Document Eagle_doc_f77c4ccd97

RESOLUTION No. 17- 12 A RESOLUTION OF iflE CITY COUNCIL OF ' 1 FIF CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO, ADOP 11NG A REVISED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE S 1 1JDY & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN DA t ED MARCH 2017 ADOPIING A PATHWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE, CORRECitD PATHWAY PLAN MAP AND PA HIWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AN UPDA t ED PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, ADOPiiNG A REVISED PARK IMPACT FEE AND ADOPIING A PAl HWAY IMPACT FEE; AND PROVLL) ING AN EFFECTIVE DA i h. WHEREAS, the City of Eagle is a municipal corporation operating under the laws of the state of Idaho; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 67- 8208 requires a governmental entity imposing a development impact fee to update its capital improvements plan at least once every five years in accordance with the procedures set forth in Idaho Code § 67-8206; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle previously adopted a capital improvements plan ( the " Plan") pursuant to Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 82, which identifies capital improvements for which development impact fees maybe used as a funding source; and WFIEREAS, the City of Eagle has determined that the Plan should be reviewed, revised, and updated in conjunction with proposed amendments to the City' s impact fee ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle, and its consultants, have analyzed growth and development projections and the City' s levels of service in order to update the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee has assisted the City in analyzing, monitoring, and revising land use assumptions and the implementation of the capital improvements, advised the City Council as to necessary revisions to the City' s capital improvements plan and impact fee study, and has reviewed the draft revisions as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle held a public hearing, which was duly noticed pursuant to Idaho Code § 67- 8206, for the purpose of taking public comment on the proposed amendment to the City of Eagle Development Impact Fee Study" entitled " Amendment and Updates to: Development Impact Fee Study & Capital Improvements Plan" dated March 2017, hereinafter referred to as the " Study;" and WHEREAS, the Study and its updates/ amendments contain the following information: a) A general description of all existing public parks and pathways facilities acknowledging the City' s cure of previously existing deficiencies within the service area of the City; b) A commitment by the City to use other available sources of revenue to cure existing system deficiencies where practical; ---PAGE BREAK--- c) An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of existing capital improvements, which was prepared by a qualified professional planner or by a qualified engineer licensed to perform engineering services in this state; d) A description of the land use assumptions by the City; e) A definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of system improvements and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses; 0 A description of all system improvements and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, to provide a level of service not to exceed the level of service adopted in the development impact fee ordinance; g) The total number of additional park acreage necessitated by and attributable to new development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; h) The projected demand for system improvements required by projected population growth over a reasonable period of time not to exceed twenty ( 20) years; i) Identification of all sources and levels of funding available to the City for the financing of the system improvements; and j) A schedule setting forth a priority schedule for completion of improvements identified in the capital improvements plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration, hereby finds and declares that an impact fee imposed upon residential development to finance parks and pathways, the demand for which is created by such development, continues to be in the best interest of the general welfare of the City and its residents, is equitable, does not impose an unfair burden on such development by forcing developers and builders to pay more than their fair share or proportionate share of the cost, and therefore deems it advisable to adopt the updated and revised impact fee study and capital improvements plan. NOW, 1HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ' 1 HE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF ! HE CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO that the " Amendment and Updates to: Development Impact Fee Study Capital Improvements Plan" dated March 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted by the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- This Resolution will be in full force and effect upon its adoption and approval this day p P 2017. ATTEST: Sharon 1 Bergmann, City Clerk/Treasurer CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO Stan Ridgeway, Mayor ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 HOLLADAY ENGINEERING CO. ENGINEERS • CONSULTANTS 32 N Main Street • PO Box 235 • Payette, ID 83661 [PHONE REDACTED] • [PHONE REDACTED] Fax Reference No. EG15- 0341A L ---PAGE BREAK--- UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS TO: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN March 2017 Prepared for: City of Eagle Eagle, Idaho Prepared By: HOLLADAY ENGINEERING CO. m M. I IAMu d IIllaa JAM AIimeM IAW IaM III MI MIMMMIALI aJAM I1, INIumihA NAdlm' IIi, mI. JIIIIAIIAIAI. WIIIIIWI, IUIIA OII III 10. eI. IpUIII4A1WII6JJ, IpIIIIIIV ILIIW. IIWIl i, I IIIIIII IIYo. a ILLAMIIIIId, IV, IVVOIWMM ENGINEERS • CONSULTANTS 32 N Main Street • PO Box 235 • Payette, ID 83661 [PHONE REDACTED] • [PHONE REDACTED] Fax EG 15- 0341A ---PAGE BREAK--- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL Stan Ridgeway, Mayor Jeff Kunz, Council President Stan Bastian, Council Member Naomi Preston, Council Member Craig Solberg, Council Member DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Robert Grubb Jane Kramer Michael Huffaker Zach Pence Sierra Morris HOLLADAY ENGINEERING CO. Otll, ll„ l, 11, 1 1111 I liI 11111, IiV Viii II, I ENGINEERS • CONSULTANTS 32 N Main Street • PO Box 235 • Payette, ID 83661 [PHONE REDACTED] • [PHONE REDACTED] Fax EG 15- 0341A ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary and Recommendations 1 Section 1: Introduction 3 Limited Scope of the Development Impact Fee 2017 Update 4 Residential Units and Allocation of Impact Fees 4 Level of Service 6 Parks Level of Service 6 Pathways Level of Service 7 Section 2: Parks 9 Park Development to Maintain Level of Service 10 Value of Developed Parks 10 2017 — 2026 Capital Improvement Plan 12 Park Impact Fee 15 Section 3: Pathways 16 Developed Pathways 19 Value of Developed Pathways 19 Pathway System Growth to Maintain Level of Service 20 Section 4: Funding and Implementation 23 Funding Sources 23 Implementation 24 2017 Update Impact Fee Summary 25 Holladay Engineering Company ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Executive Summary and Recommendations 50i/. ar iDW// OYta The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act in Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 82, requires capital improvement plans upon which impact fee systems are based be " updated" every five years. This report represents the third amendment of the City of Eagle' s Development Impact Fee Study/ Capital Improvements Plan dated May 11, 1999 ( Hofman Study). The Hofman Study recommended a schedule of impact fees for parks and a schedule of impact fees for pathways. The City adopted only the impact fees for parks. This Update and Amendment to the Development Impact Fee and Capital Improvement Plan 2017 Update) identifies changes to parks planning with the establishment of a Parks and Recreation Department ( the Department). The City Parks and Pathway Committee conducted a Parks and Path Survey of 2010. The overwhelming majority of survey respondents requested more trails for biking, walking, dog friendly parks, and wildlife observation paths. The Department responded to these requests by developing Targe portions of the Eagle Sports Complex for bike uses and planning for additional nature park areas along the Boise River. Portions of the Eagle Sports Complex leased from the County were returned to Ada County control in exchange for the purchase of 48. 83 acres. In addition, the City purchased another 11. 93 acres from Ada County in 2016. New park areas have been constructed for bike activities with new restrooms being added. The previous 2011 Update followed a master plan that included the construction of a Velodrome that was not funded. The result of these actions is a change in the value of the overall park system. At the " 3. 3 acres per 1, 000 population" standard adopted in 1999, the City is in a 1. 47 acre surplus in developed park acreage for the current population. Adjusting for the changes and credit for surplus acreage yields a recommended decrease of the park impact fee from $ 466. 06 per capita to $ 395. 65 per capita, or from $ 1, 314. 29 to $ 1, 115. 72 per single family dwelling unit. The 2017 Update readdresses the issue of development impact fees for pathways. The Hofman Study Pathway Facilities section was guided by an October 14, 1997, Pathway Plan map that contained information that misguided the calculation of pathway impact fees, to wit: it identified substantial pathway corridors that lay within the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department, Ada County Highway District, Garden City, Idaho Department of Lands, and the Farmer's Union Canal Company. Pathway impact fee projections resulted in stirring significant public controversy. After several attempted revisions to the Hofman Study, Pathway Facilities section, the City chose not to adopt an impact fee for pathways. Holladay Engineering Company ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS 40/1/1/r, r/JiCy/ / 007 i. 001. Go. Each time the pathway system issue is addressed by public surveys, by Comprehensive Plan amendments, or in any other forum on the City' s quality of life, continued pathway development is foremost among the goals of the residents of Eagle. With the adoption of the Corrected Pathway Map, a revised level of service that reflects historic and current conditions is possible. Using the corrected map and population data, the current and recommended level of service is 2, 700 linear feet of pathways per 1, 000 population1. Based upon this level of service and the value of the existing greenbelt and pathway system owned by the City, an impact fee of $ 117. 20 per capita, or $ 330. 50 per residential unit is recommended to preserve the existing level of service over the next ten year growth increment. At this level of service, pathway funding from the City's general fund is not required for new pathways. 1 The Hofman Study used the term " population" in reference to specific numeric values and the term " residents" in non- numeric references to citizens of Eagle. This reference convention is continued in this 2017 Update. Holladay Engineering Company ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Section 1: Introduction The 1992 Idaho Legislature passed House Bill No. 804, Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Impact Fee Act that set forth the requirements for the calculation and accounting of impact fees. To require impact fees, a local governmental entity must adopt a Comprehensive Plan, an Impact Fee Ordinance, and a Capital Improvement Plan to comply with Idaho law. 2 These plans must be reviewed annually with respect to capital improvements with a full update at least every five years. 3 yiri07Xy///H/ 9/H,C4// pis'i9HpcW, bN/L Y/Hii/tay/iaSfW/us'an// nH; The purpose of impact fees is to provide for an " equitable program for planning and financing public facilities to serve new growth" 4 Stated another way, new growth will " pay its own way" for development of new public parks and pathways. Prominent features of the Iaw include restrictions disallowing the use of impact fees for any other purpose than to fund system capital improvement costs for new public facilities identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and that impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of improvements needed to serve new growth and development. Proportionate share is that portion of cost of system improvements incurred to serve new development after any credits, contributions, land dedications, or constructed improvements and other funding sources are considered. The 1992 Impact Fee Act, as amended, is essentially the same as when Eagle first passed the park impact fee on May 11, 1999. Impact fees for parks and pathways are calculated from new population data since increased demand for parks and pathways is, by Eagle' s definition of level of service, correlated to City residents and housing units. The Impact Fee Ordinance is codified as Eagle City Code, Title 7, Chapter 6. The Hofman Study contained two principal sections, Park Facilities and Pathway Facilities. In 1999, the City adopted only the Park Facilities portion and impact fee recommendation component of the Study. In 2004, the first amendment to the initial study was prepared to update park inventory, cost, and to recalculate the park deficiency condition. A second update was prepared in 2011 to address changes in population data, park land acquisition, an updated Capital Improvement Plan, and updated values including costs of construction. The Pathway Facility component of the Hofman Study has not been updated since the initial report and recommendation in 1999. 2 Idaho Code § 67- 8208( k) 3 Idaho Code § 67- 8205( d) 4 Idaho Code § 67- 8202 Holladay Engineering Company A. u, WwWvU1WWd4lUW1.IlWlUWIIIIkUlYlk4LdLUU! iMU Co 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS 4194,/ 1/U//10, 9b, 14, 100/// i/ 4, Under the leadership of the Parks and Recreation Department, the City has prepared a corrected version of the original Pathway Plan map. The result is a Corrected Pathway Plan map with an emphasis on greenbelt pathways under City ownership and control. In its Comprehensive Plan the City adopted as one of its primary objectives for a pathway system the establishment of greenbelts5 along the Boise River and Dry Creek. Most recently five of the 19 objectives within the Pathway and Greenbelt section of the updated 2015 Comprehensive Plan are specifically directed toward the continued development of the greenbelt system. Implementation bullet points from the Comprehensive Plan include: Construct bridges to provide access to existing and future greenbelt pathway system easements. Prioritize greenbelt and pathway development: 1) greenbelt pathway system along the Boise River, 2) greenbelt/ pathway system along Dry Creek. Reconsideration of impact fees for pathways based upon corrected and updated information is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan. Limited Scope of the Development Impact Fee 2017 Update This 2017 Update is focused on specific, eligible capital projects that are anticipated to be completed within a ten year capital planning horizon to maintain service levels currently enjoyed by residents of the City. The City has developed a Citywide Parks Master Plan and is planning for a complementary Citywide Pathway Master Plan. Typically master plans will consider all aspects of the park and pathway system including, in the instance of pathways, bike lanes and routes under the jurisdiction of transportation agencies, pathways on state owned property, and agency or privately maintained pathways available for public use. Impact fees, by contrast, are limited to specific capital projects consistent with Idaho Code6 and adopted by the City. Development of parks and pathways outside City jurisdiction or on property not controlled by the City have not historically been funded through City impact fees. As such, they have not been included in this 2017 Update. The City contains numerous pathways available for public use, but remaining under the jurisdiction and maintenance provisions of Home Owner' s Associations. Capital improvements on these pathways are ineligible for impact fee funding. Residential Units and Allocation of Impact Fees Since the Hofman Study, the City has experienced unprecedented growth resulting in substantive modifications to its land use map and to the City' s Comprehensive Plan reflecting rapid expansion 5 " Greenbelts are typically land areas that border scenic features or hazard areas ( i. e. the Boise River and Dry Creek) and are designed to prevent undesirable encroachment." 2015 Eagle Comprehensive Plan, p. 115. 6 Idaho Code § 50- 1703 4 Holladay Engineering Company I . . . . JJ.. 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS and urbanization of the area. After the 2011 Update, the City's population grew by 5, 331 residents to a total of 25, 510 in 2016. 7 Under the land use assumptions currently adopted by the City, the projected growth rate is 4. 5% per year. 8 At this rate the population will grow from 25, 510 to 39, 616 by 2026 and to 58,874 by 2035. The 2010 U. S. Census identified the average number of persons per residential unit in the City at 2. 82 persons and was used for this update. Figure 1 Units & Populations Projected Residential Units Year Residential Units Population 2016 9, 046 25, 510 2020 10, 788 30, 421 2025 13, 443 37, 910 2026 14, 048 39, 616 The Hofman Study and subsequent impact fee updates utilized information from the City of Boise Parks and Recreation Department as guidance to allocate fees among dwelling types including multi -family housing, apartments and hotel rooms. A review of census data from the 2011- 2015 American Community Survey ( ACS) 5 -Year Estimates for Eagle does not support continuation of this practice. The ratio of single-family to multi -family units are significantly distinct from those of the larger metropolitan areas in the Treasure Valley. Eagle has fewer than six hundred multiple - family units and a single hotel which means a person - per -housing - unit -type number was not sufficiently defined to support a park or pathway fee portioned by housing unit type. Figure 2 Single vs. Multi - Family Units Notes: 1) Residential Units 2015 estimate from COMPASS Communities in Motion 2040. 2) Percentage of single and multi -family units from ACS, 2011 to 2015 estimate. Percentage of Single vs. Multi -Family Units: COMPASS and ACS Comparison Residential Units, 2015 ( 1) Ada County 157, 657 Residential Units, ACS 164, 992 Single Family Units ( 2) 83. 0% 17. 0% Multi - Family Units City of Boise 99, 630 92, 167 74. 7% 25. 3% City of Eagle 8, 510 8, 454 93. 2% 6. 8% 7 Community Planning Association ( COMPASS) and the City of Eagle Planning Department. 8 " Staff is requesting City Council approval of a 4. 5% annual average growth rate for planning purposes within the City' s Comprehensive Plan Update." April 18, 2016, Memorandum from Nichoel Baird Spencer to Mayor and City Council; subsequently adopted at the April 26, 2016, City Council meeting. Holladay Engineering Company J l J J I, IJJ L lumuI WJugu 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS 4/!H/!H/H/r!Hi/////m//l00, iy!00./ uOIODlINHI!/ Nio The comparison of Boise single-family residential units to Eagle' s single-family residential units as proportions of the total population does not provide a basis for mirroring the historic City of Boise impact fee proportions for multi -family units.' Similarly, the City of Meridian 2013 Impact Fee Study cited a lack of empirical evidence to support fee differentials. 10 As a result, it is recommended single and multi -family residential units have equivalent impact fees. Level of Service Level of service is " a measure of the relationship between the service capacity and the service demand for public facilities." 1, Level of service is the basis for evaluating additional capacity needed for new facilities serving new development. Service levels must be quantifiable and specific as they set the amount of benefits for payment of impact fees. The quantifiable development unit recommended for parks and pathways is the " Residential [ Dwelling] Unit" consistent with Title 7, Chapter 6, Eagle City Code. The relative value of investment relating to the level of service also has a role in the evaluation process. To provide an accurate impact fee calculation, the value of the various parks and pathway types or features are estimated and factored into the overall system value. This value is used to forecast the cost of establishing new facilities utilizing the same approximate mix of uses and features that exist for current residents. A project that would substantially increase total park value by the addition of, for example, a regional water park would be considered an increase in the current level of service which may be ineligible for funding through park impact fees. A level of service acceptable to the City must be adopted by ordinance. Once adopted, this standard becomes the basis for new development to construct comparable facilities or to pay impact fees for the specific capital improvements necessary to allow the City to continue to offer the quality and quantity of public facilities enjoyed by current residents. Parks Level of Service The Hofman Study, following the recommendation of the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee, recommended a level of service standard of 3. 3 acres of developed park land per 1, 000 population. This standard, adopted by the City Council in 1999, is the basis for analyzing park land surplus or deficiency as the city develops its park system. The Hofman Study did not distinguish between park types, uses or amenities to meet various needs of the community. It did recognize that functional distinctions in park size and amenities may result in a range of development costs. To address the broad range of activities offered by current park facilities, two new park categories have been used in the valuation process to denote non - irrigated, natural parks in Eagle: Foothill 9 The City of Boise recently discussed a lack of demographic data to support a given number of persons living in any certain type of residential unit. Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes, June 10, 2015. 10 Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans, prepared for the City of Meridian, BBC Research and Consulting, 2013. 11 Idaho Code § 67- 8203( 17) Holladay Engineering Company T I. VIw.. I. U. WIJJIIUAWIIr1104Y1YJ% 1) . J. J JJ yH 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE II _ 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS it... , . i707/U/04',WSW/N/NL/ NZWIi//.. N/ iOi.. Parks and River Wildlife Parks. The park categories were developed in response to consistent feedback from park users and non- users as most recently exemplified by public input to Eagle' s Citywide Park Master Plan ( CPMP). 12 They serve to broaden the park experience options requested by City residents. The additional park categories provided the basis for a refined estimate of park values which are incorporated into the impact fee calculation. A ten year horizon for park development is not an unrealistic development horizon. Continued park facility growth is in demand as evidenced by public input from the 2010 Parks and Pathways Survey and from the 2015 Citywide Park Master Plan ranking of needed facilities. Park acquisition and infrastructure development historically involves several City budget funding cycles to complete. Park investment is directly related to the quality of City parks as measured by costs of amenities and features. Once the acreage element is identified, the system improvements and costs are estimated to quantify a value per acre. This provides a basis for the cost of system improvements to be paid for by new development through various funding options or through contributions. This aspect of impact fees allows the City to maintain its unit value of park acreage as the park system develops to meet demands of growth. This is addressed in the Capital Improvement Plan for parks. Pathways Level of Service The Hofman Study established a pathway level of service by " totaling the of all [ existing and planned] Multiple - Use Paths and Multiple -Use Trails and dividing that amount by the build out population." It set an initial target level of service at " 4, 670 linear feet [ of pathway] per 1, 000 population." This level of service and the resulting cost of implementation was revised numerous times by alternative projections ranging from 3, 058 to 9, 205 linear feet per 1, 000 population. As stated above, the level of service controversy resulted in the Council voting not to adopt a pathway impact fee. Utilizing the actual population and developed pathway inventory data that existed at the time of the Hofman Study, the level of service available to City residents may be measured by the calculation: Linear Feet Pathway / ( Population / 1, 000) = Level of Service ( 1999). Calculating the level of service by this method yields a value that reflects an actual 1999 facility - to -population ratio indicative of the public' s pathway experience. This level of service value was 2, 442 linear feet per 1, 000 population. In the ten year impact fee planning period from 2017 to 2026, the population is expected to grow from 25, 510 to 39, 616. By expanding development of the pathway system on pace with residential growth, the Greenbelt users will not see a reduction in capacity or overall variety of experience. Applying the 2026 population projection to the corrected Pathway Plan map of 12 City of Eagle - Citywide Park Master Plan, 2015, Prepared by The Land Group ( Draft Copy) Holladay Engineering Company ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS aWarAm,., iu1u+ uuuuwwwwi ` . r nh/ HN/// HH/ NNH// / i/H//iONi/Hiinr// current and future pathways demonstrates the need for an additional 38, 086 linear feet of pathway to maintain the current level of service for City residents. Figure 3 Pathway Level of Service Notes: 1) Pathway footage derived from map scale using Google Earth. Pathway Level of Service Population Pathways, Linear Feet Level of Service 1999 Hofman Study 10,625 25, 950 2, 442 2017 Update 25, 510 68, 540 ( 1) 2, 687 2026 Population 39, 616 102, 040 ( 1) 2, 576 From a historical and current planning perspective, 2, 700 linear feet or 0. 51 miles per 1, 000 population compares well with past levels of service. It is recommended the City use this value when considering adoption of a level of service to establish an impact fee for pathways. For comparative purposes, pathways were evaluated using current investment value and the estimated value of future capital projects. A ten year horizon for continued greenbelt development is not unreasonable based on current use and public input from the 2010 Parks and Pathways Survey and from the 2015 Citywide Park Master Plan ranking of needed facilities. The discussion of pathway value per residential unit is included below in the Capital Improvement Plan section for pathways. Holladay Engineering Company aw/ NNpc/ iiwiw.. ni:,„ iiriw ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Section 2: Parks a ii Z nvui iHuiiiyinui// iiiHirarm/, v.iiNi eiiirNii/:/' i;rii. The City currently has eight developed parks totaling 85. 65 acres. These consist of four neighborhood parks, Heritage Park, and three Targe park areas. Each park offers unique amenities offering a wide range of recreational experiences. Figure 4 Existing Parks Park Nam Acreage Arboretum Park The total acreage owned by the City is 1. 29 acres. For the Impact Fee Study, only a portion of the property was included as developed park since the Senior Center building and the majority of the parking lots are not being utilized as developed park. Using the actual park area and two parking stalls, the developed acreage was estimated to be 0. 40 acres. Ada Eagle Sports Park The total acreage of the City owned portion of the Ada Eagle Sports Park is 63. 792 acres ( with the 11. 93 acres purchased from Ada County). The City' s water system reservoir is located on a parcel with approximately 0.39 acres located within the fence around the reservoir and excluded from the calculation. In addition, 6. 2 acres of the undeveloped/ unusable velodrome area was excluded from the calculation. With these exclusions, the developed acreage was estimated to be 57. 20 acres as summarized below: Skate Board Park ( 5. 05 acres) BMX Track ( 6. 00 acres) Bike Downhill Skills Course ( 10. 10 acres) Reservoir Site -outside fence ( 2. 64 acres) Hell Mary Trail Parcel ( 4. 51 acres) — purchased from Ada County in 2016 Low Rider Trail Parcel ( 7.42 acres) — purchased from Ada County in 2016 Trails and previous seasonal snow park ( 21. 48 acres) Friendship Park Heritage Park Orval Krasen Park The total acreage owned by the City of Eagle within this park is 2. 42 acres. However, a portion of this area is excluded from use as a park due to the New Dry Creek Canal 1. 65 running along the south boundary. A fence lies along the canal protecting park users from the canal. With this area excluded, the developed acreage was estimated to be 1. 65 acres. Reid Merrill Park 8. 92 Guerber Park The total acreage owned by the City of Eagle within this park is 14. 80 acres. However, the City of Eagle has a lease agreement on the 0. 399 acre parcel owned by the 15. 20 Chaumont HOA located at the corner of Hill Road and N. Dicky Drive. With this parcel included, the developed acreage of 15. 20 acres was used. Plaza Drive Park The total acreage owned by the City of Eagle between S. 2nd Street and S. Eagle Road is 0. 52 acres. However, approximately half of the acreage is located within the canal 0. 50 and behind a fence. With the canal area excluded, the developed acreage was estimated to be 0.25 acres. Also, there is an additional 0. 25 acres at the corner of Plaza and Eagle Road fronting McDonalds. 0. 40 57. 20 1. 30 0. 48 Total Acreage 85. 65 Holladay Engineering Company 1WuhWUAWIIiI, 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 11. 11010011. 01000011. 1 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS At the adopted level of service of 3. 3 acres per 1, 000 population, the required developed park area adjusted to Eagle' s December, 2016, population of 25, 510 is 84. 18 acres. This places the City in a surplus position with respect to the adopted level of service by 1. 47 acres. Figure 5 Park Inventory History History of Park Inventory Report Hofman Study First Amendment Second Amendment Third Amendment Developed Year Park acres) 1999 2004 2011 2017 4. 08 17. 08 77. 33 85. 65 Park Need acres) 35. 06 50. 42 66. 59 84. 18 Surplus or Deficiency) acres) 30. 98) 33. 34) 10. 74 1. 47 The City owns 6. 2 acres of undeveloped land ( previous Velodrome site) within the Eagle Sports Park Complex, 3. 2 acres of undeveloped land in the Mace Ranch Subdivision on Eagle Road, and 9. 6 acres in the floodway along the river west of Merrill park. Park Development to Maintain Level of Service By 2026, the City will need a minimum of 130. 73 acres of developed parks to serve a population of 39,616 at the level of service of 3. 3 acres per 1, 000 population. The expected growth of 14, 106 new residents over the next 10 years will require 46. 55 additional park acres to maintain the level of service. However, with the City currently having 1. 47 acres of surplus, the total required amount to maintain the level of service in 2026 will be 45. 08 acres. Value of Developed Parks The costs per acre for development of parks presented in the 2011 update were used in the 2017 update adjusted to 2016 values. The previous park definitions in the 2011 update were maintained, but supplemented with the addition of two new park definitions to include non - irrigated foothill park development and nature park areas. The improvement costs per acre for each park definition is presented in Table 6. Holladay Engineering Company i M411J, 4 Th• 47411114 44, 1114414, 064161001. 0 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Figure 6 Park Development Costs Notes: 1) Includes costs for potential restroom and parking area improvement per each 10 acre increment at river access points. W141, 11, 14WJ4WW41 W4W1 W. 1HIJN Park Description by Cost Foothills Park Development Nature Park Development ( 1) Lower Cost Development Moderate Cost Development Higher Cost Development Special Use Amenities Development Cost/ Acre 10, 000 16, 000 115, 000 126, 250 173, 750 312, 500 To arrive at an average cost per acre of developed parks, land values were divided into three categories. Existing park land was valued at $ 125,000 per acre, irrigated land for future parks was valued at $ 50, 000 per acre ( consistent with the 2011 Update) and non -irrigated or floodway land was valued at $ 7, 500 per acre. Land values of existing parks also vary according to the predicted likelihood of flooding based on maps produced by FEMA. Estimated costs for various park facilities are applied to land values across the spectrum of locations to arrive at a weighted average cost value. Combining land and amenities, the average cost per acre for developed parks is $ 123, 801. 52. Using this average cost, the value of the current 85. 65 acre developed park system is 10, 603, 600. The value per acre is less than the value of $ 179, 580 per acre established in the 2011 Update due in part to the development of Targe non -irrigated foothill bike parks and facilities which are less expensive to construct than a comparable acreage of irrigated parks with playground equipment and other amenities. This resulted in a decrease in the overall value per acre of developed parks. As new developed acres are added to the inventory at the rate necessary to maintain the level of service, it is recommended the impact fee analysis be reviewed annually. This will permit the impact fee to reflect any significant swings in park land value and development cost. Figure 7 Park Summary 4. v. \ . tib\ I \ . . \ 0\ . \ cw ° Zi:. ? . . c\ " vo\\, a \ w a a. Summary of Park Values for Current Level of Service Park Level of Service Current Value of Parks Value per Capita Value per Residential Unit 11 3. 3 Acres per 1, 000 Population 10, 603, 600 415. 66 1, 172. 17 Holladay Engineering Companyoilry ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS 2017 — 2026 Capital Improvement Plan 7•.ull.i.nllirl ill: fyGu: Pii.G1"iPiZ.Ziana$iwiXgexrii+4i In keeping with the goals and objectives of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan and the Development Impact Fee Ordinance, the City is working with land owners to acquire additional park land. Planned but as yet undeveloped park acreages have been identified in several areas of the City. For river access parks, planned improvements consist of a restroom facility and paved parking with some minor trail work in keeping with the natural setting. These will eventually be located at all river access points. Identified on the attached map. A river wildlife area identified below is that portion of the floodway Tying east of Eagle Road adjacent to Merrill Park on the North Channel of the Boise River. The proposed Lakemoor and Gateway South parks are identified park acreages within larger development tracts that have received preliminary plat approval. At the present time this land remains in private ownership and actual developed acreage remains undetermined. Sites for the Western Park and the Sport/ Ballfield Complex have yet to be determined. At least one larger park will be located west of Linder to better serve residents in the western area. Guerber Park will be expanded to the east to include a grass seating area for sports events and to provide better drainage and accommodation of runoff water. ITTRE 12 Holladay Engineering Company ' i. ' • r / . r. r • u u/i//u u//yl%y//%iH//u. 4. ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Figure 8 Capital Improvement Plan Park Area Description Riverside Wildlife Park Lakemoor Park ( TBD) Gateway South Park ( TBD) ( 1) Western Community Park TBD) Mace Park East Plaza Drive ( Extension) Park Sport/ Ballfield Complex ( TBD) Eagle Sports Park undeveloped) River Access Park ( Linder Rd.) River Access Park ( Edgewood) Guerber Park Expansion Park - Pathway Maintenance Facility Impact Fee Study Update 2017 - 2026 Capita 1/ YH/•Y/HH/ ur/ i%N' r/i . Acres Land Value Improvement Value 9. 6 City Owned 6. 0 $ 45, 000 12. 0 $ 90, 000 15. 0 $ 750, 000 3. 2 City Owned 0. 5 $ 25, 000 30. 0 $ 1, 500, 000 6. 2 City Owned 1. 0 $ 7, 500 1. 0 $ 7, 500 2. 5 City Owned 2. 0 City Owned 153, 600 690, 000 1, 380, 000 2, 606, 300 51, 200 48, 000 3, 450, 000 62, 000 16, 000 16, 000 287, 500 400, 000 Total CIP Value 153, 600 735, 000 1, 470, 000 Growth Related Portion 100% 100% 100% 3, 356, 300 100% 48, 000 100% 73, 000 100% 4, 950, 000 100% 62, 000 100% 23, 500 23, 500 287, 500 100% 100% 100% 400, 000 35. 6% 15, 000 100% Total Amount of CIP Improvements 11, 600,600 1) Water surface area of aesthetic amenity ponds has not been included in development cost. Holladay Engineering Company 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- I S: L alp Lil.„ kuagh.." 5 611111Te( ii MND rrTi:: R: iy•+ jI 4 City Of Eagle Parks Plan Yap Draft 1500 SECTION CORNERS RIVER ACCESS PARK CONCEPT LEVEL - VICINITY OF PLANNED PARK EA1' CITY OWNED PROPERTY SPO PARR COMPLEX WanMAIM _ nom 11. 2r r 1 rv 6 , Std VER rx CITY OE MERff Tan ilLHOLADAY ENGINERING CO. o« su r o. vwi. 0 sa..: un r which nation Hoiladoy Enq neerinq tcmpany Gu4fin. tr TEE the ob. ence of ocs information furnished to them ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE a nl i uiati AMli,..,iul( g44.6,44444R`N. v. 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Park Impact Fee Park impact fee calculation is summarized in Figure 9. Figure 9 Park Impact Fee Population ( 2026) Population ( 2016) Population Increase ( 2017- 2026) New Acres Needed to Maintain Level of Service Park Cost per Acre Value of future Parks to Maintain Level of Service Credit for 1. 47 Acre Surplus New Park Costs, Net of Credit Impact Fee per Capita Impact Fee per Residential Unit 15 39, 616 25, 510 14, 106 46. 55 123, 801. 52 5, 762, 961 181, 988 5, 580, 973 395. 65 1, 115. 72 Holladay Engineering Company ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Section 3: Pathways 4HON, 14, 0r/H/OUr/l. rrH///NUr// Hi07,0//H/iONy/// rNra/ rH//iar74 The foundation study for establishing pathway impact fees, the Hofman Study, evolved from community discussions calling for a citywide pathway system along the Boise River greenbelt that would complement a regional greenbelt pathway system. Numerous updates to the Comprehensive Plan, the 2011 Eagle Parks and Pathways Survey, and focus groups with a citizen survey developed for the draft 2015 CPMP have consistently ranked pathways and access to the greenbelt at the top of a list of desired City amenities. 13 More than 90% of respondents reported some pathway use and use of the Boise River greenbelt ranked number one in terms of park and path visitation. The Pathway Facilities portion of the Hofman Study was guided by an October 14, 1997, Pathway Plan map containing information that misguided the calculation of pathway impact fees. It identified portions of pathway corridors that lay within the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department, Ada County Highway District, Garden City, the Idaho Department of Lands, and the Farmer' s Union Canal Company. Pathway impact fee projections were presented that included proposed improvements outside the jurisdiction of the City. The proposed level of service at 4, 670 linear feet per 1, 000 population would have resulted in the City beginning its impact fee process with a million dollar pathway deficit. These report conclusions produced significant public controversy and testimony before the City Council. After several revisions to the study report were advanced and rejected, the City elected not to adopt an impact fee for pathways. A corrected map was prepared in 2016 based on recognized easements and rights of way controlled and maintained by the City. Trail segments in corridors within the state or county jurisdictions have been removed. Trails along canal banks owned by Farmer' s Union Canal Company were withdrawn due to Farmer' s Union policies based on functional and liability concerns for the public. Trails currently owned and maintained by the City were highlighted to create an accurate basis for reassessing a pathway level of service. Finally, certain areas of the October, 1997 map that projected greenbelt trails through state lands or in areas that cannot be realistically improved due to current subdivision encroachment or environmental concerns have been modified to reflect those realities. The result is a revised Corrected Pathway Plan map of City owned and maintained paths demonstrating the historic emphasis on greenbelt pathways. An inventory of all identifiable sections of pathways was conducted incorporating plat information and photographic evidence from Google Earth. 14 Pathway construction and materials were verified with City staff. Proposed pathway connections and bridges linking existing paths were added to the inventory to provide a basis for a Pathway Capital Improvement Plan. Existing and proposed rights- of-way were estimated to develop a basis for property acquisition costs. Concept level bridge estimates were prepared from approximate distances utilizing Google Earth and Ada County map data. 15 This information is identified on the pathway map as existing and planned improvements. 13 lipid, Draft CPMP, 2015 14 Inventory of Existing and Proposed Pathways, Appendix 15 Source: Google Earth Pro, 2016 Holladay Engineering Company L" K; . fErAa, ` a is fr./ a gNtata sY 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- r f- 6611_ 08. 12: 116 r ii Or I Yaw 111 114.. INN 110 alit Ua ri IllIl . fir F A t Klight isb arlii, is II Fit it 1ir 414.' tRin'` z Z C:y 4 2 L t i 11111111640, 41tit L - IN lia. a imaii mow iii,_ raqiffi. Oa N Ht.° dt' City Of Eagle Corected Pathway P! an vtap Draft 10 FOOT ASPHALT PATH, EXISTING 10 FOOT ASPHALT PATH, PLANNED • • 10 FOOT CONCRETE PATH, EXISTING 10 FOOT CONCRETE PATH, PLANNED • • 8 FOOT COMPACT GRAVEL PATH, EXISTING II FOOT COMPACT GRAVEL PATH, PLANNED • • It FOOT IMPROVED TRAIL EXISTING II FOOT IMPROVED TRAIL, PLANNED NATIVE MATERIAL NATURE TRAIL, EXISTING NATIVE MATERIAL NATURE TRAIL, PLANNED• PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, EXISTING t• PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, PLANNED MEI RIVER ACCESS PARKING J J SECTION CORNERS qT te e.e. . f f1 II•' f; a W J ry m" 11. Ny!+ ' may; 4 11111- 91. 11. s" t 4. N _ r vimir/ r i fry i r° jt11a i1 r Hann r r' , r M US HAY ? 40- 26 CITY OF MERIDIAN HOLADAY ENGINERING CO. xe. r GK • rl rr Mr W; • u lr4.°( Ma,] MY• YI• NI• rw nr sn Th. Pathway Flan Map corre: ts lunsd ct found In the Fothrey Plon Map adapted mNuded m the iity of Eoqle. Developmei Study / Cst: ir Improvements Plon by H 4sucwtes apGroved by the City m 1999 roues 1997 Th+ s map represents a compilation of public intarmatun Iron diverse records gathered by the City o4 Eagle and Holaday Engneorinq Company The purpose for which th+ s map , s pr pared is on overail yen. ral represM, talron of positional relationsh. ps- and not a defnihve Woun ieEaor. nlad sorosf coabnjeDe oar rG' a up7esd. He nce, CeNNeCsOtT aDOeNH4atANy E meo• anmore or the corections ci dl furnished to them fur the preparotwr. at this map ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS im. n. i. wu iu - dadd/hl// 4H/Hd'i/d/dh%di/ddiNiiyiidididii/ iriiui/, i. This pathway system is generally distributed along designated Greenbelts along the Boise River and Dry Creek. Greenbelt pathways have been identified by location and type to facilitate evaluation of function, capacity, and condition. Several non -greenbelt pathway segments have been accepted by the City. These segments are also identified on the referenced map. Figure 10 Current Greenbelt Notes: 1) See Figure 11 for Pathway Type description. Boise River Location Pathway Type' 1) Linear Feet South Channel, South Side 10 3, 700 South Channel, South Side 2 5, 200 South Channel, South Side 4 1, 600 South Channel, North Side 3 350 South Channel, North Side 4 6, 300 North Channel, South Side 1 8, 450 North Channel, South Side 2 5, 850 North Channel, North Side 1 16, 500 North Channel, North Side 10 2, 000 North Channel, North Side 3 7, 150 Dry Creek South Side 1 2, 300 South Side 2 6, 000 Sub -Total Greenbelt Pathways 65, 400 Other, Non -Greenbelt Pathways 1 3, 140 Total Pathways 68, 540 The current pathway system includes seven pedestrian bridges to Zink pathway segments. As bridges are integral to a riparian pathway system, they are identified by separate segment numbers and are included in the valuation of the overall greenbelt pathway system. Holladay Engineering Company 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Developed Pathways II.., I. i71iWI41 I: 1941WIMX 44 The City' s pathway system is made up of five types of pathways constructed primarily along greenbelt routes bordering the Boise River and Dry Creek. The five types are defined by surfacing materials, pathway width, and designated uses. Highly utilized sections are surfaced with asphalt pavement or concrete befitting their traffic volumes and urban environment. Greenbelt sections in the areas of low use reflect low impact materials or the simple clearing of the greenbelt pathway or trail varying between 4 and 8 feet in width to conform to permit requirements of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Frequently these low volume pathways meander with undulating slopes conforming to natural riverbank contours. The current variety and relative scale of components of the pathway system is illustrated in the inventory summary below. Figure 11 Pathway Inventory Summary by Type Width, Linear Percent FT Feet of Total Type 1 Paved, Asphalt 10 28, 990 42% Type 10 Paved, Concrete 10 7, 100 10% Type 2 Gravel or Aggregate Surface 8 17, 050 25% Type 3 Soil — Aggregate Mix 8 7, 500 11% Type 4 Native Riparian Soils 4 7, 900 12% 01401011040* Total Pathways x? 68, 540 fif Construction standards have been applied by the City for Type 1, Type 10, and Type 2 improved pathways. Type 3 and Type 4 unsurfaced pathways utilize native materials including gravel, chips, or bark and minimal constructed improvements to retain the natural feel of the riparian ecosystem. Negotiated easements, neighborhood agreements, agency permits, soil types, intended uses, and user volume define the placement and types of pathways utilized by the City. Value of Developed Pathways Total pathway value is derived from an assessment of land value and from estimates based on construction methods and materials. Land was valued in broad terms based on its location with respect to flood designation maps by FEMA. Land within the floodway was valued at a lessor amount per acre than land in the 100 -year flood plain, 500 -year flood plain, or land outside a designated flood boundary, respectively. Construction values reflecting 2016 costs as Public Works projects are applied to the various pathway material types and quantities. 16 Pathway bridge costs gathered from the City' s seven existing pathway bridges are used to arrive at a unit 16 Recent pathway capital costs were favorably comparable to values from RS Means Construction Cost Index, 2016. Holladay Engineering Company 1; iy;: qui 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS 111. 11a... 4110141, NNN/, 917HH!/ HNW/! liNiNiN/ WOO. price per square foot for new bridges planned for four new crossings. The overall value of the current pathway system complete with bridges is $ 4, 109, 114, or $ 59. 95 per linear foot. Applying another unit of measure, the pathway system is valued at $454. 24 per residential unit. Figure 12 Pathway Summary Summary of Pathway Values for Current Level of Service Pathway Level of Service Current Value of Pathways Value per Capita Value per Residential Unit Pathway System Growth to Maintain Level of Service 2, 700 LF per 1, 000 Population 4, 109, 114 161. 08 454. 24 To maintain the pathway system level of service for the next ten year increment of growth, the City will want to develop an additional 38, 086 linear feet of greenbelt pathways. This will allow the City to fill in gaps in the greenbelt system, add additional bridges for interconnectivity, and add new pathways of all types in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and desires of residents as evidenced by community surveys conducted by the Parks and Pathway Committee and by consultants. Expansion of the pathway system is guided by the adoption of the Corrected Pathway Plan map featuring greenbelt improvements along the Boise River and Dry Creek. Funding sources were considered in the cost and local match components of the estimate. Maintenance and improvement to the existing pathway system are ineligible for funding from impact fees. Pathways not identified on the Corrected Pathway Plan map and identified in the Capital Improvement Plan are also ineligible for development through impact fees. Developer contributions, including right- of- way and construction cost, to the pathway system are only eligible for reimbursements or credits if the pathway is one identified on the Corrected Pathway Plan map or Capital Improvement Plan. Holladay Engineering Company i. i. isa:. uJAIALL. wthJaii. i, u11., i1tiAWU: IJllIb, AYJ1J! Jli; 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Figure 13 Capital Improvement N/yh5. 2' iWlul1/.H////// 2017 — 2026 Capital Improvement an Pathway and Bridge Description Eagle Island State Park to Water' s Edge Boundary Pathway Growth CIP Value Related Type Portion 4 $ 38, 600 100% Eagle Road to New South Channel 10 $ 4, 400 100% Bridge New South Channel Bridge to Banbury 10 $ 290,400 100% No. 1 W. Moon Valley Road to HCR 1 $ 100, 700 100% Subdivision Bel Aire Subdivision 1 $ 50, 100 100% Fischer Park to Ballantyne Road 1 $ 240, 300 100% Linder Road to Eagle Island 1 $ 132, 300 100% Eagle Island to Mace Pathway 1 $ 118, 100 100% Island Woods Sub. to east Eagle 2 $ 75, 600 100% Island State Street to Dry Creek Canal 1 $ 146, 400 100% Dry Creek — Highway 44 to State 1 $ 25, 800 100% Street Edgewood Road to Farmer' s Union 3 $ 24, 400 100% Canal Farmer' s Union Canal to Beacon Light 3 $ 20, 700 100% Road Eagle Road Pedestrian Bridge, North 200 FT $ 1, 020, 600 100% Channel Dry Creek Pedestrian Bridge, North 200 FT $ 1, 020, 600 100% Channel Dry Creek Pedestrian Bridge to Clear 40 FT $ 100, 000 100% Creek Sub. Eagle Road Pedestrian Bridge, South 140 FT $ 714, 400 100% Channel Impact Fee Update $ 10, 000 100% Total Amount of CIP Improvements $ 4, 133, 400 Funding from non -City Sources $ 2, 480, 000 Amount from Impact Fees $ 1, 653, 400 Holladay Engineering Company 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Pyi// iq//i/N//uiH/ rc' i p gYiiHywiyi viii Hii/. uia H,ii, The pathway system is accessible to the public: existing and new residents. New construction is not to increase the level of service to existing residents, but to maintain the level of service available to current residents as the population increases. By adopting a pathway level of service of 2, 700 linear feet per 1, 000 population for greenbelt development, which reflects the level of service currently enjoyed by residents of the City, there is no deficit correcting contribution required of the general fund. Pathway impact fees are shown in Figure 14. Figure 14 Pathway Impact Fees Pathway Impact Fees 2017- 2026 Population Increase 2017- 2026 Residential Units Pathway Needed to Maintain Level of Service( 2700 x 14, 106/ 1000) Value of New Pathway from CIP Funding from non -City Sources Impact Fee Portion of Estimated Costs 14, 106 Population 5, 002 38, 086 Linear Feet 4, 133, 400 2, 480, 000 1, 653, 400 Pathway Impact Fee per Capita $ 117. 20 Pathway Impact Fee per Residential Unit $ 330. 50 22 Holladay Engineering Company ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Section 4: Funding and Implementation iuz» z xsa zzciva orimuoi There are various sources that may be used to fund parks and pathways in addition to impact fees. Often the successful financing of a complex project requires combining several sources. Projects requiring multiple years or phases to complete may draw from grant or partnership opportunities that have constraints for timing or qualifying criteria. A funding strategy that emphasizes the diligent pursuit all options is vital for achieving success. Funding Sources General Fund: Use of the general fund provides the most flexibility for municipal park and pathway projects, but this fund is used to operate all other general functions of a city. In the instance of a level of service deficit, this fund will be used to correct the deficiency. General Obligation Bonds: This source borrows money for public facilities that is repaid through funds generated through increased taxes. Bond approval requires a vote from the citizens and passage by two thirds of the voters. Normally, General Obligation Bonds are used to fund larger projects due to the effort required to prepare and present a project sufficient to gain voter approval. Revenue Bonds: These bonds depend upon repayment from cash flow generated by the facility being constructed. This funding requires voter approval. Grants: Grants are available from a variety of sources, both public and private. All grants have qualifying criteria that must be met and most applications are competing with other municipal applicants. For most grants from public agencies there are calendar cycles for making applications. When competing for grants, success is determined by the quality of the application and the project' s ability to achieve the purpose and objectives of the granting agency. Public Private Partnerships: Developing a Public Private Partnership requires an agreement signed by all parties to address purpose, financial obligations, and other contractual matters required to fund and operate a facility. Performance under this framework is often guaranteed by a construction bond to protect the public funding element. Public or Private Donations: Donations to the City's general fund may be used for any park or recreation improvement. Donations that are not a requirement to offset a level of service standard may be earmarked by the City in accordance with the request of the donor. These funds pass through the general fund to be used in the manner identified by the donor or at the discretion of the City. Donations made for improvements necessitated by growth to maintain the level of service go into the impact fee fund and can be used only for capital projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. The donor is entitled to a dollar for dollar reduction in impact fees. Documentation of the transaction is identified as a credit or reimbursement to the donor. Donations in excess of the donor' s obligations under the impact fee requirements are credited as general fund donations. 23 Holladay Engineering Company• u% o; ww i41. 1, 47,644""" 4; iswiibiririihirib». 90. 10., ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS Implementation iyNW/!! SO9V17// i/y/n iiH/i ii// i. Continued success in funding the development of the parks and pathway system through impact fees requires a commitment by City leadership to implement those elements of the study required by the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. Within that framework, the City may adopt or modify the recommendations of this Update to reflect its selected capital projects or sequence for implementation adopted by the City Council. Corrected Pathway Plan Map: Since the Hofman Study was predicated on an incorrect map, a first step to open the discussion of pathways is the adoption of a corrected map with accurate representations of current pathways and pathway types. Advisory Committee: The City shall appoint a development impact fee Advisory Committee to assist in review of land use assumptions, review the parks and pathway capital improvement plans, and monitor and evaluate implementation. 17 The Committee shall make recommendations for consideration by the City Council and should periodically report progress on the implementation of the capital improvement plan. Impact Fee Ordinance: Currently Eagle City Code, Title 7, Chapter 6, Development Impact Fee, prohibits the collection of impact fees for pathways. Acting on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, the Council will consider adoption of the initial or amended park and pathway capital improvement plans. Ordinance 358 may be amended and adopted pursuant to Idaho Code1s, to incorporate the 2017 Update and Amendments to the Development Impact Fee Study by reference, including: a pathway level of service, a pathway Capital Improvement Plan, an updated parks Capital Improvement Plan, and additional language updates as recommended by legal counsel. Impact Fee Accounting: Tracking collections, expenditures, and improvements by the City should continue in the manner prescribed by Idaho Code19 and ECC 7- 6- 8. This process should be reviewed periodically by the Advisory Committee and projects may be adjusted according to both impact fees and other funds made available for parks and pathway projects. Particular attention should be given to the expenditure of impact fees within eight ( 8) years on a first -in, first out basis to prevent the refund of unexpended fees. 17 Idaho Code § 67- 8205 18 Idaho Code § 67- 8206 19 Idaho Code § 67- 8210 24 Holladay Engineering Company 110 4 r , XG 1Lad NH/// I//HNi/!// N//G ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EAGLE — IMPACT FEE 2017 UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS A Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation: Parks and pathways are typically not revenue generating sources. Funding for capital improvements may be used to create infrastructure and amenities, but large amounts of operation and maintenance costs are incurred to operate these systems. Operation and maintenance costs are not eligible for funding from impact fees. The City should establish a financial plan that includes all costs of development and operation. An element of the financial plan should be setting the policy of developer credits and reimbursements. Following ECC 7- 6- 7, General Methodology for Calculation, developers and the City have the ground rules for assessing the value of donations and in- kind work to determine the proportional share of fees allocated for a capital project or from a specific development. A written policy addressing credits, donations, dedication of land and construction of improvements could assist both parties in planning for costs and budgets. 2017 Update Impact Fee Summary Impact fees, calculated in the manner prescribed by Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, and recommended to the City are summarized in Figure 15. Figure 15 Summary Source Park Impact Fee Pathway Impact Fee Park & Pathway Impact Fee Total 25 per Residential Unit 1, 115. 72 330. 50 1, 446. 22 Holladay Engineering Company