HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Clerk - Administration and Management Records - Organizational Reporting Records (16)
Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure
Improvements Plan and
Development Fee Report
Prepared for:
City of Glendale, Arizona
September 24, 2019
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240
Bethesda, MD
301.320.6900
www.tischlerbise.com
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1
ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION .................................................................. 1
Necessary Public Services ..................................................................................................... 1
Infrastructure Improvements Plan .......................................................................................... 2
Qualified Professionals .......................................................................................................... 2
Conceptual Development Fee Calculation ............................................................................. 3
Evaluation of Credits/Offsets .................................................................................................. 3
DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT ......................................................................................... 4
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1: Recommended Calculation Methodologies ......................................................................................... 5
Rounding ................................................................................................................................ 5
SERVICE AREAS .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Current Development Fee Service Areas ............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3: Proposed Development Fee Service Areas ........................................................................................ 7
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Current Utility Development Fees ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 5: Current Residential Non-Utility Development Fees ............................................................................. 8
Figure 6: Current Nonresidential Non-Utility Development Fees ........................................................................ 9
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................................. 9
Figure 7: Utility Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) ........................................... 10
Figure 8: Residential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) .................................. 10
Figure 9: Nonresidential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) ............................ 11
Figure 10: Single-Family Unit All Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) .............. 12
PARKS AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...................... 13
Service Area ......................................................................................................................... 13
Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 13
Figure PR1: Daytime Population in 2015 .......................................................................................................... 14
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ..................................................................... 14
Figure PR2: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit .............................. 15
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ............................. 15
Park Land ............................................................................................................................. 15
Figure PR3: Park Land Inventory and Level of Service Standards ................................................................. 16
Park Amenities and Improvements – Incremental Expansion .............................................. 16
Figure PR4: Park Amenities Inventory and Level of Service Standards ........................................................... 17
Recreational Facilities – Incremental Expansion ................................................................. 17
Figure PR5: Recreational Facilities Inventory Summary and Level of Service Standards ............................... 18
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 18
Figure PR6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation .................................................................................... 19
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ...................................................................... 19
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
iii
Figure PR7: Projected Demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities ............................................................. 20
Figure PR8: Necessary Parks & Recreational Improvements and Expansions .............................................. 21
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ...................................................... 21
Revenue Credit/Offset .......................................................................................................... 21
Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees ......................................... 21
Figure PR9: Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees ................................................. 22
FORECAST OF REVENUES .......................................................................................................... 22
Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue ............................................ 22
Figure PR10: Projected Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue ................................. 23
LIBRARY FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................... 24
Service Area ......................................................................................................................... 24
Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 24
Figure L1: Daytime Population in 2015 ............................................................................................................. 25
RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ....................................................................... 25
Figure L2: Library Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ........................................................... 25
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ............................. 26
Library Facilities – Incremental Expansion ........................................................................... 26
Figure L3: Library Facilities Summary and Level of Service Standards ........................................................... 27
Development Fee Report – Plan Based ............................................................................... 27
Figure L4: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ....................................................................................... 27
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ...................................................................... 28
Figure L5: Projected Demand for Library Facilities ........................................................................................... 28
Figure L6: Necessary Library Improvements and Expansions ........................................................................ 29
LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................................... 29
Revenue Credit/Offset .......................................................................................................... 29
Proposed Library Development Fees ................................................................................... 29
Figure L7: Proposed Library Facilities Development Fees .............................................................................. 30
FORECAST OF REVENUES .......................................................................................................... 30
Library Development Fee Revenue ..................................................................................... 30
Figure L8: Projected Library Development Fee Revenue ................................................................................ 31
POLICE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN .................................. 32
Service Area ......................................................................................................................... 32
Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 32
Figure P1: Police Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 33
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ................................................................... 33
Figure P2: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ............................................................ 34
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ............................. 35
Police Facilities – Incremental Expansion ............................................................................ 35
Figure P3: Police Facilities and Level of Service Standards ............................................................................ 36
Police Vehicles and Equipment – Incremental Expansion ................................................... 36
Figure P4: Police Vehicles and Equipment Inventory and Level of Service Standards .................................... 37
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 37
Figure P5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ....................................................................................... 38
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
iv
PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES ....................................... 38
Figure P6: Projected Demand for Police Facilities .......................................................................................... 39
Figure P7: Necessary Police Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total) .................................................... 40
POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES .................................................................................... 40
Revenue Credit/Offset .......................................................................................................... 40
Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................... 40
Figure P8: Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees ............................................................................... 41
FORECAST OF REVENUES .......................................................................................................... 41
Development Fee Revenues for Police Facilities and Vehicles & Equipment ..................... 41
Figure P9: Projected Police Development Fee Revenue ................................................................................ 42
FIRE FACILITIES INRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ......................................... 43
Service Area ......................................................................................................................... 43
Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 43
Figure F1: Fire Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................. 44
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ................................................................... 44
Figure F2: Nonresidential Vehicle Trips ............................................................................................................ 45
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ............................. 46
Fire Facilities – Incremental Expansion ............................................................................... 46
Figure F3: Fire Facilities Inventory and Level of Service Standards ................................................................ 47
Fire Apparatus – Incremental Expansion ............................................................................. 47
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 49
Figure F5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ....................................................................................... 49
PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES ....................................... 49
Figure F6: Projected Demand for Fire Facilities .............................................................................................. 50
Figure F7: Necessary Fire Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total) ........................................................ 50
FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ........................................................................................ 51
Revenue Credit/Offset .......................................................................................................... 51
Proposed Fire Facilities Development Fees ........................................................................ 51
Figure F8: Proposed Fire Facilities Development Fees ................................................................................... 51
FORECAST OF REVENUES .......................................................................................................... 51
Development Fee Revenues for Fire Facilities .................................................................... 51
Figure F9: Projected Fire Facilities Development Fee Revenue ..................................................................... 52
STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................. 53
Service Area ......................................................................................................................... 53
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 54
Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 54
RATIO OF SERIVCE UNITS TO LAND USE ..................................................................................... 54
Service Units ........................................................................................................................ 54
Figure S1: Summary of Service Units ............................................................................................................... 54
Trip Generation Rates .......................................................................................................... 54
Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-By Trips .................................................... 55
Figure S2: Inflow/Outflow Analysis ................................................................................................................... 55
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ............................. 56
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
v
Figure S3: Arterial Road Network Capacity and Usage .................................................................................... 56
Cost per VMT ....................................................................................................................... 56
Figure S4: Potential Street Facilities Improvement Projects and Costs ........................................................... 57
Figure S5: Cost per VMT Factors ..................................................................................................................... 57
Vehicle Trips ........................................................................................................................ 57
Figure S6: Vehicle Trips ................................................................................................................................... 58
Average Trip Length ............................................................................................................. 58
Figure S7: National Average Trip Lengths ........................................................................................................ 58
Figure S8. Expected VMT in the City of Glendale ............................................................................................ 59
Figure S9. Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor .............................................................................................. 59
Figure S10. Local Average Trip Lengths by Land Use ..................................................................................... 59
Figure S11. VMT per Service Unit on Arterial Network .................................................................................... 60
SERVICE UNITS, DEMAND, AND COST FOR SERVICES ................................................................. 60
Travel Demand Model .......................................................................................................... 60
Figure S12: Projected Travel Demand Model ................................................................................................... 61
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 61
Figure S13: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ..................................................................................... 61
STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................... 62
Revenue Credit/Offset .......................................................................................................... 62
Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................... 62
Figure S14: Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees .............................................................................. 62
Figure S15: Proposed and Existing Fees Comparison ..................................................................................... 63
PROJECTED STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE .................................................. 63
Figure S16: Projected Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue (East Service Area only) ........................ 64
WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN .................................. 65
Service Area ......................................................................................................................... 65
Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 65
RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ....................................................................... 65
Figure W1: Water Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit .......................................................................... 66
Water Facilities Level of Service Standards ......................................................................... 66
Figure W2: Water Facilities Level of Service Standards .................................................................................. 67
Figure W3: Future Projections of Required Water Consumption ...................................................................... 68
Water Treatment Plants – Cost Recovery ............................................................................ 68
Figure W4: Water Treatment Plan Cost Recovery .......................................................................................... 69
Water Supply – Plan-Based ................................................................................................. 69
Figure W5: Water Supply Lease Purchase Cost and Capacity Factors .......................................................... 69
New Water Wells – Plan-Based ........................................................................................... 69
Figure W6: New Water Wells Cost and Capacity Factors ................................................................................ 70
Water Line Extensions/Oversizing – Plan-Based ................................................................. 70
Figure W7: Water Line Extensions/Oversizing Cost and Capacity Factors ...................................................... 70
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 70
Figure W8: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ...................................................................................... 71
WATER DEVELOPMENT FEE ....................................................................................................... 71
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
vi
Revenue Credit/Offset .......................................................................................................... 71
Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................... 71
Figure W9: Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees .............................................................................. 72
FORECAST OF REVENUES .......................................................................................................... 72
Development Fee Revenues for Water Facilities ................................................................. 72
Figure W10: Projected Water Facilities Development Fee Revenue ................................................................ 73
WASTEWATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...................... 74
Service Area ......................................................................................................................... 74
Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 74
RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT ....................................................................... 74
Figure WW1: Wastewater Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ............................................................. 75
Wastewater Facilities Level of Service Standards ............................................................... 75
Figure WW2: Wastewater Facilities Level of Service Standards ..................................................................... 76
Figure WW3: Future Projections of Required Wastewater Production ............................................................. 77
Wastewater Treatment Plants – Cost Recovery .................................................................. 77
Figure WW4: Wastewater Treatment Facility Cost Recovery .......................................................................... 78
Wastewater Line Extensions/Oversizing – Plan-Based ....................................................... 78
Figure WW5: Wastewater Line Extensions/Oversizing Cost and Capacity Factors ........................................ 78
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 78
Figure WW6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ................................................................................... 79
WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT FEE ............................................................................................ 79
Revenue Credit/Offset .......................................................................................................... 79
Proposed Wastewater Facilities Development Fees ............................................................ 79
Figure WW7: Proposed Wastewater Facilities Development Fees ................................................................. 80
FORECAST OF REVENUES .......................................................................................................... 80
Development Fee Revenues for Wastewater Facilities ....................................................... 80
Figure WW8: Projected Wastewater Facilities Development Fee Revenue ..................................................... 81
APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................... 82
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 82
SERVICE AREAS ........................................................................................................................ 82
Figure A1: Current Development Fee Service Areas ....................................................................................... 83
Figure A2: Proposed Development Fee Service Areas .................................................................................... 84
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 84
Persons per Housing Unit .................................................................................................... 85
Figure A3: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing ........................................................................ 85
Current Residential Estimates .............................................................................................. 85
Figure A4: Glendale Population and Housing Estimates for 2015 and 2030 .................................................... 86
Figure A5: Recent Residential Permits by Fiscal Year .................................................................................... 86
Residential Projections ......................................................................................................... 86
Figure A6: Glendale Residential Development Projections .............................................................................. 87
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 87
Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development ...................................................................... 87
Figure A7: Glendale Jobs Estimates for 2015 and 2030 ................................................................................. 88
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
vii
Figure A8: Glendale Job Projections by Service Area ..................................................................................... 88
Nonresidential Floor Area by Type of Development ............................................................ 89
Figure A9: 2018 Jobs and Floor Area Estimates ............................................................................................. 89
Figure A10: Glendale Nonresidential Floor Area Projections by Service Area ................................................ 90
Figure A11: ITE Employee and Trip Generation Ratios .................................................................................. 91
SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS .......................................................................................... 91
Figure A12: Municipal Planning Area Projections and Growth Rates .............................................................. 92
APPENDIX B: FORECAST OF REVENUES .................................................................... 93
Figure B1: Five-Year Revenue Projections ...................................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX C: ARTERIAL STREET SEGMENTS INVENTORY ........................................ 94
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
1
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale hired TischlerBise to document land use assumptions, prepare an Infrastructure
Improvements Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “IIP”), and update development fees pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-436.05 (hereinafter referred to as the “Enabling Legislation”).
Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality for
necessary public services. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure Improvements Plan
and Land Use Assumptions. The IIPs for each type of infrastructure are located in each infrastructure
type’s corresponding section, and the Land Use Assumptions can be found in Appendix A. The proposed
development fees are displayed in the Development Fee Report chapter.
Development fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to
accommodate new development. The fee represents future development’s proportionate share of
infrastructure costs. Development fees may be used for infrastructure improvements or debt service for
growth related infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, development fees may not be used for
operations, maintenance, replacement, or correcting existing deficiencies.
This update of the City’s Infrastructure Improvements Plan and associated update to its development fees
includes the following necessary public services:
• Parks and Recreational Facilities
• Library Facilities
• Police Facilities
• Fire Facilities
• Streets and Roadway Infrastructure
• Water Facilities
• Wastewater Facilities
This plan also includes all necessary elements required to be in full compliance with Arizona Revised
Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-436.05 (SB 1525). It should be noted that this Infrastructure Improvements Plan and
Development Fee study does not include storm water, drainage or flood control facilities.
ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION
The Enabling Legislation governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Arizona.
Necessary Public Services
Under the requirements of the Enabling Legislation, development fees may only be used for construction,
acquisition or expansion of public facilities that are necessary public services. “Necessary public service”
means any of the following categories of facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and
that are owned and operated on behalf of the municipality: water, wastewater, storm water, drainage,
flood control, library, streets, fire and police, and neighborhood parks and recreation. Additionally, a
necessary public service includes any facility, not included in the aforementioned categories (e.g., general
government facilities), that was financed before June 1, 2011 and that meets the following requirements:
1. Development fees were pledged to repay debt service obligations related to the construction of
the facility.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
2
2. After August 1, 2014, any development fees collected are used solely for the payment of principal
and interest on the portion of the bonds, notes, or other debt service obligations issued before
June 1, 2011 to finance construction of the facility.
Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Development fees must be calculated pursuant to an IIP. For each necessary public service that is the
subject of a development fee, by law, the IIP shall include the following seven elements:
• A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to update,
improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and
usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.
• An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity
of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals
licensed in this state, as applicable.
• A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
Land Use Assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.
• A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.
• The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.
• The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed 10 years.
• A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall
include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem
property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion
of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and a
plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the
development.
Qualified Professionals
The IIP must be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning
practices. A qualified professional is defined as “a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst or
planner providing services within the scope of the person’s license, education, or experience.” TischlerBise
is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in the cost of growth services and is licensed
to do business in Arizona. Our services include development fees, fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure
financing analyses, user fee/cost of service studies, capital improvement plans, and fiscal software.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
3
TischlerBise has prepared over 900 development fee studies over the past 40 years for local governments
across the United States.
Conceptual Development Fee Calculation
In contrast to project-level improvements, development fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will
benefit multiple development projects, or the entire service area (usually referred to as system
improvements). The first step is to determine an appropriate demand indicator for the particular type of
infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of service units for each unit of development.
For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population growth and the increase in
population can be estimated from the average number of persons per housing unit. The second step in
the development fee formula is to determine infrastructure improvement units per service unit, typically
called Level of Service standards, sometimes referred to as LOS. In keeping with the park example, a
common LOS standard is improved park acres per thousand people. The third step in the development
fee formula is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the
formula would establish a cost per acre for land acquisition and/ or park improvements.
Evaluation of Credits/Offsets
Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of credits/offsets is integral to the development of a
legally defensible development fee. There are two types of credits/offsets that should be addressed in
development fee studies and ordinances. The first is a revenue credit/offset due to possible double
payment situations, which could occur when other revenues may contribute to the capital costs of
infrastructure covered by the development fee. This type of credit/offset is integrated into the fee
calculation, thus reducing the fee amount. The second is a site-specific credit or developer reimbursement
for dedication of land or construction of system improvements. This type of credit is addressed in the
administration and implementation of the development fee program. For ease of administration,
TischlerBise normally recommends developer reimbursements for system improvements.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
4
DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT
METHODOLOGY
Development fees for the necessary public services made necessary by new development must be based
on the same level of service provided to existing development in the service area. There are three basic
methodologies used to calculate development fees. They examine the past, present, and future status of
infrastructure. The objective of evaluating these different methodologies is to determine the best
measure of the demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. Each method
has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation and can be used simultaneously for different
cost components. Additionally, development fees for public services can also include the cost of
professional services for preparing IIP’s and the related Development Fee report.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development fees involves two main steps: (1)
determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs
equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of development fees can
become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between
development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following paragraphs
discuss basic methods for calculating development fees and how those methods can be applied.
• Cost Recovery (past improvements) - The rationale for recoupment, often called cost recovery, is
that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities
already built, or land already purchased, from which new growth will benefit. This methodology
is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate capacity before new development
can take place.
• Incremental Expansion (concurrent improvements) - The incremental expansion method
documents current level of service standards for each type of public facility, using both
quantitative and qualitative measures. This approach assumes there are no existing infrastructure
deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its
proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. Revenue will be used to expand or provide
additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion
cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments to keep
pace with development.
• Plan-Based (future improvements) - The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of
improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified in a
long-range facility plan and development potential is identified by a land use plan. There are two
basic options for determining the cost per demand unit: (1) total cost of a public facility can be
divided by total demand units (average cost), or (2) the growth-share of the public facility cost
can be divided by the net increase in demand units over the planning timeframe (marginal cost).
A summary is provided in Figure 1 showing the methodology for each of the facility and fee study types,
as well as the service area and cost allocation method used to develop the IIP and calculate the
development fees.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
5
Figure 1: Recommended Calculation Methodologies
Rounding
A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted using Excel
software. Most results are discussed in the report using two, three, and four-digit places, which represent
rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places;
therefore, the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader
replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not
in the analysis).
SERVICE AREAS
ARS 9-63.05 defines “service area” as follows:
Any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by
necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists
between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as
prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan.
The City’s previous Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Study
recommended three services areas, shown below in Figure 2.
Category Cost Recovery
(past)
Incremental
Expansion (present)
Plan-Based
(future)Service Areas Cost Allocation
Libraries Library Facilities Fee Study Citywide Population, Jobs
Parks &
Recreation
Park Amenities,
Recreation Centers Fee Study Citywide Population, Jobs
Streets Arterial Lane Miles,
Signalized Intersections Fee Study East Glendale Vehicle Miles of
Travel
Police Police Stations, Vehicles
& Equipment Fee Study Citywide Population,
Vehicle Trips
Fire Fire Stations, Apparatus Fee Study Citywide Population,
Vehicle Trips
Water Water Treatment
Plants
Water Supply, Water
Wells, Line Extensions/
Oversizing, Fee Study
East Glendale Gallons
Wastewater Wastewater
Treatment Plants
Line Extensions/
Oversizing, Fee Study East Glendale Gallons
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
6
Figure 2: Current Development Fee Service Areas
Much of the land in Glendale west of 115th Avenue is undeveloped and has not yet been annexed by the
City. Additionally, any new development west of 115th Avenue is not expected to utilize the City’s water
and wastewater system; and, based on development activity since the previous study, the arterial streets
network in the 101 Loop and East areas shown on Figure 2 are comparable. As a result, the infrastructure
needed west of 115th Avenue to accommodate new development differs significantly when compared to
the area east of 115th Avenue. As a result of the development of the 101 Loop area since the previous
study and discussions with City staff regarding anticipated development patterns and infrastructure
needs, TischlerBise is recommending a number of changes to the Development Fee Service Areas as
proposed in Figure 3.
First and foremost, parks and recreation, libraries, police, and fire infrastructure are intended to serve the
entire City with a standard level of service as opposed to bounded districts or subareas. As an example,
referring to Figure 2, a new residential development in the 101 Loop area is still likely to utilize regional
park or library amenities located in the East area. Furthermore, police and fire infrastructure and
deployment changes over time based on migration patterns of people and is not necessarily restricted to
specific geographic sub-zones. As such, TischlerBise is recommending all fees for these categories be
assessed as a Citywide fee.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
7
The same, however, is not true for utilities and streets infrastructure. As previously mentioned, water
and wastewater infrastructure will only benefit development east of 115th Avenue. Additionally, because
the arterial street network west of 115th Avenue currently serves very little existing development, there
are large differences in service standards for street infrastructure between the two service areas. As a
result, TischlerBise recommends having 115th Avenue serve as the dividing line between just two service
areas for Utilities and Streets fee assessments. The effect is the consolidation of the 101 Loop and East
service areas in Figure 2 to create two service areas – East Glendale and West Glendale – as proposed in
Figure 3.
Figure 3: Proposed Development Fee Service Areas
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES
Glendale’s current development fees are shown below in Figures 4, 5, and 6. Demand for Utility services
is determined by consumption, which is driven by meter size regardless of development type; current
Utility fees are shown in Figure 4. Demand for all other non-utility services (parks & recreation, libraries,
police, fire, and streets) is driven by the intensity of the use on those particular services; therefore, fees
are assessed based on development type – Residential or Non-Residential; current non-utility fees are
shown in Figure 5 for Residential development and Figure 6 for Non-Residential development. It is worth
noting that there are currently no fees for Utilities or Residential development in the 303 Loop service
area.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
8
Figure 4: Current Utility Development Fees
Figure 5: Current Residential Non-Utility Development Fees
Type Parks &
Recreation Libraries Police Fire Streets Total Fee
Single Family Unit $909 $0 $339 $1,146 $1,551 $3,945
Multi-family Unit $517 $0 $193 $652 $865 $2,227
Type Parks &
Recreation Libraries Police Fire Streets Total Fee
Single Family Unit $909 $0 $339 $1,146 $3,522 $5,916
Multi-family Unit $517 $0 $193 $652 $1,963 $3,325
Type Parks &
Recreation Libraries Police Fire Streets Total Fee
All Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
East Glendale Residential Development Fees (per Housing Unit)
West 101 Glendale Residential Development Fees (per Housing Unit)
West 303 Glendale Residential Development Fees (per Housing Unit)
$2,761 $1,944 $4,705
$4,607 $3,243 $7,850
$9,183 $6,462 $15,645
$14,695 $10,341 $25,036
$29,413 $20,696 $50,109
$45,950 $32,331 $78,281
$91,867 $64,637 $156,504
$146,991 $103,420 $250,411
$0 $0 $0
East and West 101 Glendale Utility Fees (per meter), All Development Types
West 303 Glendale Utility Fees (per meter), All Development Types
All Meter Sizes
6.00
8.00
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
Meter Size (inches)Water Wastewater Total Fee
Meter Size (inches)Water Wastewater Total Fee
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
9
Figure 6: Current Nonresidential Non-Utility Development Fees
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES
The proposed fees are based on a policy-level concept that development fees should fund 100 percent of
growth-related infrastructure, therefore the fees shown below represent the maximum allowable fees.
Glendale may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown; however, a reduction in development fee
revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital improvements
and/or a decrease in Glendale’s level of service standards. All costs in the Development Fee Report are in
current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. If cost estimates change significantly over time,
development fees should be recalibrated.
Proposed development fees are shown below in Figures 7, 8, and 9. All tables show the proposed fee, the
current fee, the total dollar change, and the percent change. Proposed utility development fees for
Glendale are shown in Figure 7, as with the current fees, Utility development fees are assessed per meter
and there are no fees for the West Glendale service area.
All other non-utility services (parks & recreation, libraries, police, fire, and streets) are shown in Figures 8
and 9 based on Residential or Non-Residential development type. Development fees for Residential
development are assessed per dwelling unit, based on the type of unit. Nonresidential development fees
are assessed per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Industrial $23 $0 $12 $129 $308 $472
Commercial $43 $0 $99 $239 $2,210 $2,591
Institutional $30 $0 $36 $166 $883 $1,115
Office $101 $0 $39 $563 $957 $1,660
Industrial $23 $0 $12 $129 $701 $865
Commercial $43 $0 $99 $239 $5,017 $5,398
Institutional $30 $0 $36 $166 $2,005 $2,237
Office $101 $0 $39 $563 $2,172 $2,875
Industrial $0 $0 $12 $129 $1,154 $1,295
Commercial $0 $0 $99 $239 $8,260 $8,598
Institutional $0 $0 $36 $166 $3,301 $3,503
Office $0 $0 $39 $563 $3,575 $4,177
West 101 Glendale Nonresidential Development Fees (per 1,000 Square Feet)
West 303 Glendale Nonresidential Development Fees (per 1,000 Square Feet)
Streets Total Fee
Streets
Type Parks &
Recreation Libraries Police Fire
Total FeeTypeParks &
Recreation Libraries Police Fire
Type Parks &
Recreation Libraries Police Fire Streets Total Fee
East Glendale Nonresidential Development Fees (per 1,000 Square Feet)
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
10
Figure 7: Utility Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current)
Figure 8: Residential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current)
$2,923 $1,609 $4,532 $4,705 ($173)
$4,878 $2,684 $7,562 $7,850 ($288)
$9,722 $5,346 $15,068 $15,645 ($577)
$15,558 $8,553 $24,111 $25,036 ($925)
$31,139 $17,117 $48,256 $50,109 ($1,853)
$48,647 $26,739 $75,386 $78,281 ($2,895)
$97,259 $53,456 $150,715 $156,504 ($5,789)
$155,617 $85,530 $241,147 $250,411 ($9,264)
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Water Waste-
water
All Meter Sizes
Total Fee Current
Fee
ChangeWaste-
water Total Fee
Current FeesProposed East Glendale Utility Development Fees,
All Development Types (per Meter)
Water Current
FeeMeter Size (inches)
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
Proposed West Glendale Utility Development Fees,
All Development Types (per Meter)Current Fees
4.00
6.00
8.00
ChangeMeter Size (inches)
Single Family $936 $195 $719 $655 $3,635 $6,140 $3,945 $2,195 $5,916 $224
Multi-family $618 $129 $475 $433 $2,819 $4,474 $2,227 $2,247 $3,325 $1,149
Type Parks &
Rec.Libraries Police Fire Streets Total Fee
Current
West
303 Fee
Change
Single Family $936 $195 $719 $655 *$2,505 $0 $2,505
Multi-family $618 $129 $475 $433 *$1,655 $0 $1,655
Proposed East Glendale Residential Development Fees (per housing unit)
Proposed West Glendale Residential Development Fees (per housing unit)
Type Parks &
Rec.Libraries
* In West Glendale, the City intends to assess the impacts of development on streets and collect funds
for making necessary street improvements, as needed, on a case-by-case basis.
Current Fees
Current Fees
Change
Current
West
101 Fee
ChangePoliceFireStreetsTotal Fee Current
East Fee
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
11
Figure 9: Nonresidential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current)
Due to the present uncertainty of development intensity, timeliness, and annexation status of properties
in the West Glendale service area, it is recommended that growth-related transportation impacts be
addressed on a case-by-case basis as development occurs as represented by the asterisk in Figures 8 and
9. As an example, when a property is annexed and development plans are submitted to the city the
developer, as with current practice, will be responsible for all off-site street improvements adjacent to
the property. A traffic impact analysis or other agreed upon method will be utilized to determine any
additional impacts that the development is likely to have on other Street infrastructure (intersections or
other adjacent roadways). If adjacent improvements are needed at the time the development occurs, the
City may utilize a development agreement that will require the developer to construct the improvements
and/or agree to future mitigation measures if needed.
To demonstrate the impact of the proposed development fees, the example in Figure 10 below
contemplates all fees (Utility and Non-Utility) for a single-family unit, assuming a 0.75-inch water meter,
in both East and West Glendale.
Industrial $48 $9 $117 $106 $634 $914 $472 $442 $865 $49
Commercial $97 $19 $867 $789 $4,806 $6,578 $2,591 $3,987 $5,398 $1,180
Institutional $38 $7 $448 $408 $2,422 $3,323 $1,115 $2,208 $2,237 $1,086
Office $123 $24 $339 $308 $1,831 $2,625 $1,660 $965 $2,875 ($250)
Industrial $48 $9 $117 $106 *$280 $1,295 ($1,015)
Commercial $97 $19 $867 $789 *$1,772 $8,598 ($6,826)
Institutional $38 $7 $448 $408 *$901 $3,503 ($2,602)
Office $123 $24 $339 $308 *$794 $4,177 ($3,383)
Proposed East Glendale Nonresidential Development Fees (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)Current Fees
Fire Streets Total Fee
* In West Glendale, the City intends to assess the impacts of development on streets and collect funds
for making necessary street improvements, as needed, on a case-by-case basis.
Change
Current
West
303 Fee
Current
West
101 Fee
ChangeStreetsTotal Fee Current
East Fee Change
Type Parks &
Rec.Libraries Police
Proposed West Glendale Nonresidential Development Fees (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)
Type Parks &
Rec.Libraries Police Fire
Current Fees
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
12
Figure 10: Single-Family Unit All Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current)
Note in this example that Street Facilities development fees are not quantified or included in the proposed
fee for the West area. The assessment of Street Facilities development fees for development in the West
area will be based on a traffic impact analysis evaluation or similar agreed upon assessment of the impacts
of the development to determine the mitigation to be fully defined and agreed upon with a development
agreement or other legal instrument. It is the City’s intent to ensure any mitigation measures for the West
area will be similar to the Street Facilities development fees for the East area, again, dependent upon the
intensity of the development.
East of 75th Ave $8,650 $2,022
Betweeen 75th & 115th $10,621 $51
West West of 115th Ave $0 $2,505 $2,505
Proposed
Fee
Current
Fee Change
East $10,672
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
13
PARKS AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(g) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Parks and Recreational
Facilities IIP:
“Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities on real property up to thirty acres in area, or parks
and recreational facilities larger than thirty acres if the facilities provide a direct benefit to the
development. Park and recreational facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of
any facility that is used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas,
arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses,
clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand square feet in floor area,
environmental education centers, equestrian facilities, golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes,
museums, theme parks, water reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar
recreational facilities, but may include swimming pools.”
The Parks and Recreation Facilities IIP includes components for park amenities, recreational facilities, and
the cost of professional services for preparing the Parks and Recreation Facilities IIP and related
Development Fee report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for park amenities and
recreational facilities, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report.
Service Area
The City of Glendale plans to provide a uniform level of service and equal access to parks and recreational
facilities within the City limits. The parks and recreation programs are structured and provided to make
full use of Glendale’s total inventory of facilities. Therefore, the recommended service area for the Parks
and Recreational Facilities IIP is Citywide.
Proportionate Share
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends
daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities
from residential and nonresidential development. According to the U.S. Census Bureau web application
OnTheMap, there were 62,447 inflow commuters in 2015, which is the number of persons who work in
Glendale but live outside the City. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that
shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their
employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations.
OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local
Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure P1, to derive
Functional Population shares for Glendale. The estimated City population in 2015 from MAG is estimated
at 263,458. The study uses 2015 data because this the most recent year available for inflow/outflow data.
Therefore, it is compared to the population estimate for the corresponding year.
As shown in Figure PR1, the proportionate share is based on cumulative impact hours per year. Glendale
residents were allocated 24 hours per day at 365 days per year, for a total of 8,760 impact hours per
resident. Inflow commuters were allocated 8 hours per day, 4 days per week, and 50 weeks per year, for
a total of 1,600 impact hours per nonresident. Multiplying the respective impact hours by the number of
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
14
residents and inflow commuters (shown below in 1,000’s of hours) yields the total annual impact hours
for both residential and nonresidential categories. Residential’s proportionate share of the total impact
hours is 96%, while the nonresidential share is 4%.
Figure PR1: Daytime Population in 2015
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
Figure PR2 displays the demand indicators for residential and nonresidential land uses. For residential
development, the table displays the persons per household for single-family (or single unit) and
multifamily units. For nonresidential development, the table displays the number of employees per
thousand square feet for four different types of nonresidential development.
Glendale Residents Inflow
Commuters
Residential
Hours
Nonresidential
Hours Total Hours Residential Nonresidential
263,458 62,447 2,307,892 99,915 2,407,807 96%4%
8,760 365 days per year x 24 hours per day
Nonresidential Hours per Year 1,600 4 days per week x 50 weeks per year x 8 hours per day
Cumulative Impact Hours per Year (in 1,000s)Cost Allocation
Residential Hours per Year
Source: Glendale Residents from MAG Socioeconomic Projections, 2015. Inflow Commuters from U.S. Census Bureau's
On The Map web application, 2015.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
15
Figure PR2: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Park Land
The summary of neighborhood and community park land in Glendale is displayed in Figure PR3. City-
owned golf courses, regional parks, retention ponds, and conservation parks were excluded from the
inventory. Glendale has a total of 354.96 acres of park land. The level of service for residential
development is 0.00127 acres per resident, which is found by multiplying the total number of acres
(354.96) by the residential proportionate share (96%) and dividing this total by the 2018 population
(268,440). The nonresidential level of service is 0.00017 acres per job, which is found by multiplying the
total number of acres (354.96) by the nonresidential proportionate share (4%) and dividing this total by
the number of jobs in 2018 (85,961).
Residential Development
Source: Land Use Assumptions
Nonresidential Development
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.
Institutional 0.93
Office & Other 2.97
Type Jobs per 1,000 Square
Feet
Industrial 1.16
Commercial 2.34
Persons per Housing
UnitHousing Type
Single Family
Multi-Family
2.92
1.93
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
16
Because the City of Glendale does not anticipate any substantial neighborhood or community park land
purchases over the next 10 years (or, developers will be asked to dedicate a reasonable portion of land to
the City for development as park land), the cost of additional park land acquisition is not recommended
for inclusion in the Development Fee Report and is excluded from the City’s development fee
calculations.
Figure PR3: Park Land Inventory and Level of Service Standards
Park Amenities and Improvements – Incremental Expansion
The inventory summary of Glendale’s park amenities is displayed in Figure PR4. Glendale parks have 1,616
amenities, which have a total replacement cost of $83.2 million. Dividing the total replacement cost by
the total number of amenities yields an average cost per improvement of $51,518. The current residential
level of service is 0.00578 amenities per resident, which was obtained by multiplying the 1,616 amenities
by the residential proportionate share (96%) and dividing this amount by the current population
(268,440). Similarly, the nonresidential level of service is 0.00075 units per job (85,961). Multiplying the
average cost per amenity ($51,518) by the residential and nonresidential levels of service results in a cost
per person of $297.73 and $38.74 per job. Note that while the LOS Standards shown are rounded to the
fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations
may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to
the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
Park Land Category Acres
Subtotal Neighborhood 253.00
Subtotal Community 101.96
Total 354.96
Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards
96%
4%
268,440
85,961
0.00127
0.00017
Residential Proportionate Share
Nonresidential Proportionate Share
Glendale Residents in 2018
Glendale Jobs in 2018
LOS: Acres per Resident
LOS: Acres per Job
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
17
Figure PR4: Park Amenities Inventory and Level of Service Standards
Recreational Facilities – Incremental Expansion
As shown in Figure PR5, the City of Glendale has eight recreational facilities, which include things like
community centers and other recreational buildings. The facilities total 116,230 square feet and have an
average estimated cost per square foot of $300. However, ARS § 9-463.05 limits the inclusion of
community centers to a maximum of 3,000 square feet in floor area. Therefore, the total allowable floor
area is capped at 19,450 square feet. This results in a level of service of 0.0696 square feet per person and
0.0091 square feet per job. Multiplying the levels of service by the residential and nonresidential
proportionate shares and the cost per square foot ($300) results in recreational facility costs per service
Restroom 14 $360,000 $5,040,000
Playground 85 $250,000 $21,250,000
Ramada 83 $50,000 $4,150,000
Softball 40 $325,000 $13,000,000
Basketball 52 $85,000 $4,420,000
Soccer/Football 47 $500,000 $23,500,000
Volleyball 36 $30,000 $1,080,000
Racquetball 46 $50,000 $2,300,000
Tennis 17 $140,000 $2,380,000
Horseshoes 1 $6,000 $6,000
Fit Course 7 $900 $6,300
Parking Spaces 1,063 $5,000 $5,315,000
Bike Rack 115 $1,000 $115,000
In Line Hockey 1 $75,000 $75,000
Concession Stand 2 $115,000 $230,000
Scoreboards 7 $55,000 $385,000
TOTAL 1,616 $51,518 $83,252,300
Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards
96%
4%
268,440
85,961
0.00578
0.00075
$51,518
0.00578
0.00075
$297.73
$38.74
Replacement
Cost
Glendale Residents in 2018
Residential Proportionate Share
Nonresidential Proportionate Share
Amenity # of
Units
Cost per
Unit
LOS: Amenities per Resident
LOS: Amenities per Job
Cost per Person
Cost per Job
Glendale Jobs in 2018
LOS: Amenities per Resident
LOS: Amenities per Job
Cost Analysis
Average Cost per Amenity
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
18
unit of $20.87 per person and $2.72 per job. Note that while the LOS Standards shown are rounded to the
fourth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations
may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to
the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
Figure PR5: Recreational Facilities Inventory Summary and Level of Service Standards
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based
The cost to prepare the Parks and Recreational Development Fees and IIP totals $16,695. Glendale plans
to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of
new development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per person is $1.96 and the cost
per job is $0.05.
Glendale Community Ctr North 2,200 2,200
Glendale Community Ctr 2,450 2,450
Heroes Skate Park Bldg 1,400 1,400
Adult Center 32,500 3,000
Foothills Rec Center 67,000 3,000
O'Neil 5,200 3,000
Rose Lane 4,080 3,000
Foothills Skate Park Bldg 1,400 1,400
TOTAL 116,230 19,450
Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards
Residential Proportionate Share 96%
Nonresidential Proportionate Share 4%
Glendale Residents in 2018 268,440
Glendale Jobs in 2018 85,961
LOS: Square Feet per Resident 0.0696
LOS: Square Feet per Job 0.0091
Cost per Square Foot $300
LOS: Square Feet per Resident 0.0696
LOS: Square Feet per Job 0.0091
Cost per Person $20.87
Cost per Job $2.72
Cost Analysis
*Arizona's enabling legislation restricts community center
floor area to 3,000 square feet.
Recreational Facility Square
Feet*
Allowable
Sq. Ft.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
19
Figure PR6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
As shown in Figure PR7, the Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 16,534 persons and 26,931 jobs
over the next 10 years.
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
These projected service units are multiplied by the current levels-of-service for the IIP components shown
in Figure PR7. New development will demand an additional 116 park amenities and 1,394 square feet of
recreational facilities.
The park improvements and recreational facility square feet totals demanded by new development
multiplied by the respective costs suggests the City will need to spend $7.66 million on new park amenities
and $418,000 on new recreation centers to accommodate projected demand, as shown in the bottom of
Figure PR7.
Units 2018 2023 Increase
Residential 96%Population 268,440 276,583 8,143 $1.96
Nonresidential 4%Jobs 85,961 98,370 12,409 $0.05
Parks &
Recreation $16,695
Cost per
Demand Unit Component Cost Demand Indicator Proportionate
Share
Cost Allocation
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
20
Figure PR7: Projected Demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IIP
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires:
“A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Potential Parks and Recreational Facilities that Glendale may use development fees for in order to
accommodate new development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure PR8.
Demand Unit Unit Cost
per Person
per Job
per Person
per Job
Base 2018 268,440 85,961 1,616 19,450
Year 1 2019 270,047 88,291 1,627 19,583
Year 2 2020 271,667 90,693 1,638 19,717
Year 3 2021 273,295 93,173 1,649 19,853
Year 4 2022 274,936 95,730 1,661 19,990
Year 5 2023 276,583 98,370 1,672 20,129
Year 6 2024 278,243 101,093 1,684 20,269
Year 7 2025 279,910 103,904 1,696 20,410
Year 8 2026 281,587 106,806 1,708 20,553
Year 9 2027 283,277 109,801 1,720 20,698
Year 10 2028 284,974 112,892 1,732 20,844
16,534 26,931 116 1,394 Total
$5,976,088 $418,200 $6,394,288
0.0696 Rec Centers
(sq. ft.)$3000.0091
0.00578 Amenities $51,5180.00075
Park Level-of-Service Standards
Level-of-Service
Park
Amenities
Rec Center
Sq. Ft.
Ten-Year Increase
Growth-Related Expenditure
Year Population Jobs
Need for Park Amenities & Recreational Facilities
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
21
Figure PR8: Necessary Parks & Recreational Improvements and Expansions
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Revenue Credit/Offset
A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Parks and Recreation development fees because 10-year
growth costs exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees
according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure PR10.
Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees
Infrastructure standards and cost factors for Parks and Recreational Facilities, including park amenities,
recreational facilities, and the professional services cost for the IIP and Development Fee Report are
summarized at the top of Figure PR9. Updated development fees for Parks and Recreational Facilities are
shown in the column with green shading, the current development fees are highlighted in yellow, and the
net change is shown in the far-right column. The proposed development fees for parks and recreation
increased across all development types from the current fee amounts.
Timeframe Estimated Cost
Phased Thunderbird Park Improvements 2021-2028 $445,000
Sahuaro Ranch Park Improvements 2019 $263,000
Future Recreation Center Expansion 2024-2028 $500,000
Miscellaneous New Park Amenities 2019-2028 $7,500,000
Total $8,708,000
Improvement
Parks & Recreation Infrastructure Improvement Plan
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
22
Figure PR9: Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees
FORECAST OF REVENUES
Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation.
Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue
The top of Figure PR10 summarizes the growth-related cost of infrastructure in Glendale over the next 10
years (approximately $6.4 million for Parks and Recreational Facilities). Glendale should receive
approximately $6.3 million in Parks and Recreational Facilities development fee revenue over the next 10
years if actual development matches the Land Use Assumptions. This yields a minor net deficit of
approximately $89,000.
Park Amenities $297.73 $38.74
Recreation Facilities $20.87 $2.72
Development Fee Report $1.96 $0.05
TOTAL $320.56 $41.51
Single-Family 2.92 $936 $909 $27
Multi-Family 1.93 $618 $517 $101
Industrial 1.16 $48 $23 $25
Commercial 2.34 $97 $43 $54
Institutional 0.93 $38 $30 $8
Office & Other 2.97 $123 $101 $22
Nonresidential Development (per 1,000 square feet)
Current
Fee
Increase /
(Decrease)
Current
Fee
Increase /
(Decrease)Type Jobs per
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Proposed
Fee
Fee Component Cost
per Person Cost per Job
Type Persons per
Housing Unit
Proposed
Fee
Residential Development (per housing unit)
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
23
Figure PR10: Projected Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue
Growth Cost
$5,976,088
$418,200
$16,695
$6,410,983
Ten-Year Parks & Recreation Development Fee Revenues
Single-Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office &
Other
$936 $618 $48 $97 $38 $123
per Unit per Unit per KSF per KSF per KSF per KSF
Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2018 69,581 33,815 12,123 16,284 2,859 8,334
1 2019 69,998 34,017 12,320 16,655 2,896 8,676
2 2020 70,418 34,221 12,520 17,033 2,933 9,031
3 2021 70,840 34,426 12,724 17,421 2,971 9,402
4 2022 71,265 34,633 12,931 17,817 3,010 9,787
5 2023 71,692 34,841 13,142 18,223 3,048 10,188
6 2024 72,122 35,050 13,356 18,637 3,088 10,606
7 2025 72,554 35,260 13,573 19,060 3,128 11,041
8 2026 72,989 35,471 13,794 19,494 3,168 11,494
9 2027 73,427 35,684 14,018 19,937 3,209 11,965
10 2028 73,867 35,898 14,246 20,391 3,250 12,456
4,286 2,083 2,123 4,107 391 4,122
$4,011,696 $1,287,294 $101,909 $398,360 $14,844 $507,010
$6,321,112
($89,871)
Park Amenities
Rec Centers
Development Fee Report
Total Expenditures
Surplus / (Deficit)
Year
10-Year Increase
Projected Revenue
Total Projected Revenue
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
24
LIBRARY FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(d) defines the Library Facilities and assets that can be included in the Library
Facilities IIP:
“Library facilities of up to ten thousand square feet that provide a direct benefit to development,
not including equipment, vehicles or appurtenances.”
The Library Facilities IIP includes components for Library Facilities, and the cost of professional services
for preparing the IIP and the related Development Fee Report. An incremental expansion methodology is
used for Library Facilities, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report.
Service Area
The City of Glendale plans to provide a uniform level of service standard and equal access to Library
Facilities within the City limits. Therefore, a citywide service area is recommended for the Library Facilities
IIP.
Proportionate Share
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends
daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Library Facilities from
residential and nonresidential development. According to the U.S. Census Bureau web application
OnTheMap, there were 62,447 inflow commuters in 2015, which is the number of persons who work in
Glendale but live outside the City. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that
shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their
employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations.
OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local
Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure P1, to derive
Functional Population shares for Glendale. The estimated City population in 2015 from MAG is estimated
at 263,458. The study uses 2015 data because this the most recent year available for inflow/outflow data.
Therefore, it is compared to the population estimate for the corresponding year.
As shown in Figure L1, the proportionate share is based on cumulative impact hours per year. Glendale
residents were allocated 24 hours per day at 365 days per year, for a total of 8,760 impact hours per
resident. Inflow commuters were allocated 8 hours per day, 4 days per week, and 50 weeks per year, for
a total of 1,600 impact hours per nonresident. Multiplying the respective impact hours by the number of
residents, and inflow commuters (shown below in 1,000s of hours), yields the total annual impact hours
for both residential and nonresidential categories. The residential’s proportionate share of the total
impact hours is 96%, while the nonresidential share is 4%.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
25
Figure L1: Daytime Population in 2015
RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
Figure L2 displays the demand indicators for residential and nonresidential land uses. For residential
development the table displays the persons per household for single-family (or single unit) and
multifamily units. For nonresidential development the table displays the number of employees per
thousand square feet for four different types of nonresidential development.
Figure L2: Library Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit
Residential Development
Source: Land Use Assumptions
Nonresidential Development
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.
Institutional 3.15
Office & Other 3.61
Type Jobs per 1,000 Square
Feet
Industrial 1.31
Commercial 1.78
Persons per Housing
UnitHousing Type
Single Family
Multi-Family
2.92
1.93
Glendale Residents Inflow
Commuters
Residential
Hours
Nonresidential
Hours Total Hours Residential Nonresidential
263,458 62,447 2,307,892 99,915 2,407,807 96%4%
8,760 365 days per year x 24 hours per day
Nonresidential Hours per Year 1,600 4 days per week x 50 weeks per year x 8 hours per day
Cumulative Impact Hours per Year (in 1,000s)Cost Allocation
Residential Hours per Year
Source: Glendale Residents from MAG Socioeconomic Projections, 2015. Inflow Commuters from U.S. Census Bureau's
On The Map web application, 2015.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
26
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Library Facilities – Incremental Expansion
The summary of Glendale’s existing Library Facilities is displayed in Figure L3. Glendale has four libraries,
totaling 121,160 square feet. However, ARS § 9-463.05 limits the inclusion of library facilities to a
maximum of 10,000 square feet in floor area per facility. Therefore, Glendale’s total allowable floor area
is capped at 37,500 square feet. The summary includes Heroes Park Library, construction on which is
scheduled to be completed in Spring of 2019. Therefore, the base year units (population and jobs) used
to establish the level-of-service standards is 2019 instead of 2018. The resulting level of service standard
is 0.1333 square feet per person and 0.0170 square feet per job.
The construction cost of Heroes Park Library of $493 per square foot was used as the replacement cost
for the other three existing libraries. When multiplying the levels of service by the residential and
nonresidential proportionate shares, and the replacement cost per square foot, results in Library Facility
cost per service unit of $65.72 per person and $8.38 per job. Note that while the LOS Standards shown
are rounded to the fourth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost
analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the
factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
27
Figure L3: Library Facilities Summary and Level of Service Standards
Development Fee Report – Plan Based
The cost to prepare the Library Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report totals $11,130. Glendale
plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and 5-year projections
of new development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per person is $1.31 and the cost
per job is $0.03.
Figure L4: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation
Units 2018 2023 Increase
Residential 96%Population 268,440 276,583 8,143 $1.31
Nonresidential 4%Jobs 85,961 98,370 12,409 $0.03$11,130Libraries
Cost per
Demand Unit Component Cost Demand Indicator Proportionate
Share
Cost Allocation
Main Library 64,166 10,000
Velma Teague Library 15,994 10,000
Heroes Park Library 7,500 7,500
Foothills Library 33,500 10,000
TOTAL 121,160 37,500
Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards
Residential Proportionate Share 96%
Nonresidential Proportionate Share 4%
Glendale Residents in 2019 270,047
Glendale Jobs in 2019 88,291
LOS: Square Feet per Resident 0.1333
LOS: Square Feet per Job 0.0170
Cost Analysis
Cost per Square Foot $493
LOS: Square Feet per Resident 0.1333
LOS: Square Feet per Job 0.0170
Cost per Person $65.72
Cost per Job $8.38
Library Square Feet Allowable
Square Feet
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
28
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
As shown in Figure L5, the Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 16,534 persons and 26,931 jobs
over the next 10 years.
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
These projected service units are multiplied by the current levels of service for the IIP components shown
in Figure L5. New development will demand an additional 2,662 square feet of library facilities.
The Library Facility square footage demanded by new development multiplied by the respective costs
results in a total of $1.3 million to be spent on additional Library Facilities to accommodate projected
demand, shown in the bottom of Figure L5.
Figure L5: Projected Demand for Library Facilities
Demand Unit Unit Cost
per Person
per Job
Current 2018 268,440 85,961 35,786 1,460 37,246
Base 2019 270,047 88,291 36,000 1,500 37,500
Year 1 2020 271,667 90,693 36,216 1,541 37,757
Year 2 2021 273,295 93,173 36,433 1,583 38,016
Year 3 2022 274,936 95,730 36,652 1,626 38,278
Year 4 2023 276,583 98,370 36,871 1,671 38,543
Year 5 2024 278,243 101,093 37,093 1,717 38,810
Year 6 2025 279,910 103,904 37,315 1,765 39,080
Year 7 2026 281,587 106,806 37,538 1,815 39,353
Year 8 2027 283,277 109,801 37,764 1,865 39,629
Year 9 2028 284,974 112,892 37,990 1,918 39,908
16,534 26,931 2,204 458 2,662
$1,086,572 $225,794 $1,312,366
Library Level-of-Service Standards
Level-of-Service
Total
0.0170
0.1333 Square Feet $493
Growth-Related Need for Libraries
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Nonresidential
Sq. Ft.
Growth-Related Expenditure
Ten-Year Increase
Year Population Jobs
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
29
LIBRARY FACILITIES IIP
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires:
“A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Potential Library Facilities that Glendale may use development fees for in order to accommodate new
development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure L6.
Figure L6: Necessary Library Improvements and Expansions
LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEES
Revenue Credit/Offset
A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Library development fees because 10-year growth costs
exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the
Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure L8.
Proposed Library Development Fees
Infrastructure standards and cost factors for Library Facilities, including the professional services cost for
the IIP and Development Fee Report, are summarized at the top of Figure L7. Updated development fees
for Libraries are shown in the column with green shading, the current development fees are highlighted
in yellow, and the net change is shown in the far-right column. Because development fees for libraries are
not currently assessed, the proposed fee amounts represent a net increase across all development types.
Improvement Timeframe Estimated Cost
Western Area Library Expansion 2019-2023 $1,232,500
Libraries Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
30
Figure L7: Proposed Library Facilities Development Fees
FORECAST OF REVENUES
Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation.
Library Development Fee Revenue
The top of Figure L8 summarizes the growth-related cost of infrastructure in Glendale over the next 10
years ($1.32 million for library facilities). Glendale should receive approximately $1.30 million in Library
development fee revenue over the next 10 years, if actual development matches the Land Use
Assumptions. This yields a minor net deficit of about $20,000.
Library Facilities $65.72 $8.38
Development Fee Report $1.31 $0.03
TOTAL $67.03 $8.41
Residential Development (per housing unit)
Single-Family 2.92 $195 $0 $195
Multi-Family 1.93 $129 $0 $129
Industrial 1.16 $9 $0 $9
Commercial 2.34 $19 $0 $19
Institutional 0.93 $7 $0 $7
Office & Other 2.97 $24 $0 $24
Current
Fee
Increase /
(Decrease)
Increase /
(Decrease)
Current
Fee
Nonresidential Development (per 1,000 square feet)
Type Jobs per 1,000
Sq. Ft.
Proposed
Fee
Fee Component Cost
per Person Cost per Job
Type Persons per
Housing Unit
Proposed
Fee
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
31
Figure L8: Projected Library Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth-Related Library Expenditures
Growth Cost
$1,312,366
$11,130
$1,323,496
Ten-Year Library Development Fee Revenues
Single-Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office &
Other
$195 $129 $9 $19 $7 $24
per Unit per Unit per KSF per KSF per KSF per KSF
Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2018 69,581 33,815 12,123 16,284 2,859 8,334
1 2019 69,998 34,017 12,320 16,655 2,896 8,676
2 2020 70,418 34,221 12,520 17,033 2,933 9,031
3 2021 70,840 34,426 12,724 17,421 2,971 9,402
4 2022 71,265 34,633 12,931 17,817 3,010 9,787
5 2023 71,692 34,841 13,142 18,223 3,048 10,188
6 2024 72,122 35,050 13,356 18,637 3,088 10,606
7 2025 72,554 35,260 13,573 19,060 3,128 11,041
8 2026 72,989 35,471 13,794 19,494 3,168 11,494
9 2027 73,427 35,684 14,018 19,937 3,209 11,965
10 2028 73,867 35,898 14,246 20,391 3,250 12,456
4,286 2,083 2,123 4,107 391 4,122
$835,770 $268,707 $19,108 $78,029 $2,734 $98,929
$1,303,277
($20,219)
Library Facilities
Development Fee Report
Total Expenditures
Projected Revenue
Total Projected Revenue
Surplus / (Deficit)
Year
10-Year Increase
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
32
POLICE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Police Facilities IIP:
“Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police
facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were
once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide
administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training firefighters or
officers from more than one station or substation.”
The Police Facilities IIP and Development Fees includes components for police stations, police vehicles
and equipment, and the cost of professional services for preparing the Police Facilities IIP and related
Development Fee Report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for police facilities and vehicles
& equipment, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report.
Service Area
The City of Glendale’s Police Department strives to provide a uniform response time Citywide. Therefore,
a Citywide service area is recommended for the Police Facilities IIP.
Proportionate Share
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends
functional population to allocate the cost of police facilities to residential and nonresidential
development. Functional population is similar to what the U.S. Census Bureau calls "daytime population,"
by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction, but also considers commuting patterns and
time spent at home and at nonresidential locations. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting
application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns
of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the
two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau
and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure P1,
to derive Functional Population shares for Glendale.
Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and 4 hours per day
to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Glendale are assigned 14
hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work
outside Glendale are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10
hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Glendale, the cost
allocation for residential development is 77 percent while nonresidential development accounts for 23
percent of the demand for municipal facilities.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
33
Figure P1: Police Proportionate Share
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial/retail, industrial, and office/other services.”
Figure P2 displays the ratio of service units to various types of land uses for residential and nonresidential
development. The residential development table displays the persons per household for single-family (or
single unit) and multifamily units.
Nonresidential development fees are calculated using trips as the service unit. TischlerBise recommends
using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for police facilities and vehicles. Trip
generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for
commercial/retail developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial development. Office
and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent
with the relative demand for police from nonresidential development, which is driven by the presence of
people. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not
accurately reflect the demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used
as the demand indicator, police development fees would be too high for office and institutional
development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses.
Residential
Estimated Residents 263,458
Residents Not Working 163,838 20 3,276,760
Resident Workers 99,620
12%Worked in City 11,855 14 165,970
88%Worked Outside City 87,765 14 1,228,710
Residential Subtotal 4,671,440 77%
Nonresidential
Non-working Residents 163,838 4 655,352
Jobs Located in City 74,302
16%Residents Working in City 11,855 10 118,550
84%Non-Resident Workers (inflow commuters)62,447 10 624,470
Nonresidential Subtotal 1,398,372 23%
TOTAL 6,069,812 100%
Demand Units in 2015 Demand
Hours/Day
Person
Hours
Proportionate
Share
Source: Estimated Residents from MAG Socioeconomic Projections, 2015. Employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau's
OnTheMap web application, 2015.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
34
Trip generation rates per average weekday are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 10th Edition 2017). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either
entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate
development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip
at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%.
For commercial and institutional development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail
development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For
example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store
is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34% of the
vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. In other words, 34% of
trips to the average shopping center are already being counted because the shopping center is not their
final destination, and therefore these trips must be discounted. The remaining 66% of attraction trips have
the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip
adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 33% of the vehicle trips. These factors are
shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use.
The ratio of service unit to development unit for each type of nonresidential development is calculated
by multiplying the ITE trip generation rate by the trip rate adjustment factor to avoid double-counting
trips, as discussed above. By way of example, the service unit to development unit ratio for a Commercial
development is found by multiplying the ITE trip generation rate of 37.75 trips (per 1,000 square feet) by
the trip rate adjustment factor of 33%, yielding an adjusted trip rate of 12.46 trips per 1,000 square feet.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a 100,000 square foot commercial development would generate
1,246 primary destination trips per average weekday.
Figure P2: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit
Residential (per housing unit)
Single-Family 2.92
Multi-Family 1.93
Nonresidential Development (per 1,000 square feet)
Industrial 3.37 50%1.69
Commercial 37.75 33%12.46
Institutional 19.52 33%6.44
Office & Other 9.74 50%4.87
2. ITE Trip Generation Rates, 10th Edition (2017).
Adjusted Trips
per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
1. Derived from U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2016.
Type of Household Persons per
Housing Unit1
Type Trips per 1,000
Sq. Ft.2
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
35
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Police Facilities – Incremental Expansion
The Police Department owns 3 police stations, a 911 emergency call center, and a family advocacy center,
totaling 142,556 square feet of floor area. The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate
the facility portion of the fee, with new development maintaining the current infrastructure standards.
As shown in Figure P3, the level of service for residential development is 0.4089 square feet per person,
and the nonresidential level of service is 0.1162 square feet per vehicle trip end. This is determined by
multiplying the total square footage by the proportionate share factors (77% for residential and 23% for
nonresidential), and then dividing the respective totals by the current service units (268,440 persons for
residential and 282,288 vehicle trips for nonresidential). The City’s current cost estimates for new police
facility construction are $410 per square foot, which is used as the replacement cost for the City’s existing
police facilities. The levels of service are thus multiplied by the replacement cost per square foot ($410),
yielding costs per service unit of $167.65 per person and $47.62 per vehicle trip end. Note that while the
LOS Standards shown are rounded to the fourth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures.
Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the
calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
36
Figure P3: Police Facilities and Level of Service Standards
Police Vehicles and Equipment – Incremental Expansion
The inventory summary of Glendale’s police vehicles and equipment is displayed in Figure P4. The
Glendale Police Department owns 846 units of vehicles and equipment, which have a total replacement
cost of $26.9 million. Dividing the total cost by the total number of units yields an average cost per unit of
$31,837. The level of service standards and cost analysis for police vehicles and equipment are continued
on the following page. The current residential level of service is 0.00243 units per resident, which was
obtained by multiplying the 846 units by the residential proportionate share (77%), and dividing this
amount by the current population (268,440). Similarly, the nonresidential level of service is 0.00069 units
per vehicle trip. Multiplying the average cost per unit ($31,837) by the residential and nonresidential levels
of service results in a cost per person of $77.26 and $21.95 per vehicle trip. Note that while the LOS
Standards shown are rounded to the fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures.
Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the
calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
Square
Feet
89,982
18,728
20,346
6,300
7,200
TOTAL 142,556
Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards
Population in 2018 268,440
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips in 2018 282,288
Residential Share 77%
Nonresidential Share 23%
LOS: Square Feet per Person 0.4089
LOS: Square Feet per Vehicle Trip 0.1162
Cost per Square Foot $410
LOS: Square Feet per Person 0.4089
LOS: Square Feet per Vehicle Trip 0.1162
Cost per Person $167.65
Cost per Vehicle Trip $47.62
Police Stations
Cost Analysis
Main Station
Foothills Station
Gateway Station
Advocacy Center
911 Emergency Call Center
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
37
Figure P4: Police Vehicles and Equipment Inventory and Level of Service Standards
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based
The cost to prepare the Police Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report totals $16,695. Glendale
plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Equipment per sworn officer 428 $20,300 $8,688,400
SUV - Police Patrol 137 $50,274 $6,887,538
Sedan, full size - PD Patrol 44 $50,274 $2,212,056
Sedan, intermediate - Public Safety 92 $36,744 $3,380,477
Sedan, full size - Public Safety 26 $27,812 $723,101
Pickup truck 32 $44,033 $1,409,047
Motorcycle 27 $34,125 $921,375
SUV - Emergency Services 7 $45,495 $318,462
Truck, van body 2 $239,088 $478,176
Bus - Command Center 1 $350,188 $350,188
SUV - 5-6 passenger 8 $51,432 $411,456
Cart all-terrain vehicle 13 $16,732 $217,516
Van - PD Prisoner Transport 3 $54,420 $163,260
Trailer-mounted Tactical Plat 1 $114,967 $114,967
Truck Tractor, conventional 1 $108,086 $108,086
Heavy Pickup 3 $47,000 $141,000
Sedan, intermediate 4 $36,744 $146,977
Large Trailer, van body 3 $24,781 $74,344
Van, High Cube Cargo 1 $46,365 $46,365
Trailer Radar - Public Safety 8 $14,357 $114,852
Trailer, van body 4 $3,994 $15,976
Cart, utility multi-wheeled 1 $10,660 $10,660
Total 846 $31,837 $26,934,279
Level of Service (LOS) Standards
Population in 2018 268,440
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips in 2018 282,288
Residential Share 77%
Nonresidential Share 23%
LOS: Vehicles & Equipment per Person 0.00243
LOS: Vehicles & Equipment per Vehicle Trip 0.00069
Cost per Unit $31,837
LOS: Vehicles & Equipment per Person 0.00243
LOS: Vehicles & Equipment per Vehicle Trip 0.00069
Cost per Person $77.26
Cost per Vehicle Trip $21.95
Cost Analysis
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
38
projections of new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions
document, the cost per person is $1.57 and the cost per nonresidential trip is $0.10.
Figure P5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation
PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
The Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 16,534 persons and 77,329 nonresidential vehicle trips
over the next 10 years, as shown in Figure P6.
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
As shown in Figure P6, this new development will demand approximately 15,743 square feet of police
facilities and 93 additional units of vehicles and equipment.
The 10-year total of the projected demand for new police facilities and vehicles/equipment is multiplied
by the cost to determine the total cost to accommodate the projected demand over the next 10 years.
The projected demand for additional police facility floor area and vehicles and equipment will cost
approximately $9.415 million in total.
Units 2018 2023 Increase
Residential 77%Population 268,440 276,583 8,143 $1.57
Nonresidential 23%Vehicle Trips 282,288 318,405 36,117 $0.10
Cost per
Demand Unit Component Cost Demand Indicator Proportionate
Share
Cost Allocation
Police $16,695
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
39
Figure P6: Projected Demand for Police Facilities
POLICE FACILITIES IIP
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires:
“A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Potential Police Facilities that Glendale may use development fees for in order to accommodate new
development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure P7. Additional vehicles and equipment will be
procured as necessitated by growth.
Demand Unit Unit Cost
Residential 0.4089 per Person
Nonresidential 0.1162 per Vehicle Trip
Residential 0.00243 per Person
Nonresidential 0.00069 per Vehicle Trip
Base 2018 268,440 282,288 142,556 846
Year 1 2019 270,047 289,141 144,009 855
Year 2 2020 271,667 296,166 145,487 863
Year 3 2021 273,295 303,388 146,992 872
Year 4 2022 274,936 310,795 148,523 881
Year 5 2023 276,583 318,405 150,081 891
Year 6 2024 278,243 274,562 145,667 864
Year 7 2025 279,910 280,462 147,034 873
Year 8 2026 281,587 286,494 148,420 881
Year 9 2027 283,277 292,659 149,828 889
Year 10 2028 284,974 359,617 158,299 939
16,534 77,329 15,743 93 TOTAL
$6,454,630 $2,960,841 $9,415,471
Ten-Year Increase
Growth-Related Expenditures
Level-of-Service
Square Feet $410
Year Population Nonres.
Vehicle Trips
Facility Square
Feet
Vehicles and
Equipment
Veh. & Equip.
Units $31,837
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
40
Figure P7: Necessary Police Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total)
POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Revenue Credit/Offset
A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Police Facilities development fees because 10-year growth
approximate the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to
the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure P9.
Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees
The proposed Police development fees are shown in Figure P8. Cost factors for police facilities, vehicles
and equipment, and professional services are summarized at the top of the figure. The residential
development fees are calculated by multiplying the $246.48 cost per person by the service unit ratios
(persons per housing unit) for each housing type. Nonresidential development fees are calculated by
multiplying the $69.67 per vehicle trip by the average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet ratios
and the trip adjustment factors for each development type. Proposed development fees for Police
increased for all development types from the current fees.
Improvement Timeframe Estimated Cost
West Area Police Station Expansion 2024-2028 $2,006,000
New Police Evidence Storage 2023 $9,600,000
Total $11,606,000
Police Facility Infrastructure Improvement Plan
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
41
Figure P8: Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees
FORECAST OF REVENUES
Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation.
Development Fee Revenues for Police Facilities and Vehicles & Equipment
Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the proposed Police development fees and
that development over the next 10 years is consistent with the Land Use Assumptions. To the extent the
rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the
development fee revenue. As shown in Figure P9, the 10-year growth costs of police facilities, vehicles
and equipment total approximately $9.43 million, and approximately $9.45 million will be collected from
development fees. The result is a negligible surplus of approximately $20,000 (less than 0.25% of total
projected expenditures).
Facilities $167.65 $47.62
Vehicles & Equipment $77.26 $21.95
Development Fee Report $1.57 $0.10
TOTAL $246.48 $69.67
Residential (per housing unit)
Single-Family 2.92 $719 $339 $380
Multi-Family 1.93 $475 $193 $282
Nonresidential Development (per 1,000 square feet)
Industrial 3.37 50%$117 $12 $105
Commercial 37.75 33%$867 $99 $768
Institutional 19.52 33%$448 $36 $412
Office & Other 9.74 50%$339 $39 $300
Fee Component Cost
per Person
Cost per
Vehicle Trip
Type of Household Persons per
Housing Unit
Proposed
Fee
Increase /
(Decrease)
Current
Fee
Increase /
(Decrease)Type Trip Ends per
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Proposed
Fee
Current
Fee
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
42
Figure P9: Projected Police Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth-Related Police Expenditures
Growth Share
$6,454,630
$2,960,841
$16,695
$9,432,166
Ten-Year Police Development Fee Revenue
Single-Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office &
Other
$719 $475 $117 $867 $448 $339
per Unit per Unit per KSF per KSF per KSF per KSF
Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2018 69,581 33,815 12,123 16,284 2,859 8,334
1 2019 69,998 34,017 12,320 16,655 2,896 8,676
2 2020 70,418 34,221 12,520 17,033 2,933 9,031
3 2021 70,840 34,426 12,724 17,421 2,971 9,402
4 2022 71,265 34,633 12,931 17,817 3,010 9,787
5 2023 71,692 34,841 13,142 18,223 3,048 10,188
6 2024 72,122 35,050 13,356 18,637 3,088 10,606
7 2025 72,554 35,260 13,573 19,060 3,128 11,041
8 2026 72,989 35,471 13,794 19,494 3,168 11,494
9 2027 73,427 35,684 14,018 19,937 3,209 11,965
10 2028 73,867 35,898 14,246 20,391 3,250 12,456
4,286 2,083 2,123 4,107 391 4,122
$3,081,634 $989,425 $248,391 $3,560,602 $175,000 $1,397,368
$9,452,420
$20,254
Toal Projected Revenue
Surplus / (Deficit)
Fee Component
Facilities
Vehicles & Equipment
Development Fee Report
Total Expenditures
Year
Projected Revenue
10-year Increase
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
43
FIRE FACILITIES INRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Fire Facilities IIP:
“Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police
facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were
once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide
administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training firefighters or
officers from more than one station or substation.”
The Fire Facilities IIP and Development Fees includes components for fire facilities and the cost of
professional services for preparing the Fire Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. An
incremental expansion methodology is used for fire facilities and apparatus, and a plan-based
methodology is used for the Development Fee Report.
Service Area
The City of Glendale’s Fire Department strives to provide a uniform response time Citywide, and its fire
stations operate as an integrated network. Depending on the number and type of calls, apparatus can be
dispatched Citywide from any of the stations. Therefore, a Citywide service area is recommended for the
Fire Facilities IIP.
Proportionate Share
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends
functional population to allocate the cost of fire facilities to residential and nonresidential development.
Functional population is similar to what the U.S. Census Bureau calls "daytime population," by accounting
for people living and working in a jurisdiction, but also considers commuting patterns and time spent at
home and at nonresidential locations. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that
shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their
employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations.
OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local
Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure F1, to derive
Functional Population shares for Glendale.
Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and 4 hours per day
to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Glendale are assigned 14
hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work
outside Glendale are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10
hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Glendale, the cost
allocation for residential development is 77 percent while nonresidential development accounts for 23
percent of the demand for municipal facilities.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
44
Figure F1: Fire Proportionate Share
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial/retail, industrial, and office/other services.”
Figure F2 displays the ratio of service units to various types of land uses for residential and nonresidential
development. The residential development table displays the persons per household for single-family (or
single unit) and multifamily units.
For nonresidential development fees, TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the
best demand indicator for fire facilities and equipment. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential
development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers,
and lowest for industrial/warehouse development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the
other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for fire and
emergency medical services, which is influenced by the presence of people at nonresidential
development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will
not accurately reflect the demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were
used as the demand indicator, fire impact fees would be too high for office and institutional development
because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses.
Residential
Estimated Residents 263,458
Residents Not Working 163,838 20 3,276,760
Resident Workers 99,620
12%Worked in City 11,855 14 165,970
88%Worked Outside City 87,765 14 1,228,710
Residential Subtotal 4,671,440 77%
Nonresidential
Non-working Residents 163,838 4 655,352
Jobs Located in City 74,302
16%Residents Working in City 11,855 10 118,550
84%Non-Resident Workers (inflow commuters)62,447 10 624,470
Nonresidential Subtotal 1,398,372 23%
TOTAL 6,069,812 100%
Demand Units in 2015 Demand
Hours/Day
Person
Hours
Proportionate
Share
Source: Estimated Residents from MAG Socioeconomic Projections, 2015. Employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau's
OnTheMap web application, 2015.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
45
Trip generation rates per average weekday are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 10th Edition 2017). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either
entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate
development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip
at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%.
For commercial and institutional development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail
development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For
example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store
is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34% of the
vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. In other words, 34% of
trips to the average shopping center are already being counted by their primary destinations and must be
discounted. The remaining 66% of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination.
Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or
approximately 33% of the vehicle trips. These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each
type of nonresidential land use.
The ratio of service unit to development unit for each type of nonresidential development is calculated
by multiplying the ITE trip generation rate by the trip rate adjustment factor to avoid double-counting
trips, as discussed above. By way of example, the service unit to development unit ratio for a Commercial
development is found by multiplying the ITE trip generation rate of 37.75 trips (per 1,000 square feet) by
the trip rate adjustment factor of 33%, yielding an adjusted trip rate of 12.46 trips per 1,000 square feet.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a 100,000 square foot commercial development would generate
1,246 primary destination trips per average weekday (12.46 x 100,000/1,000).
Figure F2: Nonresidential Vehicle Trips
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
46
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E) (1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Fire Facilities – Incremental Expansion
The Fire Department operates nine fire stations, a fire administration building, and a fire resource center,
totaling 132,751 square feet of floor area. The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate
the facility portion of the fee, with new development maintaining the current infrastructure standards.
As shown in Figure F3, the level of service for residential development is 0.3808 square feet per person,
and the nonresidential level of service is 0.1082 square feet per nonresidential vehicle trip. This is
determined by multiplying the total square footage by the proportionate share factors (77% for residential
and 23% for nonresidential), and then dividing the respective totals by the current service units (268,440
persons for residential and 282,288 vehicle trips for nonresidential). Then, the levels of service are
multiplied by the average replacement cost per square foot ($400) to determine the costs per service unit
of $152.31 per person and $43.26 per vehicle trip. The average replacement cost per square foot was
determined by comparing recent procurements conducted by two other valley communities for fire
facilities - Scottsdale and Fountain Hills - whose costs per square foot for new fire facilities were $417 and
$430, respectively. Note that while the LOS Standards shown are rounded to the fourth decimal place, the
analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same
result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures
shown, not in the analysis).
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
47
Figure F3: Fire Facilities Inventory and Level of Service Standards
Fire Apparatus – Incremental Expansion
The inventory summary of Glendale’s fire apparatus is displayed in Figure F4. The Glendale Fire
Department owns 138 apparatus, which have a total replacement cost of $24.6 million. Dividing the total
cost by the total number of units yields an average cost per unit of $178,226. The current residential level
of service is 0.00040 apparatus per resident, which was obtained by multiplying the 138 units by the
residential proportionate share (77%), and dividing this amount by the current population (268,440).
Similarly, the nonresidential level of service is 0.00011 units per vehicle trip. Multiplying the average cost
per unit ($178,226) by the residential and nonresidential levels of service results in a cost per person of
70.55 and $20.04 per vehicle trip. Note that while the LOS Standards shown are rounded to the fifth
decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not
produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the
rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
Square
Feet
Station 151 15,429 $400 $6,171,600
Station 152 12,622 $400 $5,048,800
Station 153 12,373 $400 $4,949,200
Station 154 9,470 $400 $3,788,000
Station 155 6,058 $400 $2,423,200
Station 156 6,738 $400 $2,695,200
Station 157 16,000 $400 $6,400,000
Station 158 11,900 $400 $4,760,000
Station 159 14,400 $400 $5,760,000
Fire Administration Bldg 14,500 $400 $5,800,000
Fire Resource Center 13,261 $400 $5,304,400
TOTAL 132,751 $400 $53,100,400
Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards
Population in 2018 268,440
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips in 2018 282,288
Residential Share 77%
Nonresidential Share 23%
LOS: Square Feet per Person 0.3808
LOS: Square Feet per Vehicle Trip 0.1082
Cost per Square Foot $400
LOS: Square Feet per Person 0.3808
LOS: Square Feet per Vehicle Trip 0.1082
Cost per Person $152.31
Cost per Vehicle Trip $43.26
Cost Analysis
Cost per
Sq. Ft.Total Cost
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
48
Figure F4: Fire Apparatus Inventory and Level of Service Standards
Apparatus Description Quantity Average Cost Total Cost
CART ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE 14 $28,203 $394,842
CART UTILITY MULTI WHEELED 3 $10,507 $31,521
FIRE APP.LADDER TENDER 26,001-33,000 GVW 3 $544,761 $1,634,283
FIRE APPARATUS LADDER TRUCK >33,000 GVW 4 $1,160,016 $4,640,064
OFF ROAD CONSTRUCTION FORKLIFTS 2 $35,526 $71,052
OFF ROAD. NON ARTICULATED LOADER 2-4CY 1 $63,058 $63,058
PICKUP 1/2 TON <8,500 GVW 7 $27,371 $191,597
PICKUP BED FIRE 10,001-14,000 GVW 10 $42,024 $420,240
PICKUP CREW CAB CAB 8,501-10,000 GVW 1 $35,184 $35,184
PICKUP EXTENDED CAB 8,501-10,000 GVW 1 $27,256 $27,256
PICKUP EXTENDED CAB CAB 8,501-10,000 GVW 1 $26,925 $26,925
PICKUP FIRE SERVICE 8,501-10,000 GVW 10 $45,261 $452,610
PICKUP W/SERVBODY FIRE 10,001-14,000 GVW 1 $43,695 $43,695
SEDAN FULL SIZE PUBLIC SAFETY 1 $35,203 $35,203
SEDAN INTERMEDIATE PUBLIC SAFETY 10 $24,695 $246,950
SUV EMERGENCY SERVICES FIRE DEPT <8,500 3 $43,754 $131,262
SUV EMERGENCY SERVICES PS <8,500 GVW 2 $44,886 $89,772
TRAILER FLATBED >10,001 GVW 3 $45,589 $136,767
TRAILER FLATBED 6001-10,000 GVW 3 $10,480 $31,440
TRAILER MOUNTED LIGHT TOWER 1 $14,847 $14,847
TRAILER UTILITY < 6000 GVW 6 $3,092 $18,552
TRAILER VAN BODY <6000 GVW 4 $8,258 $33,032
TRAILER VAN BODY > 6001 GVWR 7 $44,133 $308,931
TRK .GEN.PURP.TANKER 26,001-33,000 GVW 1 $120,000 $120,000
TRK. FIRE APPARATUS PUMPER >33,000 GVW 17 $667,264 $11,343,488
TRK. REFRIGERATOR BODY 19,501-26,000 GVW 1 $155,460 $155,460
TRK.FIRE APP. HAZMAT RESPONSE >33,000 GVW 2 $545,511 $1,091,022
TRK.FIRE APP.RESCUE VEHICLES >33,000 GVW 2 $765,597 $1,531,194
TRUCK FIRE SERVICE 16,001-17,950 GVW 2 $90,613 $181,226
TRUCK FLATBED 14,001-16,000 GVW 1 $41,255 $41,255
VAN CARGO 8,501-10,000 GVW 1 $26,465 $26,465
VAN CUTAWY AMBULANCE 16,001-19500 GVW 3 $203,704 $611,112
VAN HIGH CUBE CARGO 10,001-14000 GVW 1 $33,940 $33,940
VAN PASSENGER 8,501-10,000 GVW (15 PAX)5 $35,391 $176,955
STR.TRUCK FLATBED GEN.P. 10,001-14000 GVW 1 $38,000 $38,000
TRAILER MOUNTED GENERATOR <100 KW 3 $55,333 $165,999
TOTAL 138 $178,226 $24,595,199
268,440
282,288
77%
23%
0.00040
0.00011
$178,226
0.00040
0.00011
$70.55
$20.04
LOS: Vehicles & Equipment per Person
Cost per Person
LOS: Vehicles & Equipment per Vehicle Trip
Cost per Vehicle Trip
Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards
Population in 2018
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips in 2018
Residential Share
Nonresidential Share
LOS: Apparatus per Person
LOS: Apparatus per Vehicle Trip
Cost Analysis
Cost per Unit
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
49
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based
The cost to prepare the Fire Facilities IIP and Development Fee Report totals $16,695. Glendale plans to
update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of
new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost is
$1.57 per person and $0.10 per nonresidential vehicle trip.
Figure F5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation
PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
The Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 16,534 persons and 77,329 nonresidential vehicle trips
over the next 10 years, as shown in Figure F6.
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
As shown in Figure F6, this new development will demand approximately 14,660 square feet of fire
facilities and 15.2 apparatus.
The 10-year total of the projected demand for fire station facilities is multiplied by the cost to determine
the total cost to accommodate the projected demand over the next 10 years. The cost for the additional
fire station floor area is $5.86 million, and the cost for the additional apparatus is $2.72 million, for a total
capital cost of $8.58 million.
Units 2018 2023 Increase
Residential 77%Population 268,440 276,583 8,143 $1.57
Nonresidential 23%Vehicle Trips 282,288 318,405 36,117 $0.10
Cost per
Demand Unit Component Cost Demand Indicator Proportionate
Share
Cost Allocation
Fire $16,695
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
50
Figure F6: Projected Demand for Fire Facilities
FIRE FACILITIES IIP
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires:
“A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Potential Fire Facilities that Glendale may use development fees for in order to accommodate new
development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure F7. Additional apparatus will be procured as
necessitated by growth.
Figure F7: Necessary Fire Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total)
Demand Unit Unit Cost
Residential 0.3808 per Person
Nonresidential 0.1082 per Vehicle Trip
Residential 0.00040 per Person
Nonresidential 0.00011 per Vehicle Trip
Base 2018 268,440 282,288 132,751 138.0
Year 1 2019 270,047 289,141 134,104 139.4
Year 2 2020 271,667 296,166 135,481 140.8
Year 3 2021 273,295 303,388 136,882 142.3
Year 4 2022 274,936 310,795 138,308 143.8
Year 5 2023 276,583 318,405 139,758 145.3
Year 6 2024 278,243 274,562 135,648 141.0
Year 7 2025 279,910 280,462 136,921 142.3
Year 8 2026 281,587 286,494 138,212 143.7
Year 9 2027 283,277 292,659 139,522 145.0
Year 10 2028 284,974 359,617 147,411 153.2
16,534 77,329 14,660 15.2 TOTAL
$5,864,000 $2,716,083 $8,580,083
Ten-Year Increase
Growth-Related Expenditures
Units $178,226
Level-of-Service
Square Feet $400
Year Population Nonres.
Vehicle Trips
Facility Square
Feet Apparatus
Improvement Timeframe Estimated Cost
New Western Area Fire Station 2024-2028 $12,556,000
Fire Facility Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
51
FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Revenue Credit/Offset
A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Fire development fees because 10-year growth costs
approximate the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to
the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure F9.
Proposed Fire Facilities Development Fees
The proposed development fees for Fire Facilities are shown in Figure F8. Cost factors for fire facilities,
apparatus, and professional services are summarized at the top of the figure. The residential development
fees are calculated by multiplying the $224.43 cost per person by the service unit ratios (persons per
housing unit) for each housing type. Nonresidential development fees are calculated by multiplying the
$63.40 per vehicle trip by the average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet ratios and the trip
adjustment factors for each development type. The current fees are shown in yellow, followed by the net
change if the proposed fees are implemented.
Figure F8: Proposed Fire Facilities Development Fees
FORECAST OF REVENUES
Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation.
Development Fee Revenues for Fire Facilities
Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the proposed Fire Facilities development
fees and that development over the next 10 years is consistent with the Land Use Assumptions. To the
Facilities $152.31 $43.26
Apparatus $70.55 $20.04
Development Fee Report $1.57 $0.10
TOTAL $224.43 $63.40
Single-Family 2.92 $655 $1,146 ($491)
Multi-Family 1.93 $433 $652 ($219)
Industrial 3.37 50%$106 $129 ($23)
Commercial 37.75 33%$789 $239 $550
Institutional 19.52 33%$408 $166 $242
Office & Other 9.74 50%$308 $563 ($255)
Current Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
Current Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
Fee Component Cost
per Person
Cost per
Vehicle Trip
Residential (per housing unit)
Type of Household Persons per
Housing Unit
Proposed
Fee
Nonresidential Development (per 1,000 square feet)
Type Trip Ends per
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Proposed
Fee
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
52
extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in
the development fee revenue. As shown in Figure F9, the 10-year growth costs of fire improvement costs
total $8.59 million and approximately $8.60 million will be collected from development fees, resulting in
a negligible surplus of $6,760 (less than 0.1% of projected expenditures).
Figure F9: Projected Fire Facilities Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth-Related Fire Expenditures
Growth Share
$5,864,000
$2,716,083
$16,695
$8,596,778
Ten-Year Fire Development Fee Revenues
Single-Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office &
Other
$655 $433 $106 $789 $408 $308
per Unit per Unit per KSF per KSF per KSF per KSF
Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2018 69,581 33,815 12,123 16,284 2,859 8,334
1 2019 69,998 34,017 12,320 16,655 2,896 8,676
2 2020 70,418 34,221 12,520 17,033 2,933 9,031
3 2021 70,840 34,426 12,724 17,421 2,971 9,402
4 2022 71,265 34,633 12,931 17,817 3,010 9,787
5 2023 71,692 34,841 13,142 18,223 3,048 10,188
6 2024 72,122 35,050 13,356 18,637 3,088 10,606
7 2025 72,554 35,260 13,573 19,060 3,128 11,041
8 2026 72,989 35,471 13,794 19,494 3,168 11,494
9 2027 73,427 35,684 14,018 19,937 3,209 11,965
10 2028 73,867 35,898 14,246 20,391 3,250 12,456
4,286 2,083 2,123 4,107 391 4,122
$2,807,330 $901,939 $225,038 $3,240,271 $159,375 $1,269,585
$8,603,538
$6,760Surplus / (Deficit)
Fee Component
Facilities
Apparatus
Development Fee Report
Total Expenditures
Year
Total Projected Revenue
10-Year Increase
Projected Revenue
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
53
STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(e) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Street Facilities IIP:
“Street facilities located in the service area, including arterial or collector streets or roads that
have been designated on an officially adopted plan of the municipality, traffic signals and rights-
of-way and improvements thereon.”
The Street Facilities IIP includes components for arterial street improvements and the cost of professional
services for preparing the Street Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. An incremental
expansion methodology is used for arterial street improvements, and a plan-based methodology is used
for the Development Fee Report.
Service Area
As mentioned previously, much of the land in Glendale west of 115th Avenue is undeveloped and has not
yet been annexed by the City, and the areas of the City east of 115th Avenue is serviced by a
comprehensive arterial street network. Because the arterial street network west of 115th Avenue
currently serves very little existing development, there are large differences in service standards for street
infrastructure between the two service areas. Exacerbating this situation is the fact there is land in the
unincorporated County that may ultimately end up within the City limits west of 115th Avenue. However,
little is known at the time of this study about the timing of any annexation(s) and/or the amount of land
that will ultimately come into the City. As a result, the transportation infrastructure needed west of 115th
Avenue to accommodate new development differs significantly when compared to the area east of 115th
Avenue.
As a result, it is difficult to develop a street plan for West Glendale. Because of these issues, TischlerBise
feels the best approach is to implement the IIP and related Development Fee Study in East Glendale, with
development in West Glendale subject to specific project-by-project analysis of need and impacts at the
time of development plan reviews. The City may want to enter into development/annexation agreements,
or use some other instrument with prospective developers, which may include payments to the City to
help cover the cost of street infrastructure improvements and/or mitigation measures that are
determined to be necessary.
In the West Glendale Service Area, the pace of annexations and associated development is not certain.
Therefore, for the West Service Area, when a property is annexed and development plans are submitted,
the development project will be responsible for all required off-site and/or required “half-street”
improvements adjacent to the property. These requirements will be guided by the existing Glendale
subdivision ordinance; engineering design standards; planning standards, and applicable utility design
standards.
A traffic analysis or alternative rational method may be used to identify specific off-site improvements as
well as mitigation measures for development project impacts (intersections, adjacent roadways, etc.).
Such project mitigation measures may be executed by the project, the City of Glendale, or by in-lieu
payment by the project. The means and methods of execution may be identified and provided for by
Development agreement, or conditions of approval for development plan review and permitting, or by
any other mutually acceptable instrument between the development project and City of Glendale.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
54
METHODOLOGY
Street Facilities development fees use an incremental expansion methodology and allocate capital costs
to residential and nonresidential development based on vehicle miles of travel using average weekday
vehicle trips and average trip lengths. This methodology allows Glendale to maintain the current level of
service standard as growth occurs. Development fee revenue collected using this methodology may not
be used to replace or rehabilitate existing improvements.
Proportionate Share
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. Trip length,
trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors are used to determine the proportionate impact of
residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses on the City’s street network.
RATIO OF SERIVCE UNITS TO LAND USE
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
Service Units
The appropriate service unit for the Street Facilities development fees is vehicle miles of travel (VMT).
VMT creates the link between supply (roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new
development). Components used to determine VMT include: trip generation rates, adjustments for
commuting patterns and pass-by trips, and trip length weighting factors, are discussed further in this
section.
Figure S1: Summary of Service Units
Trip Generation Rates
For nonresidential development, the trip generation rates are from the 10th edition of the reference book
Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2017). A vehicle trip end
represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a
Single Units 210 9.44 HU 64%6.04 2.93
2+ Units 220 7.32 HU 64%4.68 2.93
Industrial (KSF)130 3.37 KSF 50%1.69 1.83
Commercial (KSF)820 37.75 KSF 33%12.46 1.88
Institutional (KSF)520 19.52 KSF 33%6.44 1.83
Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 KSF 50%4.87 1.83
Adj Trip
RateDevelopment Type ITE Code Weekday
VTE Dev Unit Trip Adj Local Trip
Length
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
55
driveway). As an alternative to using the national average trip generation rate for residential
development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may
be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. This is explained in more
detail in Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions.
Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-By Trips
To calculate Street Facilities Development Fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to
avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip
adjustment factor is 50%. As discussed further below, the development fee methodology includes
additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types
of development.
Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 64% to account for commuters leaving
Glendale for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, weekday work trips are
typically 31% of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50% of all trips). As shown in Figure
S2, the Census Bureau’s web application OnTheMap indicates that 88% of resident workers traveled
outside the City for work in 2015. In combination, these factors (0.31 X 0.50 X 0.88 = .14) support the
additional 14% allocation of trips to residential development.
Figure S2: Inflow/Outflow Analysis
For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail development and
some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone
stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary
destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34% of the vehicles that enter
are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66% of attraction trips have
the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip
adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 33% of the trips. These factors are shown
to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use.
Employed Residents 99,620
Residents Working in Glendale 11,855
Residents Commuting out of Glendale 87,765
88%
All Outbound Trips 50%
% Weekday Work Trips 2 31%
14%
Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 64%
1. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-
Destination Employment Statistics, 2015.
2. National Household Travel Survey, 2009.
Percent Commuting out of Glendale
Trip Adjustment Factors for Commuters1
Additional Production Trips
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
56
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
As shown in Appendix C, the City of Glendale provided an inventory of arterial road segments, including
segment lengths, lane quantities, and annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts. Street segments located
in West Glendale were excluded from the inventory. Multiplying each segment’s length by the number of
lanes yields the number of lane miles per segment. The City’s arterial road network consists of 412 lane
miles. By multiplying the traffic counts and segment lengths, the daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is
obtained. The sum of each arterial road segment’s VMT is 1,999,665, meaning Glendale’s arterial street
network handles an average of just under 2.00 million daily VMT.
Figure S3 documents the capacity of Glendale’s arterial road network. Generally, the City’s arterial streets
operate at a Level of Service D, and the average number of lanes for arterials is roughly 4 lanes. The
Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Model (2017) suggests that a mile
segment of a 4-lane arterial street with a Level of Service D should maintain a daily volume of 41,300
vehicles, or 10,325 vehicles per lane mile over a 24 hour period. This means that the total daily lane mile
capacity of the City’s arterial road network of 412 lane miles is approximately 4.25 million.
As noted above, current daily volume on Glendale’s arterial network is approximately 2 million VMT. The
resulting VMC to VMT ratio is 2.13 (4.25 million VMC / 1.99 million VMT). The baseline VMC/VMT ratio
for any incremental expansion method is 1.0 (i.e., VMC=VMT), therefore the current ratio of 2.13 exceeds
current LOS ensuring that new capacity built with development fee funds will be at or below current LOS.
Figure S3: Arterial Road Network Capacity and Usage
Cost per VMT
Figure S4 contains a list of potential transportation projects which Glendale may construct over the next
10 years. The total estimated cost of these projects was used to determine the weighted average cost per
lane mile of $2,121,017. This includes a credit of $6 million for street development impact fees which
were collected between 2013 and 2018 but have not yet been spent.
412
10,325
4,253,900
1,999,665
2.13
*Source: MAG Regional Transportation Model.
Total Vehicle Lane Miles
Capacity per Lane Mile (LOS D)*
Total Capacity (Vehicle Miles)
Existing Vehicle Miles of Travel
VMC/VMT Ratio
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
57
Figure S4: Potential Street Facilities Improvement Projects and Costs
A cost per vehicle mile of capacity (VMC) is calculated based on the average cost per lane mile of
$2,121,017 and the average lane capacity of 10,325 average daily vehicle trips (per 1 lane mile). This
results in a $205.43 cost per VMC. The incremental expansion methodology assumes the ratio of VMC to
VMT is 1, therefore the cost per VMT is also $205.43.
Figure S5: Cost per VMT Factors
Vehicle Trips
Figure S6 shows the calculation of vehicle trips generated by existing development. When the average
weekday VTE and Trip Adjustment percentages (shown in Figure S1) are multiplied by the development
unit quantities for East Glendale from the Land Use Assumption in Appendix A (housing units and
nonresidential KSF), the total number of vehicle trips generated by existing development is determined.
As shown in Figure S6, this totals 778,782 adjusted vehicle trips.
Project Location Lane
Miles
Total Project
Cost
Ball Park Boulevard Bethany Home Rd - 99th/Maryland Ave 3.5 $10,834,648
Bethany Home Road 83rd Ave - 91st Ave 2.0 $3,995,167
75th Avenue Loop 101 - Deer Valley Rd 2.0 $2,934,267
99th Avenue Camelback Rd - Glendale Ave 2.0 $2,608,052
83rd Avenue Glendale Ave - Northern Ave 2.0 $2,934,267
Glendale Avenue 99th Ave - 115th Ave 4.0 $7,144,303
99th Avenue Glendale Ave - Northern Ave 2.0 $2,934,267
67th Avenue Loop 101 - Deer Valley Rd 1.0 $1,519,556
Camelback Road 99th Ave - Loop 101 0.5 $733,567
Camelback Road 43rd Ave - 51st Ave 2.0 $2,934,267
67th Avenue Greenway Rd - Bell Rd 2.0 $2,934,267
67th Avenue Deer Valley Rd - Pinnacle Peak Rd 2.0 $2,934,267
Incremental Lane WideningTBD 5.0 $7,957,781
Incremental Intersection
Improvements TBD 0.0 $17,231,840
Total 30.00 $69,630,516
-$6,000,000
Total Cost $63,630,516
30
$2,121,017
Lane Miles
Cost per Lane Mile
Add northbound and southbound lane
Add northbound and southbound lane
2018 DIF Balance
Additional anticipated intersection improvements (4)
Additional anticipated lane widening projects
Description
New bridge, NB and SB lanes
Add two westbound lanes
Add northbound and southbound lane
Construct center turn lane, southbound right turn lane…
Add eastbound lane and complete 3rd westbound lane
Add northbound and southbound lane
Add eastbound and westbound lane
Add northbound and southbound lane
Add northbound lane
Add eastbound and westbound lane
Cost per Lane Mile $2,121,017
Vehicle Miles of Capacity per Lane Mile 10,325
Cost per VMC $205.43
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
58
Figure S6: Vehicle Trips
Average Trip Length
For the incremental expansion methodology, it is necessary to determine the average trip length on the
City’s arterial network. To do this, national trip generation rates and average trip lengths from the 2017
National Household Travel Survey are used to determine expected VMT on the City’s transportation
network.
Figure S7 shows average trip lengths from the National Household Travel Survey (2017).1
Figure S7: National Average Trip Lengths
The national average trip length needs to be adjusted to reflect actual local demand on the City’s arterial
network. To do this, TischlerBise first determines expected demand (VMT) on the City’s complete
transportation network using the above national travel demand characteristics.
Average daily trips from existing development in each land use category are multiplied by the applicable
average trip lengths.
1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Travel Survey. URL:
http://nhts.ornl.gov
Single Units 210 9.44 HU 64%374,350
2+ Units 220 7.32 HU 64%141,622
Industrial (KSF)130 3.37 KSF 50%11,369
Commercial (KSF)820 37.75 KSF 33%195,745
Institutional (KSF)520 19.52 KSF 33%17,502
Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 KSF 50%38,195
Total Adjusted Vehicle Trips 778,782
2018 Dev
UnitsDevelopment Type ITE Code Weekday
VTE Dev Unit Trip Adj
Land Use National Average Trip
Lenght (miles)
Residential 12.32
Industrial 7.70
Commercial/Retail 7.90
Institutional 7.70
Office and Other 7.70
* U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 2017 National Household Transportation
Survey, adjusted for land use
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
59
Figure S8. Expected VMT in the City of Glendale
Because expected VMT reflects anticipated travel demand from City development on the entire roadway
system, it is therefore higher than actual VMT on the arterial system in the City. To calibrate demand on
the arterial system, expected travel demand is compared to actual VMT obtained from [the City of
Glendale]. The ratio between actual and expected VMT provides a local adjustment factor that can be
applied to national average trip lengths by type of land use. The local adjustment factor is shown in Figure
S9.
Figure S9. Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor
As shown in Figure S10, the national average trips lengths are adjusted to reflect local conditions.
Figure S10. Local Average Trip Lengths by Land Use
Land Use ADT National Avg Trip
Length (miles)
Expected
VMT
Single Units 374,350 12.32 4,611,987
2+ Units 141,622 12.32 1,744,777
Industrial 11,369 7.70 87,539
Commercial 195,745 7.90 1,546,383
Institutional 17,502 7.70 134,764
Office & Other 38,195 7.70 294,105
Total 8,419,555
Actual Local VMT on Arterials*1,999,665
Expected Local VMT^8,419,555
Actual to Expected VMT 0.238
* City of Glendale
^ TischlerBise analysis
National Avg
Trip Length
(miles)
Local Adj.
Factor
Local Trip
Length
Residential 12.32 0.238 2.93
Industrial 7.70 0.238 1.83
Commercial/Retail 7.90 0.238 1.88
Institutional 7.70 0.238 1.83
Office and Other 7.70 0.238 1.83
Sources: National trip length from 2017 NHTS and TischlerBise; local adjustment from Figure S9.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
60
Using the above factors, VMT per service unit is calculated, shown below in Figure S11.
Figure S11. VMT per Service Unit on Arterial Network
SERVICE UNITS, DEMAND, AND COST FOR SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
TischlerBise created an aggregate travel model to convert development units within Glendale to vehicle
trips and vehicle miles of travel. This includes the factors discussed above, as well as average trip length,
and is shown in Figure S12.
Travel Demand Model
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
Projected development in Glendale over the next 10 years, and the corresponding need for additional
lane miles is shown in Figure S12. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert project
development into average weekday vehicle trips. New development in Glendale will generate 104,430
trips.
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
The travel demand model inputs above (Figure S11) are used to derive level of service in Vehicle Miles of
Travel and future needs of lane miles. A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is a measurement unit equal to one
vehicle traveling one mile. As shown in Figure S12, based on the increase in vehicle miles of travel
(228,193), the City of Glendale would need to construct an additional 22 lane miles of arterials to
accommodate projected development over the next 10 years.
Single Units 210 9.44 64%6.04 2.93 17.68
2+ Units 220 7.32 64%4.68 2.93 13.71
Industrial (KSF)130 3.37 50%1.69 1.83 3.08
Commercial (KSF)820 37.75 33%12.46 1.88 23.37
Institutional (KSF)520 19.52 33%6.44 1.83 11.78
Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 50%4.87 1.83 8.91
Local Trip
Length
VMT per
Service UnitDevelopment Type ITE Code Weekday
VTE Trip Adj Adj Trip
Rate
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
61
Figure S12: Projected Travel Demand Model
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires:
“A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Multiplying the increase in number of lane miles (22) by the cost per lane mile from Figure S4 ($2.12
million) results in a 10-year cost of approximately $46.8 million attributed to arterial lane miles.
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based
The cost to prepare the Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Report totals $22,260. Glendale plans
to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of
new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost is
$0.20 per average weekday VMT.
Figure S13: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation
Units 2018 2023 Increase
Streets $22,260 All Development 100%Avg Wkdy
VMT 1,999,665 2,108,602 108,937 $0.20
Cost per
Demand Unit Component Cost Demand
Indicator
Proportionate
Share
Cost Allocation
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028
Base 1 2 3 4 5 10
Single Units 61,962 62,333 62,707 63,083 63,461 63,841 65,778 3,816
2+ Units 30,230 30,411 30,593 30,776 30,961 31,147 32,092 1,862
Industrial KSF 6,747 6,857 6,968 7,082 7,197 7,314 7,929 1,182
Commercial KSF 15,713 16,071 16,436 16,810 17,192 17,584 19,676 3,963
Institutional KSF 2,717 2,752 2,788 2,824 2,860 2,897 3,089 372
Office & Other KSF 7,843 8,165 8,500 8,848 9,211 9,589 11,723 3,880
Single Unit Res Trips 374,350 376,591 378,851 381,122 383,406 385,702 397,404 23,055
2+ Units Res Trips 141,622 142,469 143,322 144,179 145,046 145,917 150,345 8,723
Industrial Trips 11,369 11,554 11,741 11,933 12,127 12,324 13,360 1,992
Commercial Trips 195,745 200,204 204,751 209,411 214,169 219,053 245,114 49,369
Institutional Trips 17,502 17,727 17,959 18,191 18,423 18,661 19,898 2,396
Office & Other Trips 38,195 39,764 41,395 43,090 44,858 46,698 57,091 18,896
Total Vehicle Trips 778,782 788,310 798,019 807,926 818,029 828,356 883,212 104,430
VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel 1,999,665 2,020,691 2,042,079 2,063,851 2,086,009 2,108,602 2,227,858 228,193
Additional Lane Miles 2.04 2.07 2.11 2.15 2.19 2.40 22
Growth-Related Cost $4,319,360 $4,393,518 $4,472,494 $4,551,877 $4,641,101 $5,084,480 $46,876,599NEEDDevelopmentAverage Weekday Vehicle Trips10-Year
Increase
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
62
STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Revenue Credit/Offset
A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Street Facilities development fees because 10-year growth
costs approximate the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees
according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure S16.
Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees
The proposed development fees for Street Facilities are shown in Figure S14. Cost factor for road
improvements and professional services are summarized at the top of the figure. Residential development
fees are expressed per housing unit. Nonresidential development fees are expressed per 1,000 square
feet (KSF) of floor area. The Street Facilities development fees are calculated by multiplying the $205.63
net cost per VMT/VMC by the VMT per development unit for each land use type.
Figure S14: Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees
$205.43
$0.20
$205.63
Residential Development (per Housing Unit)
Development Type
VMT per
Development
Unit
Net Cost per
VMT
Proposed
Fees
Single Unit 17.68 $205.63 $3,635
2+ Unit 13.71 $205.63 $2,819
Nonresidential Development (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)
Development Type
VMT per
Development
Unit
Net Cost per
VMT
Proposed
Fees
Industrial 3.08 $205.63 $634
Commercial 23.37 $205.63 $4,806
Institutional 11.78 $205.63 $2,422
Office & Other 8.91 $205.63 $1,831
Cost per VMT/VMC
Development Fee Study
Net Cost per VMT
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
63
The existing street fees and how much they differ from the proposed fees are shown in Figure S14. Note
that the proposed Street Facilities development fees, if adopted, will only apply to East Glendale.
Figure S15: Proposed and Existing Fees Comparison
PROJECTED STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE
Projected fee revenue shown in Figure S16 is based on the development projections in the Land Use
Assumptions (see Appendix A) and the updated Street Facilities development fees (see Figure S14).
Expenditures on arterial street improvements are derived from the anticipated need for approximately
East Glendale - Residential Development (per Housing Unit)
Development
Type
Proposed
Fees
Current
East Fee Change
Current
West 101
Fee
Change
Single Unit $3,635 $1,551 $2,084 $3,522 $113
2+ Unit $2,819 $865 $1,954 $1,963 $856
West Glendale - Residential Development (per Housing Unit)
Development
Type
Proposed
Fees
Current
West 303
Fee
Change
Single Unit *$0 *
2+ Unit *$0 *
East Glendale - Nonresidential Development (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)
Development
Type
Proposed
Fees
Current
East Fee Change
Current
West 101
Fee
Change
Industrial $634 $308 $326 $701 ($67)
Commercial $4,806 $2,210 $2,596 $5,017 ($211)
Institutional $2,422 $883 $1,539 $2,005 $417
Office & Other $1,831 $957 $874 $2,172 ($341)
West Glendale - Nonresidential Development (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)
Development
Type
Proposed
Fees
Current
West 303
Fee
Change
Industrial *$1,154 ($1,154)
Commercial *$8,260 ($8,260)
Institutional *$3,301 ($3,301)
Office & Other *$3,575 ($3,575)
* In West Glendale, the City intends to assess development impacts and
collect funds for making necessary street improvements, as needed, on a
case-by-case basis.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
64
22 new lane miles over the next 10 years (see Figure S12) at an average cost of $2.12 million per lane mile
(see Figure S4). If development occurs at a faster rate than projected, the demand for infrastructure will
increase along with development fee revenue. If development occurs at a slower rate than projected, the
demand for infrastructure will decrease and development fee revenue will decrease at a similar rate.
Anticipated development fee revenue is approximately $46.9 million over the next 10 years, while
expenditures are also estimated at $46.9 million.
Figure S16: Projected Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue (East Service Area only)
Ten-Year Growth-Related Streets Expenditures
Growth Share
$46,876,599
$22,260
$46,898,859
Ten-Year Streets Development Fee Revenues
Single Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office & Other
$3,635 $2,819 $634 $4,806 $2,422 $1,831
per Unit per Unit per KSF per KSF per KSF per KSF
Units Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2018 61,962 30,230 6,747 15,713 2,717 7,843
Year 1 2019 62,333 30,411 6,857 16,071 2,752 8,165
Year 2 2020 62,707 30,593 6,968 16,436 2,788 8,500
Year 3 2021 63,083 30,776 7,082 16,810 2,824 8,848
Year 4 2022 63,461 30,961 7,197 17,192 2,860 9,211
Year 5 2023 63,841 31,147 7,314 17,584 2,897 9,589
Year 6 2024 64,224 31,334 7,433 17,983 2,935 9,982
Year 7 2025 64,609 31,522 7,554 18,392 2,973 10,391
Year 8 2026 64,996 31,711 7,677 18,810 3,011 10,817
Year 9 2027 65,386 31,901 7,802 19,238 3,050 11,261
Year 10 2028 65,778 32,092 7,929 19,676 3,089 11,723
3,816 1,862 1,182 3,963 372 3,880
$13,871,000 $5,248,000 $749,000 $19,047,000 $901,000 $7,106,000
$46,922,000
$23,141
Component
Arterial Street Improvements
Development Fee Report
Total Expenditures
Surplus / (Deficit)
Year
10-Year Increase
Projected Revenue
Total Projected Revenue
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
65
WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(a) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Water Facilities IIP:
“Water facilities, including the supply, transportation, treatment, purification and distribution of
water, and any appurtenances for those facilities.”
The Water Facilities IIP includes components for the cost recovery of three water treatment plants sized
for future growth, and a plan-based methodology for new water wells, the purchase of a water supply
lease, water line extensions/oversizing, and the cost of professional services for preparing the Water
Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report.
Service Area
Because new development in West Glendale will not connect to the City’s water system, the service area
for Water Facilities IIP is East Glendale.
Proportionate Share
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development.
The Water Facilities IIP and development fees are assessed on both residential and nonresidential
development as both types of development create a burden for additional water facilities. Customers by
land use are used to determine the proportionate share of this burden. In 2017, approximately 93% of
water connections in Glendale were residential, accounting for 58% of the average daily demand.
Approximately 7% of connections were nonresidential, accounting for 42% of the average daily demand.
However, large multi-family residential structures such as apartment and condominium buildings are
often served by a nonresidential meter, so these connection and consumption proportions cannot be used
to allocate costs between residential and nonresidential development.
RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
Residential water development fees are assessed on a per unit basis, based on average daily gallons of
usage per customer. Nonresidential water development fees are assessed by size and type of meter
needed to serve the development. However, a new residential unit requiring a 1-inch or greater meter
would be assessed a development fee based upon meter size. The nonresidential water development fees
are calculated by multiplying the number of gallons per unit by the capacity ratio for the corresponding
size and type of meter multiplied by the cost per gallon, as shown in Figure W1.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
66
Figure W1: Water Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY AND USAGE OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Water Facilities Level of Service Standards
Level of service for Water Facilities is based on average day gallons of capacity per connection per day.
Figure W2 shows the planned daily capacity on an average day for residential and nonresidential
development. These standards are used for calculating treatment capacity assurances.
Demand Indicators
Residential GPD of Capacity 359
Meter Size
(inches)
Capacity
Ratio 1
0.75 1.00
1.00 1.67
1.50 3.33
2.00 5.33
3.00 10.67
4.00 16.67
6.00 33.33
8.00 53.33
Residential Development
Nonresidential Development
1. AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices
M1, 7th Edition.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
67
Figure W2: Water Facilities Level of Service Standards
PROJECTED DEMAND AND COST FOR SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires:
“A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
Future projections of water connections and consumption are shown in Figure W3 below, divided
between residential and nonresidential development. Water connection projections are derived from the
Connections per HU/KSF ratio in Figure W2 and the Land Use Assumptions. Over the next 10 years, it is
projected there will be an increase of 3,548 residential connections and 1,222 nonresidential connections.
Water consumption projections were derived using the Gallons per Day per Connection ratios in Figure
W1. The consumption ratios were reduced by 0.1% per year to reflect the City’s successful water
conservation efforts. Average day water consumption will increase by about 1.05 million gallons per day
for residential development and 4.08 million gallons per day for nonresidential development. As shown
in Figure W3, this will result in an additional 5.13 million gallons of water consumption per day by 2028.
Avg Gallons
per Day Connections
Gallons per
Day per
Connection
Connections
per HU/KSF
Residential 20,570,923 57,259 359 0.930
Nonresidential 14,656,071 4,189 3,499 0.130
TOTAL 35,226,995 61,448 573
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
68
Figure W3: Future Projections of Required Water Consumption2
Water Treatment Plants – Cost Recovery
The City owns four water treatment plant facilities, three of which have outstanding debt being paid by
the City. These three facilities include excess capacity which will serve new development and which the
City plans to have new development repay via development fees. Thus, the cost-recovery methodology is
used to calculate this component of the Water Facilities IIP and Development Fees.
The three water treatment plants added an additional 85 million gallons of capacity to the water system,
and cost a total of $208 million. The cost per gallon of capacity can be determined by simply dividing the
total cost by the total added capacity. As shown in Figure W4, the resulting cost per gallon of capacity is
$2.45. Applying this cost towards the projected 10-year increase in water consumption of approximately
5.13 million gallons per day yields a total growth cost of $12.56 million. This will reduce the outstanding
debt on these facilities from $72.8 million to $60.2 million.
2 Glendale classifies connections as either Residential or Commercial. Residential connections consist of 0.75-inch
meters used for single family units. Commercial connections include all nonresidential meters, as well as multi-family
residential meters larger than 0.75 inches. Therefore, the water demand model uses single family units as a proxy for
residential connections, and nonresidential floor area as a proxy for nonresidential connections.
Single Family
Housing Units
Nonres.
Floor Area
(KSF)
Residential
Connections
Avg. Daily
Consumption
Gallons per
Day per
Connection
Nonres.
Connections
Avg. Daily
Consumption
Total Daily
Consumption
Total
Customers
Past 1 2017 61,593 32,220 57,259 20,570,923 359 4,189 14,656,071 35,226,995 61,448
Base 2018 61,962 33,020 57,602 20,673,456 359 4,293 15,004,917 35,678,372 61,895
1 2019 62,333 33,845 57,947 20,776,479 359 4,400 15,363,525 36,140,004 62,347
2 2020 62,707 34,692 58,295 20,880,351 358 4,510 15,731,865 36,612,216 62,805
3 2021 63,083 35,564 58,644 20,984,352 358 4,624 16,113,392 37,097,745 63,268
4 2022 63,461 36,460 58,996 21,089,197 357 4,740 16,501,104 37,590,300 63,736
5 2023 63,841 37,384 59,349 21,194,167 357 4,860 16,901,934 38,096,102 64,209
6 2024 64,224 38,333 59,705 21,299,978 357 4,984 17,315,844 38,615,821 64,689
7 2025 64,609 39,310 60,063 21,406,268 356 5,111 17,739,321 39,145,589 65,174
8 2026 64,996 40,315 60,423 21,513,036 356 5,241 18,172,336 39,685,372 65,664
9 2027 65,386 41,351 60,785 21,620,281 356 5,376 18,621,787 40,242,067 66,161
10 2028 65,778 42,417 61,150 21,728,355 355 5,515 19,084,162 40,812,517 66,665
10-Year Change 3,816 9,397 3,548 1,054,900 -4 1,222 4,079,245 5,134,145 4,770
Total
Year
Residential Nonresidential
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
69
Figure W4: Water Treatment Plan Cost Recovery
Water Supply – Plan-Based
The City of Glendale is in the process of purchasing a lease of water supply from the White Mountain
Apache Tribe. The lease purchase is being used to meet additional demand stemming from new
development. As shown in Figure W5, the total cost of the lease is $6.9 million, and the average day water
capacity added is approximately 2.11 million gallons. When the average daily capacity (2.1 million gallons)
is compared to the cost ($6.9 million), cost per gallon is $3.27. Because the lease purchase is solely being
used to meet additional demand stemming from new development and the additional 10-year demand
(5.13 million gallons per day) exceeds the added capacity of the lease purchase, the City will need to
eliminate the supply portion of the Water Facilities development fee (approximately 31% of the total fee)
in approximately 2023 unless additional supply projects are identified in the next development fee
update.
Figure W5: Water Supply Lease Purchase Cost and Capacity Factors
New Water Wells – Plan-Based
The City plans on activating seven new water wells over the next 10-years to help meet additional water
demand from new development. Figure W6 shows each new water well’s cost and added average day
capacity in gallons. The new water wells will cost a total of $22.2 million and will add an additional 10.45
million gallons of capacity per day. Dividing the total cost by the total added capacity yields a cost per
gallon of capacity of $2.12. With an estimated increase in daily water demand of 5.13 million gallons, the
Pyramid
Peak WTP
Original Cost $77,560,000 $82,625,598 $47,810,693 $207,996,291
Capacity
(average day gallons)30,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 85,000,000
Cost per Gallon of Capacity $2.59 $3.31 $1.59 $2.45
5,134,145
$12,563,331
Current Remaining Principal $14,929,320 $48,026,668 $9,859,938 $72,815,926
$12,563,331
$60,252,595
*Oasis Water Campus has a surface water treatment plant and a groundwater treatment plant
Cholla WTP*Oasis WTP Total
10-Year Increase in Gallons per Average Day
10-Year Development Fee Revenue
Remaining Principal in 2029
10-Year Share of Cost
Cost Capacity (Avg.
GPD)
White Mountain Apache
Lease Purchase $6,900,000 2,109,550
Cost per Gallon $3.27
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
70
10-year growth share of cost is approximately $10.9 million, or approximately 49% of the total capital
costs.
Figure W6: New Water Wells Cost and Capacity Factors
Water Line Extensions/Oversizing – Plan-Based
The City plans on spending approximately $150,000 per year on water line extensions and oversizing in
order to maintain the current level-of-service for new development. Figure W7 shows the 10-year total
cost is $1.5 million. Dividing the total cost by the projected 10-year increase in water consumption (5.13
million gallons per day) yields a cost per gallon of $0.29.
Figure W7: Water Line Extensions/Oversizing Cost and Capacity Factors
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based
The cost to prepare the Water Development Fees and IIP report totals $13,913. Glendale plans to update
its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year water meter connection
projections, the cost is $6.01 per meter.
Cost
New Wells on Existing City Property (4)$13,200,000
New Wells on New Sites (2)$7,000,000
Shared Well/Interconnect (1)$2,000,000
Total $22,200,000
Cost per Gallon of Capacity $2.12
Ten-Year Increase in GPD 5,134,145
Growth Share of Cost $10,884,388 49%
10,454,400
Capacity (gallons
per day)
5,515,000
4,219,000
720,400
Project #6060
Year Cost
2019 $150,000
2020 $150,000
2021 $150,000
2022 $150,000
2023 $150,000
2024-2029 $750,000
Total $1,500,000
5,130,000
$0.29
10-Year Increase in GPD of
Consumption
Cost per Gallon
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
71
Figure W8: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation
WATER DEVELOPMENT FEE
Revenue Credit/Offset
A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Water Facilities development fees because 10-year growth
costs exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to
the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure W10.
Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees
The proposed development fees for Water Facilities are shown in Figure W9. The development fee is
derived from the level of service standard water flow per residential unit (359 gallons), multiplied by the
total cost per gallon ($8.13), which includes cost factors for the water treatment plant cost recovery, new
water wells, and the water supply lease purchase. The cost of professional services to prepare the Water
IIP and Development Fee Report is added per water meter.
For a single family residential 0.75-inch water meter, the proposed fee is found by multiplying the cost
per gallon ($8.13) by the level of service standard (359 gallons), and adding the $6.01 fee study cost per
meter. The development fee for nonresidential meters, and residential meters larger than 0.75 inches, is
determined by multiplying the cost per gallon by the level of service standard and the capacity ratio in
Figure W1, and then adding the cost per meter of $6.01. The proposed fees represent a net decrease from
the current fee amounts.
Units 2018 2023 Increase
Water $13,913 All Development 100%Connections 61,895 64,209 2,314 $6.01
Cost per
Demand Unit Component Cost Demand
Indicator
Proportionate
Share
Cost Allocation
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
72
Figure W9: Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees
FORECAST OF REVENUES
Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation.
Development Fee Revenues for Water Facilities
Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the proposed Water Facilities development
fees and that development over the next 10 years is consistent with the Water Consumption Projections
in Figure W3. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a
corresponding change in the development fee revenue. As shown in Figure W10, the 10-year water
improvement costs total $31.87 million and approximately $31.86 million will be collected from
development fees.
The revenue projections cannot be derived from projected development unit increases (housing units and
nonresidential floor area). As documented in the Water Demand Model in Figure W3, Glendale classifies
multi-family meters larger than 0.75 inches as commercial (i.e. nonresidential) meters; thus, there is not
a clear distinction between residential and nonresidential connections from a land use perspective. Water
Demand Indicators
Residential GPD of Capacity 359
Cost Factors per Gallon of Capacity
$2.45
Water Wells $2.12
$3.27
Water Line Extension / Oversizing $0.29
Net Capital Cost per Gallon $8.13
Cost Factors per Connection
Fee Study $6.01
Net Capital Cost per Meter $6.01
Meter Size
(inches)Capacity Ratio 1 Proposed Fee Current Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
0.75 1.00 $2,923 $2,761 $162
1.00 1.67 $4,878 $4,607 $271
1.50 3.33 $9,722 $9,183 $539
2.00 5.33 $15,558 $14,695 $863
3.00 10.67 $31,139 $29,413 $1,726
4.00 16.67 $48,647 $45,950 $2,697
6.00 33.33 $97,259 $91,867 $5,392
8.00 53.33 $155,617 $146,991 $8,626
1. AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M1, 7th Edition.
All Development Types (per meter)
Water Treatment Plants
Water Supply
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
73
Facilities development fee revenue is instead derived based on the projected increases in consumption
and connections over the next 10 years. It is also important to note that it is assumed that the Water
Facilities development fee amount changes beginning in 2024 when it is estimated that the White
Mountain Apache lease purchase capacity will be fully paid for (reducing the cost per gallon by $3.27).
Figure W10: Projected Water Facilities Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth-Related Water Expenditures
Growth Share
$12,563,331
Water Wells $10,884,388
$6,900,000
Water Line Extensions/Oversizing $1,500,000
$27,825
$31,875,544
Ten-Year Water Development Fee Revenue
$8.13 $6.01
per gallon*per connection
Consumption (GPD)Connections
Base 2018 35,678,372 61,895
Year 1 2019 36,140,004 62,347
Year 2 2020 36,612,216 62,805
Year 3 2021 37,097,745 63,268
Year 4 2022 37,590,300 63,736
Year 5 2023 38,096,102 64,209
Year 6 2024 38,615,821 64,689
Year 7 2025 39,145,589 65,174
Year 8 2026 39,685,372 65,664
Year 9 2027 40,242,067 66,161
Year 10 2028 40,812,517 66,665
5,134,145 4,770
$31,836,622 $28,668
Total Revenue $31,865,289
Surplus / (Deficit)($10,255)
Year
Ten-Year Increase
Projected Revenue
* City will reduce cost per gallon by $3.27 in 2023 for water supply
lease, unless additional supply projects are identified.
Fee Component
Water Treatment Facilities
Water Supply
Development Fee Report (x2)
Total Expenditures
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
74
W ASTEWATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(b) defines the facilities and assets which can be included in the Wastewater Facilities
IIP:
“Wastewater facilities, including collection, interception, transportation, treatment and disposal
of wastewater, and any appurtenances for those facilities.”
The Wastewater Facilities IIP includes components for the cost recovery of three wastewater treatment
plants with excess capacity to serve new development, wastewater line extensions/oversizing, and the
cost of professional services for preparing the Wastewater Facilities IIP and related Development Fee
Report.
Service Area
Because new development in West Glendale will not connect to the City’s wastewater system, the service
area for Wastewater Facilities IIP is East Glendale.
Proportionate Share
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development.
The Wastewater Facilities IIP and related development fees are assessed on both residential and
nonresidential development as both types of development create a burden for additional wastewater
facilities. Customers by land use are used to determine the proportionate share of this burden. In 2017,
approximately 91% of wastewater connections in Glendale were for single family residences, accounting
for 56% of the average daily demand. Approximately 9% of connections were nonresidential, accounting
for 44% of the average daily demand.
RATIO OF SERVICE UNIT TO DEVELOPMENT UNIT
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
Residential Wastewater development fees are assessed on a per unit basis, based on average daily gallons
of usage per customer. Nonresidential Wastewater Facilities development fees are assessed by size and
type of meter needed to serve the development. However, a new residential unit requiring a 1-inch or
greater meter would be assessed a development fee based upon meter size. The nonresidential
wastewater development fees are calculated by multiplying the number of gallons per unit by the capacity
ratio for the corresponding size and type of meter multiplied by the cost per gallon, as shown in Figure
WW1.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
75
Figure WW1: Wastewater Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY AND USAGE OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Wastewater Facilities Level of Service Standards
Level of service for Wastewater Facilities is based on average day gallons of capacity per connection per
day. Figure WW2 shows the planned daily capacity on an average day for residential and nonresidential
development. These standards are used for calculating treatment capacity assurances.
Demand Indicators
Residential GPD 208
Meter Size
(inches)Capacity Ratio 1
0.75 1.00
1.00 1.67
1.50 3.33
2.00 5.33
3.00 10.67
4.00 16.67
6.00 33.33
8.00 53.33
Residential Development
Nonresidential Development
1. AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M1,
7th Edition.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
76
Figure WW2: Wastewater Facilities Level of Service Standards
PROJECTED DEMAND AND COST FOR SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires:
“A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
Future projections of wastewater connections and production are shown in Figure WW3 below, divided
between residential and nonresidential development. Wastewater connection projections are derived
from the Connections per HU/KSF ratio in Figure WW2 and the Land Use Assumptions. Over the next 10
years, it is projected there will be an increase of 3,215 residential connections and 1,548 nonresidential
connections.
Wastewater production projections were derived using the Gallons per Day per Connection ratios in
Figure WW2. The production ratios were reduced by 0.1% per year to reflect the City’s successful water
conservation efforts. Required average day wastewater capacity will increase by 552,258 gallons per day
for residential development and 2.33 million gallons per day for nonresidential development. As shown
in Figure WW3, this will result in an additional 2.88 million gallons of wastewater production per day by
2028.
Avg Gallons
per Day Connections
Gallons per
Day per
Connection
Connections
per HU/KSF
Residential 10,771,732 51,895 208 0.752
Nonresidential 8,367,485 5,309 1,576 0.136
TOTAL 19,139,216 57,204 335
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
77
Figure WW3: Future Projections of Required Wastewater Production3
Wastewater Treatment Plants – Cost Recovery
The City has three wastewater treatment facilities. These facilities include excess capacity which will serve
new development and which the City plans to have new development repay via development fees.
Therefore, the cost-recovery methodology is used to calculate this component of the Wastewater
Facilities IIP and Development Fees.
The three wastewater treatment facilities added an additional 29.2 million gallons per day of capacity to
the wastewater system, and cost a total of $208.7 million. The 91st Avenue WWTP, also known as SROG,
is a joint use venture between the Cities of Glendale, Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa and Scottsdale. The costs and
capacity shown in Figure WW4 represent Glendale’s share for this facility. The cost per gallon of capacity
can be determined by simply dividing the total cost by the total added capacity. As shown in Figure W4,
the resulting cost per gallon of capacity is $7.15. Applying this cost towards the projected 10-year increase
in wastewater production of approximately 2.88 million gallons per day yields a total growth cost of
$20.59 million.
3 Glendale classifies connections as either Residential or Commercial. Residential connections consist of 0.75-inch
meters used for single family units. Commercial connections include all nonresidential meters, as well as multi-family
residential meters larger than 0.75 inches. Therefore, the water demand model uses single family units as a proxy for
residential connections, and nonresidential floor area as a proxy for nonresidential connections.
Single Family
Housing Units
Nonresidential
Floor Area (KSF)Connections Avg. Daily
Production Connections Avg. Daily
Production
Total Daily
Production
Total
Connections
Past 1 2017 61,593 32,220 51,895 10,771,732 5,309 8,367,485 19,139,216 57,204
Base 2018 61,962 33,020 52,206 10,825,449 5,441 8,566,954 19,392,403 57,647
1 2019 62,333 33,845 52,518 10,879,255 5,577 8,772,307 19,651,562 58,095
2 2020 62,707 34,692 52,834 10,933,771 5,716 8,981,955 19,915,726 58,550
3 2021 63,083 35,564 53,150 10,988,166 5,860 9,199,025 20,187,191 59,010
4 2022 63,461 36,460 53,469 11,043,062 6,008 9,421,924 20,464,986 59,477
5 2023 63,841 37,384 53,789 11,098,043 6,160 9,650,634 20,748,677 59,949
6 2024 64,224 38,333 54,112 11,153,521 6,316 9,885,138 21,038,660 60,428
7 2025 64,609 39,310 54,436 11,209,084 6,477 10,126,981 21,336,065 60,913
8 2026 64,996 40,315 54,762 11,264,935 6,643 10,376,141 21,641,076 61,405
9 2027 65,386 41,351 55,091 11,321,280 6,814 10,632,594 21,953,874 61,905
10 2028 65,778 42,417 55,421 11,377,707 6,989 10,894,759 22,272,466 62,410
3,816 9,397 3,215 552,258 1,548 2,327,805 2,880,063 4,763
Year
10-Year Increase
TotalResidentialNonresidential
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
78
Figure WW4: Wastewater Treatment Facility Cost Recovery
Wastewater Line Extensions/Oversizing – Plan-Based
The City plans on spending approximately $160,000 per year on wastewater line extensions and oversizing
in order to maintain the current level-of-service for new development. Figure WW5 shows the 10-year
total cost is $1.6 million. Dividing the total cost by the projected 10-year increase in wastewater usage
(2.88 million gallons per day) yields a cost per gallon of $0.56.
Figure WW5: Wastewater Line Extensions/Oversizing Cost and Capacity Factors
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based
The cost to prepare the Wastewater Facilities IIP and Development Fee Report totals $13,913. Glendale
plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year water
meter connection projections, the cost is $6.04 per meter.
Original Cost $42,725,000 $114,890,000 $51,074,000 $208,689,000
Capacity
(average day gallons)4,500,000 11,500,000 13,200,000 29,200,000
Cost per Gallon of Capacity $9.49 $9.99 $3.87 $7.15
Remaining Principal $6,370,914 $1,503,750 $35,189,005 $43,063,669
2,880,063
$20,592,450
$22,471,219
Total
10-Year Increase in Gallons per Average Day
10-Year Share of Cost
Remaining Principal in 2029
Arrowhead
WWRF
West Area
WWRF
91st Ave
WWTP
Project #6060
Year Cost
2019 $160,000
2020 $160,000
2021 $160,000
2022 $160,000
2023 $160,000
2024-2029 $800,000
Total $1,600,000
2,880,063
$0.56
10-Year Increase in GPD of
Production
Cost per Gallon
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
79
Figure WW6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation
WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT FEE
Revenue Credit/Offset
A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Wastewater Facilities development fees because 10-year
growth costs approximate the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees
according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure WW8.
Proposed Wastewater Facilities Development Fees
The proposed development fees for Wastewater Facilities are shown in Figure WW7. The development
fee is derived from the level of service standard wastewater flow per residential unit (208 gallons),
multiplied by the cost per gallon ($7.71) of the wastewater treatment facility cost recover. The cost of
professional services to prepare the Wastewater IIP and Development Fee ($6.04) is added per meter.
For a single family residential 0.75-inch meter, the proposed fee is found by multiplying the cost per gallon
($7.71) by the level of service standard (208 gallons), and adding the $6.04 fee study cost per meter. The
development fee for nonresidential meters, and residential meters larger than 0.75 inches, is determined
by multiplying the cost per gallon by the level of service and the capacity ratio discussed in the previous
section, and then adding the cost per meter of $6.04. The proposed wastewater development fees
represent a net decrease from the current fee amounts.
Units 2018 2023 Increase
Wastewater $13,913 All Development 100%Connections 57,647 59,949 2,302 $6.04
Cost per
Demand Unit Component Cost Demand
Indicator
Proportionate
Share
Cost Allocation
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
80
Figure WW7: Proposed Wastewater Facilities Development Fees
FORECAST OF REVENUES
Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation.
Development Fee Revenues for Wastewater Facilities
Revenue projections shown in Figure WW8 assume implementation of the proposed Wastewater Facilities
development fees and that wastewater production over the next 10 years is consistent with the
Wastewater Projections in Figure WW3. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows
down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. As shown below, the 10-
year wastewater improvement costs total $22.2 million and approximately $22.2 million will be collected
from development fees.
The revenue projections cannot be derived from projected development unit increases (housing units and
nonresidential floor area). As documented in the Water Demand Model in Figure W3, Glendale classifies
multi-family meters larger than 0.75 inches as commercial (i.e. nonresidential) meters; thus, there is not
a clear distinction between residential and nonresidential connections from a land use perspective. Water
Facilities development fee revenue is instead derived based on the projected increases in consumption
and connections over the next 10 years.
Demand Indicators
Residential GPD 208
Cost Factors per Gallon of Capacity
$7.15
Line Extensions/Oversizing $0.56
Net Capital Cost per Gallon $7.71
Cost Factors per Connection
Fee Study $6.04
Net Capital Cost per Meter $6.04
Meter Size
(inches)Capacity Ratio 1 Proposed Fee Current Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
0.75 1.00 $1,609 $1,944 ($335)
1.00 1.67 $2,684 $3,243 ($559)
1.50 3.33 $5,346 $6,462 ($1,116)
2.00 5.33 $8,553 $10,341 ($1,788)
3.00 10.67 $17,117 $20,696 ($3,579)
4.00 16.67 $26,739 $32,331 ($5,592)
6.00 33.33 $53,456 $64,637 ($11,181)
8.00 53.33 $85,530 $103,420 ($17,890)
Reclamation & Treatment Facilities
All Development Types (per meter)
1. AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M1, 7th Edition.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
81
Figure WW8: Projected Wastewater Facilities Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth-Related Wastewater Expenditures
Growth Share
$20,592,450
Line Extensions/Oversizing $1,600,000
Development Fee Report (x2)$27,825
$22,220,275
Ten-Year Wastewater Development Fee Revenue
$7.71 $6.04
per gallon per connection
Production (GPD)Connections
Base 2018 19,392,403 57,647
Year 1 2019 19,651,562 58,095
Year 2 2020 19,915,726 58,550
Year 3 2021 20,187,191 59,010
Year 4 2022 20,464,986 59,477
Year 5 2023 20,748,677 59,949
Year 6 2024 21,038,660 60,428
Year 7 2025 21,336,065 60,913
Year 8 2026 21,641,076 61,405
Year 9 2027 21,953,874 61,905
Year 10 2028 22,272,466 62,410
2,880,063 4,763
$22,210,000 $30,000
Total Revenue $22,240,000
Surplus / (Deficit)$19,725
Projected Revenue
Fee Component
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Total Expenditures
Year
Ten-Year Increase
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
82
APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For municipalities in Arizona, the state enabling legislation requires supporting documentation on land
use assumptions, a plan for infrastructure improvements, and development fee calculations. This
document contains the land use assumptions for the City of Glendale 2018 development fee update.
Development fees must be updated every five years, making short-range projections the critical time
frame. The Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) is limited to 10 years for non-utility fees, thus a very
long-range “build-out” analysis may not be used to derive development fees.
Arizona Revised Statuses (ARS) § 9-463.05 (T)(6) requires the preparation of a Land Use Assumptions
document which shows:
“Projections of change in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service
area over a period of at least 10 years and pursuant to the General Plan of the municipality.”
TischlerBise prepared current demographic estimates and future development projections for both
residential and nonresidential development that will be used in the Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP)
and calculation of the development fees. Demographic data for FY 16-17 (beginning July 1, 2016) are used
in calculating levels-of-service provided to existing development in the City of Glendale. Although long-
range projections are necessary for planning infrastructure systems, a shorter time frame of five to 10
years is critical for the impact fees analysis. TischlerBise used compound growth rates to produce
conservative projections that increase over time.
Arizona’s Development Fee Act requires fees to be updated at least every five years and limits the IIP to a
maximum of 10 years for non-utility fees. Therefore, the use of a very long-range “build-out” analysis is
no longer acceptable for deriving development fees in Arizona municipalities.
SERVICE AREAS
ARS § 9-63.05 defines “service area” as follows:
“Any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served
by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists
between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as
prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan.”
The City’s previous Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Study
recommended three services areas, shown below in Figure A1.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
83
Figure A1: Current Development Fee Service Areas
Much of the land in Glendale west of 115th Avenue is undeveloped and has not yet been annexed by the
City. Additionally, any new development west of 115th Avenue is not expected to utilize the City’s water
and wastewater system; and, based on development activity since the previous study, the arterial streets
network in the 101 Loop and East areas shown on Figure 2 are comparable. As a result, the infrastructure
needed west of 115th Avenue to accommodate new development differs significantly when compared to
the area east of 115th Avenue. As a result of the development of the 101 Loop area since the previous
study and discussions with City staff regarding anticipated development patterns and infrastructure
needs, TischlerBise is recommending a number of changes to the Development Fee Service Areas as
proposed in Figure A2.
First and foremost, parks and recreation, libraries, police, and fire infrastructure are intended to serve the
entire City with a standard level of service as opposed to bounded districts or subareas. As an example,
referring to Figure A1, a new residential development in the 101 Loop area is still likely to utilize regional
park or library amenities located in the East area. Furthermore, police and fire infrastructure and
deployment changes over time based on migration patterns of people and is not necessarily restricted to
specific geographic sub-zones. As such, TischlerBise is recommending all fees for these categories be
assessed as a city-wide fee.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
84
The same, however, is not true for utilities and streets infrastructure. As previously mentioned, water
and wastewater infrastructure will only benefit development east of 115th Avenue. Additionally, because
the arterial street network west of 115th Avenue currently serves very little existing development, there
are large differences in service standards for street infrastructure between the two service areas. As a
result, TischlerBise recommends having 115th Avenue serve as the dividing line between just two service
areas for Utilities and Street Facilities development fee assessments. The effect is the consolidation of
the 101 Loop and East service areas in Figure 2 to create two service areas – East Glendale and West
Glendale – as proposed in Figure A2.
Figure A2: Proposed Development Fee Service Areas
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Current estimates and future projections of residential development are detailed in this section, including
population and housing units by type (single family versus multi-family units). Current (2018) estimates of
housing units were obtained using annual housing unit permit data provided by the City of Glendale’s
Development Services department, the 2015 Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Socio-
economic Projections (June 2016), and the persons per housing unit ratio derived from the 2016 U.S.
Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 1-year estimates.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
85
Persons per Housing Unit
In 2010 the U.S. Census Bureau transitioned from the traditional long-form questionnaire to the American
Community Survey, which is less detailed and has smaller sample sizes. As a result, Census data now has
more limitations than before. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with
attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). For development fees in Glendale, “single-unit”
residential includes detached units and townhouses that share a common sidewall, but are constructed
on an individual parcel of land. The second residential category includes all structures with two or more
units on an individual parcel of land.
According to the Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents.
Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household,
to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. When persons per housing unit are used in the fee
calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. When persons per
household are used in the fee calculations, the impact fee methodology assumes all housing units will be
occupied, this requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards.
TischlerBise recommends that development fees for residential development in the City of Glendale be
imposed according to a number of year-round residents per housing unit. For the development fee
calculations, TischlerBise used the ACS results shown at the top of Figure A3 to indicate the relative
number of persons per housing unit, by units in a residential structure, and the housing mix in Glendale.
The ratio of persons per housing unit (PPHU) across housing types is 2.60. To estimate population for
future years, however, the single family and multi-family PPHU ratios of 2.92 and 1.93, respectively, are
used. The share of multi-family housing in Glendale is approximately 32%. In 2016, approximately 8.0% of
the housing stock in Glendale was vacant or used by seasonal residents.
Figure A3: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing
Current Residential Estimates
To estimate the current number of housing units and residents, TischlerBise used Maricopa Association
of Governments’ (MAG) 2015 estimates for the Glendale Metropolitan Planning Area (Socioeconomic
Projections, June 2016). These estimates are shown in Figure A4 below, along with MAG’s 2030
projections. The MPA is slightly larger than the City limits, but the difference will decrease over time if the
Single Unit*184,215 63,123 68%2.92 5.7%
2+ Units 57,745 29,870 32%1.93 12.9%
Subtotal 241,960 92,993 2.60 8.0%
Group Quarters 3,889
TOTAL 245,849 92,993 2.64 8.0%
* Single unit includes detached and attached
Source: Tables B25024, B25032, B25033, and B26001.
One-Year Estimates, 2016 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
Type Housing
MixPersonsHousing Units Persons per
Housing Unit
Vacancy
Rate
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
86
City continues to annex additional land. MAG estimates there were 259,007 persons and 101,205 housing
units in Glendale in 2015, and projects 300,969 residents and 111,086 housing units by 2030.
Figure A4: Glendale Population and Housing Estimates for 2015 and 2030
Figure A5 shows Glendale’s recent housing unit permit totals by fiscal year, provided by the City of
Glendale’s Development Services. The average number of residential units permitted per year during this
four-year period was 522, although there was a high degree of variation from year to year. Single family
permits have been steadily increasing, while multi-family unit permits have been much more irregular.
The general trend in housing unit permits is increasing.
Figure A5: Recent Residential Permits by Fiscal Year
Residential Projections
To derive the 10-year housing unit projections, TischlerBise started with the 2015 MAG housing unit
estimates in Figure A4 (101,205 units) and added the permit figures for fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17
from Figure A5 (235 and 1,341 units). Because there has not been any measurable housing unit growth in
the West Glendale service area in recent years, the housing unit permits were added to the East Glendale
service area only. The 2017 housing unit estimate for West Glendale, therefore, did not change from the
MAG 2015 estimate (11,138 units), while the 2017 East Glendale housing unit estimate rose to 91,643
(shown in the first column of Figure A6).
Housing unit estimates for 2018 through 2028 were calculated using an exponential growth formula. An
exponential growth approach provides more conservative short-range projections, with annual increases
growing larger over time. The 2017 housing unit estimate and the 2030 MAG housing unit projections
imply an average annual growth rate in the total number of housing units of 0.60%. This growth rate was
used to project housing units from 2018 through 2028, shown in Figure A6. The housing mix of 68% single
family units and 32% multi-family units from the ACS data (see Figure A3) was assumed to remain
constant. Glendale is projected to add 6,369 housing units between 2018 and 2028.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
87
Glendale’s population projections, also shown in Figure A6, were derived by simply multiplying the
housing unit projections by the PPHU ratios for single and multi-family units in Figure A2. The 2016 PPHU
ratios of 2.92 persons per single family unit and 1.93 persons per multi-family unit were assumed to
remain constant throughout the projection period. Glendale is projected to add 16,534 residents between
2018 and 2028.
Figure A6: Glendale Residential Development Projections
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
In addition to data on residential development, the infrastructure improvements plan and development
fees require data on nonresidential development in Glendale. Current estimates and future projections of
nonresidential development are detailed in this section, including jobs and floor area by type. TischlerBise
uses the terms “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work.
Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development
To estimate the current number of jobs, TischlerBise used Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG)
2015 estimates for the Glendale Metropolitan Planning Area (Socioeconomic Projections, June 2016). Jobs
were aggregated into one of four categories: industrial, commercial, institutional, and office & other.
These estimates are shown in Figure A7 below, along with MAG’s 2030 projections. MAG estimates there
were 79,388 jobs in Glendale’s MPA in 2015, and the number of jobs will grow to 119,381 by 2030.
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028
Prior Year Base 1 2 3 4 5 10
Resident Population
East Glendale 237,848 239,273 240,706 242,149 243,600 245,061 246,529 254,009 14,736
West Glendale 28,995 29,167 29,341 29,518 29,695 29,875 30,054 30,965 1,798
Total Population 266,843 268,440 270,047 271,667 273,295 274,936 276,583 284,974 16,534
Housing Units
East Glendale
Single Unit 61,593 61,962 62,333 62,707 63,083 63,461 63,841 65,778 3,816
2+ Units 30,050 30,230 30,411 30,593 30,776 30,961 31,147 32,092 1,862
Total East Units 91,643 92,192 92,744 93,300 93,859 94,422 94,988 97,870 5,678
West Glendale
Single Unit 7,574 7,619 7,665 7,711 7,757 7,804 7,851 8,089 470
2+ Units 3,564 3,585 3,606 3,628 3,650 3,672 3,694 3,806 221
Total West Units 11,138 11,204 11,271 11,339 11,407 11,476 11,545 11,895 691
City-Wide
Single Unit 69,167 69,581 69,998 70,418 70,840 71,265 71,692 73,867 4,286
2+ Units 33,614 33,815 34,017 34,221 34,426 34,633 34,841 35,898 2,083
Total City-Wide Units 102,781 103,396 104,015 104,639 105,266 105,898 106,533 109,765 6,369
10-Year
Change
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
88
Figure A7: Glendale Jobs Estimates for 2015 and 2030
Using the 2015 and 2030 socioeconomic data in Figure A7, TischlerBise derived the interim year data by
employing an exponential growth formula. An exponential growth approach provides more conservative
short-range projections, with annual increases growing larger over time. For example, based on MAG’s
2015 and 2030 projections, industrial jobs will grow on average at a rate of 1.63% per year. Similarly,
commercial jobs will grow 2.27%, institutional jobs will grow at 1.29%, and office & other jobs will grow
at 4.10% per year. Glendale’s 10-year job projections through 2028 are shown in Figure A8. The City is
expected to add a total of 26,931 jobs by 2028, and most of these jobs will be added in the East Glendale
service area. More than half of this job growth (15,399 jobs) is projected to come from the office and
other category.
Figure A8: Glendale Job Projections by Service Area
2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 Increase
Industrial Jobs 8,605 8,064 6,856 11,632 15,461 19,696 4,235
Commercial Jobs 26,664 34,430 968 4,288 27,632 38,718 11,086
Institutional Jobs 8,267 9,981 430 558 8,697 10,539 1,842
Office & Other Jobs 25,973 40,799 1,625 9,629 27,598 50,428 22,830
Total Jobs 69,509 93,274 9,879 26,107 79,388 119,381 39,993
Source: MAG Socioeconomic Projections, June 2016.
East Glendale West Glendale Total City
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
89
Nonresidential Floor Area by Type of Development
Figure A9 indicates 2018 job and floor area estimates for the City of Glendale, subdivided into the four
aforementioned categories. Floor areas for each sector were obtained from CoStar. Dividing these floor
area quantities by the 2018 job estimates (from Figure A6) yields a square foot per job ratio. Industrial
uses have the highest square foot per job ratio at 747, followed by Commercial at 551 square feet per job,
Institutional at 316 square feet per job, and Office & Other at 268 square feet per job. The last column
shows the ratio of jobs per 1,000 square feet from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (2017). These ratios are used to convert projected job figures into projected
nonresidential floor areas over the next 10 years.
Figure A9: 2018 Jobs and Floor Area Estimates
Figure A10 shows the 10-year forecasts for nonresidential floor areas broken down by category for both
East and West Glendale. Just as with jobs, most of the nonresidential floor area growth is expected to
occur in East Glendale.
2018 Sq Ft Floor Area ITE Jobs per
Jobs per Job (1)1,000 Sq Ft (2)
Industrial (3)16,228 747 12,123,000 1.16
Commercial (4)29,560 551 16,284,000 2.34
Institutional (5)9,039 316 2,859,000 0.93
Office & Other (6)31,134 268 8,334,000 2.97
TOTAL 85,961 39,600,000
(1) CoStar data (2018) for Industrial & Commercial uses.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2017).
(3) CoStar data includes Industrial and Flex uses.
(4) CoStar data includes Retail, Hospitality, and Entertainment uses.
(5) CoStar data includes Healthcare uses.
(6) CoStar data includes Office and Specialty uses.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
90
Figure A10: Glendale Nonresidential Floor Area Projections by Service Area
Figure A11 shows the ITE’s ratios of jobs per 1,000 square feet and average weekday vehicle trip ends per
1,000 square feet, broken down by nonresidential land use category. Blue shading indicates the four
nonresidential development prototypes used by TischlerBise to correlate Glendale’s projected job growth
with nonresidential floor area growth and vehicle trips generated by development.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
91
Figure A11: ITE Employee and Trip Generation Ratios
SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS
Development projections for both service areas are summarized in Figure A12. These projections will be
used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related
infrastructure. However, development fees methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to accurate
development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts. If actual
development is slower than projected, development fees revenues will decline, but so will the need for
growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the City will receive
an increase in development fee revenue but will also need to accelerate capital improvements to keep
pace with development.
ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq. Ft.
Code Unit Per Dmd Unit*Per Employee*Dmd Unit Per Emp
110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615
130 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 3.37 2.91 1.16 864
140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628
150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902
254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 4.24 0.61 na
320 Motel room 3.35 25.17 0.13 na
520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076
530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581
540 Community College student 1.15 14.61 0.08 na
550 University/College student 1.56 8.89 0.18 na
565 Day Care student 4.09 21.38 0.19 na
610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354
710 General Office (avg size)1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337
760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292
770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325
820 Shopping Center (avg size)1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427
* Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017).
Land Use / Size
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
92
Figure A12: Municipal Planning Area Projections and Growth Rates
Development projections are based on Maricopa Association of Governments socioeconomic data by
regional analysis zone (MAG, June 2016). TischlerBise used MAG’s housing unit and employment data by
Regional Analysis Zone (RAZ) for 2015 and 2030 for the Glendale Municipal Planning Area. Housing data
were converted to resident population and job data were converted to nonresidential floor area using the
methods described in this Land Use Assumptions document.
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
93
APPENDIX B: FORECAST OF REVENUES
Arizona’s Enabling Legislation requires municipalities to forecast the revenue contribution to be made in
the future towards capital costs and shall include these contributions in determining the extent of burden
imposed by development. TischlerBise sometimes recommends a small percentage reduction in
development fees to satisfy the “required offset,” which is a phrase taken directly from the enabling
legislation (quoted below).
9-463.05.E.7. “A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development
fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue,
ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital
recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved land use
assumptions, and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden
imposed by the development as required in subsection B, paragraph 12 of this section.”
9-463.05.B.12. “The municipality shall forecast the contribution to be made in the future in cash
or by taxes, fees, assessments or other sources of revenue derived from the property owner
towards the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the development fee and shall
include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development.
Beginning August 1, 2014, for purposes of calculating the required offset to development fees
pursuant to this subsection, if a municipality imposes a construction contracting or similar excise
tax rate in excess of the percentage amount of the transaction privilege tax rate imposed on the
majority of other transaction privilege tax classifications, the entire excess portion of the
construction contracting or similar excise tax shall be treated as a contribution to the capital costs
of necessary public services provided to development for which development fees are assessed,
unless the excess portion was already taken into account for such purpose pursuant to this
subsection.”
Glendale does not have a higher than normal construction excise tax rate, so the required offset described
above is not applicable. The required forecast of non-development fee revenue that might be used for
growth-related capital costs is shown in Figure B1.
Figure B1: Five-Year Revenue Projections
FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
City Sales Tax $111,206,620 $115,098,852 $118,551,818 $120,922,854 $122,132,083
Property Tax $5,690,170 $5,695,860 $5,701,556 $5,707,258 $5,712,965
State Sales &
Income Tax $67,127,731 $69,812,841 $71,429,333 $72,857,920 $74,315,079
Other Fees $29,581,953 $29,966,265 $30,356,286 $30,752,103 $29,576,561
Total General Fund $213,606,474 $220,573,818 $226,038,993 $230,240,135 $231,736,688
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
94
APPENDIX C: ARTERIAL STREET SEGMENTS INVENTORY
Arterial Street Location
Segment
Length
(Miles)
Total
Lanes
Vehicle
Lane Miles
Total AADT
(TUBE)VMT
Deer Valley Rd Btwn 67th Ave & 75th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 12,483 12,483
Union Hills Dr Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 6.0 6.0 19,103 19,103
Union Hills Dr Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 17,542 17,542
Union Hills Dr Btwn 67th Ave & 75th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 17,730 17,730
Union Hills Dr Btwn 75th Ave & 83rd Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 18,171 18,171
Bell Rd Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 32,327 32,327
Bell Rd Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 6.0 5.4 35,940 32,346
Bell Rd Btwn 67th Ave & 75th Ave 1.0 6.0 6.0 41,789 41,789
Bell Rd Btwn 75th Ave & 83rd Ave 1.0 7.0 7.0 36,813 36,813
Bell Rd Btwn 83rd Ave & 91st Ave 0.8 7.0 5.6 40,905 32,724
Greenway Rd Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 18,070 18,070
Greenway Rd Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 4.0 3.6 13,545 12,191
Thunderbird Rd Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 29,956 29,956
Thunderbird Rd Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 5.0 4.5 26,190 23,571
Cactus Rd Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 22,228 22,228
Cactus Rd Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 5.0 4.5 22,475 20,228
Peoria Ave Btwn 43rd Ave & 51st Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 26,243 26,243
Peoria Ave Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 26,942 26,942
Peoria Ave Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 5.0 4.5 24,646 22,181
Olive Ave Btwn 43rd Ave & 51st Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 28,199 28,199
Olive Ave Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 25,869 25,869
Olive Ave Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 5.0 4.5 27,329 24,596
Northern Ave Btwn 43rd Ave & 51st Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 27,048 27,048
Northern Ave Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 28,725 28,725
Northern Ave Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 4.0 3.6 21,176 19,059
Glendale Ave Btwn 43rd Ave & 51st Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 26,466 26,466
Glendale Ave Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 18,435 18,435
Glendale Ave Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 4.0 3.6 19,062 17,156
Glendale Ave Btwn 67th Ave & 75th Ave 1.0 6.0 6.0 22,216 22,216
Glendale Ave Btwn 75th Ave & 83rd Ave 1.0 6.0 6.0 21,295 21,295
Glendale Ave Btwn 83rd Ave & 91st Ave 1.0 6.0 6.0 22,347 22,347
Glendale Ave Btwn 91st Ave & 99th Ave 1.0 6.0 6.0 20,703 20,703
Glendale Ave Btwn 99th Ave & Glen Harbor Blvd 1.2 4.0 4.8 22,788 27,345
Bethany Home Rd Btwn 43rd Ave & 51st Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 20,565 20,565
Bethany Home Rd Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 20,809 20,809
Bethany Home Rd Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 4.0 3.6 21,644 19,479
Bethany Home Rd Btwn 67th Ave & 75th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 17,133 17,133
Bethany Home Rd Btwn 75th Ave & 83rd Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 11,707 11,707
Bethany Home Rd Btwn 91st Ave & 99th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 22,355 22,355
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
95
Arterial Street Location
Segment
Length
(Miles)
Total
Lanes
Vehicle
Lane Miles
Total AADT
(TUBE)VMT
Camelback Rd Btwn 43rd Ave & 51st Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 29,659 29,659
Camelback Rd Btwn 51st Ave & 59th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 27,668 27,668
Camelback Rd Btwn 59th Ave & 67th Ave 0.9 4.0 3.6 24,387 21,948
Camelback Rd Btwn 67th Ave & 75th Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 26,312 26,312
Camelback Rd Btwn 75th Ave & 83rd Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 25,702 25,702
Camelback Rd Btwn 83rd Ave & 91st Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 27,522 27,522
Camelback Rd Btwn 91st Ave & 99th Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 30,424 30,424
51st Ave Btwn Camelback Rd & Bethany Home Rd 1.0 5.0 5.0 24,130 24,130
51st Ave Btwn Bethany Home Rd & Glendale Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 23,129 23,129
51st Ave Btwn Glendale Ave & Northern Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 24,865 24,865
51st Ave Btwn Northern Ave & Olive Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 23,546 23,546
51st Ave Btwn Olive Ave & Peoria Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 22,243 22,243
51st Ave Btwn Peoria Ave & Cactus Rd 1.0 5.0 5.0 20,956 20,956
59th Ave Btwn Camelback Rd & Bethany Home Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 20,869 20,869
59th Ave Btwn Bethany Home Rd & Glendale Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 17,965 17,965
59th Ave Btwn Glendale Ave & Northern Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 20,225 20,225
59th Ave Btwn Northern Ave & Olive Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 19,446 19,446
59th Ave Btwn Olive Ave & Peoria Ave 1.0 5.0 5.0 22,297 22,297
59th Ave Btwn Peoria Ave & Cactus Rd 1.0 5.0 5.0 22,021 22,021
59th Ave Btwn Cactus Rd & Thunderbird Rd 1.0 5.0 5.0 25,893 25,893
59th Ave Btwn Thunderbird Rd & Greenway Rd 1.0 5.0 5.0 26,205 26,205
59th Ave Btwn Greenway Rd & Bell Rd 0.9 5.0 4.5 25,078 22,570
59th Ave Btwn Bell Rd & Union Hills Dr 1.1 4.0 4.4 22,540 24,794
59th Ave Btwn Union Hills Dr & Loop 101 1.0 6.0 6.0 23,197 23,197
59th Ave Btwn Loop 101 & Deer Valley Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 18,897 18,897
59th Ave Btwn Deer Valley Rd & Pinnacle Peak Rd 1.3 2.0 2.6 14,806 19,248
67th Ave Btwn Camelback Rd & Bethany Home Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 22,713 22,713
67th Ave Btwn Bethany Home Rd & Glendale Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 24,602 24,602
67th Ave Btwn Glendale Ave & Northern Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 21,959 21,959
67th Ave Btwn Northern Ave & Olive Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 25,938 25,938
67th Ave Btwn Olive Ave & Peoria Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 25,818 25,818
67th Ave Btwn Peoria Ave & Cactus Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 23,245 23,245
67th Ave Btwn Cactus Rd & Thunderbird Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 22,286 22,286
67th Ave Btwn Thunderbird Rd & Greenway Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 18,860 18,860
67th Ave Btwn Greenway Rd & Bell Rd 0.9 4.0 3.6 23,393 21,054
67th Ave Btwn Bell Rd & Union Hills Dr 1.0 4.0 4.0 20,725 20,725
67th Ave Btwn Union Hills Dr & Loop 101 1.1 6.0 6.6 22,182 24,400
67th Ave Btwn Loop 101 & Deer Valley Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 31,373 31,373
67th Ave Btwn Deer Valley Rd & Pinnacle Peak Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 28,343 28,343
75th Ave Btwn Camelback Rd & Bethany Home Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 16,865 16,865
75th Ave Btwn Bethany Home Rd & Glendale Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 15,003 15,003
75th Ave Btwn Glendale Ave & Northern Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 11,491 11,491
83rd Ave Btwn Camelback Rd & Bethany Home Rd 0.9 4.0 3.6 18,522 16,670
83rd Ave Btwn Bethany Home Rd & Glendale Ave 1.1 4.0 4.4 16,460 18,106
83rd Ave Btwn Glendale Ave & Northern Ave 1.0 2.0 2.0 11,517 11,517
83rd Ave Btwn Bell Rd & Union Hills Dr 1.1 4.0 4.4 21,542 23,696
83rd Ave Btwn Union Hills Dr & Beardsley Rd 1.0 6.0 6.0 25,912 25,912
Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report City of Glendale, Arizona
96
Arterial Street Location
Segment
Length
(Miles)
Total
Lanes
Vehicle
Lane Miles
Total AADT
(TUBE)VMT
91st Ave Btwn Camelback Rd & Bethany Home Rd 1.0 5.0 5.0 7,651 7,651
91st Ave Btwn Bethany Home Rd & Glendale Ave 1.0 6.0 6.0 7,586 7,586
99th Ave Btwn Camelback Rd & Bethany Home Rd 1.0 4.0 4.0 8,855 8,855
99th Ave Btwn Bethany Home Rd & Glendale Ave 1.0 4.0 4.0 5,911 5,911
99th Ave Btwn Glendale Ave & Northern Ave 1.0 2.0 2.0 3,211 3,211
TOTAL 90.4 412 1,999,665