 3 people per household 21% had 4 people per household 17% had 5 people per household 14% had 6 people per household 14% had 7 or more people per household VCBO A R CHI TECT LIKE How many persons in your household (counting yourself) are? 400 — 355 350 — 3rao — 250 - 2-00 — '153 1510- 100 50-100 — 50- 17% — 0-0— I Und$r 5 }ears -Did 5-14 years 122 I 15-19 years 47 170 313 100 85 88 I I I I 1 1 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or years years years years years -DI-der ■ sum VCBO ARCHITECTURE What is your gender? Male 124 Female 203 20 40 00 BO 100 120 140 160 1BO FOO 220 VCBO ARCHI TECTVRE CHUBBUCK CITY COMMUNITY PARKS & RECREATION SURVEY SUMMARY Chubbuck, Idaho ARCHITECTURE Bill Guinn Water Education Center CONCEPT MASTER PLAN CHUBBUCK I a A H a 1 1 � / BERMED PLANTER AREA r / I I I I Prepared By: AD JACKSON LAND DESIGN, PC WATER TANK HOUSE PAVILION (44'X30' RAISED PLANTERS FOR SHADE TREES SLIDE AND STAIRWAY DOWN SLOPE PATHWAY THROUGH. CONSERVATION AREA CONSERVATION KIOSK URBAN ORCHARDI McKAY STREET –OVER -FLOW POND WATER TANK CONCEPT IMAGES: Revealed Water Tank Slide On Slope WATER PRODUCTION " KIOSK- -SPRAY IRRIGATION - - + 4 TOYS — SAFETY RAIL —EXPOSED FACE" SEATING STEPS Bocce Ball Court Raised Planters AQUIFER INFORMATION KIOSK Concept Rendering - PLAN VIEW Scale: 1"=30'-0" 0' 15' 30' 60' DARRIS STREET I rr I I I I I I I PICKLEBALL COURTS March 2017