Kootenai County, Idaho Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans

Transcription

1 Final Draft Report April 15, 2008 Kootenai County, Idaho Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans Prepared for Kootenai County 451 North Government Way Coeur d Alene, ID Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting Tom Pippin and Scott Kitchens 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850 Denver, CO In Association with Spink Butler, LLP JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan 251 E. Front Street, Suite 200 Boise, ID Galena Consulting Anne Wescott 1214 South Johnson Street Boise, ID 83705

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents...1 Section I. Introduction...2 Background and Objectives...2 Definition of Impact Fees...2 Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans...7 Fee Calculation...7 GRUM Analysis...8 Mechanics of Highway District Fee Calculations...10 Levels of Service and Fee Differentials...11 Acknowledgements...11 Section II. Kootenai County Land Uses...12 Section III. East Side Fire Protection District...19 Section IV. Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District...22 Section V. Mica Kidd Island Fire District...26 Section VI. Northern Lakes Fire District...29 Section VII. Shoshone Fire District # Section VIII. Spirit Lake Fire District...36 Section IX. Timberlake Fire District...40 Section X. Worley Fire District...44 Section XI. East Side Highway District...48 Section XII. Lakes Highway District...53 Section XIII. Post Falls Highway District...58 Section XIV. Worley Highway District...62 Section XV. Kootenai County Sheriff...66 Section XVI. Kootenai County Jail...70 Section XVII. Kootenai County EMS...74 Section XVIII. Kootenai County Parks and Recreation...77 Section XIX. Summary...81 Implementation Recommendations...82 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 1

3 Section I. Introduction This report regarding impact fees for Kootenai County (County) is organized into the following sections: An overview of the report s background and objectives; A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; An overview of land use and demographics; A stepbystep calculation of impact fees under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approach; A list of implementation recommendations; and A brief summary of conclusions. Each section follows sequentially. Background and Objectives Kootenai County (County) hired BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) to calculate impact fees for eight fire districts, four highway districts and four countywide County services (sheriff, jail, emergency medical services, and parks and recreation) found within the County. BBC was assisted by three Idahobased subcontractors: JoAnn Butler of Spink Butler, LLP, Anne Wescott of Galena Consulting and Jim Stravens of JP Stravens & Associates. Spink Butler interpreted the requirements of the Idaho Code, helped prepare the County s draft impact fee resolution and intergovernmental agreements and assisted in all phases of the project. Anne Wescott inventoried each district s current capital improvements; established capital improvement replacement costs; helped the districts refine their Capital Improvement Plans; and assisted in all phases of the project. Jim Stravens produced demographic and land use data for the service populations of each district and County service. This document presents the full cost recovery fees based on the County s demographic data and infrastructure costs before credit adjustment; calculates the district s monetary participation; examines the likely cash flow produced by the recommended fee amount; and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations. Definition of Impact Fees Impact fees are generally defined as onetime assessments used to recover the capital costs borne by local governments due to new growth and development. Impact fees are governed BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 2

4 by principles established in Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Impact Fee Act) which specifically gives cities, towns and counties the authority to levy impact fees. The Idaho Code defines an impact fee as a payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve development. 1 Purpose of impact fees. The Impact Fee Act repeats the legislative finding that an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the state of Idaho. 2 Idaho fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on the calculation and use of impact fees, all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law. 3 Some of those restrictions include: Impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than to defray system improvement costs incurred to provide additional public facilities to serve new growth; 4 Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 8year time limit if the governmental entity can provide reasonable cause; 5 Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements needed to serve new growth and development; 6 Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interestbearing accounts within the capital projects fund. 7 1 See Section (9), Idaho Code. System improvements are capital improvements (i.e., improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more) that, in addition to a long life, increase the service capacity of a public facility. Public facilities include: parks, open space and recreation areas, and related capital improvements; and public safety facilities, including law enforcement, fire, emergency medical and rescue facilities. See Sections (3), (24) and (28), Idaho Code. 2 See Section , Idaho Code. 3 As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a defensible impact fee. To meet substantive due process requirements, an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus) between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital improvements. An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests. This relationship must be of rough proportionality. Adequate consideration of the factors outlined in Section (2) ensure that rough proportionality is reached. See Banbury Development Corp. v. South Jordan, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). 4 See Sections (4) and (29), Idaho Code. 5 See Section (4), Idaho Code. 6 See Sections (1) and , Idaho Code. 7 See Section (1), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 3

5 In addition, the Impact Fee Act requires the following: Establishment of and consultation with a development impact fee advisory committee (Advisory Committee); 8 Identification of all existing public facilities; Determination of a standardized measure (or service unit) of consumption of public facilities; Identification of the current level of service that existing public facilities provide; Identification of the deficiencies in the existing public facilities; Forecast of residential and nonresidential growth; 9 Identification of the growthrelated portion of County and district Capital Improvement Plans; 10 Analysis of cash flow stemming from impact fees and other capital improvement funding sources; 11 Implementation of recommendations such as impact fee credits, how impact fee revenues should be accounted for, and how the impact fees should be updated over time; 12 Preparation and adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same; 13 and Preparation and adoption of a resolution authorizing impact fees pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same. 14 How should fees be calculated? State law requires the County and districts to implement the Capital Improvement Plan methodology to calculate impact fees. The County and districts could implement fees of any amount exceeding the full cost recovery fees calculated by the CIP approach. This methodology requires the County and districts to describe its service area, forecast the land uses, densities and population that are expected to occur in that service area over the next 10 years, and identify the capital improvements that will be needed 8 See Section , Idaho Code. 9 See Section (2), Idaho Code. 10 See Section , Idaho Code. 11 See Section , Idaho Code. 12 See Sections and , Idaho Code. 13 See Section , Idaho Code. 14 See Sections and , Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 4

6 to serve the forecasted growth at the same level of service found in the existing community. 15 This list and cost of capital improvements constitutes the capital improvement element to be adopted as part of Kootenai County s Comprehensive Plan. 16 Only those items identified as growthrelated on the CIP are eligible to be funded by impact fees. Each governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee must first prepare a capital improvements plan. 17 To ensure that impact fees are adopted and spent for capital improvements in support of the community s needs and planning goals, the Impact Fee Act establishes a link between the authority to charge impact fees and certain planning requirements of Idaho s Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). The local government must have adopted a comprehensive plan per LLUPA procedures, and that comprehensive plan must be updated to include a current capital improvement element. 18 This study considers the planned capital improvements for the tenyear period from 2008 the end of 2017 that will need to be adopted as an element of Kootenai County s Comprehensive Plan. Once the essential capital planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a proportionate share of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth. Proportionate share is defined as... that portion of the cost of system improvements... which reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. 19 Practically, this concept requires the County and districts to carefully project future growth and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and defensible impact fee schedules. The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital improvements by units development being charged the impact fee; do not exceed the cost of such improvements; and are earmarked to fund growthrelated capital improvements so as to benefit those that pay the impact fees. There are various approaches to calculating impact fees and to crediting new development for past and future contributions made toward system improvements. The Impact Fee Act does not specify a single type of fee calculation, but it does specify that the formula be reasonable and fair. Impact fees must take into account the following: Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or construction of system improvements; 15 As a comparison and benchmark for the impact fees calculated under the Capital Improvement Plan approach, BBC also calculated the County and district s current level of service by quantifying the County and district s current investment in capital improvements for each impact fee category, allocating a portion of these assets to residential and nonresidential development, and dividing the resulting amount by current housing units (residential fees) or current square footage (nonresidential fees). By using current assets to denote the current service standard, this methodology guards against using fees to correct existing deficiencies. 16 See Sections (4) and , Idaho Code. 17 Section , Idaho Code. 18 See Sections (4) and , Idaho Code. 19 See Section (23), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 5

7 Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the County and districts to growthrelated system improvements; and All other available sources of funding such system improvements. 20 Through data analysis and interviews with each district and Countywide County service, BBC and Galena Consulting identified the share of each capital improvement needed to serve growth. The total projected capital improvements needed to serve growth are then allocated to residential and nonresidential development with the resulting amounts divided by the appropriate growth projections from 2008 to This is consistent with the Impact Fee Act. 21 Among the advantages of the CIP approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. Other fee calculation considerations. The basic CIP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: The allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is a standard measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit 22 of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvement. 23 The service units chosen by the study team for the fire districts, highway districts, sheriff, jail and EMS are linked directly to residential dwelling units and nonresidential development square feet. 24 In the case of parks and recreation, only residential units are used as they are the primary users of parks infrastructure. A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. According to Idaho Code, the CIP must include a conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial. 25 In this analysis, the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data 20 See Section , Idaho Code. 21 The impact fee that can be charged to each service unit (in this study, residential dwelling units and nonresidential square feet) cannot exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements attributable to new development (in order to provide an adopted service level)by the total number of service units attributable to new development. See Sections (16), (1(f) and (1)(g), Idaho Code. 22 See Section (27), Idaho Code. 23 See Section (27), Idaho Code. 24 The construction of detached garages alongside residential units does not typically trigger the payment of additional impact fees unless that structure will be the site of a homebased business with significant outside employment. 25 See Section (1)(e), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 6

8 and, as a result, in this study, sheriff, jail, EMS and fire district impact fees are allocated between aggregated residential (i.e., all forms of residential housing) and nonresidential development (all nonresidential uses including retail, office and industrial). However, data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers support a more detailed breakdown of highway fees (residential, commercial and industrial). Therefore, highway district fees should be charged based on specific land uses as detailed in Exhibit 19. Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CIP approach estimates future capital improvement investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The Impact Fee Act calls for the CIP to... project demand for system improvements required by new service units... over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years. 26 The impact fee study team recommends a 10year time period based on the County and districts best available capital planning data. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth over the next 10 years at existing service levels. Equipment and vehicles with a useful life of 10 years or more are also impact fee eligible under the Impact Fee Act. 27 The total cost of improvements over the 10 years is referred to as the CIP Value throughout this report. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories. Each fee category (8 fire districts, 4 highway districts, 4 countywide services) was charged $7,000 as their proportionate share of the impact fee study. The forwardlooking 10year CIPs for the 8 fire districts, 4 highway districts, and 4 countywide County services each include some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth (e.g., public safety communications center, parks office and shops space, etc.). The study team met with each jurisdiction to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. A general methodology used to determine this metric is discussed below. In come cases, a more specific metric was used to identify the growthrelated portion of such improvements. In these cases, notations were made the in the applicable section. Fee Calculation In accordance with the CIP approach described above, we calculated fees for each district and County service by answering the following seven questions: 1. Who is currently served by the each district and County service? This includes the number of residential and nonresidential landuses. 26 See Section (1)(h). 27 The Impact Fee Act allows a broad range of improvements to be considered as capital improvements, so long as the improvements have useful life of at least 10 years and also increase the service capacity of public facilities. See Sections (28) and , Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 7

9 2. What is the current level of service provided by each district and County service? Since the primary purpose of impact fees is to help each district and County service maintain their current level of service in the future, it is necessary to know the level of service they are currently providing to the community. 3. What current assets allow each district and County service to provide this level of service? This provides a current inventory of assets used by each district and County service, such as facilities, land, roadways and equipment. In addition, each asset s replacement value was calculated and summed to determine the total value of each district and County service s current assets. 4. What is the current investment per residential and nonresidential landuse? In other words, how much of each district and County service s current assets total value is needed to serve current residential households and nonresidential square feet? 5. What future growth is expected in each District and the entire County? How many residential households and nonresidential buildings will the each district and County service serve next year? In five years? In ten years? 6. What new capital improvements are required to serve future growth while maintaining the current level of service? For example, how many new fire stations will be needed by a certain fire district in ten years to maintain the current level of service provided by the District? 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new infrastructure? We calculated an apportionment of new infrastructure costs to future residential and nonresidential landuses for each department. Then, using this distribution, the full cost recovery impact fees were determined. Addressing these seven questions, in order, provides the most effective and logical way to calculate impact fees for each district and County service. In addition, these seven steps satisfy and follow the regulations set forth earlier in this section. GRUM Analysis For each of the districts and County services, as in any local government, not all capital costs are associated with growth. Some capital costs are for repair and replacement of facilities e.g., standard periodic investment in existing facilities such as paving and roofing. These costs are not impact fee eligible. Some capital costs are for betterment of facilities, or implementation of new services (e.g., development of an expanded training facility). These costs are generally not entirely impact fee eligible. Some costs are for expansion of facilities to accommodate new development at the current level of service (e.g., purchase of new fire station to accommodate expanding population). These costs are impact fee eligible. Because there are different reasons why each district and County service invests in capital projects, the study team conducted a GRUM analysis on all projects listed in each CIP: BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 8

10 Growth. The G in GRUM stands for growth. To determine if a project is solely related to growth, we ask Is this project designed to maintain the current level of service as growth occurs? and Would the district or County service still need this capital project if it weren t growing at all? G projects are only necessary to maintain each district or County service s current level of service as growth occurs. It is thus appropriate to include 100 percent of their cost in the impact fee calculations. Repair & Replacement. The R in GRUM stands for repair & replacement. We ask, Is this project related only to fixing existing infrastructure? and Would the district or County service still need it if it weren t growing at all? R projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. Upgrade. The U in GRUM stands for upgrade. We ask, Would this project improve the district or County service s current level of service? and Would the district or County service still do it even if it weren t growing at all? U projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. Mixed. The M in GRUM stands for mixed. It is reserved for capital projects that have some combination of G, R and U. M projects by their very definition are partially necessitated by growth, but also include an element of repair, replacement and/or upgrade. In this instance, a cost amount between 0 and 100 percent should be included in the fee calculations. Although the need for these projects is triggered by new development, they will also benefit existing residents. Projects that are 100 percent growthrelated were determined by our study to be necessitated solely by growth. Alternatively, some projects were determined to be mixed, with some aspects of growth and others aspects of repair and replacement. In these situations, only a portion of the total cost of each project was included in the final impact fee calculation. This portion represented the incremental increase in land uses from 2008 to 2017 for each district and County service. It should be understood that growth is expected to be paying only a portion of the cost of capital improvements that are only partially growthrelated. The County and districts will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of these partially growthrelated capital improvements with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent. As discussed later in this report, the value of this district and County participation investment is approximately $167.8 million over the next ten years. This investment includes approximately $116.7 million of discretionary funding in connection with purely nongrowthrelated improvements, and approximately $51.1 million of capital improvements, portions of which are not growthrelated and therefore must be funded from the County s BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 9

11 General Funds. 28 These funds could come from County revenues, donations, grants or other partnerships. Exhibits found in Sections III through XVIII of this report detail all capital improvements planned for purchase over the next ten years by each district and County service. Mechanics of Highway District Fee Calculations In this report, the allocation of assets to residential and nonresidential development is accomplished using two methods. Unlike fire district and County service fee calculations in which fees are calculated generally for residential units and nonresidential square feet, highway district fees are calculated for specific nonresidential land uses based on street and facility usages generated by specific land use type. To calculate this distribution, trip generation figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual Sixth Edition are considered. The trip generation figures estimate the number of p.m. peak hour trips generated by particular land uses. Peak hour trips are appropriate for this calculation because street infrastructure is sized according to the expected peak. Since peak hour trips will be used to distribute infrastructure costs, peak hour estimates should be employed. Exhibit I1 below presents trip generation figures for the land uses in each highway district. Exhibit I1. Trip Generation Rates by Land Use Category LandUse Category Trip Generation Relative Weighting Note: (1) Reflects weekday traffic generation patterns, weekday p.m. peak hour trip rate formula. (2) Reflects average of office park and shopping center weekday p.m. peak hour trip rate formula. (3) Reflects general light industrial, weekday p.m. peak hour trip rate formula. Source: International Transportation Engineering Trip Generation Manual Sixth Edition. Residential (1) 1.02 Nonresidential 1,000 Commercial square feet (2) ,000 Industrial square feet (3) 1.08 Using the trip generation figures from Exhibit I1 and projected development in each highway district found in Section II, total trips are then attributed to each land use. For nonresidential development, the Trip Generation Manual reports trips per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space. Therefore, after applying the weights to each nonresidential category, all square footages are divided by 1,000. After calculating trip totals for residential and nonresidential development, trips are distributed on a percentage basis among different land uses. These calculations will be made specifically for each highway district later in this report. 28 Please note that every District and County Department has verbally assured the advisory committee that they can afford to pay their share of the $51.1 million in required spending to ensure every CIP remains intact. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 10

12 Levels of Service and Fee Differentials Due to the varying demands of the service populations for each fire and highway district and Countywide County service, the levels of service and capital needed to maintain that level of service may differ substantially. As a result, some district s impact fees may be significantly higher than those of a neighboring district. This does not indicate that one district is benefitting more from impact fees than another; it simply illustrates the different levels of service provided by each individual fire and highway district and Countywide service. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Kootenai County Commissioner Todd Tondee and Senior Planner Cheri Howell for serving as our project liaisons to all the districts and County departments. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 11

13 Section II. Kootenai County Land Uses As noted in Section I, it was necessary to allocate capital improvement costs to both residential and nonresidential development when calculating impact fees. The study team performed this allocation based on the number of projected new households and nonresidential square footage added from 2008 through 2017 for each fire district, highway district and the entire County. These projections were based on demographic research performed by Jim Stravens of JP Stravens & Associates, as well as input from each individual district. A report summarizing this research can be found in Appendix A of this report. Demographic and landuse projections are some of the most variable and potentially debatable components of an impact fee study, and in all likelihood the projections used in our study will not prove to be 100 percent correct. However, as each CIP is tied to the District or County s landuse growth, the CIP and resulting fees can be revised based on actual growth as it occurs. In other words, even if our projections are wrong, the CIP and impact fees can be updated to correctly reflect actual growth. Excluding individual projections provided by certain districts (East Side, Mica Kidd, Worley and Spirit Lake Fire Districts), we have chosen to use data provided by JP Stravens and Associates for the following reasons: JP Stravens is a local company that can personally audit their projections; JP Stravens data is based on local building permits; The company is wellrespected in the County and has been in operation for over 25 years; The company has been previously hired by many of the districts found in this study; JP Stravens has the ability to carve out each individual district, as well as Native American reservations and portions outside the County, from the larger Kootenai County database; and, The company can provide us with commercial data projections as well. The following Exhibit II1 presents a map detailing the boundaries of the eight fire districts (East Side, Kootenai County Fire and Rescue, Mica Kidd, Northern lakes, Shoshone #2, Spirit Lake, Timberlake and Worley) participating in the study. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 12

14 Exhibit II1. Map of Fire Districts, Kootenai County, 2008 Source: JP Stravens & Associates. As seen above, three of the fire districts (Spirit Lake, Timberlake and Shoshone #2) extend into neighboring Shoshone and Bonner Counties. These districts will need to develop intergovernmental agreements with the appropriate County to ensure collection of impact fees throughout their entire district. The following Exhibit II2 presents a map detailing the boundaries of the four Highway Districts (East Side, Lakes, Post Falls and Worley) participating in the study. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 13

15 Exhibit II2. Map of Highway Districts, Kootenai County, 2008 Source: JP Stravens & Associates. As shown above, the four highway districts cover the entire land area of Kootenai County. The following two exhibits present population and land use data for Kootenai County. Please note that we have removed all residents and land uses found within the Coeur d Alene Native American Reservation. Construction within the Reservation does not require a BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 14

16 Countyissued building permit and any impact fee for such construction would have to be assessed by the Reservation government. Exhibit II3. Kootenai County Population Total Persons Total Population (1) Growth Percentage Growth Population 142, ,339 60,476 30% Note: (1) Based on Fastpaced growth scenario. We have removed all residents from the Coeur d Alene Native American Reservation from our estimates. Source: JP Stravens & Associates. As shown above, the population of Kootenai County is expected to grow by approximately 60,500 persons over the next ten years. This equates to an annual growth rate of 3.04 percent. Total population for Kootenai County in 2017 is expected to be 203,339 persons. Exhibit II4 below summarizes the current and projected residential and nonresidential land uses for Kootenai County. Exhibit II4. Kootenai County Land Uses Note: (1) Based on Fastpaced growth scenario. (2) Based on assumed 2,110 square feet per residential unit from National Association of Homebuilders 5year trailing average for square footage. Total Units or Square Feet Total Square (1) Footage Growth Distribution Residential Units (2) 60,527 80,431 41,996,696 64% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 65,448,881 89,515,227 24,066,346 36% Total 66,063, % Source: National Association of Homebuilders, Characteristics of New Singlefamily Homes ( ) and JP Stravens & Associates. Kootenai County is expected to add approximately 19,900 residential units over the next ten years. This equates to an increase of 33 percent, or an annual increase of 3.3 percent. The total nonresidential square footage found within Kootenai County is expected to increase by approximately 24.1 million square feet to a total of 89.5 million square feet by BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 15

17 The following Exhibit II5 displays the current and projected land uses found within each of the eight Fire Districts. Exhibit II5. Kootenai County Fire Districts Land Uses Fire District Total Units or Square Feet Total Square (1) Footage Growth Distribution East Side Residential Units (2) 1,253 2,892 3,458,290 86% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 304, , ,971 14% Total 3,999, % Kootenai County Fire and Rescue Residential Units (2) 16,660 23,712 14,879,720 81% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 35,638,614 39,202,475 3,563,861 19% Total 18,443, % Mica Kidd Island Residential Units (2) 788 1,388 1,266, % Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 12,000 15,518 3,518 0% Total 1,269, % Northern Lakes Residential Units (2) 14,770 21,022 13,191,720 78% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 15,276,492 19,095,615 3,819,123 22% Total 17,010, % Shoshone #2 Residential Units (2) ,670 97% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 32,670 39,076 6,406 3% Total 211, % Spirit Lake Residential Units (2) 3,608 5,608 4,220,000 91% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 970,000 1,372, ,140 9% Total 4,622, % Timberlake Residential Units (2) 3,104 4,493 2,930,790 86% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 1,044,694 1,512, ,487 14% Total 3,398, % Worley Residential Units (2) 1,923 2,935 2,135,320 92% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 431, , ,000 8% Total 2,316, % Note: (1) Based on Fastpaced growth scenario. (2) Based on assumed 2,110 square feet per residential unit from National Association of Homebuilders 5year trailing average for square footage. Shoshone #2 data represents 5 percent of total housing units and nonresidential square feet (the portion of service population found in Kootenai County). Data for East Side, Worley, Mica Kidd and Spirit Lake Fire Districts provided by each district. JP Stravens & Associates data was used in combination with locally provided data. Source: JP Stravens & Associates. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 16

18 As shown above, each of the fire districts is expected to grow from 2008 to 2017, some at faster rates than others. The largest growth is expected to occur in the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District: by 2017, the district will increase by approximately 7,000 residential units and 3.5 million square feet of nonresidential land use. We have also calculated the percentage of total growth contributed by residential and nonresidential land uses for each district. For example, 92 percent of total growth within the Worley Fire is attributable to new residential dwelling units; the remaining eight percent is attributable to new nonresidential square feet. These percentages are found in the farright column of Exhibit II5 and will be used when we calculate impact fees for each district. Exhibit II6 below displays the expected land use growth for each highway district from 2008 to BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 17

19 Exhibit II6. Kootenai County Highway Districts Land Uses Land Area Total Units or Square Feet Total Square (1) Footage Growth Distribution East Side Residential Units (2) 6,976 8,337 2,871,035 86% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. Commercial 2,316,956 2,768, ,903 14% Industrial 60,548 72,358 11,809 0% Total 3,334, % Lakes Residential Units (2) 27,522 35,910 17,698,612 73% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. Commercial 14,450,140 18,854,155 4,404,015 18% Industrial 7,363,382 9,607,544 2,244,161 9% Total 24,346, % Post Falls Residential Units (2) 22,246 31,663 19,869,870 55% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. Commercial 21,585,722 30,723,219 9,137,497 25% Industrial 17,435,326 24,815,909 7,380,584 20% Total 36,387, % Worley Residential Units (2) 3,783 4,521 1,557,180 78% Nonresidential Sq. Ft. Commercial 2,027,718 2,423, ,586 20% Industrial 209, ,879 40,791 2% Total 1,993, % Note: (1) Based on Fastpaced growth scenario. (2) Based on assumed 2,110 square feet per residential unit from National Association of Homebuilders 5year trailing average for square footage. Data for Lakes Highway District currently under consideration and may potentially change in the future. Source: JP Stravens & Associates. As noted in Section I, impact fees for each highway district are based on specific nonresidential land uses. Therefore, we have distributed nonresidential square footage between commercial and industrial land uses for each district. The Post Falls Highway District is expected to grow the most in the next ten years. By 2017, the district is expected to increase by approximately 7,000 residential units and 18.4 million nonresidential square feet. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 18

20 Section III. East Side Fire Protection District In this section we calculate impact fees for the East Side Fire Protection District following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the East Side Fire Protection District? As shown in Exhibit II5, the East Side Fire Protection District currently serves 1,253 residential units and approximately 304,920 square feet of nonresidential land use. 2. What is the current level of service provided by the East Side Fire Protection District? The East Side Fire Protection District currently provides a level of service of four minutes to in route, 14 minutes to on scene. 3. What current assets allow the East Side Fire Protection District to provide this level of service? The following Exhibit III1 displays the current assets of the East Side Fire Protection District. Exhibit III1. Current Assets East Side Fire Protection District Square Replacement Equity Shared Facility Amount to Type of Capital Infrastructure Feet Acreage Value times % times (% in fee) equals Include in Fee Calculations Facilities FS #1 2, $ 420, ,000 FS #2 equipment only $ 30, ,000 FS #3 2,100 0 $ 220, ,000 Apparatus/Vehicles 3 Engines $ 900,000 87% 100% $ 783,000 3 Brush Trucks $ 258, ,000 1 Fire Boat $ 150, ,000 3 Command Vehicles $ 39, ,000 1 Foam Trailer $ 1, ,500 3 Tenders $ 450,000 Equipment SCBAs (25) $ 112, ,500 Extrication Equipment $ 30, ,000 Base Radios $ 2, ,800 Cascade System $ 3, ,000 Total Infrastructure $ 2,616,800 $ 2,049,800 Plus Cost of FeeRelated Research Impact Fee Study $ 7, ,000 Grand Total $ 2,623,800 $ 2,056,800 Source: Galena Consulting interview with the Eastside Fire Protection District, October BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 19

21 As shown above, the East Side Fire Protection District currently owns approximately $2.1 million of impact fee eligible current assets. These assets are used to provide the District s current level of service. 4. What is the current investment per residential unit and nonresidential square foot? The East Side Fire Protection District currently invests $1,472 per residential unit and $0.70 per nonresidential square foot in order to provide the current level of service. This figure is derived by allocating the value of the District s current assets between the current number of residential units and nonresidential square feet. It will be compared to the impact fees calculated below. 5. What future growth is expected in the East Side Fire Protection District? As shown in Exhibit II5, the East Side Fire Protection District is expected to grow by 1,639 residential units and 540,971 square feet of nonresidential land use over the next ten years. 6. What new capital improvements are required to serve future growth while maintaining the current level of service? The following Exhibit III2 displays the capital improvements planned for purchase by the East Side Fire Protection District over the next ten years. Exhibit III2. East Side Fire Protection District CIP Square CIP Growth Shared Facility Amount to Type of Capital Infrastructure Feet Value times Portion times (% in fee) equals Include in Fees Facilities FS#4 Chateau Substation 4,000 $ 400, ,000 FS#5 Powderhorn 4,000 $ 800, ,000 1 station living quarters addition 2,500 $ 80,000 75% 100% $ 60,000 $ Vehicles 1 Engine $ 275, ,000 QRU Vehicle $ 50, ,000 1 Fire Boat upgrade $ 190,000 1 Command Vehicle replace $ 40,000 1 Brush Truck replace $ 130,000 3 Tenders Replace Dept of Lands vehicles $ 450,000 0% 100% Equipment 3 Thermal Imaging Cameras $ 24, ,000 Total Infrastructure $ 2,439,000 $ 1,572,000 Plus Cost of FeeRelated Research Impact Fee Study $ 7, ,000 Grand Total $ 2,446,000 $ 1,579,000 Source: Galena Consulting interview with the Eastside Fire Protection District, October As shown above, the District plans to fund approximately $2.5 million in capital improvements over the next ten years, $1.6 million of which is impact fee eligible. Of the remaining $417,000, the District will be required to pay approximately $57,000. These assets will allow the District to maintain its current level of service in the future. The BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 20

22 remaining $360,000 relates to the replacement of existing apparatus, and is a discretionary expenditure by the district. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital improvements? The following Exhibit III3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibit II5 and the growthrelated CIP from Exhibit III2 to calculate impact fees for the East Side Fire Protection District. Exhibit III3. East Side Fire Protection District Fee Calculation Note: (1) From Exhibit III2. (2) From Exhibit II5. (3) From Exhibit II5. Source: East Side Fire Protection District and Impact Fee Study Team. Impact Fee Calculation Allocated Value for Future Fire Capital Improvements (1) $ 1,579,000 Future District Land Use (2) Residential (in dwelling units) 86% Nonresidential (in square feet) 14% Value by Land Use Category Residential $ 1,365,412 Nonresidential $ 213,588 Future District Development (3) Residential (in dwelling units) 1,639 Nonresidential (in square feet) 540,971 Future Investment by District Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) $ 833 Nonresidential (in square feet) $ 0.39 As shown above, we have calculated fullcost recovery impact fees for the East Side Fire Protection District at $833 per residential unit and $0.39 per nonresidential square foot. The District cannot assess fees greater than this amount. The District can assess fees lower than this amount, but would then experience a decline in service levels unless other District revenues made up the difference. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 21

23 Section IV. Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District In this section we calculate impact fees for the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District? As shown in Exhibit II5, the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District currently serves 16,660 residential units and approximately 35.6 million square feet of nonresidential land use. 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District? The Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District currently provides a level of service of a sevenminute response time for all calls. 3. What current assets allow the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District to provide this level of service? The following Exhibit IV1 displays the current assets of the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 22

24 Exhibit IV1. Current Assets Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District Square Replacement Equity Shared Facility Type of Capital Infrastructure Feet Acreage Value times % times (% in fee) equals Amount to Include in Fee Calculations Facilities FS #1 11, $ 1,996, ,996,300 FS #2 7, $ 1,990, ,990,000 FS #3 7, $ 1,354, ,354,000 FS #4 7, $ 1,260, ,260,000 FS #6 2, $ 576, ,000 FS #8 3, $ 618, ,000 Administration 15, $ 3,290, ,290,000 Tullamore 2.07 $ 200, ,000 FS #5 1,600 $ 240, ,000 Boat House $ 375, % 50% $ 187,500 Apparatus/Vehicles 7 Engines $ 3,920, ,920,000 1 Aerial $ 1,000, ,000,000 5 Tenders $ 1,375, ,375,000 6 Brush Trucks $ 516, ,000 2 Rescue Trucks $ 1,200, ,200,000 1 Fire Boat $ 330, ,000 Miscellaneous Support Vehicles $ 624, ,000 Equipment SCBA's $ 308, ,000 Opticoms $ 152, ,000 Repeater $ 350, ,000 Radios $ 420, ,000 Total Infrastructure $ 22,094,300 $21,906,800 Plus Cost of FeeRelated Research Impact Fee Study $ 7, ,000 Grand Total $ 22,101,300 $ 21,913,800 Source: Galena Consulting interview with Chief Ron Sampert, October As shown above, the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District currently owns approximately $21.9 million of impact fee eligible current assets. These assets are used to provide the District s current level of service. 4. What is the current investment per residential unit and nonresidential square foot? The Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District currently invests $736 per residential unit and $0.72 per nonresidential square foot in order to provide the current level of service. This figure is derived by allocating the value of the District s current assets between the current number of residential units and nonresidential square feet. It will be compared to the impact fees calculated below. 5. What future growth is expected in the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District? As shown in Exhibit II5, the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District is expected to grow by 7,052 residential units and 3.6 million square feet of nonresidential land use over the next ten years. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 23

25 6. What new capital improvements are required to serve future growth while maintaining the current level of service? The following Exhibit IV2 displays the capital improvements planned for purchase by the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District over the next ten years. Exhibit IV2. Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District CIP Square CIP Growth Shared Facility Amount to Type of Capital Infrastructure Feet Value times Portion times (% in fee) equals Include in Fees Facilities New Station on the Prairie 9,704 $ 1,940, ,940,827 Addition to FS #2 and #3 3,750 $ 750, ,000 Relocation of FS #4 9,704 $ 1,940, ,414 Administration Facility 20,000 $ 4,000, ,000,000 Drill Grounds and Tower 8,750 $ 1,750, ,750,000 Burn Building 2,000 $ 400, ,000 Maintenance Shop 5,500 $ 1,100, ,000 Storage Building 13,000 $ 300, ,000 Miscellaneous Training Props 10,000 $ 200, ,000 Physical Fitness Facility 15,000 $ 3,000, ,500,000 Arrow point station addition 5,190 $ 1,037, ,037,913 Vehicles 1 Ladder Truck $ 1,000, ,000,000 1 Engine $ 600, ,000 1 Tender $ 260, ,000 1 Air & Light Vehicle $ 600, ,000 1 Brush Truck $ 80, ,000 Miscellaneous Support Vehicles $ 170, ,000 Fire Prevention Trailer $ 30, ,000 ATV/Rescue Sled $ 25, ,500 6X6 Tender $ 300, ,000 3 Engines Replaced $ 1,000,000 1 Tender Replaced $ 260,000 2 Brush Trucks Replaced $ 160,000 1 Fire Boat Upgrade $ 300, ,000 Replacement of Current Existing Support Vehicles $ 330,000 Equipment 14 Additional SCBAs $ 49, , Upgraded SCBA x $3500 $ 308, New Portable Radios $ 60, , Upgraded Radios to 700 MHZ $ 150, , Upgraded Pagers $ 54, ,200 Mobile Generator $ 30, ,000 Replacement of Existing Equipment $ 366,000 Total Infrastructure $ 22,551,567 $ 14,146,854 Plus Cost of FeeRelated Research Impact Fee Study $ 7, ,000 Grand Total $ 22,558,567 $ 14,153,854 Source: Galena Consulting interview with Chief Ron Sampert, October As shown above, the District plans to fund approximately $22.6 million in capital improvements over the next ten years, $14.1 million of which is impact fee eligible. Of the remaining $8.4 million, the District will be required to pay approximately $6.0 million. These assets will allow the District to maintain its current level of service in the future. The remaining $2.4 million relates to the replacement of existing apparatus, and is a discretionary expenditure by the district. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 24

26 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital improvements? The following Exhibit IV3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibit II5 and the growthrelated CIP from Exhibit IV2 to calculate impact fees for the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District. Exhibit IV3. Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District Fee Calculation Note: (1) From Exhibit IV2. (2) From Exhibit II5. (3) From Exhibit II5. Source: Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District and Impact Fee Study Team. Impact Fee Calculation Allocated Value for Future Fire Capital Improvements (1) $ 14,153,854 Future District Land Use (2) Residential (in dwelling units) 81% Nonresidential (in square feet) 19% Value by Land Use Category Residential $ 11,418,898 Nonresidential $ 2,734,955 Future City Development (3) Residential (in dwelling units) 7,052 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,563,861 Future Investment by City Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) $ 1,619 Nonresidential (in square feet) $ 0.77 As shown above, we have calculated full costrecovery impact fees for the Kootenai County Fire and Rescue District at $1,619 per residential unit and $0.77 per nonresidential square foot. The District cannot assess fees greater than this amount. The District can assess fees lower than this amount, but would then experience a decline in service levels unless other District revenues made up the difference. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL DRAFT REPORT PAGE 25