Impact Fee Advisory Committee
Regular MeetingNampa, ID · March 8, 2023
Agenda
NAMPA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Wednesday, March 8th 2023
Nampa City Hall Council Chambers
411 Third Street S, Nampa
MEETING AGENDA
1. Open Meeting with Roll Call (Sharon Harris)
2. Introduction of new committee members, staff and consultants, and agenda comments (Sullivan)
3. Approval of Past Meeting Minutes (Sharon Harris)
4. Impact Fee Process (Colin McAweeny – Tishlerbise)
a. Impact Fee Fundamentals
b. Methodology Examples: Plan Based vs. Incremental Expansion Model
c. Growth data
d. Land Use Recommendations
5. FY22 Department updates for Police, Parks, Streets, Fire, Sewer, Water and Pressurized Irrigation (presented by
Directors)
a. Fund Balance Forward
b. Impact Fee Revenue
c. Expenditures
d. Projects and Purchases
e. Proposed CIP revisions
6. FY23 revenue projections based on first quarter FY23 (Patrick Sullivan)
7. Action Items:
7-1. Motion: Recommendation to City Council to approve annual impact fee increases to include a 5.9% increase to
Police, Parks and Fire Fees, and a 19.98% increase to Streets, Wastewater, Water, and Pressurized Irrigation.
(Patrick Sullivan & Tom Points)
a. Police, Parks, Fire Fees Increase: Staff recommends of a 5.9% Annual Increase for based on the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI)
b. Streets and Utilities Fees Increase: Staff recommends 19.98% based on the annual increase on the
Producers Price Index (West)
c. Motion
7-2. Motion: Recommendation for staff to initiate a new fee study, with TishlerBiseGalena, to evaluate land use
growth data, expansion of land use categories, and modification of impact fee study methodology, and proposed
revisions to capital improvement plans (CIPs).
a. Presentation of Fee Proposal Scope of Work
b. Motion
7-3 Motion: Recommendation that staff initiate an ordinance amendment to exempt committee member approvals
from public hearings by moving committee requirements to City Code; Title 2 - Administrative Commissions
and Boards and to increase the committee member term from 2 years to 4 years.
a. Presentation
b. Motion
BUILDING SAFETY &
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
THE NAMPA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
At the Nampa Civic Center
311 Third Street S, Nampa
Was also available via TEAMS
Meeting Minutes
Welcomed by Mayor Kling via Teams
Sharon Harris called the meeting to order at 2:13 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Dennis Davis, Sharon Harris, Hubert Osborn, Jeff Cornilles, Tyler A. Bosier, Glen Rimbey present, Ron Van
Auker absent.
APPROVAL OF 9-27-2021 MEETING MINUTES
Jeff Cornilles moved to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2021 meeting. Hubert Osborn seconded, vote
taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
Item 4-1: Doug Racine gave a Revenue update. There was a discussion with the committee.
Item 4-2: Patrick Sullivan presented a summary of the total capital improvement plans for all CIP’s and a
comparison between current and proposed impact fees to other jurisdictions in the valley. There was a discussion
with the committee.
ACTION ITEMS:
Action Item 5-1: Kirk Carpenter presented and recommended approval of the Fire Capital Improvement Plan to
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Review and Approval. Jeff Cornilles moved to accept the
CIP and the fees presented by the fire district, Glen Rimby second. Dennis Davis, Sharon Harris, Jeff Cornilles,
Tyler A. Bosier, Glen Rimbey were in favor, Hubert Osborn was not. Motion passed.
Action Item 5-2: Brad Daniels presented and recommended approval of the Police Capital Improvement Plan for
a total of $17.3 million to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Review and Approval. Dennis
Davis moved to make a recommendation to council acceptance of the CIP as presented by the police department,
Tyler Bosier second. All in favor. Motion passed.
Action Item 5-3: Darrin Johnson presented and recommended approval of the Parks Capital Improvement Plan
for a total of $29,988,559 to Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Review and Approval. Hubert
Osborn moved to make a recommendation to council acceptance of the CIP as presented by the parks
department, Dennis Davis second. All in favor. Motion passed.
Action Item 5-4: Jeff Barnes presented and recommended the approval of Streets Capital Improvement Plan of
$46,108,829 to Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Review and Approval. Hubert Osborn
moved to make a recommendation to council acceptance of the CIP as presented by the streets department,
Dennis Davis second. All in favor. Motion passed.
1
BUILDING SAFETY &
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
Action Item 5-5: Tom Points presented and recommended the approval of Wastewater Capital Improvement
Plan for $50,517,588 to Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Review and Approval. Dennis
Davis moved to make a recommendation to council acceptance of the CIP as presented, Jeff Cornilles second.
All in favor. Motion passed.
Action Item 5-6: Tom Points presented and recommended the approval of Domestic Water Capital
Improvement Plan for $12,367,466 to Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Review and
Approval. Jeff Cornilles moved to make a recommendation to council acceptance of the CIP as presented, Glen
Rimbey second. All in favor. Motion passed.
Action Item 5-7: Tom Points presented and recommended the approval of the Irrigation Capital Improvement
Plan of $1,387 per SCE (an increase of 230%) to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for
Review and Approval. Dennis Davis moved to make a recommendation to council acceptance of the CIP as
presented, Jeff Cornilles second. All in favor. Motion passed.
MOTION TO ADJOURN: Dennis Davis moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:48 p.m., Glen Rimbey second. All in favor.
Motion carried.
Approved this _________ day of __________, 2023.
__________________________________________
Chairperson
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patrick Sullivan, City of Nampa
FROM: Colin McAweeney, TischlerBiseGalena
DATE: February 22, 2023
RE: Scope to Update City of Nampa’s Development Impact Fee Study Update
TischlerBiseGalena (TBG) has been asked to prepare pricing and timeline to update the City of Nampa’s
development impact fee study. TBG and Nampa have a long working relationship. In this case, TBG’s
business background and details on project approach has not been included in the memo, those items
can be added if desired.
Figure 1. Project Pricing
CIP AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
Bise McAweeney Total
Project Team Member: Principal-in- Project
Charge Manager
Hourly Rate* $220 $200 Hours Cost
Task: Project Initiation 4 15 19 $3,880
Task: Prepare Land Use Assumptions and Development Projections 16 48 64 $13,120
Task: Calculate Police Impact Fee 8 40 48 $9,760
Task: Calculate Parks and Recreation Impact Fee 8 40 48 $9,760
Task: Calculate Transportation Impact Fee 16 60 76 $15,520
Task: DIFAC and City Council Presentations 4 15 19 $3,880
Total Cost: 56 218 274 $55,920
* Hourly rates are inclusive of all costs.
Figure 2. Project Timeline
PROPOSED SCHEDULE - CIP AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
Tasks Anticipated Dates Meetings* Meetings/Deliverables
Data Request Memorandum and Revised
Task: Project Initiation Month 1 1*
Project Schedule, if necessary.
Task: Prepare Land Use Assumptions and Technical Memorandum on Land Use
Months 1-2 1*
Development Projections Assumptions/Development Projections
Task: Calculate Police Impact Fee Months 2-3 2* Memoranda as Appropriate
Task: Calculate Parks and Recreation Impact
Months 2-3 2* Memoranda as Appropriate
Fee
Task: Calculate Transportation Impact Fee Months 2-3 2* Memoranda as Appropriate
Draft and Final Development Impact Fee
Task: DIFAC and City Council Presentations Months 1-4 5*
Report
*In several cases it is assumed meetings are held with multiple departments over one (1) trip.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patrick Sullivan, City of Nampa
FROM: Colin McAweeney, TischlerBiseGalena
DATE: February 6, 2023
RE: Recommended Adjustment to Nonresidential Street Impact Fee Schedule
TischlerBiseGalena (TBG) has been requested to provide a recommendation for an adjustment to the land
uses included in the City of Nampa’s nonresidential street impact fee schedule. Since the most recent
impact fee study was adopted in early 2022 there has been a need to expand the number of land uses in
the fee schedule to ensure consistency with neighboring highway districts and the evolving development
trends in Nampa. Figure 1 lists the three nonresidential land uses currently in the schedule and the impact
fee per square foot.
Figure 1. Current Nonresidential Street Impact Fee Schedule
Current Fee Structure (2022)
Land Use Fee per Sq. Ft.
Retail $7.42
Office $3.49
Industrial $1.20
There were several considerations involved in the task. First, the last three years of nonresidential
development was analyzed to understand the Nampa market. This revealed a significant growth in several
industrial land uses, consistent with City staff comments and Treasure Valley trends. Other land uses such
as retail, office, and healthcare have expanded in Nampa, however, more limited compared to industrial
growth. Also, vehicle trip data must be available for the land use to be included in the fee schedule. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes results from robust surveys in their Trip Generation
Manual. Although the manual has a wide selection of different land uses, only those with a significant
sample size are recommending including in an impact fee schedule. Lastly, the fee schedule needs to
provide granularity to ensure proportionately in the impact fees, however, too large of a fee schedule
ends up being an administrative burden.
As a result, the recommended additions to the Nampa street impact fee schedule are shown in Figure 2.
TBG recommends keeping the general retail and office land uses. Past and future growth are not
anticipated to diverge from these existing land use types. Keeping these two general land use types is
consistent with impact fee best practices as well. Based on the analysis of industrial development, TBG
recommends expanding the schedule to include four different industrial land use types. The significant
1
City of Nampa, ID
Recommended Adjustment to Nonresidential Street Impact Fee Schedule
growth in manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, and self-storage is anticipated to continue. Also, these
land uses have varying traffic demands, justifying bifurcating them in the fee schedule. Additionally, a
general industrial land use is recommended to cover those developments that are not within the other
three industrial land uses. Lastly, TBG recommends including an institutional land use that will be assessed
on development such as healthcare and education. Note: Figure 2 is ordered based on the vehicle trip
rates per 1,000 square feet of development.
Figure 2. Recommended Additions to Street Impact Fee Schedule
Recommended ITE Vehicle Trips
Land Use Adjustment Code per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail 820 37.01
Institutional 610 22.32
Office 710 10.84
General Industrial 110 4.87
Manufacturing 140 4.75
Warehouse/Distribution 150 1.71
Self-Storage 151 1.45
[1] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual (10th ed.)
Development categories used are based on land use classifications from the book Trip Generation (ITE,
2021). A summary description of each development category is provided below.
Retail: Establishments primarily selling merchandise, eating/drinking places, and entertainment uses. By
way of example, this includes shopping centers, restaurants, automobile dealerships, and movie theaters.
Office: Establishments providing management, administrative, professional, or business services. By way
of example, this includes banks, business offices, and professional services.
Manufacturing: Establishments primarily engaged in the conversion of raw materials or parts into finished
products. By way of example, this includes manufacturing plants, food processing plants.
Warehouse/Distribution: Establishments primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also
include office and maintenance areas. By way of example, this includes trucking companies, short-term
storage facilities, fulfillment centers.
Self-Storage: A building in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods.
Each unit is physically separated from other units, and access is usually provided through an overhead
door or other common access point.
Industrial: The facility has an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing and storage and typically
has minimal office space. Typical activities include printing, material testing, and assembly of data
processing equipment.
Institutional: Public and quasi-public buildings providing educational, social assistance, or religious
services. By way of example, this includes schools, universities, churches, daycare facilities, hospitals,
health care facilities, and government buildings.
2
BUILDING SAFETY
March 8, 2023
PROPOSED POLICE, PARKS, STREES & FIRE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE INCREASE
Current Fees Proposed Fee
% of
(Adopted Increase
Increase
Police Fees 2022) (2023)
Single Family Residence (per unit) $ 604.00 105.9% $ 639.64
Multi Family Residence (per unit) $ 604.00 105.9% $ 639.64
Retail (per square foot of building area) $ 0.27 105.9% $ 0.29
Office (per square foot of building area) $ 0.27 105.9% $ 0.29
Industrial (per square foot of building area) $ 0.27 105.9% $ 0.29
Parks
Fees:
Single Family Residence (per unit) $ 2,340.00 105.9% $ 2,478.06
Multi Family Residence (per unit) $ 2,340.00 105.9% $ 2,478.06
Streets
Fees
Single Family Residence (per unit) $ 3,000.00 119.98% $ 3,177.00
Multi Family Residence (per unit) $ 1,470.00 119.98% $ 1,556.73
Retail (per square foot of building area) $ 7.42 119.98% $ 7.86
Office (per square foot of building area) $ 3.49 119.98% $ 3.70
Industrial (per square foot of building area) $ 1.20 119.98% $ 1.27
Fire Fees
Single Family Residence (per unit) $ 1,567.00 105.9% $ 1,659.45
Multi Family Residence (per unit) $ 1,567.00 105.9% $ 1,659.45
Retail (per square foot of building area) $ 0.63 105.9% $ 0.67
Office (per square foot of building area) $ 0.63 105.9% $ 0.67
Industrial (per square foot of building area) $ 0.63 105.9% $ 0.67
BUILDING SAFETY
March 8, 2023
PROPOSED UTILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE INCREASE
Wastewater
Fees
Single-Family $ 1,592.00 119.98% $ 1,910.08
Multi-Family, per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU)* $ 1,592.00 119.98% $ 1,910.08
Non residential per Strength Class*
SE1, per EDU $ 1,440.00 119.98% $ 1,727.71
SE2, per EDU $ 1,650.00 119.98% $ 1,979.67
SE3, per EDU $ 1,759.00 119.98% $ 2,110.45
SE4, per EDU $ 1,868.00 119.98% $ 2,241.23
SE5, per EDU $ 2,219.00 119.98% $ 2,662.36
SE6, per EDU $ 2,410.00 119.98% $ 2,891.52
SE7, per EDU $ 2,682.00 119.98% $ 3,217.86
Industrial, per constituent loading
Flow per mgd $4,784,178.00 119.98%
$5,740,056.76
BOD, per lb/day $ 94.00 119.98% $ 112.78
TSS, per lb/day $ 155.00 119.98% $ 185.97
TKN, per lb/day $ 964.00 119.98% $ 1,156.61
TP, per lb/day $ 6,751.00 119.98% $ 8,099.85
Domestic
Water Fees
Single-Family $ 236.00 119.98% $ 283.15
Multi-Family
Domestic Water Fee per EDU $ 189.00 119.98% $ 226.76
Fire Flow Fee per Equivalent Fire
$ 47.00 119.98%
Unit(EFU)** $ 56.39
Non-residential
Domestic Water Fee per EDU $ 189.00 119.98% $ 226.76
Fire Flow Fee per EFU $ 47.00 119.98% $ 56.39
Industrial
Domestic Water Fee per EDU $ 189.00 119.98% $ 226.76
Fire Flow Fee per EFU $ 47.00 119.98% $ 56.39
Irrigation
Fees
1" Service $ 1,387.00 119.98% $ 1,664.12
1.5" Service $ 2,775.00 119.98% $ 3,329.45
2" Service $ 4,439.00 119.98% $ 5,325.91
3" Service $ 8,878.00 119.98% $ 10,651.82
* See current adopted EDU and Strength Class Guide for Wastewater and Water User Classifications
** An Equivalent Fire Unit is defined as a 1500 gallon per minute fire flow demand
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MARCH 8, 2023
• Impact fees/infrastructure financing
strategies
• Fiscal/economic impact analyses
• Capital improvement planning
• Infrastructure finance/revenue
enhancement
• Real estate and market feasibility
2
Impact Fee Fundamentals
• One-time payment for growth-related infrastructure, usually collected at
the time buildings permits are issued
• Not a tax, similar to a contractual arrangement to build infrastructure with
fee revenue, with three requirements
• Need (system improvements, not project-level improvements)
• Benefit
• Short range expenditures
• Geographic service areas and/or benefit districts
• Proportionate
3
Eligible Costs
• Facilities/improvements required to serve new development – Yes
• Excess capacity in existing facilities – Yes
• Improvements required to correct existing deficiencies – No
• Unless there is a funding plan
• Maintenance and repairs – No
• Operating costs – No
4
Impact Fees in Idaho
• Impact fee revenue must be maintained in an interest bearing account
• Community must publish an Annual Monitoring Report and have Advisory
Committee, serving in an advisory capacity to:
• Assist the governmental entity in adopting land use assumptions;
• Review the capital improvements plan, and proposed amendments, and file
written comments;
• Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan;
• File [and review annual financial] reports;
• Advise the governmental entity of the need to update or revise land use
assumptions, capital improvements plan and development impact
5
Impact Fees in Idaho
• Monies must be spent within 8 years from collection (11 years in certain
cases)
• Comprehensive review and update every 5 years
• Or sooner in case of a “game-changer”
• Eligible for the following public facilities with useful life of 10 years or
more:
• Water, wastewater, stormwater
• Transportation
• Parks & Recreation
• Public safety: law enforcement, fire, EMS
6
Impact Fee Study Process
1. Determine existing development base and projected future growth
2. Determine existing levels of service and capital needs due to new growth
3. Determine appropriate indicators of demand
4. Evaluate methodological alternatives
5. Evaluate need for credits
6. Calculate fees
7. Review and input from staff
8. Review and input from Advisory Committee
9. Review and input from Council
10. Adoption process
7
Evaluate Need for Credits
• Debt service
• Avoid double payment due to existing or future bonds
• Dedicated revenues
• e.g., property tax, local option sales tax, gas tax
• Site specific
• Developer constructs a capital facility included in fee calculations
8
Common Impact Fee Methods
• Cost Recovery (past)
• Oversized and unique facilities
• Funds typically used for debt service
• Incremental Expansion (present)
• Formula-based approach documents level of service with both quantitative and
qualitative measures
• Plan-Based (future)
• Common for utilities but can also be used for other public facilities with non-
impact fee funding
9
Methodology Examples
• Plan-based approach: • Incremental expansion example:
10-Year Growth- Current Facility
Related CIP Capital Cost per Inventory Current Level
10-Year Projected Demand Unit Current Demand of Service
Growth
Current Capital Cost
Current Level
Construction per Unit
of Service
• Example: Cost
Street CIP: $46M • Example:
Capital Cost
10,000 Housing Units per Unit 3 park acres
$50,000 per Capital Cost
4.6M Nonres SF per 1,000
acre per Person
residents
10
Growth Data
• Projections vs Actuals = Game-Changer
2021 City of Nampa Impact Fee Study Projections
%
City of Nampa 2021 2031 Growth Growth
Population 110,980 138,164 27,184 24%
Housing Units 38,269 48,479 10,210 27%
Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 17,221,034 21,815,400 4,594,366 27%
2022 City of Nampa Impact Fee Study Actual
%
City of Nampa 2021 2022 Growth Growth
Housing Units 38,269 1,593 %
Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 17,221,034 3,709,537 %
*Growth data after 2022 fee adoption – actual 3/2022 to 1/2023
11
Land Use Recommendation
• Staff was directed to exploring expanding the number of land uses in the
street fee schedule
• Based on current Nampa trends, proportionately, and available data TBG
recommends:
Current Fee Structure (2022) Recommended ITE Vehicle Trips
Land Use Fee per Sq. Ft. Land Use Adjustment Code per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail $7.42 Retail 820 37.01
Office $3.49 Institutional 610 22.32
Industrial $1.20 Office 710 10.84
General Industrial 110 4.87
Manufacturing 140 4.75
Warehouse/Distribution 150 1.71
Self-Storage 151 1.45
[1] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual (10th ed.)
12
FY22 POLICE IMPACT FEE UPDATE
FUND BALANCE FORWARD: $3,335,579
REVENUE $1,263,504
EXPENDITURES $46,641
CIP REVISIONS NONE
13
FY22 POLICE IMPACT FEE UPDATE CONTINUED
PROJECTS & PURCHASES:
▪ No purchase of CIP budgeted vehicles were made last year due to production shortfalls.
▪ $46,641, CSHQA fees for the development of the Police Facilities Master plan.
▪ This plan lays out the recommended future locations of precincts 2 & 3 for the Police
Department.
▪ We completed the Police Facilities Master Plan in FY22. The next steps are the selection
of a site for the next police precinct and training center as proposed in the plan.
▪ Strategically locating where that site might be found against the City’s North Nampa
Strategic Plan is imperative.
▪ While there is no plan to purchase property in FY23, if the appropriate location was
found and fit within the CIP budget; there is potential that funds could be expended.
14
FY22 PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
FUND BALANCE FORWARD: $8,779,501
REVENUE $3,471,322
EXPENDITURES $1,491,696
CIP REVISIONS NONE
PROJECTS AND PURCHASES:
• Parks and Rec Master Plan started
• Lake Lowell building HVAC upgrades
• Ford F250 Truck
15
FY22 PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE CONTINUED
PROJECTS AND PURCHASES:
▪ Design of Midway Phase 2, planted trees, and site
furnishings
▪ Orah Brandt splash pad, site furnishings, and design
Phase 3
▪ Dog Park 2 design and construction started
16
FY22 FIRE IMPACT FEE UPDATE
FUND BALANCE FORWARD: $2,140,185
REVENUE $1,880,577
EXPENDITURES $1,118,776.17
CIP REVISIONS NONE
PROJECTS AND PURCHASES:
• All fire impact fee expenditures from Oct 2021 to Sept
2022 have been for the design and construction of fire
station 6 located at 1725 W Roosevelt in Nampa.
17
FY22 FIRE IMPACT FEE UPDATE CONTINUED
Date Num Nam e Mem o Am ount
6000 · Im pact Fee Capital Expenses
12/31/2021 Inv 2211605 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Design phase 66,478.15
01/30/2022 Inv 200408-05 T-O Engineers, Inc. Stn 6 - Design phase 1,045.00
01/31/2022 2211606 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Design phase 81,837.52
02/02/2022 2211607 ACDP Acquisition LLC Stn 6 - Design phase 431.18
02/28/2022 2211608 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Design phase 30,660.00
03/28/2022 2211609 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Design phase 51,100.00
04/30/2022 2211610 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Design phase 55,666.75
05/31/2022 2211611 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Design phase 82,733.20
06/28/2022 2211612 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Construction phase 25,385.00
07/31/2022 2211613 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Construction phase 33,865.00
08/01/2022 2211614 CIty of Nampa Building Dept Invoice 00096017 22,563.29
08/03/2022 2211615 CIty of Nampa Building Dept COM-03273-2022 Building Permit Fee - Commercial - FIre Dept 52,904.98
08/30/2022 2211616 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Construction phase 286,514.98
09/08/2022 2211617 Atlas Technical Consultants, LLC Materials Testing 1,666.00
09/20/2022 2211618 Idaho Pow er Inc. Electrical pow er to the site 24,884.00
09/20/2022 2211619 Atlas Technical Consultants, LLC Materials Testing 477.00
09/29/2022 2211620 Beniton Construction Company Stn 6 - Construction phase 300,564.12
Total 6000 · Impact Fee Capital Expenses 1,118,776.17
18
FY22 FIRE IMPACT FEE UPDATE CONTINUED
19
FY22 FIRE IMPACT FEE
UPDATE CONTINUED
October Site Work
20
FY22 FIRE IMPACT FEE
UPDATE CONTINUED
January – Block and Framing
21
FY22 STREETS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
FUND BALANCE FORWARD: $8,111,729
REVENUE $9,177,950
EXPENDITURES $6,330,878
22
FY22 STREETS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Streets Capital Improvement Plan, 2021-2030
City of Nampa % Impact Total to Date
Other Agency FY22 Impact Total to Date
Total Cost Cost (Impact and Fee Impact Fee
Costs Fees Expenses
City Funds) Eligible Expenses
Roadway and Intersection Projects
Franklin/Karcher Intersection $ 2,750,000 $ 1,523,330 $ 1,226,670 55% $ 99,170 $ 333,819 $ 606,943
Idaho Center/Cherry Intersection $ 4,600,000 $ 625,000 $ 3,975,000 55% $ 479,448 $ 1,403,410 $ 2,551,655
Kings/Victory Intersection $ 3,700,000 $ - $ 3,700,000 55% $ 683,999 $ 1,753,084 $ 3,187,426
Midland/Iowa Intersection $ 1,800,000 $ - $ 1,800,000 55% $ 207,810 $ 374,743 $ 681,351
Midland/Lake Lowell Intersection $ 1,890,000 $ - $ 1,890,000 55% $ 929,809 $ 1,132,902 $ 2,059,821
Franklin Blvd Improvements (3rd Ave, Industrial Road) $ 7,774,000 $ 5,350,188 $ 2,423,812 100% $ 4,780 $ 147,376 $ 147,376
Franklin Blvd/Birch Intersection $ 2,200,000 $ - $ 2,200,000 55% $ 592,477 $ 1,377,538 $ 2,504,615
Garrity Improvements (Stamm - Flamingo to Happy Valley) $ 3,954,400 $ - $ 3,954,400 70% $ 57,803 $ 40,462 $ 57,803
Midland/Marketplace Intersection $ 1,750,000 $ 750,000 $ 1,000,000 55% $ 405 $ 62,135 $ 112,973
Northside/Karcher Intersection $ 6,000,000 $ 4,800,000 $ 1,200,000 55% $ 12,423 $ 18,049 $ 32,817
SH16 & Franklin Rd Improvements $ 90,590,116 $ 89,500,000 $ 1,090,116 100% $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000
Franklin Rd Improvements (Star to SH16) 100% $ 649,292 $ 1,530,966 $ 1,530,966
Franklin/McDermott Intersection 100% $ - $ - $ -
39th/Garrity Intersection $ 2,500,000 $ - $ 2,500,000 55% $ 18,394 $ 11,188 $ 20,342
Franklin Blvd/Cherry Intersection $ 3,500,000 $ - $ 3,500,000 55% $ 10,708 $ 10,708 $ 19,468
Northside Improvements (Karcher to Cherry) $ 260,000 $ - $ 260,000 70% $ - $ - $ -
Northside Improvements (Karcher to Birch) 70% $ 84,360 $ 176,221 $ 251,745
Northside Improvements (Birch to Cherry) 70% $ - $ - $ -
Northside/Cherry Intersection $ 3,500,000 $ - $ 3,500,000 55% $ - $ 240,164 $ 436,662
Midland Corridor (Caldwell Blvd to Greenhurst) $ 6,000,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 70% $ - $ 55,707 $ 79,581
$ 222,712,845 $ 129,946,836 $ 92,766,009 $ 6,330,878 $ 11,168,472 $ 16,781,543
23
FY22 STREETS IMPACT FEE
EXISTING CIP
Note: Cost in existing impact fee
24
FY22 STREETS IMPACT FEE
REVISED CIP
New projects from
“parent” project
Note: No change of cost in existing impact
25
fee and revised
FY22 WATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE
FUND BALANCE $0
FORWARD
REVENUE $12,621
EXPENDITURES $0
CIP REVISIONS NONE
26
FY22 IRRIGATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE
FUND BALANCE FORWARD: $0
REVENUE $45,771
EXPENDITURES $0
CIP REVISIONS NONE
27
FY22 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE
FUND BALANCE FORWARD: $0
REVENUE $88,122
EXPENDITURES $0
28
FY22 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE
CIP REVISIONS
Total Cost (Utility % Impact Cost In
Wastewater CIP Project List Category Notes
Share) Fee Eligible Impact Fee
Cross country from the northern future industrial site 100.0% $ - Collection Estimate in 2014 Dollars; Adjusted to 2020 based on ENR CCI
Cross country west from S Happy Valley to E Railroad S - 100.0% - Collection Estimate in 2014 Dollars; Adjusted to 2020 based on ENR CCI
Cross country from the southern future industrial site - 100.0% - Collection Estimate in 2014 Dollars; Adjusted to 2020 based on ENR CCI
Midway 100.0% - Collection Estimate in 2014 Dollars; Adjusted to 2020 based on ENR CCI
Purdam Phase 1 Construction* 10,850,000 100.0% 10,850,000 Collection Estimate in 2014 Dollars; Adjusted to 2020 based on ENR CCI
Midway 100.0% - Collection Estimate in 2014 Dollars; Adjusted to 2020 based on ENR CCI
Purdam Phase 2 Construction* 6,800,000 100.0% 6,800,000 Collection Estimate in 2014 Dollars; Adjusted to 2020 based on ENR CCI
WWTP Phase II - Group E - 4.0% - Phase 2 - Group E In current dollars
WWTP Phase II - Group F 151,318,667 9.0% 13,653,818 Phase 2 - Group F In current dollars
Small Truck Like ECD for Collections. 30,000 0.0% - Collection
Small Truck Like ECD for Collections. 30,000 0.0% - Collection
Hydrocleaner (2nd unit) 350,000 0.0% - General
Pretreatment Truck (when pretreatment expands) 30,000 0.0% - General
Biosolids Drying (Brown Bear or like Equipment) 150,000 0.0% - General
Master Plan Update 300,000 37.9% 113,772 General Proportional allocation betw een existing capacity and grow th
Purdam Design Phase 1 to 4* 4,700,000 100.0% 1,100,000 Collection
Madison Joplin force main, gravity and 2 lift stations 18,000,000 100.0% 18,000,000
Total $ 192,558,667 26.2% $ 50,517,590
Note* - Fund Purdam to 75% of total cost - the tail end of line will need to be funded and constructed by development - Total cost $25M - 75% is $18.75M
• The bold projects are the revisions.
• Added Purdam Design Phase 1 to 4 and Madison Joplin.
29 • Reduced the other projects to remain within the same budget.
QUESTIONS?
30
FY23 PROJECTED REVENUE
CIP FUND FY23 1st QTR. Actual Revenue FY23 Projected Annual Revenue*
POLICE $323,452 $970,356
PARKS $325,684 $977,052
FIRE $538,800 $1,616,401
STREETS $2,556,713 $7,670,140
SEWER $127,946 $383,837
WATER $21,000 $63,001
IRRIGATION $89,046 $267,138
TOTAL: $3,982,642 $11,947,925
FY22 ACTUAL TOTAL: $15,939,970
Note: Fee projection discounted by 25% based on decline of single-family permits in FY23*
31
PROPOSED ANNUAL FEE INCREASE
ANNUAL INCREASE ORDINANCE SECTION (Adopted February 2022)
N. Annual inflationary adjustment. On January 1 of each calendar year
all impact fees will be adjusted to account for year over year inflation
increases. The police and parks impact fees, as well as impact fees
collected on behalf of Nampa Rural Fire District, will be adjusted using
an index such as the Construction Cost Index (CCI) prepared by the
Engineering News Record. This index measures the cost of
construction materials and labor and is distinctly different from the
Consumer Price Index. Streets and utility impact fees will be adjusted
according to the Producer Price Index (PPI) produced by the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
32
PROPOSED ANNUAL FEE INCREASE
ADOPTED COST AND PRICE INDEXES
Construction Cost Index (CCI), produced by the Engineering News Record
▪ Engineering News-Record (ENR) publishes a monthly Construction Cost Index (CCI),
which is a weighted-aggregate index of the 20-city average prices of construction
activities.
▪ Industry standard for site and building construction market costs
Producer Price Index (PPI) West, produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
▪ The Producer Price Index (PPI) is a family of indexes that measures the average change
over time in selling prices received by domestic producers of goods and services. PPIs
measure price change from the perspective of the seller. This contrasts with other
measures, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), that measure price change from the
purchaser's perspective. Sellers' and purchasers' prices may differ due to government
subsidies, sales and excise taxes, and distribution costs.
▪ Industry standard assessing price escalation for streets and utility infrastructure
construction market costs
33
PROPOSED ANNUAL FEE INCREASE
▪ Police, Parks, and Fire Fees Increase: Staff recommends of a 5.9%
annual increase based on the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index (CCI)
• Streets and Utilities Fees Increase: Staff recommends 19.98%
based on the annual increase on the Producers Price Index (West)
• Chose PPI – most applicable to heavy infrastructure (Streets and
Utilities)
• PPI West specific to our regional costs
• Council recently approved PPI West increase to irrigation rates
• Request PPI increase to reduce impacts from inflation
34
PROPOSED ANNUAL FEE INCREASE
INFLATION COSTS: ASPHALT & PIPE
• Inflation over 5 years
• Idaho Transportation
Department reports – 51%
increase liquid asphalt
• 129% PVC pipes increase
35
PROPOSED ANNUAL FEE INCREASE
INFLATION COSTS: ASPHALT & PIPE
• Increased Inflation over 5 years
• Signalization cost (includes right of
way, design, and construction)
• 2018 - $1M Average
• 2023 - $3M Average
• 300% increase in 5 years
• 60% increase per year
• Land, steel, wire, asphalt, and
conduit all contribute to material
cost increases.
36
PROPOSED ANNUAL FEE INCREASE
▪ The Impact Fee Tables showing proposed fee increases are in the meeting
packet
▪ Police, Parks, and Fire Fee Increases: Staff recommends of a 5.9% Annual
Increase for based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index
(CCI)
▪ Streets and Utilities Fee Increases: Staff recommends 19.98% based on the
annual increase on the Producers Price Index (West)
▪ MOTION: Recommendation to City Council to approve annual impact fee
increases to include a 5.9% increase to Police, Parks and Fire Fees, and a
19.98% increase to Streets, Wastewater, Water, and Pressurized Irrigation
37
IMPACT FEE STUDY
▪ Presentation of Fee Proposal and Scope of Work
▪ MOTION: Recommendation for staff to initiate a new fee study, with
TishlerBiseGalena, to evaluate land use growth data, expansion of land use
categories, modification of impact fee study methodology, and proposed
revisions to capital improvement plans (CIPs).
38
ORDINACE AMENDMENT
▪ Staff recommendations for impact fee ordinance amendments:
1. Exempt DIFAC member appointments from the public hearing process
as required by the development impact fee ordinance by moving the
requirements for committee membership to Title 2 Administrative
Commissions and Boards. This is consistent with other City Boards and
Commissions.
2. Increase the DIFAC member term from 2 years to 4 years to maintain
institutional knowledge within the committee.
▪ MOTION: Recommendation that staff initiate ordinance amendments to
exempt committee member approvals from public hearings by moving
committee requirements to City Code; Title 2 - Administrative Commissions
and Boards and to increase the committee member term from 2 years to 4
years.
39