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 Impact Fees
440d,t\ CHUBBUCK 1 0 0 H 0 Memo To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Community Services Department 290 E Linden Ave., Chubbuck, ID 83202 208.237.2430 www.CityofChubbuck.us From: Devin Hillam, Community Services Director & Impact Fee Administrator I DI71 Date: November 29, 2023 Re: Development Impact Fee Meeting Information OVERVIEW & BACKGROUND The development impact fee tool was created by the Idaho Legislature through Title 67 Chapter 82, Development Impact Fees (Attachment #1) to serve as an offset to the increase in costs to local communities due to the cost of growth; costs of growth may include increased demands, expanded areas of service, and decreased capacities within the system to provide services. Development Impact Fees are one-time fees that are imposed by a local government or a new or proposed development project to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services to the new development. Although widely adopted in the west and north areas of the state, development impact fees in eastern Idaho have been rare with just a handful using the tool- Jefferson County, Madison County, Rexburg. Recently however, more cities in Eastern Idaho have adopted impact fees. The City of Idaho Falls adopted impact fees for parks, EMS/Fire, Police, and transportation and I'd encourage you to review the fees (page 40 from the footnoted link)'. The City of Chubbuck collects impact fees at the building permit stage for Police, Emergency Services, and Parks. Police and Emergency Services were established by Ordinance No. 783 and Parks via Ordinance No. 791 (later corrected by Ord. No. 804). As required by the statute, each fee is associated with a capital improvements plan and as also required by the statute, impact fees collected are to be spent in-line with the needs of the current capital ' https://www.idahofallsidaho.,goviDocumentCenterNiew/16213/Resolution-2023-16-Fees J:\Planning\Impact Fees\2022 Update\Studies presented and recommended at 11.14.23 mtg\to council\12.6.23 DIF Overview Memo to Council dbh.docx 1 improvements plan. On January 1 of every year, the ordinances adopting the impact fees call for an automatic inflationary adjustment to the impact fees collected but the last (and only) inflationary adjustment was on January 1, 2020. IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The role of the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee is established in 67-8205 which states that the role of the Committee is to: • Assist the [City Council] in adopting land use assumptions; Review the capital improvements plan, and proposed amendments, and file written comments; Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the capital improvements plan and report to the [City Council] any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development impact fees; and • Advise the [City Council] of the need to update or revise land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and development impact fees. At their meeting on November 14, 2023, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee reviewed the past revenues and expenditures from each fund, the upcoming fee uses, and the draft plans and analyses for each type of impact fee and recommended: 1- That the plans and fees as presented at the meeting be adopted by the City Council; and 2- Prior to adopting the plans and fees, the Council should hold a public hearing to take comments. a. Staff Note: If the fees are adopted as presented to maintain levels of services into the future, State Code would only require public hearings for the Emergency Services and Police fees since the increase exceeds 5% of the current fee. Because the Parks impact fee will decrease from what it currently being collected, no public hearing is required by law but the Committee still recommends that the Council take comments from the public on that fee. 2 DRAFT UPDATED PLANS AND ANALYSES As requested by the Committee and the City Council, City staff has been working with Zions Public Finance to update the Parks and Recreation, Police, and Emergency Services capital improvement plans and impact fee analyses. While the various attached draft analyses include information about how the proposed maximum fees were calculated, I suspect that the Council will be most interested in understanding how the proposed maximum fees compare with current development impact fees; the following chart summarizes the differences: 3 Current Fees (11/1/2023 per Proposed Maximum Fees per Analyses % Change resolution 2019-010) Parks & Residential Only (Per Unit): Residential Only (Per Unit): Recreation Single Family Residential: $2,366.78 Single Family Residential: $1,657.17 -29.98% Multi -Family Residential: $2,205.98 Multi -Family Residential: $1,342.88 -39.13% Police Residential: Residential: Single Family Residential: $232.72 Single Family Residential: $514.22 +120.96% Multi -Family Residential: $155.63 Multi -Family Residential: $652.18 +319.06% Non -Residential (per 1,000 sq ft): Non -Residential (per 1,000 sq ft): General Commercial: $373.47 General Commercial: $890 +138.31% Office: $47.96 Office: $40 -16.60% Institutional: $68.26 Institutional: $350 +412.74% Emergency Residential: Residential: Services Single Family Residential: $275.38 Single Family Residential: $560.10 +103.39% Multi -Family Residential: $244.67 Multi -Family Residential: $581.47 +137.66% Non -Residential (per 1,000 sq ft): Non -Residential (per 1,000 sq ft): General Commercial: $309.67 General Commercial: $600 +93.75% Office: $146.14 Office: $200 +38.85% Institutional: $43.95 Institutional: $30 -31.74% 3 As a final comment on the draft plans, it is important that all parties understand that unless the maximum allowable fee is collected, levels of service WILL decrease unless additional funding is provided from alternate revenue sources such as the General Fund. NOTE ABOUT STREETS/TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES The City of Chubbuck does not currently collect development impact fees for streets and transportation, however, based upon discussions with Council, city staff will be pursing the planning and impact fee studies for said fees. In order to start, the updated comprehensive plan showing projected zoning, land uses, and road classifications will need to be updated and then the consultant can begin with the capital improvement plan and impact fee study. While we aren't sure on the timing of the completeness, I believe that 2025 may be the year that we'll have those fee study documents for Council consideration. HISTORICAL FEE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES; UPCOMING PROJECTS In terms of reporting how development impact fee monies have been collected and spent, the following is a summary: Parks & Recreation Through early November 2023, the park development impact fee fund has collected $1,149,953.65 (not including interest). o FY19: $13,424.00* o FY20: $1,994.93* o FY21: $220,857.18 o FY22: $321,199.76 o FY23: $503,585.38 o FY24 fiscal year to date: $88,882.40 4 *In FY79 and FY20, developments which had started the platting process were deemed exempt from paying impact fees as homes in those developments were built. As such, monies collected in those years are much lower than subsequent years. • Until recently, no park development impact fee monies were spent. Recent expenditures have been for $111,634.02, which includes the follow expenses: o Landscape design and project oversight of park next to City Hall- $15,000 o '/z cost of Impact Fee update- $4,000 o '/z cost of All -Wheels Park Study and Design- $7,500 o '/Z costs of Long Park and Hiram Park playgrounds- $85,134.02 • Outstanding project obligations as of early November are approximately $96,634, and include: o '/z cost of Impact Fee update- $4,000 o Remainder of landscape architect fee for city hall park- $2,500 o '/z cost of Skatepark Study and Design- $7,500 o '/z costs of Long Park and Hiram Park playgrounds- $85,134 (final cost TBD based on actual project costs). • Estimated non -obligated funds, not including interest, as of 11/1/23 equal $939,185.63. Future Impact Fee -funded Project: Miller Park Master Plan (As of 11/1/23, currently waiting on scope of work and cost from large landscape architect). Cost unknown currently. • Future Impact Fee -funded Project: Based on a discussion between community members, staff, and the Council/Mayor, the Council is supportive of using a significant portion of non -obligated funds for an all - wheels park at Miller Park (corner of Angela and Philbin). In addition to the all -wheels park amenity, because the land is currently unimproved, the project will also include a parking lot, restroom, likely concession stand, and other similar improvements. We anticipate that the full all -wheels park will be funded through impact fee funds as well as private donations and grants. • Future Impact Fee -funded Project: City Hall Park Power Upgrades to increase event capacity • Impact Fee Credit Agreements: 5 o In 2023, the City entered into 2 development agreements to allow developers to either build an equal value of park system improvements, or to hold funds in escrow with the City for future use in a park. ■ Brookstone Estates Div. 12: Developer will be constructing a small public park adjacent to the development and will also be constructing a separated pathway with adjacent landscaping on Lamar Street (a classified arterial). Because small parks such as this park are against the desires of the City, the developer has formed an HOA which will maintain the public park space in perpetuity while providing public access. ■ Copperfield Div. 6: Although the single-family residential parks development impact fee is $2,366.78, the developer approached the City about putting that amount and additional funds into an escrow account to be used for building public park amenities at Trueman Park. $270,000 ($5,000/door) is currently in the escrow account for future improvements. Police • Through early November 2023, the police development impact fee fund has collected $195,932.16 (not including interest). o FY19: $12,388.09 o FY20: $30,833.85 o FY21: $44,046.80 o FY22: $38,239.65 o FY23: $63,657.49 o FY24 fiscal year to date: $6,766.28 • Until recently, no police development impact fee monies were spent. Recent expenditures have been for $3,000 for 1/2 of the cost of the impact fee update. The remaining 1/2 is the only current obligation on the fund. • Estimated non -obligated funds, not including interest, as of 11/1/23 equal $189,932.16. • Future Impact Fee -funded Project: Impact fees will be used for bond repayment for the police headquarters expansion and the new animal control facility. 0 Emergency Services • Through early November 2023, the EMS development impact fee fund has collected $249,279.09 (not including interest). o FY19: $12,498.84 o FY20: $35,018.97 o FY21: $52,388.04 o FY22: $50,786.62 o FY23: $88,401.60 o FY24 fiscal year to date: $10,185.02 • Until recently, no EMS development impact fee monies were spent. Recent expenditures have been for $3,000 for 1/2 of the cost of the impact fee update. The remaining 1/2 is the only current obligation on the fund. • Estimated non -obligated funds, not including interest, as of 11/1/23 equal $243,279.09. • Future Impact Fee -funded Project: Possible building at future fire station site at Miller Park. Other options are also being explored. Resources: 1. Chubbuck City Ordinances: https://forms.cityofchubbuck.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=9626&cr=1 a. Ordinance No. 783- Emergency Services and Police Impact Fee Ordinance b. Ordinance No. 791- Parks Impact Fee Ordinance c. Ordinance No. 804- Ordinance Correcting #791 2. Chubbuck City Resolutions: https://forms.cityofchubbuck.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=188046&dbid=0&repo=chubbuck a. Resolution No. 2019-10- Resolution adopting inflationary adjustment to all impact fees Attachments: 1. 2023 Draft Updated Parks & Recreation and Impact Fee Analysis 2. 2023 Draft Emergency Services and Impact Fee Analysis 3. 2023 Draft Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis 7 4. Adopted Parks CIP and Impact Fee Analysis 5. Adopted Emergency Services CIP and Impact Fee Analysis 6. Adopted Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis 7. Draft Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes from 11/14/23 w '1 { I . t. m .•• •• _ .. :_ ti_ _ �. Win. . City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Contents Contents............................................................................................................................................................................2 Background........................................................................................................................................................................3 Needfor the Study....................................................................................................................................... 3 CapitalImprovements Plan...............................................................................................................................................3 ExistingFacilities.......................................................................................................................................... 3 FundingCommitments................................................................................................................................ 5 Analysis of Current Capacity and Usage...................................................................................................... 5 LandUse Assumptions................................................................................................................................. 5 Levelof Service Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 6 Improvements and Costs Required by New Development......................................................................... 7 Service Units Required by New Development............................................................................................. 8 20 -Year Projection of Service Units Required by New Development......................................................... 8 Funding Sources for System Improvements................................................................................................ 9 Joint Development of Public Facilities......................................................................................................... 9 Schedule....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis.......................................................................................................................10 Cost of Existing System Improvements..................................................................................................... 10 Financing of Existing System Improvements............................................................................................. 10 New Development Contributions to System Improvements Other than Impact Fees ............................. 10 Financing of Existing System Improvements in the Past........................................................................... 10 Credits for System Improvements............................................................................................................. 10 ExtraordinaryCosts.................................................................................................................................... 11 Time and Price Differential in Fees Charged............................................................................................. 11 OtherFunding Sources.............................................................................................................................. 11 Proportionate Share Calculation................................................................................................................11 2 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Background Need for the Study The City of Chubbuck ("City') is experiencing strong growth of roughly 1.5 percent per year or population growth of approximately 262 persons per year, which puts pressure on the City's existing parks and trails facilities. It is, therefore, prudent to consider the implementation of impact fees, which are one-time fees charged to new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development. The implementation of impact fees allows the City to maintain its existing service levels for park and trail facilities. Any increase in service levels will need to be funded through sources other than impact fees. The City has provided input regarding its existing capital facilities as well as future capital facility needs. This input forms the basis for this Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis. The City has determined that there is one service area citywide and that there is no excess capacity in any existing park or trail facilities. Only residential development is considered to drive demand for parks and trails facilities and therefore only residential growth has been considered in the determination of impact fees. Capital Improvements Plan Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(a) — A general description of all existing public facilities and their existing deficiencies within the service area or areas of the governmental entity and a reasonable estimate of all costs and a plan to develop the funding resources related to curing the existing deficiencies including, but not limited to, the upgrading, updating, improving, expanding or replacing of such facilities to meet existing needs and usage,- Existing sage, Existing Facilities Project improvements are not included in the analysis; only system improvements are included.'Therefore, all mini parks have been excluded from the calculations. The analysis also does not include any park or trail facilities owned by private homeowner associations, or any facilities that have been acquired through grants or donations. Therefore, only the following 24 parks totaling 89.5 acres have been included in the analysis. TABLE 1: EXISTING CHUBBUCK PARKS Trails Capell Cota nt Park Meadows Acres 17.5 21.1 8.2 Stuart 4.9 Armstrong 1.6 Bicentennial 6.9 1 Project improvements are defined by Idaho Statute as "site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project." System improvements are defined as follows: "System improvements, in contrast to project improvements, means capital improvements to public facilities which are designed to provide service to a service area including, without limitation, the type of improvements described in section 50-1703, Idaho Code." Idaho Code 67-8203 (22) and (28). Section 67-8204 (1) further states that development fees "shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements." 3 Trails Bistline City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis® - Acres 1.2 Briarwood Chase Dalton Espie Hiram Homestead Mark Harker Heartland Heritage 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.9 2.6 1.3 2.2 2.7 Jerry Rowland 2.2 Larry Miller 2.3 Long 1.4 M a ry's 4.3 Sample 0.7 Sunset West 1.6 Tree Valley 0.8 New Day Parkway 0.4 Total 89.5 A detailed list of improvements at each park is provided in Appendix A. found at these parks is as follows: TABLE 2: EXISTING PARK IMPROVEMENTS A summary of the improvements Parks Units Eligible Acres 89.5 Restroom Building 3 Playground 19 Swing Set 16 Splash Pad 1 Concessions Stand 2 Horseshoe Pits 2 Refrigerated Ice Skating Rink 1 Concrete Skating Rink 1 Paved Parking Area (Per Stall) 639 Gravel non -paved Parking 260 Storage Structure 1 Large Pavilion 11 Memorial Gazebo 1 Small Pavilion w/ Picnic Tables 4 Covered Picnic Tables 4 Bench 29 /, I City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis® - Parks Units Picnic Tables 35 Basketball Full Court 3 Basketball Half Court 9 Tennis Courts 9 Ball Field 10 Volleyball Court 3 The City has not identified any existing deficiencies in its park system. The existing service level is 5.48 acres per 1,000 persons.' For the purposes of this Impact Fee Analysis, the level of service will be 5.48 acres per 1,000 residents. Funding Commitments Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(b) - A commitment by the governmental entity to use other available resources of revenue to cure existing system deficiencies where practical, The City currently has no existing system deficiencies. Analysis of Current Capacity and Usage Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(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, The City currently has 89.5 system park acres that qualify for the impact fee level of service. The level of service (LOS) is currently 5.48 park acres per 1,000 persons, calculated by dividing the existing 89.5 park acres by the 2023 population of 16,321 persons, divided by 1,000. TABLE 3: CAPACITY AND USAGE ANALYSIS Acres Existing Existing LOS per 1,000 Population Park Acres 89.5 5.48 Land Use Assumptions Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(d) —A description of the land use assumptions by the government entity, Only residential development creates the need for more parks and trails. Therefore, demand projections are included for population growth as follows: TABLE 4: CHUBBUCK PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH, 2023-2031 Year Population 2023 16,321 2024 16,566 2025 16,814 2 The existing service level is calculated by dividing the 89.5 existing park acres by the 2023 population of 16,321 persons, divided by 1,000. 5 Year 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Level of Service Analysis City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Population 17,066 17,322 17,582 17,846 18,114 18,385 Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(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; The existing level of service that is impact fee eligible is 5.48 park acres per 1,000 persons, calculated by dividing the 89.5 eligible park acres by the 2023 population of 16,321 persons (divided by 1,000). Impact fees should only be charged to the existing service level. The City can include park improvements, as well as the cost of park land, in its calculation of impact fees. The table below shows the 2023 inventory of park improvements and costs. The level of service for park improvements is calculated by taking the existing improvements and multiplying them by the cost per unit to maintain this same level of investment. TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF EXISTING PARK IMPROVEMENTS Parks Units Unit Cost Total Cost Eligible Acres 89.5 $106,722 $9,551,619 Restroom Building 3 $190,000 $570,000 Playground 19 $90,000 $1,710,000 Swing Set 16 $12,000 $192,000 Splash Pad 1 $400,000 $400,000 Concessions Stand 2 $80,000 $160,000 Horseshoe Pits 2 $3,500 $7,000 Refrigerated Ice Skating Rink 1 $100,000 $100,000 Concrete Skating Rink 1 $100,000 $100,000 Paved Parking Area (Per Stall) 639 $1,200 $766,800 Gravel non -paved Parking 260 $300 $78,000 Storage Structure 1 $100,000 $100,000 Large Pavilion 11 $80,000 $880,000 Memorial Gazebo 1 $71,588 $71,588 Small Pavilion w/ Picnic Tables 4 $20,000 $80,000 Covered Picnic Tables 4 $0 $0 Bench 29 $850 $24,650 Picnic Tables 35 $1,500 $52,500 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis® — Parks Units Unit Cost Total Cost Basketball Full Court 3 $18,500 $55,500 Basketball Half Court 9 $9,500 $85,500 Tennis Courts 9 $20,000 $180,000 Ball Field 10 $45,000 $450,000 Volleyball Court 3 $2,500 $7,500 TOTAL $15,622,657 The total cost is then divided by 89.5 park acres to arrive at an existing standard of $174,554.83 per acre. Another way of stating the existing standard for park improvements is $957.22 per capita ($15,622,657 divided by the 2023 population of 16,321 persons). A summary table showing the equivalent levels of service (LOS) for parks is as follows: TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED SERVICE LEVELS _ LOS Cost per Acre Existing LOS Cost per Capita $174,554.83 $957.22 Summary Equivalency _ Table _ Parks Improvements and Costs Required by New Development Proposed LOS Cost per Capita $957.22 Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(f) —A description of all system improvements and their costs necessitated 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 ordinance, Based on existing service levels, Chubbuck will need to acquire and develop 11.32 park acres over the next eight years, as shown in the table below. This is equivalent to a total cost of $1,976,150.29. The additional park development needs are based on maintaining the existing and proposed level of service, which are the same, for new development. Based on an existing park standard of 5.48 acres per 1,000 persons, 11.32 additional park acres are needed due to the estimated growth of 2,064 persons by 2031. TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS NECESSITATED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT Population Growth, 2023-2031 2,064 Additional Acres Needed 11.32 Additional Investment Needed $1,976,150.29 Cost per Acre $174,554.83 System Improvements The Impact Fees Act allows that an impact fee be collected for the cost to construct system improvements which have capacity to serve future growth. A system improvement is defined as an improvement which will provide service to a service area — not an improvement that 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 20 -year planning horizon. The impact fee should be calculated to assess 7 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 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). Service Units Required by New Development Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(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; The total cost required by new development over the next eight years (2023-2031) is $1,976,150.29. These costs can be spent on a variety of park facilities, as best meets the needs of the City at the time of their expenditure. 20 -Year Projection of Service Units Required by New Development Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(h) —The projected demand forsystem improvements required by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time not to exceed twenty (20) years; The population of Chubbuck is projected to grow by 5,661 residents over the next 20 years. TABLE 8: POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONs, 2023-2042 Year Population 2023 2024 16,321 16,566 2025 16,814 2026 17,066 2027 17,322 2028 17,582 2029 17,846 2030 18,114 2031 18,385 2032 18,661 2033 18,941 2034 19,225 2035 19,513 2036 19,806 2037 20,103 2038 20,405 2039 20,711 2040 21,022 2041 21,337 2042 21,657 2043 21,982 Growth, 2023-2043 5,661 8 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©© ©o Over the next 20 years, the City will need to acquire and improve 31.04 park acres in order to maintain existing service levels for system improvements. TABLE 9: 20 -YEAR CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Description Amount Population Growth, 2023-2043 5,661 LOS - Park Acres per 1,000 Persons 5.48 Park Acres Necessitated by New Growth, 2023-2043 31.04 This represents an investment of $5,418,797, over 20 years, in $2023. TABLE 10: 20 -YEAR CAPITAL FACILITY COSTS 20 -Year Projections Acres Cost per Acre Total Cost, 20 Years Park Acres Necessitated by New Growth, 2023- 31.04 $174,554.83 $5,418,797 2042 Funding Sources for System Improvements Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(i) — Identification of all sources and levels of funding available to the governmental entity for the financing of the system improvements. Potential funding sources include grants, donations, general fund, impact fees and revenue allocation funds. Joint Development of Public Facilities Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(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 development 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; Not applicable. Schedule Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(k) — A schedule setting forth estimated dates for commencing and completing construction of all improvements identified in the capital improvements plan. The City will spend all impact fees collected within the 8 -year timeframe required by Idaho law. These funds will be spent for a wide variety of park and trail facilities including, but not limited to: park land, park improvements (restrooms, ball fields, playgrounds, picnic facilities, sport courts, etc.), and trail improvements. 9 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis The Proportionate Share Analysis follows the outline provided in Idaho Statute 67-8207 (2). Cost of Existing System Improvements Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(a) — The cost of existing system improvements within the service area or areas, The City has not identified any excess capacity in any of its parks and trails facilities. Therefore, the cost associated with facilities is related to the cost of constructing similar facilities in 2023 dollars. This establishes the level of service that must be maintained by new development. The cost of existing system improvements is $15,622,657 for parks per Table 5. Financing of Existing System Improvements Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(b) — The means by which existing system improvements have been financed, There is no debt outstanding on any parks and trails system improvements. Therefore, no credits need to be made for outstanding debt. Any parks and trail facilities that were acquired through grants or donations have not been included in the level of service for the calculation of impact fees. The park and trail facilities that were included were paid for through either the General Fund or from Revenue Allocation Funds. New Development Contributions to System Improvements Other than Impact Fees Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(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. The City does not intend to bond for future park improvements; therefore, no double payments will occur by new development. There are no bonds outstanding on existing park and trail facilities and therefore no recent past payments have been made for these types of facilities. The City may choose, at its discretion, to accept donations of land or park/trails improvements from developers. In this case, the impact fee should be offset by the donations. Financing of Existing System Improvements in the Past Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(d) — The extent to which the new development is required to contribute to the cost of existing system improvements in the future. The City has no existing, outstanding bonds or leases for park or trail facilities. Therefore, new development will not be required to pay for existing facilities. Credits for System Improvements Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(e) — The extent to which the new development should be credited for providing system improvements, without charge to other properties within the service area or areas, For parks and trails, new development will not be required to provide oversize system improvements that will benefit other properties in the service area. Therefore, no reimbursement agreements or credits are applicable. 10 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Extraordinary Costs Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(f) — Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new development, - Not applicable. Time and Price Differential in Fees Charged Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(g) — The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of fees paid at different times, The City anticipates updating its CIP and Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis every few years. At these times, the City will update the costs associated with purchasing land, making park improvements and constructing trails. This will ensure a fair comparison of fees paid at different times. Other Funding Sources Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(h) - The availability of other sources of funding system improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation. The governmental entity shall develop a plan for alternative sources of revenue. User Charges. User charges are most often charged in connection with the operation and maintenance of facilities. It is not anticipated that user fees would be charged for the construction of parks and trails capital facilities. General Tax Levies. While general tax levies may be used to fund park and trail facilities, the General Fund is only intended to be used for system improvements if the situation arises that the City desires to raise the existing service levels to meet new proposed service levels. Impact fees are intended to be used to maintain existing service levels through acquisition of the facilities needed due to new growth and development. Intergovernmental Transfers. The City can borrow money from other City funds in order to construct park and trail facilities and then later repay those funds as impact fee revenues are collected. At this time the City has no plans to use intergovernmental transfers. Special Taxation. The City does not intend to issue debt or impose special taxes to fund park and trail facilities. Donations and/or Grants. The City may receive donations or grants from public or private entities, such as urban renewal, to offset some of the costs for constructing parks or trail facilities. Proportionate Share Calculation There are three main cost components in the calculation of impact fees: • New construction of parks and trails facilities; • Consultant costs; and 0 Credits City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 New Construction of Parks and Trails Facilities New construction costs are calculated by first taking the number of acres needed (11.32) by new development over the next eight years. This calculation is based on population growth and maintaining the existing level of service of 5.48 acres per 1,000 persons. The cost for the additional acres is then calculated by multiplying the 11.32 acres by the cost of $174,554.83 per acre (existing cost for land and improvements) to reach a total cost of $1,976,150.29. The total cost is then divided by the projected population growth of 2,064 persons over the next eight years to arrive at a total cost of $957.22 per capita. TABLE 11: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION - NEW CONSTRUCTION COST New Construction — Parks Amount Impact -Fee Eligible Park Acres 89.5 Existing LOS - Park Acres per 1,000 5.48 Existing Park Improvements - Total Cost $15,622,657 2023 Population 16,321 Existing LOS per Capita — Parks $957.22 Population Growth, 2023-2031 2,064 Acres Needed, 2023-2031 11.32 Existing Standard Cost per Acre $174,554.83 Park Improvements Needed at Existing Standard $1,976,150.29 Cost per Capita $957.22 Consultant Costs The cost of preparing this analysis can also be included in the calculation of impact fees. The cost of $8,000 is divided among the projected population growth of 2,064 persons over the next eight years. TABLE 12: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION - CONSULTANT COSTS Consultant Costs Amount ZPFI $8,000 Growth, 2023-2033 2,064 Cost per Capita $3.88 Credits Credits are made for the existing fund balance in the park impact fee account. The existing funds can be used to offset the capital costs needed for future development and thus reduce the cost to new development. TABLE 13: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION -CREDIT FOR PARKS AND TRAILS IMPACT FEE FUND BALANCE Credits for Fund Balance Balance $804,435 Growth, 2023-2033 2,064 Credit per Capita ($389.66) *Impact fee fund balance as of April 2023 provided by Chubbuck 12 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©© ©© No other credits are necessary for outstanding bonds, debt obligations, leases or other factors. Summary of Proportionate Share Analysis Total costs per capita are summarized as follows: TABLE 14: PARKS AND TRAILS IMPACT FEE SUMMARY- PER CAPITA COSTS Description Amount Improvements $957.22 Consultant $3.88 Fund Balance ($389.66) Summary $571.44 Fees will be charged on a residential unit basis for single-family and multi -family housing. Therefore, the per capita cost has been multiplied by the average household size of single-family and multi -family community housing units. The City can choose to charge up to the maximum fee for single-family units and multi -family units. TABLE 15: PARKS AND TRAILS IMPACT FEE SUMMARY- PER HOUSEHOLD MAXIMUM FEES Maximum Fees HH Size* Single -Family 2.90 Multi -Family 2.35 *Source United States Census 2020 Max Fee $1,657.17 $1,342.88 13 ff 0 City of Chubbuck DRAFT Fire and Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ZIONS ®M PUBLIC FINANCE, INC. ®u 14 November 2023 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©© Contents Contents........................................................................................................................................................................2 Section I: Introduction to the Fire and Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis .........3 ProjectOverview....................................................................................................................................... 3 ImpactFee Service Area............................................................................................................................ 3 Populationand Fire Call Data.................................................................................................................... 3 LandUse Analysis......................................................................................................................................4 ServiceUnits.............................................................................................................................................. 5 CallData Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 5 LandUse and Future Calls.........................................................................................................................6 Section II: Fire and Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan...............................................................................6 SystemImprovements...............................................................................................................................6 Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities.................................................................................................. 7 Existing Equipment Inventory................................................................................................................7 ExistingCapital Facilities........................................................................................................................ 7 Future Fire Infrastructure..........................................................................................................................7 Funding Future Capital Facilities...............................................................................................................8 HistoricFunding Sources.......................................................................................................................8 BondFunding........................................................................................................................................ 8 ImpactFees...........................................................................................................................................8 Summary of Time and Price Differential....................................................................................................8 Equityof Impact Fees................................................................................................................................ 8 Section III: Fire and Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis......................................................................................10 ImpactFee Overview............................................................................................................................... 10 FireLevel of Service................................................................................................................................. 10 Proportionate Share Analysis.................................................................................................................. 10 Calculation of Proportionate Share..................................................................................................... 11 ImpactFee Cost per Call.......................................................................................................................... 11 Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit.................................................................................................. 12 Credits Owed to Development................................................................................................................12 Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit.......................................................................................................... 12 Individual Impact Fee Assessment.......................................................................................................... 12 Pi City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©n Section I: Introduction to the Fire and Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis Project Overview The City of Chubbuck (City) has commissioned Zions Public Finance, Inc (Zions) to put together a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) prior to updating fire and emergency services 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. The 2020 population was estimated to be 15,570 based on the United States Census 2020. By 2023, the population is estimated to reach 16,321 persons based on an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent.' The purpose of the Fire and Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan is to provide Chubbuck with substantive planning for future fire capital infrastructure including facility sizing, timing, costs and allocation to growth for which development impact fees may be used as a funding source. This information will be used as the basis of calculating the Fire and Emergency Services impact fees. A current CIP must be prepared before the City can update the Fire IFA. This CIP and IFA have been prepared for a single, city- wide service area (Service Area) with the same impact fee cost per call assessed throughout the Service Area. The cost per call is the relationship between the City's population and annual fire/emergency services calls generated within the City's boundaries and will be discussed in Section III: Fire and Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis. Population and Fire Call Data The 2023 population in Chubbuck is estimated at 16,321 persons and 5,779 households. Over the next 20 years, Chubbuck is projected to grow to a population of 21,982 persons and 7,783 households. TABLE 1: ATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS Year V1 20 2024 2025 2026 2027 lqw Population Households 15,842 5,609 16,080 16,321 16,566 16,814 17,066 17.322 5,693 5,779 5,865 5,953 6,042 6.133 2028 17,582 6,225 2029 17,846 6,318 2030 18,114 6,413 2031 18,385 6,509 2032 18,661 6,607 'Source: City of Chubbuck City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Year 2033 2034 Population 18,941 19,225 Households 6,706 6,807 2035 19,513 6,909 2036 19,806 7,013 2037 20,103 7,118 2038 20,405 7,225 2039 20,711 7,333 2040 21,022 7,443 2041 21,337 7,555 2042 21,657 14L 7,668 2043 21,982 7,783 Source: City of Chubbuck Source: City of Chubb k Depa t; ZPFI Fire calls for service were provided by the City of Chubbuck for the two-year period from 2020 through 2022. Because of the significant growth in calls between 2021 and 2022, the more recent year has been used in the analysis in order to capture the increased growth demands and trends in the City. TABLE 2: FIRE CALLS FOR SERVICE Category Calls to Private Land Uses Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential General Commercial 2020-2021 527 196 328 2021-2022 734 283 506 Office 39 37 Institutional 2 4 Calls to Public and Uses/Othe ML Public B ngs and Land ' 12 17 Traffi M,89 46- 98 North B County, Easter1qllllllllllllllllIyer COML 17 9 Mutual Aid1k 14MIL 197 197 Undefined Nr 8 4 Total Calls 1415 1889 Source: City of Chubb k Depa t; ZPFI Land Use Analysis Table 3 shows the current and proposed residential and non-residential units. It is estimated that single- family units will grow to 5,675 units by 2043 and that multi -family units will grow to 2,108 units. The non- residential units show growth to over 3.6 million square feet (sf) of general commercial space by 2043, nearly 800,000 sf of office space and just over half a million square feet of institutional space. TABLE 3: CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE Year Single -Family Multi -Family Units Units 2022 4,151 1,542 General Commercial SF* 2,653,464 Office SF* Institutional SF* 581,950 371,428 4 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis Year 2023 Single -Family Units 4,214 Multi -Family Units 1,565 General Commercial SF* 2,693,266 Office SF 590,679 Institutional SF 376,999 2024 4,277 1,588 2,733,665 599,539 382,654 2025 4,341 1,612 2,774,670 608,533 388,394 2026 4,406 1,636 2,816,290 617,661 394,220 2027 4,472 1,661 2,858,534 626,925 400,133 2028 4,539 1,686 2,901,412 636,329 406,135 2029 4,607 1,711 2,944,934 645,874 412,227 2030 4,676 1,737 2,989,108 655,562 418,411 2031 4,747 1,763 3,033,944 665,396 424,687 2032 4,818 1,789 3,079,453 675,377 431,057 2033 2034 2035 4,890 4,963 5,038 1,816 1,843 1,871 3,125,645 3,172,530 dj, 3,220,118 Igo 685,507 695,790 706,227 437,523 444,086 450,747 2036 5,113 1,899 AN, 3,268,419 1W 716,820 457,509 2037 5,190 1,928 3,317,446 727,573 464,371 2038 5,268 1,957 3,367,207 738,486 471,337 2039 5,347 1,986 + 3,417,716 749,563 478,407 2040 5,427 2,016 3,468,981 760,807 485,583 2041 5,509 A9111111111111111h, 2,046 3,521,016 772,219 _ 492,867 2042 5,5917 3,573,831 783,802 500,260 2043 5,675 3,627,439 795,559 507,764 *SF = square feet 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 calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements. In the case of fire impact fees an emergency call is the basic unit for measuring the demand for services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the "cost per call" and applied to each land use category according to the historic calls per unit generated by that land use category. Call Data Analysis Traffic calls and calls to public land are then allocated to the five land use categories based on their proportion of total calls forkervice. TABLE 4: ANALYSIS OF FIRE CALLS BY TYPE - 2022 DATA FIRE CALLS Fire Calls % of Total % of Total after Allocation Single -Family Residential 734 39% 46.93% Multi -Family Residential 283 15% 18.09% General Commercial 506 27% 32.35% Office 37 2% 2.37% Institutional* 4 0% 0.26% Traffic 98 5% Public Land** 17 1% k, City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis — FIRE CALLS Fire Calls % of Total % of Total after Allocation Unknown/Out of Area 210 11% Total 1,889 100.00% 100.00% *Institutional includes uses such as civic buildings, schools and churches **Public land includes areas such as parks, trails and public open space/recreational areas ***Unknown are those calls with an unknown address or land use type After the allocation of traffic and public land calls, the resulting calls and calls per unit are shown in the table below. Note that unknown/out of area calls are not allocated to other land use categories for the purpose of calculating impact fees. These costs must be borne by the community as a whole and not solely by new development. TABLE 5: CALLS PER UNIT/SF Land Use Category 2022 Units/SF 2022 C2ft Calls per Unit/SF Single -Family Residential — unit 0.1885106 Multi -Family Residential - unit 3 0.1957004 General Commercial —sf 2,653, 539 0.0002033 Office — sf 581,950 39 0.0000678 Institutional - sf 371,428 4 0.0000115 Land Use and Future Calls Table 6 shows the growth in calls per unit by land use type. The rati f ca Is per unit remains constant for future projections with an anticipated increase of 665 calls by 2043 TABLE 6: GROWTH IN CALLS _Mh_ 20 Growth in Callser �23 Ca 43 Calls 2043 Units Calls 2023- p Units/SF 2043 Unit/SF Single -Family Residential 4,214 1,070 5,675 276 0.1885106 — unit Multi -Family Residential - 1,565 412 2,108 106 0.1957004 unit General Commercial —sf54 2,693,266 738 3,627,439 190 0.0002033 Office — sf 590,679 54 795,559 14 0.0000678 Institutional —sf 376,999 6 507,764 2 0.0000115 Non -Impact Fee Eligible 225 303 78 TOTAL 1,917 2,582 665 Section II: Fire and Emergency Services 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 capacity to serve future growth. A system improvement is defined as an improvement which 6 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©© will provide service to an entire service area - not an improvement that only serves one specific development. The system improvement must also have a useful life of 10 or more years. System improvements which are impact fee eligible may have "buy -in" capacity to the City's existing inventory of equipment, apparatus and facilities or may be allocated to future improvements including equipment, apparatus, vehicles, and facilities within a 20 -year planning horizon. The impact fee should be calculated to assess an impact fee for the proportionate share of system improvement costs which are available to serve future growth. The Fire and Emergency Services CIP documents the City's impact fee qualifying existing and future expenditures. Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities Existing Equipment Inventory Table 7 summarizes the City's existing fire/emergency services equipment inventory. A portion of the existing equipment will serve growth and will be included in the impact fee calculation. TABLE 7: EXISTING EQUIPMENT INVENTORY ft Vehicle # 300 Make Dat Buffalo rvice Useful Lif Actual Cost 301 KME/International 20 $109,000 302 KME / Internation 19 20 $109,000 303 General Fire/ International 2000 20 $174,719 304 305 306 308 La France Tr G M International Ford 1983 2007 jb,, 2008 IL 2005 25 NV 30 20 30 $238,000 $49,191 Donated $32,499 311 Chevrolet 2016 0 $41,000 312 International 7W99 36 Donated 313 Chevrolet 012 21 $35,094.98 315 International/Pierce 2013 18 $238,781 316 Ford 2002 26 $36,000 343 Polaris 2012 19 $9,619 Eng1 ILIPierce 2019 19 $581,421 Existing Capital Facilities 9L The fire department currently operates out of an existing station at 4727 Yellowstone Avenue. It has 11,716 square feet. This building is at capacity; therefore, two new fire stations are planned: one on the west side of the City and one on the north side of the City in order to meet the growth in demand and maintain response times. Future Fire Infrastructure The new fire stations are planned to have 9,184 square feet each with a construction cost of $4,370,908 for the West Station and $4,919,495 for the North Station. 7 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 TABLE 8: FUTURE FIRE STATIONS Square Feet Cost ($2023) Future West 9,184 $4,000,000 Fire Station Future North 9,184 $4,000,000 Fire Station Source: City of Chubbuck; ZPFI Funding Future Capital Facilities Construction Cost in Cost per SF Year Construction Year $436 2026 $4,370,908 $436 2030 $4,919,495 Historic Funding Sources Fire facilities can be funded in a variety of ways including tax revenues, impact fees, grants, bonds, vehicle leases, 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 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 fire department. The current fire facilities were paid for through a combination of property taxes, sales taxes and impact fees with the expectation that the City would be repaid, over time, for new development's proportionate share of the costs through impact fees. Bond Funding There are no outstanding bonds related to the fire department and no future bonds are currently proposed. If a bond is proposed and approved in the future by City residents, then the impact fees should be revised at that time to include any additional bond costs. Impact Fees Impactfees 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 and prevent existing users from subsidizing the capital needs of new growth. Summary of Time and Price Differential The Impact Fees Act allows forthe inclusion of a time and price differential to ensure that the costs incurred at a later date are accurately calculated. These adjustments to construction costs have been made previously in Table 8. 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. Funds borrowed from other City accounts to pay for the new facilities are to be repaid in their entirety through impact fees at the time that impact fee funds become available. 8 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Section III: Fire and Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis Impact Fee Overview The impact fee for fire and emergency services is calculated using the growth projections, current call data and future call projections, current and estimated future land use, and existing and future equipment and facilities costs which have been described in Sections I & II of this document. The final components necessary to complete the Impact Fee Analysis include: level of service (LOS), proportionate share analysis, impact fee cost per call, impact fee cost per development unit, and review of any credits to development. Each of those components are discussed in this section. Fire 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 fire impact fees that means the total building square footage (capacity) relative to the number of calls the fire department receives each year (service demand). Unlike a utility such as culinary water where capacity can be added gradually to the system by upsizing an existing line segment, public safety floor space has to be built station -by -station, not line -by-line. To adequately maintain the current level of service, fire stations or expansions of existing fire stations must be done well ahead of the increase in call volume that the station expansion is designed to serve. As we look at the call volume, the current level of service is 6.11 square feet per call (11,716 existing sf divided by 1,917 calls for service). A new station is planned to be built on the City's west side at a cost of $4,370,908. Maintaining the existing service level of 6.11 square feet per call results in the need for 1,881 square feet of new building space by 2033. This represents about 20.5 percent of the capacity of the new building planned because the existing building is considered to be at capacity. TABLE 9: CURRENT AND PROJECTED FIRE LEVEL OF SERVICE New Conation Amount SF per Call 'T 6.11 Growth in Calls, 2023-2033 % 308 SF Required 2023-2033 ' 1,881 New Facility Cost , L $4,370,908 SF of New Facility _" 9,184 New Growth as % of Total Cos 20.5% Proportionate Share Analysis As part of this analysis, the Impact Fee 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 of an impact fee for system capacity in fire and emergency services, a proportionate share analysis was performed as described below. 10 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Calculation of Proportionate Share 10Amount Table 10 shows the future floor space required by the increased calls for service in 2033 due to growth from new development, as well as the cost of construction attributable to new development. Growth in Calls, 2023-2 TABLE 10: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION - FACILITIES NEEDED FOR 2033 LOS SF Required 2023-2033 New Construction Amount SF per Call 6.11 Growth in Calls, 2023-2033 308 SF Required 2023-2033 1,881 New Facility Cost $4,370,908 SF of New Facility 9,184 New Growth as % of Total Cost 20.5% Cost to New Development, 2023-2033 $895,168.20 Cash on Hand $193,925.68 Remaining Balance to New Development $701,242.52 Impact Fee Cost per Call The cost per call is calculated by dividing the total cost of $701,242.52 by the growth in calls between 2023- 2033. TABLE 11: FIRE COST PER CALL CALCULATION - FACILITIES New Construction 10Amount SF per Call 6.11 Growth in Calls, 2023-2 308 SF Required 2023-2033 1,881 New Facility Cost $4,370,908 SF of New Facility PF 9,184 New Growth as % of Total 20.5% Cost to New Development, 20 3 $895,168.20 Cash on Han $193,925.68 Remaining Balanq to New Develop $701,242.52 Growth in Calls, 2023-2031 308 Cost per Call, 2023-203 $2,278.16 In addition, Table 7 shows the fire vehicles used by Chubbuck which can be included in the calculation of impact fees. Appendix A reduces the total cost by subtracting 20 percent of value as residual value. The total cost less residual value is then divided by the capacity calls served by each vehicle to arrive at a vehicle cost per call of $254.44 for existing vehicles. Appendix B shows the detailed calculations for new vehicles purchased within the next 20 years. Only the portion of costs attributable to the next 20 years have been included in the study. The resulting cost per call is $419.11. 11 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 The total fire vehicle cost per call, for existing and new vehicles, is $673.55. The total cost per call is composed of the facility cost, vehicle cost and consultant costs associated with preparing the CIP and Impact Fee Analysis. This results in a total cost per call of $2,344.20. TABLE 12: FIRE COST PER CALL CALCULATION Description Amount New Construction $2,278.16 Vehicle Cost $673.55 Consultant Cost $19.49 Total Cost per Call Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit $2,971.21 The impact fee is assessed to each user category based upon the historic calls per unit generated by that land use. The City's observed annual fire calls per unit by development type are multiplied by the impact fee cost per call to calculate the final impact fee per land use. TABLE 13: MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES Maximum Fees Single Family—unit Multi -Family — unit General Commercial — per sf Office — per sf Calls per Unit Maximum Fees JAIL98510612 $560.10 7004 $581.47 0.00 03314 $0.60 0.00006779 $0.20 Institutional — per sf 1W. VK 0.000011482 $0.03 Credits Owed to Development There are no credits owed to and there are no bonds outstanding on current facilities. Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit When an impact fee fund has an available balance, which can be used towards future impact fee qualifying expenditures and thus reduce the cost to new development, then credits are made to the future impact fee. The City currently has an impact fee fund balance of $193,925.68 which was used to reduce the costs owed by new development on the fire facilities as shown in Table 12. Individual Impact Fee Assessment 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 fire impact fees the variable that would be reviewed in the individual impact fee assessment would be the average annual fire calls generated by the proposed development. Once the City and the developer have reviewed relevant information and determined the number of average annual fire calls for 12 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Fire CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 the proposed development, then the City can calculate the individual impact fee assessment using the formula in Table 14. TABLE 14: INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT FORMULA Fire Cost Per Call $2,971.21 x # of Annual Calls Projected to be Created Impact Fee Assessed Individual Impact Fee Assessment V 13 City of Chubbuck 7:; Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ZIONS ©m PUBLIC FINAN E,IN . ®a 17 May 2023 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©© ©n Contents Contents........................................................................................................................................................................2 Section I: Introduction to the Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis.............................................3 ProjectOverview....................................................................................................................................... 3 ImpactFee Service Area............................................................................................................................ 3 Population and Police Call Data................................................................................................................. 3 LandUse Analysis......................................................................................................................................4 ServiceUnits..............................................................................................................................................4 CallData Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 5 LandUse and Future Calls.........................................................................................................................5 Section II: Police and Animal Control Capital Improvement Plan...................................................................................7 SystemImprovements...............................................................................................................................7 Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities.................................................................................................. 7 Existing Equipment Inventory................................................................................................................7 ExistingCapital Facilities........................................................................................................................8 Future Police Infrastructure......................................................................................................................8 Funding Future Capital Facilities...............................................................................................................8 HistoricFunding Sources.......................................................................................................................8 BondFunding........................................................................................................................................ 9 ImpactFees...........................................................................................................................................9 Summary of Time and Price Differential....................................................................................................9 Equityof Impact Fees................................................................................................................................ 9 Section III: Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis..........................................................................................10 ImpactFee Overview............................................................................................................................... 10 PoliceLevel of Service............................................................................................................................. 10 Proportionate Share Analysis.................................................................................................................. 10 Calculation of Proportionate Share..................................................................................................... 11 ImpactFee Cost per Call.......................................................................................................................... 11 Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit.................................................................................................. 13 Credits Owed to Development................................................................................................................13 Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit.......................................................................................................... 13 Individual Impact Fee Assessment..........................................................................................................13 K City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Section I: Introduction to the Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis Project Overview The City of Chubbuck (City) has commissioned Zions Public Finance, Inc (Zions) to put together a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) prior to updating police and animal control 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. The 2020 population was estimated to be 15,570 based on the United States Census 2020. By 2023, the population is estimated to reach 16,321 persons based on an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent.' The purpose of the Police Capital Improvement Plan is to provide Chubbuck with substantive planning for future police capital infrastructure including facility sizing, timing, costs and allocation to growth for which development impact fees may be used as a funding source. This information will be used as the basis of calculating the Police impact fees. A current CIP must be prepared before the City can update the police IFA. This CIP and IFA have been prepared for a single, City-wide Service Area (Service Area) with the same impact fee cost per call assessed throughout the Service Area. The cost per call is the relationship between the City's population and annual police calls generated within the City's boundaries and will be discussed in Section III: Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis. Population and Police Call Data Police calls for service were provided by the City of Chubbuck for the two-year period from 2020 through 2022. An average of the two years has been used in this analysis in order to establish current service levels. 0 TABLE 1: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEE CALLS FOR SERVICE ategory Calls to PrivaX Land Uses Single Family Residential 2020-2021 2132 2021-2022 Average 1942 2037 Multi -Family Residential 970 949 960 General Commercial 2316 2180 2248 Office 28 21 25 Institutional 131 119 125 Calls to Public Land Uses/Other Public Buildings and Land 110 137 124 Traffic 1166 1105 1136 Mutual Aid 613 620 617 'Source: City of Chubbuck 3 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis® - Category 2020-2021 2021-2022. Average Undefined 277 236 257 Total Calls 7743 7309 7526 Source: City of Chubbuck Police Department; ZPFI Land Use Analysis Table 2 shows the current and proposed residential and non-residential units. It is estimated that single- family units will grow to 5,675 units by 2043 and that multi -family units will grow to 2,108 units. The non- residential units show growth to over 3.6 million square feet (sf) of general commercial space by 2043, nearly 800,000 sf of office space and just over half a million square feet of institutional space. TABLE 2: CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE Single -Family Multi -Family General * * Year Units Units Commercial SF* %iffice SF Institutional SF 2022 4,151 1,542 2,653,464 581,950 371,428 2023 4,214 1,5%h2,693,266 IW,679 376,999 2024 4,277 1,588 2,733,665 1JW9 382,654 2025 4,341 1,612 IM2,774,670 6084,1gaL 388,394 2026 4,406 1,636 2,816,290 617,60M 394,220 2027 2028 4,472 4,539 661 2,858,534 2,901,412 626,925 636,329 400,133 406,135 2029 4,607 1,7 2,944,934 645,874 412,227 2030 2031 2032 2033 4,676 4,747 4,818 4,890 1,737 1,763 1,789 1,816 2,989,108 3,033,944 3,079,453 3,125,645 655,562 665,396 675,377 685,507 418,411 424,687 431,057 437,523 2034 4k63 1,843 3,172,530 695,790 444,086 2035 1,871 3,220,118 706,227 450,747 2036 5, 22k1,899 3,268,419 716,820 457,509 203 5,190 1,928 3,317,446 727,573 464,371 2038 5,268 1,957 3,367,207 738,486 471,337 2039 5,347 1,986 3,417,716 749,563 478,407 2040 5,42 2,016 3,468,981 760,807 485,583 2041 5,5091M 2,046 3,521,016 772,219 492,867 2042 5,591 2,077 3,573,831 783,802 500,260 2043 5,675 2,108 3,627,439 795,559 507,764 *SF = sauare feet 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 calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements. In the case of police impact fees an emergency call is the basic unit for measuring the demand for services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the "cost per call" and applied to each land use category according to the historic calls per unit generated by that land use category. 2 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Call Data Analysis Traffic calls and calls to public land are then allocated to the five land use categories based on their proportion of total calls for service. TABLE 3: ANALYSIS OF POLICE CALLS BY TYPE Land Use Category Police Calls % of Total % of Total Single -Family Residential 2,037 27% 37.76% Multi -Family Residential 960 13% 17.79% General Commercial 2,248 30% 41.68% Office 25 0% 0.45% Institutional* 125 2% 2.32% Traffic 1,136 15% Public Land** 124 2% Unknown ***/Out of Area 873 12% TOTAL 7,526 1111011W. 100% *Institutional includes uses such as civic buildings, schools and churches **Public land includes areas such as parks, trails and public open space/recreational areas ***Unknown are those calls with an unknown address or land use type After the allocation of traffic and public land calls, the resulting calls and calls per unit are shown in the table below. Note that unknown/out of area calls are not allocated to other land use categories for the purpose of calculating impact fees. These costs must be borne by the community as a whole and not solely by new development. TABLE 4: CALLS PER UNIT 3W L Land Use Category IT &22 Units/S 2022 Calls Calls per Unit/SF Single -Family Residential — unit 4451 2,465 0.593760 Multi -Family Residential — unit All 1,542 1,161 0.753062 General Commercial — sf ` IW2,653,4642,720 0.001025 Office — sf Ilk IM81,950 30 0.000051 Institutional - sf IL371,428 151 0.000407 I Land Use and Future Calls Table 5 shows the growth in calls per unit by land use type in Table 5. The ratio of calls per unit remains constant for future projections with an anticipated increase of 2,298 calls by 2043. TABLE 5: GROWTH IN CALLS Growth in Calls per 2023 Calls 2023 Units/SF 2043 Calls 2043 Units/SF Calls 2023- Unit/SF 2043 Single -Family 2,502 4,214 3,370 5,675 868 0.593760 Residential Multi -Family Residential 1,178 1,565 1,587 2,108 409 0.753062 General Commercial 2,761 2,693,266 3,719 3,627,439 958 0.001025 Office 30 590,679 41 795,559 10 0.000051 k, City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Growth in Calls per 2023 Calls 2023 Units/SF 2043 Calls 2043 Units/SF Calls 2023 Unit/SF 2043 Institutional 154 376,999 207 507,764 53 0.000407 Non -Impact Fee Eligible 999 1,366 TOTAL 7,624 10,288 2,298 11 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Section II: Police and Animal Control 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 capacity to serve future growth. A system improvement is defined as an improvement which will provide service to an entire service area not an improvement that 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 have "buy -in" capacity to the City's existing inventory of equipment, apparatus, vehicles, and facilities or may be allocated to future improvements for equipment, apparatus and facilities 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 are available to serve future growth. The Police and Animal Control CIP documents the City's impact fee qualifying existing and future expenditures. Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities Existing Equipment Inventory Table 6 summarizes the City's existing police/animal control equipment inventory. A portion of the existing equipment will serve growth and will be included in the impact fee calculation. TABLE 6: EXISTING EQUIPMENT INVENTORY _ Veh # Expiration Year Purchased Make Model Cost 1 3/1/2026 2016 Ford Explorer $27,000 2 3/1/2030 2021 Dodge Durango $29,000 3 3/1/2029 2021 40FDodge Durango $29,000 4 4/30/2023 2017 Ford F150 $28,000 5 2022 Im Toyota Rav4 $30,000 6 /1/2024 2015 Chevy Tahoe $30,000 3/1/ 2015 i Chevy Tahoe $30,000 8 2022 Dodge Durango $30,000 9 2022 Toyota Rav4 $30,000 10 1/2027 017 Ford Explorer $30,000 11 023 016 Ford Explorer $27,000 12 5/ 3 2009 Chevy Malibu $18,000 13 3/1/2025 2015 Ford F-150 $24,000 14 3/1/2030 4W 2013 Chevy Tahoe $28,000 15 3/1/2027 2017 Ford Explorer $30,000 16 17 5/1/2023 2009 Chevy Malibu $18,000 18 8/1/2023 2018 Dodge Durango $27,000 19 3/1/2026 2016 Ford Explorer $27,000 20 5/1/2023 2009 Chevy Equinox $22,200 21 11/1/2023 2007 GMC Silverado $16,200 22 5/1/2023 2013 Chevy Tahoe $28,000 7 Veh # 23 Expiration 3/1/2025 Year Purchased 2016 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis® - Make Model Cost Ford Explorer $26,500 24 25 4/1/2023 2018 Dodge Durango $27,000 26 Reader Board $13,000 27 3/1/2029 2019 Dodge Durango $28,684 28 29 3/1/2028 2011 Chevy Silverado $21,300 30 7/1/2023 2018 Dodge Durango $27,000 31 5/1/2023 2014 Chevy Silverado $30,000 32 3/1/2029 2019 Dod Durango $28,684 33 34 3/1/2030 2020 &DoWe I Durango $29,000 35 3/1/2030 2020 odge Durango $29,000 36 3/1/2031 2021 Dodge Durango $29,000 37 3/1/2031 2021 Dodge Durango $30,384 50 4/1/2029 2013 =Lep Rubicon Gift = 0 Existing Capital Facilities The police department currently operates out of an existing police station and an animal shelter. These new facilities were completed in May 2023 and future development will be required to buy -in to its proportionate share of these facilities based on the demand it places on these facilities. Demand is measured by calls for service. The existing police station has 18,000 square feet and was acquired at a cost of $6.8 million; the animal control shelter has 3,778 square feet and was acquired at a cost of $1.9 million. Future Police Infrastructure No new police or animal control facilities are anticipated to be needed within the next 20 years. Therefore, new development will need to buy -in to the excess capacity in the existing facilities. Funding Future Capital Facilities Police facilities can be funded in a variety of ways including tax revenues, impact fees, grants, bonds, vehicle leases, 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 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 police department. The current police facilities were paid for through a combination of property taxes, sales taxes and impact fees with the expectation that the City would be repaid, over time, for new development's proportionate share of the costs through impact fees. 8 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Bond Fundin There are no outstanding bonds related to the police department and no future bonds are currently proposed. If a bond is proposed and approved in the future by City residents, then the impact fees should be revised at that time to include any additional bond costs. Impact Fees Impactfees 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 and prevent existing users from subsidizing the capital needs of 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. However, in this case no future costs are anticipated within the 20 -year planning horizon of this study. Equity of Impact Fees N& ft, The impact fee calculations are structured to fund 100% of the growth -related portion of system improvements as presented in the impact fee analysis. Funds borrowed from other City accounts to pay for the new facilities are to be repaid in their entirety through impact fees at the time that impact fee funds become available. 9 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Section III: Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis Impact Fee Overview The impact fee for police and animal control services is calculated using the growth projections, current call data and future call projections, current and estimated future land use, and existing and future equipment and facilities costs which have been described in Sections I & II of this document. The final components necessary to complete the Impact Fee Analysis include: level of service (LOS), proportionate share analysis, impact fee cost per call, impact fee cost per development unit, and review of any credits to development. Each of those components are discussed in this section. Police 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 police impact fees that means the total building square footage (capacity) relative to the number of calls the police department receives each year (service demand). Unlike a utility such as culinary water where capacity can be added gradually to the system by upsizing an existing line segment, public safety floor space has to be built station -by -station not line -by-line. To adequately maintain the current level of service, police stations or expansions of existing police stations must be done well ahead of the increase in call volume that the station expansion is designed to serve. Therefore, as we look at the call volume, the recently built facilities were designed to serve future development through 2043. Table 7 shows the 2043 level of service of 1.75 square feet per police call which is lowerthan the currently observed LOS of 2.36 square feet per call. The 2043 LOS for animal control is 0.37 square feet per call which is lower than the current LOS of 0.49 square feet per call. New development can only be charged for the level of service that it receives. Therefore, impact fees are calculated on the lower 2043 service levels. TABLE 7: CURRENT AND PROJECTED POLICE LEVEL OF SERVICE Police Level of Service 2023 2043 Calls for Service 7,639 10,288 Police SF Police SF per Call 18,000 18,000 2.36 1.75 Animal Control SF 3,778 3,778 Animal Control SF per Call 0.49 0.37 Proportionate Share Analys As part of this analysis, the Impact Fee 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 of an impact fee for system capacity in the police and animal control services, a proportionate share analysis was performed as described below. 10 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 Calculation of Proportionate Share Table 8 shows the future floor space required by the increased calls for service in 2043 due to growth from new development, as well as the cost of the floor space. TABLE 8: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION - FACILITIES NEEDED FOR 2043 LOS Description 2043 Police SF per Call — Proposed 2043 LOS 1.75 Animal Control SF per Call — Proposed 2043 LOS 0.37 Calls for Service 10,288 Growth in Calls for Service, 2023-2043 2,650 Police SF Needed, 2023-2043 4,636 Animal Control SF Needed, 2023-2043 Police Cost per SF 973 $377.78 Animal Control Cost per SF3 $502.91 Police Cost Attributable to New Development, 2023-2043 $1,751,201 Animal Control Cost Attributable to New Development, 3-2043 $489,306 Total Cost Attributable to New Development, 2023-2043 $2,240,507 Impact Fee Cost per Call The cost per call is calculated by dividing the total cost of $2,240,507 attributable to new growth by 2043 by the growth in calls between 2023-2043, TABLE 9: POLICE COST PER CALL CALCULATION - FACILITIES Description Amount Cost to New Development, 2023-2043 $2,240,507.36 Cash on Hand $157,134.68 Remaining Balance to New Development Growth in Calls, 2023-204,_.3 Cost per Call $2,083,372.68 2,650 $786.30 In addition, Table 6 shows the police vehicles used by Chubbuck which can be included in the calculation of impact fees. Table 10 reduces the total cost by subtracting 20 percent of value as residual value. The total cost less residual value is then divided by the capacity calls served by each vehicle to arrive at a vehicle cost per call of $77.48. z Based on the City's recent construction of a police facility at a cost of $6.8M for 18,000 sf ($6.8M / 18,000 = $377.78 3 Based on the City's recent construction of an animal control facility at a cost of $1.9M for 3,778 sf ($1.9M / 3,778 = $502.91. 11 City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis ©0 TABLE 10: POLICE COST PER CALL CALCULATION - VEHICLES Veh # 1 2 Year Purchased 2016 2021 Cost $27,000 $29,000 Expiration Year _ 2026 2030 Total Cost Less Residual Value $21,600 $23,200 Calls by Year of Expiration - Total Capacity Calls 7,988 8,478 Cost per Call $2.70 $2.74 3 2021 $29,000 2029 $23,200 8,353 $2.78 4 2017 $28,000 2023 $22,400 7,639 $2.93 5 2022 $30,000 2023 $12,9 0 7,639 $1.70 6 2015 $30,000 2024 $24,000 7,753 $3.10 7 2015 $30,000 2024 $24,000 7,753 $3.10 8 2022 $30,000 i 9 2022 $30,000 2023 $21,600 7,639 $2.83 10 2017 $30,000 2027 $24,000 8,108 $2.96 11 2016 $27,000 2023 $21,600 7,639 $2.83 12 2009 $18,000 2023 $14,400 7,639 $1.89 13 2015 $24,000 2025 $19,200 IIIIIIIIIIIII1111L 7,870 $2.44 14 2013 $28,000 A30 522,400 M68,478 $2.64 15 2017 $30,000 NL$24,000 $24,000 8,108 $2.96 16 2019 $28,684 2029 $22,947 8,353 $2.75 17 2009 $18,000 2027-$14,400 $1.89 18 2018 $27, 2023 $21,600 7,639 $2.83 19 2016 $27,01111F2026 $21,600 7,988 $2.70 20 2009 $22,200 2023 $17,760 7,639 $2.32 21 2007 $16,200 3& 2023 $12,9 0 7,639 $1.70 22 2013 $28,000 2023 $22,4ffill 7,639 $2.93 23 2016 $26,500 2025 $21,2dW 7,870 $2.69 24 25 NW18 0 2023 $21,600 7,639 $2.83 26 NL$1 00 27 $28,684 2029 $22,947 8,353 $2.75 28 29 2011 $21,300 2028 $17,040 8,229 $2.07 2018 $27,000 2023 $21,600 7,639 $2.83 2014 $30,000 2023 $24,000 7,639 $3.14 2019 $28,684 2029 $22,947 8,353 $2.75 33 342020 $29,000 2030 $23,200 8,478 $2.74 35 2020 $29,000 2030 $23,200 8,478 $2.74 36 2021 $29,000 2031 $23,200 8,605 $2.70 37 021 $30,384 2031 $24,307 8,605 $2.82 50 Gift = 0 2029 8,353 $0.00 TOTAL $619,962 $77.48 The total cost per call is composed of the facility cost, vehicle cost and consultant costs associated with preparing the CIP and Impact Fee Analysis. This results in a total cost per call of $866.04. TABLE 11: POLICE COST PER CALL CALCULATION Description Amount Facility Cost $786.30 Vehicle Cost $77.48 Consultant Cost $2.26 12 ■ City of Chubbuck I DRAFT Police CIP and Impact Fee Analysis Description Amount Total Cost per Call $866.04 Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit The impact fee is assessed to each user category based upon the historic calls per unit generated by that land use. The City's observed annual police calls per unit by development type are multiplied by the impact fee cost per call to calculate the final impact fee per land use. TABLE 12: MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES Land Use Type Calls per tdnit Maximum Fees Single Family—unit 0.5937601 $514.22 Multi -Family— unit 530616 $652.18 General Commercial —sf 252 $0.89 Office - sf 0.00 $0.04 Institutional - sf 0.00040 $0.35 Credits Owed to Development There are no credits owed to development. The City does not anticipate any future police facilities to be built in the next 20 years and there are no bonds outstanding on current facilities. Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit When an impact fee fund has an available balance, which can be used towards future impact fee qualifying expenditures and thus reduce the cost to new development, then credits are made to the future impact fee. The City currently has an impact fee fund balance of $157,134.68 which was used to reduce the costs owed by new development on the police facilities as shown in Table 9. OW111111111111 Individual Impact Fee Assessment 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 police impact fees the variable that would be reviewed in the individual impact fee assessment would be the average annual police calls generated by the proposed development. Once the City and the developer have reviewed relevant information and determined the number of average annual police calls for the proposed development, then the City can calculate the individual impact fee assessment using the formula in Table 13. TABLE 13: INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT FORMULA $866.04 Police Cost Per Call Impact Fee Assessed # of Annual Calls Projected to be Created Individual Impact Fee Assessment 13 Currently Adopted 1� 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 1 21.11 Cash In Lieu of Park 1 1967 3,209,279 Yes Park Meadows Park I Community 18.21 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 100,0001 1 1 100,000 Paved parking area (per Stall) 1,200 278 333,600 Gravel Non -Paved Parking Area 2501 30 7,500 Storage Structure /Tennis Service Shop 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 intends 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 1 4 1 8,000 Picnic Tables 1,0001 1 1 1 4 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 41 4 4 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 E Parks : Recreation LOSInventory 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 Currently Adopted 1� City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis September 2018 ZIONS ©© PUBLIC FINANCE,INC. ©© No 1! � RM ©© so ME No ■■ ■■ ME ■■ No ME ME M M No No �or 00 No MINI �E..01 No so ME MM MINI 1001 so No City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis Contents Section I: Introduction to the Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis .....................3 ProjectOverview.......................................................................................................................................................3 ImpactFee Service Area............................................................................................................................................3 Population and Emergency Services Call Data..........................................................................................................3 Use of Buildout Call Data in the Impact Fee Planning Horizon.............................................................................4 LandUse Analysis......................................................................................................................................................4 ServiceUnits..............................................................................................................................................................4 CallData Analysis......................................................................................................................................................5 UndefinedCalls.....................................................................................................................................................5 Calls to Public Areas, Roads, and Non -Qualifying Calls Generated by Non-Residents.........................................6 Callsper Unit Calculation......................................................................................................................................6 LandUse and Future Calls.........................................................................................................................................6 Section II: Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan...........................................................................................7 SystemImprovements..............................................................................................................................................7 Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities..................................................................................................................7 ExistingEquipment Inventory...............................................................................................................................7 ExistingCapital Facilities.......................................................................................................................................7 Future Emergency Services Infrastructure................................................................................................................7 ExistingDeficiencies..............................................................................................................................................7 Schedule For Improvements.................................................................................................................................8 Funding Future Capital Facilities...............................................................................................................................8 HistoricFunding Sources.......................................................................................................................................8 BondFunding........................................................................................................................................................8 ImpactFees...........................................................................................................................................................8 Summary of Time and Price Differential...................................................................................................................9 Equityof Impact Fees................................................................................................................................................9 Section III: Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis...................................................................................................10 ImpactFee Overview...............................................................................................................................................10 Emergency Services Level of Service.......................................................................................................................10 Proportionate Share Analysis..................................................................................................................................11 Calculation of Proportionate Share....................................................................................................................11 ImpactFee Cost per Call..........................................................................................................................................11 Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit..................................................................................................................12 CreditsOwed to Development................................................................................................................................12 GrantFunding.....................................................................................................................................................12 Developer Dedications and Exactions.................................................................................................................12 1 No City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis © © Deficiency Credit.................................................................................................................................................12 Individual Impact Fee Assessment..........................................................................................................................13 Appendix......................................................................................................................................................................14 so ME MIR City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© ©© SECTION I: INTRODUCTION TO THE EMERGENCY SERVICES CAPITAL of IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS PROJECT OVERVIEW •■E 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 emergency services 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 Emergency Services 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 Emergency Services IFA. A CIP must be prepared before the City can adopt and assess an emergency services impact fee. This CIP and IFA have been prepared for a single emergency services service area (Service Area) which encompasses the City of Chubbuck, north Bannock County and eastern Power County. The same impact fee cost per call will be ■■ assessed throughout the Service Area. The cost per call is the relationship between the Service Area's population and annual emergency services calls generated within the Service Area's boundaries and will be discussed in Section ■■ III: Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis. POPULATION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES CALL DATA ■■ 2016 is the baseline year for emergency services call data and land use units used in this analysis. The growth in calls ■■ between the 2017 projected calls and buildout calls was then used to estimate the growth in annual calls that will occur in the Service Area. 2017 calls were 3,702 and are expected to grow to 3,702 calls by buildout resulting in an increase of 2,415 calls as shown in Figure 1. lit 1L. ME ■ ■ FIGURE 1: PROJECTIONS IN POPULATION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES CALLS Growth in Emergency Services Calls Historic and Service Area Future Population Projections Total Emergency Average Calls 3,700 Year 2,413 % Undeveloped 65% o /Call Growth 2,413 Population Services Calls per Capita 2016 14,644 1,231 0.0841 2017 16,899 1,287 0.0762 4.6% 2018 17,328 1,399 0.0808 8.7% 2019 17,756 1,512 0.0851 8.0% 2020 18,185 1,624 0.0893 7.4% 2021 18,613 1,736 0.0933 6.9% 2022 19,041 1,848 0.0971 6.5% 2023 19,470 1,961 0.1007 6.1% 2024 19,898 2,073 0.1042 5.7% 2025 20,327 2,185 0.1075 5.4% 2026 20,755 2,297 0.1107 5.1% 2027 19,357 2,410 0.1245 4.9% Buildout 57,149 3,700 0.0647 Growth in Emergency Services Calls 2017 Calls 1,287 Buildout Calls 3,700 Undeveloped Calls 2,413 % Undeveloped 65% Calls Added at Buildout 2,413 ME EP RM ©© ■o o m MM so on ■■ on No is ME No City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis USE OF BUILDOUT CALL DATA IN THE IMPACT FEE PLANNING HORIZON In compliance with the Impact Fees Act the system improvement timeframe will not exceed twenty years; however, these twenty-year system improvements are being constructed to serve the Service Area's full buildout demand, not twenty-year demand. Therefore, if twenty-year call volumes were used rather than the buildout call volume, then the emergency services impact fee would overstate the capacity need to serve new development and wouldn't fairly allocated the proportionate share of cost to the new development coming within the twenty-year impact fee horizon. Even though buildout call data is used in this analysis the CIP and IFA will still need to be updated periodically as actual annual call data, planning projections, construction costs, and other projections may change overtime. LAND USE ANALYSIS Figure 2 shows the current and proposed residential and non-residential units. It is estimated that the population will grow to 20,940 residential units by buildout. The non-residential units, divided by General Commercial, Office, or Institutional land uses, show 2,543 kSF which will increase to 12,977 kSF by buildout. For residential uses, the current persons per household figures were applied to the buildout population to determine the projected residential future units. Similarly, the current non-residential square footage per capita estimates were applied to the future population projections to estimate the future non-residential square footage. FIGURE 2: EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE 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 emergency services impact fees, an emergency call is the basic unit for measuring the demand for services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the "cost per call" and applied to each land use category according to the historic calls per unit generated by that land use category. 4 2017 Existing Development Development Future Added Buildout Current Residential Units Population Persons per Total Units Population Units Population Persons per Total Units Household Household Single Family 11,747 2.79 4,211 27,980 10,029 39,727 2.79 14,239 Multi -Family 5,152 2.60 1,981 12,270 4,719 17,422 2.60 6,701 Total 16,899 2.73 6,192 40,250 14,748 57,149 2.73 20,940 Private Non -Residential Units SF per Capita Estimated kSF SF per Capita Estimated kSF SF per capita Estimated kSF General Commercial 129.47 2,188 129.47 8,745 191.31 10,933 Office 5.74 97 5.74 461 9.77 558 Institutional 15.27 258 15.27 1,227 25.99 1,485 Total 150.48 2,543 10,434 227.07 12,977 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 emergency services impact fees, an emergency call is the basic unit for measuring the demand for services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the "cost per call" and applied to each land use category according to the historic calls per unit generated by that land use category. 4 City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis CALL DATA ANALYSIS The following tables detail the cost per call calculation by showing the existing number of calls that went to each land use category (Figure 3), the number of future calls that are estimated to take place when the Service Area is built out (Figure 4), and the calls per unit of each land use category (Figure 5). FIGURE 3: RAW EMERGENCY SERVICES CALL DATA Category 2015 2016 2 yr Total Average % of Total Calls to Private Land Uses Single Family Residential 409 Single Family Residential 445 409 854 427 34% Multi -family Residential 204 171 375 188 15% General Commercial 221 239 460 230 18% Office* 1 5 6 3 0% Institutional ** 6 4 10 5 0% Calls Public Land Uses/Other Public Buildings and Land 13 1% Public Buildings and Land 8 13 21 11 1% Traffic 15 7 22 11 1% North Bannock County, Eastern Power County 308 309 617 309 25% Mutual Aid 41 51 92 46 4% Undefined *** 27 23 50 25 2% All Calls 1,276 1,231 2,507 1,254 1009/o `Single Family = single family detached, all others are considered Wuiu-ramuy ror i pacr rcc assessmcnr purposcs " Institutional includes churches and private non profit uses *** Undefined includes all other calls not able to be assigned to a private land use within the service area UNDEFINED CALLS One of the call categories shown in Figure 3 is Undefined. Undefined calls are calls that were unable to be geocoded due to lack of available information. For example, an incorrect address may have been recorded when the call was received. To estimate the land use distribution for undefined calls, the undefined calls are assigned to a land use using the same proportions as the direct calls. For example, 34% of all defined calls received by the City in 2016 were direct calls to a single-family residential land use. Therefore, 34% of undefined calls were assumed to have also been generated by a single-family residence as shown in Figure 4 below. FIGURE 4: ALLOCATION OF UNDEFINED CALLS Land Use Type Calls To Direct Land Use %to Direct Undefined Land Use Calls to Land Uses Total Calls by Land Us (After Undefined Allocation) Residential Single Family Residential 409 34% 8 417 Multi -family Residential 171 14% 3 174 Non -Residential General Commercial 239 20% 5 244 Office 5 0% 0 5 Institutional 4 0% 0 4 Public Land Uses Public Buildings and Land 13 1% 0 13 Traffic 7 1% 0 7 North Bannock County, Eastern Power County 309 26% 6 315 Mutual Aid 51 4% 1 52 Undefined 23 0% - - Total 1,231 100% 23 1,231 ME City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© CALLS TO PUBLIC AREAS, ROADS, AND NON -QUALIFYING CALLS GENERATED BY NON-RESIDENTS ■i Similarly to how undefined calls were allocated to specific land uses, calls to public land uses (roads and public areas) were also allocated to direct land uses. Public land use calls are generated by either residential developments, non- residential developments, or by non-residents passing through the Service Area. . ■ FIGURE 5: FINAL CALL DATA DISTRIBUTION BY LAND USE ■ Direct■ Outside Summary ■■ No ■■ on No so CALLS PER UNIT CALCULATION Figure 6 shows the number of 2016 calls assigned to each land use type according to a land use call analysis performed by the City of Chubbuck. Once the final call distributions were determined, the number of calls generated by each land use referred to as the "calls per unit" could be determined by divided the calls to each land use by the corresponding land use units. FIGURE 6: EMERGENCY SERVICES CALLS PER UNIT Land Use Type Direct Calls Allocated to Land Use 828 69% 828 - - - - 828 per Unit Public Buildings and Land 13 1% - 11.70 - - 1.30 13 .M Traffic 7 1% - - 4 - 4 7 8 North Bannock County, Eastern Power County 309 26% - 309 - 309 ■■ Mutual Aid 51 _ 4% _ 51 51 1,981 Undefined 23 N/A 16 0.2 - 6 1 23 ■■ No ■■ on No so CALLS PER UNIT CALCULATION Figure 6 shows the number of 2016 calls assigned to each land use type according to a land use call analysis performed by the City of Chubbuck. Once the final call distributions were determined, the number of calls generated by each land use referred to as the "calls per unit" could be determined by divided the calls to each land use by the corresponding land use units. FIGURE 6: EMERGENCY SERVICES CALLS PER UNIT Land Use Type 2016 Calls To Undefined Calls Calls to Public Calls to 2016 per Unit Residential Direct Land Use to Land Use Areas Roadways Multi Family (Units) Calls A§L— Use per Unit 423 Single Family 8 6 2 424 4,211 0.101 Multi -Family 461 3 2 1 177 1,981 0.090 Non -Residential 7239 Total Undeveloped Future Private Fire Calls per k5F 2,469 General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) 5 3 1 248 2,188 0.113 Office (per 1,000 SF) 0.1 0.1 0.0 5 97 0.053 Institutional (per 1,000 SF) 0.1 0.1 0.0 4 258 0.016 Non -Qualifying Calls Calls Outside Service Area 360 7 1 1 4 1 372 Total 1,188 23 1 13 1 7 1 1,231 LAND USE AND FUTURE CALLS The calls per unit by land use in Figure 6 are multiplied by the number of future units shown as Figure 7. This results in the number of future emergency services calls that will be created by new development through buildout. Between 2017 and buildout, it is anticipated that 2,469 future emergency services calls will be added. FIGURE 7: EXISTING AND FUTURE EMERGENCY SERVICES CALLS— BASED ON HISTORIC LAND USE Projected Future Emergency Services Calls - 2017 to Buildout Calls Added at Development Type Future Units Calls per Unit Single Family (Units) 10,029 0.101 1,011 Multi Family (Units) 4,719 0.090 423 Non -Residential General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) 8,745 0.113 991 Office (per 1,000 SF) 461 0.053 25 Institutional (per 1,000 SF) 1,227 0.016 20 Non -Resident Calls Total Undeveloped Future Private Fire Calls 2,469 *Projected Future Calls are based only on future units in addition to existing callsfrom existing units ME w� City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis SECTION II: EMERGENCY SERVICES 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 ■■ 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 equipment and facilities 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 Emergency Services CIP documents the City's .■ impact fee qualifying existing and future expenditures. EXISTING EQUIPMENT AND CAPITAL FACILITIES EXISTING EQUIPMENT INVENTORY Figure 8 shows the City's existing emergency services apparatus inventory listing each apparatus the City owns, the ON year it was purchased, and the price for which the apparatus was acquired. The City will routinely replace each apparatus and add additional apparatuses/vehicles to the inventory when staffing needs increase; however, the City and Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee have determined that planned future apparatus acquisitions will ■■ not be added to the impact fee inventory until the time that future apparatus are actually acquired by the City. ■■ FIGURE 8: EXISTING APPARATUS INVENTORY Apparatus Inventory 1li,.— Asset Description Equipment Purchase Historic Apparatus MYear Cost ■■ Pumper 301 Fully Equipped 1993 $ 114,000 Pumper 302 Fully Equipped 1993 114,000 Pumper 303 Fully Equipped 2000 200,227 L Ladder 304 Fully Equipped 1983 238,000 Totals: $NMI 666,227 EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES The emergency services department currently operates out of one station, Station #1. The City has already acquired ■■ the land for two future stations, Stations #2 and #3. The building floorspace will be used in the impact fee 1011 proportionate share to document existing and future capacity to serve emergency services calls, but no costs have been included in the impact fee calculation for the existing emergency services facilities due to the age of Station #1 and the lack of construction cost records. Figure 7 shows the building floorspace for Station #1. MIM ■. ME No FIGURE 7: EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES FUTURE EMERGENCY SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES The demand placed on existing emergency services by new development activity is attributed to growth in emergency calls. This growth will increase demands upon emergency services, requiring an increase in number of 7 Existing Fire / EMS Facilities Impact Impact Fee Total Cost Acres SF of Space Fee Qualifying Cost Eligible Fire Station#1 11,716 100% $ - Total $ - 0.00 11,716 $ - FUTURE EMERGENCY SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES The demand placed on existing emergency services by new development activity is attributed to growth in emergency calls. This growth will increase demands upon emergency services, requiring an increase in number of 7 ME Op RM ©© ■el ■ ■ MM ME on ■■ OR No ON City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis professionals and public safety apparatus. This will in turn cause a need for more station floorspace for offices, storage areas, training rooms, housing apparatus, etc. The existing station has some capacity to serve future growth, so no existing deficiencies currently exist, but to meet the demand created by future development the City will need to expand its facilities. SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENTS Within the impact fee planning horizon, the City plans to build two new stations in conjunction with the proposed future police sub -stations. Once the emergency services projects are completed the City anticipates having sufficient capacity to meet the buildout facility floorspace needs for emergency services demands, however, at some point in the future Station #1 will need to be rebuilt due to its age. At this time firm plans for the reconstruction and possible relocation of Station #1 are not finalized. Once these plans have been solidified the CIP and IFAS will need to be updated to account for the Station #1 relocation plans. Figure 8 shows the future capital facilities planned for emergency services. FIGURE 8: SUMMARY OF FUTURE EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES Project Year Floorspace Cost (SF) per SF* Land PV Project Construction. (Acres) Expense $ Year % to Expense- Growth Expansionary Cost Future Emergency Services Facilities Within 10 Years Future West Fire Station West Fire Station Land 86% to Emergency Services 2021 Owned by City 9,184 $ 285 $ 2,617,440 2.0 24,000 $2,860,147 20,630 100% $ 100% 2,860,147 20,630 Future North Fire Station North Fire Station Land 86% to Emergency Services 2028 Owned by City 9,184 285 2,617,440 2.0 70,000 3,517,620 60,172 100% 100% 3,517,620 60,172 Within 30 Years 18,368 4.0 $5,328,880 $6,458,571 $6,458,571 Future Emergency Services Beyond 30 Beyond 10 Year Land -Relocate Existing Station Beyond 10Year Facilities- Relocate Existing Station 11,716 $ - - $ - $ - - - $ - Beyond 10 Years 11,716 - - - Total Emergency Services Facilities 30,084 - $ 5,328,880 $ 6,458,571 $ 6,458,571 *$285 per SF based off of a comparable recent station constructed in Idaho Falls ** 3%Annual Inflation FUNDING FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES HISTORIC FUNDING SOURCES Emergency services facilities can be funded in a variety of ways including tax revenues, impact fees, grants, bonds, vehicle leases, 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 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 emergency services department. As stated above, due to the age of the existing facilities and lack of funding records there is no impact fee qualifying cost to be included in the impact fee calculation for existing facilities. BOND FUNDING ONThe 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 emergency services department 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 and prevent existing users from subsidizing the capital needs for new growth. NO ME ME MIR City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© ©© SUMMARY OF TIME AND PRICE DIFFERENTIAL ED 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 are inflated at 3% annually to a future value cost based on the year of anticipated construction. ■■ EQUITY OF IMPACT FEES ME 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 o■ other factors. Any borrowed funds are to be repaid in their entirety through impact fees at the time that impact fee ■■ funds become available. ■■ on Im,.— No �r■ �i � No so ii 1L. ME ■ o ME w� City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis SECTION III: EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW The impact fee for emergency services is calculated using growth projections, current call data and future call ■■ projections, current and estimated future land use, and existing and future apparatus and facilities costs which have .■ been described in Sections I & II of this document. The final components necessary to complete the Impact Fee Analysis include: level of service (LOS), proportionate share analysis, impact fee cost per call, impact fee cost per development unit, and proposed credits to development. Each of those components are discussed in the following section. �■ EMERGENCY SERVICES 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 emergency services impact fees that means the total building square footage (capacity) relative to the number of emergency services calls the department receives each year (service demand). Unlike a utility such as culinary water where capacity can be added gradually to the system by upsizing an existing transmission line segment, public safety floorspace has to be built station -by -station not line -by-line. New emergency services stations or expansions must be done well ahead of the increase in call volume that the station ■■ expansion is designed to serve. Therefore, we look at the call volume the stations are being built to serve (rather ■■ than the LOS observed today) as the true measure of LOS. In the case of the emergency services impact fee, the future capital projects identified in the CIP are needed to serve a buildout population of the Service Area and a buildout LOS. Any square foot per call calculations that exceed the buildout LOS are considered unused excess capacity that will be utilized once the Service Area reaches buildout. Figure 9 shows the buildout level of service of ■■ 8.13 square feet (SF) per call which is lower than the currently observed LOS of 9.52 SF per call which means excess ■■ capacity in the existing emergency services square footage currently exists. FIGURE 9: CURRENT AND PROJECTED EMERGENCY SERVICEs LEVEL OF SERVICE ■ ■ ■ ■ Current 11,716 1,231 9.52 Within 10 Years 30,084 2,410 12.49 Buildout 30,084 3,700 8.13 Impact Fee Level of Service Used 30,084 3,700 8.13 No so li 1L. ME ■ o .Z ■ . 10 ME OF RM ©© Sol o m SO ME No City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis 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 emergency services system capacity, a proportionate share analysis was performed as described below. CALCULATION OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE Figure 10 displays the current and future facility floorspace and the calls they will serve. With this information, it is possible to calculate the percentage that will serve new growth, and thus the portion that future growth will be expected to fund. FIGURE 10: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION Capital Project Time Frame Added Station Floorspace % of Buildout Floor Space Station Capacities (Call) 2017 Calls to Stations Deficiency % to Serve Existing Users % to Sery Future Grol Existing Floorspace Construction Within 10 Years Construction Beyond 10 Years 11,716 18,368 - 38.9% 61.1% - 1,441 2,259 - 1,287 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% 89.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.7% 100.0% 0.0% 30 Years 30,084 100.0% 3,700 1,231 2,413 2,413 2,413 2,413 2,413 $ - 29 - 2,676.37 - Existing Floorspace Construction Within 10 Years 11,716 18,368 38.9% 61.1% 1,441 2,259 1,287 0.0% 0.0% 89.3% 0.0% 10.7% 100.0% Existing and Within 10 Years 30,084 100.0% 3,700 1,287 IMPACT FEE COST PER CALL Once the proportionate share has been determined the impact fee cost per call can be calculated. The impact fee cost per call divides the impact fee qualifying costs to new growth by the total future calls new growth will generate. The value found in the "% growth related" column comes directly from the proportionate share analysis "% to Serve Future Growth" column. The total impact fee qualifying cost is $7,154,798 of which $6,559,738 pertains to new growth. This results in a cost per call of $2,718.29. FIGURE 11: EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT COST PER CALL CALCULATION Expense QualifyingImpact Fee % to Growth Impact Fee Qualifying New Growth Growth Calls Impact Fee Emergency Services Stations Existing Facilities ExistingApparatus Inventory Exi sti ng Debt Servi ce (I nterest) Future Facilities within 10Years Futu re Debt Servi ce (I nterest) $ - 666,227 - 6,458,571 - 10.7% 10.7% 10.7% 100.0% 100.0% $ - 71,167 - 6,458,571 - 2,413 2,413 2,413 2,413 2,413 $ - 29 - 2,676.37 - Total $ 7,124,798 $ 6,529,738 $ 2,705.86 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 30,000 100% $ 30,000 2,413 $ 12 Total Miscellaneous $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 12.43 Grand Total $ 7,154,798 $ 6,559,738 $ 2,718.29 11 ME MIR Em ©© Ma City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis IMPACT FEE COST PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT The impact fee is assessed to each user category based upon the historic calls per unit generated by that land use. The Service Area's observed annual emergency services calls per unit by development type are multiplied by the impact fee cost per call to calculate the final impact fee per land use. FIGURE 12: RECOMMENDED EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT Emergency Services Residential Cost per Call Calls per Impact Unit per Fee Unit Single Family Residential Unit Multi -Family Residential Unit $ 2,718 2,718 0.101 $ 0.090 274.01 243.45 Non Residential General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) Office (per 1,000 SF) Institutional (per 1,000 SF) $ 2,718 2,718 2,718 0.113 $ 0.053 0.016 308.13 145.41 43.73 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 Service Area'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 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 00 Developer exactions are not the same as grants (which should be credited from the impact fee). If a developer oil constructs an emergency services station, donates impact fee qualifying apparatus or equipment to the City, or dedicates land within the development for emergency services, then the value of the dedication is credited against that particular developer's impact fee liability. It is rare for developers to construct an entire emergency services station for a credit, but land dedication for a station or training facility does sometimes occur. If the situation arises ■■ ,O that a developer chooses to construct facilities found in the CIP in -lieu of impact fees, appropriate arrangements must be made through negotiation between the developer and the City on a case by case basis. All emergency services facilities and apparatus are considered to be system improvements, not project improvements. Thus, an impact fee credit will be due to the developer and the dedication/exaction will be classified ON 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. on 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 MIN 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 ■ . 12 No ME ■p City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© 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 emergency services department does not have an existing deficiency; therefore, no deficiency credit is required at this time. ■■ INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT No 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 emergency services impact ME fees the variable that would be reviewed in the individual impact fee assessment would be the average annual Noemergency services calls generated by the proposed development. Once the City and the developer have reviewed relevant information and determined the number of average annual emergency services calls for the proposed development, then the City can calculate the individual impact fee assessment using the formula in Figure 13. ■W FIGURE 13: INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT FORMULA Cost Per Call ■ ■Emergency Services Non -Standard Impact Fee Development # of Annual Calls ■■ $2,718.29 x Projected to be - Non -Standard Created I mpact Fee M IV No so Ii 1L. ME ■ o .Z ■ . 13 ME MIR City of Chubbuck Emergency Services Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© ©© E& No No ME ME ISO' ■■ on APPENDIX im,.— ■■ No INS ■' �i � No so ii 1L. ME ■ o .Z ■ . 14 APPENDIX A: GROWTH FORECAST A B C D 1 TABLE A.1: Historic and Future Population Growth 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 E F A B C D E F G H TABLE A.2: Summary of Growth Projections .. and PopulationHistoric Future 1,287 Buildout Calls 3,700 Service Area Total Emergency Average Calls 65% Year 2,413 / Call Growth Population Services Calls per Capita 2016 14,644 1,231 0.0841 2017 16,899 1,287 0.0762 4.6% 2018 17,328 1,399 0.0808 8.7% 2019 17,756 1,512 0.0851 8.0% 2020 18,185 1,624 0.0893 7.4% 2021 18,613 1,736 0.0933 6.9% 2022 19,041 1,848 0.0971 6.5% 2023 19,470 1,961 0.1007 6.1% 2024 19,898 2,073 0.1042 5.7% 2025 20,327 2,185 0.1075 5.4% 2026 20,755 2,297 0.1107 5.1% 2027 19,357 2,410 0.1245 4.9% Buildout 57,149 3,700 0.0647 A B C D E F G H TABLE A.2: Summary of Growth Projections .. 2017 Calls 1,287 Buildout Calls 3,700 Undeveloped Calls 2,413 Undeveloped 65% Calls Added at Buildout 2,413 G H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 APPENDIX 6: FORECAST OF DEVELOPMENT UNITS 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 A B C D E F G H I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Future Development to be 9-k Development2017 Existing o Buildout it j Added Current Buildout Residential Units Population Persons per Total Units Population Units Population Persons per Total Units Household Household Single Family 11,747 2.79 4,211 27,980 10,029 39,727 2.79 14,239 Multi -Family 5,152 2.60 1,981 12,270 4,719 17,422 2.60 6,701 Total 16,899 2.73 6,192 40,250 14,748 57,149 2.73 20,940 Private Non -Residential Units SF per Capita Estimated kSF SF per Capita Estimated kSF SF per capita Estimated kSF General Commercial 129.47 2,188 129.47 8,745 191.31 10,933 Office 5.74 97 5.74 461 9.77 558 Institutional 15.27 258 15.27 1,227 25.99 1,485 Total 150.48 2,543 10,434 227.07 12,977 A B C D E F G H I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 APPENDIX C: EMERGENCY SERVICES CALL DETAILS A B C D 1 TABLE CA: Chubbuck Citv emereencv services calls responded to from 2015 to 2016 2 e 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 E F 1 *Single Family= single family detached, all others are considered "Multi family" for impact fee assessment purposes ** Institutional includes churches and private non profit uses *** Undefined includes all other calls not able to be assigned to a private land use within the service area A B C D E F 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Calls to Private Land Uses Single Family Residential 445 409 854 427 34% Multi -family Residential 204 171 375 188 15% General Commercial 221 239 460 230 18% Office* 1 5 6 3 0% Institutional ** 6 4 10 5 0% Calls Public Land Uses/Other Public Buildings and Land 8 13 21 11 1% Traffic 15 7 22 11 1% North Bannock County, Eastern Power County 308 309 617 309 25% Mutual Aid 41 51 92 46 4% Undefined *** 27 23 50 25 2% All Calls 1,276 1,231 2,507 1,254 100% *Single Family= single family detached, all others are considered "Multi family" for impact fee assessment purposes ** Institutional includes churches and private non profit uses *** Undefined includes all other calls not able to be assigned to a private land use within the service area A B C D E F 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 APPENDIX D: ALLOCATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES CALLS TO PUBLIC/PRIVATE LAND USES A B C D E F G H I TABLE D.1: Allocation of Fire Calls to Land Uses 1 2 Direct Calls Allocated to Land Use 828 69% 828 - 828 3 Public Buildings and Land 13 1% - 11.70 - 1.30 13 4 Traffic 7 1% - 4 - 4 7 5 North Bannock County, Eastern Power County 309 26% - 309 - 309 6 Mutual Aid 51 4% - - - 51 51 7 Undefined 23 N/A 16 0.2 - 6 1 23 8 Total 1,231 100% 844 12 4 315 57 11231 9 10 TABLE D.2: Undefined Emergency Services Calls Allocated to Land Use 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 A B C D E F G H J 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 25 J Calls To % Direct Undefined Total Calls by Land Use Land Use Type Direct Land Land Use Calls to Land (After Undefined Residential Use Uses Allocation) Single Family Residential 409 34% 8 417 Multi -family Residential 171 14% 3 174 Non -Residential General Commercial 239 20% 5 244 Office 5 0% 0 5 Institutional 4 0% 0 4 Public Land Uses Public Buildings and Land 13 1% 0 13 Traffic 7 1% 0 7 North Bannock County, Eastern Power County 309 26% 6 315 Mutual Aid 51 4% 1 52 Undefined 23 0% - Total 1,231 100% 23 1,231 A B C D E F G H J 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 25 J APPENDIX E: AVERAGE EMERGENCY SERVICES CALLS PER UNIT A B C D E F G H 1 TABLE E.1: Average Historic Calls per Unit to Development Types 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 Land Use Type 2016 Calls To Undefined Development.• Future Units Calls per Unit Calls Added at Residential Direct Land Use Calls to Land Areas •... 10,029 0.101 1,011 Residential 4,719 0.090 423 Non -Residential per Unit Single Family 409 8 6 2 424 4,211 0.101 Multi -Family 171 3 2 1 177 1,981 0.090 Non -Residential 2,469 per k5F General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) 239 5 3 1 248 2,188 0.113 Office (per 1,000 SF) 5 0.1 0.1 0.0 5 97 0.053 Institutional (per 1,000 SF) 4 0.1 0.1 0.0 4 258 0.016 Non -Qualifying Calls Calls Outside Service Area 360 7 1 4 372 Total 1,188 23 13 7 1,231 TABLE E.2: Proiected Future Calls Future Emergency Services Calls - 2017 BuildoutProjected to Development.• Future Units Calls per Unit Calls Added at Residential Single Family (Units) 10,029 0.101 1,011 Multi Family (Units) 4,719 0.090 423 Non -Residential General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) 8,745 0.113 991 Office (per 1,000 SF) 461 0.053 25 Institutional (per 1,000 SF) 1,227 0.016 20 Non -Resident Calls Total Undeveloped Future Private Fire Calls 2,469 A B C D E F G H 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 APPENDIX F: EXISTING AND FUTURE STATIONS A B C 1 TABLE F.1: Summary of Existing Facilities 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 D E F Existing Fire / EMS Facilities Floorspace Cost (SF) . PV ProjectConstruction per SF* (Acres) Expense$ Year % Impact Total Cost Acres SF of Space Fee Eligible Impact Fee Qualifying Cost Fire Station #1 11,716 100% $ Total $ - 0.00 11,716 $ G H Assumptions Current Year 2018 Inflation Rate 3.00% TABLE F.2: Projection of Future Facilities Project Future Emergency Services Facilities Within 10 Years Year Floorspace Cost (SF) . PV ProjectConstruction per SF* (Acres) Expense$ Year Expense" Expansionary % to Growth Cost Future West Fire Station West Fire Station Land 86% to Emergency Services 2021 Owned by City 9,184 $ 285 $ 2,617,440 2.0 24,000 $2,860,147 20,630 100% $ 2,860,147 100% 20,630 Future North Fire Station North Fire Station Land 86% to Emergency Services 2028 Owned by City 9,184 285 2,617,440 2.0 70,000 3,517,620 60,172 100% 3,517,620 100% 60,172 Within 30 Years 18,368 4.0 $5,328,880 $6,458,571 $6,458,571 Future Emergency Services Beyond 10 Beyond 10 Year Land -Relocate Existing Station Beyond 10 Year Facilities- Relocate Existing Station 11,716 $ - - - $ $ - - - - - $ - - - Beyond 10 Years 11,716 - - Total Emergency Services Facilities 30,084 - $ 5,328,880 $ 6,458,571 $ 6,458,571 24 *$285 per SF based off of a comparable recent station constructed in Idaho Falls ** 3% Annual Inflation A B C D E F G H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 APPENDIX G: APPARATUS INVENTORY A B C D 1 2 TABLE G.1: Apparatus Inventory 3 Apparatus Purchase Historic 4 Asset Description Equipment Year Apparatus Cost 5 Pumper 301 Fully Equipped 1993 $ 114,000 6 Pumper 302 Fully Equipped 1993 114,000 7 Pumper 303 Fully Equipped 2000 200,227 8 Ladder 304 Fully Equipped 1983 238,000 9 10 11 Totals: $ 666,227 A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 APPENDIX H: LEVEL OF SERVICE A B C D TABLE H.1: Emereencv Services Level of Service Current 11,716 1,231 9.52 Within 10 Years 30,084 2,410 12.49 Buildout 30,084 3,700 8.13 Impact Fee Level of Service Used 30,084 3,700 8.13 A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 APPENDIX I: PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS A B C D 1 2 TABLE 1.1: Summary of Emergency Services Facilities 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 E F G H J K Capital Project Time Frame Added Station Floorspace % of Buildout Floor Space Station Capacities (Call) 2017 Calls to Deficiency Stations Available for Growth Calls Existing Calls Deficiency % to Serve Existing Users % to Serve Future Growth Existing Floorspace 11,716 38.9% 1,441 1,287 1,287 154 0.0% 89.3% 10.7% Construction Within 10 Years 18,368 61.1% 2,259 17 - 2,259 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Construction Beyond 10 Year - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10 Years 30,084 100.0% 3,700 1,231 1,287 2,413 Existing Floorspace 11,716 38.9% 1,441 1,287 1,287 154 0.0% 89.3% 10.7% Construction Within 10 Years 18,368 61.1% 2,259 - 2,259 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Existing and Within 10 Years 30,084 100.0% 3,700 1,287 11 12 TABLE 1.2: Proportionate Share of Emergency Services Facilities Impact Fee % of Allocated % 13 Timeframe Qualifying Cost of of Allocated to % of Allocated to Amount to be Amount to Amount to be Pail Future Facilities to Deficiency Existing Users DeficiencyDevelopment 14 Existing $ - 0.0% 89.3% 10.7% $ $ $ - 15 Within 10 Years 6,458,571 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 6,458,571 16 Total $ 6,458,571 0.0% 44.7% 55.3% $ $ $ 6,458,571 17 A B C D E F G H J K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 APPENDIX J: EMERGENCY SERVICES COST PER CALL A B C D E F 1 TABLE J.1: Emergency Services Impact Fee Cost per Call 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A B C D E F 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Impact Fee % to Growth Impact Fee Qualifying New Growth Calls Impact Fee Expense Qualifying Cost Related Cost Assigned to New Added Growth to Buildout Cost per Call Emergency Services Stations Existing Facilities $ - 10.7% $ - 2,413 $ Existing Apparatus Inventory 666,227 10.7% 71,167 2,413 29 Existing Debt Service (Interest) - 10.7% - 2,413 - Future Facilities within 10 Years 6,458,571 100.0% 6,458,571 2,413 2,676.37 Future Debt Service (Interest) - 100.0% - 2,413 - Total $ 7,124,798 $ 6,529,738 $ 2,705.86 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 30,000 100% $ 30,000 2,413 $ 12 Total Miscellaneous $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 12.43 Grand Total $ 7,154,798 $ 6,559,738 $ 2,718.29 A B C D E F 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 APPENDIX K: FINAL IMPACT FEE CALCULATION A B C 1 TABLE K.1: Emergency Services Impact Fee Per Unit 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D E F G TABLE K.2: Non -Standard WEmergency Service per Call Calls per Unit ImpactCost per Single Family Residential Unit Multi -Family Residential Unit $ 2,718 2,718 0.101 0.090 $ 274.01 243.45 Non Residential General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) Office (per 1,000 SF) Institutional (per 1,000 SF) $ 2,718 2,718 2,718 0.113 0.053 0.016 $ 308.13 145.41 43.73 $2,718.29 11 A B C D E F H I J ment Impact Fee CalculationWon-Stanclar Impact Fee 1 2 Development 3 # of Annual Calls 4 x Projected to be = Non -Standard 5 Created Impact Fee 6 7 8 9 10 11 G H I J Currently Adopted 1� City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis September 2018 ZIONS ©© PUBLIC FINANCE,INC. ©© ME PRE um ©© No No so ME so ■■ so ■■ ME ME ME iM No ha ME so ME ME 101.01 WIN ME so 10.10. City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis Contents Section I: Introduction to the Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis...........................................2 ProjectOverview.......................................................................................................................................................2 ImpactFee Service Area............................................................................................................................................2 Populationand Police Call Data................................................................................................................................2 Use of Buildout Call Data in the Impact Fee Planning Horizon.............................................................................3 LandUse Analysis......................................................................................................................................................3 ServiceUnits..............................................................................................................................................................3 CallData Analysis......................................................................................................................................................4 UndefinedCalls.....................................................................................................................................................4 Calls to Public Areas, Roads, and Non -Qualifying Calls Generated by Non-Residents.........................................5 Callsper Unit Calculation......................................................................................................................................5 LandUse and Future Calls.........................................................................................................................................5 Section II: Police and Animal Control Capital Improvement Plan..................................................................................6 SystemImprovements..............................................................................................................................................6 Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities..................................................................................................................6 ExistingEquipment Inventory...............................................................................................................................6 ExistingCapital Facilities.......................................................................................................................................7 Future Police Infrastructure......................................................................................................................................7 ExistingDeficiencies..............................................................................................................................................7 Schedule For Improvements.................................................................................................................................7 Funding Future Capital Facilities...............................................................................................................................8 HistoricFunding Sources.......................................................................................................................................8 BondFunding........................................................................................................................................................8 ImpactFees...........................................................................................................................................................8 Summary of Time and Price Differential...................................................................................................................8 Equityof Impact Fees................................................................................................................................................8 Section III: Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis...........................................................................................9 ImpactFee Overview.................................................................................................................................................9 PoliceLevel of Service...............................................................................................................................................9 ProportionateShare Analysis..................................................................................................................................10 Calculation of Proportionate Share....................................................................................................................10 ImpactFee Cost per Call..........................................................................................................................................10 Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit..................................................................................................................11 CreditsOwed to Development................................................................................................................................11 GrantFunding.....................................................................................................................................................11 Developer Dedications and Exactions.................................................................................................................11 DeficiencyCredit.................................................................................................................................................11 Individual Impact Fee Assessment..........................................................................................................................12 Appendix......................................................................................................................................................................13 1 NN City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis SECTION I: INTRODUCTION TO THE POLICE 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 police and animal control 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. I� •I The purpose of the Police Capital Improvement Plan is to provide Chubbuck with substantive planning for future ■■ police 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 Police IFA. A CIP must be prepared before the City can adopt and assess a police impact fee. This CIP and IFA have been prepared for a single, City-wide Service Area (Service Area) with the same impact fee cost per call assessed throughout the Service Area. The cost per call is the relationship between the City's population and annual police calls generated .■ within the City's boundaries and will be discussed in Section III: Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis. POPULATION AND POLICE CALL DATA 2016 is the baseline year for police call data and land use units used in this analysis. The growth in calls between the 2017 projected calls and buildout calls was then used to estimate the growth in annual calls that will occur in the ■■ City. 2017 calls were 6,498 and are expected to grow to 18,405 calls by buildout resulting in an increase of 11,671 ■. calls as shown in Figure 1. FIGURE 1: PROJECTIONS IN POPULATION AND POLICE CALLS �E E1 No No Historic and Chubbuck Future Population Total Police Projections Average Calls per Buildout Calls Year Undeveloped Calls 11,671 o /Call Growth Population Calls Capita 2016 14,644 6,463 0.4599 4.2% 2017 15,072 6,734 0.4648 4.0% 2018 15,501 7,006 0.4520 4.0% 2019 15,929 7,277 0.4568 3.9% 2020 16,358 7,549 0.4615 3.7% 2021 16,786 7,820 0.4659 3.6% 2022 17,215 8,091 0.4700 3.5% 2023 17,643 8,363 0.4740 3.4% 2024 18,072 8,634 0.4778 3.2% 2025 18,500 8,906 0.4814 3.1% 2026 18,929 9,177 0.4848 3.0% 2027 19,357 9,449 0.4881 3.0% Buildout 40,238 18,405 0.4574 Growth in Police Calls 2017 Calls 6,734 Buildout Calls 18,405 Undeveloped Calls 11,671 % Undeveloped 63% Calls Added at Buildout 11,671 MIN ME Em ME on ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ WE No so I loll. ME ME 101 101 I. INS INS ME No I■ E No No City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis USE OF BUILDOUT CALL DATA IN THE IMPACT FEE PLANNING HORIZON In compliance with the Impact Fees Act the system improvement timeframe will not exceed twenty years; however, these twenty-year system improvements are being constructed to serve the City's full buildout demand, not twenty- year demand. Therefore, if twenty-year call volumes were used rather than the buildout call volume, then the police impact fee would overstate the capacity need to serve new development which would result in a higher impact fee that wouldn't fairly allocated the proportionate share of cost to the new development coming within the twenty- year impact fee horizon. Even though buildout call data is used in this analysis the CIP and IFA will still need to be updated periodically as actual annual call data, planning projections, construction costs, and other projections may change over time. LAND USE ANALYSIS Figure 2 shows the current and proposed residential and non-residential units. It is estimated that the population will grow to 20,109 residential units by buildout. The non-residential units, divided by General Commercial, Office, or Institutional land uses, show 2,543 kSF which will increase to 9,530 kSF by buildout. For residential uses, the current persons per household figures were applied to the buildout population to determine the projected residential future units. Similarly, the current non-residential square footage per capita estimates were applied to the future population projections to estimate the future non-residential square footage. FIGURE 2: EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE 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 calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements. In the case of police impact fees an emergency call is the basic unit for measuring the demand for services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the "cost per call" and applied to each land use category according to the historic calls per unit generated by that land use category. 2016 Existing Development Development to be Added Existing+ Growth at Buildout Current Persons Buildout Persons Residential Units Population Total Units Population Units Population Total Units per Household per Household Single Family 10,117 2.79 3,622 27,800 9,964 37,905 2.79 13,586 Multi -Family 4,527 2.60 1,739 12,438 4,784 16,960 2.60 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 149.4 2,188 149.4 6,013 149.4 8,201 Office 6.6 97 6.6 266 6.6 363 Institutional 17.6 258 17.6 708 17.6 966 Total 174 2,543 6,987 174 9,530 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 calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements. In the case of police impact fees an emergency call is the basic unit for measuring the demand for services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the "cost per call" and applied to each land use category according to the historic calls per unit generated by that land use category. ME WIN ©© ©© so ■ ■ ■ No pq �E 01 No ■ ■ City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis CALL DATA ANALYSIS The following tables detail the cost per call calculation by showing the existing number of calls that went to each land use category (Figure 3), the number of future calls that are estimated to take place when the City is built out (Figure 4), and the calls per unit of each land use category (Figure 5). FIGURE 3: RAW POLICE CALL DATA Category 2015 2016 2 yr Total Average % of Total Calls to Private Land Uses Single Family Residential * 2,203 2,463 4,666 2,333 38% Multi -Family Residential 831 775 1,606 803 13% General Commercial 2,130 2,459 4,589 2,295 37% Office 17 14 31 16 0% Institutional ** 67 53 120 60 1% Calls to Public Land Uses/Other Public Buildings and Land 5 39 44 22 0% Traffic 113 299 412 206 3% Mutual Aid 60 61 121 61 1% Undefined *** 364 300 664 332 5% All Calls 5,790 6,463 12,253 6,127 100% Single Family = single family detached, all others are considered "Multi -family' for impact fee assessment purposes "Institutional includes churches and private non profit uses *** Undefined includes all other calls not able to be assigned to a private land use within the service area UNDEFINED CALLS One of the call categories shown in Figure 3 is Undefined. Undefined calls are calls that were unable to be geocoded due to lack of available information. For example, an incomplete or incorrect address may have been recorded when the call was received. To estimate the land use distribution for undefined calls, the undefined calls are assigned to a land use using the same proportions as the direct calls. For example, 40% of all calls received by the City in 2016 were direct calls to a single-family residential land use. Therefore, 40% of undefined calls were allocated to single- family residential as shown in Figure 4 below. FIGURE 4: ALLOCATION OF UNDEFINED CALLS Land Use Type Calls To Direct Land %to Direct Undefined Land Use calls to Land tal Calls by Land Use (After Undefined Residential Use Uses Allocation) Single Family Residential * 2,463 40% 120 2,583 Multi -Family Residential 775 13% 38 813 Non -Residential General Commercial 2,459 40% 120 2,579 Office 14 0% 1 15 Institutional 53 1% 3 56 Public Land Uses Public Buildings and Land 39 1% 2 41 Traffic 299 5% 15 314 Mutual Aid 61 1% 3 64 Undefi ned 300 0% - - Total 6,463 100% 300 6,463 ME 10IN City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© I©© CALLS TO PUBLIC AREAS, ROADS, AND NON -QUALIFYING CALLS GENERATED BY NON-RESIDENTS h ii Similarly to how undefined calls were allocated to specific land uses, calls to public land uses were also allocated to direct land uses. Public land use calls are generated by either residential developments, non-residential developments, or by non-residents passing through the Service Area. ■■ FIGURE 5: FINAL CALL DATA DISTRIBUTION By LAND USE ■ ■ Direct Direct Calls Allocated to Land Use 5,764 89% 6,045 6,045 ■■ Public Buildings and Land 39 1% 37 4.09 41 Traffic 299 5% 157 157 314 .■ Mutual Aid 61 1% 64 64 Undefined 300 5% - Total 6,463 100% 6,045 37 157 225 6,463 I� �I CALLS PER UNIT CALCULATION ■■ Figure 6 shows the number of 2016 calls assigned to each land use type according to a land use call analysis performed by the City of Chubbuck. Once the final call distributions were determined, the number of calls generated by each land use (single-family residential, multi -family residential, general commercial, office, or institutional) referred to as the "calls per unit" could be determined by divided the calls to each land use by the corresponding .■ land use units. ■■ FIGURE 6: POLICE CALLS PER UNIT ■■ 1pql No go Land Use Type 2016 Calls To Undefined Direct Land Calls Use Calls to Land Public Use to Areas Mutual Calls to Aid Traffic 2016 Total Calls Existing Land Use Unit Calls per Unit Residential 9,964 0.781 7,785 Multi -Family unit 4,784 per Unit 2,499 SingleFamily Multi -Family 2,463 775 120 38 16 5 67 21 2,666 839 3,412 1,605 0.781 0.522 Non -Residential 266 0.161 43 Institutional (kSF) 708 per kSF 162 General Commercial Office Institutional 2,459 14 1 53 1 120 1 3 1 16 0 0 1 67 0 1 1 2,661 15 57 1 2,122 94 250 1 1.254 0.161 0.229 Non -Qualifying Police Calls 18,405 Police Calls Allocated to Outside City 4 1 64 157 225 Total 1 5,764 1 281 1 41 1 64 314 1 6,463 LAND USE AND FUTURE CALLS The calls per unit by land use in Figure 6 are multiplied by the number of future units shown in Figure 7. This results in the number of future police calls that will be created by new development through buildout. Between 2017 and buildout, it is anticipated that 11,671 future police calls will be added. FIGURE 7: EXISTING AND FUTURE POLICE CALLS— BASED ON HISTORIC LAND USE Projected Future Police Development Type Future Calls Units Calls per Unit Future Buildout Single Family (unit) 9,964 0.781 7,785 Multi -Family unit 4,784 0.522 2,499 Non -Residential General Commercial (kSF) 6,013 1.254 7,540 Office (kSF) 266 0.161 43 Institutional (kSF) 708 0.229 162 Non -Resident Police Calls Future Calls per Future Deve opment pe Population Police Cal Is Allocated to Outside City 25,165 Capita 0.015 Buildout 375 Total Undeveloped Future Private Police Calls 18,405 'Projected Future Calls are based only on future units in addition to existing calls from existing units ■ 9 City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis SECTION II: POLICE AND ANIMAL CONTROL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ME PLAN ■■ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS . ■ The Impact Fee Act allows that an impact fee be collected for the cost to construct system improvements which have 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 MM City's existing inventory of equipment and facilities or may 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 Police and Animal Control CIP documents the City's impact fee qualifying existing and future expenditures. ■■ EXISTING EQUIPMENT AND CAPITAL FACILITIES ■. EXISTING EQUIPMENT INVENTORY Figure 8 shows the City's existing police equipment inventory listing each vehicle the City owns, the year it was purchased, and the price for which the vehicle was acquired. The City will routinely replace these vehicles and add ■■ additional vehicles to the inventory when staffing needs increase; however, the City and Development Impact Fee ■■ Advisory Committee have determined that planned future equipment acquisitions will not be added to the impact fee inventory until the time that future vehicles are actually acquired by the City. FIGURE 8: EXISTING EQUIPMENT INVENTORY NoPolice Equipment Inventory ■ ■ Make Model Purchase Historic Year Equipment Cost Ford Exp PI 2016 $ 33,000 Tchev Tahoe 2012 34,000 ■■ Chev Tahoe 2012 34,000 Ford F150 2017 33,000 . ■ GMC Envoy 2006 28,400 Chev Tahoe 2015 36,000 Chev Tahoe 2015 36,000 Chev Tahoe 2012 34,000 GMC Yukon 2007 32,500 ■. Ford Exp PI 2017 36,000 Ford Explorer 2016 32,000 ■ ■ Chev Malibu 2009 23,000 Ford F150 2015 28,000 Chev Tahoe 2013 34,000 Ford Exp PI 2017 36,000 Chev Tahoe 2008 35,500 ■■ Chev Malibu 2009 23,000 ■ ■ Dodge Durango 2018 33,000 Ford Expl PI 2016 33,000 Chev Equinox 2009 27,200 GMC Sierra 2007 21,200 Chev Tahoe 2013 33,000 ■. Ford Exp PI 2016 33,000 Ford Exp PI 2016 33,000 ■ ■ Dodge Durango 2018 33,000 Reader Board 1997 13,000 Chev Tahoe 2013 34,000 Chev Silverado 2011 26,500 Dodge Durango 2018 33,000 ■■ Chev Silverado 2014 35,000 ■ ■ Chev Tahoe 2009 33 000 Total Existing Equipment Cost: $ 969,300 NN ME Em ME No ME ■■ City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES The police department currently operates out of one headquarters station located within City Hall and the City owns a small animal shelter to handle animal control. As will be discussed throughout this Police CIP and IFA, the current police facilities are not sufficient to meet the current demands of the City; therefore, there is no capacity in either existing facility to serve future growth. The building floorspace will be used in the impact fee proportionate share to document existing and future capacity to serve police emergency calls, but no costs have been included in the impact fee calculation for the existing police facilities due to this existing deficiency. Figure 7 shows the building floorspace for each existing facility. FIGURE 7: EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES Project Existing Facilities %Impact Fee Impact Fee Total Cost Acres Total Building SF Eligible Qualifying Existing Police Station $ 6,400 0% $ Existing Animal Shelter 900 0% Fee Cost Total $ 7,300 $ FUTURE POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES .■ The demand placed on existing police services by new development activity is attributed to growth in emergency ■■ calls. This growth will increase demands upon police services, requiring an increase in number of police officers and public safety vehicles. This will in turn cause a need for more floorspace for offices, evidence rooms, storage areas, training rooms, etc. The City operates the police department from 6,400 square feet of space within the City Hall. To meet the demand created by future development, the City will need to expand its facilities. No 0114 No No 101.01 W1101 ■■ No ■■ ■ ■ MINI 1001 No No SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENTS After a new public works building is constructed in 2019 the Police Department will be able to expand into an additional 3,200 square feet of the City Hall floorspace which the public works department will vacate. Within the impact fee planning horizon, the City also plans to build two satellite stations in conjunction with the proposed future fire stations, and construct a new animal shelter facility. To avoid double counting costs for the same capacity, no cost for the existing animal shelter (which will be replaced by the new animal shelter facility) or the existing police station (which has an existing deficiency in capacity) will be included in the impact fee calculation. Once the ten-year police station and animal shelter projects are completed the City anticipates having sufficient capacity to meet the buildout facility floorspace needs for police and animal control demands. Figure 8 shows the future capital facilities planned for police and animal control. FIGURE 8: SUMMARY OF FUTURE POLICE FACILITIES Project Construction Year Future Police Facilities Within 10 Years Floorspace [SF) Cost per SF Land PV (Acres) Expense Project $ Construction YearExpense % to Impact Impact Fee Eligible Eligible Fee Cost Police Facility Expansion 2019 3,200 $ 180 $ 576,000 $ 593,280 0% $ - (Public Works Building Relocation) West Substation 2021 1,500 $ 285 $ 427,500 $ 467,141 100% $ 467,141 (West Fire Station) West Substation (West Fire Station) Owned By City 2.0 24,000 3,370 100% 3,370 Land 14% to Police North Substation 2028 1,500 $ 285 $ 427,500 $ 574,524 100% $ 574,524 (North Fire Station) North Substation (North Fire Station) Owned By City 2.0 70,000 9,828 100% 9,828 Land 14% to Police New Animal Shelter Facility 2028 5,000 $ 175 $ 875,000 $ 1,175,927 100% $ 1,175,927 New Animal Shelter Land (Owned by City) - 1.0 - - 100% - Future Facilities Built Within 10 Years 11,200 - $ 2,400,000 $ 2,824,069 $ 2,230,789 Total Future Police Facilities 11,200 - $ 2,400,000 $ 2,824,069 - $ 2,230,789 ME City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© FUNDING FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ■, HISTORIC FUNDING SOURCES Police facilities can be funded in a variety of ways including tax revenues, impact fees, grants, bonds, vehicle leases, 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 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 police department. As stated above, due to the age of the existing facilities and lack of funding records coupled with the deficiency that currently exists there is no impact fee qualifying cost to be included in the impact fee calculation for existing facilities. i■ BOND FUNDING NoThe 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 police department and no future bonds are currently proposed. If a bond is 1� �J proposed and approved in the future by City residents, then the impact fees will be revised at that time to include Noany 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 ■■ 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 are inflated ■■ at 3% annually to a future value cost based on the year of anticipated construction. 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 F1 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. No No 101.01 W11W1 ME ME iml iol I.ii�� WIN 1010 ME No �E 0' No No 8 MM City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis SECTION III: POLICE AND ANIMAL CONTROL IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS ■■ IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW The impact fee for police and animal control services is calculated using the growth projections, current call data ■■ and future call projections, current and estimated future land use, and existing and future equipment and facilities on costs which have been described in Sections I & II of this document. The final components necessary to complete the Impact Fee Analysis include: level of service (LOS), proportionate share analysis, impact fee cost per call, impact fee cost per development unit, and proposed credits to development. Each of those components are discussed in the following section. ■ POLICE LEVEL OF SERVICE .o 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 police impact fees that I� �I means the total building square footage (capacity) relative to the number of police calls the police department receives each year (service demand). Unlike a utility such as culinary water where capacity can be added gradually to the system by upsizing an existing transmission line segment, public safety floorspace has to be built station -by -station not line -by-line. New police stations or expansions of existing police stations must be done well ahead of the increase in call volume that the .■ station expansion is designed to serve. Therefore, we look at the call volume the stations are being built to serve ■■ (rather than the LOS observed today) as the true measure of LOS. In the case of the police impact fee, the future capital projects identified in the CIP are needed to serve a buildout population of the City and a buildout LOS. Any square foot per call calculations that exceed the buildout LOS are considered unused excess capacity that will be utilized once the City reaches buildout. Figure 9 shows the buildout level of service of 0.96 square feet (SF) per call ■■ which is higher than the currently observed LOS of 0.95 SF per call which means a slight deficiency in police square ■■ footage currently exists. FIGURE 9: CURRENT AND PROJECTED POLICE LEVEL OF SERVICE Time Frame Floorspace (SF) Calls SIP per Call Current 6,400 6,734 0.95 :: Within 10 Years 17,600 9,449 1.86 Buildout 17,600 18,405 0.96 IN Impact Fee Level of Service Used 17,600 18,405 0.96 Im..NI ■■ .■ I�II�I is is is I01 No WIN INS 0 ■ ■ �E EI ■■ 9 No ME WIN ©© ©© so ME on ■ ■ ■ City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis 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 system capacity in the police and animal control services, a proportionate share analysis was performed as described below. CALCULATION OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE Figure 10 displays the current and future facility floorspace and the calls they will serve. With this information, it is possible to calculate the percentage that will serve new growth, and thus the portion that future growth will be expected to fund. FIGURE 10: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION rime Frame Added Station Floorspace % of Buildout Floor Space Capacities Station (Call) 2017 Calls to Stations Future Calls % to Serve Existing Users %to Serve Future Growth Existing Construction Within 10 Years Construction Beyond 10 Years 6,400 11,200 - 36.4% 63.6% - 6,693 11,712 - 6,693 42 - - 11,671 - 100.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 99.6% 0.0% Buildout 17,600 100.0% 18,405 6,734 11,671 $ Existing Construction Within 10 Years 6,400 11,200 36.4% 63.6% 6,693 11,712 6,693 42 - 11,671 100.0% 0.4% 0.0% 99.6% Existing and Within 30 Years 17,600 100.0% 18,405 6,734 11,671 2,824,069 99.6% IMPACT FEE COST PER CALL Once the proportionate share has been determined the impact fee cost per call can be calculated. The impact fee cost per call divides the impact fee qualifying costs to new growth by the total future calls new growth will generate. ■■ The value found in the "% growth related" column comes directly from the proportionate share analysis "% to Serve Future Growth" column. The total impact fee qualifying cost is $3,823,369 of which $3,458,660 pertains to new growth. This results in a cost per call of $296.35. �E 01 No No FIGURE 11: POLICE IMPACT COST PER CALL CALCULATION 10 Impact Qualifying Fee Cost % Growth Related Impact Qualifying Assigned Fee Cost to New Future Calls Impact Cost Fee per Cal I Police Facilities Existing Facilities $ 0% $ 11,671 $ Existing Debt Service (interest) - 0% 11,671 - Future Facilities within 10 Years 2,824,069 99.6% 2,814,026 11,671 241 Equipment (Vehicles or Apparatus) 969,300 63.4% 614,634 11,671 53 Future Debt Service (Interest) - 0% - 11,671 - Total $ 3,793,369 $ 3,428,660 $ 294 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 30,000 100% $ 30,000 11,671 $ 3 Total Miscellaneous $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 3 Grand Total $ 3,823,369 $ 3,458,660 $ 296.35 10 ME WIN ©© ©© so ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0114 No go loll. ME so No on City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis IMPACT FEE COST PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT The impact fee is assessed to each user category based upon the historic calls per unit generated by that land use. The City's observed annual police calls per unit by development type are multiplied by the impact fee cost per call to calculate the final impact fee per land use. FIGURE 12: RECOMMENDED POLICE 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 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 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 appropriate 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 police station, donates impact fee qualifying equipment to the City, or dedicates land within the development for use by police/animal control facilities, then the value of the dedication is credited against that particular developer's impact fee liability. It is rare for developers to construct an entire police station for a credit, but land dedication for a station or training facility does sometimes occur. If the situation arises that a developer chooses to construct facilities found in the CIP in -lieu of impact fees, appropriate arrangements must be made through negotiation between the developer and the City on a case by case basis. All police stations are considered to be system improvements, not project improvements. Thus, 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 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 I■ 0 No No 11 NIN City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ©© paid for through other funding mechanisms which all City residents/businesses are required to pay (such as bonds, M property tax revenue, or user rate revenue, when applicable to the project). ■■ Although the police department does have a slight existing deficiency there were no historic costs included for the existing police station or the existing animal shelter and no deficiency credit was required at this time. ON INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT 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 police impact fees the variable that would be reviewed in the individual impact fee assessment would be the average annual police calls generated by the proposed development. Once the City and the developer have reviewed relevant information and determined the number of average annual police calls for the proposed development, then the City can calculate the individual impact fee assessment using the formula in Figure 13. I� �I ■■ FIGURE 13: INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT FORMULA so ■ ■ �likal 1111111111111111111111 101 No No INS INS No No 1001 �E..E1 No No 101.01 WIN ME ME iml iol WIN 1010 ME No I■ 0 No No # of Annual Calls Individual Impact $296.35 x Proiected to be Created Fee Assessment 12 ■■ OEM ©© ©© i■ City of Chubbuck Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis APPENDIX 13 APPENDIX A: POLICE GROWTH FORECAST A B C D E F 1 TABLE A.1: Historic and Future Population Growth 2 Historic and Future Population Projections c 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 G W 1 TABLE A.2: Summary of Chubbuck Growth Projections 2 2017 Calls Chubbuck Total Police Average Calls per Undeveloped Calls Year % Undeveloped 63% Calls Added at Buildout % Call Growth Population Calls Capita 2010 13,922 2011 14,086 2012 14,251 2013 14,415 2014 14,579 0.3971 2015 14,744 5,790 0.4384 11.6% 2016 14,644 6,463 0.4599 4.2% 2017 15,072 6,734 0.4648 4.0% 2018 15,501 7,006 0.4520 4.0% 2019 15,929 7,277 0.4568 3.9% 2020 16,358 7,549 0.4615 3.7% 2021 16,786 7,820 0.4659 3.6% 2022 17,215 8,091 0.4700 3.5% 2023 17,643 8,363 0.4740 3.4% 2024 18,072 8,634 0.4778 3.2% 2025 18,500 8,906 0.4814 3.1% 2026 18,929 9,177 0.4848 3.0% 2027 19,357 9,449 0.4881 3.0% FBuildoutl 40,238 1 18,405 1 0.4574 G W 1 TABLE A.2: Summary of Chubbuck Growth Projections 2 2017 Calls 6,734 Buildout Calls 18,405 Undeveloped Calls 11,671 % Undeveloped 63% Calls Added at Buildout 11,671 A B C D E F G H c 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 APPENDIX 6: FORECAST OF DEVELOPMENT UNITS 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 of Chubbuck GIS Analysis A B C D E F G H I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Development to be 2017 Existing Development BuildoutFuture Added Current Persons Buildout Persons Residential Units Population Total Units Population Units Population Total Units per Household per Household Single Family 10,117 2.79 3,622 27,800 9,964 37,905 2.79 13,586 Multi -Family 4,527 2.60 1,739 12,438 4,784 16,960 2.60 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 149.44 2,188 149.44 6,013 149.4 8,201 Office 6.62 97 6.62 266 6.6 363 Institutional 17.60 258 17.60 708 17.6 966 Total 174 2,543 1 6,987 173.66 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 APPENDIX C: EMERGENCY POLICE CALL DETAILS A B C D E F TABLE C.1: Chubbuck City police calls responded to from 2015 to 2016 Calls to Private Land Uses Single Family Residential * 2,203 2,463 4,666 2,333 38% Multi -Family Residential 831 775 1,606 803 13% General Commercial 2,130 2,459 4,589 2,295 37% Office 17 14 31 16 0% Institutional ** 67 53 120 60 1% Calls to Public Land Uses/Other Public Buildings and Land 5 39 44 22 0% Traffic 113 299 412 206 3% Mutual Aid 60 61 121 61 1% Undefined *** 364 300 664 332 5% All Calls 5,790 12,253 6,127 100% 16 *Single Family= single family detached, all others are considered "Multi family"for impact fee assessment purposes 17 ** Institutional includes churches and private non profit uses 18 *** Undefined includes all other calls not able to be assigned to a private land use within the service area A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 APPENDIX D: ALLOCATION OF POLICE CALLS TO PUBLIC/PRIVATE LAND USES A B C D E F TABLE D.1: Allocation of Police Calls to Public/Private Land Uses 1 Calls To % to Direct Undefined •... Calls Land Use 2 Direct Calls Allocated to Land Use 5,764 89% 6,045 3 Public Buildings and Land 39 1% 37 4 Traffic 299 5% 157 5 Mutual Aid 61 1% 6 Undefined 300 5% - - - 7 Total 6,463 100% 6,045 37 157 8 9 TABLE D.2: Undefined Police Calls Allocated to Land Use 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 A B C D E F 9 G 4.09 157 64 225 iJ H 1 6,045 2 41 3 314 4 64 5 6 6,463 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 Calls To % to Direct Undefined Total Calls by Land Land Use .•UndefinedLand Use Use Uses Allocation) Residential Single Family Residential * 2,463 40% 120 2,583 Multi -Family Residential 775 13% 38 813 Non -Residential General Commercial 2,459 40% 120 2,579 Office 14 0% 1 15 Institutional 53 1% 3 56 Public Land Uses Public Buildings and Land 39 1% 2 41 Traffic 299 5% 15 314 Mutual Aid 61 1% 3 64 Undefined 300 0% - - Total 6,463 100% 300 6,463 A B C D E F 9 G 4.09 157 64 225 iJ H 1 6,045 2 41 3 314 4 64 5 6 6,463 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 APPENDIX E: AVERAGE POLICE CALLS PER UNIT A B C D E F G H I 1 TABLE E.1: Average Historic Police Calls per Unit to Development Types 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 TABLE E.2: Projected Future Police Calls 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 *Projected Future Calls are based only on future units in addition to existing calls from existing units A B C D Policeure 2016 Calls To Undefined DevelopmentFuture Existing Buildout Residential Calls to Mutual Calls to 2016 Total 0.781 Calls per Land Use Type Direct Land Calls to Land Public Areas Aid Traffic Calls Land Use Unit Residential Use Use 7,540 Office (kSF) 266 Unit per Unit 43 Single Family 2,463 120 16 - 67 2,666 3,412 0.781 Multi -Family 775 38 5 - 21 839 1,605 0.522 Non -Residential 25,165 0.015 375 Total Undeveloped Future Private Police Calls per kSF 18,405 General Commercial 2,459 120 16 - 67 2,661 2,122 1.254 Office 14 1 0 - 0 15 94 0.161 Institutional 53 3 0 - 1 57 250 0.229 Non -Qualifying Police Calls Police Calls Allocated to Outside City - - 4 1 64 1 157 1 225 Total 5,764 281 41 1 64 1 3141 6,463 13 14 TABLE E.2: Projected Future Police Calls 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 *Projected Future Calls are based only on future units in addition to existing calls from existing units A B C D Policeure DevelopmentFuture Buildout Residential Single Family (unit) 9,964 0.781 7,785 Multi -Family (unit) 4,784 0.522 2,499 Non -Residential General Commercial (kSF) 6,013 1.254 7,540 Office (kSF) 266 0.161 43 Institutional (kSF) 708 0.229 162 Non -Resident Police Calls Future DevelopmentFuture Calls per Buildout Population Capita Police Calls Allocated to Outside City 25,165 0.015 375 Total Undeveloped Future Private Police Calls 18,405 E F G H I 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 APPENDIX F: APPARATUS INVENTORY A B C D 1 1 2 TABLE F.1: Apparatus Inventory 2 3 Police Eaulinment Inventory 3 Purchase Historic 4 Make Model 4 Year Equipment Cost 5 Ford Exp PI 2016 $ 33,000 5 6 Tchev Tahoe 2012 34,000 6 7 Chev Tahoe 2012 34,000 7 8 Ford F150 2017 33,000 8 9 GMC Envoy 2006 28,400 9 10 Chev Tahoe 2015 36,000 10 11 Chev Tahoe 2015 36,000 11 12 Chev Tahoe 2012 34,000 12 13 GMC Yukon 2007 32,500 13 14 Ford Exp PI 2017 36,000 14 15 Ford Explorer 2016 32,000 15 16 Chev Malibu 2009 23,000 16 17 Ford F150 2015 28,000 17 18 Chev Tahoe 2013 34,000 18 19 Ford Exp PI 2017 36,000 19 20 Chev Tahoe 2008 35,500 20 21 Chev Malibu 2009 23,000 21 22 Dodge Durango 2018 33,000 22 23 Ford Expl PI 2016 33,000 23 24 Chev Equinox 2009 27,200 24 25 GMC Sierra 2007 21,200 25 26 Chev Tahoe 2013 33,000 26 27 Ford Exp PI 2016 33,000 27 28 Ford Exp PI 2016 33,000 28 29 Dodge Durango 2018 33,000 29 30 Reader Board 1997 13,000 30 31 Chev Tahoe 2013 34,000 31 32 Chev Silverado 2011 26,500 32 33 Dodge Durango 2018 33,000 33 34 Chev Silverado 2014 35,000 34 35 Chev Tahoe 2009 33,000 35 36 36 37 Total Existing Equipment Cost: $ 969,300 37 A B C D APPENDIX G: Existing and Future Stations A B C D 1 TABLE G.1: Existing Police Facilities 2 3 4 5 6 E F Project Existing Facilities .. .. (SF) Cost per SF Total Building % Impact Impact Fee Total Cost Acres SF Fee Eligible Qualifying Existing Police Station $ 6,400 0% $ - Existing Animal Shelter 900 0% - Total $ - - 7,300 $ - 7 8 9 TABLE G.2: Future Police Facilities - Within 10 Years 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 G H Current Year 2018 Inflation Rate 3.00% Project Construction Year .. .. (SF) Cost per SF . PV (Acres) Expense ProjectConstruction $ Year Expense . Impact Fee Eligible Impact Eligible Cost Future Police Facilities Within 10 Years Police Facility Expansion (Public Works Building 2019 3,200 $ 180 $ 576,000 $ 593,280 100% $ 593,280 Relocation) West Substation 2021 1,500 $ 285 $ 427,500 $ 467,141 100% $ 467,141 (West Fire Station) West Substation (West Fire Station) Owned By City 2.0 24,000 3,370 100% 3,370 Land 14% to Police North Substation 2028 1,500 $ 285 $ 427,500 $ 574,524 100% $ 574,524 (North Fire Station) North Substation (North Fire Station) Owned By City 2.0 70,000 9,828 100% 9,828 Land 14% to Police New Animal Shelter Facility 2028 5,000 $ 175 $ 875,000 $ 1,175,927 100% $ 1,175,927 New Animal Shelter Land - 1.0 - - 100% - (Owned by City) Future Facilities Built Within 10 Years 11,200 - - $ 2,400,000 $ 2,824,069 $ 2,824,069 Total Future Police Facilities 11,200 - - $ 2,400,000 $ 2,824,069 1 - $ 2,824,069 A B C D E F G H I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i[" 17 18 19 20 21 A B C D A B C D 1 Table H.1: Police Level of Service Square Footage per Call 1 2 06 Time Frame Floorspace2 3 Current 6,400 6,734 0.95 3 4 Within 10 Years 17,600 9,449 1.86 4 5 Buildout 17,600 18,405 0.96 5 6 Impact Fee Level of Service Used 17,600 18,405 0.96 6 A B C D APPENDIX I: PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS A B C D E F G H 1 2 TABLE 1.1: Summary of Police Facilities 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time Frame AddedBuildout Floorspace ..r Space CapacitiesStations Users Growth Existing 6,400 36.4% 6,693 6,693 - 100.0% 0.0% Construction Within 10 Years 11,200 63.6% 11,712 42 11,671 0.4% 99.6% Construction Beyond 10 Years - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% Buildout 17,600 100.0% 18,405 6,734 11,671 Existing 6,400 36.4% 6,693 6,693 - 100.0% 0.0% Construction Within 10 Years 11,200 63.6% 11,712 42 11,671 0.4% 99.6% Existing and Within 10 Years 17,600 100.0% 18,405 6,734 11,671 A B C D E F G H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 APPENDIX J: POLICE COST PER CALL A B C D E F 1 TABLE J.1: Police Impact Fee Cost per Call 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A B C D E F 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Impact Qualifying Fee Cost % Growth Related Impact Qualifying Assigned Fee Cost Future to New Growth Calls Impact Cost Fee per Call Police Facilities Existing Facilities Existing Debt Service (Interest) Future Facilities within 10 Years Equipment (Vehicles or Apparatus) Future Debt Service (Interest) $ - - 2,824,069 969,300 - 0% 0% 99.6% 63.4% 0% $ 2,814,026 614,634 - 11,671 11,671 11,671 11,671 11,671 $ - - 241 53 - Total $ 3,793,369 $ 3,428,660 $ 294 Miscellaneous Professional Services 30,000 100% 30,000 11,671 3 Total Miscellaneous $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 3 Grand Total $ 3,823,369 $ 3,458,660 $ 296.35 A B C D E F 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHUBBUCK City of Chubbuck Impact Fee Advisory Committee Regular Meeting November 14, 2023 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 290 East Linden, Chubbuck, ID 83202 MINUTES Committee Members Present: Chair Jason Mendenhall, Darell Stewart, Mike Schwartz, Adam Thayer, Brett Hiltbrand, and Bryson Smith. Staff Members Present: Attorney Ryan Lewis, Community Services Director Devin Hillam, and City Clerk Joey Bowers. Mendenhall called the meeting to order at 7:03pm. Mendenhall asked if any commissioners had a conflict of interest with the items before the board. None were reported. APPROVAL OF MINUTES for October 11, 2022. Mendenhall entertained a motion to approve the minutes as emailed. Schwartz moved to accept the meeting minutes of October 11, 2022 as emailed; Hiltbrand seconded. The full commission approved. GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Discuss updated Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fee Analysis, and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption. Community Services Director Devin Hillam gave a brief history and stated that the City of Chubbuck collects impact fees at the building permit stage for Police, Emergency Services, and Parks. Police and Emergency Services were established by Ordinance No. 783 and Parks via Ordinance No. 791 and 804. As required by the statute, each fee is associated with a capital improvements plan and as also required by the statute, impact fees collected are to be spent in-line with the needs of the current capital improvements plan. As requested by the Committee and the City Council, the City has been working with Zions Public Finance to update the Parks and Recreation, Police, and Emergency Services capital improvement plans and impact fee analyses. Susie Becker represented Zions Public Finance. Mrs. Becker went over the current impact fees for Police, Emergency Services, Parks, and information about how the maximum fees were calculated. Mrs. Becker presented updated proposed maximum fees based off the current capital improvements plans for each department. One of the biggest changes for Police and Fire is that the current impact fees did not include the costs associated with additional vehicles. Mendenhall asked to make a recommendation for the City Council to hold a public hearing for all three (Police, Emergency Services, Parks) impact fees. Mendenhall motioned to recommended adoption of the updated proposed maximum impact fees for Police, Emergency Services, and Parks as presented by Zions Public Finance, and to make a recommendation for the City Council to hold a public hearing for all three (Police, Emergency Services, Parks) impact fees before adoption. Schwartz seconded. With all committee members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Adam Thayer, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Bryson Smith, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Darell Stewart, Yes; Brett Hiltbrand, Yes; Motion carried. ADJOURN: Mendenhall adjourned at 7:38. Jason Mendenhall, Chairperson Joey Bowers, City Clerk APPENDIX K: FINAL IMPACT FEE CALCULATION A B C D 1 Table K.1: Police Impact Fee per Unit PJ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A B C D E F G H I J TABLE K.2: Individual Police Impact Fee Assessment Formula # of Annual Calls Individual Impact $296.35 x projected to be Created Fee Assessment E F G H I J 1 N 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ZIONS PUBLIC FINANCE, INC. CHUBBUCK IMPACT FEES November 2023 PARKS Yea r 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Population 16,321 16,566 16,814 17,066 17,322 17,582 171846 18,114 181385 Pa rks Units U nit Cost Total Cost Eligible Acres 89.5 $106,722 $9,551,619 Restroom Building 3 $190,000 $570,000 Playground 19 $90,000 $1,710,000 Swing Set 16 $12,000 $192,000 Splash Pad 1 $400,000 $400,000 Concessions Stand 2 $80,000 $160,000 Horseshoe Pits 2 $3,500 $7,000 Refrigerated Ice Skating Rink 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Concrete Skating Rink 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Paved Parking Area (Per Stall) 639 $1,200 $766,800 Gravel non -paved Parking 260 $300 $78,000 Storage Structure 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Large Pavilion 11 $80,000 $880,000 Memorial Gazebo 1 $71,588 $71,588 Small Pavilion w/ Picnic Tables 4 $20,000 $80,000 Covered Picnic Tables 4 $0 $0 Bench 29 $850 $24,650 Picnic Tables 35 $1,500 $52,500 Basketball Full Court $18,500 $55,500 Basketball Half Court 9 $9,500 $85,500 Tennis Courts 9 $20,000 $180,000 Ball Field 10 $45,000 $450,000 Volleyball Court 3 $2,500 $7,500 TOTAL $18,322,657 Summary Equivalency Table Parks LOS Cost per Acre $204,722.42 Existing LOS Cost per Capita $1,122.66 Proposed LOS Cost per Capita $1,122.66 Population Growth, 2023-2031 Additional Acres Needed Additional Investment Needed Cost per Acre 2,064 11.32 $2,317,680.28 $204,722.42 20 -Year Projections Acres Cost per Acre Park Acres Necessitated by 31.04 $204,722.42 New Growth, 2023- 2042 Total Cost, 20 Years $6,355,305 Description Improvements Consultant Fund Balance Summary Amount $1,122.66 ($389.66) $736.87 Maximum Fees Single -Family Multi -Family *Source: United States Census 2020 Household Size* 2.90 2.35 Max Fee $2,136.93 $1,731.65 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE l ra Year Single -Family Units Multi -Family Units Gene ra� �* Office SF* Institutional SF* 2023 41214 11,565 21,6931266 5901679 376,999 2024 41277 11-588 217331665 5991539 3821,654 2025 41341 11,612 21774,670 608,533 3881394 2026 41406 11636 218161290 6171661 394,220 2027 41472 11,661 218581534 6261925 400,133 2028 41539 11,686 219011412 6361329 4061135 2029 41607 11,711 21944,934 645,874 4121227 2030 4,676 11,737 2,989,108 655,562 418,411 2031 41747 11,763 3,033,944 665,396 424,687 2032 4,818 2033 41890 11-789 1,816 3,079,453 3,125,645 675,377 685,507 431,057 437,523 2034 4,963 1,843 3,172,530 695,790 444,086 2035 5,038 1,871 3,220,118 706,227 450,747 2036 5,113 1,899 3,268,419 716,820 457,509 2037 5,190 1,928 3,317,446 727,573 464,371 2038 5,268 1,957 3,367,207 738,486 471,337 2039 5,347 1,986 3,417,716 749,563 478,407 2040 5,427 2,016 3,468,981 760,807 485,583 2041 51509 21046 31521,016 772,219 492,867 2042 5,591 2,077 3,573,831 783,802 500,260 2043 5,675 21108 3,627,439 795,559 5071764 *SF = square feet Land Use Category Single -Family Residential — unit Multi -Family Residential - unit General Commercial —sf Office — sf Institutional - sf 2022 Units/SF 4,151 1,542 2,653,464 581,950 371,428 2022 Calls F116% 302 539 39 4 Calls per Unit/SF 0.1885106 0.1957004 0.0002033 0.0000678 0.0000115 Existing Service Level Existing fire station on Yellowstone Avenue = 11,716 sf Existing station is at capacity SF per call = 6.11 sf Future Improvements Square Feet Cost ($2023) Future West 9,184 Fire Station Future North 9,184 Fire Station Source: City of Chubbuck; ZPFI $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Cost per SF $436 $436 Construction Yea r 2026 2030 Cost in Construction Yea r $4,370,908 $4,919,495 New Construction SF per Call Growth in Calls, 2023-2033 SF Required 2023-2033 New Facility Cost SF of New Facility New Growth as % of Total Cost .1TIOU11 6.11 308 1,881 $4,370,908 9,184 20.5% New Construction SF per Call Growth in Calls, 2023-2033 SF Required 2023-2033 New Facility Cost SF of New Facility New Growth as % of Total Cost Cost to New Development, 2023-2033 Cash on Hand Remaining Balance to New Development Growth in Calls, 2023-2033 Cost per Call, 2023-2033 Amount 6.11 308 1,881 $4,370,908 9,184 20.5% $895,168.20 $192,999.09 $702,169.11 $21281.17 Description New Construction Vehicle Cost Consultant Cost Fund Balance Credit Total Cost per Call Amount $2,281.17 $673.55 $19.49 ($630.02) $2,344.20 Maximum Fees Single Family — unit Multi -Family — unit General Commercial — per sf Office — per sf Institutional — per sf Calls per Unit 0.188510612 0.1957004 0.000203314 0.00006779 0.000011482 — COST PEglii` Maximum Fees $441.91 $458.76 PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE CALLS f Land Use Category 2022 Units/SF 2022 Calls Calls per Unit/SF Single -Family Residential — unit 41151 21465 0.593760 Multi -Family Residential — unit 11542 11161 0.753062 General Commercial —sf 216531464 21720 0.001025 Office — sf 5811950 30 0.000051 Institutional - sf 3711428 151 0.000407 Police station: 18,000 sf Cost: $6.8 million Animal control shelter: 3,778 sf Cost: $1.9 million Police Level of Service Calls for Service Police SF Police SF per Call Animal Control SF Animal Control SF per Call 2023 7,639 181000 2.36 31778 0.49 2043 101288 181000 1.75 3,778 0.37 Description Police SF per Call — Proposed 2043 LOS Animal Control SF per Call — Proposed 2043 LOS Calls for Service Growth in Calls for Service, 2023-2043 Police SF Needed, 2023-2043 Animal Control SF Needed, 2023-2043 Police Cost per SF Animal Control Cost per SF Police Cost Attributable to New Development, 2023-2043 Animal Control Cost Attributable to New Development, 2023-2043 Total Cost Attributable to New Development, 2023-2043 2043 1.75 0.37 10,288 2,650 4,636 973 $377.78 $502.91 $1,751,201 $489,306 $2,240,507 Description Cost to New Development, 2023-2043 Cash on Hand Remaining Balance to New Development Growth in Calls, 2023-2043 Cost per Call Amount $2,240,507.36 $157,134.68 $2,083,372.68 2,650 $786.30 Description Facility Cost Vehicle Cost Consultant Cost Total Cost per Call Amount $786.30 $77.48 52.26 $866.04 Land Use Type Single Family —unit Multi -Family— unit General Commercial — sf Office - sf Institutional - sf Calls per Unit 0.5937601 0.7530616 0.0010252 0.0000509 0.0004072 Maximum Fees $514.22 $652.18 $0.89 $0.04 $0.35