HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/17/05
PUBLIC HEARING
October 17,2005
;ent:
Am Menconi
Peter Runyon
Tom Stone
Keith Montag
Bryan Treu
Teak Simonton
Kathy Scriver
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Acting County Administrator
County Attorney
Clerk to the Board
Deputy Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
Executive Session
Commissioner Runyon moved the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose
of receiving legal advice on matters that may be the subject of negotiations pertaining to RICD legislation, State Parks'
Sylvan Lake Excess Water Rights, the Colorado River Basin Proposal Technical Study, Vail Valley Taxi, Replacement
of Door at ARFF building, Human Resources Benefits discussion, the Beaver Creek PUD/Employee Housing, Lady
Bell Litigation, courthouse security, and Cooley Mesa Road all of which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant
to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e), Colorado Revised Statutes. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously. At the close of the discussion, Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn from Executive Session which
was seconded by Commissioner Stone and unanimously approved.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of October 17,2005 (Subject to review by the County Administrator)
Mike Roeper, Finance Department
B. Resolution 2005-123 for Raymond P. Merry, Director of Environmental Health to Sign Documents on Behalf
of Eagle County Requesting State Reimbursement Funds for Expenses I11curred During the Basalt Road &
Bridge Yard Environmental Mitigation
Ray Merry, Environmental Health
C. Encroachment Easement Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle-Vail Townhouse Association
Mike Gruber, Engineering
D. Agreement for Professional Services Relating to the Update of Road Impact Fees
Greg Schroeder, Engineering
E. Quit Claim Deed for the Gypsum Shooting Sports Facility
Attorney's Office Representative
F. Agreement with Holy Cross Energy for the Fairgrounds Pavilion Electric System; Trench Conduit and Vault
Agreement; and Underground Right-of-Way Easement
Engineering Department
Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office ifthere were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes or revisions.
Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-F.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda
Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development
Resolution 2005-124 For the Approval of A Site Specific Development Plan for Parcell, Tract D (Miller
Ranch) and Tract C (Recreation) of the Berry Creek Miller Ranch Planned Unit Development (Eagle County
File No. PR-00029)
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda, Item A.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Minor Subdivision Plat Signing
Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development
There were no Minor Subdivision Plats for the Board's consideration this week.
Introduction of New County Administrator, Bruce Baumgartner
Board of County Commissioners
The Commissioners spoke about their experience in searching for the person for the job. Mr. Baumgartner
was the manager of Denver I11ternational Airport prior to that the Director of Public Works for Denver among other
positions.
Chairman Menconi thanked Mr. Montag for the work he assumed during the time period the County was
without a County Administrator. He said it was a pleasure to work directly with the Directors and Managers.
Commissioner Runyon added that the fact that the County had kept its course and remained a strong
organization was a testament to the strength of the Eagle County team. Mr. Baumgartner is a welcome addition to the
anization.
Commissioner Stone thanked Mr. Montag for rising to the occasion. He also thanked all the County Staff for
uelping Mr. Montag do his job. He supports Mr. Baumgartner in his efforts and he hopes all County Staff will do so as
well. He hopes that with Mr. Baumgartner's leadership in county services and operation can be taken to another level.
Mr. Baumgartner stated that he is very pleased to be part of the Eagle County team and he realizes that he has
a lot to learn. He intends to listen to everyone and get to know them. He intends to get up to speed as soon as
possible. He values people and employees because he is aware that they are the ones that make it happen. He thanked
the Commissioners and Mr. Montag for giving him the opportunity to become part of the Eagle County team.
Planning Files
LUR-0052 - Emen!encv Service Impact Fee
Bob Narracci, Community Development
The adoption of an emergency services impact fee program.
ACTION:
Within each district's designated boundaries.
LOCATION:
TITLE:
FILE NO./PROCESS:
Eagle County Land Use Regulations Amendments (ECLUR)
LUR-0052; Emergency Service Providers Impact Fee
Areas of Emergency Service Providers' District Boundaries Located Within
Unincorporated Eagle County
LOCATION:
.LICANT:
Greater Eagle Fire Protection District
Gypsum Fire Protection District
Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District
Western Eagle County Ambulance District
2
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert G. Cole, Esquire of Collins Cockrel & Cole, P.C.
EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
l;)eptember 21 S\ the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Emergency
lce Providers' Impact Fee with conditions. During deliberations, it was stated that:
./ An impact fee program will provide certainty that new development will pay its equitable share of future
capital improvement needs (relative to emergency services).
./ Also, development will inevitably move into more rural areas, many 35 acre subdivisions are probable in the
future.
./ The proposed Impact Fee will help to offset the cost of providing service to (currently) remote regions of
Eagle County.
ROARING FORK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On September 22nd, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission (RFVRPC) recommended approval of
the Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fee by a vote of four to one with conditions.
./ The RFVRPC strongly questioned the apparent inequity of proposed impact fee schedule between districts, as
well as, between unincorporated areas and the Towns.
./ The RFVRPC also sought to understand how the identical Emergency Service Impact Fee can be equitably
applied to a modular home and 10,000 square foot mansion alike.
./ With focus primarily on the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, the RFVRPC questioned the need for the
impact fee when they already pay a 6.214 Mill Levy for that District's services and future property owners
within new developments will also be paying the Mill Levy - why would there still be a shortfall on revenues?
./ Fire Districts already require more exactions of new development than any other service providers (road width,
road thickness, minimum water distribution standards, fire hydrants, etc.). They (Districts) already have
enough exactions that add significant costs to new development.
./ Concern that impact fees collected in Eagle County will be used to make capital improvements in Pitkin
County, as well as, in Town of Basalt; The applicant represented that unincorporated regions of Eagle
County are served by fire stations located within Pitkin County and that Pitkin County has recently adopted an
impact fee program on behalf of the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and that the Town of Basalt
Planning Commission has recommended approval of the impact fee program to the Town Council. Further
research revealed that Pitkin County did recently adopt an impact fee program; one notable difference is that
in Pitkin County the impact fee is collected directly by the District, not the County. In 2003 the Town of
Basalt Planning Commission did indeed recommend approval of an impact fee program to the Town Council.
The Town Council, however, desired to wait for Pitkin County and Eagle County to first adopt said program.
./ Concern that someone building inside the Basalt Town Boundary will not be subject to impact fee;
Ultimately, the RFVRPC voted to recommend approval with one additional condition added such that, "The Basalt and
Rural Fire Protection District Impact Fee remain at $0.00 until such time as the Town of Basalt likewise adopts the
Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fee Program".
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MARY:
pplicants request that Eagle County amend Division 4-7 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to adopt the
Eagle County Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fees. This new impact fee regulation would be applicable to all
unincorporated Eagle County lands located within one or more emergency service providers' districts. All special
3
districts responsible for the provision of emergency services in unincorporated Eagle County, except for two, have
chosen to both champion the adoption of these proposed regulations, as well as, to participate in the regulatory
program once established. The Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Health Service District have
d to not participate in the impact fee program at this time but nevertheless remain supportive. As the future capital
rovement needs of these two Districts change in the future, they too may choose to participate. The result of the
River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Health Service District not participating at this time is that impact
fees will not be assessed for those regions of the County served by these two Districts.
The Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974 ("Act") and other applicable law grants 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
allowed local governments to impose impact fees to offset the cost of capital improvements necessary to serve new
development. The proposed Emergency Service Provider Impact Fees would be imposed on development which
generates a need for additional Emergency Service Capital Improvements.
Public Safety Consultants completed fiscal impact studies for each of the participating Districts, which determined the
net present value of the capital improvement costs that will be generated by new growth in the unincorporated portions
of Eagle County located within the respective Districts' boundaries and found those costs to be: $406,748 for Basalt
and Rural Fire Protection District; $888,629 for Greater Eagle Fire Protection District; $823,740 for Gypsum Fire and
$1,056,516 for the Western Eagle County Ambulance District. These figures represent the capital expenditures by the
Districts necessary to mitigate the impact of population growth from land development within the Districts'
boundaries. Below is a table summarizing the impact fees that will be assessed for new construction located within
one or more of the participating Districts. The impact fees are differentiated by Residential, Non-Residential and
Lodging Facilities:
Non-Residential
$581.07/2,000 sq. [1.
$455.71/2,000 sq. [1.
$867.09/2,000 sq. [1.
$469.56/2,000 sq. [1.
The impact fees are to be collected by the County at the time of building permit issuance and used by the emergency
service providers to pay for capital improvements such as buildings, facilities and equipment within each respective
district. The County will receive an administrative fee of not more than 2% of the impact fees collected.
BACKGROUND:
(Excerpt from the Eagle County Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis Prepared by Public Safety Consultants)
Impact fees are "single payments required to be made by builders or developers at the time of development and
calculated to be the proportionate share of the capital cost of providing major facilities." Impact fees are used to
achieve two primary responsibilities of local government - land use regulation and provision of public facilities.
Impact fees are equitable in that they help shift the burden of paying for new facilities onto the new development that
will directly benefit from the new facilities.
The premise on which impact fees are based is that development should pay for the cost of providing the facilities
necessary to accommodate growth. The basic underlying principle of impact fees is that all development which uses
up a measurable amount of capacity on public infrastructure systems should be responsible to offset or make up for
those impacts. Infrastructure is generally defined as those services necessary for the development of land and
provision of public safety. The costs of projects needed to support growth that is financed with impact fees are based
on some measurement of a development's impact on future needs. Impact fees are not intended to be used to pay for
capital improvements to correct an existing deficiency or shortfall.
Impact fees are often used for initial development of the capital facilities needed to provide water, wastewater, fire
... pression and emergency medical services, and transportation capacity to service new development. Development
act fees are not used for operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of capital facilities, nor can they
be used for existing deficiencies of said facilities. Capital facilities are generally those that have a functional life of
more than one year, do not change their character with use, and are able to be discretely described from the rest of the
community's assets.
4
The developers, and ultimately the end users, have certain rights regarding the development of impact fees.
Developers have the right to know what they are paying for because impact fees can be a significant portion of the cost
eveloping both residential and commercial properties. Developers have a right to know that the projects for which
r have paid impact fees will be built. Developers have the right to support impact fees. Developers have the right
to pay for improvements that will benefit their development. Developers also have the right to expect that their
payments will not be diverted to finance improvements not related to growth. Finally, an important feature of a system
of well-defined impact fee charges is the knowledge that all developers, big and small, will be treated equitably.
Prior to the 1960s construction and financing of public facilities to support growth was an unquestioned civic
responsibility. However, fundamental changes dampened local government's desire to serve new development:
1. "The quiet revolution" in land use regulation gave state and regional interest a say in land use;
2. Environmental movement led us to question the faith in and benefits of new development;
3. Fiscal revolts demanding alternatives to taxation, such as the TABOR Amendment;
4. Growth rates in some communities exceeded the communities' fiscal abilities to supply infrastructure.
Given these changes, public sentiment led to growth paying its own way and impact fees are one means to achieving
that end.
Impact fees are defined as land development regulations, whose purpose is to protect the public, rather than to raise
revenue. The intent of impact fees is not to raise money, but rather, to ensure that adequate and necessary public
infrastructure is provided to development in order to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. Because the intent
of impact fees is to fund capital improvements, not general operating expenses, they must be measured against the
standards discussed below.
Several standards have been developed over the years that an impact fee program must meet in order to pass legal
"ew in Colorado. The first is that new development must not be held to a higher standard for delivery of services
1 existing development. The only exception to this is when the existing deficiencies are in the process of being
removed through a funding source other than impact fees. The impact fees proposed by the districts are designed to
maintain the existing level of service in the community and in the new development and are not anticipated to fund an
expansion of services that are not already paid for through ad valorem taxes or service fees.
The second standard is known as the "Reasonably-Related Standard". This means that at the time the impact fee is
adopted, the amount of the impact fee to be charged must be reasonably related to the estimated expense of delivering
the service or constructing the facility. A new development may not be charged a higher fee than the estimated cost to
provide the additional service or facility to the entire development. The cost is calculated based on the unique
character, service standards, and needs of each service provider and reflects the cost of capital infrastructure work done
within Eagle County. The proposed impact fees meet the Reasonably-Related Standard in that they were derived from
costs associated with infrastructure directly attributable to anticipated development. That is, the costs were calculated
by proportioning infrastructure use to each development, proposed and existing. For example, the cost of a new
Pumper Truck to be stationed in a particular development is not 100 percent of the Pumper Truck because it can be
used for response to areas outside the new development. It should also be noted that none of the districts used a "Buy-
in" approach where new development pays for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of the existing
facilities.
The third standard deals with the manner in which impact fees are collected and used. Colorado law is specific about
the manner in which impact fee revenues may be collected and spent. Any revenue collected must be used to defray
the projected impacts on capital facilities caused by the new development. Further, any revenue must be used to pay
for same type of improvements for which the impact fee is charged. For instance, impact fees collected for the impacts
to streets can not be used to build parks. The districts' proposed impact fees are designed to meet this standard by
.. "ng limited to capital improvements for specific public safety functions, and by being proportional to the benefit new
elopment enjoys from the
The fourth standard is the universal application of the fee. Since the impact fee is a fee charged for services rendered,
all new development should pay it. The districts meet this test by having the impact fee apply to all new development
5
within unincorporated Eagle County. It should be noted that Greater Eagle, Gypsum and WECAD have separate
impact fees within the towns of Gypsum and Eagle and that Greater Eagle and WECAD span both towns and have
identical fees in both towns. The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District is pursuing impact fees in the Town of Basalt.
impact fees for the incorporated and unincorporated areas will differ due to differing level of service standards in
nore urban areas compared to the rural areas. In the instant cases, the fees need only be universal within
unincorporated Eagle County. It should also be noted that this analysis only applies to those areas that are in
unincorporated Eagle County and within each district. Which presents a problem in equity as each of the districts
provides service to areas outside its corporate boundaries in so called "no man's land." This practice is unfair to
residents of Eagle County that are paying for emergency services. Eagle County should not approve any new
development through anything other than use by right for properties that have not been included into appropriate fire
and ambulance districts.
In order to develop a sense of the impact of growth, the districts examined growth trends and development potential in
unincorporated Eagle County served by the districts. Development trends and build-out in unincorporated Eagle
County were also examined. The districts examined areas of potential development within their respective
jurisdictions. The annual percent of build-out for new dwelling units was then calculated for the County (2.89 percent)
and applied to the unincorporated areas for each jurisdiction. This was then apportioned in development areas that
spanned multiple jurisdictions. Potential commercial development was then calculated for the areas in question.
Finally, the annual development was corrected to reflect development trends, e.g., the Highway 131 area has several
potential dwelling sites; however, Dotsero and Wolcott are expected to develop faster.
STAFF REPORT
REFERRAL RESPONSES:
The proposed amendment package was referred to the following agencies:
0 County Engineering Department 0 Town of Minturn
0 County Attorneys Office 0 Town of Red cliff
0 County Department of Environmental 0 Town of Vail
Health 0 Knight Planning Services
0 Treasurer's Office 0 Isom and Associates
0 County Sheriff s Office 0 Tom Braun Associates
0 Board of County Commissioners 0 Maruiello Planning Group, LLC
0 Eagle County Planning Commission 0 Pylman and Associates
0 Roaring Fork Valley Regional 0 Vail Resorts
Planning Commission 0 The Land Studio
0 Colorado State Division of Local 0 Otak
Affairs 0 Sid Fox and Company
0 Basalt and Rural FPD 0 Johnson & Kunkel
0 Gypsum FPD 0 Alpine Engineering
0 Greater Eagle FPD 0 Peak Land Surveying
0 Eagle River FPD 0 White Surveying
0 NWCCOG 0 Starbuck Surveying
0 Home Builders' Association 0 Sopris Engineering
0 Town of Avon 0 Intermountain Engineering
0 Town of Basalt 0 Marcin Engineering
0 Town of Eagle 0 Eagle Valley Surveying
0 Town of Gypsum
As of this writing, only one response has been received from the Engineering Department indicating, 'no
comment' .
IISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: the
proposed amendments HA VE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including the applicable towns
within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs.
6
2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public
notice HAS been given.
'. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
(a) The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations,
and do not amend the Official Zone District Map.
(b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided.
4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as
applicable:
(a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use
Map of the Eagle County Master Plan.
(b) The proposed amendments MAY address a demonstrated community need.
Following are the current assessed Mill Levies for each of the participating Emergency Service
Districts, as well as, the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Health Service
District:
Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District
Eagle County Health Service District
Eagle River Fire Protection District
Greater Eagle Fire Protection District
Gypsum Fire Protection District
Western Eagle County Ambulance District
6.214
2.013 Not Participating
3.800 Not Participating
7.927
7.127
5.233
The Applicants should be required to address to the Board's satisfaction why the two Emergency
Service Districts in Eagle County with substantially lower tax mill levies than the participating Districts
are able to finance their capital improvement needs without having to seek additional funding via the
proposed Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fees.
(c) The proposed amendments MAYBE in the public interest.
Due to the fact that not all of the Emergency Provider Special Districts are participating in the impact
fee program and that the fees vary considerably between districts, Staff is concerned that these
proposed Emergency Providers Impact Fees will be perceived by the public as being administered
inequitably county-wide. For instance, the new impact fee for building a new single-family home
within the unincorporated Basalt vicinity will cost $581.07; the same home constructed in the
unincorporated Eagle vicinity will cost $455.71 Greater Eagle + $469.56 WECAD = $925.27, and;
again for the unincorporated Gypsum vicinity $867.09 Gypsum FPD + $469.56 WECAD = $1,336.65.
Whereas, a new home constructed up valley would have $0.00 Emergency Providers Impact Fee
assessed. Thus, depending upon unincorporated location, the assessed fee for construction of an
identical home could fluctuate by as much as $1,336.65 and, as such, will likely be quite difficult to
justify to future building permit applicants.
When coupled with the County's existing Road Impact Fees, a new home constructed in the
unincorporated Gypsum vicinity will have a total of $2936.65 appended onto the building permit fees
($1,336.65 EIF + $1,600 RIF = $2936.65).
The Applicants should be required to address to the Board's satisfaction how all unincorporated
Eagle County citizens will be uniformly and equitably served given the perceived inequity in the
proposed impact fee schedule structure.
7
a) Why the two Emergency Service Districts in Eagle County with the lowest tax mill levies are able to
finance their capital improvement needs without having to seek additional funding via the proposed
Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fees, and;
b) How will all unincorporated Eagle County citizens be uniformly and equitably served given the
perceived inequity in the proposed impact fee schedule structure?
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Narracci presented a Power Point slide show which detailed the request. The fee would be assessed on
all new development that generates a need for these services; including construction within subdivisions which
have previously received approval. If the County collects the fee a 2% vendor fee would be provided. He showed
a map with the various fire district maps. He also highlighted the ambulance district boundaries. He stated that it
would be difficult to explain to people building properties why there is such a difference in the impact fees for the
different districts.
Chairman Menconi asked why Upper Eagle Valley isn't participating at this time.
Mr. Narracci stated that this district works with developers to obtain a capital improvement or provision for
a fire house in the development.
Chairman Menconi wondered ifit wouldn't be possible to have an either/or situation; an impact fee or
contribution for capital improvements.
Mr. Narracci stated that he believed there would be this type of flexibility. He used Two Rivers for an
example. They provided a site for a fire station and so their impact fees for the remainder of their development
would be less. Approval of this request would affect all new construction. Mr. Narracci stated that Charlie Moore,
Upper Eagle Valley Fire Protection District had been successful in securing capital improvements without an
impact fee.
Commissioner Stone asked what would happen if someone purchased a modular home at Two Rivers, and
vondered whether they would they pay the fees.
Mr. Narracci stated that they would indeed be subject to these fees.
Commissioner Stone asked if it was similar to road impact fees. He wondered if all impact fees are such
that there is no waiver for a specific type of housing.
Walter Matthews stated that the road impact fee has an exemption for affordable housing and he believes
that these fees should be handled the same way.
Commissioner Stone asked how this decision would be made. He stated it seems to be unmanageable. He
wondered if the decision would have to be made on a case by case basis.
Mr. Narracci stated that the Board would have to make the decision when the development is approved.
New development would have this decision made at the time the development is approved. Two Rivers would be
considered because it is not deed restricted. The requirement according to State Statute requires lower moderate
income housing.
Commissioner Runyon wondered if there would be greater implication the further away a development was
from a fire station. He wondered whether there was any correlation to distance to the capital improvement.
Mr. Narracci stated that the proposed fees would be uniform throughout the district regardless of proximity
to a station.
Kevin Kline, author of the fees study, explained that the study looks at capital needs for the district on the
whole. The plan accommodates for distance from the current stations.
Bob Cole, applicant, spoke to the Board. He explained that State Statute requires the impact fee to be set
reasonable and related to the impact. The proximity issue is similar to the road impact fees. The amount of the fee
isn't relative to distance except when it comes to needing a new facility.
Commissioner Stone wondered why the road impact fees are consistent across the County and these are
not.
Mr. Cole indicated that fine tuning could occur in a myriad of ways. On a County wide basis, road
." mprovement fees could be argued. The proposed program fine tunes the cost to the demand and impact that are
reated.
Commissioner Stone stated that the two arguments are contradictive.
Mr. Cole indicated that political boundaries are fine tuned as well. In this instance these costs have been
tuned very specifically.
8
Mr. Kline stated that the level of government appropriate is the special district. The level of service for
each district is different.
Commissioner Stone asked how the fee would change over time.
Mr. Kline stated that the fee has an annual review built in and a mandatory five year review. He imagines
that the Town of Eagle will be built out soon. As build out is approached, the fees will decrease.
Mr. Narracci stated that the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval. The Roaring
Fork Planning Commission also recommended approval. The Roaring Fork Commission wondered why additional
fees would be needed however, based on the fact that there is currently already sufficient taxation to pay for
services and capital improvements. Certain areas of unincorporated Eagle County would be serviced with
equipment based in Eagle County. In voting to recommend approval it was recommended that the fee remain at
0.00 for the time being. Pitkin County has also recently adopted an impact fee program. In this case the fee is
collected by the district, and not the County. The Town of Eagle has adopted an impact fee program as well.
Gypsum has done the same. Staff is concerned about perceived inequity in the program.
Bob Cole, attorney for the involved districts presented a slide show. He spoke about the program and
proposed amendments to the Eagle County land use regulations. Impact fees are a one time charge against new
development to recover the costs for the services required to serve the new development. They are not taxes, nor
are they exactions or dedication requirements. He highlighted pros and cons. The pro is that the current residents
do not subsidize new development. New development will create an impact on emergency services and create a
capital improvement need. They are a growth accommodation tool. The fees are less arbitrary than a site specific
negotiation. Some of the cons include the additional cost to development and the fact that unless these fees are set
high, they may not cover development costs.
Commissioner Runyon asked why the fees for greater Eagle were so different than the fees charged by the
Town of Eagle.
Kevin Kline stated that the difference is between the cost of providing services for the unincorporated areas
versus providing the services for the incorporated town. Because of the density and proximity to existing stations
that municipal areas encompass, the cost is less.
Commissioner Runyon wondered whether the pricing needed to be the equivalent standard of what is
already in place. He wondered about locations such as Eby Creek Mesa.
Dave Vroman, Gypsum fire district stated that adequate infrastructure would be needed. The Gypsum
situation is more similar between town and county. To provide the same level of service the impact fees must be
site specific. It is a geographically based problem.
Commissioner Stone wondered why Eby Creek Mesa would be charged more.
Mr. Kline stated that within the municipality it is consistent within that political subdivision. Within the
unincorporated areas it is consistent. The needs within the unincorporated areas and projected growth and impact
aren't as great on the districts in the unincorporated areas as it is within the town; the town has a greater impact due
to density of their development. They are dealing with projected developments. When the Town of Eagle was
completed (the study) they had the Eagle Ranch development on the table. They are looking at capital needs over
the next 10 years.
Commissioner Stone stated that the argument wasn't convincing. He suggested when a new district is
formed that that district is based on the budget which includes capital as well as operational objectives. He
wonders why the district is now not able to pay its bills.
Mr. Kline stated that the budget was based on projected development at the time the service plan was
created.
Commissioner Stone asked if there was an error made in projecting at the time, and if that were the case,
he'd be a lot more critical of allowing new districts to be formed based on assumptions.
Mr. Vroman stated that the original Gypsum service plan was approved in 1982. New development has
been approved since then.
Commissioner Stone wondered why exactions weren't made at the time and why they weren't requested.
Mr. Kline stated that the districts exact an entire fire station out of bigger developers. This program is
trying to eliminate the need to negotiate exactions, but rather have a uniform impact fee. They want to be able to
plan down the road for capital improvements, including stations.
Commissioner Stone asked if they were no longer going to try to achieve exactions from new subdivisions.
Mr. Kline stated that this is the case. They would not try to exact something specific. They may ask in lieu
of instead of in addition to compensation.
9
~
Commissioner Stone stated that he is having a hard time and it seems unfair to go back to a Two Rivers
type of development which has provided a station and now is going to be asked to provide additional fees. He
wondered if a blanket waiver could be approved.
Mr. Cole stated that a contribution or exaction would be credited back to the developer.
Commissioner Stone asked if the fees could apply to new development rather than new construction.
Mr. Cole stated that buildings that have not yet been built have not created an impact. The impact is felt
when the building goes up rather than when the subdivision is approved. It boils down to who pays for the
necessary facilities to serve new homes; the new homeowner or the current residents. The use of the fees is
restricted to capital improvements.
Commissioner Stone asked if these monies are restricted to use. He stated that he still had concerns.
Mr. Cole stated that the courts support the rational nexus / rough proportionality and that the rules apply
only to site specific exactions. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that there is implied authority for counties
and statutory municipalities and home rule authority and that there is a reasonable relationship test. He spoke about
Senate bill 15. The legislature defined the impact fee authority and made it clear that special districts do not have
impact fee authority. Key requirements include the fact that fees must be related, legislatively adopted, generically
applicable and can only apply to capital facilities and cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies. They can be
used for any facility related to service the government provides; roads, water, sewer, parks, open space, libraries
etc. School impact fees are not allowed. The funds must be deposited in an interest bearing account and each fund
must be accounted for separately. He spoke about proposed amendments to the Land Use Regulations. Division 4-
7 and Section 4-720 would be affected. The proposed fees would be added to the Land Use Regulations. He
highlighted permissible costs. Personnel and operational costs are not appropriate expenditures. He discussed time
of payment at the time of the issuance of the building permit. He reviewed the exemptions which include remodels
or add-ons to existing homes, or the replacement of an existing building. Private recreational facilities within a
residential subdivision would be excluded. The Commissioner can waive the fee for low or moderate housing as
defined by 4-710. The amount would be reviewed and revised by resolution of the Commissioners. There is an
appeal provision. They have tried to provide an alternate mechanism if someone doesn't feel that this fee applies to
their project. The fees must be placed in an interest bearing account, they can only go to capital expenditures,
xclusively for capital improvements and can not be used for personal or maintenance cost.
Commissioner Runyon asked whether the County would hold the funds until they were distributed or the
individual districts.
Mr. Cole stated that the regulations are set up so that the County would hold the fees and distribute them
over to the district. Agreements for administration of the funds could be entered into. An administrative fee of 3%
has been provided for if this agreement were made. He spoke about the credits for improvements section and
adjustment of the fees. A key ingredient is that it's the burden of the districts to annually notify the County of the
CPI adjustment before the County would have any obligation to collect these fees. The regulations provide that the
Commissioners can annually adjust the fees.
Commissioner Stone asked if there were any areas of the County that were not part of a district.
Mr. Cole stated there are many districts that are not currently covered by a fire protection district. Most of
the County is covered by ambulance districts. Eagle County ambulance district is not in need of funding. Their
geographical area has a very high assessed value.
Commissioner Runyon asked why they don't reduce their mill levy.
Mr. Cole stated that the surplus has been reduced over the years, because their capital needs are being
outstripped by growth.
Mr. Vroman stated that Charlie Moore is interested in looking at a rational nexus because they too are
going to be impacted by growth.
Mr. Kline stated that the Eagle County district has Vail in its boundaries.
Commissioner Runyon wondered if John Gulick, the fire chief of Vail was supportive.
Mr. Kline stated that Mr. Gulick is pursuing impact fees within the Town of Vail.
Commissioner Stone stated that the Town of Vail is building their West Vail fire station with grants from
Eagle County.
Mr. Kline showed a pie chart which indicated calls coming from new growth areas. He showed several
slides which provided the basis for the calculations.
Chairman Menconi wondered how committed the district needed to be in terms of statements being made
for future capital improvements
Mr. Kline indicated that these expectations were based on what is currently known about growth.
10
Chairman Menconi wondered how the balancing act would be accomplished based on how actual impact
fees will be collected.
Mr. Kline stated that ifthe building permit isn't pulled, the development doesn't occur and the impact isn't
felt. If BLM came in and bought a large area that would have been developed, then the equipment would come off
the capital improvement plan and the fees would be adjusted accordingly. The mill levy pays for the operation and
maintenance. It is also designed to replace existing apparatus and facilities.
Mr. Cole stated that new growth will increase collections of taxes via the mill levy.
Chairman Menconi stated that a planner accused the County of double dipping related to the road impact
fees as well as asking for extractions for ingress / egress. They intend to reduce the fee for additional exaction
contributions.
Mr. Cole stated that they have set the impact fees based on only the impacts created.
Chairman Menconi wondered what would trigger the expenditure of the revenue.
Mr. Kline responded that they are allocated based on Board of Directors direction in each district.
Chairman Menconi stated that the main criticism heard about impact fees is that the money doesn't get
spent in the area where the fees are being paid. The perception is that the money is collected and then spent too late
and in the wrong areas.
Mr. Kline stated that impact fees collected in Gypsum and Eagle have already been spent for capital
improvements and there is accountability.
Commissioner Stone asked if a county-wide study could have been done.
Mr. Kline stated that there is a huge discrepancy between what happens in the more developed areas versus
the less developed areas down valley with lower tax bases. Legally this could be done, but he believes it transfers
the least amount of cost from where it originates.
Commissioner Stone stated that he could argue that the reason the districts that have more money do is
because they are mostly built out, so the majority of the impact fees could be generated in faster growing areas.
Mr. Cole stated that on a unit by unit basis, the unit in that district that really has a need for a lower fee
ends up paying more.
Commissioner Stone stated that his biggest concern from the beginning was that there needed to be an
across the board and consistent fee paid to all the districts countywide. He had hoped this would be the case. His
concern is that it promotes jurisdictional shopping. He recommends that the fees be given to the County Sherifr s
Department for wildfire mitigation only. If the County Staff is going to be collecting the fees and a waiver is given
to affordable housing, the staff will need to do calculations on an individual building permit basis. He stated that
affordability does not have to be defined by deed restrictions. He supports a standard equal fee through out the
County.
Mr. Walters asked Mr. Cole who would make up the Committee and Fee Board. He asked that the Board
of County Commissioners be the impact fee Board and not a fourth person from a service provider.
Mr. Kline stated that would be appropriate and concluded his presentation responding to staff concerns. He
stated that the Commissioners are enabling the districts to collect the fees in unincorporated areas and each district
will establish its level of service through its elected officials. Each district has different assessed values and
geographic concerns. With each district having its own fees they feel it is more accurate. For these reasons they
feel it is equitable.
Mr. Cole clarified the remarks made my Mr. Kline stating that from a legal standpoint the Commissioners
are not enabling the districts to collect the fees, these would be County fees and the Board would then make them
available to the districts to mediate those impacts.
Mr. Vroman challenged the Commissioners to determine how to come up with capital improvements. They
received a piece of ground from the developers. They actually anticipated the impact fees would be implemented
much earlier.
Chairman Menconi stated that if a development were to come through, the developers would indicate that
future growth could not be supported by current services and funding. He wondered if development had been
approved prior to having this funding available.
Mr. Vroman stated that impact fees are now available within Town of Gypsum limits.
Chairman Menconi asked at which point in time did the district set itself up not to include the foresight to
create enough revenue that impact fees had to then be put in place.
Mr. Vroman stated that it is a crystal ball discussion. In the past bonding issues were used. He believes
new growth should pay its way rather than all homeowners.
Commissioner Stone reiterated his concerns and suggested that the fees be applied to new developments
and asked if this could be done legally.
11
Mr. Cole stated that this could be done.
Chairman Menconi spoke of affordability issues and wondered who should bare the weight
Mr. Vroman stated that new subdivisions create an impact and require improvements to service that impact.
Ie doesn't believe that development community will object to the impact fee.
Commissioner Stone explained the reason the developers would be in favor of the fee is because the impact
fee would drive up the real cost of the housing at the time of sale. Either way the home owner will pay for the fees
but it makes it more saleable to the developer to delay those cost.
Mr. Vroman stated that the homeowner doesn't have an expectation until they sign a contract, so he doesn't
believe it's inequitable to allow the fee to be collected on the subdivisions that have already received plat approval.
Commissioner Stone stated that the Board has always been supportive of the fire protection districts. He
thinks the public hadn't been fully informed. He is concerned with the application of the fee and would like to see
it be a standard equal fee. He would also like the Board to make it policy that the districts calculate whether it's
affordable housing based on the land use regulations and give a waivers to all affordable housing.
Mr. Kline commented on the affordable housing issue and felt that there could be a blanket policy created
to waive the impact fee for the building permits on that affordable housing unit. He believes that the lower cost
housing has a higher utilization of services.
Chairman Menconi opened public comment.
Roxie Deane stated that she believes that the calculations are fair and equitable. She questioned Chairman
Merconi's concerns with affordable housing paying the same as the higher end homes.
Chairman Menconi explained that it was a clash of policies. He believes it's the County's policy not to
create an added burden to the cost of housing.
Ms. Deane stated that it's been her past experience that the administration ofthe fees was a customer
service issue. It was easier to do it that way. She believes the fees are needed and asked the Board for their
support.
Chairman Menconi closed public comment.
Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Narracci ifhe received any feedback after distributing the file packets
and whether he followed up to see if the packets were received.
Mr. Narracci stated there wasn't any feedback.
Commissioner Runyon asked about the perceived inequity.
Mr. Narracci explained that he preferred that Community Development wasn't the front line in trying to
explain to the building permit applicants why the fees are different. He would prefer the fees be collected by the
districts.
Chairman Menconi asked if this was a time management issue.
Mr. Narracci explained that the Community Development Department is still being asked to explain the
road impact fees.
Chairman Menconi asked it this was a time management issue.
Mr. Montag stated that it was a time issue, if the County was going to collect and administrate the fees,
there should be an administrative fee added.
Mr. Vroman stated that the 2% administrative fee is an add-on fee.
Commissioner Stone stated the fees should remain consistent through the County.
Commissioner Runyon stated that he is in favor of development paying its way. He is concerned that there
was no public present and no one speaking against the fee.
Chairman Menconi asked for clarification on the January deadline.
Mr. Narracci explained his proposal for a lag time between approval and implementation to allow adequate
notification to the building community.
Chairman Menconi suggested that if this fee only impacted new subdivisions, would it then change the cost
configuration.
Mr. Vroman stated that it would change it but the change wouldn't be overwhelming. They've looked at
fhat's already zoned, use by right and what is potentially to be zoned.
Chairman Menconi reiterated that the existing revenue plan doesn't cover future growth. He stated that the
formula isn't clear, and asked that it be clarified. He'd like to hear more about how they came up with the dollar
amount, and is in favor of a little more fine tuning.
12
Commissioner Stone asked for a calculation if a standardized equal fee was implemented, what that fee
would be. He also asked for a calculation if the Board gave a waiver on all affordable housing, what the impact
would be financially on the district.
Mr. Vroman asked that the County wide calculation be based on need.
Chairman Menconi expressed his desire for more affordable housing and stated that increasing fees works
against this.
Commissioner Stone asked to see a third calculation based on fees being only applied to new
developments.
Commissioner Runyon stated his support, but thinks that there should be an affordable housing exclusion.
He is concerned with the disparity in rates, and would much rather see a consolidated approach.
Chairman Menconi suggested the possibility of an initiation period, and wondered if a faze-in would affect
the cost.
Mr. Vroman stated that a faze-in would just put in off until later and then it would become a political
decision to lower the impact fee up front.
Chairman Menconi asked Jon Asper to explain how the impact fees have helped the Eagle Fire Department
in the town of Eagle.
Mr. Asper, Greater Eagle Fire District explained that the impact fees had greatly affected their level of
serVIce.
Mr. Vroman stated that the fees have allowed them to payoff a truck and hire another person.
Scott Thomson, Basalt Fire Chief explained that they haven't seen impact fees. They have II employees
and can't afford to buy the needed fire equipment. They are trying to build affordable house to keep their
volunteers and paid employee in the area. They have been greatly affected by growth and he believes that
development should pay for the infrastructure so that mills are not raised and additional bonds aren't needed.
Chairman Menconi empathized with the seriousness of the issue. He suggested the file be table to a later
date.
The applicants requested the earliest date.
Commissioner Stone moved to table File No. LUR-0052-Emergency Service Providers Impact Fee, at the
applicants request until November 15, 2005.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
There being no further business
Attest:
13
