HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/25/2017 - IMPACT FEE RECOMMENDATIONS, METHODOLOGY AND PHASINDATE:
STAFF:
April 25, 2017
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Impact Fee Recommendations, Methodology and Phasing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Council on methodology, recommendations for phasing and revenue
implications for the recommended updates to Capital Expansion Fees, Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
and Electric Capacity Fees. In early 2016, staff initiated comprehensive reviews of the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees, Transportation Capital Expansion (Street Oversizing) Fees and Electric Capacity Fees. In late
2016, staff conducted a thorough inventory of all fees across the City in order to better coordinate presentation of
the holistic impact of fee recommendations to the community and City Council. Staff has worked together to
integrate the messaging of these efforts to the community. The recommendations for the updates result in
changes to the fees ranging from 21% decrease up to a 76% increase depending on the land use type. Extensive
outreach has been done in the community with boards and commission and the business community. There were
widespread concerns from virtually all stakeholders regarding the impact these fees will have on the affordability
of housing in Fort Collins and that development may be driven to neighboring communities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council want the capital expansion fees and the transportation expansion fees to be phased in or
implemented all at once?
2. If phased, how? Capital expansion fees over 1 or 2 years? Transportation expansion fees through Option A
and then a year later Option B or something else?
3. Is Council ready for these fees to be brought forward for consideration on May 16, 2017 for First Reading?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Capital Expansion Fees
Capital Expansion fees are used to require new development to pay a proportionate share of infrastructure costs.
The method of calculating the fees that the City of Fort Collins has used since 1996 is referred to as incremental
expansion. This method works in the following manner:
New development pays a fee based on current infrastructure costs - they essentially “buy in” to the current
system.
The revenues from the fees are then used to build new infrastructure to serve the new development and/or
the increase in population that follows the development.
The City’s Capital Improvement Expansion fees were originally prepared and adopted in 1996 and updated in
2013. Direction was given to staff to update the fees every 3-5 years.
The fees included in the study are:
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
April 25, 2017 Page 2
Fire
Police
General Government
In 2013, the fees for police, fire and general government for commercial and industrial land use types were
phased in over a 3-year period and updated annually for inflation according to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index and Denver Region Construction Cost Index. For residential land use types, the fees were
updated in 2013 and have been updated annually for inflation according to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index and Denver Region Construction Cost Index.
Staff worked with the Duncan Associates to review the methodology and update the fees. The outcome of the
study retains the basic methodology of incremental expansion and updates inputs from 2013 to reflect current
asset information. The fees have all been updated based on today’s current level of service and cost which
factors in current capital assets for all fees.
In addition to the updates to current Level of Service, the study also evaluated two options for calculating fire,
police and general government fees; one option which uses insured values to determine building values and a
second option which uses replacement cost values to determine building asset values. Staff recommends using
the replacement cost approach to calculating fees due to the insured values understating the asset values.
Insured values are in the process of being updated to more accurately reflect the true asset values.
The initial calculations for the Neighborhood Parkland and Community Parks also drastically understated the
replacement cost/acre of parks at today’s cost values. The recent Consumer price indices for Denver-Boulder-
Greeley as well as the Engineering News Record indices do not reflect the cost of construction in Fort Collins and
the rise in costs seen recently in the design of the Southeast Community Park. Staff worked with Ditesco
Engineering Firm to assess the current cost to build the three most recent community and neighborhood parks at
their design standards (Attachment 5). This resulted in a 14% cost/acre increase for community parks and a 7%
cost/acre increase for neighborhood parks over original costs to build the park assets.
After thorough analysis updating the asset values and land values, the fee recommendations for the capital
expansion fees are as follows:
April 25, 2017 Page 3
N'hood Comm. Gen. Sub-Total
Land Use Type Unit
Park Park Fire Police Gov't CEFs
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $1,893 $2,542 $502 $236 $574 $5,747
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 2,533 3,403 679 319 774 7,708
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 2,766 3,715 739 347 845 8,412
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling 2,796 3,755 751 352 858 8,512
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling 3,116 4,185 836 392 955 9,484
Commercial (Single Phase) 1,000 sf 0 0 633 297 1,451 2,381
Office and Other Services (3-phase) 1,000 sf 0 0 633 297 1,451 2,381
Industrial/Warehouse (Large Comm) 1,000 sf 0 0 148 69 342 559
Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 631 1,473 230 99 253 2,686
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 914 2,030 333 146 364 3,787
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 978 2,199 355 155 393 4,080
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling 933 2,175 352 152 385 3,997
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling 1,120 2,493 409 178 448 4,648
Commercial (Single Phase) 1,000 sf 0 0 304 132 671 1,107
Office and Other Services (3-phase) 1,000 sf 0 0 304 132 671 1,107
Industrial/Warehouse (Large Comm) 1,000 sf 0 0 70 29 159 258
Percent Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 50% 138% 85% 72% 79% 88%
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 56% 148% 96% 84% 89% 97%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 55% 145% 92% 81% 87% 94%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling 50% 138% 88% 76% 81% 89%
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling 56% 147% 96% 83% 88% 96%
Commercial (Single Phase) 1,000 sf 92% 80% 86% 87%
Office and Other Services (3-phase) 92% 80% 86% 87%
Industrial/Warehouse (Large Comm) 1,000 sf 90% 73% 87% 86%
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (formerly Street Oversizing Fee)
The Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee is a one-time impact fee on development, and is used to mitigate
the impacts of new development on the transportation network. The Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee
Program has been a stable, long term funding source for the construction of capital transportation infrastructure in
newly-developing areas. The Street Oversizing impact fee program was originally adopted in 1979, with revisions
in 1986, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006. Periodic recalculations and inflation adjustments of the Street
Oversizing fee schedule ensure that fee revenues will be sufficient to pay for the cost of eligible improvements.
However, as the City of Fort Collins begins to approach build out if its Growth Management Area, it is prudent to
assess and update the program to continue the long term success of the program to fund development impacts to
the City’s transportation network. City Council has directed staff to review the Street Oversizing Capital Expansion
Fee Program as the appropriate basis for assessing the cost of transportation improvements to developments
based on their proportional impacts.
The Street Oversizing Program has been a successful funding source for roadway capital improvements with
development. Emerging trends of redevelopment and the approaching build out of the City’s GMA make an
update desirable. Other changes over the last few years which indicate an update are:
1. Updates to Transportation Modelling, such as the NFRMPO 2045 have just been completed and
adjustments to the methodology are needed.
2. New Street Standards, including Bike and Pedestrian Plan elements
April 25, 2017 Page 4
3. New MAX bus rapid transit and transit oriented development may allow alternative compliance, reducing
the need for traditional street infrastructure.
4. Redevelopment and infill projects place different impacts on public facilities than green field development.
The City of Fort Collins has retained TischlerBise, Inc. as a consultant to assist the City with the assessment of its
existing Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Program (Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program).
They have completed a draft report and are recommending the following changes:
1. Change the name from “Street Oversizing” to “Transportation Capital Expansion Fee”. Impact: This
change would more accurately reflect the more general purpose of the Program to expand the
Transportation System (as opposed to implying that it is only to widen streets).
2. Simplify the transportation impact fee schedule from 43 categories of use to only a handful; Residential (by
size of unit) and several broad categories for commercial and industrial. This would match the City’s other
Capital Expansion Fee names, reduce confusion and simplify administration of the program. Impact:
Overall, this change is cost-neutral, but it would result in higher or lower fees for certain uses as a result of
collapsing the number of categories.
3. Use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the basis for determining impact, instead of trips generated. Impact:
this change more accurately ties the fee to demand on the transportation system. Compared to the City’s
existing process, this will generally result in higher fees for residential and reduced fees for commercial.
4. Increase the fee to include additional transportation system improvements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit,
intersection turn lanes, and signal timing improvements, for example). Impact: this proposed change is
estimated to increase the magnitude of the fee by 24%.
These proposed changes would bring the City’s Transportation Capital Expansion fee closer to recent case law
and national practices. It is more proportionate to the traffic impacts of development and the actual demand for
capital improvements to the street network. However, the proportionate share paid by residential versus
nonresidential development, as summarized in the table below, would shift due to a change in cost allocation from
a simple vehicle trip methodology to vehicle miles of travel.
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees Option A and Option B
Option A includes the proportionate cost attributable to new development of constructing the transportation
system including complete streets, Bicycle, Pedestrian, intersection and Transit improvements.
April 25, 2017 Page 5
Option B does not raise the fee beyond inflation and will fund approximately 80% of the proportional cost of the
transportation system attributable to new development
Electric Capacity Fees
In 2016 Fort Collins Utilities hired NewGen Strategies to survey how Plant Investment Fees (PIF) are collected by
other electric utilities and to provide assistance building a revised PIF model to allocate capital costs to new load
on the system. This effort allowed for the calculation to be easier to understand and update while recognizing the
change in how development occurs within the city at this stage of its growth.
Current Model
The current PIF is calculated by utilizing a system planning model that was originally developed in early 1980’s
and has been updated serval times to reflect changes in system design standards and policy. This underlying
model assumes a certain system design and allocates the costs of this system design based on the square
footage, the linear footage that abuts the public right of way, and demand (kilowatt or kW) of the new
development. These components of the current electric PIF calculations for residential and commercial/industrial
customers are explained as follows:
Residential
1. Square footage charge. This applies to the total area of a development, excluding dedicated streets and
City owned park land. This charge pays for base (minimum) main feeder lines and local distribution circuits
to general load areas. This includes related electrical equipment such as fuses and switches. The model
for this is based on a main feeder circuit encompassing a 4 square mile area.
2. Front Footage Charge. This fee applies to all footage of property adjacent to dedicated City streets within
a development, regardless of which side the primary line etc. is on, including that which is adjacent to
open space and detention ponds. This pays for installation of primary lines, vaults, installation of
distribution transformers (not the transformer itself), and switchgear on adjacent dedicated streets. Also
included in this fee is a charge to pay for installation of streetlights along City streets.
3. Dwelling unit charge. This fee is based on the anticipated electric load (kW) of each dwelling unit. This
pays for the proportional share of augmented main feeder lines required over the base main feeder
system, and a proportional share of the substation and distribution transformers.
April 25, 2017 Page 6
Commercial/Industrial
1. Square Footage charge. Same as residential above.
2. Front Footage charge. This fee applies to all footage of property adjacent to dedicated City streets within
a development, regardless of which side the primary line etc. is on, including that which is adjacent to
open space and detention ponds. This pays for the installation of primary lines and vaults on adjacent
dedicated streets. Also included in this fee is a charge to pay for installation of streetlights along City
streets. The commercial/industrial front footage charges are higher than residential due to more 3 phase
lines, switchgear etc., and a higher lighting level is required for commercial.
3. Capacity. This charge is based on total amps of service capacity (NOT fuse size), and pays for:
a. Augmented main feeder lines required over the base main feeder system (see Square Footage
above).
b. The distribution transformer(s) and the development’s proportionate share of the substation
transformer.
The current method has several challenges. The costs for these components (square footage, front footage, and
dwelling units/capacity) are calculated through the use of visual basic code (VBA) to access databases that
contain assembly information and cost data. As a result, it is cumbersome to update these calculations if changes
need to be made to the underlying planning model. For example, it is difficult to modify the calculations so that the
model includes mixed use developments or higher density developments. Additionally, the planning model has
difficulty assigning costs for capital work required for redevelopment, such as adding a circuit for additional load.
Proposed Model
As a result of the trend toward higher density developments and redevelopments, and the dynamic nature of the
electric system in general, staff recommends changing the methodology of the PIF model to address the concerns
raised above. The proposed methodology is based on the “buy-in” method for PIFs and is conceptually similar
with the PIF models for the water and wastewater utilities. This method takes the value of the utilized electric
system, i.e. the amount of the system that is needed to serve the current load and no more, and divides this dollar
value by the current kilowatt (kW) demand. This calculation results in the $/kW rate that was used to build the
current system to meet the current demand. New load on the system would buy into the electric system at this
$/kW rate. This simplifies the calculation and administration of the electric PIFs.
In addition to these simplifications, the proposed methodology also uses actual data to allocate costs instead of a
planning model. Demands, non-coincident peaks (NCP), for the residential and commercial/industrial customer
classes are calculated from AMI data and are used to allocate the system costs proportionally to each class
based on the class NCP. This allocation method provides a different $/kW “buy-in” rate for each of these classes
and is consistent with standard cost allocation practices in utility rate making. Due to the large variation in
demands from the commercial class a sliding scale was implemented for the $/kW rate for commercial customers,
as the load from a commercial customer increases the “buy-in” rate increases as well to allocate the additional
system costs required to serve large loads.
Lastly, this proposed method is flexible and adapts to changes in development by using actual system values and
actual demands as opposed to the current method.
April 25, 2017 Page 7
Comparison of the Model Results
Public Outreach
An outreach plan was developed in June of 2016 for Capital Expansion Fees and Street Oversizing Fees that
focused on stakeholders directly impacted by the fee recommendations. These stakeholders included: Chamber
of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee, Board of Realtors, Building Review Board, NoCo
Homebuilder’s Association, Housing Catalyst, Economic Advisory Commission, Downtown Development
Authority, Parks and Recreation Board and the Affordable Housing Board.
Based on the Public Engagement Spectrum to determine the level of appropriate engagement, no public houses
or surveys were conducted since these fees apply to new development and future growth and don’t directly
impact the average citizen. A website containing the recommendations and a link to the studies can be found at:
<http://www.fcgov.com/finance/capitalexpansion.php>
Feedback on the fees to the impacted stakeholders for impact fees is provided in Attachment 4.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transportation Capital Expansion Fees Council Work Session materials and Work Session Summary, August
9, 2016 (PDF)
2. Electric Capacity Fees Council Work Session materials amd Work Session Summary, January 10, 2017
(PDF)
3. Impact Fees Council Work Session materials and Work Session Summary, February 14, 2017 (PDF)
4. Public Outreach Summary (PDF)
5. Park Development Fees Analysis (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
DATE:
STAFF:
August 9, 2016
Matt Baker, Street Oversizing Program Manager
Rick Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services
Dean Klingner, Engineer & Capital Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (Street Oversizing Fee) Assessment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present proposed changes to the Street Oversizing Program. The City has begun a
study to assess the Street Oversizing Program. Emerging trends of redevelopment and the approaching build-
out of the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) make an update desirable. The City of Fort Collins has
retained TischlerBise, Inc. as a consultant to assist the City with the assessment of its existing Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee Program (Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program). They have completed a
draft report and are recommending the following changes:
Change the name from “Street Oversizing” to “Transportation Capital Expansion Fee”.
Simplify the transportation impact fee schedule from 43 categories of use to only a handful; Residential
(by size of unit) and two broad categories for commercial and industrial.
Use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the basis for determining impact, instead of trips generated.
Increase the fee to include additional transportation system improvements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit,
intersection turn lanes, and signal timing improvements, for example).
These proposed changes would bring the City’s Transportation Capital Expansion fee closer to recent case law
and national practices. It is more proportionate to the traffic impacts of development and the actual demand for
capital improvements to the street network.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Are there any questions or concerns about the adjustments being considered to the Transportation Capital
Expansion fees?
2. Does Council have any comments regarding the idea of further increasing the fee to capture development
impacts on capacity improvements, such as intersections, roundabouts, and traffic signal improvements?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Street Oversizing Program has been a successful funding source for roadway capital improvements with
development. Emerging trends of redevelopment and the approaching build out of the City’s GMA make an
update desirable. Other changes over the last few years which indicate an update are:
Updates to Transportation Modelling, such as the NFRMPO 2045 have just been completed and adjustments
to the methodology are needed.
New Street Standards, including Bike and Pedestrian Plan elements
New MAX bus rapid transit and transit oriented development may allow alternative compliance, reducing the
need for traditional street infrastructure.
Redevelopment and infill projects place different impacts on public facilities than green field development.
The City of Fort Collins has retained TischlerBise, Inc. as a consultant to assist the City with the assessment of its
existing Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Program (Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program).
They have completed a draft report (Attachment 1) and are recommending the following changes:
ATTACHMENT 1
August 9, 2016 Page 2
Change the name from “Street Oversizing” to “Transportation Capital Expansion Fee”.
Impact: This change would more accurately reflect the more general purpose of the Program to expand the
Transportation System (as opposed to implying that it is only to widen streets).
Simplify the transportation impact fee schedule from 43 categories of use to only a handful; Residential (by
size of unit) and two broad categories for commercial and industrial. This would match the City’s other
Capital Expansion Fee names, reduce confusion and simplify administration of the program.
Impact: Overall, this change is cost-neutral, but it would result in higher or lower fees for certain uses as a
result of collapsing the number of categories.
Use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the basis for determining impact, instead of trips generated. Impact:
this change more accurately ties the fee to demand on the transportation system. Compared to the City’s
existing process, this will generally result in higher fees for residential and reduced fees for commercial.
Increase the fee to include additional transportation system improvements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit,
intersection turn lanes, and signal timing improvements, for example).
Impact: this proposed change is estimated to increase the magnitude of the fee by 21%.
These proposed changes would bring the City’s Transportation Capital Expansion fee closer to recent case law
and national practices. It is more proportionate to the traffic impacts of development and the actual demand for
capital improvements to the street network. However, the proportionate share paid by residential versus
nonresidential development, as summarized in the table below, would shift due to a change in cost allocation from
a simple vehicle trip methodology to vehicle miles of travel.
LOW RANGE and HIGH RANGE OPTIONS
The low range option is calculated on the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and assumes funding for streets and
intersection improvements similar to the existing program.
August 9, 2016 Page 3
The high range option includes the proportionate cost attributable to new development of Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Transit improvements in addition to intersection turn lanes, signals, signal timing, and Advance Traffic
Management Systems.
Background
The City of Fort Collins charges new developments Capital Expansion Fees for their proportionate share of the
cost of new capital facilities required to serve them. The Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee is a one-time
impact fee on development, and is used to mitigate the impacts of new development on the transportation
network. The Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program has been a stable, long term funding source for
the construction of capital transportation infrastructure in newly-developing areas. The Street Oversizing impact
fee program was originally adopted in 1979, with revisions in 1986, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006. Periodic
recalculations and inflation adjustments of the Street Oversizing fee schedule ensure that fee revenues will be
sufficient to pay for the cost of eligible improvements. However, as the City of Fort Collins begins to approach
build out if its Growth Management Area, it is prudent to assess and update the program to continue the long term
success of the program to fund development impacts to the City’s transportation network. City Council has
directed staff to review the Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program as the appropriate basis for
assessing the cost of transportation improvements to developments based on their proportional impacts.
Objectives of this review and assessment are:
Review and update the Street Oversizing Program methodology, including base land use assumptions, traffic
projections and modeling, construction cost data, credit for taxes, and trip generation.
Review Colorado Impact Fee law to ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines.
Explore how redevelopment and infill projects might generate different impacts and needs for transportation
facilities.
Provide some flexibility for alternative compliance through demand management or other strategies to reduce
the need for traditional infrastructure.
Explore elements of a funding strategy for long term and larger projects, such as combining impact fee
revenue with other revenue for ineligible projects, exemptions for affordable housing and economic
development, and service area boundaries.
Explore benefit districts to recognize the differing transportation improvements needed in the redeveloping
downtown area. The Urban district would include the areas of the Downtown Plan, North College URA, and
the Midtown URA. The suburban benefit district would include the remaining developable land in Fort Collins.
August 9, 2016 Page 4
Next Steps
Staff will seek input and recommendations from various boards and commissions. Input from local builders and
developers will be sought. Staff intends to schedule for Council consideration of the proposed changes in late fall
2016.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2016 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study (draft) (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
DATE:
STAFF:
January 10, 2017
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Electric Capacity Fees.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide the Council with an overview of the current Electric Capacity Fee
(ECF) and review proposed changes to the current approach. The current method utilizes a planning model that
is based on greenfield development. As the City experiences more redevelopment this method fails to
appropriately assign capital costs to this new load. Staff proposes a change in the cost allocation methodology
that uses actual system value to assign costs to new loads. This change would make the ECF methodology
consistent with the water and wastewater utilities and more accurately reflect the cost of redevelopment in the
community.
Scott Burnham of NewGen Strategies and Solutions will give the presentation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support bringing the change in the cost allocation methodology for the Electric Capacity Fees
(ECF) forward for consideration?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The ECF is a one-time charge that is designed to recover the initial cost of adding new development to the
electric system. The operations and maintenance costs are recovered through monthly charges and not through
the ECF. In addition to the ECF there is a Building Site Charge (BSC) which recovers costs associated with
building on site electric facilities. The BSC is based on actual time and materials at the specific development.
Together these two charges represent the total electric plant investment fee (PIF) for new development. The ECF
only recovers costs for the distribution system and not any costs associated with adding new demand to the
generation or transmission systems. Platte River Power Authority does not charge any plant investment fee for its
system and instead, collects the associated costs through monthly energy and demand charges.
The decision tree below outlines the policy path that brought about the current state of the Electric Capacity Fees
(ECF). The decision process starts in the upper left corner and ends at the upper right corner. Staff has been
working under the assumption that the current state of allocating 100% ECF charges by demand is still preferred
by Council as outlined in Section 26-473 of the Municipal Code and as such, staff has been focused on improving
this allocation process.
ATTACHMENT 2
January 10, 2017 Page 2
In 2016 Fort Collins Utilities hired NewGen Strategies to survey how ECFs are collected by other electric utilities
and to provide assistance building a revised ECF model to allocate capital costs to new load on the system. This
effort was led by Scott Burnham. Mr. Burnham’s expertise includes financial feasibility, cost of service and rate
design analysis, asset valuation, and restructuring for electric utilities. He leads and manages rate studies,
acquisition, privatization, and competitive assessment engagements for NewGen’s clients.
Current Model
The current ECF is calculated by utilizing a system planning model that was originally developed in the early
1980s and has been updated several times to reflect inflation and changes in system design standards and
policy. This underlying model assumes a certain system design and allocates the costs of this system design
based on the square footage, the linear footage that abuts the public right- of-way, and demand (kilowatt or kW)
of the new development. These components of the current ECF calculations for residential and
commercial/industrial customers are explained as follows:
Residential
1. Square footage charge. This applies to the total area of a development, excluding dedicated streets and
City-owned park land. This charge pays for base (minimum) main feeder lines and local distribution circuits to
general load areas. This includes related electrical equipment such as fuses and switches. The model for this
is based on a main feeder circuit encompassing a 4 square-mile area.
2. Front Footage Charge. This fee applies to all footage of property adjacent to dedicated City streets within a
development, regardless of which side the primary line etc., is on, including that which is adjacent to open
space and detention ponds. This pays for installation of primary lines, vaults, installation of distribution
transformers (not the transformer itself), and switchgear on adjacent dedicated streets. Also included in this
fee is a charge to pay for installation of streetlights along City streets.
3. Dwelling unit charge. This fee is based on the anticipated electric load (kW) of each dwelling unit. This pays
for the proportional share of augmented main feeder lines required over the base main feeder system, and a
proportional share of the substation and distribution transformers.
Commercial/Industrial
1. Square Footage charge. Same as residential above.
2. Front Footage charge. This fee applies to all footage of property adjacent to dedicated City streets within a
development, regardless of which side the primary line etc., is on, including that which is adjacent to open
space and detention ponds. This pays for the installation of primary lines and vaults on adjacent dedicated
streets. Also included in this fee is a charge to pay for installation of streetlights along City streets. The
commercial/industrial front footage charges are higher than residential due to more 3 phase lines, switchgear
etc., and a higher lighting level is required for commercial.
January 10, 2017 Page 3
3. Capacity. This charge is based on total amps of service capacity (NOT fuse size), and pays for:
a. Augmented main feeder lines required over the base main feeder system (see Square Footage above).
b. The distribution transformer(s) and the development’s proportionate share of the substation transformer.
The current method has several challenges. The costs for these components (square footage, front footage, and
dwelling units/capacity) are calculated through the use of visual basic code (VBA) to access databases that
contain assembly information and cost data. As a result, it is cumbersome to update these calculations if
changes need to be made to the underlying planning model. For example, it is difficult to modify the calculations
so that the model includes mixed use developments or higher density developments. Additionally, the planning
model has difficulty assigning costs for capital work required for redevelopment, such as adding a circuit for
additional load. As the City has evolved since the 1980s and development has been more often redevelopment, it
is appropriate that the ECF model evolves as well. The proposed model addresses these challenges and
simplifies the charge calculation.
Proposed Model
As a result of the trend toward higher density developments and redevelopments, and the dynamic nature of the
electric system in general, staff recommends changing the methodology of the ECF model to address the
concerns raised above. The proposed methodology is based on the “buy-in” method for plant investment fees
outlined by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and is conceptually similar with the Plan Investment
Fees (PIF) models for the water and wastewater utilities. This method takes the value of the utilized electric
system, i.e., the amount of the system that is needed to serve the current load and no more, and divides this
dollar value by the current kilowatt (kW) demand. This calculation results in the $/kW rate that was used to build
the current system to meet the current demand. New load on the system would buy into the electric system at
this $/kW rate. Where excess capacity exists within the current system, new development is buying into that
excess capacity and the ratepayers recover some of their system investment. This simplifies the calculation and
administration of the ECFs.
In addition to these simplifications, the proposed methodology also uses actual data to allocate costs instead of a
planning model. Demands, non-coincident peaks (NCP), for the residential and commercial/industrial customer
classes are calculated from Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) data and are used to allocate the system
costs proportionally to each class based on the class NCP. This allocation method provides a different $/kW buy
in rate for each of these classes and is consistent with standard cost allocation practices in utility rate making.
Due to the large variation in demands from the commercial class a sliding scale was implemented for the $/kW
rate for commercial customers, as the load from a commercial customer increases the buy-in rate increases as
well to allocate the additional system costs required to serve large loads.
Lastly, this proposed method is flexible and adapts to changes in development by using actual system values and
actual demands as opposed to the current method.
Comparison of the Model Results
As with any change in methodology, it is necessary to compare the charges under the new model with those
under the previous model. This is challenging because the cost of adding a new development to the system
depends on the nature of the development. The table below compares the existing ECF to the proposed ECF for
several different sizes of development. Most of the comparisons show a decrease in the ECF but it is project
specific so a higher charge is possible. The Building Site Charge (BSC) will also be updated for inflation and this
adjustment may offset some of the savings seen in the table below.
January 10, 2017 Page 4
Conclusion
Staff recommends changing the ECFs as proposed and seeks guidance on bringing the proposed changes
forward.
ATTACHMENTS
1. NewGen Strategies Memo Re: Revised PIF Model and Review (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Customer Type Example Load kW
Existing ECF
($)
Proposed ECF
($)
Difference
($)
Percent
Change
Residential
34 single
family 150
Amp units 9 $86,310 $52,273 -$34,037 -39%
Multi-Family
195 Units 200 units 7.9 $544,988 $269,907 -$275,081 -50%
Multi-Family
320 Units 325 units 7.9 $432,151 $438,599 $6,448 1%
Large
Commercial
Building
600 Amp,
480Volt, 3
phase, 40,000
sq. ft., 175
linear ft. 185 $43,830 $79,421 $35,591 81%
Commercial -
Three Phase
Office
200 Amp,
208Volt, 3
phase, 40,000
sq. ft., 175
linear ft. 27 $13,824 $10,388 -$3.436 -25%
Commercial -
Single Phase
Office
200 Amp, 240
Volt, 1 phase,
40,000 sq. ft.,
175 linear ft. 18 $12,133 $6,769 -$5,364 -44%
DATE:
STAFF:
February 14, 2017
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Dean Klingner, Engineer & Capital Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Impact Fee Recommendations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide a holistic view of impact fee recommendations, feedback from the
community and seek direction of options for implementation. In early 2016, staff initiated comprehensive reviews
of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Transportation Capital Expansion (Street Oversizing) Fees, Electric
Capacity Fees and Raw Water Requirement/Cash-in-lieu of Water Fees. In late 2016, staff conducted a thorough
inventory of all fees across the City in order to better coordinate presentation of the holistic impact of fee
recommendations to the community. Staff has worked together to integrate the messaging of these efforts.
Although each of the fees being presented are at different stages of maturity in terms of outreach, the entire
impact of all fees will be presented with various choices for implementation including options for additional
feedback to be conducted and phasing the fees over a set time period.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Should the City maintain existing fees?
2. Should staff extend public outreach discussing all fees together and return to council at a later date for
adoption?
3. Should staff implement Capital Expansion Fees (CEF), Transportation Capital Expansion Fees 6 months after
adoption and complete public outreach on Raw Water and Electric fees and bring back to Council at a later
date?
4. Should staff implement CEF, Transportation CEF with a 2-3 year phase in 6 months after adoption and
complete public outreach on Raw Water and Electric fees and bring back to Council at a later date?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Capital Expansion Fees
Capital Expansion fees are used to require new developments to pay a proportionate share of infrastructure
costs. The method of calculating the fees that the City of Fort Collins has used since 1996 is referred to as
incremental expansion. This method works in the following manner:
New development pays a fee based on current infrastructure costs – they essentially “buy in” to the
current system.
The revenues from the fees are then used to build new infrastructure to serve the new development
and/or the increase in population that follows the development.
The City’s Capital Improvement Expansion fees were originally prepared and adopted in 1996 and then updated
in 2013. Direction was given to staff to update the fees every 3-5 years.
The fees included in the study are:
ATTACHMENT 3
February 14, 2017 Page 2
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
Fire
Police
General Government
In 2013, the fees for police, fire and general government for commercial and industrial land use types were
phased in over a 3-year period and updated annually for inflation according to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index and Denver Region Construction Cost Index. For residential land use types, the fees were
updated in 2013 and have been updated annually for inflation according to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index and Denver Region Construction Cost Index.
Staff worked with the Duncan Associates to review the methodology and update the fees. The outcome of the
study retains the basic methodology of incremental expansion and updates inputs from 2013 to reflect current
asset info (Attachment 2). The fees have all been updated based on today’s current level of service and cost
which factors in current capital assets for all fees.
In addition to the updates to current Level of Service, the study also evaluated two options for calculating fire,
police and general government fees; one option which uses insured values to determine building values and a
second option which uses replacement cost values to determine building asset values. Staff recommends using
the replacement cost approach to calculating fees due to the insured values understating the asset values.
Insured values are in the process of being updated to more accurately reflect the true asset values.
The initial calculations for the Neighborhood Parkland and Community Parks also drastically understated the
replacement cost/acre of parks at today’s cost values. The recent Consumer price indices for Denver-Boulder-
Greeley as well as the Engineering News Record indices do not reflect the cost of construction in Fort Collins and
the rise in costs seen recently in the design of the Southeast Community Park. Staff worked with Ditesco
Engineering Firm to assess the current cost to build the three most recent community and neighborhood parks at
their design standards (Attachment 3). This resulted in a 14% cost/acre increase for community parks and a 7%
cost/acre increase for neighborhood parks over original costs to build the park assets.
After thorough analysis updating the asset values and land values, the fee recommendations for the capital
expansion fees are as follows:
N'hood Comm. Gen. Sub-Total
Land Use Type Unit
Park Park Fire Police Gov't CEFs
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $1,893 $2,542 $502 $236 $574 $5,747
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 2,533 3,403 679 319 774 7,708
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 2,766 3,715 739 347 845 8,412
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling 2,796 3,755 751 352 858 8,512
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling 3,116 4,185 836 392 955 9,484
Commercial (Single Phase) 1,000 sf 0 0 633 297 1,451 2,381
Office and Other Services (3-phase) 1,000 sf 0 0 633 297 1,451 2,381
Industrial/Warehouse (Large Comm) 1,000 sf 0 0 148 69 342 559
Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 631 1,473 230 99 253 2,686
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 914 2,030 333 146 364 3,787
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 978 2,199 355 155 393 4,080
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling 933 2,175 352 152 385 3,997
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling 1,120 2,493 409 178 448 4,648
Commercial (Single Phase) 1,000 sf 0 0 304 132 671 1,107
Office and Other Services (3-phase) 1,000 sf 0 0 304 132 671 1,107
Industrial/Warehouse (Large Comm) 1,000 sf 0 0 70 29 159 258
Percent Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 50% 138% 85% 72% 79% 88%
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 56% 148% 96% 84% 89% 97%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 55% 145% 92% 81% 87% 94%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling 50% 138% 88% 76% 81% 89%
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling 56% 147% 96% 83% 88% 96%
Commercial (Single Phase) 1,000 sf 92% 80% 86% 87%
Office and Other Services (3-phase) 92% 80% 86% 87%
Industrial/Warehouse (Large Comm) 1,000 sf 90% 73% 87% 86%
February 14, 2017 Page 3
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (formerly Street Oversizing Fee)
The Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee is a one-time impact fee on development, and is used to mitigate
the impacts of new development on the transportation network. The Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee
Program has been a stable, long term funding source for the construction of capital transportation infrastructure in
newly-developing areas. The Street Oversizing impact fee program was originally adopted in 1979, with revisions
in 1986, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006. Periodic recalculations and inflation adjustments of the Street
Oversizing fee schedule ensure that fee revenues will be sufficient to pay for the cost of eligible improvements.
However, as the City of Fort Collins begins to approach build out if its Growth Management Area, it is prudent to
assess and update the program to continue the long term success of the program to fund development impacts to
the City’s transportation network. City Council has directed staff to review the Street Oversizing Capital Expansion
Fee Program as the appropriate basis for assessing the cost of transportation improvements to developments
based on their proportional impacts.
The Street Oversizing Program has been a successful funding source for roadway capital improvements with
development. Emerging trends of redevelopment and the approaching build out of the City’s GMA make an
update desirable. Other changes over the last few years which indicate an update are:
1. Updates to Transportation Modelling, such as the NFRMPO 2045 have just been completed and
adjustments to the methodology are needed.
2. New Street Standards, including Bike and Pedestrian Plan elements
3. New MAX bus rapid transit and transit oriented development may allow alternative compliance,
reducing the need for traditional street infrastructure.
4. Redevelopment and infill projects place different impacts on public facilities than green field
development.
The City of Fort Collins has retained TischlerBise, Inc. as a consultant to assist the City with the assessment of its
existing Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Program (Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program).
They have completed a draft report (Attachment 4) and are recommending the following changes:
1. Change the name from “Street Oversizing” to “Transportation Capital Expansion Fee”. Impact:
This change would more accurately reflect the more general purpose of the Program to expand
the Transportation System (as opposed to implying that it is only to widen streets).
2. Simplify the transportation impact fee schedule from 43 categories of use to only a handful;
Residential (by size of unit) and two broad categories for commercial and industrial. This would
match the City’s other Capital Expansion Fee names, reduce confusion and simplify
administration of the program. Impact: Overall, this change is cost-neutral, but it would result in
higher or lower fees for certain uses as a result of collapsing the number of categories.
3. Use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the basis for determining impact, instead of trips
generated. Impact: this change more accurately ties the fee to demand on the transportation
system. Compared to the City’s existing process, this will generally result in higher fees for
residential and reduced fees for commercial.
4. Increase the fee to include additional transportation system improvements (bicycle, pedestrian,
transit, intersection turn lanes, and signal timing improvements, for example). Impact: this
proposed change is estimated to increase the magnitude of the fee by 24%.
These proposed changes would bring the City’s Transportation Capital Expansion fee closer to recent case law
and national practices. It is more proportionate to the traffic impacts of development and the actual demand for
capital improvements to the street network. However, the proportionate share paid by residential versus
nonresidential development, as summarized in the table below, would shift due to a change in cost allocation from
a simple vehicle trip methodology to vehicle miles of travel.
February 14, 2017 Page 4
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees Option A and Option B
Option A includes the proportionate cost attributable to new development of Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit
improvements in addition to intersection turn lanes, signals, signal timing, and Advance Traffic Management
Systems.
Option B is calculated on the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and assumes funding for streets and intersection
improvements similar to the existing program.
February 14, 2017 Page 5
Electric Capacity Fees
In 2016 Fort Collins Utilities hired NewGen Strategies to survey how PIFs are collected by other electric utilities
and to provide assistance building a revised PIF model to allocate capital costs to new load on the system. This
effort allowed for the calculation to be easier to understand and update while recognizing the change in how
development occurs within the city at this stage of its growth.
Current Model
The current PIF is calculated by utilizing a system planning model that was originally developed in early 1980’s
and has been updated serval times to reflect changes in system design standards and policy. This underlying
model assumes a certain system design and allocates the costs of this system design based on the square
footage, the linear footage that abuts the public right of way, and demand (kilowatt or kW) of the new
development. These components of the current electric PIF calculations for residential and commercial/industrial
customers are explained as follows:
Residential
1. Square footage charge. This applies to the total area of a development, excluding dedicated streets
and City owned park land. This charge pays for base (minimum) main feeder lines and local
distribution circuits to general load areas. This includes related electrical equipment such as fuses
and switches. The model for this is based on a main feeder circuit encompassing a 4 square mile
area.
2. Front Footage Charge. This fee applies to all footage of property adjacent to dedicated City streets
within a development, regardless of which side the primary line etc. is on, including that which is
adjacent to open space and detention ponds. This pays for installation of primary lines, vaults,
installation of distribution transformers (not the transformer itself), and switchgear on adjacent
dedicated streets. Also included in this fee is a charge to pay for installation of streetlights along City
streets.
3. Dwelling unit charge. This fee is based on the anticipated electric load (kW) of each dwelling unit.
This pays for the proportional share of augmented main feeder lines required over the base main
feeder system, and a proportional share of the substation and distribution transformers.
Commercial/Industrial
1. Square Footage charge. Same as residential above.
2. Front Footage charge. This fee applies to all footage of property adjacent to dedicated City streets
within a development, regardless of which side the primary line etc. is on, including that which is
adjacent to open space and detention ponds. This pays for the installation of primary lines and vaults
on adjacent dedicated streets. Also included in this fee is a charge to pay for installation of streetlights
along City streets. The commercial/industrial front footage charges are higher than residential due to
more 3 phase lines, switchgear etc., and a higher lighting level is required for commercial.
3. Capacity. This charge is based on total amps of service capacity (NOT fuse size), and pays for:
a. Augmented main feeder lines required over the base main feeder system (see Square Footage
above).
b. The distribution transformer(s) and the development’s proportionate share of the substation
transformer.
The current method has several challenges. The costs for these components (square footage, front footage, and
dwelling units/capacity) are calculated through the use of visual basic code (VBA) to access databases that
contain assembly information and cost data. As a result, it is cumbersome to update these calculations if changes
need to be made to the underlying planning model. For example, it is difficult to modify the calculations so that the
model includes mixed use developments or higher density developments. Additionally, the planning model has
difficulty assigning costs for capital work required for redevelopment, such as adding a circuit for additional load.
February 14, 2017 Page 6
Proposed Model
As a result of the trend toward higher density developments and redevelopments, and the dynamic nature of the
electric system in general, staff recommends changing the methodology of the PIF model to address the concerns
raised above. The proposed methodology is based on the “buy-in” method for PIFs and is conceptually similar
with the PIF models for the water and wastewater utilities. This method takes the value of the utilized electric
system, i.e. the amount of the system that is needed to serve the current load and no more, and divides this dollar
value by the current kilowatt (kW) demand. This calculation results in the $/kW rate that was used to build the
current system to meet the current demand. New load on the system would buy into the electric system at this
$/kW rate. This simplifies the calculation and administration of the electric PIFs.
In addition to these simplifications, the proposed methodology also uses actual data to allocate costs instead of a
planning model. Demands, non-coincident peaks (NCP), for the residential and commercial/industrial customer
classes are calculated from AMI data and are used to allocate the system costs proportionally to each class
based on the class NCP. This allocation method provides a different $/kW “buy-in” rate for each of these classes
and is consistent with standard cost allocation practices in utility rate making. Due to the large variation in
demands from the commercial class a sliding scale was implemented for the $/kW rate for commercial customers,
as the load from a commercial customer increases the “buy-in” rate increases as well to allocate the additional
system costs required to serve large loads.
Lastly, this proposed method is flexible and adapts to changes in development by using actual system values and
actual demands as opposed to the current method.
Comparison of the Model Results
Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu Fees
The Utilities’ Raw Water Requirements (“RWR”) are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights to
ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are available to serve the water needs of
development. In preparation for an update to City Council at their February 14, 2017 work session, staff will
present background information including the existing RWR system and cash-in-lieu (“CIL”) rate, future
development and water supply needs, water use changes, and potential changes to the RWR system and CIL
rates.
February 14, 2017 Page 7
Water Service Areas in Fort Collins
The City of Fort Collins Utilities (“Utilities”) water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. As the City
continues to grow into the Growth Management Area, much of this growth will be outside the Utilities water
service area, and will instead be in the service areas of the surrounding water districts (mostly the East Larimer
County Water District and the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District (“Districts””)). Water service for much of this
growth will thus be provided by the Districts.
Although regional water collaboration discussions are ongoing with the Districts and direction or potential
outcomes of those discussions have yet to be determined, any proposed changes to the RWR will only apply to
water service from Utilities and within the Utilities water service area. This does not preclude future changes to
the RWR for water service from Utilities based on potential outcomes of the regional discussions or from the
Districts modifying their RWR.
Raw Water Requirements
The RWR are a requirement for providing adequate water supply service by Utilities. It currently requires a
dedication of water rights, a payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights, or City-issued water certificates to ensure that
an adequate supply of raw (untreated) water and associated infrastructure (e.g., storage reservoirs) are available
to serve the needs of development (including redevelopment).
Generally, the RWR are based on water use and development type. The goal of the RWR is to acquire adequate
water rights and funds to provide a reliable raw water supply for a development. Although not the focus of this
discussion, other water-related development fees include water and wastewater plant investment fees (“PIFs”)
that are assessed to cover the treatment and distribution infrastructure required to process and transport treated
water and resulting wastewater into and out of a development. These water-related development fees are one-
time impact fees (or requirements) and are separate from water rates, which recover the operational costs of
running and maintaining this infrastructure. For the purposes of this discussion, RWR refers to the volume of raw
water needed to meet the projected water use of a development (in acre-feet of water) and the CIL fee refers to
the cash equivalent of that water supply needed.
Among other things, changes to the CIL rate should consider the cost to acquire additional storage capacity (e.g.,
Halligan Water Supply Project) and other facilities required to fully utilize the Utilities water rights portfolio, the
value of the existing water supply system, and developing a methodology for easily updating the CIL rate.
Proposed changes to the Raw Water Requirements as well as the Cash-in-Lieu rate will be presented at Council
Work Session after this presentation with detailed information on the reasoning for the changes and
recommended methodology.
Public Outreach
An outreach plan was developed in June of 2016 for Capital Expansion Fees and Street Oversizing Fees that
focused on stakeholders directly impacted by the fee recommendations. These stakeholders included: Chamber
of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee, Board of Realtors, Building Review Board, NoCo
Homebuilder’s Association, Housing Catalyst, Economic Advisory Commission, Downtown Development
Authority, Parks and Recreation Board and the Affordable Housing Board.
Based on the Public Engagement Spectrum to determine the level of appropriate engagement, no public houses
or surveys were conducted since these fees apply to new development and future growth and don’t directly
impact the average citizen. A website containing the recommendations and a link to the studies can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/finance/capitalexpansion.php
Feedback on the fees to the impacted stakeholders for Capital Expansion Fees and Street Oversizing Fees is as
follow:
Chamber Local Legislative Affairs Committee-
Concerned about affordability of housing
February 14, 2017 Page 8
Concerned that multifamily is getting hit harder than single family detached which will impact the type
of housing being built by developers
Concerned about cost of doing business in Fort Collins
If fees are passed, Chamber wants them to be phased in over time
Northern Colorado Homebuilder’s Association-
Developers need at least 6 months notice to implement fee changes
General fund should pay for Gen Gov’t facilities
Disagree with how land value was assessed
This is affecting housing affordability
Increased housing costs will drive development to neighboring communities
Staff should present to the broader community as this will impact housing affordability which impacts
all citizens
Affordable Housing Board
Would like more lead time before implementation (6+ mos), more for Affordable Housing
City should look at fee structures that incentive smart growth (higher density)
These big increases will “chill” the development of affordable housing
Prefer using insured values for assets for calculations
Want waivers or rebates for affordable housing
See attachment 12
Board of Realtors
Feel there is additional outreach needed to the broader community as housing affordability affects all
citizens
Concerned about housing affordability and the City’s fees driving total cost of building so high that
pushes development to neighboring cities
Not in support of shift in methodology for Street Oversizing, concerned about shifting burden from
commercial to residential.
Concerned about impacts to development of smaller housing and multifamily. Feel unit/fee as a % of
the cost to build a unit is too high
Need to look at Transit-Oriented Development and ensure our fee structures match their plan and
don’t incentive further urban sprawl instead of TOD.
See attachment 13
Economic Advisory Commission-
In support of the use of replacement values to determine asset values
Concerned about funding gap if we don’t collect appropriate amount of fees
See attachment 14
Downtown Development Authority
Concerns about the impact of these fees to small businesses
Desire a waiver process for affordable housing
Anecdotally, feeling from developers that City fees are high already, this makes them even higher
Want the fees to be phased in over time
Building Review Board
Abstained from submitting a position as they didn’t feel they had enough time to understand the fees
and decide on a position.
Parks and Recreation Board
In support of working with Ditesco to determine current costs for Park Assets
Want to ensure we collect the appropriate amount of fees for building future parks
Concerned about housing affordability and the impact of these increases
Will present new Park fees to the Board on 2-22-17
February 14, 2017 Page 9
Housing Catalyst
Major concerns on impact to affordable housing
Want plenty of lead time for implementation of fees
Want fees phased in over time
Due to the fees being at different stages of maturity when the combined fee coordination effort began, outreach
still in process for the Utility fees.
For the Electric Capacity Fees staff has spoken to: Council Finance, Council during a Work Session, Chamber of
Commerce, Electric Board and Key Accounts and Northern Colorado Homebuilder’s Association. They plan to
speak to Board of Realtors, Boards and Commissions and Downtown Development Authority.
For the Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu of Water fees, staff has spoken to: Council Finance, Water Board, Chamber of
Commerce, ELCO, Fort Collins/Loveland Water District, Key Accounts and Northern Colorado Homebuilder’s
Association. They plan to speak to Board of Realtors, Boards and Commissions and Downtown Development
Authority.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital Expansion Fee Study, August 2016 (PDF)
2. Park Development Fee Analysis (PDF)
3. Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study 2016 (PDF)
4. Revised PIF model and review memo, December 29, 2016 (PDF)
5. Council Finance Committee Agenda Materials-Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Assessment, June 20,
2016 (PDF)
6. Council Work Session Agenda materials-TCEF Assessment, August 9, 2016 (PDF)
7. Council Finance Committee Agenda Materials-Capital Expansion Fee Study Update, August 15, 2016 (PDF)
8. Council Finance Committee Agenda Materials-Capital Expansion Fee Outreach Update, October 17, 2016
(PDF)
9. Council Finance Committee Materials-Electric Capacity Fees, December 19, 2016 (PDF)
10. Council Work Session Agenda Materials-Electric Capacity Fees, January 10, 2017 (PDF)
11. Council Finance Committee Agenda Materials-Changes to Utilities Raw Water Requirements, January 23,
2017 (PDF)
12. Affordable Housing Board memo, December 7, 2016 (PDF)
13. Homebuilders Association memo, October 18, 2016 (PDF)
14. Economic Advisory Commission Recommendation (PDF)
15. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
The attachments for the February 14, 2017 City Council work session topic “Impact Fee
Recommendations” can be found by going to:
http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php
Click on February 14, 2017‐City Council Work Session –View Agenda to view this item.
PublicOutreachͲImpactFees
Concerned
about
affordability
ofhousing
Multifamily
isgettinghit
harderthan
singlefamily
detached
Feeswilldrive
development
toneighbor
cities
Needat
least6
months
noticeto
implement
fee
changes
Fees
should
be
phased
More
outreach
should
bedone
Worried
aboutGF
iffees
not
collected
Needto
lookat
TODand
Smart
Design
incentives
Want
housing
waivers
Marginalized
pop.Pay
morethan
theirfair
share
Levelof
service
inFCis
GoldͲ
plated
Standards
shouldbe
establish.
Forlevelof
service
ChamberLocalLegislativeAffairsCommittee X X XX X X X X X
NorthernColoradoHomebuilder’sAssociation X X XX X X X X X
WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ WĂƌŬĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ&ĞĞŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐͲWĂƌŬWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ĂƚĞ͗ :ĂŶƵĂƌLJϭϭ͕ϮϬϭϳ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJWĂƌŬƐ
ϭ WĂƌŬEĂŵĞ ϮϬϭϲŽƐƚ ^ŝnjĞ;ĐͿ ŽƐƚƉĞƌĐƌĞ ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ
Ϯ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĂŶLJŽŶWĂƌŬ Ψ ϮϮ͕Ϯϰϯ͕Ϯϯϰ͘ϲϳ ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϮϮϮ͕ϰϯϮ͘ϯϱ
ϯ &ŽƐƐŝůƌĞĞŬWĂƌŬ Ψ ϭϰ͕ϲϳϵ͕ϵϵϵ͘Ϯϱ ϵϵ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭϰϳ͕ϱϯϳ͘ϲϴ ŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞďůĚŐĐŽƐƚƐĂƉƉĞĂƌůŽǁ͖ƌĞǀŝƐŝƚ
ϰ tĞŝŐŚƚĞĚǀĞƌĂŐĞ Ψ ϯϲ͕ϵϮϯ͕Ϯϯϯ͘ϵϮ ϭϵϵ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭϴϱ͕Ϭϳϴ͘ϴϳ
ϱ
EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚWĂƌŬƐ
ϲtĂƚĞƌƐtĂLJWĂƌŬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϯϳϭ͕ϵϲϴ͘Ϯϰ ϴ͘Ϯϵ Ψ Ϯϴϲ͕ϭϮϰ͘Ϭϯ
ϳZĞŐŝƐƚƌLJWĂƌŬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϭϳϭ͕Ϭϳϳ͘ϲϲ ϲ͘ϭϭ Ψ ϯϱϱ͕ϯϯϭ͘ϴϲ
ϴ ZĂĚŝĂŶƚWĂƌŬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϴϯϰ͕Ϯϳϵ͘ϲϴ ϭϬ͘Ϭϯ Ψ ϮϴϮ͕ϱϴϬ͘Ϯϯ
ϵ tĞŝŐŚƚĞĚǀĞƌĂŐĞ Ψ ϳ͕ϯϳϳ͕ϯϮϱ͘ϱϴ Ϯϰ͘ϰϯ Ψ ϯϬϭ͕ϵϳϴ͘ϭϮ
ϭϬ
ĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚWĂƌŬƐͲŝƚLJtŝĚĞ
ϭϭ
EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚWĂƌŬƐ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJWĂƌŬƐ
ϭϮ ĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĐƌĞƐ ϯϱϱ͘Ϭ ϱϭϭ͘Ϭ ůĂŶĚĐŽƐƚŶĞĞĚƐƚŽďĞĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞĚ
ϭϯ ŽƐƚWĞƌĐƌĞŽĨĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚWĂƌŬƐ;ϮϬϭϲͿ Ψ ϯϬϭ͕ϵϳϴ͘ϭϮ Ψ ϭϴϱ͕Ϭϳϴ͘ϴϳ
ϭϰ dŽƚĂů džŝƐƚŝŶŐWĂƌŬsĂůƵĞ Ψ ϭϬϳ͕ϮϬϮ͕Ϯϯϰ͘ϭϭ Ψ ϵϰ͕ϱϳϱ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϵϮ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐůĂŶĚ͕ǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚĂůůƐŽĨƚĐŽƐƚƐ
ϭϱ
ϭϲ džŝƐƚŝŶŐǁĞůůŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐ; hͿ ϱϳ͕ϴϴϮ ϱϳ͕ϴϴϮ
ϭϳ WĂƌŬŽƐƚƉĞƌ h Ψ ϭ͕ϴϱϮ͘Ϭϴ Ψ ϭ͕ϲϯϯ͘ϵϯ
ϭŽĨϭ
ATTACHMENT 5
WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ Z/EdWZ<
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐͲWĂƌŬWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͗ Eͬ
ĂƚĞ͗ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϲ
dLJƉĞ͗ ůĂƐƐϱ
YƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ hŶŝƚ ϮϬϭϮhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϮ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů ϮϬϭϲ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů EŽƚĞƐͬKƚŚĞƌƐ
ϬϭϬϬϬϬ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϭϯϳ͕ϯϭϰ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭϰϮ͕ϭϳϱ͘ϲϱ ϯ͘ϱϰй
ϭ DŽďŝůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϭϲ͕ϱϱϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϭ͕ϱϮϮ͘ϴϬ Ψ ϭϲ͕ϱϱϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϭ͕ϱϮϮ͘ϴϬ
ϮWƌŽũĞĐƚ&ŽƌĞŵĂŶ ϮϭϬ ĚĂLJ Ψ ϯϱϵ͘ϳϵ Ψ ϯϭϯ͘ϰϲ Ψ ϳϱ͕ϱϱϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϱ͕ϴϮϲ͘ϲϬ
ϯWĞƌŵŝƚƐ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϲϴϰ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϴϰ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϰ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ
ϱ KĨĨŝĐĞdƌĂŝůĞƌ ϳ ŵŽ Ψ ϭ͕ϬϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϰϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϭϱϬ͘ϬϬ
ϲ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƌLJ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ϳ ŵŽ Ψ ϭϲϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϭϰϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕Ϭϳϱ͘ϬϬ
ϳ:ŽďƐŝƚĞ&ĞŶĐŝŶŐ ϮϱϬ /Ĩ Ψ Ϯ͘ϭϴ Ψ ϲ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϱϰϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϲϮϱ͘ϬϬ
ϴ DŝƐĐĞůůĂŶĞŽƵƐWƌŽũĞĐƚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ
ϵ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ^ƵƌǀĞLJŝŶŐ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϳϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϳϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϬ ^ƚĞĞůdĞƐƚŝŶŐ ϭ /Ɛ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϭ dƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ϭϮ ĞǀŝĐĞƐ͕d^ĂŶĚ&ůĂŐŐŝŶŐ ϭ͘ϬϬ ůƐ Ψ ϵ͕ϱϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϰϭϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵ͕ϱϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϰϭϱ͘ϬϬ
ϭϯ ƌŽƐŝŽŶŽŶƚƌŽů
ϭϰ ^ƚĂďŝůŝnjĞĚ^ƚĂŐŝŶŐƌĞĂ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϭ͘ϯϬ Ψ Ϯ͘ϭϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϱ ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽŶƚƌŽů>ŽŐƐ ϯ͕Ϭϱϭ ůĨ Ψ ϯ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϯ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϲϳϴ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϰϰϭ͘Ϯϱ
ϭϲ ZŽĐŬ^ŽĐŬƐ ϮϴϬ ůĨ Ψ ϵ͘ϲϬ Ψ ϱ͘Ϯϱ Ψ Ϯ͕ϲϴϴ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϰϳϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϳ /ŶůĞƚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ ϯ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϭϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϲϱϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϴ
ϬϮϬϬϬϬ džŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ Ψ ϵ͕ϲϵϳ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϰ͕ϵϴϬ͘ϯϬ ϱϰ͘ϰϴй
ϭϵ ^ĂǁƵƚŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ ϴϬ ůĨ Ψ ϭ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϯ͘ϮϮ Ψ ϭϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϱϳ͘ϲϬ
ϮϬ ƵƌďĂŶĚ'ƵƚƚĞƌĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶ ϭϬ ůĨ Ψ ϭϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϮϮ͘ϴϳ Ψ ϭϭϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϮϮϴ͘ϳϬ
Ϯϭ &ůĂƚǁŽƌŬZĞŵŽǀĂů ϵϴϰϱ ƐĨ Ψ Ϭ͘ϴϬ Ψ ϭ͘ϮϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϴϳϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϴϭϰ͘ϬϬ
ϮϮ ƌŝĚŐĞZĞŵŽǀĂů ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϵϯϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϴϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵϯϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϴϲϬ͘ϬϬ
Ϯϯ ZĞŵŽǀĞƌŽƐƐtĂůŬ^ƚƌŝƉŝŶŐ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϲϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴϮϬ͘ϬϬ
Ϯϰ
ϬϯϬϬϬϬ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ Ψ ϮϱϬ͕ϱϯϵ͘ϰϲ Ψ ϯϳϳ͕ϴϯϯ͘Ϭϲ ϱϬ͘ϴϭй
Ϯϱ &ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ
Ϯϲ ZĞƐƚƌŽŽŵ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ ϭϱϬ ůĨ Ψ ϲϲ͘ϲϳ Ψ ϳϴ͘Ϯϱ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϳϯϳ͘ϱϬ
Ϯϳ ĂƐƚŝŶWůĂĐĞŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ
Ϯϴ 'ƌĂƐƐĐƌĞƚĞ ϯϱϭ ƐĨ Ψ ϰϰ͘Ϭϱ Ψ ϲϱ͘Ϯϯ Ψ ϭϱ͕ϰϲϭ͘ϱϱ Ψ ϮϮ͕ϴϵϱ͘ϳϯ
Ϯϵ ^ĂŶĚtŝŶĚWĂǀĞƌƐ ϭ͕ϭϲϱ ƐĨ Ψ ϴ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϴ͘ϭϴ Ψ ϵ͕ϯϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϭ͕ϭϳϵ͘ϳϬ
ϯϬ ^ĂŶĚ ĂƌƚŚWĂǀĞƌƐ ϴϭϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϴ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϴ͘ϭϴ Ψ ϲ͕ϰϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϰ͕ϳϮϱ͘ϴϬ
ϯϭ tĂƚĞƌĞĐŬ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ϳϲϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϯϴ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϱ͘ϯϮ Ψ Ϯϴ͕ϴϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϰ͕ϰϰϯ͘ϮϬ
ϯϮ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞWůĂnjĂtĂůůƐǁŝƚŚ&ŽŽƚĞƌƐͲ ϱϮ ůĨ Ψ ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϯϬ͘ϱϰ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϰϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕ϳϴϴ͘Ϭϴ
ϯϯ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞWůĂnjĂtĂůůƐǁŝƚŚ&ŽŽƚĞƌƐͲ͕͕ ϲϬ ůĨ Ψ ϭϵϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϯϬ͘ϱϰ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϰϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϴϯϮ͘ϰϬ
ϯϰ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƵƌď ĚŐĞƌ ϭϱϬ ůĨ Ψ ϭϬ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϮϮ͘ϯϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϱϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϯϰϱ͘ϬϬ
ϯϱ tŝŶĚŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ^ƚĞƉƐ ϭϮϱ ůĨ Ψ ϱϱ͘ϴϬ Ψ ϳϮ͘ϱϰ Ψ ϲ͕ϵϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵ͕Ϭϲϳ͘ϱϬ
ϯϲ tĂƚĞƌĞĐŬŝŶŐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ,ĞĂĚǁĂůů ϮϮ ůĨ Ψ ϵϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮϮ͘ϯϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϵϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϲϵϬ͘ϲϬ
ϯϳ EĞƚůŝŵďĞƌŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ,ĞĂĚǁĂůů Ϯϱ ůĨ Ψ ϯϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϴ͘ϯϲ Ψ ϳϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳϬϵ͘ϬϬ
ϯϴ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ&ůĂƚǁŽƌŬͲϱΗ Ϯϳ͕ϯϱϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϯ͘ϭϬ Ψ ϱ͘ϵϱ Ψ ϴϰ͕ϳϴϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϲϮ͕ϳϯϮ͘ϱϬ
ϯϵ ŽůŽƌĞĚŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ&ůĂƚǁŽƌŬͲϱΗ ϵ͕ϳϭϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϱ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϲ͘ϳϴ Ψ ϱϯ͕ϰϬϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϱ͕ϴϯϯ͘ϴϬ
ϰϬ ,ĂŶĚŝĐĂƉZĂŵƉͲϭϬΖ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϭ͕ϮϬϳ͘ϰϭ Ψ ϴϮϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϮϬϳ͘ϰϭ Ψ ϴϮϭ͘ϬϬ
ƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽƐƚ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ
'ĞŶĞƌĂůZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚ'ƌŽƵƉ
^/ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ƚĞŵĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ'ƌŽƵƉ
ϭŽĨϱ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ Z/EdWZ<
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐͲWĂƌŬWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͗ Eͬ
ĂƚĞ͗ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϲ
dLJƉĞ͗ ůĂƐƐϱ
YƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ hŶŝƚ ϮϬϭϮhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϮ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů ϮϬϭϲ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů EŽƚĞƐͬKƚŚĞƌƐ
ƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽƐƚ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ
^/ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ƚĞŵĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
ϰϭ ĂƌƚŚĂŶĚtŝŶĚŽŶĐƌĞƚĞZĂŵƉͲϱΗ ϱϮϱ ƐĨ Ψ ϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴ͘Ϯϭ Ψ ϭ͕ϱϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϯϭϬ͘Ϯϱ
ϰϮ dŚŝĐŬĞŶĞĚ ĚŐĞĂƚWůĂLJŐƌŽƵŶĚ ϵϬ ůĨ Ψ ϮϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϮϮ͘ϯϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϵϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϳ͘ϬϬ
ϰϯ dŚŝĐŬĞŶĞĚ ĚŐĞĂƚ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬ ϯϲϬ ůĨ Ψ ϭϭ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϭϴ͘ϲϱ Ψ ϰ͕ϮϯϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕ϳϭϰ͘ϬϬ
ϰϰ
ϬϰϬϬϬϬ DĂƐŽŶƌLJ Ψ ϱϵ͕ϯϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳϰ͕ϳϲϴ͘ϰϬ Ϯϲ͘ϬϬй
ϰϱ ZĞƐƚƌŽŽŵDĂƐŽŶƌLJ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϱϵ͕ϯϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳϰ͕ϳϲϴ͘ϰϬ Ψ ϱϵ͕ϯϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳϰ͕ϳϲϴ͘ϰϬ
ϰϲ
ϬϱϬϬϬϬ DĞƚĂůƐ
ϰϳ EŽŶĞ
ϬϲϬϬϬϬ tŽŽĚ͕WůĂƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞƐ Ψ ϯ͕ϲϳϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϲϮϲ͘ϳϮ Ϯϲ͘ϬϬй
ϰϴ ŽƵŶƚĞƌƚŽƉƐ ϯϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϭϮϮ͘ϰϬ Ψ ϭϱϰ͘ϮϮ Ψ ϯ͕ϲϳϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϲϮϲ͘ϳϮ
ϰϵ
ϬϳϬϬϬϬ dŚĞƌŵĂůĂŶĚDŽŝƐƚƵƌĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϱϵ͕ϬϮϭ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϲϱ͕ϳϰϱ͘ϲϬ ϭϭ͘ϯϵй
ϱϬ dŚĞƌŵĂů/ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ
ϱϭ ZŝŐŝĚ/ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ Ϯ͕ϲϭϬ͘ϬϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϭ͘ϴϬ Ψ ϭ͘ϵϴ Ψ ϰ͕ϲϵϴ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϭϲϳ͘ϴϬ
ϱϮ ^ƉƌĂLJ/ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ϱϯϬ͘ϬϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϭϯ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϭϱ͘ϯϲ Ψ ϳ͕Ϯϴϳ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϴ͕ϭϰϬ͘ϴϬ
ϱϯ ^ƚĞĞů&ĂĐŝĂĂŶĚŽůƵŵŶƐ ϭ͘ϬϬ ůƐ Ψ ϰ͕ϰϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϲϴϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϰϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϲϴϱ͘ϬϬ
ϱϰ ZŽŽĨŝŶŐ ϭ͘ϬϬ ůƐ Ψ Ϯϲ͕ϵϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϴ͕ϵϱϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϲ͕ϵϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϴ͕ϵϱϲ͘ϬϬ
ϱϱ ^ƚĞĞůWĂŶĞůƐ ϭ͘ϬϬ ůƐ Ψ ϭϱ͕ϳϯϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϴ͕ϳϵϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϱ͕ϳϯϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϴ͕ϳϵϲ͘ϬϬ
ϱϲ
ϬϴϬϬϬϬ KƉĞŶŝŶŐƐ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϱϭϳ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϯ͕Ϯϰϯ͘ϲϬ ϭϰ͘ϵϵй
ϱϳ ŽŽƌƐΘ,ĂƌĚǁĂƌĞ
ϱϴ &ƌĂŵĞƐΘŽŽƌƐ ϯ ĞĂ Ψ ϴϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴϮϱ͘ϲϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϱϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϰϳϲ͘ϴϬ
ϱϵ ,ĂƌĚǁĂƌĞͲĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐƐƚƌŝŬĞ ϭ ůƐ Ψ Ϯ͕ϳϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕Ϯϰϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϳϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕Ϯϰϭ͘ϬϬ
ϲϬ 'ůĂƐƐΘ'ůĂnjŝŶŐ
ϲϭ ůƵŵŝŶƵŵ^ƚŽƌĞ&ƌŽŶƚ ϲ ĞĂ Ψ ϭ͕Ϭϯϵ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭ͕Ϯϱϰ͘ϯϬ Ψ ϲ͕Ϯϯϳ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϱϮϱ͘ϴϬ
ϲϮ
ϬϵϬϬϬϬ &ŝŶŝƐŚĞƐ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϰ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ ϮϬ͘ϯϯй
ϲϯ ƌLJǁĂůůͬ'LJƉƐƵŵŽĂƌĚ
ϲϰ /ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĞŝůŝŶŐ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϲϱ /ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌWĂŝŶƚ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϭ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϲϲ
ϮϬϬϬϬϬ ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ
ϲϳ
ϮϭϬϬϬϬ &ŝƌĞ^ƵƉƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ
ϲϴ EŽŶĞ
ϮϮϬϬϬϬ WůƵŵďŝŶŐ Ψ ϯϳ͕ϯϵϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϱ͕ϲϮϯ͘ϭϮ ϮϮ͘ϬϬй
ϲϵ WůƵŵďŝŶŐ&ŝdžƚƵƌĞƐ ϭ /Ĩ Ψ ϯϳ͕ϯϵϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϱ͕ϲϮϯ͘ϭϮ Ψ ϯϳ͕ϯϵϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϱ͕ϲϮϯ͘ϭϮ
ϳϬ
ϮϯϬϬϬϬ ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ͕sĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝƌŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŝŶŐ;,sͿ Ψ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϯϲϴ͘ϬϬ ϭϲ͘ϬϬй
ϳϭ ,s^LJƐƚĞŵ ϭ͘ϬϬ ůƐ Ψϵ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϯϲϴ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϭ͕ϯϲϴ͘ϬϬ
ϳϮ
ϮϱϬϬϬϬ /ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚƵƚŽŵĂƚŝŽŶ
ϳϯ EŽŶĞ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ'ƌŽƵƉ
ϮŽĨϱ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ Z/EdWZ<
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐͲWĂƌŬWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͗ Eͬ
ĂƚĞ͗ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϲ
dLJƉĞ͗ ůĂƐƐϱ
YƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ hŶŝƚ ϮϬϭϮhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϮ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů ϮϬϭϲ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů EŽƚĞƐͬKƚŚĞƌƐ
ƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽƐƚ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ
^/ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ƚĞŵĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
ϮϲϬϬϬϬ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů Ψ ϰϬ͕ϴϭϰ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϳ͕ϱϰϴ͘ϯϭ ϭϲ͘ϱϬй
ϳϰ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů
ϳϱ ZĞƐƚƌŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϰϬ͕ϴϭϰ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϳ͕ϱϰϴ͘ϯϭ Ψ ϰϬ͕ϴϭϰ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϳ͕ϱϰϴ͘ϯϭ
ϳϲ
ϮϳϬϬϬϬ ŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ϳϳ EŽŶĞ
ϮϴϬϬϬϬ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů^ĂĨĞƚLJĂŶĚ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ
ϳϴ EŽŶĞ
ϮϵϬϬϬϬ ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ
ϳϵ
ϯϭϬϬϬϬ ĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ Ψ ϲϵ͕ϬϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴϭ͕ϭϴϲ͘ϬϬ ϭϳ͘ϱϮй
ϴϬ ^ŝƚĞ'ƌĂĚŝŶŐ
ϴϭ ĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϲϮ͕ϳϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳϯ͕ϵϴϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϮ͕ϳϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳϯ͕ϵϴϲ͘ϬϬ
ϴϮ ĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϲ͕ϯϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕ϯϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϴϯ
ϯϮϬϬϬϬ džƚĞƌŝŽƌ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϱϲϰ͕ϯϱϳ͘ϭϮ Ψ ϳϰϭ͕ϳϵϳ͘ϯϯ ϯϭ͘ϰϰй
ϴϰ /ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ^LJƐƚĞŵ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϭϬϱ͕Ϯϰϯ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭϱϲ͕ϰϮϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϬϱ͕Ϯϰϯ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭϱϲ͕ϰϮϯ͘ϬϬ
ϴϱ dƵƌĨ^ĞĞĚ͕^ŽŝůWƌĞƉ͕&ŝŶĞ'ƌĂĚĞ ϭϱϬ͕ϲϰϬ ƐĨ Ψ Ϭ͘ϭϲ Ψ Ϭ͘ϮϮ Ψ Ϯϰ͕ϭϬϮ͘ϰϬ Ψ ϯϯ͕ϭϰϬ͘ϴϬ
ϴϲ ƌLJ>ĂŶĚ^ĞĞĚ͕&ŝŶĞ'ƌĂĚĞ ϲϬ͕ϳϳϱ ƐĨ Ψ Ϭ͘Ϭϰ Ψ Ϭ͘ϭϴ Ψ Ϯ͕ϰϯϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϵϯϵ͘ϱϬ
ϴϳ ůƵĞ'ĂŵŵĂ^ĞĞĚ͕^ŽŝůWƌĞƉ͕&ŝŶĞ'ƌĂĚĞ ϴϰ͕ϳϳϱ ƐĨ Ψ Ϭ͘ϯϰ Ψ Ϭ͘ϯϵ Ψ Ϯϴ͕ϴϮϯ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϯϯ͕ϬϲϮ͘Ϯϱ
ϴϴ dLJƉĞDZŝƉZĂƉ ϭ͕ϭϮϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϭϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϲ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϯϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϴ͕ϰϴϬ͘ϬϬ
ϴϵ ĞĚĂƌDƵůĐŚ͕^ŽŝůWƌĞƉ͕&ŝŶĞ'ƌĂĚĞ ϭ͕ϬϱϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϭ͘Ϯϱ Ψ Ϯ͘Ϯϱ Ψ ϭ͕ϯϭϮ͘ϱϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϯϲϮ͘ϱϬ
ϵϬ ϮΗĞĐŝĚƵŽƵƐdƌĞĞ ϱϲ ĞĂ Ψ ϭϵϬ͘ϳϭ Ψ ϯϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϲϳϵ͘ϳϲ Ψ ϭϴ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϵϭ ϴΖ ǀĞƌŐƌĞĞŶdƌĞĞ ϭϮ ĞĂ Ψ ϰϲϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϱϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϵϮ ĞĐŝĚƵŽƵƐ^ŚƌƵďͲϱŐĂů Ϯϵϭ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯϯ͘Ϯϱ Ψ ϯϴ͘ϲϱ Ψ ϲ͕ϳϲϱ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϭϭ͕Ϯϰϳ͘ϭϱ
ϵϯ ǀĞƌŐƌĞĞŶ^ŚƌƵďͲϱŐĂů ϭϬϯ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯϯ͘Ϯϱ Ψ ϯϴ͘ϲϱ Ψ Ϯ͕ϯϵϰ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϯ͕ϵϴϬ͘ϵϱ
ϵϰ 'ƌĂƐƐĞƐͲϱŐĂů ϰϰ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϴ͘ϱϲ Ψ ϭ͕ϯϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕Ϯϱϲ͘ϲϰ
ϵϱ WůĂLJŐƌŽƵŶĚ^ĂŶĚ ϯ͕Ϭϭϱ ƐĨ Ψ Ϯ͘ϭϬ Ψ ϭ͘ϴϯ Ψ ϲ͕ϯϯϭ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϱϭϳ͘ϰϱ
ϵϲ WůĂLJŐƌŽƵŶĚ^ƵƌĨĂĐŝŶŐ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϭϳ͕ϭϱϵ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϮϮ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϳ͕ϭϱϵ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϮϮ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϬϬ
ϵϳ WůĂLJŐƌŽƵŶĚ^ƵƌĨĂĐŝŶŐͲϰΗŽŶĐƌĞƚĞͬŐŐĂƐĞ ϭ͕ϱϲϬ ƐĨ Ψ ϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͘Ϯϲ Ψ ϰ͕ϲϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴ͕ϮϬϱ͘ϲϬ
ϵϴ dĞĞƚĞƌdŽƚƚĞƌ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϱϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϲ͕Ϭϲϰ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϱϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϲ͕Ϭϲϰ͘ϬϬ
ϵϵ dŽƚ>ŝŶĞ ϯϯϬ ůĨ Ψ Ϭ͘ϵϬ Ψ ϭ͘ϭϱ Ψ Ϯϵϳ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϴϬ͘ϭϲ
ϭϬϬ dŽĚĚůĞƌ^ǁŝŶŐƐ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϬϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϰϴϲ͘ϰϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϬϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϰϴϲ͘ϰϬ
ϭϬϭ EĞƐƚ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯϴ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϰ͕ϱϮϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϴ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϰ͕ϱϮϲ͘ϬϬ
ϭϬϮ ^ƉĂŐŚĞƚƚŝŶŝ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϯϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϳϭϴ͘ϰϬ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϯϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϳϭϴ͘ϰϬ
ϭϬϯ tĂƚĞƌĨĂůů^ůŝĚĞ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯϰ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϴ͕ϲϳϰ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϰ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϴ͕ϲϳϰ͘ϬϬ
ϭϬϰ >ŽŐƐĂŶĚZŽĐŬƐ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϴϰ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϴϰ͘ϬϬ
ϭϬϱ WŽǁĞƌ>ŽĂĚĞƌ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯ͕ϴϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϰϱϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϴϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϰϱϲ͘ϬϬ
ϭϬϲ sĞŶĚŽƌŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϰ͕Ϯϱϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϰϰϯ͘ϴϰ Ψ ϰ͕Ϯϱϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϰϰϯ͘ϴϰ
ϭϬϳ ƌŝĚŐĞďƵƚŵĞŶƚ ϰ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯ͕ϰϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϲϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵ͕ϲϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϮϮ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϬϴ ,ĞůŝĐĂůWŝĞƌƐ ϭϮ ĞĂ Ψ ϭ͕ϲϯϯ͘ϯϯ Ψ Ϯ͕ϭϱϴ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϵ͕ϱϵϵ͘ϵϲ Ψ Ϯϱ͕ϴϵϲ͘ϬϬ
ϭϬϵ ŽŶƚŝŶĞŶƚĂůƌŝĚŐĞͲϰϱĨƚƐƉĂŶ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϱϳ͕ϵϯϳ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϳ͕ϮϬϲ͘ϵϮ Ψ ϱϳ͕ϵϯϳ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϳ͕ϮϬϲ͘ϵϮ
ϭϭϬ ŽŶƚŝŶĞŶƚĂůƌŝĚŐĞͲϴϱĨƚƐƉĂŶ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϵϬ͕ϯϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϬϯ͕ϭϵϭ͘ϭϮ Ψ ϵϬ͕ϯϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϬϯ͕ϭϵϭ͘ϭϮ
ϭϭϭ ZĞĚŝZŽĐŬZĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐtĂůůƐ ϭϬϱ ůĨ Ψ ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϲϱ͘ϰϭ Ψ Ϯϭ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϳ͕ϴϲϴ͘Ϭϱ
^ŝƚĞĂŶĚ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ'ƌŽƵƉ
ϯŽĨϱ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ Z/EdWZ<
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐͲWĂƌŬWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͗ Eͬ
ĂƚĞ͗ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϲ
dLJƉĞ͗ ůĂƐƐϱ
YƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ hŶŝƚ ϮϬϭϮhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϮ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů ϮϬϭϲ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů EŽƚĞƐͬKƚŚĞƌƐ
ƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽƐƚ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ
^/ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ƚĞŵĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
ϭϭϮ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϱϲϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϱϲϮ͘ϬϬ
ϭϭϯ ĞŶĐŚĞƐ ϯ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯ͕ϲϭϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϴϰϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϭϰ dƌĂƐŚZĞĐĞƉƚĂĐůĞƐ Ϯ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯ͕ϰϴϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϵϲϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϭϱ WŝĐŶŝĐdĂďůĞƐ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϰ͕ϱϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϱϴϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϭϲ ^ƚĞĞů,ĂŶĚƌĂŝů ϲϱ ůĨ Ψ ϴϴ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵϮ͘ϱϲ Ψ ϱ͕ϳϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕Ϭϭϲ͘ϰϬ
ϭϭϳ ŽƵůĚĞƌƐͲWůĂLJŐƌŽƵŶĚ ϵ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϵϮ͘ϲϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϮϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϯϯ͘ϰϬ
ϭϭϴ ŽƵůĚĞƌƐͲWůĂnjĂ ϭϲ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϲϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϵϮ͘ϲϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϴϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕Ϯϴϭ͘ϲϬ
ϭϭϵ ^ĂŶĚƐƚŽŶĞ^ĞĂƚtĂůů ϰϬ ůĨ Ψ ϭϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϮϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϮϬ ŽƵůĚĞƌƐĂƚtĂƚĞƌĞĐŬ ϯ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϲϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϵϮ͘ϲϬ Ψ ϭ͕Ϭϵϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϭϳϳ͘ϴϬ
ϭϮϭ ^ĂŶĚƐƚŽŶĞŽƵůĚĞƌƐ ϰ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϲϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϵϮ͘ϲϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϰϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϱϳϬ͘ϰϬ
ϭϮϮ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůĨŽƌŽƵůĚĞƌƐ ϭ ůƐ Ψ ϭ͕ϵϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϵϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϮϯ
ϯϯϬϬϬϬ hƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ Ψ ϲϵ͕ϱϴϵ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵϲ͕ϰϴϲ͘ϭϬ ϯϴ͘ϲϱй
ϭϮϰ , ZW ϳ ůĨ Ψ ϭϯϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵϭϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϯϮϱ͘ϬϬ
ϭϮϱ WsͲϴΗ ϭϴϳ ůĨ Ψ Ϯϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϳ͘ϲϱ Ψ ϰ͕ϲϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϴ͕ϵϭϬ͘ϱϱ
ϭϮϲ ůĞĂŶKƵƚͲϴΗ Ϯ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϯϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϲϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϮϳ ^ͲϮϰΗƌĂŝŶǁͬůŝĚ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ Ϯ͕ϰϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϳϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϰϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϳϱϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϮϴ ^ͲϭϮΗƌĂŝŶǁͬŐƌĂƚĞ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϭ͕Ϭϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕Ϭϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϮϵ ĨůŽǁĚƌĂŝŶͲϰΗ ϰϮϬ ůĨ Ψ ϭϮ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϭϱ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϱ͕ϯϱϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕ϲϭϱ͘ϬϬ
ϭϯϬ ,W WĞƌĨŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŝƉĞͲϰΗ ϳϱ ůĨ Ψ Ϯϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϮ͘ϲϱ Ψ ϭ͕ϵϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϰϰϴ͘ϳϱ
ϭϯϭ ,W ^ŽůŝĚƉŝƉĞͲϰΗ Ϯϭ ůĨ Ψ Ϯϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϱϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϬϵϮ͘ϬϬ
ϭϯϮ ůĞĂŶKƵƚͲϰΗ Ϯϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϲϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϯϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϱϴϭ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϳ͕ϯϱϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϯϯ ,W WŝƉĞͲϭϮΗ ϴϯ ůĨ Ψ ϯϭ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϱϴ͘ϲϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϲϭϰ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϰ͕ϴϲϯ͘ϴϬ
ϭϯϰ & ^ͲϭϮΗ ϰ ĞĂ Ψ ϯϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϭϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϲϰϴ͘ϬϬ
ϭϯϱ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƌLJ^ĞǁĞƌͲϲΗ ϭϴϭ ůĨ Ψ ϮϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲϳ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϯ͕ϵϴϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕Ϯϭϳ͘ϱϬ
ϭϯϲ ůĞĂŶƚKƵƚͲϲΗ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϵϵϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵϵϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϳϱ͘ϬϬ
ϭϯϳ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƌLJ^ĞǁĞƌŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽϮϳΗ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϭ͕ϲϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϳϱϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϲϰϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϳϱϲ͘ϬϬ
ϭϯϴ ^ĂŶŝƚĂƌLJ^ĞǁĞƌͲϰΗ ϭϬ ůĨ Ψ ϯϲ͘ϲϬ Ψ ϰϮ͘ϱϮ Ψ ϯϲϲ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϮϱ͘ϮϬ
ϭϯϵ ŽƉƉĞƌtĂƚĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞͲϯͬϰΗ ϲϬ ůĨ Ψ Ϯϳ͘ϳϱ Ψ ϯϴ͘ϵϱ Ψ ϭ͕ϲϲϱ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϯϯϳ͘ϬϬ
ϭϰϬ dĂƉ͕^ĂǁƵƚĂŶĚWĂƚĐŚĨŽƌϴΗ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϮϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϲϱϮ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϬ͕ϮϱϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϲϱϮ͘ϬϬ
ϭϰϭ ŽƉƉĞƌtĂƚĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞͲϯͬϰΗĂŶĚĐƵƌďƐƚŽƉ ϭ ĞĂ Ψ ϲ͕ϭϵϳ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϰϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϲ͕ϭϵϳ͘ϱϬ Ψ ϱ͕ϰϮϬ͘ϬϬ
ϭϰϮ ŽƉƉĞƌtĂƚĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞͲϮΗ ϰϲϭ ůĨ Ψ ϯϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϮ͘ϯϬ Ψ ϭϱ͕Ϯϭϯ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϵ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϯϬ
ϭϰϯ
ϯϰϬϬϬϬ dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ
ϯϱϬϬϬϬ tĂƚĞƌǁĂLJĂŶĚDĂƌŝŶĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ϯϲϬϬϬϬ ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ
ϰϬϬϬϬϬ WƌŽĐĞƐƐ/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ϰϭϬϬϬϬ DĂƚĞƌŝĂůWƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚ,ĂŶĚůŝŶŐ ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
ϰϮϬϬϬϬ WƌŽĐĞƐƐ'ĂƐĂŶĚ>ŝƋƵŝĚ,ĂŶĚůŝŶŐ͕WƵƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
WƌŽĐĞƐƐ ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ'ƌŽƵƉ
ϰŽĨϱ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ Z/EdWZ<
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐͲWĂƌŬWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͗ Eͬ
ĂƚĞ͗ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϲ
dLJƉĞ͗ ůĂƐƐϱ
YƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ hŶŝƚ ϮϬϭϮhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲhŶŝƚŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϮ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů ϮϬϭϲ/ƚĞŵdŽƚĂů EŽƚĞƐͬKƚŚĞƌƐ
ƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽƐƚ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ
^/ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ƚĞŵĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
ϰϯϬϬϬϬ WŽůůƵƚŝŽŶŽŶƚƌŽů ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
ϰϰϬϬϬϬ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌŝŶŐ ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
ϰϱϬϬϬϬ ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ
ϰϴϬϬϬϬ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůWŽǁĞƌ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ϰϵϬϬϬϬ ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ
^ƵďƚŽƚĂů;ĂůůŐƌŽƵƉƐͿ Ψ ϭ͕ϯϯϰ͕ϰϯϳ͘ϱϴ Ψ ϭ͕ϳϯϮ͕ϭϴϮ͘ϭϵ Ϯϵ͘ϴϭй
>ĂŶĚ Ψ ϭϲϬ͕ϰϯϵ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϰϴϬ͕ϰϳϰ͘ϳϬ Ψϭϲ͕ϬϬϬƉĞƌĂĐƌĞ;ϮϬϭϮͿ͖Ψϭ͘ϭϬƉĞƌ^&;ϮϬϭϲͿ
ZĂǁtĂƚĞƌ Ψ ϭϯϳ͕ϲϬϴ͘ϴϬ Ψ Ͳ ĂƐƐƵŵĞĚƚŽďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚĂƉĨĞĞƐ
WĞƌŵŝƚƐ͕ŽƐƚƐĂŶĚ&ĞĞƐ
^ƚĂĨĨŽƐƚƐͲϲй Ψ ϴϬ͕Ϭϲϲ͘Ϯϱ Ψ ϭϬϯ͕ϵϯϬ͘ϵϯ ϲйŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐͲϭϬй Ψ ϭϯϯ͕ϰϰϯ͘ϳϲ Ψ ϭϳϯ͕Ϯϭϴ͘ϮϮ ϭϬйŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ
DĂƚĞƌŝĂůdĞƐƚŝŶŐ Ψ Ϯϳ͕Ϯϰϵ͘ϱϲ Ψ ϯϰ͕ϲϰϯ͘ϲϰ ϮйŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁ&ĞĞƐ Ψ ϲ͕ϯϭϲ͘ϯϮ Ψ ϳ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐWĞƌŵŝƚ&ĞĞƐ Ϭ͘ϱϬй Ψ ϳ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϵ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ ďĂƐĞĚŽŶΨϮϳϱ͕ϬϬϬǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƌĞƐƚƌŽŽŵ
dĂƉ&ĞĞƐ Ϭ͘ϬϬй Ψ ϯϱ͕ϵϰϳ͘ϬϬ Ψ Ϯϵϯ͕ϰϯϬ͘ϬϬ &>tϮϬϭϱƌĂƚĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĨŽƌϮΗƚĂƉ
>ŽĐĂůͬDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůhƐĞdĂdžĞƐ Ϭ͘ϬϬй
'ĞŶĞƌĂů>ŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ/ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ Ϭ͘ϵϬй ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƵŶŝƚƉƌŝĐĞƐ
ƵŝůĚĞƌƐZŝƐŬ/ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ Ϭ͘Ϯϱй ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƵŶŝƚƉƌŝĐĞƐ
>ĂďŽƌ͕DĂƚĞƌŝĂůĂŶĚWĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŽŶĚƐ Ϭ͘ϴϬй ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƵŶŝƚƉƌŝĐĞƐ
^ƵďƚŽƚĂůWĞƌŵŝƚƐ͕ŽƐƚƐΘ/ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞƐ Ψ ϱϴϴ͕ϴϳϬ͘ϲϵ Ψ ϭ͕ϭϬϮ͕Ϭϵϳ͘ϰϵ
WƌŽũĞĐƚdŽƚĂů Ψ ϭ͕ϵϮϯ͕ϯϬϴ͘Ϯϳ Ψ Ϯ͕ϴϯϰ͕Ϯϳϵ͘ϲϴ ϰϳ͘ϯϲй
ϮϬϭϮ ϮϬϭϲ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐΘ^ŝƚĞ͗ '^&͗ ϰϯϲ͕ϵϬϳ ϰϯϲ͕ϵϬϳ
ŽƐƚͬ^&͗ Ψϰ͘ϰϬ Ψϲ͘ϰϵ ϰϳ͘ϯϲй
ƉĂƌŬƐŝnjĞ
ϭϬ͘Ϭϯ ĂĐ
ϱŽĨϱ
Impact Fees Recommendations:
4/25/17 Capital Expansion, Transportation, Electric Capacity
City Council
Work Session
ATTACHMENT 6
Fees
2
• To support the cost of providing
public services and additional
infrastructure to support new
development
Why We Have
Them
• Can only be used for the stated
purpose of each fee;
• Revenue source to build new maintain
assets and infrastructure
How We Use
Them
3
Historical Impact Fee Revenue
Fees Apply to Development Only…..
Revenue Volatility Driven by Development Volatility
Capital Expansion Fees
Ø Methodology = Level of Service
• No change
Ø Updated asset values to reflect
current replacement cost
Ø Population and dwelling units
updated per latest Census
Ø Increase driven by
construction & land cost
Ø Parks driving 75% of $ increase
4
$ Change % Change
Land Use Type Unit
Current vs
Updated
Current vs
Updated
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $5,747 $2,593 82%
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 7,708 3,669 91%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 8,412 3,950 89%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling 8,512 3,862 83%
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling 9,484 4,502 90%
Commercial 1,000 sf 2,381 1,070 82%
Office and Other Services 1,000 sf 2,381 1,070 82%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sf 559 250 81%
CEF Sub-
Total
Parks Fee Calculations
Parks Fees Based on:
• Neighborhood Parks :
• Radiant (2013)
• Waters Way (2012)
• Registry (2012)
• Community Parks :
• Twin Silos (2016)
• Spring Canyon (2006)
• Fossil Creek (2003)
5
Parks Fee Calculation:
Asset values
reflect higher
construction
cost
Population
and dwelling
units per
latest Census
Land values
reflect higher
land cost
Increase in Construction and Land Costs Driving Fee Increase
Design Criteria for New Parks
6
Identify City Wide Gaps in Recreation Facility
Needs
• Courts, Ball Fields, Multi-Purpose Fields, etc.
• Support Recreation Department Programming Needs
• Evaluate Emerging Trends
Identify Community Desired Elements
• Community Meetings, Online Surveys, P&R Plan
Provide Comparable Elements in Parks
• Identify Typical Elements in Recent Parks
• Elements Evolve as User Needs Change
Typical Park Elements
7
Community Parks
• Large Recreation Facilities
• Small/Specialty Recreation Facilities
• Dog Park
• Destination Playground
• Multi-Purpose Fields
• Passive Green Space
• Restrooms
• Shelters
• Walks/Trails
• Raw Water Irrigation Pond
• Naturalistic Features
• Unique Elements
• Parking/Drives
Neighborhood Parks
• Multi-purpose Green/Fields
• 1 Small/Specialty Recreation Facility
• 1 Restroom
• 1 Shelter
• Playground
• Walks
• Raw Water Irrigation Pond (if feasible)
Typical Community Park Elements
8
Twin
Silo
Spring
Canyon
Fossil
Creek
Rolland
Moore Edora
Lee
Martinez City
Large Recreation Facilities 3T, 2B 3T, 2B 5T, 2B 4T, 2B 6T, 2B 4T, 2B 3T, 2B
Small/Specialty Recreation
Facilities
BMX,
4 PB
3BB, SP, 2 SV,
VB, MBP, BMX
2BB, 1 SP,
Hockey
5BB, 1PB, 4SV,
2H, 3R
35H, Disc Golf,
SP
3BB BB, 2H
Dog Park 1 acre 2 acre 1 acre None None None None
Destination Playground 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5
Multi-Purpose Fields 10.4 acres 18.3 acres 6.3 acres 16 acres None None 6 acres
Passive Green Space 6.2 acres 8 acres 8.7 acres 1.8 acres 5.5 acres 18 acres 23.3 acres
Restrooms 2 3 3 2 2 2 1
Shelters 1G 5G, 3P 2G, 1P 4G 1G, 3P 1G 7G, 3P
Walks/Trails 2.7 miles 2.5 miles 1.3 miles 1.5 miles 0.5 miles 1.8 miles 1.5 miles
Raw Water Irrigation Pond 3 acres 1.5 acres 11 acres 2 acres 1.5 acres 9.3 acres 14.5 acres
Naturalistic Features Creek Play, Native
Areas
Native Areas Native Areas Creek Edge Creek Edge Native Areas Lake Edge
Unique Elements Harvest Room,
Orchard, Trellis, CG
Spray Park Water Feature CG CG Fitness Stations Pool, Fitness Stations,
Train
Parking / Drives 232 + 729 (school) 439 spaces 453 spaces 418 spaces 427 spaces 73 spaces 756 spaces
Legend: T- Tennis B-Ballfield BB-Basketball SP-Skate Park SV-Sand Volleyball PB-Picklelball R-Racquetball MBP – MtnBike Park H-Horseshoe
BMX – Bike Race CG-Community Garden G-Group Shelter P-Picnic Shelter
Typical Neighborhood Park Elements
9
2013
Radiant
2012
Registry
2011
Waters
Way
2004
Soft
Gold
2004
Westfield
2003
Homestead
2001
Harmony
2000
Cottonwood
Glen
1999
Stewart
Case
1997
Miramont
Multi-Purpose
Green/Fields 3.3 acres 2 acres 4 acres 4.8 acres 5 acres 2.5 acres 3 acres 5.8 acres 6 acres 3.5 acres
1 Small/Specialty
Recreation Facility
None 1/2BB,
1/2 T
1BB, 1
SP
1B, 2BB,
BMX
3T, 1B 2BB 2B 2BB, 1B 1BB, 1B 1BB
1 Restroom ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
1 Shelter ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Playground ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Walks
0.8 miles 0.8 miles 1 mile 0.5 miles 0.5 miles 0.5 miles 0.5 miles 1 mile 0.5 miles 0.8 miles
Raw Water
Irrigation Pond
(if feasible)
None None 31 acres 1 acre 0.8 acres None 1 acre 1.5 acres 1 acre 1 acre
Legend: T- Tennis B-Ballfield BB-Basketball SP-Skate Park SV-Sand Volleyball BMX – Bike Race
10
($000’s) Twin Silo Spring Canyon Fossil Creek
Large Recreation Facilities $1,642 $879 $1,524
Small/Specialty Recreation Fac. 476 723 602
Dog Park 176 198 45
Destination Playground 1,326 1,095 564
Multi-Purpose Fields 803 1,630 889
Passive Green Space 775 1,839 867
Restrooms 1,150 894 965
Shelters 325 545 412
Walks/Trails 708 1,482 1,262
Raw Water Irrigation Pond 235 414 195
Naturalistic Features 708 728 195
Unique Elements 820 201 444
Parking/Drives 2,150 2,181 1,298
TOTAL - PARK ELEMENTS $11,294 $12,809 $9,262
Community Park Element Costs
Spring Canyon and
Fossil Creek Park
values are based
on 2016 estimated
replacement costs
Twin Silo Park
values are actual
construction costs
Community Park Total Costs
11
($0,000s) Twin Silo Spring Canyon Fossil Creek
Park Elements $11,294 $12,809 $9,262
Contractor Fees 883 550 705
Development Fees 1,947 484 565
Design Fees 891 1,456 1,203
Raw Water 771 2,600 971
TOTAL $15,786 $17,899 $12,706
Note: All values provided are estimated costs to construct each park in 2016.
Parks Fees:
Construction Cost Increase
12
• Cost of Twin Silo park driven by construction cost, design features, smaller size
• Worked with Ditesco Engineering Firm to evaluate current cost estimates for Spring Canyon and
Fossil Creek to build same level of park based on their design standards
Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre
Original Current Cost/ Cost/
Park/Year of Construction Cost Cost Acres Acre Original Acre 2016
Radiant Park/2013 $2.2 M $2.5 M 10.0 $242K $264K
WatersWay Park/2012 1.9 M 2.1 M 8.3 247K 269K
Registry Park/2012 1.7 M 1.8 M 6.1 302K 315K
Weighted Average 5.8 M 6.3 M 24.4 259K 278K
Community Park DevelopmentCost per Acre
Original Current Cost/ Cost/ Added Added Revised
Park/Year of Construction Cost Cost Acres Acre 2016 Acre Original Cost of Proj Acres Cost/Acre
Twin Silos Park/2016* $15.8M $15.8M 52.6 $326K $326K $1880K 20.0 $269K
Spring Canyon Park/2006 $12.5M $17.9M 100.0 $205K $151K $205K
Fossil Creek Park/2003 $9.3M $12.7M 99.5 $154K $119K $154K
Weighted Average $37.7M $46.4M 252.1 $210K $175K $196K
Transportation Capital
Expansion Fees – Option A
13
Ø Methodology = Plan Based
• No change
Ø Change in Calculation:
• Trip Generation to Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Ø Option A - Updated based on
Current City Capital
Improvement Plan
Ø Increases Residential &
Industrial and Lowers Comm.
Rationale for Change in
Calculation & Fee increase
14
Calculation Change
• No overall increase – shift from Comm. to Residential
• Demand on transportation system is better measured by miles traveled than
number of trips
Fee Increase From Current Capital Improvement Plan (~20%)
• Current fee does not account for impact of development on existing system
• Increase in in-fill and redevelopment highlights this need
15
Option A – Based on the City’s current Capital Improvement Plans,
includes the proportionate cost attributable for mitigation of the impacts
of new development on the transportation system, including new streets,
intersection improvements, and multi-modal improvements
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
Examples:
• Portions (~60%) of “build-out” of complete streets in Master Street Plan.
(Suniga, Mountain Visa, Trilby Extension, Sharp Point, etc.)
• Portions (~12%) of improvements to existing arterial intersections
• Portions (~12%) of the Bicycle Master Plan (low stress network, etc.) and
Pedestrian Master Plan (missing connections, etc.)
16
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
Option B – Based on the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan
without the proportionate cost attributable for mitigation of the impacts of
new development.
ü Does not increase program revenue
ü Provides approximately 80% of necessary funding to
mitigate proportional impacts of development
Utility Fees:
Electric Capacity Fee
17
The effects of the proposed change vary by project, however, there is a general
shift in costs from the residential class to the commercial class based on realized
energy demands.
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% Change Being Proposed to ECF % of Projects Developed in 2016
Single Family
Multi-family
Mixed Use
Commercial
Rationale for Change in Methodology
18
The current method is:
• Difficult to explain - cost allocation methodology
• Designed for “green field” development
• Uses planning assumptions instead of real data
The proposed method is:
• More transparent and understandable
• Properly accounts for demands on infrastructure - new development and redevelopment
• Utilizes actual data – more accurate demand based cost allocation
2016 ECF Projects
By Type
Number of
Projects in 2016
ECF
(Current Method)
ECF
(Proposed Method)
Change
(Proposed less Current)
Single Family 21 $531,668 $258,408 ($273,260)
Multi-family 8 $1,744,779 $1,245,814 ($498,965)
Mixed Use 3 $251,663 $438,239 $186,576
Commercial 48 $1,748,200 $2,516,689 $768,490
Neighboring Community
Fee Comparison*
19
*Includes CEFs, Transportation, Utility PIFs,
excludes Raw Water, Building Permit Fees
Level of Service Higher in Fort Collins
Fort Collins Fees Consistent with Neighboring Communities…
Level of Service Higher in Fort Collins
Fee Comparison:
For Median New Home Sales Price $437K
20
Fort Collins
Without Raw Water, Fort Collins Fees Moving to the Middle of the Pack
Fort Collins Fee Stack
Median New Home Sales*
21
*New Home Sales from
Metrostudy Market
Reports 2016
Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Declining %
of Average New Home Sales Price
Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Declining %
of Average New Home Sales Price
Chamber of
Commerce
Board of
Realtors
North Fort
Collins
Business
Association
Human
Relations
Commission
Additional Public Outreach Completed
22
Stakeholders Are Concerned With Impact to Housing /
Type of Housing That Will Be Developed
Stakeholders Are Concerned With Impact to Housing /
Type of Housing That Will Be Developed
3 Step Phasing Over 24 Months
23
Phasing Recommendation:
• Capital Expansion Fees - 3 steps beginning Oct 1
• Transportation CEFs - 2 steps…Option B then Option A
• Electric Capacity – 1 step beginning Oct 1
Lost Revenue from Phasing
24
Phasing Reduces Revenue Realized by $5.4M to $7.0M
($ in M)
Combined - CEF, Trans, Elec 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
Current Revenue $ 16.8 $ 16.8 $ 16.8 $ 14.9 $ 14.9 $ 14.9
Phase In Fees (except Electric) 18.6 21.8 23.7 16.2 18.8 20.2
New Fees all at Once 23.7 23.7 23.7 20.2 20.2 20.2
Revenue Loss from Phasing $ 5.1 $ 1.9 $ 4.0 $ 1.4
Monthly Revenue Loss with Delay 0.2 0.1
Monthly Revenue Loss with Delay- All at Once 0.6 0.4
Summary - 3 Yr Avg Summary - 10 Yr Avg
Direction Sought
25
1. Does Council want the capital expansion fees and the
transportation expansion fees to be phased in or
implemented all at once?
2. If phased, how? Capital expansion fees over 2 years?
Transportation expansion fees through Option A and then a
year later Option B or something else?
3. Is Council ready for these fees to be brought forward on
May 16th for first reading?
Backup
26
Combined Fees
27
Estimated Revenue*
Based on 10 yr. Avg. Permits
28
Community Parks Revenue is Estimated To Be $3.1 M Annually
Based on 10 Year Average Permit Data
*Capital Expansion & Transportation Capital Expansion Fees only
Gov Fire Police Neigh Comm Streets Total
All at once $1.5 $1.0 $.5 $2.3 $3.1 $8.4 $16.7
Current Fees $.8 $.5 $.3 $1.5 $1.3 $7.7 $12.0
Annual Revenue Projection Based On Prior 10 year Permit Acitvity
Population
29
Percent
Housing Type 2000 Current Change
Single-Family, Detached/Attached/MH 2.74 2.66 -2.92%
Multi-Family 1.91 1.93 1.05%
Total 2.45 2.43 -0.82%
Average HH Size
2016 2012
Average Average
Housing Type Unit HH Size HH Size
Single-FamilyDetached Dwelling 2.75 2.76
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.93 1.85
Residential,up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.78 1.86
Residential,701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.40 2.38
Residential,1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.61 2.62
Residential,1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.65 2.73
Residential,over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.95 2.93
Fort Collins Cost of Code
30
$5,875
2015 IRC: Currently being finalized, no
significant cost changes expected
2012 IRC: Underfloor framing fire protection
2012 Green Code (Local Amendments):
Resource, energy and water efficiencies,
indoor environment quality, operations,
maintenance and education
2009 IRC: Additional insulation required for
electric heat homes
Fort Collins Fee Stack
Median Home Sales*
31
*Home Sales from
IRES Report,
Everitt Real Estate
Center, CSU
Peer Cities
Median Sales Comparison with Fees
32
Utility Fees:
New Development Electric Capacity
33
Utility Fees:
Re-development Electric Capacity
34
Customer Type
(Sample
projects) Example Re-develoment
Existing
ECF ($)
Proposed
ECF ($)
Difference
($)
Percent
Change
Residential
Upgrade from 150 to 200
amps
$
875.00
$
328.55
$
(546.45) -62%
Commercial
Upgrade from 600 amps
to 800 amps (208v)
$
5,065.84
$
9,825.17
$
4,759.33 94%
Commercial
Upgrade from 200 amps
to 400 amps (208v)
$
5,065.80
$
9,378.47
$
4,312.67 85%
Commercial
Upgrade from 1000 amps
at 240v to 1000 amps
208v
$
8,455.48
$
16,547.00
$
8,091.52 96%
Utility Fees:
Electric Demand by Rate Class
35
Rate Class % Total Customers % Total Demand
Commercial - small 9.9% 10.6%
Commercial - medium 0.8% 4.9%
Commercial - large 0.7% 21.3%
Industrial 0.0% 19.0%
Residential 88.6% 44.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
What We Heard….
Boards and Commissions
36
Parks & Rec
Concerned
about housing
affordability
Level of
service of
parks has
increased
dramatically
Economic
Advisory
Commission
In support of
fees
Concerns
about funding
gap
Affordable
Housing
Board
Increases will
“Chill”
affordable
housing
projects
Want more
lead time
before fees
are effect. (6+
months)
Human
Relations
Commission
Need to
incentivize
smaller units
Shouldn’t be
burdening
residential
over comm.
Housing
Catalyst
Big concerns
on affordable
housing
> Lead time
for implement.
of fees
Want fees
phased in
over time
What We Heard….
Business Community
37
Chamber
MF hit hardest, will
impact what gets
developed
Concerns about cost
of doing business in
FC
Fees increases
phased in over time
NoCO
Homebuilders
Asked for more lead
time
Disagree with how
land value is
assessed
Increased housing
drives developers
out
Board of
Realtors
Huge impacts to
MF, this will dis-
incentivize smaller
units
Want more lead
time before fees are
effect. (6+ months)
Downtown
Development
Authority
Concerns about
impacts to small
businesses
Would like a waiver
process for
affordable housing
Developers already
feel fees are high
North Fort
Collins
Business
Assn
Perceptions of City
“gold-plating”
assets/infrastructure
City needs to
establish standards
for assets
Huge impacts to
housing affordability
Methodology
Peer Cities
38
With a Few Exceptions, Peer Cities Currently All Have
Similar Methodology
Consumer Price Index (CPI) vs
Construction Cost Index (CCI)
Recent CPI and CCI Indices Don’t Indicate Cost Inflation 39
Despite Perceived Rising Construction Costs In Front Range
Recent CPI and CCI Indices Don’t Indicate Cost Inflation
*Source for CPI =
Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Denver-
Boulder-Greeley
Source for CCI =
Engineering News
Record, Denver
40
Fee Coordination
Objective & Timeline
Objective:
1. Bring fees forward for review together to provide holistic view of the impact
2. Detailed fee study analysis every 4 years for CEF, Transportation & Development fees
3. Detailed fee study analysis every 2 years for Utility fees
4. Conduct fee study analysis in the odd year before BFO
2018 2019 2020
Phase I - Impact Fees QII QIII QIV QI QII QIII QIV QIV QIV QIV QIV
Capital Expansion Fees Index Adopt Index Index Index Index Study Adopt
StreetOversizings Index Adopt Index Index Index Index Study Adopt
Utility PIF & Fees Adopt All Adopt Study Adopt
Phase II - Impact & Development Fees
Utility PIF & Fees Adopt
Development Fees Adopt Study Adopt
Phase III - Administrative Fees
Administrative Fees Evaluation Adopt Adopt
Wet Study
2021
Electric& CIL
Fee Study
Fee Study
Fee Study
2016 2017
AffordableHousingBoard X XX XX X
BoardofRealtors X X XX X X X X X
EconomicAdvisoryCommission X X
DowntownDevelopmentAuthority X XX X X X X
BuildingReviewBoard X
ParksandRecreationBoard X XXX X
NorthFortCollinsBusinessAssociation X X XX X X
HousingCatalyst X XX X
HumanRelationsBoard X XX X X
ATTACHMENT 4