HomeMy WebLinkAbout144-00 RESOLUTION0
RESOLUTION NO. 144-00 MICROFILMED
A RESOLUTION AWARDING UNDER RFP#2000-9 A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO JAMES
DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR PHASE ONE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPACT FEE STUDY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $30,020, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $4,500FOR
PROJECT COSTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby awards under RFP#2000-9 a Professional
Services Agreement to James Duncan and Associates, Inc., for Phase One Development of an Impact
Fee Study in the amount of $30,020, plus an additional $4,500 for project costs, and authorizes the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A copy of the agreement is attached hereto
marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
SSED AND APPROVED this 17th day of October . 2000.
licy
ATAT^
By
APPROVED:
By:
Lis/ tta
Hanna, Mayor
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
1110
2- ill oc
Date
Contents of File Initials
017-00
. /ii -440
0
iitia A„ <
)
9/u-00
i3O 2g
t S,- ),
Leua/
/0 /7 00
J1.
/ '
�/�//%m.�1» ,_4i,,,,
/D3o-oo4h
, 4
...4 e , 42
,%— S Gd
/123&.
40c
di
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
proposal to provide
submitted to
submitted by
• EXHIBIT A
E//
MICROFILMED /)W
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE REPORT
(RFP 2000-9)
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
duncan
associates
in association mth
Cooper Consulting Company
September 2000
•
•
•
•
•
41
duncan
• September 12, 2000
•
• Stephen Davis
Budget Manager
• 113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
associates
land development regulations
growth management
impact fees
Re: PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT, RFP 2000-9
Dear Mr. Davis.
On behalf of Duncan Associates and Cooper Consulting Company, I am pleased to submit
the attached professional services agreement and summary of our qualifications to assist the
City of Fayetteville in establishing a development impact fee system. I believe that you will
find from a review of the enclosed material tat we are well qualified to assist in this endeavor.
1. Our firm has extensive regional and national experience. In fact, we have prepared
more Impact fee studies for more public clients Lan any other consultant in the nation.
2. Our team has a multi -disciplinary orientation. We offer the city the combined efforts
of Impact fee specialists, attorneys, and planners.
3. Our Impact fee studies custom fit our clients needs. They recognize the uniqueness of
individual cities and counties and promote local growth management goals.
4. Our impact fee studies have a high acceptance and adoption rate. They are well
supported by stakeholders and none has ever been successfully challenged In court.
As you will note, we have designed our scope of services to Include an Initial impact fee
feasibility study (Phase I). After a review of Phase I, the City would then decide whether or not
to proceed fully or partially (selected facilities) with Phase 11.
We very much look forward to your consideration of our proposed professional services
agreement and qualifications, Please do not hesitate to contact us If you have any questions.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
ages°
James B. Duncan, FAICP
President
13276 research boulevard • suite 208 • austin, tc 78750 • tel 512 258 7347 ■ fax 512 258 9994 • email: firm@duncanplan.com
• •
CONTENTS
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
PROJECT APPROACH
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Exhibit A - Scope of Services
Exhibit B - Project Schedule
Exhibit C - Consultant Compensation
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
Infrastructure Finance Clients
Atlanta, GA—Mutti-Facility Impact Fee Study
College Station, TX—Multi-Facility Impact Fee Study
Colorado Springs, CO—Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study
Denton, TX—Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Kansas City, MO—Arterial Street Impact Fee Study
Mesa, AZ—Multi-Facility Impact Fee Study
Orange County, FL—Multi-Facility Impact Fee Study
Santa Fe, NM—Multi-Facility Impact Fee Feasibility Study
Shelby County, TN Impact Fee/Development Tax Study
Resumes
James B Duncan, FAICP
Eric Damian Kelly, FAICP
Clancy J. Mullen, AICP
COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP
dunaanlassociates
• •
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
CITY
FAYETTEVILLE
OF
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
Austin, Texas
James 8. Duncan, FAICP-'.
Eric Damian Kelly, FAICP
Clancy J. Mullen,:AICP
Project Management
Legal Analysis
Impact Fee Analysis
Ordinance Preparation
Public Presentations
COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY
Birmingham, Alabama
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP
Comparative Fee Survey
Data Collection
Meeting Facilitation
With the specific needs of this project in mind, we have assembled a
consultant team with strengths in fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure
financing and land use law. Our team consists of DUNCAN
ASSOCIATES and COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY. Duncan
Associates will be the lead firm and primary contractor with the City of
Fayetteville. Team member roles will be as follows:
+ Duncan Associateswill be responsible for legal analysis, policy
issue identification, policy recommendations, impact fee
analysis, ordinance drafting, overall project management,
quality control and document preparation.
Cooper ConsultingCompany wiII be responsible for the
comparative development fee survey and local data collection.
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES is a consulting firm specializing in public
infrastructure finance and land development codes. The firm,
headquartered in Austin, Texas, employs eight professionals and has
branch offices in Chicago, Illinois, Muncie, Indiana and Juno Beach,
Florida. The firm began operations as James Duncan and Associates, a
sole proprietorship, in 1987, was incorporated as James Duncan and
Associates, Inc. in December 1997 and at that time began doing
business as Duncan Associates.
COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY was established by Connie B.
Cooper, AICP, in Birmingham, Alabama in 1990. Ms. Cooper has 25
years of experience in planning and community development at the
state, county, and local levels. She has been a frequent associate of
Duncan Associates on other projects, including preparing a
comparative development fee survey for Kansas City, Missouri as part
of our ongoing project to develop an arterial street impact fee for that
municipality.
CITY STAFF. In addition to providing all available data about existing
and projected development, capital facility planning and financial
documents, we will rely on the City to schedule all interviews with City
staff, and schedule and advertise advisory committee meetings and
public hearings or workshops. It is estimated that City staff could
devote up to 200 hours managing the project, attending meetings,
gathering data and reviewing draft work products.
duncan
associates
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
PROJECT APPROACH
The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is seeking an consulting services to
assist in the development of a system of impact fees. The Request for
Proposals (RFP) asks the consultant to propose a fixed -fee price to
provide the following services:
❑ a legal review identifying the City's authority and the legal
requirements for impact fees established in state statutes and
state and national case law;
O an impact fee study that calculates impact fees for all types of
facilities provided by the City, including streets, bridges,
drainage, sidewalks/trails, parks, water distribution and storage
systems, sewer collection and treatment facilities, and traffic
monitoring and control devices;
❑ an analysis of the effect of new impact fees on development,
including ways to minimize the negative effects while still
providing full funding for planned capital facilities;
❑ three sample adoption documents;
O attendance at six public meetings and/or public hearings to
explain the findings of the study and present the adoption
documents;
O a process that increases the ability of the City Council to adopt
the impact fees;
O an automated, spreadsheet -based model that will enable City
staff to calculated impact fee changes in the future, training to
City staff in use of the model and program technical support for
one year following acceptance of the final model;
❑ monthly project status reports in newsletter format; and
O specific implementation assistance to City staff.
The RFP states that the draft study should be completed in five
months, and the entire project within six months of the project start
date.
dunaanlassociates
• •
The City has $ 100,000 budgeted for this project, although price is a
secondary consideration (sealed price proposals will be viewed only
after firm qualifications) and additional funding is a possibility.
The City has prepared several planning documents that would be an
integral part of this study. These include the Fayetteville General
Plan—2020 and the Five -Year Capital Improvements Program, 2000-
2004. Additionally, the City's recent budget and comprehensive
annual financial report (CAFR) will prove critical to this study.
The City's RFP asks for more in the way of consultant services than it
probably needs or can afford within its current budget. The requested
time schedule of six months also seems, in our experience with these
types of projects, to be somewhat constrained. We asked staff if the
City would be willing to consider modifications to its requested scope
of services, and were told that it would.
In an impact fee project, the cost of consultant services is strongly
related to the number and type of facilities for which impact fees are to
be calculated. It is very difficult to give a fixed -fee price to develop an
unknown number of impact fees. When a community does not
already know the facilities for which they desire to have impact fees
developed, we generally propose an initial "policy directions" phase to
the project, during which we can assist the governing body in selecting
the facilities to be included in the second, "implementation" phase of
the project during which detailed impact fee studies and implementing
ordinances are prepared.
We are not in the business of selling "canned" spreadsheet models that
calculate impact fees. There are such models on the market, but we
do not believe that they truly reflect the unique characteristics of
individual communities The problem with automated models is that
they must be either very simplistic, in which case they are too rigidly
geared to a single methodology and type of inputs, or else they are so
complex that significant training is required to operate them.
What we do provide is a clearly -drafted report that walks the reader
step-by-step through all of the data, assumptions, methodological
choices and calculations involved in the impact fee determinations.
The study is accompanied by an Excel spreadsheet that includes all of
the data and calculations. The spreadsheet is clearly organized to
guide the user toward the input cells, but at the same time provides
the flexibility to the user to modify it at will to accommodate changes in
inputs or even revisions to the methodology. There is no specialized
training required to update one of our studies The only skills required
duncan
associates
• •
are the ability to think analytically, research and acquire current data,
operate a word processing program and manipulate a spreadsheet.
We also generally do not recommend that our clients spend Targe
sums of money on economic studies that try to determine the effect of
impact fees on the pace of development or the cost of housing.
Economic theory suggests that, in competitive markets, if impact fees
are known in advance and are stable, they will be absorbed in the cost
of land and will have negligible effects on housing costs over the long
run, We do recognize, however, that local community leaders often
feel that they need to be competitive in their development fees with
comparable jurisdictions. Consequently, we propose to conduct a
comparative survey of development fees and exactions in up to 10
jurisdictions identified by the City. It is expected that the survey will
demonstrate that even in cities that do not have a formal system of
impact fees, developers are subject to a range of land dedication
requirements, traffic mitigation exactions and utility connection fees.
It is our position that one should base impact fees not on hypothetical
or desired levels of service (which may fail to be realized), but on the
existing and anticipated levels of service as represented by the City's
existing infrastructure and its adopted capital improvement plans. This
establhes the closest "nexus" possible between the level of the fee,
the community's current service levels and its future service levels as
represented by its official policy and planning documents. Fees based
on desired levels of service can present problems (particularly in states
where these issues have not been previously litigated) if fees are based
on a standard that is not achieved in a reasonable time. Accordingly,
we would rely on an assessment of the City's current capital facilities
and its adopted capital improvement plans as the basis for assessing
levels of service for its capital facilities
We strongly encourage the City to appoint a "stakeholder advisory
committee" to participate in the development of the impact fees. It is
very difficult to get the general public to get involved in an impact fee
project, but homebuilders, developers and major landowners as well
as anti -tax or growth control activists or organizations often want to be
included in reviewing the technical details and having input on the
policy recommendations. Aside from an initial orientation meeting, we
have found that meetings with advisory groups are more productive
when the members have received a copy of a draft study or ordinance
a week or more in advance of the meeting.
dunaanlossoclates
• • •
•
• PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
• BETWEEN
• CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
•
This Professional Services Agreement is made as of October /7, 2000, by and between the
• City of Fayetteville, a political subdivision of the State of Arkansas (City) and James Duncan and
• Associates, Inc., a professional corporation doing business as Duncan Associates located in
Austin, Texas (Consultant).
•
WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to perform certain services relating to the
• development of impact fee reports, studies and ordinances.
• WHEREAS, the scope of services has been divided into two phases, and this contract covers
Phase One, which addresses the issue of which facilities should be included in the development
of impact fee ordinances in Phase One.
•
• NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter
provided, City and Consultant agree as follows.
•
1. Scope of Agreement. Consultant's relationship to City shall be that of independent
• contractor; at all times this relationship shall be govemed by and be in strict compliance
• with the terms of this Professional Services Agreement.
• 2. Professional Services. Consultant shall furnish services to City as set forth in Phase One
of Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
•
• 3. Deliverables and Schedule. Consultant shall begin its services promptly after receipt of
an executed copy of this Agreement and will complete the services and deliverable
• pursuant to the schedule for Phase One as set forth in Exhibit "B." Times for
performance shall be extended for periods of delay resulting from circumstances over
• which Consultant has no control.
• 4. Compensation and Hourly Rates. For Phase One services provided by Consultant as
• described in Exhibit "A," City shall compensate Consultant based upon the completion of
individual tasks and in accordance with the fee schedule for Phase One outlined in
• Exhibit "C". Payment of each such invoice shall be due to Consultant within thirty (30)
days of receipt by City.
• 5. Subcontracting. It is understood that the Consultant will use the services of Cooper
Consulting Company as a subcontractor in the performance of certain services as
• presented in Exhibit "A." Any other subcontractor relationships must first be approved
by the City.
•
• 6. Conflict of Interest. Consultant agrees that it has no interest and shall acquire no
•
•
•
interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner with the performance of the
services hereunder. Consultant further agrees that, in the performance of this Agreement,
no person having any such interest shall be employed.
7. Termination. The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be
terminated by either party upon written notice in the event of failure by the other party to
perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. hi
the event of any termination, Consultant will be paid for all services rendered to date of
such termination.
8. Ownership of Documents. All documents prepared in the performance of this
Agreement shall be delivered to City before final payment is made to Consultant.
9. Amendments. No amendments or modifications of this Agreement shall be valid unless
in writing and signed by each of the parties to the Agreement.
10. Venue. The laws of the State of Arkansas shall govern the construction and
interpretation of this agreement..
11. Severability Any provision in this Agreement that is prohibited or unenforceable under
state or federal law shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibitions or
unenforceability, without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof. Also, the non-
enforcement of any provision by either party to this Agreement shall not constitute a
waiver of that provision nor shall it effect the enforceability of that provision or the
remainder of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have caused this instrument to be signed by
their respective duly authorized officers, all on the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
JAMES % fl CAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Bv.°
mes B. Duncan, President
ITY O� Fj�/E
VTLLEBy:
• •
•
• Exhibit A
• SCOPE OF SERVICES
• The project will be divided into two phases. Phase One: "Policy Directions," will review the
legal framework, review local data and potential fees, and determine in conjunction with local
•
officials the type of impact fee system that should be developed In the second phase.
• Phase Two will implement the policy directions provided by the City at the conclusion of Phase
• One. It could entail the potential development of impact fees for water, wastewater, roads,
stormwater drainage, parks, trails, libraries, general government, solid waste, police and fire
• protection facilities.
• The project will be accomplished through completion of the following tasks:
•
Phase One: Policy Directions
•
• Task 1.1: Project Organization/Data Collection
Task 1.2: Legal and Policy Analysis
• Task 1.3 Policy Directions Workshop
• Phase Two: Implementation
• Task 2.1: Impact Fee Studies
• Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances
Task 2.3: Public Participation
•
•
• PHASE ONE: POLICY DIRECTIONS
• TASK 1.1: PROJECT ORGANIZATION/DATA COLLECTION
• The first phase of the project will start with data collection and project organization.
Immediately upon contract execution, we will work with the Project Manager to schedule joint or
• back-to-back meetings with key members of City staff.
• At these initial organizational meetings, we will gather available information related to the
• project; identify major policy issues involved in formulating a City impact fee program; conduct
initial informational interviews with the City's planning, legal, finance and capital projects
• managers; coordinate staff and Consultant responsibilities; and establish the project schedule.
One issue to be addressed at this meeting is the comparison cities to be included in the
•
development fee survey to be conducted in Task 1.2.
• The City should provide the consultant team, without charge, copies of all relevant plans, studies
• and documents needed to perform the scope of work. These may include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O adopted land use and facility plans
O capital improvements programs
O data on existing development served by City (dwelling units by housing type and
nonresidential building square footage by land use type—data may need to be by
subarea for geographically -specific analysis)
❑ inventories and maps of existing facilities and pertinent descriptive data by major facility
type
❑ annual budgets and comprehensive financial reports
O land development regulations
O ordinances and policies regarding land dedication or exactions for water, wastewater, parks,
roadways, drainage and electric power facilities
❑ descnptions of existing processes for securing private participation in public infrastructure
construction, including annexation agreements
O debt payment schedules for outstanding bond issues relating to transportation, drainage,
water, wastewater, park, trails, library, fire and police protection facilities
• At the conclusion of the task, we will prepare a memorandum summarizing the organizational
framework for the project and listing additional data to be provided by the City. The DATA
• NEEDS MEMORANDUM will be delivered to the Project Manager within two weeks of the
organizational meetings.
•
• DELIVERABLES: ONE DAY OF MEETINGS
DATA NEEDS MEMORANDUM
•
• TASK 1.2: LEGAL AND POLICY EVALUATION
• Once preliminary data collection is complete, we will review applicable statutory and case law
• and outline the legal framework for impact fees in Arkansas. The initial draft of the legal
memorandum will be submitted to the City Attorney's office as a LEGAL MEMORANDUM.
• Following review by the City Attorney, all or portions of the legal analysis may be incorporated
• into the policy memorandum.
• Also as part of this task, we will also conduct a survey of development exactions, impact fees and
utility connection fees imposed by up to 10 comparative municipalities in Arkansas or
• neighboring states. The development exactions and fees assessed by the surveyed communities
will be compared to Fayetteville's existing and potential fees in a COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT
FEE SURVEY memorandum.
• Finally, we will 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. The policy issues to be
• addressed in the development of a impact fee system include levels of service, service area or
• benefit district boundaries, effect of impact fees on affordable housing, infill and redevelopment,
economic development, downtown development and other relevant issues.
•
•
•
• • •
•
• The most critical of these issues is the types of Impact fees that should be developed for the City
• in Phase Two. The evaluation will be based on selected criteria, including legal authority,
general plan implementation, net revenue potential over current exactions, faimess between
• existing and future residents, equity between developers, regional competitiveness, and ease of
• administration.
• Another issue to be addressed, especially for roads, is how impact fees would affect existing
development exaction practices (e.g., standard right-of-way dedication and improvements to
• adjacent arterials) and developer/annexation agreements. This analysis will involve a number of
policy issues, such as what kinds of costs are included in the road impact fee (e.g., are
• interchange cost included? right-of-way costs? collectors?) and what kind of developer
• improvements are eligible for impact fee credits.
• The likely magnitude of potential fees in relation to existing exaction practices is an obvious
consideration in the selection of the facilities to be addressed in Phase Two. However, we do not
• propose in this phase to perform preliminary calculations of potential fees or attempt to
• determine the average value of exactions. Instead, we will present already available information
on average impact fees around the country and development fees charged in comparison cities, as
• well as qualitative information on cost recovery through road and other types of exactions.
• Based on the analysis of these issues, the consultant team will make preliminary
• recommendations on whether the City should proceed with impact fees, which facilities to
address first and how each of those fee systems should be structured. We will summarize the
• analysis in a POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM identifying key legal and policy issues involved
in establishing a City impact fee program The POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM will present
• and evaluate alternatives and options available to the City and conclude with a recommended
• course of action.
• DELIVERABLES: LEGAL MEMORANDUM
COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
• POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM
•
• TASK 1.3: POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP
• Following delivery of the POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM, a workshop will be scheduled
with the City Council. The work session will be designed to address the issues raised in the
• memorandum and to provide policy direction for the remainder of the project. The findings and
• recommendations of the policy analysis and any proposed modifications to the scope of services
for Phase Two will be presented to the City Council at the workshop. The consultant team shall
• prepare exhibits and handouts suitable for such public meetings that illustrate and summarize the
results and recommendations of the Phase One analysis.
1
• DELIVERABLE: POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP
1
1
•
•
•
• PHASE TWO: IMPLEMENTATION
•
• •
Task 2.1: Impact Fee Studies
•
• Following the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP, we will prepare impact fee studies for those
facility types selected by the City Council. The impact fee studies will include all of the
• elements mandated by statutory and constitutional requirements. These elements include an
inventory of existing capital facilities; the cost of improvements required to remedy any existing
• service deficiencies; and the cost of improvements required to accommodate increased service
• demands.
•
•
•
•
The impact fee studies will calculate the cost per service unit to provide new development with
the existing or adopted level of service, as well as appropriate revenue credits to ensure that new
development is not charged more than its proportionate share of the cost of new facilities. Each
study will include a table that establishes the number of service units and amount of facility
demand associated with different land use types. Finally, the studies will include, for each of the
facility types, a net unit cost schedule that represents the maximum impact fees that could be
charged.
•
We will prepare two drafts of the impact fee studies. The final draft will reflect staff and
• advisory committee comments on the initial draft. We will deliver an initial draft of the impact
• fee studies within twelve weeks following the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP. If staff and
stakeholder advisory committee reviews could be completed in two weeks, we could deliver the
• final drafts 20 weeks after the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP.
• The final draft of the study will be delivered in both original and digital format. It will be
• accompanied by a spreadsheet in Excel 97 or other format specified by the City that contains all
of the impact fee calculations and can be used by staff to easily update the study.
•
DELIVERABLES: DRAFT IMPACT FEE STUDIES
• FINAL IMPACT FEE STUDIES
•
• Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances
• We will prepare initial and final drafts of the City impact fee ordinances and deliver them
• concurrently with the impact fee study drafts. The drafts will be prepared in the standard formats
used by the City. The ordinances will include provisions relating to impact fee assessment,
• collection, credits, refunds, appeals, study updates and other provisions necessary to ensure due
process and conformance with relevant impact fee case law. The ordinance will also amend the
• City's existing code to modify dedication, exaction or development fee provisions to be
consistent with the proposed impact fees and applicable law. If desired by the City, we can
• provide up to three alternative ordinances adopting the fees at varying percentages of the
• maximum fees calculated in the study. Final drafts of the ordinances will be prepared and
delivered to the City following a local review meeting included in Task 2.3. The final draft will
•
•
•
•
•
• be provided in both onginal and digital format. We will also provide staff with samples of
• administrative forms used by other jurisdictions in implementing an impact fee system.
•
• DELIVERABLES: DRAFT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES
FINAL IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES
•
SAMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE FORMS
•
• Task 2.3: Public Participation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• DELIVERABLE' FIVE DAYS OF MEETINGS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Throughout Phase Two of the project, key members of our team will be available to attend and
participate in up to five meetings with City staff, a stakeholders advisory committee, Planning
Commission, City Council, or the general public as desired by the City. Joint meetings or
multiple meetings held on the same day will count as one meeting. It is anticipated that several
days of meetings will be held following delivery of draft studies and ordinances The consultant
team will prepare exhibits and handouts suitable for public meetings that illustrate and
summarize the results and recommendations of the Phase Two: Implementation portion of the
project. The meetings should be scheduled approximately two weeks after delivery of the draft
documents to provide time for local review prior to the meetings. Although work on all of the
facility types will occur concurrently and may be combined into a comprehensive impact fee
study and ordinance, the meetings could be combined or staggered depending on local desires for
review and/or public input. This task is limited to a maximum of eight person -days of out-of-
town consultant time. Team members will also be available for additional meetings on a time
plus expense basis.
•
•
• PROJECT SCHEDULE
• The City's RFP suggests that the draft studies should be completed in five months and the entire
•
Exhibit B
• project within six months. In our experience this may be somewhat constrained. Our proposed
schedule includes a two-month initial phase that is required to determine what types of fees
• should be developed during the second phase. While initial drafts of the studies and ordinances
could be completed within the first five months as desired by the City, the entire process,
• including public participation and revisions to the initial drafts, is likely to take somewhat longer
than the additional month allowed in the City's contemplated schedule. The schedule for all tasks
• in Phase One begins with the project organization meeting in Task 1.1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Months from Protect Start
Tasks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE ONE:
POLICY DIRECTIONS
1.1: Project Org./Data Collection
1.2: Legal and Policy Evaluation
1.3: Policy Directions Workshop
PHASE TWO:
IMPLEMENTATION
2.1: Impact Fee Studies
2.2: Implementing Ordinances
2.3: Public Participation
*
*
*
+1
1 0
+1
1 0
+1
* *
*
0 = draft deliverable • = fmal deliverable * = meeting/presentation
• • •
•
• Exhibit C
• CONSULTANT COMPENSATION
• The total cost of the professional services described in the accompanying proposal for Phase One
is $30,020. This lump -sum budget includes all direct and indirect expenses incurred by the
•
consultant team in performing the services. The breakdown of project cost by task is presented
• below.
• The proposed scope of services and budget for Phase Two may be modified following the
completion of Phase One. Additional services beyond those specified in the accompanying Work
• Plan may be negotiated or billed on a time and expense basis at the hourly rates provided on the
• Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses.
•
• All Selected
Task Facilities Facilities
•
Task 1.1: Project Organization/Data $5,760 $5,760
•
Task 1.2: Policy Directions Memorandum $18,500 $18,500
• Task 1.3: Policy Directions Workshop $5,760 $5,760
• Subtotal, Phase One $30,020 $30,020
• Task 2.1a: Major Roads (e.g., Arterials) $12,800 $12,800
• Task 2.1b: Water $12,040 $12,040
Task 2.1c: Wastewater $12,040 $12,040
• Task 2.1d: Parks and Trails $11,280 $11,280
• Task 2.1e: Libraries $5,550
Task 2.1f: General Government $6,150
• Task 2.1g: Solid Waste $4,600
• Task 2.1h: Fire Protection $5,360
Task 2.1i: Police Protection $5,360
• Task 2.1 Subtotal* $75,180 $48,160
• Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances $9,000 $9,000
• Task 2.3: Public Participation $11,250 $11,250
Subtotal, Phase Two $95,430 $68,410
•
• Total Project $125,450 $98,430
•
The City will be billed monthly based on percent completion of individual tasks. The City's
• Project Manager will be provided with a written progress report accompanying each monthly
•
•
•
• •
invoice.
* Storm drainage not included because most communities lack sufficient data to support
development of drainage impact fees.
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES
Quoted
Rates
Principal
Land Use Attorney
Senior Associates
Associates
Other (specify):
$125
$150
$95
$75
Connie Cooper, Cooper Consulting $100
Per meeting cost to add or delete a meeting $2,250
•
•
Atlanta, Georgia
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For the City of Atlanta, Duncan Associates prepared a
multi -facility impact fee study that uniquely promoted
local growth management objectives relating to
affordable housing, economic development and multi-
modal transportation. The study specifically calculated
impact fees for road, park, drainage, fire and police
facilities and connection fees for water and wastewater
facilities. While connection fees are similar to impact
fees, they are much easier to design and apply under
the Georgia Impact Fee Act.
Throughout the study, every attempt was made to design fees that reflected the local characteristics and
concerns of Atlantans. For example, new uses in the downtown area or near MARTA stations were given a
significant reduction in road impact fees because of their greater
use of rapid transit and lesser reliance on roads. Through the
concept of recoupment (being paid back for prior facility
investments which will serve new growth), excess park and
public safety facility capacities allowed the waiver of impact fees
for certain projects. An important advantage of the recoupment
concept is that required fees can be waived for qualifying
projects without reimbursing the impact fee account or they can
be spent in areas not meeting benefit principles. Most Atlanta fee
waivers were restricted to development in established enterprise
zones. A single service area and a city-wide service level was
recommended for roads and only arterial roads were
incorporated in the fee . Water and wastewater connection fees
were designed to recapture system capital costs and be collected
outside the city. Three service areas were identified for park fees
and the service level was based on a 'functional population"
methodology that allocated impacts between residential and
nonresidential uses. Fire/EMS and police impact fees were
applied citywide and also based on a functional population
methodology. Both park and public safety fees were recoupment fees, which could be waived for
development projects which met certain prescribed criteria.
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM
The study also analyzed various issues involved in
complying with the Georgia Impact Fee Act,
outlined important policy directions to guide the
preparation of impact fee studies, compared
recommended impact fee levels with
"competitive" communities, analyzed fee
relationships to the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Capital Improvements Program, and summarized
national and state judicial trends in the treatment of
developer exactions and impact fees.
Period:
Budget:
Team:
January 1992 - December 1993
$340,000
Duncan Associates (Lead)
Rimrock Consulting
Dr. Arthur C. Nelson
LRE Engineering
Webb & Webb, Attorneys
The Sales Law Group, P.C.
W illiams-Russell & Johnson
Contact: Femando Costa, former Planning Director
City of Atlanta
817.871.8042
d
uncan associates
College Station, Texas
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For the City of College Station, Duncan Associates
assessed the feasibility of adopting impact fees for
road, drainage, water and wastewater facilities. In
order to develop legal impact fees, the City had to
prepare specified technical studies and follow a
defined public involvement process. The study
evaluated impact fee feasibility in terms of data
adequacy; appropriateness of fees for different
geographic areas; planning consistency; administrative
ease and costs; revenues and cost effectiveness; and
equity. The study recommended that the City
consider impact fees for drainage, water and wastewater, but not for roads. The study found no compelling
justification for road impact fees because local arterials were almost all state highways, and the cost of
upgrading such facilities can not be included in impact fees in Texas. Road impact fees would also be merely
another way of accomplishing what the City then accomplished through its development exaction process.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AREA
The study indicated that the City needed a detailed
drainage master plan before proceeding with the
preparation of a drainage impact fee. The study also
suggested that the City consider using drainage utility
charges and drainage impact fees in tandem as a means
of equitably distributing the costs of needed stormwater
improvements among existing residents and new
development. Drainage utility charges could be
structured to cover the costs of operations and
maintenance, as well as the improvement costs needed
to address existing capacity deficiencies. Impact fees
could then be used to finance major growth -related
capital facilities. Such a program would result in the a
very efficient and equitable method of financing needed
drainage improvements.
Water and wastewater impact fees were considered are feasible from the perspective of cost effectiveness and
data availability. Because of the high mobility of local residents (college students), significant inter -generational
inequities were not present. However, the City and its utilities had recently experienced high levels of
growth, with associated capital costs imposed on local ratepayers. The addition of impact fees would diversify
City financing approaches, limit bond financing and keep rates lower for all customers. Since the City already
had most of the information required for
an impact fee study, there would be little
cost to implement a fee. Finally, projected
revenues from impact fees were likely to
far exceed the cost of developing and
administering fees. For those reasons, the
study recommended that the City
implement water and wastewater fees.
Period: September 1994 - September 1995
Budget: $50,000
Team: Duncan Associates (Lead)
Rimrock Consulting Company
Esmond Engineering
Contact: Jim Calloway, Community Development Director
City of College Station
409.764.3570
iii ira: 1. i.sg.r&tTur9
L
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Impact Fee/Excise Tax Feasibility Study
For the City of Colorado Springs, Duncan Associates
was asked to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing impact
fees and/or development excise taxes as a means of
funding capital facility needs caused by the city's recent
rapid growth. Key questions addressed by the
feasibility study were I) whether or not the City
should use an impact fee or development excise tax,
and 2) if so, what types of facilities should be funded by
impact fees or excise taxes.
The feasibility study reviewed current City developer
exactions and fees, and determined that its drainage basin fees and water and wastewater connection charges
clearly met the definition of impact fees. Other exactions that were examined included park and school land
dedication and fee -in -lieu requirements and road exactions. Colorado Springs also makes extensive use of
special districts, and several of these have been used to fund major improvements to the arterial street system.
FIRE STATIONS AND SERVICE AREAS The feasibility study developed three tiers of recommendations.
x• _,• It concluded that, if Colorado Springs were going to make any
,; single change in its development exaction policy, it should
J
• : , i^ � ��; ; develop a road impact fee to fund city-wide arterial street
= improvements. The study indicated that a system of arterial
street impact fees that provided credit to developers who were
."+ l required to make arterial improvements as a condition of
S.7%." development approval would do much to "level the playing field"
"; among developers, streamline the development review process,
strengthen the legal defensibility of the City's road exaction policy,
avoid the complexities inherent in establishing special districts to
t fund limited sets of improvements, and provide a major additional
. b>. source of funding for growth -related road improvements. The
study also noted that a development excise tax for arterial streets
` sl that provided credits would function so much like an impact fee
r .. � b ic.
that there would be no advantage in calling it a tax.
The second priority identified by the feasibility study was for Colorado Springs to update its land
dedication/fee-in-lieu requirements for parks and school sites. The requirements were still based on 1970
census data and similarly outdated ratios of land to population or students, and updating them would help
improve their legal defensibility. The third priority was for the City to consider either impact fees or
development taxes for the other City facilities that are not currently subject to development exactions: park
development (as opposed to land), fire/EMS,
police and general government facilities. The City
Council reviewed the feasibility study and
authorized Duncan Associates to proceed with
the development of impact fees for arterial streets,
parks, police and fire/EMS facilities.
November 1998 - Present
$100,170
Duncan Associates (Lead)
TranSystems Corporation
Ira Joseph, Comprehensive Plan Manager
City of Colorado Springs
719.578.6299
iii •.•._ , •...O •1G
u
Denton, Texas
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
For the City of Denton, Duncan Associates prepared
an impact fee study justifying water and wastewater
facilities and an impact fee feasibility study relating to
transportation and drainage facilities. Water and
wastewater facilities were studied in two phases. The
initial phase addressed centralized water supply,
treatment and storage facilities and wastewater
treatment facilities. A subsequent phase will address
water transmission and distribution and wastewater
collection facilities. The second phase will be based on
the preferred development scenario resulting from the
City's current comprehensive planning effort. Pursuant to the study, the City adopted new water and
wastewater impact fees of $2,527 per service unit or $2,044 for water and $483 for wastewater.
MAJOR WATERSHEDS
The feasibility report examined the desirability of the City
implementing impact fees for road and drainage facilities
and identified various policy options for the design of
"variable rate" fees. The study pointed out that needed
major road improvements were fee -ineligible State roads,
and were already funded with approved bond issues or
were likely be funded by developers through the exaction
process. The city would also have to be divided into
•
numerous service areas and an expensive transportation
model would be required to support the fee system. In
other words, a road impact fee system would be costly to
develop, would not apply equitably throughout the city,
and would not be able to fund a large number of
improvements. Consequently, the study indicated that
the City would be better served by retaining its existing
system of developer exactions for road improvements.
On the other hand, the study noted that a drainage impact fee applied to the Hickory Creek watershed south
of the city could generate needed funds to acquire land or easements in floodplain areas that the City could
not require developers to dedicate. The study did indicate, however, that the City would first need to
prepare a detailed drainage master plan of the area that complied with the impact fee act requirements. The
drainage master plan would need to be based on growth projections being developed as part of the City's
current comprehensive planning process. A drainage impact fee for the City's southern ETJ could be
combined with a city-wide drainage utility fee that
could help fund remedies to existing drainage
problems as well as on -going maintenance costs.
The studies required to develop a drainage utility
fee would be much simpler and less expensive than
those required to support a drainage impact fee.
Period: August 1998 - Present
Budget: $75,000
Team: Duncan Associates (Lead)
Applied Geographic Technology
Alan Plummer Associates
Dahlstrom McDonald, Attorneys
Contact: Jill Jordan, Utilities Director
City of Denton
940.349.7326
dunenn1necndntes
Kansas City, Missouri
Arterial Street Impact Fee Study
For the City of Kansas City, Duncan Associates
prepared an arterial street system impact fee study for
that area of the city north of the Missouri River. The
Northland area was chosen by the City Council for
the impact fee study since it is the location of most of
the city's vacant developable land and it is where most
of the city's new growth and development is
occurring.
The study included a comprehensive legal analysis to
determine if adequate authority exists for the City to
impose arterial street impact fees. Risk factors were identified to help City legal staff make a sound
recommendation in regard to imposing such fees. The analysis addressed
such technical details as the ability of the City to advance construction funds
and recover them from impact fees, use of credits for existing or future
contributions by developers, implementation of policy matters through
impact fees (such as encouraging particular types of development), and
required planning and analytical basis for impact fees in Missouri. It also
reviewed the City's authority to implement other financing techniques, such
as development taxes, utility fees and utility districts.
A comparative survey of alternative road financing techniques used in 25
similar or competitive communities was conducted. A demand -driven
approach was used to calculate road impact fees for the Northland area.
Essentially, the demand -driven approach requires that new development
replace capacity that it consumes on the major roadway system. In the
demand -driven system, average cost per vehicle -mile of travel is calculated
by taking a representative list of historical or planned roadway improvements
and dividing their total cost by the total new capacity created by such
improvements. Arterial street improvement projects, as identified in the
Metropolitan Area Regional Council's long-range transportation plan, were
used to determine average cost per unit of capacity.
The fee study and schedule were based on vehicle travel during the evening peak hour, and on national trip
generation data and local trip length data. A net cost schedule was developed that represented maximum
impact fees that the City can charge new development. The City can charge less than net cost, provided that
the fee is reduced proportionately for all
land uses and that the proportionality
between demand on the arterial street
system and the impact fee is preserved. And
finally, appropriate impact fee service areas
and benefit districts were recommended.
Fee revenues were projected based on the
net cost schedule and City growth
projections for each benefit district.
Period: September 1998 - April 2000
Budget: $117,000
Team: Duncan Associates (Lead)
Taliaferro & Browne
Cooper Consulting Company
HNTB Corporation
Contact: Mohsin Zaidi, Transportation Services Manager
Public Works Department
816.513.2683
S
Mesa, Arizona
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For the City of Mesa, Duncan Associates analyzed
local growth -related infrastructure costs, including
current financing methods and capital needs, and
then drafted a comprehensive multi -facility impact
fee study. The study addressed water, wastewater,
arterial roads, drainage, park, cultural, library, fire
and police facilities. While the City had kept its local
sales taxes, utility rates and development fees among
the lowest in region, the study noted that new
growth was not paying its own way. Mesa is also
the largest city in the nation with no municipal
property tax. The study also looked at alternative financing techniques.
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING TECHNIQUES
Legal Basis
Proportionality
Revenue Potential
Geographic Equity
Infil (/Redevelopment
HousingAnorcility
Annexation Costs
Technical Ease
n�ac
-ee
D€v
Tax
Snecial
ttnc
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
X
be
—
be
K
✓
z
utilit
9Bond
Fe
N N
V if
Exaction
s
X
As Mesa continues to mature, the study noted
that its capital needs will shift more and more
towards the replacement and rehabilitation of
aging infrastructure and that these needs will be
competing with growth -related demands for
capital funding. Although Mesa is 120 years old, it
is only 40 percent developed and still has
substantial development potential. In fact, it is
rapidly overtaking Tucson as the second largest
city in Arizona. It is both an aging and growing
community at the same time.
The study calculated that the capital cost to
continue providing existing levels of service to new development was about $8,800 per single family dwelling
unit, or its equivalent. At then current growth rates, this amounted to about $50 million per year. The study
also indicated that, just in order to retire outstanding debt for already existing capital facilities, each new single
family unit, or its equivalent, will need to pay $1,232 over the next several years. The study noted that this
portion of growth -related costs will continue to be borne by all residents through general taxation or utility
rates. The study determined that the net capital cost attributable to new growth amounted to about $6,400
per dwelling unit, or its equivalent, or about $38 million annually. Current water and wastewater
development fees, residential development taxes and arterial road exactions were revealed to be covering
only about half of the net capital cost to serve new growth.
The study recommended that the City of Mesa update its water and wastewater development fees to cover
the full net cost of growth and to more equitably
charge large users; replace its current system of..................................................................................................
inefficient developer exactions with an arterial Period: March 1997 - March 1998
Budget: $80,000
street impact fee; and expand its current Team: Duncan Associates (Lead)
residential development tax to also cover Rust Environment & Infrastructure
•
nonresidential development and to increase its NRS Associates
GeoStaamount by about 75 percent. Contact: Bryan Bryant Inc.
Raines, Senior Management Assistant
City of Mesa
602.644.3381
S
Orange County, Florida
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For Orange County, Duncan Associates updated the
County's road and law enforcement impact fees and
examined the parkland dedication requirements. The
firm first looked at the park dedication requirements
and evaluated the benefits of converting them to park
impact fees. The firm was then engaged to review and
update the County's 14 year -old road and law
enforcement impact fees. While Orange County was
one of the first jurisdiction in Florida to adopt road and
law enforcement impact fees, it had continued to rely
on subdivision exactions for its park requirements.
The reason for examining the County's park options was that impact fees offer several advantages that
subdivision exactions do not. For example, subdivision dedications are limited to land acquisition, while impact
fees can cover the cost of both land and improvements. In addition, dedication requirements are applicable
only to new subdivisions, while impact fees can be assessed at any point in the development approval process.
On the other hand, impact fees must meet
judicial standards that do not necessarily apply
to subdivision exactions. And while impact
fees may be based on full facility costs, credits
must be given for outstanding indebtedness
and dedicated revenues. For example, in
1995, the County authorized $38 million in
revenue bonds secured by the public services
tax to acquire and improve environmentally
sensitive lands and parkland facilities. After
considering these credits, the study indicated
the maximum park impact fee that could be
charged was $225 per single-family unit and
$143 per multi -family unit.
Another consideration was that impact fee revenues must be earmarked for expenditure within specific
"benefit districts" in order to meet specified legal tests. The study recommended that new park benefit areas
should be the same as those already established for the County's road impact fee system (see map above).
Due to the possible net loss in total revenue and other considerations, the County opted to update its existing
parkland dedication requirements, rather than convert to a totally new park impact fee system.
Orange County's road and law enforcement impact fees, originally adopted in the early I 980s, had not been
reviewed and updated in ten years. The study
reviewed law enforcement impact fee
methodology based on calls for service by land
use, updated capital facility replacement costs, and
revised credit calculations. Work products
included a draft and final impact fee study, revised
fee schedule and necessary code amendments.
Period: September 1995 - July 1998
Budget: $40,000
Team: Duncan Associates
Contact: Bill Pable, Project Coordinator
Orange County
407.836.5880
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Feasibility Study
For the City of Santa Fe, Duncan Associates recently
prepared an impact fee feasibility study that addressed
roads, drainage, water, wastewater, parks and public
safety facilities. On the basis of this study, the City will
decide whether to update existing fees or pursue
additional fees in the next phase of the project. Santa
Fe currently charges modest impact fees for arterial
streets and signalization and wastewater. It also
charges afee in -lieu of park land dedication and a
water connection fee (Utility Expansion Charge) that
functions much like an impact fee.
The feasibility study included a survey of "best practices" for
impact fees from around the nation. This included a review of
impact fee enabling act provisions in the other 21 states with
such acts. If the City wishes to pursue changes to the New
Mexico Development Fees Act, the study suggests that it try to
reduce the length of time that assessment at platting locks in the
current fee schedule from four years to something more
reasonable (one to two years).
STATES WITH ENABLING ACTS
The City had indicated interest in impact fee approaches that
encourage affordable housing, infill and redevelopment. As for
affordable housing, the study noted that one approach would be
to base park fees on unit size, rather than assessing a flat rate per dwelling unit. In addition, funds could be set
aside to pay impact fees for affordable housing projects. In order to encourage infill, the study recommended
that the City identify a service area where facilities are available and charge no fees in that area for certain
facilities. Another way to encourage redevelopment is to base the impact fees on the difference between the
impact caused by the proposed use and that caused by the most intensive use on the site in the past.
The study indicated that the City might want to defer updating the water Utility Expansion Charge, which was
recently increased. The wastewater impact fee should be updated, and the City might consider basing the
revised fee on the City's utility connection fee authority, rather than its impact fee authority. The basis for
assessing wastewater fees by land use and square footage should be reexamined and meter size should be
considered. The development of wastewater interceptor impact fee should be deferred until after completion
of the Wastewater Master P/an. The line portion of both water and wastewater fees could be waived in a
defined service area where current facilities are adequate to support infill or redevelopment. Developers
should also be given credit against the line component if they build line extensions.
The study recommended that the City's park 'period: January 2000 - Present
dedication requirements should be reviewed based Budget: $25,000
on existing levels of service and housing type, and Team: Duncan Associates (Lead)
that park impact fees should include park Camp Dresser McKee
development costs and vary by housing type. Since Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig
• Sites Southwest
the City does not have sufficient information to Contact: Cyrus Samii, Project Coordinator
develop a drainage impact fee at this time, the study•
dCity of Santa Fe
suggested it might consider a stormwater utility fee. '•. 505.984.6625
C-
1
'
I
Memphis/Shelby County, Tennessee
Impact Fee/Development Tax Feasibility Study
For Memphis/Shelby County, Duncan Associates
evaluated the feasibility of using impact fees or
development taxes to help pay for the cost of
infrastructure needed to support new development.
Shelby County, the largest county in Tennessee,
contains the City of Memphis -- the largest city in the
state. County population has been growing at a
relatively constant linear rate since the 1970s. Since
1980, however, Memphis has been losing population,
while its six suburban municipalities and the
unincorporated area have been growing rapidly.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate alternative financing techniques for schools, roads, drainage, fire
protection, law enforcement, parks and library capital facilities. The techniques addressed included impact
fees, development taxes and real estate transfer taxes. The study addressed which technique, if any, was
appropriate for each type of facility. Factors evaluated include data availability, revenue potential, legal
defensibility, intergovernmental participation and regional competitiveness.
FEE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
Schools Dev't Tax
Unrestricted Transfer Tax
Roads
Impact Fee
Drainage
Utility Fee
Fire/EMS
Impact Fee
Police
Impact Fee
Parks
Impact Fee
County -wide exc, Memphis $8,661,000
County -wide $19,500,000
Unincorporated Area $5,535,000
County -Wide $21,437,000
Uninc. Area + Lakeland $477,000
Uninc. Area + 2 Ci es $251,000
Unincorporated Area $732,000
The major issues in the study revolved
around school finance. A major legal
constraint influencing the study is the
requirement that the County share any
school funding with the separate
Memphis school district. Given the
city's relatively slow growth, this meant
that the majority of bond proceeds
issued to finance new schools outside
Memphis had to be given to the city
school district, which has been unable
to spend all of the capital improvement
funds it has received.
The study identified two major
alternatives to address the school
capital financing issue. A real estate transfer tax would have the greatest revenue potential. If assessed county-
wide and earmarked for schools, the funds would need to be split between the Memphis and Shelby County
school district in proportion to the enrollment in each district. A school development tax would have the next
highest revenue -potential, and would have several advantages over a school impact fee, including the ability to
assess nonresidential development and mitigate impacts on housing affordability. Before a school impact fee
or development tax should be seriously
considered, however, some method would
need to be found to prevent the need to share
revenues with the Memphis school district.
One option would be to seek to have the city
school district voluntarily waive any claim to
County funds raised outside of Memphis.
Period: October 1999 - April 2000
Budget: $50,000
Team: Duncan Associates
Contact: Louise Mercuro, Deputy CountyAdministrator
Shelby County
901.545.4500
I
James B. Duncan, FAICP
President
Mr. Duncan, a past president of the American Planning
Association, is one of the nation's leading urban planning and
growth management practitioners. His career as a city planner
has spanned almost four decades of service to more than 150
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 County, Florida; and chief of local planning
services for Dade County, Florida.
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
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 concurrency, anc
introduced many user-friendly, easy -find techniques to simplify
regulations.
For APA, Mr. Duncan has also served as vice -chair of its
Chapter Presidents Council, as president of its Florida chapter,
as professional development liasion of its Texas chapter; and as
a member of its national governance committee. Mr. Duncan
is the co-author of the best-selling APA publication, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES, and a frequent
conference speaker on growth management, land -use
regulations, infrastructure financing and impact fees. While in
south Florida, he also served as an adjunct professor of city
planning at Florida Atlantic University; and as vice chair of the
planning and zoning board and chair of the code enforcement
board for the City of Davie.
Education: M.S. Regional and City Planning, 1965
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
BA. Journalism and Political Science, 1961
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Certification: College of Fellows, American Institute of
Certified Planners
CITT�:�?S7•
Clancy J. Mullen, AICP
Senior Associate
Since joining Duncan Associates in 1989, Mr. Mullen has
prepared infrastructure financing studies and development
impact fees systems for cities and counties throughout the
nation.
Mr. Mullen was the principal author of impact fee studies for
Apache Junction and Mesa, Arizona; Colorado Springs,
Commerce City, and Adams, Eagle, Larimer and Weld
Counties, Colorado; Lee, Citrus, Dade and Orange Counties,
Florida; Atlanta, Columbus and Gwinnett County, Georgia; the
State of Hawaii; Boise/Ada County, Idaho; Minneapolis/St. Paul
Metropolitan Council, Minnesota; Kansas City, Missouri;
Bozeman and Gallatin County, Montana; Reno/Washoe
County, Nevada; Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, Ruidoso and
Rio Rancho, New Mexico; Cary, North Carolina; Hilton Head
Island, South Carolina; Franklin, LaVergne, Smyrna, White
House and Shelby County, Tennessee; Flower Mound,
Denton, Georgetown and College Station, Texas; and West
Valley City and Sandy City, Utah.
In addition, Mr. Mullen has also prepared studies which
examined alternative infrastructure financing techniques for the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the State of Florida;
Montgomery County, Maryland; Greeley, Colorado; Sugar
Land, Texas; and Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina.
Mr. Mullen has revised zoning ordinances and land
development regulations for cities and counties in Arkansas,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. He was
also involved in the preparation of growth management
technique reports for the Puget Sound Council of
Governments (Seattle) in Washington and the Alamo Area
Council of Governments (San Antonio) in Texas.
Mr. Mullen is a contributing author of the best-selling APA
publication, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES,
and he has expertise in the areas of demography, housing,
employment, and fiscal research and modeling techniques.
Education: M.S. Community and Regional Planning, 1988
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
B.S. Sociology, 1978
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
Certifications: American Institute of Certified Planners
duncan(assoclates
P
Eric Damian Kelly, Esn., FAICP
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
associate of Duncan Associates, he formally joined the firm as an
officer and shareholder in 1999. He is a former dean of the
College of Architecture and Urban Planning at Ball State, where he
still teaches several urban planning courses, while engaging in an
active consultant role with Duncan Associates.
Dr. Kelly has personally drafted sign controls for numerous cities,
including 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
drafting development regulations as vice president of a Philadelphia
firm that developed the innovative "Impact Zoning" concept during
the early 1970s. He then went on to establish his own land use law
firm in Colorado in 1976 and operated it until 1990, when he
accepted a full-time faculty position at Iowa State University. He has
prepared new land -use controls for local governments in over 25
states and has conducted many training sessions for public officials.
Dr. Kelly is general editor of the I 0 -volume Matthew Bender series
on ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS. Other publications include
MANAGING COMMUNITY GROWTH (Preager, 1993), the "Zoning"
chapter in the ICMA "Planner's Greenbook;" Planning Advisory
Service reports on zoning enforcement and adequate public
facilities; and numerous articles on growth management. He is the
author of recent articles on the "taking" issue and the treatment of
cellular towers and satellite dishes under local ordinances. Dr. Kelly
received the Colorado APA chapter's award for "Outstanding
Service and Educational Leadership" in 1989, and the University of
Pennsylvania listed him among its "100 Graduates Who Epitomize
Our Future," He, like long-time friend and colleague Jim Duncan, is
one of 46 people selected as the first members of the College of
Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP).
Education: Ph.D. in Public Policy, 1992
THE UNION INSTITUTE
Juris Doctor and Master of City Planning, 1975
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
B.A. in political economy, 1969
WILLIAMS COLLEGE
Affiliations: American Bar Association
College of Fellows, American Institute of
Certified Planners
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP
Employment History President, Cooper Consulting Company, Birmingham, AL, 1990 -Present
Planning Director, Shelby County, Alabama, 1987-1990
Principal Planner, Jefferson County, Alabama, 1975-1987
State Planning, State of Alabama, 1975
Education/Honors Masters of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Mississippi
Bachelor of Arts, Political Science
Mississippi State University
Past President, American Planning Association
Past Chair, Chapter Presidents Council, American Planning Association
Charter Member, American Planning Association
Charter Member, Alabama Planning Commissioners' Institute
Member, American Institute of Certified Planners
Board Member, American Society of Consulting Planners
Member, National Association of County Planners
Member, Farmland Trust
Past President, Alabama Chapter of American Planning Association
Past, Board of Directors, Horizon 280 Association
Past, Board of Directors, Travelers Aid Society
Guest Lecturer:
American Planning Association National Conference
Planning Commissioner Workshops in Southeast
University of Texas, Leadership Forum
Indiana Planning Commissioner Institute
32 State Planning Associations across U.S.
16 Planning Schools across U.S.
Voice of America, Worldwide Radio
Mississippi Municipal League
Mid South Zoning Institute
National Association of Women in Construction
Four State Regional Planning Conference
Cooper Consulting Co., Inc. urban planning and plan implementation
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP 2
Professional Affiliations
CONNIE B. COOPER, AICP, has 25 years of experience in planning and community
development at the state, county, and local levels. This has included extensive experi-
ence throughout the southeast as a principal participant in the areas of strategic
planning; community goal setting and visioning; comprehensive planning; economic
development; zoning and subdivision; housing; transportation; market research; land
development; community relations; and intergovernmental cooperation. In addition, as
a planning director in the public sector, Ms. Cooper's experience has included major
responsibilities in the management of planning programs which have become the
cornerstones of Shelby and Jefferson Counties' planning programs.
As Planning Director and Principal Planner in Shelby and Jefferson Counties (Ala-
bama), Ms. Cooper gained considerable experience as the principal participant in more
than eighty projects related to county and municipal governments; federal agencies;
community organizations; chambers of commerce; private corporations; and individu-
als. As President of Cooper Consulting Company, Inc., Ms. Cooper has participated in
the completion of a city -county comprehensive plan for one of Georgia's fast-growing
communities; developed a community involvement plan for a major hazardous mitiga-
tion corporation in Louisiana; developed a planned unit development ordinance
regulating a major land development in Alabama; provided technical support for the
comprehensive revision of a gulf coast community's zoning ordinance and map;
completed a study of the impact of suburbanization on a major capitol city the south-
east; provided expert testimony in rezoning litigation; assisted the development
community in variance and plan approvals; and completed an eight mile corridor plan
in the Birmingham metropolitan area. Ms. Cooper played a key role in the preparation
of a marketing and promotional program for South Fulton County; a major neighbor-
hood revitalization project in Rockdale County; a comprehensive plan update and new
land development regulations for Columbia County; Georgia; an economic develop-
ment plan for DeKalb County, Georgia; Destin, Florida's citywide visioning initiative;
a community -wide visioning and design charrette in Charleston, South Carolina;
growth management plan for Norman, Oklahoma; a corridor redevelopment plan in
Atlanta, Georgia; and a comprehensive plan update for Alpharetta, Georgia. The firm is
currently under contract to complete comprehensive plans in Colorado, Indiana, and
Georgia, as well as unified development ordinances for communities in Missouri and
Georgia.
Ms. Cooper has had a successful history of working with governmental officials and
community groups. She possesses a strong capacity for quickly assessing alternatives
and recommending approaches that work well for the differing needs of her clients.
Experience in the public sector has provided her with insight and sensitivity with which
municipal projects must be undertaken, as well as the role elected officials and
taxpayers play in the process. As past president of the American Planning Association
(APA), a 28,000 national association of city, county, regional and private planners
across the U. S. and abroad, Ms. Cooper has had an excellent track record of profes-
sional activities. She is a frequent national guest lecturer and facilitator on planning
with limited resources, simplifying zoning techniques, the role of the planning commis-
sion, leadership capacity building and community involvement. Her tenure as Presi-
dent of the American Planning Association gave Ms. Cooper the opportunity to share
creative planning approaches with colleagues throughout America, as well as to meet
with the Presidential staff in D.C. to discuss major urban issues. Ms. Cooper is a
WBE/DBE certified firm in Kansas City, Missouri; Charlotte, North Carolina; for the
Alabama Department of Transportation; and for the Georgia Department of Transpor-
tation.
FAYETTE\ LLE •
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Fred Hanna and City Council
THRU: John Maguire, Administrative Services Director
Charlie Venable, Public Works Director
FROM: Stephen Davis, Budget Managga
Tim Conklin, City Plannert
DATE: September 18, 2000
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fee
Staff requests City Council approve a contract for Phase One of a development impact fee study with
James Duncan and Associates, Inc. The attached contract with James Duncan and Associates, Inc
is divided into two phases. Phase One: Policy Directions and Phase Two: Implementation. This
request is for Phase One only and the cost of Phase One is $30,020. City Council will be requested
to authorize Phase Two of the study at the conclusion of Phase One and acceptance by City Council
of the POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM.
Background
Earlier this year, a selection committee was established to select a consultant for a development
impact fee study. The selection committee was comprised of a representative of City Council, a
representative of the Planning Commission, a representative of the development community and
representatives of each City department. The request for proposal seeking consultants to perform
a development impact fee study was advertised in April. Additionally, notifications were sent via
email to thirteen firms that perform development impact fee studies. Four firms submitted proposals.
The committee met on June 27 and voted to interview all four of the firms that submitted proposals.
The interviews were held on July 20. On August 31, the committee met and voted to initiate contract
negotiations with James Duncan and Associates, Inc.
Current Conditions
The contract with James Duncan and Associates, Inc is presented for City Council approval.
Funding for this contract is in the Sales Tax Capital Improvement Fund in the amount of $100,000.
Phase One of the contract will cost $30,020 and will be complete in approximately two months.
Phase Two, to the extent authorized, is projected to take approximately six months.
Requested Action
Approval of Phase One of the contract with James Duncan and Associates, Inc.
Cost of This Request
The cost of this request is $30,020. In addition to the cost of Phase One of the agreement with James
Duncan and Associates, Inc, staff requests approval of $4,500 for other costs and expenses
associated with this study.
Conclusion
If you have any questions concerning this agenda item or the development impact fee study please
contact either Tim Conklin at 575-8265 or Stephen Davis at 575-8296.
H:\BUDGETPROJECCS\RrPsUmpact Fee\development. impact fee council.agenda.WPD
f
$
7
(
a �a
3
[ «
CD
CD
_
( ~
a.
\
k
2.2
/
-
o
!
§
§
C
!
0.
hC
\
:o
CD
{
-
%
}
.
-
\ \
_
CD
O
&&u
-
\
3d
(
\
\
}
{;
m
S.
t
{
\
{
{
\
CD
{
{
\
\
\
2
-
CD
@
]m
\m(
0
0
c
a
(<
'm
ta
`C)E
\
�
\
0
\
(
O
\
\
�fG®
§
§I
-
a E
�$
{0
$ k
X 7
• Co
•
-
CD
a.z ]
/
2..
a
{
N)
2
2
[rn
\;
ictDID
III
• STAFF REVIEW FORM •
Purchasing Officer
XX AGENDA REQUEST
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of October 17,2000
FROM
Stephen Davis Budget & Research Admin Services
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of Phase One of the contract with James Duncan and
Associates, Inc to perform a Development Impact Fee Study. Approve the Mayor and
City Clerk to sign the agreement with James Duncan and Associates, Inc.
Additionally, authorize $4,500 in other project costs for Phase One.
COST TO CITY:
$34,520.00
Cost of this Request
4470-9470-5314-00
Account Number
00008-1
Project Number
100,000.00
Category/Project Budget
279.00
Funds Used To Date
99,721.00
Remaining Balance
Impact Fee Study -
Citywide
Category/Project Name
Rsk
koA
Program Name
Sales Tax Capital
Fund
B GET VIEW: XX Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
c
udget Manager Administrative Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
Date Internal uditor Date
Date
'lq-OO
Date
ADA Coordinator
Grant Coordinator
Date
Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of contract with James Duncan and
Associates, Inc, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement, and
authorizing staff to spend up to $4,500 in other project expenses in conjunction with
Phase One.
Division Head Date Cross Reference
New Item: Yes No
Prev Ord/Res #:
Orig Contract Date:
Orig Contract Number
FAYETTEV&LE M
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
October 30, 2000
Mr. James B. Duncan, FAICP
President
Duncan Associates
13276 Research Boulevard
Suite 208
Austin, Texas 78750
RE: Resolution 144-00 awarding under RFP#2000-9 a professional services agreement for Phase
One Development of an impact fee study
Dear Mr. Duncan:
I have enclosed two professional services agreements between City of Fayetteville and Duncan
Associates that require your signature and attesting. We have marked where your signature is
needed. Please send both signed copies back and I will return one copy after Mayor Hanna and I
sign and attest.
Thank you
for your prompt attention to this matter.
If you
have any questions please feel free to
contact me
at (501) 575-8324.
Sincerely,
Heather Woodruff
City Clerk
HW:jb
enclosure
r
113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501 521.7700
FAX 501 575-8257
FAYETTEViLLE
THE CITY OF fAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Steve Davis, Budget & Research
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: October 23, 2000
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 144-00 awarding under RFP#2000-9 a professional services
agreement to James Duncan and Associates, Inc. The original will be microfilmed and filed with
the City Clerk. The purchase requisition has been forwarded to Nancy Smith.
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor
Tim Conklin, City Planner
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
Duncan Associates
in association with
Cooper Consulting Company
Impact Fee Study
Task 1.3: City Council
Policy Directions Workshop
Date: Thursday, April 12, 2001
Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Location: Room 326
,5
/�f r9.v,✓inJGl
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501) 575-8264
This workshop is designed to address the issues raised in the Policy Directions Memorandum
and to provide policy direction for the remainder of the project. The Policy Directions
Memorandum and Comparative Development Fee Survey will be handed out at the April 3, 2001
City Council meeting.
The findings and recommendations of the policy analysis and any proposed modifications to the
scope of services for Phase Two will be presented to the City Council at this policy directions
workshop.
Please call the Planning Division at 575-8264 if you have any question or need more information
regarding this workshop.
C:IConklinlimpactfee studylpolicydir_memo. npd
proposal to pro✓ide
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE REPORT
(RFP 2000-9)
submttedto I FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
submitted by
duncan�associates
in association wit i
Cooper Consulting Company
September 2000
duncan associates
land development regulations
growth management
impact fees
September 12, 2000
Stephen Davis
Budget Manager
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Re: PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT, RFP 2000-9
Dear Mr. Davis:
On behalf of Duncan Associates and Cooper Consulting Company, I am pleased to submit
the attached professional services agreement and summary of our qualifications to assist the
City of Fayetteville In establishing a development impact fee system. I believe that you will
find from a review of the enclosed material that we are well qualified to assist in this endeavor.
Our firm has extensive regional and national experience. In fact, we have prepared
more impact fee studies for more public clients than any other consultant in the nation.
2. Our team has a multi -disciplinary orientation. We offer the city the combined efforts
of impact fee specialists, attorneys, and planners.
Our impact fee studies custom fit our client's needs. They recognize the uniqueness of
individual cities and counties and promote local growth management goals.
Our Impact fee studies have a high acceptance and adoption rate. They are well
supported by stakeholders and none has ever been successfully challenged In court.
As you will note, we have designed our scope of services to include an initial Impact fee
feasibility study (Phase I). After a review of Phase I, the City would then decide whether or not
to proceed fully or partially (selected facilities) with Phase II.
We very much look forward to your consideration of our proposed professional services
agreement and qualifications. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
James B. Duncan, FAICP
President
13276 research boulewrd ■ suite 208 ■ auslin, lx 78750 • tel 512 258 7347 . fax 512 258 9994 . email: firm@duncanplan.com
CONTENTS
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
PROJECT APPROACH
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Exhibit A - Scope of Services
Exhibit B - Project Schedule
Exhibit C - Consultant Compensation
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
Infrastructure Finance Clients
Atlanta, GA —Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
College Station, TX —Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
Colorado Springs, CO —Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study
Denton, TX —Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Kansas City, MO —Arterial Street Impact Fee Study
Mesa, AZ —Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
Orange County, FL —Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
Santa Fe, NM —Multi -Facility Impact Fee Feasibility Study
Shelby County, TN —Impact Fee/Development Tax Study
Resumes
James B. Duncan, FAICP
Eric Damian Kelly, FAICP
Clancy J. Mullen, AICP
COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP
dnneonn necnriritns
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
With the specific needs of this project in mind, we have assembled a
consultant team with strengths in fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure
financing and land use law. Our team consists of DUNCAN
ASSOCIATES and COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY. Duncan
Associates will be the lead firm and primary contractor with the City of
Fayetteville. Team member roles will be as follows:
a Duncan Associates will be responsible for legal analysis, policy
CITY OF . issue identification, policy recommendations, impact fee
FAYETTEVIL r E ; ' analysis, ordinance draffing, overall project management,
quality control and document preparation.
+ Cooper Consu/ling Company will be responsible for the
comparative development fee survey and local data collection.
NCAN ASSOCIATES c'
Austin, Texas - DUNCAN ASSOCIATES is a consulting firm specializing in public
infrastructure finance and land development codes. The firm,
:E:ric
es B. Duncan, AACP headquartered employs g
Damian Kelly,FACCP In Austin, Texas, em to s ht pei rofessionals and has
rity J. Mullen, AICP -' i branch offices in Chicago, Illinois, Muncie, Indiana and Juno Beach,
Florida. The firm began operations as James Duncan and Associates, a
Project Management sole proprietorship, incorporated
Legal Analysis P P p, in 1987, was as James Duncan and
Impact Fee Analysis Associates, Inc. in December 1997 and at that time began doing
Ordinance Preparation business as Duncan Associates.
,r_ a fl c -----'----
COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY was established by Connie B.
COOPER CONSULTING COMPAN Cooper, AICP, in Birmingham, Alabama in 1990. Ms. Cooper has 25
Birmingham, Alabama years of experience in planning and community development at the
Connie B. Cooper, FACCP state, county, and local levels. She has been a frequent associate of
Duncan Associates on other projects, including preparing a
Comparative Fee Survey
Data Collection comparative development fee survey for Kansas City, Missouri as part
Meeting Facilitation of our ongoing project to develop an arterial street impact fee for that
municipality.
CITY STAFF. In addition to providing all available data about existing
and projected development, capital facility planning and financial
documents, we will rely on the City to schedule all interviews with City
staff, and schedule and advertise advisory committee meetings and
public hearings or workshops. It is estimated that City staff could
devote up to 200 hours managing the project, attending meetings,
gathering data and reviewing draft work products.
PROJECT APPROACH
The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is seeking an consulting services to
assist in the development of a system of impact fees. The Request for
Proposals (RFP) asks the consultant to propose a fixed -fee price to
provide the following services:
❑ a legal review identifying the City's authority and the legal
requirements for impact fees established in state statutes and
state and national case law;
0 an impact fee study that calculates impact fees for all types of
facilities provided by the City, including streets, bridges,
drainage, sidewalks/trails, parks, water distribution and storage
systems, sewer collection and treatment facilities, and traffic
monitoring and control devices;
❑ an analysis of the effect of new impact fees on development,
including ways to minimize the negative effects while still
providing full funding for planned capital facilities;
0 three sample adoption documents;
❑ attendance at six public meetings and/or public hearings to
explain the findings of the study and present the adoption
documents;
❑ a process that increases the ability of the City Council to adopt
the impact fees:
❑ an automated, spreadsheet -based model that will enable City
staff to calculated impact fee changes in the future, training to
City staff in use of the model and program technical support for
one year following acceptance of the final model;
❑ monthly project status reports in newsletter format; and
0 specific implementation assistance to City staff.
The RFP states that the draft study should be completed in five
months, and the entire project within six months of the project start
date.
III .. _ . A .. .,-
The City has $100,000 budgeted for this project, although price is a
secondary consideration (sealed price proposals will be viewed only
after firm qualifications) and additional funding is a possibility.
The City has prepared several planning documents that would be an
integral part of this study. These include the Fayettevi//e General
P/an 2020 and the Five- Year Capita] lmprovementc Program, 2000-
2004. Additionally, the City's recent budget and comprehensive
annual financial report (CAFR) will prove critical to this study.
The City's RFP asks for more in the way of consultant services than it
probably needs or can afford within its current budget. The requested
time schedule of six months also seems, in our experience with these
types of projects, to be somewhat constrained. We asked staff if the
City would be willing to consider modifications to its requested scope
of services, and were told that it would.
In an impact fee project, the cost of consultant services is strongly
related to the number and type of facilities for which impact fees are to
be calculated. It is very difficult to give a fixed -fee price to develop an
unknown number of impact fees. When a community does not
already know the facilities for which they desire to have impact fees
developed, we generally propose an initial "policy directions" phase to
the project, during which we can assist the governing body in selecting
the facilities to be included in the second, "implementation" phase of
the project during which detailed impact fee studies and implementing
ordinances are prepared.
We are not in the business of selling "canned" spreadsheet models that
calculate impact fees. There are such models on the market, but we
do not believe that they truly reflect the unique characteristics of
individual communities. The problem with automated models is that
they must be either very simplistic, in which case they are too rigidly
geared to a single methodology and type of inputs, or else they are so
complex that significant training is required to operate them.
What we do provide is a clearly -drafted report that walks the reader
step-by-step through all of the data, assumptions, methodological
choices and calculations involved in the impact fee determinations.
The study is accompanied by an Excel spreadsheet that includes all of
the data and calculations. The spreadsheet is clearly organized to
guide the user toward the input cells, but at the same time provides
the flexibility to the user to modify it at will to accommodate changes in
inputs or even revisions to the methodology. There is no specialized
training required to update one of our studies. The only skills required
are the ability to think analytically, research and acquire current data,
operate a word processing program and manipulate a spreadsheet.
We also generally do not recommend that our clients spend large
sums of money on economic studies that try to determine the effect of
impact fees on the pace of development or the cost of housing.
Economic theory suggests that, in competitive markets, if impact fees
are known in advance and are stable, they will be absorbed in the cost
of land and will have negligible effects on housing costs over the long
run. We do recognize, however, that local community leaders often
feel that they need to be competitive in their development fees with
comparable jurisdictions. Consequently, we propose to conduct a
comparative survey of development fees and exactions in up to 10
jurisdictions identified by the City. It is expected that the survey will
demonstrate that even in cities that do not have a formal system of
impact fees, developers are subject to a range of land dedication
requirements, traffic mitigation exactions and utility connection fees.
It is our position that one should base impact fees not on hypothetical
or desired levels of service (which may fail to be realized), but on the
existing and anticipated levels of service as represented by the City's
existing infrastructure and its adopted capital improvement plans. This
establishes the closest "nexus" possible between the level of the fee,
the community's current service levels and its future service levels as
represented by its official policy and planning documents. Fees based
on desired levels of service can present problems (particularly in states
where these issues have not been previously litigated) if fees are based
on a standard that is not achieved in a reasonable time. Accordingly,
we would rely on an assessment of the City's current capital facilities
and its adopted capital improvement plans as the basis for assessing
levels of service for its capital facilities.
We strongly encourage the City to appoint a "stakeholder advisory
committee" to participate in the development of the impact fees. It is
very difficult to get the general public to get involved in an impact fee
project, but homebuilders, developers and major landowners as well
as anti -tax or growth control activists or organizations often want to be
included in reviewing the technical details and having input on the
policy recommendations. Aside from an initial orientation meeting, we
have found that meetings with advisory groups are more productive
when the members have received a copy of a draft study or ordinance
a week or more in advance of the meeting.
dunenn1rncrr_Jntas
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
This Professional Services Agreement is made as of October _, 2000, by and between the
City of Fayetteville, a political subdivision of the State of Arkansas (City) and James Duncan and
Associates, Inc., a professional corporation doing business as Duncan Associates located in
Austin, Texas (Consultant).
WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to perform certain services relating to the
development of impact fee reports, studies and ordinances.
WHEREAS, the scope of services has been divided into two phases, and this contract covers
Phase One, which addresses the issue of which facilities should be included in the development
of impact fee ordinances in Phase One.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter
provided, City and Consultant agree as follows.
Scope of Agreement. Consultant's relationship to City shall be that of independent
contractor; at all times this relationship shall be governed by and be in strict compliance
with the terms of this Professional Services Agreement.
2. Professional Services.
Consultant shall
furnish services
to City
as set forth in Phase One
of Exhibit "A," which
is
attached hereto
and incorporated
herein
by reference.
3. Deliverables and Schedule. Consultant shall begin its services promptly after receipt of
an executed copy of this Agreement and will complete the services and deliverable
pursuant to the schedule for Phase One as set forth in Exhibit "B." Times for
performance shall be extended for periods of delay resulting from circumstances over
which Consultant has no control.
4. Compensation and Hourly Rates. For Phase One services provided by Consultant as
described in Exhibit "A," City shall compensate Consultant based upon the completion of
individual tasks and in accordance with the fee schedule for Phase One outlined in
Exhibit "C". Payment of each such invoice shall be due to Consultant within thirty (30)
days of receipt by City.
Subcontractin2. It is understood that the Consultant will use the services of Cooper
Consulting Company as a subcontractor in the performance of certain services as
presented in Exhibit "A." Any other subcontractor relationships must first be approved
by the City.
6. Conflict of Interest. Consultant agrees that it has no interest and shall acquire no
interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner with the performance of the
services hereunder. Consultant further agrees that, in the performance of this Agreement,
no person having any such interest shall be employed.
7. Termination. The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be
terminated by either party upon written notice in the event of failure by the other party to
perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. In
the event of any termination, Consultant will be paid for all services rendered to date of
such termination.
8. "Ownership of Documents. All documents prepared in the performance of this
Agreement shall be delivered to City before final payment is made to Consultant.
9. Amendments. No amendments or modifications of this Agreement shall be valid unless
in writing and signed by each of the parties to the Agreement.
10. Venue. The laws of the State of Arkansas shall govern the construction and
interpretation of this agreement..
11. Severability. Any provision in this Agreement that is prohibited or unenforceable under
state or federal law shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibitions or
unenforceability, without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof. Also, the non-
enforcement of any provision by either party to this Agreement shall not constitute a
waiver of that provision nor shall it effect the enforceability of that provision or the
remainder of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have caused this instrument to be signed by
their respective duly authorized officers, all on the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
James B. Duncan, President
ATTEST: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
By:
•
S
•
Exhibit A
•
SCOPE OF SERVICES
•
The project will be divided into two phases. Phase One: "Policy Directions," will review the
legal framework, review local data and potential fees, and determine in conjunction with local
•
officials the type of impact fee system that should be developed in the second phase.
0
Phase Two will implement the policy directions provided by the City at the conclusion of Phase
•
One. It could entail the potential development of impact fees for water, wastewater, roads,
stormwater drainage, parks, trails, libraries, general government, solid waste, police and fire
•
protection facilities.
9
The project will be accomplished through completion of the following tasks:
Phase One: Policy Directions
•
Task 1.1: Project Organization/Data Collection
Task 1.2: Legal and Policy Analysis
•
Task 1.3 Policy Directions Workshop
•
Phase Two: Implementation
•
Task 2.1: Impact Fee Studies
•
Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances
Task 2.3: Public Participation
•
PHASE ONE: POLICY DIRECTIONS
•
TASK 1.1: PROJECT ORGANIZATION/DATA COLLECTION
•
The first phase of the project will start with data collection and project organization.
Immediately upon contract execution, we will work with the Project Manager to schedule joint or
•
back-to-back meetings with key members of City staff.
0
At these initial organizational meetings, we will gather available information related to the
•
project; identify major policy issues involved in formulating a City impact fee program; conduct
initial informational interviews with the City's planning, legal, finance and capital projects
•
managers; coordinate staff and Consultant responsibilities; and establish the project schedule.
One issue to be addressed at this meeting is the comparison cities to be included in the
.
development fee survey to be conducted in Task 1.2.
•
The City should provide the consultant team, without charge, copies of all relevant plans, studies
•
and documents needed to perform the scope of work. These may include, but are not limited to:
•
C
S
•
•
O adopted land use and facility plans
•
O capital improvements programs
O data on existing development served by City (dwelling units by housing type and
•
nonresidential building square footage by land use type —data may need to be by
subarea for geographically -specific analysis)
•
O inventories and maps of existing facilities and pertinent descriptive data by major facility
•
type
❑ annual budgets and comprehensive financial reports
•
❑ land development regulations
❑ ordinances and policies regarding land dedication or exactions for water, wastewater, parks,
•
roadways, drainage and electric power facilities
•
❑ descriptions of existing processes for securing private participation in public infrastructure
construction, including annexation agreements
•
❑ debt payment schedules for outstanding bond issues relating to transportation, drainage,
water, wastewater, park, trails, library, fire and police protection facilities
•
•
At the conclusion of the task, we will prepare a memorandum summarizing the organizational
framework for the project and listing additional data to be provided by the City. The DATA
•
NEEDS MEMORANDUM will be delivered to the Project Manager within two weeks of the
organizational meetings.
•
•
DELIVERABLES: ONE DAY OF MEETINGS
DATA NEEDS MEMORANDUM
•
•
TASK 1.2: LEGAL AND POLICY EVALUATION
•
Once preliminary data collection is complete, we will review applicable statutory and case law
•
and outline the legal framework for impact fees in Arkansas. The initial draft of the legal
memorandum will be submitted to the City Attorney's office as a LEGAL MEMORANDUM.
•
Following review by the City Attorney, all or portions of the legal analysis may be incorporated
into the policy memorandum.
•
• Also as part of this task, we will also conduct a survey of development exactions, impact fees and
utility connection fees imposed by up to 10 comparative municipalities in Arkansas or
• neighboring states. The development exactions and fees assessed by the surveyed communities
will be compared to Fayetteville's existing and potential fees in a COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT
• FEE SURVEY memorandum.
• Finally, we will 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. The policy issues to be
• addressed in the development of a impact fee system include levels of service, service area or
• benefit district boundaries, effect of impact fees on affordable housing, infill and redevelopment,
economic development, downtown development and other relevant issues.
•
•
•
The most critical of these issues is the types of impact fees that should be developed for the City
in Phase Two. The evaluation will be 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 ease of
administration.
Another issue to be addressed, especially for roads, is how impact fees would affect existing
development exaction practices (e.g., standard right-of-way dedication and improvements to
adjacent arterials) and developer/annexation agreements. This analysis will involve a number of
policy issues, such as what kinds of costs are included in the road impact fee (e.g., are
interchange cost included? right-of-way costs? collectors?) and what kind of developer
improvements are eligible for impact fee credits.
The likely magnitude of potential fees in relation to existing exaction practices is an obvious
consideration in the selection of the facilities to be addressed in Phase Two. However, we do not
propose in this phase to perform preliminary calculations of potential fees or attempt to
determine the average value of exactions. Instead, we will present already available information
on average impact fees around the country and development fees charged in comparison cities, as
well as qualitative information on cost recovery through road and other types of exactions.
Based on the analysis of these issues, the consultant team will make preliminary
recommendations on whether the City should proceed with impact fees, which facilities to
address first and how each of those fee systems should be structured. We will summarize the
analysis in a POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM identifying key legal and policy issues involved
in establishing a City impact fee program. The POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM will present
and evaluate alternatives and options available to the City and conclude with a recommended
course of action.
DELIVERABLES: LEGAL MEMORANDUM
COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM
TASK 1.3: POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP
Following delivery of the POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM, a workshop will be scheduled
with the City Council. The work session will be designed to address the issues raised in the
memorandum and to provide policy direction for the remainder of the project. The findings and
recommendations of the policy analysis and any proposed modifications to the scope of services
for Phase Two will be presented to the City Council at the workshop. The consultant team shall
prepare exhibits and handouts suitable for such public meetings that illustrate and summarize the
results and recommendations of the Phase One analysis.
DELIVERABLE: POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP
PHASE TWO: IMPLEMENTATION
Task 2.1: Impact Fee Studies
Following the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP, we will prepare impact fee studies for those
facility types selected by the City Council. The impact fee studies will include all of the
elements mandated by statutory and constitutional requirements. These elements include an
inventory of existing capital facilities; the cost of improvements required to remedy any existing
service deficiencies; and the cost of improvements required to accommodate increased service
demands.
The impact fee studies will calculate the cost per service unit to provide new development with
the existing or adopted level of service, as well as appropriate revenue credits to ensure that new
development is not charged more than its proportionate share of the cost of new facilities. Each
study will include a table that establishes the number of service units and amount of facility
demand associated with different land use types. Finally, the studies will include, for each of the
facility types, a net unit cost schedule that represents the maximum impact fees that could be
charged.
We will prepare two drafts of the impact fee studies. The final draft will reflect staff and
advisory committee comments on the initial draft. We will deliver an initial draft of the impact
fee studies within twelve weeks following the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP. If staff and
stakeholder advisory committee reviews could be completed in two weeks, we could deliver the
final drafts 20 weeks after the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP.
The final draft of the study will be delivered in both original and digital format. It will be
accompanied by a spreadsheet in Excel 97 or other format specified by the City that contains all
of the impact fee calculations and can be used by staff to easily update the study.
DELIVERABLES: DRAFT IMPACT FEE STUDIES
FINAL IMPACT FEE STUDIES
Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances
We will prepare initial and final drafts of the City impact fee ordinances and deliver them
concurrently with the impact fee study drafts. The drafts will be prepared in the standard formats
used by the City. The ordinances will include provisions relating to impact fee assessment,
collection, credits, refunds, appeals, study updates and other provisions necessary to ensure due
process and conformance with relevant impact fee case law. The ordinance will also amend the
City's existing code to modify dedication, exaction or development fee provisions to be
consistent with the proposed impact fees and applicable law. If desired by the City, we can
provide up to three alternative ordinances adopting the fees at varying percentages of the
maximum fees calculated in the study. Final drafts of the ordinances will be prepared and
delivered to the City following a local review meeting included in Task 2.3. The final draft will
C
be provided in both original and digital format. We will also provide staff with samples of
• administrative forms used by other jurisdictions in implementing an impact fee system.
• DELIVERABLES: DRAFT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES
• FINAL IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES
SAMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE FORMS
• Task 2.3: Public Participation
• Throughout Phase Two of the project, key members of our team will be available to attend and
. participate in up to five meetings with City staff, a stakeholders advisory committee, Planning
Commission, City Council, or the general public as desired by the City. Joint meetings or
• multiple meetings held on the same day will count as one meeting. It is anticipated that several
days of meetings will be held following delivery of draft studies and ordinances. The consultant
• team will prepare exhibits and handouts suitable for public meetings that illustrate and
� summarize the results and recommendations of the Phase Two: Implementation portion of the
project. The meetings should be scheduled approximately two weeks after delivery of the draft
• documents to provide time for local review prior to the meetings. Although work on all of the
facility types will occur concurrently and may be combined into a comprehensive impact fee
• study and ordinance, the meetings could be combined or staggered depending on local desires for
. review and/or public input. This task is limited to a maximum of eight person -days of out-of-
town consultant time. Team members will also be available for additional meetings on a time
• plus expense basis.
• DELIVERABLE: FIVE DAYS OF MEETINGS
Exhibit B
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The City's RIP suggests that the draft studies should be completed in five months and the entire
project within six months. In our experience this maybe somewhat constrained. Our proposed
schedule includes a two -month initial phase that is required to determine what types of fees
should be developed during the second phase. While initial drafts of the studies and ordinances
could be completed within the first five months as desired by the City, the entire process,
including public participation and revisions to the initial drafts, is likely to take somewhat longer
than the additional month allowed in the City's contemplated schedule. The schedule for all tasks
in Phase One begins with the project organization meeting in Task 1.1.
Months from Project Start
Tasks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE ONE:
POLICY DIRECTIONS
1.1: Project Org./Data Collection
1.2: Legal and Policy Evaluation
1.3: Policy Directions Workshop
PHASE TWO:
IMPLEMENTATION
2.1: Impact Fee Studies
0
2.2: Implementing Ordinances
I 0
2.3: Public Participation
*
0 = draft deliverable ♦ = final deliverable * = meeting/presentation
Exhibit C
CONSULTANT COMPENSATION
The total cost of the professional services described in the accompanying proposal for Phase One
is $30,020. This lump -sum budget includes all direct and indirect expenses incurred by the
consultant team in performing the services. The breakdown of project cost by task is presented
below.
The proposed scope of services and budget for Phase Two may be modified following the
completion of Phase One. Additional services beyond those specified in the accompanying Work
Plan maybe negotiated or billed on a time and expense basis at the hourly rates provided on the
Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses.
•
All
Selected
Task
Facilities
Facilities
Task 1.1: Project Organization/Data Collection
$5,760
$5,760
•
Task 1.2: Policy Directions Memorandum
$18,500
$18,500
•
Task 1.3: Policy Directions Workshop
$5,760
$5,760
•
Subtotal, Phase One
$30,020
$30,020
•
Task 2.1a: Major Roads (e.g., Arterials)
$12,800
$12,800
Task 2.1b: Water
$12,040
$12,040
Task 2.1c: Wastewater
$12,040
$12,040
•
Task 2.1d: Parks and Trails
$11,280
$11,280
•
Task 2.1e: Libraries
$5,550
Task 2.lf: General Government
$6,150
•
Task 2.1g: Solid Waste
$4,600
•
Task 2.1h: Fire Protection
$5,360
Task 2.l is Police Protection
$5,360
Task 2.1 Subtotal*
$75,180
$48,160
•
Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances
$9,000
$9,000
Task 2.3: Public Participation
$11,250
$11,250
Subtotal, Phase Two
$95,430
$68,410
•
•
Total Project
$125,450
$98,430
The City will be billed monthly based on percent completion
of individual
tasks. The City's
•
Project Manager will be provided with a written progress
report accompanying each monthly
invoice.
* Storm drainage not included because most communities lack sufficient data to support
development of drainage impact fees.
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES
Quoted
Rates
Principal $125
Land Use Attorney $150
Senior Associates $95
Associates $75
Other (specify):
Connie Cooper, Cooper Consulting $100
Per meeting cost to add or delete a meeting $2,250
Atlanta, Georgia
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For the City of Atlanta, Duncan Associates prepared a
multi -facility impact fee study that uniquely promoted
local growth management objectives relating to
affordable housing, economic development and multi -
modal transportation. The study specifically calculated
impact fees for road, park, drainage, fire and police
facilities and connection fees for water and wastewater
facilities. While connection fees are similar to impact
fees, they are much easier to design and apply under
the Georgia Impact Fee Act.
Throughout the study, every attempt was made to design fees that reflected the local characteristics and
concerns of Atlantans.
For example, new uses in the downtown area or near MARTA stations were given a
significant reduction in road impact fees because of their greater
use of rapid transit and lesser reliance on roads. Through the
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM concept of recoupment (being paid back for prior facility
investments which will serve new growth), excess park and
public safety facility capacities allowed the waiver of impact fees
for certain projects. An important advantage of the recoupment
concept is that required fees can be waived for qualifying
projects without reimbursing the impact fee account or they can
be spent in areas not meeting benefit principles. Most Atlanta fee
waivers were restricted to development in established enterprise
zones. A single service area and a city-wide service level was
recommended for roads and only arterial roads were
incorporated in the fee . Water and wastewater connection fees
were designed to recapture system capital costs and be collected
outside the city. Three service areas were identified for park fees
and o service level cat based ct a'etwee nr population"
methodology that allocated impacts between residential and
nonresidential uses. Fire/EMS and police impact fees were
applied citywide and also based on a functional population
methodology. Both park and public safety fees were recoupment fees, which could be waived for
development projects which met certain prescribed criteria.
The study also analyzed various issues involved in
complying with the Georgia Impact Fee Ad,
outlined important policy directions to guide the
preparation of impact fee studies, compared
recommended impact fee levels with
"competitive" communities, analyzed fee
relationships to the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Capital Improvements Program, and summarized
national and state judicial trends in the treatment of
developer exactions and impact fees.
Period: January 1992 - December 1993
Budget: $340,000
Team: Duncan Associates (Lead)
Rimrock Consulting
Dr. Arthur C. Nelson
LRE Engineering
Webb & Webb, Attorneys
The Sales Law Group, P.C.
Williams -Russell & Johnson
Contact: Fernando Costa, former Planning Director
City of Atlanta
817.871.8042
College Station, Texas
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For the City of College Station, Duncan Associates
assessed the feasibility of adopting impact fees for
road, drainage, water and wastewater facilities. In
order to develop legal impact fees, the City had to
prepare specified technical studies and follow a
defined public involvement process. The study
evaluated impact fee feasibility in terms of data
adequacy; appropriateness of fees for different
geographic areas; planning consistency; administrative
ease and costs; revenues and cost effectiveness; and
equity. The study recommended that the City
consider impact fees for drainage, water and wastewater, but not for roads. The study found no compelling
justification for road impact fees because local arterials were almost all state highways, and the cost of
upgrading such facilities can not be included in impact fees in Texas. Road impact fees would also be merely
another way of accomplishing what the City then accomplished through its development exaction process.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AREA
The study indicated that the City needed a detailed
drainage master plan before proceeding with the
preparation of a drainage impact fee. The study also
suggested that the City consider using drainage utility
charges and drainage impact fees in tandem as a means
of equitably distributing the costs of needed stormwater
improvements among existing residents and new
development. Drainage utility charges could be
structured to cover the costs of operations and
maintenance, as well as the improvement costs needed
to address existing capacity deficiencies. Impact fees
could then be used to finance major growth -related
capital facilities. Such a program would result in the a
very efficient and equitable method of financing needed
drainage improvements.
Water and wastewater impact fees were considered are feasible from the perspective of cost effectiveness and
data availability. Because of the high mobility of local residents (college students), significant inter -generational
inequities were not present. However, the City and its utilities had recently experienced high levels of
growth, with associated capital costs imposed on local ratepayers. The addition of impact fees would diversify
City financing approaches, limit bond financing and keep rates lower for all customers. Since the City already
had most of the information required for
an impact fee study, there would be little
cost to implement a fee. Finally, projected
revenues from impact fees were likely to
far exceed the cost of developing and
administering fees. For those reasons, the
study recommended that the City
implement water and wastewater fees.
Period:
September 1994 - September 1995
Budget:
$50,000
Team:
Duncan Associates (Lead)
Rimrock Consulting Company
Esmond Engineering
Contact:
Jim Calloway, Community Development Director
City of College Station
409.764.3570
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Impact Fee/Excise Tax Feasibility Study
For the City of Colorado Springs, Duncan Associates
was asked to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing impact
fees and/or development excise taxes as a means of
funding capital facility needs caused by the city's recent
rapid growth. Key questions addressed by the
feasibility study were I) whether or not the City
should use an impact fee or development excise tax,
and 2) if so, what types of facilities should be funded by
impact fees or excise taxes,
The feasibility study reviewed current City developer
exactions and fees, and determined that its drainage basin fees and water and wastewater connection charges
clearly met the definition of impact fees. Other exactions that were examined included park and school land
dedication and fee -in -lieu requirements and road exactions. Colorado Springs also makes extensive use of
special districts, and several of these have been used to fund major improvements to the arterial street system.
FIRE STATIONS AND SERVICE AREAS
The feasibility study developed three tiers of recommendations.
It concluded that, if Colorado Springs were going to make any
single change in its development exaction policy, it should
develop a road impact fee to fund city-wide arterial street
improvements. The study indicated that a system of arterial
street impact fees that provided credit to developers who were
required to make arterial improvements as a condition of
development approval would do much to "level the playing field"
among developers, streamline the development review process,
strengthen the legal defensibility of the City's road exaction policy,
avoid the complexities inherent in establishing special districts to
fund limited sets of improvements, and provide a major additional
source of funding for growth -related road improvements. The
study also noted that a development excise tax for arterial streets
that provided credits would function so much like an impact fee
that there would be no advantage in calling it a tax.
The second priority identified by the feasibility study was for Colorado Springs to update its land
dedication/fee-in-lieu requirements for parks and school sites. The requirements were still based on 1970
census data and similarly outdated ratios of land to population or students, and updating them would help
improve their legal defensibility. The third priority was for the City to consider either impact fees or
development taxes for the other City facilities that are not currently subject to development exactions: park
development (as opposed to land), fire/EMS,
police and general government facilities. The City
Council reviewed the feasibility study and
authorized Duncan Associates to proceed with
the development of impact fees for arterial streets,
parks, police and fire/EMS facilities.
November 1998 - Present
$100,170
Duncan Associates (Lead)
TranSystems Corporation
Ira Joseph, Comprehensive Plan Manager
City of Colorado Springs
719.578.6299
Aun.-nnInccnriniac
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Denton, Texas
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
For the City of Denton, Duncan Associates prepared
an impact fee study justifying water and wastewater
facilities and an impact fee feasibility study relating to
transportation and drainage facilities. Water and
wastewater facilities were studied in two phases. The
initial phase addressed centralized water supply,
treatment and storage facilities and wastewater
treatment facilities. A subsequent phase will address
water transmission and distribution and wastewater
collection facilities. The second phase will be based on
the preferred development scenario resulting from the
City's current comprehensive planning effort. Pursuant to the study, the City adopted new water and
wastewater impact fees of $2,527 per service unit or $2,044 for water and $483 for wastewater.
MAJOR WATERSHEDS
The feasibility report examined the desirability of the City
implementing impact fees for road and drainage facilities
and identified various policy options for the design of
"variable rate" fees. The study pointed out that needed
major road improvements were fee -ineligible State roads,
and were already funded with approved bond issues or
were likely be funded by developers through the exaction
process. The city would also have to be divided into
numerous service areas and an expensive transportation
model would be required to support the fee system. In
other words, a road impact fee system would be costly to
develop, would not apply equitably throughout the city,
and would not be able to fund a large number of
improvements. Consequently, the study indicated that
the City would be better served by retaining its existing
system of developer exactions for road improvements.
On the other hand, the study noted that a drainage impact fee applied to the Hickory Creek watershed south
of the city could generate needed funds to acquire land or easements in floodplain areas that the City could
not require developers to dedicate. The study did indicate, however, that the City would first need to
prepare a detailed drainage master plan of the area that complied with the impact fee act requirements. The
drainage master plan would need to be based on growth projections being developed as part of the City's
current comprehensive planning process. A drainage impact fee for the City's southern ETJ could be
combined with a city-wide drainage utility fee that
could help fund remedies to existing drainage
problems as well as on -going maintenance costs.
The studies required to develop a drainage utility
fee would be much simpler and less expensive than
those required to support a drainage impact fee.
Period:
August 1998 - Present
Budget:
$75,000
Team:
Duncan Associates (Lead)
Applied Geographic Technology
Alan Plummer Associates
Dahlstrom McDonald, Attorneys
Contact:
Jill Jordan, Utilities Director
City of Denton
940.349.7326
d..nnnnI r1CCnr`lntAC
Kansas City, Missouri
Arterial Street Impact Fee Study
For the City of Kansas City, Duncan Associates
prepared an arterial street system impact fee study for
that area of the city north of the Missouri River. The
Northland area was chosen by the City Council for
the impact fee study since it is the location of most of
the city's vacant developable land and it is where most
of the city's new growth and development is
occurring.
The study included a comprehensive legal analysis to
determine if adequate authority exists for the City to
impose arterial street impact fees
. Risk factors were identified to help City legal staff make a sound
recommendation in regard to imposing such fees. The analysis addressed
such technical details as the ability of the City to advance construction funds
and recover them from impact fees, use of credits for existing or future
contributions by developers, implementation of policy matters through
impact fees (such as encouraging particular types of development), and
required planning and analytical basis for impact fees in Missouri. It also
reviewed the City's authority to implement other financing techniques, such
as development taxes, utility fees and utility districts.
A comparative survey of alternative road financing techniques used in 25
similar or competitive communities was conducted. A demand -driven
approach was used to calculate road impact fees for the Northland area.
Essentially, the demand -driven approach requires that new development
replace capacity that it consumes on the major roadway system. In the
demand -driven system, average cost per vehicle -mile of travel is calculated
by taking a representative list of historical or planned roadway improvements
and dividing their total cost by the total new capacity created by such
improvements. Arterial street improvement projects, as identified in the
Metropolitan Area Regional Council's long-range transportation plan, were
used to determine average cost per unit of capacity.
The fee study and schedule were based on vehicle travel during the evening peak hour, and on national trip
generation data and local trip length data. A net cost schedule was developed that represented maximum
impact fees that the City can charge new development. The City can charge less than net cost, provided that
the fee is reduced proportionately for all
land uses and that the proportionality
between demand on the arterial street
system and the impact fee is preserved. And
finally, appropriate impact fee service areas
and benefit districts were recommended.
Fee revenues were projected based on the
net cost schedule and City growth
projections for each benefit district.
Period: September 1998 - April 2000
Budget: $117,000
Team: Duncan Associates (Lead)
Taliaferro & Browne
Cooper Consulting Company
HNTB Corporation
Contact: Mohsin Zaidi, Transportation Services Manager
Public Works Department
816.513.2683
A unansgi neenrlr'rtae
Mesa, Arizona
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For the City of Mesa, Duncan Associates analyzed
local growth -related infrastructure costs, including
current financing methods and capital needs, and
then drafted a comprehensive mufti -facility impact
fee study. The study addressed water, wastewater,
arterial roads, drainage, park, cultural, library, fire
and police facilities. While the City had kept its local
sales taxes, utility rates and development fees among
the lowest in region, the study noted that new
growth was not paying its own way. Mesa is also
the largest city in the nation with no municipal
property tax. The study also looked at alternative financing techniques.
As Mesa continues to mature, the study noted
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING TECHNIQUES
that its capital needs will shift more and more
Imrc
Dev'
SRiecial
utliit
Exaction
towards the replacement and rehabilitation of
EEvve�
Criie la n
Fee Tax t F€e
Bond
s s
aging infrastructure and that these needs will be
Legal Basis
V
✓
V
✓
V ✓
competing with growth -related demands for'
Proportionality
V
—
—
X
X —
capital funding. Although Mesa is 120 years old, it
Revenue Potential
V
V
X
V
V X
is only 40 percent developed and still has
Geographic Equity
V
—
V
—
— —
substantial development potential. In fact, it is
Infill/Redevelopment
—
—
—
✓
✓ —
rapidly overtaking Tucson as the second largest
nRo,,d'a%iiity
—
—
—
✓
✓ _
city in Arizona. It is both an aging and growing
Annexation Costs
—
—
✓
—
— —
community at the same time.
Technical Ease
X
V
X
✓
— —
The study calculated that the capital cost to
continue providing existing levels of service to new development was about $8,800 per single family dwelling
unit, or its equivalent. Al then current growth rates, this amounted to about $50 million per year. The study
also indicated that, just in order to retire outstanding debt for already existing capital facilities, each new single
family unit, or its equivalent, will need to pay $1,232 over the next several years. The study noted that this
portion of growth -related costs will continue to be borne by all residents through general taxation or utility
rates. The study determined that the net capital cost attributable to new growth amounted to about $6,400
per dwelling unit, or its equivalent, or about $38 million annually. Current water and wastewater
development fees, residential development taxes and arterial road exactions were revealed to be covering
only about half of the net capital cost to serve new growth.
The study recommended that the City of Mesa update its water and wastewater development fees to cover
the full net cost of growth and to more equitably
charge large users; replace its current system of
inefficient developer exactions with an arterial
street impact fee; and expand its current
residential development tax to also cover
nonresidential development and to increase its
amount by about 75 percent.
March 1997 - March 1998
$80,000
Duncan Associates (Lead)
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
NRS Associates
Geostat Inc.
Bryan Raines, Senior Management Assistant
City of Mesa
602.644.3381
Orange County, Florida
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For Orange County, Duncan Associates updated the
County's road and law enforcement impact fees and
examined the parkland dedication requirements. The
firm first looked at the park dedication requirements
and evaluated the benefits of converting them to park
impact fees. The firm was then engaged to review and
update the County's 14 year -old road and law
enforcement impact fees. While Orange County was
one of the first jurisdiction in Florida to adopt road and
law enforcement impact fees, it had continued to rely
on subdivision exactions for its park requirements.
The reason for examining the County's park options was that impact fees offer several advantages that
subdivision exactions do not. For example, subdivision dedications are limited to land acquisition, while impact
fees can cover the cost of both land and improvements. In addition, dedication requirements are applicable
only to new subdivisions, while impact fees can be assessed at any point in the development approval process.
On the other hand, impact fees must meet
udicial standards that do not necessarily apply
to subdivision exactions. And while impact
fees may be based on full facility costs, credits
must be given for outstanding indebtedness
and dedicated revenues. For example, in
1995, the County authorized $38 million in
revenue bonds secured by the public services
tax to acquire and improve environmentally
sensitive lands and parkland facilities. After
considering these credits, the study indicated
the maximum park impact fee that could be
charged was $225 per single-family unit and
$143 per multi -family unit.
Another consideration was that impact fee revenues must be earmarked for expenditure within specific
"benefit districts" in order to meet specified legal tests. The study recommended that new park benefit areas
should be the same as those already established for the County's road impact fee system (see map above).
Due to the possible net loss in total revenue and other considerations, the County opted to update its existing
parkland dedication requirements, rather than convert to a totally new park impact fee system.
Orange County's road and law enforcement impact fees, originally adopted in the early 1980s, had not been
reviewed and updated in ten years. The study
reviewed law enforcement impact fee
methodology based on calls for service by land
use, updated capital facility replacement costs, and
revised credit calculations. Work products
included a draft and final impact fee study, revised
fee schedule and necessary code amendments.
Period:
September 1995 - July 1998
Budget:
$40,000
Team:
Duncan Associates
Contact:
Bill Pable, Project Coordinator
Orange County
407.836.5880
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Feasibility Study
For the City of Santa Fe, Duncan Associates recently
prepared an impact fee feasibility study that addressed
roads, drainage, water, wastewater, parks and public
safety facilities. On the basis of this study, the City will
decide whether to update existing fees or pursue
additional fees in the next phase of the project. Santa
Fe currently charges modest impact fees for arterial
streets and signalization and wastewater. It also
charges a fee in -lieu of park land dedication and a
water connection fee (Utility Expansion Charge) that
functions much like an impact fee.
The feasibility study included a survey of "best practices" for
impact fees from around the nation. This included a review of
impact fee enabling act provisions in the other 2 I states with
such acts. If the City wishes to pursue changes to the New
Mexico Development Fees Act the study suggests that it try to
reduce the length of time that assessment at platting locks in the
current fee schedule from four years to something more
reasonable (one to two years).
STATES WITH ENABLING ACTS
❑ e.E, .a
The City had indicated interest in impact fee approaches that
encourage affordable housing, infill and redevelopment. As for
affordable housing, the study noted that one approach would be
to base park fees on unit size, rather than assessing a flat rate per dwelling unit. In addition, funds could be set
aside to pay impact fees for affordable housing projects. In order to encourage infill, the study recommended
that the City identify a service area where facilities are available and charge no fees in that area for certain
facilities. Another way to encourage redevelopment is to base the impact fees on the difference between the
impact caused by the proposed use and that caused by the most intensive use on the site in the past.
The study indicated that the City might want to defer updating the water Utility Expansion Charge. which was
recently increased. The wastewater impact fee should be updated, and the City might consider basing the
revised fee on the City's utility connection fee authority, rather than its impact fee authority. The basis for
assessing wastewater fees by land use and square footage should be reexamined and meter size should be
considered. The development of wastewater interceptor impact fee should be deferred until after completion
of the Wastewater Master P/an. The line portion of both water and wastewater fees could be waived in a
defined service area where current facilities are adequate to support infill or redevelopment. Developers
should also be given credit against the line component if they build line extensions.
The study recommended that the City's park Period: January 2000 - Present
dedication requirements should be reviewed based Budget: $25,000
on existing levels of service and housing type, and Team: Duncan Associates (Lead)
that park impact fees should include park Camp Dresser McKee
Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig
development costs and vary by housing type. Since
•Sites Southwest
the City does not have sufficient information to Contact: Cyrus Samii, Project Coordinator
develop a drainage impact fee at this time, the study City of Santa Fe
suggested it might consider a stormwater utility fee. 505.984.6625
duncanlassoCiates
Memphis/Shelby County, Tennessee
Impact Fee/Development Tax Feasibility Study
For Memphis/Shelby County, Duncan Associates
evaluated the feasibility of using impact fees or
development taxes to help pay for the cost of
infrastructure needed to support new development.
Shelby County, the largest county in Tennessee,
contains the City of Memphis -- the largest city in the
state. County population has been grow ng at a
relatively constant linear rate since the I 970s. Since
1980, however, Memphis has been losing population,
while its six suburban municipalities and the
unincorporated area have been growing rapidly.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate alternative financing techniques for schools, roads, drainage, fire
protection, law enforcement, parks and library capital facilities. The techniques addressed included impact
fees, development taxes and real estate transfer taxes. The study addressed which technique, if any, was
appropriate for each type of facility. Factors evaluated include data availability, revenue potential, legal
defensibility, intergovernmental participation and regional competitiveness.
FEE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
Schools
DedtTax
County -wide exc. Memphis
$8,661,000
Unrestricted
Transfer Tax
County -wide
$19,500,000
Roads
Impact Fee
Unincorporated Area
$5,535,000
Drainage
Utility Fee
County -Wide
$21,437,000
Fire/EMS
Impact Fee
Uninc. Area + Lakeland
$477,000
Police
Impact Fee
Uninc. Area + 2 Cities
$251,000
Parks
Impact Fee
Unincorporated Area
$732,000
The major issues in the study revolved
around school finance. A major legal
constraint influencing the study is the
requirement that the County share any
school funding with the separate
Memphis school district. Given the
city's relatively slow growth, this meant
that the majority of bond proceeds
issued to finance new schools outside
Memphis had to be given to the city
school district, which has been unable
to spend all of the capital improvement
funds it has received.
The study identified two major
alternatives to address the school
capital financing issue. A real estate transfer tax would have the greatest revenue potential. If assessed county-
wide and earmarked for schools, the funds would need to be split between the Memphis and Shelby County
school district in proportion to the enrollment in each district. A school development tax would have the next
highest revenue potential, and would have several advantages over a school impact fee, including the ability to
assess nonresidential development and mitigate impacts on housing affordability. Before a school impact fee
or development tax should be seriously
considered, however, some method would
need to be found to prevent the need to share
revenues with the Memphis school district.
One option would be to seek to have the city
school district voluntarily waive any claim to
County funds raised outside of Memphis.
Period: October 1999 - April 2000
Budget: $50,000
Team: Duncan Associates
Contact: Louise Mercuro, Deputy County Administrator
Shelby County
901.545.4500
James B. Duncan, FAICP
President
Mr. Duncan, a past president of the American Planning
Association, is one of the nation's leading urban planning and
growth management practitioners. His career as a city planner
has spanned almost four decades of service to more than 150
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 County, Florida; and chief of local planning
services for Dade County, Florida.
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
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 concurrency, and
introduced many user-friendly, easy -find techniques to simplify
regulations.
For APA, Mr. Duncan has also served as vice -chair of its
Chapter Presidents Council, as president of its Florida chapter,
as professional development liasion of its Texas chapter; and as
a member of its national governance committee. Mr. Duncan
is the co-author of the best-selling APA publication, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES, and a frequent
conference speaker on growth management, land -use
regulations, infrastructure financing and impact fees. While in
south Florida, he also served as an adjunct professor of city
planning at Florida Atlantic University; and as vice chair of the
planning and zoning board and chair of the code enforcement
board for the City of Davie.
Education: M.S. Regional and City Planning, 1965
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
B.A. Journalism and Political Science, 1961
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Certification: College of Fellows, American Institute of
Certified Planners
Clancy J. Mullen, AICP
Senior Associate
Since joining Duncan Associates in 1989, Mr. Mullen has
prepared infrastructure financing studies and development
impact fees systems for cities and counties throughout the
nation.
Mr. Mullen was the principal author of impact fee studies for
Apache Junction and Mesa, Arizona; Colorado Springs,
Commerce City, and Adams, Eagle, Larimer and Weld
Counties, Colorado; Lee, Citrus, Dade and Orange Counties,
Florida; Atlanta, Columbus and Gwinnett County, Georgia; the
State of Hawaii; Boise/Ada County, Idaho; Minneapolis/St. Paul
Metropolitan Council, Minnesota; Kansas City, Missouri;
Bozeman and Gallatin County, Montana; Reno/Washoe
County, Nevada; Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, Ruidoso and
Rio Rancho, New Mexico; Cary, North Carolina; Hilton Head
Island, South Carolina; Franklin, LaVergne, Smyrna, White
House and Shelby County, Tennessee; Flower Mound,
Denton, Georgetown and College Station, Texas; and West
Valley City and Sandy City, Utah.
In addition, Mr. Mullen has also prepared studies which
examined alternative infrastructure financing techniques for the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the State of Florida;
Montgomery County, Maryland; Greeley, Colorado; Sugar
Land, Texas; and Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina.
Mr. Mullen has revised zoning ordinances and land
development regulations for cities and counties in Arkansas,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. He was
also involved in the preparation of growth management
technique reports for the Puget Sound Council of
Governments (Seattle) in Washington and the Alamo Area
Council of Governments (San Antonio) in Texas.
Mr. Mullen is a contributing author of the best-selling APA
publication, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES,
and he has expertise in the areas of demography, housing,
employment, and fiscal research and modeling techniques.
Education: M.S. Community and Regional Planning, 1988
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
B.S. Sociology, 1978
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
Certifications: American Institute of Certified Planners
Eric Damian Kelly, ESQ., FAICP
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
associate of Duncan Associates, he formally joined the firm as an
officer and shareholder in 1999. He is a former dean of the
College of Architecture and Urban Planning at Ball State, where he
still teaches several urban planning courses, while engaging in an
active consultant role with Duncan Associates.
Dr. Kelly has personally drafted sign controls for numerous cities,
including 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
drafting development regulations as vice president of a Philadelphia
firm that developed the innovative "Impact Zoning" concept during
the early 1970s. He then went on to establish his own land use law
firm in Colorado in 1976 and operated it until 1990, when he
accepted a full-time faculty position at Iowa State University. He has
prepared new land -use controls for local governments in over 25
states and has conducted many training sessions for public officials.
Dr. Kelly is general editor of the 10 -volume Matthew Bender series
on ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS. Other publications include
MANAGING COMMUNITY GROWTH (Preager, 1993), the "Zoning"
chapter in the ICMA "Planner's Greenbook;" Planning Advisory
Service reports on zoning enforcement and adequate public
facilities; and numerous articles on growth management. He is the
author of recent articles on the "taking" issue and the treatment of
cellular towers and satellite dishes under local ordinances. Dr. Kelly
received the Colorado APA chapter's award for "Outstanding
Service and Educational Leadership"in 1989, and the University of
Pennsylvania listed him among its "I 00 Graduates Who Epitomize
Our Future." He, like long-time friend and colleague Jim Duncan, is
one of 46 people selected as the first members of the College of
Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP).
Education: Ph.D. in Public Policy, 1992
THE UNION INSTITUTE
Juris Doctor and Master of City Planning, 1975
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
B.A. in political economy, 1969
WILLIAMS COLLEGE
Affiliations: American Bar Association
College of Fellows, American Institute of
Certified Planners
duncaniossociates
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP
• Employment History President, Cooper Consulting Company, Birmingham, AL, 1990 -Present
Planning Director, Shelby County, Alabama, 1987-1990
+ Principal Planner, Jefferson County, Alabama, 1975-1987
State Planning, State of Alabama, 1975
• Education/Honors
Masters of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Mississippi
Bachelor of Arts, Political Science
Mississippi State University
Past President, American Planning Association
Past Chair, Chapter Presidents Council, American Planning Association
Charter Member, American Planning Association
Charter Member, Alabama Planning CommissionersInstitute
Member, American Institute of Certified Planners
•
Board Member, American Society of Consulting Planners
Member, National Association of County Planners
Member, Farmland Trust
Past President, Alabama Chapter of American Planning Association
•
Past, Board of Directors, Horizon 280 Association
Past, Board of Directors, Travelers Aid Society
Guest Lecturer:
•
American Planning Association National Conference
•
Planning Commissioner Workshops in Southeast
University of Texas, Leadership Forum
•
Indiana Planning Commissioner Institute
32 State Planning Associations across U.S.
16 Planning Schools across U.S.
Voice of America, Worldwide Radio
•
Mississippi Municipal League
Mid South Zoning Institute
•
National Association of Women in Construction
Four State Regional Planning Conference
I• Cooper Consulting Co., Inc. urban planning and plan implementation
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP
Professional Affiliations
b
CONNIE B. COOPER, AICP, has 25 years of experience in planning and community
development at the state, county, and local levels. This has included extensive experi-
ence throughout the southeast as a principal participant in the areas of strategic
planning; community goal setting and visioning; comprehensive planning; economic
development; zoning and subdivision; housing; transportation; market research; land
development; community relations; and intergovernmental cooperation. In addition, as
a planning director in the public sector, Ms. Cooper's experience has included major
responsibilities in the management of planning programs which have become the
cornerstones of Shelby and Jefferson Counties' planning programs.
As Planning Director and Principal Planner in Shelby and Jefferson Counties (Ala-
bama), Ms. Cooper gained considerable experience as the principal participant in more
than eighty projects related to county and municipal governments; federal agencies;
community organizations; chambers of commerce; private corporations; and individu-
als. As President of Cooper Consulting Company, Inc., Ms. Cooper has participated in
the completion of a city -county comprehensive plan for one of Georgia's fast-growing
communities; developed a community involvement plan for a major hazardous mitiga-
tion corporation in Louisiana; developed a planned unit development ordinance
regulating a major land development in Alabama; provided technical support for the
comprehensive revision of a gulf coast community's zoning ordinance and map;
completed a study of the impact of suburbanization on a major capitol city the south-
east; provided expert testimony in rezoning litigation; assisted the development
community in variance and plan approvals; and completed an eight mile corridor plan
in the Birmingham metropolitan area. Ms. Cooper played a key role in the preparation
of a marketing and promotional program for South Fulton County; a major neighbor-
hood revitalization project in Rockdale County; a comprehensive plan update and new
land development regulations for Columbia County; Georgia; an economic develop-
ment plan for DeKalb County, Georgia; Destin, Florida's citywide visioning initiative;
a community -wide visioning and design charrette in Charleston, South Carolina;
growth management plan for Norman, Oklahoma; a corridor redevelopment plan in
Atlanta, Georgia; and a comprehensive plan update for Alpharetta, Georgia. The firm is
currently under contract to complete comprehensive plans in Colorado, Indiana, and
Georgia, as well as unified development ordinances for communities in Missouri and
Georgia.
Ms. Cooper has had a successful history of working with governmental officials and
community groups. She possesses a strong capacity for quickly assessing alternatives
and recommending approaches that work well for the differing needs of her clients.
Experience in the public sector has provided her with insight and sensitivity with which
municipal projects must be undertaken, as well as the role elected officials and
taxpayers play in the process. As past president of the American Planning Association
(APA), a 28,000 national association of city, county, regional and private planners
across the U. S. and abroad, Ms. Cooper has had an excellent track record of profes-
sional activities. She is a frequent national guest lecturer and facilitator on planning
with limited resources, simplifying zoning techniques, the role of the planning comniis-
sion, leadership capacity building and community involvement. Her tenure as Presi-
dent of the American Planning Association gave Ms. Cooper the opportunity to share
creative planning approaches with colleagues throughout America, as well as to meet
with the Presidential staff in D.C. to discuss major urban issues. Ms. Cooper is a
WBE/DBE certified firm in Kansas City, Missouri; Charlotte, North Carolina; for the
Alabama Department of Transportation; and for the Georgia Department of Transpor-
tation.
DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
submitted by I duncanlassociates
in association with
Cooper Consulting Company
April 2001
SUMMARY
As part of the Fayetteville Impact Fee Study, a survey of development fees within 11 jurisdictions was
conducted. The survey included 6 Arkansas jurisdictions (Bentonville, Conway, Fort Smith,
Jonesboro, Rogers and Springdale) and 5 jurisdictions outside the State (Bozeman, MT; Chapel Hill,
NC; Fort Collins, CO; Lawrence, KS; and Springfield, MO). Key factors in selection of jurisdictions
included proximity to Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas), fast growth communities and/or traditional
college communities.
Population and Growth Trends
As the table below indicates, surveyed Arkansas jurisdictions range in population from Bentonville's
19,730 people to Fort Smith's 80,000. Outside the state, Bozeman has the smallest population with
33,000 people and Springfield, Missouri is the largest with 151,600 persons. All Arkansas jurisdictions
classify themselves as "fast growing" with the exception of Fort Smith, whose growth is "moderate"
(note that Fort Smith also has the largest population, therefore a slower rate of growth is not unusual).
In states outside Arkansas, Bozeman and Fort Collins classify themselves as "fast growing" with the
others considered "moderate growth" communities.
Jonesboro, with an average of 486 persons per square mile, is one-third as densely populated as
Springdale — and both are of similar populations. Jonesboro contains twice the square miles (105) as
any other surveyed jurisdiction within Arkansas. Overall, Arkansas communities have a much lower
density than surveyed jurisdictions outside the state. Lawrence, Kansas is the most densely
populated, averaging almost 3,500 persons per square mile. The remainder of the out-of-state
jurisdictions reflect densities usually twice or three times that of the surveyed Arkansas jurisdictions.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Arkansas Cities
Fayetteville
55,000
44
1,250
Fast
Bentonville
19,730
23
850
Fast
Conway
43,000
40
1,075
Fast
Fort Smith
80,000
53
1,509
Moderate
Jonesboro
51,000
105
486
Fast
Rogers
37,800
38
995
Fast
Springdale
44,800
31
1,445
Fast
Others Cities
Bozeman, Montana
33,000
13
2,538
Fast
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
45,000
20
2,250
Moderate
Fort Collins, Colorado
122,300
47
2,602
Fast
Lawrence, Kansas
83,700
24
3,487
Moderate
Springfield, Missouri
151,600
75
2,021
Moderate
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
April 4, 2001, Page 1
Studies and Sales Tax Revenues
Only Bentonville and Conway are actively looking at development impact fees. Historically, revenue
for capital projects for Arkansas jurisdictions has come from sale tax levies. Typically, it is a sales tax
from '/z% to 1%. The capacity to generate revenue, however, varies greatly. A 1% sales tax in
Bentonville raises $2 million annually, while the same percent in Fort Smith generates between $14 -
$16 million and in Jonesboro, $11 million. City population, location to growth areas and the amount
of commercial business within a jurisdiction all contribute to the capacity to generate revenue via
sales taxes. Outside Arkansas, all but Springfield employ some type of development fee system to
fund streets, drainage, water and sewer. With the exception of Bozeman and Chapel Hill, these
jurisdictions also have sales tax levies to fund capital projects.
Based on information provided, it appears that only Bentonville is a beneficiary of a countywide sales
tax. In addition to Bentonville's 1% general fund sales tax, Benton County has a countywide 1% sales
tax, for which Bentonville is remitted its pro rata share. The city uses this revenue for capital projects.
Springdale has an interesting twist. It has a "voluntary" property tax levy for fire and libraries.
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
On -going study on
1% city and 1%
Parks, fire, streets,
impact fees
county -wide sales tax;
municipal buildings
$2 million
(funded via county sales
tax revenue)
Conway
In process of reviewing
1/2% sales tax;
Roads, fire stations,
Impact RFP submissions
$3.6 million
drainage
Fort Smith
Comprehensive Plan
1% sales tax;
Roads & drainage based
underway
$14—$16 million
on CIP
Jonesboro
City updating zoning
1% sales tax;
1/2 dedicated to roads; 1/2
and subdivision
$11 million
eliminating fees for
ordinances
sanitation, mosquito
spraying, bird removal,
reducing property tax
Rogers
Updated fees in 2000;
1% sales tax;
Justice ctr., fire training &
may update
$5.5 million
administration buildings,
comprehensive plan
streets & drainage
soon
Springdale
Updating
1% sales tax;
75% of revenue devoted
Comprehensive Plan
$8.5 million
to capital projects; based
Voluntary.15% mil Fire
on CIP
($43,500) & .10%
Libraries ($27,300
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEESTUDY—DEVELOPMENTFE£ SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 2
Other Cities
Bozeman, MT
Transportation impact fee
No sales tax for public
N/A
study completed in 1996
improvements permitted
Chapel Hill, NC
School impact fee study;
No sales tax for public
N/A
Also, may create different
improvements
impact fees for different
residential uses
FortCollins, CO
No development fee
3/4% salestax issues;
3 salestaxes: streets &
studies on going
$5 million
sanitation; community
enhancement; parks
Lawrence, KS
U p d at i n g z o n i n g
1% countywide sales
Parks and recreation and
ordinance; looking at
tax;
part of county health
"Adequate Public
$7.2 million for city
facility; CIP
Facilities" ordinance.
Springfield, MO
Only discussed impact
1/8 % and '/< % sales
1/8 % devoted to state
fees; nothing more
tax;
identified road projects
$4 and $8 million
(reimbursed by state);
Plus: $4 million in
Yn % parks and other
property tax
road improvements
Property tax for fire
stations & stormwater etc.
Roads and Drainage Facilities
Conway has the most liberal road improvement policy, requiring no improvement to an adjacent
roadway if it is a city -maintained roadway, but it does require dedication of rights -of -way if a
boundary street. Fort Smith and Jonesboro require developer to bring the adjacent street up to
standard, and if need, dedicate right-of-way. Rogers requires developers to not only dedicate right-of-
way, but requires additional lanes to be added if necessary. Bentonville's and Springdale's policies are
similar to Rogers, but they have provisions for "payment -in -lieu" for major street improvements.
Cities outside of Arkansas have some very similar road improvement polices to many of those
jurisdictions within the State. However, Bozeman and Fort Collins have transportation "impact" fees
that are charged to the builder at the point of applying for a building permit. These transportation fees
can add an average of $1800 to the cost of a single-family home; but more strikingly, they can add
over $500,000 to a 100,000 commercial development. The table below summarizes the results to the
detailed survey sheets.
.., ..•
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
Bring road up to Master Street Plan; if add.
Typically require on -site deten-
lanes needed but not in CIP, dedicate ROW;
tion; off -site improvements only
if in CIP, makes "payment -in -lieu" for lanes.
required if downstream hazard
Conway
If city maintained, no improvements
Provide off -site drainage
required; ROW dedication if Boundary
improvements as needed
Street.
Fort Smith
Bring adjacent roads up to city standards;
Same as above
provides ROW for additional lanes if needed
Fayettevi l le\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 3
.., I ,
Arkansas Cities -
Jonesboro
Same as above
Same as above
Rogers
Bring adjacent roads up to city standards;
Same as above
Provide ROW & road improvements,
including additional lanes if needed.
Springdale
Bring adjacent roads up to city standards.
Same as above
Occasionally, if improvements not immed-
iately needed, developer makes a "payment
in lieu." Funds go into one account but
assigned to specific street; no refunds.
Others Cities
Bozeman, MT
Transportation Impact Fee:
Provide off -site drainage
Single-family home = $1778
improvements as needed
Commercial (100,000 sf) _ $492,600
Chapel Hill, NC
Provide ROW for additional lanes and
Same as above
sometimes builds additional lanes, a
negotiated rocess.
Fort Collins, CO
Donate Ys of ROW based on local street
Same as above
standard & constructs street. If improved
PLUS
above the local street standard, developer
Monthly stormwater fees
reimbursed for additional cost.
averaging $8.13 for an 8600 sf
PLUS (at building permit)
single-family lot and $82.34 for a
Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee:
1 acre commercial site
Single-family home = $1624
Commercial (100,000 sf) _ $541,000
Larimer County Transp. Expansion Fee:
Single-family home = $164
Commercial (100,000 sf) _ $54,100
Lawrence, KS
Provide all road improvements and ROW. If
Monthly stormwater utility fee
major street improvement premature,
based on impervious surface.
developer signs agreement not to oppose
Single-family: 1801 - 3000 sf =
future "Benefit District."
$3.75
Commercial 1 ac. site (90% imp.)
= $21.04
Springfield, MO
For internal arterial, developer dedicates
Provide all storm drainage
ROW and constructs two lanes. Adjacent
improvements and on -site
road, developer dedicates ROW / improves
detention facilities. If detention
road (not add. lanes). If road -widening
"buy out" is permitted, the fee for
underway, developer makes "payment in
1 or 2 family residences is $1 per
lieu" to cover the cost. City may agree to
cubic feet of required detention;
recoupment agreement or cost sharing for
commercial is $2. If the
significant improvement. If property
development goes over 24,000 -
rezoned for commercial or industrial use,
100,000 cubic feet of detention,
City may require full roadway improvement
the fee drops to 1/z. The city
including additional lanes.
approves detention buy-outs on
a case -by -case basis.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 4
S
CI
Water and Sewer Facilities
The cost and recoupment policies for extending or oversizing water and sewer lines are somewhat
similar across of Arkansas jurisdictions. Both Fort Smith and Rogers have a $150 "connection fee"
for new subdivisions, the former based on per acre and the later on per lot. Conway has perhaps the
more formalized provision for recoupment of fees for line extensions or oversizing. With the
exception of Springfield, all jurisdictions outside Arkansas had some type of sewer and water "impact
fee." Chapel Hill and Fort Collins both have substantial water and sewer "impact fees." Chapel Hill's
combined "sewer and water availability fee" is $3500; while Fort Collins's "wastewater and water
plant investment fees" can add $1030 for wastewater and $3810 for water (based on a 10,000 sf lot).
Wastewater and water fees for non-residential development within these communities are even higher.
These fees are followed closely by the impact fees in Bozeman.
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
Tie -on fee - $125;
$350 - 5/8 inch meter plus bore/cut
Tap fee - $75
$1500 -2 inch meter, plus bore/cut
No fee for new subdivision; cost to
tap main line - $1000 to tap an 8"
line
Conway
$300 - 4" service (20 feet or less)
$250- 3/a' inch meter (30 feet or less)
$450 - 4" service (greater than 20 feet)
$350 (equal to or greater than 30
Plus: cutting/boring $350
feet)
Conway Corporation serves as contractor
Plus: cutting/boring $150
to install water and sewer in new
subdivisions.
Provision for recoupment of fees for line
extensions of sewer and water through
issuance of connection certificates by
ConwayCorp.
Fort Smith
Tie on fee: $150 per acre in subdivision
$350 for individual service
Sanitary sewer lines serving areas > 100
acres eligible for partial reimbursement.
Provision for city participation for oversizing
lines; city may pay difference in cost of the
line sizes, subject to Board of Directors
approval.
Jonesboro
Option of paying City Water / Light $30 per
Improvement District installs all
lineal foot to install sewer lines; most are
water lines. Tap fee for 3/e" line is
installed by developer. $250 sewer
$150; a 2" line is $500.
inspection connection fee goes into a
special fund for building sewer trunk lines.
Rogers
$150 per lot "connection fee"
$150 per lot "connection fee"
Developer is required to pay all cost of
11/2 inch or greater water meter, the
extending service. On a case -by -case basis,
cost is whatever actual cost is.
the city may contribute to the extension of
water and sewer.
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEESTUDY—DEVELOPMENT FEESURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 5
El
Yg!fl fl]
Arkansas Cities
Springdale
Sewer service fee: 4" $285 for individual
Tap fee: 5/8 inch - $275, plus
service
bore/cut
Developer pays total cost of sewer and
water service; city may contribute.to
oversizing.
Others Cities
Bozeman, MT
Sewer impact fee: $2716.07 residential
Water impact fee: $2142.31
residential
Chapel Hill, NC
Combined sewer/water "availability fee."
Combined sewer/water "availability
Typical new house: $3500
fee." Typical new house: $3500
Service 4" $615 - $700, plus street crossing
a/d" tap -$260- $410, plus street
Tie on fee - $350 or 4" service line
crossing
Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Plant Investment Fee
Water Plant Investment Fee
(examples)
(examples)
Single-family Residential $1030/unit
Single-family Residential (3/4 inch
Non -Residential $6500 for 1 inch meter;
tap) $610 + $.32 per square feet of
$18,900 for 2 inch meter
lot area
Non -Residential $15,300 for 1 inch
meter; $53,600 for 2 inch meter
Plus, "raw water fee"
Lawrence, KS
Sewer system development charge of $460
5/8" - $450.07
Any line extension 12" or less is required to
Water system development charge
be made fully by the developer. There is no
of $355
provision for recoupment of line extension
cost if the developer must extend lines to
reach existing water or sewer service.
Springfield, MO
5/8" - water meter is $300 sewer fee
1" water meter - $600 (inclusive)
1"- water meter is $500 sewer fee
If a water main extension is on the
Developer provides sanitary sewer to their
Master Plan for main extension, the
developments. Minimum size tract for a
city will cost share for over sizing.
septic tank is 3 acres. Special projects City
The city also has a cost recovery
has entered into agreements with
agreement whereby the developer
developers to come up with a formula to
who installed the main extension
apportion recoupment cost based on a per
can receive recoupment of the
acre calculation. The City's policy for
expense based on the lineal front
oversizing lines is to pay the difference in
foot of development occurring on
PIPE cost not installation costs.
either side of the line. Cost
recoupment is limited to 5 years;
ust initiated in last few years.
FayetteVlll a\IMPACT F£E STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 6
Park, School and Library Facilities
The surveyed Arkansas jurisdictions do not fund parks, schools or libraries through any development
fees, dedications or payments -in -lieu. Only a few of the surveyed jurisdictions have a portion of their
property taxes that go toward funding libraries (Conway, Jonesboro and Springdale). Springdale does
have the "voluntary" property tax for libraries that generates approximately $27,000 annually.
Surveyed jurisdictions outside Arkansas fund recreation, schools and libraries through a number of
revenue sources. Fort Collins has a "capital expansion fee" that funds parks, libraries, police, fire and
governmental administration buildings. School impact fees are charged separately by the respective
school districts in Fort Collins ($446 — $484). Chapel Hill does not have a recreation impact fee but
they do have a provision for payment -in -lieu; there is however, a $3,000 per dwelling unit school
impact fee. Bozeman has a calculation for determining the appropriate amount of recreation to
provide in new subdivisions.
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
N/A
N/A
N/A
ConwayN/A
N/A
1 mu property tax
Fort Smith
N/A
N/A
N/A
Jonesboro
N/A
N/A
1 mil property tax
Rogers
N/A
N/A
N/A
Springdale
N/A
N/A
1 -mil property tax
A "voluntary"
library tax of .0010
mils
Others Cities
Bozeman, MT
State law authorizes land dedication
N/A
N/A
requirements for parks. Based on
sliding scale depending on size of lots
Chapel Hill, NC
Requires improved recreation space
$3000 per dwelling
N/A
as an amenity for apartments and
unit
subdivisions; Town Council can
authorize payments -in -lieu
Fort Collins, CO
"Capital expansion fee"
Poudre School
"Capital expansion
Examples:
CEF community parkland -$1,426
District impact fee -
fee" CEF for library
1701 - 2200 sf
PLUS: parkland fee - $1,275
$484.26 per
= $453
house
dwelling;
Thompson School
District impact fee -
$446.00 per dwelling
Lawrence, KS
A part of the city's share of the 1%
N/A
N/A
countywide sales tax funds parks
Springfield, MO
A portion the 1/4% sales tax funds
N/A
A "voluntary"
parks
property tax of
.001
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT F£E SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 7
Police, Fire and Sidewalk Facilities
With only one exception, none of the surveyed Arkansas jurisdictions have any fees for police, fire
and installation of sidewalks. Springdale has a "voluntary" property tax of .0015 mils that raises
approximately $43,000 pet year for the Fire Department. Fort Smith has the most innovative
sidewalk financing method for an Arkansas community. When a building permit is purchased on
almost any type of residential or commercial improvement, there is a "sidewalk assessment fee"
charged. Outside Arkansas, Bozeman and Fort Collins are the only jurisdictions that have fees for
impacts to the Fire Department, with Fort Collins being the only one to have both fire and police fees.
Bozeman's is a straight-out impact fee. Fort Collins's is called a "capital expansion fee."
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
N/A
N/A
5 -foot sidewalks are required in
residential and commercial
development
Conway
N/A
N/A
Sidewalks on both sides of collectors
and arterials, commercial or office
districts regardless of classification of
streets.
Fort Smith
N/A
N/A
Developers must install sidewalks in
new subdivisions. PLUS, almost every
building permit includes an amount
for sidewalks known as the "sidewalk
assessment fee." Fee ranges from $50-
$3000
Jonesboro
N/A
N/A
Sidewalks required on one side of
collectors and arterials.
Rogers
N/A
N/A
Developers must install sidewalks on
both sides of street in new residential
and non-residential developments.
Springdale
N/A
"Voluntary" Fire
Sidewalks are required on both sides of
Dept. tax of .0015
street in residential and non-residential
mils; generates
development.
$43,000/ ear
Others Cities
Bozeman, MT
N/A
Impact fee: Home
Sidewalks are required on both sides
- $181.87; Comm.
of street in residential and non -
$450/1000 sf
residential development.
Chapel Hill, NC
N/A
N/A
Same as above
Fort Collins, CO
"Capital expansion
"Capital expansion
Same as above and sometimes bike
Ex: Home =
fee"
fee"
lane
1701-2200 sf
Home: $112
Home: $163
Bus./Ind. =
Bus.: $12,100
Bus.: $17,400
100,000 sf
Ind.: $3,300
Ind.: $4,800
Lawrence, KS
N/A
N/A
One side of local streets and both
sides of collector and arterial.
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEESTUDV—DEVELOPMENTFEESURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 8
Springfield, MO N/A N/A Sidewalks required on both sides of
collector and arterial streets.
Sidewalks required on both sides of
local residential streets based on
density of subdivision. If not sidewalk
not needed at a particular location, P
& Z can approve sidewalk buyout -
$16.63 / foot.
Fayettevil I e\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 9
SURVEY RESPONSES
Bentonville, Arkansas
Contacts
City Hall, 117 W. Central Avenue, Bentonville, AR 72712
Mr. Troy Galloway, Planning Director, 501-271-3122 talloway@bentonvillear.com
Mr. Roger Terrell, Utilities Director, 501-271-3143 rterrell@bentonvillear.com
Mx. Stewart Smith, 501-271-3111 (sales tax) ssmith@bentonvillear.com
Ms. Denise Land, 501-271-3111 (sales tax) dland@bentonvillear.com .
Size and Growth
Population: 19,730
23.2 square miles
Fast growing city, via voluntary annexation
Studies
Impact fee study that is on -going by Paul Tischlet, should be completed by end of March. The study
includes waste water, sewer, police fire, parks, library; did not include electricity because of advent
of deregulation and did not include drainage.
Sales Tax
The city collects a 1 -cent sales tax that goes into the general fund. In addition, Benton County has a
1 -cent sales tax in which the City of Bentonville shares. This tax generated $2,067,000 in sales tax
revenue in 2000 and is informally referred to by the City as the "capital sales tax." Revenues from this
tax go into a separate fund called the "County Sales Tax Department" fund whereby funds can be
transferred to pay for capital projects that might include parks, fire, streets and municipal buildings.
The City tries to avoid use of these funds for enterprise funded operations such as water, sewer and
electric.
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays to bring adjacent roads up to standard of master street plan.
If additional lanes are planned based on the Master Street Plan but are not yet part of the 5 -Year CIP,
the developer dedicates only the ROW. However, if the additional lane improvements are in the CIP,
the developer makes a payment in -lieu for the cost of the additional lane. The amount is based on
engineering estimates completed by the developer's engineer and approved by the City.
Drainage
Off -site drainage improvements are limited to those cases where a development may pose a hazard
to down stream properties. The majority of developments provide on -site detention/retention that
releases storm water at pre -development flows.
Water and Sewer
Sewer tie -on fee: $125/ DU or commercial or industrial development
Tap fee: $75
Water tap fee: $350/DU for 5/8 meter, plus $50 deposit. A 2" tap (commercial such as a fastfood)
is $1500. No fee for new subdivision; develop installs the individual taps but does pay to tap the main
Fayetteville\IMPACTFE£STUDY-DEVELOPMENTFEESURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 10
L.
C
line into subdivision which is usually $1000 to tap an 8" line. The water tap fee covers the cost of city
installing the tap. Also a cost to bore the street ($20/ft) or to trench ($45/sq. yd.)
Parks
No development fees or dedications
Schools
No development fees
Libraries
No development fees
Police
No development fees
Fire
No development fees
Sidewalks
5 -foot sidewalks are required in residential and commercial development
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Zoning fees - $225
Subdivision Plat (preliminary and final) - $125 plus $1 per lot
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 11
0
Conway, Arkansas
Contacts
1201 Oak Street, Conway, AR 72032
Mr. Bill Polk, Planning Director, 501-450-6105 billpolk@conwaycorp.net
Mr. Ken Pickett, Asst. Planning Director, kpickett@conwaycorp.net
Mr. Tommy Shackelford, Mgr. Eng. and Ping. Conway Corp, 501-450-6050
tommys@conwaycorp.net
Size and Growth
Population: 43,000
Square Miles: 40
Fast Growing
Studies
In process of looking at putting out an RFP for infrastructure fees study.
Sales Tax
In 1993, the City passed a '/z cent sales tax for paying off bonded indebtedness to fund roads, fire
station, drainage and other improvements. The tax raises approximately $3.6 million per year. When
the bonds are paid off, the sale tax will sunset. (Perry Faulkner 501-450-6101)
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays for all on -site improvements and provides ROW for
additional lanes for Boundary Streets if needed in accordance with Master Street Plan. If a
development is adjacent to a collector or an arterial that the City has accepted for maintenance, the
developer may develop lots off of this roadway without regard to condition or adequacy of the
external street. If the road is a local street that has been accepted for maintenance by the City, the
developer may divide off the road but also meet the City's standards for access. If the road is a dead
end road, the furthest lot from the intersection of this road with an arterial or collector or another
local road that has at least two outlets must be nor more than 650 from that intersection. If the ROW
is 60 and there is 40 feet of paving, and no more than 44 lots with lot widths at the building line of
90 feet, then the distance from the intersection may be 1120 feet.
Drainage
Developer can be required to provide off -site drainage improvements if needed for plat approval, but
this is a rare occurrence.
Water and Sewer
All water and sewer mains are constructed in accordance with City of Conway ordinances and Conway
Corporation policy. Water mains are sized according to future development potential and fire flows.
Sewer mains are sized to future development potential. The Manager of Engineering and Planning of
the Conway Corporation serves as contracting agent to install water and sewer improvements in new
subdivisions. Projects are funded through draws off letters of credits or cashier checks. Customers
provide a letter of credit or a cashier's check equivalent to the estimated cost of the project, including
engineering costs, prior to the commencement of the job.
Customers paying for water
or sewer
main extensions are
entitled to
recover a portion
of their costs
if the extension fronts the
property
of other potential
customers.
The method by
which this is
FayettevIll a\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 12
S 0
accomplished is through the issuance of connection certificates by the Conway Corporation to the
customer paying for the water or sewer main.
Certificates will be issued equal to the number of potential lots or building sites along the extension,
in agreement with the customer paying for the extension. The value of each certificate is determined
by dividing the total cost of the extension by the number of potential lots or building sites along it.
The customer paying for the main(s) surrenders one certificate upon connection of this water or sewer
service line to the main extension.
Each outstanding connection certificate earns interest (currently at the rate of 6 percent per year) for
the first three years from the date of original issue. Additional service connections to a water or sewer
main extension will be made by the Corporation only upon receipt of a connection certificate, or upon
payment of the face value of the certificate plus the interest earned.
Example: sewer 1/a mile line extension cost $300,000; developer plans to build 50 lots; additional land
that will benefit from the line extension has the potential for an additional 100 lots; total lots is 150;
value per lot is $2,000. Developer's benefit is $100,000 ($300,000 divided by 50 lots); developer is
paid $2000 (plus interest earned) for each new service line tied to the sewer line plus interest. In
addition to line extension, homes in new subdivisions are charged $30 for a meter installation where
the meter setter has been set during the construction of water mains in a subdivision.
Conway Corporation Residential Service Installation Cost Schedule where water and sewer services
have not been provided at a potential building site. This is in addition to any connection certificate
charges due on any main.
3h" water meter installation 30 feet or less - $250; >30 feet - $350; cutting/boring $150
4" sewer service installation 20 feet or less $300; >20 feet - $450; cutting/boring $350
Parks
No fees or dedications
Schools
No fees
Libraries
There may
be a small millage
assessed countywide
to support the library.
Police
No fees
Fire
No fees
Sidewalks
The Subdivision Ordinance requires sidewalks be on both sides of collectors and arterials, as well as
both sides with a commercial or office districts regardless of classification of streets. This applies only
to new developments.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 13
I
Electric and Cable
City provides overhead electric and cable services to city residents. Customers pay 60 percent of
underground conduit costs for underground electric and cable. This is the approximate difference in
the cost of overhead and underground facilities.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning fees - $75
Variance - $35
Conditional Use — no fee
Subdivision Plat (minor, preliminary and final) - $150 plus $5 per lot for Preliminary Plat; $100 for
Final Plat
Sign Permit: $15
Parking lot permit: $25 for first 25 spaces; $10 for each additional 50 spaces
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEESTUDY—DEVELOPMENTFEESURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 14
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contacts
P.O. Box 1908, Fort Smith, AR 72902
Mr. Wally Bailey, Planning Director, 501-784-2216 wbailey@fsark.com
Mr. Roger Cox, Utilities Dept. Records Coordinator, 501-784-2236 rcox@fsark.com
Size and Growth
Population: 80,000
Square Miles 53.4
Moderate Growth
Studies
Retained Gould Evans out of Kansas City to prepare new Comprehensive Plan
Sales Tax
Early 1990's the City passed a 1 cent sales tax for roads and drainage improvements. Tax raises $14-
16 million a year. Improvements based on CIP.
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays to bring adjacent toads up to city standards and provides
ROW for additional lanes if needed. Developer provides signalization if needed.
Drainage
Developer provides off -site drainage improvements if needed.
Water and Sewer
Sanitary sewer lines that serve areas in excess of 100 acres are eligible for partial reimbursement as
outlined in current ordinances.
Developers pay a sanitary sewer tie on fee for developments where new lines have been installed and
taps provided. This fee is calculated at $150.00 an acre or part of an acre. Homeowners requesting
new taps on existing lines pay a tap fee of $350.00 plus the additional cost of installing service lines
to the property line. Charges are set by ordinance and total cost varies according to field conditions.
In areas where additional water and sewer line size is required to serve a larger area than is originally
developed, the developer can apply for City participation in betterment cost for the difference in cost
of the line sizes. All City participation in costs are subject to Board of Directors approval.
Water taps costs are set according to code, and vary according to the size of taps. The cost of water
taps are also effected by the degree of difficulty (or field conditions) in reaching the property line of
the customer. Tap sizes range from 3/4" to 2" in diameter. Taps larger than are installed by licensed
contractors, and paid for by the developer.
Parks
No fees or dedications
Fayetteville\IMPA CTFEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 15
Schools
No development fees charged.
Libraries
No development fees charged.
Police
No fees
Fire
No fees
Sidewalks
Developers must install sidewalks in new subdivisions. The building permit fee includes a certain
percent for sidewalks, "sidewalk assessment fee." Once the building permit is approved that portion
of the fee that goes to sidewalks is transferred to the "sidewalk" fund. The fee is charged on almost
any residential or non-residential building permit, except for small permits. Fees raise approximately
$150,000 each year for sidewalks. Used to install sidewalks in areas that do not have sidewalks.
Sidewalk fees are based on the estimated value of the construction costs:
$20,001 - $80,000 = $50
$80,001 and greater - $100
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning fees - $130
Variance - $50
Conditional Use - $50 / $75
Subdivision Plat (preliminary and final) - $25 paid to the county as a filing fee
$10r001 -$50o000 = $100
$50,001 - $100,000 = $500
$100,001 -$1,000,000 = $1000
2i nnn nni nr nrngtnr = .Qt nnn
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEESTUDY—DEVELOPMENTFEESURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 16
Jonesboro, Arkansas
Contacts
P.O. Box 1845, Jonesboro, AR 72403
Mr. Jeff Hawkins, Planning Director, 870-932-0540 jhawkins@jonesboro.org
Mr. Jerry Reece, Eng. Services Supervisor Utilities Dept., 870-930-3320 Fax: 930-3333
Size and Growth
Population: 51,000
Square Miles: 105
Fast Growing
Studies
Al Raby completed the Comprehensive Plan in 1996 and the Unified Development Ordinance in
1999; the city staff have broken the zoning and subdivision back out as separate documents and
should adopt revised ordinances in this Spring.
Sales Tax
In 1995, a $55 million bond issue was passed that was backed by a 5 -year 1 -cent sales tax. It expired
in June 2000 (average annual revenue generated by 1 cent sales tax is approximately $11 million per
year). A new sales tax was passed in October 2000. It is a 1 cent sales tax; % dedicated to streets and
drainage; other dedicated to eliminating fees for sanitation, mosquito spraying, bird removal, and the
portion of the "general purpose" ad valorem tax.
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays for all on -site improvements and provides ROW for
additional lanes if needed in accordance with Master Street Plan.
Drainage
Developer provides off -site drainage improvements if needed for plat approval.
Water and Sewer
The developer has the option of installing sewer based on the City Water and Light Improvement
District's specifications or the developer can pay the Improvement District $30 per lineal foot to
install it. Most are installed by developer. He must provide as builts, tests, and confirmation that
improvements have no outstanding bills or hens. There is a $250 sewer inspection connection fee that
goes into a special fund for building sewer trunk lines.
The Improvement District installs all water lines. The water tap fee for '/d" line is $150; a 2" line is
$500. There is no charge for boring or cutting street because the homeowner is responsible for making
arrangement for this in existing developments.
Parks
No fees or dedications
Schools
No fees
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 17
Libraries
I mil ad valorem tax for libraries
Police
No fees
Fire
No fees
Sidewalks
Zoning ordinance requires sidewalks on one side of collectors and arterials.
Electric
The City Water and Light Improvement District provides electric service to city residents that is
substantially cheaper then other electric providers outside city limits. This has spurred annexation into
Jonesboro.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning fees - $30
Variance - $25
Conditional Use - $25
Subdivision Plat (minor, preliminary and final) - $25 plus $.60 per lot; site plan $25
Fayetteville/MPA CT FEE STUD Y—DEVEL OPMENTFEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 18
Rogers, Arkansas
Contacts
207 South 2"d Street, Rogers, AR 72756
Mr. Maurice Kolman, Director, Office of Transportation and Planning (did not interview)
Ms. Gayla Terpening, Adm. Asst., 501-621-1186 gterpening@rogersark.org
Mr. Mark Johnson, Rogers Water Utilities, 501-936-5406 markcjohnson@usa.net
Size and Growth
Population: 37,800
Square Miles 38
Fast Growth
Studies
June 2000 major changes were made in development fees and building fees.
Zoning and subdivision update in 1998; there maybe an update of the growth comprehensive plan
during this next year.
Sales Tax
In 1996 bond issue passed underwritten by 1% sales tax; funded construction of a criminal justice
building, fire training and administration facility, and street and drainage improvements. The 1% tax
raised $4.7 mil in 1997; $4.7 mil in 1998; $5 mil in 1999; and $5.5 mil in 2000. (Source: Peggy in
Clerk's Office)
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays to bring adjacent roads up to city standards and provides all
right-of-way and development improvements, including additional lanes if needed. The large-scale
development and subdivision ordinance require that developer improve half of street; and dedicate
pave, curb and gutter and sidewalks.
Drainage
Developer provides on- and off -site drainage improvements based on development requirements.
Water and Sewer
Developer funds all water and sewer improvements. If sewer or water extension is required, developer
is required to pay all cost of extending service. On a case -by -case basis, the city may contribute to the
extension (if the extension is in an area the city plans to extend service, then there is more of a
possibility that the city will share costs.
A $150 per lot ($300) "connection fee" is charged for both water and sewer service. Businesses are
charged the same $300 "connection fee." Customers that require a 1'/a" or greater water meter, the
Utilities Department installs and charges whatever the cost might be.
Cost of setting a
meter in a new subdivision is $10, plus
$20 deposit
(for
existing
customers) for both
water and sewer.
Renters pay $25 for water and $30 for
sewer plus a
$50
deposit
each service.
Parks
No fees or dedications, but developers are strongly encouraged to provide recreation area, particularly
flood prone areas.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 19
Schools
No development
fees
Libraries
No development
fees
Police
No development
fees
Fire
No development
fees
Sidewalks
Developers must install sidewalks on both sides of street in new residential and non-residential
developments.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning fees - $200
Variance - $100
Conditional Use - $100
Large Scale Development Plan - $200
Subdivision Plat: Preliminary Plat - $200 plus $1 per lot over 50 lots; Final Plat - $200 plus $1 per lot
over 50 lots
Lot split -$100
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEESTUDY—DEVELOPMENT FEESURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 20
Contacts
Dept. of Planning and Community Development, 201 Spring Street, Springdale, AR 72764
Ms. Patsy Christie, Planning Director (not interviewed)
Ms. Melissa McCarville, Assistant Planning Director, 501-750-8550 mmccarville@springdaleark.org
Mr. Chris Brown, Engineering Dept. cbrown@ springdaleark.org
Ms. Denise Pearce, City Clerk (sales tax) 501-750-8117
Mr. Otto Potter (roads and drainage) 501-750-8550 opotter@springdaleark.org
Mr. Rick Pulvirenti (water and sewer) 501-751-9479 / 750-4039 fax)
Mr. Paul Justice, NW Arkansas Reg. Ping. Commission, 501-751-7125 pjustice@mail.com
Size and Growth
Population: 44,800
Square Miles: 31
Fast Growth
Studies
City is working on an update to the land use plan; they adopted a new Master Street Plan in April of
2000. Continually working on updates to various portions of the zoning ordinance; most recently, the
sign ordinance has been evaluated.
Sales Tax
1% sales tax passed in 1992. 75% of the revenue generated goes to capital projects listed in the
Capital Improvement Plan; the remainder goes to the General Fund. In 2000, sales tax revenue
generated was $8.5 mil with $6.4 mil going to capital projects.
City council has approved a "voluntary" tax for libraries and the fire department. In the past it was
on the county's tax bill, but in 1996 it was taken off. It is now sent out by the City Clerk's office.
Since this time revenues have fallen substantially from this "voluntary" tax. Revenues collected last
year for the Fire Department was $43,487 (millage rate of .0015) and revenues collected for libraries
was $27,312 (millage rate of .0010).
Roads
Developer constructs all improvements and is required to improve adjacent street based on the Master
Street Plan. If street improvements are not immediately needed, the city has a provision for a
"payment in lieu." Most often the developer will ask for a waiver of improvements and the Planning
Commission usually does not grant the waiver but requires "payment in lieu" of constructing the
improvements. At this point the developer submits an amount that the engineers reviews and both
parties mutually agree upon the amount. "Payments in lieu" are not done frequently; most of the time
the planning commission will want the improvements done immediately. Funds received "in lieu" go
into one account but assigned to the street (presently there are 18 different submittals). Funds in lieu
are usually related to adding an additional lane. Money is paid in cash with no provision for refunds.
Drainage
Developer provides on and off -site drainage improvements based on impact of development
Developers must account for all on -site drainage and any drainage improvements needed so that
development does not harm downstream. Special permission must be granted for detention.
Commercial detention remains the responsibility of commercial property owner.
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEESTUDY—DEVELOPMENTFEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 21
0
Water and Sewer
Developer pays total cost; city will contribute to paying for oversizing of lines. Water tap fee for 5/8"
is $275, plus $250 for a full street bore or $649 for a street cut; Sewer service fee for 4" connection
is $285, but developer pays no water or sewer tap fee, if they install water and sewer in new
subdivision.
Parks
No development fees or dedications required
Schools
No development fees
Libraries
There is a 1 -mil ad valorem tax for library operations collected by the County (Marsha Ransom, 756-
7706). The City of Springdale has a "voluntary" library tax of .0010 mils (see above discussion under
"sales tax.)"
Police
No development fees
Fire
The City of Springdale has a "voluntary" Fire Department tax of .0015 mils (see above discussion
under "sales tax."
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are required on both sides of street in residential and non-residential development;
occasionally variances are approved the exempt sidewalk installation. There is also a provision for
"payments in lieu"
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning — $175
Variance —$75
Conditional Use Permit — $75
Subdivision — Preliminary Plat - $100; Final Plat - $50/lot or $1 /lot, which ever is greater; Informal
Plat -$50
FayetteVlll a\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 22
Bozeman, Montana
Contacts
20 East Olive Street, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771
Mr. Chris Saunders, Impact Fee Coordinator, 406-582-2360 csaunders@bozeman.net
Mr. Mike Certalic, Water Superintendent, 406-582-3200 mcertalic@bozeman.net
Size and Growth
Population: 33,000
Square Miles:13
Fast Growth: Est. 4.6%
Studies
Transportation, fire, water and wastewater impact fee study completed in 1996.
Sales Tax
No sales tax for infrastructure improvements; only resort towns are allowed to levy sales tax for public
improvements.
Roads
Transportation impact fee charged for new development: single-family home - $1778; general use
office - $3090/1000 sf; commercial development (100,000 sO - $4926/1000 sf; fast food -
$9210/1000 ; light industrial - $1297/1000 sf; elementary school - $151/1000 sf; high school -
$319/1000 sf; and church - $1086/1000 sf. Impact fee credits given for some ROW dedication and
off -site improvements made by developer.
Drainage
Developer provides on -site and off -site drainage improvements needed for plat or site plan approval.
Water and Sewer
Impact fees for water and sewer are based on the size of the water meter. Impact fees for single-family
connections are $2,142.31 for water and $2,716.07 for sewer.
Time and materials cost is charged for connection to main lines.
Parks
State law authorizes land dedication requirements for parks. Park dedication is part of state law and
subdivision ordinance. It is based on a sliding scale depending on size of lots proposed or fixed
amount per dwelling not to exceed .03 acres.
Lots greater than 5 acres — no park dedication required
Lots 3 to 5 acres — 2.5% of subdivision land devoted to recreation
Lots 1 to 3 acres — 5% of subdivision land devoted to recreation
Lots'/z to 1 acre — 7.5% of subdivision land devoted to recreation
Lots less than '/z acre — 11 % of subdivision land devoted to recreation
Comprehensive Plan supports changes to allow off -site park land dedication; No recreation land
dedication required for non-residential development.
Subdivisions of 6 lots or less not required to dedicate land or make a payment in lieu of dedication
Multifamily requirements vary, Bozeman has established flat 11% land dedication or equivalent cash
payment.
Fayettevil l e\IMPACT FEE S TUDY—DEVELOPMENTFEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 23
Schools
No fees
Libraries
No fees
Police
No fees
Fire
Impact Fees based on type of dwelling unit or use and square footage. Typical fees are: single-family -
$181.87; townhouse - $152.74; multifamily 4-plex - $83.40; office (50,000 so - $355/1000 sf;
commercial (50,000 sf) - $450/1000 sf; and warehouse (50,000 sf) - $534.57/1000 sf
Sidewalks
Required to install sidewalk on both sides according to city street standards; standard sidewalk is 5
feet wide and located a foot from curb. Required in residential and commercial development.
Developer pays all costs. Requiring sidewalks to be installed with development of subdivision up front
or a "date certain." No longer than 3 years delay is typical.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning — $400 plus $5 per acre up to 80 acres, then $3 per acre over 80 acres.
Variance — $180 singe household, $300 others
Special Use Permit— $660
Subdivision — Preliminary Plat - $200 plus $3 per lot to 100 lots then $1 per lot; Final Plat - $50 plus
$1 per lot.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 24
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Contacts
306 North Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Mr. Roger Waldon, Planning Director, 919-968-2731 rwaldon@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us
Orange Water and Sewer Authority, 919-968-4421
Size and Growth
Population: 45,000
Square Miles: 20
Moderately Growing
Studies
Orange County conducted study for school impact fees; looking at changing fee structure. Currently
all residential pays the same fee. Looking at a tiered system with lower fees for multifamily,
townhouses and mobile homes.
Sales Tax
No sales tax for infrastructure improvements
Roads
In new subdivisions, there is a system of required developer improvements. The developer pays for
all on -site improvements, provides ROW for additional lanes and sometimes builds additional lanes
or makes nearby intersection improvements. Based on rational nexus between impact and need for
improvement; it is mostly a negotiated process.
Drainage
Developer provides on -site and/or off -site drainage improvements if needed, as a condition of
approval for new development.
Water and Sewer
Orange Water and Sewer Authority charges a combined sewer/water "availability fee." The typical
fee for a new house in an average subdivision would likely be approximately $3,500.
Sewer
Sewer Service for "non -street crossing" is: $615
$20 for each additional foot over 10 feet
Sewer Service for "street crossing - cut" is: $700
$33 for each additional foot over 20 feet in street and $20 for each out of street
Tie on fee: $350 for 4" service line
Water
Water
tap fees for "non -street crossing" are:
'/I' tap =
$260, 1"=
$300 and 2" _ $960;
$13 for each additional foot
over 10
feet
Water
tap fees for "street crossing -
cut" are:
'/4" tap =
$410, 1"=
$450 and 2" _ $1225;
$23 for each additional foot
over 20
feet in street and $13
for each out of street
Water
tap fees for "street crossing -
bore" are: '/4" tap
= $325, 1"=
$365 and 2" = $1025;
$5 for each additional foot over 20 feet in street and $13 for each out of street
Fayetteville\/MPA CTFEE STUDY—DEVELOPMENTFE£ SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 25
Parks
Ordinance requires improved recreation space as an amenity for apartments; recreation area is
required for subdivisions, based on zoning district's land use intensities; Town Council can authorize
payments in lieu of land or improvements if it finds that recreation needs are met by public facilities
in close proximity to development.
Schools
$3000 per dwelling unit currently; proposal to raise under consideration.
Libraries
No fees
Police
No fees
Fire
No fees
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are typically required to be constructed on -site and sometimes off -site to continue
connectivity; developer provides all improvements.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Application fees run between $20,000 to $30,000 for many developments
Zoning Map Amendments — Initial application fee: $800 plus $40 per acre
Zoning Compliance Permit — Site Plan Review fee: $1700 plus $17/sf of floor area
Zoning Compliance Final Permit Issuance —'/z of Initial Permit Fee
Board of Adjustment - Variance: $330 and Appeal: $220
Special Use Permit - $5000 plus $20 per acre
Master Land Use Plans - $5000 plus $20/100 sf of land area
Subdivision — Preliminary Plat - $5000 plus $200/lot; Final or Minor Plat - $270 plus $40/lot
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 26
Fort Collins, Colorado
Contacts
P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522
Mr. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, 970-221-6750 cgloss@fcgovcom
Mr. Dave Stringer (roads), 970-221-6605 dstringer@fcgovcom
Ms. Dee Toplyn (budget) 970-221-6530 dtoplyn@fcgovcom
Mr. Matt Baker (street oversizing), 970-224-6108 mbaker@fcgovcom
Ms. Mary Young (water and waste water), 970-416-2630 myoung@fcgovcom
Ms. Jean Pakech (drainage), 970-221-6375 jpakech@fcgovcom
Size and Growth
Population: 122,304
Square Miles: 47
Fast Growth
Studies
City just raised "street oversizing capital expansion" fee rates; work was completed in-house.
Sales Tax
The City has three quarter -cent sales taxes for capital projects. The taxes are one -quarter cent for
streets and transportation , one -quarter cent for community enhancement projects (City/School
District community projects , performing arts center, library technology, etc.), and one -quarter cent
for natural areas and parks (natural areas acquisition and maintenance, and community park
improvements). This tax is projected to generate $5 million in fiscal year 2001.
Roads
A "street oversizing capital expansion" fee is charged at the point of building permit. It is what is
commonly known as a "road impact fee." It is based on the assumption that certain streets, such
arterials and collectors, have a community wide benefit and all development should pay their fair
share to improve these streets (Master Street Plan). The term "oversized" comes from the calculation
of "oversizing" a street from the required local street standard to the collector or arterial standard.
Developers are required to donate one-half of the required right-of-way needed for a local street (25.5
feet), and construct within that right-of-way the local street standard (15 feet of asphalt, 10 foot
parkway strip and 4.5 foot sidewalk). If the adjacent road is required to be improved above the local
street standard, the developer is reimbursed by the city for the additional cost or the city undertakes
the construction and the developer only pays the cost of improving a local street cross-section. If it
is a large street and a substantial amount of right-of-way is required (over and above the local street
standard), the City will purchase the right-of-way. Fort Collins collects approximately $4.5 to $5
million a year in "street oversizing capital expansion" fees.
Street oversizing capital expansion fees" charged for new development: single-family home - $1624;
general use office - $2710/1000 sf (offices under 50,000 so; commercial development (100,000 sf) -
$5410/1000 sf; fast food - $20,630/1000 sf; light industrial - $1160/1000 sf; schools do not pay
street oversizing fee; they must upgrade adjacent street based on projected impact of school; and
church - $1520/1000 sf. The rates are based on Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE) trip
generations.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT F£E SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 27
In addition, Latimer County has a "transportation expansion fee" to improve regional roadways. Fort
Collins collects it at the building permit, and remits it back to the County on a quarterly basis.
Roadway improvement projects are selected by a committee representing all jurisdictions in Larimer
County. These rates are approximately 10% of Fort Collins's street oversizing capital expansion fee.
Drainage
Fort Collins collects monthly stormwater fees for all developed properties within the city. They pay
for operation, maintenance and new stormwater capital projects. The stormwater fee for an average
single-family home site of 8600 square feet would be $8.13 (considered "light runoff'). Commercial
averages $82.34 per month based on a typical 1 acre lot (considered "heavy runoff'). The stormwater
fee is based on lot size and the amount of open space. The base rate is $.0023627 times the square
feet of impervious surface. Calculation: gross lot area + open space x $.0023627 x rate factor. The
"rate factor" varies: very light impact = .25; light impact = .4; moderate impact = .6; heavy impact
= .8; and very heavy impact = .95. Single family homes over 12,000 feet get a 25% reduction in
overall fee.
Water and Sewer
The City has a wastewater and water "plant investment fee" (PIF) that is charged at the time of
building permit. This is a one-time development fee collected to pay for growth related capital
expansions cost of water supply, storage, transmission, treatment and distribution facilities. The fee
varies with the number of dwelling units and the lot area served for residential users, and with the size
of the water meter for non-residential users. For single-family, the wastewater is per dwelling unit; the
water fee is based on square footage of lot. For commercial development it is all based on meter size.
Wastewater Plant Investment Fee (examples)
Single-family Residential $1030/unit
Non -Residential $6500 / 1 inch meter $18,900 / 2 inch meter
Non-residential customers discharging high strength wastewater exceeding average concentrations of
BOD and/or TSS are subject to PIF surcharges.
Water Plant Investment Fee (examples)
Single-family Residential (3/4 inch tap) $610 + $32 per square feet of lot area
Non -Residential $15,300 / 1 inch meter $53,600 / 2 inch meter
Raw Water Fee
Raw water is required for the increase in water use created by new development and to insure a
reliable source of supply in dry years. The Raw Water Requirement can be satisfied with water stocks
or city certificate or by cash payment at the time of building permit. See the City of Fort Collins's web
site for rates.
Capital Expansion Fee
A "capital expansion fee" is paid at the time of building permit. This fees goes toward funding capital
costs for libraries, community parkland, police, fire and general government services.
The following fee schedule is based on an "average" residential home having from 1701 to 2200
square feet and an "average" commercial or industrial development of 100,000 square feet. The
detailed fee schedule is available on Fort Collins's web site (www.fcgove.com)
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY—DEVELOPMENTFEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 28
Parks
In addition to the "capital expansion fee" for community parkland, there is a parkland fee charged at
the time of residential building permit. Based on an "average" residential home having from 1701 to
2200 square feet, the fee charged would be $1275.
Libraries
See "capital expansion fee"
Police
See "capital expansion fee"
Fire
See "capital expansion fee"
Schools
The Poudre School District has a school impact fee of $484.26 per residential dwelling and Thompson
School District has a school impact fee of $446.00 per residential dwelling.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are provided as part of street improvements. Are required on both sides and sometimes as
bike lane is required.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning — $977 plus $.50 per mailing label for notification
Major amendment to land use plan — $3206 plus $.50 per mailing label for notification
Variance — $25
Non -conforming use review — $1389
Overall Development Plan — $1599
Project Development Plan without Subdivision Plat — $3887 plus $.50 per mailing label for
notification
Project Development Plan with Subdivision Plat — $5879 plus $.50 per mailing label for notification
Final Plan with or without a Subdivision Plat — $1000
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 29
Lawrence, Kansas
Contacts
Planning Department, P.O. Box 708, Lawrence, KS 66044
Ms. Linda Finger, Planning Director (not interviewed)
Ms. Sheila Stogsdill, Asst. Planning Director, 785-832-3150 sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Mr. Chad Voigt (drainage), 785-832-3037 cvoigt@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Mr. Roger Coffee, Director of Dept. of Utilities, 785-832-7810 / 7897 (fax)
or Ms. Deedee Commons, dcommonons@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Ms. Debbie Sparks (county sales tax), 785-832-5287
Mr. Ed Mullins (city sales tax), 785-832-3214
Size and Growth
Population: 83,682
Square Miles: 24
Moderate Growth
Studies
Currently updating zoning ordinance and looking at cost for doing an "Adequate Public Facilities"
ordinance/fee system (spoken with Eric Kelly, Duncan Associates)
Sales Tax
1994 passed a 1% countywide sales tax. Support for the sale tax was based on the agreement that the
general ad valorem taxes that went to the city and county would be lowered by 7 mils (5 from city and
2 from county), while that portion going to the city -county schools would be increased by 7 mils to
build a new high school. Douglas County uses to fund court renovations, operating cost for the jail
and city -county health building (approximately $3.6 million received annually by County); the City
of Lawrence expends its portion of the sale tax revenues (approximately $7.2 million received annually
by City) based on a 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan for parks and recreation and to fund the city's
portion of the health facility.
Roads
Developer is required to provide all required road improvements and necessary right-of-way. If major
street improvement is premature, developer signs an agreement that he will not oppose establishment
of a "Benefit District" in the future. A benefit district is an "assessment" that appears on property tax
and is paid over an extended period of time. City will participate in Benefit District if the
improvements are deemed to be of benefit to the city at large.
Drainage
There is a citywide, monthly stormwater utility fee; it is based on impervious surface. A single-family
home was determined to have an average of 2366 sf of impervious surface. This is called "equivalent
residential unit" (ERU). Fee paid on water bill.
January 2001 $3.00 per ERU; January 2003 goes to $4.00 per ERU.
Commercial properties charged for actual ERU's (based on development's total impervious square feet
divided by 2,366) times $1.27 per 1000 SF impervious surface.
Fee applies to City properties and tax-exempt properties.
Single family residences charged based on total building footprints on the lot:
up to 1000 0.67 ERU's $2.01
1001 to 1800 1.00 ERU's $3.00
Fayettevi l l e\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 30
1801 to 3000
1.25
ERU's
$3.75
3001 to 4000
1.80
ERU's
$5.40
4001 and up
2.50
ERU's
$7.50
Multi -family units charged
based on
"unit size." Unit size = total footprints / # units
up to 750
0.37
ERU's
$1.11
750 and up
0.66
ERU's
$1.98
Water and Sewer
No water service is provided until provisions for installing sanitary sewer have been made.
The developer is required to install all water and sewer improvements. Any water line extension 12"
or less is required to be made fully by the developer. There is no provision for recoupment of line
extension cost if the developer must extend lines to reach existing water or sewer service. If a line is
required to be oversized, there may be participation by City. The city may choose to extend water
lines to commercial or industrial properties at no cost to the development; however, the cost of
internal distribution mains are the responsibility of property owner. The city does not provide benefit
district financing for water improvements.
If the Department of Utilities installs water lines, the charge is $8 per lineal foot for water main
installation to existing lots. If the installation costs exceed this amount, the developer is charged based
on actual costs. The Department has a fee calculation method specifically for cul-de-sac lots as it does
for corner lots.
Residential home: water tap and meter fee for 5/8" is $450.07, plus a water system development
charge of $355 and a sewer system development charge of $460; Total: $1265.07
Parks
No development fees; 1% sales tax funds much of acquisition.
Schools
No development fees
Libraries
No development fees
Police
No development fees
Fire
No development fees
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are required on one side of local streets and both sides of collector and arterial. If sidewalks
do not need to be provided at the time development is approved, the development must sign an
agreement not to contest a "benefit district" formation in the future.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning:
County: $100 plus $35 for legal advertisement
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 31
City: the following fees plus legal advertisement:
BZA — Residential $30; Other $60
Conditional Use Permit — $100
Subdivision:
Plats: County - $50 for 5 lots or less;
City - $100 for 4 lots or less
County - $75 for >5 lots, plus $1 / lot over 5 lots
City - $200 for >4 lots, plus $3 / lot over 4 lots
Preliminary Development Plan - $200 Final Development Plan - $100
Plat Recording Fee - $20 per sheet Covenants Filing Fee - $6 for 1" page, $2 each additional
Flood Plain Permits - $20
Site Plan - $50; Site Plan Renewal - $25
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 32
ri
Springfield, Missouri
Contacts
Address: Planning and Development Dept., Zoning and Subdivision Services
Mr. Fred May, Planning Director (not interviewed)
Mr. Fred May 417-864-1037 fred_may@ci.springfield.mo.us
Mr. Andy Furedy (dev.) 417-864-1612 tell 1882 fax andy_furedy@ci.springfield.mo.us
Ms. Julie Gimlin (drainage) 417-864-1939 julie_gnnlin@ci.springfield.mo.us
Ms. Mary Mannix (sales tax) 417-864-1399 mary_mannix@ci.springfield.mo.us
Mr. David Hutchison (roads) david_hutchison@ci.springfield.mo.us
Mr. Mike Delong, City Utilities of Springfield, 417-831-8311
Size and Growth
Population: 151,580
Square Miles: 74.8
Moderate 8% growth over 10 years
Studies
The City has discussed the possibility of impact fees, but nothing else.
Sales Tax
Springfield instituted a sales tax to fund certain capital, operations and expenses of the city. It has
a 1% general sales tax for operations and maintenance, a 1/8 -cent (raise $4 million per year) for road
improvements, mostly intersection improvements that are on the state's projects list but of a low
priority, and a '/a -cent sales tax (raises $8 million a year) for parks and other road improvements. The
State Department will reimburse the city for sales tax revenues expended on state identified road
improvements (program started because some of the roads needing improvement within the city were
far down the list of approved state projects, so the city speeded up the process by funding with sales
tax revenues). The City also uses $4 million in property tax revenues to fund bonds to construct
stormwater improvements, fire stations and other municipal facilities.
Roads
The developer is required to make all internal local and collector street improvements. For arterial
streets within a subdivision, the developer is required to dedicate right-of-way and construct two lanes
of any portion of the arterial street that provides direct access to the subdivision. The developer is
also required to dedicate rights -of -way, make paving improvements and provide sidewalks on any
adjacent road that is substandard and will not provide the level of service needed for the
development. If a road -widening improvement is underway, the developer is required to make a
"payment in lieu" to cover the cost of the sidewalk and any other required improvements. The City
Council may agree to some sort of recoupment agreement or cost sharing with property owners for
significant roadway improvement provided by the developer that will benefit the City or adjacent
property owners when their property develops. With residential subdivisions there is a limited amount
of off -site roadway exactions that can be required.
If property is being rezoned for commercial or industrial use, the City can require at time of zoning
certain conditions of approval. The City may require full roadway improvement including additional
lanes, based on traffic impact studies completed for large developments.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEESTUDY—DEVELOPMENTFEESURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 33
I
Drainage
Developers are required to provide all storm drainage improvements and are most often required to
provide on -site detention facilities. If a developer plans to construct a detention basin their engineer
will use the TR55 or HECI software to calculate their detention volume and size their outlet weirs.
A more simplified calculation is used for smaller basins or "buyouts" which allows bypassing the
expense of hiring an engineer for these calculations only. The simplified approach calculates by the
volume of detention needed: for every 1/10 of an acre of impervious surface development, the
developer is required to construct 1280 cubic feet of detention. If detention "buy out" is permitted,
the fee for 1 or 2 family residences is $1 per cubic feet of required detention; commercial is $2. If the
development goes over 24,000 - 100,000 cubic feet of detention, the fee drops to '/z. The city
approves detention buy-outs on a case -by -case basis. If there is any potential for downstream impact,
then there is no buy out approved. Sometimes developers are permitted to construct downstream
improvements to reduce detention cost. Cost of downstream improvements reduces overall buyout
cost calculations. In the past, storm water detention basins were allowed to discharge on private
property which caused a lot of legal problems and expense. The City now requires that basins
discharge onto a public right-of-way, into a drainage easement, or that the engineer or architect certify
it discharges into a "natural surface -water channel" and must notify downstream property owners of
this certification.
Water and Sewer
City provides gas, water, sewer and electric service. The City sometimes provides service extension
for utilities if there is economic development potential because of the project. If a water main
extension is on the Master Plan for main extension, the city will cost share for over sizing. The city
also has a cost recovery agreement whereby the developer who installed the main extension can
receive recoupment of the expense based on the lineal front foot of development occurring on either
side of the line. Cost recoupment is limited to 5 years; just initiated in last few years.
Water service charge: 1" $600 (all inclusive)
Developers are required to provide sanitary sewer to their developments. Minimum size tract for a
septic tank is 3 acres. On special projects the City has entered into agreements with developers to
come up with a formula to apportion recoupment cost based on a per acre calculation. The longest
period for reimbursement is 20 years. The City's policy for oversizing lines is to pay the difference in
PIPE cost not installation costs. (Bob Shaffer 417-864-1920)
Sewer fee based on water meter size and charged at time of building permit: 5/8" meter is $300; a 1"
meter is $500.
Parks
No development fees for parks
Schools
There are no development fees for schools.
Libraries
Capital improvements are funded through a portion of the property tax millage; run by a separate
city/county board.
Police
Fayettevil l e\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 34
No development fee for police.
Fire
Fire Department capital improvements are funded through sales tax collections.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are required to be constructed on both sides of the collector and arterial streets. Sidewalks
are not required on local commercial or industrial streets; however, on local residential streets,
sidewalks are based on density: less than 3 units per acre, sidewalks not required; 3 — 5 units per acre,
sidewalks are required on one side; >5 units per acre, sidewalks are required on both sides of
residential streets. If a developer presents a reason to the Planning and Zoning Commission as to why
it would not be effective to construct sidewalks in their development, such as a large channel along
the street, then the commission can approve a sidewalk buyout at $16.63 / linear foot.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning — $630 for district change; $700 for PUD amendment;
Variance —$350
Conditional Use Permit — $700
Subdivision — Preliminary Plat - $390; Administration Fee for Final Plat - $165 and Appeal to
Commission or Council of Plat $130; Administrative Subdivision (5 lots or less in an existing
subdivision: $48).
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 4, 2001, Page 35
0
V
IMPACT FEE STUDY:
POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
d u ncan associates
submitted by
in association with
Cooper Consulting Company
April 2001
0
r
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1
Summary of Findings and Recommendations .................................... 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK........................................................... 3
Exactions and Impact Fees ................................................... 3
Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court ............................................. 8
Arkansas Statutes........................................................... 9
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.................................................. 11
Arkansas Case Law ......................................................... 12
Conclusions.............................................................. 19
BACKGROUND................................................................ 21
MajorRoads.............................................................. 33
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1:
FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES ...........................
7
Table 2:
CAPITAL FUNDING BY SOURCE, 2000-2004 .........................
21
Table 3:
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, 2000-2004 ...............................
22
Table 4:
SALES TAX CAPITAL FUNDING, 2000-2004 ..........................
22
Table 5:
OUTSTANDING DEBT .............................................
23
Table 5:
POPULATION GROWTH,1990-1999.................................
23
Table 6:
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, 1996-1999 ......................
24
Table 7:
NATIONAL AVERAGE IMPACT FEES ...............................
25
Table 8:
CURRENT WATER CUSTOMERS ...................................
27
Table 9:
POTENTIAL ANNUAL WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES ............
29
Table 10:
CURRENT WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS ............................
30
Table 11:
TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY ...................................
31
Table 12:
POTENTIAL ANNUAL TREATMENT PLANT FEES ...................
32
Table 13:
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT/FEE-IN-LIEU .................
33
Figure 1:
IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS ......................................
6
Figure 2:
PLANNING AREA .................................................
24
Figure 3:
WATER FACILITIES ...............................................
26
Figure 4:
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND FORECAST ........................
28
Figure 5:
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND, 1992-1996 ...
30
Figure 6:
WATERSHEDS AND DIRECTIONS OF FLOWS .......................
31
Figure 7:
EXISTING MAJOR ROADS .........................................
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 ease 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 II. 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,
could generate up to $1 million annually, while an impact fee for the cost of the new wastewater
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY—POLICYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 1
L�
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\/MPACTFEESTUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/oNS MEMORANDUM April 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 axe 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;
n 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 gutters.
' 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
these matters. Dr. Kelly holds Master of City Planning and Juris Doctor 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\/MPACT FEESTUDY-POL/CYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 3
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.2 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 Court in City of Fayetteville v. LB.L, Inc.' 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.°
2 See Pulaski Heights Sewerage Co. v. Loughbomugb, 95 Ark, 264, 129 S.W. 536 (1910)
City of Fayetteville v. I.B.I., Inc., 280 Ark. 484; 659 S.W.2d 505 (1983)
See, for example, Nolan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309
(1994), discussed below.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEESTUD Y—POL/CYD/RECTIONSMEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 4
In other cases, a community might have a plan for a park, a school or a 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 a City of Tigard, discussed below. In City ofFayetteville v.13.1, 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 lieu"), 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. LB.L, 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 ofMadon v. Baioni (1983).6 Those cases axe 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 lines, 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 Contractors &BuildersAssoc
' Pulaski' Heights Sewerage Co. v. Loughborough, 95 Ark. 264,129 S.W. 536, (1910); and Hinton v. Bowman, 101 Ark. 306; 142
S.W. 174 (1911)
6 City ofMarion P. Baioni, 312 Ark. 423; 850 S.W.2d 1 (1983)
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY—POLICYDIRECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 5
of Pinellas County vs. City of Dunedin.' 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 toad 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
established the impact fee policy that
has guided other courts in considering
the issue of impact fees and that has
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• iII "
embody the constitutional standards
that have been developed by the
courts. However, some states where a
impact fees are popular, such as 0 stare enssrflzn x
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 the
7 Contractors & Builders Assoc of Pinellas County vs. City of Dunedin, 326 So.2d 314 (Fla 1976)
8 Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
9 Homebuilders and Contractors Assoc. of Palm Beach County vs. Board of County Commissioners, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla.App. 1983)
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEE STUDY—POL/CYDIRECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 6
• •
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) ■ ■ ■ C,■ ■
1L
California ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ U', ■ _ —
Georgia
Hawaii ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■_ ■ ■�
Idaho ■ ■ ■' , ■ ■ ■ ■�
Illinois ■
Indiana ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �
Maine ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ t ' r
Nevada ■ ■ ■ ■
New Hampshire ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ !_ ■ ■
New Jersey ■ ■ ■ •:. I___________
New Mexico ■ ■ ■ r: ■ ■.. ■ ■
Oregon ■• ■ ■- :.•J -
Pennsylvania ■
Rhode Island ■ • •' - - ■ - • • ■ ■ ■ ■
South Carolina E
■ ■ ■ ■ • ■
Vermont u i.- -
Virginia ■
Washington ■ ■ ■ ■
West Virginia ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Wisconsin (cities) .!__ ■ • ■ • ■ • ■ ■
Wisconsin (counties) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • I
Source: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann., § 9-463.05 (cities). § 9-11-1101 et seq. (counties); Cal. Gov't Code. § 66000 et seq.; Colo. Rev. Stat.,
§ 29-1-801 at seq.': Ga. Code Ann.. § 36-71-1 et seq.: Haw. Rev. Stat., § 46-141 et seq.; Idaho Code, § 67-8201 at seq.; 605 III.
Comp. Stat. Ann., § 5-901 et seq.; Ind. Code Ann.. § 36-7-4-1300 et seq.; Me. Rev. State. Ann.. Title 30-A, § 4354; Nev. Rev. Stat.,
§ 2788: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann., § 674:21: N.J. Perm. Stat.. § 27:1C-1 et seq.: § 40:55D-42; New Mexico Stat. Ann,. § 5-8-1 et seq.;
Or. Rev. State. § 223.297 et seq.; Pa. Stat. Ann.. Title 53, § 10501-A et seq.; General Laws of Rhode Island, §45-22.4; Code of
Laws of S.C., § 6-1-910 at seq.; Tex. Local Gov't Code Ann., Title 12, § 395.001 et seq.; Utah Code, § 11-36-101 et. seq.; Vt. Stat.
Ann., Title 24, § 5200 at seq.; Va, Code Ann., § 15.1-498.1 at seq.: Wash. Rev. Code Ann.. § 82.02.050 et seq.; W. Va. Code, §
7-20-1 at seq.: Wis. Stats., § 66.55
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEESTUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 7
Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court
The most important recent legal development regarding development fees is the 1994 decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. City of Ti In that case, the Court held that Tigard, Oregon's,
requirement that Florence Dolan dedicate land to the city for use as a floodway, a greenway and a bike
path amounted to an unconstitutional taking of her land. The case arose when Dolan applied for a
building permit to expand an existing hardware and plumbing supply store from 9,000 square feet to
17,000 square feet and to pave a 39 -car parking lot. The project conformed with existing zoning, but
the city imposed the exactions as conditions on the issuance of a building permit.
This was the first exactions case to be decided by the Court since its 1987 ruling in Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission. The Nollans wanted to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and replace it
with another, larger, single-family dwelling on valuable beachfront property. Their proposal conformed
with local zoning and subdivision regulations, but it also required approval under the state's coastal zone
regulatory program. The Coastal Commission was willing to approve the building permit, but it
conditioned issuance of the permit on the dedication of a trail across the Nollans' beach, connecting
into a larger trail system. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court created the "rational nexus" test,
suggesting that there was in fact no "rational nexus," or reasonable connection between the proposal
to replace one house with another and the need for additional trails in the area.
In Dolan, the Supreme Court expanded upon the rational nexus test, adding to it a requirement that
there be a "rough proportionality" between the impact of a proposed development and the burden of
the exaction imposed on it. In Dolan, there dearly was a rational nexus —the expansion of a commercial
enterprise is bound to lead to some increase in runoff and some increase in traffic, probably even in
bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Thus, the City of Tigard satisfied the basic requirement of the Nolan test.
The Supreme Court sought more.
The City of Tigard's goal in seeking trail dedication was to develop a trail network as part of its
transportation system. That is a perfectly reasonable public goal. The problem was not with the goal.
The problem was with its implementation. The City did not seek an impact fee. It wanted land. The
amount of land it wanted had nothing to do with the probable trail usage of customers of the hardware
store. It was not even based on the probable traffic generation of customers of the hardware store.
That might have provided a reasonable basis for dedication, if the City had argued that it had a public
policy of encouraging at least XX percent of all trips to be by bicycle or foot and that some bicycle and
foot traffic would thus be imputed to every traffic generator. That is not what the City did,
however —at least not initially. What it did was to map its trails. The Dolans' hardware store lay along
a mapped trail. The City needed the land to link up the trail. The amount of land and the route of the
land that the city sought in the dedication was based on the trail routing and design, not on traffic
impact.
Tigard's city staff ultimately computed some traffic generation figures for the hardware store and even
argued that some trips might be by bicycle. The argument failed, as it should have. All of that figuring
was spurious. There is every indication that the city would have sought precisely the same exaction for
the trail if the hardware store expansion had been 1/10 the proposed size or twice the proposed size.
The City wanted that land, because it provided a key link in the trail —regardless of the extent of the
impact of the proposed development.
Fayettevil le\IMPA CT FEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ON8 MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 8
The Supreme Court has not invalidated all forms of exactions. In Dolan, it simply clarified its earlier
holding in Nollan, adding to it a requirement that exactions should bear a "rough proportionality"
between the exaction and the impact of the proposed development. The Court suggested that the
calculation of proportionality should be based on an "individualized determination." That is exactly
what an impact fee system does. An impact fee system takes the individualized facts of a proposed
development and computes the estimated traffic impact of that development @n individualized
determination) and then bases the fee on that computation (giving us something that we hope is actually
better than a "rough" proportionality). Although critics of the Dolan decision have argued that it can
be interpreted as requiring a complete impact study of every development, there is nothing in the
Court's language to indicate that. In fact, given the anti -regulatory bias of some members of the Court,
it seems likely that they would find the simplicity of an impact fee system far preferable to a regulation
that required complex impact assessments of every project
Arkansas Statutes
Cities in Arkansas have relatively broad.general authority to manage their own affairs. By statute, cities
in Arkansas with a population greater than 2,500 people (defined as "cities of the first class" under Ark.
Code Ann. §14-37-104) have been given authority "to perform any function and exercise full legislative
power in any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to its municipal affairs including, but not
limited to, the power to tax."10 The preceding section defines "municipal affairs" essentially by
exclusion, saying that such affairs include "all matters and affairs of government germane to, affecting
or concerning the municipality or its government" except for a list of 15 excluded items. That list
ranges from those to be expected —governmental tort immunity, public meetings, and regulation of
alcohol and gambling —to some surprising ones like hours and vacation policies for governmental
employees —but none of the items on the list relate to the subject of development exactions or fees.
Thus, by omission from this broad enactment, municipalities in Arkansas appear to retain broad
authority to deal with the issues of financing the costs of growth.
In addition, the state has given municipal governments express authority regarding the construction,
opening and laying out of streets and public grounds (Ark. Code Ann. §14-54-601); drainage of property
(Ark. Code Ann. §14-54-601); to construct and acquire waterworks and "prevent the pollution of
water," which presumably authorizes the operation of sewage collection and treatment systems (Ark.
Code Ann. §14-54-702). The statute providing authority to local governments to act broadly in dealing
with municipal affairs has apparently been subsequently clarified with language making it clear that
"emergency medical services, ambulances and emergency medical technicians" fall within the scope of
municipal affairs.
Most directly relevant to this memo is the more specific authority given to municipalities to "control
the development of land." (Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-417). It is important to note that, like many early
subdivision acts, the Arkansas law makes the adoption of a "master street plan" a condition precedent
to the regulation of the development of land." Relevant statutory provisions governing the master
street plan say:
10 Ark. Code Ann. §14-43-602.
11 Ark Code Ann. §14-56-417(a)(1)
Fayetteville\/MPA CT FEESTUDY-POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 9
(1) Master Street Plan. The commission may prepare and adopt a master street plan
which shall designate the general location, characteristics, and functions of streets and
highways.
(2) (A) The plan shall include the general locations of streets and highways to
be reserved for future public acquisition.
(B) The plan may provide for the removal, relocation, widening, narrowing,
vacating, abandonment, and change of use or extension of any public ways.'2
The authority to regulate development under Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-417 includes the following
(b) (1) The
regulations
controlling the
development of land may establish or
provide for
the minimum requirements
as to:
(A) ...
(B) The design and layout of the subdivision, including standards
for lots and blocks, street rights -of -way, street and utility grades, and
other similar items; and
(C) The standards for improvements to be installed by the
developer at his own expense such as street grading and paving; curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks; water, storm and, sewer mains; street lighting;
and other amenities.
(2) (A) ....
(B) They may provide for the dedication of all rights -of -way to the
public.
(5) (A) The regulations shall require the developer to conform to the
plan currently in effect.
(B) (i) The regulations may require the reservation, for future
public acquisition of land for community or public facilities
indicated in the plan.
(ii) This reservation may extend over a period of not more
than one (1) year from the time the public body responsible for
the acquisition of reserved land is notified of the developer's
intent.
12 Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-414(d)(1)
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUD Y—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 10
(6) When a proposed subdivision does not provide areas for a community
or public facility based on the plans in effect, the regulations may provide for
reasonable dedication of land for such public or community facilities, or for a
reasonable equivalent contribution in lieu of dedication of land, such
contribution to be used for the acquisition of facilities that serve the
subdivision.
Note that in striking down the park fee requirement in Fayetteville in City ofFayetteville v. LB.L, Inc., the
Arkansas Supreme Court relied on the language in (b)(5)(A), above, combined with that in (b)(6). See
discussion above and analysis below.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Cities of the first class in Arkansas have relatively broad extraterritorial jurisdiction, as set out in Ark.
Code Ann. §14-56-413. The language reads specifically:
(a) (1) (A) The territorial jurisdiction of the legislative body of the city having a
planning commission, for the purpose of this subchapter, shall be exclusive and shall
include all land lying within five (5) miles of the corporate limits.
The "subchapter" to which this sentence refers is headed "municipal planning" and includes the statute
discussed above dealing with the regulation of the "development" of land (see Ark. Code Ann.
§14-56-417). There are some limitations on the five -mile limit where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of
another city would encroach on that area.13 Fayetteville appears to be subject to a separate limitation,
restricting the extraterritorial jurisdiction of cities with populations from 50,000 to 150,000 as of 1989
to 2 -mile extraterritorial jurisdiction.14 There is a savings clause allowing the city to continue to exercise
jurisdiction over any area over which it had exercised jurisdiction prior to a date that appears to be July
3, 1989.15
The planning commission must designate the area subject to such jurisdiction.16 A separate section of
the subchapter indicates that the designation of the territorial jurisdiction should occur in the context
of a "planning area map," which should also show "the general location of streets, public ways, and
public property.""
The Arkansas Supreme Court has addressed tangentially the issue of exactions imposed by a
municipality outside the city limits in one case. In City ofManon v. Baioni, discussed below, the city had
adopted impact fees that applied to sewer and water connections within the city but had not applied
13 Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-413(a)(1)(B)
14 Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-413(a)(2)(A)(u)
15 Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-413(a)(2)(C)
16 Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-413((b)(1)
" Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-412.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY-POLICYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 11
those fees to five contract users outside the city; based on the city's finding that the city incurred no
operating or maintenance costs for such users, the court found no constitutional objection to the city's
disparate treatment of these two groups.
Arkansas Case Law
The Arkansas Supreme Court first upheld an impact -like fee in 1910 in Branch v. Gerlach.'s The authority
of the city of Argenta to impose the fee was not seriously at issue in the case. A property owner
proposed to make one connection to the system -and offered to pay the fee for one connection -but then
intended to connect several houses on different lots to the system through that one connection. The
city required that there be one connection, accompanied by the required fee, for each lot to which there
was a connection. The court held:
The only question raised, therefore, is whether or not the city had the right to require
a separate connection for each lot. We hold that it did have such power. It is a
reasonable exercise of the police power. Sound reason may be discovered why the
houses on different lots should have separate connection with the sewer, so that the
supervision may be more effective, and so that the stoppage of one connection will not
affect other premises. (p. 451)
This is very much like the "rational nexus" requirement established by the Supreme Court in Nollan and
was sufficient to sustain the one lot/one connection/one fee formula used by the city in this early case.
Another early case, Hinton v. Bowman (1911),19 involved a connection charge for tying into a privately
constructed sewer line -but it dealt directly with the reasonableness of the fee in language that is relevant
today. The facts were somewhat similar to Branch v. Gerlach, discussed immediately above, in that a
property owner held 12 lots and had extended a sewer line behind all of them but now proposed to
connect only one residence located on three lots. The court provided this basic fiscal analysis and
contrasted the positions of the parties:
It appears that about one hundred lots can be served by this sewer, and that its
construction cost about $1,600. It is therefore insisted by defendant that $16 for each
lot, making $192 for the twelve lots, is a reasonable charge for such connection. The
plaintiff, however, contends that he only wishes to make one connection, and that his
residence is only situated upon three lots; and he therefore insists that $48 would be a
reasonable charge for such connection. (pp. 174-75)
After a good deal of discussion of related issues and of the extent to which it had the authority to deal
with the reasonableness of fees, the court held:
It appears from the testimony that in the city of Little Rock the average cost for similar
sewer connections is from $ 50 to $ 60. The testimony further shows that the plaintiff,
believing the city had a right to give to him the connection he desired for the three lots,
to Branch v. Gerlach, 94 Ark. 378, 127 S.W. 451 (1910)
19 Hinton v. Bowman, 101 Ark. 306, 142 S.W. 174 (1911)
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY-P0LICYDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 12
agreed to pay $ 75 therefor, which was the price fixed by the city as a compensation for
such connection. In his answer, which is duly sworn to, defendant stated that he was
willing before this suit was instituted to permit this connection to be made for these
three lots for the sum of $ 60, and he also stated therein that this was a reasonable
charge therefor. Upon a consideration of all the testimony and the circumstances of this
case, we think that $ 60 should be allowed for making this connection with the
residence and the three lots. But this will not give a license to plaintiff or any grantee
from him to make connection for any of the other lots, either directly with the main
sewer, or indirectly by means of the lateral sewer. Any connection made by any of the
other lots with the lateral sewer is in effect a connection with the main sewer, and
whenever that is done defendant will be entitled to a reasonable compensation
therefore. (p. 175)
In reaching that conclusion, the court relied in part on its earlier 1910 decision in Pulaski Heights Sewerage
Co. v. Langborough, where a property owner had physically connected to a sewer operated by a private
company, under the authority of the city government, and refused to pay the required fee. The
corporation claimed the right to set the fee -without interference. The court held that, because the
corporation provided a public service under authority of the city, it could review the reasonableness of
the fees. After some analysis of rate -setting principles applied in other cases, the court held:
The evidence in this case fails to furnish a satisfactory standard to determine what
compensation for connection of plaintiffs residence with the sewer of Pulaski Heights
Sewerage Company would be reasonable and just to all parties. The nearest approach
is the average costs of connections with sewers in Little Rock. The sewer in question is
in the vicinity of that city. In Little Rock the average cost is about fifty or sixty dollars
for a connection, mostly $50. One charge was as high as $83. As the cost of the sewer
in question was expensive, more so than the average in Little Rock, we think that $60
should be allowed for a connection with it in this case, the highest average in Little
Rock; and it is so ordered. (p. 537)
A somewhat difficult case in Arkansas exactions law is one involving Fayetteville. City ofFayetteville v.
I.B.I., Inc. struck down as unconstitutional a fee -in -lieu of dedication required by the city as a condition
of subdivision approval . The court provided this description of the fee requirement, which was
adopted in accordance with Fayetteville's comprehensive plan, as applied to I.B.I.:
With respect to public parks, the planning commission projected the maximum possible
residential population for each neighborhood by 1990. It then determined the number
of acres of public parks that would be needed in each neighborhood if and when that
maximum was reached. By subtracting the existing park acreage from the projected
need, the planning commission determined the park acreage that would be needed in
each neighborhood if it reached its maximum residential population.
IBI's specific neighborhood comprises more than a thousand acres, the exact figure not
being shown. Twenty-eight acres of parks will be needed if that neighborhood reaches
its projected maximum population. There being now only twelve acres of parks in the
neighborhood, there may be a deficit of sixteen acres. To provide for the acquisition of
the needed acreage, every developer of a new residential subdivision must dedicate a
specified fraction of an acre for each residential unit or make a cash contribution in a
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY-POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 13
specified amount in lieu of the dedicated land. No dedication of land will be accepted
unless the planning commission finds it to be suitable for park purposes and consistent
with the city's general plan. (p. 506)
The court held that the program was too vague to be enforceable:
The two planning commission witnesses made no pretense of saying that any definite
plan for the specific location of future parks now exists. IBI could not have offered any
land, presumably anywhere, in the required fractional acreage that would have been
accepted by the city. No land has been accepted from any developer; only contributions
of money are acceptable. No location for any future park has been determined. Such
locations will be decided on a case -by -case basis, as the particular area develops in the
future. This is said to be good planning, which no doubt it is. The money contributed
will be placed in an interest -bearing account, but there is no way of saying just when it
will be spent, or even for what, since it may be used not only for the acquisition of land
but also for equipping existing or future parks.
As we read the statute, it contemplates something more specific than the Fayetteville
plan in its present stage. The statute requires the developer "to conform to the plan or
plans currently in effect." § 19-2829, supra. In effect there is no plan in effect in
Fayetteville, unless a map and a statement of projected deficiencies in park acreage can
be regarded as a plan currently in effect. (p. 507)
One of the clear concerns of the court was with the lack of any time limit on when the funds could be
spent:
There is apparently no way of determining when, if ever, the contributed money will be
spent, or where, other than in the district, or for what, except as the planning
commission may eventually decide. Yet IBI must make its contributions now, with no
way of assuring its purchasers of residential lots that the increased price they must pay
will result in their access to a public park within ten years or even within fifty years.
The statute confirms the view that
something reasonably definite
is essential to a
plan
requiring the dedication of land or
the contribution of money. (p.
507)
In language immediately following that quoted, the court refers to the one-year time limit established
on the acquisition of lands "reserved" for future acquisition under the same statute, perhaps hinting that
one year might be the relevant measure -but it does not say that. The opinion concludes with this
statement:
We are unwilling to say that the legislature intended for the cash contributions to be
made in return for a vague assurance that the money would be spent at some time in the
future, somewhere in the neighborhood, for some public park purpose, with no
provision for a refund to the contributor even if the residential area should never be
developed as expected. (p. 508)
Fayetteville\/MPA CT FEESTUDY-POL/CYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 14
What appears to be the leading case on the subject of exactions and fees in Arkansas is City of Marion
v. Baioni (1993). The first paragraph of the court's opinion reflects the parallels between the evolution
of this fee and the history of exactions provided above:
This case involves certain sewer and water "tap and access fees" the City of Marion has
charged appellees, as developers of residential land in and around the city. Marion has
experienced a considerable growth in population since 1975, and this influx of new
people has resulted in the city exceeding the design capacity of both its water and sewer
systems. Between July of 1988 and August of 1990, the city enacted a series of
ordinances that placed "tapping fees" on builders or lot owners connecting on to the
city's existing water and sewer systems and required "access fees" from any person or
entity connecting to the city's transmission lines. These fees only apply to new
development. The ordinances, as amended, provide that the funds collected from these
respective fees must be placed in separate accounts designed as the "water expansion
account" and "sewer expansion account," and used solely to expand the city's water and
sewer systems. (pp. 1-2)
Local builders challenged the constitutionality and validity of the system under Arkansas law. As the
case evolved, it focused on one what is probably the most critical question regarding the validity of such
a fee under state law -that question is, "Is this a fee, which the governing body may simply adopt by
ordinance, or is it a tax, subject to procedural and substantive limits imposed on taxation under the state
constitution and state law?" A chancellor found that the fee system amounted to a tax that had not
been approved by a vote of the people, as required under Ark. Code Ann. 526-73-103. The appellate
court ultimately ruled for the city. In doing so, it began with this generalized statement of the rule for
distinguishing taxes from fees:
The distinction between a tax and a fee is that government imposes a tax for general
revenue purposes, but a fee is imposed in the government's exercise of its police
powers. (p. 2)20
The court continued with this analysis:
In this case, the chancellor reviewed considerable legal authority leading him to the
general conclusion that a governmental levy or fee, in order not to be denominated a
tax, must be fair and reasonable and bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits
conferred on those receiving the services. We agree with the chancellors conclusion,
which seems to be the prevailing rule in other jurisdictions. However, the rule's
application is not always an easy one for the courts. (p. 2, citing several impact fee and
related cases from other states)
The court provided this more specific analysis:
Under the City of Marion ordinances, sewer and water fees total $950.00 for each single
family unit. While $150.00 of this amount is required to tap -in to the sewer system, the
actual cost of tapping -in is about fifteen or twenty dollars. The chancellor held, and
20 Citing City ofNorth Little Bock P. Graham, 278 Ark. 547, 647 S.W.2d 452 (1983)
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEE STUDY-POUCYDIRECTIDNS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 15
appellees argue on appeal, that because the fees imposed by the city exceed the services
provided, the fees are in actuality taxes. Such a conclusion ignores the fact that the
tapping and access fees established by Marion are for the raising of funds to pay for the
extension of existing water and sewer systems to developments where new users reside.
Raising such expansion capital by setting connection charges, which do not exceed a pro
rata share of reasonably anticipated costs of expansion, is permissible where expansion
is reasonably required, if the use of the money is limited to meeting the cost of that
extension. [emphasis in the original] (p. 3)21
The court went
on to uphold the validity of the fee
ordinances, applying what amounts to a
"rough
proportionality"
analysis under Dolan, although the case mentions neither Nollan nor Dolan:
Here, the city's expert witness, John Sheahen, testified that he determined an
appropriate level of fees to developers that justified the projected costs of water and
sewer facilities needed to serve future customers. He said that the projected costs for
extending the water system would require $805.00 per single family unit and sewer costs
would require $808.00 per unit. Obviously, the city's combined water and sewer
connection fees, $950.00, imposed on builders and developers for new users is
considerably less than the costs projected by Sheahen—$1,613.00 per single family unit.
Such evidence certainly supports the chancellor's finding that the city's fees are
reasonably related to the benefits conferred on the appellees, and in our de novo review
of the record, we also conclude the fee amounts established by the city are more than
reasonable.
Of major importance, we point out that the city ordinances require the tapping and
access fees to be segregated and placed into accounts to be used solely and exclusively
to expand the capacity of the city's water and sewer systems. In other words, these
funds will be used directly to benefit the new users and for no other purposes. Graham,
278 Ark. 547, 647 S.W.2d 452; Contractors & Builders Ass'tt, 329 So.2d 314; Amherst
BuildersAssn, 61 Ohio 345, 402 N.E.2d 1181. This fund restriction distinguishes this
case from those situations where municipalities have imposed fees to underwrite the
costs of a special service to a new development but instead the monies benefited the
general public. (p. 3)
Because the Arkansas court cited it several times in upholding the Marion fees, it is worth a brief
discussion of the 1980 Ohio case, Amherst Builders' Association v. City ofAmherst. In that case, the court
considered a challenge to a sewer tap -in fee of about $400 per single-family dwelling unit, where the
evidence showed that the cost of inspection was approximately $140. In discussing the fee, the court
cited the appellate court's decision in (upholding total water and sewer connection charges of $450 as
"fair and reasonable")72 with approval and also referred to one of its own earlier decisions:
In State, ex tel. Stoeckle, v. Jones (1954), 161 Ohio St. 391, we endorsed this concept of cost
equalization in an analogous situation. There the municipality had partially funded the
21 citing Contractors & Builders Assoc of Pinellas County vs. City of Dunedin, 326 So.2d 314 (Fla 1976), and Amherst Builders
Arm, 61 Ohio St. 345, 402 N.E.2d 1181 (1980).
22 Englewood Hiller, Inc., v. Village ofEnglewood, 14 Ohio.App.2d 195, at 198, 237 N.E.2d 621, at 624 (1967)
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEESTUDY—POL/CYDIRECTIDNS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 16
construction of a sewage system by levying special assessments. However, the
assessments on unimproved property were only a fraction of those on improved
property. In order to rectify this inequity, the village adopted an ordinance which
established a $300 tap -in charge on subsequently improved property. (p. 1184)
After examining the care with which the fee was developed, relying both on EPA estimates of relative
burden placed on the plant and the "investment value" of the plant, and after noting that the actual fee
was significantly lower than the precise calculations might have justified, the court upheld the fee as a
valid exercise of the police power.
In 1995, the Arkansas Supreme Court revisited the tax versus fee issue in Barnbart v. City ofFayetteville,23
where it held that a $2.02 monthly "fee" imposed by the city for the purpose of paying off bonded
indebtedness related to the construction of a waste incineration plant by a special authority, was an
unauthorized tax:
Under the terms of the Ordinance, each residence in Fayetteville is assessed the monthly
surcharge until the year 2003, and, in addition, each residence is assessed a fee for the
sanitation services that are actually provided. Fayetteville was neither acquiring, owning,
maintaining, nor operating the plant. It was acquired, owned, to be maintained, and to
be operated by the Authority. The surcharge is not related to providing sanitation
services in Fayetteville, but instead is a fee imposed to pay the debt for the Authority's
acquisition of the plant. Since the surcharge is not related to services provided by
Fayetteville, it is not a "fee," but rather is a "tax." (p. 542)
The court went on, however, to reiterate the core of its policy holding in Baioni:
A governmental levy of a fee, in order not to be denominated a tax by the courts, must
be fair and reasonable and bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits conferred on
those receiving the services. (pp. 542-43, quoting Cidy ofMarion v. Baion)
Similarly, in another case, the court held that a $3 monthly fee added to the water and sewer bill and
denominated a "public safety fee" was actually a tax where it was used to pay for salary increases for
police officers and firefighters.24
A 1992 Arkansas appellate cases raises questions about the stage at which dedication requirements and
related fees can be imposed. In Jonesboro v. Vuncannon,25 Vuncannon. was proposing a shopping center
on land that had previously been subdivided. Under the Jonesboro ordinance, Vuncannon was required
to resubdivide the land and the city required that Vuncannon dedicate additional right-of-way along the
road on which the project faced. The court struggled with the issue of whether the statute is broad
enough in scope to allow application to this situation:
23 Barnhart v. City ofFayettevilk, 321 Ark. 197, 900 S.W.2d 539 (1995)
24 City ofNorth Little Rock v. Graham, 278 Ark 547, 647 S.W.2d 452 (1983)
25 Jonesboro v. Vuncannon, 310 Ark. 366, 837 S.W.2d 286,(Ark. 1992)
Fayetteville\/MPA CT FEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 17
Section 14-56-417 thus gives a planning commission authority to promulgate a
regulation "controlling development of land" which requires dedication of rights -of -way
to the public. If a replatting of land to combine lots as the Vuncannons wished to do
constitutes "development of land" under a valid regulation, then the Statute could
provide authority for requiring reasonable rights -of -way dedication. Obviously the
"development of land" contemplated in the subsection (a)(2)(A) through (D) has to do
with land which is not yet developed. That was the situation in Newton Circuit Clerk v.
American Security Co., 201 Ark. 943,148 S.W.2d 311 (1941), which is cited by the City.
No one questions the power of the City to require dedication of rights -of -way in land
which is the subject of an initial subdivision plat. References in the record make it
unmistakable that the Vuncannons' property is part of land which has already been
platted as Turtle Creek Ranch Addition.
We do not know if the Jonesboro Planning Commission has a regulation governing the
replatting of land. We have no idea whether a replatting of land which has already been
the subject of a platted addition constitutes "development of land" under an applicable
regulation. The point is that the Statute gives authority to promulgate a regulation. It
does not directly authorize taking land without compensation, nor does it authorize the
trading of a waiver of a zoning fire safety requirement for a right of way dedication.
The court affirmed an award of damages in inverse condemnation in the amount of $5,282.90 for a
9 -foot strip of land given to the city.
It is important to examine one 8th Circuit decision applying No/Ian and Dolan to a regulatory exaction
in Arkansas. The material facts of Goss v. City ofLittle Rock"b are summarized by the 8th Circuit the first
time the case reached it:
In September 1971, Charles Goss purchased 3.7 acres located next to a two-lane state
highway in a rural, unincorporated area outside Little Rock. Goss has operated a
convenience store, gas station, laundromat, and car wash on the premises ever since. In
1985, Little Rock annexed a portion of its surrounding area that included the Goss
property. In accordance with the city code, the annexed area was classified by default
as an "R-2" district for single-family residences. Under the city ordinances, Goss'
business activity would be limited to "C-3" general commercial district zones;
nevertheless, Goss was permitted to continue his operations pursuant to a
nonconforming use exception.
Although Goss continues to utilize his property in the same commercial capacity in
which it has been used for the past twenty years, he asserts that sale of his commercial
enterprise and property is contingent on rezoning. Qt. App. 31). In April 1993, Goss
petitioned Little Rock to have his property rezoned as a "C-3" zone. In May, Little
Rock's Staff and Planning Commission agreed to recommend to the Little Rock Board
of Directors that the area be rezoned, but only on the condition that Goss dedicate a
portion of his property to Little Rock for future expansion of the adjacent highway. The
demanded dedication ran the entire length of Goss' property (633.68 feet) and 55 feet
26 Cost v. Chy of Link Rock, 90 F.3d 306 (8th Circ. 1996); appeal after remand,151 F.3d 861 (8th Cuc. 1998), reh. den.
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 25465; cert. den. 526 U.S. 1050,143 L. Ed. 2d 517,119 S. Ct. 1355 (1999)
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUD Y—POUCYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 18
into the lot. The total acreage of the demanded dedication approximates eight -tenths
of an acre, or twenty-two percent of the total property. Goss objected to the condition.
(p. 307)
The planning commission and city board of directors approved the subdivision subject to the condition
recommended by the staff. Goss filed a federal suit claiming an unconstitutional taking, among other
things. The district court dismissed Goss's action and Goss appealed. The 8th Circuit reversed the
dismissal and remanded to the district court for consideration of the case on its merits. The appellate
court relied extensively on Nollan and Dolan in concluding that "the allegation of facts might entitle
relief in this case."
On remand, the district court held that the exaction in this case met the nexus test of Nollan but failed
to meet the Dolan test:
The District Court's conclusion is correct: the dedication could alleviate the problems
associated with increased traffic if it were used, as planned, to expand the highway
adjacent to Goss's land. Applying Dolan, the District Court held that Little Rock had not
met its burden of proving that the dedication was roughly proportionate to the impact
that the proposed rezoning would have on traffic. The court found that Little Rock's
assessment of the impact of rezoning was too speculative because that assessment was
based on traffic that could, as said by the city's witness, "conceivably" be generated at
some unknown point in the future if a strip mall were erected on Goss's land, although
there are no plans to build a strip mall on the property and there is no reason to expect
one to be built. (p. 863)
Although agreeing with the district court's analysis, the appellate court rejected the lower court's
proposed remedy:
Next we consider the question of remedy. The District Court ordered that, because the
dedication requirement was a taking, Little Rock must rezone Goss's property without
the requirement. We reverse this order. As discussed above, little Rock has a legitimate
interest in declining to rezone Goss's property, and the city may pursue that interest by
denying Goss's rezoning application outright, as opposed to denying it because of
Goss's refusal to agree to an unconstitutional condition, as the city did here. (pp. 863-4)
The appellate court agreed with the district court that Goss was not entitled to damages; he based his
damage claim on the failure of a contract of purchase that was contingent on the rezoning, but the
"contract" was an oral one with his son and a partner and was not legally binding under the Arkansas
Statute of Frauds.
Conclusions
Impact fees are the form of exaction that best meets the constitutional tests for exactions established
by the U.S. Supreme Court and, on separate principles, by the Arkansas courts. Some of the principles
that must be incorporated in such a system are as follows.
Fayetteville\1MPA CT FEE STUDY —POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 19
S
❑ There must be a clear relationship, or nexus, between the impacts of the proposed development
and the burdens placed on it (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Goss v. City of Little Rock, City of
Marion v. Baioni, City of Fayetteville v. I.B.I., Inc.).
O The burden imposed on the developer must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the
proposed development (Supreme Court rule) or, under different language of similar effect in Arkansas,
"fair and reasonable" (City of Marion v. Baioni; similar principles applied in Hinton v.Bowman, Branch v.
Gerlach and Pulaski Heights Sewerage Co. v. Longborough, where the court used the similar phrase
"reasonable and just to all parties").
❑ The exaction must be based on a plan (Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-417(5), construed in City of
Fayetteville v. I.B.I.., Inc.).
❑ There must be considerable certainty in the plan regarding not only the benefit to the developer
from the proposed facility but also an assurance that the funds paid will be refunded if not used for the
designated purpose within a reasonable time (Dolan v. City ofTigard, City of Fayetteville P. LB.L, Inc.; national
case -law regarding impact fees, discussed in first part of this memo). -
O There appears to be no difference in authority to impose such fees for different types of
facilities, except that there is a 91 -year history of judicial support for sewer and water connection fees
that simply does not exist for fees charged for other facilities (City ofMarion v. Baioni; similar principles
applied in Hinton v.Bowman, Branch v. Gerlach and Pulaski Heights Sewerage Co. v. Longborough).
❑ Impact fees or other exactions for parks, roads and stormwater drainage facilities should be
rooted in Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-417, which allows a city to require land dedication, or on Ark. Code
Ann. §14-56-414(6), which allows a city to impose fees in lieu of dedication "When a proposed
subdivision does not provide areas for a community or public facility based on the plans in effect..."
❑ Exactions for other facilities, such as libraries and public safety facilities, may be harder to
defend than for parks, stormwater drainage or roads in light of the language in Ark. Code Ann.
§14-56-417(6) requiring that contributions in lieu be "used for the acquisition of facilities that serve the
subdivision," since it is easier to relate specific improvements for these types of facilities to specific
developments.
❑ The root of the statutory authority to impose such fees is in the authority of the city to regulate
development, authority which extends beyond the city's boundaries. Thus, there appears to be adequate
authority to impose impact fees on new development in any area which the city has designated as
subject to its development regulation through its inclusion in an "area planning map.."Z'
❑ Although "development" is defined in the statutes by reference to a non-exclusive list of
activities, only one of which is platting of land, impact fees should probably be assessed at platting, even
if actual collection of fees is deferred until time of building permit.
2' Ark. Code Ann. §§14-56-412, 14-56-413
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEESTUDY-POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 20
BACKGROUND
The major impetus for this project is the need for a major wastewater treatment plant expansion. With
an estimated total project cost of $100 million, the wastewater improvements could well be the most
costly and extensive capital project ever undertaken by the City.
The City finances most capital improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis. This is done utilizing revenues
from the one -percent City sales tax adopted in 1993 (of which, by City Council resolution, at least 75
percent is used to fund capital projects), the one -percent Hotel, Motel, Restaurant sales tax adopted in
1996 to fund park improvements, and operating revenues from the City's enterprise funds, including
water, wastewater and solid waste.
Long-term debt is used sparingly by the City. In 1989, a bond issue passed overwhelmingly, but
included money to build a high school for the school district. The developers sued and won in the
Arkansas Supreme Court. Since then, the City's Capital Improvements Program has been funded
primarily with a one -cent sales tax, which was passed in 1993. Recently, however, voters approved a
$6.95 million bond issue for the Town Center convention center, with debt service to be paid with the
Advertising and Promotion Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Tax.
The current five-year capital improvements program (CIP) is somewhat unusual because of the inclusion
of $106 million in bond funding, most of it for the new wastewater treatment plant. Excluding that
water and sewer bond funding, the CIP includes almost $86 million in capital funding for the five-year
period. Over half of the pay-as-you-go funding is from the one -percent sales tax, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
CAPITAL FUNDING BY SOURCE, 2000-2004
Sales Tax
$45,758,000
53.3%
Water & Sewer Fund
$14,472,000
16.8%
Shop Fund
$8,690,000
10.1%
Off -Street Parking Fund
$6,564,000
7.6%
Airport Fund
$3,486,000
4.1%
Parks Development Fund
$3,457,000
4.0%
Community Dev't Block Grant Fund
$2,015,000
2.3%
Solid Waste Fund
$756,000
0.9%
Source: City of Fayetteville, Five Year Capital Improvements; Program,
2000-2004, November 1999 (excludes bond funding).
The City's largest capital expenditures are in the areas of water and wastewater, streets and drainage, as
shown in Table 3.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY -POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 21
Table 3
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, 2000-2004
Project Type Amount Percent
Water & Wastewater $25,646,000 29.9%
Street $20,090,000 23.4%
Bridge, Drainage & Transportation $10;256,000 - 11.9%
Shop $8,690,000 10.1%
Parks and Recreation $6,850,000 8.0%
Other $5,349,000 6.2%
Public Safety $3,516,000 4.1%
Airport $3,486,000 4.1%
CDBG Fund $2,015,000 2.3%
Total $85,898,000 100.0%
Source: City of Fayetteville, Fire Year Capital Improvements Program,
2000-2004, November 1999 (excludes bond -funded wastewater treatment
plant project).
The City's sales tax capital funding is spent on a wide variety of improvements. Foremost among these
are streets, water and wastewater and parks, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4
• SALES TAX CAPITAL FUNDING, 2000-2004
Project Type Amount Percent
Streets $19,390,000 42.4%
Water & Sewer $11,174,000 24.4%
Other $3,741,000 8.2%
Parks $3,393,000 7.4%
Bridge & Drainage $3,042,000 6.6%
Fire $2,121,000 4.6%
Police $1,395,000 3.0%
Library $852,000 1.9%
Transportation $650,000 1.4%
Total $45,758,000 100.0%
Source: City of Fayetteville, Fire Year Capital Improvements
Program, 2000-2004, November 1999.
The City has about $30 million in outstanding debt. Two-thirds of that is in water and sewer revenue
bonds, as shown in Table 5.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY-POLICYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 22
Table 5
OUTSTANDING DEBT
Hotel & Restaurant, Series 1995 (Continuing Ed Center)
1979
$2,675,000
$1,335,000
Sales Tax, Series 1997
(Walton Arts Center)
1986
$2,610,000
$1,700,000
Water & Sewer, Series
1999 (Water Main/Tanks) -
1992
$8,365,000
$7,815,000
Water & Sewer, Series
1994 (Water Main/Tanks)
1994
$5,500,000
$3,585,000
Hotel & Restaurant, Series 1998 (Town Center)
1998
$6,950,000
$6,765,000
Water & Sewer, Series
2000 (New Wastewater Plant)
2000
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
* as of December 31. 2000
Source: City of Fayetteville, Annual Budget and Work Program, 2001. December 2000.
Impact fees are most appropriate for communities that are experiencing rapid growth. The Fayetteville -
Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), comprised of Washington and Benton Counties,
is the fifth fastest growing MSA in.the country, based on its population growth between 1990 and
1998.28 Washington County, of which Fayetteville is the county seat, has been growing at a compound
annual growth rate of 2.9 percent since 1990, and over half of the population added since then has been
in Fayetteville. The city itself has been growing at 3.6 percent annually, about four times faster that the
state as a whole. It is not surprising that this pace of growth has created problems in terms of the City's
ability to finance the capital improvements needed to accommodatenew development.
Table 5
POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-1999
1990 1999 Increase Annual Rate
Fayetteville
42,249
58,163
15,914
3.62%
Springdale "
29,941
42,339
12,398
3.92%
Other Municipalities
10,503
17,411
6,908
5.78%
Unincorporated
30,716
28,680
(2,036)
-0.76%
Washington County:
113,409
146,593
33,184
2.89%
Washington County portion only
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, "Population Estimates for Places: Annual
Time Series, July 1, 1990 to July 1. 1999 (includes April 1, 1990 Population Estimates Base)" (SU-99-7).
Oct. 20, 2000 internet release date (1990 figure shown is for April 1).
28U.S. Census Bureau, StatisticalAbstract of the United Stater: 2000, Table No. 34, p. 33.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY-POLICYDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM
April 3, 2001, Page 23
i
In recent years, the City has been issuing permits for an average of about 580 new dwelling units
annually, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING PERMITS,
1996-1999
Year
Single -Family
Multi -Family
Total
1996
445
154
599
1997
265
281
546
1998
272
40
312
1999
357
515
872
Source: City of Fayetteville, Inspection Department.
In addition to development within its incorporated limits, the City is also affected by, and has some
control over, development in unincorporated areas within its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Within this
area, which extends five miles from the corporate limits or half the distance to any adjoining
municipality, the City exercises joint subdivision authority with the County. The area covered by the
City's extraterritorial jurisdiction is larger than the area within its corporate limits. The combined
corporate and extraterritorial jurisdictions are referred to as the City's planning area, which covers
approximately 92 square miles.
Figure 2
PLANNING AREA
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM
April 3, 2001, Page 24
A recent impact fee survey of over one hundred jurisdictions across the country provides a
representative sample of typical fees by type of facility and type of land use. As shown in Table 7, the
highest fees, as well as the most commonly charged, are for water and wastewater facilities. Road and
park impact fees are also fairly substantial, while fees for public safety facilities are generally modest,
reflecting the more labor-intensive nature of public safety services.
Table 7
NATIONAL AVERAGE IMPACT FEES
Single-
Multi-
Retail
Office
Industrial
Family
Family
(per 1,000
(per 1,000
(per 1,000
Water
$2,189
$1,599
$765
$961
$487
Wastewater
$1,956
$1,599
$815
$809
$522
Road
$1,535
$1,065
$3,116
$1,792
$881
Park
$1,218
$1,018
$0
$0
$0
Public Safety
$493
$493
$190
$155
$68
School
$2,750
$1,467
$0
$0
.- $0 --
Source: Dr. James C. Nicholas. Holland Law Center. University of Florida at Gainesville, 2000
Fayetteville\IMPA CT FEE STUD Y-POLICYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 25
TYPES OF FACILITIES
Water
The City does not currently charge new water
customers a connection fee to help defray the off -site
capital costs to the utility system associated with a
new customer. Such a one -tune, up -front fee, called
by many names including capital recovery fee and
system development charge, is one of the most
common forms of development impact fees. While
cities lack explicit statutory authority to impose water
or wastewater impact fees in Arkansas, these fees
have a long history and have been litigated in
Arkansas. Consequently, there appears to be
adequate legal authority for the City to impose water
impact fees.
The City of Fayetteville and three other cities make
up the Beaver Water District, which operates two
regional water treatment plants located east of
Lowell, Arkansas (see Figure 3). The District owns
all of the municipal and industrial water allocation in
Beaver Reservoir, which averages 120 million gallons
per day (mgd). The District pays only for the plant,
with the cities responsible for constructing the
transmission lines needed to get the water from the
plant to their distribution systems. The regional
water treatment plant was expanded about five years
ago.
The treated water supplied by the Beaver Water
District is pumped through parallel 36 -inch and 42 -
inch diameter transmission lines. The high service pump station. at the Beaver Water District is
equipped with four vertical turbine pumps, capable of delivering about 30.6 mgd of treated water to the
City of Fayetteville each day. The pump station and the new 42 -inch line were put into full-time
operation in 1993. The lines run south from the plant, over Fitzgerald Mountain and into the
Fayetteville system east of Lake Fayetteville. A surge tank 20 feet in diameter by 100 feet tall is located
on top of Fitzgerald Mountain. The surge tank has a capacity of 0.25 million gallons (mg) and functions
as a buffet for the operation of the high service pumps at the Beaver Water District. A hydraulic model
indicates that the maximum capacity of the parallel transmission lines is approximately 46 mgd.
Figure 3
WATER FACILITIES
JTreatment Plant
S*4\f
LEGEND
:k -
S TANK ]J_
f'1f42" WATERLINE t
I 30'• OR 36" WATERLINE " i
•111 — 24" WATERLINE II •••'i - i TkT. .�i f .
The City's water distribution system is divided into five pressure planes. The primary pressure plane,
which receives all of the water delivered from the Beaver Water District, currently has six ground
storage tanks and one elevated storage tank located at four sites with a total capacity of 27 mg. Because
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEESTUDY--P0L/CYO/RECT/0NS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 26
many areas of the city ate
above the
overflow elevation of the primary
pressure plane, water must be
repumped
to supply four
additional
areas of high elevation.
The City sells water on a wholesale basis to four customers: the Washington Water Authority, the
Mount Olive Water Association, the City of Elkins and the City of West Fork. In addition, the City
provides retail water service, including water pipes, meters and billing, to development in the cities of
Farmington and Greenland, as well as a portion of Johnson. As shown in Table 8, 84 percent of the
City's water customers are within Fayetteville's city limits.
Table 8
CURRENT WATER CUSTOMERS
Jurisdiction Number Percent
Fayetteville
23,453
84%
Elkins (wholesale)
1
0%
Farmington
1383
5%
Greenland
349
1%
Growth Area-
1850
7%
Mount Olive (wholesale)
2
0%
West Fork (wholesale)
1
0%
Wheeler
203
1%
RDA/WWA (wholesale)
4
0%
White River
540
2%
Total
27,786
100%
Source: Fayetteville Water and Sewer Department, "Number
of Water Customers, Active Only, February 2001°
The City's 1996 Water Master Planning Study analyzed historic water usage, and noted that water usage
has been growing significantly faster than population.29 In 1995, average water demand was 12.44 mgd,
and maximum day usage that year was the highest on record at 21.56 mgd. The ratio of maximum to
average day water demand over the last twenty years ranged from 1.25 in 1992 to 1.85 in 1990. The
study determined that the capacity of the transmission lines from the Beaver Water District would be
adequate to accommodate projected growth in water demand through 2015, but that the capacity of the
pumping station would be reached shortly after the year 2000 (see Figure 4). However, it noted that
facilities are in place for adding a new pump or pumps to meet this demand. The study's major
recommendation was for the City to establish a policy for constructing a transmission grid of 12 -inch
and larger water lines spaced generally on a one -mile grid in the growth areas of the eastern and western
planning jurisdictions.
The City's current policies on line extensions and developer cost participation can be briefly described
as follows. When a line needs to be extended to provide service to a new development, developers pay
only the cost of the line needed to serve the subdivision, which in most cases is an eight -inch line (six-
inch water lines are acceptable under some situations). If the line needs to be oversized to serve other
developments, the City pays for the cost of the oversizing. In a few cases, the City has required a
developer to front the entire cost of a water line, and used a pro rata agreement to recoup some of line
z9 McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc., Fayetteville IVaterMarter Planning Study, October 1996
Fayetteville\IMPA CT FEE STUDY—POLICYDIRECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 27
cost from
subsequent
developers
benefitting
from the line, which. is then remitted to the original
developer.
Figure 4
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND FORECAST
6D
PdHI1 s.:�'
•
._
.._
..:
4' 1SBIb a
1'i bh1111-ti.; 49'd �F:
••
...�.:
_
_
__
__
_ _ _
_
_
•
.........
CO
T7t
...
....
..
..
.....
.....
..
.......
....
....
-
-
s.....
...
....
..
..
..
..
.....
..
...
.........
..
...
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
_
:.
::
::
:.':
_:
::.
- -
.. _ M MBCm UN ffij 6Mtl
9DA
.......
... .
75D
.if
t5A--
0:.
50
._
..::::I
:::-
G:::
.....
1:
-::
:......QQ..
..
..
-..
-.gq_.
aB
S S B 6
Yuen
The water master plan did not provide costs for centralized facilities, since the City does not own the
water treatment plants, and the two major transmission lines from the treatment plant to the city have
adequate capacity through the planning period covered by the water master plan. It may be difficult to
charge impact fees for water treatment capacity because the City does not own the facilities, but it would
certainly be possible for the City to recoup the cost of the excess major transmission line capacity that
would be consumed by new water customers.
The master plan does provide cost estimates for elevated and ground storage tanks and major water
transmission lines ranging from 12 to 24 inches in diameter that will be needed to accommodate
projected growth in the planning area over the 20 -year planning horizon from 1995 to 2015. If the five-
year -old master plan is still considered to be reasonably accurate, it could be updated and used to
develop water impact fees for major transmission/distribution lines and storage tanks. Using the plan's
2000 to 2015 needs and projections of growth in water demand, as well as current customer demand
data, the potential fee for transmission/storage facilities can be estimated in an order -of -magnitude
fashion to be in the neighborhood of $800 to $900 per single-family dwelling or equivalent, as shown
in Table 9. This estimate is conservative because it is based only on the cost of distribution system
improvements. A water impact fee could also recoup the cost of transmission lines from the treatment
plant, and perhaps also the City's share of treatment plant costs. Nevertheless, this is a reasonable
estimate of the amount of a water impact fee that could be assessed by the City. It would conservatively
generate half a million dollars annually, based on recent residential growth trends within the city limits,
not even including nonresidential customer growth or new customers outside the city, which could
bump it up to $1 million annually.
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEE STUDY—POL/CYDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 28
Table 9
POTENTIAL ANNUAL WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES
Ground Storage
$7,600,000
Transmission Lines
$10,993,000
Total Improvement Cost, 2000-2015
$18,593,000
New Maximum Day Water Demand (pd)
17,110,000
Cost per New Maximum Day gpd of Water Demand
$1.09
Maximum Day Demand per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (gpd/EDU)
793
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
$862
Average Annual New Dwelling Units
583
Potential Annual Revenue from City Residential Growth
$500,000
Fayetteville Residential as Share of Total Usage
0.50
Potential Total Annual Wastewater Fee Revenue
$1,000,000
Source: 2000-2015 improvement costs in 1996 dollars and projected increase in maximum day
water demand from McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc., Fayetteville Water Master Planning
Study. October 1996; maximum day demand per EDU from Fayetteville Water and Sewer
Department. Number of Water Customers, February 2001" and Consumption of Water Customers
(Usage in 100 Gallons), February 2001"; average annual new dwelling units based on building
permits issued by City from 1996 to 1999 (see Table 6).
Wastewater
The City does not currently charge new wastewater customers a connection fee to help defray the off -
site capital costs to the utility system associated with a new customer. Such a one-time, up -front fee,
called by many names including capital recovery fee and system development charge, is one of the most
common forms of development impact fees. While cities lack explicit statutory authority to impose
water or wastewater impact fees in Arkansas, these fees have a long history and have been litigated in
Arkansas. Consequently, there appears to be adequate legal authority for the City to impose wastewater
impact fees.
The City's current policies on line extensions and developer cost participation can be briefly described
as follows. When a line needs to be extended to provide serve to a new development, developers pay
only the cost of the line needed to serve the subdivision, which in most cases is an eight -inch line. If
the line needs to be oversized to serve other developments, the City pays for the cost of the oversizing.
In a few cases, the City has required subdivisions in an area to pay at the time of final plat to upgrade
an overloaded lift station or to build parallel force main. If the projects are not built, the City will
refund the money. For example, the City collected $200 per lot from new subdivisions platted within
one-half mile on either side of the Salem Road line to pay for the eight -inch parallel force main.
As noted earlier, the need to build a second wastewater treatment plant in the near future was a major
impetus for this study. The current wastewater treatment plant was built in 1988, with a biological
treatment capacity of 17 mgd. It is estimated that a new plant will cost in the neighborhood of $100
million. Three hundred acres of land have been purchased for the new plant, and the City is applying
for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for it. The current Paul
Noland Wastewater Treatment Plant processes wastewater for the cities of Fayetteville, Elkins,
Farmington, Greenland and parts of Johnson. The City also maintains the sewer collection systems for
Fayetteville\/MPA CT FEE STUD Y—POLICYDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 29
the cities of Farmington and Greenland, although the cities own the pipes. Over 90 percent of the
City's wastewater customers, however, are located within the city limits, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10
CURRENT WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS
Jurisdiction Number Percent
Fayetteville 22,032 92%
Elkins (wholesale) 1 0%
Farmington 1,311 6%
Greenland 315 1%
Growth Area 176 1%
Total 23,835 100%
Source: Fayetteville Water and Sewer Department, "Number of
Sewer Customers, Active Only, February 2001"
The City's WastewaterFacilityPlan, completed in 1997, determined that the treatment plant was at or even
slightly exceeding its capacity, having exceeded its maximum monthly design capacity of 17 mgd a
couple of times in recent years (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND, 1992-1996
16A0-
16.00- N 17 mgdMax Month
14.00- Drlgn Umh
Q
IL 12Ai-•••••••• ••••• ••• • • •••• ••• NONE • ••• •
em—
6.00- 12.4 mud D16ehvp6
Oro — Penult uU
t.ce —
9.09
I I I I
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
The facility plan evaluated the alternatives of expanding the existing treatment plant versus building a
second plant in the Illinois River basin. About half of the city is in the Illinois River basin, and currently
wastewater from that basin is transferred by lift stations and force mains to the White River basin, where
the Noland treatment plant is located. Locating a second treatment plant in the Illinois River basin
would eliminate the need for several costly, high maintenance lift stations and allow most of the
collection system to convert to gravity mains. While expanding the existing plant would be more cost-
effective in terms of treatment costs, the second plant alternative would have offsetting savings in terms
of lower collection system costs. In the recommended two -plant option, construction of the new
treatment plant would establish a clear distinction between the flows from the two watersheds. Nine
lift stations would be abandoned. However, some effluent would still be transferred between
watersheds to equalize demand and capacity at the two plants.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUD Y-POL/CYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 30
Figure 6
WATERSHEDS AND DIRECTIONS OF FLOWS
'B
0_a
1!
o..mw. _..a
.�.. % naSarr
m„n am.. Bali, is ♦
4= t
.B C
t "
The new plant, to be constructed in two phases, will almost double the City's current treatment capacity.
This will be about the amount of new capacity required by the year 2020, as summarized in Table 11.
Table 11
TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY
Peak Month
Existing Plant
11.4
17.0
New Plant
10.1
15.7
Total
21.5
32.7
Source: CH2M-Hill. Fayetteville Wastewater Facility Plan. February 1997
The new treatment plant is estimated to cost about $40 million. Dividing this cost by the anticipated
growth in equivalent residential customers by 2020, at which time both new and existing plants are
expected to be operating close to their capacities, results in an estimated cost per equivalent dwelling
unit, as shown in Table 12. Based on recent building permit trends within the City of Fayetteville,
residential growth within the city limits could be expected to yield about $1 million in annual revenue
from wastewater impact fees. City residential users, however, count for only about half of total flows
to the treatment plant. Assuming that growth in other types of customers is similar to recent growth
in City residential customers, potential revenues could be as high as $2 million annually.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEES TUDY—POUCYDIRECTIONSMEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 31
Table 12
POTENTIAL ANNUAL TREATMENT PLANT FEES
New Treatment Plant Cost
$40,400,000
New Equivalent Dwelling Units, 1996-2020
23,290
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
$1,735
Annual New Dwelling Units, City of Fayetteville
583
Potential Annual Revenue from City Residential Growth
$1,010,000
Fayetteville Residential as Share of Total Usage
0.50
Potential Total Annual Wastewater Fee Revenue
$2,020,000
Source: Cost from CH2M-Hill, Fayetteville Wastewater Facility Plan, February
1997; new equivalent dwelling units derived from February 2001 usage by
customer class and population growth projections from 1996 to 2020 from RNJ
Group, Inc., Fayetteville Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, April 1997;
annual new units in Fayetteville is average from 1996-1999 building permits;
Fayetteville residential as share of total usage from Fayetteville Water and Sewer
Department, "Number of Sewer Customers, Active Only. February 2001/
These calculations are intended only to provide an order -of -magnitude sense of potential fee levels and
revenue. A detailed wastewater impact fee study would need to take into consideration a number of
factors. For example, the wastewater master plan notes that the City will need to spend approximately
$10 million on improvements to the existing plant, even though the improved plant will have about the
same amount of capacity. Some of this cost may be attributable to upgrading the plant's treatment
quality, to the extent that is the case, new customers should be given credit against their impact fees for
the rate revenue they will generate that will be used to remedy these deficiencies in treatment quality.
Similarly, the existing plant appears to be operating somewhat over its designed and permitted capacity,
so some of the cost of the new plant may be attributable to serving existing customers.
A detailed impact fee study could also review the possibility of charging a fee for collection system
improvements. As both the treatment plant and collection master plans make dear, there are a number
of collection system improvements that are needed to implement the two treatment plant scenario.
However, additional analysis would be required to determine the portion of those costs that could be
attributed to projected growth. Given the potential magnitude of the treatment plant component of
a wastewater impact fee, the City may not want to perform the analysis required to determine a
defensible fee for collection system improvements.
Parks
Fayetteville provides a wide diversity of recreational areas and open space for its residents. The City
has 23 neighborhood and community parks totaling 414 developed acres, 14 undeveloped parks sites
containing 48 acres and about 2,000 additional acres of land at three lake sites. The City also provides
facilities at and maintains 10 sites owned by the school district.
On November 14, 1995, the citizens passed a one cent hotel, motel, restaurant (HMR) tax to implement
the unfunded plans for existing and future park facilities. The City is currently updating its park master
plan.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEESTUDY—POLICYDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 32
The City's subdivision regulations require developers of all new residential subdivisions to dedicate park
land or pay a fee in -lieu of dedication. Major development comprising more than 40 acres or more than
100 housing units are required to dedicate parkland unless no suitable park site is available. The
dedication requirement per dwelling unitvaries by housing type. The fee in -lieu of dedication is updated
every two years based on the average cost of park land. In 1994, the fees were based on $12,000 an
acre. This was increased to $15,000 per acre in November 1997 and subsequently to the current level
of $18,750 per acre in December 1999. The city is divided into four quadrants, which serve as benefit
districts for expenditure of the fees -in -lieu. The fee revenue is spent within the benefit district in which
it is collected. The fees are spent on park land acquisition and development.
Table 13
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT/FEE-IN-LIEU
Housing Type Acres/Unit Cost/Acre Fee/Ut
Single -Family 0.025 $18,750 $470
Multi -Family 0.020 $18,750 $375
Source: Fayetteville Subdivision Regulations, Section 159.30(K). updated by Resolution
4199 passed November 11, 1999, effective December 10. 1999.,
The current dedication requirements for single-family and multi -family units accurately reflect the
differences in average household sizes between owner -occupied and renter -occupied units. However,
the correlation between housing type and tenure is not precise, and actual data on household size by
housing type is available from the census and should be used. The source of the dedication requirement
for mobile homes is less clear, and again this should be updated using available census data. The City
has an excellent inventory of park land and facilities for the current: effort to update the park master
plan. This inventory should be used to ensure that the dedication requirement does not exceed the
current level of service provided by the City.
The City's current park land dedication and
fee in -lieu requitement has been litigated up to the state
Supreme Court. Out recommendation is that the City retain this
system,
and update it to reflect the
current level of service as well as differences
in household size by
housing
type.
Major Roads
The City's Master Street Plan is an official map that is used in conjunction with the Circulation Element
of the 2020 General Plan. It classifies streets into a number of functional types, including
freeway/expressways, principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors and local streets. The Master Street
Plan shows the location of new roads and allows the City to preserve corridors for roadways expected
to need widening or extension.
Fayetteville\/MPA CT FEE STUDY-POLICYDIRECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 33
Figure 7
EXISTING MAJOR ROADS
,-Ry.. - ... ,�,,,,,. r �.
} _r
ter!-+
r J
• II ti 4
t44FNf'k djj�' cttt
t L\ Legend
%j L City limits
t.;f Planning Area
ly MSP Existing Streets
The long-range transportation plan for the two -county region (Washington and Benton Counties) is
the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan for Metropolitan Northwest Arkansas, which was developed in 1995.
The five-year update to that plan is currently in draft form. The Transportation Improvement Program
for FY 2001-2003 has $2.5 million programmed for two major widening projects within the City of
Fayetteville over the three-year period. The City also had road improvements programmed in its Five
Year Capital Improvements Program, 2000-2004, which is updated every two years.
The most recent detailed transportation analysis for Fayetteville's major road system was conducted in
199230 This analysis included compiling a complete inventory of the City's major road system,
determining the peak hour capacity of each road segment, and identifying existing (1992) and projected
(2010) traffic volumes. While somewhat dated, the study provides useful background information.
30 DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc., P,imitiiation of Roadway Improvements in Fayettevii'e, Arkansas, August 1992 (two volumes).
Fayetteville\/MPA CT FEESTUDY—POL/CYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 34
The City maintains an inventory of the major street system. The inventory includes the name of each
street, the functional classification, from and to segment endpoints, the length of the segment in feet,
number of lanes, and pavement and ROW width. Current (1999) traffic counts are available for most
roadways in the region from the Planning and Research Division of the Arkansas State Highway and
Transportation Department.
The City does not impose a road impact fee on new development, but there are a number of developer
exactions for roads in the subdivision regulations. A "large scale development," defined as any
development larger than one acre, must dedicate sufficient right-of-way (ROW) to bring any abutting
or intersecting major road to the standards of the master street plan. A lesser dedication may be
recommended by the planning commission and approved by the city council in cases of undue hardship
or practical difficulties 31 When commercial, industrial or multi -family development is proposed
adjacent to any street not constructed to current city standards, the developer is required to dedicate
sufficient ROW and install paving, curb and gutter, and sidewalks necessary to bring the street into
conformity with current standards. The City Council may reduce the dedication requirement, and the
cost of required improvements shall be in proportion to the needs created by the development.32
Finally, off -site road improvements may be required where a proposed subdivision has access to paved
streets only by way of substandard or unimproved streets. In such cases, the subdivider is required to
contribute a proportionate share of the cost of the off -site improvements. The proportionate share is
based on the acreage of the subdivision as a share of the acreage of all property benefitting from the
improvement, or by an alternative method determined by the planning commission.33
In general, these requirements mean that development abutting an unimproved or substandard street
must dedicate the required ROW and construct the half of the street improvement. The developer does
have the option to do a traffic study to attempt to demonstrate that the required improvement exceeds
the impact of the development. Even lot splits can trigger the requirements to improve abutting
roadways.
The City's explicit statutory authority relating to major road exactions appears to be limited to requiring
the dedication of land or payment of a fee in -lieu of land for improvements shown on a master street
plan. The City's current roadway exaction ordinances, as well as those of most other Arkansas
municipalities, go quite a way beyond requiring ROW dedication. They even include payment of an
individually -calculated proportionate share of the cost of certain off -site improvements in some
circumstances. Whether an Arkansas municipality's implicit authority to ensure the provision of
adequate infrastructure to serve new development extends to imposing road impact fees is uncertain.
In the absence of clarifying legislation, the courts will ultimately decide this question. Whether the City
should proceed to develop road impact fees in this context is a policy decision for the City Council.
31 Section 159.54: Large scale development.
32 Section 159.55: Street improvements.
33 Section 159.33: Required off -site improvements.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 35
S
RESOLUTION NO. 144-00
A RESOLUTION AWARDING UNDER RFP#2000-9 A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO JAMES
DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR PHASE ONE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPACT FEE STUDY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $30,020, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $4,500FOR
PROJECT COSTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby awards under RFP#2000-9 a Professional
Services Agreement to James Duncan and Associates, Inc., for Phase One Development of an Impact
Fee Study in the amount of $30,020, plus an additional $4,500 for project costs, and authorizes the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A copy of the agreement is attached hereto
marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
D APPROVED this 17`" day of October , 2000.
APPROVED:
By:
F d Hanna, Mayor
s
S.