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 Impact Fees
/6470-t-\ CHUBBUCK 1 0 0 H 0 Memo Community Services Department 290 E Linden Ave., Chubbuck, ID 83202 208.237.2430 www.CityofChubbuck.us To: Impact Fee Committee; Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Devin Hillam, Community Services Director Date: September 26, 2022 Re: Parks & Rec Impact Fee Use Policy Discussion Background Information The City of Chubbuck has adopted parks and recreation development impact fees and as part of the fee adoption process, the City adopted a park and recreation capital improvement plan (the Plan) provides an overview for how the fees were calculate and to establish those costs that qualify for impact fee use; the plan largely implements requirements from Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82 Development Impact Fees. One thing from both the plan and Idaho Code is that impact fees can only be used to fund improvements related to new growth and cannot be used to fund maintenance of existing improvements. When the Plan and fees were adopted, there were 3 large parks that were discussed in detail- a park expansion at Espie Park, a new park on Angela to be called "Miller Park", urban type park improvements in Chubbuck's downtown, Chubbuck Village. Largely ignored in the Plan however, is the possibility to use the parks impact fees for park and recreation improvements not located in those 3 areas, provided the impact fee funded projects are "system improvements" that will have a benefit on parks and recreation use throughout the entire city (the "service area"), and will not benefit just one single development. Some of the criticisms of the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee have been that the monies are collected, and nothing has been done with them; furthermore, criticisms of the fee also site a desire to use the monies for projects within existing parks where other developments are under construction. I believe there is merit in those criticisms, and I am proposing to change that through using the funds through a combination of both saving for the large park expansions while also targeting funds for system improvement projects in existing parks in Chubbuck. The City's legal counsel and I believe that the capital improvement plan provides that authority without need to amend the Plan. Page 4 of the Plan states that "The Parks CIP documents the City's impact fee qualifying existing and future expenditures. Qualifying J:\Planning\Impact Fees\2022 Update\9.26.22 Memo to LUDC & Council—re Impact Fee policy for System Improvements.docx 1 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)" (underlined emphasis added). Request I am requesting your policy consideration and guidance- are the three large parks the only parks as of right now where the City wishes to spend Parks and Recreation development impact fees or does the City wish to spend the monies in a combination of parks including the 3 large parks and in existing parks where those monies can provide system improvements? For the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, your guidance will be a recommendation to the City Council. For the City Council, your guidance will be treated as policy for how to administer the funds. Staff Recommendation I recommend a policy that allows for, and promotes, a mixture of parks system improvements, including continuing to save for the 3 large parks as well as planning and building system improvements in other parts of the City. If this is the policy, as the Impact Fee Administrator, I am committed to ensuring that they are spent only for that purpose and that monies will only add capacity to the system and will not be used to fund renovation or maintenance. In the City, we have at least 3 areas which were donated as park land under the prior development code, but that do not have any amenities. Those include: Long Park in the Briscoe/Cambridge Estates development area, Hiram Park in the Bilyeu development area, and 2 areas separated by a street in the Brookstone development. If the City so desired, I would like to poll nearby residents to these spaces to see what improvements/amenities would be used and/or preferred and then select impact fee funded improvements based on their input. The goal would be for recreational spaces on these existing parks which add to the system capacity, meaning even if another big toy is added, it will decrease demand at an existing big toy in the city and therefore quality as an expense. That said, many of these parks already have big toys and other common amenities in them- my hope is to identify other ways to create usable recreational space compared with the "big toy, slide, swing" park model that is common in Chubbuck. Attached: 1- Maps showing the location of existing parks proposed for new system improvement investments 2- Parks & Recreation Capital Improvement Plan 3- Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82 Development Impact Fees J:\Planning\Impact Fees\2022 Update\9.26.22 Memo to LUDC & Council—re Impact Fee policy for System Improvements.docx 2 LONG PARK a BROOKSTONE PARKS HIRAM PARK 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 1 2,0001 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 8,000 Picnic Tables 11,0001 1 1 1 4 1 8 3 1 4 1 4 4 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 3 6,000 Restrooms $ 150,000 Restroom building $ 50,0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 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 1 1 1 30 7,500 Storage Structure /Tennis Service Shop 1 100,000 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 TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHAPTER 82 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 67-8201. SHORT TITLE. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Idaho Development Impact Fee Act." [67-8201, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 861.1 67-8202. PURPOSE. The legislature finds that an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth and de- velopment is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the state of Idaho. It is the intent by enactment of this chapter to: (1) Ensure that adequate public facilities are available to serve new growth and development; (2) Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development; (3) Establish minimum standards for the adoption of development impact fee ordinances by governmental entities; (4) Ensure that those who benefit from new growth and development are required to pay no more than their proportionate share of the cost of public facilities needed to serve new growth and development and to prevent dupli- cate and ad hoc development requirements; and (5) Empower governmental entities which are authorized to adopt ordi- nances to impose development impact fees. [67-8202, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 861.1 67-8203. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter: (1) "Affordable housing" means housing affordable to families whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (800) of the median income for the service area or areas within the jurisdiction of the governmental entity. (2) "Appropriate" means to legally obligate by contract or otherwise commit to use by appropriation or other official act of a governmental en- tity. (3) "Capital improvements" means improvements with a useful life of ten (10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a public facility. (4) "Capital improvement element" means a component of a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to chapter 65, title 67, Idaho Code, which component meets the requirements of a capital improvements plan pursuant to this chap- ter. (5) "Capital improvements plan" means a plan adopted pursuant to this chapter that identifies capital improvements for which development impact fees may be used as a funding source. (6) "Developer" means any person or legal entity undertaking develop- ment, including a party that undertakes the subdivision of property pursuant to sections 50-1301 through 50-1334, Idaho Code. 2 (7) "Development" means any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for public facilities or the subdivision of property that would per- mit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. As used in this chapter, "development" shall not include activities that would otherwise be subject to payment of the development impact fee if such activities are undertaken by a taxing district, as defined in section 63-201, Idaho Code, or by an authorized public charter school, as defined in section 33-5202A, Idaho Code, in the course of carrying out its statutory responsibilities, unless the adopted impact fee ordinance expressly includes taxing districts or public charter schools as being subject to development impact fees. (8) "Development approval" means any written authorization from a gov- ernmental entity that authorizes the commencement of a development. (9) "Development impact fee" means a payment of money imposed as a con- dition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve development. This term is also re- ferred to as an impact fee in this chapter. The term does not include the following: (a) A charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review, or inspec- tion costs associated with permits required for development; (b) Connection or hookup charges; (c) Availability charges for drainage, sewer, water, or transportation charges for services provided directly to the development; or (d) Amounts collected from a developer in a transaction in which the governmental entity has incurred expenses in constructing capital im- provements for the development if the owner or developer has agreed to be financially responsible for the construction or installation of the capital improvements, unless a written agreement is made pursuant to section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code, for credit or reimbursement. (10) "Development requirement" means a requirement attached to a devel- opmental approval or other governmental action approving or authorizing a particular development project including, but not limited to, a rezoning, which requirement compels the payment, dedication or contribution of goods, services, land, or money as a condition of approval. (11) "Extraordinary costs" means those costs incurred as a result of an extraordinary impact. (12) "Extraordinary impact" means an impact that is reasonably deter- mined by the governmental entity to: (a) Result in the need for system improvements, the cost of which will significantly exceed the sum of the development impact fees to be gener- ated from the project or the sum agreed to be paid pursuant to a develop- ment agreement as allowed by section 67-8214 (2) , Idaho Code; or (b) Result in the need for system improvements that are not identified in the capital improvements plan. (13) "Fee payer" means that person who pays or is required to pay a de- velopment impact fee. (14) "Governmental entity" means any unit of local government that is empowered in this enabling legislation to adopt a development impact fee or- dinance. (15) "Impact fee." See development impact fee. 3 (16) "Land use assumptions" means a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the ser- vice area over at least a twenty (20) year period. (17) "Level of service" means a measure of the relationship between ser- vice capacity and service demand for public facilities. (18) "Manufactured home" means a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or is forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein, except that such term shall include any structure that meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with re- spect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the secretary of housing and urban development and complies with the stan- dards established under 42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq. (19) "Modular building" is as defined in section 39-4301, Idaho Code. (20) "Present value" means the total current monetary value of past, present, or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, ser- vices, materials, construction or money. (21) "Project" means a particular development on an identified parcel of land. (22) "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular devel- opment project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project. (23) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of system im- provements determined pursuant to section 67-8207, Idaho Code, which rea- sonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. (24) "Public facilities" means: (a) Water supply production, treatment, storage and distribution fa- cilities; (b) Wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities; (c) Roads, streets and bridges, including rights-of-way, traffic signals, landscaping and any local components of state or federal highways; (d) Stormwater collection, retention, detention, treatment and dis- posal facilities, flood control facilities, and bank and shore protec- tion and enhancement improvements; (e) Parks, open space and recreation areas, and related capital im- provements; and (f) Public safety facilities, including law enforcement, fire stations and apparatus, emergency medical and rescue, and street lighting facil- ities. (25) "Recreational vehicle" means a vehicular type unit primarily de- signed as temporary quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use, which either has its own motive power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle. (26) "Service area" means any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity or by intergovernmental agreement in which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles or both. B! (27) "Service unit" means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements. (28) "System improvements," in contrast to project improvements, means capital improvements to public facilities designed to provide service to a service area including, without limitation, the type of improvements described in section 50-1703, Idaho Code. (29) "System improvement costs" means costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of system improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs attributable thereto, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in section 50-1702(h), Idaho Code, to provide additional public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. For clarification, system improvement costs do not include: (a) Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities other than capital improvements identified in the capital improvements plan; (b) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new capital im- provements; (c) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; (d) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing capital im- provements to provide better service to existing development; (e) Administrative and operating costs of the governmental entity un- less such costs are attributable to development of the capital improve- ments plan, as provided in section 67-8208, Idaho Code; or (f) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on be- half of the governmental entity to finance capital improvements identi- fied in the capital improvements plan. [67-8203, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 861; am. 1996, ch. 366, sec. 1, p. 1226; am. 2002, ch. 347, sec. 1, p. 983; am. 2007, ch. 252, sec. 16, p. 753; am. 2008, ch. 389, sec. 1, p. 1068; am. 2019, ch. 70, sec. 1, p. 164; am. 2021, ch. 199, sec. 1, p. 546.1 67-8204. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCES. Governmental entities which comply with the requirements of this chapter may impose by ordinance development impact fees as a condi- tion of development approval on all developments. (1) A development impact fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements determined in accordance with section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Development impact fees shall be based on actual system improvement costs or reasonable estimates of such costs. (2) A development impact fee shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities adopted in the development impact fee ordi- nance of the governmental entity that are applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development. The construction, improvement, ex- pansion or enlargement of new or existing public facilities for which a de- velopment impact fee is imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new development. (3) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify the point in the development process at which the development impact fee shall be collected. The development impact fee may be collected no earlier than the commencement 5 of construction of the development, or the issuance of a building permit or a manufactured home installation permit, or as may be agreed by the developer and the governmental entity. (4) A development impact fee ordinance shall be adopted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 67-8206, Idaho Code. (5) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process whereby the governmental agency shall allow the developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment of the proportionate share of development impact fees under the guidelines established by this chapter which shall be set forth in the ordinance. The individual assessment process shall permit consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of the fee. The decision by the governmental agency on an application for an individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee, including an explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and shall specify the system improvement (s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. (6) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide a process whereby a developer shall receive, upon request, a written certification of the development impact fee schedule or individual assessment for a particular project, which shall establish the development impact fee so long as there is no material change to the particular project as identified in the individual assessment application, or the impact fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee including an explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code. The certification shall also specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. (7) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision for credits in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8209, Idaho Code. (8) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision prohibiting the expenditure of development impact fees except in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8210, Idaho Code. (9) A development impact fee ordinance may provide for the imposition of a development impact fee for system improvement costs incurred subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the system improvements. (10 ) A development impact fee ordinance may exempt all or part of a par- ticular development project from development impact fees provided that such project is determined to create affordable housing, provided that the pub- lic policy which supports the exemption is contained in the governmental en- tity's comprehensive plan and provided that the exempt development's pro- portionate share of system improvements is funded through a revenue source other than development impact fees. (11) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide that development impact fees shall only be spent for the category of system improvements for which the fees were collected and either within or for the benefit of the ser- vice area in which the project is located. (12) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for a refund of development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8211, Idaho Code. (13) A development impact fee ordinance shall establish for a procedure for timely processing of applications for determination by the governmental entity regarding development impact fees applicable to a project, individ- I ual assessment of development impact fees, credits or reimbursements to be allowed or paid under section 67-8209, Idaho Code, and extraordinary impact. (14) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify when an applica- tion for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be per- mitted to be made by a developer or fee payer. An application for an individ- ual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted sufficiently in advance of the time that the developer or fee payer may seek a building permit or related permits so that the issuance of a building permit or related per- mits will not be delayed. (15) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for appeals re- garding development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of sec- tion 67-8212, Idaho Code. (16) A development impact fee ordinance must provide a detailed de- scription of the methodology by which costs per service unit are determined. The development impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements described in section 67-8208 (1) ( f) , Idaho Code, by the total number of projected service units described in section 67-8208 (1) (g) , Idaho Code. If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to the projected new service units described in section 67-8208 (1) (g) , Idaho Code, by the total projected new service units described in that section. (17) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of de- velopment impact fees for various land uses per unit of development. The or- dinance shall provide that a developer shall have the right to elect to pay a project's proportionate share of system improvement costs by payment of de- velopment impact fees according to the fee schedule as full and complete pay- ment of the development project's proportionate share of system improvement costs, except as provided in section 67-8214 (3) , Idaho Code. (18) After payment of the development impact fees or execution of an agreement for payment of development impact fees, additional development impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed unless the number of service units increases or the scope or schedule of the development changes. In the event of an increase in the number of service units or schedule of the development changes, the additional development impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units or change in scope of the development. (19) No system for the calculation of development impact fees shall be adopted which subjects any development to double payment of impact fees. (20) A development impact fee ordinance shall exempt from development impact fees the following activities: (a) Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which was destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, providing the structure is re- built and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of its destruction; (b) Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of service units; (c) Replacing a residential unit, including a manufactured home, with another residential unit on the same lot, provided that the number of service units does not increase; (d) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; W (e) Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of service units; and (f) Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts or clubhouse, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of system improvements. (21) A development impact fee will be assessed for installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle unless the fee payer can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (a) That a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date of the development impact fee ordinance; or (b) That a development impact fee has been paid previously for the in- stallation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational ve- hicle on that same lot or space. (22) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process for dealing with a project which has extraordinary impacts. (23) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for the calcula- tion of a development impact fee in accordance with generally accepted ac- counting principles. A development impact fee shall not be deemed invalid because payment of the fee may result in an incidental benefit to owners or developers within the service area other than the person paying the fee. (24) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a description of acceptable levels of service for system improvements. (25) Any provision of a development impact fee ordinance that is incon- sistent with the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void and that provision shall have no legal effect. A partial invalidity of a development impact fee ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance that are consistent with the requirements of this chapter. [67-8204, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 864; am. 1996, ch. 366, sec. 2, p. 1229; am. 2002, ch. 347, sec. 2, p. 986.1 67-8204A. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS. Governmental entities as defined in section 67-8203(14), Idaho Code, that are jointly affected by development are authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements with each other or with highway districts, fire districts, ambulance districts, water districts, sewer districts, recreational water and sewer districts, or irrigation districts for the purpose of developing joint plans for capital improvements or for the purpose of agreeing to collect and expend development impact fees for system improvements, or both, provided that such agreement complies with any applicable state laws. Governmental entities are also authorized to enter into agreements with the Idaho transportation department for the expenditure of development impact fees pursuant to a developer's agreement under section 67-8214, Idaho Code. [67-8204A, added 1996, ch. 366, sec. 3, p. 1232; am. 2007, ch. 167, sec. 1, p. 496; am. 2021, ch. 95, sec. 1, p. 325.] 67-8205. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (1) Any governmen- tal entity that is considering or that has adopted a development impact fee ordinance shall establish a development impact fee advisory committee. 3 (2)(a) The development impact fee advisory committee shall be composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by the governing authority of the governmental entity. (b) Two (2) or more members shall be active in the business of devel- opment, building, or real estate. An existing planning or planning and zoning commission may serve as the development impact fee advisory com- mittee if the commission includes two (2) or more members who are active in the business of development, building, or real estate; otherwise, two (2) such members who are not employees or officials of a governmen- tal entity shall be appointed to the committee. (c) New appointments and reappointments to a committee on and af- ter July 1, 2021, must comply with the provisions of this paragraph. All members must reside within the jurisdictional boundaries of the governmental entity. Two (2) or more members shall be active in the business of development, building, or real estate. Two (2) or more members shall not be in the business of development, building, or real estate. Employees or officials acting in their official capacity for a governmental entity may not be appointed as members of the committee. An existing planning or planning and zoning commission may serve as the development impact fee advisory committee for the governing authority if the commission includes two (2) or more members who are active in the business of development, building, or real estate and two (2) or more members who are not in such business; otherwise, two (2) such members who are not employees or officials of a governmental entity shall be appointed to the committee until the membership requirements of this subsection are met. (3) The development impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an ad- visory capacity and is established to: (a) Assist the governmental entity in adopting land use assumptions; (b) Review the capital improvements plan, and proposed amendments, and file written comments; (c) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; (d) File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the cap- ital improvements plan and report to the governmental entity any per- ceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development impact fees; and (e) Advise the governmental entity of the need to update or revise land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and development impact fees. (4) The governmental entity shall make available to the advisory committee, upon request, all financial and accounting information, profes- sional reports in relation to other development and implementation of land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and periodic updates of the capital improvements plan. [67-8205, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 867; am. 2021, ch. 136, sec. 1, p. 382.1 67-8206. PROCEDURE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. (1) A development impact fee shall be imposed by a governmental entity in compli- ance with the provisions set forth in this section. (2) A capital improvements plan shall be developed in coordination with the development impact fee advisory committee utilizing the land use assump- I tions most recently adopted by the appropriate land use planning agency or agencies. (3) A governmental entity that seeks to consider adoption, amendment, or repeal of a capital improvements plan shall hold at least one (1) public hearing. The governmental entity shall publish a notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing or hearings not fewer than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days before the scheduled date of the hearing, in a newspa- per of general circulation within the jurisdiction of the governmental en- tity. Such notices shall also include a statement that the governmental en- tity shall make available to the public, upon request, the following: pro- posed land use assumptions, a copy of the proposed capital improvements plan or amendments thereto, and a statement that any member of the public affected by the capital improvements plan or amendments shall have the right to appear at the public hearing and present evidence regarding the proposed capital improvements plan or amendments. The governmental entity shall send notice of the intent to hold a public hearing by mail to any person who has requested in writing notification of the hearing date at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date, provided that the governmental entity may require that any person making such request renew the request for notification, not more frequently than once each year, in accordance with a schedule determined by the governmental entity, in order to continue receiving such notices. (4) If the governmental entity makes a material change in the capital improvements plan or amendment, further notice and hearing may be provided before the governmental entity adopts the revision if the governmental en- tity makes a finding that further notice and hearing are required in the pub- lic interest. (5) Either following or concurrently with adoption of the initial or amended capital improvements plan, a governmental entity shall conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the impo- sition of development impact fees or any amendment thereof. Notice of the hearing shall be provided in the same manner as set forth in subsection (3) of this section for adoption of a capital improvements plan, and such hearing, at the option of the governmental entity, may be combined with the public hearing held to adopt, amend or repeal the capital improvements plan. (6) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to alter the procedures for adoption of an ordinance by the governmental entity. Pro- vided, however, a development impact fee ordinance shall not be adopted as an emergency measure but may be read for the first and second times on succes- sive days prior to the public hearing to consider its adoption and shall not take effect sooner than thirty (30) days following its adoption. [67-8206, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 868; am. 2006, ch. 321, sec. 1, P. 1019.1 67-8207. PROPORTIONATE SHARE DETERMINATION. (1) All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development. The proportionate share is the cost attributable to the new development after the governmental entity considers the following: (i) any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or construction of system improvements; (ii) payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service 10 payments; (iii) that portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the jurisdiction to system improvements; and (iv) all other available sources of funding such system improvements. (2) In determining the proportionate share of the cost of system im- provements to be paid by the developer, the following factors shall be con- sidered by the governmental entity imposing the development impact fee and accounted for in the calculation of the impact fee: (a) The cost of existing system improvements within the service area or areas; (b) The means by which existing system improvements have been financed; (c) The extent to which the new development will contribute to the cost of system improvements through taxation, assessment, or developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of system improvements through developer or landowner contributions. (d) The extent to which the new development is required to contribute to the cost of existing system improvements in the future. (e) The extent to which the new development should be credited for pro- viding system improvements, without charge to other properties within the service area or areas; (f) Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new develop- ment; (g) The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of fees paid at different times; and (h) The availability of other sources of funding system improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, inter- governmental transfers, and special taxation. The governmental entity shall develop a plan for alternative sources of revenue. [67-8207, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 869; am. 1996, ch. 366, sec. 4, p. 1233; am. 2002, ch. 347, sec. 3, p. 989.1 67-8208. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN. (1) Each governmental entity in- tending to impose a development impact fee shall prepare a capital improve- ments plan. That portion of the cost of preparing a capital improvements plan which is attributable to determining the development impact fee may be funded by a one (1) time ad valorem levy which does not exceed two one -hun- dredths percent (.020) of market value or by a surcharge imposed by ordi- nance on the collection of a development impact fee which surcharge does not exceed the development's proportionate share of the cost of preparing the plan. For governmental entities required to undertake comprehensive plan- ning pursuant to chapter 65, title 67, Idaho Code, such capital improvements plan shall be prepared and adopted according to the requirements contained in the local planning act, section 67-6509, Idaho Code, and shall be included as an element of the comprehensive plan. The capital improvements plan shall be prepared by qualified professionals in fields relating to finance, engi- neering, planning and transportation. The persons preparing the plan shall consult with the development impact fee advisory committee. The capital improvements plan shall contain all of the following: (a) A general description of all existing public facilities and their existing deficiencies within the service area or areas of the govern- mental entity and a reasonable estimate of all costs and a plan to de- velop the funding resources related to curing the existing deficiencies including, but not limited to, the upgrading, updating, improving, ex- 11 panding or replacing of such facilities to meet existing needs and us- age; (b) A commitment by the governmental entity to use other available sources of revenue to cure existing system deficiencies where practi- cal; (c) An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional planner or by a qualified engineer licensed to perform engineering services in this state; (d) A description of the land use assumptions by the government entity; (e) A definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of system improvements and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial; (f) A description of all system improvements and their costs necessi- tated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, to provide a level of service not to exceed the level of service adopted in the development impact fee or- dinance; (g) The total number of service units necessitated by and attributable to new development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; (h) The projected demand for system improvements required by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time not to exceed twenty (20) years; (i) Identification of all sources and levels of funding available to the governmental entity for the financing of the system improvements; (j) If the proposed system improvements include the improvement of public facilities under the jurisdiction of the state of Idaho or another governmental entity, then an agreement between governmental entities shall specify the reasonable share of funding by each unit, provided the governmental entity authorized to impose development impact fees shall not assume more than its reasonable share of funding joint improvements, nor shall the agreement permit expenditure of de- velopment impact fees by a governmental entity which is not authorized to impose development impact fees unless such expenditure is pursuant to a developer agreement under section 67-8214, Idaho Code; and (k) A schedule setting forth estimated dates for commencing and com- pleting construction of all improvements identified in the capital im- provements plan. (2) The governmental entity imposing a development impact fee shall update the capital improvements plan at least once every five (5) years. The five (5) year period shall commence from the date of the original adoption of the capital improvements plan. The updating of the capital improvements plan shall be made in accordance with procedures set forth in section 67-8206, Idaho Code. (3) The governmental entity must annually adopt a capital budget. (4) The capital improvements plan shall be updated in conformance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section each time a governmental en- 12 tity proposes the amendment, modification or adoption of a development im- pact fee ordinance. [67-8208, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 869; am. 1996, ch. 322, sec. 71, p. 1098; am. 1996, ch. 366, sec. 5, p. 1233; am. 2002, ch. 347, sec. 4, P. 990.] 67-8209. CREDITS. (1) In the calculation of development impact fees for a particular project, credit or reimbursement shall be given for the present value of any construction of system improvements or contribution or dedica- tion of land or money required by a governmental entity from a developer for system improvements of the category for which the development impact fee is being collected, including such system improvements paid for pursuant to a local improvement district. Credit or reimbursement shall not be given for project improvement. (2) In the calculation of development impact fees for a particular project, credit shall be given for the present value of all tax and user fee revenue generated by the developer, within the service area where the impact fee is being assessed and used by the governmental agency for system improvements of the category for which the development impact fee is being collected. If the amount of credit exceeds the proportionate share for the particular project, the developer shall receive a credit on future impact fees for the amount in excess of the proportionate share. The credit may be applied by the developer as an offset against future impact fees only in the service area where the credit was generated. (3) If a developer is required to construct, fund or contribute system improvements in excess of the development project's proportionate share of system improvement costs, including such system improvements paid for pursuant to a local improvement district, the developer shall receive a credit on future impact fees or be reimbursed at the developer's choice for such excess construction, funding or contribution from development impact fees paid by future development which impacts the system improvements constructed, funded or contributed by the developer (s) or fee payer. (4) If credit or reimbursement is due to the developer pursuant to this section, the governmental entity shall enter into a written agreement with the fee payer, negotiated in good faith, prior to the construction, funding or contribution. The agreement shall provide for the amount of credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement. [67-8209, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 871; am. 1996, ch. 366, sec. 6, p. 1235; am. 1999, ch. 291, sec. 10, p. 730; am. 2002, ch. 347, sec. 5, P. 991.] 67-8210. EARMARKING AND EXPENDITURE OF COLLECTED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. (1) An ordinance imposing development impact fees shall provide that all development impact fee funds shall be maintained in one (1) or more interest-bearing accounts within the capital projects fund. Accounting records shall be maintained for each category of system improvements and the service area in which the fees are collected. Interest earned on development impact fees shall be considered funds of the account on which it is earned, and not funds subject to section 57-127, Idaho Code, and shall be subject to all restrictions placed on the use of development impact fees under the provisions of this chapter. 13 (2) Expenditures of development impact fees shall be made only for the category of system improvements and within or for the benefit of the service area for which the development impact fee was imposed as shown by the capi- tal improvements plan and as authorized in this chapter. Development impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than system improvement costs to create additional improvements to serve new growth. (3) As part of its annual audit process, a governmental entity shall prepare an annual report: (a) Describing the amount of all development impact fees collected, ap- propriated, or spent during the preceding year by category of public fa- cility and service area; and (b) Describing the percentage of tax and revenues other than impact fees collected, appropriated or spent for system improvements during the preceding year by category of public facility and service area. (4) Collected development impact fees must be expended within eight (8) years from the date they were collected, on a first -in, first -out (FIFO) basis, except that the development impact fees collected for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal and drainage facilities must be expended within twenty (20) years. Any funds not expended within the prescribed times shall be refunded pursuant to section 67-8211, Idaho Code. A governmental entity may hold the fees for longer than eight (8) years if it identifies, in writing: (a) A reasonable cause why the fees should be held longer than eight (8) years; and (b) An anticipated date by which the fees will be expended but in no event greater than eleven (11) years from the date they were collected. [67-8210, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 871; am. 1996, ch. 366, sec. 7, p. 1236; am. 2002, ch. 347, sec. 6, p. 992; am. 2006, ch. 321, sec. 2, p. 1020.] 67-8211. REFUNDS. (1) Any governmental entity which adopts a develop- ment impact fee ordinance shall provide for refunds upon the request of an owner of property on which a development impact fee has been paid if: (a) Service is available but never provided; (b) A building permit or permit for installation of a manufactured home is denied or abandoned; (c) The governmental entity, after collecting the fee when service is not available, has failed to appropriate and expend the collected de- velopment impact fees pursuant to section 67-8210 (4) , Idaho Code; or (d) The fee payer pays a fee under protest and a subsequent review of the fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the fee paid exceeded the proportionate share to which the governmental entity was entitled to receive. (2) When the right to a refund exists, the governmental entity is re- quired to send a refund to the owner of record within ninety (90) days after it is determined by the governmental entity that a refund is due. (3) A refund shall include a refund of interest at one-half (1/2) the legal rate provided for in section 28-22-104, Idaho Code, from the date on which the fee was originally paid. (4) Any person entitled to a refund shall have standing to sue for a re- fund under the provisions of this chapter if there has not been a timely pay- ment of a refund pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. 14 [67-8211, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 872; am. 2002, ch. 347, sec. 7, p. 993.] 67-8212. APPEALS. (1) A governmental entity which adopts a development impact fee ordinance shall provide for administrative appeals by the devel- oper or fee payer from any discretionary action or inaction by or on behalf of the governmental entity. (2) A fee payer may pay a development impact fee under protest in order to obtain a development approval or building permit. A fee payer making such payment shall not be estopped from exercising the right of appeal provided in this chapter, nor shall such fee payer be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deemed to have been illegally collected. (3) A governmental entity which adopts a development impact fee ordi- nance shall provide for mediation by a qualified independent party, upon voluntary agreement by the fee payer and the governmental entity, to address a disagreement related to the impact fee for proposed development. The ordinance shall provide that mediation may take place at any time during the appeals process and participation in mediation does not preclude the fee payer from pursuing other remedies provided for in this section. The ordinance shall provide that mediation costs will be shared equally by the fee payer and the governmental entity. [67-8212, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 872; am. 1996, ch. 366, sec. 8, p. 1236.] 67-8213. COLLECTION. A governmental entity may provide in a develop- ment impact fee ordinance the means for collection of development impact fees, including, but not limited to: (1) Additions to the fee for reasonable interest and penalties for non- payment or late payment; (2) Withholding of the building permit or other governmental approval until the development impact fee is paid; (3) Withholding of utility services until the development impact fee is paid; and (4) Imposing liens for failure to timely pay a development impact fee following procedures contained in chapter 5, title 45, Idaho Code. A governmental entity that discovers an error in its impact fee formula that results in assessment or payment of more than a proportionate share shall, at the time of assessment on a case by case basis, adjust the fee to collect no more than a proportionate share or discontinue the collection of any impact fees until the error is corrected by ordinance. [67-8213, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 872; am. 2002, ch. 347, sec. 8, p. 993.1 67-8214. OTHER POWERS AND RIGHTS NOT AFFECTED. (1) Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a governmental entity from requiring a developer to construct reasonable project improvements in conjunction with a development project. (2) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent or pro- hibit private agreements between property owners or developers, the Idaho transportation department and governmental entities in regard to the con- struction or installation of system improvements or providing for credits or reimbursements for system improvement costs incurred by a developer 15 including interproject transfers of credits or providing for reimbursement for project improvements which are used or shared by more than one (1) development project. If it can be shown that a proposed development has a direct impact on a public facility under the jurisdiction of the Idaho trans- portation department, then the agreement shall include a provision for the allocation of impact fees collected from the developer for the improvement of the public facility by the Idaho transportation department. (3) Nothing in this chapter shall obligate a governmental entity to ap- prove development which results in an extraordinary impact. (4) Nothing in this chapter shall obligate a governmental entity to approve any development request which may reasonably be expected to reduce levels of service below minimum acceptable levels established in the development impact fee ordinance. (5) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to create any additional right to develop real property or diminish the power of counties or cities in regulating the orderly development of real property within their bound- aries. (6) Nothing in this chapter shall work to limit the use by governmen- tal entities of the power of eminent domain or supersede or conflict with re- quirements or procedures authorized in the Idaho Code for local improvement districts or general obligation bond issues. (7) Nothing herein shall restrict or diminish the power of a govern- mental entity to annex property into its territorial boundaries or exclude property from its territorial boundaries upon request of a developer or owner, or to impose reasonable conditions thereon, including the recovery of project or system improvement costs required as a result of such voluntary annexation. [67-8214, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 873; am. 1996, ch. 366, sec. 9, p. 1237.1 67-8215. TRANSITION. (1) The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to repeal any existing laws authorizing a governmental entity to impose fees or require contributions or property dedications for capital improvements. All ordinances imposing development impact fees shall be brought into conformance with the provisions of this chapter within one (1) year after the effective date of this chapter. Impact fees collected and developer agreements entered into prior to the expiration of the one (1) year period shall not be invalid by reason of this chapter. After adoption of a development impact fee ordinance, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, notwithstanding any other provision of law, development requirements for system improvements shall be imposed by governmental entities only by way of development impact fees imposed pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, that portion of a project for which a valid building permit has been issued or construc- tion has commenced prior to the effective date of a development impact fee ordinance shall not be subject to additional development impact fees so long as the building permit remains valid or construction is commenced and is pur- sued according to the terms of the permit or development approval. [67-8215, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 873.] MA. 67-8216. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this chapter are hereby de- clared to be severable and if any provision of this chapter or the applica- tion of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of remaining por- tions of this chapter. [67-8216, added 1992, ch. 282, sec. 1, p. 873.] CHAPTER 83 IDAHO FOOD QUALITY ASSURANCE INSTITUTE -- [REPEALED]