Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019.1105.TCRMWS.Packet NOTICE OF MEETING COMBINED REGULAR MEETING/WORK SESSION FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL Mayor Ginny Dickey Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone Councilmember Dennis Brown Councilmember Alan Magazine Councilmember Mike Scharnow Councilmember David Spelich Councilmember Art Tolis TIME:5:30 P.M. – COMBINED REGULAR MEETING/WORK SESSION WHEN:TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2019 WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town’s various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived. REQUEST TO COMMENT The public is welcome to participate in Council meetings. TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM , please complete a Request to Comment card, located in the back of the Council Chambers, and hand it to the Town Clerk prior to discussion of that item, if possible. Include the agenda item on which you wish to comment. Speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Council. Verbal comments should be directed through the Presiding Officer and not to individual Councilmembers. TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM IN WRITING ONLY, please complete a Request to Comment card, indicating it is a written comment, and check the box on whether you are FOR or AGAINST and agenda item, and hand it to the Town Clerk prior to discussion, if possible. REGULAR MEETING REGULAR MEETING NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Town Council, and to the general public, that at this meeting, the Town Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the Town's attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3). 1.CALL TO ORDER, PRESENTATION OF COLORS BY THE AMERICAN LEGION POST 58 COLOR GUARD, AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Ginny Dickey 2.INVOCATION - Mojgan Talaei of the Baha'i Community 3.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey 4.REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER A.PROCLAMATION - November 11, 2019, as Veterans Day B.PROCLAMATION November as Butterfly, Pollinator & Wildlife Month C.PROCLAMATION November 30, 2019, as Small Business Saturday 5.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS A.PRESENTATION by Captain Larry Kratzer, MCSO, with monthly update B.PRESENTATION of Update by Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Subcommittee C.PRESENTATION on Temporary Suspension of Recycling Services 6.CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda. 7.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Town Council Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session of November 5, 2019 Page 2 of 4 7.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A.CONSIDERATION OF approval of the minutes of the Joint Meeting with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Tribal Council held October 3, 2019, the Joint Meeting with the Fountain Hills Sanitary District Board held October 9, 2019, the Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019, the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of October 23, 2019, and the Special Meeting of October 23, 2019. B.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License Application for the Elysian Desert Distilleries (Renea McQuiggan) for a fundraiser to be held along the Avenue of the Fountains, in conjunction with the Fountain Hills Art and Wine Affaire, from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM daily, Friday, March 6 through Sunday, March 8, 2020. C.CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-49, abandoning whatever right, title, or interest the Town has in a portion of the certain 10' Public Utility Easement and Drainage Easement located at the rear of Lot 26 of Block 2 of Plat 602-B (15933 Lantana), as recorded in Book 166, Page 32, records of Maricopa County, Arizona, with stipulations. (EA 2019-16). D.CONSIDERATION OF approving the construction of a walking trail within the hillside protection easement on Tract A of CopperWynd - Fountain Hills final plat, located at 13225 N. Eagle Ridge Drive. 8.REGULAR AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF appointing Hayden Arnold to the Community Services Advisory Commission. B.CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-52 approving a Development Agreement associated with the Daybreak P.A.D. rezoning located at the northeast corner of Palisades and Shea Boulevards. (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE DUE TO CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA BY THE MAYOR/11-05-2019 C.CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-53 adopting recommended changes to the Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements Plan. 9.ADJOURNMENT Town Council Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session of November 5, 2019 Page 3 of 4 Town Council Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session of November 5,2019 Page 4 of 4 9. ADJOURNMENT WORK SESSION Pursuant to the Council's Rules of Procedure, no public comment is taken at work sessions. Work sessions are held for the purpose of presentations and discussions on such issues that require more in-depth consideration of the Council. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding an update to the Economic Development Plan. 3. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding proposed updates to the Public Art Guidelines. 4. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed by the Town Council with the Town Clerk. Dated this3/ day of �� z� ,2019. C- gi/Cti<0 Eliz eth A. Bur C,Town Clerk The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities.Please call 480-816-5199(voice)or 1-800-367-8939(TDD)48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format.Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's Office. ITEM 4. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Reports Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council Staff Contact Information: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council REPORTS (Agenda Language): PROCLAMATION - November 11, 2019, as Veterans Day Staff Summary (Background) Mayor Dickey will be proclaiming November 11, 2019, as Veterans Day Attachments Proclamation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director Elizabeth A. Burke 10/22/2019 03:51 PM Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Burke 10/22/2019 03:52 PM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/22/2019 07:02 PM Form Started By: Angela Padgett-Espiritu Started On: 10/22/2019 02:40 PM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2019 ITEM 4. B. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Reports Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council Staff Contact Information: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council REPORTS (Agenda Language): PROCLAMATION November as Butterfly, Pollinator & Wildlife Month Staff Summary (Background) Mayor Dickey will be proclaiming November as Butterfly, Pollinator & Wildlife Month. Attachments Proclamation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director David Pock 10/09/2019 05:08 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/10/2019 07:38 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/16/2019 06:55 AM Form Started By: Angela Padgett-Espiritu Started On: 10/09/2019 03:41 PM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2019 ITEM 4. C. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Reports Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council Staff Contact Information: Angela Padgett-Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council REPORTS (Agenda Language): PROCLAMATION November 30, 2019, as Small Business Saturday Staff Summary (Background) Mayor Dickey will be proclaiming November 30, 2019, as Small Business Saturday. Attachments Proclamation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director David Pock 10/09/2019 05:08 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/10/2019 07:38 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/16/2019 06:55 AM Form Started By: Angela Padgett-Espiritu Started On: 10/09/2019 11:26 AM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2019 ITEM 7. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk Staff Contact Information: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Request to Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approval of the minutes of the Joint Meeting with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Tribal Council held October 3, 2019, the Joint Meeting with the Fountain Hills Sanitary District Board held October 9, 2019, the Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019, the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of October 23, 2019, and the Special Meeting of October 23, 2019. Staff Summary (Background) The intent of approving previous meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action that took place at the meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's website and maintained as permanent records in compliance with state law. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approving the minutes of the Joint Meeting with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Tribal Council held October 3, 2019, the Joint Meeting with the Fountain Hills Sanitary District Board held October 9, 2019, the Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019, the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of October 23, 2019, and the Special Meeting of October 23, 2019. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the minutes of the Joint Meeting with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Tribal Council held October 3, 2019, the Joint Meeting with the Fountain Hills Sanitary District Board held October 9, 2019, the Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019, the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of October 23, 2019, and the Special Meeting of October 23, 2019. Attachments 2019.1003.TCJMFMYN.Minutes 2019.1009.TCJMFHSD.Minutes 2019.1015.TCRM.Minutes 2019.1023.TCSMES.Minutes 2019.1023.TCSM.Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director Elizabeth A. Burke 10/22/2019 03:51 PM Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Burke 10/22/2019 03:52 PM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/22/2019 07:02 PM Form Started By: Elizabeth A. Burke Started On: 10/22/2019 03:42 PM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2019 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION TRIBAL COUNCIL AND FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL WEKOPA RESORT AND CONFERENCE CENTER-ROOM 110 10438 WEKOPA WAY, FORT MCDOWELL, ARIZONA OCTOBER 3, 2019 1.Call to Order / Introductions The meeting was called to order at 8:04 a.m. with less than a quorum of the Fountain Hills Town Council present. FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: President Bernadine Burnette; Vice President Paul J. Russell; Treasurer Pamela Mott; and Councilmember Gerald Doka. FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Ruben Balderas. TOWN COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Ginny Dickey, Councilmember Alan Magazine, Councilmember Art Tolis (arrived at 8:33 a.m.), and Councilmember Mike Scharnow. TOWN COUNCIL ABSENT: Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmember Dennis Brown and Councilmember David Spelich. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke. 2.Update on Fort McDowell Casino Expansion Tribal staff gave an update of the expansion project. It was noted that they are nine to ten months out of being complete. The expansion includes more than 30 more gaming spaces, a poker room, a fine dining restaurant, a sports bar and an entertainment space will be directly connected to the resort. Staff said that they will be adding another 100+ jobs. They find that once the employees are trained there is a lot of movement between the various casinos/resorts throughout the state. Councilmember Magazine encouraged their employees to live in Fountain Hills. President Burnette was congratulated on being named Arizona's Most Influential Woman. Discussion then moved to Item 7 regarding Proposition 202 funding. 3.Discussion regarding possible changes to FAA flight path Town Manager Grady Miller stated that staff met back in July regarding a request by a number of residents in Scottsdale to make changes to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) flight paths that currently fly near Fountain Hills and the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. He said that they were concerned that no one had bothered to contact either the Town nor the Yavapai Nation. He said that he believes it centers around complaints regarding the Scottsdale Air Park. Phil Dorchester asked that during their meetings that they also address the issue of small planes and the training helicopters that fly over the area quite often. Ms. Benally said that they should consider requesting that the flight paths be moved even further east to the boundary of the Nation. Vice President Russell thanked Fountain Hills for notifying the Nation of the proposed changes and including them in the meetings. 4.Fountain Hills General Plan Update Development Services Director John Wesley explained that state law requires a community to update its General Plan every ten years, so the Town has been working on its 2020 General Plan and it is important that they have feedback from their neighbors. He then reviewed the schedule for the Plan, noting that it would be on the November 2020 ballot for ratification by the Town's voters. 5.Proposed Hospital in Fountain Hills Mr. Wesley said that some individuals have proposed putting in a small hospital near the intersection of Shea and Saguaro. It will be a 12,000 sq. ft. building for Phase 1 including a small urgent care, five exam rooms, three treatment rooms and five patient rooms. He said that it will provide for emergency needs and will be very accessible to the Yavapai Nation. Economic Development Director Smith said that it is being developed by two independent emergency room doctors and it will be called Fountain Hills Medical Center. President Burnette said that she sits on the Medical Board for Medical Insurance as well and they will want to make sure that their insurance is accepted. 6.Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Mr. Miller explained that when the Town received an application for an off-track wagering permit notice it was sent to both of the surrounding nations so they had an opportunity to let the Town know how they felt about the application. President Burnette asked the Tribal Attorney Diandra Benally to address the issue. Ms. Benally said that the nations are currently in negotiations with the Department of Gaming. They want Fountain Hills to know if there are any legislative bills that they do not support they would like to know. She said that they expect it will happen. Tribal staff indicated that they would not believe that the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation has taken a position on the off-track betting facilities, but there is a strong concern about the slots, etc. being permitted in bars in the future. Mr. Miller asked them to keep the Town informed of any bills they are trying to run, or any bills to which they are opposed. He said that they will work with the League as well. Joint Council Meeting of October 3, 2019 2 of 4 7.Proposition 202 Tribal staff reported that Roann Carmelo and Police Chief Crabtree sit on the committee that reviews the applications. They review each application to make sure they meet the requirements and selecting those applications that are best helping the communities. Chief Crabtree said that they receive hundreds of applications from around the state. A brief history was given on how the 12% gaming funds came to be. Mayor Dickey said that the Town was very appreciative of the 202 funding it has received over the years, as well as the various organizations within the Town. Councilmember Tolis arrived at this time. (8:33 a.m.) President Burnette said that a good percentage goes to the public and she thinks that the public needs to be educated about the proceeds going back into the communities. Councilmember Tolis thanked the Tribal Council for hosting the breakfast, stating that he absolutely supports building the relationship between the Tribe and the Town. He was happy to be a part of the meeting and he wants to see the relationship grow. 8.38th Annual Fort McDowell Orme Dam Victory Days November 15-17, 2019 A brief history of Orme Dam was given and then Ms. Carmelo reviewed the various activities being held for the event. It was noted that the Town was a sponsor for the event. 9.30th Anniversary of Fountain Hills' incorporation (1989) and 50th Anniversary of Fountain (1970) and other events Mayor Dickey reported on activities taking place in preparation for the 30/50 Celebration which commemorates 30 years of incorporation of the Town of Fountain Hills (2019) and 50 years of the Fountain (2020). 10.Future Meeting Councilmember Scharnow said that he loved the pageantry of the rodeo during Orme Dam Days. Councilmember Tolis thanked the Tribe for having meetings with the Town and said that a lot needs to be done. He said that their joint success is important in protecting each other. He said that he would like to see something in the downtown area of Fountain Hills, perhaps a Tribal Gift Shop. Vice President Russell said that at the next meeting he would like to have a discussion on water. Mayor Dickey said that they do not have to wait for the next meeting to discuss water or any other topic. Joint Council Meeting of October 3, 2019 3 of 4 11.Adjournment The Joint Meeting of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Tribal Council and Fountain Hills Town Council held on October 3, 2019, adjourned at 9:23 a.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS _______________________________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: __________________________________________ Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk Joint Council Meeting of October 3, 2019 4 of 4 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL AND THE FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD OCTOBER 9, 2019 1.Call to Order and Introductions Mayor Dickey called the Joint Meeting of October 9, 2019, to order at 5:31 p.m. TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmember Dennis Brown, Councilmember Alan Magazine, Councilmember Mike Scharnow, and Councilmember David Spelich. TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Art Tolis. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; and Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke. FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gregg Dudash, Vice Chairman Jerry Butler, Board Member Bob Thomson, Board Member Tom Reski (arrived at 6:14 p.m.) and Board Member Michael Maroon. FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY DISTRICT STAFF PRESENT: District Manager Dana Trompke, P.E. and District Attorney William Sullivan. Mayor Dickey congratulated the Board on their 50th year celebration. She noted that the Town will be celebrating 30 years of incorporation (2019) and 50 years of the fountain (2020). 2.Update on the Sanitary District's project to construct and install recharge well control rooms/restrooms at Fountain Park. Ms. Trompke said that everyone has probably seen the construction fencing up at the park, which has been up since May. She said that the project entails facilities at two ASR recharge wells (2 and 4). They are progressing and Well 2 (eastern) will be the first to be done. The building shell is up, exterior and interior, and they are working on roofing. She said that they are pushing the contractor to get the Certificate of Occupancy by December. Well 4 will continue work through January. Councilmember Magazine asked if the facilities would be locked at night. Ms. Trompke said that there is a separate door for the control room for which they have the key. The entrance to the restrooms will have a lockable gate, similar to the existing restroom facilities at the Park and the lock and key will be kept by the Parks Department. Councilmember Brown thanked the District for doing these facilities; he said that it was truly an addition to the Town and they appreciated it. Mr. Miller said that this is one of the most common complaints they hear--a 60-acre park and only one restroom. He said that it was a perfect win/win. Mayor Dickey thanked the Chairman for keeping the staff informed. She said that they appreciated all of the signage and communication. 3.Discussion regarding the proposed replacement of the lake liner at Fountain Park. Mr. Miller said that this is on the agenda because the District will have some input and feedback. He said that the lake is a reservoir. The last time they had the liner replaced was shortly after accepting it from MCO around 2,000 and it had a 30-year life. Given the temperature of the Valley here and the salinity of the water, they will probably have to replace it within the next 3-5 years. He said that the last time they did it there was an evaporation bed where they could pipe a lot of the water. This time will be much more challenging as that will not be available. They will need to have engineering help them identify a location and coordinate with the District in not taking any water and figure out how to have it dissipate and evaporate. It was noted that the best time to do this would be in the summer when they are not having as much water go through the treatment plant. Mr. Miller said that they will also be looking for funding. It is likely they would recommend identifying the needs for the next 30 years at Fountain Park as it relates to pumps, liner, electrical panels in the pump room, etc. He said that right now they are electrical and mechanical; they will probably go to solid state circuitry. He said that a few years ago they had a work session on water quality and one of the things discussed was having a variable speed drive system to allow the pumps to go at various heights at various times so it takes less load and power. The sad thing is that when they did an analysis, it came back with a 20-year payback period. He said that did not factor in the wear and tear every time they start up and pumps are millions of dollars to replace. He said that they wanted to bring this up because they will have to work closely together. He said that the Sanitary District provides the water and they will have to make sure they are not causing issues for the District. He said that they will bring in experts to work with the District and the Town. Chairman Dudash thanked the Town for hosting the meeting. He said that this topic is going to be more challenging than that. The lake is 100 million gallons and they do not have the capacity to drain it. It would take them a year to drain. He said that they have to deal with wastewater within boundaries of the district which are the boundaries of the Town. They will need to go outside of the Town to locate areas that could be used for drainage. He said that they have looked at the State Trust Land, McDowell Mountain Park. He said that there are two amazing Native American communities next to them and the Town has relationships with both of them. He said that they could run a pipe up Shea and drain it that way, but that would probably cost $1/2 million to $1 million. He said that they do not have water to give the Town to refill the lake. Right now it is free. They are charging golf courses and they are running at a shortage. They will not be able to give them 100% of what is needed. They will need to work with Epcor and that will not be free, but they would be getting potable water and will not have the sodium problem. He said that the Town will probably need to go to a bond issue. The District will work with whatever consultant that is selected. He said that this will be a Town project, but they will work together, with one board member always involved in the meetings. He said that failure is not an option, but they want to be realistic and identify the factors, the costs, etc. and then go to the community. Town Council Joint Meeting of October 9, 2019 2 of 7 Councilmember Magazine asked how they knew they have five years left. Mr. Miller said that they are going to do some assessment of the liner itself. It will take them some time to figure out the strategies and logistics. He said that this also ties in to the next item; they may want to tie them together. He said that they need to irrigate the park vegetation and grass. It all needs to be part of the same strategy. He said that once they stop using the lake for irrigation then it will be a sealed system. They will take water periodically, but will probably have it chemically balanced so they do not get odor issues. Councilmember Magazine asked if anyone has discussed the smell. Mr. Miller said that a few years ago the Town installed a new aeration system. His understanding is that in two days it puts water through a system that used to take seven to ten days. He said that they are circulating the water and have a lot more pressure, moving more water than before. He said that also during the major blooms of algae they use hydrogen peroxide to help and deodorize chemically. Councilmember Spelich asked if they were saying that the District will no longer be using the lake for storage. Ms. Trompke said that the original design and function of the lake was intended to be a reclaimed water reservoir; it is a vital part of their system, but it is not as vital as it used to be. Now they have recharge wells where they can store water underground. The amount of reclaimed water produced exceeded the capacity of the lake by the late 1980's so by the time they got into the 1990's they got into a crunch. The capacity of the lake was smaller than what they needed as a whole, but it still plays a vital part. It can take up volume of water when the wells are down. They are very much a maintenance item. They go through times when the wells are down and it is helpful having that extra volume available. Mr. Miller said that the golf courses are now getting direct ties from the District, where before they were getting it from the lake (up until 2000). Councilmember Spelich said that it seems like the partnership goes to the level of paying. Mr. Miller said that they should keep in mind that through the Intergovernment Agreement with the District the Town is not paying a cent for water and they irrigate the parks every night. Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin said that they use an average of 400,000 gallons per night; in the summer when it is hot, about 600,000 gallons. Chairman Dudash said that the District is going to work with the Town. They have great engineers trying to figure out the most economical and efficient way to get this done. Member Maroon asked what the catalyst was the last time the Town replaced the liner. He asked if they wait until there is a leak. Mr. Miller said that his concern is that they do not want to have a leak. If they get a leak then they are talking about sink holes and related problems. A lot of what they have flows into Panorama Wash and goes to the reservation. They have had issues with it going over to the Tribe's golf course and there are impacts. Mr. Miller said that it is not like when they build dams. The liner is keeping the water from seeping and going under the ground. They need to be good stewards and keep up on their maintenance. This is identified in the Town's capital facilities plan. Ms. Goodwin said that in 2000 when they replaced the liner they started draining the lake in May Town Council Joint Meeting of October 9, 2019 3 of 7 Ms. Goodwin said that in 2000 when they replaced the liner they started draining the lake in May and it was completed in November. It took until February to fill the lake back up. At the time the assessment was done the first time it was made of PVC quality and found to be failing in certain areas and they also found concrete cracks and leaks through the line. That is what kicked it off and they went into a 20-year warranty which will end at the end of next year. Ms. Goodwin said that they are in a better than average situation. They had a site assessment done, but in order to actually test the liner they have to lower the lake level and cut a 5' x 5' section and they are not recommending that at this time. Mr. Miller said that it was similar to a skin graph. It would exacerbate the lining and would run around $15,000. Ms. Goodwin said that when they replaced the liner in 2000 the quality they chose was very high and it still remains a very high-quality material. It is one step below what is used at nuclear power plants at their discharge. Member Thomson said that one of the things done the last time was they put in an undersurface. The first time it was laid over the subbase. Ms. Goodwin said that was correct; there was compacting and a treatment. Vice Chairman Butler said that under the liner in 2000 they put a geotextile fabric in place to keep the rocks from moving upward. If they could find the file there is a sample of both products in the file. Ms. Goodwin said that they were looking through the process from back then. She said there is a lot of wildlife, fish, turtles. They want to figure out what impact it would have once they become a sealed system. That all has to be considered as well. Chairman Dudash suggested that as far as timeframe goes, they should consider between the two fairs, over the summer. Ms. Goodwin said that would be a great benchmark. Ms. Trompke said that it is appropriate to do this in a forward thinking, proactive process. They do not want to wait until it is a matter of crisis. This could be a 5-7 year process to get the logistics and funding. She applauded the Town for taking it on early. 4.Discussion regarding a joint project to develop the water storage system to irrigate Fountain Park with water from advanced wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Miller said that this item ties to the previous topic. When they had the workshop on water quality, one of the recommendations was to have a water storage system that would allow them to store cleaner water. He said that this is essential once the lake is no longer having water come out for irrigation. They will need to identify the logistics of where it would be located and the related costs. He said that he has discussed with Ms. Trompke either locating it near the park or at the Advance Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP). In any case, it is something that is long overdue and something that will help ensure that they have thriving grass. The grass they have has a hard time because of the sodium and the stagnant water sitting there builds up the salinity. He said that the Town has installed an irrigation system that helps remove saline out of the sprinkler heads, but they have also found that the water has not been able to go into the grass deeply. He is confident that even with the things done recently by the Parks Superintendent and the Community Services Director to help improve the quality, it is still not ideal. They want to have a better water quality go out to the vegetation. Councilmember Scharnow asked if they were confident that the system would help with the grass because it has been decades with those conditions. Mr. Miller said that they have actually Town Council Joint Meeting of October 9, 2019 4 of 7 because it has been decades with those conditions. Mr. Miller said that they have actually increased watering the last few years and have noticed that it has improved somewhat. Whenever they have a better quality of water they will have better vegetation. Board Member Thomson said that taking the water directly out of the ADWT and into a tank will increase its quality. 5.Discussion regarding Town notification of any proposed development projects with increased densities that might impact the Sanitary District in the delivery of sanitary sewer services. Ms. Trompke said that at the staff level they work hard to communicate what is going on in way of development within the Town. Mr. Miller said that they had a few hiccups when he first started with staff not always communicating to the Sanitary District. He said that they have communicated with the District recently about Keystone, and Daybreak, as well as another project too early to make public. Ms. Trompke said that they do appreciate the advance notice. Their infrastructure is built out in much of the area, almost 50 years ago. When a parcel comes in and gets developed at higher densities, the infrastructure cannot handle it. With a gravity sewer system there is a set amount of capacity. If larger developments have impact they want to make that known to the developer as to what their contribution would be. Board member Reski arrived at this time (6:14 p.m.) 6.Discussion regarding the impact of water softeners on the sanitary sewer system and users of reclaimed water. Mayor Dickey said that awhile ago she got information from the District for MAG staff as they were unaware of some concerns that they thought were only local or statewide, but are now found to be national. Ms. Trompke said that this was a subject brought up during the last joint session. She said that it is on the agenda now just to keep it in everyone's thoughts. They have not solved the problem yet. She said that the majority of people have water softeners because of the groundwater and CAP water. She said that every bag of salt ends up in the sewer system, which then ends up watering grass at parks and on golf courses. She said that there is a high salinity in the reclaimed water; double what it is in drinking water. Ms. Trompke said that there are some parts of the country where there is so much impacting their water table that they have prohibited water softeners. They are not at that point of crisis, but the District would like to start more of a public education campaign. She said that there are a lot of things in the public education campaign. There is an alternative, potassium, which is more expensive, but there are people that have made that choice now as an environmental consumer. The bags of salt run around $200 versus $50. She said that there are other water cistern conditioners. The plumbers and water softener suppliers are starting to catch up, not just recycling, but it has to be about salt going into the wastewater. Councilmember Spelich when they had their one-on-one, he had no idea about the salt and how it affects the water table and lake. He had an idea which he had discussed with the District and the Town, about the possibility of buying in bulk to get the cost down so customers may be more inclined to switch over. There are other issues to be considered such as what it would be stored and the logistics of getting it delivered, but he would be interested in furthering discussions on that idea. He said that it was alarming at the Leadership Academy where they did a presentation on salt and its effects. He thinks it is a problem they should try to solve. Town Council Joint Meeting of October 9, 2019 5 of 7 Ms. Trompke said that she would be glad to set up a meeting with Mr. Miller. It would be a great discussion to get into the weeds of, with it being a joint issue. Mr. Miller said that nowadays there are energy-certified appliances, etc.; perhaps they would qualify for a rebate. Or, perhaps there are higher efficiency water softeners that use less salt. Ms. Trompke said that she could not speak to how efficient a water softener is, but she does know that when she looked on the website for a company to come out, there is at least a tab for a salt-free base system. In that environmental line of recycling, etc. she thinks the industry will start to develop more cost-effective and efficient systems. Councilmember Magazine said that he thinks this is a good one to work on. He had no knowledge of this until their last joint meeting. He knew it was a problem, but there had never been any discussion. They need a major education process; it needs to be put in front of people. Councilmember Brown said that over the past eight years they have seen more and more filtration systems versus softening systems. He has not installed a softener in the past 8-10 years. They are going to put infiltration systems that have different chemicals. He would recommend that if someone has to replace a salt system, they should replace it with a filtration system. That would be a start for the Town. He said that when they first started having their meetings, it was his understanding that the lake was mandatory for the District as overflow. He asked if they could shut off the lake and still be in compliance. Ms. Trompke said that it was not a legal requirement, but it does have an operational purpose. She said that they do not have any discharges. Every drop has to be converted to high-quality recycled water and reused. They have no option to send it elsewhere. In a typical year they will get 650 million gallons of wastewater and about 500 million gallons have to find a place for disposal. The golf courses use every drop as well as the Town parks and lake. It is consumed by evaporation through the lake and the fountain. She said that the lake also serves as an emergency storage. When they get snow in February and no one takes a drop of water, at some point they need to have a place to store it. Councilmember Brown said that the lake is much prettier when it is completely full, and he asked if there was a way to have it higher. Ms. Trompke said that they need volume set-aside for a volume event. Councilmember Scharnow said that as a board member for the Coalition, the District has been very cooperative with their efforts. He appreciates the extra effort the District gives in advertising for the Coalition. Chairman Dudash said that two years ago he and Board Member Reski ran for reelection with a commitment for a more active involvement with the Town. He was happy to see that they are filling that promise. One of the things that has happened is Mr. Miller and Ms. Trompke meeting every other month and having those discussions which did not happen before. The goal is to solve problems mutually. Mayor Dickey thanked the Chairman and board members. She said that at their last Council meeting they had the state legislators attend, and at that time she mentioned that they all have the same constituents. The same holds true between the Town and the District and the citizens expect them to work together. She appreciated everyone coming to the meeting. Town Council Joint Meeting of October 9, 2019 6 of 7 7.Adjournment MOVED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine, SECONDED BY Councilmember David Spelich to adjourn the meeting. Vote: 7 - 0 Passed - Unanimously The Joint Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council and Fountain Hills Sanitary District Board held October 9, 2019, adjourned at 6:32 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS _______________________________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: __________________________________________ Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk Town Council Joint Meeting of October 9, 2019 7 of 7 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 2019 1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Ginny Dickey Mayor Dickey called the meeting of October 15, 2019, to order at 5:30 p.m. and led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Dickey noted that Item 8-D had been removed from the agenda and would not be discussed this evening. 2.INVOCATION - Pastor Rick Ponzo of Calvary Chapel Pastor Ponzo gave the invocation. 3.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Councilmember Mike Scharnow; Councilmember Art Tolis; Councilmember Dennis Brown; Councilmember Alan Magazine; Councilmember David Spelich (telephonically) Absent: Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone Staff Present: Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke 4.REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER Mayor Dickey reported and she and Councilmember Scharnow were part of a ribbon cutting ceremony for Pro Skill on Saguaro Lake held by the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Scharnow also reported that he attended the annual banquet of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council where 1,000 people from all over the Valley were in attendance. He said that it was a grand celebration, a good networking time and he added that the Town's Economic Development Director was also present. Mr. Miller reported on the September 23, 2019, storm event which lasted less than 24 hours, but dropped 4 inches of rain. He said that it caused quite a bit of rainfall creating drainage issues, but a lot of the improvements put in at Golden Eagle Park after last year's storms did a good job of holding the sediment. To date, he said, they have spent approximately $5,500 on cleaning, with more work to be done. They had about $60,000 in restoration of the Kiwanis road with 32 hours of overtime. He said that staff did some good work trying to rechannel the washes coming into Golden Eagle Park. He said that although they did not get a lot of sediment, it was still quite a bit of mess. They are trying to finalize an engineering study and had just met with Fuller & Associates the week before to talk about their proposed plans. They were able to go out and see what happened and will incorporate their observations into the plan, which they hope to have within the next six weeks. Mr. Miller reported that at a recent joint meeting with the Yavapai Nation it was mentioned that there had been a lot of smaller aviation traffic flying over the Nation. He spoke with Jack Lunsford about this who, in turn, reached out to the Scottsdale Airpark and they seem willing to try and coordinate that better. Mayor Dickey reported that the Council also met recently with the Fountain Hills Sanitary District Board. She said that she had a recent interview with MAGazine, the publication put out by the Maricopa Council of Governments. They did a profile story and she got to talk about Fountain Hills. She said that it will be coming out in November. A.PROCLAMATION - October 20 - 26, 2019, as Arizona Cities and Towns Week Mayor Dickey read a proclamation proclaiming October 20-26, 2019, as Arizona Cities and Towns Week, and acknowledged that she was glad to read it with the League Director Ken Strobeck being present. Mr. Miller said that he would make sure it was hung up in Town Hall. B.PROCLAMATION - October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month Mayor Dickey read a proclamation proclaiming October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, noting the purple ribbon at the entry of Town Hall, as well as the lighting at Town Hall is purple for the month. She said that she first became aware of this issue through her friend Jennie Gorrell, who was completely devoted to the efforts. C.PROCLAMATION - October 23 - 31, 2019, as Red Ribbon Week Councilmember Scharnow read a proclamation proclaiming October 23-31, 2019, as Red Ribbon Week. He said that he was a boardmember for the Fountain Hills Coalition and this had been requested by the East Valley Young Marines. After Item 5-A, the representatives of the East Valley Young Marines came forward to have a photograph taken with Mayor Dickey and Councilmember Scharnow. D.Recognition of Outgoing Commissioners Certificates of Appreciation were read for the following commissioners and Mayor Dickey presented Ms. Miles with hers. The others were not present. Christopher Jones, Planning and Zoning Commission Dana Saar, Strategic Planning Advisory Commission Dr. Patrick Sweeney, Sister Cities Advisory Commission Jackie Miles, Sister Cities Advisory Commission Town Council Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019 2 of 7 5.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS A.PRESENTATION by Maricopa County Library Manager Maren Hunt. County Library Manager Maren Hunt said that she started as the Library Manager a year ago next week and it has been a wonderful year of learning about Fountain Hills. They are trying to integrate the library more into the community. She said that Fountain Hills is part of the Maricopa County Library District with 18 libraries around the county. She said that a lot of the larger communities have their own library system, such as Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Chandler, Tempe, Glendale and they are not part of the MCLD system. She said that they work with other communities in Maricopa County who do not have the resources to provide their own library services. She said that a Fountain Hills Library Card may be used at any of the other libraries throughout the MCLD system. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation which addressed: ORGANIZATION RESOURCES 21,330 books 1,645 audiobooks 10,529 DVD's 1,679 music CD's 36,000 items in physical 869 magazines 3 telescopes Ms. Hunt said that they have 7,000 active cardholders, or 28% of the community, but they would love to see more. She said that each cardholder checks out about 31 items on average, with 217,000 items checked out in the past year. PHYSICAL ITEMS PROGRAMS Councilmember Scharnow asked if they still track the usage--at one point they were the highest. Ms. Hunt said that they do keep track of statistics, but they do not track digital items and that has become very popular. She said that they also have a very devoted group of volunteers, Friends of the Fountain Hills Library Association, and they fund a lot of big performances, mostly through their book sales. They also have memberships, on an annual or lifetime basis. Mr. Miller said that it is a win/win, since every property owner in Maricopa County pays tax to the district. They are one of the communities that is fortunate to have a branch. The Town provides the building and utilities and they provide the books, staffing, resources, etc. 6.CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda. Town Council Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019 3 of 7 Harris Deitch, Fountain Hills resident, addressed the Council regarding his concern with guns and the need for the Town to be better prepared. He said that the Council needs to protect the community. 7.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. MOVED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine, SECONDED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown to approve Consent Agenda Items 7-A through 7-C. Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously A.CONSIDERATION OF approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 1, 2019. B.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Sunset Kiwanis Club of Fountain Hills (Margaret Ziefert) for a fundraiser to be held along the Avenue of the Fountains, in conjunction with the Fountain Hills Art and Wine Affaire, from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM daily, Friday, March 6 through Sunday, March 8, 2020. C.CONSIDERATION OF approving one Special Event Liquor License application submitted by Jelaine Goldapper, representing the Fountain Hills Unified School District PTO, for a fundraiser to be held in the Grand Ballroom of the Fountain Hills Community Center, 13001 N. La Montana Drive, Fountain Hills, AZ, 85268 on February 29, 2020, from 6 pm to 11 pm. 8.REGULAR AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF appointments to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Miller noted that Item 8-D, Hillside Protection Easement, had been withdrawn from the agenda as the department director that spearheaded the discussion had a family emergency. He said that it will be brought back to a later meeting. Mayor Dickey thanked the subcommittee and applicants. MOVED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown, SECONDED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow to reappoint Nick Sehman and John Kovac III to the Board of Adjustment, with terms ending October 2022. Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously Town Council Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019 4 of 7 B.CONSIDERATION OF approving the purchase of one (1) 2019 Ford F750 Regular Cab Dump Truck. Public Works Director Justin Weldy said that they were coming to ask for approval to replace their dump truck, which has reached its lifetime expectancy at 15 years old. He said that just in the last few days they are encountering some mechanical issues. He said that the Town has a policy that if the repair exceeds a certain amount based on the value of the vehicle then they will replace it, and they are at that point. Councilmember Brown said that the truck is 15 years old. He has been around it, and it is in fair shape, but he is recommending they go ahead and replace it. MOVED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown, SECONDED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow to approve the purchase of one (1) 2019 Ford F750 Regular Cab Dump Truck in the amount of $83,815.83. Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously C.CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-50 urging ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing equal rights for men and women. Mr. Miller said that staff prepared this item at the request of the Mayor. He said that it is in the League's Legislative Agenda. At the time this item came up before Congress in 1971-72, it was approved but when it was presented to the states for ratification, Arizona was one of 15 states to not approve it. Over the past few years there has been a push to get the needed 38 states to ratify it. If Arizona would do so, it would become the 38th state to ratify. Mr. Miller said that the Equal Rights Amendment grants men and women equal rights; it does not get into a lot of other issues. From the perspective of the Town Manager and Town overall, their current practices adhere to the equal rights amendment as far as employment and service delivery. Mayor Dickey said that they get these requests for proclamations and other things over the years. There are 16 communities in the state that have passed this resolution so far. With the League adopting it as part of this year's legislative agenda, through approval of the resolutions committee and at the annual business meeting, they hope this will be the impetus to get it done. She then introduced Ken Strobeck, Executive Director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Mr. Strobeck said that there are five policy committees within the League and any city/town can present a resolution to be considered. This resolution went before the Neighborhood, Sustainability and Quality of Life Committee, who recommended that it move forward. It then went before the Resolutions Committee who considers items to move forward to the full membership at the Annual Business Meeting. While it was not a unanimous decision, it was sent forward to the full membership and adopted as a part of this year's Legislative Agenda. He noted that it was first introduced in 1921, but was not approved by Congress until 51 years later. Councilmember Scharnow asked Mr. Strobeck if he had any idea on how the legislative session will look for this year. Mr. Strobeck said that it is always a risky business to try to Town Council Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019 5 of 7 guess what the legislature will do. Normally issues like this fall along lines of liberal and conservative, but there are individuals on both sides of the aisle. He said that it is difficult to get any bill passed. Councilmember Magazine asked what the objections were at the committee level. Mr. Strobeck said that some people felt this was not an issue relevant to cities and towns. Normally resolutions that they have are within their jurisdiction, but it is not always the case. He said that the League works for the cities and towns. Their job is to represent the cities and towns, and they do not take a position other than what the 91 cities and towns want to do. Mayor Dickey said that some feel they do not need it, but the Supreme Court said in the past that it is needed. There is no equal protection in the Constitution. Some feel that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution protected them, but they needed the 19th Amendment to get the right to vote for women. Equal rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution. Anissa Rasheta was asked to come forward, who is with the Equal Rights Amendment Task Force Board of Directors. She said that they have been running a campaign in Arizona. In the last few years there has been a much bigger push and she then presented some materials for anyone interested in looking them over. Ms. Rasheta said they just want a statement of equality in the Constitution. there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality. She said that there have been a lot of roadblocks. This would create a strict scrutiny and would raise the bar for sex discrimination by the courts. She said that they were told by J.D.. Mesnard that if he could see enough voices, he would be willing to see it through. She said that their rights have come by way of patchwork. The right to vote and all of the other rights have been piecemeal. When they had the right to vote, they still did not have the rights for divorce, marital rape, etc. Councilmember Magazine said that he thought it was a disgrace that women, on average, make 25% less for similar jobs. He asked if this would affect that issue. Ms. Rasheta said that there have been cases about those rights. The University of Arizona currently has a case regarding pay discrimination, and this would help in judicial review such as with that case. Mayor Dickey said that Senator Ugenti-Rita did introduce the bill last year, but it did not get a hearing. There was a Republican and a Democratic bill introduced separately, and she supports it. Ms. Burke noted that there were five written comment cards in support of the resolution from Ted Blank, Cindy Couture, Peggy Yeargain, Fred James, and Sherri James. MOVED BY Mayor Ginny Dickey, SECONDED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to adopt Resolution 2019-50. Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously D.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION to staff regarding the requirements for providing hillside protection easements, the abandonment of existing easements, and the fee for easement abandonments. Item reviewed from the agenda prior to start of the meeting. Town Council Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019 6 of 7 9.COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the TOWN MANAGER Item(s) listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such item(s) on a future agenda for action, or (ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council. 10.ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown, SECONDED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to adjourn. Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held October 15, 2019, adjourned at 6:30 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS _______________________________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: __________________________________________ Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 15th day of October, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 5th day of November, 2019. _____________________________________ Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk Town Council Regular Meeting of October 15, 2019 7 of 7 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL OCTOBER 23, 2019 1.CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Ginny Dickey Mayor Dickey called the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of October 23, 2019, to order at 6:30 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmember Mike Scharnow; Councilmember Art Tolis; Councilmember Dennis Brown; Councilmember Alan Magazine; Councilmember David Spelich Staff Present: Deputy Town Manager/Administrative Services Director David Trimble; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke 3.RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone, SECONDED BY Councilmember David Spelich to recess into Executive Session. Vote: 7 - 0 Passed - Unanimously 4.EXECUTIVE SESSION The Fountain Hills Town Council recessed into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. A.Discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorney or attorneys of the public body, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3); AND DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY IN ORDER TO CONSIDER ITS POSITION AND INSTRUCT ITS ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE PUBLIC BODY'S POSITION REGARDING CONTRACTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS, IN PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO AVOID OR RESOLVE LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(4). i.Daybreak Development Agreement 5.ADJOURNMENT The Fountain Hills Town Council reconvened into Open Session at 7:40 p.m. at which time the Special Meeting of October 23, 2019, adjourned. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS _____________________________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL OCTOBER 23, 2019 1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Ginny Dickey Mayor Dickey called the Special Meeting of October 23, 2019, to order at 7:45 p.m. and led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmember Mike Scharnow; Councilmember Art Tolis; Councilmember Dennis Brown; Councilmember Alan Magazine; Councilmember David Spelich Staff Present: David Trimble, Deputy Town Manager/Administrative Services Director; Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney; Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk 3.REGULAR AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-52 approving a Development Agreement associated with the Daybreak P.A.D. rezoning located at the northeast corner of Palisades and Shea Boulevards. Mayor Dickey said that the Council had heard the comments from the public and was not ready to take action at this time. She then asked for a motion. MOVED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to postpone action on this item until the November 5, 2019, Meeting and direct staff to work with the developers as discussed in Executive Session. Vote: 7 - 0 Passed - Unanimously 4.ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine, SECONDED BY Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone to adjourn. Vote: 7 - 0 Passed - Unanimously The Special Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council of October 23, 2019, adjourned at 7:48 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS _____________________________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk ITEM 7. B. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director Request to Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License Application for the Elysian Desert Distilleries (Renea McQuiggan) for a fundraiser to be held along the Avenue of the Fountains, in conjunction with the Fountain Hills Art and Wine Affaire, from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM daily, Friday, March 6 through Sunday, March 8, 2020. Staff Summary (Background) The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the special event liquor license application submitted by Renea McQuiggan for Elysian Desert Distilleries, for submission to the Arizona Department of Liquor. The special event liquor license application was reviewed by staff for compliance with Town ordinances and staff unanimously recommends approval of this special event liquor license application as submitted. All applicants are required to submit a Town alcohol application and pay the special event alcohol $25 fee. Once the fee is paid and the application approved by Town staff, the applicant submits the Arizona State application for a Special Event Liquor License to the Town for Council approval. After approval by Town Council, the applicant submits the State Special Event Liquor License application to the State. Once approved by the State, the applicant forwards liquor license to Town staff. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle A.R.S. §4-203.02; 4-244; 4-261 and R19-1-228, R19-1-235, and R19-1-309 Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approval Staff recommends approval SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve Attachments Application Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 10/07/2019 04:25 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/07/2019 04:26 PM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/07/2019 05:27 PM Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 10/03/2019 05:37 PM Final Approval Date: 10/07/2019 ITEM 7. C. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Public Works Prepared by: Randy Harrel, Town Engineer Staff Contact Information: Justin Weldy, Public Works Director Request to Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-49, abandoning whatever right, title, or interest the Town has in a portion of the certain 10' Public Utility Easement and Drainage Easement located at the rear of Lot 26 of Block 2 of Plat 602-B (15933 Lantana), as recorded in Book 166, Page 32, records of Maricopa County, Arizona, with stipulations. (EA 2019-16). Staff Summary (Background) Applicant: Dean Pernicone Owner: Same Property Location: 15933 Lantana Drive This is a proposal to abandon the pre-incorporation 10' Public Utility and Drainage Easement at the rear of Plat 602-B, Block 2, Lot 26. All the public utilities have approved of abandonment of this easement. Staff has reviewed the site to determine if there are any on-site drainage issues in addition to the Town's general interest in the easement. There is an existing 20'-wide, Town-owned tract (Parcel B) at the rear of this property. The drainage flow route drains approximately 3.5 acres of land and carries an undelineated 100-year flow of approximately 13 cubic feet per second. The drainage through this route is estimated to flow on Parcel B, and onto part of the 10' easement on this lot, as well as onto part of the 10' drainage easement on the opposite side of Parcel B. The applicant needs to provide an acceptable Drainage Report to determine what portion of this Drainage Easement may feasibly be abandoned. The applicant has requested, and staff is agreeable, that the Drainage Report may be submitted together with the submittal of home construction plans in the near future. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 2019-49. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to adopt Resolution 2019-49. Attachments Vicinity Map Aerial Photo Res 2019-49 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Town Clerk Randy Harrel 10/21/2019 04:12 PM Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke 10/24/2019 09:53 AM Development Services Director John Wesley 10/24/2019 11:19 AM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/29/2019 08:08 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/30/2019 12:04 PM Form Started By: Randy Harrel Started On: 10/14/2019 02:41 PM Final Approval Date: 10/30/2019 BEELI N E H W Y SHEA BLVDPALISADES BLVDSAGUARO BLVD SAGUARO BLVDPALI S A D E S B L V D PALISA D E S B L V D S A G U A R O B L V DFOUNTAIN HILLS BLVDMcDOWEL L M O U N T A I N R D FOUNTAIN H ILLS BLVDSUNRIDGE DREL L A G O B L V D AVEN U E O F T H E FOU N T A I N S PANORAMA DRFIREROCK COUNTRYCLUB DR EA G L E M O U N T A I N PK W YCRESTVIEW DRPALOMINO SIERR A M A D R E GRANDE B L V DGOLDEN EAGLE BLVD VICINITY MAP TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS NORTH SCALE: 1" = 3500'All that i s A r iz o naFOU N T A IN HI L LSTOWN OFINC. 1989TOWN HALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCOTTSDALE McDOWELL MOUNTAIN PARK FORT McDOWELL YAVAPAI NATIONSALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY TOWN BOUNDARY SCOTTSDALE 15933 E LANTANA DR DEVELOPMENT SERVICESAERIAL PHOTO MAPAll that is Ari zo n a F O UNTAIN HILLST O W N OF INC. 1989LEGEND:1780LANTANA LNABANDONP.U.E. & D.E.17901800RETAIN P.U.E.& D.E.LIMIT OF ABANDONMENT TOBE SET BY APPLICANT'SAPPROVED DRAINAGEREPORT (TO BE SUBMITTEDWITH HIS HOUSE'S BUILDINGPERMIT APPLICATION).**10'PARCEL B RESOLUTION 2019-49 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IT HAS IN A PORTION OF THE 10’ PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 602B, BLOCK 2, LOT 26, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 166, PAGE 32, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. (EA 2019-16) RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Town Council”), as the governing body of real property located in the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Town”), may require the dedication of public streets, sewer, water, drainage, and other utility easements or rights-of-way within any proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has the authority to accept or reject offers of dedication of private property by easement, deed, subdivision, plat or other lawful means; and WHEREAS, all present utility companies have received notification of the proposed abandonment. ENACTMENTS: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, as follows: SECTION 1. That a portion of the certain ten foot (10’) public utility and drainage easement, at the rear property line of Plat 602B, Block 2, Lot 26, (15933 E. Lantana Lane) Fountain Hills, as recorded the Office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, Book 166 of Maps, Page 32, and as shown in Exhibit A, are hereby declared to be abandoned by the Town. Certain lots within this subdivision are subject to lot-to-lot drainage runoff. The property owner is required to pass the developed flows generated by the upstream lots across their property. SECTION 2. That this Resolution is one of abandonment and disclaimer by the Town solely for the purpose of removing any potential cloud on the title to said property and that the Town in no way attempts to affect the rights of any private party to oppose the abandonment or assert any right resulting there from or existing previous to any action by the Town. SECTION 3. That this resolution is subject to the following stipulations: A. Property owner shall provide acceptable hydrologic/hydraulic calculations for the 100-year storm. (Areas within the 100-year flood elevation plus the appropriate freeboard will be retained.) B. Property owner shall provide an acceptable easement abandonment exhibit (Exhibit A) map for recordation, showing the easement areas to be abandoned versus those that will be retained. RESOLUTION 2019-49 PAGE 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, this 5th day of November 5, 2019. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: _________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney RESOLUTION 2019-49 PAGE 3 Exhibit A - Map The Exhibit A map will be prepared and sealed by the applicant’s Land Surveyor, submitted to the Town, and approved by Staff, prior to recordation of this Abandonment. ITEM 7. D. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving the construction of a walking trail within the hillside protection easement on Tract A of CopperWynd - Fountain Hills final plat, located at 13225 N. Eagle Ridge Drive. Staff Summary (Background) CopperWynd - Fountain Hills final plat is a three lot subdivision with four tracts. Lot 1 of the subdivision contains the CopperWynd Resort that is currently undergoing a large expansion. When completed, the development will include up to 300 rooms, pool, open space, fitness room, and banquet space. Tract A of the final plat is to the northeast of the resort hotel buildings. This tract was reserved as a large (over five acre) open space and most of the tract is covered by a Hillside Protection Easement. By ordinance, Hillside Protection Easements may not have any construction. When Council approved this easement, however, language was included allowing for the construction of a trail with the approval of Council. The owner of CopperWynd now wants to construct a trail as an amenity for guests. Attached is an illustration of where the trail is proposed to be built. Staff has begun review of a grading permit for the proposed trail. Staff cannot take action on the permit until Council approves the construction of a trail in the Hillside Protection Easement. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Zoning Ordinance Section 9.02 B, Uses Permitted in the OSR District Subdivision Ordinance Section 5.04, Hillside Disturbance Risk Analysis The proposed trail will be constructed and maintained by the property owner. It is part of a private resort development and will be an amenity for the guests of the property. There is no risk to the Town for approval of this trail. Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approval. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to Approve the request for construction of a trail within the Hillside Protection Easement on Tract A of CopperWynd - Fountain Hills final plat. Attachments CopperWynd Trail Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Director (Originator)John Wesley 10/22/2019 04:58 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/23/2019 08:11 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/23/2019 09:24 AM Form Started By: John Wesley Started On: 10/08/2019 09:12 AM Final Approval Date: 10/23/2019 ITEM 8. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Regular Agenda Submitting Department: Community Services Prepared by: Jamie Salentine, Executive Assistant Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director Request to Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF appointing Hayden Arnold to the Community Services Advisory Commission. Staff Summary (Background) The Community Services Advisory Commission's Youth Commissioner position expired on May 31, 2019. Staff advertised for the vacant seat through the Town's website and publication in the Fountain Hills Times. One application was received: Youth Commissioner Hayden Arnold submitted his request for reappointment. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) At the June 24, 2019 meeting, the Community Services Advisory Commission updated the one-year term for the Youth Commissioner to be set annually from September 1 through June 30. Town Council approved the changes at the September 3, 2019 Council meeting. Staff Recommendation(s) Approve appointment of Hayden Arnold to the Community Services Advisory Commission. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to Appoint Hayden Arnold to the Community Services Advisory Commission. Attachments Reappointment Request Youth application publication 6-24-19 CSAC minutes 9-3-19 Council minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 10/22/2019 04:28 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/23/2019 08:12 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/23/2019 08:41 AM Form Started By: Jamie Salentine Started On: 10/09/2019 08:50 AM Final Approval Date: 10/23/2019 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUEST FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION YOUTH APPLICANTS Applications are being accepted for one (1) Youth Commissioner for the Community Services Advisory Commission. The appointee shall be the youth representation, who shall be a Town resident for at least one year, shall be a resident high school student, and serve a term on the Commission beginning September 1 through June 30. The role of the Commission is to advise the Mayor, Town Council, and the Director of Community Services in matters pertaining to Community Services. Commissioners attend a monthly Commission meeting, read packet materials, work on subcommittees, and volunteer on various department projects. Application forms are available at the Town Hall reception desk, 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268, or on the Town’s web site at www.fh.az.gov/CSAC The completed application packet should consist of (1) cover letter of interest; (2) a résumé; (3) completed Boards and Commissions Application, and (4) signed Consent to Executive Session. Applications are being accepted until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 25, 2019. Applications may be sent or hand delivered to the Town Hall Reception Desk, Attention: Jamie Salentine, 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268. The envelope should be clearly marked “Community Services Youth Commission Application.” If you have any questions, please contact Jamie Salentine at 480-816-5148 or jsalentine@fh.az.gov Published in the FH Times on September 11th and 18th, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ruppert called the meeting of Monday, June 24, 2019, to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall, located at 16705 East Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, Arizona. 2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Ron Ruppert, Vice Chairperson Amy Arnold, Commissioners Don Doty, Daniel Fecteau, Jerry Gorrell, Sharron Grzybowski, Sharon Morgan, and Natalie Varela. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin and Executive Assistant Jamie Salentine. 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC There was no comments from the citizens present. 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MAY 20, 2019 MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Doty moved to approve the May 20, 2019 meeting minutes, seconded by Commissioner Grzybowski; passed unanimously (8-0). 5. DISCUSSION ON THE CSAC BYLAWS, SECTION 3(B) MEMBERS & APPOINTMENTS FOLLOWING THE TRANSITION PERIOD, APPOINTMENTS, ON THE YOUTH REPRESENTATION TERM Executive Assistant Jamie Salentine reviewed the CSAC Bylaws, Section 3(B) and clarified that the youth representation term is for a one-year term, however, the Council approved the term and set an end date of May 31, 2019 within the motion. She stated that moving forward the motion will read as a one-year term. She pointed out that Section 3(C) a member shall remain seated until a successor is appointed and qualified due to vacancy by expiration of member’s term. She noted that Youth Commissioner Hayden Arnold can participate at the meetings. (See Attachment 1) In response to a question posed by Commissioner Arnold, Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin clarified that moving forward all Commissions/Committees are being reviewed and updated to be consistent with term expiration dates, rotating of expiration dates, etc. She pointed out that Youth Commissioner Arnold can still have his seat due to Section 3(C) until the process of a new appointment is completed. Discussion ensued relative to the youth representation application process start time and term of appointment start and end dates. Further discussion ensued relating to the youth representation requirement of being a member of the Mayor’s Youth Council and removing that requirement to reach more students who may be interested. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2019 Community Services Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes June 24, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Commission came to a consensus to remove being a member of the Mayor’s Youth Council and open the position to all students and the term be set from September 1 through June 30. 6. UPDATE ON DESERT VISTA DOG PARK RULES Commissioner Gorrell commented that in #2 of the rules that the Dog Park has no parking lot and suggested changing the wording to exiting the dog park or something similar. (See Attachment 2) Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin clarified that the rules have been reviewed by Maricopa Animal Control and the Town Attorney and that the document provided is the final draft. She stated that she will talk to them on rule #2. Ms. Goodwin pointed out that the rules have been posted online and at the Desert Vista Dog Park. 7. UPDATE FROM WORK GROUP ON THE RESEARCH FOR GRANT OPPORTUNITIES Commissioner Arnold commented that there are no new grants available. Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin added that she has received grant information on Association of American Retired Persons (AARP) and will provide the information to Commissioners Arnold and Doty. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Doty, Ms. Goodwin reported that the Arizona Sports Authority and Tourism Grant is complete and due at end of June, 2019 and the Diamonds Back Grant is in process and due by July 31, 2019. Commissioner Doty reported that he will have an update in August on the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Grant. 8. UPDATE ON COMMUNITY CENTER LAYOUT FOR ADDITIONAL PROGRAM ROOMS AND OFFICE RELOCATIONS Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin thanked everyone who attended the tour and confirmed that resident Jim Judge and everyone he represented will support the new layout for additional program rooms and office relocations. She noted that the rooms have been cleared out and offices relocated. She added that updated flooring will be installed in fall. Commissioner Varela commented that Senior Services, Inc. (SSI) is looking for approval for future vending machines, a removable puzzle table, a television, and rearranging the tables and chairs in the lobby. She pointed out that the vending machines would be placed in the back not in the lobby area and that all other items would be removable. Commissioner Morgan expressed the opinion that the lobby should stay a lobby and is opposed to anything semi - permanent as well as the vending machines. Commissioner Doty clarified that the vending machines would be placed back by the restrooms and not in the lobby area. Discussion ensued relative to the layout of the lobby area, removable items, and making the area more vibrant. Commissioner Gorrell emphasized the need to address all of the space in the Community Center for future use as the use increases. Commissioner Varela pointed out that SSI would like the lobby to stay classy. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -Mayor Ginny Dickey Mayor Dickey called the meeting of Septembe r 3 , 2019, to order at 5:30 p.m. and led the Council and audience in the Pledge of A ll egiance. 2. INVOCATION -Naomi Lerman with Beth Hagivot Chavurah Ms. Lerman , representing the Fountain Hills Interfaith Alliance , gave the invocation. 3. ROLL CALL -Mayor Ginny Dickey Counci lm embers Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmembers Mike Scharnow, Art Tolis, Dennis Brown , and David Spelich. Councilmembers Absent: Councilmember A lan Magazine. Staff Present: Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; and Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke . 4 . REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER Councilmember Scharnow reported that last week he attended the Valley Metro meeting . They talked about the fact that Prop 105 had been soundly defeated , and most were happy about that as it w ill allow for extensions to continue. They approved a package over the next five years for repl acing express buses with coaches. It is a $36 million contract that will commute into the vall ey with 50 seats , air conditioning , lighting , etc. He said that he was hoping they would get one in Fountain Hills. He reported that a few months ago he had reported that they were also updating the Fountain Hills Transit Plan, with no expense to the T own. He said that the project has been delayed , but they are hoping to get a draft within the next month or two . Counci lmember Scharnow reported that he, along with Mayor Dickey, Mr. Miller and Ms . Burke, attended the Annual Conference of the L eague of Arizona Cities and Town in Tucson. He attended five different workshops and enjoyed the speakers. He said that he found it very informative and educational. The best Founta i n Hills Town Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 3, 2019 Page 2 workshop talked about preemption by the state legislatures around the country that are restricting local entities from taking action. Mayor Dickey added that she has attended a lot of these over the years, and it was one of the rare times that she had difficulty deciding which session to attend. There were a lot of good sessions and many were videotaped and are avai lable on the League's website. She said that they also had the opportunity to sit down with Salt River Project and Republic and meet with other cities going through similar things as Fountain H ills. She said that the Town's lobbyist, Jack Lunsford , was there on other issues. She is hoping that next year they will be able to have more Councilmembers from Fountain H ills attend as it is a lways amazing what they learn. Mayor Dickey reported that they met with the CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Counci l to discuss the annua l priorities for both the Town and GPEC itself. She also noted that a retirement party had been held for Heather Ware, the Town's volunteer coordinator. She thanked her for her service and wished her luck with her new grandson. Mayor Dickey reported on the resolutions passed at the conference. They included : property tax and salvage property eva lu ation ; allowing governing bodies to use newspapers printed in their county; wastewater fairness act; supporting legislation for Equal Rights Amendment; adding a new section allowing for Executive Session to discuss security issues; short-term rentals (more to come out of that) and the Heritage Fund appropriations. A . PROCLAMATION -September 2019 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Mayor Dickey read the proclamation proclaiming September 2019 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. She thanked Kara for sharing her father's story. Kara was not present for the reading, but she and her family arrived during 5-A below, and once 5-A was completed Mayor Dickey presented the proclamation to them. 5. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS A. PRESENTATION by Captain Larry Kratzer, MCSO, with monthly update. Captain Kratzer said that there have been some questions raised lately about crime stati stics so this month's report would focus on that. He Fountain Hills Town Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 3, 2019 Page 3 provided a PowerPoint presentation, Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mayor Dickey thanked Captain Kratzer fo r his report. She said that she has really seen an increase in the MCSO presence over the last month addressi ng speeding. She said that she appreciates the forthright way that MCSO has responded to requests for information and questions. 6. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A. R. S. §38-431. 01 (H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda . Harris Deitch , Fountain H ills resident, addressed the Council regarding concerns w ith mass shootings and security measures needed . He also noted that he was running fo r U.S. House of Representatives . Pam Agui l u, Fountain Hills resident, said that September is Nationa l Recovery Month and they share the message that people can l ive and have fun while being sober. She thanked Rural Metro and the members of the Fire Department for saving her life. 7 . CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. CONSIDERATION OF approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 13, 2019, and the Special Meeting (in lieu of regular meeting) of August 13, 2019 . Fountain Hills Town Council Regular Meeting M inutes of September 3, 2019 Page 4 B . CONSIDERATION OF approving a Specia l Event Liquor License Application for Fountain Events, Inc. (Christine Colley) for the Oktoberfest Event being held in Fountain Park , from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM , Friday, September 27 through Saturday, September 28, 2019. C. CONSIDERATION OF adopting changes to the Town Code through adoption of Resolution 2019-45 (repeal ing Resolution Nos. 2016-04, Building Safety Board of Appeals; 2014-28, Community Services Advisory Commission ; 2019-22, McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission; 2016-0 1, Sister Cities Advisory Commission ; and 2009-09, Strategic Planning Advisory Commission); and Ordinance 19-15 (amending the T own Code, Chapter 2 , Mayor and Council, by removing Article 2-7, Planning and Zoning Commission , and Article 2-8, Board of Adjustment; and adding a new Chapter 2A, Boards and Commissions, thereto). D . CONSIDERATION OF adopting Resolution 2019-46 -A resolution of the Mayor and Town Council of Fountain Hi ll s, Mar icopa County, Arizona , approving the Town of Fountain Hill s, A rizona Town Council Rules of Procedure, Amended and Restated September 3, 20 19. Councilmember T olis requested that Item 7-E be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Scharnow MOVED to approve Consent Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D ; SECONDED by Councilmember Brown; passed unanimously. E. CONSIDERATION OF approving a lease agreement with the Sunset Kiwanis for the building located at 16957 Kiwanis Drive for a period of 10 years . Mr. Mi ller reviewed the item, stating that th i s was a renewal of the lease with the Sunset Kiwanis for lease of the building. Their initial lease was a 25- year lease with no obligation to maintain the interi o r. This is a 10-year lease with them to. pay for water and electricity and to maintain the in_te rior of the building . The exterior and HVAC would sti ll be covered by the Town. Councilmember T o lis asked how the Kawanis Club was the only one to have this type of a deal with the Town. He said that Counci lmember Spelich has brought up many times the costs of events and the fact that the Chamber of Comme rce does not pay. Councilmember Toli s said that he is not opposed to this, but it is also important to re cog nize al l of the service o rganizations in Town. He did not see the park used very often and did not seem to be well maintained. He sa id that the re is another civic organization looking to put in bocce courts the Fountain Park, and questioned if th ey could use this property. ITEM 8. B. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Regular Agenda Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-52 approving a Development Agreement associated with the Daybreak P.A.D. rezoning located at the northeast corner of Palisades and Shea Boulevards. Staff Summary (Background) On October 1, 2019, the Town Council held a public hearing to review and consider the Minor General Plan Amendment, the Rezoning, and the associated Development Agreement for the proposed Daybreak development at Palisades and Shea. The Council voted to approve the Minor General Plan Amendment and the Rezoning. After some discussion, no action was taken on the Development Agreement. The Council held an executive session on the draft Development Agreement on October 23, 2019. At that meeting the Council gave staff direction regarding points to be negotiated with the applicant in the Development Agreement. An additional executive session was held on October 30, 2019, to review progress and give staff further direction. As of the writing of this report the Development Agreement has not been finalized to accompany the report. The final Development Agreement will be attached to this report once the negotiations with the applicant have been completed. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis A risk analysis cannot be completed until a final Development Agreement has been drafted. Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff anticipates a recommendation for approval of the Development Agreement following final negotiations with the applicant. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to ADOPT/DENY Resolution 2019-52. Attachments Daybreak PAD Narrative Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Director (Originator)John Wesley 10/30/2019 05:13 PM Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Burke 10/31/2019 10:05 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/31/2019 10:06 AM Form Started By: John Wesley Started On: 10/30/2019 05:02 PM Final Approval Date: 10/31/2019 ITEM 8. C. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Regular Agenda Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: David Pock, Finance Director Staff Contact Information: David Pock, Finance Director Request to Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-53 adopting recommended changes to the Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements Plan. Staff Summary (Background) Based on input received from the Town Council during the 9/17/2019 meeting and further analyses of infrastructure needs by staff, TischlerBise was directed to revise the capital improvement projects outlined in the Infrastructure Improvements Plan. These revisions removed development fee funding of the following projects: Future expansion of existing Police facilities (approximately 464 square feet) Future expansion of Multi-Use and Park Trails (0.9 miles and 0.8 miles, respectively) Future expansion of existing Fire Stations (approximately 1,452 square feet) Future widening of Fountain Hills Boulevard (3 new lane miles) The result was a reduction of the Parks & Recreation, Fire, and Street development fees. The Law Enforcement development fee was eliminated. In addition, the Non-Residential Assisted Living and Hotel categories were consolidated into the Non-Residential Institutional and Commercial categories, respectively. Growth projects that remain in the Infrastructure Improvements Plan are as follows: Parks and Recreation 10.3 acres of developed park land 5.7 park amenities Fire Stations 0.5 unit of fire apparatus 2.9 units of fire equipment Street Facilities Infrastructure 2.3 arterial lane miles (Shea Blvd) 1.3 improved intersections Council will be asked to approve Resolution 2019-53 adopting the recommended changes to the Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements Plan. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis The process by which Development Impact Fees may be assessed is regulated by Arizona Revised Statute (ARS § 9-463.05). The approval of the Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements Plan is one of the first steps. If approved, the next step would be to hold a public hearing on the draft fees. If these documents are disapproved, any new documents will be required to be posted for 60 days before coming back to Council. Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Implementation Plan. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to adopt Resolution 2019-53. Attachments Res 2019-53 Land Use Assumptions & Infrastructure Improvements Plan TischlerBise Presentation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director (Originator)David Pock 10/15/2019 03:19 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/15/2019 04:49 PM Town Manager David Pock 10/16/2019 09:58 AM Finance Director (Originator)David Pock 10/16/2019 10:12 AM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/16/2019 10:17 AM Town Manager David Pock 10/16/2019 02:03 PM Finance Director (Originator)David Pock 10/17/2019 01:43 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/23/2019 08:13 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/23/2019 08:42 AM Form Started By: David Pock Started On: 10/14/2019 10:35 AM Final Approval Date: 10/23/2019 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE TOWN’S LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND ISSUING THE TOWN’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO ASSESS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ACCORDING TO STATE LAW RECITALS: WHEREAS, Arizona’s enabling legislation for development fees, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-463.05 (the “Development Fee Statute”) requires the Town to produce three integrated documents prior to assessing development fees: (i) the Land Use Assumptions (“LUA”), (ii) an Infrastructure Improvements Plan (“IIP”), and (iii) a Development Fee study based upon the LUA/IIP. The Development Fee Statute also requires a two-phase adoption process, whereby the LUA and IIP are reviewed, refined, and adopted before the Development Fee Study is addressed; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Development Fee Statute, the LUA and IIP were released to the public, and the Town Council held a public hearing on September 17, 2019, to receive public comment on the LUA/IIP; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to: (i) conclude the first phase of the development fee adoption process by approving the IIP and LUA, and (ii) initiate the second phase by issuing a notice of intent to assess development fees. ENACTMENTS: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements Plan are hereby adopted in substantially the form and substance of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Town Council hereby gives notice of its intent to assess development fees and directs the Town Manager or his authorized designee to: (i) release to the public and post on the Town’s website the adopted LUA/IIP, in substantially the form and substance attached as Exhibit A and (ii) set a public hearing on the proposed development fees in accordance with applicable law. SECTION 4. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-53 PAGE 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona, this 5th day of November, 2019. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ __________________________________ Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report Prepared for: Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona November 5, 2019 4701 Sangamore Road Suite S240 Bethesda, MD 20816 301.320.6900 www.TischlerBise.com DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 Arizona Development Fee Enabling Legislation ................................................................................ 1 Necessary Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 1 Infrastructure Improvements Plan ................................................................................................................... 2 Qualified Professionals ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Conceptual Development Fee Calculation ...................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation of Credits/Offsets ............................................................................................................................ 3 DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT ................................................................................................................ 4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Service Areas ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Current Development Fees ................................................................................................................... 8 Proposed Development Fees ................................................................................................................. 9 Difference between proposed and current development fees ........................................................ 10 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ............................ 11 Service Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Proportionate Share .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Ratio of Service Units to Development Units ................................................................................... 13 Analysis of Capacity, Usage, and Costs of Existing Public Services ............................................. 13 Developed Park Land – Incremental Expansion .......................................................................................... 14 Park Amenities – Incremental Expansion ..................................................................................................... 15 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based ......................................................................................................... 17 Projected Demand for Services And Costs ........................................................................................ 17 Parks and Recreation Facilities IIP ..................................................................................................... 19 Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Fees .......................................................................... 20 Revenue Credit/Offset ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Proposed Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Fees .................................................................... 20 Forecast of Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Fee Revenues ..................................... 21 FIRE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .............................................................. 22 Service Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 Proportionate Share .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Ratio of Service Units to development units ..................................................................................... 24 Analysis of Capacity, Usage, and Costs of Existing Public Services ............................................. 24 Fire Apparatus – Incremental Expansion ...................................................................................................... 25 Fire Equipment – Incremental Expansion ..................................................................................................... 26 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based ......................................................................................................... 27 Projected Service Units and Projected Demand for Services .......................................................... 27 Fire Facilities IIP ................................................................................................................................... 29 Fire Facilities Development Fees ........................................................................................................ 30 Revenue Credit/Offset ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Proposed Fire Facilities Development Fees .................................................................................................. 30 Forecast of Fire Facilities Development Fee Revenues .................................................................... 31 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona ii STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .......................................................... 32 Service Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Proportionate Share .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Ratio of Service Units to Development Units ................................................................................... 33 Service Units ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 Trip Generation Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 33 Adjustment for Commuting Patterns ............................................................................................................ 34 Adjustment for Pass-By Trips ......................................................................................................................... 34 Analysis of Capacity, Usage, and Costs of Existing Public Services ............................................. 35 Travel Demand Model ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Calibrated Travel Demand Model ................................................................................................................. 37 Arterial Improvements – Plan-Based ............................................................................................................... 38 Improved Intersections – Incremental Expansion .......................................................................................... 39 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based ......................................................................................................... 40 Street Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................................................... 41 Revenue Credit/Offset ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees ............................................................................................... 41 Projected Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue ..................................................................... 42 APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................... 43 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 43 Service Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 43 Summary of Growth Indicators .......................................................................................................... 46 Residential Development .................................................................................................................... 47 Recent Residential Construction .................................................................................................................... 47 Household Size ................................................................................................................................................... 48 Seasonal Households ......................................................................................................................................... 49 Population Estimates ......................................................................................................................................... 49 Population Projections ...................................................................................................................................... 50 Nonresidential Development .............................................................................................................. 51 Employment Estimates .................................................................................................................................... 51 Nonresidential Square Footage Estimates ..................................................................................................... 52 Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections ........................................................................... 53 Average Weekday Vehicle Trips ........................................................................................................ 54 Trip Rate Adjustments ..................................................................................................................................... 54 Commuter Trip Adjustment ........................................................................................................................... 54 Adjustment for Pass-By Trips ......................................................................................................................... 55 Estimated Residential Vehicle Trip Rates ..................................................................................................... 55 Functional Population ...................................................................................................................................... 56 Development Projections ...................................................................................................................... 57 APPENDIX B: LAND USE DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................. 58 Residential Development ...................................................................................................................... 58 Nonresidential Development ................................................................................................................ 59 APPENDIX C: FORECAST OF REVENUES ............................................................................................. 60 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Fountain Hills hired TischlerBise to document land use assumptions, prepare an Infrastructure Improvements Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “IIP”), and update development fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-463.05 (hereinafter referred to as the “Enabling Legislation”). Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality for necessary public services. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Land Use Assumptions. The IIPs for each type of infrastructure are located in each infrastructure type’s corresponding section, and the Land Use Assumptions can be found in Appendix A. The proposed development fees are displayed in the Development Fee Report chapter. Development fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. The fee represents future development’s proportionate share of infrastructure costs. Development fees may be used for infrastructure improvements or debt service for growth related infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, development fees may not be used for operations, maintenance, replacement, or correcting existing deficiencies. This update of the Town’s Infrastructure Improvements Plan and associated update to its development fees includes the following necessary public services: • Parks and Recreation Facilities • Fire Facilities • Street Facilities This plan also includes all necessary elements required to be in full compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-463.05 (SB 1525). It should be noted that this Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development Fee study does not include storm water, drainage or flood control facilities. ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION The Enabling Legislation governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Arizona. Necessary Public Services Under the requirements of the Enabling Legislation, development fees may only be used for construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities that are necessary public services. “Necessary public service” means any of the following categories of facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and that are owned and operated on behalf of the municipality: water, wastewater, storm water, drainage, flood control, library, streets, fire and police, and neighborhood parks and recreation. Additionally, a necessary public service includes any facility, not included in the aforementioned categories (e.g., general government facilities), that was financed before June 1, 2011 and that meets the following requirements: 1. Development fees were pledged to repay debt service obligations related to the construction of the facility. 2. After August 1, 2014, any development fees collected are used solely for the payment of principal and interest on the portion of the bonds, notes, or other debt service obligations issued before June 1, 2011 to finance construction of the facility. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 2 Infrastructure Improvements Plan Development fees must be calculated pursuant to an IIP. For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, by law, the IIP shall include the following seven elements: • A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. • The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria. • The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed 10 years. • A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. Qualified Professionals The IIP must be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices. A qualified professional is defined as “a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst or planner providing services within the scope of the person’s license, education, or experience.” TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in the cost of growth services and is licensed to do business in Arizona. Our services include development fees, fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure financing analyses, user fee/cost of service studies, capital improvement plans, and fiscal software. TischlerBise has prepared over 900 development fee studies over the past 40 years for local governments across the United States. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 3 Conceptual Development Fee Calculation In contrast to project-level improvements, development fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or the entire service area (usually referred to as system improvements). The first step is to determine an appropriate demand indicator for the particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of service units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of persons per housing unit. The second step in the development fee formula is to determine infrastructure improvement units per service unit, typically called Level of Service standards, sometimes referred to as LOS. In keeping with the park example, a common LOS standard is improved park acres per thousand people. The third step in the development fee formula is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the formula would establish a cost per acre for land acquisition and/ or park improvements. Evaluation of Credits/Offsets Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of credits/offsets is integral to the development of a legally defensible development fee. There are two types of credits/offsets that should be addressed in development fee studies and ordinances. The first is a revenue credit/offset due to possible double payment situations, which could occur when other revenues may contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure covered by the development fee. This type of credit/offset is integrated into the fee calculation, thus reducing the fee amount. The second is a site-specific credit or developer reimbursement for dedication of land or construction of system improvements. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of the development fee program. For ease of administration, TischlerBise normally recommends developer reimbursements for system improvements. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 4 DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT METHODOLOGY Development fees for the necessary public services made necessary by new development must be based on the same level of service provided to existing development in the service area. There are three basic methodologies used to calculate development fees. They examine the past, present, and future status of infrastructure. The objective of evaluating these different methodologies is to determine the best measure of the demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation and can be used simultaneously for different cost components. Additionally, development fees for public services can also include the cost of professional services for preparing IIP’s and the related Development Fee report. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of development fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following paragraphs discuss basic methods for calculating development fees and how those methods can be applied. • Cost Recovery (past improvements) - The rationale for recoupment, often called cost recovery, is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built, or land already purchased, from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate capacity before new development can take place. • Incremental Expansion (concurrent improvements) - The incremental expansion method documents current level of service standards for each type of public facility, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. This approach assumes there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. Revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments to keep pace with development. • Plan-Based (future improvements) - The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified in a long-range facility plan and development potential is identified by a land use plan. There are two basic options for determining the cost per demand unit: (1) total cost of a public facility can be divided by total demand units (average cost), or (2) the growth-share of the public facility cost can be divided by the net increase in demand units over the planning timeframe (marginal cost). DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 5 A summary is provided in Figure 1 showing the methodology for each necessary public service, as well as the service area and cost allocation method used to develop the IIP and calculate the development fees. Due to the present uncertainty of development intensity, timeliness, and conveyance of State Land property in the Fountain Hills service area, it is recommended that growth-related transportation impacts be addressed through both plan-based and incremental expansion methodologies. Figure 1: Recommended Calculation Methodologies Rounding A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted using Excel software. Most results are discussed in the report using two, three, and four-digit places, which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore, the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). Incremental Expansion Parks and Recreation Townwide Developed Park Land, Park Amenities Development Fee Report N/A Population, Jobs Fire Townwide Fire Apparatus, Fire Equipment Development Fee Report N/A Population, Jobs Street Townwide Improved Intersections Arterial Improvements, Development Fee Report N/A VMT Necessary Public Service Service Area Plan-Based Cost Recovery Cost Allocation DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 6 SERVICE AREAS ARS 9-463.05 defines “service area” as follows: Any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan. The Town’s previous Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan, and Development Fee Report recommended one service area, shown below in Figure 2. Figure 2: Current Development Fee Service Area DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 7 Much of the land in Fountain Hills has been developed with approximately 24 percent, or 2,400, of the 9,780 developable acres remaining until the community reaches “build out,” a state of maximum development under the adopted plan. As development of the remaining available land proceeds, it is important to identify any additional demands, and associated costs, for services that will be utilized by future development including the provision of adequate park and recreational space, transportation networks, fire apparatus and equipment. All of the elements incorporated into the study are intended to serve the entire Town with a standard level of service as opposed to bounded districts or subareas. As an example, referring to Figure 3, a new residential development in Section 2 is still likely to utilize regional recreational amenities and transportation infrastructure located throughout Town. Furthermore, fire demands change over time based on migration patterns of people and are not necessarily restricted to specific geographic sub-zones. As such, TischlerBise recommends a townwide service area for all fees. Figure 3: Proposed Development Fee Service Area DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 8 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES Fountain Hills’ current development fees are shown below in Figures 4 and 5. Demand for services (parks and recreation, fire, and streets) is driven by the intensity of the use on those particular services; therefore, fees are assessed based on development type – residential or nonresidential. Current fees are shown in Figure 4 for residential development and in Figure 5 for nonresidential development. It is worth noting there are currently no fees for street improvements. Figure 4: Current Residential Development Fees Figure 5: Current Nonresidential Development Fees Residential Development Development Type Fire Parks and Recreation Street Total Single Family $300 $1,301 $0 $1,601 Multi-Family $300 $1,301 $0 $1,601 Development Fees per Unit Nonresidential Development Development Type Fire Parks and Recreation Street Total Industrial $0.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.24 Commercial $0.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.24 Institutional $0.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.24 Office $0.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.24 Development Fees per Square Foot DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 9 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed fees are based on a policy-level concept that development fees should fund 100 percent of growth-related infrastructure, therefore the fees shown below represent the maximum allowable fees. Fountain Hills may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown; however, a reduction in development fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital improvements, and/or a decrease in Fountain Hills’ level-of-service standards. All costs in the Development Fee Report are in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. If cost estimates change significantly over time, development fees should be recalibrated. Proposed development fees are shown below in Figures 6 and 7. Development fees for residential development are assessed per dwelling unit, based on the type of unit. Nonresidential development fees are assessed per square foot of floor area. Figure 6: Proposed Residential Development Fees Figure 7: Proposed Nonresidential Development Fees Residential Development Development Type Fire Parks and Recreation Street Total Single Family $122 $1,916 $1,935 $3,974 Multi-Family $94 $1,479 $964 $2,537 Development Fees per Unit Nonresidential Development Development Type Fire Parks and Recreation Street Total Industrial $0.10 $0.56 $0.63 $1.29 Commercial $0.14 $0.81 $2.86 $3.82 Institutional $0.06 $0.32 $2.48 $2.86 Office $0.18 $1.03 $1.24 $2.45 Development Fees per Square Foot DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 10 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROPOSED AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES The differences between the proposed and current development fees are displayed below in Figure 8 for residential development and Figure 9 for nonresidential development. Figure 8: Difference Between Proposed and Current Residential Development Fees Figure 9: Difference Between Proposed and Current Nonresidential Development Fees Residential Development Development Type Fire Parks and Recreation Street Fee Change Single Family ($178)$615 $1,935 $2,373 Multi-Family ($206)$178 $964 $936 Development Fees per Unit Nonresidential Development Development Type Fire Parks and Recreation Street Fee Change Industrial ($0.14)$0.56 $0.63 $1.05 Commercial ($0.10)$0.81 $2.86 $3.58 Institutional ($0.19)$0.32 $2.48 $2.62 Office ($0.06)$1.03 $1.24 $2.21 Development Fees per Square Foot DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 11 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(g) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP: “Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities on real property up to thirty acres in area, or parks and recreational facilities larger than thirty acres if the facilities provide a direct benefit to the development. Park and recreational facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of any facility that is used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas, arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses, clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand square feet in floor area, environmental education centers, equestrian facilities, golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes, museums, theme parks, water reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar recreational facilities, but may include swimming pools.” The Parks and Recreation Facilities IIP includes components for developed park land, park amenities, and the cost of professional services for preparing the Parks and Recreation Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for developed park land, and park amenities. A plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report. Service Area The Town of Fountain Hills plans to provide a uniform level of service and equal access to parks and recreational facilities within the Town limits. The parks and recreation programs are structured and provided to make full use of Fountain Hills’ total inventory of facilities. Therefore, the Parks and Recreation Facilities IIP uses a townwide service area. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 12 Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends peak daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities from residential and nonresidential development. According to the U.S. Census Bureau web application OnTheMap, there were 2,929 inflow commuters in 2015, which is the number of persons who work in Fountain Hills but live outside the Town. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure PK1, to derive functional population shares for Fountain Hills. The estimated peak population in 2015, which includes seasonal residents, was 28,282 persons. The study uses 2015 data because this the most recent year available for inflow/outflow data. As shown in Figure PK1, the proportionate share is based on cumulative impact days per year with residents potentially impacting parks and recreational facilities 365 days per year. Inflow commuters potentially impact park and recreational facilities 250 days per year, assuming 5 workdays per week multiplied by 50 weeks per year. For parks and recreational facilities, residential development generates 93 percent of demand and nonresidential development generates the remaining seven percent of demand. Figure PK1: Daytime Population in 2015 Fountain Hills Residents Inflow Commuters Residential 1 Nonresidential 2 Total Residential Nonresidential 28,282 2,929 10,322,928 732,250 11,055,178 93%7% 1. Days per Year = 365 365 2. Days per Year = 250 (5 Days per Week x 50 Weeks per Year)250 Cost Allocation for ParksCumulative Impact Days per Year Source: Maricopa Association of Goverments 2015 Population Estimate; TischlerBise Peak Population Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.1.1 Application, 2015. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 13 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.” Figure PK2 displays the demand indicators for residential and nonresidential land uses. For residential development, the table displays the persons per household for single-family (or single unit) and multi- family units. For nonresidential development, the table displays the number of employees per thousand square feet of floor area for four different types of nonresidential development. Figure PK2: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Development Type Persons per Household1 Single Family 2.15 Multi-Family 1.66 Development Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq. Ft1 Industrial 1.63 Commercial 2.34 Institutional 0.93 Office 2.97 1. See Land Use Assumptions Residential Development Nonresidential Development DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 14 Developed Park Land – Incremental Expansion The summary of developed neighborhood and community park land in Fountain Hills is displayed in Figure PK3. Town-owned golf courses, regional parks, retention ponds, and conservation parks were excluded from the inventory. Fountain Hills has a total of 127 acres of developed park land. The level of service for residential development is 0.00410 acres per resident, which is calculated by multiplying the total number of acres (127) by the residential proportionate share (93 percent) and dividing this total by the 2018 peak population (28,840). The nonresidential level of service is 0.00161 acres per job, which is found by multiplying the total number of acres (127) by the nonresidential proportionate share (7 percent) and dividing this total by the number of jobs in 2018 (5,521). The analysis uses a developed cost of $40,000 per acre – this includes infrastructure costs and excludes land acquisition costs. Multiplying the average cost per developed acre of park land ($40,000) by the residential and nonresidential levels of service results in a cost of $163.81 per person and $64.41 per job. Note that while the LOS standards shown are rounded to the fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Figure PK3: Developed Park Land Level-of-Service Standards Description Developed Acres Desert Vista Park 12.0 Fountain Park 65.0 Four Peaks Park 14.0 Golden Eagle Park 25.0 Avenue Plaza 3.0 Botanical Garden Preserve 8.0 Total 127.0 Developed Cost per Acre1 $40,000 Existing Developed Acres 127.0 Residential Share 93% 2018 Peak Population 28,840 Developed Acres per Person 0.00410 Cost per Person $163.81 Nonresidential Share 7% 2018 Jobs 5,521 Developed Acres per Job 0.00161 Cost per Job $64.41 1. Includes infrastructure costs but excludes acquisition costs. Cost Allocation Factors Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 15 Park Amenities – Incremental Expansion Fountain Hills’ park amenities inventory is displayed in Figure PK4. Fountain Hills parks have 70 amenities, which have a total replacement cost of about $22.1 million. Dividing the total replacement cost by the total number of amenities yields an average cost per amenity of $315,757 as shown in Figure PK4. Figure PK4: Park Amenities Inventory Description Units Unit Cost Replacement Cost GE-Softball Fields 3 $725,000 $2,175,000 GE-Baseball Fields 1 $625,000 $625,000 GE-Tennis Courts 4 $108,000 $432,000 GE-Basketball Courts 2 $120,000 $240,000 GE-Vollyball Courts 2 $24,000 $48,000 GE-Playgrounds (0-5 YO)1 $125,000 $125,000 GE-Playgrounds (5-12 YO)1 $230,000 $230,000 GE-Ramada (Saguaro)1 $168,000 $168,000 GE-Ramada (Ocotillo)1 $84,000 $84,000 GE-Ramada (Cottonwood)1 $84,000 $84,000 GE-Restrooms 1 $420,000 $420,000 GE-Parking Lot 3 $525,938 $1,577,814 FP-Splash Pad 1 $480,000 $480,000 FP-Great Lawn 1 $475,000 $475,000 FP-Red Yucca Lawn 1 $475,000 $475,000 FP-Golden Barrel Lawn 1 $475,000 $475,000 FP-Disk Golf 1 $15,284 $15,284 FP-Walking Path 1 $380,284 $380,284 FP-Restrooms 1 $420,000 $420,000 FP-Playground (2-5 YO)1 $125,000 $125,000 FP-Musical Playground 1 $230,000 $230,000 FP-Playground (5-12 YO)1 $230,000 $230,000 FP-Ramada (Kiwanis)1 $168,000 $168,000 FP-Ramada (Red Yucca)1 $84,000 $84,000 FP-Ramada (Chuparosa)1 $84,000 $84,000 FP-Ramada (Golden Barrel)1 $84,000 $84,000 FP-Ramada (Ironwood)1 $84,000 $84,000 FP-Parking Lot 2 $525,938 $1,051,876 4P-Multi Use Field 2 $475,000 $950,000 4P-Parking Lot 2 $525,938 $1,051,876 4P-Playground (5-12 YO)2 $230,000 $460,000 4P-Ramada 1 $84,000 $84,000 4P-Restrooms 1 $420,000 $420,000 4P-Softball Field 2 $825,000 $1,650,000 4P-Foot Bridge 1 $750,000 $750,000 4P-Tennis Court 2 $108,000 $216,000 DV-Dog Park 1 $650,000 $650,000 DV-Multi Use Field 3 $475,000 $1,425,000 DV-Parking Lot 1 $525,938 $525,938 DV-Playground (5-12 YO)1 $230,000 $230,000 DV-Ramada 8 $84,000 $672,000 DV-Restroom 1 $420,000 $420,000 DV-Skate Park 1 $414,000 $414,000 Adero-Restrooom 1 $420,000 $420,000 Adero-Parking Lot 1 $525,938 $525,938 Adero-Ramada 1 $168,000 $168,000 Total 70 $315,757 $22,103,010 1. Parks and Recreation Department, City of Fountain Hills. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 16 The current residential level of service is 0.00226 amenities per resident, which was calculated by multiplying the 70 amenities by the residential proportionate share (93 percent) and dividing this amount by the current population (28,840). Similarly, the nonresidential level of service is 0.00089 units per job (5,521). Multiplying the average cost per amenity ($315,757) by the residential and nonresidential levels of service results in a cost of $712.75 per person and $280.24 per job. Note that while the LOS standards shown are rounded to the fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). Figure PK5: Park Amenities Level-of-Service Standards Cost per Amenity $315,757 Existing Amenities 70 Residential Share 93% 2018 Peak Population 28,840 Amenities per Person 0.00226 Cost per Person $712.75 Nonresidential Share 7% 2018 Jobs 5,521 Amenities per Job 0.00089 Cost per Job $280.24 Cost Allocation Factors Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 17 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Parks and Recreation IIP and Development Fees totals $16,640. Fountain Hills plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per person is $14.63 and the cost per job is $2.39. Figure PK6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” As shown in Figure PK8, the Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 2,163 persons and 872 jobs over the next 10 years. ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” These projected service units are multiplied by the current levels of service for the IIP components shown in Figures PK7 and PK8. New development will demand an additional 10.3 acres of developed park land, and 5.7 additional park amenities over the next 10 years. The park improvements and recreational facility totals demanded by new development multiplied by the respective costs suggests the Town will need to spend $2.19 million on new park improvements to accommodate projected demand, as shown in the bottom of Figure PK9. Necessary Public Service Cost Demand Unit 5-Year Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential 93%Population 1,058 $14.63 Nonresidential 7%Jobs 487 $2.39 Residential 81%Population 1,058 $12.74 Nonresidential 19%Jobs 487 $6.50 Street $16,640 All Development 100%VMT 11,512 $1.45 Total $49,920 Proportionate Share Fire $16,640 Parks and Recreation $16,640 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 18 Figure PK7: Projected Demand for Developed Park Land Figure PK8: Projected Demand for Park Amenities Demand Unit Cost per Unit 0.00410 Developed Acres per Person 0.00161 Developed Acres per Job Year Population Jobs Residential Acres Nonresidential Acres Total Acres 2018 28,840 5,521 118.1 8.9 127.0 2019 29,048 5,600 119.0 9.0 128.0 2020 29,258 5,789 119.8 9.3 129.1 2021 29,470 5,861 120.7 9.4 130.1 2022 29,683 5,934 121.6 9.6 131.1 2023 29,898 6,008 122.4 9.7 132.1 2024 30,115 6,083 123.3 9.8 133.1 2025 30,334 6,159 124.2 9.9 134.1 2026 30,555 6,236 125.1 10.0 135.2 2027 30,778 6,314 126.0 10.2 136.2 2028 31,003 6,393 127.0 10.3 137.3 10-Yr Increase 2,163 872 8.9 1.4 10.3 $354,274 $56,169 $410,443 Growth-Related Expenditures Level of ServiceType of Infrastructure Need for Developed Park Land $40,000Developed Park Land Demand Unit Cost per Unit 0.00226 Units per Person 0.00089 Units per Job Year Population Jobs Residential Units Nonresidential Units Total Units 2018 28,840 5,521 65.1 4.9 70.0 2019 29,048 5,600 65.6 5.0 70.5 2020 29,258 5,789 66.0 5.1 71.2 2021 29,470 5,861 66.5 5.2 71.7 2022 29,683 5,934 67.0 5.3 72.3 2023 29,898 6,008 67.5 5.3 72.8 2024 30,115 6,083 68.0 5.4 73.4 2025 30,334 6,159 68.5 5.5 73.9 2026 30,555 6,236 69.0 5.5 74.5 2027 30,778 6,314 69.5 5.6 75.1 2028 31,003 6,393 70.0 5.7 75.7 10-Yr Increase 2,163 872 4.9 0.8 5.7 $1,541,442 $244,390 $1,785,832 Growth-Related Expenditures Type of Infrastructure Level of Service Need for Park Amenities Park Amenities $315,757 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 19 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IIP ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Potential Parks and Recreation Facilities that Fountain Hills may use development fees for in order to accommodate new development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure PK9. Figure PK9: Parks & Recreation Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Plan Necessary Public Services Timeframe Cost Developed Park Land 2019-2028 $410,443 Park Amenities 2019-2028 $1,785,832 Total $2,196,275 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 20 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Revenue Credit/Offset A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Parks and Recreation Facilities development fees because 10-year growth costs exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure PK11. Proposed Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for Parks and Recreation Facilities, including developed park land, park amenities, and the professional services cost for the IIP and Development Fee Report are summarized at the top of Figure PK10. The cost per service unit for Parks and Recreation Facilities development fees is $891.19 per person and $347.04 per job. Parks and Recreation Facilities development fees for residential development are assessed according to the number of persons per household. For example, the single-family fee of $1,916 is calculated using a cost per service unit of $891.19 per person multiplied by a demand unit of 2.15 persons per household. Nonresidential development fees are calculated using jobs as the service unit. The fee of $0.81 per square foot of commercial development is derived from a cost per service unit of $347.04 per job multiplied by a demand unit of 2.34 jobs per 1,000 square feet, divided by 1,000 square feet. Figure PK10: Proposed Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Fees Fee Component Cost per Person Cost per Job Developed Park Land $163.81 $64.41 Park Amenities $712.75 $280.24 Development Fee Report $14.63 $2.39 Total $891.19 $347.04 Residential Development Development Type Persons per Household1 Proposed Fees Current Fees Increase / Decrease Single Family 2.15 $1,916 $1,301 $615 Multi-Family 1.66 $1,479 $1,301 $178 Nonresidential Development Development Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq Ft1 Proposed Fees Current Fees Increase / Decrease Industrial 1.63 $0.56 $0.00 $0.56 Commercial 2.34 $0.81 $0.00 $0.81 Institutional 0.93 $0.32 $0.00 $0.32 Office 2.97 $1.03 $0.00 $1.03 1. See Land Use Assumptions Development Fees per Unit Development Fees per Square Foot DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 21 FORECAST OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUES Appendix C contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation. The top of Figure PK11 summarizes the growth-related cost of infrastructure in Fountain Hills over the next 10 years ($2.21 million). Fountain Hills should receive approximately $2.21 million in Parks and Recreation Facilities development fee revenue over the next 10 years if actual development matches the Land Use Assumptions. Figure PK11: Projected Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Fee Revenue Growth Share Existing Share Total Developed Park Land $410,443 $0 $410,443 Park Amenities $1,785,832 $0 $1,785,832 Development Fee Report $16,640 $0 $16,640 Total $2,212,915 $0 $2,212,915 Avg Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $1,827 $0.56 $0.81 $0.32 $1.03 per unit per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft. Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 13,268 280 1,212 505 593 Year 1 2019 13,369 282 1,226 514 604 Year 2 2020 13,472 284 1,255 540 636 Year 3 2021 13,575 285 1,273 551 642 Year 4 2022 13,679 286 1,291 563 647 Year 5 2023 13,784 288 1,310 575 653 Year 6 2024 13,890 289 1,330 587 659 Year 7 2025 13,997 290 1,349 599 664 Year 8 2026 14,105 291 1,369 611 670 Year 9 2027 14,213 292 1,389 624 676 Year 10 2028 14,323 293 1,409 637 682 1,055 13 197 132 89 $1,911,191 $7,319 $159,645 $42,443 $91,512 $2,212,110 $2,212,915 Fee Component Projected Fee Revenue Total Expenditures 10-Year Increase Year Projected Revenue DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 22 FIRE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Fire Facilities IIP: “Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training firefighters or officers from more than one station or substation.” The Fire Facilities IIP and Development Fees includes components for fire apparatus, fire equipment, and the cost of professional services for preparing the Fire Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for fire apparatus and fire equipment, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report. Service Area The Town of Fountain Hills’ Fire Department strives to provide a uniform response time townwide, and its fire services operate as an integrated network. Depending on the number and type of calls, apparatus can be dispatched townwide from any of the stations. Therefore, the Fire Facilities IIP uses a townwide service area. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 23 Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends functional population to allocate the cost of fire facilities to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is similar to what the U.S. Census Bureau calls "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction, but also considers commuting patterns and time spent at home and at nonresidential locations. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure F1, to derive Functional Population shares for Fountain Hills. Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and 4 hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Fountain Hills are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Fountain Hills are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Fountain Hills, the cost allocation for residential development is 81 percent while nonresidential development accounts for 19 percent of the demand for municipal facilities. Figure F1: Fire Proportionate Share Demand Person Proportionate Hours/Day Hours Share Residential Peak Population 28,282 Residents Not Working 19,127 20 382,540 Employed Residents 9,155 Employed in Service Area 1,495 14 20,930 Employed outside Service Area 7,660 14 107,240 Residential Subtotal 510,710 81% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 19,127 4 76,508 Jobs in Service Area 4,424 Residents Employed in Service Area 1,495 10 14,950 Non-Resident Workers (inflow Commuters)2,929 10 29,290 Nonresidential Subtotal 120,748 19% Total 631,458 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.5 Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2015. Demand Units in 2015 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 24 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial/retail, industrial, and office/other services.” Figure F2 displays the ratio of service units to various types of land uses for residential and nonresidential development. For residential development, the table displays the persons per household for single-family (or single unit) and multi-family units. For nonresidential development, the table displays the number of employees per thousand square feet of floor area for four different types of nonresidential development. Figure F2: Persons Per Housing Type and Nonresidential Jobs per Demand Unit ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E) (1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Development Type Persons per Household1 Single Family 2.15 Multi-Family 1.66 Development Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq. Ft1 Industrial 1.63 Commercial 2.34 Institutional 0.93 Office 2.97 1. See Land Use Assumptions Residential Development Nonresidential Development DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 25 Fire Apparatus – Incremental Expansion The inventory summary of Fountain Hills’s fire apparatus is displayed in Figure F3. The Fountain Hills Fire Department owns 6 apparatus, which have a total replacement cost of $1.49 million. Dividing the total cost by the total number of units yields an average cost per unit of $248,333. The current residential level of service is 0.00017 apparatus per resident, which was obtained by multiplying the 6 units by the residential proportionate share (81 percent) and dividing this amount by the current population (28,840). Similarly, the nonresidential level of service is 0.00021 units per job. Multiplying the average cost per unit ($248,333) by the residential and nonresidential levels of service results in a cost per person of $41.85 and $51.28 per job. Note that while the LOS standards shown are rounded to the fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). Figure F3: Fire Apparatus Level-of-Service Standards Description Units Unit Cost Replacement Cost Engines 2 $500,000 $1,000,000 Brush Truck 2 $200,000 $400,000 Command Vehicle 2 $45,000 $90,000 Total 6 $248,333 $1,490,000 Cost per Apparatus $248,333 Existing Apparatus 6 Residential Share 81% 2018 Peak Population 28,840 Apparatus per Person 0.00017 Cost per Person $41.85 Nonresidential Share 19% 2018 Jobs 5,521 Apparatus per Job 0.00021 Cost per Job $51.28 Cost Allocation Factors Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 26 Fire Equipment – Incremental Expansion The inventory summary of Fountain Hills’s fire equipment including defibrillators and multi-band radios is displayed in Figure F4. The Fountain Hills Fire Department owns 25 defibrillators, which have a total replacement cost of $23,750 and seven multi-band radio units with a total replacement cost of $56,000. Dividing the total cost by the total number of units yields an average cost of $2,492 per unit. The current residential level of service is 0.0009 units per resident, which was obtained by multiplying the 32 units by the residential proportionate share (81 percent) and dividing this amount by the current population (28,840). Similarly, the nonresidential level of service is 0.0011 units per job. Multiplying the average cost per unit ($2,492) by the residential and nonresidential levels of service results in a cost per person of $2.24 and $2.74 per job. Note that while the LOS standards shown are rounded to the fourth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). Figure F4: Fire Equipment Inventory and Level of Service Standards Description Units Unit Cost Replacement Cost Defibrillators 25 $950 $23,750 Multi-Band Radio 7 $8,000 $56,000 Total 32 $2,492 $79,750 Cost per unit $2,492 Existing units 32 Residential Share 81% 2018 Peak Population 28,840 Units per Person 0.0009 Cost per Person $2.24 Nonresidential Share 19% 2018 Jobs 5,521 Units per Job 0.0011 Cost per Job $2.74 Cost Allocation Factors Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 27 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Fire Facilities IIP and Development Fee Report totals $16,640. Fountain Hills plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost is $12.74 per person and $6.50 per job. Figure F5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” The Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 2,163 persons and 872 jobs over the next 10 years. ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” As shown in Figures F6 and F7, new development will demand less than one apparatus, and 2.9 units of equipment. The 10-year total of the projected demand for fire facilities is multiplied by the cost per unit to determine the total cost to accommodate the projected demand over the next 10 years. The cost for the additional apparatus is $135,220, and the cost for the additional equipment is $7,237 – for a total capital cost of $142,458. Necessary Public Service Cost Demand Unit 5-Year Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential 93%Population 1,058 $14.63 Nonresidential 7%Jobs 487 $2.39 Residential 81%Population 1,058 $12.74 Nonresidential 19%Jobs 487 $6.50 Street $16,640 All Development 100%VMT 11,512 $1.45 Total $49,920 Proportionate Share Fire $16,640 Parks and Recreation $16,640 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 28 Figure F6: Projected Demand for Fire Apparatus Figure F7: Projected Demand for Fire Equipment Demand Unit Cost per Unit 0.00017 Units per Person 0.00021 Units per Job Year Peak Population Jobs Residential Nonresidential Total Units 2018 28,840 5,521 4.9 1.1 6.0 2019 29,048 5,600 4.9 1.2 6.1 2020 29,258 5,789 4.9 1.2 6.1 2021 29,470 5,861 5.0 1.2 6.2 2022 29,683 5,934 5.0 1.2 6.2 2023 29,898 6,008 5.0 1.2 6.3 2024 30,115 6,083 5.1 1.3 6.3 2025 30,334 6,159 5.1 1.3 6.4 2026 30,555 6,236 5.1 1.3 6.4 2027 30,778 6,314 5.2 1.3 6.5 2028 31,003 6,393 5.2 1.3 6.5 10-Yr Increase 2,163 872 0.4 0.2 0.5 $90,503 $44,717 $135,220 Level of Service Fire Apparatus $248,333 Need for Fire Apparatus Growth-Related Expenditures Type of Infrastructure Demand Unit Cost per Unit 0.0009 Units per Person 0.0011 Units per Job Year Peak Population Jobs Residential Nonresidential Total Units 2018 28,840 5,521 25.9 6.1 32.0 2019 29,048 5,600 26.1 6.2 32.3 2020 29,258 5,789 26.3 6.4 32.7 2021 29,470 5,861 26.5 6.5 32.9 2022 29,683 5,934 26.7 6.5 33.2 2023 29,898 6,008 26.9 6.6 33.5 2024 30,115 6,083 27.1 6.7 33.8 2025 30,334 6,159 27.3 6.8 34.0 2026 30,555 6,236 27.5 6.9 34.3 2027 30,778 6,314 27.7 7.0 34.6 2028 31,003 6,393 27.9 7.0 34.9 10-Yr Increase 2,163 872 1.9 1.0 2.9 $4,844 $2,393 $7,237 Growth-Related Expenditures Type of Infrastructure Level of Service Fire Equipment $2,492 Need for Fire Equipment DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 29 FIRE FACILITIES IIP ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Potential Fire Facilities that Fountain Hills may use development fees for in order to accommodate new development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure F8. Additional apparatus and equipment will be procured as necessitated by growth. Figure F8: Necessary Fire Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total) Necessary Public Services Timeframe Cost Fire Apparatus & Equipment 2020-2028 $142,458 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 30 FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Revenue Credit/Offset A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Fire Facilities development fees because 10-year growth costs exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure F10. Proposed Fire Facilities Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for Fire Facilities are summarized at the top of Figure F9. The cost per service unit for Fire Facilities development fees is $56.83 per person and $60.52 per job. Fire Facilities development fees for residential development are assessed according to the number of persons per household. For example, the single-family fee of $122 is calculated using a cost per service unit of $56.83 per person multiplied by a demand unit of 2.15 persons per household. Nonresidential development fees are calculated using jobs as the service unit. The fee of $0.14 per square foot of commercial development is derived from a cost per service unit of $60.52 per job multiplied by a demand unit of 2.34 jobs per 1,000 square feet, divided by 1,000 square feet. Figure F9: Proposed Fire Facilities Development Fees Fee Component Cost per Person Cost per Job Fire Apparatus $41.85 $51.28 Fire Equipment $2.24 $2.74 Development Fee Report $12.74 $6.50 Total $56.83 $60.52 Residential Development Development Type Persons per Household1 Proposed Fees Current Fees Increase / Decrease Single Family 2.15 $122 $300 ($178) Multi-Family 1.66 $94 $300 ($206) Nonresidential Development Development Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq. Ft1 Proposed Fees Current Fees Increase / Decrease Industrial 1.63 $0.10 $0.24 ($0.14) Commercial 2.34 $0.14 $0.24 ($0.10) Institutional 0.93 $0.06 $0.24 ($0.19) Office 2.97 $0.18 $0.24 ($0.06) 1. See Land Use Assumptions. Development Fees per Unit Development Fees per Square Foot DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 31 FORECAST OF FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUES Appendix C contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation. Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the proposed Fire Facilities development fees and that development over the next 10 years is consistent with the Land Use Assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. As shown in Figure F10, the 10-year projected development fee revenue of $159,012 is approximately equal to the 10-year growth cost of $159,098. Figure F10: Projected Fire Facilities Development Fee Revenue Growth Share Existing Share Total Fire Apparatus $135,220 $0 $135,220 Fire Equipment $7,237 $0 $7,237 Development Fee Report $16,640 $0 $16,640 Total $159,098 $0 $159,098 Avg Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $116 $0.10 $0.14 $0.06 $0.18 per unit per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft. Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 13,268 280 1,212 505 593 Year 1 2019 13,369 282 1,226 514 604 Year 2 2020 13,472 284 1,255 540 636 Year 3 2021 13,575 285 1,273 551 642 Year 4 2022 13,679 286 1,291 563 647 Year 5 2023 13,784 288 1,310 575 653 Year 6 2024 13,890 289 1,330 587 659 Year 7 2025 13,997 290 1,349 599 664 Year 8 2026 14,105 291 1,369 611 670 Year 9 2027 14,213 292 1,389 624 676 Year 10 2028 14,323 293 1,409 637 682 1,055 13 197 132 89 $108,826 $1,261 $26,429 $7,051 $15,446 $159,012 $159,098 Fee Component Projected Fee Revenue Total Expenditures 10-Year Increase Projected Revenue Year DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 32 STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(e) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Street Facilities IIP: “Street facilities located in the service area, including arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted plan of the municipality, traffic signals and rights-of-way and improvements thereon.” The Street Facilities IIP includes components for arterial street improvements, improved intersections, and the cost of professional services for preparing the Street Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for improved intersections, and a plan-based methodology is used for arterial improvements and the Development Fee Report. Service Area Fountain Hills’ arterial street network is designed to efficiently move traffic throughout the town; therefore, the service area for the Street Facilities IIP and Development Fees is townwide. A traffic analysis or alternative rational method may be used to identify specific off-site improvements as well as mitigation measures for development project impacts (intersections, adjacent roadways, etc.). Such project mitigation measures may be executed by the project, the Town of Fountain Hills, or by in-lieu payment by the project. The means and methods of execution may be identified and provided for by Development agreement, or conditions of approval for development plan review and permitting, or by any other mutually acceptable instrument between the development project and Town of Fountain Hills. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. Trip length, trip generation rates, and trip adjustment factors are used to determine the proportionate impact of residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses on the Town’s street network. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 33 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.” Service Units The appropriate service unit for the Street Facilities development fees is vehicle miles of travel (VMT). VMT creates the link between supply (roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new development). Components used to determine VMT include: trip generation rates, adjustments for commuting patterns and pass-by trips, and trip length weighting factors. Figure S1: Summary of Service Units Trip Generation Rates For nonresidential development, the trip generation rates are from the 10th edition of the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2017). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). As an alternative to using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. This is explained in more detail in Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions. Development Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends1 Trip Rate Adjustment Trip Length Adjustment Average Miles per Trip VMT Single Family 7.29 63%121%2.97 16.50 Multi-Family 3.63 63%121%2.97 8.22 Development Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends1 Trip Rate Adjustment Trip Length Adjustment Average Miles per Trip VMT Industrial 4.96 50%73%2.97 5.38 Commercial 37.75 33%66%2.97 24.42 Institutional 19.52 50%73%2.97 21.16 Office 9.74 50%73%2.97 10.56 1. TischlerBise Land Use Assumptions Residential Development Nonresidential Development DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 34 Adjustment for Commuting Patterns To calculate Street Facilities Development Fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed further below, the development fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 63 percent to account for commuters leaving Fountain Hills for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, weekday work trips are typically 31 percent of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50 percent of all trips). As shown in Figure S2, the Census Bureau’s web application OnTheMap indicates that 84 percent of resident workers traveled outside the Town for work in 2015. In combination, these factors (0.31 X 0.50 X 0.84 = .13) support the additional 13 percent allocation of trips to residential development. Figure S2: Inflow/Outflow Analysis Adjustment for Pass-By Trips For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the 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 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 trips. These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use and are detailed in Figure S3. Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters1 Employed Residents 9,155 Residents Working in Fountain Hills 1,495 Residents Working Outside Fountain Hills (Commuters)7,660 Percent Commuting out of Fountain Hills 84% Additional Production Trips2 13% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 63% 1. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application (version 6.5) and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2015. 2. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2009)*, published in December 2011 (see Table 30), home-based work trips are typically 30.99 percent of “production” trips, in other words, out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, LED OnTheMap data from 2015 indicate that 84 percent of Fountain Hills' workers travel outside the town for work. In combination, these factors (0.3099 x 0.50 x 0.84 = 0.12964686) account for 13 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (13 percent of production trips) for a total of 63 percent. *http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml ; Summary of Travel Trends - Table "Daily Travel Statistics by Weekday vs. Weekend" DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 35 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Travel Demand Model The travel demand model inputs are used to derive level of service in Vehicle Miles of Travel and future demand for lane miles, improved intersections. A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length. Based on estimates shown in Figure S3, existing infrastructure standards in Fountain Hills, using the average trip length of 8.97 miles, are 1.02 lane miles of arterials per 10,000 VMT (70 arterial lane miles / (685,788 VMT / 10,000)). As shown on the lower right side of Figure S3, future development generates an additional 68,981 VMT over the next 10 years. To maintain the existing infrastructure standards, Fountain Hills needs 7.0 additional lane miles of arterials, 1.3 additional improved intersections to accommodate projected development over the next 10 years. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 36 Figure S3: Projected Travel Demand Development ITE Weekday Dev Trip Trip Length Type Code VTE Unit Adj Wt Factor Single Family 210 7.29 HU 63%121% Multi-Family 220 3.63 HU 63%121% Industrial 110 4.96 KSF 50%73% Commercial 820 37.75 KSF 33%66% Institutional 730 19.52 KSF 50%73% Office 710 9.74 KSF 50%73% Avg Trip Length (miles)8.97 Vehicle Capacity Per Lane 9,800 Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Increase Single Family Units 8,445 8,509 8,574 8,640 8,706 8,773 9,115 670 Multi-Family Units 4,823 4,860 4,897 4,935 4,973 5,011 5,208 385 Industrial KSF 280 282 284 285 286 288 293 13 Commercial KSF 1,212 1,226 1,255 1,273 1,291 1,310 1,409 197 Institutional KSF 505 514 540 551 563 575 637 132 Office KSF 593 604 636 642 647 653 682 89 Single Family Trips 38,785 39,081 39,380 39,681 39,985 40,291 41,864 3,078 Multi-Family Trips 11,030 11,114 11,200 11,286 11,373 11,460 11,910 880 Residential Trips 49,815 50,196 50,580 50,967 51,357 51,751 53,773 3,958 Industrial Trips 694 699 704 707 709 714 727 33 Commercial Trips 15,098 15,273 15,634 15,858 16,083 16,319 17,553 2,454 Institutional Trips 4,929 5,017 5,270 5,378 5,495 5,612 6,217 1,288 Office Trips 2,888 2,941 3,097 3,127 3,151 3,180 3,321 434 Nonresidential Trips 23,608 23,930 24,706 25,069 25,438 25,826 27,818 4,209 Total Vehicle Trips 73,423 74,126 75,286 76,036 76,795 77,577 81,591 8,167 Vehicle Miles of Travel 685,788 691,918 700,938 707,379 713,889 720,557 754,769 68,981 Annual Increase 6,130 9,020 6,441 6,510 6,668 6,978 Arterial Lane Miles 70.0 70.6 71.5 72.2 72.8 73.5 77.0 7.0 Annual Increase 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 Improved Intersections 13.0 13.1 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.7 14.3 1.3 Annual Increase 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1VMTDevelopmentAvg Wkday Vehicle TripsDemand DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 37 Calibrated Travel Demand Model Fountain Hills plans to construct 2.3 lane miles of arterials over the next 10 years to serve future development. Since Fountain Hills plans to build fewer than 7.0 lane miles, as shown in Figure S3, the average trip length of 8.97 miles is adjusted until the 10-year demand for arterials equals 2.3 lane miles – resulting in an average trip length of 2.97 miles on the planned arterial improvements. The 10-year increase in VMT on the planned arterial improvements equals 22,840 VMT. Figure S4: Revised Travel Demand Development ITE Weekday Dev Trip Trip Length Type Code VTE Unit Adj Wt Factor Single Family 210 7.29 HU 63%121% Multi-Family 220 3.63 HU 63%121% Industrial 150 4.96 KSF 50%73% Commercial 820 37.75 KSF 33%66% Institutional 730 19.52 KSF 50%73% Office 620 9.74 KSF 50%73% Assisted Living (per bed)254 2.60 Bed 50%73% Hotel (per room)310 8.36 Room 50%73% Avg Trip Length (miles)2.970 Vehicle Capacity Per Lane 9,800 Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Increase Single Family Units 8,445 8,509 8,574 8,640 8,706 8,773 9,115 670 Multi-Family Units 4,823 4,860 4,897 4,935 4,973 5,011 5,208 385 Industrial KSF 280 282 284 285 286 288 293 13 Commercial KSF 1,212 1,226 1,255 1,273 1,291 1,310 1,409 197 Institutional KSF 505 514 540 551 563 575 637 132 Office KSF 593 604 636 642 647 653 682 89 Single Family Trips 38,785 39,081 39,380 39,681 39,985 40,291 41,864 3,078 Multi-Family Trips 11,030 11,114 11,200 11,286 11,373 11,460 11,910 880 Residential Trips 49,815 50,196 50,580 50,967 51,357 51,751 53,773 3,958 Industrial Trips 694 699 704 707 709 714 727 33 Commercial Trips 15,098 15,273 15,634 15,858 16,083 16,319 17,553 2,454 Institutional Trips 4,929 5,017 5,270 5,378 5,495 5,612 6,217 1,288 Office Trips 2,888 2,941 3,097 3,127 3,151 3,180 3,321 434 Nonresidential Trips 23,608 23,930 24,706 25,069 25,438 25,826 27,818 4,209 Total Vehicle Trips 73,423 74,126 75,286 76,036 76,795 77,577 81,591 8,167 Vehicle Miles of Travel 227,067 229,097 232,083 234,216 236,371 238,579 249,907 22,840 Annual Increase 2,030 2,987 2,133 2,155 2,208 2,310 Arterial Lane Miles 23.2 23.4 23.7 23.9 24.1 24.3 25.5 2.3 Annual Increase 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Improved Intersections 13.0 13.1 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.7 14.3 1.3 Annual Increase 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1VMTDevelopmentAvg Wkday Vehicle TripsDemand DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 38 ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Arterial Improvements – Plan-Based Fountain Hills plans to construct 2.3 lane miles of arterials over the next 10 years. Shown below in Figure S5, Fountain Hills staff identified the total cost and any other funding for the project – this results in $1,828,000 in eligible costs. Based on the eligible cost of arterial improvements and the 10-year VMT increase, the cost for arterial improvements is $80.04 per VMT ($1,828,000 / 22,840 additional VMT). Figure S5: Planned Arterial Improvements New Lane Miles Total Cost Other Funding DIF Eligible Cost 1W Shea Blvd Widening 2.30 $4,000,000 $2,172,000 $1,828,000 $1,828,000 22,840 $80.04 Arterial Street Improvements DIF Eligible Cost 10-Year VMT Increase Cost per VMT DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 39 Improved Intersections – Incremental Expansion Fountain Hills’ current level of service for improved intersections is 0.57252 improved intersections per 10,000 VMT (13 intersections / (227,067 VMT / 10,000)), and Fountain Hills plans to maintain this level of service over the next 10 years. As shown in Figure S4, Fountain Hills needs to construct 1.3 additional improved intersections to maintain this standard over the next 10 years ((22,840 additional VMT / 10,000) X 0.57252 improved intersections per 10,000 VMT). Based on recent improved intersection project costs, Fountain Hills staff estimates future improved intersections will have an average cost of $625,000 per intersection. Fountain Hills may use development fees to fund any growth-related improved intersection within the service area. The cost for improved intersections is $35.78 per VMT ($625,000 per improved intersection X 0.57252 improved intersections per 10,000 VMT). Figure S6: Existing Improved Intersection Level-of-Service and Cost Factors Cost per Improved Intersection1 $625,000 Existing Improved Intersections 13.0 2018 VMT 227,067 Improved Int per 10,000 VMT 0.57252 Cost per VMT $35.78 1. Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona Level-of-Service Standards Cost Allocation Factors DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 40 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Report totals $16,640. Fountain Hills plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost is $1.45 per VMT. Figure S7: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation Necessary Public Service Cost Demand Unit 5-Year Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential 93%Population 1,058 $14.63 Nonresidential 7%Jobs 487 $2.39 Residential 81%Population 1,058 $12.74 Nonresidential 19%Jobs 487 $6.50 Street $16,640 All Development 100%VMT 11,512 $1.45 Total $49,920 Proportionate Share Fire $16,640 Parks and Recreation $16,640 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 41 STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Revenue Credit/Offset A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Street Facilities development fees because 10-year growth costs do not substantially exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure S10. Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for Street Facilities are summarized at the top of Figure S8. The cost per service unit for Street development fees is $117.26 per VMT. Street Facilities development fees for residential development are assessed according to VMT generated per unit. For example, the single-family fee of $1,935 is calculated using a cost per service unit of $117.26 per VMT multiplied by 2.97 miles per trip, multiplied by 7.29 average weekday vehicle trip ends, multiplied by 63 percent trip rate adjustment, multiplied by 121 percent trip length adjustment. Nonresidential development fees are calculated using VMT generated per square foot. The fee of $2.86 per square foot of commercial development is calculated using a cost per service unit of $117.26 per VMT multiplied by 2.97 miles per trip, multiplied by 37.75 average weekday vehicle trip ends, multiplied by 33 percent trip rate adjustment, multiplied by 66 percent trip length adjustment, divided by 1,000 square feet. Figure S8: Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees Fee Component Cost per VMT Arterial Improvements $80.04 Improved Intersections $35.78 Development Fee Report $1.45 Total $117.26 Average Miles per Trip 2.970 Residential Development Development Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends1 Trip Rate Adjustment Trip Length Adjustment Proposed Fees Current Fees Increase / Decrease Single Family 7.29 63%121%$1,935 $0 $1,935 Multi-Family 3.63 63%121%$964 $0 $964 Nonresidential Development Development Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends1 Trip Rate Adjustment Trip Length Adjustment Proposed Fees Current Fees Increase / Decrease Industrial 4.96 50%73%$0.63 $0.00 $0.63 Commercial 37.75 33%66%$2.86 $0.00 $2.86 Institutional 19.52 50%73%$2.48 $0.00 $2.48 Office 9.74 50%73%$1.24 $0.00 $1.24 1. TischlerBise Land Use Assumptions Development Fees per Unit Development Fees per Square Foot DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 42 PROJECTED STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE Projected fee revenue shown in Figure S9 is based on the development projections in the Land Use Assumptions (see Appendix C) and the updated Street Facilities development fees (see Figure S8). Expenditures on arterial improvements are derived from the anticipated need for approximately 2.3 new lane miles over the next 10 years (see Figure S4) at a cost of $1,828,000 (see Figure S5). Expenditures on improved intersections are derived from the anticipated need for approximately 1.3 new improved intersections over the next 10 years at a cost of $812,500. Anticipated development fee revenue is approximately $2.6 million over the next 10 years, while expenditures are estimated at approximately $2.6 million. Figure S9: Projected Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue Growth Share Existing Share Total $1,828,000 $0 $1,828,000 $812,500 $0 $812,500 $16,640 $0 $16,640 $2,657,140 $0 $2,657,140 Single Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $1,935 $964 $0.63 $2.86 $2.48 $1.24 per unit per unit per SF per SF per SF per SF Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 8,445 4,823 280 1,212 505 593 Year 1 2019 8,509 4,860 282 1,226 514 604 Year 2 2020 8,574 4,897 284 1,255 540 636 Year 3 2021 8,640 4,935 285 1,273 551 642 Year 4 2022 8,706 4,973 286 1,291 563 647 Year 5 2023 8,773 5,011 288 1,310 575 653 Year 6 2024 8,840 5,050 289 1,330 587 659 Year 7 2025 8,908 5,089 290 1,349 599 664 Year 8 2026 8,977 5,128 291 1,369 611 670 Year 9 2027 9,046 5,168 292 1,389 624 676 Year 10 2028 9,115 5,208 293 1,409 637 682 670 385 13 197 132 89 Projected Revenue $1,289,018 $368,429 $8,379 $560,609 $325,643 $109,830 $2,661,909 $2,657,140 10-Year Increase Fee Component Projected Fee Revenue Improved Intersections Total Expenditures Arterial Improvements Development Fee Report Total Year DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 43 APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For municipalities in Arizona, the state enabling legislation requires supporting documentation on land use assumptions, a plan for infrastructure improvements, and development fee calculations. This document contains the land use assumptions for the Town of Fountain Hills 2018 development fee update. Development fees must be updated every five years, making short-range projections the critical time frame. The Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) is limited to 10 years for non-utility fees, thus a very long-range “build-out” analysis may not be used to derive development fees. Arizona Revised Statuses (ARS) § 9-463.05 (T)(6) requires the preparation of a Land Use Assumptions document which shows: “Projections of change in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service area over a period of at least 10 years and pursuant to the General Plan of the municipality.” TischlerBise prepared current demographic estimates and future development projections for both residential and nonresidential development that will be used in the Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and calculation of the development fees. Demographic data for FY 17-18 (beginning July 1, 2017) are used in calculating levels-of-service provided to existing development in the Town of Fountain Hills. Although long-range projections are necessary for planning infrastructure systems, a shorter time frame of five to 10 years is critical for the impact fees analysis. TischlerBise used compound growth rates to produce conservative projections that increase over time. Arizona’s Development Fee Act requires fees to be updated at least every five years and limits the IIP to a maximum of 10 years for non-utility fees. Therefore, the use of a very long-range “build-out” analysis is no longer acceptable for deriving development fees in Arizona municipalities. SERVICE AREAS ARS § 9-463.05 defines “service area” as follows: “Any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan.” The Town’s previous Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Study recommended three services areas, shown below in Figure A1. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 44 Figure A1: Current Development Fee Service Areas DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 45 Figure A2: Proposed Development Fee Service Areas DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 46 Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 9-463.05(T)(7) requires the preparation of a Land Use Assumptions document, which shows: “projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service area over a period of at least ten years and pursuant to the General Plan of the municipality.” The Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona retained TischlerBise to analyze the impacts of development on its capital facilities and to calculate development impact fees based on that analysis. TischlerBise prepared current demographic estimates and future development projections for both residential and nonresidential development that will be used in the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) and calculation of the development fees. Current demographic data estimates for 2018 are used in calculating levels of service (LOS) provided to existing development in the Town of Fountain Hills. Although long-range projections are necessary for planning infrastructure systems, a shorter time frame of five to ten years is critical for the development fee analysis. Arizona’s Development Fee Act requires fees to be updated at least every five years and limits the IIP to a maximum of ten years. Therefore, the use of a very long-range “build-out” analysis is no longer acceptable for deriving development fees in Arizona municipalities. SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS Key land use assumptions for the Town of Fountain Hills development fee study are population, housing units, and employment projections. Based on information provided by staff, including the 2017 Town of Fountain Hills Land Use Analysis & Statistical Report, TischlerBise uses the Maricopa Association of Governments 2020-2030 growth rate of 0.87 percent, which is then converted to annual housing unit increases by using a persons per household factor of 2.05, as shown in Figure A2. For nonresidential development, the base year employment estimate is calculated from ESRI Business Analyst and uses MAG 2015-2030 estimated growth rates for each industry sector applied to the base year employment to project future employment. The employment estimate is converted into floor area based on average square feet per job multipliers. Four nonresidential development prototypes are discussed further below (see Figure A5 and related text). The projections contained in this document provide the foundation for the development impact fee study. These metrics are the service units and demand indicators used in the development impact fee study. Development projections and growth rates are summarized in Figure A11. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. However, development fee methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts. If actual development is slower than projected, fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, Fountain Hills will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of development. During the next 10 years, development projections indicate an average increase of 105 housing units per year, and an average increase of approximately 43,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area per year. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 47 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Current estimates and future projections of residential development are detailed in this section including population and housing units by type. Recent Residential Construction Development fees require an analysis of current levels of service. For residential development, current levels of service are determined using estimates of population and housing units. Shown below, Figure A1 indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade according to data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. Fountain Hills experienced strong growth in the 1990s and 2000s. From 2000 to 2010, Fountain Hills’ housing inventory increased by an average of 267 units per year. Figure A1: Housing Units by Decade Census 2010 Population 22,489 Census 2010 Housing Units 13,167 Census 2000 Housing Units 10,491 New Housing Units 2000 to 2010 2,676 Fountain Hills added an average of 267 housing units per year from 2000 to 2010. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Before 1970 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Housing Units Added by Decade in Fountain Hills Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1, Census 2000 Summary File 1, 2013-2017 5-Year American Community Survey (for 1990s and earlier, adjusted to yield total units in 2000). DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 48 Household Size According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit (PPHU) or persons per household (PPH) to derive proportionate share fee amounts. When PPHU is used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. When PPH is used in the fee calculations, the development fee methodology assumes a higher percentage of housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. To recognize the impacts of seasonal population, Fountain Hills should impose development fees for residential development according to the number of persons per household. This methodology assumes some portion of the housing stock will be vacant during the course of a year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, Fountain Hills’ vacancy rate was twenty-one percent in 2017. Persons per household (PPH) calculations require data on population and the types of units by structure. The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a “long-form” questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which has limitations due to sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). For development fees in Fountain Hills, detached stick-built units and attached units (commonly known as townhouses, which share a common sidewall, but are constructed on an individual parcel of land) are included in the “Single-Family Unit” category. The second residential category includes duplexes and all other structures with two or more units on an individual parcel of land. This category is referred to as “Multi-Family Unit.” (Note: housing unit estimates from ACS will not equal decennial census counts of units. These data are used only to derive the custom PPHU factors for each type of unit). Figure A2 below shows the 2013-2017 5-year ACS estimates for Fountain Hills. Single-family units averaged 2.15 persons per household (20,097 persons / 9,339 households) and multi-family units averaged 1.66 persons per household (3,881 persons / 2,338 households). In 2017, Fountain Hills’ housing stock averaged 2.05 persons per household with a townwide vacancy rate of 21 percent. Figure A2: Persons per Housing Unit Single-Family Unit1 20,097 9,339 2.15 11,381 1.77 77.3%18% Multi-Family Unit 2 3,881 2,338 1.66 3,334 1.16 22.7%30% Total 23,978 11,677 2.05 14,715 1.63 21% Source: TischlerBise analysis and calculation based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates. 1. Includes detached, attached (townhouse), and manufactured units. 2. Includes duplexes, structures with two or more units, and all other units. Households Vacancy Rate Housing Mix Persons per Housing Unit Housing Units Persons per HouseholdPersonsUnits in Structure DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 49 Seasonal Households To account for seasonal residents, the analysis includes vacant households used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. According to 2017 ACS estimates shown in Figure A3, seasonal units account for 2,343 of Fountain Hills’ 3,038 vacant units. With all seasonal units occupied, Fountain Hills’ peak vacancy rate is 4.72 percent (14,020 peak households / 14,715 housing units). Applying Fountain Hills’ occupancy factor of 2.05 persons per household to seasonal households provides a seasonal population estimate of 4,811 persons. Fountain Hills’ peak population estimate for 2017 is 28,789 (23,978 population in households + 4,811 seasonal population). Figure A3: Seasonal Households Population Estimates To accurately determine current and future population in Fountain Hills, TischlerBise compared population estimates and growth rates from American Community Survey data, Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA), the Fountain Hills 2017 Land Use Analysis Report, and Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). In 2016 MAG released population projections for jurisdictions through 2050, along with annual updates of housing unit and population estimates. TischlerBise uses MAG’s 2016 Socioeconomic Projections in conjunction with Fountain Hills staff-provided building permit data to derive the base year estimates of population and housing units. The 2017 Fountain Hills Land Use Analysis and Statistical Report details housing by unit count and type current through December 31, 2017 allowing the study to establish 2018 as the base year for related projections. Further analysis of the past 20 years of building permit data shows that Fountain Hills has averaged 125 single family and 76 multi-family units per year over this time period, however growth has slowed substantially since 2010, in part due to a broader national economic condition. The resulting impact on growth in Fountain Hills has reduced average unit construction to 52 single family and 16 multi-family units per year between 2015 and 2018. POPULATION Year-Round Population 23,978 Housing Units 14,715 Vacant Housing Units 3,038 Vacancy Rate 20.65% Households 11,677 Seasonal Households 2,343 Peak Households 14,020 Persons per Household 2.05 Population in Households 23,978 Seasonal Population 4,811 Peak Population in 2017 28,789 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 50 Population Projections Based on recent building permit trends and review of the 2017 Fountain Hills Land Use Analysis and Statistical Report, TischlerBise projects an average annual increase of 106 housing units (67 single-family and 39 multi-family units) between 2018 and 2028. TischlerBise projects housing growth beyond 2018 using MAG’s 2020-2030 population compound average annual growth rate of 0.87 percent and the 2017 ACS occupancy rate of 2.05 persons per household. Future households are distributed by type based on the existing housing mix detailed in the 2017 Fountain Hill’s Land Use Analysis and Statistical Report, 64 percent single family units and 36 percent multi-family units. The assumption on future housing mix is held constant over the 10-year forecast period, therefore, between 2018 and 2028, 64 percent of projected new units are single-family and 36 percent are multi-family. For this study, it is assumed that the household size and seasonal population will remain constant. TischlerBise projects a 10-year increase of 2,163 persons, or an average of 216 persons annually, and a corresponding 10-year increase of 1,055 housing units, or an average of 106 units annually. The study assumes the total seasonal population of 4,811 will remain constant throughout the 10-year period. Population and housing unit projections are used to illustrate the possible future pace of service demands, revenues, and expenditures. To the extent these factors change, the projected need for infrastructure will also change. If development occurs at a more rapid rate than projected, the demand for infrastructure will increase at a corresponding rate. If development occurs at a slower rate than is projected, the demand for infrastructure will also decrease. Figure A4: Residential Development Projections 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 Population Household 24,029 24,237 24,447 24,658 24,872 25,087 26,192 2,163 Peak 28,840 29,048 29,258 29,470 29,683 29,898 31,003 2,163 Housing Units Single Family 8,445 8,509 8,574 8,640 8,706 8,773 9,115 670 Multi-Family 4,823 4,860 4,897 4,935 4,973 5,011 5,208 385 Total Housing Units 13,268 13,369 13,472 13,575 13,679 13,784 14,323 1,055 10-Year Increase DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 51 NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Current estimates and future projections of nonresidential development are detailed in this section including jobs and nonresidential floor area. Employment Estimates In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of development impact fees requires data on employment (number of jobs) and nonresidential square footage in Fountain Hills. TischlerBise uses the term “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. TischlerBise analyzed recent employment trends, reviewed data published by MAG, the U.S. Census Bureau, and ESRI Business Analyst1, and had discussions with Town staff. TischlerBise estimates 2018 employment using 2015 MAG employment data and then applying MAG industry specific growth rates to subsequent years. Shown below in Figure A5, base year employment totals 5,521 jobs. Employment estimates are grouped into four categories: Industrial, Commercial / Retail, Institutional, and Office and Other Services. For the 2018 base year, employment estimates include 455 industrial jobs, 2,838 commercial / retail jobs, 469 institutional jobs, and 1,759 office and other services jobs. Estimated floor area uses square feet multipliers published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The conversion from employment to nonresidential floor area is discussed below. Figure A5: Estimated Employment and Distribution by Industry Type 1 ESRI Business Summary Reports provide demographic and business data for geographic areas from sources including directory listings such as Yellow Pages and business white pages; annual reports; 10-K and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) information; federal, state, and municipal government data; business magazines; newsletters and newspapers; and information from the US Postal Service. To ensure accurate and complete information, ESRI conducts annual telephone verifications with each business listed in the database. 2018 Percent of Sq. Ft.2018 Estimated Jobs per Jobs1 Total Jobs per Job Floor Area2 1,000 Sq. Ft.2 Industrial3 455 8.2%615 279,649 1.63 Commercial / Retail4 2,838 51.4%427 1,211,769 2.34 Institutional5 469 8.5%1,076 504,700 0.93 Office and Other Services6 1,759 31.9%337 592,937 2.97 Total 5,521 100.0%2,589,055 1. TischlerBise calculation based on Maricopa Association of Governments 2015 and 2020 estimates. 2. Sq. Ft. per Job based on jobs and ITE 10th Edition (2017) multiplier. 3. Major sector is Construction. 4. Major sectors are Food Services and Retail Trade. 5. Major sectors are Educational Services and Public Administration. 6. Major sectors are Health Care and Realestate Rental and Leasing. Nonresidential Category DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 52 Nonresidential Square Footage Estimates To estimate current nonresidential floor area, ITE square feet per employee multipliers (Figure A6) are applied to 2018 employment estimates shown in Figure A5. For industrial development, light industrial (ITE 110) is the prototype for future development, with an average of 615 square feet per job. For future commercial / retail development, an average size shopping center (ITE 820) is a reasonable proxy with an average of 427 square feet per job. For future institutional development, elementary school (ITE 520) is a reasonable proxy with 1,076 square feet per job. The prototype for future office and other services development is a general office (ITE 710). This type of development averages approximately 337 square feet per job. Based on this methodology, TischlerBise estimates Fountain Hills has 2,589,055 square feet of nonresidential floor area. Figure A6: The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Employee and Building Area Ratios ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit1 Per Employee1 Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 130 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 3.37 2.91 1.16 864 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 4.24 0.61 na 310 Hotel room 8.36 14.34 0.58 na 320 Motel room 3.35 25.17 0.13 na 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581 540 Community College student 1.15 14.61 0.08 na 565 Day Care student 4.09 21.38 0.19 na 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 620 Nursing Home bed 3.06 2.91 1.05 na 710 General Office (average size)1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 720 Medical-Dental Office 1,000 Sq Ft 34.80 8.70 4.00 250 730 Government Office 1,000 Sq Ft 22.59 7.45 3.03 330 750 Office Park 1,000 Sq Ft 11.07 3.54 3.13 320 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping Center (average size)1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 1. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Land Use / Size DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 53 Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Future employment growth in Fountain Hills is based on Maricopa Association of Governments 2020— 2030 employment projections, by industry. To project growth in nonresidential square footage, TischlerBise applies the previously discussed ITE square feet per employee multipliers to the projected increase in employment. The results of these calculations are shown in Figure A7. Over the next 10 years, Fountain Hills is projected to gain 872 jobs and add an estimated 431,000 square feet of nonresidential development. Figure A7: Nonresidential Development Projections 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 Employment Industrial 455 458 462 464 466 468 477 22 Commercial 2,838 2,871 2,938 2,981 3,025 3,069 3,300 462 Institutional 469 478 502 512 523 534 592 123 Office 1,759 1,793 1,887 1,904 1,920 1,937 2,024 265 Total Employment 5,521 5,600 5,789 5,861 5,934 6,008 6,393 872 Nonresidential Floor Area (KSF) Industrial 280 282 284 285 286 288 293 13 Commercial 1,212 1,226 1,255 1,273 1,291 1,310 1,409 197 Institutional 505 514 540 551 563 575 637 132 Office 593 604 636 642 647 653 682 89 Total Floor Area 2,590 2,626 2,715 2,751 2,787 2,826 3,021 431 10-Year Increase DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 54 AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIPS Average Weekday Vehicle Trips are used as a measure of demand by land use. Vehicle trips are estimated using average weekday vehicle trip ends from the reference book, Trip Generation, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2017. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). Trip Rate Adjustments To calculate street development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed further below, the development impact fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Commuter Trip Adjustment Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 63 percent to account for commuters leaving Fountain Hills for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (see Table 30) weekday work trips are typically 31 percent of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50 percent of all trip ends). As shown in Figure A8, the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap web application indicates that 84 percent of resident workers traveled outside of Fountain Hills for work in 2015. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.84 = 0.13) support the additional 13 percent allocation of trips to residential development. Figure A8: Commuter Trip Adjustment Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters1 Employed Residents 9,155 Residents Working in Fountain Hills 1,495 Residents Working Outside Fountain Hills (Commuters)7,660 Percent Commuting out of Fountain Hills 84% Additional Production Trips2 13% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 63% 1. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application (version 6.5) and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2015. 2. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2009)*, published in December 2011 (see Table 30), home-based work trips are typically 30.99 percent of “production” trips, in other words, out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, LED OnTheMap data from 2015 indicate that 84 percent of Fountain Hills' workers travel outside the town for work. In combination, these factors (0.3099 x 0.50 x 0.84 = 0.12964686) account for 13 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (13 percent of production trips) for a total of 63 percent. *http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml ; Summary of Travel Trends - Table "Daily Travel Statistics by Weekday vs. Weekend" DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 55 Adjustment for Pass-By Trips For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail development attracts vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, ITE data indicate 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The 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. Estimated Residential Vehicle Trip Rates As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates, using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units, households, and persons) are available from American Community Survey data. Shown in Figure A9, custom trip generation rates for Fountain Hills vary slightly from the national averages. For example, single-family residential development is expected to generate 7.29 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling – compared to the national average of 9.44 (ITE 210). Multi-family residential development is expected to generate 3.63 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling, which is lower than the national average of 5.44 (ITE 221). Figure A9: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type Owner-occupied 17,046 8,252 968 9,220 1.85 Renter-occupied 3,664 1,087 1,370 2,457 1.49 Total 20,710 9,339 2,338 11,677 1.77 Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average Housing Households3 Ends4 Type of Unit Ends5 Trip Ends Units6 Fountain Hills U.S. Avg7 Single-Family 20,097 55,971 16,877 110,006 82,989 11,381 7.29 9.44 Multi-Family 3,881 8,806 3,833 15,394 12,100 3,334 3.63 5.44 Total 23,978 64,778 20,710 125,400 95,089 14,715 6.46 1. Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 3. Total population in households from Table B25033, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 6. Housing units American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 7. Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Trip Ends per Unit 4. Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2017). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72). To approximate the average population of the ITE studies, persons were divided by 36 and the equation result multiplied by 36. For multi- family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (2.29*persons)-81.02. 5. Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2017). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.93). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies, vehicles available were divided by 66 and the equation result multiplied by 66. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (3.94*vehicles)+293.58. Households by Structure Type2 Vehicles Available1 Single-Family Multi-Family Total Vehicles per HH by TenureTenure of Unit Type of Unit DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 56 Functional Population TischlerBise recommends functional population to allocate the cost of certain facilities to residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure A10, functional population accounts for people living and working in a jurisdiction. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Fountain Hills are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Fountain Hills are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Fountain Hills, the proportionate share is 81 percent for residential development and 19 percent for nonresidential development. Figure A10: Functional Population Demand Person Proportionate Hours/Day Hours Share Residential Peak Population 28,282 Residents Not Working 19,127 20 382,540 Employed Residents 9,155 Employed in Service Area 1,495 14 20,930 Employed outside Service Area 7,660 14 107,240 Residential Subtotal 510,710 81% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 19,127 4 76,508 Jobs in Service Area 4,424 Residents Employed in Service Area 1,495 10 14,950 Non-Resident Workers (inflow Commuters)2,929 10 29,290 Nonresidential Subtotal 120,748 19% TOTAL 631,458 100% Source: Maricopa Association of Governments 2015 Population Estimate, Fountain Hills; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.5 Application, 2015. Demand Units in 2015 DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 57 Development Projections Provided below is a summary of cumulative development projections used in the development impact fee study. Base year estimates for 2018 are used in the development impact fee calculations. Development projections are used to illustrate a possible future pace of demand for service units and cash flows resulting from revenues and expenditures associated with those demands. Figure A11: Development Projections Summary 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Population Peak 28,840 29,048 29,258 29,470 29,683 29,898 30,115 30,334 30,555 30,778 31,003 2,163 Housing Units Single Family 8,445 8,509 8,574 8,640 8,706 8,773 8,840 8,908 8,977 9,046 9,115 670 Multi-Family 4,823 4,860 4,897 4,935 4,973 5,011 5,050 5,089 5,128 5,168 5,208 385 Total Housing Units 13,268 13,369 13,472 13,575 13,679 13,784 13,890 13,997 14,105 14,213 14,323 1,055 Employment Industrial 455 458 462 464 466 468 470 471 473 475 477 22 Commercial 2,838 2,871 2,938 2,981 3,025 3,069 3,114 3,159 3,205 3,252 3,300 462 Institutional 469 478 502 512 523 534 545 557 568 580 592 123 Office 1,759 1,793 1,887 1,904 1,920 1,937 1,954 1,972 1,989 2,006 2,024 265 Total Employment 5,521 5,600 5,789 5,861 5,934 6,008 6,083 6,159 6,236 6,314 6,393 872 Nonresidential Floor Area (KSF) Industrial 280 282 284 285 286 288 289 290 291 292 293 13 Commercial 1,212 1,226 1,255 1,273 1,291 1,310 1,330 1,349 1,369 1,389 1,409 197 Institutional 505 514 540 551 563 575 587 599 611 624 637 132 Office 593 604 636 642 647 653 659 664 670 676 682 89 Total Floor Area 2,590 2,626 2,715 2,751 2,787 2,826 2,865 2,902 2,941 2,981 3,021 431 10-Year Increase DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 58 APPENDIX B: LAND USE DEFINITIONS Residential Development As discussed below, residential development categories are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Fountain Hills will collect development fees from all new residential units. One-time development fees are determined by site capacity (i.e. number of residential units). Single-Family: 1. Single-family detached is a one-unit structure detached from any other house, that is, with open space on all four sides. Such structures are considered detached even if they have an adjoining shed or garage. A one-family house that contains a business is considered detached as long as the building has open space on all four sides. 2. Single-family attached (townhouse) is a one-unit structure that has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures. In row houses (sometimes called townhouses), double houses, or houses attached to nonresidential structures, each house is a separate, attached structure if the dividing or common wall goes from ground to roof. 3. Mobile home includes both occupied and vacant mobile homes, to which no permanent rooms have been added, are counted in this category. Mobile homes used only for business purposes or for extra sleeping space and mobile homes for sale on a dealer's lot, at the factory, or in storage are not counted in the housing inventory. Multi-Family: 1. 2+ units (duplexes and apartments) are units in structures containing two or more housing units, further categorized as units in structures with “2, 3 or 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 19, 20 to 49, and 50 or more apartments.” 2. Boat, RV, Van, Etc. includes any living quarters occupied as a housing unit that does not fit the other categories (e.g., houseboats, railroad cars, campers, and vans). Recreational vehicles, boats, vans, railroad cars, and the like are included only if they are occupied as a current place of residence. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 59 Nonresidential Development The proposed general nonresidential development categories (defined below) can be used for all new construction within Fountain Hills. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and employment densities (i.e., jobs per thousand square feet of floor area). Commercial / Retail: Establishments primarily selling merchandise, eating/drinking places, and entertainment uses. By way of example, Commercial / Retail includes shopping centers, supermarkets, pharmacies, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, automobile dealerships, and movie theaters, hotels, and motels. Industrial: Establishments primarily engaged in the production, transportation, or storage of goods. By way of example, Industrial includes manufacturing plants, distribution warehouses, trucking companies, utility substations, power generation facilities, and telecommunications buildings. Institutional: Establishments including public and quasi-public buildings providing educational, social assistance, or religious services. By way of example, Institutional includes schools, universities, churches, daycare facilities, government buildings, and prisons. Office and Other Services: Establishments providing management, administrative, professional, or business services; personal and health care services. By way of example, Office and Other Services includes banks, business offices, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, medical offices, and veterinarian clinics. DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report Fountain Hills, Arizona 60 APPENDIX C: FORECAST OF REVENUES The “Required Offset” percentage reduction is a placeholder that will be discussed in more detail at a later date. Arizona’s Enabling Legislation requires municipalities to forecast the revenue contribution to be made in the future towards capital costs and shall include these contributions in determining the extent of burden imposed by development. TischlerBise sometimes recommends a small percentage reduction in development fees to satisfy the “required offset,” which is a phrase taken directly from the enabling legislation (quoted below). 9-463.05.E.7. “A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved land use assumptions, and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development as required in subsection B, paragraph 12 of this section.” 9-463.05.B.12. “The municipality shall forecast the contribution to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees, assessments or other sources of revenue derived from the property owner towards the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the development fee and shall include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. Beginning August 1, 2014, for purposes of calculating the required offset to development fees pursuant to this subsection, if a municipality imposes a construction contracting or similar excise tax rate in excess of the percentage amount of the transaction privilege tax rate imposed on the majority of other transaction privilege tax classifications, the entire excess portion of the construction contracting or similar excise tax shall be treated as a contribution to the capital costs of necessary public services provided to development for which development fees are assessed, unless the excess portion was already taken into account for such purpose pursuant to this subsection.” Fountain Hills does not have a higher than normal construction excise tax rate, so the required offset described above is not applicable. The required forecast of non-development fee revenue that might be used for growth-related capital costs is shown in Figure C1. The forecast of revenues was provided by the Town of Fountain Hills. Projected population plus jobs, for the entire Municipal Planning Area, are documented in the land use assumptions. Figure C1: Five-Year Revenue Projections Source FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 Intergovermental 5,485,747$ 5,510,550$ 5,535,610$ 5,560,903$ 5,586,457$ Permits, Licenses, Fees 1,161,061$ 1,080,158$ 1,122,024$ 1,116,202$ 1,153,139$ Building Revenue 556,662$ 588,802$ 554,104$ 576,366$ 793,042$ Local Taxes 9,067,725$ 9,103,363$ 9,442,027$ 9,758,534$ 10,097,493$ Total General Fund 16,271,195$ 16,282,873$ 16,653,765$ 17,012,005$ 17,630,131$ Source: Town of Fountain Hills 2018-2023 Revenue Projections. Draft Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements PlanFountain Hills, ArizonaNovember 5, 2019 2Overview•Development Fee Basics•Land Use Assumptions•Infrastructure Improvements Plan• Parks and Recreation•Fire• Streets•Fee Comparison•Adoption Timeline 3Arizona Legislation•Three integrated products:•Land Use Assumptions:10+ years, adopted by elected officials•Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP): limited to 10 years•Development Fees: part of broader revenue strategy•Based on same level of service (LOS) provided to existing development•Limitations on necessary public services 4Overview of Adoption ProcessRound One• Land Use Assumptions• Infrastructure Improvement PlansRound Two• Development Fees• Modify Based on Round One Input/Decisions• Revenue Projections• Required Offsets 5Why Development Fees?TischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.com•Infrastructure capacity is essential to accommodate new development •Minimizes externalities like traffic congestion that is associated with “no-growth” sentiment•Compared to negotiated agreements, streamlines approval process with known costs (predictability) •Integrates comprehensive planning, economic development, and revenue strategies 6Eligible CostsTischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.com•Facilities / improvements required to serve new development -Yes•Maintenance and repairs –No•Excess capacity in existing facilities –Yes•Improvements required to correct existing deficiencies –No, Unless there is a funding plan 7Conceptual Impact Fee CalculationTischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.comDemandUnitsperDevelopmentUnitInfrastructure UnitsperDemandUnitDollarsperInfrastructureUnit2.5 persons per SFD unit x 5 acres per 1,000 persons x $100,000 per acre =0.0125 acres per SFD Unit @ $1,250 per SFD Unit 8Fee MethodologiesTischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.comBuy-In Approach (Past)•New growth is “buying in” to the cost the community has already incurred to provide growth-related capacity•When Applicable•Near build-out•Community has oversized facilities in anticipation of growth•Other Common Names•Recoupment•Cost Recovery 9Fee Methodologies (continued)TischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.comIncremental Expansion Approach (Present)•Formula-based approach based on existing levels of service•Park acres per capita•Square feet per student station •Fee is based on the current cost to replicate existing levels of service (i.e. replacement cost)•Provides flexibility•Other Common Names•Replacement Cost •Level-of-Service Approach 10Fee Methodologies (continued)TischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.comPlan-Based Approach (Future)•Usually reflects an adopted CIP or master plan•Growth-related costs are more refined•Will be scrutinized more closely by development community 11Fee Methodology ConsiderationsTischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.com•Available data to support the methodology•No adopted facility plans or “iffy” CIP (Incremental)•Long-term capital improvement plan or adopted facility master plans (Plan-Based)•Level of service reflected in capital plan?•Current LOS versus planned LOS•Is it financially feasible?•How will existing deficiencies be funded? 12Evaluate Need for CreditsTischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.com•Site specific•Developer constructs a capital facility included in fee calculations•Debt service•Avoid double payment due to existing or future bonds•Dedicated revenues•Property tax, local option sales tax, gas tax 132018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Base12345678910PopulationHousehold 24,029 24,237 24,447 24,658 24,872 25,087 25,304 25,523 25,74425,967 26,192 2,163Peak 28,840 29,048 29,258 29,470 29,683 29,898 30,115 30,334 30,555 30,778 31,003 2,163Housing UnitsSingle Family 8,445 8,509 8,574 8,640 8,706 8,773 8,840 8,908 8,977 9,0469,115 670Multi‐Family 4,823 4,860 4,897 4,935 4,973 5,011 5,050 5,089 5,128 5,168 5,208 385Total Housing Units 13,268 13,369 13,472 13,575 13,679 13,784 13,890 13,997 14,105 14,213 14,323 1,055EmploymentIndustrial 455 458 462 464 466 468 470 471 473 475 477 22Commercial 2,838 2,871 2,938 2,981 3,025 3,069 3,114 3,159 3,205 3,252 3,300 462Institutional 469 478 502 512 523 534 545 557 568 580 592 123Office 1,759 1,793 1,887 1,904 1,920 1,937 1,954 1,972 1,989 2,006 2,024 265Total Employment 5,521 5,600 5,789 5,861 5,934 6,008 6,083 6,159 6,236 6,314 6,393 872Nonresidential Floor Area (KSF)Industrial 280 282 284 285 286 288 289 290 291 292 293 13Commercial 1,212 1,226 1,255 1,273 1,291 1,310 1,330 1,349 1,369 1,389 1,409 197Institutional 505 514 540 551 563 575 587 599 611 624 637 132Office 593 604 636 642 647 653 659 664 670 676 682 89Total Nonres. Floor Area 2,590 2,626 2,715 2,751 2,787 2,826 2,865 2,902 2,941 2,981 3,021 43110‐Year IncreaseLand Use AssumptionsGrowth rates provided by Maricopa Association of Governments 14Parks and Recreation•Service Area: Town Limits•Components• Developed Park Land (incremental)• Community Park Amenities (incremental)•10-Year Demand• Community Parks• 10.3 Developed acres of land, $410,000 • 5.7 amenities, $1.8 million 15Proposed Parks and Recreation FeesFee ComponentCostper PersonCostper JobDeveloped Park Land $163.81 $64.41 Park Amenities $712.75 $280.24 Development Fee Report $14.63 $2.39 Total $891.19 $347.04 Residential DevelopmentDevelopment TypePersons per Household1ProposedFeesCurrentFeesIncrease / DecreaseSingle Family 2.15 $1,916 $1,301 $615 Multi‐Family 1.66 $1,479 $1,301 $178 Nonresidential DevelopmentDevelopment TypeJobs per1,000 Sq Ft1ProposedFeesCurrentFeesIncrease / DecreaseIndustrial 1.63 $0.56 $0.00 $0.56Commercial 2.34 $0.81 $0.00 $0.81Institutional 0.93 $0.32 $0.00 $0.32Office 2.97 $1.03 $0.00 $1.031. See Land Use AssumptionsDevelopment Fees per UnitDevelopment Fees per Square Foot 16Fire•Service Area: Town Limits•Components• Apparatus (incremental)• Equipment (incremental)•10-Year Demand• 0.5 apparatus, $135,000• 3 units of equipment, $7,000 17Proposed Fire FeesFee ComponentCostper PersonCostper JobFire Apparatus $41.85 $51.28Fire Equipment $2.24 $2.74Development Fee Report $12.74 $6.50Total$56.83 $60.52Residential DevelopmentDevelopment TypePersons per Household1ProposedFeesCurrentFeesIncrease / DecreaseSingle Family 2.15 $122 $300($178)Multi‐Family 1.66 $94 $300($206)Nonresidential DevelopmentDevelopment TypeJobs per1,000 Sq. Ft1ProposedFeesCurrentFeesIncrease / DecreaseIndustrial 1.63 $0.10 $0.24($0.14)Commercial 2.34 $0.14 $0.24($0.10)Institutional 0.93 $0.06 $0.24($0.19)Office 2.97 $0.18 $0.24($0.06)1. See Land Use Assumptions.Development Fees per UnitDevelopment Fees per Square Foot 18Street•Service Area: Town Limits•Components• Arterial Improvements (Plan-Based)• Intersection Improvements (incremental)•10-Year Demand• 2.3 lane miles, $1.8 million• 1.3 Improved Intersections, $812,500 19Proposed Street FeesFee ComponentCostper VMTArterial Improvements $80.04Improved Intersections $35.78Development Fee Report $1.45Total $117.26Average Miles per Trip 2.970Residential DevelopmentDevelopment TypeAvg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends1Trip Rate AdjustmentTrip Length AdjustmentProposedFeesCurrentFeesIncrease / DecreaseSingle Family 7.29 63% 121% $1,935 $0 $1,935Multi‐Family 3.63 63% 121% $964 $0 $964Nonresidential DevelopmentDevelopment TypeAvg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends1Trip Rate AdjustmentTrip Length AdjustmentProposedFeesCurrentFeesIncrease / DecreaseIndustrial 4.96 50% 73% $0.63 $0.00 $0.63Commercial 37.75 33% 66% $2.86 $0.00 $2.86Institutional 19.52 50% 73% $2.48 $0.00 $2.48Office 9.74 50% 73% $1.24 $0.00 $1.241. TischlerBise Land Use AssumptionsDevelopment Fees per UnitDevelopment Fees per Square Foot 20Fee ComparisonCurrent FeesProposed FeesResidential DevelopmentUnit Type FireParks and RecreationStreet TotalSingle Family $300 $1,301 $0 $1,601Multi‐Family $300 $1,301 $0 $1,601Nonresidential DevelopmentLand Use Type FireParks and RecreationStreet TotalIndustrial $0.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.24Commercial $0.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.24Institutional $0.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.24Office $0.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.24Development Fees per UnitDevelopment Fees per Square FootResidential DevelopmentDevelopment Type FireParks and RecreationStreet TotalSingle Family $122 $1,916 $1,935 $3,974Multi‐Family $94 $1,479 $964 $2,537Nonresidential DevelopmentDevelopment Type FireParks and RecreationStreet TotalIndustrial $0.10 $0.56 $0.63 $1.29Commercial $0.14 $0.81 $2.86 $3.82Institutional $0.06 $0.32 $2.48 $2.86Office $0.18 $1.03 $1.24 $2.45Development Fees per UnitDevelopment Fees per Square Foot 21Single-Family ComparisonSingle Family Fire Police Park Library Street Other TotalPeoria ‐ Current $417 $503 $1,416 $0 $8,597 $0$10,933Peoria ‐ Proposed $1,047 $677 $1,412 $0 $7,559 $0$10,695Gilbert $749 $1,720 $4,081 $0 $450 $1,155$8,155Goodyear ‐ South $971 $820 $2,255 $0 $3,330 $0$7,376Queen Creek $490 $167 $3,681 $723 $1,263 $470$6,794Chandler $218 $127 $2,338 $61 $3,869 $110$6,723Avondale $775 $832 $1,497 $119 $3,171 $0$6,394Glendale East ‐ Proposed $655 $719 $936 $195 $3,635 $0$6,140Glendale West 101 ‐ Current $1,146 $339 $909 $0 $3,522 $0$5,916Goodyear ‐ North $911 $820 $1,375 $0 $2,669 $0$5,775Phoenix ‐ Northeast $519 $506 $1,953 $232 $2,392 $0$5,602Maricopa (City) $541 $277 $1,116 $0 $3,580 $0$5,514Casa Grande ‐ Zone A $589 $179 $1,153 $0 $3,230 $233$5,384Casa Grande ‐ Zone B $589 $179 $1,153 $0 $3,230 $233$5,384Coolidge ‐ Proposed $426 $0 $1,058 $0 $3,235 $0$4,719Coolidge ‐ Current $751 $734 $839 $296 $2,067 $0$4,687Phoenix ‐ Northwest $444 $500 $1,120 $0 $2,208 $0$4,272Fountain Hills ‐ Proposed $122 $0 $1,916 $0 $1,935 $0 $3,974Glendale East ‐ Current $1,146 $339 $909 $0 $1,551 $0$3,945Surprise SPA 2 ‐ Proposed $789 $385 $1,845 $0 $0 $235$3,254Surprise SPA 1 ‐ Proposed $789 $385 $1,845 $0 $0 $235$3,254Surprise SPA 3 ‐ Proposed $789 $385 $1,845 $0 $0 $235$3,254Eloy $0 $673 $895 $0 $1,348 $0$2,916Surprise ‐ Current $1,368 $371 $785 $0 $0 $235$2,759Glendale West ‐ Proposed $655 $719 $936 $195 $0 $0$2,505Buckeye ‐ Current (Tartesso West) $1,022 $1,076 $0 $0 $252 $0$2,350Tempe $562 $635 $991 $0 $142 $0$2,330Buckeye ‐ Current (Festival Ranch) $478 $1,076 $0 $339 $0 $0$1,893Fountain Hills ‐ Current $300 $0 $1,301 $0 $0 $0$1,601Mesa $272 $402 $0 $0 $0 $366$1,040Scottsdale $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0Glendale West 303 ‐ Current $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$01. Includes Central Buckeye, Sundance, Westpark 22Multi-Family ComparisonMulti‐Family Fire Police Park Library Street Other TotalPeoria ‐ Current $248 $299 $835 $0 $5,319 $0$6,701Peoria ‐ Proposed $715 $462 $960 $0 $4,525 $0$6,662Gilbert $607 $283 $3,358 $0 $1,761 $651$6,660Goodyear ‐ South $728 $616 $1,690 $0 $2,582 $0$5,616Queen Creek $361 $123 $2,710 $532 $882 $346$4,954Glendale East ‐ Proposed $433 $475 $618 $129 $2,819 $0$4,474Goodyear ‐ North $682 $616 $1,030 $0 $2,069 $0$4,397Chandler $161 $94 $1,735 $44 $2,190 $79$4,303Maricopa (City) $383 $196 $791 $0 $2,501 $0$3,871Avondale $519 $557 $1,002 $80 $1,649 $3,807Phoenix ‐ Northeast $337 $329 $1,269 $150 $1,554 $0$3,639Coolidge ‐ Proposed $361 $0 $896 $0 $2,070 $0$3,327Glendale West 101 ‐ Current $652 $193 $517 $0 $1,963 $0$3,325Casa Grande ‐ Zone A $420 $127 $821 $0 $1,744 $166$3,278Casa Grande ‐ Zone B $420 $127 $821 $0 $1,744 $166$3,278Coolidge ‐ Current $438 $428 $489 $172 $1,331 $0$2,858Phoenix ‐ Northwest $285 $325 $728 $0 $1,435 $0$2,773Fountain Hills ‐ Proposed $94 $0 $1,479 $0 $964 $0 $2,537Surprise ‐ Current $1,140 $346 $732 $0 $0 $143$2,361Glendale East ‐ Current $652 $193 $517 $0 $865 $0$2,227Surprise SPA 2 ‐ Proposed $481 $235 $1,227 $0 $0 $143$2,086Surprise SPA 1 ‐ Proposed $481 $235 $1,227 $0 $0 $143$2,086Surprise SPA 3 ‐ Proposed $481 $235 $1,227 $0 $0 $143$2,086Tempe $487 $550 $859 $0 $122 $0$2,018Buckeye ‐ Current (Tartesso West) $798 $841 $0 $0 $176 $0$1,815Glendale West ‐ Proposed $433 $475 $618 $129 * $0$1,655Fountain Hills ‐ Current $300 $0 $1,301 $0 $0 $0$1,601Eloy $0 $370 $491 $0 $658 $0$1,519Buckeye ‐ Current (Festival Ranch) $373 $841 $0 $265 $0 $0$1,479Mesa $230 $388 $0 $0 $0 $195$813Scottsdale $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0Glendale West 303 ‐ Current $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$01. Includes Central Buckeye, Sundance, Westpark 23Commercial Comparison- per 50KSFCommercial/Retail (50,000 sq ft) Fire Police Park Library Street OtherTotalPeoria ‐ Proposed $57,350 $37,050 $6,350 $0 $479,350 $0$580,100Peoria ‐ Current $22,900 $27,650 $4,250 $0 $519,900 $0$574,700Glendale West 303 ‐ Current $11,950 $4,950 $0 $0 $413,000 $0$429,900Coolidge ‐ Current $64,200 $112,600 $15,100 $5,450 $184,900 $0$382,250Glendale East ‐ Proposed $39,450 $43,350 $4,850 $950 $240,300 $0$328,900Maricopa (City) $34,900 $30,900 $9,000 $0 $222,350 $0$297,150Casa Grande ‐ Zone A $48,500 $19,000 $12,500 $0 $207,500 $6,000$293,500Casa Grande ‐ Zone B $48,500 $19,000 $12,500 $0 $207,500 $6,000$293,500Goodyear ‐ South $26,300 $21,450 $7,100 $0 $225,850 $0$280,700Avondale $39,000 $41,500 $27,000 $4,500 $165,500 $0$277,500Chandler $11,000 $6,500 $0 $0 $252,000 $6,000$275,500Coolidge ‐ Proposed $41,250 $0 $17,900 $0 $212,250 $0$271,400Glendale West 101 ‐ Current $11,950 $4,950 $2,150 $0 $250,850 $0$269,900Goodyear ‐ North $23,350 $21,450 $1,450 $0 $181,050 $0$227,300Eloy $0 $96,900 $20,550 $0 $108,250 $0$225,700Phoenix ‐ Northwest $17,300 $19,500 $2,800 $0 $151,350 $0$190,950Fountain Hills ‐ Proposed $7,090 $0 $40,660 $0 $143,173 $0 $190,924Queen Creek $14,500 $11,450 $28,150 $5,550 $78,450 $14,600$152,700Gilbert $22,000 $28,500 $25,000 $0 $54,000 $15,000$144,500Glendale East ‐ Current $11,950 $4,950 $2,150 $0 $110,500 $0$129,550Surprise ‐ Current $69,150 $21,400 $0 $0 $0 $24,650$115,200Surprise SPA 2 ‐ Proposed $43,800 $21,350 $1,600 $0 $0 $13,050$79,800Surprise SPA 1 ‐ Proposed $43,800 $21,350 $1,600 $0 $0 $13,050$79,800Surprise SPA 3 ‐ Proposed $43,800 $21,350 $1,600 $0 $0 $13,050$79,800Buckeye ‐ Current (Sundance)$17,450 $33,950 $5,450 $2,100 $15,900 $0$74,850Buckeye ‐ Current (Tartesso West) $17,450 $33,950 $0 $0 $15,900 $0$67,300Tempe $7,400 $35,300 $12,550 $0 $11,200 $0$66,450Phoenix ‐ Northeast $20,250 $19,750 $4,900 $600 $16,350 $0$61,850Buckeye ‐ Current (Festival Ranch) $8,150 $33,950 $0 $2,600 $0 $0$44,700Mesa $10,750 $15,900 $0 $0 $0 $11,900$38,550Fountain Hills ‐ Current $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$12,000Scottsdale $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 24Adoption TimelineSept 17: Public Hearing, LUA/IIPNov 5: Adoption, LUA/IIPDec 17: Public Hearing, Development FeesJan 21: Adoption, Development FeesApr 5: Fees Effective ITEM 2. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Council Discussion Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: James Smith, Economic Development Director Staff Contact Information: James Smith, Economic Development Director Discussion/Direction (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding an update to the Economic Development Plan. Staff Summary (Background): The Economic Development Division has experienced significant change during 2019 with both the Economic Director and Economic Development Analyst leaving to accept other employment, and subsequently hiring new staff to fill these posts. In addition, the Town Council recently approved the relocation of the Tourism function from the Community Services Department to the Economic Development Division, which provided an opportunity to align these two complementary service areas. After the Economic Development Director assumed his position, the Town Manager directed that an update of the existing Economic Development Plan be undertaken. As part of the process, the Town Manager and Economic Development Director conducted individual meetings with the Mayor and Councilmembers to receive input on specific initiatives and issues that they want addressed in an updated economic development plan. The updated plan's priorities are consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan, which was adopted in 2017. It also does not significantly deviate from previous plans though some approaches may differ. A focus is on continuing to help facilitate projects that are currently in the development process, such as the Fountain Hills Medical Center and the International Dark Sky Discovery Center, in order to assist in bringing them to fruition. It also stresses capitalizing on some of the Town's strengths, such as being located in the midst of a significant healthcare corridor. It also emphasizes continuing to build upon existing Economic Development partnerships. The plan recognizes the need to: Generate sales tax revenues to support Town services and the expected quality of life; Bring additional visitors to the Town to generate economic activity; Attract additional full-time residents and residential density (where supportable) to support existing businesses and seek out future businesses; Fill existing commercial space or redevelop/reuse space as possible to bring new economic activity; and Maximize economic impacts with regard to the development of remaining infill parcels. In addition, the plan seeks to implement strategies to support the Town's desire to: Attract/retain younger families and working professionals; Build a reputation for being “Open for Business”; and Support the entrepreneurial and educational ecosystems within the Town. Another major focus of the plan is enhancing and expanding the use of communication tools, including the Town’s website, email blasts and social media platforms, to communicate more consistently with the business, tourism and real estate communities as well as potential visitors and future residents. This presentation/discussion will provide an additional opportunity to receive input from the Town Council regarding the plan. In addition, staff intends to conduct a public meeting in November to receive further input from residents and other stakeholders. After conducting that meeting, staff will finalize the updated plan and it will be prepared for release in mid to late December. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Director David Pock 10/22/2019 11:01 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/23/2019 08:18 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/23/2019 09:18 AM Form Started By: James Smith Started On: 10/21/2019 04:24 PM Final Approval Date: 10/23/2019 ITEM 3. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: 11/05/2019 Meeting Type: Combined Regular Meeting/Work Session Agenda Type: Council Discussion Submitting Department: Community Services Prepared by: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director Discussion/Direction (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding proposed updates to the Public Art Guidelines. Staff Summary (Background): The Fountain Hills Public Art Program was founded in October 1994 when the Town and the Fountain Hills Cultural and Civic Association commissioned a community cultural assessment sponsored by the Arizona Commission on the Arts. Nearly 50 citizens participated in either the open forum or via collected surveys. The community’s strengths and challenges were discussed and specific needs were identified, including: The need for a cultural center facility with performance, gallery and meeting space.1. A need for an Arts Council to provide leadership for cultural growth.2. A need to involve the arts in community design and planning.3. On September 4, 1997, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 1997-44 designating the Arts Council, then a committee of the Civic Association, as the official representative of the Town in all matters dealing with the promotion of public arts within the Town of Fountain Hills. The Public Art Committee continues as a committee of FHCCA, and since 2000, the Public Art Committee has adopted an aggressive policy of public art acquisition. In 2007, Town Council set forth the process for implementing the Public Art Requirement, also known as the “Percent for Public Art” fund. The Town’s Commercial/Multi-Family Architectural Design Review Guidelines establish the minimum standards for including a public art element in all commercial, industrial and multi-family residential projects, providing for either: 1. The installation of exterior public art valued at equal to or greater than 1% of the cost of building construction and associated site work and signage; or 2. A donation to the Fountain Hills Public Art Fund in an amount equal to or greater than 1% of the cost of building construction and associated site work and signage. Since the foundation of the Public Art Committee, the Town's municipal art collection consists of more the 100 art objects displayed throughout various locations within the community. Additionally, numerous sculptures have been added to commercial and other private property, which serves to enhance the property as a whole. All artwork in the art collection has been purchased through direct private purchase, fundraising, donations and by the funds acquired through the Percent for the Arts procedure. The Town’s General Fund does not fund the purchase or acquisition of any public art. However, once acquired, the Town takes ownership rights and assumes the responsibility for ongoing insurance and maintenance costs, which is funded annually from the General Fund to the Public Art Fund, in the estimated amount of $39,000 annually. Based on Council direction and the limited public display space that remains, staff and the Public Art Committee have been asked to revise the guidelines and process for the Public Art program in order to guide the collection into the future. Additionally, limited commercial development has slowed the monetary accrual within the Public Art Fund. Thus, the cost of ongoing maintenance, repairs and other necessary upkeep efforts have become a budgetary concern. A draft version of the revised guidelines have been developed in cooperation with the Public Art Committee, Town staff and an outside consultant. The proposed draft is attached for Council review. Noted highlights for consideration include: 1. Reduced focus on acquisition and limited collection growth. 2. The addition of a decommissioning policy, or a formal process of removing objects permanently from the Public Art Collection. 3. Stricter guidelines regarding art donations from private collections. 4. Increased funding requirements for longevity of the piece and the introduction of a Maintenance Fund (5% suggested, more if piece is approved for Fountain Park) 5. Addition of terms for decommissioning art from the collection (selling, returning to donor or artist). 6. The ability for the Public Art Committee, with Council approval, to recommend relocation of an existing piece. 7. The addition of staff to the Public Art Committee (Community Services Director). 8. Increased Town input during Public Art Committee art review, including Parks, Planning and Zoning and Public Works. 9. Addition of terms for art dedications associated with memorials. 10. Increased communication with Development Services and Finance departments, specifically the Public Art Fund requirements. 11. The addition of an application to help streamline and explain the process. Attachments Revised Guidelines Application Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Community Services Director (Originator)Rachael Goodwin 10/17/2019 05:55 PM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 10/23/2019 08:18 AM Town Manager Grady E. Miller 10/23/2019 08:57 AM Form Started By: Rachael Goodwin Started On: 10/17/2019 03:50 PM Final Approval Date: 10/23/2019 917874.4 DRAFT Town of Fountain Hills Public Art Guidelines Updated October 2019 917874.4 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND History of Public Art Public art has long played an important role in expressing the identity of a culture. In many cases, public art is the legacy by which we remember an ancient culture. Public art has been a part of the American landscape since Colonial times, but it wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that comprehensive public art programs emerged. After the establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965, the field of public art underwent significant change. As more and more cities adopted “percent for art” ordinances, public art has evolved from a process that placed large-scale versions of studio sculpture in unrelated spaces into the broader understanding that art may take various forms, including being routinely integrated into the surroundings it is placed in, often becoming part of building or structure itself. In cities like Seattle, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami and others, artists working in the public realm became more involved in the design of public spaces by working closely with architects , landscape architects and engineers. The result was the use of art to shape a new public space, not just to enhance an existing one. In Seattle, Phoenix and Scottsdale, the art went one step further; it has become an integral part of civic infrastructure including, bridges, waste treatment plants, freeways, parks, sports complexes and other projects. Funding for contemporary public art has come in large part from three sources: (i) “percent for art” ordinances, (ii) funding through local, state and federal grant programs and (iii) corporate sponsorships and private donations from individuals and foundations. History of Art in Fountain Hills In October 1994, the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Town”) and the Fountain Hills Civic Association (the “Civic Association”) commissioned a community cultural assessment, sponsored by the Arizona Commission on the Arts (the “1994 Cultural Assessment”). Nearly 50 citizens participated in either the open forum or in the surveys collected. The community’s strengths and challenges were discussed, and four key issues were identified: The need for a cultural center facility with performance, gallery and meeting space. A need for an arts council to provide leadership for cultural growth. A need to involve the arts in community design and planning. A need for youth services including after school and summer programs. Through the 1994 Cultural Assessment, a clear need for a public art committee was recognized. The Fountain Hills Arts Council (the “Arts Council”) bylaws were formally adopted in March 1995. 917874.4 3 On September 4, 1997, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 1997 -44 designating the Arts Council, then a committee of the Civic Association, as the official representative of the Town in all matters dealing with the promotion of public arts within the Town of Fountain Hills. Shortly thereafter, the Arts Council established the Fountain Hills Public Art Committee (the “Public Art Committee”) to administer its public art program. On November 20, 2003, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2003-70 confirming this appointment and adopting an official Master Plan for the acquisition of public art. Through various corporate reorganizations, the Arts Council became the Fountain Hills Cultural Council and thereafter merged with the Civic Association to become the Fountain Hills Cultural and Civic Association, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation (“FHCCA”). The Public Art Committee continues as a committee of FHCCA, and since 2000, the Public Art Committee has adopted an aggressive policy of public art acquisition. On December 7, 2006, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 06 -23, creating the Town’s Commercial/Multi-Family Architectural Design Review Guidelines (the “Design Guidelines”). Section 19.05(I) of the Design Guidelines established the minimum standards for inc luding a public art element in all commercial, industrial and multi-family residential projects (the “Public Art Requirement”) providing for either (i) the installation of exterior public art valued at equal to or greater than 1% of the cost of building construction and associated site work and signage of a new or redeveloped commercial, industrial, or large multi-family residential construction project or (ii) a donation to the Fountain Hills Public Art Fund in an amount equal to or greater than 1% of the cost of building construction and associated site work and signage. The funds raised through this process will be referred to hereafter as the “Percent for Public Art” funds. Public Art Fund Development Guidelines were adopted by the Town Council in Janua ry, 2007 to set forth the process for implementing the Public Art Requirement. The Fountain Hills Public Art Fund is the fund held by the Town for the purchase or installation of public art (the “Fountain Hills Public Art Fund”). 917874.4 4 II. PUBLIC ART PROGRAM GENERAL STANDARDS Mission: The mission of the Public Art Collection is to promote a rich, diverse and stimulating cultural environment that enriches the lives of the town’s residents and visitors, and further establishes the town’s identity. The Fountain Hills Cultural and Civic Association (FHCCA) is committed to acquiring works of art for the Art Collection of the highest aesthetic standards reflective of diverse social, aesthetic and cultural perspectives. The Town Council intends that all public art in the corporate limits of the Town shall be selected and approved according to the Public Art Acquisition process. This document establishes policies and procedures for the acquisition, placement, care and management of works of art for the public art collection of the Town of Fountain Hills, whether acquired through a Gift or Bequest. It shall be the policy of the Public Art Committee to accept unique, one of a kind works of art with the noted exception of prints, photographs or a desirable high-quality limited edition work of art by a renowned artist. GOALS OF THE COLLECTION: 1. Artwork acquired and maintained within the collection should reflect the highest aesthetic standards. Objects accepted into the collection must be of known authorship and be accepted based on their value as works of art. 2. The Town’s collection should be diverse in its representation of artists and artistic styles. 3. Artwork acquired and accepted into the collection should be appropriate in scale, media and context with its intended location, and be relevant within the cultural, historical, social/political and environmental context of the area surrounding the Town of Fountain Hills. DEFINITIONS: Fountain Hills Cultural and Civic Association (“FHCCA”): The FHCCA is the 501©3 Charitable organization representing the Public Art Committee . Public Art Committee: The Public Art Committee (“PAC”) is a member organizatio n of the Fountain Hills Cultural and Civic Association (“FHCCA”). The Public Art Committee is made up members of the FHCCA, Town staff member(s) and when deemed necessary, arts professionals. The committee generally meets monthly and is responsible for re viewing potential art donations and making recommendations to the Town. Accession: The formal process used to accept an artwork into the Public Art Collection, and the recording of an item as a Collection Object. Aesthetics: Artistic merit of the work of art, including consideration of its artistic, social, cultural and/or historical significance. 917874.4 5 Appraisal: A professional, certified evaluation of an artwork, i.e. its authenticity, condition and provenance, to determine its monetary value. Artist: Individual artist or team of individual artists whose body of work and professional activities demonstrate serious ongoing commitment to the fine arts, through a record of exhibitions, public commissions, sale of works and educational attainment. Artwork or Work of Art: For the purpose of these guidelines, Artwork, or Work of Art, is defined as a work in any media that is the result of the unique creative expression of an artist. Conservation: See “Preservation.” For the purposes of this document, the te rms “conservation” and “preservation” are used interchangeably. De -accession: The formal process of removing accessioned objects permanently from the Public Art Collection. Donation: An artwork or a series of artworks gifted to the Town for long-term public display with intent to transfer title of ownership to the Town. Maintenance: Maintenance shall mean a minimally invasive, routine and regularly scheduled activity that may involve the removal of superficial dirt or debris build -up on the surface of the artwork or the cleaning and repair of non-art support material such as a pedestal or plaque. For the purposes of this document, this definition shall apply generally whenever “maintenance” of artwork is referenced. Monuments: Structures, sculpture or other objects erected to commemorate a person or an event. Plaque: For the purpose of this document “plaque” refers to identification signage affixed on or near an artwork that identifies the title, artist, media, date, attribution and other pertinent information. Organizations strive for uniformity in plaque design and text content. Preservation: Preservation shall mean the protection of cultural property through activities that minimize chemical and physical deterioration and damage, and that prevent loss of informational content. The primary goal of preservation is to prolong the existence of cultural property, and should be undertaken or overseen by a professional conservator. For the purposes of this document, the terms preservation and conservation are used interchangeably, and the definition above shall apply generally whenever “conservation” or “preservation” is used. Proposal: The Artist’s design proposal for a project that typically includes drawings and/or models illustrating the project and how it will fit into the site, project description and budget, typically requested from a limited number of finalists as a means of providing the basis for final artist selection. Provenance: The history of an artwork and its creation and ownership, which is used to help establish its authenticity. Documents used for provenance include sales receipts, auction and exhibition catalogs, gallery labels, letters from the artist, and statements from people who knew the artist or the circumstances of the creation of the artwork. 917874.4 6 Public Art Collection: The Public Art Collection is comprised of artworks that have been accessioned by the Public Art Committee on behalf of the Town. Public Art Maintenance Fund: A fund adequate to ensure the continued care of gifts of art shall be maintained by the Town of Fountain Hills. A Public Art Maintenance Contribution is required for all outdoor artworks and may be required for indoor artworks in order to maintain the gift in a condition satisfactory to the donor, the PAC and the Town. The amount of the maintenance contribution shall be assessed based on the value and location of the gifted artwork. Scale, material, location, value of the work and potential for vandalis m will be considered in determining the maintenance contribution. III. PUBLIC ART ACQUISITION PROCESS Public art is acquired through four primary methods: A. Artwork Donation • (As the result of a gift or loan whereby the Town becomes a beneficiary) B. Public Art Requirement for Development • (Also known as (One Percent for Public Art”) C. Acquiring Art through Artist Selection or Purchase • (By the active procurement of a specific work of art or the selection of an artist for a specific project) D. Temporary or Traveling Art Exhibitions 917874.4 7 ARTWORK DONATION Procedures: When an artwork is offered to the Town for donation, such donations are reviewed by entities that may include but are not limited to the PAC, FHCCA and Town staff. No work of art shall be accessioned into the Public Art Collection, unless such work of art shall first have been submitted to and approved by the above mentioned entities. Artwork must meet the Artwork Review Criteria. Neither the PAC, the FHCCA nor the Town will establish the a rtwork value, nor furnish documentation regarding the artwork value to the donor. Step 1: The prospective donor submits a completed Artwork Donation Application with required attachments to the PAC. Developers, required to meet the 1% obligation, will sub mit an application with the Planning and Zoning Department. Copies of the completed application will then be forwarded to the PAC and pertinent town staff by the P&Z Department. The proposal shall include information about the artist, written description of the artwork (size, materials, date created, etc.), condition report, appraisal and photograph or drawing of the artwork, and proposed site, if any. Artwork to be donated will not be accepted with restrictions. For all artwork located on public property, the Town of Fountain Hills receives full title to the artwork and has the ability to sell or transfer the title to individuals or entities. Step 2: The PAC reviews the application and gift documents and decides if the donation meets the Art Acquisition Criteria. If necessary, the prospective donor may be invited to give a presentation about the donation to Town staff, the PAC and others to clarify the artwork provenance and appraisal, and the intent of the donation. The PAC may seek the advice of a professional art conservator or other qualified arts professional to review the proposal and provide recommendations regarding authenticity and the long-term care of the artwork. Step 3: The PAC will make the recommendation to accept, accept with modifications or decline the donation. If the donation is accepted with modifications, the donor has the option to resubmit at a later date. If the donation is accepted by the PAC, it is then referred to the FHCCA Board and Town Council for review and acceptance. The donor may again be called upon to discuss the donation with the Town Council. The PAC may not recommend donations that require extraordinary maintenance expense or are deemed unsafe. Step 4: Once the artwork donation has been accepted, the Town and the Donor enter into an agreement regarding the terms of acceptance based upon the requirements of the Art Acquisition Criteria. In general, donations shall be accepted without restrictions or conditions. All accepted donations will be subject to the Town’s Art Acquisitions Criteria and Deaccessioning Policy. All artworks shall accessioned by the Town will be covered under the Town’s public art insurance policy for the stated value. 917874.4 8 ART ACQUISITION CRITERIA Public art is defined as the work of a visual artist located in a publicly accessible space. Public art includes, but is not limited to, paintings, murals, statues, stained glass, fiber art, relief or other sculpture, fountains, arches and other structures intended for ornament or commemoration, carvings, frescoes, mosaics, mobiles, photographs, drawings, collages, prints, landscape art, and crafts, both decorative and utilitarian. Public art may be temporary or permanent in nature. Public art projects may also include visual or landscape artists serving on design and development teams to identify opportunities and approaches for incorporating artwork aesthetic concepts into Town building and visible public improvement projects. Regard less of the method of acquisition, certain fundamental criteria will be universally applied to any work of art under consideration. Aesthetics a) Artistic merit of the work of art, including its artistic, social, and/or historical significance, as evidenced by the Artwork Donation Application (which includes a written description and drawings and/or maquette if the artwork is proposed and not fabricated) b) Professional artist's qualifications, as evidenced by the Artwork Donation Application (which includes images of past work, resume, references, and published reviews) c) Compatibility of the work of art within the context of the proposed site d) Warranty of originality (in the case of a pre -existing artwork; only original works or limited editions and high aesthetic value shall be considered) e) Provenance (as stated in the definitions) Installation a) Site requirements for installation (Electricity, lighting, water, or other requirements) b) Method of installation: Documents required may include : Utility connections, site modifications, structural reinforcements or other engineering requirements or site modifications should be described in the donation proposal and reflected in the construction plans and specifications. The donor/sponsor is responsible for providing and submitting engineering and architectural plans, as required according to the Building Code or as requested by the Commission. The Donor shall be responsible to design and provide an appropriate base structure. Such plans must be prepared, signed and stamped by the appropriate design professional and/or engineer licensed in the state of Arizona. c) Review of Fabrication and Installation Method: Works of art that are accepted from maquettes or drawings will be subject to PAC review throughout fabrication and installation. Specific plans for site design, installation, maintenance and protection will be submitted for approvals. The completed artwork may not deviate in any way from the proposal approved by the PAC. d) Storage requirements, if needed e) Safety standards as defined by the appropriate Town Departments. Maintenance 917874.4 9 f) Structural integr ity (demonstrated through documentation) g) Durability of materials and method of fabrication h) Susceptibility of the artwork to accidental damage, theft, and/or vandalism and security needs i) Ability or capacity to provide necessary routine maintenance Maintenance Fund Contribution: a) All costs associated with fabrication and installation, including site preparation, long-term preservation (i.e., conservation and repair), illumination, plaque, and unveiling/dedication event, if any. The Town and the Donor must enter into an agreement that outlines responsibility for installation, maintenance and repairs. b) For all works of art located on Town property or donated to the Town, the Donor will contribute 5% of the total value of the artwork to the Town’s Public Art Fund. Locations within Fountain Park are limited, and therefore require a Maintenance Fund Contribution of 10%. Obtaining an appraisal prior to execution of the agreement is the responsibility of the Donor, unless otherwise agreed upon by Town and Donor. c) Statement of value of artwork by a certified appraiser for insurance purposes. d) No artwork will be placed or acquired before all financial obligations are met by the Donor. Liability: a) Susceptibility of the artwork both to normal wear and to vandalism b) Potential risk to the public c) Public access, in general, as well as compliance with ADA requirements d) Special insurance requirements (some extremely valuable artworks need additional insurance) Timelines s: a) Allowance of sufficient time for normal review process b) Timely and appropriate response to the PAC and Town staff requests for additional materials or information Site: Sites in the Fountain Park are extremely limited and subject to scrutiny by the PAC and Town Staff. Prior to selecting a site for an artwork, whether purchased or commissioned, the PAC and Town staff shall take into consideration the following factors: a) Visibility and prominence of the artwork site b) Public Safety c) Interior and exterior traffic patterns 917874.4 10 d) Relationship of proposed artwork to existing or future architectural features, natural features, other artworks, and urban design e) Function of the facilit y f) Facility users and surrounding community and interaction of users and community members with proposed artwork g) Future development plans for area h) Overall program goal or concept i) Landscape design j) Relationship of proposed artwork to existing art works within the site vicinity k) Proposed works of art must be compatible in scale, material, form, and content with their surroundings. Attention shall be given to the social context of the work and the manner in which it may interact or contribute to the use of the site. l) Ecological and/or environmental impact m) Accessibility to the public, including persons with disabilities and ADA Compliance n) Text components (e.g., signage or plaque) The Public Art Committee and Town of Fountain Hills shall approve the artwo rk location before acquisition. Memorial Gifts: Memorial gifts will be judged to the following additional criteria: a) The person so honored shall have been deceased for a minimum of two years. Events shall have taken place at least two years prior to c onsideration of a proposed memorial gift. b) Represents broad community values. c) The memorial has timeless qualities that will be meaningful to future generations. d) The location under consideration is an appropriate setting for the memorial; in general, there should be some specific geographic justification for the memorial being located in a specific site. Acceptable Art: Acceptable forms of art (“Acceptable Art”) shall include but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a) All forms of limited edition or one-of-a-kind original creations of visual art created by an artist. b) Project features and enhancements which are unique and produced by a professional artist such as benches and fountains. c) Murals or mosaics covering walls. d) Professional artist sculptures which can be freestanding, wall-supported or suspended and made of durable materials suitable to the site and the climate. 917874.4 11 e) Other suitable artworks as presented in a catalogue and previously approved by the Public Art Committee. Not Acceptable Art: The following, non-exclusive list describes those items not considered Acceptable Art: a) Business logos or art that incorporates a logo for the primary purpose of advertising a business. b) Directional elements such as supergraphics, signage or color coding except where these elements are integral parts of the original works of art. c) Mass-produced art objects, such as fountains, statuary objects, or playground equipment. d) Reproduction by mechanical or other means of original works of art. e) Decorative ornamental or functional elements created by the project f) Landscape architecture or gardening except for elements designed by the artist as an integral part of the work of art. g) Electrical, water or mechanical service for activation of the works of art. h) Art exhibitions and educational activities. i) Security and publicity concerning works of art. j) Standard landscape or hardscape elements that would normally be associated with the project. 917874.4 12 PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT (Also known as One Percent for Public Art) A. Basic Requirements 1. Developers of any new professional office, lodging projects, retail, service, commercial, wholesale, transportation, industrial developments, re -developments or expansion projects and multi-family projects with five or more dwelling units within the Town of Fountain Hills are required to provide public artwork. The public art must have an invoiced cost or appraised value equal to 1% of the cost of building construction, including associated site work and signage. As an alternative to providing public art, developers may make a donation to the Fountain Hills Public Art Fund in an amount equal to or greater than 1% of the cost of building construction and associated site work and signage. If requested, the Public Art Committee and Town staff will work with the developer to identify an appropriate use of the contribution that will benefit both the developer and the Town. 2. Developers are not required to make a contribution to the Maintenance Fund for any artwork located on private property. If the artwork is to be located on public property, the 5% obligation can be calculated within the 1% Development Fee Requirement. 3. The public art requirement must be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Applicants choosing to purchase a piece of art are required to submit a Donation Application and comply with the Art Acquisition Criteria. The art contribution should be approved by Town staff and PAC as being in compliance with the ordinance. 4. Artwork selected by the developer to go on site must be integrated with the project, be located on an exterior of the structure or the building s ite, be visible to the public at all times and be accessible for at least 40 hours per week. The location of the artwork should be in an outdoor location to allow unrestricted visibility by the public 24 hours per day. 5. A plaque will be placed that will identify the art and the artist. The PAC and the Town will be responsible to provide the plaque. B. Eligible Costs for Calculating 1% Contribution The following costs may be included in the calculation of the developer’s required art investment. a) Professional artist’s budget, including artist fees, materials, assistants’ labor costs, insurance, permits, taxes, business, legal expenses and operating costs. b) Fabrication and installation of the artwork, including base and/or foundation if necessary. c) Site preparation for artwork. d) Structures enabling the artist to display the artwork. Documentation of the artwork. 917874.4 13 e) Acknowledgment plaque identifying the artist, artwork and development , per Town format. C. Responsibility After Installation a) Art located on the developer’s property will remain the developer’s property, subject to a covenant on the part of the developer that the piece will remain in public view. It will be the developer’s and subsequent property owner’s responsibility to insure and maintain the piece of art. The insured value must equal the appraised value. Developer will be cognizant of the federal Visual Artists Rights Act, which prevents the distortion or modification of an artwork without the artist’s permission. b) Art located on Town-owned property shall become the property of the Town. The artwork location will be reviewed by the Town’s Facilities Division and other staff to ensure compliance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA), and to minimize conflicts with public utilities in Town rights-of-way. The Town will insure and maintain all pieces on Town-owned property. 917874.4 14 ACQUIRING ART THROUGH ARTISTS SELECTION OR PURCHASE The Public Art Committee will identify potential art projects or art purchase opportunities. Any recommendation to the FHCCA Board regarding the acquisition of a piece of art shall identify the potential source of funds for such acquisition. Such source of funds may include the funds deposited in the Fountain Hills Public Art Fund pursuant to Article I, Section (A)(2) of this master plan. 1. The PAC will decide which projects or purchases will be recommended to the Town Council as required in the Artwork Donation Process. The Town Council will have the final decision, acting in its sole discretion, to determine (i) which projects or purchases will be undertaken and (ii) if the recommendation includes the use of funds from the Fountain Hills Public Art Fund, whether the use of such funds is appropriate. 2. If the Town Council approves moving forward with a pro ject or purchase, the Public Art Committee will assume the role of an independent selection panel. The Public Art Committee will choose the most appropriate method for a given project or purchase from among the following options: a) Open Competition. This method offers opportunities in which any professional artist is eligible to enter. A Project Profile, an announcement with information about the project, will be circulated, requesting artist proposals for review by the selection panel. b) Invitational or Limited Competition. This two-staged competition calls for artists to submit qualifications (documentation of past work) for the selection panel’s consideration, instead of a proposal. The panel selects three to five artists to visit the site and develop detailed proposals or to participate in an interview process. The artists may be paid for their proposals and site visits based on a percentage of the project budget. The panel then reconvenes to select an artist and/or proposal. c) Direct Selection and Nominatio ns . In this method, the panel selects one artist on the basis of documentation of past work. The pool of work reviewed can be solicited through a call- to -artists. The artist is selected by the PAC and a recommendation is presented to the FHCCA and Town Council for approval. PAC will then negotiate a contract for the development of a proposal. d) Direct Purchase. A method that results in the purchase of already completed artworks, based upon the PAC’s recommendations. 3. Upon Town Council approval of any public art project or purchase, the Public Art Committee will contact the selected artist or artist’s agent. The Public Art Committee will prepare an invoice or contract between the FHCCA and the artist covering the entire scope of work to be performed, and specifying all fees to be paid, including, those for any travel expenses, shipping and/or installation charges. If the Fountain Hills Public Art Fund is to be used for all or a portion of the acquisition cost, the aforementioned invoice or contract shall be entered into between the Town and the artist, and the Town Attorney shall prepare the invoice or contract with input from the Public Art Committee as to the appropriate scope of work to be performed, fees to be paid, travel expenses to be reimbursed and ship ping and/or installation charges to be paid. If both the Fountain Hills Public Art Fund and FHCCA funds are to be used for acquisition and/or 917874.4 15 installation, the FHCCA shall contribute its portion to the Town prior to the date the Town is required to pay the final invoice. 4. Working in cooperation with appropriate Town staff and/or commissions, the Public Art Committee will assume responsibility for project management: overseeing the purchase, shipment and installation of selected art work, or the design, fabrication and insta llation of a commissioned project. 5. According to the payment schedule stipulated in the contract, the Public Art Committee will be responsible for paying all project fees in a timely fashion, except for those installation fees agreed to be covered by the Town through a separate agreement. 6. Upon completion of the purchase or project, the Public Art Committee will arrange a public dedication and formal transfer of ownership to the Town. 917874.4 16 TEMPORARY OR TRAVELING EXHIBITIONS Need Info 917874.4 17 SALE OF ARTWORKS When the PAC determines that it would be advantageous to the Town, a work of art under its jurisdiction may be sold. 1. Sale at Public Auction: A work of art under the jurisdiction of the Town may be sold at public auction to the highest and best bidder and the PAC may contract with a licensed auctioneer for the purpose of conducting the sale or sales. The contract shall s pecify the compensation to be paid for the auctioneer's services and set forth the terms and conditions under which the sale or sales are to be conducted. Each such contract shall be approved by the Purchaser. 2. Private Sale: If the work is offered at pub lic auction and no bids are received, or if the bids are rejected, the PAC may determine that the work may be sold on terms more advantageous to the Town. 3. Proceeds from Sale of Artwork: All proceeds from any sale or auction, shall be credited to the Public Art Fund, and the monies contributed to the fund from the sale of a work of art under the jurisdiction of the Town shall be expended exclusively for the purpose of acquiring or maintaining works of art in the Collection. 4. Objects may not be given or sold p rivately to Town employees, officers, members of the Commission, or to their representatives or family. Other Considerations If, for any reason, the Town of Fountain Hills finds it necessary to pursue plans that would modify, remove, destroy or in any way alter an artwork, and the PAC approves such action, then the PAC shall make a reasonable effort to notify the artist by registered mail of the Town's intent and outline possible options, which include, but are not limited to the following: a) Transfer of Title to the Artist: The artist will be given the first option of having the title to the artwork transferred to him/her. If the artist elects to pursue title transfer, he/she is responsible for the object's removal and all associated costs. b) Disclaim Authorship: In the case where the Town contemplates action which would compromise the integrity of the artwork, the artist shall be given the opportunity to disclaim authorship and request that his/her name not be used in connection with the given work. Alteration, Modification or Destruction: If alteration, modification, or destruction is of an artwork protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 is contemplated, the PAC must secure a written waiver of the artist's rights under this section. In the case of an emergency removal that may result in destruction or irreparable damage, the Town will act in accordance with the advice of the Town Attorney. Relocation of Public Display: If the Town decides that an artwork must be removed from its origina l site, and if its condition is such that it could be re-installed, the PAC and Town will attempt to identify another appropriate site. If the artwork was designed for a specific site, the PAC and Town will attempt to relocate the work to a new site consis tent with the artist's intention. If possible, the artist's assistance will be requested to help make this determination. 917874.4 18 The Town and PAC reserve the right to relocate or remove any artwork at any time. The final decision regarding the placement of artwork will rest with the Town and PAC. 917874.4 19 DE-ACCESSIONING POLICY Conditions: A work of art may be considered for removal from public display and/or deaccessioning if one or more of the following conditions apply: a) The work does not fit within the PAC mission, goals, or guidelines for the Art Collection. b) The work presents a threat to public safety. c) Condition or security of the work cannot be guaranteed, or the Town cannot properly care for or store the work. d) The work requires excessive or unreasonable maintenance or has faults in design or workmanship. e) The condition of the work requires restoration in gross excess of its aesthetic value or is in such a deteriorated state that restoration would prove either unfea sible, impractical or misleading. f) No suitable site for the work is available, or significant changes in the use or character of design of the site affect the integrity of the work. g) The work is fraudulent or not authentic. h) The work is rarely or never displayed. i) Significant adverse public reaction over an extended period of time (5 years or more). j) The work is judged to have little or no aesthetic and/or historical or cultural value. k) The work can be sold to finance, or can be traded for, a work of gr eater importance. l) The work is duplicative in a large holding of work of that type or of that artist. Process: The following process shall be followed for works being considered for de -accessioning: Absence of Restrictions: Before disposing of any objects from the collections, reasonable efforts shall be made to ascertain that the PAC and the Town are legally free to do so. Where restrictions are found to apply, the PAC shall comply with the following: Mandatory restrictions shall be observed unless deviation from their terms is authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction. (What does this mean???) Objects to which restrictions apply should not be disposed of until reasonable efforts are made to comply with the restrictive conditions. If practical and reasonable to do so, considering the value of the objects in question, the PAC should notify the donor if it intends to dispose of such objects within ten years of receiving the gift or within the donor's lifetime, whichever is less. If there is an y question as to the intent of force of restrictions, the PAC shall seek the advice of the Town Attorney. Independent Appraisal or other documentation of the value of the artwork: Prior to disposition of any object having a value of $10,000 or more, P AC and/or Town staff should obtain an independent professional appraisal, or an estimate of the value of the work based on recent documentation of gallery and auction sales. Related Professional Opinions: In cases of where de-accessioning or removal is recommended 917874.4 20 due to deterioration, threat to public safety, ongoing controversy, or lack of artistic quality, it is recommended that the PAC seek the opinions of independent professionals qualified to comment on the concern prompting review (conservators, engineers, architects, critics, safety experts etc.). If obtainable, provide written correspondence, press and other evidence of public debate regarding original acquisition method and purchase price, options for disposition and replacement costs. (Do we want this in this doc?) PAC Hearing and Resolution: The recommendation to de-accession a work of art will be considered at a regular or special meeting of the Public Art Committee. The Town must approve by Resolution the Public Art Committee’s recommendation that a work of art under its jurisdiction should be de-accessioned through sale or exchange. Provisions for Emergency Removal: In the event that the structural integrity or condition of an artwork is such that, in the opinion of the PAC or Town staff, the artwork presents an eminent threat to public safety, the Town may authorize its immediate removal, without the artist's cons ent, by declaring a State of Emergency, and have the work placed in temporary storage. The artist and the PAC must be notified of this action within 30 days. The PAC will then consider options for disposition: repair, reinstallation, maintenance provisions or de-accessioning. In the event that the artwork cannot be removed without being altered, modified, or destroyed, and if the Artist’s Agreement with the Town has not waived his/her rights under the 1990 Visual Artists’ Protection Act, the Town must attempt to gain such written permission before proceeding. In the event that this cannot be accomplished before action is required in order to protect the public health and safety, the Town shall proceed according to the advice of the Town Attorney. Adequate Records: An adequate record of the conditions and circumstances under which objects are de-accessioned and disposed of should be made and retained as part of the Collections Management records. 917874.4 21 Artwork Donation Application Use this form to submit proposals for permanent artwork donations, short-term, or long-term loans. Thank you for your interest in donating artwork to the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona. Please direct any questions to the name below, then, mail or email completed application to: Name: Fountain Hills Public Art Committee Email: carol@caroljcarroll.com Address: 15840 E Jericho Dr, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268-3913 Cell: Carol Carroll 602-620-0799 Please attach additional sheets. The Town reserves the right to request additional information in order to process a donation proposal. DONOR Name(s) Organization (if applicable): (Please check one: ___ Individual(s) ___ Corporation ___ Not-for-Profit ___Other (specify: _______________________________) Address City State Zip Code Country Phone Fax Email (Please check one): Donation of artwork to be commissioned Donation of existing artwork Conflict of Interest: Disclose whether the donor has any active contracts with the City or is involved in any stage of negotiations for a City contract. ARTIST Name Alias (If applicable) Nationality Birth Date Death Date (If applicable) Address City State Zip Code Country Phone Fax Email Website Artist Representation/Gallery Name (If applicable) Artist Representation/Gallery Address City State Zip Code Country Fountain Hills Public Art Comittee Financial Donation $_________ Art Work Donation $_________ REFERENCE # ____________ 2 Phone Fax Email Website For donations of commissioned artwork, please explain the method used in the selection of the artist. ARTWORK Title Artwork type (e.g., painting, print, drawing, sculpture) Medium: include all materials Description of Artwork Creation Date Dimensions and Weight Anticipated Life Expectancy of the Artwork Finishes applied to surface Construction technique(s) If this artwork is part of a series or group, what is the total number in the series or group? If this artwork is part of an edition, what is the edition number of this piece, and the total edition size? Describe frame, if any. Describe base or pedestal, if any. Describe any accompanying accessories. Current location of artwork ARTIST CONTINUED 3 Proposed site for placement (if applicable) For memorials, describe the person or event to be commemorated, and explain why this person or event deserves special recognition. ARTWORK HISTORY Provenance/Past Owners: List all past owners and period of ownership for each. A separate page can be submitted. Exhibition History: List the exhibition history including exhibition titles, venues and dates for each. Publications and References: List all publications about and references to the artwork. COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP Name of current copyright owner Title Address City State Zip Code Country Phone Fax Email If the donor is the current copyright owner, does the donor intend to transfer the copyright to the Town of Fountain Hills should the donation be accepted by the Town? ARTWORK VALUATION (per appraisal) Fair Market Value $ How was this fair market value determined and by whom? CONDITION ARTWORK CONTINUED 4 Describe the current condition of the artwork noting any existing breaks, tears, scratches, abrasions, paint losses, or other insecurities or defects in the artwork. If the artwork has been conserved, describe the conservation treatment and name of conservator. Provide recommendations for routine maintenance of artwork. Indicate whether these recommendations were provided by a conservator. (Optional) Provide recommendations for security, installation, transportation and/or storage. For donations of commissioned artwork, please outline the installation plan. OTHER REQUIRED MATERIALS Please submit the following materials along with this completed form. DONOR’S AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE A DONATION REVIEW RCVD Initials Artist’s résumé and bio Digital, color images of past artwork by artist For commissioned artwork, color renderings or maquette’s of proposed artwork Maps or images of proposed site for artwork Itemized list of any costs to be borne by the Town for transportation, installation, exhibition, operation, maintenance, conservation, and/or security For commissioned artwork, an itemized budget for design, fabrication, and installation For commissioned artwork, a timeline for design, fabrication, and installation Exhibition catalogs, publications and/or references, if available Formal, written appraisal for any artwork with a fair market value of $10,000 or more • Condition report, if available Conservator’s report, if applicable Proof of authenticity, if available Any other information relevant to the artwork CONDITION CONTINUED 5 Authorized signature Title Print name Date STAFF ONLY Received by Date DONOR'S AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE A DONATION REVIEW CONTINUED CAROL'S SUGGESTIONS TO HAVE READY TO HAND OUT WITH THE APPLICATION IS A WORKBOOK THAT HAS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO FILL IT OUT THE FORM. DEFINITIONS IF NEEDED. AND WHAT COMES AFTER THE APPLICATION FOR THE DONORS. ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHEN DECISION IS MADE BY PLANNING AND ZONING ON WORDING FOR THE "PERCENT OF PUBLIC ART" CLAUSE IN THE MASTER PLAN THE MASTER PLAN IS FOR US AND THE PUBLIC BUT THE DONORS WILL BENEFIT FROM A STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTIONS BOOK.