6A - Information Item: Impact Fee/Development Excise Tax Study Update City of Boulder Ylantling lle~~at~tt~zent
'TO: Planning Board Members
FROIt'I: Ruth Mcfleyser, Acting Planning Director
Susan Kichstone, Long Range Planning Manager
DA'TL: August 1, 200
SUI3JECI': Information Item: Impact Fee/ Development Excise Tax Study Update
Attached please find a copy of the City Council memo and the Impact Fee/ Development Excise Tax
Study. At its Jul}~ 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 in~ipact fee
methodology (tire, police, human services, parks and recreation, mwlicipa) 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
ISSUCS.
• Explore how a combination of excise taxes and impact fees night work together.
• With the consultant's help, identify data deeds 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 tl~e study results.
• Provide a more in-depth look at the development-related infrastructure and facilities
requirements in other jurisdictions.
Cun-ently, a City Council Study Session is being considered for this fall that would integrate a
discussion of impact fees/ DETs into the discussion of }?roposed changes to Plant Investment Fees
(PIFs).
CI'T'Y OF 13(~)ULD1~:R
Cl"I'Y COUNCIL, ACTF,NDA I'f1~:M
M}':E`l'ING DATh:: July 22, 2008
A(;ENDA TI"f 1., 1?: Consideration of a motion providing direction on how to fellow up on the
Impact Fec/ Dcvelopment Excise Tax Study, including whether to place an increase in the
Development Excise Tax and I lousing Excise Tax on the November 2008 ballot.
IZI?QUES'I'ING DEPARTMENT:
Stephanie Grainger, Interim City Manager
David Gelu-, Deputy City Attorney
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
~l'he pu~-hose of this item is City Council direction on the Impact Ice/ Development Excise Tax
Study (Attachment A); spccifiically whether council would like to place an increase in the
Developmc~Zt I?xcise Tax (DF.'f) and Housing Excise 7'ax (I IE:T) on the ballot this November.
At its March 18 meeting, City Cowlcil reduested that staff move forward with the consulting
firm of'I'ischlerBisc to prepare an updated Dcvelopment Excise Tax study, with the goal of
having a report in time to provide the opportunity Ior a potential 200$ ballot item. On May 20,
City Council supported the staff recommendation that the city move forward with a study that
includes the components cun-cntly included in the city's development and housing excise taxes
(afiorclable housing, fire, human services, libraries, municipal facilities, parks, police;, recreation,
transportation) and the establishment of a Liaison comrnitte~.
E3ecause of the compressed timetable, the dralt study was just completed on July 18 and
therefore, staff has only been able to perfo~7n a cursory review and has not been able to analyze
the study resuIts for this memo. Staff is providing the best information available at this time to
assist council. The initial direction to 'I'ischlerl3ise was to prepare the study using an impact fee
n~cthodology where appropriate, in order to provide council with the option of implementing
impact fees instead of DF?Ts. The difference between an impact fee and a devcloprnent excise tax
is described in the analysis section of the memo. Tischlerl3ise 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 recent visit on July 8 and 9 to rnect with staff and review its initial
analysis anii resulis. "I'ischlcrBisc re~c~~nu~icndcd fh<,t it prch,irc 11ic rcpc~rt u~in~~ impact iec
nc,i~,~nn ti~t~,n~ ~t sA r;~~~~ i
methodologies for parks, recreation, library, police, fire, municipal services and human services
and that the affordable housing and iranspoF-tation components use an excise tax approach. This
reconrrnendation 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.
On July 22, council's options include:
l . Not submitting a ballot measure ou development excise taxes to the voters this fall.
2. Submitting a ballot measure to the voters ai the November election that would increase
the cap on the cun•ent development and housing excise taxes, allowing annual increases
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or an alternate cost index.
3. Submitting a ballot measure to the voters at the November election that would phase in
increased development and housing excise taxes over time to better reflect the capital
costs of new growth as shown in the updated study.
4. Changing the approach froze a taxed based system to a combination of both a
development excise tax and an impact fee approach. This could include taking eer-tain
categories out ol~ the cievclop~nent excise tax, such as parks and recreation, and using azr
impact fee approach for such categories.
Staff did not include an option to submit a ballot measw-e this fail to increase the development
and housing excise taxes by the full amount in the updated study because we do not believe it is
a feasible option. Certain components of the study show large increases in comparison to our
current excise tax, and staff does not believe there is sufficient time to provide for adequate
community discussion before the election. An increase in excise taxes will need to be considered
both in relationship to other tax issues that may be on the November ballot as well as increases in
other development-related fees currently being considered. Staff will continue with its review of
the study and will provide council with more of its thinking on these options as part of its
presentation on July 22nd.
If council directs staff to move forward with a ballot issue this November, staff will return with
first reading of a proposed ordinance at the August 5 City Council meeting and second reading
on August 19.
STAFI< RF.COMMENDATI()N:
As anticipated, staff and the public have not had time to fully vet the study, as if was just
received on July 18. Although the study indicates that increases in the existing DET and HET
would be justifiable based on the; anticipated impacts of new growth, it is unclear at this time
what the appropriate amount of increase would be given other potential fee increases under
consideration and other ballot items that council is also considering at this time. Therefore, staff
recommends that the most feasible options for moving forward are 1, 2, or 4 above (1) no
ballot measure; (2) a ballot measure to increase the DET cap; or (4) changing from DE;'I's only to
a mix of DETs and impact fees.
AGENDA ITEM # SA Page 2
CO'~'11\'Ii1~i'I,Y SLS"I~AINAYILI"I'Y ASS}~;SSI~IEN'I'S AND IVIF'ACTS:
• Economic: Any increase in development-related taxes and or fees will increase the
overall cost of Dousing and non-residential development. Impact fees and development
excise taxes directly fund the facilities to serve new development and therefore also
directly benefit the residents and employees of new development and redevelopment.
Alternatively, i f current fees and excise taxes are not adequate, existing residents pay for
these facilities through either declining levels of services or by bearing the capital costs.
• F;nvironmental: Inadequate funding of the capital facilities to serve new growth may
result in overuse of existing facilities, leading to negative impacts to existing land
resources such as parks as well as potential traffic impacts if residents need to drive
further for facilities or the transportation infi•astruct:ure is not adequate.
• Social: Impact fees and/or- development excise taxes ensure that new growth pays the
costs of'the facilities needed to adequately serve new development including affordable
housing, parks, and city human service facility needs, and conversely, that existing
residents do not bear the impacts of new development through decreasing service levels
at existing facilities. The prune beneficiaries will be future residents of affordable
housing as well as all future city residents who will benefit from the provision of
adequate public parks, libraries, senior centers, and other needed municipal facilities.
O"T[II~~R I~-iPACTS:
• I~ fiscal: "1'he cost of the study was `i; I37,300. 'rhe. departments that would benefit from the
study are sharing in the costs to fund the study, and the relevant excise tax funds cats be
used to fund the study. Increases in excise taxes or impact fees will increase the city's
ability to fi.rnd needed capital improveruents in the city.
• Staff tune: The Planning Department is providing project management and each of the
affected departments are }n•oviding support to the consultant's work. This is included in
2008 work programs.
ANALYSIS:
1. 13acl:grciund
Policy 3.05 Growth to Yay Farr Share ofNew I~~cility Costs of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan states that Growth will be expected to pay its own way, with
tide 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 iansportation 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. " flte city's current excise taxes are cl~rarged on new residential and
non-residential development and non-residential additions in the city. 'T'he city has three
types of excise taxes:
AGENDA 1'I'EM # SA Pate 3
• 1'hc Uevelopment Excise Tax (DID"1') funds [uturc capital improvements
• "1'he Housing Excise Tax (I 1I=.T) -funds a#fordable housing
• ~'he Education 1?xcise `fax (LET) -funds public educational facilities and
services
2. Current >;xclse Tax Rates
Each year, the D1?T 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 UET and I IET, and 13ozilder voters approved the increase and set a maximum
amount on these taxes in November 1998. The current rates reflect the rates approved in
999 with a~~nual adjustments based on the Consumer Price lndex (CPI).
"The city is currently at or very close to the maxiznuzn amount that can be charged for the
DE'T and HET without going back to the voters (see chant below). The first two
categories in the Development Excise "Tax are within less than one percent of reaching
the maximum amount, the third categozy reached the maximum in 2008, and the last two
categories (I lousing Excise "1'ax) are projected to reach the maximum in 2009 and ?010
respectively.
Development Excise Tax (BRC 3-$)
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
non-residential development $2.48 per sq. ft. $2.48 per sq. ft. At limit
Housing Excise Tax (BRC 3-9)
Type of Development 2008 Rate Maximum Percent
Approved Remaining
New and annexing dwelling unit $0.225 per sq. ft. $0.23 per sq. ft. 2.22%
New, annexing and expanded $0.48 per sq. ft. $0.51 per sq. ft. 6.25%
non-residential development
In addition, the city charges an Education Excise Tax on new residential development.
"fhe cuzYent rate is $ I . l 8 per square foot of residential development, uh to a cap of 6,000
square feet. Since first implemented in 1995, the 1?E"f rate has been increased each year
by the CPL There is no legal restriction precluding council, however, from limiting its
increases to the C;PI; nor is council limited from having the rate apply only to tl~~e first
6,000 square feet of residential development. Council has the authorization froze the
voters to increase the amount per square foot up to a maximum of $3.43 per square foot
AGI?NDA I1'LA't # SA Page 4
(currently at Sl .15isquare loot). VV}?ile legally available Cvr any general fund purpose,
the voters that approved the EET 11ad an expectation tlzai the revenue would be used for
education-related purposes. This expectation was codifed in l3RC, ~ 3-1 1-l, and in
Council's policy guidelines (see Attachment I3).
Additional backgrou?xI information on the city's current development and housing excise
taxes is included in Attachment C:.
3. llevelopnlent Excise 'faxes and Impact Fees
In 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. Un the other band, taxes are funds
collected from people to support the costs of government.
Colorado's 'T'axpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment requires that "any new tax"
must be approved by the voters in t11e 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 distr7buting 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
ca~~ital 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 froze the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities
constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the fee paid by a 1?articular type of
cievelopnzer~t should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost far 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 T~1I30R. The danger lies in extending an
impact fee beyond its intended use; if such a fee was assessed al a level greater than was
necessary to defray the impacts directly related to proposed development, resulting in the
callectiorz of more money than was needed to defray the costs of improvement, then the
"fee" would became 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 eat as a fee but as a tax. Since irz either case the "tax" wouldn't have
been approved by the voters, it would be in violation of TAB{)R.
An "impact fee'' is a one time fee "applied to all development that will be served by the
public improvements or services for wlzich the fee is collected."~ The fee is calculated
using the general principles of r-atemaking set Earth in state appellate case law. Impact
~ FIliott, Donald L. (F:d.). Colorado Land Planning_and Devel~n~ent Law, 6th Ed. Denver, C.U: Bradford
Publishing Company, 2004, p. 127 tlu~ougli 132.
AGLNllA IT1N1 t! SA Page 5
fees have becornc popular ~~~ith local ~overnn~_ents cover the past twenty-live 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 far
water and newel- going back to the late 19SOs as part of its "pay as you go" approach to
financing capital facilities. "Ibis tool can be applied to the capital needs of the areas that
are 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 TA130R as set out ire Article X, 5 ?_0 of the Colorado Constitution.
Failure ro comply with These requirements could result in the fee being set aside, or could
have significant tax ramifications for the government entity.
hi 2001, Colorado passed Serrate 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 improvemeuts that are necessary to accommodate new
developments, and also set out requirements for the adoption of impact fees by
municipalities. "fhe issue of whether this statute impinges upon a city's home z-ule
authority has no[ 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
pe~7nit, 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." 'l'he 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 le>>e! rto
greater tlTC~n rzecessar y to defray such impacts directly related to proposed developme~lt."
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 maybe collected prior to the issuance of a development pez7nit
(although the fees i7zay be deferred until a later point in the process, such as the issuance
AGENDA ITEM # SA Page 6
of a building permit or ccr-lificate of occupancy). ~'hese provisions provide notice to
developers of the actual cost of development, and ensure that no fee will be collected
prematurely.
"faxes arc subject to the voter approval requirements of TA130R. The general purpose of
a tax is to raise revenue. Taxes have the benefit of the conununity buy in associated with
elections. Also, a tax, once passed is easier to defend legally because the govennnent
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
reduircment of an election. Impact fees may be imposed after an appropriate fee study
has been concluded by the City Council 't'hereafter, they may be adjusted as the C:ouncil
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
T'he charts below summari•re what the study recommends as maximum allowable excise
taxes for each area in comparison to existing excise taxes.
(f-H6'F,\'hllEl•/il.Ol'~Il!?,\'T .IrVD//O[iS/NCiEXI'/.Sli 7'.-IX/%S
//uuuur Jluxi+ipnl 1lorniny'
l.dnrup PmA~ Rr~<r<•udnn Sr•rrirr,~ hirrililir. Pnl;r'r hire .S/U!%'!1'/,•IL /nunp,.nrrnon L:~ri.~r lu.c
!'.v lluu.urir; f4ut
Urt.ehed l:ruinuial `..IU i..~C 5.•„Ui c443?8 Slt,+l1 ~,rJ, rn S?53 I4 S?I:-.: 51.536'3 Sr,04131 S4o50C
Au.k'hcJ KruJcoual 5343.11 SI,'SS'+'i 5309 U1 SSO .O SI1'17S 5171.93 S14 t.4~! S!_t53.16 11,333-54 5211''2.50
PBOPOSliD h1i1X/R/U+N;ILLOIV.fRL/: /AfP~1G'T Fl:FS'.4NU P!i F'/iLOPd/frY7' FXCISI: %'.4 X/iS
L;Grnrr /'mRa d~ //rrurnn :Ilnairipal .I//orrlub/r
Hrrrrurina .&n•;rr.c Puriliric. Pulir'r' /'irr SURTOT:1l. Trun.ynnru/iwr" llnruiug
1'rr lloumrt! Unr1
Smglch;unilyltill"t>I,~;:aa!1 S44I 5,656 Si'.- 5247 5231 S?01 54.022 53.755
All Odor Type, 5307 ~I,;!,,, C~~^ 5187 Sto/ SliO S?R3R v,.,i~~
nrofv~es/nen~rL~l.
CL/RHL'NT nFVELOPa/F:YI .4;VD 1lOC'S/rVG F.XCLS'N. TAX/-CS'
/lnnran Alnuic ipuf Nun~ie~•'
Lihur n• PnrA, Hrurarimr ,Si•rvicr.c l~ucilirir• Pnlire /vre SUIT %'OTI/. Trun~pawariurr I!~r i.,~lLc
All `.,+nr.n lnit,:J u. i..~ na 50_C9? ;U ~ O.1 Y.4 50.134 SOb7 $1.7T7 tit. 75
I'KUfc!~flr d7.l\Id1U:1h.fLl_U II'AhlF1.11!'.1 ('f fl%51'.LVU/7/;1'fZOPA%EA'T F.Y('/,S'/i '1"A.YL:C
Libran• PnrA~ X lHrnunr Metrici/xrl INwJ,rhfr
Rerrrulion Jr•n~icrs furilirira Pollrr Fin' S[rRTOT.I/. Trrnr.ynrrnrr;rnr•' /lrru.irr•
Ptr SrJunre Fnnr
i~:oxlx IhMluctrm ?a ;i~ . , SO,fIG CO U 4 SO I:d Sf7 I l I '1)
If clad ' K.'>tan r:un r:a n2 r,. G). 14 I; ?i a dr, 50.34 'i t ~ 1::
.AIlOlhrrScrv,r..., na r.a },:).ti Sfl',6; SII•IR jiCxi
ss, nr Nl ?IS /x•r ;,7 .r,zn,, ; ,.1'i~ ,,,.,..r, r/r...
r„ .n.. am rlu rnlf .r.. va~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,h~;
,~(;1,\'l)A 1'1T;NI it 5~1 1':I~c
5. Comparison oI' Front Itaizge Communities 2008 Development Related Fces and
Taxes for single family, multi-family and commercial scenarios
Attachment C compares the city's current development-related fees and taxes with some
other front lZange 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. Although it maybe appropriate for Boulder to charge more,
this will be a concern that the city will need to address at the time voters are asked to
increase taxes or the city raises fees. Concerns regarding the cost of development in
general, as well as economic vitality ar~d housing affordability conce~7~s in particular, will
influence the amount that the city will be able to increase fees and taxes. It is important
to note that cuz7-ently, 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 t11at
additions and replacement units are not charged. In the case ofnon-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. See
Attachment ll for a chart showing the potential plant iiav~stment fee (PIF) changes that
were presentccl to City Council at its July I S study session on this topic. "Che complete
study session materials can be accessed on-line through the city's home page
(http://www.bouldercolorado~) under Issues/ Projects.
UP"l'IONS
Council's options include:
1. Not submitting a ballot measure oil development excise taxes to the voters this fall.
2. Submitting a ballot measure to the voters at the November election that would increase
the cap on the current development and housing excise; taxes, allowing annual increases
based on the consumer price index or an alternate cost index.
3. Submitting a ballot measure to the voters at the November election that would phase in
increased development and housing excise taxes over time to better reflect the capital
costs of new growth as shown in the updated study.
4. Changing the approach from a taxed based system to a combination of both a
development excise tax and an impact fee approach. T71is could include taking certain
categories out of the development excise tax, such as parks and recreation, and using an
impact fee approach for such categories.
Staff did not include an option for a ballot measure this fall to increase tl~e development and
housing excise taxes by the firll amount in the updated study. Staff does not believe that would
be a feasible option since certain components of the study; such as transportation and affordable
housing, show very large increases in comparison to our cur•rcnt excise tax and there is not time
to provide for adequate comanu~ity discussion. An increase in excise taxes will need to be
considered both in relationship to other tax issues that may be on the November ballot as well as
increases in other development-related fees currently being considered. Staff will continue with
AGrNDA ITF,M ~ SA Pale 8
its review ol~ the study and will provide council with ~rlrn-e of its thinking on these options as paz-t
of its presentation on July 22nd.
The ballot language of Ordinance 6019 states that development excise tax will "provide
additional financial resources for transportation, housing, parks and recreation, libraries, fire,
police, human services, and other mwaicipal services." Further, it provides that the proceeds of
the taxes "be spent without limitation or condition." What can be drawn fiom this language is
that the funds area "general fund" revenue source. 'T'herefore, if the council wanted to reallocate
how DL;'I' funds are spent, it has the authority to do so under the original language of tl~e ballot.
If the council were to consider a mixed option, it would have to detei~nine whether it also wants
to reauthorize the development excise tax with a more limited scope.
Staff recommends that council consider the following issues in deciding which option to move
forward on:
• Assure that ne~a- growth pays for tl~e capital costs of providing needed facilities and
services
• Carefully consider the number and amount of tax increases that will be placed on the
ballot
• Consider tlic overall tax/ fee bw•den on new devclopment_
If City Council would Like to proceed with a ballot issue to increase the DFTs to the new
amounts identified in the study, or with a ballot issue to increase the cap on the current DE'1's and
HETs, allowing annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or an alternate cost
index, then staff wilt prepare a draft ordinance for first reading on August 5`~'. Otherwise, and
depending on council's direction, staff will proceed to further evaluate the TishlerBise study and
will return to council at a study session or a regular business meeting to further discuss the study
and options in more detail.
E\pproved I3y:
' ~
Stephanie A. Gram - -
Irrtcrim City Manager
ATTACl.1ME V`I'S:
A. Devcloprnent Excise Tax Study
B. Relevant code sections and Council policy guidelines on EET
C. Additional Background Information
D. Comparison of Front Range Communities 200 Development Related Dees and
't'axes for single family, multi-fancily and cornrnercial scenarios
F. Potential changes to the city's development-related fees presented at the July 1S`~'
City Council study session on the Plant Investment Fee Study
ACENllA C"I'CM # SA Pale 9
•~t~~
iv.r-a'n.~:...c ~cN `:..i:~ ia:<~~.=w--~,~:,~.:~..::~~-- _._~~..~__1"_. _.~~y°=; A7'TACHMIN~I'A
i
I~ IMPACT FEE /DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX
C
~ STUDY
r~
c
City of Boulder, Colorado r;
~~?y o~
. C o l o r a d o
DRAFT
I~':
~G
~ July 18, 2008
'c:
r Prepared By:
Tischler~ise
f".~;r,ll.(C:;u-u'~ ~p!inni,ll?C;in~,UllJi"~'•:
1'
pia' L~° r ~l
DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
City of Boulder, Colorado
T•1
- SG
IMPACT FEE /DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
City of Boulder, Colorado
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMA1tY ...........................................................................................................'1
Ovcrview .........................................................................................................................................1
Impart Fee Summary .....................................................................................................................2
Fit~~ure 1. Summary of Proposed Fee Methods and Infrastructure Components .........................:3
Figure 2. Summary of Maximum Allowable Impact Fees ...........................................................5
Development L;xcise Tax Summary .............................................................................................5
Figetre 3. Summary of Proposed Excise Tax Methodologies and Cost Components ...................5
Development Excise Taxes fay Type of Land Use ......................................................................6
Figure 4. Summary of Dc~elopment l;.reise Ta:res ......................................................................6
PART O1VE: IMPACT FEES 7
IN1'IZODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES 8
llefinition .........................................................................................................................................8
Legal Framewurk ............................................................................................................................8
Required Findings ..........................................................................................................................9
Methodologies and Creclils .........................................................................................................10
Generic Impact Fee Calculation ..................................................................................................'11
Figure S. Generic' Impact Fee Formuln ......................................................................................12
LIBRARY IMPACT FEES .........................................................................................................13
Methodology .................................................................................................................................13
Figure 6. library Irrrpact Fee Methodology Cltart .....................................................................13
I,il>rary Leval of Service Standards and Costs ..........................................................................14
1'i<qure 7. Library 1_evel of Service 5tandnrds and Cost factors ................................................14
1 figure S. T.ibran~ Collect ion Materials Leve! of Service Standards ...........................................15
Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................15
1'igt<re 9. Credit for Future Library Debt Service Payments .....................................................15
Summary of Factors for Library Impact Fee .............................................................................16
Fig,trc 10. Library Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary ........................................16
Vi~rximum I~Ilowable Impact Fees for I.ibraries .......................................................................17
figure i 1. Library Maximum Allowable Impact Fees ...............................................................17
PARKS AND RECREATION IMPAC"(' FEES ............................................................................18
Ivlctliodology .................................................................................................................................18
figure 12. Parks and Kecreation lmpact 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 ctnd Cult 1=actors .......................................................................................................23
('r~~dit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................23
Fi~~ure I6. C,redit fur future l'rin~ip~tl 1'ayntents ou Narks and Ke~-reafivrr I)ebt ....................?•l
Tischle~r'~ _ I
DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
City of Boulder, Colorado
Summary of Factors for Parks and Recreation Impact Fee .....................................................24
!'figure 17. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Level-nf-Service Standard Summan~ ..................24
Maximum Allowable Impact Pecs for Parks and Recreation .................................................25
figure 18. Parks and Recreation Maximum Allowable Intlract 1 ces .........................................2,5
FIUMAN SERVICES IMPACT FEES ........................................................................................26
Methodology .................................................................................................................................26
Figure 19. Human Services lmpact Fee Methodulogy Chart ....................................................26
I Iman Services Level of Service Standards and C:osts ..........................................................27
figure 20. Human Services Level of Servire Standards and Cost Factors ................................27
Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................27
Figure 21. Credit for Outstanding Human Services Debt Service Payments ...........................28
Summary of factors for I IumanServices Impact Fee .............................................................28
Figure 22. Hwrrnn Services Impact Fee l.evcl-of-Service Standard Summary ..........................29
Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for l Hman Services .........................................................29
Figure 2.3. Htunan Services Maximtun Allowable Impact Fees ................................................29
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES ...............................................................................30
Methodolol;y .................................................................................................................................30
Figtcre 24. Municipal Facilities Impact Fee Metlrudology Chart ...............................................30
Proportionate Share Factors ........................................................................................................31
Figure 25. Proportionate Share Factors far Municipal Facilities lmpact Fees ..........................31
Municipal Facilities Level of Service Standards and Costs ....................................................32
I'igrrre 26. Municipal facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ..........................32
Crcciit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................33
Summary of Factors for Municipal Facilities Impact Fce .......................................................33
Figure 27. Municipal Facility lmpact Fee Level-of-Servire Standard Summary ......................33
ivfaximum Allowable lmpact Fees for Municipal Facilities ....................................................34
figure 28. Municipal Facility Maximum Supportable Impact I'ee Schedule ............................34
I'(~LICE IMPACT FEES ...........................................................................................................35
Methodology .................................................................................................................................35
Figure 2.9, Police I'ac•ilities Impact Fee Methodology Chart .......................................................3Fi
Proportionate Share Factors ........................................................................................................36
figure 30. Proportionate Share }'actors for Police Impact Fees .................................................37
Police Facilities Level of Service Standards and Costs ............................................................37
Figure 31. Police facilities level of Service Standards a?rc1 Cost Factors .................................38
Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................39
Summary of Factors for Police Facilities lmpact Fee ...............................................................39
Figure.32. Police Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary ..........................................;39
Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Police ............................................................................40
Figure 33. Police Mn.rimum Supportable Impact Fee Schedule ................................................40
FIRE IMPACT FEES ................................................................................................................41
vte thocl ology .................................................................................................................................41
Figure 34. Fire Impact fee Methodology Chart ........................................................................41
Proportionate Share Factors ........................................................................................................42
Figure 35. Fire Pr•oportionerte Share Factors .............................................................................42
Dire Level of Service Standards and Costs ................................................................................43
( inure .36. Fire Station Irrverttnry and Costs .............................................................................43
~,m;.~s~-w-r.=~=.,e--•i - _~-.=..~z~-r..e~rac.-~..-..-.:rte-r-= - ~~?.~:i.=~-~-r: - .~-~svS~.-•._~
Tischler~is~ ii
DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
Ciy of Boulde ,Colorado
figure 37. Fire Apparatus Ircve?ctory and Casts .......................................................................44
Credit Evaluation .........................................................................................................................44
Summary of Factors for Fire Impact Fee ...................................................................................45
Figure 33. fire Impact Fee bevel-of-Service Standard Surnmary ..............................................45
Maximum Allowable Irnpact Fees for Fire ...............................................................................46
Figure 39. Fire Maximum Alloroablc lrnpact Fec 5chedulc .......................................................46
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 47
Credits artd Reimbtcrsements .....................................................................................................47
Collection and F.xpenditurelones .............................................................................................49
PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXES 50
INTRODUCTION 7'O EXCISE TAXES 51
TRANSPORTATION EXCISE TAX 52
Figure 40. 'Frunsportativn Action and Vision Plans and Gcpital Costs ....................................54
Figure 41. Development Prototypes and Vehicle Trip Inputs ...................................................56
Figure 42. I'rvjected Travel Dernarcd Summan~ ........................................................................56
Figure 43. Transportation Cxcise 7hx Calculation ...................................................................57
AFEORDAIILE HOUSING: EXCI5ETAX .................................................................................58
Figure 44. Affordable !lousing Development E.rcise Tax Methodology Chart .........................6U
Figure 45. Affordable Housing Demand ...................................................................................61
figure 46. Affordable Hvusing Cvsts /Subsidy Requirement ...................................................61
Figure 47. Projected L'ufure Affordable Hoccsing Costs ............................................................67-
Figure 48. Affordable Housing Development Excise Tax Calccclatiorc ......................................63
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION G4
APPF.NDIX G5
APPENDIX A. DEMOCiRAI'ItIC DATA 66
Population and 1-{Dosing Characteristics ..................................................................................66
I-'igure A1. Persons per Housing l.Init ......................................................................................66
Average Number of Persons by Sire of Housing Unit ............................................................67
figure A7_. Persons per Single Family Housing Unit by Bedroom Range ................................67
figure A3. Average Persons by Bedroom Range for All Other Housing Types .......................67
1 figure A4. Average Persons by Floor Area of Single F'acreily Housing .....................................68
1 figure A5. Average Persons by floor Area of Attached Hausing .............................................69
1Zecenl Residential Construction ................................................................................................70
Figure A6. City of Boulder f lousing Units and Populafiorc in 2006 ........................................70
Population ProjccliDns .................................................................................................................71
Figure A7. Population Growtlr irr Boulder ................................................................................77
Jobs By !'lace Df Work ..................................................................................................................7?.
L'igure A8. Job Growth in Boulder ............................................................................................72
Nonresidential Demand Indicators ............................................................................................73
Figure A9. Employee and Building Area Ratios .......................................................................73
Development I'rojections .............................................................................................................74
!'figure A10. Countywide llemographic Data ............................................................................74
I
~r<qure A11. Summary of Land Use Assumptions ....................................................................75
AI'1'ENDIX B. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXES 7G
Figure A12. City of Boulder Current Devefopmerct Excise Tax Schedule ................................76
Tischler~ise iii
a7Ul ;ANGANIORE ROAD i SUITE 5240 !BETHtSDA, nn0 20816
,1 Jr'.~~`l T: 800.424.4318 I F: 301.320.4860
/ 80 ANNANDALE ROAD !PASADENA, CA 91105-1404
T: 818,790.6170 ~ F: 818.790.6235
~^/ww.115CH1ER615E.COM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
T11E' City of Boulder retained TischlerBise to prepare an impact fee siudy for various
infrastructure categories. This report is an update to a Development ~xcise'I'ax study prepared
by TischlerBise (then Tisrhlcr & Associates, Inc. in 1996). Although the City currently has
development excise taxes in places, it was the City's desire to have the current exciser tax
methodologies updated with an impart 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. 'f his report docurnents 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. 'Che City does have the option of adopting these categories as
excise taxes:
• Library
• Parks and Recreation
• Human Services
¦ Municipal Services
• Police
• Firc,
For reasons ~li,cusse~i further in the bu~iv of this report, it is ~I~is~~hlerl3ise'~ recorrlmendati<m that
the folfuwinf; 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 ne~~ construction. F,xcise taxes differ from impact fees in that they arc primarily a
I,,,.il Im~»rt ~Ar ii. I t ir- ~ F.. ~~t~•~ii_e~`,h_~f~,'i,_~ ~ r~i~ Im~,t~~l .Ani';~~.i. ~ I ~ _ ~ ~~i,,, .
DP.AFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TNC STUDY
City of Boulder, Coforodo
- y?i!a!~ ei^1~.--vim -~iQTI'a~_ i.. ~ _
tool for raising revenue, as opposed to a land use regulation designed to finance growth-related
facilities. 1n 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
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.
11~is report is divided into two sections: Part One is the Impact bees 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 13 is a summary of the City's current development excise tax schedule
for the categories incl~rded iil this study.
It should be noted that calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis using Excel
software. Itesuits 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 F3oulcler are proportionate arui
reasonably related to the capital facility service demands of new development. `fhe 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 arc entitled to various types of
~ redits 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 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 Hurst 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 capita]
cost for system improvements.
Tischler~~~e 2
DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT' EXCISE TAX STUDY
City of Boulder, Colorado
~Y'=
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 methods used to calculate impact fees. `T'he incremental expansion
method documents the current level of service for each type of public facility in both
quantitative and qualitative measures. "fhe 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 studies to guide capital
improvements, such as utility systems. /1 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 Eor
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
Facility
~ Librany Collection Materials ~ ~ .~p,~ Library Space lt~% Residential
• Park Improvements
¦ Recreation Space
Parks and Recreation Parks and Rec Admin ''f'i i' "'~'I' '"'i :~,:~p!n r,l,,. 1W% Residential
& Sport Facilities - _ _ _
Human Services human Service Space fVot applicsbi - `:et app;icabl, it1U°~ Residential
Municipal Services Government Space ' ! + ~ ~ ~p;ica:~:~ Functional Population
Police Station Space Communications applicab:e Functional Population
Center
Stations
Fire '•~:~~i ! ~ ~ ~ ~~I~>>E: ~il•I~ C'allsforSrrvice
¦ f1l~paratuti
Tischler~ise
DRAF? IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
Ciy of Boulder, Colorado
CYCIIl tS
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 capital improvements. Because new development may provide front-
end funding of infrastruchtre, there is a potential for double payment of capital casts due to
future payments un 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. llue to this outstanding debt, there is a
potential for double payment of capital costs due to future debt service payments on existing
debt for public facilities. "Phis type of credit is included for Library, Parks and Recreation,
and 1 luman 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
Eor system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the
development fees. Ilowever, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for 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.
iti~rrTliYll(111 /1llOZUaI)lC Irrthac~t Fees Q~ Type o/'Land Clse
Th~~ impact fees calculated fur the City of Boulder represent thc~ highest amount feasible for
earn type of applicable ]and use, or rnaximurrt allowahle amounts, which represents new
growth's fair share of the cost Eor the appropriate capital facilities. Figure 2 provides a
schedule of the rrraxirrturrt allownhle impact fees by type of land use. For residential impact, fees
will be assessed per housing unit. For nonresidential impact, Eees will be assessed per square
feet of floor area. "The City may adopt fees that arc less than the amounts shown. However,
reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in
planned capital expendihrres and/or a decrease in the City's level of service standards.
Tischler~Bise
DRAF; IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
City of Boulder, Colorado
fem...-~.- -
Figure 2. Summary of Maximum Allowable Impact Fees
,tiL1X/MUM.t/.LOWi113LF. /MPACT FF.F.',S
/,ibrary Parks& //rrorrnn ;Municipal Police hire TOT~I/.
Kecreation ,Services Facilities
K<esulential Per Housu{~; 1;nit
Single h'amily (SFO, SFA & MH) $~k11 'C?,68G $142 S2G9 5283 5201 54,022
All Other types 5307 ~I,SGB 599 51ts7 5!97 .5210 52.883
Nonresidential l'er Square hirer
Goods Production na nn ua SUAG SO.U3 SI1.04 SU.13
Retail/Restaurant na na na 50,13 S015 50.16 SU.84
AllUtherScrviccs na na na SOJO ~OUB SU,10 50.48
DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX SUMMARY
Development excise taxes have been calculated for Transportation and Affordable f lousing.
The 't'ransportation development excise tax is based on growth's share of capital costs from
the 2003 "Transportation Master Plan ("1'MP) 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. 1'he 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 DF,T 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
component,.
Figure 3. Summary of Proposed Excise Tax Methodologies and Cost Components f
'Type of Public Incremental Expansion Plan Based Cost Recovery 1 Cost Allocation
Facility _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Multimodal
Transportation Transportation Corridor Residential and
Nonresidential Trips
Il~rovements (TMP)
AfJordah(e Housing City Costs for 100% Nonresidential
Affordable Housing
L'+~1=~~•::=` 1~ =~r-a .l:iC:_i':_~. ~-sSH'Ct
seM1T._ i.~~ _._a_:.~.'.)i.~ _ - ..J =~~T
Tischler~~se
DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX S iUDY
Ciy of Boulder, Colorado
DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAXES BY TYPE OF LAND USE
Figure 4 provides a schedule of the calculated Development Excise Taxes jor Transportation and
~l
(fordable Housing by type of land use. (The Transportation Excise Tax is provided for both
the Action Ylan 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 Taxes
DEVELOPAfENT EXCISIi TAXES
j Trrur.~purlaliurr ,IJ/irrdrrh/e
Action Plan Vision Plan !/urr.cfr{;~
Residerrliuf i'crllvusin,~~ 1Jiril
Single I~amily (SFD, SI~A & MH) SS,75S $I O,Gfi2 na
All Other Types .56,031 57,342 na
Nonrecidentiaf Pcv Squurir h~o!
Goods Production S4.?_0 915.12 S3.32
Retail /Restaurant $45.4S $55.3G $G.GS
All Other Services $10.51 $13.16 $5.05
Tischler8ise G
DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
_ _ Ciy of Boulder, Colorado
PART ONE: IMPACT FEES
Tischler~ise '
DRAFT IMPACT FEE/DEVELOPMENT EXCISE IN( STUDY
Ciy of Boulder, Colorado
s ~sss~wsasv.~a=ja+~c~-*~-a.~.. :-.mss=- -L: ~ - -
J i I c t h~'' t
~~~41 ~\`.~.)I~~~~IU I~ l~i l~s`~.J~~~r-cit~~~1~4o~;v\` I~,~ I I bir -r- -~'1' - _ .I
DEFINITION
Impact fees, also known as development or development impact fees, are one-lime 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
limitations:
• Impact fees ran 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
LL S. ~:cnrstitution. I.ikr all land use re)ulations, devtlopment exactions--including imlrlct
fees-are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property fur
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.
"l'here~ is little federal cases law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on
other typta oI exactions (cb., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most
Tischler~Bise 8
URAF ~ IMPACT FEE/UEVELOPMEN f EXCISE TAX STUDY
:,.~.~.._.:,.`~_s_ _ _ _ City of Boulder, Colorodo
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, OK, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be
"roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. t Iowever, 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
't'here 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 Intact. 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 arc 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
spc~rif is facilities, i~asc•d can applicable level-of-service standards.
Uenuui.tilratin~s a heru~rt. 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.S. Constitution or
the State enabling Act requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively
to development paying the fees. In other wards, existing development may benefit from
thew improvements as well.
~~~~.~=~-r ~z~--~--~ _ _ ~ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ i
Tischler~3ise