Resolution - 2011 - 11-24 - Adopt A Revised Development Impact Fee Study & Capital Improvements Plan Dated Jue 29, 2011 - 09/27/2011 RESOLUTION No. 11-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO, ADOPTING A
REVISED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN DATED
JUNE 29, 2011 CURING THE EXISTING PARK DEFICIENCY AND REDUCING THE CITY'S
IMPACT FEE FROM $1,752.14 PER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT TO $1,333.41 PER
DWELLING UNIT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Eagle is a municipal corporation operating under the laws of the
state of Idaho; and
WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 67-8208 requires a governmental entity imposing a
development impact fee to update its capital improvements plan at least once every five years in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Idaho Code § 67-8206;
WHEREAS,the City of Eagle previously adopted a capital improvements plan(the "Plan") adopted
pursuant to Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 82, which identifies capital improvements for which development
impact fees may be used as a funding source; and
WHEREAS,the City of Eagle has determined that the Plan should be reviewed,revised,and updated
in conjunction with proposed amendments to the City's impact fee ordinance,;and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagle, and its consultants, have analyzed growth and development
projections and the City's levels of service in order to update the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee has
assisted the City in analyzing, monitoring, and revising land use assumptions and the
implementation of the capital improvements, advised the City Council as to necessary revisions
to the City's capital improvements plan and impact fee study, and has reviewed the draft revisions as
set forth in Exhibit A;and
WHEREAS,the City of Eagle held a public hearing,which was duly noticed pursuant to Idaho Code
67-8206, for the purpose of taking public comment on the proposed amendment to the "City of Eagle
Development Impact Fee Study" entitled "Amendment and Updates to: Development Impact Fee
Study & Capital Improvements Plan" dated June 29, 2011 hereinafter referred to as"Study"
WHEREAS,the Study and its updates/amendments contain the following information:
(a) A general description of all existing public facilities acknowledging the City's cure of
previously existing deficiencies within the service area of the City;
(b) A commitment by the City to use other available sources of revenue to cure existing system
deficiencies where practical;
(c) An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of
capacity of existing capital improvements, which was prepared by a qualified professional
planner or by a qualified engineer licensed to perform engineering services in this state;
(d) A description of the land use assumptions by the City;
(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;
(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;
(g) The total number of additional park acreage necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated
in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria;
(h) The projected demand for system improvements required by projected population growth
over a reasonable period of time not to exceed twenty(20)years;
(i) Identification of all sources and levels of funding available to the City for the financing of the
system improvements; and
(j) A schedule setting forth a priority schedule for completion of improvements identified in the
capital improvements plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration, hereby finds and declares that
an impact fee imposed upon residential development to finance parks, the demand for which is
created by such development continues to be in the best interest of the general welfare of the
City and its residents, is equitable, does not impose an unfair burden on such development by
forcing developers and builders to pay more than their fair share or proportionate share of the
cost, and therefore deems it advisable to adopt the updated and revised impact fee study and capital
improvements plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO that the "Amendment and Updates to: Development Impact Fee
Study & Capital Improvements Plan" dated June 29, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby
adopted by the City.
This Resolution will be in full force and effect upon its adoption and approval thisday of
2011.
CI Y OF EAGLE AHO
.0 AT
es D. Reynola s, Mayor
ATTEST:
• F 'i
Sharon K. Bergmann, City C - ,; •..•••••..
��.� •� Ojt A T4-.0..*
!�+ • 4 • r
(SEAL) ? u •• o •�
. • ". Q' :
•',''•e,` 7'A TE°o.•''%
.4
ciw of Eagj . ,r r. , �. . . . -- .
` ..FT � r ' / 1 ,p .C•
4"1//ir „,),-r4 ��~» / . s \ #rte•
Ilkif .9'1 i v,;-‘i .i dr 14.,'.•r -,,,\.:4'.' '/4.4.7. .,,, ry,.ric,-,,:„,1 - .1-..11,„:4\.
*Nillro* ,,,, -Y -, , ' -' -i•--",. , '- - 41, , #. t,if• „..-r.: - . .4 4
Y .,f i 5 F !,..a . ^K,
;£ rt ,.`/ 7 -1#,:7;-#.7.,. ,,. ,fir,..-ti
•�� it '�4� .p �-T J .S,F` M ~ Y•*�S • ` i•Mw,.
s ,r 3� t ,y.,,,/lye Y `..,' w ..+.91's ,t"M_ 4.r ,01z, ,1. . ..^i ,
Update and Amendments to:
Development Impact Fee Study &
Capital Improvements Plan
August, 2011 y
f�`(� 1 r{U al4i'r ,� p �� a s { k'It-
rft
r �✓
` r' PARK
,
� � I 'f1 I � }`� ! 3 C s 6. 9 3 i s � T a ate' �• ��'��'"��,� 4+�; ;ill nos r:�.
� � t s 1)r\ { •;,,„,a 1 \,'
' .`'hs i ' *'
s tjq
5
, � �� > - , t 4 y, 5 ��
p ,f �fi .. `. t i!
Y+1 ' £ fir .�5�A ` 5 Fie [-I,�r jf fr ty ZS.,. .*:.4: ..'!',;41,',':';‘ 'C. ) ',.,,i "O.. '' 't,,ent, .2`4, ..`, .,,,,*-......e-,,,,-.. ' •lifl
I
y
R
s -. = 1 ' ''. 401tr(''''' .V4* :
,24,..
R `i x I yJ v T r � Y• y�F m-.] 1 . {•
p
• HOLLADAY ENGINEERING CO. , i y .,. 3
ENGINEERS •• CONSULTANTS +,r, !r• . ,
32 N Main • PO Box 235 • Payette, ID 83661 O.,
_` `; t:- 208 642 3304 • hec @holladayengineering.com
OFF`
..,J' Reference No. 09-0381:•
� _ CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
,I*.
2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Acknowledgement
City of Eagle
Mayor Jim Reynolds
Councilman Mike Huffaker
Councilman Semanko
Councilman Shoushtarian
Councilman Grasser
Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee
Richard Talbert, Chairman
Randy Zollinger
Amy Aaron
Chuck Ferguson
Mary McColl
Connie Brown-Olson
Don Stockton
Jay Walker
Public Works Director, Mike Echeita
Committee Legal Counsel, Paul Fitzer
Project Engineer— Holladay Engineering Company
tiktO PROF
/ G N:
i
, :>
1 246 1110
- -tai 10
k K Etie
Holladay En ineering Company 0
i
,, k CITY OF EAGLE-IMPACT FEE
2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Table of Contents
Executive Summary and Recommendations 1
Introduction 2
Current Situation 3
Planning for Park Development 5
Probable Cost Basis 7
Average Park Cost 8
Base Impact Fee and Credits 9
Impact Fee Schedule 11
Tables
Table 1 — Developed Park Area 4
Table 2— History and Cure of Park Deficiency 4
Table 3 — Undeveloped and/or Planned Park Area 4
Table 4—Advisory Committee Recommended Capital Improvement Projects 6
Table 5— Forecast Population and Requisite Developed Park Area 6
Table 6 — Current Park Development 7
Table 7— Park Acreage Forecast 8
Table 8— Cost of Park Development, Less Land Cost 8
Table 9— Impact Fee Credit Calculation 10
Table 10—Average Persons per Dwelling Unit 10
Table 11 — Impact Fee Schedule for City of Eagle 11
Exhibits
• Capital Improvement Plan Values
• Capital Improvement Plan — Park Location Maps
• City of Eagle — Parks and Pathways Survey
Holladay Engineering Company
ii
111 1/r.
CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
T 2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Executive Summary and Recommendations
Idaho's Impact Fee Statute in Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 82, requires capital improvement
plans upon which impact fee systems are based be "updated" every five years. This report
represents the second amendment of the City of Eagle's Development Impact Fee Study /
Capital Improvements Plan dated May 11, 1999 (Hofman Study). The Hofman Study
recommended a schedule of impact fees for parks, and a schedule of impact fees for pathways.
The City adopted only the impact fees for parks: $545.69 per dwelling unit. Hence this update
considers, reviews, and recommends amendments only for the impact fees for parks.
In 2004, the first amendment was completed. As a result of obtaining actual cost data from park
construction in Eagle, the fee was periodically adjusted upward to the current amount of
$1,752.14 per single family dwelling unit. In both the initial study and in the first amendment, a
park "deficiency" under Idaho Law' was noted and a requirement for the City to cure the
deficiency was set forth. This requirement entailed a system of General Fund contributions and
offsetting impact fee discounts to eliminate or "cure" the deficiency. With land acquisition and
park construction since 2004, the deficiency has been eliminated.
In the current (year 2011) Capital Improvement Plan update and amendment, the recommended
basic Impact Fee is $1,314.29 per single family dwelling unit. The justification for the $437.85
reduction per dwelling unit results from three factors: (a) an updated assessment of average
park cost based on park features and components, (b) credit for a surplus of developed park
acreage, and (c) credit for a surplus of undeveloped park land held by the City.
There are two elements contained in this current review that, when applied, modify the updated
assessment (item a, above) and resulting charge per dwelling unit.
1. Average Park Cost: Types or functions of parks may be distinguished by size,
features, and amenities. The Hofman Study and the 2004 Amendment used a single
park cost per acre value. Subsequent park construction demonstrates that
development cost per acre will vary for various features and function of parks. By
separating dominant park components (for example playground equipment area
versus soccer fields) for cost purposes, a more accurate "average" cost is applied to
the impact fee calculation.
2. The average number of persons per dwelling unit for the Impact Fee calculation
determines the assessment of cost per dwelling unit. Best available data including
the 2010 Census for the Boise/Eagle area alters values used in 1999 and 2004. For
example, the value, 2.54 persons per single family dwelling unit from the 2000
Census, is now 2.82 persons per dwelling unit.
Idaho Code§67-8208(a)
Holladay Engineering Company
1
?goo,! CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
0„>
2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Utilizing the refined cost assessment based on park components and the current data on
persons per dwelling unit, the recommended fee schedule per capita and per residential unit is
as follows:
• Base Impact Fee, per capita $ 466.06
• Detached Single-family Dwelling $1,314.29
• Multi-family Dwelling under 800 s.f. $1,006.69
• Multi-family Dwelling over 800 s.f. $ 675.79
• Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast, per room $ 316.92
For the application of the refined assessment of cost by park components to be applied to the
Impact Fee analysis, the City may need to amend its Impact Fee Ordinance.2
Introduction
The 1992 Idaho Legislature passed House Bill
No. 804, Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code that {
sets forth the requirements for the calculation
and accounting of impact fees. To require ,
impact fees, a local governmental entity must r
adopt a Comprehensive Plan, an Impact Fee
Ordinance, and a Capital Improvement Plan to ;
comply with Idaho Law.3 These plans must be „r
reviewed annually with respect to capital
improvements with an update every five years.4
The Impact Fees statute, Idaho Statutes Title
67, Chapter 82, remains the same as in 1999 in
the particulars pertaining to Eagle's Parks Development Impact Fee program. Impact fees for
parks are calculated based on new residential development since increased demand for parks
is created by a growing population.
The City of Eagle Impact Fee Ordinance for parks was adopted on May 11, 1999. The Impact
Fee Ordinance is part of the Eagle City Code, Title 7, Chapter 6.
This report is a second amendment to update the City of Eagle's Development Impact Fee
Study/ Capital Improvements Plan (approved May 11, 1999 revised August 18, 1999), which
was produced for the City by Hofman Planning Associates of Laclede, Idaho. In 2004, the first
amendment was prepared to update inventory, cost, and to recalculate the deficiency condition.
For an update, only those parts of the original study which have been affected by change in the
years that have elapsed from 1999 to 2011 are treated. The remainder of the original report
including funding and financial aspects stands unchanged.
2 Idaho Code§67-8204(16)
3 Idaho Code§67-8208(k)
4 Idaho Code§67-8205(d)
Holladay Engineering Company '
2
CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
,•,�`
*22011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
The updated calculation of impact fees is based on four components:
1. Projected population growth through 2031 (20-year planning period).
2. Primary function of new parks and requisite amenities or components.
3. Cost to acquire and construct each park less applicable credits.
4. Average occupants per residence (2010 Census).
Considerations pertinent to the impact fee system under the referenced statute that have not
altered as of this 2011 Amendment include:
1. Levels of use and target Level of Service,
2. Demand (per capita) for improvements, and
3. Funding sources and financial analysis.
The Hofman Study, following the recommendation of the Development Impact Fee Advisory
Committee, set a Level of Service standard of 3.3 acres of developed park land per 1,000
population. This standard as adopted by the City Council remains the basis for analyzing park
land surplus or deficiency as the city develops its park system. The Hofman Study made no
distinction of park development types, sizes or amenities to meet various needs of the
community.
Current Situation
The 2010 US Census concluded the City's population was 19,486 in April, 2010, and that
households consist, on average, of 2.82 persons. From building permits for new residential
units issued in 2010, this number is adjusted through December to a population of 20,179. This
adjusted population value is used in this 2011 Amendment as the basis for projecting growth
through the 20-year planning period.
Since the Hofman Study was implemented and Impact Fees collected, the City has been
diligent in park land acquisition and development. In 1999, the City had only 4.08 acres of
developed park land consisting of small
neighborhood or specialty parks of less than 1.5
acres each With the implementation of the park
impact fee, coupled with the donation or --r
purchase of land for parks, the City has h t "y
acquired and developed 73.25 additional acres 4. - •
of park land and has secured additional land for f
development. A key component of park land
acquisition was obtaining a 99-year lease from
Ada County of 85 acres of land for regional park
development. Two community parks, Reid
Merrill Sr. Park and Guerber Park were also
developed in this period. Developed parks and
acreage in Eagle are shown in the following table.
Holladay Engineering Company
3
_ + CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
• 4, 2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Table 1 — Developed Park Area
Name Acreage
Friendship Park 1.33
Arboretum Park 0.50
Jessica Aschenbrenner Park 0.50
Plaza Street Park 0.25
Orval Krasen Park 1.00
Heritage Park 0.50
Reid Merrill Sr. Park 9.00
Eagle Sport Park Area (developed) 48.65
Guerber Park 15.60
Total Developed Park Area 77.33
At the adopted Level of Service of 3.3 acres per 1,000 population, the required park area
adjusted to Eagle's December, 2010 population is 66.59 acres. Through its impact fee and
development process, the City has remedied the deficiencies identified in each of the earlier
reports.
Table 2 — History and Cure of Park Deficiency
Report Year Developed Park Park Need Surplus or
(acres) (acres) Deficiency (acres)
Hofman Study 1999 4.08 35.06 <30.98>
First Amendment 2004 17.08 50.42 <33.34>
Second Amendment 2011 77.33 66.59 10.74
In keeping with the goals and objectives of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan and the Impact Fee
Ordinance, the City is working with land owners to acquire additional park land. Planned but as
yet undeveloped park acreages have been identified in several areas of the City.
Table 3 — Undeveloped and/or Planned Park Area
Park or Associated Development Acreage
Lakemoor Park 33.34
Gateway South Park 22.17
Eagle Sport Park Area (undeveloped) 36.26
Western Park, TBD 15.00
Total Undeveloped Park Area 106.77
Holladay En ineerin Com an
4
llV'1Ir.
4 _ CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Both Lakemoor Park and Gateway South Park are identified park acreages within larger
development tracts that have received preliminary plat approval. At the present time this land
remains in private ownership. The Eagle Sport Park area is the undeveloped portion of the
leased Ada County property that has been conceptually planned for regional sports field
development for soccer and baseball. Since all the identified park land, developed and
undeveloped, lies in the eastern side of the City, a "western park" of a location yet to be
determined has been identified as a future need as the city expands westerly in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning for Park Development
In June, 2010, the City of Eagle Parks and Pathway Development Commission, acting at
direction of the City Council, undertook an additional role as the Development Impact Fee
Advisory Committee as required by Idaho Law.5 This Committee was charged to review land
use assumptions and prepare a Capital Improvement Plan for park development for the purpose
of updating the Impact Fee.6 The Committee prepared a formal Parks and Pathway Survey to
gather public input on use, needs and priorities for Eagle parks and pathways. Survey results
were gathered for two months and survey results were presented to City Council. A copy of the
survey results, including an assessment of current use' that was presented to the Council and
public, is included in the Exhibits.
As a result of their work and public input, the Committee recommended a number of capital
improvements for larger community or regional parks prioritized in accordance with the following
table. As noted above, Lakemoor and Gateway West represent park acreage identified in
current platting processes. As they represent significant community park areas that, when
developed, will meet the overall park needs of the public for the planning period, there were no
specific recommendations on smaller neighborhood parks or special use parks identified for this
Capital Improvement Plan update. Historically, as smaller tracts of land are developed, the City
has the opportunity to negotiate for neighborhood parks in strategic areas following the flow of
development.
r' 'uu ii!!� i
1 job , _ - - ..,,...5_,,,
7m. fit °4im k cf ':�5� � 1wn,",w.5.
_____ _,,,,,,,,..44,. .,:,,
5 Idaho Code§67-8205
6 Idaho Code§67-8205(e)
' Idaho Code§67-8208
Holladay En g ineering Company
5
Eitt, CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
s,} 2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Table 4-Advisory Committee
Recommended Capital Improvement Projects
Priority Park or Planned Acres Improvements
Park Area
1 Eagle Sports Park 36.26 Regional Park with sports fields for
soccer and baseball, restrooms,
parking lot, and uncompleted portion
of Velodrome (1)
2 Lakemoor Park 33.34 Community Park with amenities to
be determined
3 Gateway South Park 22.17 Community Park, less 6.94 acre
water surface area, with amenities to
be determined (2)
4 Western Park (TBD) 15.00 Community Park with amenities to
be determined
(1) The Velodrome component (including utilities, drainage, a portion of parking,
and preliminary grading)of the Eagle Sports Park complex is 42% complete.
The balance of improvements to be completed has been included in the Capital
Improvement Plan.
(2) Water surface area of aesthetic amenity ponds has not been included in
development cost.
Following the release of US Census data, the City planning department prepared a population
forecast on the basis of a 4.39% annual growth rate. Applying this growth rate to the need for
developed parks at the rate of 3.3 acres per 1,000 population, the City may balance its land
acquisition opportunities with park development to achieve the goals of the Capital Improvement
Plan.
Table 5 - Forecast Population and
Requisite Developed Park Area
Year Forecast Population Developed Acres
2016 26,113 86.17 Acres
2021 32,370 106.82 Acres
2026 40,127 132.42 Acres
2031 49,744 164.16 Acres
Holladay En ineerin Corn an
6
i6,
CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE —
It. 2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Probable Cost Basis
The Hofman Study identified mini-parks, neighborhood and community parks as having different
amenities and uses. For its purpose, the Hofman Study used an "average cost per acre" to
represent all types. In the 2004 Amendment, the actual cost of Reid Merrill Sr. Park and the
budget for Hill Road Park (Guerber Park) construction were used as representing average of
cost for the update impact fee calculation.
The Hofman Study stated that "The cost per . ..
acre to develop future parks depends on the ., ' '!
type of park constructed." For the purpose
of establishing an average park cost per r
acre, recently constructed parks composed ,
of various components were analyzed and
assigned a value-per-acre. When applied to x . . sr t
park construction, the result is an average 1., �s ..i `' „° l■
overall cost that recognizes features and '� r
.` - r.
cost of multiple components associated with - ! ---.--
park development. Existing parks may be IT �e. w_ 5 � ,
grouped by amenity packages as a) a low
capital investment recreation area b) a f.� � ,, ,,
moderate capital investment sports-field
dominant park with restrooms, some play ground equipment and picnic areas, c) a higher
capital-intensive park with sophisticated play equipment and picnic facilities, and d) a special
use or dedicated function park constructed around a particular use. Heritage Park and gazebo
or the partially completed Velodrome are examples of this category. As special use amenities
are often unique, they represent highly variable and often more expensive parks. For the
purpose of refinement of average cost for impact fees, these four cost categories have been
utilized in the current update.
Table 6— Current Park Development
Park Description by Cost Developed Park Percentage of
Acreage Park Acreage
Lower Development Cost 3.58 4.6%
Moderate Development Cost 40.40 52.3%
Higher Development Cost 24.60 31.8%
Special Use Amenities 8.75 11.3%
Totals 77.33 100.0%
Holladay Engineering Company,
7
11F f{r.
7., ` ,_ CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE aq
, `„`� 2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
6. V' '
A table of existing, developed park acreage that corresponds to the population forecast in the
20-year planning period is shown below. The impact fee analysis and calculation is based on
an expansion of the current park mix as defined by development cost.
Table 7 — Park Acreage Forecast
Park Description by Cost Existing (2011) 20-Year Plan (2031)
Acres Acres
Lower Development Cost 3.58 7.61
Moderate Development Cost 40.40 85.76
Higher Development Cost 24.60 52.22
Special Use Amenities 8.75 18.57
Totals 77.33 164.16
Average Park Cost
Using cost information from the recently completed Reid Merrill Sr. Park (2004) and Guerber
Park (2008), various park components were broken out for estimating future park costs
attributable to primary park features. These were adjusted to current prices where comparable
information was available. The component cost data was divided by the footprint acreage to
derive a cost per acre for park components which may be applied to future construction. Each
known park or park site identified in Table 4, Recommended Capital Improvement Projects, was
viewed for applicability of cost though there was not a determination of actual site conditions for
such items as water table, irrigation water or utility availability, or other features that may impact
design and construction cost. More refined construction cost will be determined for budget
purposes when each future site has a completed concept plan that meets the approval of the
City. The cost associated with each park cost category is presented below.
Table 8 — Cost of Park Development, Less Land Cost
Development Acres/Park Proportional Value
Park Description by Cost Cost/Acre Type per 3.3 Acres
Developed
Lower Development Cost $92,000 0.15 $14,055
Moderate Development Cost $101,000 1.73 $174,300
Higher Development Cost $139,000 1.05 $145,920
Special Use Amenities (1) $250,000 0.37 $93,350
Totals 3.30 $427,625
Average Value per Acre of Developed Park $129,580
Less Land Cost (rounded)
(1)This value is highly variable and may exceed$400,000/Acre for concentrated amenities.
Hollada En ineerin Com an
8
• 4 CITY OF EAGLE-IMPACT FEE
�, .: 2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
'f I, )
A review of land sold in the Eagle area in the past year considered tracts of 19 acres or less of
bare land suitable for park development. For five tracts selected, the average size was 5.66
acres and the average value was $45,300 per
acre. Consideration was given to the current
real estate market, the small number of actual = - • .,,___,,.
transactions in the current year, and the relative ,,,.r
desirability for park use of the parcels identified. _, 4'..,'M ,'t r' , ,"e `;'6. Lam, '
A land value of $50,000 per acre established in - , ,,` -" s'lp°
the 2004 Supplement has been retained as the N".N'�' {, F ' '
value of land for calculation of the impact fee. (f, °' d
When land acquisition cost is added to the cost / < _ ,
of development, the total average cost of m"{ 4° , 1
developed park land becomes $179,580 per
acre. %... -..
Base Impact Fee and Credits
The base impact fee calculated before credits is as follows:
3.3 acres per 1,000 pop. x cost per acre = Impact Fee, per capita
1,000
or
3.3 x $179,580 = $592.61 Impact Fee, per capita, before credits
1,000
The Impact Fee calculation includes credits for the current surplus of constructed parks and for
land held by the City for development. The current park surplus of 10.74 acres at $179,580 per
acre is $1,928,689. This value is deducted
from future needs by subtraction from total cost
for parks required for the newcomer population.
� 4 „..e The 36.26 acres of leased land held by the City,
,-. r valued at $50,000 per acre, yields a credit of
- .. $1,813,000 against the cost of acquisition and
` : development. Since it is likely property
S
i currently held by the City will be developed
from Impact Fees before new acres are
purchased, crediting the value of land during
the 20-year planning period is warranted.
Table 9 below demonstrates the application of
credits to the per capita impact fee calculation.
Hollada En ineerin Com an "
9
lll 1/r,
val-, CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Table 9 — Impact Fee Credit Calculation
Population, 2031 49,744
Existing Population, 2011 - 20,179
Newcomer Population in Planning Period 29,565
Existing Developed Park Acreage 77.33
Park Required for Existing Population 66.59
(3.3 acres x 20,179/ 1,000 population)
Surplus Developed Park Acreage 10.74
Surplus Undeveloped Acres - Leased 36.26
New Park Cost per acre including Land $179,580
Total Cost for Newcomer Parks $17,520,633
($179,580 x 3.3 acres x 29,565/1,000 population)
Credit for Developed Park Surplus -$1,928,689
($179,580 x 10.74 acres)
Credit for Land Leased for Park Development _$1,813,000
($50,000 x 36.26 acres)
New Park Cost, Net of Credits $13,778,944
Impact Fee per Newcomer (per capita) $466.06
($13,979,444/29,565 population)
Impact fees for parks and recreation are applied to various residential types. The best available
occupancy data describing average occupancy by dwelling unit type in the Eagle/Boise area is
shown in the table below.
Table 10 —Average Persons per Dwelling Unit
Residential Unit 1999 Hofman Current Data
Study
Single Family Residential Unit,
(2010 US Census) 2.54/Unit 2.82/Unit
Multi-family Residential Unit, 1.81/Unit 2.16/Unit
800 sf or more (1)
Multi-family Residential Unit, 1.24/Unit 1.45/Unit
800 sf or less(')
Accessory Dwelling Unit(1) N/A 1.00/Unit
Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast(') 0.71/Unit 0.68/Room
(1)From the City of Boise"Impact Fees for Parks, Fire&Police"
Holladay Engineering Company
10
`�o ,,,
or,_,< CITY OF EAGLE-IMPACT FEE
2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Impact Fee Schedule
The application of impact fees to residential types is shown in the table below.
Table 11 — Impact Fee Schedule for City of Eagle
Park Description Impact Single Multi-family Multi-family Hotel/Motel
by Cost Fee Family $/Residence $/Residence B&B
$/Person $/Residence Over 800 s.f. Under 800 s.f. $/Room
Lowest $21.58 $60.85 $46.60 $31.29 $14.67
Development Cost
Moderate $243.49 $686.63 $525.93 $353.06 $165.57
Development Cost
Higher $148.26 $418.10 $320.25 $214.98 $100.82
Development Cost
Special Use $52.74 $148.71 $113.91 $76.47 $35.86
Amenities
Totals $466.06 $1,314.29 $1,006.69 $675.79 $316.92
' Y t t '
'•
,
rj
4 4
u
has `
r.
Eft. IIIII-
'' IIIIP,
»...:.... ,..._, .ice'
3 v§fi&. ,. ,..:
ash ' r A ' .. ,..
Holladay Engineering Company It.
11
nor ii,.
ittCITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Capital Improvement Plan Values
Holladay Engineering Company
- 0t 4 CITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
,,,
* 2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
City of Eagle
Capital Improvement Plan Values
A cost per acre for park development was derived from a review of drawings, amenities and
budgets from Reid Merrill Sr. Park and from Guerber Park (aka: Hill Road Park). Developed
park area was divided into four general categories around the type and area requirements of
amenities. A restroom facility, for example, also includes the approach to the structure, utilities,
full perimeter access, and landscaping on a one-quarter acre site.
Cost (1) per Acre for City Parks
Cost Designation Typical development Park Cost per
Acre
Low Sports fields, trails, grass play and picnic $92,000
area
Add to preceding development restroom,
Moderate covered picnic area, paved walks, $101,000
structures, concession area
Add to preceding development
High playground and exercise equipment, $139,000
water feature, sports courts
Special Use Add to preceding development Gazebo, $250,000
Velodrome, amphitheater, seating
(1) Cost per acre includes all work elements to improve undeveloped land. These costs include
but are not limited to survey, design, utilities, earthmoving, irrigation, storm drainage, park
amenities, landscaping, parking and access, signage, and administration of construction.
They do not include land acquisition cost.
Capital improvement budgets for Eagle Sports Park and Lakemoor Park were based on
distributed amenities scaled from concept level drawings from previous developer or City
planning efforts. For Gateway South Park, the distribution of amenities was based on input from
the Parks and Pathway Committee and Public Works. The overall park acreage was assigned a
value for the types of amenities and cost of development per acre from the Eagle's history of
park cost. These cost parameters were applied to the Capital Improvement Projects
recommended by the Advisory Committee.
Holladay Engineering Compan
t„'1/r.
iCITY OF EAGLE—IMPACT FEE
,,, 4-.,.� 2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Capital Improvement Plan Values, 2011-2016
Park Development Undeveloped Concept Level
Cost Designation Acreage Budget Values
Eagle Sports Moderate 28.01 $2,829,010
Park
Eagle Sports Special Use 8.25 $2,062,500
Park (Velodrome)
Lakemoor Moderate 33.34 $3,367,340
Park
22.17 less
Gateway South Park Low 6.94 water $1,401,160
surface area
Western Park (TBD) Land only 15.00 $750,000
Total $10,410,010
The cost used to obtain budget values for this table should be updated periodically as the City
develops and adopts actual construction plans for each park and as additional cost information
is obtained. These costs include fixed assets only. Capital costs for equipment required to
maintain park facilities were not included in the 1999 Hofman Study and have not been included
in this update.
leHolladay Engineering Company
=I
AL ;
CITY OF EAGLE-IMPACT FEE
2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
Capital Improvement Plan — Park Location Maps
Holladay Engineering Com an
. ) , . ,
i
1,11 E
.0�
3
L 'ifp .SW , .
F4IL Ak . tai -J 0
H
4pP
_,
'''��� ,'.�` :j �� W V
fiA 0****•0 ti011:b 1 1„,
X00 m,' .-s-I IS on Swan i* RI,ei
- 7,,e■���� ■� ■■■■. ����11� ��A �_ ■\ / ,..�.■;.,�a,-,.,�_� , . E
`� /♦d INV U N c _
Fs ..., ■i. V < z
aA
•a,
i V N L N A '■■■. 5 W W m t
E t a .
NJ V o y ■■■■/� = '„W I%1 T.,67
a ,,
f,
MI
\, ,'
> ,.. it ,.441.0. iti
a Pvkirli.),---7/ [Lk
\ %I�� ��r• V/11kbjy ■■111111111 1
1 illhimw4 E ■ Ala u■■o� .
♦i fir♦ ��..■■■■ ,,....Emma o■■■■ w l
we Irk ty 10.♦ ♦� 1�j ♦ ♦ ♦�1 woo■ ■■■■■►r
V 'II;.10( [1_1!•W' lite:illfHlititil rirl E
/ 1 — A 4'• ■..°1- 411111Zalliq--1111111111filini i} ---- ■' ff-,.y ." \fr 'IisSt *-,•�n •AR JUIN •1.
•
I.
P NN
1 CL
a z
1 t - 4
,
1 * 2 -I
` w
s
-t . '- ' '' illi i lir Nit Z ' : ______..... uj 0
M I-
it - - '
U
�
. f r r al i ' k t
t
K d 4
6
p
it
I
`X Rrb 1 0
IN I
/ � co
o c _
/ N .._, m u
L.
c
2 1/ 1 -
it
w ,,,,
r ,
Sf W O o
1) I\)P E \, \ ,
, _ . .., ...
r:4
V r.,'
L
:\ \ \ ar
W Z n
ge
z�
I - \ -
--,
f
J
moo' o�_ gi 10. limn ,,moyair
---- ------ i---7. • Is., Is • --/,„
_ .,, , i
it
-- 0\<:'
iist// *v. ...<
)\\_. ',
/
.
I i
NI sr 1
i /
i ij
,Q
�U2I ��.( O 1DVa ,- , iY ! � , 1 r. 14.00-4 ira 1 , is, mil s iq
1 ( i ,a___I \
L
1 /
I / /
(
MIll
aimill111.1
PI 1111 ____1 1 1
TT I I
,i i -7
i i I I_LI TI 11 I 11.1/
Ce
< 0,
°.;
,
i
/ o IIII III
IIIII
III pi ... ,
i Nag -- hb- tit% i 7=---
//
0
fg NM - --- iv-,
./ -- trir--- 44* Ari......1111P /
co id
›- _1
p-4
# ' 41IrilMi/ '---- < 0
,1 /tip
■a
4t / —
1 miiiii
=
flun. WIE amititi
4 ILI LLI
iltrallt. 4° ,/ : IL
Z._ al)Ili
III 11
f < 0
Nally / 0 >_
111 . ,...„..., _
„
; ) /I___ (411;_,)(„.„,;-',
1 1 , /
/ 1 1 1 — //
LfJ ur:
F._
, _ _
, ,,. „„,,,,,, ; '''' Arti ,t.''' I r '- -11"-Th.
A
„I)
Y.. ';4/- •i ..4 I
.,,,,,
1 I-
..,. ,
•K.
• - 1.1.N. '1 . *
I _
1 • E
0 i O,9
iir , i 4,,• .*, if *
.,„. .
- F
j i 0 4 0 0 0 17 1 f,, A, 4
014.4c,
;
\
cu , (-2
1 wr ,/ ce
. .
,e, ,..
o
>0'"' z • :g.
< - — –
"uji • zf,
,....',..---, ., -,:-- ,r - . -
2, . 11 , 1 ii• i:,:-. -',,z°-- , ,..'.=i*: ":;:.1'..,°' ,
L r -.' -
...I.... i • ,,,`"
----1-:1--
t , -_ r,
,
. _
_. _, ---___ _
' -/-
:
II:
I /
4,, '-‘ / III p, /,_ ,/, /,/-,,,-, //
--1,.
= CI) I
),,,, 1:g
E-4 ›-i '4
)'. 4 C \ ' - ''' / P-1 /4‘
/'-7/-. /-,.„ 7' ' .1-\ /
' P '// r..
w 1
--J • L_ _ / \ - /---- y/-- , E-1
,,c,,,,, , i
I '\ K - // 0
/ /-- A III
In II t / ji /z„
- 7/./ ,c,' /, // / i
,
- fi--- lit IN -
i
/-
- ,
---. : - I ,„„.„:„.,...„.,„ ..,.. ,,
r i
/ /
Aii r
/' // — /
II I -/ 7
,i /
iii
--,
nor i,.
CITY OF EAGLE-IMPACT FEE
le2011 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS
,it City of Eagle - Parks and Pathways Survey
40 Holladay Engineering Company
OF
City of Eagle Parks and Pathways Survey
r
FN November- December 2010
The Eagle Parks and Pathways Development Commission and
the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee asked the Survey Participation
Eagle public for input on use, needs, and priorities for Eagle 195 citizens participated in our survey
parks and pathways. A survey was conducted online through a
link on the City of Eagle website and paper copies were available ❖ 57% are men and 43% are women
at Eagle City Hall and local businesses. Area residents were .;. 76% are Eagle residents and 24% are
informed of the survey through city e-mail notifications, Eagle residents of Boise, Emmett, Meridian,
Sewer District bills, The Independent News, Eagle Informer, and Star, and unincorporated Ada County
word of mouth. The survey was open Nov. 1— Dec. 15, 2010.
The nearly 200 respondents overwhelmingly support Wide range of ages:
5% 3%
development of new walking and biking trails. Specifically, 9%
•<18 yrs old
residents want Eagle to create pathways that connect our
existing trails and parks. They also want existing trails improved •18-34
so they are more user-friendly for outdoor recreation and 035-49 37%
commuting. This is consistent with current use — most
participants reported trails and access to the greenbelt as their 050-64 46%
primary use of Eagle parks. Other priorities were completion of 0 65+
the Eagle Sports Complex, and development of a dog park and
sports fields. .. . —
How often do you or your family visit Eagle parks?
Merrill Community Park and Heritage Park& Gazebo are the most visited Eagle parks with 79-80% of participants
reporting some use during the year. However, the Eagle Sports Complex has the greatest number of repeat users—
23% report that they visit weekly!
Merrill Community Park
Heritage Park & Gazebo 8%
4
Guerber Park 12% 39% F;;
Eagle Sports Complex 23%
Arboretum Park 4% k 410` .
Friendship Park 2% ■ Every week
•Once or twice per month
Orval Krasen Park 1% 17% A few times each year
Results Summary 1 January 11, 2011
Parks Use and Maintenance
Why do you visit Eagle parks?
Biking trails 59%
Walking/running/exercise 58%
Access to greenbelt 54%
Special event 45°
Playground 36%
Picnic shelter 31%
Sports fields or courts 31%
Open play areas 26%
Water features 24%
Fishing �ba 12%
Skate park 10%
A majority (60%) say that not having enough time limits their use of Eagle parks. Some also report that parks are
too far away with poor access by foot or bike (21%), and that they do not have the right amenities (19%) or enough
shade (18%). Less than 6% of participants report that inadequate restrooms, crowding, insufficient parking, poor
maintenance, or a preference for private parks prevent them from using Eagle parks.
How would you rate Eagle park maintenance?
"Everything looks great. I am
Although 93%of participants feel that park maintenance is good so proud to live in Eagle."
or excellent, there were some suggestions for improvement:
❖ Trim overgrown vegetation and control weeds on pathways, especially the greenbelt and Eagle Sports
Complex bike trails
❖ Fix water features quickly when they are broken and leave them on longer in the summer
❖ Manage watering schedules to reduce swampy, over-watered areas and dry patches
❖ Keep bathrooms clean, stocked with supplies, and open year round
Develop clean-up days,Adopt-A-Trail programs, and other IN r
volunteer opportunities C ■ ��01...�
❖ Plant more shade trees, especially at Merrill and Guerber parks
MIN
❖ Provide better signage, especially at the Eagle Sports Complex G
❖ Add more recycling bins, trash cans, and dog waste bags
+ Remove graffiti as soon as possible
r
• Use organic lawn products and local companies
Results Summary 2 January 11, 2011
Parks Priorities
Most participants report that Eagle parks currently How well do the existing Eagle parks
meet their recreation needs and most (59%) prefer
that Eagle improve existing parks rather than acquire meet your recreation needs?
new ones (25%; see charts to right). A few individuals 8% 3%
wanted Eagle to focus on park maintenance and not ■Completely
spend money developing new parks or amenities. •Mostly 15%
Somewhat 19°/
"Protect and preserve more areas along the
beautiful Boise River!" ❑A little
55%
❑Not at all
"Acquire more land around the bike park."
A huge majority (81%; see chart below) of What is your TOP priority for Eagle
respondents want Eagle to develop more walking and parks in the next five years?
biking trails over the next five years. Creation of a dog
park came in a distant second followed closely by new ■Acquire new 16%
interpretive trails and wildlife observation areas. parks 25%
Sport fields (soccer, lacrosse, baseball, and football) •Improve
and courts (tennis, volleyball and basketball) tied as existing parks
5th priorities. However, when participants are asked pother 59%
to select their top priorities, sport fields rank above
interpretive trails and wildlife observation areas.
Which park amenities would you like to see Eagle develop over the next five years?
Walking and biking trails 81%
Dog park 37%
Interpretive trails 34%
Wildlife observation areas 30%
Sports fields 27% ( (
ll/1010
Sports courts 27% �y
Community garden 26% k`
Frisbee golf course 24%
Picnic areas 23% .r0
Fishing ponds 22%jr
BMX/freestyle biking 21%
Playgrounds 17%
Equestrian areas 10%
Others (<5% each)* 5%
*Other amenities include a community pool, archery range,golf course,ice rink, open space, and non-motorized boating areas.
Results Summary 3 January 11, 2011
Pathway
Most survey participants are big pathway users! More
than 90% report some pathway use, with 36% using How often do you or your family
them weekly (see chart to right). Not surprisingly, use Eagle pathways?
biking, walking, running, or some type of exercise
were the primary pathway activities. However, 23% of •Every week 9%
participants report using pathways for bird watching
or wildlife observation, 11% for accessing fishing •Once or twice/month 36%
spots, and a few for commuting. 32%
0 A few times each year
Most (71%) survey participants want Eagle to develop
new pathways, especially ones that would complete ❑Never 23%
the greenbelt and connect existing trails and parks.
Currently, Eagle can use impact fees ONLY to develop
parks, but most survey participants supported Do you support allowing the City
expanding this use to pathways (see chart to right). of Eagle to use impact fees for
Most view parks and pathways as equally valuable and parks and pathways?
worthy of investment.
■Yes 17%
"Pathways are as important as parks and are an
integral part of the city. •Not sure/neutral 10%
Pathways greatly enhance quality of life. 73%
0 N
Pathways are an important means of alternative
transportation and encourage exercise."
What will Eagle do with the survey results?
Our hearty thanks to all survey participants! The results will guide our development, on behalf of the citizens of
Eagle, of a multi-year plan for Eagle's parks and pathways. The plan will be drafted with input from Eagle City Staff.
We will present the plan to the Mayor and City Council at a public meeting for their earnest consideration. The
plan's implementation will be dependent on Council approval and available revenue.
Special thanks to the participants who signed up to be volunteers. You'll be hearing from us!
- Eagle Parks and Pathways Development Commission & Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee
Rich Talbert(Chair), Randy Zollinger(Vice Chair), Amy Aaron, Mike Barton, Chuck Ferguson,
Mary McColl, Connie Brown-Olson, Don Stockton, and Jay Walker
..411 AIM AIM all re all
�GI dN-ct dN-ct dc-ct dN-ct dN-ct \G-t-` J
FP,
,cr,of Eagle City Hall Click on the links below to see:
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, ID 83616 Eagle Parks and Pathways Survey
k,1: w`�� 208-939-6813 Comments from citizens
www.cityofeagle.corn
Results Summary 4 January 11, 2011