Development Fee Study 
Prepared for:
City of Peoria, Arizona
 


Prepared by:
 



Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	6
DEVELOPMENT FEE REQUIREMENTS	6
METHODOLOGIES	7
Figure 1: Schedule of Development Fees	8
LIBRARIES	10
METHODOLOGY	10
Figure 2:  Library Development Fee Methodology Chart	10
LIBRARY SITES	11
Figure 3:  Library Sites LOS Standards	11
LIBRARY FACILITIES	11
Figure 4:  Library Facilities LOS Standards	12
LIBRARY COLLECTIONS	12
Figure 5:  Library Collections LOS Standards	12
FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT	12
Figure 6:  Principal Payment Credits	13
DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY	13
LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE	13
Figure 7: Library Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary	14
Figure 8: Library Development Fee Schedule	14
PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE	15
METHODOLOGY	15
Figure 9: Parks, Recreation, Open Space Development Fee Methodology Chart	16
PARKLAND	16
Figure 10:  Recent Land Purchases for Parks	17
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS	17
Figure 11:  Neighborhood Parks LOS Standards	18
CITYWIDE PARKS	18
Figure 12:  Citywide Parks LOS Standards	19
RECREATION FACILITIES	19
Figure 13:  Recreation Facilities LOS Standards	20
OPEN SPACE	20
Figure 14:  Open Space LOS Standards	21
RIVER TRAILS & CORRIDORS	21
Figure 15:  Planned River Trails & Corridors Projects	22
VEHICLES, & EQUIPMENT	22
Figure 16:  Support Vehicles and Equipment	23
FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT	23
Figure 17:  Principal Payment Credits	24
DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY	24
PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT FEE	24
Figure 18: Parks, Recreation, Open Space Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary	25
Figure 19: Parks, Recreation, Open Space  Development Fee Schedule	26
TRANSPORTATION	27
METHODOLOGY	27
Figure 20:  Transportation Development Fee Methodology Chart	28
TRIP GENERATION RATES	28
ADJUSTMENT FOR JOURNEY-TO-WORK COMMUTING	29
ADJUSTMENT FOR PASS-BY TRIPS	29
Figure 21:  Commercial Trip Rates and Adjustment Factors	29
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT BY LAND USE	29
PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF BELL ROAD	30
Figure 22: Summary of Planned Capacity Improvements North of Bell Road	30
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL ON PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF BELL ROAD	30
Vehicle Trips from Development North of Bell Road	30
Lane Capacity	31
Current Arterial Lane Miles	31
Average Trip Length	31
Figure 23: Capacity Improvement Needs North of Bell Road	31
VMT’S ACCOMODATED BY PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF BELL ROAD	32
Figure 24:  VMT’s On Current and Planned Arterial Road Network North of Bell Road	32
COSTS PER VMT FOR PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF BELL ROAD	32
Figure 25:  Planned Capacity Improvements North of Bell Road – Marginal Approach	33
Figure 26:  Planned Capacity Improvements North of Bell Road – Average Approach	33
PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH OF BELL ROAD	34
Figure 27:  Planned Capacity Improvements South of Bell Road	34
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL ON PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH OF BELL ROAD	34
Vehicle Trips from Development South of Bell Road	34
Lane Capacity	34
Current Arterial Lane Miles	35
Average Trip Length	35
Figure 28: Capacity Improvement Needs North of Bell Road	35
VMT’S ACCOMODATED BY PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH OF BELL ROAD	36
Figure 29:  VMT’s On Current and Planned Arterial Road Network South of Bell Road	36
COSTS PER VMT FOR PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH OF BELL ROAD	36
Figure 30:  Planned Capacity Improvements South of Bell Road – Marginal Approach	37
Figure 31:  Planned Capacity Improvements South of Bell Road – Average Approach	37
VEHICLES, & EQUIPMENT	38
Figure 32:  Support Vehicles & Equipment LOS Standards	38
FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT	38
Figure 33:  Principal Payment Credits	39
DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY	39
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE	39
Figure 35:  Transportation Development Fee LOS Standard Summary – North of Bell Road	41
Figure 36:  Transportation Development Fee Schedule – North of Bell Road	42
Figure 37:  Transportation Development Fee LOS Standard Summary – South of Bell Road	43
Figure 38:  Transportation Development Fee Schedule – South of Bell Road	44
POLICE	45
METHODOLOGY	45
Figure 39: Police Development Fee Methodology	46
PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS	46
Figure 40:  Sampling of Calls for Service by Location Type	47
POLICE FACILITIES	47
Figure 41:  Police & Court Facilities LOS Standards	48
POLICE VEHICLES	48
Figure 42:  Police Vehicles LOS Standards	49
POLICE COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT	49
Figure 43:  Planned Communications Equipment	50
Figure 44:  Planned Records Management System/Computer Aided Dispatch Upgrade	50
FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT	50
Figure 45:  Principal Payment Credit	51
DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY	51
POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEE	52
Figure 46:  Police Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary	53
Figure 47:  Police Development Fee Schedule	54
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES	55
METHODOLOGY	55
Figure 48: Fire and EMS Development Fee Methodology	56
LAND FOR FIRE FACILITIES	56
Figure 49:  Fire Facilities Land LOS Standards	57
LAND FOR FIRE FACILITIES	57
Figure 50:  Land for Fire Facilities LOS Standards	58
FIRE APPARATUS & EQUIPMENT	58
Figure 51:  Fire Apparatus & Equipment LOS Standards	59
FIRE/EMS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT	59
Figure 52:  Planned Communications Equipment	60
FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT	60
Figure 53:  Principal Payment Credit	61
DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY	61
FIRE/EMS DEVELOPMENT FEE	61
Figure 54:  Fire/EMS Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary	62
Figure 55:  Fire/EMS Development Fee Schedule	63
GENERAL GOVERNMENT	64
METHODOLOGY	64
Figure 56: General Government Development Fee Methodology	65
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS	65
Figure 57: General Government Buildings LOS Standards	66
GENERAL GOVERNMENT VEHICLES	66
Figure 58:  General Government Vehicles LOS Standards	67
GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT	67
Figure 59:  Planned Communications Equipment	68
FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT	68
Figure 60:  Principal Payment Credit	69
DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY	69
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FEE	69
Figure 61:  General Government Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary	70
Figure 62:  General Government Development Fee Schedule	71
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION	72
COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES	73
APPENDIX A:  DEMOGRAPHIC AND DEVELOPMENT MEMO	75
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD	75
Figure 1: Household Size in Peoria	75
HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATE AND PROJECTIONS	75
Figure 2:  Estimated Housing Units July 1, 2005	76
Figure 3:  Known Future Residential Development	76
Figure 4:  Housing Unit Projections	77
POPULATION ESTIMATE AND PROJECTIONS	77
Figure 5:  July 1, 2005 Population Estimate and Population Projections	77
JOB AND NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOT ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS	77
Figure 6. Job Estimates and Projections	78
Figure 7:  Floor Area Per Employee and Nonresidential Trip Rates	79
Figure 8. Nonresidential Square Footage Estimates and Projections	80
AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIP ESTIMATES	80
Figure 9:  Average Daily Trips	81
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS FY2006-FY2016	82
Figure 10: Development Projections FY2006-FY2016	83
APPENDIX B:  PEORIA FLEET DATABASE	84
GENERAL GOVERNMENT	84
PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE	86
TRANSPORTATION	89
APPENDIX C:  PLANNED TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY PROJECTS NORTH OF BELL ROAD	91
APPENDIX D:  PLANNED TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY PROJECTS SOUTH OF BELL ROAD	94





Executive Summary
The City of Peoria has contracted with TischlerBise to update its development fees for the 
following infrastructure categories:
      *	Libraries;
      *	Parks, Recreation, Open Space;
      *	Transportation;
      *	Police;
      *	Fire;
      *	General Government.

Note this does not include updates to the City’s water and sewer development fees.

DEVELOPMENT FEE REQUIREMENTS
Development fees are one-time payments for public facilities based on the pro rata share of costs 
incurred for facilities needed to accommodate new development.  Development fees relate only 
to capital facility expansions benefiting new development and are not to be utilized for 
rehabilitation efforts or operating expenses.  Development fees must meet the requirements of 
the Arizona’s Development Fees Act (Arizona Revised Statutes § 9-463.05) and restrictions that 
evolved from development fee case law, namely what is commonly referred to as the “rational 
nexus” test.  The rational nexus test consists of three requirements: 1) needed capital facilities are 
a consequence of new development; 2) fees are a proportionate share of the government's cost; 
and 3) revenues are managed and expended in such a way that new development receives a 
substantial benefit.
The development fee methodologies established in this report show that the capital facilities for 
which the fee are prepared are a consequence of new development, the fees are proportionate 
and reasonably related to the capital facility service demands of new development and that 
development fees will substantially benefit new development. 
Another general requirement that is common to development fee methodologies is the 
evaluation of credits.  There are several types of credits that have been considered in the 
development fee methodology.  First, a future revenue credit has been considered to avoid 
potential double payment for capital facilities.  Future revenue credits are deductions from 
development fees to account for debt payments paid by the secondary property tax.
The second type of credit is a site-specific credit for system improvements that have been 
included in the development fee calculations.  Project improvements normally required as part of 
the development approval process are not eligible for credits against development fees.  Specific 
policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for system improvements are addressed in 
the ordinance that establishes the City’s fees.  However, the general concept is that developers 
may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide system 
improvements that have been included in the development fee calculation schedule.
METHODOLOGIES
As part of this study, TischlerBise evaluated possible methodologies and documented 
appropriate demand indicators by type of development, for each type of development fee.  
Specific capital costs have been identified using local data and current dollars.  The formula used 
to calculate each development fee is diagrammed in a flow chart at the beginning of each section. 
 Also, each fee category includes a summary table indicating the specific factors used to derive 
the development fee.  These factors are also referred to as level of service (LOS) standards.
There are three basic methods used to calculate the various components of Peoria’s 
development fees.  A plan-based method is best suited for public facilities that have adopted 
plans or commonly accepted service delivery standards to guide capital improvements.  Under 
the plan-based methodology, there are two approaches considered.  The average approach is 
used for projects that are the result of both new and existing development.  The planned costs are 
allocated to both new and existing development which ensures that new growth only pays its 
share of the costs.  The marginal approach is used for projects that are the result of only new 
growth.  The planned costs are allocated to the net increase in new growth.
The incremental expansion method documents the current level-of-service (LOS) for each 
type of public facility.  LOS standards are determined using the City’s current inventory of capital 
facilities and assets as well as current costs to construct or purchase comparable facilities or 
assets.  However, Peoria will not use the funds for renewal and/or replacement of existing 
facilities.  Rather the City’s intent is to use development fee revenue to expand or provide 
additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development.  An incremental expansion 
cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with 
LOS standards based on current conditions in the community. 
A third method, known as the buy-in method is best suited for facilities that have been 
oversized in anticipation of growth and have excess capacity available.  New development would 
“buy-in” to the excess capacity of the facility.  The rationale for the buy-in approach is that new 
development will pay for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of recently 
constructed facilities.
Figure 1 provides a schedule of the development fees for Peoria.   Development fees for 
residential development will be assessed per housing unit and nonresidential development fees 
will be assessed per thousand square feet of floor area.  The City may adopt fees that are less than 
the amounts shown.  However, a reduction in development fee revenue will necessitate an 
increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures and/or a decrease in the 
City’s LOS standards.


Figure 1: Schedule of Development Fees
 

All costs in the development fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed 
inflation rate over time.  If cost estimates change significantly, the fees should be recalculated.
A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted 
using Excel software. Results are discussed in the report using one-and two-digit places (in most 
cases), which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their 
ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal 
the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report 
(due to the rounding of figures shown, not due to rounding in the analysis). 




















Libraries
METHODOLOGY
Capital costs for the Library Development Fee have been allocated to residential development 
only and standards have been shown on a per capita basis.  Average household size was used to 
differentiate the development fees by type of housing (see Appendix A for demographic 
information).  
The Library Development Fee includes components for library sites, library facilities, and 
collections.  All components are calculated using an incremental expansion methodology which is 
based on the City’s existing LOS.  The City will extend to new growth the same LOS it is 
currently providing via the development fee.  This is the same methodology used in the City’s 
previous development fee study.  
A future principal payment credit is also included in the fee calculation to avoid double payment 
for library facilities through the development fee and future property taxes used to retire library 
debt.
Figure 2:  Library Development Fee Methodology Chart

 
LIBRARY SITES
Figure 3 lists the City’s current inventory of 5.91 acres of land for library sites.  City staff estimate 
comparable land to cost $150,000 an acre, resulting in a total replacement cost of $896,500.  This 
cost is divided by the current estimated population of 138,732, resulting in a cost per person of 
$6.39.
Figure 3:  Library Sites LOS Standards


LIBRARY FACILITIES
The City currently has 56,200 square feet of library facilities (see Figure 4 below).  However, the 
Sunrise Mountain branch is closed to the general public for a few hours on school days.  This has 
been reflected in the reduction of the floor area of the facility by 10 percent (18,000 x .90 = 
16,200).  The City’s Facilities Management Division estimate comparable library facilities to cost 
$211 per square foot  This results in a current replacement cost of $11,858,200 for these facilities. 
 This cost is divided by the current estimated population of 138,732, resulting in a cost per 
person of $85.47.






Figure 4:  Library Facilities LOS Standards


LIBRARY COLLECTIONS
Figure 5 lists the City’s current inventory of 187,000 units of library collections (books, DVD’s, 
CD’s, etc).  Recent library acquisition have cost approximately $31 per unit.  The resulting  
replacement cost of the City’s library collections $5,797,000.  This cost is divided by the current 
estimated population of 138,732, resulting in a cost per person of $41.78.
Figure 5:  Library Collections LOS Standards


FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT
Peoria is making payments on General Obligation (GO) bonds that financed library facilities.  To 
avoid potential double payment for library facilities, a principal payment credit is shown in Figure 
6.  Because interest costs have not been added to the development fees, a credit is not necessary 
for future interest payments.  Due to the time value of future payments, a net present value 
adjustment is used in the calculation of the credit.  The credit is calculated to be $1.53 per capita 
on a net present value basis.
Figure 6:  Principal Payment Credits


DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The City updated its development fees every three years to ensure the methodologies, 
assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and accurate.  As we do with 
many of our Arizona development fee clients, TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing the 
current Library Development Fee in the fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to 
conduct this regular update.  This cost ($9,300) is allocated to the projected increase in 
population over the next two years.  This results in a consultant fee cost per demand unit of $.64 
per person ($9,300/14,512 people).  

LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FEE
Figure 7 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate the Library 
Development Fee.  As discussed previously, these development fees are calculated for residential 
land uses only.  Future revenue credits have been considered to avoid potential double payment 
for capital facilities and no such credit is needed for this fee category.  Developers may be eligible 
for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have 
been included in the Library Development Fee calculation schedule. Specific policies and 
procedures related to site-specific credits for system improvements are addressed in the 
ordinance that establishes the City’s fees.  Project improvements normally required as part of the 
development approval process are not eligible for credits against development fees.  
As shown at the bottom of Figure 8, the capital cost per person unit is $132.75 per person.
Figure 7: Library Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary 


Figure 8 contains a schedule Library Development Fees for Peoria.  For residential land uses, 
persons per household are multiplied by the capital cost per person for each of the fee 
components which are then added together to determine the total development fee per unit.  
Figure 8: Library Development Fee Schedule


Parks, Recreation, Open Space
METHODOLOGY
This fee includes components for neighborhood parkland and park improvements, citywide 
parkland and park improvements, recreation facilities, open space, trails and support vehicles and 
equipment.
The incremental expansion methodology is used for calculating all components of this fee except 
the trails component which utilizes the plan-based methodology.  The methodology for trails is 
different from the incremental expansion methodology used in the previous development fee 
report.
All capital costs have been allocated to residential development only and standards have been 
shown on a per capita basis.  Average household size is used to differentiate the development 
fees by type of housing (see Appendix A for demographic information).  All citywide parks, 
recreation facilities, and open space facilities included in the development fees are assumed to 
have a citywide service area.  It is important to note that neighborhood parks serve a greater 
population than is found within the one-half mile to mile radius standard for neighborhood 
parks.  The neighborhood parks included have multi-fields that draw teams for practice from 
across the City.
A future principal payment credit is also included in the fee calculation to avoid double payment 
for parks, recreation, and open space through the development fee and future property taxes 
used to retire debt for parks, recreation, and open space projects.












Figure 9: Parks, Recreation, Open Space Development Fee Methodology Chart

 

PARKLAND
Recent acquisitions of park sites (see Figure 10) indicate an average land cost of $56,000 per acre 
for neighborhood parks and $70,000 per acre for citywide parks.  A land cost component is 
included in the neighborhood and citywide park development fees.




Figure 10:  Recent Land Purchases for Parks


NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Figure 11 lists the City’s current inventory of neighborhood parks (land and improvements).  
The value of the City’s current neighborhood parkland inventory totals $12,681,200 (226.5 acres 
x $56,000/acre).   This value is divided by the current population estimate resulting in a cost per 
person figure of  $91.41 ($12,681,200 /138,732 persons = $91.41).
The City’s inventory of neighborhood park improvements have a total replacement value of 
$19,733,300.  The City’s Community Services Department provided cost estimates for each of 
the park improvements.  These cost estimates include lighting, landscaping, utilities, and irrigation 
for each type of improvement.  This results in a cost per person of $142.24 for neighborhood 
park improvements ($19,733,300/138,732 persons = $142.24).





Figure 11:  Neighborhood Parks LOS Standards


CITYWIDE PARKS
Figure 12 lists the City’s current inventory of citywide parks (land and improvements).  
The value of the City’s current citywide parkland inventory totals $13,559,000 (193.7 acres x 
$70,000/acre).   This value is divided by the current population estimate resulting in a cost per 
person figure of $97.74 ($13,559,000 /138,732 persons = $97.74).
The City’s inventory of citywide park improvements has a total replacement value of 
$24,755,088.  The City’s Community Services Department provided cost estimates for each of 
the park improvements.  These cost estimates include lighting, landscaping, utilities, and irrigation 
for each type of improvement.  The Peoria Sports Complex functions as a citywide park for 
most of the year.  However, a 12% reduction has been factored into the LOS standards based on 
the extensive use of the Sports Complex by professional baseball teams for approximately six 
weeks out the year.  The cost of the Sports Complex was reduced by an additional $10 million to 
net out the cost of improvements such as the two clubhouses that are not used by the general 
public.  This results in a cost per person of $176.82 for citywide park improvements 
($24,755,088/138,732 persons = $178.44).
Figure 12:  Citywide Parks LOS Standards


RECREATION FACILITIES
The City’s recreational facilities are listed in Figure 13 below.  These facilities total 188,948 square 
feet with a total value of $19,340,844.  These figures include the Rio Vista Recreation Center that 
is currently under construction and will be open in FY2007.  Thus the City’s projected FY2007 
population is used to calculate the LOS.  This results in a cost per person of  $132.65 
($19,340,844/145,807 persons in FY2007 = $132.65 per person).



Figure 13:  Recreation Facilities LOS Standards


OPEN SPACE
Figure 14 lists the City’s current inventory of 476 acres of open space.  The City’s Community 
Services Department provided cost estimates for comparable pieces of property.  The value of 
the City’s current open space totals $10,710,000.  This value is divided by the current population 
estimate resulting in a cost per person figure of  $77.20 ($10,710,000 /138,732 persons = $77.20).







Figure 14:  Open Space LOS Standards


RIVER TRAILS & CORRIDORS
Figure 15 lists planned river trials and corridors projects from the City’s FY2006-FY2015 Capital 
Improvements Program (CIP).  These projects total $16,662,169 and are the result of both 
existing and new growth.   This total cost is divided by the City’s projected FY2015 population 
which ensures that new growth will pay only its share of the costs.  This results in planned cost 
per person of $87.23 ($16,662,169/191,021 persons in FY2015 = $87.23).








Figure 15:  Planned River Trails & Corridors Projects


VEHICLES, & EQUIPMENT
As new growth requires additional capital facilities and infrastructure for parks, recreation, and 
open space, the City will also require additional support vehicles and equipment will be needed.  
Figure 16 lists the City’s current inventory of Parks & Recreation vehicles and equipment.  The 
City’s Fleet Management database lists 111 pieces for the various divisions within the department 
with a total replacement value of $1,842,029.  The results in a cost per person of $13.28.









Figure 16:  Support Vehicles and Equipment


FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT
Peoria is making payments on General Obligation (GO) bonds that financed park, recreation, 
and open space facilities.  To avoid potential double payment for park facilities, a principal 
payment credit is shown in Figure 17.  Because interest costs have not been added to the 
development fees, a credit is not necessary for future interest payments.  Due to the time value 
of future payments, a net present value adjustment is used in the calculation of the credit.  This 
credit is calculated to be $28.93 per capita on a net present value basis.





Figure 17:  Principal Payment Credits


DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The City updates its development fees every two years to ensure the methodologies, 
assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and accurate.  As we do with 
many of our Arizona development fee clients, TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing the 
current Parks, Recreation, Open Space Development Fee in the fee calculations in order to 
create a source of funding to conduct this regular update.  The cost of preparing the Parks, 
Recreation, Open Space Development Fee is also included in the fee calculations.  This cost 
($10,200) is allocated to the projected increase in population over the next two years.  This 
results in a consultant fee cost per demand unit of $.70 per person ($10,200/14,512 people).  

PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT FEE
Figure 18 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate the Parks & 
Recreation Development Fees.  Developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or 
reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the Parks, 
Recreation, Open Space Development Fee calculation schedule. Specific policies and procedures 
related to site-specific credits for system improvements are addressed in the ordinance that 
establishes the City’s fees.  Project improvements normally required as part of the development 
approval process are not eligible for credits against development fees.  
As shown at the bottom of Figure 18, the total net capital cost per person is $791.95.
Figure 18: Parks, Recreation, Open Space Development Fee Level of Service Standard 
Summary 


Figure 18 contains a schedule of Parks, Recreation, Open Space Development Fees for Peoria.  
Persons per household are multiplied by the capital cost per person for each of the fee 
components.  The fee components are then added together to for the total development fee per 
unit for each category of housing.  Using single family housing units as an example, 2.99 persons 
per household is multiplied by the cost per person for each of the components.  These amounts 
are then added together which yields a Parks, Recreation, Open Space Development Fee of 
$2,368 per single family housing unit ($273+$425+$292+$534+$231+$261+$397+$40+$2-$86 = 
$2,368).  This calculation is repeated for the other housing categories. 
Figure 19: Parks, Recreation, Open Space  Development Fee Schedule


















Transportation
METHODOLOGY
As shown in Figure 20, trip generation rates by type of development are multiplied by the net 
capital cost per vehicle miles of travel (VMT) to yield the Transportation Development Fees.  
The methodology includes trip adjustment factors for commuting patterns, pass-by trips and 
average trip length variation by type of land use.  The diagram below reads like an outline, with 
lower levels providing a more detailed breakdown of the development fee components.  
Because of the geographic characteristics of Peoria, TischlerBise recommends the City continue 
to have separate transportation development fees for the northern and southern portions of the 
City.  Bell Road has been used as the dividing line between the north and south zones.  The 
demographic estimates and development projections in Appendix A are used to create separate 
development estimates for each zone.  
The plan-based methodology is used for capacity improvements to arterial streets.  These 
improvements include construction of roads, bridges, and intersection improvements.  The 
marginal cost approach is used for arterial improvements which are the result of new growth 
only.  These costs are allocated to the net increase in VMT’s provided by the planned capacity 
improvements.  The average cost approach is used for planned capacity improvements that result 
from both existing and future development.  Under this approach, costs are conservatively 
allocated to both new and existing development and ensure that new growth pays only its share 
of the costs.  As the City increases its inventory of street infrastructure, additional support 
facilities, vehicles and equipment will be needed.  The incremental expansion methodology is 
used for this component of the Transportation Development Fee.  A future principal payment 
credit is also included in the fee calculation to avoid double payment for street infrastructure.










Figure 20:  Transportation Development Fee Methodology Chart

 
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation 
Engineers, 2003).  Peoria’s Transportation Development Fees are based on average weekday 
vehicle trip ends.  A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a 
development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway).  To calculate the 
development fees, trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both 
the origin and destination points.   

ADJUSTMENT FOR JOURNEY-TO-WORK COMMUTING
Residential development has a higher trip adjustment factor of 64% to account for commuters 
leaving Peoria for work.  According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation Study (see Table 
28, Federal Highway Administration, 1999) home-based work trips are typically 32% of 
production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50% of all trip ends).  Also, Census 2000 data 
from Table P27 in Summary File 3 indicates that 86% of Peoria’s workers travel outside the City 
for work.  In combination, these factors (0.32 x 0.50 x 0.86 = 0.14) account for 14% of 
production trips.  The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50% of trip 
ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (14% of production trips) for a total of 
64%.
ADJUSTMENT FOR PASS-BY TRIPS
Data contained in the book Trip Generation (see Table VII-1 of the 5th edition, 1991) indicates 
there is an inverse relationship between shopping center size and pass-by trips.  Therefore, 
appropriate trip adjustment factors have been calculated according to shopping center size (see 
Figure 21 below).  For commercial / shopping center development, the trip adjustment factor is 
less than 50% because retail uses attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector streets.  
For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the 
convenience store is not the primary destination.  For a small-size shopping center of 50,000 
square feet of floor area, the ITE manual indicates that on average 48% of the vehicles that enter 
are passing by on their way to some other primary destination.  The remaining 52% of attraction 
trips have the shopping center as their primary destination.  Because attraction trips are half of all 
trips, the trip adjustment factor is 52% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 26% of the trip 
ends.
Figure 21:  Commercial Trip Rates and Adjustment Factors

AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT BY LAND USE
The demand for street infrastructure is a function of both the number of vehicle trips and the 
distance traveled.  Multiplying the number of vehicle trips by the average trip length (in miles) 
yields vehicle miles of travel (VMT).  The Transportation Development Fee methodology 
includes a percentage adjustment to account for trip length variation by type of land use.  As 
documented in Table 5 of the National Personal Transportation Survey (FHWA, 1999), vehicle 
trips from residential development are approximately 127% of the average trip length.  Trips 
associated with residential development include home-based work trips plus social and 
recreational purposes.  Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial development are 
roughly 62% of the average trip length, while other nonresidential development typically 
accounts for trips that are 76% of the average trip length.
PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF BELL ROAD
The City’s plans to construct 238.9 lane miles of capacity improvements north of Bell Road with 
a total cost to the City of approximately $328.4 million.  These are shown in Figure 22 below.  A 
detailed listing of these projects can be found in Appendix C at the back of this report.
Figure 22: Summary of Planned Capacity Improvements North of Bell Road
 

VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL ON PLANNED CAPACITY 
IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF BELL ROAD
The first factor that must be calculated is the current average trip length from current residential 
and nonresidential development north of Bell Road on the current number of arterial lane miles 
north of Bell Road 
Vehicle Trips from Development North of Bell Road
Figure 23 documents the current vehicle trips and VMT on the 116.8 lane miles of arterial streets 
north of Bell Road.  The demographic data is shown in the boxes at the top of the Figure 23 
below.  Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors, as used in the development fee 
calculations, convert the estimated current development into average weekday vehicle trips 
(shown with gray shading).  
Lane Capacity
The arterial improvements component is based on an average lane capacity standard for arterials 
of 8,000 vehicles per lane.
Current Arterial Lane Miles
 The City currently has 116.8 lanes miles of arterial streets north of Bell Road.
Average Trip Length
Knowing the number of vehicle trips and current lane-miles, it is possible to derive the average 
trip length on the current arterial lane miles north of Bell Road by the current residential and 
nonresidential development north of Bell Road.  Because the VMT calculations include the same 
adjustment factors used in the development fee calculations (i.e., residential commuting 
adjustment, commercial pass-by adjustment and average trip length adjustment by type of land 
use), the average trip length is determined through a series of iterations using spreadsheet 
software.  The current average trip length on the current arterial lane miles by current residential 
and nonresidential development is 6.22 miles.
Figure 23: Average Trip Length North of Bell Road

VMT’S ACCOMODATED BY PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS 
NORTH OF BELL ROAD
Figure 23 above shows that the current 116.8 lane miles of arterial street north of Bell Road can 
accommodate 934,179 VMT’s.  
The planned 238.9 lane miles of capacity improvements to the City’s arterial street network 
north of Bell Road will accommodate an additional 1,911,329 VMT’s.  This is calculated by 
multiplying the 238.9 lane miles by the capacity standard of 8,000 vehicles per lane mile (238.9 x 
8,000 = 1,911,329).  When this additional capacity is added to the current 116.8 lane miles of 
existing arterial lane miles and 934,179 VMT’s, the City’s arterial street network north of Bell 
Road will encompass 355.7 lane miles and accommodate a total of 2,845,508 VMT’s.  This is 
summarized in Figure 24 below.
Figure 24:  VMT’s On Current and Planned Arterial Road Network North of Bell Road


COSTS PER VMT FOR PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS 
NORTH OF BELL ROAD
Several of the planned capacity improvements would not be constructed if Peoria were to stop 
growing, thus the marginal approach is used to calculate the cost per VMT.
Under this approach, construction costs for planned capacity improvements are allocated to the 
net increase of 1,911,329 VMT’s accommodated by the planned capacity improvements (taken 
from Figure 24 above).  This results in a capacity cost for construction of $68.06 
($130,077,260/1,911,329 VMT = $68.06/VMT) to accommodate additional vehicle miles of 
travel from new development on the planned capacity improvements.


Figure 25:  Planned Capacity Improvements North of Bell Road – Marginal Approach

Figure 26 summarizes the cost of planned capacity improvements that will provide additional 
VMT capacity to both existing and new development north of Bell Road.  The average cost 
allocation ensures new development will only pay for its proportionate share of these projects.  
Construction costs are allocated to the total number of VMT’s accommodated by the planned 
capacity improvements.  For average-cost projects, the capacity cost for construction is $69.71 
($198,.356,483/2,845,508 total VMT’s = $69.71/VMT) 
Figure 26:  Planned Capacity Improvements North of Bell Road – Average Approach
 
The total cost per VMT for the planned capacity improvements north of Bell Road is $140.75 
($68.06 + $69.71 = $137.76).
PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH OF BELL ROAD
The City’s plans to construct 29.5 lane miles of planned capacity improvements north of Bell 
Road with a total cost to the City of approximately $95.6 million.  These are shown in Figure 27 
below.  A detailed listing of these projects can be found in Appendix D at the back of this 
report.
Figure 27:  Planned Capacity Improvements South of Bell Road


VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL ON PLANNED CAPACITY 
IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH OF BELL ROAD
The first factor that must be calculated is the current average trip length from current residential 
and nonresidential development south of Bell Road on the current number of arterial lane miles 
south of Bell Road 
Vehicle Trips from Development South of Bell Road
Figure 28 documents the current vehicle trips and VMT on the 170.4 lane miles of arterial streets 
south of Bell Road.  The demographic data is shown in the boxes at the top of the Figure 28 
below.  Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors, as used in the development fee 
calculations, convert the estimated current development into average weekday vehicle trips 
(shown with gray shading).  
Lane Capacity
The arterial improvements component is based on an average lane capacity standard for arterials 
of 8,000 vehicles per lane.
Current Arterial Lane Miles
 The City currently has 170.4 lanes miles of arterial streets south of Bell Road.
Average Trip Length
Knowing the number of vehicle trips and current lane-miles, it is possible to derive the average 
trip length on the arterial lane miles south of Bell Road by the current residential and 
nonresidential development south of Bell Road.  Because the VMT calculations include the same 
adjustment factors used in the development fee calculations (i.e., residential commuting 
adjustment, commercial pass-by adjustment and average trip length adjustment by type of land 
use), the average trip length is determined through a series of iterations using spreadsheet 
software.  The current average trip length on the current arterial lane miles by current residential 
and nonresidential development is 4.53 miles.
Figure 28: Average Trip Length South of Bell Road



VMT’S ACCOMODATED BY PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS 
SOUTH OF BELL ROAD
Figure 28 above shows that the current 170.4 lane miles of arterial streets south of Bell Road can 
accommodate 1,363,461 VMT’s.  
The planned 29.5 lane miles of capacity improvements to the City’s arterial street network south 
of Bell Road will accommodate an additional 236,000 VMT’s.  This is calculated by multiplying 
the 29.5 lane miles by the capacity standard of 8,000 vehicles per lane mile (29.5 x 8,000 = 
236,000).   When this additional capacity is added to the current 170.4 lane miles of existing 
arterial lane miles and 1,363,461 VMT’s, the City’s arterial street network south of Bell Road will 
encompass 199.9 lane miles and accommodate a total of 1,599,461 VMT’s.  This is summarized 
in Figure 29 below.
Figure 29:  VMT’s On Current and Planned Arterial Road Network South of Bell Road


COSTS PER VMT FOR PLANNED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH 
OF BELL ROAD
Several of the planned capacity improvements would not be constructed if Peoria were to stop 
growing, thus the marginal approach is used to calculate the cost per VMT.
Under this approach, construction costs for planned capacity improvements are allocated to the 
net increase of 236,000 VMT’s accommodated by the planned capacity improvements (taken 
from Figure 29 above).  This results in a capacity cost for construction of $16.89 
($3,986,250/236,000 VMT = $16.89/VMT) to accommodate additional vehicle miles of travel 
from new development on the planned capacity improvements.





Figure 30:  Planned Capacity Improvements South of Bell Road – Marginal Approach


Figure 31 summarizes the cost of planned capacity improvements that will provide additional 
VMT capacity to both existing and new development south of Bell Road.  The average cost 
allocation ensures new development will only pay for its proportionate share of these projects.  
Construction costs are allocated to the total number of VMT’s accommodated by the planned 
capacity improvements.  For average-cost projects, the capacity cost for construction is $57.31 
($91,660,004/1,599,461 total VMT’s = $57.31/VMT) 
Figure 31:  Planned Capacity Improvements South of Bell Road – Average Approach


The total cost per VMT for the planned capacity improvements south of Bell Road is $74.20 
($16.89 + $57.31 = $74.20).
VEHICLES, & EQUIPMENT
As new growth requires additional street infrastructure, additional support vehicles and 
equipment will be needed.  Figure 32 lists the City’s current inventory of street support vehicles 
and equipment.  The City’s Fleet Management database lists 56 pieces for the various divisions 
within the department with a total replacement value of $3,714,389.  When divided by the 
current number of 333,218 vehicles trips throughout the City, this results in a cost per trip of 
$11.15.
Figure 32:  Support Vehicles & Equipment LOS Standards


FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT
To avoid potential double payment for street improvements, a principal payment credit is shown 
in Figure 33.  Because interest costs have not been added to the development fees, a credit is not 
necessary for future interest payments.  Due to the time value of future payments, a net present 
value adjustment is used in the calculation of the credit.  The credit is calculated to be $24.06 per 
trip on a net present value basis.




Figure 33:  Principal Payment Credits


DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The City updates its development fees every two years to ensure the methodologies, 
assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and accurate.  As we do with 
many of our Arizona development fee clients, TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing the 
current Transportation Development Fee is included in the fee calculations in order to create a 
source of funding to conduct this regular update.  The cost of preparing the Transportation 
Development Fee is also included in the fee calculations.  This cost ($16,100) is allocated to the 
projected increase in trips over the next two years.  This results in a consultant fee cost per 
demand unit of $.36 per trip ($16,100/44,184 trips).

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE
Future revenue credits have been considered to avoid potential double payment for capital 
facilities and are included in the fee calculations.  Developers may be eligible for site-specific 
credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in 
the Transportation Development Fee calculation schedule. Specific policies and procedures 
related to site-specific credits for system improvements are addressed in the ordinance that 
establishes the City’s fees.  Project improvements normally required as part of the development 
approval process are not eligible for credits against impact fees.  
NORTH PEORIA
Capital cost for the average length trip is derived from level-of-service components shown near 
the bottom of Figure 35.  The capital cost for the average length trip is the product of the 
average trip length multiplied by the trip length adjustment factor and the capital cost per vehicle 
mile of travel.  For example, the capital cost for planned capacity improvements for the average 
length trip from residential development is 6.22 miles, times 1.27 times $137.76, or $1,088.26 per 
trip.  This is repeated for commercial and other nonresidential land uses.
Costs for support vehicles, equipment, principal payment credit and the development fee study 
are added to the planned costs for capacity projects.  


















Figure 35:  Transportation Development Fee LOS Standard Summary – North of Bell 
Road
 

Figure 36 contains a schedule of the transportation development fees north of Bell Road.  The 
fees are calculated by multiplying Average Weekday Trip Generation Rates by the corresponding 
trip adjustment factor and then multiplying by the total capital cost per trip.  Using single family 
detached units as an example, 9.57 x .64 x $1,075.71 = $6,588 per unit.
Figure 36:  Transportation Development Fee Schedule – North of Bell Road 
 
SOUTH PEORIA
Capital cost for the average length trip is derived from level-of-service components shown near 
the bottom of Figure 37.  The capital cost for the average length trip is the product of the 
average trip length multiplied by the trip length adjustment factor and the capital cost per vehicle 
mile of travel.  For example, the capital cost for planned capacity improvements for the average 
length trip from residential development is 4.53 miles, times 1.27 times $74.20, or $426.68 per 
trip.  This is repeated for commercial and other nonresidential land uses.
Costs for support vehicles, equipment, principal payment credit and the development fee study 
are added to the planned costs for capacity projects.  





Figure 37:  Transportation Development Fee LOS Standard Summary – South of Bell 
Road


Figure 38 contains a schedule of the transportation development fees south of Bell Road.  The 
fees are calculated by multiplying Average Weekday Trip Generation Rates by the corresponding 
trip adjustment factor and then multiplying by the total capital cost per trip.  Using single family 
detached units as an example, 9.57 x .64 x $414.13 = $2,536 per unit.
Figure 38:  Transportation Development Fee Schedule – South of Bell Road 












Police
METHODOLOGY
A buy-in approach has been has been used to determine costs standards for law enforcement 
buildings.  For vehicles and equipment, an incremental expansion approach is used.  The plan-
based methodology is used for communications equipment.  The fee methodology also includes 
a principal payment credit for future General Obligation debt service payments on existing police 
facilities.  These are same methodologies used in the previous development fee study.
As shown in Figure 39, the Police Development Fee uses different demand indicators for 
residential and nonresidential development.  Residential development fees are calculated on a per 
capita basis and then converted to an appropriate amount by type of housing based on 
household size.  To calculate nonresidential development fees, nonresidential vehicle trips are the 
best demand indicator for police facilities as they are the best measure of the presence of people 
at nonresidential land uses.  Trip generation rates are highest for commercial developments, such 
as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial/warehouse developments.  Office/institutional trip 
rates fall between the other two categories.  This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the 
relative demand for police protection from nonresidential development.  Other possible 
nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, do not accurately reflect the 
demand for police protection.  Also, Peoria police respond to all traffic accidents, which are 
directly proportionate to trip generation rates.  This is the same approach used in the City’s 
previous development fee study.




Figure 39: Police Development Fee Methodology 
 

PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS
Calls for service data provided by the Police Department are used to determine the relative 
demand for service from residential and nonresidential development.  As shown in Figure 40, 
the proportionate share factor for residential development is 61%, with nonresidential 
development accounting for 39% of the demand for police facilities, vehicles, and 
communications equipment.  Road related calls are omitted because they cannot be allocated to 
residential or nonresidential development in that a person could be on their way home, or to 
work, or passing through the City.  This should not be interpreted as implying that road-related 
calls for service have no impact on the Police Department.  
Figure 40:  Sampling of Calls for Service by Location Type


POLICE FACILITIES
Figure 41 shows the LOS standards for Police facilities.  With the recent completion of the 
Public Safety Building, City staff estimates that the current Police facilities are utilized at 85% 
capacity.  Thus a buy-in methodology is used to calculate the LOS based on the ultimate number 
of demand units served (163,000 persons and 123,000 nonresidential vehicle trips). 
To calculate the cost per demand unit, the total cost is first multiplied by the proportionate share 
factors for residential and nonresidential development.  Each share is then divided by the 
number of demand units that will be ultimately served by the facilities For residential 
development, the cost per person is calculated as follows: $17,439,200 x .61 = $10,632,724; 
$10,632,724/163,000 persons ultimately served = $65.17 per person.  This calculation is repeated 
to calculate the cost per nonresidential vehicle trip for nonresidential development.   






Figure 41:  Police & Court Facilities LOS Standards 


POLICE VEHICLES
Figure 42 lists the Police Department’s current fleet of 133 vehicles.  As new growth continues 
and requires additional police personnel, additional police vehicles will be needed.  The 
replacement cost of the fleet totals $4,415,400.  To calculate the cost per demand unit, the total 
cost is multiplied by the proportionate share factors for residential and nonresidential 
development, then divided by the corresponding demand units. For residential development, the 
cost per person is calculated as follows: $4,415,400 x .61 = $2,689,802; $2,689,802/138,732 
persons = $19.39 per person.  This calculation is repeated to calculate the cost per nonresidential 
vehicle trip for nonresidential development.   








Figure 42:  Police Vehicles LOS Standards
 

POLICE COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
The City’s CIP identifies the need for a new, consolidated, fully accessible and usable radio 
system for public safety and general government communications.  This project includes 
replacing all of the current radios, transmitters, microwaves, and other system support elements.  
This project is estimated to cost a total of $14,700,000 ($14,000,000 in the CIP and $700,000 
carry forward funds from previous fiscal years) and provide sufficient capacity for at least 10 
years.  The Police Department’s share of this project is 79.3% or $11,657,100.  To calculate the 
residential share of this project, this amount is multiplied by the residential proportionate share 
then divided by the projected population in 2016.  This results in a cost per person of $36.54 
(($11,657,100 x .61)/194,300 persons in 2016 = $36.54 per person).  This calculation is repeated 
for the nonresidential share using the same methodology and nonresidential information.  This 
results in a cost per nonresidential trip of $23.77.

Figure 43:  Planned Communications Equipment


The City’s CIP also identifies the need to upgrade the records management system and 
computer aided dispatch system.  This project is estimated to cost a total of $3,100,000 and is 
planned to be completed in FY2011.  To calculate the residential share of this project, this 
amount is multiplied by the residential proportionate share then divided by the projected 
population in FY2011.  This results in a cost per person of $10.61 (($3,100,000 x .61)/177,906 
persons in 2011 = $10.61 per person).  This calculation is repeated for the nonresidential share 
using the same methodology and nonresidential information.  This results in a cost per 
nonresidential trip of $8.38.
Figure 44:  Planned Records Management System/Computer Aided Dispatch Upgrade


FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT
Peoria is making payments on General Obligation (GO) bonds that financed its Police facilities.  
To avoid potential double payment, a principal payment credit is shown in Figure 45.  Because 
General Obligation interest costs have not been added to the development fees, a credit is not 
necessary for future interest payments.  Due to the time value of future payments, a net present 
value adjustment is used in the calculation of the credit.  The credit is calculated to be $.73 per 
capita and $.53 per nonresidential vehicle trip on a net present value basis.
Figure 45:  Principal Payment Credit

DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The cost of preparing the Police Development Fee is also included in the fee calculations.  The 
City updates its development fees every two years to ensure the methodologies, assumptions, 
and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and accurate.  As we do with many of our 
Arizona development fee clients, TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing the current 
Police Development Fee in the fee calculations in order to create a source of funding to conduct 
this regular update.  This cost ($9,500) is allocated to the projected increase in population and 
nonresidential vehicles trips over the next two years.  This results in a consultant fee cost per 
demand unit of $.16 per person and trip ($9,500/58,696 people and trips). 

POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEE
Figure 46 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate development 
fees for police.  Police Development Fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential 
land uses. Developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they 
provide system improvements that have been included in the Police Development Fee 
calculation schedule. Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for system 
improvements are addressed in the ordinance that establishes the City’s fees.  Project 
improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not eligible for 
credits against development fees.  
As shown in the bottom of Figure 46, the capital costs per demand unit are $131.14 per person 
and $103.66 per trip.    


















Figure 46:  Police Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary 


Figure 47 contains a schedule of the development fees for police.  For residential land uses, 
persons per household (2.99 for a single family detached unit) are multiplied by the capital cost 
per person ($131.14), for an development fee per unit of $392.  For nonresidential land uses, 
such as a commercial shopping center less than 25,000 square feet, the number of trips per 1,000 
square feet (110.32) is multiplied by the corresponding trip adjustment factor (22% or .22) and 
then multiplied by the capital cost per nonresidential vehicle trip ($103.66), for a fee of $2,515 
per 1,000 square feet.
Figure 47:  Police Development Fee Schedule










Fire and Emergency Medical Services
METHODOLOGY
The incremental expansion methodology is used for calculating the level-of-service standards for 
land for fire stations, fire facilities, and vehicles and apparatus.  The plan-based methodology is 
used for communications equipment.   A principal payment credit has been calculated to avoid 
double payment for fire/EMS facilities that were financed with General Obligation (G.O.) debt.
Capital costs are applied per person to residential development and per employee to 
nonresidential development because the vast majority of calls are EMS-related and are a function 
of people.  This is the same methodology used in the City’s previous development fee study.  

Figure 48: Fire and EMS Development Fee Methodology 
 

LAND FOR FIRE FACILITIES
As the City grows, additional land for fire facilities will be needed.  Figure 49 lists the City’s 
current inventory of 14.5 acres of land for fire facilities.  The City Fire Department estimates that 
comparable land for fire stations costs $180,000 an acre.  This results in a total replacement cost 
of $2,610,000.  For the residential component, this figure is multiplied by the residential share of 
78% and then divided by the current population estimate of 138,732 persons which yields a cost 
per person of $14.61 ((($2,610,000 x .78)/138,732 persons) = $14.61 per person).  This 
calculation is repeated for the nonresidential component using the current estimate of jobs which 
yields a cost per job of $14.61 ((($2,610,000 x .22)/39,833 persons) = $14.61 per person).
Figure 49:  Fire Facilities Land LOS Standards 

 
LAND FOR FIRE FACILITIES
The City will also need additional fire facilities to serve new growth.  Figure 50 lists the City’s 
current inventory 74,910 square feet which has a total replacement cost of $21,417,990.  of The 
same methodology used determining the residential and nonresidential shares of fire facilities is 
used for land for fire facilities.   This results in a cost per person and employee of $119.94.



Figure 50:  Land for Fire Facilities LOS Standards

FIRE APPARATUS & EQUIPMENT
Figure 51 lists the Fire Department’s inventory of apparatus and equipment.  The 52 pieces of 
apparatus and equipment have a total replacement value of $7,639,500.  The resulting levels of 
service are $42.78 per person and job.







Figure 51:  Fire Apparatus & Equipment LOS Standards


FIRE/EMS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
The City’s CIP identifies the need for a new, consolidated, fully accessible and usable radio 
system for public safety and general government communications.  This project includes 
replacing all of the current radios, transmitters, microwaves, and other system support elements.  
This project is estimated to cost a total of $14,700,000 ($14,000,000 in the CIP and $700,000 
carry forward funds from previous fiscal years) and provide sufficient capacity for at least 10 
years.  The Fire Department’s share of this project is 17.9% or $2,631,300.  To calculate the 
residential share of this project, this amount is multiplied by the residential proportionate share 
then divided by the projected population in 2016.  This results in a cost per person of $9.98 
(($2,631,300 x .70)/194,300 persons in 2016 = $9.98 per person).  This calculation is repeated 
for the nonresidential share using the same methodology and nonresidential information.  This 
results in a cost per employee of $9.98.

Figure 52:  Planned Communications Equipment


FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT
Peoria is making payments on General Obligation (GO) bonds that financed Fire facilities.  To 
avoid potential double payment, a principal payment credit is shown in Figure 53.  Because 
General Obligation interest costs have not been added to the development fees, a credit is not 
necessary for future interest payments.  Due to the time value of future payments, a net present 
value adjustment is used in the calculation of the credit.  The credit is calculated to be $14.40 per 
capita and per job on a net present value basis.










Figure 53:  Principal Payment Credit


DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The City updates its development fees every two years to ensure the methodologies, 
assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and accurate.  As we do with 
many of our Arizona development fee clients, TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing the 
current Fire/EMS Development Fee in the fee calculations in order to create a source of 
funding to conduct this regular update.  The cost of preparing the Fire/EMS Development Fee 
is also included in the fee calculations.  This cost ($9,800) is allocated to the projected increase in 
population and jobs over the next two years.  This results in a consultant fee cost per demand 
unit of $.51 per person and job ($9,800/19,100 people and jobs). 

FIRE/EMS DEVELOPMENT FEE
Figure 54 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate development 
fees for fire and emergency medical services.  Fire/EMS Development Fees are calculated for 
both residential and nonresidential land uses.  Developers may be eligible for site-specific credits 
or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the 
Fire/EMS Development Fee calculation schedule. Specific policies and procedures related to 
site-specific credits for system improvements are addressed in the ordinance that establishes the 
City’s fees.  Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval 
process are not eligible for credits against development fees.  
As shown in the bottom of Figure 54, the capital costs per demand unit are $173.42 per person 
and per job.    
Figure 54:  Fire/EMS Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary 


Figure 55 contains a schedule of the development fees for fire and emergency medical services.  
For residential land uses, persons per household (2.99 for a single family detached unit) are 
multiplied by the capital cost per person ($173.42), for a development fee per unit of $518.  For 
nonresidential land uses, such as a commercial shopping center less than 25,000 square feet, the 
number of employees per 1,000 square feet (3.33) is multiplied by the capital cost per employee 
($173.42), for a fee of $577 per 1,000 square feet.
Figure 55:  Fire/EMS Development Fee Schedule




 General Government
METHODOLOGY
The General Government Development Fee uses the incremental expansion methodology for 
buildings and vehicles.  A plan-based approach is used for communications equipment.  A 
principal payment credit is also calculated to avoid double payment for General Government 
facilities that were financed with General Obligation (G.O.) debt.  These are the same 
methodologies used in the City’s previous development fee study.  As shown in Figure 56, this 
development fee is allocated on a per capita basis for residential development.  For 
nonresidential development, the fee methodology allocates the capital cost on a per employee 
basis.
.  
















Figure 56: General Government Development Fee Methodology

 

GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
As the City grows it will need to expand the office space for general government.  Figure 57 lists 
the City’s inventory of General Government buildings.  The square footage for the City Hall 
Annex and Maintenance Operations Center were reduced to account for space for allocated to 
enterprise operations.  These buildings encompass 144,910 square feet and have a total 
replacement value of $29,614,100.  This figure is divided by the current estimates for population 
and jobs.  The residential and nonresidential proportionate shares represent the contribution of 
each to the total number of population and jobs (138,732 persons/178,565 persons and jobs = 
.78 or 78%; 39,833 jobs/178,565 persons and jobs = .22 or 22%).  This results in a cost per 
person and job of $165.84.
Figure 57: General Government Buildings LOS Standards


GENERAL GOVERNMENT VEHICLES
Figure 58 lists the City’s current inventory of General Government vehicles and equipment.  The 
City’s Fleet Management database lists 72 pieces with a total replacement value of $1,451,798.  
This results in a cost per person and job of $8.13.






Figure 58:  General Government Vehicles LOS Standards


GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
The City’s CIP identifies the need for a new, consolidated, fully accessible and usable radio 
system for public safety and general government communications.  This project includes 
replacing all of the current radios, transmitters, microwaves, and other system support elements.  
This project is estimated to cost a total of $14,700,000 ($14,000,000 in the CIP and $700,000 
carry forward funds from previous fiscal years) and provide sufficient capacity for at least 10 
years.  The General Government share of this project is 2.8% or $411,600.  To calculate the 
residential share of this project, this amount is multiplied by the residential proportionate share 
then divided by the projected population in 2026.  This results in a cost per person of $1.56 
(($411,600 x .70)/194,300 persons in 2016 = $1.56 per person).  This calculation is repeated for 
the nonresidential share using the same methodology and nonresidential information.  This 
results in a cost per employee of $1.56.
Figure 59:  Planned Communications Equipment



FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT CREDIT
Peoria is making payments on General Obligation (GO) bonds that financed General 
Government facilities.  To avoid potential double payment, a principal payment credit is shown 
in Figure 60.  Because General Obligation interest costs have not been added to the 
development fees, a credit is not necessary for future interest payments.  Due to the time value 
of future payments, a net present value adjustment is used in the calculation of the credit.  The 
credit is calculated to be $.95 per capita and job on a net present value basis.





Figure 60:  Principal Payment Credit


DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
The City updates its development fees every two years to ensure the methodologies, 
assumptions, and cost factors used in the calculations are still valid and accurate.  As we do with 
many of our Arizona development fee clients, TischlerBise has included the cost of preparing the 
current General Government Development Fee in the fee calculations in order to create a 
source of funding to conduct this regular update.  The cost of preparing the General 
Government Development Fee is also included in the fee calculations.  This cost ($11,900) is 
allocated to the projected increase in population and jobs over the next two years.  This results in 
a consultant fee cost per demand unit of $.62 per person and job ($11,900/19,100 people and 
jobs). 

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FEE
Figure 61 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate development 
fees for general government.  General Government Development Fees are calculated for both 
residential and nonresidential land uses.  Developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or 
reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the 
General Government Development Fee calculation schedule. Specific policies and procedures 
related to site-specific credits for system improvements are addressed in the ordinance that 
establishes the City’s fees.  Project improvements normally required as part of the development 
approval process are not eligible for credits against development fees.  
As shown in the bottom of Figure 61, the capital costs per demand unit are $175.20 per person 
and job.  
Figure 61:  General Government Development Fee Level of Service Standard Summary 

 
Figure 62 contains a schedule of the development fees for general government.  For residential 
land uses, persons per household (2.99 for a single family detached unit) are multiplied by the 
capital cost per person ($175.20), for an development fee per unit of $523.  For nonresidential 
land uses, such as a commercial shopping center less than 25,000 square feet, the number of 
employees per 1,000 square feet (3.33) is multiplied by the capital cost per employee ($175.20), 
for a fee of $583 per 1,000 square feet.
Figure 62:  General Government Development Fee Schedule


 







Implementation and Administration
As specified in the Development Fees Act, there are certain accounting requirements that must 
be met by the City.  Monies received shall be placed in a separate fund and accounted for 
separately and may only be used for the purposes authorized by ARS 9-463.05.  Interest earned 
on monies in the separate fund shall be credited to the fund.  
The City will prepare an annual report that will keep government and private sector leaders 
informed of the performance of development fees.  The report will contain basic information 
such as the revenue generated by each type of public facility.  At the time of the annual report, 
suggested improvements can be acted upon and necessary updates incorporated in the adopted 
ordinance.
All costs in the development fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed 
inflation rate over time.  Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended 
annual evaluation and update of development fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in 
construction costs by means of an index like the one published by Engineering News Record 
(ENR).  This index could be applied against the calculated development fee.  If cost estimates 
change significantly the City should redo the fee calculations.
Residential development categories are based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census Summary File 3 
for Peoria.  Specifically:
	Single Family Detached – units in structure: 1-detached, owner and renter occupied.
Single Family Attached – units in structure: 1-attached, 2, 3 or 4, owner and renter 
occupied.
	Multi-Family – units in structure: 5+ units, owner and renter occupied.
	Mobile Homes – units in structure: mobile homes, owner and renter occupied.
	All Other – units in structure:  all other, owner and renter occupied.
Nonresidential development categories are based on land use classifications from the book Trip 
Generation (ITE, 2003).  A summary description of each development category is provided 
below.
Shopping Center (820) – A shopping center is an integrated group of 
commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned and managed as a 
unit.  A shopping center provides on-site parking facilities sufficient to serve its 
own parking demands.  Shopping centers may contain non-merchandizing 
facilities, such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, 
health clubs and recreational facilities.  In addition to the integrated unit of shops 
in one building or enclosed around a mall, many shopping centers include out-
parcels.  For smaller centers without an enclosed mall or peripheral buildings, the 
Gross Leasable Area (GLA) may be the same as the Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 
the building.
General Office (710) – A general office building houses multiple tenants 
including, but not limited to, professional services, insurance companies, 
investment brokers and tenant services such as banking, restaurants and service 
retail facilities.  In the development fees study, this category is used as a proxy for 
institutional uses that may have more specific land use codes.
Business Park (770) – Business parks consist of a group of flex-type buildings 
served by a common roadway system.  The tenant space lends itself to a variety of 
uses, with the rear side of the building usually served by a garage door.  The 
tenant space includes a variety of uses with an average mix of 20 to 30 percent 
office/commercial and 70 to 80 percent industrial/warehousing.
Light Industrial (110) – Light industrial facilities usually employ fewer than 500 
persons and have an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing.  Typical 
light industrial activities include, but are not limited to printing plants, material-
testing laboratories and assembling of data processing equipment.
Warehousing (150) – Warehouses are primarily devoted to the storage of 
materials.
Manufacturing (140) – In manufacturing facilities, the primary activity is the conversion 
of raw materials or parts into finished products.  
For development types not shown above, Peoria staff may use the most appropriate rates from 
the ITE manual, or rates from approved local transportation studies or observed data.
In addition to the actual production of goods, manufacturing facilities may have office, 
warehouse, research and associated functions, inflation in construction costs by means of an 
index like the one published by Engineering News Record (ENR).  This index could be applied 
against the calculated development fee.  If cost estimates change significantly the City should 
redo the fee calculations.

COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES
The reasonableness of development fees is determined in part by their reasonable relationship to 
the municipal burden to provide necessary public facilities.  The need to show a demonstrable 
benefit usually leads communities to set up collection and expenditure zones for public facilities 
that have distinct geographic service areas.  These zones will be used to document that 
developments paying fees are benefiting from the provision of additional capital improvements.
The development pattern and geographic characteristics of Peoria justify the establishment of 
two collection and expenditure zones for transportation.  The recommended dividing line 
between the north and south zone is Bell Road.  This is a Road of Regional Significance, which 
was completed by Maricopa County.  At Bell Road, the City of Peoria narrows to a width of only 
1.25 miles and this is a boundary line used by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 
for providing demographic data.  South of Bell Road the City has developed in the traditional 
manner of most western cities with arterial streets located on a one-mile grid.  Most of the land 
area north of Bell Road is undeveloped with dirt roads or two-lane, substandard roads.  The 
northern part of Peoria also has more rolling terrain that will lower residential densities and affect 
the spacing of arterial roads.




 Appendix A:  Demographic and Development Memo
As specified in Task 1 of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on current 
demographic estimates and development projections that will be used in the development fee study. 
 The demographic data estimates are for July 1, 2005 (the beginning of Fiscal Year 2006) and are 
used in calculating current levels-of-service (LOS).  The development projections are used for 
the purposes of measuring future capacities of planned capital projects as well as having an 
understanding of the future pace of service demands and cash flows resulting from revenues and 
expenditures associated with those service demands.  Our recommended approach is to forecast 
housing units and employment (by place of work) and then derive all other demand factors from 
these key demand indicators.  
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD
A differentiation by type of housing is necessary to make residential development fees 
proportionate and reasonably related to the demand for public facilities.  Household size is an 
important demographic factor that helps account for variations in service demand by type of 
housing.   Summary File 3 from the 2000 U.S. Census is the best source for this data which is 
shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Household Size in Peoria


HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATE AND PROJECTIONS
The total number of housing units on July 1, 2005 is estimated to be 52,364.  This estimate is 
derived by starting with the number of housing units in the City at the time of the 2000 U.S. 
Census and adding the number of residential building permits issued since then.  



Figure 2:  Estimated Housing Units July 1, 2005


Figure 3 lists the amount and type of known residential development that is projected to occur 
in Peoria in the next ten years.
Figure 3:  Known Future Residential Development 

As shown at the far right of Figure 3, the housing distribution in the City will be 81.9% single 
family units and 18.1% multi-family on an average annual basis over the next ten years.  To 
project the number and type of housing units beyond the time horizon in Figure 3, these 
percentages were applied the estimated number of new housing units projected by the Maricopa 
Association of Governments (MAG) and listed in the City’s Growth Trend Manual.  The results are 
shown in Figure 4 below.


Figure 4:  Housing Unit Projections

POPULATION ESTIMATE AND PROJECTIONS
Based on information from the City’s Growth Trends Manual, the July 1, 2005 population estimate 
is 138,732 persons.  The City’s population projections are shown in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5:  July 1, 2005 Population Estimate and Population Projections


JOB AND NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOT ESTIMATES AND 
PROJECTIONS
The City’s Growth Trend Manual cites job information from MAG which will be used in the 
development fee study.  The estimate for the current number of jobs in the City is 39,833.




Figure 6. Job Estimates and Projections

To convert employment projections to gross floor area of nonresidential development, average 
square feet per employee multipliers are used.  The multipliers shown in Figure 7 are derived 
from national data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban 
Land Institute (ULI).  

The square feet per employee multipliers shown in the last column on the right of Figure 7 are 
used to convert employment projections in Figure 6 into thousands of square feet (KSF) of 
nonresidential floor area.  For example, in Peoria new office development is typically located in a 
building of approximately 25,000 square feet.  This size office building has an average of 241 
square feet per employee.  For retail jobs, a prototype development in Peoria is a building or 
shopping center of approximately 50,000 square feet.  A commercial development of this size 
will have approximately 350 square feet per employee.  For goods production jobs, the light 
industrial category of 433 is used.  
















Figure 7:  Floor Area Per Employee and Nonresidential Trip Rates

The current estimate of nonresidential square footage in Peoria is 9,600,000 square feet.   This is 
shown in Figure 8 along with the projected number of nonresidential square feet 




Figure 8. Nonresidential Square Footage Estimates and Projections

AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIP ESTIMATES
Figure 9 below provide a summary of the residential and nonresidential vehicle trip calculations 
used in this analysis.  
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends are from the reference book, Trip Generation, published 
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), in 2003.  A “trip end” represents a vehicle 
either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway).  
Trip rates have been adjusted to avoid over estimating the number of actual trips because one 
vehicle trip is counted in the trip rates of both the origination and destination points.  A simple 
factor of 50% has been applied to the Residential, Office and Industrial Flex categories.  The 
Retail category has a trip factor of less than 50% because this type of development attracts 
vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads.  For example, when someone stops at a 
convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience store is not their primary 
destination.  The ITE Manual indicates that on average 48% of the vehicles entering shopping 
centers are passing by on the way to some other primary destination and 52% of the attraction 
trips have the shopping center as their primary destination.  Therefore, the adjusted trip factor is 
26% (0.52 x 0.50).
There are an average of 333,218 vehicle trips generated by existing development in Peoria on an 
average weekday.  As the table below indicates, residential development generates 228,471 
vehicle trips compared to 104,747 vehicle trips generated by nonresidential development.








Figure 9:  Average Daily Trips





SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS FY2006-FY2016
Annual demographic and development projections for the development fee study are 
summarized in Figure 10 below.  The FY2006 (July 1, 2005) demographic estimates will be 
used to derive current levels-of-service (LOS).  The development projections are used for the 
purposes of measuring future capacities of planned capital projects as well as having an 
understanding of the future pace of service demands and cash flows resulting from revenues 
and expenditures associated with those service demands.
Peoria is projected to add approximately 2,676 housing units and 5,557 persons per year over 
the next ten years.  From FY2006 to FY2016, an average annual increase in employment of 
2,952 jobs and approximately 710,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area is projected.    
However, actual nonresidential construction is often built in irregular intervals compared to 
residential development, with minor construction followed by large-scale projects.

















Figure 10: Development Projections FY2006-FY2016

	




Appendix B:  Peoria Fleet Database
GENERAL GOVERNMENT










PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE


















TRANSPORTATION




















Appendix C:  Planned Transportation Capacity Projects North of Bell Road	
 
























Appendix D:  Planned Transportation Capacity Projects South of Bell Road





 
 

 
 
PEORIA, ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEES

   
ii
   
PEORIA, ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY 

   
v
   
98