HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 1227 for new impact fee capital improvement plans and impact fee analysis reports 2020 (2)[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 1] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
ORDINANCE 1227
A NEW ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF REXBURG TO BE KNOWN
AS THE "DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE" TO ALLOW
FOR THE COLLECTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES,
ESTABLISHING SUCH FEES, AND MORE PARTICULARLY SETTING
FORTH THE TITLE AND PURPOSE AND PRESCRIBING THE
PROCEDURES FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSE HEREOF;
ATTACHING AND INCORPORATING THE "CITY OF REXBURG
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
REPORTS" DATED MAY 20, 2020 AS APPENDIX "A" HERETO;
PROVIDING FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
THIS NEW ORDINANCE SHALL REPLACE ORDINANCES 896 AND
961 AND ESTABLISH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR
POLICE, FIRE, PARKS AND TRAILS, AND TRANSPORTATION
(STREETS).
WHEREAS, after a meeting by the City Council to consider the new Capital Improvement
and Impact Fee Analysis for Police, Fire, Parks and Trails, and Transportation on March 18, 2020
and a public hearing meeting by the City Council to consider the new Capital Improvement and
Impact Fee Analysis for Police, Fire, Parks and Trails, and Transportation and their related fees to
be adopted by resolution dated April 15, 2020, hereinafter referred to in this Ordinance as “Report,”
the City Council has made and does hereby make the following findings, to wit:
1) That the City is responsible for and committed to the provision of public facilities
and services at levels necessary to cure any existing public service deficiencies in
already developed areas;
2) That such facilities and service levels shall be provided by the City utilizing funds
allocated via the capital budget and capital improvements programming processes
and relying upon the funding sources indicated therein;
3) That new development, however, will cause and impose increased and excessive
demands on existing City public facilities and services that would not otherwise be
necessary;
4) That the City Council has considered and accepted the findings contained in the
"Report," dated May 20, 2020 which indicates build out projections, public facilities
analysis and the methodology for the determination of impact fees and that these
findings are incorporated herein by reference;
5) That the build out projections as contained in the "Report" are based on the land use
assumptions obtained from the Madison County Transportation Plan, adjusted for
the study area;
6) That the build out projections as contained in the "Report" indicate that such
development will continue and will place ever increasing demands on the City to
provide necessary public facilities;
7) That to the extent that new development places demands on public facility
infrastructure, those demands should be satisfied by shifting the responsibility for
financing the provision of such facilities from the public at large to the developments
actually creating the demands;
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 2] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
8) That the amount of the impact fee to be imposed shall be determined by the cost of
the additional public facilities needed to support such development;
9) That the City Council, after careful consideration of the matter, hereby finds and
declares that an impact fee imposed upon future development to finance public
facilities, the demand for which is created by such development is in the best interest
of the general welfare of the City and its residents, is equitable, does not impose an
unfair burden on such development by forcing developers and builders to pay more
than their fair share or proportionate share of the cost, and deems it advisable to
adopt this ordinance as hereinafter set forth;
10) That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the impact fee and the
cost of public facilities attributable to the development upon which the fee will be
imposed because the fee is based only on the cost of providing the facilities
necessary to serve the new development as discussed in the "Report.”
It is deemed by the Mayor and City Council to be for the interests of the City of Rexburg,
Idaho, that said Ordinance be adopted, NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Rexburg that a new
ordinance be designated as the “"DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE"”, and is
to read as follows:
Section 1
Title, Purpose and Definitions
01.010 TITLE AND PURPOSE: The provisions of this ordinance shall be known as the "City of
Rexburg Development Impact Fee Ordinance." The purpose of these regulations is to prescribe the
procedure whereby developers of land shall pay an impact fee as set forth in this Ordinance for the
purpose of providing the public facilities and system improvements needed to serve future residents
and users of such development. It is further the purpose of this Ordinance to:
1. Ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development;
2. Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by
which the City may require that those who benefit from new growth and
development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to
serve new growth and development;
3. Ensure that those who benefit from new growth and development are required to
pay no more than their proportionate share of the cost of public facilities needed to
serve new growth and development and to prevent duplicate and ad hoc
development requirements;
4. Collect and expend development impact fees pursuant to the enabling powers
granted by the provision of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, Title 67,
Chapter 82, Idaho Code;
5. Provide the legal and procedural basis for the implementation of development
impact fees within the area of city impact; and
6. Ensure that any capital improvement funded wholly or in part with impact fee
revenue shall first be included in an approved capital improvements plan that lists
the capital improvements that may be funded with impact fee revenues as well as the
estimated costs and timing for each improvement.
01.020 DEFINITIONS: As used in this Title, the following words and terms shall have the
following meanings, unless another meaning is plainly intended:
1. BUILDING PERMIT: The permit required for new construction and
additions.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 3] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Improvements with a useful life of ten (10) years or
more, by new construction or other action, which
increase the service capacity of a public facility, or
service improvement.
3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PLAN: A plan adopted and amended pursuant to the
provision of the Development Impact Fee Act, Idaho
Code 67-8208 that identifies capital improvements for
which development impact fees may be used as a
funding source. The capital improvements plan is
included as a part of the Development Impact Fee
Report.
4. CITY: The City of Rexburg, a municipal corporation duly
organized pursuant to the laws of the state of Idaho.
5. DEVELOPMENT: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved
real property, the use of any principal structure or
land, or any other activity that requires issuance of a
building permit, or manufactured/mobile home
permit, which creates additional demand and need for
public facilities.
6. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: Any written duly authorized document from the City
that authorizes the commencement of a development.
7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE: A payment of money imposed as a condition of
development approval to pay for a proportionate
share of the cost of system improvements needed to
serve development. This term is also referred to as an
impact fee in this Ordinance. The term does not
include the following:
a. A charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan
review or inspection cost associated with
permits required for development;
b. Connection or hookup charges;
c. Availability charges for drainage, sewer, water,
or transportation charges for services
provided directly to the development; or
d. Amounts collected from a developer in a
transaction in which the City has incurred
expenses in constructing capital
improvements for the development if the
owner or developer has agreed to be
financially responsible for the construction or
installation of the capital improvements,
unless a written agreement is made pursuant
to Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code, for credit
or reimbursement.
8. DEVELOPMENT
REQUIREMENT: A requirement attached to a developmental approval
or other governmental action approving or
authorizing a particular development project
including, but not limited to a rezoning, which
requirement compels the payment, dedication or
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 4] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
contribution of goods, services, land, or money as a
condition of approval.
9. EXTRAORDINARY COSTS: Those costs incurred as a result of an extraordinary
impact.
10. EXTRAORDINARY IMPACT: An impact which is reasonably determined by the City
to:
a. Result in the need for system improvements,
the cost of which will significantly exceed the
sum of the development impact fees to be
generated from the project or the sum agreed
to be paid pursuant to a development
agreement as allowed by Section 67-8214(2),
Idaho Code;
b. Result in the need for system improvements
which are not identified in the Capital
Improvements Plan;
c. Have an impact which results in a lower than
acceptable level of service.
11. FEE PAYER: That person who pays or is required to pay a
development impact fee.
12. GROSS FLOOR AREA: The sum of the areas of the several floors of the
building or structure, including areas used for human
occupancy or required for the conduct of the business
or use, as measured from the exterior faces of the
walls. It does not include cellars, unenclosed porches,
or attics when not used for human occupancy, nor
any floor space in an accessory building, carport, or
the main building intended or designed for the
parking of motor vehicles in order to meet any City
parking requirement nor nonresidential facilities;
arcades, porticoes, and similar open areas which are
located at or near street level, which are accessible to
the general public, and which are not designed or
used as sales, display, storage, service, or production
areas.
13. IMPACT FEE: See Development Impact Fee.
14. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS: A description of the service area and projections of
land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the
service area over at least a twenty (20) year period.
15. LEVEL OF SERVICE: A measure of the relationship between service
capacity and service demand for public facilities.
16. MANUFACTURED HOME: A structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA
manufactured home construction and safety
standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections,
which:
a. In the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more
in width or is forty (40) body feet or more in
length, or
b. When erected on site, is three hundred twenty
(320) or more square feet; and
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 5] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
c. Is built on a permanent chassis and designed
to be used as a dwelling with or without a
permanent foundation when connected to the
required utilities; and
d. Includes the plumbing, heating, air
conditioning, and electrical systems contained
therein;
e. Except that such term shall include any
structure which meets all the requirements of
this subsection except the size requirements
and with respect to which the manufacturer
voluntarily files a certification required by the
secretary of housing and urban development
and complies with the standards established
under 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq.
17. MOBILE HOME: A structure similar to a manufactured home, but built
to a mobile home code prior to June 15, 1976, the
date of enactment of the Federal Manufactured
Housing and Safety Standards Act (HUD Code).
18. MODULAR BUILDING: Any building or building component, other than a
manufactured / mobile home, which is constructed
according to standards contained in the Uniform
Building Code, as adopted or any amendments
thereto, which is of closed construction and is either
entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at
a place other than the building site.
19. PRESENT VALUE: The total current monetary value of past, present, or
future payments, contributions or dedications of
goods, services, materials, construction, or money.
20. PROJECT: A particular development on an identified parcel of
land.
21. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS: In contrast to system improvements, project
improvements are site improvements and facilities
that are planned and designed to provide service for a
particular development project and that are necessary
for the use and the convenience of the occupants or
users of the project.
22. PROPORTIONATE SHARE: That portion of the cost of system improvements
determined pursuant to Section 67-8207, Idaho Code,
which reasonably relates to the service demands and
needs of the project.
23. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Means those types of improvements described in
Idaho Code 50-1703, including but not limited to the
following:
a. Circulation facilities, streets
b. Parks, open space and recreation areas, and
related capital improvements; and
c. Public safety facilities, including law
enforcement, fire, emergency medical and
rescue.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 6] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
24. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicular type unit primarily designed as temporary
quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use,
which either has its own motive power or is mounted
on or drawn by another vehicle.
25. SERVICE UNIT: A standardized measure of consumption, use,
generation, or discharge attributable to an individual
unit of development calculated in accordance with
generally accepted engineering or planning standards
for a particular public facility category (i.e. parks, law
enforcement, fire, etc.) of capital improvements.
26. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: In contrast to project improvements, mean capital
improvements to public facilities which are designed
to provide service to a service area including and
without limitation, the type of improvements
described in Section 50-1703, Idaho Code.
27. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
COSTS: Costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of
system improvements, including design, acquisition,
engineering and other costs attributable thereto, and
also including, without limitation, the type of costs
described in Section 50-1702 (h), Idaho Code, to
provide additional public facilities needed to service
new growth and development. For clarification,
system improvement costs do not include:
a. Construction, acquisition or expansion of
public facilities other than capital
improvements identified in the capital
improvements plan;
b. Repair, operation or maintenance of existing
or new capital improvements;
c. Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing
existing capital improvements to serve
existing development in order to meet stricter
safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory
standards;
d. Administrative and operating costs of the City
unless such costs are attributable to
development of the capital improvements
plan, as provided in Section 67-8208, Idaho
Code; or
e. Principal payments and interest or other
finance charges on bonds or other
indebtedness except financial obligations
issued by or on behalf of the City to finance
capital improvements identified in the capital
improvements plan.
28. UNIT(S) OF DEVELOPMENT: A quantifiable increment of development activity
measured in terms of dwelling units, or other
appropriate measurements contained in the impact
fee schedule incorporated in the “Report.”
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 7] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Section 2
Application
02.010 APPLICATION:
A. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply uniformly to all those who benefit from
new growth and development except as provided below.
B. The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to the following:
1. Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure that was destroyed
by fire or other catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for
occupancy within two (2) years of its destruction;
2. Remodeling or repairing a structure that does not increase the number of
service units;
3. Replacing a residential unit, including a modular building or manufactured /
mobile home, with another residential unit on the same lot, provided that the
number of service units does not increase;
4. Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot;
5. Constructing an addition on a residential structure that does not increase the
number of service units;
6. Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis
courts or clubhouse, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates
a significant impact on the capacity of system improvements;
7. Upon demonstration by fee payer by documentation such as utility bills and
tax records, to the installation of a modular building, manufactured / mobile
home or recreational vehicle on that same lot or space for which a
development impact fee has been paid previously, and as long as there is no
increase in service units.
C. An exemption must be claimed by the fee payer upon application for a building
permit. Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed waived by the fee payer.
Applications for exemption shall be submitted to and determined by the City Clerk,
or his or her duly designated agent, within ninety (90) days. Appeals of the City
Clerk’s, or his or her duly designated agent, determination shall be made under the
provisions of Section 11 of this Ordinance entitled “Appeals.”
Section 3
Collection of Impact Fee
03.010 COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEE:
A. The development impact fee shall be paid and collected at the time of issuance of a
building permit or a manufactured/mobile home installation permit.
B. No building permit or other equivalent City approval shall be issued for
development as herein defined unless the impact fee is paid pursuant to this
Ordinance.
C. A manufactured / mobile home unit may not locate on a manufactured / mobile
home site unless the impact fee is paid pursuant to this Ordinance or has been paid
on a previous manufactured / mobile home unit on the same site.
D. In the event payment is dishonored, the City shall have all lawful remedies including
but not necessarily limited to the withholding of utility services, the imposition of
reasonable interest and penalties, the imposition of liens pursuant to Chapter 5, Title
45, Idaho Code, the withholding of other City approvals required for the
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 8] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
development of other properties owned by the fee payer, and the issuance of “stop
work” orders, and the revocation or suspension of the building permit.
Section 4
Capital Improvement Projects
04.010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS:
The capital improvement projects to be financed by the impact fee are those as listed in the
"Report,” incorporated herein by reference along with all footnotes, exhibits, appendices, and other
attachments referenced.
Section 5
Calculation of Impact Fee
05.010 CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEE:
A. The City shall calculate the amount of the impact fee due for each building permit
and manufactured / mobile home installation permit by the procedure set forth in
the "Report".
B. The calculation of a development impact fee shall be in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. A development impact fee shall not be deemed
invalid because payment of the fee may result in an incidental benefit to owners or
developers within the service area other than the person paying the fee.
C. A development impact fee shall be calculated on the basis of the Performance
Standard for public facilities adopted in this Ordinance and in the “Report” that are
applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development. The
construction, improvement, expansion or enlargement of new or existing public
facilities for which a development impact fee is imposed must be attributable to the
capacity demands generated by the new development.
D. If the development for which a building permit is sought contains a mix of uses, the
impact fee will be calculated for each type of use.
E. Certification: Prior to making an application for a building permit or manufactured
/ mobile home installation permit, a prospective applicant may request in writing a
written certification of the development impact fee schedule or individual assessment
for a particular project which shall establish the development fee for a period of one
(1) year from the date of certification. The certification shall include an explanation
of facilities considered under Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. The certification shall
specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used.
F. Individual Assessment: Individual assessment of impact fees is permitted in
situations where the fee payer can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that
the established impact fee is inappropriate.
1. Individual assessments of development impact fees may be made by
application to the City Clerk, or his or her duly designated agent, prior to
receiving building permits manufactured / mobile home installation permits,
or other necessary approvals from the City. The City Clerk, or his or her
duly designated agent, shall evaluate such individual assessments under the
guidelines provided for in section 05.010.F.4. If the guidelines are met, the
individual assessment shall be approved by the City Clerk, or his or her duly
designated agent. Any decision regarding a request for an individual
assessment shall be provided in writing to the applicant and a copy of said
decision, along with supporting documentation, shall be provided to the City
Council within thirty (30) days of the decision.
2. Late applications for individual assessments may be submitted within thirty
(30) days after the receipt of a building permit only if the fee payer makes a
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 9] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or
discoverable prior to receipt of a building permit and that undue hardship
would result if said application is not considered.
3. The City Clerk, or his or her duly designated agent, shall render a written
decision regarding the individual assessment and forward it to the City
Council within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is
submitted. The decision of the City Clerk, or his or her duly designated
agent, shall establish the impact fee for the project in question for a period of
one (1) year from the date said decision becomes final.
4. The City Clerk, or his or her duly designated agent, shall evaluate an
application for individual assessment and may approve the same if fee payer
has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the established impact fee is
inappropriate and that the following facts and conditions exist.
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply to
the development that does not apply generally to other properties in
the vicinity of the development.
b. An individual assessment is necessary for the reasonable and
acceptable development of the property.
c. The approval of the individual assessment will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the
vicinity in which the development is located.
d. The approval of the individual assessment will not adversely affect
the capital improvement plan for the City.
5. Appeals to the City Clerk, or his or her duly designated agent, determination
of individual assessment shall be made to the City Council by the filing of an
appeal with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing,
faxing, or personal delivery of written notice of the decision of the City
Clerk, or his or her duly designated agent. Final determination regarding the
appeal of individual assessments shall be made by the City Council.
Section 6
General Methodology for Calculation
06.010 GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION:
A. The amount of the impact fee shall be calculated using the methodology contained in
the “Report.”
B. A development impact fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of
system improvements determined in accordance with Section 67-8207, Idaho Code.
Development impact fees shall be based on actual system improvement costs or
reasonable estimates of such costs.
C. A developer shall have the right to elect to pay a project’s proportionate share of
system improvement costs by payment of development impact fees according to the
fee schedule as full and complete payment of the development project’s
proportionate share of system improvement costs, except as provided in Section 67-
8214(3), Idaho Code. The schedule of development impact fees for various land
users per unit of development shall be as set forth in the “Report.”
D. Proportionate Share Determination:
1. All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula
or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 10] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the
City in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development.
The proportionate share is the cost attributable to the new development after
the City considers the following:
a. Any appropriate credit, offset, or contribution of money, dedication
of land, or construction of system improvements;
b. Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a
new development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, or
taxes which are dedicated for system improvements for which
development impact fees would otherwise be imposed; and
c. All other available sources of funding such system improvements.
2. In determining the proportionate share of the cost of system improvements
to be paid by the developer, the following factors shall be considered by the
City:
a. The cost of existing system improvements within the service area or
areas;
b. The means by which existing system improvements have been
financed;
c. The extent to which the new development will contribute to the cost
of system improvements through taxation, assessments, or developer
or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost
of system improvements through developer or landowner
contributions.
d. The extent to which the new development is required to contribute
to the cost of existing system improvements in the future.
e. The extent to which the new development should be credited for
providing system improvements, without charge to other properties
within the service area or areas;
f. Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new development;
g. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of fees
paid at different times; and
h. The availability of other sources of funding system improvements
including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies,
intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation. The City shall
develop a plan for alternative sources of revenue, which shall include
but not necessarily be limited to plans generated during the City’s
annual budget process, lobbying efforts, tax increment financing,
implementation of user fees and various forms of utilities.
Section 7
Inflationary Adjustment for Impact Fee
07.010 INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT INDEX FOR IMPACT FEE:
This ordinance provides for the ability for the City Council to elect to use an automatic annual
adjustment to the impact fee based on the Constructions Materials index for Seattle. The
adjustment may increase or decrease the impact fee depending on the value of the index for that
year. The inflationary adjustment will be capped at 2.5% each year. The annual effective date of this
fee adjustment shall coincide with the beginning date of the City’s annual budget.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 11] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Section 8
Administration of Impact Fee
08.010 ADMINISTRATION OF IMPACT FEE:
A. Transfer of funds to City Finance Officer: Upon receipt of impact fees, the City
Finance Officer, or his or her duly designated agent, shall be responsible for
placement of such funds into separate accounts as hereinafter specified. All such
funds shall be deposited in interest-bearing accounts, within the Capital Projects
Fund, in a bank authorized to receive deposits of city funds. Interest earned by each
account shall be credited to that account and shall be used solely for the purposes
specified for funds of such account.
B. Establishment and maintenance of accounts: The City Finance Officer, or his or her
duly designated agent, shall establish separate accounts and maintain records for each
such account whereby impact fees collected can be segregated.
C. Maintenance of records: The City Finance Officer, or his or her duly designated
agent, shall maintain and keep accurate financial records for each such account that
shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues; that shall account for all
monies received; that shall ensure that the disbursement of funds from each account
shall be used solely and exclusively for the provision of projects specified in the
capital improvements program; and that shall provide an annual accounting for each
impact fee account showing the source and amount of all funds collected and the
projects that were funded.
D. Development impact fees shall only be spent for the public facility category (i.e.
streets, parks, law enforcement, fire, etc.) of system improvements for which the fees
are collected and either within or for the benefit of the service area in which the
project is located.
E. Review and modification: Unless the City Council deems some other time period is
appropriate, the City shall at least once every five (5) years commencing from the
date of the original adoption of the capital improvement plan, review the
development potential of the area and update the capital improvements plan in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Idaho Code Section 67-8206. The City
may make any updates as are deemed necessary as a result of (1) development
occurring in the prior year; (2) capital improvements actually constructed; (3)
changing facility needs; (4) inflation; (5) revised cost estimates for capital
improvements; (6) changes in the availability of other funding projects; and (7) such
other factors as may be relevant.
F. The City shall annually adopt a capital budget.
G. As part of its annual audit process, the City shall prepare an annual Report describing
the amount of all development impact fees collected, appropriated, or spent during
the preceding year by category of public facility and service area.
H. All other requirements of Idaho Code 67-8210, regarding earmarking and
expenditure of collected development impact fees, shall apply.
Section 9
Credits
09.010 CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENT:
A. In the calculation of development impact fees for a particular project, credit or
reimbursement shall be given for the present value of any construction of system
improvements or contribution or dedication of land or money required by the City
from a developer for system improvements of the public facility category (i.e. parks,
police, circulation) for which the development impact fee is being collected. Credit
or reimbursement shall not be given for project improvements unless those
improvements are identified in the “Report” as a system improvement. In that
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 12] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
event, the credit given will only be given for those project improvements that are
specifically listed in the “Report” and not for any portion of the improvements that
would otherwise be required by zoning, subdivision, or other city regulations.
B. If a developer is required to construct, fund or contribute system improvements in
excess of the development project’s proportionate share of system improvement
costs, the developer shall receive a credit on future impact fees or be reimbursed at
the developer’s choice for such excess construction, funding or contribution from
development impact fees paid by future development which impacts the system
improvements constructed, funded or contributed by the developer(s) or fee payer.
If a credit for the payment of future impact fees is requested, the credit shall be given
only for the public facility category that received system improvements in excess of
the development’s proportionate share.
C. If credit or reimbursement is due to the developer pursuant to this section, the City
shall enter into a written agreement, with the fee payer, negotiated in good faith,
prior to the construction, funding, or contribution. The agreement shall provide for
the amount of credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement.
D. Any person requesting such credit or reimbursement shall submit their request in
writing on a form provided by the City and present documentation of costs or
payments for facilities to the City Public Works Director or his or her duly
designated agent prior to issuance of a building permit or manufactured / mobile
home installation permit. The determination shall be made no more than forty-five
(45) days after complete documentation is submitted to the City Public Works
Director or his or her duly designated agent. Any appeal from such a determination
by the City Public Works Director, or his or her duly designated agent, shall be
pursuant to Section 11 of this Ordinance.
Section 10
Refunds
10.010 REFUNDS:
A. The current owner or contract purchaser of property on which an impact fee has
been paid may request a refund of such fee if:
1. Service is available but never provided;
2. The project for which a building permit has been used has been lawfully
altered resulting in a decrease in the amount of the impact fee due; or
3. The City, after collecting the fee when service is not available, has failed to
appropriate and expend the collected development impact fees pursuant to
Section 67-8210(4) Idaho Code.
4. A building permit or permit for installation of a manufactured / mobile
home is denied or abandoned.
B. The request for refund must be filed in writing and submitted to the City Clerk or his
or her duly designated agent on a form provided by the City for such purpose. The
Owner shall provide such documentation as the City Clerk, or his or her duly
designated agent, may require proving such satisfaction, reconveyance, or releases
from contract sellers, mortgagees, lien holders, and / or others having an interest in
the real property for which an impact fee has been paid.
C. A request for refund must be filed within the time allowed by law.
D. Within ninety (90) days of the date of receipt of a request for refund, the City Clerk
or his or her duly designated agent must provide the owner, in writing, with a
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 13] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
decision on the refund request including the reasons for the decision. If a right to
refund exists, the City is required to send a refund to the owner of record within
ninety (90) days after it is determined that a refund is due. A refund shall include a
refund of interest at one-half (½) the legal rate provided for in Section 28-22-104,
Idaho Code.
E. Owner may appeal the determination of the City Clerk, or his or her duly designated
agent, to the City Council pursuant to the provisions in Section 11 of this Ordinance.
Section 11
Appeals
11.010 APPEALS:
A. A developer or fee payer may appeal the written determination of the applicability
and amount of the development impact fee, or refund, or any discretionary action or
inaction by or on behalf of the City to the City Council.
B. The developer or fee payer must file a notice of appeal to the City Council with the
City Clerk within thirty (30) days following the written determination, discretionary
action, or inaction. When filing an appeal, the fee payer shall submit a letter
providing a full explanation of the request, the reason for appeal, as well as all
supporting documentation.
C. The filing of an appeal shall not stay required payment of the impact fee, however, a
fee payer can pay a development impact fee under protest in order to obtain
development approval or building permit.
D. Upon voluntary agreement by the fee payer and the City, any disagreement related to
the impact fee for the proposed development may be mediated by a qualified
independent party.
1. Mediation may take place at any time during the appeals process and
participation in mediation does not preclude the fee payer from pursuing
other remedies provided for in this Ordinance.
2. The fee payer and the City shall share mediation costs equally.
Section 12
Extraordinary Impacts
12.010 EXTRAORDINARY IMPACTS:
In determining the proportionate share of the cost of system improvements to be paid by the
developer, the City Clerk or his or her duly designated agent shall consider whether any
extraordinary costs will be incurred in serving the development based upon an extraordinary impact
as defined in Section 1 of this ordinance. This determination shall be made prior to issuance of any
permit for development and shall be paid prior to any such issuance except as may be provided
pursuant to a private agreement between the parties as authorized by Idaho Code Section 67-8214.
If the City Clerk or his or her duly designated agent determines that the development will result in
an extraordinary impact, it shall advise the fee payer in writing what the extraordinary impact is, the
reason for the extraordinary impact, and the estimated costs to be incurred as a result of the
extraordinary impact.
Nothing in this Ordinance shall obligate the City to approve any development that results in
extraordinary impact.
The fee payer may appeal the determination of an extraordinary impact or the amount of
extraordinary costs incurred in writing by filing a notice of appeal to the City Council with the City
Clerk pursuant to the terms set forth in Section 11, entitled “Appeals.” When filing an appeal, the
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 14] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
fee payer shall submit a letter providing the reason for the appeal along with supporting
documentation. The City Council shall consider the appeal and make a final determination within
ninety (90) days of receipt of the written appeal.
Section 13
Development Impact Fee Reports
13.010 ADDENDUM “A”:
Addendum “A” entitled “Capital Improvement and Impact Fee Analysis for Police, Fire, Parks and
Trails, and Transportation (Streets),” herein after referred to as “Reports,” dated May 20, 2020,
along with all footnotes, exhibits, appendices, and other attachments referenced therein, all of which
are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth fully. A description of acceptable levels of
service for system improvements is described in the “Report.”
Section 14
Bonding
14.010 BONDING:
Funds pledged toward retirement of bonds, revenue certificates, or other obligations of
indebtedness for such projects may include impact fees and other city revenues as may be allocated
by the City Council.
Section 15
Effects of Impact Fee on Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations, Impact Fee as Additional
and Supplemental Requirement
15.010 EFFECT OF IMPACT FEE ON ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
This Ordinance shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property, density of
development, design and improvement standards and requirements, or any other aspect of the
development of land or provision of capital improvements subject to the zoning and subdivision
regulations or other regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and
effect without limitation with respect to all such development.
Section 16
Other Powers and Rights Not Affected
16.010 OTHER POWERS AND RIGHTS NOT AFFECTED:
A. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the City from requiring a developer to
construct reasonable project improvements in conjunction with a development
project.
B. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent or prohibit private
agreements between property owners and developers, the Idaho Transportation
Department, the City, and other governmental entities in regard to the construction
or installation of system improvements or providing for credits or reimbursements
for system improvement costs incurred by a developer including inter-project
transfers of credits or providing for reimbursement for project improvements which
are used or shared by more than one (1) development project. If it can be shown
that a proposed development has a direct impact on a public facility under the
jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department, then the agreement shall
include a provision for the allocation of impact fees collected from the developer for
the improvement of the public facility by the Idaho Transportation Department.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 15] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
C. Nothing in this Ordinance shall obligate the City to approve development that
results in an extraordinary impact. Extraordinary impacts shall be determined and
processed pursuant to Section 12 of this Ordinance.
D. Nothing in this Ordinance shall obligate the City to approve a development request
that may reasonably be expected to reduce levels of service below minimum
acceptable levels established in the development impact fee ordinance. To this end,
the City may impose a development impact fee for system improvement costs
incurred subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to the extent that new growth and
development will be served by the system improvements.
E. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to create any additional right to
develop real property or diminish the power of the City in regulating the orderly
development of real property.
F. Nothing in this Ordinance shall work to limit the use by the City of the power of
eminent domain or supersede or conflict with requirements or procedures
authorized in the Idaho Code for local improvement districts or general obligation
bond issues.
G. Nothing herein shall restrict or diminish the power of the City to annex property
into its territorial boundaries or exclude property from its territorial boundaries upon
request of a developer or owner, or to impose reasonable conditions thereon,
including the recovery of project or system improvement costs required as a result of
such voluntary annexation.
Section 17
Severability
17.010 SEVERABILITY:
The provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable and if any provision of the
Ordinance or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for
any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 18
Public Health, Safety and Welfare
18.010 PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE:
The provisions of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be in furtherance of the public
health, safety, welfare, and convenience, and it shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its
purposes.
Section 19
Conflicts
19.010 CONFLICTS:
All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of such conflict.
Section 20
Partial Invalidity
20.010 PARTIAL INVALIDITY:
Should any sentence, section, clause, part, or provision of this ordinance be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a
whole, or any part thereof, other than the part declared to be invalid.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 16] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Section 21
No Waiver
21.010 NO WAIVER:
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any ordinance shall, in any manner, affect
the prosecution for violation of such ordinance committed prior to the effective date of this
ordinance or be constructed as a waiver of any license or penalty due under any such ordinance or in
any manner affect the validity of any action heretofore taken by the City of Rexburg City Council or
the validity of any such action to be taken upon matters pending before the City Council on the
effective date of this ordinance.
Section 22
Public Notice
22.010 PUBLIC NOTICE
This ordinance shall be published in full or in summary in one (1) issue of the Standard Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation published within the City of Rexburg and the official newspaper
thereof.
Section 23
Public Notice
23.010 EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption by City Council subject to meeting
the public notice requirement of Section 22.010.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 20th Day of May,
2020.
________________________________
Jerry L. Merrill, Mayor
(((SSSEEEAAALLL)))
Attest:
_____________________________
Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 17] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
STATE OF IDAHO )
)ss
County of Madison )
I, Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk of the city of Rexburg, Idaho, do hereby certify: That the
above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Ordinance Entitled:
A NEW ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF REXBURG TO BE KNOWN AS THE
"DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE" TO ALLOW FOR THE
COLLECTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, ESTABLISHING SUCH FEES,
AND MORE PARTICULARLY SETTING FORTH THE TITLE AND PURPOSE AND
PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURES FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSE
HEREOF; ATTACHING AND INCORPORATING THE "CITY OF REXBURG
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS REPORTS "
DATED MAY 20, 2020 AS APPENDIX "A" HERETO; PROVIDING FOR LIBERAL
CONSTRUCTION; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES
IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 20th day of May,
2020.
_________________________________________
Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk
(((SSSEEEAAALLL)))
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 18] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
APPENDIX A
City of Rexburg
Police Capital Improvement Plan
and Impact Fee Analysis
20 May 2020
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 19] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Contents
Contents ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Section I: Introduction to the Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis.......................................... 20
Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Impact Fee Service Area .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Population and Police Call Data .............................................................................................................................. 20
Land Use Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 20
Service Units ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
Call Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 21
Undefined Calls ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Calls to Public Areas, Roads, and Non-Qualifying Calls Generated by Non-Residents ....................................... 22
Calls per Unit Calculation .................................................................................................................................... 22
Land Use and Future Calls ....................................................................................................................................... 23
Section II: Police and Animal Control Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................ 24
System Improvements ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities ................................................................................................................ 24
Existing Equipment Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 24
Existing Capital Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Future Police Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................... 24
Existing Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Schedule for Improvements................................................................................................................................ 25
Funding Future Capital Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 25
Historic Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Bond Funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
Impact Fees ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Summary of Time and Price Differential ................................................................................................................. 25
Equity of Impact Fees .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Section III: Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis ......................................................................................... 25
Impact Fee Overview............................................................................................................................................... 25
Police Level of Service ............................................................................................................................................. 26
Proportionate Share Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 26
Calculation of Proportionate Share .................................................................................................................... 26
Impact Fee Cost per Call .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit .................................................................................................................. 27
Credits Owed to Development ................................................................................................................................ 27
Grant Funding ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
Developer Dedications and Exactions ................................................................................................................. 27
Deficiency Credit ................................................................................................................................................. 28
Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit ......................................................................................................................... 28
Individual Impact Fee Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 28
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 20] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Section I: Introduction to the Police Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee
Analysis
Project Overview
City of Rexburg (the City) has commissioned Zions Public Finance, Inc (Zions) to put together a Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) prior to updating police and animal control
development impact fees authorized by Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho
Development Impact Fee Act (Impact Fee Act).
Impact Fee Service Area
Rexburg is a city located in Madison County, Idaho. The City is the county seat and the county’s largest
city. The 2018 the population was estimated to be 35,093. The City is home to Brigham Young University-
Idaho.
The purpose of the Police Capital Improvement Plan is to provide Rexburg with substantive planning for
future police capital infrastructure including facility sizing, timing, costs and allocation to growth for which
development impact fees may be used as a funding source. This information will be used as the basis of
calculating the Police impact fees. A current CIP must be prepared before the City can update the police
IFA. This CIP and IFA have been prepared for a single, City-wide Service Area (Service Area) with the
same impact fee cost per call assessed throughout the Service Area. The cost per call is the relationship
between the City’s population and annual police calls generated within the City’s boundaries and will be
discussed in Section III: Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis.
Population and Police Call Data
The three-year average calls between 2016 and 2018 were the baseline for police call data. The growth
in calls between the current calls and projected 2037 calls was then used to estimate the growth in annual
calls that will occur in the City. The 2016-2018 average annual calls were 7,394 and are expected to grow
to 11,063 calls by 2037 resulting in an increase of 3,669 annual calls as shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: PROJECTIONS IN POPULATION AND POLICE CALLS
Historic and Future Population Projections
Year Rexburg
Population
Total Police
Calls
Average Calls per
Capita % Call Growth
3-Year Call Avg (2016-2018) 35,093 7,394 0.2107 2.6%
2019 35,840 7,587 0.2117 2.6%
2020 36,603 7,780 0.2126 2.5%
2021 37,383 7,973 0.2133 2.5%
2022 38,179 8,166 0.2139 2.4%
2023 38,992 8,360 0.2144 2.4%
2024 39,688 8,553 0.2155 2.3%
2025 40,396 8,746 0.2165 2.3%
2026 41,117 8,939 0.2174 2.2%
2027 41,850 9,132 0.2182 2.2%
2028 42,597 9,325 0.2189 2.1%
2037 52,507 11,063 0.2107
Growth in Police Calls
3 Year Avg (2016-2018) 7,394
2037 Calls 11,063
% Future Calls from Growth 33%
Future Calls from Growth 3,669
Land Use Analysis
Figure 2 shows the current and proposed residential and non-residential units. It is estimated that the
population will grow to 52,507 by 2037 with an estimated 14,580 residential units. The non-residential
units, divided by General Commercial, Office, or Institutional land uses, show and existing 8,487,000 SF
which is anticipated to increase to 12,698,000 SF by 2037. For residential uses, the current persons per
household figures were applied to the 2037 population to determine the projected residential future units.
Similarly, the current non-residential square footage per capita estimates were applied to the future
population projections to estimate the future non-residential square footage.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 21] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
FIGURE 2: EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE
Existing Development Future Development to
be Added Existing + Growth at 2037
Residential Units Population Total Units Population Units Population Total Units
Single Family 10,646 2,645 5,283 1,313 15,929 3,958
Multi-Family
Community Housing 10,723 4,487 5,321 2,227 16,044 6,714
Multi-Family
Dormitory Housing 13,724 2,612 6,810 1,296 20,534 3,908
Total 35,093 9,744 17,414 4,836 52,507 14,580
Private Non-
Residential Units
SF per
Capita
Estimated
kSF
SF per
Capita
Estimated
kSF
SF per
Capita Estimated kSF
Commercial 124.5 4,369 124.5 2,168 124.5 6,536
Government 10.6 373 10.6 185 10.6 558
Institutional* 106.7 3,745 106.7 1,858 106.7 5,603
Total 241.8 8,487 241.8 4,211 241.8 12,698
* Institutional includes churches, schools and private nonprofit uses
Source: Zions Public Finance Land Use Analysis, City of Rexburg
Service Units
A service unit is defined by the Impact Fees Act as a standardized measure of consumption, use,
generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with
generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements.
In the case of police impact fees an emergency call is the basic unit for measuring the demand for
services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the “cost per call” and applied to each
land use category according to the historic calls per unit generated by that land use category.
Call Data Analysis
The following tables detail the cost per call calculation by showing the existing number of calls that went
to each land use category (Figures 3 through 5), the calls per unit of each land use category (Figure 6),
and the number of future calls that are estimated to take place when the Service Area is built out (Figure
7).
FIGURE 3: RAW POLICE CALL DATA
Category 2016 2017 2018
Three Year
Average (2016-
2018)
% of Total
Calls to Private Land Uses
Single Family Residential 1,227 939 975 1,047 14%
Multi-Family Community Housing 825 211 880 639 9%
Multi-Family Dormitory Housing 991 498 736 742 10%
General Commercial 974 1,151 1,663 1,263 17%
Institutional * 163 192 467 274 4%
Calls to Public Land Uses/Other
Public Buildings and Land 155 328 615 366 5%
Traffic 1,767 1,746 1,509 1,674 23%
Mutual Aid 36 26 8 23 0.3%
Undefined ** 1,059 2,392 648 1,366 18%
All Calls 7,197 7,483 7,501 7,394 100%
* Institutional includes churches, schools and private nonprofit uses
** Undefined includes all calls without a specific address
Undefined Calls
One of the call categories shown in Figure 3 is undefined. Undefined calls are calls that were unable to be
geocoded due to lack of available information. One example for an undefined call would be a call where
an incomplete or incorrect address was recorded when the call was received. To estimate the land use
distribution for undefined calls, the undefined calls are assigned to a land use using the same proportions
as the direct calls. For example, 17% of all calls received by the City between 2016-2018 were direct calls
to a single-family residential land use. Therefore, 17% of undefined calls were allocated to single family
residential as shown in Figure 4 below.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 22] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
FIGURE 4: ALLOCATION OF UNDEFINED CALLS
Land Use Type
Calls to
Direct
Land Use
% to
Direct
Land Use
Undefined
Calls to Land
Uses
Total Calls by Land Use
(After Undefined
Allocation)
Residential
Single Family Residential 1,047 17% 237 1,284
Multi-Family Community Housing 639 11% 145 783
Multi-Family Dormitory Housing 742 12% 168 910
Non-Residential
General Commercial 1,263 21% 286 1,549
Institutional 274 5% 62 336
Public Land Uses
Public Buildings and Land 366 6% 83 449
Roads 1,674 28% 379 2,053
Mutual Aid 23 0% 5 29
Undefined 1,366 0% - -
Total 7,394 100% 1,366 7,394
Calls to Public Areas, Roads, and Non-Qualifying Calls Generated by Non-Residents
Similar to how undefined calls were allocated to specific land uses, calls to public land uses were also
allocated to direct land uses. Public land use calls are generated by either residential developments, non -
residential developments, or by non-residents passing through the Service Area.
FIGURE 5: FINAL CALL DATA DISTRIBUTION BY LAND USE
Total
Calls
% of
Total
Calls
Direct Calls
Allocated to
Land Use
Indirect
Public
Areas
Roads Non-City
Resident
Summary
of Total
Calls
Direct Calls Allocated to Land
Use 3,964 54% 4,863 4,863
Public Buildings and Land 366 5% 404 45 449
Roads 1,674 23% 1,643 411 2,053
Mutual Aid 23 0% 29 29
Undefined 1,366 18% - - - - -
Total 7,394 100% 4,863 404 1,643 484 7,394
Calls per Unit Calculation
Figure 6 shows that once the final call distributions were determined, the number of calls generated by
each land use (single family residential, multi-family residential, general commercial, office, or
institutional) referred to as the “calls per unit” could be identified by dividing the calls to each land use by
the corresponding land use units.
FIGURE 6: POLICE CALLS PER UNIT
Land Use Type
Avg
Calls to
Land
Use
Undefined
Calls to
Land Use
Calls to
Public
Areas
Mutual
Aid
Calls
to
Roads
3 Year
Avg Calls
(2016-
2018)
Existing
Land Use
Unit
Calls per
Unit
Residential per Unit
Single Family 1,047 237 107 - 434 1,825 2,645 0.690
Multi-Family
Community
Housing
639 145 65 - 265 1,113 4,487 0.248
Multi-Family
Dormitory
Housing
742 168 76 - 307 1,293 2,612 0.495
Non-Residential per 1,000
SF
General
Commercial 1,263 286 129 - 523 2,201 4,369 0.504
Institutional* 274 62 28 - 114 478 3,745 0.128
Non-Qualifying
Police Calls
Police Calls
Allocated to
Outside City
- - 45 29 411 484
Total 3,964 899 449 29 2,053 7,394
* Institutional includes churches, schools and private nonprofit uses
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 23] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Land Use and Future Calls
Figure 7 shows that the calls per unit by land use in Figure 6 are multiplied by the number of 2037 future
units. This estimates the number of future police calls that will be created by new development through
2037. By 2037, it is anticipated that 3,669 future annual police calls will be added.
FIGURE 7: EXISTING AND FUTURE POLICE CALLS – BASED ON HISTORIC LAND USE
Projected Future Police Calls
Development Type Future Units Calls per Unit Future 2037
Calls*
Residential
Single Family 1,313 0.690 906
Multi-Family Community 2,227 0.248 553
Multi-Family Dormitory 1,296 0.495 641
Non-Residential
General Commercial (kSF) 2,168 0.504 1,092
Institutional (kSF) 1,858 0.128 237
Non-Resident Police Calls
Development Type Future
Population Calls per Capita Future 2037
Calls*
Police Calls Allocated to Outside City 17,414 0.014 240
Total Undeveloped Future Private Police Calls 3,669
*Projected Future Calls are based only on future units in addition to existing calls from existing units
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 24] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Section II: Police and Animal Control Capital Improvement Plan
System Improvements
The Impact Fee Act allows that an impact fee be collected for the cost to construct system improvements
which have capacity to serve future growth. A system improvement is defined as an improvement which
will provide service to an entire service area not an improvement than only serves one specific
development. The system improvement must also have a useful life of ten or more years. System
improvements which are impact fee eligible may be “buy-in” to the City’s existing inventory of equipment
and facilities or may be allocated to future improvements within a twenty-year planning horizon. The
impact fee should be calculated to assess an impact fee for the proportionate share of system
improvement costs which is available to serve future growth. The Police and Animal Control CIP
documents the City’s impact fee qualifying existing and future expenditures.
Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities
Existing Equipment Inventory
Figure 8 summarizes the City’s existing police/animal control equipment inventory. A portion of the
existing equipment will serve growth and will be included in the impact fee calculation.
FIGURE 8: EXISTING EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Equipment Inventory
Asset Description Total Cost
City
Share
%
Equipment Cost
Police Equipment $ 701,402 100% $ 701,402
Police Office Equipment 19,664 100% 19,664
Animal Shelter Equipment 54,157 100% 54,157
Animal Shelter Office Equipment 3,999 100% 3,999
Future Police Station Equipment/ Furnishing/ Office Equipment* 107,373 100% 107,373
Totals: $ 886,595 $ 886,595
Source: City of Rexburg
*3% Annual Inflation
Existing Capital Facilities
The police department currently operates out of an existing police station, training facility, and an animal
shelter. As will be discussed throughout this Police CIP and IFA, the current police station will be
relocated to a new facility within the 2026 planning horizon ; therefore, there is no existing capacity in the
existing police station to serve future growth. The building floor space will be used in the impact fee
proportionate share to document existing and future level of service, but no costs have been included in
the impact fee calculation for the existing police station due to this existing deficiency. The existing animal
control facility and training facility have existing excess capacity and will bo th be used to serve future
growth. The portion of the historic costs for those buildings which are impact fee eligible will be included
in the impact fee calculation. Figure 9 shows the building floor space for each existing facility.
FIGURE 9: EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES
Project Existing Facilities
Total Cost Acres Total Building
SF
% Impact
Fee Eligible
Impact Fee
Eligible Cost
Existing Police Station $ 638,016 0.46 10,960 0% $ -
Existing Police Training/
Storage 418,072 9,500 100% 418,072
Existing Animal Shelter 426,614 0.67 3,088 100% 426,614
Total $ 1,482,702 23,548 $ 844,686
Future Police Infrastructure
Existing Deficiencies
The demand placed on existing police services by new development activity is attributed to growth in
emergency calls. This growth will increase demands upon services, requiring an increase in number of
officers. This will in turn cause a need for more floor space for offices, evidence rooms, storage areas,
training rooms, etc.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 25] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Schedule for Improvements
Within the impact fee planning horizon, the City plans to move the police station to a larger facility in
2026. To avoid double counting costs for the same capacity, no cost for the existing police station (which
will be replaced by the new facility in 2026) will be included in the impact fee calculation. Once the police
station is completed the City anticipates having sufficient c apacity to meet the 2037 facility floor space
needs for police and animal control demands. Figure 10 shows the future capital facilities planned for
police.
FIGURE 10: SUMMARY OF FUTURE POLICE FACILITIES
Project Year
Floor
space
(SF)
Cost
per
SF*
Land
(Acres)
PV Project
Expense $
Construction
Year
Expense**
% to
Impact
Fee
Eligible
Impact Fee
Eligible Cost
Future Police Facilities Within 8 Years
Police Facility
Replacement 2026 16,000 $ 260 $ 4,160,000 $ 5,116,275 100% $ 5,116,275
Police Facility
Land 2026 2.0 400,000 491,950 100% 491,950
Total Future
Police Facilities 16,000 $ 4,560,000 $ 5,608,225 $ 5,608,225
*Cost Estimates provided by City of Rexburg
** 3% Annual Inflation
Funding Future Capital Facilities
Historic Funding Sources
Police facilities can be funded in a variety of ways including tax revenues, impact fees, grants, bonds,
vehicle leases, etc. Tax revenues—property and sales—are the primary source of revenue for the City.
The City has authority to collect a portion of the property and sales taxes within its boundaries. The
revenues collected can cover the operational expenses, non-impact fee qualifying capital expenses, and
other general needs of the police department.
As stated above, due to the relocation of the existing police facility during the impact fee planning horizon
no historic costs for that facility have been included in the impact fee calculation, but costs for the existing
animal shelter and training facility have been included as both of these facilities have existing excess
capacity.
Bond Funding
There are no outstanding bonds related to the police department and no future bonds are currently
proposed. If a bond is proposed and approved in the future by City residents, then the impact fees should
be revised at that time to include any additional bond costs.
Impact Fees
Impact fees have become an ideal mechanism for funding growth-related infrastructure. It is
recommended that impact fees be used to fund growth-related capital projects as they help to maintain an
adequate level of service and prevent existing users from subsidizing the capital needs for new growth.
Summary of Time and Price Differential
The Impact Fees Act allows for the inclusion of a time and price differential to ensure that the costs
incurred at a later date are accurately calculated. To account for this, project cost estimates for future
projects are inflated at 3% annually to a future value cost based on the year of anticipated construction.
Equity of Impact Fees
The impact fee calculations are structured to fund 100% of the growth-related portion of system
improvements as presented in the impact fee analysis. Even so, there may be years that impact fee
revenues cannot cover the annual growth-related expenses. Other revenues will be used to make up any
annual deficits given funding gaps in development or other factors. Any borrowed funds are to be repaid
in their entirety through impact fees at the time that impact fee funds become available.
Section III: Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Overview
The impact fee for police and animal control services is calculated using the growth projections, current
call data and future call projections, current and estimated future land use, and existing and future
equipment and facilities costs which have been described in Sections I & II of this document. The final
components necessary to complete the Impact Fee Analysis include: level of service (LOS), propor tionate
share analysis, impact fee cost per call, impact fee cost per development unit, and proposed credits to
development. Each of those components are discussed in this section.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 26] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Police Level of Service
One key component of the impact fee calculation is the level of service. The level of service is the
measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public facilities. In the case
of police impact fees that means the total building square footage (capacity) relative to the numb er of
calls the police department receives each year (service demand).
Unlike a utility such as culinary water where capacity can be added gradually to the system by upsizing
an existing line segment, public safety floor space has to be built station-by-station not line-by-line. To
adequately maintain the current level of service, police stations or expansions of existing police stations
must be done well ahead of the increase in call volume that the station expansion is designed to serve.
Therefore, we look at the call volume the stations are designed to serve (rather than the LOS observed
today) as the true measure of LOS. In the case of the police impact fee, the future capital projects
identified in the CIP are needed to serve a 2037 population of the City. Any square foot per call
calculations that exceed the 2037 LOS are considered unused excess capacity that will be utilized once
the City reaches the end of the twenty-year planning horizon. Figure 11 shows the 2037 level of service of
2.58 square feet per call which is lower than the currently observed LOS of 3.18 SF per call.
The impact fee LOS being at or below the existing LOS would typically indicate that there is no existing
deficiency; however, the existing excess capacity is in the City’s training and storage facility and animal
control facility which both have capacity to serve the City through 2037. The existing police station does
not have excess capacity and will be retired within the impact fee planning horizon. The existing square
footage that is serving current call volume will be relocated to the new, larger facility built in 2026.
Therefore, a deficiency credit has been calculated in the impact fee. For more information on the
deficiency credit see Figure 15.
FIGURE 11: CURRENT AND PROJECTED POLICE LEVEL OF SERVICE
Time Frame Floorspace (SF) Calls SF per Call
Current 23,548 7,394 3.18
2026 28,588 8,939 3.20
2037 28,588 11,063 2.58
Impact Fee Level of Service Used 28,588 11,063 2.58
Proportionate Share Analysis
As part of this analysis, the Impact Fee Act requires that the calculated impact fee be roughly
proportionate and reasonably related to the development activity. Ideally, implementing an impact fee to
pay for needed infrastructure places a burden on future users that is equal to the burden that was borne
in the past by existing users. To determine the fair share an impact fee payer should pay for system
capacity in the police and animal control services, a proportionate share analysis was performed as
described below.
Calculation of Proportionate Share
Figure 12 displays the current and future facility floor space and the calls they will serve. With this
information, it is possible to calculate the percentage that will serve new growth, and thus the portion that
future growth will be expected to fund.
FIGURE 12: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION
Station
Floor Space
Station
Capacities
(Call)
3-year
Avg Calls
Future
Calls
% to Serve
Existing Users
% to Serve
Future Growth
Police Facilities 28,588 11,063 7,394 3,669 66.8% 33.2%
2037 Demand 28,588 11,063 7,394 3,669
Impact Fee Cost per Call
Once the proportionate share has been determined the impact fee cost per call can be calculated. The
impact fee cost per call divides the impact fee qualifying costs to new growth by the total future calls new
growth will generate. The value found in the “% Growth Related” column comes directly from the
proportionate share analysis “% to Serve Future Growth” column. The total impact fee qualifying cost is
$7,347,505 of which $2,442,261 pertains to new growth. This results in a cost per call of $350.12.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 27] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
FIGURE 13: POLICE IMPACT COST PER CALL CALCULATION
Impact Fee
Qualifying
Cost
%
Growth
Related
Impact Fee
Qualifying Cost
Assigned to New
Growth
New
Growth
Calls Added
to 2037
Impact
Fee Cost
per Call
Police Facilities
Existing Police Station and Animal Shelter
$
426,614 33.2% $
141,493 3,669 $
39
Existing Training Facility 418,072 33.2% 138,660 3,669 38
Existing Debt Service (Interest) - 0.0% - 3,669 -
Future Station Facilities within 10 Years 5,608,225 33.2% 1,860,055 3,669 507
Equipment 886,595 33.2% 294,053 3,669 80
Future Debt Service (Interest) - 0% - 3,669 -
Total $ 7,339,505 $ 2,434,261 $
663
Miscellaneous
Deficiency Credit*
$
(315)
Professional Services
$
8,000 100%
$
8,000 3,669 2
Total Miscellaneous
$
8,000
$
8,000
$
(313)
Grand Total $ 7,347,505
$
2,442,261 $ 350.12
*See Figure 15
Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit
The impact fee is assessed to each user category based upon the historic calls per unit generated by that
land use. The City’s observed annual police calls per unit by development type are multiplied by the
impact fee cost per call to calculate the final impact fee per land use.
FIGURE 14: RECOMMENDED POLICE IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT
Development Type Police Cost
per Call
Police
Calls per
Unit
Impact Fee Impact Fee
Assessment
Residential Impact Fee Per Unit *Impact Fee per Bed
Single-Family Residential
$
350.12 0.690 $ 241.58 N/A
Multi-Family Community Housing 350.12 0.248 86.87 N/A
Multi-Family Dormitory Housing 350.12 0.495 N/A $ 32.98
Non-Residential Impact Fee Per 1,000 SF Impact Fee per SF
General Commercial
$
350.12 0.504 $ 176.40 $ 0.18
Institutional 350.12 0.128 44.65 0.04
*Single Family and Multi-Family Community are assessed an impact fee per unit as shown in the "Maximum Impact Fee"
column. Multi-Family Dormitory is assessed an impact fee per bed using the average beds per dormitory (5.254 beds/dorm
unit)
Credits Owed to Development
Certain circumstances may result in the need to provide a credit to develo pment. Impact fee credits are
detailed below.
Grant Funding
Any improvement donated to the City which the City has no obligation to repay is assumed to be donated
to the City residents through buildout. Therefore, if a capital facility is acquired through a grant or another
source that does not require the City to pay for the project, then the value of that improvement would not
be an impact fee qualifying cost. An impact fee should not be collected for a project or expense otherwise
covered through a grant without an appropriate credit. If any grant funding is received for impact fee
eligible expenses, then the impact fee will be reviewed at the time that the funding is received to account
for any appropriate reduction in impact fee project costs.
Developer Dedications and Exactions
Developer exactions are not the same as grants (which should be credited from the impact fee). If a
developer constructs a police station, donates impact fee qualifying equipment to the City, or dedicates
land within the development for use by police/animal control facilities, then the value of the dedication is
credited against that particular developer’s impact fee liability. It is rare for developers to construct an
entire police station for a credit, but land dedication for a station or training facility does sometimes occur.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 28] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
If the situation arises that a developer chooses to construct facilities found in the C IP in-lieu of impact
fees, appropriate arrangements must be made through negotiation between the developer and the City
on a case by case basis.
All police stations are considered to be system improvements, not project improvements. Thus, an impact
fee credit will be due to the developer and the dedication/exaction will be classified in the inventory as if it
had been funded directly by the City through impact fees collected.
If the value of the dedication/exaction is less than the development’s impact fee liability, the developer will
owe the balance of the liability to the City. If the value of the improvements dedica ted is worth more than
the development’s impact fee liability, the City must reimburse the difference to the developer which can
be done using impact fee revenues collected from other developments.
Deficiency Credit
The purpose of a deficiency credit is to avoid new growth from being required to fund their capacity
through an impact fee and then also having to help pay to correct an existing deficiency through property
tax over time and essentially be double charged for their system capacity. To prevent thi s double charge
being assessed to new growth, any appropriate deficiency credit is subtracted from the total impact fees
owed to account for any deficiency projects paid for through other funding mechanisms which all City
residents/businesses are required to pay (such as bonds, property tax revenue, or user rate revenue
when applicable to the project).
The City intends to relocate the police department to a new, larger facility in 2026. 66.8% of the square
footage of the new facility is needed to serve existing call demand. To prevent new growth from paying
their total cost for the new facility through impact fees and then contributing through other City revenues
to fund the portion of the facility attributable to existing growth, an impact fee credit has be en calculated.
The credit accounts for the portion of the new facility which is attributable to existing residents net of the
$1M in revenue anticipated to be generated from the sale of the existing station. An impact fee credit per
call of $315.46 has been included in the impact fee calculation.
FIGURE 15: CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEE CREDIT
Year Rate of
Growth Annual Calls
Deficiency Cost
Non-Qualifying
Future Capital
Projects
Revenue from
Existing Station
Sale
Total Cost to
Existing
Annual Cost
per Call
2017 7,197 $ - $ - $ - $ -
2018
7,394 - - - -
2019 2.61% 7,587 - - - -
2020 2.55% 7,780 - - - -
2021 2.48% 7,973 - - - -
2022 2.42% 8,166 - - - -
2023 2.36% 8,360 - - - -
2024 2.31% 8,553 - - - -
2025 2.26% 8,746 - - - -
2026 2.21% 8,939 3,819,931 (1,000,000) 2,819,931 315
2027 9,132 - - - -
$ 3,819,931 $ (1,000,000) $ 2,819,931 $ 315.46
Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit
When an impact fee fund has an available balance, which can be used towards future impact fee
qualifying expenditures and thus reduce the cost to new development, then credits are made to the future
impact fee. Currently all available funds have been fully expended from the police impact fee fund and the
fund has a negative balance; therefore, the inclusion of an impact fee fund balance credit was not
necessary at this time.
Individual Impact Fee Assessment
The Impact Fees Act states that the impact fee ordinance should include a process whereby the City shall
allow a developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment of the
proportionate share of development impact fees. The individual assessment pr ocess permits
consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the developer to adjust the
amount of the fee. For police impact fees the variable that would be reviewed in the individual impact fee
assessment would be the average annual police calls generated by the proposed development. Once the
City and the developer have reviewed relevant information and determined the number of average annual
police calls for the proposed development, then the City can calculate the individual impact fee
assessment using the formula in Figure 16.
FIGURE 16: INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT FORMULA
Police Cost Per Call Impact Fee Assessed
$350.12 x # of Annual Calls Projected to be Created = Individual Impact Fee
Assessment
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 29] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
City of Rexburg
Fire Capital Improvement Plan
and Impact Fee Analysis
20 May 2020
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 30] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Contents
Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Section I: Introduction to the Fire Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ........................................ 31
Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Impact Fee Service Area.......................................................................................................................... 31
Population and Fire Call Data.................................................................................................................. 31
Land Use Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 31
Service Units ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Call Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 32
Undefined Calls ................................................................................................................................... 32
Calls to Public Areas, Roads, and Non-Qualifying Calls Generated by Non-Residents ....................... 33
Calls per Unit Calculation .................................................................................................................... 33
Land Use and Future Calls ....................................................................................................................... 33
Section II: Fire Capital Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................ 35
System Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 35
Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities ............................................................................................... 35
Existing Equipment Inventory ............................................................................................................. 35
Existing Capital Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 35
Future Fire Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 35
Existing Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................ 35
Schedule for Improvements ................................................................................................................ 35
Funding Future Capital Facilities ............................................................................................................. 36
Historic Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................... 36
Bond Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Impact Fees ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Summary of Time and Price Differential ................................................................................................. 36
Equity of Impact Fees .............................................................................................................................. 36
Section III: Fire Impact Fee Analysis ................................................................................................................. 37
Impact Fee Overview .............................................................................................................................. 37
Fire Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 37
Proportionate Share Analysis .................................................................................................................. 37
Calculation of Proportionate Share .................................................................................................... 37
Impact Fee Cost per Call ......................................................................................................................... 38
Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit.................................................................................................. 38
Credits Owed to Development ............................................................................................................... 38
Grant Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Developer Dedications and Exactions ................................................................................................. 39
Deficiency Credit ................................................................................................................................. 39
Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit ......................................................................................................... 39
Individual Impact Fee Assessment .......................................................................................................... 39
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 31] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Section I: Introduction to the Fire Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee
Analysis
Project Overview
City of Rexburg (the City) has commissioned Zions Public Finance, Inc. (Zions) to put together a Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) prior to updating fire development impact fees
authorized by Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act
(Impact Fee Act).
Impact Fee Service Area
Rexburg is a city located in Madison County, Idaho. The City is the county seat and the County’s largest
city. The 2018 the population was estimated to be 35,093. Rexburg is home to Brigham Young University-
Idaho.
The purpose of the Fire Capital Improvement Plan is to provide Rexburg with substantive planning for
future capital infrastructure for which development impact fees may be used as a funding source including
facility sizing, costs, funding, and allocation to growth. This information will be used as the basis of
calculating the fire impact fee. A CIP must be prepared before the City can adopt and assess an impact
fee. This CIP and IFA have been prepared for a single fire service area (Service Area) which
encompasses the incorporated boundaries of the City of Rexburg. The cost per call is the relationship
between the Service Area’s population and annual fire calls generated within the Service Area’s
boundaries and will be discussed in Section III: Fire Impact Fee Analysis.
Population and Fire Call Data
2018 is the baseline year used in this analysis and the average growth in calls between 2016 and 2018
and projected 2037 calls were used to estimate the growth in annual calls that will occur in the Service
Area throughout the impact fee planning horizon. Between 2016 and 2018 there was an average 757
annual calls received which is expected to grow to 1,132 annual calls by 2037 resulting in an increase of
375 calls as shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: PROJECTIONS IN POPULATION AND FIRE CALLS
Historic and Future Population Projections
Year Rexburg
Population Total Fire Calls Average Calls
per Capita % Call Growth
3-Year Call Avg (2016-2018) 35,093 757 0.0216 8.2%
2019 35,840 776 0.0217 2.6%
2020 36,603 796 0.0218 2.5%
2021 37,383 816 0.0218 2.5%
2022 38,179 836 0.0219 2.4%
2023 38,992 855 0.0219 2.4%
2024 39,688 875 0.0220 2.3%
2025 40,396 895 0.0222 2.3%
2026 41,117 915 0.0222 2.2%
2027 41,850 934 0.0223 2.2%
2028 42,597 954 0.0224 2.1%
2037 52,507 1,132 0.0216
Growth in Fire Calls
3 Year Avg (2016-2018) 757
2037 Calls 1,132
% Growth in Calls 33%
Future Calls from Growth 375
Land Use Analysis
Figure 2 shows the current and proposed residential and non-residential units. A projection of future land
use units was used to calculate the future calls shown previously in Figure 1. For residential uses, the
current persons per household figures were applied to the 2037 population to determine the projected
future residential units. It is estimated that the City will grow to 14,580 residential units by 2037.
The current non-residential square footage per capita estimates were applied to the future population
projections to estimate the future non-residential square footage. The non-residential units, divided by
commercial, government, or institutional land uses will increase to 12,698,000 SF by 2037.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 32] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
FIGURE 2: EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE
Existing Development Future Development to
be Added Existing + Growth at 2037
Residential Units Population Total Units Population Units Population Total Units
Single-Family Residence 10,646 2,645 5,283 1,313 15,929 3,958
Multi-Family Community
Housing 10,723 4,487 5,321 2,227 16,044 6,714
Multi-Family Dormitory
Housing 13,724 2,612 6,810 1,296 20,534 3,908
Total 35,093 9,744 17,414 4,836 52,507 14,580
Private Non-Residential
Units
SF per
Capita
Estimated
kSF
SF per
Capita
Estimated
kSF
SF per
Capita
Estimated
kSF
Commercial 124.5 4,369 124.5 2,168 124.5 6,536
Government 10.6 373 10.6 185 10.6 558
Institutional* 106.7 3,745 106.7 1,858 106.7 5,603
Total 241.8 8,487 241.8 4,211 241.8 12,698
* Institutional includes churches, schools and private nonprofit uses
Source: Zions Public Finance Land Use Analysis, City of Rexburg
Service Units
A service unit is defined by the Impact Fees Act as a standardized measure of consumption, use,
generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development and calculated in accordance
with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital
improvements. In the case of fire impact fees, an emergency call is the basic unit for measuring the
demand for services for each land use. The impact fee is calculated based on the “cost per call” and
applied to each land use category according to the historic calls per unit generated by that land use
category.
Call Data Analysis
The following tables detail the cost per call calculation by showing the existing number of calls that went
to each land use category (Figures 3 through 5), the calls per unit of each land use category (Figure 6),
and the number of future calls that are estimated to be generated by 2037 (Figure 7).
FIGURE 3: RAW FIRE CALL DATA
Category 2016 2017 2018 Average
(2016-2018 Calls) % of Total
Calls to Private Land Uses
Single-Family Residence 73 85 93 84 11%
Multi-Family Community Housing 128 123 205 152 20%
Multi-Family Dormitory Housing 145 141 138 141 19%
Commercial 81 68 102 84 11%
Institutional * 118 117 195 143 19%
Calls Public Land Uses/Other
Public Buildings and Land 11 10 12 11 1%
Traffic 108 121 116 115 15%
Mutual Aid/ Out of Area 0 0 0 0 0%
Undefined ** 36 34 10 27 4%
All Calls 700 699 871 757 100%
Undefined Calls
Figure 4 builds upon Figure 3 by allocating undefined calls to a land use category. Undefined calls are
calls that were unable to be geocoded due to lack of available information. One example of an undefined
call would be a call where an incorrect address may have been recorded when the call was received. T o
estimate the land use distribution for undefined calls, the undefined calls are assigned to a land use using
the same proportions as the direct calls. For example, 11% of all defined calls received by the City
between 2016-2018 were direct calls to single-family residences. Therefore, 11% of undefined calls were
assumed to have also been generated by single-family residences as shown in Figure 4 below.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 33] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
FIGURE 4: ALLOCATION OF UNDEFINED CALLS
Land Use Type
Calls to
Direct Land
Use
% to Direct
Land Use
Undefined Calls
to Land Uses
Total Calls (After
Undefined
Allocation)
Residential
Single-Family Residence 84 11% 3 87
Multi-Family Community Housing 152 21% 6 158
Multi-Family Dormitory Housing 141 19% 5 146
Non-Residential
Commercial 84 11% 3 87
Institutional 143 20% 5 149
Public Land Uses
Public Buildings and Land 11 2% 0.4 11
Roads 115 16% 4 119
Mutual Aid - 0% - -
Undefined 27 0% - -
Total 757 100% 27 757
Calls to Public Areas, Roads, and Non-Qualifying Calls Generated by Non-Residents
Similar to how undefined calls were allocated to specific land uses, calls to public land uses (roads and
public areas) were also allocated to direct land uses. Publ ic land use calls are generated by either
residential developments, non-residential developments, or by non-residents passing through the Service
Area.
FIGURE 5: FINAL CALL DATA DISTRIBUTION BY LAND USE
Total
Calls
% of
Total
Calls
Direct Calls
Allocated to
Land Use
Indirect
Public
Areas
Roads Non-City
Resident
Summary
of Total
Calls
Direct Calls Allocated to
Land Use 604 83% 604 - - - 604
Public Buildings and
Land 11 2% - 10 - 1 11
Roads 115 16% - - 91 24 115
Mutual Aid - 0% - - - - -
Undefined 27 N/A 22 0.4 4 - 27
Total 757 100% 626 10 95 25 757
Calls per Unit Calculation
Figure 6 shows the number of calls assigned to each land use type according to a land use call analysis
performed by the City of Rexburg (see Figure 3). Once the final call distributions were determined, the
number of calls generated by each land use, referred to as the “calls per unit”, could be determined by
dividing the calls to each land use by the corresponding land use units.
FIGURE 6: FIRE CALLS PER UNIT
Land Use Type
Avg 2016-
2018 Calls to
Direct Land
Use
Undefined
Calls to
Land Use
Calls to
Public
Areas
Calls to
Roads
Total
Calls
(2016-
2018)
Existing
Land Use Calls
Residential per Unit
Single-Family Residence 84 3 1 13 101 2,645 0.038
Multi-Family Community
Housing 152 6 3 24 184 4,487 0.041
Multi-Family Dormitory
Housing 141 5 2 22 171 2,612 0.066
Non-Residential per kSF
Commercial 84 3 1 13 101 4,369 0.023
Institutional* 143 5 2 23 174 3,745 0.046
Non-Qualifying Calls
Calls Outside Service Area - - 1 24 25
Total 604 22 11 119 757
* Institutional includes churches, schools and private nonprofit uses
Land Use and Future Calls
The calls per unit by land use in Figure 6 are multiplied by the number of future units shown as Figure 7.
This results in the number of future fire calls that will be created by new development within a twenty-year
planning horizon. By 2037 it is anticipated that 375 future fire calls will be added.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 34] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
FIGURE 7: EXISTING AND FUTURE FIRE CALLS – BASED ON HISTORIC LAND USE
Projected Future Fire Service Calls - Current to 2037
Development Type Future Units Calls per Unit Calls Added at
2037*
Residential
Single-Family Residence 1,313 0.038 50
Multi-Family Community Housing 2,227 0.041 91
Multi-Family Dormitory Housing 1,296 0.066 85
Non-Residential
General Commercial 2,168 0.023 50
Institutional 1,858 0.046 86
Non-Resident Calls
Development Type Future Population Calls per Capita Calls Added at
2037*
Calls Outside Service Area 17,414 0.001 12
Total Undeveloped Future Private Fire Calls 375
*Projected Future Calls are based only on future units in addition to existing calls from existing units
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 35] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Section II: Fire Capital Improvement Plan
System Improvements
The Impact Fee Act allows that an impact fee be collected for the cost to construct system improvements
which have capacity to serve future growth. A system improvem ent is defined as an improvement which
will provide service to the service area as a whole, not an improvement than only serves one specific
development. The system improvement must also have a useful life of ten or more years. System
improvements which are impact fee eligible may be “buy-in” to the City’s existing inventory of equipment
and facilities or have their capacity needs met by future improvements within a twenty-year planning
horizon. The impact fee should be calculated to assess an impact fee for the proportionate share of
system improvement costs available to serve future growth. The Fire CIP documents the City’s impact fee
qualifying existing and future expenditures.
Existing Equipment and Capital Facilities
Existing Equipment Inventory
Figure 8 summarizes the City’s existing fire apparatus inventory. The City is only responsible for a portion
of the total equipment/apparatus costs and the impact fee eligible cost has been reduced accordingly to
reflect the City’s share.
FIGURE 8: EXISTING APPARATUS INVENTORY
Equipment / Apparatus Inventory
Asset Description Total Historic Cost City Share % Historic Apparatus /
Equipment Cost
Fire Equipment $ 1,650,840 50% $ 825,420
Fire Office Equipment 55,824 33.33% 18,608
Fire Vehicles 2,555,095 50% 1,277,548
Totals: $ 4,261,759 $ 2,121,575
Existing Capital Facilities
The City is currently served by Madison County Fire Station #1. The City was responsible for funding 1/3rd
of the station building and office equipment costs as shown in Figure 9.
FIGURE 9: EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES
Existing Fire Facilities
Total Cost Acres SF of Space
% Impact Fee
Eligible (City
Portion of
Costs)
Impact Fee
Eligible Cost
Madison County Fire Station
#1 (1/3rd Funded by Rexburg) $ 2,814,428 0.70 21,213 33.333% $ 938,143
Total $ 2,814,428 0.70 21,213 $ 938,143
Future Fire Facilities
Existing Deficiencies
The demand placed on existing fire services by new development activity is attributed to growth in
emergency calls. This growth will increase demands upon fire services, requiring an increase in number
of fire professionals and public safety equipment and apparatus. This will in turn cause a need for more
station floor space for offices, storage areas, training rooms, housing apparatus, etc. The existing station
has some capacity to serve future growth, so no existing deficiencies currently exist, but to m eet the
demand created by future development the City will need to expand its facilities.
Schedule for Improvements
Within the impact fee planning horizon, the City plans to build one new station. Once the fire project is
completed the City anticipates having sufficient capacity to meet the 2037 facility floor space needs.
Figure 10 shows the future capital facilities planned for fire. The City will be responsible for 1/3 rd of the
future facility construction costs.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 36] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
FIGURE 10: SUMMARY OF FUTURE FIRE FACILITIES
Project Year
Floor
space
(SF)
Cost
per SF*
Land
(Acres)
PV Project
Expense $
Construction
Year
Expense**
% to City
(1/3 of
Total)
City Cost
Future Fire Facilities Within 8 Years
Future West Side
Area Facility 2026 7,000 $306 $ 2,142,000 $ 2,634,390 33.333% $ 878,130
West Side Area
Facility Land 2026 1.0 150,000 $184,481 33.333% 61,494
Total 7,000 $ 2,292,000 $ 2,818,871 $ 939,624
*Cost per SF provided by City of Rexburg
** 3% Annual Inflation
Funding Future Capital Facilities
Historic Funding Sources
Fire capital projects can be funded in a variety of ways including tax revenues, impact fees, grants,
bonds, vehicle leases, etc. Tax revenues—property and sales—are the primary source of revenue for the
City. The City has authority to collect a portion of the property and sales taxes within its boundaries. The
revenues collected should be used primarily to cover the operational expenses, non-impact fee qualifying
capital expenses, and other general needs of the fire department.
Bond Funding
There are no outstanding bonds related to the fire department and no future b onds are currently
proposed. If a bond is proposed and approved in the future by City residents, then the impact fees will be
revised at that time to include any additional bond costs.
Impact Fees
Impact fees have become an ideal mechanism for funding growth-related infrastructure. It is
recommended that impact fees be used to fund growth-related capital projects as they help to maintain an
adequate level of service and prevent existing users from subsidizing the capital needs for new growth.
Summary of Time and Price Differential
The Impact Fees Act allows for the inclusion of a time and price differential to ensure that the costs
incurred at a later date are accurately calculated. To account for this, 201 9 project cost estimates for
future projects are inflated at 3% annually to a future value cost based on the year of anticipated
construction.
Equity of Impact Fees
The impact fee calculations are structured to fund 100% of the growth-related portion of system
improvements as presented in the impact fee analysis. Even so, there may be years that impact fee
revenues cannot cover the annual growth-related expenses. Other revenues will be used to make up any
annual deficits given timing gaps in development or other factors. Any borrowed funds are to be repaid in
their entirety through impact fees at the time that impact fee funds become available.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 37] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Section III: Fire Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Overview
The impact fee for fire is calculated using growth projections, current call data and future call projections,
current and estimated future land use, and existing and future apparatus and facilities costs which have
been described in Sections I & II of this document. The final components necessary to complete the
impact fee analysis include: level of service (LOS), proportionate share analysis, impact fee cost per call,
impact fee cost per development unit, and proposed credits to development. Each of those components
are discussed in the following section.
Fire Level of Service
The level of service is the measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for
public facilities. In the case of fire impact fees that means the total building square footage (capacity)
relative to the number of fire calls the department receives each year (service demand).
Unlike a utility such as culinary water where capacity can often be added to the system gradually by
upsizing an existing line segment, public safety floor space has to be built station-by-station not line-by-
line. New fire stations or expansions must be done well ahead of the increase in call volume that the
station expansion is designed to serve. Therefore, we look at the call volume the stations are being built
to serve (rather than the LOS observed today) as the true measure of LOS. In the case of the fire impact
fee, the future capital projects identified in the CIP are needed to serve a 2037 population of the Service
Area. Any square foot per call calculations that exceed the twenty-year LOS are considered unused
excess capacity that will be utilized once the Service Area reaches 2037. Figure 11 shows the 2037 calls
level of service of 24.93 square feet (SF) per call which is lower than the currently observed LOS of 28.03
SF per call. This demonstrates that there is currently excess capacity in the existing fire station square
footage and the true LOS measure will be the LOS at 2037.
FIGURE 11: CURRENT AND PROJECTED FIRE LEVEL OF SERVICE
Time Frame Floor Space (SF) Current/ Projected
Calls SF per Call
Current 21,213 757 28.03
2023 21,213 855 24.80
2026 28,213 915 30.85
2037 28,213 1,132 24.93
Impact Fee Level of Service Used 28,213 1,132 24.93
Proportionate Share Analysis
As part of this analysis, the Impact Fees Act requires that the calculated impact fee be roughly
proportionate and reasonably related to the developm ent activity. Ideally, implementing an impact fee to
pay for needed infrastructure places a burden on future users that is equal to the burden that was borne
in the past by existing users. To determine the fair share an impact fee payer should pay for emergency
services system capacity, a proportionate share analysis was performed as described below.
Calculation of Proportionate Share
Figure 12 displays the current and future facility floor space and the calls they will serve. With this
information, it is possible to calculate the percentage that will serve new growth, and thus the portion that
future growth will be expected to fund.
FIGURE 12: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION
Capital Project Time Frame
Added
Station
Floorspace
% of
Buildout
Floor Space
Station
Capacities
(Call)
3-year
Avg
Calls
Future
Calls
% to
Serve
Existing
Users
% to
Serve
Future
Growth
Existing Floor Space 21,213 75.2% 851 757 94 88.9% 11.1%
Construction Within 8 Years 7,000 24.8% 281 - 281 0.0% 100.0%
Construction Beyond 8 Years - - - - - 0.0% 0.0%
8 Years 28,213 100.0% 1,132 757 375
Existing Floor Space 21,213 75.2% 851 757 94 88.9% 11.1%
Construction Within 8 Years 7,000 24.8% 281 - 281 0.0% 100.0%
Existing and Within 8 Years 28,213 100.0% 1,132 757
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 38] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Impact Fee Cost per Call
Once the proportionate share has been determined the impact fee cost per call can be calculated. The
impact fee cost per call divides the impact fee qualifying costs to new growth by the total future calls new
growth will generate. The value found in the “% Growth Related” column comes directly from the
proportionate share analysis “% to Serve Future Growth” column. The total impact fee qualifying cost is
$3,921,348 of which $1,200,425 pertains to new growth. This results in a cost per call of $3,201.17.
F IGURE 13: FIRE IMPACT COST PER C ALL
C ALCULATION
Expense Impact Fee
Qualifying Cost
% to
Growth
Related
Impact Fee
Qualifying Cost
Assigned to
New Growth
New Growth
Calls Added
to 2037
Impact Fee
Cost per Call
Fire Facilities
Existing Facilities $ 938,143 11.1% $ 103,878 375 $ 277
Existing Apparatus Inventory 2,121,575 11.1% 234,917 375 626
Existing Debt Service (Interest) - 11.1% - 375 -
Future Facilities within 10
Years 939,624 100% 939,624 375 2,506
Future Debt Service (Interest) - 100% - 375 -
Total $ 3,999,342 $ 1,278,418 $ 3,409.15
Miscellaneous
Professional Services $ 8,000 100% $ 8,000 375 $ 21
Impact Fee Fund Balance (85,994) 100% (85,994) 375 $ (229)
Total Miscellaneous $ (77,994) $ (77,994) $ (207.99)
Grand Total $ 3,921,348 $ 1,200,425 $ 3,201.17
Impact Fee Cost per Development Unit
The impact fee is assessed to each user category based upon the historic calls per unit generated by that
land use. The Service Area’s observed annual fire calls per unit by development type are multiplied by the
impact fee cost per call to calculate the final impact fee per land use.
FIGURE 14: RECOMMENDED FIRE IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT
Development Type Fire Cost per
Call
Fire Calls per
Unit Impact Fee Impact Fee
Assessment
Residential
Impact Fee Per
Unit
*Impact Fee per
Bed
Single-Family Residence $ 3,201.17 0.038 $ 122.67 N/A
Multi-Family Community Housing 3,201.17 0.041 131.37 N/A
Multi-Family Dormitory Housing 3,201.17 0.066 N/A $ 39.94
Non-Residential
Impact Fee Per
1,000 SF Impact Fee per SF
General Commercial $ 3,201.17 0.023 $ 74.27 $ 0.07
Institutional 3,201.17 0.046 148.42 0.15
*Single Family and Multi-Family Community are assessed an impact fee per unit as shown in the "Maximum Impact Fee"
column. Multi-Family Dormitory is assessed an impact fee per bed using the average beds per dormitory (5.254 beds/dorm
unit)
Credits Owed to Development
Certain circumstances may result in the need to provide a credit to development. Impact fee credits are
detailed below.
Grant Funding
Any improvement donated to the City which the City has no obligation to repay is assumed to be donated
to the Service Area’s residents through buildout. Therefore, if a capital facility is acquired through a grant
or another source that does not require the City to pay for the project, then the value of that improvement
would not be an impact fee qualifying cost. An impact fee should not be collected for a project or expense
otherwise covered through a grant without an appropriate credit. If any grant funding is received for
impact fee eligible expenses, then the impact fee calculation will be reviewed at the time that the funding
is received to account for any reduction in impact fee qualifying costs.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 39] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Developer Dedications and Exactions
Developer exactions are not the same as grants (which should be credited from the impact fee). If a
developer constructs a fire station, donates impact fee qualifying apparatus or equipment to the City, or
dedicates land within the development for fire, then the value of the dedication is credited against that
particular developer’s impact fee liability.
It is rare for developers to construct an entire fire station for a credit, but land dedication for a station or
training facility does sometimes occur. If the situation arises that a developer chooses to construct
facilities found in the CIP in-lieu of impact fees, appropriate arrangements must be made through
negotiation between the developer and the City on a case by case basis. All fire facilities and apparatus
are considered to be system improvements, not project improvements. Thus, an impact fee credit will be
due to the developer and the dedication/exaction will be classif ied in the inventory as if it had been funded
directly by the City through impact fees collected.
If the value of the dedication/exaction is less than the development’s impact fee liability, the developer will
owe the balance of the liability to the City. If the value of the improvements dedicated is worth more than
the development’s impact fee liability, the City must reimburse the difference to the developer which can
be done using impact fee revenues collected from other developments benefitting from the system
improvement.
Deficiency Credit
When the LOS calculation indicates there is an existing deficiency it is generally appropriate to include a
deficiency credit in the impact fee calculation. The purpose of the deficiency credit is to avoid new growth
from being required to fund their own capacity through an impact fee while also having to help pay to
correct the deficiency for existing residents through other general revenue funds such as taxes and be
double charged for system capacity. To prevent this double charge, any appropriate deficiency credit is
subtracted from the total impact fees owed to account for any deficiency projects paid for through other
funding mechanisms.
The fire department level of service shows there is excess capacity in the existing station; therefore, no
existing deficiency credit is required at this time.
Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit
Credits are made for the existing fund balance in the fire impact fee account. The existing funds can be
used to offset the capital costs needed for future development and thus reduce the cost to new
development. The fire impact fee fund does have a positive fund balance, so an impact fee fund balance
credit was calculated. See “Miscellaneous” on Figure 13.
Individual Impact Fee Assessment
The Impact Fees Act states that the impact fee ordinance should include a process whereby the City shall
allow a developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment of the
proportionate share of development impact fees. The individual assessment process permits
consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the developer to adjust the
amount of the impact fee. For fire impact fees, the variable that would be reviewed in the individual impact
fee assessment would be the average annual fire calls generated by the proposed development. Once
the City and the developer have reviewed relevant information and determined the number of average
annual fire calls for the proposed development, then the City can calculate the individual impact fee
assessment using the formula in Figure 15.
FIGURE 15: INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT FORMULA
Fire Cost Per Call Impact Fee Assessed
$ 3,201.17 x # of Annual Calls Projected to be Created = Non-Standard Impact
Fee
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 40] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
City of Rexburg
Parks and Trails CIP and Impact Fee
Analysis
20 May 2020
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 41] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Contents
Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 42
Need for the Study .................................................................................................................................. 42
Capital Improvements Plan ............................................................................................................................. 42
Existing Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Funding Commitments............................................................................................................................ 44
Analysis of Current Capacity and Usage ................................................................................................. 44
Land Use Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 44
Level of Service Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 44
Improvements and Costs Required by New Development ..................................................................... 45
Service Units Required by New Development ........................................................................................ 46
20-Year Projection of Service Units Required by New Development ..................................................... 46
Funding Sources for System Improvements ........................................................................................... 47
Joint Development of Public Facilities .................................................................................................... 47
Schedule .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis ......................................................................................................... 48
Cost of Existing System Improvements ................................................................................................... 48
Financing of Existing System Improvements .......................................................................................... 48
New Development Contributions to System Improvements Other than Impact Fees ........................... 48
Financing of Existing System Improvements in the Past ........................................................................ 48
Credits for System Improvements .......................................................................................................... 48
Extraordinary Costs ................................................................................................................................. 48
Time and Price Differential in Fees Charged ........................................................................................... 49
Other Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................ 49
Proportionate Share Calculation ............................................................................................................. 49
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 42] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Background
Need for the Study
The City of Rexburg (“City”) completed a Parks and Trails Master Plan in Spring 2018. The City is experiencing
strong growth, which puts pressure on the City’s existing parks and trails facilities. It is, therefore, prudent to
consider the implementation of impact fees, which are one -time fees charged to new development to offset the
capital costs associated with new development. The implementation of impact fees allows the City to maintain its
existing service levels for park and trail facilities. Any increase in service levels will n eed to be funded through
sources other than impact fees.
The Master Plan, along with updated input from the City, forms the basis for this Capital Improvement Plan and
Impact Fee Analysis. The City has determined that there is one service area citywide an d that there is no excess
capacity in any existing park or trail facilities. Only residential development is considered to drive demand for parks
and trails facilities and therefore only residential growth has been considered in the determination of impact fees.
Capital Improvements Plan
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(a) – A general description of all existing public facilities and their existing
deficiencies within the service area or areas of the governmental entity and a reasonable estimate of all
costs and a plan to develop the funding resources related to curing the existing deficiencies including, but
not limited to, the upgrading, updating, improving, expanding or replacing of such facilities to meet
existing needs and usage;
Existing Facilities
Project improvements are not included in the analysis; only system improvements are included.1
Therefore, all mini parks have been excluded from the calculations. The analysis also does not include
any park or trail facilities owned by private homeowner associations, or any facilities that have been
acquired through grants or donations. Therefore, the following seven parks totaling 114.76 acres have
been included in the analysis.
TABLE 1: EXISTING REXBURG PARKS
Rexburg Parks Park Address Park Class Total Acres
Eagle Park 450 W 3rd N Special Use 18
Nature Park 300 N 5th W Community 18.3
Riverside Park 50 West 1st N Community 31.76
Evergreen Park 801 W Main Street Neighborhood 7.66
Smith Park 300 E Main Street Community 11.07
Porter Park 100 South 2nd W Community 11.38
Community Fields 450 E 2nd N Community 16.59
Total 114.76
1 Project improvements are defined by Idaho Statute as “site improvements and facilities that are planned and
designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use and
convenience of the occupants or users of the project.” System improvements are defined as follows: “System
improvements, in contrast to project improvements, means capital improvements to public facilities which are
designed to provide service to a service area including, without limitation, the type of improvem ents described in
section 50-1703, Idaho Code.” Idaho Code 67-8203 (22) and (28). Section 67-8204 (1) further states that
development fees “shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements.”
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 43] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
A detailed list of improvements at each park is provided in Appendix A. A summary of the
improvements found at these parks is as follows:
TABLE 2: EXISTING PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Summary of Improvements Unit Total Units
Land Acres 114.76
Irrigated Acres Acres 60.20
Paved Acres Acres 7.48
Outdoor Basketball Court 3
Volleyball Court 4
Tennis Court 10
Baseball/Softball Field 8
Soccer Field 12
Football Field 1
Restrooms Restroom 7
Picnic Tables Table 4
Play Equipment Playground 14
Large Pavilion/Shelter Pavilion 2
Small Pavilion/Shelter Pavilion 10
Fire Pit Fire Pit 0
Benches Bench 36
Drinking Fountain Fountain 9
Grills Grill 7
Tables Table 21
Garbage Receptacles Receptacle 35
Track Track 1
Skate Park Park 1
Pickleball Court 4
BMX Park Park 1
Splash Pad Pad 1
Field Lighting Fixtures 2
The City has not identified any existing deficiencies in its park system. Based on the recently completed
Parks and Trails Master Plan, the City has established a standard of 3.27 park acres per 1,000 residents.2
For the purposes of this Impact Fee Analysis, the level of service will be 3.27 acres per 1,000 residents.
Existing trails as identified by the City are summarized in the table below and total 7.57 linear miles.
TABLE 3: EXISTING TRAILS
Trail ID Trail Name From-To Length (miles)
R-9 Evergreen to Kennedy Trail Evergreen Park to Kennedy
Elementary School 0.30
R-25 Porter Park Trail Within Porter Park 0.47
R-37 Smith Park Trail Within Smith Park 0.57
R-27 Rexburg Sugar Trail
Rexburg (2nd East) to the northern
City limits along N. Yellowstone
Highway
1.37
R-20 Nature Park Within Nature park 1.51
R-28 Riverside Park Trail Within Riverside Park 0.86
R-12 Jr. High to Hidden Valley Hidden Valley Subdivision to
Millhollow 0.14
R-23 5th West Main to Angela 0.34
R-33 University Blvd 5th W to University Village near 7th
South 0.68
R-39 Teton River North Side RR Track to 3rd East 0.73
R-38 Teton River South Side 1st East to Barney Dairy Road 0.61
TOTAL 7.57
2 The existing service level is calculated by dividing the 114.76 existing park acres by the 2018 population of 35,093
persons, divided by 1,000.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 44] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
The City has a current level of service for trail miles of 0.216 trail miles per 1,000 persons, calculated by dividing
the existing 7.57 trail miles by the 2018 population of 35,093 persons which has been divided by 1,000.
The City has stated its desire to at least maintain its existing trail service levels. Impact fees can only be charged to
maintain existing service levels. Any increase in service levels will need to be paid for with other funding such as
the City’s General Fund, Urban Renewal contributions and other grants, donations, etc.
Funding Commitments
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(b) - A commitment by the governmental entity to use other available resources
of revenue to cure existing system deficiencies where practical;
The City currently has no existing system deficiencies.
Analysis of Current Capacity and Usage
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(c) – An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and
commitments for usage of capacity of existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a
qualified professional planner or by a qualified engineer licensed to perform engineering services in this
state;
The City currently has 114.76 system park acres that qualify for the impact fee level of service, and 7.57 tra il miles.
The level of current usage is 3.270 park acres and 0.216 trail miles per 1,000 persons.
TABLE 4: CAPACITY AND USAGE ANALYSIS
Acres/Miles Existing Existing LOS per 1,000
Population
Park Acres 114.76 3.270
Trail Miles 7.57 0.216
Land Use Assumptions
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(d) – A description of the land use assumptions by the government entity;
Only residential development creates the need for more parks and trails. Therefore, demand projections are
included for population growth as follows:
TABLE 5: REXBURG PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH, 2018-2026
Year Population
2018 35,093
2019 35,840
2020 36,603
2021 37,383
2022 38,179
2023 38,992
2024 39,688
2025 40,396
2026 41,117
Source: City of Rexburg 2018 Parks Study
Level of Service Analysis
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(e) – A definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption,
generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of system improvements and an equivalency or
conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential,
commercial, agricultural and industrial;
The existing level of service that is impact fee eligible is 3.27 park acres per 1,000 persons, calculated by dividi ng
the 114.76 eligible park acres by the 2018 population of 35,093 persons (divided by 1,000). Therefore, impact
fees should only be charged to the existing service level. The City calculated using the 2018 population because all
infrastructure costs and balances were as of September 30, 2018.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 45] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
The City can include park improvements, as well as the cost of park land, in its calculation of impact fees. The table
below shows the inventory of park improvements and costs. The level of service for park impro vements is
calculated by taking the existing improvements and multiplying them by the cost per unit to maintain this same
level of investment.
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF EXISTING PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Summary of Improvements Unit Cost per Unit Total Units
Land Acres $40,757* 114.76
Irrigated Acres Acres $52,000 60.20
Paved Acres Acres $175,000 7.48
Outdoor Basketball Court $20,000 3
Volleyball Court $15,000 4
Tennis Court $65,000 10
Baseball/Softball Field $250,000 8
Soccer Field 12
Football Field 1
Restrooms Restroom $150,000 7
Picnic Tables Table $800 4
Play Equipment Playground $45,000 14
Large Pavilion/Shelter Pavilion $52,000 2
Small Pavilion/Shelter Pavilion $31,000 10
Fire Pit Fire Pit $300 0
Benches Bench $500 36
Drinking Fountain Fountain $2,200 9
Grills Grill $300 7
Tables Table $600 21
Garbage Receptacles Receptacle $100 35
Track Unit $10,000 1
Skate Park Park $250,000 1
Pickleball Court $11,000 4
BMX Park Park $25,000 1
Splash Pad Pad $325,000 1
Field Lighting Unit $188,579 2
TOTAL
*Park land costs are based on recent land purchase comparables – Evergreen Park Extension (1.44 acres at a cost of $190,297; and Eagle Park (8.15 acres at a cost of $200,558).
**Subtracts baseball/softball acres so that they are not double-counted with baseball/softball costs
The total cost is then divided by 114.76 park acres to arrive at an existing standard of $131,329 per acre. Another
way of stating the existing standard for park improvements is $429.46 per capita ($15,070,894 divided by the 20 18
population of 35,093 persons).
The level of service for trails is identified by identifying existing system trails, as shown in Table #3 above.
The existing level of service is 0.216 trail miles per 1,000 persons. Another way of stating the existing level of
service is $53.96 per capita, calculated by dividing the $1,893,714 of trail costs3 by the 2018 population of 35,093
persons.
A summary table showing the equivalent levels of service (LOS) is as follows for parks and trails:
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED SERVICE LEVELS
Summary Equivalency
Table LOS Cost per Acre/Mile Existing LOS Cost per
Capita
Proposed LOS Cost per
Capita
Parks $131,328.76 $429.46 $429.46
Trails $250,000 $53.96 $53.96
Improvements and Costs Required by New Development
3 Trail costs have been calculated at a cost of $250,000 per linear mile. With 7.57 trail miles, this results in a total
cost of $1,893,714.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 46] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(f) – A description of all system improvements and their costs necessitated by and
attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, to provide a
level of service not to exceed the level of service adopted in the development impact fee ordinance;
Based on existing service levels, Rexburg will need to acquire and develop 19.7 park acres and 1.3 trail miles over
the next eight years, as shown in the table below. This is equivalent to a total cost of $2,911,939 -- $2,586,887 for
parks and $325,052 for trails. The additional park acres and trail miles needed are based on maintaining the
existing and proposed level of service, which are the same, for new development . Based on an existing park
standard of 3.27 acres per 1,000 persons, 19.7 additional park acres are needed due to the estimated growth of
6,024 persons by 2026. Based on a trails standard of 0.216 trail miles per 1,000 population, 1.3 trail miles are
needed to serve the demands created by the additional 6,024 residents by 2026.
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS NECESSITATED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT
Parks Trails
Existing LOS per 1,000 Persons (Park Acres or Trail
Miles) 3.270 0.216
Existing LOS Cost per Capita $429.46 $53.96
Population Growth, 2018-2026 6,024 6,024
Acres/Miles Needed, 2018-2026 19.7 1.3
Cost per Acre/Mile $131,329 $250,000
Total Cost Necessitated by New Development,
2018-2026 $2,586,887 $325,052
Service Units Required by New Development
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(g) – The total number of service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance
with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria;
The total cost required by new development over the next eight years (2018 -2026) is $2,911,939. These costs can
be spent for both parks and trails facilities, as best meets the needs of the City at the time of their expenditure.
The number of service units has been calculated in dollars.
20-Year Projection of Service Units Required by New Development
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(h) – The projected demand for system improvements required by new service units
projected over a reasonable period of time not to exceed twenty (20) years;
The population of Rexburg is projected to grow by 18,649 residents over the next 20 years.
TABLE 9: 20-YEAR POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS
Year Population
2018 35,093
2019 35,840
2020 36,603
2021 37,383
2022 38,179
2023 38,992
2024 39,688
2025 40,396
2026 41,117
2027 41,850
2028 42,597
2029 43,599
2030 44,624
2031 45,673
2032 46,747
2033 47,846
2034 48,971
2035 50,123
2036 51,301
2037 52,507
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 47] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Year Population
2038 53,742
Population Growth, 2018-2038 18,649
Over the next 20 years, the City will need to acquire and improve 60.98 park acres and 4.03 trail miles in order to
maintain existing service levels for system improvements.
TABLE 10: 20-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS – PARKS AND TRAILS
20-Year Projections Amount
Population Growth, 2018-2038 18,649
LOS - Park Acres per 1,000 Persons 3.270
LOS - Trail Miles per 1,000 Persons 0.216
Park Acres Necessitated by New Growth, 2018-2038 60.98
Trail Miles Necessitated by New Growth, 2018-2038 4.03
This represents an investment of $9,015,273, over 20 years, in $2019.
TABLE 11: 20-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITY COSTS – PARKS AND TRAILS
20-Year Projections Acres/Miles Cost per Acre/Linear Mile Total Cost, 20 Years
Park Acres Necessitated by New
Growth, 2018-2038 60.98 $131,328.76 $8,008,922
Trail Miles Necessitated by New
Growth, 2018-2038 4.03 $250,000 $1,006,351
TOTAL, 2018-2038 $9,015,273
Funding Sources for System Improvements
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(i) – Identification of all sources and levels of funding available to the governmental entity
for the financing of the system improvements.
Potential funding sources include grants, donations, general fund, impact fees and revenue allocation funds.
Joint Development of Public Facilities
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(j) – If the proposed system improvements include the improvement of public facilities
under the jurisdiction of the state of Idaho or another governmental entity, then an agreement between
governmental entities shall specify the reasonable share of funding by each unit, provided the governmental entity
authorized to impose development impact fees shall not assume more than its reasonable share of funding joint
improvements, nor shall the agreement permit expenditure of development impact fees by a governmental entity
which is not authorized to impose development impact fees unless such expenditure is pursuant to a developer
agreement under section 67-8214, Idaho Code;
Not applicable.
Schedule
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(k) – A schedule setting forth estimated dates for commencing and completing
construction of all improvements identified in the capital improvements plan.
The City will spend all impact fees collected within the 8-year timeframe required by Idaho law. These funds will be
spent for a wide variety of park and trail facilities including, but not limited to: park land, park improvements
(restrooms, ball fields, playgrounds, picnic facilities, sport courts, etc.), and trail improvements.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 48] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis
The Proportionate Share Analysis follows the outline provided in Idaho Statute 67 -8207 (2).
Cost of Existing System Improvements
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(a) – The cost of existing system improvements within the service area or areas;
The City has not identified any excess capacity in any of its parks and trails facilities. Therefore, the cost associated
with facilities is related to the cost of constructing similar facilities in 2019 dollars. This establishes the leve l of
service that must be maintained by new development. The cost of existing system improvements is $15,070,894
for parks per Table 6.
The cost of existing system improvements is $1,893,714 for trails, calculated by multiplying the City’s 7.57 trail
miles by an average cost of $250,000 per mile.
Financing of Existing System Improvements
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(b) – The means by which existing system improvements have been financed;
There is no debt outstanding on any parks and trails system improvement s. Therefore, no credits need to be made
for outstanding debt. Any parks and trail facilities that were acquired through grants or donations have not been
included in the level of service for the calculation of impact fees. The park and trail facilities that were included
were paid for through either the General Fund or from Revenue Allocation Funds.
New Development Contributions to System Improvements Other than Impact Fees
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(c) – The extent to which the new development will contribute to the cost of system
improvements through taxation, assessment, or developer or landowner contributions, or has previously
contributed to the cost of system improvements through developer or landowner contributions.
The City does not intend to bond for future park improvements; therefore, no double payments will occur by new
development. There are no bonds outstanding on existing park and trail facilities and therefore no recent past
payments have been made for these types of facilities. The City may choose, at its discretion, to accept donations
of land or park/trails improvements from developers. In this case, the impact fee should be offset by the
donations.
Financing of Existing System Improvements in the Past
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(d) – The extent to which the new development is required to contribute to the cost of
existing system improvements in the future.
The City has no existing, outstanding bonds or leases for park or trail facilities. Therefore, new development will
not be required to pay for existing facilities.
Credits for System Improvements
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(e) – The extent to which the new development should be credited for providing system
improvements, without charge to other properties within the service area or areas;
For parks and trails, new development will not be required to provide oversize system improvements that will
benefit other properties in the service area. Therefore, no reimbursement agreements or credits are applicable.
Extraordinary Costs
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(f) – Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new development;
Not applicable.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 49] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Time and Price Differential in Fees Charged
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(g) – The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of fees paid a t different
times;
The City anticipates updating its CIP and Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis every few years. At these times,
the City will update the costs associated with purchasing land, making park improvements and constructing trails.
This will ensure a fair comparison of fees paid at different times.
Other Funding Sources
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(h) - The availability of other sources of funding system improvements including, but not
limited to, user charges, general tax levies, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation. The governmental
entity shall develop a plan for alternative sources of revenue.
User Charges. User charges are most often charged in connection with the operation and maintenance of facilities.
It is not anticipated that user fees would be charged for the construction of parks and trails capital facilities.
General Tax Levies. While general tax levies may be used to fund park and trail facilities, the General Fund is only
intended to be used for system improvements if the situation arises that the City desires to raise the existing
service levels to meet new proposed service levels. Impact fees are intended to be used to maintain existing
service levels through acquisition of the facilities needed due to new growth a nd development.
Intergovernmental Transfers. The City can borrow money from other City funds in order to construct park and trail
facilities and then later repay those funds as impact fee revenues are collected. At this time the City has no plans
to use intergovernmental transfers.
Special Taxation. The City does not intend to issue debt or impose special taxes to fund park and trail facilities.
Donations and/or Grants. The City may receive donations or grants from public or private entities, such as ur ban
renewal, to offset some of the costs for constructing parks or trail facilities.
Proportionate Share Calculation
There are three main cost components in the calculation of impact fees:
New construction of parks and trails facilities;
Consultant costs; and
Credits
New Construction of Parks and Trails Facilities
New construction costs are calculated by first taking the number of acres needed (19.7) by new development over
the next eight years. This calculation is based on population growth and maintaining the existing level of service of
3.270 acres per 1,000 persons. The cost for the additional acres is then calculated by multiplying the 19.7 acres by
the cost of $131,329 per acre (existing cost for land and improvements) to reach a total cost of $2,5 86,887. The
total cost is then divided by the projected population growth of 6,024 persons over the next eight years to arrive at
a total cost of $429.46 per capita.
TABLE 12: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION – NEW CONSTRUCTION COST FOR PARKS
New Construction – Parks Amount
Impact-Fee Eligible Park Acres 114.76
Existing LOS - Park Acres per 1,000 3.270
Existing Park Improvements - Total Cost $15,070,894
Existing LOS per Capita – Parks $429.46
Population Growth, 2018-2026 6,024
Acres Needed, 2018-2026 19.7
Park Improvements Needed at Existing Standard $2,586,887
Cost per Capita $429.46
The per capita cost for trails is calculated in a similar manner to that of parks. The total trail costs necessitated by
new development over the next eight years ($325,052)4 is divided by the population growth of 6,024 over that
time period.
4 Total trail costs necessitated by new development over the next eight years ($325,052) is calculated by
multiplying the 1.3 additional trail miles necessitated by new development by an average cost per mile of
$250,000. The additional 1.3 trail miles necessitat ed by new development is calculated by multiplying the existing
level of service (LOS) of 0.216 miles per 1,000 population by the population growth of 6,024 persons (divided by
1,000) over the next eight years
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 50] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
TABLE 13: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION – NEW CONSTRUCTION COST FOR TRAILS
New Construction – Trails Amount
Impact-Fee Eligible Trail Miles 7.57
Existing LOS per Capita – Trails 0.216
Existing Trail Improvements - Total Cost $1,893,714*
Existing LOS per Capita – Trails $53.96
Population Growth, 2018-2026 6,024
Trail Miles with Improvements Necessitated by New Development,
2018-2026 1.3
Cost per Mile $250,000
Trail Costs Necessitated by New Development, 2018-2026 $325,052
Cost per Capita $53.96
*The cost of existing trail improvements is calculated by multiplying the existing 7.57 trail miles by an average cost
of $250,000 per trail mile.
Consultant Costs
The cost of preparing this analysis can also be included in the calculation of impact fees. The cost of $10,000 is
divided among the projected population growth of 6,024 persons over the next eight years.
TABLE 14: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION – CONSULTANT COSTS
Consultant Costs Amount
Parks Consultant Costs $10,000
Population Growth, 2018-2026 6,024
Cost per Capita $1.66
Credits
Credits are made for the existing fund balance in the park impact fee account. The existing funds can be used to
offset the capital costs needed for future development and thus reduce the cost to new development.
TABLE 15: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION – CREDIT FOR PARKS AND TRAILS IMPACT FEE FUND BALANCE
Credits for Fund Balance
Park Impact Fee Fund Balance $1,133,376*
Population Growth, 2018-2026 6,024
Credit per Capita ($188.15)
*Impact fee fund balance as of 9/30/18 provided by the City of Rexburg
No other credits are necessary for outstanding bonds, debt obligations, leases or other factors.
Summary of Proportionate Share Analysis
Total costs per capita are summarized as follows:
TABLE 16: PARKS AND TRAILS IMPACT FEE SUMMARY – PER CAPITA COSTS
Summary of Per Capita Fee
Park Cost $429.46
Trails Cost $53.96
Consultant Cost $1.66
Less: Fund Balance Credit ($188.15)
TOTAL Maximum Per Capita Fee $296.92
Fees will be charged on a residential unit basis for Single-Family and Multi-Family Community Housing; and on a
per capita basis for Multi-Family Dormitory Housing. Therefore, the per capita cost has been multiplied by the
average household size of single-family and multi-family community housing units. The City can choose to charge
up to the maximum fee for single-family units and multi-family community housing units. For multi-family
dormitory housing, it is recommended that the City charge on a per bed basis, with the per bed fee the same as
the maximum per capita fee.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 51] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
TABLE 17: PARKS AND TRAILS IMPACT FEE SUMMARY – PER HOUSEHOLD MAXIMUM FEES
Maximum Impact Fees Household Size* Maximum Fees
Single-Family Residence 4.025 $1,195.12
Multi-Family Community Housing 2.390 $709.65
Multi-Family Dormitory Housing Assess by # of beds $296.92 per bed
*Source: City of Rexburg
**For example, 6 beds in Multi-Family Dormitory Housing would equal a fee of $1,781.52
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 52] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
City of Rexburg
Transportation CIP
and Impact Fee Analysis
20 May 2020
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 53] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Contents
Contents ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 54
Need for the Study .................................................................................................................................. 54
Capital Improvements Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Existing Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 54
Existing Deficiencies ................................................................................................................................ 55
Funding Commitments............................................................................................................................ 56
Analysis of Current Capacity and Usage ................................................................................................. 56
Land Use Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 57
Level of Service Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 57
Improvements and Costs Required by New Development ..................................................................... 60
Service Units Required by New Development ........................................................................................ 65
20-Year Projection of Service Units Required by New Development ..................................................... 65
Funding Sources for System Improvements ........................................................................................... 65
Joint Development of Public Facilities .................................................................................................... 66
Schedule .................................................................................................................................................. 66
Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis.................................................................................................................... 67
Cost of Existing System Improvements ................................................................................................... 67
Financing of Existing System Improvements .......................................................................................... 67
New Development Contributions to System Improvements Other than Impact Fees ........................... 67
Financing of Existing System Improvements in the Past ........................................................................ 67
Credits for System Improvements .......................................................................................................... 67
Extraordinary Costs ................................................................................................................................. 67
Time and Price Differential in Fees Charged ........................................................................................... 67
Other Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................ 67
Proportionate Share Calculation ............................................................................................................. 68
Appendix A – Existing System Improvements ............................................................................................................. 71
Appendix B – No-Build Scenario .................................................................................................................................. 72
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 54] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Background
Need for the Study
The City of Rexburg (“City”), working with Horrocks Engineers, completed a Transportation Study in Summer 2019
to analyze its current roadway facilities and the demands that will be created by new development. The City is
experiencing strong growth, which puts pressure on the City’s existing transportation facilities. It is, therefore,
prudent to consider the updating of impact fees, which are one-time fees charged to new development to offset
the capital costs associated with new development. The implementation of impact fees will allow the City to
maintain its existing service levels for roadway facilities. Any increase in service levels will need to be funded
through sources other than impact fees.
The Transportation Study, along with updated input from the City, forms the basis for this Capital Improvement
Plan and Impact Fee Analysis. The City has determined that there is one service area citywide. Both residential and
non-residential development is considered to increase road trips, and therefore impact fees h ave been calculated
for both residential and non-residential development.
Capital Improvements Plan
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(a) – A general description of all existing public facilities and their existing
deficiencies within the service area or areas of the governmental entity and a reasonable estimate of all
costs and a plan to develop the funding resources related to curing the existing deficiencies including, but
not limited to, the upgrading, updating, improving, expanding or replacing of such facilities to meet
existing needs and usage;
Existing Facilities
Project improvements are not included in the analysis; only system improvements are included.5
Therefore, all neighborhood streets have been excluded from the calculations; only collector and arterial
streets are included. The following roads have been included in the analysis.
TABLE 1: EXISTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Project Number Description Existing Traffic Volume
1 7th South and Pioneer Yellowstone
(Juniper Sands Roundabout) N/A
2 2000 North (Moody) / Yellowstone
Highway N/A
3 2nd East/Moody Road Intersection 1,200
4 State Highway 33 Realignment on
North end 0
5 2nd South/2nd East Signal N/A
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th N) 0
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W to
2nd E) 0
8 Yellowstone Highway / Trejo Street N/A
9 North Interchange Signal N/A
10 Traffic Signal Synchronization-City
Wide (Rexburg) N/A
5 Project improvements are defined by Idaho Statute as “site improvements and facilities that are planned and
designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use and
convenience of the occupants or users of the project.” System improvements are defined as follows: “System
improvements, in contrast to project improvements, means capital improvements to public facilities which are
designed to provide service to a service area including, without limitation, the type of improvements described in
section 50-1703, Idaho Code.” Idaho Code 67-8203 (22) and (28). Section 67-8204 (1) further states that
development fees “shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements.”
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 55] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Project Number Description Existing Traffic Volume
11 2nd East (Main Street to 3rd South) 10,200
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th West) 10,700
13 University Boulevard (Yellowstone
to 5th West) 5,700
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th North) 20,700
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th S) 0
16 5th West Extension 0
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North 0
33
Corridor Preservation (East Parkway
Corridor 7th S to 2nd E ROW
Purchase)
0
Source: Horrocks Engineers
A map of the existing improvements is shown in Appendix A.
Existing Deficiencies
As noted by Horrocks Engineers, there are no current deficiencies in the existing system. The table
below shows the existing traffic volumes compared to the existing capacity.
TABLE 2: EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
Project Location Existing Capacity Existing Traffic
Volume
Existing
Volume Over
Capacity
Reduction
for Existing
Deficiencies
1
7th South and Pioneer
Yellowstone (Juniper Sands
Roundabout)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 2000 North (Moody) /
Yellowstone Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 2nd East/Moody Road
Intersection 11,500 1,200 0 0%
4 State Highway 33 Realignment
on North end 0 0 0 0%
5 2nd South/2nd East Signal N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney
Dairy to 7th N) 0 0 0 0%
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W
to 2nd E) 0 0 0 0%
8 Yellowstone Highway / Trejo
Street N/A N/A N/A N/A
9 North Interchange Signal N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 Traffic Signals (Rexburg) N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 2nd West (Main Street to 3rd
South) 11,500 10,200 0 0%
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th
West) 11,500 10,700 0 0%
13 University Boulevard
(Yellowstone to 5th West) 9,700 5,700 0 0%
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th
North) 26,500 20,700 0 0%
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney
Dairy to 7th S) 0 0 0 0%
16 5th West Extension 0 0 0 0%
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North 0 0 0 0%
33
Corridor Preservation (East
Parkway Corridor 7th S to 2nd E
ROW Purchase)
0 0 0 0%
Source: Horrocks Engineers
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 56] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Funding Commitments
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(b) - A commitment by the governmental entity to use other available resources
of revenue to cure existing system deficiencies where practical;
The City currently has no existing system deficiencies.
Analysis of Current Capacity and Usage
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(c) – An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and
commitments for usage of capacity of existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a
qualified professional planner or by a qualified engineer licensed to perform engineering services in this
state;
Horrocks Engineers has prepared the following table of existing traffic volumes and capacity of system
improvements. Table 3 also shows the percent usage of the expected 2028 capacity being used today and the
percent usage of the 2028 capacity expected by 2028.
TABLE 3: CURRENT CAPACITY AND USAGE
Existing
Traffic
Volume
Existing
Capacity 2028 Volume 2028 Capacity
Current
Usage of
2028
Capacity
Projected
Usage of
2028
Capacity
7th South and Pioneer
Yellowstone (Juniper
Sands Roundabout)
N/A NA NA NA NA NA
2000 North (Moody) /
Yellowstone Highway N/A NA NA NA NA NA
2nd East/Moody Road
Intersection 1,200 11,500 19,500 26,500 5% 74%
State Highway 33
Realignment on North
end
0 0 7,500 9,700 0% 77%
2nd South/2nd East
Signal N/A NA NA NA NA NA
East Parkway Corridor
(Barney Dairy to 7th N) 0 0 5,400 11,500 0% 47%
East Parkway Corridor
(2nd W to 2nd E) 0 0 5,500 30,500 0% 18%
Yellowstone Highway /
Trejo Street N/A NA NA NA NA NA
North Interchange
Signal N/A NA NA NA NA NA
Traffic Signal
Synchronization-City
Wide (Rexburg)
N/A NA NA NA NA NA
2nd East (Main Street
to 3rd South) 10,200 11,500 12,700 26,500 38% 48%
Main Street (US 20 to
12th West) 10,700 11,500 20,900 26,500 40% 79%
University Boulevard
(Yellowstone to 5th
West)
5,700 9,700 11,400 26,500 22% 43%
2nd East (4th North to
7th North) 20,700 26,500 25,200 40,000 52% 63%
East Parkway Corridor
(Barney Dairy to 7th S) 0 0 900 11,500 0% 8%
5th West Extension 0 0 600 11,500 0% 5%
Barney Dairy Road to
2nd North 0 0 1,700 26,500 0% 6%
Corridor Preservation
(East Parkway Corridor
7th S to 2nd E ROW
Purchase)
0 0 0 0 0% 0%
Source: Horrocks Engineers
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 57] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Land Use Assumptions
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(d) – A description of the land use assumptions by the government e ntity;
Growth in road trips forms the basis for increased demand for transportation facilities. Growth in road trips will
come both from residential and nonresidential development. Projected growth in residential units, as well as non -
residential development, is shown in the table below.
TABLE 4: PROJECTED GROWTH IN REXBURG (UPDATE ALL OF FUTURE AND EXISTING + GROWTH AS WELL)
Existing Development Future Development
Added Existing + Growth at 2037
Residential Units Population Units Population Units Population Units
Single Family 10,646 2,645 4,349 1,204 13,113 3,631
Multi-Family Community
Housing 10,723 4,487 8,211 2,274 24,757 6,856
Multi-Family Dormitory
Housing 13,724 2,612 4,854 1,344 14,637 4,053
Total 35,093 9,744 17,414 4,822 52,507 14,540
Private Non-Residential
Units
SF per
Capita
Estimated
kSF
SF per
Capita
Estimated
kSF
SF per
Capita
Estimated
kSF
Commercial 124 4,369 124 2,168 124 6,536
Government 11 373 11 185 11 558
Institutional 107 3,745 107 1,858 107 5,603
Total 242 8,487 242 4,211 242 12,698
Source: Zions Public Finance Land Use Analysis, City of Rexburg
Using this growth as the basis for their model, the transportation engineers calculated the growth in PM peak hour
trips.
TABLE 5: PROJECTED GROWTH IN PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
Description PM Peak Hour Trips
2018 PM Peak Hour Trips 19,200
2028 PM Peak Hour Trips 24,500
Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips, 2018-2028 5,300
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Level of Service Analysis
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(e) – A definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption,
generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of system improvements and an equivalency or
conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential,
commercial, agricultural and industrial;
Roadway LOS is determined based on the number of lanes and functional classification of the roadway. In the City
of Rexburg, a standard of LOS A – LOS C is acceptable for roadway segments. This allows for speeds at or near
free-flow speeds, but with some congestion during the peak times of the day. Any roadway which currently
performs at LOS C or better but which will perform at LOS D or worse in the future due to new developm ent in
Rexburg will be mitigated and is impact fee eligible. Appendix B shows service levels that would occur by 2028 if
no road improvements are made – the “no-build” scenario. The following table summarizes the maximum
capacities (LOS D) for roadway segments used by the City of Rexburg.
TABLE 6: ROADWAY SEGMENT MAXIMUM CAPACITY (LOS D)
Lanes Arterial Collector
2 10,000 9,000
3 11,500 10,000
5 26,500 N/A
7 40,000 N/A
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Table 7 summarizes the ratio of PM peak hour trips (service units) to various land use types, based on the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip General Manual, 10th ed. There is a minor discrepancy in the way ITE
calculates trips and the way trips or roadway volumes are calculated in the travel demand model used in the
Rexburg Study. This discrepancy is explained by the model roadway volumes and capacities being calculated using
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 58] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
daily traffic volumes rather than trips on the roadway. Essentially, this means that a travel demand model “trip” or
unit of volume is counted once as a vehicle leaves home, travels on the road network, and then arrives at work.
This vehicle will only be counted as it travels on the roadway network. The ITE Trip Generation method uses
driveway counts as its measure of a trip. Therefore, a vehicle making the same journey will be counted once as it
leaves home and once again as it arrives at work for a total of two trips. This can be rectified simply by adjusting
the ITE Trip Generation rates by one half as shown in the table below.
An additional consideration is that certain developments do not generate primary trips or trips that originated for
the sole purpose of visiting that development. An example of a primary trip is a home-based work trip where
someone leaves their house with the express purpose of going to work. This primary trip has been generated by a
combination of the home where the trip originated and the place of occupation where the trip is terminated.
Thus, it is easily understood that the impact of this trip should be attributed to the housing development and
workplace development since without either of these locations, the trip doesn’t happen. Some trips are not
primary trips, they are defined as pass-by trips. This means that the trip (crossing the driveway of a development)
was generated by a driver deciding to make a stop on their way to their primary destination. Good examples of
pass-by trips are someone that stops at the gas station on their way to work (a gas station is a pass -by trip) or a
driver that is enticed to stop at a fast food restaurant as they drive by because the “HOT DONUTS” sign is
illuminated (the fast food restaurant is a pass-by trip). Pass-by trips do not add traffic to the roadway and,
therefore, do not create additional impact. Each land use type in the ITE Trip Generation Manual has a suggested
reduction for pass-by trips where applicable. In each case, the trip reduction rate will be applied to the trip
generation rate used in the IFA.
TABLE 7: QUANTITY OF USE BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE
ITE Code ITE Land Use Unit ITE Trip Rate Pass-By Adjusted Trip
Rate
21 Commercial
Airport Employees 10.28 5.14
130 Industrial Park
130
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 0.4 0.20
140 General
Manufacturing
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 0.67 0.34
151 Mini-Warehouse 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 0.17 0.09
210
Single-Family
Detached
Housing
Dwelling Unit 0.99 0.50
220
Multi-Family /
(Low-Rise 1-2
Levels) –
Community
Housing
Dwelling Unit 0.56 0.28
221
Multi-Family
(Mid-Rise 3-10
Levels) –
Community
Housing
Dwelling Unit 0.44 0.22
222
Multi-Family
(High-Rise >10
Levels) –
Community
Housing
Dwelling Unit 0.36 0.18
225
Off-Campus
Apartment
(Adjacent to
Campus)*
Resident 0.28 0.14
225
Off-Campus
Apartment
(Over 1/2 mile
from Campus)*
Resident 0.31 0.16
240 Mobile Home /
RV Park
Occupied
Dwelling Unit 0.59 0.30
254 Assisted Living
Center Bed 0.26 0.13
310 Hotel Room 0.6 0.30
416 Campground/Re
creational Acres 0.98 0.49
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 59] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
ITE Code ITE Land Use Unit ITE Trip Rate Pass-By Adjusted Trip
Rate
Vehicle Park
444 Movie Theater <
10 Screens
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 6.17 3.09
445 Movie Theater >
10 Screens
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 4.91 2.46
492 Health/Fitness
Club
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 3.45 1.73
520 Elementary
School
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 1.37 0.69
522
Middle School /
Junior High
School
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 1.19 0.60
530 High School 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 0.97 0.49
534 Private School
(K-8) Students 0.26 0.13
550 University/Colle
ge
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 1.17 0.59
560 Church 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 0.49 0.25
565 Day Care Center 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 11.12 5.56
590 Library 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 8.16 4.08
610 Hospital 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 0.97 0.49
710 General Office
Building
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 1.15 0.58
720 Medical-Dental
Office Building
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 3.46 1.73
730 Government
Office Building
1000 Sq. Ft.
Gross Floor Area 1.71 0.86
770 Business Park 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 0.42 0.21
812
Building
Material and
Lumber Store
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 2.06 1.03
816 Hardware/Paint
Store
1000 Sq. Ft.
Gross Floor Area 2.68 26% 0.99
817 Nursery (Garden
Center)
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 6.94 3.47
820 Shopping Center
/ Strip Mall
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Leasable
Area
3.81 34% 1.26
841 Automobile
Sales
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 3.75 1.88
848 Tire Store 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 3.98 28% 1.43
850 Supermarket 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 9.24 36% 2.96
851 Convenience
Market
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 49.11 61% 9.58
880
Pharmacy/Drugs
tore without
Drive-Thru
Window
1000 Sq. Ft.
Gross Floor Area 8.51 53% 2.00
881
Pharmacy/Drugs
tore with Drive-
Thru Window
1000 Sq. Ft.
Gross Floor Area 10.29 49% 2.62
890 Furniture Store 1000 Sq. Ft.
Gross Floor Area 0.52 53% 0.12
911 Walk-In Bank 1000 Sq. Ft.
Gross Floor Area 12.13 6.07
912 Drive-in Bank 1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 20.45 47% 5.42
918 Hair Salon 1000 Sq. Feet 1.45 0.73
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 60] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
ITE Code ITE Land Use Unit ITE Trip Rate Pass-By Adjusted Trip
Rate
Gross Floor Area
932
Restaurant, Sit-
Down (High
Turnover)
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 9.77 44% 2.74
933
Fast Food
without Drive-
Through
Window
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 28.34 43% 8.08
934
Restaurant with
Drive Through
Window
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 32.67 50% 8.17
942 Auto Care
Center
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Leasable
Area
3.11 1.56
944 Gasoline/
Service Station Fueling Position 14.03 42% 4.07
945
Gasoline/Service
Station with
Convenience
Store
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Leasable
Area
88.35 56% 19.44
947 Self Service Car
Wash Wash Stall 5.54 2.77
948 Automated Car
Wash
1000 Sq. Feet
Gross Floor Area 14.2 7.10
*Dormitory housing would be included in this category and fees would be calculated on a per -bed basis. ITE does
not have a separate category for dormitory housing.
Improvements and Costs Required by New Development
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(f) – A description of all system improvements and their costs necessitated by and
attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, to provi de a
level of service not to exceed the level of service adopted in the development impact fee ordinance;
The following table shows the total projects necessitated by new development, as well as the funding source and
the resulting amount remaining to be paid for by Rexburg City.
TABLE 8: IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS REQUIRED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING SOURCE
Project Location Total Price Funding Source Rexburg
City %
Rexburg City
Total
1
7th South and
Pioneer Yellowstone
(Juniper Sands
Roundabout)
$1,500,000 Urban Renewal/Developers 0% $0
2
2000 North (Moody)
/Yellowstone
Highway
$1,200,000 Rexburg/ITD/Urban Renewal 17% $200,000
3 2nd East/Moody
Road Intersection $200,000 Rexburg/Urban Renewal 40% $80,000
4
State Highway 33
Realignment on
North end
$4,000,000 Rexburg/Urban Renewal/IDOC
(State) 75% $3,000,000
5 2nd South/2nd East
Signal $375,000 Rexburg 100% $375,000
6
East Parkway
Corridor (Barney
Dairy to 7th N)
$6,000,000 Rexburg/Urban Renewal 67% $4,000,000
7
East Parkway
Corridor (2nd W to
2nd E)
$2,350,000 Rexburg/Urban Renewal 15% $350,000
8
Yellowstone
Highway / Trejo
Street
$500,000 Rexburg 100% $500,000
9 North Interchange
Signal $700,000 Rexburg/ITD 50% $350,000
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 61] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Project Location Total Price Funding Source Rexburg
City %
Rexburg City
Total
10
Traffic Signal
Synchronization-City
Wide (Rexburg)
$500,000 Rexburg/ITD 50% $250,000
11 2nd East (Main
Street to 3rd South) $1,125,000 Rexburg 100% $1,125,000
12 Main Street (US 20
to 12th West) $750,000 Rexburg/ITD/Developers 50% $375,000
13
University
Boulevard
(Yellowstone to 5th
West)
$1,200,000 Rexburg/Urban
Renewal/Developers 25% $300,000
14 2nd East (4th North
to 7th North) $1,000,000 Rexburg/ITD 50% $500,000
15
East Parkway
Corridor (Barney
Dairy to 7th S)
$2,500,000 Rexburg 100% $2,500,000
16 5th West Extension $8,000,000 Rexburg 100% $8,000,000
17 Barney Dairy Road
to 2nd North $3,000,000 Rexburg/Urban Renewal 83% $2,500,000
Total $34,900,000 $24,405,000
Source: Horrocks Engineers
However, new development is not responsible to pay for the entire $24,405,000 attributable to the City. This
amount must be reduced by the following factors:
Reductions for existing deficiencies
Pass-through volume
Existing excess capacity
Existing user share
Reduction for Existing Deficiencies
Horrocks Engineers has calculated that there does not need to be any reduction for ex isting deficiencies.
TABLE 9: EXISTING DEFICIENCY COST REDUCTION CALCULATION
Project Location 2028 Added Capacity Existing Volume
Over Capacity
Reduction
for Existing
Deficiencies
1 7th South and Pioneer Yellowstone
(Juniper Sands Roundabout) N/A N/A N/A
2 2000 North (Moody) / Yellowstone
Highway N/A N/A N/A
3 2nd East/Moody Road Intersection 15,000 0 0%
4 State Highway 33 Realignment on North
end 9,700 0 0%
5 2nd South/2nd East Signal N/A N/A N/A
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy to
7th N) 11,500 0 0%
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W to 2nd E) 30,500 0 0%
8 Yellowstone Highway / Trejo Street N/A N/A N/A
9 North Interchange Signal N/A N/A N/A
10 Traffic Signal Synchronization-City Wide
(Rexburg) N/A N/A N/A
11 2nd East (Main Street to 3rd South) 15,000 0 0%
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th West) 15,000 0 0%
13 University Boulevard (Yellowstone to 5th
West) 16,800 0 0%
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th North) 13,500 0 0%
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy to
7th S) 11,500 0 0%
16 5th West Extension 11,500 0 0%
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North 26,500 0 0%
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 62] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Project Location 2028 Added Capacity Existing Volume
Over Capacity
Reduction
for Existing
Deficiencies
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Pass-Through Traffic
An adjustment must also be made for pass-through traffic. Pass-through traffic does not have its origination or
destination in Rexburg. New development cannot be charged for the increase in traffic due to development
outside of the City. Rather, these additional costs must be shared by the entire community. Pass -through
percentage is determined based on roadway functional classification with arterial roads being assigned a pass-
through of 3% and collector roads assigned a pass-through of 1%. The 2028 added capacity is multiplied by the
assigned pass-through percent resulting in a pass-through volume which new development in Rexburg is not
responsible for. Pass-Through for intersections are based on the functional classification of the major roadway.
TABLE 10: PASS-THROUGH TRAFFIC COST REDUCTION CALCULATION
Project Location 2028 Added
Capacity
Pass-Through
Volume
Pass-Through
Percent
Reduction
for Pass-
Through
1* 7th South and Pioneer Yellowstone
(Juniper Sands Roundabout) N/A N/A N/A N/A
2* 2000 North (Moody) / Yellowstone
Highway N/A 71 1% 1%
3 2nd East/Moody Road Intersection 15,000 585 3% 4%
4 State Highway 33 Realignment on
North end 9,700 225 3% 3%
5* 2nd South/2nd East Signal N/A 381 3% 3%
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th N) 11,500 162 3% 2%
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W to
2nd E) 30,500 165 3% 1%
8* Yellowstone Highway / Trejo Street N/A 393 3% 3%
9* North Interchange Signal N/A 567 3% 3%
10 Traffic Signal Synchronization-City
Wide (Rexburg) N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 2nd East (Main Street to 3rd South) 15,000 381 3% 3%
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th West) 15,000 627 3% 5%
13 University Boulevard (Yellowstone
to 5th West) 16,800 342 3% 3%
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th North) 13,500 756 3% 6%
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th S) 11,500 27 3% 1%
16 5th West Extension 11,500 18 3% 1%
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North 26,500 51 3% 1%
*Intersection improvement project pass-through reductions are based on major roadway pass-through percentages
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Excess Capacity Cost Reduction Calculation
The projects built will have capacity to serve new development beyond the next 8-10 years. This excess capacity
cannot be included in the impact fees charged to new development. This cost reduction is made in the table
below.
TABLE 11: EXCESS CAPACITY COST REDUCTION CALCULATION
Project Location Future
Capacity
Added
Capacity
2028 Traffic
Volume
2028 Excess
Capacity
Cost
Reduction %
1 7th South and Pioneer Yellowstone
(Juniper Sands Roundabout) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 2000 North (Moody) / Yellowstone
Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 2nd East/Moody Road Intersection 26,500 15,000 19,500 7,000 27%
4 State Highway 33 Realignment on
North end 9,700 9,700 7,500 2,200 23%
5 2nd South/2nd East Signal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 63] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Project Location Future
Capacity
Added
Capacity
2028 Traffic
Volume
2028 Excess
Capacity
Cost
Reduction %
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th N) 11,500 11,500 5,400 6,100 54%
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W to 2nd
E) 30,500 30,500 5,500 25,000 82%
8 Yellowstone Highway / Trejo Street N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
9 North Interchange Signal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 Traffic Signal Synchronization-City
Wide (Rexburg) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 2nd East (Main Street to 3rd South) 26,500 15,000 12,700 13,800 53%
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th West) 26,500 15,000 20,900 5,600 22%
13 University Boulevard (Yellowstone to
5th West) 26,500 16,800 11,400 15,100 57%
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th North) 40,000 13,500 25,200 14,800 37%
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th S) 11,500 11,500 900 10,600 93%
16 5th West Extension 11,500 11,500 600 10,900 95%
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North 26,500 26,500 1,700 24,800 94%
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Existing User Share Cost Reduction Calculation
There will also be some use of these new facilities by existing development. Again, new development is not
responsible for the existing user share of costs. The existing user percentages assigned were dependent on project
location and predicted trip distributions. The existing user volumes are calculated by multiplying the assigned
existing user percent by the added capacity. These reductions are summarized in the table below.
TABLE 12: EXISTING USER SHARE COST REDUCTION CALCULATION
Project Description Added
Capacity
Existing User
Volume Existing User %
1 7th South and Pioneer Yellowstone (Juniper
Sands Roundabout) N/A N/A N/A
2 2000 North (Moody) / Yellowstone Highway N/A N/A N/A
3 2nd East/Moody Road Intersection 15,000 300 2%
4 State Highway 33 Realignment on North end 9,700 97 1%
5 2nd South/2nd East Signal N/A N/A N/A
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy to 7th N) 11,500 115 1%
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W to 2nd E) 30,500 305 1%
8 Yellowstone Highway / Trejo Street N/A N/A N/A
9 North Interchange Signal N/A N/A N/A
10 Traffic Signal Synchronization-City Wide
(Rexburg) N/A N/A N/A
11 2nd East (Main Street to 3rd South) 15,000 300 2%
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th West) 15,000 300 2%
13 University Boulevard (Yellowstone to 5th West) 16,800 336 2%
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th North) 13,500 270 2%
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy to 7th S) 11,500 115 1%
16 5th West Extension 11,500 115 1%
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North 26,500 265 1%
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Summary of Cost Reduction Calculations
The following table summarizes the cost reductions for existing user share,6 reduction for pass-through traffic, and
reduction for excess capacity.
TABLE 13: SUMMARY OF COST REDUCTION CALCULATIONS
Description
Reduction
for Existing
User Share
Reduction for
Pass-Through
Reduction
for Excess
Capacity
Impact Fee
Eligible
Proportion
6 The existing user share reduction has been combined with the existing deficiency reduction in this table.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 64] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Description
Reduction
for Existing
User Share
Reduction for
Pass-Through
Reduction
for Excess
Capacity
Impact Fee
Eligible
Proportion
1* 7th South and Pioneer Yellowstone
(Juniper Sands Roundabout) N/A 0% N/A N/A
2* 2000 North (Moody) / Yellowstone
Highway N/A 1% N/A 99%
3 2nd East/Moody Road Intersection 2% 4% 27% 67%
4 State Highway 33 Realignment on
North end 1% 3% 23% 73%
5* 2nd South/2nd East Signal N/A 3% N/A 97%
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th N) 1% 2% 54% 43%
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W to
2nd E) 1% 1% 82% 16%
8* Yellowstone Highway / Trejo Street N/A 3% N/A 97%
9* North Interchange Signal N/A 3% N/A 97%
10 Traffic Signal Synchronization-City
Wide (Rexburg) N/A 3% N/A 100%
11 2nd East (Main Street to 3rd South) 2% 3% 53% 42%
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th West) 2% 5% 22% 71%
13 University Boulevard (Yellowstone
to 5th West) 2% 3% 57% 38%
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th North) 2% 6% 37% 55%
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th S) 1% 1% 93% 5%
16 5th West Extension 1% 1% 95% 3%
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North 1% 1% 94% 4%
*Intersection improvement project reductions are based solely on pass-through.
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Using the above cost reduction percentages, the total cost attributable to growth is $7,250,000.
TABLE 14: COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH
Description Total Price Rexburg City
Total
Impact Fee
Eligible
Proportion
Cost
Attributable
to Growth
1 7th South and Pioneer Yellowstone
(Juniper Sands Roundabout) $1,500,000 $0 0% $0
2 2000 North (Moody) / Yellowstone
Highway $1,200,000 $200,000 99% $198,000
3 2nd East/Moody Road Intersection $200,000 $80,000 67% $54,000
4 State Highway 33 Realignment on
North end $4,000,000 $3,000,000 73% $2,190,000
5 2nd South/2nd East Signal $375,000 $375,000 97% $364,000
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th N) $6,000,000 $4,000,000 43% $1,720,000
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W to
2nd E) $2,350,000 $350,000 16% $56,000
8 Yellowstone Highway / Trejo Street $500,000 $500,000 97% $485,000
9 North Interchange Signal $700,000 $350,000 97% $340,000
10 Traffic Signal Synchronization-City
Wide (Rexburg) $500,000 $250,000 100% $250,000
11 2nd East (Main Street to 3rd South) $1,125,000 $1,125,000 42% $473,000
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th West) $750,000 $375,000 71% $266,000
13 University Boulevard (Yellowstone
to 5th West) $1,200,000 $300,000 38% $114,000
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th North) $1,000,000 $500,000 55% $275,000
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th S) $2,500,000 $2,500,000 5% $125,000
16 5th West Extension $8,000,000 $8,000,000 3% $240,000
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North $3,000,000 $2,500,000 4% $100,000
TOTAL $34,900,000 $24,405,000 $7,250,000
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 65] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Description Total Price Rexburg City
Total
Impact Fee
Eligible
Proportion
Cost
Attributable
to Growth
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Service Units Required by New Development
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(g) – The total number of service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance
with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria;
The total cost required by new development is $7,250,000. The total number of PM peak hour trips forecast is as
follows:
TABLE 15: PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GROWTH
Description PM Peak Hour Trips
2018 PM Peak Hour Trips 19,200
2028 PM Peak Hour Trips 24,500
Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips, 2018-2028 5,300
Source: Horrocks Engineers
20-Year Projection of Service Units Required by New Development
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(h) – The projected demand for system improvements required by new service units
projected over a reasonable period of time not to exceed twenty (20) years;
The following table shows how capacity will be consumed by new development over the next 20 years.
TABLE 16: FUTURE CAPACITY
Project Location 2028 Traffic
Volume
2038 Traffic
Volume
Current
Usage of
2028
Capacity
Projected
Usage of 2028
Capacity
Projected
Usage of 2038
Capacity
1* 7th South and Pioneer Yellowstone
(Juniper Sands Roundabout) 10,000 10,700 0% 38% 40%
2* 2000 North (Moody) / Yellowstone
Highway 7,100 7,800 17% 27% 29%
3 2nd East/Moody Road Intersection 19,500 22,900 5% 74% 86%
4 State Highway 33 Realignment on
North end 7,500 8,500 0% 77% 88%
5* 2nd South/2nd East Signal 12,700 13,900 38% 48% 52%
6 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th N) 5,400 9,200 0% 47% 80%
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd W to 2nd
E) 5,500 9,300 0% 18% 30%
8* Yellowstone Highway / Trejo Street 13,100 14,500 30% 43% 48%
9* North Interchange Signal 18,900 21,800 0% 62% 71%
10 Traffic Signal Synchronization-City
Wide (Rexburg) NA NA NA NA NA
11 2nd East (Main Street to 3rd South) 12,700 13,200 38% 48% 50%
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th West) 20,900 25,800 40% 79% 97%
13 University Boulevard (Yellowstone to
5th West) 11,400 12,000 22% 43% 45%
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th North) 25,200 33,100 52% 63% 83%
15 East Parkway Corridor (Barney Dairy
to 7th S) 900 5,000 0% 8% 43%
16 5th West Extension 600 2,000 0% 5% 17%
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd North 1,700 3,000 0% 6% 26%
*Intersection improvement project capacities and volumes reflect major roadway values.
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Funding Sources for System Improvements
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 66] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(i) – Identification of all sources and levels of funding available to the governmental entity
for the financing of the system improvements.
Potential funding sources include grants, donations, general fund, impact fees and revenue allocation funds.
Joint Development of Public Facilities
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(j) – If the proposed system improvements include the improvement of public facilities
under the jurisdiction of the state of Idaho or another governmental entity, then an agreement between
governmental entities shall specify the reasonable share of funding by each unit, provided the governmental entity
authorized to impose development impact fees shall not assume more than its reasonable share of funding joint
improvements, nor shall the agreement permit expenditure of development impact fees by a governmental entity
which is not authorized to impose development impact fees unless such expenditure is pursuant to a developer
agreement under section 67-8214, Idaho Code;
Total anticipated funding by other governmental sources is shown in the following table:
TABLE 17: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT
Project Location Total Price Funding Source Rexburg
City %
Rexburg City
Total
1
7th South and Pioneer
Yellowstone (Juniper Sands
Roundabout)
$1,500,000 Urban Renewal 0% $0
2 2000 North (Moody) /
Yellowstone Highway $1,200,000 Rexburg/ITD 17% $200,000
3 2nd East/Moody Road
Intersection $200,000 Rexburg/Urban
Renewal 40% $80,000
4 State Highway 33
Realignment on North end $4,000,000 Rexburg/County 75% $3,000,000
5 2nd South/2nd East Signal $375,000 Rexburg 100% $375,000
6 East Parkway Corridor
(Barney Dairy to 7th N) $6,000,000 Rexburg/Urban
Renewal 67% $4,000,000
7 East Parkway Corridor (2nd
W to 2nd E) $2,350,000 Rexburg/Urban
Renewal 15% $350,000
8 Yellowstone Highway /
Trejo Street $500,000 Rexburg 100% $500,000
9 North Interchange Signal $700,000 Rexburg/ITD 50% $350,000
10
Traffic Signal
Synchronization-City Wide
(Rexburg)
$500,000 Rexburg/ITD 50% $250,000
11 2nd East (Main Street to
3rd South) $1,125,000 Rexburg 100% $1,125,000
12 Main Street (US 20 to 12th
West) $750,000 Rexburg/ITD 50% $375,000
13 University Boulevard
(Yellowstone to 5th West) $1,200,000 Rexburg/Urban
Renewal 25% $300,000
14 2nd East (4th North to 7th
North) $1,000,000 Rexburg/ITD 50% $500,000
15 East Parkway Corridor
(Barney Dairy to 7th S) $2,500,000 Rexburg 100% $2,500,000
16 5th West Extension $8,000,000 Rexburg 100% $8,000,000
17 Barney Dairy Road to 2nd
North $3,000,000 Rexburg/Urban
Renewal 83% $2,500,000
Total $34,900,000 $24,405,000
Source: Horrocks Engineers
Schedule
Idaho Statute 67-8208(1)(k) – A schedule setting forth estimated dates for commencing and completing
construction of all improvements identified in the capital improvements plan.
The City will spend all impact fees collected within the 8-year timeframe required by Idaho law. These funds will be
spent for transportation facilities described in this report.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 67] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis
The Proportionate Share Analysis follows the outline provided in Idaho Statute 67 -8207 (2).
Cost of Existing System Improvements
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(a) – The cost of existing system improvements within the service area or areas;
The City has not identified any excess capacity that new development needs to buy into in its existing roadway
facilities.
Financing of Existing System Improvements
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(b) – The means by which existing system improvements have been financed;
There is no debt outstanding on any transportation system improvements. Therefore, no credits need to be made
for outstanding debt.
New Development Contributions to System Improvements Other than Impact Fees
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(c) – The extent to which the new development will contribute to the cost of system
improvements through taxation, assessment, or developer or landowner contributions, or has previousl y
contributed to the cost of system improvements through developer or landowner contributions.
The City does not intend to bond for future transportation improvements; therefore, no double payments will
occur by new development. The City may choose, at its discretion, to accept donations of roadway improvements
from developers. In this case, the impact fee should be offset by the donations.
Financing of Existing System Improvements in the Past
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(d) – The extent to which the new development is required to contribute to the cost of
existing system improvements in the future.
The City has no existing, outstanding bonds or leases for transportation facilities. Therefore, new development will
not be required to pay for existing facilities.
Credits for System Improvements
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(e) – The extent to which the new development should be credited for providing system
improvements, without charge to other properties within the service area or areas;
If new development is required to provide oversize system improvements that will benefit other properties in the
service area, then reimbursement agreements or credits must be made at that time.
Extraordinary Costs
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(f) – Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new development;
Not applicable.
Time and Price Differential in Fees Charged
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(g) – The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of fees paid at different
times;
The City anticipates updating its CIP and Impact Fee Proportionate Share Analysis every few years. At these
times, the City will update the costs associated with purchasing land and making transportation improvements.
Other Funding Sources
Idaho Statute 67-8207(2)(h) - The availability of other sources of funding system improvements including, but not
limited to, user charges, general tax levies, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation. The governmental
entity shall develop a plan for alternative sources of revenue.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 68] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
User Charges. User charges are most often charged in connection with the operation and maintenance of facilities.
It is not anticipated that toll roads would be implemented for the construction of roadway capital facilities.
General Tax Levies. While general tax levies may be used to fund transportation facilities, impact fees are intended
to be used to maintain existing service levels through acquisition of the facilities needed due to new growth and
development. General tax levies are anticipated to be used for road maintenance and funding any facilities that
would raise service levels.
Intergovernmental Transfers. The City can borrow money from other City funds in order to construct
transportation facilities and then later repay those funds as impact fee revenues are collected. At this time the City
has no plans to use intergovernmental transfers.
Special Taxation. The City does not intend to issue debt or impose special taxes to fund transportation
improvements.
Donations and/or Grants. The City may receive donations or grants from public or private entities to offset some
of the costs for constructing roads.
Urban Renewal. The City may choose to use urban renewal funds for transportation infrastructure.
Proportionate Share Calculation
There are three main cost components in the calculation of impact fees:
New construction of transportation facilities;
Consultant costs; and
Credits
Capital Costs of Transportation Improvements
Capital costs are calculated by taking the new improvements cost of $7,250,000 and dividing by the projected
growth in PM peak hour trips through 2028 as shown previously in Table 15. This results in a cost of $1,367.92 per
PM peak hour trip.
TABLE 18: CAPITAL COST PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS
Description Amount
Total Eligible Costs for Rexburg $7,250,000
Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips, 2018-2028 5,300
Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip $1,367.92
Consultant Costs
The cost of preparing this analysis, as well as the costs incurred by Horrocks Engineers in preparing the
Transportation Study, can also be included in the calculation of impact fees. The cost of $35,000 is divided among
the projected PM peak hour trip growth of 5,300 trips by 2028.
TABLE 19: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION – CONSULTANT COSTS
Consultant Costs Amount
Transportation Consultant Costs $35,000
PM Peak Hour Trip Growth, 2018-2028 5,300
Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip $6.60
Credits
Credits are made for the existing fund balance in the transportation impact fee account. The existing funds can be
used to offset the capital costs needed for future development and thus reduce the cost to new development.
TABLE 20: PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION – CREDIT FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND BALANCE
Credits for Fund Balance Amount
Transportation Impact Fee Fund Balance $1,423,579*
Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips, 2018-2028 5,300
Credit for Impact Fee Fund Balance ($268.60)
*Impact fee fund balance as of 9/30/18 provided by the City of Rexburg
No other credits are necessary for outstanding bonds, debt obligations, leases or other factors.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 69] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Summary of Proportionate Share Analysis
Total costs per PM peak hour trip are summarized as follows:
TABLE 21: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SUMMARY – PER PM PEAK HOUR TRIP
Capital Costs $1,367.92
Consultant Costs $6.60
Credit for Impact Fee Fund Balance ($268.60)
Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip $1,105.92
The cost per PM peak hour trip is multiplied by the ITE trip rate that is adjusted for the following factors:
1) model differences regarding trip ends; and 2) reduction for pass-by trips.
The ITE trip rate is reduced by 50 percent to account for trip ends, which is a difference in the model
used by the engineers in the IFFP and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). These standards
have been further reduced to adjust for pass-by trips.
The City may choose to combine many of the categories listed by ITE to avoid large differences in fees charged to
developments of different types. The following table shows groupings commonly used by cities and the maximum
fee that may be charged for these categories.
TABLE 22: MAXIMUM TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
ITE Code ITE Land Use Unit Trip Rate Impact Fee
per Unit
21 Commercial Airport Employees 5.14 $5,684.47
130 Industrial Park 130 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.20 $221.19
140 General Manufacturing 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.34 $370.49
151 Mini-Warehouse 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.09 $94.00
210 Single-Family Detached
Housing Dwelling Unit 0.50 $547.43
220 Multi-Family / (Low-Rise 1-2
Levels) – Community Housing Dwelling Unit 0.28 $309.66
221 Multi-Family (Mid-Rise 3-10
Levels) – Community Housing Dwelling Unit 0.22 $243.30
222 Multi-Family (High-Rise >10
Levels) – Community Housing Dwelling Unit 0.18 $199.07
225 Off-Campus Apartment
(Adjacent to Campus)* Resident 0.14 $154.83
225 Off-Campus Apartment (Over
1/2 mile from Campus)* Resident 0.16 $171.42
240 Mobile Home / RV Park Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.30 $326.25
254 Assisted Living Center Bed 0.13 $143.77
310 Hotel Room 0.30 $331.78
416 Campground/Recreational
Vehicle Park Acres 0.49 $541.90
444 Movie Theater < 10 Screens 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 3.09 $3,411.79
445 Movie Theater > 10 Screens 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 2.46 $2,715.05
492 Health/Fitness Club 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 1.73 $1,907.73
520 Elementary School 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.69 $757.56
522 Middle School / Junior High
School 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.60 $658.03
530 High School 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.49 $536.38
534 Private School (K-8) Students 0.13 $143.77
550 University/College 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.59 $646.97
560 Church 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.25 $270.95
565 Day Care Center 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 5.56 $6,148.96
590 Library 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 4.08 $4,512.19
610 Hospital 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.49 $536.38
710 General Office Building 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.58 $635.91
720 Medical-Dental Office Building 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 1.73 $1,913.26
730 Government Office Building 1000 Sq. Ft. Gross Floor Area 0.86 $945.57
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 70] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
ITE Code ITE Land Use Unit Trip Rate Impact Fee
per Unit
770 Business Park 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.21 $232.24
812 Building Material and Lumber
Store 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 1.03 $1,139.11
816 Hardware/Paint Store 1000 Sq. Ft. Gross Floor Area 0.99 $1,096.64
817 Nursery (Garden Center) 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 3.47 $3,837.57
820 Shopping Center / Strip Mall 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable
Area 1.26 $1,390.48
841 Automobile Sales 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 1.88 $2,073.62
848 Tire Store 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 1.43 $1,584.57
850 Supermarket 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 2.96 $3,270.01
851 Convenience Market 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 9.58 $10,590.87
880 Pharmacy/Drugstore without
Drive-Thru Window 1000 Sq. Ft. Gross Floor Area 2.00 $2,211.69
881 Pharmacy/Drugstore with
Drive-Thru Window 1000 Sq. Ft. Gross Floor Area 2.62 $2,901.90
890 Furniture Store 1000 Sq. Ft. Gross Floor Area 0.12 $135.14
911 Walk-In Bank 1000 Sq. Ft. Gross Floor Area 6.07 $6,707.46
912 Drive-in Bank 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 5.42 $5,993.30
918 Hair Salon 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0.73 $801.80
932 Restaurant, Sit-Down (High
Turnover) 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 2.74 $3,025.38
933 Fast Food without Drive-
Through Window 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 8.08 $8,932.47
934 Restaurant with Drive Through
Window 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 8.17 $9,032.67
942 Auto Care Center 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable
Area 1.56 $1,719.72
944 Gasoline/Service Station Fueling Position 4.07 $4,499.69
945 Gasoline/Service Station with
Convenience Store
1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable
Area 19.44 $21,495.93
947 Self Service Car Wash Wash Stall 2.77 $3,063.42
948 Automated Car Wash 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 7.10 $7,852.09
*Dormitory housing would be included in this category and fees would be calculated on a per -bed basis. ITE does
not have a separate category for dormitory housing.
If additional categories are desired, the City can use the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed., and
multiply the total PM peak hour trips by 50 percent, by any reduction for pass-by trips, by the total cost
per PM peak hour trip as shown in Table 22 above.
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 71] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Appendix A – Existing System Improvements
[Ordinance No. 1227: Page 72] [Development Impact Fee Ordinance]
Appendix B – No-Build Scenario