MONTROSE COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE CAPITAL EXPANSION IMPACT FEE
Prepared For: Montrose County Prepared By: RPI Consulting June 2007
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
CONTENTS Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 Methodology............................................................................................................................... 4 Need............................................................................................................................................ 4 Impact Fee................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 Legal Authority................................................................................................................................ 6 Impact Fees Generally................................................................................................................. 6 Permissible Uses of Impact Fees Imposed by Montrose County ............................................... 8 Timing of Imposition of Impact Fee ............................................................................................ 8 Accounting for Received Impact Fees......................................................................................... 9 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 10 Need, Trends, and Rational Nexus................................................................................................ 12 Poulation ................................................................................................................................... 12 Current Residential and Non‐Residential Counts ..................................................................... 12 Housing Projections .................................................................................................................. 13 Non‐Residential Square Footage Projection............................................................................. 14 Exsiting Traffic and Projections................................................................................................. 15 Geographic Traffic Projections.................................................................................................. 18 Data....................................................................................................................................... 18 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 19 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 19 Results................................................................................................................................... 19 Road and Bridge Capital Improvements ....................................................................................... 22 Hard Surface Improvements..................................................................................................... 22 Unincorporated Hard Surface Road Inspections .................................................................. 22 Road Improvements Presrcibed by Hard Surface Inspections ............................................. 25 Gravel Road Improvements ...................................................................................................... 29 RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
2
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
Methodology......................................................................................................................... 29 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 29 Results................................................................................................................................... 30 Mid‐Term Bridge Improvements .............................................................................................. 32 Hard Surface Maintenance Backlog (not part of fee)............................................................... 32 Fee Components ........................................................................................................................... 37 Planned Improvements............................................................................................................. 37 Buy‐In for Recently Built Improvements .................................................................................. 38 Incremental Expansion of Facilities and Heavy Equipment...................................................... 39 Cost per ADT ............................................................................................................................. 39 Credits ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Credit for Improvements Required During Development Review ....................................... 40 Credit for Tax Revenue Spent on Streets Capital Improvements......................................... 41 Road and Bridge Impact Fee Schedule ......................................................................................... 44 Independent Trip Generation Study ..................................................................................... 44 Cash Flow .................................................................................................................................. 46 Implementation and Administration ............................................................................................ 48 Who is Subject to the Fee? ....................................................................................................... 48 Exemption for Affordable Housing ........................................................................................... 48 Exemptions for Certain Public Facilities.................................................................................... 49 When to Collect the Fee ........................................................................................................... 49 Other Considerations................................................................................................................ 50 Updating the Fee....................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 52
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
3
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to establish a capital expansion impact fee for the Montrose County Road and Bridge/Engineering Department.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology in this report utilizes common impact fee calculations and structures including: demand units, capital facility inventories, level of service (LOS), proportionate share, and crediting.
NEED
The population of Montrose County is forecast to grow at a rate of 2.33%. In the past 6 years almost 2200 new housing units were built and over 1 million square feet of non‐residential space was added. As a consequence of this growth the Road and Bridge assets have experienced significant strains.
IMPACT FEE
The final impact fees for each demand group are summarized in figure 1. Figure 1. Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee Road and Bridge Impact Fee Schedule Residential Single Family Multi‐Family Nonresidential (per 1000 sq. ft.) Retail/ Shopping Center Office/ Institutional General Commercial Industrial Warehousing Manufacturing Lodging Religious or Social Organization
RPI Consulting
$ 3,480 $ 2,440
(970)382‐9153
$ 7,790 $ 4,000 $ 2,320 $ 2,530 $ 1,800 $ 1,390 $ 6,830 $ 3,310 4
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
INTRODUCTION Increased traffic directly contributes to the need for increasing county road system capacity. Traffic circulating on the county's road system is generated by homes, businesses, resource development, and institutions. New development and land use generates increased traffic. The process of measuring current and projected demand for roads capital improvements involves three steps, each answering a fundamental question: 1. What causes traffic? ‐‐Inventory exiting land uses and develop future land use projections 2. How much traffic? ‐‐ Calculate traffic produced by current and future land uses 3. Where does it occur? ‐‐ Establish a traffic growth rate for areas in the county. This is an approach commonly used in transportation planning to measure demand for the overall road system. The process for inventorying land uses differs for residential land uses (includes all types of residential units and accessory structures) and non‐residential land uses (includes all structures containing commercial, government, and institutional uses). This report assumes a planning horizon of 23 years, thus the growth projections are calculated through 2030. RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
5
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
LEGAL AUTHORITY The following legal analysis was provided by Lindsey Nicholson of Goldman, Robbins, Nicholson P.C. as a subcontractor to RPI Consulting LLC. The analysis is intended to provide third party legal analysis of impact fee legislation and application in Colorado; RPI Analysts are not attorneys nor does RPI retain attorney’s on staff. The appropriateness and legality of imposing this or any other impact fee schedule is entirely at the Montrose County Board of Commissioners, and County Attorney discretion and judgment. RPI does not make any claims as to the legality or appropriateness of impact fees or the accuracy of the following legal analysis.
IMPACT FEES GENERALLY
The authority for counties to levy direct fees on new development to help offset the impacts of such development derives from C.R.S. § 29‐20‐104.5, adopted in 2001. This statute grants local governments the authority to impose growth‐related impact fees as a condition of approval of an application for new development. However, the statute requires that such impact fees be: (1)
Legislatively adopted;
(2)
Generally applicable to a broad class of property owners; and
(3) Intended to defray the projected impacts on capital facilities directly caused by proposed development1. In addition, the statute requires that the collected impact fees be used to “fund expenditures by such local government on capital facilities needed to serve new development”.2 “Capital facilities” are defined as “improvements or facilities” that: (1)
Are directly related to any service that the local government is authorized to provide;
(2)
Have an estimated useful life of five years or longer; and
(3) Are required by the charter or general policy of the local government pursuant to resolution or ordinance3.
1
C.R.S. § 29‐20‐104.5(1). Id. RPI Consulting 2
(970)382‐9153
6
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
It is not clear under current law whether a “capital facility” would include equipment. The statute is clear, however, that the collected fees must be used to offset new impacts and that they cannot be used to remedy any current deficiency in capital facilities – i.e., one that exists without regard to the impacts of new development.4 Accordingly, the statute requires a local government, before adopting any impact fee, to: (1) Quantify the reasonable impacts of the proposed development on existing capital facilities; (2) Establish the fee at a level no greater than necessary to defray the impacts directly related to the proposed development5; and (3) Include provisions in the legislatively‐adopted fee structure to “avoid double‐charging developers an impact fee for the same facility that the jurisdiction has imposed an exaction.”6 The required quantification of the impacts and calculation of the fee so as not to be greater than necessary to defray directly‐related impacts of development is typically met by the preparation of an impact fee study, such as this one. There are no reported cases construing these quantification requirements; however, based upon the holdings of the Colorado Supreme Court in a case7 that shortly predates the adoption of the impact fee statute, legal commentators8 believe that the requirements are meant to be less restrictive than the case‐ specific “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests that are applied to government exactions (i.e., requirements that an owner give up a portion of his property for public use as a condition of approval of development). In the referenced case, the Colorado Supreme Court held that because the setting of impact fees is a “legislative function that involves many questions of judgment and discretion, [the courts] will not set aside the methodology chosen by an entity with ratemaking authority unless it is inherently unsound”.9 Further, the impacts of each specific development proposal need not be quantified, but may be looked at cumulatively, and an impact fee schedule may differentiate among different types of development and their likely impacts, so long as there is a rational basis for the differentiation.
3
C.R.S. § 29‐20‐104.5(4). C.R.S. § 29‐20‐104.5(2). 5 Id. 6 C.R.S. § 29‐20‐104.5(3). 7 Krupp v. Breckenridge San. Dist., 19 P.3d 687 (Colo. 2001). 8 Carolynne C. White, “Municipal Perspective on Senate Bill 15: Impact Fees”, 31 Colo. Law. 93 (May 2002). 9 Krupp, 19 P.3d at 694. RPI Consulting (970)382‐9153 4
7
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
PERMISSIBLE USES OF IMPACT FEES IMPOSED BY MONTROSE COUNTY
Based on the foregoing statutory requirements, Montrose County may adopt a schedule of impact fees applicable to new development; provided, however, that such fees will be used to fund capital facilities that are directly related to a service that the County is authorized by other law to provide. Statutory counties, like Montrose County, have limited express powers provided by statute and such implied powers as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the express powers. It is our understanding that the County intends to adopt impact fees for the purpose of funding expenditures by or for the following departments: road and bridge; general administration; law enforcement; health and human services; and fairgrounds. Assuming that the County is authorized by other law to provide the services provided by these departments10, and further assuming that the fees generated will be used to purchase or construct “capital facilities” serving such departments (not to simply go into the general fund for such departments), the County has the authority to adopt impact fees for these departments. Again, the use of the funds must be prospective and cannot be used to remedy any existing deficiencies in the facilities of these departments.
TIMING OF IMPOSITION OF IMPACT FEE
With regard to the timing of the imposition of a newly enacted impact fee ordinance or resolution, the statute prohibits the imposition of any impact fee on any “development permit for which the applicant submitted a complete application” prior to the adoption of the impact fee schedule11. Accordingly, whether an impact fee can be imposed on an application that was put “into the pipeline” prior to the formal adoption of the impact fee resolution would need to be determined by reference to what constitutes a “complete application” under the local land use regulations. With respect to whether impact fees can be imposed on building permit applications for lots in projects that were approved well before the impact fees were adopted, the statute is not clear. The statute provides that the payment of impact fees can be imposed as a condition of approval of a “development permit”, which is defined as “any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, planned unit development, conditional or special use permit, 10
Counties have the express powers to lay out, alter and maintain roads (C.R.S. § 30‐11‐107(1)(h)) and to provide for the general administration of county affairs (C.R.S. § 30‐11‐107). The powers to provide and maintain fairgrounds and to provide law enforcement and health and human services may be reasonably implied powers; however, we defer to the legal opinion of the Montrose County Attorney on this issue. 11 C.R.S. § 29‐20‐104.5(6). 8 RPI Consulting (970)382‐9153
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
subdivision, development or site plan, or similar application for new construction”.12 With the exception of the last phrase “or similar application for new construction,” all of the types of development permits listed are permits issued by a local government’s planning department, rather than its building department. A conservative reading of the statute would be that the impact fees cannot be imposed as a condition of approval of a building permit in an approved development; however, reasonable minds can differ in this interpretation, and we understand that some local governments nonetheless impose fees at the building permit stage. We also understand that some local governments have remedied the situation by requiring the submittal of a site plan to the planning department as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit and including such site plan within the definition of “development permit” under their land use regulations.
ACCOUNTING FOR RECEIVED IMPACT FEES
Finally, all impact fees received by the County must be collected and accounted for in accordance with C.R.S. § 29‐1‐803.13 This statute requires that all collected impact fees be deposited in an interest‐bearing account that clearly identifies the category, account, or fund of capital expenditure for which the fee was imposed. Each such category, account, or fund must be accounted for separately, and interest earned on the fees must be credited to the account. Limitation and Disclaimer (Lindsey Nicholson): This opinion letter is delivered solely for the benefit of Montrose County as general background information regarding its proposed adoption of impact fees. It is not to be relied on by any other party or for any other purpose. We are not familiar with and have not, in connection with this opinion letter or otherwise, undertaken any independent investigation of factual matters affecting this opinion, and we disclaim any obligation to do so. The final interpretation of state statutes and case law regarding impact fees and the legality and appropriateness of Montrose County’s adoption of any impact fee program should be determined by the Montrose County Attorney and/or its Board of County Commissioners. 12
C.R.S. § 29‐20‐103(1). C.R.S. § 29‐10‐104.5(5). RPI Consulting 13
(970)382‐9153
9
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
METHODOLOGY An impact fee can be derived for any service that a county or municipality is authorized to provide to its constituents. While these reports differ from service to service (roads, law enforcement, parks, administration, etc.) there are a few underlying concepts present in all impact fee analysis: 1. Demand Units 2. Demonstration or Need (Nexus) 3. Capital Facilities Inventory 4. Level of Service (LOS) 5. Proportionate Share 6. Credits 7. Final Fee Calculation Demand Units: the differing sectors of a population that demand specific services. Typically demand units are divided between the residential, non‐residential sectors, and when relevant, report specific units (example: oil and gas wells). The road and bridge service demand (traffic generation) originates from both the residential sector and the non‐residential sector. Demonstration of Need (Nexus): In order for an impact fee to be legitimate, there must be an established link between the need for additional capital and growth. If growth is happening but it is not affecting the amount of capital necessary for an organization to operate, then there is no nexus for the fee to be based upon. The demonstration of need is typically exhibited by an increase in services demanded due to additional population, housing units or non‐residential square feet. In this case, additional traffic generation necessitates additional road system capacity to maintain existing service levels. Capital Facilities Inventory: provides a value of the capital employed by a department to provide a given service. This inventory is composed of all capital valued at over $5,000 or that has a life span of more than five years. RPI analysts are typically quite conservative in determining what assets constitute capital facilities. Level of Service: In Road Impact fee analysis, the level of service is typically described in terms of existing road services, quality, capacity and average daily vehicle trips. Proportionate Share: the relative amount of demand for services experienced by different sectors. Services provided by governments are not uniformly distributed to all sectors of society due to the differing needs of each sector. Proportionate share is analyzed on a case by case basis, using many different variables in order to provide a percentage breakdown of how RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
10
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
services are used in a given population. In other words, proportionate share determines how much of what type of facility service land uses demand. In the case of road and bridge the proportionate share is divided among residential and non‐ residential units based on the average daily trips (ADT) that each land use type generates. Credits: provide an equitable method for calculating impact fees. Often governments pay for capital expenditures from general fund accounts that are derived from taxes on the demand unit sectors (property taxes, sales taxes, motor vehicle taxes, etc.). Credits prevent double dipping, thus preventing impact fees from overcharging residents for improvements. For example, if a portion of road and bridge department capital is paid for by a mill levy upon property, residents and businesses are contributing monies used in a capital expenditures account. If developers were required to pay an impact fee while simultaneously paying property taxes, the resulting fee schedule would account for more than the developer’s fair‐ share. Because this is both unfair and possibly un‐statutory, credits must be developed where necessary. Each credit is spread over a 20 year period; this is to account for the useful lifespan of most capital. By spreading out the credit the full per unit contribution is captured thus eliminating double dipping over a wide time‐span. Credits are calculated on a per unit basis and then simply subtracted on a per unit basis from the fee schedule resulting in the final impact fee. There are additional complexities in each department that depend on a variety of variables, the above equations are meant to outline the general methods by which impact fees are calculated. Final Fee Calculation: The final fee is calculated using the fee schedule and the crediting system. It is simply credit subtracted from the fee schedule, this results in a fee tied to a LOS but accounts for alternate capital revenue sources. RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
11
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
NEED, TRENDS, AND RATIONAL NEXUS
POULATION
The Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) conducts population forecasts for counties and municipalities in Colorado. DOLA forecasts that Montrose will grow at an average rate of 2.33% annually thorough 2035, at this rate Montrose County’s population will be over 75,000 residents by 2035. Figure 2. DOLA Population Forecast Through 2035
CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AND NON‐RESIDENTIAL COUNTS
In the past six years Montrose County has experienced a, relatively typical, growth rate of 2.45% in the residential sector and has gained approximately 2200 new housing units. Additionally, non‐residential square footage increased at 2.4%. As the number of housing units and non‐residential square footage grows additional strains are placed upon the infrastructure and organizational systems that are charged with providing certain services. Additional traffic generation originating from houses and non‐residential development means additional need for capacity in the road and bridge system to maintain existing service levels. RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
12
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee Figure 3. Number of Housing Units and 1000’s of Non‐Residential Floor Space 2000 & 2006
HOUSING PROJECTIONS
Impact fees are meant to provide revenue for capital expansion and to maintain existing service levels in the face of future anticipated growth. Analysis in this report relies on growth projections through the year 2027. Projections, as opposed to forecasts, are based upon historical data in order to provide a best estimate of future conditions. However, projections are subject to a variety of economic, political and, environmental factors that could drastically alter the numbers. To acquire a growth rate RPI analysts conducted a number of queries based upon building classification and year built fields within the Montrose County Assessor Database. Projections are based upon housing counts from the years 2000‐2006; this method allowed RPI analysts to generate specific demand unit by historical data. By 2027 Montrose County is expected to gain more than 11,000 additional housing units.
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
13
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee Figure 4. Housing Unit Projection
NON‐RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PROJECTION
The non‐residential projection included all properties that cannot be considered residential dwellings, including commercial space, industrial space, and governmental/institutional buildings. By 2030 Montrose County could expect to have a total of 19.5 million square feet of non‐residential floor area. Figure 5. Non‐Residential Square Footage Projection (in 1000’s)
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
14
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
EXSITING TRAFFIC AND PROJECTIONS
Having a current residential and non‐residential land use inventory and projections allows calculation of the traffic currently generated by the residential and non‐residential sector and the projected traffic for the capital facilities planning horizon, 2030. The unit of measurement for traffic, used worldwide by traffic engineers and planners, is the vehicle trip and in this case, Average Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT)14. The estimate for traffic generated by non‐residential development is obtained by applying the trip generation rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition, 2004 (ITE) to the 2007 inventory of non‐residential square footage. Figure 6. Average Daily Trip Driveway Volumes and Adjustment Factors from ITE
Average Daily Trip Generation
Residential(per Housing Unit) Residential Single Family 9.67 Multi‐Family 6.7 Nonresidential Retail/ Shopping Center Office/ Institutional General Commercial Industrial Warehousing Manufacturing
Non‐Residential (per 1,000 sq ft) 42.9 11 12.8 7 5 3.8
Adjustment Factors 50% 50% 25% 50% 25% 50% 50% 50%
Average daily trip weekday driveway volumes contained in the ITE are adjusted to avoid double counting. Trip generation (figure 7), is the number of trips caused, or attributable to a type of land use of a specific size, and is a much lower number than the total driveway volume (figure 6) before the appropriate adjustments have been made. For example, a single‐family residence has a driveway volume of about 9.6 ADT15, but only half of those trips have the residence as the destination and are assigned to that land use, the other half are headed to other destinations and should be assigned to those land uses accordingly. Therefore the trip generation, the trips directly attributable to that residence are 50% of the driveway volume, or 4.8 average daily trips. The ITE also includes “pass‐by trip” data that account for the fact that a trip to the grocery store is often only a detour on the trip home from work. 53 studies in the ITE summarize the percentage of total trips that are pass‐by trips for various land uses that attract customers on 14
An Average Daily Vehicle trip is the average number of times a car passes over a single line across a street in either direction in one day. th Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual y7 Edition, 2004
15
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
15
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
site (ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Ed., Tables 5.8 through 5.30, see Appendix A for a summary). Using this data, RPI found that the mean pass‐by rate for a broad range of commercial uses is 50% (Appendix B), that is, half of all trips for these land uses are a detour from another primary trip (like stopping at the store on the trip home from work). As with residential uses, trip generation for non‐residential uses is not more than 50% of the driveway volume because outbound trips are attributable to the destinations of those trips. However, since half of all trips are pass by trips, the adjustment factor for typical commercial land uses that attract customers on‐site is 25%. Multiplying the inventory and projections for residential units and non‐residential land uses, by the trip generation (adjusted to avoid double counting, unlike driveway volume) yields the current and projected traffic for unincorporated Montrose County summarized in figure 7. Figure 7. Average Daily Trip Generation and Existing/Projected Traffic by Land Use in Unincorporated Montrose County Residential Single Family Multi‐Family Nonresidential Retail/ Shopping Center Office/ Institutional General Commercial Industrial Warehousing Manufacturing Residential Single Family Multi‐Family Nonresidential Retail/ Shopping Center Office/ Institutional Industrial Warehousing Manufacturing Total Nonresidential
Average Daily Trip Generation Residential (per Housing Unit) 4.8 3.4
Non‐Residential (per 1,000 sq ft) 10.7 5.5 3.2 3.5 2.5 1.9
2006 Average Daily Trip Generation 37120 160 20430 500 0 160 1580 22670
Adjustment Factors 50% 50% 25% 50% 25% 50% 50% 50%
2030 Average Daily Trip Generation 52550 320 29430 540 0 320 1800 32090
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
16
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
Over the next two decades traffic in the unincorporated county, is expected to increase from nearly 60,000 average daily trips to nearly 85,000 average daily trips in 2030, the capital facilities planning horizon. That constitutes a 42% increase in traffic out in the unincorporated county over the base year 2006. Figure 8. ‐ Total Traffic in Unincorporated County 2006 & 2030
New residential traffic is projected to account for 62% of the projected future growth in traffic. This is typical for traffic growth patterns in unincorporated counties on the western slope of Colorado. While significant non‐residential development has occurred in the unincorporated county, the vast majority has occurred in the City of Montrose, and this trend is projected to continue into the future. Residential development is expected to continue to be the primary leading development type. RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
17
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee Figure 9. Share of Future Projected Traffic Generated by Land Use Unincorporated County
GEOGRAPHIC TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The ability to evaluate impacts from future development on county roads is greatly augmented by geographically relating growth patterns to traffic impacts. To estimate the geographic distribution of future development, analysts measured recent residential and non‐residential development between 1990 and 2006. DATA
Montrose County Assessor data is the best available data for performing this analysis because it is the most detailed land use information available and is easily tied into the GIS parcel layer. In addition to the possessing rich detail, including the year a structure was built, assessor data is the only choice for conducting recent geographic growth analysis in Montrose County. The only other option, census block group housing unit data poses accuracy problems. The census block group boundaries were changed between 1990 and 2000 as part of a statewide redrawing of these demographic units. During the 2000 census the Census Bureau staff put great effort into communicating with local communities and the state demographer and developed more appropriate demographic areas based on access, jurisdiction, and natural barriers for human settlement. So while the 2000 block group boundaries offer a fitting set of boundaries for analyzing growth patterns, analysts were not able to use 1990‐2000 census housing unit counts to develop growth rates. RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
18
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
METHODOLOGY
Using Arc GIS and CommunityViz GIS software, analysts performed the following tasks: Measure recent growth trends and current conditions geographically: 1. Using spatial analysis GIS tools determine which block group each unincorporated parcel lies within and assign block group number to each parcel. 2. Using the parcel improvement assessor data, determine what share of total existing development in 2006 is located in each of the block groups. This is accomplished by summing residential units and also summing non‐residential square footage by each block group. 3. Using the parcel improvement year built field obtained from the assessor data, determine what share of total growth 1990‐2006 occurred in each of the block groups. This is accomplished by summing residential units and also summing non‐residential square footage with an actual year built of 1990‐2006 by each block group. Project traffic by demographic area (block group): 1. Traffic projections for 2030 described. Road Demand Study contains unincorporated county residential and non‐residential traffic projections. Projected residential and non‐ residential traffic was distributed separately according to the percentage each block group contributed to residential and non‐residential development during 1990‐2006. 2. For each block group a percentage growth factor was established using the 2006 base year traffic and the projected traffic. ASSUMPTIONS
The primary assumption underlying the geographic analysis described is that residential or non‐ residential development will tend to favor the same areas it has occurred in during the past 15‐ 20 years. For a county at a relatively mature stage of rural development, like Montrose County, this is a sound assumption because the amenities and extent of infrastructure that have driven the geographic location of growth in the past couple decades are expected to remain in place. RESULTS
Results are summarized in figure 10 and depicted geographically in the following map. The demographic areas of the county are expected to experience between a 20% growth in traffic (west end) and a 56% increase in the foothills southwest of the City of Montrose. This highest growth rate area is particularly interesting because it is not located directly adjacent to RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
19
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
the City of Montrose or the Highway 550 & 50 corridor. However, it possesses highway access along SH 90, which makes it easier to access than other remote areas in the County. These easily accessible rural settings are highly desirable and face high demand for development throughout the West. It is also worth noting that being near the Highway 550 & 50 corridor does not necessarily imply high growth rates. Traffic in the Olathe area block group is expected to increase modestly by 22% between 2006 and the capital facilities planning horizon 2030. Figure 10. Traffic Growth by Demographic Area
Residential Block Group # ADT 2006 2862 2863 2864 2868 2870 2876 2877 2884 2894 2896 2897 2901 2903 2908
4,310 3,030 2,250 530 4,910 3,440 3,270 3,790 170 1,010 440 20 3,190 6,760
New Non‐ Residential residential ADT 2006‐2030 ADT 2006 2,190 1,070 900 220 2,660 1,630 1,800 1,480 30 250 160 0 1,150 2,040
1,530 2,310 0 150 820 8,030 2,580 1,830 540 1,190 140 420 1,350 1,780
New Non‐ residential ADT 2006‐ 2030 880 130 0 0 150 3,850 1,460 1,000 290 180 0 240 310 930
All Traffic ADT 2006 5,840 5,340 2,250 680 5,730 11,470 5,850 5,620 710 2,200 580 440 4,540 8,540
All Traffic ADT 2006‐ 2030 3,070 1,200 900 220 2,810 5,480 3,260 2,480 320 430 160 240 1,460 2,970
Traffic Growth 2006‐ 2030 53% 22% 40% 32% 49% 48% 56% 44% 45% 20% 28% 55% 32% 35%
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
20
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
21
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
ROAD AND BRIDGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Road improvements will be necessary to accommodate future traffic, increasing by as much as 56% depending on the demographic areas of the unincorporated county between 2006, the base year, and 2030, the capital facilities planning horizon. The road improvement summary contained in this report is a compilation and extension of improvements planning conducted by the county engineering office. The road improvements plan is organized by type of structure: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Hard surface roads improvements (asphalt or chip‐seal roads) Gravel road improvements Bridge improvements Hard surface maintenance (not part of the fee)
Note on inflation ‐ 2006 dollars are used to estimate costs throughout this analysis. Since capital improvement costs are construction related costs, future updates to this improvements section and the fee section ensuing would need to be adjusted to account for construction industry inflation. See Section 5. Implementation and Procedural Considerations for a fee update schedule.
HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS UNINCORPORATED HARD SURFACE ROAD INSPECTIONS
The engineering office has conducted surface inspections for 163 miles of paved or chip‐seal roads and identified future improvement needs for all of these. Each of the nearly 350 individual road segments inspected were evaluated for 9 types of future improvements and maintenance needs. Figure 11. Improvement & Maintenance Prescriptions for Inspected Hard Surface Roads Improvement or Maintenance Prescription Base + Chip Seal +Geometry +Capacity Increase Base + Chip Seal + Geometry Overlay + Spot Geometry Overlay Chip Seal + Geometry Chip Seal Surface Maintenance Shoulder Maintenance Routine Maintenance
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
22
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
These inspections were performed on arterial or collector roads, reflecting the prioritization of higher order roads. See the Road Function Classification map to identify arterial and collector roads that received priority for inspection by the county to form the improvements and maintenance plan.
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
23
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
24
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
The hard surface inspections were performed to develop an improvement plan and maintenance plan that addresses road conditions in the future with costs attached. The costs provided by the engineering office in figure 12 reflect in‐house construction costs for the road and bridge department. If it becomes infeasible to accomplish improvements using road and bridge resources by employing free‐market firms, these costs would need to be revised to reflect substantial cost increases associated with hiring construction firms to do the same work. Figure 12. County Engineering Cost Estimates ‐2007
Cost/mile $50,000
Estimated Values @ 24' Road Width Improvement Type Geometry or Capacity Increase
$50,000
Double Chip Seal
$180,000
3" Overlay
$15,000
Chip seal ‐ Wear Coat
$85,000
Reconstruct
$135,000
Reconstruct & Chip Seal
$265,000
Reconstruct & Pave
$235,000
Base, Chip seal, Geometry and Capacity Increase
$185,000
Base, Chip seal, and Geometry
$95,000
Reconstruct, Gravel, and Mag
Arterial Estimate @ 32’ Road Width $313,333
Base, Chip seal, Geometry and Capacity Increase
$246,667
Base, Chip seal, and Geometry
$126,667
Reconstruct, Gravel, and Mag
$240,000
Overlay
$353,333
Reconstruct & Pave
Collector Estimate @ 28' Road Width $274,167
Base, Chip seal, Geometry and Capacity Increase
$215,833
Base, Chip seal, and Geometry
$110,833
Reconstruct, Gravel, and Mag
$210,000
Overlay
$309,167
Reconstruct & Pave
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PRESCRIBED BY HARD SURFACE INSPECTIONS
Because this impact fee will not include, cover, or pay for road maintenance, it is critical to distinguish between road improvements and road maintenance prescribed by the hard surface inspections. The road surface inspections prescribe road improvements on 85 miles of county roads by RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
25
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
2030, the capital facilities planning horizon costing a total of almost $26 million (2007 dollars). These improvements are summarized in tabular form in figure 113 and mapped geographically in the following map. These improvements are specifically not maintenance items. For example, road segments calling for paving (overlay) are only included in the improvements prescriptions if they are surface upgrades (typically an upgrade from a chip‐seal surface to an asphalt surface). Overlay of an asphalt surface is considered maintenance, as is chip sealing of an asphalt surface or a chip‐seal surface. All costs are sensitive to the width requirements for the various road classifications as dictated by the Montrose County Standards and Specifications for Roads and Bridges. Figure 13. Hard Surface Inspection Prescribed Improvements Road 25 MESA RD 2700 RD 5400 RD 5500 RD 5600 RD 5675 RD 5700 RD 5725 RD 5850 RD 5875 RD 5975 RD 6100 RD 6150 RD 6175 RD 6400 RD 6500 RD 6530 RD 6600 RD 6650 RD 6725 RD BANNER RD BANNER RD BEGONIA RD BEGONIA RD BLOSSOM RD BUCKHORN RD COLOROW RD DAVID RD DD RD EASTER RD FALCON RD GUNNISON RD RPI Consulting
Improvement Type Pave‐Geometry Pave‐Geometry Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Pave‐Geometry Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Pave‐Geometry Reconstruct‐Pave Pave‐Geometry Reconstruct‐Pave Pave Pave‐Geometry Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Pave‐Geometry Pave‐Geometry Pave (970)382‐9153
Miles 5.6 0.5 4.3 3.0 1.6 1.0 3.1 0.3 2.0 2.9 1.3 0.4 1.2 2.0 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.5 1.3 3.0 0.2 1.8 0.7 1.0 3.6 0.9
Cost $1,712,340 $135,910 $1,322,380 $1,068,870 $503,000 $313,680 $951,140 $52,660 $655,990 $1,011,080 $453,650 $107,270 $241,750 $618,500 $493,780 $189,100 $155,000 $300,180 $173,740 $88,530 $268,900 $309,760 $318,390 $155,220 $280,200 $799,180 $74,710 $565,230 $205,820 $261,490 $1,118,810 $182,210 26
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee HICKORY RD HILLSIDE RD HOLLY RD IDA RD JASMINE RD JAY JAY RD JIG RD JIG RD KENTUCKY RD KINIKIN RD KINIKIN RD KIOWA RD LASALLE RD LINCOLN RD MAPLE GROVE RD MARINE RD N RIVER RD OAK GROVE RD OAK GROVE RD OAK GROVE RD RACINE RD RANGER RD S RIVER RD SOLAR RD SPRING CREEK RD SPRING CREEK RD SUNSHINE RD TROUT RD UNCOMPAHGRE RD UNCOMPAHGRE RD Grand Total
Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Pave‐Geometry Reconstruct‐Pave Pave Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Pave Pave‐Geometry Reconstruct‐Pave Pave Pave Pave‐Geometry Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Pave‐Geometry Reconstruct‐Pave Reconstruct‐Pave Pave‐Geometry Pave Pave‐Geometry
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
1.0 1.8 0.4 0.3 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.9 0.5 0.9 1.6 0.8 2.1 0.6 2.0 1.2 2.4 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.8 1.5 1.4 0.7 2.4 2.2 1.5 0.9 1.8 0.6 85
$342,010 $636,940 $140,350 $96,970 $358,910 $445,340 $250,590 $676,950 $105,220 $184,580 $520,640 $254,160 $719,700 $120,660 $525,670 $413,180 $498,260 $105,380 $202,330 $84,020 $257,880 $459,980 $445,010 $223,450 $726,620 $720,280 $475,380 $243,480 $383,570 $150,850 $25,856,830
27
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
28
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
GRAVEL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Gravel road improvement planning is a process of determining whether gravel roads are going to need to be paved within the capital improvements planning horizon (2030). According to the Montrose County Standards and Specifications for Roads and Bridges, a road reaching average daily trip volumes of 250 ADT needs to be paved with asphalt. Asphalt roads have a much higher capacity than gravel roads, require less frequent maintenance, are safer, and are more drivable. METHODOLOGY
Measuring current traffic •
The engineering office has been conducting annual traffic counts on county roads for almost a decade. These empirical data are coded so that they can be tied into the GIS roads layer for analytical purposes.
Projecting traffic and anticipating the need for paving •
Figure 10 and the corresponding map summarize traffic growth by demographic area. The growth rates for each area were applied to each county road with empirical traffic counts to project future traffic on each road. For example, roads in a block group area 2863 are projected to experience a 22% increase in traffic through 2030..
•
The 2030 traffic projection for gravel roads projected to reach 250 ADT, the trigger for paving a gravel road according to the Montrose County Standards and Specifications for Roads and Bridges were flagged in the GIS database.
•
Depending on the primary width of these roads, costs for reconstruction and paving were applied to the roads that are projected to exceed the official 250 Average Daily Trip paving threshold.
ASSUMPTIONS
The most important assumption in this analysis is that traffic growth in a demographic area will result in a proportionate increase in the ADT flow on county roads in that area. 29 RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
RESULTS
Given the projected increase in Average Daily Trips on gravel roads and the 250 ADT trigger for paving a gravel road according to the Montrose County Standards and Specifications for Roads and Bridges in the unincorporated county, 58 miles of county roads will need to be paved, for a total of over $18.2 million (2007 dollars). Cost estimates account for road width. See the Gravel Road Improvement Map for the geographic location of roads planned to be paved. Figure 14. Gravel Roads Reaching Paving Traffic Threshold by 2030 Road 3575 RD 5425 RD 5600 RD 5850 RD 6000 RD 6100 RD 6200 RD 6300 RD 6330 RD 6400 RD 6950 RD 90 RD A RD ADAMS CT AMBER RD BANNER RD CIMARRON RD DAVEWOOD RD DAVID RD DEADWOODTRL EAST BOROUGH DR FALCON RD GUNNISON RD HERMAN RD HILLSDALE DR IDA RD J82 RD JJ58 RD KANSAS RD LAKEVIEW CT LAKEVIEW DR N RIVER RD PAHGRE RD PEARL RD POPULAR RD SHAVANO VALLEY RD SOLAR RD Grand Total
Improvement Type
Miles
Cost
Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd Pave Gravel Rd
0.4 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.3 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 13.4 1.3 0.0 2.4 2.2 11.1 8.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.5 58
$132,370 $107,130 $311,610 $541,250 $705,560 $133,340 $231,480 $125,580 $98,820 $121,780 $128,490 $4,748,970 $407,970 $9,060 $756,680 $691,380 $3,427,620 $2,648,120 $134,830 $136,610 $181,170 $170,670 $93,360 $54,300 $24,540 $192,450 $312,300 $124,160 $440,320 $38,940 $35,400 $228,150 $73,600 $25,560 $172,050 $308,650 $131,180 $18,205,450
30 RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
Montrose County Road and Bridge Impact Fee
RPI Consulting
(970)382‐9153
31
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
MID‐TERM BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge improvements were compiled from the engineering office 2012 bridge improvements plan (available at county engineering offices). More bridge improvements will arise, but evaluating bridge condition is expensive and complex, so additional improvement needs will be incorporated into future updates of this study. Bridge improvements during the 2030 capital facilities planning horizon total just over $2 million. Figure 15. Mid‐Term Bridge Improvements Road Marine Rd 6530 Rd 5600 Rd 6200 Rd Jade Rd 5400 Rd Hickory Rd S River Rd Gov't Springs Rd Ranger Rd Jasmine Rd Uncompahgre Rd Miguel Rd
Bridge Improvement Replace Bridge B‐100 with Box Culverts Replace Bridge B‐001 Replace Bridge B‐002 Replace Bridge B‐108 with Box Culvert Replace Bridge B‐074 Rebuild or Replace Bridge B‐036 with Box Culvert Replace Deck on Bridge B‐065 (Make it Unrestricted Bridge) Replace Backwall and Deck on Bridge B‐062 Replace Backwall and Deck on Bridge B‐080 Replace Backwall on Bridge B‐023 Replace SE Wingwall on Bridge B‐075 Replace Backwalls on Bridge B‐135 Replace Backwalls on Bridge B‐101
Uncompahgre Rd Replace Bridge B‐132 with Box Culvert Dalia Rd Replace Bridge B‐048 with Box Culvert Dandy Rd Replace Backwalls on Bridge B‐050 H54 Rd Replace Bridge B‐146 Sanborn Park Rd Replace Back Wingwall on Bridge B‐004 (Possible Realignment & Replacement) P77 Rd Replace Backwalls on Bridge B‐150 W Oak Grove Replace Deck on Bridge B‐105 or Box Culvert Monroe Rd Replace Bridge East of 6175 Rd Grand Total
Cost $300,000 $150,000 $150,000 $80,000 $150,000 $150,000 $50,000 $150,000 $100,000 $60,000 $50,000 $75,000 $75,000 $100,000 $40,000 $75,000 $150,000 $50,000 $30,000 $50,000 $40,000 $2,075,000
HARD SURFACE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG (NOT PART OF FEE)
Although maintenance backlog is not something typically covered by impact fees, and is not included in the costs upon which the fee schedule presented in this report are based, it is worth listing the maintenance backlog to avoid any potential confusion and in order to inform budgetary decisions to fund maintenance with funds other than impact fee revenue. Using non‐impact fee revenue, the county aims to accomplish the $4 million worth maintenance backlog in Figure 16 within a reasonable amount of time. In addition to this RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
32
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
identified backlog, the county road and bridge 2012 plan calls for 15 miles per year of ongoing asphalt overlay ($15.8 million over 5 year period) and 20 miles per year of chip‐seal wear coat ($1.8 million over 5 years). Thus hard surface structural maintenance costs, not including gravel roads, snow removal, or other day to day maintenance could total over $20 million dollars in the mid‐term (the County Road and Bridge 2012 plan calls for it to be done by 2012 year‐end), and much more by 2030. These are major maintenance commitments for a department with revenues of less than $5 million per year, making it especially clear that a fair share fee for capital improvements is much needed in Montrose County. Figure 16. Montrose County Road Maintenance Backlog Road 6.00 6.00 6.00 26.50 26.50 27.00 28.00 28.10 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 51.50 51.50 56.00 57.25 57.25 57.25 58.25 58.25 58.80 59.45 59.45 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.75 61.00 61.00 61.00 61.00 61.00 61.00 RPI Consulting LLC
Miles 0.75 0.09 0.18 0.24 0.76 0.69 0.75 0.50 0.97 0.50 0.95 0.48 1.24 1.23 1.67 0.10 0.46 0.99 0.36 2.36 0.17 1.24 0.50 0.61 1.04 0.75 0.50 0.51 0.35 0.15 0.50 0.24 0.50
ID 6.00‐200 6.00‐150 6.00‐100 26.50‐100 26.50‐200 27.00‐400 28.00‐100 28.10‐100 29.00‐100 29.00‐200 30.00‐200 30.00‐100 51.50‐200 51.50‐100 56.00‐1000 57.25‐400 57.25‐300 57.25‐200 58.25‐400 58.25‐100 58.80‐400 59.45‐400 59.45‐300 60.00‐300 60.00‐600 60.00‐550 60.75‐500 61.00‐350 61.00‐400 61.00‐300 61.00‐250 61.00‐200 61.00‐150 970‐382‐9153
Maintenance Type Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal
Cost $13,185 $1,626 $3,186 $4,238 $13,241 $12,041 $13,106 $8,715 $17,031 $8,763 $199,651 $8,422 $21,624 $21,603 $351,550 $1,718 $7,985 $17,292 $6,365 $41,293 $36,092 $21,741 $8,709 $10,727 $18,120 $13,182 $8,737 $8,866 $6,091 $2,590 $8,722 $4,284 $8,768 33
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee 61.30 62.00 62.00 62.00 62.00 62.00 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.40 63.40 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.50 64.50 64.50 64.50 64.50 64.50 64.50 64.50 64.50 65.30 66.00 66.00 66.00 66.00 66.00 66.40 66.40
RPI Consulting LLC
0.25 0.19 0.50 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.36 0.30 0.57 0.29 0.20 0.39 0.30 0.05 0.60 0.09 0.40 0.11 0.55 0.50 0.05 0.26 0.22 0.13 0.27 0.10 0.20 0.07 0.08 0.61 0.16 0.10 0.18 0.39 0.11 0.50 0.13 0.25 0.06 0.42 0.07 0.24 0.77 0.11 0.23 0.75 0.05 0.11 0.21 0.48
61.30‐100 62.00‐100 62.00‐400 62.00‐200 62.00‐150 62.00‐250 62.50‐450 62.50‐200 62.50‐100 62.50‐500 62.50‐350 62.50‐250 62.50‐400 62.50‐300 63.00‐200 63.00‐250 63.00‐900 63.00‐850 63.00‐800 63.00‐350 63.00‐300 63.40‐150 63.40‐100 64.00‐100 64.00‐200 64.00‐150 64.00‐600 64.00‐550 64.00‐500 64.00‐450 64.00‐300 64.00‐250 64.00‐400 64.50‐400 64.50‐450 64.50‐1100 64.50‐550 64.50‐500 64.50‐600 64.50‐1000 64.50‐650 64.50‐1200 65.30‐500 66.00‐400 66.00‐350 66.00‐300 66.00‐750 66.00‐800 66.40‐100 66.40‐500
970‐382‐9153
Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Pave Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Pave Pave Pave Pave Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal
$4,362 $3,384 $8,798 $2,974 $2,019 $3,655 $6,343 $5,271 $9,945 $5,092 $3,425 $6,840 $5,331 $885 $10,508 $1,573 $95,477 $25,273 $132,836 $8,770 $939 $5,197 $4,465 $2,234 $4,772 $1,714 $4,001 $1,467 $1,576 $12,218 $2,755 $1,672 $44,377 $7,893 $2,163 $119,893 $2,515 $5,029 $1,152 $100,824 $1,340 $56,636 $13,433 $22,152 $48,139 $156,630 $11,972 $25,671 $3,613 $8,475
34
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee 66.40 67.00 68.00 7.00 90 AA AA C C C C.30 CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC D D D D DD DD DD30 DD30 DD31 E E E E F.25 F.25 F.25 H.75 J J J J J.50 J.50 K.90 L.80 N.50 N.50 N.70 P P P
RPI Consulting LLC
0.39 0.25 2.13 1.43 6.80 0.50 0.30 0.04 0.25 0.88 0.50 1.00 0.26 0.41 0.09 0.28 0.03 0.82 0.25 0.23 0.49 0.06 0.50 1.00 0.49 0.27 0.20 0.79 0.14 0.87 0.37 0.98 1.05 0.50 0.07 0.10 0.39 0.31 0.31 0.98 0.52 0.31 0.94 0.84 0.17 0.34 0.25 0.03 0.12 0.12
66.40‐200 67.00‐700 68.00‐100 7.00‐100 90‐200 AA‐200 AA‐300 C‐200 C‐250 C‐300 C.30‐400 CC‐1100 CC‐1000 CC‐600 CC‐700 CC‐500 CC‐550 CC‐400 CC‐800 D‐900 D‐1000 D‐1050 D‐1100 DD‐500 DD‐400 DD30‐100 DD30‐300 DD31‐100 E‐250 E‐200 E‐150 E‐100 F.25‐100 F.25‐200 F.25‐300 H.75‐650 J‐200 J‐700 J‐750 J‐100 J.50‐300 J.50‐400 K.90‐150 L.80‐100 N.50‐1200 N.50‐1150 N.70‐100 P‐700 P‐750 P‐800
970‐382‐9153
Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Pave Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal
$6,796 $4,336 $37,289 $25,109 $119,060 $8,670 $5,221 $651 $4,336 $184,556 $8,689 $210,012 $53,592 $7,160 $1,620 $4,910 $517 $14,294 $51,808 $48,276 $8,661 $1,074 $8,748 $209,737 $102,093 $4,688 $3,543 $13,897 $28,981 $181,745 $6,440 $17,218 $18,379 $8,744 $1,228 $1,828 $6,829 $6,208 $6,283 $17,203 $9,115 $6,105 $196,450 $16,875 $3,412 $6,717 $4,325 $570 $2,481 $2,342
35
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee P P P P P P Q.40 R.50 S S S S T5 T5 T5 T5 U U U5 U5 U5 U5 V V V6 Z Grand Total
0.18 0.10 0.02 0.13 0.88 1.03 0.38 0.11 0.79 0.58 0.21 0.27 0.03 0.50 0.26 0.82 0.50 1.00 0.49 1.49 0.08 0.10 0.67 0.25 0.04 0.45 77.50
P‐850 P‐300 P‐350 P‐450 P‐400 P‐600 Q.40‐100 R.50‐400 S‐350 S‐200 S‐150 S‐100 T5‐300 T5‐200 T5‐150 T5‐100 U‐100 U‐150 U5‐700 U5‐500 U5‐800 U5‐850 V‐200 V‐250 V6‐100 Z‐200
Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Pave Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal Chip‐Seal
$3,632 $1,830 $358 $2,211 $15,320 $247,458 $6,694 $1,947 $13,864 $10,204 $3,746 $4,744 $558 $8,719 $4,572 $14,289 $8,744 $17,557 $8,637 $26,135 $1,321 $1,826 $11,758 $4,402 $755 $7,794 $4,074,828
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
36
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
FEE COMPONENTS The fee is based on a fair share cost allocation methodology for 3 types of capital improvement costs: •
Planned improvements ‐ Based on hard‐surface and gravel road improvements discussed above in Road and Bridge Capital Improvements.
•
Buy‐in for recently built projects ‐ This portion of the fee allocates future development's fair cost to buy into the benefits of recently built improvements paid for by taxpayers.
•
Incremental expansion of equipment and facilities ‐ As traffic increases, so will demand for services at Road and Bridge, ultimately demanding an increamental increase in facility space and fleet size. This portion of the fee captures the cost of maintaining the current level of service for road and bridge facilities and heavy equipment fleet.
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
The fee presented in this report is based on the amount of traffic, or, Average Daily Trips (ADT) a proposed land use generates. Each improvement type discussed in this report is calculated as a cost per average daily trip. The planning horizon becomes particularly important in equitably calculating the cost per average daily trip for accomplishing capital facilities needs. The 2030 planning horizon defining the capital improvements is a reasonable timeframe for two chief reasons: 1. Modern road improvements last about 15 years. They can last longer with favorable conditions and maintenance, but generally, they begin to decline and need to be rebuilt at about 15 ‐20 years in western Colorado's climate. The 2030 planning horizon leaves a 23 years time span for considering project needs. This extra time is appropriate because projects included in the fee that are built even 10 years from the base year 2006 will just be reaching the end of their economic life or reaching capacity in 2030. RPI recommends that impact fees are comprehensively updated every 5 years, to ensure that the temporal relationship between the capital planning facilities horizon is maintained (see Implementation and Administration Considerations.) 2. The projections used in this analysis have the best available data as a foundation and were established with careful methodology. However, even the Center for Business and Economic Forecasting, who provides the economic forecasts underlying the housing forecasts used in this analysis, would admit that projections exceeding 25 years are
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
37
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
prone to enormous uncertainty. For this reason, it is best to use projection data appropriately and stay within the 2030 planning horizon. Because virtually all of the improvements listed above are system improvements to arterial or collector roads, all land uses in the county will benefit from the implementation of the planned improvements. For this reason, it would be inequitable to attribute the entire cost of these improvements to the trips generated by the occupants, employees, or customers of future development alone. A proportionate quantity of the costs should be attributed to drivers to and from existing (built) land uses. The way to equitably distribute costs mathematically is to divide the costs by the total projected traffic in 2030, including 2006 base year traffic. In effect, this operation discounts the fee so that future development is only covering its fair share, not picking up the tab for existing development. The three improvement types included in this report total just over $46 million. Figure 17. Improvement Costs Improvement Type Hard Surface Improvements Gravel Road Improvements Planned Bridge Improvements Total
Cost $25,856,830 $18,205,450 $ 2,075,000 $46,137,280
Given the 2030 projected traffic and the costs as established in Road and Bridge Capital Improvements, implementing these capital improvements will cost $543 per average daily trip. Figure 18. Planned Improvements Cost per Aggregated 2030 ADT Road & Bridge Improvements Cost ADT (divisor) Projection Year Cost per Average Daily Trip
$46,137,280 84960 2030 $543
BUY‐IN FOR RECENTLY BUILT IMPROVEMENTS
According to engineering department records, the county spent almost $7 million on road improvements that are expected to last through 2015‐2020. Because existing base year traffic and future traffic will benefit from these improvements, the costs were divided by the total projected unincorporated traffic for 2020. Figure 19. Buy‐in for Recently Built Projects Recent Improvements ADT (divisor) Projection Year Cost per Average Daily Trip RPI Consulting LLC
$6,954,170 74540 2020 $93 970‐382‐9153
38
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF FACILITIES AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT
As traffic increases, so will demand for services at Road and Bridge, ultimately necessitating an incremental increase in facility space and fleet size. In recent years, equipment has been one of the primary capital investments for the road and bridge department. Equipment and facilities are particularly important for the Montrose County Road and Bridge Department because it accomplishes much of the construction using in‐house resources. This portion of the fee captures the cost of maintaining the current level of service for road and bridge facilities and heavy equipment fleet. The County finance department meticulously maintains a thorough asset inventory that includes a replacement cost and description of each asset. Land, building, and heavy equipment purchases are all capital improvements that will last 5 years or more and were included in this analysis. Some temporary assets, like computers and pickups were not included as major capital assets although some of those assets may last 5 years or more as well. Figure 20. ‐ Road and Bridge Value of Major Capital Assets 2006 Capital Asset
Replacement Value
Land Buildings Heavy Equipment Total
$1,403,400 $463,400 $7,150,200 $9,017,000
The incremental expansion component of the fee, is the quotient of the current $ value of assets ÷ 2006 ADT base year traffic. This constitutes the cost per ADT of maintaining the current level of service for major capital assets. Figure 21. Incremental Expansion Cost per ADT Land, Buildings, Equipment ADT (divisor) Base Year Cost per Average Daily Trip
$9,017,000 59950 2006 $150
COST PER ADT
All of the components added together yields the cost per average daily trip of $786 Figure 22. Cost per ADT Road & Bridge Improvements Buy‐in For Recent Improvements Land, Buildings, Equipment Total RPI Consulting LLC
Total Cost $46,137,280 $6,954,170 $9,017,000 $62,108,450 970‐382‐9153
Cost per Average Daily Trip $543 $93 $150 $786 39
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
CREDITS Some impact fees include the provision of credits to avoid “double dipping,” that is, to avoid requiring a developer to pay an impact fee and then also require payment through other mechanisms for the same purpose. For example, an impact fee might be collected for expansion of municipal library while simultaneously a portion of property taxes are earmarked for capital improvements to the library. Clearly the developer is paying twice for the same purpose. Because double dipping is unfair and may be un‐statutory, durable and equitable impact fees include a system of credits to avoid double dipping. Credits are usually applied as a discount (or full exemption in some cases) applied to the full price of the fee that roughly equals the amount that would otherwise be double‐charged. CREDIT FOR IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED DURING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The difference between streets capital improvements related to on‐site traffic (i.e. circulation between land uses within the development and the intersections with the rest of the county road system) and improvements to the overall county road system (the type of improvements for which the impact fee is designated) should be considered when site improvements are negotiated. If these off‐site improvements to the county street system will serve traffic from existing or future development, the county should establish a reasonable credit towards the impact fees for the development. If off‐site improvements will only benefit the private development and possibly neighboring private developments, then they probably do not warrant a credit. In these case by case development crediting scenarios, it is probably not as important how the credits are addressed so much as that they are addressed and that a concerted effort is made to avoid “double dipping”. One way to address credits of this type is to take the value of the improvements to the overall streets system and discount each Average Daily Trip in the subdivision equally. For example: A subdivision is required to improve an existing street that serves existing development and will most likely serve future subdivisions. The cost of the improvements is $50,000 and the subdivision is expected to generate 1000 average daily trips, thus the credit would be $50/ADT, or about a $250 discount per single family home under the fee proposed in this study. In calculating this type of credit, it is crucial for the county to distinguish between improvements specifically related to and benefiting the subdivision or development, and those
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
40
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
improving the overall streets system. No credit is necessary for improvements serving only the on‐site needs of particular developments. CREDIT FOR TAX REVENUE SPENT ON STREETS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The county has and will continue to pay for some level of streets capital improvements using revenues collected from taxpayers. Road and bridge improvements are generally funded directly from the road and bridge fund or via transfers from the fund into the capital expenditures fund. The revenue sources that warrant a credit from the road and bridge impact fee are: 1. Road and Bridge Property Tax 2. HUTF funds allocated by State to county originating from gas tax and registration fees 3. Vehicle registration taxes Establishing the tax credit involves answering 3 key questions: 1. How much revenue gets spent on county road capital improvements? 2. How much tax revenue does residential vs. non‐residential land uses generate? 3. What credit on the road impact fee would compensate for this annual tax revenue over the capital improvements planning horizon? According to the records in the Montrose County 2004‐06 budgets about 7% of the road and bridge fund has gone towards capital improvements fund during the most recent 3 complete years. Figure 23. Road and Bridge Revenue Spent on Capital Improvements Heavy Transfer to Equipment Capital Expenditure Fund Purchase 2004 $344,012 $0 2005 $177,847 $286,065 2006 $145,965 $2,102 Total 04‐06 % Total Revenues Used for Capital Expenditures = 7%
Total Capital Expenditures $344,012 $463,912 $148,067 $955,991
Total Expenditures $4,088,731 $4,159,289 $4,620,691 $12,868,711
Source: Montrose County Finance
A remaining step is to estimate the percentage that residential vs. non‐residential land use sectors contribute to generating the road and bridge tax revenues listed above. According to the 2006 annual report from Colorado Division of Property Tax, in 2006 Montrose County's assessed valuation, upon which property tax is based, was 43% residential property value and 57% value from other classifications. RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
41
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
Because both vehicle registration fees and HUTF gas tax are related to the driving of vehicles, the percent (%) of residential vs. non‐residential average daily trips adequately reflect the revenue generation by each sector. Figure 24. Residential Vs Non‐Residential Revenue Generation Proportions Expression Residential Assessed Value Other Assessed Value
Quantity $ 184,352,830 $ 246,464,720
Percent 43% 57%
Source Colorado Division of Property Taxation Annual Report* Colorado Division of Property Taxation Annual Report road demand study in this report
$ 430,817,550 Total Assessed Value Residential Traffic (ADT) 37,280 62% Non‐Residential Traffic 22,670 38% road demand study in this report (ADT) Total 59,950 * includes residential improved land for all types and residential vacant land
Applying these percentages to the mean annual general fund revenue for each of the four types of taxes yields the mean annual revenue generated by each sector (figure 24 ). Since figure 23 established that 7.4% of road and bridge fund revenue is spent on road capital improvements, this percentage was multiplied by the total annual road and bridge fund revenue to obtain an estimate of annual revenue generated by residential vs. non‐residential activity. To distribute this revenue by Average Daily Trip, analysts divided the mean annual revenue by the 2006 average daily trips for residential vs. non‐residential. It will not be until 2030 that all of the projected development will contribute to the revenues each year. To account for this fact, the annual revenues were multiplied by a coefficient of .52 reflecting 23 years during which new development will accrue tax revenue every year, but the total quantity will increase only as new development gets steadily built. The coefficient adjusts the credit so that it does not falsely over‐state the revenues that will actually be collected from new development during the capital facilities planning horizon. The credit for residential land uses is $59 per ADT while non‐residential land uses are credited $60. This 7.6% discount against the full cost per ADT ($786/ADT) eliminates double dipping that would result from collecting both tax revenue and impact fees.
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
42
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
Figure 25. Residential and Non‐Residential Credit Calculation Property Tax Derived From Registration Tax Derived From HUTF Gas Tax Derived From Property Tax Registration Tax HUTF Gas Tax Total Annual Rd and Br Fund Tax Revenue % Rd and Br Revenue Used for Capital Expenditures Average Annual Revenue Used for Capital Expenditures Average Daily Trips 2007 Credit per Average Daily Trip (20 yr Planning Horizon)
Residential 43% 62% 62% $18,832 $244,039 $2,206,559 $2,469,431 7.4% $183,449 37,280 $59.00
Non‐Residential 57% 38% 38% $25,178 $148,401 $1,341,811 $1,515,389 7.4% $112,575 22,670 $60.00
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
43
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Calculating the actual fee for various types of land use, requires the integration of three different elements as demonstrated in figure 26: 1. The Average Daily Vehicle Trip generation for each land use type. 2. The Cost per Average Daily Trip. 3. The Credit per Average Daily Trip. As established earlier in the report, each increment of development leads to a proportionate increase in traffic, according to different traffic generation rates contained in the ITE16, adjusted to account for pass‐by trips and avoid double counting. Because impacts on the roads system are directly related to the amount of traffic added to the system, the analysis begins with the average vehicle trip generation for residential units and non‐residential square footage. The fee amount per average daily trip amount is the difference between the total cost per average daily trip (figure 26) and the tax credit per average daily trip for residential and non‐ residential uses (figure 26). The fee amount per average daily trip can then be multiplied by the trip generation for each land use to calculate the fee for that land use. For example, referring to figure 26, a developer seeking to build a 6 unit apartment building would have to pay a fee of $12,200: 3.4 ADT per unit * $727 fee amount per ADT for residential * 6 units = $12,200
Using a non‐residential example, a developer seeks to construct a 5,000 sq. ft. office building would be required to pay a fee of $20,000: 5.5 ADT per 1000 sq. ft. * 5 (1,000s of sq. ft.)/ $726 fee amount per ADT for non‐residential = $20,000
INDEPENDENT TRIP GENERATION STUDY
Occasionally project developers may estimate that the trips generated by their particular project are not accurately represented by the ITE. In these cases the developer should be able to conduct a private trip generation study specific to their project. Once the study is approved by the fee administrator, the fee will be calculated by multiplying the development’s trip
16
th
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (6 edition) is the authority on traffic generation analysis.
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
44
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
generation (in average daily trips) by the per trip fee ($727 per ADT for residential, $726 per ADT for non‐residential). Figure 26. Montrose County Road Impact Fee Schedule Residential Single Family Multi‐Family Nonresidential Retail/ Shopping Center Office/ Institutional General Commercial Industrial Warehousing Manufacturing Manufacturing
Average Daily Trip Generation Residential Non‐Residential (per Housing Unit) (per 1,000 sq ft) 4.8 3.4 10.7 5.5 3.2 3.5 2.5 1.9 1.9
Adjustment Factors 50% 50% 25% 50% 25% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Residential Nonresidential Cost Per Average Daily Trip $ 786 $ 786 Credit Per ADT $ 59 $ 60 Discounted Fee Per ADT $ 727 $ 726 Road and Bridge Impact Fee Schedule (ADT Rates*Discounted Fee per ADT) Residential Single Family $ 3,480 Multi‐Family $ 2,440 Nonresidential Retail/ Shopping Center $ 7,790 Office/ Institutional $ 4,000 General Commercial $ 2,320 Industrial $ 2,530 Warehousing $ 1,800 Manufacturing $ 1,390 Lodging $ 6,830 Religious or Social $ 3,310 Organization
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
45
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
CASH FLOW
RPI analysts performed 2 differing cash flow analyses to provide a picture of what the County could realize in funds with the institution of a Road and Bridge impact fee. The first cash flow analysis is based upon the number of single family building permits issued for the years 2000‐ 2006. Had the Road and Bridge fee been in place beginning in the year 2000 the County would have realized over 2.5 million dollars. On average the County would have had almost an additional $376,000 per year to spend on Road and Bridge related capital improvements. Figure 27. Historical Cash Flow 2000‐2006 Year
Permits
Revenue
2000
102
$ 354,960
2001
90
$ 313,200
2002
95
$ 330,600
2003
87
$ 302,760
2004
122
$ 424,560
2005
127
$ 441,960
134
$ 466,320
2006 Total
$ 2,634,360
Figure 28. Non‐Residential Historical Cash Flow 2000‐2006 Gross Revenue 2000‐2006 Retail/Shopping
$ 1,252,500
Office/Institutional
$ 12,230
Light Industrial
$ 54,359
Warehousing
$ 159,344
Total Non‐Residential
$ 1,478,433
The historical cash flow analysis suggests that the County might have garnered over $4 million had the road impact fee been in place beginning in 2000. The second cash flow analysis is based upon the projections and they are simply intended to provide the County with an idea of what the revenue streams from this impact fee might be. Because the fee is only applicable to development in the un‐incorporated area of Montrose County un‐incorporated projections were used to find the total amount of revenue that could be expected by 2027. RPI emphasizes that these cash flow analyses are meant to be conservative by nature and these revenue streams are subject to any number changes that might occur in Montrose County.
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
46
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
Figure 29. Total Revenue through 2027 from Road and Bridge Impact Fee
R&B Impact Fee Projected Revenue Totals Through 2027
Residential Revenue
$ 10.192,920
Non Residential Revenue
$ 5,884,747
Total
$ 16,077,667
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
47
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE FEE?
RPI suggests that the fee may be applied to all building permits for new residential construction in the County boundaries. The fee could be applied to development on existing platted vacant lots and to development that may occur in the future. The fee should not apply to residential remodels since these do not typically result in increased traffic generation. The fee should not be applied to the replacement of any existing legal residential unit.
EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The impact fee Statute includes specific provisions allowing (but not requiring) local governments to exempt “low or moderate income affordable employee housing” from impact fees: …a local government may waive an impact fee or other similar development charge on the development of low‐ or moderate‐ income housing or affordable employee housing as defined by the local government.17 If the County chooses to consider an exemption or reduction in fees for affordable housing, several issues should be explored. 1. How does the County define affordable housing? The first step would be to determine how to measure affordability. Typically, affordability is based on the earning power of local households or prospective newcomer households, but local circumstances might make additional considerations necessary (such as commuter households with higher earnings in adjacent counties). 2. After affordability is defined, the question becomes: How does this affordability, or local households’ ability to pay for housing relate to the construction of new units of various types and sizes? In other words, how does the County go from defining affordability (usually defined in terms of an affordable price) to setting some exemption threshold? Would the exemption be based on size, unit type or location? Other issues related to real estate market dynamics and 17 CRS. 29‐20‐104.5
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
48
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
the fact that housing that is affordable in today’s market may be unaffordable in next year’s market. 3. A waived fee can be a market cue, creating incentives for certain types of development and disincentives for other types. For example, the County conducts an analysis and finds that affordable housing, as defined by local earning power, includes mobile homes and apartments. If the County grants an exemption for affordable housing defined in such a way, it may create incentives for this type of development. This may be good, bad, or benign, depending on the County’s ability to provide services to these denser development types without jeopardizing service levels or other community goals or values. 4. Finally, if the County waives fees for development of a certain type, or below a certain size, how does it propose to maintain service levels for County services given the waived revenue? The population occupying the affordable housing will draw upon general government facilities the same as other residents, but will not be paying the fee. Maintaining service levels may require the County to make up for the waived revenue from other funds. In short, the County likely has full authority to create a waiver or discount for affordable housing, but implementing such waivers or discounts requires careful analysis of regional labor force dynamics, real estate markets, and may require some expenditure out of other funds to compensate for waived revenues.
EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES
Montrose County may wish to waive impact fees for some public facilities (classified as government /institutional /community facilities). For example, the County might consider exempting all government and special district facilities from the impact fee. Fundamentally, services and facilities provided by governments (local, state, and federal) and special districts all serve the same end, to provide some type of service to residents, businesses, and visitors.
WHEN TO COLLECT THE FEE
Given the Impact Fee Statue language, it may be advisable for the County to collect the Law Enforcement Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a building permit when permit fees are collected. This approach is sensible in the context of impact fees because the impacts are experienced when the development takes place. Furthermore, Developers generally prefer this method because it minimizes the amount of time they are required to carry the cost of the fee before they can pass it off to the buyer. Ultimately this decision is up to the County, as of yet the State Statues do not provide a clear cut time upon which impact fees need to be paid. RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
49
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
•
• • • •
•
Be certain that the goal of requiring new development to pay its fair share of the costs of road and bridge capital related improvements is a clearly stated goal, objective, or policy in the County’s Master Plan. Adopt the fee schedule by resolution or ordinance into the land use code. The fee schedule, applicability, and purpose should be located or referenced in the Zoning Development Permit section of the Code. The Zoning Development Permit section of the Code should be amended to require the payment of the adopted impact fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. Include within the resolution or ordinance legislating code amendments a statement concerning the purpose of the fee (to require new development to pay its fair share of the costs of related improvements). Also note provisions to sequester the funds and stipulate the purposes of their expenditure. Adopt language into the code allowing for an administrative appeal process for the impact fee. The ability to appeal should be granted to applicants for development as well as to the fee administrator. In practice, an applicant for appeal would be appealing a determination of the fee administrator. Given that the fee administrator will most likely be the County Manager or an assistant to the Manager, the appeal would best be directed towards the County Commissioners. Generally, an appeal of a determination of an impact fee must occur within a certain window of time after the fee determination is made (15 days is typical). Statutory time limits on appeals can also limit the amount of time the County has to schedule the appeal hearing, and public notice should be provided to adjacent property owners and affected parties or more broad public notice should occur in the newspaper. 18 A fair administrative appeal process is a necessary tool for resolving conflicts and avoiding litigation.
UPDATING THE FEE
All of the revenue received from the implementation of this impact fee must be kept in a separate interest bearing account, and must be used only for projects that are related to road and bridge capital improvement. It is important that the monies garnered be placed in an account to accrue interest so that the fee revenues are not devalued by inflation.
18 The County will need to research the specific time limits and noticing requirements surrounding this type of appeal.
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
50
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
Furthermore, RPI recommends that the fee undergo periodical revision and updating. The fee should be updated every year to account for inflation in the cost of construction. McGraw Hill construction is the authority on construction inflation and conducts ongoing studies of construction costs to produce a construction inflation index. Since 1990 the construction prices have increased on average 3% due to inflation (figures 29 and 30). Figure 29. Inflationary Increase to the R& B Impact Fee
Note on using 2006 dollars: All of the costs and fees are calculated in 2006 dollars throughout this support study. This is a consistent method because RPI assumes that the revenues collected will be invested to keep up with inflation while the fee amount will be adjusted at least every two years to keep up with inflation. So long as these accounting practices are followed, this revenue system will very closely keep up with inflation. For this reason, it was not necessary to calculate costs using dollar values from future or past years.
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
51
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
APPENDIX Figure 30. Construction Inflation McGraw Hill Construction Inflation Index
% Inflation
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average Source: McGraw Hill Construction
4732 4835 4985 5210 5408 5471 5620 5826 5920 6059 6221 6343 6538 6694 7115 7888
2.2% 3.1% 4.5% 3.8% 1.2% 2.7% 3.7% 1.6% 2.3% 2.7% 2.0% 3.1% 2.4% 6.3% 3.2% 3.0%
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
52
Montrose County Road & Bridge Impact Fee
Figure 31. Impact Fee Update by Year
Single Family
Multi Family
Retail/ Shopping Center
$ 3,480 $ 3,584 $ 3,692 $ 3,803 $ 3,917 $ 4,034 $ 4,155 $ 4,280 $ 4,408 $ 4,541 $ 4,677 $ 4,817 $ 4,962 $ 5,110 $ 5,264 $ 5,422 $ 5,584 $ 5,752 $ 5,924 $ 6,102 $ 6,285
$ 2,440 $ 2,513 $ 2,589 $ 2,666 $ 2,746 $ 2,829 $ 2,913 $ 3,001 $ 3,091 $ 3,184 $ 3,279 $ 3,378 $ 3,479 $ 3,583 $ 3,691 $ 3,801 $ 3,915 $ 4,033 $ 4,154 $ 4,279 $ 4,407
$ 7,790 $ 8,024 $ 8,264 $ 8,512 $ 8,768 $ 9,031 $ 9,302 $ 9,581 $ 9,868 $ 10,164 $ 10,469 $ 10,783 $ 11,107 $ 11,440 $ 11,783 $ 12,137 $ 12,501 $ 12,876 $ 13,262 $ 13,660 $ 14,070
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Office/ General Institutional Commercial $ 4,000 $ 4,120 $ 4,244 $ 4,371 $ 4,502 $ 4,637 $ 4,776 $ 4,919 $ 5,067 $ 5,219 $ 5,376 $ 5,537 $ 5,703 $ 5,874 $ 6,050 $ 6,232 $ 6,419 $ 6,611 $ 6,810 $ 7,014 $ 7,224
$ 2,320 $ 2,390 $ 2,461 $ 2,535 $ 2,611 $ 2,690 $ 2,770 $ 2,853 $ 2,939 $ 3,027 $ 3,118 $ 3,211 $ 3,308 $ 3,407 $ 3,509 $ 3,614 $ 3,723 $ 3,835 $ 3,950 $ 4,068 $ 4,190
Industrial
$ 2,530 $ 2,606 $ 2,684 $ 2,765 $ 2,848 $ 2,933 $ 3,021 $ 3,112 $ 3,205 $ 3,301 $ 3,400 $ 3,502 $ 3,607 $ 3,715 $ 3,827 $ 3,942 $ 4,060 $ 4,182 $ 4,307 $ 4,436 $ 4,569
Warehousing Manufacturing
$ 1,800 $ 1,854 $ 1,910 $ 1,967 $ 2,026 $ 2,087 $ 2,149 $ 2,214 $ 2,280 $ 2,349 $ 2,419 $ 2,492 $ 2,566 $ 2,643 $ 2,723 $ 2,804 $ 2,888 $ 2,975 $ 3,064 $ 3,156 $ 3,251
$ 1,390 $ 1,432 $ 1,475 $ 1,519 $ 1,564 $ 1,611 $ 1,660 $ 1,710 $ 1,761 $ 1,814 $ 1,868 $ 1,924 $ 1,982 $ 2,041 $ 2,102 $ 2,166 $ 2,231 $ 2,297 $ 2,366 $ 2,437 $ 2,510
RPI Consulting LLC
970‐382‐9153
53
Lodging
Religious/ Social Organization
$ 6,830 $ 7,035 $ 7,246 $ 7,463 $ 7,687 $ 7,918 $ 8,155 $ 8,400 $ 8,652 $ 8,912 $ 9,179 $ 9,454 $ 9,738 $ 10,030 $ 10,331 $ 10,641 $ 10,960 $ 11,289 $ 11,628 $ 11,976 $ 12,336
$ 3,310 $ 3,409 $ 3,512 $ 3,617 $ 3,725 $ 3,837 $ 3,952 $ 4,071 $ 4,193 $ 4,319 $ 4,448 $ 4,582 $ 4,719 $ 4,861 $ 5,007 $ 5,157 $ 5,312 $ 5,471 $ 5,635 $ 5,804 $ 5,978
