The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6A - Impact Fee/Development Excise Tax (DET) Study Update CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECRF.A'I'ION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 22, 2008 AGENDA TITLE: Impact Fee/Development Excise Tax (DET) Study Update PRF.SENTF:RS: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent Abbie Novak, Business and Finance Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to discuss and provide input on the Draft Impact Fee/ Development Excise Tax Study (Attachment A) developed by TischlerBise. At its July 22 meeting, City Council reviewed the draft study and decided not to place an item on the ballot this fall to increase development excise taxes. Council requested that staff: • Move forward to look at implementing as impact fees the six categories that used the impact fee methodology (fire, police, human services, parks and recreation, municipal facilities, library). These should be considered in a more comprehensive manner together with plant investment fees, looking at the overall cost of our development-related fees, and economic competitiveness issues. • I=xplore how a combination of excise taxes and impact fees might work together. • With the consultant's help, identify data needs from the departments and put in place the mechanisms to collect the needed data to update the study in the future. • Seek additional public and advisory board input on the study results. • Provide a more in-depth look at the development-related infrastructure and facilities requirements in other jurisdictions. • l~ or Housing and Transportation -come back with a proposal for how to proceed for a potential ballot issue next fall, including a plan for engaging the public. A City Council Study Session is scheduled for October 14 to discuss this study together with proposed changes to Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and other development-related lees. AGENDR ITF~~f # ~~L ~ ,PAGE ~ BACKGROliND AND ANALYSIS: At its March 18 meeting, City Council requested that staff move forward with the consulting firm of TischlerBise to prepare an updated Development Excise Tax study, with the goal of having a report in time to provide the opportunity for a potentia12008 ballot item. On May 20, City Council supported the staff recommendation that the city move forward with a study that includes the components currently included in the city's development and housing excise taxes (affordable housing, fire, human services, libraries, municipal facilities, parks, police, recreation, transportation) and the establishment of a liaison committee. Because of the compressed timetable, the draft study was completed just in time for Council's review at its July 22 meeting, and staff was only able to perform a cursory review. The initial direction to TischlerBise was to prepare the study using an impact fee methodology where appropriate, in order to provide council with the option of implementing impact fees instead of DETs. The difference between an impact fee and a development excise tax is described in the analysis section of the memo. TischlerBise indicated at the time this was discussed with council on March 20 that it would also identify in the study those components where an excise tax would be more appropriate. During the consultant's visit on July 8 and 9 to meet with staff and review its initial analysis and results, TischlerBise recommended that it prepare the report using impact fee methodologies for parks, recreation, library, police, fire, municipal services and human services and that the affordable housing and transportation components use an excise tax approach. This recommendation was based on both the limits of Colorado's impact fee legislation and some of the limiting factors an impact fee approach would place on transportation. 1. Purpose Policy 3.05 Growtl~ to Pay Fair Share of New Facility Costs of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan states that Growth will be expected to pay its own way, with the requirement that new development pay the cost of providing needed facilities and an equitable share of services including affordable housing, and to mitigate negative impacts such as those to the transportation system." The purpose of the new study is to bring the city's fees and taxes more in line with the actual costs of growth. The city's current excise taxes are charged on new residential and non-residential development and non-residential additions in the city. The city has three types of excise taxes: • The Development Excise Tax (DET) -funds future capital improvements • The Housing Excise Tax (HE"t) -funds affordable housing • The Education Excise Tax (EET) -funds public educational facilities and services AGENDA ITEM #SCi~_ ,PAGE 2 2. Current Excise Tax 12ates Each year, the DE"1' and HET can increase by the amount of the Boulder/Denver CPI. Ordinance No. 6019 (adopted in September 1998) provided the ballot language for the current DET and HET, and Boulder voters approved the increase and set a maximum amount on these taxes in November 1998. "fhe current rates reflect the rates approved in 1999 with annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The city is currently at or very close to the maximum amount that can be charged for the DET and. HET without going back to the voters (see chart below). The first two categories in the Development Excise Tax are within Less than one percent of reaching the maximum amount, the third category reached the maximum in 2008, and the last two categories (Housing Excise Tax) are projected to reach the maximum in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Development Excise Tax (BRC 3-8) Type of Development 2008 Rate Maximum Percent Approved Remaining New and annexing detached $5,579.59 $5,630.38 0.91% dwelling unit New and annexing attached $3,592.00 $3,624,10 0.89% dwelling unit New, annexing and expanded $2.48 per sq. $2 48 per sq. ft. At limit non-residential development ft. Housing Excise Tax (BRC 3-9) Type of Development 2008 Rate Maximum Percent Approved Remaining New and annexing dwelling unit $0'225 per $0.23 per sq. ft. 2.22% sq. ft. New, annexing and expanded $0.48 per sq. $0.51 per sq. ft. 6.25% non-residential development ft. In addition, the city charges an Education Excise Tax on new residential development. The current rate is $1.18 per square foot of residential development, up to a cap of 6,000 square feet. Since first implemented in 1995, the EE':I' rate has been increased each year by the CPI. There is no legal restriction precluding council, however, from limiting its increases to the CPI; nor is council limited from having the rate apply only to the first 6,000 square feet of residential development. Council has the authorization from the voters to increase the amount per square foot up to a maximum of $3.43 per square foot (currently at $1.18/square foot). While legally available for any general fund purpose, the voters that approved the EET had an expectation that the revenue would be used for education-related purposes. aGEND~ ITEM # ,PAGE 3. Development Excise Taxes and Impact Fees [n general, fees pay for the cost of a service. Funds collected are required to be used to fund the services for which they are collected. On the other hand, taxes are funds collected from people to support the costs of government. Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment requires that "any new tax" must be approved by the voters in the jurisdiction imposing the tax. A true "impact fee," however, is not subject to voter approval because there is a distinction between a "fee" and a "tax." A fee is a charge imposed on persons or property to defray costs of a particular government service. A tax is a means of distributing the general burden of the cost of government. By definition, an impact fee is a one-time payment used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth's fair share of capital facility needs. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards, which require fulfillment of three key elements: need, benefit and proportionality. First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it must be demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the fee paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system improvements. When applied in this way, there is no question that an impact fee is a fee and not a tax, and is therefore not subject to TABOR. The danger lies in extending an impact fee beyond its intended use; if such a fee was assessed at a level greater than was necessary to defray the impacts directly related to proposed development, resulting in the collection of more money than was needed to defray the costs of improvement, then the "fee" would become a tax. Similarly, if the money raised from an impact fee was simply spent on types of projects other than that for which the fee was initially collected, the fee would be viewed not as a fee but as a tax. Since in either case the "tax" wouldn't have been approved by the voters, it would be in violation of "TABOR. t'1n `impact fee" is a one time fee "applied to all development that will be served by the public improvements or services for which the fee is collected."~ The fee is calculated using the general principles of ratemaking set forth in state appellate case law. Impact fees have become popular with local governments over the past twenty-five years as a way to recover the cost of public improvements made necessary by new development, and of ensuring that growth pays its own way. Boulder has had plant investment fees for water and sewer going back to the late 1950s as part of its "pay as you go" approach to financing capital facilities. 'this ~ I?lliott, Donald L. (L'd.). Colorado Land Planning and Development Law, 6th Ed. Denver, CO: Bradford E'ubiishing Company, 2004, p. 127 through 132. QGE~lDA iT~l~ tt ,PAGE tool can be applied to the capital needs of the areas that al•e intended to be financed by the development excise tax. A local government wishing to impose an impact fee must be particularly mindful of the requirements imposed in provisions of Colorado law: case law; statutory requirements set out by the legislature in Section 29-20-104.5, C.R.S. (the "impact fee statute"); and the requirements of TABOR as set out in Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in the fee being set aside, or could have significant tax ramifications for the government entity. In 2001, Colorado passed Senate Bill 15 in order to promote growth management on a state-wide level. The bill, which was codified as Section 29-20-104.5 C.R.S. explicitly authorized municipalities to impose impact fees (or similar development charges) to defray the cost of any improvements that are necessary to accommodate new developments, and also set out requirements for the adoption of impact fees by municipalities. The issue of whether this statute impinges upon a city's home rule authority has not been litigated. However, the state legislature declared the matter to be of statewide concern and noted that the statute applies to home rule cities. The impact fees statute first provides that "as a condition of issuance of a development permit, a local government may impose an impact fee or other similar development charge to fund expenditures by such local government on capital facilities needed to serve new development." The fee must also (a) be legislatively adopted, (b) apply generally to a broad class of property, and (c) be intended to defray the projected impacts on capital facilities caused by proposed development. Next, the amount of the fee must be based upon "the reasonable impacts of proposed development on existing capital facilities," and must further be assessed "at a level no greater than necessary to defray such impacts directly related to proposed development." The language of the statute appears to require the jurisdiction to not over charge and recoup the fee for improvements that are "directly" as opposed to "reasonably" related to impacts of the new development. "The statute also provides that impact fees must only be used to fund expenditures for "capital facilities." An impact fee also must not be imposed "to remedy any deficiency in capital facilities that exists without regard to the proposed development," indicating once again that impact fees are designed only to make growth pay its own way, and not to pay to remedy pre-existing deficiencies. Finally, before imposing any impact fee a local government must adopt a schedule of fees, and no fees may be collected prior to the issuance of a development permit (although the fees may be deferred until a later point in the process, such as the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy). AGENDA iTE~11 # ,PAGE S These provisions provide notice to developers of the actual cost of development, and ensure that no fee will be collected prematurely. Taxes are subject to the voter approval requirements of TABOR. The general purpose of a tax is to raise revenue. Taxes have the benefzt of the community buy in associated with elections. Also, a tax, once passed is easier to defend legally because the government does not need to defend it based upon compliance with all of the requirements associated with ratemaking in Colorado case law and the requirements of the impact fee statute. On the other hand, a major advantage of impact fees is that they do not have the requirement of an election. Impact fees may be imposed after an appropriate fee study has been concluded by the City Council. Thereafter, they maybe adjusted as the Council finds appropriate under the same standards under which impact fees are adopted. Changes to impact fees are not subject to all of the procedural requirements associated with elections. 4. Study Results The charts below summarize what the study recommends as maximum allowable excise taxes for each area in comparison to existing excise taxes. RESIDENTIAL C'URR!•.'N%'Db'PBLOI'AlENTAND ll(11LS/N(i t«YC1.5'li %'rt.\'F.:/' Hnnrat Municipal hausing* /.ibruq' Parks Recreation .Scrvlcts Farllitics Police F+re .Sl)BTOTA I. Transportation F_icise Tax 1'er (lou+'rng 11rtN Detached Residential $403.28 $1,853.05 5463.28 573 92 S269.16 5258.16 S215.43 53,536.23 52,U43 31 5495.00 Anached Residential 5268.71 $1,235.99 5309"OI $50.10 S179.25 SI7L93 S143A7 52,358.46 51,233 54 S202.50 PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALLOWABhE IMPACT FEES AND DEVELOPMENT F.XC/,SF. TAXES l.ihrury Parks & Human Municipal Ajfordable Recreation .Services Facilities Police Fire SUBTOTAL. Transportation" Housing Per Hvusing Unlt Sirglc r:rrrily (SFn, SFA Rr. A![1) S44I 52,686 5142 5269 $283 5201 54,022 58,758 ?a All Other"I'yyes 5307 SI,SGR S99 5187 5197 5230 52,888 56,031 na NOI\'RESIDENTIAI. CURRENT 1)F_ PELOPMENT AND 110U.S1 NG E\C LSE T.L\ES Human .Municipal Housing* Library Pocks Recreation .Services Facilities Police ire SUBTOTAL. Transportation Erci.ce Tax Pcr S van: Fool AIINcuresidentia: na na na S0.092 SU.222 S0.186 fi0.186 50.69 51.794 50.48 PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES AND DEVELOPMENT EXC/SE TAXES library Pucks & Yuman Municipal AJjvrdable Recreation Services Facilities Police Fire SUBTOTAL Transportation** housing Per .Sr uan: loot Goads Production na na na SO.U6 50.03 SQ 04 50.13 54.20 53.32 Retail!Kestza:alu nx na na 50.13 S0.35 S03f 50.84 545.48 S6.65 All Other Services as na ua SO.10 SO.CS SO 30 SOA8 S1U81 SS 05 ' The llrmsing lim:.re 7ir rt asee.e.cerl alSlLZZ,i persjuurefovlj0r'rrsidrmial developmen~(a+x1$.4b per srprrnefaolfnrnonresidrtelial develnpmen;j. Ta facikare conrp<vi.ron ro other exdse fazes, the table indicates the larJor a 2, ZCC .eyvure~et single jamlly hmrse ondo 900 squarejeel mvl+ijmmly loot. According ro Ciry records, these eve the average.rizes jot mNtt. Actfnn Plm+ ska•Hnfw' wn+pm~ison purposes The ballot language of Ordinance 6019 states that development excise tax will "provide additional financial resources for transportation, housing, parks and recreation, libraries, f re, police, human services, and other municipal services.'' Further, it provides that the AGENDA iTE~I ,PAGE proceeds of the taxes "be spent without limitation or condition." What can be drawn from this language is that the funds area "general fund" revenue source. Therefore, if the council wanted to reallocate how DET funds are spent, it has the authority to do so under the original language of the ballot. If the council were to consider a mixed option, it would have to determine whether it also wants to reauthorize the development excise tax with a more limited scope. OPTIONS FOR PARKS AND RF,CRF,ATION 1. Status quo -This would mean keeping in place the current excise taxes, which will currently reach the maximum amount allowed at the beginning of 2008, and would require voter appxoval for any increase. 2. Impact fees only -This option would entail adopting a Parks and Recreation Impact Fee by ordinance that would replace the current Parks and Recreation Development Excise Taxes. The maximum amount that could be charged would be the amount in the TischlerBise study and could include an additional 1-3% to recoup administrative costs and the costs of the study. The amounts in the report (see chart above) may increase slightly due to some revised information provided to the consultant by the Parks and Recreation Department. 3. Hybrid approach -This option would entail adopting a Parks and Recreation Impact Fee by ordinance and in addition continue to charge a Parks and Recreation Development Excise Tax for specific items not included in the impact fee. The specific component that the consultant has indicated may be appropriate to charge as a Development Excise Tax would be fleet casts, since the Colorado Impact Fee Statute does not allow impact fees to be used to fund items that have less than a useful life of five years. Attachment B compares the city's current development-related fees and taxes with some other Front Range communities. It is important to note that Boulder's development- related fees and taxes are either near or at the top end of costs in comparison to other Front Range communities. Concerns regarding the cost of development in general, as well as economic vitality and housing affordability concerns in particular, is a consideration in deciding which of the options to move forward with. It is important to note that currently, only new and annexing dwelling units (excise taxes on existing annexed units are reduced based on age of the unit) are charged excise taxes, and that additions and replacement units are not charged. In the case of non-residential redevelopment, existing square footage is credited and only net new square footage is charged. In addition to considering the fees and, taxes charged by other communities, the city is considering increases to its plant investment fees and other development-related fees. City Council will be looking at all of the potential fee increases at the October 14 study session. AGEI\iDA ITEM #.T.~ , PAGE QUESTIONS FOR PRAB: 1. Does PRAB have any comments or questions on the Draft Impact Fee/ Development Excise Tax study? 2. Does PRAB have any feedback on the three options? ATTACHMENTS: A: Draft TischlerBise Impact Fee/DeveIopment Excise Tax Study B: Development-related Fees and Taxes for Front Range Communities AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE Attachment A IMPACT FEE /DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado , c o l o r a~ o DRAFT July 18, 2008 Prepared By: Tischler~ise t~.ti;;,l, E:Crr10~7LC Llr ~'h3rinin{~ COnSUItJntS AGENpA fTEM # :~VT~ ,PAGE _ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Co(orodo IMPACT FEE /DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1 Overview .........................................................................................................................................1 Impact Fee Summary ...............................2 Figure 1. Summary of Proposed Fee Methods and Infrastructure Components .........................3 Figure 2. Summary of Maximum Allowable Impact Fees ...........................................................5 Development Excise Tax Summary .............................................................................................5 Figure 3. Summary of Proposed Excise Tax Methodologies and Cost Components ...................5 Development Excise Taxes By Type of Land Use ......................................................................6 Figure 4. Summary of Development Excise Taxes ......................................................................6 PART ONE: IMPACT FEES 7 INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES 8 Definition .........................................................................................................................................8 Legal Framework ............................................................................................................................8 Required Findings ..........................................................................................................................9 Methodologies and Credits .........................................................................................................10 Generic Impact Fee Calculation ..................................................................................................11 Figure 5. Generic Impact Fee Formula ......................................................................................12 LIBRARY IMPACT FEES .........................................................................................................13 Methodology .................................................................................................................................13 Figure 6. Library Impact Fee Methodology Chart .....................................................................13 Library Level of Service Standards and Costs ..........................................................................14 Figure 7. Library Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ................................................14 Figure 8. Library Collection Materials Level of Service Standards ...........................................15 Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................15 Figure 9. Credit for Future Library Debt Service Payments .....................................................15 Summary of Factors for Library Impact Fee .............................................................................16 Figtcre 10. Library Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary ........................................16 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Libraries .......................................................................17 Figure 11. Library Maximum Allowable Impact Fees ...............................................................17 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES ............................................................................18 Methodology .................................................................................................................................18 Figure 12. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Methodology Chart .............................................19 Parks & Recreation Level of Service Standards and Costs .....................................................19 Figure 13. Outdoor Park Improvements Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ............21 Figure 14. Recreation Buildings and Pools Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ........22 Figure 15. Parks and Recreation Administrative and Support Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors .......................................................................................................23 Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................23 Figure 16. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Parks and Recreation Debt ....................24 TischlerB'rSe AGENDA fTEM PAGE ID DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Summary of Factors fox Parks and Recreation Impact Fee .....................................................24 Figure 17. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary ..................24 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation .................................................25 Figure 18. Parks and Recreation Maximum Allowable Impact Fees .........................................25 HUMAN SERVICES IMPACT FEES 2b Methodology .................................................................................................................................26 Figure 19. Human Services Impact Fee Methodology Chart ....................................................26 Human Services Level of Service Standards and Costs ..........................................................27 Figure 20. Human Services Level of Service Standards and Cost Far.tors ................................27 Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................27 Figure 21. Credit for Outstanding Human Services Debt Service 1'ayments ...........................28 Summary of Factors for Human Services Impact Fee .............................................................28 Figure 22. Human Services Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary ..........................29 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Human Services .........................................................29 Figure 23. Human Services Maximum Allowable Impact Fees ................................................29 MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES 30 Methodology .................................................................................................................................30 Figure 24. Municipal Facilities Impact Fee Methodology Chart ...............................................30 Proportionate Share Factors ........................................................................................................31 Figure 25. Proportionate Share Factors for Municipal Facilities Impact Fees ..........................31 Municipal Facilities Level of Service Standards and Costs ....................................................32 Figure 26. Municipal Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ..........................32 Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................33 Summary of Factors for Municipal Facilities Impact Fee .......................................................33 Figure 27. Municipal Facility Impact Fee L evel-of-Service Standard Summary ......................33 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Municipal Facilities ....................................................34 Figure 28. Municipal Facility Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Schedule ............................34 POLICE IMPACT FEES 35 Methodology .................................................................................................................................35 Figure 29. Police Facilities Impact Fee Methodology Chart ......................................................36 Proportionate Share Factors ........................................................................................................36 Figure 30. Proportionate Share Factors for Police Impact Fees .................................................37 Police Facilities Level of Service Standards and Costs ............................................................37 Figure 31. Police Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors .................................38 Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................39 Summary of Factors for Police Facilities Impact Fee ...............................................................39 Figure 32. Police Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary ..........................................39 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Police ............................................................................40 Figure 33. Police Maximum Supportable Impttct Fee Schedule ................................................40 FIRE IMPACT FEES 41 Methodology .............................................................................................41 Figure 34. Fire Impact Fee Methodology Chart ........................................................................41 Proportionate Share Factors ........................................................................................................42 Figure 35. Fire Proportionate Share Factors .............................................................................42 Fire Level of Service Standards and Costs ................................................................................43 Figure 36. Fire Stntion Inventory and Cosfs .............................................................................43 TischlerBiSe 4GENDA ITEM #~~t ,PAGE ~l DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Figure 37. Fire Apparatus Inventory and Costs .......................................................................44 Credit Evaiuation .........................................................................................................................44 Summary of Factors for Fire Impact Fee ...................................................................................45 Figure 38. Fire Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary ..............................................45 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Fire ...............................................................................46 Figure 39. Fire Maximum Allowable Impact Fee Schedule .......................................................46 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 47 Credits and Reimbursements .....................................................................................................47 Collection and Expenditure Zones .............................................................................................49 PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXES ..................................................................50 INTRODUC'T'ION TO EXCISE TAXES 51 TRANSPORTATION EXCISE TAX 52 Figure 4U. Transportation Action and Vision Plans and Capital Costs ....................................54 Figure 41. Development Prototypes and Vehicle Trip Inputs ...................................................56 Figure 42. Projected Travel Demand Summary ........................................................................56 Figure 43. Transportation Excise Tax Calculation ...................................................................57 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXCISE TAX 58 Figure 44. Affordable Housing Development Excise Tax Methodology Chart .........................60 Figure 45. Affordable Housing Demand ...................................................................................61 Figure 46. Affordable Housing Costs /Subsidy Requirement ...................................................61 Figure 47. Projected Future Affordable Housing Costs ............................................................62 Figure 48. Affordable Housing Development Excise Tax Calczclatiozz ......................................63 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 64 APPENDIX 65 APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 66 Population and Housing Characteristics ...................................:..............................................66 Figure A1. Persons per Housing Unit ......................................................................................66 Average Number of Persons by Size of Housing Unit ............................................................67 Figzzre A2. Persons per Single Family Housing Unit by Bedroom Range ................................67 Figure A3. Average Persons by Bedroom Rangefor All Other Housing Types .......................67 Figure A4. Average Persons by Floor Area of Single Family Housing .....................................68 Figure A5. Average Persons b~ Floor Area of Attached Housing .............................................69 Recent Residential Construction ................................................................................................70 Figure A6. City of Boulder Housing Units and Population in 2006 ........................................70 Population Projections .................................................................................................................71 Figztre A7. Population Growth in Boulder ................................................................................71 Jobs By Place of Work ..................................................................................................................72 Figure A8. Job Growth in Boulder ............................................................................................72 Nonresidential Demand Indicators ............................................................................................73 Figure A9. Employee and Building Area Ratios .......................................................................73 Development Projections .............................................................................................................74 Figure A10. Countywide Demographic Data . .................................74 Figure A11. Summary of Land Use Assumptions ....................................................................75 APPENDIX B. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXES 76 Figure A12. City of Boulder Curretzt Development Excise Tax Schedule ................................76 TischlerBise Q~FN~A ITEM ~t ,PAGE ~ 2' ~ 4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE 5240 I BETHESDA, MD 20816 ~ T: 800.424.4318 I f: 301.320.4860 F~•;c.:l, ~<onorric & Flann~ng Consull~nt~ 80 ANNANDALE ROAD I PASADENA, CA 91 1 05-1 404 T: 818.790.6170 I F: 818.790.6235 W W W.TISCHLERBISE.COM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERVIEW The City of Boulder retained TischlerBise to prepare an impact fee study for various infrastructure categories. This report is an update to a Development Excise Tax study prepared by TischlerBise (then Tischler & Associates, Inc. in 1996). Although the City currently has development excise taxes in places, it was the City's desire to have the current excise tax methodologies updated with an impact fee approach, thereby giving the City the option to adopt impact fees and/or development excise taxes. Impact fees are one-time payments used to fund system improvements needed to accommodate development. This report documents the data, methodology, and results of the impact fee study. As documented in this report, the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution. Specifically, the following infrastructure categories have been developed with methodologies that meet the requirements to be adopted as impact fees. The City does have the option of adopting these categories as excise taxes: ¦ Library ¦ Parks and Recreation ¦ Human Services ¦ Municipal Services • Police ¦ Fire For reasons discussed further in the body of this report, it is Tischlerl3ise's recommendation that the following infrastructure categories be continued as excise taxes: ¦ Transportation ¦ Affordable Housing Similar to impact fees, excise taxes are one-time revenues often used to fund new infrastructure generated by new construciion. Excise taxes differ from impact fees in that they are primarily a • Fiscal In~,pact ~\ralysi:, • :mpaU Fee, • Revenue Strategies • Economic Impart Analysis • Fiscal Software AGENDA ITEf~9 # ,PAGE I DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorodo tool for raising revenue, as opposed to a land use regulation designed to finance growth-related facilities. In addition, excise taxes do not have to be earmarked or segregated ox accounted fox separately from the City's general revenue, do not have to specifically benefit new growth, and used in and calculated in a more flexible manner than impact fees. Excise taxes can be applied in several ways. Some communities apply a rate to the construction value of the land use; others use a flat fee per acre of development, while other communities apply a straight fee by type of housing unit or square-foot. This report is divided into two sections: Part One is the Impact Fees analysis for the categories identified above and Part Two is the Development Excise Tax analysis for transportation and affordable housing. Also included are two Appendices. Appendix A documents demographic assumptions, which serve as the basis for the impact fee and development excise tax calculations. Appendix B is a summary of the City's current development excise tax schedule for the categories included in this study. It should be noted that calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis using Excel software. Results are discussed in the report using whole numbers or two-digit places (in most cases), which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report. IMPACT FEE SUMMARY As documented in this report, impact fees for the City of Boulder are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital facility service demands of new development. The written analysis of each impact fee methodology, establish that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation of costs in comparison to the benefits received. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which newly developed properties are entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of capital costs. As noted above, impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth's fair share of capital facility needs. By Iaw, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards, which require fulfillment of three key elements: need, benefit and proportionality. First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it must be demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the fee paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system improvements. TischlerBise AGEPfDA ITEM # ,PAGE ~ ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Calorodo TischlerBise documented appropriate demand indicators by type of development. Specific capital costs have been identified using local data and costs. This report includes summary tables indicating the specific factors used to derive the impact fees. These factors are referred to as level of service standards. Methodologies and Approach There are three basic mefhods used to calculate impact fees. The incremental expansion method documents the current level of service for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures. The intent is to use revenue collected to expand or provide additional. facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the current cost to provide capital improvements. The plan-based method is commonly used for public facilities that have adopted plans or engineering studzes to guide capital improvements, such as utility systems. A third approach, known as the cost recovery method, is based on the rationale that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining unused capacity of an existing facility. The incremental and cost recovery methodologies are employed for the fees included in this study and are described further in this report in the respective fee chapter. A summary is provided in Figure 1 showing the methodologies, infrastructure components, and allocations used to calculate impact fees for the City of Boulder. Figure 1. Summary of Proposed Fee Methods and Infrastructure Components Type of Public Incremental Expansion Plan Based Cost Recovery Cost Allocation Facili Library Collection Materials Not applicable Library Space 100% Residential • Park Improvements • Recreation Space Parks and Recreation Parks and Rec Admin Not applicab?e Not applicable 100% Residential • & Su ort Facilities Human Services Human Service Space 1~iot applicable Not applicable 100% Residential Municipal Services Government Space Not applicable Not applicable Functional Population Police Station Space Communications Not applicable Functional Population Center • Stations Fire Apparatus Not applicable Not applicable Calls for Service T~schlerBise AGENDA ITEM # ~ , PAGE ~ 5 DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Credits A general requirement common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. Two types of credits should be considered, future revenue credits and site-specific credits. Revenue credits may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from a one-time impact fee plus the payment of other revenues (e.g., property taxes) that may also fund growth-related capita] improvements. Because new development may provide front- end funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future payments on debt for public facilities. Future revenue credits are necessary for impact fees due outstanding debt on capacity projects that will be retired using property taxes. Due to this outstanding debt, there is a potential fox double payment of capital costs due to future debt service payments on existing debt for public facilities. This type of credit is included for Library, Parks and Recreation, and Human Services. The second type of credit is asite-specific credit for system improvements that have been included in the impact fee calculations. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the development fees. However, the general concept is that developers may be eligible Eor site- specific credits only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the impact fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not eligible for credits against impact fees. Maximum Allowable Impact Fees By Type of Land Use The impact fees calculated for the City of Boulder represent the highest amount feasible for each type of applicable land use, or maximum allowable amounts, which represents new growth's fair share of the cost for the appropriate capital facilities. Figure 2 provides a schedule of the maximum allowable impact fees by type of land use. For residential impact, fees will be assessed per housing unit. For nonresidential impact, fees will be assessed per square feet of floor area. The City may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures and/or a decrease in the City's level of service standards. TischlerB ise ~,GENDA iTE~i # ~ ,PAGE l DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado Figure 2. Summary of Maximum Allowable Impact Fees MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT' N'F,F.S Library Parks & Muman Municipal Police hire TOTAL Recreation Services F'acilitics Residentiol Per Housin Unit Single Family (SPD, SFA 8c MH) 5441 52,686 $142 $269 $283 S201 54,022 AllOthcrTypes S307 $],868 899 $187 $197 5230 52,888 Nonresidential Per S «nrr Fur» Goods Production as na na $0.06 S0.03 $0.04 SO.l3 Retail /Restaurant na na na $0.13 50.35 50.36 S0.84 Ail Other Services na na na 50.10 50.08 50.30 SOA8 DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX SUMMARY Development excise taxes have been calculated for Transportation and Affordable Housing. The Transportation development excise tax is based on growth's share of capital costs from the 2003 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and is provided for both the Action Plan and Vision Plan. The improvements on which the excise tax is based include projects to enhance mobility and access through multimodal means such as roads, intersections, bike lanes, underpasses, and pedestrian enhancements. The Transportation DET would be paid by both residential and nonresidential development. The Affordable Housing development excise tax is based on the cost to the City to meet the City's future affordable housing needs. It would be paid only by nonresidential development, as employment is the most direct generator of affordable housing needs. The recommended DET component uses aplan-based methodology driven by the City's adopted goal for affordable housing and the cost to the City to subsidize the provision of affordable units. Figure 3 summarizes the proposed development excise tax methodologies and cost components. Figure 3. Summary of Proposed Excise Tax Methodologies and Cost Components Type of Public Incremental Expansion Plan Based Cost Recovery Coat Allocation Facili ¦ Multimodal Transportntion Transportation Corridor Residential and Im rovements (TMP Nonresidential Trips Affordable Housing City Costs for 100% Affordable Housing Nonresidential TtschlerBise !~GFN~~~ fTEM # -1,~ ~t ,PAGE ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXES BY TYPE OF LAND USE Figure 4 provides a schedule of the calculated Development Excise Taxes for Transportation and Affordable Housing by type of Land use. (The Transportation Excise Tax is provided for both the Action Plan and Vision Plan; detail is provided in Transportation chapter.) For residential impact, amounts are shown per housing unit. For nonresidential impact, amounts are shown per square feet of floor area. Figure 4. Summary of Development Excise Toxes _ .D,EVEI,OPMCNT'.~TAXES Transportation Afjordah lc Action Plan Vision Plan Housing Residential Per Housing Unit Single Family (SFD, SFA & MH) $8,758 $10,662 na All Other Types $6,031 S7,342 na Nonresidential Yer Square Foot Goods Production $4.20 $5.12 i $3.32 Retail /Restaurant $45.48 $55.36 ` $6.65 All Other Services $10.81 $13.16 i $5.05 T~schlerBise AGENDA ITEM # ~ ~ ~ ,PAGE ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Cary of Boulder, Colorado PART ONE: IMPACT FEES TisdtterBise AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE J`3 DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Gy of Boulder, Colorado ¦~r • s DEFINITION Impact fees, also known as development or development impact fees, are one-time payments used to fund capital improvements necessitated by new growth. Impact fees have been utilized by local governments in various forms for at least fifty years. Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure financing needs. Rather, they should be considered one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities with the goal of maintaining current levels of service in a community. Any community considering impact fees should note the following ]imitations: ¦ Impact fees can only be used to finance capital infrastructure and cannot be used to finance ongoing operations and/or maintenance costs; ¦ Impact fees cannot be deposited in the local government's General Fund. The funds must be accounted for separately in individual accounts and earmarked for the capital expenses for which they were collected; and. ¦ Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies unless there is a funding plan in place to correct the deficiency for all current residents and businesses in the community. LEGAL FRAMEWORK U.S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions-including impact fees-aze subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.~;., land dedication requirements) are relevant. in one of the most Ti~chlerBise AGENDA ITEM # ~ ,PAGE `-a DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987.) In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for monetary exactions such as impact fees. REQUIRED FINDINGS There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that are closely related to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, we prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "impact or need," "benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by Local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards. Demonst~•ating a Bene it. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that facility fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.5. Constitution or the State enabling Act requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, existing development may benefit from these improvements as well. TischlerBise AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE ~ J ~ w~F` IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STU DY City of Boulder, Colorado Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by the State enabling act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or refunded. All of these requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues. Demonstrating 1'roportionalit~. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the need for school improvements is measured by the number of public school-age children generated by development. METHODOLOGIES AND CREDITS Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods can be applied. Plan-Based Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a facility plan and development is identified by a land use plan. in this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development Trschler8ise -~GEND~`, ITEM # ,PAGE 2`` DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Cily of Boulder, Colorado (e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per specific unit of development (e.g., single family detached unit). Cost Recovery or Buy-In Fee Calculation. T'he rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built or Land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for closed systems that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities. Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation. The incremental expansion method documents the current level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard (such as square feet per student). This approach ensures that there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies nor surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. The level of service standards are determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, the fee revenues would not be for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community. Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of "credits" is integral to the development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of "credits" each with specific, distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the development of impact fees. The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations. This could occur when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital costs of the public facility covered by the impact fee. This type of credit is integrated into the impact fee calculation. The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of public sites or improvements provided by the developer and for which the facility fee is imposed. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a facility fee program. GENERIC IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Tn contrast to development exactions, which are typically referred to as project-level improvements, impact fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the enrire jurisdiction. The basic steps in a generic impact fee formula are illustrated in Figure 5. The first step (see the left box) is to determine an T~schlerBise AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE ' a DRAF- IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Cobrado appropriate demand indicator, or service unit, for the particular type of infrastructure. The demand/service indicator measures the number of demand or service units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of persons per housing unit. The second step in the generic impact fee formula is shown in the middle box below. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called "Level of Service" (LOS) standards. In keeping with the park example, a common LUS standard is park acreage per thousand people. The third step in the generic impact fee formula, as illustrated in the right box, is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the formula would establish the cost per acre for park development. Figure 5. Generic Impact Fee Formula Demand Infrastructure Dollars Units Units per per ~ per X Development Demand Infrastructure Unit Unit Unit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Persons per Level of Service Cost housing {e.g., acres per {e. g., $ per unit 1, 000 persons} Acre} TischlerBise ~GF_NDA ITEM # ~~~A ,PAGE ~ l~ ~r2=,F' IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX S; UDY City of Boulder, Colorado . . ~ . METHODOLOGY The Library impact fee calculation uses the cost recovery and incremental expansion methodologies. Components of the Library fee include costs for Library buildings and materials included in the Library's collections. The Library system current consists of a Main Library and three branch locations, which are anticipated to serve new development for the foreseeable future. A cost recovery approach is used to calculate new growth's fair share of the City's costs for this facility. However, since the City has only three years remaining on debt service payments for the most recent library capacity expansion, TischlerBise recotnmends that the cost recovery component for Library space be eliminated once this debt is retired. If at some point in fhe future the City decides to construct an additional branch or expand existing facilities, the impact fee methodology and amount should be revised to reflect this change. An incremental approach is used for collection materials. All costs are allocated 100 percent to residential development. Figure 6 diagrams the general methodology used to calculate the Library Impact Fee. It is intended to read like an outline, with lower levels providing a more detailed breakdown of the impact fee components. The impact fee is derived from the product of persons per housing unit (by type of unit) multiplied by the net capital cost per person. The boxes in the next level down indicate detail on the components included in the fee. Figure 6. Library Impact Fee Methodology Chart LIBRARY IMPACT FEE Residential Development Persons per I-Lousing Unit Multiplied By I`~et Capital by Cost per Person Building Cost per Person Plus Collection Materials Cost per ['erson less Debt Service Payment Credit TischlerBise DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXC{SE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boutdeq Colorado LIBRARY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS Library Building Cost Recovery Component The City of Boulder Library System consists of a Main Library and three branch locations. Total library system square footage totals 113,614 square feet. As noted above, at this time the City does not anticipate expanding the Library System. Because the Library System currently has remaining capacity, levels of service are based on projected population in 2030, per discussions with the City. Costs are based on current City replacement values using a cost recovery methodology where new development is buying into remaining capacity of existing facilities. Figure 7 provides levels of service and costs for the City of Boulder Library System. According to information provided by the City, the Library System has an asset value of $18,682,862 reflecting facilities owned by the City. When this is compared to the projected population in 2030 (118,500), the cost per demand unit is $157 per person. Figure 7. Library Level of Service Standords and Cost Factors B!llldilr~5 Square Feet Cost/SF•'* Current Value Main Library 92.164 5183 $16,866,012 Meadows Branch 7,800 leased Re nolds Branch 9,650 $129 $],244,850 CarncgieBranch 4,000 $143 5572,000 TOTnI. 113,614 $18,682,862 Projected Population in 2030 118,500 Cost per Person $157 * City of Boulder Property Schedule, January 2008. Library Collection Materials Incremental Expansion The Library System's collection includes adult and juvenile books, electronic/audio books, music, videos, and periodicals. The total number of current units is 364,931 with a total replacement value of approximately $6.6 million. Based on the current estimated City population of 103,100, this equates to a Level of service of $63 per person. Figure 8 provides detail on the current inventory and average unit costs for each type of material. Unit costs were provided to TischlerBise by City staff. T~schlerBise AGENf3A ITEM #-~.l~ ,PAGE GRr1FT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Cobrado Figure 8. Library Collection Materials Level of Service Standards Collection Materials 11 o/'units Unit Price Current Value Books 292,959 $l6 $4,687,000 F..lectronic/Audio Books 44,553 $34 S I,S 15,000 Music CUs 13,978 $12 $168.000 Videos 12,754 $13 $166,000 Periodicals 687 $60 $41,000 TOTAL 364, 931 $6, 577 ,000 ProjcY;ted Population in 2008 103,]00 Cost per Person $63 * * City ojBoulder Li brary Staff. CREDIT EVALUATION As discussed previously, the City has outstanding debt for Library improvements that will be retired through property taxes. Because of this, TischlerBise recommends that a credit be included in the impact fee for future debt service payments on this General Obligation debt. New residential development in the City of Boulder that will pay Library impact fees will also contribute to future debt service payments paid from property tax revenue, therefore a credit is necessary. City staff provided debt service schedules for the current outstanding Library debt. To account for the time value of money, annual principal payments per capita are discounted using a net present value formula based on an estimated average interest rate. Figure 9 shows the credit calculation based on the projected debt service payments starting in fiscal year 2009 through the remainder of the bond's term. The debt is allocated 100 percent to residential development. The applicable net present value of the credit is $28 per person. This will be subtracted from the gross capital cost per demand unit to derive a net capital cost per person in calculating the maximum supportable fee. Figure 9. Credit for Future Library Debt Service Payments Year Total Principal Population Debt Payment and Interest Per Capita 2009 $1,079,000 103,754 $10.40 2010 x;1,074,000 104,413 $ 10.29 2011 $1,073,000 105,076 $10.21 lliscount APR 6% Prescnt Valuc $28 Tischler8ise AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR LIBRARY IMPACT FEE Infrastructure standards used to calculate the Library impact fees are shown in the boxed area of Figure 10. Impact fees for Libraries are based on household size for two types of residential units: single-family units (includes single family detached, single family attached, and manufactured homes) and all other units. Level of service standards are based on current costs per person for Library buildings and collection materials as described in the previous sections and summarized below. Each cost component of the impact fee is shown as a cost per person. The total capital cost per person is the sum of the boxed items on the figure for buildings and collections materials. As shown, the debt service payment credit ($28) is then subtracted from the gross capital cost per person to determine the net capital cost per person for residential development (i.e., $192 per person). Figure 10. Library Impost Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary S'tcnxlar•ds: Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family (51~1~, SI~A & Ml-I) 2.3 All Othcr Typcs 1.6 Level Of Service Per Person Building Cost $157 Collection Cost $63 Debt Service Credit (~"~~+1 tict Capital Cost 5192 TtschlerBise bGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Cotorodo MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR LIBRARIES Figure 11 shows the schedule of maximum allowable impact fees for Libraries in Boulder. The amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each unit type by the net capital cost per person. For example, for a single family unit, the persons per housing unit of 2.3 is multiplied by the net capital cost of $192 (hom the previous table) for an impact fee amount of $441 per single family housing unit and $307 per unit for all other types of units. Figure 1 1. Library Maximum Allowable Impact Fees ~ Residential Per tlnurin U~sit . Single Family (SFD, SFA & MH) Sk=i 1 Alt Other Types $307 T~schlerBise ~~EN~~ 1~i"~M , PACE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT IXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado METHODOLOGY The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Impact Fee uses the incremental expansion methodology. Parks and Recreation impact fees should only be assessed on residential development. Three main components are included in the fee calculation: Outdoor Park Improvements, Recreation Facilities and Pools, and Administrative/Support Facilities. Outdoor Park Improvements include facilities that axe community-Ievel facilities serving the entire City, such as City, Community, and Neighborhood Parks and Athletic Fields. Costs to make improvements at these facilities are included. Land is not included at this time as the City has an inventory of parkland on which it intends to make improvements with impact fee funds. According to the 2006 Master PIan for Parks and Recreation, the system's current park acreage exceeds the department's guidelines established for park acreage per 1,000 residents, as well as meets the guidelines for Boulder's projected population at build-out.' Therefore, land is not included as a fee component. Also included in the fee calculation are Recreation Facilities and Pools. The City's Recreation facilities serve a citywide population and the City expects to expand those types of facilities as well. Improvement and land costs are included. Finally, Parks and Recreation Administrative /Support Facilities are included. All facility costs are allocated 100 percent to residential development. Smaller-scale recreation amenities not included herein are excluded because they serve more limited areas, which would require implementation of service areas and are not recommended due to the administrative impact relative to the amount of revenue generated for future improvements. Figure 12 diagrams the general methodology used to calculate the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee. It is intended to read Like an outline, with lower levels providing a more detailed breakdown of the impact fee components. The impact fee is derived from the product of persons per housing unit (by type of unit) multiplied by the net capital cost per person. The boxes in the next level down indicate detail on the components included in the fee. ~ Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2006 (p. 23) Tischler~ise AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ctry of Boulder, Colorado Figure 12. Parks and Recreation (tnpact Fee Methodology Chart PARKS nrrA RF.CRF.A770N fMPACF FF.F. Rcsidcnlial Development Persons per Housing Unit by Multiplied By Net Capital 'type of Unit Cost per Person Outdoor Parks Improvements Cost per Person Plus Recreation Buildings & Pool Cost per Person Plus Admin /Support Facilities Cost per Person Minus Prmnpal Payment Credit PARKS & RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS Outdoor Park 1mmprovements The Outdoor Park component of the Parks and Recreation impact fees are based on the City's current inventory and value of existing citywide Parks in the City of Boulder's park system. The demand base for the City's park facilities is population. Levels of service are based on the current amount of infrastructure provided for the existing population. Outdoor Park Improvements include facilities that are community-Ievel facilities serving the entire City, such as City, Cornmunity, and Neighborhood Parks and Athletic Fields and reflect those parks that provide recreational amenities such as baseball/softball fields, soccer/football fields, athletic courts, and shelters that draw from a citywide service area. The Park impact fee component is based on the incremental expansion methodology as the City plans to make improvements to undeveloped parks in the inventory to accommodate demand from new development. Natural lands are not included as the City does not intend to purchase T~schier8ise AG'r=NDI~ IT~~~i .WAGE f DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY Ciy of boulder, Colorodo additional lands nor make improvements to these properties given the passive nature of these facilities. Figure 13 provides an inventory of Outdoor Park improvements with replacement costs. Based on the inventory of improvements and current unit prices, Park improvements have an average cost of approximately $154,000 per acre. (Lndeveloped Parks are shown where applicable but acreages are not included on the inventory table as the fee reflects improvements to existing parks rather than future improvements or land.) On a per capita basis, park improvements cost approximately $779 per person in the City. The total current value of park improvements is approximately $80 million. City staff confirmed unit prices for each type of improvement as shown in Figure 13, based on local costs. Miscellaneous costs equal $100,000 per acre, which include such items as lighting, paving (parking lots, sidewalks), site features, irrigation, and landscaping. As noted above, future park improvements will be made at existing parks. Figure 13 provides further detail with level of service standards shown at the bottom of the figure. TischierBise AGE(Vr A YTEM # ~ ,PACE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Figure 13. Outdoor Park Improvements Level of Service Standords and Cost Factors Fark Acreage Public Playground Shelter Picmc Aran Pog Pnrk Basketball Tenors Ballfidds tvlultiuse Sactt (im roved) Rcstrcom Fields' Field<_•• Arapahoe Ridge••' 2.3 0.3 O.S 0.5 1 0.5 QS r\rca IR Cit Part. (undcvclu ctl) Aurora 7••• 3.95 LS 0.5 Bear Creek o.6 I Baddcr Rcurvoir Rcc Arca !7 i 1 I 1 Vmlet(undcvdo cd) Burke ( I ! Cemral Municipal Complex Z4 1 Ccnual Park S.5 I Chautnuc u:~ 14.8 I 1 I Chtiswnscn 4.4 I I I l Columbine 4.3 1 2 I Coat L:d:c Crestvrcw 7.7 1 Gast Snuldcr Canmunuy Park 53.6 I I 2 2 2 Gatnn 1 I Ebcn G. Fine 7 I I I 1 I F:Iks 7.9 1 I I Elmcrs Teo Milc a I 1 1 FuothillsCmnmunity GS.S 1 3 4 4 I 2 2 F!ulowPlattsComntnnit Park SO.S I 1 2 4 ? Hcn(tmnsvod (undcvelopcd) lioa•ard Hcuston 7.3 I I I I Kccwavdin Mcnduws 4.5 l 1 1 4 I 'vfmun 8.3 1 I I l 2 1 I Maaurll Lakc (uudevdo red) Mcaduw Glen 2.5 I I 1 Ntvth Boulder 12.5 I I 1 I I I Palo Enst 4 I I Park Last 11.3 I I 1 1 Pnrksitlc 5.5 I I 1 1 Shanahan Rid c 4.4 I Ta ntra I G.8 I I I Valmont City Turk I 1 1Vcst Ihe_hl.rnd 6.S lust \fl Ictun BaIlGrids Zti 1 I I 3 Gerald Stv.to 42 3 I I I 7 Scott Carpenter IG.B I I I 1 I PICnSanIVIC\Y 52 I 9 TOTAL 520.7 12.(1 2G.5 19.5 22.5 4.0 6.0 14 0 20.0 2QU 9.0 Uni t Price 8235, 000 8300, 000 835,000 845, 000 855, 000 .554.000 565. UOU 8185.000 890.000 5750, 000 Current Vnlue 52,820,000 57,950,000 5682,500 81,012,800 834(1,000 S324,D00 5910,000 55,700,000 S1,800,000 56,750,000 ltemizedlmprovemcnts 528,289,000 Other Site tmprovernenu•••• 852,065,000 Totallmprovemenu 580,354,OW Cost per Acre 8184,000 Population in 2008 lU3,SW Cost per Person S779 • Fields are an nvaage oj! S acres and nre opm, unlined, and u~rogrammaf Soccer fields nre high nr +oliry snrd•fxrsed nvjfields and MLS s¢ed Ciry• awns approxlmntely 50%ajPnrk; nereage mrd umr counts reflect this s Estimmei Q 5100,000 per acre for irrigaUnq landscaping, Parking, ere TischlerBise AGENbA ITEM ,PAGE -R~,t=T IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT IXCISE TAX STUDY Cify of Boulder, Colorado Recreation Buildings and Pools The Recreation Buildings and Pools component of the Parks and Recreation impact fee is based on the current square footage and current value of recreational facilities serving the City. As shown in Figure 14, total square footage for the City's recreational facilities is 162,695 square feet. The incremental expansion approach is used as the City plans to maintain the current level of service to accommodate new development. Total estimated current value of these facilities is approximately $37.6 million (including land and site improvements). This results in a cost per capita of $364. Figure 14. Recreation Buildings and Pools Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Facilit Facility Name Address Bld Total S Ft Location V alu e• OSS East Boulder Recreation Ctr•• 5660 SIOUX DR 42 ti48 S 8 % ! 7,251 054 North Boulder Kecrcation Ccntcr 3170 BROADWAY 62,166 S 1 ].562,576 053 South Boulder Recreation Ccntcr 1350 GILLASPIE 35,603 S R,0'.0,(i75 S 12 Scott Car enter Poo: 30th & Ara ahoe $ 3,1126 055 061A SCOTTCARPENTERLOCKF.'RROOMS 307'HBtARAPAl10E 5,886 $ 856.078 06! 11 SCOTT CARPF,VTF.R PRFSS BOX 307TI & ARAPAf101: 650 $ 96,365 (161 8 SCOTT CARPEV'll?R PARK Fll;l'ER BTIILTJING 30'1'11 & ARAPAliOTi 500 $ 7G 693 514 SPRUCF. POOI, 2040 21 S'1' S'1'R1:L•"1' $ 1 209 246 062 Snrucc Pool Bath House/h'iltcr 2102 S nrcc Street 1,810 $ 278478 038 Saltier Park Bld 19'C} 1 & F:1.1)I:K 1.125 $ 98,979 060 Potter L.ab 1010 AURORA 2 SGS $ 295 648 063 BOULDER RESERVOIR all bld s 5152 NORTH 5] S"T' 9.742 $ l b66.142 'T07'A L 162.695 $ 37S ti0 628 Population in 2003 103,100 Cost per Person 5364 • Source: City Property Schedule (1008) jor building and contents; land costs acrd site imprvvememrs fn r Recreation Centers are included (additional 40% over building cost, per City ojBoulder) ' • Fuciliry also houses Senior Center; square footage and vuhre shown is jor Recreation Center portion only Parks and Recreation Administration and Support Facilities l~lso included in the fee calculation is a component for Administrative and Support Facilities based on the current square footage and current value of facilities serving the City. As shown in Figure 15, total square footage for the City's Parks and Recreation support facilities is 66,143 square feet. The incremental expansion approach is used as the City plans to maintain the current level of service to accommodate new development. Total estimated current value of these facilities is approximately $42 million. This results in a cost per capita of $41. TischlerBise i~ AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT fEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado Figure 15. Parks and Recreation Administrative and Support Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Facilitvk Facility Name Address Bld Tntal S Ft Location Value'' 004 iris Center 3198I3ROADWAY 16 372 $ 1,817 388 U42 t'ark Operations 5200 PEARL S"I' :0.073 $ 955.016 040 Tantra Park Sho 585 TANTRA DR 3.062 $ 265.225 059 Stazio 13a11fic1dsMaintenance 2445 Stazio Drivc 5 150 $ 333,324 U61 SCOTT CARPENTER A"I'HLFI'1CS OFF[CE 30'I'Ii & ARAPAHOL' 1052 $ 125.309 243 Valrnont Stara e 5325 Valmont 30.434 $ 733.890 TOTAL 66143 S 4,230151 Population in 2008 103,100 Cost per Person $4l • Source: City Property Schedule (2008) CREDIT EVALUATION The City has outstanding debt for parks and recreation improvements, namely for the East Boulder Recreation Center, that will be retired through property taxes. Because of this, TischlerBise recommends that a credit be included in the impact fee for future principal payments on this General Obligation debt. New residential development in the City of Boulder that will pay Parks impact fees will also contribute to future debt service payments paid from property tax revenue. City staff provided the amount of current outstanding Parks and Recreation debt. To account for the time value of money, annual principal payments per capita are discounted using a net present value formula based on an estimated average interest rate. Figure 16 shows the credit calculation based on the projected principal and interest payments starting in fiscal year 2009 through the remainder of the bonds' term. The debt is allocated 100 percent to residential development. The applicable net present value of the credit is $16 per person. This will be subtracted from the gross capital cost per demand unit to derive a net capital cost per person in calculating the maximum supportable fee. TischlerBise AGENDA ITEM , p~~E ~ DR.gFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Figure 16. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Parks and Recreation Debt Year E Bldr Total Principal Population Debt Payment Centet• andinterest* Per Capita 2009 $602,000 5463,540 103,754 54.47 2010 $602,000 5463,540 104,413 54.44 2011 $602,000 5463,540 105.076 54.41 2012 8602,000 S463,540 105,743 $4.38 Discount APR 6% Present Value $16 ~ Recreation Crr portion of deb! is 77% oftotal; re»rainder is Senior Center (in Human services) SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE Infrastructure standards used to calculate the Paxk and Recreation impact fees are shown in the boxed area of Figure 17. Impact fees for Parks and Recreation are based on household size for two types of residential units: single-family units (includes single family detached, single family attached, and manufactured homes) and all other units. Level of service standards are based on current costs per person for Outdoor Park improvements, Recreation Buildings and Pools, and Administrative and Support Facilities as described in the previous sections and summarized below. Each cost component of the impact fee is shown as a cost per person. The total capital cost per person is the sum of the boxed items on the figure for buildings and collections materials. As shown, the debt service payment credit ($16) is then subtracted from the gross capital cast per person to determine the net capital. cost per person for residential development (i.e., $1,168 per person). Figure 17. Parks and Recreation Impost Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary Standards: Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family (SF'I), SFA & MH,) 2.3 All Other Types 1.6 Level Of Service Per Person Outdoor Park Irnprovements $779 Recreation Buildings cYc Pools $364 Parks and Rec Support Facilities $41 Credit for Existing Debt (S li~l Net Capital Cost $1,168 Ti~schlerBise AGENDA ITEM # ,~~1-~1 I , PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY c„~ of aa,,de, co,orodo MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION Figure 18 shows the schedule of maximum allowable impact fees for Parks and Recreation in Boulder. The amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each unit type by the net capital cost per person. For example, for a single family unit, the persons per housing unit of 2.3 is multiplied by the net capital cost of $1,168 (from the previous table) for an impact fee amount of $2,686 per single family housing unit and $1,8687 per unit for all other types. Figure 18. Parks and Recreation Maximum Allowable Impact Fees Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Residential PerFlousing Unit Single Family (SFD, SFA & MIS $2,686 A11 Other Types $1,868 TischlerBise AGENDA. fTEi~ #c~~.. ,PAGE ~`~7 DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY City of boulder, Colorado ~ e s ~ METHODOLOGY The Human Services impact fee calculation uses the incremental expansion methodology. Components of the Human Services fee include costs for Senior. Centers and the Children, Youth and Family Center. All costs are allocated 1Q0 percent to residential development. Figure 19 diagrams the general methodology used to calculate the Human Services Impact Fee. It is intended to read like an outline, with lower levels providing a more detailed breakdown of the impact fee components. The impact fee is derived from the product of persons per housing unit (by type of unit) multiplied by the net capital cost per person. The boxes in the next level down indicate detail on the components included in the fee. Figure 19. Human Services Impact Fee Methodology Chart FIUMAN SERVICES IMPACT FEE Residential Development Persons per Housing Unit by Multiplied By Net Capital Type of Unit Cost per Person Building Cost per Person less Debt Service Payment Credit Tischler8ise ~GENC~f~ iTE~i # f~ ~ ,PACE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorodo HUMAN SERVICES LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the Human Services impact fee. The first step of the analysis determines the current level of service (LOS} being provided to existing development. The second step involves determining the cost per person to provide the current LOS. Figure 20 lists the current inventory of Human Services space in the City of Boulder. As shown, the City currently has Human Services space totaling 33,842 square feet. The current value for Human Services buildings and contents is from the City's 2008 Property Schedule. Because the City anticipates having to acquire land in the future to expand Human Services facilities, Land and site improvement costs are included in the current costs shown. City staff estimates that 40 percent should be added to building costs to account for these costs. As indicated in Figure 20, the estimated current value is approximately $b.9 million. To derive the cost per demand unit, the current asset value ($6,878,000) is divided by the current City population (103,100}, for a cost per demand units of $66.71 per person. Figure 20. Human Services Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Building Square Feet* Cost/SF* C.:~rrent value WestSeniorCenter 16,188 5199 53,218,000 Children, Youth & Family Center 5,215 5214 $1,117,000 fast Senior Center 12,439 5204 52,543,000 TOTAL 33, 842 $6, 878,000 Year-round Population in 2008 103,100 Cost per Person $66.71 * Source: City Properly Schedule (2008) for building and contents, land and ,cite improvements are included (additional 40% over building cost, per City of Boulder) CREDIT EVALUATION As discussed previously, the City has outstanding debt for 1-luman Services improvements that will be retired through property taxes. Because of this, TischlerBise recommends that a credit be included in the impact fee for future debt service payments on this General Obligation debt. New residential development in the City of Boulder that will pay Human Services impact fees wilt also contribute to future debt service payments paid from property tax revenue. TrschlerBise >~GEIVDA ITEM # - ~r~ ~ , PH~E DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Cobrado City staff provided debt service schedules for the current outstanding Human Services debt. 'I'o account for the time value of money, annual principal payments per capita are discounted using a net present value formula based on an estimated average interest rate. Figure 21 shows the credit calculation based on the projected debt service payments starting in fiscal year 2009 through the remainder of the bond's term. The debt is allocated 100 percent to residential development. The applicable net present value of the credit is $4.59 per person. This will be subtracted from the gross capital cost per demand unit to derive a net capital cost per person in calculating the maximum supportable fee. Figure 21. Credit for Outstanding Human Services Debt Service Payments Year EBIdr Total Princtpa! Population Debt Payment Center andlnterest* Per Capita 2009 5602,000 5138,460 103,754 4].33 2010 $602,000 4138,460 104,413 $1.33 2011 $602,000 $138,460 lO5,U76 51.32 2012 4602,000 4138,460 105,743 Sl.3l lliscount t1PR 6% Present Value 44,59 * Senior Centerportion ojdebt is 23% ojrotal,~ remainder is Recreation SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR HUMAN SERVICES IMPACT FEE Infrastructure standards used to calculate the. Human Services impact fees are shown in the boxed area of Figure 22. Impact fees for Human Services are based on household size for two types of residential units: single-family units (includes single family detached, single family attached, and manufactured homes) and all other units. Level of service standards are based on current costs per person for Human Services buildings as described in the previous sections and summarized below. Each cost component of the impact fee is shown as a cost per person. The total capital cost per person is the sum of the boxed items on the figure for buildings and collections materials. As shown, the debt service payment credit ($4.59) is then subtracted from the gross capital cost per person to determine the net capital cost per person for residential development (i.e., $62.12 per person). T~schler~ise AGEfVDA ITEM # ` f , AAGI ~ f DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado Figure 22. Human Services Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary Standards: Personr Per llousing Unrt Single Family (SFD, SFA & MH) 2.3 All Other Types 1.6 Level Of Service Per Person Human Services Buildings 566.71 Credit for Existing Debt ~ S-1. ~y i Net Capital Cost S62.12 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR HUMAN SERVICES Figure 23 shows the schedule of maximum allowable impact fees for Human Services in Boulder. The amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each unit type by the net capital cost per person. For example, for a single family detached unit, the persons per housing unit of 2.3 is multiplied by the net capital cost of $62.12 (from the previous table) for an impact fee amount of $142 per single family housing unit and $99 per unit for all other type of units. Figure 23. Human Services Maximum Allowable Impact Fees Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Residential Per Housing Unit Single Family (SFD, SFA & MH) 5142 All Other Types 599 Trschler~ise _ aGFNDA (TFM # ,PAGE ~ I DP.AFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado ~ . . ~ . METHODOLOGY The Municipal Facilities impact fees have been calculated using an incremental expansion approach. Components of the fee include additional building space that will need to be expanded as the City's population and employment base increases. As illustrated in Figure 24, capital costs are allocated to both residential and nonresidential development. Residential factors axe calculated on a per person basis, and converted to an impact fee amount per housing unit using average persons per housing unit by unit type. Nonresidential development fees are based on a capital cost per employee, where such costs axe typically multiplied by the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area. Figure 24. Municipal Facilities Impact Fee Methodology Chart Municipal Facility Impact Fee Residential Units Nonresidential Floor Area Persons Per Housing Unit Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area multiplied by Capital Cost Per multiplied by Capital Cost Per Person Employee Municipal Facility Incremental Municipal Facility Incremental Expansion Component Expansion Component TischlerBise >aGEN~R iTEM # ~ ..~-1~_ , pA~E ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY City of Boulder, Coforodo PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS The proportionate share factors shown in Figure 25 are used to allocate capital costs to residential and nonresidential development. The analysis is based on demographic data from the City of Boulder and the U.S. Census 2006 American Community Survey. For residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non-working residents, plus the non-working hours of resident workers. For resident workers, two-thirds of a day (i.e., 16 hours) is allocated to residential demand. Time spent at work (i.e., 8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. In 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 36,309 City of Boulder residents also worked in the City. Therefore, total jobs include 60,659 non-resident workers that commute into Boulder for work. Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation for residential development is 72 percent while nonresidential development accounts for 28 percent of the demand for municipal facilities. Figure 25. Proportionate Share Factors for Municipal Facilities Impact Fees Demand Units in 2006 Annualized Avg Person Residential Hours per Day flours Year-Round Population* 101,918 Persons Not Working 51,796 24 1,243,104 WorkersLivinginBoulder** SO,I22 Residents Working in Boulder** 36,309 16 580,944 Residents Working Outside Boulder** 13,813 16 221,008 Residential Subtotal 2,045,056 72 Nonresidential Jobs Located in Boulder* 96,968 Residents Working in Boulder** 36,309 8 290,472 Non-Resident Workers in 2006 60,659 8 485,272 Nonresidential Subtotal 775,744 28% * CiryofBoulderestimates. TOTAL 2,820,800 * * Table B08008, 2006 American Community Survey. TischlerBise AGENDA iT~M PAGE ~l DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT FXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado MUNICIPAL FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the Municipal Facilities impact fee. The first step of the analysis determines the current Level of Service (LOS) being provided to existing development. The second step involves determining the cost per person and job to provide this LOS. Figure 26 lists the current inventory of municipal government space in the City of Boulder. As shown, the City currently has municipal facilities space totaling 70,748 square feet. The current value for general government buildings and contents is from the City's 2008 Property Schedule. Because the City anticipates having to acquire land in the future for Municipal Facilities, land and site improvement costs are included in the current costs. City staff estimates that 40 percent should be added to building costs to account for these costs. As indicated in Figure 26, the estimated current value is approximately $1b.8 million. To derive the cost per demand unit, the current asset value ($Ib,773,000) is multiplied by the proportionate share factors for each type of land use and then divided by the respective demand units for each. For example, the cost per person of $117.31 is derived by multiplying the current asset value ($16,773,000) by 72%, then dividing by the current population estimate (103,100). The same approach is used for nonresidential development to derive a cost per job. Figure 26. Municipal Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Bi(ildillg Building SF* Cost/SF* Current Valun. Municipal Building 23,657 $237 $5,597,000 Atrium 12,329 $259 $3,193,000 Park Central 20.910 $241 $5,035,000 New Britain 13,82 $213 $2,948,000 TOTAL 70,748 $16,773.000 Proportionate 2008 Cost per Share Demand Units Demand Unit Residential 72% 103,100 Population $117.13 Nonresidential 28% 97,750 Jobs $48.04 * Source: City Property Schedule (2008) for building and contents; land and site improvements are included (additional 40% over building cost, per City of Boulder) Tischler~'rse AGENDA ITEM # ~ ,PAGE LI1~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorodo CREDIT EVALUATION The City does nat have any outstanding property tax-backed debt for municipal facility improvements, therefore no cxedit is required. SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE Infrastructure standards used to calculate the Municipal Facility impact fees are shown in the boxed axea of Figure 27. As discussed previously, municipal facilities impact fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential land uses. As shown in the bottom of Figure 27, the capital costs per demand unit are $117.13 per person and $48.04 per employee. Figure 27. Municipal Facility Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary Standards: Persons Per Elousing Unit Single Family (SFD, SFA & IVIH) 2.3 All Other Types 1.6 Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet Goods Prcxiuction 1.43 Retail /Restaurant 2.86 All Other Services 2.17 Level Of Service Per Person Per Employee Office Buildings and Land Cost 5117.13 548.04 Credit for Existing T~ebt (not applicable) Net Capital Cost $117.13 $48.04 TischlerBise AGENDA {YEN! # ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Crly of Boulder, Colorado MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR MUNICIPAL FACILITIES Figure 28 shows the schedule of maximum allowable impact fees for Municipal Facilities in Boulder. The amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each unit type by the net capital cost per person. For example, for a single family detached unit, the persons per housing unit of 2.3 is multiplied by the net capital cost of $117.13 (from the previous table) for an impact fee amount of $269 per single family housing unit and $187 per unit for all other type of units. For nonresidential land uses, such as a retail establishment, the number of employees per 1,000 square feet (2.86) is multiplied by the capital cost per employee ($48.04), for an impact fee of $0.13 per square foot. Figure 28. Municipal Facility Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Residential 1'er Flousirrg U~Tit Single Family(SFD, SFA & MFI} 5269 All Other Types 5187 Nonresidential Per Sauure Foot Goods Production 50.06 Retail /Restaurant SU.13 All Other Services 50.10 Tischler~ise AGEIV~7A ITEM # • ,PAGE ~t~_ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorodo ~ • ~ METHODOLOGY The Police impact fee is calculated using a cornbination of the incremental expansion and plan based methodologies. An incremental expansion approach is used for Police Station space, while a plan based approach is used for planned Communication Center space: Because the Colorado State Impact Fee Act requires that infrastructure included in the fee calculation have a useful Iife of over 5 years, police cars axe not eligible for impact fee funding. As shown in Figure 29, the Police impact fee uses different demand indicators for residential and nonresidential development. Residential impact fees are calculated on a per capita basis and then converted to a proportionate fee amount by type of housing, based on the number of persons per housing unit. For nonresidential impact fees, TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for Police facilities. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial/warehouse development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for Police services from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, Police impact fees would be too high for office and institutional development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. If floor area were used as the demand indicator, Paiice impact fees would be too high for industrial development. TischlerBise ?~~`,~Nt~a, iT~M , PAGE ~ ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado Figure 29. Police Facilities Impact Fee Methodology Chart Police Facility Impact Fee Residential Units Nonresidential Floor Area Persons Per Housing Unit Avg. Daily Vehicle Trips I'er 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area multiplied by Capital Cost I'er multiplied by Capital Cost I'er Person Employee Police Facility Incremental Police Facility Incremental Expansion Component Expansion Component Communications Center Cost Communications Center Cost Component Component PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS The preferred method for determining proportionate share factors is through an analysis of calls for Police service data by residential and nonresidential land use. Unfortunately, this data was not available for this impact fee study. Lacking calls for service data, the next best determiner of the demand for Police services is through functional population. This analysis is shown below in and is used to allocate capital costs to residential and nonresidential development. The analysis is based on demographic data from the City of Boulder and the U.S. Census 2006 American Community Survey. For residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non-working residents, plus the non-working hours of resident workers. For resident workers, two-thixds of a day (i.e., 16 hours) is allocated to residential demand. Time spent at work (i.e., 8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. In 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 36,309 City of Boulder residents also worked in the City. Therefore, total jobs include 60,659 non-resident TischlerBise AGENDA ITEM #~~~-f1 ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulde ,Colorado workers that commute into Boulder for work. Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation for residential development is 72 percent while nonresidential development accounts for 28 percent of the demand for municipal facilities. Details are shown in Figure 30. Figure 30. Proportionate Share Factors for Police Impact Fees Demand L'nirs in 2006 Annualized Avg Person Residential Hours per Day Hours Year-Round Population* (01,918 Persons Not Working 51,796 24 1,243,104 Workers Living in Boulder** SO,122 Residents Working in Boulder** 36,309 16 580,944 Residents Working Outside Boulder** 13,813 16 221,008 Residential Subtotal 2,045,056 72 Nonresidential Jobs Located in Boulder* 96,968 Residents Working in Boulder** 36,309 8 290,472 Non-Resident Workers in 2006 60,659 8 485,272 Nonresidential Subtotal 775,744 28% * City of Boulder estimates. TOTAL 2,820,80() * * Tahle B08008, 2006 American Community Survey. POLICE FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS The Police impact fee is calculated using the incremental expansion and plan based methodologies. The incremental expansion approach is used for Police station space and administration and a plan based approach is used for planned Communications Systems improvements. For the incremental component, the first step of the analysis determines the current LOS being provided to existing development. The second step involves determining the cost per person and per nonresidential vehicle trip to provide this LOS. The top portion of Figure 31 lists the current inventory of Police space in the City of Boulder. As shown, the City currently has Police space totaling 69,178 square feet. To determine the total current asset value for Police space, City of Boulder staff provided current values for each facility included in the inventory through the 2008 City Property Schedule. Because the City anticipates having to acquire land in the future for Police facilities, land and site improvement costs are included in the current costs. City staff estimates that 40 percent TischlerBise AGENC3A iTE~i , PACE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado should be added to building costs to account for these costs. As indicated in Figure 31, the estimated current value is approximately $17.3 million. To derive the cost per demand unit for the incremental portion of the fee, the current asset value ($17,268,000) is multiplied by the proportionate share factors for each type of Iand use and then divided by the respective demand uzuts for each. For example, the cost per person of $120.59 is derived by multiplying the current asset value ($17,268,000) by 72 percent, then dividing by the current population estimate (103,100). The same approach is used for nonresidential development to derive a cost per trip. For the Communications System Improvements, a plan-based methodology is used and is based on the estimated cost less committed and earmarked funds from the federal government and 911 fees. 'The improvements are anticipated to serve development through 2030. Based on the net capital cost to the City of $449,000 and projected population and employment in 2030 as shown, the per capita cost is $2.72 and the cost per job is $.27. Figure 31. Police Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Incremental Expansion Cost of Police Buildings Bldg Sq Ft Cost per SF* Current Value IIeadquarters 47, I 1 S $290 $13,654,000 "I'rainina Ctr ! Firin Ran e Addition 1 Ei,000 $199 53,181,000 Police Stora e (onl building cvst) 4,763 591 $433,000 Downtown Mall Annex 850 leased university IIill murex 450 leased TOTAL 69.178 517,268,t1U0 Proportionate 2008 Cost per Share Demand Units Demand Unit Residential 72% 103,100 persons $120.59 Nonresidential 28% 375,936 nonres tri s $12.86 * Source: City Property Schedule (2008) jor building and contents; land and site improvements are included (additional 40% over building cost, per City of Boulder) Plan-Based Cost of Conrnrunications System Lnprovenrents Boulder Police Connnunications Ccntcr** 51.900.000 Less BRETSA and DHS Grant Funding** ~ ti I . ! Nct Capital Cost 5449.000 Proportionate 2 U3 0 Cost per Share Demand Units llemand Unit Residential 72% ::8,500 persons $2.72 Nonuesidential 28% 45I,S3I nonres trips $0.27 Source: Boulder Pvl ice Department Tischier~ise AGENDA ITEM . PI~GE l1 U DP,4FT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Cy of Boulder, Colorvdo CREDIT EVALUATION At present, the City of Boulder does not have any outstanding property-tax backed bonded debt related to the construction of Police facilities. 't'herefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applicable to this impact fee. SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR POLICE FACILITIES IMPACT FEE Figure 32 provides a summary of the level-of-service standards used to calculate the Police impact fees. As discussed previously, police impact fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential land uses. As shown in the bottom of Figure 32, the capital cost per demand unit for residential land uses is $123.31 per person. The cost per demand unit for nonresidential development is $13.13 per nonresidential vehicle trip. Figure 32. Police Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary Standards: Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family (SF7~, SFA & MH) 23 All Other Types 1.6 Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1, 000 Sq Ft Goods Production 4.96 Retail /Restaurant 86.56 All Other Services 12.76 Trip Adjus7ment Factors Commercial 31 All Other Nonresidential Development 50% Level ojService Per Person Per Tri Headquarters &Annex Cost $120.59 $12.86 Communications System Cost $2.72 $0.27 Revenue Credit (not applicable) Net Capital Cost $}23.31 $13.13 Tischler8ise AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE L~ ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY City of Boulder, Colorado MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR POLICE Figure 33 contains a schedule of the Police impact fees for the City of Boulder. For residential land uses, persons per housing unit (2.3 for a single family unit) are multiplied by the capital cost per person ($123.31), for an impact fee per unit of $283. For nonresidential Iand uses, such as a retail establishment, the number of vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet (86.56 multiplied by the trip adjustment rate of 31 percent) is multiplied by the capital cost per nonresidential ~~ehicle trip ($13.13), for an impact fee of $0.35 per square foot. Figure 33. Police Maximum Supportable Impoct Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Residential Per Housing Unit Single Family (SFD, SFA & MIS $283 All Other Types 5197 Nonresidential Per S uare Foot Goods Production $0.03 Retail /Restaurant 50.35 All Other Services $0.08 TischterBise AGENDA iTElvl ,PAGE DRr1F ~ IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY ci~o~e~t,ider colorodo METHODOLOGY The City of Boulder Fire impact fee is based on the incremental expansion cost of Fire Services buildings and land and Fire apparatus. This methodology will allow for the greatest flexibility, as the City plans to expand Fire facilities in the next few years, but at this time is not sure if this will take the form of an additional station or a relocation and expansion of an existing station. Due to requirement of the Colorado Impact Fee Act that capital facilities have useful lives of over five years, only heavy apparatus (e.g., engines, rescue trucks) is included. As shown in Figure 34, the Fire impact fee is calculated using proportionate share factors that are based on actual calls for service to specific types of land uses. Because of the availability of detailed calls for service data by type of land use, the calculation of the Fire impact fees is slightly different from the other categories. For example, Fire calls for service data indicates that 24.7 percent of Fire calls are to single family housing units. Therefore, 24.7 percent of the Fire costs are allocated to single family housing units, which are then divided by the current number of single family housing units to determine the impact fee. Figure 34. Fire Impact Fee Methodology Chart rfRc fn~rncf•ree Current Asset Value Multiplied by Divided by Current Proportionate Share (2008) Demand Base Factors by Type of Land Use Frrc Scrvims Bmldings and Land Plus Fim Apparatus TischlerBise DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciry of Boulder, Colorado PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS The most accurate source for determining demand for Fire services and facilities is calls for service generated by residential and nonresidential. Iand uses. The City provided data on Fire call incidents by land use for calendar year 2007. TischIerBise used this call data to determine the proportionate share factors shown in Figure 35. 'T'his data indicated that the City responded to 6,116 calls to known land uses. The data further indicates the number and percentage of calls to specific land uses. For example, 656 calls were to retail/restaurant uses, which represent 10.7 percent of total calls. Proportionate share factors are shown below. Figure 35. Fire Proportionate Shore Foctors Incidents Single Family Dwellings 1,SI0 24.7% Attached Dwellings 1,320 2 i.6% Goods Production 205 3.4% Retail /Restaurant 656 10.7% All Other Services 2,425 39.7% Subtotal 6,116 Source.' Boulder Fire Department calls by property use in 2007. ~ I Fire Service Calls by Property Usel Single Family Dwellings ~ All Other ~ Services i ~ Attached ~ Retail / Goods Dwellings ' Restaurant Production TischlerBise a~>+n~nA 1TFnn ,PAGE DRArT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado FIRE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS Fire Service Facilities Incremental Expansion Cost Component As discussed above, the fire impact fees are derived using the incremental expansion approach for buildings and land, based on the current 2008 level of service. As shown in Figure 36, the City of Boulder has seven fire stations, headquarters, and a training center. The costs for the stations and headquarters are from the 2008 City Property Schedule, as provided by the City. Also because the City anticipates having to acquire land in the future ~ for Fire facilities, land and site improvement costs are included at 40 percent of building cost, per the City. The Training Center cost shown below reflects the current cost to the City to replace the existing facility, which is slated to be relocated from its existing site to a new location. It should be noted that the relocated facility (and cost) does not reflect any excess capacity to accommodate new growth, and therefore represents the City's current level of service. As Figure 36 indicates, the City currently has 49,823 square feet of Fire Services space. As discussed above, the current value of the existing fire stations, including land and site improvements, is estimated at $12,580,613. Figure 36, Fire Station Inventory and Costs S Ft Current Value' Station One 7,941 S1,903,626 Station Two 4,757 S936,188 Station Three 6,160 $1,060,018 Station Four 3,498 $688,572 Station Five 3,716 $776,558 Station Six 3,435 $810,629 Station Seven 5,081 $1.286,872 Fire Head carters 5,235 $1,518,150 Training Center 10,000 $3,600,000 '1'O'I'AL 49,823 $12,580,613 * Source: City Property Schedtclu (3008) liar building and contents; land and site improvements are included (additional 4lJ% over building cost, per City of•Boulder) Ttschler~ise AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY Ciy of Boulder, Cobrodo Fire Apparatus Incremental Expansion Component The Fire impact fees also use an incremental expansion approach for Fire apparatus, based ' on the current 2008 level of service. Current replacement costs for the City's inventory of Fire apparatus (with a minimum 5-year useful life) are shown in Figure 37 and were provided by the City. As shown in Figure 37, the estimated current va]ue totals $8.2 million. Figure 37. Fire Apporatus Inventory and Costs Item Units SiUnit Current Yalue Eire Engines (Pumpers) 7 $585,755 $4,100,285 Fire F,ngines (Telesquirts) 3 S770,000 $2,310,000 Ladder Truck 1 $900,000 $900,000 Rescue Truck 1 $195..000 $195,000 Wild-Land 'Truck (7}rpc 6) 2 S100,000 $200,000 Wild-Land Truck (Type 3) 2 S25Q000 $500,000 TUTAL 16 $512,830 $8,205,285 Source: City of Boulder Fire Department CREDIT EVALUATION At present, the City of Boulder does not have any outstanding property-tax backed bonded debt related to the construction of Fire facilities. Therefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applic~~ble to this impact fee. T~schlerBise AGENDA lTENf # ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY City of Boulder, Colorado SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR FIRE IMPACT FEE Factors used to calculate Fire impact fees are shown in the boxed area of Figure 38. Current values for Fire Services Buildings and Land and Apparatus are summarized at the top of the figure. Proportionate share factors by type of land use as described earlier are summarized in the middle section followed by current demand base data for residential (current estimated number of housing units by type In City of Boulder) and nonresidential development (current estimated amount of floor area by type of nonresidential development in City of Boulder). Figure 38. Fire Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summory Standards: Current Value Fire Services Buildsngs & i.anci $12,580,000 Fire Apparatus 8 205 000 Total $ 20,785,000 Proportionate Share Faeturs Single Family (SFD, SFA & MH) 24.7% All Other Types 21.6% Goods Production 3.4% Retail /Restaurant 10.7% Ali Other Services 39.7% Demand Base in 2008 Single Family Housing Units 25;445 All Other Housing Units 19,440 Goods Production Square Feet 14,370,000 Retail /Restaurant Square Feet 6,160,000 All Other Services Square Feet 27,430,000 Tischler~ise AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE r? ~ ~R.tiF- IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR FIRE Figure 39 shows the schedule of maximum allowable impact fees for Fire in Boulder. To determine the cost per demand unit, the total estimated costs are multiplied by the appropriate proportionate share factors by type of land use. The resulting proportionate share of the costs is then divided by the applicable demand factor. For example for a single family unit, the total current value of Fire facilities of $20,785,000 is multiplied by the single family proportionate share of 24.7 percent and then divided by the current estimated number of single family units (25,445) for a cost per single family unit of $201. (Also shown is the cost per person, for informational purposes.) The same approach is taken to derive fees for nonresidential development by type of Land use. Nonresidential fees are shown per square foot of nonresidential development. Figure 39. Fire Maximum Allowable Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Residential Per Housing Unit Per Person Single Family (SFI), SFA & MH) $201 $87.39 All Other Types $ 230 $143.75 Nonresidential Per S care Foot Goods Production $0.04 Retail /Restaurant 50..6 All Other Services 50.30 T~schler8ise AGI=NDA ITEM # , PAGE DRAF ~ IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado All costs in the impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual evaluation and update of impact fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs by means of an index specific to construction as opposed to the consumer price index (CPI), which is more general in nature. TischlerBise recommends using the Marshall Swift Valuation Service, which provides comparative cost multipliers for various geographies and types of construction. The multipliers can be applied against the calculated impact fee. If cost estimates change significantly the City should redo the fee calculations. There are certain accounting procedures that should be followed by the City. For example, . monies received should be placed in a separate fund and accounted for separately and may only be used for the purposes authorised in the impact fee ordinance. Interest earned on monies in the separate fund should be credited to the fund. It should be noted that as discussed in the Library chapter, it is TischlerBise's recommendation that the cost recovery component of the Library fee be eliminated once the remaining outstanding debt on the most recent library capacity expansion is retired (anticipated to be an additional three years). However, if the City decides to construct an additional branch or expand existing facilities, the impact fee methodology and amount should be revised to reflect this change. CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS Future Revenue Credits 'Mere arc three basic approaches used to calculate impact fees and each is linked to different credit methodology. The first major type of impact fee method is a cost recovery approach. This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new development for at least a five to six year time frame. The rationale for the cost recovery is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of the existing facility. When using a cost recovery method, it is important to determine whether new development has already contributed toward the cost of existing public facilities. As described in this report, outstanding debt exists for Libraries where a cost recovery approach is used, therefore a credit is necessary and include in the fee calculation. Tischler6 ise AGENDA ITEM # ~ ~ ,PAGE S`~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado A second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost method. This method documents current factors and is best suited for public facilities that wilt be expanded incrementally in the future. Because new development will provide front- end funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future principal payments on existing debt for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for interest payments if interest costs are not included in the impact fees. This type of credit is necessary and calculated for Parks and Recreation and Human Services because there is outstanding debt for capacity expansions calculated under the incremental approach. A third basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the plan-based method. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. The plan-based method may be used for public facilities that have commonly accepted service delivery factors to determine the need for future projects or the jurisdiction plans to significantly increase the current level of service standards. If a plan-based approach is used to derive impact fees, the credit evaluations should focus on future dedicated revenues that will fund growth-related capital improvements. This type of credit is not necessary for the fees calculated herein. Site-Specific Credits If a developer constructs a system improvement that was included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees in the area benefiting from the system improvement. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not eligible for credits or offsets against impact fees. Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the City's fees. Based on TischlerBise's experience, it is better for the City to establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement rather than provide a credit off of the fee. The latter is often more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City of Boulder should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area. T~schierBise AGEPIDA ITEM ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of 8ovtder, Colorado COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES The reasonableness of impact fees is determined in part by their relationship to the local government's burden to provide necessary public facilities. The need to show a benefit usually requires communities to evaluate collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that have distinct geographic service areas. Consideration of zones will enable the City to show that developments paying fees are benefiting from the provision of additional capital improvements. TischierBise recommends a citywide fee for all impact fee calculated herein. All improvements covered under the impact fee program are derived based on citywide demand and will have a citywide benefit. TischlerBise AGENDA ITEM! #~-~1-~~ pdre ~ I DRAB ii IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY ca,. of ao~lde , col«ndo PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXES TrschlerBise ar,FN~4 ITEM # ~s*1 ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of 8outder, Colorado ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ Similar to impact fees, excise taxes are one-time revenues often used to fund new infrastructure generated by new construction. Excise taxes differ from impact fees in that they are primarily a tool for raising revenue, as opposed to a land use regulation (i.e., an exercise of local government police power) designed to finance growth-related facilities. In addition, excise taxes do not have to be earmarked or segregated or accounted for separately from the City's general revenue, do not have to specifically benefit new growth, and can be used in and calculated in a more flexible manner than impact fees. Excise taxes can be applied in several ways. Same communities apply a rate to the construction value of the land use; others use a flat fee per acre of development, while other communities apply a straight fee by type of housing unit or square-foot. Furthermore, an excise tax is imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege. In some states, home-rule cities may impose excise taxes using general taxation powers. Other states have limited the use of excise taxes to jurisdictions that have special enabling Iegisiation. The City of Boulder has legislative authority to impose a transportation excise tax upon approval of the voters. The City of Boulder currently has Development Excise Taxes (DET) in place for growth- related capital improvements. The DET is assessed per housing unit by type of unit (detached and attached) and per square foot of nonresidential development regardless of type. As discussed in the previous sections, TischlerBise was asked to analyze and update growth-related capital needs for all categories included in the current DET as well as affordable housing under an impact fee approach where possible. As noted previously, TischIerBise recommends that Transportation and Affordable Housing be continued as Development Excise Taxes. The analysis for both categories is included in this section. Tischler~ise AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT IXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Coiorodo ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ It is common practice for jurisdictions to require project-level improvements to be addressed through development exactions that remain roughly proportional to a specific project. Project-level improvements are typically specified in a deve]opment agreement. In contrast, system improvements may benefit multiple development projects or even the entire jurisdiction. System improvements are funded by development impact fees or development excise taxes. An excise tax is imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege. In some states, home-rule cities may impose excise taxes using general taxation powers. Other states have limited the use of excise taxes to jurisdictions that have special enabling legislation. 'The City of Boulder has legislative authority to impose a transportation excise tax upon approval of the voters. To derive a maximum supportable Transportation Excise Tax for the city of Boulder, TischlerBise used the planned capital enhancements and improvements from the 2003 Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP provides three transportation investment programs based on different levels of funding: Current Funding, the Action Plan and the Vision. For the Transportation Excise Tax, planned improvements at two funding levels in the TMP-Action Plan and Vision Plan-have been included as potential policy options in selection of the appropriate transportation excise tax. The Action Plan represents the next best steps toward reaching the community's transportation goals as outlined in the TMP if additional funding becomes available. Pursuing and funding the Action Plan would approximately double the number of corridor segments that could be fully developed into multimodal environments. The Vision reflects the completed multimodal system desired by the community as reflected in the TMP. Using both Plan levels provides information and flexibility for the City in its decision making regarding transportation improvements and funding. To derive the maximum supportable Transportation Excise Tax, total City costs benefiting growth from the TMP at both Action and Vision Plan levels are used and allocated 100 percent to new development. Projects included in the Plans are enhancements and capital improvements and do not reflect replacement or maintenance of existing facilities. The TMP Action Plan and Vision Plan improvements are shown in Figure 40 and include such multi~odal improvements and enhancements as road improvements, intersections, bike lanes, underpasses, and pedestrian enhancements far the corridors shown. Since construction costs have increased almost 40 percent (per Colorado Department of Ttschler8~se ~GFI~!DR iTE~ # ~~-k-f-~~ ,PAGE ~f GR~=r ii IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Transportation) over the past five years, the City's share of the capital cost is inflated to 2008 dollars and is now estimated to be approximately $176 million for the Action Plan and $214 for the Vision Plan. TisdtterBise AGENDA ITEM ,PAGE r~ DRAFT tMPAC7 FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Figure 40. Transportafiion Action and Vision Plans and Capital Costs Multimoda! C.'orridor Tota! Ciry Rank Segment Name Cost Cvst 1 28th St-lristoArapahctc $128,434,372 $35,612,585 ~ ~ 2 28th St- Ara ahoe to Baseline $9,391,715 $4,349,322 cam. 3 Ara ahoe- Folsom to 33rd St $7,152,295 52,433,915 p 7 4 Broadway-Balsam to 27thWav $8,4]6,263 55,697,951 l ~ 5 Broadway-27th Wav to'1'ablcMesa $3,169,117 53,142237 Q ~ 6 PcarlPk~ -28thSttoFoothills $20,420,800 $11,946,350 7 Arapahoe- 33rd to 55th St $14,553,)99 SG,791,248 8 'Table Mesa- Moorehead to SSth St $3,776.511 S3,509,050 9 Pearl- Broadway to 28th St $43 5.921 5406,143 10 .4ra ahoe- SSth St to Westview Dr $24,938,766 58.850.750 11 Arapahoe/Canyon- Pearl to Folsom $574,029 $574,029 12 Diagonal Hwy- 28th 5t to Fourmile Creek 58.905.728 $6,393,203 13 Table Mesa- Broadway to Mcx~rehead S211,037 $7.11,037 14 Brck_dwa -Table Mesa to Grcenbriar Blvd $2,405,353 $614,032 15 Pearl Pkwy- Foothills to 55th St $9,997,108 $7,019,306 .6 55th 5t- Va:mout to Arapahoe $2,722,832 $:,58',380 17 Foothills H - Base]ine to iJS 36 551,914 $51,914 18 Brck:dway- Iris Av to Balsam Av $11,307,368 $2,521,668 19 Broadway-IQorth U5 36 to V;oietAV $26,221,677 $10,355,789 20 28th St-JavRd to IrisAv $6,075,386 $4.839,406 21 Diagonal Hwy- Pourrrrile Creek to 71st St 2,053,797 $8,894,0,28 AC'TJON PLAN T07~f/, S3U1,?15,489 SI2S, 799, 941 Construction Cost Increase 2003 to 2008• 1.4 ACTION PLAN Current C)ty Cost (rounded) 5176,120,000 22 Baseline- 32nd St to 55th St $856,782 5606,298 23 i;S 3G- Baseline easet to ulanning area boundary 56,361,787 $3,382,173 24 Broadway Violet Av to Iris Av $fi,592.97U $4.866.254 25 Baseline- Broadwa to 33rd $U $0 26 Table Mesa- Vassar to Broadway $1,843,153 S1,843,153 27 Valmont- 28th St to Foothills Hwy 53,307986 52,556,856 28 South Boulder Rd- 55th to 76th St $97.880 $97,880 29 Foothil;s Iii -Goose Creek to Co:orado Blvd S3,584,379 5200.000 30 Foothi'.ls IIHti-Colorado to Basclinc S349,469 $349,469 31 Arapahoe- Wcstvicw Dr to 75th St S3,443,587 $403,177 32 Balsatn,'LdGcwood/Va!tnont- Broadway to 28th St $2G,E>88 $26,688 33 Valmont- Foothills Hwy to Pearl Pkwv $2,283,663 52,149,913 34 Pearl Pkwy- 55th to Jay Rd $1,752,170 5583,338 35 28th St- Vorth Broadwa to Jav Rd $7,067,035 55,387,596 36 Basclinc- 9th St to Brcrdwav 5844,226 5673,070 37 Foothills Hwy- Diagonal to Goose Creek $309,848 5179,608 38 55th St• Arapahoe to Baseline 5433,520 5433,520 39 iris Av- Broadwa to 28th St $1,926,498 $],]08,098 40 63rdStrcct-Ja RdtoDiagonal $6,585,692 $2,500,412 41 Baseline- 55th 5t to 75th St $209,793 50 f~1,5'IONPl.AN7'f)"1'.fl. S3•f4,U43,114 5l S3, 1.57.445 Construction Cost Inaease 2003 to 2008'" 1.4 VISION PLAN Current City Cost (rounded) $2I4,d06,000 " Colorado 1)epar[mem oj7Yansportation (per City ojBouldcr) TischlerB'rse r- AGENDA lTEN# # ~ ~ ,PAGE ~ ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Cly of Bovider, Colorado Calibration of impact fees requires projected development in the City of Boulder to be conversed into average weekday vehicle trips, as described in the foilowing sections. It should be noted that while Boulder's transportation system is multimodal in nature, use of vehicle trips is a reasonable approach and proxy to determine the relative demand and resulting proportionate share by type of land use for transportation improvements. Figure 41 summarizes the input variables used to determine the transportation cost allocation by type of development. Please see Appendix A for a more detailed explanation of the demographic data. In the table below HU means housing unit, KSF means square feet of nonresidential development, in thousands, and TTE stands for the Institute of Transportation Engineers. As noted above, Boulder's transportation excise tax calculations are based on average weekday vehicle trip ends. Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation (ITE 2003). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate transportation excise taxes, trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%. As discussed further below, the excise tax methodology includes additional adjustments to make the tax rates proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 54% to account for commuters leaving the City of Boulder for work. According to the 2001 National I iousehold Travel Survey (see Table 29, in the Federal Highway Administration publication dated 12/04) home-based weekday work trips are typically 31% of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50% of all trip ends). Also, Census 2000 data from Table P26 in Summary File 3 indicates that 28% of Boulder workers travel outside the city for work. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.28 = 0.04) support the additional 4% allocation of trips to residential development. Data contained in the 2004 ITE publication titled Trig Generation Handbook indicate an inverse relationship between commercial building size and pass-by trips. Therefore, appropriate trip adjustment factors may be calculated according to commercial building size. For commercial developments, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail development often attracts vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For a small commercial building of 50,000 square feet of floor area, the ITE data indicates that on average 39% of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 61% of attraction trips have the commercial building as their primary destination. Because T~schlerBise ~~=EI~DA I`~EM # _ ,PAGE ~Q~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado attraction. trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 61% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 31% of the trip ends. Figure 41. Development Prototypes and Vehicle Trip Inputs !TE Dev Wluty i/eh Dev Trip Adj Code Type Trip Ends Unit Factor Rl 210 Single Family Hsg 9.57 HZl 54% R2 221 All Other Hs ~ [Jnits 6.59 HT; 54% NR1 ]50 Goods Production 4.96 KS1~ 50`%, NR2 820 Retail/Restaurant 86.56 KSF 31 % ' NR3 770 Other Services 12.76 KS1~ 50% FfU=Ffousir:g Urril KSF=1,000 Square F'eer of Floor ~}rea The following figure shows projected travel demand (average weekday trips) based on the input variables above. Development projections at the top of the figure are multiplied by the input variables from the previous table to yield average weekday travel demand in the City of Boulder. (See Appendix A for further discussion of deveIoprnent projections included in Figure 42.) Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert projected development into average weekday vehicle trips. For example, in the base year, single-family (SFD) detached housing units will produce 132,495 weekday trips (25,445 x 9.57 x 54% = 131,495). The same calculation is done for each land use type through 2030. Figure 42. Projected Travel Demand Summary Mulri~ ear lnrervals==> ]'eaz~> Base 1 1 3 4 S IG IS 1U Il II~Yenr 200N 2/i0y 1010 1011 1011 1013 2Ci8 20?3 2028 2C?0 Grcrruse C1T]' C1F BOULDER DF,MAYD DA'T'A 51• HL' 25,445 25,47 i 25,509 25.542 25,575 25,608 2i 776 ?5.'151 26,132 26.206 761 ALL O'rHHK HU 19,440 19,?29 20,020 20,313 20,GOR 20,90.5 22,423 23,995 25,(+25 26,294 6,854 GOnDS PKODUCr10N KSF 14,370 Iap90 14,610 1%.,730 14,560 14 v80 IS.G20 IG.7.R0 IG,970 17,260 2,890 RF.TAII,r!i`-:~:'AUSiAN'r <5I~ G,lhO f,.21U G,2GU 6,310 f+,370 G,»20 G,G90 6,980 '',1.70 7,»00 !,240 O'f11L•2SGRVICESKSF 11.430 27,660 27,890 28,120 2X,360 2S.S9(I 29,810 31.080 32FOU 32,'>40 S,S;L` .SFRI•:SI'RIlS 131A9S 131,660 131,827 131,995 132,If4 132,335 133~OG 1?4,110 135,045 135;729 3,935 ALI.OTHF.RRF.S7RIPS 69,179 70,2D7 71,242 72,285 73,335 74,392 79,793 85x90 91,190 93,569 24,389 GOODSPRODUCf10N1R/PS 35,638 35,935 36,233 36,530 36,853 37,150 38,738 40,374 42,086 42,805 7,167 RETAIL/RESTAURANTTRlPS 165,295 166,637 ]67,978 169,320 170,930 172,272 179,517 187,299 195,080 198,569 33,274 07NFJt SERVICF.,STRIPS 175,003 176,471 177,938 17'1,406 180,937 182,404 190,188 198290 206,712 210,157 35,154 TnrulVehicle'1'riPS 576,610 S8D,910 585,218 589,536 594,219 548,553 621,442 645,463 670,113 680,528 ID.3,919 Figure 43 provides the transportation excise tax rates by type of development. The excise tax is provided for both the Action Plan and Vision Plan. The additional demand indicators represent the net increase in both residential and nonresidential development from 2008 to Tischler8ise ~~~r~©1~ ~7~~n ~ , ~~GE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boutde~ Colorado 2030 in the Ciry of Boulder. As described above, the travel demand inputs discussed above were multiplied by the projected increase in development units to yield the additional weekday vehicle trips. Proportionate share factors by type of development are based on each prototype's contribution to the increase in vehicle trips.. For example, new Single Family housing units are expected to generate 3,935 average weekday vehicle trips, which accounts for 3.8% of the total increase in vehicle trips (i.e. 103,919 total vehicle trips from all types of development). For each type of development, the excise tax per demand unit is equal to the total City capital cost of transportation enhancements and improvements for both the Action ($176 million) and. Vision Plans ($214 million) multiplied by the proportionate share factor and divided by the additional demand units expected from 2008 to 2030. Nonresidential excise tax amounts are shown both per 1,000 square feet and per square foot, for comparison purposes. Figure 43. Transportation Excise Tax Calculation ACTION PLr1 N' VISION PLAN'" Tota! City Capita! Costs 8176,120,000 5214,406, 000 Cost Allocation Based on Average Weekday Vehicle %'ripc it~DN'RGA'N {%SION PLAA' Additiorrnl Adrlitiorrnl Proportionate Excise Tax Excise Tax Demand Demand H'kdyV~•h .Share perDemnnd per Demand Indicator Indicators 7Tips Indiwlnr /ndi(:afor Single FamilyHsgUnits L'nn 761x.935 3.S% SS,75S SID,GG2 AllUtherHousingUnits Unit 6,854 24.35 23.>°b 56,031 Per SF 57,342 Pc•rSF Goods Production KSF 1,000 SF 2,890 7, lG7 G.9% 54.203 54.20 SS.I 17 55.12 Retail/Kestaurant KSF 1,000 SF 1,240 33,274 32.0% 545,477 545.48 555,363 555.36 Other Services KSF LOUO SF 5,110 35,154 33.S% 510,513 510.81 513.163 313.16 TOTAL 103,919 100.0% ' Source: City ojeoulder TMP Action Plan with 2003 costs updated to 2008 dollars. Source: City of Boulder TMP Yision Plan with 2003 costs updated to 2008 dollars. TischlerBise AGENDA i1'E~i PAGE YJ 1 DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ • ~ Residential and nonresidential development in the City of Boulder currently pays a Housing Excise Tax (HET) to help provide permanent affordable housing in the City. As part of the Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study, TischlerBise was asked to calculate an impact fee or excise tax for Affordable Housing. Due to limitations in the State Impact Fee Act and impact fee case law, TischlerBise recommends an excise tax for Affordable Housing. If this Development Excise Tax is approved by the voters, the current HET should be repealed. The City's current adopted goal for provision of permanent affordable housing is 10 percent of the City's housing stock. The breakdown of units by income category is 35 percent of units for very low-income households (<30% of Area Median Income (AMI)); 40 percent for low- income households (30-68% AMI) and 25 percent for moderate income households (69-80°/o AiVII). The City's current inventory of approximately 2,800 permanently affordable units is short by approximately 1,700 units. The City will continue to pursue adding these units to the inventory to meet the current need through a variety of means such as funding, policies and planning, direct services, and asset management.2 ¦ Funding is currently from a variety of grants and loans-approximately $3.5-4.5 million annually-provided to non-profit and for-profit agencies and housing developers. Public investment is used toward acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of permanently affordable rental or for-sale housing. Funding and financing sources include locally-controlled funds such as Affordable Housing Funds (from the General Fund and Cash-in-Lieu); Community Housing Assistance Program (CHAP); property tax dedicated mill levy; Housing Excise Tax; CDBG (federal funds); HOME (federal funds); and Private Activity Bonds (tax-exempt bond allocation that may be used to finance affordable housing). State and Federal funds and financing are available as well. • Policies and Planning: Design, development and implementation of policies that increase affordable housing inventory. Planning efforts focus on identification of future housing needs and mechanisms to address them. Planning staff also implements the city's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which requires that at least 20 percent of new residential development is committed as permanently affordable. Discussion below from, City of Boulder Affordable t lousing Report, February 2008. T~chler~ise .AGENDA ITEM #~~>°1" ,PAGE 7~ DRAFT IMPACT fEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado If the City were to stop growing today, the affordable housing goal would still be pursued through the above means. However, the City will not stop growing and additional units will be required to meet the needs of future development. To meet the City's future affordable housing needs, TischlerBise recommends implementation of a development excise tax for affordable housing, paid only by nonresidential development. Nonresidential development should pay the affordable housing excise tax because employment is the most direct generator of affordable housing needs. The recommended DET component uses aplan- based methodology driven by the City's adopted goal for affordable housing and the average cost to the City to subsidize the provision of affordable units. It should be noted, that impact fees or development excise taxes on new residential development can be waived for affordable units. If the City were to adopt impact fees, the amount waived or foregone would have to be covered through other means (such as from the General Fund) to make each impact fee account whole. This should be addressed in the ordinance that adopts the fee. Without this waiver, the proposed impact fees will add to the cost of an affordable housing unit. Furthermore, the consultant recommends that the existing dedicated property tax for housing and other existing funding sources be used to correct the existing deficiency in LOS and cover housing-related operating costs. With this funding strategy, Boulder will be able to correct the existing deficiency in affordable housing with property tax revenue and other means such as inclusionary zoning, while meeting its future growth-related affordable housing needs through the updated development excise tax. "1'he affordable housing development excise tax formula is illustrated in Figure 44. Nonresidential development will be assessed the tax per square foot of gross floor area. The tax rate is derived by multiplying the affordable housing cost per employee by the number of employees per thousand square feet of development, divided by 1,000. TischlerBtse AGENDA ITEM # _ ,PAGE 7 DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of 8ovlder, Colorado Figure 44. Affordable Housing Development Excise Tax Methodology Chort AFFORDABLE HOi]Sl'NG DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX Nonresidential Development Employees per 1,000 square Multiplied By Net Capital feet of floor area Cost per Job City Share of Affordable Housing Cost per Job Figure 45 summarizes the demand for affordable housing units through 2030. The current employment base of 97,750 jobs is projected to increase to 117,400 jobs by 2030. Residential development is projected to increase by 7,500 units. Assuming the City's current target of 10 percent as permanently affordable, an additional 750 units are needed to accommodate future affordable housing needs brought about by nonresidential development in the City. The 750 units are further broken down by income category, per the City's targets at 3S percent for very low income, 40 percent for low income, and 25 percent for moderate income. The projected net increase of 19,650 jobs is used as the denominator in the I,OS calculation for affordable housing. TischlerB'rse AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE ~ Z- DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of 8ovlder, Coforodo Figure 45. Affordable Housing Qemand Demand Units Base Year 2030 Net 2008 .Projection Increase Jobs in Boulder 97,750 1 17,400 19,650 Housing Units* 45,000 52,500 7,500 10% Permanently Affordable HU Goal 750 %ofAff. Units** 35% Very Low Income Aff. Units (<30% AMn 262 40% Low Income Aff. Units (30-68%AMI) 300 25% Moderate Income Aff. Units (69-80%AMI) 187 TOTAL 7S0 * Current affordable housinggoal is based on 45, 000 total housing units, therefore this is base year figure. City of Boulder adopted targets. Figure 46 provides detail on total subsidy required for each affordable housing unit income category and the City's estimated share of the subsidy. Income levels and affordable prices are from 2008 housing data, provided by City staff. City subsidy estimates were provided by City of Boulder staff based on recent practice. The City share of the subsidy is the basis for the excise tax calculation. However, it should be noted that staff notes that the external sources of subsidy that are used to leverage financing-namely Federal funds, foundation money, donations to non-profits, tax credits, etc.-are not anticipated to increase to meet additional future demand generated by new nonresidential development. If this is the case and the City share increases commensurately, the methodology used to calculate the Affordable Housing excise tax, which is based on current practice, may not fully cover future costs. This should be monitored for potential refinement in future updates. Figure 46. Affordable Housing Costs /Subsidy Requirement Medianlnrome INnderate/ncome Lowlncome Very Lowlncume ojAM/ (range) 100% 69-80% 30-68% G~0% ojAMl (assumption) 75.7% 50.0% 30~ Assumed Income for Household Sic ofTt,ree` $78,300 559,265 539,150 $23,500 Affordable Price of AttachedCnit*t 3220,600 5156,700 $89,078 $36,500 Median Price of Attached Unix` S250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Total Subsidy Required (~tm..,n Prmc m~rwe ntr ~~~t,ic rd $29,400 $93,300 $160,922 $213,500 City Share of Subsidy"' $0 $50,000 $b0,000 570,000 "City of Boulder, 1004 ~/airsing a»dlnronre Dara; sesame 3-person huwehold City of Boulder, 1008 Housing and Income Dara; assumes Attached Unit sss City of Boulder T~schlerBise J~(~ENDIa iTENf #--Cpl--. " , Pk~E 7 DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT IXCISE TAXSTUDY City of $outder, Colorado The City's total share of the cost to provide permanently affordable housing due to new nonresidential development between 2008 and 2030 is estimated to be approximately $45.8 million. The estimated cost was derived from the projected increase in the need for affordable units and the cuxrent estimated City subsidy per unit. Based on the projected increase in employment from 2008 to 2030 of 19,650, the cost per job is $2,328. Detail is provided in Figure 47. Figure 47. Projected Future Affordable Housing Costs Cost of Affordable Dousing City Cost Affordable Tatal per Unit* Units Need** Very Low Income Aff. Units (<30%AM[) $70,000 262 $18,375,000 Low Income Aff. Units (30-68% AMT) $60,000 300 $18,000,000 Moderate income Aff. Units (G9-80% AMI) $50,000 187 $9,375,000 TOTAL $45,750,000 Net Increase in Johs (2008 tnru Buildcwt) 1 L650 Net City Cost perAdditional Job in Boulder 52,328 * See "Subsidy Requirement represents the estimated City share of gap betweat median price rmd affordable pricefor uttuched units Based on net increase in affordable unit needs by income category multiplied by estimated Clay share ofsubsidy required. Level of Service (LOS) standards used in the affordable housing development excise tax formula are summarized in the boxed area of Figure 48. To derive the affordable housing development excise tax per square foot, the City cost per job is multiplied by the number of employees per 1,000 square feet and divided by 1,000. For example for retail establishments, the cost per job of $2,328 is multiplied by 2.86 employees per 1,000 square feet and divided by 1,000 ($2,328 x 2.86 / 1,000 = $6.65 per square foot). The resulting development excise tax amount is between 7 and 13 times the City's current adopted tax rate of $0.48 per square foot of nonresidential development. T~schterBise /~G~~!i~A 6TF1U # , PAG~~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY C7y of Boulder, Colorado Figure 48. Affordable Housing Development Excise Tax Calculation Standards: Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet Goods Production 1.43 ' Retail/Restaurant 2.8G All Other Services 2.17 Level Of Service Affordable Housing City Cost per Job $2,328 Development Excise Tax for Ajfordable Housing Nonresidential Per Square Foot Goods Production $3.32 RetaiVRestaurant $6.65 All Other Services $5.05 Tischler8'rse AGENDA, ITEM PAGE? DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Cotorodo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . All costs in the development excise tax calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. Necessary cast adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual evaluation and update of the tax amounts. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs by means of an index specific to construction as opposed to the consumer price index (CPI), which is more general in nature. TischlerBise recommends using the Marshall Swift Valuation Service, which provides comparative cost multipliers for various geographies and types of construction. 'The multipliers can be applied against the calculated excise tax amounts. If cost estimates change significantly the City should redo the calculations. It is recommended that the excise taxes be collected at the time of building permit and be assessed on a per square foot basis. Revenue from excise taxes does not typically have to be earmarked or accounted for separately from the City's general revenue and does not have to specifically benefit new growth. TischlerBise n AGENDA ITEM # ~~-9~ ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Cobrodo APPENDIX Tischlerf3ise AGE~lDA 17EM # , PAGE ~ 7 DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Ciy of Boulder, Colorado In this Appendix, TischlerBise documents the demographic data and development projections used in the Impact Fee /Development Excise Tax study for the City of Boulder. Although long-range projections are necessary for planning capital improvements, a shorter time frame of five years is critical for the impact fees analysis. Infrastructure standards are calibrated using 2008 data and the first projection year for the cash flow model will be 2009. The City of Boulder's fiscal year begins January 1st. POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 'I'ischlerBise recommends the use of two residential categories in the impact fee calculations: 1) Single Family (detached and attached) and 2) All Other housing types. Differentiating impact fees by type of housing helps make the fees proportionate to the demand for public facilities. Single Family housing units are normally Larger and have more persons than All Other housing types. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey data for 2006, Single Family housing in Boulder averages 2.3 persons per unit (see the rows with yellow shading in Figure Al). All Other housing averages 1.6 persons per unit (see the rows with tan shading in the table below). Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per household to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. When persons per housing unit multipliers are used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year- round population. When persons per household multipliers are used in the fee calculations, the impact fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. In the City of Boulder impact fee will be derived using year-round population and the average number of persons per housing unit. Figure Al . Persons per Housing Unit House Type Demogrtrphres Nnus•inb Persons Per Persons Ilsehlds PPH Units Housing Unil Hsa Mix Single Family (SFD, SFA & ~ 54,948 21,'776 2.52 23,678 2.3 57% All Other Types 28,671 16,097 1.78 17,651 1.6 43% Group Quarters 8,855 Total 92,474 37,873 41,329 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Conzmurrity Survey. Tischler8ise AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE DRAF-IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Co7orodo AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS BY SIZE OF HOUSING UNIT To derive impact fees by floor area of housing requires a linkage of demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau and house size data from the Boulder County Assessor, with number of bedrooms as the common connection between the two databases. Number of persons by bedroom range may be determined from survey data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. The City of Boulder is in Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 00803. PUMAS are areas of roughly 100,000 persons for which the Census Bureau makes available a 5% sample of responses to the long-form census questionnaire. TischlerBise used this data to prepare persons per housing unit multipliers that vary by type of housing and number of bedrooms. Because the number of persons increases with the number of bedrooms, this approach may ' be used to make impact fees more "progressive" with higher impact fees imposed on larger housing units and lower impact fees on srnalIer, more affordable housing. The tables below indicate persons per housing unit by type of housing and number of bedrooms. Results for Single Family housing are shown in Figure A2, with Figure A3 indicating average persons by bedroom range for All Other housing types. To minimize sample size problems, TischlerBise aggregated bedroom ranges. Figure A2. Persons per Single Family Housing Unit by Bedroom Range Single Family Dwellings Boulder, Colorado 0-2 Bdrms 3 Bdrrns 4 Bdrmr 5+ Bdrms YYt Av Single Family 1.63 2.15 2.73 2.95 2.32 Source: Data for Colorado PUMf1 00803 (includes SFD, SFA and NIH) 2006 American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample. Figure A3. Average Persons by Bedroom Range for All Other Housing Types AIl Other Dwellings Boulder, Colorado 0-1 Bdrm 2 Bdrnas 3+Bdrms Wt Av 2+ Units per Structure 1.20 1.79 2.46 1.62 Sow•ce: Uata,for Colorado PUMA 00803 (all other housing types) 2006 American Community Survey, Public Use Microduta Sample. TrschferBise - .~iCENC3A iTENi ,PACE 7`~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorodo Using key variables from the County Assessor's parcel database, TischlerBise determined the average finished floor area by type of housing and bedroom range. For Single Family housing, average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a Logarithmic trend line derived from. the four actual averages in the City of Boulder. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, TischlerBise derived the estimated average number of persons by size of Single Family housing, using 100 square feet intervals. For the purpose of impact fees in City of Boulder if the City wishes to assess fees by size of unit, TischlerBise recommends a minimum fee based on a Single Family unit size of 1,200 square feet and a maximum fee based on a Single Family unit size of 3,700 square feet of finished floor area. Figure A4. Average Persons by Floor Area of Single Family Housing Single Family Averages Source: Persons by bedroom range from f3edroorr~s S ware 1<<>et Persons S uare Feet Persons 2006 ACS PUMS. Finished square feet 2 or less 1.428 1.63 1,200 L43 from Boulder County Assessor parcel 3 bedrooms 1,903 2.15 1,300 1.55 database. 4 bedrooms 2.724 2.73 1.400 1.66 5 or morc 3,552 2.95 1,500 1.76 1,600 1.85 Persons per Single Family Housing Unit 1 °700 1.94 City of Boulder 1,800 2.03 1.900 2.11 3.50 - - 2,000 2.1.8 3.00 - 2,100 2.25 2,200 2.32 2.50 _ 2,300 2.39 2,400 2.45 ~ 2.00 - 2,500 2.51 0 1.50 2,600 2.57 y = l .4742Ln(x) - 9.0235 2,700 2.62 1.00 z 2.800 2.68 R = 0.9816 2900 2.73 0.50 - - - 3,000 2.78 0.00 3, l 00 2.83 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 3°200 2.87 3,300 2.92 Square Peet ~ 3,400 2.96 - 3,500 3.01 3,600 3.05 3,700 3.09 Tischler8ise ~~~~~A ~ , ~~c~ ~C DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY City of Boulder, Colorado For AlI Other housing types, the average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A5. A logarithmic trend line was determined from the three actual averages in the City of Boulder. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, TischlerBise derived the estimated average number of persons by unit size, using 100 square feet intervals. For All Other housing types, TischlerBise recommends a minimum fee based on a wait size of b00 square feet and a maximum fee based on a unit size of 1,b00 square feet of finished floor area, if the City wishes to assess fees by size of unit. Figure A5. Average Persons by Floor Area of Attached Housing Averages for Attached Dwellings Source: Persons by bedroom rarzgeJrom Bedroom.+- S uare Feet Persons Scare Feet Persolrs ' 2006 ACS PUM,S. Finished square feet 1 or less 656 1.20 600 1.06 fro~[t Boulder County Assessor pureed 2 bedrooms 1,017 1.79 700 1.28 datafiase• 3 or more 1,570 2.46 800 1.47 900 1, 64 Persons per Attached Housing tinit I,0o0 1.79 Citv of Boulder 1,100 1.93 1.200 2.06 3.50 - - - - - 1,300 2.17 1,400 2.28 3.00 - - - - 1,500 2.38 2.50 - - - 1,600 2.47 0 2.00 ~ y = 1.443 7Ln(x) - 8. ] 783 a, 1.50 RZ 0.9984 1.00 - - - - - O.SO - - - - 0.00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Square Feet TischlerBise f AGEfVOA i'TF1t~ .PAGE c'1 I DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXSTUDY City of Boulder, Colorado RECENT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Figure A6 indicates City of Boulder 2006 estimates for year-round residents and housing units. From 2000 to 2006, Boulder added an average of 308 housing units per year. The chart at the bottom of Figure A6 indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade in City of Boulder. If the recent rate of housing construction continues, the first decade of the 21st century will experience an increase of approximately 3,000 housing units, which is less than the number of housing units added during the 90s. Figure A6. City of Boulder Housing Units and Population in 2006 Boulder, Colorado Estimated Population in 2006* 101,918 From 2000 to 2006, Housing Units 2000* 42,740 Bouldex added New Housing Units 2000-2006 J4~S approximately 308 Housing Units in 2006* 44,588 housing units per year. * Ctty Of BOU1deY estimates. Housing Units Added by Decade $oulder, Colorado 12,000 - 0,000 _ - - 8>000 - - - - - 6,000 - - 4,000 - - - - - 2,000 - 0 before1950 1950s 1960s 1470s 1980s 1990s Source: Units by decade based on Table H34, SF3 Census 2000, U. S. Census Bureau. TischferBise AGENDf~ iYEM #~k , PAGE ~ 1 DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMEM EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulde , Colomdo POPULATION PROJECTIONS The impact fee study will use population and job projections as the key growth indicators, from which housing unit and nonresidential floor area data will be derived. According to the City's 2008 Community Data Report, Boulder will be home to 118,500 residents by the year 2030 (Area I only). In that same year, Boulder County is expected to have a population of 417,517 (Woods & Poole Economics 2007). As shown in Figure A7, Boulder's population share is expected to decrease from 33% of total county population in 2006, to 28% by the year 2030. Figure A7. Population Growth in Boulder 7990 2000 2006 2008 2013 2030 Boulder County 226,374 293,878 308,I10 317,358 338,739 417,517 City of Boulder 83,312 99,093 101,918 103,100 106,414 118,500 Remainder of County 143,062 194,785 20b,192 214,258 232,325 299,017 City of Boulder Share 37% 34% 33% 32% 31 % 28% Source: Boulder County from Woods & Poole Economics (201)7). City of Boulder 1990 from U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 and 2006 estimates from City oJBoulder. City of Boulder 2008 and 2030 (,4rea 1) from 2008 Community Data Report. Population Growth in Boulder, Colorado 450,000 400,000 350,000 - 300,000 - - - - ~ - - 250,000 ~ 200,000 - ~ - 150,000 ~ - 100,000 - ~ - _ - - - 50,000 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 - ? - City of Boulder ~ Remainder of County -f-Boulder County T~schlerB~se ~~~N~s~ , I?~~~ R DRP,FT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY Cify of Boulder, Colorado .LOBS BY PLACE OF WORK In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development. TischlerI3ise uses the term "jobs" to refer to employment by place of work. Similar to the above population share discussion, Boulder s capture ratio of countywide jobs is shown in Figure A8. Boulder County job data were obtained from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2007). Estimated jobs within the City of Boulder, in both 1990 and 2000, are from the Census Transportation PIanning Package. Job projections from the 2008 Community Data Report indicate Boulder's capture ratio decreases from 39% of countywide jobs in 200b to 30% by the year 2030. Figure A8. Job Growth in Boulder 1990 2000 2006 2008 2013 2030 Boulder County 1.61.089 239,740 251.526 26G.722 297.100 397,456 City of Boulder 73,650 90,255 96,968 97,750 101,905 117,400 Remainder of County 87,=139 [49,485 154,558 166,972 195,195 280,056 City of Boulder Share 4G% 38% 39% 37% 34% 30% Source: Boulder County from Woods & Pvole Economics (2007) bared on Bureau of Economic Analysis data. City of Boulder 1990 and 2000 from Census Transportation Planning Package. Ciry of Boulder estimate for 2006. City of Boulder 2008 and 2030 (flrea 1) from 2008 Community Uata Report. Job Growth in Boulder, Colorado) 450,000 - 400,000 350,000 - - - - , 300,000 i 250,000 200,000 - 150,000 - - 00,000 _ ~ ~ ~ - - ? ? - 50,000 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 ? - City of Boulder Remainder of County -~-Boulder County Tischler~ise NGENC~H ITEM # I. . ,PAGE DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado NONRESIDENTIAL DEMAND INDICATORS In the impact fee study, vehicle trips or employees per demand unit are used to differentiate fees by type of nonresidential development. In Figure A9, gray shading indicates the three nonresidential development prototypes used by TischlerBise to calculate vehicle trips and estimate potential impact fee revenue. The first prototype, for goods-producing jobs, is a warehouse. Instead of 784 square feet per employee, TischlerBise used 700 to more closely match Boulder's actual floor area determined by the County Assessor's parcel database. The second prototype, for retail and restaurant jobs, is a shopping center with 50,000 square feet of floor area. The third prototype, for Other Services, is a Business Park. Instead of 317 square feet per employee, TischlerBise used 460 to more closely match Boulder's actual floor area (determined from the County Assessor's parcel database). Figure A9. Employee and Building Area Ratios ITE /-and Use /Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per ,Sq Ft Code (Init PerDmdUnit* PerEmployee* DmdUnit** PerF_mp C'omn+ercia!/Shnppin,{ Center 821 25K rossicasahle area 1,000 S Ft 110.32 na 3.33 300 820 SOK rocs Ir+sablc area 1,000 S Ft 86.56 na 2.86 350 820 100K ~rosx kasablc area I,DUO S Ft 67.91 na 2.50 4(IU 82(1 200K erosslea,abie;rca 1,000 S Ft 53.28 nn 2 ?2 45U 82U 400K };n+s; lea;aUlc area 1,000 Sc Ft 41.80 na 2A0 SUO General O[jrce 710 IUK dross (loot:+rea 1.000 S~ Ft 22.66 5.06 4.48 223 71U 25Kgrossfloorarea 1,000Sc Ft 18.35 4.43 4.15 241 710 SOK rosy floor area 1,000 S~ Ft 15.65 4.00 3.91 256 710 100K rosy floor area 1,000 Sc Ft 13.34 3.61 3.h9 271 7 lU 200K rocs floor area 1,000 S Pt 11.37 3?6 3.49 287 Industrial 770 Business Park*** 1,000 S Ft 12.76 4.04 3.16 317 15: Mini-Warehouse 1,000 S ht 2.50 50.28 0.04 22,512 150 Warehousln 1,000 S Ft 4.96 3.89 1.28 784 140 Manufacturin 1,000 S Ft 3.82 2 :3 1.79 558 110 Lieht Industrial 1,000 S Ft 6.97 3 U2 2.31 433 Uther tVonresidential 72U Medical-Denta] Office 1,000 5 Ft 36.13 8.91 4.US 247 62U i9ursin Home bed 237 6.55 0.36 na 610 Hos ita] 1,000 S Ft 17.57 5.20 3.38 296 565 Dav Care student 4.48 28.13 0.;6 ua 53U Secondarv School student 1.71 19.74 U.09 na 520 F.lementa Schoo] student 1.29 15.71 0.08 na 520 F.lementa School 1,000 S Ft 14.49 15.71 0.92 1,084 320 Lod in room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na * Source: Trin Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2003). Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates, except for Shopping Center data, which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and CenLS of Shoonins? Centers, published by the Urban Land Institute. According to CCE, a Business Park is a group of flex-type buildings served by a common roadway system. The tenant space includes a variety of uses with an average mix of 20-30% office/commercial and 70-80% industrial/warehousing. TischlerBise ^n ~ - AGENDA fTEM , PA~~ ~ ~ DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY C+y of 8outder, Colo~odo DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Key demographic data for the City of Boulder impact fee study are shown in Figure A10. Cumulative data are shown in the top section and annual increases at the bottom of the table. City of Boulder data shown with light green shading are from the 2008 Community Data Report. Because of the recent downturn in development activity, TischlerBise used an exponential curve formula to derive interim year data between the 2008 and 2030 "end- points." This method minimizes annual increases in the short run. job allocation by nonresidential prototype is based on the most recent Labor Shed Area Profile Report from the U.S. Census Bureau's website called Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics. Figure A10. Countywide Demographic Doto Base Year ® 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2030 Cumulative FY 08-09 1 2 3 4 S 22 Year-Round Population 99,093 101,918 103,100 103,754 104,413 105,076 J05,743 lOb,414 118,50(1 Jobs 90,255 96,968 97,750 98,567 99,391 100,222 101,060 101,905 117,400 Housing Units 42,740 44,588 44,885 45,206 45,529 45,854 46,182 46,512 52,500 Single Family Hsg Units 23,080 25,415 25,445 25,477 25,509 25,542 25,575 25,608 26,206 All Other Hsg Units 19,660 19,173 19,440 19,729 20,020 20,313 20,608 20,905 26,294 lobs to Housing Ratio 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.24 Persons per Hsg Unit 2.30 2.30 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.26 Job Allocation by Tune of Development Goods Producing Share 21% 2]% 21% 21% 21% 21% 2]% 21% Retail/Restaurant Share 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% Other Services Share 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% Nonres Sp Ft (x 1,000) Goods Producing 14,370 ]4,490 14,610 14,730 14,860 14,980 17,260 Retail/Rcstaurant 6,160 6,210 6,260 6,310 6,370 6,420 7,400 Other Services 27,430 27,660 27,890 28,]20 28,360 28,590 32,94(1 Total 47,960 48,3(10 48,760 49,160 49,590 49,990 57,600 Av S Ft Per Job 491 491 491 491 491 491 491 2008 to 2030 Annual Increase Increase Year-Round Population 654 659 663 667 67 ] 676 15,400 Jobs 817 824 831 838 845 852 19,650 Housing Units 321 323 325 328 330 332 7,615 Goods Producing KSF* 120 120 120 130 120 130 2,890 Retail/Restaurant KSF* 50 50 50 60 50 50 ],240 Other Services KSF* 230 230 230 240 230 240 5,510 * KSF• -square feet of floor area in thousands. Cumulative KSF Increase 9,640 Avg Anl KSF Increase 438 TischlerBise DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado Key land use assumptions for City of Boulder are summarized in Figure A11. Residential growth rates range from 0.1°/a annually for Single Family housing to 1.5°/a per year for All Other housing types. Nonresidential growth rates average 0.8% per year. Over the next five years, housing unit construction is projected to average 326 units per year. Figure A11. Summary of Land Use Assumptions Boulder, Colorado 2008 to 2013 2008 2013 2030 Avera e .gn~iual FY08-09 FYi3-14 FY30-31 Increase Growth Rate Single Family Housing Units 25,445 25,608 26,206 33 0. I All Other Housing Units 19,440 20,905 26,294 243 1.5% Goods Production Sq Ft x 1000 14,370 14,980 17,260 122 0.8`% RetaiURestaurant Sq Ft x 1040 6,160 6,420 7,400 52 0.8% Other Services Sq Ft x 1000 27,430 28,590 32,940 232 0.8% City of Boulder Growth Indicators 35,000 ~ ~ 30,000 ~ ~ - tSingleFamily o ~ o- Housing Units 25,000 ¦ All Other Housing Units 20,000 - ~ ~ Goods Production Sq 15,000 ~ ~ ~ ~ Ft x 1000 tr ~ 'x -Retail/Restaurant Sq 10,000 Ft x 1000 x~ - -X- - ~ ~ X a 'Other Services Sq Ft x 5,000 1000 0- 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 TischlerB~se ~ 7 AGENdA11E~1#=>PAGE DRAF1 IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY City of Boulder, Colorado For comparison purposes, the City's current adopted schedule of Development Excise Tax amounts are shown below in Figure A12. Only those categories being considered in this study are shown. Figure A12. City of Boulder Current Development Excise Tax Schedule CURRENT DEVELOPMENT EXC/Sfi TAXES Human Municlpa! !lousing" library Parks Rerrealion Services Faelli+ies Pallet F'frc .SUBTOTAL' Transpor+a+ion Grise Tar Per Nousin G'nu DetachedResidrntinl 540328 51,853.05 5463.28 573.92 5269.16 5258.IG 5215-03 53.53618 51.043.31 5495.00 ghachtxlRcsidantinl S26R.71 51,235.99 530901 SSU.10 5;79.25 5171.93 5143.47 52.353.46 5:,23354 5202.50 Ptr wort Foor AI14onraidrntial na ns nn 50092 50.222 50186 50.166 SO.G9 51.794 50.48 •Svbm+af shown for componson purposes wd+h impocl feu calculated heiea The Ho wring Excise Tax is assessed o+ E0.11S per rgvorc foot for rrsidenlia/ dtvelopmen+ (and 5.48 prr square fool jar nonresidnetial development). To jaciba+e comparison to o+her ucin taco. +he mble indicnes the tax jar v 1,100 square jest single jomily house and 0900 square feu mvllijamily unlr Aaording to City records, these ore the outrage sizesjor units. TischlerBise AGENDA ~TFM # ITT ,PAGE Attachment B 2008 Development Related Fee and Tax Comparison with Other Front Range Colorado Communities (Commercial Scenario) Boultlf? 8roomMld FLCo11Ns late Etta Lan moat Loulav0la LowWnd YifslmuuHr Pion Cnedc Fae 511,235 (8,709 54,409 57.872 58,689 57,004 57,537 55,853 Sales and flee Taxes 553.590 551,778 550,158 565,734 151,808 553.128 350.158 550,818 Dev t Excise Tax 534.300 rYf rNa rVe 517.500 58.350 rVa Na Transportation Exdse Tax 589,700 Na Na Na 533.387 544,800 Na tl/f HOWi ExdaeTax 52a.000 Na Na Na Na Na n/a Na Edualion Exdse Tax Na Na Na Na Na nla Na Na EfocVic Community Investmem Fea me Ne n/a Na 517,824 Na Na n/a Shod Dislnd Im t Fear Na nh Na n/a Na Na Na Na Service~arulon Fear n/a n!a Ne 56.000 Na Na Na n/e Capital nslon Fees n/a nla 514,300 Na Na Na $19.800 n/a Stroet Oversizi C I E ansion Fees Na n/e 5150,520 n/a Na Na 5124,750 n/a Pertdend Fees/Parka Development Fees Na n/a n/a 515,000 Na Na Na Na Publlo Arts Fee Na n/a Na 31,250 Na Ne Na n/e Land Dedication Fees n/a n1a Na $12,000 Na Ne Na Nf Water Plant Investment Fees 528.885 5113,548 527,360 513.026 533.300 540,630 531.072 554.879 Wastewater Planl ImesUne+tt Fees $4,242 535.281 516.358 58,851 37,300 520.315 514.240 518,339 Stortnwater/Flood Plant Investment Fees 575,200 Na 58.118 510,000 58,501 Na $11,490 N8 Water Rights Fae Na n/a 525.350 556,124 592.888 522,850 541.200 519.482 Permits, T s, I ions and Meter Fees 53.973 51.645 52.898 5370 5437 Na 51.852 5708 Total 5341,618 5227,360 I 5308,(:48 ~ 5208,309 5284,951 5212,161 $314,939 5156,885 Bui'd ng Perme Fees'nc:.de SornR e~sL`•e protection) 4" Bu~ld~ng Permns YJater 1" (40gpm) Electrtcsl Permrl Sewer 4" i otai Valuation (sq R costs) 2,639,900 Mechanical Permit Irrigation 3la• (t Oppm) Electncal 30,000 Plumbiny Permit Flood (impervious surtaoe) 80,000 sq R Mechanical 45,000 Energy Check P~umbirg 12.000 Aroa (square feet) lot 100,000 Building 50,000 Industrial 35,000 oMice 15,000 Perk'n9 30,000 Lands ping 20,000 ROW landscaping 2,400 Mai 5, 2008 AGENDA ITE~A ,PAGE •v`% 2008 Development Related Fee and Tax Comparison Attachment B with Other Front Range Colorado Communities (Single Family Scenario) Boulder 8roomtietd fLColllns Lata e1;to Lon mont Louisville LovOfand Wastminctor Bui~d;na Permi Fens $4r % - 43. J,.,. c1 941 ?v,7""<.5 54 :?~.?A' _`'2__ Plan Check Fee $962 $2,083 $935 $2,108 ~ $1,865 $2,108 $2,108 $1.750 Sales and Use Taxes $10,180 $10.x06 $9,528 $12.487 S10,a20 $1,630 $9,528 $9,653 Devebpmant Excise lax $3,536 Na Na rile $963 $4.902 Na Na Transportation Excise Tax $2.043 Na Na Na $802 $1,753 Na Na Housing Excise lax $1,013 Na Na Na rile Na Na Na Educatron Excise Tax $5,310 Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Electric Community Investment Fee Na Na Na Na $462 Na $1.300 Na Srlwol District Impact fees rile Na $1,800 Na Na Na 51.382 Na Sorvroe F~rpansion Fees Na $4,500 Na $925 Na n!a Na Na Capital Expansion Fees Na Na $3,547 Na Na Na $6.361 Na Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fees Na Na I $2,792 Na Na Na $2,045 Na Parkland FeeslParks Development Fees nra Na 51.969 $1,250 Na Na $3,032 S1.654 Public Arts fee Na Na Na $25 Na naf Na Na Land Dedication fees Na Na Na $1,680 Na Na n!a $876 Water Plant Investment Fees $11,995 $22,x54 $3,250 $9,360 $7,200 $22,850 $4,300 $12.513 Wastewater Plant Investment Fees $2.290 58,427 $3.194 $6,360 $3.000 $3,221 $2,480 $3,631 Stormwater/Flood Plant Investment Fses $3,760 Na $406 $700 $709 Na $575 Na Water Rights Fee Ma Na $4,653 $16,623 $6,502 Na $5.022 $6,812 Permits, Taps, Inspections and Meter Fees 51.413 $641 $351 $330 $187 Na 5694 5299 Total 547,229 $51,716 $34,366 $55,211 $35,860 $41,004 $42,554 $39,680 Building Permi; Fees Include: Sprinklers (nre protection) 4" Building Perm Rs Water 314" (24gpm) Units 1 Electrical Pormit Sewer q" Total Valuation (sq ft costs) 501,480 Mechanical Permit Flood (impervious surface) 4,000 sq ft Eledricai 4,500 Plumbing Pormit Mechanical 12,000 Energy Check Plumbing 13,000 Area (square feet) Lol 7,000 Building 4,500 Landscaping 3,000 May 5, 2008 AGENDA 4TEM , PAGE_ C~ 2008 Development Related Fee and Tax Comparison Attachment B with Other Front Range Colorado Communities (Mufti-Family Scenario) Boulder ~ Broomflold FLColllns I Lafa efts I Lon moot Loulavllle ~ Lovoland I Wastminnter dwidiny Pcrnul t7•e, ?~12 T'. 3.,,57 56.599 ~ 5i :.',C $'d i~~F qy c.yG ~o '.r1 '!an Chede Fee $5,296 54.720 52,309 $4,471 53,955 54,324 $4.471 53,628 labs and Usa Taxes $27,355 527,961 325.603 533,553 526,445 54,379 525,603 525,940 eve ant Excse Tax 514,151 Na Na Na 55,898 517.208 Na Na fransponaaon Excise Tax S7 401 Na Na ~ Na 52.393 56.556 Na Na sous Exerse Tax 53,483 Na Na Na Na Na Na Na duration Excse Tex 518.264 nh Na Na Na Na Na Na k~ctnc Common' InvestmarH fee Na Na Na Na 51,820 Na 57,800 Na School Dbtlict Im Fees Na Na 55.400 Na Na Na $5.676 Na Service E ion Fees Na 515.478 Na 53,900 Na Na Na Na capital Expansion Fees Na Na $21,282 Na Na n1a 538.166 Na Street Oversizin Capnel Ex erasion Fees Na Na $10,410 Na Na Na 58.616 Na parkland Fees/Parks Deveb ant Fees Na Na $17,814 51.250 Na Na 518.192 58,064 ~ub4c Arts Fee Na n/a Ne 525 Na Ne Na Na _and Dedx:ation Fees Na Na Na $6,762 Na Na Na 52,808 JVater Plant Investment Fees $67,950 553,890 $17,337 535.100 $33,100 $114,090 526,860 560,188 Wastewater PlantlnveatmentFees $12,996 550.562 $12,414 323,380 56,140 519,326 513,740 $23.650 StormwalerlFlood Plant Irrvestment Fees 517,788 Na 51.920 $2.818 $2.191 Na $2,072 Ma WaterR lsFee Na Na 523,165 549,869 526,171 _ Na 529,235 520.436 _ _ ?ermrts, Taps. I sand Meter Fees 54.048 31.706 81.538 ~ 5585 SB04 Na 52.611 52,928 i Total 5191,002 5161,579 5137,989 I 5166.912 5118,627 5177,250 ~ 5192,741 5153,223 _OO Bu. dviy Permd t ees Inc'udo Sprinklers (ere pro:eUien) 4" Budding Permits Water 1 S" (54gpm) Units 5 Etactrtpl Permit Sewer 4" (54 gpm) iolal Valustwn (sq R costs) 1,347,515 Mechan~cai Permit Irrigation 3/4" (8gpm) Electrical 120,000 Plumtivtg Permit Food (impervious surface) 18,923 aq ft Mechenlcal 77,000 Energy Check Piumbin9 134,000 Area (square feeq Lot 28,175 8ui!dxtg 15,476 Parking 0 Landscaping 9,252 May 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM PAGE