The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 2015-07-01 Garfield Co Road Impact Fees FINALDRAFT Development Impact Fee Study Garfield County, Colorado Road Impact Fee Update Prepared for: Garfield County, Colorado July 1, 2015 Prepared by: 4701 Sangamore Road Suite S240 Bethesda, Maryland 20816 800.424.4318 www.tischlerbise.com 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 1 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1: Proposed Service Area and Benefit Districts ......................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Proposed Road Impact Fees by Development Type .............................................................. 4 GENERAL LEGAL AND METHODS FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 5 GENERAL METHODOLOGIES ........................................................................................................................... 6 Cost Recovery Method (Past Improvements) ....................................................................................... 6 Incremental Expansion Method (Concurrent Improvements) .............................................................. 6 Plan-‐Based Method (Future Improvements) ........................................................................................ 7 Evaluation of Possible Credits .............................................................................................................. 7 IMPACT FEES FOR ROADS ..................................................................................................................... 8 TRIP GENERATION RATES ............................................................................................................................... 8 ADJUSTMENTS FOR COMMUTING PATTERNS AND PASS-‐BY TRIPS ......................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Inflow/Outflow Analysis ....................................................................................................... 9 VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL ............................................................................................................................. 9 LANE CAPACITY ............................................................................................................................................ 9 TRIP LENGTH WEIGHTING FACTOR BY TYPE OF LAND USE ................................................................................. 10 DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES AND PROJECTED TRAVEL DEMAND ........................................................................ 10 Figure 4: Projected Travel Demand and Trip Length Calibration ...................................................... 11 NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR GROWTH-‐RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................ 11 PROPOSED IMPACT FEES FOR ROADS ............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 5: Proposed Road Impact Fee Schedule ................................................................................. 13 IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND FUNDING STRATEGY .............................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Summary of Capital Costs and Projected Road Impact Revenue ....................................... 14 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................ 15 CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 15 ONE SERVICE AREA AND THREE BENEFIT DISTRICTS .......................................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Road Impact Fee Service Area and Benefit Districts .......................................................... 16 EXPENDITURE GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................................... 16 DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES ......................................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ................................................................................................... 18 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS ............................................................................................................. 18 Figure A1: Development Projections and Growth Rates ................................................................... 19 RECENT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................ 20 Figure A2: Housing Units by Decade ................................................................................................. 20 NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 21 Figure A3: Employee and Building Area Ratios ................................................................................. 21 JOBS BY TYPE OF NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 22 Figure A4: Jobs and Floor Area Estimate .......................................................................................... 22 DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS ......................................................................................................... 22 Figure A5: Cumulative Demographics and Annual Increases ............................................................ 23 CUSTOMIZED TRIP GENERATION RATES PER HOUSING UNIT .............................................................................. 24 Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size .................................................................................................. 24 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 2 Figure A6: Vehicle Trips and Persons by Bedroom Range ................................................................. 24 TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA ................................................................................................................ 24 Figure A7: Vehicle Trips by Dwelling Size .......................................................................................... 25 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The County’s Road Impact Fees need to be updated as the previous nexus study completed in 1997 will soon be outdated. Road impact fees are traditionally collected from new construction at the time a building permit is issued and used for system improvements needed to accommodate new development. A road impact fee represents new growth’s proportionate share of capital facility needs. Road impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they should be one component of a comprehensive funding strategy to ensure provision of adequate public facilities. Road impact fees may only be used for capital improvements or debt service for growth-‐related infrastructure. Road impact fees may not be used for operations, maintenance, replacement of infrastructure, or correcting existing deficiencies. TischlerBise was contracted by the County in December 2014 to update the road impact fee study for Garfield County. In reviewing the existing Road impact fee study and fee schedule, TischlerBise recommends several changes to address problems with the current fees. § First, the current fees are calculated and tracked by 17 small geographic areas that essentially function like special assessments, rather than impact fees for system improvements. TischlerBise recommends creating one Service Area and three Benefit Districts to track revenues and expenditures (see Figure 1). This will provide ease of implementation and ensure fairness in spending fee revenues in areas where development creates impacts to the surrounding road network. § Second, the updated fee study provides a consistent fee schedule for the entire Service Area that will only be collected when building permits are issued. The current approach requires a lump sum payment when a residential subdivision is approved and the remainder when individual building permits are issued. This change will better align the timing of impacts to the road system by development as well as provide some relief to the upfront cost of development. § Third, the proposed road impact fees improve proportionality due to residential fees by dwelling size and nonresidential fees by four general types of development. Major reasons for continuing road impact fees are summarized in the following bullet points: § Infrastructure capacity is essential to accommodate new development. § Adequate public facilities influence quality of place, which is essential to attract and retain residents. § Impact fees minimize externalities, like traffic congestion, associated with “no-‐growth” sentiment. § Compared to negotiated agreements for infrastructure improvements during the development approval process, impact fees offer a streamlined approval process with known costs (i.e. predictability). § Oil & Gas tax base is highly variable and currently declining, while the rate of development is picking up. § Impact fees ensure existing taxpayers are not covering the growth cost of development. To cover this range of growth costs, the Road and Bridge mill levy would need to be increased between 1% and 3% each year, for ten years. This would divert approximately $395,400 to $1,300,000 each year, from other county services. 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 4 The proposed Road Impact Fees will be collected at a uniform rate for development within the designated Service area. The Service Area is based upon lands within six miles of an incorporated municipality or within one mile of a primary snow plow route, as these areas are the most likely to experience growth. Fees collected should be spent within the corresponding benefit district from which they are collected, including the North, South or East Benefit Districts. Figure 1: Proposed Service Area and Benefit Districts Current road impact fees are only imposed on detached residential units, with no variation by size, but the current fees do vary significantly by geographic area. Additionally, current road impact fees are not imposed on non-‐residential development. Based on the Incremental Expansion methodology, TischlerBise recommends the following Road Impact Fee Schedule: Figure 2: Proposed Road Impact Fees by Development Type DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 1DISTRICT 2 Carbondale Parachute Silt GlenwoodSpringsRifle NewCastle Service Area No fees from parcels outside the Road Impact Fee Service Area East Benefit District North Benefit District South Benefit District Document Path: L:\Mapfiles\Community Development\Tamra\Service Areas Benefit Districts\Service Areas Benefit Districts 1185.mxd Revision 6 Date: 5/11/2015 ³ Development*Type Residential*(per*dwelling)*by*Sq*Ft*of*Finished*Living*Space 900#or#less 901#to#1400 1401#to#1900 1901#to#2400 2401#or#more Nonresidential*(per*1,000*Square*Feet*of*Floor*Area) Industrial Commercial Institutional Office#and#Other#Services Proposed*Fees Residential*(per*dwelling)*by*Sq*Ft*of*Finished*Living*Space $726% $1,474% $1,988% $2,385% $2,703% Nonresidential*(per*1,000*Square*Feet*of*Floor*Area) $564% $3,766% $1,505% $1,630% 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 5 GENERAL LEGAL AND METHODS FRAMEWORK This study demonstrates the County’s compliance with the Colorado Revised Statute 29-‐20-‐104.5. The proposed fees will be legislatively adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of property. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of development impact fees as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and development impact fees are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of development impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings) provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees. There is little federal case law specifically dealing with development impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between the exaction and the interest being protected (see Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be “roughly proportional” to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for monetary exactions such as development impact fees. There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely related to “rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, we prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: “need,” “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Development impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-‐related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to development impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific capital facilities, based on applicable level-‐of-‐service standards. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development-‐related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate development impact fees for various types of facilities and 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 6 categories of development. The demand for capital facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g. a typical housing unit’s average weekday vehicle trips). A benefit relationship requires that development impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Development impact fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the development impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement development impact fees is separate from, and complementary to, the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review. As documented in this report, Garfield County has complied with applicable legal precedents. Development impact fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development. Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from County staff, TischlerBise determined demand indicators for road capacity and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the development impact fees. Development impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth-‐related capital costs. General Methodologies There are three general methods for calculating development impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the timing of infrastructure construction (past, concurrent, or future) and service characteristics of the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and can be used simultaneously for different cost components. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development impact fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-‐related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of development impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating development impact fees and how those methods can be applied. Cost Recovery Method (Past Improvements) Although not used in Garfield County, the rationale for recoupment, or cost recovery, is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built, or land already purchased, from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate capacity before new development can take place. Incremental Expansion Method (Concurrent Improvements) Garfield County impact fees use the incremental expansion method to document current level-‐of-‐ service (LOS) standards for roads, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. This approach assumes there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 7 development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-‐related infrastructure. Revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments to keep pace with development. Plan-‐Based Method (Future Improvements) Although not used in Garfield County, the plan-‐based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified in a long-‐ range facility plan and development potential is identified by a land use plan. There are two basic options for determining the cost per demand unit: 1) total cost of a public facility can be divided by total demand units (average cost), or 2) the growth-‐share of the public facility cost can be divided by the net increase in demand units over the planning timeframe (marginal cost). Evaluation of Possible Credits Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of “credits” is integral to the development of a legally defensible development impact fee methodology. There are two types of “credits” with specific characteristics, both of which should be addressed in development impact fee studies and ordinances. The first is a revenue credit due to possible double payment situations, which could occur when other revenues may contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure covered by the development impact fee. This type of credit is integrated into the development impact fee calculation, thus reducing the fee amount. The second is a site-‐specific credit or developer reimbursement for dedication of land or construction of system improvements. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of the development impact fee program. 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 8 IMPACT FEES FOR ROADS Based upon policy guidance from County Commissioners, impact fees for roads are derived using the incremental expansion approach. As shown in the formula below, the road fee is the product of Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per development unit multiplied by the capital cost per VMT for road capacity. Road Fee = VMT (vehicle miles of travel) x Capital Cost per VMT (for road capacity) VMT is the product of trip generation rate, multiplied by trip rate adjustment factor, average trip length (in miles) and trip-‐length weighting factor. The capital cost per VMT is based on the projected ten-‐year need for growth-‐related improvements divided by the increase in projected VMT over ten years. Each component is described below. Current infrastructure standards and projected development in the Service Area determined the general need for growth-‐related improvements. Garfield County will periodically identify specific growth-‐related capital improvements during the regular, annual budget process. As discussed further in the Implementation and Administration Section, Garfield County will follow expenditure guidelines to ensure benefit to fee payers. Trip Generation Rates Road impact fees in Garfield County are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends. Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 9th Edition 2012). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate road impact fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%. As discussed further below, the impact fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-‐By Trips Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 57% to account for commuters leaving Garfield County for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (see Table 30) weekday work trips are typically 31% of production trips (i.e., all out-‐bound trips, which are 50% of all trip ends). As shown in Figure 3, the Census Bureau’s web application OnTheMap indicates that 46% of resident workers traveled outside the county for work in 2011. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.46 = 0.07) support the additional 7% allocation of trips to residential development. 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 9 Figure 3: Inflow/Outflow Analysis For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34% of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66% of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 33% of the trip ends. Vehicle Miles of Travel A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length1. The average trip length in Garfield County is calibrated using existing lane miles of primary Snowplow routes and a lane capacity standard (discussed below). Garfield County currently has 157.75 centerline miles of miles of primary Snowplow routes, which is equal to 315.5 lane miles (assuming each route is two travel lanes). Lane Capacity Road impact fees are based on a lane capacity standard of 4,200 vehicles per lane, obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation, Quality/LOS Handbook (2012). This standard is for uninterrupted 1 Typical VMT calculations for development-‐specific traffic studies, along with most transportation models of an entire urban area, are derived from traffic counts on particular road segments multiplied by the length of that road segment. For the purpose of impact fees, VMT calculations are based on attraction (inbound) trips to development located in the service area, with the trip length calibrated to the road network considered to be system improvements. This refinement eliminates pass-‐through or external-‐ external trips, and travel on roads that are not system improvements (e.g. interstate highways). 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 10 flow in rural areas, assuming a two-‐lane undivided road, operating at LOS “C”, with an average of 8,400 daily trips. In comparison, the highest recent count on a Garfield County road is 6,840 average daily trips on North Battlement Parkway. The lane capacity standard was reviewed by Garfield County staff and found to be reasonable for primary and secondary Snowplow routes within the road impact fee Service Area. Trip Length Weighting Factor by Type of Land Use The road impact fee methodology includes a percentage adjustment, or weighting factor, to account for trip length variation by type of land use. As documented in Table 6 of the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, vehicle trips from residential development are approximately 121% of the average trip length. The residential trip length adjustment factor includes data on home-‐based work trips, social, and recreational purposes. Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial development are roughly 66% of the average trip length while other nonresidential development typically accounts for trips that are 73% of the average for all trips. The specific weighting factors for each development prototype are shown at the top of Figure 4. Development Prototypes and Projected Travel Demand The relationship between development in Garfield County’s road impact fee service area and the need for system improvements is documented below. Figure 4 summarizes the input variables used to determine the average trip length on primary Snowplow routes. In the table below HU means housing units, KSF means square feet of nonresidential development, in thousands, Institute of Transportation Engineers is abbreviated ITE, and VTE means vehicle trip ends. Trip generation rates by bedroom range are documented in Figure A6 and related text. Projected development in the service area over the next ten years is shown in the middle section of Figure 3. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert projected development into average weekday vehicle trips. A typical vehicle trip, such as a person leaving their home and traveling to work, generally begins on a local street that connects to a collector street, which connects to an arterial road and eventually to a state or interstate highway. This progression of travel up and down the functional classification chain limits the average trip length determination, for the purpose of impact fees, to the following question, “What is the average vehicle trip length on impact fee system improvements (i.e. primary Snowplow routes in the service area)?” According to County staff, there are 315.5 lane miles of primary Snowplow routes within the service area. Also, County staff counted 4 improved intersections (signalized, roundabouts, or turn lanes), including a state road with a primary Snowplow route, or the intersection of two primary Snowplow routes. With 315.5 lane miles and a lane capacity standard of 4,200 vehicles per lane, the existing network has approximately 1.3 million vehicle miles of capacity (i.e., 4,200 vehicles per lane traveling the entire 315.5 lane miles). To derive the average utilization (i.e., average trip length expressed in miles) of the system improvements, divide vehicle miles of capacity by the vehicle trips attracted to development in the service area. As shown in the bottom-‐left corner of the table below, existing development attracts 55,979 average weekday vehicle trips. Dividing 1,325,100 vehicle miles of capacity by inbound average weekday vehicle trips yields an un-‐weighted average trip length of approximately 23.7 miles. However, the calibration of average trip length includes the same adjustment factors used in the impact fee calculations (i.e., journey-‐to-‐work commuting, commercial pass-‐by adjustment and average trip length adjustment by type of land use). With these adjustments, TischlerBise determined the weighted-‐average trip length to be 21.26 miles. 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 11 Figure 4: Projected Travel Demand and Trip Length Calibration Needs Analysis for Growth-‐Related Improvements Existing infrastructure standards in Garfield County are 2.38 lane-‐miles of primary Snowplow routes per 10,000 VMT. The formula is 315.5 lane miles divided by (1,325,011 VMT divided by 10,000). With four improved intersections, the existing infrastructure standard is 0.03 improved intersections per 10,000 VMT. To maintain the existing infrastructure standards, Garfield County needs an additional 88.5 lane miles of system improvements and one improved intersections to accommodate projected development over the next ten years. The total cost of system improvements is estimated to be approximately $7,079,000 in current dollars (i.e. not inflated over time), assuming a cost factor of $80,000 per lane mile. The latter assumes conversion of a chip seal road to a two-‐inch asphalt road, with milling to prepare the surface, as provided by County staff. ITE Dev Weekday Dev Trip Trip/Length Code Type VTE Unit Adj Wt/Factor R1 0$1%Bedroom 3.20 DU 57%1.21 R2 2%Bedrooms 6.40 DU 57%1.21 R3 3%Bedrooms 9.30 DU 57%1.21 R4 4+%Bedrooms 9.60 DU 57%1.21 NR1 140 Industrial 3.82 KSF 50%0.73 NR2 820 Commercial 42.70 KSF 33%0.66 NR3 520 Institutional 15.43 KSF 33%0.73 NR4 710 Office%&%Other%Services11.03 KSF 50%0.73 Avg%Trip%Length%(miles)21.26 <=%Avg%commuting%distance%from%p.3%RFTA%2014%Update%is%16%miles Vehicle%Capacity%Per%Lane 4,200 Year$>Base 1 2 3 4 5 Unincorporated,Garfield,Co.2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0$1%Bedroom%(8%%of%units)832 853 874 896 917 939 2%Bedrooms%(26%%of%units)2,537 2,603 2,668 2,734 2,799 2,864 3%Bedrooms%(42%%of%units)4,115 4,222 4,328 4,434 4,539 4,645 4+%Bedrooms%(24%%of%units)2,303 2,362 2,422 2,481 2,540 2,600 Industrial%KSF 2,049 2,077 2,104 2,132 2,160 2,187 Commercial%KSF 234 237 241 244 247 250 Institutional%KSF 168 170 173 175 177 179 Office%&%Other%Services%KSF 494 500 507 514 520 527 0I1/Bedroom/Trips 1,518 1,556 1,594 1,634 1,673 1,713 2/Bedroom/Trips 9,255 9,496 9,733 9,974 10,211 10,448 3/Bedroom/Trips 21,814 22,381 22,943 23,505 24,061 24,623 4+/Bedroom/Trips 12,602 12,925 13,253 13,576 13,899 14,227 Industrial/Trips 3,914 3,967 4,019 4,072 4,126 4,177 Commercial/Trips 3,297 3,340 3,396 3,438 3,480 3,523 Institutional/Trips 855 866 881 891 901 911 Office/&/Other/Services/Trips 2,724 2,758 2,796 2,835 2,868 2,906 Total/Vehicle/Trips 55,979 57,287 58,615 59,925 61,219 62,529 Vehicle/Miles/of/Travel/(VMT)1,325,011 1,357,181 1,389,594 1,421,760 1,453,564 1,485,747 LANE%MILES 315.5 323.1 330.9 338.5 346.1 353.8 Improved%Intersections 4 4 4 4 4 4 Ten$Year%VMT%Increase%=> 10 10IYear 2025 Increase 1,082 250 3,300 763 5,353 1,238 2,995 692 2,327 278 266 32 191 23 561 67 1,974 12,038 28,376 16,389 4,445 3,748 973 3,094 71,036 1,696,694 371,683 404.0 88.5 5 1 Ten$Year%VMT%Increase%=>21.9% 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 12 Proposed Impact Fees for Roads Input variables for Garfield County road impact fees are shown in the upper section of Figure 5. Inbound vehicle trips by type of development are multiplied by the capacity cost per vehicle mile of travel to yield the impact fees. Given the County’s intent to spend $7,079,000 on road improvements, and the projected increase of 371,683 vehicle miles of travel over the next ten years, the capital cost is $19.05 per VMT. An example of the road impact fee calculation is shown below using input variables for commercial development, as listed in Figure 5. 42.70 weekday vehicle trip ends per 1000 square feet x 0.33 adjustment factor for inbound trips, including pass-‐by x 21.26 average miles per trip x 0.66 trip length adjustment factor for commercial development x $19.05 growth cost per VMT = $3,766 per 1000 square feet (truncated) The text below from Trip Generation (ITE 2012) supports the consultant’s recommendation to use ITE 820 Shopping Center as a reasonable proxy for all commercial development. The shopping center trip generation rates are based on 302 studies with an r-‐squared value of 0.79. The latter is a goodness-‐of-‐ fit indicator with values ranging from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate the independent variable (floor area) provides a better prediction of the dependent variable (average weekday vehicle trip ends). If the r-‐ squared value is less than 0.50, ITE does not publish the value because factors other than floor area provide a better prediction of trip rates. “A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments. Shopping centers, including neighborhood, community, regional, and super regional centers, were surveyed for this land use. Some of these centers contained non-‐merchandising facilities, such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, and health clubs. Many shopping centers, in addition to the integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around a mall, include out parcels (peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets and major access points). These buildings are typically drive-‐in banks, retail stores, restaurants, or small offices. Although the data herein do not indicate which of the centers studied include peripheral buildings, it can be assumed that some of the data show their effect.” 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 13 The column on the right side of the table below indicates current fees, which do not directly compare to the proposed fees. Current fees are only imposed on detached residential units, with no variation by size, but the current fees do vary significant by geographic area. The lowest current fees is $410 per dwelling, which is less than the proposed fee of $726 for the smallest size threshold of 900 square feet or less (i.e. finished floor area, excluding garages and unheated space). The current weighted average fee is $2,126 per dwelling, which is comparable to the proposed fee for an average size dwelling in the range of 1901 to 2400 square feet. At the upper end, the proposed fee of $2,703 (for a dwelling with 2401 or more square feet) is significantly less than the current maximum fee of $5,016. Figure 5: Proposed Road Impact Fee Schedule Input&Variables Average'Miles'per'Trip Cost'per'Lane'Mile'=> Ten5Year'Growth'Cost'Funded'by'Fees VMT'Increase'Over'Ten'Years Capital'Cost'per'VMT Development*Type Avg*Wkdy*Veh* Trip*Ends* Trip*Rate* Adjustment Trip*Length* Adjustment Residential&(per&dwelling)&by&Sq&Ft&of&Finished&Living&Space 900'or'less 2.60 57%121% 901'to'1400 5.28 57%121% 1401'to'1900 7.12 57%121% 1901'to'2400 8.54 57%121% 2401'or'more 9.68 57%121% Nonresidential&(per&1,000&Square&Feet&of&Floor&Area) Industrial 3.82 50%73% Commercial 42.70 33%66% Institutional 15.43 33%73% Office'and'Other'Services 11.03 50%73% 21.26 $80,000 $7,079,000 371,683 $19.05 Proposed&Fees $726% $1,474% $1,988% $2,385% $2,703% $564% $3,766% $1,505% $1,630% Current*Fees $410%minimum $2,126%weighted%average $5,016%maximum $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 14 Improvements Plan and Funding Strategy Figure 6 compares the ten-‐year need for growth-‐related road improvements to projected impact fee revenue. The County expects to provide approximately $7 million in growth-‐related improvements within the road impact fee service area in order to maintain current levels of service. As shown in the lower portion of the table, projected impact fee revenue will cover the growth-‐related cost of improvements. The revenue projection shown below is based on the demographic data described in Appendix A and the proposed fee amount for an average-‐size residential unit. Residential development in the service area is expected to yield approximately 94% of total road impact fee revenue. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the impact fee revenue and capital costs. Figure 6: Summary of Capital Costs and Projected Road Impact Revenue Ten$Year(Cost(of(Road(Improvements Growth'Share'=>$7,079,000 Road(Impact(Fee(Revenue Average'Size+ Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office+&+Other+ Services $2,262 $564 $3,766 $1,505 $1,630 Year per'housing'unit per'1000'Sq'Ft per'1000'Sq'Ft per'1000'Sq'Ft per'1000'Sq'Ft Hsg+Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2015 9,787 2,049 234 168 494 Year'1 2016 10,040 2,077 237 170 500 Year'2 2017 10,292 2,104 241 173 507 Year'3 2018 10,544 2,132 244 175 514 Year'4 2019 10,796 2,160 247 177 520 Year'5 2020 11,048 2,187 250 179 527 Year'6 2021 11,385 2,215 253 182 534 Year'7 2022 11,721 2,243 257 184 541 Year'8 2023 12,058 2,271 260 186 547 Year'9 2024 12,394 2,299 263 189 554 Year'10 2025 12,730 2,327 266 191 561 Ten'Yr+Increase 2,943 278 32 23 67 Projected'Revenue'=>$6,657,000 $157,000 $121,000 $35,000 $109,000 Total'Projected'Revenues'(rounded)'=>$7,079,000 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 15 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Development impact fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-‐Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the County should redo the fee calculations. Colorado’s enabling legislation allows local governments to “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.” Credits and Reimbursements A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-‐time impact fees plus on-‐going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-‐related capital improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis and local government policies. In Garfield County, Road & Bridge Fund revenue will be used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies, and for capital projects that are not impact fee system improvements. As shown in Figure 5, cumulative impact fee revenue over the next ten years matches the cost of growth-‐related system improvements. There is no potential double payment from other revenues because road impact fees will exclusively fund the growth share of system improvements. Specific policies and procedures related to site-‐specific credits should be addressed in the resolution that establishes the impact fees. Project-‐level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees due from that particular development. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience, TischlerBise typically recommends reimbursement agreements with the developers that construct system improvements. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the County should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The County should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the County pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the County to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the applicable Benefit District. One Service Area and Three Benefit Districts The proposed Service Area for road impact fees, along with three recommended Benefit Districts, is shown in Figure 7. The Service Area is defined as unincorporated land within six miles of an incorporated Town, plus the “bulb-‐outs” shown in the Service Area map, that are within one mile of a primary Snowplow route, as defined by Garfield County. The three Benefit District will be used to track impact fee revenues and expenditures. Road impact fee expenditures are limited to the Benefit District that generated the fee revenue. 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 16 Figure 7: Road Impact Fee Service Area and Benefit Districts Expenditure Guidelines To ensure benefit to fee payers, TischlerBise recommends limiting expenditures to the Benefit District where the fees were collected. Also, to help distinguish system improvements (funded by impact fees) from project-‐level improvements, such as paving a dirt road adjacent a residential subdivision on the periphery of the Service Area, TischlerBise recommends limiting fee expenditures to primary or secondary Snowplow routes (current or future) within three miles of an incorporated Town, or Interstate 70, or State Highway 82. Road improvements near these major trip attractors will help ensure benefit to all fee payers. Acceptable system improvements that are eligible for impact fee funding include: 1. Changing a road from gravel to chip seal or asphalt pavement 2. A carrying-‐capacity enhancement to existing chip seal or asphalt roads, such as widening and/or reconstructing to add greater road depth 3. Adding turn lanes, traffic signals, or roundabouts at the intersection of a State Highway with a County Snowplow route, or two County Snowplow routes. Development Categories Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of finished living space, excluding unfinished basement, attic, and garage floor area. Appendix A provides further documentation of demographic data by size threshold. The four general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all new construction within the Service Area. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density (i.e. jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area), as documented in Appendix A. DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 1DISTRICT 2 Carbondale Parachute Silt Glenwood SpringsRifle New Castle Service Area No fees from parcels outside the Road Impact Fee Service Area East Benefit DistrictNorth Benefit District South Benefit District Document Path: L:\Mapfiles\Community Development\Tamra\Service Areas Benefit Districts\Service Areas Benefit Districts 1185.mxd Revision 6 Date: 5/11/2015 ³ 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 17 • “Industrial” includes the processing or production of goods, along with warehousing, transportation, communications, and utilities. • “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places, along with entertainment uses often located in a shopping center (e.g. movie theater). • “Institutional” include public and quasi-‐public buildings providing educational, social assistance, or religious services. By way of example, Institutional includes schools, universities, churches, daycare facilities, and government buildings. • “Office & Other Services” includes offices, health care and personal services, business services (e.g. banks), and lodging. An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular and unique development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in this road impact fee update. For residential development, the fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing unit. For nonresidential development, the fees are based on average weekday vehicle trips ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by County staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Garfield County elected officials for their consideration. 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 18 APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Supporting documentation on population, housing units, jobs, and nonresidential floor area is essential in order to update development impact fees for the Garfield County. Although long-‐range projections are necessary for planning capital improvements, a shorter time frame of five to ten years is critical for the impact fees analysis. Infrastructure standards are calibrated using the latest available data and the first projection year is fiscal year 2016. In the Garfield County the fiscal year begins on January 1st. Summary of Growth Indicators Development projections and growth rates are summarized in Figure A1. These projections are used to estimate impact fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-‐related infrastructure. However, impact fees methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to accurate development projections in the determination of the proportionate-‐share fee amounts. If actual development is slower than projected, impact fees revenues will also decline, but so will the need for growth-‐related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the County will receive an increase in impact fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate the capital improvements program to keep pace with the actual rate of development. Garfield County data for the demographic analysis and development projections include 2010 census counts of population and housing units, American Community Survey tables and Public Use Micro-‐data Samples (PUMS). Colorado State Demography Office population projections (published November 2014) were converted to housing units by holding constant the 2010 ratio of 2.42 year-‐round residents per housing unit, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Job projections from Woods & Poole Economics were converted to nonresidential floor area using average floor area multipliers, as discussed further below (see Figures A3-‐A4 and related text). Given a recommended five-‐year update cycle for impact fees, TischlerBise did not vary these multipliers over time. During the next five years, the impact fee study expects an average increase of 252 housing units per year in the unincorporated area. Unincorporated Garfield County anticipates an average increase of 40,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area per year from 2015 to 2020. For residential development in the unincorporated area, the impact fee study assumes a compound annual growth rate 2.45%. Nonresidential development in the unincorporated area is projected to increase by a compound average annual growth rate of 1.31%. 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 19 Figure A1: Development Projections and Growth Rates Garfield)County,)CO Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 Increase Compound7 Growth7Rate Countywide)Residential)Units 24,372 25,000 25,628 26,256 26,884 27,512 31,699 628 2.45% Countywide)Nonres)Sq)Ft)x)1000 12,079 12,243 12,407 12,571 12,735 12,899 13,719 164 1.32% Unincorporated)Residential)Units 9,787 10,040 10,292 10,544 10,796 11,048 12,730 252 2.45% Unincorporated)Nonres)Sq)Ft)x)1000 2,945 2,984 3,025 3,065 3,104 3,143 3,345 40 1.31% 2015)to)2020 Average)Annual 0) 5,000) 10,000) 15,000) 20,000) 25,000) 30,000) 35,000) 2014)2016)2018)2020)2022)2024)2026) Gar$ield)County)Development)Projections) Countywide)ResidenLal)Units) Countywide)Nonres)Sq)Ft)x)1000) Unincorporated)ResidenLal)Units) Unincorporated)Nonres)Sq)Ft)x) 1000) 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 20 Recent Residential Construction Since 2000, Garfield County has increased by an average of 597 housing units per year. The chart at the bottom of Figure A2 indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade in Garfield County. Consistent with the nationwide decline in development activity, residential construction has slowed significantly since 2008. Even with the recent drop in housing starts, Garfield County added more units during the past decade than any previous decade. Based on the projection of 66,558 residents by 2020, Garfield County will see an average increase of 420 units per year from 2010 to 2020. Figure A2: Housing Units by Decade Garfield)County,)Colorado Census)2010)Population*56,389 Census)2010)Housing)Units*23,309 Total)Housing)Units)in)2000 17,336 New$Housing$Units$2000$to$2010 5,973 *$$U.S.$Census$Bureau$SF1. Source$for$1990s$and$earlier$is$DP04,$American$Community$Survey,$2009F2013. adjusted$to$yield$total$units$in$2000.$$Projected$units$from$2010$to$2020 is$based$on$population$forecast$by$Colorado$State$Demography$Office$(November$2014). From)2000)to)2010,)Garfield) County)added)an)average)of) 597)housing)units)per)year.)) The)projected)increase)from) 2010)to)2020)is)420)units)per) year.) 0) 1,000) 2,000) 3,000) 4,000) 5,000) 6,000) 7,000) before1970)1970s)1980s)1990s)2000L2010)2010L2020) Housing(Units(Added(by(Decade(in(Garfield(County,(CO( 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 21 Nonresidential Development In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development. TischlerBise uses the term “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. Jobs were converted to nonresidential floor area using average square feet per employee multipliers, as documented in Figure A4. In Figure A3, gray shading indicates four nonresidential development prototypes used by TischlerBise to derive vehicle miles of travel. The prototype development for Industrial jobs is “Manufacturing”. Average weekday vehicle trip generation rates are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2012). The prototype for Commercial development is an average-‐size shopping center. All businesses that sell merchandise, including eating/drinking places, are considered commercial development. The prototype for Institutional development is an elementary school. Institutional development includes all public and quasi-‐public buildings, like schools, churches and daycare facilities. For all Office & Other Services, the development prototype is an average-‐size general office building. Office & Other Services includes all business and personal services, like banks, medical offices, health care facilities and lodging. Figure A3: Employee and Building Area Ratios ITE Land(Use(/(Size Demand Wkdy(Trip(Ends Wkdy(Trip(Ends Emp(Per Sq(Ft Code Unit Per(Dmd(Unit*Per(Employee*Dmd(Unit Per(Emp 110 Light(Industrial 1,000(Sq(Ft 6.97 3.02 2.31 433 130 Industrial(Park 1,000(Sq(Ft 6.83 3.34 2.04 489 140 Manufacturing 1,000/Sq/Ft 3.82 2.13 1.79 558 150 Warehousing 1,000(Sq(Ft 3.56 3.89 0.92 1,093 254 Assisted(Living bed 2.66 3.93 0.68 na 320 Motel room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na 520 Elementary/School 1,000/Sq/Ft 15.43 15.71 0.98 1,018 530 High(School 1,000(Sq(Ft 12.89 19.74 0.65 1,531 540 Community(College student 1.23 15.55 0.08 na 550 University/College student 1.71 8.96 0.19 na 565 Day(Care student 4.38 26.73 0.16 na 610 Hospital 1,000(Sq(Ft 13.22 4.50 2.94 340 620 Nursing(Home 1,000(Sq(Ft 7.60 3.26 2.33 429 710 General/Office/(avg/size)1,000/Sq/Ft 11.03 3.32 3.32 301 760 Research(&(Dev(Center 1,000(Sq(Ft 8.11 2.77 2.93 342 770 Business(Park 1,000(Sq(Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping/Center/(avg/size)1,000/Sq/Ft 42.70 na 2.00 500 *((Trip(Generation,(Institute(of(Transportation(Engineers,(9th(Edition((2012). 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 22 Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development Figure A4 indicates 2011 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area located in Garfield County. Floor area estimates are from the Tax Assessor’s parcel database, aggregated into the four nonresidential categories discussed above. Jobs in 2011 are based on two-‐digit industry sectors (NAICS), as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau’s On-‐The-‐Map web application. Figure A4: Jobs and Floor Area Estimate Detailed Development Projections Demographic data shown in Figure A5 provide key inputs for updating road impact fees in the Garfield County. Cumulative data are shown at the top and projected annual increases by type of development are shown at the bottom of the table. Given the expectation that impact fees are updated every three to five years, TischlerBise did not evaluate long-‐term demographic trends such as declining household size. As discussed in the next section, TischlerBise recommends the use of vehicle trip ends per housing unit to derive impact fees. Therefore, vacancy rates and number of households are not relevant to the demographic analysis. 2011 Square*Feet Estimated Jobs*per Jobs*(1)per*Job Floor*Area*(2)1000*Sq*Ft Industrial+(3)5,887 28%642 3,781,711 1.56 Commercial+(4)4,597 22%573 2,632,967 1.75 Institutional+(5)4,127 19%607 2,503,686 1.65 Office+&+Other+(6)6,688 31%375 2,511,324 2.66 TOTAL 21,299 100%537 11,429,688 1.86 (1)**Jobs*in*2011*from*Work*Area*Profile,*OnTheMap,*U.S.*Census*Bureau*web* applicaKon.* (2)**Source:**Garfield*County*Tax*Assessor*data.* (3)**Major*sectors*are*ConstrucKon*and*Mining/Oil/Gas*ExtracKon.* (4)**Major*sectors*are*Retail*and*AccommodaKon/Food*Services.* (5)**Major*sectors*are*EducaKonal*Services*and*Public*AdministraKon.* (6)**Major*sectors*are*Health*Care*and*Professional/ScienKfic/Technical*Services.* 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 23 Figure A5: Cumulative Demographics and Annual Increases Garfield)County,)Colorado Population Total)Population Incorporated)Places Unincorporated)Area %)Unincorporated)=> Housing-Units Countywide Persons)per)Housing)Unit Incorporated)Places Unincorporated)Area -Jobs-in-Garfield-County Industrial Commercial Institutional Office)&)Other)Services Total Jobs)to)Housing)Ratio Woods)&)Poole)Economics)=> 2011 July%1st%=> 56,094 33,537 22,557 40.2% 23,251 2.42 13,901 9,350 5,887 4,597 4,127 6,688 21,299 0.92 35,767 FY)begins)January)1st 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Base-Yr 1 2 3 4 5 58,961 60,480 61,999 63,518 65,037 66,558 35,283 36,192 37,101 38,010 38,919 39,829 23,678 24,288 24,898 25,508 26,118 26,729 40.2%40.2%40.2%40.2%40.2%40.2% 24,372 25,000 25,628 26,256 26,884 27,512 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 14,585 14,960 15,336 15,712 16,088 16,464 9,787 10,040 10,292 10,544 10,796 11,048 6,220 6,305 6,389 6,473 6,557 6,641 4,857 4,923 4,989 5,055 5,120 5,186 4,361 4,420 4,479 4,538 4,597 4,656 7,067 7,162 7,258 7,354 7,449 7,545 22,505 22,810 23,115 23,420 23,724 24,028 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.87 37,792 38,304 38,816 39,328 39,840 40,350 2025 10 76,687 45,891 30,796 40.2% 31,699 2.42 18,969 12,730 7,064 5,516 4,952 8,025 25,557 0.81 42,917 2030 15 87,300 52,242 35,058 40.2% 36,086 2.42 21,594 14,492 7,486 5,845 5,248 8,504 27,083 0.75 45,480 -Jobs-in-Unincorporated-Area Industrial Commercial Institutional Office)&)Other)Services Total Unincorporated)JobsWHsg)Ratio 3,020 387 262 1,246 4,915 0.53 3,191 3,234 3,277 3,320 3,364 3,407 409 414 420 426 431 437 277 281 284 288 292 296 1,316 1,334 1,352 1,370 1,388 1,406 5,193 5,264 5,334 5,404 5,475 5,545 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 3,624 464 314 1,495 5,898 0.46 3,840 492 333 1,584 6,250 0.43 Unincorporated-Nonresidential-Floor-Area-(square-feet-in-thousands-=-KSF) Industrial)KSF Commercial)KSF Institutional)KSF Office)&)Other)Services)KSF Total Annual-Increases-in-Unincorporated-Area Housing)Units Industrial)KSF Commercial)KSF Institutional)KSF Office)&)Other)Services)KSF Total)Nonres)KSF)=> Unincorporated-Nonresidential-Floor-Area-(square-feet-in-thousands-=-KSF) 1,939 222 159 467 2,787 Annual-Increases-in-Unincorporated-Area Population Housing)Units Jobs Industrial)KSF Commercial)KSF Institutional)KSF Office)&)Other)Services)KSF Total)Nonres)KSF)=> Unincorporated-Nonresidential-Floor-Area-(square-feet-in-thousands-=-KSF) 2,049 2,077 2,104 2,132 2,160 2,187 234 237 241 244 247 250 168 170 173 175 177 179 494 500 507 514 520 527 2,945 2,984 3,025 3,065 3,104 3,143 7/15W7/16 7/16W7/17 7/17W7/18 7/18W7/19 7/19W7/20 7/20W7/21 610 610 610 610 611 814 253 252 252 252 252 337 71 70 70 71 70 70 28 27 28 28 27 28 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 6 7 7 6 7 7 39 41 40 39 39 41 2,327 266 191 561 3,345 2015P2025 Avg-Annual 712 294 71 28 3 2 7 40 2,465 282 202 594 3,543 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 24 Customized Trip Generation Rates per Housing Unit As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units and persons) are available from American Community Survey (ACS) data for the area that includes Garfield County. Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Micro-‐data Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS files are only available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, Garfield County is included in Public Use Micro-‐data Area (PUMA) 00200, which includes four counties (Garfield, Rio Blanco, Moffat, and Routt). The recommended multipliers shown in Figure A6 are for all types of housing units. Figure A6: Vehicle Trips and Persons by Bedroom Range Trip Generation by Floor Area To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by house size, TischlerBise matched trip generation rates and average floor area, by bedroom range, as shown in Figure A12. The logarithmic trend line formula, derived from the four actual averages in Garfield County, is used to derive estimated trip ends by dwelling size, in 500 square feet intervals. A mid-‐size residential unit is estimated to range from 1401-‐ 1900 square feet of living space. A small unit of 900 square feet or less would pay 37% of the road impact fee paid by an average size unit. A large unit of 2,401 square feet or more would pay 136% of the road impact fee paid by an average size unit. If Garfield County implements a “one-‐size-‐fits-‐all” approach, small units will be required to pay more than their proportionate share while large units will pay less than their proportionate share. TischlerBise does not recommend average fees for all house sizes because it makes small units less affordable and essentially subsidizes larger units. Recommended( Multipliers Trip Vehicles Trip Average Housing Trip(Ends(per Ends((2)Available((1)Ends((3)Trip(Ends Units((1)Housing(Unit 0"1 32 114 23 138 126 39 3.2 2 188 571 162 951 761 119 6.4 3 457 1,282 398 2,316 1,799 193 9.3 4+250 740 227 1,328 1,034 108 9.6 Total 927 2,707 810 4,733 3,720 459 8.1 Bedrooms Persons((1) (1)$$American$Community$Survey,$Public$Use$Microdata$Sample$for$CO$PUMA$200$(2013$1BYear$unweighted$data). (2)$$Vehicle$trips$ends$based$on$persons$using$formulas$from$Trip$Generation$(ITE$2012).$$For$single$unit$housing$(ITE$210),$the$ fitted$curve$equation$is$EXP(0.91*LN(persons)+1.52).$$To$approximate$the$average$population$in$the$ITE$studies,$persons$were$ divided$by$2$and$the$equation$result$multiplied$by$2. (3)$$Vehicle$trip$ends$based$on$vehicles$available$using$formulas$from$Trip$Generation$(ITE$2012).$$For$single$unit$housing$(ITE$ 210),$the$fitted$curve$equation$is$EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.81).$$To$approximate$the$average$number$of$vehicles$in$the$ITE$ studies,$vehicles$available$were$divided$by$3$and$the$equation$result$multiplied$by$3. Housing Mix 8% 26% 42% 24% 100% (1)$$American$Community$Survey,$Public$Use$Microdata$Sample$for$CO$PUMA$200$(2013$1BYear$unweighted$data). (2)$$Vehicle$trips$ends$based$on$persons$using$formulas$from$Trip$Generation$(ITE$2012).$$For$single$unit$housing$(ITE$210),$the$ fitted$curve$equation$is$EXP(0.91*LN(persons)+1.52).$$To$approximate$the$average$population$in$the$ITE$studies,$persons$were$ divided$by$2$and$the$equation$result$multiplied$by$2. (3)$$Vehicle$trip$ends$based$on$vehicles$available$using$formulas$from$Trip$Generation$(ITE$2012).$$For$single$unit$housing$(ITE$ 210),$the$fitted$curve$equation$is$EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.81).$$To$approximate$the$average$number$of$vehicles$in$the$ITE$ studies,$vehicles$available$were$divided$by$3$and$the$equation$result$multiplied$by$3. 2015 Road Impact Fees Garfield County, Colorado 25 Figure A7: Vehicle Trips by Dwelling Size Bedrooms Square,Feet Trip,Ends Sq,Ft,Range Trip,Ends 0"1 1,076 3.2 900+or+less 2.60+++++++++++++ 2 1,744 6.4 901+to+1400 5.28+++++++++++++ 3 2,115 9.3 1401+to+1900 7.12+++++++++++++ 4+3,283 9.6 1901+to+2400 8.54+++++++++++++ 2401+or+more 9.68+++++++++++++ Actual,Averages,per,Hsg,Unit Fitted<Curve,Values y+=+6.0517ln(x)+"+38.563+ R²+=+0.87669+ 0.0+ 2.0+ 4.0+ 6.0+ 8.0+ 10.0+ 12.0+ 0+500+1,000+1,500+2,000+2,500+3,000+3,500+ Tr i p % E n d s % p e r % H o u s i n g % U n i t % Square%Feet%of%Living%Area% Average+Weekday+Vehicle+Trip+Ends+per+ Dwelling+Unit+in+Garfield+County,+CO+Average+weekday+vehicle+ trip+ends+per+housing+unit+ are+derived+from+2013+ACS+ PUMS+data+(PUMA+200).++ U.S.+Census+Bureau+is+the+ data+source+for+average+ square+feet+by+bedroom+ range.++Unit+size+for+0"1+ bedroom+is+the+average+of+ mul]family+units+ constructed+in+the+West+ Census+Region+during+2013.++ Unit+size+for+2,+3,+and+4++ bedrooms+is+from+2013+ Survey+of+Construc]on+ microdata+for+single+ detached+and+a^ached+units+ in+the+Mountain+West+ Census+Division.+