Extracted text (via pymupdf)
208283 characters
DRAFT
Land Use Assumptions,
Infrastructure Improvements Plan,
and Development Fee Report
Prepared for:
El Mirage, Arizona
November 7, 2025
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, MD 20816
301.320.6900
www.TischlerBise.com
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1
ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION ......................................................................... 1
Necessary Public Services ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Infrastructure Improvements Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Qualified Professionals ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Conceptual Development Fee Calculation .......................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation of Credits/Offsets ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Exemptions/Waivers ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION TO DEVELOPMENT FEES ............................................................................................... 3
REQUIRED FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 4
DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 6
DEVELOPMENT FEE COMPONENTS ......................................................................................................... 7
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES .............................................................................................................. 7
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES ............................................................................................................ 7
Non-Utility ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Utility .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 9
SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS ..................................................................................................... 9
SERVICE AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 10
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................. 10
Recent Residential Construction ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Occupancy Factors ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Occupancy by Bedroom Range ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Occupancy by Housing Size ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Residential Estimates ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
Residential Projections ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 18
Nonresidential Demand Factors .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Nonresidential Estimates ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
Nonresidential Projections .................................................................................................................................................... 20
AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIPS .................................................................................................. 21
Residential Trip Generation Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Nonresidential Trip Generation Rates .............................................................................................................................. 25
Residential Trip Generation Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Trip Rate Adjustments ............................................................................................................................................................. 26
Commuter Trip Adjustment .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Adjustment for Pass-By Trips ............................................................................................................................................... 27
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips .......................................................................................................................................... 27
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS .............................................................................................................. 28
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips .......................................................................................................................................... 29
FIRE FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 30
PROPORTIONATE SHARE ..................................................................................................................... 30
SERVICE UNITS .................................................................................................................................... 31
SERVICE AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 31
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................... 32
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .................................... 33
Fire Facilities – Plan Based .................................................................................................................................................... 33
Fire Apparatus – Incremental Expansion ........................................................................................................................ 35
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
ii
Development Fee Report – Plan Based ............................................................................................................................. 36
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ................................................................................ 36
Fire Facilities – Plan Based .................................................................................................................................................... 37
Fire Apparatus – Incremental Expansion ........................................................................................................................ 38
FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................................ 39
Bond Credit/Offset .................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Fire Facilities Development Fees ........................................................................................................................................ 40
FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE .................................................................................. 42
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IIP ........................................................................................... 43
PROPORTIONATE SHARE ..................................................................................................................... 43
SERVICE UNITS .................................................................................................................................... 44
SERVICE AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 44
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................... 44
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .................................... 45
Park Amenities – Incremental Expansion ....................................................................................................................... 45
Recreation Facilities – Plan Based ...................................................................................................................................... 47
Development Fee Report – Plan Based ............................................................................................................................. 48
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ................................................................................ 49
Park Amenities – Incremental Expansion ....................................................................................................................... 49
Recreation Facilities – Plan Based ...................................................................................................................................... 50
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ............................................................... 51
Parks Bond Credit/Offset ....................................................................................................................................................... 51
Recreation Bond Credit/Offset ............................................................................................................................................. 52
Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees ................................................................................................ 53
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE ............................................. 55
POLICE FACILITIES IIP ............................................................................................................................. 56
PROPORTIONATE SHARE ..................................................................................................................... 56
SERVICE UNITS .................................................................................................................................... 57
SERVICE AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 57
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................... 58
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .................................... 59
Police Facilities – Incremental Expansion ....................................................................................................................... 59
Police Vehicles – Incremental Expansion ........................................................................................................................ 61
Development Fee Report – Plan Based ............................................................................................................................. 63
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ................................................................................ 63
Police Facilities – Incremental Expansion ....................................................................................................................... 64
Police Vehicles – Incremental Expansion ........................................................................................................................ 65
POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ............................................................................................ 66
Police Bond Credit/Offset ....................................................................................................................................................... 66
Police Facilities Development Fees .................................................................................................................................... 67
POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE .............................................................................. 69
STREET FACILITIES IIP ............................................................................................................................ 70
PROPORTIONATE SHARE ..................................................................................................................... 70
SERVICE AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 70
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................... 70
Residential Trip Generation Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 71
Residential Trip Generation Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 75
Nonresidential Trip Generation Rates .............................................................................................................................. 75
Trip Rate Adjustments ............................................................................................................................................................. 76
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
iii
Commuter Trip Adjustment .................................................................................................................................................. 76
Adjustment for Pass-By Trips ............................................................................................................................................... 77
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips .......................................................................................................................................... 77
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .................................... 78
Arterial Improvements – Cost Recovery .......................................................................................................................... 78
Development Fee Report – Plan Based ............................................................................................................................. 79
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ................................................................................ 79
STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ........................................................................................... 81
Streets Bond Credit/Offset ..................................................................................................................................................... 81
Street Facilities Development Fees .................................................................................................................................... 81
STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE ............................................................................. 83
WASTEWATER FACILITIES IIP ................................................................................................................ 84
PROPORTIONATE SHARE ..................................................................................................................... 84
SERVICE AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 84
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .......................................................................... 84
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .................................... 85
Existing Flow ................................................................................................................................................................................ 85
Equalization Basin – Plan Based .......................................................................................................................................... 85
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based ............................................................................................................................ 86
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ................................................................................ 87
Projected Flow ............................................................................................................................................................................. 87
WASTEWATER FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................ 89
Wastewater Facilities Development Fees ....................................................................................................................... 89
WASTEWATER FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE ................................................................. 90
APPENDIX A: FORECAST OF REVENUES OTHER THAN FEES ................................................................... 91
REVENUE PROJECTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX B: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES .................................................................................................. 92
APPENDIX C: LAND USE DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................... 93
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................. 93
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 94
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
iv
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of El Mirage, Arizona, contracted with TischlerBise to document land use assumptions, prepare
the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “IIP”), and update development fees
pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-463.05 (hereafter referred to as the “Enabling
Legislation”). Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a
municipality for necessary public services. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure
Improvements Plan and Land Use Assumptions. The IIP for each type of infrastructure is in the middle
section of this document. The proposed development fees are displayed in the Development Fee Report
in the next section.
Development fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to
accommodate new development. The fee represents future development’s proportionate share of
infrastructure costs. Development fees may be used for infrastructure improvements or debt service for
growth related infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, development fees may not be used for
operations, maintenance, replacement, or correcting existing deficiencies. This update of El Mirage’s
Infrastructure Improvements Plan and associated update to its development fees includes the following
necessary public services:
1. Fire Facilities
2. Parks and Recreational Facilities
3. Police Facilities
4. Street Facilities
5. Wastewater Facilities
This plan includes all necessary elements required to be in full compliance with the Enabling Legislation.
ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION
The Enabling Legislation governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Arizona.
Necessary Public Services
Under the requirements of the Enabling Legislation, development fees may only be used for construction,
acquisition or expansion of public facilities that are necessary public services. “Necessary public service”
means any of the following categories of facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and
that are owned and operated on behalf of the municipality: water, wastewater, storm water, library,
street, fire, police, and parks and recreation. Additionally, a necessary public service includes any facility
that was financed before June 1, 2011, and that meets the following requirements:
1. Development fees were pledged to repay debt service obligations related to the construction of
the facility.
2. After August 1, 2014, any development fees collected are used solely for the payment of
principal and interest on the portion of the bonds, notes, or other debt service obligations
issued before June 1, 2011, to finance construction of the facility.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
2
Infrastructure Improvements Plan
Development fees must be calculated pursuant to an IIP. For each necessary public service that is the
subject of a development fee, by law, the IIP shall include the following seven elements:
1. A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to update,
improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and
usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.
2. An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity
of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals
licensed in this state, as applicable.
3. A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their
costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved
Land Use Assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real
property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.
4. A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial.
5. The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.
6. The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.
7. A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall
include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem
property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion
of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and a
plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the
development.
Qualified Professionals
The IIP must be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning
practices. A qualified professional is defined as “a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst or
planner providing services within the scope of the person’s license, education, or experience.” TischlerBise
is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in the cost of growth services. Our services
include development fees, fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure financing analyses, user fee/cost of service
studies, capital improvement plans, and fiscal software. TischlerBise has prepared over 800 development
fee studies over the past 30 years for local governments across the United States.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
3
Conceptual Development Fee Calculation
In contrast to project-level improvements, development fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will
benefit multiple development projects, or the entire service area (usually referred to as system
improvements). The first step is to determine an appropriate demand indicator for the particular type of
infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of service units for each unit of development.
For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population growth and the increase in
population can be estimated from the average number of persons per housing unit. The second step in
the development fee formula is to determine infrastructure improvement units per service unit, typically
called level-of-service (LOS) standards. In keeping with the park example, a common LOS standard is
improved park acres per thousand people. The third step in the development fee formula is the cost of
various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the formula would establish a cost
per acre for land acquisition and/ or park amenities.
Evaluation of Credits/Offsets
Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of credits/offsets is integral to the development of a
legally defensible development fee. There are two types of credits/offsets that should be addressed in
development fee studies and ordinances. The first is a revenue credit/offset due to possible double
payment situations, which could occur when other revenues may contribute to the capital costs of
infrastructure covered by the development fee. This type of credit/offset is integrated into the fee
calculation, thus reducing the fee amount. The second is a site-specific credit or developer reimbursement
for dedication of land or construction of system improvements. This type of credit is addressed in the
administration and implementation of the development fee program. For ease of administration,
TischlerBise normally recommends developer reimbursements for system improvements.
Exemptions/Waivers
In the event the City opts to incentivize development in certain locations or for certain development types
(e.g., schools, religious institutions, etc.), the City would have the option to waive development fees in
those zones or for those types of development only if each specific Impact Fee Fund is made whole by
from other funding sources (e.g., General Fund). By way of example, were the City to allow a religious
institution to be built without paying development impact fees, the City would have to reimburse each
specific Impact Fee Fund in the amount that would have been charged to said religious institution from
the General Fund or some other City funding mechanism.
INTRODUCTION TO DEVELOPMENT FEES
Development fees are one-time payments used to fund capital improvements necessitated by future
development. Development fees have been utilized by local governments in various forms for at least fifty
years. Development fees do have limitations and should not be regarded as the total solution for
infrastructure financing needs. Rather, they should be considered one component of a comprehensive
portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities with the goal of maintaining current levels of
service in a community. Any community considering facility fees should note the following limitations:
1) Fees can only be used to finance capital infrastructure and cannot be used to finance ongoing
operations and / or maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
4
2) Fees cannot be deposited in the General Fund. The funds must be accounted for separately in
individual accounts and earmarked for the capital expenses for which they were collected.
3) Fees cannot be used to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies unless there is a funding plan in
place to correct the deficiency for all current residents and businesses in the community.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development fees that are closely related to
“rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of state courts.
Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard by which courts
evaluate the validity of development fees under the U. S. Constitution, we prefer a more rigorous
formulation that recognizes three elements: “impact or need,” “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual
rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied,
and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. The reasonable relationship
language of the statute is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts.
Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Impact. All future development in a community creates additional demands on some,
or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy
that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will
deteriorate. Development fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only
to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The
Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate
conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to
development fees. In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms
of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities,
based on applicable level-of-service standards.
Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that development fee revenues be
segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Fees
must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development
paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the State enabling Act authorizing
development fees requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to
development paying the fees. In other words, existing development may benefit from these
improvements as well.
Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by the State
Enabling Legislation, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or refunded.
All requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the fees they are required to
pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues.
Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of
development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the relevance of
that decision to development fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to establish a proper
nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility
costs, and in the methods used to calculate development fees for various types of facilities and categories
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
5
of development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of
development.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
6
DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT
Development fees for the necessary public services made necessary by new development must be based
on the same level of service (LOS) provided to existing development in the service area. There are three
basic methodologies used to calculate development fees. They examine the past, present, and future
status of infrastructure. The objective of evaluating these different methodologies is to determine the
best measure of the demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. Each
methodology has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation and can be used simultaneously
for different cost components.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development fees involves two main steps: (1)
determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs
equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of development fees can
become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between
development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following paragraphs
discuss basic methodologies for calculating development fees and how those methodologies can be
applied.
•
Cost Recovery (past improvements) - The rationale for recoupment, often called cost recovery, is
that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities
already built, or land already purchased, from which new growth will benefit. This methodology
is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate capacity before new development
can take place.
•
Incremental Expansion (concurrent improvements) - The incremental expansion methodology
documents current LOS standards for each type of public facility, using both quantitative and
qualitative measures. This approach assumes there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or
surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for
growth-related infrastructure. Revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as
needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best
suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments to keep pace with
development.
•
Plan-Based (future improvements) - The plan-based methodology allocates costs for a specified
set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified
in a long-range facility plan and development potential is identified by a land use plan. There are
two basic options for determining the cost per demand unit: (1) total cost of a public facility can
be divided by total demand units (average cost), or (2) the growth-share of the public facility cost
can be divided by the net increase in demand units over the planning timeframe (marginal cost).
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
7
DEVELOPMENT FEE COMPONENTS
Shown below, Figure 1 summarizes service areas, methodologies, and infrastructure cost components for
the proposed fees.
Figure 1: Proposed Development Fee Service Areas, Methodologies, and Cost Components
Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted using Excel software. Most results
are discussed in the report using two, three, and four decimal places, which represent rounded figures.
However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore, the sums and
products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the
calculation with the factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES
The City of El Mirage does not currently assess development impact fees on new developments.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES
The proposed fees represent the maximum allowable fees based on the analysis outlined in this report. El
Mirage may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown; however, a reduction in development fee
revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital improvements,
and/or a decrease in level-of-service standards. All costs in the Development Fee Report represent current
dollars with no assumed inflation over time. If costs change significantly over time, development fees
should be recalculated.
!"#"$$%FG(
)*+,-#(."FI-#"
."FI-#"(
0F"%
12$3(
4"#2I"FG
56#F"7"63%,
89J%6$-26
),%6;<%$"=
12$3(
0,,2#%3-26
>-F"
>%#-,-3-"$
1-3G?-="
!@0
>-F"(0JJ%F%3*$
>-F"(>%#-,-3-"$A(
B"I",2J7"63(
>""(4"J2F3
)2J*,%3-26A(
C"D-#,"(NF-J$
)%FF$(%6=(
4"#F"%3-26%,(
>%#-,-3-"$
1-3G?-="
!@0
)%FF(07"6-3-"$
1277*6-3G(
1"63"F$A(
B"I",2J7"63(
>""(4"J2F3
)2J*,%3-26A(
G2+$
)2,-#"(
>%#-,-3-"$
1-3G?-="
!@0
)2,-#"(>%#-,-3-"$A(
)2,-#"(C"D-#,"$
B"I",2J7"63(
>""(4"J2F3
)2J*,%3-26A(
C"D-#,"(NF-J$
NF%6$J2F3%3-26(
>%#-,-3-"$
1-3G?-="
.3F""3(
57JF2I"7"63$
!@0
B"I",2J7"63(
>""(4"J2F3
)2J*,%3-26A(
C"D-#,"(NF-J$
H%$3"?%3"F(
>%#-,-3-"$
1-3G?-="
!@0
!@0
H%$3"?%3"F(
NF"%37"63A(
B"I",2J7"63(
>""(4"J2F3
I%,,26$
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
8
Non-Utility
Proposed non-utility development fees will be assessed per development unit. For residential
development, the development unit is a housing unit, based on housing unit type and size. For
nonresidential development, the development unit is a thousand square feet of floor area.
Figure 2: Proposed Development Fees
Utility
Proposed utility development fees will be assessed per meter size. For both residential and nonresidential
development, the development unit is a meter by size.
Figure 3: Proposed Development Fees
!"#$%F'()*"%+
H-.I0'12'%F33
4153"#$'6#"7
8H-90I
8:::
8H-H;9
8<90
!"#$%&
H-.=>'71'H-000
4153"#$'6#"7
8.-;HI
8H-H>=
8.-9;<
8H-I0.
!'#'$%
.->>>'71'.-I00
4153"#$'6#"7
89-I0>
8H-9H9
8.-0:H
8H-;=H
!$#()*
.-=>>'71'.-000
4153"#$'6#"7
8I->IH
8H-I;9
89-I.;
8.-HI9
!))#+$*
9->>>'12'*12F
4153"#$'6#"7
8I-=>>
8H-:.<
89-;H;
8.-9;:
!)&#"")
?5%7"@()*"%+
<I0'12'%F33
4153"#$'6#"7
8.-9I:
8<.:
8H-00>
8H-.II
!(#"+(
<=>'71'000
4153"#$'6#"7
8.-0;H
80H<
8.-=.0
8H-=;H
!%#++%
H->>>'71'H-.I0
4153"#$'6#"7
89-I:=
8H->:I
8.-090
8H-;9<
!$#"+*
H-.=>'12'*12F
4153"#$'6#"7
89-;::
8H-H;I
89-.<0
8.->=>
!)+#"'$
A#B5372")%
H->>>'!C'(7
8H9<
8H.>
8.H
8H:.
!,,+
M1**F2N")%
H->>>'!C'(7
8H-0=H
8H-<>.
8H9=
8.-9>:
!(#+$,
FGG"NF'H'F7IF2'!F2J"NF3
H->>>'!C'(7
8;::
8<=:
8.>:
8H->.I
!&#%*&
A#37"757"1#)%
H->>>'!C'(7
8;:H
8<=.
8H;H
8H->H;
!&#%)&
OF3"BF#7")%'(FF3'LF2'MFJF%1L*F#7'6#"7
MFJF%1L*F#7'N+LF
("2F
O)2P3'H'
OFN2F)7"1#
O1%"NF
!72FF7
O21L13FB
(FF3
MFJF%1L*F#7
6#"7
Q1#2F3"BF#7")%'(FF3'LF2'MFJF%1L*F#7'6#"7
MFJF%1L*F#7'N+LF
("2F
O)2P3'H'
OFN2F)7"1#
O1%"NF
!72FF7
O21L13FB
(FF3
MFJF%1L*F#7
6#"7
!"#$%F'()
*+,+-#
+"!!%F'()
*+,./.
+"$!%F'()
*-,#.$
0"!!%F'()
*1,!$.
-"!!%F'()
*+0,+0.
2"!!%F'()
*+.,/2.
1"!!%F'()
*-#,..$
."!!%F'()
*1!,1+.
34456748694:48
94:486;F<4
=8>7>54?
3445
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
9
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Arizona’s Development Fee Act requires the preparation of Land Use Assumptions, which are defined in
Arizona Revised Statutes § 9-463.05(T)(6) as:
“projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service
area over a period of at least ten years and pursuant to the General Plan of the municipality.”
The estimates and projections of residential and nonresidential development in this Land Use
Assumptions document are for all areas within El Mirage. The current demographic estimates and future
development projections will be used in the Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) and in the calculation
of development fees. Current demographic data estimates for 2025 are used in calculating levels of service
(LOS) provided to existing development in El Mirage. Arizona’s Enabling Legislation requires fees to be
updated at least every five years and limits the IIP to a maximum of 10 years.
SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS
Key land use assumptions include population, housing units, employment, and nonresidential floor area
projections. TischlerBise projects development using on a combination of data published by the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) and recommendations from El Mirage staff based on recent and
planned development. Development projections are summarized in Figure L20. These projections will be
used to estimate fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure.
However, development fee methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to development projections
in the determination of the proportionate share fee amounts. If actual development occurs at a slower
rate than projected, fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In
contrast, if development occurs at a faster rate than anticipated, fee revenue will increase, but El Mirage
will also need to accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of
development. During the next 10 years, residential development projections indicate a population
increase of 900 persons in 327 housing units, and nonresidential development projections indicate an
employment increase of 5,529 jobs in approximately 5,304,455 square feet of floor area.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
10
SERVICE AREA
Figure L1: Development Fee Service Area
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
This section details current estimates and future projections of residential development including
population and housing units.
Recent Residential Construction
Development fees require an analysis of current levels of service. For residential development, current
levels of service are determined using estimates of population and housing units. Shown below, Figure L2
indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade according to data obtained from the
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
11
U.S. Census Bureau. In the previous decade, El Mirage’s housing stock grew by an average of 16 housing
units per year.
Figure L2: Housing Units by Decade
!"#$%$F'()(F*+%$H#-F.#H/$
))01'2
!"#$%$F'('(F*+%$H#-F.#H/$
))034)
5"6F*+%$H#-F.#H/$F'()(F/+F'('(
)77
8+%9:";F.<8<F!"#$%$F=%9">%0F!"#$%$F'('(F8%??>9@FAHB"F)0F!"#$%$F'()(F8%??>9@FAHB"F)0F'()CM'('1F7MN">9F
F?"9H:>#F!+??%#H/@F8%9G"@FHI+9F'((($F>#JF">9BH"90F>JK%$/"JF/+F@H"BJF/+/>BF%#H/$FH#F'()(L<
MBFNH9>-"O$FP+%$H#-F$/+:QF-9"6FR@F
>#F>G"9>-"F+IF)2FP+%$H#-F%#H/$FS"9F
@">9FI9+?F'()(F/+F'('(<F
(
)0(((
'0(((
10(((
30(((
70(((
20(((
T0(((
40(((
C0(((
="I+9"F)CT(
)CT($
)C4($
)CC($
'((($
'()($
!"#$%&'()&%*$(+HH-H(./(0-12H-(
%&(34(5%62'-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
12
Occupancy Factors
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit occupied by year-round residents.
Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit (PPHU) or persons per
household (PPH) to derive proportionate share fee amounts. When PPHU is used in the fee calculations,
infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. When PPH is used in the fee
calculations, the development fee methodology assumes a higher percentage of housing units will be
occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards.
TischlerBise recommends that development fees for residential development be imposed according to
the number of persons per housing unit.
Occupancy calculations require data on population and the types of units by structure. The 2010 census
did not obtain detailed information using a “long-form” questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau
switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS),
which has limitations due to sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are
now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses, which share a common
sidewall, but are constructed on an individual parcel of land). For development fees in El Mirage, detached
units, attached units, and mobile home units are included in the “Single-Family” category. The second
residential category includes duplexes, all structures with two or more units on an individual parcel of
land, recreation vehicles, and all other units.
Figure L3 below shows the occupancy estimates for El Mirage based on 2019-2023 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates. Single-family units averaged 3.03 persons per housing unit and multi-family units
averaged 2.72 persons per housing unit. The estimates shown below are used only to calculate occupancy
factors and may not match population and housing unit estimates shown throughout this report.
Figure L3: Occupancy Factors
!"#$%F'()*"%+H
-.I001
222
H3I43H
22222
-50-
HHI-H.
222
!"#!
675H8
45-38
9:%;"'()*"%+0
HI71-
222222
7-7
22222222222
0564
710
22222222
$"%$
.568
15318
<=;)%
-7I1HH
222
HHIH-4
22222
-500
HHI164
222
!"#&
H33538
45-68
!=:>?F@2A5!52BF#C:C2M:>F):I203H6'030-2E*F>"?)#2B=**:#";+2!:>FF+27'GF)>2HC;"*);FC52
H52I#?%:JFC2JF;)?KFJI2);;)?KFJ2L"5F5I2;=M#K=:CFCNI2)#J2*=O"%F2K=*F2:#";C5
052I#?%:JFC2JMF%%"#$C2"#2C;>:?;:>FC2M";K2;M=2=>2*=>F2:#";C2=>2)2O=);I2PQI2F)#I2F;?5
R=:C"#$
9"S
Q)?)#?+2
P);F
R=:C"#$2<+TF
UF>C=#C
R=:CFK=%JC UF>C=#C2TF>2
R=:CFK=%J
R=:C"#$2
A#";C
UF>C=#C2TF>2
R=:C"#$2A#";
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
13
Occupancy by Bedroom Range
Development fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Averages per household have
a strong, positive correlation to the number of bedrooms, so TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule
where larger units pay higher development fees. Benefits of the proposed methodology include 1) a
proportionate assessment of infrastructure demand using local demographic data and 2) a progressive
fee structure (i.e., smaller units pay less, and larger units pay more).
Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey
responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS).
PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons. El Mirage is entirely within Arizona
Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 00130.
Shown in Figure L4, cells with yellow shading indicate the unweighted survey results, which yield the
unadjusted estimate of 2.05 persons per household. Unadjusted persons per housing unit estimates are
adjusted to match the control total for El Mirage – 3.03 persons per housing unit (see Figure L3). Adjusted
persons per housing unit estimates range from 2.45 persons per housing unit for single family units with
zero to two bedrooms up to 5.27 persons per housing unit for single family units with four or more
bedrooms. This is repeated for multi-family units, as shown in Figure L5.
Figure L4: Single Family Occupancy by Bedroom Range
!"#
#$%#F
#$'(%
)$*!+
F)H
)-FF
#-(+
)-'%
)-%!
'
)$%).
)$(##
*%+
#%H
#-'#
'-(#
)-%)
#-'*
(I
)$)!)
*#!
'!%
))H
'-+*
+-#*
#-'(
'-!F
01234
+$*(F
($(.!
#$*.%
)!!H
#-!+
'-!'
)-F!
#-)!
!"#$%&"'()*+H"-+.()II%H0$&-(#%(123
#)!5678
#-F+
F-'F
.-('
%*H
##!59:2
)-%F
+-)!
F-*(
)'H
;2<59=>
#-++
F-#!
.-!.
)!!H
4+I%55+&0+0()6723(8+H(9%:.+;%'0
!"#
F-(.
))-(+
%-.*
'
.-!F
)+-!*
)#-!*
(I
)'-.*
).-(F
)F-*#
9=?@3>?
%-!'
)'-'F
)!-*!
A?<@11B5
C3M>?
9;E0F5:?@5
GH5A3I?<5
1M5J?@I1MI'
9;E0F5:?@5
GH5A3I?<51M5
E?KLM4?I(
9;E0F5:?@5
G1NILM>5
HML2+
O0F5P1<?
9;E0F
:?@5J?@I1M
9;E0F
:?@5E?KLM4?
9;E0F
:?@5GH
G1NILM>5QLR
9<SNI2?<5
JJGH#
HM3<SNI2?<5
EJGH
9<SNI2?<5
EJGH#
A?<@11B5
C3M>?
J?@I1MI)
E?KLM4?I
9=3L43T4?)
G1NILM>5
HML2I)
G1NILM>5
QLR
HM3<SNI2?<5
JJGH
)- 9B?@LM3M P1BBNML2U 6N@=?U$ JNT4LM HI? QLM@1<323 63B:4? V1@ 9P JHQ9 !!)'! X#!)."
#!#' +"Y?3@ NMR?L>K2?< <323[-
#- 9<SNI2?< BN42L:4L?@I 3@? IM34?< 21 B3\? 2K? 3=?@3>? JHQ6 =34N?I B32MK M1M2@14 21234I
V1@F4 QL@3>?$ T3I?< 1M 9B?@LM3M P1BBNML2U 6N@=?U #!)."#!#' +"Y?3@ FI2LB32?I-
'- 9<SNI2?< :?@I1MI :?@ K1NILM> NML2 BN42L:4L?< TU M32L1M34 R?L>K2?< 3=?@3>? 2@L: @32?
:?@ :?@I1M-
(- 9<SNI2?< =?KLM4?I 3=3L43T4? :?@ K1NILM> NML2 BN42L:4L?< TU M32L1M34 R?L>K2?< 3=?@3>?
2@L: @32? :?@ =?KLM4?-
+- 9=?@3>? 2@L: @32?I T3I?< 1M :?@I1MI 3M< =?KLM4?I :?@ K1NILM> NML2-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
14
Figure L5: Multi-Family Occupancy by Bedroom Range
!"#
$%F
#'$
$!F
()*
#+$(
$+#$
!+)F
#+(H
$
-%!
$$%
$!!
(%*
#+)%
$+HF
#+#-
$+#%
-.
#!%
'(
-H
H*
$+'H
(+%H
#+'(
-+#(
I0123
)#-
(%#
(()
#!!*
#+'!
$+)$
#+!#
#+H-
!"#$%&"'()*+H"-+.()II%H0$&-(#%(123
$#!4567
$+'%
'+-'
H+(-
F)*
$$!4891
#+F'
%+#!
'+)(
#-*
:1;48<=
$+%%
'+$!
H+!H
#!!*
4+I%55+&0+0()6723(8+H(9%:.+;%'0
!"#
-+H(
)+'!
%+))
$
%+%(
#!+H)
F+$'
-.
F+%(
#'+!#
#$+$F
8<>?2=>
%+!'
H+F(
)+(%
@>;?00A4
B2C=>
8:MIE49>?4
FG4@2H>;4
0C4I>?H0CH-
8:MIE49>?4
FG4@2H>;40C4
M>JKL3>H(
8:MIE49>?4
F0MHKC=4
GCK1%
NIE4O0;>
8:MIE
9>?4I>?H0C
8:MIE
9>?4M>JKL3>
8:MIE
9>?4FG
4F0MHKC=4PKQ
8;RMH1>;4
IIFG$
GC2;RMH1>;4
MIFG
8;RMH1>;4
MIFG$
@>;?00A4
B2C=>
I>?H0CH#
M>JKL3>H
8<2K32S3>#
F0MHKC=4
GCK1H#
F0MHKC=4
PKQ
GC2;RMH1>;4
IIFG
#+ 8A>?KL2C O0AAMCK1T 5M?<>TU IMS3KL GH> PKL?0;212 52A93> V0? 8P IGP8 !!#-!
X$!#H"$!$- %"Y>2?MCR>K=J1>; ;212[+
$+ 8;RMH1>; AM31K93K>?H 2?> HL23>; 10 A2\> 1J> 2<>?2=> IGP5 <23M>H A21LJ L0C1?03 10123H
V0?E3 PK?2=>U S2H>; 0C 8A>?KL2C O0AAMCK1T 5M?<>T $!#H"$!$- %"Y>2? EH1KA21>H+
-+ 8;RMH1>; 9>?H0CH 9>? J0MHKC= MCK1 AM31K93K>; ST C21K0C23 R>K=J1>; 2<>?2=> 1?K9 ?21>
9>? 9>?H0C+
(+ 8;RMH1>; <>JKL3>H 2<2K32S3> 9>? J0MHKC= MCK1 AM31K93K>; ST C21K0C23 R>K=J1>; 2<>?2=>
1?K9 ?21> 9>? <>JKL3>+
%+ 8<>?2=> 1?K9 ?21>H S2H>; 0C 9>?H0CH 2C; <>JKL3>H 9>? J0MHKC= MCK1+
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
15
Occupancy by Housing Size
To estimate square feet of living area by bedroom range, TischlerBise uses 2023 U.S. Census Bureau data
for single family housing units constructed in the Census Mountain region and CoStar data for multi-family
units in El Mirage.
Average square feet of living area and persons per housing unit by bedroom range for single family units
are plotted in Figure L6 with a logarithmic trend line derived from U.S. Census Bureau estimates discussed
in the previous paragraph and adjusted persons per housing unit estimates shown in Figure L4. Using the
trendline formula shown in the figure, the number of persons per housing unit by square feet range of
living area is derived (as shown in the gray shaded column). The formula allows localities to modify housing
unit square feet ranges (used in impact fee schedules) to respond to changing market conditions. Average
square feet of living area and persons per housing unit by bedroom range for multi-family units are plotted
in Figure L7 with a logarithmic trend line derived from the CoStar data discussed in the previous paragraph
and adjusted persons per housing unit estimates shown in Figure L5.
Figure L6: Single Family Occupancy by Housing Size
!"#$%%F'
()*+$"H-"".
/"$'%0'
()H-.H1+02"
/"$'%0'
345
67895
5:;8
675;<H%$H="''
6:>?
HHHHHHHHHHHH
9
573?3
9:;5
67583H.%H67<<<
9:9?
HHHHHHHHHHHH
;@
9798?
8:5?
57333H.%H57;<<
;:6A
HHHHHHHHHHHH
57833H.%H57<<<
;:A;
HHHHHHHHHHHH
97333H%$HF%$"
8:9<
HHHHHHHHHHHH
BC.*+=HBM"$+2"'HE"$HF%*'G02HH0G.
-G.."#4I*$M"HJ+=*"'
KHLH9:>6>8=0MNOH4 5;:65
1PHLH3:<<A
3:33
6:33
5:33
9:33
;:33
8:33
>:33
3
833
67333
67833
57333
57833
97333
97833
;7333
!"#$%F$'("#')%*$+FH'-F+.
/0*1#"'2"".'%3'4+5+FH'6#"1
!"#$%F$'("#'/+FH7"8219+7:')%*$+FH'-F+.''
;7'<+#1H"
BM"$+2" E"$'%0' E"$ Q%*'G02 *0G.
#"$GM"# R$%F 536<45359 BI( 84S"+$
/HT( #+.+ G0C=*#G02 U= TG$+2": H0G.
'GV"' PK P"#$%%F R$%F .Q" 5359 H:(:
I"0'*' !*$"+* +M"$+2" R%$ +== 'G02="
R+FG=K
*0G.'
C%0'.$*C."#
G0
.Q"
I"0'*' T%*0.+G0 $"2G%0:
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
16
Figure L7: Multi-Family Occupancy by Housing Size
!"#$%%F'
()*+$"H-"".
/"$'%0'
()H-.H1+02"
/"$'%0'
345
673
8958
:7;H%$H<"''
89=5
HHHHHHHHHHHH
8
;:=
89;=
:63H.%H;;;
>96:
HHHHHHHHHHHH
>?
5@8=:
796;
5@333H.%H5@87;
7956
HHHHHHHHHHHH
5@863H%$HF%$"
79A>
HHHHHHHHHHHH
BC.*+<HBM"$+2"'HE"$HF%*'G02HH0G.
-G.."#4I*$M"HJ+<*"'
KHLH89A8<0MNOH4 5796>5
1PHLH39=A36
3933
3963
5933
5963
8933
8963
>933
>963
7933
7963
6933
3
633
5@333
5@633
8@333
8@633
>@333
>@633
7@333
!"#$%F$'("#')%*$+FH'-F+.
/0*1#"'2"".'%3'4+5+FH'6#"1
!"#$%F$'("#'7*8.+921:+8;')%*$+FH'-F+.''
<8'7+#1H"
BM"$+2" E"$'%0' E"$ Q%*'G02 *0G.
#"$GM"# R$%F 835;4838> BI( 64S"+$
/HT( #+.+ G0C<*#G02 U< TG$+2"9 H0G.
'GV"' PK P"#$%%F R$%F I%(.+$ R%$ U<
TG$+2"@ B$GV%0+9
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
17
Residential Estimates
For 2020, data published by the U.S. Census Bureau includes 35,805 persons living in 11,481 housing units
citywide. Using data published by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the 2025 population
estimate includes 37,300 persons. Converting additional population to housing units using the occupancy
factors shown in Figure L3 results in a 2025 housing unit estimate of 12,372 units. For this study, the
analysis assumes all occupancy factors shown in Figure L3 other than housing mix will remain constant
throughout the 10-year projection period. Future housing mix is projected based on the remaining
development property land uses provided by City staff.
Residential Projections
Population and housing unit projections are used to illustrate the possible future pace of service demands,
revenues, and expenditures. To the extent these factors change, the projected need for infrastructure will
also change. If development occurs at a more rapid rate than projected, the demand for infrastructure
will increase at a corresponding rate. If development occurs at a slower rate than projected, the demand
for infrastructure will also decrease.
TischlerBise projects future residential development using a combination of data published by MAG and
staff recommendations. MAG population projections released in 2023 include a 2025 population of 37,300
and a 2035 population of 38,200. Converting the population increase to housing units is done by using the
occupancy factors shown in Figure L3 and the housing mix based on development information from City
staff.
The housing unit projections, shown below, include 31 new single-family units and 297 new multi-family
units for a 10-year increase of 327 units. Given the MAG projected population increase of 900 and the
occupancy factors shown in Figure L3, there are 93 new residents from single-family units and 807 new
residents from multi-family units ((31 single-family units X 3.03 persons per housing unit) and (297 multi-
family units X 2.72 persons per housing unit)).
Figure L8: Residential Projections
!"!#
!"!$
!"!%
!"!F
!"!'
!"("
!"(#
)*+,-.,*I
0
!
(
1
#
0"
23456,-7*8369
(#:$#0
(#:$%!
(#:$%!
(#:$F!
(#:$'!
(#:%"(
(#:%11
'(
;<6=3>7*8369
0:$1'
0:F!F
0:F!F
0:'0F
!:""F
!:"'%
!:1#$
F"%
!"#$%&'(")
*+H*--
*+H.--
*+H.--
*+H/--
*+H+--
*+H0--
*0H1--
2--
3"$4()567)('4
23456,-7*8369
00:%$$
00:%%(
00:%%(
00:%%$
00:%F"
00:%F(
00:%'%
(0
;<6=3>7*8369
$"$
$%!
$%!
%"#
%(F
%%0
'"(
!'%
8"'&%
91H*+1
91H::.
91H::.
91H:09
91H.90
91H..:
91H+--
*1+
?6-;3I*5,:-@I3AB4*
0">.,*I-
C4MI,*+,
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
18
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
This section details current estimates and future projections of nonresidential development including jobs
and nonresidential floor area.
Nonresidential Demand Factors
TischlerBise uses the term jobs to refer to employment by place of work. In Figure L9, gray shading
indicates the nonresidential development prototypes used to derive employment densities. For
nonresidential development, TischlerBise uses data published in Trip Generation, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021). The prototype for industrial development is Warehousing
(ITE 150) with 2,953 square feet of floor area per employee. For office development, the proxy is General
Office (ITE 710) with 307 square feet of floor area per employee. Institutional development uses Hospital
(ITE 610) with 350 square feet of floor area per employee. The prototype for commercial development is
Shopping Center (ITE 820) with 471 square feet of floor area per employee.
Figure L9: Nonresidential Demand Units
!"#
$%FG()
*+)H-".I0-#()1*+)H-".I0-#()1
#F0-2%.
34-56
78)%
9(I6
2%.-$F)-9(I6: 2%.-#F0;8H%%:
$F)-9(I6
2%.-#F0
::<
=IL?6-!()@16.IG;
:A<<<-34-56
BCME
FC:<
:CGE
HFE
:F<
!()@16.IG;-2G.+
:A<<<-34-56
FCFE
ICJ:
:C:H
MHB
:G<
*G.%?8@1I(L
:A<<<-34-56
:CE:
GC<G
<CFB
IAJGF
IGB
O11I16%)-=ILI(L
M%)
ICH<
BCIB
<CH:
(G
F:<
N86%;
.88F
ECJJ
:BCFB
<CGH
(G
H:<
N810I6G;
:A<<<-34-56
:<CEE
FCEE
ICMH
FG<
E:<
O%(%.G;-PQQIR%-SGLL-1IT%U
:A<<<-34-56
:<CMB
FCFF
FCIH
F<E
EI<
V%)IRG;P$%(6G;-PQQIR%
:A<<<-34-56
FHC<<
MCE:
BC:F
IBI
EF<
O8L%.(F%(6-PQQIR%
:A<<<-34-56
IICGJ
ECBG
FC<F
FF<
EG<
PQQIR%-2G.+
:A<<<-34-56
::C<E
FCGB
FC:F
FI<
MI<
3?800I(L-7%(6%.-SGLL-1IT%U
:A<<<-34-56
FEC<:
:ECBI
IC:I
BE:
:C-".I0-O%(%.G6I8(A-!(16I6@6%-8Q-".G(108.6G6I8(-#(LI(%%.1A-::6?-#)I6I8(-SI<I:UC
=G()-91%-X-3IT%
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
19
Nonresidential Estimates
For 2025 employment, data from Esri estimates 2025 employment at 3,908 jobs. For 2025 nonresidential
floor area, TischlerBise utilized CoStar to obtain a 2025 estimate of 3,040,660 square feet.
Shown in the bottom on Figure L10 is the 2025 jobs and nonresidential floor area estimates.
Figure L10: Nonresidential Estimates
!"!#
!"!#$%F'()*'+H
-.IF0
12..3$43+*!
56H7F'3(*2!
08!#9
08J";8!"9
<.))+3=(*29
>?9
#>98J"!
@AA(=+$B$@'C+3$M+3N(=+J
?F!
0;08;JJ
56F'('7'(.6*2#
?""
?F>8J00
G.'*2
98>"?
98"J"8;;"
0H$%F3($I7F(6+FF$46*2JF'8$!"!#H
0H$<.M'*3$<.))+3=(*2$O+*2$%F'*'+$L*'*I*F+8$!"!#H
!H$M*N.3$F+='.3F$(6=27H+$M*67A*='73(6O8$PC.2+F*2+$G3*H+H
9H$M*N.3$F+='.3F$(6=27H+$O+'*(2$G3*H+8$4==.)).H*'(.6$B$1..H$M+3N(=+FH
JH$M*N.3$F+='.3F$(6=27H+$Q+*2'C$<*3+8$@'C+3$M+3N(=+FH
#H$M*N.3$F+='.3F$(6=27H+$R7I2(=$4H)(6(F'3*'(.68$%H7=*'(.6*2$M+3N(=+FH
S.63+F(H+6'(*2
<*'+O.3J
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
20
Nonresidential Projections
Employment and floor area projections are used to illustrate the possible future pace of service demands,
revenues, and expenditures. To the extent these factors change, the projected need for infrastructure will
also change. If development occurs at a more rapid rate than projected, the demand for infrastructure
will increase at a corresponding rate. If development occurs at a slower rate than projected, the demand
for infrastructure will also decrease.
TischlerBise projects nonresidential development using employment data published by MAG in the 2023
Socioeconomic Projections document. Projected employment growth over the next 10 years includes an
additional 5,529 jobs. The projected employment growth was split according to development property
land use information provided by the City.
To convert employment to nonresidential floor area, the analysis applies previous year’s square footage
per job factor to the employment projections shown below. For example, the 2026 industrial jobs estimate
of 1,615 is multiplies by the 2025 industrial jobs estimate of 1,253 divided by the 2025 industrial square
footage estimate of 1,406,203 to generate a 2026 industrial square footage estimate of 1,812,046. Based
on these assumptions, the 10-year projections include an increase of approximately 5,304,455 square
feet.
Figure L11: Nonresidential Projections
!"!#
!"!$
!"!%
!"!&
!"!'
!"("
!"(#
)*+,-.,*I
0
!
(
1
#
0"
!"#$%F"'()
2345+6I7*8
09!#(
09$0#
!9"(0
!9#"'
(9"$"
(9$'(
19$#$
(91"(
:;<<,I=7*8
'&(
090$$
09(%$
09$0&
09&'$
!9!0$
!9%"!
09%0'
>??7=,-@->6A,I-B,IC7=,+
&%!
&%!
&%!
&%!
&%!
&%!
&%!
"
23+676567;3*8
&""
&1(
&'(
'#0
09"0%
09"'!
09!"&
1"&
*%)+$
,-./0
1-1.2
3-456
3-.1.
2-011
5-05,
.-1,5
3-36.
7%(8'9:;<$%%8;=8'+;>?4-///@
2345+6I7*8
091"$
09&0!
!9!%'
!9&0$
(91(1
1901#
#9!!#
(9&0'
:;<<,I=7*8
#'(
%"1
&(0
'%$
09011
09((%
09$(0
09"(&
>??7=,-@->6A,I-B,IC7=,+
0$!
0$!
0$!
0$!
0$!
0$!
0$!
"
23+676567;3*8
&%'
'!%
'&!
09"1#
0900%
09!"0
09(!&
11&
*%)+$
,-/14
,-2/1
1-63,
1-...
3-035
2-013
0-,13
3-,/1
M8-E7I*F,9-GI7H;3*
0"I.,*I-
23=I,*+,
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
21
AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIPS
El Mirage will use average weekday vehicle trips (AWVT) for fire facilities fees, police facilities fees, and
transportation fees. Components used to determine AWVT include average weekday vehicle trip
generation rates, adjustments for commuting patterns, and adjustments for pass-by trips.
Residential Trip Generation Rates
As an alternative to simply using national average trip generation rates for residential development,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), TischlerBise calculates custom trip rates using
local demographic data. Key inputs needed for the analysis, including average number of persons and
vehicles available per housing unit, are available from American Community Survey (ACS) data.
Vehicle Trip Ends by Bedroom Range
TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule where larger units pay higher development fees than smaller
units. Benefits of the proposed methodology include: 1) proportionate assessment of infrastructure
demand using local demographic data, and 2) progressive fee structure (i.e., smaller units pay less, and
larger units pay more). TischlerBise creates custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range
from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in files known as Public Use
Microdata Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, El Mirage
is entirely within Public Use Microdata Area (AZ PUMA) 00130. Shown in Figure L12, cells with yellow
shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available
per housing unit. Unadjusted vehicles per housing unit are adjusted to El Mirage control totals of 2.10
vehicles per housing unit. Adjusted vehicles per housing unit estimates range from 1.80 vehicles per
housing unit for single family units with zero to two bedrooms up to 3.06 vehicles per housing unit for
single family units with four or more bedrooms. This is repeated for multi-family units, as shown in Figure
L13.
Figure L12: Single Family Vehicle Trip Ends by Bedroom Range
!"#
#$%#F
#$'(%
)$*!+
F)H
)-FF
#-(+
)-'%
)-%!
'
)$%).
)$(##
*%+
#%H
#-'#
'-(#
)-%)
#-'*
(I
)$)!)
*#!
'!%
))H
'-+*
+-#*
#-'(
'-!F
01234
+$*(F
($(.!
#$*.%
)!!H
#-!+
'-!'
)-F!
#-)!
!"#$%&"'()*+H"-+.()II%H0$&-(#%(123
#)!5678
#-F+
F-'F
.-('
%*H
##!59:2
)-%F
+-)!
F-*(
)'H
;2<59=>
#-++
F-#!
.-!.
)!!H
4+I%55+&0+0()6723(8+H(9%:.+;%'0
!"#
F-(.
))-(+
%-.*
'
.-!F
)+-!*
)#-!*
(I
)'-.*
).-(F
)F-*#
9=?@3>?
%-!'
)'-'F
)!-*!
9<ABC2?<5
MMEF#
FG3<ABC2?<5
HMEF
9<ABC2?<5
HMEF#
I?<@11J5
K3G>?
M?@C1GC)
H?LMN4?C
9=3M43O4?)
E1BCMG>5
FGM2C)
E1BCMG>5
PMQ
FG3<ABC2?<5
MMEF
I?<@11J5
K3G>?
9;H0R5:?@5
EF5I3C?<5
1G5M?@C1GC'
9;H0R5:?@5
EF5I3C?<51G5
H?LMN4?C(
9;H0R5:?@5
E1BCMG>5
FGM2+
S0R5T1<?
9;H0R
:?@5M?@C1G
9;H0R
:?@5H?LMN4?
9;H0R
:?@5EF
E1BCMG>5PMQ
)- 9J?@MN3G T1JJBGM2U 6B@=?U$ MBO4MN FC? PMN@1<323 63J:4? V1@ 9P MFP9 !!)'! X#!)."
#!#' +"Y?3@ BGR?M>L2?< <323[-
#- 9<ABC2?< JB42M:4M?@C 3@? CN34?< 21 J3\? 2L? 3=?@3>? MFP6 =34B?C J32NL N1G2@14 21234C
V1@R4 PM@3>?$ O3C?< 1G 9J?@MN3G T1JJBGM2U 6B@=?U #!)."#!#' +"Y?3@ RC2MJ32?C-
'- 9<ABC2?< :?@C1GC :?@ L1BCMG> BGM2 JB42M:4M?< OU G32M1G34 R?M>L2?< 3=?@3>? 2@M: @32?
:?@ :?@C1G-
(- 9<ABC2?< =?LMN4?C 3=3M43O4? :?@ L1BCMG> BGM2 JB42M:4M?< OU G32M1G34 R?M>L2?< 3=?@3>?
2@M: @32? :?@ =?LMN4?-
+- 9=?@3>? 2@M: @32?C O3C?< 1G :?@C1GC 3G< =?LMN4?C :?@ L1BCMG> BGM2-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
22
Figure L13: Multi-Family Vehicle Trip Ends by Bedroom Range
Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Size
To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by dwelling size, TischlerBise uses 2023 U.S. Census Bureau
data for single family housing units constructed in the Census Mountain region and CoStar data for for
multi-family housing units constructed in El Mirage.
Citywide average floor area and weekday vehicle trip ends by bedroom range for single family units are
plotted in Figure L14 with a logarithmic trend line. TischlerBise uses the trend line formula to derive
estimated trip ends, by housing unit size, for the size ranges shown below. Average square feet of living
area and weekday vehicle trip ends by bedroom range for multi-family units are plotted in Figure L15 with
a logarithmic trend line.
!"#
$%F
#'$
$!F
()*
#+$(
$+#$
!+)F
#+(H
$
-%!
$$%
$!!
(%*
#+)%
$+HF
#+#-
$+#%
-.
#!%
'(
-H
H*
$+'H
(+%H
#+'(
-+#(
I0123
)#-
(%#
(()
#!!*
#+'!
$+)$
#+!#
#+H-
!"#$%&"'()*+H"-+.()II%H0$&-(#%(123
$#!4567
$+'%
'+-'
H+(-
F)*
$$!4891
#+F'
%+#!
'+)(
#-*
:1;48<=
$+%%
'+$!
H+!H
#!!*
4+I%55+&0+0()6723(8+H(9%:.+;%'0
!"#
-+H(
)+'!
%+))
$
%+%(
#!+H)
F+$'
-.
F+%(
#'+!#
#$+$F
8<>?2=>
%+!'
H+F(
)+(%
8;@AB1>;4
CCME$
EF2;@AB1>;4
GCME
8;@AB1>;4
GCME$
H>;?00I4
J2F=>
C>?B0FB#
G>KLM3>B
8<2L32N3>#
M0ABLF=4
EFL1B#
M0ABLF=4
OLP
EF2;@AB1>;4
CCME
H>;?00I4
J2F=>
8:GIQ49>?4
ME4H2B>;4
0F4C>?B0FB-
8:GIQ49>?4
ME4H2B>;40F4
G>KLM3>B(
8:GIQ49>?4
M0ABLF=4
EFL1%
RIQ4S0;>
8:GIQ
9>?4C>?B0F
8:GIQ
9>?4G>KLM3>
8:GIQ
9>?4ME
4M0ABLF=4OLP
#+ 8I>?LM2F S0IIAFL1T 5A?<>TU CAN3LM EB> OLM?0;212 52I93> V0? 8P CEO8 !!#-!
X$!#H"$!$- %"Y>2?AFR>L=K1>; ;212[+
$+ 8;@AB1>; IA31L93L>?B 2?> BM23>; 10 I2\> 1K> 2<>?2=> CEO5 <23A>B I21MK M0F1?03 10123B
V0?Q3 OL?2=>U N2B>; 0F 8I>?LM2F S0IIAFL1T 5A?<>T $!#H"$!$- %"Y>2? QB1LI21>B+
-+ 8;@AB1>; 9>?B0FB 9>? K0ABLF= AFL1 IA31L93L>; NT F21L0F23 R>L=K1>; 2<>?2=> 1?L9 ?21>
9>? 9>?B0F+
(+ 8;@AB1>; <>KLM3>B 2<2L32N3> 9>? K0ABLF= AFL1 IA31L93L>; NT F21L0F23 R>L=K1>; 2<>?2=>
1?L9 ?21> 9>? <>KLM3>+
%+ 8<>?2=> 1?L9 ?21>B N2B>; 0F 9>?B0FB 2F; <>KLM3>B 9>? K0ABLF= AFL1+
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
23
Figure L14: Single Family Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Size
!"#$%%F'
()*+$"H-"".
/$01H23#'
()H-.H4+35"
/$01H23#'
678
9:;<8
=>?@
9:8A?H%$HB"''
@>68
HHHHHHHHHHHH
<
8:6@6
98>6@
9:8;6H.%H9:???
99>C;
HHHHHHHHHH
AM
<:<;@
9C>@8
8:666H.%H8:A??
9<>=;
HHHHHHHHHH
8:;66H.%H8:???
9;>CA
HHHHHHHHHH
<:666H%$HF%$"
9@>9C
HHHHHHHHHH
EF.*+BHEG"$+5"'H1"$HH%*'035HI30.
-0.."#7J*$G"HK+B*"'
LHMH?>=;ACB3NOPH7 C<>8;C
4QHMH6>???@
6>66
8>66
A>66
C>66
=>66
96>66
98>66
9A>66
9C>66
9=>66
6
;66
9:666
9:;66
8:666
8:;66
<:666
<:;66
A:666
!"#$%F"'()$*'+H-.'*")'/01.$H2'3H$4
5617)"'8""4'09':$;$H2'<)"7
!"#$%F"'()$*'+H-.'*")'5$H2F"=87L$F?'/01.$H2'3H$4''
+F'@$)72"
EG"$+5" 1"$'%3' 1"$ R%*'035 *30.
#"$0G"# S$%F 869?7868< EJ( ;7T"+$
UIV( #+.+ 03FB*#035 2B V0$+5"> I30.
'0P"' XL X"#$%%F S$%F .R" 868< I>(>
J"3'*' !*$"+* +G"$+5" S%$ +BB '035B"
S+F0BL
*30.'
F%3'.$*F."#
03
.R"
J"3'*' V%*3.+03 $"50%3>
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
24
Figure L15: Multi-Family Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Size
!"#$%%F'
()*+$"H-"".
/$01H23#'
()H-.H4+35"
/$01H23#'
678
9:6
9;<<
<:=H%$H>"''
<;??
HHHHHHHHHHHH
@
=<A
A;@?
<96H.%H===
=;?<
HHHHHHHHHHHH
BC
8M@A<
8@;@A
8M666H.%H8M@:=
88;@@
HHHHHHHHHH
8M@96H%$HF%$"
8@;:=
HHHHHHHHHH
EF.*+>HEG"$+5"'H1"$HH%*'035HI30.
-0.."#7J*$G"HK+>*"'
LHMH?;=?9<>3NOPH7 BA;:98
4QHMH6;AA?@
6;66
@;66
:;66
?;66
A;66
86;66
8@;66
8:;66
6
966
8M666
8M966
@M666
@M966
BM666
BM966
:M666
!"#$%F"'()$*'+H-.'*")'/01.$H2'3H$4
5617)"'8""4'09':$;$H2'<)"7
!"#$%F"'()$*'+H-.'*")'=1F4$L87?$F@'/01.$H2'3H$4''
+F'=$)72"
EG"$+5" 1"$'%3' 1"$ R%*'035 *30.
#"$0G"# S$%F @68=7@6@B EJ( 97T"+$
UIV( #+.+ 03F>*#035 2> V0$+5"; I30.
'0P"' XL X"#$%%F S$%F J%(.+$ S%$ 2>
V0$+5"M E$0P%3+;
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
25
Nonresidential Trip Generation Rates
For nonresidential development, TischlerBise uses trip generation rates published in Trip Generation,
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021). The prototype for industrial development is
Warehousing (ITE 130) which generates 1.71 average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of
floor area. The prototype for commercial development is Shopping Center (ITE 820) which generates 37.01
average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. For office & other services
development, the proxy is General Office (ITE 710), and it generates 10.84 average weekday vehicle trip
ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Institutional development uses Hospital (ITE 730) and generates
10.77 average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Figure L16: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Land Use
Residential Trip Generation Rates
For residential development, a customized trip rate is calculated for single family and multi-family units
in El Mirage.
TischlerBise starts with trip generation rates published in Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 11th Edition (2021). For single family development, the proxy is Single Family Detached Housing
(ITE 210), and this type of development generates 9.43 average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing
unit. For multi-family development, the proxy is Multifamily Housing Low-Rise (ITE 220), and this type of
development generates 6.74 average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing unit.
These proxies are then adjusted to local trip rates by using the most recent data from the U.S. Census
Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) with equations provided by the ITE to calculate trip ends per
housing unit factor. A single family unit in El Mirage is estimated to generate 10.63 average weekday
vehicle trips. A multi-family unit in El Mirage is estimated to generate 8.41 average weekday vehicle trips.
!"#
$%FG()
*+)H-".I0-#()1*+)H-".I0-#()1
#F0-2%.
34-56
78)%
9(I6
2%.-$F)-9(I6: 2%.-#F0;8H%%:
$F)-9(I6
2%.-#F0
::<
=IL?6-!()@16.IG;
:A<<<-34-56
BCME
FC:<
:CGE
HFE
:F<
!()@16.IG;-2G.+
:A<<<-34-56
FCFE
ICJ:
:C:H
MHB
:G<
*G.%?8@1I(L
:A<<<-34-56
:CE:
GC<G
<CFB
IAJGF
IGB
O11I16%)-=ILI(L
M%)
ICH<
BCIB
<CH:
(G
F:<
N86%;
.88F
ECJJ
:BCFB
<CGH
(G
H:<
N810I6G;
:A<<<-34-56
:<CEE
FCEE
ICMH
FG<
E:<
O%(%.G;-PQQIR%-SGLL-1IT%U
:A<<<-34-56
:<CMB
FCFF
FCIH
F<E
EI<
V%)IRG;P$%(6G;-PQQIR%
:A<<<-34-56
FHC<<
MCE:
BC:F
IBI
EF<
O8L%.(F%(6-PQQIR%
:A<<<-34-56
IICGJ
ECBG
FC<F
FF<
EG<
PQQIR%-2G.+
:A<<<-34-56
::C<E
FCGB
FC:F
FI<
MI<
3?800I(L-7%(6%.-SGLL-1IT%U
:A<<<-34-56
FEC<:
:ECBI
IC:I
BE:
:C-".I0-O%(%.G6I8(A-!(16I6@6%-8Q-".G(108.6G6I8(-#(LI(%%.1A-::6?-#)I6I8(-SI<I:UC
=G()-91%-X-3IT%
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
26
Figure L17: Customized Residential Trip End Rates by Housing Type
Trip Rate Adjustments
To calculate fire, police, and transportation fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to
avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip
adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed further in this section, the development fee methodology
includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for
particular types of development.
Commuter Trip Adjustment
Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 68 percent to account for commuters
leaving El Mirage for work. According to the 2022 National Household Travel Survey (Table 8-2) weekday
work trips are typically 36 percent of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50 percent of all
trip ends). As shown in Figure L18, the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap web application indicates 99
percent of resident workers traveled outside of El Mirage for work in 2022. In combination, these factors
(0.36 x 0.50 x 0.99 = 0.18) support the additional 18 percent allocation of trips to residential development.
!"#$%F!GG()*$+
H-.I01
2.-I3
--
2.214
35H4
6$#7$%F!GG()*$+
-.808
3.I0I
8-I
9.924
H5I0
:;7<=
39.90I
H0.-0H
191
HH.H9-
350I
L$%?;#?@*#
:%*)
A$B*G=$?@CM
:%*)
NF$%<G$
H;(?*#G
H;(?$B;=+?9
I#+?8
:M)$@;J@O#*7
I#+?1
:%*)@I#+?
O#*7?-
L*#G=$FM<N*=M
98.334
I1.328
33.32-
H81.HI3
H30.399
HH.9H8
!"#$%
I589
O(=7*FM<N*=M
H.149
1.83I
H.099
8.9-9
8.4I-
143
&#'!
-528
:;7<=
91.4HH
H00.203
39.90I
H8I.11-
H31.H3I
HH.4I-
!"#()
H5@A$B*G=$?@<F<*=<C=$@CM@7$#(%$@J%;N@:<C=$@P3108-.@NN$%*G<#@Q;NN(#*7M@L(%F$M.@30HIF3039@1FR$<%@I?7*N<7$?5
35@H;(?$B;=+?@CM@7$#(%$@<#+@(#*7?@*#@?7%(G7(%$@J%;N@:<C=$@P31093.@NN$%*G<#@Q;NN(#*7M@L(%F$M.@30HIF3039@1FR$<%@I?7*N<7$?5@
95@:;7<=@);)(=<7*;#@*#@B;(?$B;=+?@J%;N@:<C=$@P31099.@NN$%*G<#@Q;NN(#*7M@L(%F$M.@30HIF3039@1FR$<%@I?7*N<7$?5
-5@H;(?*#G@(#*7?@J%;N@:<C=$@P31038.@NN$%*G<#@Q;NN(#*7M@L(%F$M.@30HIF3039@1FR$<%@I?7*N<7$?5@
25@:%*)@S$#$%<7*;#.@T#?7*7(7$@;J@:%<#?);%7<7*;#@I#G*#$$%?.@H07B@I+*7*;#@U303HV5
P<7*;#<=@
NF$%<G$2
H;(?$B;=+?@CM@L7%(G7(%$@:M)$3
15@A$B*G=$@7%*)@$#+?@C<?$+@;#@F$B*G=$?@<F<*=<C=$@(?*#G@J;%N(=<?@J%;N@:%*)@S$#$%<7*;#@UT:I@30H2V5@M;%@?*#G=$FJ<N*=M@B;(?*#G@UT:I@3H0V.@7B$@J*77$+@G(%F$@
$X(<7*;#@*?@IYLU05IIR[PUF$B*G=$?V\H5I9V5@:;@<))%;]*N<7$@7B$@<F$%<G$@#(NC$%@;J@F$B*G=$?@*#@7B$@T:I@?7(+*$?.@F$B*G=$?@<F<*=<C=$@"$%$@+*F*+$+@CM@42@
<#+@7B$@$X(<7*;#@%$?(=7@N(=7*)=*$+@CM@425@M;%@N(=7*FJ<N*=M@B;(?*#G@UT:I@330V.@7B$@J*77$+@G(%F$@$X(<7*;#@*?@U95I8RF$B*G=$?V\3I95145
:$#(%$@CM@O#*7?
*#@L7%(G7(%$
A$B*G=$?@
NF<*=<C=$H
L*#G=$FM<N*=M O(=7*FM<N*=M
:;7<=
A$B*G=$?@)$%@
HH@CM@
O#*7?@*#@L7%(G7(%$
:%*)@I#+?@)$%@
H;(?*#G@O#*7
85@A$B*G=$@7%*)?@$#+?@C<?$+@;#@)$%?;#?@(?*#G@J;%N(=<?@J%;N@:%*)@S$#$%<7*;#@UT:I@30H2V5@M;%@?*#G=$FJ<N*=M@B;(?*#G@UT:I@3H0V.@7B$@J*77$+@G(%F$@
$X(<7*;#@*?@IYLU054IR[PU)$%?;#?V\H523V5@:;@<))%;]*N<7$@7B$@<F$%<G$@);)(=<7*;#@;J@7B$@T:I@?7(+*$?.@)$%?;#?@"$%$@+*F*+$+@CM@-H@<#+@7B$@$X(<7*;#@
%$?(=7@N(=7*)=*$+@CM@-H5@M;%@N(=7*FJ<N*=M@B;(?*#G@UT:I@330V.@7B$@J*77$+@G(%F$@$X(<7*;#@*?@U9582R)$%?;#?VF-85845
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
27
Figure L18: Commuter Trip Adjustment
Adjustment for Pass-By Trips
For commercial and institutional development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because
these types of development attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example,
when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not
the primary destination. For the average shopping center, ITE data indicate 34 percent of the vehicles that
enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66 percent of
attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of
all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or 33 percent of the trip ends.
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips
Shown below in Figure L19, multiplying average weekday vehicle trip ends and trip adjustment factors
(discussed on the previous page) by El Mirage’s existing development units provides the average weekday
vehicle trips generated by existing development. As shown below, El Mirage’s existing citywide
development generates 102,578 vehicle trips on an average weekday.
Figure L19: Average Weekday Vehicle Trips by Land Use
!!"#$%F'()!*(+H)(-.+
I01234
!!*(+H)(-.+!5H6H-7!8-)!9F:;H-7!H-!"%!<H:87(
4I=
!!*(+H)(-.+!LF##?.H-7!@?.+H)(!"%!<H:87(!AF:!9F:;
I01B=B
C(:M(-.!LF##?.H-7!F?.!FA!"%!<H:87(
NNF
G))H.HF-8%!C:F)?M.HF-!H:H$+I
I=F
*(+H)(-.H8%!H:H$!G)I?+.#(-.!J8M.F:
0=F
OF?:M(L!MNON!L(-+?+!O?:(8?1!@-HP(<8$!G$$%HM8.HF-!Q6(:+HF-!0N4RNIS!8-)!5"TU!@:H7H-VU(+.H-8.HF-!"#$%F'#(-.!
IN GMMF:)H-7 .F .P( P8.HF-8% TF?+(PF%) H:86(% O?:6(' Q4344SX1 $?Y%H+P() H- U(M(#Y(: 43II Q+(( H8Y%( =V4S1 PF#(V
Y8+() RF:; .:H$+ 8:( .'$HM8%%' [0N33 $(:M(-. FA \$:F)?M.HF-] .:H$+1 H- F.P(: RF:)+1 F?.VYF?-) .:H$+ QRPHMP 8:( R3
$(:M(-. FA 8%% .:H$ (-)+SN G%+F1 5"U @-HP(<8$ )8.8 A:F# 4344 H-)HM8.( .P8. NN $(:M(-. FA "% <H:87(S+ RF:;(:+
.:86(% F?.+H)( .P( MH.' AF: RF:;N _- MF#YH-8.HF-1 .P(+( A8M.F:+ Q3N[03 ` 3NR3 ` 3NNN a 3NI=S 8MMF?-. AF: I= $(:M(-.
FA 8))H.HF-8% $:F)?M.HF- .:H$+N HP( .F.8% 8)I?+.#(-. A8M.F: AF: :(+H)(-.H8% H-M%?)(+ 8..:8M.HF- .:H$+ QR3 $(:M(-. FA
.:H$ (-)+S $%?+ .P( IF?:-('V.FVRF:; MF##?.H-7 8)I?+.#(-. QI= $(:M(-. FA $:F)?M.HF- .:H$+S AF: 8 .F.8% FA 0=
$(:M(-.N!!
XP..$Lbb-P.+NF:-%N7F6b$?Y%HM8.HF-+N+P.#% c O?##8:' FA H:86(% H:(-)+ V H8Y%( TU8H%' H:86(% O.8.H+.HM+ Y' 9((;)8' 6+N
9((;(-)T
H:H$!G)I?+.#(-.!J8M.F:!AF:!LF##?.(:+
!"#"$%F'"()
!"#
*+H
-#.I01234
+56F
7879
7879
+4F"
:(6)
;%2"
K+H
-2=>?)'"() !"#I:(6)?
K"@I+56F?
A6(.$"IB3'6$4
C:
7M8
M8EFG
FHI
MMJOFF
H9J898
L>$)6MB3'6$4
C:
778
HENM
FHI
F8F
GJNFO
*(2>?)563$
OAB
M98
MEOM
98I
MJN8F
MJ787
;%''"5P63$
OAB
H78
GOE8M
GGI
9QG
OJ7NO
RSS6P"ITIR)@"5IA"5#6P"?
OAB
OM8
M8EHN
98I
MF7
HOF
*(?)6)>)6%(3$
OAB
FM8
M8EOO
98I
HOQ
NJOGF
+%)3$
M87J9OH
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
28
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
Provided below is a summary of development projections used in the Development Fee Report. Base year estimates for 2025 are used in the fee
calculations. Development projections are used to illustrate a possible future pace of demand for service units and cash flows resulting from
revenues and expenditures associated with those demands.
Figure L20: Development Projections Summary
!"!#
!"!$
!"!%
!"!F
!"!'
!"("
!"()
!"(!
!"((
!"(*
!"(#
+,-.I0.,1
)
!
(
*
#
$
%
F
'
)"
!"#$%F'(")
*+H*--
*+H.--
*+H.--
*+H/--
*+H+--
*+H0--
*+H0--
*0H---
*0H1--
*0H1--
*0H1--
2--
3"$4()567)('4
23456.I7,8369
)):%$$
)):%%(
)):%%(
)):%%$
)):%F"
)):%F(
)):%F(
)):%'"
)):%'%
)):%'%
)):%'%
()
;<6=3>7,8369
$"$
$%!
$%!
%"#
%(F
%%)
%%)
F(%
'"(
'"(
'"(
!'%
8"'F%
91H*+1
91H::.
91H::.
91H:09
91H.90
91H..:
91H..:
91H/1+
91H+--
91H+--
91H+--
*1+
;<#%"=<>)'
?4@<-=13,6
):!#(
):$)#
!:"()
!:#"'
(:"$"
(:$'(
(:F%!
*:"#%
*:!*'
*:**'
*:$#$
(:*"(
AB88.1C3,6
'F(
):)$$
):(%$
):$)F
):F'$
!:!)$
!:("$
!:(''
!:*'%
!:#'%
!:%"!
):%)'
MEE3C.IFIM=G.1I2.1H3C.-
F%!
F%!
F%!
F%!
F%!
F%!
F%!
F%!
F%!
F%!
F%!
"
?4-=3=<=3B4,6
F""
F*(
F'(
'#)
):")%
):"'!
):))*
):)($
):)#'
):)F(
):!"F
*"F
8"'F%
*H2-0
:H:2/
.H9+1
.H2:2
/H0::
+H0+*
0H9/:
0H:/.
0H+++
2H9-9
2H:*+
.H.12
?")@>4A6B%""@6C@>F6DN9H---F
?4@<-=13,6
):*"$
):F)!
!:!%'
!:F)$
(:*(*
*:)*#
*:(*#
*:##(
*:%$'
*:''(
#:!!#
(:F)'
AB88.1C3,6
#'(
%"*
F()
'%$
):)**
):((%
):('!
):**F
):#"%
):#$F
):$()
):"(F
MEE3C.IFIM=G.1I2.1H3C.-
)$!
)$!
)$!
)$!
)$!
)$!
)$!
)$!
)$!
)$!
)$!
"
?4-=3=<=3B4,6
F%'
'!%
'F!
):"*#
):))%
):!")
):!!*
):!*'
):!%*
):(")
):(!F
**F
8"'F%
*H-:9
*H/-:
:H1.*
:H222
.H0.+
/H0:.
+H91*
+H:91
+H+91
0H-1*
0H*:.
.H*-:
)">0.,1I
?4C1.,-.
I6I;31,5.:IJ13OB4,
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
29
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips
TischlerBise uses the projections shown below for the police, fire, and transportation development fees.
Figure L21: Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Summary
!"#$
%
F
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
%.
%.I0$"1
F.F)
F.F*
F.F+
F.F,
F.F-
F.'.
F.'%
F.'F
F.''
F.'(
F.')
2341$"#$
56378$9:";68K9=36>#
%%?+**
%%?++'
%%?++'
%%?++*
%%?+,.
%%?+,'
%%?+,'
%%?+-.
%%?+-+
%%?+-+
%%?+-+
!"
@A8>6I:";68K9=36>#
*.*
*+F
*+F
+.)
+',
++%
++%
,'+
-.'
-.'
-.'
#$%
23BA#>16"89C5:
%?(.*
%?,%F
F?F+-
F?,%*
'?('(
(?%()
(?'()
(?))'
(?+*-
(?--'
)?FF)
!&'"$
MN;;$146"89C5:
)-'
+.(
,'%
-+*
%?%((
%?''+
%?'-F
%?((,
%?).+
%?)*,
%?*'%
"&(!'
FGG64$9H9F>I$195$1J64$#9C5:
%*F
%*F
%*F
%*F
%*F
%*F
%*F
%*F
%*F
%*F
%*F
(
23#>6>A>6N3"89C5:
,+-
-F+
-,F
%?.()
%?%%+
%?F.%
%?FF(
%?F(-
%?F+(
%?'.%
%?'F,
))'
56378$9:";68K9O16L#
,)?.).
,)?.--
,)?.--
,)?%F'
,)?%(,
,)?%+'
,)?%+'
,)?FFF
,)?F+%
,)?F+%
,)?F+%
##"
@A8>6I:";68K9O16L#
'?(*+
'?,((
'?,((
(?.''
(?FF%
(?(%.
(?(%.
(?+,+
)?%*(
)?%*(
)?%*(
"&*$'
M$#6B$3>6"89O16L#
,,?)%*
,,?-('
,,?-('
,-?%)*
,-?'*-
,-?),F
,-?),F
-.?..-
-.?(')
-.?(')
-.?(')
"&$"'
23BA#>16"89O16L#
%?F.F
%?)(-
%?-(,
F?(.,
F?-'*
'?)((
'?+%)
'?,-'
(?.+,
(?F*-
(?(*+
!&#*+
MN;;$146"89O16L#
+?F(+
,?)-(
%.?%('
%%?-F*
%'?-+*
%*?''(
%+?...
%+?*-%
%,?(.+
%-?%(-
%-?-%-
"#&*%#
FGG64$9H9F>I$195$1J64$#9O16L#
,+*
,+*
,+*
,+*
,+*
,+*
,+*
,+*
,+*
,+*
,+*
(
23#>6>A>6N3"89O16L#
(?+'*
(?--F
)?F,+
)?*F+
*?.%,
*?(*+
*?)-(
*?+F)
*?,*F
+?..'
+?%).
#&)")
NN31$#6B$3>6"89O16L#
%(?.*%
%*?.%F
%,?F))
F.?,'*
F'?,.)
F+?FF%
F,?%,)
F-?%,)
'.?FFF
'%?F-+
'F?(%F
"'&!+"
,-./0123456031,7589
"(#&+%'
"()&$++
"(%&"$'
"($&$$#
""!&"%+
""*&'(!
""%&%*'
""$&"$)
"#(&*+%
"#"&%!#
"##&')%
#(&#*$
O89@61"7$?9P16QN3"
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
30
FIRE FACILITIES
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the eligible facilities and assets for the Fire Facilities IIP:
“Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police
facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were
once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide
administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training firefighters or
officers from more than one station or substation.”
The Fire Facilities IIP includes components for fire facilities, fire apparatus, and the cost of preparing the
Fire Facilities IIP and related development fee report. The incremental expansion methodology is used for
fire facilities and fire apparatus. The plan-based methodology is used for the development fee report.
PROPORTIONATE SHARE
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. The Fire Facilities IIP and
development fees allocate fire capital costs between residential and nonresidential development based
on a functional population approach. The functional population approach allocates the cost of facilities to
residential and nonresidential development based on average activity of residents and workers in the City
over a 24-hour period.
Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and 4 hours per day
to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in El Mirage are assigned 14
hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work
outside El Mirage are assigned 14 hours to residential development, the remaining hours in the day are
assumed to be spent outside of El Mirage working. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to
nonresidential development. Based on the most recent local functional population data, residential
development accounts for 86 percent of the functional population, while nonresidential development
accounts for 14 percent, see Figure F1. The figure is used only for the functional population calculation,
population and job estimates are produced separately.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
31
Figure F1: Proportionate Share
SERVICE UNITS
The proportionate share of costs attributable to residential development will be allocated to population
and then converted to an appropriate amount by housing size. TischlerBise recommends using vehicle
trips as the demand indicator for nonresidential demand because vehicle trips are highest for retail
developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial development. Office and institutional
trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative
demand for public safety services from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential
demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the demand for service.
For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, public safety
development fees would be disproportionately high for office and institutional development because
offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. If floor area were used as
the demand indicator, public safety development fees would be disproportionately high for industrial
development.
SERVICE AREA
El Mirage’s Fire Department strives to provide a uniform response time within the City limits; therefore,
there is a Citywide service area for the Fire Facilities IIP.
!"#$%"&'$()
!"#$%&
'"()*%
'*+H-$./*%
012345
6*H()7!$8
6*H()
9")/&"%.)J;*.J<*(=/%L
?@2540
3A
0@?2B1A
C#+-*8"&J9")/&"%.)
?124A3
C#+-*8"&J/%JC-JM/($L"
3?N
?B
02A53
C#+-*8"&J*H.)/&"JC-JM/($L"
?12BNB
?B
30A2441
9")/&"%./$-JFHG.*.$-
13523NN
!"#$%"&'$()*+,(-"
./0
12&-"#$%"&'$()
;*%HI*(=/%LJ9")/&"%.)
?@2540
B
4N23@3
J*G)JO*L$."&J/%JC-JM/($L"
32B@?
9")/&"%.)JC#+-*8"&J/%JC-JM/($L"
3?N
?A
32?NA
;*%H9")/&"%.J<*(="()JM/%N-*IJL*##H."()O
32340
?A
33240A
;*%(")/&"%./$-JFHG.*.$-
?A023A3
12&-"#$%"&'$()*+,(-"
340
P*.$-
43N2B@A
F*H(L"QJR(/S*%$JTNN/L"J*NJCL*%*#/LJT++*(.H%/.8JM+*+H-$./*%O2JUVFVJP"%)H)JXH("$H2JT%PY"M$+J
R++-/L$./*%J$%&JOC6!JT(/L/%H!")./%$./*%JC#+-*8#"%.JF.$./)./L)2JR"()/*%J1V35V?JM"#+-*8#"%.OV
5"6(&%*7&$'#*$&*8988
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
32
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
Figure F2 displays the demand indicators per development unit for residential and nonresidential
development. For residential development, the table displays the number of persons per housing unit for
each development unit based on residential unit size shown in Figure L6. For nonresidential development,
the table displays the number of vehicle trips per development unit based on ITE trip generation rates
shown in Figure L9.
Figure F2: Ratio of Service Units to Development Units
!"#$%F'()*"%+
H-.I0'12'%F33
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''''H89:'
H-.;<'71'H-000
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''''=8=:'
.-<<<'71'.-I00
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''''I8HL'
.-;<<'71'.-000
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''''I8LI'
=-<<<'12'*12F
4153"#$'6#"7
''''''''''''''''';8=0'
?5%7"@()*"%+
:I0'12'%F33
4153"#$'6#"7
.8LH
'''''''''''''
:;<'71'000
4153"#$'6#"7
=8;:
'''''''''''''
H-<<<'71'H-.I0
4153"#$'6#"7
I8H;
'''''''''''''
H-.;<'12'*12F
4153"#$'6#"7
I89=
'''''''''''''
A#B5372")%
H-<<<'!C'(7
H8:H
;<M
<8L9
N1**F2F")%
H-<<<'!C'(7
=:8<H
==M
H.8.H
GHH"FF'I'G7JF2'!F2O"FF3
H-<<<'!C'(7
H<8LI
;<M
;8I.
A#37"757"1#)%
H-<<<'!C'(7
H<8::
;<M
;8=0
H8'!FF'L)#B'63F'M335*N7"1#3
OFOF%1N*F#7'P+NF
MO$'QFFRB)+'
SFJ'P2"N'T#B3H
UF3"BF#7")%'OFOF%1N*F#7
6#"7'P+NF
VF231#3
NF2'OFO8'6#"7H
SFJ"F%F'P2"N3
NF2'OFO8'6#"7H
P2"N'U)7F'
MBP537*F#7
OFOF%1N*F#7
6#"7
OFOF%1N*F#7
6#"7
X1#2F3"BF#7")%'OFOF%1N*F#7
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
33
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Fire Facilities – Plan Based
El Mirage will use development fees to expand its current inventory of Fire facilities. Shown below in
Figure F3, El Mirage’s existing inventory includes 14,600 square feet of Fire facilities space. Functional
population is used to allocate the proportionate share of demand to residential and nonresidential
development. El Mirage’s existing level of service for residential development is 0.3366 square feet per
person (14,600 square feet X 86 percent residential share / 37,200 persons). The existing nonresidential
level of service is 0.1454 square feet per vehicle trip (14,600 square feet X 14 percent nonresidential share
/ 14,061 vehicle trips).
Figure F3: Existing Fire Facilities Level of Service
!"#$%F'(F)*
+,-.%"/0""(
+(.(F)*/1
123455
6)(.7
123455
8"#F9"*(F.7/+:.%"
;4<
=5=>/?)'-7.(F)*
@A3@55
+,-.%"/0""(/'"%/?"%#)*
5B@@44
C)*%"#F9"*(F.7/+:.%"
12<
=5=>/M":F$7"/6%F'#
123541
+,-.%"/0""(/'"%/M":F$7"/6%F'
5B12>2
+)-%$"N/FF(G/)H/I7/JF%.K"
C)*%"#F9"*(F.7
8"#F9"*(F.7
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
34
El Mirage plans to expand its Fire facilities so that the Fire Department is able to serve future development.
Shown in Figure F4, El Mirage plans to construct 15,600 additional square feet of facilities over the next
10 years. To allocate the proportionate share of demand to residential and nonresidential development,
this analysis uses functional population shown in Figure F1. The planned level of service for residential
development will be 0.6799 square feet per person (30,200 square feet X 86 percent residential share /
38,200 persons). The planned nonresidential level of service will be 0.1304 square feet per vehicle trip
(30,200 square feet X 14 percent nonresidential share / 32,412 vehicle trips). Based on the total cost of
$18,200,000 million for 15,600 square feet, the cost is $1,167 per square foot ($18,200,000 construction
cost / 15,600 square feet). This results in a cost of $793.21 per person (0.6799 square feet per person X
$1,167 per square foot) and $152.19 per vehicle trip (0.1304 square feet per vehicle trip X $1,167 per
square foot).
Figure F4: Planned Level of Service
!"#$%F'(F)*
+)#(
,-./%"01""(
+)#(0'"%0,-01(
,(/(F)*020344F(F)*
5678997999
67299
5272:9
;"<0,(/(F)*06
5287=997999
2L7899
5272?L
52@76997999
287?99
5272?=
+)#(0'"%0,-./%"01))(
5272?=
ABF#(F*C0,-./%"01""(
2M7?99
NF/**"40,-./%"01""(
287?99
1.(.%"0,-./%"01""(
L97699
G"#F4"*(F/F0,H/%"
@?I
69L80N)'.F/(F)*
L@7699
,-./%"01""(0'"%0N"%#)*
9J?=::
+)#(0'"%0N"%#)*
5=:LJ62
;)*%"#F4"*(F/F0,H/%"
2MI
69L80O"HF$F"0L%F'#
L67M26
,-./%"01""(0'"%0O"HF$F"0L%F'
9J2L9M
+)#(0'"%0O"HF$F"0L%F'
5286J2:
,).%$"M0AF0NF%/C"01F%"0!"'/%(O"*(
G"#F4"*(F/F
;)*%"#F4"*(F/F
P"Q"FR)SR,"%QF$"0TPU,V0,(/*4/%4#
+)#(01/$()%#
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
35
Fire Apparatus – Incremental Expansion
El Mirage currently serves existing development with 4 fire apparatus and plans to acquire additional fire
apparatus to serve future development. The replacement cost of the existing fleet is $1,800,000. The
average cost of the existing fleet is $450,000 per unit, and the analysis uses this as a proxy for future
growth-related fire apparatus costs.
Figure F5: Existing Fire Apparatus
To allocate the proportionate share of demand for fire apparatus to residential and nonresidential
development, this analysis uses functional population outlined in Figure F1. El Mirage’s existing level of
service for residential development is 0.00009 units per person (4 units X 86 percent residential share /
37,300 persons). The nonresidential level of service is 0.00004 units per vehicle trip (4 units X 14 percent
nonresidential share / 14,061 vehicle trips).
Based on the total cost of El Mirage’s existing fire apparatus, the average cost for a new fire apparatus is
$450,000 per unit ($1,800,000 total cost / 4 units). El Mirage may use development fees to expand its fire
apparatus fleet. For fire apparatus, the cost is $41.50 per person (0.00009 units per person X $450,000
per unit) and $17.92 per vehicle trip (0.00004 units per vehicle trip X $450,000 per unit).
Figure F6: Existing Level of Service
!"#$%F'(F)*
+",F$-"#
.*F(/0)#(
1)(2-/0)#(
3*4F*"
5
6789:999
6;:899:999
<%=#,
;
6599:999
6599:999
<2((2-F)*/0,F">
;
6;99:999
6;99:999
1)(2-
?
6?89:999
6;:@99:999
A)=%$"B/3-/CF%24"/MF%"/!"'2%(E"*(/F*2-G#F#/H"')%(:/5955I
!"#$%F"'()*"+,$"(-"+(."%#/0"
12345444
67#8F#9$(:9#F8
2
;"8#'"9F#,0(<%,+"
=L?
@4@3(AB-C0,F#B9
MN5M44
:9#F8(-"+(A"+8B9
4F4444G
HB8F(-"+(A"+8B9
12IF34
JB9+"8#'"9F#,0(<%,+"
I2?
@4@3(."%#/0"(O+#-8
I254LI
:9#F8(-"+(."%#/0"(O+#-
4F44442
HB8F(-"+(."%#/0"(O+#-
1INFG@
<BC+/"L(60(M#+,$"(N#+"(O"-,+FP"9F()9,0Q8#8(;"-B+F5(@4@@F
HB8F(N,/FB+8
R"*"0SBTS<"+*#/"(URV<P(<F,9',+'8
;"8#'"9F#,0
JB9+"8#'"9F#,0
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
36
Development Fee Report – Plan Based
The 2025 cost to prepare the Fire Facilities IIP and related development fee report equals $19,264. El
Mirage plans to update its report every five years. Based on the 5-year cost, proportionate share, and 5-
year projections of future development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per service
unit is $33.13 per person and $0.20 per vehicle trip.
Figure F7: IIP and Development Fee Report
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
As shown in the Land Use Assumptions document, projected development during the next 10 years
includes population growth of 900 persons and employment growth of 18,351 vehicle trips. The following
pages include a detailed projection of demand for services and costs for the Fire Facilities IIP.
!"#"$$%FG()*+,-#(
."F/-#"
01$2
."F/-#"(34-2
5657
5686
79J"%F(
0;%4<"
01$2(="F(
."F/-#"(34-2
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
>"$-?"42-%,
KKB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N8@FGH
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GB
L1+$
8DK6@
CD@C8
8DKA7
N6F67
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
J12%,
NKAD856
GHD557
NGF87
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B I";-#,"(JF-=$
G65D7C@
GGAD@68
.2F""2
NGKD5AH
)%FP$(%4?(
>"#F"%2-14
NGKD5AH
)1,-#"
NGKD5AH
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B
)F1=1F2-14%2"(.;%F"
Q-F"
NGKD5AH
R%$2"S%2"F
NGKD5AH
N6FG6
MNT
5D88HDG@A
5D786DAC7
GKADH@K
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
37
Fire Facilities – Plan Based
El Mirage plans to expand their Fire facilities and establish a new level of service based on their new
facilities and 2035 development estimates. Based on a projected population increase of 900 persons,
future residential development demands approximately 612 square feet of fire facilities (900 additional
persons X 0.6799 square feet per person). With projected nonresidential growth of 18,351 vehicle trips,
future nonresidential development demands approximately 2,394 additional square feet of fire facilities
(18,351 additional vehicle trips X 0.1304 square feet per vehicle trip). Future development demands
approximately 3,006 square feet of fire facilities at a cost of $3,506,616 (3,006 square feet X $1,167 per
square foot). El Mirage may use development fees to construct or expand fire facilities.
Figure F8: Projected Demand for Fire Station Space
!"#$%FG(%)*
+,-*G."IG(%)*
012344 567$I"G8""*
."IG9"I-,%
01:;0< 567$I"G8""*
."IG="L)?@"GAI).
B"-)F"%*)$@
C,%I"-)F"%*)$@
A,*$@
D0DN
;3F;00
:<F02:
DNF;20
:FG;<
D3F:4<
D0D2
;3FN00
:2F0:D
DNF<42
DF0G4
D3FNGN
D0D3
;3FN00
:GFDNN
DNF<42
DF;G:
D3FG33
D0DG
;3F200
D0FG;2
DNFN2<
DF3:G
DGFDGD
D0D4
;3F300
D;FG0N
DNF2;D
;F:0N
DGF3;3
D0;0
;3FG00
D3FDD:
DNF300
;FNN:
D4FDN:
D0;:
;3FG00
DGF:GN
DNF300
;F233
D4F;33
D0;D
;GF000
D4F:GN
DNFG;2
;FG03
D4F2<;
D0;;
;GFD00
;0FDDD
DNF43D
;F4<D
D4F4:<
D0;<
;GFD00
;:FD43
DNF43D
<F0G;
;0F0NN
D0;N
;GFD00
;DF<:D
DNF43D
<FDDG
;0FD00
:0HIIGJ%?I"$-"
400
:GF;N:
2:D
DF;4<
;F002
K3:;FG40
KDF34DF3D2
K;FN02F2:2
LI,M*LHB"@$*"FGNO."%F)*7I"-
!"#$%FGP,IG8)I"G8$?)@)*)"-
I"$I
9,.7@$*),%
="L)?@"
AI).-
567$I"G8""*
AQ."G,PGJ%PI$-*I7?*7I"
R"S"@G,PG5"IS)?"
8)I"G8$?)@)*)"-
K:F:23
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
38
Fire Apparatus – Incremental Expansion
El Mirage plans to maintain its existing level of service for fire apparatus over the next 10 years. Based on
a projected population increase of 900 persons, future residential development demands approximately
0.1 fire apparatus (900 persons X 0.00009 units per person). With projected nonresidential growth of
18,351 vehicle trips, future nonresidential development demands approximately 0.7 fire apparatus
(18,351 additional vehicle trips X 0.00004 units per vehicle trip). Future development demands
approximately 1 fire apparatus at a cost of $366,223 (0.8 units X $450,000 per unit). El Mirage may use
development fees to expand its fire apparatus fleet.
Figure F9: Projected Demand for Fire Apparatus
!"#$%FG(%)*
+,-*G."IG(%)*
0100002 (%)*-
."IG3"I-,%
0100004 (%)*-
."IG5"6)78"G9I).
:"-)F"%*)$8
;,%I"-)F"%*)$8
9,*$8
<0<=
L?@L00
A4@0BA
L14
01B
410
<0<B
L?@=00
AB@0A<
L1=
01B
41A
<0<?
L?@=00
AC@<==
L1=
01?
41<
<0<C
L?@B00
<0@CLB
L1=
01C
41L
<0<2
L?@?00
<L@C0=
L1=
012
414
<0L0
L?@C00
<?@<<A
L1=
A1A
41B
<0LA
L?@C00
<C@AC=
L1=
A1A
41B
<0L<
LC@000
<2@AC=
L1=
A1<
41?
<0LL
LC@<00
L0@<<<
L1=
A1<
41?
<0L4
LC@<00
LA@<2?
L1=
A1<
41C
<0L=
LC@<00
L<@4A<
L1=
A1L
41C
A0DNIGF%7I"$-"
200
AC@L=A
01A
01?
01C
GL?@L=A
GL<C@C?<
GLBB@<<L
HI,I*6D:"8$*"FGJK."%F)*LI"-
M)I"GN..$I$*L-
G4=0@000
N"$I
3,.L8$*),%
5"6)78"
9I).-
(%)*-
9O."G,PGF%PI$-*IL7*LI"
Q"R"8G,PGS"IR)7"
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
39
FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Bond Credit/Offset
El Mirage issued debt to fund construction of Fire facilities as part of the 2017 bond series. A credit is
necessary since future development will pay the development fee and may also contribute to future bond
payments through tax revenues. A credit is necessary for interest payments because development fee
calculations include interest costs.
The analysis splits annual bond payments based on the proportionate shares of residential and
nonresidential development and then divides by population for the residential portion and vehicle trips
for the nonresidential portion. For example, the 2026 bond payment is $9.14 per person ($398,750 bond
payment X 86 percent share / 37,500 persons) and $3.49 per vehicle trip ($398,750 bond payment X 14
percent share / 16,012 vehicle trips). To account for the time value of money, the analysis discounts
annual payments per person and vehicle trip based on the bond interest rate of 3.00 percent. The total
net present value of future bond payments is $32.94 per person and $10.49 per vehicle trip.
Figure F10: Bond Credit
!"#$%F
'(()%F*+,-.
/,#"0,(."%F
1%23,(.
45(6,#"0,(."%F
7,8"$F,
1%23,(.
9,%6
:,6;"$,
:8%6,
<,6*1,6#5(
:8%6,
=6"<#
<,6*7,8*=6"<
>?>@
A?
A?
BCDB??
A?N??
A?
FGD?HF
A?N??
>?>H
ABIJDC@?
ABG>DI>@
BCD@??
AINFG
A@@DJ>@
FHD?F>
ABNGI
>?>C
ABIJDC@?
ABG>DI>@
BCD@??
AINFG
A@@DJ>@
FJD>@@
ABN?H
>?>J
ABIJDC@?
ABG>DI>@
BCDH??
AINF>
A@@DJ>@
>?DJBH
A>NHJ
>?>I
ABIJDC@?
ABG>DI>@
BCDC??
AINF?
A@@DJ>@
>BDJ?@
A>NB@
>?B?
A?
A?
BCDJ??
A?N??
A?
>CD>>F
A?N??
>?BF
A?
A?
BCDJ??
A?N??
A?
>JDFJ@
A?N??
>?B>
A?
A?
BJD???
A?N??
A?
>IDFJ@
A?N??
>?BB
A?
A?
BJD>??
A?N??
A?
B?D>>>
A?N??
>?BG
A?
A?
BJD>??
A?N??
A?
BFD>IC
A?N??
>?B@
A?
A?
BJD>??
A?N??
A?
B>DGF>
A?N??
>?BH
A?
A?
BJDB??
A?N??
A?
BBD@HJ
A?N??
>?BC
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
BGDCHC
A?N??
>?BJ
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
BHD?F?
A?N??
>?BI
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
BCD>II
A?N??
>?G?
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
BJDHB@
A?N??
>?GF
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
BIDFH?
A?N??
>?G>
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
BIDHIB
A?N??
>?GB
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
G?D>BB
A?N??
>?GG
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
G?DCJ?
A?N??
>?G@
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
GFDBBH
A?N??
=5.%F
AFD@I@D???
AFDBCFDC??
ABHN@F
A>>BDB??
AFFN@C
/%.,
BN??K
AB>NIG
AF?NGI
L6,0".*<,6*1,6#5(
L6,0".*<,6*7,8"$F,*=6"<
!"6,*:8%6,*5M*:,6",#*>?FC*N5(0#
15<)F%."5(
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
40
Fire Facilities Development Fees
Figure F11 includes infrastructure components and cost factors for fire facilities development fees. The
cost per service unit is $834.90 per person and $159.82 per vehicle trip.
Residential development fees are calculated per housing unit, based on unit size, and vary proportionately
according to the number of persons per housing unit. For a single family residential unit with 2,200 square
feet, the fee of $3,490 is calculated using a cost of $834.90 per person multiplied by 4.18 persons per
housing unit.
Nonresidential development fees are calculated per development unit and vary proportionately according
to the number of vehicle trips generated. For industrial development, the fee of $137 per development
unit (thousand square feet) is calculated using a cost of $159.82 per vehicle trip multiplied by 0.86 vehicle
trips generated per development unit.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
41
Figure F11: Fire Facilities Development Fees
!""#$%F'%("()
$%*)#'"+#H"+*%(
$%*)#'"+#-+.'
I%(0#$+"0.)
12345678
129:5768
!.+"#!;<.=.)."*
2L63549
29?4596
!.+"#@'';+;)A*
2795?:
29L564
B"C"=%'F"()#!""#M"'%+)
233593
2:54:
-%);=
2N3756:
29?65N4
F.(G="#!;F.=H
9I476#%+#="**
J%A*.(G#O(.)
95LL
29I367
9I4?:#)%#9I666
J%A*.(G#O(.)
353L
24IN97
4I:::#)%#4I766
J%A*.(G#O(.)
759N
23I76:
4I?::#)%#4I666
J%A*.(G#O(.)
75N7
27I:79
3I:::#%+#F%+"
J%A*.(G#O(.)
?536
27I?::
MA=).N!;F.=H
L76#%+#="**
J%A*.(G#O(.)
45N9
24I37L
L?:#)%#666
J%A*.(G#O(.)
35?L
24I6N9
9I:::#)%#9I476
J%A*.(G#O(.)
759?
23I7L?
9I4?:#%+#F%+"
J%A*.(G#O(.)
75L3
23INLL
O(0A*)+.;=
9I:::#FP#!)
:5NL
293L
$%FF"+<.;=
9I:::#FP#!)
94549
29I6?9
QRR.<"#S#Q)T"+#F"+C.<"*
9I:::#FP#!)
?574
2NLL
O(*).)A).%(;=
9I:::#FP#!)
?536
2NL9
95#F""#U;(0#O*"#@**AF').%(*
M"*.0"().;=#!""*#'"+#B"C"=%'F"()#O(.)
B"C"=%'F"()#-H'"
B"C"=%'F"()
O(.)
H"+*%(*
'"+#B"C5#O(.)9
H+%'%*"0
!""*
B"C"=%'F"()#-H'"
V"T.<="#-+.'*
'"+#B"C5#O(.)9
H+%'%*"0
!""*
B"C"=%'F"()
O(.)
P%(+"*.0"().;=#!""*#'"+#B"C"=%'F"()#O(.)
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
42
FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE
Appendix A contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s enabling legislation (ARS § 9-
463.05(E)(7)). In accordance with state law, this report includes an IIP for fire facilities needed to
accommodate future development. Projected fee revenue shown in Figure F12 is based on the
development projections in the Land Use Assumptions document and the updated development fees for
fire facilities shown in Figure F11. If development occurs at a more rapid rate than projected, the demand
for infrastructure will increase and development fee revenue will increase at a corresponding rate. If
development occurs at a slower rate than projected, the demand for infrastructure will decrease along
with development fee revenue. Projected development fee revenue equals $3,924,917 and projected
expenditures equal $18,585,487.
Figure F12: Fire Facilities Development Fee Revenue
!"#$%FG(F)"*
+H-.%-I0G(F)"*
1#%)2
3-"*G3)4-2-%-*.
56789:7:;:G
5;K7:=676>KG
5;>7?997999G
3-"*G@AA)")%B.
56::7??6G
59G
56::7??6G
C*M*2#AE*I%G3**GF*A#"%
5;=7?:KG
59G
5;=7?:KG
1#%)2
567>=?7;96G
5;K7:=676>KG
5;>78>87K>GG
(-I02*G3)E-2HI
JB2%-O3)E-2HII
LIMB.%"-)2
N#EE*"4-)2
OPP-4*
LI.%-%B%-#I)2
567K=9
5?7=>;
5;6G
5;7=8;
5>::
5>:;
A*"GBI-%
A*"GBI-%
A*"G;7999G.QGP% A*"G;7999G.QGP% A*"G;7999G.QGP%
A*"G;7999G.QGP%
R.0GSI-%
R.0GSI-%
T(3
T(3
T(3
T(3
U).*
?9?8
;;7G::
:9:
;7K9:
8=6
;:?
>G=
V*)"G;
?9?:
;;7GG6
:G?
;7>;?
G9K
;:?
=?G
V*)"G?
?9?G
;;7GG6
:G?
?7?G=
>6;
;:?
=>?
V*)"G6
?9?>
;;7GG:
G98
?7>;:
=G:
;:?
;79K8
V*)"GK
?9?=
;;7G>9
G6>
67K6K
;7;KK
;:?
;7;;G
V*)"G8
?969
;;7G>6
GG;
K7;K8
;766G
;:?
;7?9;
V*)"G:
?96;
;;7G>6
GG;
K76K8
;76=?
;:?
;7??K
V*)"GG
?96?
;;7G=9
>6G
K7886
;7KK>
;:?
;7?K=
V*)"G>
?966
;;7G=G
=96
K7G:=
;789G
;:?
;7?GK
V*)"G=
?96K
;;7G=G
=96
K7==6
;78:>
;:?
;769;
V*)"G;9
?968
;;7G=G
=96
87??8
;7:6;
;:?
;76?>
6;
?=G
67>;=
;796>
9
KK>
5;9:7:?:G
5>>K7=98G
58?67;K8G
5?79?K7?9>G
59G
56>:7966G
IGS.-I0G%F*GP**GP#"G)G.-I02*GP)E-2HGBI-%GP*%$**IG?7999G)IMG?7K==G.QB)"*GP**%
567=?K7=;G
IIGS.-I0G%F*GP**GP#"G)GEB2%-OP)E-2HGBI-%GP*%$**IGG89G)IMG===G.QB)"*GP**%
5;>78>87K>G
1#%)2G+HA*IM-%B"*.
;9OV*)"GLI4"*).*
X"#Y*4%*MGF*M*IB*
X"#Y*4%*MG3**GF*M*IB*
V*)"
3**GN#EA#I*I%
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
43
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IIP
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(g) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Parks and Recreational
Facilities IIP:
“Neighborhood parks and recreation facilities on real property up to thirty acres in area, or parks
and recreation facilities larger than thirty acres if the facilities provide a direct benefit to the
development. Park and recreation facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of
any facility that is used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas,
arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses,
clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand square feet in floor area,
environmental education centers, equestrian facilities, golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes,
museums, theme parks, water reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar
recreation facilities, but may include swimming pools.”
The Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP includes components for park amenities, recreation facilities,
pools, trails, and the cost of preparing the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and related Development
Fee Report. The City does not anticipate purchasing additional land for parks. The incremental expansion
methodology is used for park amenities. The plan-based methodology is used for community centers and
the Development Fee Report.
PROPORTIONATE SHARE
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. The Parks and Recreation
Facilities IIP and development fees allocate the capital cost of necessary public services between
residential and nonresidential based on functional population. The Arizona Office of Economic
Opportunity estimates El Mirage’s 2022 population equal to 36,275 persons. Based on 2022 estimates
from the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap web application, 2,273 inflow commuters traveled to El Mirage
for work in 2022. The proportionate share is based on cumulative impact hours per year. Potential impact
to parks and recreational facilities equals 8,760 hours per year per resident and 1,600 hours per year per
inflow commuter. For parks and recreational facilities, residential development generates 99 percent of
demand and nonresidential development generates the remaining 1 percent of demand.
Figure PR1: Proportionate Share
!"#$%"&'$()
*+H-.I 0"#$%"&'#1
2H.+345670#
*1.H.+8H333
889
:6&0"#$%"&'$()
-H-.* $&;)6<4=6LL7'"0#-
1H+3345670#
*H+*+H233
19
*-1H?3IH233
1339
1@4A0$B6&(4C;;$="46;4M=6&6L$=4CNN60'7&$'FH4-3--@
-@4G@H@4I"#4J70"(7H4C&O5"L(N4ANN)$=('$6&4(&%4MMNO4C0$P$&QO"#'$&('$6&4MLN)6FL"&'4H'('$#'$=#H4-3--@
!"#$%"&'$()4RLN(='S42H.+345670#4N"04F"(04T-?45670#4N"04%(F4U4*+I4%(F#4N"04F"(0V
:6&0"#$%"&'$()4RLN(='S41H+3345670#4N"04F"(04T245670#4N"04%(F4U4?4%(F#4N"04<""P4U4I34<""P#4N"04F"(0V
O6'()4RLN(='4
N670#4N"04X"(0
Y06N60'$6&('"4
H5(0"
O6'()
O"R")6NL"&'4OFN"
RLN(='4O(F#4
N"04X"(0
H"0R$="4G&$'
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
44
SERVICE UNITS
The proportionate share of costs attributable to residential development will be allocated to population
and then converted to an appropriate amount by housing size. TischlerBise recommends using jobs as the
demand indicator for nonresidential demand because inflow commuters represent the nonresidential
portion of our proportionate share, as such the number of jobs generated by a nonresidential
development will accurately determine its demand for parks facilities.
SERVICE AREA
El Mirage provides Citywide access to parks and recreational facilities; therefore, there is a Citywide
service area for the Parks and Recreation Facilities IIP.
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
Figure PR2 displays the demand indicators per development unit for residential and nonresidential
development. For residential development, the table displays the number of persons per housing unit for
each development unit based on residential unit size shown in Figure L6. For nonresidential development,
the table displays the number of jobs per development unit based on ITE employment density factors
shown in Figure L9.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
45
Figure PR2: Ratio of Service Units to Development Units
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Park Amenities – Incremental Expansion
El Mirage currently provides 55 park amenities and plans to construct additional park amenities to serve
future development. Based on conversations with City staff, the total cost of El Mirage’s existing park
amenities is $25,288,600. The analysis uses the average cost of $464,011 per unit as a proxy for future
growth-related park amenity costs.
!"#$%F'()*"%+
H-.I0'12'%F33
4153"#$'6#"7
''''''''''''''''H89J'
H-.;<'71'H-000
4153"#$'6#"7
''''''''''''''''=8=J'
.-<<<'71'.-I00
4153"#$'6#"7
''''''''''''''''I8HL'
.-;<<'71'.-000
4153"#$'6#"7
''''''''''''''''I8LI'
=-<<<'12'*12F
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''';8=0'
?5%7"@()*"%+
JI0'12'%F33
4153"#$'6#"7
.8LH
'''''''''''''''
J;<'71'000
4153"#$'6#"7
=8;J
'''''''''''''''
H-<<<'71'H-.I0
4153"#$'6#"7
I8H;
'''''''''''''''
H-.;<'12'*12F
4153"#$'6#"7
I89=
'''''''''''''''
A#B5372")%
H-<<<'!C'(7
<8=I
M1**F2N")%
H-<<<'!C'(7
.8H.
FGG"NF'H'F7IF2'!F2J"NF3
H-<<<'!C'(7
=8.9
A#37"757"1#)%
H-<<<'!C'(7
.8L9
H8'!FF'O)#B'63F'L335*M7"1#3
NFJF%1M*F#7
6#"7
NFJF%1M*F#7
6#"7
NFJF%1M*F#7'O+MF
PF231#3
MF2'NFJ8'6#"7H
QF3"BF#7")%'NFJF%1M*F#7
R1#2F3"BF#7")%'NFJF%1M*F#7
NFJF%1M*F#7'O+MF
S1T3
MF2'NFJ8'6#"7H
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
46
Figure PR3: Existing Park Amenities
To allocate the proportionate share of demand for park amenities to residential and nonresidential
development, this analysis uses the proportionate share shown in Figure PR1. El Mirage’s existing LOS for
residential development is 0.0014 units per person (55 units X 99 percent residential share / 37,300
persons). For nonresidential development, the existing LOS is 0.0001 units per job (55 units X 1 percent
nonresidential share / 3,908 jobs).
Based on the cost of El Mirage’s existing park amenities, the average cost for park amenities is $464,011
per unit ($25,288,600 total cost / 55 units). El Mirage may use development fees to construct additional
park amenities in existing parks or future parks. For park amenities, the cost is $671.20 per person (0.0014
units per person X $464,011 per unit) and $64.71 per job (0.0001 units per job X $464,011 per unit).
!"#$%FG(F)*
+*F(#
+*F(,-)#(
.)(/0,-)#(
1/#"2/00,3F"04
5
6789998999
6589998999
3))(2/00,3F"04
5
6:;98999
6<8<;98999
1/#="(2/00,-)>%(
:?;
67;98999
6787<;8999
@G0/#A,B/4
7
6787998999
6787998999
B))0
7
678;998999
678;998999
C)00"D2/00,-)>%(
5
67:;8999
6;<;8999
B0/DE%)>*4
7<
6789998999
67<89998999
FG"%$F#",B/(A
;
6<:8:<9
675H8I99
JKGF(A"/("%
7
6:;98999
6:;98999
@G"$F/0(D,L/%4"*
7
67998999
67998999
!)E,B/%=
<
67998999
6<998999
@=/(",B/%=
7
678<998999
678<998999
B/MF0F)*
7N
67998999
678N998999
.)(/0
;;
6NIN8977
6<;8<HH8I99
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
47
Figure PR4: Existing Level of Service
Recreation Facilities – Plan Based
El Mirage plans to use development fees to expand its level of service for Recreation Facilities, the City
does not currently provide Recreation Facilities to its residents. The Enabling Legislation limits recreation
facilities to “three thousand square feet that provide a direct benefit to development.” To comply with
the Enabling Legislation, El Mirage will use 3,000 eligible square feet in the level-of-service standards.
To allocate the proportionate share of demand for recreation facilities to residential and nonresidential
development, this analysis uses proportionate share shown in Figure PR1. El Mirage’s eligible level of
service for residential development is 0.0777 eligible square feet per person (3,000 eligible square feet X
99 percent residential share / 38,200 persons). The nonresidential level of service is 0.0032 eligible square
feet per job (3,000 eligible square feet X 1 percent nonresidential share / 9,437 jobs).
The planned Recreation Facility will have a construction cost of $833 per square foot based on
conversations with City staff. For recreation facilities, the cost is $64.79 per person (0.0777 eligible square
feet per person X $833 per square foot) and $2.65 per job (0.0032 eligible square feet per job X $833 per
square foot).
!"#$%F"'()*"+,$"(-"+(./#F
01213455
67#8F#/$(./#F8
99
J"8#'"/F#,;(<%,+"
==L
?4?9(@A-B;,F#A/
CM3C44
./#F8(-"+(@"+8A/
4N4451
FA8F(-"+(@"+8A/
02M5N?4
GA/+"8#'"/F#,;(<%,+"
5L
?4?9(HAI8
C3=4J
./#F8(-"+(HAI
4N4445
FA8F(-"+(HAI
021NM5
GA/+"8#'"/F#,;
J"8#'"/F#,;
<AB+O"L(6;(M#+,$"(@,+N8(O(J"O+",F#A/(P"-,+FQ"/FN
FA8F(R,OFA+8
S"*";TAUT<"+*#O"(VSP<X(<F,/',+'8
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
48
Figure PR5: Planned Level of Service
Development Fee Report – Plan Based
The 2025 cost to prepare the Parks and Recreation IIP and related development fee report equals $19,264.
El Mirage plans to update its report every five years. Based on the 5-year cost, proportionate share, and
5-year projections of future development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per service
unit is $38.14 per person and $0.05 per job.
Figure PR6: IIP and Development Fee Report
!"#$%F'(F)*
+,-.%"/0""(
1)#(
2)-(3/1"*("%
45666
/////////////////
7859665666
J)(.;
45666
/////////////////
7859665666
1)#(/'"%/+,-.%"/0))(
7<44
=LF#(F*?/+,-.%"/0""(
6
@;.**"A/+,-.%"/0""(
45666
0-(-%"/+,-.%"/0""(
45666
B"#FA"*(F.;/+3.%"
CCM
8649/@)'-;.(F)*
4<5866
+,-.%"/0""(/'"%/@"%#)*
6N6FFF
1)#(/'"%/@"%#)*
7GHNFC
I)*%"#FA"*(F.;/+3.%"
JM
8649/O)L#
C5H4F
+,-.%"/0""(/'"%/O)L
6N6648
1)#(/'"%/O)L
78NG9
+)-%$"M/=;/NF%.?"/@.%O#/P/B"$%".(F)*/!"'.%(Q"*(N
1)#(/0.$()%#
R"S";T)UT+"%SF$"/VRP+X/+(.*A.%A#
B"#FA"*(F.;
I)*%"#FA"*(F.;
!"#"$$%FG()*+,-#(
."F/-#"
01$2
."F/-#"(34-2
5657
5686
79J"%F(
0;%4<"
01$2(="F(
."F/-#"(34-2
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
>"$-?"42-%,
KKB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N8@FGH
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GB
L1+$
8DK6@
CD@C8
8DKA7
N6F67
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
J12%,
NKAD856
GHD557
NGF87
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B I";-#,"(JF-=$
G65D7C@
GGAD@68
.2F""2
NGKD5AH
)%FP$(%4?(
>"#F"%2-14
NGKD5AH
)1,-#"
NGKD5AH
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B
)F1=1F2-14%2"(.;%F"
Q-F"
NGKD5AH
R%$2"S%2"F
NGKD5AH
N6FG6
MNT
5D88HDG@A
5D786DAC7
GKADH@K
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
49
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
As shown in the Land Use Assumptions document, projected development during the next 10 years
includes population growth of 900 persons and employment growth of 5,529 jobs. The following pages
include a detailed projection of demand for services and costs for the Parks and Recreation Facilities IIP.
Park Amenities – Incremental Expansion
El Mirage plans to maintain its existing level of service for park amenities over the next 10 years. Based
on a projected population increase of 900 persons, future residential development demands an additional
1.3 park amenities (900 additional persons X 0.0014 units per person). With projected employment
growth of 5,529 jobs, future nonresidential development demands an additional 0.8 park amenities (5,529
additional jobs X 0.0001 units per job). Future development demands 2.1 additional park amenities at a
cost of $975,288 (2.1 units X $464,011 per unit). El Mirage may use development fees to construct
additional park amenities in existing parks or future parks.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
50
Figure PR7: Projected Demand for Park Amenities
Recreation Facilities – Plan Based
El Mirage plans to expand its eligible level of service for recreation facilities over the next 10 years. Based
on a projected population increase of 900 persons, future residential development demands
approximately 70 square feet of recreation facilities (900 additional persons X 0.0777 eligible square feet
per person). With projected employment growth of 5,529 jobs, future nonresidential development
demands approximately 18 square feet of recreation facilities (5,529 additional jobs X 0.0032 eligible
square feet per job). Future development demands approximately 88 square feet of recreation facilities
at a cost of $72,959 (88 square feet X $833 per square foot). El Mirage may use development fees to
construct additional recreation facilities.
!"#$%&G(%)*
+,-*G."IG(%)*
010023 (%)*-
."IG4"I-,%
010002 (%)*-
."IG5,6
7"-)&"%*)$8
9,%I"-)&"%*)$8
J,*$8
;0;<
=L?=00
=?@0A
<310
01<
<31<
;0;B
=L?<00
3?3@B
<31;
01B
<31@
;0;L
=L?<00
<?2L;
<31;
01L
<<10
;0;A
=L?B00
<?@3@
<313
01A
<<1;
;0;@
=L?L00
B?A33
<31<
210
<<1<
;0=0
=L?A00
L?AL=
<31L
212
<<1A
;0=2
=L?A00
A?2B3
<31L
212
<<1A
;0=;
=A?000
A?3B<
<<10
21;
<B12
;0==
=A?;00
A?LLL
<<1=
21;
<B1<
;0=3
=A?;00
@?202
<<1=
21=
<B1<
;0=<
=A?;00
@?3=L
<<1=
21=
<B1B
20CDIGN%FI"$-"
@00
<?<;@
21=
01A
;12
GB03?0L@
G=L2?;0@
G@L<?;AA
HI,I*JC7"8$*"&GKL."%&)*MI"-
!"#$%&GN,IG4$IOGP#"%)*)"-
5,6-G
(%)*-
4$IOGP#"%)*)"-
G3B3?022
D"$I
4,.M8$*),%
JQ."G,NGN%NI$-*IMF*MI"
R"S"8G,NGT"IS)F"
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
51
Figure PR8: Projected Demand for Community Center Space
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Parks Bond Credit/Offset
El Mirage issued debt to fund construction of park facilities as part of the 2017 bond series. A credit is
necessary since future development will pay the development fee and may also contribute to future bond
payments through tax revenues. A credit is necessary for interest payments because development fee
calculations include interest costs.
The analysis splits annual bond payments based on the proportionate shares of residential and
nonresidential development and then divides by population for the residential portion and jobs for the
nonresidential portion. For example, the 2026 bond payment is $10.53 per person ($398,750 bond
payment X 99 percent share / 37,500 persons) and $0.89 per job ($398,750 bond payment X 1 percent
share / 4,496 jobs). To account for the time value of money, the analysis discounts annual payments per
person and job based on the bond interest rate of 3.00 percent. The total net present value of future bond
payments is $37.92 per person and $2.64 per job.
!"#$%FG(%)*
+,-*G."IG(%)*
010222 345$I"G6""*
."IG7"I-,%
010089 345$I"G6""*
."IGJ,;
<"-)F"%*)$=
L,%I"-)F"%*)$=
?,*$=
909@
82A800
8AB0C
9AB00
D9
9ABD9
909N
82A@00
FAFBN
9ABDN
DF
9AB80
9092
82A@00
@AD29
9ABDN
DN
9AB89
909C
82AN00
@ABFB
9AB98
DB
9ABF9
909B
82A200
NACFF
9AB8D
99
9AB@8
9080
82AC00
2AC28
9AB8B
9@
9ABNF
908D
82AC00
CADNF
9AB8B
9N
9ABN@
9089
8CA000
CAFN@
9AB@F
92
9ABCD
9088
8CA900
CA222
9AB20
9C
9ABBC
908F
8CA900
BAD0D
9AB20
9B
9ABBB
908@
8CA900
BAF82
9AB20
80
8A000
D0GHIGI%JI"$-"
B00
@A@9B
20
DC
CC
K@CA8D9
KDFANF2
K29AB@B
?L."G,MGI%MI$-*I5J*5I"
N"O"=G,MG3"IO)J"
+,##5%)*LG+"%*"I-
KC88
!"#$%FGM,IG6)I"G6$J)=)*)"-
H"$I
7,.5=$*),%
J,;-
345$I"G6""*
PI,Q*RG<"=$*"FGST."%F)*5I"-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
52
Figure F13: Parks Bond Credit
Recreation Bond Credit/Offset
El Mirage issued debt to fund construction of recreation facilities as part of the 2022 bond series. A credit
is necessary since future development will pay the development fee and may also contribute to future
bond payments through tax revenues. A credit is necessary for interest payments because development
fee calculations include interest costs.
The analysis splits annual bond payments based on the proportionate shares of residential and
nonresidential development and then divides by population for the residential portion and jobs for the
nonresidential portion. For example, the 2026 bond payment is $2.42 per person ($91,591 bond payment
X 99 percent share / 37,500 persons) and $0.20 per job ($91,591 bond payment X 1 percent share / 4,496
jobs). To account for the time value of money, the analysis discounts annual payments per person and job
based on the bond interest rate of 4.00 percent. The total net present value of future bond payments is
$27.91 per person and $1.38 per job.
!"#$%F
'(()%F*+,-.
/,#"0,(."%F
1%23,(.
45(6,#"0,(."%F
1%23,(.
7,%6
8,69"$,
8J%6,
;,6*1,6#5(
8J%6,
;,6*<5-
=>=?
@>
@>
ABCA>>
@>D>>
@>
ACN>F
@>D>>
=>=G
@ANFCB?>
@ANHCBGA
ABC?>>
@I>D?A
@ACNFF
HCHNG
@>DFN
=>=B
@ANFCB?>
@ANHCBGA
ABC?>>
@I>D?A
@ACNFF
?CIB=
@>DBB
=>=F
@ANFCB?>
@ANHCBGA
ABCG>>
@I>D?>
@ACNFF
?CNHN
@>DGB
=>=N
@ANFCB?>
@ANHCBGA
ABCB>>
@I>DHB
@ACNFF
GCFHH
@>D?F
=>A>
@>
@>
ABCF>>
@>D>>
@>
BCFBA
@>D>>
=>AI
@>
@>
ABCF>>
@>D>>
@>
FCIGH
@>D>>
=>A=
@>
@>
AFC>>>
@>D>>
@>
FCHG?
@>D>>
=>AA
@>
@>
AFC=>>
@>D>>
@>
FCBBB
@>D>>
=>AH
@>
@>
AFC=>>
@>D>>
@>
NCI>I
@>D>>
=>A?
@>
@>
AFC=>>
@>D>>
@>
NCHAB
@>D>>
=>AG
@>
@>
AFCA>>
@>D>>
@>
NCBF?
@>D>>
=>AB
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
I>CIHB
@>D>>
=>AF
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
I>C?=I
@>D>>
=>AN
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
I>CN>N
@>D>>
=>H>
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
IICAI=
@>D>>
=>HI
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
IICHB>
@>D>>
=>H=
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
IICGAI
@>D>>
=>HA
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
IICBNA
@>D>>
=>HH
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
IICN?F
@>D>>
=>H?
@>
@>
AFCH>>
@>D>>
@>
I=CI=G
@>D>>
J5.%F
@IC?N?C>>>
@IC?BNC>?>
@H=D>=
@I?CN?>
@=DNI
/%.,
AD>>K
@ABDN=
@=DGH
1%6L#*8J%6,*5M*8,6",#*=>IB*N5(0#
15;)F%."5(
<5-#
O6,0".*;,6*1,6#5(
O6,0".*;,6*<5-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
53
Figure F14: Recreation Bond Credit
Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees
Figure PR9 includes infrastructure components and cost factors for parks and recreational facilities
development fees. The cost per service unit is $708.30 per person and $63.39 per job.
Residential development fees are calculated per housing unit, based on unit size, and vary proportionately
according to the number of persons per housing unit. For a single family residential unit with 2,200 square
feet, the fee of $2,961 is calculated using a cost of $708.30 per person multiplied by 4.18 persons per
housing unit.
Nonresidential development fees are calculated per development unit and vary proportionately according
to the number of jobs. For industrial development, the fee of $21 per development unit (thousand square
feet) is calculated using a cost of $63.39 per job multiplied by 0.34 jobs per development unit.
!"#$%F
'(()%F*+,-.
/,#"0,(."%F
1%23,(.
45(6,#"0,(."%F
1%23,(.
7,%6
8,69"$,
8J%6,
;,6*1,6#5(
8J%6,
;,6*<5-
=>=?
@>
@>
ABCA>>
@>D>>
@>
ACN>F
@>D>>
=>=G
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
ABC?>>
@=DI=
@NHG
ICING
@>D=>
=>=B
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
ABC?>>
@=DI=
@NHG
?CHB=
@>DHF
=>=F
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
ABCG>>
@=DIH
@NHG
?CNIN
@>DH?
=>=N
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
ABCB>>
@=DIH
@NHG
GCFII
@>DHA
=>A>
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
ABCF>>
@=DI>
@NHG
BCFBA
@>DH=
=>AH
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
ABCF>>
@=DI>
@NHG
FCHGI
@>DHH
=>A=
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFC>>>
@=DAN
@NHG
FCIG?
@>DHH
=>AA
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFC=>>
@=DAB
@NHG
FCBBB
@>DH>
=>AI
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFC=>>
@=DAB
@NHG
NCH>H
@>DH>
=>A?
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFC=>>
@=DAB
@NHG
NCIAB
@>DH>
=>AG
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFCA>>
@=DAB
@NHG
NCBF?
@>D>N
=>AB
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFCI>>
@=DAG
@NHG
H>CHIB
@>D>N
=>AF
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFCI>>
@=DAG
@NHG
H>C?=H
@>D>N
=>AN
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFCI>>
@=DAG
@NHG
H>CN>N
@>D>F
=>I>
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFCI>>
@=DAG
@NHG
HHCAH=
@>D>F
=>IH
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFCI>>
@=DAG
@NHG
HHCIB>
@>D>F
=>I=
@NHC?NH
@N>CGB?
AFCI>>
@=DAG
@NHG
HHCGAH
@>D>F
=>IA
@>
@>
AFCI>>
@>D>>
@>
HHCBNA
@>D>>
=>II
@>
@>
AFCI>>
@>D>>
@>
HHCN?F
@>D>>
=>I?
@>
@>
AFCI>>
@>D>>
@>
H=CH=G
@>D>>
J5.%F
@HC??BC>IB
@HC?IHCIBB
@I>DIN
@H?C?B>
@HDN>
/%.,
ID>>K
@=BDNH
@HDAF
L6,0".*;,6*<5-
/,$6,%."5(*8J%6,*5M*8,6",#*=>==*N5(0#
15;)F%."5(
<5-#
L6,0".*;,6*1,6#5(
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
54
Figure PR9: Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Fees
!""#$%F'%("()
$%*)#'"+#H"+*%(
$%*)#'"+#-%.
I"0+"1)2%(#$"()"+*
345678
3964J
H1+;*#<%(=#$+"=2)
L3?7689@
L39645@
I"0+"1)2%(#<%(=#$+"=2)
L39768A@
L3A6?B@
H1+;#CF"(2)2"*
347A69M
34567A
N"F"G%'F"()#!""#I"'%+)
3?B6A5
3M6MJ
H%)1G
37MB6?M
34?6?8
I2(JG"#!1F2GO
AL958#%+#G"**
M%N*2(J#O(2)
A647
3ALAB?
AL9JM#)%#AL888
M%N*2(J#O(2)
?6?7
39L?B7
9LMMM#)%#9L588
M%N*2(J#O(2)
56AB
39L84A
9LJMM#)%#9L888
M%N*2(J#O(2)
56B5
3?L59B
?LMMM#%+#F%+"
M%N*2(J#O(2)
J6?8
3?LBAB
PNG)2Q!1F2GO
758#%+#G"**
M%N*2(J#O(2)
96BA
3AL88M
7JM#)%#888
M%N*2(J#O(2)
?6J7
39LJ98
ALMMM#)%#AL958
M%N*2(J#O(2)
56AJ
39L8?8
AL9JM#%+#F%+"
M%N*2(J#O(2)
564?
3?L978
R(=N*)+21G
ALMMM#IS#!)
M6?5
39A
$%FF"+021G
ALMMM#IS#!)
96A9
3A?J
TUU20"#V#T)P"+#I"+F20"*
ALMMM#IS#!)
?694
39M4
R(*)2)N)2%(1G
ALMMM#IS#!)
96B4
3ABA
A6#I""#X1(=#O*"#C**NF')2%(*
Y%(+"*2="()21G#!""*#'"+#N"F"G%'F"()#O(2)
N"F"G%'F"()
O(2)
I"*2="()21G#!""*#'"+#N"F"G%'F"()#O(2)
N"F"G%'F"()#HO'"
N"F"G%'F"()
O(2)
H"+*%(*
'"+#N"F6#O(2)A
H+%'%*"=
!""*
H+%'%*"=
!""*
N"F"G%'F"()#HO'"
-%.*
'"+#N"F6#O(2)A
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
55
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE
Appendix A contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation (ARS § 9-
463.05(E)(7)). In accordance with state law, this report includes an IIP for parks and recreational facilities
needed to accommodate new development. Projected fee revenue shown in Figure PR10 is based on the
development projections in the Land Use Assumptions document and the updated development fees for
parks and recreation facilities shown in Figure PR9. If development occurs at a more rapid rate than
projected, the demand for infrastructure will increase and development fee revenue will increase at a
corresponding rate. If development occurs at a slower rate than projected, the demand for infrastructure
will decrease along with development fee revenue. Projected development fee revenue equals $932,516
and projected expenditures equal $3,494,552.
Figure PR10: Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue
!"#$%FG(F)"* +H-.%-I0G(F)"*
1#%)2
3*4"*)%-#IG5*I%*".
6789:;:
689K879=K>
689;==9===
?)"@GAB*I-%-*.
6:7;98CC
6=
6:7;98CC
M*E*2#FB*I%GG**G3*F#"%
6>:98HK
6=
6>:98HK
1#%)2
6>9=H79;>=
689K879=K>
6I9K:K9;;8
(-I02*GG)B-2JO
LM2%-NG)B-2JOO
OIPM.%"-)2
5#BB*"4-)2
QRR-4*
OI.%-%M%-#I)2
689:H>
689;8:
68>
6>I;
68=H
6>C>
F*"GMI-%
F*"GMI-%
F*"G>9===G.SGR% F*"G>9===G.SGR% F*"G>9===G.SGR% F*"G>9===G.SGR%
T.0GUI-%
T.0GUI-%
V(G
V(G
V(G
V(G
P).*
8=8;
>>97HH
H=H
>9K=H
;:I
>H8
C7:
X*)"G>
8=8H
>>977I
H78
>9C>8
7=K
>H8
:87
X*)"G8
8=87
>>977I
H78
8987:
CI>
>H8
:C8
X*)"GI
8=8C
>>977H
7=;
89C>H
:7H
>H8
>9=K;
X*)"GK
8=8:
>>97C=
7IC
I9KIK
>9>KK
>H8
>9>>7
X*)"G;
8=I=
>>97CI
77>
K9>K;
>9II7
>H8
>98=>
X*)"GH
8=I>
>>97CI
77>
K9IK;
>9I:8
>H8
>988K
X*)"G7
8=I8
>>97:=
CI7
K9;;I
>9KKC
>H8
>98K:
X*)"GC
8=II
>>97:7
:=I
K97H:
>9;=7
>H8
>987K
X*)"G:
8=IK
>>97:7
:=I
K9::I
>9;HC
>H8
>9I=>
X*)"G>=
8=I;
>>97:7
:=I
;988;
>9HI>
>H8
>9I8C
I>
8:7
I9C>:
>9=IC
=
KKC
6HK9=:HG
6;;:9=;KG
6CI97>CG
6>K897>:G
6=G
6C89:8:G
OGU.-I0G%F*GR**GR#"G)G.-I02*GR)B-2JGMI-%GY*%$**IG89===G)IPG89K::G.SM)"*GR**%
6:I89;>H
OOGU.-I0G%F*GR**GR#"G)GBM2%-NR)B-2JGMI-%GY*%$**IG7;=G)IPG:::G.SM)"*GR**%
6I9K:K9;;8
?"#R*4%*PGG**G3*E*IM*
1#%)2G+HF*IP-%M"*.
X*)"
>=NX*)"GOI4"*).*
?"#R*4%*PG3*E*IM*
G**G5#BF#I*I%
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
56
POLICE FACILITIES IIP
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the eligible facilities and assets for the Police Facilities IIP:
“Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police
facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were
once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide
administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training firefighters or
officers from more than one station or substation.”
The Police Facilities IIP includes components for police facilities, police vehicles, and the cost of preparing
the Police Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. The incremental expansion methodology,
based on the current level of service, is used for police facilities and police vehicles. The plan-based
methodology is used for police facilities and the Development Fee Report.
PROPORTIONATE SHARE
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. The Fire Facilities IIP and
development fees allocate fire capital costs between residential and nonresidential development based
on a functional population approach. The functional population approach allocates the cost of facilities to
residential and nonresidential development based on average activity of residents and workers in the City
over a 24-hour period.
Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and 4 hours per day
to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in El Mirage are assigned 14
hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work
outside El Mirage are assigned 14 hours to residential development, the remaining hours in the day are
assumed to be spent outside of El Mirage working. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to
nonresidential development. Based on the most recent local functional population data, residential
development accounts for 86 percent of the functional population, while nonresidential development
accounts for 14 percent, see Figure P1. The figure is used only for the functional population calculation,
population and job estimates are produced separately.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
57
Figure P1: Proportionate Share
SERVICE UNITS
The proportionate share of costs attributable to residential development will be allocated to population
and then converted to an appropriate amount by housing size. TischlerBise recommends using vehicle
trips as the demand indicator for nonresidential demand because vehicle trips are highest for retail
developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial development. Office and institutional
trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative
demand for public safety services from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential
demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the demand for service.
For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, public safety
development fees would be disproportionately high for office and institutional development because
offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. If floor area were used as
the demand indicator, public safety development fees would be disproportionately high for industrial
development.
SERVICE AREA
El Mirage’s Police Department strives to provide a uniform response time within the City limits; therefore,
there is a Citywide service area for the Police Facilities IIP.
!"#$%"&'$()
!"#$%&
'"()*%
'*+H-$./*%
012345
6*H()7!$8
6*H()
9")/&"%.)J;*.J<*(=/%L
?@2540
3A
0@?2B1A
C#+-*8"&J9")/&"%.)
?124A3
C#+-*8"&J/%JC-JM/($L"
3?N
?B
02A53
C#+-*8"&J*H.)/&"JC-JM/($L"
?12BNB
?B
30A2441
9")/&"%./$-JFHG.*.$-
13523NN
!"#$%"&'$()*+,(-"
./0
12&-"#$%"&'$()
;*%HI*(=/%LJ9")/&"%.)
?@2540
B
4N23@3
J*G)JO*L$."&J/%JC-JM/($L"
32B@?
9")/&"%.)JC#+-*8"&J/%JC-JM/($L"
3?N
?A
32?NA
;*%H9")/&"%.J<*(="()JM/%N-*IJL*##H."()O
32340
?A
33240A
;*%(")/&"%./$-JFHG.*.$-
?A023A3
12&-"#$%"&'$()*+,(-"
340
P*.$-
43N2B@A
F*H(L"QJR(/S*%$JTNN/L"J*NJCL*%*#/LJT++*(.H%/.8JM+*+H-$./*%O2JUVFVJP"%)H)JXH("$H2JT%PY"M$+J
R++-/L$./*%J$%&JOC6!JT(/L/%H!")./%$./*%JC#+-*8#"%.JF.$./)./L)2JR"()/*%J1V35V?JM"#+-*8#"%.OV
5"6(&%*7&$'#*$&*8988
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
58
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
Figure P2 displays the demand indicators per development unit for residential and nonresidential
development. For residential development, the table displays the number of persons per housing unit for
each development unit based on residential unit size shown in Figure L6. For nonresidential development,
the table displays the number of vehicle trips per development unit based on ITE trip generation rates
shown in Figure L9.
Figure P2: Ratio of Service Units to Development Units
!"#$%F'()*"%+
H-.I0'12'%F33
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''''H89:'
H-.;<'71'H-000
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''''=8=:'
.-<<<'71'.-I00
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''''I8HL'
.-;<<'71'.-000
4153"#$'6#"7
'''''''''''''''''I8LI'
=-<<<'12'*12F
4153"#$'6#"7
''''''''''''''''';8=0'
?5%7"@()*"%+
:I0'12'%F33
4153"#$'6#"7
.8LH
'''''''''''''
:;<'71'000
4153"#$'6#"7
=8;:
'''''''''''''
H-<<<'71'H-.I0
4153"#$'6#"7
I8H;
'''''''''''''
H-.;<'12'*12F
4153"#$'6#"7
I89=
'''''''''''''
A#B5372")%
H-<<<'!C'(7
H8:H
;<M
<8L9
N1**F2F")%
H-<<<'!C'(7
=:8<H
==M
H.8.H
GHH"FF'I'G7JF2'!F2O"FF3
H-<<<'!C'(7
H<8LI
;<M
;8I.
A#37"757"1#)%
H-<<<'!C'(7
H<8::
;<M
;8=0
H8'!FF'L)#B'63F'M335*N7"1#3
OFOF%1N*F#7'P+NF
MO$'QFFRB)+'
SFJ'P2"N'T#B3H
UF3"BF#7")%'OFOF%1N*F#7
6#"7'P+NF
VF231#3
NF2'OFO8'6#"7H
SFJ"F%F'P2"N3
NF2'OFO8'6#"7H
P2"N'U)7F'
MBP537*F#7
OFOF%1N*F#7
6#"7
OFOF%1N*F#7
6#"7
X1#2F3"BF#7")%'OFOF%1N*F#7
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
59
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Police Facilities – Incremental Expansion
El Mirage currently provides 20,000 square feet of police facilities to existing development. El Mirage plans
to construct additional police facilities to serve future development. El Mirage may use development fees
to construct these projects or to construct other growth-related police facilities.
Figure P3: Existing Police Facilities
To allocate the proportionate share of demand for police facilities to residential and nonresidential
development, this analysis uses functional population outlined in Figure P1. El Mirage’s level of service for
residential development is 0.4611 square feet per person (20,000 square feet X 86 percent residential
share / 37,300 persons). The nonresidential level of service is 0.1991 square feet per vehicle trip (20,000
square feet X 14 percent nonresidential share / 14,061 vehicle trips).
Based on conversations with City staff the analysis uses $850 per square foot as a proxy for growth-related
police facility costs. For police facilities, the cost is $391.96 per person (0.4611 square feet per person X
$850 per square foot) and $169.26 per vehicle trip (0.1991 square feet per vehicle trip X $850 per square
foot).
!"#$%F'(F)*
+,-.%"/0""(
1.F*/+(.(F)*
234333
5)(.6
234333
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
60
Figure P4: Existing Level of Service
!"#$%F'(%)*+,('%-""$
./01
234#$456%)*+,('%-''$
718111
9'#4:'5$4,;%)<,('
/=L
7170%?"F+;,$4"5
@A8@11
)*+,('%-''$%F'(%?'(#"5
1BC=MM
!"#$%F'(%?'(#"5
.@NMBN=
F"5('#4:'5$4,;%)<,('
MCL
7170%G'<4H;'%I(4F#
MC81=M
)*+,('%-''$%F'(%G'<4H;'%I(4F
1BMNNM
!"#$%F'(%I(4F
.M=NB7=
)"+(H'J%!4$O%"L%2;%M4(,6'B
N'O';P"LP)'(O4H'%QNR)S%)$,5:,(:#
9'#4:'5$4,;
!"#$%T;;"H,$4"5%-,H$"(#
F"5('#4:'5$4,;
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
61
Police Vehicles – Incremental Expansion
El Mirage has 37 police vehicles with a total cost of $3,290,000, and El Mirage plans to acquire additional
police vehicles to serve future development. The average cost of the existing fleet is $88,919 per unit
($3,290,000 total cost / 37 units), and the analysis uses this cost as a proxy for future growth-related police
vehicle costs.
Figure P5: Existing Police Vehicles
!"#$%&'(&)*
+*&(#
+*&(,-)#(
.)(/0,-)#(
1/(%)0,2"3&$0"
45
6789:::
64988:9:::
1/(%)0,;)()%$<$0"
8
6459:::
6=:9:::
.)(/0
4=
6>>97?7
64987:9:::
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
62
To allocate the proportionate share of demand for police vehicles to residential and nonresidential
development, this analysis uses functional population outlined in Figure P1. El Mirage’s existing level of
service for residential development is 0.0009 units per person (37 units X 86 percent residential share /
37,300 persons). The nonresidential level of service is 0.0004 units per vehicle trip (37 units X 14 percent
nonresidential share / 14,061 vehicle trips).
Based on the cost of El Mirage’s existing police vehicles, the average cost is $88,919 per unit ($3,290,000
total cost / 37 units). For police vehicles, the cost is $75.86 per person (0.0009 units per person X $88,919
per unit) and $32.76 per vehicle trip (0.0004 units per vehicle trip X $88,919 per unit).
Figure P6: Existing Level of Service
!"#$%F"'()*"+,$"(-"+(."%#/0"
1223454
67#8F#9$(:9#F8
;<
="8#'"9F#,0(L%,+"
2?@
ABAC(MN-F0,F#N9
;<3;BB
."%#/0"8(-"+(M"+8N9
BGBBB4
HN8F(-"+(M"+8N9
1<CG2?
IN9+"8#'"9F#,0(L%,+"
5J@
ABAC(."%#/0"(O+#-8
5J3B?5
:9#F8(-"+(."%#/0"(O+#-
BGBBBJ
HN8F(-"+(."%#/0"(O+#-
1;AG<?
LNF+/"L(60(M#+,$"(MN0#/"(N-"+,F#N98(O(P,F,()9,0Q8#8(
="-N+F3(ABA;G
R"*"0SNTSL"+*#/"(URNLV(LF,9',+'8
="8#'"9F#,0
IN9+"8#'"9F#,0
HN8F(P,/FN+8
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
63
Development Fee Report – Plan Based
The 2025 cost to prepare the Police Facilities IIP and related development fee report equals $19,264. El
Mirage plans to update its report every five years. Based on the 5-year cost, proportionate share, and 5-
year projections of future development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per service
unit is $33.13 per person and $0.20 per vehicle trip.
Figure P7: IIP and Development Fee Report
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
As shown in the Land Use Assumptions document, projected development during the next 10 years
includes population growth of 900 persons and nonresidential growth of 18,351 vehicle trips. The
following pages include a detailed projection of demand for services and costs for the Police Facilities IIP.
!"#"$$%FG()*+,-#(
."F/-#"
01$2
."F/-#"(34-2
5657
5686
79J"%F(
0;%4<"
01$2(="F(
."F/-#"(34-2
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
>"$-?"42-%,
KKB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N8@FGH
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GB
L1+$
8DK6@
CD@C8
8DKA7
N6F67
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
J12%,
NKAD856
GHD557
NGF87
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B I";-#,"(JF-=$
G65D7C@
GGAD@68
.2F""2
NGKD5AH
)%FP$(%4?(
>"#F"%2-14
NGKD5AH
)1,-#"
NGKD5AH
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B
)F1=1F2-14%2"(.;%F"
Q-F"
NGKD5AH
R%$2"S%2"F
NGKD5AH
N6FG6
MNT
5D88HDG@A
5D786DAC7
GKADH@K
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
64
Police Facilities – Incremental Expansion
El Mirage plans to maintain the existing level of service for police facilities over the next 10 years. Based
on a projected population increase of 900 persons, future residential development demands
approximately 415 square feet of police facilities (900 additional persons X 0.4611 square feet per person).
With projected nonresidential vehicle trip growth of 18,351 vehicle trips, future nonresidential
development demands approximately 3,654 square feet of police facilities (18,351 additional vehicle trips
X 0.1991 square feet per vehicle trip). Future development demands approximately 4,069 square feet of
police facilities at a cost of $3,458,775 (4,069 square feet X $850 per square foot).
Figure P8: Projected Demand for Police Station Space
!"#$%FG(%)*
+,-*G."IG01G2*
345677 018$I"G2""*
."IG9"I-,%
347::7 018$I"G2""*
."IG;"<)=L"G?I).
@"-)F"%*)$L
A,%I"-)F"%*)$L
?,*$L
B3BC
DNFD33
75F367
7NFB33
BFG33
B3F333
B3B6
DNFC33
76F37B
7NFB:B
DF7GG
B3F5G7
B3BN
DNFC33
7GFBCC
7NFB:B
DF6DC
B3F:BN
B3BG
DNF633
B3FGD6
7NFDDG
5F75:
B7F5GN
B3B:
DNFN33
BDFG3C
7NFDG5
5FN53
BBF7BC
B3D3
DNFG33
BNFBB7
7NF5D7
CF5B3
BBFGC7
B3D7
DNFG33
BGF7GC
7NF5D7
CF67B
BDF35D
B3DB
DGF333
B:F7GC
7NFCBD
CFG7B
BDFDD5
B3DD
DGFB33
D3FBBB
7NF67C
6F37G
BDF6DD
B3D5
DGFB33
D7FB:N
7NF67C
6FBDB
BDFG5N
B3DC
DGFB33
DBF57B
7NF67C
6F5C5
B5F36:
73HIIGJ%=I"$-"
:33
7GFDC7
57C
DF6C5
5F36:
KDCBFN67
KDF736F375
KDF5CGFNNC
I"$I
9,.8L$*),%
;"<)=L"
?I).-
018$I"G2""*
?L."G,MGJ%MI$-*I8=*8I"
N"O"LG,MG0"IO)="
9,L)="G2$=)L)*)"-
KGC3
!"#$%FGM,IG9,L)="G2$=)L)*)"-
PI,Q*<H@"L$*"FGRS."%F)*8I"-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
65
Police Vehicles – Incremental Expansion
El Mirage plans to maintain its existing level of service for police vehicles over the next 10 years. Based on
a projected population increase of 900 persons, future residential development demands an additional
0.8 units (900 additional persons X 0.0009 units per person). With projected nonresidential vehicle trip
growth of 18,351 vehicle trips, future nonresidential development demands an additional 6.8 units
(18,351 additional vehicle trips X 0.0004 units per vehicle trip). Future development demands
approximately 7.5 police vehicles at a cost of $669,375 (7.5 units X $88,919 per unit).
Figure P9: Projected Demand for Police Vehicles
!"#$%&G(%)*
+,-*G."IG(%)*
010002 (%)*-
."IG3"I-,%
010004 (%)*-
."IG5"6)78"G9I).
:"-)&"%*)$8
;,%I"-)&"%*)$8
9,*$8
<0<=
L?@L00
A4@0BA
LA1C
=1<
L?10
<0<B
L?@=00
AB@0A<
L<10
=12
L?12
<0<?
L?@=00
AC@<==
L<10
B1?
LC1?
<0<C
L?@B00
<0@CLB
L<1A
?1?
L21C
<0<2
L?@?00
<L@C0=
L<1<
C1C
4012
<0L0
L?@C00
<?@<<A
L<1<
A010
4<1L
<0LA
L?@C00
<C@AC=
L<1<
A014
4<1B
<0L<
LC@000
<2@AC=
L<14
A01C
4L1<
<0LL
LC@<00
L0@<<<
L<1B
AA1A
4L1?
<0L4
LC@<00
LA@<2?
L<1B
AA1=
441A
<0L=
LC@<00
L<@4A<
L<1B
AA12
441=
A0DNIGF%7I"$-"
200
AC@L=A
01C
B1C
?1=
GBC@<?0
GB0A@A0=
GBB2@L?=
9H."G,IGF%II$-*IJ7*JI"
K"L"8G,IGM"IL)7"
3,8)7"G5"6)78"-
GCC@2A2
!"#$%&GI,IG3,8)7"G5"6)78"-
N"$I
3,.J8$*),%
5"6)78"
9I).-
(%)*-
NI,O*6D:"8$*"&GPQ."%&)*JI"-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
66
POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Police Bond Credit/Offset
El Mirage issued debt to fund construction of police facilities as part of the 2022 bond series. A credit is
necessary since future development will pay the development fee and may also contribute to future bond
payments through tax revenues. A credit is necessary for interest payments because development fee
calculations include interest costs.
The analysis splits annual bond payments based on the proportionate shares of residential and
nonresidential development and then divides by population for the residential portion and vehicle trips
for the nonresidential portion. For example, the 2026 bond payment is $5.04 per person ($219,818 bond
payment X 86 percent share / 37,500 persons) and $1.92 per vehicle trip ($219,818 bond payment X 14
percent share / 16,012 vehicle trips). To account for the time value of money, the analysis discounts
annual payments per person and vehicle trip based on the bond interest rate of 4.00 percent. The total
net present value of future bond payments is $58.19 per person and $13.36 per vehicle trip.
Figure P10: Police Bond Credit
!"#$%F
'(()%F*+,-.
/,#"0,(."%F
1%23,(.
45(6,#"0,(."%F
7,8"$F,
1%23,(.
9,%6
:,6;"$,
:8%6,
<,6*1,6#5(
:8%6,
=6"<#
<,6*7,8*=6"<
>?>@
A?
A?
BCDB??
A?N??
A?
FGD?HF
A?N??
>?>H
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BCD@??
A@N?G
AB?DCC@
FHD?F>
AFNI>
>?>C
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BCD@??
A@N?G
AB?DCC@
FJD>@@
AFNHI
>?>J
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BCDH??
A@N?B
AB?DCC@
>?DJBH
AFNGJ
>?>I
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BCDC??
A@N?F
AB?DCC@
>BDJ?@
AFN>I
>?B?
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BCDJ??
A@N??
AB?DCC@
>CD>>F
AFNFB
>?BF
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BCDJ??
A@N??
AB?DCC@
>JDFJ@
AFN?I
>?B>
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJD???
AGNIC
AB?DCC@
>IDFJ@
AFN?@
>?BB
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJD>??
AGNI@
AB?DCC@
B?D>>>
AFN?>
>?BG
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJD>??
AGNI@
AB?DCC@
BFD>IC
A?NIJ
>?B@
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJD>??
AGNI@
AB?DCC@
B>DGF>
A?NI@
>?BH
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJDB??
AGNIG
AB?DCC@
BBD@HJ
A?NI>
>?BC
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJDG??
AGNI>
AB?DCC@
BGDCHC
A?NJI
>?BJ
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJDG??
AGNI>
AB?DCC@
BHD?F?
A?NJ@
>?BI
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJDG??
AGNI>
AB?DCC@
BCD>II
A?NJB
>?G?
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJDG??
AGNI>
AB?DCC@
BJDHB@
A?NJ?
>?GF
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJDG??
AGNI>
AB?DCC@
BIDFH?
A?NCI
>?G>
A>FIDJFJ
AFJID?GG
BJDG??
AGNI>
AB?DCC@
BIDHIB
A?NCJ
>?GB
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
G?D>BB
A?N??
>?GG
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
G?DCJ?
A?N??
>?G@
A?
A?
BJDG??
A?N??
A?
GFDBBH
A?N??
=5.%F
ABDCBHDIFB
ABD>FBDCG@
AJGNG>
A@>BDFHJ
AFJNGG
/%.,
GN??K
A@JNFI
AFBNBH
L6,0".*<,6*1,6#5(
L6,0".*<,6*7,8"$F,*=6"<
15<)F%."5(
15F"$,*:8%6,*5M*:,6",#*>?>>*N5(0#
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
67
Police Facilities Development Fees
Figure P11 includes infrastructure components and cost factors for police facilities development fees. The
cost per service unit is $442.76 per person and $188.86 per vehicle trip.
Residential development fees are calculated per housing unit, based on unit size, and vary proportionately
according to the number of persons per housing unit. For a single family residential unit with 2,200 square
feet, the fee of $1,851 is calculated using a cost of $442.76 per person multiplied by 4.18 persons per
housing unit.
Nonresidential development fees are calculated per development unit and vary proportionately according
to the number of vehicle trips. For industrial development, the fee of $162 per development unit
(thousand square feet) is calculated using a cost of $188.86 per vehicle trip multiplied by 1.67 vehicle trips
per development unit.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
68
Figure P11: Police Facilities Development Fees
!""#$%F'%("()
$%*)#'"+#H"+*%(
$%*)#'"+#-+.'
I%(0#$+"0.)
12345678
126959:8
H%;.<"#="L.<;"*
2?354:
29@5?:
H%;.<"#ABC.'F"()
2M5MM
2M5MM
N"F";%'F"()#!""#G"'%+)
299569
2M5@M
-%)H;
2II@5?:
264454:
J.(O;"#!HF.;L
6M@I7#%+#;"**
N%C*.(O#O(.)
65:?
2?97
6M@3M#)%#6M777
N%C*.(O#O(.)
959?
26MI7@
@MMMM#)%#@MI77
N%C*.(O#O(.)
I564
26M436
@M3MM#)%#@M777
N%C*.(O#O(.)
I54I
2@M6I9
9MMMM#%+#F%+"
N%C*.(O#O(.)
3597
2@M94:
PC;).Q!HF.;L
?I7#%+#;"**
N%C*.(O#O(.)
@546
26M@II
?3M#)%#777
N%C*.(O#O(.)
953?
26M346
6MMMM#)%#6M@I7
N%C*.(O#O(.)
I563
26M49?
6M@3M#%+#F%+"
N%C*.(O#O(.)
I5:9
2@MM3M
R(0C*)+.H;
6MMMM#JB#!)
M54:
26:@
$%FF"+<.H;
6MMMM#JB#!)
6@5@6
2@M9M:
STT.<"#U#S)L"+#J"+F.<"*
6MMMM#JB#!)
35I@
26MM@I
R(*).)C).%(H;
6MMMM#JB#!)
3597
26MM64
65#J""#VH(0#O*"#P**CF').%(*
G"*.0"().H;#!""*#'"+#N"F";%'F"()#O(.)
N"F";%'F"()#-L'"
N"F";%'F"()
O(.)
H"+*%(*
'"+#N"F5#O(.)6
H+%'%*"0
!""*
N"F";%'F"()#-L'"
="L.<;"#-+.'*
'"+#N"F5#O(.)6
H+%'%*"0
!""*
N"F";%'F"()
O(.)
X%(+"*.0"().H;#!""*#'"+#N"F";%'F"()#O(.)
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
69
POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE
Appendix A contains revenue forecasts required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation (ARS § 9-463.05(E)(7)).
Projected fee revenue shown in Figure P12 is based on the development projections in the Land Use
Assumptions document and the updated police facilities development fees. If development occurs faster
than projected, the demand for infrastructure will increase along with development fee revenue. If
development occurs slower than projected, the demand for infrastructure will decrease and development
fee revenue will decrease at a similar rate. Projected development fee revenue equals $4,439,198 and
projected expenditures equal $4,147,414.
Figure P12: Police Facilities Development Fee Revenue
!"#$%FG(F)"*
+H-.%-I0G(F)"*
1#%)2
3#2-4*G5)4-2-%-*.
6789:;8KK:G
6=G
6789:;8KK:G
3#2-4*G>*F-42*.
6??@87K:G
6=G
6??@87K:G
A*B*2#CM*I%G5**GE*C#"%
6F@8G?9G
6=G
6F@8G?9G
1#%)2
698F9K89F9G
6=G
698F9K89F9G
(-I02*G5)M-2HI JO2%-L5)M-2HII
MINO.%"-)2
O#MM*"4-)2
PQQ-4*
MI.%-%O%-#I)2
6F8;:F
6F8:;F
6F?G
6G87=?
6F8=G9
6F8=F;
C*"GOI-%
C*"GOI-%
C*"GF8===G.RGQ%
C*"GF8===G.RGQ%
C*"GF8===G.RGQ%
C*"GF8===G.RGQ%
S.0GTI-%
S.0GTI-%
U(5
U(5
U(5
U(5
V).*
G=G:
FF8K??
?=?
F89=?
:@7
F?G
;K@
P*)"GF
G=G?
FF8KK7
?KG
F8;FG
K=9
F?G
@GK
P*)"GG
G=GK
FF8KK7
?KG
G8GK@
;7F
F?G
@;G
P*)"G7
G=G;
FF8KK?
K=:
G8;F?
@K?
F?G
F8=9:
P*)"G9
G=G@
FF8K;=
K7;
78979
F8F99
F?G
F8FFK
P*)"G:
G=7=
FF8K;7
KKF
98F9:
F877K
F?G
F8G=F
P*)"G?
G=7F
FF8K;7
KKF
9879:
F87@G
F?G
F8GG9
P*)"GK
G=7G
FF8K@=
;7K
98::7
F899;
F?G
F8G9@
P*)"G;
G=77
FF8K@K
@=7
98K?@
F8:=K
F?G
F8GK9
P*)"G@
G=79
FF8K@K
@=7
98@@7
F8:?;
F?G
F87=F
P*)"GF=
G=7:
FF8K@K
@=7
:8GG:
F8?7F
F?G
F87G;
7F
G@K
78;F@
F8=7;
=
99;
6?F8?9@G
6??;8GK7G
6??78@==G
6G8::?8;G7G
6=G
69;;8::9G
IGT.-I0G%F*GQ**GQ#"G)G.-I02*GQ)M-2HGOI-%GX*%$**IGG8===G)INGG89@@G.RO)"*GQ**%
69897@8F@;
IIGT.-I0G%F*GQ**GQ#"G)GMO2%-LQ)M-2HGOI-%GX*%$**IGK:=G)ING@@@G.RO)"*GQ**%
698F9K89F9
P*)"
F=LP*)"GMI4"*).*
3"#Y*4%*NGE*B*IO*
5**GO#MC#I*I%
3"#Y*4%*NG5**GE*B*IO*
1#%)2G+HC*IN-%O"*.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
70
STREET FACILITIES IIP
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(e) defines the eligible facilities and assets for the Street Facilities IIP:
“Street facilities located in the service area, including arterial or collector streets or roads that
have been designated on an officially adopted plan of the municipality, traffic signals and rights-
of-way and improvements thereon.”
The Street Facilities IIP includes components for arterial improvements, intersection improvements, and
the cost of preparing the Street Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. The cost recovery
methodology is used for arterial improvements and intersection improvements, and the plan-based
methodology is used for the Development Fee Report.
PROPORTIONATE SHARE
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. The Street Facilities IIP and
development fees will allocate the cost of necessary public services between residential and
nonresidential based on trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors.
SERVICE AREA
El Mirage provides a transportation network within the city limits; therefore, there is a citywide service
area for the Street Facilities IIP.
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
El Mirage will use vehicle trips as the demand units for street facilities fees. Components used to
determine vehicle trips include average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and adjustments for
commuting patterns and pass-by trips.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
71
Residential Trip Generation Rates
As an alternative to simply using national average trip generation rates for residential development,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), TischlerBise calculates custom trip rates using
local demographic data. Key inputs needed for the analysis, including average number of persons and
vehicles available per housing unit, are available from American Community Survey (ACS) data.
Vehicle Trip Ends by Unit Type and Bedroom Range
TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule where larger units pay higher development fees than smaller
units. Benefits of the proposed methodology include: 1) proportionate assessment of infrastructure
demand using local demographic data, and 2) progressive fee structure (i.e., smaller units pay less, and
larger units pay more). TischlerBise creates custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range
by housing type from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in files known as
Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons,
with El Mirage in Public Use Microdata Area (AZ PUMA 00130). Shown in Figure S1, cells with yellow
shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available
per single family housing unit. Unadjusted vehicles per housing unit are adjusted to El Mirage control
totals of 2.10 vehicles per single family housing unit. Shown in Figure S1, cells with yellow shading indicate
the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per single family
housing unit. Unadjusted vehicles per housing unit are adjusted to El Mirage control totals of 1.93 vehicles
per multi-family household, shown in Figure S2.
Figure S1: Single Family Vehicle Trip Ends by Bedroom Range
!"#
#$%#F
#$'(%
)$*!+
F)H
)-FF
#-(+
)-'%
)-%!
'
)$%).
)$(##
*%+
#%H
#-'#
'-(#
)-%)
#-'*
(I
)$)!)
*#!
'!%
))H
'-+*
+-#*
#-'(
'-!F
01234
+$*(F
($(.!
#$*.%
)!!H
#-!+
'-!'
)-F!
#-)!
!"#$%&"'()*+H"-+.()II%H0$&-(#%(123
#)!5678
#-F+
F-'F
.-('
%*H
##!59:2
)-%F
+-)!
F-*(
)'H
;2<59=>
#-++
F-#!
.-!.
)!!H
4+I%55+&0+0()6723(8+H(9%:.+;%'0
!"#
F-(.
))-(+
%-.*
'
.-!F
)+-!*
)#-!*
(I
)'-.*
).-(F
)F-*#
9=?@3>?
%-!'
)'-'F
)!-*!
9<ABC2?<5
MMEF#
FG3<ABC2?<5
HMEF
9<ABC2?<5
HMEF#
I?<@11J5
K3G>?
M?@C1GC)
H?LMN4?C
9=3M43O4?)
E1BCMG>5
FGM2C)
E1BCMG>5
PMQ
FG3<ABC2?<5
MMEF
I?<@11J5
K3G>?
9;H0R5:?@5
EF5I3C?<5
1G5M?@C1GC'
9;H0R5:?@5
EF5I3C?<51G5
H?LMN4?C(
9;H0R5:?@5
E1BCMG>5
FGM2+
S0R5T1<?
9;H0R
:?@5M?@C1G
9;H0R
:?@5H?LMN4?
9;H0R
:?@5EF
E1BCMG>5PMQ
)- 9J?@MN3G T1JJBGM2U 6B@=?U$ MBO4MN FC? PMN@1<323 63J:4? V1@ 9P MFP9 !!)'! X#!)."
#!#' +"Y?3@ BGR?M>L2?< <323[-
#- 9<ABC2?< JB42M:4M?@C 3@? CN34?< 21 J3\? 2L? 3=?@3>? MFP6 =34B?C J32NL N1G2@14 21234C
V1@R4 PM@3>?$ O3C?< 1G 9J?@MN3G T1JJBGM2U 6B@=?U #!)."#!#' +"Y?3@ RC2MJ32?C-
'- 9<ABC2?< :?@C1GC :?@ L1BCMG> BGM2 JB42M:4M?< OU G32M1G34 R?M>L2?< 3=?@3>? 2@M: @32?
:?@ :?@C1G-
(- 9<ABC2?< =?LMN4?C 3=3M43O4? :?@ L1BCMG> BGM2 JB42M:4M?< OU G32M1G34 R?M>L2?< 3=?@3>?
2@M: @32? :?@ =?LMN4?-
+- 9=?@3>? 2@M: @32?C O3C?< 1G :?@C1GC 3G< =?LMN4?C :?@ L1BCMG> BGM2-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
72
Figure S2: Multi-Family Vehicle Trip Ends by Bedroom Range
!"#
$%F
#'$
$!F
()*
#+$(
$+#$
!+)F
#+(H
$
-%!
$$%
$!!
(%*
#+)%
$+HF
#+#-
$+#%
-.
#!%
'(
-H
H*
$+'H
(+%H
#+'(
-+#(
I0123
)#-
(%#
(()
#!!*
#+'!
$+)$
#+!#
#+H-
!"#$%&"'()*+H"-+.()II%H0$&-(#%(123
$#!4567
$+'%
'+-'
H+(-
F)*
$$!4891
#+F'
%+#!
'+)(
#-*
:1;48<=
$+%%
'+$!
H+!H
#!!*
4+I%55+&0+0()6723(8+H(9%:.+;%'0
!"#
-+H(
)+'!
%+))
$
%+%(
#!+H)
F+$'
-.
F+%(
#'+!#
#$+$F
8<>?2=>
%+!'
H+F(
)+(%
8;@AB1>;4
CCME$
EF2;@AB1>;4
GCME
8;@AB1>;4
GCME$
H>;?00I4
J2F=>
C>?B0FB#
G>KLM3>B
8<2L32N3>#
M0ABLF=4
EFL1B#
M0ABLF=4
OLP
EF2;@AB1>;4
CCME
H>;?00I4
J2F=>
8:GIQ49>?4
ME4H2B>;4
0F4C>?B0FB-
8:GIQ49>?4
ME4H2B>;40F4
G>KLM3>B(
8:GIQ49>?4
M0ABLF=4
EFL1%
RIQ4S0;>
8:GIQ
9>?4C>?B0F
8:GIQ
9>?4G>KLM3>
8:GIQ
9>?4ME
4M0ABLF=4OLP
#+ 8I>?LM2F S0IIAFL1T 5A?<>TU CAN3LM EB> OLM?0;212 52I93> V0? 8P CEO8 !!#-!
X$!#H"$!$- %"Y>2?AFR>L=K1>; ;212[+
$+ 8;@AB1>; IA31L93L>?B 2?> BM23>; 10 I2\> 1K> 2<>?2=> CEO5 <23A>B I21MK M0F1?03 10123B
V0?Q3 OL?2=>U N2B>; 0F 8I>?LM2F S0IIAFL1T 5A?<>T $!#H"$!$- %"Y>2? QB1LI21>B+
-+ 8;@AB1>; 9>?B0FB 9>? K0ABLF= AFL1 IA31L93L>; NT F21L0F23 R>L=K1>; 2<>?2=> 1?L9 ?21>
9>? 9>?B0F+
(+ 8;@AB1>; <>KLM3>B 2<2L32N3> 9>? K0ABLF= AFL1 IA31L93L>; NT F21L0F23 R>L=K1>; 2<>?2=>
1?L9 ?21> 9>? <>KLM3>+
%+ 8<>?2=> 1?L9 ?21>B N2B>; 0F 9>?B0FB 2F; <>KLM3>B 9>? K0ABLF= AFL1+
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
73
Vehicle Trip Ends by Unit Type and Housing Size
To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by dwelling size for single family units, TischlerBise uses 2023
U.S. Census Bureau data for housing units constructed in the Census Mountain region. Based on 2023
estimates, living area ranges from 1,532 square feet for single family housing units with zero to two
bedrooms up to 3,357 square feet for single family housing units with four or more bedrooms.
Citywide average floor area and weekday vehicle trip ends for single family units, by bedroom range, are
plotted in Figure S3 with a logarithmic trend line. TischlerBise uses the trend line formula to derive
estimated trip ends, by housing unit size, for the size ranges shown below. TischlerBise recommends a
minimum fee based on a unit size of 1,249 square feet and a maximum fee for units 3,000 square feet or
larger for single family development.
Figure S3: Single Family Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Size
To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by dwelling size for multi-family units, TischlerBise uses data
from CoStar for housing units constructed in El Mirage. Based on current estimates, living area ranges
from 540 square feet for multi-family housing units with zero to one bedroom up to 1,287 square feet for
multi-family housing units with three or more bedrooms.
!"#$%%F'
()*+$"H-"".
/$01H23#'
()H-.H4+35"
/$01H23#'
678
9:;<8
=>?@
9:8A?H%$HB"''
@>68
HHHHHHHHHHHH
<
8:6@6
98>6@
9:8;6H.%H9:???
99>C;
HHHHHHHHHH
AM
<:<;@
9C>@8
8:666H.%H8:A??
9<>=;
HHHHHHHHHH
8:;66H.%H8:???
9;>CA
HHHHHHHHHH
<:666H%$HF%$"
9@>9C
HHHHHHHHHH
EF.*+BHEG"$+5"'H1"$HH%*'035HI30.
-0.."#7J*$G"HK+B*"'
LHMH?>=;ACB3NOPH7 C<>8;C
4QHMH6>???@
6>66
8>66
A>66
C>66
=>66
96>66
98>66
9A>66
9C>66
9=>66
6
;66
9:666
9:;66
8:666
8:;66
<:666
<:;66
A:666
!"#$%F"'()$*'+H-.'*")'/01.$H2'3H$4
5617)"'8""4'09':$;$H2'<)"7
!"#$%F"'()$*'+H-.'*")'5$H2F"=87L$F?'/01.$H2'3H$4''
+F'@$)72"
EG"$+5" 1"$'%3' 1"$ R%*'035 *30.
#"$0G"# S$%F 869?7868< EJ( ;7T"+$
UIV( #+.+ 03FB*#035 2B V0$+5"> I30.
'0P"' XL X"#$%%F S$%F .R" 868< I>(>
J"3'*' !*$"+* +G"$+5" S%$ +BB '035B"
S+F0BL
*30.'
F%3'.$*F."#
03
.R"
J"3'*' V%*3.+03 $"50%3>
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
74
Citywide average floor area and weekday vehicle trip ends for multi-family units, by bedroom range, are
plotted in Figure S4 with a logarithmic trend line. TischlerBise uses the trend line formula to derive
estimated trip ends, by housing unit size, for the size ranges shown below. TischlerBise recommends a
minimum fee based on a unit size of 749 square feet and a maximum fee for units 1,250 square feet or
larger for multi-family development.
Figure S4: Multi-Family Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Size
!"#$%%F'
()*+$"H-"".
/$01H23#'
()H-.H4+35"
/$01H23#'
678
9:6
9;<<
<:=H%$H>"''
<;??
HHHHHHHHHHHH
@
=<A
A;@?
<96H.%H===
=;?<
HHHHHHHHHHHH
BC
8M@A<
8@;@A
8M666H.%H8M@:=
88;@@
HHHHHHHHHH
8M@96H%$HF%$"
8@;:=
HHHHHHHHHH
EF.*+>HEG"$+5"'H1"$HH%*'035HI30.
-0.."#7J*$G"HK+>*"'
LHMH?;=?9<>3NOPH7 BA;:98
4QHMH6;AA?@
6;66
@;66
:;66
?;66
A;66
86;66
8@;66
8:;66
6
966
8M666
8M966
@M666
@M966
BM666
BM966
:M666
!"#$%F"'()$*'+H-.'*")'/01.$H2'3H$4
5617)"'8""4'09':$;$H2'<)"7
!"#$%F"'()$*'+H-.'*")'=1F4$L87?$F@'/01.$H2'3H$4''
+F'=$)72"
EG"$+5" 1"$'%3' 1"$ R%*'035 *30.
#"$0G"# S$%F @68=7@6@B EJ( 97T"+$
UIV( #+.+ 03F>*#035 2> V0$+5"; I30.
'0P"' XL X"#$%%F S$%F J%(.+$ S%$ 2>
V0$+5"M E$0P%3+;
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
75
Residential Trip Generation Rates
For residential development, a customized trip rate is calculated for single family and multi-family units
in El Mirage.
TischlerBise starts with trip generation rates published in Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 11th Edition (2021). For single family development, the proxy is Single Family Detached Housing
(ITE 210), and this type of development generates 9.43 average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing
unit. For multi-family development, the proxy is Multifamily Housing Low-Rise (ITE 220), and this type of
development generates 6.74 average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing unit.
These proxies are then adjusted to local trip rates by using the most recent data from the U.S. Census
Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) with equations provided by the ITE to calculate trip ends per
housing unit factor. A single family unit in El Mirage is estimated to generate 10.63 average weekday
vehicle trips. A multi-family unit in El Mirage is estimated to generate 8.41 average weekday vehicle trips.
Figure S5: Customized Residential Trip End Rates by Housing Type
Nonresidential Trip Generation Rates
For nonresidential development, TischlerBise uses trip generation rates published in Trip Generation,
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021). The prototype for industrial development is
Warehousing (ITE 150) which generates 1.71 average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of
floor area. The prototype for office development is General Office (ITE 710) which generates 10.84
average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The prototype for commercial
development is Shopping Center (ITE 820) which generates 37.01 average weekday vehicle trip ends per
1,000 square feet of floor area. The prototype for institutional development is Hospital (ITE 610) which
generates 10.77 average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
!"#$%F!GG()*$+
H-.I01
2.-I3
--
2.214
35H4
6$#7$%F!GG()*$+
-.808
3.I0I
8-I
9.924
H5I0
:;7<=
39.90I
H0.-0H
191
HH.H9-
350I
L$%?;#?@*#
:%*)
A$B*G=$?@CM
:%*)
NF$%<G$
H;(?*#G
H;(?$B;=+?9
I#+?8
:M)$@;J@O#*7
I#+?1
:%*)@I#+?
O#*7?-
L*#G=$FM<N*=M
98.334
I1.328
33.32-
H81.HI3
H30.399
HH.9H8
!"#$%
I589
O(=7*FM<N*=M
H.149
1.83I
H.099
8.9-9
8.4I-
143
&#'!
-528
:;7<=
91.4HH
H00.203
39.90I
H8I.11-
H31.H3I
HH.4I-
!"#()
H5@A$B*G=$?@<F<*=<C=$@CM@7$#(%$@J%;N@:<C=$@P3108-.@NN$%*G<#@Q;NN(#*7M@L(%F$M.@30HIF3039@1FR$<%@I?7*N<7$?5
35@H;(?$B;=+?@CM@7$#(%$@<#+@(#*7?@*#@?7%(G7(%$@J%;N@:<C=$@P31093.@NN$%*G<#@Q;NN(#*7M@L(%F$M.@30HIF3039@1FR$<%@I?7*N<7$?5@
95@:;7<=@);)(=<7*;#@*#@B;(?$B;=+?@J%;N@:<C=$@P31099.@NN$%*G<#@Q;NN(#*7M@L(%F$M.@30HIF3039@1FR$<%@I?7*N<7$?5
-5@H;(?*#G@(#*7?@J%;N@:<C=$@P31038.@NN$%*G<#@Q;NN(#*7M@L(%F$M.@30HIF3039@1FR$<%@I?7*N<7$?5@
25@:%*)@S$#$%<7*;#.@T#?7*7(7$@;J@:%<#?);%7<7*;#@I#G*#$$%?.@H07B@I+*7*;#@U303HV5
P<7*;#<=@
NF$%<G$2
H;(?$B;=+?@CM@L7%(G7(%$@:M)$3
15@A$B*G=$@7%*)@$#+?@C<?$+@;#@F$B*G=$?@<F<*=<C=$@(?*#G@J;%N(=<?@J%;N@:%*)@S$#$%<7*;#@UT:I@30H2V5@M;%@?*#G=$FJ<N*=M@B;(?*#G@UT:I@3H0V.@7B$@J*77$+@G(%F$@
$X(<7*;#@*?@IYLU05IIR[PUF$B*G=$?V\H5I9V5@:;@<))%;]*N<7$@7B$@<F$%<G$@#(NC$%@;J@F$B*G=$?@*#@7B$@T:I@?7(+*$?.@F$B*G=$?@<F<*=<C=$@"$%$@+*F*+$+@CM@42@
<#+@7B$@$X(<7*;#@%$?(=7@N(=7*)=*$+@CM@425@M;%@N(=7*FJ<N*=M@B;(?*#G@UT:I@330V.@7B$@J*77$+@G(%F$@$X(<7*;#@*?@U95I8RF$B*G=$?V\3I95145
:$#(%$@CM@O#*7?
*#@L7%(G7(%$
A$B*G=$?@
NF<*=<C=$H
L*#G=$FM<N*=M O(=7*FM<N*=M
:;7<=
A$B*G=$?@)$%@
HH@CM@
O#*7?@*#@L7%(G7(%$
:%*)@I#+?@)$%@
H;(?*#G@O#*7
85@A$B*G=$@7%*)?@$#+?@C<?$+@;#@)$%?;#?@(?*#G@J;%N(=<?@J%;N@:%*)@S$#$%<7*;#@UT:I@30H2V5@M;%@?*#G=$FJ<N*=M@B;(?*#G@UT:I@3H0V.@7B$@J*77$+@G(%F$@
$X(<7*;#@*?@IYLU054IR[PU)$%?;#?V\H523V5@:;@<))%;]*N<7$@7B$@<F$%<G$@);)(=<7*;#@;J@7B$@T:I@?7(+*$?.@)$%?;#?@"$%$@+*F*+$+@CM@-H@<#+@7B$@$X(<7*;#@
%$?(=7@N(=7*)=*$+@CM@-H5@M;%@N(=7*FJ<N*=M@B;(?*#G@UT:I@330V.@7B$@J*77$+@G(%F$@$X(<7*;#@*?@U9582R)$%?;#?VF-85845
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
76
Figure S6: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Land Use
Trip Rate Adjustments
To calculate street facilities fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double
counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is
50 percent. As discussed further in this section, the development fee methodology includes additional
adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of
development.
Commuter Trip Adjustment
Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 68 percent to account for commuters
leaving El Mirage for work. According to the 2022 National Household Travel Survey (see Table 8-2)
weekday work trips are typically 36 percent of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50
percent of all trip ends). As shown in Figure S7, the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap web application
indicates 99 percent of resident workers traveled outside of El Mirage for work in 2022. In combination,
these factors (0.36 x 0.50 x 0.99 = 0.18) support the additional 18 percent allocation of trips to residential
development.
!"#
$%FG()
*+)H-".I0-#()1*+)H-".I0-#()1
#F0-2%.
34-56
78)%
9(I6
2%.-$F)-9(I6: 2%.-#F0;8H%%:
$F)-9(I6
2%.-#F0
::<
=IL?6-!()@16.IG;
:A<<<-34-56
BCME
FC:<
:CGE
HFE
:F<
!()@16.IG;-2G.+
:A<<<-34-56
FCFE
ICJ:
:C:H
MHB
:G<
*G.%?8@1I(L
:A<<<-34-56
:CE:
GC<G
<CFB
IAJGF
IGB
O11I16%)-=ILI(L
M%)
ICH<
BCIB
<CH:
(G
F:<
N86%;
.88F
ECJJ
:BCFB
<CGH
(G
H:<
N810I6G;
:A<<<-34-56
:<CEE
FCEE
ICMH
FG<
E:<
O%(%.G;-PQQIR%-SGLL-1IT%U
:A<<<-34-56
:<CMB
FCFF
FCIH
F<E
EI<
V%)IRG;P$%(6G;-PQQIR%
:A<<<-34-56
FHC<<
MCE:
BC:F
IBI
EF<
O8L%.(F%(6-PQQIR%
:A<<<-34-56
IICGJ
ECBG
FC<F
FF<
EG<
PQQIR%-2G.+
:A<<<-34-56
::C<E
FCGB
FC:F
FI<
MI<
3?800I(L-7%(6%.-SGLL-1IT%U
:A<<<-34-56
FEC<:
:ECBI
IC:I
BE:
:C-".I0-O%(%.G6I8(A-!(16I6@6%-8Q-".G(108.6G6I8(-#(LI(%%.1A-::6?-#)I6I8(-SI<I:UC
=G()-91%-X-3IT%
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
77
Figure S7: Commuter Trip Adjustment
Adjustment for Pass-By Trips
For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent 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 the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary
destination. For the average shopping center, ITE data indicate 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are
passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66 percent of attraction trips
have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip
adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 33 percent of the trip ends.
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips
Shown below in Figure S8, multiplying average weekday vehicle trip ends and trip adjustment factors by
El Mirage’s existing development units provides the average weekday vehicle trips generated by existing
development. As shown below, El Mirage’s existing development generates 102,578 vehicle trips on an
average weekday.
Figure S8: Average Weekday Vehicle Trips by Land Use
!!"#$%F'()!*(+H)(-.+
I01234
!!*(+H)(-.+!5H6H-7!8-)!9F:;H-7!H-!"%!<H:87(
4I=
!!*(+H)(-.+!LF##?.H-7!@?.+H)(!"%!<H:87(!AF:!9F:;
I01B=B
C(:M(-.!LF##?.H-7!F?.!FA!"%!<H:87(
NNF
G))H.HF-8%!C:F)?M.HF-!H:H$+I
I=F
*(+H)(-.H8%!H:H$!G)I?+.#(-.!J8M.F:
0=F
OF?:M(L!MNON!L(-+?+!O?:(8?1!@-HP(<8$!G$$%HM8.HF-!Q6(:+HF-!0N4RNIS!8-)!5"TU!@:H7H-VU(+.H-8.HF-!"#$%F'#(-.!
IN GMMF:)H-7 .F .P( P8.HF-8% TF?+(PF%) H:86(% O?:6(' Q4344SX1 $?Y%H+P() H- U(M(#Y(: 43II Q+(( H8Y%( =V4S1 PF#(V
Y8+() RF:; .:H$+ 8:( .'$HM8%%' [0N33 $(:M(-. FA \$:F)?M.HF-] .:H$+1 H- F.P(: RF:)+1 F?.VYF?-) .:H$+ QRPHMP 8:( R3
$(:M(-. FA 8%% .:H$ (-)+SN G%+F1 5"U @-HP(<8$ )8.8 A:F# 4344 H-)HM8.( .P8. NN $(:M(-. FA "% <H:87(S+ RF:;(:+
.:86(% F?.+H)( .P( MH.' AF: RF:;N _- MF#YH-8.HF-1 .P(+( A8M.F:+ Q3N[03 ` 3NR3 ` 3NNN a 3NI=S 8MMF?-. AF: I= $(:M(-.
FA 8))H.HF-8% $:F)?M.HF- .:H$+N HP( .F.8% 8)I?+.#(-. A8M.F: AF: :(+H)(-.H8% H-M%?)(+ 8..:8M.HF- .:H$+ QR3 $(:M(-. FA
.:H$ (-)+S $%?+ .P( IF?:-('V.FVRF:; MF##?.H-7 8)I?+.#(-. QI= $(:M(-. FA $:F)?M.HF- .:H$+S AF: 8 .F.8% FA 0=
$(:M(-.N!!
XP..$Lbb-P.+NF:-%N7F6b$?Y%HM8.HF-+N+P.#% c O?##8:' FA H:86(% H:(-)+ V H8Y%( TU8H%' H:86(% O.8.H+.HM+ Y' 9((;)8' 6+N
9((;(-)T
H:H$!G)I?+.#(-.!J8M.F:!AF:!LF##?.(:+
!"#"$%F'"()
!"#
*+H
-#.I01234
+56F
7879
7879
+4F"
:(6)
;%2"
K+H
-2=>?)'"() !"#I:(6)?
K"@I+56F?
A6(.$"IB3'6$4
C:
7M8
M8EFG
FHI
MMJOFF
H9J898
L>$)6MB3'6$4
C:
778
HENM
FHI
F8F
GJNFO
*(2>?)563$
OAB
M98
MEOM
98I
MJN8F
MJ787
;%''"5P63$
OAB
H78
GOE8M
GGI
9QG
OJ7NO
RSS6P"ITIR)@"5IA"5#6P"?
OAB
OM8
M8EHN
98I
MF7
HOF
*(?)6)>)6%(3$
OAB
FM8
M8EOO
98I
HOQ
NJOGF
+%)3$
M87J9OH
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
78
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
The City of El Mirage has recently constructed street facilities in order to expand the level of service to
meet 2035 demand. Figure S9 shows these projects, their new capacities in lane miles, and their
associated costs.
Figure S9: Street Expansion Projects
Arterial Improvements – Cost Recovery
El Mirage has constructed additional arterial improvements that will serve both future and current
development. The City of El Mirage provided construction cost estimates representative of future growth-
related arterial improvements.
The total cost of these projects was $23,549,931. Some funds were contributed by previous developers
for these projects, so these costs must be removed to determine the eligible cost that can be used in
determining the level of service. The eligible cost of these projects is $19,804,886 ($23,549,931 total cost
- $3,745,045 developer payment). El Mirage plans for these street projects to provide capacity through
2035 by having added 31.5 lane miles of capacity. This results in a cost per lane mile of $628,727
($19,804,886 eligible cost / 31.5 lane miles). The total cost of the streets are allocated to all development
within El Mirage in 2035.
The planned level of service is determined by dividing the constructed lane miles by the total amount of
projected vehicle trips in 2035 (see Figure L21), this results in a LOS of 0.2564 lane miles per thousand
vehicle trips (31.5 lane miles / 122,847 vehicle trips / 1,000). Costs per vehicle trip are then determined
by multiplying our level of service by our eligible cost per lane mile. This results in a cost of $161.22 per
vehicle trip (0.2564 lane miles per thousand vehicle trips X $628,727 per lane mile / 1,000).
!"#$%&'(&)*
+)#(
,-*"./&0"#
10./&%-2".3.456*7"%8&%7
9:;<:=;L?@
ABCM
!N#-%(.3.F0&G"
9==;B<:;BL?
LCM
H)%(5"%*.IJON
9B;LMM;MMM
BCL
4)(-0
9AB;L@L;LB=
B=CL
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
79
Figure S10: Transportation Cost Factors
Development Fee Report – Plan Based
The 2025 cost to prepare the Street Facilities IIP and related development fee report equals $19,264. El
Mirage plans to update its report every five years. Based on the 5-year cost and 5-year projections of
future development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per service unit is $1.35 vehicle
trip.
Figure S11: IIP and Development Fee Report
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
!"#$%F'"(#
)*+,-.I,I+0
1234"("5#F67#F8$9:7;#
<)+,-==,===L
!?F'"%@F67#F8$9:7;#
<)*.-,=.-L
A%2B2C%7F'"(#
)0I,M=.,MMN
F$;7F12%7(
+0G-
A%2B2C%7F'"(#FH74FF$;7F12%7
)N*M,I*I
*=+-FJ7O23%7F!42H(
0**,M.I
F$;7F12%7(FH74F!O"L($;@FJ7O23%7F!42H(
=G*-N.
'"(#FH74FJ7O23%7F!42H
)0N0G**
F7M7%N"5NO74M237F<FPOLFO#$;@$4@(
'"(#FQ$3#"4(
!"#"$$%FG()*+,-#(
."F/-#"
01$2
."F/-#"(34-2
5657
5686
79J"%F(
0;%4<"
01$2(="F(
."F/-#"(34-2
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
>"$-?"42-%,
KKB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N8@FGH
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GB
L1+$
8DK6@
CD@C8
8DKA7
N6F67
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
J12%,
NKAD856
GHD557
NGF87
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B I";-#,"(JF-=$
G65D7C@
GGAD@68
.2F""2
NGKD5AH
)%FP$(%4?(
>"#F"%2-14
NGKD5AH
)1,-#"
NGKD5AH
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B
)F1=1F2-14%2"(.;%F"
Q-F"
NGKD5AH
R%$2"S%2"F
NGKD5AH
N6FG6
MNT
5D88HDG@A
5D786DAC7
GKADH@K
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
80
As shown in the Land Use Assumptions document, 10-year projected growth includes 327 new housing
units and 5,304,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area. Based on the trip generation factors
discussed in this section, projected development generates an additional 20,269 vehicle trips over the
next 10 years. Shown below in Figure S12, El Mirage will have met the demand of new development in
2035 through their construction of the 31.5 lane miles, new development generated the demand for 5.2
of these lane miles (growth related cost is $3,267,728) over the next 10 years.
Figure S12: Projected Travel Demand
!"#$%&G(%)*
+,-*G."IG(%)*
0"-)&"%*)$1
2,%I"-)&"%*)$1
3,*$1
4546
77869:
9;85:9
44<=
L<:
4:<L
454:
778?;L
9:8594
44<7
;<9
4:<?
454=
778?;L
978466
44<7
;<=
4=<6
4547
7?896:
4587L:
44<?
6<L
47<4
454?
7?8L:?
4L8756
44<?
:<9
4?<5
45L5
7?8674
4=8449
4L<5
=<5
L5<5
45L9
7?8674
478976
4L<5
=<4
L5<4
45L4
?5855?
4?8976
4L<9
=<6
L5<:
45LL
?58;L6
L58444
4L<4
=<=
L5<?
45L;
?58;L6
L984?=
4L<4
7<5
L9<4
45L6
?58;L6
L48;94
4L<4
7<L
L9<6
95@AIGB%CI"$-"
98?97
978L69
5<6
;<=
6<4
ML5?8476
M48?678;;L
ML84:=8=47
M9:86L=896=
M9?875;877:
NI,F*G@0"1$*"&GHI."%&)*JI"-
HI)-*)%KG!"L"1,.#"%*GHI."%&)*JI"-
3,*$1GHI."%&)*JI"-
5<46:;
M$%"GN)1"-
."IG3G,J-$%&G
O"G)C1"G3I).-
M:478=4=
!"#$%&GP,IGQ*I""*-
A"$I
0"-)&"%*)$1G
O"G)C1"G3I).-
2,%I"-)&"%*)$1G
O"G)C1"G3I).-
M$%"GN)1"-
3R."G,PGB%PI$-*IJC*JI"
M"L"1G,PGQ"IL)C"
Q*I""*-
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
81
STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Streets Bond Credit/Offset
El Mirage issued debt to fund construction of police facilities as part of the 2022 bond series. A credit is
necessary since future development will pay the development fee and may also contribute to future bond
payments through tax revenues. A credit is necessary for interest payments because development fee
calculations include interest costs.
The analysis divides annual bond payments by vehicle trips. For example, the 2026 bond payment is $2.23
per vehicle trip ($234,473 bond payment / 104,955 vehicle trips). To account for the time value of money,
the analysis discounts annual payments per vehicle trip based on the bond interest rate of 4.00 percent.
The total net present value of future bond payments is $23.14 per vehicle trip.
Figure S13: Bond Credit
Street Facilities Development Fees
Figure S14 includes infrastructure components and cost factors for street facilities development fees. The
cost per service unit is $139.43 per vehicle trip.
!"#$%F
'(()%F*+,-.
/,0"$F,
1%23,(.
4,%5
6,57"$,
85"9#
9,5*/,0*85"9
:;:<
=;
>;:?<@A
=;B;;
:;:C
=:DE?E@D
>;E?F<<
=:B:D
:;:@
=:DE?E@D
>;@?>FA
=:B>F
:;:A
=:DE?E@D
>;F?FF:
=:B>D
:;:F
=:DE?E@D
>>D?>@<
=:B;@
:;D;
=:DE?E@D
>>C?A;D
=:B;>
:;D>
=:DE?E@D
>>@?@CA
=>BFF
:;D:
=:DE?E@D
>>F?>FE
=>BF@
:;DD
=:DE?E@D
>:;?C<@
=>BFE
:;DE
=:DE?E@D
>:>?@D:
=>BFD
:;D<
=:DE?E@D
>::?AE@
=>BF>
:;DC
=:DE?E@D
>:E?:>C
=>BAF
:;D@
=:DE?E@D
>:<?C:A
=>BA@
:;DA
=:DE?E@D
>:C?A@>
=>BA<
:;DF
=:DE?E@D
>:A?>C;
=>BAD
:;E;
=:DE?E@D
>:F?EFC
=>BA>
:;E>
=:DE?E@D
>D;?;:>
=>BA;
:;E:
=:DE?E@D
>D;?<<E
=>BA;
:;ED
=;
>D>?;FE
=;B;;
:;EE
=;
>D>?CE:
=;B;;
:;E<
=;
>D:?>F@
=;B;;
8G.%F
=D?FAC?;E;
=DDB:>
H%.,
EB;;I
=:DB>E
J5,K".*9,5*/,0"$F,*85"9
6.5,,.#*60%5,*GL*6,5",#*:;::*MG(K#
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
82
Residential development fees are calculated per housing unit, based on unit size and unit type, and vary
proportionately according to the amount of vehicle trips per housing unit. For a single family residential
unit with 2,200 square feet, the fee of $1,313 is calculated using a cost of $139.43 per vehicle trip
multiplied by 9.42 vehicle trips per housing unit.
Nonresidential development fees are calculated per development unit and vary proportionately according
to the amount of vehicle trips. For industrial development, the fee of $120 per development unit
(thousand square feet) is calculated using a cost of $139.43 per vehicle trip multiplied by 0.86 vehicle trips
per development unit.
Figure S14: Street Facilities Development Fees
!""#$%F'%("()
$%*)#'"+#H+-'
.%(I#$+"I-)
01234567
8)+"")*
1595422
:";"<%'F"()#!""#="'%+)
1543L
H%)?<
153@463
8-(A<"#!?F-<B
5C26@#%+#<"**
M%N*-(A#F(-)
64GG
1999
5C2LH#)%#5C@@@
M%N*-(A#F(-)
G4@2
15C5HL
2CHHH#)%#2C6@@
M%N*-(A#F(-)
@462
15C353
2CLHH#)%#2C@@@
M%N*-(A#F(-)
5H496
15C6I3
3CHHH#%+#F%+"
M%N*-(A#F(-)
5549G
15C92G
JN<)-O!?F-<B
G6@#%+#<"**
M%N*-(A#F(-)
L425
1G29
GLH#)%#@@@
M%N*-(A#F(-)
94LI
1@5G
5CHHH#)%#5C26@
M%N*-(A#F(-)
G493
15CH96
5C2LH#%+#F%+"
M%N*-(A#F(-)
I46@
15C5I6
L(IN*)+-?<
5CHHH#8M#!)
H4I9
152H
$%FF"+N-?<
5CHHH#8M#!)
52425
15CGH2
OPP-N"#Q#O)R"+#8"+;-N"*
5CHHH#8M#!)
L462
1GL9
L(*)-)N)-%(?<
5CHHH#8M#!)
L43@
1GL2
54#8""#S?(I#F*"#T**NF')-%(*
:";"<%'F"()#HB'"
U+%'%*"I
!""*
T;A#VPIB#
X"R-N<"#H+-'*5
Y%(+"*-I"()-?<#!""*#'"+#5CHHH#8MN?+"#!"")
:";"<%'F"()#F(-)
:";"<%'F"()#HB'"
U+%'%*"I#!""*
T;A#VPIB#
X"R-N<"#H+-'*5
="*-I"()-?<#!""*#'"+#F(-)
:";"<%'F"()#F(-)
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
83
STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE
Appendix A contains revenue forecasts required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation (ARS § 9-463.05(E)(7)).
Projected fee revenue shown in Figure S15 is based on the development projections in the Land Use
Assumptions document and the updated street facilities development fees. If development occurs faster
than projected, the demand for infrastructure will increase along with development fee revenue. If
development occurs slower than projected, the demand for infrastructure will decrease and development
fee revenue will decrease at a similar rate. Projected development fee revenue equals $2,873,580 and
projected expenditures equal $19,824,150.
Figure S15: Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue
!"#$%FG(F)"*
+H-.%-I0G(F)"*
1#%)2
(%"**%.
3456785869G
3:75;485:;8G
3:K59=>5997G
?*@*2#AB*I%GC**GM*A#"%
3:K567>G
3=G
3:K567>G
1#%)2
3456975KK6G
3:75;485:;8G
3:K596>5:;=G
(-I02*GC)B-2EF
GH2%-IC)B-2EFF
JIOH.%"-)2
L#BB*"M-)2
NOO-M*
JI.%-%H%-#I)2
3:54:4
3K:8
3:6=
3:58=6
38;7
38;6
A*"GHI-%
A*"GHI-%
A*"G:5===G.PGO%
A*"G:5===G.PGO%
A*"G:5===G.PGO%
A*"G:5===G.PGO%
Q.0GRI-%
Q.0GRI-%
S(C
S(C
S(C
S(C
T).*
6=6;
::5877
7=7
:5>=7
;K4
:76
98K
U*)"G:
6=67
::5884
786
:59:6
8=>
:76
K68
U*)"G6
6=68
::5884
786
6568K
94:
:76
K96
U*)"G4
6=69
::5887
8=;
659:7
K87
:76
:5=>;
U*)"G>
6=6K
::589=
849
45>4>
:5:>>
:76
:5::8
U*)"G;
6=4=
::5894
88:
>5:>;
:5448
:76
:56=:
U*)"G7
6=4:
::5894
88:
>54>;
:54K6
:76
:566>
U*)"G8
6=46
::58K=
948
>5;;4
:5>>9
:76
:56>K
U*)"G9
6=44
::58K8
K=4
>587K
:5;=8
:76
:568>
U*)"GK
6=4>
::58K8
K=4
>5KK4
:5;79
:76
:54=:
U*)"G:=
6=4;
::58K8
K=4
;566;
:574:
:76
:5469
4:
6K8
459:K
:5=49
=
>>9
3>=5::;G
368656:=G
3>;9566KG
3:587;597>G
3=G
34485:76G
FGR.-I0G%F*GO**GO#"G)G.-I02*GO)B-2EGHI-%GV*%$**IG65===G)IOG65>KKG.PH)"*GO**%
3659845;9=
FFGR.-I0G%F*GO**GO#"G)GBH2%-IO)B-2EGHI-%GV*%$**IG8;=G)IOGKKKG.PH)"*GO**%
3:K596>5:;=
P"#X*M%*OGM*@*IH*
1#%)2G+HA*IO-%H"*.
U*)"
:=IU*)"GJIM"*).*
P"#X*M%*OGC**GM*@*IH*
C**GL#BA#I*I%
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
84
WASTEWATER FACILITIES IIP
ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(b) defines the eligible facilities and assets for the Wastewater Facilities IIP:
“Wastewater facilities, including collection, interception, transportation, treatment and disposal
of wastewater, and any appurtenances for those facilities.”
The Wastewater Facilities IIP includes components for wastewater treatment, managed system recharge,
collection, and the cost of preparing the Wastewater Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report.
The cost recovery methodology is used for wastewater treatment and the plan-based methodology is
used for managed system recharge, collection, and the Development Fee Report.
PROPORTIONATE SHARE
ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost
of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. The Wastewater Facilities IIP and
development fees will allocate the cost of necessary public services between both residential and
nonresidential development using average day flow factors.
SERVICE AREA
El Mirage provides a wastewater network within the city limits; therefore, there is a citywide service area
for the Wastewater Facilities IIP.
RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires:
“A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of
a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an
equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land
uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.”
According to City of El Mirage Design Standards, average day flow is 80 gallons per capita. El Mirage will
assess wastewater development fees per meter, by meter size, for new development. The analysis uses
average day flow from a single family unit of 179 gallons per day (1,876,507 residential ADG / 10,475
residential accounts) as the flow factor for a 0.75-inch meter. For larger meters, average day flow is
calculated by multiplying average day flow from the base meter by the capacity ratio for the
corresponding meter size. The capacity ratios are calculated based on data published in AWWA Manual
of Water Supply Practices M-1, 7th Edition.
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
85
Figure WW1: Wastewater Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit
ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires:
“An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified
professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
Existing Flow
Based on conversations with City staff, average day flow from El Mirage’s wastewater customers is
2,605,296 gallons in 2024.
Figure WW2: Existing Flow
Equalization Basin – Plan Based
El Mirage plans to construct collection system improvements to serve future development during the next
10 years. Dividing the total cost of $5,000,000 by the capacity increase of 800,000 gallons yields a cost of
$6.25 per gallon. El Mirage will assess this component of the fee to future development.
Figure WW3: Cost Factors
!"#$%&G()
*+,+-
."!!
.#/
."!!%&G()
*+,+-
."0#
1//
."$!%&G()
*+,+-
2"22
$/0
1"!!%&G()
*+,+-
$"22
/$3
2"!!%&G()
*+,+-
.!"0#
.4/.!
3"!!%&G()
*+,+-
.0"0#
14/53
0"!!%&G()
*+,+-
22"22
$4/00
5"!!%&G()
*+,+-
$2"22
/4$30
."678876*9G:9;6<=689,+-6>:??;@6A-9(,&(+B6*%.46#,)6CM&,&<G
*+,+-6>&E+
F9?9(&,@6
G9,&<.
7H+-9I+6J9@6
K9;;<GB6L7JKM
J+H+;<?N+G,6
OG&,
K9;;<GB6?+-6J+H+;<?N+G,6OG&,
!"#$%"&G$()
*+,-./0-100
2-+3*-013
45&6"#$%"&G$()
/**-113-.+0
3/+-3+.
!"#$%
&'()&**)(+(
,)-('),&-
78#G59"6:;<="
>&&8():?())5&#
>@"6(A":B(<:
?())5&#
!"#$$$#$$$
!"#$$$#$$$
%&G()*+(,(-.G/*01234
5$$#$$$
!678"
9(:G;<(G;=*%=;(G>;?G
@AB().C(G.&?*D(:.?
%&G()*+&:G
+&:G*,;=*3())&?
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
86
Development Fee Report – Plan-Based
The 2025 cost to prepare the Wastewater Facilities IIP and related development fee report equals
$19,264. El Mirage plans to update its report every five years. Based on the 5-year cost and 5-year
projections of future development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per service unit is
$0.10 per gallon.
Figure WW4: IIP and Development Fee Report
!"#"$$%FG()*+,-#(
."F/-#"
01$2
."F/-#"(34-2
5657
5686
79J"%F(
0;%4<"
01$2(="F(
."F/-#"(34-2
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
>"$-?"42-%,
KKB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N8@FGH
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GB
L1+$
8DK6@
CD@C8
8DKA7
N6F67
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
J12%,
NKAD856
GHD557
NGF87
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B I";-#,"(JF-=$
G65D7C@
GGAD@68
.2F""2
NGKD5AH
)%FP$(%4?(
>"#F"%2-14
NGKD5AH
)1,-#"
NGKD5AH
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B
)F1=1F2-14%2"(.;%F"
Q-F"
NGKD5AH
R%$2"S%2"F
NGKD5AH
N6FG6
MNT
5D88HDG@A
5D786DAC7
GKADH@K
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
87
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires:
“A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade,
update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be
prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires:
“The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to
generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.”
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires:
“The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service
units for a period not to exceed ten years.”
Projected Flow
Shown below, Figure WW6 includes projected average day flow over the next 10 years. To project future
wastewater flow, the analysis uses average daily gallons (ADG) per person data from the City and converts
this into ADG per development unit for both residential and nonresidential development. Figure WW5
shows the ADG per development unit for residential and nonresidential development.
Figure WW5: Average Daily Gallons per Development Unit
!"#$
%FG()*+H-.F)I
0123FG(+4GF5
6#76
$8"
92)5F:H-.F)I
0123FG(+4GF5
;#8;
$<$
=1..*L?F-)
$@777+%A2-L*+H**5
7#!"
;#<$
B7
CGM235LF-)
$@777+%A2-L*+H**5
7#<!
;#<$
B!
CG35F525F1G-)
$@777+%A2-L*+H**5
7#<8
;#<$
B<
NFFF?*
$@777+%A2-L*+H**5
7#6;
;#<$
;;
$#+%**+G-GM+43*+H332.I5F1G3#
;#+=F5I+1F+JO1*GFL+MA2FN-)*G5+O*.-GM+4GF5+%52MI@+;7;B#
P*3FM*G5F-)
Q1GL*3FM*G5F-)
O*N*)1I.*G5+RII*
O*N*)1I.*G5+4GF5
MO4+H-?51L;
HMS235.*G5+
H-?51L;
T-))1G3+I*L+4GF5+
I*L+O-I
O*N*)1I.*G5+RII*
O*N*)1I.*G5+4GF5
JJ04$
T-))1G3+I*L+
4GF5+I*L+O-I
T-))1G3+I*L+=-IF5-+
I*L+O-I
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
88
Average day flow equals 2,334,186 gallons at current and is projected to increase to 2,620,164 gallons by
2025. The difference between these figures, 285,979 gallons, represents the additional average day flow
generated by future development during the next 10 years.
Figure WW6: Projected Flow
!"#$%"FG$()
*+FH"#$%"FG$()
-+G()
.I.0
1.234.
32I51
.2.I32031
13I2605
.23352176
.I.6
1.2550
326I5
.2.102354
1002387
.234I2455
.I.4
1.2550
52.03
.2.102354
173276.
.23882.I7
.I.7
1.2571
52888
.2..12.05
.1626I6
.2534276I
.I.8
1.2017
02704
.2..4216.
.052.43
.25712530
.I3I
1.2005
62750
.2.332I68
.8426I0
.203I2640
.I31
1.2005
421.3
.2.332I68
3I8275I
.205.28I8
.I3.
1.26.4
4251.
.2.552775
3..20.4
.20642511
.I33
1.24II
4241.
.2.0624II
3302671
.208.2371
.I35
1.24II
72I.3
.2.0624II
35823.1
.26I62I.1
.I30
1.24II
72350
.2.0624II
3632560
.26.I2165
1I9:H;<F=H"(#"
3.4
023I5
032167
.3.2711
.702848
>"?(F%;@+H;A(#G"B(G"H;-H"(G?"FG
:"(H
C+D#$FN;
FF$G#
12III;
GHD(H";I""G
JK"H(N";>($)L;M())+F#
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
89
WASTEWATER FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Wastewater Facilities Development Fees
Figure WW7 includes infrastructure components and cost factors for wastewater facilities development
fees in El Mirage. The cost per service unit is $6.35 per gallon.
Development fees are calculated per meter, based on meter size. The base 0.75-inch meter is equivalent
to a single-family unit (3.03 persons per household X 59.1 gallons per person = 179 average day gallons),
and a capacity ratio is used to convert the base meter fee proportionately for larger meters. The capacity
ratios are calculated based on data published in AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M-1, 7th Edition.
For example, the 0.75-inch fee of $1,137 is calculated using a cost per service unit of $6.35 per gallon,
multiplied by 179 average day gallons, multiplied by a capacity ratio of 1.00. The 1.00-inch fee of $1,898
is calculated using a cost per service unit of $6.35 per gallon, multiplied by 179 average day gallons,
multiplied by a capacity ratio of 1.67.
Figure WW7: Wastewater Facilities Development Fees
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
90
WASTEWATER FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE
Appendix A contains revenue forecasts required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation (ARS § 9-463.05(E)(7)).
Projected fee revenue shown in Figure WW8 is based on average day flow projections and the proposed
wastewater facilities development fees. If development occurs faster than projected, the demand for
infrastructure will increase along with development fee revenue. If development occurs slower than
projected, the demand for infrastructure will decrease and development fee revenue will decrease at a
similar rate. Projected development fee revenue equals $1,815,966 and projected expenditures equal
$5,019,264. Development fee revenue may differ from the projections shown below based on the actual
meter size and type of new development meters.
Figure WW8: Wastewater Facilities Development Fees Revenue
!"#$
%FG()*+($*",-.(#*,
I012221222
3454)"674,$-844-946":$
I;<1=>?
@"$()
I012;<1=>?
844
I>AB0
64:-C())",
D())",#
.(#4
=2=0
=1BB?1;E>
F4(:-;
=2=>
=1BG21G??
F4(:-=
=2=G
=1B<<1=2E
F4(:-B
=2=E
=1?BG1E>2
F4(:-?
=2=<
=1?E;1?B0
F4(:-0
=2B2
=10B21>G0
F4(:->
=2B;
=10?=1<2<
F4(:-G
=2B=
=10>G1?;;
F4(:-E
=2BB
=10<=1BE;
F4(:-<
=2B?
=1>2>12=;
F4(:-;2
=2B0
=1>=21;>?
=E01<G<
I;1E;01<>>-
I;1E;01<>>
I012;<1=>?
H:"I4J$4K-9454,G4
H:"I4J$4K-844-9454,G4
@"$()-%L64,K*$G:4#
844-!"76",4,$
F4(:
;2MF4(:-N,J:4(#4
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
91
APPENDIX A: FORECAST OF REVENUES OTHER THAN FEES
ARS § 9-463.05(E)(7) requires:
“A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall
include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem
property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of
utility fees attributable to development based on the approved land use assumptions, and a plan
to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the
development as required in subsection B, paragraph 12 of this section.”
ARS § 9-463.05(B)(12) states,
“The municipality shall forecast the contribution to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees,
assessments or other sources of revenue derived from the property owner towards the capital
costs of the necessary public service covered by the development fee and shall include these
contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. Beginning
August 1, 2014, for purposes of calculating the required offset to development fees pursuant to
this subsection, if a municipality imposes a construction contracting or similar excise tax rate in
excess of the percentage amount of the transaction privilege tax rate imposed on the majority of
other transaction privilege tax classifications, the entire excess portion of the construction
contracting or similar excise tax shall be treated as a contribution to the capital costs of necessary
public services provided to development for which development fees are assessed, unless the
excess portion was already taken into account for such purpose pursuant to this subsection.”
REVENUE PROJECTIONS
El Mirage does not have a higher-than-normal construction excise tax rate; therefore, the required offset
described above is not applicable. Shown in Figure A1 is the required forecast of non-development fee
revenue from identified sources that can be attributed to future development over a period of five years.
These funds are available for capital investments; however, the City of El Mirage directs these revenues
to non-development fee eligible capital needs including maintenance, repair, and replacement.
Figure A1: Revenue Projections
!"#$%F
G()*+),
G(),+)-
G()-+).
G().+)I
G()I+01
234F5
6)170),7111
6)17-.0700*
6)87)*17I,1
6)87-)I781-
6))7)8.718)
9:%F;5F5<3;=<LF$?:@5
6878A*7111
6878-17-,0
6878I-781*
687))A71A1
687)*87*.1
B;@F$C"MF$;?F;@3E
68A7*II7111
68A7I)-7A-.
68*7),070A,
68*7,1,7--8
68*7I*-7I)0
F$3;@5
6-*7111
6-,7,..
6-.7A80
6.178--
6.87I.8
GH3$CF5<I"$<!F$M:%F5
607.117111
607..*7*11
607I-)7I)A
6A71,)708*
6A78*07-8-
G:;F5<3;=<G"$IF:@#$F5
6)17111
6)17A*1
6)17I81
6)870.8
6)87.,)
J:5%FEE3;F"#5
607-8*7111
607-I.7*..
607..A71*,
607I-87AA-
6A71,17.1*
!#K@"@3E7<FF;F$3E<G#;=
6A07,.17111
6AA7,,)7.11
6A*7,,-7-80
6A,7,I*7)0-
6A-7-A*7.-I
!"#$%FL<G:@M<"I<NE<J:$3CF<G:;3;%F<OFP3$@?F;@Q
G"$F%35@<(F3$5
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
92
APPENDIX B: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
As stated in Arizona’s development fee enabling legislation, “a municipality may assess development fees
to offset costs to the municipality associated with providing necessary public services to a development,
including the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, engineering and architectural services,
financing and professional services required for the preparation or revision of a development fee pursuant
to this section, including the relevant portion of the infrastructure improvements plan” (see ARS § 9-
463.05.A). Because development fees must be updated at least every five years, the cost of professional
services is allocated to the projected increase in service units, over five years (see Figure B1). Qualified
professionals must develop the IIP, using generally accepted engineering and planning practices. A
qualified professional is defined as “a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst or planner
providing services within the scope of the person's license, education or experience”.
Figure B1: Cost of Professional Services
!"#"$$%FG()*+,-#(
."F/-#"
01$2
."F/-#"(34-2
5657
5686
79J"%F(
0;%4<"
01$2(="F(
."F/-#"(34-2
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
>"$-?"42-%,
KKB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N8@FGH
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GB
L1+$
8DK6@
CD@C8
8DKA7
N6F67
>"$-?"42-%,
@AB
)1=*,%2-14
8CD866
8CD@66
766
N88FG8
!14F"$-?"42-%,
GHB
I";-#,"(JF-=$
GHD6AG
5CD55G
G8DGA6
N6F56
J12%,
NKAD856
GHD557
NGF87
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B I";-#,"(JF-=$
G65D7C@
GGAD@68
.2F""2
NGKD5AH
)%FP$(%4?(
>"#F"%2-14
NGKD5AH
)1,-#"
NGKD5AH
M,,(N"/",1=O"42 G66B
)F1=1F2-14%2"(.;%F"
Q-F"
NGKD5AH
R%$2"S%2"F
NGKD5AH
N6FG6
MNT
5D88HDG@A
5D786DAC7
GKADH@K
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
93
APPENDIX C: LAND USE DEFINITIONS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The residential development categories shown below are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey. Development fees will be assessed to all new residential units. One-time
development fees are determined by site capacity (i.e., number of residential units).
Single Family: includes fully detached, semi-detached (semi-attached, side-by-side), row house,
townhouse, and mobile home units. In the case of attached units, each must be separated from the
adjacent unit by a ground-to-roof wall in order to be classified as a single-family structure. Also, these
units must not share heating/air-conditioning systems or utilities.
Multi-Family: includes residential buildings containing units built one on top of another and those built
side-by-side which do not have a ground-to-roof wall and/or have common facilities (i.e., attic, basement,
heating plant, plumbing, etc.) and any living quarters occupied as a housing unit that does not fit the other
categories (e.g., houseboats, RVs, campers, vans, etc.).
DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan, and Development Fee Report
El Mirage, Arizona
94
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The proposed general nonresidential development categories (defined below) can be used for all new
construction. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share
similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and employment densities (i.e., jobs per thousand
square feet of floor area).
Commercial: Establishments primarily selling merchandise, eating/drinking places, entertainment, and
lodging uses. By way of example, commercial includes shopping centers, supermarkets, pharmacies,
restaurants, bars, nightclubs, automobile dealerships, and movie theaters.
Industrial: Establishments primarily engaged in the processing or production of goods, along with
warehousing, transportation, communications, and utilities. By way of example, industrial includes
manufacturing plants, warehouses, trucking companies, utility substations, power generation facilities,
data centers, and telecommunications buildings.
Office and Other Services: Establishments providing management, administrative, professional, or
business services; personal and health care services. By way of example, office and other services includes
offices, health care, and business services.
Institutional: Public and quasi-public buildings providing educational, social assistance, or religious
services. By way of example, institutional includes schools, universities, churches, hospitals, and public
buildings.