HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/01/2000 - ITEMS RELATING TO COUNTY REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEES AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 12 A-B
DATE: February 1, 2000
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
STAFF: Ann Turnquist
SUBJECT:
Items Relating to County Regional Road Impact Fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Since the fees will be collected on behalf of Larimer County and transmitted to the County on a
quarterly basis, the item has no financial impact upon the City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 2000-24 Adopting an Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to a Regional
Road Impact Fee.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 13, 2000, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code by the
Addition of a New Article V Pertaining to the Imposition of Certain Regional Capital
Improvement Expansion Fees.
In November 1998, Larimer County Commissioners approved new Development Impact Fees
that will apply to new construction in the County. These fees included a regional road fee and a
regional park fee. Larimer County has asked the City to consider implementing a regional road
fee for development within the City limits. The fee would be implemented in addition to
existing City and School District fees. As funds accumulate from the collection of fees in both
the City and the County, the two governments will work together to determine how and when
those funds will be expended to improve the five regional roads. The County may also ask the
City to consider adopting the regional park fees at a future date, but currently has no specific
plans for bringing this fee for City consideration.
Fees would be imposed to address the cost of expanding regional roads including County Road
17 between Fort Collins and Berthoud, County Road 19 between Fort Collins and Loveland,
DATE: February 1,2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 12 A-B
County Road 32 between I-25 and US 287, and County Roads 18 and 38 from I-25 east to the
county line. The amount of the fee within the City would be $164 per single family dwelling
(including mobile homes) and $113 per multi-family dwelling. For commercial and industrial
construction, the fee will be based on traffic generation calculations. These regional road fees
would be charged in addition to the City's existing street oversizing fees but would be earmarked
for expansion of the regional roads.
Council reviewed the proposal at the August 24, 1999 Study Session. At that time, Council
directed staff to bring the item forward for consideration at a regular meeting. In addition,
Council acknowledged that it would be taking a leadership role with the other municipalities in
the County that will also be asked to adopt the fees within their incorporated boundaries. Since
that time, City and County legal staffs have been working through the details of the
intergovernmental agreement to implement the fee.
The attached memorandum from County staff details the proposal regarding the Regional Road
Fees.
List of Attachments:
• Memorandum: From Marc Engemoen, Larimer County Public Works, County Road
Capital Expansion Fee proposal.
• Excerpted minutes, Natural Resources Advisory Board, January 27, 1999 re:
Recommendation on County fee proposal.
• Memorandum: Transportation Board to City Council re: Recommendation on County
Road Fees Planning and Zoning Board minutes, February 4, 1999 re: Discussion on
County Road and Park Impact Fees.
• Memorandum: Affordable Housing Board recommendation on County Road and Park
Impact Fees.
i
RESOLUTION 2000-24
. OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO
A REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
WHEREAS,the City is authorized under Article XX,Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution
to adopt appropriate ordinances and regulations for the purpose of promoting and preserving the
public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City,and has the full right of self government
in local municipal matters including, without limitation, the power to regulate, as matter of purely
local concern, the development of real property within the City; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that future growth and new development in the
City should contribute a proportionate share of the cost of providing the capital improvements
necessary to mitigate the impacts of such growth and new development; and
WHEREAS,by adoption of Ordinance No.51, 1996,the Council has adopted certain capital
improvement expansion fees to help defray the capital cost of expanding public facilities within the
City in order to accommodate new development in the City; and
WHEREAS,the Council recognizes that there is a regional road system in Larimer County
which consists of inter-urban travel corridors and major corridors that connect urban areas to the
Interstate Highway System; and
WHEREAS,Larimer County has conducted a multi jurisdictional transportation study(the
"Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study") and a regional road capital improvement plan
(the"Regional Road CIP'J for its regional road system; and
WHEREAS,the Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study projects that there will be
a significant amount of new growth and development in the unincorporated areas of the County as
well as the incorporated areas of all municipalities in the County(the"Region")over the next twenty
(20)years; and
WHEREAS, the Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study indicates that this new
growth and development will increase the demand for capacity on the regional road system, within
the Region; and
WHEREAS,Larimer County has adopted a level of service(D)as the minimum acceptable
level of service on the regional road system,and the City Council concurs with these determinations;
and
WHEREAS, the Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study demonstrates that the
revenue generated by existing fees imposed upon new growth and development in the Region will
not be adequate to fund the needed road capital improvements necessary to accommodate the
anticipated growth and development in the Region if the adopted level of service is to be maintained;
and
WHEREAS, in order to address this problem, Latimer County and the City have, by
intergovernmental agreement established a policy that new land development activity should bear
a proportionate share of the cost of providing the new road capital improvements needed to mitigate
the impacts of new growth and development on the regional road system and maintain the desired
level of service on such system; and
WHEREAS,the Larimer County Commissioners and the Council have determined that the
imposition of a regional road impact fee is one of the preferred methods of regulating land
development in the Region in order to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of
the costs of the new road capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development while
at the same time maintaining the above-referenced level of service on the regional road system and
promoting and protecting the public's health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS,this regional fee would assist in the implementation of,and be consistent with,
the master plans of Larimer County and the City; and
WHEREAS, Larimer County and the City have the authority to cooperate in adopting
regional fees for such purposes pursuant to the Colorado Constitution,the Colorado statutes and the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS,it is the objective of Larimer County and the City to make the most efficient use
of their powers by jointly implementing planning, zoning and subdivision requirements by the
adoption of a regional road program for the provision of new road capital improvements in order to
maintain the adopted level of service on those roads; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIV, Sections 18 (2)(a) and (b) of the Colorado
Constitution;Sections 29-20-105 and 29-1-102,C.R.S.;and Article II,Section 16 of the Fort Collins
City Charter,the City and Larimer County desire to enter in this Intergovernmental Agreement to
implement j oint planning,zoning and subdivision requirements by the adoption of a regional capital
improvement expansion fee program for the purpose of providing road capital improvements for the
regional road system; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to this Intergovernmental Agreement,the City and the County desire
to designate that the responsibility for planning and administering this program shall be borne by the
County.
2
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
• COLLINS that the Council hereby approves the Regional Road Impact Fee Intergovernmental
Agreement in substantially the form shown on Exhibit"A"attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, subject to such modifications in form or substance as the Mayor, in consultation
with the City Manager and the City Attorney,may deem necessary to effectuate the purposes of this
Resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this I st day of February,
A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
• 3
Exhibit A
Draft: January 24, 2000
REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
This Regional Road Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement (hereinafter
"Intergovernmental Agreement")is entered into,made,and enacted this day of_, 1999,
by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado (hereinafter
referred to as "the County") and the Governing Body of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a
Colorado municipal corporation(hereinafter the"City");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Region consists of the entirety of the unincorporated County and the
incorporated area of all the municipalities in the county participating in this and similar
Intergovernmental Agreements (hereinafter"Participating Local Governments"); and
WHEREAS, the County and Participating Local Governments recognize that there is a
Regional Road System in the Region that consists of inter-urban travel corridors and major corridors
that connect urban areas to the interstate highway system: and
WHEREAS,Larimer County has conducted a multi-jurisdictional transportation study(the
Latimer County Transportation Plan) and prepared an impact fee study(the Larimer County Road
and Park Impact Fee Study) and a Regional Road Capital Improvement Plan (hereinafter "the
Regional Road CIP")for the Regional Road System,which is adopted as the Regional Road CIP by
the Participating Local Governments; and
WHEREAS, the Latimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study projects that there will
be a significant amount of new growth and development in the Region over the next twenty (20)
years; and
WHEREAS,the Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study has determined that this
new growth and development will increase the demand for capacity on the Regional Road System;
and
WHEREAS, the County and Participating Local Governments agree that LOS "D" is the
minimum acceptable level of service on the Regional Road System; and
WHEREAS, the Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study demonstrates that the
existing revenue generated by this new growth and development will not be adequate to fund the
needed road capital improvements necessary to accommodate this new growth and development if
• the adopted LOS on the Regional Road System is to be maintained; and
WHEREAS, in order to address this problem, the County and Participating Local
Governments have established a policy that new land development activity shall bear a proportionate
share of the cost of the provision of new road capital improvements required by new growth and
development on the Regional Road System; and
WHEREAS, the County and Participating Local Governments have determined that the
imposition of a regional road impact fee is one of the preferred methods of regulating land
development in the Region in order to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of
the costs of the road capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development while at the
same time maintaining the adopted LOS on the Regional Road System and promoting and protecting
the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, a regional impact fee that contributes to this proportionate share would assist
in the implementation and be consistent with the Master Plans of the County and Participating Local
Governments and the Larimer County Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS,the County and Participating Local Governments have the authority to adopt
a regional road impact fee pursuant to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado statutes; and
WHEREAS,it is the objective of the County and Participating Local Governments to make
the most efficient use of their powers by jointly implementing planning, zoning, and subdivision
requirements by the adoption of a regional road impact fee program for the provision of road capital
improvements for the Regional Road System in order to maintain an adopted level of service on
those roads; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Art. XIV,Sec. 18(2)(a)and(b),Col. Const.; Secs.29-20-105 and
29-1-102,C.R.S.;and Article II,Section 16 of the Fort Collins City Charter,the County and the City
desire to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement to implement joint planning, zoning, and
subdivision requirements by the adoption of a regional road impact fee program for the purpose of
providing road capital improvements for the Regional Road System in order to maintain an adopted
level of service on those roads; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to this Intergovernmental Agreement,the County and City desire to
designate this joint responsibility of planning for and administering this regional road impact fee
program to Larimer County.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of Art. )UV, Sec. 18(2)(a) and (b), Col.
Const., Secs. 29-20-105 and 29-1-102, C.R.S., and Article II, Section 16 of the Fort Collins City
Charter, and in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and for other good and
valuable consideration, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement is to make the most efficient
use of the powers of the County and the City to implement a regional road impact fee
2
program to ensure adequate road facilities are available on the Regional Road System to
• accommodate new growth and development.
2. Agreement to jointly Exercise Powers. The County and the City agree to jointly use their
planning,zoning,and subdivision authority to plan for and implement a regional road impact
fee program for the Region.
3. Joint Responsibilities. The City agrees and Latimer County accepts the general
responsibility to plan for, implement and administer the regional road impact fee program
for the Region. More specifically, Larimer County's responsibilities shall include the
following:
a . Planning Responsibilities/Preparation of Region's CIP. To conduct a
transportation study of the Region and prepare the Regional Road CIP. After its
preparation,the Regional Road Impact Fee program shall not be effective within the
jurisdiction of the City until the Regional Road CIP is approved by the City as its
own Regional Road CIP.
b. Implementation Responsibilities/Preparation of Regulation. The preparation of
a proposed Regional Road Impact Fee regulation to implement the Regional Road
CIP and to ensure that new growth and development will bear a proportionate share
of the cost of the provision of road capital improvements on the Regional Road
System required by such development. After its preparation, the Regional Road
• Impact Fee regulation shall not be effective within the jurisdiction of the City until
legislation implementing the same within the City is adopted by the City Council.
C. Administrative Responsibilities of Program. The administration of the regional
road impact fee program, including appointment by the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County of a Regional Road Impact Fee Administrator,
who shall be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the regional road
impact fee program in the County, with assistance from the Impact Fee
Administrators from each of the Participating Local Governments. Specifically,the
Regional Impact Fee Administrator shall be responsible for the following:
(i) Administration of independent fee calculation studies, credits, and refunds,
with assistance from the Impact Fee Administrators of the Participating Local
Governments.
(ii) Receipt of the regional road impact fees from the Participating Local
Governments, who shall be responsible for collecting the regional road
impact fees within their respective jurisdictions, and then quarterly
transmitting them to the Regional Road Impact Fee Administrator, less an
administrative fee not to exceed two(2)percent. The Regional Road Impact
• 3
Fee Administrator shall transfer these funds into an interest bearing Trust
Fund.
Administration of the expenditure of regional road impact fee funds in the
Trust Fund. The Regional Impact Fee Administrator, with assistance of
Impact Fee Administrators of Participating Local Governments,shall prepare
an annual report and recommendations regarding the proposed expenditures
of trust fund monies for Regional Roads, and submit the same to the City.
After review of the recommendations,the City shall approve or modify the
recommended expenditures of trust fund monies. Expenditures shall be
limited to those road capital improvement projects included in the Regional
Road CIP and approved for expenditure by all of the Participating Local
Governments. If,within a period of three(3)consecutive years from the date
that Regional Road Impact fee revenues are first forwarded to the Regional
Road Impact Fee Administrator by the Participating Local Governments,said
Participating Local Governments have been unable to agree upon a plan of
expenditure for such funds,all monies theretofore transmitted to the Regional
Road Impact Fee Administrator shall be returned to the Participating Local
Governments,together with a proportionate share of the accrued interest on
said funds,and all obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall cease.
The Participating Local Governments shall refund said funds to the feepayers
or to their successors in interest in those instances where developments
subject to the fee have been sold by the feepayers.
(iv) Any fees collected by Participating Local Governments under the authority
of this Agreement shall be returned by the County to the feepayer or the
feepayer's successor in interest(if the development subj ect to the fee has been
sold by the feepayer) if the fees have not been spent within seven (7) years
from the date the building permit for the development was issued,along with
the interest earned on the fee. Fees shall be deemed to be spent on the basis
of the first fee collected shall be the first fee spent. The refund shall be
administered by the County's Regional Road Impact Fee Administrator.
(v) Initiation of a review,every three(3)years,of the Regional Road Impact Fee
Study,Regional Road CIP and the Regional Road Impact Fee Regulation of
the County and the Participating Local Governments, to determine if any
modifications need to be made to the program. This review will be
conducted by the Regional Road Impact Fee Administrator, with the
assistance of the Impact Fee Administrators of the Participating Local
Governments. It shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners
and the Participating Local Governments. Before any modifications to the
Regional Road Study take effect, they shall be approved by each of the
Governing Bodies of the Participating Local Governments.
4
• 4. Duration. The duration of the Intergovernmental Agreement shall be for ten(10)years. It
may be renewed by the parties pursuant to State and local law.
5. Claims and Lawsuits. In the event that the Regional Road Impact Fee to be imposed
by the City under this Agreement is challenged by any parry through the filing of a notice
of claim with the City under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act or the
commencement of any litigation,the County and the City agree to pay their own costs and
attorneys' fees related to such claim or litigation. However, the County further agrees,
immediately upon receiving any notice from the City of the filing of such a notice of claim
or the commencement of such litigation,to segregate and hold in a separate account the full
amount of any fee revenues theretofore delivered to the County by the City which are, or
may be,the subject of such notice of claim or litigation. Such amounts shall be held by the
County and not expended until the dispute that is the subject of the notice of claim or
litigation has been finally resolved, either by agreement or by a final decision of any court
having jurisdiction over the matter,at which time said fee revenues shall be expended,to the
extent they are sufficient,to satisfy any amount due to the claimant(s)or plaintiff(s)pursuant
to the terms of any settlement agreement or final court decision. The City shall have the
right,in its sole discretion,to settle any such claims or lawsuits,utilizing,if necessary in the
City's judgment, the full amount of the funds held by the County under this provision.
6. Termination. The County and Participating Local Government shall each have the authority
• to terminate their participation in this Intergovernmental Agreement and the Regional Road
Impact Fee Program if the other parry materially fails to comply with the terms of this
Agreement or materially modifies the Regional Road CIP and the Regional Road Impact Fee
regulation within their jurisdiction with out the consent of the terminating party. Following
any such termination,the parties shall negotiate in good faith to agree upon the regional road
improvements to be funded by any regional road impact fee revenues theretofore forwarded
to the County by the City and remaining in the trust fund as of the date of termination. In the
event that,within six(6)months from the date of termination,the parties have not been able
to reach agreement with regard to any such proposed expenditures,the remaining amount of
City funds in the trust fund shall be forthwith returned to the City,together with all accrued
interest on said funds, and all other obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall
cease.
5
Approved and adopted this day of 2000.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
LARIMER COUNTY, COLOR-ADO
By:
Chair
ATTEST:
Deputy and Clerk of the Board
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
a Colorado municipal corporation
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
6
ORDINANCE NO. 13,2000
• OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 7.5 OF THE CITY CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW
ARTICLE V PERTAINING TO THE IMPOSITION OF CERTAIN REGIONAL CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT EXPANSION FEES
WHEREAS,the City is authorized under Article XX,Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution
to adopt appropriate ordinances and regulations for the purpose of promoting and preserving the
public health. safety and welfare of the citizens of the City,and has the full right of self government
in local municipal matters including,without limitation,the power to regulate,as a matter of purely
local concern, the development of real property within the City; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that future growth and new development in the
City should contribute a proportionate share of the cost of providing the capital improvements
necessary to mitigate the impacts of such growth and new development; and
WHEREAS,by adoption of Ordinance No.51, 1996,the Council has adopted certain capital
improvement expansion fees to help defray the capital cost of expanding public facilities within the
City in order to accommodate new development in the City; and
WHEREAS,the Council recognizes that there is a regional road system in Larimer County
which consists of inter-urban travel corridors and major corridors that connect urban areas to the
. Interstate Highway System; and
WHEREAS,Larimer County has conducted a multi jurisdictional transportation study(the
"Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study") and a regional road capital improvement plan
(the "Regional Road CIP") for its regional road system; and
WHEREAS,the Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study projects that there will be
a significant amount of new growth and development in the unincorporated areas of the County as
well as the incorporated areas of all municipalities in the County(the"Region")over the next twenty
(20)years; and
WHEREAS,the Latimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study indicates that this new
growth and development will increase the demand for capacity on the regional road system within
the Region; and
WHEREAS,Larimer County has adopted a level of service(D)as the minimum acceptable
level of service on the regional road system,and the City Council concurs with these determinations;
and
WHEREAS, the Larimer County Road and Park Impact Fee Study demonstrates that the
revenue generated by existing fees imposed upon new growth and development in the Region will
not be adequate to acquire the necessary real property and fund the needed road capital
improvements to accommodate the anticipated growth and development in the Region if the adopted
levels of service are to be maintained; and
WHEREAS, in order to address this problem, Larimer County and the City have, by
intergovernmental agreement, established a policy that new land development activity shall bear a
proportionate share of the cost of providing the new road capital improvements needed to mitigate
the impacts of new growth and development on the regional road system and maintain the desired
levels of service on such system; and
WHEREAS,the Larimer County Commissioners and the Council have determined that the
imposition of a regional road impact fee is one of the preferred methods of regulating land
development in the Region in order to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of
the costs of the new road capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development while
at the same time maintaining the above-referenced level of service on the regional road system and
promoting and protecting the public's health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS,this regional fee would assist in the implementation of,and be consistent with,
the master plans of Larimer County and the City; and
WHEREAS, Larimer County and the City have the authority to cooperate in adopting
regional fees for such purposes,pursuant to the Colorado Constitution,the Colorado statutes and the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS,it is the objective of Larimer County and the City to make the most efficient use
of their powers by jointly implementing planning, zoning and subdivision requirements by the
adoption of regional road fee program for the provision of new road capital improvements for the
regional road system in order to maintain the adopted level of service for such facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee andParkln-Lieu
Fee Study projects that there will be a significant amount of new growth and
development in Larimer County over the next twenty (20)years.
2. The Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee andParkln-Lieu
Fee Study has determined that this new growth and development will require a
substantial expansion in capital facilities for roads if an adequate level of service
(LOS)is to be maintained on the regional road system.
2
3. The Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee and Parkin-Lieu
• Fee Study has identified the improvements required to maintain an adequate level of
service on the regional road system. The list of these improvements along with
descriptions and cost estimates is referred to as the Regional Road Capital
Improvement Plan (hereinafter "the Regional Road CIP"), a copy of which, as
amended from time to time, shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk.
4. As demonstrated by the Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion
Fee and Park In-Lieu Fee Study,the level of service necessary for the regional road
system,in order to protect the health safety and welfare of the traveling public in the
Region, is a level of service (D).
5. The Latimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee andParkln-Lieu
Fee Study demonstrates that the existing revenue generated by this new growth and
development will not be adequate to fund the needed road capital improvements
necessary to accommodate this new growth and development if the desired LOS on
the regional road system is to be maintained.
6. In order to address this problem,the Larimer County Board of Commissioners
has determined, and the City concurs,that the imposition of regional transportation
capital expansion fees is one of the preferred methods ofregulating land development
in order to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of the costs of
the new road capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development
• while at the same time maintaining adopted levels of service on the regional road
system and promoting and protecting the public health, safety and welfare.
7. A regional transportation capital expansion fee would assist in the
implementation and be consistent with the Latimer County Master Plan and City
Plan.
Section 2. That the Larimer County Regional Road CIP, dated September 1998, a copy
of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved by the Council.
Section 3. That Chapter 7.5 of the City Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new
Article VI to read as follows:
. 3
ARTICLE VI. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL
• IMPROVEMENT EXPANSION FEE
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
See. 7.5-80 Intent.
The provisions of this Article are intended to implement and be consistent with
the master plans of the City including,without limitation,the Master Street Plan and
the Larimer County Transportation Plan and the Larimer County Master Plan. This
purpose is accomplished by the establishment of a system for the imposition of a
regional transportation capital improvement expansion fee program to assure that
new development contributes a proportionate share of the costs of providing, and
benefits from the provision of,new capital improvements to the regional road system.
The provisions of this Article are intended to be consistent with the principles for
allocating the fair share of the costs of new public facilities to new users. The
methods of calculating and imposing such requirements, as provided herein, are
intended to ensure that new growth and development in the City bear a proportionate
share of the costs of providing such improvements. It is anticipated that said
requirements will only partially capture the governmental expenditures associated
with improving the regional road system. The amount of revenue generated by said
fee shall not exceed the cost of providing the real property acquisitions and the
capital improvements for which they are imposed, and the same shall be expended
• solely to provide the specified new road capital improvements. The requirements
provided for in this Article are based upon the technical data and conclusions
contained in the Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee and Park
In-Lieu Fee Study, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Funds
collected from the fee imposed under the provisions of this Article shall not be used
to remedy existing deficiencies,but only to provide the new facilities are necessitated
by new development.
Sec. 7.5-81 Definitions.
When used in this Article, the following words and terms shall have the
following meanings:
Buildingpermit shall mean any development permit issued by the City Building
and Zoning Department before any building or construction activity is initiated on a
parcel of land. Building permit does not include any permits for demolition,grading
or the construction of a foundation.
Capacity shall mean the maximum number of vehicles which have a reasonable
expectation of passing over a given section of a regional road in one(1)direction,or
• 4
in both directions, during a given time period, under prevailing traffic conditions,
expressed in terms of vehicles per day. Capacity is measured in this ordinance and
the Latimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee and Park In-Lieu Fee
Study during the week day (Monday through Friday).
County shall mean Larimer County, Colorado.
Existing Traffic-Generating Development shall mean the most intense use of
land within the twelve (12) months prior to the time of commencement of traffic-
generating development.
Expansion of the capacity of a regional road shall mean any widening,
intersection improvement, signalization or other capital improvement designed to
increase the existing regional road's capacity to carry vehicles.
Fee Administrator shall mean a person appointed by the City Manager to
administer the fee program as provided in this Article.
Feepayer shall mean aperson commencing traffic-generating development who
is obligated to pay a regional transportation capital improvement expansion fee in
accordance with the terms of this ordinance.
Level of Service (LOS) shall mean a qualitative measure describing operational
conditions,from"A"(best)to"F"(worst),within a traffic stream or at intersections,
which is quantified for road segments by determination of a volume to capacity ratio
(V/C), which is a measurement of the amount of capacity of a road which is being
utilized by traffic. The maximum V/C for LOS "D" is 0.89.
Non-site Related Improvements shall mean regional road capital improvements
and right-of-way dedications for regional roads that are in the Regional Road CIP that
are not site-related improvements.
Participating Local Government shall mean any municipality within Larimer
County that has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Latimer County
to implement this regional transportation capital improvement expansion fee.
Person shall mean an individual, corporation, governmental agency or body,
business trust,estate,trust,partnership,association,two (2)or more persons having
a joint or common interest,or any other entity.
Regional road system shall mean roadways identified by the Participating Local
Governments as major inter-urban travel corridors or as major corridors that connect
urban areas to the interstate highway system,the Regional Road CIP, as shown on
5
Figure 4 in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee and Park In-Lieu Fee Study. a
• copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk.
Regional Road Capital Improvement shall mean the transportation planning of,
preliminary engineering,engineering design studies,land surveys,alignment studies,
right-of-way acquisition,engineering,permitting, and construction of all necessary
features for any regional road on the Regional Road CIP,undertaken to accommodate
additional traffic resulting from new traffic-generating development, including, but
not limited to:(a)construction of new through lanes,(b)construction of new bridges,
(c)construction of new drainage facilities in conjunction with new road construction,
(d) purchase and installation of traffic signals, including new and upgraded
signalization, (e) construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians and shoulders,
(f) relocating utilities to accommodate new road construction, (g) the construction
and reconstruction of intersections, (h)the widening of existing regional roads, (i)
bus turnouts, 0)acceleration and deceleration lanes,(k) interchanges, and (1)traffic
control devices.
Regional Road CIP shall mean the twenty-year plan of expenditure developed
by Larimer County for expanding those County-maintained arterial and collector
roads in the unincorporated areas of the County that primarily serve traffic moving
between cities.
Site-Related Improvements shall mean those road capital improvements and
. right-of-way dedications that provide direct access to the development. Direct access
improvements are typically located within or adjacent to a development site and
include,but are not limited to the following: (a)driveways and streets leading to and
from the development; (b) right and left turn lanes leading to those driveways and
streets; (c) traffic control measures for those driveways; and (d) internal streets.
Credit is not provided for site-related improvements under the terns of this Article.
Traffic-Generating Development shall mean land development designed or
intended to permit a use of the land that will contain or convert to more dwelling
units or floor space than the most intensive use of the land within the twelve (12)
months prior to the commencement of traffic-generating development in a manner
that increases the generation of vehicular traffic.
Traffic-Generating Development, Commencement of shall mean the point of
approval of a site specific development (as that term is defined in Article 5 of the
Land Use Code),or the issuance of a building permit,whichever occurs first after the
effective date of this Division.
Trip shall mean a one-way movement of vehicular travel from an origin(one trip
end) to a destination (the other trip end).
. 6
Trip Generation shall mean the attraction or production of trips caused by a
certain type of land development.
Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) shall mean the combination of the number of
vehicles traveling during a given time period and the distance(miles)that they travel.
Sec. 7.5-82. Imposition of fee.
(a) Time offee payment.
(1) Any person or governmental body (unless exempted by
intergovernmental agreement or ordinance of the City) who causes
the commencement of traffic-generating development shall be
obligated to pay a regional transportation capital improvement
expansion fee, pursuant to the provisions of this Division. The fee
shall be determined and paid to the City's Financial Officer at the
time of issuance of a building permit for the development. If any
credits are due pursuant to Section 7.5-84, they shall also be
determined at that time. The fee shall be computed separately for the
amount of development covered by the permit,if the building permit
is for less than the entire development. If the fee is imposed for a
traffic-generating development that increases traffic impact because
of a change in use, or the expansion of a use, the fee shall be
determined by computing the difference in the fee schedule between
the new traffic-generating development and the existing traffic-
generating development. The obligation to pay the fee shall run with
the land.
(2) Any person who,prior to the effective date of this Article, agreed as
a condition of development approval to pay a regional transportation
capital improvement expansion fee, shall be responsible for the
payment of the fee under the terms of any such agreement.
(b) Exemptions.
The following shall be exempt from the terms of this Division. An
exemption must be claimed by the feepayer at the time of application for a
building permit:
(1) Alterations or expansions of existing buildings where no additional
dwelling units are created, the use is not changed, and where no
7
additional vehicular trips will be produced in excess of those
. produced by the existing use.
(2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not
produce additional vehicular trips in excess of those produced by the
principal building or use of the land.
(3) The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or
structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use,
provided that no additional trips will be produced in excess of those
produced by the original use of land.
(c) Establishment of a fee schedule.
(1) Any person who causes the Commencement of traffic-generating
development, except those persons exempted or preparing an
independent fee calculation study pursuantto Section 7.5-83 shall pay
a regional transportation capital improvement expansion fee in
accordance with a fee schedule approved by the City Council by
ordinance, a copy of which fee schedule shall be maintained in the
Office of the City Clerk.
(2) If a fee is to be paid for mixed uses, then the fee shall be determined
• according to the above-referenced schedule by apportioning the space
committed to the uses specified on the scheduled.
(3) If the type of traffic-generating development for which a building
permit is required is not specified on the fee schedule, the Fee
Administrator shall determine the fee on the basis of the fee
applicable to the most nearly comparable type of land use on the fee
schedule. The Fee Administrator shall be guided in the selection of
a comparable type of land use by:
a. Using trip generation rates contained in the most current
edition of the report titled Trip Generation prepared by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),articles or reports
appearing in the ITE Journal,or studies or reports done by the
U.S. Department of Transportation or Colorado Department
of Transportation, and applying the formula set forth in
Section 7.5-83(b); or
b. Computing the fee by use of an independent fee calculation
study as approved in Section 7.5-83.
. 8
Sec. 7.5-83. Independent fee calculation study.
(a) General.
(1) The transportation capital improvement expansion fee may be
computed by the use of an independent fee calculation study at the
election of the feepayer. It also shall be used upon the request of the
Fee Administrator for: (i) any proposed land development activity
that is not listed on the fee schedule and is not comparable to any land
use on the fee schedule, or (ii) any proposed land development
activity for which the Fee Administrator concludes the nature,timing,
or location of the proposed development make it likely to generate
impacts costing substantially more to mitigate than the amount that
would be generated by the use of the fee schedule.
(2) The preparation of the independent fee calculation study shall be the
responsibility of the electing party.
(3) Any person who requests to perform an independent fee calculation
study shall pay an application fee for administrative costs associated
with the review and decision on such independent fee calculation
study-
(b) Formula.
(1) The independent fee calculation study for the regional transportation
capital improvement expansion fee shall be calculated by the use of
the following formula:
FEE = VMT x NETCOST/VMT
VMT = ADT x%NEW x ATL/2
ADT = Number of average daily trips
generated
%NEW = Percent new trips
ATL = Average trip length in miles on the
Regional road system
2 = For the portion of the trip allocated to
the new development (one trip)
NETCOSTNMT = Net cost per vehicle-mile of travel as
calculated in the Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee and Park In-
Lieu Fee Study
9
(2) The fee calculation shall be based on data, information, or
• assumptions contained in this Division or in independent sources.
Independent sources may be used only if:
a. The independent source is an accepted standard source of
transportation engineering or planning data or information;
b. The independent source is a local study on trip characteristics
carried out by a qualified traffic planner or engineer pursuant
to an accepted methodology of transportation planning or
engineering; or
C. The percent new trips factor used in the independent fee
calculation study is based on actual surveys prepared in
Larimer County.
(c) Procedure.
(1) An independent fee calculation study shall be undertaken through the
submission of an application. A feepayer may submit such an
application. The Fee Administrator shall submit such an application
for: (i) any proposed land development activity that is not one of
those types listed on the fee schedule and that is not comparable to
• any land use on the fee schedule, or (ii) an), proposed land
development activity for which it is concluded the nature, timing or
location of the proposed development make it likely to generate
impacts costing substantially more to mitigate than the amount that
would be generated by the use of the fee schedule.
(2) Within ten (10) working days of receipt of an application for
independent fee calculation study, the Fee Administrator shall
determine if the application is complete. If the Fee Administrator
determines that the application is not complete, a written statement
specifying the deficiencies shall be sent by mail to the person
submitting the application. The application shall be deemed complete
if no deficiencies are specified. The Fee Administrator shall take no
further action on the application until it is deemed complete.
(3) When the Fee Administrator determines the application is complete,
the application shall be reviewed and the Fee Administrator shall
render a written decision in twenty(20)working days on whether the
fee should be modified, and if so,what the amount should be,based
on the standards in Section 7.5-83.
• 10
(d) Standards. If, on the basis of generally-recognized principles of impact
analysis, it is determined that the data, information and assumptions used by the
applicant to calculate the independent fee calculation study satisfies the requirements
of this Section, the fee determined in the independent fee calculation study shall be
deemed the fee due and owing for the proposed traffic-generating development. If
the independent fee calculation study fails to satisfy the requirements of this Section,
the fee applied shall be that fee established for the traffic-generating development in
Section 7.5-84.
(e) Appeal of independent fee calculation study decision.
(1) A feepayer affected by the administrative decision of the Fee
Administrator on an independent fee calculation study may appeal
such decision to the City Manager by filing with the Fee
Administrator,within ten(10)working days of the date of the written
decision, a written notice stating and specifying briefly the grounds
of the appeal.
(2) The City Manager, after a hearing, shall have the power to affirm or
reverse the decision of the Fee Administrator. In making his or her
decision,the City Manager shall apply the standards in Section 7.5-
83. If the City Manager reverses the decision of the Fee
Administrator, the City Manager shall direct the Administrator to
recalculate the fee in accordance with his or her findings.
See. 7.5-84. Credits.
(a) General standards.
(1) Any person initiating traffic-generating development may apply for
credit against a regional transportation capital improvement
expansion fee otherwise due, up to but not exceeding the full
obligation for the fee proposed to be paid pursuant to the provisions
of this Division, for any contribution, payment, construction, or
dedication of land accepted or received by Latimer County for any
non-site related capital road improvements on the regional road
system identified in the Regional Road CIP.
(2) Credits for contributions, payments, construction or dedication of
land for non-site related capital road improvements on the regional
road system identified in the Regional Road CIP shall run with the
land and shall be transferable within the same development. Credits
shall not be transferable to other developments for credit against the
11
regional transportation capital improvement expansion fee(s)due for
• such development, or for credit against fees required to be paid for
other public facilities. The credit shall not exceed the amount of the
transportation capital improvement expansion fee due and payable for
the proposed traffic-generating development.
(3) Larimer County may enter into a capital contribution front-ending
agreement with any person initiating traffic-generating development
who proposes to construct roads or dedicate right-of-way for non-site
related capital road improvements on the regional road system
identified in the Regional Road CIP. To the extent that the costs of
road construction or the fair market value of the right-of-way
dedication of these regional road capital improvements exceeds the
obligation to pay transportation capital improvement expansion fees
for which a credit is provided pursuant to this Section, the capital
contribution front-ending agreement may provide proportionate and
fair share reimbursement.
(b) Credit against fees. Credit shall be in an amount equal to the value of the
contribution or payment at the time it is made,the costs of the road construction at
the time of its completion,or the fair market value of the land dedicated for right-of-
way at the time of dedication.
• (c) Procedure for credit review.
(1) The determination of any credit shall be undertaken through the
submission of an application for a credit agreement, which shall be
submitted to the Fee Administrator.
(2) The application for a credit agreement shall include the following
information:
a. If the application involves a credit for any contribution or
payment, the following documentation must be provided:
1. A certified copy of the development approval in
.which the contribution was agreed;
2. If payment has been made, proof of payment; or
3. If payment has not been made, the proposed method
of payment.
• 12
b. If the application involves construction:
1. The proposed plan of the specific construction
prepared and certified by a duly qualified and licensed
Colorado professional engineer;
2. The projected costs for the suggested improvement,
which shall be based on local information for similar
improvements, along with the construction timetable
for the completion thereof. Such estimated cost shall
include the cost of construction or reconstruction,the
cost of all labor and materials, the cost of all lands,
property, rights, easements and franchises acquired,
costs of plans and specifications,surveys of estimates
of costs and of revenues, costs of professional
services,and all other expenses necessary or incident
to determining the feasibility or practicability of such
construction or reconstruction.
C. If the application involves credit for the dedication of land:
I. A drawing and legal description of the land;
2. The appraised fair market value of the land at the date
a building permit is proposed to be issued for the
traffic generating land development activity,prepared
by a professional real estate appraiser who is a
member of the Member Appraisal Institute (MAI) or
who is a member of Senior Residential Appraisers
(SRA), and if applicable, a certified copy of the
development permit in which the land was agreed to
be dedicated.
(3) Within ten(10)working days of receipt of the application for a credit
agreement, the Fee Administrator shall determine if the application
is complete. If it is determined that the application is not complete,
the Fee Administrator shall send a written statement to the applicant
outlining the deficiencies. The Fee Administrator shall take no
further action on the application until all deficiencies have been
corrected or otherwise settled.
(4) Once the Fee Administrator determines that the application is
complete,it shall be reviewed within twenty(20)working days. The
13
application shall be approved if it complies with the standards in
• Section 7.5-84.
(5) If the application is approved by the Fee Administrator, a credit
agreement shall be prepared and signed by the applicant and the
County. It shall specifically outline the contribution, payment.
construction or land dedication, the time by which it shall be paid,
completed, or dedicated, and any extensions thereof, and the dollar
credit the applicant shall receive, for the contribution, payment,
construction or dedication.
(d) Appeal of credit decision. A feepayer affected by the decision of the Fee
Administrator regarding credits may appeal such decision to the City Manager by
filing with the Fee Administrator, within ten (10) working days of the date of the
written decision, a written notice stating and specifying briefly the grounds of the
appeal. The City Manager, after hearing, shall affirm or reverse the decision of the
Fee Administrator based on the standards in Section 7.5-84. If the City Manager
reverses the decision,the City Manager shall direct the Fee Administrator to readjust
the credit in accordance with its findings.
Sec. 7.5-85. Benefit districts.
(a) Establishment. For the purpose of further ensuring that feepayers receive
. sufficient benefit for fees paid, all of the area within Latimer County is hereby
designated as the Regional Transportation Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
Benefit District (the"Benefit District");provided,however,that the expenditure of
fee revenues shall be made only for those regional road improvements approved by
the City Council by ordinance or resolution,as provided in subsection(b)below.
(b) Expenditure. Transportation capital improvement expansion fee funds shall
be spent within the Benefit District within which the traffic-generating development
paying the fee is located. The expenditure of transportation capital improvement
expansion fee funds collected within the City shall be limited to those regional road
capital improvement projects included in the Regional Road CIP and approved by
the City Council by ordinance or resolution, which projects shall be determined by
the City Council to be of substantial benefit to the residents of the city. If,within any
period of three (3) consecutive years from the date that the fast Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee revenues are forwarded to the County's Fee Administrator by
the participating local governments, all of said participating local governments,
including the City, have been unable to agree upon a plan for expenditure of such
funds,all unexpended monies theretofore transmitted to the County's Regional Road
Impact Fee Administrator shall be returned to the participating local governments,
together with a proportionate share of the accrued interest on said funds. The City
• 14
shall then refund any such funds received from the County to the feepayers,or their
successors in interest (if the development subject to the fee has been sold by the
feepayer),pursuant to the following procedures.
(1) A refund application shall be submitted within one(1)year following
the end of the seventh(7th)year from the date on which the building
permit was issued on the proposed development. The refund
application shall include the following information:
a. A copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee;
b. A copy of the building permit; and
C. Evidence that the applicant is the successor in interest to the
feepayer, if relevant.
(2) Within ten(10)working days of receipt of the refund application,the
Fee Administrator shall determine if it is complete. If the Fee
Administrator determines the application is not complete, a written
statement specifying the deficiencies shall be forwarded by mail to
the person submitting the application. Unless the deficiencies are
corrected, the Fee Administrator shall take no further action on the
refund application.
(3) When the Fee Administrator determines the refund application is
complete,it shall be reviewed within twenty(20)working days,and
shall be approved if it is determined the feepayer has paid a fee which
has not been spent within the period of time permitted under this
section. The refund shall include the fee paid plus interest earned on
the fee.
(c) Appeal of refund decision. A feepayer affected by the Fee Administrator's
decision regarding refunds may appeal such decision to the City Manager by filing
with the Fee Administrator within ten(10) working days of the date of the written
decision, a written notice stating and specifying briefly the grounds of the appeal.
The City Manager, after hearing, shall affirm or reverse the decision of the Fee
Administrator based on the standards in this Section. If the City Manager reverses
the decision of the Fee Administrator, the City Manager shall direct the
Administrator to readjust the refund in accordance with its findings.
(d) Establishment of trust fund. There is hereby established the Regional
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Trust Fund for the purpose of assuring that
feepayers receive sufficient benefit for regional transportation expansion fees paid.
15
All regional transportation capital improvement expansion fees collected by the
City's Financial Officer pursuant to this Division shall be paid over to the County
quarterly by the City,less a two(2)percent administration fee,and shall be forthwith
deposited by the County into a Regional Transportation Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee Trust Fund(the"Trust Fund"). Any proceeds in the Trust Fund not
immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested in an interest-bearing
account. All income derived from these investments shall be retained in the Trust
Fund. Records of the Trust Fund accounts shall be available for public inspection in
the County's Regional Road Impact Fee Administrator's office, during normal
business hours. All monies within the Trust Fund shall be expended only as
provided in this Article.
Sec. 7.5-86 Refund of fees not spent.
(a) General. Any fees collected by the City and delivered to the County shall be
returned by the County to the feepayer or the feepayer's successor in interest (if the
development subject to the fee has been sold by the feepayer) if the fees have not
been spent within seven (7) years from the date the building permit for the
development was issued, along with the interest earned on the fee. Fees shall be
deemed to be spent on the basis of the first fee collected shall be the first fee spent.
The refund shall be administered by the County's Regional Road Impact Fee
Administrator.
• Sec. 7.5-87. Review every three years.
At least once every three(3)years,the Fee Administrator shall recommend to the
City Manager whether any changes should be made to the regional transportation
component ofLarimer County's Transportation Capital Expansion Fee and Parkln-
Lieu Fee Study, the Regional Road CIP and this Division. For making this
determination, the Fee Administrator shall consult with the Regional Road Impact
Fee Administrator of the other Participating Local Governments. The purpose of this
review shall be to analyze the effects of inflation on actual costs,to assess potential
changes in needs, to assess any changes in the characteristics of land uses, and to
ensure that the regional transportation capital expansion fees will not exceed a pro
rata share. Before any modifications of this Division shall be effective they shall be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners and the governing bodies of all
participating local governments.
Section 4. That the amount of the Regional Transportation Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee shall be in accordance with the fee schedule shown on Exhibit"A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which fee schedule is hereby approved by the Council
pursuant to Section 7.5-82 (c)(1) of the Code.
'` • 16
Section 5. That the City Council hereby finds that the Regional Road Capital
Improvement Projects included in the Regional Road CIP, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference at Exhibit `B", are of substantial benefit to the residents of the City, and said
projects are hereby approved by the Council.
Section 6. That the Regional Transportation Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
authorized herein shall apply to all building permit applications submitted to the City on or after
January 1, 2000.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
February, A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 1 st day of May, A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 1st day of May, A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
17
RIMER PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
COUNTY Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins. Colorado 80522-1190
awmkk-90 (970)498-5740
• FAX (970)498-7986
e-mail engemomt@co.larimer.co.us
December 20. 1999
Mr.John Fischbach
Fort Collins City Manger
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado
Re: Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
Dear Mr. Fischbach:
Thank you for your assistance in placing the issue of regional transportation capital expansion fees on the agenda
for the January 4,2000 City Council meeting. This memo is in response to your request for a brief explanation of
the proposed fees.
In 1998,Larimer County approved its first comprehensive Transportation Plan. This plan, dated September 1998,
assesses the county's existing transportation system and estimates the need for additional transportation
improvements over the next twenn years. The plan also identifies actions necessary to implement the
transportation plan. One of the recommended actions is"to establish and implement a transportation impact fee
program that ensures development equitably pays for necessary improvements." Recognizing that some
transportation impacts are regional in nature, another recommended action is to"identify methods to share costs
with adjacent cities and other goverttmental entities."
Work on Larimer County's transportation impact fees or capital expansion fees(CEF's)was completed shortly
after adoption of the Transportation Plan. Regulations for transportation CEF's were adopted in November 1998
and became effective on Februarc 15, 1999. The County currently collects two transportation CEF's for any
traffic generating development in the unincorporated area. The first is a county wide CEF designed to address the
cost of expanding the County's system of arterial and collector roads in order to accommodate the traffic
generated by new development. The second is a CEF designed to address the cost of expanding several County
roads that serve as"regional roads."
Regional roads are those roads primarily serving traffic that moves between cities or from outside the county to
the cities. Five County roads have been designated by the County as regional roads: CR17 (Shields/Taft)
between Loveland and Fort Collins and between Loveland the Berthoud; CR 18 (Highway 402)from I-25 to the
Weld County line; CR19 (Taft HiIVWilson)between Loveland and Fort Collins; CR 32(Windsor Road)between
1-25 and US287; and CR 38 (Harmony Road) from 1-25 to the Weld County line. These regional roads are shown
on the attached map. Regional roads comprise only 4.9 percent of the total lane miles of the County's major road
system,but carry approximately 31 percent of the traffic.
Mr. John Fischbach
December 20, 1999
Page 2
Because the need to expand capacity on the five regional roads over the next twenty years is dm en by growth in
both incorporated and unincorporated areas, the County proposes that cities and town within Larimer County also
adopt the regional road CEF. Cities and towns would adopt regional road CEF regulations and would collect the
fees for all traffic generating development within their boundaries. Periodically,these fees would be transferred
to Larimer County and placed in a regional road fund along with the fees from the unincorporated area.
Representatives from the participating entities would meet to prioritize needs and establish a plan to expend the
revenue from the fees on the regional roads. Currently,the regional roads are located entirely in the
unincorporated area. In time,portions of the regional roads will be annexed by adjacent cities and towns. Those
portions would still be eligible to receive funds from the regional CEF proceeds even after they have been
annexed.
The proposed transportation CEF methodology is based on a`demand driven" model which basically charges
new traffic generating development the cost of replacing the capacity that it consumes on the regional road
system. That is, for every unit of traffic generated by the development(expressed as vehicle miles of travel),the
CEF charges the net cost to construct an additional unit of capacity(expressed as vehicle miles of capacity). A
minor adjustment is made to ensure that the system-wide ration of capacity to demand is maintained.
The CEF's are based on the traffic generating characteristics of the proposed development. Based on the current
rates,the regional road CEF for a single family dwelling unit would be S164. This represents less than one tenth
of the total transportation CEF charged for a single family dwelling unit in unincorporated Larimer County, which
currently totals$1913 for both the regional and county wide CEF's.
For other types of development,the regional road CEF's vary with the traffic generating characteristics of the
proposal. For example, the regional road CEF for a 3000 square foot fast food restaurant would be $7398. for a
4500 square foot church $374, and for a 23,000 square foot light industrial use $2737. If my understanding of the
City of Fort Collins' transportation impact fees is correct,the imposition of the regional road CEF would result in
an increase of approximately 10 percent.
I hope the description above satisfies your need for a brief summary of the County s proposal. Again, I appreciate
your assistance in bringing this matter before the City Council for consideration. I plan to attend the January 4,
2000 City Council meeting in case there are questions about the proposal I can help answer.
Sincerely,
Marc Engemoen
Public Works Director
• ( L
F RTC LL Sa
Rd. LCR 38
= 25
rPR N
3 -
32. AL = 392
Cx _ 267 ® _, .La
LCR U
qq9
= a3
34 p
9 _
402 LCR 18
= Ole
LCR 14 60 0
m
x or
�' S6
--------'---' —_—__--�------'--' - --- - -----
��Co�mty 287
Regional Road System
REGIONAL ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Count Section Street (From) Sheet (To) 2020 Estimated
y Length Needs Improvement
Road (miles) Costs
No.
17 11.517 SH 287 I CR 1OE East Bound Widen 2-4 ones 1S2,580,CCO
17 11.609 CR lOE East Bound CR 14 Widen 2-4 Lanes S2740,C00
17 11.101 1 CR 14 I Loveland City Limits Widen 2-4 Lanes S1,870,CCO
17 10.179 Loveland City Limit I Loveland Citv Limit Widen 2-4 Lanes j $300,000
17 0.497 Loveland City Limit End Lvind Split Widen 2-4 Lanes S840,000
Solit
17 10.752 End Loveland City Lm CR 28 57th St Widen 2-4 Lcnes I S1.280,000
17 10.250 CR 28 57th St I Lvind City Limit Solit Widen 2-4 Lanes I S430,000
17 11.246 End Loveland Split Ft Collins City Limit Widen 2-4 Lanes I S2120,000
17 11.000 Ft Collins City Limit CR 34 hlbv Widen 2-4 lanes IS1,700,000
17 l.000 CR 34(Trilby) Ft Collins City Limit Widen 2-4 Lanes I S1,700,000
18 12.447 1-25 E. Frontage Rd CR 901 1 Widen 2-4 Lanes S4,160,000
19 0.610 End Loveland City 8"Street None (Exs ng 4- $O
Limit Lane
19 11.000 Loveland N. City Limit I CR 28 57th St Widen 2-4 Lcnes I S1,700,000
19 10.438 CR 28 57th St Begin Project w 37 Widen 2-4 Lanes 1 $740,OM
19 2.555 Begin Project# 37 CR 34 jrilby)/ends Widen 2-4 Lanes $4,340,000
37
19 1.007 CR 34(Trilby) I End 1987 Overlay/CL Widen 2-4 Lcnes I S1,710,000
19 11.001 Ft Cols CL/end Qvrly CR 38 Harmony Widen 2-4 Lanes S1,700,00C
19 10.506 CR 38 armany) I CR 38E Widen 2-4 Lanes S860,OW
19 0.5C5 CR 38E CR 40 (W Widen 2-4 Lanes S860,CC0
Horsetooth
32 10.408 1 Surface Change I CR 13 Widen 2-4 Lanes S690,000
32 0.996 CR 13 I CR 11 Widen 2-4 Lcnes S1,690,CC0
32 1.243 CR 11 I CR 9 Widen 2-4 Lcnes $2.110,000
32 11.257 CR 9 I 1-25 W. Frontage Rd I Widen 2-4 Lanes JS2,140,000
32 10.142 I 1-25 W. Frontaae Rd Surface Chance Widen 2-4 Lanes $240,OCO
32 10.597 1 Surface Chanae I SH 287 Widen 2-4 Lanes I S1,010,C00
38 10,460 1-25 E. Frontage Rd I CR 5 North Bound Widen 2-4 Lanes MUM
38 11.990 1 CR 5 North Bound CR 901 Widen 2-4 Lanes S313801000
Six Traf c Signals at Locations Identified in Lorimer County Transporation Plan $600,000
Total $44,270.000
LAMMER PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
COUNTY Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5740
FAX (970)498-7986
e-mail engemomt@co.larimer.co.us
MEMO TO: John Fischbach, City Manager, City of Fort Collins
FROM: Marc Engemoen, Public Works Director
DATE: August 18, 1999
SUBJECT: Larimer County Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss regional transportation capital expansion fees with the Fort Collins City
Council at their August 24, 1999 worksession. This memo is in response to your request for a brief explanation of
the proposed fees.
Last year, Larimer County approved its first comprehensive Transportation Plan. This plan, dated September
1998, assesses the county's existing transportation system and estimates the need for additional transportation
improvements over the next twenty years. The plan also identifies actions necessary to implement the
transportation plan. One of the recommended actions is"to establish and implement a transportation impact fee
program that ensures development equitably pays for necessary improvements." Recognizing that some
transportation impacts are regional in nature, another recommended action is to"identify methods to share costs
with adjacent cities and other governmental entities."
• Work on Larimer County's transportation impact fees or capital expansion fees (CEF's)was completed shortly
after adoption of the Transportation Plan. Regulations for transportation CEF's were adopted in November 1998
and became effective on February 15, 1999. The County currently collects two transportation CEF's for any
traffic generating development in the unincorporated area. The first is a county wide CEF designed to address the
cost of expanding the County's system of arterial and collector roads in order to accommodate the traffic
generated by new development. The second is a CEF designed to address the cost of expanding several County
roads that serve as"regional roads."
Regional roads are these roads primarily serving traffic that moves between cities or from outside the county to
the cities. Five County roads were judged to be regional roads: CR17 (Shields/Taft)between Loveland and Fort
Collins and between Loveland the Berthoud; CR 18 (Highway 402)from I-25 to the Weld County line; CR19
(Taft Hill/Wilson) between Loveland and Fort Collins; CR 32(Windsor Road)between 1-25 and US287; and CR
38 (Harmony Road)from I-25 to the Weld County line. These regional roads are shown on the attached map.
Regional roads comprise only 4.9 percent of the total lane miles of the County's major road system, but carry
approximately 31 percent of the traffic.
Because the need to expand capacity on the five regional roads over the next twenty years is driven by growth in
both incorporated and unincorporated areas,,the County proposes that cities and town within Larimer County also
adopt the regional road CEF. Cities and towns would adopt regional road CEF regulations and would collect the
fees for all traffic generating development within their boundaries. Periodically,these fees would be transferred
to Larimer County and placed in a regional road fund along with the fees from the unincorporated area.
Representatives from the participating entities would meet to prioritize needs and establish a plan to expend the
revenue from the fees on the regional roads. Currently,the regional roads are located entirely in the
unincorporated area. In time,portions of the regional roads will be annexed by adjacent cities and towns. Those
portions would still be eligible to receive funds from the regional CEF proceeds even after they have been
annexed.
The proposed transportation CEF methodology is based on a"demand driven"model which basically charges
new traffic generating development the cost of replacing the capacity that it consumes on the regional road
system. That is,for every unit of traffic generated by the development(expressed as vehicle miles of travel),the U
CEF charges the net cost to construct an additional unit of capacity(expressed as vehicle miles of capacity). A
minor adjustment is made to ensure that the system-wide ration of capacity to demand is maintained.
The CEF's are based on the traffic generating characteristics of the proposed development. Based on the current
rates,the regional road CEF for a single family dwelling unit would be $164. This represents less than one tenth
of the total transportation CEF charged for a single family dwelling unit in unincorporated Larimer County,which
currently totals $1913 for both the regional and county wide CEF's.
For other types of development,the regional road CEF's vary with the traffic generating characteristics of the
proposal. For example,the regional road CEF for a 3000 square foot fast food restaurant would be$7398, for a
4500 square foot church $374, and for a 23,000 square foot light industrial use$2737. If my understanding of the
City of Fort Collins' transportation impact fees is correct,the imposition of the regional road CEF would result in
an increase of approximately 10 percent.
I hope the description above satisfies your need for a brief summary of the County's proposal. Again,I appreciate
the opportunity to discuss this with the City Council and look forward to being able to answer any questions they
might have about the proposal at the worksession.
FELSBURG i 1 LCR ^72 U :
C� H O LT 6 .... =L. ' II
ULLEVIG i ' .... ......1 ........... .. .. ��
287 I.......�• .�.. 'CRI
.....
t, ...� r ........ ... ••e... I 1 �........}�RG�
Neill* I
V :u' �•:- LCR62 i
_ �.........'jl
14
r
2fi7 = 25 L6 2
.......
f ......� C6_, � ........R..r_
;♦ ° •ii? . 1 GR ` 1 coed I
LCR 60
LCR I48
14
:.. •'; Rp . '. .... .LCR 44
�
RCS W•n .�.,y. Iy x l.� .'IPLVALi '
Gp....
•-J R'AV ?VV_ I LCRdO
ILCR38
68
392
K, IFCJS9�
LCR 0 Y
U .I`
:': 1 \
• ce 6: U 1 _^^W •: ^ I
—C..,
� fi•
LEGEND I ;yc�'Be icR.e �_
= State Hwys./Interstate LCR16 I
- - - - - = Minor Arterial ! '•.. �; L
_.. .
CR 16..'....... '__
-... - a
Ji
= Major Collector T so
12
, `J 25 •
"�
•••••-••••••••••••• = Minor Collector 1:>;�� ''
ti:s - j 1
= Local Road }'`-.•.,... 'GriFTiF_� " - 1
l: 7
*******= Regional County Roads : w =C�6� ss
= Proposed New Roadway I`: ¢
i LCR6 '
• L.4RIMER COUNTY
BOULDER COUNTY �- 287 Figure 11A
Future Roadway Plan
North
Lanmer Comity Transportation Plan Completion 98-061 9/20/98
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Natural Resources Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMO
DATE: February 8, 1999
TO: Mayor and Council Members
John Fischbach, City Manager
FROM: Phil Murphy, Natural Resources Advisory Board Chair
RE: Recommendation to Support Larimer County Road and Park Fees
At its January 27 meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) reviewed a
proposal to increase development fees in Fort Collins, to be used for expanding regional
roads and parks. The NRAB agreed on the legitimacy of the proposal, since we feel it is
important for development to pay its own way and compensate for some of the expenses
that occur to the community from new growth.
On a six-to-zero vote(with one member abstaining), NRAB approved a motion to "go on
record in support of the City collecting fees for capital expansion dedicated to
transportation and regional parks."
Please let me know if you would like further information about our recommendation.
e
2S1 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6600 • FAX (970) 224-6177
MINUTES
. CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING,
405 CANYON AVENUE
January 27, 1999
For Reference: Phil Murphy, NRAB Chair - 491-6303
Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison - 484-0181
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison - 221-6265
Board Members Present
Randy Fischer, Don Rodriguez, Kelly Ohlson,
Reagan Waskom, Phil Murphy, Bill Miller, Nate Donovan
Board Members Absent
Phil Friedman, Rick Harness
Staff Present
Natural Resources Deot: Terry Klahn, Susie Gordon, Tom Shoemaker
Citv Manager's Office: Ann Tumquist
Guests
Sally Craig. Planning and Zoning Board
K-Lynn Cameron, Larimer County Parks & Open Lands
Eve Yanda Basset, Larimer County Parks & Open Lands
Agenda Review
Add:
FIDOS, Randy Fischer
Floodplain Task Force Update, Randy Fischer
Gateway Park Update, Bill Miller
Brief Announcements
• Ohlson: There are openings on the County Planning Commission. We need to encourage
people to apply.
• Ohlson: The VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) in Fort Collins increased 24.8 percent in a three
year period (1996,1997,1998).
• Ohlson: The stormwater system that was installed at Coors Field in Denver is a failure and
not working properly.
• Miller: Gateway Park—The first committee meeting was Monday (Jan. 25) night.
Approximately twenty people attended. The purpose was to define a process to come up with
a site design and management plan by fall of 2000. Construction on the highway access road
starts this spring. There has been a slight modification, access will be moved uphill about
Page 2
Natural Resources Advisory Board
January 27, 1999
Page 2
200 feet. This will result in less hillside being carved away, and what is carved away will be
used as fill. There will be less construction debris, and what there is can be disposed of
onsite instead of being trucked out. There will probably be six to nine meetings, one per
month, Nvith an open house for public input toward the end of the process. Kelly Ohlson
requested a list of the committee participants. Don Rodriguez is on the team representing
CSU.
• Randv Fischer: Kevin Cook had an article in the Coloradoan regarding Ross Open Space
being considered as a site for the Horticulture Center. Randy stated that it was inappropriate
for many reasons. Don Rodriguez said the site selection committee discussed the value of
Ross and decided to play out the CSLRF idea and see where that leads before looking at
other sites. He added that people on the site selection committee didn't take the article too
seriously.
County Open Lands Program, K-Lynn Cameron
The County Open Lands Program has just finished its third year. It is funded by the County
Open Space Tax, which expires in 2003. The first year of the program was a formative year.
The second year's focus was on prioritization and negotiations. and one acquisition was
completed. The Open Lands Board is a very diverse citizen advisory board. There are
representatives from all over the County. with representatives from each city and from the
County Planning Commission. The County shares the open space tax with cities in the County.
Over the life of the tax the County will get S24,000,000, S18,000,000 will be spent on
acquisitions. The remaining S6,000,000 is for expenses and long term management of the land.
Fifty-five percent of the allocated money has been committed. Doing a good job with
partnerships, last year brought in S 1.3 million from GOCO, also have partnerships with
Loveland, Fort Collins, and Estes Park. High priorities right now are the Fossil Creek Reservoir
area and the Caner Lake/Pineridge area. Will close on an easement at the mouth of Big
Thompson Canyon toward the end of February. There are also plans to work on a
Loveland/Berthoud corridor.
Considering going to the voters in November 1999 and asking them to extend the current sales
tax into the future. Will also be requesting bonding, so can get the money up-front and buy land
now.
Discussion
• Ohlson: It's great that you have spent 55%of the money. You should be proud, land won't
be getting any cheaper. Ntrhat's the current staff and FTE's? Permanent is 4.3, with two
additional one-year conrract positions. Equals 6.3 FTE's with two positions being
contractural.
• Ohlson: When doing your management plans, are you planning to be sensitive about
combining the visitor's experience with habitat and wildlife needs? if7e have all those bases
covered. How will you deal with dogs? On an individual basis. There is a county-wide
leash law.
• Rodriguez: Was there an announcement for two open space rangers? They will be Park
Rangers,permanent part-rime. We have five f:dl-time rangers. Do you envision a core of
Pace 3
Natural Resources Advisory Board
January 27, 1999
Page 3
open space rangers? Probably not, all the rangers would like to have the opporkmity to work
in the open spaces.
• Ohlson: Would like to give credit where credit is due. Had high expectations from this
program, and they have been surpassed.
County Transportation and Parks Fees, Ann Turnquist S K-Lynn Cameron
Ann Turnquist stated that she is here to talk about the proposed fees the County is asking the
City to develop. After February 15 1999, the County will impose regional road fees and regional
park fees. The County is asking the City to develop a parallel structure. The revenues from fees
would go to projects outside the city. Turnquist passed out two handouts that were reviewed
with the Board.
Discussion
• Donovan: I support growth paying its own way, are you going to present Council with an
itemized list of the impact fees? This is a work in progress, when this item goes to Council
there will be sonte version of this handout.
• Ohlson: How can you prove impact? I think the fees should be reflective but I was told the
courts frown on that. The Circ fees were based on square footage because it could be tied to
an average number of occupants. The Counts fees are not based on square footage, thev're
based on housing types.
• Ohlson: Don't know why City-collected school district fees are shown here. NEe are still
n-ving to put this together, appreciate your input. When this goes to Council it needs to be
presented fairly and clearly.
• Fischer: Are you asking Loveland and Berthoud for similar fees? Yes, we cattle to Fort
Collins first, but all the cities will be asked to pass a parallel fee.
• Fischer: There's a run on building permits when there's a ninety-day grace period. I can
understand not charging the fee if a permit is in-process.
• Donovan: In the whole scheme of things is the grace period a big deal? .Vo, it's probably not
a big deal. The logic is if a homebutver has ab-eady signed a contract the contractor can't go
back and get another$700 to pay the fees.
• Ohlson: Is staff in favor of this proposal? Yes.
• Fischer: On the inventory of regional parks there are a bunch of Fort Collins natural areas;
we're trying to make sure that natural areas are not confused with parks. When presenting to
Council it needs to be made clear there are natural areas and parks.
Randv Fischer made the following motion: Move that the NRAB go on record in support of the
City collecting fees for capital expansion dedicated to transportation and regional parks. The
motion passed, six in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention.
Update on Solid R'aste Districting/Recycling, Susie Gordon
Susie Gordon stated that in a meeting with Council last week, the conclusion was reached that
it's not feasible to get districting approved at this time. A list of other methods to accomplish the
Page 4
Natural Resources Advisory Board
January 27, 1999
Page 4
goals was compiled. Staff suggested that there are still gains to be made toward solid waste
reduction and recycling. Council was appreciative of the opportunity to be pro-active, and said
to come back if money was needed. Hoping that at the conclusion of the next Solid Waste
Reduction Committee meeting we can put together an outline of who needs to be involved. and a
plan to present to Council. We will be looking to this board to act in a leadership role.
Discussion
• Ohlsom This was a suicide mission and we weren't going to get out of this with anything.
This is a tnvo-rear extension of not going to districting.
• Oltlson: The memo mentions only solid waste reduction. Scott Mason had several other
suggestions, which included; working with haulers regarding safety, having all trash haulers
pick up in a specific neighborhood on the same day, instigate a more legitimate pay-as-you-
tltrow system, and trash truck weight enforcement. We need to focus on more than just solid
waste reduction.
• Waskom: What are the major objections to districting, and how do you resolve them in
eighteen months?
• Ohlson: We're never going to get the trash haulers support on this. It's critical that ire can
determine how much progress has been made.
• Ohlson: We need better data and the haulers go out of their way not to give it. This is the
final gasp, districting makes sense, it's ludicrous the way we do it.
• Fischer: I saw this memo as a cop-out. So we get killed on districting. In all of the recycling
bills that have come up on the ballot over the last ten to fifteen years,none have done
anything to force supermarkets to recycle. But, the threat spurred some of the more
responsible parties to implement their own recycling program. This might be a benefit of
proceeding with districting.
• Murphy: Keep in mind that as a board we have the ability to make recommendations on some
of those issues. This memo doesn't preclude us from going beyond what is on here, we don't
have to limit ourselves to this. We are required to send a memo that sacs, "here's what we
heard you sa'v", it's not restrictive.
• Ohlson: It's something that future Council members will see, and things are missing from
staffs 1/20/99 memo.
• Mumhv: We can write a follow-up memo, and include the items we want to see.
• Donovan: Rather than writing a memo, maybe we can do a clarification.
• Miller: If anything, identify five or six new ideas, and also reinforce the shortcomings of not
having districting.
• Ohlson: Staff could have supported the"not at this time" without seeming to work it over. It
shouldn't have been presented in such a negative light. No one said districting was a bad
idea, we could have put up a fight and we still would have lost.
• Murphv: The issue needs to go to subcommittee to deal with this.
Other Business
FIDOS.Randv Fischer
Page 5
Natural Resources Advisory Board
January 27, 1999
Page 5
Randy stated that he believes the meeting went eery well. The group behaved very differently,
with staff present, than at the first meeting. Tom Shoemaker, Edith Felchle, and Kristin Powell
were there. Everyone did an excellent job representing our point of view. Shoemaker explained
that Natural Resources staff is a very different entity than the NRAB, and there's nothing he can
do about the N'R-AB's opinion. He didn't give them any reason to think there would be dogs-off
leash allowed in natural areas. He did suggest that they consider purchasing their own land.
There were fewer people at this meeting than the first one, maybe 25 to 30. Their agenda is still
to be able to have dogs off-leash in natural areas, parks and trails. They would do away with the
leash law altogether if possible.
Discussion
• Fischer: The city of Boulder has opened most of their natural areas to dogs off leash.
• Ohlson: Has staff developed a half page handout yet to explain the legitimate reasons for not
allowing dogs off-leash? ✓
• Fischer: Kristin spoke very eloquently about Rick Knight's study. It can be statistically
proven that a dog on-leash is less stressful to wildlife than a dog off- leash. FIDOS has
studies of their own that say the exact opposite. Tom did an excellent job, very low key and
kept it real positive.
• Rodriguez: The perspective is, if the dog is not bothering humans, it's not bothering
anything.
• • Fischer: When Kristin mentioned Rick Knight, Ted Shepard suggested the possibility of
bringing him in to speak.
• Rodriguez: Do they have a full-fledged chapter?
• Fischer: Yes, I think so. The next meeting is February 22, and I think they witl start meeting
at the Harmony Library on a regular basis.
• Rodriguez: Has there ever been an inventory of where dogs off leash are welcome?
• Fischer: There was a discussion about compliance, no one had any good statistics to
determine the rate of compliance. Edith (Felchle) mentioned that it may be 25-30%
compliance, but this was a guess. I went to Cathy Fromme Prairie last weekend, and the
compliance was 100%.
• Ohlson: If the rate of compliance doesn't get better, then I would be the first to say let's get
rid of the rangers. It would be nice to know what difference two rangers have made over a
period of time.
• Waskom: There could be a lag-time.
• Rodriguez: What's the average age of the group?
• Fischer: Mostly under fifty, maybe one or two older. Some were identified as students. Most
were in their twenties or early thirties.
Air Quality Memo
See updated memo in packet.
Fossil Creek/Huntington Hills Land Acouistion
Natural Resources Advisory Board
January 27, 1999
Page 6
• Waskom: Feelings from the field trip were ver\ mixed.
• Murphy: A lot of time was spent talking about relative values. The consensus was probably
to purchase. The real hassle was with the Mail Creek property. When you walk it, you
realize there's a portion they can't do anything with. It boils down to how much of the
property is developable.
• Miller: The creeks are so incised, it's basically a channel, in some places there's a fifteen-foot
wall. If we were to acquire it we would be saddled with an above-average expense of
stabilization. There's not much wildlife value. no prairie dogs, and the raptors are for the
most part gone.
• Rodriguez: There was a bald eagle in someone's back yard.
• Miller: It was in a traditional perching tree.
• Ohlson: Maybe Parks should buy it with Conservation Trust funds money.
• Rodriguez: It bothers me that if we buy it, they will want to put the bike path in. It's a more
legitimate expense for Parks to purchase it.
• Murohv: Is our consensus to say no?
• Ohlson: Our"no" doesn't mean that it won't happen, it could still happen.
Horticulture Center Site Selection Update. Don Rodriguez
The CSURF site has been reevaluated. The hope was that there would be a lower dollar amount
because of flood plain issues. The Center Ave. aligmnent has reduced the size of one of the
parcels. Parcel E was mapped at 15 acres, but realignment has cut that to 9.7 acres. No one
seemed too concerned because they're thinking that they can buy property on both sides of the
irrigation ditch along the bike path. On February 15 appraisals will be submitted for both the
horticulture site and High School Park. High School Park is a trump card— CSU wants that
property.
The City has reversed its stance concerning whether it qualifies as a neighborhood park. All
additional 5180,000 will be supplied to the hors center if they will provide neighborhood park
amenities. Every,major hort center I've seen has a park of some kind that adjoins it. It's totally
consistent with what a horticulture center is about.
Board Packet Envelones:
• Kelly Ohlson asked if there is an easier way to recycle these envelopes than what Phil
Friedman suggested? Staff trill find a different envelope to mail the packets.
De-Icer:
• Kelly Ohlson clarified that he did not say that CDOT had discontinued the use of this
product. Just wanted to ensure the City of Fort Collins was aware of what was going on.
Staff will continue to stay vigilant about this product.
Fossil Creek/Huntington Hills Land Acquisition, Tom Shoemaker
• Tom Shoemaker:Asked staff to visit the site, and they came back with the conclusion that we
Natural Resources Advisory Board
January 27, 1999
Page 7
should proceed ivith the acquisition. it's a headache in thar there man be maintenance
di/fictdties. The reason to recommend the acquisition is to establish a more significant buffer
setback along the creeks. It would be a meaningfid corridor.
Rodrisuez: What is a "meaningful corridor"? The buffer distances are pretty significant, a
mininnan of 175 feet. When add that to the creek vou 're approaching 300 foot it idth in most
instances. iVith time and the right plantings, there would be habitat for songbirds and
hunting areas for some raptor species.
• Ohlson: What about the trail? There watt be trail of both sides, the trail will be b1' the
road.
• Rodriguez: What's your Vision in terms of rehabilitating that site? Put in some native grass,
tming to work with the proposed development so it can happen concza•rentlp.
• hlson: My concern is getting the most bang for the buck.
• Rodrisuez: It doesn't seem to be a critical habitat.
Waskom: It's more of an open space than a habitat.
• Shoemaker: The Building Community Choices nronev does have the latitude for corridors
and gateivays.
• Ohlson: I would like to see staff give it another tough look, listen to our concerns and then do
what you think is right.
• Fischer: I was in favor of this to start with. Then I took my wife out there and she said,
"Why would you want to buy this?"
• Waskom: It looked bleak when we were out there, but in the spring it will look different.
• Fischer: I see the value of the wider corridor, but on the other hand, why wouldn't you be in
favor of taking 5300,000 and buying the prairie dog town on the comer of Shields and
Trilby?
Shoemaker will meet with Craig Foreman about trail alignment in the drainage area and report
back at the next meeting. The Board will make a recommendation at that time.
.action Log
Move to next meeting.
Motion (Nate Donovan): Move that the NRAB go into executive session to discuss board
involvement in the development review process.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
City of Fort Collins — City Hall (CIC Room)
January 20, 1999
5:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT• ABSENT:
Alan Beatty Dan Gould
Mark Egeland
Sara Frazier
Steve Hanna
Bruce Henderson
Tim Johnson, Chair(416-0821)
Ray Moe
Chris Ricord
• Brent Thordarson
Heather Trantham
IN ATTENDANCE:
Matt Baker
Sally Craig
Gary Diede
Susanne Edminster
Aaron Fodge
Craig Foreman
Cam McNair
Wendy Meyer
Ron Phillips
Wally Piccone
Lucinda Smith
Mary Warring
Staff Liaison: Randy Hensley(416-2058)
Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.
Masaortation Board
Regular Meeting 111aotes
laaoarr20.1999 Pass
ACTION ITEMS:
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There was a motion and a second to approve the December 16, 1998 Transportation
Board meeting minutes with amendments. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
II. CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION-Smith
Lucinda Smith explained that this item would be for discussion, not action,based on
delays in getting the Climate Protection Plan completed.
Ms. Smith then gave the Board an update on the campaign to enlist local governments td
develop greenhouse gas emission reduction regulations and asked for the Board's input
on the transportation-related measures of the plan. Ms. Smith discussed the campaign
and the challenges faced by the community along the front range. Some things the plan
considers the following points:
• Support the VMT reduction goal that exists in the Master Transportation Plan - to
keep VMT's from exceeding population growth;
• Promote "Green Guide to Cars and Trucks';
• Local study to uncover hidden costs;
• Auto subsidy;
• Lobby for tighter CAFE standards;
• Support increased transit;
• Telecommuting Policy (municipal); and
• Reduction of fleets fuel consumption(municipal).
Board member Hanna asked about the possibility of the City giving businesses incentives
for telecommuting and/or teleworking. Susanne Edminster commented that the City is
considering it as a possibility. Board member Moe pointed out that a mechanism would
be needed to follow-up with businesses. Board member Ricord commented that it seems
that the more the population increases,the more VMT's increase. These seemed to be
linked. Board member Moe commented that there are two parts to VMT's in that
residents here are driving more and the issue is how to curb that, and that if growth is
limited,that could adversely impact outlying areas. Chair Johnson commented that the
plan should support the tax measure going before the electorate in April, as it would
support the VMT reduction goal. Aaron Fodge commented that the"Green Guide to Cars
and Trucks" is also an excellent resource for citizens as it lists autos by their
environmental friendliness. Ms. Smith commented that right now the plan is mostly
voluntary and educational in nature. Board member Egeland commented that he would
like to see Green Guide offered on web sites.
Iraamnatlao Burg
9aaalar Maaun Mlaataa
laaaary29,1999 Pass a
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
III. COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEES - Engemoen
Marc Engemoen,Director of Public Works for Larimer County,presented to the Board
the County's proposed Capital Expansion Fees for Transportation and asked for the
Board's recommendation to approve the proposed fees. He stated that there are five
county roads currently serving as secondary highways, those being:
County Road 17 (Berthoud);
County Road 19 (Taft Hill);
County Road 32 (329 west from 125 to Windsor);
County Road 18 (extension of 402 into Loveland); and
County Road 38 (Harmony east of125).
Methodology behind the fee is that it is"demand driven" rather than "improvement
driven,"and that development pay for the new capacity it consumes.
There was Board discussion about whether or not this additional fee would be fair to Fort
Collins residents. There are already high fees within the city and the roads that would be
• improved mostly support consumer traffic. Mr. Engemoen pointed out that Fort Collins
residents are using the regional roads and that it is difficult to develop a system of
transportation fees that is fair to all.
Matt Baker commented that the City has reviewed the County's proposed capital
expansion fees and finds them to be fair and also fairly conservative. Mr. Engemoen
commented that the County has presented the proposed fees to the Home Builders
Association(HBA) and is not expecting opposition. The HBA is aware of the current
inequities.
There were some questions regarding the quality of roads that would be built(with bike
lanes, without) and Mr. Engemoen stated that the County will stretch the opportunities to
enhance the roads (shoulders, etc.) as much as possible,but also that alternative modes of
transportation are addressed in other plans.
If the fees are adopted by all entities in the County, it may be possible to improve the
roads by 2020. City Council will consider the measure in March, and the County will
take the measure to Loveland and other cities as soon as possible. The County is
currently collecting regional capital expansion fees in unincorporated areas in February of
this year. Board member Thordarson asked if roads will extend to City limits, and Mr.
Engemoen stated that the County will work with a joint governmental committee to
Transgertatioo Beard
9egalarMseting Minutes
January 20,1999 Paas 4
determine what needs to be improved as city limits change. Board member Moe stated
this fee will take away the incentive to develop in unincorporated areas because it is
cheaper. Chair Johnson asked about the reciprocal concept and asked if the County has
discussed the idea. Mr. Engemoen stated there is the property tax element that goes to
Larimer County. The City funds transportation improvements via sales tax. People
living in unincorporated areas contribute by paying sales tax for goods and services inside
city limits. He also stated that the County is interested in establishing a Transportation
Authority to look at boundary issues.
Chris Ricord made a motion that City Council consider and approve the County's
Capital Expansion Fees with regard only to transportation. There was a second by
Ray Moe. The motion carried by a unanimous vote
III. EASTSIDE U.P. BIKE TRAIL—Piccone& Foreman
Wally Piccone and Craig Foreman of the City's Parks Planning Department presented to
the Board an update on the Eastside U.P.Bike Trail. The City has received grant funds
from the Colorado State Trails Program and has $120,000 to upgrade the Drake portion
of the trail. There was some discussion regarding the advantage of an eight foot trail
versus a ten foot trail and the cost difference involved. Mr. Foreman reported that there is
not a huge cost difference and based on the Board's recommendation, the City will most
likely opt for the ten foot trail. The Board also made other suggestions for inclusion in
the construction of the trail, such as:
• Ten foot trail rather than eight foot;
• Underpasses at Drake and Horsetooth; and
• Separating foot traffic from bike traffic.
The Parks Department will begin working on the stretch from Edora Park to Drake—
fencing; analyze cost of underpasses; and, in two to five years, the City will build the trail
south Concrete includes fiberglass reinforcement, sometimes re-bar when trail is close to
trees.
IV. CIVIC CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE UPDATE-Edminster
Susanne Edminster presented to the Board an update on the Civic Center Parking
Structure and stated that pedestrian improvements for the area are estimated to be
completed by Thanksgiving of 1999. The planning team is currently considering:
• Offsite improvements from Maple to Mountain;
• Enhanced pedestrian crossings;
• No mid-block crossings along the route;
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 4, 1999
6:30 P.M.
Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard
Chairperson: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201
Vice Chair: Sally Craig Phone: H 484-9417
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Colton.
Roll Call: Weitkunat, Gavaldon, Craig, Colton. Members Davidson, Meyer and
Carpenter were absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Deines, Wamhoff, McCallum, Schlueter,
Shepard and Olt.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the Consent and
Discussion Agenda's:
• 1. Minutes of the November 19, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing.
2. Resolution PZ99-3 Easement Vacation
3. #46-98 Howell Building - Project Development Plan.
4. #57-98 Wykoff - Larimer First Annexation & Zoning.
5. #57-98A Wykoff - Larimer Second Annexation & Zoning.
6. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Larimer
County Regional Road and Park Capital Expansion Fees.
7. #66-93G Windtrail Park P.U.D., Amended Preliminary and Final.
Director Blanchard pulled items 4 and 5 for discussion.
Item 7 was moved to the Consent Agenda.
Member Gavaldon moved to approve Consent items 1, 2, 3, and 7. Member
Weitkunat seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
Project: Wykoff- Larimer Annexation and Zoning First, #57-98
Wykoff- Larimer Annexation and Zoning Second, #57-98A
County. The requested zoning is LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. This
zoning requires an amendment of the City Structure Plan from Rural Open Lands
and River Corridor to Low Density Mixed Use Residential.
rage o
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 4, 1999
Page 5
we need to have this and we should stick with it.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of the RF, Residential Foothills
zoning for Wykoff - Larimer First, #57-98. Member Weitkunat seconded the
motion.
Member Weitkunat felt that RF was the appropriate zoning based on its location and
proximity to the foothills and its access to rural open lands and stream corridors in that
area. She felt it was extremely appropriate for where it is located and it does meets the
intent and purposes of the city structure map. She felt that clustering can occur and
accomplish the purposes. She felt that in the long run Mr. Larimer would end up with
the units that he needs.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of the Wykoff - Larimer
Annexation, #57-98A. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend denial of the requested Structure Plan
Map amendment for the Wykoff- Larimer Annexation, #57-98A.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of the RF, Residential Foothills
zoning for the Wykoff - Larimer Annexation, #57-98A.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Project: Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Larimer
County Regional Road and Park Capital Expansion Fees.
Project Description: Larimer County has asked that the City of Fort Collins adopt
a parallel set of fees for development which occurs within the City. Two fees
would be added to the City's current fees. They would include a Regional Road
Capital Expansion Fee and a Regional Park Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication.
Page 6
e� Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 4, 1999
Page 6
Marc Engemoen, Public Works Director for Larimer County gave the presentation for
this item.
Public Input
None.
Board Questions and Comments:
Member Gavaldon asked about needing more road improvements on County Road 17
when there was just work done on it recently.
Mr. Engemoen replied that several years ago there was a project to put bike lanes on
that road. That project was funded by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization. Those were funds specifically earmarked for bicycle improvements that
added the 8 foot bike shoulders to that particular roadway. The improvements that
would be necessary in the future, for a road that is already carrying approximately
10,000 or 11,000 vehicles per day, would be adding two more vehicle lanes as well as
• continuing to have the 8 foot bicycle lanes.
Member Gavaldon asked about Count} Roads 32, 38 and 402 going east. He
questioned the roads being only 5 to 7 miles long before you are in Weld County and
was Weld County going to partner in keeping the roads consistent with our upgrades to
4 lanes.
Mr. Engemoen replied that the 2015 traffic models indicate that those roads will be
carrying 15,000 cars per day. The capacity of a two-lane road is significantly less than
that. If we really want to have a level of service that is safe, we will have to widen those
roads to 4 lanes. He hoped that in the next 'Y' number of years, we will be able to work
closely with Weld County to encourage them to look at how they can creatively find a
solution to fund their half of the problem. He felt that it would be doing a disservice to
the residents of Larimer County if we did not at least improve what was in our
jurisdiction.
Member Gavaldon asked about other surrounding communities using our roads and
asked if the argument was that they also come into our cities and pay city taxes
therefore they are covered from additional monies for future roads.
Mr. Engemoen replied that they are not capturing all the people who are using the
roads. He does not know of a system that could do that. They have taken a big leap in
�� trying to identify a system that would treat Larimer County as a region. He would like to
Paae 7
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 4, 1999
Page 7
get to a point where we are thinking regionally including Longmont and Greeley. He
was hoping to take this initial step and begin to think of transportation regionally within
the County and build on that to think regionally with other communities as well.
Member Gavaldon asked about property taxes, and in addition, we are now being
asked to pay a fee on top of property taxes. The fee then adds to the price of the home
because the builders will pass the cost along to the consumer. He felt that was a "
double dipping" approach.
Mr. Engemoen replied that they were not "double dipping". He stated that there were
two sides to transportation needs. One is capital improvements, which we are talking
about with the regional fee. The other is maintenance. Virtually every dollar that
Larimer County collects currently goes towards operations and maintenance. The
County does not have funds for capital improvements. A very small amount of the tax
money they collect is set aside to deal with urgent safety problems. As new homes
come on board, all the new traffic just beats up the roads that much quicker and the
operations and maintenance costs continue to grow. The funds that will continue to be
collected in the future from new development through taxes will still go toward
operations and maintenance. The fee they are suggesting that Larimer County
residents pay is the capital improvement portion of the picture. There is about
$200,000,000 in capital improvement needs out there. The longer they delay
implementing these fees, the larger that problem is going to become and the more
expensive it is going to be.
Mr. Engemoen explained that the County is doing the same thing that the City is doing.
The County has existing needs, deficiencies that have accumulated over the past
several decades. There are also new needs that are associated with new
development. They are proposing the same thing that the City of Fort Collins is doing.
The City is using impact fees to address the piece that has to do with new
development. The City has chosen to use the fee approach to fund the future
deficiencies. The City is using a sales tax to fund the existing deficiencies, the Future
Choices Program is the current program. The County will also be looking at other
methods of funding to address existing deficiencies.
Cam McNair, City Engineering Department added that this is a growth paying its own
way issue. City Staff was consulted on this by Mr. Engemoen and his consultant and
the City had a chance to review the proposal and the City is very much in support of it.
He stated that the Transportation Board endorsed the proposal. He stated that a side
benefit of this would be that there might be less incentive for builders to look outside of
the city limits to try and avoid some of the fees because now the fees in the County
would be similar to those in the city limits, at least for the fees that support
transportation.
Page 8
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 4, 1999
Page 8
Mr Engemoen gave a presentation on the Regional Park Fee. He explained that the
fee is not the same as the transportation capital expansion fee, it is a fee in lieu of land
dedication for parks. This fee would only be charged to residential units, not
commercial, business or industrial permits.
Chairperson Colton asked if the fee would be raised accordingly if the price of land
increases.
Mr. Engemoen replied it would. It is built into the Ordinances a periodic review of the
fees.
Mr. Engemoen stated that the Regional Park Fee is actually is for new residents to "
buy" into our existing level of service. They will also pay the quarter cent sales tax that
enhances or furthers our level of service.
Member Weitkunat asked to have "level of service" defined in this instance.
. Mr. Engemoen replied that in this context it means the total number of acres divided by
the total number of units. There are currently 13,000 acres and 86,000 residential
units, so the level of service is 0.158 acres per residential unit.
Member Gavaldon asked if they had met with the Affordable Housing Board and if so,
what were their findings.
Russ Legg, Director of Planning for Larimer County replied that the Board
recommended denial of the fees and they also were going to write a letter to the City
Council for their consideration on March 2 indicating that it was very difficult for them to
consider "any" fee from the County when the County as an institution does not seem to
take affordable housing as serious as the Board would like for them to. The
recommendation included both fees.
Member Gavaldon asked if the County or the City were looking at exemptions or
considerations for affordable housing.
Mr. Mc Nair replied that if these fees are put into place, then whatever rules we use in
Fort Collins to deal with affordable housing would apply to these fees just like any other
fees.
Mr. Legg replied that the affordable housing question is very difficult for County. He
stated that they have reduced impact fees for affordable housing developments in the
past, but it is done on a case by case basis. The Commissioners have directed both
Page 9
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 4, 1999
Page 9
Planning and the staff that works on affordable housing to:
• identify what is true affordable housing and;
• what is worthy of consideration using that definition as an affordable housing
land use project.
The Commissioners are a long way from deciding the policy that is associated with that.
Member Gavaldon asked about the total fees for a building permit.
Mr. Legg replied that in 1995, the City of Fort Collins had almost $8,000 worth of
development fees. That was raised in 1998 to almost $10,400 which is about a 36%
increase by the City of Fort Collins from 1995 to 1998.
Member Gavaldon asked where that put us in 1999 with these fees.
Mr. Legg replied that it would be an additional $865 to the total.
Member Gavaldon felt that was a very large increase of over 36%.
Member Craig commented that Mr. Engemoen gave an excellent presentation.
Member Craig recommended that the Board forward a recommendation to
implement both the Regional Road Capital Expansion Fee as well as the Regional
Park Fee.
Chairperson Colton seconded the motion.
Member Gavaldon complimented staff on their presentation. Member Gavaldon stated
that he could see some merit in the transportation fee, but would not support the fee
based on values. He also would not support the park fee because he believes in the
user system and if the users want it, they have to pay for it. He is also sensitive to
affordable housing needs and felt the fees were becoming unreasonable. He does
believe in fees and felt Fort Collins does have a good structure in place. He felt there
should be more work on this because he felt that the fees have crossed the line to
unreasonable for growth to pay its own way.
Member Weitkunat would not be supporting the fee for parks. She felt the quarter
percent sales tax took care of that. If we are asking people to pay more to buy more
land, she felt we already do that in the city and now they want people to also pay more
for in the county and next it would be the state. Member Weitkunat felt she could not
put that burden on another single family home to create more parkland.
Page 10
- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 4, 1999
Page 10
Member Weitkunat commented on the transportation capital expansion fee. She
believed that the transportation has become regional and that the municipalities are
responsible for much of the traffic that we find on these roads. What concerned her
was the magnitude of the fee on all single, multi-family residences and commercial
properties. She stated that if the northeast develops 10,000 units, there was
$1,640,000 on roads that she was not sure the northeast will be traveling. She does
not think that everyone should be accountable and she would not be supporting the
motion. She thinks that the idea is right, but it needs to be more equitable.
Chairperson Colton stated that he would be supporting the recommendation and the
fees. He commented that in both the Plus System as well as City Plan, it talks about
growth paying its fair share and to be fair to all involved. He felt this is doing growth
smart, and if we don't do this then we won't have the roads, parks and open space; and
then taxes will be raised on everyone, and that is unfair to those people who are
already here.
Chairperson Colton commented that he also supported the park fee. If we are to put
this fee in place and the tax runs out in 5 years, the taxpayers have the choice to either
renew it or not. If we are getting enough fees from the new growth, we might get a tax
• reduction for all of us who are already here. He felt we are obligated to do this for the
people who already live here. We could reduce taxes in other areas if we have new
growth pay for it. It comes from one place or the other or we suffer a level of service,
and he was not willing to do that because it won't be a livable place here.
Member Craig concurred with Chairperson Colton. She felt this was very needed. That
growth was coming here because of the amenities and if we don't continue to get the
parks larger, people will complain.
The recommendation failed 2-2 with Members Weitkunat and Gavaldon voting in
the negative. There is no recommendation.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Advance Planning Department
Citv of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 1999
TO: Ms. Ann Turquist, Council Policy Manager
FM: Bob Brown i nBAffordable Housing Board
RE: Board Review of Larimer County Road and Part: Capital Expansion Fee Proposal
The Board reviewed the proposal by Larimer County that the city of Ft. Collins agree to col lest what amounts
to duplicate Road and Park Capital Expansion Fees for County benefit pursuant to issuance of new Ft. Collins
building permits. As we have stated many times, impact fees are among the largest obstacles to the production
of affordable housing units in Ft. Collins..
It is obvious that both governmental entities have traditionally provided, and will continue to provide,some
services to the others residents. This is both correct and proper. Unfortunately,affordable housing is among the
°regional' services funded almost entirely by Ft. Collins in other words, it appears as if the only share of
t affordable housing money on the table is the City's -Larimer County's record on in this area is much less than
enviable-and we cannot,quite frankly,take care of our own affordable housing needs much less compounding
our own problems by further increasing impact fees to benefit owsiders. An illustrative example:Habitat for
Humanity paid approximately S7500 for a building permit last March: it contracted for approximately$9500
for the same building permit two weeks ago.
This miaht be anti-climactic but. for the record, the Board recommends against adopting the Larimer County
proposal.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6376
FAX (970)224-6111 • TDD(970)224-6002 • E-mail: aplanning@ci.fort-collins.co.us