HomeMy WebLinkAbout114-06 RESOLUTION•
RESOLUTION NO. 114-06
A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT THE MAY
2006 ROAD IMPACT FEE STUDY BY DUNCAN
ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the City hired Duncan Associates to update the Road Impact Fee
Study (first completed in 2004) based upon the estimates street bond program costs as
proposed in 2006; and
WHEREAS, the impact fees for roads within the Study are "consumption based"
which charges new development the cost of replacing the road capacity the new
development consumes of the major roadway system; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must determine whether or not to include the cost
of right of way acquisition within the road impact fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
accepts and adopts the May 2006 Road Impact Fee Study by Duncan Associates attached
as Exhibit "A".
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
determines that if Road Impact Fees are enacted they will not include right of way
acquisition costs. `�,G� • • •� • Vis,,
cq •``�RK/TR
,.a .•- Os •• -PS
F. :FAYETTEVILLE:
APPROVE ATTEST: 9••.9 5 •'ti
9.0 NSP.;)+."
. "ti�hQTO$ C°''
PASSED and APPROVED this 20th day of June, 2006.
By:
..4,
DAN COODY, Mayor,
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
Tim Conklin
Submitted By
City of Fayetteville
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
or
Contracts
6/20/2006
City Council Meeting Date
Planning and Development Mgt
Division
Action Required:
"265
//et
kd Imetrt G c.
Operations
Department
Adoption of the Road Impact Fee Study, May 2006, as prepared by Duncan Associates.
Cost of this request
Account Number
Project Number
Budgeted Item
Category / Project Budget
Funds Used to Date
Remaining Balance
Budget Adjustment Attached
Program Category / Project Name
Program / Project Category Name
Fund Name
Department irec or Date
City Attorne
FinaJ7(at4etilA
Internal Service Director
Mayor
Comments:
Date
44Dale/0(0
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Original Contract Date:
Original Contract Number:
Received in City Clerk's Office
Received in Mayor's Office /ENTENED
Wad
Vat
City Council Meeting of June 20, 2006
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville City Council
Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director
June 2, 2006
Adoption of the Road Impact Fee Study, May 2006, as prepared by
Duncan Associates
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the road impact fee study, May 2006, as prepared by
Duncan Associates.
BACKGROUND
Duncan Associates has completed the update to the road impact fee study based on the
estimated street bond program costs as proposed in 2006 (please see attached). The road
projects that expand capacity and are included in the proposed bond program were
utilized to calculate the fees. The fees are calculated with and without right-of-way costs.
Table 1
ROAD IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Land Use Unit Without ROW With ROW
Single -Family Detached
Multi -Family
Mobile Home
Retail
Office
Industrial
Dwelling
Dwelling
Dwelling
1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
$3,409
$2,363
$1,779
$4,023
$2,701
$2,353
$3,722
$2,580
$1,943
$4,393
$2,950
$2,569
Potential Annual Revenue $4,108,043 $4,485,558
Source: Maximum road fees from Table 20; potential revenues from Table 21.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT THE MAY 2006
ROAD IMPACT FEE STUDY BY DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the City hired Duncan Associates to update the Road Impact Fee
Study (first completed in 2004) based upon the estimates street bond program costs as
proposed in 2006; and
WHEREAS, the impact fees for roads within the Study are "consumption based"
which charges new development the cost of replacing the road capacity the new
development consumes of the major roadway system; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must determine whether or not to include the cost
of right of way acquisition within the road impact fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
accepts and adopts the May 2006 Road Impact Fee Study by Duncan Associates attached
as Exhibit "A".
Section 2 That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
determines that if Road Impact Fees are enacted they will not include right of way
acquisition costs.
PASSED and APPROVED this 20th day of June, 2006.
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ROAD IMPACT FEE STUDY
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
prepared by I duncanlassociates
May 2006
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
BACKGROUND
DEVELOPER EXACTIONS AND CREDITS
SERVICE UNITS
IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY
MAJOR ROADWAY SYS ITEM
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
COST PER SERVICE UNIT
REVENUE CREDITS
TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS
POTENTIAL FEES
APPENDIX A: MAJOR ROADWAY INVENTORY 26
APPENDIX B: ARKANSAS IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACT 31
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
1
2
4
8
9
10
12
13
15
17
21
24
Table 1: ROAD IMPACT FEE SUMMARY 1
Table 2: CAPITAL FUNDING BY SOURCE, 2004-2008 4
Table 3: SALES TAX CAPITAL FUNDING, 2004-2008 5
Table 4: OUTSTANDING DEBT 5
Table 5: POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2000 6
Table 6: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, 1996-2004 6
Table 7: EXISTING HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE 7
Table 8: TOTAL DAILY VEHICLE -MILES OF TRAVEL 14
Table 9: TOTAL DAILY VEHICLE -MILES OF CAPACITY 14
Table 10: SYS I EMWIDE RATIO OF CAPACITY TO DEMAND 15
Table 11: PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENT COSTS 16
Table 12: ROAD COST PER SERVICE UNIT 16
Table 13: FEDERAL/STATE HIGHWAY FUNDING, 2001-2025 17
Table 14: CITY SALES TAX FUNDING, 2004-2008 18
Table 15: ROAD REVENUE CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT 19
Table 16: ROAD NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT 20
Table 17: AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH 22
Table 18: AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY TRIP PURPOSE 22
Table 19: TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE 23
Table 20: ROAD NET COST SCHEDULE 24
Table 21: POTENTIAL ROAD IMPACT FEE REVENUE 25
Table 22: MAJOR ROADWAY INVENTORY 26
Figure 1: PLANNING AREA 7
Figure 2: IMPACT FEE FORMULA 11
Figure 3: EXISTING MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM 12
prepared by Duncan Associates
Clancy Mullen, Principal Author
13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 208, Austin, TX 78750
(512) 258-7347 x 204; Clancy@duncanplan.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study calculates maximum impact fees that could be adopted by the City of Fayetteville to help fund
growth -related infrastructure improvements for major roads. The road impact fees have been calculated
with and without the inclusion of right-of-way (ROW) costs. If road impact fees are adopted, the City
would need to give developers credit against their impact fees for the cost of any required land
dedication or capacity improvement that adds through lanes to any adjacent or internal arterial or
collector roadway. However, if RO\V costs are excluded from the road impact fee, credit would need
to be given only for improvement costs.
This report relies heavily on the road impact fee analysis contained in the June 2004 Impact Fee S/mjy:
Road, Fire and Police that we previously prepared for the City. The major change was to substitute the
proposed bond program projects for the historical projects used as the basis for the road impact fees.
The calculated maximum fees for selected land uses and potential annual impact fee revenues are
summarized in Table 1. The maximum road impact fees and potential revenues would be 8 percent
lower if ROW costs are excluded. It should be kept in mind that the City will need to give credit against
the road impact fees for the value of some developer dedications or improvements, and consequently,
actual road impact fee revenues received in cash will likely be less than indicated in the table below.
Table 1
ROAD IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Land Use
Unit Without ROW With ROW
Single -Family Detached
Multi -Family
Mobile Home
Retail
Office
Industrial
Potential Annual Revenue
Dwelling
Dwelling
Dwelling
1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
$3,409
$2,363
$1,779
$4,023
$2,701
$2,353
$3,722
$2,580
$1,943
$4,393
$2,950
$2,569
$4,108,043 $4,485,558
Source: Maximum road fees from Table 20; potential revenues from Table 21.
•
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Municipalities in Arkansas are authorized by state law to enact impact fee ordinances, provided that they
follow the requirements of Arkansas Statutes § 14-56-102, Development Impact Fees. This section
provides a brief summary of those requirements most relevant to the City of Fayetteville. The entire
statute is reproduced in Appendix B.
Impact fees are a one-time fee that can only be assessed on new development. \Vater and wastewater
impact fees can be assessed at the time of purchase of the water meter, but all other types of impact fees
must be assessed at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The amount of impact fees paid
for a newly -constructed building must be separately itemized on the closing statement at the time the
property is sold. The City can allow the fee to be paid in installments.
Impact fees must be spent for capital improvements that provide benefit to the fee -paying development.
This can include existing improvements that have excess capacity that was built to accommodate future
growth. Section 14-56-102(c)(1) provides that the fees can only be used for:
... the planning, design and construction of new public facilities or of capital improvements to existing
public facilities that expand its capaciry or far the recoupment of prior capital improvements to public
facilities that created capacity that is available to serve new development.
Impact fees can be pledged to repay bonds that have been issued to fund growth -related capital
improvements. However, they cannot be used to pay for:
the operation or maintenance of any public faciliry, or for the construction or improvement of public
facilities, that does not create additional capacity. (Section 14-56-102(c)(3))
In Arkansas, impact fees can only be adopted to fund certain types of public facilities. Section 14-56-
102(b) limits the use of impact fees to "providing necessary public facilities," and Section 14-56-102(a)(7)
defines "public facilities" to include only the following:
(A) Water sappy, treatment, and distribution, for either domestic water or for suppression of fires;
(B) IVastewater treatment and sanitary; sewerage;
(C) Stormwater drainage;
(D) Roads, streets, sidewalks, highways and public transportation;
(E) Library;
(t) Parks, open space, and recreation areas;
(G) Police orpublic safety;
(H) .Fire protection; and
(L) Ambulance or emergency medical transportation and response.
To assess impact fees, a city must first adopt an ordinance. The ordinance must be preceded by the
development of a capital plan and level of service standards for the types of facilities for which the
impact fees are to be imposed. The capital plan must include:
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 2
... a descnption of new public facilities or of new capital improvements to existing pcb/ic facilities or of
previous capita/ improvements to public facilities that continue to provide capacity available for new
development that includes cost estimate., and capacihy available to serve new development ... (Section
14-56-102(1) (1)
As noted, prior to adopting a road impact fee ordinance, the City must adopt a capital plan and a level
of sense standard for roads, pursuant to Section 14-56-102(e)(2). The capital plan, which describes the
projects that would be eligible for funding with the City's road impact fees, is shown Table 11. The level
of service on which the fees calculated in this report are based is a one-to-one system -wide ratio of
vehicle -miles of capacity to vehicle -miles of travel (see the discussion in the sections on "Road Impact
Fee Methodology" and "Existing Deficiencies," as well as the formula in Figure 2).
Pursuant to Section 14-56-102(e)(3), the impact fee ordinance must contain the following:
(A) A statement of the new public facilities and capital improvements to existing pnb/ic facilities that
are to be financed by impact fees and the /eve/ of service standards included in the capital plan for the
public facilities that am to befinanced with impact fees;
(13) The actual formula or formulas for assessing the impact fee, which shall be consistent with the level
of service standards;
(C) The procedure by which impact fees an. to be assessed and collected; and
(D) The procedure for refund of excess impaclfees, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.
Impact fees collected must be deposited into a separate interest-bearing account and spent only for the
type of improvements for which they were collected. Interest earned on these accounts shall be spent
for the same purposes as the impact fees themselves. Any funds not spent within seven years must be
refunded to the fee -payer.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 3
BACKGROUND
An impact fee is a form of "exaction," through which a developer or builder is required to contribute
to the costs of public improvements required to serve the development. Generally, impact fees are
designed to pay for the new development's proportionate share of the cost of off-site improvements, and
credit against the fees is given if the developer is required to contribute to the system of facilities for
which the fees are charged through on-site dedication, construction or monetary payment. Typically the
fee is levied on some easily measurable unit of activity, such as the construction of one dwelling unit or
1,000 square feet of commercial or industrial space. In Arkansas, impact fees are generally collected at
the time of certificate of occupancy or water meter purchase.
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 renewed in 2002 (of which, by City Council resolution, 50 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.
The City's last five-year capital improvements program (CIP), excluding non-recurring funding such as
one-time bond proceeds, included over $66.6 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, 2004-2008
Revenue Source
Amount Percent
Sales Tax
Water 8 Sewer Fund
Airport Fund
Shop Fund
Parks Development Fund
Solid Waste Fund
Off -Street Parking Fund
$36,854,000
$12,983,000
$6,755,000
$6,625,000
$2,391,000
$854,000
$113,000
55.4%
19.5%
10.1%
10.0%
3.6%
1.3%
0.2%
Total
$66,575,000 100.0%
Source: City of Fayetteville. Capital Improvements Program, 2004-
2008, December 2003 (excludes bond proceeds).
The City's sales tax capital funding is spent on a wide variety of improvements. Foremost among these
are streets and traffic signals, other transportation improvements and parks, as shown in Table 3.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 4
•
Table 3
SALES TAX CAPITAL FUNDING, 2004-2008
Project Type
Amount
Percent
Streets and Signals
Other Transportation
Parks
Bridge 8 Drainage
Other
Fire
Police
Library
$12,682,000
$7,706,000
$4,565,000
$3,444,000
$3,122,000
$2,455,000
$1 290,000
$1,590,000
34.4%
20.9%
12.4%
9.3%
8 5%
6.7%
3.5%
4.3%
Total
$36,854,000
100.0%
Source: City of Fayetteville, Five Year Capital Improvements
Program, 2004-2008. December 2003.
The City has about $62 million in outstanding debt, as shown in Table 4. However, none of that debt
is related to road facilities. The new 2005 Sales and Use Tax bond issue will consist of $26.235 million
in refunding bonds and $65 million in new debt for a total of $91.235 million.
Table 4
OUTSTANDING DEBT
Bond Issue
Ori • inal Issue Ori • inal Amount Outstandin •
Sales Tax, Series 1997 (Walton Arts Center)
Water 8 Sewer, Series 1999 (Water Main/Tanks)
Water 8 Sewer, Series 2002A and 20026
Sales Tax, Series 2002 (Wastewater Treatment/Sewerage)
Hotel 8 Restaurant, Series 2003 (Town Center)
Sales Tax, Series 2004
1997
1999
2002
2002
2003
2004
$2,610,000
$8,365,000
$9,270,000
$25,000,000
$6,335,000
$35,000,000
$290,000
$5,840,000
$7,700,000
$7,290,000
$6,215,000
$35,000,000
Total
$86,580,000
$62,335,000
* as of December 31, 2004
Source: City of Fayetteville, Annual Budget and Work Program, 2005.
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,
was the sixth fastest growing MSA in the country in the 1990s.' Washington County, of which
Fayetteville is the county seat, has been growing at a compound annual growth rate of 3.4 percent since
1990, and one-third of the population added since then has been in Fayetteville. The city itself has been
growing at 3.2 percent annually, over twice as fast as the state as a whole. Fayetteville's population is
estimated to be 64,190 as of July 1, 2004. 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 accommodate new
development.
'U.S. Census Bureau, Statistica/ Abstract of the United States: 2000, Table No. 34, p. 33.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 5
Table 5
POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2000
1990 2000 Increase Annual Rate
Fayetteville
Springdale *
Other Municipalities*
Unincorporated
42,249
29,941
10,503
30,716
58,047
43,787
17,540
38,341
15,798
13,846
7,037
7,625
3.23%
3.87%
5.26%
2.24%
Washington County
State of Arkansas
113,409 157,715
44,306 3.35%
2,350,624 2,673,400 322,776 1.30%
* only the Washington County portion of Springdale and Elm Springs
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Northwest Regional Planning Commission
The City has been issuing permits for an average of almost 400 single-family homes annually since 2000,
as shown in Table 6. The number of multi -family permits issued annually has increased from about 470
per year in the late 1990s to almost 700 per year in the last five years.
Table 6
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, 1996-2004
Year Sin . le-Famil Multi-Famil Total
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
445
265
272
357
279
258
239
611
583
154
281
40
515
272
440
792
1,258
711
599
546
312
872
551
698
1,031
1,869
1,294
Avg., 1996-99 335 469 804
Avg., 2000-04 394 695 1,089
Source: City of Fayetteville, Inspection Department.
Based on building permits issued since the 2000 Census, it is estimated that Fayetteville has about 31,000
dwelling units as of April 2005, as shown in Table 7.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road/mpactFee Study May 2, 2006, Page 6
EXISTING
Table 7
HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE
Housing Type
2000
Census
5 yrs. of
Permits
Estimated
Apr. 2005
Single -Family
Multi Family
Mobile Home/Other
12,663
11,808
855
1,970
3,473
n/a
14,633
15,281
855
Total
25,326
5,443
30,769
Source: 2000 U.S. Census for Fayetteville. AR, SF -3 11 in 6 sample
data) permits from January 2000 through December 2004 from Table
6
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 up to five miles from the corporate limits or half the distance to any adjoining
municipality, the City exercises joint subdivision authority with Washington 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 1
PLANNING AREA
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study
May 2, 2006, Page 7
DEVELOPER EXACTIONS AND CREDITS
The City does not impose a road impact fee on new development, but there are a number of developer
exactions for roads in the City's Unified Development Code. 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. Developers of large-scale developments may also be required to make
off-site street and other improvements, "where the need for such improvements is created in whole or
in part by the proposed large scale development"- 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 regulation provides that 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' 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.'
In general, these requirements mean that development abutting an unimproved or substandard street
must dedicate the required ROW and construct the adjacent 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 proposed road impact fees differ from the Fayetteville's existing water and wastewater fees, and from
the proposed fire and police fees, in that a significant portion of the fees may need to be used to
compensate developers who have frontage on major roadways and are required to construct or improve
them. If the road impact fees calculated in this report are adopted, the City would need to give credit
against the fees to developers for the value of required improvements to arterial and collector roadways.
No credit would need to be given for the value of RO\V dedications if ROW costs are not included in
the impact fee calculations.
There are a variety of ways that credit provisions can be structured, and these issues should be addressed
in the impact fee ordinance. One thing that needs to be defined in the ordinance is what constitutes a
capacity -expanding improvement eligible for funding with road impact fees. The definition should
exclude bringing an existing substandard two-lane arterial or collector road up to current standards
'Section 166.05: Large scale development.
'Section 171.03: Street improvements.
E Section 166.07: Required off-site improvements.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 8
Developers are often required to make such improvements to adjacent roads, and the ordinance should
make clear that this is not the type of improvement that is eligible for impact fee funding or impact fee
credit. For example, the ordinance could define eligible improvements as capacity -expanding
improvements to the major roadway system, including building new roads, widening existing roads by
adding additional lanes, and intersection improvements that add signalization or turn lanes.
In the event that the City Council chooses to adopt road impact fees at a level that excludes the cost of
ROW, the ordinance will need to address whether the impact fee revenues can be expended to acquire
ROW. The consultant recommends that if developers are not going to be given credit for the value of
ROW they are required to dedicate, the ordinance should prohibit the expenditure of impact fee funds
for ROW acquisition. Such a prohibition may not be legally required, but it would serve as an important
clarification that ROW is not any part of the road impact fee program.
Another issued to be addressed in the ordinance is whether a developer will be reimbursed directly from
impact fee funds collected from all developments, or whether the impact fees paid within the developer's
project will be reduced. Our recommendation is that credit be provided as a direct reimbursement to
the developer that dedicated the ROW or made the improvement. One approach would be to set aside
a maximum percentage of annual impact fee revenues to be used for such reimbursements. If the
outstanding reimbursements owed in any given year exceed the amount available from impact fee
revenues, each developer would receive a proportionate share of their outstanding reimbursement, and
be eligible for more reimbursement in subsequent years. This approach would make collecting impact
fees much easier, since the fees would be collected in full on all building permits, without the permit
clerk having to check to see if a fee reduction due to credits is required.
The impact fee ordinance will also need to deal with other credit issues, such as the following.
o If credits are provided in the form of fee reductions, what happens when the amount of the
credit exceeds the impact fees that would be due from the development project?
o To what extent should credits be given for past contributions for development projects that have
not yet been completed?
SERVICE UNITS
Service units create the link between supply (roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new
development). An appropriate service unit basis for road impact fees is vehicle -miles of travel (VMI).
Vehicle -miles is a combination of the number of vehicles traveling during a given time period and the
distance (in miles) that these vehicles travel. The unit of capacity that is consumed by the demand unit
represented by a VMT is a vehicle -mile of capacity (VMC). VMC is calculated as the capacity of a
roadway segment multiplied by the length of the segment in miles.
The two time periods most often used in traffic analysis are the 24-hour day (average daily trips or ADT)
and the single hour of the day with the highest traffic volume (peak hour trips or PHT). Available traffic
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville \Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 9
counts for area roadways are for average daily trips. Consequently, average daily VMT will be used as
the service unit for Fayetteville's road impact fees.
IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY
The major alternative methodologies for calculating road impact fees are the "improvements -driven" and
"consumption -based" approaches. These are briefly described below.
The "improvements -driven" approach essentially divides the cost of growth -related improvements
required over a fixed planning horizon (or to build -out) by the number new service units (e.g., vehicle
trips) projected to be generated by growth over the same planning horizon in order to determine a cost
per service unit. The improvements -driven approach depends on accurate planning and forecasting.
For example, the fees will be accurate only if the forecasted increase in traffic actually necessitates all of
the improvements identified in the transportation master plan. If many of the planned improvements
will provide excess capacity that will be available to serve additional development beyond the planning
horizon on which the fees are based, the fees may be too high.
The "consumption -based" approach does not depend on knowing in advance what improvements will
be made or what type or density of development will occur. The consumption -based model simply
charges a new development the cost of replacing the capacity that it consumes on the major roadway
system. That is, for every service unit of traffic (e.g., mile of vehicle travel) generated by the development,
the road impact fee charges the net cost to construct an additional service unit of capacity. The
consumption -based system can be based on a transportation plan, but the total cost of the plan does not
affect the amount of the fee, which is based on the unit cost of creating new capacity.
A strength of the consumption -based system is that it is very legally defensible because it generally under-
estimates the full cost of growth. Since travel is never evenly distributed throughout a roadway system,
actual roadway systems require more than one unit of capacity for every unit of demand in order for the
system to function at an acceptable level of service. Suppose, for example, that the City completes a
major arterial widening project. The completed arterial is likely to have a significant amount of excess
capacity for some period of time. If the entire system has just enough capacity to accommodate all of
the vehicle -miles of travel, then the excess capacity on this segment must be balanced by another segment
being over -capacity. Clearly, roadway systems in the real world need more total aggregate capacity than
the total aggregate demand, because the traffic does not always precisely match the available capacity.
Consequently, the standard consumption -based model generally underestimates the full cost of growth.
The consumption -based system is a conservative, legally sound and relatively simple approach to the
calculation of road impact fees. This is the recommended approach for Fayetteville. The recommended
formula for the road impact fees is shown in Figure 2.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 10
Figure 2
IMPACT FEE FORMULA
MAXIMUM FEE = VMT x NET COST/VMT
Where:
VMT = TRIPS x % NEW x LENGTH + 2
NET COSTNMT = COSTNMT • CREDITNMT
Where:
TRIPS = Trip ends during a weekday
% NEW = % of trips that are primary, as opposed to passby or diverted -link trips
LENGTH = Average length of a trip on the major roadway system
+ 2 = Avoids double -counting trips for origin and destination
COSTNMT = Average cost per lane -mile divided by average daily capacity per lane
CREDITNMT = Revenue credit per daily VMT
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 11
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM
A road impact fee system should include a clear definition of the major roadway system that is to be
funded with the impact fees. The major roadway system to be funded with the proposed impact fees
is comprised of arterials and collectors within the City's incorporated area, including most state roads but
excluding freeways and expressways. These roadways are identified on the City'sMaster StreetPlan, which
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.
An inventory of the existing major roadway system was compiled in order to identify existing capacity
deficiencies and to determine the average length of a trip on the major roadway system (see Appendix
A). The roadway segment descriptions include the street name, roadway termini, number of lanes and
roadway length and width. Average daily traffic volumes were estimated for most segments from state
highway department counts. The existing major roadway system within Fayetteville's incorporated limits
is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3
EXISTING MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study
May 2, 2006, Page 12
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
In most rapidly growing communities, some roadways will be experiencing an unacceptable level of
congestion at any given point in time. One of the principles of impact fees is that new development
should not be charged, through impact fees, for a higher level -of -service than is provided to existing
development. Another common way of expressing this concept, although it is somewhat less precise and
subject to misinterpretation, is that impact fees should not be used to pay for remedying existing
deficiencies. In the context of road impact fees, this has sometimes been interpreted to mean that impact
fees should not be spent on roadways that are already over -capacity. A variant of this approach is that
impact fees should only be used to fund a percentage of the project that can be attributed to providing
additional capacity beyond what is needed to remedy any existing deficiency. There are a number of
practical problems with these approaches. First, impact fees are restricted from being spent on roadways
that are most in need of improvement, while the fact that fee -funded improvements to other roadways
may also relieve the deficient segments is ignored. Second, these approaches complicate impact fee
administration by requiring that the portion of the cost of each improvement that is attributable to
remedying deficiencies be funded from a different source than impact fees.
The most significant objection to these approaches, however, is that they are not consistent with the
conservative nature of the consumption -based road impact fee methodology. The consumption -based
system does not promise that all road segments will function at a given level of service (e.g., LOS C or
LOS D). All the consumption -based model does is assume that for every unit of capacity that is
consumed, another will be constructed to replace it. Implicitly, the level of service used in a
consumption -based impact fee is a one-to-one ratio of capacity to demand in the major roadway system
as a whole. As long as the current system provides at least this capacity/demand ratio, the impact fees
are not charging for a higher level of service.
To determine the capacity/demand ratio, the first step is to estimate total VMT on the major roadway
system. This figure will also be used in the average trip length and revenue credit calculations. Recent
daily traffic counts are available for road segments accounting for almost three-fourths of all lane -miles
in the major roadway system. Adding estimated traffic from road segments for which counts were not
available, on the assumption that such segments would carry about three-quarters the volume of
segments with counts, yields a estimate of about 1.1 million daily vehicle -miles of travel on Fayetteville's
major roadway system.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 13
TOTAL
Principal Arterials
687,943
162.32
4,238
168.48
707,523
Minor Arterials
137,277
36.30
3,782
44.09
159,373
Collectors
83,653
42.20
1,982
101.96
172,486
Historic Collectors
70.292
25.69
2,736
32.15
83,548
Source: Table 22; counted VMT is product of miles and ADT for segments with traffic counts; lane -miles
with counts is product of miles and existing number of lanes for segments with counts; total lane -miles
includes segments without counts; total VMT assumes segments without traffic counts carry 3/4 as many
vehicles as the average of segments of the same classification with counts.
The next step is to estimate total vehicle -miles of capacity in the major roadway system. The City's
recently -completed transportation plan uses a general planning -level capacity estimate of 8,000 vehicles
per lane per day at LOS D. Using that capacity figure, total system capacity is about 2.8 million daily
vehicle -miles, as shown in Table 9. This is considerably more than the total VMT in the system. Clearly,
the one-to-one ratio of capacity to demand on which the impact fees arc based is not resulting in new
development being charged for a higher level of service than is being enjoyed by existing development.
Table 9
DAILY VEHICLE -MILES OF CAPACITY
Principal Arterials
168.48
8,000
1,347,840
Minor Arterials
44.09
8,000
352,720
Collectors
101.96
8,000
815,680
Total 342.63 8,000 2,//3,440
Source: Total lane -miles from Table 22; capacity per lane at LOS D from BWR.
Traffic and Transportation Study prepared for the City ofFayetteville, Arkansas.
October 2003; total vehicle -miles of capacity IVMCI is lane -miles times
capacity per lane.
\Vhile there are a few individual road segments that appear to be over -capacity, the extent of existing
segment -specific capacity deficiencies is relatively small compared to the total amount of daily travel. The
bottom line, however, is that a segment -by -segment analysis of capacity deficiencies is not necessary or
appropriate in the context of a consumption -based road impact fee. The system -wide ratio of capacity
to demand is the appropriate level of service measure, and it is clear that the fees are based on a one-to-
one ratio that is considerably lower than the existing ratio. As shown in Table 10, Fayetteville's major
road system currently has significantly more capacity than existing demand. Consequently, there are no
existing deficiencies on a system -wide basis.
duneanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 14
Table 10
SYSTEMWIDE RATIO OF CAPACITY TO DEMAND
Daily Vehicle -Miles of Capacity (VMC) 2,773,440
Daily Vehicle -Miles of Travel (VMT) 1,122,931
Systemwide Capacity/Demand Ratio 2.47
Source: VMT from Table 8: VMC from Table 9.
COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Right-of-way is the most variable component of road improvement costs, as well as the most common
type of developer exaction for roads. If ROW costs are excluded from the impact fee calculations, the
fees will be lower, and the City will not have to give credit against the fees for ROW that is dedicated by
developers. In order to give the City the option to include or exclude ROW costs, the road impact fees
will be calculated both ways.in this report.
The average cost to create an additional vehicle -mile of capacity can be derived by dividing the cost of
a representative set of improvements by the additional capacity created by the improvements. Most of
the planned capacity -expanding improvements are widening projects, and widening projects generally
entail the reconstruction of the existing lanes. While this cost could be covered by impact fees under the
argument that the reconstruction of the existing lanes is incidental to the primary purpose of adding
capacity, the costs of lane reconstruction are excluded from the cost estimates in the following
calculations. The cost of planned capacity -expanding road improvements to be undertaken by the City
pursuant to the proposed road bond program, including construction, engineering and ROW costs,
totals $80,550,000, as summarized in Table 11.
dunaanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 15
Table 11
PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENT COSTS
..,
Crossover (Mission to City Limits)
0.81
2
5
2.43
$7,087,000
$7,087,000
Fifteenth Street (Happy Hollow to S. College)*
1.61
2
4
3.22
$4,253,000
$4,693,000
Garland (North to Melmar)
0.70
2
5
2.10
$4,638,000
$6,338,000
Garland (Drake to Truckers)
0.53
2
5
1.59
$1,520,000
$1,630,000
Garland (I -540t0 Howard Nickell)
0.57
2
5
1.71
$3,151,000
$3,371,000
Howard NickellNan Asche (Rupple to Garland)
2.18
2
4
4.36
$8,246,000
$9,291,000
Huntsville (Happy Hollow to Stonebridge)
0.66
2
4
1.32
$2,415,000
$2,470,000
Huntsville (Stonebridge to Falcon)
1.40
2
4
2.80
$7,046,000
$7,156,000
Mall Avenue (Joyce to Mud Creek)
0.28
2
3
0.28
$632,000
$832,000
Mount Comfort(Rupple to Alpine)
1.14
2
4
2.28
$4,663,000
$5,653,000
Rupple Road (6th to Persimmon)
1.70
0
5
8.50
$7,580,000
$8,155,000
Rupple Road (Persimmon to Wedington)
0.53
2
5
1.59
$1,438,000
$1,438,000
Rupple Road (Wedington to Mt. Comfort)
0.97
2
5
2.91
$6,941,000
$8,316,000
Rupple Road (Mt. Comfort to Howard Nickell)
1.59
3
5
3.18
$3,416,000
$3,581,000
Shiloh Drive (Cato Springs to Summerhouse)
0.66
0
3
1.98
$1,997,000
$2,237,000
Shiloh Drive (Mt. Comfort to Wedington)
0.52
0
3
1.56
$3,231,000
$3,341,000
Van Asche (Greggto Garland)
1.63
2
5
4.89
$4,083,500
$4,961,000
Total
17.48
46.70
$72,337,500
$80,550,000
* existing lanes not reconstructed
Source: Proposed bond program information provided by
City of Fayetteville.
May
1, 2006:
costs exclude cost to reconstruct
existing lanes, estimated to cost 5255,145 per lane -mile by City Engineer, July 28, 2005 memorandum.
Dividing the average cost per lane -mile by the
average
capacity
of a
lane yields the average
cost per
vehicle -[Wile of capacity, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12
ROAD COST
PER SERVICE UNIT
•
•
Total Cost
$72,337,500
$80,550,000
Total Lane -Miles
46.70
46.70
Average Cost per Lane -Mile
$1,548,983
$1,724,839
Daily Vehicle Capacity er Lane
8,000
8,000
Cost er Vehicle -Mile
$193.62
$215.60
Source: Total cost and lane -miles from Table 11;
daily capacity
per
lane from Table 9.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study
May 2,
2006, Page 16
REVENUE CREDITS
In the calculation of impact fees, credit must be given for dedicated or intergovernmental revenues that
will be generated by new development and used to pay for the same kind of facilities funded through
the impact fees. In the case of road impact fees, revenue credits will be calculated for state and federal
funding for City arterial and collector road improvements. No credit needs to be calculated for
outstanding debt payments for road bonds, since the City has no outstanding debt for past road projects.
Finally, a credit needs to be provided for sales tax revenues that will be used for capacity -expanding road
improvements.
A review of the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan indicates that all of the planned direct federal and state
funding for the improvement of roads in Fayetteville is for state roads. Total federal and state funding
for Fayetteville amounts to $2.6 million annually over the next 25 years, as shown in Table 13.
Table 13
2001-2025
Hwy 112, Maple St to Hwy 112 S
$1,500,000
AR
45, North St to City Limit
$7,000,000
AR
16, Happy Hollow to W.F. Bridge
$3,150,000
AR
180, Gregg to US 71B
$2,500,000
AR
265, AR 45 to N City Limits
$11,000,000
AR
180, Township to US 71
$2,800,000
AR
112, North St to 1.540
$6,250,000
AR
112, 15th to Maple
$2,800,000
AR
112, Razorback to Garland
$2,500,000
AR
16, Meadowland to W City Limit
$5,500,000
US
71 Flyover, College to US 71W
$4,000,000
AR
16 Bypass, Washington to Happy Hollow
$4,000,000
AR
16E, W.F. Bridge to E City Limit
$11,750,000
Total, 2001-2025
$64,750,000
Source: Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, 2025 Regional
Transportation Plan for Metropolitan Northwest Arkansas. February 2001.
An equally significant source of funding for City thoroughfares is the one -cent sales tax. As noted in
the Background section, the sales tax is the primary source of funds for the City capital improvements
program, and 34 percent of sales tax -funded capital improvements in the five-year CIP are for street and
traffic signal improvements. The City plans on spending about $2.5 million annually in sales tax funds
on capacity -expanding road improvements over the five-year CIP period. Excluding expenditures for
ROW acquisition, annual expenditures for construction are anticipated to be about $1.8 million, as
shown in Table 14.
duneanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 17
Table 14
Gregg Ave
Mission & Maple
Shiloh, Gregg & Fulbright
Gregg Ave & Poplar St
School & Archibald
Huntsville/Happy Hollow
Millsap Rd & North College
West Avenue & Maple St
Township•
Mount Comfort Rd
ROW/Intersec Cost Shares
Mount Comfort Rd.
Highway 265 ROW
Morningside Dr & 15h St
Zion/College to Frtg Rd
Van Asche Blvd
Gregg Ave & North St
Old Wire It Old Missouri
Mission & Old Wire
College/Roll Hills/Appleby
Traffic Sianals
Total Funding, 2004-2008
Township to Fulbright
Intersection and Signalization
Turn Lanes
Intersection and Signalization
Intersection
Intersection
Intersection
Signalization
Gregg to North College
Widening ft Turn Lanes
Mission to Township
at Shiloh Dr
Mission to City Limits
Signalization
Intersection
Steele Blvd to Gregg Ave
Turn Lanes
Intersection
Intersection
Intersection
Various Intersections
* ROW assumed to be 25% of total
Source: City of Fayetteville, 2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program, May 2004.
$0
$150,000
$400,000
$175,000
$100,000
$650,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1,560,000
$900,000
$515,000
$0
$0
$221,000
$200,000
$950,000
$650,000
$324,000
$300,000
$800,000
$8,791,000
$360,000
$150,000
$400,000
$175,000
$100,000
$650,000
$100,000
$100,000
$2,080,000
$900,000
$515,000
$1,500,000
$1,511,000
$221,000
$200,000
$950,000
$650,000
$324,000
$300,000
$800,000
$12,682,000
Over the 25 -year period that is typical of the useful life of road improvements, new development will
generate sales tax revenues and highway user fees that will be returned to the City in the form of State
and Federal funding for capacity expandingroad improvements that is equivalent to about $57 per VMT
generated by the new development. Excluding funding for ROW, the revenue credit per VMT is about
$48, as shown in Table 15.
duneanjassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 18
Table 15
Source: Annual Federal/State funding from Table 13: annual sales tax funding from Table 14; existing VMT from Table 8;
discount rate for present value factor is average interest rate on 20 -year AAA municipal bonds as of May 31. 2004 according
to bloomberg.com, fmsbonds.com, and bondsonline.com.
In addition to its current road funding, the City intends to seek voter approval for a Transportation
Bond Program of about $145 million funded by a dedicated one percent sales and use tax. The
proposed sales and use tax is split into two parts: one-fourth percent that would be levied immediately
and three -fourths percent that would be directed to the Transportation Bond Program once the
Wastewater System Improvements Bonds are fully paid. The City also intends to use road impact fee
revenues primarily to help retire the Transportation Bonds. The sales and use tax would expire when
the bonds are paid off.
Of the total cost of the proposed bond program, only $81 million is eligible for impact fee funding ($72
million if ROW costs are excluded), as shown earlier in Table 11. Revenue from road impact fees, if
adopted at the maximum levels calculated in this report, over the 20 -year life of the bonds could pay for
the principal associated with these eligible projects. Based on the annual number of permits issued in
recent years, the proposed road impact fees could generate $82 million to $90 million over 20 years, as
shown in Table 21. Of course, actual revenues may be somewhat lower than these estimates, because
the City will need to give credit against the fees whenever it requires new development to add capacity
to the major road system by adding lanes to adjacent arterial or collector roads.
As shown above, road impact fee revenues should be adequate to retire that portion of the debt service
attributable to the principal associated with growth -related, impact fee -eligible projects. The sales tax
revenues could be used for paying the interest costs for the growth -related projects and for principal and
interest payments on the non -growth -related projects. Under this reasonable scenario, there is no need
for a credit for the sales tax payments that would be generated by new development, because these
payments would be going for interest costs, which are not included in the impact fee calculations, or for
non -growth -related improvements, which are not eligible for impact fees. Clearly, new development
would not be paying twice for growth -related improvements. In the event that the Council decides not
to charge the maximum road impact fees, it is likely that some sales tax funding would be needed to fund
some of the growth -related improvement cost. Even under these circumstances, however, a credit would
not be warranted, because the impact fees are not covering the full impacts of new development, and the
governing body is simply allowing new development to pay for some of its attributable costs through
the sales tax instead of impact fees.
duneanjassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 19
Subtracting the revenue credit from the cost per service unit yields the net cost per service unit.
Depending on whether ROW costs are included in the fees, the net cost per service unit ranges from
$145 to $159 per daily vehicle -mile of travel.
Table 16
ST PER SERVICE UNIT
Average Cost per VMT
$193.62
$215.60
Revenue Credit per VMT
$48.38
$57.00
Source: Average cost per VMT from Table 12: revenue credit per VMT from Table 15.
duneanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 20
TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS
The travel demand generated by specific land use types is a product of three factors: 1) trip generation,
2) percent primary trips and 3) trip length. The first two factors are well documented in the professional
literature, and the average trip generation characteristics identified in studies of communities around the
nation should be reasonably representative of trip generation characteristics in Fayetteville. In contrast,
trip lengths are much more likely to vary between communities, depending on the geographic size and
shape of the community and its major roadway system.
Trip generation rates were based on information published in the most recent edition of the Institute
of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation manual. Rates were established for specific land use
types within the broader categories of residential, commercial, office/institutional and industrial land
uses. Trip generation rates represent trip ends, or driveway crossings from the site of a land use. Thus,
a one-way trip from home to work counts as one trip end for the residence and one trip end for the work
place. To avoid over -counting, all trip rates have been divided by two. This places the burden of travel
equally between the origin and destination of the trip and eliminates double -charging for any particular
trip.
Trip rates also need to be adjusted by a "primary trip factor" to exclude pass -by and diverted trips. This
adjustment is intended to reduce the possibility of over -counting by only including primary trips
generated by the development. Pass -by trips are those trips that are already on a particular route for a
different purpose and simply stop at a particular development on that route. For example, a stop at a
convenience store on the way home from the office is a pass -by trip for the convenience store. A pass -by
trip does not create an additional burden on the street system and therefore should not be counted in
the assessment of impact fees. A diverted trip is similar to a pass -by trip, but a diversion is made from
the regular route to make an interim stop. The reduction for pass -by and diverted trips was drawn from
the ITE manual and other published information.
The average trip length is the most difficult travel demand factor to determine. In the context of a road
impact fee based on a consumption -based methodology, we are interested in determining the average
length of a trip on the major roadway system within Fayetteville. This can be approximated by dividing
the total daily travel demand (VD4T) on the major roadway system by the total number of average daily
trips generated by existing development in the city.
Existing land uses in each of six general categories are multiplied by average daily trip generation rates
and summed to determine a reasonable estimate of total city-wide trips. Dividing the total vehicle -miles
of travel (VIvfT) on the major roadway system determined from the inventory (see Table 22) by the
estimated trips generated by existing land uses in Fayetteville yields a reasonable estimate of the average
distance traveled on the City's major roadway system per daily trip, as shown in Table 17.
duncanjassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 21
Table 17
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH
rr r.
Single -Family Dwelling 14,633 4.79 70,092
Multi -Family Dwelling 15,281 3.32 50,733
Mobile Home Dwelling 855 2.50 2,138
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 7,647 9.98 76,317
Civic 1,000 sq. ft. 4,246 6.15 26,113
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 6,571 3.48 22,867
Total Daily Trips 248,260
Total Daily VMT on Major Roadway System 1,122,931
Average Trip Length, Miles 4.50
Source: 2005 dwelling units from Table 7; nonresidential square feet from
Washington County Assessor, 2004 plus new square footage permitted in 2004
from Fayetteville Planning Department. October 7, 2005; trip rates are one-half of
average daily trip ends on a weekday reported in Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003 for ITE land use codes 210
(Single -Family Detached), 220 (Apartment), 240 (Mobile Home Park), 820 (Shopping
Center). 710 (General Office Building), and 130(Industrial Park): existing VMT from
Table B.
The ratio of the average local trip length on Fayetteville's major roadway system to the national average
trip length identified in the U.S. Department of Transportation's 2001 National Household Travel Survey
is computed in Table 18. Fayetteville's average trip length on the major roadway system is lower than
the national average because the major roadway system excludes travel on freeways/ expressways, arterials
and collectors outside the city limits, and local streets. Using this ratio, reasonable trip lengths were
derived for specific trip purposes, including home -to -work trips, shopping, school/church and other
personal trips. In addition, a residential trip length was determined, using a weighting of 40 percent
work trips and 60 percent average trips.
Table 18
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY TRIP PURPOSE
•IIIII1uIl.I.Mi. p.
llJ
To or from work 12.07 na 0.46 5.6
Residential na na na 4.9
Doctor/Dentist 9.78 na 0.46 4.5
Average 9.71 4.50 0.46 4.5
School/Church 7.42 na 0.46 3.4
Family/Personal 7.35 na 0.46 3.4
Shopping 6.56 na 0.46 3.0
Source: Average trip lengths in miles; national data from US. Department of
Transportation, National Household Travel Survey, 2001; local data from Table 17:
ratio is average local divided by average national trip length; estimated local trip
lengths are products of national data by ratio, estimated local residential trip
length is weighted 40% local work trip length and 60% average trip length.
duneanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 22
Average daily travel demand must be estimated for a broad variety of land uses in order to develop the
fee schedule. The result of combining trip generation rates, new trip factors and average trip lengths is
a travel demand schedule that establishes the vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) during the average weekday
generated by various land use types per unit of development. The recommended travel demand schedule
is presented in Table 19.
Table 19
Single -Family Detached
210
Dwelling
9.57
4.79
100%
4.9
23.47
Multi -Family
220
Dwelling
6.72
3.32
100%
4.9
16.27
Mobile Home/RV Park
240
Pad
4.99
2.50
100%
4.9
12.25
Hotel/Motel
310/320
Room
6.90
3.45
80%
4.9
13.52
Retail/Commercial
820
1000 sq. ft.
42.94
21.47
43%
3.0
27.70
Office/Institutional
710
1000sq.ft.
11.01
5.51
. 75%
4.5
18.60
Nursing Home
620
1000 sq. ft.
6.10
3.05
75%
4.5
10.29
Church
560
1000 sq. ft.
9.11
4.56
75%
3.4
11.63
Industrial
130
1000 sq. ft.
6.96
3.48
95%
4.9
16.20
Warehouse
150
1000 sq. ft.
4.96
2.48
95%
4.9
11.54
Source: "Trip Ends' is average dailytrips during weekday from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),Trip Generation,
7th ed., 2003; "1 -Way Trips" = 'h Trip Ends; "ITE Code" is land use code from ITE manual used for land use category (where
more than one code shown, rates were averaged): new trip percentage for retail/commercial from ITE, Trip Generation
Handbook, October 2003; percentages for other land uses taken from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Lee County Impact
Fee Transportation Data, 1990; average trip lengths from Table 18; average trip length reduced by 50% for convenience stores
and fast food restaurants; average trip length used for office uses and residential trip length used for industrial/warehousing
uses.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 23
POTENTIAL FEES
Based on the impact fee formula and the inputs calculated in this report, the maximum road impact fees
per unit of development for various land uses, with and without ROW costs, are shown in Table 20.
Impact fees could be adopted at less than 100 percent of the levels shown in the net cost schedules,
provided that the reduction is applied uniformly across all land use categories in order to retain the
proportionality of the fees. The impact fee ordinance will contain a provision allowing the option of
independent fee determination studies for those applicants who can demonstrate that their development
will have less impact on the need for road facilities than indicated by the fee schedule.
Table 20
Single -Family Detached
Dwelling
23.47
$158.60
$145.24
$3,722
$3,409
Multi -Family
Dwelling
16.27
$158.60
$145.24
$2,580
$2,363
Mobile Home/RV Park
Pad
12.25
$158.60
$145.24
$1,943
$1,779
Hotel/Motel
Room
13.52
$158.60
$145.24
$2,144
$1,964
Retail/Commercial
1000 sq.
ft.
27.70
$158.60
$145.24
$4,393
$4,023
Office/Institutional
1000 sq.
ft.
18.60
$158.60
$145.24
$2,950
$2,701
Nursing Home
1000 sq.
ft.
10.29
$158.60
$145.24
$1,632
$1,495
Church
1000 sq.
ft.
11.63
$158.60
$145.24
$1,845
$1,689
Industrial
1000 sq.
ft.
16.20
$158.60
$145.24
$2,569
$2,353
Warehouse
1000 sq.ft.
11.54
$158.60
$145.24
$1,830
$1,676
Source: Daily VMT per unit from Table 19; net cost per VMT from Table 12.
Based on the annual number of permits issued in recent years, annual road impact fee revenue could
amount to $4.1 million to $4.5 million, as shown in Table 21. Over 20 years, the impact fees could
generate $82 million to $90 million. These estimates include in -kind contributions from developers, for
which they would get impact fee credit, so that cash revenues received by the City would likely be lower.
duneanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 24
Table 21
Source: Potential fees from Table 20; average annual new residential units are averages for 2000-2004 from Table 6; average
annual new nonresidential units are amounts permitted in 2004 from Fayetteville Planning Department. October 7. 2005.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 25
APPENDIX A: MAJOR ROADWAY INVENTORY
Table 22
Archibald Yell Blvd
6th St
15th St
15th St
Co. Rd. 649
College Ave
College Ave
College Ave
College Ave
College Ave
College Ave
Crossover Rd
Crossover Rd
Garland Ave
Garland Ave
Happy Hollow Rd
Highway 112
Highway 112.
Huntsville Rd
Joyce Blvd
Joyce Blvd
Joyce Blvd
Joyce Blvd
Maple St
Mission Blvd
North St
North St
Old Missouri Rd
Razorback Rd
Razorback Rd
Razorback Rd
School Ave
School Ave
Steele Blvd
Sunshine Rd
Van Asche Dr
Van Asche Dr
Van Asche Dr
Wedington Dr
College Ave
School Ave
Happy Hollow Rd
College Ave
City Limits
Archibald Yell Blvd
North St
Millsap Rd
560'S of Joyce Blvd
980 N of Joyce Blvd
1973'S of City Limits
Old Missouri Rd
Mission Blvd
1-540
Wedington Dr
Huntsville Rd
1,286' E of Cris Hollow
1-540
City Limits
City Limits
College Ave
Frontage Rd
228' S of Front St
Garland Ave
North St
Garland Ave
Gregg Ave
City Limits
Maple St
15th St
Ramp
Archibald Yell Blvd
3,477'S of Willoughby
Van Asche Dr
1510' S Jess Anderson
Highway 112
1,073' W of Gregg Ave
523' W of Steele Blvd
City Limits
School Ave
4
0.45
1.80
1.80
13,000
5,850
City Limits
5
3.45
17.25
17.25
25,330
87,389
College Ave
2
1.27
2.54
2.54
12,000
15,240
Razorback Rd
4
1.26
5.04
5.04
10,350
13,041
Persimmon St
2
1.00
2.00
0.00
n/a
0
North St
4
1.13
4.52
4.52
25,000
28,250
Millsap Rd
5
2.72
13.60
13.60
29,000
78,880
560'S of Joyce Blvd
4
0.97
3.88
3.88
35,000
33,950
980' N of Joyce Blvd
6
0.26
1.56
1.56
35,000
9,100
1973' S of City Limits
4
0.51
2.04
2.04
35,000
17,850
City Limits
6
0.37
2.22
2.22
35,000
12,950
Mission Blvd
3
4.12
12.36
12.36
16,000
65,920
Huntsville Rd
5
2.39
11.95
11.95
14,250
34,058
Wedington Dr
2
2.03
4.06
4.06
11,000
22,330
Maple St
4
0.25
1.00
1.00
14,000
3,500
15th St
4
0.28
1.12
1.12
8,900
2,492
399' w/o D. Solomon
2
0.74
1.48
1.48
4,300
3,182
Van Asche Dr
2
0.81
1.62
1.62
5,300
4,293
Happy Hollow Rd
2
5.10
10.20
10.20
9,800
49,980
College Ave
5
0.76
3.80
3.80
18,000
13,680
Frontage Rd
6
0.09
0.54
0.54
18,000
1,620
228'S of Front St
5
0.11
0.55
0.55
19,000
2,090
Crossover Rd
4
1.37
5.48
5.48
8,900
12,193
Razorback Rd
2
0.25
0.50
0.50
15,000
3,750
City Limits
2
2.37
4.74
4.74
9,780
23,179
Gregg Ave
4
0.50
2.00
2.00
16,000
8,000
Mission Blvd
2
1.01
2.02
2.02
12,310
12,433
Crossover Rd
3
0.22
0.66
0.66
14,000
3,080
15th St
2
1.50
3.00
3.00
11,250
16,875
Ramp
5
0.84
4.20
4.20
6,100
5,124
Highway 71
3
0.09
0.27
0.27
6,100
549
3,477'S of Willoughby
5
3.33
16.65
16.65
10,700
35,631
City Limits
4
0.65
2.60
2.60
7,800
5,070
Joyce Blvd
4
0.50
2.00
0.00
n/a
0
Adams Rd
2
0.33
0.66
0.00
n/a
0
244' E of 1-540
2
0.24
0.48
0.48
1,100
264
Gregg Ave
2
0.20
0.40
0.40
1,100
220
Steele Blvd
4
0.10
0.40
0.40
1,100
110
709'W of 46th Ave
2
1.76
3.52
3.52
7,800
13,728
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 26
Wedington Dr 709' W of 46th Ave
Wedington Dr Shiloh Dr
Subtotal, Principal Arterials
Black Oak Rd
Armstrong Rd
Cato Springs Rd
Dead Horse Mtn Rd
Deane St
Double Springs Rd
Drake St
Gregg Ave
Gregg Ave
Gregg Ave
Huntsville Rd
Mount Comfort Rd
Old Wire Rd
Porter Rd
Pump Station Rd
Rupple Rd
Rupple Rd
Shiloh Dr
Skillern Rd
Steele Blvd
Armstrong Rd
15th St
School Ave
Goff Farm Rd
Garland Ave
City Limits
Gregg Ave
City Limits
1103'S of City Limits
Township St
Mashburn Ave
City Limits
Mission Blvd
Deane St
567 E of City Lake Rd
174' N of Double Tree
Rupple Rd
Steele Blvd
Old Wire Rd
Shiloh Dr
Subtotal, Minor Arterials
Betty Jo Dr
Beachwood Ave
Austin Dr
Ash St
Appleby Rd
15th St
18th St
54th Ave
59th Ave
Brooks Ave
Broyles Ave
Cato Springs Rd
Cato Springs Rd
Charlee Ave
City Lake Rd
Cliffs Blvd
Cliffs Blvd
Persimmon St
15th St
Ash St
Walnut Ave
Gregg Ave
Beachwood Ave
Futrall Dr
Persimmon St
Wedington Dr
15th St
City Limits
Highway 71
1-540
Mission Blvd
Pump Station Rd
Crossover Blvd
218' W of Crossover
Shiloh Dr
5
1.19
5.95
5.95
14,793
17,604
Garland Ave
4
1.58
6.32
6.32
15,500
24,490
School Ave
2
0.75
1.50
0.00
n/a
0
168.48 162.32 687,943
City Limits
2
1.79
3.58
3.58
5,000
8,950
Black Oak Rd
2
1.08
2.16
2.16
5,000
5,400
Razorback Rd
2
0.99
1.98
1.98
1,700
1,683
City Limits
2
1.14
2.28
2.28
800
912
Porter Rd
2
1.00
2.00
2.00
6,100
6,100
299' N of Dot Tipton Rd
2
0.90
1.80
0.00
n/a
0
Garland Ave
2
0.78
1.56
1.56
5,200
4,056
1103'S of City Limits
4
0.21
0.84
0.84
6,000
1,260
Township St
2
1.72
3.44
3.44
16,000
27,520
North St
4
1.30
5.20
5.20
19,000
24,700
Happy Hollow Rd
2
0.73
1.46
1.46
10,000
7,300
1-540
2
1.81
3.62
3.62
8,200
14,842
Skillern Rd
2
2.64
5.28
5.28
8,400
22,176
Shiloh Dr
2
0.36
0.72
0.72
6,800
2,448
Armstrong Rd
2
0.67
1.34
0.00
n/a
0
Mount ComfortRd
2
0.42
0.84
0.00
n/a
0
Persimmon St
2
1.14
2.28
0.00
n/a
0
Gregg Ave
2
0.39
0.78
0.00
n/a
0
City Limits
2
0.65
1.30
1.30
7,830
5,090
Van Asche Dr
3
0.25
0.75
0.00
n/a
0
College Ave
2
0.44
0.88
0.88
11,000
4,840
44.09
36.30
137,277
Wedington Dr
18th St
Poplar St
Samantha
Plainview Ave Ext.
Razorback Rd
Beachwood Ave
Wedington Dr
1071' N of Wedington Dr
Boone St
Persimmon
1-540
City Limits
Charlee Ave Ext.
Willoughby Rd
218' W of Crossover
Happy Hollow Rd
2
0.51
1.02
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.25
0.50
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.15
0.30
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.58
1.16
0.00
n/a
0
2
1.03
2.06
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.22
0.44
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.26
0.52
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.65
1.30
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.20
0.40
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.21
0.42
0.00
n/a
0
2
1.25
2.50
0.00
n/a
0
3
0.18
0.54
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.58
1.16
0.00
n/a
0
2
0.23
0.46
0.00
n/a
0
2
1.39
2.78
2.78
1,600
2,224
4
0.04
0.16
0.00
n/a
0
4
0.48
1.92
0.00
n/a
0
duncanjassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 27
Deane Solomon Rd
Dinsmore Trl
Drake St
Drake St
Ernie Jacks Blvd
Front St
Frontage Rd
Futrall Dr
Futrall Dr
Futrell Or
Futrell Dr
Garland Ave
Garrett Or
Goff Farm Rd
Gypsum Dr
Happy Hollow Rd
Happy Hollow Rd
Harold St
Hollywood Ave
Joyce St
Leverett Ave
Longview St
Mall Ave
Mall Ave
Mally Wag non Rd
Mcconnell Ave
Miller St
Millsap Rd
Millsap Rd
Monte Painter Dr
Morningside Dr
New Bridge Rd
Northhills Blvd
Old Farmington Rd
Old Missouri Rd
Old Wire Rd
Persimmon St
Plainview Ave
Poplar St
Porter Rd
Raven Ln
Roberts Rd
Rolling Hills Dr
Rupple Rd
Salem Rd West
Mount Comfort Rd
6th St
McConnell
1,278' W of Gregg Ave
Garland Ave
Millsap Rd
Joyce Blvd
Wedington Dr
Freeway Ramp
455' S of 6th St
Gregg Ave
Cato Springs Rd
Ernie Jacks Blvd
Dead Horse Mtn Rd
Salem Rd
Cliffs Blvd
886 S of Cliffs Blvd
College Ave
6th St
Joyce Blvd
North St
Plainview Ave
Joyce Blvd
1,211 S of Joyce Blvd
City Limits
Knapp Dr
Yates Ave
Futrall Dr
504' E of Plainview Ave
Northhills Blvd
Huntsville Rd
155' E of High Ave
Monte Painter Dr
6th St
Old Wire Rd
City Limits
46th St
367' S of Kenray St
Yates Ave
Wedington Dr
Mount Comfort Rd
Huntsville Rd
College Ave
600'S of New Bridge
Deane Solomon Rd
Highway 112
2
1.76
3.52
3.52
1,100
1,936
City Limits
2
0.40
0.80
0.00
n/a
0
Garland Ave
2
0.15
0.30
0.00
n/a
0
Highway 71
4
0.62
2.48
0.00
n/a
0
314'W of GarrettDr
2
0.13
0.26
0.00
n/a
0
Joyce Blvd
2
0.62
1.24
0.00
n/a
0
Zion Rd
2
0.49
0.98
0.98
8,000
3,920
Freeway Ramp
2
1.74
3.48
3.48
4,000
6,960
455'S of 6th St
3
0.21
0.63
0.63
3,200
672
18th St
2
0.54
1.08
1.08
3,200
1,728
Millsap Rd
2
0.60
1.20
0.00
n/a
0
Brooks Ave
2
0.33
0.66
0.00
n/a
0
1,353' E of Leverett Ave
2
0.36
0.72
0.00
n/a
0
City Limits
2
0.80
1.60
0.00
n/a
0
Raven Ln
2
0.28
0.56
0.00
n/a
0
886'S of Cliffs Blvd
4
0.17
0.68
0.00
n/a
0
Huntsville Rd
2
0.55
1.10
1.10
480
264
Stubblefield Rd
2
0.25
0.50
0.00
n/a
0
1210' S of 6th St
2
0.23
0.46
0.00
n/a
0
City Limits
2
0.45
0.90
0.00
n/a
0
Garrett Dr
2
0.96
1.92
1.92
6,800
6,528
College Ave
2
0.15
0.30
0.00
n/a
0
1,211'S of Joyce Blvd
2
0.23
0.46
0.00
n/a
0
Shiloh Dr
3
0.29
0.87
0.00
n/a
0
Huntsville Rd
2
0.25
0.50
0.00
n/a
0
Drake St
2
0.52
1.04
0.00
n/a
0
Gregg Ave
2
0.11
0.22
0.00
n/a
0
504'E of Plainview Ave
3
0.36
1.08
0.00
n/a
0
Vantage Dr
2
0.32
0.64
0.00
n/a
0
Wimberly Dr
2
0.16
0.32
0.00
n/a
0
Pump Station Rd
2
0.96
1.92
0.00
n/a
0
Settlemen Ln
2
0.51
1.02
0.00
n/a
0
Futrall Dr
4
0.21
0.84
0.00
n/a
0
Shiloh Dr
2
0.88
1.76
0.00
n/a
0
Zion Rd
3
2.01
6.03
6.03
6,600
13,266
1,570' N of Skillern Rd
2
0.46
0.92
0.92
1,700
782
54th Ave
2
0.75
1.50
0.00
n/a
0
Millsap Rd
2
0.34
0.68
0.00
n/a
C
College Ave
2
0.37
0.74
0.00
n/a
0
Deane St
2
0.58
1.16
1.16
2,200
1,27E
145' N of Quail Dr
2
0.22
0.44
0.00
n/a
C
City Limits
2
0.16
0.32
0.00
n/a
C
Old Missouri Rd
2
0.71
1.42
1.42
11,000
7,81C
Old Mt Comfort
2
0.44
0.88
0.00
n/a
C
City Limits
2
0.15
0.30
0.00
n/a
C
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 28
Salem Rd North
Salem Rd North
Samantha Ave
Shepherd Ln
Shiloh Dr
Shiloh Dr
Shiloh Dr
Shiloh Dr
Shiloh Dr
Shiloh Dr
Shiloh Dr
Shiloh Dr
Starr Dr
Stearns St
Stubblefield Rd
Sunbridge Dr
Sycamore St
Sycamore St
Sycamore St
Township St
Trucker's Dr
Van Asche Dr
Vantage Dr
Vantage Dr
Walnut Ave
Willoughby Rd
Wimberly Dr
Wyman Rd
Yates Ave
Subtotal, Collectors
City Limits
1,984' S of Mt Comfort
116'S of Ash St
Frontage Rd
Joyce Blvd
Mall Ave
Highway 112
1,678' N of Wedington
433' N of 6th St
6th St
345'Sof6th St
326'S of Cato Springs
Mission Blvd
Joyce Blvd
Harold St
Villa Blvd
Garland Ave
Leverett Ave
Gregg Ave
College Ave
Gypsum Dr
Steele Blvd
Stearns St
Joyce Blvd
Sycamore St
City Lake Rd
Monte Painter Dr
City Limits
Poplar St
Mount ComfortRd
2
1.16
2.32
0.00
n/a
0
Wedington Dr
2
0.67
1.34
0.00
n/a
0
Ash St
2
0.02
0.04
0.00
n/a
0
195' E of Frontage Rd
2
0.04
0.08
0.00
n/a
0
1,157'S of Joyce Blvd
2
0.22
0.44
0.00
n/a
0
Steele Blvd
3
0.39
1.17
0.00
n/a
0
1,925' S of Mt Comfort
2
1.73
3.46
0.00
n/a
0
433' N of 6th St
2
2.02
4.04
4.04
620
1,252
6th St
4
0.08
0.32
0.32
3,700
296
345'S of 6th St
3
0.07
0.21
0.00
n/a
0
2,010' N of Cato Springs
2
1.09
2.18
0.00
n/a
0
End of Shiloh Dr
2
0.23
0.46
0.00
n/a
0
City Limits
2
0.64
1.28
1.28
n/a
0
120' E of Remington Dr
2
0.11
0.22
0.22
n/a
0
Old Missouri Rd
2
0.56
1.12
1.12
n/a
0
College Ave
2
0.08
0.16
0.00
n/a
0
LeverettAve
2
0.25
0.50
0.50
5,100
1,275
Gregg Ave
4
0.32
1.28
1.28
8,200
2,624
Walnut Ave
2
0.68
1.36
1.36
5,150
3,502
Crossover Rd
2
1.75
3.50
3.50
8,400
14,700
Crystal Spgs subdiv
2
0.17
0.34
0.00
n/a
0
Mall Ave
3
0.37
1.11
0.00
n/a
0
Zion Rd
2
0.37
0.74
0.00
n/a
0
169' N of Joyce Rd
2
0.03
0.06
0.00
n/a
0
Ash St
2
0.13
0.26
0.00
n/a
0
135'S of City Lake
2
0.03
0.06
0.00
n/a
0
Futrell Dr
2
0.23
0.46
0.00
n/a
0
Crossover Rd
2
0.84
1.68
0.00
n/a
0
Miller St
2
0.07
0.14
0.00
n/a
0
101.96 42.20 83,653
Block Ave
Dickson St
Center St
2
0.25
0.50
0.00
n/a
0
Block Ave
Center St
Mountain St
1
0.05
0.05
0.00
n/a
0
Assembly Rd
Skyline Dr
Mission Blvd
2
0.60
1.20
1.20
400
240
6th St
School Ave
Huntsville Rd
2
0.72
1.44
1.44
8,100
5,832
11th St
Duncan Ave
Hill Ave
2
0.08
0.16
0.16
1,200
96
Arkansas Ave
Dickson St
Maple St
2
0.25
0.50
0.50
8,900
2,225
California Blvd
Center St
Leroy Pond Rd
2
0.36
0.72
0.00
n/a
0
Center St
California Blvd
Block Ave
2
0.67
1.34
1.34
5,000
3,350
Center St
Block Ave
East Ave
1
0.05
0.05
0.05
5,000
250
Center St
East Ave
College Ave
2
0.10
0.20
0.20
5,000
500
Cleveland St
Sang Ave
Arkansas Ave
2
1.15
2.30
2.30
3,300
3,795
College Ave
Rock St
15th St
2
0.87
1.74
1.74
2,300
2,001
Dickson St
Fletcher Ave
College Ave
2
0.42
0.84
0.84
5,000
2,100
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 29
Dickson St
College Ave
Arkansas Ave
2
0.60
1.20
1.20
11,000
6,600
Duncan Ave
15th St
11th St
2
0.25
0.50
0.50
1,200
300
East Ave
Mountain St
Dickson St
1
0.30
0.30
0.30
7,000
2,100
Fletcher Ave
Dickson St
Lafayette St
2
0.15
0.30
0,00
n/a
0
Government Ave
Prairie St
6th St
2
0.09
0.18
0.18
560
50
Greenview Dr
Mission Blvd
Viewpoint Dr
2
0.13
0.26
.0.00
n/a
0
Hill Ave
6th St
11th St
2
0.31
0.62
0.62
200
62
Huntsville Rd
Mill Ave
Mashburn Ave
2
0.39
0.78
0.00
n/a
0
Lafayette St
Mission Blvd
Arkansas Ave
2
1.04
2.08
2.08
7,800
8,112
Leroy Pond Dr
California Blvd
Razorback Rd
2
0.21
0.42
0.00
n/a
0
LeverettAve
Maple St
North St
2
0.50
1.00
1.00
7,800
3,900
Maple St
Mission Blvd
Garland Ave
2
1.43
2.86
2.86
13,000
18,590
Mashburn
Huntsville Rd
6th St
2
0.03
0.06
0.00
n/a
0
Mill Ave
Rock St
Huntsville Rd
2
0.08
0.16
0.00
n/a
0
Mission Blvd
Lafayette St
North St
2
0.60
1.20
1.20
12,000
7,200
Mountain St
School Ave
Block Ave
2
0.21
0.42
0.00
n/a
0
Mountain St
Block Ave
East Ave
1
0.05
0.05
0.00
n/a
0
Mountain St
East Ave
College Ave
2
0.10
0.20
0.00
n/a
0
Pembroke Rd
Rockwood Trail
Ridgeway Dr
2
0.27
0.54
0.54
450
122
Prairie St
West Ave
Government Ave
2
0.12
0.24
0.00
n/a
0
Ridgeway Dr
Pembroke Rd
Viewpoint Dr
2
0.16
0.32
0.00
n/a
0
Rock St
College Ave
Mill Ave
2
0.10
0.20
0.20
4,400
440
Rockwood Trail
Mission Blvd
Pembroke Rd
2
0.69
1.38
1.38
400
276
Sang Ave
Cleveland St
Wedington Dr
2
0.25
0.50
0.00
n/a
0
School Ave
Dickson St
Archibald Yell Blvd
2
0.58
1.16
1.16
3,000
1,740
Skyline Dr
Assembly Rd
Assembly Rd
2
0.88
1.76
1.76
190
167
Viewpoint Dr
Ridgeway Dr
Viewpoint Dr ,
2
0.47
0.94
0.94
520
244
West Ave
Prairie St
Lafayette St
2
0.74
1.48
0.00
n/a
0
Subtotal, Historic
Collectors
32.15
25.69
70,292
Source: Segment descriptions, number of lanes and segment length in miles from City of Fayetteville Public Works Department, verified
June 21, 2004; total lane -miles is product of lanes times miles; lane -miles with counts is lane -miles for segments with traffic counts;
ADT is annual average daily traffic estimates from Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, "2002 Traffic Volumes Map
of Fayetteville -Springdale, Washington and Benton Counties" or, where 2002 counts not available, 1992 estimated volumes from
DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc., Prioritization of Roadway Improvements in Fayetteville, Arkansas, August 1992; VMT is product of miles
times ADT.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 30
APPENDIX B: ARKANSAS IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACT
ARKANSAS CODE, TITLE 14, CHAPTER 56, SUBCHAPTER 1
14-56-102. Development impact fees.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) "Capital plan" means a description of new public facilities or of new capital improvements to
existing public facilities or of previous capital improvements to public facilities that continue to
provide capacity available for new development that includes cost estimates, and capacity available
to serve new development;
(2) "Development" means any residential, multi -family, commercial, or industrial improvement to
lands within the municipality or within the municipal service agency's area of service;
(3) "Development impact fee" means:
(A) A fee or charge imposed by the municipality or by a municipal service agency upon or
against a development in order to generate revenue for funding or for recouping expenditures
of the municipality or municipal service agency that are reasonably attributable to the use and
occupancy of the development; and -
(B) Shall not include any ad valorem real property taxes, any special assessments for an
improvement district, any utility hookup fees or access fees, or any fees for filing development
plats or plans, for building permits or for construction permits assessed by a municipality or
a municipal service that are approximately equal to the cost of the plat, plan, or permit review
process to the municipality or the municipal service agency;
(4) "Municipality" means a city of the first class, city of the second class, or an incorporated town;
(5) "Municipal service agency" means:
(A) Any department, commission, utility or agency of a municipality, including any
municipally -owned or controlled corporation;
(B) Any municipal improvement district, consolidated public or municipal utility system
improvement district, or municipally -owned nonprofit corporation that owns or operates any
utility service;
(C) Any municipal water department, waterworks or joint waterworks, or a consolidated
waterworks system operating under the Consolidated Waterworks Authorization Act;
(D) Any municipal wastewater utility or department;
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 31
(E) Any municipal public facilities board; or
(F) Any of these municipal entities operating with another similar entity under a interlocal
agreementin accordance with § 25-20-101 through 25-20-108 or § 25-20-201 through 25-
20-207;
(6) "Ordinance" means an municipal impact fee ordinance of municipality or an authorizing rate
resolution by a board of commissioners of a consolidated waterworks system authorized to set rates
for its customers under the Consolidated Waterworks Authorization Act;
(7) "Public facilities" means publicly -owned facilities that are one (1) or more of the following
systems, or a portion of those systems:
(A) Water supply, treatment, and distribution, for either domestic water or for suppression of
fires;
(B) Wastewater treatment and sanitary sewerage;
(C) Stormwater drainage;
(D) Roads, streets, sidewalks, highways and public transportation;
(E) Library;
(F) Parks, open space, and recreation areas;
(G) Police or public safety;
(H) Fire protection; and
(I) Ambulance or emergency medical transportation and response.
(b) A municipality or a municipal service agency may assess, by ordinance, a development impact fee to
offset costs to the municipality or to a municipal service agency that are reasonably attributable to
providing necessary public facilities to new development.
(c) (1) A municipality or municipal service agency may assess, collect, and expend development impact
fees only for the planning, design and construction of new public facilities or of capital
improvements to existing public facilities that expand its capacity or for the recoupment of prior
capital improvements to public facilities that created capacity that is available to serve new
development.
(2) The development impact fee may be pledged to the payment of bonds issued by the
municipality or municipal service agency to finance capital improvements or public facilities for
which the development impact fee may be imposed.
duneanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 32
(3) No development impact fee shall be assessed for, or expended upon, the operation or
maintenance of any public facility, or for the construction or improvement of public facilities, that
does not create additional capacity.
(d) (1) A municipality or a municipal service agency may assess and collect impact fees only from new
development and only against a particular new development in reasonable proportion to the
demand for additional capacity in public facilities that are reasonably attributable to the use and
occupancy of that new development.
(2) The owner, resident, or tenant of a property that was assessed an impact fee and paid it in full
shall have the right to make reasonable use of all public facilities that were financed by the impact
fee.
(e) (1) A municipality or municipal service agency may assess, collect, and expend impact fees only
under a development impact fee ordinance adopted and amended under this section.
(2) A development impact fee ordinance shall be adopted or amended by the governing body of
a municipality or municipal service agency only after the municipality or a municipal service agency
has adopted a capital plan and level of service standards for all of the public facilities that are to be
so financed.
(3) The development impact fee ordinance shall contain:
(A) A statement of the new public facilities and capital improvements to existing public
facilities that are to be financed by impact fees and the level of service standards included in
the capital plan for the public facilities that are to be financed with impact fees;
(B) The actual formula or formulas for assessing the impact fee, which shall be consistent with
the level of service standards;
(C) The procedure by which impact fees are to be assessed and collected; and
(D) The procedure for refund of excess impact fees, in accordance with subsection (h) of this
section.
(E) (1) The municipality or municipal service agency shall collect the development impact fee at the
time and manner and from the party as prescribed in the ordinance and shall collect the fee separate
and apart from any other charges to the development.
(2) (A) A
development impact fee shall
be collected at either
the closing on the property by the
owner
or the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy by the
municipality."
(B) However, a municipal water or wastewater department, waterworks, or joint waterworks,
or a consolidated waterworks system operating under the Consolidated Waterworks
duneanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 33
Authorization Act may collect a development impact fee in connection with and as a condition
to the installation of the water meter serving the property.
(3) At closing, the development impact fee that has been paid or will be paid for the property shall
be separately enumerated on the closing statement.
(4) The ordinance may include that the development impact fee may be paid in installments at a
reasonable interest rate for a fixed number of years or that the municipality or municipal service
agency may negotiate agreements with the owner of the property as to the time and method of
paying the impact fee.
(g) (1) The funds collected under a development impact fee ordinance shall be deposited into a special
interest -bearing account.
(2) The interest earned on the moneys in the separate account shall be credited to the special fund
and the funds deposited into the special account and the interest earned shall be expended only in
accordance with this section.
(3) No other revenues or funds shall be deposited into the special account.
(h) (1) The municipality or municipal service agency shall refund the portion of collected development
impact fees, including the accrued interest, that has not been expended seven (7) years from the date
the fees were paid.
(2) (A) A refund shall be paid to the present owner of the of the property that was the subject of
new development and against which the fee was assessed and collected.
(B) Notice of the right to a refund, including the amount of the refund and the procedure for
applying for and receiving the refund, shall be sent or served in writing to the present owners
of the property not later than thirty (30) days after the date which the refund becomes due.
(C) The sending by regular mail of the notices to all present owners of record shall be
sufficient to satisfy the requirement of notice.
(3) (A) The refund shall be made on a pro rata basis, and shall be paid in full not later than ninety
(90) days after the date certain upon which the refund becomes due.
(B) If the municipality or municipal service agency does not pay a refund in full within the
period set in this subsection to any person entitled to a refund, that person shall have a cause
of action against the municipality for the refund or the unpaid portion in the circuit court for
the county in which the property is located.
(i) (1) (A) On and after the effective date of this section, a municipality or municipal service agency
shall levy and collect a development impact fee only if levied and collected under ordinances
enacted in compliance with this section.
duneanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 34
(B) Beginning January 1, 2004, a municipality or municipal service agency shall collect
development impact fees under ordinances enacted before the effective date of this section or
under ordinances amended after the effective date of this section only if collected in
compliance with subsections (0, (g), and (h) of this section.
(2) However, except for the compliance with the collection requirements under subsections (0, (g),
and (h) of this section, this section does not invalidate any development impact fee or a similar fee
adopted by a municipality or municipal service agency before the effective date of this section, nor
does this section apply to funds collected under any development impact fee or similar fee adopted
before the effective date of this section.
(3) In addition, a municipality with a park land or green space ordinance that has been in existence
for ten (10) years on the effective date of this section, and any amendments to the ordinance, which
allows the option to pay a fee or to dedicate green space or park land in lieu of a fee may continue
to be administered under the existing ordinance.
duncanlassociates
Fayetteville\Road Impact Fee Study May 2, 2006, Page 35
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Conklin, Tim
Date: 6.26.06 12:55PM
Subject: Res. 114-06
Tim,
Attached is a copy of the above resolution passed by City Council, June 20, 2006.
Thanks.
Clarice
CC: Audit