Loading...
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