SDF, LUA, IIP Draft Report

City of Chandler, AZ 
STAFF DRAFT 
System Development Fee Update 
i 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
 
City of Chandler, Arizona 
System Development Fee Update: 
 
2022-2032 Land Use Assumptions and 
Infrastructure Improvements Plan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
September 2023 
 
Public Review Draft

Prepared by 
Duncan Associates 
 
Clancy Mullen, Project Manager 
17409 Rush Pea Circle, Austin, TX 78738  
512-423-0480 
clancy@duncanassociates.com

Table of Contents 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1 
LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................... 6 
SERVICE AREAS ............................................................................................................................. 13 
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................ 19 
ARTERIAL STREETS ..................................................................................................................... 23 
PARKS ................................................................................................................................................ 32 
FIRE .................................................................................................................................................... 44 
POLICE .............................................................................................................................................. 52 
PUBLIC BUILDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 57 
WATER ............................................................................................................................................... 58 
WASTEWATER ................................................................................................................................ 70 
RECLAIMED WATER ................................................................................................................... 78 
APPENDIX A:  ARTERIAL STREET INVENTORY ............................................................ 85 
APPENDIX B:  FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ..................................................................... 91 
APPENDIX C:  FINANCIAL DATA .......................................................................................... 94 
APPENDIX D:  REVENUE FORECAST .................................................................................. 98

List of Tables 
 
Table 1.  Updated and Current Non-Utility Fees ............................................................................ 2 
Table 2.  Updated and Current Utility Fees ..................................................................................... 3 
Table 3.  Updated and Current Single-Family Fees ........................................................................ 4 
Table 4.  Updated and Current Fee Revenue, 2022-2032 .............................................................. 4 
Table 5.  Capital Needs and Fee Revenue, 10-Year and Buildout ................................................ 5 
Table 6.  Ten-Year Percent of Buildout New Population ........................................................... 20 
Table 7.  Housing Units and Population by Service Area, 2022-Buildout ................................ 20 
Table 8.  Average Household Size by Housing Type ................................................................... 21 
Table 9.  Ten-Year Percent of Buildout New Employment ........................................................ 21 
Table 10.  Nonresidential Square Feet by Service Area, 2022-Buildout .................................... 22 
Table 11.  Nonresidential Employment Densities ........................................................................ 22 
Table 12.  Arterial Street Service Unit Multipliers ......................................................................... 24 
Table 13.  Arterial Street Service Units, 2022-Buildout ................................................................ 24 
Table 14.  Arterial Street Capacities at Level of Service D .......................................................... 25 
Table 15.  Arterial Street VMT/VMC Ratios, Existing and Buildout ........................................ 25 
Table 16.  Average Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity, 2022-2032 ............................................ 26 
Table 17.  Arterial Street Existing Cost per Service Unit ............................................................. 26 
Table 18.  Outside Funding for Arterial Street Improvements ................................................... 27 
Table 19.  Arterial Street 10-Year Cost per Service Unit ............................................................. 27 
Table 20.  Federal/State Funding, 2022-Buildout ......................................................................... 28 
Table 21.  Arterial Street Buildout Cost per Service Unit ............................................................ 28 
Table 22.  Arterial Street Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................ 29 
Table 23.  Arterial Street Net Cost Schedule ................................................................................. 30 
Table 24.  Current and Updated Arterial Street Fees.................................................................... 30 
Table 25.  Arterial Street Capital Plan, 2022-2032 ........................................................................ 31 
Table 26.  Arterial Street Fee Revenue Projections, 2022-Buildout ........................................... 31 
Table 27.  Existing Park Inventory .................................................................................................. 33 
Table 28.  Park Service Unit Multipliers ......................................................................................... 35 
Table 29.  Park Service Units, 2022-Buildout ................................................................................ 35 
Table 30.  Park Land Cost per Acre ................................................................................................ 36 
Table 31.  Park Development Cost per Acre ................................................................................. 36 
Table 32.  Eligible Recreation Center Costs .................................................................................. 37 
Table 33.  Mesquite Groves Pool Cost per Square Foot ............................................................. 37 
Table 34.  Swimming Pool Replacement Costs ............................................................................. 38 
Table 35.  Existing Park Facility Replacement Costs .................................................................... 39 
Table 36.  Existing Park Levels of Service ..................................................................................... 39 
Table 37.  Park Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit ........................................................................... 40 
Table 38.  Park Buildout Cost per Service Unit............................................................................. 40 
Table 39.  Park Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................. 41 
Table 40.  Park Net Cost Schedule .................................................................................................. 42 
Table 41.  Current and Updated Park Fees .................................................................................... 42 
Table 42.  Park Capital Plan, 2022-2032 ......................................................................................... 43 
Table 43.  Park Fee Revenue Projections, 2022-Buildout ............................................................ 43 
Table 44.  Fire Service Unit Multipliers .......................................................................................... 45 
Table 45.  Fire Service Units, 2022-Buildout ................................................................................. 46 
Table 46.  Existing Fire Facilities ..................................................................................................... 47 
Table 47.  Fire Apparatus .................................................................................................................. 47 
Table 48.  Fire Existing Level of Service ........................................................................................ 48 
Table 49.  Fire Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................ 48

Table 50.  Fire Buildout Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................. 49 
Table 51.  Fire Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................................. 49 
Table 52.  Fire Net Cost Schedule ................................................................................................... 50 
Table 53.  Current and Updated Fire Fees ..................................................................................... 50 
Table 54.  Fire Capital Plan, 2022-2032 .......................................................................................... 51 
Table 55.  Projected Fire Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout ................................................................ 51 
Table 56.  Existing Police Facilities ................................................................................................. 53 
Table 57.  Police Existing Level of Service .................................................................................... 53 
Table 58.  Police Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit ........................................................................ 54 
Table 59.  Police Buildout Cost per Service Unit .......................................................................... 54 
Table 60.  Police Cost per Service Unit .......................................................................................... 54 
Table 61.  Police Net Cost Schedule ............................................................................................... 55 
Table 62.  Current and Updated Police Fees ................................................................................. 56 
Table 63.  Police Capital Plan, 2022-2032 ...................................................................................... 56 
Table 64.  Projected Police Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout ............................................................ 56 
Table 65.  Remaining Public Building Pledged Debt .................................................................... 57 
Table 66.  Public Building Revenue Projections, 10-Year and to Buildout ............................... 57 
Table 67.  Water Demand per Multi-Family Unit ......................................................................... 58 
Table 68.  Meter Capacity Ratios ..................................................................................................... 59 
Table 69.  Existing Water Service Units ......................................................................................... 59 
Table 70.  Water Demand and Service Units, 2022-Buildout...................................................... 60 
Table 71.  Water Demand and Capacity, 2022-Buildout .............................................................. 60 
Table 72.  Existing Water Production Capacity............................................................................. 61 
Table 73.  Existing Water Storage Capacity ................................................................................... 62 
Table 74.  Existing Booster Pump Station Capacity ..................................................................... 63 
Table 75.  Existing Water Transmission Lines .............................................................................. 63 
Table 76.  Water Supplies, 2022-Buildout ...................................................................................... 64 
Table 77.  Water Supplies Cost per Gallon per Day ..................................................................... 64 
Table 78.  Percent of Water Supplies Currently Utilized ............................................................. 65 
Table 79.  Replacement Cost of Existing Water Facilities ........................................................... 65 
Table 80.  Water Existing Level of Service .................................................................................... 65 
Table 81.  Water Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit......................................................................... 66 
Table 82.  Water Buildout Cost per Service Unit .......................................................................... 66 
Table 83.  Water Cost per Service Unit .......................................................................................... 67 
Table 84.  Water Net Cost Schedule ............................................................................................... 68 
Table 85.  Current and Updated Water Fees ................................................................................. 68 
Table 86.  Water Capital Plan, 2022-2032 ...................................................................................... 69 
Table 87.  Projected Water Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout ............................................................ 69 
Table 88.  Wastewater Demand per Multi-Family Unit ............................................................... 70 
Table 89.  Existing Wastewater Service Units ............................................................................... 71 
Table 90.  Wastewater Demand and Service Units, 2022-Buildout ............................................ 71 
Table 91.  Wastewater Treatment Capacity, 2022-Buildout ........................................................ 72 
Table 92.  Existing Lift Station Capacity ........................................................................................ 72 
Table 93.  Existing Wastewater System Line Costs ...................................................................... 73 
Table 94.  Replacement Cost of Existing Wastewater Facilities ................................................. 73 
Table 95.  Wastewater Existing Level of Service ........................................................................... 74 
Table 96.  Wastewater Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit ............................................................... 74 
Table 97.  Wastewater Buildout Cost per Service Unit ................................................................ 75 
Table 98.  Wastewater Cost per Service Unit ................................................................................. 75 
Table 99.  Wastewater Net Cost Schedule ..................................................................................... 76 
Table 100.  Current and Updated Wastewater Fees ...................................................................... 76 
Table 101.  Wastewater Capital Plan, 2022-2032 .......................................................................... 77

Table 102.  Projected Wastewater Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout ................................................ 77 
Table 103.  Existing Reclaimed Water Pump Stations ................................................................. 78 
Table 104.  Existing Reclaimed Water Wells ................................................................................. 79 
Table 105.  Existing Reclaimed Water System Lines .................................................................... 79 
Table 106.  Reclaimed Water Existing Level of Service ............................................................... 80 
Table 107.  Reclaimed Water Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit ................................................... 80 
Table 108.  Reclaimed Water Buildout Cost per Service Unit .................................................... 81 
Table 109.  Reclaimed Water Cost per Service Unit ..................................................................... 81 
Table 110.  Reclaimed Water Net Cost Schedule .......................................................................... 82 
Table 111.  Current and Updated Reclaimed Water Fees ............................................................ 83 
Table 112.  Reclaimed Water Capital Plan, 2022-2032 ................................................................. 83 
Table 113.  Projected Reclaimed Water Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout ....................................... 84 
Table 114.  Existing Arterial Street Inventory ............................................................................... 85 
Table 115.  Buildout Arterial Street Inventory .............................................................................. 88 
Table 116.  Time Usage Survey Data .............................................................................................. 91 
Table 117.  Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses .............................................. 92 
Table 118.  Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses ....................................... 93 
Table 119.  System Development Fee Revenue, FY 2019-2022 ................................................. 94 
Table 120.  Summary of Fund Balances and Obligations ............................................................ 94 
Table 121.  Outstanding Pledged Debt/Interfund Loans ........................................................... 95 
Table 122.  Encumbrances and Carry-Forwards ........................................................................... 96 
Table 123.  Study Update Costs ....................................................................................................... 96 
Table 124.  Biennial Audit Costs ..................................................................................................... 97 
Table 125.  Total Revenue Forecast ................................................................................................ 99 
Table 126.  Revenue Attributable to New Development............................................................. 99 
 
 
 
List of Figures 
 
Figure 1.  City Limits and Municipal Planning Area ..................................................................... 13 
Figure 2.  City-Wide Service Area .................................................................................................... 14 
Figure 3.  Arterial Streets Service Area ........................................................................................... 15 
Figure 4.  Park Service Areas ............................................................................................................ 16 
Figure 5.  Water Pressure Zones ...................................................................................................... 17 
Figure 6.  Planned Wastewater System ........................................................................................... 18 
Figure 7.  Existing and Planned Parks ............................................................................................ 32 
Figure 8.  Existing Fire Facilities...................................................................................................... 44 
Figure 9.  Nonresidential Functional Population Formula .......................................................... 92

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
1 
September 21, 2023 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 
Impact fees are charges assessed on new development to cover the costs of capital improvements 
needed to accommodate growth.  The City of Chandler calls its impact fees “system development 
fees,” or SDFs.  Duncan Associates has been retained by the City of Chandler to update the City’s 
system development fees in compliance with the five-year update requirement of the Arizona 
development impact fee enabling act.  This report provides all the analysis required prior to the 
adoption of updated impact fees, including land use assumptions, infrastructure improvements plans 
and fee calculations. 
 
 
History of System Development Fees 
 
In 2011, the legislature passed SB 1525, which was signed by the governor on April 26, 2011.  SB 1525 
constituted a major overhaul of Arizona’s impact fee enabling act for municipalities.  The City updated 
its system development fees in compliance with the statute based on studies completed in 2014 and 
2018.1   
 
Major changes were made in the 2014 study to comply with the new State enabling act and to make 
the fees as defensible as possible.  The 2014 study added a ten-year cost analysis, and the fees were 
based on the lowest of the existing, ten-year or buildout cost per service unit.  The addition of the ten-
year analysis was intended to ensure compliance with SB 1525’s requirement that the infrastructure 
improvements plan may not cover a period longer than ten years.  The arterial street methodology 
was modified to take into account pass-by trips and average trip lengths.  For the utility fees, an existing 
cost per service unit calculation was also added, as required by SB 1525.  Finally, the 2014 update 
merged the separate water resources fee with the water fee, and the separate wastewater treatment and 
trunkline fees were combined.   
 
The City has pledged public building system development fees for the repayment of bonds and 
interfund loans.  The public building fees are no longer authorized except to repay pledged debt.  
Consequently, an updated infrastructure improvements plan is not prepared for public buildings.  The 
City can retain its current public building system development fees and use them to repay pledged 
debt until the remaining obligations have been retired.   
 
The 2018 update made two changes to the arterial street fee.  The updated arterial street fees no longer 
included a pass-through adjustment, which was determined not to be necessary.  In addition, a portion 
of the downtown area was removed from the arterial street service area.  This change to the service 
area recognized that this area has paid for arterial street improvements through public improvement 
districts, and was also intended to encourage development in the affected area.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Duncan Associates, City of Chandler System Development Fee Update, January 2014 and August 2018.

Executive Summary 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
2 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
The City plans to cease collection of library impact fees by the end of September, 2023, after 
determining that the current fund balance is sufficient to pay all outstanding obligations and 
anticipated required expenditures.  For this reason, library fees are not included in this update.   
 
 
Summary of Findings 
 
The updated non-utility system development fees are summarized in top section of Table 1, followed 
by current fees and percentage changes.  It is not possible to show a single total updated non-utility 
fee for residential uses, because the park fees differ between three service areas.  Also note that the 
arterial street fees apply only in the arterial street service area (see Figure 3) – total current and updated 
fees would be lower outside this area.  Total updated non-utility fees are lower for most land use types 
in most areas of the city. The City will cease collecting park fees in the Northwest park service area, 
which has almost no remaining residential development potential. 
 
Table 1.  Updated and Current Non-Utility Fees 
Arterial 
Parks by Serv. Area
Public Total Fees by Park Area
Land Use
Unit
Streets*
NW  
NE  
SE  
Fire
Police
Bldgs.
NW  
NE  
SE  
Updated Fees
Single-Family**
Dwelling
$3,792
$0
$129
$5,242
$308
$74
$110
$4,284
$4,413
$9,526
Multi-Family**
Dwelling
$2,059
$0
$109
$4,424
$259
$62
$79
$2,459
$2,568
$6,883
Retail/Comm.
sq. ft.
$3.894
$0.323
$0.078
$0.120
$4.415
$4.415
$4.415
Office
sq. ft.
$5.347
$0.169
$0.041
$0.080
$5.637
$5.637
$5.637
Industrial/Whse.
sq. ft.
$1.050
$0.077
$0.018
$0.020
$1.165
$1.165
$1.165
Public/Institutional.
sq. ft.
$1.976
$0.161
$0.039
$0.030
$2.206
$2.206
$2.206
Current Fees
Single-Family**
Dwelling
$3,869
$983
$237
$2,338
$218
$127
$110
$5,307
$4,561
$6,662
Multi-Family**
Dwelling
$2,190
$729
$176
$1,735
$161
$94
$79
$3,253
$2,700
$4,259
Retail/Comm.
sq. ft.
$5.040
$0.220
$0.130
$0.120
$5.510
$5.510
$5.510
Office
sq. ft.
$4.040
$0.200
$0.110
$0.080
$4.430
$4.430
$4.430
Industrial/Whse.
sq. ft.
$1.170
$0.040
$0.020
$0.020
$1.250
$1.250
$1.250
Public/Institutional.
sq. ft.
$0.970
$0.060
$0.030
$0.030
$1.090
$1.090
$1.090
Percent Change
Single-Family
Dwelling
-2%
-100%
-46%
124%
41%
-42%
0%
-19%
-3%
43%
Multi-Family
Dwelling
-6%
-100%
-38%
155%
61%
-34%
0%
-24%
-5%
62%
Retail/Comm.
sq. ft.
-23%
47%
-40%
0%
-20%
-20%
-20%
Office
sq. ft.
32%
-16%
-63%
0%
27%
27%
27%
Industrial/Whse.
sq. ft.
-10%
93%
-10%
0%
-7%
-7%
-7%
Public/Institutional.
sq. ft.
104%
168%
30%
0%
102%
102%
102%  
*  arterial streets fee applies only in arterial street service area (see Figure 3), and totals only apply to the arterial streets service area 
**  single-family defined as a dwelling unit with an individual water meter, multi-family as sharing a meter with other units 
Source:  Updated fees from Table 23 (streets), Table 40 (parks), Table 52 (fire), and Table 61 (police); updated public building fees are unchanged from 
current fees; current fees from City of Chandler, System Development Fee Schedule. 
 
 
The updated utility system development fees are summarized in Table 2 below, along with a 
comparison to current fees.  The combined updated utility fees are 16% higher than current fees for 
most customer types.

Executive Summary 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
3 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 2.  Updated and Current Utility Fees 
Waste-
Reclaimed
Housing or Meter Type
Water 
Water 
Water    
Total   
Updated Fees
Single-Family Unit
$2,460
$5,989
$1,094
$9,543
Multi-Family Unit
$822
$2,539
$464
$3,825
3/4"
Disc
$3,690
$8,984
$1,641
$14,315
1"
Disc
$6,150
$14,973
$2,735
$23,858
1 1/2"
Disc
$12,300
$29,945
$5,470
$47,715
2"
Disc/Turbine
$19,680
$47,912
$8,752
$76,344
3"
Compound
$55,350
$134,753
$24,615
$214,718
4"
Compound
$61,500
$149,725
$27,350
$238,575
6"
Compound
$123,000
$299,450
$54,700
$477,150
8"
Compound
$196,800
$479,120
$87,520
$763,440
3"
Turbine
$43,050
$104,808
$19,145
$167,003
4"
Turbine
$73,800
$179,670
$32,820
$286,290
6"
Turbine
$153,750
$374,313
$68,375
$596,438
8"
Turbine
$221,400
$539,010
$98,460
$858,870
Current Fees
Single-Family Unit
$3,397
$4,024
$837
$8,258
Multi-Family Unit
$1,281
$1,940
$403
$3,624
3/4"
Disc
$5,096
$6,036
$1,256
$12,388
1"
Disc
$8,493
$10,060
$2,093
$20,646
1 1/2"
Disc
$16,985
$20,120
$4,185
$41,290
2"
Disc/Turbine
$27,176
$32,192
$6,696
$66,064
3"
Compound
$54,352
$64,384
$13,392
$132,128
4"
Compound
$84,925
$100,600
$20,925
$206,450
6"
Compound
$169,850
$201,200
$41,850
$412,900
8"
Compound
$271,760
$321,920
$66,960
$660,640
3"
Turbine
$59,448
$70,420
$14,648
$144,516
4"
Turbine
$101,910
$120,720
$25,110
$247,740
6"
Turbine
$212,313
$251,500
$52,313
$516,126
8"
Turbine
$305,730
$362,160
$75,330
$743,220
Percent Change
Single-Family Unit
-28%
49%
31%
16%
Multi-Family Unit
-36%
31%
15%
6%
3/4"
Disc
-28%
49%
31%
16%
1"
Disc
-28%
49%
31%
16%
1 1/2"
Disc
-28%
49%
31%
16%
2"
Disc/Turbine
-28%
49%
31%
16%
3"
Compound
2%
109%
84%
63%
4"
Compound
-28%
49%
31%
16%
6"
Compound
-28%
49%
31%
16%
8"
Compound
-28%
49%
31%
16%
3"
Turbine
-28%
49%
31%
16%
4"
Turbine
-28%
49%
31%
16%
6"
Turbine
-28%
49%
31%
16%
8"
Turbine
-28%
49%
31%
16%  
Note: For meters larger than 8”, the fee is calculated by multiplying the safe maximum operating capacity of 
the meter in gallons per minute (gpm) by the fee for a 1” meter, and dividing the result by 20 gpm. 
Source:  Updated fees from Table 84 (water), Table 99 (wastewater) and Table 110 (reclaimed water); current 
fees from System Development Fee Schedule on City’s website, December 15 2021.

Executive Summary 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
4 
September 21, 2023 
 
Total (utility plus non-utility) system development fees can only be shown for residential uses, because 
nonresidential utility fees are assessed based on meter size.  Updated system development fees per 
single-family unit are compared to current fees in Table 3.  Changes in total fees per single-family unit 
range from increases of 2% to 28%, depending on the area. 
 
Table 3.  Updated and Current Single-Family Fees 
Art. Streets  
Rest of
Art. Streets  
Rest of
Art. Streets
Rest of 
Fee Type
Serv. Area   
City   
Serv. Area   
City   
Serv. Area 
City    
Arterial Streets
$3,792
$0
$3,869
$0
-2%
n/a
Parks, NW Service Area
$0
$0
$983
$983
-100%
-100%
Parks, NE Service Area
$129
$129
$237
$237
-46%
-46%
Parks, SE Service Area
$5,242
n/a
$2,338
n/a
124%
n/a
Fire
$308
$308
$218
$218
41%
41%
Police
$74
$74
$127
$127
-42%
-42%
Public Building
$110
$110
$110
$110
0%
0%
Water 
$2,460
$2,460
$3,397
$3,397
-28%
-28%
Wastewater 
$5,989
$5,989
$4,024
$4,024
49%
49%
Reclaimed Water
$1,094
$1,094
$837
$837
31%
31%
Total, Parks NW Area
$13,827
$10,035
$13,565
$9,696
2%
3%
Total, Parks NE Area
$13,956
$10,164
$12,819
$8,950
9%
14%
Total, Parks SE Area
$19,069
$10,035
$14,920
$8,713
28%
15%
Updated Fees
Current Fees
Percent Change
 
Source:  Table 1 and Table 2 (“na” indicates not applicable – all of the southeast parks service area is within the arterial streets service 
area). 
 
While fee changes differ by facility type, land use and area, the overall system development fee revenue 
over the next ten years, based on the land use assumptions, will be slightly higher than under current 
fees, as shown in Table 4 below.   
 
Table 4.  Updated and Current Fee Revenue, 2022-2032 
Current    
Updated   
Percent  
Fee Type
Fees      
Fees      
Change  
Non-Utility Fees
Parks, NW Service Area
$30,473
$0
-100%
Parks, NE Service Area
$1,227,186
$667,962
-46%
Parks, SE Service Area
$2,943,542
$6,599,678
124%
Parks Subtotal
$4,201,201
$7,267,640
73%
Arterial Streets
$25,721,112
$25,209,216
-2%
Fire
$2,399,526
$3,390,156
41%
Police
$1,397,889
$814,518
-42%
Public Building
$1,210,770
$1,210,770
0%
Subtotal, Non-Utility Fees
$34,930,498
$37,892,300
8%
Utility Fees
Water
$80,084,275
$57,994,500
-28%
Wastewater
$46,605,968
$69,364,598
49%
Reclaimed Water
$9,694,134
$12,670,708
31%
Subtotal, Utility Fees
$136,384,377
$140,029,806
3%
Grand Total
$171,314,875
$177,922,106
4%
 
Source:  Fee revenue is current and updated single-family fee from Table 1 and Table 2 times new 
2022-2032 EDUs from Table 13 (streets), Table 29 (parks), Table 45 (fire and police), Table 70 
(water) and Table 90 (wastewater and reclaimed water); public building revenue from Table 66.

Executive Summary 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
5 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
None of the updated fees are based on the existing level of service, because those fees would generate 
more revenue than the lowest plan-based fee.  Consequently, the fees are based on the lower fees 
calculated using the plan-based methodology (total capital cost over the next ten years or to buildout, 
whichever is lowest, divided by new service units projected over the same time period).  Types of 
capital costs to be recovered include new improvements, encumbered costs for ongoing projects, 
pledged debt or interfund loans, the cost of required SDF study updates, and the cost of biennial 
impact fee audits.  Available revenue is the sum of current fund balance and projected revenue based 
on the updated fee and the growth projections in the Land Use Assumptions.  The results are 
summarized on Table 5. 
 
Arterial street and fire impact fees are based on the ten-year needs, because additional projects beyond 
ten years would result in a higher buildout cost per service unit.  The grandfathered public building 
fees should cover most of its pledged debt within the next ten years.   
 
The park fees for the northwest service areas are no longer needed, as the fund balance is sufficient 
to repay all capital obligations.  The updated park fees for the other two park service area, as well as 
the police and utility fees, are based on buildout capital needs, because the buildout cost per service 
unit is less than both the existing level of service and the ten-year cost per service unit.  The updated 
fees for these facilities will generate less revenue in the next ten years than ten-year capital needs, but 
enough revenue to fully fund buildout capital needs.   
 
Table 5.  Capital Needs and Fee Revenue, 10-Year and Buildout 
10-Year   
10-Year   
% of  
Buildout  
Buildout  
% of  
Fee Type
Needs*   
Revenue  
Needs
Needs*   
Revenue  
Needs
Non-Utility Fees
Parks, NW Service Area
$0
$0
0%
$0
$0
0%
Parks, NE Service Area
$1,528,805
$667,962
44%
$1,549,280
$1,553,289
100%
Parks, SE Service Area
$8,844,323
$6,599,678
75%
$8,864,798
$8,864,222
100%
Parks Subtotal
$10,373,128
$7,267,640
70%
$10,414,078
$10,417,511
100%
Arterial Streets
$25,211,186
$25,209,216
100%
$143,204,359
$57,543,600
40%
Fire
$3,630,957
$3,629,541
100%
$20,495,407
$7,832,509
38%
Police
$2,051,375
$1,071,971
52%
$2,092,325
$2,081,775
99%
Public Building
$1,611,424
$1,210,770
75%
$1,611,424
$1,611,424
100%
Subtotal, Non-Utility Fees
$42,878,070
$38,389,138
90%
$177,817,593
$79,486,819
45%
Utility Fees
Water
$116,442,198
$70,083,018
60%
$116,483,148
$116,495,838
100%
Wastewater
$140,967,559
$87,789,200
62%
$143,908,509
$143,906,130
100%
Reclaimed Water
$25,489,352
$15,285,434
60%
$25,530,302
$25,536,214
100%
Subtotal Utility Fees
$282,899,109
$173,157,652
61%
$285,921,959
$285,938,182
100%
All Impact Fee Types
Grand Total
$325,777,179
$211,546,790
65%
$463,739,552
$365,425,001
79%  
* “needs” is needed revenue (the cost of planned projects and obligations, less current fund balance)  
Source:  Table 26 (arterial streets), Table 43 (parks), Table 55 (fire), Table 64 (police), Table 65 and Table 66 (public building), Table 87 (water), Table 
102 (wastewater), and Table 113 (reclaimed water).

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
6 
September 21, 2023 
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
 
 
Impact fees are a way for local governments to require new developments to pay a proportionate share 
of the infrastructure costs they impose on the community.  In contrast to traditional “negotiated” 
developer exactions, impact fees are charges that are assessed on new development using a standard 
formula based on objective characteristics, such as the number and type of dwelling units constructed.  
The fees are one-time, up-front charges, with the payment made at the time of building permit 
issuance.  Impact fees require each new development project to pay its pro-rata share of the cost of 
new capital facilities required to serve that development. 
 
Arizona’s enabling act for municipalities is codified in A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.  In 2011, the legislature 
passed SB 1525, which was signed by the governor on April 26, 2011. SB 1525 constituted a major 
overhaul of Arizona’s enabling act for municipalities.  This section summarizes some of the major 
provisions of the current state act. 
 
 
Eligible Facilities 
 
Prior to SB 1525, municipalities could assess impact fees for any “necessary public services” (which 
was not defined) that constituted “costs to the municipality.”  SB 1525 amended the statute to limit 
the types of facilities for which impact fees can be assessed.  Authorized facilities for which impact 
fees can be assessed, after January 1, 2012, are limited to the following defined “necessary public 
services:” 
 
"Necessary public service" means any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years 
and that are owned and operated by or on behalf of the municipality:  
 
(a)  
Water facilities, including the supply, transportation, treatment, purification and distribution of water, 
and any appurtenances for those facilities.  
 
(b)  
Wastewater facilities, including collection, interception, transportation, treatment and disposal of 
wastewater, and any appurtenances for those facilities.  
 
(c)  
Storm water, drainage and flood control facilities, including any appurtenances for those facilities.  
 
(d)  
Library facilities of up to ten thousand square feet that provide a direct benefit to development, not 
including equipment, vehicles or appurtenances.  
 
(e)  
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.  
 
(f)  
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.

Legal Framework 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
7 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
(g)  
Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities on real property up to thirty acres in area, or parks 
and recreational facilities larger than thirty acres if the facilities provide a direct benefit to the development. Park 
and recreational facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of any facility that is used for 
amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas, arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and 
orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses, clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand square 
feet in floor area, environmental education centers, equestrian facilities, golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes, 
museums, theme parks, water reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar recreational 
facilities, but may include swimming pools.  
 
(h)  
Any facility that was financed and that meets all of the requirements prescribed in subsection R of this 
section. (A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.T.7) 
 
No longer authorized are fees for public building facilities, sanitation facilities, library buildings larger 
than 10,000 square feet and library books or equipment, fire and police administrative and training 
facilities and aircraft, parks larger than 30 acres and community centers larger than 3,000 square feet.  
No changes were made to authorized improvements for road, stormwater drainage, water or 
wastewater facilities, other than the new requirement that eligible facilities must have a life expectancy 
of at least three years. 
 
 
Pledged Debt 
 
Municipalities are authorized to continue to charge impact fees that were enacted prior to the January 
1, 2012 effective date of SB 1525 without updating them according to the new enabling act if they 
were pledged to retire debt, pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.R: 
 
R. 
A municipality may continue to assess a development fee adopted before January 1, 2012 for any 
facility that was financed before June 1, 2011 if:  
 
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 under this subsection 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. 
 
The Arizona League of Cities and Towns has construed the word “pledged” to include the expressed 
intent to use impact fees to repay interfund loans or more formal debt instruments, such as general 
obligation or revenue bonds.  The City has pledged fee revenue in this sense for all its system 
development fees.  However, whether debt is pledged pursuant to SB 1525 is of real significance only 
for improvements that are no longer authorized after January 1, 2012.  Consequently, pledged debt is 
of significance only for parks (Chandler has pledged the use of park fees to retire outstanding debt 
used for improvements to three parks larger than 30 acres), and public buildings (public building fees 
are no longer authorized, but the City has interfund loans for the construction of City Hall).

Legal Framework 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
8 
September 21, 2023 
 
Compliance Deadlines 
 
SB 1525 added numerous new requirements related to how impact fees are calculated.  Land use 
assumptions (growth projections) must be prepared for each service area, covering at least a ten-year 
period.  Many new requirements were added for the infrastructure improvements plan (IIP) and the 
impact fee analysis.  Compliance with these was required by August 1, 2014, and the City of Chandler 
met that deadline. 
 
A development fee that was adopted before January 1, 2012 may continue to be assessed only to the extent that 
it will be used to provide a necessary public service for which development fees can be assessed pursuant to this 
section and shall be replaced by a development fee imposed under this section on or before August 1, 2014. 
(A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05K) 
 
Significant changes were made to the requirements for adopting updated infrastructure improvements 
plans and fee schedules.  These requirements were effective as of January 1, 2012, but only applied to 
the updated IIP and impact fee schedules that had to be in place by August 1, 2014.   
 
Provisions were also added relating to refunds.  However, these provisions only apply to fees collected 
after August 1, 2014.  Other changes, however, were effective as of January 1, 2012.  These include 
new provisions or amendments related to developer credits, the locking-in of fee schedules for 24 
months following development approval, and annual reporting requirements.  In addition, the 
expenditure of impact fees enacted or updated after January 1, 2012 is restricted to facilities authorized 
by SB 1525 (including repayment of pledged debt for unauthorized facilities). 
 
 
Service Areas 
 
Service areas are a key requirement for impact fees under SB 1525.  A service area is defined as “any 
specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by 
necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between 
the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in 
the infrastructure improvements plan.” Land use assumptions (growth projections) and an 
infrastructure improvements plan (list of capital improvements and impact fee analysis) must be 
prepared for each service area.   
 
It should be noted that multiple service areas are not mandated by SB 1525.  As long it can be shown 
that developments located anywhere within the service area will be served by or benefit from 
improvements in the service area – which is another way of saying that a “substantial nexus” can be 
demonstrated – a single service area may be permitted.  Service areas for this update are described in 
the Service Areas section (see page 13). 
 
 
Service Units 
 
In impact fee analysis, demand for facilities must be expressed in terms of a common unit of 
measurement, called a “service unit.”  SB 1525 defines a service unit as “a standardized measure of 
consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated

Legal Framework 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
9 
September 21, 2023 
pursuant to generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of necessary 
public services or facility expansions.”  The service unit used by the City for all its system development 
fees is the Equivalent Dwelling Unit, or EDU.  One EDU represents the average demand for services 
generated by a single-family dwelling unit. 
 
 
Level of Service (LOS) Standards 
 
SB 1525 does not define the term “level of service” (LOS), nor does it require the formal adoption of 
LOS standards.  It does require, however, that impact fees be based on the same LOS provided to 
existing development in the service area.  This does not mean that impact fees cannot be based on a 
higher standard than is currently provided to existing development in a service area.  If the fees are 
based on a higher-than-existing LOS, there must be a plan to use non-impact fee funds to remedy the 
existing deficiency.   
 
 
Methodology 
 
SB 1525 is sometimes misunderstood to dictate a particular methodology for calculating impact fees.  
Because cities must forecast anticipated growth over a fixed time period and identify improvements 
over the same time period, some are led to think that a “plan-based” methodology is required, where 
the cost per service unit is calculated by dividing planned costs by anticipated new service units.  In 
fact, however, SB 1525 does not dictate this methodology, and most impact fees in the state have not 
been calculated in this way.  The reason is that, to support a plan-based methodology, the list of 
planned improvements must be developed using a rigorous analysis, such as the modeling used to 
develop a transportation master plan, to establish the required nexus between the anticipated growth 
and the specific list of improvements required to serve that growth.  In many cases, such a master plan 
is not available.   
 
The principal alternative to the plan-based methodology is “standards-based.” The key difference is 
that the plan-based approach is based on a complex level of service (LOS) standard, such as “every 
road shall function at LOS D or better,” or “the average fire response time shall not exceed three 
minutes,” that requires projecting growth by small areas and using sophisticated modeling or analysis 
to determine the specific improvements needed to maintain the desired LOS.  In contrast, a standards-
based approach uses a generalized LOS standard, such as the ratio of park acres to population, which 
does not require an extensive master planning effort to determine the improvements and costs that 
are attributable to a specific quantity of growth.   
 
There are advantages and disadvantages to the two methodologies.  The major advantage of a 
standards-based methodology is that it is more flexible, since the fees are not dependent on the specific 
projects included in the list of improvements, only on the average cost to construct a unit of capacity.  
Changing the list of planned projects typically does not require recalculation of standards-based impact 
fees, since a single project is likely to have an insignificant impact on the average cost of capacity added 
by all the improvements.  This allows the capital plan to change in response to unforeseen 
development without triggering the need for an impact fee update.   The major disadvantage of the 
standards-based approach is that it may not be appropriate for cities such as Chandler that are 
landlocked and approaching buildout.  In the case of cities that are near buildout, the standards-based

Legal Framework 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
10 
September 21, 2023 
approach could end up collecting more revenue than is needed to pay for remaining improvement 
costs and remaining costs to pay for existing facilities with excess capacity. 
 
SB 1525 made three major changes that were addressed in the 2014 study methodology.  First, it 
required that fees not be based on a higher standard than is currently provided to existing development 
in a service area.  Second, it limited the infrastructure improvements plan (IIP) to a maximum of ten 
years.  Third and finally, SB 1525 mandates that fees must be spent within ten years from when they 
are collected (15 years in the case of water, wastewater, and reclaimed water fees).  To ensure 
compliance with SB 1525, three costs per service unit are calculated in the 2014 study and subsequent 
updates.  The fees are based on the lowest of the three:  existing level of service, buildout cost per 
service unit, and 10-year cost per service unit.  This modified methodology complies with all the 
relevant requirements of SB 1525. 
 
In sum, the existing level of service is calculated using the standards-based methodology, while the 
ten-year and buildout costs per service unit are calculated using the plan-based methodology (planned 
costs divided by new service units).  The existing level of service is not used as the basis of the updated 
fees for any of the facility types, because in every case it would generate more revenue than needed 
over the next ten years or to buildout.   
 
 
Land Use Assumptions 
 
An impact fee update must now include the development of land use assumptions (growth 
projections) for each service area.  SB 1525 defines land use assumptions 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.”  Since the infrastructure improvements 
plan (IIP) that must be prepared for each service area must identify improvement needs for a period 
not to exceed 10 years, a 10-year time-frame is provided.  However, because Chandler is so close to 
buildout, a buildout time frame is also provided.  Land use assumptions are provided in the Land Use 
Assumptions section of this report (see page 19). 
 
 
Infrastructure Improvements Plan 
 
SB 1525 requires that an infrastructure improvements plan (IIP) be prepared for each facility type and 
service area.  Impact fees may only be collected to pay for improvements identified in the IIP.  By 
implication, impact fees can only be spent on improvements listed in the IIP.  The IIP must identify 
planned projects over a period of not more than ten years.  The updated IIP will cover the ten-year 
period from 2022-2032. 
 
The IIP is often confused with a list of planned capital improvements.  While the IIP must include 
such a list, it must also contain much more analysis.  The IIP is basically the impact fee study.  To 
avoid confusion, this study refers to the list of improvements that must be included in the IIP as the 
“capital plan.”  This study provides a single, consolidated document that includes land use 
assumptions, infrastructure improvements plans and impact fee analyses for all of the City’s system 
development fees.

Legal Framework 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
11 
September 21, 2023 
 
The IIP must include only new improvements that add capacity to accommodate future growth, or 
costs attributable to existing improvements that have excess capacity to accommodate future growth.  
Replacing an existing fire truck or an existing fire station, or remodeling or repairing an existing 
building, are examples of improvements that do not add capacity.  Some projects may be partially 
eligible.  For example, replacing an existing two-bay fire station with a larger three-bay fire station 
would be partially eligible for impact fee funding.   
 
 
Refunds 
 
A common and understandable misinterpretation of SB 1525 is that a municipality may be required 
to refund fees collected if any improvement listed in the IIP is not completed within the timeframe of 
the IIP.  A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.B.7 provides that collection of impact fees is allowed only to pay for a 
project that is identified in the IIP, “and the municipality plans to complete construction and have the 
service available within the time period established in the infrastructure improvements plan, but in no 
event longer than the time period provided in subsection H, paragraph 3 of this section” (i.e., 15 years 
for water, wastewater and reclaimed water, and 10 years for other facilities).  The key terms in this 
section are “plans to complete” and “have the service available.”  No community has a crystal ball 
that allows it to know with certainty how much development is going to occur over a 10-15 year period 
in the future.  While the City may plan to complete an improvement in this time period in order to 
serve anticipated growth, if the anticipated growth does not materialize the improvement may not be 
needed to serve the growth that does occur.   
 
The refund provisions in the referenced refund subsection (H) reinforce this interpretation.  The first 
two subparagraphs refer to the collection of fees when “service is not provided” (H.1) or when 
“service is not available” and the municipality has failed to complete construction within the time 
period identified in the IIP (H.2), a clear echo of the “have the service available” phrase in subsection 
B.7.  In general, impact fees are not collected when services are not available.  A clear case would be 
collecting water, wastewater and reclaimed water fees from a development that is not able to connect 
to the water and wastewater system.  However, the City of Chandler does not do this.  For other 
facilities, service is provided immediately upon development, even if a planned facility could provide 
service from a closer location.  A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.B.7 directly references only the final paragraph of 
subsection H (H.3), which simply requires that the impact fees be spent within a certain time period 
(15 years for water, wastewater and reclaimed water, and 10 years for other facilities) from the date 
they were collected.  It is reasonable to conclude that this is the only refund provision that will likely 
be applicable, as long as the City does not collect impact fees and deny access to services.  However, 
there is the possibility that refunds could be required if a construction project comes in significantly 
lower than its estimated cost, per A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.I. 
 
 
Offsets 
 
New development should not be required to pay twice for the cost of new facilities – once through 
impact fees and again through other taxes or fees that are used to fund the same facilities.  To avoid 
such potential double-payment, impact fees may be reduced, and such a reduction is referred to as an 
“offset.”  Offsets are incorporated into the impact fee calculation.  While this has long been a part of 
impact fee practice in Arizona, the current statute contains the following provision:

Legal Framework 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
12 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
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. (A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.B.12) 
 
 
The language inserted in the state enabling act by SB 1525, cited above, requires municipalities to 
provide offsets for the excess portion of any construction contracting excise tax.  Since the City of 
Chandler does not charge a construction excise tax higher than for other types of business activities, 
no such offset is required.   
 
The revenue forecast required by A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.B.12 is provided in Appendix D.  In general, 
offsets are only required for funding that is dedicated for capacity-expanding improvements of the 
type addressed by the impact fee.  A municipality is not required to use general fund revenue to pay 
for growth-related improvements.  If, for example, a municipality decides that the existing level of 
service on which impact fees are based is insufficient and opts to use general revenue to raise the level 
of service for both existing and new development, no offset would be required. 
 
The clearest situation that requires an offset is when there is outstanding debt on the facilities that are 
providing existing development with the level of service that new development will be expected to 
pay for through impact fees.  In this case, new development will be paying for the facilities that will 
serve them, while also paying for a portion of the cost of facilities serving existing development 
through property or other taxes.  Consequently, the impact fees should be reduced to avoid this 
potential double-payment. 
 
Another clear case requiring offsets is when the impact fees for a particular service area have been 
adopted based on a level of service that is higher than what is currently provided to existing 
development in the service area.  In such a case, the cost of remedying the existing deficiency will 
almost always be funded by future revenue sources to which new development in the service area will 
contribute.  To the extent that this is the case, an offset is required.  Because the updated fees do not 
exceed the cost of the existing level of service, such an offset is not applicable to this study.  
 
As noted above, an offset will generally be warranted when new development will be contributing 
toward a funding source that is dedicated to fund the same growth-related improvements addressed 
by the impact fee.  Offsets are also often provided for anticipated grant funding that may be available 
to help fund growth-related improvements, although the uncertainty of such funding and the fact that 
it is not generated specifically by new development generally make this type of offset discretionary.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
13 
September 21, 2023 
SERVICE AREAS 
 
As noted in the Legal Framework section, service areas are a key requirement for impact fees under 
SB 1525.  Land use assumptions (growth projections) and an infrastructure improvements plan (list 
of capital improvements and impact fee analysis) must be prepared for each service area.  Multiple 
service areas are not mandated by SB 1525, as long as it can be shown that developments located 
anywhere within the service area will be served by or benefit from improvements anywhere in the 
service area – which is another way of saying that a “substantial nexus” can be demonstrated. 
 
Chandler currently charges system development fees for arterial streets, water (including water 
resources), wastewater, reclaimed water, parks, libraries, fire, police and public building facilities.  
Except for arterial streets and parks, the current service areas are city-wide.   
 
The service areas include most unincorporated areas within the City’s municipal planning area.  Non-
utility system development fees are not assessed in the unincorporated areas, unless they annex into 
the City.  Utility system development fees may be assessed on new City utility customers located in 
unincorporated areas.  The municipal planning area and the areas that are currently unincorporated 
are shown in Figure 1.   
 
Figure 1.  City Limits and Municipal Planning Area

Service Areas 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
14 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
The city-wide service area excludes the unincorporated area in the southwest corner of the planning 
area that is served by Pima Utilities, because the City does not anticipate ever annexing or providing 
services to this area.  As discussed below, the city-wide service area continues to be appropriate for 
the water, wastewater, reclaimed water, fire, and police system development fees. 
 
Figure 2.  City-Wide Service Area 
 
 
 
Arterial Streets 
 
Transportation planners classify roadways according to function.  The primary function of arterial 
streets is to move traffic long distances within a community.  Since arterial streets are designed to 
move traffic throughout the community, a single service area continues to be appropriate.  The City’s 
current arterial streets service area excludes an area in the northwest part of the city where arterial 
streets have been funded with improvement districts.  It also excludes the largely developed downtown 
area, where the arterial street system is in place and the City desires to encourage redevelopment, as 
shown in Figure 3.

Service Areas 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
15 
September 21, 2023 
 
Figure 3.  Arterial Streets Service Area 
 
 
 
Parks 
 
SB 1525 authorizes fees for “neighborhood parks,” although the term is undefined except for certain 
restrictions.  The most important restriction is that neighborhood parks cannot exceed 30 acres (unless 
a “direct benefit” - another undefined term - can be demonstrated).     
 
The City’s 2021 Parks Strategic Master Plan contains planning standards for neighborhood and 
community parks.  A neighborhood park is typically 1-10 acres and serves an area of about a one-half 
mile radius, while a community park has a typical size of 10-75 acres and serves an area of about a 
two- to three-mile radius.  The 30-acre park size authorized for impact fees falls in the middle of 
Chandler’s community park planning standards. 
 
Park impact fee service areas can reasonably be larger than the area served by a single park.  Residents 
do not always use the park closest to them.  A park impact fee system where each existing or potential 
park has its own service area would be unworkable.  The City’s three park service areas are shown in 
Figure 4.  Each is roughly the size of one or two community park areas.

Service Areas 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
16 
September 21, 2023 
 
Figure 4.  Park Service Areas 
 
 
 
Public Buildings 
 
The City continues to assess public building fees to retire pledged debt incurred prior to 2011.  These 
fees are not required to be updated in conformance with the current state impact fee enabling act.  
The fees are collected on new development city-wide. 
 
 
Fire and Police  
 
The current service areas for fire and police system development fees are city-wide.  Police services 
are deployed from the Police Main Station, Desert Breeze Substation and Chandler Heights 
Substation, and are supported by a Property and Evidence Facility.  Police protection are provided by 
patrol officers assigned to a specific geographic area but available to respond to any incident, as 
needed.  Fire and emergency response is provided by units located in 11 stations, supported by 
administrative facilities.  While units are typically dispatched to an incident from the nearest station, 
units from other stations may respond if the unit from the closest station is responding to another 
incident.  In addition, units from multiple stations may be dispatched to a major incident.  Fire and 
police facilities thus form an integrated system, and the city-wide service area is appropriate.

Service Areas 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
17 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Water, Wastewater and Reclaimed Water 
 
A single city-wide service area continues to be appropriate for water, wastewater and reclaimed water, 
because of the interconnected nature of the City’s water and wastewater systems.   
 
The City’s surface water supplies include Salt River Project (SRP) water, Roosevelt Water 
Conservation District (RWCD) water, New Conservation Storage (NCS) water (which was developed 
by increasing the capacity of Roosevelt Dam), and Colorado River water delivered through the Central 
Arizona Project (CAP).  Groundwater is pumped from wells throughout the City to supplement 
surface water supplies and to provide additional supply during times of surface water shortage.  Surface 
water treatment facilities include the Surface Water Treatment Plant and the City’s share of the San 
Tan Vista Water Treatment Plant jointly owned with the Town of Gilbert.  There are currently two 
pressure zones, although the configuration of these zones may change in the future.  Pressure reducing 
valves (PRVs) provide interconnections between the two pressure zones to provide backup water 
supply (see Figure 5).  No area of the City is served by a separate set of facilities.  The City’s water 
system is a pressurized, integrated system suitable for a single service area. 
 
Figure 5.  Water Pressure Zones

Service Areas 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
18 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Chandler’s wastewater is currently treated at three facilities:  the Ocotillo Water Reclamation Facility, 
the Airport Water Reclamation Facility and the Lone Butte Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The Lone 
Butte plant will eventually be decommissioned.  At buildout, the city will be served by two treatment 
plants, which are already interconnected with two force mains from the Ocotillo to Airport plant.  
Chandler’s buildout wastewater system as recommended by the master plan is illustrated in Figure 6.  
The wastewater system is an integrated system appropriate for a single service area. 
 
Figure 6.  Planned Wastewater System 
 
 
 
The City charges a separate reclaimed water system development fee.  The reclaimed water system is 
part of both the water and wastewater systems.  Reclaimed water provides both an efficient method 
of disposing of wastewater and a supplemental water supply source.  Consequently, the 
water/wastewater service area is also the appropriate service area for the reclaimed water system 
development fee.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
19 
September 21, 2023 
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 
 
In an attempt to make the fee calculations in this report easier to follow, numbers in one table that 
are inputs into another table are highlighted in red. 
 
This section presents land use assumptions covering a ten-year period (2022-2032) to serve as the 
basis for the infrastructure improvements plan and impact fee calculations for the City of Chandler’s 
update of arterial streets, parks, fire, police, water, wastewater, and reclaimed water system 
development fees.    State law requires that land use assumptions be developed for each service area.  
It defines land use assumptions 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.”  Due to Chandler’s proximity to buildout, buildout projections are also 
provided. 
 
Chandler’s Development Services Department maintains a database on existing and buildout 
development that is broken down by small areas and contains information on residential population, 
dwelling units by housing type and nonresidential building square footage by land use type.  The Land 
Use Assumptions are based on the City’s existing land use data and buildout projections.  
 
The City’s land use data includes all the land within the City’s municipal planning area, with the 
exception that they exclude the area served by Pima Utilities and unincorporated county islands that 
are unlikely to be annexed.  Estimates of existing nonresidential square footage are based on Maricopa 
County Assessor records.  Nonresidential square footage and residential units for future projects that 
have received zoning approval or are currently under review are included in the buildout estimates.  
Undeveloped parcels that have not yet received zoning entitlements are assigned a land use that is 
consistent with the General Plan and any specific area plans that may have been adopted for the area.  
Building permit data are utilized to update newly constructed homes and nonresidential buildings in a 
GIS database on a quarterly basis.  Density assumptions applied to undeveloped/un-entitled parcels 
are average densities derived from existing developments in Chandler.  Residential population 
estimates are based on population per housing unit ratios.  The City’s Development Services 
Department can provide a more detailed description of assumptions upon request. 
 
While the City has exceptionally good data on existing (2022) and buildout development, it does not 
have intermediate projections required for the 10-year Land Use Assumptions.  An estimate of the 
percent of new development to buildout that will occur over the next ten years is derived from the 
Maricopa Association of Governments’ (MAG) socioeconomic projections of population and 
employment by land use type for small areas, prepared in 2019.  MAG projections are available for 
2020, 2030, 2040, and 2055.   
 
 
Population and Housing 
 
Based on MAG projections of residential population growth, the percentages of buildout (assumed 
2055 MAG projection) residential growth anticipated to occur over the next ten years by service area 
is shown in Table 6 on the following page.

Land Use Assumptions 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
20 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 6.  Ten-Year Percent of Buildout New Population 
Service Area                              Residential Population                             
     New Pop.     New 22-32
RAZ
Parks
Strts
2020
2022
2030
2032
2040
2055  
22-32  
22-55 % of 22-55
310
NE
51,165
52,340
57,041
57,977
61,722
67,997
5,637
15,657
n/a   
315
NW
40,137
40,681
42,858
42,891
43,024
43,284
2,210
2,603
n/a   
316
NE
35,809
36,769
40,607
40,920
42,174
42,901
4,151
6,132
n/a   
317
NE
Yes
34,271
34,845
37,141
37,616
39,516
42,264
2,771
7,419
n/a   
325
SE
Yes
46,190
46,782
49,149
49,315
49,980
50,253
2,533
3,471
n/a   
327
SE
Yes
25,353
26,275
29,965
30,134
30,810
31,013
3,859
4,738
n/a   
328
SE
Yes
46,586
47,727
52,291
52,606
53,865
54,646
4,879
6,919
n/a   
Subtotal, Parks NW
40,137
40,681
42,858
42,891
43,024
43,284
2,210
2,603
84.9%
Subtotal, Parks NE
121,245
123,954
134,789
136,513
143,412
153,162
12,559
29,208
43.0%
Subtotal, Parks SE
118,129
120,784
131,405
132,055
134,655
135,912
11,271
15,128
74.5%
City-Wide Population
279,511
285,419
309,052
311,459
321,091
332,358
26,040
46,939
55.5%
Arterial Streets Area
152,400
155,629
168,546
169,671
174,171
178,176
14,042
22,547
62.3%
 
* 2022 and 2032 are straight-line interpolations between 2000-2030 and 2030-2040 respectively 
Source:  Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Socioeconomic Projections, June 2019. 
 
 
Projections of ten-year (2022-2032) population and housing units are derived from the City’s current 
estimates and buildout projections, assuming the above percentages of remaining residential 
development that will occur over the next ten years.  Existing, ten-year, and buildout projections of 
population and housing units by service area are summarized in Table 7.     
 
Table 7.  Housing Units and Population by Service Area, 2022-Buildout 
Single-
Multi-
Total  
Popu-  
Service Area
Family
Family
Units  
lation  
Parks Northwest, 2022
11,856
5,366
17,222
43,916
Parks Northeast, 2022
33,471
18,697
52,168
133,028
Parks Southeast, 2022
35,611
8,629
44,240
112,812
City-Wide, 2022
80,938
32,692
113,630
289,756
Streets, 2022
52,349
16,384
68,733
175,269
Parks Northwest,  2032
11,877
5,378
17,255
44,000
Parks Northeast, 2032
34,266
23,890
58,156
148,298
Parks Southeast, 2032
36,583
8,969
45,552
116,158
City-Wide, 2032
82,726
38,237
120,963
308,456
Streets, 2032
53,523
18,437
71,960
183,498
Parks Northwest, Buildout
11,881
5,380
17,261
44,016
Parks Northeast, Buildout
35,319
30,774
66,093
168,537
Parks Southeast, Buildout
36,916
9,086
46,002
117,305
City-Wide, Buildout
84,116
45,390
129,506
329,858
Streets, Buildout
54,233
19,680
73,913
188,478  
Note:  Single-family defined as detached, single-family attached (townhome), and mobile home units 
Source: 2022 and buildout housing unit estimates from City of Chandler Planning Division, December 23, 
2022; 2032 projections based on ten-year percentages of buildout new development from Table 6; 
population estimates based on 2.55 persons per unit from 2020 census.

Land Use Assumptions 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
21 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
The impact of a dwelling unit on the need for capital facilities is often proportional to the number of 
persons residing in the dwelling unit.  Population density can be measured for different housing types 
in terms of either average household size (average number of persons per occupied dwelling unit) or 
persons per unit (average number of persons per dwelling unit, including vacant as well as occupied 
units).  In this analysis, average household size is used.  Current information on average household 
size by housing type in Chandler is available from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community 
Survey, as shown in Table 8.  These population densities are used to determine residential demand per 
unit by housing type for parks, fire and police system development fees.  
  
Table 8.  Average Household Size by Housing Type 
Household 
Occupied  
Avg. HH
Housing Type
Population 
Units     
Size   
Single-Family*
220,451
78,244
2.82
Multi-Family
51,084
21,502
2.38
Total
271,535
99,746
2.72
 
* includes single-family detached, attached, and mobile home units 
Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5% weighted sample data 
based on 1% annual samples in 2017 through 2021 in the City of Chandler. 
 
 
Nonresidential Development 
 
Using the same procedure described above for residential, the MAG data on employment are used to 
develop the percentages of buildout nonresidential growth for the Chandler municipal planning area 
anticipated to occur over the next ten years.  These are shown by service area in Table 9. 
 
Table 9.  Ten-Year Percent of Buildout New Employment 
Service Area
     New Jobs    
New 22-32
RAZ
Parks
Strts
2020
2022
2030
2032
2040
2055
22-32   
22-55
% of 22-55
310
NE
21,428
22,678
27,678
28,319
30,882
34,225
5,641
11,547
n/a   
315
NW
43,778
44,461
47,194
47,756
50,004
51,578
3,295
7,117
n/a   
316
NE
27,585
28,356
31,442
31,918
33,820
35,676
3,562
7,320
n/a   
317
NE
Yes
8,782
9,156
10,653
10,963
12,201
14,118
1,807
4,962
n/a   
325
SE
Yes
33,031
34,409
39,919
40,839
44,517
50,351
6,430
15,942
n/a   
327
SE
Yes
11,166
12,010
15,384
16,252
19,723
24,209
4,242
12,199
n/a   
328
SE
Yes
8,893
9,127
10,065
10,237
10,923
11,848
1,110
2,721
n/a   
City-Wide
154,663
160,197
182,335
186,284
202,070
222,005
26,087
61,808
42.2%
Arterial Streets Area
61,872
64,702
76,021
78,291
87,364
100,526
13,589
35,824
37.9%
 
* 2022 and 2032 are straight-line interpolations between 2020-2030 and 2030-2040, respectively 
Source:  Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Socioeconomic Projections, June 2019. 
 
 
Projections of ten-year (2022-2032) and buildout nonresidential building square footage by land use 
type are derived from the City’s buildout projections, utilizing the percentages of remaining growth 
that will occur over the next ten years from Table 9 above.  Because park fees are not assessed on 
nonresidential development, it is not necessary to prepare nonresidential projections for the park 
service areas.  The resulting nonresidential projections city-wide and for the arterial street service area 
are shown in Table 10.

Land Use Assumptions 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
22 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 10.  Nonresidential Square Feet by Service Area, 2022-Buildout 
Service Area
Commercial
Office    
Industrial  
Public    
Total      
City-Wide, 2022
18,758,424
8,088,348
45,475,860
12,407,444
84,730,076
Streets, 2022
8,285,349
3,902,248
24,851,325
7,404,121
44,443,043
City-Wide, 2032
19,859,121
10,027,413
53,756,525
12,929,082
96,572,141
Streets, 2032
9,190,558
5,065,809
30,389,226
7,892,937
52,538,530
City-Wide, Buildout
21,366,710
12,683,289
65,098,288
13,643,554
112,791,841
Streets, Buildout
10,673,762
6,972,329
39,463,200
8,693,874
65,803,165  
Source: 2022 and buildout estimates from City of Chandler Planning Division, December 23, 2022; 2032 projections based on 
ten-year percentages of buildout new jobs from Table 9. 
 
 
Employee densities are derived from the estimates currently used by the Maricopa Association of 
Governments, as shown in Table 11.  MAG conducted an analysis of employment density by land use 
type.  Building square footage was divided by jobs for each land use type to determine average square 
feet per employee.  These have been converted to employees per 1,000 square feet for use in the 
functional population estimates (see Appendix B) used to develop the fire and police service unit 
multipliers. 
 
Table 11.  Nonresidential Employment Densities 
Sq. Feet/   
Employees/
Land Use Type
Employee  
1,000 sq. ft.
Retail Commercial
561
1.78
Office
459
2.18
Industrial/Warehouse
727
1.38
Public
459
2.18
 
Source:  Maricopa Association of Governments, Data, Models, 
Methods, and Assumptions in the MAG Socioeconomic Projections, 
2019.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
23 
September 21, 2023 
ARTERIAL STREETS 
 
 
This section updates the City’s arterial street system development fees in compliance with the Arizona 
impact fee enabling act for municipalities (SB 1525).  The fee applies only to new development in the 
subarea of the city designated as the arterial street service area.  The system development fee ordinance 
defines the arterial street system to exclude local streets, collector streets, and freeways.  An inventory 
of the existing arterial street system in the service area was compiled for this update and is presented 
in Table 114 in Appendix A.   
 
 
Service Units 
 
As described in the Service Unit subsection of the Legal Framework section, the service unit for all 
the City’s system development fees is the Equivalent Dwelling Unit, or EDU, which represents the 
demand for facilities generated by a typical single-family dwelling unit.  For the arterial street system 
development fees, the demand for facilities is based on afternoon peak hour trip generation.  Trip 
generation rates are based on information published in the most recent edition of the Institute of 
Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.   
 
Trip generation rates need to be adjusted to exclude pass by and diverted-linked trips.  Pass by trips 
are those trips that are already on a particular route for a different purpose and simply stop at a 
development on that route.  For example, a stop at a convenience store on the way home from the 
office is a pass by trip for the convenience store.  A pass by trip does not create an additional burden 
on the street system and therefore should not be counted in the assessment of system development 
fees.  Diverted-linked trips are similar to pass by trips in that an intermediate stop is made on the way 
to the primary destination, but a short diversion is made from the most direct path to the primary 
destination.  The adjustment is made in this update to include only primary trips generated by the 
development.  
 
It is also necessary to adjust trip generation rates for differences in the average length of trips.  A 
shorter trip imposes a smaller burden on the arterial street system than a longer trip.  While published 
information is available for average trip lengths by trip purpose, the average trip length for peak hour 
trips of residential, office, industrial/warehouse and public/institutional land uses are dominated by 
the home-to-work trip and tend to be relatively similar.  The exception is retail/commercial uses, 
which tend to have shorter trip lengths than the home-to-work commute.  An adjustment is made to 
the retail/commercial trip rate to account for the shorter-than-average shopping trip. 
 
The result of combining trip generation rates, primary trip factors and the retail trip length adjustment 
is a schedule that establishes the number of arterial street service units generated by various land use 
types per unit of development for Chandler.  The recommended service unit multipliers are presented 
in Table 12.

Arterial Streets 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
24 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 12.  Arterial Street Service Unit Multipliers 
ITE
Pk Hr 
New Trips  Trip Length 
Adjusted
EDUs/
Land Use
Code
Unit
Trip Rate
Factor     
Factor     
Trip Rate
Unit   
Single-Family
210
Dwelling
0.94
100%
100%
0.940
1.000
Multi-Family
220
Dwelling
0.51
100%
100%
0.510
0.543
Retail/Commercial
820
1000 sq. ft.
3.40
43%
66%
0.965
1.027
Office
710
1000 sq. ft.
1.44
92%
100%
1.325
1.410
Industrial/Warehouse
130/150
1000 sq. ft.
0.26
100%
100%
0.260
0.277
Public/Institutional
560
1000 sq. ft.
0.49
100%
100%
0.490
0.521  
Source:  Trip rates during the p.m. peak hour of adjacent street traffic on a weekday from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 
Trip Generation, 11th ed., 2021 (retail/commercial based on shopping center, office based on general office, industrial/warehouse based 
on average for industrial park and warehousing; public/institutional based on church); new trips factor for retail/commercial from ITE, Trip 
Generation Handbook, 2017 for shopping center; new trip factor for office from national data base of origin and destination studies provided 
in Tindale-Oliver, Orange County Transportation Impact Fee Study, September, 2020, p. A-14; trip length factor for retail/commercial based 
on ratio of average shopping trip length to average trip length for all trips from U.S. Department of Transportation, National Household 
Travel Survey, 2017; adjusted trip rate is product of trip rate, new trip factor and trip length factor; EDUs per unit is ratio of adjusted trip 
rate to single-family adjusted trip rate. 
 
 
The estimates of existing, ten-year and buildout arterial street service units are based on the service 
unit multipliers above and the Land Use Assumptions.  The results are shown in Table 13.   
 
Table 13.  Arterial Street Service Units, 2022-Buildout 
Land Use
Unit
Units  
EDUs/Unit
EDUs 
Single Family, 2022
Dwelling
52,349
1.000
52,349
Multi-Family, 2022
Dwelling
16,384
0.543
8,897
Retail/Commercial, 2022
1000 sq. ft.
8,285
1.027
8,509
Office, 2022
1000 sq. ft.
3,902
1.410
5,502
Industrial/Warehouse, 2022
1000 sq. ft.
24,851
0.277
6,884
Public/Institutional, 2022
1000 sq. ft.
7,404
0.521
3,857
Total 2022 EDUs
85,998
Single Family, 2032
Dwelling
53,523
1.000
53,523
Multi-Family, 2032
Dwelling
18,437
0.543
10,011
Retail/Commercial, 2032
1000 sq. ft.
9,191
1.027
9,439
Office, 2032
1000 sq. ft.
5,066
1.410
7,143
Industrial/Warehouse, 2032
1000 sq. ft.
30,389
0.277
8,418
Public/Institutional, 2032
1000 sq. ft.
7,893
0.521
4,112
Total 2032 EDUs
92,646
Single Family, Buildout
Dwelling
54,233
1.000
54,233
Multi-Family, Buildout
Dwelling
19,680
0.543
10,686
Retail/Commercial, Buildout
1000 sq. ft.
10,674
1.027
10,962
Office, Buildout
1000 sq. ft.
6,972
1.410
9,831
Industrial/Warehouse, Buildout
1000 sq. ft.
39,463
0.277
10,931
Public/Institutional, Buildout
1000 sq. ft.
8,694
0.521
4,530
Total Buildout EDUs
101,173
New EDUs, 2022-2032
6,648
New EDUs, 2022-Build-out
15,175  
Source:  2022, 2032 and buildout units for arterial street service area from Table 7 (residential)  and Table 10 
(nonresidential); EDUs per unit from Table 12; EDUs is product of units and EDUs per unit.

Arterial Streets 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
25 
September 21, 2023 
 
Cost per Service Unit 
 
As described in the Methodology subsection of the Legal Framework section, the updated system 
development fees are based on the lowest of three costs per service unit:  existing level of service, ten-
year cost and buildout cost.  The 2014 update reduced the fees to account for pass-through traffic.  
However, the 2014 study noted that such an adjustment is not required because of the counter-
balancing nature of spill-over effects between jurisdictions.  The 2018 and this update do not include 
an adjustment for pass-through traffic.   
 
 
Existing Level of Service 
One measure of level of service used in road impact fee analysis is the system-wide ratio of demand 
to capacity.  This is similar to the volume/capacity (V/C) ratio used to measure levels of service on 
individual roadway segments, but it applies to the entire roadway system.  The system-wide measure 
is the ratio of vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) to vehicle-miles of capacity (VMC).   
 
An analysis of the existing level of service was conducted by preparing a detailed inventory of the 
existing arterial street network (see Appendix A).  For each roadway segment, information was 
gathered on segment length in miles, number of through lanes, and recent traffic counts.  Vehicle-
miles of capacity are based on generalized maximum volumes at LOS D from the City’s 2019 
Transportation Master Plan Update, shown in Table 14 below.   
 
Table 14.  Arterial Street Capacities at Level of Service D 
2-Lane
4-Lane
6-Lane
Average Daily Capacity at LOS D
15,300
32,200
48,500
x Peak Hour Factor
0.085
0.085
0.085
Peak Hour Capacity at LOS D
1,300
2,700
4,100  
Source:  Average daily capacities at LOS D from Kimley-Horn, Chandler Transportation 
Master Plan 2019 Update, Final Report, January 2020; peak hour factor from City of 
Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department. 
 
 
The inventory data demonstrates that average congestion on the arterial street system will remain 
constant from now to buildout, as summarized in Table 15.   
 
Table 15.  Arterial Street VMT/VMC Ratios, Existing and Buildout 
Existing
Buildout
Total Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT)
153,148
175,006
÷ Total Vehicle-Miles of Capacity (VMC)
255,472
289,926
VMT/VMC Ratio
0.60
0.60
 
Source:  Existing VMC and VMT from Table 114 in Appendix A; buildout VMC and VMT from Table 
115 in Appendix A. 
 
 
The existing level of service can also be quantified in terms of the cost per service unit.  The first step 
is to determine the average cost to construct a new vehicle-mile of capacity.  The average cost of 
capacity added by the ten-year planned improvements is $7,160 per new VMC, as shown in Table 16.

Arterial Streets 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
26 
September 21, 2023 
 
Table 16.  Average Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity, 2022-2032 
    Lanes     
Total       
   Capacity   
New
Cost/
Arterial Street
From
To
Miles
Exist Fut. 
Project Cost
Exist Future
VMC
VMC 
Alma School Rd
Germann Rd
Queen Creek
0.98
4
6
$8,177,000
2,700
4,100
1,372
$5,960
Alma School Rd*
Frye Rd
Pecos Rd
0.50
4
6
$4,703,500
2,700
4,100
700
$6,719
Chandler Hts Rd
McQueen Rd
Val Vista Dr
3.96
2
4
$41,063,079
1,300
2,700
5,544
$7,407
Lindsay Rd
Ocotillo Rd
Hunt Hwy
3.00
2
4
$30,661,503
1,300
2,700
4,200
$7,300
Total
8.44
$84,605,082
11,816
$7,160  
* excludes half of segment length and cost that are outside the arterial street service area. 
Source:  Improvements and costs (total costs including costs incurred over last 10 years) from City of Chandler, 2023-2032 Capital Improvements Plan; 
capacity based on existing and future lanes and generalized capacities from Table 14; new VMC is the product of miles and increase in capacity; cost per 
VMC is project cost divided by new VMC. 
 
 
The calculation of the existing arterial street level of service in terms of the cost per service unit is 
presented in Table 17.  The first step is to compute the existing capacity utilized by existing traffic.  
This is done by dividing existing VMT by the buildout VMT/VMC ratio.  The VMC utilized by 
existing traffic is multiplied by the average cost per VMC to determine the cost of existing facilities 
serving existing traffic.  Deducting the amount of outstanding debt/interfund loans related to existing 
facilities yields the cost of existing facilities serving existing development that has been fully paid for.  
The final step is to divide the net cost of facilities serving existing development by the number of 
existing service units.  This results in the existing cost per service unit of $20,850 per EDU.   
 
Table 17.  Arterial Street Existing Cost per Service Unit 
Existing Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT)
153,148
÷ Buildout VMT/VMC Ratio
0.60
Vehicle-Miles of Capacity (VMC) Utilized by Existing Traffic
255,247
x Cost per Vehicle-Mile of Capacity (VMC)
$7,160
Replacement Cost of Facilities Serving Existing Traffic
$1,827,568,520
‒ Outstanding Debt/Interfund Loans
-$34,530,036
Net Cost of Facilities Serving Existing Traffic
$1,793,038,484
÷ 2022 Service Units (EDUs)
85,998
Existing Cost per Service Unit
$20,850  
Source:  Existing VMT and buildout VMT/VMC ratio from Table 15; cost per VMC from Table 16; 2022 arterial 
street EDUs from Table 13; outstanding debt from Table 121. 
 
 
Ten-Year Cost 
Some of the City’s planned ten-year improvement costs will be paid for by regional transportation 
funds administered through the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG).  MAG funding 
sources include Federal and State transportation funds and Regional Arterial Road Funding (RARF), 
which comes from dedicated county-wide transportation sales tax revenue.  Regional funding from 
the voter-approved authorization runs out in FY 2026, and the remaining RARF funding for arterial 
street improvements in Chandler will occur in the next year or two.  The anticipated outside funding 
over the next ten years is summarized in Table 18.

Arterial Streets 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
27 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 18.  Outside Funding for Arterial Street Improvements 
Fiscal
Fed./State 
RARF    
Total Non- 
Improvement
Phase
Years
Funding   
Funding  
City Funding
Alma School, Pecos-Germann
ROW/Des./Constr.
2023
$0
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
Chandler Hts, Gilbert-Val Vista
Construction
2023
$7,495,063
$0
$7,495,063
Lindsay Rd, Ocotillo-Hunt Hwy
ROW/Constr.
2023
$5,809,290
$0
$5,809,290
Ten-Year Total
$13,304,353
$3,000,000
$16,304,353  
Source:  Maricopa Association of Governments, FY 2022 Arterial Life Cycle Program (ALCP), December 1, 2021 and City of Chandler, 2023-2032 Capital 
Improvements Plan (excludes funding for intersection improvements, which are not funded with Chandler’s system development fees). 
 
 
The ten-year cost per service unit represents costs that will be incurred by the City over the next ten 
years to build new capacity to serve anticipated development, repay outstanding debt/interfund loans 
associated with existing capacity available to serve new development, pay for encumbrances on current 
projects, and pay for updated SDF studies and biennial audits.  The results, shown in Table 19, indicate 
a ten-year cost per service unit of $3,792 per EDU. 
 
Table 19.  Arterial Street 10-Year Cost per Service Unit 
Alma School Rd, Germann-Queen Creek, widen 4-6 lanes, 0.98 miles
$4,558,000
Alma School Rd, Frye-Pecos, widen 4-6 lanes, 0.50 miles
$4,140,000
Chandler Hts Rd, Gilbert-Val Vista, widen 2-4 lanes, 2.00 miles
$2,524,314
Lindsay Rd, Ocotillo-Hunt Hwy, widen 2-4 lanes, 3.00 miles
$17,691,575
City Eligible Cost of Planned Improvements, 2022-2032
$28,913,889
Debt/Interfund Loans for Past Capacity Improvements
$34,530,036
Encumbrances on Current Projects
$23,417,040
Required Fee Studies and Biennial Audits
$75,900
Total Planned Expenditures
$86,936,865
– Current Fund Balance
-$61,725,679
Needed Revenue, 2022-2032
$25,211,186
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-2032
6,648
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit
$3,792  
Source:  City eligible cost of planned improvement costs from Table 25 (excludes Federal/State and regional funding, as 
well as bond funding for intersection costs); outstanding debt/interfund loans, encumbrances and current fund balance 
from Table 120; cost of required studies and audit from Table 123 and Table 124; new service units from Table 13. 
 
 
Buildout Cost  
The RARF authorization expires in FY 2026, so no RARF funds are anticipated after 2032.  Some of 
the buildout project costs will be paid with Federal/State highway funds.  The amount of such funding 
that will be available for capacity improvements beyond ten years will tend to decrease with the 
buildout of the City’s arterial street system.  A reasonable assumption is that Federal/State funding 
will pay for the same percentage of capacity project costs beyond 2032 that it will over the next ten 
years.  Based on these assumptions, the City could expect to receive about $75.8 million from 2032 to 
buildout in Federal/State funding for the completion of the arterial street system, as shown in Table 
20.

Arterial Streets 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
28 
September 21, 2023 
 
Table 20.  Federal/State Funding, 2022-Buildout 
2022-2032  
2032-Buildout 2022-Buildout
Federal/State Funding
$13,304,353
$75,826,647
$89,131,000
÷ Planned Improvement Cost
$28,913,889
$164,850,031
$193,763,920
Federal/State Funding Percent
46.0%
46.0%
46.0%  
Source:  2022-2032 Federal/State funding from Table 18; planned improvement costs from Table 19 (2022-2032) 
and Table 21 (2022-buildout); Federal/State funding for 2022-buildout based on percentage for 2022-2032. 
 
 
The buildout cost per service unit represents costs that will be incurred by the City to buildout to 
construct new capacity to serve anticipated development in the city, repay outstanding debt/interfund 
loans associated with existing capacity to serve new development, pay for encumbrances that represent 
remaining costs associated with projects currently under construction, and pay for future study updates 
and audits.  The planned expenditures shown in Table 21 result in a buildout cost per service unit of 
$9,437 per EDU. 
 
Table 21.  Arterial Street Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
Alma School Rd, Germann-Queen Creek, widen 4-6 lanes, 0.98 miles
$4,558,000
Alma School Rd, Frye-Pecos, widen 4-6 lanes, 0.50 miles
$4,140,000
Chandler Hts Rd, Gilbert-Val Vista, widen 2-4 lanes, 2.00 miles
$2,524,314
Lindsay Rd, Ocotillo-Hunt Hwy, widen 2-4 lanes, 3.00 miles
$17,691,575
Subtotal, City Cost of Eligible Planned Improvements, 2022-2032
$28,913,889
Alma School Rd, Willis-Germann, widen 4-6 lanes, 0.50 miles
$5,012,000
Alma School Rd, Queen Creek-Ocotillo, widen 4-6 lanes, 1.12 miles
$11,226,880
McQueen, Ray-Chandler, widen 4-6 lanes, 1.00 mile
$10,024,000
McQueen, Chandler-Pecos, widen 4-6 lanes, 1.00 mile
$10,024,000
Cooper, Queen Creek-Riggs, widen 2-4 lanes, 3.00 miles
$30,072,000
Ray, McQueeen-Cooper, widen 4-6 lanes, 1.00 mile
$10,024,000
Germann, City Limits-Price, widen 2-4 lanes, 0.25 miles
$2,506,000
Germann, Arizona-Cooper, widen 4-6 lanes, 2.00 miles
$20,048,000
Queen Creeek, McQueen-Gilbert, widen 2-6 lanes, 2.00 miles
$40,096,000
Ocotillo, Gilbert-148th Street, widen 2-4, 1.50 mile
$15,036,000
Chandler Heights, Arizona-Gilbert, widen 2-4, 2.96 miles
$29,671,040
Chandler Heights, Lindsay-Val Vista, widen 2-4, 1.00 mile
$10,024,000
Cost of Planned Improvements, 2032-Buildout
$193,763,920
– Anticipated Regional Funding, 2032-Buildout
$0
– Anticipated Federal/State Funding, 2032-Buildout
-$75,826,647
Subtotal, City Cost of Eligible Planned improvements, 2032-Buildout
$117,937,273
Total,  City Cost of Eligible Planned improvements, 2022-Buildout
$146,851,162
Debt/Interfund Loans for Past Capacity Improvements
$34,530,036
Encumbrances on Current Projects
$23,417,040
Required System Development Fee Studies
$131,800
– Current Fund Balance
-$61,725,679
Needed Revenue, 2022-Buildout
$143,204,359
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-Buildout
15,175
Buildout Cost per Service Unit
$9,437  
Source:  Planned improvement costs for 10-year projects from Table 25 (first four projects); remaining projects are 
those needed to complete the buildout inventory in Table 115; costs for remaining projects based on VMC added 
derived from miles and lanes indicated in Table 115, capacities from Table 14, and average cost per VMC from Table 
16; anticipated regional funding from Table 18; anticipated Federal/State funding to buildout from Table 20; 
outstanding debt/interfund loans, encumbrances and current fund balance from Table 120; cost of required studies 
and audits from Table 123 and Table 124; new service units from Table 13.

Arterial Streets 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
29 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit Summary 
The three costs per service unit calculated above are summarized in Table 22.  The updated system 
development fees are based on the 10-year cost per service unit, which is the lowest of the three. 
 
Table 22.  Arterial Street Cost per Service Unit 
Existing Cost per Service Unit
$20,850
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit
$3,792
Buildout Cost per Service Unit
$9,437
Lowest Cost per Service Unit
$3,792  
Source:  Table 17, Table 19 and Table 21. 
 
 
 
Net Cost per Service Unit 
 
As noted in the Legal Framework section of this report, system development fees should be reduced 
(or “offset”) in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated by new development 
and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those to be funded by the 
fees.  Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of existing deficiencies, outstanding 
debt payments on existing facilities, and dedicated revenue sources to fund growth-related 
improvements.   
 
The arterial street system development fees calculated in this report are based on a system-wide 
buildout cost per service unit that is lower than the existing level of service.  Consequently, there are 
no existing deficiencies from an impact fee perspective.   
 
The outstanding arterial street debt/interfund loans have been excluded from the existing level of 
service calculation, and can reasonably be attributed to existing excess capacity available for future 
development.  Consequently, the debt/loan amount has been included in the calculation of ten-year 
and buildout costs per service unit.   
 
The City has funded arterial street capacity improvements with system development fees and general 
obligation bonds, supplemented with Federal, State, and regional transportation funding.  Such outside 
funding has been taken into account in the calculation of the ten-year and buildout costs per service 
unit.  In sum, no additional offsets are warranted and the net cost per service unit is the same as the 
cost per service unit calculated above.

Arterial Streets 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
30 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Updated System Development Fees 
 
The updated arterial street system development fees that may be adopted by the City based on this 
study are the products of the number of service units (EDUs) generated by a unit of development and 
the net cost per service unit calculated above.  The updated fee schedule is presented in Table 23. 
 
Table 23.  Arterial Street Net Cost Schedule 
EDUs/ 
Net Cost/
Net Cost/  
Land Use Type
Unit
Unit 
EDU
Unit       
Single-Family
Dwelling
1.000
$3,792
$3,792
Multi-Family
Dwelling
0.543
$3,792
$2,059
Retail/Commercial
Sq. Foot
0.001027
$3,792
$3.894
Office
Sq. Foot
0.001410
$3,792
$5.347
Industrial/Warehouse
Sq. Foot
0.000277
$3,792
$1.050
Public/Institutional
Sq. Foot
0.000521
$3,792
$1.976
 
Source:  EDUs per unit from Table 12 (nonresidential divided by 1,000 to convert from per 1,000 sq. ft. to 
per square foot); net cost per EDU is lowest cost per EDU from Table 22. 
 
 
The updated arterial street system development fees are compared to the City’s current fees in Table 
24.  The updated fees are significantly lower than current fees for all land uses except office and 
public/institutional.   
 
Table 24.  Current and Updated Arterial Street Fees 
Current
Updated
Percent
Land Use Type
Unit
Fee   
Fee
Change
Single-Family
Dwelling
$3,869
$3,792
-2%
Multi-Family
Dwelling
$2,190
$2,059
-6%
Retail/Commercial
Sq. Foot
$5.040
$3.894
-23%
Office
Sq. Foot
$4.040
$5.347
32%
Industrial/Warehouse
Sq. Foot
$1.170
$1.050
-10%
Public/Institutional
Sq. Foot
$0.970
$1.976
104%
 
Source:  Current fees from City of Chandler City Code, Section 38; updated fees from Table 23. 
 
 
 
Capital Plan 
 
Assuming that growth occurs as projected in the land use assumptions, the City plans to fund 
approximately $86.9 million in growth-related expenditures related to the major road system over the 
next ten years, as summarized in Table 25.  Some of the improvements may be constructed by 
developers in return for credits against their arterial street system development fees.

Arterial Streets 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
31 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 25.  Arterial Street Capital Plan, 2022-2032 
10-Year    
Improvement
Eligible Cost
Alma School Rd, Germann Rd to Queen Creek 
$4,558,000
Alma School Rd, Frye to Pecos
$4,140,000
Chandler Hts Rd, Gilbert Rd-Val Vista
$2,524,314
Lindsay Rd, Ocotillo Rd to Hunt Hwy
$17,691,575
Subtotal, Planned Improvements, 2022-2032
$28,913,889
Outstanding Pledged Debt/Interfund Loans
$34,530,036
Encumbrances/Carry-Forwards
$23,417,040
Required SDF Studies, 2022-2032
$65,900
Required Biennial Audits, 2022-2032
$10,000
Total
$86,936,865  
Source: 10-year CIP cost is programmed arterial street system development fee 
expenditures from City of Chandler, 2023-2032 Capital Improvements Plan; financial data 
from Table 120; study update cost from Table 123; biennial audit cost from Table 124. 
 
 
The new development anticipated by the land use assumptions would generate the revenues shown in 
Table 26.  Anticipated arterial street system development fee revenues plus the current fund balance 
would cover all costs anticipated over the next ten years, but not all costs needed by buildout.  The 
City will need to increase the fee during the next update or at least within the next ten years.  
 
Table 26.  Arterial Street Fee Revenue Projections, 2022-Buildout 
2022-2032
2022-Buildout
New Arterial Street EDUs
6,648
15,175
x Net Cost per EDU
$3,792
$3,792
Projected Revenue
$25,209,216
$57,543,600
÷ Needed Revenue
$25,211,186
$143,204,359
Percent of Needed Revenue Generated
100%
40%  
Source:  New EDUs from Table 13; net cost per EDU is lowest cost per EDU from Table 22; needed revenue 
from Table 19 (2022-2032) and Table 21 (2022-buildout).

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
32 
September 21, 2023 
PARKS 
 
 
The City of Chandler adopted a community park system development fee in 1997 and a neighborhood 
park system development fee in 2005.  In 2008, the neighborhood and community park fees were 
combined into a single park fee.  The park fees were updated to be compliant with SB 1525 in 2014.  
They were updated in 2018, and this section updates them again in compliance with the current 
Arizona impact fee enabling act for municipalities. 
 
The locations of existing and planned parks are illustrated in Figure 7.  An inventory of existing parks, 
including name, park classification, service area and developed and undeveloped acreage, is presented 
in Table 27 on the following pages. 
 
Figure 7.  Existing and Planned Parks

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
33 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
Table 27.  Existing Park Inventory 
Service
   Total Acres   
  Eligible Acres  
Eligible Dev'd Ac.
Park Name
Type
Area
Dev'd
Undev.
Nhood
Comm
Nhood
Comm
Northwest Service Area
Desert Breeze
Comm
NW
47.34
2.50
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
Harter
Nhood
NW
8.60
0.00
8.60
0.00
8.60
0.00
Mountain View
Nhood
NW
19.00
0.00
19.00
0.00
19.00
0.00
Nozomi Park
Comm
NW
20.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
20.00
Pine Shadows
Nhood
NW
5.42
0.00
5.42
0.00
5.42
0.00
Price
Nhood
NW
12.10
0.00
12.10
0.00
12.10
0.00
Pueblo Alto
Nhood
NW
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
Sundance
Nhood
NW
3.51
0.00
3.51
0.00
3.51
0.00
Sunset
Nhood
NW
5.06
0.00
5.06
0.00
5.06
0.00
Windmills West
Nhood
NW
6.50
0.00
6.50
0.00
6.50
0.00
Subtotal, Northwest
127.78
2.50
60.44
50.00
60.44
50.00
Northeast Service Area
Amberwood
Nhood
NE
18.60
0.00
18.60
0.00
18.60
0.00
Apache
Nhood
NE
9.47
0.00
9.47
0.00
9.47
0.00
Arbuckle
Nhood
NE
9.51
0.00
9.51
0.00
9.51
0.00
Armstrong 
Nhood
NE
3.21
0.00
3.21
0.00
3.21
0.00
Arrowhead Meadows
Comm
NE
30.81
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
Boys & Girls Club
Nhood
NE
2.18
0.00
2.18
0.00
2.18
0.00
Brooks Crossing
Nhood
NE
8.10
0.00
8.10
0.00
8.10
0.00
Desert Oasis Aquatic
Nhood
NE
0.72
0.00
0.72
0.00
0.72
0.00
Espee
Comm
NE
33.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
Folley
Comm
NE
23.92
0.00
0.00
23.92
0.00
23.92
Gazelle Meadows
Nhood
NE
8.99
0.00
8.99
0.00
8.99
0.00
Harmony Hollow
Nhood
NE
6.92
0.00
6.92
0.00
6.92
0.00
Harris
Nhood
NE
0.81
0.00
0.81
0.00
0.81
0.00
Homestead North
Nhood
NE
7.60
0.00
7.60
0.00
7.60
0.00
Homestead South
Nhood
NE
4.96
0.00
4.96
0.00
4.96
0.00
Hoopes
Nhood
NE
12.80
0.00
12.80
0.00
12.80
0.00
Jackrabbit
Nhood
NE
4.57
0.00
4.57
0.00
4.57
0.00
Los Altos
Nhood
NE
0.75
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.75
0.00
Maggio Ranch
Nhood
NE
5.60
0.00
5.60
0.00
5.60
0.00
Navarrete
Nhood
NE
5.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
Park Manors
Nhood
NE
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
Pequeno
Nhood
NE
4.73
0.00
4.73
0.00
4.73
0.00
Pima
Comm
NE
31.75
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
Provinces
Nhood
NE
6.25
0.00
6.25
0.00
6.25
0.00
San Marcos
Nhood
NE
14.74
0.00
14.74
0.00
14.74
0.00
San Tan
Nhood
NE
14.31
0.00
14.31
0.00
14.31
0.00
Shawnee
Nhood
NE
17.51
0.00
17.51
0.00
17.51
0.00
Stonegate
Nhood
NE
8.37
0.00
8.37
0.00
8.37
0.00
Summit Point
Nhood
NE
0.29
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.29
0.00
Tibshraeny Family
Nhood
NE
13.00
0.00
13.00
0.00
13.00
0.00
Vida
Nhood
NE
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
Winn
Nhood
NE
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
Subtotal, Northeast
309.97
0.00
190.49
113.92
190.49
113.92  
continued on next page

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
34 
September 21, 2023 
 
Table 27.  Existing Park Inventory (continued) 
Service
   Total Acres   
  Eligible Acres  
Eligible Dev'd Ac.
Park Name
Park Type
Area
Dev'd
Undev.
Nhood
Comm
Nhood
Comm
Southeast Service Area
Blue Heron 
Nhood
SE
3.91
0.00
3.91
0.00
3.91
0.00
Centennial
Nhood
SE
10.88
0.00
10.88
0.00
10.88
0.00
Chuckwalla
Nhood
SE
4.45
0.00
4.45
0.00
4.45
0.00
Chuparosa
Comm
SE
28.00
0.00
0.00
28.00
0.00
28.00
Citrus Vista
Nhood
SE
10.02
0.00
10.02
0.00
10.02
0.00
Crossbow 
Nhood
SE
7.94
0.00
7.94
0.00
7.94
0.00
Dobson
Nhood
SE
12.44
0.00
12.44
0.00
12.44
0.00
Fox Crossing
Nhood
SE
4.95
0.00
4.95
0.00
4.95
0.00
La Paloma
Nhood
SE
13.07
0.00
13.07
0.00
13.07
0.00
Lantana Ranch Park Site
Comm
SE
0.00
42.37
0.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
Lantana Ranch
Nhood
SE
8.40
0.00
8.40
0.00
8.40
0.00
Los Arboles
Nhood
SE
11.35
0.00
11.35
0.00
11.35
0.00
Meadowbrook
Nhood
SE
7.11
0.00
7.11
0.00
7.11
0.00
Mesquite Groves Park Site
Comm
SE
6.00
98.40
0.00
30.00
0.00
6.00
Pecos Ranch
Nhood
SE
10.23
0.00
10.23
0.00
10.23
0.00
Pinelake
Nhood
SE
5.21
0.00
5.21
0.00
5.21
0.00
Quail Haven
Nhood
SE
9.75
0.00
9.75
0.00
9.75
0.00
Roadrunner
Nhood
SE
10.97
0.00
10.97
0.00
10.97
0.00
Ryan
Nhood
SE
13.89
0.00
13.89
0.00
13.89
0.00
Snedigar Sportsplex
Comm
SE
90.83
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
Tumbleweed
Comm
SE
147.84
58.35
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
Valencia
Nhood
SE
9.34
0.00
9.34
0.00
9.34
0.00
Veterans Oasis 
Comm
SE
113.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
Subtotal, Southeast
539.58
199.12
153.91
178.00
153.91
124.00
City-Wide
Total, City-Wide 
977.33
201.62
404.84
341.92
404.84
287.92  
Source:  City of Chandler Community Services Department, November 8, 2022. 
 
 
Service Units 
 
As described in the Service Unit subsection of the Legal Framework section, the service unit for all 
the City’s fees is the Equivalent Dwelling Unit, or EDU, which represents the demand for facilities 
generated by a typical single-family dwelling unit.   
 
SB 1525 provides that “… the fees shall be assessed against commercial, residential and industrial 
development, except that the municipality may distinguish between different categories of residential, 
commercial and industrial development in assessing the costs to the municipality of providing 
necessary public services to new development and in determining the amount of the development fee 
applicable to the category of development.” (A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.B.13)   
 
Park impact fees are traditionally only assessed on residential development, because there is a much 
clearer nexus between the number of residents and the demand for park facilities than is the case for 
nonresidential development.  Company-sponsored events in parks are paid for with facility reservation 
fees.  Any additional demand on park facilities attributable to nonresidential development would come 
from nonresidents who work in the city using parks during their lunch breaks – any such impact would 
be difficult to measure and relatively insignificant.  Consequently, the park fees will continue to be 
assessed only on residential development.

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
35 
September 21, 2023 
 
A single-family unit is, by definition, one park service unit (equivalent dwelling unit or EDU). The 
number of service units associated with other housing types is determined by dividing the average 
household size by the average household size of a single-family unit.  Average household size (the 
ratio of household population to occupied units) is preferable as the basis of the service unit to persons 
per unit (the ratio of household population to total units), because it eliminates the volatile factor of 
occupancy rates.  The resulting service unit multipliers are presented in Table 28. 
 
Table 28.  Park Service Unit Multipliers 
Avg. HH   
EDUs/  
Housing Type
Size      
Unit    
Single-Family
2.82
1.000
Multi-Family
2.38
0.844
 
Source:  Average household size from Table 8; EDUs per unit is ratio of AHHS to 
single-family average household size. 
  
The number of service units in each of the three park service areas can be determined by multiplying 
the number of housing units by the single-family and multi-family service unit multipliers and 
summing for the area.  Existing and projected service units (EDUs) are calculated in Table 29.   
 
Table 29.  Park Service Units, 2022-Buildout 
City-   
Single-
Multi-
Single-
Multi-
Single-
Multi-
Wide  
Family
Family
Total 
Family
Family
Total 
Family
Family
Total 
Total  
EDUs/Unit
1.000
0.844
na   
1.000
0.844
na   
1.000
0.844
na   
n/a   
2022 Units
11,856
5,366
17,222
33,471
18,697
52,168
35,611
8,629
44,240
113,630
2022 EDUs
11,856
4,529
16,385
33,471
15,780
49,251
35,611
7,283
42,894
108,530
2032 Units
11,877
5,378
17,255
34,266
23,890
58,156
36,583
8,969
45,552
120,963
2032 EDUs
11,877
4,539
16,416
34,266
20,163
54,429
36,583
7,570
44,153
114,998
Buildout Units
11,881
5,380
17,261
35,319
30,774
66,093
36,916
9,086
46,002
129,356
Buildout EDUs
11,881
4,541
16,422
35,319
25,973
61,292
36,916
7,669
44,585
122,299
New EDUs, 2022-2032
31
5,178
1,259
6,468
New EDUs, 2022-Buildout
37
12,041
1,691
13,769
Northwest
Northeast
Southeast
 
Source:  EDUs per unit from Table 28; housing units from Table 7; EDUs are product of units and EDUs/unit. 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit 
 
As described in the Methodology subsection of the Legal Framework section, the updated system 
development fees are based on the lowest of three costs per service unit:  existing level of service, ten-
year cost and buildout cost.   
 
 
Existing Level of Service 
SB 1525 limits park impact fees to “neighborhood parks,” an undefined term that excludes parks 
larger than 30 acres in size, unless a larger park can be shown to provide a “direct benefit” to 
development.  SB 1525 also excludes a number of park improvements from being funded with park 
impact fees, including:

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
36 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
… that portion of any facility that is used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, 
arenas, arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses, clubhouses, 
community centers greater than three thousand square feet in floor area, environmental education centers, 
equestrian facilities, golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes, museums, theme parks, water reclamation or 
riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar recreational facilities, but may include swimming pools.   
 
According to SB 1525, impact fees cannot be based on a level of service that exceeds the level of 
service currently being provided to existing development.  For park facilities, the existing level of 
service will be quantified in terms of the replacement value of existing eligible park facilities per service 
unit. 
 
A key component of the park level of service is the cost of land.  Recent park land acquisitions are all 
located in the Southeast service area, where land is the least expensive of the three service areas.  The 
City’s most recent park land purchase in this area, completed in May 2013.  This 10-year old cost has 
been adjusted to 2023 dollars using the consumer price index.  The current land cost per acre is 
estimated to be $153,514, as shown in Table 30.   
 
Table 30.  Park Land Cost per Acre 
Centennial Park Site
$353,433
÷ Acres
3.0068
2013 Cost per Acre
$117,545
x 2013-2023 Inflation Factor
1.306
2023 Cost per Acre
$153,514  
Source:  Purchase price from City of Chandler, July 15, 2013; 
inflation factor is ratio of U.S. Census, Consumer Price Index 
for All Urban Customers (CP{-U, May 2013 to May 2023.. 
 
Another major cost is the development of land with standard park improvements, including site work, 
landscaping, driveways, parking, walking paths, and standard amenities such as pavilions, ballfields, 
etc.  The average development costs per acre for neighborhood and community parks are based on 
recent or planned costs (in current dollars), as shown in Table 31. 
 
Table 31.  Park Development Cost per Acre 
Neighborhood
Community
Parks       
Parks      
Mesquite Groves (FY 2026)
$615,206
Homestead North (FY 2022)
$506,800
Lantana Ranch (FY 2021)
$430,449
Average Cost per Acre
$468,625
$615,206
 
Source:  City of Chandler, November 8, 2022. 
 
 
Pursuant to SB 1525, only the first 3,000 square feet of recreation centers are eligible to be funded 
with impact fees.  The City has two recreation centers, both located in the Southeast service area.  The 
total costs of these facilities and the eligible costs are shown in Table 32.

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
37 
September 21, 2023 
 
Table 32.  Eligible Recreation Center Costs 
Service
Total      
Eligible  
Recreation Center
Area
Sq. Feet
Cost      
Cost    
Snedigar Park Recreation Center
SE
8,266
$2,185,086
$793,039
Tumbleweed Recreation Center
SE
59,905
$18,393,336
$921,125
Total
68,171
$20,578,422
$1,714,164  
Source:  Square feet and costs from City of Chandler, FY 2022/23 Statement of Values; eligible cost is pro rata share 
for 3,000 sq. ft. 
 
SB 1525 prohibits aquatic centers but allows swimming pools.  This poses some problems of 
interpretation, since aquatic centers include swimming pools.  The Arizona League of Cities and 
Towns proposes the following definition of an excluded aquatic center: 
 
A facility primarily designed to host non-recreational competitive functions generally occurring within water, 
including, but not limited to, water polo games, swimming meets, and diving events. Such facility may be indoors, 
outdoors, or any combination thereof, and includes all necessary supporting amenities, including but not limited 
to, locker rooms, offices, snack bars, bleacher seating, and shade structures. 
 
While some of the City’s swimming facilities are called “aquatic centers,” they do not meet the League 
of Cities and Town’s definition of an aquatic center, because they are not designed primarily for non-
recreational competitive functions.  Nevertheless, the approach that will be used is to charge only for 
the pool itself, without the cost of associated amenities.  The replacement cost of existing pools is 
estimated based on the cost per square foot of water surface area for the City’s most recently-
constructed pool in the Mesquite Groves Aquatic Center.  The cost of a pool itself is estimated to be 
$322 per square foot of water surface area, as shown in Table 33 below.  This is the same cost per 
square foot used in the 2014 and 2018 studies. 
 
Table 33.  Mesquite Groves Pool Cost per Square Foot 
Pool Cost (including pumphouse)
$3,439,477
Other Water Features Cost
$778,663
Building Cost (excluding pumphouse)
$1,352,377
Total Building/Pool Costs
$5,570,517
Site Work/Contingency/Indirect Costs
$3,296,901
x Pool Share of Building/Pool Costs
61.7%
Pool-Related Other Cost
$2,034,188
Total Pool Cost
$5,473,665
÷ Water Surface Area (sq. feet)
17,002
Pool Cost per Square Foot of Water Area
$322  
Source:  City of Chandler, Mesquite Groves’ aquatic center cost sheet, 
June 2, 2008; pumphouse share of total building costs based on 3,625 
out of 9,759 total sq. ft., per Chandler Parks and Recreation, October 7, 
2011; total pool cost is pool cost plus pool-related other cost; square feet 
from City of Chandler Park Development and Operations Division, July 
22, 2013.

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
38 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Multiplying the water area of each pool by the cost per square foot calculated above yields the 
replacement costs for the City’s existing swimming pools for each service area.  These are shown in 
Table 34.  
Table 34.  Swimming Pool Replacement Costs 
Service
Water   
Cost per    
Swimming Facility
Area
Sq. Feet 
Sq. Foot    
Pool Cost 
Northwest Service Area
Nozomi Aquatic Center
NW
12,468
$322
$4,014,696
Northeast Service Area
Arrowhead Pool
NE
21,064
$322
$6,782,608
Desert Oasis Aquatic Center
NE
8,880
$322
$2,859,360
Folley Pool
NE
5,703
$322
$1,836,366
Total, Northeast Service Area
$11,478,334
Southeast Service Area
Hamilton Aquatic Center
SE
12,040
$322
$3,876,880
Mesquite Groves Aquatic Center
SE
17,002
$322
$5,474,644
Total, Southeast Service Area
$9,351,524  
Source:  Sq. ft. of water surface area from City of Chandler, September 2017; cost per sq. ft. from Table 33. 
 
 
 
The replacement cost of existing facilities in each of the three park service areas can be determined 
based on the existing park inventory, the unit costs for land acquisition and swimming pools, eligible 
recreation center costs and the average cost per acre to develop neighborhood and community parks.  
The total replacement values of existing land and facilities serving the three park service areas are 
shown in Table 35 on the following page.

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
39 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 35.  Existing Park Facility Replacement Costs 
Neighborhood
Community
Park       
Park      
Total    
Northwest Service Area
NW Total Eligible Acres
60.44
50.00
110.44
x Land Cost/Acre
$153,514
NW Eligible Land Value
$0
NW Developed Eligible Acres
60.44
50.00
110.44
x Development Cost/Acre
$468,625
$615,206
n/a
NW Eligible Development Cost
$28,323,695
$30,760,300
$59,083,995
NW Eligible Rec. Center/Pool Cost
$4,014,696
NW Total Eligible Replacement Cost
$63,098,691
Northeast Service Area
NE Total Eligible Acres
190.49
113.92
304.41
x Land Cost/Acre
$153,514
NE Eligible Land Value
$46,731,197
NE Developed Eligible Acres
190.49
113.92
304.41
x Development Cost/Acre
$468,625
$615,206
n/a
NE Eligible Development Cost
$89,268,376
$70,084,268
$159,352,644
NE Eligible Rec. Center/Pool Cost
$11,478,334
NE Total Eligible Replacement Cost
$217,562,175
Southeast Service Area
SE Total Eligible Acres
153.91
178.00
331.91
x Land Cost/Acre
$153,514
SE Eligible Land Value
$50,952,832
SE Developed Eligible Acres
153.91
124.00
277.91
x Development Cost/Acre
$468,625
$615,206
n/a
SE Eligible Development Cost
$72,126,074
$76,285,544
$148,411,618
SE Eligible Rec. Center/Pool Cost
$11,065,688
SE Total Eligible Replacement Cost
$210,430,138  
Source:  Total and developed eligible acres from Table 27; land cost per acre from Table 30; development 
costs per acre from Table 31; recreation center and pool costs from Table 32 and Table 34. 
 
 
 
The existing levels of service in the park service areas can be expressed in terms of the current cost 
per service unit, as shown in Table 36.  The capital investment represented by existing facilities and 
current fund balances is reduced to account for outstanding debt that will be paid by future system 
development fees.   
 
Table 36.  Existing Park Levels of Service 
Northwest
Northeast  
Southeast  
Existing Eligible Cost
$63,098,691
$217,562,175
$210,430,138
Current Fund Balance
$2,825,224
$6,424,043
$21,984,807
– Outstanding Pledged Debt/Loans
-$2,825,224
-$5,853,189
$0
Net Eligible Cost
$63,098,691
$218,133,029
$232,414,945
÷ Existing EDUs
16,385
49,251
42,894
Existing LOS (Cost/EDU)
$3,851
$4,429
$5,418  
Source:  Eligible park costs from Table 35; eligible debt/interfund loans and fund balance from Table 120 
in Appendix C; existing EDUs from Table 29.

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
40 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
The ten-year cost per service unit represents costs that will be incurred by the City over the next ten 
years to build new capacity to serve anticipated development in the city, to repay outstanding 
debt/interfund loans associated with existing capacity available to serve new development, to pay 
encumbrances for projects under construction, and to pay for updated studies and biennial audits.  
The results are shown in Table 37.   
 
Table 37.  Park Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
Northwest
Northeast  
Southeast  
Mesquite Groves Comm. Park Dev't, Ph. I  (30-acre part)
$0
$0
$20,519,574
Lantana Ranch Comm. Park Design/Dev't (21.6-ac. part)
$0
$0
$9,572,156
Subtotal, Planned Improvements
$0
$0
$30,091,730
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$2,825,224
$5,853,189
$0
Encumbrances for Projects Under Construction
$0
$2,078,184
$715,925
Required Fee Studies and Audits
$0
$21,475
$21,475
Total Planned Expenditures
$2,825,224
$7,952,848
$30,829,130
– Fund Balance
-$2,825,224
-$6,424,043
-$21,984,807
Total Revenue Needs
$0
$1,528,805
$8,844,323
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-2032
31
5,178
1,259
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$0
$295
$7,025  
Source:  Planned improvements and costs from City of Chandler, 2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program; debt/interfund loans, 
encumbrances, and fund balances from Table 120 in Appendix C, study cost from Table 123 and audit cost from Table 124, allocated 
equally between the northeast and southeast service areas; new service units from Table 29. 
 
 
 
Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
The Northwest park service area has no remaining revenue needs.  The buildout costs per service unit 
for the Northeast and Southeast service areas represent costs that will be incurred by buildout to 
construct capacity to serve anticipated development, repay outstanding debt/interfund loans 
associated with existing capacity to serve new development, pay encumbrances for projects under 
construction, and pay for updated studies and audits. The results are shown in Table 38.   
 
Table 38.  Park Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
Northwest
Northeast  
Southeast  
Mesquite Groves Comm. Park Dev't, Ph. I  (30-acre part)
$0
$0
$20,519,574
Lantana Ranch Comm. Park Design/Dev't (eligible part) 
$0
$0
$9,572,156
Subtotal, Planned Improvements
$0
$0
$30,091,730
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$2,825,224
$5,853,189
$0
Encumbrances for Projects Under Construction
$0
$2,078,184
$715,925
Required Fee Studies and Audits
$0
$41,950
$41,950
Total Planned Expenditures
$2,825,224
$7,973,323
$30,849,605
– Fund Balance
-$2,825,224
-$6,424,043
-$21,984,807
Total Revenue Needs
$0
$1,549,280
$8,864,798
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-Buildout
37
12,041
1,691
Buildout Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$0
$129
$5,242  
Source:  Study/audit cost from Table 123 (allocated equally between the northeast and southeast service areas); new EDUs from 
Table 29; all other data from Table 37.

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
41 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit Summary 
The three costs per service unit calculated above are summarized in Table 39.  The updated system 
development fees for the Northeast and Southeast are based on the lowest of the three costs per 
service unit for those areas. 
 
Table 39.  Park Cost per Service Unit 
Northwest
Northeast
Southeast
Existing Cost per Service Unit
$3,851
$4,429
$5,418
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit
$0
$295
$7,025
Buildout Cost per Service Unit
$0
$129
$5,242
Lowest Cost per Service Unit
n/a
$129
$5,242
 
Source:  Existing from Table 36; ten-year from Table 37; buildout from Table 38. 
 
 
 
 
Net Cost per Service Unit 
 
As noted in the Legal Framework section of this report, impact fees should be reduced (or “offset”) 
to account for other types of revenues that will be generated by new development and used to fund 
capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those to be funded by the impact fees.  Cases 
in which such an offset is warranted include funding of existing deficiencies, outstanding debt 
payments on existing facilities, and dedicated revenue sources to fund growth-related improvements.   
 
The parks system development fees calculated in this report are based on the existing level of service 
(unless the ten-year or buildout cost per service unit is lower), so there are no existing deficiencies.  
Other than system development fees, the City has no dedicated source of revenue to fund growth-
related parks improvements.  The City has not received any grant funding for park improvements in 
recent years, and does not anticipate any grants over the next ten years.  
 
The City has funded park improvements with system development fees or general fund monies or 
general obligation bond proceeds in return for a pledge against future SDF revenues.  Since 
outstanding pledged debt/interfund loans have been excluded from the calculation of the existing 
level of service, future system development fees can be used to repay those obligations without raising 
double-payment issues.  Consequently, no additional offsets are warranted, and the cost per service 
unit calculated above is the same as the net cost per service unit.

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
42 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
Updated System Development Fees 
 
The updated parks system development fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study are 
the products of the numbers of service units generated by a unit of development and the net cost per 
service unit calculated above.  The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 40 below.   
 
Table 40.  Park Net Cost Schedule 
Northwest
Northeast
Southeast
Single-Family EDUs per Dwelling Unit
1.000
1.000
1.000
Multi-Family EDUs per Dwelling Unit
0.844
0.844
0.844
x Net Cost per Service Unit
n/a  
$129
$5,242
Single-Family Fee per Dwelling Unit
n/a  
$129
$5,242
Multi-Family Fee per Dwelling Unit
n/a  
$109
$4,424
 
Source:  EDUs per unit from Table 28; net cost per EDU is cost per EDU from Table 39. 
 
 
The updated park fees are compared to current fees in Table 41.  The park fees will cease to be 
collected in the Northwest service area.   
 
Table 41.  Current and Updated Park Fees 
Northwest
Northeast
Southeast
Updated Single-Family Fee per Dwelling Unit
$0
$129
$5,242
Current Single-Family Fee per Dwelling Unit
$983
$237
$2,338
Percent Change
-100%
-46%
124%
Updated Multi-Family Fee per Dwelling Unit
$0
$109
$4,424
Current Multi-Family Fee per Dwelling Unit
$729
$176
$1,735
Percent Change
-100%
-38%
155%
 
Source:  Current fees from City of Chandler, System Development Fee Schedule, Effective July 28, 2014; updated fees 
from Table 40.

Parks 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
43 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Capital Plan 
 
Assuming that growth occurs as projected in the land use assumptions, the City plans to complete the 
park improvements listed in Table 42 over the next ten years, as well as repay outstanding 
debt/interfund loans on existing improvements with excess capacity, pay encumbrances on projects 
currently underway, and pay for required study updates and audits required by SB 1525.   
 
Table 42.  Park Capital Plan, 2022-2032 
Improvement/Expenditure
Northwest
Northeast
Southeast 
Mesquite Groves Comm. Park Dev't, Ph. I  (30-acre part)
$0
$0
$20,519,574
Lantana Ranch Nhood Park Design/Dev't (21.6 acres) 
$0
$0
$9,572,156
Subtotal, Planned Improvements
$0
$0
$30,091,730
Outstanding Debt/Interfund Loans
$2,825,224
$5,853,189
$0
Encumbrances/Carry-Forwards
$0
$2,078,184
$715,925
Required System Development Fee Studies
$0
$16,475
$16,475
Required Biennial Audits
$0
$5,000
$5,000
Total Planned Eligible Expenditures
$2,825,224
$7,952,848
$30,829,130  
Source:  Planned improvements and costs from City of Chandler, 2023-2032 Capital Improvement Program; debt/interfund loans 
and encumbrances from Table 120, study cost from Table 123 and audit cost from Table 124 allocated equally between the 
northeast and southeast service areas. 
 
 
For the Northeast and Southeast service areas, the updated park fees would provide all the needed 
revenue by buildout, but less than the revenue needed over the next ten years, as shown in Table 43 
below.  The City will need to defer repayment of some debt/interfund loans beyond ten years.   
 
Table 43.  Park Fee Revenue Projections, 2022-Buildout 
2022-2032
2022-Buildout
Northeast Service Area
New Park EDUs, Northeast Service Area
5,178
12,041
x Net Cost per EDU
$129
$129
Projected  Revenue
$667,962
$1,553,289
÷ Needed Revenue
$1,528,805
$1,549,280
% of Needed Revenue, Northeast 
44%
100%
Southeast Service Area
New Park EDUs, Southeast Service Area
1,259
1,691
x Net Cost per EDU
$5,242
$5,242
Projected  Revenue
$6,599,678
$8,864,222
÷ Needed Revenue
$8,844,323
$8,864,798
% of Needed Revenue, Southeast 
75%
100%
 
Source:  New service units from Table 29; net cost per EDU is the lowest cost per EDU from Table 39; 
needed revenue from Table 37 (2022-2032) and Table 38 (2022-buildout).

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
44 
September 21, 2023 
FIRE 
 
 
This section updates the City’s fire system development fees in compliance with the Arizona impact 
fee enabling act for municipalities.  The Chandler Fire Department operates out of eleven fire stations, 
a fire administration building and a support services facility.  The locations of existing fire facilities are 
shown in Figure 8. 
 
 
Figure 8.  Existing Fire Facilities

Fire 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
45 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Service Units 
 
Disparate types of development must be translated into a common unit of measurement that reflects 
the impact of new development on the demand for fire facilities.  This unit of measurement is called 
a “service unit.”   
 
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety service units and impact fees 
are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach.  A major problem with 
relying on call data is that it tends to be unstable over time.  This means that fees often go up or down 
significantly for individual land uses each time the fees are updated.  This update continues to use the 
“functional population” approach to calculate and assess the fire system development fees.  This 
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for these impact fee types and is based on the 
observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence of people.   
 
Similar to the concept of full-time equivalent employees, functional population represents the number 
of “full-time equivalent” people present at the site of a land use.  Functional population represents 
the average number of equivalent persons present at the site of a land use for an entire 24-hour day.  
For residential development, functional population is simply average household size times the 
percentage of time people spend at home.  For nonresidential development, functional population is 
based on a formula that includes square feet per employee ratios, trip generation rates, average vehicle 
occupancy and average number of hours spent by employees and visitors at a land use.  These all tend 
to be relatively stable characteristics that do not change significantly over short periods of time.  
Functional population multipliers by land use are calculated in Appendix B.  The functional population 
multipliers are converted into service units (Equivalent Dwelling Units or EDUs), by dividing the 
functional population per unit for each land use type by the functional population for a single-family 
unit, as shown in Table 44. 
 
Table 44.  Fire Service Unit Multipliers 
Func. Pop./
EDUs/
Land Use
Unit
Unit      
Unit  
Single-Family
Dwelling
1.89
1.000
Multi-Family
Dwelling
1.59
0.841
Retail/Commercial
1,000 sq. ft.
1.98
1.048
Office
1,000 sq. ft.
1.04
0.550
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sq. ft.
0.47
0.249
Public/Institutional
1,000 sq. ft.
0.99
0.524  
Source:  Functional population per unit from Table 117 (residential) and Table 
118 (nonresidential) in Appendix B; EDUs per unit is functional population per 
unit divided by functional population per single-family unit. 
 
 
The number of service units in the fire service area can be determined by multiplying the amount of 
development by the service unit multipliers for each land use type and summing for the area.  Existing 
and projected service units (EDUs) are calculated in Table 45 below for the 2022-2032 planning 
horizon and for buildout.

Fire 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
46 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 45.  Fire Service Units, 2022-Buildout 
EDUs      
Land Use
Unit
Units    
per Unit    
EDUs  
Single-Family
Dwelling
80,938
1.000
80,938
Multi-Family
Dwelling
32,692
0.841
27,494
Retail/Commercial
1,000 sq. ft.
18,758
1.048
19,658
Office
1,000 sq. ft.
8,088
0.550
4,448
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sq. ft.
45,476
0.249
11,324
Public/Instititional
1,000 sq. ft.
12,407
0.524
6,501
Total 2022 Service Units (EDUs)
150,363
Single-Family
Dwelling
82,726
1.000
82,726
Multi-Family
Dwelling
38,237
0.841
32,157
Retail/Commercial
1,000 sq. ft.
19,859
1.048
20,812
Office
1,000 sq. ft.
10,027
0.550
5,515
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sq. ft.
53,757
0.249
13,385
Public/Instititional
1,000 sq. ft.
12,929
0.524
6,775
Total 2032 Service Units (EDUs)
161,370
Single-Family
Dwelling
84,116
1.000
84,116
Multi-Family
Dwelling
45,390
0.841
38,173
Retail/Commercial
1,000 sq. ft.
21,367
1.048
22,393
Office
1,000 sq. ft.
12,683
0.550
6,976
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sq. ft.
65,098
0.249
16,209
Public/Instititional
1,000 sq. ft.
13,644
0.524
7,149
Total Buildout Service Units (EDUs)
175,016
New EDUs, 2022-2032
11,007
New EDUs, 2022-Buildout
24,653  
Source:  Units from Table 7 (residential) and Table 10 (nonresidential) in the Land Use Assumptions section; 
EDUs per unit from Table 44. 
 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit 
 
As described in the Methodology subsection of the Legal Framework section, the updated system 
development fees are based on the lowest of three costs per service unit:  existing level of service, ten-
year cost and buildout cost.   
 
 
Existing Level of Service 
The cost per service unit to provide fire protection to new development is based on the existing level 
of service provided to existing development.  The level of service is quantified as the ratio of the 
replacement cost of existing fire capital facilities to existing fire service units.  The inventory of the 
City’s existing fire facilities is provided in Table 46.  The City’s fire training facility has been excluded, 
as it is not eligible for fire impact fees under SB 1525.  Replacement costs of existing facilities are 
estimated based on the construction cost per square foot for the most recent fire station and the land 
cost per acre of the City’s most recent park land purchase.

Fire 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
47 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 46.  Existing Fire Facilities 
Facility
Year Built
Bldg. (s.f.)
Land (ac.)
Fire Station #1
2015
13,500
2.00
Fire Station #2
1985
8,000
2.91
Fire Station #3
1999
11,974
1.72
Fire Station #4
1985
7,328
1.85
Fire Station #5
1998
8,200
0.79
Fire Station #6
2002
8,000
1.54
Fire Station #7
2003
8,000
1.66
Fire Station #8
2004
9,434
1.84
Fire Station #9 
2006
10,200
1.84
Fire Station #10
2008
10,264
2.81
Fire Station #11
2018
11,600
2.50
Fire Administration Building
2009
18,700
1.35
Fire Maintenance Facility
1985
15,010
1.29
Total
140,210
24.10
x Cost per Sq. Foot or Acre
$308
$153,514
Total Replacement Value
$43,184,680
$3,699,687  
Source:  City of Chandler Fire Department, November 24, 2021, cost per building square foot 
from cost for Station #11, February 2, 2018; cost per acre is park land cost from Table 30. 
 
 
In addition to land and buildings, fire services require firefighting apparatus.  The City’s current fire 
vehicles have a total replacement cost, based on current unit costs, of almost $18 million, as 
summarized in Table 47. 
 
Table 47.  Fire Apparatus 
Fire Appartus
Quantity
Unit Cost
Replacment Value
Engine
16
$650,000
$10,400,000
Ladder Truck, 95'
3
$1,300,000
$3,900,000
Ladder Truck, Reserve
2
$1,100,000
$2,200,000
Heavy Rescue
1
$700,000
$700,000
Tanker
1
$300,000
$300,000
Utility
1
$450,000
$450,000
Total Replacement  Value
$17,950,000
 
Source:  City of Chandler, November 23, 2021. 
 
 
The existing level of service can be expressed in terms of current cost per service unit.  However, in 
addition to the costs of existing facilities, current fund balances and outstanding debt/interfund loans 
for existing facilities must also be taken into consideration.  The existing level of service is $409 per 
EDU, as shown in Table 48.

Fire 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
48 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 48.  Fire Existing Level of Service  
Building Cost
$43,184,680
Land Cost
$3,699,687
Apparatus Cost
$17,950,000
Total Replacement Cost
$64,834,367
– Interfund Loan Obligations
-$3,588,007
Fund Balance
$239,385
Net Replacement Cost
$61,485,745
÷ Existing Service Units (EDUs)
150,363
Existing Level of Service (Cost per EDU)
$409  
Source:  Building and land cost from Table 46; apparatus cost from Table 47; 
outstanding debt/interfund loans and fund balance from Table 120; existing 
(2022) EDUs from Table 45. 
 
 
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
The City does not plan any capacity improvements over the next ten years.  The ten-year cost per 
service unit represents costs that will be incurred by the City over the next ten years to repay 
outstanding interfund loans associated with existing capacity available to serve new development, pay 
encumbrances for projects currently underway, and pay for updated studies.  The results are shown in 
Table 49 and indicate a ten-year cost per service unit of $308 per EDU.   
 
Table 49.  Fire Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
Interfund Loan Obligations
$3,588,007
Encumbrances for Projects Under Construction
$0
Required Fee Study Updates and Biennial Audits
$42,950
Total Planned Expenditures
$3,630,957
– Fund Balance
-$239,385
Total Revenue Needs
$3,391,572
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-2032
11,007
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$308  
Source:  Outstanding interfund loans, encumbrances, and fund balance from Table 120; 
study and audit costs from Table 123 and Table 124; new service units from Table 45. 
 
 
 
Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
The City plans to construct a new fire station in the southeast part of the city sometime after the next 
ten years.  The buildout cost also includes current outstanding obligations and the cost of additional 
update studies and audits.  The results are shown in Table 50 and indicate a buildout cost per service 
unit of $822 per EDU.

Fire 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
49 
September 21, 2023 
 
Table 50.  Fire Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
New Southeast Fire Station #12
$16,823,500
Interfund Loan Obligations
$3,588,007
Encumbrances for Projects Under Construction
$0
Required Fee Study Updates and Biennial Audits
$83,900
Total Planned Expenditures
$20,495,407
– Fund Balance
-$239,385
Total Revenue Needs
$20,256,022
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-Buildout
24,653
Buildout Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$822  
Source:  Estimated cost of planned new station (in FY 2033 dollars) from City of Chandler, 
January 16, 2023; outstanding debt/interfund loans, encumbrances, and fund balance from 
Table 120; study and audit costs from Table 123 and Table 124; new service units from Table 
45. 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit Summary 
The three costs per service unit calculated above are summarized in Table 51.  The updated system 
development fees are based on the ten-year cost per service unit, which is the lowest of the three. 
 
Table 51.  Fire Cost per Service Unit 
Existing Cost per Service Unit
$409
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit
$308
Buildout Cost per Service Unit
$822
Lowest Cost per Service Unit
$308  
Source:  Existing from Table 48; ten-year from Table 49; buildout from 
Table 50. 
 
 
Net Cost per Service Unit 
 
As noted in the Legal Framework section of this report, impact fees should be reduced (or “offset”) 
to account for other types of revenues that will be generated by new development and used to fund 
capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those to be funded by the impact fees.  Cases 
in which such an offset is warranted include funding of existing deficiencies, outstanding debt 
payments on existing facilities, and dedicated revenue sources to fund growth-related improvements.   
 
The fire system development fees calculated in this report are based on a lower cost per service unit 
than the existing level of service, so there are no existing deficiencies.  Other than system development 
fees, the City has no dedicated source of revenue to fund growth-related fire improvements.  The City 
has not received any grant funding for fire improvements in recent years, and does not anticipate any 
grants over the next ten years.  
 
The City has funded fire improvements with system development fees or using loans from the general 
fund to advance-fund certain improvements.  The updated fees are lower than they would be based 
on the existing level of service, which was reduced to account for outstanding interfund loans used to 
build existing capacity that will serve future development.

Fire 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
50 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
Future system development fees can be used to repay outstanding interfund loans without raising 
double-payment issues.  The City does have some additional non-eligible debt on the fire training 
facility, but this can legitimately be retired with future general funds raised from both existing and 
future development, because the training facility has not been included in determining the existing 
level of service.  Consequently, no additional offsets are warranted, and the cost per service unit 
calculated above is the same as the net cost per service unit. 
 
 
Updated System Development Fees 
 
The updated fire system development fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study are 
the products of the numbers of service units generated by a unit of development and the net cost per 
service unit calculated above.  The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 52.   
 
Table 52.  Fire Net Cost Schedule 
EDUs/ 
Net Cost/  
Net Cost/  
Land Use
Unit
Unit
EDU       
Unit       
Single-Family
Dwelling
1.000000
$308
$308
Multi-Family
Dwelling
0.841000
$308
$259
Retail/Commercial
Sq. Ft.
0.001048
$308
$0.323
Office
Sq. Ft.
0.000550
$308
$0.169
Industrial/Warehouse
Sq. Ft.
0.000249
$308
$0.077
Public/Institutional
Sq. Ft.
0.000524
$308
$0.161
 
Source:  EDUs per unit from Table 44 (nonresidential divided by 1,000 to convert from per 1,000 sq. 
ft. to per square foot); net cost per EDU is the lowest cost per EDU from Table 51. 
 
 
The updated fire fees are compared to current fees in Table 53.  The updated fees are higher than 
current fees for all land use categories except office. 
 
Table 53.  Current and Updated Fire Fees 
Current 
Updated
Percent  
Land Use
Unit
Fees   
Fees   
Change  
Single-Family
Dwelling
$218
$308
41%
Multi-Family
Dwelling
$161
$259
61%
Retail/Commercial
Sq. Ft.
$0.22
$0.32
47%
Office
Sq. Ft.
$0.20
$0.17
-16%
Industrial/Warehouse
Sq. Ft.
$0.04
$0.08
93%
Public/Institutional
Sq. Ft.
$0.06
$0.16
168%
 
Source:  Current fees from Table 1; updated fees from Table 52.

Fire 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
51 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Capital Plan 
 
Assuming that growth occurs as projected in the land use assumptions, the City plans to fund 
approximately $3.6 million in growth-related fire expenditures over the next ten years, as summarized 
in Table 54.     
 
Table 54.  Fire Capital Plan, 2022-2032 
Improvement
10-Year Cost
Outstanding Debt/Interfund Loans
$3,588,007
Required System Development Fee Studies 
$32,950
Required Biennial Audits
$10,000
Total
$3,630,957  
Source:  Interfund loan balance from Table 120; study cost from Table 123 audit cost from Table 124. 
 
 
Projected fire system development fee revenue over the next ten years, based on new development 
anticipated by the land use assumptions, would be sufficient to cover 100% of ten-year costs but only 
38% of buildout costs, which include a new fire station.  The City will need to increase fees once the 
new fire station is within the 10-year horizon. 
 
Table 55.  Projected Fire Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout 
2022-2032
2022-Buildout
New Service Units (EDUs)
11,007
24,653
x Net Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$308
$308
Projected Revenue
$3,390,156
$7,593,124
Current Fund Balance
$239,385
$239,385
Total System Development Fee Funds Available
$3,629,541
$7,832,509
÷ Planned Expenditures
$3,630,957
$20,495,407
Percent of Costs Covered by Fire Fees
100%
38%  
Source:  New service units from Table 45; net cost per service unit is the lowest cost per EDU from Table 51; current fund 
balance from Table 120; 2022-2032 planned expenditures from Table 54; 2022-buildout expenditures from Table 50.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
52 
September 21, 2023 
POLICE 
 
 
This section updates the City’s police system development fees in compliance with the Arizona impact 
fee enabling act for municipalities. 
 
 
Service Units 
 
Disparate types of development must be translated into a common unit of measurement that reflects 
the impact of new development on the demand for police facilities.  This unit of measurement is called 
a “service unit.”  This update continues to use the “functional population” approach to calculate and 
assess the police system development fees.  This approach is a generally-accepted methodology for 
these impact fee types and is based on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends 
to be proportional to the presence of people at a particular site.  It is more fully described in the Fire 
section and in Appendix B. 
 
As with the City’s fire system development fees, the police service area is also city-wide.  Since the 
number of fire service units is also calculated using functional population, the existing and projected 
police service units (Equivalent Dwelling Units or EDUs) for the 2022-2032 ten-year planning horizon 
and to buildout are the same as those calculated earlier for the fire system development fees (see Table 
45 in the Fire section). 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit 
 
As described in the Methodology subsection of the Legal Framework section, the updated system 
development fees are based on the lowest of three costs per service unit:  existing level of service, ten-
year cost and buildout cost.   
 
 
Existing Level of Service 
The cost per service unit to provide police protection to new development should not exceed the 
existing level of service provided to existing development.  The existing level of service is quantified 
as the ratio of the replacement cost of existing police capital facilities to existing police service units.  
The inventory of the City’s existing police facilities is provided in Table 56.  Replacement costs of 
existing facilities are estimated based on the estimated construction cost per square foot for the 
planned Public Safety Training Center and the land cost per acre based on the City’s most recent land 
purchases for parks.

Police 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
53 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
Table 56.  Existing Police Facilities 
Facility
Year Built
Bldg. (s.f.)
Land (ac.)
Police Headquarters
1998
67,529
5.85
Police Dispatch/Family Advocacy Center
1990
11,243
0.46
Property & Evidence
1976/2003
30,430
1.83
Chandler Heights Substation
2008
21,841
4.50
Desert Breeze Substation
2006
21,253
5.00
Hamilton Facility
1990
13,816
1.74
Total Building Square Feet/Acres
166,112
19.38
x Unit Cost
$346
$153,514
Total Replacement Value 
$57,474,752
$2,975,101  
Source:  Year built, square feet, and land area from City of Chandler Police Department, December 23, 2021, 
cost per building square foot is estimated construction cost per square foot for phase 1 of Public Safety 
Training Center per City of Chandler Police Department, September 6, 2017; land cost per acre is park cost 
per acre from Table 30. 
 
 
The existing level of service can be expressed in terms of the current cost per service unit.  In addition 
to the costs of existing facilities, the current fund balance and interfund loans must also be taken into 
consideration.  The existing level of service is $390 per EDU, as shown in Table 57. 
 
Table 57.  Police Existing Level of Service  
Police Buildings
$57,474,752
Land Value
$2,975,101
Total Replacement Cost
$60,449,853
Fund Balance
$257,453
– Interfund Loan Obligations
-$2,008,425
Total Existing Facility Value
$58,698,881
÷ Existing Service Units (EDUs)
150,363
Existing LOS (Replacement Value per EDU)
$390  
Source:  Building and land cost from Table 56; outstanding debt/interfund loans 
and fund balance from Table 120; existing (2022) EDUs from Table 45. 
 
 
 
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
The City does not plan to construct any new impact fee-eligible police capital improvements over the 
next ten years.  The City has already constructed all the improvements it will need to serve buildout 
development.  However, not all the improvements have been fully paid for.  The City will need to 
repay interfund loans from the general fund and to pay for required study updates and audits over the 
next ten years.  The results are shown in Table 58 and indicate a ten-year cost per service unit of $163 
per EDU.

Police 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
54 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 58.  Police Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
Interfund Loans for Past Projects
$2,008,425
Required Fee Study Updates and Biennial Audits
$42,950
Total Planned Expenditures
$2,051,375
– Fund Balance
-$257,453
Total Revenue Needs
$1,793,922
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-2032
11,007
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$163  
Source:  Outstanding interfund loans and fund balance from Table 120; study cost from Table 
123; new service units from Table 45. 
 
 
 
Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
The buildout cost per service unit includes the outstanding pledged debt and the cost of required SDF 
study updates and audits.  Since most of these costs will be incurred over the next ten years, the City’s 
buildout revenue needs are the same as its ten-year needs, with the exception that additional fee study 
update and audits will be required.  The results are shown in Table 59 and indicate a buildout cost per 
service unit of $74 per EDU. 
 
Table 59.  Police Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
Interfund Loans for Past Projects
$2,008,425
Required Fee Study Updates and Biennial Audits
$83,900
Total Planned Expenditures
$2,092,325
– Fund Balance
-$257,453
Total Revenue Needs
$1,834,872
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-Buildout
24,653
Buildout Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$74  
Source:  Interfund loans and fund balance from Table 120; study and audit cost from Table 123 
and Table 124; new service units from Table 45. 
 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit Summary 
The three costs per service unit calculated above are summarized in Table 60.  The updated system 
development fees are based on the buildout cost per service unit, which is the lowest of the three. 
 
Table 60.  Police Cost per Service Unit 
Existing Cost per Service Unit
$390
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit
$163
Buildout Cost per Service Unit
$74
Lowest Cost per Service Unit
$74  
Source:  Existing from Table 57; ten-year from Table 58; buildout from 
Table 59.

Police 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
55 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Net Cost per Service Unit 
 
As noted in the Legal Framework section of this report, impact fees should be reduced (or “offset”) 
in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated by new development and used 
to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those to be funded by the impact fees.  
Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of existing deficiencies, outstanding debt 
payments on existing facilities, and dedicated revenue sources to fund growth-related improvements.   
 
The police system development fees calculated in this report are based on the buildout level of service, 
which is lower than the existing level of service, so there are no existing deficiencies.  Other than 
system development fees, the City has no dedicated source of revenue to fund growth-related police 
improvements.  The City has not received any grant funding for police improvements in recent years, 
and does not anticipate any grants over the next ten years.  
 
The City has funded police improvements with system development fees or using general fund 
revenues, either on a pay-go basis or to retire debt.  The updated fees are lower than the existing level 
of service, which has been reduced to account for outstanding interfund loans used to build some 
existing capacity that will serve future development.  Future system development fees can be used to 
repay that obligation without raising double-payment issues.  Consequently, no additional offsets are 
warranted, and the net cost per service unit is the same as the cost per service unit calculated above. 
 
 
Updated System Development Fees 
 
The updated police system development fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study are 
the products of the number of service units generated by a unit of development for each land use and 
the net cost per service unit calculated above.  The resulting updated fee schedule is presented in Table 
61.   
 
Table 61.  Police Net Cost Schedule 
EDUs/
Net Cost/
Net Cost/
Land Use
Unit
Unit
EDU    
Unit     
Single-Family
Dwelling
1.000000
$74
$74
Multi-Family
Dwelling
0.841000
$74
$62
Retail/Commercial
Sq. Ft.
0.001048
$74
$0.078
Office
Sq. Ft.
0.000550
$74
$0.041
Industrial/Warehouse
Sq. Ft.
0.000249
$74
$0.018
Public/Institutional
Sq. Ft.
0.000524
$74
$0.039
 
Source:  EDUs per unit same as for fire from Table 44; net cost per EDU is the lowest cost per EDU from 
Table 60.

Police 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
56 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
The updated police fees are compared to current fees in Table 62.  The updated fees are lower than 
current fees for all land uses except public/institutional. 
 
Table 62.  Current and Updated Police Fees 
Current  
Updated 
Percent 
Land Use
Unit
Fees    
Fees    
Change 
Single-Family
Dwelling
$127
$74
-42%
Multi-Family
Dwelling
$94
$62
-34%
Commercial
Sq. Ft.
$0.130
$0.078
-40%
Office
Sq. Ft.
$0.110
$0.041
-63%
Industrial/Warehouse
Sq. Ft.
$0.020
$0.018
-10%
Public/Institutional
Sq. Ft.
$0.030
$0.039
30%
 
Source:  Current fees from Table 1; updated fees from Table 61. 
 
 
Capital Plan 
 
The City has approximately $2 million in growth-related police capital costs to be paid over the next 
ten years, as summarized in Table 63.   
 
Table 63.  Police Capital Plan, 2022-2032 
Improvement/Expenditure
10-Year Cost
FY 2006/2007 Interfund Loan for South Substation
$2,008,425
Required System Development Fee Studies
$32,950
Required Biennial Audits
$10,000
Total
$2,051,375  
Source:  Interfund loan amount from Table 120; study cost from Table 123; audit cost from 
Table 124. 
 
 
Projected police system development fee revenue over the next ten years, based on new development 
anticipated by the land use assumptions, is $0.81 million.  With the inclusion of the current fund 
balance, the City would have $1.07 million in system development fee funds available to spend over 
the next ten years, as shown in Table 64.  The City will need to defer some of the interfund loan 
repayment beyond ten years, but should recover the full cost by buildout.  
 
Table 64.  Projected Police Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout 
2022-2032
2022-Buildout
New Service Units (EDUs)
11,007
24,653
x Net Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$74
$74
Projected Revenue
$814,518
$1,824,322
Current Fund Balance
$257,453
$257,453
Total System Development Fee Funds Available
$1,071,971
$2,081,775
÷ Planned Expenditures
$2,051,375
$2,092,325
Percent of Costs Covered by Police Fees
52%
99%  
Source:  New service units from Table 45; net cost per service unit is the lowest cost per EDU from Table 60; current fund 
balance from Table 120 in Appendix C; 2022-2032 planned expenditures from Table 63; 2022-buildout planned 
expenditures from Table 59.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
57 
September 21, 2023 
PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
 
The City’s public building system development fee funds administrative buildings, fleet maintenance 
facilities and other general government facilities not covered by the City’s arterial street, park, fire, 
police, water and wastewater system development fees.  Public building fees are no longer authorized 
by SB 1525 as of January 1, 2012.  However, SB 1525 allows cities to continue to collect public building 
fees to repay debt service obligations for improvement financed before June 1, 2011 that impact fees 
were pledged to repay.   
 
Attorneys working with the Arizona League of Cities and Towns have interpreted the language of SB 
1525 to allow pledges of impact fees to include repayment of interfund loans as well as formal debt 
instruments.  The League’s model development impact fee ordinance defines the term “financing or 
debt” as follows: 
 
Any debt, bond, note, loan, interfund loan, fund transfer, or other debt service obligation used to finance the 
development or expansion of a Capital Facility. 
 
The City recorded two interfund loans from the general fund to the public building system 
development fee fund for a portion of the cost of construction of the City Hall complex, which was 
completed in 2010.  The interfund loans were made in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, for a total of 
$4,369,352.  The current interfund loan balance is $1,764,427.  Public building system development 
fees were pledged to retire this loan by repaying the general fund.   
 
Because public building fees are no longer authorized, SB 1525 update requirements, including 
preparation of infrastructure improvements plans, do not apply, and the City may continue to charge 
its current fees until the interfund loan is repaid.  The current outstanding interfund loan amount, net 
of the current fund balance, is about $1.6 million, as shown in Table 65.   
 
Table 65.  Remaining Public Building Pledged Debt 
Outstanding Interfund Loan
$1,764,427
– Current Fund Balance
-$153,003
Future Revenue Needed
$1,611,424  
Source:  Outstanding interfund loan and fund balance from Table 120. 
 
 
Based on the land use assumptions, new development will generate approximately $1.2 million over 
the next ten years, as shown in Table 66 below.  By buildout, new development could generate about 
$2.7 million, but the public building fees will cease to be collected when the pledged debt obligation 
is repaid.  
 
Table 66.  Public Building Revenue Projections, 10-Year and to Buildout 
10-Year  
Buildout  
New EDUs
11,007
24,653
x Current Fee for a Single-Family Unit
$110
$110
Projected Revenue
$1,210,770
$2,711,830  
Source:  New EDUs from Table 45 in Fire section; current single-family fee from Table 1; 
projected revenue is new EDUs  times current fee per single-family unit.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
58 
September 21, 2023 
WATER 
 
 
This section updates the City’s water system development fees in compliance with the Arizona impact 
fee enabling act for municipalities. 
 
 
Service Units 
 
To calculate water and wastewater impact fees, the demand associated with different types of 
customers must be expressed in a common unit of measurement, called a “service unit.”  The service 
unit for the City’s water and wastewater system development fees is an “equivalent dwelling unit” 
(EDU).  An EDU is a single-family dwelling unit or its equivalent in terms of water demand.   
 
Residential development is charged per dwelling unit.  A single-family unit is, by definition, one EDU.  
Multi-family development is assessed based on the average water demand of a multi-family unit 
compared to a single-family unit.  Average demand during the summer months is used for this 
purpose, because water facilities must be sized to accommodate peak season usage.  Based on average 
water demand per unit during the summer months for the last five years, a multi-family unit represents 
0.334 water EDUs, as shown in Table 67. 
 
Table 67.  Water Demand per Multi-Family Unit 
Average Daily Summer Water Consumption (gpd) per Multi-Family Unit
138
÷ Average Daily Summer Water Consumption (gpd) per Single-Family Unit
414
Multi-Family EDUs/Unit
0.334  
Source:  City of Chandler water billing data for the summer months (May through September), average of fiscal year 
2017-2021 data provided by City on August 6, 2022. 
 
 
The number of water service units associated with a nonresidential customer is determined by the 
capacity of the water meter relative to the capacity of the smallest meter size.   Table 68 on the 
following page presents EDU multipliers for various meter sizes based on meter capacities.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
59 
September 21, 2023 
 
Table 68.  Meter Capacity Ratios 
Capacity
EDU     
Meter Size
Type
(gpm)   
Multiplier
5/8" x 3/4"
Disc
10
1.0
3/4"
Disc
15
1.5
1"
Disc
25
2.5
1 1/2"
Disc
50
5.0
2"
Disc/Turbine
80
8.0
3"
Compound
225
22.5
4"
Compound
250
25.0
6"
Compound
500
50.0
8"
Compound
800
80.0
3"
Turbine
175
17.5
4"
Turbine
300
30.0
6"
Turbine
625
62.5
8"
Turbine
900
90.0
10"
Turbine
1,450
145.0
12"
Turbine
2,150
215.0
16"
Turbine
3,100
310.0
 
Source:  Meter capacities in gallons per minute (gpm) represent the 
recommended maximum rates for continuing operations from Chandler Public 
Works & Utilities Department, January 4, 2023. 
 
 
The number of existing water service units are estimated based on the number of current City water 
customers and the service unit multipliers described above.  As shown in Table 69, the City’s current 
water customer base amounts to 124,954 service units (EDUs). 
 
Table 69.  Existing Water Service Units 
Units or
EDU     
Meter Size
Type
Meters
Multiplier
EDUs
5/8"x3/4"
Disc
545
1.0
545
3/4"
Disc
274
1.5
411
1"
Disc
1,250
2.5
3,125
1 1/2"
Disc
1,226
5.0
6,130
2"
Disc/Turbine
1,791
8.0
14,328
3"
Compound
94
22.5
2,115
4"
Compound
57
25.0
1,425
6"
Turbine
27
62.5
1,688
8"
Turbine
13
90.0
1,170
10"
Turbine
7
145.0
1,015
12"
Turbine
1
215.0
215
16"
Turbine
3
310.0
930
Subtotal, Nonresidential
5,288
n/a
33,097
Single-Family Units
80,938
1.000
80,938
Multi-Family Units
32,692
0.334
10,919
Total Water EDUs
124,954  
Source:  Residential units and nonresidential meters (excluding hydrant and fire flow 
meters) from City of Chandler, Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 2022; 
multi-family EDU multiplier from Table 67; EDU multipliers by meter size from Table 
68.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
60 
September 21, 2023 
 
The number of service units should increase proportionately with the increase in water demand.  As 
shown in Table 70, average daily water demand and service units are projected to increase by 23,575 
over the next ten years, and by 42,442 from 2022 to buildout. 
 
Table 70.  Water Demand and Service Units, 2022-Buildout 
2020    
2022    
2032    
Buildout  
Water Avg. Daily Demand (gpd)
60,500,000
62,870,000
74,710,000
84,200,000
Water EDUs
124,954
148,529
167,396
New EDUs, 2022-2032
23,575
New EDUs, 2022-Buildout
42,442  
Source:  2020 and buildout average day water demand from City of Chandler, August 6, 2022 (2022 is straight-line  
interpolation between 2020 and an estimated 2040 buildout; 2032 is 55.5% of remaining 2022-buildout demand 
(percent of city-wide population from Table 6 and employment from Table 9 in the Land Use Assumptions section); 
2022 water EDUs from Table 69; 2032 and buildout EDUs projected to increase proportionately to water demand. 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit 
 
As described earlier in the Methodology subsection of the Legal Framework section, the updated 
system development fees are based on the lowest of three costs per service unit:  existing level of 
service, ten-year cost and buildout cost.   
 
 
Existing Level of Service 
The existing level of service for the water system development fees is quantified, in large part, by the 
capacity provided by existing water facilities and the current cost to construct that capacity.  Water 
production facilities (surface water treatment plants and wells) must be sized for maximum day 
demand.  System-wide maximum day water demand (in millions of gallons or mgd) and water 
production capacity are summarized in Table 71 for both existing and buildout conditions.  Current 
water production capacity is sufficient to accommodate buildout demand. 
 
Table 71.  Water Demand and Capacity, 2022-Buildout 
2022
Buildout
Annual Average Day Demand (mgd)
62.87
84.20
x Peaking Factor
1.33
1.33
Maximum Day Demand (mgd)
83.62
111.99
Total Production Capacity (mgd)
149.30
149.30  
Source:  Average day demand projections and peaking factor from City of Chandler 
Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 2022; 2022 and buildout capacity from 
Table 72. 
 
 
Chandler’s water production capacity consists of the City-owned Surface Water Treatment Plant, the 
City-owned capacity in the San Tan Vista Water Treatment Plant co-owned with the Town of Gilbert, 
and the firm capacity of the City’s groundwater wells (firm capacity is capacity with the largest well in 
each pressure zone out of service).  Existing water production capacities available to meet maximum 
day demands are detailed in Table 72.  The City has sufficient existing capacity to accommodate 
projected buildout demand.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
61 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 72.  Existing Water Production Capacity 
Capacity
Water Production Facility
(mgd)   
Surface Water Treatment Plant
60.0
San Tan Vista WTP, Phases I & II
24.0
Subtotal, Treatment Plants
84.0
Airport Well
2.3
Amberwood Well
1.5
Appleby Well
2.3
Arrowhead Well
2.9
Bright Angel Well
1.0
Brooks Crossing Well*
3.3
Bush Way Well
1.8
Colt Well
2.3
Desert Breeze Well
4.2
East Knox
0.7
Eastwood Well
2.2
Fire Station Well
2.4
Frye Well
2.4
Hahn Well (owned by SRP)
2.1
Hightown Well
2.7
Iris Well
1.6
Knox Well
2.2
Lindsay Well*
3.4
McDermott Well
2.2
McQueen Well
2.9
Monterey Well*
5.0
Normal Well
1.9
Ocotillo Well
1.1
Pennington Well
2.5
Pleasant Well
1.5
Price South Well No. 2
1.0
Riggs Well
2.0
Roosevelt Well
2.2
Rural Road Well
4.2
Shawnee Well
1.9
Warner Well (owned by SRP)
3.0
Subtotal, Wells
72.7
Subtotal, Well Firm Capacity*
65.3
Total Firm Capacity
149.3
 
* firm capacity excludes largest well in each pressure zone and Brooks 
Crossing, which is dedicated for industrial use 
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, August 
6, 2022 (total firm capacity is sum of treatment plant capacity and firm 
well capacity). 
 
 
A water system must have sufficient storage capacity to meet peak day as well as peak hour 
requirements.  According to the City’s most recent water master plan, Chandler currently has sufficient 
storage capacity to accommodate buildout needs.  The existing storage capacity is summarized in Table 
73.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
62 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 73.  Existing Water Storage Capacity 
Gallons  
(millions)
Airport Tank
2.0
Alamosa Tank
2.0
Apache Tank
2.0
Arrowhead Tank
2.0
Basha Road Tank
2.0
Brooks Crossing Tank
1.0
Bush Way Tank
2.0
Colt Tank
2.0
Dobson South Tank
2.0
Frye Tank *
n/a
Gilbert Road Tank
2.0
Hahn Tank
2.0
Hunt Highway Tank
2.0
Lindsay Road Tank
2.0
McQueen Tank
1.0
Monterey Tank
2.0
Price South Tank *
n/a
Roosevelt Tank *
n/a
Rural Tank
2.0
SWTP Finished Water Reservoirs
12.0
Total
42.0
 
* will be removed from service by 2024 
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, August 
6, 2022. 
 
 
Another essential component of a water system is booster pumps, which are used to inject water from 
treatment plants, direct-pumping wells and storage tanks into the transmission/distribution system at 
the appropriate pressure.  The City’s existing booster pump station capacities are summarized in Table 
74.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
63 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 74.  Existing Booster Pump Station Capacity 
Existing Firm    
Booster Pump Station
Capacity (mgd)  
Airport
2.1
Alamosa
6.0
Apache
3.7
Arrowhead
4.4
Basha Road
6.1
Brooks Crossing
3.3
Bush Way
5.1
Colt
3.8
Dobson South
4.5
Frye
n/a
Gilbert Road
5.8
Hahn
3.9
Hunt Highway
3.8
Lindsay Road
5.7
McQueen
1.7
Monterey
3.1
Price South
n/a
Roosevelt
n/a
Rural
7.3
SWTP Pump Station No. 1
54.0
SWTP Pump Station No. 2
18.0
Direct-Pumping Wells
22.3
Total
164.6
 
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, August 
6, 2022. 
 
 
A final component of a water system is the transmission and distribution lines that convey the potable 
water to the customer.  Water impact fees typically charge only for transmission lines, since 
distribution lines are often constructed by developers without credit against their water impact fees.  
The City’s water master plan does not clearly distinguish between transmission and distribution lines.  
For this study, transmission lines are defined as any waterline of 16 inches in diameter or greater.  The 
current inventory of transmission lines is provided in Table 75. 
 
Table 75.  Existing Water Transmission Lines 
Pipe Size (in.)
Linear Feet
16
561,191
20
8,010
24
127,745
30
41,513
36
54,287
42
11,576
48
14,438  
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, 
August 6, 2022.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
64 
September 21, 2023 
 
Prior to the 2014 update, a separate water resources system development fee was assessed only on 
new water customers located on lands lacking water rights that can be provided to the City as a 
condition of water service.  These are Salt River Project (SRP) Off-Project and Non-Member lands.  
In the 2014 update, the cost of water supplies was included in the water system development fee 
assessed to all new water customers.  This change was based on analysis presented in the 2014 study 
demonstrating that SRP On-Project lands have no additional water rights to offset their additional 
water demands.   
 
Current and buildout water supplies are summarized in Table 76.  This analysis shows that the ratio 
of water supplies to water demand will fall from now to buildout, indicating that the City currently 
has sufficient water supply capacity to serve buildout development. 
 
Table 76.  Water Supplies, 2022-Buildout 
Surface Water Supplies Available (acre-feet/year)
93,605
Groundwater Safe Yield Pumping (acre-feet/year)
4,400
Total Water Supply Available (acre-feet/year)
98,005
x Conversion Factor
0.0008927
Total Water Supply Available  (mgd)
87.49
÷ Current Average Day Water Demand (mgd)
62.87
Current Ratio of Water Supply to Average Day Demand
1.39
New Water Supplies Planned to be Acquired (mgd), 2022-Buildout
4.10
÷ New Average Day Water Demand (mgd), 2022-Buildout
21.33
Ratio of New Water Supplies to New Average Day Demand
0.19
Buildout Water Supplies (mgd)
91.59
÷ Buildout Average Day Water Demand (mgd)
84.20
Buildout Ratio of Water Supplies to Average Day Demand
1.09  
Source:  Current and buildout water supplies from City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, 
August 6, 2022; acre-feet to mgd conversion factor is 325,851 gallons per acre-foot divided by 365 days 
per year divided by 1 million; current and buildout average day water demand from Table 71. 
 
 
The City has made two water supply acquisitions over the past several years.  Based on these costs, 
the current marginal cost of additional water supplies is estimated to be $5.85 per gallon per day, as 
shown in Table 77.  Note that the White Mountain settlement cost will increase with the Consumer 
Price Index until a dam is built and the settlement is finalized. 
 
Table 77.  Water Supplies Cost per Gallon per Day 
Cost       
Gallons/Day
Cost/gpd
Gila River Indian Community CAP Purchase, FY 2018-2020
$42,860,000
5,500,000
$7.79
White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Settlement, FY 2020
$13,257,195
4,100,000
$3.23
Water Supplies Cost per Gallon per Day
$56,117,195
9,600,000
$5.85
 
Source:  Planned water supply cost and capacity from City of Chandler, Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 2022. 
 
 
As shown above, there is some excess capacity in current water supplies.  The percentage of existing 
water supplies that are utilized by current customers, based on the projected buildout ratio of water 
supplies to average day water demand, is estimated at about 78% in Table 78 below.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
65 
September 21, 2023 
 
Table 78.  Percent of Water Supplies Currently Utilized 
62.87
Current Average Day Water Demand (mgd)
62.87
x Buildout Ratio of Water Supplies to Daily Demand
1.09
Current Water Supplies Utilized (mgd)
68.39
÷ Existing Water Supplies (mgd)
87.49
Percent of Existing Water Supplies Utilized at Buildout Ratio
78.17%  
Source:  Current demand, buildout ratio, and existing water supplies from Table 76. 
 
 
The replacement cost of Chandler’s existing water system is estimated based on current capacities and 
the current unit costs to construct water facilities and to acquire additional water supplies, as shown 
in Table 79. 
 
Table 79.  Replacement Cost of Existing Water Facilities 
Existing   
Unit 
Replacement
System Component
Unit
Units     
Cost 
Cost        
Water Supplies
gallons/day
87,490,000
$5.85
$511,816,500
Treatment Plant Capacity
gallons/day
84,000,000
$3.63
$304,920,000
Well Capacity
gallons/day
65,300,000
$1.69
$110,357,000
Storage Capacity
gallons
42,000,000
$1.62
$68,040,000
Booster Pump Station Capacity
gallons/day
164,600,000
$0.68
$111,928,000
16" Transmission Lines
linear feet
561,191
$325
$182,364,627
20" Transmission Lines
linear feet
8,010
$406
$3,253,662
24" Transmission Lines
linear feet
127,745
$487
$62,268,023
30" Transmission Lines
linear feet
41,513
$609
$25,293,871
36" Transmission Lines
linear feet
54,287
$731
$39,692,483
42" Transmission Lines
linear feet
11,576
$853
$9,874,560
48" Transmission Lines
linear feet
14,438
$975
$14,075,317
Total Existing System Replacement Cost
$1,443,884,043  
Source:  Existing water supplies from Table 76; unit cost for water supplies from Table 77; existing treatment plant and well 
firm capacity from Table 72; storage capacity from Table 73; booster pump station capacity from Table 74; linear feet 
transmission lines from Table 75; unit costs other than water supplies from Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 
2022. 
 
 
The existing level of service for water facilities is calculated in Table 80 by dividing the replacement 
cost of existing facilities utilized by existing customers, less outstanding debt obligations, by the 
number of existing service units.  The result is $7,341 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). 
 
Table 80.  Water Existing Level of Service 
Replacement
Percent
Cost        
Existing
Cost/ 
Water System Component
Cost         
Utilized
Utilized     
EDUs  
EDU  
Water Supplies
$511,816,500
78.17%
$400,086,958
n/a    
n/a  
Treatment Plant and Well Facilities
$415,277,000
56.01%
$232,596,648
n/a    
n/a  
Storage, Pumping, Transmission Facilities
$516,790,543
74.67%
$385,887,498
n/a    
n/a  
Total Cost
$1,443,884,043
$1,018,571,104
n/a    
n/a  
‒ Outstanding Debt/Interfund Loans
-$113,317,614
n/a    
n/a  
Fund Balance
$12,088,518
n/a    
n/a  
Net Cost
$917,342,008
124,954
$7,341  
Source:  Replacement costs from Table 79; percent of water supply from Table 78; percent of treatment plant and well facilities is ratio of existing 
demand to existing capacity from Table 71; percent of storage, pumping and transmission facilities is ratio of existing to buildout water demand 
from Table 70; outstanding debt/interfund loans from Table 120; existing (2022) service units from Table 70.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
66 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
The City does not plan to make any capacity-expanding improvements to the water system over the 
next ten years.  The City will need to repay outstanding debt and interfund loans on several past 
capacity projects with excess capacity, pay encumbrances on current projects, and pay for required 
study updates and biennial audits over the next ten years.  The results are shown in Table 81 and 
indicate a ten-year cost per service unit of $4,426 per EDU.   
 
Table 81.  Water Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$113,317,614
Encumbrances on Current Projects
$3,081,634
Required Fee Studies and Biennial Audits
$42,950
Total Expenditures
$116,442,198
– Fund Balance
-$12,088,518
Total Revenue Needs
$104,353,680
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-2032
23,575
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$4,426  
Source:  Planned project and cost from City of Chandler, 2023-2032 Capital Improvement 
Program; debt/interfund loans, encumbrances, and account balance from Table 120; 
study and audit costs from Table 123 and Table 124, respectively; new service units from 
Table 70. 
 
 
Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
No additional improvements to the water system are planned prior to buildout.  The buildout cost per 
service unit represents costs that will be incurred by the City to buildout to repay outstanding debt 
and interfund loans associated with existing capacity available to serve new development, pay 
encumbrances on current projects, and pay for study updates and biennial audits from now to 
buildout. Dividing buildout costs by new service units to buildout results in a buildout cost per service 
unit of $2,460 per EDU, as shown in Table 82. 
 
Table 82.  Water Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$113,317,614
Encumbrances on Current Projects
$3,081,634
Required Fee Studies and Biennial Audits
$83,900
Total Expenditures
$116,483,148
– Fund Balance
-$12,088,518
Total Revenue Needs
$104,394,630
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-Buildout
42,442
Buildout Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$2,460  
Source:  Planned project and cost from City of Chandler, 2023-2032 Capital Improvement 
Program; debt/interfund loans, encumbrances, and account balance (sum of water and 
water resources) from Table 120; study and audit costs from Table 123 and Table 124, 
respectively; new service units from Table 70.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
67 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit Summary 
The three costs per service unit calculated above are summarized in Table 83.  The updated system 
development fees are based on the buildout cost per service unit, which is the lowest of the three. 
 
Table 83.  Water Cost per Service Unit 
Existing Cost per Service Unit
$7,341
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit
$4,426
Buildout Cost per Service Unit
$2,460
Lowest Cost per Service Unit
$2,460  
Source:  Existing from Table 80; ten-year from Table 81; buildout from 
Table 82. 
 
 
 
Net Cost per Service Unit 
 
As noted in the Legal Framework section, impact fees should be reduced (or “offset”) to account for 
other types of revenues that will be generated by new development and used to fund capacity-
expanding improvements of the same type as those to be funded by the impact fees.  Cases in which 
such an offset is warranted include funding of existing deficiencies, outstanding debt/interfund loans 
on existing facilities, and dedicated revenue sources to fund growth-related improvements.   
 
The water system development fees calculated in this report are based on the buildout cost per service 
unit, which is lower than the existing level of service, so there are no existing deficiencies.  The 
outstanding debt/interfund loans for capacity improvements has been excluded from the existing level 
of service calculation, and can reasonably be attributed to capacity that is available for future 
customers.  Other than system development fees and water utility rates, the City has no dedicated 
source of revenue to fund growth-related water improvements.  The City has not received any grant 
funding for water improvements in recent years and does not anticipate any grants over the next ten 
years. Consequently, no additional offsets are warranted, and the net cost per service unit is the same 
as the cost per service unit calculated above. 
 
 
Updated System Development Fees 
 
The updated water system development fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study are 
determined by multiplying the number of service units generated by a dwelling unit or nonresidential 
meter by the net cost per service unit calculated above.  The resulting updated fee schedule is presented 
in Table 84.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
68 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 84.  Water Net Cost Schedule 
EDUs per  
Net Cost/ 
Net Cost per
Housing/Meter Type
Unit/Meter
EDU      
Unit/Meter 
Single-Family Unit
1.000
$2,460
$2,460
Multi-Family Unit
0.334
$2,460
$822
Nonresidential Meter:
3/4"
Disc
1.5
$2,460
$3,690
1"
Disc
2.5
$2,460
$6,150
1 1/2"
Disc
5.0
$2,460
$12,300
2"
Disc/Turbine
8.0
$2,460
$19,680
3"
Compound
22.5
$2,460
$55,350
4"
Compound
25.0
$2,460
$61,500
6"
Compound
50.0
$2,460
$123,000
8"
Compound
80.0
$2,460
$196,800
3"
Turbine
17.5
$2,460
$43,050
4"
Turbine
30.0
$2,460
$73,800
6"
Turbine
62.5
$2,460
$153,750
8"
Turbine
90.0
$2,460
$221,400
 
Source:  Single-family EDUs per unit is by definition 1.000; multi-family EDUs per unit from Table 
67; nonresidential EDUs per meter from Table 68; net cost per EDU is the lowest cost per EDU 
from Table 83. 
 
 
The updated water fees are compared to current fees in Table 85 below.  The updated fees are 28% 
lower than current fees for most new customers.  The fee for the 3” compound meter increases 
because the capacity of this meter size has been reevaluated and increased significantly (from 160 to 
225 gallons per minute) as part of this update. 
 
Table 85.  Current and Updated Water Fees 
Current
Updated
Percent  
Housing/Meter Type
Fee   
Fee    
Change  
Single-Family Unit
$3,397
$2,460
-28%
Multi-Family Unit
$1,281
$822
-36%
Nonresidential Meter:
3/4"
Disc
$5,096
$3,690
-28%
1"
Disc
$8,493
$6,150
-28%
1 1/2"
Disc
$16,985
$12,300
-28%
2"
Disc/Turbine
$27,176
$19,680
-28%
3"
Compound
$54,352
$55,350
2%
4"
Compound
$84,925
$61,500
-28%
6"
Compound
$169,850
$123,000
-28%
8"
Compound
$271,760
$196,800
-28%
3"
Turbine
$59,448
$43,050
-28%
4"
Turbine
$101,910
$73,800
-28%
6"
Turbine
$212,313
$153,750
-28%
8"
Turbine
$305,730
$221,400
-28%
 
Source:  Current water fees from Table 2; updated fees from Table 84.

Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
69 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Capital Plan 
 
The City has approximately $116 million in anticipated growth-related water costs over the next ten 
years, as summarized in Table 86.   
 
Table 86.  Water Capital Plan, 2022-2032 
Outstanding Pledged Debt/Interfund Loans
$113,317,614
Encumbrances/Carry-Forwards
$3,081,634
Required System Development Fee Studies
$32,950
Required System Development Fee Biennial Audits
$10,000
Total Planned Expenditures
$116,442,198  
Source:  Planned projects and costs from City of Chandler, 2023-2032 Capital Improvement Program; 
encumbrances and; debt/interfund loans from Table 120; study cost from Table 123. 
 
 
New water customers projected by the City’s water demand forecasts would generate the revenues 
shown in Table 87 below.  Anticipated water system development fee revenues plus the current fund 
balance would be sufficient to cover all of the future City costs to buildout, and would cover 60% of 
costs anticipated to be incurred the next ten years.  The City will need to defer some debt/interfund 
loan repayments beyond ten years. 
 
Table 87.  Projected Water Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout 
2022-2032 
2022-Buildout
New Water Service Units (EDUs)
23,575
42,442
x Net Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$2,460
$2,460
Projected Revenue
$57,994,500
$104,407,320
Current Fund Balance
$12,088,518
$12,088,518
Total System Development Fee Funds Available
$70,083,018
$116,495,838
÷ Total Planned Expenditures
$116,442,198
$116,483,148
Percent of Costs Covered by Water Fees
60%
100%  
Source:  New service units from Table 70; net cost per service unit is the lowest cost per EDU from Table 83; planned 
expenditures from Table 81 (2022-2032) and Table 82 (2022-buildout)); current fund balance from Table 120 in 
Appendix C.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
70 
September 21, 2023 
WASTEWATER 
 
 
This section updates the City’s wastewater system development fees in compliance with the Arizona 
impact fee enabling act for municipalities.   
 
 
Service Units 
 
To calculate wastewater impact fees, the demand associated with different types of customers must 
be expressed in a common unit of measurement, called a “service unit.”  The service unit for the City’s 
water and wastewater system development fees is an “equivalent dwelling unit” (EDU).  An EDU is 
a single-family dwelling unit or its equivalent in terms of wastewater demand.   
 
Residential development is charged per dwelling unit.  A single-family unit is, by definition, one EDU.  
Multi-family development is assessed based on the average wastewater demand of a multi-family unit 
compared to a single-family unit.  While wastewater flow is not metered directly, it can be estimated 
based on average water demand per unit during the winter months, when outdoor water use is limited 
and most water used is returned to the wastewater system.  Based on billing data for the last five years, 
a multi-family unit represents 0.424 of a wastewater EDU, as shown in Table 88. 
 
Table 88.  Wastewater Demand per Multi-Family Unit 
Average Daily Winter Water Consumption (gpd) per Multi-Family Unit
120
÷ Average Daily Winter Water Consumption (gpd) per Single-Family Unit
283
Multi-Family EDUs/Unit
0.424  
Source:  City of Chandler water billing data for the winter months, average of fiscal years 2016/17 through 2020/21, 
based on data provided by City on August 6, 2022. 
 
 
The number of wastewater service units associated with a nonresidential customer is determined by 
the capacity of the water meter relative to the capacity of the smallest meter size.   The water meter 
capacity ratios presented earlier in the Water section (see Table 68) will also be used to determine 
relative wastewater demand for nonresidential customers.  The number of existing wastewater service 
units are estimated based on the number of current City wastewater customers and the service unit 
multipliers described above.  As shown in Table 89, the City’s current wastewater customer base 
amounts to 118,261 service units (EDUs).

Wastewater 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
71 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 89.  Existing Wastewater Service Units 
Units or
EDU     
Meter Size
Type
Meters
Multiplier
EDUs
5/8"x3/4"
Disc
359
1.00
359
3/4"
Disc
114
1.50
171
1"
Disc
582
2.50
1,455
1 1/2"
Disc
782
5.00
3,910
2"
Disc/Turbine
1,154
8.00
9,232
3"
Compound
88
22.50
1,980
4"
Compound
56
25.00
1,400
6"
Turbine
26
62.50
1,625
8"
Turbine
13
90.00
1,170
10"
Turbine
7
145.00
1,015
12"
Turbine
1
215.00
215
16"
Turbine
3
310.00
930
Subtotal, Nonresidential
3,185
n/a
23,462
Single-Family Units
80,938
1.000
80,938
Multi-Family Units
32,692
0.424
13,861
Total Wastewater EDUs
118,261  
Source:  Residential units and nonresidential meters (excluding landscape 
meters) from City of Chandler, Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 
2022; multi-family EDU multiplier from Table 88; EDUs multipliers by meter size 
from Table 68. 
 
 
The number of wastewater service units should increase proportionately with the increase in 
wastewater demand.  As shown in Table 90, average daily wastewater demand and service units are 
projected to increase by 11,582 over the next ten years, and by a total of 20,952 new service units from 
2022 to buildout. 
 
Table 90.  Wastewater Demand and Service Units, 2022-Buildout 
2020    
2022    
2032    
Buildout  
Wastewater Avg. Daily Demand (gpd)
29,420,000
30,010,000
32,980,000
35,360,000
Wastewater EDUs
118,261
129,843
139,213
New EDUs, 2022-2032
11,582
New EDUs, 2022-Buildout
20,952  
Source:  2020 and buildout average day wastewater demand from City of Chandler, Public Works & Utilities Department, August 
6, 2022 (2022 is straight-line  interpolation between 2020 and an estimated 2040 buildout; 2032 is 55.5% of remaining 2022-
buildout demand (based on MAG population in Table 6 in the Land Use Assumptions section); 2022 wastewater EDUs from Table 
89; 2032 and buildout EDUs projected to increase proportionately to water demand. 
 
 
The updated projection of buildout demand of 35.4 mgd is 19% less than the 43.6 mgd projected for 
buildout in 2018.  The lowered projection is due to Intel’s recent completion of their private water 
reclamation plant, which will treat their wastewater and reduce demand on City wastewater treatment 
facilities.

Wastewater 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
72 
September 21, 2023 
 
Cost per Service Unit 
 
As described earlier in the Methodology subsection of the Legal Framework section, the updated 
system development fees are based on the lowest of three costs per service unit:  existing level of 
service, ten-year cost and buildout cost.   
 
Existing Level of Service 
The existing level of service for the wastewater system development fees is quantified, in large part, 
by the capacity provided by existing wastewater facilities and the current cost to construct that 
capacity.   
 
Chandler’s wastewater treatment facilities include the Ocotillo and Airport Water Reclamation 
Facilities and the Lone Butte Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The capacity of existing and planned 
treatment facilities is summarized in Table 91.  Because the Lone Butte plant will be decommissioned, 
it is not included in determining the existing level of service.   
 
Table 91.  Wastewater Treatment Capacity, 2022-Buildout 
Wastewater Facility
Current  
Buildout
Ocotillo Water Reclamation Facility Capacity (mgd)
18.6
18.6
Airport Water Reclamation Facility Capacity (mgd)
27.0
27.0
Lone Butte Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (mgd)
8.8
0.0
Total Treatment Capacity (mgd)
54.4
45.6
Total Capacity Excluding Lone Butte (mgd)
45.6
45.6
 
Source:  Treatment plant capacity from City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 2022.  
 
The wastewater collection system consists of lift stations, force mains and gravity lines.  Existing lift 
station capacities are summarized in Table 92. 
 
Table 92.  Existing Lift Station Capacity 
Firm    
Capacity
Lift Station
(mgd)   
Golf Course
1.6
Manganaro
10.0
Mission Estates
0.5
Ocotillo (to Airport WRF)
20.0
Old Pecos
2.7
Riggs
3.0
Robertson
5.8
Sunbird
0.7
Total
44.3
 
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, 
August 22, 2022. 
 
Another component of a wastewater system is the gravity mains and force mains that convey the 
wastewater to the treatment plants.  Wastewater impact fees typically charge only for major system 
lines, since local lines are often constructed by developers without credit against their wastewater 
impact fees.  The City’s wastewater master plan does not clearly distinguish between system lines and 
local lines.  For this study, system lines are defined as gravity mains of 18 inches in diameter or greater, 
and force mains of 12 inches or greater.  These are summarized in Table 93.

Wastewater 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
73 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 93.  Existing Wastewater System Line Costs 
Pipe Diameter
Linear 
Cost/
System    
(inches)
Feet   
Foot 
Line Cost  
18
130,034
$487
$63,383,773
21
36,129
$569
$20,545,840
24
66,748
$650
$43,380,860
27
55,228
$731
$40,380,504
30
66,191
$812
$53,773,568
33
7,326
$894
$6,546,807
36
16,030
$975
$15,627,326
39
5,274
$1,056
$5,569,977
42
13,475
$1,137
$15,325,926
48
20,061
$1,273
$25,537,653
60
220
$1,625
$357,456
66
13,635
$1,787
$24,369,563
Total, Gravity Main
430,351
$314,799,253
12
6,245
$292
$1,826,288
16
12,192
$390
$4,753,905
18
10,913
$439
$4,787,097
20
35,899
$487
$17,497,173
24
22,532
$585
$13,178,516
42
23,902
$1,023
$24,451,746
Total, Force Mains
111,683
$66,494,724  
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 2022. 
 
 
The replacement cost of Chandler’s existing wastewater system is estimated based on current 
capacities and the current unit costs to construct wastewater facilities, as shown in Table 94. 
 
Table 94.  Replacement Cost of Existing Wastewater Facilities 
Existing 
Unit 
Replacement
System Component
Unit
Units    
Cost
Cost       
Treatment Plants*
gallons/day
45,600,000
$24.37
$1,111,272,000
Lift Stations
gallons/day
44,300,000
$1.80
$79,740,000
Gravity Mains
linear feet
430,351
n/a  
$314,799,253
Force Mains
linear feet
111,683
n/a  
$66,494,724
Total Replacement Cost of Existing Wastewater Facilities
$1,572,305,977  
* excludes Lone Butte plant, which is planned to be decommissioned 
Source:  Treatment plant capacity (excluding Lone Butte) from Table 91; lift station capacity from Table 92; 
linear feet and costs of gravity and force mains from Table 93; unit costs for treatment and lift station capacity 
from City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 2022. 
 
 
The existing level of service for wastewater facilities is calculated in Table 95 below.  The replacement 
cost of existing treatment plants, excluding Lone Butte, which will be decommissioned, and the cost 
of the existing collection system are reduced to account for the fact that there is excess capacity to 
serve future new customers.  The total cost of currently utilized capacity is divided by the number of 
existing service units to determine the existing level of service, which results in an existing cost per 
service unit of $8,457 per EDU.

Wastewater 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
74 
September 21, 2023 
 
Table 95.  Wastewater Existing Level of Service 
Replacement Cost of Existing Treatment Plant Capacity
$1,111,272,000
x Percent of Capacity Currently Utilized
65.81%
Cost of Treatment Plant Capacity Utilized
$731,328,103
Replacement Cost of Collection System
$461,033,977
x Percent of Capacity Currently Utilized
84.87%
Cost of Collection System Utilized
$391,279,536
Total Replacement Costs Utilized by Existing Customers*
$1,122,607,639
Fund Balance
$18,424,602
Existing Capital Investment
$1,141,032,241
‒ Outstanding Debt/Interfund Loans
-$140,924,609
Net Capital Cost
$1,000,107,632
÷ Existing Service Units (EDUs)
118,261
Existing Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$8,457  
* sum of replacement costs of treatment plant and collection system utilized 
Source:  Treatment plant and collection system costs from Table 94; percent of treatment capacity utilized is ratio of 
2022 average day demand from Table 90 to current capacity from Table 91; percent of collection system currently 
utilized is ratio of existing to buildout demand from Table 90; fund balance and accounts receivable from Table 120; 
existing (2022) service units from Table 90. 
 
 
 
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
The City does not plan to construct any new wastewater capacity improvements over the next ten 
years.  The City will need to repay debt and interfund loans on existing facilities with excess capacity, 
pay encumbrances on current projects, and pay for the study updates and biennial audits that will be 
required over the next ten years.  The calculations are shown in Table 96 and result in a ten-year cost 
per service unit of $10,580 per EDU.   
 
Table 96.  Wastewater Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$140,924,609
Required Fee Studies and Biennial Audits
$42,950
Total Planned Expenditures
$140,967,559
– Fund Balance
-$18,424,602
Total Revenue Needs
$122,542,957
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-2032
11,582
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$10,580  
Source:  Planned projects and costs City of Chandler, 2023-2032 Capital Improvement Program; financial data 
from Table 120; study and audit costs from Table 123 and Table 124, respectively; new 2022-2032 service units 
from Table 90. 
 
 
Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
An additional sewer line expansion improvement is planned after 2032.  The buildout cost also 
includes costs that will be incurred by the City to repay outstanding debt and interfund loans associated 
with existing capacity to serve new development and pay for updated studies and audits.  Dividing the 
total buildout cost by new service units to buildout results in a buildout cost per service unit of $5,989 
per EDU, as shown in Table 97 on the following page.

Wastewater 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
75 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 97.  Wastewater Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
North Chandler Sewer Line Expansion (capacity portion)
$2,900,000
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$140,924,609
Required Fee Studies and Biennial Audits
$83,900
Total Planned Expenditures
$143,908,509
– Fund Balance
-$18,424,602
Total Revenue Needs
$125,483,907
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-Buildout
20,952
Buildout Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$5,989  
Source:  Planned project and cost from City of Chandler, January 12, 2023 (capacity portion, which is 20% of 
$14.5 million total cost); debt/interfund loan obligation and fund balance from Table 120; study and audit costs 
from Table 123 and Table 124, respectively; new 2022-buildout service units from Table 90. 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit Summary 
The three costs per service unit calculated above are summarized in Table 98.  The updated system 
development fees are based on the buildout cost per service unit, which is the lowest of the three. 
 
Table 98.  Wastewater Cost per Service Unit 
Existing Cost per Service Unit
$8,457
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit
$10,580
Buildout Cost per Service Unit
$5,989
Lowest Cost per Service Unit
$5,989  
Source:  Existing from Table 95; ten-year from Table 96; buildout from 
Table 97. 
 
 
Net Cost per Service Unit 
 
As noted in the Legal Framework section of this report, impact fees should be reduced (or “offset”) 
to account for other types of revenues that will be generated by new development and used to fund 
capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those to be funded by the impact fees.  Cases 
in which such an offset is warranted include funding of existing deficiencies, outstanding debt 
payments on existing facilities, and dedicated revenue sources to fund growth-related improvements.   
 
Outstanding debt for past capacity improvements has been excluded from the existing level of service 
calculation, and can reasonably be attributed to capacity that is available for future customers.  Other 
than system development fees, the City has no dedicated source of revenue to fund growth-related 
wastewater improvements.  The City has not received any grant funding for wastewater improvements 
in recent years and does not anticipate any grants over the next ten years. Consequently, no additional 
offsets are warranted, and the net cost per service unit is the same as the cost per service unit calculated 
above.

Wastewater 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
76 
September 21, 2023 
 
Updated System Development Fees 
 
The updated wastewater system development fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study 
are the products of the numbers of service units generated by a unit of development and the net cost 
per service unit calculated above.  The resulting updated fee schedule is presented in Table 99.   
 
Table 99.  Wastewater Net Cost Schedule 
EDUs per  
Net Cost/ 
Net Cost per
Housing/Meter Type
Unit/Meter
EDU      
Unit/Meter 
Single-Family Unit
1.000
$5,989
$5,989
Multi-Family Unit
0.424
$5,989
$2,539
Nonresidential Meter:
3/4"
Disc
1.5
$5,989
$8,984
1"
Disc
2.5
$5,989
$14,973
1 1/2"
Disc
5.0
$5,989
$29,945
2"
Disc/Turbine
8.0
$5,989
$47,912
3"
Compound
22.5
$5,989
$134,753
4"
Compound
25.0
$5,989
$149,725
6"
Compound
50.0
$5,989
$299,450
8"
Compound
80.0
$5,989
$479,120
3"
Turbine
17.5
$5,989
$104,808
4"
Turbine
30.0
$5,989
$179,670
6"
Turbine
62.5
$5,989
$374,313
8"
Turbine
90.0
$5,989
$539,010
 
Source:  Single-family EDUs per unit is by definition one; multi-family EDUs per unit from Table 88; 
nonresidential EDUs per meter from Table 68; net cost per EDU is the lowest cost per EDU from 
Table 98. 
 
 
The updated wastewater fees are compared to current fees in Table 100 below.  The updated fees are 
49% higher than current fees for most new customers.  The fee for the 3” compound meter increases 
more because the capacity of this water meter size has been reevaluated and increased significantly as 
part of this update. 
 
Table 100.  Current and Updated Wastewater Fees 
Current
Updated
Percent  
Housing/Meter Type
Fee   
Fee    
Change  
Single-Family Unit
$4,024
$5,989
49%
Multi-Family Unit
$1,940
$2,539
31%
Nonresidential Meter:
3/4"
Disc
$6,036
$8,984
49%
1"
Disc
$10,060
$14,973
49%
1 1/2"
Disc
$20,120
$29,945
49%
2"
Disc/Turbine
$32,192
$47,912
49%
3"
Compound
$64,384
$134,753
109%
4"
Compound
$100,600
$149,725
49%
6"
Compound
$201,200
$299,450
49%
8"
Compound
$321,920
$479,120
49%
3"
Turbine
$70,420
$104,808
49%
4"
Turbine
$120,720
$179,670
49%
6"
Turbine
$251,500
$374,313
49%
8"
Turbine
$362,160
$539,010
49%
 
Source:  Current fees from Table 2; updated fees from Table 99.

Wastewater 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
77 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Capital Plan 
 
Assuming that growth occurs as projected in the land use assumptions, the City anticipates 
approximately $141 million in growth-related wastewater costs over the next ten years, as shown in 
Table 101.   
 
Table 101.  Wastewater Capital Plan, 2022-2032 
Outstanding Pledged Debt/Interfund Loans
$140,924,609
Required System Development Fee Studies
$32,950
Required System Development Fee Biennial Audits
$10,000
Total Planned Expenditures
$140,967,559  
Source:  Debt/interfund loans from Table 120; study cost from Table 123; audit cost from 
Table 124. 
 
 
With projected updated wastewater system development fee revenue, plus the current fund balance, 
the City would have about $88 million in system development fee funds available over the next ten 
years, as shown in Table 102 below.  This is only 62% of planned 10-year expenditures.  However, the 
timing of expenditures is flexible, as the City can defer repayment of interfund loans and debt until 
sufficient system development fees become available.  Assuming the City continues to collect 
wastewater system development fees until it reaches buildout, future fees plus the current fund balance 
should be sufficient to cover all future costs. 
 
Table 102.  Projected Wastewater Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout 
2022-2032
2022-Buildout
New Service Units (EDUs)
11,582
20,952
x Net Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$5,989
$5,989
Projected Revenue
$69,364,598
$125,481,528
Current Fund Balance
$18,424,602
$18,424,602
Total System Development Fee Funds Available, 2022-2032
$87,789,200
$143,906,130
÷ Planned Expenditures
$140,967,559
$143,908,509
Percent of Costs Covered by Wastewater Fees
62%
100%  
Source:  New service units from Table 90; net cost per service unit is the lowest cost per EDU from Table 98; current fund balance and 
accounts receivable from Table 120 in Appendix C; 2022-2032 expenditures from Table 101; 2022-buildout expenditures from Table 
97.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
78 
September 21, 2023 
RECLAIMED WATER 
 
 
This section updates the City’s reclaimed water system development fees in compliance with the 
Arizona impact fee enabling act for municipalities.  Reclaimed water is wastewater that is treated and 
purified to be safely used for irrigating golf courses, common areas, and roadside landscaping.  
Chandler’s water reclamation facilities use a state-of-the-art treatment process that cleans and 
disinfects the wastewater before it is added to the reclaimed water distribution system.  The reclaimed 
water system benefits all City water and wastewater utility customers by providing an efficient method 
of disposing of wastewater and conserving limited water resources.  The ability to expand the City’s 
wastewater treatment capacity is limited by the ability to reuse or recharge the effluent.  Because the 
reclaimed water system is most closely linked to the wastewater system, reclaimed water system 
development fees are assessed based on wastewater demand.   
 
 
Service Units 
 
To calculate system development fees, the demand associated with different types of development 
must be expressed in a common unit of measurement, called a “service unit.”  The service unit for the 
reclaimed water fee is an “equivalent dwelling unit” (EDU).  An EDU is a single-family dwelling unit 
or its equivalent in terms of reclaimed water demand.  Because the reclaimed water system 
development fees are based on wastewater demand, the wastewater service unit multipliers and 
projections calculated in the previous wastewater section are appropriate for the reclaimed water fees 
as well. 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit 
 
As described earlier in the Methodology subsection of the Legal Framework section, the updated 
system development fees are based on the lowest of three costs per service unit:  existing level of 
service, ten-year cost, and buildout cost.   
 
Existing Level of Service 
The existing level of service for the reclaimed water system development fees is quantified, in large 
part, by the capacity provided by existing reclaimed water facilities and the current cost to construct 
that capacity.  Chandler’s reclaimed water facilities include pump stations, recharge and recovery wells 
and reclaimed water transmission lines.  The City’s existing pump station capacities are summarized 
in Table 103.   
 
Table 103.  Existing Reclaimed Water Pump Stations 
Capacity
Reclaimed Water Pump Station
(mgd)  
Effluent Pump Station at Ocotillo WRF
36.0
Intel Effluent Pump Station
2.0
Reclaimed Water Pump Station at Airport WRF
38.5
Total, Pump Stations
76.5
 
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 2022.

Reclaimed Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
79 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
A key component of the reclaimed water system is the system of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) 
wells.  The City’s existing reclaimed well capacities are summarized in Table 104. 
 
Table 104.  Existing Reclaimed Water Wells 
Recharge     
Recharge Well
Capacity (mgd)
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 1
1.7
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 2
1.1
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 3
1.1
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 4
1.4
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 5
1.7
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 6
1.6
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 7
1.2
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 8
1.3
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 9
1.0
Tumbleweed Park ASR Well No. 10
1.2
Total Capacity, Tumbleweed Park
13.3
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 1
1.6
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 2
1.5
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 3
1.6
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 4
1.5
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 5
1.5
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 6
1.4
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 7
1.0
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 8
1.0
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 9
0.9
Ocotillo ASR Well No. 10
0.9
Total Capacity, Ocotillo
12.9
Veterans Oasis Recharge Basin
6.0
Total System Capacity
32.2
 
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities Department, August 6, 
2022. 
 
 
Another component of a reclaimed water system is the network of transmission mains that distribute 
the reclaimed water to reclaimed water users.  The existing major lines are summarized in Table 105. 
 
Table 105.  Existing Reclaimed Water System Lines 
Pipe Size (in.)
Linear Feet
12
241,723
16
2,902
18
1,508
24
109,005
36
22,091  
Source:  City of Chandler Public Works & Utilities 
Department, August 6, 2022.

Reclaimed Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
80 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
The total replacement cost of Chandler’s existing reclaimed water system is estimated based on current 
capacities and the current unit costs to construct reclaimed water facilities.  Outstanding 
debt/interfund loans in excess of the current reclaimed water system development fee fund balance 
are deducted to determine the net replacement cost that has been fully paid for by existing wastewater 
customers.  The net replacement cost is divided by the number of existing wastewater service units to 
determine the existing cost per service unit of $2,091 per EDU, as shown in Table 106. 
 
Table 106.  Reclaimed Water Existing Level of Service 
Existing   
Unit 
Replacement
System Component
Unit
Units     
Cost 
Cost        
Pump Station Capacity
gallons/day
76,500,000
$0.68
$52,020,000
ASR Well Capacity
gallons/day
32,200,000
$2.71
$87,262,000
12" Transmission Lines
linear feet
241,723
$244
$58,980,412
16" Transmission Lines
linear feet
2,902
$325
$943,150
18" Transmission Lines
linear feet
1,508
$366
$551,928
24" Transmission Lines
linear feet
109,005
$487
$53,085,435
36" Transmission Lines
linear feet
22,091
$731
$16,148,521
Total Existing System Replacement Cost
$268,991,446
– Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
-$24,370,725
Fund Balance
$2,614,726
Net Existing System Replacement Cost
$247,235,447
÷ Existing Service Units (EDUs)
118,261
Existing Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$2,091  
Source:  Pump station capacity from Table 103; well capacity from Table 104; transmission lines from Table 105; unit costs 
from City of Chandler Municipal Utilities Department, July 23, 2013 increased by a factor of 35.4% per Public Works & 
Utilities Department, August 6, 2022; outstanding debt/interfund loans and fund balance from Table 120; existing (2022) 
service units from Table 90. 
 
 
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
The City does not plan to make any capacity improvements to the reclaimed water system over the 
next ten years.  The City will need to repay debt/interfund loans on existing facilities with excess 
capacity, pay encumbrances on current projects, and pay for required SDF study updates and biennial 
audits that will be required over the next ten years.  The results are shown in Table 107 and indicate a 
ten-year cost per service unit of $1,975 per EDU.   
 
Table 107.  Reclaimed Water Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit 
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$24,370,725
Encumbrances for Current Projects
$1,075,677
Required Fee Studies and Biennial Audits
$42,950
Total Planned Expenditures
$25,489,352
– Fund Balance
-$2,614,726
Total Revenue Needs
$22,874,626
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-2032
11,582
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$1,975  
Source:  Debt/interfund loans, encumbrances and fund balance from Table 120; study 
and audit costs from Table 123 and Table 124, respectively; new 2022-buildout service 
units from Table 90.

Reclaimed Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
81 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
The City has not identified a need for any additional growth-related improvements beyond the next 
ten years.  The total buildout cost includes future costs that will be incurred by the City to repay 
outstanding debt/interfund loans associated with existing capacity to serve new development, pay 
encumbrances for current projects, and pay for updated SDF studies and biennial audits.  Dividing 
buildout costs by new service units to buildout results in a buildout cost per service unit of $1,094 per 
EDU, as shown in Table 108. 
 
Table 108.  Reclaimed Water Buildout Cost per Service Unit 
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$24,370,725
Encumbrances for Current Projects
$1,075,677
Required Fee Studies and Biennial Audits
$83,900
Total Planned Expenditures
$25,530,302
– Fund Balance
-$2,614,726
Total Revenue Needs
$22,915,576
÷ New Service Units (EDUs), 2022-Buildout
20,952
Buildout Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$1,094  
Source:  Debt/interfund loans; encumbrances and fund balance from Table 120; study 
cost from Table 123; new service units from Table 90. 
 
 
Cost per Service Unit Summary 
The three costs per service unit calculated above are summarized in Table 109.  The updated system 
development fees are based on the buildout cost per service unit, which is the lowest of the three. 
 
Table 109.  Reclaimed Water Cost per Service Unit 
Existing Cost per Service Unit
$2,091
Ten-Year Cost per Service Unit
$1,975
Buildout Cost per Service Unit
$1,094
Lowest Cost per Service Unit
$1,094  
Source:  Existing from Table 106; ten-year from Table 107; buildout 
from Table 108. 
 
 
Net Cost per Service Unit 
 
As noted in the Legal Framework section of this report, impact fees should be reduced (or “offset”) 
in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated by new development and used 
to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those to be funded by the impact fees.  
Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of existing deficiencies, outstanding debt 
payments on existing facilities, and dedicated revenue sources to fund growth-related improvements.

Reclaimed Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
82 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
The reclaimed water system development fees calculated in this report are based on the buildout cost 
per service unit, which is lower than the existing level of service, so there are no existing deficiencies.  
Outstanding debt and interfund loans on existing facilities have been excluded from the existing level 
of service calculation, and can reasonably be attributed to excess capacity available to serve future 
customers.  Other than system development fees and utility rates, the City has no dedicated source of 
revenue to fund growth-related reclaimed water improvements.  The City has not received any grant 
funding for reclaimed water improvements in recent years and does not anticipate any grants over the 
next ten years. Consequently, no additional offsets are warranted, and the net cost per service unit is 
the same as the cost per service unit calculated above. 
 
 
Updated System Development Fees 
 
The updated reclaimed water system development fees that may be adopted by the City based on this 
study are the products of the numbers of service units generated by a unit of development and the net 
cost per service unit calculated above.  The resulting updated fee schedule is presented in Table 110.   
 
Table 110.  Reclaimed Water Net Cost Schedule 
EDUs per  
Net Cost/    
Net Cost per  
Housing/Meter Type
Unit/Meter 
EDU        
Unit/Meter   
Single-Family Unit
1.000
$1,094
$1,094
Multi-Family Unit
0.424
$1,094
$464
Nonresidential Meter:
3/4"
Disc
1.5
$1,094
$1,641
1"
Disc
2.5
$1,094
$2,735
1 1/2"
Disc
5.0
$1,094
$5,470
2"
Disc/Turbine
8.0
$1,094
$8,752
3"
Compound
22.5
$1,094
$24,615
4"
Compound
25.0
$1,094
$27,350
6"
Compound
50.0
$1,094
$54,700
8"
Compound
80.0
$1,094
$87,520
3"
Turbine
17.5
$1,094
$19,145
4"
Turbine
30.0
$1,094
$32,820
6"
Turbine
62.5
$1,094
$68,375
8"
Turbine
90.0
$1,094
$98,460
 
Source:  EDUs per unit or meter are the same as for wastewater from Table 99; net cost per EDU 
is the lowest cost per EDU from Table 109. 
 
 
The updated reclaimed water fees are compared to current fees in Table 111 below.  The updated fees 
are 31% higher for most new customers.  The fee for the 3” compound meter increases more because 
the capacity of this water meter size has been reevaluated and increased significantly as part of this 
update.

Reclaimed Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
83 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 111.  Current and Updated Reclaimed Water Fees 
Current
Updated
Percent  
Housing/Meter Type
Fee   
Fee    
Change  
Single-Family Unit
$837
$1,094
31%
Multi-Family Unit
$403
$464
15%
Nonresidential Meter:
3/4"
Disc
$1,256
$1,641
31%
1"
Disc
$2,093
$2,735
31%
1 1/2"
Disc
$4,185
$5,470
31%
2"
Disc/Turbine
$6,696
$8,752
31%
3"
Compound
$13,392
$24,615
84%
4"
Compound
$20,925
$27,350
31%
6"
Compound
$41,850
$54,700
31%
8"
Compound
$66,960
$87,520
31%
3"
Turbine
$14,648
$19,145
31%
4"
Turbine
$25,110
$32,820
31%
6"
Turbine
$52,313
$68,375
31%
8"
Turbine
$75,330
$98,460
31%
 
Source:  Current fees from Table 2; updated fees from Table 110. 
 
 
 
 
Capital Plan 
 
Assuming that growth occurs as projected in the land use assumptions, the City anticipates 
approximately $25.5 million in growth-related reclaimed water costs over the next ten years, as 
summarized in Table 112.   
 
Table 112.  Reclaimed Water Capital Plan, 2022-2032 
Encumbrances for Current Projects
$1,075,677
Debt/Interfund Loan Obligations
$24,370,725
Required System Development Fee Studies
$32,950
Required System Development Fee Biennial Audits
$10,000
Total Planned Expenditures
$25,489,352  
Source:  Encumbrances and debt/interfund loans from Table 120; study cost from 
Table 123; audit cost from Table 124.

Reclaimed Water 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
84 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
With projected updated reclaimed water system development fee revenue, plus the current fund 
balance, the City would have about $15.3 million in system development fee funds available over the 
next ten years, as shown in Table 113.  This is only 60% of planned 10-year expenditures.  However, 
the timing of expenditures is flexible, as the City can defer repayment of interfund loans until sufficient 
system development fees become available.  Assuming the City continues to collect reclaimed water 
system development fees until it reaches buildout, future fee revenues plus the current fund balance 
should be enough to cover all future costs. 
 
Table 113.  Projected Reclaimed Water Fee Revenue, 2022-Buildout 
2022-2032
2022-Buildout
New Service Units (EDUs)
11,582
20,952
x Net Cost per Service Unit (EDU)
$1,094
$1,094
Projected Revenue
$12,670,708
$22,921,488
Current Fund Balance
$2,614,726
$2,614,726
Total System Development Fee Funds Available
$15,285,434
$25,536,214
÷ Planned Expenditures
$25,489,352
$25,530,302
Percent of Costs Covered by Reclaimed  Water Fees
60%
100%  
Source:  New service units from Table 90; net cost per service unit is the lowest cost per EDU from Table 109; current 
fund balance from Table 120 in Appendix C; planned expenditures from Table 107 (2022-2032) and Table 108 (2022-
buildout).

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
85 
September 21, 2023 
APPENDIX A:  ARTERIAL STREET INVENTORY 
 
 
 
Table 114.  Existing Arterial Street Inventory 
Lane-
Pk Hr Capa-
Street
From
To
Miles Lns
Miles
Count
city  
VMT
VMC
McClintock Rd
Frye
Loop 202
0.50
4
2.00
680
2,700
340
1,350
Price
Loop 202
Germann
1.15
6
6.90
4,029
4,100
4,633
4,715
Price
Germann
Queen Creek
1.00
6
6.00
2,125
4,100
2,125
4,100
Price
Queen Creek
Dobson
0.50
6
3.00
2,694
4,100
1,347
2,050
Dobson
Frye
Pecos
0.50
6
3.00
2,278
4,100
1,139
2,050
Dobson
Pecos
Germann
1.06
6
6.36
4,692
4,100
4,974
4,346
Dobson
Germann
Queen Creek
1.10
6
6.60
1,692
4,100
1,861
4,510
Dobson
Queen Creek
Price
0.42
4
1.68
2,145
2,700
901
1,134
Dobson
Price
Ocotillo
1.00
4
4.00
1,573
2,700
1,573
2,700
Dobson
Ocotillo
End
0.80
4
3.20
2,170
2,700
1,736
2,160
Alma School
Frye
Pecos
0.50
4
2.00
2,567
2,700
1,284
1,350
Alma School
Pecos
Loop 202
0.30
4
1.20
2,950
2,700
885
810
Alma School
Loop 202
Willis
0.25
6
1.50
2,771
4,100
693
1,025
Alma School
Willis
Germann
0.50
4
2.00
2,771
2,700
1,386
1,350
Alma School
Germann
Queen Creek
0.98
4
3.92
2,508
2,700
2,458
2,646
Alma School
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.12
4
4.48
2,253
2,700
2,523
3,024
Alma School
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.13
4
4.52
1,870
2,700
2,113
3,051
Arizona
Pecos
Loop 202
0.30
6
1.80
2,950
4,100
885
1,230
Arizona
Loop 202
Germann
0.73
6
4.38
3,655
4,100
2,668
2,993
Arizona
Germann
Queen Creek
1.00
6
6.00
3,179
4,100
3,179
4,100
Arizona
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.00
6
6.00
2,992
4,100
2,992
4,100
Arizona
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
6
6.00
2,474
4,100
2,474
4,100
Arizona
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
4
4.00
1,828
2,700
1,828
2,700
Arizona
Riggs
Hunt Highway
1.00
4
4.00
1,199
2,700
1,199
2,700
McQueen
Ray
Chandler
1.00
4
4.00
2,287
2,700
2,287
2,700
McQueen
Chandler
Pecos
1.00
4
4.00
4,641
2,700
4,641
2,700
McQueen
Pecos
Loop 202
0.62
6
3.72
2,950
4,100
1,829
2,542
McQueen
Loop 202
Germann
0.40
6
2.40
3,349
4,100
1,340
1,640
McQueen
Germann
Queen Creek
1.00
6
6.00
3,434
4,100
3,434
4,100
McQueen
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.00
6
6.00
2,814
4,100
2,814
4,100
McQueen
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
4
4.00
2,227
2,700
2,227
2,700
McQueen
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
4
4.00
1,777
2,700
1,777
2,700
McQueen
Riggs
City Limit
0.75
4
3.00
510
2,700
383
2,025
Cooper
Ray
Chandler
1.00
6
6.00
2,210
4,100
2,210
4,100
Cooper
Chandler
Pecos
0.98
6
5.88
2,049
4,100
2,008
4,018
Cooper
Pecos
Loop 202
0.62
6
3.72
1,811
4,100
1,123
2,542
Cooper
Loop 202
Germann
0.40
6
2.40
1,394
4,100
558
1,640
Cooper
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.00
2
2.00
833
1,300
833
1,300
Cooper
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
2
2.00
689
1,300
689
1,300
Cooper
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
2
2.00
451
1,300
451
1,300
Cooper
Riggs
Hunt Highway
1.00
4
4.00
230
2,700
230
2,700
Gilbert
Pecos
Loop 202
0.60
6
3.60
3,885
4,100
2,331
2,460
Gilbert
Loop 202
Germann
0.40
6
2.40
4,505
4,100
1,802
1,640  
continued on next page

Appendix A:  Arterial Street Inventory 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
86 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
Table 114.  Existing Arterial Street Inventory (continued) 
Lane-
Pk Hr Capa-
Street
From
To
Miles Lns
Miles
Count
city  
VMT
VMC
Gilbert
Germann
Queen Creek
1.00
6
6.00
4,446
4,100
4,446
4,100
Gilbert
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.00
6
6.00
3,417
4,100
3,417
4,100
Gilbert
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
4
4.00
2,686
2,700
2,686
2,700
Gilbert
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
4
4.00
2,091
2,700
2,091
2,700
Gilbert
Riggs
Hunt Highway
1.00
4
4.00
918
2,700
918
2,700
Lindsay
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
2
2.00
1,428
1,300
1,428
1,300
Lindsay
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
2
2.00
1,301
1,300
1,301
1,300
Lindsay
Riggs
Hunt Highway
1.00
2
2.00
400
1,300
400
1,300
Ray
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
4
4.00
2,040
2,700
2,040
2,700
Chandler
McQueen
Cooper
0.99
6
5.94
1,726
4,100
1,709
4,059
Chandler
Cooper
Gilbert
1.00
6
6.00
1,760
4,100
1,760
4,100
Pecos
Ellis
Dobson
0.50
2
1.00
833
1,300
417
650
Pecos
Dobson
Alma School
1.00
6
6.00
833
4,100
833
4,100
Pecos
Alma School
Arizona
1.00
6
6.00
1,165
4,100
1,165
4,100
Pecos
Arizona
McQueen
1.02
6
6.12
1,139
4,100
1,162
4,182
Pecos
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
6
6.00
1,148
4,100
1,148
4,100
Pecos
Cooper
Gilbert
1.00
6
6.00
1,003
4,100
1,003
4,100
Germann
City Limits
Price
0.25
2
0.50
50
1,300
13
325
Germann
Price
Dobson
0.75
4
3.00
680
2,700
510
2,025
Germann
Dobson
Alma School
1.00
6
6.00
1,088
4,100
1,088
4,100
Germann
Alma School
Arizona
1.00
6
6.00
1,292
4,100
1,292
4,100
Germann
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
4
4.00
961
2,700
961
2,700
Germann
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
4
4.00
1,165
2,700
1,165
2,700
Germann
Cooper
Gilbert
1.10
6
6.60
2,049
4,100
2,254
4,510
Queen Creek
City Limits
Price
0.27
6
1.62
2,587
4,100
698
1,107
Queen Creek
Price
Dobson
0.45
6
2.70
1,411
4,100
635
1,845
Queen Creek
Dobson
Alma School
1.30
6
7.80
1,522
4,100
1,979
5,330
Queen Creek
Alma School
Arizona
1.00
6
6.00
1,590
4,100
1,590
4,100
Queen Creek
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
6
6.00
1,335
4,100
1,335
4,100
Queen Creek
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
2
2.00
1,165
1,300
1,165
1,300
Queen Creek
Cooper
Gilbert
1.00
2
2.00
1,726
1,300
1,726
1,300
Queen Creek
Gilbert
Lindsay
1.00
6
6.00
2,117
4,100
2,117
4,100
Ocotillo
Dobson
Alma School
0.80
4
3.20
1,250
2,700
1,000
2,160
Ocotillo
Alma School
Arizona
1.40
4
5.60
1,224
2,700
1,714
3,780
Ocotillo
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
4
4.00
1,615
2,700
1,615
2,700
Ocotillo
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
4
4.00
1,360
2,700
1,360
2,700
Ocotillo
Cooper
Redwood
0.25
4
1.00
1,420
2,700
355
675
Ocotillo
Redwood
Gilbert
0.75
4
3.00
1,420
2,700
1,065
2,025
Ocotillo
Gilbert
Lindsay
1.00
2
2.00
1,165
1,300
1,165
1,300
Ocotillo
Lindsay
148th St.
0.50
2
1.00
2,171
1,300
1,086
650
Chandler Heights
Alma School
Arizona
1.00
4
4.00
952
2,700
952
2,700
Chandler Heights
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
2
2.00
944
1,300
944
1,300
Chandler Heights
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
2
2.00
774
1,300
774
1,300
Chandler Heights
Cooper
Gilbert
0.96
2
1.92
816
1,300
783
1,248
Chandler Heights
Gilbert
Lindsay
1.00
4
4.00
655
2,700
655
2,700
Chandler Heights
Lindsay
Val Vista
1.00
2
2.00
561
1,300
561
1,300  
continued on next page

Appendix A:  Arterial Street Inventory 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
87 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Table 114.  Existing Arterial Street Inventory (continued) 
Lane-
Pk Hr Capa-
Street
From
To
Miles Lns
Miles
Count
city  
VMT
VMC
Riggs
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
6
6.00
2,219
4,100
2,219
4,100
Riggs
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
6
6.00
2,295
4,100
2,295
4,100
Riggs
Cooper
Gilbert
1.00
6
6.00
2,244
4,100
2,244
4,100
Riggs
Gilbert
Lindsay
1.00
6
6.00
2,754
4,100
2,754
4,100
Riggs
Lindsay
Val Vista
1.00
6
6.00
2,992
4,100
2,992
4,100
Total
376.66
153,148 255,472  
Source:  Street descriptions, miles, number of lanes and counts from City of Chandler Capital Projects Division, June 2, 2023; capacity is 
maximum hourly volumes at LOS D from Table 14; VMT is peak hour vehicle-miles of travel, which is product of segment miles and peak hour 
volume; VMC is vehicle-miles of capacity, which is product of miles and capacity.

Appendix A:  Arterial Street Inventory 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
88 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Table 115.  Buildout Arterial Street Inventory 
Lane-
Pk Hr Capa-
Street
From
To
Miles Lns
Miles
Count
city   
VMT
VMC
McClintock Rd
Frye
Loop 202
0.50
4
2.00
884
2,700
442
1,350
Price
Loop 202
Germann
1.15
6
6.90
4,250
4,100
4,888
4,715
Price
Germann
Queen Creek
1.00
6
6.00
2,873
4,100
2,873
4,100
Price
Queen Creek
Dobson
0.50
6
3.00
1,624
4,100
812
2,050
Dobson
Frye
Pecos
0.50
6
3.00
4,330
4,100
2,165
2,050
Dobson
Pecos
Germann
1.06
6
6.36
3,043
4,100
3,226
4,346
Dobson
Germann
Queen Creek
1.10
6
6.60
2,253
4,100
2,478
4,510
Dobson
Queen Creek
Price
0.42
4
1.68
1,284
2,700
539
1,134
Dobson
Price
Ocotillo
1.00
4
4.00
2,100
2,700
2,100
2,700
Dobson
Ocotillo
End
0.80
4
3.20
935
2,700
748
2,160
Alma School
Frye
Pecos
0.50
6
3.00
4,781
4,100
2,391
2,050
Alma School
Pecos
Loop 202
0.30
6
1.80
4,950
4,100
1,485
1,230
Alma School
Loop 202
Willis
0.25
6
1.50
3,978
4,100
995
1,025
Alma School
Willis
Germann
0.50
6
3.00
3,978
4,100
1,989
2,050
Alma School
Germann
Queen Creek
0.98
6
5.88
3,698
4,100
3,624
4,018
Alma School
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.12
6
6.72
3,094
4,100
3,465
4,592
Alma School
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.13
4
4.52
2,686
2,700
3,035
3,051
Arizona
Pecos
Loop 202
0.30
6
1.80
4,985
4,100
1,496
1,230
Arizona
Loop 202
Germann
0.73
6
4.38
4,318
4,100
3,152
2,993
Arizona
Germann
Queen Creek
1.00
6
6.00
4,080
4,100
4,080
4,100
Arizona
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.00
6
6.00
3,732
4,100
3,732
4,100
Arizona
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
6
6.00
2,873
4,100
2,873
4,100
Arizona
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
4
4.00
2,244
2,700
2,244
2,700
Arizona
Riggs
Hunt Highway
1.00
4
4.00
1,233
2,700
1,233
2,700
McQueen
Ray
Chandler
1.00
6
6.00
3,026
4,100
3,026
4,100
McQueen
Chandler
Pecos
1.00
6
6.00
2,941
4,100
2,941
4,100
McQueen
Pecos
Loop 202
0.62
6
3.72
3,239
4,100
2,008
2,542
McQueen
Loop 202
Germann
0.40
6
2.40
3,239
4,100
1,296
1,640
McQueen
Germann
Queen Creek
1.00
6
6.00
3,698
4,100
3,698
4,100
McQueen
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.00
6
6.00
3,868
4,100
3,868
4,100
McQueen
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
4
4.00
1,981
2,700
1,981
2,700
McQueen
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
4
4.00
1,386
2,700
1,386
2,700
McQueen
Riggs
City Limit
0.75
4
3.00
680
2,700
510
2,025
Cooper
Ray
Chandler
1.00
6
6.00
2,397
4,100
2,397
4,100
Cooper
Chandler
Pecos
0.98
6
5.88
2,210
4,100
2,166
4,018
Cooper
Pecos
Loop 202
0.62
6
3.72
2,074
4,100
1,286
2,542
Cooper
Loop 202
Germann
0.40
6
2.40
2,074
4,100
830
1,640
Cooper
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.00
4
4.00
2,040
2,700
2,040
2,700
Cooper
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
4
4.00
1,683
2,700
1,683
2,700
Cooper
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
4
4.00
1,360
2,700
1,360
2,700
Cooper
Riggs
Hunt Highway
1.00
4
4.00
315
2,700
315
2,700
Gilbert
Pecos
Loop 202
0.60
6
3.60
3,256
4,100
1,954
2,460
Gilbert
Loop 202
Germann
0.40
6
2.40
3,256
4,100
1,302
1,640  
continued on next page

Appendix A:  Arterial Street Inventory 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
89 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
Table 115.  Buildout Arterial Street Inventory (continued) 
Lane-
Pk Hr Capa-
Street
From
To
Miles Lns
Miles
Count
city   
VMT
VMC
Gilbert
Germann
Queen Creek
1.00
6
6.00
3,579
4,100
3,579
4,100
Gilbert
Queen Creek
Ocotillo
1.00
6
6.00
2,278
4,100
2,278
4,100
Gilbert
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
4
4.00
2,448
2,700
2,448
2,700
Gilbert
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
4
4.00
1,649
2,700
1,649
2,700
Gilbert
Riggs
Hunt Highway
1.00
4
4.00
731
2,700
731
2,700
Lindsay
Ocotillo
Chandler Heights
1.00
4
4.00
1,114
2,700
1,114
2,700
Lindsay
Chandler Heights
Riggs
1.00
4
4.00
1,063
2,700
1,063
2,700
Lindsay
Riggs
Hunt Highway
1.00
4
4.00
468
2,700
468
2,700
Ray
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
6
6.00
2,729
4,100
2,729
4,100
Chandler
McQueen
Cooper
0.99
6
5.94
2,253
4,100
2,230
4,059
Chandler
Cooper
Gilbert
1.00
6
6.00
1,768
4,100
1,768
4,100
Pecos
Ellis
Dobson
0.50
4
2.00
1,000
2,700
500
1,350
Pecos
Dobson
Alma School
1.00
6
6.00
1,539
4,100
1,539
4,100
Pecos
Alma School
Arizona
1.00
6
6.00
1,870
4,100
1,870
4,100
Pecos
Arizona
McQueen
1.02
6
6.12
1,777
4,100
1,813
4,182
Pecos
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
6
6.00
1,896
4,100
1,896
4,100
Pecos
Cooper
Gilbert
1.00
6
6.00
1,284
4,100
1,284
4,100
Germann
City Limits
Price
0.25
4
1.00
200
2,700
50
675
Germann
Price
Dobson
0.75
4
3.00
1,173
2,700
880
2,025
Germann
Dobson
Alma School
1.00
6
6.00
1,649
4,100
1,649
4,100
Germann
Alma School
Arizona
1.00
6
6.00
1,921
4,100
1,921
4,100
Germann
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
6
6.00
1,394
4,100
1,394
4,100
Germann
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
6
6.00
1,513
4,100
1,513
4,100
Germann
Cooper
Gilbert
1.10
6
6.60
2,125
4,100
2,338
4,510
Queen Creek
City Limits
Price
0.27
6
1.62
3,104
4,100
838
1,107
Queen Creek
Price
Dobson
0.45
6
2.70
1,768
4,100
796
1,845
Queen Creek
Dobson
Alma School
1.30
6
7.80
2,219
4,100
2,885
5,330
Queen Creek
Alma School
Arizona
1.00
6
6.00
2,202
4,100
2,202
4,100
Queen Creek
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
6
6.00
1,794
4,100
1,794
4,100
Queen Creek
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
6
6.00
1,726
4,100
1,726
4,100
Queen Creek
Cooper
Gilbert
1.00
6
6.00
1,488
4,100
1,488
4,100
Queen Creek
Gilbert
Lindsay
1.00
6
6.00
1,666
4,100
1,666
4,100
Ocotillo
Dobson
Alma School
0.80
4
3.20
1,717
2,700
1,374
2,160
Ocotillo
Alma School
Arizona
1.40
4
5.60
1,641
2,700
2,297
3,780
Ocotillo
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
4
4.00
2,134
2,700
2,134
2,700
Ocotillo
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
4
4.00
1,802
2,700
1,802
2,700
Ocotillo
Cooper
Redwood
0.25
4
1.00
1,734
2,700
434
675
Ocotillo
Redwood
Gilbert
0.75
4
3.00
1,734
2,700
1,301
2,025
Ocotillo
Gilbert
Lindsay
1.00
4
4.00
1,760
2,700
1,760
2,700
Ocotillo
Lindsay
148th St.
0.50
4
2.00
2,605
2,700
1,303
1,350
Chandler Heights
Alma School
Arizona
1.00
4
4.00
1,284
2,700
1,284
2,700
Chandler Heights
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
4
4.00
1,267
2,700
1,267
2,700
Chandler Heights
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
4
4.00
1,275
2,700
1,275
2,700
Chandler Heights
Cooper
Gilbert
0.96
4
3.84
1,394
2,700
1,338
2,592
Chandler Heights
Gilbert
Lindsay
1.00
4
4.00
1,394
2,700
1,394
2,700
Chandler Heights
Lindsay
Val Vista
1.00
4
4.00
1,173
2,700
1,173
2,700  
continued on next page

Appendix A:  Arterial Street Inventory 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
90 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 115.  Buildout Arterial Street Inventory (continued) 
Lane-
Pk Hr Capa-
Street
From
To
Miles Lns
Miles
Count
city   
VMT
VMC
Riggs
Arizona
McQueen
1.00
6
6.00
2,499
4,100
2,499
4,100
Riggs
McQueen
Cooper
1.00
6
6.00
2,261
4,100
2,261
4,100
Riggs
Cooper
Gilbert
1.00
6
6.00
2,142
4,100
2,142
4,100
Riggs
Gilbert
Lindsay
1.00
6
6.00
2,125
4,100
2,125
4,100
Riggs
Lindsay
Val Vista
1.00
6
6.00
1,632
4,100
1,632
4,100
Total
81.90
425.88
175,006 289,926  
Source:  Street descriptions, miles, number of lanes and projected volumes from City of Chandler Capital Projects Division, June 2, 2023; 
capacity is maximum hourly volumes at LOS D from Table 14; VMT is vehicle-miles of travel, which is the product of segment miles and peak 
hour volume; VMC is vehicle-miles of capacity, which is the product of miles and capacity.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
91 
September 21, 2023 
APPENDIX B:  FUNCTIONAL POPULATION 
 
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety service units and impact fees 
are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach.  This update continues 
to use the “functional population” approach to calculate and assess the fire and police system 
development fees.  This approach is a generally-accepted methodology for these impact fee types and 
is based on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the 
presence of people at a particular site.   
 
Functional population is analogous to the concept of “full-time equivalent” employees.  It represents 
the number of “full-time equivalent” people present at the site of a land use, and it is used for the 
purpose of determining the impact of a particular development on the need for facilities.  For 
residential development, functional population is simply average household size times the percent of 
time people spend at home.  For nonresidential development, functional population is based on a 
formula that factors in trip generation rates, average vehicle occupancy, employee density and average 
number of hours spent by employees and visitors at a land use.   
 
 
Residential Functional Population 
 
In 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics interviewed one person each from 9,600 randomly-
selected households to determine how people spent their time during a recent day.  Survey respondents 
were limited to persons aged 15 or older in the civilian population.  The survey determined the average 
number of hours spent on various types of activities.  While it did not itemize where the activities 
occurred, reasonable assumptions have been made about which activities were more likely to take 
place at the place of residence or away from home.  The results are summarized in Table 116 
 
Table 116.  Time Usage Survey Data 
Hours  
At   
Primary Activity
per Day
Home
Away
Sleeping (including naps, spells of sleeplessness)
8.82
8.82
– 
Personal care activities (other than sleeping)
0.76
0.76
– 
Eating and drinking*
1.19
0.89
0.30
Household activities
1.78
1.78
– 
Purchasing goods and services
0.72
– 
0.72
Caring for and helping household members
0.51
0.51
– 
Caring for and helping non-household members
0.21
– 
0.21
Working and work-related activities
3.57
– 
3.57
Educational activities
0.46
– 
0.46
Organizational, civic and religious activities
0.30
– 
0.30
Watching television
2.84
2.84
– 
Other leisure and sports
2.43
– 
2.43
Telephone, mail and email
0.15
0.15
– 
Other activities
0.26
0.26
– 
Total Hours
24.00
16.01
7.99
Percent of Time
100%
67%
33%  
* assumes 3/4 of meals eaten at home 
Source:  U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Time Use Survey - 2018 Results, June 19, 2019 
release, survey of U.S. civilians 15 years of age or older.

Appendix B:  Functional Population 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
92 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Determining residential functional population multipliers is considerably simpler than the 
nonresidential component.  As shown in the table above, it is estimated that people spend an average 
of 16 hours, or 67 percent, of each 24-hour day at their place of residence and the other 33 percent 
away from home.  The functional population per unit for residential uses is shown in Table 117.   
 
Table 117.  Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses 
Average
Occupancy
Func. Pop.
Housing Type
Unit
HH Size
Factor    
per Unit  
Single-Family
Dwelling
2.82
0.67
1.89
Multi-Family
Dwelling
2.38
0.67
1.59
 
Source:  Average household size from Table 8; occupancy factor from Table 116.   
 
 
Nonresidential Functional Population 
 
The functional population methodology for nonresidential land uses is based on trip generation data 
utilized in developing the transportation demand schedule prepared for the updated arterial street 
system development fees.  Functional population per 1,000 square feet is derived by dividing the total 
number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a weekday by 24 hours. Employees are 
estimated to spend 8 hours per day at their place of employment, and visitors are estimated to spend 
one hour per visit. The formula used to derive the nonresidential functional population estimates is 
summarized in Figure 9 below. 
 
Figure 9.  Nonresidential Functional Population Formula 
FUNCPOP/UNIT
= 
(employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 24 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf
= 
employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf
= 
visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf
= 
weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf
= 
one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
 
 
 
Using this formula and information on trip generation rates, vehicle occupancy rates from the National 
Household Travel Survey and other sources and assumptions, nonresidential functional population 
estimates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are calculated in Table 118 on the following page.

Appendix B:  Functional Population 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
93 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 118.  Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses 
Trip    Persons/ Employee/
Visitors/
Func. Pop./
Land Use
Unit
Rate   
Trip
Unit
Unit    
Unit      
Retail/Commercial
1,000 sq. ft.
18.50
1.90
1.78
33.37
1.98
Office
1,000 sq. ft.
5.42
1.81
2.18
7.63
1.04
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sq. ft.
1.27
1.30
1.38
0.27
0.47
Public/Institutional
1,000 sq. ft.
3.37
2.54
2.18
6.38
0.99
 
Source: Trip rates are one-half of daily trip ends on a weekday from Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 
Manual, 11th edition, 2021 (retail/commercial based on shopping center, office based on general office, industrial/ 
warehouse based on average for industrial park and warehousing, public/institutional based on nursing home); 
persons/trip is average vehicle occupancy from Federal Highway Administration, National Household Travel Survey, 2017 
by trip purpose (retail is shopping, office is medical/dental, industrial/warehouse is to-from work, public is school/church; 
employees/unit from Table 11; visitors/unit is trips times persons/trip minus employees/unit; functional population/unit 
calculated based on formula in Figure 9.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
94 
September 21, 2023 
APPENDIX C:  FINANCIAL DATA 
 
 
This appendix provides financial data on the City’s system development fees.  SDF collections by fund 
over the last four fiscal years are summarized in Table 119.  Revenues have tended to decline over this 
period, particularly in the last year. 
 
Table 119.  System Development Fee Revenue, FY 2019-2022 
SDF Fund
FY 2018/19
FY 2019/20
FY 2020/21
FY 2021/22
Parks Northwest
$144,070
$64,505
$983
$0
Park Northeast
$1,277,898
$110,295
$84,435
$205,150
Park Southeast
$1,422,474
$1,860,397
$2,198,381
$1,214,291
Parks Subtotal
$2,844,442
$2,035,197
$2,283,799
$1,419,441
Arterial Streets
$4,819,431
$5,576,240
$4,882,337
$2,701,703
Library
$59,783
$81,111
$85,542
$83,172
Public Bldgs
$163,724
$237,020
$193,846
$196,851
Police
$463,376
$290,713
$224,665
$225,311
Fire
$672,922
$510,692
$394,103
$404,554
Total Non-Utility Fees
$9,023,678
$8,730,973
$8,064,292
$5,031,032
Water
$6,527,184
$5,410,398
$5,160,606
$4,239,339
Reclaimed Water
$990,677
$1,358,289
$1,272,946
$1,144,679
Wastewater
$6,451,071
$5,829,836
$5,873,312
$5,144,713
Total Utility Fees
$13,968,932
$12,598,523
$12,306,864
$10,528,731
All SDF Funds
$22,992,610
$21,329,496
$20,371,156
$15,559,763  
Source:  City of Chandler Management Services Department, February 6, 2023.  
 
 
Table 120 below summarizes financial data as of June 30, 2022 for the system development fee 
accounts, including fund balances, outstanding obligations to repay debt/interfund loans, and 
encumbrances/carry-forward costs associated with construction projects that are underway.   
 
Table 120.  Summary of Fund Balances and Obligations 
Fund       
Outstanding
Encumb./
Balance*  
Debt       
Carry-Fwd
NW Parks Fund 425
$2,825,224
$2,825,224
$0
NE Parks Fund 426
$6,424,043
$5,853,189
$2,078,184
SE Parks Fund 427
$21,984,807
$0
$715,925
Parks Subtotal
$31,234,074
$8,678,413
$2,794,109
Arterial Streets Fund 415
$61,725,679
$34,530,036
$23,417,040
Library Fund 431
$5,067
$13,000
$0
Public Building Fund 440
$153,003
$1,764,427
$0
Police Fund 465
$257,453
$2,008,425
$0
Fire Fund 475
$239,385
$3,588,007
$0
Water Fund 603
$12,088,518
$113,317,614
$3,081,634
Reclaimed Water Fund 610
$2,614,726
$24,370,725
$1,075,677
Wastewater Fund 614
$18,424,602
$140,924,609
$0
Total
$126,742,507
$329,195,256
$30,368,460  
* SE fund balance includes the $2,866,162 fund balance for the pre-SB 1525 city-wide parks fund 424 
Source:  Fund balances from City of Chandler Management Services Department, Annual System 
Development Fee Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022; outstanding obligations as of  June 30, 2022 
for interfund loans/bond debt from Table 121 and for encumbrances/carry-forwards from Table 122.

Appendix C:  Financial Data 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
95 
September 21, 2023 
 
Interfund loans to the system development fee accounts represent money advanced by the general 
fund, general obligation bond funds, or the water or wastewater operating or bond funds to fund 
certain fee-eligible projects when sufficient system development fee funds had not been accumulated.  
These interfund loans need to be repaid with either current system development fee cash balances or 
future fee revenues.  The cost to repay these loans is appropriately included in calculating the ten-year 
and buildout costs per service unit.  Details on the original and outstanding debt/interfund loans are 
provided in Table 121. 
 
The pledged park debt is a city-wide obligation made in 2007, when the City had a single city-wide 
park service area.  In this update it has been allocated to be partially paid by the current fund balance 
in the Northwest park service area (that area has little residential development potential, and the fee 
is to be eliminated), with the remainder to become an obligation of the Northeast service area, which 
has the most remaining development of all the service areas but no need for additional parks. 
 
Table 121.  Outstanding Pledged Debt/Interfund Loans 
Fund Recipient
Year(s) of Loan
Loan From
Orig. Loan 
Outstanding
Arterial Streets SDF Fund 415
FY 2009
Gen. Fund-Bonds
$37,756,132
$34,530,036
Parks, Northwest Fund 425
n/a
Gen. Fund-Bonds
n/a  
$2,825,224
Parks, Northeast Fund 426
n/a
Gen. Fund-Bonds
n/a  
$5,853,189
Parks, Southeast Fund 427
n/a
Gen. Fund-Bonds
n/a  
$0
Parks SDF Fund 424*
FY 2007
Gen. Fund-Bonds
$17,865,000
$8,678,413
Library SDF Fund 431
FY 2011
Gen. Fund-Bonds
$1,290,000
$13,000
Public Building SDF Fund 440
FY 2010
General Fund
$4,204,427
$1,764,427
Fire SDF Fund 475
FY 2006/10
General Fund
$3,588,007
$3,588,007
Police SDF Fund 465
FY 2006/07
General Fund
$6,158,425
$2,008,425
Water SDF Fund 603
FY 2008
Water Operating
$15,929,877
$15,929,877
Water SDF Fund 603
FY 2007/09/14/20
Water Bonds
$97,387,737
$97,387,737
Total, Water SDF Fund 603
$113,317,614
$113,317,614
Wastewater SDF Fund 614
FY 2009/14/16
Wastewater Bonds
$140,924,609
$140,924,609
Reclaimed Water SDF Fund 610
FY 2007
Wastewater SDF
$7,700,000
$7,700,000
Reclaimed Water SDF Fund 610
FY 2009
Wastewater Bonds
$16,670,725
$16,670,725
Total, Reclaimed Water SDF Fund 
$24,370,725
$24,370,725
Grand Total
$349,474,940
$329,195,256  
* pledged debt obligation incurred by the pre-SB 1525 city-wide parks fund allocated to NW park fund in an amount equal to 
the current fund balance, with remainder allocated to NE park fund 
Source:  City of Chandler Management Services Department, February 6, 2023 (outstanding as of June 30, 2022).  
 
 
In addition to debt/interfund loans, another future cost to be paid from system development fees are 
the costs of encumbrances and capital carry-forward balances, which represents unpaid costs of 
improvements currently underway for fee-eligible improvements.  These costs are appropriately  
included in calculating the ten-year and buildout costs per service.  Table 122 on the following page 
provides details on current projects and associated encumbrances and carry-forward amounts.

Appendix C:  Financial Data 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
96 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
Table 122.  Encumbrances and Carry-Forwards 
Carry-    
Improvement Project
Encumbrances
Forwards 
Total     
Cooper - Queen Creek to Riggs
$596,093
$472
$596,565
Alma School Rd - Pecos to Germman
$235,783
$296,973
$532,756
Lindsay Rd - Ocotillo to Hunt Hwy
$270,996
$1,751,085
$2,022,081
Chandler Hts - McQueen to Val Vista
$14,609,791
$1,273,570
$15,883,361
Ocotillo Rd -Cooper to 148th St
$4,087,077
$295,200
$4,382,277
Total, Arterial Streets
$19,799,740
$3,617,300
$23,417,040
Homestead North Park Site
$2,073,187
$4,997
$2,078,184
Total, Parks Northeast Service Area
$2,073,187
$4,997
$2,078,184
Lantana Ranch Park Site
$0
$7,697
$7,697
Lantana Ranch Park Site
$0
$708,228
$708,228
Total, Parks Southeast Service Area
$0
$715,925
$715,925
Well Construction
$1,309,708
$1,771,926
$3,081,634
Total, Water
$1,309,708
$1,771,926
$3,081,634
Effluent Reuse-Storage and Recovery Wells
$770,585
$63,262
$833,847
Effluent Reuse-Transmission Mains
$42,281
$199,549
$241,830
Total, Reclaimed Water
$812,866
$262,811
$1,075,677
Grand Total
$23,995,501
$6,372,959
$30,368,460  
Source:  City of Chandler Management Services Department, February 6, 2023  (outstanding as of June 30, 2022).  
 
 
 
The cost of studies to update the fees every five years, as required by SB 1525, is a cost that is 
attributable entirely to new development.  The future update costs are based on the actual cost of the 
current update.  Given SB 1525’s requirement that the fees be updated at least every five years, a 
minimum of two updates will be required over the next ten years.  While the timing of buildout is 
uncertain, it is projected to be at about 97% of buildout population by 2040, indicating a need for four 
update studies by buildout.  The update study costs by fee type are summarized in Table 123. 
 
Table 123.  Study Update Costs 
Current   
Cost of 2 Studies, 
Cost of 4 Studies,
Fee Type
Study Cost
2022-2032       
2022-Buildout   
Arterial Streets
$32,950
$65,900
$131,800
Parks
$16,475
$32,950
$65,900
Fire
$16,475
$32,950
$65,900
Police
$16,475
$32,950
$65,900
Water
$16,475
$32,950
$65,900
Wastewater
$16,475
$32,950
$65,900
Reclaimed Water
$16,475
$32,950
$65,900
Total
$131,800
$263,600
$527,200
 
Source:  Current study cost is consultant cost for this update, allocated evenly among fee types; cost of the two studies 
required over the next ten years is twice the current study cost; cost of four studies needed 2022-buildout is four  
times study cost.

Appendix C:  Financial Data 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
97 
September 21, 2023 
 
 
 
The biennial audits used by the City to meet the requirements of SB 1525 are a cost that is attributable 
entirely to new development.  The future audit costs are based on the cost of the most recent audit.  
Given SB 1525’s requirement that the audit take place every two years, five audits will be required 
over the next ten years.  While the timing of buildout is uncertain, it is projected to be at about 97% 
of buildout population by 2040, indicating a need for four additional audits by buildout.  The biennial 
audit costs by fee type are summarized in Table 124. 
 
Table 124.  Biennial Audit Costs 
Biennial  
Cost of 5 Audits,
Cost of 9 Audits,
Fee Type
Audit Cost
2022-2032       
2022-Buildout   
Arterial Streets
$2,000
$10,000
$18,000
Parks
$2,000
$10,000
$18,000
Fire
$2,000
$10,000
$18,000
Police
$2,000
$10,000
$18,000
Water
$2,000
$10,000
$18,000
Wastewater
$2,000
$10,000
$18,000
Reclaimed Water
$2,000
$10,000
$18,000
Total
$14,000
$70,000
$126,000
 
Source:  Most recent  total biennial audit cost from City of Chandler, allocated evenly among fee types; cost of the 
five audits required over the next ten years is five times the current audit cost; cost of nine audits needed 2022-
buildout is nine times study cost.

City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
98 
September 21, 2023 
APPENDIX D:  REVENUE FORECAST 
 
SB 1525 requires that the infrastructure improvements plan include (A.R.S. Sec. 9-463.05.E.7): 
 
A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated 
state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting 
or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the 
approved land use assumptions, and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden 
imposed by the development as required in subsection B, paragraph 12 of this section. 
 
The maximum revenues from these sources that may be attributed to new development over the next 
ten years are summarized in Table 126 on the following page.  In general, the forecasts are based on 
the total of new revenue projected to be received, some of which is growth-related and the remainder 
of which is due to inflation, increases from existing development or increases in cost recovery fees.  
However, with the City’s practice of using ongoing revenues for ongoing expenditures, most of this 
revenue will be used for ongoing operations and maintenance purposes.  None of the City’s General 
Fund or Highway User Revenue Funds are used for growth-related capital improvements, other than 
as loans.  Only revenue generated by new development that is dedicated to growth-related capital 
improvements needs to be considered in determining the extent of the burden imposed by new 
development.  As discussed in greater detail in the Legal Framework section, offsets against impact 
fees are warranted in the following cases: (1) new development will be paying taxes or fees used to 
retire debt on existing facilities serving existing development; (2) new development will be paying taxes 
or fees used to fund an existing deficiency, or (3) new development will be paying taxes or fees that 
are dedicated to being used for growth-related improvements.   
 
In this study, offsets against the fees have been accounted for in the following manner: 
 
(1) 
Outstanding debt.  Only “eligible” debt for past capacity-expanding improvements that are 
currently authorized to be funded with impact fees needs to be considered.  For all the facility 
types, the eligible debt is attributable to existing excess capacity available for future 
development.  Consequently, the amount of outstanding eligible debt principal has been 
excluded from the calculation of the existing level of service, and has been included in the 
calculation of ten-year and buildout costs per service unit. 
 
(2) 
Existing deficiencies.  Impact fees are typically calculated based on a system-wide analysis.  
Consequently, existing deficiencies from an impact fee perspective are different from those 
that might be identified using a facility-specific standard.  For example, road impact fees are 
based on ratio of capacity to demand in the major road system as a whole, rather than on levels 
of congestion on individual road segments.  As long as a road fee is not based on the cost to 
ensure that every road segment functions at a desired level of service, individual road segments 
can be currently deficient with respect to that standard without constituting existing 
deficiencies from an impact fee perspective.  In this study, the existing level of service is 
calculated as the replacement cost per service unit of existing, fully-paid for facilities serving 
existing development.  The updated fees are, in every case, based on a cost per service unit 
that is lower than the existing level of service.  Consequently, the requirement of SB 1525 that 
fees be based on the existing level of service has been met, and there are no existing 
deficiencies that need to be addressed.

Appendix D:  Revenue Forecast 
 
 
City of Chandler, AZ 
Public Review Draft 
System Development Fee Update 
99 
September 21, 2023 
 
(3) 
Dedicated future funding.  The only dedicated source of revenue for capital funding of 
growth-related capacity improvements that has been identified in this study is Federal/State 
and regional transportation funds that are programmed for capacity-expanding arterial street 
improvements in Chandler over the next ten years.  This has been addressed by excluding that 
anticipated funding from the calculation of the cost per service unit on which the updated 
arterial street fees are based (see Arterial Streets section). 
 
Table 125.  Total Revenue Forecast 
Description
2022/2023
2023/2024
2024/2025
2025/2026
2026/2027
Construction Contracting TPT
$27,500,000
$22,000,000
$14,658,129
$15,100,000
$15,550,000
Other Transaction/Privilege Tax
$172,950,000
$172,950,000
$144,858,803
$149,210,000
$153,690,000
Franchise Fees
$3,630,000
$3,471,000
$3,506,500
$3,542,800
$3,579,800
State Shared Sales Tax
$39,000,000
$28,500,000
$29,925,000
$30,830,000
$31,760,000
Vehicle License Tax
$13,500,000
$10,800,000
$11,016,000
$11,236,400
$11,470,000
Urban Revenue Sharing
$52,000,000
$39,000,000
$41,340,000
$42,590,000
$43,870,000
Smart and Safe - Prop 207
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
$1,155,000
$1,212,800
$1,237,100
Primary Property Tax
$8,663,078
$8,681,611
$9,028,900
$9,400,000
$9,690,000
Total
$318,343,078
$286,502,611
$255,488,332
$263,122,000
$270,846,900
Description
2027/2028
2028/2029
2029/2030
2030/2031
2031/2032
Total     
Construction Contracting TPT
$16,330,000
$16,330,000
$16,820,000
$17,330,000
$17,850,000
$179,468,129
Other Transaction/Privilege Tax
$161,380,000
$161,380,000
$161,380,000
$166,230,000
$171,220,000 $1,615,248,803
Franchise Fees
$3,617,600
$3,656,100
$3,695,400
$3,735,500
$3,776,400
$36,211,100
State Shared Sales Tax
$32,720,000
$33,710,000
$34,730,000
$35,780,000
$36,860,000
$333,815,000
Vehicle License Tax
$11,700,000
$11,940,000
$12,180,000
$12,430,000
$12,680,000
$118,952,400
Urban Revenue Sharing
$45,190,000
$46,550,000
$47,950,000
$49,390,000
$50,880,000
$458,760,000
Smart and Safe - Prop 207
$1,261,900
$1,287,200
$1,313,000
$1,339,300
$1,366,100
$12,372,400
Primary Property Tax
$9,890,000
$10,090,000
$10,300,000
$10,510,000
$10,730,000
$96,983,589
Total
$282,089,500
$284,943,300
$288,368,400
$296,744,800
$305,362,500 $2,851,811,421  
Source:  City of Chandler Management Services Department, July 7, 2023. 
 
Table 126.  Revenue Attributable to New Development 
Description
Growth %
2022/2023
2023/2024
2024/2025
2025/2026
2026/2027
Construction Contracting TPT
50.0%
$13,750,000
$11,000,000
$7,329,065
$7,550,000
$7,775,000
Other Transaction/Privilege Tax
1.0%
$1,729,500
$1,729,500
$1,448,588
$1,492,100
$1,536,900
Franchise Fees
1.0%
$36,300
$34,710
$35,065
$35,428
$35,798
State Shared Sales Tax
1.0%
$390,000
$285,000
$299,250
$308,300
$317,600
Vehicle License Tax
1.0%
$135,000
$108,000
$110,160
$112,364
$114,700
Urban Revenue Sharing
1.0%
$520,000
$390,000
$413,400
$425,900
$438,700
Smart and Safe - Prop 207
1.0%
$11,000
$11,000
$11,550
$12,128
$12,371
Primary Property Tax
1.0%
$86,631
$86,816
$90,289
$94,000
$96,900
Total
$16,658,431
$13,645,026
$9,737,367
$10,030,220
$10,327,969
Description
2027/2028
2028/2029
2029/2030
2030/2031
2031/2032
Total     
Construction Contracting TPT
$8,165,000
$8,165,000
$8,410,000
$8,665,000
$8,925,000
$89,734,065
Other Transaction Privilege Tax
$1,613,800
$1,613,800
$1,613,800
$1,662,300
$1,712,200
$16,152,488
Franchise Fees
$36,176
$36,561
$36,954
$37,355
$37,764
$362,111
State Shared Sales Tax
$327,200
$337,100
$347,300
$357,800
$368,600
$3,338,150
Vehicle License Tax
$117,000
$119,400
$121,800
$124,300
$126,800
$1,189,524
Urban Revenue Sharing
$451,900
$465,500
$479,500
$493,900
$508,800
$4,587,600
Smart and Safe - Prop 207
$12,619
$12,872
$13,130
$13,393
$13,661
$123,724
Primary Property Tax
$98,900
$100,900
$103,000
$105,100
$107,300
$969,836
Total
$10,822,595
$10,851,133
$11,125,484
$11,459,148
$11,800,125
$116,457,498  
Source:  Total revenue from Table 125 times growth percent; 50% of construction contracting TPT attributed to new development (rest is remodeling) 
per City; all other revenues attributed to new development based on the average of compounded annual growth rates in population  and nonresidential 
sq. ft. from 2022-2032 derived from Table 7 and Table 10 in the Land Use Assumptions section.