The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-07-30 - Agendas - Final FAYETTEVItLE THE CRY OF FAVETTEVRLE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 30, 2002 A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Council will be held on July 30, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 1 . WATER SERVICE AREA : A resolution to modify the existing exclusive water service area line between Fayetteville and Springdale to transfer approximately 340 acres in the City of Johnson into Springdale's service area. The item was tabled at the July 16, 2002 meeting. 2. IMPACT FEE STUDY : Duncan Associates presentation of the Final Impact Fee Study: Wastewater, Water, and Roads, including update of the existing Parkland Dedication and Fee-in- Lieu requirements. 117 WEST MOUHTALN 72701 473621-7700 FAX 473676-M7 r Gai Dumas ,- Revisedost Estimates Page 1 From: Carole Jones <cjones@mcclelland-engrs.com> To: Gary Dumas <gdumas@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> Date: 8/14/02 11 : 19AM Subject: Revised Cost Estimates Gary: Please find attached the revised cost estimates. Please note that the TOTAL for the No Impact Option was WRONG on the other estimate that I gave you before. I am very sorry about this! The formula in the cell was incorrect 8 I caught it today when I checked it by hand. I thought I had checked it by hand before, but I guess I missed it. Unfortunately, the cost for the No Impact Option is LESS than what we gave the council before. Again, I am very sorry about this. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. If these look like what you're after, please notify me by phone or e-mail 8 I will bring hard copies to you. Thank you, Carole MCE CC: Joe Tarvin <jtarvin@mcclelland-engrs.com>, Johnny Quinn <j q u i n n@ m cc I e l l a n d-e n g rs.co m> e PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE WILSON SPRING BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK No Impact Option FY022108 August 14, 2002 Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended General: Mobilization 1 LS $5.000.00 $5.000.00 Trenching and Safety 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 Erosion Control 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $3,500.00 $3.500.00 Subtotal $109,000.00 Street Construction: 33' Collector Street 3040 LF $291 .00 $884.640.00 25' Local Street 3440 LF $243.00 $835.920.00 24' CMP 840 LF $31 .00 $26,040.00 Headwalls 14 EA $1 ,000.00 $14,000.00 Street Lighting 22 EA $2,500.00 $55.000.00 Electrical Service 1 LS $4.000.00 $4,000.00 Street Striping - 4' white edges 12960 LF $3.50 $45,360.00 Signage 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Retaining Wall 1 LS $84,000.00 $84.000.00 Boulevard Entrance off Shiloh 200 LF $400.00 $80,000.00 Subtotal $2,031 ,460.00 Sidewalks: Compacted Hillside/ Embankment 500 CY $15.00 $7,500.00 Concrete Sidewalk ( 10' x 6') 6400 LF $30.50 $195,200.00 Earthwork for Swale Crossings 9 EA $1 ,500.00 $13.500.00 240 CMP 360 LF - $31 .00 $11 , 160.00 Subtotal $227,360.00 Sewer: $1 , 163,200.00 Water: $708,000.00 Total $4,239,020.00 Contingency (20%) $847,804.00 Construction Cost $5,086,824.00 Mitigation Cost $0.00 Total Project Cost $5,0869824.00 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE WILSON SPRING BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK 0.5-Acre Impact Option CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE FY022108 August 14, 2002 Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended General: Mobilization 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Trenching and Safety 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 Erosion Control 1 LS $100,000.00 $100.000.00 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Subtotal $110,500.00 Street Construction: 33' Collector Street 5360 LF $291 .00 $1 ,559,760.00 25' Local Street 6080 LF $243.00 $1 ,477,440.00 24• CMP 1860 LF $31 .00 $57,660.00 Headwalls 31 EA $1 ,000.00 $31 ,000.00 Street Lighting 39 EA $2,500.00 $97,500.00 Electrical Service 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Street Striping - 4- white edges 22880 LF $3.50 $80,080.00 Signage 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Retaining Wall 1 LS $84,000.00 $84,000.00 Boulevard Entrance off Shiloh 200 LF $400.00 $80,000.00 Subtotal $3,477,440.00 Bridges: 100' Clear Span - 13' wide with 8* sidewalk on one side 2100 SF $70.00 $147,000.00 50' Clear Span - 33' wide with 8' sidewalk on one side 2050 SF $85.00 $174,250.00 Subtotal $321 ,250.00 Sidewalks: Compacted Hillside/ Embankment 700 CY $15.00 $10,500.00 Concrete Sidewalk (10' x 6-) 11200 LF $30.50 $341 ,600.00 Earthwork for Swale Crossings 12 EA $1 ,500.00 $18,000.00 18' CMP 120 LF $25.00 $3,000.00 24' CMP 440 LF $31 .00 $134640.00 Subtotal $386,740.00 Sewer: $1 ,153,000.00 Water: $19224,000.00 Total $6,672,930.00 Contingency (20%) $1 ,334,586.00 Construction Cast $8,007,516.00 Mitigation Cost Est. $6,250.00 to $12,500.00 Total Project Cost $8,013,766.00 to $8,020,016.00 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE WILSON SPRING BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK 17-Acre Impact Option CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE FY022108 August 14, 2002 Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended General: Mobilization 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Trenching and Safety 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 Erosion Control 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $5.000.00 $5,000.00 Subtotal $110.500.00 Street Construction: 33' Collector Street 4960 LF $291 .00 $1 ,443,360.00 25' Local Street 6520 LF $243.00 $1 ,564,360.00 24• CMP 1860 LF $31 .00 $57,660.00 Headwalls 31 EA $1 ,000.00 531 ,000.00 Street Lighting 39 EA $2.500.00 $97,500.00 Electrical Service 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Street Striping - V white edges 22960 LF $3.50 $80.360.00 Signage 1 LS $5.000.00 $5,000.00 Retaining Wall 1 LS $84,000.00 $84.000.00 Boulevard Entrance off Shiloh 200 LF $400.00 $80,000.00 Subtotal $3,468,240.00 Bridges: 100' Gear Span - 13' wide with 8' sidewalk on one side 2100 SF $70.00 $147,000.00 50' Clear Span - 33' wide with 8' sidewalk on one side 2050 SF $85.00 $174,250.00 Subtotal $321 .250M Sidewalks: Compacted Hillside/ Embankment 700 CY $15.00 $10,500.00 Concrete Sidewalk (10' x 6') 11200 LF $30.50 $341 ,600.00 Earthwork for Swale Crossings 12 EA $1 ,500.00 $18,000.00 18' CMP 120 LF $25.00 $3,000.00 24• CMP 440 LF $31 .00 $13,640.00 Subtotal $386,740.00 Sewer: $1 , 153,000.00 Water: $1 ,224,000.00 Total $6,663,730.00 Contingency (20%) $1 ,332,746.00 Construction Cost $7,996,476.00 Mitigation Cost Est. $212,500.00 to $425,000.00 Total Project Cost $8,208,976.00 to $8,421 ,476.00 August 7, 2002 Job No. FY022108 Mr. Gary Dumas City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 FOR: Engineering Services Not To Exceed $128,168.00 Preliminary Plat & Infrastructure Design Wilson Spring Business Technology Park Description Estimated to Be Fee Fee Billed to Date 1. Team Planning and Coordination Meetings: $6,876.00 Project Director 7.00 Hours @ $104.00 fHR $728.00 Principal Engineer 15.50 Hours @ $96.00 tHR r $1 ,488.00 Project Engineer 15.50 Hours @ $58.00 /HR $899.00 Lunch for Team Meeting $62.17 $3,177.17 2. Preparation for and Prasarrtadons at Public Meetings: 510161.00 Project Director 2.50 Hours @ $104.00 fHR $260.00 Principal Engineer 08.25 Hours @ $96.00 IHR $8,472.00 Project Engineer 167.50 Hours @ $58.00 /HR $9,715.00 Computer Technician 12.75 Hours @ 553.00 fHR $675.75 CADD Technician II 0.50 Hours @ $47.00 MR 523.50 CADD Technician 1 74.00 Hours @ 530.00 /HR $2,220.00 Miscellaneous Expenses $22.22 $21 ,388.47 3. Held trip to Observe a Similar Prrsarved Wetlands PrW"t• $1,380.00 Principal Engineer 8.00 Hours @ $96.00 1HR $768.00 Project Engineer 8.00 Hours @ 558.00 IHR $464.00 Lunch $67.12 Toll Charges to Tulsa $4.50 Mileage 200.00 Miles @ $0.34 /Mile $68.00 $1 ,371 .62 Total $25,937.26 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 1-540 BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK No Impact Option FY022108 14-May-02 Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended General: Mobilization 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Trenching and Safety 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 Erosion Control 1 LS $1002000.00 $100,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Subtotal $109,000.00 Street Construction: 33' Collector Street 3040 LF $291 .00 $8849640.00 25' Local Street 3440 LF $243.00 $8350920.00 24" CMP 840 LF $31 .00 $26,040.00 Headwalls 14 EA $1 ,000.00 $14,000.00 Street Lighting 22 EA $2,500.00 $55,000.00 Electrical Service 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Street Striping - 4" white edges 12960 LF $3.50 $45,360.00 Signage 1 LS $2,500.00 $29500.00 Retaining Wall 1 LS $84,000.00 $84,000.00 Boulevard Entrance off Shiloh 200 LF $400.00 $80,000.00 Subtotal $2,031 ,460.00 Sidewalks: Compacted Hillside/ Embankment 500 CY $15.00 $7,500.00 Concrete Sidewalk (10' x 6") 6400 LF $30.50 $1959200.00 Earthwork for Swale Crossings 9 EA $11500.00 $13,500.00 24" CMP 360 LF $31 .00 $116160.00 Subtotal $227,360.00 Sewer: $ 1 , 163,200.00 Water: $708,000.00 Total $4,965,940.00 Contingency (20%) $993, 188.00 Total $5 , 959, 128.00 =r PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE t 1-540 BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK 0.5-Acre Impact Option CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE FY022108 14-May-02 Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended General: Mobilization 1 LS $5,000.00 $58000.00 Trenching and Safety 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 Erosion Control 1 LS $100,000.00 $1008000.00 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $5,000.00 $50000.00 Subtotal $110,500.00 Street Construction: 33' Collector Street 5360 LF $291 .00 $1 ,559,760.00 25' Local Street 6080 LF $243.00 $1 ,477,440.00 24" CMP 1860 LF $31 .00 $57,660.00 Headwalls 31 EA $10000.00 $31 ,000.00 Street Lighting 39 EA $2,500.00 $97,500.00 Electrical Service 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Street Striping - 4" white edges 22880 LF $3.50 $801080.00 Signage 1 LS $5,000.00 $51000.00 Retaining Wall 1 LS $84,000.00 $84,000.00 Boulevard Entrance off Shiloh 200 LF $400.00 $80,000.00 Subtotal $3,4770440.00 Bridges: 100' Clear Span - 13' wide with 8' sidewalk on one side 2100 SF $70.00 $1478000.00 50' Clear Span - 33' wide with 8' sidewalk on one side 2050 SF $85.00 $174,250.00 Subtotal $321 ,250.00 Sidewalks: Compacted Hillside/ Embankment 700 CY $15.00 $103500.00 Concrete Sidewalk (10' x 6") 11200 LF $30.50 $3418600.00 Earthwork for Swale Crossings 12 EA $10500.00 $186000.00 18" CMP 120 LF $25.00 $3,000.00 24" CMP 440 LF $31 .00 $13,640.00 Subtotal $3861740.00 Sewer: $19153,000.00 Water. $1 ,2240000.00 Total $6,672,930.00 Contingency (20%) $ 19334,586.00 Total $8 . 007. 516. 00 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 1-540 BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK 17-Acre Impact Option CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE FY022108 14-May-02 Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended General: Mobilization 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Trenching and Safety 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 Erosion Control 1 LS $1008000.00 $1006000.00 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $50000.00 $51000.00 Subtotal $1100500.00 Street Construction: 33' Collector Street 4960 LF $291 .00 $1 ,443,360.00 25' Local Street 6520 LF $243.00 $10584,360.00 24" CMP 1860 LF $31 .00 $57,660.00 Headwalls 31 EA $18000.00 $31 ,000.00 Street Lighting 39 EA $2,500.00 $97,500.00 Electrical Service 1 LS $51000.00 $58000.00 Street Striping - 4" white edges 22960 LF $3.50 $800360.00 Signage 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Retaining Wall 1 LS $84,000.00 $840000.00 Boulevard Entrance off Shiloh 200 LF $400.00 $80,000.00 Subtotal $3,468,240.00 Bridges: 100' Clear Span - 13' wide with 8' sidewalk on one side 2100 SF $70.00 $147,000.00 50' Clear Span - 33' wide with 8' sidewalk on one side 2050 SF $85.00 $174,250.00 Subtotal $321 ,250.00 Sidewalks: Compacted Hillside/ Embankment 700 CY $15.00 $10,500.00 Concrete Sidewalk (10' x 6") 11200 LF $30.50 $341 ,600.00 Earthwork for Swale Crossings 12 EA $1 ,500.00 $181000.00 18" CMP 120 LF $25.00 $3,000.00 24" CMP 440 LF $31 .00 $13,640.00 Subtotal $386,740.00 Sewer: $1 , 153,000.00 Water: $ 1 ,224,000.00 Total $6,6639730.00 Contingency (20%) $1 ,332,746.00 TntaI $7 . 996 . 476 . 00 f • f FAYETT ILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS TO: Mayor Dan Coody Fayetteville City Council Press FROM : Hugh Earnest, Urban Development Director Tim Conklin, City Planner, AICP DATE: July 22, 2002 SUBJECT: Special City Council Meeting — Final Impact Fee Study Presentation Special City Council Meeting Duncan Associates Presentation of the Final Impact Fee Study : Wastewater, Water, and Roads Including an Update of the Existing Parkland Dedication and Fee-in-Lieu Requirements By James B. Duncan , FAICP Eric Damian Kelly, Esq . , FAICP Date: July 30, 2002 Time: 6:30 p.m. (After City Council Agenda Session) Location : Room 219, Council Room City Administration Building 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 For more information please contact Tim Conklin, City Planner, at 575-8264. The final study is available on the City's website at www.accessfayetteville.org and in the Planning Division. James B . Duncan, FAICP President ' Mr. Duncan, a past president of the American Planning r . Association, is one of the nation's leading urban planning and growth management practitioners. His career as a city planner p has spanned almost four decades of service to more than 150 �Sk.. cities, counties, regions and states throughout the nation. During his career, he has also held several key public sector ' positions, including director of land development services for the City of Austin; director of growth management for the City ' of Hollywood, Florida; director of development management for Broward Courrty, Florida: and chief of local planning kkkk:S services for Dade County, Florida a, Throughout his career, Mr. Duncan has focused his primary interests and energies on the development of innovative growth management techniques, the streamlining of land-use controls and the advancement of development impact assessment methodologies. He has prepared a series of 1 award-winning comprehensive plans and development codes that were honored by the Florida. Texas and Louisiana ' Chapters of the American Planning Association. Mr. Duncan served as a growth management advisor to two Florida Governors, co-wrote the nation's first state impact fee enabling act (Texas), prepared one of the first comprehensive plans to embody the dual concepts of consistency and 'concurrei cy, and introduced many user-friendly, easy-find techniques to simplify regulations. 1 For APA, Mr. Duncan has also served as vice-chair of its 1 Chapter Presidents Council, as president of its Florida chapter, as professional development liasion of its Texas chapter; and as 1 a member of its national governance committee. Mr. Duncan is the co-author of the best-selling APA publication, GRowTH MANAGEMENT PRINC3MM AND PRAcnus, and a frequent conference speaker on growth management, land-use 1 regulations, infrastructure financing and impact fees. While in south Florida, he also served as an adjunct professor of city 1 planning at Florida Atlantic University; and as vice chair of the 1 planning and zoning board and chair of the code enforcement board for the City of Davie. 1 1 Education: M.S. Regional and City Planning, 1965 UNIVERSITY OF OKLMOMA B.A. Journalism and Political Science, 1961 1 UNIVERSITY OF TExAS AT AUSTIN Cerdficatlon: College of Fellows, American Institute of 1 Certified Planners 1 dunaanlassodotes 1 , • 1 - 1 � Eric Damian Kelly, Esa. , FAIcP 1 Vice- President ' Dr. Kelly, one of the nation's foremost land-use attorneys and growth management specialists, and a noted specialist in the areas of sign regulations and zoning enforcement. A long-time informal 1 associate of Duncan Associates, he formally joined the firm as an ,e officer and shareholder in 1999. He is a former dean of the . 1 College of Architecture and Urban Planning at Ball State, where he �. still teaches several urban planning courses, while engaging in an 1 active consultant role with Duncan Associates. 1 Dr. Kelly has personally drafted sign controls for numerous cities, induding current assignments for Cary, North Carolina and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He also recently completed a detailed study of sexually-oriented businesses for Kansas City, including an analysis of ordinances in 20 other cities and counties. He first participated in 1 m drafting development regulations as vice president of a Philadelphia ` firm that developed the innovative "Impact Zoning' concept during 1 the early 1970s. He then went on to establish his own land use law 1 firm in Colorado in 1976 and operated it until 1990, when he accepted a full-time faculty position at Iowa State University. He has 1 prepared new land-use controls for local governments in over 25 states and has conducted many training sessions for public officials. 1 Dr. Kelly is general editor of the 10-volume Matthew Bender series 1 on ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS. Other publications include MANAGING COMMUNITY GRovvTH (Preager, 1993), the "Zoning" 1 '•,� chapter in the ICMA "Planner's Greenbook;" Planning Advisory 1 Service reports on zoning enforcement and adequate public , facilities; and numerous articles on growth management. He is the 1 ��„�` author of recent articles on the "taking" issue and the treatment of cellular towers and satellite dishes under local ordinances. , Dr. Kelly 1 received the Colorado APA chapter's award for "Outstanding Service and Educational Leadership" in 1989, and the University of 1 Pennsylvania listed him among its " 100 Graduates Who Epitomize Our Future." He, like long-time friend and colleague Jim Duncan, is I one of 46 people selected as the firsi members of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAJCP). I I Edumdon: Ph.D. in Public Policy, 1992 _ THE UNION INS- IME I Juris Doctor and Master of City Planning, 1975 UNIVERSITY OF PENNMVANLI B.A. in political economy, 1969 WLLLk a Catxa Affiliations: American Bar Association College of Fellows, American Institute of Certified Planners dunoanlassodates FAYETTEVOLE • • 711E t1Tr of FArETTEVOlE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 309 2002 A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Council will be held on July 30, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 1 . WATER SERVICE AREA: A resolution to modify the existing exclusive n / water service area line between Fayetteville and Springdale to transfer approximately 340 acres in the City of Johnson into Springdale's service area. The item was tabled at the July 16, 2002 meeting. 2. IMPACT FEE STUDY: Duncan Associates presentation of the Final Impact • Fee Study: Wastewater, Water, and Roads, including update of the existing Parkland Dedication and Fee-in-Lieu requirements. • 113 WEST MOUNTAN 77791 4T4621-7700 FAX /7967647 C G ` i i i Y M D 9 0 • � , m I D33 OD 7 m too D r.4 0 cc 9 /r i l = r I S � \� I O I II CIO I , d . : y ^ '`L� . i✓r ice: - \vim-� � \ • •'• . . �F il✓ cc zo O Z 00 mm m a : E D it O m it � i /• m i � m I , ' a D >I > M > s / I I / n I( CD co / / m A ill y ,�i ; 1 N � I Ii I I • Ley yw r y _ a C7 Ae > !�;! �. D \ x ^' W m W4 y / � T WTI C"1 _ F � . � .. . :j ,... ; 410 _ m v U ZO OZ 00IM i \� i m 7C > \\ n j D S I . I-' ' m 0 i. _ - i m gj I — T � -- - ta >a�a {> > > > jIF^ DI> > > Iz r I o ' aro ri � ; != T 'T 5 • tl � 3 S � 6 � � oZ L, s / I I W � n II I M s k m • w 9 I m m I co I III % ! > r I f m I i i � Jill in m A - .. 1 oar I > � II 11 Q � ( OM a �1 m ' n 1 m CD J z i 1 `111\ 4 • � I � I V1 .'. . . m .• I Wig m \ r s m 0 0 ' t m 11 m m m to m i' it m a c a o m 1 • • Springdale Water Utilities • 526 Oak Avenue P.O. Box 769 Springdale, Arkansas 72765.0769 (479) 751-5751 RECEIVED JUL 19 2002 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE MAYOR'S OFFICE HAND DELIVERY July 18, 2002 Mr. Greg Boettcher, P.E. Public Works Director City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE: Water Service Boundary Fayetteville/Springdale Dear Mr. Boettcher: • Reference is made to your letter of July 15, 2002, concerning a proposed amendment to the current water service boundary between the cities of Springdale and Fayetteville. As indicated, the developer of Clear Creek Club Subdivision is requesting water and sanitary sewer services from Springdale Water Utilities even though a portion of the property is located within the designated water service area of Fayetteville. This request is being made since the developer was led to believe sanitary sewer service could not be obtained from the City of Fayetteville and due to the fact that the proposed development will encompass land that is in the service areas of both cities. It certainly makes sense for each development to be provided both water and sewer services from one source. In past years, our respective cities have worked together to amend the water service boundary whenever it became necessary to accommodate water service for property owners. Indications are that Fayetteville initially provided water service to the City of Johnson; however, the boundary map attached to the 1967 Beaver Water District Memorandum of Understanding clearly shows the City of Johnson to be in the Springdale service area. Please note on the attachment that a portion of the Springdale service area dips south of Clear Creek in Sections 22 and 27 which more than likely coincided with the Johnson city limits that existed back in 1967. Obviously, the boundary line was amended at some point in time allowing Fayetteville to serve that portion of Johnson lying south of Clear Creek. Our files do not indicate when this happened, and it might have well been an informal agreement between the cities that was never recorded. Knowing this area was being served by Fayetteville, we formally adjusted the boundary • line in 1996 when the two cities jointly acquired the White River Rural Water System Page -2 - Mr. Greg Boettcher . July 18, 2002 in order to delineate service areas that were not covered in the B WD Memorandum. The adjusted boundary line also reflected amendments that were made allowing Springdale to provide needed water service to the Washington County United Way office on Highway 265 and to residents along Albright Road Although these areas were in the Fayetteville service area, water service was easily attainable from Springdale due to the existence of water lines that were already in place, eliminating costly water line extensions of several hundred feet to the nearest Fayetteville water main. Rather than establishing a bank of territory credits, it is hoped that the two cities can continue to work together and consider the merits of a boundary amendment on a case by case basis. This concept has worked well in the past. Collectively, it is our common goal to provide water service to as many customers as possible with existing facilities and to assist property owners whenever possible to reduce their cost of obtaining water service. Your suggestion to meet and evaluate other areas where an amendment is needed is an excellent idea and we welcome that opportunity. In that regard we have prepared a larger map showing the current water service areas with indication of the proposed boundary amendment for the Clear Creek Club Subdivision. A copy of the map is being provided for your review. It would be helpful if we could indicate the size and location of existing water mains of the respective cities on the map to identify areas where the water service boundary should be evaluated for amendment. A "meeting of the minds" could also reveal planning for specific areas where future water and sewer improvements are proposed. I understand a special meeting of the Fayetteville City Council has been scheduled in a couple of weeks to consider the boundary amendment. Therefore, time is of the essence and we need to meet as soon as possible. Please call me at your earliest convenience to set a time and date for the meeting. ery truly ;o4n ss, Re a Attachment CC: Springdale Water & Sewer Commission Mayor Jerre Van Hoose Mayor Dan Coody Mr. Brandon Rogers Mr. Kit Williams Mr. Charles Harwell 'FAYETTEVI1 LE CRY OF FAYEfTEYaLR ARKANSAS July 15, 2002 Mr. Rene Langston Springdale Utilities P.O. Box 769, 525 Oak Avenue Springdale, AR 72765-0769 RE: Clear Creek Club Subdivision — Johnson Water Service Territory Amendment Dear Mr. Langston: On July 16, 2002 the Fayetteville City Council is expected to approve a resolution amending the water service boundary agreement between Springdale and Fayetteville. In essence, this amendment shall transfer 339.22 acres of water service territory to the City of Springdale, enabling the entire Clear Creek Club subdivision to be served with water and sanitary sewer service from Springdale Utilities. This action is deemed in the best interests of both the developers and the communities. Discussions on territorial arrangements have brought to light the need for an updated evaluation of the current water service territory boundary. Other changes may be prudent to provide for the orderly and cost-effective provision of utility services in other undeveloped area. These service boundary adjustments should be based upon such factors as current utility system locations, infrastructure capacities, and • topographic features. The configurations of Springdale's and Fayetteville's utility systems have changed dramatically since the 1967 territory agreement, therefore, updates to this boundary may be justified. The Fayetteville City Council shall relinquish its right to the 339.22 acres with the understanding that Springdale shall approve equal and offsetting territorial area increases to Fayetteville should future conditions justify this action. In essence, the City of Fayetteville's approval will create a banking of a service territory credits that could be later claimed by Fayetteville. In any subsequent territorial exchanges, the core justifications should be based upon the capacity and ability of selected utility to serve the Area in a cost-effective manner. As schedules permit, we should arrange for a meeting to discuss service boundary limits and to evaluate amendments. I shall forward a copy of the approved resolution for your records following the City Council's approval on July 16, 2002. Should there be any questions on this matter, feel free to contact my office at 575-8330. Very truly yours, eville City a ayett^/�r/""v'N' G ocoettcher, P.E., Public Works Director GB/pkh cc: Alderman Robert Davis, Jim Beavers • David Jurgens, Kit Williams Brandon Rogers, Tim Conklin Hugh Earnest 113 WM MDUNTAN r9M Iraazt-rrao FAX 4794FI54 r Fayetteville Impact Fees Questions for City Council July 25, 2002 General I . Do alderman support all or any of the following fees: water, wastewater and roads? (City Attorney Kit Williams) 2. What services should be applied to these fees? (water, wastewater, roads, police, fire, schools etc.) (Alderman Kevin Santos; Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) 3 . If City Council decides to proceed with drafting an impact fee ordinance, who should draft it? (City Attorney Kit Williams) 4. How to reward developers that instill measures that have less impact? (Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) Graduation/Phasing of Fees 5. Should fees be instituted in phases to reduce "impact" and rush before effective date of ordinance? (City Attorney Kit Williams) 6. Should we institute a grace period after the ordinance is adopted before we start collecting the fees? (Alderman Kevin Santos) 7. Should a graduated, or sliding scale fee, for larger houses that create a larger impact and greater mitigation be used? (Alderman Kevin Santos) 8. Should a graduated fee based on distance from the town core or existing infrastructure, using the fee as a growth management tool be developed? (Alderman Kevin Santos) 9. Should graduating fees over time — starting at the low end of the range recommended and over the course of a year raise the fees to the recommended midpoint be used. (Alderman Kevin Santos) 10. Who will pay impact fees and when will they be collected? (City Attorney Kit Williams, Alderman Kevin Santos) ( 1 ) Developer — Preliminary plat approval or large scale development approval (2) Owner — building permit, water tap, sewer tap H:\USERS\COMMOMShelli\Questiom for Cmncil I .doc Amount of Fee 11 . Consultants presented maximum supportable (after all possible reductions for sales tax paid in construction, etc.), does the City Council wish to use this maximum or a smaller amount? (City Attorney Kit Williams) 12. Will the cost of the fees increase over the years? (Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) Water and Wastewater 13. Graduated or identical fee? If graduated, by what method and what fee for each level? (City Attorney Kit Williams) Streets and Roads 14. In light of shaky legal authority, is cost shifting between developers worth likely litigation? (City Attorney Kit Williams) 15 . How far off-site of a subdivision or a future adjacent subdivision would a road impact fee be applicable to improve the access to that specific area of the city? (Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) Parks 16. Should we keep the established ordinance or change to new valuation methodology suggested by consultants? Will the City have to pay consultants for regular updates if new methodology is adopted? (City Attorney Kit Williams) Fee Applicability 17. Will fees be charged to infill development? (Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) 18. Should surrounding communities be included in the impact fees? (Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) 19. Will there be any subsiding or waiver of fees for "low income housing"? (Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) 20. Should schools be exempt since they are a public service provider? (Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) 21 . If fees are collected at building permit, will that apply to renovations? (Impact Fee Stakeholder Advisory Group) H:\USERS\COMMON\.Shclli\Questions for Council Ldoc IMPACT FEE STUDY: POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS J. I I �1 - - � :ii1 u J4r C 1 '3F 1 - a wbnv« ty/ duncanlassociates in association Mh Cooper Consulting Company April 2001 CONTENTS • INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Summary of Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LEGALFRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Exactions and Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Arkansas Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6666 . 66 . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . 11 Arkansas Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 19 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TYPES OF FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 MajorRoads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 : FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 666 . . 7 • Table 2: CAPITAL FUNDING BY SOURCE, 2000-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 6 . 6 . . 6 . 21 Table 3: CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, 2000-2004 . . . 6 . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 22 Table 4: SALES TAX CAPITAL FUNDING, 2000-2004 . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 5: OUTSTANDING DEBT . . . 6 6 . . . . . . . 6 . . . 0 . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 5: POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-1999 . . . . . . . . 6 6 . . 0 . 4 . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 6: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, 1996-1999 . . 6 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 6 . . . . . . 24 Table 7: NATIONAL AVERAGE IMPACT FEES . . . . . . . 6666 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 8: CURRENT WATER CUSTOMERS . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 9: POTENTIAL ANNUAL WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 10: CURRENT WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS . 0 . . . 6 . . . . 6 6 . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 11 : TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 631 Table 12: POTENTIAL ANNUAL TREATMENT PLANT FEES . . . . 6 . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . 32 Table 13: PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT/FEE-IN-LIEU . . 0 . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 1 : IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2: PLANNING AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 3: WATER FACILITIES . . . 6 . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . 6 6 6 26 Figure 4: WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . 28 Figure 5: WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND, 1992-1996 . . . 30 Figure 6: WATERSHEDS AND DIRECTIONS OF FLOWS . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . 6 . . . . 31 Figure 7: EXISTING MAJOR ROADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 34 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this project is to assist the City of Fayetteville in developing a system of development impact fees to ensure that new development pays a fair share of the cost of infrastructure needed to serve it. The project has been divided into two phases. This first phase, termed a "feasibility study," reviews the legal framework, local data and potential fees, and determines in conjunction with local officials the type of impact fee system that should be developed in the second phase. This phase includes a review of applicable statutory and case law, and outlines the legal framework for impact fees in Arkansas. We also analyze Fayetteville's current development exaction policies, existing capital facilities and levels of service, growth projections, capital improvements programs, and existing debt load as additional background data for the policy recommendations. Another part of this phase of the project is a survey of impact fees and development exactions in comparable communities. This is provided in a separate report. The most critical policy issue to be decided is the types of impact fees that should be developed for the City in Phase II. The evaluation is based on selected criteria, including legal authority, general plan implementation, net revenue potential over current exactions, fairness between existing and future residents, equity between developers, regional competitiveness, and case of administration. • Summary of Findings and Recommendations Our review of relevant statutory and case law demonstrates that cities in Arkansas clearly have the authority to impose water and wastewater impact fees, to require dedication of land for community facilities, and to require fees in lieu of land dedication. The City does not currently charge water or wastewater impact fees, and these could be developed in Phase Il . The City already has a court-tested park land dedication and fee-in-lieu requirement, which we could review and update in Phase II. Any other type of impact fee is on less firm ground, although roads would be the next best bet. The City could consider adopting a land dedication/ fee-in-lieu system for arterial and collector street right- of-way (ROW) to replace the current system of roadway exactions. This would in some sense be a step backward, however, as the City now requires half-street improvements to adjacent roadways in many cases. Of all the facility types, a road impact fee would probably have the strongest chance of being upheld by the Arkansas courts. There is also sufficient information and planning data to develop road impact fees, but whether to include this in Phase II is a policy issue for the City Council. The City had expressed an interest in exploring impact fees for a variety of other facilities, including fire and police protection, solid waste, trails, fleet management and radio sites. Due to questions regarding the authority of municipalities in Arkansas to use such techniques, we do not recommend proceeding with development of any of these types of fees at this time. In summary, we would recommend that the City proceed with the development of water and wastewater impact fees and an update of the existing park dedication and fee in-lieu requirements in Phase II of this project. A water impact fee, covering the cost of distribution and storage facilities, • Fayetteville\/MPACT FEES TUDI—POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001 , Page 1 could generate up to $1 million annually, while an impact fee for the cost of the new wastewater • treatment plant could generate $2 million annually. An update to the park dedication and fee-in-lieu requirements would not necessarily generate additional revenue, but could help to ensure that the requirements reflect the existing level of service and the actual demand of new residential development on the need for park facilities. • Fayetteville\/MPAcr FEE STuDI—POUCYD/REcrIONS MEMORANDUM Aprd 3, 2001, Page 2 • • LEGAL FRAMEWORK An impact fee is a form of "exaction," through which a developer or builder is required to contribute to the costs of public improvements. Typically the fee is levied on some easily measurable unit of activity, such as the construction of one dwelling unit or of a specified number of square feet of commercial or industrial space. As the next section of this memorandum explains, such fees are a logical outgrowth of long-standing exactions practice. This section examines the legal issues involved in the implementation of impact fees in Arkansas.' In brief, any impact fee should have the following characteristics: o The fee should be based on actual costs of public improvements, obtained from recent experience in Fayetteville or, for facilities for which there are no recent, local figures, from comparable markets; o The cost calculations should exclude from (or credit against) the calculated cost of improvements any funds likely to come from outside sources (such as the state gasoline tax) to pay for the related improvements; o The fee imposed on any development should not exceed the cost of providing the related public improvements necessary to serve that development; • o No part of the fee should be based on the cost of curing existing capacity deficiencies or inadequacies in current treatment levels; o Following principles of municipal fund accounting, the fees collected should be maintained in a fund designated only for use on improvements to be supported by the fee, serving the area in which the fee is collected; o There should be appropriate refund provisions in case the fees are not used for the intended purposes within a reasonable time. The importance of these characteristics will become clearer in the rest of this section. Exactions and Impact Fees Following the advent of zoning and subdivision controls, subdividers typically made only minimal improvements to their projects. Projects were usually built where they could depend on existing parks and schools. Streets were often simply graded, without such further improvements as curbs and ' This chapter has been prepared for the use of the City of Fayetteville by Eric Damian Kelly, Ph.D., FAICP. Dr. Kelly is both a lawyer and a planner, but he is not licensed to practice law in Arkansas and offers no formal legal opinion on them matters. Dr. Kelly holds Master of City Planning and )uns Donor degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D. in public policy from The Union Institute, Cincinnati. Dr. Kelly maintains an active membership in the Colorado bar, although in his current position he does not practice. • Fayetteville\/MPAcr FEE srwy—POLIO DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001 , Page 3 gutters. Local water companies often provided water lines, and many homes were built with septic • systems. Sewers were even provided by private parties in some early Arkansas developments? Gradually, often in response to citizen complaints, local governments would pave the streets, install curb, gutter and even sidewalk, and, in some instances, even provide public sewer. During the 1950s, the system began to change, as local governments became increasingly frustrated at having to provide public facilities at public expense for private developments on which the developers had, presumably, made a profit. Thus, communities began to require that streets at least be paved and, in many cases, that curb and gutter and sidewalks also be provided by the developer. Communities also began to require that public water and sewer lines be installed under the new streets—sometimes as "dry" lines for future use, where direct links to existing public services were not yet available. Many communities began to require other, related public facilities, such as street signs and street trees. It had become widely accepted by the 1960s and early 70s that land developers would provide all public improvements within a subdivision that were designed to serve that subdivision. However, clearly the improvements within a subdivision are only a part of the total public improvements that are needed or affected by a new subdivision. Such off-site facilities as schools and parks typically serve residents of a number of different subdivisions. Streets in new subdivisions will always connect to a network of collector and arterial roads outside the subdivision. Similarly, most subdivisions tie into large networks of sewer systems, water lines and drainage facilities. It is useless to have roads and sewer and water lines existing in isolation within a subdivision. It is essential not only to the community but also to the subdivider and to those who purchase lots or homes from the subdivider that the larger network of roads and pipes not only exist, but that it be adequate to serve the needs of the new subdivision, as well as the rest of the community. As communities grow, country roads and commercial collectors that were once adequate to serve needs along them become overwhelmed with traffic from new developments using those roads to connect to the larger road network. Early exactions for schools, parks and off-site facilities potentially serving more than the subdivision or project on which they are levied fell into two categories: land dedication requirements and negotiated exactions. Land dedication requirements ultimately raised practical, legal and policy problems. Under ordinances requiring developers to dedicate seven percent (or some other specified percentage) of their property for park purposes, communities wound up with large inventories of small parcels that were inefficient to develop and expensive to maintain if developed; those same communities sometimes had to buy the parkland or school sites that they needed. Fayetteville's own park dedication requirement has been considered by the Arkansas Supreme Courtin City ojFe.y eit ti I u. I.B.I., Ine.3 As a matter of policy, land dedications for facilities such as trails sometimes fell unevenly on landowners, raising issues of equity in public policy and equal protection under the law.° Z See Pulaski Heights Se rage Co. o. Iougbborougb, 95 Ark 264, 129 S.W. 536 (1910) 3 City ojFayrtteailk P. I.B.I., Inc., 280 Ark 484; 659 S.W.2d 505 (1983) See, for example, Nollan P. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan P. City of Tigard, 114 S. Cc 2309 (1994), discussed below. . Fayetteville\IMPACT FEES ruDY—PoucyDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001 , Page 4 • In other cases, a community might have a plan for a park, a school ora major roadway affecting the site of a proposed project. In those cases, communities sometimes required dedication of the site as a condition of rezoning or subdivision approval. This raised serious questions of equity and equal protection and ultimately ran afoul of the "rough proportionality" test established by the Supreme Court in Dolan v. City of Tigard, discussed below. In City of Fayetteville P. I. B. 1., Inc. , the Arkansas Supreme Court raised related concerns about the relationship between the fee and the eventual benefit to the developer paying the fee. The next generation of exactions for parks, schools and off-site improvements added a layer of fees in lieu of dedication (often called simply "fees in hcu'�, in which all development was made subject to the exaction requirement but in which the local government could in appropriate cases substitute a fee equal to a calculated or stipulated value of the land that would otherwise be dedicated. Such a fee was the actual exaction proposed to be applied to the subdivider in City of Fayetteville v. I.B.I., Inc. Another important thread in the history of impact fees involves charges imposed by providers of water and sewer service for connecting to the system. Such charges can be traced back more than 90 years in Arkansas;' and, much more recently, City of Marion v. Baioni (1983).° Those cases arc interesting in that there seemed little question in the minds of the judges as to whether such a fee could be imposed; the issue in these cases was how much the fee should be. During the 1970s, building on the base of "fees in lieu" and on the long practice of charging fees for the privilege of connecting to water and sewer fines, some communities began imposing calculated impact fees on all new development. This approach resolves most of the policy and equity questions at the local level and, if carefully done, falls squarely within the legal guidelines established by the U.S. Supreme Court and several state courts. The law related to impact fees has evolved from litigation over local regulatory measures involving dedication requirements, fees imposed in lieu of dedication, and impact fees, all of which are collectively called "exactions." The first reported "impact fee" systems were developed in Florida to create a system charge for roads, similar to the common system buy-in charges for water and sewer systems. However , such fees were more difficult to implement than similar fees for utility services for two reasons-first, road fees related to a general governmental service rather than to an enterprise that happened to be run by the government; second, there was no specific, controllable event (like the physical connection to the water system) which could be conditioned upon payment of the fee, except for the approval of a development or subdivision or the later approval of a building permit or certificate of occupancy. That distinction becomes more important later in this analysis, as it approaches more sophisticated and complex issues of impact fee law. The early principles of that law, however, were applicable to all types of impact fees. Specifically, the Florida courts developed a detailed series of legal guidelines for impact fees in that state. The Florida cases established law as well as policy that have guided other courts and even legislatures in addressing the issue. The landmark case on impact fees is 5 Prlatki Heigbn Sewerage Co. P. Laagbbcrurgb, 95 Ark 264, 129 S.W. 536, (1910); and Hinton P. Bowman, 101 Ark 306; 142 S.W. 174 (1911) • 5 City o(Marion P. Baioni, 312 Ark 423; 850 S.W.2d 1 (1983) Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE SrUDY—POL1eYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001 , Page 5 Contractors & Builders Arcot of Pinellas County vs. City ofDunedin.' In that 1976 case, the Florida court . struck down a system development fee, but in doing so it gave guidelines for designing an acceptable fee system. Those guidelines were: the fee to be charged may not exceed the reasonable cost to the system of absorbing the new users; the fees must be reserved for the purpose for which they are charged; the fees must actually be used for the designated purpose and used in an area which will directly benefit (or absorb the impacts from) the development on which the fees are imposed. A system in Broward County was struck down by an appellate court in 1983 because fees from the entire county were collected in one fund and there was no assurance that the fees collected would be used in the vicinity of the development paying the fees.8 Also in 1983, a Florida court upheld a fee system in Palm Beach County, finding that it passed the tests set out in the Dunedin and Broward County cases.9 The Palm Beach County fee was a road fee and was based on a complex formula related to traffic generation and road construction costs. The fee was allocated to a road zone of about six square miles which included the proposed development. The fee was to be used specifically to build roads. The Florida cases remain important Figure 1 today. These cases are often cited in IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS litigation and articles today, but they w established the impact fee policy that has guided other courts in considering ; the issue of impact fees and that has s guided committees that have developed impact fee legislation in a number of states. To date, 23 states have adopted impact fee enabling legislation. These acts have tended to t embody the constitutional standards .d that have been developed by the courts. However, some states where 0 impact fees are popular, such as l7s"` t 'b1np'`t Florida, still do not have impact fee enabling legislation. One of the reasons that Florida does not have an impact fee enabling act is that local governments felt that they had more freedom under Florida and national case law than they would under an explicit enabling statute. Indeed, one of the provisions in most state enabling acts is a limitation on the types of facilities for which impact fees can be assessed. The types of facilities that are eligible for impact fees are listed in Table 1 . What is interesting about these new state statutes is that they have largely followed the tests evolving from the Florida line of cases. Most contain requirements for the computation of the fees, based on the actual costs of the facilities; some include detailed specifications about what planning and management charges can be included. Several prohibit the use of the fees to cure existing deficiencies in the system or to upgrade the level of service in developed parts of a community. All require that ' Contractors & Builders Assoc of Pinellas County vs. City of Dunedin, 326 So.2d 314 (Fla 1976) 8 Hol#u d, Inc v. Broward County, 431 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) 9 Homebailders and Contractors Aum. of Palm Beach County vs. Board of County Cornmisrioners, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla-App. 19 83) • Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001 , Page 6 the fees be segregated for actual use for the purpose for which they are collected. Virtually all require that the fees be refundable if not actually used for that purpose. As the local case citations in the preceding section and the discussion below suggest, the evolution of exactions law in Arkansas has paralleled these developments, referring to some of the leading cases from other jurisdictions in establishing principles similar to those set out in the Florida cases. Table 1 FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES Storm Solid State Roads Water Sewer Water Parks Fire Police Library Waste School Arizona (cities) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • ' Arizona (counties) ■ ■ • a. • California ■ • ■ • a ■ • • - ■ ■ Georgia ■ ■. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' . . . Hawaii ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • 01. • ! Idaho ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • Illinois • _ Indiana ! ■ ■ ■ . ■ Maine - ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■. - ■ ' INevada a 0 a 01 _ . . ,. .. _ . . . . . . . New Hampshire ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ . .. • ■ • . ' • 111 Now Jersey ■ • - • ■ . • New Mexico ■ • ■ a ■ ,. : .. 0 . . !. Oregon - -r- . ' • - - __ a - . _ ` a.,— - _■. . .. Pennsylvania ■ Rhode Island ■ • . • ! . . . 0 •, ! ■ ■. ! - . ! " South Carolina ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ Texas - ■ • ■ ! . . ' Utah a ■ - a . . . : �- •. - Vermont � • .. ■ - . . ' ! !. ! . . • - ! ! Virginia ■ _ Washington ■ _ _ • ■ ' ■ - West Virginia - ! _ ■ • ! ! . ! ' • _ Wisconsin (cities) ■ ! ■ • ■ • ' • • ' Wisconsin (counties) ■ ■ ■ ■ ' ■ ' • • ' - • Source: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann., S 9-06.3.05 (cities). S 9-11-1101 et seq. (counties): Cal. Gov't Code, S 66000 at seq.: Colo. Rev. Stat.. S 2414301 at seq.'; Ga. Code Ann., S 3671-1 at seq.: Haw. Rev. Stat.. 5 46.141 at seq.: Idaho Code. S 67-8201 et seq.; 605 III. Comp Stat. Ann., S 5.901 et seq.: Ind. Code Ann., S 367-4-1300 et seq.; Me. Rev. State. Ann., Title 30A S 4354; Nev. Rev. Stat.. S 2788; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann., S 674:21 ; N.J. Perm. Stat., S 27: 1C-1 at seq.: S 40:550-42; New Mexico Stat. Ann., S 5-61 et seq.: Or. Rev. State. S 223.297 et seq.: Pa. Stat. Ann.. Title 53. S 10501-A et seq.: General Laws of Rhode Island, 145-22.4; Code of taws of S.C., 16-1 -910 at seq.: Tex. Local Gov't Code Ann.- Title 12. S 395.001 at seq.; Utah Code. 111 -36- 101 1136101 et. seq.: Vt. Stat. Ann., Title 24, S 5200 at seq.: Va. Code Ann., S 15. 1-98. 1 at seq.; Wash. Rev. Code Ann., S 82.02.050 et seq.; W. Va. Code. S 7-20-1 et seq.: Wis. Stats., S 66.55 • Fayetteville\/MPACTFEES rUDY—POL/CYD/REcvoNS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001 , Page 7