HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020.0121.TCRM.Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
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. – REGULAR MEETING
WHEN:TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2020
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 AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Ginny Dickey
2.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey
3.REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER
A.RECOGNITION OF Students of the Month for January 2020
B.PROCLAMATION of January 2020 as National Mentoring Month
C.UPDATE on Census 2020
4.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
A.PRESENTATION by Executive Director of the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce Betsy
LaVoie
B.PRESENTATION OF the "Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements Technical Report," from
representatives of J.E. Fuller, Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
5.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.
6.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.
Town Council Regular Meeting of January 21, 2020 2 of 4
A.CONSIDERATION OF approving the meeting minutes of the Special Meeting of January 7,
2020, and the Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020.
B.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Town of
Fountain Hills for a beer garden in conjunction with the Music Fest on April 4th, 2020.
C.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Valors on 8th
for a beer garden in conjunction with the Mountain to Fountain race on March 1, 2020.
D.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain
Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a fundraiser to be held on March 1, 2020.
E.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain
Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a fundraiser to be held on March 6, 2020.
F.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain
Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a fundraiser to be held on April 17,, 2020.
G.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain
Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a fundraiser to be held on April 19, 2020.
H.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain
Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a fundraiser to be held on June 8, 2020.
I.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for A Dog Inc., for a
beer garden in conjunction with the Woofa Palooza on April 5, 2020.
J.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application submitted by
Samuel D. Coffee for the Fountain Hills Veterans Memorial Inc, fundraiser to be held at the
Fountain Hills Community Center on February 14, 2020.
K.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for Fountain Hills
Sister Cities, for a dinner to be held at the Fountain Hills Community Center on April 18, 2020.
7.REGULAR AGENDA
A.CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2020-03, adopting development fees in compliance with
A.R.S. § 9-463.05.
B.CONSIDERATION OF Ordinance 20-01 amending Chapter 25 of the Fountain Hills Zoning
Ordinance, Entertainment District Overlay, creating Section 25.04, Uses Permitted by Special
Use Permit, to allow consideration of residential densities in excess of eight (8) units per acre.
(Case #Z2019-08)
Town Council Regular Meeting of January 21, 2020 3 of 4
C.DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION relating to any item included in the League of
Arizona Cities and Towns’ weekly Legislative Bulletin(s) or relating to any action proposed or
pending before the State Legislature.
8.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.
9.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 this ______ day of ____________________, 2020.
_____________________________________________
Elizabeth A. Burke, MMC, 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.
Town Council Regular Meeting of January 21, 2020 4 of 4
ITEM 3. B.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
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
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS (Agenda Language): PROCLAMATION of
January 2020 as National Mentoring Month
Staff Summary (Background)
Mayor Dickey will be proclaiming January 2020 as National Mentoring Month.
Attachments
Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director David Pock 12/31/2019 12:27 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/02/2020 10:34 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/08/2020 02:40 PM
Form Started By: Angela Padgett-Espiritu Started On: 12/31/2019 12:22 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/08/2020
ITEM 4. B.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Public Appearances/Presentations Submitting Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Randy Harrel, Town Engineer
Staff Contact Information: Justin Weldy, Public Works Director
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS (Agenda Language): PRESENTATION OF the
"Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements Technical Report," from representatives of J.E. Fuller,
Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
Staff Summary (Background)
J.E. Fuller will present its findings to the Council from the October 2019, "Golden Eagle Park Drainage
Improvements Technical Report." The report evaluated the park flooding caused by the storms of Oct.
2, 2018 and Sept. 23, 2019, and recommended drainage improvements both within the park and just
upstream from the park to mitigate future flood damage.
MCO Properties Dedicated Golden Eagle Park to the Town in 1995 which lies within the flood
impoundment area of Golden Eagle Park Dam. Because of the very small original outlet from the park (a
42" diameter pipe culvert), the original drainage channels around the ball fields and other park facilities
had been designed for only a 1-year design storm, since higher flows would be back-watered onto those
park facilities anyway. The restroom/control building's main floor was designed and constructed above
the 100-year flood level.
In the late 1990's, the Safety of Dams study determined that Golden Eagle Park Dam was unsafe, since it
would be significantly overtopped, and likely catastrophically breached, during the required design
storm (the 1/2 PMF storm, approximately a 500-year storm event). As a result, the Flood Control
District of Maricopa County and the Town of Fountain Hills initiated major improvements to the dam in
1999-2000, including raising the dam crest elevation, extending the width of the emergency spillway,
and adding an auxiliary principal outlet structure (a 10' x4' box culvert). The auxiliary principal outlet
structure substantially increases the outlet flow capacity during smaller storms, and provides an
opportunity to increase the flow capacity in the three major washes around the ball fields, prior to
inundating those ball fields.
RECENT STORM DAMAGE/REPAIRS:
The storms of Oct. 2, 2018 (from Tropical Storm Rosa, approximately a 10-year storm event) and on
Sept. 23, 2019 exposed the following storm drainage issues at Golden Eagle Park:
The dam outlet grates clogged with excessive debris.
The basement of the Restroom Control Building flooded 30" deep.
The ball fields were extensively flooded and damaged.
Cloudburst Wash overtopped the Pedestrian bridge within the Park, and damaged a Ramada.
Upstream from the Park, Ashbrook Wash substantially eroded downstream from a pedestrian
crossing at SunRidge Canyon Parcel E.
The catch basin on Golden Eagle Blvd. overtopped, eroding the road's side slope and flowing
through the ball fields.
The catch basins on Desert Canyon overtopped Golden Eagle Blvd., adding to that flow through
the Park.
To date, Town Staff has:
Repaired the Park facilities.
Removed accumulated sediment from the 3 washes through the Park, digging out the previously
clogged channels.
Removed the access grates from the principal outlet and the auxiliary principal outlet structures.
The cost of this restoration work was over $600,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
J.E. Fuller's report recommended the following improvements to protect the park facilities:
1. Upgrade Channel Conveyance - Improve the flow conveyance of the 3 perimeter channels (Ashbrook
Wash, Bristol Wash, and Cloudburst Wash) to each handle their 10-year storm event.
2. Sediment/Debris Capture - Add bollards and sediment basins to capture sediment/debris.
3. Curb inlet overflow protection - Add grouted rock spillway(s).
4. Remove the drop inlet at the Auxiliary Principal Outlet Structure,
5. Construct a drop structure below the Cloudburst Wash Pedestrian Crossing.
6 Provide erosion protection at high velocity channel areas.
7. Construct a concrete maintenance access road to the outlets, preventing the long dry-out delay until
sediment removal is feasible near the outlets.
8. Upgrade the catch basins and outlets adjacent to the park on Golden Eagle Blvd. and on Desert
Canyon.
9. The estimated cost for these improvements is $872,500.
J.E. Fuller has also recommended improvements to Ashbrook Wash upstream from the Park, to mitigate
the severe erosion there, using gabions. The estimated cost for that work is $602,000. Since this work, in
addition to the work directly at the park, will exceed the budgeted funds, staff will work with J.E. Fuller
to adjust the scope of work, or to design this project in two phases (a current phase and an unfunded
future phase), to meet currently budgeted funding.
J.E. Fuller has prepared a proposal for design of the proposed drainage improvements for the Golden
Eagle Park area. Based on Council direction following J.E. Fullers's presentation, its proposal will be
revised as needed, and a staff recommended design contract brought to the Council for consideration at
a near-future meeting.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact:$1,000,000
Budget Reference:page 356-7
Funding Source:Capital Project Fund
If Multiple Funds utilized, list here:
Budgeted: if No, attach Budget Adjustment Form:Yes
Attachments
Overview Map
Transmittal Letter
Report
Slides for Council
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Director Randy Harrel 01/07/2020 12:58 PM
Public Works Director Justin Weldy 01/08/2020 05:34 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 07:54 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/10/2020 01:22 PM
Form Started By: Randy Harrel Started On: 01/06/2020 05:50 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/10/2020
JE FULLER8400 S. KYRENE STE. 201TEMPE, AZ 85284(480) 222-5701
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!.
!.
EXHIBIT 1
GOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-079
Legend
!.New Catch Basin
Debris Bollards
Minor Channel Grading
Major Channel Grading
Ashbrook Improvements (noconcept plans)
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Grouted Riprap
Sediment Basins
Concrete
GOL
D
E
N
E
AG
L
E
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
ASHBR
O
O
K
W
A
S
H
BRISTOL WAS
H
CLOUDBURST WASHDESERT CANYON DR
I
V
E
OVERVIEW MAP
0 200 400100 Feet
o
Desert Canyon DriveCatch Basin Improvements
Golden Eagle BlvdCatch Basin Improvements
Regrade Sidewalk
New Concrete Apron
Regrade Sidewalk
Regrade Sidewalk
Remove Existing Trash RackAdd New Large Debris Trash Rack
P a g e | 1
Tempe, AZ Tucson, AZ Flagstaff, AZ Prescott, AZ Silver City, NM
www. jefuller.com
October 14, 2019
Transmittal Justin Weldy Public Works Director Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, AZ 85286 Attached are the following deliverable materials provided by JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc. for the Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements project, Contract No. C2019-079:
• PDF of the revised Technical Report incorporating comments from the Town and reflecting new observations based on the September 23, 2019 storm event.
The revised document has had numerous significant changes based on the Town’s comments and the 9/23/19 storm. Note that we have left two major alternatives regarding the proposed concrete apron – one where the sloping drop inlet to the auxiliary spillway (the 10’x4’ box culvert) is removed and the entire apron is set about 3 feet lower, and a second, where the new apron is graded to the elevation of the existing sloping drop without its removal. We believe the second alternative can reasonably be considered maintenance activities and can be accomplished without referral to ADWR for dam safety review. The first alternative, on the other hand, will most certainly require the Town to gain permit approval from ADWR prior to finalizing the design and completing the construction. We believe that the remaining measures, channel grading, sediment basins, debris bollards, large debris trash rack, etc. can all be performed without ADWR review and approval. Therefore, please focus your review on the ADWR implications and other major revisions to the August draft.
We are also sending you an invoice for efforts through the completion of the revised report (up to 10/11/2019). Note that we are nearing our NTE amount for Phase I of the project. It would be our goal to gain a recommendation from the Town as to the direction of the preferred alternative and move toward scoping of Phase II.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
____________________________________ 10/14/2019_______________
Richard Waskowsky, PE Date JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc.
DRAFT
Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements Study
Technical Report
October
2019
prepared for
Town of Fountain Hills
8400 S Kyrene Rd, STE 201
Tempe, AZ 85284
www.jefuller.com
Photo Credit: Town of Fountain Hills
DRAFT
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Understanding .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Project Goals ................................................................................................................................. 1
2 Historical Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Gage Analysis of the October 2, 2018 Event ................................................................................. 5
2.3 FLO‐2D Modeling .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Model Development ............................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 Model Results ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.3 Additional Clogging Confirmation ....................................................................................... 11
2.4 Design Event for Alternatives...................................................................................................... 15
2.5 Storm of September 23, 2019 ..................................................................................................... 15
3 Mitigation Concepts ............................................................................................................................ 18
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 18
3.2 Potential Constraints ................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Utilities ................................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.2 Dam Safety .......................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Public Access ....................................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Mitigation Concepts .................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Outlet Clogging .................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Flow Conveyance and Sediment ......................................................................................... 25
3.3.3 Catch Basin Overtopping and Internal Park Drainage ........................................................ 28
3.3.4 Erosion at Pedestrian Crossing on Ashbrook Wash ............................................................ 32
4 Summary and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Recommended Alternative ......................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Cost Estimates (including Annual O&M) ..................................................................................... 37
4.2.1 Construction ........................................................................................................................ 37
4.2.2 Annual Maintenance ........................................................................................................... 38
4.3 Prioritization ................................................................................................................................ 39
4.4 Maintenance Plan & Monitoring ................................................................................................ 39
4.5 Final Design Considerations/Scoping .......................................................................................... 39
DRAFT
ii
4.6 Study Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 40
5 References .......................................................................................................................................... 41
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Outlet clogging resulting from October 2, 2018 event .................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Catch basin on Golden Eagle Boulevard ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 4. Catch basins at Desert Canyon Drive ............................................................................................ 4
Figure 5. FCDMC ALERT Gages Near Golden Eagle Park Dam Watershed .................................................... 5
Figure 6. Incremental Rainfall & GEP Dam Gage Stage (Elevation), October 2, 2018 Event ........................ 6
Figure 7. Cumulative Rainfall & GEP Dam Gage Height, October 2, 2018 Event .......................................... 7
Figure 8. August 28, 2018 aerial photograph (outlet locations circled in red) ............................................. 7
Figure 9. Entire versus uncontrolled watersheds that drain to Golden Eagle Park ...................................... 9
Figure 10. Stage hydrograph comparison of modeled FLO‐2D scenarios and gage measurement ........... 12
Figure 11. 10‐year 6‐hour with 50% clogging FLO‐2D maximum depth results with extents of October 2,
2018 Event as inset ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 12. October 2, 2018 with 50% clogging FLO‐2D maximum depth results with extents of October 2,
2018 Event as inset ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 13. Observed Incremental Rainfall and Stage for September 23, 2019 Event ............................... 16
Figure 14. Photo from top of dam around 3:30 pm on Sept. 23, 2019 ..................................................... 17
Figure 15. Approximate location of major utilities within the project area ............................................... 19
Figure 16. Typical existing debris control structure on dam upstream (of Golden Eagle Park) dam ......... 21
Figure 17. NRCS Trash Rack at Vineyard FRS ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 18. NRCS Trash Rack at Buckeye FRS #3 ......................................................................................... 22
Figure 19. NRCS Trash Rack at Magma FRS ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 20. Removable bollard detail, from MAG standard details (2018) .................................................. 24
Figure 21. Comparison of relative sediment transport capacities for Bristol Wash ................................... 26
Figure 22. Comparison of existing catch basin and 24‐inch pipe capacities ............................................... 29
Figure 23. Typical curb opening cross‐section, excerpted from Anderson‐Nelson (1989) ......................... 29
Figure 24. Drainage areas for minor internal channel of Golden Eagle Park ............................................. 31
Figure 25. View upstream of Ashbrook Wash and 48‐inch culvert under pedestrian crossing, Sept. 23,
2019 ............................................................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 26. View of erosion downstream of pedestrian crossing on Ashbrook Wash ................................ 33
Figure 27. Profile analysis of Ashbrook Wash between Aspen and Golden Eagle Park Dams ................... 34
Figure 28. Example of a gabion drop structure and erosion protection measures ................................... 34
Figure 29. Overview of concept drainage improvements in the Golden Eagle Park area .......................... 36
List of Tables
Table 1. October 2, 2018 Rainfall and Impoundment in Ashbrook Wash Watershed ................................. 6
Table 2. Ratios to 100‐year flood hydrographs, from FCDMC (2018)......................................................... 10
Table 3. Summary of existing conditions FLO‐2D results compared with October 2, 2018 Event ............. 11
Table 4. Measured sediment yields from representative watersheds, adapted from FCDMC (2018b) ..... 27
DRAFT
iii
Table 5. Estimated construction costs of preliminary alternative for Golden Eagle Park with drop inlet
modifications .............................................................................................................................................. 37
Table 6. Preliminary cost estimate for gabion basket alternative for Ashbrook Wash (upstream of Golden
Eagle Boulevard) ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 7. Estimated annual maintenance costs for recommended improvements in Golden Eagle Park .. 38
Appendices
Appendix A – Concept Plan Sheets
Appendix B – Digital Data Submittal (Digital)
Appendix C – Proposed Curb Inlet Improvements (by Town of Fountain Hills)
DRAFT
1 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Golden Eagle Park, originally gifted to the Town of Fountain Hills (Town) by MCO Properties in c.1995,
lies mostly within and below the flood detention basin high water level of the Golden Eagle Park Dam.
Three washes – Ashbrook Wash, Bristol Wash, and Cloudburst Wash – flow into this dam/detention
basin. The Town had originally graded channels, which was estimated to approximate (at that time) a 1‐
year storm capacity, around baseball/softball fields constructed in the detention basin, recognizing that
in larger storms that the fields would be inundated due to dam backwater anyway.
In the late 1990s, it was determined that Golden Eagle Park Dam was unsafe, as it was shown to be
substantially overtopped (and possibly catastrophically eroded) in the ½‐PMF event (approximately a
500‐year storm). Therefore, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) and the Town made
major drainage improvements to the dam, including raising the elevation of the dam crest, extending
the width of the emergency spillway, and adding an auxiliary outlet structure. The addition of the
auxiliary outlet structure substantially increased the outlet flow volume during smaller storms, and it
provided an opportunity to increase the storage volume in the three major washes around the ball fields
prior to inundating a substantial area of the ball fields.
Overflow from the channels onto the ball fields has been an on‐going issue during many periodic storm
events at Golden Eagle Park. Ball teams have often held a pre‐season work day to remove rocks from
the ball fields, and Town staff have removed sediment from the channels.
JE Fuller has recently submitted to FEMA, a floodplain re‐delineation of Ashbrook Wash (downstream
from Golden Eagle Park Dam) and of Cloudburst Wash (which goes upstream from Golden Eagle Park
Dam). When approved, it is expected that the 100‐year headwater elevation (HW) at Golden Eagle Park
will be reduced slightly. Approval is expected later this year (2019).
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Area is approximately 30 acres and is located in the Town of Fountain Hills in northeast
Maricopa County, Arizona. The Project Area comprises the Golden Eagle Park, which is in the 100‐year
flood pool of Golden Eagle Park Dam. A vicinity map is shown as Figure 1.
1.3 PROJECT GOALS
The Town would like to develop a design to reduce inundation of the ball fields during lower‐magnitude
precipitation events (i.e., a 5‐ to 10‐year recurrence interval). The goal of this project is to provide the
highest level of protection from inundation within the ball fields and other park improvements within
the known physical constraints of the areas and for a cost and maintenance burden deemed feasible by
the Town. Additionally, the Town would also like a preliminary assessment of erosion problems
upstream of Golden Eagle Boulevard (and outside the Park limits) on Ashbrook Wash just downstream
of a pedestrian crossing (location shown on Figure 1).
DRAFT
2 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
DRAFT
3 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
2 HISTORICAL DATA ANALYSIS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
On October 2, 2018, precipitation from Hurricane Rosa exposed the following issues at Golden Eagle
Park.
The dam outlet grates clogged with excessive debris (see Figure 2). This is believed to have
created a higher backwater elevation than would have otherwise occurred.
The lower level of the Restroom/Control Building was flooded to a depth of approximately 30
inches. This building’s lower level was designed to lie below the 100‐year water surface
elevation. It should be noted that activities within the 100‐year flooding extents are limited to
parking and for storage of non‐hazardous materials in accordance with FEMA requirements.
Existing ventilation adjacent to building garage doors allow equalization of the floodwater level.
The structure is designed for saturated soil conditions, and its electrical fixtures and outlets are
located above the 100‐year flood level. The flooding caused the following issues within the
building:
o Vehicles required repair.
o Many stored materials had to be discarded.
The ball fields required extensive repairs and renovations caused by the floodwater, including:
o Removal of small vegetative matter from the ballfield fences.
o Replacement (re‐sodding) of the grass and infield mix surfaces, due to silt and sediment.
o Irrigation box cleaning and irrigation system repairs.
Cloudburst Wash overtopped a Park pedestrian bridge. The outflow created damage at a
Ramada area before returning to the channel area.
Upstream from the dam impoundment area, Ashbrook Wash created substantial erosion
downstream from a pedestrian crossing, located between Golden Eagle Boulevard and Sierra
Madre.
The catch basin on Golden Eagle Boulevard (see Figure 3) was overtopped, and this overtopping
flow caused erosion on a steep side slope off the side of the road.
The outlet channel downstream of that catch basin was overtopped, creating flow across the
ball fields.
Another set of catch basins at Desert Canyon Drive also appears to have clogged or blocked just
west of Golden Eagle Boulevard. Storm water appears to have overflowed the Boulevard and
flowed uncontrolled into the park east of the roadway. Field observations show that the outlet
pipe for the curb inlet discharges just upstream of the right wingwall of the Bristol Wash culvert
under Golden Eagle Boulevard. It is speculated that high tailwater conditions in the wash may
have prevented flow from entering the catch basins effectively resulting in overtopping of the
Boulevard.
This event caused the most damage to the Golden Eagle Park facilities in their history and was the
impetus for this study.
DRAFT
4 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 2. Outlet clogging resulting from October 2, 2018 event
Figure 3. Catch basin on Golden Eagle Boulevard
Figure 4. Catch basins at Desert Canyon Drive
Principal Outlet Auxiliary Outlet
DRAFT
5 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
2.2 GAGE ANALYSIS OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2018 EVENT
The precipitation associated with the October 2, 2018 event was recorded at a number of rain gages in
the area operated by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. There is also a stage (depth) gage
located on the principal outlet of Golden Eagle Park Dam. The locations of these gages within the
watershed are shown in Figure 5.
Table 1 shows a summary of the frequency/duration estimates for all the precipitation gages within the
watershed. The incremental rainfall distribution and cumulative rainfall distribution for the 10/2/18
storm are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. Based on these data, the storm rainfall was
about a 5‐ to 10‐year storm across the watershed. However, the storm also resulted in some of the
largest impoundments at three of the five dams in the watershed, including at Golden Eagle Park Dam.
Another item to note is that the short, high intensity rainfall late in the afternoon fell following several
hours of low intensity rainfall in the morning hours of October 2nd. The large amount of runoff was
undoubtedly strongly influenced by the wet antecedent conditions created by the rainfall earlier in the
day. Most of this short duration, high intensity rainfall in the afternoon was directly translated into
runoff causing high impoundment and related damages in the Park.
Additionally, a review of the gage data and historical aerials photographs revealed that there was
significant debris accumulation on the outlets of Golden Eagle Park Dam before the October storm event
(see circled locations in Figure 8). This photograph indicates that debris accumulation likely caused a
higher stage in the flood pool when compared to a completely clear outlet, that even small events can
contribute to outlet clogging, and that continual maintenance is a necessity to ensure proper
functioning of the outlets.
Figure 5. FCDMC ALERT Gages Near Golden Eagle Park Dam Watershed
DRAFT
6 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Table 1. October 2, 2018 Rainfall and Impoundment in Ashbrook Wash Watershed
Gage Old ID / New ID Name Freq. Duration
Or Max. Stage
Precipitation
5985 / 78500 Golden Eagle Blvd 5‐yr 1‐hr
5975 / 77800 Cloudburst Wash 2‐yr 30‐min
5970 / 77500 Sunridge Canyon Dam Precip. 5‐yr 30‐min
5945 / 1900 Thompson Peak 5‐yr 30‐min
5950 / 76700 Fountain Hills Fire 10‐yr 30‐min
5930 / 78200 North Heights Dam Precip. 10‐yr 1‐hr
5995 / 79300 Hesperus Wash 5‐yr 24‐hr
5990 / 79000 Hesperus Dam Precip. 10‐yr 1‐hr
Impoundment
5988 Aspen Dam Stage 5.13 ft
5993 Hesperus Dam Stage 6.12 ft
5983 North Heights Dam Stage 15.45 ft *
5973 Sunridge Canyon Dam Stage 13.24 ft *
5978 Golden Eagle Park Dam Stage 15.74 ft *
*Maximum impoundment since gage installation in late 1996‐early 1997.
Figure 6. Incremental Rainfall & GEP Dam Gage Stage (Elevation), October 2, 2018 Event
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
11699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
15200345530715900104512301415160017451930211523005‐minute Rainfall (inches)Gage Stage (feet, NAVD 88)Time on Oct 2, 2018 (24:00 clock)
October 2, 2018 Storm Event
GEP Dam North Heights Dam Cloudburst Wash
Sunridge Canyon Dam Golden Eagle Blvd Hesperus Wash
Thompson Peak Fountain Hills Fire Hesperus Dam Precip
GEP Dam Gage Stage (Elevation)
DRAFT
7 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 7. Cumulative Rainfall & GEP Dam Gage Height, October 2, 2018 Event
Figure 8. August 28, 2018 aerial photograph (outlet locations circled in red)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 600 1200 1800 2400 Gage Height (feet)Cummulative Rainfall (inches)Time on Oct. 2, 2018 (24‐hr clock)
Oct. 2, 2018 Storm Event
North Heights Dam Sunridge Canyon Dam Hesperus Wash
Fountain Hills Fire Cloudburst Wash Golden Eagle Blvd
Thompson Peak Hespersus Dam Precip GEP Dam
GEP Dam Gage Height
DRAFT
8 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
2.3 FLO‐2D MODELING
2.3.1 Model Development
2.3.1.1 Watershed Models
A model that comprised the uncontrolled watershed upstream of Golden Eagle Park Dam was developed
to model the October 2018 event. This model was limited to the uncontrolled watershed because the
high stage in Golden Eagle Park was produced by short duration, high intensity rainfall without much lag
time (see Figure 6 and Figure 7). This indicates that the runoff was developed from the uncontrolled
watershed. A map of the entire watershed versus the uncontrolled watershed is shown as Figure 9.
The rainfall measured from the Hesperus Wash precipitation gage between 1820 and 1910 on October
2, 2018 was used as that input rainfall for this model. This gage was chosen because it represented the
most intense rainfall in the area. Additionally, multiple clogging scenarios (i.e., percentages of open
area) were also applied to the principal and auxiliary outlets since clogging was observed to be a
significant factor (see Figure 2).
DRAFT
9 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 9. Entire versus uncontrolled watersheds that drain to Golden Eagle Park
DRAFT
10 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
2.3.1.2 Design Storm Models
Since the rainfall was about a 5‐ to 10‐year event, FLO‐2D models for the 2‐, 5‐ and 10‐year recurrence
intervals were developed. The inflow hydrographs for these recurrence intervals were developed by
applying the ratios (in Table 2) to the 100‐year 6‐hour hydrographs from the recent Ashbrook Wash and
Cloudburst Wash Floodplain Delineation Study (FDS) (JEF, 2019). The 6‐hour duration was selected for
three main reasons:
1) the drainage area is much less than 20 square miles in size,
2) the runoff producing portion of the October 2 event was very short in duration, and
3) short duration events are much more common in the arid southwest.
As before, multiple clogging scenarios were developed and applied to the outlets. Finally, the base
topography used in the modeling was the 2017 LiDAR (Wilson, 2017) that was also used in the Ashbrook
Wash and Cloudburst Wash FDS.
Table 2. Ratios to 100‐year flood hydrographs, from FCDMC (2018)
Recurrence
Interval
Ratio to
100‐year
(%)
2 10
5 25
10 35
2.3.2 Model Results
In Table 3, all FLO‐2D results are summarized and compared with the high stage elevation measured
from the Golden Eagle Park Dam Stage Gage during the October 2, 2018 event. From these results, the
design storm models for the 5‐year event with 75% clogging and the 10‐year event with 50% clogging
compared the best with the measured high stage elevation during the October event, while the two
October 2, 2018 watershed models with 50% and 75% clogging produce even better comparisons.
These results confirm that clogging was indeed a significant factor and that the actual runoff event was
about a 5‐ to 10‐year event.
The stage hydrographs for all FLO‐2D model results and the gage measurement are compared in Figure
10. In this figure, the spillover elevation is defined as the elevation at which the headwater at the
outlets would start to spill onto the ball fields. The October event models (with clogging) high stage
elevation compare well with the measured high stage, but the drain times vary appreciable between the
two clogging scenarios with the 50% clogging scenario resembling the measured drain time more
closely. The design models (with clogging) match the measured high stage, but the drain times are
significantly longer. This long drain time is an indicator that more volume is contained within the design
storm hydrographs when compared to the hydrographs from the modeled October event or the actual
October event. Finally, note that the October model with 0% clogging still exceeds the spillover
elevation – indicating that the ball fields would still have been inundated even if the outlets remained
clear of debris. Whereas, the 10‐year model with 0% clogging remains below the spillover elevation.
A comparison of the 10‐year 6‐hour storm with 50% outlet clogging results and the October 2, 2018
event is shown in Figure 11, and a comparison of the October 2, 2018 event with 50% outlet clogging
modeling results and the October 2, 2018 event is shown as Figure 12. While the calculated FLO‐2D
DRAFT
11 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
inundated areas are different than what is shown in the inset picture, the overall extents show
reasonable correlation.
The FLO‐2D results also indicate a loss of flow conveyance adjacent to the athletic fields, primarily along
Bristol Wash. Flow in the model breaks out of the wash to the south and inundates the fields. It appears
that the channels through the study area are significantly smaller in the 2017 LiDAR when compared to
the original grading plans and as‐builts. This could be attributed to both inaccurate as‐built
documentation as well as limited maintenance of the channels since construction. While only limited
grading information was specified on the design plans and as‐builts for the original channel
construction, normal depth calculations for the current study indicate that the original design could
convey close to the 10‐year event.
Finally, the results from the uncontrolled watershed models also show that Bristol Wash was by far the
largest contributor to the flooding during the October event. This indicates that this wash should be the
focus of any improvements or that the improvements on this wash should be implemented first.
2.3.3 Additional Clogging Confirmation
Since the 6‐hour duration for an engineering design storm is not a direct comparison to a real event, an
additional independent analysis was done using the stage data from the gage for the October 2 event
and the storage‐elevation curve for Golden Eagle Park Dam. This analysis estimated the outflow based
on the change in stage at the dam by assuming different clogging factors for the outlet rating table. The
results of this analysis indicate that outlets were about 60‐67% clogged during the storm event. This
analysis provides additional confirmation of the degree of clogging and the FLO‐2D model estimates.
Table 3. Summary of existing conditions FLO‐2D results compared with October 2, 2018 Event
Flow Event /
Model Scenario
Clogging
Percentage
(%)
Outlet Headwater
Elevation
(ft, NAVD 88)
Difference from
10/2/2018 event
(ft)
10/2/2018 GEPD Gage 60‐70 (est.) 1712.49 ‐
FLO‐2D 2‐year 6‐hour 0 1702.62 ‐9.87
FLO‐2D 2‐year 6‐hour 50 1703.35 ‐9.14
FLO‐2D 5‐year 6‐hour 0 1703.62 ‐8.87
FLO‐2D 5‐year 6‐hour 50 1709.83 ‐2.66
FLO‐2D 5‐year 6‐hour 75 1713.84 +1.35
FLO‐2D 10‐year 6‐hour 0 1704.86 ‐7.63
FLO‐2D 10‐year 6‐hour 50 1713.12 +0.63
FLO‐2D 10‐year 6‐hour 75 1716.63 +4.14
FLO‐2D 10/2/2018 0 1709.08 ‐3.41
FLO‐2D 10/2/2018 50 1712.03 ‐0.46
FLO‐2D 10/2/2018 75 1712.92 +0.43
DRAFT
12 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 10. Stage hydrograph comparison of modeled FLO‐2D scenarios and gage measurement
DRAFT
13 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 11. 10‐year 6‐hour with 50% clogging FLO‐2D maximum depth results with extents of October 2, 2018 Event as inset
GEP
Dam
DRAFT
14 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 12. October 2, 2018 with 50% clogging FLO‐2D maximum depth results with extents of October 2, 2018 Event as inset
GEP
Dam
DRAFT
15 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
2.4 DESIGN EVENT FOR ALTERNATIVES
Based on the above analyses, a 10‐year event was selected as the design event for the mitigation
alternatives for the following reasons.
Without clogging, preliminary analyses indicate that the dam’s outlets can pass the peak flow
from this level of event using design storms.
Without clogging, the 3 existing box culverts on Golden Eagle Boulevard (at Cloudburst, Bristol,
and Ashbrook Washes) can all pas this flow without flow breaking out into alternate or adjacent
flow corridors.
Preliminary analyses of the original grading plans and as‐builts for Ashbrook, Bristol, and
Cloudburst washes within Golden Eagle Park suggest they can each convey the 10‐year event.
This is the largest feasible event that can pass through the flood pool and maintain sediment
conveyance.
Finally, it was this level of event that caused significant damage to the ball fields and park
facilities. However, since this October event was so intense with wet antecedent conditions, the
ball fields would have been inundated even without outlet clogging.
The design storm 10‐year 6‐hour FLO‐2D model was used as the test model for the alternative scenarios.
2.5 STORM OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2019
Following completion of the first draft of this report and review by the Town, another significant storm
event occurred over the Golden Eagle Park Dam watershed. Coincidently, the project team had just
visited the park and upstream areas a few days earlier to observe interim improvements the Town had
made to the park, inflowing wash channels, and the areas in the immediate vicinity of the principal and
auxiliary spillway inlets. This allowed for good comparison of the relative impacts and causes relative to
the Oct. 2, 2018 event discussed earlier in Section 2 of this report.
Figure 13 shows a plot similar to Figure 6 but for the September 23, 2019 event. As seen in the plot,
there were three distinct floods generated by three separate pulses of relatively intense rainfall over the
watershed. The first, which occurred in the morning, was both the most intense and produced the
highest impoundment in the park. This peak is also the second highest peak to have occurred at the
dam since gaging began. The third peak was nearly as high as the first peak, but took longer to drain,
probably due to continuing outflows from the upstream dams as well as the wet antecedent conditions
in the watershed. Review of the rainfall data shows that again about a 10‐year event occurred over
much of the area during just the first rainfall burst.
The middle peak occurred around the time of a site visit by JE Fuller to the dam and watershed. Figure
14 shows a picture during the second impoundment of the day from the top of the dam. Clearly
observable is impoundment within the ballfields as well as significant amount of floating debris.
The early peak rose within about 2 feet of the high impoundment that occurred during the Oct. 2, 2018
event. While all of the lower two fields were again inundated, the degree of sediment deposition was
nowhere near as bad as in Oct. 2018.
Given the comparatively lesser impacts to the park from the Sept. 23, 2019 event it appears that the
interim grading work to the inlet areas and wash bottom areas helped reduce overall damage to the
park. However, it is also observed that debris accumulation on the outlets resulted in greater
impoundment depths than would have occurred without it. Additionally, constrictions to Bristol Wash
upstream of its confluence with Ashbrook Wash resulted in some overtopping of the wash channel into
DRAFT
16 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
the ballfields on both sides of Bristol Wash. This emphasizes the need to address debris and clogging
issues to reduce damages to the park for more frequent rainfall events. In addition to the vegetative
debris, at least one floating trash can was observed near the auxiliary spillway. It may be desirable to
ensure that they are chained to a pole or fence in the future to avoid blocking the outlets.
Figure 13. Observed Incremental Rainfall and Stage for September 23, 2019 Event
GEP Dam
Gage Stage (Elevation)
DRAFT
17 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 14. Photo from top of dam around 3:30 pm on Sept. 23, 2019
DRAFT
18 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
3 MITIGATION CONCEPTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Based on the analyses of the October 2018 event, it was determined that a 10‐year event would be
chosen as the design level for the drainage improvements in the park. This level allows more frequent
storms to pass safely through the park with limited damage, decreasing the maintenance burden on the
Town by reducing sediment deposition and inundation within the park limits.
3.2 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
3.2.1 Utilities
Numerous utilities exist throughout Golden Eagle Park. These include water, sewer, and irrigation lines.
The approximate locations of major utilities are shown in Figure 15. These utilities were identified from
the Golden Eagle Park Improvement Phases 1‐4 Plan Sheets which were completed in the 1990s.
However, there are additional lines not identified in these plan sheets. Some examples include the
irrigation lines outside the outfield fences for the ball fields to the west near Golden Eagle Park Dam.
Based on the potential for significant utility conflicts, it was determined to explore two levels of
alternatives – 1) the best possible conveyance alternative without regard to utilities, and 2) the best
possible alternative that avoids moving utilities. Based on the preliminary analyses, it appears the sewer
line that crosses Bristol Wash just downstream of Golden Eagle Boulevard may be in conflict.
3.2.2 Dam Safety
Since Golden Eagle Park Dam is an Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) regulated dam,
major revisions to the outlet works or the dam face may require an ADWR review and/or permitting.
Therefore, two sets of alternatives are presented and should be evaluated at final design – one involving
no significant modifications to the auxiliary spillway inlet, and a second involving removal of the sloping
inlet and lowering of the area along the toe of the dam to allow additional sediment deposition and
storage below the ballfields. Engagement of ADWR will necessitate additional engineering analysis and
added schedule to allow for ADWR review and approval before any design can be finalized and
construction begin. However, overall dam performance would be improved and flood protection levels
for the park and areas downstream would be improved if the spillway were lowered.
3.2.3 Public Access
Since the area is a Town park, the public has easy access to most areas. This level of access influences
the decision on whether the trash racks on the outlets can be completely removed due to safety
concerns. Additionally, this easy access may preclude some types of erosion protection due to
maintenance and safety concerns (e.g., large riprap can be unstable for walking). Finally, the side slopes
of any channels were minimized to maintain as flat as grade as possible, and the sidewalk crossings of
Bristol and Cloudburst Washes may need to maintain compliance with the ADA slopes unless other
access routes are identified.
DRAFT
19 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 15. Approximate location of major utilities within the project area
DRAFT
20 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
3.3 MITIGATION CONCEPTS
The following sections outline conceptual mitigation designs intended to address the various
deficiencies in the existing condition state.
3.3.1 Outlet Clogging
From the previously discussed analyses and physical evidence, clogged outlets can significantly increase
backwater, thereby inundating the ball fields much more frequently. To reduce this clogging potential,
it is suggested that the existing trash racks be replaced with structures similar to the existing debris
control structures (see Figure 16) installed on the upstream dams. These structures appeared to have
functioned well during the October 2, 2018 event, since no significant clogging was observed at these
outlets as opposed to what occurred at Golden Eagle Park Dam. This improved functioning was
probably due to the combination of 1) large debris being captured away from the outlet on the wooden
piers, 2) the enlarged surface area of the wooden trash rack (similar to a beehive grate), and 3) the lack
of a trash rack on the outlet opening. This combination allowed large debris to be trapped away from
the outlet while simultaneously allowing smaller debris to pass through. Alternatively, trash racks like
those used by the NRCS on Vineyard FRS, (Figure 17) Buckeye FRS #3 (Figure 18), or Magma FRS (Figure
19), might perform better with less clogging due to debris.
The options to reduce clogging of the principal and auxiliary spillways from debris include and listed in
order of estimated effectiveness:
1) Remove the existing trash racks, especially from the auxiliary spillway.
2) Replace the chain link fence along the tops of the spillway headwalls with an open guard rail.
3) Replace with structures similar to those as used on the other dams or the NRCS Flood Retarding
Structures (FRS). The structures could be made of steel and augmented with bars (or wires) to
prevent public access to the actual outlet culvert. Use of wooden telephone pole type material
might dissuade climbing.
4) Bollards/poles placed at the end of the narrow sections of Ashbrook and Cloudburst Washes just
before they combine upstream of the outlets or ringing the spillway inlets a short distance
upstream on the proposed new apron. Some of these would be removeable bollards like the
MAG standard detail (see Figure 20) and be spaced at 3 feet on center, which is the typical
spacing of the wooden piers. There would also be a locking mechanism to offset buoyancy
forces on the removeable bollards. Only enough removeable bollards would be installed to
allow access by heavy equipment to assist with post‐flood clean up.
5) Bollards/poles placed near the exit of proposed sediment basins and at the upstream side of
Golden Eagle Boulevard culverts for Ashbrook, Bristol and Cloudburst Washes. These would be
placed in a similar fashion as Item 4. Again, only enough removeable bollards would be installed
to allow access by heavy equipment to assist with post‐flood clean up.
It is anticipated that the bollards/poles would be effective up until the depth exceeds their height. The
bollards/poles would be 3 to 4 feet in height. Above that height, floating debris would still impact the
outlets. A combination of these options could be implemented to increase effectiveness.
DRAFT
21 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 16. Typical existing debris control structure on dam upstream (of Golden Eagle Park) dam
Figure 17. NRCS Trash Rack at Vineyard FRS
DRAFT
22 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 18. NRCS Trash Rack at Buckeye FRS #3
DRAFT
23 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 19. NRCS Trash Rack at Magma FRS
DRAFT
24 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 20. Removable bollard detail, from MAG standard details (2018)
DRAFT
25 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
3.3.2 Flow Conveyance and Sediment
As discussed earlier, there is a lack of continuous conveyance for both sediment and flow along the
three washed through the study reach with Bristol Wash having the greatest problems. Since Bristol
Wash has the largest uncontrolled watershed, it is also the largest contributor of both sediment and
peak discharge to Golden Eagle Park. This conclusion is also supported by the initial modeling results.
3.3.2.1 Flow Conveyance
To improve conveyance of flow through the park, regrading of the channels from Golden Eagle
Boulevard to the dam outlets is proposed. The Phase III alignment and profile, as well as cross‐sectional
view, were used for the initial development of the design, and several modifications were made to
minimize the occurrence of breakout flow for the 10‐year flow and below. The regrading will remove
accumulated sediment along Ashbrook, Bristol, and Cloudburst Washes while increasing the capacity of
all washes. The increased capacities will closely correspond to the capacities determined from the initial
design configuration.
Assuming that the channels were constructed and documented accurately in the as‐built plans, it can be
concluded that the entire study area is highly depositional. This is not surprising given that it is well
within the flood storage pool of the dam. The consequence, however, is that successive flow events will
continue to deposit sediment regularly within the channels, and that continued maintenance is critical
to maintain the capacity of the channels moving forward.
Based on initial modeling results of the improved channels, most of the length of Bristol Wash has
erosive velocities in excess of 5 ft/s. These high velocities could be mitigated by adding erosion
protection or increased maintenance. Since riprap or gabions may not be conducive for use in a park
and make sediment removal difficult, an estimate using concrete as erosion protection was developed.
It is estimated that it would cost about $500K to line the entire length of Bristol Wash with concrete.
For this level of cost, increased maintenance may be preferable to channel lining.
3.3.2.2 Sediment
For sediment conveyance, estimates of transport capacity were generated along Bristol Wash for the
design 10‐year 6‐hour event for existing and proposed scenarios. A comparison of these estimated
transport capacities for Bristol Wash between existing (with and without clogging) and an improved
channel is shown as Figure 21. Note that upstream of the confluence with Ashbrook Wash, the
improved Bristol Channel has increased sediment capacity when compared with both existing scenarios.
However, downstream of the confluence, the clogged scenario has vastly decreased capacity due to low
velocities during a ponded condition; but when the outlets remain clear, both existing and proposed
channels would be able to transport the sediment. This result also highlights the importance of
controlling the debris for any proposed improvements.
The addition of minor sediment basins was also considered as a debris/sediment control alternative.
First, the annual sediment delivery volume was estimated as 0.43 ac‐ft/sq. mile/year developed from
Table 4. The unit sediment delivery value from the average of watershed less than or equal to 2 square
miles was used to maintain consistency with the size of the study watershed. Second, the sediment
volume delivered during a 10‐year event was also estimated based on previous MUSLE (Modified
Universal Soil Loss Equation) calculations from other studies where the 10‐year sediment volume was
about twice the annual volume yielding a 10‐year sediment volume of 0.9 ac‐ft/sq. mile. If sediment
basins were designed to hold the annual volume plus one 10‐year volume, the designed sediment
volume would be 1.82 ac‐ft for the uncontrolled watershed area of 1.37 sq. miles. Three sediment basin
locations were identified with a total area of 1.1 acres and are shown on Exhibit 1.
DRAFT
26 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 21. Comparison of relative sediment transport capacities for Bristol Wash
depositional
erosional
DRAFT
27 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Table 4. Measured sediment yields from representative watersheds, adapted from FCDMC (2018b)
Number Location Drainage Area
(sq. miles)
Sediment Yield
(ac‐ft/sq. miles/yr)
1 Cave Creek Dam, AZ 121 0.24
2 Spookhill FRS, AZ 16.4 0.15
3 Saddleback FRS, AZ 30 0.08
4 Davis Tank, AZ 0.21 0.96
5 Kennedy Tank, AZ 0.97 0.27
6 Juniper Tank, AZ 2 0.29
7 Alhambra Tank, AZ 6.61 0.03
8 Black Hills Tank, AZ 1.14 0.68
9 Black Hills Tank, AZ 1.56 0.58
10 Mesquite Tank, AZ 9 0.03
11 Tank 76, AZ 1.17 0.21
12 Camp Marston, CA 1.59 0.14
13 Embudo Arroyo, NM 20.68 0.07
14 La Cueva, NM 8 0.05
15 Baca Arroyo, NM 11.55 0.34
16 North Pino Arroyo, NM 2.82 0.22
17 South Pino Arroyo, NM 9.33 0.13
18 Bear Arroyo, NM 15.5 0.12
19 Vinyard Arroyo, NM 0.98 0.28
20 Hahn Arroyo, NM 5.8 0.01
21 N. Diversion Channel, NM 101.01 0.21
Average of All: 0.24
Median of All: 0.21
AZ Average: 0.32
AZ Median: 0.24
Average of Small (≤ 2 sq. miles) Watersheds: 0.43
3.3.2.3 Principal Spillway and Auxiliary Spillway Apron
As noted earlier in this report, a concrete apron is recommended from the outlet of Ashbrook Wash
directing low flows toward the auxiliary spillway. The concrete would also provide for easier
maintenance and cleanup of the area following flood events. Two alternatives are forwarded for further
evaluation at final design – one, lining and grading the area toward the existing auxiliary spillway drop
inlet elevation, and a second alternative, where the sloping drop is removed and the entire area
upstream including the new apron is lowered by about 3 feet to reflect the removal of the drop. The
second option would most probably require ADWR review and approval due to significant changes to
the auxiliary spillway itself, plus removal of material near the upstream toe of the dam, potentially
changing the geotechnical performance of the dam embankment. Other than the additional
DRAFT
28 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
engineering analyses and schedule, the only significant difference in construction quantities between
the two alternatives is a slight increase in the excavation volume for the project.
Both alternatives allow for satisfactory performance up to the 10‐year event without significant impacts
to the ballfields. The advantages of removing the sloping drop from the auxiliary spillway and lowering
the apron is increased open area at the auxiliary outlet headwall and more storage capacity in the open
area upstream of the two outlets. Additionally, with this decreased elevation, the flow lines in the
upstream washes could be deepened leading to more conveyance capacity through the park. The
advantage of not removing the sloping drop is avoidance of ADWR (and possibly FCDMC) permitting
requirements leading to a substantially shorter timeframe for implementation. Engineering costs would
also be somewhat lessened due to fewer permitting requirements.
3.3.3 Catch Basin Overtopping and Internal Park Drainage
3.3.3.1 Catch Basin Overtopping (Golden Eagle Boulevard and Desert Canyon Drive)
During the October event, the catch basin on Golden Eagle Boulevard (see Figure 3) was overtopped,
and this overtopping flow caused significant erosion on the side slope. To gage the effectiveness of any
proposed alternatives, the capacities of the catch basin and associated 24‐inch outlet pipe were
assessed (see Figure 22). Note that 1) the curb height of 9 inches was estimated based on the as‐built
design plans (see Figure 23), and 2) the existing 16‐foot curb opening (and grate) already has a capacity
that exceeds the estimated full flow capacity of the connected 24‐inch outlet pipe. This indicates that
extending the curb opening would not be a benefit unless the pipe was also enlarged.
Since a detailed analysis of the upstream watershed and existing catch basins was outside the initial
scope of work, the Town did an in‐house analysis of the contributing watershed and performed a more
detailed assessment of inlet/pipe capacities for the locations on Desert Canyon Drive and Golden Eagle
Boulevard. This analysis is contained as Appendix C.
For reference, the Town’s analysis recommends:
An additional catch basin and 24‐inch pipe at the Golden Eagle Boulevard location.
An additional grate inlet on Desert Canyon Drive connected to the existing 36‐inch pipe.
Pipe modifications to the existing 36‐inch pipe that angles the outlet direction more
downstream with addition of a backflow prevention device.
These catch basin improvements are included in the overall cost estimate for the Golden Eagle Park
Drainage Improvements (see Section 4.2).
DRAFT
29 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 22. Comparison of existing catch basin and 24‐inch pipe capacities
Figure 23. Typical curb opening cross‐section, excerpted from Anderson‐Nelson (1989)
DRAFT
30 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
3.3.3.2 Internal Park Drainage
Flows from the catch basins on Golden Eagle Boulevard and flows off a parking lot combine into a minor
drainage channel that outlets to Bristol Wash. This channel experienced erosion during the October 2,
2018 storm event, and the Town subsequently placed interim erosion protection. As a part of this
concept analysis, an estimate of the existing capacity of the channel, the 10‐year flows that affect this
channel, and a recommended design flow for improvements for this channel were developed.
Using a conservative Manning’s n value of 0.05, the existing capacity of this channel is estimated at
approximately 16 cfs by a normal depth calculation. This capacity is lower than the estimated full flow
capacity (see Figure 22) of the 24‐inch storm drain that outlets to this channel. This pipe’s capacity was
compared with the 10‐year peak flow from the probable maximal drainage area that drains to the inlets
on Golden Eagle Boulevard, as estimate by the rational method. This 10‐year peak flow is estimated to
be 22 cfs, which is comparable to the capacity of the outlet, while the 10‐year peak flow from the
parking lot is estimated to be 3 cfs. Combining these flows leads to an estimate peak flow of 25 cfs.
However, since the catch basins on Golden Eagle Boulevard were overtopped during the October 2018
event, a 30% safety factor is applied to the 25 cfs. Based on this existing catch basin configuration, a
potential design flow for this internal drainage channel could be 33 cfs.
The Town of Fountain Hills did a separate off‐site and local drainage analysis (see Appendix C). This
analysis recommends an additional catch basin and 24‐inch pipe outlet on Golden Eagle Boulevard.
With these improvements, the recommended design flow rate increases to 85 cfs. Based on the Town’s
analysis, the typical section for this channel is a trapezoidal section with an 8‐foot bottom width and 4:1
(H:V) side slopes, resulting in a depth of 2 feet with 0.5 feet of freeboard.
JE Fuller did a review of the channel sizing; and, depending on Manning’s n value, the depth of this
channel could increase to 2.5 feet (including 0.25 feet of freeboard). This increased depth would lead to
a top width of 30 feet, which may be too large for areas between the sidewalk and the ball field fences.
For current cost estimation and concept plan development, the channel depth of 2 feet is used.
However, it is recommended that the channel geometry be refined during final design when more
detailed topograph is obtained. The elevation of the tie‐in with Bristol Wash is extremely import for this
channel since it affects the slope and capacity of the internal drainage channel.
DRAFT
31 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 24. Drainage areas for minor internal channel of Golden Eagle Park
DRAFT
32 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
3.3.4 Erosion at Pedestrian Crossing on Ashbrook Wash
As shown in Figure 1, there is a pedestrian crossing on Ashbrook Wash between Golden Eagle Boulevard
and Sierra Madre. This crossing was installed around 1999 and has a low flow 48‐inch CMP under the
sidewalk with a concrete apron and a significant amount of riprap on its outlet (Figure 25). However, the
channel downstream from this crossing has eroded about 10 feet in depth with a width of 20 feet since
the crossing’s installation (see Figure 26). There are also currently two utility lines beneath the sidewalk
– an abandoned gas line and a sewer line. The sewer line is currently under consideration for
abandonment.
Figure 25. View upstream of Ashbrook Wash and 48‐inch culvert under pedestrian crossing, Sept. 23, 2019
DRAFT
33 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Figure 26. View of erosion downstream of pedestrian crossing on Ashbrook Wash
As an assessment of current conditions, the Ashbrook Wash profile between Aspen and Golden Eagle
Park Dams was sampled (see Figure 27). The predominant slopes of three reaches of this wash were
also calculated and are shown on this figure. The reaches are 1) upstream of Sierra Madre Drive, 2)
between Sierra Madre Drive and Golden Eagle Boulevard, and 3) downstream of Golden Eagle
Boulevard, with the predominant slopes being calculated as 0.019 ft/ft, 0.039 ft/ft, and 0.012 ft/ft,
respectively.
This slope comparison indicates that the reaches upstream of Sierra Madre Drive and downstream of
Golden Eagle Boulevard are currently at a much flatter slope than the middle reach. It appears that this
middle reach is eroding to reach an equilibrium slope somewhere around 0.015 ft/ft. to be consistent
with the surrounding reached. Since the pedestrian crossing functions as a form of grade control, the
channel just downstream of the crossing has severe erosion problems. To alleviate this erosion, two
options are presented:
1) Provide erosion protection for the entire channel section (banks and bed) from the pedestrian
crossing to Golden Eagle Boulevard. Channel lining could be reno mattress, shotcrete, grouted
riprap, or perhaps articulated block.
2) Raise the upstream invert of the Golden Eagle Boulevard culverts (possibly with a drop inlet) to
provide a channel slope 0.015 ft/ft for this section of Ashbrook Wash. This would require raising
the invert about 5 feet.
3) Provide a new improved drop structure below the sidewalk to reduce the slope of the
downstream reach by a similar height (total drop about 18 feet). This could be a concrete USBR‐
DRAFT
34 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
type energy dissipation structure or perhaps a stepped, gabion basket drop structure with an
apron similar to the one shown in Figure 28.
A preliminary cost estimate for the gabion improvement option is provided as a separate table for the
Ashbrook Wash improvements (see Section 4.2). If another alternative lining material was selected
(roller‐compacted concrete may be another suitable lining), unit costs would most likely be higher than
the gabion alternative. Additionally, the gabion drop could be spread into several smaller drops
between the sidewalk and box culvert under Golden Eagle Boulevard. Smaller drop heights might
reduce costs slightly by reducing the size/volume of the lowest step in each drop.
Figure 27. Profile analysis of Ashbrook Wash between Aspen and Golden Eagle Park Dams
Figure 28. Example of a gabion drop structure and erosion protection measures
DRAFT
35 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The recommended alternative is comprised of the major components and some ancillary features. The
major components are:
1) Channel conveyance – the channels should be improved to provide capacity for the 10‐year 6‐
hour design flow events. The channels should be regraded to make the auxiliary outlet the
primary outlet since it has more capacity and better inlet hydraulics (i.e., a reduced entrance
loss coefficient).
2) Sediment/Debris capture – Bollards and minor sediment basins should be added at key locations
to reduce clogging on the outlet trash racks. Existing grate will be removed from auxiliary
spillway and replaced with a large debris trash rack to prevent larger debris from clogging the
outlet.
3) Curb inlet overflow protection – A grouted rock spillway should be added to the existing curb
inlet on Golden Eagle Boulevard to prevent erosion of the side slope.
4) Either:
a. remove drop inlet at principal and auxiliary spillways and grade new concrete apron to
auxiliary spillway, or
b. leave drop inlet and grade new concrete apron to the auxiliary spillway.
5) Drop structure below pedestrian crossing – Stepped gabion basket drop structure with erosion
protection measures and apron
The ancillary features are listed below:
1) Erosion protection – Grouted riprap should be added to areas where calculated velocities are
very high or where noted erosion problems occurred during the October 2, 2018 event.
2) Maintenance access road – Concrete ramp along dam toe/Cloudburst Wash to new concrete
apron
All improvements are outlined on Figure 29 and in the concept plan sheets (see Appendix A). These are
intended to assist with the understanding of the approximate location and nature of the proposed
improvements. Given the amount of sedimentation and regrading that has occurred since the flight
date of the topography, all quantities and locations are considered very approximate. New mapping
should be obtained prior to final design and construction to refine quantities and locations of
planimetrics. Utility location confirmation is also recommended due to some elevation discrepancies
identified in the review of as‐builts within the park.
DRAFT 36 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements Figure 29. Overview of concept drainage improvements in the Golden Eagle Park area
DRAFT
37 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
4.2 COST ESTIMATES (INCLUDING ANNUAL O&M)
4.2.1 Construction
An itemized cost estimate for construction of the various aspects of the alternatives (including drop inlet
modifications at the auxiliary outlet) is shown as Table 5. The unit prices were determined from similar
projects by JE Fuller and ADOT’s E2C2 historical unit price website1. Right‐of‐way costs are not
anticipated since the Town owns Golden Eagle Park. However, easements may be necessary for the
Ashbrook Wash improvements and the sediment basin on Bristol Wash upstream of Golden Eagle
Boulevard. The need for these easements will be determined during final design.
If the drop inlet is not removed, the construction costs would be slightly lower. Also, it is anticipated
that engineering design costs would be reduced due to fewer permitting requirements through ADWR
and possibly FCDMC.
Table 5. Estimated construction costs of preliminary alternative for Golden Eagle Park with drop inlet modifications
Estimated Construction Costs
Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost
1 Misc. Removals (concrete, fence, etc.) LS 1 $10,000 $10,000
2 Channel Grading CY 12,750 $8 $102,000
3 Excavation (Sediment Basins) CY 7,100 $8 $56,800
4 Bollards (Removable) EA 64 $900 $57,600
5 Bollards EA 92 $500 $46,000
6 Grouted Riprap CY 30 $200 $6,000
7 Reinforced Concrete (Apron) CY 325 $500 $162,500
8 Concrete (Sidewalk Replacement) CY 35 $300 $10,500
9 Safety Rail (@ Outlet Headwalls) LF 65 $30 $2,000
10 Concrete Catch Basin EA 2 $5,000 $10,000
11 24" Storm Drain LF 20 $125 $2,500
12 36" Storm Drain Modifications LF 60 $250 $15,000
13 Manhole EA 1 $2,500 $2,500
14 36‐in Backflow Prevention Device EA 1 $1,800 $1,800
15 Drop Inlet Modifications LS 1 $5,000 $5,000
16 Ped. Bridge Foundation Enhancement LS 1 $20,000 $20,000
17 Large Debris Trash Rack LS 1 $10,000 $10,000
Subtotal Construction: $520,200
Miscellaneous Construction Contingency: 30% $156,100
Final Design (includes survey, geotechnical, structural, ADWR permitting): ‐ $165,000
Construction Administration: 6% $31,200
Total Construction: $872,500
1 https://apps.azdot.gov/e2c2/HistoricalPrice.aspx
DRAFT
38 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
Table 6. Preliminary cost estimate for gabion basket alternative for Ashbrook Wash (upstream of Golden Eagle Boulevard)
Estimated Costs
Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost
1 Misc. Removals (concrete, fence, etc.) LS 1 $10,000 $10,000
2 Subgrade Preparation SY 1,400 $5 $7,000
3 Gabion Baskets CY 1,800 $200 $360,000
4 Concrete Grout (at Drop) CY 16 $225 $3,600
5 Safety Rail LF 40 $30 $1,200
Subtotal Construction: $380,600
Miscellaneous Construction Contingency:30% $114,200
Final Design: ‐ $76,000
Construction Administration: 6% $22,800
Total Construction: $593,600
Right‐of‐Way Area (AC) Type Unit Price Cost
1 Easement 0.28 Floodplain $30,000 $8,400
Total Estimated Cost: $602,000
4.2.2 Annual Maintenance
Table 7 lists the cost estimate for annual maintenance of the proposed improvements. These estimates
are based on maintenance for the drainage improvements and are not related to regular park
maintenance. Note that the maintenance cost estimates are based on the following assumptions:
Ten days each year would require some level of inspection to maintain proper debris control.
This was estimated as a 2‐man crew for 2 hours on 10 days.
Two half days of repairs (and/or debris removal) with a 2‐man crew related to the
improvements. Potential damage to the channels could occur from natural storm events or
from public access.
Eight quarter days (2 hours) of vegetation maintenance/removal with a 2‐man crew related to
the wash corridors.
Annualized sediment removal volume is based on sediment delivery from the 1.37 square mile
area for the uncontrolled watershed (see Figure 9) and the 0.43 ac‐ft/square mile/year
developed from Table 4.
Furthermore, it should be noted that these costs do not include additional maintenance that will most
likely be required for events larger than the 10‐year event. These can and will happen and cleanup and
repair costs could be rather significant based on the lessons from the Oct. 2, 2018 event.
Table 7. Estimated annual maintenance costs for recommended improvements in Golden Eagle Park
Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs
Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost
1 Inspection (2‐Man Crew) Hrs 40 $175 $7,000
2 Miscellaneous Repairs Hrs 16 $175 $2,800
3 Vegetation Maintenance Hrs 32 $175 $5,600
4 Sediment Removal CY 950 $5 $4,750
Total Annual Costs: $20,150
DRAFT
39 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
4.3 PRIORITIZATION
Based on the above analyses, it is recommended that the improvements on Bristol Wash be constructed
first. Bristol Wash is the largest contributor in both peak flow and sediment. The second priority should
be the improvements on Cloudburst Wash. Cloudburst Wash had documented breakouts during the
October event. Finally, the improvements on Ashbrook Wash (upstream of the confluence with Bristol
Wash) should be constructed last. Based on the initial modeling results, this section needs only minor
improvement when compared to the other two washes.
4.4 MAINTENANCE PLAN & MONITORING
Since outlet clogging and gradual reduction in channel capacity contributed to increased damages to
Golden Eagle Park during the October 2018 event, it is important that a detailed maintenance plan for
the improvement be developed. At minimum, the trash racks on the outlets should be inspected after
any storms that produce impoundment greater than 5‐feet at the Golden Eagle Park Dam stage gage.
Also, the cross‐sections of the channel improvements should be documented with photographs, so that
these sections can be maintained after storm events. These cross sections could include monuments at
designated stations along the channels where detailed measurements and photographs could be taken
to document changes and determine specific regrading/sediment removal needs. Sediment basins
should also have poles or other vertical markers to easily visualize the degree of sediment accumulation
to assist timely sediment removal. The maintenance plan should also give recommendations for
vegetation maintenance/removal. Baseline photographs at project completion can assist with
visualization of vegetation conditions to be maintained. A more detailed maintenance plan will be
developed as a part of final design.
4.5 FINAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS/SCOPING
During final design of the recommended improvements, some additional details may need special
analysis or permitting. These include:
Obtain new topographic mapping and planimetrics
There are significant dam safety implications to lowering the auxiliary spillway inlet that will
require review and approval by ADWR Dam Safety Section. The ADWR requirements will add
cost and time to the final design and construction should the Town elect to go with this
alternative.
A structural engineer may be needed to verify adequacy of the concrete apron, bollard
modifications, and trash rack modifications.
If the auxiliary spillway inlet is lowered, additional geotechnical investigations will likely be
required to demonstrate embankment stability and other dam safety issues. Geotechnical and
structural engineering may also be needed to ensure safe design of the concrete apron to
address shallow groundwater near the principal outlet.
The final design should also include provisions for landscaping elements/treatments/plans to
improve park aesthetics in the improved/modified areas.
Coordination with town maintenance for access at outlets.
DRAFT
40 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
4.6 STUDY LIMITATIONS
For this concept level study, there are some limitation that should be considered. These include:
The basis of concept design was the 2017 LiDAR mapping. This mapping had an accuracy
sufficient to produce 2‐foot contours, which is not the 1‐foot level required for final design.
Additionally, it is known that the topography has changed since 2017 as evidenced by the
significant sediment deposition resulting from the October 2, 2018 event and the subsequent
removal of much of along with regrading performed near the principal outlets.
While the concepts aim to reduce damages caused by flooding and sedimentation up to the 10‐
year design level, extremely flashy (e.g., the October 2, 2018 event) or greater magnitude
storms can overwhelm outlet capacity causing significant damage to park facilities. Because the
park facilities are located within the flood pool of the Golden Eagle Park Dam, they will remain
at risk of damages during larger flooding events. Maintenance of the conveyance channels and
sedimentation basins will also need to be performed following flows to ensure their continued
efficacy.
When the concept plans were being developed, detailed planimetric features (e.g., edge of
pavement or fence lines) were not available since these were not produced during the 2017
LiDAR mapping. Since new 1‐foot mapping will be developed for final design, these planimetric
features will be available at that time.
DRAFT
41 Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
5 REFERENCES
Anderson‐Nelson, 1989, Fountain Hills Improvement Project #8 Paving Improvement Plans Golden Eagle
Boulevard (as‐builts).
Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), 2018a, Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa
County, Arizona – Hydrology.
Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) 2018b, Drainage Design Manual for Maricopa
County, Arizona – Hydraulics.
JE Fuller (JEF), 2019, Ashbrook and Cloudburst Wash Floodplain Delineation Study, report prepared for
Flood Control District of Maricopa County and Town of Fountain Hills, FCDMC Contract No.
2016C023, Work Assignment No. 3.
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), 2018, Uniform Details for Public Works Construction,
2018 Revision to the 2015 edition.
Wilson & Company, Inc. (Wilson), 2017 Ashbrook LiDAR Aerial Mapping Survey Report, prepared for
Flood Control District of Maricopa County.
APPENDIX A
CONCEPT PLAN SHEETS
CGCNDV/PMA8400 S.KYRENESTE. 201TEMPE, AZ 85284(480) 222-5701NDV/PMATOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLSSHEETDRAWNCHECKEDDATEBYDESIGNEDNO.REVISIONBY DATE123DRAWING NO.10/11/2019PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION7OFGOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-07910/11/201910/11/2019COVER1TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLSGOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-079NNCONCEPT PLANS
CONSTRUCTMISC. REMOVALS (CONCRETE, FENCE, ETC.)BOLLARDS (PER DETAIL 5 AND MAG DETAIL 140)GROUTED RIPRAPCHANNEL GRADING (SEE DETAILS 1-4, 7)EXCAVATION (SEDIMENT BASIN; SEE DETAIL 6)REINFORCED CONCRETE (APRON)CONCRETE (SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT)SAFETY RAIL (PER MAG DETAIL 145)STORM DRAIN (SEE APPENDIX C)PED. BRIDGE FOUNDATION ENHANCEMENTLARGE DEBRIS TRASH RACKCGCNDV/PMA8400 S.KYRENESTE. 201TEMPE, AZ 85284(480) 222-5701NDV/PMATOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLSSHEETDRAWNCHECKEDDATEBYDESIGNEDNO.REVISIONBY DATE123DRAWING NO.10/11/2019PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION7OFGOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-07910/11/201910/11/2019KEY MAP AND OVERVIEW2NFeet075150
MATCHLINE STA -1+00
MATCHLINE STA 10+00SCALE: HORIZ: 1"= 20' VERT: 1"= 5'PROFILE1690169517001705171017151720172516901695170017051710171517201725CONSTRUCTBOLLARDS (PER DETAIL 5 AND MAG DETAIL 140)CHANNEL GRADING (SEE DETAILS 1-4, 7)EXCAVATION (SEDIMENT BASIN; SEE DETAIL 6)CONCRETE (SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT)CGCNDV/PMA8400 S.KYRENESTE. 201TEMPE, AZ 85284(480) 222-5701NDV/PMATOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLSSHEETDRAWNCHECKEDDATEBYDESIGNEDNO.REVISIONBY DATE123DRAWING NO.10/11/2019PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION7OFGOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-07910/11/201910/11/2019ASHBROOK WASH3NFeet04080ASHBROOK WASH
MATCHLINE STA -0+50
MATCHLINE STA 12+00PROFILE16851690169517001705 17101715172016851690169517001705171017151720CONSTRUCTMISC. REMOVALS (CONCRETE, FENCE, ETC.)BOLLARDS (PER DETAIL 5 AND MAG DETAIL 140)GROUTED RIPRAPCHANNEL GRADING (SEE DETAILS 1-4, 7)EXCAVATION (SEDIMENT BASIN; SEE DETAIL 6)REINFORCED CONCRETE (APRON)CONCRETE (SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT)SAFETY RAIL (PER MAG DETAIL 145)STORM DRAIN (SEE APPENDIX C)LARGE DEBRIS TRASH RACKCGCNDV/PMA8400 S.KYRENESTE. 201TEMPE, AZ 85284(480) 222-5701NDV/PMATOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLSSHEETDRAWNCHECKEDDATEBYDESIGNEDNO.REVISIONBY DATE123DRAWING NO.10/11/2019PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION7OFGOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-07910/11/201910/11/2019BRISTOL WASH4NFeet050100BRISTOL WASH
MATCHLINE STA -1+00
MATCHLINE STA 9+00SCALE: HORIZ: 1"= 20' VERT: 1"= 5'PROFILE168516901695170017051710171517201725168516901695170017051710171517201725CONSTRUCTBOLLARDS (PER DETAIL 5 AND MAG DETAIL 140)CHANNEL GRADING (SEE DETAILS 1-4, 7)REINFORCED CONCRETE (APRON)CONCRETE (SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT)PED. BRIDGE FOUNDATION ENHANCEMENTCGCNDV/PMA8400 S.KYRENESTE. 201TEMPE, AZ 85284(480) 222-5701NDV/PMATOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLSSHEETDRAWNCHECKEDDATEBYDESIGNEDNO.REVISIONBY DATE123DRAWING NO.10/11/2019PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION7OFGOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-07910/11/201910/11/2019CLOUDBURST WASH5NFeet060120CLOUDBURST WASH
CGCNDV/PMA8400 S.KYRENESTE. 201TEMPE, AZ 85284(480) 222-5701NDV/PMATOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLSSHEETDRAWNCHECKEDDATEBYDESIGNEDNO.REVISIONBY DATE123DRAWING NO.10/11/2019PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION7OFGOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-07910/11/201910/11/2019DETAILS6
CGCNDV/PMA8400 S.KYRENESTE. 201TEMPE, AZ 85284(480) 222-5701NDV/PMATOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLSSHEETDRAWNCHECKEDDATEBYDESIGNEDNO.REVISIONBY DATE123DRAWING NO.10/11/2019PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION7OFGOLDEN EAGLE PARK DAM AREADRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCONTRACT NO. 2019-07910/11/201910/11/2019MAG Details7
Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
•Randy Harrel, PE, Town of Fountain Hills
•Richard Waskowsky, PE, JE Fuller
•Ted Lehman, PE, JE Fuller
Golden Eagle Park Drainage Improvements
•October 2, 2018 Storm
•Short duration 10-year storm
•Significant damage to Park
•Important contributing factors
•Clogging of outlets
•Deferred maintenance of wash corridors through Park
•September 23, 2019 Storm
•Three separate rain events in one day
•Similar event magnitude
•Lesser Park impacts due to Town actions following 10/2
event
•Outlet clogging still a big problem
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
11699
1701
1703
1705
1707
1709
1711
1713
1715
15200345530715900104512301415160017451930211523005-minute Rainfall (inches)Gage Stage (feet, NAVD 88)Time on Oct 2, 2018 (24:00 clock)
GEP Dam Gage Stage
(Elevation)
October 2, 2018 Storm
October 2,
2018 Storm
Modeling
Results
01002003004005006007008009001000110012001300140015001600170018001900200021002200230024000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
11699
1701
1703
1705
1707
1709
1711
1713
5-minute Rainfall (inches)Gage Stage (feet, NAVD 88)Time on Sept. 23, 2019 (24:00 clock)
GEP Dam
Gage Stage
(Elevation)
September 23, 2019 Storm
Recommended Drainage Improvements
Recommended Drainage Improvements
(Golden Eagle Park)
Estimated Construction Costs
Item No.Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost
1 Misc. Removals (concrete, fence, etc.)LS 1 $10,000 $10,000
2 Channel Grading CY 12,750 $8 $102,000
3 Excavation (Sediment Basins)CY 7,100 $8 $56,800
4 Bollards (Removable)EA 64 $900 $57,600
5 Bollards EA 92 $500 $46,000
6 Grouted Riprap CY 30 $200 $6,000
7 Reinforced Concrete (Apron)CY 325 $500 $162,500
8 Concrete (Sidewalk Replacement)CY 35 $300 $10,500
9 Safety Rail (@ Outlet Headwalls)LF 65 $30 $2,000
10 Concrete Catch Basin EA 2 $5,000 $10,000
11 24" Storm Drain LF 20 $125 $2,500
12 36" Storm Drain Modifications LF 60 $250 $15,000
13 Manhole EA 1 $2,500 $2,500
14 36-in Backflow Prevention Device EA 1 $1,800 $1,800
15 Drop Inlet Modifications LS 1 $5,000 $5,000
16 Ped. Bridge Foundation Enhancement LS 1 $20,000 $20,000
17 Large Debris Trash Rack LS 1 $10,000 $10,000
Subtotal Construction:$520,200
Miscellaneous Construction Contingency:30%$156,100
Final Design (includes survey, geotechnical, structural, ADWR permitting):-$165,000
Construction Administration:6%$31,200
Total Construction:$872,500
Recommended Drainage Improvements
(Ashbrook Wash)
Estimated Costs
Item No.Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost
1 Misc. Removals (concrete, fence, etc.)LS 1 $10,000 $10,000
2 Subgrade Preparation SY 1,400 $5 $7,000
3 Gabion Baskets CY 1,800 $200 $360,000
4 Concrete Grout (at Drop)CY 16 $225 $3,600
5 Safety Rail LF 40 $30 $1,200
Subtotal Construction:$380,600
Miscellaneous Construction Contingency:30%$114,200
Final Design:-$76,000
Construction Administration:6%$22,800
Total Construction:$593,600
Right-of-Way Area (AC)Type Unit Price Cost
1 Easement 0.28 Floodplain $30,000 $8,400
Total Estimated Cost:$602,000
Recommended Drainage Improvements
ITEM 6. A.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk
Staff Contact Information: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving
the meeting minutes of the Special Meeting of January 7, 2020, and the Regular Meeting of January 7,
2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The intent of approving 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 Special Meeting of January 7, 2020, and the Regular
Meeting of January 7, 2020.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 7, 2020, and the Regular Meeting of
January 7, 2020.
Attachments
2020.0107.TCSMES.Minutes
2020.0107.TCRM.Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director David Pock 01/13/2020 07:18 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/13/2020 07:43 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/13/2020 09:33 AM
Form Started By: Elizabeth A. Burke Started On: 01/08/2020 03:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/13/2020
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
HELD JANUARY 7, 2020
1.CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Dickey
Mayor Dickey called the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of the Fountain Hills Town
Council held January 7, 2020, to order at 4:30 p.m.
2.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey
Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmember Mike Scharnow;
Councilmember Art Tolis; Councilmember Alan Magazine; Councilmember David
Spelich
Absent: Councilmember Dennis Brown
Staff
Present:
Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town Clerk
Elizabeth A. Burke
3.RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
MOVED BY Councilmember David Spelich, SECONDED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow to
recess into Executive Session.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
4.EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Fountain Hills Town Council recessed into Executive Session at 4:30 p.m.
A.Discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorney or attorneys of the public body; and
discussions or consultations with designated representatives of the public body in order to
consider its position and instruct its representatives regarding negotiations for the purchase, sale
or lease of real property, pursuant to A.R.S. §38 431.03(A)(3) and (7), respectively.
i.Disposition of Fire Station #2
5.ADJOURNMENT
The Fountain Hills Town Council reconvened into Open Session at 4:42 p.m. at which time the
Special Meeting of January 7, 2020, was adjourned.
_________________________________
Ginny Dickey, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
JANUARY 7, 2020
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Dickey
Mayor Dickey called the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held January 7,
2020, to order at 5:30 p.m.
2.MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Dickey asked for a Moment of Silence by the Town Council and audience.
3.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey
Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmember Mike
Scharnow; Councilmember Art Tolis; Councilmember Alan Magazine;
Councilmember David Spelich
Absent: Councilmember Dennis Brown
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
Councilmember Scharnow reported that he attended the dedication of the new playground
equipment at Four Peaks Park and represented the Noon Kiwanis who had contributed
$15,000 for the dual zipline.
Mayor Dickey said that she attended the First Flush ribbon cutting of the restrooms at
Fountain Park. She was there on New Year's Day and she saw the restrooms getting a lot of
use. She thanked the Fountain Hills Sanitary District for that infrastructure improvement.
She also attended the Fountain View Village Winter Wonderland where they had
horse-drawn carriage, Santa, a "real" Elvis, cookie making and more. She said that it was a
great mix of little kids and residents.
She, too, attended the Elfie Palooza at the Park. She said that it was another way of showing
that they need help from organizations and they will talk more about other help later. She
also attended the second annual Balloon Glow and she thanked Phyllis Kern and all those
that made it possible.
She said that during this time of year it was also bittersweet while they have celebrated, they
have also had losses. The Community Center each year has had a train set-up by Ken
Burling, who they lost right before Christmas. He has been delighting the children for many
years, and she thinks that some of his family members have the intention to keep some of it
going.
Additionally, today many attended the services for former Mayor Sharon Morgan, who was
an intricate part of Fountain Hills. She said that they extended their sympathy to her family
and appreciation for all she has done.
A.RECOGNITION OF Fountain Hills Leadership Academy Class 4 Members
Mr. Miller said that this year was another outstanding class with the Fountain Hills
Leadership Academy and a handout was provided that highlighted some of their class
projects, Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mike Hopps from last year's class came forward and said that there were 17 members in this
year's class (Class 4) and they were a good cross section of the community. He said that one
of the prime activities is to work on a class project and those have been summarized on the
boards located around the room and he encouraged people to look them over after the
meeting.
Councilmember Magazine suggested that the promotional video they did for the youth be
shown on the Town's website and on YouTube.
Mayor Dickey said that she appreciated the projects that have been proposed from the
program and invited anyone interested to look at the boards. She said that Vicky Dirksen has
put together a book of the four years' worth of projects. She picked out a few that have been
implemented and noted there are more to come for sure. She encouraged residents to apply
for Class 5.
She said that there is never a shortage of needs and great ideas. The FHCCA contribution to
the program is immeasurable. Class members learn so much about the town, the sanitary
district, museum, library, etc. and they become ambassadors for the town.
5.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
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.
None
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 Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone to
approve Consent Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 2 of 11
A.CONSIDERATION OF approving the meeting minutes of the Regular Meeting of December
17, 2019.
B.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor application for Senior Services, Inc.,
for a fundraiser to be held in the Fountain Hills Community Center on March 6, 2020.
C.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the
Benevolent Order of Elks Lodge #2846 for the purpose of a fundraiser to be held on February
2, 2020.
D.CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain
Hills Elks Lodge #2846 for a beer garden in conjunction with the Great Fair on Feb 22-23,
2020.
8.REGULAR AGENDA
A.PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF a request for a Special Use Permit to allow
an 11.25-foot tall golf ball fence to be installed at 9045 North Crimson Canyon located in the
R1-8A Single-Family Residential Zoning District Case # SU2019-04
Mayor Dickey opened the Public Hearing.
Development Services Director John Wesley reviewed the request, noting that it was to
allow an 11.25 foot tall golf ball fence to be installed. He said that the Town Code provides
for these, but at certain heights and locations. He then gave a quick PowerPoint presentation
which addressed:
LOCATION MAP
PROJECT INFO
SITE PLAN
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
He said that there were no concerns from any neighbors.
There being no public input, Mayor Dickey closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Scharnow said that there are several of these around town and he has been
at some homes that needed them. He said that he probably contributed to that need over the
years.
MOVED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Councilmember Art
Tolis to approve the Special Use Permit for the installation of the golf net for 9045 N. Crimson
Canyon as requested
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
B.CONSIDERATION OF Approving a Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with General Acrylics
(Contract No. 2020-051) to Design and Install One Basketball Court at Four Peaks Park.
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin said that a few weeks ago they talked about
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 3 of 11
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin said that a few weeks ago they talked about
applying for a grant for a basketball court at Four Peaks Park. She said that they were
awarded that grant and this agreement allows them to begin construction. She said that
General Acrylics also did the Town's tennis courts year ago. They have already surveyed the
site to ensure they can facilitate the timeline. She said that it will be lit as they partially chose
that location because of the lighting for the tennis courts that they will be able to tap into.
MOVED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone to
approve the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with General Acrylics, Contract No.
2020-051, in the amount of $170,000.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
C.CONSIDERATION OF adopting Resolution 2020-04 approving the 2020-2023 Community
Services Department Strategic Plan.
Ms. Goodwin thanked a number of commissioners and staff members for being present
tonight. She said that the Strategic Plan was put together by staff with the help of the
commissions; everyone has had a role in it. She said that she did not intend to go through it
step by step, but she did want to give some background. She then gave a PowerPoint
presentation which addressed:
COMMUNITY SERVICES STRATEGIC PLAN - WHY?
CSSP - WHO AND HOW
CSSP - THE RESULTS
CSSP - MISSION STATEMENT
CSSP - FIVE VISIONS WERE IDENTIFIED
NEXT STEPS
Bill Myers, representing the Conservancy and until recently the McDowell Mountain
Preservation Commission, said that it was a fortunate experience of having Ms. Goodwin
present this. He said that seven out of seven members support it whole-heartedly and the
Conservancy is in favor of it as well. It will be a good way to have the Commission, the
Conservancy and the Town get more for the Town.
Councilmember Scharnow commended Ms. Goodwin and those involved. He said that it was
a fantastic Strategic Plan. He said that he had a few questions and met with Ms. Goodwin.
He said that it was a good meeting and the Plan is very comprehensive, thorough and covers
all of the bases. He said that it was a unique department, and he was on the first Parks and
Recreation Commission thirty years ago. He added that a lot of great things have happened
in the last 30 years and he was pleased to have been a part of it.
Commissioner Scharnow said that one thing is that the Plan is for the next three years. He
had brought up some things that were longer term, such as a stand-alone senior center and
youth center. Ms. Goodwin said that they did talk about that. She said that they always want
those types of things, but they are in a budget crunch. There are going to be priorities and
monies allocated. She said that those things may not be on the immediate plan, but as they
make decisions on long-term funding, and look at nontraditional resources, possibly
town-owned priorities, they will keep those in mind. She said that they are underway right
now for a bid for a Master Plan which will look more at amenities and programs. She said
that they have enough park space, but they want to look at other trends coming down the
pike. She said that the Master Plan will help them look into more of the 10-15 year time
period.
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 4 of 11
Mayor Dickey said that it is good to be able to refer to various documents. It is always
exciting to know when items coming before them fit into a plan that has had a lot of thought
put into it. The reality of budget is they not only need a building, but a staff. She said that
there were many great activities taking place over the holidays, but it also required staffing.
They have to keep those things in mind as they go through the budget process. She added
that the Strategic Plan was a wonderful example of work of a commission and she
appreciated all of their work.
Mr. Miller said that the Plan before them is great in that it 1) models the Town's Strategic
Plan in format and measurable tasks; 2) includes those responsible for those tasks; and
3) includes that staff will come back periodically to provide Council with updates. He said that
those are hallmarks to a great Strategic Plan and Ms. Goodwin and her staff and the
commissions are to be commended.
MOVED BY Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone, SECONDED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to
adopt Resolution 2020-04.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
D.CONSIDERATION OF approving Cooperative Purchasing Agreement C2020-054 with Vincon
Engineering Construction, LLC. for concrete services.
Public Works Director Justin Weldy said that all of the directors and staff review other
governmental agency contracts with the intent to do the best they can with the limited
funding they have. This contract they are using through a Cooperative Purchasing
Agreement, working through a contract they have with the City of Scottsdale. He said that the
contractor has made the Town aware of contracts they have over the last several years and
extended those to the Town, although he asked that his name not be mentioned, but he is a
resident of the Town. He added that the other partners of the business do not live here. He
said that what he contributes with these contracts and his expertise to him and Kevin is
immeasurable.
He said that the City of Scottsdale went out for bids and received several. After reviewing all
of them it was awarded to Vincon and the Town is able to use it. This contract, if approved,
will primarily be used for capital projects and he then reviewed several of them.
He said that the contract is for $600,000 a year with three one-year extensions available, for
a total of $2.4 million over the term of the contract. That allows the Town purchasing power
over the next several years based on the market today. He added that the Town currently
has a contract with the same contractor that they were able to piggyback on from the City of
Chandler. He believed it was in the best interests of all of the Town's needs.
Councilmember Magazine said that he had a conversation with Mr. Miller and Mr. Pock
yesterday about this process; not just the amount, but the process. He asked how much it
would be if they were not to piggyback on the Scottsdale contract. Mr. Weldy said that
hypothetically it could be more. He said that the last two to three bids they sent out through
ADOT, or on their own, the bids came in considerably higher than the engineer's estimate
and they had to come back before Council for additional funding.
Councilmember Magazine asked how they can estimate their costs today for four years out.
Mr. Weldy said that he is estimating what they have in their Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) projects. It is not his intent to say they are going to spend all of this money, but they
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 5 of 11
would like to have the purchasing power to do so if projects move forward.
Councilmember Magazine said that he has some difficulty making these determinations as
to what they are going to fund eight months in advance. He also thinks that the process
could be improved by the Town Council looking at more than just these. They have got a
long list of projects that need to be funded.
Mr. Miller said that Councilmember Magazine suggested, and he agreed, that they would
discuss the process further during the Retreat.
Mr. Weldy said that he is asking the Council to approve a contract that will cover CIP
projects, potentially in the outlying years, as they are approved. He said that they averaged
it at $600,000 a year and added a little bit for contingencies for unknown items that come up.
Councilmember Magazine asked what criteria they used in selecting the projects. Mr. Weldy
said that an example is the Library Event Circle. Over the years, after that was constructed,
they have had problems. They have done a considerable amount of grinding and it is not in
the best interest to continue with patchwork. They came forward with an estimate and
proposed that the project be improved with pavers. They brought a cost analysis to the Town
Manager, and it was put into a future budget. It was then reviewed by the Town Council
during the Retreat to provide for review and comments on the project. At that time, it was
selected for this year to be constructed. That is the process followed for each of their capital
improvements projects. He said that in this case, there are projects from the Pedestrian and
Traffic Safety Committee.
Councilmember Magazine asked if that would be his #1 project if he was only given
$150,000 for concrete. Mr. Weldy said that it would not, but the Community Center concrete
and sidewalk infill would near the very top of the list. Mr. Miller noted that the concrete
contract has multiple departments that are in the queue. Mr. Weldy is speaking from the
perspective of the Public Works Director, however Ms. Goodwin would probably have a
different perspective of what her top priority was.
Councilmember Magazine said that he has not been given a copy of the list although he
voted for it, not knowing what he was doing. He said that they need a more complete list of
priorities, not just public works, so they can make informed decisions.
Councilmember Magazine said that he got a follow-up e-mail from Mr. Pock stating that in
FY17 they had $1.6 million surplus that went into FY18. Mr. Miller said that what was
considered surplus; the amount of the budget that they did not expend. Per the Town policy,
it was transferred into the CIP. Councilmember Magazine said that then they had a flood and
had to take money away from other projects.
Councilmember Scharnow said that in three to four years they could piggyback on another
contract. Ms. Weldy said that was correct. Councilmember Scharnow asked if the CIP
projects were not prioritized. Mr. Miller said that they are. He said that they had a meeting
today where they were looking at the CIP, and the Facilities Replacement projects. Staff
goes through the ranking and they also go through direction received from staff and the
Council. He said that due to the concerns expressed about pedestrian safety and traffic
safety this past year, they put a lot of emphasis on that. That was the direction given by
Council.
Mr. Miller said that there is a process. When they had the CIP project budget discussion (in
March) in prior years the Council has gone ahead and sometimes readjusted projects,
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 6 of 11
moving things around as a result of going through the process.
Councilmember Scharnow said that in the technical sense these are already approved CIP
projects. The Town Council has seen the list and given their blessing. They are not
approving the projects tonight, but rather a contract that will get the projects done.
Councilmember Magazine said that was only for Year One; they do not know what the
projects are for Years 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Weldy said that they do have projects identified for
outlying years, but each year the CIP projects get moved around. Mr. Miller added that
usually in the Five Year CIP, the first year is fully funded, the second year may be somewhat
funded and further years are not fully funded.
Councilmember Magazine said that until they have an approved process and get some of
these questions answered, and see what a project looks like, he would rather not approve
$2.4 million. Mayor Dickey said that when the projects come to the Town Council that is
always the failsafe. They do it in February or March each year and then when the individual
projects come to them, that is the final step.
Mayor Dickey asked staff if they were convinced that this company has proven itself to the
Town in a way that they are trusted and the Town is getting a value, no matter what the
projects are. Mr. Weldy said that was correct. He said that in each of their contracts there is
a paragraph that discusses that they will only move forward when they have approved
projects and amounts. He said that in the past years the same contractor did as little as
$50,000.
Councilmember Scharnow said that they are not approving the expenditure of $600,000 in
Year three, they are approving a contract based on what they prioritize and what staff brings
forward. Mr. Weldy said that was correct. Each year the budget dictates what they will be
spending for that year.
MOVED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine, to approve the cooperative Purchasing
Agreement C2020-054 with Vincon Engineering Construction, LLC. in an amount not to
exceed $600,000.00 during the Initial Term of the Agreement; MOTION DIED for lack of a
second.
MOVED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Councilmember Art Tolis to
approve Cooperative Purchasing Agreement C2020-054 with Vincon Engineering
Construction, LLC. in an amount not to exceed $600,000.00 during the Initial Term of the
Agreement; with an aggregate not-to-exceed amount, inclusive of all Renewal Terms, to not
exceed $2,400,000.00.
Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously
E.CONSIDERATION OF approving the fourth amendment to Professional Services Agreement
C2017-087.4 with the CK Group Inc., for the design of: (1) roundabout drainage improvement
at the Avenue of the Fountains/ La Montana Boulevard intersection, and (2) Fountain Hills
Blvd mid-block Pedestrian crossing analysis
Mr. Weldy said that this contract amendment had two parts. The first part was additional
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 7 of 11
Mr. Weldy said that this contract amendment had two parts. The first part was additional
funding to address some drainage issues that they were not aware of as part of the original
contract. They discovered during design and after surveying that they would most likely have
ponding if they did not address this issue. The engineering firm came back and he and the
Town Engineer looked at it. For the roughly $5,000 they felt it was fair and this will keep the
project moving forward. Currently that project is a multiyear discussion and now the design is
at the 60% level. The design firm has sent the 60% plans for review and the Town has
returned comments. He and the Town Manager need to have discussions on proposed
landscaping and very shortly they will get the next set of plans. That will give staff an
opportunity to review and provide their last few critiques. After that they will go to bid and start
construction in this fiscal year.
Mayor Dickey asked about the relationship between this project and Keystone. Mr. Weldy
said that they have asked the CK Group to provide the CAD drawings to Keystone to ensure
that whatever they are doing will fit into this project.
Mr. Weldy said that the next part of the contract comes from direction and reports, and
feedback from residents and the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee. There are
concerns on Fountain Hills Blvd. south of Palisades but north of El Lago, and north of Keith
McMahon, that there is not a pedestrian mid-block crossing. It is a considerable distance to
go north or south to cross at a signal to get to Safeway. The contractor would also do an
analysis to determine what type of crossing would be appropriate, or if it would be
appropriate to put in a mid-block crossing.
Mr. Weldy said that the basic criteria would be a hybrid standardized flashing beacon, one
for the north/south and also in the center. Because Fountain Hills Boulevard is so wide, they
would need to put a safe haven where the stamped concrete is in the median. He said that
the street light would light this section of roadway, should Council move forward, but the first
phase is to do an analysis.
Councilmember Scharnow asked if this would include any changes to the median or traffic
ingress/egress out of the condos or Safeway, or if it was strictly pedestrian. Mr. Weldy said
that the assessment would take all of the traffic patterns into account, along with the signal
consideration. It would be a wide scope which is included in the packet. It is not likely that
they would be moving any driveways; that could become exceptionally costly.
Councilmember Scharnow said that over the years there have been a number of fender
benders, and they also had talked about extending the left hand turn lane northbound on
Fountain Hills, turning onto Palisades. Mr. Weldy said that they could ask them to look into
additional storage in that area.
Councilmember Spelich said that he has somewhat of a problem with this agenda item. He
said that they all know that it is dangerous for someone trying to cross the road, and would
suggest they forego spending $11,000 on a study and put that money into a warning system.
Mr. Weldy said that they do not have a design and construction costs. They have rough
numbers, but he would not be comfortable giving a cost tonight. After the design the
construction would be even more to implement.
Councilmember Spelich asked if there was something that requires the Town to do a study
first. Mr. Weldy said that he did not think so, but he and the Traffic Engineer would need to
take a quick look at the MCTED regulations for pedestrian crossings.
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 8 of 11
Mr. Miller said that he understood where Councilmember Spelich was coming from, but from
a liability standpoint they would want to have an engineering firm look at it and determine the
best type and location. He said that because they are not large enough to have an
in-housing engineering department, it is something they would want to do to protect
themselves and to get an idea of costs.
Councilmember Tolis said that this is not necessary. They already have a crosswalk at
Palisades. If they are going to do anything, the Hampstead crosswalk is an example of what
it would be. He is against spending money on this study. There are other challenged
locations.
Councilmember Scharnow asked if the study would come up with several different
alternatives or just the one recommendation. Mr. Weldy said that they would give them a few
locations for the crossings and a few different design criteria for review. They would present
those for staff to pick the best location based on their understanding.
Mr. Miller said, to Councilmember Tolis's point, that usually mid-block crossings are the worst
because people are not paying attention. Because of the concerns with the pedestrian
accident there last year, they went ahead and put in a flashing light and finished the
crosswalk on the far side of the intersection.
Councilmember Tolis said that they are going to create the impression that it is safe to cross
mid-block. He said that the people should be encouraged to use the crosswalk. If anyone
wants to be putting in a crosswalk midsection, the Safeway Plaza commercial entities should
write a check.
Councilmember Spelich said that he could not agree more. It is a waste of money; everyone
knows it is unsafe.
Mayor Dickey asked if they had a study done at Hampstead. Mr. Weldy said that is actually a
holdover from when it was a middle school. The guidelines in the manual do not look at or
consider that type of signage necessary for high schools; at that age it is presumed they will
make good decisions.
Mayor Dickey said that she is cautious. She is not comfortable if staff is not comfortable as
to where and what kind of crossing device should be there. Councilmember Tolis said that he
did not believe that a crosswalk in that area is appropriate, period. If anything, they should
put a sign out that says, "don't jaywalk."
Councilmember Spelich asked if staff was sure they did not have the expertise in house to
do this type of study. Mr. Miller said that he did not want to put this on their engineering staff.
They have a great Town Engineer with a wealth of experience, but they are more
generalists. Traffic engineering is a specialty. He said that if it was the Council's desire to not
do this, then they could remove it from the contract. He noted that this went through the
Council Subcommittee.
Councilmember Leckrone said that she was on the subcommittee, but was not present the
day they discussed this. She said that if it is a big problem, maybe they need to break that
section up with a crossing. Councilmember Scharnow said that after the discussion he has
mixed thoughts on it. He said that Council and staff are put in the position of legislating
common sense all of the time. To blindly sai they have to leave it up to the citizens; they
could do that in a lot of situations. He does not think that the study will come back with a
recommendation for a sign telling pedestrians to go to the signal.
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 9 of 11
Councilmember Magazine asked if they had any statistics to rely on. Mr. Weldy said that
they certainly have crash data that they keep for that street, but he has not pulled that report.
He said that he has not spent a lot of time on this. If it is approved, then he would go back
and provide those stats.
Mayor Dickey said that it was similar to the intersection at Sunflower. There are a lot of
people experiencing what they feel are dangerous situations, but if they looked at injuries,
there may not be any actual crashes there. Sometimes the only way to know that is to have
an expert look at it.
Councilmember Magazine said that he keeps hearing concerns with safety, and asked how
they can make a decision without have any idea of the stats. Mr. Miller said that he was
bringing up a good point. Because of concerns voiced by residents and staff about major
pedestrian accidents in Town, the Council created a subcommittee. This is one of those
items that got vetted with them first. He said that he is hearing that 1) they need to take
another look at Hampstead and 2) there is not a lot of support for this. He suggested that
they only approve the contract as it relates to the roundabout for drainage improvements.
Councilmember Magazine suggested that the subcommittee review the stats. Mr. Miller said
that they have a meeting later in the month and they could have Mr. Valverde run those
numbers. Councilmember Magazine said that he would abide with whatever the
subcommittee comes back with.
MOVED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone to
approve the fourth amendment to Professional Services Agreement C2017-087.4 in the
amount of $5,706.48 with the CK Group Inc., for the design of roundabout drainage
improvements at the Avenue of the Fountains/ La Montana Boulevard intersection.
Vote: 5 - 1 Passed
NAY: Councilmember David Spelich
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
The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held January 7, 2020, adjourned at
7:02 p.m.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
______________________________
Ginny Dickey, Mayor
ATTEST AND PREPARED BY:
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 10 of 11
______________________________
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 7th day of
January, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2020.
_________________________________
Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk
Regular Meeting of January 7, 2020 Page 11 of 11
ITEM 6. B.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Special Event Liquor License application for the Town of Fountain Hills for a beer garden in conjunction
with the Music Fest on April 4th, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the special event liquor license
application submitted by Linda Ayres representing the Town of Fountain Hills for submission to the
Arizona Department of Liquor. This special event liquor license is being obtained for the purpose of
holding a beer garden in conjunction with the Music Fest. 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.
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.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the Special Event Liquor License
Attachments
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020\Music Fest
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 01/08/2020 08:39 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 01:18 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/08/2020 02:38 PM
Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 12/30/2019 12:26 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/08/2020
ITEM 6. C.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Special Event Liquor License application for the Valors on 8th for a beer garden in conjunction with the
Mountain to Fountain race on March 1, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the special event liquor license
application submitted by Romaldo Gonzalez representing the Valors on 8th for submission to the
Arizona Department of Liquor. This special event liquor license is being obtained for the purpose of
holding a beer garden in conjunction with the Mountain to Fountain race. 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.
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
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the Special Event Liquor License
Attachments
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020\Liq App-Mountain to Fountain
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 01/08/2020 08:39 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 01:18 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/08/2020 03:16 PM
Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 01/07/2020 07:50 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/08/2020
ITEM 6. D.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a
fundraiser to be held on March 1, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the special event liquor license
application submitted by Michael Wallot representing the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for submission to
the Arizona Department of Liquor. This special event liquor license is being obtained for the purpose of
holding a fundraiser for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. 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.
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
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the Special Event Liquor License
Attachments
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020\Liq App-Mountain to Fountain
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 01/08/2020 08:39 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 01:18 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/10/2020 12:56 PM
Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 01/07/2020 07:57 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/10/2020
ITEM 6. E.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a
fundraiser to be held on March 6, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the special event liquor license
application submitted by Michael Wallot representing the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for submission to
the Arizona Department of Liquor. This special event liquor license is being obtained for the purpose of
holding a fundraiser for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. 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.
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.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the Special Event Liquor License
Attachments
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020\Liq App_FH Theater
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 01/08/2020 08:39 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 01:18 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/10/2020 12:55 PM
Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 01/07/2020 08:07 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/10/2020
ITEM 6. F.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a
fundraiser to be held on April 17,, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the special event liquor license
application submitted by Michael Wallot representing the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for submission to
the Arizona Department of Liquor. This special event liquor license is being obtained for the purpose of
holding a fundraiser for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. 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.
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.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the Special Event Liquor License
Attachments
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020\Liq App_FH Theater
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 01/08/2020 08:39 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 01:18 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/10/2020 12:55 PM
Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 01/07/2020 08:09 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/10/2020
ITEM 6. G.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a
fundraiser to be held on April 19, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the special event liquor license
application submitted by Michael Wallot representing the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for submission to
the Arizona Department of Liquor. This special event liquor license is being obtained for the purpose of
holding a fundraiser for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. 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.
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.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the Special Event Liquor License
Attachments
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020\Liq App_FH Theater
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 01/08/2020 08:39 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 01:18 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/10/2020 12:54 PM
Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 01/07/2020 08:31 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/10/2020
ITEM 6. H.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Special Event Liquor License application for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for the purpose of a
fundraiser to be held on June 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 Michael Wallot representing the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. for submission to
the Arizona Department of Liquor. This special event liquor license is being obtained for the purpose of
holding a fundraiser for the Fountain Hills Theater, Inc. 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.
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.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the Special Event Liquor License.
Attachments
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020\Liq App_FH Theater
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 01/08/2020 08:39 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 01:18 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/10/2020 12:54 PM
Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 01/07/2020 08:34 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/10/2020
ITEM 6. I.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Linda Ayres, Recreation Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving a
Special Event Liquor License application for A Dog Inc., for a beer garden in conjunction with the
Woofa Palooza on April 5, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the special event liquor license
application submitted by Denise Dunning Ricketts representing A DOG Inc.,for submission to the
Arizona Department of Liquor. This special event liquor license is being obtained for the purpose of
holding a beer garden in conjunction with the Woofa Palooza. 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.
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.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the Special Event Liquor License
Attachments
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020
G:\Special Events\Liquor Apps\2020
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin 01/08/2020 08:39 AM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/08/2020 01:18 PM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/10/2020 12:52 PM
Form Started By: Linda Ayres Started On: 01/07/2020 02:32 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/10/2020
ITEM 6. J.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Mike Fenzel, Community Center Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving
a Special Event Liquor License application submitted by Samuel D. Coffee for the Fountain Hills Veterans
Memorial Inc, fundraiser to be held at the Fountain Hills Community Center on February 14, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the Special Event Liquor License
application submitted by Samuel Coffee, representing Fountain Hills Veterans Memorial, Inc. 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
the application as submitted. All applicants are required to submit a Town alcohol application and a $25
fee. Once the fee is paid and the application is reviewed by Town staff, the application is forwarded to
the Town Council for its review and consideration. After the application is approved by Town Council,
the applicant will bring the signed paperwork to the Arizona Department of Liquor, and be issued a
physical license to be displayed for the duration of the event.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
A.R.S. §4-203.02; 4-244; 4-261 and R1-1-228, 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 of the Special Event Liquor License.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve a Special Event Liquor License for Fountain Hills Veterans Memorial, Inc.
Attachments
Veterans Memorial Liquor App
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Elizabeth A. Burke 01/13/2020 09:36 AM
Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Burke 01/13/2020 09:37 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/13/2020 10:19 AM
Form Started By: Mike Fenzel Started On: 01/08/2020 01:02 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/13/2020
ITEM 6. K.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Community Services
Prepared by: Mike Fenzel, Community Center Manager
Staff Contact Information: Rachael Goodwin, Community Services Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving
a Special Event Liquor License application for Fountain Hills Sister Cities, for a dinner to be held at the
Fountain Hills Community Center on April 18, 2020.
Staff Summary (Background)
The purpose of this item is to obtain Council's approval regarding the Special Event Liquor License
application submitted by Carol Carroll, representing Fountain Sister Cities Corporation 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 the application as
submitted. All applicants are required to submit a Town alcohol application and a $25 fee. Once the fee
is paid and the application is reviewed by Town staff, the application is forwarded to the Town Council
for its review and consideration. After the application is approved by Town Council, the applicant will
bring the signed paperwork to the Arizona Department of Liquor, and be issued a physical license to be
displayed for the duration of the event.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
A.R.S. §4-203.02; 4-244; 4-261 and R1-1-228, 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 of the Special Event Liquor License.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve a Special Event Liquor License for Fountain Hills Sister Cities Corporation.
Attachments
Sister Cities Special Event Liquor App
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services Director Elizabeth A. Burke 01/13/2020 09:36 AM
Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Burke 01/13/2020 09:37 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/13/2020 10:19 AM
Form Started By: Mike Fenzel Started On: 01/08/2020 01:12 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/13/2020
ITEM 7. A.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
Agenda Type: Regular Agenda Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: David Pock, Finance Director
Staff Contact Information: David Pock, Finance Director
Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF Resolution
2020-03, adopting development fees in compliance with A.R.S. § 9-463.05.
Staff Summary (Background)
According to A.R.S. §9-463.05, a municipality may assess development fees to offset costs to the
municipality associated with providing necessary public services to a development, including the costs
of infrastructure, improvements, real property, engineering and architectural services, financing and
professional services required for the preparation or revision of a development fee pursuant to this
section, including the relevant portion of the infrastructure improvements plan.
State law also requires specific actions to be taken within a specified timeline. To date, the Town has
completed the following actions in accordance with the timeline:
July 8, 2019: Public notice provided for public hearing on amendments to Land Use Assumptions
(LUA) and Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP).
September 17, 2019: Public hearing on proposed amendments to LUA and IIP held during regular
Council session.
November 5, 2019: Council passed and adopted Resolution 2019-53 adopting the Town's Land
Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements Plan.
November 8, 2019: Public notice provided for public hearing on proposed Development Fee
Report.
December 17, 2019: Public hearing on proposed Development Fee Report held during regular
Council session
Based on the comments received from the public and Council during the public hearings, staff is
requesting the Town Council to consider adopting Resolution 2020-03 which approves the
recommended development fees contained in the Development Fee Report. Assuming the Town
Council adopts the Resolution, the new development fees shown below will become effective on April
5, 2020.
Residential (fees per unit)Fire Parks & Rec Street Total
Single Family $122 $1,916 $1,935 $3,974
Multi-Family $94 $1,479 $964 $2,537
Nonresidential (fees per sq. ft.)Fire Parks & Rec 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
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
N/A
Risk Analysis
If Resolution 2020-03 is not adopted, the Town's existing development fee schedule would remain in
effect as of April 5, 2020. This would result in under-collection of development fees required to
maintain the current level-of-service for new development. The shortfall would increase pressure on the
General Fund and the Streets Fund.
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
N/A
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends adopting Resolution 2020-03.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to adopt Resolution 2020-03.
Attachments
Res 2020-03
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director (Originator)David Pock 12/09/2019 03:51 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 12/11/2019 06:51 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 12/23/2019 09:07 PM
Form Started By: David Pock Started On: 12/05/2019 04:16 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/23/2019
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT
FEES IN COMPLIANCE WITH 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) 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, (i) the LUA and IIP were released to the public, (ii) the Town Council held a public hearing on September 17, 2019 to receive public comment on the LUA/IIP, and (iii) the Town Council approved Resolution 2019-53 on November 5, 2019, adopting the LUA/IIP and giving notice of its intent to assess development fees; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Development Fee Statute, the Town Council held a public hearing on December 17, 2019 on the document entitled Development Fee Report, dated
November 5, 2019, prepared by TischlerBise (the “Preliminary Development Fee Study”); and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Development Fee Study has been updated to include comments received from the public, including representatives of the development community (the updated
document is referred to as the “Final Development Fee Study”); and
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to conclude the second phase of the development fee adoption process by approving the Final Development Fee Study.
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 Final Development Fee Study is hereby adopted in substantially the form and substance of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. In accordance with the Development Fee Statute, the development fees set forth in the Final Development Fee Report shall not be effective until 75 days after the date of this Resolution. 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 2020-03 PAGE 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona, this 21st day of January, 2020.
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 2020-03 PAGE 3
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2020-03 [Final Development Fee Study] See following pages.
Land Use Assumptions,
Infrastructure Improvements Plan,
and Development Fee Report
Prepared for:
Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona
January 21, 2020
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, MD 20816
301.320.6900
www.TischlerBise.com
Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report
Fountain Hills, Arizona
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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"
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report
Fountain Hills, Arizona
44
Figure A1: Current Development Fee Service Areas
Land Use Assumptions, IIP, and Development Fee Report
Fountain Hills, Arizona
45
Figure A2: Proposed Development Fee Service Areas
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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"
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
ITEM 7. B.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting
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 Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF Ordinance
20-01 amending Chapter 25 of the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Entertainment District Overlay,
creating Section 25.04, Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit, to allow consideration of residential
densities in excess of eight (8) units per acre. (Case #Z2019-08)
Staff Summary (background)
In 2016 the Town amended the Zoning Ordinance to add Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District.
The purpose of this district was to standardize the regulations related to noise throughout the town
center area. The town center area is zoned C-2, C-3 and Town Center Commercial Zoning District (TCCD).
These zoning districts have differing noise allowances. The Entertainment Overlay District provided one
set of rules for the entire area.
In 2017 a decision was made to amend the Entertainment Overlay District to also address the issue of
residential uses in the town center area. There was a desire to facilitate residential uses, in a mixed use
setting, within this area. The C-2 and C-3 zoning districts only allow residential uses with approval of a
Special Use Permit. The 2017 amendment added Section 25.03 to the ordinance which allows for
single- and multi-family dwellings above the ground floor at a density up to eight units per acre.
Over the last several months a couple of property owners in the town center, within the Entertainment
Overlay District area, have approached staff with conceptual plans for development that would have
non-residential uses on the ground floor with residential uses above. In both cases the density of the
residential use exceeded eight units per acre and, therefore, would not be allowed under the overlay
district regulation.
In both cases the proposed developments looked like they would be good additions to the town center.
Therefore, staff agreed to look into a text amendment to allow for higher density uses in this area.
One option was to simply raise the maximum density contained in the current ordinance. The
challenges staff had with that option were deciding what a new maximum density should be and dealing
with the potential parking impacts. While on a typical day there is excess parking in the Plat 208 area,
this is not the case during special events. There is also a lot of unmet development potential throughout
the area. Should several nearby properties develop or redevelop to the maximum extent allowed by the
zoning ordinance, there could be areas where parking becomes an issue.
Therefore, staff is proposing that if an applicant wants density in excess of eight units per acre, the
applicant would apply for a Special Use Permit. This will provide an opportunity, through a public review
process, to examine the site specific impacts of allowing a higher density residential use and to ensure
any impacts, such as with parking, are properly addressed.
The draft ordinance is attached. It very simply adds one more section to Chapter 25 that allows for the
Special Use Permit for densities over eight units per acre.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25
Risk Analysis
Approval of the requested amendment will provide for and make it clear that densities in excess of eight
units per acre in a mixed-use building can be considered through the Special Use Permit process.
Denial of the requested amendment will maintain current ordinance provisions.
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and discussed this proposed text amendment at its
regular meeting held on December 19, 2019. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of Ordinance 20-01.
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends approval of the text amendment.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to adopt Ordinance 20-01.
Attachments
Ord 20-01
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke 01/08/2020 03:52 PM
Development Services Director (Originator)John Wesley 01/08/2020 04:01 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 01/10/2020 11:22 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 01/10/2020 01:04 PM
Form Started By: John Wesley Started On: 12/23/2019 08:56 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/10/2020
ORDINANCE NO. 20-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE
CHAPTER 25, ENTERTAINMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT, OF
THE FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING
SECTION 25.04, USES PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE
PERMIT
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Town Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 93-22 on November 18, 1993, which adopted the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Zoning Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend the Zoning Ordinance to revise Chapter 25, Entertainment District Overlay, relating to the maximum density of single- and multi-residential land use; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-462.04, public hearings regarding this ordinance were advertised in the November 27, 2019 and December 4, 2019 editions of the Fountain Hills Times; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 and by the Town Council on January 21, 2020.
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25, (Entertainment Overlay District), is hereby amended by adding Section 25.04 (Uses Subject to Special Use Permit), as follows:
SECTION 25.04 USES SUBJECT TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A. SINGLE- OR MULTIPLE-RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES IN EXCESS OF 8 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
ORDINANCE 20-01 PAGE 2
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents and take all steps necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona this 21st day of January, 2020.
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