HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/15/2002 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 142, 2002, AMENDIN AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 7
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 15, 2002
FROM: Matt Baker
SUBJECT :
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142,2002,Amending Section 7.5-32 of the City Code Pertaining
to Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Ordinance No. 142, 2002, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October I. 2002.
amends Section 7.5-32 of the Code, increasing the Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fees.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 13
DATE: October 1, 2002
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM:
Matt Baker
SUBJECT :
First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2002, Amending Section 7.5-32 of the City Code Pertaining
to Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of t Ordin eon rs eading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Periodically, staff analyzes the costs and expenses of the Street Oversizing Program. Staff is
proposing an increase of the Street zi it n• ' Fe there have been some cost
increases in elements of the P gram. It adds n to is o sing a recalculation to more
equitably distribute the cost of dges an box c e n arter streets.
ACKGROUND:
Staff annually checks the costs and expenses of the Street Oversizing Program to validate the level
of the impact fees charged to new development. Costs have remained static over the past year while
unit prices have dropped slightly.No increase for inflation is being recommended. The Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index Regional Denver area has remained steady during the year.
However, staff has encountered increasing requirements for street construction projects outside of
the defined construction and engineerin costs reimbursed to develo ers. These requirements are
for environmental studies, wate uall stre b' t and wildlife studies. These
requirements apply to only a fe rojects d do t i e th eet Oversizing Fee. However,
as a matter of housekeeping, st s in g order to imburse projects that encounter
these expenses.
There has been an increase in traffic signal costs from $80,000 per signal to $100,000 per signal.
In addition, CDOT has increased signal requirements on state highway traffic signals, which raises
these costs from $110,000 per signal to$230,000 per signal. Staff proposes a 4.9% increase to the
Street Oversizing Fee to recover these increased costs for signals.
The recently adopted Transfort Strategic Plan included a Capital Funding component. Staff
recalculated the Street Oversizing Fee, substituting the newly adopted plan for the previous plan.
This increases the Street Oversizing Fee by 2.2%.
The biggest change to the current Street Oversizing Program is staff's recommendation to reallocate
the exceptional costs of bridges and box culverts on arterial streets from the adjacent developer onto
October ,
DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 13
the fee payer. Currently,the Street Oversizing Program requires the adjacent developer to construct
the local street portion of arterial roadways, including bridge and box culvert structures. Staff
proposes the reallocation of the local street portion of arterial bridges into the Street Oversizing Fee
to spread the cost of these structures to all users, instead of being an obligation of the developer.
Staff believes this would allow the City to determine the timing of bridge construction instead of
waiting for all adjacent properties to develop. This would facilitate the street connectivity for new
structures and the widening to accommodate increased traffic on existing structures.
This reallocation of arterial bridge and box culvert costs would increase the Street Oversizing Fee
by 7.8%. However,it would redCs �6sOtstru
o c s and should have a minimal
effect on the price of housing.
There is currently a backlog of onbecause development has not
occurred on all four adjacent properties of the structure. In order to not take on these older existing
unfunded liabilities, a separate improvement plan for bridges and box culverts will be developed
over the next budget cycle.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes this recalculation of the Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fees to be necessary to
recover costs to the Program. In ' io , th allo n o eri ridges and box culverts is a
more equitable way of spreadin e c t the a pit a ures to the new development
creating the need for the impro ent.
The Street Oversizing Program is a successful example of new growth paying its fair share of
transportation improvements. Over the past five years the Street Oversizing Program has
constructed more than $20 million in street, bike lane, traffic signal, sidewalk, and transit stop
improvements.