HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 9/18/2018 - Council Finance & Audit Committee Agenda - September 17, 2018Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Council Finance & Audit Committee
September 17, 2018
10:00 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Approval of Minutes from the August 20P
th
P Council Finance Committee Meeting and the Special Council
Finance Committee Meeting on September 5P
th
P.
1. Fee Review - Fee Team Report, Total Impact 30 minutes J. Poznanovic
2. Regional Road Fee & School PILOs Update 20 minutes G. Sawyer
3. Year End Adjustment Ordinance 20 minutes L. Pollack
Council Finance Committee
Agenda Planning Calendar 2018
RVSD 09/06/18
Sep 17th
Fee Review – Fee Team Report, Total Impact 30 min J. Poznanovic
Regional Road Fee & School PILOs Update 20 min G. Sawyer
Year End Adjustment Ordinance 20 min L. Pollack
Oct 15th
Utility Rate Increases 20 min L. Smith
Infrastructure Financing 30 min T. Storin
Internet Sales Tax – Work Plan 15 min J. Poznanovic
Nov 19th
GERP Review 15 min J. Voss
Financial Management Policy Review 45 min J. Voss
Dec 17th
Future Council Finance Committee Topics:
• Revenue Contingency Plan Review
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
08/20/2018
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Carrie Daggett, Kelly DiMartino, Jackie Thiel,
Keen Garbiso, Josh Birks, Patrick Rowe, Tom Leeson, Dean Klingner, Noelle
Currell, Travis Storin, John Voss, Jennifer Poznanovic, Lance Smith, Randy
Reuscher, Jennifer Selenske, Victoria Shaw, John Duval, Joe Wimmer, Andres
Gavaldon, Katie Ricketts, Jo Cech, Zack Mozer, Tyler Marr, Wendy Williams, Jim
Lenderts (Total Comp Committee)
Others: Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce)
Dale Adamy (R1ST.org)
Jim Sampson, HUB International
Joe Knopinski (Consultant for Waters Edge)
Meeting called to order at 10:02 am
Minutes approval for the July 16, 2018 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ross Cunniff made a
motion to approve the minutes and Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. The minutes from the July
16P
th
P Council Finance Committee meeting were approved unanimously.
A. Three Metro District Requests (Waters’ Edge, Montava and Waterfield)
Josh Birks, Director Economic Sustainability
Patrick Rowe, Sr. Specialist, Economic Sustainability
Tom Leeson, Deputy Director PDT
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Preview of Proposed Metro Districts at Waters’ Edge Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waters’ Edge Development has submitted a Metro District Service Plan to support a proposed
development of approximately 848 homes and up to 70,000 sq. ft of commercial space in the form of a
neighborhood center (“Project”). The Project is generally located between Douglas Road and Richards
Lake Road on either side of Turnberry Road. The project is targeted toward the 55 year and older
population with an age in place development philosophy focused on allowing its residents to remain in
2
their homes as long as possible. The applicant proposes to utilize metro districts to significantly reduce
treated water usage, provide enhanced parks and open space, rehabilitate the Windsor No. 8 ditch,
and to provide other lifestyle amenities to its residents.
The presentation will provide an overview of the proposed metro district and highlight staff’s pending
review of the proposal.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information would the committee like to evaluate the proposed Metro District to
support the Water’s Edge project?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The developer of the Project is evaluating a multi-phase 235-acre development in Fort Collins,
generally located between Douglas Road and Richards Lake Road on either side of Turnberry Road
(Attachment 1 – Location Map). The project plans to construct approximately 848 homes with a
product type tailored to a population that is 55 years and older (single-level, senior-friendly home
design). Additionally, the project is proposed to include a future neighborhood commercial center,
which could include up to 70,000 sq. ft in commercial/retail space. The Project proposes a metro
district to provide and operate a non-potable water system, provide enhanced parks and open space,
to rehabilitate the Windsor No. 8 ditch, and to provide other lifestyle amenities to its residents
(namely, three planned community facilities: artisan workshop and inventors center, sustainability
center, and a senior activity center).
The information provided below presents key aspects of the metro district proposal and highlights the
review steps that are pending by City staff. Though staff’s review is pending, the following preliminary
review is offered as initial feedback:
Reduce/Eliminate Planned Community Facilities (Artisan Workshop/Innovation Center,
Sustainability Center, and Senior Activity Center) – Staff understands the applicants position
that the proposed community facilities are critical to provide the social connections that are
important to a healthy senior lifestyle. However, as described, the proposed community
facilities do not deliver on the Policy Objectives specified by the revised Metropolitan District
Policy that will be considered by City Council on August 21, 2018.
Include 10% or More Affordable Housing – Staff would suggest the Developer consider
including affordable housing options in its proposal (the City defines affordable housing as 10%
or more of the units in a development being affordable to residents at 80% area median
income, or lower).
Explore Enhanced Building Standards – Explore enhanced building standards for water/energy
conservation outcomes.
Metro District Proposal
3
The developer has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Waters’ Edge Metropolitan District Nos.
1-5 (“Service Plan”). The Metro District will be used to finance, construct, and operate public
infrastructure, and other site costs that reduce overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of multi-district service plan consisting of five (5) districts to
deliver the proposed Project. The development is phased over time with an anticipated build out in
2027.
Service Plan Highlights:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $43 million in 2028 (the first year of full value
after build-out)
Aggregate Mill Levy – 50 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments
Debt Mill Levy – 40 to 50 mills, may not be levied until an approved development plan or
intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits
Operating Mill Levy – 10 Mills
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $45,000,000 to cover a total of $98,512,577
in estimated costs
Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation and/or
stormwater improvements
Public Improvements
The Service Plan provides for the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $45 million to fund a
portion of the potential $98,512,577 in identified public improvements, as specified by Exhibit H of the
Service Plan. The following is a summary list of the potential public improvements by development
phase:
UPhase I
Non-Potable Water System – Approximately $3.1 million for a non-potable water system. This
system will be owned and operated by the metro district.
Artisan Workshop/Inventors Center – Approximately $3.5 million to finance and construct an
artisan workshop and inventor’s center community facility. This facility will be owned and
operated by the metro district and will be available for use by the general public in addition to
district residents.
Sustainability Center – Approximately $1.5 million to finance and construct a sustainability
center. This facility will be owned and operated by the metro district and will be available for
use by the general public in addition to district residents.
Parks and Open Space Enhancements – Approximately $839,832 in parks and open space
enhancements, including landscaping, site furnishings (benches, public patio areas, open space
arbors, masonry, etc.). These improvements will be owned and maintained by the metro
district.
4
Basic (Phase I and II) – Up to $18 million in “basic” public improvement costs over both project
phases (Phase I and Phase II). Note: For additional information, see the below paragraph on
Basic Infrastructure.
Administrative, Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs – Approximately $4 million in costs
associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering, inspecting, testing, planning,
permitting the construction of the public improvements, and contingency.
UPhase II
Non-Potable Water System – Approximately $2.6 million for a non-potable water system in site
preparation costs and grading associated with the proposed project
Rehabilitate Windsor No. 8 Ditch – Approximately $2 million to rehabilitate the Windsor No. 8
ditch which runs along the north half of the proposed second phase.
Senior Activities Center – Approximately $7 million to finance and construct a sustainability
center. This facility will be owned and operated by the metro district and will be available for
use by the general public in addition to district residents.
Parks and Open Space Enhancements – Approximately $839,832 in parks and open space
enhancements, including landscaping, site furnishings (benches, public patio areas, open space
arbors, masonry, etc.). These improvements will be owned and maintained by the metro
district.
Basic (Phase I and II) – Shared across both project phases; refer to Phase I above.
Administrative, Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs – Approximately $6 million in costs
associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering, inspecting, testing, planning,
permitting the construction of the public improvements, and contingency.
Basic Infrastructure
Both the existing and proposed Metropolitan District Policies have a bias against using metro districts
to provide “basic infrastructure”, that which is typically expected to be provided by a developer (both
in type and magnitude), UexceptU where the inclusion of “basic” infrastructure may be utilized to offset
the higher costs of extraordinary development outcomes that cannot directly be provided by a metro
district (e.g., affordable housing, rooftop solar, etc.).
The Developer has requested that the metro districts be permitted to finance $18 million in basic
infrastructure costs. Per the Developer, these basic costs will help to offset a portion of the higher
costs associated in delivering a senior-friendly housing type (stepless entries and increased costs due
to single-level floor plans).
Public Benefits
The proposed new policy requires an interdisciplinary review of the public benefits that will be enabled
by the metro district. As stated above, this review is pending. What follows is a general list of the
public benefits as specified in the Service Plan (additional information can be found in Exhibit L of the
Service Plan):
5
Significant Reduction of Potable Water – The inclusion of a non-potable water system will
significantly reduce the need for treated water. The Developer estimates the long-term annual
reduction in potable water needs to be approximately 60% less. The Developer estimates this
system to result in significant financial benefits of around $151K in annual operating cost
savings. Additionally, there are unquantified environmental benefits due to a reduction in
water treatment, primarily in electricity usage.
Enhanced and Expanded Open Space, Parks, and Trails – The development includes enhanced
and expanded open spaces and trails. The Developer represents that there is twice the open
space of a typical development. The Developer proposes that this is a benefit to the walkability
and pedestrian friendliness of the Project, in addition to meeting the intent of nature and
outdoors accessibility (i.e., Nature in the City).
Rehabilitation of the Windsor No. 8 Ditch – As per the Service Plan, the Windsor No. 8 ditch
will be significantly rehabilitated in order to improve water quality, provide habitat for wildlife,
act as regional trail connection, and transform an eyesore into an attractive community
amenity.
Delayed Assisted Living – The Developer represents that by creating a senior-friendly
community, through housing design, and development amenities and services, it will allow
seniors to “age in place” and remain out of assisted living facilities for longer. The Developer
suggests that the cost differential between its housing and independent/assisted living is
approximately $3,500 per month (calculated as $6K / mo. for assisted living vs. $2,500 / mo. for
a Waters’ Edge home). Assuming 10% of Waters’ Edge residents are at an age where in a
typical development they would move to an assisted living facility, but are able to delay that
move for 12-24 months, by virtue of the senior-friendly community and housing design
elements at Waters’ Edge, that would carry a value of between $42K to $84K per individual, or
$3.5 million to $7.1 million over the entire development.
Policy Comparison
A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues the currently adopted and proposed
policy is provided below in Table 1.
6
Discussion / Next Steps:
This Service Plan is scheduled to go to Council September 4P
th
P.
Mayor Troxell; What does ‘city park’ mean?
Darin Atteberry; let’s confirm if it is a city park and what to do with O&M into perpetuity - Let’s get
clarification on what role the metro district plays in that
Joe Knopinski (Consultant for Waters Edge); it is a small neighborhood park - the city will own and
maintain - landscaping and open space $$ go to trail system
Ross Cunniff; what is the update on the proposed estimate home price in this area and tax
distribution?
Tom Leeson; we just received this information on Friday but we will have a financial analysis completed
and included in the Council Packet for each of these proposals - the analysis will include complete
distribution of home costs - and what the taxes would be at 50mils
Ross Cunniff; this targets folks 55 and over - are there any covenants or any other instruments that
would require this to be a 55 and over community?
Tom Leeson; no requirements on the city’s part - 55+ is more design related - they have a goal of 55
and over but they are not requiring that.
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially To enable public benefit To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Ongoing for O&M 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio
Residential and
Commercial
90% to 10% N/A
7
Ross Cunniff; would be interesting to have a rough estimate of the units that will be 55 and over as
these homeowners could be eligible for the homestead exemption for a number of years which could
impact the financials of the project. On the affordability - what are the qualification details such as
percentage of AMI they are targeting, and instruments being used to maintain that inventory?
Tom Leeson: that was a new add to their proposal – we will get the details on that for you.
Proposed policy conversation - it came up that we will allow them to adjust the mill levy - if the actual
net assessed value goes up significantly like it has in recent years - is there a way we can require them
to ratchet down the mill rate to keep a constant cash flow and not impose an extra tax burden on the
residents?
Josh Birks: recused himself from Waters Edge conversation due to the proximity of property he owns
which is adjacent to the proposed development. Ross’ question is a policy question, so he will address
- we had a conversation about impact to total tax revenue in the policy – one was rising assessment
values – increasing the tax burden to the residents – if there would be a way in the policy to require if a
certain amount is increased – adjust the mill. There is nothing that legally prevents us from including
that particular policy. We are talking to outside bond council as we suspect that is not a term that
most bond underwriting would like to see in the service plan. Looking into implication of adding this
kind of clause. Hoping to have an answer before conversation at Council tomorrow evening.
Ross Cunniff; for context - school district bonds - they have payment rate as well as overall bonding
capacity and that payment rate goes down as assessed value goes up.
Mayor Troxell; energy and water - Is it net zero? I want to understand the potential impact of this
development comparatively and how the accounting will be done and when.
Tom Leeson; we have separated energy and water in terms of our analysis – The non-potable water
system is projected to save 60% over time due to landscaping - that is an estimate - we could include
some monitoring to verify and get some additional information from our utilities to verify that. We
think there are some possible enhancement to their proposal in the area of energy standards. They
are talking to their builder to see what commitments they can get - lower energy design - some
enhancements to that as currently their proposal doesn’t meet our policy goals as it related to energy
consumption and greenhouse gas.
Mayor Troxell; heat exchanger or per unit?
Tom Leeson; per unit - efficiency is currently at the unit level.
Mayor Troxell; community solar?
8
Tom Leeson; they are not proposing community solar. They are proposing to use solar panels only for
the community facilities such as the senior activity center and sustainability center.
Mayor Troxell; I would like more information on the energy side – there will be pumping with the non-
potable water – will be greater energy requirements that it would be for ELCO to provide water - there
are trade-offs there
Tom Leeson; we will request that information
Ross Cunniff; can we estimate the greenhouse gas - co2 tonnage over the life time of the bonds -
percentage of Fort Collins inventory as well as the net after construction – impact of wider sidewalks
(more concrete) I don’t know what the magnitude is compared to savings – it would be interesting to
see even a rough estimate
Mayor Troxell; on the ballot in ‘97 - what is the impact of ‘97 on this? The setbacks, etc. - wondering
about the impact of the are two wells.
Tom Leeson; this impacts only new wells - most of the wells are existing
Ross Cunniff; on the wells - assume we have evaluated for compliance with proposed
Tom Leeson; setbacks for Phase 1 have been approved – I don’t know if there are wells in Phase 2 – we
will evaluate that - Phase 2 will be going to P and Z
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Metro District at Montava Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The developer of the proposed Montava Development has submitted a Metro District Service Plan to
support a proposed development of approximately 988.5 acres located in the northeast portion of the
community near the existing AB/InBev Brewery. The development is anticipated to include 2,000 single
family homes, 2,400 multi-family units, 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office, 88,900 square feet of
retail. The project intends to provide 10 percent of housing units in a mix of for rent and for sale
affordable housing. In addition, the project will deliver all units as US Department of Energy Certified
Zero Energy Ready. The presentation will provide a review of the proposed metro district, based on the
current state of staff’s analysis.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information does the committee recommend including for the Council
evaluation of the proposed Montava Metro District Service Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
9
Montava is a multi-phase long-term development proposal located in the northeast portion of Fort
Collins. The project is located with the area covered by the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan (MVSAP). The
project anticipates delivery on several key principals of the MVSAP while also providing a community
that follows New Urbanist principles to promote environmentally friendly habits, walkable
neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Metro District will support a large-scale (988.5 acres) planned development that will
extend the City into the largest remaining undeveloped section of the Growth Management Area
(GMA). The project anticipates constructing:
Approximately 4,400 residential units (a mix of single-family and multi-family);
A town center including 88,900 square feet of retail;
Approximately 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of office;
Allocating land for natural areas, schools, and a community park;
A 40-acre organic farm; and
A variety of other public open spaces and trails.
The project is generally located between Mountain Vista on the south, Richards Lake Road on the
north, Timberline Road on the West and the train tracks on the east (see Attachment 2 – Project
Vicinity Map). The project, called Montava, “Mon” for mountains and “tava” the Ute Indian work for
“sun,” uses the MVSAP as its basis for design and development approach.
METRO DISTRICT
Montava has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 (the
“Service Plan”). The Metro District would be used to construct critical public infrastructure and other
site costs reducing the overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of seven Metro Districts working collaboratively to deliver the
proposed Montava development. The phased development is anticipated to occur over the next 25
plus years and support an estimated population of 11,073. A few highlights about the proposed Service
Plan, include:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $76 million in 2029, which would be ten years
into the phased development and not include full build-out
Aggregate Mill Levy – 60 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments
Debt Mill Levy – 40 mills, may not be levied until an approved development plan or
intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits
Operating Mill Levy – 20 Mills to fund several on-going operations, such as but not limited to:
(a) a non-potable irrigation system, and (b) a community-wide “in home” water conservation
program
10
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $203 million to cover a total a portion of the
estimated $325 million in public improvement costs
Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation and/or
stormwater improvements
Public Improvements
The Service Plans anticipate using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the maximum
amount of $203 million to fund all or a portion of the following $325 million in public improvements
(details available in Exhibit E and Exhibit H of the Service Plan):
Earthwork – Up to approximately $21.5 million in earthwork and site preparation costs
associated with the proposed project, including significant grading associated with stormwater
management linked to the Cooper Slough
Streets – Up to approximately $105.3 million to fund local residential streets, alleys,
boulevards, and arterials both on- and off-site
Water Improvements – Up to $11.1 million in costs to construct potable water infrastructure
both on- and off-site supporting the project
Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Up to $15.7 million in costs associated with constructing the
sanitary sewer infrastructure both on- and off-site for the project
Non-potable Water – Up to $13.8 million to construct a non-potable irrigation system to server
the entire development – this infrastructure will significantly reduce the projects need to
acquire water rights and demand on potable water treatment facilities
Storm Sewer Improvements – Up to $10.2 million in costs to construct the main storm sewer
system and infrastructure for the project (costs associated with grading is included in the
Earthwork amount above)
Recreation Facilities – Up to $8 million in costs to construct on- and off-site public parks, open
space, recreation facilities and/or services
Landscaping, Trails, Open Space and Farm Facilities – U to $44.2 million to install landscaping,
construct trails, open space, and farm facilities
Administrative, Miscellaneous, and Engineering – Up to $47 million in costs associated with
administering, managing, surveying, engineering, inspecting, testing, planning, and permitting
the construction of the public improvements
Contingency – Up to $48 million in contingency assumes a 20 percent factor on top of the costs
estimates provide, which are only based on a conceptual design
Due to the preliminary nature of the project design and planning, the applicant has not supplied an
estimate of non-basic costs. Non-basic costs are assumed to be costs that are not typical for a
development of the proposed project’s type and/or size. These costs therefore, are considered
extraordinary infrastructure costs. While no estimate of non-basic costs has been supplied, the
conceptual planning and design of the project has uncovered a number of extraordinary development
conditions, including:
11
Cooper Slough – The Cooper Slough creates several significant stormwater detention,
retention, and water quality issues across the site. These impacts are complicated by the fact
that the slough is not consolidated creating multiple entry points for water during a storm
event. The net result is the need to manage the stormwater on the site in a variety of ways that
deal with off-site conditions. This consumes a significant portion of land, approximate 150 acres
or 15 percent of the District area, reducing the potential return from development and adding
cost.
Utility Extension Requirements – The proposed District will be served by ELCO and Boxelder
Sanitary Sewer, both are smaller districts that do not have the necessary distribution
infrastructure in place to support the proposed development. A significant cost will be
associated with extending this infrastructure to serve the site.
Non-potable Irrigation System – The applicant intends to serve 85 percent of the community’s
irrigation need through a non-potable system. Constructing, operating, and maintain this
system will have significant costs – estimated at $13.8 million to construct.
Public Benefits
As required by the proposed new policy, the Service Plan will deliver several extraordinary
development outcomes that support several public benefits. The benefits and, where available, their
estimated value are described below (details available in Exhibit K of the Service Plan):
New Urbanist Development – The applicant has designed the project following several key
New Urbanist principles which promote environmentally friendly habits, create walkable
neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types and job opportunities, including:
o Mixed-Use Town Center – Plans include a traditional town center with walkable streets
connecting it to surrounding neighborhoods, dense development (commercial and
multi-family residential), and community serving retail uses (e.g., grocery, café and
restaurants, etc.)
o Walkable Neighborhoods – The project is planned as a series of 5-minute walk shed
neighborhoods focused either on amenities along its edge (e.g., park, schools, and
gardens) or within its boundaries (e.g., playgrounds and pocket parks, transportation
facilities, etc.)
o Mixture of Housing Types – The project plan calls for three zones of intensity within each
neighborhood – each zone will provide a different density and housing type
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Streets – The projects provides with a pattern of
development that encourages walking and provides sidewalk, trail, and bike lane
infrastructure to support that pattern of development
o Distributing Traffic – The project relies on a grid of streets as an organizing principle –
the street system creates walkable block sizes and distributes traffic over a broader area
reducing impacts and congestion on collectors and arterials
o Integration of Market Rate and Affordable Housing – The project plans to distribute
subsidized affordable housing through the community – historic evidence indicates that
integrating low-income households with a variety of income levels reduces the negative
12
impacts many low-income households typically face and helps to overcome and break
the cycle of poverty by removing social barriers
Agri-Urban Development – The MVSAP calls for integration of agricultural uses with
development, the project will have a 40-acre organic farm owned by a Land Coop; the District
will fund the infrastructure, such as irrigation and water delivery, berms and wind breaks,
interior roads, green houses, pack house facility, and farm stand reducing the cost of
acquisition by the Land Coop
Energy and Water Conservation – The project includes a number of commitments to reducing
the energy and water consumption of the project below average consumption levels of similar
development types, including:
o Zero Energy Ready – The applicant has agreed to construct all 4,400 homes in the
proposed project in compliance with the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready and
provide a ZERH rating for every home
o Residential Battery Storage – The applicant is working with Colorado State University
and the City of Fort Collins Utilities to create distributed storage by providing a battery
in every home
o Non-potable Irrigation – The applicant’s planned non-potable irrigation system will meet
85 percent of all irrigation needs and significantly reduce the use of potable water by
the project – estimated cost of $8.0 million
o Community-wide In-Home Water Conservation Program – The applicant proposed
purchasing water from the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) through a master
meter and “manage” individual user water consumption through allocations across the
project, this could enable the project to achieve a significant reduction in overall water
use
Parks & Recreation Facilities – The applicant is working with the City to deliver several park and
recreation facilities in the project that would serve the northeast region of Fort Collins primarily
and all residents
o Community Recreation Center – The applicant intends to partner with the City to
develop and construct a Community Recreation Center in the project
o Poudre Library District Facility – The applicant intends to partner with the Poudre Library
District to develop a library branch in the project
o Community Park – The applicant is working with the City to create an 80 plus acre
community park to serve the northeast region of the City
Natural Areas – The applicant is working to deliver natural areas through the project including
150 acres of stormwater land that will be landscaped to create habitat and function as a natural
area providing both recreation facilities and Nature in the City
Multimodal Transportation Improvements – The applicant designed the project with
multimodal transportation principals
Affordable Housing – The applicant intends to deliver at least 10 percent of the residential
units as affordable housing with a mix of rental and ownership products – partnerships are
forming with the City (for a Land Bank parcel), Housing Catalyst, and Land Trusts such as
Elevations Land Trust, which serves the Front Range market
Housing Variety – The applicant intends to deliver a variety of housing types
13
Due to the preliminary nature of the project design and planning, the applicant has not supplied an
estimate of the value of the above public benefits. However, the wide range of benefits and
partnerships will likely generate significant public benefit, that cannot be valued at this time.
Policy Comparison
A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues the currently adopted and proposed
policy is provided below in Table 1.
The conceptual use of a Metro District at Montava does not comply with the City’s existing policy.
However, it represents an example of the type of project that would comply with the proposed policy
revisions to be considered by City Council on August 21, 2018.
Discussion / Next Steps:
Service Plan will be going to Council on September 4P
th
P
Looking at master metering with ELCO - community wide water conservation - still in concept and
being explored -
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 60 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Will Comply 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio 100% Residential
90% to 10% N/A
14
They are considering using the city’s PUD process which will require it to come back to City Council.
Providing every home with great efficiency than our current code - Dept. of Energy zero energy ready
10% of units – approximately 440 affordable housing - 80% of AMI or below
Land Bank – currently having conversations with Housing Catalyst and with land trusts active in the
front range regarding dispersed lots throughout the development
15
Mayor Troxell; non-potable water - does that include gray water?
Josh Birks; it does not include gray water - the developer has had some initial conversations with CSU
regarding that - landscaping - irrigation but it is too early to state exactly what that looks like
Mayor Troxell; does it reduce the water requirements? What would be the requirement for non-
potable water?
Josh Birks; yes, a non-potable like this will reduce requirement by ELCO for the potable water rights
that would need to be transferred to it - should be a potable water reduction and energy savings -
Jeff Mihelich; we are having conversations with ELCO to make sure they are comfortable with that
Ross Cunniff; does it become a water district?
Josh Birks; this is still very conceptual - intent is that it would be able to manage and encourage certain
behaviors within the structures - water conservation standard
Ross Cunniff; is ELCO is metered as a whole? Do they build a district and then they bill?
Josh Birks; I think that is conceptually how it should work
Carrie Daggett; depending on how they structure that - there will probably be regulatory requirements
to consider.
Josh Birks; spirit of this is to try to create a demonstration that this many homes can live with a much
lower water usage/consumption than we currently have - trying to encourage significantly less usage
of potable water - we don’t have specifics on landscaping standards but will follow up with that
information.
Ross Cunniff; well water – where they will be withdrawing from? - forecasted life time / quality of
water as it relates to salinity
Josh Birks; we don’t currently have those details but will get that information, so we have a sense of
the total scale.
Mayor Troxell; are they looking at having some surface water? Interesting, can see some advantages
of scale
Josh Birks; will do that as a follow up - lots of implications – will address non-potable
16
Mayor Troxell; does it have the Urban Ag concept built in? what about the agricultural requirements
for water?
Josh Birks; the development will include a 40-acre organic farm operated as a CSA - also community
gardens throughout the community which will be managed by the district. Every resident would have
credit with the farm - be able to receive a share - Urban Ag is a bit component of the project.
Mayor Troxell; the site includes land for schools (high school, middle school and elementary)
Josh Birks; High School property is owned by PSD - conversation regarding location of park and school
sites could be moved to accommodate overall project
Mayor Troxell; are they still looking at on site manufacturing of homes?
Josh Birks; they found a source for high quality manufactured homes out of Vermont - onsite
production. Conversations taking place regarding how to deliver all units to be net zero energy ready.
Ross Cunniff; if they do that - what are the anticipated waste savings? Reduced waste is one of the
advantages of manufactured housing. Also, same questions I had for Waters Edge apply here (except
for homestead exemption)
Josh Birks; financial analysis does include an estimate of the annual per unit cost on an average basis of
tax from the proposed mills. How that change in property tax affects attainability for a potential
resident. We will be presenting this to Council tomorrow night. All 3 Service Plans being presented
today are consistent with - authorization of a service plan creates the tools to create the district, go for
TABOR on the ballot - no revenue collected - an IGA that basically delivers the public improvements
that are described in the Service Plan which is a pledge and the IGA is the contract that ensures the
delivery of those things. Metro districts will be activated in conjunction with development so that you
are basically turning on the mills and entering into the debt for that infrastructure.
Ken Summers; are the mills a composite of the metro district?
Josh Birks; each metro district does 40 mills but they do not overlap - as they move along with the
phases of development – impact to the end user is 60 mills - 40 of which is debt and 20 is O & M -
You can’t exceed that - the districts work in concert to take that revenue and manage that in one bond
issuance - A number of bond issuances over the life and then possibly a refund at the end of the
construction period but you will never go over 60 mills to any end user.
17
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Metro District at Waterfield Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Thrive Home Builders has submitted a Metro District Service Plan to support a proposed development
of approximately 500 homes on property generally located at the northwest corner of Vine Drive and
Timberline Road. The project will include 50 lots dedicated for affordable housing construction. In
addition, the project will deliver all units as US Department of Energy Certified Zero Energy Ready and
10 percent of homes with rooftop solar. The presentation will provide a review of the proposed metro
district, based on the current state of staff’s analysis.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information does the committee recommend including for the Council
evaluation of the proposed Waterfield Metro District Service Plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Thrive Home Builders (“Thrive”) is evaluating a significant project in Fort Collins, generally located at
the northwest corner of Vine Drive and Timberline Road (see Attachment 2 – Project Vicinity Map).
The project would construct approximately 500 homes in a new urbanist layout - alley loaded and
walkable design. The project is evaluating the ability to deliver up to 50 affordable homes as well as
constructing all 500 homes as U.S. Department of Energy Certified Zero Energy Ready homes.
Thrive is a Colorado grown company that has operated in the metro-Denver area for the past 20 years.
Thrive is committed to building healthy, efficient, and local homes. They achieve this goal by:
UHealthyU – All homes are constructed to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Indoor airPLUS
program standards, include active radon ventilation systems, using advanced moisture
management practices to reduce the likelihood of mold, and use low Volatile Organic
Compound (“VOC”) products.
UEfficient U– All homes are constructed to the U.S. Department of Energy Zero Energy Ready
Home standard, achieve Energy Star Certified status, and include a RESNET HERS score – an
independent energy rating that validates energy efficiency level.
ULocal U– Locally-sourced products are used when available – an example is blue-stained beetle
kill pine.
Thrive also builds affordable homes. Thrive has been building affordable homes, meeting the Denver
Inclusionary Housing guidelines including a deed restriction, for the past 12 years at the Stapleton
Airport Redevelopment. Thrive has built over 380 affordable homes in the Stapleton project. In
addition, they have constructed approximately 500 for-sale homes targeted at 80 percent of Area
Median Income (“AMI”) at Belle Creek. In both projects, these homes deliver the same Zero Energy
Ready features as Thrive uses in market rate housing, including trademark double walls, the ability to
add solar panels, and other zero energy ready features.
18
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Thrive is evaluating a project to construct approximately 498 homes on 71 acres (net of the school site;
93 acres total) at the northwest corner of Vine Drive and Timberline Road (see Attachment 2 – Project
Vicinity Map). The project, called Waterfield, will follow Thrive’s commitment to healthy, efficient, and
local home construction, including all their normal standards and include raw water irrigation, comply
with watersense standards, and re-plat the project to provide urban design and density, alleys, and
walkable features (see Attachment 3 – Thrive & Waterfield Background Materials).
METRO DISTRICT
Thrive has submitted the Consolidated Service Plan for Waterfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3 (the
“Service Plan”). The Metro District would be used to construct critical public infrastructure and other
site costs reducing the overall development costs.
Service Plan Overview
The Service Plan calls for the creation of three Metro Districts working collaboratively to deliver the
proposed Waterfield Project. The phased development is anticipated to reach build out in 2026 with an
estimated population of 1,145. A few highlights about the proposed Service Plan, include:
Assessed Value – Estimated to be approximately $19 million in 2028 (the first year of full value
after build-out)
Aggregate Mill Levy – 50 mills, subject to Gallagher Adjustments
Debt Mill Levy – 40 mills, may not be levied until an approved development plan or
intergovernmental agreement has been executed that delivers the pledged public benefits
Operating Mill Levy – 10 Mills
Maximum Debt Authorization – Anticipated to be $22,429,750 to cover a total of $43,981,050
in estimated costs
Regional Mill Levy – 5 Mills, anticipated to be used to fund specific transportation and/or
stormwater improvements
Public Improvements
The Service Plans anticipate using the Debt Mill Levy to support the issuance of bonds in the maximum
amount of $22.4 million to fund all or a portion of the following $37.3 million in public improvements
(details available in Exhibit D of the Service Plan):
Site Preparation/Grading – Up to approximately $7.2 million in site preparation costs and
grading associated with the proposed project
Roadway Improvements – Up to approximately $6.4 million to fund local residential streets,
alleys, boulevards, and a major extension of Suniga a 4-lane arterial that bisects the project
(estimated roadway costs of $1.7 million)
Potable Waterline Improvements – Up to $1.7 million in costs to construct the 8-inch waterline
infrastructure that will be the main potable water infrastructure for the project
19
Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Up to $3.2 million in costs associated with constructing the
main sanitary sewer infrastructure for the project
Storm Drainage Improvements – Up to $1.9 million in costs to construct the main storm
drainage system and infrastructure for the project (costs associated with grading ponds is
included in the Site Preparation/Grading amount above)
Open Space, Parks and Trails – Up to $3.8 million in costs to construct primarily natural area
open space and regional trails
Administrative, Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs – Up to $13 million in costs
associated with administering, managing, surveying, engineering, inspecting, testing, planning,
and permitting the construction of the public improvements along with approximately $6.2
million in contingency
Of these $37.3 million in potential public improvement costs, the applicant has estimated that
approximately $6.6 million of these costs are non-basic costs. Non-basic costs are assumed to be costs
that are not typical for a development of the proposed project’s type and/or size. These costs
therefore, are considered extraordinary infrastructure costs. The estimated $6.6 million in non-basic
costs combined with the value of the indirect public benefits described below represents the City’s
enhanced value received from the proposed Service Plan.
Public Benefits
As required by the proposed new policy, the Service Plan will deliver a number of extraordinary
development outcomes that support deliver a number of public benefits. The benefits and their
estimated value are described below (details available in Exhibit H of the Service Plan):
Zero Energy Ready – The applicant has agreed to construct all 498 homes in the proposed
project in compliance with the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready and Environmental
Protection Agency’s Indoor airPlus standards – the estimated cost of delivering homes at these
standards is $14 million
Net Zero Energy/Distributed Storage – The applicant has agreed to construction either 10
percent of the homes as Net Zero Energy (with Rooftop Solar) or distributed power storage
equivalent to the consumption by 10 percent of homes at an estimated cost of $2.8 million
Multimodal Transportation Improvements – The applicant has agreed to deliver buffered bike
lanes, wider than required sidewalks, and enhanced pedestrian crossings as part of the
construction of the 4-lane arterial Suniga at an estimated cost of $212,000
Smart Growth Management – The applicant has agreed to design and construct the project at
the upper-end of the zoned density by following new urbanist principles such as alley loading,
smaller lot size, and increasing multi-family density at an estimated cost of $6.1 million
Walkability/Pedestrian Friendliness – The applicant has agreed to make trail enhancements
along the wetlands and other portions of the project to facilitate connections to the regional
trail system at an estimated cost of $2.1 million
Public Spaces – The applicant has agreed to construct a number of pocket parks as well as
mixed use open spaces throughout the project at an estimated cost of $1.7 million
20
Affordable Housing – The applicant has agreed to make 10 percent of the homes
(approximately 50 lots) available for the construction of affordable homes targeted at 80
percent of area median income – these homes will likely be constructed in partnership with
either a land trust or similar entity – at an estimated cost of $3.3 million
The applicant estimates that value of the above public benefits at approximately $30.8 million. Some of
the above costs overlap with public improvements costs – approximately $3.7 million primarily in
public spaces and regional trails. Therefore, the estimated value of the public benefits is conservatively
$27.1 million. Combining the estimate of public benefit costs along with the non-basic public
improvements costs the total anticipated benefit to the community is estimated at $33.7 million.
Policy Comparison
A comparison of the proposed use of Metro District revenues the currently adopted and proposed
policy is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1
Metro District Policy Comparison
The conceptual use of a Metro District at Waterfield does not comply with the City’s existing policy.
However, it represents an example of the type of project that would comply with the proposed policy
revisions to be considered by City Council on August 21, 2018.
POLICY EVALUATION & PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
Project Current Proposed
Mill Levy Caps 50 Mills 40 Mills 50 Mills
Basic Infrastructure Partially Not favored To enable public benefit
Eminent Domain Will Comply Prohibited Prohibited
Debt Limitation Will Comply 100% of Capacity 100% of Capacity
Dissolution Limit Will Comply 40 years 40 years (end user
refunding exception)
Citizen Control Will Comply As early as possible As early as possible
Multiple Districts Yes Projected over an
extended period
Projected over an
extended period
Commercial/
Residential Ratio 100% Residential
90% to 10% N/A
21
The proposed update to the policy supports the formation of a Metro District regardless of
development type when a District delivers extraordinary public benefits. The public benefits should be:
(1) aligned with the goals and objectives of the City whether such extraordinary public benefits are
provided by the Metro District or by the entity developing the Metro District because Metro Districts
exist to provide public improvements; and (2) not be practically provided by the City or an existing
public entity, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. The Service Plan for the Waterfield
Project delivers several proposed policy outcomes, as described in the attached matrix (see
Attachment 4).
Public Benefits Value vs. Maximum Debt Authorization
Based on the applicant analysis, the proposed Service Plan would deliver approximately $6.7 million in
net benefit to the community. This estimate is calculated by subtracting the net costs (difference
between basic public improvements costs and direct public benefits) from the net total benefits (the
sum of the non-basic public improvements and indirect pubic benefits). This analysis provides an
estimate only of the quantitative net value of the public benefits delivered by proposed service plan.
The analysis does not account for the qualitative benefits that may also be delivered by authorizing the
Metro District through the Service Plan.
Table 3
Public Benefit Assessment – Estimated Net Benefits
Staff is continuing to evaluate the above estimates supplied by the applicant and will present a revised
version, if necessary, at the time the Service Plan is presented to the entire Council for consideration.
Triple Bottom Line – Scan
Costs Benefits
(In Millions) Basic Non-Basic Total
Public
Improvements
$ 30.7 $ 6.6 $ 37.3
Direct Indirect Total
Public Benefits $ 3.7 $ 27.1 $ 30.8
Estimated Total
Costs & Benefits
$ 27.0 $ 33.7 $ 6.7
22
An interdisciplinary staff team met to prepare a Triple Bottom Line Scan of the proposed Service Plan.
The scan compared the proposed development enabled by the Service Plan against the existing
Preliminary Development Plan for the property. This baseline was chosen because the likelihood of
residential development occurring on the site is consistent with underlying zoning and likely given
market forces. Therefore, the effect of the proposed Service Plan relates to how the residential
development will differ because of the Metro District involvement.
The net analysis is generally neutral to slightly positive (details are included in Attachment 5). The
highlights are provided below:
Economic – Generally considered to have a neutral impact on economic conditions in the
community with potential positive impacts on talent retention due to increased housing supply
and cost of living because of affordable units
Environmental – Generally considered to have a neutral impact on environmental conditions
compared to the baseline condition with the potential to have positive impacts on Climate
Action Goals due to energy and water conservation and renewables
Social – Largely consider to have a neutral impact on social health conditions with some
potential positive impact on affordable housing opportunities
FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed policy requires all District proposals submit a Financial Plan to the City for review.
Utilizing the District’s Financial Plan, and other supporting information which may be necessary, the
City will evaluate a District’s debt capacity and servicing ability. This analysis is still being prepared by
Economic & Planning Systems and will be include in the materials presented to City Council on
September 4, 2018.
23
Discussion / Next Steps:
100% residential - Total debt cap is $22.5M - All 498 units will be zero energy ready
and will meet the EPAs water sense standard and their Indoor air quality standard –
10% of units as either zero energy and /or roof top solar or they will evaluate doing distributed storage
Outsize request included for a 4-lane arterial road that bisects the development - extension of Suniga
Josh Birks; Triple Bottom Line - this project is further along than the other two - we have completed the
initial TBL on the other two projects - base line was the underlying proposed plat - trying to isolate
what the metro district is helping to encourage differently in these three areas than would take place
with normal development.
24
TBL shows that impacts are neutral to slightly positive on all three – you are the first to see the new
approach to Triple Bottom Line scan. There will be a one pager in the packet for Council that explains
this as well. Intent is that you do this early and then again farther along in the project.
The biggest categories where additional information could increase our confidence are;
Zero Waste
Water and Air Quality
Community Wellness
Jackie Thiel; 2 things to add regarding Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
1) all of Council will be getting a memo this Thursday to give an overview of the tool – because
you will be seeing it for Metro Districts - energy score work session at the end of August
2) In terms of the new tool, we see 2 clients – 1 is the project manager to help them early in the
process to have proactive identification of TBL - optimize the opportunities and mitigate any
impacts and be able to engage different stakeholders to deliver informed decision making to
Council. Council is the other client of this tool. Assessment – with some of the assessments we
might be working with Boards and Commissions to do quality control.
Mayor Troxell; relationship of energy aspects of it - lots of distributed energy near net zero. How do
our utilities get involved early? Is there a master plan for utilities to map into these more distributed
developments that have different requirements than the developments of the past and how to advise
and project what is best for all? One of the triggers you mentioned about solar and then went to
battery – battery could be an overplay - not talking about the system so as we talk about moving to a
more distributed system - more than a device – a solar panel or a battery but how do we integrate the
system. I see a lot of non-potable and pumps, but you can’t do that with solar panels or battery. So,
until you do the design - it could be a whole set of new requirements that changes our demand
charges, etc. There should be someone here from Utilities or a master plan suggesting how our
distributed energy resources are being architected into these master plans as they come forward.
We should avoid collisions in the future by providing terrific guidance and planning as how distributed
energy is integrated into our development projects.
Josh Birks; both developers have had conversations with Fort Collins Utilities in various aspects. I don’t
know all of the specifics of those conversations - I couldn’t answer the question about master plan but
will ask my colleagues in Utilities to respond to that. Montava is having very active on-going
conversations with Utilities including some workshops that have included outside providers. On the
scale of almost 5000 units and what that involves which brings up several of the issues you just
mentioned. The developers are working in earnest to try to help make sure they don’t cause follow on
or unintended consequences but this is still a work in progress. We are trying to understand exactly
what that looks like
Mayor Troxell; to Darin - discussions with the developers are terrific and I am more than encouraged
about what developers want to do and I think it is very much inline with what the community wants to
25
see as well – there will be a lot of people interested in what they are trying to do. From an electric
utility - I don’t think we can lean on ELCO to provide the vision - we have to take ownership as it relates
to what is the future of distribution of water and electricity in Fort Collins. There needs to be a master
plan to envision how these systems are architected (not one off or adhoc). They will help inform rate
structures and demand charges - how do we support on the electric side -distribution costs -one time
and ongoing – a lot of benefits cost wise and environmental. What is the master plan for energy and
water distribution?
Darin Atteberry; I hear what you are saying - water has a different governing structure
Jeff Mihelich; Utilities is actually having a strategic planning session now and part of the issue if how do
we go from purely an operational standpoint to a more strategic, long term vision? Montava especially
as a pilot project gives us an opportunity to take it beyond beta and get to a more operationalized.
Challenge that Darin and I both have
Darin Atteberry; historically we have looked at utilities as our defined boundary and not the GMA
necessarily and that is a big transition – if we could rewind history, we would look at boundaries much
differently.
Mayor Troxell; I think it is architect before operationalizing - much like we do with a Transportation
Master Plan - a collective Utility Master Plan.
Darin Atteberry; primarily focused on capital and not as much around the strategy you are describing –
we have very good capital plans and as to the future of the GMA outside of our boundaries
Jeff Mihelich; in the energy space we should have more policy during the design conceptual phase.
Having considered distributed power solutions instead of going through the grid and one power source
– that goes into maybe a bit of our development standards too.
Mayor Troxell; the capital is irrelevant – basically we are having homeowners investing in the energy -
we need to provide a system that keeps the lights on but also can meet the demands. There needs to
be an energy master plan because as we talked about thermal as it relates to we are not a gas utility –
can also be heat storage when the wind is blowing - other ways of managing heat in a district sense
where it is not a conventional - RTU on the roof but are actually sourcing it through a district level
so, unless a developer came forward with a proposal that we would need to react to – I don’t think
there is anything that the city has that this is option B and this is how we might proceed with that.
Jeff Mihelich; I intend to agree with that - we don’t have a systematic approach now but we need to
Mayor Troxell; moving utilities further up in the planning process so that the city that is realized has all
the right stuff – not one off - design / redesign but an architecture of a community with more
distributed resources.
26
Ross Cunniff; for Council, It would be helpful to have one chart with all three projects as columns -
matrix / policy considerations so we can compare and understand them
Ken Summers; and a map where we can see all three - seems like a big piece of the northeast part of
the GMA
Josh Birks; there are still some big pieces out there
Ken Summers; the total number of housing units supports significant population growth
B. Fee Review - Utilities Wet PIFs, Step II CEFs
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue and Project Manager
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fee Review: Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees, Step II Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs) and Transportation
Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating impact fees that require
Council approval. Brining fees forward for review together provides a more holistic view of the impact.
Phase I included CEFs, TCEFs and Electric Capacity Fees was approved by Council in June of 2017.
Increases were significant, and Council directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs. Along
with approval, Council asked for a commitment to create a working group of citizens, industry and staff
to foster a better understanding of fees. Phase II fees are Wet Utility PIFs and Development Review
Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled and will
come forward at a later date.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Proposed Next Steps:
• September 17P
th
P: Council Finance Committee
o Working Group Position Paper
o Outreach plan
27
• September/October: Public Outreach
• November 13P
th
P: Council Work Session
• December 4P
th
P & 18P
th
P: Ordinance readings
• 2019:
o Development Review Fees
o Electric Capacity Fees
2. Questions from Council Finance Committee?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all building related fees
that require Council approval. Bringing fees forward for review together provides a more holistic view
of the impact.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis but are now on a two and
four-year cadence. Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs, TCEFs and
Development Review Fees every four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for
proposal (RFP) process. Data is provided by City staff and findings are also verified by City staff. For
Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal updates by City staff
with periodic consultant verification. Fee study analysis should be targeted in the odd year before
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
In June of 2017, Council approved the following Phase I fee updates:
2017 Capital Expansion full fee proposals were significant. Fee changes reflected updated asset values
that reflect higher construction costs, land values that reflect higher last cost and population and
Type of Fee
Approved by
Council
Capital Expansion Fees 6
Utility Fees 5
Bldg. Development Fees 45
28
dwelling units per the latest census. These changes caused consternation in the community and
Council directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs.
Along with the fee approvals above, Council asked for commitment to create a working group of
citizens, industry and staff to foster a better understanding of fees. The working group commenced in
August of 2017 and has met 12 times to date. The working group’s position paper findings will be
presented next month in the September Council Finance Committee meeting.
Phase II fees are Wet Utility PIFs and Development Review Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• 90% of proposed CEFs (Step II)
• Option A for TCEFs (Step II)
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Development Review Fees were initially planned for Phase II updates but have been decoupled and will
come forward at a later date.
The chart below shows the stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs:
Step I changes (current fee levels) adopted October 1, 2017 are 75% of full fee levels proposed for CEFs
and Option B for TCEFs. Option B does not increase program revenue, it provides approximately 80% of
necessary funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development. Whereas Option A 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.
The chart below shows Step II fee changes with inflation:
Fees Phasing
Land Use Type Unit
Previous
Total
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step III
Total
% Change
Full Fees
% Change
Step I
% Change
Step II
% Change
Step III
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,059 $5,845 $7,049 $7,587 50% 16% 21% 8%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $6,182 $8,779 $10,593 $11,315 83% 42% 21% 7%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,574 $10,283 $12,409 $13,197 74% 36% 21% 6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $7,762 $11,099 $13,391 $14,188 83% 43% 21% 6%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,094 $12,147 $14,658 $15,546 92% 50% 21% 6%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $13,241 $8,430 $10,164 $10,392 -22% -36% 21% 2%
Office and Other Services $9,071 $6,660 $8,028 $8,256 -9% -27% 21% 3%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $1,748 $2,000 $2,411 $2,464 41% 14% 21% 2%
29
CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017 and reflects Option A for TCEFs.
Including inflation, total Step II fee increases are a 27 to 28% increase from current fee levels (Step I).
The CPI-U index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation (3.1% in 2017 and 3.2% in 2018).
The Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index Values for Denver is used for TCEFs (4.0% in
2017 and 1.2% in 2018).
The chart below shows the proposed Wet Utility PIFs changes:
Across the three Wet Utility Fees, staff is proposing 7 to 11% increases. Water PIFs are a 7.1% increase
from current fee levels, Wastewater PIFs are a 9.5% increase from current fee levels and Stormwater
PIFs are a 11.3% increase from current fee levels.
The drivers for the increases on PIFs is the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in
2018
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27%
30
Discussion / Next Steps:
The Fee Working Group started in August 2017 - the group is working on a position paper which will be
brought back to Council Finance on September 17P
th
P.
Mike Beckstead; getting an understanding of the fee structure and the different methodologies and on
what type of fees they are used has been one of the biggest challenges - stressed the complexity for
the community - we had a couple people on the team say that they had heard we were changing fees
because we were the lowest compared to our peer cities and we had headroom to change so they
thought that was why we were changing so the whole conversation about the methodology and cost
got lost someplace - this was a big aha from the Fee Working Group - we are taking that input from
them and from our public outreach this time around to figure out how we can do a better job of clarity
of message around why fees are changing and what is the driver of those fees changing.
Randy Reuscher presented Utility Fees
Mayor Troxell; what are the drivers for the increases?
Randy Reuscher; the increase in the system value - we are looking at today’s cost for construction –
replacement cost if we had to rebuild our system today
31
Community outreach planned for September and October prior to the Council work session in
November.
Mayor Troxell; this has been a lot of work over time and a lot of misunderstanding too - a number of
Council Members have been involved with questions - goes back to Gino Campana - a lot has come
together - it doesn’t indicate increases but reflects the infrastructure that has been invested and
replacement cost - rationalization to our fee structure as it related to fees
Mike Beckstead; I agree - our Fee Working Group will be here at Council in September.
I think it will be an interesting dialog - we got into discussions around why fees change, asset value
increasing and methodology changes - then we talked about alternatives - other revenue sources -
32
realization that some really difficult choices would have to be made if we don’t keep our fees current
and if we didn’t have these fees we would have to use GF to fund to fund what these fees are intended
to do.
Mayor Troxell; I appreciate the robust list for community outreach. I think you should present to the
Chamber not necessarily to the LLAC as they have a different set of optics.
Ross Cunniff; could we have an overall open house?
Mike Beckstead; I don’t believe we have had open houses in the past as the public is normally not
engaged - we have always gone to the business group
Ross Cunniff; we could have business people come to our open house - If we have trade-offs to be
made or not doing projects or raising sales tax to try to cover the difference - that is important for both
businesses and citizens to understand. We only implemented 75% of fee increase that was
recommended - we should have an understanding of the difference between the full recommendation
and what we actually collected and what does that mean for the projects we are building. That would
be a helpful analysis.
Mike Beckstead; we did it on estimates based on a 10-year permit average
Ross Cunniff; I would like to see actuals
Mike Beckstead; we can come close - a firmer estimate - we will include that in the September work
session packet. We set those on the calendar presuming Council wants to move forward but
our goal is to educate and share the details - we are not being presumptuous with the December
meeting.
Ross Cunniff; metro districts - would like to understand where that infrastructure funding comes from.
Darin Atteberry; John Duval and Carrie Daggett will find out
Mike Beckstead; we will be back to Council Finance on September 17P
th
P and the Work Session on Fees is
scheduled for November 13P
th
P.
C. HR Benefits Discussion
Joaquin ‘Keen’ Garbiso, Sr. Manager, Benefits
Kelly DiMartino, Sr. Assistant City Manager
Jim Lenderts served on the Total Compensation Committee
Jim Sampson from HUB International
33
2018 Benefit Review & 2019 Benefit Updates
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Will provide a plan performance overview for 2016 & 2017 related to claims and administrative costs
associated with our reserve fund policy. In addition, the 2018 health plan updates will be shared based
on utilization and data analysis with the City’s benefit consultant HUB International and their data
analytic tool, Innovu, and employee feedback
We will go over health plan updates for 2019 and provide benefit plan opportunities into 2020.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions does CFC have about our market driven benefits?
Discussion / Next Steps:
34
Keen Garbiso; Aflac Implementation at no cost to the City of Fort Collins – we have great participation
1) Accident Coverage - 700 enrolled - covers other out of pocket expenses (daycare, housing) they
pay a flat dollar amount
2) Critical Illness - 600 enrolled (cancer, heart attack, etc.) benefit paid to employee
Ross Cunniff; premium increase 5% for medical - are we compatible with other industries?
Current cost to employees;
Employee only $42 per pay period - Employee plus family $256 per pay period
Out of pocket maximum $5K for individual and $10K for family
3% of our population met the out of pocket maximum - we continue to review plan design
35
Keen Garbiso; we went through an RFP process for pre-65 Retiree Health Coverage which would allow
them to continue their current medical plan from age 55 to 65 - we reviewed that data with the Total
Compensation Committee - self funded plan would be impacted by as much as 22% - $3M in total
funding per year. Only 1 vendor responded to our RFP so there was only 1 option for us to evaluate.
Ken Summers; wondering what the 55-65 option would look like if we spread the cost out over the
employee population
Mike Beckstead; the challenge was that there wasn’t anybody out there who wanted to bid just on the
55-65 group. The only way that was going to work for them was to also have some existing staff who
join that plan which is a Managed Care Plan - all of the premiums went to cover folks in this plan.
Question became who on the healthy side of the equation would move into this plan and when that
happens we lose the premiums we are receiving for those healthy folks.
Darin Atteberry; there has been a lot of oversight from Council Finance over the last 15-20 years that I
have been working with this group. Great accountability - at the end of the year we ask the question;
are we accountable to our taxpayers for our benefits programs? I think the answer is yes - we do look
at public and private sector data and use external firms. We wanted to show you where we are and
some of the changes we are making.
Keen Garbiso; We are also discussing telemedicine and affordable health premiums for our lower
income employees. Currently today we have City Care which is a great onsite service for employees
and their families. Offering telemedicine would allow them to have their patient care needs met -
triaged – when they are not able to actually meet with a PCP or go to an Urgent Care facility. A simple
36
phone call - having those services triaged over the phone would be a big convenience - they can
prescribe as well - this service would be offered via UMR.
Other Business:
Reminder: There is a Special Council Finance Committee Meeting scheduled for September 5P
th
P which
is a 5 year selection of our financial auditors.
Lincoln Center appropriation coming forward on consent for tomorrow night for $79K
Remodel work currently going on at Lincoln Center now - coming out of the Cultural Resources fund
not the General Fund - aisle way lights were damaged during removal of chairs - vendor no longer in
business so they need to be replaced
Ross Cunniff; We went for the public areas and concession areas 5-7 years ago but didn’t renovate the
seating
Wendy Williams; this was part of the original plan but we didn’t anticipate the aisle lighting would be
damaged - when the chairs arrive the crews will work around the clock to get them installed.
Meeting adjourned at 11:51 am
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
09/05/2018
3 - 5 pm
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, John Duval, Gerry Paul, Travis Storin, John
Voss, Jennifer Selenske, Kerri Ismael, Jeff Barnes (Library District) Kirsten Howard
(Poudre Fire Authority)
Meeting called to order at 3:04 pm
Note: URA Board to be briefed on this discussion at their next meeting - Josh Birks and staff
To Council on the 18P
th
P for resolution
A. Auditor Vendor Selection
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Gerry Paul, Purchasing Director
John Voss, Senior Manager Accounting
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Selection of Audit Firm
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to interview two finalists for financial audit
services. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued and seven firms made proposals. A team of eight
that included staff from the City, PFA and Library reviewed the written proposals and recommend BKD
and Clifton, Larson Allen for consideration by the Council Finance Committee.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Recommend an audit firm for subsequent selection via City Council Resolution.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
2
UProcess OverviewU: Each firm will have up to 15 minutes to present, followed by 30 minutes for
questions from the Committee. At the end of the interviews the Committee will discuss and
recommend an audit firm. Staff that reviewed the written proposals will be available to answer
questions from the Committee.
The Committee recommendation will be brought to City Council on September 18.
The auditor selected will have annual contracts that are renewable for a maximum of 5 years, and per
recent Code modifications are eligible to be competitively selected for one additional 5-year period, for
a maximum tenure of 10 years for a given firm.
Firm Name: CLA Clifton, Larson Allen LLP
Headquarters in Minneapolis, MN – Denver regional office in Broomfield
Paul Niedermuller, CPA Principal
130 in Government practice, 175 employees in Colorado
Recruit from CSU, UCD among others
Firm Name: BKD
Headquarters in Springfield, MO
Jeff Ronsse, Colorado Managing Partner
Chris Telli, Engagement Partner
38 offices in 17 states. Newest office is in NYC
Recruit from CSU, UNC, Fort Lewis, Regis University among others.
Council Finance Committee discussed both presentations based on the assessment criteria (below)
3
Assessment Criteria:
- Scope of the proposal and interview
- Assigned personnel qualifications
- Cost and commitment to meet the City’s annual audit timeline
- Firm capability & reputation
Following the discussion, Ross Cunniff made a motion to recommend BKD as the full partner to City
Council. Ken Summers seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Committee
recommendation will be brought to City Council on September 18P
th
P.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff:
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue & Project Manager
Date:
September 17, 2017
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Impact Fee Working Group Findings & Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new
development related fees that require Council approval. The 2017 CEFs and TCEFs full fee
proposals showed significant increases from the previously approved fees. Due to the concern in
the development and building community around impact fee changes, Council asked for a fee
working group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact fees prior to discussing
further fee updates.
The fee working group meetings commenced in August of 2017, comprised of a balanced group
of stakeholders – City staff, business-oriented individuals, citizens and a Council liaison. The
group met 14 times, and the topics covered included: detailed review of fee methodologies,
inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative revenue sources, academic economic
research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact fee comparisons to
other communities.
Below is a summary of the key findings from the Fee Working Group position paper:
• Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has
been beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for
new development.
• The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs.
• The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very
well. how the City spends and collects impact fees is sound.
• Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees
add to property value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply.
Academic research showed that home price increases in growing areas are mainly
demand driven.
• The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across
the community. They recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general
public.
• In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to
increases in the costs of land, water and construction. These fees are the only category
where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built.
• The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and
maintenance.
• If council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue sources
will be needed. If Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to decide what
alternatives to pursue.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Next Steps:
• November 13P
th
P: Council Work Session
• December 4P
th
P & 18P
th
P: Ordinance readings
• 2019: Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs
2. Feedback & Questions from Council Finance Committee
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Please see attached:
• Impact Fee Working Group Position Paper
• 3P
rd
P Party Impact Fee Audit
ATTACHMENTS
1. Impact Fee Working Group Position Paper
2. 3P
rd
P Party Impact Fee Audit
3. PowerPoint Presentation – Impact Fee Working Group
Finance
Administration
215 N. Mason Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Fee Working Group
Position Paper
Presented for Fort Collins City Council
September 2018
2
Table of Contents
29TPART I – BACKGROUND29T ........................................................................................................... 3
29TOverview and Why the Group Formed29T...................................................................................... 3
29TOriginal Group List: A Blend of Citizens, Industry and Staff29T ............................................... 4
29TGroup List Through 201829T ...................................................................................................... 5
29TFee Group Objective29T .............................................................................................................. 5
29TOverview of Meetings and Topics Covered29T .............................................................................. 6
29TImpact Fee History29T................................................................................................................. 6
29TFee Methodologies and Calculations Reviewed29T .................................................................... 6
29TCapital Expansion Fee Background and Discussion29T ............................................................. 8
29TTransportation Capital Expansion Background and Discussion29T............................................ 9
29TUtility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)29T ...................................................................................... 9
29TDevelopment Review Fees29T .................................................................................................. 10
29TCity Revenue Overall29T........................................................................................................... 10
29TFee Comparison to Other Communities29T .............................................................................. 11
29TCity Impact Fees and Median New Home Sales29T ................................................................. 13
29TRevenue sources considered by Council since 201229T ........................................................... 13
29TProgressive Fees29T .................................................................................................................. 14
29TAffordable Housing Fee Waivers29T ........................................................................................ 14
29TAcademic Research29T.............................................................................................................. 14
29TCapital Expansion Fee Audit29T ............................................................................................... 16
29TPART II – FINDINGS29T ................................................................................................................. 17
29TImpact Fee Mechanics, Calculations & Methods29T .................................................................... 17
29TFee Audit: Collection & Spending29T .......................................................................................... 17
29TImpact Fee Economics29T ............................................................................................................. 17
29TImpact Fee Communication29T ..................................................................................................... 17
29TPark Impact Fees29T ...................................................................................................................... 18
29TAlternatives to Impact Fees & Fort Collins Total Revenue29T..................................................... 18
29TSummary of Findings29T .............................................................................................................. 19
29TPART III - RECOMMENDATIONS29T .......................................................................................... 20
29TImpact Fee List29T ............................................................................................................................ 21
29TGlossary of Terms29T ........................................................................................................................ 22
29TReferences29T .................................................................................................................................... 22
3
PART I – BACKGROUND
Overview and Why the Group Formed
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new
development related fees that require Council approval. Development related fees that are
approved by Council (see a full list at the end of the paper) are six Capital Expansion Fees, five
Utility Fees and 45 Building Development Fees.
Previously, impact fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it
was determined that updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees
updates should occur together each year to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee
increases.
Impact fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for Capital Expansion Fees
(CEFs), Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Development Review Fees every
four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process
where data is provided by City staff. Findings by the consultant are also verified by City staff.
For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal updates by
City staff with periodic consultant verification. In the future, impact fee study analysis will be
targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO).
4
Below is the current impact fee timeline:
In June of 2017, Council approved the following Phase I impact fee updates (effective as of
October 2017):
2017 CEFs and TCEFs full fee proposals showed significant increases from the previously
approved fees. These impact fee changes reflected updated asset values. Asset values have
significantly increased since the last fee update due to higher construction costs and land values.
These changes caused consternation in the development and building community, and Council
directed a stepped implementation for CEFs and TCEFs. Bringing impact fees together to City
Council for approval allowed an understanding of the full impact of the fees; however, it was
difficult to explain given the complexity of different methodologies and qualitative aspects.
Due to the consternation in the development and building community around impact fee changes,
Council asked for a fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact
fees prior to discussing further fee updates. In August of 2017, the fee working group
commenced comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – City staff, business-oriented
individuals, citizens and a Council liaison.
Original Group List: A Blend of Citizens, Industry and Staff
UCouncil Liaison:U Ross Cunniff: District 5
UIndustry:U Sean Dougherty: Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison: Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Greg Mediema: Homebuilder’s Association of Northern Colorado
Moira Bright: Spirit Hospitality LLC
5
Chris Banks: Odell Brewing
UCitizen:U Diane Cohn: Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill: Water Board
Rick Reider: Building Review Board
Linda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams: Parks and Recreation Board
UCity Staff:U Mike Beckstead: Project Sponsor
Tiana Smith: Project Manager/Fee Owner Capital Expansion Fees
Lance Smith: Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson: Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks: City Staff/Economic Health
Group List Through 2018
UCouncil Liaison:U Ross Cunniff: District 5
UIndustry:U Will Flowers: Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison: Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Doug Braden: Homebuilder’s Association of Northern Colorado
Moira Bright: Spirit Hospitality LLC
UCitizen:U Diane Cohn: Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill: Water Board
Linda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams: Parks and Recreation Board
UCity Staff:U Mike Beckstead: Project Sponsor
Jennifer Poznanovic: Project Manager/Fee Owner CEFs
Lance Smith: Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson: Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks: City Staff/Economic Health
Fee Group Objective
Below is the objective of the Fee Working Group:
UWhat:U Improve understanding with stakeholders of the City’s impact fee process.
UHow:U Semi-monthly meetings that present information on the mechanics, alternatives, and
impacts of the City’s impact fees that are approved by City Council.
UWhy:U Foster a common understanding of why and how impact fees are calculated, in addition
to collecting feedback to share with City Council on future fee calculations and processes.
6
Overview of Meetings and Topics Covered
The fee working group meetings commenced in August of 2017. The group met fourteen times,
six meetings in 2017 and eight meetings in 2018. Topics covered included: detailed review of fee
methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative revenue sources, academic
economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact fee
comparisons to other communities.
Impact Fee History
Capital Expansion Fees provisions were adopted in 1996 to impose certain fees to be collected at
the time of building permit issuance for the purpose of funding the provision of additional capital
improvements as the City’s population increases. Fees are intended to ensure new growth and
development in the City bear a proportionate share of costs of capital expenditures necessary to
provide community park, library, police, fire and general government capital improvements
(currently police, fire, general government, community and neighborhood parks).
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, formerly the “Street Oversizing Program” was created in
1979 to ensure that new development, in a fair and equitable manner, contribute toward the
construction of arterial and collector roadways so that essential municipal services, in this case
the development of a safe and reliable transportation network, could keep up with the continued
growth of the City.
Utility Plant Investment Fees are industry standard and have been in place for decades. Utility
PIFs have served as a catalyst for economic growth in the Fort Collins community by allowing
each utility to build the infrastructure and capacity ahead of such growth. These fees provide a
mechanism for new development to reimburse existing utility customers for such investments.
Fee Methodologies and Calculations Reviewed
The group discussed the four types of methodologies used in calculating the various fees: level
of service, plan-based, hybrid and cost recovery, along with information needed for these
calculations. The chart below shows methodologies for the impact fees within this group’s scope
along with high-level calculations that the group discussed in detail.
7
ULevel of Service:U This methodology is standards-based, and fees are based on the existing level
of service. As the community grows, capital facilities and equipment have to be expanded
proportional to growth and cannot exceed the cost of maintaining the existing level of service or
pay for deficiencies in current service or future needs.
Capital Expansion Fees, Electric and Stormwater Plant Investment Fees all use the standards-
based or level of service methodology. Fees are set by assessing City’s capitalized assets or level
of service and an estimate of who can use the asset (functional population or equivalent dwelling
unit (EDU)). Calculation inputs include development and construction costs and land cost. The
asset value is divided by who can use the asset. Impact fees can only be used to develop new
infrastructure and cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies or add features to existing
infrastructure.
UPlan-based:U Fees are set based on a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and development pays a
portion of their impact on that plan. Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies,
for operating costs, or for maintenance. Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) are
plan-based. The calculation used for TCEFs, is Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) multiplied by the
growth cost per VMT.
UHybrid:U Fees are calculated using aspects of both plan-based and level of service. Water and
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu Fees have a hybrid
methodology. The Water and Wastewater Plant Investment Fees set fees based on a CIP along
with current asset values. Raw Water/Cash-in-Lieu Fees are calculated using the cost of future
water storage plus the value of current assets.
UCost Recovery:U Fees are calculated based on recovering all or a portion of the cost of
administering a particular program. Development Review Fees are set at 80% cost recovery per
City code.
8
Capital Expansion Fee Background and Discussion
Capital Expansion Fees include fire, police, general government, community and neighborhood
park impact fees. CEFs at the City are standards-based, meaning these fees are based on the
existing level of service. In the 2017 impact fee study conducted by Duncan Associates,
comparison across the Front Range indicates universal use of the standards-based methodology
for CEFs.
The City began charging CEFs in 1996. CEFs were updated each year for inflation using the
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CPI and continue to be updated on an annual basis. A consultant was
hired in 2013 to perform a thorough review and update of methodology and inputs to these
impact fees. CEFs were updated as a result, and at that time, staff committed to updating fees
every four to five years. With consultant Duncan Associates, CEFs were again updated in 2017
based on this commitment.
As the community grows, capital facilities and equipment must be expanded proportional to
growth to maintain the same level of service. CEFs cannot pay for deficiencies in the current
level of service in existing assets or facilities. As an example, park impact fees cannot be used to
upgrade or add features to an existing park. John Duval, Deputy City Attorney spoke with group
in detail further on legal aspects.
Community and Neighborhood Park Impact Fees
Within the group there has been much discussion around impact fee increases, particularly the
parks fees. The 2017 impact fee levels for parks increased more than for any other fee. As part of
the 2017 fee update, staff hired Ditesco Engineering to provide current costs to build existing
parks and assets, using the last three parks built for both community (Twin Silo, Spring Canyon,
Fossil Creek) and neighborhood parks (Waters Way, Registry, Radiant). Their calculations show
that the 2017 increases were driven by significant increases in asset values based on increases in
construction costs, land values, water costs, etc.
As one example of the discussion within the group, initial perception of some group members
was that Twin Silos was designed with excessively costly features. Kurt Friesen, Director of
Parks Planning, presented a breakdown of the costs of park construction. This showed that land,
water and construction costs are the largest factors in the cost of parks. Shifts in features,
amenities and park elements have had a relatively minor impact on the cost to build new parks.
Kurt Friesen also discussed parks standards for future parks with the group. He noted that some
parks today do have more amenities than other older parks because park system needs have
evolved and changed, but the different features, amenities and park elements do typically balance
out. Kurt also explained the park system development strategy of an even distribution of parks
throughout the City, with a community park within every four-square miles and a neighborhood
park within every mile.
9
The group felt that it was important to note that parks are the only category where impact fees
pay for 100 percent of new park development. There are no other revenue streams for building
new parks. This is not the case for fire, police and general government.
Police, Fire & General Government Impact Fees
The group had detailed discussions around the inputs and calculations on the police, fire and
general government fees. Ann Turnquist, Administrative Services Director of Poudre Fire
Authority, joined the group to discuss the details of the fire fees and how they are used. The
majority of the conversations focused on parks fees, as there was little disagreement on these
impact fees.
Transportation Capital Expansion Background and Discussion
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs), previously “street oversizing” fees, were
created in 1979 and prior to the 2017 study, the last major update was in 2003. TCEF
methodology is plan-based such that new development pays its proportionate share for growth-
related infrastructure needed to maintain current transportation standards. TCEF revenue is used
to expand or provide additional facilities to keep up with development.
The 2017 study with TischlerBise raised residential fees and lowered commercial fees, due to a
shift in the calculation from using trip generation to using vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Not all
trips are the same in length; on average residential trips are longer than commercial. Categories
were simplified in the study, they were reduced from 43 to 8 categories.
In June of 2017, Council approved Option B for TCEFs. Option B provides approximately 80%
of necessary funding to mitigate proportional impacts of development based on the currently
approved Transportation Master Plan. Whereas Option A includes 100% of 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 that were
added to the most recent Transportation Master Plan. Staff is proposing Option A be adopted in
the next round of fee updates in discussion fall of 2018.
In the fall on 2017 Dean Klinger, Director of Engineering and Kyle Lambrecht, TCEFs Program
Manager joined the group to review TCEFs.
Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director, reviewed Utility PIFs with the group. There
was little discussion on Electric PIFs and Raw Water Cash-in-Lieu as these fees have been
consistently coming to Council every two years.
10
Wet Utility PIFs (water, wastewater, stormwater) updates plan to be proposed to Council in the
fall of 2018. These impact fees are largely changing based on the investment that has been made
on asset and infrastructure of these three utility services. Across the three utility fees, staff is
proposing 7 to 11 percent increases. These fees are also on a two-year cadence as with the
Electric PIFs.
Development Review Fees
Development Review Fees are currently being analyzed with an external consultant and were not
ready to be discussed with the fee group. As such, these fees have been decoupled from the fee
updates in 2018 and will come forward at a later date.
City Revenue Overall
Impact fee revenue goes into specific funds for CEFs, Transportation and each Utility Enterprise
Fund. Revenue can only be used for the intended purpose of the fee. For example, police fees
cannot fund parks and parks fees cannot be used to upgrade existing parks.
As seen in the chart below, impact fee revenue from 2005 to 2017 is volatile due to development
volatility.
11
The overall City government revenue was reviewed by the team consistent with the chart below.
The discussion can be summarized as:
• Sales and Use tax account for about 50% of governmental revenues.
• Property tax accounts for about 8% and per the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with
the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA), 68% of property tax revenue is dedicated to PFA.
• Charges for Services are 17% of governmental revenues and these funds are used specific
to the service the fees pay for.
• All revenue coming into the City are utilized for various costs and activities.
The group noted that if CEFs were decreased, one or a combination of the following would be
required: 1) an alternative revenue source to make up the shortfall, requiring de-funding
something that is currently funded; 2) the delay of building the future assets; and/or 3)
decreasing the scope of those assets to match the available fee revenue.
Fee Comparison to Other Communities
Fee comparisons to other communities were also presented to the group. The chart below shows
that Fort Collins impact fees are consistent or lower than other Front Range communities.
12
When comparing median home sales prices with impact fees in neighboring communities, it was
apparent that other factors such as amenities and location are primary drivers of home prices. For
example, the chart below shows that Timnath has the lowest fees and highest home prices,
whereas Wellington has the lowest home prices and the highest fees. In other words, the amount
of impact fees within a community do not correlate strongly with home prices.
Some in the group noted that there is often a higher level of service in Fort Collins compared to
these neighboring communities. When comparing Fort Collins impact fees to those of
neighboring communities, the group had a conversation on what communities get from impact
fees and what the level of service is in Fort Collins compared to other communities. For
example, Timnath recently opened a new small park, whereas the level of service provided at
Spring Creek or Twin Silos parks in Fort Collins is higher. Fort Collins also has amenities such
as undergrounded utilities, public transportation and sign code, arguably adding to the
13
desirability and value of homes. Some in the group suggest social capital plays a role and that
could be weaved into a third dimension on the charts.
City Impact Fees and Median New Home Sales
While impact fees are a sizable portion of the price of new homes, from 2012 through 2017, this
proportion decreased from 13 to 10 percent of the median new home sales price (see chart
below). New median home sales prices have been increasing while the percentage of fees to
median new home sales has been decreasing. The team considers home location, land values and
the cost of construction to be the primary drivers of the increase in new median home prices.
Revenue sources considered by Council since 2012
When discussing alternatives to impact fees, the group reviewed the revenue diversification
options discussed with Council and the Community in 2014 and 2015. Starting in 2012, the City
explored various alternatives with a goal to be revenue neutral and to reduce dependency on
sales tax. Staff looked for replacement revenue sources to broaden the base and to lower the
current tax rate.
An increase in property tax is very unlikely as it would require a structural change at the state
level. Also, income tax is not allowed per current Colorado state constitution. Alternatives
considered include: tax on services, differential sales tax rate, transportation utility fee,
increasing property tax, making quarter cent taxes permanent, occupational privilege tax,
park/trail maintenance fee and an Xcel franchise fee. In 2015, Council suggested three
alternatives to be further researched – tax on services, transportation utility fee and occupational
privilege tax. Staff talked to business-oriented groups, and they were unanimously unsupportive.
14
Progressive Fees
Some in the group suggest that impact fees be more progressive, i.e. lower impact fees for
smaller homes and higher impact fees for larger homes, or potentially add more steps within the
impact fees. Legally, impact fees cannot be artificially adjusted to achieve a more progressive
fee structure. Impact fees must be based on data and the number of people estimated to live
within various size homes.
The CEF fee study consultant used 2013 census data for current CEF fees, but City staff had the
consultant go back and look at 2015 western state census data. The 2015 census data indicated
fewer people in smaller homes and more people in larger homes than the 2013 census data.
Using the 2015 data would reduce CEF fees on smaller homes and increase CEF fees for larger
homes. There is more progression using the 2015 census data, but important to note is that the
formula would stay the same, only the inputs would change to add more progressiveness.
The City currently has six different dwelling unit size categories. The CEF fees could get more
progressive by expanding the number of categories. Currently, around 90 percent of building
permits are 2200 square feet and larger (the current largest dwelling unit category).
Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
Diane Cohn, Fort Collins Affordable Housing Board Chair, presented research on economic
impact of development fees on affordable housing. The group acknowledges that increased fees
may be a barrier for affordable housing production. The current fee waiver policy is limited.
Some in the group suggest the City reconsider the Area Median Income (AMI) level for waivers
to include greater than 30%, especially for affordable home ownership, like those homes built by
Habitat for Humanity, who currently serve families at 35-60% of AMI. In addition, perhaps
longer requirements for affordability (beyond 20 years) could be coupled with greater AMI
limits.
The group also suggested a more nuanced approach to fee waivers for affordable housing be
explored, for example, waiving some fees or portions of fees, such as parks and transportation,
but not others like utilities or police/fire fees. Critical to any new fee waivers is accountability
and compliance of the terms for length of affordability commitment. In addition, some in the
group suggest the City evaluate any negative impacts that changes to fee policies may have on
the City’s affordable housing developments.
Academic Research
Linda Stanley, Senior Research Scientist at Colorado State University (Ph.D., Economics),
presented impact fee academic research to the group. Below is a summary of the findings with
references found at the end of the paper.
15
UThe effect of impact fees on housing prices:U The increase in the price of a home due to the
imposition of an impact fee varies significantly by the value of the home, by the community, and
by the type of fee.
o Value of home. The increase in price resulting from an impact fee is proportional
to the value of a home, with higher priced homes having a greater increase in
price, often with over-shifting (i.e., the increase in price is greater than the
increase in the fee). (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006; Mathur, Waddell, and Blanco,
2004)
o Type of fee. There is less effect of water/sewer fees on housing prices, with some
research finding no effect (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006). Impact fees that fund
highly visible and valued amenities are likely to increase housing prices of both
new and existing homes (Mathur 2013).
Demand-driven increases in willingness to pay are, in large part, responsible for these price
increases (as opposed to a reduction in supply due to cost increases). There are two main demand
side effects.
o Impact fees create infrastructure valued by community residents. This is why
impact fees that fund highly visible and valued amenities are likely to increase
housing prices of both new and existing homes.
o Impact fees offset future tax liabilities that are capitalized into the price of a
home. In other words, consumers are willing to pay more for a home with lower
property taxes than that same home with higher property taxes.
The academic evidence finds that, in growing areas, market demand is the primary determinant
of housing prices, whether growth management programs, including impact fees, are present or
not.
UThe effect of impact fees on housing stock:U Effects on both supply and demand interact to
determine whether impact fees will slow down, speed up, or have no effect on residential
construction rates. Thus, the empirical findings are nuanced. (Burge and Ihlanfeldt, 2006 and
Burge 2016)
• Non-water/sewer impact fees have positive effects on construction rates in suburban
areas and negligible impacts on rates in central city and rural areas.
• Non-water/sewer impact fees increase construction of large homes but not affordable
ones in outer suburban areas.
• Water/sewer impact fees are an insignificant determinant of construction rates for all size
categories of homes and across all parts of a metropolitan area.
• Burge (2016) notes, “It is crucial that state and local government officials become
familiar with the more recent evidence to support the idea that impact fees may not
reduce residential growth at all in the long run.”
UThe effect of impact fees on employment and the economyU: Impact fees do not appear to reduce
employment growth overall, but there may be sector specific effects.
• Nelson and Moody (2003) found a significant positive association between impact fees
collected per building permit in one year and job growth over the next two years.
16
• Jones (2015) found that the use of fees was positively related to service-sector
employment growth and, to a lesser extent, negatively related to manufacturing
employment growth. There was no relationship of impact fees to retail jobs.
Capital Expansion Fee Audit
In April of 2018, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Northern Colorado Home
Builders Association and the Fort Collins Board of Realtors sponsored a third-party audit by
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (DPFG).
The City reviewed and responded to the findings in the DPFG Review both with the audit
sponsors and later with the fee working group. The City collected and spent approximately $54M
in impact fees from 2012 to 2016. DPFG did not identify any issues with how fees are collected
or with how the City has spent its police, fire, general government and community parks CEFs.
The DPFG Review questioned $3.8M of transportation ($1.4M) and neighborhood “parks”
($2.4M) expenditures.
The City’s analysis of the DPFG review found $3.4M of the $3.8M in question to be allowable
overhead costs based on the City’s current code language. Of the remaining $387k in fee
expenditures, staff determined $257k to be appropriate and $130k to be inconsistent with current
understanding of how park fees should be used.
Of the charges questioned, $257k are related to costs incurred during the two years after the park
was largely completed. The maintenance costs for new parks transfers to the Park Department
two years after parks are established. This is related to general warranty periods from
construction and the need to make sure features and vegetation are sustainable prior to turning
over to the Parks Department for ongoing maintenance. The $257k of costs in question are
related to water costs while vegetation is taking root, equipment replacement associated with
warranty issues, costs related to maintaining property of parks to be constructed, landscaping,
and expenditures for future parks.
The remaining costs in question, approximately $130k, are largely for the installation of new
equipment in existing parks. Staff had previously understood park CEFs could be used for new
features in old parks. This understanding has been corrected and staff is now aware this is not an
allowable expenditure of CEFs and will not occur in the future.
In summary, of approximately $54M in impact fees collected and spent in 2012 to 2016, only
$130k or 0.24% should not have been charged to Parks Planning.
17
PART II – FINDINGS
Impact Fee Mechanics, Calculations & Methods
From the meetings in 2017 that largely focused on impact fee mechanics, calculations and
methodology, the group acknowledged that the City’s impact fee methodologies are sound and
legally defensible. Impact fee calculations align with industry practice and the methodologies,
data requirements and calculations became clearer after detailed review with City staff.
Fee Audit: Collection & Spending
After reviewing the third party DPFG Review, the group agrees that the system is in compliance
and that the City has done an excellent job in managing fee allocations and expenditures. In the
five years, from 2012 to 2016, the City collected and spent approximately $54M in CEFs. Of the
$54M evaluated only $130k was not allowable expenditures. A majority of the group thinks the
$130k used from the neighborhood parkland should be transferred to the general fund. The Fort
Collins Board of Realtors has agreed to share the findings (see references).
Impact Fee Economics
The group agrees that impact fee amenities add to property values, however differ in views as to
what extent. For example, living right next to a park or just being in Fort Collins with
community and neighborhood parks throughout the City.
Some in the group also consider the increased demand from amenities as an undesirable effect as
it pushes growth out of the City – cheap and easy vs. high rise density along with less
homeownership. Regardless of demand, some in the group want to highlight that rising costs of
impact fees do have an impact on housing costs, whether supply or demand driven. However, the
portion of median home sales prices accounted for by impact fees has decreased from 13 percent
in 2012 to 10% in 2017.
Impact Fee Communication
Bringing impact fees together for review and forming of the fee working group has been
beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new
development.
The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the
community. The City must better explain the basis, calculation and usage of impact fees to
stakeholders. For example, when the business community was shown that Fort Collins impact
fees are lower than the fees of other Front Range communities, some in the group and business
community initially took the message to be that impact fees are going up because the market will
18
bear it while others thought that the City was increasing its impact fees because they were lower.
While comparisons are important, they should be shown in context. The underlying message on
the need for updates due to changes in the inputs in the calculations may not have been heard.
Going forward the City needs to be mindful in how it messages. Comparisons should have
context, such as level of service, total cost and looking at best practices.
Park Impact Fees
Many of the group conversations on impact fees revolved around CEFs, namely park fees. The
fee levels for parks increased more than for any other impact fee due to large increases in the
inputs to the fee calculations (i.e., land and water prices; construction costs). Although some in
the group noted that parks may have too many amenities, this was a small percentage of the cost
of building a new park.
Parks are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built; there are no
other revenue streams for building new parks. This is not the case for fire, police and general
government. Some in the group want to highlight that the 2008 parks and recreation policy plan
did realize a potential inadequacy of park impact fees to fund new parks. Council supported full
build out but did not identify additional revenue streams to fund parks. The 2008 plan discusses
the need for additional funding streams for development and subsequent maintenance and
emphasizes that the plan for park development should recognize the cost of subsequent
maintenance.
Alternatives to Impact Fees & Fort Collins Total Revenue
If lower impact fees are approved than was recommended in 2017, as an example, the City could
build lower cost parks, which would lower levels of service. Some in the group suggest not to
rule out public involvement such as philanthropy and considerations of regional cooperation. The
group acknowledged that reallocating revenue from the General Fund would require lowering
levels of service across the City. It is also unclear if home prices would drop if impact fees were
decreased or even eliminated.
Other alternatives discussed include: sales tax increase, property tax increase, occupation tax, or
looking into Metro Districts to build parks and streets, most of which staff previously worked on
from 2012 to 2016 regarding revenue diversification. Group consensus is that the general
community would be in favor of impact fees on new development instead of supporting other
revenue sources, such as increasing taxes or reallocating General Fund monies to pay for impacts
of new development. This would need to be further examined as the group does not fully
represent the community.
Given the limitations on total revenue, if full impact fee increases are not implemented, the City
will need to turn to alternatives or reallocate revenue from the General Fund. Limited revenues
and endless needs make for choices. If Council elects to continue to implement less than
recommended, the group suggests exploring alternative revenue sources.
19
Summary of Findings
• Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has
been beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for
new development.
• The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs.
• The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very
well. how the City spends and collects impact fees is sound.
• Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees
add to property value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply.
Academic research showed that home price increases in growing areas are mainly
demand driven.
• The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across
the community. They recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general
public.
• In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to
increases in the costs of land, water and construction. These fees are the only category
where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built.
• The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and
maintenance.
• If council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue sources
will be needed. If Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to decide what
alternatives to pursue.
20
PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS
1. UBetter Communication, Outreach and Notification of Impact Fee ChangesU: Predictability
of when impact fees change and communication to the community should be more
transparent. Bringing impact fees together for review on a two and four-year cadence
along with better communication on when specific impact fees are locked in, will aid in
transparency and predictability.
Communication around impact fee updates and comparisons with other communities
needs better clarity and messaging going forward. Comparisons should have context,
such as level of service, total cost and looking at best practices. The group also suggests
finding a better way to communicate level of service vs plan-based methodologies.
2. URepayment from Impact Fee AuditU: The full group recommends paying back the $130k
identified in the DPFG audit review.
3. UProgressive Fees if/where PossibleU: Some in the group suggest that impact fees be more
progressive, i.e. lower impact fees for smaller homes and higher impact fees for larger
homes, or potentially add more steps within the impact fees. Staff plans to incorporate
more home size grouping in the next update in 2021.
4. UExplore Alternative Revenue Source for Parks BuildoutU: The group recommends
considering alternative revenue sources for building new parks as it is the only category
that is fully funded by impact fees.
5. UInvestigate Revenue Alternatives to Support Parks Refresh and Maintenance:U When the
City is at buildout, what will be the funding source to refresh parks? Some also
recommend a deeper dive may be useful to better understand if plan based or level of
services is best for the City’s park fees.
6. UExplore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing Fee WaiversU: Some in the group
recommended the City reconsider the Area Median Income (AMI) level for waivers to
include greater than 30%. In addition, perhaps longer requirements for affordability
(beyond 20 years) could be coupled with greater AMI limits. The group also suggested a
more nuanced approach to fee waivers for affordable housing be explored, for example,
waiving some fees or portions of fees, such as parks and transportation, but not others
like utilities or police/fire fees.
21
Impact Fee List
Type of
Fee
Fee Category Fee Name
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Parkland: Neighborhood
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Parkland: Community
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Transportation Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Fire Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits Police Capital Expansion
CEF Permit Fees - Building Permits General Gov. Capt. Exp.
Utility Development Fees Cash-in-lieu of the Water Raw Water Requirement & Excess Water Use Surcharge
Utility Development Fees Electric Development Fees
Utility Development Fees Sewer Plant Investment Fee
Utility Development Fees Stormwater Plant Investment Fees
Utility Development Fees Water Plant Investment Fee
Dev Development Review - Addition of Permitted Use Additional Rounds of Review
Dev Development Review - Annexation Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - Initial - (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if detached single family
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if multi-family/other residential
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation if commercial, industrial, retail
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - size of development
Dev Development Review - Basic Development Review Transportation - Final (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Water Water Development Review
Dev Development Review - Sewer Sewer Development Review
Dev Development Review - Stormwater Stormewater Development Review
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Dedications Transportation Development Review (Easement)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Dedications Transportation Development Review ( Right-of-Way)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Vacations Processing Fee (per easement)
Dev Development Review - Easments and Right of Ways - Vacations Processing Fee (per Right-of-Way)
Dev Development Review - Major Amendment Initial Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Major Amendment Final Transportation
Dev Development Review - Minor Amendment Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Modification of Standards Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Overall Development Plan Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation (flat fee)
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if detached single family
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if multi-family/other residential
Dev Development Review - Project Development Plan - Initial Transportation if commercial, industrial, retail
Dev Development Review - PDP Final Transportation Re-review
Dev Development Review - Rezoning Transportation Development Review
Dev Development Review Road Projects
Dev Development Review - Wireless Telecomm - Initial Transportation
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Building Permits
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Over-the-counter (No Review) Residential Building Permits
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Building Plan Check
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee - Single Family Attached
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee - 1-4 attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Poudre School District Impact Fee -5 or more attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Thompson School District Impact Fee - Single Family Detached
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Thompson School District Impact Fee - 5 or more attached dwelling units
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Larimier County Reg. Road
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec. PILOTS
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec: Secondary Service (Service A & B)
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Elec: Temp Pedestal
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water PIF
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water Right
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Water Meter
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Sewer PIF
22
Glossary of Terms
References
Been, V. (2005). Impact Fees and Housing Affordability, Cityscape, A Journal of Policy development and
Research 8(1), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol8num1/ch4.pdf
Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006). Impact Fees and Single-Family Home Construction. Journal of Urban
Economics, 60, 284-306. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119006000222
Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006). The Effects of Impact Fees on Multifamily Housing Construction. Journal of
Regional Science, 46, 5-23. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00431.x
Burge, Gregory (2016). Impact Fees in Relation to Housing Prices and Affordable Housing Supply.
29TUhttp://www.impactfees.com/publications/burge-Impact_Fees_in_Relation_to_Housing_Prices-
2016.pdfU29T
City of Fort Collins (2008). City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=236&docid=2242785&dt=DEPT+REPORTS
Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (2018). Capital Expansion Fee Review prepared for the
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Northern Colorado Home Builders Association and the Fort
Collins Board of Realtors. (see attached)
Ditesco (2017). Park Development Fee Analysis prepared for the City of Fort Collins.
https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/parks-fee-analysis.pdf?1488231835
Duncan Associates (2017). Capital Expansion Fee City prepared for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/capital-expansion-fee.pdf?1497285402
Jones, AT (2015). Impact Fees and Employment Growth, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 29(4)
341 –346. 29Thttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/089124241558936829T
AMI Area Median Income
CEFs Capital Expansion Fees
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
Equivalent Dwelling Unit The ratio of the average household size of a dwelling type to the average household size
of the typical single-family detached unit – the service unit used for parks
Functional Population The number of people present at a land use expressed in full time equivalents, the
service unit used for fire, police and general government
Level of Service Ratio of the replacement cost of existing facilities to existing service units
PIFs Plant Investment Fees
TCEFs Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel
Wet Utility PIFs Water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees
23
Mathur, S., Waddell, P, & Blanco, H (2004). The Effect of Impact Fees on the Price of New Single-Family
Housing. Urban Studies, 41(7), 1303-1312.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0042098042000214806
Mathur, S. (2013). Do All Impact Fees Affect Housing Prices the Same? Journal of Planning Education and
Research. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0739456X13494241
Nelson, AC, Pendall, R., Dawkins, CJ, Knaap, GJ (2002). The Link Between Growth Management And
Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence. A discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-link-between-
growth-management-and-housing-affordability-the-academic-evidence/
Nelson, AC & Moody, M. (2003) Paying For Prosperity: Impact Fees and Job Growth. A discussion paper
prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/paying-for-prosperity-impact-fees-and-job-growth/
Nelson, AC, Bowles, LK, Juergensmeyer, JC, & Nicholas, JC (2008). A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing
Affordability, Washington DC: Island Press. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-link-between-
growth-management-and-housing-affordability-the-academic-evidence/
TischlerBise (2017). Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study prepared for the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado. https://www.fcgov.com/finance/pdf/transportation-capital-expansion-fee-study-
2017.pdf?1497285409
Yinger, John. 1998). The Incidence of Development Fees and Special Assessments. National Tax Journal.
51(1), 23-41. http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/v51n1023.pdf
3302 EAST INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD
PHOENIX, AZ 85018
TEL (602) 381-3226
FAX (602) 381-1203
www.dpfg.com
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
April 6, 2018
Ms. Ann Hutchison
Director
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Greg Miedema
Director
Northern Colorado Home Builders Associations
Ms. Natalie Davis
Chief Executive Officer
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
RE: City of Fort Collins Impact Fee Peer Review
Dear Ms. Hutchinson, Mr. Miedema and Ms. Davis:
At your request, we have performed certain agreed upon procedures (“Agreed Upon Procedures”
and/or “Review”) related to the City of Fort Collin’s, Colorado (“City”), collection and
expenditure of capital expansion fees (“CEF”) as outlined below.
The purpose of the Review was not to examine the City’s accounting records in accordance with
generally accepted financial auditing or attestation standards, but rather to determine whether the
City is properly utilizing funds collected through its CEF program for the funding of public
improvements as outlined in: the City’s Ordinance related to such matters (“Ordinance”); the
supporting CEF studies; as well as Colorado Revised Statute (“CRS”) 29-20-1045 et seq. (the
“Act”).
In accordance with the Agreed Upon Procedures, we have reviewed in varying degree of detail,
the majority of the City’s CEF expenditures in terms of dollar volume for the time period
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016.
I. Agreed Upon Procedures Scope of Work
The following tasks were performed as part of our Agreed Upon Procedures.
2
Reviewed CEF Ordinance and Supporting Documents/Studies
Obtained the City’s Ordinance as well as supporting studies and back-up materials including
but not limited to: CEF Studies; City’s Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”); Annual
Statements of CEF Account Balances for the last five (5) year fiscal period; the City’s
Annual Financial Reports for the last five (5) years; CEF Account General Journals for the
last five (5) fiscal years and other reports as required.
CIP / CEF Review
Reviewed the City’s CIP as well as the funding of the improvements included in the CIP
through a review of the CEF account expenditures for the five (5) year analysis period as
follows:
1. Reviewed the City’s CIP, CEF Account Balance Reports and General Journals by
CEF account for the last five (5) years.
2. For all CEF transactions selected from the general journal, requested supporting
documentation from the City.
3. Determined the appropriateness of each transaction by reviewing the transaction
description accompanying each transaction and on a test basis traced the selected
expenditure to the listing of eligible public facilities as outlined in the CIP and/or the
CEF Study as appropriate.
4. Discussed any discrepancies (if any) with the appropriate City personnel.
CEF Implementation Plan
Evaluated the City’s implementation of the CEF programs as follows:
1. Reviewed the Ordinances adopting the City’s CEF program.
2. Obtained the City’s current CEF charges from the Development Service Department
or its equivalent.
Report of Findings
1. Prepared a written report of findings outlining the results of our Agreed Upon
Procedures.
II. Executive Summary
The following is a summary of our Review findings:
A. CEF Ordinance and Supporting Documentation – Our Review indicated that the City
had enacted Ordinances for the review period.
B. Transaction Support – We noted that all of the City’s CEF revenue and expenditure
transactions reviewed agreed to the general ledger and that the transactions had reasonable
levels of backup and supporting documentation.
3
C. Police – No issues related to the collection or expenditures of Police CEF’s were noted.
D. Fire - No issues were found related to the collection or expenditures of Fire CEF’s.
E. Transportation – It was noted that approximately $1.4 million in Transportation Fees
had been expended for operational expenses which appears to be in conflict with the Act and
industry practices for such matters.
F. Parks – Approximately $586,000 in park fees had been expended for operational
expenses, $218,000 for repairs/replacement of existing park equipment and $1.6 million for
administrative type expenses. All of these expenditures appear to be in conflict with the Act
and industry practices.
G. Financial Recap –The summary table below illustrates the total expenditures that were
identified as part of our Agreed Upon Procedures that in our opinion, do not meet the
requirements of CRS 29-20-1045 (4)(b) of having a useful life of five (5) years or more.
Each questionable expenditure was categorized as either an operational expense, a
repair/replacement, or an administrative expense. Further detailed schedules for each Fee
category can be found in the addendum to this Report.
Capital Expansion Fee
Exhibit
Reference Operational Expense Repair/Replacement
Administration
Expense Total
Transportation
Transportation Cap Expan No 2 B $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Transportation Subtotal $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Parks
Waters Way Park C $ 114,688.22 $ 202.38 $ - $ 114,890.60
Waters Way Repairs D $ - $ 41,845.53 $ - $ 41,845.53
Registry Park E $ 13,429.20 $ - $ - $ 13,429.20
Radiant Park F $ 13,217.35 $ - $ - $ 13,217.35
New Park Site Development G $ 24,773.98 $ 68,467.21 $ 641.26 $ 93,882.45
Lee Martinez Park Addition H $ 3,822.65 $ - $ - $ 3,822.65
Richards Lake I $ 2,839.91 $ - $ - $ 2,839.91
Avery Park J $ 1,893.72 $ 85,683.96 $ - $ 87,577.68
Maple Hill Park K $ 6,546.39 $ 4,707.00 $ - $ 11,253.39
Trailhead Park L $ 18,363.34 $ - $ - $ 18,363.34
Parkland & Administration Cost M $ 386,539.06 $ - $ 1,562,298.66 $ 1,948,837.72
Parkland Equipment Replacement N $ - $ 17,423.13 $ - $ 17,423.13
Parks Subtotal $ 586,113.82 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,562,939.92 $ 2,367,382.95
Total $ 1,960,408.62 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,564,450.52 $ 3,743,188.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Summary of Findings
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Development Impact Fee Review
4
III. Detailed Findings
A. CEF Ordinance - The City enacted ordinances for the collection of CEF’s as illustrated
on the table below.
Fiscal Year Ending Ordinance Number Fees Included Fee Study Present Date Signed Comments
2017 049, 2017
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
Yes. Included Parks,
Police, Fire, General
Government and
Transportation 6/7/2017
Ordinance indicates that funds
shall not be used to remedy
deficiencies but only provide for
new capital improvements
required by new development.
Also indicates that funds shall
not be used for costs associated
with operation, administration,
maintenance or replacement of
capital improvements.
2016 132, 2016
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/20/2016
2015 148, 2015
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/1/2015
2014 172, 2014
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 12/16/2014
2013 120, 2013
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 9/3/2013
2012 121, 2012
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
5
C. Transportation – It was noted that potentially $1.4 million of Transportation Expansion
Fee expenditures were made for administrative expenses rather than capital facilities that
have an estimated useful life of five (5) years or longer
1
. The questionable items include
salaries and related benefits, land maintenance services, termination pay, cell phone service
bills, vehicle repairs and office supplies. See Exhibit B for more details.
D. Parks - It was noted that approximately $590,000 of Parkland Expansion expenditures
were made for operational expenses such as electric and water utilities, yard maintenance,
grocery store expenditures, restaurant meal expenses, computer hardware and software
expenses, mobile stage rentals, fed-ex shipping expenses, vehicle repair services, and
conference and travel expenses were charged to various parkland expense accounts. See
Exhibits C through M for further information.
There also appeared to be potentially $218,000 spent on repair or replacement type
expenditures involving the Parkland Expansion accounts. Some of the expenses included
repairing existing playground soft surfacing, and demolishing an existing park playground
established in 1962 and constructing a new playground in its place. There was also an
existing shade structure that had been updated using impact fee funds. See Exhibits C
through N for further details.
Lastly, there were approximately $1.5 million of administration related expenses charged to
the Parkland Expansion accounts. Of this amount, $1.1 million appear to be utilized for City
employee salary expenses. A majority of the remaining $400,000 in expenditures consisted
of administration services to the general fund, health insurance premiums and employee
retirement contributions. See Exhibits G through M for further detailed expense findings.
IV. Recommendations
Based on our Agreed Upon Procedures it appears that the City has expended approximately
$3.7 million in Fees for non-capital assets. In our opinion the City should refund the
appropriate Fee accounts $3.7 million as outlined herein. The stakeholder group may wish to
engage legal counsel to obtain their advice as to the legalities of the items noted within the
body of the Report.
While we were not able to observe the processes and procedures that the City utilized to
authorize expenditures from its Fee accounts; given our findings related to the expenditure of
funds for non-capital assets, it is suggested that the City formulate and institute policies and
procedures to ensure that Fees are only being expended for their intended purposes.
V. General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
DPFG neither expresses nor implies any warranties of its work nor predicts results of the
procedures outlined above. DPFG’s work was performed on a “level-of-effort” basis; that is,
the depth of our analyses and extent of our authentication of the information on which our
Report was predicated, may be limited in some respects due to the extent and sufficiency of
1 Colorado Revised Statute 29-20-1045 (4)(b)
6
available information, and other factors. Moreover, we did not examine any such information
in accordance with generally accepted financial auditing or attestation standards. Our work
was performed in compliance with the Agreed Upon Procedures only.
This Report was based on information that was current as of November 17, 2017 and DPFG
has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. Because of the limited
nature of our review, no warranty or representation is made by DPFG that the results
contained in this Report are accurate.
The professionals at DPFG are not trained legal professionals and as such, we are not
providing legal interpretations related to the Act.
This Report is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these
assumptions, limitations, and conditions.
Sincerely,
Carter T. Froelich, CPA
Managing Principal
CTF/kb
Attachments
Exhibit A
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Development Impact Fee Review
Summary of Findings
Capital Expansion Fee
Exhibit
Reference Operational Expense Repair/Replacement
Administration
Expense Total
Transportation
Transportation Cap Expan No 2 B $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Transportation Subtotal $ 1,374,294.80 $ - $ 1,510.60 $ 1,375,805.40
Parks
Waters Way Park C $ 114,688.22 $ 202.38 $ - $ 114,890.60
Waters Way Repairs D $ - $ 41,845.53 $ - $ 41,845.53
Registry Park E $ 13,429.20 $ - $ - $ 13,429.20
Radiant Park F $ 13,217.35 $ - $ - $ 13,217.35
New Park Site Development G $ 24,773.98 $ 68,467.21 $ 641.26 $ 93,882.45
Lee Martinez Park Addition H $ 3,822.65 $ - $ - $ 3,822.65
Richards Lake I $ 2,839.91 $ - $ - $ 2,839.91
Avery Park J $ 1,893.72 $ 85,683.96 $ - $ 87,577.68
Maple Hill Park K $ 6,546.39 $ 4,707.00 $ - $ 11,253.39
Trailhead Park L $ 18,363.34 $ - $ - $ 18,363.34
Parkland & Administration Cost M $ 386,539.06 $ - $ 1,562,298.66 $ 1,948,837.72
Parkland Equipment Replacement N $ - $ 17,423.13 $ - $ 17,423.13
Parks Subtotal $ 586,113.82 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,562,939.92 $ 2,367,382.95
Total $ 1,960,408.62 $ 218,329.21 $ 1,564,450.52 $ 3,743,188.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit B
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Transportation Capital Expansion Account
Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Advertising Services $ 55.56 Operational Expense
Cell Phones Services $ 1,650.00 Operational Expense
Clothing Supplies $ 467.30 Operational Expense
Construction Services $ 897.50 Operational Expense
Copy & Reproduction Services $ 51.67 Operational Expense
Dental Insurance $ 3,613.49 Operational Expense
Education & Training Services $ 175.00 Operational Expense
E-Mail & PDA Admin Services $ 718.52 Operational Expense
Employees Group Life Ins $ 1,124.41 Operational Expense
GERP (1) $ 1,599.38 Operational Expense
GERP Supplemental Charges (1) $ 13,440.00 Operational Expense
Health Insurance $ 59,206.05 Operational Expense
Internal Investment Services $ 3,827.96 Operational Expense
Land Maintenance Services $ 400,127.60 Operational Expense
Long-term Disability $ 2,998.65 Operational Expense
Office Supplies $ 591.32 Operational Expense
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 26.00 Operational Expense
Postage & Freight Services $ 26.40 Operational Expense
Retirement Contributions $ 49,336.03 Operational Expense
Salaries-Hourly $ 9,872.24 Operational Expense
Salaries-Regular $ 674,535.17 Operational Expense
Social Security & Medicare $ 50,579.61 Operational Expense
Telephone Services $ 2,637.16 Operational Expense
Termination Pay $ 14,020.71 Operational Expense
Tools & Related Supplies $ 231.84 Operational Expense
Vehicle Repair Services $ 541.29 Operational Expense
Water $ 81,943.94 Operational Expense
Workers Compensation $ 1,510.60 Administration Expense
Total $ 1,375,805.40
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 1,374,294.80
Repair/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ 1,510.60
Total $ 1,375,805.40
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Footnote:
(1) "GERP" is the City of Fort Collins General Employee Retirement Plan.
Description of Expenditures
Exhibit C
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Waters Way Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Bath Inc $ 5,949.63 Operational Expense
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 19,604.21 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 607.63 Operational Expense
Hedrick, James $ 1,016.11 Operational Expense
Hurr/Vasa Lawn & Landscape $ 202.38 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 38,323.69 Operational Expense
Raw water bill for 2012 $ 750.00 Operational Expense
Rcls hrly payroll exp to proj $ 26,337.83 Operational Expense
UMB Card Services $ 22,099.12 Operational Expense
Total $ 114,890.60
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 114,688.22
Repairs/Replacement $ 202.38
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 114,890.60
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit D
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Waters Way Repairs
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
RCL Waters Way Repair Expense $ 41,845.53 Repairs/Replacement
Total $ 41,845.53
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ -
Repairs/Replacement $ 41,845.53
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 41,845.53
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit E
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Registry Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 7,998.17 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 5,431.03 Operational Expense
Total $ 13,429.20
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 13,429.20
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 13,429.20
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit F
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Radiant Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
City of Fort Collins Utility B $ 2,433.59 Operational Expense
2013 Raw Water bill-Parks Dept $ 683.10 Operational Expense
Fedex Corp $ 213.61 Operational Expense
Fort Collins-Loveland Water Di $ 9,220.45 Operational Expense
Raw water bill for 2012 $ 666.60 Operational Expense
Total $ 13,217.35
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 13,217.35
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 13,217.35
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit G
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
New Park Site Development
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Aller-Lingle Massey Architects $ 1,986.00 Repairs/Replacement
Arrow Fencing and Automated Ga $ 7,966.14 Repairs/Replacement
B H A Design INC $ 1,774.00 Operational Expense
Batteries Plus $ 33.95 Operational Expense
Best Rental Inc $ 2,202.82 Operational Expense
Bettin, Cameron $ 582.52 Administration Expense
Dickinson Electric $ 8,836.64 Repairs/Replacement
DLT Solutions AutoCad renewal $ 4,170.66 Operational Expense
ENCK Resources $ 4,000.00 Operational Expense
High Sierra Electronics $ 1,381.00 Repairs/Replacement
Keeton Industries $ 3,065.90 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 4,772.50 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Sod LLC $ 2,206.00 Repairs/Replacement
Payroll Labor Distribution $ 58.74 Administration Expense
Reclass Lincoln Center Rental $ 1,125.00 Operational Expense
Sam's Club Direct $ 6.87 Operational Expense
SOF Surfaces $ 37,783.03 Repairs/Replacement
Southwestern Painting & Decora $ 470.00 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 8,933.44 Operational Expense
Xerox Corporation $ 754.62 Operational Expense
Xerox Corporation (ACH) $ 1,772.62 Operational Expense
Total $ 93,882.45
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 24,773.98
Repairs/Replacement $ 68,467.21
Administration Expense $ 641.26
Total $ 93,882.45
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit H
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Lee Martinez Park Addition
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
UMB Card Services $ 3,822.65 Operational Expense
Total $ 3,822.65
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 3,822.65
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 3,822.65
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit I
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Richards Lake
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditures
UMB Card Services $ 2,839.91 Operational Expense
Total $ 2,839.91
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 2,839.91
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 2,839.91
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit J
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Avery Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Avery Park FPUP $ 50.00 Operational Expense
Banner Concrete $ 54,608.46 Repairs/Replacement
City of Fort Collins Miscellan $ 117.81 Operational Expense
Finishing Touch $ 12,900.00 Repairs/Replacement
King Surveyors Inc $ 3,440.00 Repairs/Replacement
Korby Landscaping LLC $ 10,137.50 Repairs/Replacement
Playpower LT Farmington Inc $ 4,598.00 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 1,713.16 Operational Expense
W/O Jefferson/SH 14 projects $ 12.75 Operational Expense
Total $ 87,577.68
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 1,893.72
Repairs/Replacement $ 85,683.96
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 87,577.68
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit K
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Maple Hill Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Baker Lateral Company $ 392.70 Operational Expense
Boxelder Sanitation District $ 6,063.69 Operational Expense
Concrete Structures Inc $ 4,707.00 Repairs/Replacement
Poudre School District $ 90.00 Operational Expense
Total $ 11,253.39
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 6,546.39
Repairs/Replacement $ 4,707.00
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 11,253.39
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit L
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Trailhead Park
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Hartshorn Waterworks LLC $ 15,373.34 Operational Expense
Ops $ 297.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing 04-16 $ 165.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing 05-16 $ 297.00 Operational Expense
Ops Billing Jan 16 $ 714.00 Operational Expense
Ops Services Billing Dec-15 $ 1,517.00 Operational Expense
Total $ 18,363.34
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 18,363.34
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 18,363.34
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Salaries-Regular $ 1,183,090.52 Administration Expense
Salaries-Hourly $ 4,685.93 Administration Expense
Health Insurance $ 132,016.65 Administration Expense
Dental Insurance $ 8,119.24 Administration Expense
Retirement Contributions $ 75,946.03 Administration Expense
GERP $ 12,858.64 Administration Expense
Social Security & Medicare $ 86,024.87 Administration Expense
Workers Compensation $ 3,215.81 Administration Expense
Employees Group Life Ins $ 1,942.10 Administration Expense
Long-term Disability $ 5,144.03 Administration Expense
Education & Training Services $ 240.00 Operational Expense
Cell Phones Services $ 12,610.63 Operational Expense
Office Supplies $ 7,424.21 Operational Expense
Meals - Business, Non Travel $ 2,033.44 Operational Expense
Other Supplies $ 17,816.98 Operational Expense
Telephone Services $ 5,046.56 Operational Expense
Internal Investment Services $ 4,652.00 Operational Expense
Admin Services to General Fund $ 151,263.04 Operational Expense
E-Mail & PDA Admin Services $ 1,067.60 Operational Expense
Transfer to Fund 603 $ 48,242.00 Operational Expense
Conference and Travel $ 21,494.55 Operational Expense
Vehicle Repair Services $ 9,223.25 Operational Expense
Motor Fuel, Oil & Grease $ 3,102.70 Operational Expense
Copy & Reproduction Services $ 2,028.60 Operational Expense
Postage & Freight Services $ 10,946.33 Operational Expense
Dues & Subscription Services $ 10,817.00 Operational Expense
Right of Way $ 11,373.97 Operational Expense
Computer Hardware $ 33,406.71 Operational Expense
Other Employee Travel $ 5,649.58 Operational Expense
Mileage $ 155.20 Operational Expense
Meals - Traveling $ 284.14 Operational Expense
Computer Software $ 6,862.82 Operational Expense
Other Personnel Costs $ 205.00 Operational Expense
Food & Related Supplies $ 2,303.50 Operational Expense
GERP Supplemental Charges $ 27,328.00 Administration Expense
Salaries-Overtime $ 825.93 Administration Expense
Termination Pay $ 20,341.35 Administration Expense
Copier Rental Services $ 6,432.97 Operational Expense
Interview Applicant Travel $ 5.09 Operational Expense
Other Prof & Tech Services $ 6,517.73 Operational Expense
Other Office Related Supplies $ 448.03 Operational Expense
Office Equipment $ 989.82 Operational Expense
Software Maint & Support Serv $ 2,087.36 Operational Expense
Salaries-Contractual $ 582.06 Administration Expense
Computer Software - Capital $ 728.01 Operational Expense
Clothing Supplies $ 326.05 Operational Expense
Taxable Employee Recognition $ 177.50 Administration Expense
Contract Pmt to Govt/Other $ 414.00 Operational Expense
Other Land & Bldg Supplies $ 10.71 Operational Expense
Health & Safety Supplies $ 329.48 Operational Expense
Total $ 1,948,837.72
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ 386,539.06
Repairs/Replacement $ -
Administration Expense $ 1,562,298.66
Total $ 1,948,837.72
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
Exhibit N
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Parkland Equipment Replacement
Description of Expenditures Amount
DPFG Categorization of
Expenditure
Reclass playground expenses $ 12,233.69 Repairs/Replacement
UMB Card Services $ 5,189.44 Repairs/Replacement
Total $ 17,423.13
Type of Expenditure Amount
Operational Expense $ -
Repairs/Replacement $ 17,423.13
Administration Expense $ -
Total $ 17,423.13
Source: City of Fort Collins 2012-2016 General Ledger
1
Impact Fee Working Group Findings
September 17, 2018
Council Finance Committee
Agenda
• Working Group Position Paper
• Community Outreach Plan
• Proposed Fee Updates
• Next Steps
2
Background & Timeline
3
Reflects master fee data updates, does not reflect annual inflation updates
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update
Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update
Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update
Raw Water Update Update Update
Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update
Development Review Fees Update Update
• Significant fee increases proposed in Phase I
• Consternation in the development and building community
• Council directed formation of a fee working group prior to further fee updates
Fee Working Group
2017 Group Composition
4
Industry
Sean Dougherty
Will Flowers
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Ann Hutchison
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Greg Mediema
Doug Braden
Homebuilder’s Association of Northern
Colorado
Moira Bright
Spirit Hospitality LLC
Chris Banks
Odell Brewing
Citizen
Diane Cohn
Affordable Housing Board
Rebecca Hill
Water Board
Linda Stanley
Economic Advisory Commission
Ragan Adams
Parks and Recreation Board
Rick Reider
Building Review Board
Staff
Mike Beckstead
Project Sponsor
Tiana Smith
Jennifer Poznanovic
Project Manager/Fee Owner CEFs
Lance Smith
Fee Owner Electric Capacity Fees
Tom Leeson
Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Josh Birks
City Staff/Economic Health
Group Objective
What: Improve understanding with stakeholders of the City’s impact fee
process.
How: Semi-monthly meetings that present information on the
mechanics, alternatives, and impacts of the City’s impact fees
that are approved by City Council.
Why: Foster a common understanding of why and how impact fees
are calculated, in addition to collecting feedback to share with
City Council on future fee calculations and processes.
5
Overview:
Meetings & Topics
Commenced in August of 2017 with 14 meetings over the past year
6
• Academic economic research on
impact fees
• A third-party impact fee audit review
• Alternative revenue sources
• Progressive Fees
• Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
• Detailed review of fee methodologies,
inputs, calculations for CEFs, TCEFs &
Utility PIFs
• City revenue sources
• Impact fee comparisons to other
communities
Topics covered:
*Development Review Fees decoupled from the 2018 fee update
7
1. Team & select organizations have a more accurate understanding of why we have
impact fees, how impact fees are calculated & why impact fees change over time
2. Value added from deeper dive into fee details and review of fee audit
3. Citizens involved seemed to be less interested – doesn’t impact current residents
4. Team would prefer lower fees, yet understands the challenges with alternative
revenue sources
5. Recommendations from the group will help the process going forward
Observations
Reflections:
Impact Fee Effort
8
• Review of impact fees together is beneficial
for understanding the full impact of fee updates
• Overall, sound methodologies, calculations
and inputs
• The third-party fee audit revealed how the City
spends and collects impact fees is sound
• Impact fee amenities add to property value,
but views differ as to what extent they impact
housing costs
Key Findings
• Impact fees are complicated and difficult to
communicate across the community
• Park impact fees are the only category where
impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built
• Need to identify new revenue sources for park
refresh and maintenance in the future
• If less than recommended is approved,
alternative revenue sources will be needed
Fee Group Findings
9
Recommendations
1. Better Communication/Outreach & Notice of Fee Changes
2. Repayment of the $130k Identified in the Impact Fee Audit
3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible
4. Explore Additional Revenue Sources for Parks Buildout
5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support Parks Refresh &
Maintenance
6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
Fee Group Recommendations
10
Staff Recommendations
Group Recommendations Staff Recommendations
1. Better Communication/Outreach & Notice of Fee
Changes
Currently underway with community outreach and
the group as ambassadors of the process
2. Repayment of the $130k Identified in the Impact
Fee Audit
Staff agrees
3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible Explore progressive fees in the 2021 updates
4. Explore Additional Revenue Sources for Parks
Buildout
Current policy is 100% of new parks are funded by
impact fees
5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support
Parks Refresh & Maintenance
Staff agrees that in the future we will need to have
this conversation
6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing
Fee Waivers
Currently underway with a dedicated internal
Affordable Housing Task Force
CEFs & TCEFs
Step II with Inflation
11
Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error
CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation
Land Use Type Unit
Current
Total
Step II
Total
Step II
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
%
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27%
Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27%
• Step II fees are a 27% to 28% increase from current fee levels (Step I)
• CEF fee increases are 90% of full fee levels recommended in 2017
• Reflects Option A for TCEF fees
12
Wet Utility PIFs
Utility Criteria Current
Charge
2019
Charge $ Change
%
Change
Water $ / GPD $ 4.66 $ 4.99 $ 0.33 7.1%
Wastewater $ / GPD $ 13.98 $ 15.31 $ 1.33 9.5%
Stormwater
Per acre
(adjusted for run-off
factor)
$ 8,217 $ 9,142 $ 925 11.3%
The drivers for the increase on Wet PIFs is the same for all three funds:
• New capital projects increase the overall system value
• Annual increases in construction costs increases the replacement value of existing system
• One-time adjustment of 2.7% included to account for fee implementation being delayed in 2018
Outreach Plan
13
Organization Date
Super Issues Forum September 6th
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association September 11th
Fort Collins Board of Realtors September 11th
Building Review Board September 12th
Downtown Development Authority September 13th
Economic Advisory Commission September 19th
North Fort Collins Business Association September 26th
Parks and Recreation Board September 26th
Local Legislative Affairs Committee September 28th
South Fort Collins Business Association October 2nd
Affordable Housing Board October 11th
Human Relations Board October 11th
Housing Catalyst TBD
Next Steps
14
Next Steps:
• November 13th
: Council Work Session
• December 4th
& 18th
: Ordinance readings
• 2019: Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for
CEFs
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Ginny Sawyer, Senior Project Manager
Kyle Lambrecht, Civil Engineer III
Tim Kemp, Interim Capital Projects Manager
Date: September 17, 2018
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Partnership Fee Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present and discuss updates to the Larimer County Regional Road
and School District fees. These fees are considered “partnership” fees; fees collected by the City
of Fort Collins on behalf of Larimer County and the Poudre and Thompson School Districts,
respectively.
The County has made fee adjustments to the Regional Road Fee which will need to be
considered by the City Council. Currently, adoption of the Regional Road Fee is aligned with the
City’s Capital Expansion Fees which are considered annually in December.
The School District agreements are set to expire on December 31, 2018. Staff from the City and
each District have been working on minor revisions to the Intergovernmental Agreements which
will come before Council for consideration, before the end of 2018.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking direction on the following:
1. Does the Council Finance Committee have any additional questions regarding the fees or
the timing of the updates?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
URegional Road Fee
In 2000, the City and Larimer County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
authorizing the City to collect a Regional Road Fee on behalf of Larimer County. The fee is
collected at the time a building permit is issued. The Regional Road Fee helps generate revenue
for road improvements on regionally significant roadways that are necessitated by new
development. The fees are only used on capacity related improvements that are of mutual benefit
to both the City and Larimer County.
Since 2000, the City and Larimer County have partnered to design and construct several projects
along regionally significant roadways; including improvements to Taft Hill Road, Shields Street,
and the Shields Street/Vine Drive intersection. City and County staff continue to plan for future
improvements, recognizing opportunities for additional improvements along regionally
significant corridors. Since 2000, $6,023,061 in regional road fees has been collected.
The Larimer County Land Use Code specifies that its Regional Road Fees must be updated
annually to reflect changes in road construction costs during the previous year. The updated fees
typically become effective on the first day of July. Unless a fee study recommends otherwise,
the standard fee adjustment methodology is based on a two-year moving average calculated from
the Colorado Construction Cost Index data compiled by the Colorado Department of
Transportation. The most recent Regional Road Fee schedule formally adopted by the City of
Fort Collins was the 2015 fee schedule.
In April 2018, the County completed a study recommending changes to the program’s fee
calculation methodology, including:
• Basing transportation capital expansion fees for residential developments on dwelling
size as opposed to dwelling type.
• Revising the fee methodology to use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the basis for
determining impact, instead of trips generated. This change more accurately ties the fee
to demand on the transportation system.
The use of vehicle miles traveled to determine impacts to a municipality’s transportation network
is considered a best management practice by the infrastructure financing strategies industry.
This methodology shift results in a new fee schedule for the Regional Road Fees:
Development Type 2018 Regional
Road Fee
2015 Regional
Road Fee
Increase or
Decrease
Percent
Change
Residential (per dwelling) by Finished Square Foot of Living Space
900 or less $163 $211 ($48) (23%)
901 to 1300 $228 $211 $17 8%
1301 to 1800 $275 $302 ($27) (9%)
1801 to 2400 $322 $302 $20 7%
2401 to 3000 $361 $302 $59 20%
3001 to 3600 $393 $302 $91 30%
3601 or more $420 $302 $118 39%
Non-Residential (per 1000 Square Feet of Floor Area)
Industrial $100 $257 ($157) (61%)
Commercial $422 $837 ($415) (50%)
Office & Other Services $248 $432 ($184) (43%)
In general, regional road fees for single family detached homes will increase while regional road
fees for non-residential developments will decrease. The revised Regional Road fees were
adopted by Larimer County in July 2018.
Under the City Code, changes in the County fee schedule do not take effect in the City until the
City Council approves a new fee schedule. Currently, consideration for adoption of the
partnership fees is aligned with consideration for adoption of the City’s Capital Expansion Fees.
City Capital Expansion Fees are considered for adoption annually in December. The County is
aware of this adoption schedule.
USchool District Fees
In 1998, the City of Fort Collins and Thompson and Poudre School Districts entered into
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) regarding land dedication for new developments,
including a provision for fees-in-lieu of land dedication.
Fees are based on a number of factors including school site size, student population projections,
enrollment capacities of each type of school (elementary, junior high and high schools), and the
cost of developed land within the school district. Site sizes and enrollment capacities are set by
School District policy.
Both IGAs were set to expire in April 2018. City Council and each School Board adopted
resolutions to extend the agreements through December 31, 2018.
Staff have been working with each entity to review and update the IGAs. Currently no fee
changes are scheduled. The last Poudre School District fee review and change was in 2013. The
last Thompson School district fee review and change was in 2006.
Collections since 2000 are as follows:
Poudre School District Thompson School District
Paid Paid
Document Type PV Document Type PV
Row Labels
Sum of Actual
Amount Row Labels
Sum of Actual
Amount
2000 684,858 2000 47,810
2001 799,629 2001 82,104
2002 964,309 2002 184,386
2003 993,659 2003 292,402
2004 582,358 2004 163,948
2005 658,100 2005 150,284
2006 639,925 2006 4,782
2007 532,629 2007 5,571
2008 663,989 2008 55,891
2009 256,217 2009 51,728
2010 335,649 2010 35,393
2011 703,448 2011 21,780
2012 753,304 2012 164,714
2013 1,526,988 2013 107,540
2014 1,554,501 2014 70,786
2015 1,378,632 2015 21,537
2016 1,530,257 2016 5,688
2017 1,642,226 2017 21,780
2018 875,020 2018 5,445
Grand Total 17,075,697 Grand Total 1,493,571
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: PPT Slide Deck – Partnership Fee Update
Attachment 2: 2006 Larimer County Transportation Plan
Attachment 3: 2018 Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
1
Partnership Fee Update
September 17, 2018
Questions
• Does the Committee have any additional questions regarding the
fees or the timing of the updates?
2
Regional Road Fee Background
• One-time payment collected from development
• Defray capital costs directly related to development impacts
• Fees must be used to improve to regionally significant roadways
• Intended as a multi-jurisdictional regional road fee
• Larimer County and Fort Collins only participants
• Original Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) adopted in 2000
• City last adopted the 2015 regional road fee schedule
• All transportation projects benefitting from regional road funding contributions
have been within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA)
3
Regional Road Fee Collections
4
YEAR COLLECTIONS YEAR COLLECTIONS YEAR COLLECTIONS
2000 $245,410 2006 $272,926 2012 $287,389
2001 $428,934 2007 $493,660 2013 $392,892
2002 $320,753 2008 $296,235 2014 $421,311
2003 $298,460 2009 $82,830 2015 $400,590
2004 $387,238 2010 $202,956 2016 $534,313
2005 $256,297 2011 $136,258 2017 $564,608
Total Amount Collected since 2000 $6,023,061
Previously Constructed Projects
Year Project LCRR Total Cost
2006 Taft Hill – Horsetooth to
Harmony
$1,736,400 $1,824,000
2008 Taft Hill – Laporte to Vine $117,000 $325,000
2011 Trilby/Shields right turn lane and
Shields left turn lane @ Gulley
Green House
$412,000 $412,000
2015/2016 Vine/Shields Roundabout $475,000 $1,829,000
2015/2016 Shields Street Road and Bridge
Imp.
$1,650,000 $6,853,000
Totals $4,390,400 $11,243,000
5
Vine Dr. /Shields St. Roundabout
Planned Projects
Year Project LCRR
2021 Shields St. Imp – Willox Ln. to US 287 $1,565,000
2023 Taft Hill – Horsetooth to Harmony $1,303,000
Total $2,868,000
6
Taft Hill Rd. between Horsetooth Rd. and
Harmony Rd.
Future projects and funding allocations will be a
coordinated effort between the City of Fort
Collins and Larimer County
2018 Revisions
7
Development Type Proposed Regional Road
Fees
Current (2015) Regional
Road Fees
Increase or
Decrease Percent Change
Residential (per dwelling) by Sq Ft of Finished Living Space
900 or less $163 $211 ($48) -23%
901 to 1300 $228 $211 $17 8%
1301 to 1800 $275 $302 ($27) -9%
1801 to 2400 $322 $302 $20 7%
2401 to 3000 $361 $302 $59 20%
3001 to 3600 $393 $302 $91 30%
3601 or more $420 $302 $118 39%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 Sq Ft of Floor Area)
Industrial $100 $257 ($157) -61%
Commercial $422 $837 ($415) -50%
Office & Other Services $248 $432 ($184) -43%
Questions
• Does the Committee have any additional questions regarding the
fees or the timing of the updates?
8
School District PILO Fees
Thompson and Poudre School District
IGA and Code Section since 1998
Extended in April 2018 until December 31, 2018
New IGA and associated Code changes coming before the end of
the year
Changes to align with practice and trends
9
School Fee Updates
Poudre
• 2001- $768 per dwelling
• 2006- $1800 per dwelling
• 2008- no change
• 2011- decrease to $1600 per dwelling
• 2013- $1710 per dwelling
Thompson
2001- $688 per dwelling
2006- $1342 per dwelling unit
10
School District Fees
Poudre Thompson
2000 684,858 47,810
2001 799,629 82,104
2002 964,309 184,386
2003 993,659 292,402
2004 582,358 163,948
2005 658,100 150,284
2006 639,925 4,782
2007 532,629 5,571
2008 663,989 55,891
2009 256,217 51,728
2010 335,649 35,393
2011 703,448 21,780
2012 753,304 164,714
2013 1,526,988 107,540
2014 1,554,501 70,786
2015 1,378,632 21,537
2016 1,530,257 5,688
2017 1,642,226 21,780
2018 875,020 5,445
Grand Total 17,075,697 1,493,571
11
Questions
• Does the Committee have any additional questions regarding the
fees?
12
LARIMER COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
LARIMER COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
September 2006
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
LARIMER
COUNTY
FELSBURG
H O L T &
ULLEVIG
FELSBURG
H O L T &
ULLEVIG Clarion Associates
LARIMER COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Prepared for:
Larimer County
PO Box 1190
200 W. Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600
Centennial, CO 80111
303/721-1440
Project Manager: Elliot M. Sulsky, P.E.
Project Engineers: Jenny A. Young, P.E.
Tyler B. Stamey, E.I.T.
FHU Reference No. 04-101
September 2006
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
A. Purpose of the Transportation Plan----------------------------------------------------------- 1
B. Background ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
II. INVENTORY OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM------------------------------------ 3
A. Functional Classification------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
B. Regional Roads------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
C. Roadway Conditions------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
D. Traffic Volumes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
E. Roadway Capacities-----------------------------------------------------------------------------16
F. Volume to Capacity Ratios---------------------------------------------------------------------19
G. Bicycle Facilities ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
H. Transit Systems-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
I. Rail System ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22
III. IDENTIFICATION OF SHORT RANGE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS-----------25
A. Unit Cost Estimates------------------------------------------------------------------------------25
B. Roadway Improvement Projects--------------------------------------------------------------26
IV. LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM----------------------------------------------------30
A. Growth in the County ----------------------------------------------------------------------------30
B. 2030 Traffic Volume Projections--------------------------------------------------------------31
C. 2030 Volume to Capacity Ratios -------------------------------------------------------------31
V. IDENTIFICATION OF LONG RANGE IMPROVEMENT NEEDS -----------------------------34
A. Roadway Improvement Projects--------------------------------------------------------------34
B. New Roads-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------37
C. Summary of Roadway Improvement Needs-----------------------------------------------38
D. Bicycle Facilities ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------38
E. Future Transit System---------------------------------------------------------------------------39
VI. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES -------------------------------40
APPENDIX A ROADWAY INVENTORY
APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1A. Existing Roadway Functional Classification ------------------------------------------------ 6
Figure 1B. Existing Roadway Functional Classification ------------------------------------------------ 7
Figure 2. Regional Roads------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
Figure 3A. Number of Travel Lanes------------------------------------------------------------------------10
Figure 3B. Number of Travel Lanes------------------------------------------------------------------------11
Figure 4A. Roadway Conditions-----------------------------------------------------------------------------12
Figure 4B. Roadway Conditions-----------------------------------------------------------------------------13
Figure 5A. Existing Traffic Volumes------------------------------------------------------------------------14
Figure 5B. Existing Traffic Volumes------------------------------------------------------------------------15
Figure 6. Existing Rail Transportation System---------------------------------------------------------23
Figure 7A. Short Range Roadway Improvement Needs ----------------------------------------------27
Figure 7B. Short Range Roadway Improvement Needs ----------------------------------------------28
Figure 8A. 2030 Traffic Volume Forecasts ---------------------------------------------------------------32
Figure 8B. 2030 Traffic Volume Forecasts ---------------------------------------------------------------33
Figure 9A. Long Range Roadway Improvement Needs-----------------------------------------------35
Figure 9B. Long Range Roadway Improvement Needs-----------------------------------------------36
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. County Road Miles and Vehicle Miles of Travel by Functional Classification-----16
Table 2. Capacity Assumption for Unpaved Roads -------------------------------------------------17
Table 3. Capacity Assumptions for Paved Two-Lane Roads -------------------------------------18
Table 4. Daily Capacities of Paved Two-Lane Roads ----------------------------------------------18
Table 5. Daily Design Capacities for Multi-lane Roadways ---------------------------------------19
Table 6. Rail System ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
Table 7. Conceptual Unit Cost Estimates--------------------------------------------------------------25
Table 8. Short Range Roadway Improvement Needs ----------------------------------------------29
Table 9. Larimer County Population Forecasts-------------------------------------------------------31
Table 10. Long Range Roadway Improvement Needs-----------------------------------------------37
Table 11. New Roads-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------37
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Transportation Plan
Located along the Front Range in the northern part of Colorado, Larimer County has
experienced increasing growth and development and this growth is expected to continue. In an
effort to plan and prepare for future growth and its associated travel demands, the County has
undertaken a process to develop a comprehensive transportation plan.
The primary purpose of a transportation system is to move people and goods in a safe and
efficient manner. A variety of different travel demands needs to be considered in order to fulfill
this purpose, including travel within the County, passing through the County, and between rural
parts of the County and the County’s cities. The movement of people and goods also involves
various transportation modes, including vehicular, transit, pedestrian and bicycle, to provide for
a high degree of mobility to all segments of the population. The County roadway system is
currently the key element of the transportation system in that it accommodates the majority of
the travel needs outside the city limits. This is likely to remain the case into the foreseeable
future as some forms of the private automobile remains the primary mode of transportation.
Therefore, it is important to develop a transportation plan which will enable the County to
maintain a system that will satisfy the travel needs of County residents.
In the past, the County roadway network was designed to serve rural and regional needs.
Arterial and local roads were constructed in conjunction with low density development patterns
resulting is a disjointed transportation network. Ongoing growth and development in the County
is creating an increase in traffic demands on this roadway network that are not easily
accommodated. The County’s ability to construct roads is constrained due to lack of funding. A
majority of the County’s roads and bridge budget is currently used for maintenance and repair of
existing roads. These maintenance costs are directly attributable to the high number of road
miles serving a large geographic area of somewhat low density and scattered developments. As
a result, the main purpose of this transportation plan is to coordinate existing zoning and
proposed developments with the future transportation needs of the County. It is also used to
support an impact fee system to assess developers for roadway improvements necessary to
accommodate development. It is the goal of the County to plan for a balanced transportation
system that fits with the surrounding land uses in the County.
B. Background
The initial Larimer County Transportation Plan was prepared in 1998. That plan focused
primarily on the county road system, but also included reviews of the bicycle, transit and rail
systems. Improvement needs identified in that plan include improvements to existing roadways,
construction of new roadways, and safety improvement and bridge reconstruction needs. The
planning process included travel demand forecasting to the year 2020, and both current and
future needs were identified.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 2
In 1998, a Road Capital Expansion Fee program was established that requires new County
development to pay fees to help fund the travel demand-driven, or capacity-driven, portion of
the roadway improvement plan. The Road Capital Expansion Fee program has been in place
since that time, with two components: A County Road Capital Expansion Fee is collected from
development in the unincorporated part of the county to fund improvements to most of the
County Road system and a Regional Road Capital Expansion Fee is collected from
development in both the unincorporated county and in participating municipal areas to fund
improvements to county roads identified as having substantial regional functions. The
maintenance of an equitable and effective Road Capital Expansion Fee program requires
periodic updating of the roadway improvement plan are reviewed and included in this document.
The primary focus of this revised transportation plan is to update the capacity-driven roadway
improvement needs portion of the 1998 Transportation Plan. In addition, the bicycle, transit and
rail components of the 1998 Transportation Plan are reviewed and included in this document.
This plan acknowledges and incorporates a number of changes that have occurred since
preparation of the 1998 Transportation Plan, including:
The seven years of development experience and roadway improvements since 1998;
New county land use forecasts and an updated North Front Range regional travel
demand model that reflects new land use forecasting;
Updated roadway construction costs;
New county roadway classifications; and
Identification of regionally significant roads that are proposed to be the focus of a
Regional Transportation Authority slated to be placed before Larimer and Weld County
voters in a future election.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 3
II. INVENTORY OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
To understand how the transportation system functions in Larimer County today, an update to
the inventory of the elements comprising the existing system was conducted. Conducting this
inventory was an integral step of the planning process in order to identify areas in need of
improvement over the 25 year planning period. This inventory focused primarily on the roadway
network and was based on available data on the County’s Geographic Information System
(GIS) database.
The County roadway network provides the dominant means of transportation for this area, with
the state highway system serving as the backbone for this network. Vehicular travel, transit
systems, and the majority of the bicycle travel in the County rely heavily on a well maintained
and complete roadway network.
A. Functional Classification
A roadway network is comprised of a hierarchy of roadways whose functional classifications are
defined by their usage. In general, streets serve two functions; they provide access and
mobility. The relative degree to which a road serves these functions defines its functional
classification. In order of their ability to provide mobility, the roadway functional types are more
thoroughly described as follows:
State and U.S. Highway System
Much of the primary regional roadway system in Larimer County consists of roads that are
maintained by the federal and state governments:
Interstate 25 (I-25) is the county’s only Freeway, defined by high speeds and access
provided by widely spaced, grade-separated interchanges.
US 34, US 36 and US 287 are the other federal highways with segments within the
county. These highways all provide regional mobility functions to and through the
county.
State Highways in the county include segments of SH 1, SH 7, SH 14, SH 56, SH 60,
SH 68, SH 392 and SH 402. These roads generally serve arterial roadway functions.
Arterials
Arterials carry longer-distance traffic flow for regional, intercommunity and major commuting
purposes. Arterials have a limited number of at-grade intersections and, only when other
alternatives do not exist, direct property access. Arterials can carry significant traffic volumes at
higher speeds for longer distances, and are seldom spaced at closer than one-mile intervals.
Within Larimer County, any roadway with a possibility of requiring widening to four-lanes is
designated as an arterial based on the needed right-of-way width.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 4
Major Collectors
Major collectors are the next highest classification and are higher speed roadways where
mobility still takes precedence over access. This designation is also used for rural primary
facilities where the arterial classification is not warranted by lanes or volumes.
Minor Collectors
Minor collectors serve as main connectors between communities and neighborhoods. They
distribute traffic between arterials/major collectors and local roads. Most of the traffic on minor
collectors has an origin or a destination within the community. Also known as rural secondary
facilities, this classification includes most county roads that are numbered and are not classified
as major collectors or arterials.
Local Roads
The primary function of local roads is to provide access to adjacent land uses, whether it be
residences, businesses, or community facilities. Local streets generally are internal to or serve
an access function for a single neighborhood or development. Traffic using local roads should
have a close-by origin or destination. Typically, county numbered roadways with a local
classification are limited in length and continuity.
Figures 1A and 1B illustrate the roadway functional classifications.
B. Regional Roads
County roads that have a primarily regional function, as opposed to primarily serving travel
demands within the unincorporated county, form the basis for the Regional Road Capital
Expansion Fee. Roads that fulfill a predominantly regional function have been preliminarily
identified by members of the North Front Range and Upper Front Range planning organizations
to be the subject of a planned Regional Transportation Authority ballot question. Those roads
that are also Larimer County roads will form the Regional Road system that will be the focus of
the Regional Road Capital Expansion Fee, including segments of:
Prospect Road/Larimer County Road (CR) 44;
CR 38 (the eastern extension of Harmony Road/SH 68);
CR 32/Carpenter Road (the western extension of SH 392);
CR 30;
Crossroads Boulevard/CR 26;
CR 18 (the eastern extension of SH 402);
CR 19/Taft Hill Road/Wilson Road;
CR 17 / Shields Street /Taft Road;
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 5
CR 11C/CR 11/Timberline Road;
CR 9/Boyd Road; and
CR 5.
The County Regional Roads are shown on Figure 2.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 9
C. Roadway Conditions
Travel Lanes
Figures 3A and 3B show the existing laneage on the State Highway and County maintained
Road systems. The majority of the roads in Larimer County consist of two travel lanes. I-25,
US 34 through Loveland, and sections of US 287, SH 68 and SH 14 consist of four lane cross-
sections. US 287 through Fort Collins consists of six travel lanes. Various roadway segments,
particularly in the mountainous portion of the County consist of three lanes, with the third lane
acting as a climbing or passing lane. Several unpaved roads in the mountainous areas consist
of a single travel lane.
Surface Conditions
Figures 4A and 4B illustrate the surface conditions (paved versus unpaved) of the Larimer
County roadway network, as well as the roadway width ranges for the paved roadways. All
State Highways in the County are paved. The majority of the County roads in the urban areas
are paved, while many of the rural and mountainous roads are unpaved. Overall, approximately
half of the roadway miles on the County roadway network are paved.
Area Type
Larimer County has diverse terrain; it transitions from plains in the eastern portion of the County
to mountainous in the central and western portions. Additionally, Larimer County contains both
urban and rural areas. The County has been divided into three area types for the purpose of
developing Capital Expansion Fees; Urban, Rural and Mountainous. The majority of the
roadway miles in the County (52%) are classified as mountainous. Approximately 36% of the
roadway miles are rural, and the remaining 12% are urban.
D. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes are one indicator of the relative importance of a roadway in an area. When
compared to roadway capacity estimates, traffic volumes also reveal generally how a road is
functioning (level of service) and if improvements to increase capacity are necessary.
The most commonly used measurement of traffic volume is average daily traffic (ADT). ADT is
defined as the total number of vehicles passing a certain point in both directions in a 24-hour
period. Larimer County maintains a database of daily traffic volume counts on both the County
Roads and the State Highway system. The data provided are generally from the last three
years.
Figures 5A and 5B illustrate the existing daily traffic volume range for all roadways on the
County’s major roadway system. A complete list of traffic volumes on the major roadway system
is also included in Appendix A.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 16
Table 1 provides a summary of the mileage and vehicle miles of travel on County Roads which
fall within each functional classification in unincorporated Larimer County. Roadways in the
collector and arterial street categories comprise the major roadway system. These major roads
account for 84% of the total roadway mileage, but carry 98% of the travel.
Table 1. County Road Miles and Vehicle Miles of Travel by Functional Classification
Roadway Distance Vehicle Miles of Travel
Functional
Classification Distance
(Miles)
Percent of Total
County Mileage
Vehicle Miles of
Travel
Percent of
County Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Arterial 110 14% 425,500 49%
Major Collector 245 30% 290,700 34%
Minor Collector 325 40% 131,400 15%
Local Roads 130 16% 17,100 2%
Total 810 100% 864,700 100%
A detailed inventory of the County’s major roadway system, consisting of arterial and collector
County Roads, is provided in Appendix A.
E. Roadway Capacities
A roadway’s capacity can be defined as the maximum traffic volume that can be accommodated
at desired levels of service. Capacity is defined differently for different roadway types, as
described below.
Unpaved Roads
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment requires that any unpaved
roadway which has vehicle traffic exceeding 200 vehicles per day in attainment areas be paved
or treated for dust abatement.
For the purposes of this document, unpaved roads are separated into three categories:
Native surface or untreated gravel;
Treated gravel; and
Chip-seal.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 17
Native surface or untreated gravel roads are ones that have not received any surface
treatments. Treated gravel roads are roads that have been treated with chemicals to control
dust. There are also a relatively small number of roads in the County that have been treated
with a chip-seal technique. Chip-seal is an inexpensive treatment which creates an adequate
roadway surface for small volumes of traffic, but which wears down quickly with higher traffic
volumes. Larimer County requires that untreated gravel or native surface roadways with traffic
volumes greater than 200 vehicles per day be treated. The Larimer County Land Use
Regulations require that gravel and chip-seal treated roads that carry more than 400 vehicles
per day be paved to a standard asphalt surface. Table 2 shows the daily capacities used in this
study for those road segments classified as unpaved.
Table 2. Capacity Assumption for Unpaved Roads
Capacity (Vehicles Per Day)
Unpaved – native 1 200
Unpaved – treated gravel 2 400
Chip Seal 2 400
1 Source: Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
2 Source: Larimer County Land Use Regulations
Paved Two-Lane Roads
Level of service (LOS) is commonly used to define the quality of traffic flow on various roadway
types based on a comparison of traffic volumes with roadway characteristics. A LOS scale
ranging from A to F is used to define the quality of flow, with LOS A representing an essentially
free-flow situation and LOS F representing the highest levels of congestion, with traffic volumes
exceeding the intended capacity of the roadway. Larimer County has established LOS
guidelines for County Roads, which are LOS D or better in urban areas and LOS C or better in
rural areas.
The nationally accepted source for highway capacity evaluations, the Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board, 2000), along with typical traffic flow characteristics, have been
used to approximate the maximum daily traffic volumes for two lane roadways to achieve
Larimer County’s LOS criteria of LOS D in urban areas and LOS C in rural areas. Additionally,
the capacity numbers have been calibrated to more specifically reflect conditions in the study
area. These capacities range from 15,300 vehicles per day on roads with full width lanes and
shoulders in urban areas to 1,900 vehicles per day on roads with narrow lanes and no
shoulders in the mountainous areas. Table 3 outlines the assumptions used in calculating the
two-lane roadway capacities, and Table 4 provides the resulting daily capacities based on lane
and shoulder widths.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 18
Table 3. Capacity Assumptions for Paved Two-Lane Roads
Urban Rural Mountain
Level of Service LOS D LOS C LOS C
Terrain Level Rolling Rolling
Directional Split 60%/40% 60%/40% 60%/40%
Heavy Trucks 3% 3% 2%
Recreational Vehicles 1% 1% 5%
No Passing Zones 60% 30% 60%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95
Daily Traffic in Peak Hour 9% 8.5% 8.5%
Segment Length 1 mile 1 mile 1 mile
Base Free Flow Speed 55 mph 60 mph 55 mph
Access/Mile 10 6 4
Highway Class Class I Class I Class I
Table 4. Daily Capacities of Paved Two-Lane Roads
Useable
Shoulder
Width (feet)
12-Foot
Lanes
11-Foot
Lanes
10-Foot
Lanes 9-Foot Lanes
Urban
6
4
2
0
15,300
13,100
10,700
7,700
14,700
12,300
10,000
6,600
7,700
4,600
3,700
Rural
6
4
2
0
10,000
8,500
7,000
5,000
9,500
8,000
6,400
4,200
5,000
3,000
2,400
Mountainous
6
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 19
Multi-Lane Roads
Capacities of roads with four lanes were estimated based on typical traffic flow characteristics
and capacities per hour per lane that have been developed as part of the North Front Range
travel demand model.
A three lane road is a road where the third lane serves as a continuous shared left-turn lane.
This type of roadway improves traffic flow over a typical two-lane road by allowing turning
vehicles to wait in dedicated turn lanes, out of the way of through traffic. Capacities for three-
lane roads were estimated by reviewing field data from three-lane segments, baselining that
information against the two- and four-lane capacities shown above, and running the two-lane
Highway Capacity Software module with 0 access points per mile. Table 5 shows the daily
capacities for multi-lane roads and Table 5 shows the daily capacities of urban and rural roads
based on the number of lanes.
Table 5. Daily Design Capacities for Multi-lane Roadways
Lanes Urban (LOS D) 1 Rural (LOS C)
3 23,000 ADT 15,400 ADT
4 32,000 ADT 24,500 ADT
Source: North Front Range Regional Travel Model, converted to daily assuming 9% of daily traffic in peak
hour.
1 Modified from NFR Regional Travel Model to reflect LOS D
Based on these techniques and the roadway inventory data, the capacity of each roadway
segment is defined for the major roadway system in Appendix A.
F. Volume to Capacity Ratios
One operational measure that is used to define operational characteristics is volume to capacity
ratio (v/c). This is the daily traffic volume on a given roadway divided by the daily capacity of
that roadway. The daily capacity thresholds described in Section II-E are the basis for the v/c
ratios. These ratios are used to describe congestion on street segments, and were used to
determine the needed roadway improvements. Road segments with v/c ratios greater than one
are slated for improvements.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 20
G. Bicycle Facilities
The Larimer County Parks & Open Lands, Engineering, and Road & Bridge Departments have
been implementing a bikeway system over the last ten to 20 years. These bikeways include
designated bike routes, on-street striped bike lanes and off-road multi-purpose trails. Each of
these bike facilities has specific definitions and is described as follows:
Bicycle Trails – A trail, path, or segment of a bikeway completely separated from the
roadway and used exclusively for bicyclists and pedestrians (i.e. off-street recreational
trails and sidewalk trails).
Bicycle Lane – A portion of a roadway designed for bicycles, distinguished by a paint
stripe, curb or similar device.
Bicycle Route – A system of bikeways which interacts with motorized traffic, does not
have a separate lane, and is designated by route markers. Bicyclists must share the
same roadway with vehicles.
The cities of Fort Collins and Loveland have also taken steps toward developing a bikeway and
trail system.
H. Transit Systems
Larimer County is served by both public and private transit providers. Four fixed-route systems
are operated in the County as well as a number of demand responsive services. A summary of
each of the existing transit services is provided below. More detailed information on each
system including operating characteristics, measures of effectiveness, financing, fleet, and
facilities can be found in the North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan and the
Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan.
Larimer County Specialized Transportation
Through Transfort, Larimer County’s Health and Human Services department provides a
demand responsive service open to northern Larimer County residents that live outside the Fort
Collins Urban Growth area, in Laporte, or in Wellington. The fare for this service is $2.50 with
reduced fares available for those who qualify. The hours of operation are 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM
Monday through Friday.
City of Fort Collins – Transfort/DAR
The City of Fort Collins operates Transfort, a fixed-route service, and Dial-A-Ride (DAR), a
demand responsive and paratransit service. Dial-A-Ride provides service to senior citizens and
individuals who qualify under the American Disabilities Act. Service is provided in the urbanized
Fort Collins area and parts of Larimer County.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 21
Service operates Monday through Saturday with more frequent service when Colorado State
University is in session. Fares for fixed-route Transfort service are $1.25 per ride and $0.60 for
seniors and disabled passengers. DAR fares are $2.50 per ride.
The FoxTrot, a regional route connecting Fort Collins and Loveland, is also operated by
Transfort. One-way fare is $1.25. This route is funded by Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer
County.
City of Loveland Transit – COLT
COLT operates two fixed-routes and provides funding for the regional FoxTrot route connecting
Loveland and Fort Collins. In addition, COLT operates a demand-response service for elderly
and disabled residents of Loveland called the Mini Bus.
COLT’s service operates Monday through Saturday. The regular fares are $1.25 for a one-way
ride. People who are elderly, have disabilities, and the youth pay $0.60 per ride. Special rates
are also available for low income residents. Seniors and ADA-eligible people qualify for
paratransit service. Paratransit fares are $2.00 for a single ride.
Rocky Mountain National Park
The fourth fixed-route system operating in the region is the service operated by Rocky Mountain
National Park. The shuttle bus service runs along the Bear Lake Road corridor in the summer
months. It generally begins operation in mid-June. During peak periods, this service operates
seven days a week through the weekend following Labor Day. After that, the shuttle bus service
operates only on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays through Columbus Day. The shuttle bus
service does not operate in the winter months. There is no charge for the service.
The Rocky Mountain National Park service is operated by a contractor, and many of the drivers
are school bus drivers in Estes Park during the school year.
Town of Berthoud – Berthoud Area Transportation Services (BATS)
The Town of Berthoud operates demand responsive service, not only within Berthoud but also
for the surrounding rural area, within the limits of the Berthoud Rural Fire Protection District.
This district, most of which is still classified as “rural”, includes portions of Boulder and Weld
Counties as well as Larimer County.
This demand-responsive service is operated from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
The fare for local service is $0.50 per ride. The suggested donation for out-of-town trips is $2 to
$5, depending on income.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 22
Town of Estes Park – Special Transit
Special Transit has been serving Estes Park since 1999 with door-to-door specialized transit
services. The service operates four days per week in Estes Park and operates once per month
between Estes Park and Loveland.
Fares within Estes Park are $1.25 per ride. Fares between Estes Park and Loveland are $3.00
per ride. Passengers call in advance for the service and may schedule trips as much as two
weeks in advance.
Wellington Senior Center
The Town of Wellington through its Senior Services Center operates a limited demand
responsive service for residents to Fort Collins and/or Loveland.
VanGo
The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization operates the VanGo vanpool
program which provides service in Larimer County. Currently about 39 vans originated in Fort
Collins; about one-third of these vans travel into downtown Denver while the other half travel
into the Denver Metro area, Greeley and Wellington. Another six vans originate in Loveland and
travel to the Denver Metro area and Fort Collins1.
TNM&O Coaches/Greyhound
TNM&O/Greyhound is a private transit provider that operates inter-regional bus services from
Fort Collins in Larimer County.
I. Rail System
The rail transportation system in Larimer County primarily serves the purpose of moving freight.
Passenger rail service is currently not available in the County. Figure 6 depicts the existing rail
system for the County and the surrounding areas. Table 6 summarizes the existing rail service
and the track condition based on the age of the track bed and the weight of the rail. The Union
Pacific Railroad, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and the Great Western Railway
each operate rail lines in the County. As shown on Figure 6, there is also an abandoned rail line
extending northwest from Fort Collins.
1 North Front Range MPO, June 2006.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 24
Table 6. Rail System
Rail Segment Owner Length Condition1
Denver-Boulder-
Longmont-Loveland-Fort
Collins
Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad 23 miles Fair
Fort Collins-Cheyenne Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad 29 miles Poor to Fair
Denver-Greeley-Fort
Collins Union Pacific Railroad 22 miles Good
Fort Collins-Windsor-
Greeley Great Western Railway 9 miles Poor to Fair
Loveland-Johnstown Great Western Railway 10 miles Poor to Fair
1 Overall condition of existing track based on age of track bed and weight of rail for passenger rail usage in
the future.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 25
III. IDENTIFICATION OF SHORT RANGE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
A. Unit Cost Estimates
Planning-level, 2005 unit costs were developed for the different roadway improvement types
identified in the plan. Urban roadway sections used to calculate quantities (per mile basis) were
those shown in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, adopted by Larimer County,
Fort Collins and Loveland in 2002. Where differences exist in the cross-sections by jurisdiction,
(such as bike lane, sidewalk, and median widths) the larger values were generally used for
quantity calculation. Rural roadway sections were based on two 12 foot lanes and two six foot
shoulders with widening at intersections accommodating left turn lanes. A total length of
approximately 1700 feet was used to include taper, deceleration and storage for turn lanes
throughout the one mile rural section. Engineering design and construction management,
mobilization and traffic control were included in each estimate. They were calculated based on a
percentage of the estimated construction costs.
Unit costs were developed using recent bid tabulations in the Larimer County area. Validation of
the unit costs was made by comparison with CDOT Average Unit Bid Prices (2004). Where no
unit costs for items were included in the Larimer County values, CDOT Average Unit Bid Prices
were used. Costs do not include right-of-way, landscaping or aesthetic upgrades, or major
utility additions or relocation. All unit costs should be treated as order of magnitude; actual
construction costs will differ for specific roadways depending on topography, required
structures, number of access points, and other roadway characteristics. The conceptual cost
estimates are summarized in Table 7, and the quantity calculations and cost estimate
worksheets are included in Appendix B.
Table 7. Conceptual Unit Cost Estimates
Cost per Roadway Mile
Improvement Category Area Type
Mountainous Rural Urban
Native to Treated Gravel $500,000 $500,000 n/a
Lane and Shoulder Widening * $1,550,000 $1,000,000 $1,450,000
Pave Gravel Road $1,550,000 $1,000,000 $1,450,000
Construct New 2-Lane Road $2,350,000 $1,850,000 n/a
Widening of 2-Lane to 3-Lane (semi-Urban) ** n/a $2,850,000 $2,850,000
Upgrade to 4-Lane Urban Arterial ** n/a n/a $5,100,000
* Applies to Widening of Existing 2-Lane Paved Roads
** Includes Typical Numbers of Traffic Signals
COSTS EXCLUDE ALLOWANCE FOR:
Right-of-Way Costs
Landscaping/Aesthetic Upgrades
Utility Addition/Relocation
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 26
B. Roadway Improvement Projects
Four roadway improvement project types have been identified which have the primary purpose
of providing adequate roadway capacity to serve travel demand. Short-range project needs
have been identified based on existing travel demand. In the case of both paving and widening
needs, it is recommended that these improvement projects result in widening to full two-lane
roadway standards (twelve-foot lanes and six-foot shoulders) to provide the safest roadways
possible and prevent the need for more costly future improvements.
Upgrade Native Surface Roads to Treated Gravel Roads
Seven native surfaced roadways are currently operating with volumes greater than capacity.
These seven segments, totaling approximately 28.3 miles in length, will be able to meet the
current demand when they are upgraded to treated gravel surfaces.
Roadway Paving Projects
The inventory of existing roadway conditions indicates that more than half of the roads in the
County are currently unpaved. Using the capacity criteria described in Section II-E, 37.7 miles
on the major roadway system have been identified as requiring paving. These segments are
shown on Figures 7A and 7B. In addition, 1.3 miles of local roads have volumes that require
paving to meet current standards.
Lane and Shoulder Widening
As an alternative to adding lanes to two lane roads, it was determined that capacity
requirements on several road segments could be met by widening the travel lanes and
shoulders. Approximately 7.1 miles of road will be able to meet the current capacity demands
with this upgrade.
Roadway Widening
Where traffic volumes currently exceed the capacity of full-width two-lane roadways, two
widening options were considered: adding a third lane and widening to a full four-lane roadway.
One roadway segment currently has a volume that exceeds the capacity of full-width two-lane
roadways, and has been identified as requiring widening to three lanes. This segment is
approximately ½ mile. The various segments and their type of needed improvement are shown
graphically on Figures 7A and 7B.
Short Range Roadway Improvement Needs
Larimer County Transportation Plan Completion 04-101 02/02/06
KÂ
!"`$
³I
ÕZYXW
³I
!"`$
³I
ÕZYXW
ÉZYXW
üZYXW
ôZYXW
öZYXW
ðZYXW
ôZYXW
yI
LCR 52E
LCR 27
LCR 25E
LCR 37E
LCR 66
LCR 64
LCR 62
LCR 60
LCR 58
LCR 56
LCR 52
LCR 48
LCR 44
LCR 40
LCR 68
LCR 38
LCR 36
LCR 30
LCR 18 LCR 18
LCR 16
LCR 14
LCR 10
LCR 8
LCR 4
LCR 6
LCR 21
LCR 19
LCR 17
LCR 13
LCR 15
LCR 11
LCR 7
LCR 3
LCR 9
LCR 11
LCR 54
LCR 9
LCR 54G
LCR 23
LCR 17
LCR 38E
LCR 27
LCR 29
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 29
A summary of the short range improvement needs and the resulting estimated construction
costs are provided in Table 8.
Table 8. Short Range Roadway Improvement Needs
Improvement Type # Of Projects Project Mileage Estimated Cost
Major Roads
Upgrade to Treated Gravel 5 26.4 $13,220,000
Paving (Current & Planned Major Roads) 29 37.7 $46,167,000
Widen Lanes & Shoulder 7 7.1 $8,995,000
Additional Lanes 1 0.5 $1,439,000
Subtotal Major Roads 42 71.7 $69,821,000
Local Roads
Upgrade to Treated Gravel 2 1.9 $942,000
Paving 2 1.3 $2,425,000
Subtotal Local Roads 4 3.2 $3,367,000
Total 46 74.9 $73,188,000
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 30
IV. LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
A. Growth in the County
In order to identify potential improvement projects for the transportation system in Larimer
County, it is important to first understand the nature and volume of traffic in the County in the
future. The analysis of future traffic volumes in Larimer County is based on the 2030 regional
travel demand model developed by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
(NFR MPO), the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study (Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, April
2003) and information from the Colorado State Demographer.
The NFR travel demand model covers the urban portion of Larimer County and generally
extends west to CR 27 and north to Weld County Road 88. The model divides the NFR into 815
transportation analysis zones (TAZs), 508 of which are in Larimer County. The traffic modeling
process assigns different trip generation characteristics to households with various income
levels, as well as to employment in the production, retail and service sectors. The model
includes household and employment forecasts for 2030 by TAZ, along with baseline household
and employment data for the year 2000. Within the NFR model area of Larimer County, the
number of households is expected to increase from 91,190 in 2000 to 174,286 in 2030. This
growth represents an approximate annual growth rate of 2.2% per year. These household
numbers can be converted to population using the Larimer County average household size of
2.52 (per the Colorado State Demographer).
The Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study shows a population of 11,034 in 2000 for the
Estes Valley (which extends beyond the City of Estes Park) and a forecasted buildout
population of 19,000. Assuming that the Estes Valley will be built out by 2030, the result is an
annual growth rate of approximately 1.83%.
Larimer County as a whole had a population of 253,130 in 2000. The Colorado State
Demographer estimates an increase of approximately 1.87% per year over the thirty year time
horizon of this plan. This growth rate was applied to areas outside of the NFR model area and
the Estes Valley.
Information from these three sources can be combined to estimate the total 2030 population in
Larimer County, as shown in Table 9. Overall, the County is estimated to have a population of
nearly 480,000 in 2030, representing an overall growth rate of 2.15% per year.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 31
Table 9. Larimer County Population Forecasts
2000 2030 Annual Growth Rate
Within NFR Model Area 229,799 439,201 2.2%
Estes Valley 11,034 19,000 1.8%
Remainder of Larimer County 12,297 21,438 1.9%
Larimer County Total 253,130 479,639 2.2%
Unincorporated Larimer County
(Approximate Area) 52,800 126,600 3.0%
B. 2030 Traffic Volume Projections
The 2030 travel demand forecasts were derived using a combination of the NFR travel demand
model and the growth rates identified in Table 9. For all roadways included in the NFR model
area, the 2030 forecasts were taken directly from the travel demand model. Because the NFR
model is focused on the entire region, some of the roads in the Larimer County major roadway
system are not included in the model. For these roads, an annual growth rate of 2.2% was
applied to the existing traffic volumes to forecast the 2030 daily traffic volumes. For all
roadways outside of the NFR model area, an annual growth rate of 1.85% (average of Estes
Valley and State Demographer’s growth rates) was applied to the existing traffic volumes to
forecast the 2030 daily traffic volumes. The resulting 2030 daily traffic volume forecast ranges
are shown on Figures 8A and 8B. Overall, the vehicle miles of travel on the County roadway
network are forecast to almost double over the 25 year time horizon (a 95% increase). Specific
traffic volume forecasts by roadway segment are included in Appendix A.
C. 2030 Volume to Capacity Ratios
As described previously, volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is a planning level measure of the level of
service experienced by the roadway user. The v/c ratio on each segment of the major roadway
system was calculated using the forecasted year 2030 traffic volumes and the short-range
capacities, as defined in Section II-E. Short-range capacities reflect the existing roadway or, if a
short-range improvement was identified, the improved capacity. The results of the v/c analysis
indicate that, without improvements to the existing roadway network, many roadway segments
throughout the County are projected to operate at above capacity conditions.
³I
³I
yI
}I
!"`$
$ "`!
³I
ÕZYXW
ÕZYXW
ÍZYXW
yI yI
L
CR 103
LCR 89
LCR 80C
LCR 200.2
LCR 157
LCR 190
LCR 162
LCR 162
LCR 162
LCR 59
LCR 179
LCR 180
LCR 1
69
LCR 60C
LCR 82E
LCR 80C
LCR 74E
LCR 37
LCR 80
LCR 21
LCR 82
LCR 15
LCR 9
LCR 7
LCR 5
LCR 11
LCR 103
LCR 319
LCR 139
LCR 63E
LCR 44H
LCR 27
LCR 52E
LCR 27
LCR 25E
LCR 43
LCR 18E
LCR 37E
Estes
Park
FORT COLLINS
LOVELAND
TIMNATH
WELLINGTON
2030 Traffic Volume Forecasts
Larimer County Transportation Plan Capital Expansion Fee Figures 04-101 04/26/06
KÂ
2030 Traffic Volume Forecasts
³I
yI
!"`$
³I
ÕZYXW
³I
!"`$
³I
ÕZYXW
ÉZYXW
üZYXW
ôZYXW
öZYXW
ðZYXW
ôZYXW
LCR 52E
LCR 27
LCR 25E
LCR 37E
LCR 66
LCR 64
LCR 62
LCR 60
LCR 58
LCR 56
LCR 52
LCR 48
LCR 44
LCR 40
LCR 68
LCR 38
LCR 36
LCR 30
LCR 18 LCR 18
LCR 16
LCR 14
LCR 10
LCR 8
LCR 4
LCR 6
LCR 21
LCR 19
LCR 17
LCR 13
LCR 15
LCR 11
LCR 7
LCR 3
LCR 9
LCR 11
LCR 54
LCR 9
LCR 54G
LCR 23
LCR 17
LCR 38E
LCR 27
LCR 29
LCR 25E
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 34
V. IDENTIFICATION OF LONG RANGE IMPROVEMENT
NEEDS
A. Roadway Improvement Projects
Capacity-driven roadway improvement needs were identified for the long range future (through
year 2030) in a similar manner as short range improvement needs. Figures 9A and 9B show
long range capacity driven roadway improvement needs, including roadway paving projects and
widening projects (additional lanes). These project needs are in addition to those needs
identified previously that are associated with existing traffic levels.
Upgrade Native Surface Roads to Treated Gravel Roads
Eleven native surfaced roadways have forecasted volumes greater than their capacity. These
eleven segments are approximately 49.6 miles in length and will be able to meet the 2030
demand when they are upgraded to treated gravel surfaces.
Roadway Paving Projects
Eighty segments of the major County roadway system are forecast to have traffic levels
requiring paving by 2030, comprising 115.8 roadway miles. Additionally, ten segments of local
roads, comprising approximately 12.9 roadway miles, are forecast to require paving by 2030.
Lane and Shoulder Widening
Eighteen road segments comprising approximately 12 miles have been identified for receiving
lane and shoulder widening. With this improvement, those segments will be able to meet 2030
traffic volume demands.
Roadway Widening
Twenty two-lane roadway segments have been forecast to require widening to three or four
lanes by 2030 to accommodate traffic growth at desired levels of service. These 20 projects
total approximately 15.6 miles.
A summary of the long range improvement needs and the resulting estimated construction costs
are provided in Table 10. These projects and costs are in addition to the projects shown for the
Short Range.
³I
³I
yI yI
}I
!"`$
$ "`!
³I
ÕZYXW
ÍZYXW
ÕZYXW
yI
LCR 103
LCR 89
LCR 80C
LCR 200.2
LCR 157
LCR 190
LCR 162
LCR 162
LCR 162
LCR 59
LCR 179
LCR 180
LCR 169
LCR 60C
LCR 82E
LCR 80C
LCR 74E
LCR 37
LCR 80
LCR 21
LCR 82
LCR 15
LCR 9
LCR 7
LCR 5
LCR 11
LCR 103
LCR 319
LCR 139
LCR 63E
LCR 44H
LCR 27
LCR 52E
LCR 27
LCR 25E
LCR 43
LCR 18E
LCR 37E
Estes
Park
FORT COLLINS
LOVELAND
TIMNATH
WELLINGTON
Long Range Roadway Improvement Needs
KÂ
yI
!"`$
³I
Long Range Roadway Improvement Needs
³I
yI
!"`$
³I
ÕZYXW
³I
!"`$
KÂ
ÕZYXW
ÉZYXW
üZYXW
ôZYXW
öZYXW
ðZYXW
ôZYXW
WINDSOR
JOHNSTOWN
LCR 52E
LCR 27
LCR 25E
LCR 37E
LCR 66
LCR 64
LCR 62
LCR 60
LCR 58
LCR 56
LCR 52
LCR 48
LCR 44
LCR 40
LCR 68
LCR 38
LCR 36
LCR 30
LCR 18 LCR 18
LCR 16
LCR 14
LCR 10
LCR 8
LCR 4
LCR 6
LCR 21
LCR 19
LCR 17
LCR 13
LCR 15
LCR 11
LCR 7
LCR 3
LCR 9
LCR 11
LCR 54
LCR 9
LCR 54G
LCR 23
LCR 17
LCR 38E
LCR 27
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 37
Table 10. Long Range Roadway Improvement Needs
Improvement Type # Of Projects Project Mileage Estimated Cost
Major Roads
Upgrade to Treated Gravel 8 38.3 $19,162,000
Paving (Current & Planned Major Roads) 80 115.8 $126,113,000
Widen Lanes & Shoulder 18 12.0 $13,400,000
Additional Lanes 20 15.6 $55,283,000
Subtotal Major Roads 126 181.7 $213,958,000
Local Roads
Upgrade to Treated Gravel 3 11.3 $5,656,000
Paving 10 12.9 $15,598,000
Subtotal Local Roads 13 24 $21,254,000
Total 139 205.9 $235,212,000
B. New Roads
City, town, county sub-area, and corridor transportation plans were reviewed to identify new
roads that are planned in unincorporated parts of the county and whose needs are directly
related to anticipated Larimer County development. Table 11 shows the new roads and their
estimated construction costs.
Table 11. New Roads
Transportation Plan Road From/To Length
(Miles) Road Type
Estimated
Cost
Ronald Reagan
Ave.
0.25 miles west of
CR 9 to 0.50 miles
east of CR 9
Town of Wellington 0.75 Minor Collector $1,390,000
Transportation Master
Street Plan
Clinton Ave. SH 1 to 0.50 miles
east of CR 9 0.5 Minor Collector $925,000
CR 32 SH 287 to CR 19 2.0 Arterial $3,700,000
CR 16 CR 15 to SH 287 0.1 Minor Collector $185,000
CR 82 CR 15/82 to CR 80 1.5 Minor Collector $2,775,000
1998 Larimer County
Transportation Plan
CR 37E CR 37E to CR 31 2.0 Minor Collector $3,700,000
North Front Range
2030 Regional
Transportation Plan
CR 5 CR 20E to SH 60 3.5 Arterial $4,475,000
Total $19,150,000
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 38
C. Summary of Roadway Improvement Needs
There are about 75 miles of road segments in Larimer County that currently operate above
capacity based on existing traffic levels. Short-range road improvement needs to provide
needed capacity total about $73,200,000.
With the anticipated growth in Larimer County over the next 25 years, it is estimated that an
additional 206 miles of road segments will need improvements to meet capacity requirements.
The estimated cost for these improvements is $235,212,000. Other new planned roadways,
shown in Table 11, total about $19,150,000, which brings the total long term cost to about
$254,362,000. Table 12 summarizes the cost estimated for roadway improvements.
Table 12. Cost Summary
Scenario # Of Projects Project Mileage Estimated Cost
Current Roadway Improvement Needs 46 74.9 $73,188,000
Long-Range Roadway Improvement Needs 139 206 $235,212,000
New Roads 7 10.5 $19,150,000
Subtotal Long-Range and New Roads 146 216.5 $254,362,000
Total Improvement Needs 192 291.4 $327,550,000
D. Bicycle Facilities
In April 2000, Colorado State Parks completed the Colorado Front Range Trail Corridor Plan.
The plan calls for a continuous trail that will link Colorado’s front range from New Mexico to
Wyoming. The trail will connect existing and planned trail systems to the new trail corridors to
provide a complete trail network connecting the population centers throughout the front range.
The Front Range Trail corridor will extend through Larimer County, connecting from Lyons to
Loveland, Fort Collins and north toward Cheyenne. Larimer County should continue to work with
the Colorado State Parks to develop this trail corridor and to provide links from other trails to the
Front Range Trail.
The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFR MPO) has identified
Regionally Significant Corridors throughout the region. Each of these corridors is considered
multi-modal, which means they could be used for bicycle and pedestrian purposes. The
bicycle/pedestrian-specific Regionally Significant Corridors in the NFR MPO follow the major
rivers including the Poudre River, Platte River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River and
Spring Creek. The North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan and the Upper Front
Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan each identify bicycle and pedestrian projects in
Larimer County within the Fiscally Constrained and Vision Plans.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 39
E. Future Transit System
As described in Section IV-A, Larimer County is expected to increase from approximately
250,000 to 480,000 people by the year 2030. In addition, the age of the population in Larimer
County is increasing. In 2000 10 percent of the population was aged 65 or older; by 2030 17
percent of the population is expected to be 65 or older. These changing demographics will
increase demand for transit services both within Larimer County and between Larimer County
and neighboring communities.
Increasing gas prices can also impact demand for transit services. Communities throughout the
US have experienced growth in ridership in excess of 10% over the last year; much of this has
been attributed to the increase in the price of gas.
At a minimum, each community currently providing transit service should continue to provide
service. It is more likely that with the growth in population anticipated, expanding the existing
services will be necessary to meet community demand. It will be important that Larimer County
work with the communities to provide coordinated rural and regional services.
Travel demand projections provided by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization and the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement2 indicate that the US 287
corridor, today and in the future, is one of highest volume travel corridors in Larimer County.
Larimer County and the communities along this corridor should plan to address this demand
through transit as well as roadway improvements. Transit improvements along the corridor may
include increasing the frequency of the regional FoxTrot service and extending the service south
to Longmont.
Another option for addressing mobility along the US 287 corridor could be commuter rail. The
North I-25 EIS has identified the BNSF rail, which parallels the US 287 corridor in northern
Colorado, as the route location of choice for a commuter rail service. The rail corridor being
evaluated includes rail stations in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud and Longmont. In
Longmont, riders could transfer to the planned FasTracks rail line to travel to Boulder and then
into Denver or stay on the train to connect into the planned FasTracks North Metro rail line
traveling along the east side of I-25 into downtown Denver.
Larimer County should plan to:
Support increased and enhanced FoxTrot service
Preserve right of way along the BNSF rail line
Facilitate coordination of rural service providers
Support intercity service between Larimer County communities
Support regional services from Larimer County communities to Denver, Boulder,
Longmont, Greeley and Windsor.
2 Currently being conducted by CDOT Region 4 in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration and the
Federal Transit Administration.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 40
VI. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND IMPLEMENTING
STRATEGIES
Following are the guiding principles, along with strategies for implementing those principles,
contained in the Transportation section of the Larimer County Master Plan.
TR-1 The Larimer County transportation planning process shall complement the
development patterns and principles of the Master Plan.
• TR-1-s1 The Functional Road Classification Map shall be used as the official future
roadway plan for the County.
• TR-1-s2 The Land Use Code shall establish roadway standards that enhance
capacity and safety, improve air quality and aesthetics and implement the
development patterns of the Land Use Framework Map.
• TR-1-s3 County road projects shall be designed and constructed in a manner that
minimizes the impact on water quality and sensitive environmental areas and
considers aesthetics.
TR-2 New development shall occur only where existing transportation facilities are
adequate or where necessary improvements will be made as part of the
development project.
• TR-2-s1 Adequate facilities and service levels for transportation shall be clearly
defined in the Land Use Code. In Growth Management Areas, service level
standards shall reflect those of the adjacent municipality. In other areas, standards
shall be based on the density and intensity of the use.
• TR-2-s2 The Land Use Code shall establish traffic impact requirements to identify
the need for improvements created by future development in order to meet adopted
level of service standards.
TR-3 New development shall pay its equitable share for necessary improvements
to the County transportation system.
• TR-3-s1 The Land Use Code shall require construction of improvements identified
through a traffic impact study.
• TR-3-s2 The Land Use Code shall include a traffic improvement fee to support other
future improvements to the County transportation system made necessary by the
impact of the development, including cumulative impacts.
• TR-3-s3 The Land Use Code shall establish a mechanism to allow a party who
initially funds an improvement to be reimbursed by future developments that also
impact that facility.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 41
TR-4 Larimer County shall encourage the development and use of alternative
modes of transportation.
• TR-4-s1 Larimer County will continue to participate in cooperative efforts with cities
and counties in the region to develop a preferred transit system within Growth
Management Areas and between cities and towns, consistent with the adopted
Transit Development Plan.
• TR-4-s2 Larimer County shall establish a bicycle plan that recognizes the need to
serve both commuters and recreational users and that coordinates with the plans of
adjoining cities and counties.
• TR-4-s3 Larimer County shall support the regional Travel Demand Management
(TDM) program by encouraging all major employers to adopt a TDM program and by
adopting incentives for promoting use of alternative modes of transportation and for
implementing telecommuting programs.
• TR-4-s4 Larimer County shall continue to support the study and development of
commuter rail service in the Northern Front Range.
TR-5 Larimer County shall establish a Capital Improvement Program for County
transportation facilities.
• TR-5-s1 The Capital Improvement Program shall identify a methodology for
prioritizing projects which emphasizes the importance of maintaining the existing
roadway system.
• TR-5-s2 The Capital Improvement Plan for roadway maintenance and improvement
shall consider consistency with the Master Plan as an element of project
prioritization.
• TR-5-s3 The Capital Improvement Program shall identify methods to share costs
with adjacent cities and other governmental entities.
• TR-5-s4 The Capital Improvement Program shall consider funding for alternative
transportation mode projects including facilities for bicycles and transit.
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Appendix A
APPENDIX A ROADWAY INVENTORY
APPENDIX A - ROAD INVENTORY
Larimer County
Road Section FROM TO Func Class Juris. UGA
Regional
CR?
Area
Type ADT Date
2030
ADT Forecast Source
Length
(MI)
Curr
VMT 2030 VMT Road Surface
Width
(FT)
Lane
QTY.
Shld
Width
Capacity
(VPD)
Current
V/C
Short-Range
Needs
Short Range
Costs
Improved
Capac (VPD)
2030 V/Existing
Capacity
2030 V
/ C 2030 Needs
2030 Improved
Capacity
Long Term
Improvement Cost
002E US 287 CR 17 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,656 2004 5,200 NFR Model 0.50 833 2,602 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.19 8,500 0.61 0.61 8,500
002E CR 17 CR 15 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 876 2004 5,200 NFR Model 1.00 877 5,177 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 3 400 2.19 Pave $1,001,000 10,000 12.93 0.52 10,000
002H LONGS PEAK PARK LOT SH 7 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 702 2003 1,300 Growth Factor 1.00 700 1,260 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.08 8,500 0.15 0.15 8,500
003 CR 18 JOHNSTOWN CL Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO U 129 2003 8,200 NFR Model 0.21 27 1,724 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.32 400 20.52 20.52 Pave 15,300 $304,500
003 JOHNSTOWN CL JOHNSTOWN CL Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO U 125 2003 8,700 NFR Model 0.21 26 1,819 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.31 400 21.66 21.66 Pave 15,300 $304,500
003 JOHNSTOWN CL CR 20C Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO U 121 2003 8,700 NFR Model 0.61 73 5,241 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.30 400 21.66 21.66 Pave 15,300 $877,250
003 CR 20C US 34 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 131 2003 12,000 NFR Model 0.78 102 9,365 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.33 400 30.02 30.02 Add Third Lane 15,400 $2,223,000
003 CR 30 SH 392 Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 206 2003 3,100 NFR Model 1.01 208 3,095 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.52 400 7.66 7.66 Pave 15,300 $1,464,500
003 SH 392 SURF CHG Minor Collector LCRB NO NO U 650 2003 1,900 NFR Model 0.35 228 669 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.06 10,700 0.18 0.18 10,700
003 SURF CHG CR 32E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO U 200 2003 1,900 NFR Model 0.15 30 287 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.50 400 4.78 4.78 Pave 15,300 $217,500
003 Private Drive TIMNATH CL Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 40 2003 70 Growth Factor 0.10 4 7 Gravel 21 0 0 400 0.10 400 0.18 0.18 400
003 TIMNATH CL SH 14 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 209 2003 1,100 NFR Model 0.50 105 574 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 0 400 0.52 400 2.87 2.87 Pave 10,000 $500,000
003 SH 14 CR 48 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 497 2003 750 NFR Model 0.75 373 574 Gravel 0 2 0 400 1.24 Pave $750,000 10,000 1.91 0.08 10,000
003 CR 48 CR 50 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 286 2003 500 Growth Factor 1.00 287 516 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.72 400 1.29 1.29 Pave 10,000 $1,003,000
003 CR 50 CR 52 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 286 2003 850 NFR Model 1.01 288 856 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.72 400 2.13 2.13 Pave 10,000 $1,007,000
003 CR 56 CR 58 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 96 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.01 97 171 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.24 400 0.42 0.42 400
003 CR 58 CR 60 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 96 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.01 97 171 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.24 400 0.42 0.42 400
003 CR 60 CR 62 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 82 2004 150 Growth Factor 0.99 81 143 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.21 400 0.36 0.36 400
003 CR 62 CR 64 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 82 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.05 86 151 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.21 400 0.36 0.36 400
003 CR 64 CR 66 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 192 2004 350 Growth Factor 1.01 193 340 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.48 400 0.85 0.85 400
003 CR 66 CR 70 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 171 2002 300 Growth Factor 2.02 345 635 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.43 400 0.79 0.79 400
003E CR 16 CR 18 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 83 2003 1,800 NFR Model 1.00 83 1,855 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.21 400 4.62 4.62 Pave 10,000 $1,003,000
003E CR 42 (NCM) CR 42E Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 90 2003 150 Growth Factor 0.51 46 83 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.23 400 0.40 0.40 400
APPENDIX A - ROAD INVENTORY
Larimer County
Road Section FROM TO Func Class Juris. UGA
Regional
CR?
Area
Type ADT Date
2030
ADT Forecast Source
Length
(MI)
Curr
VMT 2030 VMT Road Surface
Width
(FT)
Lane
QTY.
Shld
Width
Capacity
(VPD)
Current
V/C
Short-Range
Needs
Short Range
Costs
Improved
Capac (VPD)
2030 V/Existing
Capacity
2030 V
/ C 2030 Needs
2030 Improved
Capacity
Long Term
Improvement Cost
011 CR 56 SH 1 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 130 2004 250 Growth Factor 1.00 130 229 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.33 400 0.57 0.57 400
011 CR 62 CR 62E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 139 2004 850 NFR Model 0.49 68 424 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.35 400 2.16 2.16 Pave 10,000 $490,000
011 CR 62E CR 64 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 110 2004 200 Growth Factor 0.49 54 95 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.28 400 0.48 0.48 400
011 CR 64 CR 66 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 110 2004 200 Growth Factor 1.00 110 193 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.28 400 0.48 0.48 400
011 CR 66 CR 68 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 76 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.00 76 133 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.19 400 0.33 0.33 400
011 CR 68 CR 70 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 65 2004 100 Growth Factor 1.00 65 115 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.16 400 0.29 0.29 400
011 CR 70 CR 72 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 139 2002 250 Growth Factor 1.04 145 266 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.35 400 0.64 0.64 400
011 CR 72 CR 76 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 139 2002 250 Growth Factor 1.99 276 508 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.35 400 0.64 0.64 400
011C CR 24E CR 28 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 3,938 2003 7,100 Growth Factor 1.55 6,104 10,985 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 2 10,700 0.37 10,700 0.66 0.66 10,700
011C CR 28 CR 30 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 5,895 2003 10,600 Growth Factor 1.01 5,954 10,715 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.39 15,300 0.69 0.69 15,300
011C SH 14 CR 46E (LINCOLN) Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,773 2003 3,200 Growth Factor 0.19 337 606 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 7,700 0.23 7,700 0.41 0.41 7,700
011F SH 14 CR 46E (LINCOLN) Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 6,752 2003 12,200 Growth Factor 0.36 2,431 4,374 Paved - High Type Bituminous 36 2 6 15,300 0.44 15,300 0.79 0.79 15,300
011H SH 402 LOVELAND CITY LIMITS Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 8,000 2003 14,400 Growth Factor 0.66 5,280 9,502 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 1 400 20.00 Pave $957,000 15,300 35.99
0.94 15,300
012 CR 29 CR 23 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,165 2004 2,200 NFR Model 1.81 2,111 4,039 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 3 400 2.91 Pave $1,812,000 10,000 5.57 0.22 10,000
012 US 287 CR 904 SOUTH BOUND Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 198 2004 3,900 NFR Model 1.01 201 3,907 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.50 400 9.64 9.64 Pave 10,000 $1,013,000
012 CR 904 SOUTH BOUND CR 904 NORTH BOUND Minor Collector NO NO R 175 2004 300 Growth Factor 0.17 29 52 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.44 400 0.77 0.77 400
013 SH 60 CR 16E Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 567 2003 2,600 NFR Model 1.53 867 4,014 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 10,000 0.06 10,000 0.26 0.26 10,000
013 CR 28 (EAST 57TH ST) CR 30 EAST BOUND Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,155 2003 2,200 NFR Model 0.75 866 1,632 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.11 10,700 0.20 0.20 10,700
013 CR 30 EAST BOUND CR 32 Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 1,800 2003 6,800 NFR Model 1.17 2,108 7,978 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 7,700 0.23 7,700 0.88 0.88 7,700
013 CR 52H CR 54 (DOUGLAS RD) Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 337 2004 600 Growth Factor 0.25 83 147 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.84 400 1.48 1.48 Pave 15,300 $358,150
013 CR 54 (DOUGLAS RD) CR 56 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 227 2004 400 Growth Factor 1.23 279 490 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.57 400 1.00 1.00 400
013 CR 66E CR 68 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 69 2002 150 Growth Factor 0.46 32 59 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.17 400 0.32 0.32 400
APPENDIX A - ROAD INVENTORY
Larimer County
Road Section FROM TO Func Class Juris. UGA
Regional
CR?
Area
Type ADT Date
2030
ADT Forecast Source
Length
(MI)
Curr
VMT 2030 VMT Road Surface
Width
(FT)
Lane
QTY.
Shld
Width
Capacity
(VPD)
Current
V/C
Short-Range
Needs
Short Range
Costs
Improved
Capac (VPD)
2030 V/Existing
Capacity
2030 V
/ C 2030 Needs
2030 Improved
Capacity
Long Term
Improvement Cost
017 CR 70 CR 72 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 187 2002 350 Growth Factor 1.02 191 350 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.47 400 0.86 0.86 400
017 CR 72 CR 74 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 187 2002 350 Growth Factor 0.99 185 340 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.47 400 0.86 0.86 400
017 CR 74 CR 76 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 187 2002 350 Growth Factor 0.99 186 341 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.47 400 0.86 0.86 400
017 CR 76 CR 78 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 81 2003 150 Growth Factor 0.99 80 145 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.20 400 0.36 0.36 400
017 CR 78 CR 80 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 201 2003 350 Growth Factor 1.01 202 364 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 5,000 0.04 5,000 0.07 0.07 5,000
017 CR 56 END PAVEMENT Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 195 2004 350 Growth Factor 1.07 209 367 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 3 400 0.00 400 0.86 0.86 400
017C CR 16H 14TH STREET Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U NA 0 N/A Growth Factor 0.24 0 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.00 400 0.00 0.00 400
017E US 287 SH 56 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R NA 0N/A Growth Factor 0.08 0 Unknown 0 2 0 400 0.00 400 0.00 0.00 400
018 CR 23E CR 21 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,587 2004 6,200 NFR Model 1.51 3,904 9,327 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.30 8,500 0.73 0.73 8,500
018 I-25 E. FRONTAGE RD CR 3E Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES U 3,166 2003 13,900 NFR Model 0.92 2,913 12,773 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.30 10,700 1.30 1.30 Widen Lanes
& Shoulder 15,300 $1,334,000
018 CR 3E CR 3 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES U 3,166 2003 10,000 NFR Model 0.50 1,596 5,060 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.30 10,700 0.94 0.94 10,700
018 CR 3 CR 901 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES U 3,166 2003 8,900 NFR Model 1.02 3,239 9,113 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.30 10,700 0.83 0.83 10,700
018E SURF CHG CR 31 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,280 2004 2,100 Growth Factor 4.71 6,022 9,700 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 2 5,800 0.22 5,800 0.36 0.36 5,800
018E CR 31 CR 29 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,061 2004 3,300 Growth Factor 2.05 4,225 6,805 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 2 5,800 0.36 5,800 0.57 0.57 5,800
018E US 287 CR 13C (ST LOUIS AV) Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,997 2003 3,600 Growth Factor 0.50 1,002 1,804 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.19 10,700 0.34 0.34 10,700
018H WASHIN ST TO CR 13C (ST LOUIS Local Roads LCRB YES NO U NA 0 N/A Growth Factor 0.36 0 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 22 2 0 400 0.00 400 0.00 0.00 400
018H CR 13C (ST LOUIS AV) MADISON AVE Local Roads LCRB YES NO U NA 0N/A Growth Factor 0.14 0 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 0 7,700 0.00 7,700 0.00 0.00 7,700
019 BERTHOUD CL CR 10 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 250 2004 3,500 NFR Model 0.38 0 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.00 400 8.68 8.68 Pave 10,000 $376,000
019 CR 10 CR 10E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 249 2002 3,500 NFR Model 0.25 62 868 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.62 400 8.68 8.68 Pave 10,000 $250,000
019 CR 16 WEST BOUND CR 16 EAST BOUND Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 398 2004 650 NFR Model 0.25 98 154 Gravel 23 2 0 400 1.00 400 1.58 1.58 Pave 15,300 $355,250
019 CR 16 EAST BOUND CR 16H Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 414 2004 750 Growth Factor 0.36 150 264 Gravel 23 2 0 400 1.04 Pave $524,900 15,300 1.82 0.05 15,300
019 CR 28 (57TH ST) FT COLLINS CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 9,847 2002 14,600 NFR Model 2.00 19,694 29,112 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.92 10,700 1.36 1.36 Widen
APPENDIX A - ROAD INVENTORY
Larimer County
Road Section FROM TO Func Class Juris. UGA
Regional
CR?
Area
Type ADT Date
2030
ADT Forecast Source
Length
(MI)
Curr
VMT 2030 VMT Road Surface
Width
(FT)
Lane
QTY.
Shld
Width
Capacity
(VPD)
Current
V/C
Short-Range
Needs
Short Range
Costs
Improved
Capac (VPD)
2030 V/Existing
Capacity
2030 V
/ C 2030 Needs
2030 Improved
Capacity
Long Term
Improvement Cost
023H CR 22B START CR 22B Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,751 2002 5,100 Growth Factor 0.25 674 1,240 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.39 7,000 0.72 0.72 7,000
023H START CR 22B CR 25/24 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,500 2002 4,600 Growth Factor 0.96 0 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.36 7,000 0.66 0.66 7,000
024 CR 27 CR 25/CR 23H Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 387 2003 650 Growth Factor 0.89 344 565 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 5,100 0.08 5,100 0.12 0.12 5,100
024E CR 13E (MONROE) CR 13 (MADISON) Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 2,512 2003 3,600 NFR Model 0.53 1,331 1,928 Gravel 24 2 3 400 6.28 Pave $768,500 15,300 9.10 0.24 15,300
024E LOVELAND CL CR 11C Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,500 2003 6,300 Growth Factor 0.14 490 882 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.33 10,700 0.59 0.59 10,700
024H CR 27 CR 25E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 424 2003 700 Growth Factor 0.73 311 511 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 5,800 0.07 5,800 0.12 0.12 5,800
024H CR 25E CR 25 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,536 2002 2,600 Growth Factor 0.42 639 1,068 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.22 7,100 0.36 0.36 7,100
025 CR 24/CR 23H CR 24H Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,536 2002 2,600 Growth Factor 0.75 1,152 1,925 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 5,800 0.26 5,800 0.44 0.44 5,800
025E CR 24H CR 38E Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 831 2002 1,400 Growth Factor 3.97 3,297 5,509 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 0 4,100 0.20 4,100 0.34 0.34 4,100
025E CR 38E LOCKED GATE Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 252 2003 400 Growth Factor 6.46 1,628 2,670 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.63 400 1.03 1.03 Pave 8,300 $10,013,000
025E CR 50 SURF CHG Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 120 2003 200 Growth Factor 0.90 108 177 Native 20 2 0 200 0.60 200 0.98 0.98 0 400 $0
025E SURF CHG CR 52E Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 175 2003 300 Growth Factor 0.45 79 129 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 5,800 0.03 5,800 0.05 0.05 5,800
025E CR 52E/SH 28 CR 54E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 335 2003 550 Growth Factor 1.35 452 742 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 5,800 0.06 5,800 0.09 0.09 5,800
025G CR 38E IRENE WAY Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,228 2003 2,000 Growth Factor 1.23 1,512 2,480 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 2 5,100 0.24 5,100 0.39 0.39 5,100
025G BEGIN PAVEMENT CR 23 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,138 2003 1,900 Growth Factor 1.61 1,837 3,013 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 8,300 0.14 8,300 0.22 0.22 8,300
026 CR 3 CR 901 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES R NA 0 5,900 NFR Model 1.00 0 5,896 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.00 8,500 0.69 0.69 8,500
027 US 34 CR 24 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,814 2003 4,600 Growth Factor 0.29 813 1,334 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 7,100 0.40 7,100 0.65 0.65 7,100
027 CR 24 CR 24H Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,814 2003 4,600 Growth Factor 0.79 2,226 3,651 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 7,100 0.40 7,100 0.65 0.65 7,100
027 CR 24H CR 29 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,241 2003 3,700 Growth Factor 1.88 4,213 6,911 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 7,100 0.32 7,100 0.52 0.52 7,100
027 CR 29 CR 32C Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,382 2002 2,300 Growth Factor 1.65 2,280 3,810 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 7,100 0.19 7,100 0.33 0.33 7,100
027 CR 32C CR 38E Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,382 2002 2,300 Growth Factor 0.59 815 1,362 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 7,100 0.19 7,100 0.33 0.33 7,100
027 CR 38E CR 44H Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 661 2003 1,100 Growth Factor 10.63 7,026 11,526 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 1 4,100 0.16 4,100 0.26 0.26 4,100
027 CR 44H CR 52E Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 422 2003 700 Growth Factor 3.72 1,570 2,575 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 4,100 0.10 4,100 0.17 0.17 4,100
APPENDIX A - ROAD INVENTORY
Larimer County
Road Section FROM TO Func Class Juris. UGA
Regional
CR?
Area
Type ADT Date
2030
ADT Forecast Source
Length
(MI)
Curr
VMT 2030 VMT Road Surface
Width
(FT)
Lane
QTY.
Shld
Width
Capacity
(VPD)
Current
V/C
Short-Range
Needs
Short Range
Costs
Improved
Capac (VPD)
2030 V/Existing
Capacity
2030 V
/ C 2030 Needs
2030 Improved
Capacity
Long Term
Improvement Cost
041 LOCKED GATE CR 52E (RIST CYN RD) Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 146 2003 250 Growth Factor 0.95 139 228 Native 17 2 0 200 0.73 200 1.20 1.20 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $475,000
42 CR 5 CR 3E Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 90 2003 150 Growth Factor 0.49 44 72 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.23 400 0.37 0.37 400 $0
042C CR 23 WIDTH CHG Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,653 2001 4,500 Growth Factor 0.80 2,122 3,612 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.38 7,000 0.64 0.64 7,000 $0
042C WIDTH CHG CITY FTC CL Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 2,986 2001 5,100 Growth Factor 0.18 537 915 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 15 15,300 0.20 15,300 0.33 0.33 15,300 $0
042E CR 5 CR 3E Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 90 2003 150 Growth Factor 0.49 44 72 Gravel 24 2 15 400 0.23 400 0.37 0.37 400 $0
043 ESTES CL CR 61 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,820 2003 3,000 Growth Factor 3.27 5,946 9,754 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 4,100 0.44 4,100 0.73 0.73 4,100 $0
043 CR 61 CR 51B Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,581 2003 2,600 Growth Factor 5.09 8,052 13,208 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 0 4,100 0.39 4,100 0.63 0.63 4,100 $0
043 CR 51B SH 34 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 996 2003 1,600 Growth Factor 6.07 6,046 9,917 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 4,100 0.24 4,100 0.40 0.40 4,100 $0
043F SH 287 END Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 17 2003 30 Growth Factor 1.35 23 38 Native 20 2 0 200 0.09 200 0.14 0.14 200 $0
044 CR 3 CR 901 SOUTH BOUND Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 655 2003 1,100 Growth Factor 1.04 682 1,119 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 1 400 1.64 Pave $1,041,000 10,000 2.69 0.11 10,000
$0
044H PINGREE PARK CR 63E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 132 2004 200 Growth Factor 4.03 532 857 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.33 400 0.53 0.53 400 $0
044H CR 63E MONUMENT GULCH ROAD Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 45 2004 70 Growth Factor 5.29 238 383 Native 16 2 0 200 0.23 200 0.36 0.36 200 $0
044H MONUMENT GULCH RD CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN RD Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 45 2004 70 Growth Factor 4.09 184 296 Native 24 2 1 200 0.23 200 0.36 0.36 200 $0
044H CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN RD CR 27 (STOVE PRAIRE) Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 290 2003 500 Growth Factor 8.43 2,445 4,010 Native 20 2 0 200 1.45 rade to Treated G $4,215,000 400 2.38 1.19
Pave 8,300 $4,215,000
045E SH 287 SH 287 Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 33 2003 50 Growth Factor 1.91 63 104 Native 24 2 3 200 0.17 200 0.27 0.27 200 $0
046E GATE CR 21 (OVERLAND TR) Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 2,501 2003 5,700 NFR Model 1.26 3,151 7,178 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.16 15,300 0.37 0.37 15,300 $0
046E CR 21 (OVERLAND TR) CITY FTC CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,380 2003 7,100 NFR Model 0.45 1,521 3,192 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.32 10,700 0.66 0.66 10,700
$0
046E CITY FTC CL CR 11F (LINK LN) Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 6,869 2003 12,400 Growth Factor 0.17 1,168 2,101 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.64 10,700 1.16 1.16 Widen
Lanes & Shoulder 15,300 $85,000
046E 11F (LINK LN) 11C (AIRPARK DR) Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 6,869 2003 12,400 Growth Factor 0.40 2,741 4,932 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.64 10,700 1.16 1.16 Widen
APPENDIX A - ROAD INVENTORY
Larimer County
Road Section FROM TO Func Class Juris. UGA
Regional
CR?
Area
Type ADT Date
2030
ADT Forecast Source
Length
(MI)
Curr
VMT 2030 VMT Road Surface
Width
(FT)
Lane
QTY.
Shld
Width
Capacity
(VPD)
Current
V/C
Short-Range
Needs
Short Range
Costs
Improved
Capac (VPD)
2030 V/Existing
Capacity
2030 V
/ C 2030 Needs
2030 Improved
Capacity
Long Term
Improvement Cost
056 CR 11 NORTH BOUND CR 11 SOUTH BOUND Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 91 2004 2,100 NFR Model 0.15 14 316 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.23 400 5.23 5.23 Pave 10,000 $75,500
056 CR 11 SOUTH BOUND CR 9 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 91 2004 2,600 NFR Model 0.85 77 2,235 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.23 400 6.59 6.59 Pave 10,000 $424,000
056 CR 9 1-25 W. FRONTAGE RD Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 91 2004 150 Growth Factor 0.96 88 154 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.23 400 0.40 0.40 400 $0
056 I-25 E. FRONTAGE RD CR 3 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 283 2002 500 Growth Factor 2.01 568 1,045 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.71 400 1.30 1.30 Pave 10,000 $1,004,000
056 CR 3 SRFCH CHG Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 223 2002 400 Growth Factor 0.39 87 161 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.56 400 1.03 1.03 Pave 10,000 $196,000
056 SURFACE CHANGE SRFCH CHG Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 149 2002 250 Growth Factor 0.31 46 85 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.02 8,500 0.03 0.03 8,500 $0
056 SURFACE CHANGE CR 901 (COUNTY LINE) Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 74 2002 150 Growth Factor 0.31 23 43 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.19 400 0.34 0.34 400 $0
056E CR 23E CR 21C - OVERLAND Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 271 2004 500 Growth Factor 1.82 493 868 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.68 400 1.19 1.19 Pave 10,000 $909,000
058 CR 15 END OF PAVEMENT Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 28 2004 50 Growth Factor 0.10 3 5 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 0 4,200 0.01 4,200 0.01 0.01 4,200 $0
058 SH 1 CR 9 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 889 2004 5,400 NFR Model 0.13 111 670 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.13 7,000 0.77 0.77 7,000 $0
058 CR 9 I-25 West Frontage Road Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 889 2004 8,400 NFR Model 0.95 842 7,943 Paved - Unknown 24 2 2 7,000 0.13 7,000 1.20 1.20 Widen Lanes & Shoulder 10,000
$473,500
058 CR I-25 East Frontage Road SURFACE CHANGE Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 357 2004 900 NFR Model 0.97 346 875 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 0 400 0.89 400 2.26 2.26 Pave 10,000 $485,000
058 SURFACE CHANGE CR 3 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 261 2004 900 NFR Model 0.86 224 776 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.65 400 2.26 2.26 Pave 10,000 $430,000
058 CR 3 COUNTY LINE Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 124 2004 900 NFR Model 1.02 127 924 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.31 400 2.26 2.26 Pave 10,000 $512,000
058G CR 29C LOCKED GATE Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 197 2004 350 Growth Factor 0.17 33 59 Paved - High Type Bituminous 18 2 0 2,400 0.05 2,400 0.08 0.08 4,200 $0
059 GATE/SYSTEM CHANGE SURFACE CHANGE LCRB NO NO M NA 0 N/A 2.48 Native 0 0 0 200 0.00 200 0.00 0.00 200 $0
059 CR 80C STATE LINE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 46 2001 80 Growth Factor 6.56 302 513 Native 24 2 1 200 0.23 200 0.39 0.39 200 $0
060 BEGINING CR 21 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 49 2004 90 Growth Factor 0.26 13 22 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.12 400 0.22 0.22 400 $0
060 CR 60E CR 15 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 503 2004 900 Growth Factor 1.36 684 1,205 Gravel 24 2 3 400 1.26 Pave $1,360,000 10,000 2.21 0.09 10,000 $0
060 END SH 1 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 50 2004 90 Growth Factor 0.50 0 Native 20 2 0 200 0.25 200 0.00 0.00 200 $0
060 WELLINGTON CL CR 3 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO U 271 2004 500 Growth Factor 1.52 412 725 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.68 400 1.19 1.19 Pave 15,300 $760,000
060 CR 3 CR 901/COUNTY LINE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 94 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.00 94 166 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.24 400 0.41 0.41 400 $0
APPENDIX A - ROAD INVENTORY
Larimer County
Road Section FROM TO Func Class Juris. UGA
Regional
CR?
Area
Type ADT Date
2030
ADT Forecast Source
Length
(MI)
Curr
VMT 2030 VMT Road Surface
Width
(FT)
Lane
QTY.
Shld
Width
Capacity
(VPD)
Current
V/C
Short-Range
Needs
Short Range
Costs
Improved
Capac (VPD)
2030 V/Existing
Capacity
2030 V
/ C 2030 Needs
2030 Improved
Capacity
Long Term
Improvement Cost
070 CR 21 CR 19 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 760 2004 1,200 Growth Factor 0.99 752 1,212 Gravel 24 2 1 400 1.90 Pave $990,000 10,000 3.06 0.12 10,000
070 CR 19 CR 17 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 1,134 2004 1,800 Growth Factor 1.02 1,157 1,863 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 2 400 2.84 Pave $1,020,000 10,000 4.57 0.18 10,000
070 CR 17 CR 15 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 1,134 2004 1,800 Growth Factor 1.00 1,134 1,826 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 2 400 2.84 Pave $1,000,000 10,000 4.57 0.18 10,000
070 CR 15 CR 13 NORTH BOUND Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 1,840 2002 2,800 NFR Model 0.94 1,724 2,636 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.26 7,000 0.40 0.40 7,000
070 CR 13 SOUTH BOUND CR 11 SOUTH BOUND Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 1,854 2002 2,800 NFR Model 1.02 1,891 2,869 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.26 7,000 0.40 0.40 7,000
070 CR 11 SOUTH BOUND CR 11 NORTH BOUND Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 1,886 2002 2,800 NFR Model 0.06 113 169 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.27 7,000 0.40 0.40 7,000
070 CR 11 NORTH BOUND CR 9 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 1,990 2000 2,800 NFR Model 0.91 1,811 2,560 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.28 7,000 0.40 0.40 7,000
070 CR 9 CR 7 NORTH BOUND Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 2,141 2004 3,400 NFR Model 0.99 2,126 3,350 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.31 7,000 0.48 0.48 7,000
070 CR 7 NORTH BOUND CR 7 SOUTH BOUND Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 2,141 2004 3,400 NFR Model 0.05 96 152 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.31 7,000 0.48 0.48 7,000
070 CR 7 SOUTH BOUND I-25 SURFACE CHANGE Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 2,141 2004 3,400 NFR Model 0.17 364 574 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.31 7,000 0.48 0.48 7,000
070 I-25 SURFACE CHANGE CR 5 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 466 2002 3,400 NFR Model 0.41 192 1,387 Gravel 24 2 2 400 1.17 Pave $411,000 10,000 8.44 0.34 10,000
070 CR 5 CR 3 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 376 2002 700 Growth Factor 1.00 376 691 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.94 400 1.73 1.73 Pave 10,000 $999,000
072 US 287 CR 21 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 1,370 2004 2,300 NFR Model 3.23 4,425 7,574 Gravel 24 2 4 400 3.43 Pave $3,230,000 10,000 5.86 0.23 10,000
072 CR 21 CR 17 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 313 2002 2,100 NFR Model 2.06 645 4,318 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.78 400 5.24 5.24 Pave 10,000 $2,060,000
072 CR 17 CR 15 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 775 2002 2,100 NFR Model 1.00 775 2,096 Gravel 24 2 1 400 1.94 Pave $1,000,000 10,000 5.24 0.21 10,000
072 CR 15 CR 13 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 89 2002 2,100 NFR Model 0.99 88 2,075 Gravel 24 2 8 400 0.22 400 5.24 5.24 Pave 10,000 $990,000
072 CR 13 CR 11 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 66 2002 2,100 NFR Model 0.98 65 2,054 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.17 400 5.24 5.24 Pave 10,000 $980,000
072E BEG CNTY MAINT - 11E CR 11 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R NA 0N/A 0.25 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.00 400 0.00 0.00 400
073C CR 74E/162 SURFACE CHANGE Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,143 2003 1,900 Growth Factor 1.16 1,326 2,175 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.16 7,100 0.26 0.26 7,100
073C SURFACE CHANGE CR 180 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 600 2003 1,000 Growth Factor 4.08 2,449 4,018 Gravel 24 2 0 400 1.50 Pave $6,327,100 8,300 2.46 0.12 8,300
074 CR 17 CR 15 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 89 2002 150 Growth Factor 1.00 89 164 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.22 400 0.41 0.41 400
074 I-25 E. FRONTAGE RD CR 5 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 364 1998 750 Growth Factor 0.17 62 125 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.91 400 1.83 1.83 Pave 10,000 $171,000
074 CR 5 COUNTY LINE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 374 2002 700 Growth Factor 1.99 744 1,368 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.94 400 1.72 1.72 Pave 10,000 $1,989,000
APPENDIX A - ROAD INVENTORY
Larimer County
Road Section FROM TO Func Class Juris. UGA
Regional
CR?
Area
Type ADT Date
2030
ADT Forecast Source
Length
(MI)
Curr
VMT 2030 VMT Road Surface
Width
(FT)
Lane
QTY.
Shld
Width
Capacity
(VPD)
Current
V/C
Short-Range
Needs
Short Range
Costs
Improved
Capac (VPD)
2030 V/Existing
Capacity
2030 V
/ C 2030 Needs
2030 Improved
Capacity
Long Term
Improvement Cost
901 US 34 CR 26 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 602 2003 1,000 Growth Factor 2.01 1,209 1,984 Gravel 24 2 2 400 1.51 Pave $2,009,000 10,000 2.47 0.10 10,000
901 END CL BEGIN CL Minor Arterial UN NO NO R 2,915 2000 5,100 Growth Factor 0.75 2,186 3,789 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.29 10,000 0.51 0.51 10,000
901 ABUT #1… SH 392 Minor Arterial WC NO NO R 2,915 2000 5,100 Growth Factor 0.42 1,233 2,137 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.34 8,500 0.59 0.59 8,500
901 SH 392 CR 32E / WCR 68 1/2 Minor Arterial WC NO NO R 229 2004 3,200 NFR Model 0.50 115 1,598 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.03 8,500 0.38 0.38 8,500
901 CR 32E / WCR 68 1/2 WCR 78 Minor Arterial WC NO NO R 249 2005 3,200 NFR Model 4.51 1,123 14,256 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.62 400 7.90 7.90 Pave 10,000 $4,510,000
901 WELD C R 78 CR 44 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 323 2003 550 Growth Factor 1.09 353 580 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 0 400 0.81 400 1.32 1.32 Pave 10,000 $1,094,000
901 CR 44 SH 14 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 288 2003 450 Growth Factor 1.01 290 475 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.04 7,000 0.07 0.07 7,000
901 SH 14 CR 48 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 359 2003 600 Growth Factor 1.01 361 592 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.90 400 1.47 1.47 Pave 10,000 $1,006,000
901 CR 48 CR 52 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 292 2003 500 Growth Factor 2.01 588 965 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.73 400 1.20 1.20 Pave 10,000 $2,014,000
901 CR 52 CR 54 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 208 2002 350 Growth Factor 1.00 207 346 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.52 400 0.87 0.87 400
901 CR 54 CR 56 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 118 2002 200 Growth Factor 1.00 118 198 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.30 400 0.49 0.49 400
901 CR 56 CR 62 Major Collector WC NO NO R 40 2002 70 Growth Factor 3.00 120 200 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.10 400 0.17 0.17 400
904 CR 905 CR 4 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,909 2004 3,100 Growth Factor 1.00 1,909 3,075 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.27 7,000 0.44 0.44 7,000
904 CR 4 CR 6C Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,909 2004 3,100 Growth Factor 1.26 2,405 3,874 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.27 7,000 0.44 0.44 7,000
904 CR 6C SH 56 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,030 2004 3,300 Growth Factor 0.74 1,502 2,419 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 6,400 0.32 6,400 0.51 0.51 6,400
904 SH 56 CR 10 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 622 2004 1,000 Growth Factor 1.02 634 1,022 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 6,400 0.10 6,400 0.16 0.16 6,400
904 CR 10 CR 12 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 215 2004 350 Growth Factor 1.01 217 350 Gravel 21 2 0 400 0.54 400 0.87 0.87 400
904 CR 12 SH 60 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 307 2004 500 Growth Factor 1.12 344 554 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.77 400 1.24 1.24 Pave 10,000 $1,120,000
905 GATE - BEGIN MAINT CR 23E Local Roads LCRB NO NO R N/A 0.48 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.00 400 0.00 0.00 400
905 CR 23E CR 21 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R NA 0 N/A 1.53 Gravel 22 2 0
905 BOULDER C 145 CR 15 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 303 2004 500 Growth Factor 0.48 145 234 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.03 10,000 0.05 0.05 10,000
905 CR 15 CR 904 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 297 2004 500 Growth Factor 1.00 297 478 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.74 400 1.20 1.20 Pave 10,000 $1,000,000
Larimer County
Transportation Plan
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Appendix B
APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST
Base Assumptions for Roadway Costs:
• Depth of Aggregate Base Course:
o 6 inches for widening
o 8 inches for new mountainous roads and gravel surfacing
o 9 or 12 inches for new urban roads (Pavement varies – see next item)
o 12 inches for new rolling terrain roads
• Depth of Hot Bituminous Pavements:
o 4 inches for mountainous roads
o 5 inches for rolling terrain roads
o 6 inches for urban roads w/ 12 inch base
o 7 inches for urban roads w/ 9 inch base
• Lane Widths = 12 feet
o 2 Lanes used for 2-lane Reconstruction and New
o 3 Lanes used for Semi-Urban transitional section
o 4 Lanes used for 2 to 4 lane widening (Rolling terrain and Urban Streets)
• Shoulder Widths:
o 2 foot for gravel roads
o 4 foot for mountainous roads
o 6 foot for rolling terrain roads
o Curb with 6 foot bike lanes for Urban streets
• Median Widths = 16 feet for Urban Sections
• Additional Base Course and Pavement was included for urban and 2-lane rolling
terrain sections to accommodate turning movements.
• Earthwork Quantities were based on a corridor width equal to the Full Surfacing
Width + 75 percent.
• Earthwork depths:
o 2 feet for widening, gravel roads, and urban streets
o 5 feet for mountainous terrain widening
o 7.5 feet for new mountainous roads
• Traffic Signals assumed to be required for 4-Leg Intersections and to include
right turn lanes for arterial streets.
• Urban sections include Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk both sides (one side for 2 to 3
lane Semi-Urban Section).
• Mobilization and Traffic Control assumed to be 10 percent of total Construction
Bid Items.
• Engineering (Design and Construction) assumed to be 20 percent of total
Construction Bid Items.
• Costs do not include right-of-way, landscaping/aesthetics, or utility
relocations/upgrades. These should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Larimer County, Colorado
Conceptual Opinion of Construction Costs
Roadway Type: (select one)
RURAL SECTIONS
X Lane and Shoulder Widening / Pave Gravel Road
Construct new Two-Lane Road w/ shoulders
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
URBAN SECTIONS
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
Upgrade Existing Road to Four-Lane Urban Arterial
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Signals (1 per mile - Urban Only)
Estimated Costs
ITEM No. Description Unit Quantity
(per Mile) Unit Cost Per Mile Cost
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
2 Removal of Existing Surfacing SY 0 $ 5 *
3 Earthwork (Excavation or Embankment) CIP CY 24700 $ 15 $ 370,500
4 Topsoil and Reseeding AC 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000
5 Aggregate Base Course (CL 6) CY 3600 $ 25 $ 90,000
6 Hot Bituminous Pavements TN 5200 $ 50 $ 260,000
7 Storm Mainline (36 Inch RCP full-length) LF 0 $ 45 $ -
8
Storm Laterals (18 Inch RCP full section-width
+10 feet, every 1500 LF) LF 0 $ 30 $ -
9 Manholes (1 per 1500 LF) EA 0 $ 3,000 $ -
10 Inlets (2 per 1500 LF) EA 0 $ 2,750 $ -
11 Concrete Sidewalk (6 Foot Wide - 2 Sides) SY 0 $ 35 $ -
12 Concrete Curb Ramp (4 Corners) SY 0 $ 75 $ -
13 Curb and Gutter LF 0 $ 15 $ -
14 Traffic Signal (assumed for 4-legs) EA 0 $ 250,000 $ -
15 Subtotal Construction Bid Items (CBI) $ 742,500
16 Mobilization and Traffic Control (10% of CBI) $ 74,250
17 Construction and Design Engineering (20% of CBI) $ 148,500
18 TOTAL CBI + Engineering $ 965,250
* Removals included in Clearing and Grubbing USE $ 1,000,000
Larimer County, Colorado
Conceptual Opinion of Construction Costs
Roadway Type: (select one)
RURAL SECTIONS
Lane and Shoulder Widening / Pave Gravel Road
Construct new Two-Lane Road w/ shoulders
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
URBAN SECTIONS
X Lane and Shoulder Widening / Pave Gravel Road
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
Upgrade Existing Road to Four-Lane Urban Arterial
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Signals (1 per mile - Urban Only)
Estimated Costs
ITEM No. Description Unit Quantity
(per Mile) Unit Cost Per Mile Cost
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
2 Removal of Existing Surfacing SY 0 $ 5 *
3 Earthwork (Excavation or Embankment) CIP CY 48000 $ 15 $ 720,000
4 Topsoil and Reseeding AC 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000
5 Aggregate Base Course (CL 6) CY 2800 $ 25 $ 70,000
6 Hot Bituminous Pavements TN 6000 $ 50 $ 300,000
7 Storm Mainline (36 Inch RCP full-length) LF 0 $ 45 $ -
8
Storm Laterals (18 Inch RCP full section-width
+10 feet, every 1500 LF) LF 0 $ 30 $ -
9 Manholes (1 per 1500 LF) EA 0 $ 3,000 $ -
10 Inlets (2 per 1500 LF) EA 0 $ 2,750 $ -
11 Concrete Sidewalk (6 Foot Wide - 2 Sides) SY 0 $ 35 $ -
12 Concrete Curb Ramp (4 Corners) SY 0 $ 75 $ -
13 Curb and Gutter LF 0 $ 15 $ -
14 Traffic Signal (assumed for 4-legs) EA 0 $ 250,000 $ -
15 Subtotal Construction Bid Items (CBI) $ 1,112,000
16 Mobilization and Traffic Control (10% of CBI) $ 111,200
17 Construction and Design Engineering (20% of CBI) $ 222,400
18 TOTAL CBI + Engineering $ 1,445,600
* Removals included in Clearing and Grubbing USE $ 1,450,000
Larimer County, Colorado
Conceptual Opinion of Construction Costs
Roadway Type: (select one)
MOUNTAINOUS SECTIONS
Lane and Shoulder Widening
X Construct new Two-Lane Road w/ shoulders
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
URBAN SECTIONS
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
Upgrade Existing Road to Four-Lane Urban Arterial
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Signals (1 per mile - Urban Only)
Estimated Costs
ITEM No. Description Unit Quantity
(per Mile) Unit Cost Per Mile Cost
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
2 Removal of Existing Surfacing SY 0 $ 5 *
3 Earthwork (Excavation or Embankment) CIP CY 82200 $ 15 $ 1,233,000
4 Topsoil and Reseeding AC 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000
5 Aggregate Base Course (CL 6) CY 7600 $ 25 $ 190,000
6 Hot Bituminous Pavements TN 6900 $ 50 $ 345,000
7 Storm Mainline (36 Inch RCP full-length) LF 0 $ 45 $ -
8
Storm Laterals (18 Inch RCP full section-width
+10 feet, every 1500 LF) LF 0 $ 30 $ -
9 Manholes (1 per 1500 LF) EA 0 $ 3,000 $ -
10 Inlets (2 per 1500 LF) EA 0 $ 2,750 $ -
11 Concrete Sidewalk (6 Foot Wide - 2 Sides) SY 0 $ 35 $ -
12 Concrete Curb Ramp (4 Corners) SY 0 $ 75 $ -
13 Curb and Gutter LF 0 $ 15 $ -
14 Traffic Signal (assumed for 4-legs) EA 0 $ 250,000 $ -
15 Subtotal Construction Bid Items (CBI) $ 1,790,000
16 Mobilization and Traffic Control (10% of CBI) $ 179,000
17 Construction and Design Engineering (20% of CBI) $ 358,000
18 TOTAL CBI + Engineering $ 2,327,000
* Removals included in Clearing and Grubbing USE $ 2,350,000
Larimer County, Colorado
Conceptual Opinion of Construction Costs
Roadway Type: (select one)
RURAL SECTIONS
Lane and Shoulder Widening / Pave Gravel Road
X Construct new Two-Lane Road w/ shoulders
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
URBAN SECTIONS
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
Upgrade Existing Road to Four-Lane Urban Arterial
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Signals (1 per mile - Urban Only)
Estimated Costs
ITEM No. Description Unit Quantity
(per Mile) Unit Cost Per Mile Cost
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
2 Removal of Existing Surfacing SY 0 $ 5 *
3 Earthwork (Excavation or Embankment) CIP CY 61600 $ 15 $ 924,000
4 Topsoil and Reseeding AC 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000
5 Aggregate Base Course (CL 6) CY 5700 $ 25 $ 142,500
6 Hot Bituminous Pavements TN 6200 $ 50 $ 310,000
7 Storm Mainline (36 Inch RCP full-length) LF 0 $ 45 $ -
8
Storm Laterals (18 Inch RCP full section-width
+10 feet, every 1500 LF) LF 0 $ 30 $ -
9 Manholes (1 per 1500 LF) EA 0 $ 3,000 $ -
10 Inlets (2 per 1500 LF) EA 0 $ 2,750 $ -
11 Concrete Sidewalk (6 Foot Wide - 2 Sides) SY 0 $ 35 $ -
12 Concrete Curb Ramp (4 Corners) SY 0 $ 75 $ -
13 Curb and Gutter LF 0 $ 15 $ -
14 Traffic Signal (assumed for 4-legs) EA 0 $ 250,000 $ -
15 Subtotal Construction Bid Items (CBI) $ 1,398,500
16 Mobilization and Traffic Control (10% of CBI) $ 139,850
17 Construction and Design Engineering (20% of CBI) $ 279,700
18 TOTAL CBI + Engineering $ 1,818,050
* Removals included in Clearing and Grubbing USE $ 1,850,000
Larimer County, Colorado
Conceptual Opinion of Construction Costs
Roadway Type: (select one)
RURAL SECTIONS
Lane and Shoulder Widening / Pave Gravel Road
Construct new Two-Lane Road w/ shoulders
X Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
URBAN SECTIONS
X Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
Upgrade Existing Road to Four-Lane Urban Arterial
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
X Signals (1 per mile - Urban Only)
Estimated Costs
ITEM No. Description Unit Quantity
(per Mile) Unit Cost Per Mile Cost
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
2 Removal of Existing Surfacing SY 15900 $ 5 *
3 Earthwork (Excavation or Embankment) CIP CY 37000 $ 15 $ 555,000
4 Topsoil and Reseeding AC 5 $ 3,000 $ 15,000
5 Aggregate Base Course (CL 6) CY 10600 $ 25 $ 265,000
6 Hot Bituminous Pavements TN 11500 $ 50 $ 575,000
7 Storm Mainline (36 Inch RCP full-length) LF 5280 $ 45 $ 237,600
8
Storm Laterals (18 Inch RCP full section-width
+10 feet, every 1500 LF) LF 256 $ 30 $ 7,680
9 Manholes (1 per 1500 LF) EA 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000
10 Inlets (2 per 1500 LF) EA 8 $ 2,750 $ 22,000
11 Concrete Sidewalk (6 Foot Wide - 1 Side) SY 3525 $ 35 $ 123,375
12 Concrete Curb Ramp (2 Corners) SY 40 $ 75 $ 3,000
13 Curb and Gutter (1 Side) LF 5300 $ 15 $ 79,500
14 Traffic Signal (assumed for 4-legs) EA 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
15 Subtotal Construction Bid Items (CBI) $ 2,155,155
16 Mobilization and Traffic Control (10% of CBI) $ 215,516
17 Construction and Design Engineering (20% of CBI) $ 431,031
18 TOTAL CBI + Engineering $ 2,801,702
* Removals included in Clearing and Grubbing USE $ 2,850,000
Larimer County, Colorado
Conceptual Opinion of Construction Costs
Roadway Type: (select one)
RURAL SECTIONS
Lane and Shoulder Widening
Construct new Two-Lane Road w/ shoulders
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
URBAN SECTIONS
Widen Two-Lane Road to Three-Lane Section w/ shoulders
X Upgrade Existing Road to Four-Lane Urban Arterial
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
X Signals (1 per mile - Urban Only)
Estimated Costs
ITEM No. Description Unit Quantity
(per Mile) Unit Cost Per Mile Cost
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
2 Removal of Existing Surfacing SY 18400 $ 5 *
3 Earthwork (Excavation or Embankment) CIP CY 71200 $ 15 $ 1,068,000
4 Topsoil and Reseeding AC 10 $ 3,000 $ 30,000
5 Aggregate Base Course (CL 6) CY 15300 $ 25 $ 382,500
6 Hot Bituminous Pavements TN 25900 $ 50 $ 1,295,000
7 Storm Mainline (36 Inch RCP full-length) LF 5280 $ 45 $ 237,600
8
Storm Laterals (18 Inch RCP full section-width
+10 feet, every 1500 LF) LF 460 $ 30 $ 13,800
9 Manholes (1 per 1500 LF) EA 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000
10 Inlets (2 per 1500 LF)(x2 for Median) EA 8 $ 2,750 $ 22,000
11 Concrete Sidewalk (6 Foot Wide - 2 Sides) SY 7040 $ 35 $ 246,400
12 Concrete Curb Ramp (4 Corners) SY 80 $ 75 $ 6,000
13 Curb and Gutter (x2 for Median) LF 21200 $ 15 $ 318,000
14 Traffic Signal (assumed for 4-legs) EA 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
15 Subtotal Construction Bid Items (CBI) $ 3,891,300
16 Mobilization and Traffic Control (10% of CBI) $ 389,130
17 Construction and Design Engineering (20% of CBI) $ 778,260
18 TOTAL CBI + Engineering $ 5,058,690
* Removals included in Clearing and Grubbing USE $ 5,100,000
Quantity Calculations Lane & Shoulder Widening / Pave Gravel Road
Number of Lanes: 2 (Mountainous)
Lane Width: 12
Shoulder Width: 2
Median Width: 0
Total Pavement Width: 28 feet No pavements - minimal shoulders
Aggregate Depth: 8 inches
Pavement Depth: 0 inches
Assumed Earthwork Depth: 2 Use 2' to smooth Native Terrain
USE
Removal of Surfacing per mile Area (SY): Assume part of Clearing & Grubbing -
Earthwork per mile Volume (CY): 19164 (Uncl. Ex or Embankment) 19,200
Topsoil/Reseeding per mile Area (Acre): n/a (Earthwork Area less Roadway Area) n/a
Aggregate Base per mile Volume (CY): 3650 (Class 6) 3,700
Hot Bit. Pavement per mile Volume (Ton): 0 (Includes Emulsifieds) + 33% -
Quantity Calculations Lane & Shoulder Widening / Pave Gravel Road
Number of Lanes: 2 (Mountainous)
Lane Width: 12
Shoulder Width: 4
Median Width: 0
Total Pavement Width: 32 feet No provision for turn lanes
Aggregate Depth: 6 inches
Pavement Depth: 4 inches
Assumed Earthwork Depth: 5 Use 5' reconstruction, 5' new (rolling/urban)/7.5' new (mountainous)
USE
Removal of Surfacing per mile Area (SY): Assume part of Clearing & Grubbing -
Earthwork per mile Volume (CY): 54756 (Uncl. Ex or Embankment) 54,800
Topsoil/Reseeding per mile Area (Acre): 3.88 (Earthwork Area less Roadway Area) 4
Aggregate Base per mile Volume (CY): 3129 (Class 6) 3,200
Hot Bit. Pavement per mile Volume (Ton): 4543 (Includes Emulsifieds) + 33% 4,600
Number of Lanes: 2 (Rolling)
Lane Width: 12
Shoulder Width: 6
Median Width: 0
Total Pavement Width: 36 feet No provision for turn lanes
Aggregate Depth: 6 inches
Pavement Depth: 4 inches
Assumed Earthwork Depth: 2 Use 2' reconstruction, 5' new (rolling/urban)/7.5' new (mountainous)
USE
Removal of Surfacing per mile Area (SY): Assume part of Clearing & Grubbing -
Earthwork per mile Volume (CY): 24640 (Uncl. Ex or Embankment) 24,700
Topsoil/Reseeding per mile Area (Acre): 3.27 (Earthwork Area less Roadway Area) 4
Aggregate Base per mile Volume (CY): 3520 (Class 6) 3,600
Hot Bit. Pavement per mile Volume (Ton): 5111 (Includes Emulsifieds) + 33% 5,200
Number of Lanes: 2 (Urban)
Lane Width: 12
Shoulder Width: 2
Median Width: 0
Total Pavement Width: 28 feet No provision for turn lanes
Aggregate Depth: 6 inches
Pavement Depth: 6 inches
Assumed Earthwork Depth: 5 Use 2' reconstruction, 5' new (rolling/urban)/7.5' new (mountainous)
USE
Removal of Surfacing per mile Area (SY): Assume part of Clearing & Grubbing -
Earthwork per mile Volume (CY): 47911 (Uncl. Ex or Embankment) 48,000
Topsoil/Reseeding per mile Area (Acre): 2.55 (Earthwork Area less Roadway Area) 3
Aggregate Base per mile Volume (CY): 2738 (Class 6) 2,800
Hot Bit. Pavement per mile Volume (Ton): 5963 (Includes Emulsifieds) + 33% 6,000
Quantity Calculations New 2 Lane Sections
Number of Lanes: 2 (Mountainous)
Lane Width: 12
Shoulder Width: 4
Median Width: 0
Total Pavement Width: 32 feet (+20 percent for turn lanes) ABC and HBP
Aggregate Depth: 12 inches
Pavement Depth: 5 inches
Assumed Earthwork Depth: 7.5 Use 5' reconstruction, 5' new (rolling/urban)/7.5' new (mountainous)
(Averaged) USE
Removal of Surfacing per mile Area (SY): Assume part of Clearing & Grubbing -
Earthwork per mile Volume (CY): 82133 (Uncl. Ex or Embankment) 82,200
Topsoil/Reseeding per mile Area (Acre): 3 (Earthwork Area less Roadway Area) 3
Aggregate Base per mile Volume (CY): 7509 (Class 6) 7,600
Hot Bit. Pavement per mile Volume (Ton): 6815 (Includes Emulsifieds) 6,900
Number of Lanes: 2 (Rolling)
Lane Width: 12
Shoulder Width: 6
Median Width: 0
Total Pavement Width: 36 feet (+20 percent for turn lanes) ABC and HBP
Aggregate Depth: 8 inches
Pavement Depth: 4 inches
Assumed Earthwork Depth: 5 Use 2' reconstruction, 5' new (rolling/urban)/7.5' new (mountainous)
USE
Removal of Surfacing per mile Area (SY): Assume part of Clearing & Grubbing -
Earthwork per mile Volume (CY): 61600 (Uncl. Ex or Embankment) 61,600
Topsoil/Reseeding per mile Area (Acre): 3.27 (Earthwork Area less Roadway Area) 4
Aggregate Base per mile Volume (CY): 5632 (Class 6) 5,700
Hot Bit. Pavement per mile Volume (Ton): 6133 (Includes Emulsifieds) 6,200
Quantity Calculations 2 to 3 Lane Reconstruction (Semi-Urban)
Number of Lanes: 3 (Semi-Urban Collector)
Lane Width: 12
Shoulder Width: 6 Bike Lane (Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk One Side Only)
Median Width: 0
Total Pavement Width: 54 feet Includes Turn Lanes
Aggregate Depth: 12 inches
Pavement Depth: 6 inches
Assumed Earthwork Depth: 2 Use 2' reconstruction, 5' new (rolling/urban)/7.5' new (mountainous)
USE
Removal of Surfacing per mile Area (SY): 15840 (50% of new) 15,900
Earthwork per mile Volume (CY): 36960 (Uncl. Ex or Embankment) 37,000
Topsoil/Reseeding per mile Area (Acre): 4.91 (Earthwork Area less Roadway Area) 5
Aggregate Base per mile Volume (CY): 10560 (Class 6) 10,600
Hot Bit. Pavement per mile Volume (Ton): 11500 (Includes Emulsifieds) 11,500
Quantity Calculations 4 Lane Upgrade
Number of Lanes: 4 (Urban Arterial)
Lane Width: 12
Shoulder Width: 6 Bike Lane
Median Width: 8 (1/2 width per side)
Total Pavement Width: 104 feet Includes Turn Lanes
Aggregate Depth: 9 inches
Pavement Depth: 7 inches
Assumed Earthwork Depth: 2 Use 2' reconstruction, 5' new (rolling/urban)/7.5' new (mountainous)
USE
Removal of Surfacing per mile Area (SY): 18304 (30% of new) 18,400
Earthwork per mile Volume (CY): 71182 (Uncl. Ex or Embankment) 71,200
Topsoil/Reseeding per mile Area (Acre): 9.45 (Earthwork Area less Roadway Area) 10
Aggregate Base per mile Volume (CY): 15253 (Class 6) 15,300
Hot Bit. Pavement per mile Volume (Ton): 25839 (Includes Emulsifieds) 25,900
FELSBURG
HOL T &
ULLEVIG
FELSBURG
HOL T &
ULLEVIG
303.721.1440
fax 303.721.0832
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600
Centennial, CO 80111
2018 Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee
Prepared for:
Larimer County, Colorado
April 9, 2018
Prepared by:
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
301.320.6900
www.tischlerbise.com
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................3
COLORADO IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION ................................................................................................ 3
ADDITIONAL LEGAL GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................................... 4
CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION ......................................................................... 5
Figure 1: Current and Proposed Benefit Districts .................................................................................. 6
Figure 2: Current and Proposed County Road Transportation Capital Expansion Fees ........................ 7
Figure 3: Current and Proposed Regional Road Transportation Capital Expansion Fees ..................... 8
Figure 4: Combined Current and Proposed Transportation Capital Expansion Fees ............................ 8
Figure 5: Transportation Fee Comparisons ........................................................................................... 9
GENERAL METHODS FOR CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES .......................................................................... 10
Cost Recovery Method (past improvements) ...................................................................................... 10
Incremental Expansion Method (concurrent improvements) ............................................................. 10
Plan-Based Method (future improvements) ....................................................................................... 10
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CREDITS ................................................................................................................. 10
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Methodology Chart ................................................. 12
TRIP GENERATION RATES .............................................................................................................................. 13
ADJUSTMENTS FOR COMMUTING PATTERNS AND PASS-BY TRIPS ........................................................................ 13
Figure 7: Inflow/Outflow Analysis ....................................................................................................... 13
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL ............................................................................................................................ 14
Lane Capacity ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Trip Length Weighting Factor by Type of Land Use ............................................................................ 14
Figure 8: Average Trip Length Weighting Factors in North Front Range ............................................ 15
DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES AND PROJECTED TRAVEL DEMAND.......................................................................... 15
Figure 9: County Road Projected Travel Demand and Trip Length Calibration .................................. 17
Figure 10: Regional Road Projected Travel Demand and Trip Length Calibration .............................. 18
NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR GROWTH-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................. 18
REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION ...................................................................................................................... 19
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 11: 2018 County Road TCEF Schedule ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 12: 2018 Regional Road TCEF Schedule ................................................................................... 21
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND FUNDING STRATEGY FOR COUNTY AND REGIONAL ROADS ............................................ 22
Figure 13: Capital Costs and Projected TCEF Revenue for County Roads ........................................... 22
Figure 14: Capital Costs and Projected TCEF Revenue for Regional Roads ......................................... 23
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................... 24
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS .................................................................................................................... 24
ONE BENEFIT DISTRICTS ............................................................................................................................... 24
EXPENDITURE GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................................ 24
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
2
DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES .......................................................................................................................... 25
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS ............................................ 26
SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS .............................................................................................................. 26
Figure A1: Development Projections and Growth Rates ..................................................................... 27
RECENT COUNTYWIDE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 28
Figure A2: Housing Units by Decade ................................................................................................... 28
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 29
Figure A3: Jobs and Floor Area Estimate ............................................................................................ 29
Figure A4: Employee and Building Area Ratios ................................................................................... 30
DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS .......................................................................................................... 30
Figure A5: Cumulative Demographics and Annual Increases ............................................................. 31
CUSTOMIZED TRIP GENERATION RATES PER HOUSING UNIT ............................................................................... 32
Unincorporated Area Control Totals ................................................................................................... 32
Figure A6: Persons per Housing Unit ................................................................................................... 32
Figure A7: Vehicles Available per Housing Unit .................................................................................. 33
Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size ................................................................................................... 34
Figure A8: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Bedroom Range .................................................. 34
TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA ................................................................................................................. 35
Figure A9: Vehicle Trips by Dwelling Size ............................................................................................ 35
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
3
INTRODUCTION
Larimer County’s Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) study was completed in 2006, prior to the
Great Recession. Since then, the real estate market and capital cost of transportation improvements have
changed, requiring an update of the fee study. Transportation capital expansion fees are one-time
payments for new development’s proportionate share of the capital cost of infrastructure. Transportation
capital expansion fees do have limitations and should not be regarded as the total solution for
infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive funding strategy to ensure
provision of adequate public facilities. Transportation capital expansion fees may only be used for capital
improvements or debt service for growth-related infrastructure. Transportation capital expansion fees
may not be used for operations, maintenance, replacement of infrastructure, or correcting existing
deficiencies. Although Colorado is a “home-rule” state and home-rule municipalities were already
collecting “impact fees” under their home-rule authority granted in the Colorado Constitution, the
Colorado Legislature passed enabling legislation in 2001, as discussed further below.
COLORADO IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION
For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to
determine basic options and requirements established by state law. Some states have more conservative
legal parameters that basically restrict local government to specifically authorized actions. In contrast,
“home-rule” states grant local governments broader powers that may or may not be precluded or
preempted by state statutes depending on the circumstances and on the state’s particular laws.
Impact fees (or capital expansion fees) are one-time payments imposed on new development that must
be used solely to fund growth-related capital projects, typically called “system improvements”. A capital
expansion fee represents new growth’s proportionate share of capital facility needs. In contrast to
project-level improvements, capital expansion fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple
development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship
between the new development and the need for the growth-related infrastructure. Project-level
improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to transportation
improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes.
According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, capital expansion fees must be legislatively
adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of
property. The purpose of capital expansion fees is to defray capital costs directly related to proposed
development. The statutes of other states allow capital expansion fee schedules to include administrative
costs related to capital expansion fees and the preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not
specifically authorized in Colorado’s statute. Capital expansion fees do have limitations and should not be
regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one component of a
comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities. Because system improvements
are larger and costlier, they may require bond financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. To
be funded by capital expansion fees, Section 29-20-104.5 requires that the capital improvements must
have a useful life of at least five years. By law, capital expansion fees can only be used for capital
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
4
improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Also, capital expansion fees cannot be used to repair
or correct existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure.
ADDITIONAL LEGAL GUIDELINES
Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a
legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against
regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth
Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. To comply
with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate
governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the protection of public health, safety,
and welfare by ensuring development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The
means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process
followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings)
provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the capital expansion fees.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with capital expansion fees, although other rulings on
other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important
exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on
development must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between the exaction and the interest being
protected (see Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of
Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be “roughly proportional” to the burden
created by development.
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for capital expansion fees that are closely related
to “rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of state courts.
Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard by which courts
evaluate the validity of capital expansion fees under the U.S. Constitution, TischlerBise prefers a more
rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: “need,” “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual
rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied,
and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the
nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided
by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the
quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Capital expansion fees
may be used to cover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for
facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the
principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the
developments upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to capital expansion fees. In this
study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable
relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on
applicable level-of-service standards.
The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
5
is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the
methods used to calculate capital expansion fees for various types of facilities and categories of
development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of
development (e.g. a typical housing unit’s average weekday vehicle trips).
A sufficient benefit relationship requires that capital expansion fee revenues be segregated from other
funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of capital
expansion fees should also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded
by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the
state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to
development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real
estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near
the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new
development benefits from the capital expansion fees they are required to pay. The authority and
procedures to implement capital expansion fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to
require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review.
Capital expansion fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects
include, but are not limited to, the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e., turning lanes,
signalization or roundabouts) and widening roads (e.g. adding travel lanes, paved shoulders, and bike
lanes). Whenever improvements are made to existing roads, non-capital expansion fee funding is typically
required to help pay a portion of the cost.
CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION
After reviewing the existing transportation fee study, collaborating with County staff, and receiving input
from a stakeholder group, TischlerBise recommends several changes to the 2018 transportation fees.
First, the proposed transportation fees will be easier to administer by switching from 9
residential categories to fees based on dwelling size, measured by square feet of finished living
space. Also, 26 nonresidential categories will be consolidated into three general nonresidential
types.
Second, the 2018 fees improve proportionality for residential development because smaller
dwellings, that typically have fewer persons, vehicles available, and lower trip generation rates,
will no longer pay the same amount as larger dwellings that average more persons, vehicles
available, and higher trip generation rates (see Appendix A for details).
Third, TischlerBise recommends consolidating from four to one Benefit Districts, which are
used to track revenues and expenditures (see Figure 1). This will provide greater flexibility for
expenditures and enable capital improvements to be constructed sooner.
Major reasons for continuing transportation fees are summarized in the following bullet points:
Infrastructure capacity is essential to accommodate new development.
Adequate public facilities influence quality of place, which is essential to attract and retain
residents.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
6
Capital expansion fees minimize externalities, like traffic congestion, associated with “no-
growth” sentiment.
Compared to negotiating agreements (during the development approval process) for
transportation system improvements, capital expansion fees offer a streamlined approval
process with known costs (i.e. more predictability).
Transportation capital expansion fees are currently collected and spent within four Benefit Districts, as
shown in Figure 1 (represented by four colors). The 2018 update recommends only one Benefit District. A
Benefit District is a region in which a defined set of improvements provide benefit to an identifiable
amount of new development. Within the area, all new development is assessed at the same rate. Land
use assumptions are defined in terms of this geography, so that capital facility demand, projects needed
to meet that demand, and capital facility cost are all quantified in the same terms. Additionally,
implementation of a large number of small service areas is problematic because funds collected within a
Benefit District should be spent within that area. Multiple service areas may make it difficult to accumulate
sufficient revenue to fund any project as well.
Figure 1: Current and Proposed Benefit Districts
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
7
Current and proposed transportation capital expansion fees are summarized in Figure 2 - 4. The fee is
broken into two categories, County and Regional Roads. In Figure 4, the two categories are combined. The
two columns on the right side of the table below indicate current transportation fees and the proposed
increase or decrease. Proposed transportation fees decrease for nonresidential development, but
increase for most of the residential units. For the average size detached house (1,801 to 2,400 square feet
of finished living space), the proposed increase is $570. Large houses with 3,601 or more square feet will
have to pay an additional $1,842 (Figure 4).
Given the recommended change from residential fees by type of housing to fees by dwelling size, it is
difficult to directly compare current and proposed fees for residential development. For example, the
current fee schedule provides a lower fee of $1,026 for structures that qualify as a mountain cabin. The
combined road transportation expansion fee proposed in Figure 4 for a dwelling with 900 square feet or
less is $2,109. For a multifamily apartment, the current fee is $2,525 per dwelling. Most multifamily
dwellings will be in the size range of 901 to 1,300 square feet, with a proposed fee of $2,955 per residential
unit.
Figure 2: Current and Proposed County Road Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
Development Type Proposed County
Road TCEF
Current (2017)
County TCEF
Increase or
Decrease
Percent
Change
Residential (per dwelling) by Sq Ft of Finished Living Space
900 or less# $1,946 $2,303 ($357) -16%
901 to 1300# $2,727 $2,303 $424 18%
1301 to 1800 $3,284 $3,280 $4 0.1%
1801 to 2400 $3,846 $3,280 $566 17%
2401 to 3000 $4,315 $3,280 $1,035 32%
3001 to 3600 $4,699 $3,280 $1,419 43%
3601 or more $5,020 $3,280 $1,740 53%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area)
Industrial $1,196 $2,776 ($1,580) -57%
Commercial $5,039 $8,459 ($3,420) -40%
Office & Other Services $2,965 $4,535 ($1,570) -35%
#This update proposes to remove the residential fee by housing type and replace with size-
based impact fee. To draw a comparison between the proposed fees and current fees, the
current multifamily fee is used as a comparison for the smaller housing sizes.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
8
Figure 3: Current and Proposed Regional Road Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
Figure 4: Combined Current and Proposed Transportation Capital Expansion Fees
Development Type Proposed Regional
Road TCEF
Current (2017)
Regional TCEF
Increase or
Decrease
Percent
Change
Residential (per dwelling) by Sq Ft of Finished Living Space
900 or less# $163 $222 ($59) -27%
901 to 1300# $228 $222 $6 3%
1301 to 1800 $275 $318 ($43) -14%
1801 to 2400 $322 $318 $4 1%
2401 to 3000 $361 $318 $43 14%
3001 to 3600 $393 $318 $75 24%
3601 or more $420 $318 $102 32%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area)
Industrial $100 $270 ($170) -63%
Commercial $422 $816 ($394) -48%
Office & Other Services $248 $440 ($192) -44%
#This update proposes to remove the residential fee by housing type and replace with size-
based impact fee. To draw a comparison between the proposed fees and current fees, the
current multifamily fee is used as a comparison for the smaller housing sizes.
Development Type Proposed 2017
TCEF
Current County
TCEF
Increase or
Decrease
Percent
Change
Residential (per dwelling) by Sq Ft of Finished Living Space
900 or less# $2,109 $2,525 ($416) -16%
901 to 1300# $2,955 $2,525 $430 17%
1301 to 1800 $3,559 $3,598 ($39) -1%
1801 to 2400 $4,168 $3,598 $570 16%
2401 to 3000 $4,676 $3,598 $1,078 30%
3001 to 3600 $5,092 $3,598 $1,494 42%
3601 or more $5,440 $3,598 $1,842 51%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area)
Industrial $1,296 $3,046 ($1,750) -57%
Commercial $5,461 $9,275 ($3,814) -41%
Office & Other Services $3,213 $4,975 ($1,762) -35%
#This update proposes to remove the residential fee by housing type and replace with
size-based impact fee. To draw a comparison between the proposed fees and current
fees, the current multifamily fee is used as a comparison for the smaller housing sizes.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
9
Figure 5 provides a comparison of current and proposed transportation fees in Larimer County to other
jurisdictions along the Front Range of Colorado.
Figure 5: Transportation Fee Comparisons
Jurisdiction Single Dwelling
Light Industrial
per KSF [2]
Commercial per
KSF [2]
Office per
KSF [2]
Fort Collins 2017 $4,777 $2,017 $8,507 $6,737
Larimer - Proposed [1] $3,971 $1,296 $5,461 $3,213
Windsor $3,838 $2,016 $5,076 $4,674
Jefferson County $3,716 $1,720 $5,930 $3,980
Larimer Current $3,598 $3,046 $9,275 $4,975
Loveland 2016 $3,519 $1,840 $7,730 $3,470
Weld County $2,377 $2,141 $3,296 $2,174
Timnath $2,003 $2,464 $4,954 $2,464
Wellington $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700
Adams County $1,599 $776 $2,131 $1,178
[1] Average sized residential unit
[2] 1,000 square feet of floor area
Note: Sorted by Single Dwelling fee
Source: Table compiled by TischlerBise
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
10
GENERAL METHODS FOR CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES
There are three general methods for calculating impact/capital expansion fees. The choice of a particular
method depends primarily on the timing of infrastructure construction (past, concurrent, or future) and
service characteristics of the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and
disadvantages in a particular situation and can be used simultaneously for different cost components.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact/capital expansion fees involves two main
steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those
costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact/capital
expansion fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the
relationship between development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The
following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating impact/capital expansion fees and how
those methods can be applied to Larimer County.
Cost Recovery Method (past improvements)
Although not used in Larimer County, the rationale for recoupment, or cost recovery, is that new
development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built, or
land already purchased, from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for utility
systems that must provide adequate capacity before new development can take place.
Incremental Expansion Method (concurrent improvements)
Larimer County transportation capital expansion fees use the incremental expansion method to document
current level-of-service (LOS) standards for transportation, using both quantitative and qualitative
measures. This approach assumes there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in
the transportation system. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related
infrastructure. Revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate
new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be
expanded in regular increments to keep pace with development.
Plan-Based Method (future improvements)
Although not used in Larimer County, the plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of
improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified in a long-
range facility plan and development potential is identified by a land use plan. There are two basic options
for determining the cost per demand unit: 1) total cost of a public facility can be divided by total service
units (average cost), or 2) the growth-share of the public facility cost can be divided by the net increase in
service units over the planning timeframe (marginal cost).
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CREDITS
Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of “credits” is integral to the development of a legally
defensible capital expansion fee methodology. There are two types of “credits” with specific
characteristics, both of which should be addressed in capital expansion fee studies and ordinances. The
first is a revenue credit due to possible double payment situations, which could occur when other
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
11
revenues may contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure covered by the capital expansion fee. This
type of credit is integrated into the capital expansion fee calculation, thus reducing the fee amount. The
second is a site-specific credit or developer reimbursement for construction of system improvements. This
type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of the capital expansion fee
program.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
12
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE
The transportation capital expansion fees for Larimer County are derived using the incremental expansion
approach. As shown in the formula and Figure 6 below, the transportation capital expansion fee is the
product of Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per development unit multiplied by the net capital cost per VMT
for transportation capacity.
2018 Fee = VMT (vehicle miles of travel) per Development Unit x Capital Cost per VMT
VMT is equal to the trip generation rate, multiplied by primary trip adjustment factor, average trip length
(in miles) and trip-length weighting factor. The capital cost per VMT is based on the projected ten-year
growth-cost of transportation improvements, divided by the increase in projected VMT over ten years.
Each component is described below.
Current infrastructure standards and projected development in unincorporated Larimer County
determined the general need for growth-related transportation improvements. Larimer County will
periodically identify specific transportation capital improvements during the regular, annual budget
process. As discussed further in the Implementation and Administration Section, Larimer County will
follow expenditure guidelines to ensure benefit to fee payers.
Figure 6: Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Methodology Chart
Countywide Development
Attraction Trips per
Development Unit
Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
per Development Unit
Mulitplied by Trip Rate
Adjustment Factor
Multiplied by Net Capital Cost per
Average Length Vehicle Trip
Average Trip Length (miles)
Mulitplied by Trip Length
Weighting Factor
Mulitplied by Capital Cost
per Lane Mile
Divided by Lane Capacity
(vehicles per lane per day)
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
13
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Transportation capital expansion fees in Larimer County are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends.
Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE 10th Edition 2017). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering
or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate
transportation capital expansion fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double
counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is
50%. As discussed further below, the capital expansion fee methodology includes additional adjustments
to make the fees proportionate to infrastructure demand for particular types of development.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR COMMUTING PATTERNS AND PASS-BY TRIPS
Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 52% to account for commuters leaving
Larimer County for work. According to the 2010 North Front Range Household Travel Survey (see Table R-
25) weekday work trips are typically 12.1% of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50% of
all trip ends). As shown in Figure 7, the Census Bureau’s web application OnTheMap indicates that 33% of
resident workers traveled outside Larimer County for work in 2015. In combination, these factors (0.121
x 0.50 x 0.33 = 0.02) support the additional 2% allocation of trips to residential development.
Figure 7: Inflow/Outflow Analysis
For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail development and
some services, like schools and daycare, attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads.
For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience
store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, ITE indicates that 34% of the
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
14
vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66% of
attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of
all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 33% of the trip ends.
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the
aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length0F
1. For the purpose of
transportation capital expansion fees, the average trip length in Larimer County is calibrated to existing
lane miles of County arterials. According to staff, in Larimer County there is currently has 150 lane miles
of County roads and 30 miles of Regional roads.
Lane Capacity
Transportation capital expansion fees are based on a lane capacity standard of 5,000 vehicles per lane,
which assumes a pavement width of 24 feet (see Table 15, Larimer County Master Transportation Plan,
2017). The lane capacity standard was reviewed by Larimer County staff and found to be reasonable for
existing arterials within the unincorporated area.
Trip Length Weighting Factor by Type of Land Use
The transportation capital expansion fee methodology includes a percentage adjustment, or weighting
factor, to account for trip length variation by type of land use. TischlerBise derived the weighting factors
using household survey results provided by North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
(NRFMPO, 2010). As shown in Figure 8, trips associated with residential development are approximately
114% of the average trip length. Conversely, trips associated with commercial development (i.e. retail and
restaurants) are approximately 57% of the average trip length while other nonresidential development
typically accounts for trips that are 86% of the average for all trips.
1 Typical VMT calculations for development-specific traffic studies, along with most transportation models of an
entire service area, are derived from traffic counts on particular road segments multiplied by the length of that road
segment. For the purpose of capital expansion fees, VMT calculations are based on attraction (inbound) trips to
development located in the service area, with the trip length calibrated to the road network considered to be system
improvements. This refinement eliminates pass-through or external- external trips, and travel on roads that are not
system improvements (e.g. interstate highways).
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
15
Figure 8: Average Trip Length Weighting Factors in North Front Range
DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES AND PROJECTED TRAVEL DEMAND
The relationship between development in unincorporated Larimer County and the need for transportation
system improvements is documented below. Figure 9 summarizes the input variables used to determine
the average trip length on County roads and Figure 10 summarizes the input variables used to determine
the average trip length on Regional roads. In the tables below, DU means dwelling units, KSF means square
feet of nonresidential development, in thousands, Institute of Transportation Engineers is abbreviated
ITE, and VTE means vehicle trip ends. Trip generation rates by bedroom range are documented in Figure
A8 and related text, found in Appendix A.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
16
Projected development in the unincorporated area over the next ten years is shown in the middle section
of Figure 9. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert projected development into average
weekday vehicle trips. A typical vehicle trip, such as a person leaving their home and traveling to work,
generally begins on a local street that connects to a collector street, which connects to an arterial road
and eventually to a state or interstate highway. This progression of travel up and down the functional
classification chain limits the average trip length determination, for the purpose of transportation capital
expansion fees, to the following question, “What is the average vehicle trip length on transportation fee
system improvements (i.e. arterials in the unincorporated area)?”
Shown in Figure 9, with 150 arterial lane miles and a lane capacity standard of 5,000 vehicles per lane, the
existing network of County roads has 750,000 vehicle miles of capacity (i.e., 5,000 vehicles per lane
multiplied by 150 lane miles). To derive the average utilization (i.e., average trip length expressed in miles)
of the system improvements, divide vehicle miles of capacity by the vehicle trips attracted to development
in the service area. As shown in the bottom-left corner of the table below, existing development attracts
202,698 average weekday vehicle trips. Dividing 750,000 vehicle miles of capacity by inbound average
weekday vehicle trips yields an un-weighted average trip length of approximately 3.70 miles. However,
the calibration of average trip length includes the same adjustment factors used in the transportation fee
calculations (i.e., journey-to-work commuting, commercial pass-by adjustment and average trip length
adjustment by type of land use). With these adjustments, TischlerBise determined the weighted-average
trip length to be 3.72 miles. In similar fashion, the weighted-average trip length for Regional roads is
calculated in Figure 10. As a result, TischlerBise determined the weighted-average trip length to be 0.23
miles.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
17
Figure 9: County Road Projected Travel Demand and Trip Length Calibration
Dev Weekday Dev Trip Trip Length
Type VTE Unit Adj Wt Factor
0-1 Bedroom Residential 4.25 DU 52% 1.14 R1
2 Bedroom Residential 6.61 DU 52% 1.14 R2
3 Bedroom Residential 9.14 DU 52% 1.14 R3
4+ Bedroom Residential 11.22 DU 52% 1.14 R4
Industrial 3.93 KSF 50% 0.86 NR1
Commercial 37.75 KSF 33% 0.57 NR2
Office & Other Services 9.74 KSF 50% 0.86 NR3
Avg Trip Length (miles) 3.72
Vehicle Capacity Per Lane 5,000 <= See Table 4 in Transportation Plan, 2006.
Year-> Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year
Unincorporated Larimer County 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2027 Increase
0-1 Bedroom (9% of units) 2,911 2,929 2,948 2,966 2,985 3,004 3,100 189
2 Bedrooms (25% of units) 8,606 8,660 8,714 8,769 8,824 8,880 9,163 557
3 Bedrooms (37% of units) 12,751 12,831 12,912 12,993 13,075 13,157 13,577 826
4+ Bedrooms (29% of units) 9,813 9,875 9,937 10,000 10,062 10,126 10,449 636
Industrial KSF 1,891 1,914 1,937 1,960 1,983 2,006 2,127 236
Commercial KSF 1,961 1,977 1,993 2,010 2,026 2,042 2,126 165
Office & Other Services KSF 4,247 4,275 4,304 4,332 4,361 4,389 4,536 289
0-1 Bedroom Trips 6,433 6,473 6,515 6,555 6,597 6,639 6,851 418
2 Bedroom Trips 29,581 29,766 29,952 30,141 30,330 30,522 31,495 1,915
3 Bedroom Trips 60,603 60,983 61,368 61,753 62,143 62,533 64,529 3,926
4+ Bedroom Trips 57,253 57,615 57,976 58,344 58,706 59,079 60,964 3,711
Industrial Trips 3,716 3,761 3,806 3,851 3,897 3,942 4,180 464
Commercial Trips 24,429 24,628 24,828 25,040 25,239 25,438 26,485 2,055
Office & Other Services Trips 20,683 20,819 20,960 21,097 21,238 21,374 22,090 1,407
Total Vehicle Trips 202,698 204,046 205,406 206,781 208,149 209,527 216,593 13,895
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 782,767 787,875 793,027 798,221 803,408 808,644 835,405 52,638
LANE MILES 156.6 157.6 158.6 159.6 160.7 161.7 167.1 10.5
Arterial lane miles provided by
County staff => 150 Ten-Year VMT Increase => 6.3%
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
18
Figure 10: Regional Road Projected Travel Demand and Trip Length Calibration
NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR GROWTH-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS
From Figures 9 & 10, there is a total of 14.7 lanes miles of system improvements to accommodate
projected development over the next ten years (10.5 lanes miles in County roads and 4.2 lanes miles in
Regional roads). The total cost of system improvements to County roads is estimated to be approximately
$10,076,000 in current dollars (i.e. not inflated over time), assuming a cost factor of $960,000 per lane
mile. The total cost of system improvements to Regional roads is estimated to be approximately
$5,376,000 in current dollars, assuming a cost factor of $1,280,000 per lane mile.
The existing transportation infrastructure standard in Larimer County is 2.0 lane-miles of County
arterial/regional road per 10,000 VMT. The formula is 180 lane miles (150 lane miles of County arterial
roads and 30 lane miles of regional roads) divided by 951,985 VMT (VMT of 169,217 on regional roads and
VMT or 782,767 on County arterials) divided by 10,000. To maintain the existing infrastructure standard,
Larimer County needs an additional 14.7 lane miles of system improvements to accommodate projected
development over the next ten years.
Dev Weekday Dev Trip Trip Length
Type VTE Unit Adj Wt Factor
0-1 Bedroom Residential 4.25 DU 52% 1.14
2 Bedroom Residential 6.61 DU 52% 1.14
3 Bedroom Residential 9.14 DU 52% 1.14
4+ Bedroom Residential 11.22 DU 52% 1.14
Industrial 3.93 KSF 50% 0.86
Commercial 37.75 KSF 33% 0.57
Office & Other Services 9.74 KSF 50% 0.86
Avg Trip Length (miles) 0.23
Vehicle Capacity Per Lane 5,000 <= See Table 4 in Transportation Plan, 2006.
Year-> Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year
Regional Roads 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2027 Increase
0-1 Bedroom (9% of units) 8,768 8,882 8,996 9,110 9,186 9,262 9,826 1,058
2 Bedrooms (25% of units) 25,922 26,258 26,596 26,933 27,157 27,381 29,048 3,126
3 Bedrooms (37% of units) 38,408 38,907 39,406 39,906 40,238 40,570 43,041 4,633
4+ Bedrooms (29% of units) 29,558 29,942 30,327 30,711 30,967 31,223 33,124 3,566
Industrial KSF 11,739 11,864 11,990 12,117 12,245 12,374 13,028 1,289
Commercial KSF 11,058 11,177 11,297 11,419 11,542 11,666 12,292 1,234
Office & Other Services KSF 24,715 25,068 25,427 25,790 26,159 26,533 28,427 3,712
0-1 Bedroom Trips 19,377 19,629 19,881 20,133 20,301 20,469 21,715 2,338
2 Bedroom Trips 89,099 90,254 91,416 92,574 93,344 94,114 99,844 10,745
3 Bedroom Trips 182,546 184,917 187,289 189,665 191,243 192,821 204,565 22,020
4+ Bedroom Trips 172,453 174,694 176,940 179,180 180,674 182,167 193,259 20,805
Industrial Trips 23,067 23,313 23,560 23,810 24,061 24,315 25,599 2,532
Commercial Trips 137,755 139,237 140,732 142,252 143,784 145,329 153,128 15,373
Office & Other Services Trips 120,362 122,081 123,829 125,597 127,394 129,216 138,441 18,079
Total Vehicle Trips 744,659 754,125 763,648 773,212 780,802 788,431 836,551 91,892
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 169,217 171,395 173,583 175,778 177,447 179,123 190,122 20,905
LANE MILES 33.8 34.3 34.7 35.2 35.5 35.8 38.0 4.2
Regional Road lane miles
provided by County staff => 30 Ten-Year VMT Increase => 11.0%
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
19
REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION
A credit for other revenues is only necessary if there is potential double payment for transportation
system improvements. In Larimer County, Road & Bridge Fund property taxes and gas-tax revenue will be
used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies, and for capital projects that
are not capital expansion fee system improvements. As shown below in the Figure 11, cumulative
transportation capital expansion fee revenue over the next ten years roughly matches the growth cost of
transportation system improvements. Because Larimer County’s fees are legislatively adopted, generally
applicable to a broad class of property, and intended to defray the projected impacts on capital facilities
caused by proposed development [see Colorado Revised Statutes 29-20-104.5], there is no potential
double payment from other revenues.
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES
Input variables for Larimer County transportation capital expansion fees are shown in the upper section
of Figure 11. Inbound vehicle trips by type of development are multiplied by the capacity cost per vehicle
mile of travel to yield the 2018 transportation capital expansion fees. As an example, to maintain the
current infrastructure standard for County roads, Larimer County needs to spend $10,076,000 on County
arterial transportation improvements over the next ten years. When the 10-year growth share is divided
by the projected increase of 52,638 vehicle miles of travel, the capital cost is $191.42 per VMT. The county
road transportation capital expansion fee calculation is shown below using input variables for commercial
development, as listed in Figure 8.
37.75 weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet
X
0.33 adjustment factor for inbound trips, including pass-by
X
3.72 average miles per trip
X
0.57 trip length adjustment factor
X
$191.42 growth cost per VMT
=
$5,039 per 1000 square feet (truncated)
The text below from Trip Generation (ITE 2012) supports the consultant’s recommendation to use ITE 820
Shopping Center as a reasonable proxy for all commercial development. The shopping center trip
generation rates are based on 302 studies with an r-squared value of 0.79. The latter is a goodness-of-fit
indicator with values ranging from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate the independent variable (floor area)
provides a better prediction of the dependent variable (average weekday vehicle trip ends). If the r-
squared value is less than 0.50, ITE does not publish the value because factors other than floor area
provide a better prediction of trip rates.
“A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments. Shopping centers,
including neighborhood, community, regional, and super regional centers, were surveyed for this
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
20
land use. Some of these centers contained non-merchandising facilities, such as office buildings,
movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, and health clubs. Many shopping centers, in
addition to the integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around a mall, include out
parcels (peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets
and major access points). These buildings are typically drive-in banks, retail stores, restaurants, or
small offices. Although the data herein do not indicate which of the centers studied include
peripheral buildings, it can be assumed that some of the data show their effect.”
The two columns on the right side of the table below indicate current transportation capital expansion
fees for county roads and the proposed increase or decrease. Proposed transportation capital expansion
fees decrease for nonresidential development, but increase for most residential units. Because the 2018
TCEF schedule varies by dwelling size, the proposed fee change to the County Road fee (Figure 11) for a
small single-family house (1,301 to 1,800 square feet of finished living space) is an increase of $4. For the
average size detached house (1,801 to 2,400 square feet of finished living space), the proposed increase
is $566. Large houses with 3,601 or more square feet will have to pay an additional $1,740.
Given the recommended change from residential fees by type of housing to fees by dwelling size, it is
difficult to directly compare current and proposed fees for residential development. For example, the
current fee schedule provides a lower fee of $1,026 for structures that qualify as a mountain cabin. The
proposed County Road TCEF for a dwelling with 900 square feet or less is $1,946. For a multifamily
apartment, the current fee is $2,303 per dwelling. Most multifamily dwellings will be in the size range of
901 to 1,300 square feet, with a proposed fee of $2,727 per residential unit.
Figure 11: 2018 County Road TCEF Schedule
Input Variables for Average Miles per Trip 3.72
Unincorporated Area Cost per Additional Lane Mile => $960,000
Ten-Year Growth Cost Funded by Fees $10,076,000
VMT Increase Over Ten Years 52,638
Capital Cost per VMT $191.42
Development Type Avg Wkdy Veh
Trip Ends
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Trip Length
Adjustment
Proposed County
Road TCEF
Current (2017)
County TCEF
Increase or
Decrease
Percent
Change
Residential (per dwelling) by Sq Ft of Finished Living Space
900 or less# 4.61 52% 114% $1,946 $2,303 ($357) -16%
901 to 1300# 6.46 52% 114% $2,727 $2,303 $424 18%
1301 to 1800 7.78 52% 114% $3,284 $3,280 $4 0.1%
1801 to 2400 9.11 52% 114% $3,846 $3,280 $566 17%
2401 to 3000 10.22 52% 114% $4,315 $3,280 $1,035 32%
3001 to 3600 11.13 52% 114% $4,699 $3,280 $1,419 43%
3601 or more 11.89 52% 114% $5,020 $3,280 $1,740 53%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area)
Industrial 3.93 50% 86% $1,196 $2,776 ($1,580) -57%
Commercial 37.75 33% 57% $5,039 $8,459 ($3,420) -40%
Office & Other Services 9.74 50% 86% $2,965 $4,535 ($1,570) -35%
#This update proposes to remove the residential fee by housing type and replace with size-based impact fee. To draw a
comparison between the proposed fees and current fees, the current multifamily fee is used as a comparison for the smaller
housing sizes.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
21
Input variables for Larimer County Regional Road component of the transportation capital expansion fees
are shown in the upper section of Figure 12. Inbound vehicle trips by type of development are multiplied
by the capacity cost per vehicle mile of travel to yield the 2018 regional road component of the
transportation capital expansion fees. As an example, to maintain the current infrastructure standard for
regional roads, Larimer County needs to spend $5,376,000 on regional road transportation improvements
over the next ten years. When the 10-year growth share is divided by the projected increase of 20,905
vehicle miles of travel on regional roads, the capital cost is $257.16 per VMT.
Figure 12: 2018 Regional Road TCEF Schedule
Input Variables for Average Miles per Trip 0.23
Regional Roads Additional Lane Miles over Ten Years 4.2
Capital Cost per Additional Lane Mile $1,280,000
Ten-Year Growth Cost Funded by Fees $5,376,000
VMT Increase Over Ten Years 20,905
Capital Cost per VMT $257.16
Development Type Avg Wkdy Veh
Trip Ends
Trip Rate
Adjustment
Trip Length
Adjustment
Proposed Regional
Road TCEF
Current (2017)
Regional TCEF
Increase or
Decrease
Percent
Change
Residential (per dwelling) by Sq Ft of Finished Living Space
900 or less# 4.61 52% 114% $163 $222 ($59) -27%
901 to 1300# 6.46 52% 114% $228 $222 $6 3%
1301 to 1800 7.78 52% 114% $275 $318 ($43) -14%
1801 to 2400 9.11 52% 114% $322 $318 $4 1%
2401 to 3000 10.22 52% 114% $361 $318 $43 14%
3001 to 3600 11.13 52% 114% $393 $318 $75 24%
3601 or more 11.89 52% 114% $420 $318 $102 32%
Nonresidential (per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area)
Industrial 3.93 50% 86% $100 $270 ($170) -63%
Commercial 37.75 33% 57% $422 $816 ($394) -48%
Office & Other Services 9.74 50% 86% $248 $440 ($192) -44%
#This update proposes to remove the residential fee by housing type and replace with size-based impact fee. To draw a
comparison between the proposed fees and current fees, the current multifamily fee is used as a comparison for the smaller
housing sizes.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
22
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND FUNDING STRATEGY FOR COUNTY AND REGIONAL ROADS
Figure 13 indicates projected County TCEF revenue over the next ten years for County Roads. The County
expects to construct $10 million in transportation improvements within the unincorporated area in order
to maintain current infrastructure standards. As shown in the lower portion of the table, projected TCEF
revenue will cover the growth cost of improvements.
The revenue projection shown below is based on the demographic data described in Appendix A and the
proposed fee schedule. Residential development in the unincorporated area is expected to yield
approximately 80% of total transportation fee revenue, with the remaining 20% from nonresidential
development. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a
corresponding change in transportation fee revenue and capital costs.
Figure 13: Capital Costs and Projected TCEF Revenue for County Roads
Ten-Year Cost of Transportation Improvements, County Roads
Growth Share Funded by TCEF => $10,076,000
TCEF Revenue from the Unincorporated Area, County Roads
Average-Size
Residential
Industrial Commercial Office & Other
Services
$3,664 $1,196 $5,039 $2,965
Year per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft
Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF
Base 2017 34,080 1,891 1,961 4,247
Year 1 2018 34,295 1,914 1,977 4,275
Year 2 2019 34,511 1,937 1,993 4,304
Year 3 2020 34,729 1,960 2,010 4,332
Year 4 2021 34,947 1,983 2,026 4,361
Year 5 2022 35,167 2,006 2,042 4,389
Year 6 2023 35,389 2,029 2,058 4,418
Year 7 2024 35,612 2,054 2,075 4,448
Year 8 2025 35,837 2,078 2,092 4,477
Year 9 2026 36,062 2,102 2,109 4,506
Year 10 2027 36,289 2,127 2,126 4,536
Ten-Yr Increase 2,209 236 165 289
Projected Revenue => $8,094,000 $282,000 $831,000 $857,000
Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $10,064,000
Residential Share => 80% 20% <= Nonresidential Share
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
23
Figure 14 indicates projected County TCEF revenue over the next ten years for Regional Roads. The County
expects over $5 million in transportation improvements to Regional Roads to maintain current
infrastructure standards. As shown in the lower portion of the table, projected TCEF revenue from the
Unincorporated Area will generate $844,000 for growth cost of improvements. The remaining revenue to
cover the improvements costs will be generated by growth within incorporated areas, such as City of
Fort Collins.
Figure 14: Capital Costs and Projected TCEF Revenue for Regional Roads
Ten-Year Cost of Transportation Improvements, Regional Roads
Growth Share Funded by TCEF => $5,376,000
TCEF Revenue from the Unincorporated Area, Regional Roads
Average-Size
Residential
Industrial Commercial Office & Other
Services
$307 $100 $422 $248
Year per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft
Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF
Base 2017 34,080 1,891 1,961 4,247
Year 1 2018 34,295 1,914 1,977 4,275
Year 2 2019 34,511 1,937 1,993 4,304
Year 3 2020 34,729 1,960 2,010 4,332
Year 4 2021 34,947 1,983 2,026 4,361
Year 5 2022 35,167 2,006 2,042 4,389
Year 6 2023 35,389 2,029 2,058 4,418
Year 7 2024 35,612 2,054 2,075 4,448
Year 8 2025 35,837 2,078 2,092 4,477
Year 9 2026 36,062 2,102 2,109 4,506
Year 10 2027 36,289 2,127 2,126 4,536
Ten-Yr Increase 2,209 236 165 289
Projected Revenue => $678,000 $24,000 $70,000 $72,000
Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $844,000
Residential Share => 80% 20% <= Nonresidential Share
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
24
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Capital expansion fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. Larimer
County will continue to adjust for inflation, as specified in the Land Use Code. If cost estimates or demand
indicators change significantly, the County should redo the fee calculations.
Colorado’s enabling legislation allows local governments to “waive a capital expansion fee or other similar
development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or affordable employee
housing, as defined by the local government.”
Credits and Reimbursements
A general requirement that is common to capital expansion fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits.
A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time
capital expansion fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital
improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the capital expansion fee
methodology used in the cost analysis and local government policies. Since an incremental expansion
methodology was utilized in the fee methodology, there is no existing debt for transportation capacity
projects and our cash flow analysis indicates capital expansion fee revenue approximates the growth-
related transportation needs, there is no danger of double payment.
Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the resolution or ordinance
that establishes the capital expansion fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the
development approval process, are not eligible for credits against capital expansion fees. If a developer
constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse
the developer or provide a credit against the fees due from that particular development. The latter option
is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas.
One Benefit Districts
A map of the one recommended Benefit District is shown in Figure 1. The service area is defined as
unincorporated land within Larimer County. Fee expenditures are limited to the Benefit District that
generated the fee revenue, thus expanding to one district will allow for fee revenue to be more flexible
and potentially fund more projects.
Expenditure Guidelines
To ensure benefit to fee payers, Larimer County will distinguish system improvements (funded by
transportation fees) from project-level improvements, such as paving a dirt road within or near a
residential subdivision. TischlerBise recommends limiting transportation fee expenditures to arterials and
collectors. Acceptable system improvements that are eligible for transportation fee funding include:
1. Improving a road surface from gravel to chip seal or asphalt pavement
2. A carrying-capacity enhancement to existing chip seal or asphalt roads, such as widening and/or
reconstructing to add greater road depth
3. Adding turn lanes, traffic signals, or roundabouts at the intersection of a State Highway with a
County arterial or collector, or a County arterial with another County arterial or collector.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
25
Development Categories
Proposed transportation fees for residential development are by square feet of finished living space,
excluding unfinished basement, attic, and garage floor area. Appendix A provides further documentation
of demographic data by size threshold.
The three general nonresidential development categories in the proposed transportation fee schedule
can be used for all new construction within the Service Area. Nonresidential development categories
represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates,
as documented in Appendix A.
• “Industrial” includes the processing or production of goods, along with warehousing,
transportation, communications, and utilities.
• “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places, along with entertainment
uses often located in a shopping center (e.g. movie theater).
• “Office & Other Services” includes offices, health care and personal services, business services
(e.g. banks) and lodging. Public and quasi-public buildings that provide educational, social
assistance, or religious services are also included in this category.
The proposed TCEF schedule is designed to provide a reasonable fee amount for general types of
development. For unique developments, the County may allow or require an independent assessment.
An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular
unique development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified
planner and use the same type of input variables as those in this transportation fee update. For residential
development, the fees are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing unit. For
nonresidential development, the fees are based on average weekday vehicle trips ends per 1,000 square
feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by County staff and can be accepted as the
basis for a unique fee calculation. If the Fee Administrator determines the independent fee study is not
reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Larimer County elected officials for
their consideration.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
26
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
As part of our Work Scope, TischlerBise prepared documentation on demographic data and development
projections that will be used to update Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF). A Capital Expansion
Fee is another name for a development impact fee, authorized by Colorado’s Impact Fee Act (see CRS 29-
20-104.5). The demand for growth-related infrastructure from various types of development is a function
of additional service units such as population, housing units, jobs, and nonresidential floor area. To ensure
the fees are proportionate by type of development, TischlerBise also documented average weekday
vehicle trip generation rates by size of housing unit.
In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s transportation
model that have a long-range horizon, capital expansion fees have a short-range focus. Typically, capital
expansion fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be periodically updated
(e.g. every 5 years). Infrastructure standards are calibrated using the latest available data and the first
projection year is fiscal year 2018. In Larimer County the fiscal year begins on January 1.
Summary of Growth Indicators
Development projections and growth rates are summarized in Figure A1. These projections are used to
estimate TCEF revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. However,
TCEF methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to accurate development projections in the
determination of the fee amounts. If actual development is slower than projected, TCEF revenues will also
decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than
anticipated, the County will receive an increase in TCEF revenue, but will also need to accelerate the
capital improvements program to keep pace with the actual rate of development.
Larimer County data for the demographic analysis and development projections include Colorado State
Demography Office (SDO) population estimates and projections, U.S. Census Bureau OnTheMap job
estimates, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
growth rates, American Community Survey data, and Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). SDO
population estimates for 2017 were converted to housing units by holding constant the 2017 ratio of year-
round residents per housing unit, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Job estimates for 2017, from the U.S. Census Bureau were converted to nonresidential floor area using
average floor area multipliers, as discussed further below (see Figures A3-A4 and related text).
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
27
During the next five years, the TCEF study expects an average increase of 217 housing units per year in
the unincorporated area. In comparison, Larimer Assessor records indicate an average increase of 163
dwellings per year during calendar years 2012 through 2014. Also, unincorporated Larimer County
anticipates an average increase of 66,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area per year from 2015 to
2020. For residential development in the unincorporated area, the TCEF study assumes a compound
annual growth rate 0.63%. Nonresidential development in the unincorporated area is projected to
increase by a compound average annual growth rate of 0.82%.
Figure A1: Development Projections and Growth Rates
Larimer County, CO
Base 1 2 3 4 5 10
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2027 Increase Compound
Growth Rate
Unincorporated Residential Units 34,080 34,295 34,511 34,729 34,947 35,167 36,289 217 0.63%
Unincorporated Nonres Sq Ft x 1000 8,099 8,166 8,234 8,302 8,370 8,437 8,789 68 0.82%
2017 to 2022
Average Annual
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Larimer County Development Projections
Unincorporated Residential Units
Unincorporated Nonres Sq Ft x
1000
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
28
Recent Countywide Residential Construction
From 2000-2010, Larimer County increased by an average of 2,733 housing units per year. The chart at
the bottom of Figure A2 indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade in Larimer
County. Countywide residential construction has remained consistent over the past two decades. Based
on the projection of 356,900 residents by 2020, Larimer County will see an average increase of 2,520 units
per year from 2010 to 2020.
Figure A2: Housing Units by Decade
Larimer County, Colorado
Census 2010 Population* 299,630
Census 2010 Housing Units* 132,722
Total Housing Units in 2000 105,392
New Housing Units 2000 to 2010 27,330
* U.S. Census Bureau DP1.
Source for 1990s and earlier is B25034, 5-year American Community Survey 2010,
adjusted to yield total units in 2000. Projected units from 2010 to 2020
is based on State Demography Office population forecast.
From 2000 to 2010,
Larimer County added an
average of 2,733 housing
units per year. The
projected increase from
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
before 1970 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000-2010 2010-2020
Housing Units Added by Decade in
Larimer County, CO
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
29
Nonresidential Development
In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of TCEFs requires data on nonresidential
development. TischlerBise uses the term “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. Jobs were
converted to nonresidential floor area using average square feet per employee multipliers. Figure A3
indicates 2013 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area located in Larimer County. Floor area
estimates are from the Tax Assessor’s parcel database, aggregated into three nonresidential categories.
Jobs in 2013 are based on two-digit industry sectors (NAICS), as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau’s
OnTheMap web application.
Figure A3: Jobs and Floor Area Estimate
In Figure A4, gray shading indicates three nonresidential development prototypes used by TischlerBise to
project average weekday vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT). The prototype development for
Industrial jobs is “Manufacturing”. Average weekday vehicle trip generation rates are from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2017). The prototype for Commercial development is an average-size
shopping center. All businesses that sell merchandise, including eating/drinking places, are considered
commercial development. The prototype for Services development is an average-size general office
building. Services include public and quasi-public buildings (e.g. schools, churches and daycare facilities)
and all business and personal services (e.g. banks, medical offices, health care facilities and lodging).
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
30
Figure A4: Employee and Building Area Ratios
Detailed Development Projections
Demographic data shown in Figure A5 provide key inputs for the TCEF update in Larimer County.
Cumulative data are shown at the top and projected annual increases by type of development are shown
at the bottom of the table. Given the expectation that TCEFs are updated every five years, TischlerBise
did not evaluate long-term demographic trends. As discussed in the next section, TischlerBise
recommends the use of vehicle trip ends per housing unit to derive TCEFs. Therefore, vacancy rates and
number of households are not relevant to the demographic analysis.
Cells with yellow shading indicate 2017 estimates (i.e., SDO population and OnTheMap jobs). Cells with
blue shading are SDO population projections. The unincorporated population growth rate of 0.63% is
based on the actual increase from 2010 to 2013. The North Front Range MPO provided TAZ data used to
derive countywide and unincorporated area job growth rates, by type of nonresidential development (i.e.
job change from 2012 to 2030).
ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft
Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit Per Emp
110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615
130 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 3.37 2.91 1.16 864
140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628
150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902
254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 4.24 0.61 na
320 Motel room 3.35 25.17 0.13 na
520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076
530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581
540 Community College student 1.15 14.61 0.08 na
550 University/College student 1.56 8.89 0.18 na
565 Day Care student 4.09 21.38 0.19 na
610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354
620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.64 2.91 2.28 438
710 General Office (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337
760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292
770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325
820 Shopping Center (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427
* Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017).
Land Use
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
31
Figure A5: Cumulative Demographics and Annual Increases
FY begins January 1st 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2027 2032 Compound
Population Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 Anl Growth
Countywide Residents 338,841 344,860 350,879 356,900 363,293 369,686 400,846 429,794 1.68%
Incorporated Places 269,819 275,403 280,984 286,565 292,515 298,462 327,350 353,953 1.93%
Unincorporated Area Residents 69,022 69,457 69,895 70,335 70,778 71,224 73,496 75,841 0.63%
% Unincorporated => 20.4% 20.1% 19.9% 19.7% 19.5% 19.3% 18.3% 17.6%
Housing Units
Countywide Dwellings 150,012 152,677 155,341 158,007 160,837 163,668 177,463 190,279 1.68%
Incorporated Dwellings 115,932 118,382 120,830 123,278 125,890 128,501 141,174 152,832 1.97%
Unincorporated Area Dwellings 34,080 34,295 34,511 34,729 34,947 35,167 36,289 37,447 0.63%
Countywide Jobs
Industrial 28,422 28,837 29,258 29,685 30,119 30,558 32,855 35,325 1.46%
Commercial 31,043 31,493 31,950 32,413 32,883 33,360 35,850 38,525 1.45%
Services 81,505 83,095 84,715 86,367 88,051 89,768 98,868 108,891 1.95%
Total 140,970 143,425 145,923 148,465 151,053 153,686 167,573 182,741 1.74%
Countywide Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.96
Jobs in Incorporated Places
Jobs in Municipalities 123,152 125,463 127,817 130,213 132,655 135,141 148,271 162,648 1.87%
Jobs in Unincorporated Area
Industrial 3,687 3,731 3,775 3,820 3,865 3,910 4,146 4,397 1.18%
Commercial 3,970 4,003 4,035 4,068 4,101 4,134 4,304 4,481 0.81%
Services 10,161 10,228 10,296 10,364 10,432 10,501 10,852 11,215 0.66%
Total 17,818 17,962 18,106 18,252 18,398 18,545 19,302 20,093 0.80%
% Unincorporated => 12.6% 12.5% 12.4% 12.3% 12.2% 12.1% 11.5% 11.0%
Unincorporated Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.54
Unincorporated Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 square feet)
Industrial KSF 1,891 1,914 1,937 1,960 1,983 2,006 2,127 2,256 1.18%
Commercial KSF 1,961 1,977 1,993 2,010 2,026 2,042 2,126 2,214 0.81%
Services KSF 4,247 4,275 4,304 4,332 4,361 4,389 4,536 4,688 0.65%
Total 8,099 8,166 8,234 8,302 8,370 8,437 8,789 9,158 0.82%
2017-2027
Annual Increases in Unincorporated Area 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avg Annual
Population 435 438 440 443 446 449 447
Housing Units 215 216 218 218 220 222 221
Jobs 144 144 146 146 147 148 148
Industrial KSF 23 23 23 23 23 23 24
Commercial KSF 16 16 17 16 16 16 17
Services KSF 28 29 28 29 28 29 29
Total KSF 67 68 68 68 67 68 69
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
32
Customized Trip Generation Rates per Housing Unit
As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), TischlerBise derived custom trip rates using
local demographic data. Key inputs needed for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units and
persons) are available from American Community Survey (ACS) data for the unincorporated area of
Larimer County.
Unincorporated Area Control Totals
Figure A6 indicates the average number of year-round residents per housing unit for three levels of
geography. At the top are countywide data; the middle section shows data for incorporated places, and
the bottom of the table provides data for the unincorporated area. Typically, incorporated places, like the
cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, have fewer persons per dwelling, but that is not the pattern in Larimer
County due to a significant number of seasonal units in the unincorporated area. Another demographic
anomaly is a greater number of persons per housing unit for All Other dwelling types in the
unincorporated area, which is also due to a significant number of seasonal dwellings.
Figure A6: Persons per Housing Unit
Larimer County, Countywide
Persons per Persons per Housing Household
Housing Unit Household Unit Mix Mix
Single Family [1] 256,602 106,529 2.41 97,552 2.63 78% 78%
Multifamily [2] 52,496 30,315 1.73 27,579 1.90 22% 22%
Total 309,098 136,844 2.26 125,131 2.47
Incorporated Larimer County
Persons per Persons per Housing Household
Housing Unit Household Unit Mix Mix
Single Family [1] 191,679 74,688 2.57 72,225 2.65 72% 73%
Multifamily [2] 50,925 29,324 1.74 26,850 1.90 28% 27%
Total 242,604 104,012 2.33 99,075 2.45
Unincorporated Larimer County
Persons per Persons per Housing Household
Housing Unit Household Unit Mix Mix
Single Family [1] 64,923 31,841 2.04 25,327 2.56 97% 97%
Multifamily [2] 1,571 991 1.59 729 2.16 3% 3%
Total 66,494 32,832 2.03 26,056 2.55
[1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes
[2] Includes all other types
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Housing Type Persons Housing
Units Households
Housing Type Persons Housing
Units Households
Housing Type Persons Housing
Units Households
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
33
Trip generation rates are also dependent upon the average number of vehicles available per dwelling.
Figure A7 indicates vehicles available for all of Larimer County, incorporated places, and the
unincorporated area. As expected, the unincorporated area has more vehicles available per dwelling than
housing units located within incorporated places.
Figure A7: Vehicles Available per Housing Unit
Countywide
Tenure
Vehicles
Available
(1)
Single
Family*
Multifamily Total
Vehicles per
Household
by Tenure
Owner-occupied 176,785 77,410 2,847 80,257 2.20
Renter-occupied 73,535 20,142 24,732 44,874 1.64
Total 250,320 97,552 27,579 125,131 2.00
Units per Structure Vehicles
Available
Housing Units
(3)
Vehicles per
Housing Unit
Single family 203,520 106,529 1.91
All Other 46,800 30,315 1.54
Total 250,320 136,844 1.83
Incorporated Places
Tenure
Vehicles
Available
(1)
Single Unit
Detached or
Attached
All Other Total
Vehicles per
Household
by Tenure
Owner-occupied 123,859 56,026 2,701 58,727 2.11
Renter-occupied 65,356 16,199 24,149 40,348 1.62
Total 189,215 72,225 26,850 99,075 1.91
Units per Structure Vehicles
Available
Housing Units
(3)
Vehicles per
Housing Unit
Single Detached or Attach 144,402 74,688 1.93
All Other 44,813 29,324 1.53
Total 189,215 104,012 1.82
Unincorporated Area
Tenure
Vehicles
Available
(1)
Single
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
34
Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size
Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey
responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS).
Because PUMS files are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, Larimer County is included in Public
Use Microdata Areas (PUMA) 102 and 103. At the top of Figure A8, in the cells with yellow shading, are
the survey results for Larimer County. The unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per
dwelling, derived from the PUMS data, were adjusted downward to match the control totals for the
unincorporated area, as documented above in Figures A6 and A7.
In comparison to the national averages based on ITE traffic studies, the unincorporated area of Larimer
County has fewer persons per dwelling, but a greater number of vehicles per dwelling. Rather than rely
on one methodology, the recommended multipliers shown below with grey shading and bold numbers
are an average of trips rates based on persons and vehicles available for all types of housing units. In the
unincorporated area of Larimer County, each housing unit is expected to yield an average of 8.68 Average
Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends (AWVTE), compared to the national average of 9.38 trips ends per household.
Figure A8: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Bedroom Range
Larimer County 2015 Data
Bedroom Persons (1) Vehicles Housing Larimer Co. Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted
Range Available (1) Units (1) Hsg Mix Persons/HU Persons/HU (2) VehAvl/HU VehAvl/HU (2)
0-1 473 398 434 8.54% 1.09 0.98 0.92 0.94
2 2,189 1,849 1,283 25.25% 1.71 1.53 1.44 1.46
3 4,372 3,819 1,901 37.41% 2.30 2.06 2.01 2.04
4+ 4,306 3,535 1,463 28.79% 2.94 2.64 2.42 2.46
Total 11,340 9,601 5,081 2.23 2.00 1.89 1.92
National Averages According to ITE, 2017
ITE AWVTE per AWVTE per AWVTE per Unincorp Persons per Veh Avl per
Code Person Vehicle Available Housing Unit Hsg Mix Housing Unit Housing Unit
220 Apt 1.42 5.10 7.32 3% 5.15 1.44
210 SFD 2.65 6.36 9.44 97% 3.56 1.48
Wgtd Avg 2.61 6.32 9.38 3.61 1.48
Recommended AWVTE per Dwelling by Bedroom Range
Bedroom AWVTE per AWVTE per Hsg Unincorp Larimer
Range Housing Unit Unit Based on AWVTE per
Based on Vehicles Housing
Persons (3) Available (4) Unit (5)
0-1 2.56 5.94 4.25
2 3.99 9.23 6.61
3 5.38 12.89 9.14
4+ 6.89 15.55 11.22
Total 5.22 12.13 8.68
AWVTE per Dwelling by House Type
ITE AWVTE per AWVTE per Hsg Unincorp Larimer
Code Housing Unit Unit Based on AWVTE per Unincorp Unincorp
Based on Vehicles Housing Larimer Co. Larimer Co.
Persons (3) Available (4) Unit (5) Persons/HU VehAvl/HU
220 Apt 4.14 9.04 6.59 1.59 1.43
210 SFD 5.32 11.82 8.57 2.04 1.87
All Types 5.22 12.13 8.68 2.00 1.92
(1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for CO PUMAs 102
and 103 (2015 Five-Year unweighted data).
(2) Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the average PUMS values match control
totals for the unincorporated area, based on American Community Survey 2015
data.
(3) Adjusted persons per housing unit multiplied by national weighted average trip
rate per person.
(4) Adjusted vehicles available per housing unit multiplied by national weighted
average trip rate per vehicle available.
(5) Average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available per housing unit.
2018 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Larimer County, Colorado
35
Trip Generation by Floor Area
To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by dwelling size, TischlerBise matched trip generation rates
and average floor area, by bedroom range, as shown in Figure A9. The logarithmic trend line formula,
derived from the four actual averages in Larimer County, is used to derive estimated trip ends by dwelling
size. A mid-size detached house is estimated to range from 1,801-2,400 square feet of finished living
space. A small, detached house (1,301 to 1,800 square feet) would pay 85% of the TCEF paid by an
average-size detached unit. A large unit of 3,601 square feet or more would pay 131% of the TCEF paid by
an average size detached house. If Larimer County implements a “one-size-fits-all” approach, small
detached units will be required to pay more than their proportionate share while large units will pay less
than their proportionate share. TischlerBise does not recommend an average fee by house type because
it makes small units less affordable and essentially subsidizes larger units.
Figure A9: Vehicle Trips by Dwelling Size
Bedrooms Square Feet Trip Ends Sq Ft Range Trip Ends
0-1 680 4.25 900 or less 4.61
2 1,440 6.61 901 to 1300 6.46
3 2,290 9.14 1301 to 1800 7.78
4+ 3,000 11.22 1801 to 2400 9.11
2401 to 3000 10.22
3001 to 3600 11.13
3601 or more 11.89
Larimer Averages per Dwelling Fitted-Curve Values
y = 4.5731ln(x) - 25.964
R² = 0.963
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500
Trip Ends per Housing Unit
Square Feet of Living Area
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Dwelling
in Unincorporated Larimer County
Average weekday vehicle trip ends per housing
unit are derived from 2013 ACS PUMS data
(PUMA 102 and 103). Average square feet by
bedroom range derived from Larimer Assessor
parcel data for new dwellings constructed in
the unincorporated area during 2012 through
2014.
October 2, 2018 Page 1
COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Staff: Mike Beckstead and Lawrence Pollack
Date: September 17, 2018
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
First Reading of Ordinance No. , 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves
in Various City Funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Annual Adjustment Ordinance is to combine dedicated and unanticipated revenues or
reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were
not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2018 annual budget appropriation. The unanticipated
revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City
departments to offset specific expenses.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the 2018 Annual
Adjustment Ordinance?
• Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2018 Annual
Adjustment Ordinance to the full City Council?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue and prior year reserves in various City funds, and
authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds and/or projects. The City Charter permits
the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new
revenue sources, such as grants and reimbursements. The City Charter also permits the City Council to
provide, by ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. Additionally, it authorizes
the City Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon
recommendation of the City Manager, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be
expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which they were initially appropriated no longer exists; or
the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which the amount appropriated exceeds
the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance.
If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue
and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures.
The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested
appropriations. Also included are transfers between funds and/or projects which do not increase net
appropriations, but per the City Charter, require City Council approval to make the transfer. A table with
the specific use of prior year reserves appears at the end of the AIS.
October 2, 2018 Page 2
A. GENERAL FUND
1. The City received one metropolitan district application for its review and consideration. As per
City policy, one application was accompanied by a non-refundable application fee of $2,000 and a deposit
of $10,000 and three applications were accompanied by a non-refundable application fee of $2,000 and a
deposit of $5,000 to be utilized for the reimbursement of staff, legal and consultant expenses.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (application fees) $33,000
FOR: Reimbursement of staff, legal and consultant expenses $33,000
2. Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung cancer
risk from in-home radon exposure. This appropriation would use test kit sales revenue for the purpose of
restocking radon test kits.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (from radon kit sales) $4,102
FOR: Radon Test Kits $4,102
3. This request is intended to cover expenses related to land bank property maintenance needs for
2018. As expenses vary from year-to-year, funding is requested annually mid-year to cover these costs.
Expenses for 2018 include general maintenance of properties, raw water and sewer expenses, electricity
and other as applicable.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank reserve) $21,000
FOR: Land Bank Expenses $21,000
4. The Parks department received a donation for the 4P
th
P of July Fireworks at City Park and
unanticipated donation for the Forestry Division for trees. This request appropriates those donations.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (donations) $30,424
FOR: 4P
th
P of July Celebration $25,000
FOR: Tree Purchases $5,424
5. The Community and Public Involvement Office (CPIO) has received additional franchise fees
from Comcast after a mid-franchise financial audit of Comcast per Section 3.6 of the agreement between
The City and Comcast. This revenue has been received and equipment will be purchased this year.
Funding Unanticipated
Revenue
Prior Year
Reserves
Transfers
between
Funds
TOTAL
General Fund $590,612 $1,263,154 $0 $1,853,766
Benefits Fund 426,000 0 0 426,000
Capital Projects Fund 37,838 0 0 37,838
Equipment Fund 1,682,645 0 0 1,682,645
GID #1 Fund 0 60,000 0 60,000
GID #15 (Skyview) Fund 0 30,000 0 30,000
Natural Areas Fund 51,472 0 0 51,472
Transportation Fund 38,850 841,038 0 879,888
Water Fund 15,540 45,000 0 60,540
GRAND TOTAL $2,842,957 $2,239,192 $0 $5,082,149
October 2, 2018 Page 3
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (audit recovery) $28,000
FOR: Fort Collins Public Media equipment & technology $28,000
6. The City is engaging Corona Insights to conduct a research study focused on the current housing
market, neighborhood quality, and the impacts of the occupancy ordinance and received additional
funding of $10,525 from the Fort Collins Board of Realtors to fund the study.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (donation) $10,525
FOR: Occupancy Study $10,525
7. As required by law, Chief Judge Lane appointed defense counsel to represent certain defendants
on traffic and non-traffic misdemeanor cases at the expense of the City. She has appointed defense
counsel to 151 cases from January through the end of July 2018. The fee paid by the City for such
representation is billed at the rate of $75/hour up to a maximum of $1,675 per case if the case does not
go to trial, or $2,480 if the case goes to trial. The Court's original budget for these services was $44,060,
which has been exceeded to-date. The number of appointments being made has increased significantly
due to a change in state law that occurred after our budget offers for 2017-2018 had been submitted.
The Municipal Court is requesting the use of reserves of $32,000 to meet the anticipated cost increase for
this required service.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $32,000
FOR: Court-Appointed Defense Counsel costs $32,000
8. On March 6, 2018, Resolutions 2018-021/022 authorized Chief Judge Lane to hire and appoint
Temporary Judges to hear civil case(s) filed into Municipal Court. No additional funding for personnel
costs was appropriated for the Court's budget at that time. On April 3, 2018, a civil case with multiple
parties was filed into Municipal Court. Chief Judge Lane appointed a Temporary Judge to hear this case.
The case is complex with 31 individual filings to date and may not be completed until Fall 2018. This
request covers the estimated personnel costs associated with Judge Hamilton-Feldman hearing this case
through completion.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $5,000
FOR: Personnel Costs for Temporary Judges to Hear Civil Cases $5,000
9. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources and is also
requesting the use of reserves, to be appropriated to cover the related expenditures. A listing of these
items follows:
a. $36,934 – 2018 Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement (BATTLE) Grant - In 2018 Police
Services was awarded a Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement (BATTLE) grant from the
State to pay for officers to work overtime to conduct enforcement activities.
b. $5,000 – 2018 Click It or Ticket (aka Seatbelt) Grant - In 2018 Police Services was awarded a
Click it or Ticket grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for officers to work
overtime to conduct enforcement activities.
c. $600,000 – Police Collective Bargaining Unit Costs - Since the 2018 Collective Bargaining Unit
costs are established after the 2018 budget was put in place, this adjustment requests additional
funding to cover some of the additional costs agreed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
d. $160,241 - As a part of the movement of the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force to Larimer
County, who is now the fiscal agent, this appropriation would allow the department to send the
State Asset Forfeiture reserve fund balance to Larimer County.
October 2, 2018 Page 4
e. $11,818 – 2018 High Visibility Impaired Driving Enforcement (HVE) Grant – In 2018 Police
Services was awarded a High Visibility Impaired Driving Enforcement grant from the Colorado
Department of Transportation to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement during specific holiday time
periods.
f. $33,552 – 2018 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Grant - In 2018 Police
Services was awarded a Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) grant from the Department of Justice to
help offset some of the overtime costs for officers who work at the Northern Colorado Drug Task
Force. These funds are not shared with our partners and are exclusive to the City of Fort Collins,
as City of Loveland and Larimer County have received their own respective grant awards.
g. $75,687 – Sale of Police records and other miscellaneous revenue - FCPS received revenue
from the sale of Police reports along with other miscellaneous revenue.
h. $308,744 – Police Overtime Reimbursement - Police Services helps schedule security and traffic
control for large events. Since these events are staffed by officers outside of their normal duties,
officers are paid overtime. The organizations that request officer presence are billed for the costs
of the officers' overtime. 2018 activities included CSU football games, Tour de Fat, Brew Fest,
New West Fest and other events. Additionally, FCPS partners with Larimer County to staff events
at The Ranch.
i. $2,500 - Shop with a Cop Grant - The program pairs volunteers from regional emergency
services with local children whose families are facing severe financial difficulties and limited/no
housing. Children selected by the McKinney Foundation (through the Poudre School District), are
given gift cards to purchase gifts for their immediate family members. Emergency personnel shop
with them, building bonds and providing assistance.
UTOTAL APPROPRIATION
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2018 BATTLE Grant) $36,934
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2018 Click it or Ticket Grant) $5,000
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Police Collective Bargaining Unit Costs) $600,000
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Northern Colorado Drug Task Force) $160,241
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (HVE Grant) $11,818
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (JAG Grant) $33,552
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous) $75,687
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Overtime Reimbursement) $308,744
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Shop with a Cop Grant) $2,500
FOR: 2018 BATTLE Grant $36,934
FOR: 2018 Click it or Ticket Grant $5,000
FOR: Transfer of reserve funding to Larimer County $160,241
FOR: 2018 HVE Grant $11,818
FOR: 2018 JAG Grant $33,552
FOR: Police Services $984,431
FOR: Shop with a Cop Grant $2,500
10. This grant was awarded from the Colorado Restorative Justice Coordinating Council to update
and translate all Restorative Justice documents from English to Spanish, and to provide a three-part
training in equity and inclusion for all Restorative Justice/Mediation staff and volunteers.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $10,326
FOR: Restorative Justice/Mediation expenses $10,326
11. This request is to appropriate $444,913 to cover the payment of 2017 Manufacturing Equipment
Use Tax rebates (MUTR) made in 2018. In accordance with Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5,
October 2, 2018 Page 5
Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebates were paid out in July 2018. The rebate program was
established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by local firms. Vendors have until
December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item appropriates the use tax funds to
cover the payment of the rebates.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate) $444,913
FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $444,913
B. BENEFITS FUND
1. The Human Resources department was awarded a Worksite Wellness grant from Tri-County
Health Department to fund fitness testing equipment for an employee fitness testing program.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $1,000
FOR: Fitness testing equipment for an employee fitness testing program $1,000
2. This appropriation request is to fund unanticipated expenditures for the City's 2018 Stop Loss
Insurance plan. In 2016 and a portion of 2017, the City experienced excessive high-dollar medical claims
that resulted in 40% cost increases to its Stop Loss insurance plan for 2017 and 2018. The City was able
to absorb the cost increase in 2017 from pharmaceutical savings and a favorable medical claims
performance year.
Through July 2018, medical claims performance is on par with budget and is projected to come in under
budget by year-end to once again help absorb the Stop Loss cost overage. However, medical claims
activity in 3rd and 4th quarters has historically been very volatile. This request of $425,000 from
unanticipated revenues in the Benefits Fund will aid in covering 2018 Stop Loss insurance plan costs in
the event that any underspend from medical claims cannot fully absorb the Stop Loss overage.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (premium fees) $425,000
FOR: Stop Loss insurance plan $425,000
C. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. As a part of recent development on North College, repayment funds were received from the
developer for their local street obligation for the improvements that were completed by the City.
Generally, these funds go back into the nearest capital project on the same corridor. The funds are
necessary to complete the North College Pedestrian Connection Project.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (contributions in aid) $10,444
FOR: North College Pedestrian Connection Project $10,444
2. The Gardens on Spring Creek seeks to appropriate unanticipated donations designated for
capital construction of the Visitor's Center expansion and garden expansion projects.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (donations) $27,394
FOR: Gardens on Spring Creek Capital Project $27,394
D. EQUIPMENT FUND
1. This revenue is from the Alt Fuels Colorado ($145,600) and Charge ahead ($11,394) grant
programs administered by the State Energy Office and the Regional Air Quality Council. Alt Fuels
October 2, 2018 Page 6
Colorado provides 80% reimbursement on the incremental cost of Natural Gas vehicles, while the Charge
ahead provides infrastructure for vehicle charging stations.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grants) $156,994
FOR: Vehicle charging stations $156,994
2. These funds are from rebates from energy efficiency lighting projects at various City Facilities
from Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power Authority. This revenue will be used for additional
energy efficiency and solar projects in 2018.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (rebates) $25,651
FOR: Energy efficiency and solar projects $25,651
3. These funds represent the insurance proceeds from the July 2018 Hail Storm that damaged 370
City Fleet vehicles. The repairs are all expected to be completed this year.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (insurance proceeds) $1,500,000
FOR: City Fleet vehicles $1,500,000
E. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 FUND
1. The Downtown GID has $25,000 allocated to sidewalk improvements annually to cover areas of
sidewalk that may need to be removed/repaired or replaced. This year the brick sidewalk in front of the
Opera Galleria was identified as a sidewalk in need of repair. Due to the length of the repair needed,
additional budget is required to fully repair/replace the sidewalk.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (GID #1) $60,000
FOR: Opera Galleria sidewalk repair $60,000
F. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #15 (SKYVIEW) FUND
1. The Skyview GID will be getting asphalt work done in 2019 per the current Street Maintenance
Program schedule. Historically, work has been completed to upgrade sidewalks one year in advance of
asphalt to not create a "backup" in the repair/replacement process (laying asphalt goes much faster than
concrete repairs and when done in the same year, the asphalt crews end up being stalled by the concrete
work being done in front of them). This request is to complete the concrete work in the Skyview South
GID in 2018 prior to asphalt work in 2019.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (GID #15) $30,000
FOR: Concrete work in the Skyview South GID $30,000
G. NATURAL AREAS FUND
1. This grant from Colorado Health Foundation supports the Outdoor Club, a collaboration with City
of Fort Collins Natural Areas, the Fort Collins Boys & Girls Club, and CSU School of Social Work to
connect low income children and their families to natural areas. The funds are for transportation, outdoor
gear, stipends for partner agencies to offer activities, teacher training, and activity supplies.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $51,472
FOR: Programs to connect low income children and their $51,472
families to natural areas
October 2, 2018 Page 7
H. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. The 2018 snow budget has nearly been consumed. The total annual budget is $1.4M and YTD
spending is $1.3M. Extremely cold temperatures require more deicer material to keep the roads safe,
which drives up the cost of snow operations significantly. Ice cutting can be required due to the weather
pattern where daytime thawing and nighttime freezing caused ice dams, ice potholes, and build-up in
gutters causing drain blockages. Additional funding of $800,000 is requested to provide snow removal
services during the winter months from October through December 2018.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Transportation Fund) $800,000
FOR: Snow & Ice Removal $800,000
2. FC Bikes received funding from the following sources: People for Bikes Big Jump Mini Grant
($25,000); Bike Share Membership and User Revenue ($41,038); and, Open Streets sponsorship and
vendor fees ($13,850). Funding from the People for Bikes grant will be used to develop concept designs
and implement a temporary demonstration project along City Park Ave. Funding from Bike Share
Membership and User fees will be used to support the City's ongoing Bike Share sponsorship contract.
Open Streets sponsorship dollars and vendor fees will be used to supplement 2018 Open Streets event
costs.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $38,850
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (grant deposited in 2017) $41,038
FOR: FC Bike Share Program $79,888
I. WATER FUND
1. The Water Supply Vulnerability Study was funded with $250,000 in 2017 and $100,000 in 2018 to
study future water supply uncertainties related to climate changes, supply disruptions, and changes in
demand. The Water Resources Division solicited our regional water supply partners to join us in the
Study. Northern Water Conservancy District, who manages the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, agreed
to partner with us and bring an additional $45,000 (after the $350,000 had been approved through the
BFO process) to help fund the study. Utilities has received these additional dollars and this Adjustment
Request is to appropriate the $45,000 to the Water Supply Vulnerability Study. $40,000 was received in
2017 and $5,000 will be received by end of year 2018. It is being requested to take all $45,000 out of
reserves since the $5,000 for 2018 has not been received.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Water Fund) $45,000
FOR: Water Supply Vulnerability Study $45,000
2. Fort Collins Utilities was recently awarded a Public Education and Outreach Grant in the amount
of $15,540 from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to address water efficiency in the commercial,
institutional, and industrial (CII) sector. CII efforts require granular site-specific knowledge on top of
traditional billing data analysis, including information about the facility’s operations, occupancy, end uses,
building age and more. With this grant Fort Collins Utilities will collaborate with industry expert Michelle
Maddaus, from Maddaus Water Management, to provide a hands-on technical training to Fort Collins as
well 15 other water utilities across the front range. With this focused training, participants will gain skills to
identify and address efficiency opportunities and strategies in the commercial sector that will save utility
customers water and money, while contributing to the State’s larger water goals.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $15,540
FOR: Water Efficiency training $15,540
October 2, 2018 Page 8
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases total City 2018 appropriations by $5,082,149. Of that amount, this Ordinance
increases General Fund 2018 appropriations by $1,853,766 including use of $1,263,154 in prior year
reserves. Funding for the total City appropriations is $2,842,957 from unanticipated revenue and
$2,239,192 from prior year reserves.
The following is a summary of the items requesting prior year reserves:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1 – Presentation to City Council Finance Committee
Item # Fund Use Amount
A3 General Land Bank Property Maintenance $21,000
A7 General Municipal Court-Court-Appointed Defense Counsel 32,000
A8 General Municipal Court-Temporary Judges 5,000
A9c General Police Collective Bargaining Unit Additional Costs 600,000
A9d General Movement of Funds Associated with the Northern Colorado
Drug Task Force
160,241
A11 General Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebates 444,913
E1 GID #1 Opera Galleria Sidewalk Improvement 60,000
F1 GID #15 Skyview South GID Sidewalks 30,000
H1 Transportation Snow Removal 800,000
H2 Transportation FC Bikes - Grants and Bike Share Revenue 41,038
I1 Water Water Supply Vulnerability Study 45,000
Total Use of Prior Year Reserves: $2,239,192
Council Finance Committee – September 17, 2018
2018 Annual Adjustment Ordinance
Mike Beckstead - CFO
Attachment #1
2018 Annual Adjustment Ordinance
2
The recommended 2018 Annual Adjustment
Ordinance is intended to address:
• 2018 unanticipated revenues (e.g. grants)
• Appropriation of unassigned reserves to fund unanticipated expenditures
associated with approved 2018 appropriations
• Should be routine and non-controversial
• Items approved by the ordinance need to be spent within fiscal/calendar
year 2018
3
City-wide Ordinance No. , 2018 increases total City
2018 appropriations by $5,082k
• This Ordinance increases General Fund 2018 appropriations by $1,854k
including the use of $1,263k in prior year reserves
o $445k of that is for the Manufacturer’s Use Tax Rebate
o $600k of that is for Police Collective Bargaining Additional Costs
• Funding for the total City appropriations is:
o $2,843k from additional revenue
o $2,239k from prior year reserves
2018 Annual Adjustment Ordinance
4
Summary of 2018 Adjustments by Fund
Funding Unanticipated
Revenue
Prior Year
Reserves
Transfers
between
Funds
TOTAL
General Fund $591 $1,263 $0 $1,854
Benefits Fund $426 $0 $0 426
Capital Projects Fund $38 $0 $0 38
Equipment Fund $1,683 $0 $0 1,683
GID #1 Fund $0 $60 $0 60
GID #15 (Skyview) Fund $0 $30 $0 30
Natural Areas Fund $51 $0 $0 51
Transportation Fund $39 $841 $0 880
Water Fund $16 $45 $0 61
GRAND TOTAL $2,843 $2,239 $0 $5,082
5
Large Adjustments
General
Fund
Transpor-
tation
Fund
Other TOTAL
Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $0.4 $0.4
Hail Damage Insurance Appropriation -
Vehicles
1.5 1.5
Police Collective Bargaining 0.6 0.6
Benefits Stop Loss Insurance Costs 0.4 0.4
Snow Removal 0.8 0.8
Sub-Total $1.0 $0.8 $1.9 $3.8
All Other Recommended Items 0.8 0.1 0.4 1.3
$1.9 $0.9 $2.3 $5.1
Offer
TOTAL
6
2018 Annual Adjustment Ordinance
Guidance Requested:
• What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee
have on the 2018 Annual Adjustment Ordinance?
• Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with
bringing the 2018 Annual Adjustment Ordinance to the full City
Council?
Family*
Multifamily Total
Vehicles per
Household
by Tenure
Owner-occupied 52,926 21,384 146 21,530 2.46
Renter-occupied 8,179 3,943 583 4,526 1.81
Total 61,105 25,327 729 26,056 2.35
Units per Structure Vehicles
Available
Housing Units
(3)
Vehicles per
Housing Unit
Single family 59,693 31,841 1.87
All Other 1,412 991 1.43
Total 61,105 32,832 1.86
* Includes single family deattached, attached, mobile home
(3) Housing units from Table B25024, American Community Survey, 2015.
Households (2)
Households (2)
Households (2)
(1) Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, American Community Survey, 2015.
(2) Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, American Community
Total 816.10 864,669 1,687,149 $73,188,100 $235,601,813
$308,789,913
LCR 904
LCR 905
* = Represents 1/2 of Total Improvement Cost
** = Represents 3/4 of Total Improvement Cost 8/8
074E CR 73C CRDMRE LKS RD CR 162/MANHATTAN RD Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO M 1,046 2003 1,700 Growth Factor 0.19 197 323 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.15 7,100 0.24 0.24 7,100
074E CR 162/MANHATTAN RD CR 67J/PRAIRE DIVIDE Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO M 1,585 2003 2,600 Growth Factor 0.38 605 993 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.22 7,100 0.37 0.37 7,100
074E CR 67J/PRAIRE DIVIDE CR 218/DOWDY LAKE RD Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO M 2,166 2003 3,600 Growth Factor 0.96 2,079 3,411 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 4,100 0.53 4,100 0.87 0.87
4,100
074E CR 218/DOWDY LAKE RD CR 68C/BOY SCOUT RD Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO M 2,056 2003 3,400 Growth Factor 6.34 13,035 21,383 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.29 7,100 0.48
0.48 7,100
074E CR 68C/BOY SCOUT RD END PN 120 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO M 2,287 2003 3,800 Growth Factor 4.43 10,131 16,619 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 8,300 0.28 8,300 0.45 0.45 8,300
074E END PN 120 CR 37 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO M 2,821 2003 4,600 Growth Factor 7.85 22,153 36,340 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.40 7,100 0.65 0.65 7,100
074E CR 37 SH 287 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO M 2,971 2003 4,900 Growth Factor 3.93 11,670 19,144 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 3 5,800 0.51 5,800 0.84 0.84 5,800
076 BEGINING CR 17 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 46 2002 80 Growth Factor 0.81 37 69 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.12 400 0.21 0.21 400
076 CR 17 CR 15 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 109 2002 950 NFR Model 1.00 109 955 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.27 400 2.38 2.38 Pave 10,000 $1,004,000
076 CR 15 CR 11 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 109 2002 950 NFR Model 1.96 213 1,860 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.27 400 2.38 2.38 Pave 10,000 $1,956,000
076H CR 37 SH 287 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 42 2003 80 Growth Factor 2.65 111 200 Native 21 2 0 200 0.21 200 0.38 0.38 200
078 GATE CR 17 Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 22 2003 40 Growth Factor 0.77 17 28 Native 22 2 0 200 0.11 200 0.18 0.18 200
078 CR 17 CR 15 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 213 2003 350 Growth Factor 1.00 213 349 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 8,300 0.03 8,300 0.04 0.04 8,300
080 SH 287 CR 19 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 135 2003 200 Growth Factor 8.26 1,115 1,829 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.34 400 0.55 0.55 400
080 CR 19 CR 17 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 201 2003 350 Growth Factor 0.96 193 317 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 3 5,800 0.03 5,800 0.06 0.06 5,800
080 CR 17 END MAINTENANCE Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 30 2003 50 Growth Factor 0.50 15 25 Native 24 2 0 200 0.15 200 0.25 0.25 200
080C CR 190 CR 103 (LRMIE RV RD) Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 76 2004 100 Growth Factor 5.37 408 657 Native 24 2 1 200 0.38 200 0.61 0.61 200
080C CR 103 (LARM RV RD) CR 162 (DEADMAN RD) Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 73 2004 100 Growth Factor 1.66 121 195 Native 22 2 0 200 0.37 200 0.59 0.59 200
080C CR 162 (DEADMAN RD) CR 89 (CHIMNEY ROCK) Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 32 2004 50 Growth Factor 6.02 193 310 Native 22 2 0 200 0.16 200 0.26 0.26 200
080C CR 89 (CHIMNEY ROCK) FS 169(PEARL-BEAVER) Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 30 2004 50 Growth Factor 9.12 274 441 Native 22 2 0 200 0.15 200 0.24 0.24 200
080C FS 169(PEARL-BEAVER) CR 59 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 87 2001 150 NFR Model 9.94 1,472 Native 20 2 0 200 0.44 200 0.74 0.74 200
080C CR 59 CR 179 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 142 2001 250 Growth Factor 4.20 596 1,015 Native 24 2 2 200 0.71 200 1.21 1.21 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $2,100,000
080C CR 179 CR 82E Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 209 2001 350 Growth Factor 6.19 1,294 2,201 Native 24 2 3 200 1.05 rade to Treated G $3,095,000 400 1.78 0.89 400
080C CR 82E CR 37 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 355 2003 600 Growth Factor 5.20 1,846 3,028 Native 24 2 3 200 1.78 rade to Treated G $2,600,000 400 2.91 1.46 Pave 8,300 $8,060,000
080C CR 37 SH 287 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 341 2003 550 Growth Factor 2.36 805 1,320 Native 24 2 4 200 1.71 rade to Treated G $1,180,000 400 2.80 1.40 Pave 8,300 $3,658,000
082 CR 15 CR 9 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 351 2003 600 Growth Factor 2.98 1,046 1,716 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 8,300 0.04 8,300 0.07 0.07 8,300
082 CR 9 CR 7 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 357 2003 600 Growth Factor 0.99 353 579 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 8,300 0.04 8,300 0.07 0.07 8,300
082 CR 7 CR 5 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 357 2003 600 Growth Factor 1.00 355 583 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 8,300 0.04 8,300 0.07 0.07 8,300
082 CR 5 I-25 SOUTH BOUND RAMPS Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 357 2003 600 Growth Factor 0.73 259 425 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 8,300 0.04 8,300 0.07 0.07 8,300
082E BEGIN MAINTENANCE CR 80C Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 128 2001 200 Growth Factor 4.48 574 976 Native 17 2 0 200 0.64 200 1.09 1.09 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $2,241,000
084 CR 19 CR 15 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 93 2003 150 Growth Factor 2.01 187 307 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.23 400 0.38 0.38 400 $0
089 CR 80C STATE LINE Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 29 2004 50 Growth Factor 5.87 170 274 Native 20 2 0 200 0.15 200 0.23 0.23 200 $0
092 CATTLE GUARD CR5 Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 32 2002 50 Growth Factor 0.71 23 38 Native 24 2 1 200 0.16 200 0.27 0.27 200 $0
092 CR 5 COUNTY LINE Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 60 2002 100 Growth Factor 1.31 79 131 Native 24 2 1 200 0.30 200 0.50 0.50 200 $0
103 SH 14 WIDTH CHANGE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 184 2004 300 Growth Factor 9.15 1,684 2,712 Native 24 2 1 200 0.92 0 $0 200 1.48 1.48 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $4,576,000
103 WIDTH CHANGE CR 190 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 88 2004 150 Growth Factor 6.51 573 923 Native 18 2 0 200 0.44 200 0.71 0.71 200 $0
103 CR 190 CR 80C Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 154 2004 250 Growth Factor 5.81 895 1,442 Native 24 2 1 200 0.77 0 $0 200 1.24 1.24 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $2,907,000
103 CR 80C CR 187 (BULL MTN RD) Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 167 2004 250 Growth Factor 3.51 587 945 Native 24 2 3 200 0.84 0 $0 200 1.34 1.34 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $1,757,000
103 CR 187 (BULL MTN RD) RD 196 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 167 2004 250 Growth Factor 2.57 429 692 Native 24 2 3 200 0.84 0 $0 200 1.34 1.34 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $1,285,500
103 RD 196 STATE LINE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 167 2004 250 Growth Factor 4.45 743 1,197 Native 24 2 3 200 0.84 0 $0 200 1.34 1.34 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $2,225,000
122 SH 36 ALPINE DRIVE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 544 2003 900 Growth Factor 0.84 457 750 Gravel 22 2 0 400 1.36 Pave $1,302,000 8,300 2.23 0.11 8,300 $0
162 CR 80C FS 169(PEARL-BEAVER) Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 39 2004 60 Growth Factor 15.83 617 994 Native 18 2 0 200 0.20 200 0.31 0.31 200 $0
162 FS 169(PEARL-BEAVER) CATTLE GUARD WITH GATE Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 175 2003 300 Growth Factor 5.88 1,029 1,688 Native 20 2 0 200 0.88 0 $0 200 1.44 1.44 Upgrade to Treated Gravel
400 $2,940,000
162 CATTLE GUARD CR 74E/73C Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 224 2003 350 Growth Factor 1.30 291 478 Native 20 2 0 200 1.12 rade to Treated G $650,000 400 1.84 0.92 400
162 CR 74E RD FTHR LKS R CR 69/68C Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 350 2004 550 Growth Factor 6.72 2,352 3,788 Gravel 24 1 2 400 0.88 400 1.41 1.41 Pave 8,300 $10,416,000
179 HIAWATHA HY/END 67J SURFACE CHANGE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,400 2003 2,300 Growth Factor 1.01 1,415 2,322 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 8,300 0.17 8,300 0.28 0.28 8,300
179 SURFACE CHANGE CR 180 CRDMRE LKS RD Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 87 2001 150 Growth Factor 7.32 637 1,084 Native 16 2 0 200 0.44 200 0.74 0.74 200
179 CR 180 CR 82E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 55 2001 90 Growth Factor 2.59 142 242 Native 15 2 0 200 0.28 200 0.47 0.47 200
179 CR 82E CR 80C Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 58 2001 100 Growth Factor 3.00 174 296 Native 15 2 0 200 0.29 200 0.49 0.49 200
180 CR 73C / TAMI RD CROW RD Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 85 2001 150 Growth Factor 1.45 123 210 Bladed 21 2 0 200 0.03 200 0.04 0.04 3,400
180 CROW RD CR 179 Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 85 2001 150 Growth Factor 6.27 533 907 Bladed 12 1 1 200 0.02 200 0.04 0.04 4,100
190 CR 103 CR 80C Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 76 2004 100 Growth Factor 5.03 382 616 Gravel 18 2 0 400 0.19 400 0.31 0.31 400
218 CR 74E - RED FEATHER LETITIA DR-END PN109 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 920 2003 1,500 Growth Factor 0.67 613 1,005 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.13 7,100 0.21 0.21
7,100
901 LCR 14 / WCR 50 US 34 Minor Arterial WC NO NO R 223 2005 353 Growth Factor 4.00 892 1,411 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.56 400 0.88 0.88 400
LCR 72
LCR 73
LCR 74
LCR 76
LCR 78
LCR 80
LCR 82
LCR 84
LCR 89
LCR 92
LCR 103
LCR 122
LCR 162
LCR 179
LCR 180
LCR 190
LCR 218
LCR 901
* = Represents 1/2 of Total Improvement Cost
** = Represents 3/4 of Total Improvement Cost 7/8
060E CR 21 CR 19 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 287 2004 500 Growth Factor 1.01 290 510 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.72 400 1.26 1.26 Pave 10,000 $504,500
060E CR 19 CR 60 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 325 2004 550 Growth Factor 1.37 446 785 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.81 400 1.43 1.43 Pave 10,000 $685,500
061 CR 43 CR 63E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 478 2003 800 Growth Factor 0.45 215 353 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 1 3,400 0.14 3,400 0.23 0.23 3,400 $0
061 CR 63E END Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 146 2003 250 Growth Factor 0.86 126 206 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.37 400 0.60 0.60 400 $0
061G PEAKVIEW DRIVE END MAINTENANCE Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 120 2003 200 Growth Factor 0.70 84 138 Native 22 2 0 200 0.60 200 0.98 0.98 0 200 $0
062 CR 11 SH 1 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 139 2004 250 Growth Factor 1.02 142 250 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.35 400 0.61 0.61 400 $0
062 WELLINGTON CL CR 3 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO U 292 2004 500 Growth Factor 1.63 476 839 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.73 400 1.29 1.29 Pave 15,300 $815,500
062 CR 3 CR 901/COUNTY LINE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 124 2004 200 Growth Factor 1.00 124 218 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.31 400 0.55 0.55 400 $0
062E CR 11 CR 9 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 110 2004 200 Growth Factor 1.00 110 194 Native 24 2 0 200 0.55 200 0.97 0.97 200 $0
062E CR 9 SH 1 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 1,541 2004 2,700 Growth Factor 0.19 293 516 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.22 7,000 0.39 0.39 7,000 $0
063 BEGIN/CHELEY CAMP RD CR 63A Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 259 2003 400 Growth Factor 0.58 151 248 Native 24 2 2 200 1.30 rade to Treated G $292,000 400 2.12 1.06 Pave 8,300 $292,000
063 CR 63A CARRIAGE DR Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 765 2003 1,300 Growth Factor 0.53 402 660 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.11 7,100 0.18 0.18 7,100 $0
063 CARRIAGE DR ESTES CITY LIMITS Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,673 2003 2,700 Growth Factor 1.35 2,259 3,705 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.24 7,100 0.39 0.39 7,100 $0
063 ESTES CITY LIMITS ESTES CITY LIMITS Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,700 2003 2,800 Growth Factor 0.42 714 1,171 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.24 7,100 0.39 0.39 7,100
$0
063 ESTES CITY LIMITS ESTES CITY LIMITS Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,146 2003 3,500 Growth Factor 0.85 1,824 2,992 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.30 7,100 0.50 0.50 7,100
$0
063 ESTES CITY LIMITS US 36 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,013 2003 3,300 Growth Factor 0.35 705 1,156 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 4,100 0.49 4,100 0.81 0.81 4,100 $0
063A CR 63 SH 7 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 817 2003 1,300 Growth Factor 0.20 167 273 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.12 7,100 0.19 0.19 7,100 $0
063E ESTES CITY LIMITS CR 61 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,445 2003 2,400 Growth Factor 1.89 2,737 4,489 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.20 7,100 0.33 0.33 7,100 $0
063E CR 44H CROWN POINT RD Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 181 2004 300 Growth Factor 7.62 1,378 2,220 Native 24 2 2 200 0.91 0 $0 200 1.46 1.46 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $3,808,000
063E CROWN POINT RD SH 14 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 315 2004 500 Growth Factor 4.26 1,342 2,161 Native 24 2 2 200 1.58 rade to Treated G $2,130,000 400 2.54 1.27 Pave 8,300 $6,603,000
064 CR 21 CR 19 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 108 2004 200 Growth Factor 1.00 108 191 Native 24 2 4 200 0.54 200 0.95 0.95 200
064 CR 19 CR 17 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 150 2004 250 Growth Factor 1.01 151 266 Native 24 2 4 200 0.75 200 1.32 1.32 Upgrade to Treated Gravel 400 $503,500
064 CR 15 CR 11 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 864 2004 1,700 NFR Model 1.57 1,356 2,716 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.10 8,500 0.20 0.20 8,500
064 CR 11 CR 9 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 864 2004 1,700 NFR Model 1.02 881 1,765 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.10 8,500 0.20 0.20 8,500
064 CR 7 BARRICADE Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 33 2004 60 Growth Factor 0.26 9 15 Paved - High Type Bituminous 20 2 3 7,700 0.00 7,700 0.01 0.01 7,700
064 I-25 E. FRONTAGE RD CR 5 Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 1,506 2004 3,600 NFR Model 0.68 1,024 2,427 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.11 13,100 0.27 0.27 13,100
064 CR 5 CR 3 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,411 2004 3,600 NFR Model 1.00 1,410 3,565 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.17 8,500 0.42 0.42 8,500
064 CR 3 COUNTY LINE Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,378 2004 3,600 NFR Model 0.98 1,352 3,501 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 0 5,000 0.28 5,000 0.71 0.71 5,000
065 CR67(MARY'S LAKE RD) ESTES CITY LIMITS Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,326 2003 2,200 Growth Factor 0.67 888 1,457 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 5,800 0.23 5,800 0.38 0.38 5,800
066 CR 21 CR 19 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 45 2004 80 Growth Factor 1.01 45 80 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.11 400 0.20 0.20 400
066 CR 19 CR 17 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 222 2004 700 NFR Model 1.00 222 704 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.56 400 1.76 1.76 Pave 10,000 $1,000,000
066 CR 17 CR 15 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 325 2004 550 Growth Factor 1.10 358 630 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.81 400 1.43 1.43 Pave 10,000 $1,100,000
066 CR 15 WIRE GATE Local Roads LCRB NO NO R N/A Growth Factor 0.40 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.00 400 0.00 0.00 400
066 CR 66E CR 11 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 291 2002 550 Growth Factor 0.61 178 326 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.73 400 1.34 1.34 Pave 10,000 $610,000
066 CR 11 CR 9 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 241 2004 400 Growth Factor 1.00 241 424 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.60 400 1.06 1.06 Pave 10,000 $1,000,000
066 CR 9 CR 7 Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 200 2004 350 Growth Factor 1.00 200 352 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.50 400 0.88 0.88 400
066 CR 7 I-25 Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 200 2004 350 Growth Factor 0.17 34 60 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.02 10,700 0.03 0.03 10,700
066 I-25 CR 5 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 374 2004 650 Growth Factor 0.60 224 395 Gravel 24 2 5 400 0.94 400 1.65 1.65 Pave 10,000 $600,000
066 CR 5 CR 3 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 286 2004 500 Growth Factor 1.00 286 504 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.72 400 1.26 1.26 Pave 10,000 $1,000,000
066 CR 3 CO LINE (DEAD END) Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 111 2002 200 Growth Factor 0.89 99 182 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.28 400 0.51 0.51 400
066E CR 17 CR 15 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 166 2004 300 Growth Factor 1.01 168 295 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.42 400 0.73 0.73 400
066E CR 15 CR 13 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 255 2002 450 Growth Factor 0.99 252 464 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.64 400 1.17 1.17 Pave 10,000 $990,000
066E CR 13 CR 66 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 291 2002 550 Growth Factor 0.63 183 337 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.73 400 1.34 1.34 Pave 10,000 $630,000
067 SH 7 CR 65 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,745 2003 2,900 Growth Factor 1.00 1,745 2,862 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.25 7,100 0.40 0.40 7,100
067 CR 65 CR 67E/RIVERSIDE DR Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,965 2003 4,900 Growth Factor 1.27 3,769 6,182 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.42 7,100 0.69 0.69 7,100
067 CR 67E US 34 / SH 66 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 3,985 2003 6,500 Growth Factor 0.34 1,351 2,216 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.56 7,100 0.92 0.92 7,100
067E CR67(MARY'S LAKE RD) ESTES CITY LIMITS Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,576 2003 2,600 Growth Factor 0.59 930 1,525 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 5,100 0.31 5,100 0.51 0.51
5,100
067E ESTES CITY LIMITS ESTES CITY LIMITS Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,576 2003 2,600 Growth Factor 0.27 426 698 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 5,100 0.31 5,100 0.51 0.51 5,100
067J CR74E RED FTHR LK RD HIAWATHA HY/MAIN ST Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,408 2003 2,300 Growth Factor 0.68 957 1,571 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 5,800 0.24 5,800 0.40 0.40
5,800
067W BEGIN PAVEMENT ESTES CITY LIMITS Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,453 2003 2,400 Growth Factor 1.08 1,569 2,574 Paved - Unknown 20 2 1 4,100 0.35 4,100 0.58 0.58 4,100
068 CR 19 CR 17 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 92 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.01 93 164 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.23 400 0.40 0.40 400
068 CR 17 CR 15 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 92 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.00 92 162 Gravel 22 2 1 400 0.23 400 0.40 0.40 400
068 CR 15 CR 13 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 57 2002 100 NFR Model 1.01 58 119 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.14 400 0.30 0.30 400
068 CR 11 CR 9 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 42 2004 100 NFR Model 1.00 42 118 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.11 400 0.30 0.30 400
068 CR 9 CR 7 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 67 2004 100 Growth Factor 0.98 66 116 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.17 400 0.29 0.29 400
068 CR 7 I-25 BARRICADE Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 26 2004 50 Growth Factor 0.35 9 16 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.07 400 0.11 0.11 400
068 I-25 EAST FRONTAGE ROADD END Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 40 2004 60 Growth Factor 0.15 6 10 Native 22 2 0 200 0.20 200 0.32 0.32 200
068C CR 69/162 CR74E RED FTHR LKS R Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 369 2003 600 Growth Factor 6.91 2,551 4,185 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.92 400 1.51 1.51 Pave 8,300 $10,716,700
069 SH 14 CR 68C Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 219 2004 350 Growth Factor 3.23 707 1,139 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.55 400 0.88 0.88 400
069B BEGINING SPUR SH 66 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,933 2003 4,800 Growth Factor 1.95 5,716 9,377 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 5,800 0.51 5,800 0.83 0.83 5,800
LCR 58
LCR 59
LCR 60
LCR 61
LCR 62
LCR 63
LCR 64
LCR 65
LCR 66
LCR 67
LCR 68
LCR 69
LCR 70
* = Represents 1/2 of Total Improvement Cost
** = Represents 3/4 of Total Improvement Cost 6/8
Lanes & Shoulder 15,300 $199,500
046E CR 11C (AIRPARK DR) TIMBERLINE RD Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 6,869 2003 12,400 Growth Factor 0.61 4,190 7,540 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.64 10,700 1.16 1.16
Widen Lanes & Shoulder 15,300 $305,000
046E TIMBERLINE RD CR 9E (SUMMITVIEW) Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 853 2003 1,500 Growth Factor 0.23 195 352 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.08 10,700 0.14 0.14 10,700
$0
046G CR 19F (SUNSET) CITY FTC CL Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 434 2003 800 Growth Factor 0.13 57 103 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.03 15,300 0.05 0.05 15,300 $0
047 COUNTY LINE-BOULDER SH 36 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 407 2003 650 Growth Factor 3.07 1,250 2,050 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 1 400 1.02 Pave $4,760,050 8,300 1.67 0.08 8,300
$0
048 SRFCH (E G) TO CR 21 (OVERLAND TR Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 302 2003 550 Growth Factor 0.16 48 87 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 2 10,000 0.03 10,000 0.05 0.05 10,000 $0
048 CR 21 (OVERLAND TR) IRISH DR (CITY CL) Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,040 2003 8,400 NFR Model 0.66 1,991 5,478 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 13,100 0.23 13,100 0.64 0.64 13,100
$0
048 CITY FTC CL CR 19 (TAFT HILL RD) Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,719 2003 8,400 NFR Model 0.15 550 1,238 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 13,100 0.28 13,100 0.64 0.64 13,100 $0
048 CR 19 (TAFT HILL) CITY FTC CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 4,163 2003 10,900 NFR Model 0.29 1,207 3,154 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.27 15,300 0.71 0.71 15,300 $0
048 CITY FTC CL CR 5 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,056 2003 3,700 Growth Factor 0.72 1,486 2,675 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.29 7,000 0.53 0.53 7,000 $0
048 CR 5 CR 3 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,438 2003 2,600 Growth Factor 0.99 1,418 2,552 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.21 7,000 0.37 0.37 7,000 $0
048 CR 3 COUNTY LINE (CR 901) Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,438 2003 2,600 Growth Factor 1.01 1,450 2,609 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.21 7,000 0.37 0.37 7,000 $0
048C BEGINNING CR 23 Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 351 1999 600 Growth Factor 0.52 184 324 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 5,800 0.06 5,800 0.11 0.11 5,800 $0
050 BEGINING CR 25E Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 80 2003 150 NFR Model 0.63 50 82 Native 24 2 4 200 0.40 200 0.65 0.65 200 $0
050 SRFCH (E G) TO CR 21C (OVERLAND T Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 312 2003 550 Growth Factor 0.74 231 415 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.02 13,100 0.04 0.04 13,100 $0
050 CR 21C (OVERLAND TR) GDR TO CLP FARM/CR21 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 7,242 2003 13,000 Growth Factor 0.24 1,738 3,128 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.68 10,700 1.22
1.22 Widen Lanes & Shoulder 15,300 $120,000
050 CR 17 (SHIELDS) FTC CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 5,573 2004 9,800 Growth Factor 0.25 1,393 2,453 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.52 10,700 0.92 0.92 10,700 $0
050 CITY FTC CL CITY FTC CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 5,573 2004 9,800 Growth Factor 0.30 1,672 2,944 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.52 10,700 0.92 0.92 10,700 $0
050 I-25 SRF CHG CITY FTC CL Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 329 2002 2,000 NFR Model 0.80 264 1,621 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.82 400 5.05 5.05 Pave 15,300 $401,500
050 CR 5 CR 3 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 278 2002 950 NFR Model 1.01 280 947 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.70 400 2.35 2.35 Pave 10,000 $503,500
050E CR 23 CR 21C (OVERLAND TR) Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,339 2001 2,300 Growth Factor 1.89 2,531 4,306 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.16 8,500 0.27 0.27 8,500 $0
050E SH 1 CR 13/CR 52C Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 3,880 2004 6,200 Growth Factor 0.78 3,026 4,874 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.36 10,700 0.58 0.58 10,700 $0
050E CR 13/CR 52C CR 11 Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 4,454 2004 7,200 Growth Factor 1.11 4,944 7,963 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.42 10,700 0.67 0.67 10,700 $0
051B CR 43 LOCKED GATE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 471 2003 750 Growth Factor 2.20 1,037 1,701 Gravel 16 2 0 400 1.18 Pave $3,413,100 8,300 1.93 0.09 8,300 $0
052 CR 21C END Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 85 2004 150 Growth Factor 0.20 17 27 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 0 3,400 0.03 3,400 0.04 0.04 3,400 $0
052 GATE CR 11 Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 455 2004 800 Growth Factor 0.61 278 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.03 13,100 0.06 0.06 13,100 $0
052 SRF CHG I-25 CR 3 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 268 2002 1,900 NFR Model 1.84 493 3,456 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 5,000 0.05 5,000 0.38 0.38 5,000 $0
052 CR 3 CR 901 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 228 2002 2,700 NFR Model 1.01 230 2,729 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.57 400 6.76 6.76 Pave 10,000 $505,000
052C SH 1 CR 13E (ABBOTSFORD) Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,880 2004 3,300 Growth Factor 0.39 728 1,281 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.18 10,700 0.31 0.31 10,700 $0
052C CR 13E (ABBOTSFORD) CR 50E(COUNTRY CLUB) Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 2,739 2004 4,800 Growth Factor 0.80 2,178 3,834 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.26 10,700 0.45
0.45 10,700 $0
052E STEEL GATE CR 27 (STVE PRA. RD) Local Roads NO NO M NA 0 N/A 3.00 Native 16 2 0 200 0.00 200 0.00 0.00 200 $0
052E CR 27 CR 41 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 310 2003 500 Growth Factor 1.42 439 720 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 5,800 0.05 5,800 0.09 0.09 5,800 $0
052E CR 41 DAVIS RANCH RD Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,198 2003 2,000 Growth Factor 5.37 6,431 10,549 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 0 4,100 0.29 4,100 0.48 0.48 4,100 $0
052E DAVIS RANCH RD CR 27E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,363 2003 2,200 Growth Factor 3.91 5,329 8,742 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 4,100 0.33 4,100 0.55 0.55 4,100 $0
052E CR 27E CR 25E Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,422 2003 2,300 Growth Factor 1.15 1,631 2,676 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 4,100 0.35 4,100 0.57 0.57 4,100 $0
052E CR 25E CR 23 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,952 2004 3,100 Growth Factor 0.53 1,042 1,679 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 5,800 0.34 5,800 0.54 0.54 5,800 $0
052E CR 23 CR 23E Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,452 2004 3,900 Growth Factor 0.59 1,442 2,322 Paved - Unknown 24 2 3 5,800 0.42 5,800 0.68 0.68 5,800 $0
052E CR 23E CR 54G (OLD 287) Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 2,452 2004 3,900 Growth Factor 0.36 883 1,422 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 2 5,100 0.48 5,100 0.77 0.77 5,100 $0
052E CR 23A CR 54G Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 197 2003 300 Growth Factor 0.27 53 87 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.49 400 0.81 0.81 400 $0
052E SH1 CR 13E (ABBOTSFORD) Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 186 2004 350 Growth Factor 0.35 65 115 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.47 400 0.82 0.82 400 $0
052E CR 13E (ABBOTSFORD) LOCKED GATE Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 50 2004 90 Growth Factor 0.13 6 11 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.13 400 0.22 0.22 400 $0
052H CR 13E CR 13 Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 337 2004 600 Growth Factor 0.37 125 220 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.84 0 $0 400 1.48 1.48 Pave 15,300 $185,500
054 CR 17 SH 1 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,201 2004 7,343 NFR Model 1.18 3,777 8,665 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.24 13,100 0.56 0.56 13,100 $0
054 SH 1 CR 13 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 2,120 2004 6,500 NFR Model 0.82 1,738 5,305 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.16 13,100 0.49 0.49 13,100 $0
054 CR 13 CR 11 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 2,120 2004 6,500 NFR Model 0.97 2,056 6,277 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.16 13,100 0.49 0.49 13,100 $0
054 CR 11 CR 9 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,168 2004 6,400 NFR Model 0.99 1,156 6,306 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.14 8,500 0.75 0.75 8,500 $0
054 CR 9 I-25 W. FRONTAGE RD Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 92 2002 6,400 NFR Model 0.94 87 6,019 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.23 400 15.98 15.98 Pave 10,000 $471,000
054 I-25 E. FRONTAGE RD END Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 115 2002 200 Growth Factor 0.85 98 163 Native 24 2 0 200 0.58 200 0.96 0.96 200 $0
054 BEGINNING CR 901 (WELD CO LN) Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 39 2002 70 Growth Factor 0.37 14 24 Bladed 12 1 0 200 0.01 200 0.01 0.01 5,000 $0
054E CR 27E CR 25E Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 316 2003 500 Growth Factor 0.80 253 415 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.79 400 1.30 1.30 Pave 8,300 $400,000
054E CR 25E SH 287 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 699 2003 1,100 Growth Factor 0.54 376 617 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 8,300 0.08 8,300 0.14 0.14 8,300 $0
054G US 287 - BYPASS CR 23E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,591 2004 4,500 NFR Model 0.84 1,340 3,765 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.23 7,000 0.64 0.64 7,000 $0
054G CR 23E CR 52E - RIST CANYON Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,953 2004 4,500 NFR Model 0.68 1,328 3,040 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.28 7,000 0.64 0.64 7,000 $0
054G CR 52E - RIST CANYON CR 52E (WHITE LN) Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 5,681 2004 10,700 NFR Model 0.29 1,625 3,056 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.67 8,500 1.26 1.26 Add
Third Lane 15,400 $815,100
054G CR 52E (WHITE LANE) BEGIN 3 LANE Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 5,682 2004 13,500 NFR Model 0.34 1,909 4,525 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.67 8,500 1.58 1.58 Add Third
Lane 15,400 $957,600
054G BEGIN 3 LANE CR 21C (OVERLAND TR) Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 6,942 2004 11,200 Growth Factor 0.40 2,756 4,439 Paved - High Type Bituminous 36 3 5 8,500 0.82 8,500 1.32 1.32 Add
Third Lane 15,400 $1,131,450
054G CR 21C (OVERLAND TR) CR 19 (TAFT HILL RD) Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 8,684 2004 13,900 NFR Model 1.27 11,037 17,667 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 1.02 den Lanes & Shou
$1,271,000 10,000 1.64 1.39 Add Third Lane 15,400 $3,622,350
054G CR 19 (TAFT HILL RD) US 287 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 9,892 2004 13,500 NFR Model 0.24 2,344 3,191 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 1.16 den Lanes & Shou $237,000 10,000
1.58 1.35 Add Third Lane 15,400 $675,450
056 US 287 CR 23E Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 193 2004 300 Growth Factor 1.02 197 318 Gravel 22 2 1 400 0.48 400 0.78 0.78 400 $0
056 CR 23E SH 287 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 193 2004 300 Growth Factor 0.04 7 11 Gravel 22 2 1 400 0.48 400 0.78 0.78 400 $0
056 CR 21C CR 19 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 592 2004 950 Growth Factor 1.19 703 1,133 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.08 7,000 0.14 0.14 7,000 $0
056 CR 19 CR 17 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 852 2004 1,400 Growth Factor 1.14 975 1,570 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.12 7,000 0.20 0.20 7,000 $0
056 SH 1 CR 13 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 91 2004 1,800 NFR Model 1.13 102 1,969 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.23 400 4.38 4.38 Pave 10,000 $562,500
056 CR 13 CR 11 NORTH BOUND Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 91 2004 1,800 NFR Model 0.77 70 1,382 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.23 400 4.48 4.48 Pave 10,000 $385,500
LCR 41
LCR 42
LCR 43
LCR 44
LCR 45
LCR 46
LCR 47
LCR 48
LCR 50
LCR 51
LCR 52
LCR 54
LCR 56
* = Represents 1/2 of Total Improvement Cost
** = Represents 3/4 of Total Improvement Cost 5/8
027 CR 52E SH 14 Major Collector LCRB NO NO M 277 2004 450 Growth Factor 5.16 1,429 2,302 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 0 3,400 0.08 3,400 0.13 0.13 3,400
027E CR 4 CR 8E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 257 2004 400 Growth Factor 3.10 797 1,283 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.64 400 1.03 1.03 Pave 8,300 $4,805,000
027E CR 52E (RIST CYN RD) CR 54E Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 316 2003 500 Growth Factor 0.93 295 484 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.79 400 1.30 1.30 Pave 8,300 $1,446,150
028 RR XING US 287 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 6,417 2002 15,000 NFR Model 0.58 3,722 8,687 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.49 13,100 1.14 1.14 Widen Lanes & Shoulder 15,300
$841,000
028 US 287 CR 13E Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 6,332 2003 10,500 NFR Model 0.50 3,153 5,215 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.41 15,300 0.68 0.68 15,300
028 CR 13E CR 13 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 4,781 2003 8,600 Growth Factor 0.51 2,414 4,345 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 4 12,300 0.39 12,300 0.70 0.70 12,300
028 CR 13 CR 11C Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 2,564 2003 4,000 NFR Model 0.74 1,902 2,995 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 4 12,300 0.21 12,300 0.33 0.33 12,300
029 CR 12 CR18E (POLE HILL RD) Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,185 2004 2,200 NFR Model 3.16 3,746 7,046 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 3 400 2.96 Pave $3,161,000 10,000 5.57 0.22 10,000
029 CR18E (POLE HILL RD) CR 20 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,953 2004 5,900 NFR Model 0.34 995 1,972 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.42 7,000 0.84 0.84 7,000
029 CR 20 US 34 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,050 2004 4,000 NFR Model 1.72 3,518 6,782 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.29 7,000 0.56 0.56 7,000
029 US 34 CR 22H Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 298 2003 500 Growth Factor 1.23 366 601 Paved - Unknown 22 2 0 4,200 0.07 4,200 0.12 0.00 4,200
029 CR 22H SURF CHG Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 344 2003 450 NFR Model 1.94 667 869 Paved - Unknown 24 2 0 5,000 0.07 5,000 0.09 0.09 5,000
029 SURF CHG CR 27 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 344 2003 450 NFR Model 1.31 451 587 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 0 400 0.86 400 1.12 1.12 Pave 10,000 $1,310,000
029A BEGIN PVMNT CR 29 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 100 2004 150 Growth Factor 0.36 36 58 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.01 7,000 0.02 0.02 7,000
029C SH 14 CR 58G Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 197 2004 300 Growth Factor 1.22 241 388 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 5,800 0.03 5,800 0.05 0.05 5,800
030 US 287 CR 13 SOUTH BOUND Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 376 2003 2,600 NFR Model 1.19 447 3,109 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 10,000 0.04 10,000 0.26 0.26 10,000
030 CR 13 SOUTH BOUND CR 13 NORTH BOUND Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,039 2003 3,100 NFR Model 0.87 904 2,733 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 3 400 2.60 Pave $1,261,500 15,300 7.85
0.21 15,300
030 CR 13 NORTH BOUND CR 11C Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 1,099 2003 3,100 NFR Model 0.49 533 1,523 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 7,700 0.14 7,700 0.41 0.41 7,700
030 CR 11C CR 11 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES U 5,663 2003 9,300 NFR Model 0.24 1,359 2,227 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.37 15,300 0.61 0.61 15,300
030 CR 11 LOVELAND CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 5,710 2003 9,300 NFR Model 0.07 400 650 Paved - High Type Bituminous 36 2 4 13,100 0.44 13,100 0.71 0.71 13,100
030 RR XING (LOVELAND CL) CR 9 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 3,261 2003 9,000 NFR Model 0.67 2,188 6,029 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.21 15,300 0.59 0.59 15,300
030 LOVELAND CL I-25 W FRONTAGE RD Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,231 2003 9,800 NFR Model 1.31 4,242 12,865 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.21 15,300 0.64 0.64 15,300
030 I-25 E FRONTAGE RD WINDSOR CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 448 2003 10,700 NFR Model 0.25 114 2,708 Gravel 20 2 0 400 1.12 Pave $368,300 15,300 26.65 0.70 15,300
030 WINDSOR CL CR 3 Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 119 2003 2,100 Other 0.50 60 1,029 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.30 400 5.13 5.13 Pave 15,300 $727,900
031 BEGIN MAINTENANCE SRF CHG Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 275 2005 450 Growth Factor 0.50 138 217 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.69 400 1.09 1.09 Pave 8,300 $775,000
031 SRF CHG CR 8E Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 996 2004 1,600 Growth Factor 1.16 1,156 1,862 Paved - Unknown 22 2 0 3,400 0.29 3,400 0.47 0.47 3,400
031 CR 8E CR 18E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,357 2004 2,200 Growth Factor 4.86 6,598 10,626 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 3 5,800 0.23 5,800 0.38 0.38 5,800
031D CR 22H CLOSED GATE Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 392 2003 650 Growth Factor 0.25 98 161 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 20 2 0 400 0.98 400 1.61 1.61 Pave 8,300 $387,500
032 US 287 CR 13 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 8,535 2001 17,100 NFR Model 1.01 8,578 17,197 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.80 10,700 1.60 1.60 Add Third Lane 23,000 $2,148,188**
032 FTC CL CR 9 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 10,926 2004 18,300 NFR Model 1.01 11,068 18,487 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 1.02 den Lanes & Shou $1,468,850 15,300 1.71
1.19 Add Third Lane 23,000 $2,887,050
032 CR 9 I-25 W. FRONTAGE RD Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES U 11,388 2004 19,400 NFR Model 1.40 15,932 27,124 Paved - Unknown 24 2 3 10,700 1.06 den Lanes & Shou $2,028,550 15,300 1.81 1.27
Add Third Lane 23,000 $3,987,150
032C GATE CR 27 Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 159 2002 250 Growth Factor 0.83 132 220 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.40 400 0.66 0.66 400
032E CR 5 CR 3 Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 677 2003 3,100 NFR Model 0.96 651 2,995 Gravel 22 2 0 400 1.69 Pave $1,394,900 15,300 7.78 0.20 15,300
032E CR 3 CR 901 Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 489 2003 1,700 NFR Model 1.03 505 1,732 Paved - Unknown 24 2 0 7,700 0.06 7,700 0.22 0.22 7,700
034 CR 19 CITY FTC CL Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 4,210 2003 7,600 Growth Factor 0.52 2,172 3,909 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.50 8,500 0.89 0.89 8,500
034 CITY FTC CL CR 11 (Timberline) Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 4,854 2001 10,100 NFR Model 0.39 1,893 3,944 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.37 13,100 0.77 0.77 13,100
034E CR 7 I-25 W. FRONTAGE RD Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 101 2004 200 Growth Factor 0.56 57 100 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.25 400 0.44 0.44 400
036 CR 11 CITY FTC CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 6,151 2004 10,800 Growth Factor 0.51 3,137 5,524 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 3 400 15.38 Pave $739,500 15,300 27.08 0.71 15,300
036 CR 7 I-25 WEST FRONTAGE ROAD Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,771 2004 8,500 NFR Model 0.43 1,606 3,609 Paved - Unknown 24 2 0 7,700 0.49 7,700 1.10 1.10 Widen Lanes & Shoulder 15,300
$617,700
036 I-25 SRF CHG CR 5 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 599 2002 5,400 NFR Model 0.33 198 1,782 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 0 5,000 0.12 5,000 1.08 1.08 Widen Lanes & Shoulder 10,000
$330,000
036 CR 3F CR 3 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 133 2002 4,700 NFR Model 0.40 53 1,863 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.33 400 11.73 11.73 Pave 10,000 $397,000
037 CR 74E CR 76H Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 127 2003 200 Growth Factor 1.49 189 310 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.32 400 0.52 0.52 400
037 CR 76H CR 80C Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 127 2003 200 Growth Factor 0.82 104 171 Gravel 24 2 6 400 0.32 400 0.52 0.52 400
037 SH 287 STATE LINE Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 256 2003 400 Growth Factor 9.68 2,478 4,065 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.64 400 1.05 1.05 Pave 8,300 $15,004,000
037E COUNTY LINE SRF CHG Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 1,205 2003 2,000 Growth Factor 1.57 1,888 3,097 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 7,100 0.17 7,100 0.28 0.28 7,100
037E SRF CHG CATTLEGUARD/END MANT Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 150 2003 250 Growth Factor 0.92 138 226 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.38 400 0.62 0.62 400
037E CATTLEGUARD/END MANT CR 31 (CARTER LK RD) Local Roads UN NO NO M NA 0N/A Growth Factor 2.09 0 Unknown 0 2 0 400 0.00 400 0.00 0.00 400
38 I-25 FRONTAGE RD CR 5 (TIMNATH CL) Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES R 9,793 2002 21,700 NFR Model 0.46 4,524 10,020 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 1.40 den Lanes & Shou $462,000
10,000 3.10 2.17 Add Lanes 24,500 $2,356,200
038E CR 27 CR 25E SOUTH BOUND Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,154 2001 4,000 NFR Model 0.70 802 2,770 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.14 8,500 0.47 0.47 8,500
038E CR 25E SOUTH BOUND CR 25E NORTH BOUND Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,657 2003 4,800 NFR Model 1.04 1,725 4,955 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.19 8,500 0.56 0.56 8,500
038E CR 25E NORTH BOUND OVERHILL DR Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,850 2003 3,300 Growth Factor 1.63 3,019 5,433 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.22 8,500 0.39 0.39 8,500
038E OVERHILL DR CR 25G Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,850 2003 4,800 NFR Model 0.67 1,240 3,189 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.22 8,500 0.56 0.56 8,500
038E 25G Lak Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 4,554 2003 6,400 NFR Model 1.93 8,776 12,246 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.46 10,000 0.64 0.64 10,000
038E Lakeview Dr T Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 4,554 2003 6,400 NFR Model 1.90 8,653 12,075 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.46 10,000 0.64 0.64 10,000
038E Cr 23 CR 1 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 9,839 2003 17,700 Growth Factor 1.91 18,822 33,872 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.64 15,300 1.16 1.16 Add Third Lane 23,000
$5,452,050
040 CITY FTC CL CR 7 Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 616 2002 5,800 NFR Model 0.81 499 4,674 Gravel 24 2 3 400 1.54 Pave $1,174,500 15,300 14.43 0.38 15,300
040 I-25 E. FRONTAGE RD CR 5 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 309 2002 2,800 NFR Model 0.71 219 2,004 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.77 400 7.06 7.06 Pave 10,000 $710,000
040 CR 5 TIMNATH CL Local Roads LCRB NO NO U 228 2002 2,400 NFR Model 0.27 62 655 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.57 400 6.07 6.07 Pave 15,300 $135,000
LCR 24
LCR 25
LCR 26
LCR 27
LCR 28
LCR 29
LCR 30
LCR 31
LCR 32
LCR 34
LCR 36
LCR 37
LCR 38
LCR 40
* = Represents 1/2 of Total Improvement Cost
** = Represents 3/4 of Total Improvement Cost 4/8
Lanes & Shoulder 15,300 $2,900,000
019 FT COLLINS CL CR 38E Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 12,435 2003 18,000 NFR Model 0.51 6,292 9,108 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 1.16 den Lanes & Shou $366,850 15,300
1.68 1.18 Add Third Lane 23,000 $721,050*
019 CR 38E (Harmony) CR 40 (W HORSETOOTH) Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 22,287 2003 24,800 NFR Model 0.51 11,255 12,512 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 2.08 Add Third Lane
$1,439,250 10,700 2.32 2.32 Add Lanes 32,000 $2,575,500
019 CR 46E (LAPORTE) CR 48 (VINE DR) Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 7,773 2003 9,100 NFR Model 0.50 3,894 4,574 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.73 10,700 0.85 0.85 10,700
019 CR 48 (VINE DR) CR 54G (OLD 287) Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 5,830 2004 6,800 NFR Model 2.01 11,689 13,664 Paved - Unknown 24 2 3 10,700 0.54 10,700 0.64 0.64 10,700
019 CR 54G (OLD 287) CR 56 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,129 2004 2,700 NFR Model 2.01 4,277 5,458 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.30 7,000 0.39 0.39 7,000
019 CR 56 CR 60E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,817 2004 3,200 Growth Factor 2.49 4,515 7,951 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.26 7,000 0.46 0.46 7,000
019 CR 60E CR 64 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,216 2004 2,100 Growth Factor 1.41 1,710 3,011 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.14 8,500 0.25 0.25 8,500
019 CR 64 CR 66 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 534 1990 1,300 NFR Model 1.04 554 1,348 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.06 8,500 0.15 0.15 8,500
019 CR 66 CR 68 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 783 2004 1,400 Growth Factor 1.00 784 1,380 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.09 8,500 0.16 0.16 8,500
019 CR 68 CR 70 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 783 2004 1,400 Growth Factor 1.00 785 1,383 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.09 8,500 0.16 0.16 8,500
019 CR 80 CR 21 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 50 2003 90 Growth Factor 1.42 71 128 Gravel 24 2 4 400 0.13 400 0.22 0.22 400
019 CR 21 CR 84 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 93 2003 150 Growth Factor 0.58 54 97 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.23 400 0.42 0.42 400
019F BEGIN CR 46E (LAPORTE) Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 565 2003 1,000 Growth Factor 0.25 139 250 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.05 10,700 0.10 0.10 10,700
019F CR 46E (LAPORTE) CR 48 (VINE) Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 565 2003 1,000 Growth Factor 0.50 283 509 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 10,000 0.06 10,000 0.10 0.10 10,000
019G CR 46E (LAPORTE) CR 48 (VINE) Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 483 2003 850 Growth Factor 0.50 242 435 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 3 10,700 0.05 10,700 0.08 0.08 10,700
020 CR 29 CR 23H Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,460 2004 4,300 Growth Factor 1.60 3,936 6,931 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.35 7,000 0.62 0.62 7,000
020 CR 23H CR 23E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 3,828 2004 6,700 Growth Factor 0.26 995 1,753 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.45 8,500 0.79 0.79 8,500
020 CR 23E LOVELAND CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,828 2004 6,700 Growth Factor 0.40 1,531 2,696 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.29 13,100 0.51 0.51 13,100
020C US 34 BYPASS ESTES CL Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 265 2003 500 Growth Factor 0.91 241 434 Paved - High Type Bituminous 21 2 2 5,800 0.05 5,800 0.08 0.08 5,800
020C CR 3 COUNTY LINE Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 53 2003 100 Growth Factor 1.10 58 105 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.13 400 0.24 0.24 400
020E LOVELAND CL I-25 BRIDGE Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 550 2003 6,200 NFR Model 0.96 528 5,906 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 4 400 1.38 Pave $1,392,000 15,300 15.38 0.40 15,300
021 COUNTY LINE CR 4 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,257 2004 4,000 Growth Factor 1.02 2,302 4,054 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.27 8,500 0.47 0.47 8,500
021 CR 4 CR 6 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,257 2004 4,000 Growth Factor 1.01 2,268 3,994 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.27 8,500 0.47 0.47 8,500
021 CR 6 SH 56 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,257 2004 3,000 NFR Model 1.02 2,291 3,064 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.27 8,500 0.36 0.36 8,500
021 SH 56 CR 10 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 243 2004 750 NFR Model 1.01 245 753 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.61 400 1.87 1.87 Pave 10,000 $1,010,000
021 BEG/PARKING AREA CR 14 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 586 2004 1,000 Growth Factor 0.95 557 980 Paved - High Type Bituminous 20 2 2 5,000 0.12 5,000 0.21 0.21 5,000
021 CR 14 CR 16 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,263 2004 5,700 Growth Factor 0.99 3,230 5,688 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 3 10,700 0.30 10,700 0.54 0.54 10,700
021 CR 16 CR 16E Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 4,702 2004 8,300 Growth Factor 0.50 2,332 4,107 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 10,000 0.47 10,000 0.83 0.83 10,000
021 CR 16E CR 16H Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 4,702 2004 5,800 NFR Model 0.26 1,204 1,485 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 10,000 0.47 10,000 0.58 0.58 10,000
021 CR 16H CR 18 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 4,702 2004 5,800 NFR Model 0.25 1,166 1,438 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 10,000 0.47 10,000 0.58 0.58 10,000
021 CR 18 CR 20 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 2,720 2004 4,700 NFR Model 1.18 3,210 5,495 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.25 10,700 0.44 0.44 10,700
021 CR 46 (MULBERRY) CR 46E (LAPORTE) Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 9,902 2003 15,700 NFR Model 0.53 5,248 8,342 Paved - Unknown 24 2 6 15,300 0.65 15,300 1.03 1.03 Add Third Lane 23,000
$1,510,500
021 CR 46E (LAPORTE) CR 48 (VINE) Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 7,715 2003 13,900 Growth Factor 0.50 3,858 6,942 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.50 15,300 0.91 0.91 15,300
021 CR 48 (VINE) CR 50/DR TO CLP FARM Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 7,242 2003 13,300 NFR Model 1.01 7,314 13,403 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.68 10,700 1.24 1.24 Widen
Lanes & Shoulder 15,300 $1,464,500
021 CR 60 CR 60E Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 49 2004 90 Growth Factor 0.50 24 43 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.12 400 0.22 0.22 400
021 CR 60E CR 64 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 58 2004 100 Growth Factor 1.52 88 155 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.15 400 0.26 0.26 400
021 CR 64 CR 66 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 45 2004 80 Growth Factor 1.00 45 80 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.11 400 0.20 0.20 400
021 CR 70 CR 72 Minor Arterial LCRB NO NO R 760 2004 1,300 Growth Factor 1.26 958 1,686 Gravel 24 2 2 400 1.90 Pave $1,260,000 10,000 3.35 0.13 10,000
021 CR 19 CR 23 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 32 2003 60 Growth Factor 3.89 124 224 Native 24 2 1 200 0.16 200 0.29 0.29 200
021C CR 50 (MICHAUD) CR 50E (BINGHAM HILL) Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 5,768 2001 8,000 NFR Model 0.56 3,201 4,449 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.82 7,000 1.15 1.15 Widen
Lanes & Shoulder 10,000 $555,000
021C CR 50E (BINGHAM HILL) CR 52 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 4,565 2004 8,000 Growth Factor 0.51 2,333 4,108 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.65 7,000 1.15 1.15 Widen Lanes
& Shoulder 10,000 $511,000
021C CR 52 CR 54G (OLD 287) Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 4,565 2004 8,000 Growth Factor 0.10 457 804 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.65 7,000 1.15 1.15 Widen Lanes & Shoulder
10,000 $100,000
021C CR 54G (OLD 287) 287 BYPASS Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,800 2004 3,200 Growth Factor 1.29 2,326 4,095 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.26 7,000 0.45 0.45 7,000
021C US 287 BYPASS CR 56 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 592 2004 1,600 NFR Model 0.62 367 969 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.06 10,000 0.16 0.16 10,000
021F CR 21C END Local Roads LCRB NO NO R NA 0N/A 0.10 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 20 2 0 400 0.00 400 0.00 0.00 400
022B CR 23H BEGIN ONE WAY Minor Collector LCRB NO NO M 446 2002 750 Growth Factor 0.60 268 447 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 2 5,100 0.09 5,100 0.15 0.15 5,100
022B ONE WAY US 34 Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 446 2002 800 Growth Factor 0.16 71 131 Paved - High Type Bituminous 12 1 0 7,700 0.06 7,700 0.11 0.11 7,700
022H US 34 CR 31D Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 80 2003 150 Growth Factor 0.11 9 14 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 20 2 0 400 0.20 400 0.33 0.33 400
022H CR 31D CR 29 Local Roads LCRB NO NO M 80 2003 150 Growth Factor 0.78 62 102 Gravel 17 2 0 400 0.20 400 0.33 0.33 400
023 CR 6 SH 56 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,964 2004 5,200 Growth Factor 1.02 3,008 5,297 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.30 10,000 0.52 0.52 10,000
023 CR 8E CR 10 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 3,903 2004 6,900 Growth Factor 0.52 2,018 3,553 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.39 10,000 0.69 0.69 10,000
023 CR 10 CR 12 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 3,903 2004 6,900 Growth Factor 1.04 4,040 7,113 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.39 10,000 0.69 0.69 10,000
023 CR 12 CR 14 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 3,271 2004 3,900 NFR Model 1.03 3,379 4,067 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.33 10,000 0.39 0.39 10,000
023 CR 14 CR 16 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,131 2004 2,000 Growth Factor 0.79 892 1,571 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.13 8,500 0.23 0.23 8,500
023 CR 38E CR 42C Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,232 2001 3,000 NFR Model 1.58 3,524 4,686 Paved - Unknown 24 2 4 8,500 0.26 8,500 0.35 0.35 8,500
023 CR 42C CR 48C Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,225 2001 2,300 Growth Factor 3.85 4,716 8,865 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.14 8,500 0.27 0.27 8,500
023 CR 48C CR 25G Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,345 2003 1,600 NFR Model 0.70 943 1,128 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.19 7,000 0.23 0.23 7,000
023 CR 25G CR 50E Minor Collector NO NO R 1,345 2003 1,600 NFR Model 1.18 1,583 1,894 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 6,400 0.21 6,400 0.25 0.25 6,400
023 CR 50E CR 52E (RIST CANYON RD) Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,789 2003 3,200 Growth Factor 0.25 451 811 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 3 6,400 0.28 6,400 0.50 0.50 6,400
023 CR 21 END Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 15 2003 30 Growth Factor 3.45 52 93 Native 23 2 0 200 0.08 200 0.13 0.13 200
023E COUNTY LINE CR 4 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,746 2004 4,800 Growth Factor 1.01 2,773 4,884 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.32 8,500 0.57 0.57 8,500
023E CR 4 CR 6 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,964 2004 5,200 Growth Factor 0.99 2,940 5,177 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.30 10,000 0.52 0.52 10,000
023E CR 18 CR 20 (W. 1ST ST) Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,500 2004 2,600 Growth Factor 1.00 1,493 2,628 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.15 10,000 0.26 0.26 10,000
023E CR 52E (OLD SH 28) CR 54G (OLD US 287) Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 186 2003 350 Growth Factor 0.57 106 191 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.03 7,000 0.05 0.05 7,000
023E CR 56 CR 56E Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 271 2004 500 Growth Factor 0.53 144 253 Gravel 24 2 3 400 0.68 400 1.19 1.19 Pave 10,000 $530,000
023H CR 20 US 34 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,368 2004 2,400 Growth Factor 1.37 1,874 3,300 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.16 8,500 0.28 0.28 8,500
023H US 34 CR 22B Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,751 2002 5,100 Growth Factor 0.01 22 40 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.39 7,000 0.72 0.72 7,000
LCR 18
LCR 19
LCR 20
LCR 21
LCR 22
LCR 23
* = Represents 1/2 of Total Improvement Cost
** = Represents 3/4 of Total Improvement Cost 3/8
013 CR 68 CR 70 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 69 2002 150 Growth Factor 1.05 72 133 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.17 400 0.32 0.32 400
013 CR 70 CR 72 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 23 2002 40 Growth Factor 1.02 23 43 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.06 400 0.11 0.11 400
013C CR 16E LOVELAND CL Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,200 2004 4,300 NFR Model 0.19 228 809 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.11 10,700 0.40 0.40 10,700
013C SH 402 CR 18E (8TH ST SW) Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 3,348 2001 5,800 NFR Model 0.51 1,697 2,955 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.31 10,700 0.54 0.54 10,700
013C CR 18E (8TH ST SW) LOVELAND CITY LIMITS Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 3,760 2003 6,800 Growth Factor 0.37 1,402 2,524 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.35 10,700 0.63
0.63 10,700
013E LOVELAND CL CR 28 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 5,450 2003 5,900 NFR Model 0.29 1,581 1,724 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.51 10,700 0.56 0.56 10,700
013E CR 52C (GREGORY RD) CR 52H Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 316 2004 550 Growth Factor 0.64 202 356 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.79 400 1.39 1.39 Pave 15,300 $928,000
013F TRILBY RD (CR 34) LC HUMANE SOCIETY Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 758 2003 1,400 Growth Factor 0.28 212 382 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 2 400 1.90 Pave $1,428,000 15,300 3.41 0.09
0 15,300 $0
014 CR 23 NORTH BOUND CR 23 SOUTH BOUND Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 446 2004 3,900 NFR Model 0.20 90 795 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.05 8,500 0.46 0.46 8,500
014 CR 23 SOUTH BOUND CR 21 SB (LONE TREE) Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 3,084 2004 3,900 NFR Model 0.75 2,322 2,965 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.44 7,000 0.56 0.56 7,000
014 CR 21 SB (LONE TREE) CR 21 NORTH BOUND Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 3,084 2004 4,500 NFR Model 0.05 151 223 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.44 7,000 0.65 0.65 7,000
014 CR 21 NB CR 17 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,907 2004 4,500 NFR Model 2.00 3,806 9,066 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.18 10,700 0.42 0.42 10,700
014 CR 17 CR 15H Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 2,854 2003 5,100 Growth Factor 0.21 585 1,053 Paved - High Type Bituminous 36 2 3 10,700 0.27 10,700 0.48 0.48 10,700
014 CR 15H CR 15 (GARFIELD) Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 2,854 2003 5,100 Growth Factor 0.82 2,335 4,201 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.27 10,700 0.48 0.48 10,700
014 CR 15 (GARFIELD) US 287 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 2,854 2003 5,100 Growth Factor 0.19 534 960 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.27 10,700 0.48 0.48 10,700
015 CR 905 CR 2E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,112 2004 2,000 Growth Factor 0.50 559 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.16 7,000 0.28 0.28 7,000
015 CR 2E CR 4 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,112 2004 2,000 Growth Factor 0.50 559 985 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.16 7,000 0.28 0.28 7,000
015 CR 4 CR 15A Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,112 2004 2,000 Growth Factor 0.37 414 728 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.16 7,000 0.28 0.28 7,000
015 CR 15A CR 6C Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,112 2004 2,000 Growth Factor 0.89 990 1,743 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.16 7,000 0.28 0.28 7,000
015 US 287 CR 14 (42ND ST SW) Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 802 2003 1,400 Growth Factor 0.26 205 369 Paved - Concrete 18 2 2 2,400 0.13 2,400 0.23 0.23 6,400
015 CR 14 (42ND ST SW) CR 16 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,355 2003 2,400 Growth Factor 1.00 1,360 2,448 Paved - Concrete 18 2 2 3,700 0.14 3,700 0.24 0.24 10,000
015 LOVELAND CL US 287 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 3,510 2002 6,500 Growth Factor 0.33 1,158 2,130 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 0 7,700 0.46 7,700 0.84 0.84 7,700
015 SH 1 CR 58 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,410 2004 4,200 Growth Factor 0.18 436 768 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.34 7,000 0.61 0.61 7,000
015 CR 58 CR 60 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,410 2004 4,200 Growth Factor 0.99 2,381 4,193 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.34 7,000 0.61 0.61 7,000
015 CR 60 CR 64 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,776 2004 2,500 NFR Model 1.97 3,500 4,890 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.21 8,500 0.29 0.29 8,500
015 CR 64 CR 66 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,828 2004 1,900 NFR Model 1.07 1,949 2,016 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.22 8,500 0.22 0.22 8,500
015 CR 66 CR 66E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,221 2004 1,900 NFR Model 0.52 636 979 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.14 8,500 0.22 0.22 8,500
015 CR 66E CR 68 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,221 2004 2,200 Growth Factor 0.50 615 1,084 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.14 8,500 0.25 0.25 8,500
015 CR 68 CR 70 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,221 2004 2,200 Growth Factor 0.99 1,208 2,126 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.14 8,500 0.25 0.25 8,500
015 CR 70 CR 72 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,399 2002 3,000 NFR Model 1.03 1,441 3,039 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 8,500 0.16 8,500 0.35 0.35 8,500
015 CR 72 CR 74 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 802 2002 1,000 NFR Model 0.99 790 1,010 Paved - High Type Bituminous 21 2 6 9,500 0.08 9,500 0.11 0.11 9,500
015 CR 74 CR 76 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 638 2002 1,000 NFR Model 0.99 632 1,015 Paved - High Type Bituminous 21 2 6 9,500 0.07 9,500 0.11 0.11 9,500
015 CR 76 CR 78 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 449 2003 800 Growth Factor 1.01 451 812 Paved - High Type Bituminous 21 2 6 9,500 0.05 9,500 0.09 0.09 9,500
015 CR 78 CR 82 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 310 2003 550 Growth Factor 2.00 620 1,116 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 10,000 0.03 10,000 0.06 0.06 10,000
015 CR 82 CR 84 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 93 2003 300 NFR Model 1.03 96 309 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.23 400 0.75 0.75 400
015A CR 15 CR 4E Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 191 2004 350 Growth Factor 0.14 26 45 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.48 400 0.84 0.84 400
015A CR 4E CR 15 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 98 2004 150 Growth Factor 0.78 76 134 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.25 400 0.43 0.43 400
015H ROSEWOOD DR (12H) CR 14 Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 843 2004 1,500 Growth Factor 0.28 236 416 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 13,100 0.06 13,100 0.11 0.11 13,100
016 CR 23 CR 21 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,131 2004 2,000 Growth Factor 1.02 1,148 2,021 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.13 8,500 0.23 0.23 8,500
016 CR 21 CR 19 (WILSON) Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 398 2004 650 NFR Model 1.04 413 654 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 0 400 1.00 400 1.58 1.58 Pave 15,300 $1,505,100
016 CUL DE SAC SURF CHG Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 50 2003 100 Growth Factor 0.20 10 18 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.13 400 0.22 0.22 400
016 SURF CHG CR 17 (TAFT AVE) Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 207 2003 350 Growth Factor 0.54 111 200 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 5 0 7,700 0.03 7,700 0.05 0.05 7,700
016 LOVELAND CL CR 15 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,192 2003 2,100 Growth Factor 0.51 602 1,083 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 22 2 2 400 2.98 Pave $732,250 15,300 5.36 0.14 15,300
016 CR 11 CR 9 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 249 2003 5,100 NFR Model 1.00 248 5,049 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 22 2 0 400 0.62 400 12.69 12.69 Pave 10,000 $995,000
016 CR 9 CR 7 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 352 2003 4,500 NFR Model 1.00 352 4,509 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.05 7,000 0.64 0.64 7,000
016 CR 7 I-25 W. FRONTAGE RD Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 622 2003 4,100 NFR Model 0.82 511 3,350 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.09 7,000 0.58 0.58 7,000
016 I 25 EAST FRNTAGE RD CR 3E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 319 2003 4,400 NFR Model 0.57 182 2,518 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.05 7,000 0.63 0.63 7,000
016 CR 3E CR 901 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 319 2003 3,600 NFR Model 1.52 483 5,421 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.05 7,000 0.51 0.51 7,000
016E BEGINNING CR 21 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 212 2004 350 Growth Factor 0.80 170 299 Paved - High Type Bituminous 20 2 1 4,600 0.05 4,600 0.08 0.08 4,600
016E CR 13C (ST LOUIS) CR 13 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,199 2003 2,700 NFR Model 0.22 258 582 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 7,700 0.16 7,700 0.35 0.35 7,700
016E CR 13 CR 11 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 256 2003 2,700 NFR Model 1.03 265 2,799 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.64 400 6.77 6.77 Pave 15,300 $1,499,300
017 CR 2E CR 4E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,682 2004 3,000 Growth Factor 1.01 1,697 2,988 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 7 10,000 0.17 10,000 0.30 0.30 10,000
017 CR 4E BERTHOUD CL Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,200 2004 3,900 Growth Factor 0.76 0 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 7 10,000 0.22 10,000 0.39 0.39 10,000
017 CR 6E (Spartan) US 287 Major Collector LCRB NO NO U 1,702 2004 2,500 NFR Model 0.50 853 1,231 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.13 13,100 0.19 0.19 13,100
017 CR 8E (BUNYAN AVE) CR 10E Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES U 12,660 2004 6,100 NFR Model 1.01 12,812 6,173 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 1.18 volumes due to op $0 10,700 0.57
0.57 10,700
017 BERTHOUD CL CR 16 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 13,372 2004 24,100 NFR Model 2.18 29,151 52,623 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 13,100 1.02 den Lanes & Shou $3,161,000 15,300
1.84 1.58 Add Lanes 32,000 $11,118,000
017 CR 28 LOVELAND CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 12,320 2002 24,100 NFR Model 0.50 6,160 12,070 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 15,300 0.81 15,300 1.58 1.58 Add Lanes 32,000 $2,550,000
017 LOVELAND CL FT COLLINS CL Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES U 11,627 2003 24,900 NFR Model 1.00 11,627 24,885 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 15,300 0.76 15,300 1.63 1.63 Add Lanes
32,000 $5,100,000
017 CR 34 (TRILBY) SCENIC DR Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 14,621 2003 24,900 NFR Model 0.83 12,150 20,655 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 15,300 0.96 15,300 1.62 1.62 Add Lanes
32,000 $4,238,100
017 CR 48 (VINE) CR 50 (WILLOX) Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 9,399 2003 13,500 NFR Model 1.01 9,484 13,602 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.88 10,700 1.26 1.26 Widen Lanes
& Shoulder 15,300 $1,463,050
017 CR 50 US 287 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 5,435 2004 9,600 Growth Factor 1.00 5,430 9,561 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.41 13,100 0.73 0.73 13,100
017 US 287 CR 54 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 3,234 2004 7,300 NFR Model 1.01 3,250 7,331 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 10,700 0.30 10,700 0.68 0.68 10,700
017 CR 54 CR 56 & TRAVIS RD Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 852 2004 1,000 NFR Model 0.70 592 694 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.10 8,500 0.12 0.12 8,500
017 CR 64 CR 66 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 150 2004 250 Growth Factor 1.00 151 265 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.38 400 0.66 0.66 400
017 CR 66 CR 66E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 78 2004 150 Growth Factor 0.50 39 69 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.20 400 0.34 0.34 400
017 CR 66E CR 68 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 78 2004 150 Growth Factor 0.50 39 68 Gravel 23 2 0 400 0.20 400 0.34 0.34 400
017 CR 68 CR 70 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 42 2004 70 Growth Factor 1.20 50 89 Gravel 21 2 0 400 0.11 400 0.18 0.18 400
LCR 12
LCR 13
LCR 14
LCR 15
LCR 16
LCR 17
* = Represents 1/2 of Total Improvement Cost
** = Represents 3/4 of Total Improvement Cost 2/8
003F CR 36 CR 38 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 218 2002 400 Growth Factor 1.15 251 461 Paved - High Type Bituminous 19 2 2 5,000 0.04 5,000 0.08 0.08 5,000
004 CR 27E SURF CHG Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 400 2004 700 Growth Factor 0.49 196 345 Gravel 24 2 0 400 1.00 400 1.76 1.76 Pave 10,000 $490,000
004 SURF CHG CR 23E Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,100 2004 1,900 Growth Factor 1.39 1,529 2,692 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.13 8,500 0.23 0.23 8,500
004 CR 23E CR 21 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,890 2004 3,300 Growth Factor 1.47 2,782 4,899 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.27 7,000 0.48 0.48 7,000
004 CR 21 US 287 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,814 2004 3,200 Growth Factor 1.50 2,717 4,785 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.26 7,000 0.46 0.46 7,000
004 CR 15 CR 904 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 78 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.01 79 139 Gravel 20 2 0 400 0.20 400 0.34 0.34 400
004E US 287 CR 17 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 558 2004 1,100 NFR Model 0.50 281 569 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.08 7,000 0.16 0.16 7,000
004E CR 17 CR 15A Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 558 2004 1,100 NFR Model 1.00 556 1,129 Gravel 24 2 0 400 1.40 Pave $997,000 10,000 2.83 0.11 0 10,000 $0
005 SH 60 Begin I-25 West Frontage Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 366 2003 650 Growth Factor 0.57 209 377 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 0 4,200 0.09 4,200 0.16 0.16 4,200
005 WINDSOR CL SH 392 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 3,296 2003 9,500 NFR Model 0.50 1,648 4,761 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.25 13,100 0.73 0.73 13,100
005 CR 34C CR 36 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES R 1,550 2002 7,500 NFR Model 0.76 1,183 5,743 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 5,000 0.31 5,000 1.51 1.51 Widen Lanes & Shoulder 10,000
$763,000
005 CR 36 CR 38 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES R 977 2002 3,500 NFR Model 1.02 997 3,616 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.11 8,500 0.42 0.42 8,500
005 TIMNATH CL SH 14 Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 1,610 2003 6,400 NFR Model 0.25 403 1,609 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 7,700 0.21 7,700 0.84 0.84 7,700
005 SH 14 CR 48 (VINE DR) Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 252 2003 2,700 NFR Model 0.50 126 1,332 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.63 400 6.66 6.66 Pave 10,000 $500,000
005 CR 48 (VINE DR) SURF CHG Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 219 2003 2,800 NFR Model 0.50 110 1,384 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.03 8,500 0.33 0.33 8,500
005 SURF CHG CR 50 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 219 2003 2,800 NFR Model 0.50 110 1,384 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.55 400 6.92 6.92 Pave 10,000 $500,000
005 CR 64 CR 66 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 78 2004 150 Growth Factor 1.01 78 138 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.20 400 0.34 0.34 400
005 CR 66 GATE Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 78 2004 150 Growth Factor 0.67 52 92 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.20 400 0.34 0.34 400
005 GATE CR 70 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 102 2002 200 Growth Factor 0.74 75 139 Gravel 18 2 0 400 0.26 400 0.47 0.47 400
005 CR 70 CR 72 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 30 1986 80 Growth Factor 1.01 30 79 Gravel 18 2 0 400 0.08 400 0.20 0.20 400
005 CR 72 CR 74 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 37 2002 70 Growth Factor 0.97 36 66 Bladed 21 2 0 200 0.01 200 0.02 0.02 4,200
005 CR 82 CR 92 Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 37 2002 70 Growth Factor 5.23 193 356 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.09 400 0.17 0.17 400
005J CR 70 END Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 57 2002 100 Growth Factor 0.65 37 68 Native 20 2 3 200 0.29 200 0.52 0.52 200
006 CR 23E CR 23 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 2,964 2004 5,200 Growth Factor 0.46 1,355 2,385 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 10,000 0.30 10,000 0.52 0.52 10,000
006 CR 21 US 287 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 190 2004 1,200 NFR Model 1.50 285 1,743 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.48 400 2.90 2.90 Pave 10,000 $1,501,000
006C CR 15 CR 904 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 159 2004 300 Growth Factor 1.00 159 280 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.40 400 0.70 0.70 400
007 SH 60 CR 16 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 732 2003 1,700 NFR Model 1.00 732 1,728 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 4 8,000 0.09 8,000 0.22 0.22 8,000
007 CR 16 SH 402 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 732 2003 3,000 NFR Model 0.99 725 2,997 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.10 7,000 0.43 0.43 7,000
007 CR 34E CR 36 Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 101 2004 1,800 NFR Model 0.50 51 904 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.25 400 4.48 4.48 Pave 15,300 $730,800
007 CR 36 FT COL CL Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 450 2004 9,700 NFR Model 0.38 171 3,704 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 13,100 0.03 13,100 0.74 0.74 13,100
007 CR 64 CR 66 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO U 762 2004 1,300 Growth Factor 1.02 780 1,374 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.05 15,300 0.09 0.09 15,300
007 CR 66 CR 68 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 551 2004 950 Growth Factor 1.00 550 968 Paved - Unknown 24 2 0 5,000 0.11 5,000 0.19 0.19 5,000
007 CR 68 CR 70 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 551 2004 950 Growth Factor 1.01 555 978 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.06 8,500 0.11 0.11 8,500
007 CR 70 CR 82 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 209 2002 400 Growth Factor 6.01 1,256 2,310 Gravel 24 2 6 400 0.52 400 0.96 0.96 400
007 CR 82 END Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 18 2002 30 Growth Factor 0.51 9 17 Gravel 22 2 0 400 0.05 400 0.08 0.08 400
8E CR 31 CR 27E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,600 2004 2,800 Growth Factor 0.84 1,347 2,372 Paved - High Type Bituminous 0 2 2 6,400 0.25 0 6,400 0.44 0.44 6,400
008E CR 27E CR 23 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,896 2004 3,300 Growth Factor 2.67 5,062 8,914 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 2 6,400 0.30 6,400 0.52 0.52 6,400
008E CR 17 BERTHOUD CITY LIM Local Roads LCRB NO NO R 1,058 2004 1,900 Growth Factor 0.25 262 462 Paved - High Type Bituminous 22 2 2 6,400 0.17 6,400 0.29 0.29 6,400
009 CR 16 SH 402 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 298 2003 4,200 NFR Model 1.00 299 4,169 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.04 7,000 0.59 0.59 7,000
009 CR 24E WHITEBARK PL Minor Arterial LCRB YES YES U 2,437 2003 19,500 NFR Model 0.12 302 2,415 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 5 13,100 0.19 13,100 1.49 1.49 Add Third Lane 23,000
$353,400
009 CR 30 CR 32 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES R 1,307 2004 8,200 NFR Model 1.01 1,315 8,218 Paved - Low Type Bituminous 24 2 1 400 3.27 Pave $1,006,000 10,000 20.42 0.82 10,000
009 CR 44 (PROSPECT) SH 14 FRONTAGE RD Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 2,283 2003 4,800 NFR Model 1.23 2,817 5,866 Paved - High Type Bituminous 23 2 4 13,100 0.17 13,100 0.36 0.36 13,100
009 CR 52 CR 54 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,936 2002 4,800 NFR Model 1.00 1,936 4,788 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 7,000 0.28 7,000 0.68 0.68 7,000
009 CR 54 CR 56 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,936 2002 2,200 NFR Model 1.00 1,936 2,162 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.28 7,000 0.31 0.31 7,000
009 CR 56 CR 58 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 1,848 2004 4,900 NFR Model 1.00 1,848 4,942 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.26 7,000 0.71 0.71 7,000
009 WELLINGTON CL CR 68 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 605 2004 1,100 Growth Factor 1.50 908 1,598 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.07 8,500 0.13 0.13 8,500
009 CR 68 CR 70 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 605 2004 650 NFR Model 1.04 629 654 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 4 8,500 0.07 8,500 0.07 0.07 8,500
009 CR 70 CR 82 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 141 2003 250 Growth Factor 5.95 838 1,509 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 8 10,000 0.01 10,000 0.03 0.03 10,000
009E SH 402 CR 20 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES R 2,367 2003 7,100 NFR Model 0.97 2,301 6,930 Paved - Unknown 24 2 0 5,000 0.47 5,000 1.43 1.43 Widen Lanes & Shoulder 10,000 $972,000
009E SH 14 (MULBERRY) DONELLA CT Minor Collector LCRB YES NO U 1,719 2003 16,700 NFR Model 0.30 519 5,036 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 7,700 0.22 7,700 2.17 2.17 Add Third Lane
23,000 $860,700
009E DONELLA CT CUL-DE-SAC Local Roads LCRB YES NO U 40 2003 70 Growth Factor 0.12 5 9 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 1 7,700 0.01 7,700 0.01 0.01 0 7,700 $0
010 CR 23 CR 21 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 248 2004 850 NFR Model 1.00 248 862 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.04 7,000 0.12 0.12 7,000
010 CR 21 CR 19 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 248 2004 300 NFR Model 1.01 250 290 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.62 400 0.72 0.72 400
010 US 287 CR 904 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 445 2004 1,900 NFR Model 1.00 445 1,895 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 2 7,000 0.06 7,000 0.27 0.27 7,000
010E CR 19 CR 17 Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 249 2002 450 Growth Factor 1.52 378 696 Gravel 24 2 2 400 0.62 400 1.14 1.14 Pave 10,000 $1,520,000
011 SH 60 CR 16 Major Collector LCRB YES NO U 256 2003 3,400 NFR Model 1.00 256 3,361 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.64 400 8.40 8.40 Pave 15,300 $1,450,000
011 CR 16 CR 16E Major Collector LCRB NO NO R 224 2003 2,600 NFR Model 0.49 110 1,251 Gravel 24 2 0 400 0.56 400 6.39 6.39 Pave 10,000 $490,000
011 CR 30 CR 32 Minor Arterial LCRB NO YES U 4,871 2004 8,600 Growth Factor 1.00 4,876 8,586 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.32 15,300 0.56 0.56 15,300
011 CR 50 CR 50E Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 4,023 2004 11,900 NFR Model 0.51 2,032 6,003 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.38 10,700 1.11 1.11 Widen Lanes & Shoulder 15,300
$366,125*
011 CR 50E CR 52 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 2,652 2004 10,700 NFR Model 0.50 1,326 5,332 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 3 10,700 0.25 10,700 1.00 1.00 10,700
011 FT COL CL CR 54 Minor Arterial LCRB YES NO U 1,667 2004 6,400 NFR Model 0.50 834 3,185 Paved - High Type Bituminous 24 2 6 15,300 0.11 15,300 0.42 0.42 15,300
011 CR 54 CR 56 Minor Collector LCRB NO NO R 131 2004 700 NFR Model 1.22 160 864 Gravel 24 2 1 400 0.33 400 1.77 1.77 Pave 10,000 $1,218,000
LCR 2
LCR 3
LCR 4
LCR 5
LCR 6
LCR 7
LCR 8
LCR 9
LCR 10
LCR 11
* = Represents 1/2 of Total Improvement Cost
** = Represents 3/4 of Total Improvement Cost 1/8
LCR 29
LCR 25E
LCR 19
LCR 17
LCR 3
LCR 7
LCR 12
LCR 27E
LCR 23E
LCR 18E
LCR 31
LCR 29
UP RR
BNSF RR
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY
UP RR
BNSF RR
BNSF RR
BERTHOUD
FORT COLLINS
LOVELAND
TIMNATH
WELLINGTON
Figure 9B
Legend
Widen
Pave
State or US Highway
Other Roads
Larimer County
Widen Lanes and Shoulders
Upgrade to Treated Gravel
Add Third Lane
Add Lanes
Johnstown
2E
LCR 25E
Berthoud
Fort
Collins
Loveland
Timnath
Wellington
Windsor
See Figure 9B
for Urban Area
Long Range
Improvement Needs
Figure 9A
Legend
Pave
Widen
State or US Highway
Other Roads
Larimer County
Widen Lanes and Shoulders
Upgrade to Treated Gravel
Add Third Lane
Add Lanes
LCR 19
LCR 17
LCR 3
LCR 7
LCR 12
LCR 27E
LCR 23E
LCR 18E
LCR 31
LCR 29
UP RR
BNSF RR
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY
UP RR
BNSF RR
BNSF RR
BERTHOUD
FORT COLLINS
JOHNSTOWN
LOVELAND
TIMNATH
WELLINGTON
WINDSOR
BERTHOUD
FORT COLLINS
LOVELAND
TIMNATH
WELLINGTON
Figure 8B
Legend
2030 Volume Forecasts
< 1,000
1,001 - 2,500
2,501 - 5,500
5,501 - 10,000
> 10,000
Larimer County
Larimer County Transportation Plan Completion 04-101 08/17/06
yI
!"`$
³I
Johnstown
2E
LCR 25E
Berthoud
Fort
Collins
Loveland
Timnath
Wellington
Windsor
See Figure 6B
for Urban Area
2030 Traffic
Volume Forecasts
Figure 8A
Legend
< 1,000
1,001 - 2,500
2,501 - 5,500
5,501 - 10,000
> 10,000
Larimer County
LCR 25E
LCR 19
LCR 17
LCR 3
LCR 7
LCR 12
LCR 27E
LCR 23E
LCR 18E
LCR 31
LCR 29
UP RR
BNSF RR
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY
UP RR
BNSF RR
BNSF RR
BERTHOUD
FORT COLLINS
JOHNSTOWN
LOVELAND
TIMNATH
WELLINGTON
WINDSOR
Figure 7B
Legend
Widen
Pave
State or US Highway
Other Roads
Larimer County
Widen Lanes and Shoulders
Upgrade to Treated Gravel
Add Third Lane
4
2
0
8,300
7,100
5,800
4,100
7,600
6,400
5,100
3,400
4,100
2,400
1,900
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 for all urban level capacities as well as initial rural and mountainous
values. Hand balancing was completed for segments with similar geometrics, and to reflect lower
capacities for narrower shoulders in rural and mountainous areas.
Parkland & Administration Costs
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Exhibit M
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 11/6/2012
2011 125, 2010
Park, Police, Fire and
General Government,
Street Oversizing
Capital Improvements
No - Increased by
Denver Greeley CPI
and ENR Index. (1) 1/7/2011
Footnotes
(1) The absence of a Fee Study in this instance does not represent non-compliance w/ Colorado statutes or industry standards for such matters.
Ordinance Review
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
B. Transaction Support - Based upon our Review of the revenue and expenditure
transactions randomly selected from the City’s General Ledger along with appropriate
supporting documentation, we did not note any discrepancies which would lead us to believe
that City staff is not properly documenting its CEF transactions.
Dev Permit Fees - Building Permits Stormwater PIF