No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR08-149 Updated Emergency Service Provider Impact FeesCommissioner ~'1 ~n-wrL- moved adoption of the following Resolution: BOARD OF EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0.2008- ~~~ IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING UPDATED EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDER IMPACT FEES WITHIN THE BASALT & RURAL FIlZE PROTECTION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the hoard of County Commissioners of Eagle, State of Colorado (hereinafter the "Board"), is authorized, pursuant to state enabling legislation including, but not limited to, C.R.S. 30-28- 101, et seq., to plan for and regulate the use and development of land in the unincorporated territory of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the County of Eagle; and WHEREAS, Sections 23-30-305 and 30-11-107, C.R.S. give boards of county commissioners the discretion to cooperate with governing bodies of organized Emergency Service Providers and fire departments in the management and suppression of fires, in the organization and training of rural fire fighting groups, the payment for operation and maintenance of fire fighting equipment, and in sharing the cost of managing fires; and WHEREAS, Sections 30-10-512 and 513, C.R.S. require the county sheriff to assume the role of Ere warden in case of prairie or forest fires and assumes charge of the fire or assist other governmental authorities in such emergencies for controlling or extinguishing such fires, and allow the county commissioners to appropriate funds for the purpose of controlling Eres in its county; and WHEREAS, Section 30-20-504, C.R.S. gives counties the authority to create local improvement Emergency Service Providers with the authority to provide Ere protection and emergency medical services; and WHEREAS, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District ("Basalt Fire"), is aquasi-municipal governmental and political subdivision of the State of Colorado operating pursuant to Article 1, Title 32, C.R.S. to provide fire protection services within portions of Eagle County; and WHEREAS, Basalt Fire, referred to herein as "Emergency Service Provider", relies primarily on revenues from ad valorem property taxes to provide for their capital needs and to assure that they have available personnel, vehicles and equipment to respond and provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the Emergency Service Providers' residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, Eagle County is experiencing high rates of population growth, increased population density and increased demand for the services provided by the Emergency Service Provider as a result of land development within Eagle County; and WHEREAS, the construction of new developments within the territorial jurisdiction of the Emergency Service Provider is placing significant additional demands on fire protection and emergency medical services; and WHEREAS, the volume and pace of land development in the Emergency Service Providers' boundaries threatens the provision of adequate fire protection and emergency medical services; and WHEREAS, the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services is immediate upon development of residential and commercial growth even though the Emergency Service Providers' funding from tax revenues accrues well after the demand for services exists; and WHEREAS, the Board finds and determines that one of the primary roles of development review is to ensure essential public services and facilities, and that in order to promote and protect the convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of present and future inhabitants of Eagle County, a rational system for identifying growth related costs incurred by the Emergency Service Provider in providing new and expanded fire protection and emergency medical services made necessary by expanded population and economic activity levels is necessary, and a fee structure therefore directly related to such costs and method for collection of such fees should be adopted; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a requirement that developers of residential, non-residential and lodging developments pay fire protection and emergency medical impact fees as established herein will ensure that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of providing new and enhanced fire protection and emergency medical services necessary to accommodate such new development; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974 ("Act"), Sections 29-20-101 et. seq., C.R.S., Article 28 of Title 30, and other applicable law grant broad authority to the County to plan for and regulate the development of land on the basis of the impacts thereof on the community and surrounding areas; and in amending the Act in 2001, the Colorado General Assembly specifically allows local governments to impose impact fees to offset the cost of capital improvements necessary to serve new developments; and WHEREAS, Sections 29-1-801 et seq„ C.R.S., concerning land development charges recognize that counties may collect charges imposed on land development as a condition of the approval of development, if such charges relate to an expenditure for an improvement, facility, or piece of equipment necessitated by land development which is directly related to a local governmental service; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974 authorizes and encourages local governments to cooperate or contract with other units of government for the purpose of regulating the development of land and the impacts thereof; and WHEREAS, Eagle County is authorized by statutory authority and by Colorado common law to regulate the development and use of land, and impose mitigation measures, including impact fees, upon proponents of land development activities if impacts related to the service demands created by the development are not adequately mitigated; and WHEREAS, Eagle County has adopted as part of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 4-720, Emergency Service Impact Fees, which provides a program of Emergency Service Impact Fees to be imposed on development which generates a need for additional Emergency Service Capital Improvements, and the Emergency Service Impact Fee program contemplates the Board of County Commissioners establishing the amount of such fees by resolution as provided herein; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds and determines that adoption of impact fees for fire protection and emergency medical services within the Emergency Service Providers' boundaries as contained herein, is necessary and designed for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Eagle County and are consistent with the County's goals, policies and plans, including the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: 1) That findings and projections contained the Eagle County Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis for the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District dated September 2008, performed by the RPI Consulting LLC are hereby adopted. 2) That the attached Exhibit `A' containing the calculation for the Emergency Service Impact Fees to be imposed by the County to mitigate impacts of land development activities on the provisions of fire protection and emergency medical services, is adopted. 3) The Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Collection, Payment and Use of Emergency Service Impact Fees executed on August 2, 2006 remains in full force and effect. 4) Eagle County will commence collecting the Updated Emergency Service Impact Fees on Monday, January 5~', 2009. MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 30th day of December, 2008. ATTEST: voF ~+c~Fr o~ B o Tcak J. Simo ton toRA9o Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners ~..1 •• - tDY.~vvi , COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, by and through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By~% ~-- reter F. Runyon, Chai n r By: Sara J. Fisher, Co issioner By: Arn M. Menconi, Commissioner Commissioner ~~-~"- ~^~ seconded adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Peter F. Runyon ~ `"` Commissioner Sara J. Fisher '~ Commissioner Arn M. Menconi SL.~.a i This Resolution passed by 2 /0 vote of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. 3 EXHIBIT `A' Fire and EMS Impact Fee Update Basalt and Rural FIrO Protection Dlstrtet, Town of Basalt, Pltkin County September 2008 Prepared by: RPI Coi •tilti»g, LLC Gabe Preston 970 382-9886 ga bed rpicoreulting.org www.rpkonsultlng.o~g Tsble of ConteMa Executive Summary .......... .................... ................ .... .............. ............ .. ............... .........3 Comext .... ...... ....... .. .. ... .3 Growth Trends. Pro~ectrons & Demand for Flre and EMS Services and Facilties ........... ...................................3 Capital Improvements Pfan....... .................. ....................................... ............................... 5 Property Tax Credits ..... ........... ............... ................. ......... ....... ........................... 5 Fee Schedule ... ................ .................. ................. ............. .. ..... ...................... 6 Cash Flow .......... ................. ..................... ... ............... ................... ............ .... ................. ..........6 Purpose and Approach ....................................... ................................................ ..... ............................7 Research Questions ............... ....................... .................. ............. ............. .... ................ .......7 Report Organization and Topics . . ................................... ..................... ........... .............. ............ 7 Growth Trends, Projections, & Demand for Flre and EMS Services and Facilities .............. ... .............. .........9 Demand for Fire and EMS Servroes in Recent Years . .. ....... ........ ........ .. 9 Why Look at Development Trends?.......... ............... ........... ..................... .......... ............... 10 Drstrict Residential Growth Trends and Pro~ectrons ........ .................. ............... ............. ...........11 District Non•Residential Development Growth Trends and Projections .... ..... . 12 Relationship Between Demand for Fire/EMS and Development Trends .... ....... . ...... ... ............ 14 Capital Facilities Plan ... .......... ... ...... ............ .......... ... .... . ............ ..15 Buildings and Grounds Plan... ..... .. .. ....... .... 15 Vehicles Plan ....... .. .. .. ....... ...... 15 Planned Capital Faciltres Cost per UnR ......... ................. .............. ................ ........... .............17 Costs Apportioned According to Benefit ................... .......................... ......... ... .............. ........17 Property Tax Credit .. ....... ..... ....... ..... ... .. .... .. .... 18 Percentage of Property Tax Revenue Spent on Capital Facilities . ...................... .......... ............ .18 Determine Whether Recent Capital Facilities Funding Levels Will Continue . ........ .... ............. ........19 Determine Property Tax Revenue per Unit . .... ..... ... ....... .. ...... ..... ..... ... 20 Property Tax CredR Derivation .................................... ............... .................. ........... ......... ..21 Fee Schedule ................. ........................................................................................... ................................. 22 2012 Impact Fee Update ........... ............... ............................. .............. .............. .........23 20121nflatronAd~ustmentUpdate .... ... .... ... .. .. ....... .. ..... .... 23 Cash Flow .. ......... ................ ............ ............... ...........24 Lletof Figures Figure 1 • Calls for Service 2003-2007, Excluding False Alarms/Calls ....................... ............ ... ...............3 Figure 2 • Composition of Calls 2003.2007..... .... ........ .. ... ........ .... .... .. 4 Figure 3 -Past and Future Residential Growth in District Boundaries.. .. .. ..... ... .. .. ... ..... ..... 4 Figure 4 -District Building and Grounds Plan ......... ....................................................... ... ...............5 Figure 5 -District Vehicles Plan ....... ............. ... ............. ... ...... ............ ......... ...... . 6 Figure 6 • Basalt and Rural Flre Protection Distract Capital Facility Impact Fee Schedule ..... .. .. 6 Figure 7 • Calls for Service 2003.2007, Excluding False Alarms/Calls .......... ......... ........ ...... ..............9 Figure 8 -False Alarms/Calls 2003-2007 .......... .............. ......... ............ ....................... .........10 Figure 9 -Composition of Calls 2003.2007 ...... .... .. ..... ... ... .. ........ ...... 10 Frgure 10 • Residential Growth Trends and 2015 Projectron in the Fire Drstrict Boundaries ......... ... ......... .. 11 Figure 11-Past and Future Residential Growth in Drstrrot Boundaries ... ....................... .......... .. .........12 Figure 12 -Weighted Average Dwelling Unit Floor Area in District 2008 ............ ... ...... .. .... ..13 Frgure 13 • District Non-Residential Floor Area and Dwelling Unit EqurvalerRS . ........ .... .... ... .. .........13 Figure 14 • Past and Future Non-Residential Dwelling Unit Equivalents rn Drstrict Boundaries .. .... ...14 Figure 15 -District Butlding and Grounds Capital Facdrty Plan .. .. .... ....... 15 Frgure 16 • DistrictVehicles Plan.... ..... .. ... ..... ......... ... ... ... .. ...... .. 16 Figure 17 • District Annual Planned Buildings. Grounds, and Vehicle Capital Expenditures .. ........ .. ...... 16 Figure 1S -Cost per Unit for Entire Drstrict .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 17 Figure 19 • General Fund Recent History . ..... .... ..18 Figure 20 • Past and Projected Revenue Vs Operation Expenses ... ... ....... ...... .. .. 19 Figure 21.Operations Costs Vs. Property Tax Revenues ...... ........ ....... ............ .,....... .........19 Figure 22 -Assessed Value per Dwelling Unit ......... ............ ........ .............. .................... . .......... 20 Figure 23 - Genera I Fund Property Tax Cred it Sum ma ry ........... ........ ............................ ....... ....21 Frgure 24 • Basalt and Rural Frre Protection Distract Captal Facility Impact Fee Schedule .... .....22 Figure 25 • Annual Inflation in U S. .. ... .. ... .... ... . ... 23 Figure 26.2012 Fee Update Schedule ............... .. ........ ...................... ..... ... ...... .. .........23 Frgure 27 -Estimated Annual Cash Flow ............. ......................................... ............ ...... ....... ... ....24 6 Basalt and Rural Fire RotecUOn D~sVict 2008 EXECUTNE SUMMARY Context Impact fees are currently in place for all three logl government jurisdictions served by the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District: Town of Basalt and portions of Unincorporated Pitkin and Eagle Counties. In response to increasing demand for services, future capital facilitiesi planning has advanced in the district. Also, expenses have increased and growth trends have evolved resulting in the need to update the impact fees for the district encompassing Town of Basalt, unincorporated Pitkin County, and unincorporated Eagle County. The purpose of this report is to quantify future development's fair share of the cost of planned capital facilities investments to inform an update to the impact fees for Town of Basalt, unincorporated Pitkin County, and unincorporated Eagle County. Growth Trends, Projections & Demand for Fire and EMS Senrlces and Fadlities Calls for service is the primary indicator for the level of demand for fire protection and EMS. Looking at calls for fire and EMS services other than false alarms, the volume of calls increased 10.4% in just four years. Figure 1- Calls forService 2003-2007, Excluding False Alarms/Calls sso N ~ 540 V a s3o y 520 A LL 510 O 'O 500 490 w 480 Vl q 470 U 460 /~~ 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source Basalt and Rural Rre RotecUOn Distnctcalis log The most common type of call is for rescue and EMS sen-ices, making up over half of the calls for service. While calls for fire are less numerous (8% of total calls), response to these calls requires a high intensity of equipment and personnel. False alarms and good intent calls make up about one quarter of all calls and usually result in some level of response at the site, but most often do not require any action. ' Captal Faali6es in this report mdudes fire d~slnct buldmgs and grounds and f re/EMS vehicles 970382-9886 - 3 - x4: ~ dRA~„~.~ :u 7 Basalt and Rural Fire Pro[ecUOn Dstnct zoos Flgure 2- Composition of Calls 2003-2007 False Flre 14% 8°!° Good Intent .. il% Service Calls 3% Haz-Mat 7% Rr scue/EMS 57% Source Basalt and (dual Fire Protection Distract calls log The Town of Basalt exhibits the highest rate of growth in residential units of the three jurisdictions with about a 58% increase in residential units in the past decade, followed by unincorporated Eagle County with a 31% increase during the same time. County development review standards and high property value contribute to the fact that residential development occurs more slowly in Pitkin County. The slower pace is evidenced by the significantly lower 20% increase in dwelling units between 1997• 2007. In total, the district experienced a 35% increase in the number of dwelling units between 1990.2007. The entire district is projected to grow by 922 dwelling units between 2007.2015; a 21% increase over 2007. Figure3- Past antl Future Residential Growth in District Boundaries s,ooo --'s-- Basalt ~ 4,000 - -- -- - --6--Unincorporated Pitkin Q, c 3,D00 - - County --,~-Unincorporated Eagle ~ County 2,000 - - 1,000 0 t` Oi rl M to O~ O~ O O O O~ O~ O O O .a .~ N N N __ --E-Entire District I~ O rl CI 1r1 O O +~ .~ .i O O O O O N N N N N Source Pitlan and Eagle County Assessor 2008 Improvements Databases Currently there is about 1.4 million square feet of non-residential heated floor area in the district. The overall non-residential growth was 31% in the district between 1997 and 2007. This is nearly the same rate of growth for residential development during 97~~~2-~.~+6 ~ 4 ~ NPI Canvplna~ ur 8 Basalt and Rural FFre Ro[ecuon Dstrict SOS the same period (35%). From 2008-2015, non-residential floor area is expected to grow 19% over its current level, with all of this growth projected to occur in Town of Basalt and unincorporated Eagle County. To calculate the impact fee, non-residential development is converted into dwelling unit equivalents. Annual calls increased 10.5 % between 2003.2007 while the sum of total dwelling units plus dwelling unit equivalents also increased 10.5 % between 2002.2007. This represents an obvious similarity between the rate of development and the demand for fire a nd EMS services. Capital Improvements Plan To meet the demand of serving existing and future development, the district has developed a capital improvements plan that calls for investing over $3.9 million in upgrades and expansion of its buildings and grounds and over $3.1 million in fire and EMS vehicles. Most of the capital investments in buildings and grounds are for staff housing that is much needed to attract and maintain a good crew in the notoriously expensive Roaring Fork Valley necessary to maintain Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District's level of service. Flgure 4- District Building and Grounds Plan Wit' xz F ~.~- „~a_.. ,,.. , - ~ ' station 41 housing $1,000,000 ~::. ; 2p1Q:' ' . ,} storage/shop area $202,000 ~~ ~= ,: station 41 remodel $125,000 ~ ~, Z'i stat{ons 43 & 44 hous(ng $710,000 ~ e station 41 crew quarters $700,000 ~. $0 5>~~ station 45 housing $1.200.000 ~' ~ ;;,, $3,437,000 Source Basalt antl Rural Fre Rotecuon Disvici, stated rn 2008 dollars Most of the vehicle purchases are replacements/upgrades to the existing fleet. Investing in the vehicle fleet is ongoing and consistent replacements and upgrades are necessary to maintain level of service and to sustain ISO ratings used to assess insurance premiums and evaluate risk in the district. Property Tax Credits Property Tax Credits provide an adjustment to the base cost per unit to account for the typical quantity of general fund property tax revenue that is likely to be used to pay for the capital facilities plan. This adjustment is critical in order to avoid double charging future developmentfor capital facilities, once with the impactfee and again with a portion of the property tax paid by each unit during the capital improvements plan horizon. The property tax credit is $174 per residential unit or dwelling unit equivalent. s~a3s2-sass - 5 - „~ ~ a,,,~~,,.:« 9 Basalt and Rural Fire Ro[ecUOn Dstrlct 2008 Flgure 5- District Vehtales Plan ~,„' 1 pkkup, 1 SUV, 2pumper-tender ~,-, 1 type fi & SCBAs ~: 1 heavy rescue, 1 SUV 1 Spartan aerial, 1 ambulance 1 pkkup ~;.,' 2 ambulance, service truck $3,118,000 m2008dollars, SCBAselfcontalnedbreathingapparaws Fee Schedule The Planned Capital Investment Cost per Unit mathematically relates the year 2015 projected units of residential and non-residential development to the estimated capital investment costs of accomplishing the capital improvements plan to establish a base cost per unit of growth for providing capital improvements. The Fee Schedule takes into account the planned capital investment cost per unit and the property tax credit per unit for residential and non-residential development The impact fee schedule is intended to inform the impact fee update for the portions of unincorporated Pitkin County, unincorporated Eagle County and Town of Basalt encompassed by the Basalt and Rural Fre Protection District. Flgure 6-Basalt and Rural Flre Prdtecticn DIStrlctCapltal Facility Impact Fee Schedule Cash Flow The cash flow is based on the projected annual growth in each jurisdiction encompassed by the district given the 2008 impact fee schedule presented in Figure 6. if growth projections bear out for both jurisdictions, impact fee revenue should average about $108k annually. 970382-9886 •8 - x rt ran,.a~ar, ut 10 1 bwellmg Unit Equivalent = 2,000 sq. R non-revdennal Aoor area Basalt and Rural Fire Rotecbon District 20C)8 PURPOSEAND APPROACH Impact fees are currently in place for all three local government jurisdictions served by the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District: Town of Basalt and portions of unincorporated Pitkin and Eagle Counties. In response to increasing demand for services, future capital facilities2 planning has advanced in the district. Also, expenses have increased and growth trends have evolved resulting in the need to update the impact fees for the district The purpose of this report is to quantify future development's fair share of the cost of planned capital facilities investments to inform an update to the impact fees on new development in Town of Basalt and portions unincorporated Pitkin County and unincorporated Eagle County encompassed by the Basalt and Rural Fre Protection District. Research Questions The approach underlying the analysis summarized in this report is best described by a series of research questions: 1. What trends drive the demand for investment in fire protection/prevention and EMS capital facilities3? 2. What capital facilities are needed to maintain the high quality fire and EMS services currently offered by the district and how much will they cost? 3. How much tax revenue will future development produce and how much of this revenue is likely to be directed towards investment in capital facilities? 4. Given the future investment in capital facilities made necessary by future development and the tax revenues generated by it, what is fair share of the post of these capital facilities for each unit of future development? 5. Finally, how much revenue could the district expect each year from the collection of impact fees? Report Or~anizatlon and Topics The ensuing section Growth Trends, Projections & Demand for Fire and EMS Services and Facilities provides the answer to question # 1. In this section, RPI analysts chart past development trends in residential and non-residential land uses, compare recent growth to recent demand for Fire and EMS services and facilities, and provide linear projections of future development through 2015. Question # 2 will be addressed in the next section, Capita! Facilities Plarr. This section is largely a summary of the capital facilities planning that has been conducted by the district through 2015. ~ Capral Faahbes in d~rs report includes fire district buldings and grounds and fire/EMS vehdes and mayor eq uprnent needed to auffit it~e vehcles 3 Captal Faahues in tf~is report includes fire d~sV4Ct buldings and grounds and fire/EMS vehicles and mayor equipment needed to ou~tihe vehicles 974382-9886 - 7 - KFI t'aesclt~p6 UC 11 Basaltand Rural Fire Pro[ecUOn District 2008 In Planned Capital Facilities Cost per Unrt, RPI analysts mathematically relate the year 2415 projected units of residential and non-residential development to the estimated capital investment costs of accomplishing the capital facilities plan to establish a base cost per unit of growth for providing capital facilities. This is the first step in answering question # 4. Property Tax Credits will provide an adjustment to the base cost per unit to account for the typical quantity of general fund property tax revenue that is likelyto be used to pay for the capital facilities plan. This adjustment is critical in order to avoid double charging future development for capital facilities, once with the impact fee and again with a portion of the property tax paid by each unit during the capital improvements plan horizon. This section answers question # 3. The Fee Schedule will take into account the base cost per unit and property tax credit per unit for residential and non-residential development and will present the impact fee schedule intended to inform the impact fee update for all three jurisdictions encompassed by the district: Town of Basalt, unincorporated Pitkin County, and unincorporated Eagle County. The Cash Flow analysis, answering the final research question, will offer best guess estimates of the typical annual impact fee revenue that would be generated by future development in Town of Basalt and Pitkin County. 970-382-9886 - 8 - ert c«.ain.x at 12 Basal[ and Rural Fire ProtecUOn DSVic[ 2008 GROWTH TRENDS, PROJECTIONS, & DEMAND FOR FIRE AND EMS SERVICES AND FACILJTIES , The purpose of this section is to chart past development trends in residential and non-residential land uses, compare recent growth to recent demand for Fire and EMS services and facilities, and provide linear projections of future development. Demand for Fire and EMS Services In Recent Years The primary indicator for demand for EMS and Fre protection services is calls for service. Most calls require some level of response and often result in the use of equipment. In this analysis, false alarm calls were separated from other calls because including them would have skewed the trend downward. In 2007 the district implemented a policy of responding when multiple device activation occurs, sharply reducing responses to false alarms. Looking at calls other than false alarms, the volume of calls increased 10.4% in justfour years. Flgure 7 - Calls forSerolce 200&2007, Ekcluding False Alarms/Calls sso s40 ~~-~ Q s30 - ---- - - -- -- '---- a 520 m a 510 _-- - ___ .- _ _ _ _ 500 _.. _ ---- - _ - ---- - ---- - - -- 490 v w 480 - -- ~_ .. - - -- - - N q 470 -- --- - - - - --------'------ -- - -- U 460 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source Basalt and Rural Fre ROtecuon District calls lob The most common type of call is for rescue and EMS services, making up over half of the calls for service (Figure 9). While calls for fire are less numerous, response to these calls requires a high intensity of equipment and personnel. False alarms and good intent calls make up about one quarter of all calls and usually result in some level of response at the site, but most often do not require any action. District staff also counted calls for 2004 by the jurisdiction in which they occurred. Basalt accounted for the largest share of calls, at 38%, followed by unincorporated Eagle County at 36% of calls, trailed by Pitkin County accounting for 26% of the calls. 970-382-9886 - 9 - xei c<d.r~nsx ut 13 Basal[and Rural RreFtotecUOn D~sVict 2008 F1gu re 8 - Fe Ise Alarms/Calls 2003-2007 160 140 H 120 A ~ 100 N 80 A ~ 60 h ILL ~ 20 0 ~~ 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Figure 9-Composition of Calls 2003-2007 False Flre 14% 8% Good In~nt~ 1l°k ~,~ Service Calls© 3% Haz-Mat 7% Rescue/EMS 57% Why Look at Development Trends? Demand for Fre and EMS services and facilities is largely driven by combustible structures and activity in the district. A vacant lot does npt contain combustible structures, does not generate traffic, and generally is not the site of accidents because it is not populated by people. Once a house or business is built on that vacant lot, there is a combustible structure, there are people on site who can have accidents or health emergencies and who will drive automobiles, ultimately creating a chance of motor vehicle accidents. All of these factors increase demand for Fre and EMS services incrementally as a community grows and vacant lots are platted and developed. This is made abundantly obvious by comparing the scale of the Basalt and Rurai Fire Protection district currently containing about 4,400 dwelling units and getting around 600 calls 97C-3$2-9886 -10- xn ~~e:~~:~®3 t[c 14 Basalt and Rural F~reProtecuon D~sVwt 2D08 per year with a large city like Chicago, with over 1.1 million dwelling units and more than 53,000 commercial establishments4, and an attendant 1/2 million calls per year for fire and EMS alone5. Chicago's fire department possesses 100 fire stations and employs nearly 5,000 career firefighters6. As communities grow, so does the demand for fire and EMS protection. District Residential Growth Trends and Projections Because the district encompasses three jurisdictions and the 2000 Census geography does not align with the district boundaries and is too far out of date, the Eagle and Pitkin County assessor database is the only viable data source for estimating past and current development Furthermore, assessor data is the most detailed and complete land use inventory data available. RPI received custom reports from both Eagle and Pitkin counties that details the residential unit type, the year the unit was built, and the location of the unit, allowing for a geographically specific residential typology and development trend analysis. Figure 10 - Residential Growth Trends and 2015 Protection in the Fire Dlstrlct Boundaries ~ ; (} ~ 1~. ~ ~ t ~'~' ~ 518 713 805 1,035 E36Shc$lNi~~l=.~N1Y711,Q~ih~{-'S' ~... ~ .v ~, ~ . ~, ;,~` 0 22 22 40 . ~ ~, ~e&A1C,Gdtid4~'~'t~w ;8th "_ ~ -~ ;~~ a, z ~ BASa4tT0~91 f3W~1~I~ ~ _ ° 334 852 473 1 208 520 1 347 669 1 743 .- r- ~ ~ ~ . < ~ , , , _ = ~ 48+~Ck~ ~ ' 735 817 895 1,023 , : ... .s.~; 4,z " 4 4 4 4 [ ~ ~ f31~p11h1~ k~.r' ~ x v _' \ ~~ 48 48 46 48 ~ l,~t,g7tC$ . ~ ; 787 869 947 1,075 '~ ~= r Vry ~ ~ ' . C'C{~fS~f ~Y~1gI,B,F ~rl~~,~?~ 1,544 1,741 1,870 2,131 t~trt'st~d'D ~fE'V iltfn~: ~ f. , ,a ~ 0 0 0 0 Or$GStrF:?'~8,~lE7rt~~~~>~'4)W -; ,~~ ~; n .. a~;~~~; ~rti;:,~ @d iw`2gFE ,. ~4+ ~ 50 1 594 127 1 868 222 2 092 360 2 490 . ; , , , , ~ ~ ~ ' YII~•,~-•' ~,;,',k ~' ~ CdT~~~Jtt~B'~ ; ~~ ~ „ ' ` 3 '~ 2,797 3,271 3,570 4,188 ~41~~"~ ~, . '+}tu ; ~ i 4 26 26 44 r R l`&ter~°.otido~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ a~' ~ ~~ ~~ ~ _ ..~~ , • ~ ~~ 432 648 790 1,076 T~(.. ' ~ ~ `' 3,233 3,945 4,386 5,308 Source Pitkin and Eagle County Assessor 2008 Impra/ementis Database The Town of Basalt exhibits the highest rate of growth in residential units of the three jurisdictions with about a 58% increase in residential units in the past decade Limited density and county development review standards contribute to slower residential development in Pitkin County as exhibited by the significantly lower 20% increase In housing units between 1997-2007, while the unincorporated Eagle County portion of the district grew 31% during this time. In total, the district experienced a 35% increase in the number of housing units between 1990-2007. ' htq~//www nipcorgJfa'ecasUngJdigodata htm s htq~//www firehouse com/magazine/surveys/02_[otril pdf htq~//wwwfiredepartmentsnet/116nas/~icago/ChicagoFireDepartmenthtrnl 970-382-9886 - 11- cn rea.rma~, ut IS Basal[and Rural Fire ProtecUOn DsVict 2008 For all three jurisdictions, more development occurred between 1997-2002 than during 2003-2007. None of the jurisdictions have conducted in-house growth projections. The housing unit forecasts available from the Colorado Demography Section are only available for counties and municipalities, not special districts and do not include non-residential development. Therefore, RPI employed a linear projection methodology based on the annual change between 1997 and 2007 as measured in the assessor databases to established a projection for residential development in 2015 for each jurisdiction. As pointed out above, the past depde has had a period of rapid growth (1997-2002) and a period of more moderate growth (2003.2007), so a straight linear projection of the study period is a sound approach. Figure 11-Past and Future Residential Growth in District i3ountlaries 00 6, 0 000 5 , -~-~ Basalt 4,000 ~ -~-Unincorpora6ed PlUcln 000 c 3 County , ---Uninwrporated Eagle 0 County 2,000 - _ _ _ . --1~- Entire District 1,000 0 n O: ri M to n ~ *i M h Oi O: O O O O O .-1 H .-I O~ O: O O O O O O O O .--~ .-~ N N N N N N N N Source Pitkin and Eagle County Assessor 2008 Improvements Databa~s The entire district is projected to grow by 922 dwelling units between 2007.2015, representing a 21% increase over 2007. As in the past, Basalt is projected to contribute the most new development, with a total of around 400 dwelling units projected. Pitkin County, as in the past, is projected to contribute the least amount of new dwelling units of the three jurisdictions, with 128 new dwelling projected and about 14% growth over 2007. Unincorporated Eagle County is projected to yield about 400 units as well, representing a 19% increase over the units in place in 2007 (year end). District Non-Residential Development Growth Trends and Protections Demand for public services and facilities varies with the size of the non-residential structure. A bigger establishment generally includes more employees, more combustible materials, more traffic generated, and often draws more customers than a smaller establishment By convention, the district measures non-residential land uses in terms of dwelling unit equivalents. To establish non-residential floor area dwelling unit equivalents the 970382-9886 -12 - xn c..,.i:~.x uc 16 Basal[and Rural Fire ProtecUOn District c~08 Eagle and Pitkin County assessor improvement databases were analyzed to find the mean the size of a dwelling unit in the District. Looking at the most recent available data, the weighted average sq, ft. per residential unit is 2050. This is based on the heated sq. ft. used to appraise properties to assess property taxes. Heated square footage in the assessor improvement databases is used throughout the non- residentialanalysis because it most closet' represents the enclosed floor area. The mean sq. ft per dwelling unit was rounded down to the nearest 100, resulting in a dwelling unit equivalent of 2000 sq. ft.. Figure 12 -Weighted Averege Dwelling Unit Floor Area in District 2008 ~ °, \;~ '" Condo 995 236 234,909 '~;' R ~' ' ?'" Mobile Home 1,167 47$ 557,694 y~a~: „~~ -. - Detached Unit 2,374 2,004 4,757,317 ~,'~_ ,;.` Town Home 1,744 311 542,394 ~:`-:~> ~; _ - P Condo 1,187 272 322,983 '~;'~~ =i;~° ~-,' ;~' '~, All OtherDwellin s 2,363 77 "'i n ~Y? °°''E 4,422 9,064,070 u:W h111 ° ` ~ ,i~''2 s ~ Y~ '~ ' '~ da` ..c ri~n~i~aii~~a6~c wui~t]rvacoxn <vvo i~iiN~vrcii~ci:w Baia voxa To determine dwelling unit equivalents, analysts first charted growth trends in non- residentialfloor area for each jurisdiction in the district Currently there is about 1.4 million square feet of non-residential heated floor area in the district, reflecting the Fgure 13 -District Non-Residential Floor Area antl D-velling Un(t Equivalents ~~ ~. ~ ~:,;-, " ~;- ~~,' 803,472 966,200 989,706 1,138,693 Uf1~#71~41'r1131'~~; ~~1, --`'. 51,965 51,965 51,965 51,965 ~ 187,317 263,663 325,216 435,535 ~ Tolal ;` ~~~'-~~ 1,042,754 1,281,828 1,366,887 1,626,193 [~Hdn' x _~r; ~ ~` _?~ f 186,515 276,544 289,496 371,881 kA,Bp981C 'v'' : ; `.~;~i -; 616,957 689,656 700,210 766,812 '"'~~ ~ ~` 238,480 328,509 341,461 423,846 ~;~~ _-~.~ ;--z":y 804,274 953,319 1,025,426 1,202,348 ~(k'~ ; ~ -.-' .~a ~ 402 483 495 569 ,,. s.a :: ~>~-~ ~, ' ~ 94 132 163 218 'r+~ ~ `~^-- 521 641 683 813 970-382-9886 - 13- xr: s~aa.,:,,., ttc 17 Basal[and Rurel Fire ProtecUOn Dr,Vwt 2008 overall growth of 31% district wide between 1997 and 2007. Most of the recently built non-residential floor area and the non-residential floor area that was built by 1997 is in Town of Basalt. The unincorporated Eagle County portion of the district has experienced the highest growth rate in nonresidential development, with a 73% increase between 1997 and 2007. Meanwhile, unincorporated Pitkin County, with very little or no non-residential zoning in the district has experienced zero change in non-residential floor area. Most existing non-residential development is either legal non-conforming (within residential zone districts) or is zoned/permitted in isolated spots. County planners do not anticipate that these conditions would change in the future. 2015 non-residential floor area was then projected using the same methodology used to project dwelling units: a straight linear projection of the change that occurred between 1997-2007. The growth in non-residential development was more rapid during 1997-2002 than during 2003-2007, paralleling past residential trends. Dwelling unit equivalents were derived by dividing the past non-residential development trends by 2000 sq. ft. as established in Fgure 12. Because this calculation was performed uniformly, the growth rates cited above also apply to the residential unit equivalents. Fgure 14 -Pest and Future Non-Residential DwelBng Unit Equivalents In District Boundaries 900 ---- ~ 800 - - - 91 700 m ----- ----- - - -- --~•-- Basalt 600 ~ -0"'Unlncorporated Pltlcin -` ' 500 .- _ __ _ e:,~ - -- - County ~ 400 -~-Unincorporated Eagle ~' 300 - ---- _ County _ -~--Entire District 200 ~ 100 0 -- n O• rl (~'7 u5 f\ O~ rl M u•~ 01 ~ O O O O O .-1 r1 H Ot O O O O O O O O O +ti '~-~ N N N N N N N N Source Prtiun and Eagle County Assessor 2008 improvements databases Relationship Between Demand for Flre/EMS and Development Trends Having summarized the growth trends and the calls data, it is worth noting that annual calls increased 10.5 % between 2003-2007 while total dwelling units plus dwelling unit equivalents also increased 10.5 % between 2002-2007. While the study period for the development trends was one year longer, this represents an obvious similarity between the rate of development and the demand for fire and EMS services. 970-382-9886 -14 - k n r<.:.ic~.~, ut 18 Basalt and Rural Fire ProtecUOn DsVict 2008 CAPITAL FAGLRIES PLAN In order to maintain its level of service, the district conducts careful capital facilities planning. The capital facilities? requiring long range planning are major investments comprised of 2 types of facilities: 1. Buildings and grounds (fire stations, crew quarters, office space, etc.) 2. Vehicles (fire apparatuses, rescue vehicles, ambulances, pickups, major equipment to outfit vehicles such as self contained breathing apparatuses, etc.) District buildings and grounds capital investment planning extends to 2015, making 2015 the capital facilities plan horizon for the purposes of this impact fee support study. Buildings and Grounds Plan In order to maintain its level of service, the district plans to invest just over $3.9 million in facilities up through 2015. Several of the planned improvements contain a housing component. Housing is essential for continuing to staff a high quality crew in the Roaring Fork Valley where housing costs are notoriously expensive. Figure 15 -District Building and Grounds Capftal Facility Plan ~:~ , `` station 41 housing $1,000,000 ~#~"~ °< storage/shop area $202,000 ~Q~.~.., ~- . station 41 remodel $125,000 - . ~; `~ _ statlons 43 & 44 housing $710,000 20.13'- ~£ ;~ station 41 crew quarters $700,000 f3~4 : > $0 _ $p~W` ,~_ station 45 housing $1200.000 z-? =~r~~ ;. $3,937,000 Source Basalt and Rural Fire ProtecUOn District statEd in 20D8 dollars Vehicles Plan Fire and EMS protection requires several types of vehicles. The current fleet has been purchased over many years and maintaining service levels necessitates the incremental replacement and upgrade of some of these vehicle almost every year. Vehicles and apparatuses last a minimum of 5 years. New development also requires some investment in equipment not previously possessed by the district. For example, development is continually more dense in the district, resulting in higher r Captal Faahues in this report includes fire district buldings and grounds and fire/EMS vehicles 970-382-9886 - 15- xn c<.,an.R ur 19 Basalt and Rural Fire ProtecUOn D~sVict 2008 structures more narrow horizontal distances between structures. requiring an aerial ladder truck to provide fire protection. Between 2009 and 2015, the district plans on spending about $3.1 million on vehicle purchases. Figure 16- DlStrict Vehicles Plan -~, ~ $o 2ij;k~3~`~;~ . , 1 pckup, 1 SUV, 2pumper-tender $890,000 ~¢~,~,;~j~= ; 1 type 6 & SCBAS $400,000 ~Q1.~` " 1 heavy rescue, 1 SUV $378,000 ~S}33 ~ . 1 Spartan aerial, 1 ambulance $1,120,000 ~\ ~ ` 1 pickup $40,000 ~15;~`y~ `.: 2 ambulance, service truck TA1sl~,• $3,118,000 Source Basalt and Rural Rre RotecUOn DisVictstated m 2008 dollars, SCBASelfcontained breathing apparatus Compiling the capital facilities plan into annual expenditures is a necessary step in calculating fair share. When the seven year planning period is over, the fee should again be updated to reflectthe ensuingcapital facilities planning period. Figure 17 -DlstrlctAnnual Planned Buildings, Grounds, and Vehicle Capital Expenditures 2~~;=`~~ $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 _.~ $890,000 $202,000 $1,092,000 , 2$~t~°"~ $400 000 $125 000 $525 000 , , , 2kj` `'" $378,000 $710,000 $1,088,000 ~;_~ ~ $1.120,000 $700,000 $1,620,000 { !F-s :;, • . $40,000 $0 $40,000 '~~; , $290,000 $1,200,000 $1,490,000 > v ° ~=.~, 'r0''.."~'.~ 53,118,000 53,937,000 E7,055,000 Source Basalt and Rural Fire PlotecUOn DisVict stated in 2008 dollars The District Board has determined that investing in capital facilities is a critical component of maintaining service levels and addressing new challenges that arise as the region grows. Since the budgeting strate~r is to spend annual cash revenues from the fee on capital facilities within the budget year or the ensuing year, the projected costs do not include a present value of money calculation. Consistent investment in necessary equipment and buildings & grounds will incrementally benefit the entire district. Soon after the fee is paid, it will be invested in capital facilities and these investments will accrue benefits to future development incrementally as they occur. Inflation of prices for construction projects and vehicles is more of a concern and will be addressed in the fee updates section. K YI t'ae.pllrtE .lC 20 Basalt and Rural Fire Ro[ectlon D~stna 2008 PLANNED CAPITAL FACILITIES COST PER UNIT The purpose of this section is to calculate the how much it will cost the district to accommodate each dwelling unit or dwelling unit equivalent through the 2015 capital facility planning horizon. In the following sections, the base cost per unit will be adjusted by a property tax credit and presented as a schedule of fees. ColstsApporttoned Accordingto Benefit The individual improvements to building & grounds and the purchase of vehicles during the capital facilities planning horizon will benefit both existing and future development in the district. For example, the remodel planned for station 41 will provide an overall improvement to the functionality of the station and will result in sustained or improved levels of service in the whole district including development that is currently in place in 2008. The capital investment cost per unit calculation reflects the fact that purchasing capital facilities benefits both existing and future development. Accomplishing this mathematically requires that the total capital facilities plan be divided by the total quantity of dwelling units and dwelling unit equivalents in the entire district projected for the capital facilities planning horizon. This approach ensures that future development is only assigned its fair share of the costs and is not additionally burdened by the cost of investments that also benefit existing development. Figure 18 -Cost per Untt for Entire District Faciltles Investment Plan Cost $7,05 !d Dwelling Units+ Dwelling Unit Equivalents 2015 r Unit $ To provide high quality capital facilities necessary to maintain service levels district wide, including both Basalt and unincorporated Pitkin County costs $1,153 per unit through the duration of the capital facilities planning horizon. 970-382-9886 - 17 - xn reo.en~o~ ur 21 8asal[and Rural Fire RotecUOn Dstrlcl 1708 PROPERTY TAX CREDIT The purpose of this section is to adjust the cost per unit calculated in the previous section to account for property tax paid by future development during the facilities planning horizon. Some of this property tax will likely be used to fund the same facilities that the impact fee revenue will fund. The information and calculations contained in this section establishes a credit for adjusting the total cost per unit downward to avoid double charging future developmentfor capital facilities cysts via both district property tax and impactfees. The major steps in calculating a property tax credit include: 1. Determine the percentage of property tax revenue spent on capital facilities. 2. Determine if current funding levels for general fund transfers to the capital fund are likely to continue or if operating costs could cut into the capital facilities funding in the future. 3. Estimate how much property tax typical dwelling units and dwelling unit equivalents would pay over the 7 year capital facilities planning horizon. 4. Make the adjustments based on the findings from 1-3 above and establish a property tax revenue credit. Percentage of Property Tax Revenue Spent on Capital Facilities The district general fund has been used in recent years (and now in 2008) to fund capital facilities. Over the span of the years for which the information was available, capital facilities expenditures via the general fund represent a mean annual expenditure of $434.528 annually. Figure 19 -General Fund Recent History " _ ? ~~ $891,085 notava0ade $352,875 e'. ~ $1,084,229 21.7% ratavaAaWe not available _~ -.~ ~I $1,165,000 7496 not available notaveilable ' $1,566,870 34.5% $691,844 $464,571 ~'Y~ a <="2QQi ~ - $1,394,219 -11.0% $287,227 $436,961 .. ~~ ' " 7R $1,561,532 12.0% $161,542 $676,108 g -,,~ ~,~ $1.748.004 11.9°fp $ a7 n0 available at vr. end MC,arl~Ata~~ $1,344,420 13% $434.528 $482.629 Using information summarized in Figure 19, analysts determined that between 2005- 2008, 27.7% of the general fund expenditures during that time were capital investments. Since property tax is a general fund revenue source, it follows that 27.7% of the property tax revenue is typically spent on capital facilities. The other 73.3%goes towards operations and maintenance in the district. 970382-9886 - 18- eri ~ao..n~~c ~u 22 Basalt and Rural FireRo[ecUOn Dr,Vict 2ooa Determine Whether Recent Capital FacHities Funding Levels WIII Coritlnue The mean capital expenditures per year for 2005-2008 is $434,528. The question is: will the district be able to continue to make this same level of expenditure in the future? The core of this investigation involves determining how much funding is leftover for capital investments in the general fund once the costs for day to day operations and maintenance are paid. To answer it analysts compiled the assessed value for all property in the district back to the year 2002 as well as the operations expenditures. District finance suggested that general fund revenues other than property tax vary from year to year and that they should be projected as a mean of past years. Flgure 20 -Past and Projected Revenue Vs Operation E)cpenses 200 $891,085 $234,062,964 ' " . . ;~, _~ ~ ~ ~ a . , $1,084,229 $239,828,400 _ ~^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - .. $1,165,000 $245,930,690 F _ e ~ -~~ ~ g $1,566,870 $244,902,140 - u =~>e.. ~+r' x '';'' <a ~ . ,-'~. ~<, " -as" , ~ ~ ~;~ ;' 2006 $1,394,219 $269,050,200 - .r"';F -:: '' .-> ~;`~ ~, - - _ 2.401 $1,561,532 276,184,385 $ a~~ ~_:"°~a' ,.?•~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ $1,748,004 $363,708,850 - ~;. „_;~~ ~-:•°~. •.,"'~"~-: - $1,890,824 $385,316,498 $1,907,317 $482,629 $2,389,946 $480,354 0% ~f3$4i? $2,033,6 $406,924,145 $2,014,275 $482,629 $2,496,903 $444,492 7% ~Q#~,'- $2,176,464 $428,531,793 $2, i21,232 $482,629 $2,603,861 $408,630 15°/ 2Q-' $2,319,284 $450,139,441 $2,228,190 $482,629 $2,710,819 $372,768 22°k :2C7~13,` $2,462,104 $471,747,088 $2,335,148 $482,629 $2,817,777 $336,906 30% 14 , $2,604,923 $493,354,736 $2,442,106 $482,629 $2,924,735 $301,044 37% ~~ $2,747,743 $514,962,384 $2,549,064 $482,629 $3,031,693 $265,182 45% Source' CO Drv of Prooe rty Taxation. Bas altand Rura l Fre Protecti on Drstnct R tkin and Eagle CountvAssessors Flgure 21-Operations Costs Vs. PropertyTax Revenues $3,000,000 $2,500,000 ' er $2,000,000 Operatons Expendihires $1,500,000 ~~ProjecUed Property Tax $1,000,000 Revenue $soo,ooo $o 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source CO Div. of Property Taxation, Basaltand Rural Fre Protection Di5Vict Rtkin and Eagle CountyASSessors 970-382-9886 - 19 - xn cd.,a~ ~ a~ ua 23 8asaltand Rural Ftre Protection District 2D08 After examining past trends in assessed value and the district and operating expenses, and projecting these into the future using a linear projection methodology, it became clear that operating expenses are growing faster than property taxes. See Figures 20 and 21. Since non-property tax revenues are flat or do not have a distinct growth trend according to district finance, it follows that the general fund will continue to grow more slowly than property tax revenues. This means that once annual transfers into cash reserves are accounted fors, the margin of revenue leftover for capital investments appears to be declining in the future, resulting in less property tax being spent on capital facilities and more on operations and maintenance in the future. In the final column of Figure 20 above this is represented as % of capital funding reallocated to operations and it increases as the trends unfold. Depending on the year the unit is built, the percentage of the current level of capital improvements funding that is reallocated to operations increases from 7% in 2010 to 45% by 2015. The mean of 26% is appropriate in this case as an adjustment because in the future, development of dwelling units and non- residential is assumed to occur at a uniform rate. Determine Property Tax Revenue per Unit Property tax is based on assessed value. Because three jurisdictions are seared by the fire district, two county assessor's offices assess property tax and various land use types are included, it was necessary to pertorm several mean assessed valuation calculations and obtain the weighted average assessed value. Flgure 22 -Assessetl Value per Dwelling Unit 6 - 7l'~, yy -t,q,. $26,892 2,974 79,978,121 pfl.~l~r0 bYW.nl` -, ;'- -- $49,811 1,114 55,489,631 ~; -'z-~;;'_,~ ®,#'~$ ~~ ~. .~ $26,942 E1I2,529 298 513 8,029,662 57,727,448 p~ Np7, '"'~~~ E95,406 }jl 16.314.345 ;~-; ;;, "-; -- ___. ~g-;'~-£~; -; . - er w~SYa °- saz 9oo 5,070 217,538,208 p O p , Source PitVnn and Eagle County as sessor databases The average assessed value of the over 2,500 improvements in the district portions of Eagle and Pitkin Counties (includes Town of Basalt) possess a weighted average assessed value of $42,900. Applying the 4.95 mill levy, the average annual fire district property tax is $212 per dwelling unit or dwelling unit equivalent e Another type of e~end~ulre to sack is the transfer to and from the districfs cash reserve The three years for wl-lch audRed acbxil transfers were recorded (20052007) vary from a 5291 k transfer out aF the reserve to a 5284k transfer into the reserve Hnttt a mean positive transfer of S 18, 768 The d~st'ict ~ likely to continue good fiscal practice and build cash reserves Thes mean positive trarafer rnto ttx reserves is assumed w hdd far the future 970-382-9886 - 20- xn cd~,a~~~xx tit 24 Basaltand Rural FlreProtecUOn Dls[rlct Zoos Property Tax Credit Derivation Having established the percentage of property tax spent on capital facilities currently and adjusting it to accountfor a diminishing margin between revenues and operation expenses in the future, the general fund property tax credit per dwelling unit or dwelling unit equivalent is $174. Figure23-General Fund Property Tax Credit Summary - -~ - -- `°'y' '^ "• °°~ a 42,900 sea figure 22 +4?#!W'~'Ftr?2 -- .- - ~.$.-:. "-e~-•^'~~~: ~" a; ~ 6 E212 =a x .00495 t~ -: s ° F,~R, ~f':~'N~ii~'L g,g~p9 ' - s :.~:,#;,; c average yrs property tax paid 2009-2015 4Cty ` },~,p ~-,~ w MISFtII~ _ -££ .,i" ~}'- a a3a,5285ee figure l9 [!taNh - ^ ^?- R- £ - ~` - k4a. 1 - '"R'~•~z..1 f 1,567,656 see figure 19 ~`i~it78rb1 fylSp ~~~ .~ g 27.7% = e + f _ _ - ^ - . -:~ h 26% see figure 20 *D.U E. is an abbrcrtation far dwelhnq ynR II9uivalent and eavals 2,000 sq. R. of nan-resfdeMal floor area s~asaz-seas - 21- rp, ~...,,r,.~ .tr 25 Basaltand Rural Fire Rotecuon D~strid FEE SCHEDULE coos The impact fee per dwelling unit or dwelling unit equivalent is the difference between the costs per unit and the credit per unit. Figure 24 -easett and Rural Fire Protection District Capttal Facility Impact Fee Schedule Nets: Fees for non-residential development sq. ft. not evenly divisible by 2000 sq. ft. (dwelling unit equivalent) can be calculated asfotlows: non-restdentlal building aq. ft x $.49 =fee amount For example, the fee fora 1000 sq. ft. convenience market would be $490: 1000 sq ft x $ 49 =;490 97D-382-9886 - 22 - NP7 t'au+plt~ug ,i4 26 • 1 Owelhng Unit Equivalent= 2,000 sq R non-reedential floor area Basalt and Rural fire ProtecUOn DlsVlct zoos 2012 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 2012 Inflation AdJustment Update The fee schedule in the previous section is based on 2008 dollar capital facilities cost The U.S. dollar has exhibited inflation every year since 1955 when U.S. experienced a rare .4% deflation of the dollar. Costs will continue to rise as they have for every year since 1955, but since impact fee revenues are expended by the district within a year or two after they are collected, the district needs to update the fee every few years to keep up with costs of capital facilities. This final section of the report offers an update for 2012 based on average year to year inflation for the past two decades, 3.1% annual inflation. Adjusting the 2008 fee to reflect average inflation, the unincorporated Pitkin County fee for 2012 totals $1105. Figure 25 -Annual Inflation in U.S. ,~~ 3% . Il 2°~ S A y i~. iMO ~ ~ ~ 0% m in a n m a m~ n m rn o a a in ~ 0 m n ~ ~ Q y b R 5 Q Q 5 ~ 5 ~ Q $ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ $ ~ iG ~ tG 2G ~ ~ ~ ~ f Source ftp //ftp bls gov/pub/special requests/cpi/epiai txt Figure 26 -2012 Fee Update Schedule g8sa'IP, _ ~~' ~,~_ MAILhf' T~,i;~~~ ~~~°. ~~ ~ $1,302 $1,302 $196 $196 Fllit Ik'6l1~ $11-~ti~•,IVW1 p~Nl'~link ' $1,105 $1, 105 • 1 Dwelling Unrt Equivalent= 2,000 5q. R. non-reedential floor area This impact fee support study summarized in this report is based on a 2009.2015 capital improvements plan. RPI recommends that the district update this impact fee support study by year end 2015 to reflect up to date costs and capital facilities planning. 97D-382-~a6 - ~' K)1 ta~.eit~nq iir 2/ Basalt and Rural Fire ProtecUOn District C~-sH FLAW 2008 The cash flow is based on the projected annual growth in each jurisdiction applied to the 2008 impact fee schedule presented in Figure 27. If growth projections for both jurisdictions occur as projected, impact fee revenue should average about $108k annually. Growth may not occur as projected in this study. Revenues will fluctuate with the demand for new construction. Figure 27 -Estimated Annual Cash Flow =~~`,~. ~ ~ "%, Projected New Annually 29 9 38 A: ~ : Estimated Annual Cashflow $28,379 $8,807 $37,186 . ~~ ! ~ .., ~' Projected New Annually 16 0 16 .;~ > Estimated Annual Cashflow $15,657 $0 $15,657 ~ £'~'~`~ ~-t ~° ~ ' : : °~ Projected New Annually 50 7 57 ,>~= v ~- _' Estlmated Annual Cashflow $48,734 $6,850 $52,844 :~-, .!' '~'~ ~ Projected New Annually 95 16 111 ` =a. `- ° Estimated Annual Cashflow 592,770 $15,657 5108,428 970-382-9886 - 24 - an ceff..i:~.y ur 28