HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/08/2005 - RESOLUTION 2005-115 RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE PRO ITEM NUMBER: 3
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: November8, 2005
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Don Bachman
SUBJECT
Resolution 2005-115 Ratifying and Adopting the Proposed Transportation Development Review
Fees in Accordance with Section 2.2.3(D) of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The fee would be established with the intent to recover 80% of the costs for the Transportation
Service Area to provide development related services. The amounts anticipated to be collected for
the budget years 2006 and 2007 are $488,621 and $513,557 respectively.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transportation Services currently recovers approximately44%of its development related costs from
fees collected for the Development Construction Permit for administration to issue the permit and
for construction inspection. At present no fee is collected for development review. As part of the
City's budgeting process for 2006 and 2007,the City Manager's proposed budget includes increasing
development charges to recover 80%of the development related costs for the Transportation Service
Area. The additional revenues required for this purpose in the proposed budget are $488,621 for
2006 and$513,557 for 2007. The activities supported by the Transportation Development Review
Fee include Engineering Development Review;portions of Traffic Engineering and Transportation
Planning; and some Engineering overhead expenses.
Section 2.2.3(D)(1) of the Land Use Code establishes development review fees for the purpose of
recovering the cost incurred by the City for processing, reviewing, and recording applications.
Section 2.2.3(D)(2) of the Land Use Code states that the amount of the development review fees
shall be established by the City Manager,or by the City Council if the City Manager so requests,and
shall be based on the actual expenses incurred by the City.
November 8, 2005 -2- Item No. 3
By approval of this resolution the City Council ratifies and adopts the proposed Transportation
Development Review Fee to recover about 80% of the City's cost for the Transportation Service
Area to perform development related work. The Fee should be set to begin on January 1,2006. The
fee structure is shown in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
Upon determination that a Transportation Development Review Fee would be part of the proposed
Transportation budget for 2006 and 2007, staff began a task to develop a fee structure. Engineering
staff gathered information from other cities along the Front Range and Larimer County,and gathered
information related to development submittals in Fort Collins for the past two years.Data on projects
submitted to the City includes the types of work submittals,the number of submittals per year, and
development project information that includes numbers of units, square footage of buildings, and
acreage size of the development. No supporting data is available from Transportation Development
Review for actual time spent on each project or by project type. Therefore, to develop a fee
structure, staff used its best judgment to estimate time charges per project and assume numbers of
projects expected to be submitted per year. Other assumptions used to develop the fee structure are
shown in Attachment 2.
Before developing a fee structure, staff hosted a meeting for development professionals on
September 26,2005. Staff explained its charge to meet the proposed budget requirement,received
their comments,and heard their preferences on developing a fee structure. With their comments and
the data staff collected, we designed a proposed fee structure and some alternatives.
Another meeting was held with the development community on October 13, 2005, where staff
presented the proposed fee structure information. Some revisions were made based on input
received at the meeting. Comments received from the development community at the two meetings
are included as Attachment 3.
The proposed fee structure was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at a work session on
October 14, 2005. Written comments, if any, will be provided under separate cover.
The Transportation Board reviewed the proposed fee structure at its regular meeting on October 19,
2005 and voted to recommend adoption of Option 1 of three options presented with a
recommendation to look at ways to streamline the development review process. A letter from the
Transportation Board is included as Attachment 4.
Changes to improve the development review process are in process. In 2003 a consulting team was
hired to review and evaluate the whole development review process. The team produced a report
("Zucker Report")that made recommendations for change. A memo summarizing the status of the
Zucker recommendations and the status of the changes made to date is included for reference as
Attachment 5.
November 8, 2005 -3- Item No. 3
Included for your information is a chart titled"Historical Comparison of Impact Fees to Sales Price"
(Attachment 6). Important for this issue,the chart shows the proportion of the historical sale price
of the average single family home that goes to development impact fees. The proposed fee structure
would, for the worst case of$500 per unit,result in a 0.14%increase in the sale price of the average
single family home. However,if all of the proposed fee increases are approved for 2006,would total
a maximum$26,358. The Development Impact Fees would makeup 7.5%,including the phased-in
implementation of the Sewer Plant Investment Fee increase (1/3 in 2006), of the average single
family home sale price of$350,790.
Following the Transportation Board meeting, staff continued to analyze the optional fee structures
to develop fees that will be as fair as possible. The final three options developed are shown in
Attachment 7, titled "Transportation Development Submittal Fees and Options for PDP Rates."
Staff recommends Option 2 for the City Manager's Recommended Budget, which was revised to
reflect the concerns of the Transportation Board to reduce impacts on small projects. Some
additional supporting information used to compare the options are shown in Attachments 8 and 9,
titled"PDP Fee Ranges as%,"and"Effect of Recommended Fee on Sample Projects,"respectively.
The sample projects used were projects forwhich the development review process as been completed
or are already in the review process.
It is proposed that the fee structure be adopted with the understanding that data will be gathered
annually to provide support for further adjusting of the fee structure.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transportation Development Review Fee Rates for 2006 and 2007
2. Assumptions for Proposing a Fee Structure
3. Comments from Development Community
4. Memorandum from Transportation Board dated October 26, 2005
5. Zucker Report Update
6. Historical Comparison of Impact Fees to Sales Price
7. Transportation Development Review Submittal Fees and Options for PDP Rates
8. PDP Fee Ranges as Percentage
9. Effect of Recommended Fee on Sample Projects
ATTACHMENTI
Transportation Development Review Fee Rates
for 2006 and 2007
Type Rate
Overall Development Plan each
Project Development Plan (PDP) (1, 2, 3, 4)
Detached Single Family ;I,f)p' /unit
Multi Family and/or all other residential units ii r ' i ,il/unit
Commercial/ Industrial/ Retail/ Nonresidential I ii4sq ft
All PDPs i;/acre
All PDPs i , each
Final Development Plan (5) each
Annexation *!$_ /acre
Minor Amendment 1254 each
Major Amendment each
Re-Zone001each
Modification to Land Use Code each
Wireless Telecommunication Equipment WTE $ each
Road Projects /acre
Vacations of easements „ ,.';I,,,; ! Q,p each
Dedications of easements and rights-of-way "$260 each
Vacations of rights-of-way „ ;$ Q) Teach
(1) Shall include Basic Development Review projects requiring Transportation
Services review and/or utility plan review
(2) For any project for which the PDP fee amount calculated would exceed
$30,000, the PDP fee shall be adjusted with the following formula:
Adjusted PDP Fee Amount = $30,000 + 1/2 (PDP fee amount above $30,000)
(3) The maximum PDP fee for any Residential only project shall be $500 per
residential unit within the property boundary. This does not apply to
Mixed Use developments
(4) For 3 reviews - $500 for each re-review
(5) For 2 reviews - $500 for each re-review
ATTACHMENT
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE
ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROPOSING A FEE STRUCTURE
Background:
In order to comply with budget policy, Transportation Services is to recover 80% of its Development
Review costs beginning in 2006. For purposes of the Transportation Service Area, included are the costs
for (1) Engineering Department, including the development review engineers, a portion of surveying
services, a portion of administration, and the construction inspectors; (2) Traffic Department, including a
percentage of time for the City Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Systems Engineer; and (3) Transportation
Planning, including a portion of two transportation planners. After taking into account that 100% of the
total cost for development inspection is already collected in existing fees, the amounts reQuired from the
Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) are $488,621 for 2006 and $S 13,SS7 for 2007. In
pursuing a fee structure, it is noted that during 2006 there will be substantial effort expended on projects
already in the pipeline that are not subject to the new fees. Consequently, it is fundamental that fees be
collected at the beginning of review to generate sufficient revenue to meet the budget direction.
Assumptions and Approach:
1. Input from a September 26, 2005 public meeting, most significant desires:
a. Fee should be predictable and fair
b. Fee should reflect the relative complexity and size of projects
c. Prefer a fee based on a per unit or per acre basis
d. Prefer a fee that gives credit to projects that require fewer rounds of review
e. Developers and Builders do not like the hourly rate method used in Boulder, which charges
actual time spent on a project. They were concerned that the City might over charge on
hours, and the actual cost is not predictable.
2. Transportation staff charges: The Transportation positions involved in development review were
analyzed to establish costs and an estimate of chargeable time. A weighted average charge rate of
$65 per hour was determined. This rate was to be used to estimate labor charges reQuired for the
various types of development review activities except Project Development Plans (PDPs) and Final
Reviews. However, the $65 per hour rate was also used to calculate hours spent on a project on
various PDP projects as a test for reasonableness of fee amount. Special note: our costs do not
include overhead items such as legal, executive management, building, lights, power, heat, janitorial
and other maintenance, HR, payroll, or other City support services.
3. Past Project Data: Past project data was collected related to project submittals for all of 2003 and
2004 and for mid-September 2005. There is only anecdotal data on the amount of past time
Page 1 of 4
charges per project. Therefore, staff estimated from experience the labor hours for activities. The
activity data consisted of the following:
a. Number of projects by the types for which data exists.
b. Number of units for residential developments divided into single family and multi-family
units.
c. SQuare footage of buildings for office, commercial and industrial developments.
d. Acreage size for all developments.
e. The project categories for which data is available are: ODf s, PDPs, Final Approvals,
Annexations, Minor Amendments, Major Amendments, Re-zonings, Modifications, Wireless
Telecommunication EQuipment (WTE), Road Projects, Vacations of easements and rights of
way, Dedications of easements and rights of way.
f. It is assumed that Conceptual Reviews would have no charge. However, if a new higher level
of comprehensive Conceptual Review is added as a second stage review, that service would
reouire a fee.
4. Analysis of the data collected
a. The number of projects in each category submitted from year to year is highly variable.
Therefore, staff averaged the numbers from 2003 and 2004, which are the most recent
completeyears, to calculate the revenues for 2006 and 2007.
S. Estimating the fee for each project submittal type
a. Fixed Fee for more predictable activity types: The initial focus was to estimate the time
necessary for each of the more routine or predictable types of project submittals. Staff
estimated the amount of staff time needed for these activities and applied the average hourly
labor value for 2006 and 2007. This was applied to all project submittals except PDPs and
Finals.
b. PDPs and Finals: The majority of work done by Transportation Services is review and process
of PDPs and Finals.Although much of City staff work done on those new submittals received
in 2006 will carry over into followingyears it is necessary to collect the fees "up front" on
new projects submitted to meet the 2006 revenue reQuirements. .
c. A fixed fee of$1,000 is proposed for all Final project submittals, including projects currently
in the system as a PDP or earlier. The fee seemed nominal for charging projects in the
system for the minimum work needed for finalizing the plat, development agreement, etc.
Variable fee for PDPs: This fee is the most complicated fee to establish. This fee includes the
work needed for both PDPs and Final submittals, less the $1,000 Final fee described above. The
proposed fee includes the following elements.
I. Minimum fee: To cover the minimum amount of work that every project reQuires,
large or small
ii. Residential per unit charge: It is assumed a specific unit charge for single family units
and a reduced amount for multi-family units related to the time needed to review
transportation improvements associated with this type of developments.
III. Office, Commercial and Industrial building sQuare footage charge: Staff assumed a
specific charge per souare foot of building for developments in this category related
Page 2 of 4
to transportation public improvements, and site design related to the development
affects on the public improvements.
iv. Acreage charge used for all developments for a size factor: We assumed a specific
charge per acre for the entire development site to provide a scale factor. This
calculates to a minimal charge for small sites. This factor is significant for large sites.
This charge provides for a review fee sufficient to cover public improvements for
sites with minimal or small building sQuare footage
d. Assumed unit charges to compare project types and sizes: Several optional unit fee scenarios
were examined using data from all of the 2003 and 2004 projects. The results were
reviewed to see if the calculated fee appeared reasonable for the amount of City staff work
that would be done for each size and type of projects. From this trial and error process,
alternatives were developed that looked reasonable for comparison for further development
of the proposed fee structure.
e. Used other cities fees for comparison: Other cities methods for calculating fees are shown on
the next page. The Colorado Springs method was our primary guide.
Page 3 of 4
Development Engineering Fees
Method of Charge
City/County TDRF Y/N Fee Type Amount
Arvada Y Set fee and/or $3.000 maximum
fee per unit/area
Aurora Y Fee Charge/Sheet $395/sheet with no maximum limit good for 3 reviews
only,then must pay the same fee to continue.
Boulder Y Hourly Rates Initial deposit for revimv$500-$4,000. $125 per hour
for review service, no maximum limit.
Colorado Springs Y Set fee and/or Residential:
fee per unit/area $95/Iot public streets
$68/lot private streets
$47/lot minor plat
Industrial/Commercial and Multi-Family:
$236/acre
Other fees
Fort Collins N None
Greeley N None
Lakewood N None
Iarimer County Y** Recover$68k in 2005; planning to raise higher.
**Fees received from the Planning Fees-currently
recovering 22%(theoretically)
Longmont Y Hourly Rates $25 initial fee,plus$25 per hour, no maximum.
Loveland N* *Close to developing a fee for engineering plan review.
Looking at 2 reviews for intial charge,and added amount
for additional reviews.
Westminster Y Set fee and/or $750 per plan + $75 x the so, rt.of acres
fee per unit/arm $300 for minor plats&vacations
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT
City of Fort Collins
September 5
First Transportation Development Review Fee meeting with development professionals
City staff present: Don Bachman, Gary Diede,Pete Wray, Sheri Wamhoff, Mike
Herzig, Polly Bennett, Tom Vosburg
Development professionals present: Jeffrey Schneider; Theresa Ramos-Garcia- Board
of Realtors; David Simpson—Connell; David May- Chamber of Commerce; Michelle
Jacobs - HBA; Ralph Waldo; John Minatta
INPUT:
Ralph Waldo:
• The Boulder method(initial deposit+ $125/hour review fee) seems most unfair;
inefficiencies among City staff could lead to a higher bill.
• Per lot/acre is a predictable way to do it.
• The City needs a predictable fee to make up the deficit they are facing. Perhaps
we need a base fee to accomplish that, while we work on a tiered fee.
Michelle Jacobs:
• Transportation is the third department to contact her about fee increases.
Water/Wastewater is increasing theirs substantially.
• How does streamlining the development review process affect this?
• If things are slowing down(i.e. fewer projects) why do you need more fees?
• We could give you better input if we know#s of projects per year, etc.
David Simpson:
• How do you differentiate between complexity of projects?
• Dropping the plan submittal to 40% - 50% complete is too lax. 65% - 75%would
be better and would potentially reduce review time. People who submit at 40% -
50% should pay more!
Jeff Schneider:
• QC—set of standards/requirements to prevent omissions. If the plans aren't
correct, charge to re-review.
• Could the fee beset on a per job bid basis? Use a tiered system(i.e. if they submit
40% complete plans the fee is $xxx; at 70%the fee is $xxx)
1 of 3
• Could you let the user choose the fee calculation method? i.e. 70% fee might be
hourly because it would take less time to review. Different fees for different
standards (based on check lists of what constitutes 40% completion, 50%
completion, 75% completion, etc.) Submitting at 70%versus 40%would save a
round of review, or 25% savings +/- in costs.
• How many projects *don't* go to 100%complete?
• Is there any way to get the land use process complete before having to submit
drawings?
• When did the idea of this charge come up?
David May:
• Per capita engineering costs?Force efficiencies in engineering—"We hear more
complaints about Engineering than any other City Department."
• How does the City of Fort Collins Engineering compare to other cities?
John Minatta:
• Likes the basis of a per lot/unit fee, then additional charges for additional rounds
of reviews.
.........................................................................
October 13, 2005
Second Transportation Development Review Fee meeting with development professionals
Staff attending: Don Bachman,Mike Herzig, Sheri Wamhoff,Gary Diede,Pete Wray,Paul
Eckman, Cameron Gloss, Greg Byrne,Polly Bennett
Development Professionals attending: Mike Blank,Monica Sweere,Eric Nichols, Cathy Mathis,
Angie Milewski (BHA),Patricia Kroetch, Steve Humana(TST),Michael Brake(JR
Engineering),Michelle Jacobs(HBA), Luke Oldenburg(BHA),Theresa Ramos-Garcia(Board of
Realtors),Kim Jordan(New Belgium Brewery),John Slack
COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
• Michael Brake: How many lots did you assume in your calculations?A. Average of
2003/2004
• Monica: What%of PDPs end up being completed projects?A. around 98%
• Monica: Logic of analysis is crystalline; however,the difference in paradigm in thinking has
a gaping hole. Fee calculations are reasonable,rational, logical;also rational that fees be at
80%.Monica sees the gaping hole as increasing fees but not reducing costs of doing business.
We have to either lower our standards or reduce the level of effort we put into a project.
Reducing standards is a policy question. We are obligated to work under Code.We are
struggling to keep up with the level of work. Issue of developer's vestiture/risk is not being
addressed. Paul questioned that it is an issue,as the standards in effect at the time the project
is filed,govern(Vested Rights Act). The only exemptions are codes that affect health&
safety issues.
• Mike Blank: Predictability occurs because of the proposed fees.
• Michelle: What other fee increases are you aware of?SOS fees will be reviewed;A.DCP
Application fee will go from$300 to$400; minor adjustments to Construction Inspection
2of3
fees.Waste Water plant investment fee is increasing.
• Mike Blank: There is a potential of$2,000 more per unit being added on to residential units
with all of the proposed fees(including the new utility fees)
• Eric:Why is this being rammed through so quickly?Dangerous. This town is already
expensive. Should be looking at the entire policy. Seems like a lot of new fees came out of
BFO.
• Michelle: How do fee increases promote economic development?
• Michelle: This all goes back to an ordinance adopted in 1997,concurrent to adoption of City
Plan?A.the 80%recovery dates back to 1997,and is used now as a guideline although a
specific recovery is not stated in the current ordinance.
• Current fees that developers pay go where?To Planning?A. The new fee goes to
Transportation Services.
• Cathy: If fees are collected in advance and a project doesn't go to completion,you end up
with a big pot of money that you didn't earn.
• Angie: Chart of comparisons with other Cities is misleading as it says Fort Collins has none.
It would be helpful to know how much of the other Cities fees are paid from General Fund
versus fees.A. The chart is meant to indicate Engineering fees only for this exercise.
• Angie: Set amount for 2 reviews and then extra for additional is the wrong way to go. Fee
should be bigger for bigger projects. She feels as though the number of reviews is out of their
control.They feel as though sometimes the review is not complete. "I require another round
of review AND I get paid for that!"Perhaps set the bar at the average(3 or 4)and then charge
for additional.A. We are open to that change.
• Kim: Unintended consequences due to perception issue.Projects sometimes go back through
the entire review even though it is just a Stormwater fix. Look at systemic change...partner
with developers to make the process work more smoothly. They are willing to pay more in
fees if the process goes through smoothly.
• Gary: reasoning is that any change could potentially affect another area(correction in street
design effects utilities etc).
• 80%completion and then the site plan changes...there must be another solution.
• Michael Brake: One way to expedite process is to have all fees paid at Building Permit.Try
to structure a way to expedite the Development Review process...Review/Express Review(a
parallel process). It would need to be a guaranteed process. Cut the time in half and
developers would be willing to pay extra.Cameron explained that Planning has a proposal
coming before Cameron for a Preliminary Design Review before application resulting in a list
of preliminary issues/fatal flaws. Developer gets a letter saying that they are proceeding down
the right path. Cost has not been defined...$250?Work is needed to determine a fair and
reasonable fee so people will engage in it.
• Are you seeing less of the going back and forth during review?(Michelle)Cameron: rounds
are shorter;projects are going to hearing in shorter time.
• Nothing is going to change the process,although developers are going to pay more. (Mike)
Don: Dialogue on process should be ongoing.He is willing to continue the dialogue, although
it is a separate issue from today's.
• Recap:primary objection is for additional review expense.Mike thinks the fees are too high
overall,especially for small projects. Lower initial fee is a better choice possibly. Loveland's
up-front fees are significantly lower.
• This will be a detriment to end users considering locating in Fort Collins.
• BHA is considering building a new building in Fort Collins,but fees will be 10%of the
building cost!
PB/abm
3 of 3
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Fort Collins Transportation Board
Brent Thordarson, Chair
City of Fort Colons
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 26, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Brent Thordarson, Chair
RE: Transportation Development Review Fee Recommendation
The Transportation Board reviewed the proposed Transportation Development Review
Fee Structure at its October 19s'meeting. Following a presentation by Staff and member
deliberation, the Board unanimously recommends adoption of Fee Structure Option#1.
While this move makes sense in light of the current City budget situation, several Board
members share the concern that additional development fees could act as a disincentive to
future economic development(and the tax revenue stream that would accompany this
development). The Board also recommends continued investigation into ways to
streamline the development review process, along with the possible use of incentives to
promote more up-front planning preparation on the part of the development community.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
ATTACHMENT
City of Fort Collins
MEMO
October 19,2005
To: Darin Atteberry,City Manager
From: Gary Diede,Transportations Operations Director
RE: Zucker Update
Cameron Gloss presented the following information to EVSAG earlier this year. Over 35
of the suggested improvements have been implemented and most of the balance of the 51
will be completed within the next six months, including the upcoming changes associated
with the redevelopment and infill(REFILL)project.
The top ten issues were addressed in the first four phases of implementation that are
highlighted in the text below.
The first four phases of the development review process changes suggested in Zucker
Systems' report- Quality Improvement Plans for the Development Review Process-have
been implemented.16 of the 51 changes that have yet to be completed. (Note: Zucker's
report identifies 54 implementation measures, 3 of which related to review and
distribution of the original DRAFT document).
Completed Implementation Phases
• Phase I - completed September 2003
Phase I measures focused on the highest priority items suggested in the study. The
primary changes included adoption of a resolution by City Council officially stating a
"policy neutral" approach to development, elimination of the"90%rule" for engineering
requirements prior to scheduling of a public hearing, shorter"cycle times" for City staff
review and comment on each development application, and the invitation of applicants to
the City's Staff Review meetings.
• Phase II - completed January 2004
The principal change involved in Phase II included a streamlining of the minor
amendment procedures. One suggested change,which would have allowed the Planning
and Zoning Board(not City Council)to hear appeals of Administrative Hearing Officer
Decisions,was evaluated and not carried forward.
• Phase III - completed June 2004
During Phase III, the Land Use Code was amended to allow an Administrative Hearing
Officer to review and take action on"Modifications"associated with Administrative
Review applications. This change has resulted in a major reduction in the number of
modification reviews conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board and substantially
reduced the review time for many applicants. Staff also began tackling changes to the
Conceptual Review meetings(sometimes referred to as"Pre-Application conferences")
during the 3rd phase in an attempt to make the meetings more meaningful for applicants.
Other changes included additional staff training on the land development process and the
role of project managers.
• Phase IV- completed January 2005
Phase IV focused on two major policy/regulatory issues impacting development: Natural
Habitat and Buffer Standards and the Historic Preservation Program. The Land Use Code
was amended with respect to bird nesting sites and wetland buffer distances in a manner
that provides greater flexibility to developers of urban sites while maintaining adequate
environmental protection. Upon review of the historic preservation program, it was
determined that the existing program did not warrant changes at this time. Other
refinements to the Conceptual Review Process were also enacted during this period,
including distribution of electronic copies of conceptual development plans one week
prior to the meeting.
The City Council tabled a request to give Advisory Boards and Commissions the ability
to provide formal development review comments to the Planning and Zoning Board
regarding specific development applications. Zucker Systems' report indicated support
for allowing the Natural Resources Advisory Board and Air Quality Advisory Boards the
right to comment on requests for modifications to the Land Use Code.
J I J I
.mA:1
■ Development Impact Fees
Avg Construction Value of SF Home '
Other ( lot cost, commissions & misc. ) $ 261358
( 7 . 5 % )
: = $ 21 , 789
19, 757 ( 7 . 5 %)
( 7 ' 9 % ) 237,81
$ 15 , 660
( 50 . 3 % ) (62 . 6%
124, 86
1 111 $ 9 , 252 (62 . 3 % )
(7 . 8% )
$ 77, 80
• ' ' ' ' ( 65 . 9 % ) 104, 54
$87,44 $86, 61 �
� $ 59,8 (41SO ( 29 . 9 % ) ( 24 . 6 % )
�$30 f96 ( 29 . 9 °i
h
H
Z
W
= o
V o
Q Ln
Q � o
a+
N
a
0
a T
L 3L m
O
M C o
d
N M O lO 0D 0 r 0 0 0 M 6A O N O r C ODM 0LO 00 C y L
C C O roc Ln n MLn 07 N (O — N M 0 NO m J T
O N > (Am N O N 64 9N E9 f9 664 OfA w a69� M as N
d M m ME9 EA EA EA (9 Q Efl r O
C. O N J a n
O O Cl) O f` LO O O O M 0 0 m O M O L 00
N 0 0 if) 0 V r000 Mf90N O V --aW O C
c 0 O Ln r M LO O 'IT NE9 (O N Ln _ .w^ ',� IiS C N L
C O M N ViM N O NfA EAW (9 p (9 W XJi'49 w M .
(p .n Cl) E9 64 4A 69 7 Cl `.
N O oN (9 6s O: a' a o —
c
d oMOI� Lnoo 0 Cl) 0 o Ln 0 ao m � m
co . Ln o M o o
LL C p r M Ln r M In O V (O N N O N 0 N N O O J m
o N > (9M N 0 N W (9W 64 CL � � 69G9 N p O 'D
co V Q O m N O p
w Q N V3 69 O E9 N N
IE/� " _" N L m IL p
Wf J J m m a 0 IL
N N
L L m L L L L L L L L 0. a N m ` -� N
Cl) o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a a)n a
m m m m m m m m m m m m r0 7
3 a) �Ny 0 0 m 0 N 0 0 m O +
Q m Soto
N E C C 0 0 N O N
•� 'x, a ky'�9 �R 69 a3 ws v� a) a a � ? o O
Q Q V1 O (9 a
lY 'y Z O C II C 15 m
OCDn 0 J f0 p_N
m d 0 L a�mi a3i m E o u
C. 3 c o > c Q � 0 0)
O M ac o m m a N m
0
�i a m m tr m m
E N o 'c ca LLB U �
� .n Lu c � Ea 0 cD ° o
a o
Q m e a °� IL m 'o m m
� w
d 0 c c o T 0 .L.. U 0 x M LL
C
cc L) y > Eo 0 � �v0im � t1 3
c c E
+• c c d J Lv E p 0 3 -N o 0 n 0
IC and cE Eyy go m E daw
E E c c m E m m o U m o o E m c ac
an d J O m m L d m M J o E
O 00 a -0 -0 ° m N o o 'c c ° c E c d o
L mn N N NN m QNON mC mO 0 0 0c m>
_ Q ( ti a o@oQ
d — mN ` � m amL
C o o -0 2 9 O
OC
m () U a
0
a
y
c
m
F
z
W
2 1D
a N
K 04
N
Q O
M
O O of o 0 0 0
CL ti 00 N d' N
O
4)
a+
= N
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
= 00 LO N LO O N
4) Q � In N
a o
�a
as
C
O ti ti o 0 o M
a � LO N N
O
LL
IL
0
a o0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 C 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
qql- cM N -r--
69 699 69 69-
> > > >
0
O O O O O O >
m m Q Q Q Q o
00 0000 0
0
o.
c
C
F
z
w
O
liniq 11
CL 0
N s N
o C-4
IL
a 0 CL SO
0 IL CL
�D
U) N M 0 0 N
U� rl� C� LQ q cl cl N� N y yN0f ON V n w m ym7cqpqq: (R
N
0 EN � OAMooa , c 0 2 M 0 V N
T
CD w
IL O 0 " (
U. U. U. 000wa
8 Lqc� m — � ID 0 U)
�co�lv�ok R VM k IR VJ (R
CL M r N N p Mm m L6(6 r17 cli
E
N
C LL ELL — 02V .,t 't E V; C�-4
0 :S :) 2 � MN "4 � M :) . , N
V.
,E LL 0 v m m a
V
4) :) U) N N m N
4b
E
E
0
>
E x
w
LLI
IL ns co c d 4)
0
< > LZ R
a 1, 0 m c M
:2 6 m 0
'5 Co m -4 c 4)
0 0 0
> E CL E E
0 (75
0 M >
U) LL L)
0 E a
0 U) A?
E N .5� 0 , m 0 E -, R >
0 20
m ai
0 E �L m (L- 0 a- �4) of
0 - E LL
E >co 0 co �o 8 m N
2 C3 M w 2 CL m and CL @ 0
CL E > 0 0 wo 0 0
-5 Fn E
E CL
E I w 0 —
m 0 — > IL CL
E w 8
(L E -g? 0
E . - = c 0
mma 0 m S
a "5 c C) - E 2 C) = >
0 E LL 0 CL LL U) 0 N 0
L) 'a .2 CL 0 16 E
0
0 cs :c (n E W ()U) 0
0 0 Lo -C6 E 0
w LM 75 'a :2 N .9
0 m 0 > m a 0 m m
w 0 M = WLL �- CLN cn (2 w CIL
2L
RESOLUTION 2005-115
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 2.2.3(D) OF THE LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, the staff of the City has developed a proposed Transportation Development
Review Fee structure; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Transportation Development Review Fee structure is designed to
establish transportation development review fees to recover 80%of the development-related costs
incurred by the Transportation Service Area in reviewing engineering, site and other related
documents submitted to the City as a part of development applications; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2.3(D) of the Land Use Code establishes development review fees
for the purpose of recovering costs incurred by the City in processing, reviewing and recording
development applications,which costs shall be based upon the actual expenses incurred by the City;
and
WHEREAS,Section 2.2.3(D)delegates the establishment of the Development Review Fees
to the City Manager provided,however,that the City Manager may, at his discretion,refer the fees
to the City Council for adoption by resolution or ordinance; and
WHEREAS,upon referral of the proposed Transportation Development Review Fees to the
City Council, the Council has determined that the fees should be established as a part of the
Development Review Fee Schedule.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Transportation Development Review Fees established by the City Manager and
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit"A",are hereby ratified and adopted in accordance
with Section 2.2.3(D) of the Land Use Code, which fees shall go into effect on January 1, 2006.
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the City Council held this 8th day of
November, A.D. 2005.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
r ,
EXHIBIT "A"
Transportation Development Review Fee Rates
for 2006 and 2007
Type Rate
Overall Development Plan $500 each
Project Development Plan (PDP) (1, 2, 3, 4)
Detached Single Family $;1"60;`/unit
Multi Family and/or all other residential units $115 /unit
Commercial/ Industrial/ Retail/ Nonresidential $0 Z,5. /sq ft
All PDPs '$ tr0 '/acre
All PDPs $24`00'"`'each
Final Development Plan 5 f) each
Annexation „2Q/acre
Minor Amendment R each
Major Amendment $25Q.0 each
Re-Zone $20Q;each
Modification to Land Use Code $2Q0'each
Wireless Telecommunication Equipment (WTE) $65''each
Road Projects $5Qf /acre
Vacations of easements $; Q`.each
Dedications of easements and rights-of-way " _2$0'each
Vacations of rights-of-way 000'i each
(1) Shall include Basic Development Review projects requiring Transportation
Services review and/or utility plan review
(2) For any project for which the PDP fee amount calculated would exceed
$30,000, the PDP fee shall be adjusted with the following formula:
Adjusted PDP Fee Amount = $30,000 + 1/2 (PDP fee amount above $30,000)
(3) The maximum PDP fee for any Residential only project shall be $500 per
residential unit within the property boundary. This does not apply to
Mixed Use developments
(4) For 3 reviews - $500 for each re-review
(5) For 2 reviews - $500 for each re-review