Minutes - 2021 - City Council - 11/16/2021 - Special EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
November 16,2021
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pierce calls the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: GINDLESPERGER,PITTMAN, BAUN,PIKE. All present. A
quorum is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
4. WORK SESSION:
A. The City of Eagle will be conducting a series of meetings with the Avimor development
representatives to provide information to the Mayor and City Council regarding the potential
annexation of the project. The site is located on the east and west sides of SH55 approximately 4
'V2 miles north of Beacon Light Road and extending north into Boise and Gem Counties.Discussion
topics will be listed on each agenda. Following the informational meetings, if the property owner
elects to pursue annexation, then the process outlined in Idaho Code 50-222 will be implemented
along with the required public hearings identified in Idaho Code 67-6509 and Eagle City Code
Section 8-7-8.
Today's topics:
1. Fiscal Impact Presentation by TischlerBise
Colin McAweeney with TischlerBise. Mr. McAweeney reviews the fiscal impact analysis tool.
The tool is used as a guide to determine if the revenues generated by new growth are enough to
cover service and facility demands generated by said growth. It reflects operating expenses and
capital costs,and forecasts the expenses need to maintain the city's current level of service.
A 30-year growth scenario was applied to the Avimor Development. The estimated population
impact will be an increase between 19,198 and 20,763, with an increase in non-residential square
feet between 694,125 and 777,625.Adjustments to the citywide model were made to reflect Avimor
development specifics to get a more precise understanding of the revenues of the development.
When applied, the analysis showed positive results for the first 10 years, near net neutral in the
middle 10 years,and a deficit in the last 10 years. PowerPoint attached.
Discussion between Mr. McAweeney and Council.
2. Fiscal Impact Presentation by Avimor Representative
David Eberle, 3648 Robar Lane, Garden City,Idaho. Mr. Eberle was hired by Avimor to review
the fiscal impact analysis that was completed by TischlerBise This model analyzes monetary
impact only.All models can impact the results of studies. Mr. Eberle feels that a different model
would need to be utilized to more accurately predict the future impact.
Mr. Eberle feels that there are errors that exist within the report, but they do not cause fatal errors
with the TischlerBise analysis. Mr. Eberle discusses a variety of financial weaknesses that occur
within the City's budget pertaining to operational deficiencies, and how it may impact the fiscal
impact tool analysis. He suggests that the City address its fiscal deficits within the next two years,
and if they work with the developer regarding certain park development it will minimize the
negative impact of the development and result in a net neutral impact.
Mr. Eberle feels the tool really shows the strengths and weakness in the City's current fiscal
policy. The analysis did not consider inflation. When Eagle decides if it is appropriate to
accommodate growth, it will need to decide if they(Eagle)wish to control foothills development,
receive that tax base revenue, and enter into a partnership with a developer that doesn't really
build homes but is committed to community.
Discussion.
Page 1
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-11-16-21spmin.docx
Dan Richter comments on the value of recreational property that Avimor would be bringing in.
The native open space associated with Avimor is approximately 12,000 acres. This would be an
estimated value of$240 million dollar value. Discusses the acreage of developed open space and
paved trails with the development.
General discussion regarding public access to Avimor amenities. It is the desire of the developers
that the Avimor property develop, if not in Eagle,then through another entity Discussion
regarding water capacity of the development.
Cherese McClain, special legal counsel for the City of Eagle. Ms. McClain states that water rights
are confined geographically. Discussion.
Pittman inquires if there will be a neighborhood meeting. Richter states that one will be held in
January. Discussion regarding notification for said meeting.
Brad Pfannmuller states that Avimor will comply with the regulation of the City for notification.
5. NEW BUSINESS:
A. ACTION ITEM Fatbeam Sole Source Contract: Having declared and published as a sole
source contract under Idaho Code §67-2808(2)(a) and §67-2808(2)(a) (2)(b) and having received
no opposition,the city is entering into a contract with Fatbeam for the installation of conduit, and,
where available, installation of fiber into a joint trench as part of the municipal fiber optic system.
All projects will be subject to a task order approval by the city.
Mayor introduces the item.
Staff is requesting this item be continued to the November 30,2021, special meeting.
Pittman moves to remand action item 5A back to staff. Seconded Gindlesperger. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Gindlesperger moves to adjourn. Seconded by Baun. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted: .••`k GL ''•,,
s\.:j /1 46 A., 11. it A Q s
= O '•0 .
:
T Cdv4ORN, CMC : .u ti k•O .
CITY CL �'P
q
APPROVED: °oSTAT 03..•`*
,•
N PIERCE
OR
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT
W W W.CITYOFEAGLE.ORG.
Page 2
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-11-16-21spmin.docx
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report
Avimor Development
CITY gF E.ACE
Submitted to:
NOV 1 5 2021
ROLA('tO: City of Eagle, Idaho
November 15, 20:2:1
4 4,-145 I
444.„
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC PLANNING
't-t.Lt-is:1 Jr,
999 W Main Street
Baise,, itiabo 83702
208..515.7480
tisehierbise.com
°
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
TischlerBise
999 W Main Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
208.515.7480
www.tischlerbise.com
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
SCENARIOS EXAMINED 5
Scenario 1:Growth +Annex Phases 4-12 5
Scenario 2: Growth +Annex Phases 1-12 6
Figure 1. Growth Projections by Scenario 6
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 7
Annual Fiscal Results 7
Figure 2. Annual Net Fiscal Impact Results 7
Cumulative Fiscal Results 8
Figure 3. Cumulative Fiscal Impact Results 8
Figure 4.Annual Operating and Capital Expenditures Compared to Revenues—Scenario 1 9
Figure 5. Annual Operating and Capital Expenditures Compared to Revenues—Scenario 2 9
Stabilization Year Fiscal Results 10
Figure 6. Stabilized Year Annual Fiscal Impact Results 10
Takeaways 10
IL MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS&METHODOLOGIES 12
FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET 12
VARIABLE VERSUS FIXED COSTS AND REVENUES 12
LEVEL OF SERVICE 13
INFLATION RATE 13
NON-FISCAL EVALUATIONS 13
SCENARIO GROWTH PROJECTIONS 13
Scenario 1: Growth +Annex Phases 4-12 14
Scenario 2:Growth +Annex Phases 1-12 14
Figure 7. Growth Projections by Scenario 15
III. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS 16
ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 17
Figure 8.Annual Net Fiscal Impact Results 17
Figure 9. Annual Operating and Capital Expenditures Compared to Revenues—Scenario 1 18
Figure 10. Annual Operating and Capital Expenditures Compared to Revenues—Scenario 2 19
CUMULATIVE FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 20
Figure 11. Cumulative Fiscal Impact Results (Chart) 20
Figure 12. Cumulative Fiscal Impact Results(Table) 21
Figure 13. Summary of New Staffing Hires 21
Figure 14. Summary of Capital Improvement Needs—Scenario 1 22
Figure 15. Summary of Capital Improvement Needs—Scenario 2 23
AVERAGE ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 24
TlschlerBise i
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Figure 16.Average Annual Fiscal Impact Results 24
STABILIZED YEAR FISCAL IMPACT 25
Figure 17. Net Fiscal Impact of Stabilization Year 25
IV. REVENUE DETAIL& METHODOLOGIES 26
GENERAL FUND REVENUE METHODOLOGIES 26
Figure 18.General Fund Revenues 26
Figure 19.General Fund Revenues cont. 27
Customized/Marginal Revenue Calculations for General Fund 27
Figure 20.Assessed Values by Development Type 28
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS METHODOLOGIES 29
Figure 21.Special Revenue Funds 29
CAPITAL REVENUE FUNDS METHODOLOGIES 29
Figure 22.Capital Revenue Funds 29
V. REVENUE OUTPUTS 30
REVENUE PROJECTIONS 30
Figure 23. Revenue Projections by Scenario 30
Figure 24.General Fund Revenue Summary 30
VI. EXPENDITURE DETAIL&METHODOLOGIES 31
EXPENDITURE METHODOLOGIES 31
Figure 25.General Fund Operating Expenditures Approach 31
Figure 26.Special Revenue Funds Operating Expenditures Approach 32
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 32
General Government 32
Library 33
Parks and Recreation 33
Police 33
Public Works 34
Transportation 34
Figure 27. Development Proportionate Share Contribution Program Project List 34
Figure 28. City of Eagle Growth Projections 35
VII. EXPENDITURE OUTPUTS 36
OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 36
Figure 29.Operating Expenditure Projections by Scenario 36
Figure 30.Summary of New Staff Hires 37
Figure 31. Summary of Capital Improvement Needs—Scenario 1 38
Figure 32.Summary of Capital Improvement Needs—Scenario 2 39
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC AND DATA ASSUMPTIONS 40
Ttschlerise li
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Figure 33. Base Year Input Data 40
RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND VEHICLE TRIP RATES 41
Figure 34. City of Eagle Household Size and Vehicle Trip Rates 41
Residential Vehicle Trips Adjustment Factors 41
Figure 35.Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters 42
NONRESIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE DENSITY FACTORS AND VEHICLE TRIP RATES 42
Figure 36. Employee Density Factors and Vehicle Trip Rates 42
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 42
POLICE CALLS FOR SERVICE 43
Figure 37. Residential Police Call Rates 43
Figure 38. Nonresidential Police Call Rates 44
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE CITYWIDE MODEL 44
Figure 39. Summary of Changes to the Citywide Model 44
Tisch Bice iii
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report-Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
TABLE Of FIGURES
Figure 1. Growth Projections by Scenario 6
Figure 2.Annual Net Fiscal Impact Results 7
Figure 3. Cumulative Fiscal Impact Results 8
Figure 4.Annual Operating and Capital Expenditures Compared to Revenues-Scenario 1 9
Figure 5.Annual Operating and Capital Expenditures Compared to Revenues-Scenario 2 9
Figure 6. Stabilized Year Annual Fiscal Impact Results 10
Figure 7. Growth Projections by Scenario 15
Figure 8. Annual Net Fiscal Impact Results 17
Figure 9. Annual Operating and Capital Expenditures Compared to Revenues-Scenario 1 18
Figure 10.Annual Operating and Capital Expenditures Compared to Revenues-Scenario 2 19
Figure 11. Cumulative Fiscal Impact Results (Chart) 20
Figure 12.Cumulative Fiscal Impact Results (Table) 21
Figure 13.Summary of New Staffing Hires 21
Figure 14.Summary of Capital Improvement Needs-Scenario 1 22
Figure 15.Summary of Capital Improvement Needs-Scenario 2 23
Figure 16.Average Annual Fiscal Impact Results 24
Figure 17. Net Fiscal Impact of Stabilization Year 25
Figure 18. General Fund Revenues 26
Figure 19. General Fund Revenues cont. 27
Figure 20. Assessed Values by Development Type 28
Figure 21.Special Revenue Funds 29
Figure 22. Capital Revenue Funds 29
Figure 23. Revenue Projections by Scenario 30
Figure 24. General Fund Revenue Summary 30
Figure 25. General Fund Operating Expenditures Approach 31
Figure 26.Special Revenue Funds Operating Expenditures Approach 32
Figure 27. Development Proportionate Share Contribution Program Project List 34
Figure 28. City of Eagle Growth Projections 35
Figure 29. Operating Expenditure Projections by Scenario 36
Figure 30.Summary of New Staff Hires 37
Figure 31. Summary of Capital Improvement Needs-Scenario 1 38
Figure 32. Summary of Capital Improvement Needs-Scenario 2 39
Figure 33. Base Year Input Data 40
Figure 34. City of Eagle Household Size and Vehicle Trip Rates 41
Figure 35.Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters 42
Figure 36. Employee Density Factors and Vehicle Trip Rates 42
Figure 37. Residential Police Call Rates 43
Figure 38. Nonresidential Police Call Rates 44
Figure 39. Summary of Changes to the Citywide Model 44
w
iv
Tisch else
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TischlerBise has been retained by the City of Eagle, Idaho, to assess the fiscal impact of two Avimor
development scenarios.A fiscal impact evaluation analyzes revenue generation and operating and capital
costs to a jurisdiction associated with the provision of public services and facilities to serve development—
residential, commercial, industrial,or other.A fiscal impact analysis is different from an economic impact
analysis in that a fiscal impact analysis projects the cash flow to the public sector—in terms of additional
taxes and other revenues in relation to costs to provide services—while an economic impact analysis
projects the cash flow to the private sector, which is measured in income,jobs, output, indirect impacts,
etc. A fiscal impact analysis should reflect market realities as well as existing capacities in municipal
services and infrastructure.
In general,a fiscal impact analysis determines whether revenues generated by development are sufficient
to cover the resulting costs from that development for service and facility demands under current levels
of service. It is intended to be used to help guide policy decisions regarding levels of service and revenue
enhancements. It should not be viewed as a budget-forecasting document or a definitive roadmap
depicting a future course of action. A fiscal analysis essentially looks at revenues and expenditures
separately. It does not project expenditures based on revenues available—unlike the annual budget
process where a budget is balanced with the resources available.
.Scenarios Examined
The fiscal impact study analyzes two growth scenarios of the Avimor development. Both scenarios include
the same level of projected growth over 30 years in the Avimor development while there is a difference
between how much of existing development is included into the City of Eagle. Over the projection period
(30 years), only the impact from development in the study area is examined. No development in other
areas of the City is included.
The scenarios in the analysis are:
• Scenario 1: Growth +Annex Phases 4-12
• Scenario 2: Growth +Annex Phases 1-12
Note: the development programs have been provided by the Avimor development group under the
current market environment. Market forces could change the inevitable development effecting the fiscal
impacts.
Scenario 1:Growth+Annex Phases 4-12
Through the projected growth in Avimor and the other annexed areas,Scenario 1 is estimated to generate
19,988 new residents to Eagle, a 61 percent increase from the current city population. Also, 1,824 new
TllschlerE Ise 5
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report-Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
jobs are generated by the nonresidential development,a 19 percent increase from the current number of
jobs in Eagle.
Scenario 2:Growth +Annex Phases 1-12
Through the projected growth in Avimor and the other annexed areas,Scenario 2 is estimated to generate
20,763 new residents to Eagle, a 64 percent increase from the current city population. Also, 2,229 new
jobs are generated by the nonresidential development, a 24 percent increase from the current number of
jobs in Eagle.
Figure:i: Growth Praje bons by SCenarro
Growth+ Growth+
Development Type , 4-12 Annex 1-12 Annex
Residential Housing Units
Single Family Detached(5+acres) 100 100
Single Family Detached(Conservation) 50 50
Single Family Detached(1 &2 acres) 450 450
Single Family Detached (0.5-0.99 acres) 300 300
Single Family Detached(0.1-0.49 acres) 6,021 6,284
Single Family Attached 294 310
Multifamily-Suburban 0 15
Multifamily-Downtown 300 300
Total Housing Units 7,515 7,809
Total Population 19,988 20,763
Nonresidential Square Feet
Small Scale Retail 97,500 123,500
Restaurant 63,000 74,000
Hotel 25,000 25,000
Office 136,000 161,000
Medical/Out-Patient Office 10,000 12,000
Industrial 36,000 36,000
Self-Storage Mini-Warehousing 260,000 260,000
Assissted Living(beds) 125 125
Day Care 10,000 10,000
Small Scale Grocer 50,000 65,000
Gas Station W/C Store 6,500 11,000
Total Square Feet 694,125 777,625
Total Jobs 1,824 2,229
d
TischlerB se 6
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Summary of Fiscal impact .Results
The fiscal impact results for the scenarios are illustrated together in the following sections.The results are
depicted in several ways to give a complete picture of the scenarios.
Annual Fiscal Results
The annual fiscal impacts of the scenarios are shown in Figure 2. Net fiscal results are revenues minus
costs in each year, reflecting operating and capital costs for all services modeled. Data points above the
$0 line represent annual surpluses; points below the$0 line represent annual deficits. In the figure,results
in any one year are not carried forward to the next year.
Overall,the scenarios following a similar pattern. Revenues ramp up in the first ten years, offsetting both
operational expenditure and capital needs to accommodate the growth. Annual impacts are more
consistent and slightly negative during the mid-term period. While at the end of the analysis there are
significant negative fiscal impacts. Spikes and dips in the annual results are indicative of the one-time
revenues that are generated by growth and the costs for new capital facilities.
Figure 2 Annual Net fiscal Impact Results
Annual Net Fiscal Impact (Non-Cumulative)
Scenario Comparison
City of Ealge, ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
$1,500
$1,000
$500
0
o so
yoti° tia'v c�''o o. ` o �g cf.),
(5500)
� I
($1,000) {�
{ I
($1,500)
• Growth 4-12 Annex -*—Growth 1-12 Annex
7
Tlsc lh re Ise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Cumulative Fiscal Results
The cumulative totals shown below reflect total revenues and expenditures over the 30-year time frame.
The fiscal results are separated to show operating and capital in Figure 3. For example, in Scenario 1 there
is $82.2 million in operating revenue and $65.6 million in operating costs, resulting in a net surplus of
$16.5 million.While there is$11.7 million in capital revenue and $37.3 million in capital costs, resulting in
a capital net deficit of$25.5 million.The operating and capital results are combined at the bottom of the
figure to calculate the total fiscal impact.
Overall, there is a cumulative negative fiscal impact in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. In both cases, there is
an operating surplus, however, those surpluses are not able to offset the capital deficits. It is estimated
that Scenario 1 will generate a total fiscal impact of$9 million deficit and Scenario 2 will generate a total
fiscal impact of$13 million deficit.
figure1.Cannitative!Fi-sril;Impact Results
30-Year Total Net Fiscal Impact-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model ($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12 Growth+1-12
Category Annex Annex
Operating Revenues $82,165 $86,526
Operating Expenditures $65,630 $73,317
OPERATING NET FISCAL IMPACT $16,535 $13,209
Capital Revenues $11,734 $12,195
Capital Expenditures $37,271 $38,419
CAPITAL NET FISCAL IMPACT ($25,538) ($26,224)
GRAND TOTAL NET FISCAL IMPACT ($9,002) ($13,015)
For further detail, operating and capital impacts are separated in the following two figures. Throughout
the projection period, there is sufficient revenues generated in each scenario to cover operating costs.
While in the second half of the projection period,when capital costs are included,the revenue is not able
to cover to total impact and drops below the red dotted area. However, capital deficiencies are often
easier to "solve for" than operating deficits. For instance, it is often easier to identify and implement
specific revenue sources that can be earmarked for capital purposes(e.g.,impact fees)as well as designate
a portion of an existing revenue source (e.g., property taxes) for a specific capital purpose.
g Tisch r tse
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
figii-re 4.Annual Operating and capital Fitperidltures Compared to Revenues-Scenatio 1
Annual Operating&Capital Costs Compared to Revenues
Scenario 1:Growth+4-12 Annex
Eagle, ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
• •
.4 $2,000
$1,000
9 1 2($1000) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 14 1 16 17 18 19 2 2 22 2 24 25 26 27 29 3rI
,
($2,000)
($3,000) --
Operating Expenditures =Capital Expenditures —4—Revenues —Annual Net Fiscal Impact
•Figure 5.Annual Operating and'Capital Experiditores Compared to Revenues-Scenario 2
Annual Operating&Capital Costs Compared to Revenues
Scenario 2:Growth+ 1-12 Annex
Eagle, ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
$8,000 ,
1
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
0
fro\ __ _
$2,000 -- ---
$1,000
$0
IF IOW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 14 15 16 17 1: 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30
($2,000)
($3,000)
tilin ---
Operating Expenditures =Capital Expenditures —4—Revenues Annual Net Fiscal Impact
9
TtschlerSise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Stabilization Year Fiscal Results
The stabilization year represents the year after all the development has occurred. Thus, the net fiscal
impacts in the stabilization year represent the on-going impact of the growth without the one-time
revenues related to development and new capital costs. The net fiscal impacts include the on-going
revenues(such as property tax) and the on-going operating costs and capital replacement.
Shown in Figure 6, there is an annual on-going revenue of$3.6 million in Scenario 1 and $3.8 million in
Scenario 2. However, there is $5.5 million in on-going expenditures in Scenario 1 and $5.6 million in
Scenario 2, resulting in a net deficit to the City of Eagle. The deficit being $1.8 million in Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2.
Figure C,Szabi`li;red Year Annual fiscal`Impact Results
Stabilization Year-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Category An u • Annex
ANNUAL REVENUES $3,615 $3,761
ANNUAL EXP(OP.+CAP REPL.) $5,458 $5,597
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($1,843) ($1,836)
Takeaways
Although both scenarios result in a negative bottom-line cumulative impact to the City of Eagle, a more
detailed understanding of the results is important. Below is a summary and a few takeaways of the fiscal
impact analysis:
• Both scenarios result in operating surpluses indicating that the overall deficit originates from
capital needs to accommodate the growth.
• Capital deficiencies are much easier to resolve through new capital revenues, the development
agreement process,and facility dedications from development. Furthermore, Parks& Recreation
facilities is the largest demand (accounting for over 70 percent of the capital need) which is
generally an easier facility type to be offset through dedications.
• When the operating costs are broken down, the policing services (contractually provided by Ada
County Sheriff's Office) present the largest on-going impact. Based on the percentage of the police
contract to the City of Eagle's current operating budget and the high level of development
occurring in the scenarios,the impact was expected.The impacts though are based on the current
call rates for existing Eagle housing and commercial development, so if Avimor development
generate less demand than the average, the impact would be less.
• Furthermore, there are revenue surpluses in the first ten years of the scenario, near net neutral
results in the middle ten years, and deficits in the last ten years. Policy decisions could be
10
f isch B se
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
implemented to strategically leverage the surpluses in the beginning to help further mitigate the
deficits in the out years.
• Since the Avimor growth is consistent between the two scenarios,the difference in fiscal impacts
is the result of the different levels of annexation and existing development in other areas.
• Importantly, the results of a fiscal impact analysis are framed by the community's budget
structure. If there are high levels of service being provided that will be borne out in the
expenditure results. Similarly, the revenue structure of a community plays an important role in
how future development can contribute to the community's bottom-line. Here, about half of the
operating revenue generated is from property tax and just over 40 percent of the revenue is from
one-time development-related revenues.
• Following the point above, Eagle's reliance on one-time revenues to support on-going costs
creates a necessary cycle of growth for the budget to balance.Consequently,this budget structure
creates a difficult environment for developments to result in a positive fiscal impact when
analyzed in the long-term. In the scenarios, nearly $4 billion is being contributed to the City of
Eagle's tax base, yet the City's low levy rate restricts the potential of property tax generation (an
on-going revenue source).
• The results of the fiscal impact study do not include any potential strategic economic value of
annexing the Avimor area. Many communities find value in being able to regulate the
development that occurs on its peripheral and gateway. This includes both the visual aesthetic
and type of development that occurs (especially commercial development).
• In the case that the City of Eagle does not annex the Avimor area and growth continues, it can be
argued that those future unincorporated residents will still generate some demand on City's
public facilities. However, in the case that Avimor stays unincorporated,the City will not generate
any substantial revenues while providing some services. This study does not determine which of
those facilities will be used by future development, but as an example, Eagle's parks and greenbelt
trails currently attracts non-Eagle residents.
11
TlschlerBise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGIES
Many of the costs that are affected by general growth, regardless of location, are projected using a
marginal/average cost hybrid methodology that attempts to determine capacity and thresholds for
staffing but projects non-salary operating costs using an average cost approach. The levels of service and
cost assumptions are based on TischlerBise's interviews with City staff and a detailed analysis of City of
Eagle Fiscal Year 2021 Adopted Budget; City of Eagle' Comprehensive Plan; City of Eagle Departmental
annual reports and other relevant financial and planning documents.Additionally,our national experience
conducting over 800 fiscal impact analyses was beneficial.
The assumptions outlined in this report are utilized, along with the growth projections, to calculate the
potential impacts of development in the study area to the City over the 30-year projection period. Only
the impacts of the study area are examined in this analysis.Other areas of the City are not included in the
fiscal impact model. Calculations are performed using a customized fiscal impact model designed
specifically by TischlerBise.
Fiscal Year 2D21 Budget
The Fiscal Year 2021 Budget is used to represent a "snapshot" of the City's current costs and levels of
service. In summary,the "snapshot" approach does not attempt to speculate about how services or costs
will change over time or whether current levels of service are sufficient or insufficient. Instead,it evaluates
the cost implications to the City as it conducts business under the FY2021 budget.
Variable versus Fixed Costs and Revenues
For this analysis,costs and revenues that are directly attributable to new development are included in the
fiscal analysis of growth and reported in the two scenarios. In all cases, some costs and revenues are not
impacted by demographic changes and are assumed to be "fixed" in this analysis. To determine fixed
variables, TischlerBise interviewed City staff and reviewed the FY2021 budget and available supporting
documentation. Examples of budget items modeled as "fixed," or non-growth related, include:
• Salaries and benefits for certain support personnel (varies by department)
• One-time costs for services unrelated to growth and development
• Revenue sources that are not growth-related
Detail and discussion are provided in Revenue Detail & Methodologies and Expenditure Detail &
Methodologies Chapters.
12
TischlerBise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Level of Service
The cost projections are based on a "snapshot approach" in which it is assumed the current level of
service, as funded in the City budget, and as provided in current capital facilities, will continue through
the 30-year analysis period. The 2020 existing demand base data was used to calculate unit costs and
service level thresholds. Examples of demand base data include population, dwelling units, employment
by industry, vehicle trips, etc. The "snapshot" approach does not attempt to speculate about how levels
of service or cost factors will change over time. Instead, it evaluates the implications of development in
the study area to the City as conducted under the FY2021 budget and informed by discussions with staff.
Furthermore,the study did not find nor include much variation in current levels of service being provided
in the existing city boundary compared to levels of service that will be provided in the Avimor area in the
foothills.
inflation Rote
The rate of inflation is assumed to be zero throughout the projection period;cost and revenue projections
are in constant 2020 dollars. This assumption is in accord with budget data and avoids the difficulty of
speculating on inflation rates and their effect on specific cost categories. It also avoids the problem of
interpreting results expressed in inflated dollars over an extended projection period. In general, including
inflation is complicated and unpredictable. This is particularly the case given that some costs, such as
salaries, increase at different rates than other operating and capital costs such as contractual and building
construction costs. Using constant dollars avoids these issues.
No.n-Fiscal Evaluations
ons
It should be noted that while a Fiscal Impact Analysis is an important consideration in planning decisions,
it is only one of several issues that should be considered. Environmental and social issues, for example,
should also be considered when making planning and policy decisions. The above notwithstanding, this
analysis will enable interested parties to understand the fiscal implications of the Avimor growth scenarios
to the City of Eagle.
Scenario Growth Projections
The fiscal impact study analyzes two growth scenarios of the Avimor development. Both scenarios include
a projection of full buildout while there is difference between how much of existing development is
included into the City of Eagle. Over the projection period (30 years), only the impact from development
in the study area is examined. No development in other areas of the City is included.
The scenarios in the analysis are:
• Scenario 1: Growth+Annex Phases 4-12
• Scenario 2: Growth+Annex Phases 1-12
13
T,schIerB se
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Note: the development programs have been provided by the Avimor development group under the
current market environment. Market forces could change the inevitable development effecting the fiscal
impacts.
Scenario 1: Growth +Annex Phases 4-12
Under Scenario 1, the City of Eagle annexes the Avimor area and phases 4 through 12 of existing
development.The Avimor area develops over 30 years based on projections provided by the development
group.There are about 500 existing housing units in the 4 through 12 annexation areas that are included
into the analysis.
Listed below in Figure 7, through the projected growth in Avimor and the other annexed areas, Scenario
1 increases the housing stock in Eagle by 7,515 units and is estimated to generate 19,988 new residents,
a 61 percent increase from the current city population. Also, 1,824 new jobs are generated by the
nonresidential development, a 19 percent increase from the current number of jobs in Eagle.
Scenario 2: Growth +Annex Phases 1-12
Under Scenario 2, the City of Eagle annexes the Avimor area and phases 1 through 12 of existing
development.The Avimor area develops over 30 years based on projections provided by the development
group (the growth is consistent to Scenario 1). There are about 800 existing housing units and 83,500
square feet of nonresidential development in the 1 through 12 annexation areas that are included into
the analysis.
Through the projected growth in Avimor and the other annexed areas, Scenario 2 increases the housing
stock in Eagle by 7,809 units and is estimated to generate 20,763 new residents to Eagle, a 64 percent
increase from the current city population. Also, 2,229 new jobs are generated by the nonresidential
development, a 24 percent increase from the current number of jobs in Eagle.
14
TischlerBase
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
:gust 1.'Growth;R 'ions b Scena is
Growth+ ~ owth+
Development Type 4-12 Annex �; 2 Annex
Residential Housing Units
Single Family Detached(5+acres) 100 100
Single Family Detached (Conservation) 50 50
Single Family Detached (1 &2 acres) 450 450
Single Family Detached(0.5-0.99 acres) 300 300
Single Family Detached(0.1-0.49 acres) 6,021 6,284
Single Family Attached 294 310
Multifamily-Suburban 0 15
Multifamily-Downtown 300 300
Total Housing Units 7,515 7,809
Total Population I 19,988 20,763
Nonresidential Square Feet
Small Scale Retail 97,500 123,500
Restaurant 63,000 74,000
Hotel 25,000 25,000
Office 136,000 161,000
Medical/Out-Patient Office 10,000 12,000
Industrial 36,000 36,000
Self-Storage Mini-Warehousing 260,000 260,000
Assissted Living(beds) 125 125
Day Care 10,000 10,000
Small Scale Grocer 50,000 65,000
Gas Station W/C Store 6,500 11,000
Total Square Feet 694,125 777,625
Total Jobs 1,824 2,229
15
TischlerBise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
III, FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS
The fiscal impacts of the two Avimor scenarios are analyzed and discussed in this chapter. Fiscal impact
results are presented in several ways:
• Annual net fiscal results are shown first that include all revenues and costs in the funds
included in the analysis in each year—operating and capital impacts from growth are
combined.
o Annual net fiscal results are then shown for operating and capital separately
compared to revenues.
• Cumulative net fiscal results are shown next.
o Cumulative net results convey the projected grand total revenues minus grand total
expenditures over the 30-year period to determine the overall net surplus or deficit.
• Average annual results are shown.
o The average annual net result conveys an average annual fiscal impact over different
time periods during the 30-year period.
• Lastly,the stabilized year fiscal impacts are examined to determine the ongoing annual fiscal
impact of the development to the City after the construction period has ended.
16
Tischlertse
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Annual et Fiscal impact Results
The chart below shows the annual net fiscal results to the City over each year of the 30-year development
period. By showing the annual results, the magnitude, rate of change, and timeline of deficits and
revenues can be observed over time. The "bumpy" nature of the annual results during particular years
represents an initial capital impact being "front-loaded" and/or major operating costs being incurred
(further explained in the Capital Expenditure Methodologies section).
Net fiscal results shown below are revenues minus costs in each year,including operating and capital costs
for all services modeled. Data points above the $0 line represent annual surpluses; points below the $0
line represent annual deficits.Surpluses in any one year are not carried forward to the next year.The scale
for the chart is in thousands($1,000s).
Shown in Figure 8, the scenarios following a similar pattern. Revenues quickly ramped up in the first ten
years of development as one-time revenues create large surpluses to the City of Eagle. Annual impacts
are more consistent and slightly negative during the mid-term period. While at the end of the analysis
there are significant negative fiscal impacts.
Fkgure'S.Anr'— l Net read Impact Results
Annual Net Fiscal Impact(Non-Cumulative)
Scenario Comparison
City of Ealge,ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
$1,500 r
$1,000
$500
0
11111\
o
$o
A IL, � yd
($500)
($1,000)
($1,500)
1
(52,000)
...-•Growth+4-12 Annex -Growth+1-12 Annex
TischlerSise 17
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Combining operating and capital results does not reveal the whole picture. Looking at operating and
capital results separately reveals that surpluses are generated for operating purposes with deficits
generated for capital needs. The following figures illustrate the operating expenditures (shaded red),
capital expenditures(dotted red), revenues (green), and annual net fiscal impact(purple).
In Scenario 1,there are increasing operating costs as development occurs, however, revenues are able to
fully offset the operating costs in every year (the green line above the shaded red area shown in Figure
9). By the middle of the projection, Scenario 1 is not generating the level of surplus it does earlier in the
analysis(Figure 9).There are several years where the fiscal impact is net neutral (revenues equal operating
and capital costs), but starting in Year 20, the scenario is generating an annual negative impact to Eagle
through Year 30.
figure 9..,Annual'Operating and Capital Expenditures''Compared to Revenues_S enerro
Annual Operating&Capital Costs Compared to Revenues
Scenario 1:Growth+4-12 Annex
Eagle, ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$s,000
$4,000 ( �_
o $3,000
o rK
000 "
$1,000 ---' I V
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 14 1 16 17 18 19 28 22 2 24 25 26 27 2: 29 30
($1A00)
($2,000) .l
($3,000) L —
®Operating Expenditures --Capital Expenditures —4--Revenues ---.Annual Net Fiscal Impact
Scenario 2 is shown in Figure 10 and is similar to Scenario 1. There are increasing operating costs as
development occurs, however, revenues are able to fully offset the operating costs in every year.Also, by
the mid-point of the analysis the scenario begins to result in annual negative fiscal impacts to Eagle.
II
18
TlschlerBsg
•
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
tigure iO.:Annual Operating and'Capital£xperndituret Compared to Re :rnu —Senario.2
Annual Operating&Capital Costs Compared to Revenues
Scenario 2:Growth+ 1-12 Annex
Eagle, ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
$8,000 `— — — —
$7,000
E
c $3 000 ( ,`
7 $2,000
$1,000 r _.
i
$o
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 1 14 15 16 17 1= 22 23 24 25 26 27 - 29 30
($1,000)
($2,000) I
($3,000)
I !Operating Expenditures =Capital Expenditures —4—Revenues .- --Annual Net Fiscal Impact
19 TlschlerBise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Cumulative Fiscal Impact Results
The next set of fiscal results provides cumulative net fiscal results, providing detail on total projected
revenues and total projected expenditures over the 30-year period. All revenues and expenditures are
captured.
Figure:1:s..etiMttiative rtscil Impact Restarts (Chart)
Cumulative Net Surplus/Deficit
Scenario Comparison
City of Eagle, ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
$20,000
$16,535
$15,000 $13,209
$10,000
$5,000
$0 -
0
w
($10,000)
($9,002)
($15.000) i _..... ($13.015)
($25,000)
($25s38) ($26,224)
($30,000) — _-----------------
Growth+4-12 Annex Growth+1-12 Annex
Operating Results Capital Results Total Results
Cumulatively, a negative net impact is generated from the scenarios over the 30-year period. However,
there is sufficient revenue generated from growth to cover resulting operating costs, but not the capital
needs. For example, in Scenario 1 there is $82.2 million in operating revenue and $65.6 million in
operating costs, resulting in a net surplus of$16.5 million. While there is$11.7 million in capital revenue
and $37.3 million in capital costs, resulting in a net deficit of $25.5 million. The operating and capital
results are combined at the bottom of the figure to calculate the total fiscal impact. It is estimated that
Scenario 1 will generate a negative fiscal impact of$9 million and Scenario 2 will generate a negative fiscal
impact of$13 million.
-
Tisch rase 20
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Figure:1.2.Curnalat ve F'csrai krt-patt Results( "able)
30-Year Total Net Fiscal Impact-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12 Growth+1-12
Category Annex Annex
Operating Revenues $82,165 $86,526
Operating Expenditures $65,630 $73,317
OPERATING NET FISCAL IMPACT $16,535 $13,209
Capital Revenues $11,734 $12,195
Capital Expenditures $37,271 $38,419
CAPITAL NET FISCAL IMPACT ($25,538) ($26,224)
GRAND TOTAL NET FISCAL IMPACT ($9,002) ($13,015)
Much of the operating expenditures is from new staffing needed to accommodate the growth and keep
the current levels of service. There are similar new staffing needs in both scenarios, however, the larger
level of annexation in Scenario 2 result in slightly more staff hires. In both scenarios, policing services
require the highest personnel need (14 new hires in Scenario 1 and 15 new hires in Scenario 2).There is
staffing needs in the Public Works, Clerks, Planning & Zoning, and Recreation Departments as well.
Additionally, the need for more Library personnel is included in the analysis, but costs are captured by
analyzing the overall personnel cost to operate a new library, rather than specific staffing thresholds.
Figure:11.'Sun/I/vary of New Staffing Hires
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Department
INew Hires Department New Hires
Clerk Clerk
Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer 2 Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer 2
Admin Clerk 2 Admin Clerk 2
Planning&Zoning Planning&Zoning
Planner 3 Planner 3
Public Works Public Works
Technician 3 Technician 4
Parks Seasonal Tech 2 Parks Seasonal Tech 2
Police Police
Sergeant 2 Sergeant 2
Detective 2 Detective 2
Deputy 8 Deputy 9
Code Enforcement 2 Code Enforcement 2
Recreation Recreation
Recreation Coordinator 2 Recreation Coordinator 2
Grand Total 28 Grand Total 30
T,sch Rise 21
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
As shown above, sufficient revenues are generated to cover operating costs. This is not uncommon for
jurisdictions and often easier to "solve for" than operating deficits. For instance, it is often easier to
identify and implement specific revenue sources that can be earmarked for capital purposes(e.g., impact
fees)as well as designate a portion of an existing revenue source(e.g.,property taxes)for a specific capital
purpose.
A list of capital needs and costs is shown below in the next two figures. Facilities needed to serve new
growth are reflected. For capital improvements that are purchased—vehicles,equipment,etc.,the model
and results do include both the initial purchase cost and the cost to replace the item after it reaches its
useful life.The costs shown below include both initial purchase and replacements, where applicable.
Overall,the Parks&Recreation facility demand results in over 70 percent of the total capital improvement
need. Additionally, there are significant impacts for road and pedestrian improvements and library
branches.
Fagg:14.Summary of'Ca;{ it��il rprtvement Needs—Ste'i atro 11
Scenario 1
Department j New Facility! Units j Cost
General Government
City Hall 3,000_Square Feet $776,000
Library
Library Branches 12,000 Square Feet $2,720,000
Library Items 35,000 Items $750,000
Book Mobile 0.3 Units $117,500
Parks&Recreation
Development Park Land and Improvements 50.0 Acres $13,802,000
Greenway concrete Trail 6.5 Miles $5,379,000
Asphalt Paved Trail 6.5 Miles $3,729,000
Natural Surface Trail 2.5 Mlles $409,500
Sports Complex 22.0 Acres $3,132,000
Senior Center 3,500 Square Feet $531,000
Parks & Rec Admin Building 600 Square Feet $116,400
Police
Facility Space 1,100 Square Feet $435,695
Weaponry 6 Units $19,800
Public Works
Equipment 16 Units $212,000
Transportation
Development Proportionate Share Program Road Projects $1,596,706
Development Proportionate Share Program Ped& Bike Projects $3,544,875
Grand Total $37,271,476
22
Tischlereise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
rigure:IS:Stantrtary of Cap4tal trItOroveretent!Deeds-Scenario:2
Scenario 2
Department (- 't y Units i Cost
General Government
City Hall F 3,500 Square Feet $873,000
Library
Library Branches 11,500 Square Feet $2,550,000
Library Items 35,000 Items $650,000
Book Mobile 0.3 Units $117,500
Parks&Recreation
Development Park Land and Improvements 50.0 Acres $13,802,000
Greenway Concrete Trail 6.8 Miles $5,705,000
Asphalt Paved Trail 6.8 Miles $3,955,000
Natural Surface Trail 2.8 Mlles $472,500
Sports Complex 22.0 Acres $3,132,000
Senior Center 4,000 Square Feet $649,000
Parks &Rec Admin Building 600 Square Feet $116,400
Police
Facility Space 1,100 Square Feet $435,695
Weaponry 7 Units $23,400
Public Works
Equipment 16 Units $212,000
Transportation
Development Proportionate Share Program Road Projects $1,899,412
Development Proportionate Share Program Ped&Bike Projects $3,825,927
Grand Total $38,418,834
23
Tischier ise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Average Mil/LW]iFisca/J Impact Results
Results are also presented on an average annual basis—over four time periods: Years 1-10, Years 11-20,
Years 21-30; and over the entire projection period, Years 1-30. The fiscal results in Figure 16 include
operating and capital impacts.
The results in the figure illustrate the pattern seen when analyzing the non-cumulative results year over
year.There are large annual revenues being generated in the first half of the analysis which result in large
positive fiscal impacts to the City of Eagle. There is nearly a net neutral impact in the mid-term. In the
Years 21-30,the annual average impact decreases significantly because of increasing operating costs,new
capital costs, and capital replacement costs.
i`gure-1tri.Ave••rage:Annual:Fisch Impact Results
Average Annual Net Fiscal Impact
10-Year Intervals
City of Eagle, ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
$600
$384
$400
�5302
$200
$0 mew
\Ceats.1-1d
($200) ($84) 111111
($229)
G (5400) r - ($300)
ri
- ($600) ($434)
($800)
($1,000)
($1,200)
($1,201)
($1,400)
($1,374)
($1,600) —
Growth+4-12 Annex :Growth+1-12 Annex
Tisch Else 24
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Stabilized Year ; fiscal impact
The stabilization year represents the year after all the development has occurred. Thus, the net fiscal
impacts in the stabilization year represent the on-going impact of the growth without the one-time
revenues related to development and new capital costs. The net fiscal impacts include the on-going
revenues (such as property tax)and the on-going operating costs and capital replacement.
Shown in Figure 17, there is an annual on-going revenue of$3.6 million in Scenario 1 and $3.8 million in
Scenario 2. However, there is about $5.5 million in on-going expenditures in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2,
resulting in a net deficit to the City of Eagle. The deficit being $1.8 million annually. The negative results
found in the stabilization year is indicative of the downward pressure illustrated in the out years of the
projection period.
Figure:17.Net Fiscal Impact of Stabilization Year
Stabilization Year-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12 Growth+1-12
Category ' . _ Annex
ANNUAL REVENUES $3,615 $3,761
ANNUAL EXP(OP.+CAP REPL.) $5,458 $5,597
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($1,843) ($1,836)
schle ise 25
Tl
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
IV., REVENUE DETAIL & IVIETHODOLO IE.
This chapter provides detail on projection methodologies for revenue included in the analysis. Growth-
related revenues are modeled in this analysis in the following funds:
• General Fund
• Special Revenue Funds:
o Library Department
Other funds that are not included are either Enterprise Funds (self-sustaining), Internal Service Funds, or
considered fixed (unaffected by growth).
General Fund Revenue Methodologies
es
A snapshot of the City General Fund from the model is shown below by specific category and line item.
The table shows the specific revenue category and source, base year(FY2021) budget amount, projection
methodology, and the level of service (LOS) standard, or dollar per demand unit. For instance, for those
categories projected based on "POPULATION," the current budget amount is divided by the estimated
population for base year 2020. For example, the Trash Franchise Fee amount of$239,680 is divided by
the base year population (32,560) to yield a per capita cost factor of$7.36, which is then used to project
future revenue from this source from future population growth.
figure i.&General fund Revenues
LOS Std
Revenue Revenue Base Year Project Using $ per
Category Name Budget Amount Which Demand Base? Demand Unit
Property Tax Property Tax $2,481,020 CUMUL AV $0.0004443'
Penalty and Interest on Property Taxes $3,000 FIXED $0.00
•
$2,492,483 Personal Property Tax Reimbursement $8,463 FIXED $0.00
Franchise Fees Eagle Water $10,430 POP AND JOBS $0.25
Suez Water $19,000 POP AND JOBS $0.45
Gas $260,000 POP AND JOBS $6.20
Cable $98,700 POP AND JOBS $2.35
Trash $239,680 POPULATION $7.36
•
$839,810 Idaho Power $212,000 POP AND JOBS $5.06
Intergovernmental State Revenue Sharing $2,105,889 FIXED $0.00
State Sales Tax $573,939 POPULATION $19.77
•
$3,205,624 State Liquor $525,796 FIXED $0.00
Building Dept. Building Permits $1,250,000 DIRECT ENTRY $0.00
Permits&Fees Plan Review Fee-Bldg Dept $437,500 DIRECT ENTRY $0.00
Energy Standards $25,000 FIXED $0.00
ACHD Impact Processing Fees $0 POP AND JOBS $0.00
Fire Impact Processing Fees $10,000 POP AND JOBS ' $0.24
Plumbing Inspection Fees $205,000 DIRECT ENTRY $0.00
Electrical Inspection Fees $205,000 DIRECT ENTRY $0.00
•
$2,337,500 Mechanical Inspection Fees $205,000 DIRECT ENTRY $0.00
CUMUL AV=Cumulative Assessed Value of real property
--� 26
TischlerB se
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report-Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
i;igure 19.General Fund Revenues cone.
LOS Std
Revenue Revenue BaseYear Project Using $per
Category Name Budget Amount Which Demand Base? Demand Unit
P&Z Dept.Permits Annex/Zoning Permits $161,500 POP AND JOBS $3.85
&Fees PZ Inspection Fees $5,500 POP AND JOBS $0.13
PZ Plan Review Fees $30,000 POP AND JOBS $0.72
Drainage Review Fees $18,000 POP AND JOBS $0.43
Street Light Inspection Fees $834 POP AND JOBS $0.02
Surety/Letter of Credit Fees $3,000 POP AND JOBS $0.07
$218,834 Avimor Staff Time Reimbursement $0 FIXED $0.00
Court Fines&Fees City Court Fines&Fees $44,000 POP AND JOBS $1.05
Citation Fees/Code Enforcement $1,000 POP AND JOBS $0.02
♦ $47,000 Weed Abatement $2,000 FIXED $0.00
Licenses&Permits Alcoholic Beverage License $30,000 FIXED $0.00
♦
$49,000 Business License $19,000 FIXED $0.00
Sustainability& Republic Services-Add Programs $0 FIXED $0.00
Conservation Tree Fund $0 FIXED $0.00
♦
$0 Arbor Day Tree City USA Grant $0 FIXED $0.00
Miscellaneous URA Reimbursement-Staff&Costs $0 FIXED $0.00
Permits&Fees CID Reimbursement-Staff&Costs $5,000 FIXED $0.00
Engineering Fees Collected from Developers $100,000 FIXED $0.00
Attorney Fees Collected from Developers $10,000 FIXED $0.00
Miscellaneous Permits/Fees/Licenses $4,000 FIXED $0.00
Id Power Substation/Water usage $120 FIXED $0.00
Animal License Fees $15,000 POPULATION $0.46
Reimbursement Water Department $12,803 FIXED $0.00
Pressurized Irrigation Reimburse Guerber Pk $6,700 FIXED $0.00
♦ $153,823 Background Checks $200 POP AND JOBS $0.00
Charges for Services Printing,Duplication and Publishing $500 POP AND JOBS $0.01
$800 Miscellaneous $300 POP AND JOBS $0.01
Investment Bank Investment Interest $6,000 FIXED $0.00
Grants Grants/Matching Funds $50,000 FIXED $0.00
♦ $150,000 Matching Grants $100,000 FIXED $0.00
Miscellaneous Room Reservations $766 FIXED $0.00
$2,266 Miscellaneous Reimburseables $1,500 FIXED $0.00
Restricted Funds Scholarship Funds $14,161 FIXED $0.00
Park Reserve Park Reserve $0 FIXED $0.00
Cash Reserve Cash Reserve $1,076,654 FIXED $0.00
Operating Account Operating Account _ $1,000,000 FIXED $0.00
Carry Forward Carry Forward $13,239,028 FIXED $0.00
TOTAL $24,832,983
Customized/Marginal Revenue Calculations for General Fund
Revenues are projected assuming that the current revenue structure and tax rates,as defined by the FY21
budget, will not change during the analysis period. The following details the custom methodology used
for certain revenue streams
• Property Tax is projected based on the respective cumulative assessed values(see below for
additional detail) of the property projected in the scenarios. Cumulative assessed values are
Tisch BIse 27
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
multiplied by the current City tax rate. As shown in Figure 20, assessed values for residential
real property and nonresidential real property were projected separately to allow for
comparison by type of development.Assessed values have been provided by the Ada County
Assessor's Office.
o Furthermore, homeowner's exemptions are included in the analysis to reduce the
assessed value being contributed to the City's tax base.
o Also, State of Idaho House Bill 389 (2021) introduced further reductions to how the
value of new construction is added to a City's tax base and taxing capacity. By
recommendation from City staff, HB389 is included in the analysis by assuming only
90 percent of the taxable value of the new development is included in the first year.
In the future years, the taxable amount goes to 100 percent of the value.
`Figure 20. Assessed Vatues'by Development Type
Development Type , Value Per Unit
Single Family Detached (5+acres) $1,295,700
Single Family Detached (Conservation) $555,550
Single Family Detached (1 &2 acres) $1,017,633
Single Family Detached (0.5-0.99 acres) $1,034,606
Single Family Detached(0.1-0.49 acres) $560,722
Single Family Attached $329,743
Multifamily-Suburban $159,499
Multifamily-Downtown $93,242
Source:Ada County Assessors Office,November 2020
Development Type J Value Per Sq.Ft
Big Box Retail SF $141
Small Scale Retail SF $265
Restaurant SF $610
Bar SF $320
Commercial Entertainment SF $246
Hotel SF $252
Gym&Health Club SF $131
Office SF $169
Medical/Out-Patient Office SF $284
Hospital SF $337
Industrial SF $58
Self-Storage Mini-Warehousing SF $41
Assissted Living $210
Day Care $210
Small Scale Grocer $265
Gas Station W/C Store $265
Source:Ada County Assessors Office,November 2020
• State Sales Tax: In Idaho, sales tax is collected by the State and transferred to communities
based on a complex formula in which a portion of the appropriated funds are fixed and a
portion is based on the community's population.As such,only a portion of the sales tax in the
Tisch Base
28
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
City of Eagle's budget is considered to be impacted by growth and specifically residential
growth. Based on an analysis of 2020 sales tax appropriation, the variable amount from the
State to cities was $19.77 per capita. This is assumed to continue through the projection
period of the analysis.
® Building Permit, Plan Review, and Inspections Fees: Development-related revenues are a
large share of the City's operating budget. To best represent the estimate revenues from
building permits, plan reviews, and inspections, the City's fee schedule is referenced.
Furthermore,the Avimor group provided calculations for building permit and plan review fees
which have been directly entered into the model and made available through the City's
estimator calculator.
Special Revenue Funds Methodologies
The fiscal impact analysis includes other revenues from Special Revenue Funds, capturing revenues that
are anticipated to be generated from growth. In this case, the Library Department is the only growth-
related fund included in the analysis.The fund receives property tax to fund the majority of its operations.
Figure"21.-Special Revenue Funds
LOS Std
Revenue Revenue Base Year Project Using $ per
Category Name Budget Amount Which Demand Base? Demand Unit
Library Department Property Taxes $1,512,079 CUMUL AV $0.0002706
Other Revenues $7,950 FIXED $0.00
Carry Forward $75,000 FIXED $0.00
$2,035,029 Reserve Funds $440,000 FIXED $0.00
CUMUL AV=Cumulative Assessed Value of real property
Capitol Revenue Funds Methodologies
The three impact fee revenue funds are included under Capital Revenue Funds.The revenue projections
are based on the specific fees by development type and directing entered in the model.
lgure 22.Caplital Revenue Funds
LOS Std
Revenue Revenue Base Year Project Using $ per
Categor Name Budget Amount Which Demand Base? Demand Unit
Park Fund Development Impact Fees $675,885 DIRECT ENTRY $0.00
Bank Interest $2,500 FIXED ' $0.00
$3,176,056 Carry Over $2,497,671 FIXED ' $0.00
Pathway Fund Development Impact Fees $165,250 DIRECT ENTRY $0.00
Bank Interest $800 FIXED $0.00
Carry Over $403,514 FIXED ' $0.00
$669,564 IDPR Grant $100,000 FIXED ' $0.00
Police Impact Fee Development Impact Fees $113,164 DIRECT ENTRY $0.00
$113,264 Bank Interest $100 FIXED ' $0.00
29
Tlschle Ise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
REVENUE OUTPUTS
This section details revenue outputs from the Fiscal Impact Analysis.
Revenue Projections
The following figures illustrate the projected revenues in the City's General Fund and other Funds
modeled. Results are shown as a cumulative total over the 30-year projection period. Overall, Scenario 1
generates$93.9 million in total revenue and Scenario 2 generates$98.7 million in total revenue.
figure'21 Revenue ProlectiOns by Scenario
30-Year Total Revenue-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12 owth+1-12
Categor. Annex % Annex %
General Fund Revenue $67,066 71% $70,271 71%
Special Revenues $15,099 16% $16,255 16%
Capital Revenues $11,734 12% $12,195 12%
CUMULATIVE TOTAL $93,899 100% $98,721 100%
For both scenarios, property tax (captured in the General Fund and Library Special Revenue Fund) and
development-related fees account for the vast majority of operating revenue. For example, in Scenario 1
property tax totals$39.9 million while the one-time development-related fees total $28.8 million.
!Kure.24.General Fund Revenue Summary
30-Year Cumulative Operating Revenues-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12 Growth+1-12
Category Annex % Annex %
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $24,791 37% $26,689 38%
Franchise Fees $6,926 10% $7,567 11%
Intergovernmental $5,960 9% $6,404 9%
Building Dept. Permits & Fees $28,775 43% $28,945 41%
P &Z Dept.Permits & Fees $114 0% $120 0%
Court Fines & Fees $353 1% $389 1%
Miscellaneous Permits & Fees $140 0% $151 0%
Charges for Services $6 0% $7 0%
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $67,066 100% $70,271 100%
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND REVENUES $15,099 $16,255
GRAND TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $82,165 $86,526
Tisch se 30
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
71.1. EXPENDITURE DETAIL & METHODOLOGIES
This chapter provides detail on projection methodologies for expenditures included in the analysis.
Growth-related costs are modeled in this analysis in the following funds:
• General Fund
• Special Revenue Funds:
o Library Department
Other funds that are not included are either Enterprise Funds (self-sustaining), Internal Service Funds, or
considered fixed (unaffected by growth).
Expenditure Methodologies
For most City departments, operations and personnel costs are projected separately. A summary of the
approach is provided below. It should be noted that many departments have some portion of their budget
that is considered "fixed" and will not increase with growth. That is, existing operations will be able to
absorb a portion of additional impacts from growth in the City. In the figure below,"fixed"is only indicated
for those categories that are considered entirely"fixed."
There are several departments which personnel costs are assumed to be affected by the growth.However,
a majority of departments are assumed to have fixed personnel costs. In this case, capacity already exists
to accommodate the additional demand or the department is not considered to be directly impacted by
growth.
Figure 25. General fund Operating Expenditures.Approach
'Personnel
Department Fixed Population, Jobs Pop&Jobs I Direct Entry l Other 1 Included?
General Administration x No
Economic Development _ x No
IT x No
Executive Office _ x No
Clerk x Yes
Building Department x No
Planning&Zoning x Yes
Public Works x x 'Vehicle Trips,City Hall Yes
Sq.Ft.,Park Acres
Eagle Fun Day x No
Special Events x Yes
Recreation x Yes
Museum x No
Arts x No
Police Contract PoliceCalls Yes
Tischl rise 31
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
,F:tee-26.S• -ail ReverTue Fur rds;O a rati:11g Co et t itci`rts • •••r oarh
--T.._ � .__ Personnel
I Department Fixed Population Jobs Pop&Jobs!Direct Entry Other Included?
Li bra r x _-- Librar Sq.Ft. Yes
CopItol Expenditures
Capital costs and infrastructure improvements to serve new development are modeled based on demand
generated by the future growth scenarios.This section provides further detail on capital cost assumptions
used in the Fiscal Impact Analysis. Capital facilities, infrastructure,vehicles, and equipment are projected
for General Government, Library, Parks& Recreation, Police, Public Works, and Transportation.
Many of the assumptions on which the analysis is based can be viewed as policy-making decision points,
which if modified would affect the overall results. For example, most of the capital expenditures assumed
in the analysis, and the resulting costs (assumed in most cases as debt financed), are projected
independent of the current capital improvement programs and debt capacity guidelines. Rather, the
capital costs projected in this analysis reflect the potential cost to serve new growth, regardless of
whether the resources are available to cover the costs.The City will continue to balance its annual budgets
considering financial guidelines and policies, applicable operating impacts,and available resources.
An important aspect of the capital expenditure methodology is that the funding of new facilities will be
"front-loaded." In other words, the projects will be paid in full in the year that they are constructed.
Although, in reality the City may debt finance projects. However, including debt financing in the model
may lead to the model underestimating the capital costs. For example, if a project is triggered for
construction in Year 22 and it is debt financed for 20 years, only 8 of those years will be captured in the
30-year analysis, resulting in less than half of the project's true cost to be reflected in the analysis.
Furthermore,only facilities for departments that are funded through the City's General Fund are included
in the analysis. Costs for capital improvement needs from Enterprise Funds (e.g., sewer and water) are
assumed to be covered by the utility rates charged to users.
General Government
• For General Government there is one facility component included in the analysis:
1 o City Hall (13,539 square feet)
• The estimated cost for future expansion for each facility is based on the current facility's
replacement cost.
• The model has programmed the City Hall to be modeled based on city hall staff.
Additionally, the City plans to expand the City Hall to allow for 400 square feet per
employee. That has been programmed in the model to more accurately capture the
capital needs for any new city hall employee triggered by future development.
Tisch Rise 32
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Library
® There are three capital components to the library facilities analysis:
o Library branches (16,300 square feet), library items (90,000 items), book mobile
(1 vehicle)
• The estimated cost for future expansion for each facility is based on the current facility's
replacement cost.
® From interviews with library staff, there is a potential for three new library branches by
2040. To capture these future expansions to the library system, the estimated square
footage of the future branches and the current branch (a total of 53,900 square feet) is
compared to the estimated 2040 population of Eagle (73,367 residents). As a result, the
future level of service is 0.73 square feet per resident.
• Library items are projected to grow as new library branch square feet is triggered in the
model.
• Lastly, the City plans to purchase a bookmobile. The level of service is based on the
current population.
Parks and Recreation
• There are a variety of parks and recreation facilities included in the fiscal impact model:
o Park land and park improvements (population)
o Paved and natural surface trails (population)
o Sports complex(population)
o Senior Center(population)
o Parks and Recreation offices (parks and recreation staff)
• The level of service for parks and trails is based on the adopted level of service in the City
of Eagle's impact fee schedule.
• The sports complex is a future project that is attributed to the projected 2040 citywide
population (73,367 residents).
• The office space is based on current staff levels.
• Park land costs are consistent with City expectation of the cost if the City were to purchase
more land.
• Park improvement costs are calculated based on a recent plan for the West Eagle Park.
Police
• Although the City is contracting its policing services to Ada County Sheriff's Office,the City
is collecting an impact fee to help offset its capital needs and upcoming costs from the
Sheriff's Office.
• Although relatively small capital needs,the fiscal impact model includes new facility space
for patrol officers and weaponry.
33
Tisch Bise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Public Works
• The Public Works portion of the capital facilities analysis includes heavier equipment that
would not be included in the department's capital outlay expenses.
• The inventory total 39 items and includes items such as a forklift and brush mowers.The
average cost per item is$4,000.The level of service and demand base programmed in the
model is based on the current developed park acres in Eagle.
Transportation
• The City of Eagle has introduced a new program to help fund road and pedestrian
projects. The Development Proportionate Share Contribution Program includes a series
of local projects that will need significant funding from the City and require the City to
take lead in construction as they are not part of the impact fee ordinance at the Ada
County Highway District. The projects included are new local connections that if not for
growth would not be needed.
• However,since a portion of the new road and pedestrian improvements are from existing
demand and will be used by existing development, only growth's proportionate share is
captured in the fiscal impact model.
• Growth's proportionate share is found by calculating a capital cost based on Eagle's
projected demand in 2040.
• Shown first in Figure 27 is the project list for the Program. In total,there is$7.9 million in
road projects and $11.3 million in pedestrian and bike projects.
o Furthermore, after the Avimor development group reviewed a previous project
list, one road project was removed.
.' rgure 27,Development Proportionate Share Contribution Program Prole t list
Projects Cost
Aikens (2023) $604,000
Eagle/State(2023) $2,210,000
Olde Park(2030) $1,691,954
Idaho Street(2035) $2,420,250
1st street(2023) $984,690
State Street sidewalk(south side 2nd to Stierman)(2026) $671,500
SH-44 Grade Separated ped/Bike x-i ng(2035) $7,500,000
Eagle Road-N.Channel ped/bike bridge(2023) $3,083,000
Total City Cost
Road Projects $7,910,894
Ped&Bike Projects $11,254,500
34
Tischfese
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
• In the next figure,the 2020 vehicle trips in Eagle are multiplied by the estimated increase
in population and jobs from 2020 to 2040 (125 percent). The population projection
through 2040 was provided by the City of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan (2017).
Figure 28,City of Eagle Growth Projections
City of Eagle { 2020 2040 Increase
Population 32,560 73,367 125%
Jobs 9,362 21,095 125%
Vehicle Trips 120,037 299,613 150%
Source: Eagle Comp Plan, 2017;Jobs assumed to
keep population to job ratio with growth
® The cost factors for the fiscal impact model are calculated by comparing the total vehicle
trips in 2040 to the road projects cost and the total population and jobs in 2040 to the
pedestrian and bike projects cost. As a result, there is a capital cost for road projects of
$26.40 per vehicle trip and a capital cost for pedestrian and bike projects of$119.14 per
population and job.
35
Tisch Rise
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
V it EXPENDITURE OUTPUTS
.
This section details expenditure outputs from the Fiscal Impact Analysis.
Operating and Capital Expenditure Projections
Operating and capital expenditure results are provided in this section based on the expenditure
methodologies discussed above.
The 30-year cumulative total for operating expenditures is shown in Figure 29.Overall,the Police Contract
(with Ada County Sheriff's Office), Public Works Department, Library Department (listed under Special
Revenue Funds), and General Administration are the largest cost centers. Overall, Scenario 1 generates
$65.6 million in operating costs and Scenario 2 generates $73.3 million. Scenario 2 generates more costs
than Scenario 1 because of the higher level of growth in the annexation areas in the scenario.
figure;2 'Operating iExpen►diitare Profections by Scenario
30-Year Total Operating Expenditures-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12
Categor Annex % " a %
General Administration $6,316 11% $6,918 11%
Economic Development $226 0% $249 0%
IT $0 0% $0 0%
Executive Office $30 0% $33 0%
Clerk $1,527 3% $1,938 3%
Building Department $5,282 9% $5,400 8%
Planning&Zoning $3,914 7% $4,250 7%
Public Works $9,845 17% $10,792 17%
Eagle Fun Day $823 1% $884 1%
Special Events $576 1% $619 1%
Recreation $2,356 4% $2,578 4%
Museum $0 0% $0 0%
Arts $717 1% $770 1%
Police Contract $25,585 45% $30,088 47%
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPS $57,195 100% $64,518 100%
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND EXPS $8,434 $8,799
GRAND TOTAL OPERATING EXPS $65,630 $73,317
A significant portion of the operating costs generated in the fiscal impact analysis is from new personnel
hires to accommodate growth and keep the current levels of service. In Figure 30, the new hires in each
scenario are listed. In both scenarios, police services (being contracted by the Ada County) requires the
most staffing hires to keep the current levels of service.Additionally,the Public Works Department,Clerk
Department, Planning & Zoning Department, and Recreation Department need increase staffing to
Tisch Rise 36
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
accommodate the growth. Also, the analysis finds that the Library Department will need new personnel
to serve new library branches, but the analysis included total personnel costs for a new library and did not
include specific library staffing in the analysis.
Importantly,the new personnel triggered in the analysis is based on the current levels of service, business
operations, and demand factors. Certain future decisions, such as City moving from contracting policing
services to establishing their own Police Department, may affect these results. Also, the demand factors
for the land uses in the model have been programmed with a high level of detail, however, if the Avimor
development is unique compared to existing Eagle development (e.g., police calls for service) that will
affect the results as well.
Figure 30.'Summary of New Staff Hires
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Department i New Hires Department New Hires
Clerk Clerk
Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer 2 Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer 2
Admin Clerk 2 Admin Clerk 2
Planning&Zoning Planning&Zoning
Planner 3 Planner 3
Public Works Public Works
Technician 3 Technician 4
Parks Seasonal Tech 2 Parks Seasonal Tech 2
Police Police
Sergeant 2 Sergeant 2
Detective 2 Detective 2
Deputy 8 Deputy 9
Code Enforcement 2 Code Enforcement 2
Recreation Recreation
Recreation Coordinator I 2 Recreation Coordinator 2
Grand Total 28 Grand Total 30
Below in Figure 31 and Figure 32 are the capital facility needs for the City of Eagle to accommodate the
growth in each scenario. Included in the figures are the new facility needs and cost to construct the new
facility and the cost the replace the facility based on the replacement schedule for the facility type. The
majority of the facility needs is for Parks & Recreation facilities (72 percent in both scenarios).
Transportation and Library needs are significant as well. Overall,there is a $37.3 million need in Scenario
1 and $38.4 million need in Scenario 2.
37
Tlschler8 se
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Figure :1:Varamaty of Capital improvement Needs-Stenatio:1
Scenario 1
Department 'New Facility I Units Cost
General Government
City Hall 3,000 Square Feet $776,000
Library
Library Branches 12,000 Square Feet $2,720,000
Library Items 35,000 Items $750,000
Book Mobile 0.3 Units $117,500
Parks&Recreation
Development Park Land and Improvements 50.0 Acres $13,802,000
Greenway Concrete Trail 6.5 Miles $5,379,000
Asphalt Paved Trail 6.5 Miles $3,729,000
Natural Surface Trail 2.5 Mlles $409,500
Sports Complex 22.0 Acres $3,132,000
Senior Center 3,500 Square Feet $531,000
Parks & Rec Admin Building 600 Square Feet $116,400
Police
Facility Space 1,100 Square Feet $435,695
Weaponry 6 Units $19,800
Public Works
Equipment 16 Units $212,000
Transportation
Development Proportionate Share Program Road Projects $1,596,706
Development Proportionate Share Program Ped& Bike Projects $3,544,875
Grand Total $37,271,476
Tlschl rise 38
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
figure 2.Smeary of Cape&Improvement Needs SStnarxo.2
Scenario 2
Department :! Cost
General Government
City Hall 3,500 Square Feet $873,000
Library
Library Branches 11,500 Square Feet $2,550,000
Library Items 35,000 Items $650,000
Book Mobile 0.3 Units $117,500
Parks&Recreation
Development Park Land and Improvements 50.0 Acres $13,802,000
Greenway Concrete Trail 6.8 Miles $5,705,000
Asphalt Paved Trail 6.8 Miles $3,955,000
Natural Surface Trail 2.8 Mlles $472,500
Sports Complex 22.0 Acres $3,132,000
Senior Center 4,000 Square Feet $649,000
Parks & Rec Admin Building 600 Square Feet $116,400
Police
Facility Space 1,100 Square Feet $435,695
Weaponry 7 Units $23,400
Public Works
Equipment 16 Units $212,000
Transportation
Development Proportionate Share Program Road Projects $1,899,412
Development Proportionate Share Program Ped& Bike Projects $3,825,927
Grand Total $38,418,834
TischlerBise 39
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC AND DATA ASSUMPTIONS
The table below summarizes estimates of the base year population, housing units, employment,
nonresidential space, and facility factors in the City of Eagle.These estimated values serve as the basis for
the fiscal impact analysis and are used to determine the cost and revenue factors used in the analysis.
figure 3.1 Ease Year Input Data
Population[1] POPULATION 32,560
JOBS 9,362
POP AND JOBS 41,922
Housing Units by Type[2] SINGLE FAMILY 11,005
MULTIFAMILY 1,406
TOTAL HOUSING 12,411
Jobs by Type[1] RETAI L JOBS 2,661
OFFICE JOBS 5,015
INDUSTRIAL JOBS 723
INSTITUTIONAL JOBS 962
TOTAL JOBS 9,362
Nonresidential Floor Area[2] RETAIL SF 1,620,439
OFFICE SF 828,630
INDUSTRIAL SF 596,737
INSTITUTIONAL SF 669,978
TOTAL NR KSF 3,715,784
Vehicle Trips[3] RESI DENTIAL TRIPS 85,044
NONRES TRIPS 34,992
VEHICLE TRIPS 120,037
Facility Factors[4] DEVELOPED PARK ACRES 111
PARKS& REC STAFF 8
LIBRARY SQUARE FEET 16,300
CITY HALL STAFF 41
CITY HALL SQ. FT. 13,539
PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT 39
Public Safety Factors[5] TOTAL POLICE CALLS 5,065
[1]COMPASS Estimate
[2] COMPASS GIS Database plus new development from Ada County
Assessor's Office
[3] Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual,2017
[4]City of Eagle
[5]Ada County Sheriff's Office
40
TischlerBase
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Residential Household Size and Vehicle Trip Rates
Listed in Figure 34 lists the persons per housing unit and vehicle trip rates for the housing types included
in the analysis.The household size is used to project population from the housing growth included in each
scenario. Figure 34 shows household size assumptions by type of unit.The persons per housing unit factor
(PPHU) is applied to housing units to estimate population growth. A recent study found that the existing
development in the Avimor area is generating about 6.23 vehicle trip ends per housing unit. This is
included into the fiscal impact analysis along with an adjustment factor to only include residential related
trips.
Figure 34-.City of Eagle Household Sire and Vehicle trip Rates
Persons per Vehicles Vehicle Trips
Housing Type Housing Unit Eli per Unit(1] per Unit [2]
Single Family Detached(5+acres) 3.00 2.68 4.69
Single Family Detached(Conservation) 2.92 2.52 4.42
Single Family Detached(1 &2 acres) 2.92 2.52 4.42
Single Family Detached(0.5-0.99 acres) 2.77 2.21 3.87
Single Family Detached(0.1-0.49 acres) 2.69 2.06 3.60
Single Family Attached 2.23 1.69 2.96
Multifamily-Suburban 2.14 1.44 1.32
Multifamil -Downtown [3] 1.82 1.22 0.94
[1] US Census,American Community Survey Public Use Mircodata (PUM),2013-2018
[2] US Census,American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,2013-2018;Trips are
adjusted based on number vehicles per unit compared to average single family and
multifamily housing type.
[3]Source:COMPASS TAZ data;Household sizes for units 2 miles from downtown were
85%of the citywide household size in Boise. Urban and mixed use developments receive
a 29%trip reduction for internal trip capture,Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Residential Vehicle Trips Adjustment Factors
A vehicle trip end is the out-bound or in-bound leg of a vehicle trip. As a result, a standard 50 percent
adjustment is applied to trip ends to calculate a vehicle trip so as to not double count trips. For example,
the out-bound trip from a person's home to work is attributed to the housing unit and the trip from work
back home is attributed to the employer.
However, an additional adjustment is necessary to capture City residents' work bound trips that are
outside of the City. The trip adjustment factor includes two components. According to the National
Household Travel Survey(2009), home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of out-bound trips(which
are 50 percent of all trip ends). By using data from the US Census American Community Survey,90 percent
of Eagle workers travel outside the City for work. In combination, these factors account for 14 percent of
additional production trips(0.31 x 0.50 x 0.90=0.14).Shown in Figure 35, the total adjustment factor for
residential housing units includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work
commuting adjustment(14 percent of production trips) for a total of 64 percent.
TischlerBise 41
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report-Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Agate 3-5:'taip AttittStmetit aatfiot.for COMMOterS
Employed Eagle Residents (2017) 8,932
Eagle Residents Working in the City(2017) 872
Eagle Residents Commuting Outside of the City for Work 8,060
Percent Commuting out of the City 90%
Additional Production Trips 14%
Standard Trip Adjustment Factor 50%
Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 64%
Source:U.S.Census,OnTheMap Application, 2017
Nonresidential residential Employee Density Factors and Vehicle Trip Rates
Employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space are used to project future employment.
Projected nonresidential square footage by type of development is converted to employment by using
the employee density figures found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation (2017)
are shown in Figure 36.Vehicle trip rates are included in the figure as well.
Figure IS. Employee'Density''Factors and Vehicle Trip Rates
Jobs per Vehicle Trips per
Development Type ITE Code 1,000 Sq.Ft. 1,000 So.Ft.
Big Box Retail 820 2.34 11.73
Small Scale Retail (less than 20,000 sq.ft.) 820 2.34 31.27
Restaurant 932 5.28 45.88
Bar 970 2.16 18.80
Commercial Entertainment 444 1.47 31.93
Hotel 310 0.89 5.33
Gym&Health Club 495 1.06 11.79
Office 710 2.97 4.35
Medical/Out-Patient Office 720 4.00 15.55
Hospital 610 2.83 4.79
Industrial 110 1.63 2.22
Self-Storage Mini-Warehousing 151 0.34 0.00
Assisted Living 254 0.84 1.59
Day Care 565 2.23 21.28
Small Scale Grocer 851/850 11.77 135.21
Gas Station W/C Store 945 5.91 447.56
Source:Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,10th Edition (2017)
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips
Instead of applying the generic factor of 50 percent, the retail category has a trip factor of less than 50
percent because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads.
For example,when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work,the convenience
store is not their primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34
percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The
42
Tischlerthse
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
remaining 66 percent of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because
attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or
approximately 33 percent of the trip ends.
Furthermore, based on traffic analysis studies of the existing development at the Avimor site, there are
internal trip factors included to ensure only the trips leaving Avimor are included in the analysis. Based on
the studies,office land use types have an internal trip capture of 11 percent, retail land use types have an
internal trip capture of 18 percent, and the mini-warehousing land use type has an internal trip capture
of 100 percent.
Police Gaffs for Service
Ada County Sheriff's Office provides policing services to the City of Eagle based on a contractual
agreement. Additionally, the Sheriff's Office provided detailed calls for service data, specifically for the
City of Eagle, categorized by the land use of the call's location.There were ten nonresidential land uses in
the dataset, a residential land use, and a traffic land use.
The nonresidential land uses were compared to the existing development (square footage) in Eagle to
determine and average call rate. The total residential calls were compared to the existing population to
calculate a call per capita which is then applied to the persons per housing unit factors for each housing
type. Additionally, from other work TischlerBise has conducted in Ada County, a single family home was
found to generate 95 percent of the average call volume per person, while multifamily developments
generate 146 percent of the average per person.Those factors are included in the analysis as well. Lastly,
traffic calls are attributed to the residential and nonresidential land uses based on vehicle trip generation
factors.
The resulting calls for service rates by land use are found below in Figure 37 and Figure 38.
figure 37.Residential:Pow Call Rates
Residential Calls for Service Projection Factors
calls/unit
Single Family Detached (5+acres) 0.31
Single Family Detached (Conservation) 0.30
Single Family Detached (1 & 2 acres) 0.30
Single Family Detached (0.5-0.99 acres) 0.29
Single Family Detached (0.1-0.49 acres) 0.28
Single Family Attached 0.23
Multifamily-Suburban 0.34
Multifamily-Downtown 0.29
43
Tischlere
Fiscal Impact Analysis Report—Avimor Development
City of Eagle, Idaho
Agufe 38 Nortresri;entrail'Po'rce Carl Rates
Nonresidential Calls for Service Projection Factors
calls/K5F
Big Box Retail 0.22
Small Scale Retail (less than 20,000 sq.ft.) 0.60
Restaurant 0.87
Bar 0.36
Commercial Entertainment 0.61
Hotel 0.46
Gym & Health Club 0.22
Office 0.26
Medical/Out-Patient Office 0.58
Hospital 0.18
Industrial 0.15
Self-Storage Mini-Warehousing 0.00
Assisted Living 0.06
Day Care 0.41
Small Scale Grocer 2.58
Gas Station W/C Store 8.52
Summary of Charges to the Citywide Model
Previously,TischlerBise programmed the fiscal impact model for the City of Eagle to reflect development
and conditions within its current boundaries. However,the unique characteristics of Avimor and available
data about the current development in the Avimor area allowed there to be adjusted to better reflect the
fiscal impact. Listed below, the adjustments included a more precise calculation of the building permit
and plan review fee revenue, adjustments to the vehicle trip demand factors, and adjustments to the
transportation capital analysis. These are Avimor specific adjustments and not applicable to other
developments.
iF gore 39.Summary of Changes to the Citywide Model
Changes to Citywide Model to Reflect Avimor Development
Revenue
Direct entry of building permit and plan review fees [1]
Transportation
Reduction of residential trip rates by 46% [2]
Reduction of retail trip rates by 11%[2]
Reduction of office trip rates by 18% [2]
Reduction of mini-warehouse trip rates by 100% [2]
Removal of a road project in the capital analysis (Palmetto St.)
Adjusted projection of Eagle's future growth to include Avimor
[1] Provided by Avimor development group
[2] Based on a vehicle trip study completed for the existing Avimor
development and traffic impact analysis for future growth
Tischler6se44
--141-2-2-tta21
CG tt\l�
1111.1111111.1111.1111 fa
CITY OF EAGLE — AVIMOR
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
November 16,2021
v w
r u,
M
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANWJr
r. Boise,Idaho I (208)515-/98'.
g.>
1
TischlerBise
FISCAL ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework
• Scenarios Defined
• Results o� o
• Takeaways THE CITY OF
EAGLE
Y S '
2
1
11/22/2021
Tischle Bise
FISCAL ECONOMIC PLANNING
FIA Framework
3
What is a Fiscal Impact Analysis? fA Tischle Ise
" FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• Cash flow to the public sector Land Use
Database and
• Are the revenues generated by Scenarios
new growth enough to cover Demographics
service and facility demands? and Tax Bases
• Reflects operating expenses Operating Cost l Capital Facilities
and Revenue Cost and Revenue
and capital costs Demand Factors Demand Factors
• Forecast expenses needed to Revenue
maintain current LOS Generated
• Revenues and expenditures are Budgetary
Impact
projected separately r out,,
Results
4
2
11/22/2021
What is a Fiscal Impact Anal 4. Tischle Bise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• TischlerBise developed and annual updates Eagle's Fiscal Impact Tool
(FIT)
• FIT was programmed through several rounds of meeting with
department staff
• Includes current budget decisions, adopted & current levels of service,
and citywide capital plans
• Different than economic impact analysis and annual municipal budget
process
5
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC PLANNING
Scenarios Defined
6
3
11/22/2021
Avimor Scenarios -, TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING
Growth+ Growth+
Development Type 4-12 Annex 1-12 Annex
• 30-year growth scenarios Residential Housing Units
Single Family Detached(5+acres) 100 100
Single Family Detached(Conservation) 50 50
•
Scenario 1: Avimor Growth + Annex Single Family Detached(1&2 acres) 450 450
Phases 4-12 Single Family Detached(0.5-0.99 acres) 300 300
Single Family Detached(0.1-0.49 acres) 6,021 6,284
Single Family Attached 294 310
• Scenario 2: Avimor Growth + Annex Multifamily-Suburban 0 15
Multifamily-Downtown 300 300
Phases 1-12 Total Housing Units 7,515 7,809
Total Population 19,988 20,763
Nonresidential Square Feet
• Over 60% increase in population, 20% Small Scale Retail 97,500 123,500
Restaurant 63,000 74,000
increase in jobs Hotel 25,000 25,000
Office 136,000 161,000
Medical/Out-Patient Office 10,000 12,000
Industrial 36,000 36,000
Self-Storage Mini-Warehousing 260,000 260,000
Assissted Living(beds) 125 125
Day Care 10,000 10,000
Small Scale Grocer 50,000 65,000
Gas Station W/C Store 6,500 11,000
Total Square Feet 694,125 777,625
Total lobs 1,824 2,229
7
Avimor Scenarios TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• Adjustments to citywide model ges to Citywide Model to Reflect Avimor Development
Revenue
to reflect Avimor development Direct entry of building permit and plan review fees(1]
Transportation
• Detailed understanding of Reduction of residential trip rates by 46%[2]
Reduction of retail trip rates by 11%[2]
development allowed for precise Reduction of office trip rates by 18%[2]
building permit and plan review Reduction of mini-warehouse trip rates by 100%[2]
Removal of a road project in the capital analysis(Palmetto St.)
fees Adjusted projection of Eagle's future growth to indude Avimor
[1]Provided by Avimor development group
• Traffic studies showed reduction [2]Based on a vehicle trip study completed for the existing Avimor
development and traffic impact analysis for future growth
in vehicle trip generation
• Adjustments to transportation
capital analysis
8
4
11/22/2021
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
FIA Results
9
Annual Results TischlerBiseFISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• Positive results in first 10 years, near net neutral in middle 10, deficit in last 10 years
• Dips and spikes from capital expenditures and one-time revenues
Annual Net Fiscal Impact(Non-Cumulative)
Scenario Comparison
City of Ealge,ID Fiscal Impact Analysis
5?�•
50,0
$fl
r 1
i5t,ttiul ��
IS 4x>try I
-.-Growth.4-12 Mnex -al-G�oHh.i-12 Anner
10
5
11/22/2021
Cumulative Results Tschle Bise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• 30-year cumulative
• Operating surplus, capital deficit,overall net fiscal negative results
• Difference between scenarios is from the annex phases included
30-Year Total Net Fiscal Impact-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12 Growth+1-12
Category Annex Annex
Operating
Operating Revenues $82,165 $86,526
Operating Expenditures $65,630 $73,317
OPERATING NET FISCAL IMPACT $16,535 $13,209
Capital
Capital Revenues $11,734 $12,195
Capital Expenditures $37,271 $38,419
CAPITAL NET FISCAL IMPACT ($25,538) ($26,224)
GRAND TOTAL NET FISCAL IMPACT ($9,002) ($13,015)
11
Stabilization Year Results TischlerBise
L.,,, I F ONOM C, PLANNING
• Year 31, after construction has ended
• Represents the on-going revenues and on-going expenditures(operating costs and capital
replacement)
Stabilization Year-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12 Growth+1-12
Category Annex Annex
ANNUAL REVENUES $3,615 $3,761
ANNUAL EXP(OP.+CAP REPL.) $5,458 $5,597
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($1,843) ($1,836)
12
6
11/22/2021
Operating Revenue Resu s TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• Property tax, captured in General Fund and Library Fund, is about 50%of overall revenues
• One-time building-related fees are over 40%of revenue
30-Year Cumulative Operating Revenues-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth+4-12 Growth+1-12
Category Annex % Annex %
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $24,791 37% $26,689 38%
Franchise Fees $6,926 10% $7,567 11%
Intergovernmental $5,960 9% $6,404 9%
Building Dept.Permits&Fees $28,775 43% $28,945 41%
P&Z Dept.Permits&Fees $114 0% $120 0%
Court Fines&Fees $353 1% $389 1%
Miscellaneous Permits&Fees $140 0% $151 0%
Charges for Services $6 0% $7 0%
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $67,066 100% $70,271 100%
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND REVENUES $15,099 $16,255-
GRAND TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $82,165 $86,526
13
Operating Cost Results Tischler ise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• Police services(contracted through Ada County)accounts for largest share of operating costs
• Public Works, Libraries(under Special Rev Fund), and General Admin significant as well
30-Year Total Operating Expenditures-Scenario Comparisons
City of Eagle Fiscal Impact Model($1,000)
SCENARIO
Growth
Category Anne H,^L. % %
General Administration $6,316 11% $6,918 11%
Economic Development $226 0% $249 0%
IT $0 0% $0 0%
Executive Office $30 0% $33 0%
Clerk $1,527 3% $1,938 3%
Building Department $5,282 9% $5,400 8%
Planning&Zoning $3,914 7% $4,250 7%
Public Works $9,845 17% $10,792 17%
Eagle Fun Day $823 1% $884 1%
Special Events $576 1% $619 1%
Recreation $2,356 4% $2,578 4%
Museum $0 0% $0 0%
Arts $717 1% $770 1%
Police Contract $25,585 45% $30,088 47%
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPS $57,195 100% $64,518 100%
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND EXPS $8,434 $8,799
GRAND TOTAL OPERATING DIPS $65,630 $73,317
14
7
11/22/2021
New Employees TischlerBise
�>€,. FISCAL I ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING
• To continue serving at the current LOS, 28 new employees needed in Scenario 1, 30 employees
in Scenario 2
• Largest impact is in police services
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Department I New Hires Department I New Hires
Clerk Clerk
Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer 2 Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer 2
Admin Clerk 2 Admin Clerk 2
Planning&Zoning Planning&Zoning
Planner I 3 Planner I 3
Public Works Publk Works
Technician 3 Technician 4
Parks Seasonal Tech 2 Parks Seasonal Tech 2
Police Police
Sergeant 2 Sergeant 2
Detective 2 Detective 2
Deputy 8 Deputy 9
Code Enforcement 2 Code Enforcement 2
Recreation Recreation
Recreation Coordinator I 2 Recreation Coordinator I 2
Grand Total 28 Grand Total 30
15
New Capital Facilities ��
TischlerBise
FI`,C4. -(:ON OM IC I PLANNING
• Largest cost center for capital is Parks& Recreation,70%of total (based on adopted LOS)
• Transportation and Libraries significant as well
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Department I New Facility I Units I Cost Department I New Facility) Units I Cost
General Government General Government
City Flail I 3,000jSqua re Feet I $776,000 City Hall I 3,500ISqua re Feet I $873,000
Library Library
Library Branches 12,000 Square Feet $2,720,000 library Branches 11,500 Square Feet $2,550,000
Library Items 35,000 Items $750,000 Library Items 35,000 Items $650,000
Book Mobile 0.3 Units $117,500 Book Mobile 0.3 Units $117,500
Parks&Recreation Parks&Recreation
Development Park Land and Improvements 50.0 Acres $13,802,000 Development Park Land and Improvements 50.0 Acres $13,802,000
Greenway Concrete Trail 6.5 Miles $5,379,000 Greenway Concrete Trail 6.8 Miles $5,705,000
Asphalt Paved Trail 6.5 Miles $3,729,000 Asphalt Paved Trail 6.8 Miles $3,955,000
Natural Surface Trail 2.5 Mlles $409,500 Natural Surface Trail 2.8 Mlles $472,500
Sports Complex 22.0 Acres $3,132,000 Sports Complex 22.0 Acres $3,132,000
Senior Center 3,500 Square Feet $531,000 Senior Center 4,000 Square Feet $649,000
Parks&Rec Admin Building 600 Square Feet $116,400 Parks&Rec Admin Building 600 Square Feet $116,400
Police Police
Facility Space 1,100 Square Feet $435,695 Facility Space 1,100 Square Feet $435,695
Weaponry 6 Units $19,800 Weaponry 7 Units $23,400
Public Works Public Works
Equipment I 16IUnits I $212,000 Equipment I 16IUnits I $212,000
Transportation Transportation
Development Proportionate Share Program Road Projects $1,596,706 Development Proportionate Share Program Road Projects $1,899,412
Development Proportionate Share Program Ped&Bike Projects $3,544,875 Development Proportionate Sha re Program Ped&Bike Projects $3,825,927
Grand Total $37,271,476 Grand Total $38,418,834
16
8
11/22/2021
Tischle Bise
FISCAL j ECONOMIC PLANNING
17
Takeaways Tisc I re Bise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
• Negative impact in both scenarios is partially the result of capital needs
• Capital deficits are much easier to solve for than operating deficits
• Especially for Parks & Recreation
• Policing services (through the Ada County contract) is the largest on-going costs
• Based on current citywide LOS
• Strategic policy decisions could help use surpluses in the early years to mitigate
deficits in the out years
9
11/22/2021
Takeaways Tischle ise
I ECONOM C I F=I_ANNING
• Scenarios are adding significant value to the City's tax base
• However,current budget structure restricts property tax generation, an on-going revenue
• Reliance on one-time growth-related revenues is observed in the scenarios' high to low
movement over time
• Analysis does not include economic and strategic value of annexing area
• Communities tend to find value in participating in the growth around its peripheral and
gateway
• Although not included in the FIA, if City does not annex, but growth in the area
continues, there may be demand on services and facilities while not collecting
any revenue
19
TischlerBise
F15CAL L`i;ONom i PLANNING
Thank you,
Questions
20
10
34h1- 2Z
AVIMOR ,!
Fresh Air.Fresh Ideas. �� ��
.... � EAGLE CITY
COUNCIL
.- . y ;:
.
tM . . . WORK SESSION
NOVEMBER 16, 20
fs
. env.
4
1
l
` 75 39 ,Q, , ' Review Tischler Fisca a
a / o � , e�. � ImpactTooi
�26 ' ' a
) I
' } Q Purpose
i.
A 5066 Inputs .„,
,1 ) . '� Assumptions
6� i' 'It- x Methodology
k ) (. r � Accuracy
_4 ;N Conclusions
, it IP
tea.
\,. 1 ) ' ..,„,., ::
1
2
1
11/22/2021
7
T t
C
No
--- ~� Can it predict t
Past Present. 10 Years. 20years. 30years. 50 years
•
future?
T
F.
3
:�x :� �� _ °7 Fiscal Impact To.
ND86542435 „` •,i„tt,u,.�
' s (:.3- ,,,-. _.,. •, , .
. , __„.
� . ..: ,,,
- , - ...$,..-„. : ,. .. MD86542; .• itit
G
������ -tellia..,�i.„_,; he Fiscal Impact i�
� •
,. 6 , .. an appropriate tQ.
#t � for financialpolicy-
'� F19 4 � �1 � w
F$ , ' .,,, . a -' . .�„ ecisions not to
Zs awo h
regulate growth.
1§ } 7��4 "'4,-1„ ' tit'
o , fir �f1. �` �r �
r
4
2
1
11/22/2021
FY 2020 Audited Financial Report ,
t
1 Revenues General Fund Library Debt FundPark Fund Operating Revenue and Expe
2 Taxes $2,414,779 $1,475,617 r
3 Franchise Fee $842,983
4 Intergovernmental $3,189,458
5 Licenses,Permits&Fees $3,308,602 $8,527 $529,967
6 Interest $8,462 $1,323 $4,308
7 Miscellaneous&Grants $145,334 $23,145 &
8 Total Revenue $9,909,618 $1,508,612 $534,275 Operating reven
'`
11 Expenditures do not c t
.
12 General Government $4,532,957 •
13 Public Safety $3,157,440 operating 0
14 Parks and Streets $2,258,229
15 Culture and Recreation $178,327 $1,274,673
16 Capital Outlay $173,457 $383,780
17 Debt Service-Principal $75,000
18 Debt Service-Interest $29,550
' -'-'..:_ ---
19 Total Expenditures $10,126,953 $1,448,130 $104,550 $383,780
- • .11 Al! - •I II I I• E.:.
5
'- - .Ca•ital Pro'ects—General Fu . Projects Eligible for
General Fund Reven a
TischlerBise Figure 14
eneral Fund Eligble
ity Hall $776,000 These projects
benior Center $531,000 currently must bz
funded
proportionately
'ublic Works Equipment $212,000 among all resident * .. .
'oad Projects $1,596,706'
'ed and Bike Projects $3,544,875
Total $6,660,581
6
3
11/22/2021
-3.
'=a
• • and
TischlerBise Figure 14 & 24
otal Permit Fees $28,899,000 General Fund Capital
Projects are paid for bye
Net Permit Fees $16,755,620 one time application an
•ermit fees.
Eligible Capital Projects $6,660,581
Net Surplus Reserve $10,095,039
7
• nd Net Impact =
igures 14 & 24 & 29 TischlerBise
'roperty Tax $14,576,051
ether Revenue $522,950
otal Revenue $15,099,001
Library Fund '-
Operating and Capita
•perating Expenses $8,434,000- .;
nventory $750,000
apital $2,837,500
otal Expenses $12,021,500
ddition to Reserve $3,077,501
8
4
11/22/2021
Police Ca•ital Re•uirerment ._. . .. ,,
Capital Ar,
Facility $435,695
Weaponry $19,800
Total $455,495 Police Service Capita
Impact Fee $801,435
Balance $385,540
9
Parks and Trails Capital Costs
A/M Per Unit $ ($)
Parkland
Development Park Land 34.17 $274,769 $9,389,665
Sports Complex 16.43 $138,240 $2,271,184
Total Developed Parks 50.6 $11,660,850
Impact Fee Parks $7,776,568
Net -$3,884,281 Development Impaci
Trails and Pathways Fee Eligible Capital
Greenway Concrete Trail 3.9 $827,538 $3,235,816
Asphalt Trail 3.9 $573,692 $2,243,234 Costs: Parks and Trails
Natural Sturface 5.7 $168,000 $953,161
Total Trails 13.5 $6,432,212
Impact Fee Trails & Paths $2,303,585
Net -$4,128,627
Parks Building $116,400
Net -$8,129,308
10
5
11/22/2021
Operating Revenues $67,066,000
Library Revenues $15,099,000
Development Impact Fee Revenue $11,734,000
Total Revenues $93,899,000
Total Operating Expenses $65,630,000
Capital Costs $37,271,476
Total Expenditures $102,901,476
Parks LOS Adjusted $8,358,438
Adj. Total Costs $94,543,038
11
Decisions: Economt 4
Benefit Analysis
Controlling the
Foothills Developme
Receiving the tax ba
revenues
Benefits of a
committed lane sty
to community
12
6
11/22/2021
."'“,4.4,.-'-*: ;'.
rN
::.'„.:..-,...s..„,......_•.:,,.:•......-..„.:..l.c..'.,.a_-:;
,..v..,:r;t.'.-.4.'...,.::...._....„..&„,.e...--.:„......,..,..,„.,-t..,.',.:..,.,,.,...;„...,,..,..,.,...z,...,.:.7:24z,,...4,..,,.:,,_„,'.,.,.„.,.,7..,..,'„'....1,'„..1',''--..',•-..,'..:.,.-.,-...,.i':.......;....t.A...::1.,.,...,.;.....\,::,......,.,...,:,4„•.'...'•:':';......,".:.:-<.:„,,.,...,,''
t,' .N.,',.,10.\1 1,:,..ii.1.„, %4,„7,1i•--Y—'.-'„.4
-'-,.,'1'1.-/..i..'i.r%,i:,*
2,.
T
��,f�
pp
7 '�., r` i` �4,i ..:,V,:,::'..i-:.1
iJ
..,.,..:;.:
..:!,..',,..
..)'....-....,.,.;..........i.,.,.,..:.......:.'..:..,t•.::ig....:..::.,..:...•...,..,,.,...:,.:;...-.:::,..„...............,.:....,.....
........ -
4 2' ':
ha,,. .J6.J \ 3,:C F- ;: .,
, -
.,
.. .
•.
,.
1 "
. ‘ i J.1 ,. . Questions .
..... ,. .,
rr�
A t `
4h 4
�{{1-,1
e' ,r� .C. pj. r fir, 'nn
r, f
.....mod..oa...
13
A V I M O R
Fresh Air.Fresh Ideas.
. ..,... _, .„, „, ,,,, ,,, ,. .
.. . ..., ,,•' .r
:1HANK yo ...„,„.... ........,.. ,.:
14
7