HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.29 ImpactAnalysis- ImpactAnalysis
Final Report
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Prepared for:
Carbondale Investments
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
November 16, 2010
EPS #20813
App. N-2
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................. 1
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................1
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND ABSORPTION ......................................................................... 3
Project Description....................................................................................................3
Project Phasing and Absorption...................................................................................4
3. FISCAL MODEL .................................................................................................... 7
Methodology ............................................................................................................7
Revenue ................................................................................................................ 11
Expenditures.......................................................................................................... 19
Net Fiscal Impact.................................................................................................... 25
Net Fiscal Impact Comparison .................................................................................. 28
App. N-3
List of Tables
Table 1 Development Program ......................................................................................3
Table 2 Housing Unit Forecast, Roaring Fork Valley..........................................................4
Table 3 River Edge Capture Forecast..............................................................................5
Table 4 River Edge Annual Absorption............................................................................6
Table 5 Existing Conditions, Garfield County ...................................................................8
Table 6 Estimated Population........................................................................................9
Table 7 Construction Employment ............................................................................... 10
Table 8 Average Daily Population ................................................................................ 10
Table 9 Other Fiscal Assumptions ................................................................................ 11
Table 10 County Revenue, 2010 Budget......................................................................... 12
Table 11 Annual Building Permit and Plan Check Revenue ................................................ 13
Table 12 Sales Tax from Construction............................................................................ 14
Table 13 Property Tax Revenue..................................................................................... 15
Table 14 Household Sales Tax Revenue ......................................................................... 16
Table 15 Total Revenue ............................................................................................... 18
Table 16 County Expenditures, 2010 Budget................................................................... 20
Table 17 County Sheriff Expenditures ............................................................................ 22
Table 18 Total Expenditures ......................................................................................... 24
Table 19 Net Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................... 26
Table 20 Net Fiscal Impact, exclusive of Affordable Homes............................................... 27
Table 21 Net Fiscal Impact Existing Development vs. River Edge....................................... 29
App. N-4
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Final Report
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
River Edge is a 160-acre master-planned residential development located in Garfield County at
the intersection of Highway 82, County Road 114, and County Road 113. The development is
proposed to include 365 residential units, of which 55 units will be affordable, and a 6,000
square foot neighborhood center for use as a community amenity.
As part of the ongoing entitlement process, Carbondale Investments has requested Economic &
Planning Systems (EPS) to conduct a fiscal impact analysis, evaluating the impacts of the
proposed project on Garfield County revenues and operating costs. The intent of the analysis is
to provide an estimate of the impacts of new development on County revenue and the
corresponding demand for services over time.
Summary of Findings
1. Based on projected growth in the Mid-Valley and estimated project capture of 25
percent, River Edge is projected to absorb just under 60 units annually.
The Mid-Valley area of the Roaring Fork Valley is projected to add between 3,300 and 3,700
new housing units through 2025. At a project capture of 25 percent beginning in 2013, the
365 units are estimated to reach full absorption and buildout by 2019.
2. The proposed development generates 841 temporary annual construction jobs over
the course of the development.
Based on the estimated development costs and average construction wages in the County,
the project generates 841 temporary construction jobs over the construction period. This
figure represents the sum of annual employment. The peak annual employment during this
period is estimated to be 141.
3. The proposed development results in an ongoing net fiscal impact of -$26,000
annually upon project buildout.
Annual ongoing revenue is estimated at $438,000 in 2021 (two years after project buildout
when property tax is fully realized). Annual ongoing expenditures are estimated at $464,000
in 2021.
4. The cumulative net fiscal impact including one-time revenue is positive $566,000.
The project is expected to generate $1.2 million of building permit revenue during
construction and $50,000 of sales tax revenue on locally-purchased construction materials.
Summing one-time revenue with annual ongoing net fiscal impacts results in the cumulative
net fiscal impact in 2021 (two years after project buildout) of $566,000. Holding all revenue
and expenditures constant, the cumulative net fiscal impact will cover annual shortfalls for
another 21 years, or through the year 2042.
App. N-5
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Final Report
5. Excluding affordable units, the ongoing fiscal impact of the proposed development
is neutral (positive $664 annually).
The provision of affordable units is a requirement of the County. These units generate
significantly less property and sales tax as a result of lower market values and household
incomes. When affordable units are excluded, annual ongoing revenue offsets estimate
annual ongoing expenditures. On a cumulative basis, including one-time revenue, the
project generates a positive net fiscal impact of $716,000 and remains positive in perpetuity.
6. Comparing the fiscal impact of River Edge to 365 units of existing development,
using average home prices and household size, the annual net fiscal impact to the
County is $242,000 less, or on a unit basis $663 per unit less impactful to the
County than the existing residential base.
To determine the difference in impact between existing development and the proposed River
Edge, EPS tested 365 units at the County-wide average home price and household size. The
average revenues and expenditures generated by existing residential development were then
compared to the proposed development. The fiscal impact of 365 units of existing
development generate an annual fiscal impact of -$268,000, compared to the -$26,000
annual fiscal impact (including affordable housing) identified for River Edge. This is a
difference of $242,000 annually. On a per unit basis, the River Edge generates a burden of
$72 per unit. This is $663 better than the current average cost of $735 per unit to the
County. This demonstrates that while the River Edge has a negative impact on County
finances, the impact is less negative than existing residential development in the County.
App. N-6
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Final Report
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND ABSORPTION
Project Description
River Edge is a 160-acre master-planned residential development located in Garfield County at
the intersection of Highway 82, County Road 114, and County Road 113. The project abuts the
Roaring Fork River and has been designed to provide trails, parks, and open space adjacent the
river. The development team is proposing 365 new residential units and a 6,000 square foot
neighborhood/community center to provide meeting and recreation space to the residents, as
shown in Table 1. Included in the 365 units are 55 affordable garden homes.
Table 1
Development Program
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Type North South Total Size
Estate (Detached)0 11 11 4,200
Town (Detached)49 46 95 2,800
Village (Detached)52 64 116 2,400
Attached 20 20 40 2,300
Garden Home 1 (Detached)30 18 48 2,300
Garden Home 2 (Aff. Detached)30 25 55 1,400
Subtotal 181 184 365 870,000
Neighborhood Center 6,000 6,000
Total 876,000
Source: Carbondale Investments; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]7-MKT Unit-Detail
Development Program
App. N-7
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Final Report
Project Phasing and Absorption
The project is located in the Roaring Fork Valley and will draw from future residential growth in
Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and unincorporated areas of Garfield and Eagle Counties.
As of 2010, the Mid-Valley area is estimated to contain 12,900 housing units. Based on
historical residential building permit data, the area is projected to add approximately 220 new
housing units annually over the next 10 to 15 years. In the near-term, projected new housing
units will likely be lower than 220 units annually, while in the long-term, annual units will likely
exceed this total. The timing of project phasing will be entirely dependent on the project’s
competitive ability to capture future growth.
EPS ran several iterations of potential project absorption scenarios in the Mid-Valley, as shown in
Table 2. The first projection uses a base housing unit forecast for the Mid-Valley, beginning at
50 percent of historical totals and reaching 105 percent of historical production by 2014. The
second projection represents a more optimistic forecast with future housing units beginning at 75
percent of historical averages and reaching 115 percent by 2014. New housing units between
2010 and 2015 for the Mid-Valley are estimated to total 851 with an additional 2,321 units
expected to be added between 2015 and 2025. This represents annual growth of approximately
1.6 percent. Total new housing units under the optimistic scenario are forecasted to reach over
1,100 by 2015 with an additional 2,500 to be added by 2025. This represents annual growth of
approximately 1.7 percent.
Table 2
Housing Unit Forecast, Roaring Fork Valley
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Base
Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Ann. % Total Ann. %
Mid-Valley Housing Unit Projection
% of Average Annual Activity ---50% 75% 100% 105% 105% 105% 105%
Basalt 43 1,548 1,570 1,602 1,645 1,691 1,736 1,963 2,190 166 2.5% 454 2.3%
Carbondale 60 2,343 2,373 2,419 2,479 2,543 2,606 2,923 3,240 233 2.4% 634 2.2%
Glenwood Springs 31 3,865 3,880 3,903 3,934 3,966 3,999 4,160 4,322 119 0.8% 323 0.8%
El Jebel 32 2,338 2,355 2,379 2,411 2,445 2,479 2,649 2,819 125 1.3% 340 1.3%
Unincorporated Garfield 54 2,842 2,869 2,909 2,964 3,021 3,078 3,362 3,647 209 1.8%569 1.7%
Housing Units 221 12,936 13,047 13,212 13,433 13,665 13,898 15,058 16,218 851 1.6% 2,321 1.6%
Annual Change 111 166 221 232 232 232 232
Total Change 111 166 221 232 232 1,160 1,160
Cumulative New Units 111 276 497 729 961 2,122 3,282
Optimistic Recovery Scenario
% of Average Annual Growth 75% 100% 110% 115% 115% 115% 115%
Housing Units 221 12,936 13,102 13,323 13,566 13,820 14,074 15,345 16,616 1,138 1.7% 2,542 1.7%
Annual Change 166 221 243 254 254 254 254
Total Change 166 221 243 254 254 1,271 1,271
Cumulative New Units 166 387 630 884 1,138 2,409 3,680
Source: U.S. Census; DOLA; Municipal and County Building Departments; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River's Edge Fiscal Analysis\Models\[20813-Fiscal Model.xls]Market Capture Projection
2010-2015 2015-2025
The River Edge project is expected to capture a reasonable portion of regional growth.
Considering current projects in the development pipeline, a reasonable capture rate of projected
future growth is likely between 15 and 25 percent, as shown in Table 3. Applying these capture
rates to each housing unit forecast results in a projected absorption by 2020 of 320 to 530 units
for the base forecast and 360 and 600 for the more optimistic forecast.
App. N-8
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Final Report
Table 3
River Edge Capture Forecast
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Description Capture 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Base Mid-Valley Unit Projection 111 166 221 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 2,122
Low Capture 15%17 25 33 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 318
High Capture 25%28 41 55 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 530
Optimistic Mid-Valley Unit Projection 166 221 243 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 2,409
Low Capture 15%25 33 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 361
High Capture 25%41 55 61 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 602
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Carbondale Investments Property Fiscal Analysis\Models\[20813-Fiscal Model.xls]Abs Unit
To be reasonably conservative, EPS chose the higher capture rate of the lower (base) forecast,
which projects 530 units to be absorbed by the project by 2020. Using the identified 365 unit
development program, EPS developed a ten-year absorption schedule, as shown in Table 4.
Housing construction is not anticipated to occur until 2013, absorbing a maximum of 58 units
annually through 2019. The neighborhood center is not anticipated to be developed until 2017.
App. N-9
River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Final Report Table 4 River Edge Annual Absorption River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TotalEstate11 011Town15 18 16 18 7 21 095Village10 10 22 10 10 27 27116Attached10 10 0 10 10 0 040Garden Home 110 10 10 10 8 0 048Garden Home 210 10 10 10 10 555Subtotal0 0 0 55 58 58 58 56 53 27 0 365Cumulative0 0 0 55 113 171 229 285 338 365 365 365Neighborhood Center6,0006,000Cumulative0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000Source: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]6-Abs Unit App. N-10
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Final Report
3. FISCAL MODEL
This chapter summarizes the projected fiscal impacts of River Edge on Garfield County based on
the development and absorption schedule identified in the previous chapter. The annual
operating revenues and costs are evaluated and applied to the project’s annual development
program. Case studies were developed to estimate revenue sources and expenditures where
specific project-related data was available, while an average factor approach was utilized for all
other revenue and expenditure items.
Methodology
The fiscal analysis evaluates the impacts of the project on estimates of revenues and
expenditures provided in the 2010 County budget. EPS conducted a detailed budget analysis to
gain an understanding of the structure of the County budget and to understand the types of
services provided. The relevant major funds analyzed include: General Fund; Human Services
Fund; Road and Bridge Fund; and Capital Expenditures Fund. These funds were considered the
most relevant to the fiscal impacts of River Edge on the County. The funds not included, such as
the Airport Fund, were determined to be less relevant to County-wide fiscal trends and new
development. In addition, expenditure items that are too small were not included in this analysis.
EPS also conducted a series of interviews with departmental staff to gain an understanding of
current operations and to discuss ways additional growth may impact each department’s ability to
maintain existing service standards. Information from the County’s 2010 Budget was used to
quantify current revenues and costs.
Revenues and costs are estimated and applied to the River Edge development program using one
of the following methodologies: case study, per capita, per dwelling unit (DU), or per average
daily population. The methodologies were applied to all relevant funds. A definition of each
methodology is applied below:
Case Study – This refers to a specific calculation of the costs or revenues derived from the
project based on available data. Case studies were developed for revenues sources when refined
calculation methods were available (e.g., real estate taxes).
Per Capita – This is an average measure based on current per capita estimates of costs or
revenues. This estimating technique is used when more detailed data is not available. Budget
items are divided by the population served to derive an average cost or revenue estimate. A
percent variable is also applied to represent the revenue or cost item’s relationship to new
development growth.
Per Dwelling Unit (per DU) – Similar to per capita calculations, this is an average measure
based on current housing unit estimates of costs or revenues. Budget items are divided by the
dwelling units served to derive an average cost or revenue per DU. A percent variable is also
applied to represent the revenue or cost item’s relationship to new development growth.
App. N-11
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Final Report
Per Average Daily Population – Similar to per capita calculations, this is an average measure
based on total population plus non-resident employees. Non-resident employees are estimated
to have approximately half of the impact as full-time residents as these individuals are only in
the County during the day. Budget items are divided by average daily population served to
derive an average cost or revenue factor. A percent variable is also applied to represent the
revenue or cost item’s relationship to new development growth.
Existing (2010) demographic data was used to derive the average costs or revenue factors. As
of 2010, the population of Garfield County is estimated at 59,032 persons, as shown in Table 5.
The County services 23,080 housing units (DUs), of which approximately 21,808 are occupied.
Average daily population in 2010 is estimated to total 63,005.
Table 5
Existing Conditions, Garfield County
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Garfield County Existing Conditions Factor 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Housing Units 20,585 21,199 21,857 22,515 23,080
Households 19,555 20,317 21,032 21,274 21,808
Total Population 52,969 55,063 57,050 57,587 59,032
Employment 36,800 39,065 41,221 37,655 37,655
Non-Resident Employment (Commuters)1 32%8,066 8,617 9,076 7,946 7,946
Average Daily Employment2 50% 4,033 4,308 4,538 3,973 3,973
Average Daily Population 57,002 59,371 61,588 61,560 63,005
1Non-Resident Employment estimated as 32 percent of Wage and Salary Employment based on 3-year avg. of LEHD Census data
2Non-resident employees (commuters) are estimated to have an impact of 50 percent of full-time residents.
Source: DOLA; BEA; BLS; LEHD on the Map Census Data; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]3-Existing Cond.
Population and Housing Units
Based on the estimated absorption schedule, EPS projected the number of new full-time
residents anticipated to occupy the development. Because of the proposed mix of residential
products, it is anticipated that the development will cater to local homeowners. However, it is
likely that some units will be purchased by second homeowners. As a result, second-
homeowners are anticipated to occupy 10 percent of all single-family homes, 25 percent of all
attached homes, and 20 percent of garden homes. A second-home is estimated to spend
approximately 60 days over the course of the calendar year in the County. Thus all second
homes have the equivalency of 16 percent (60/365) of full-time homeowners. Single-family
detached homes are estimated at three persons per unit, while attached units are estimated at
2.5 persons per unit. Based on the above, the proposed development is anticipated to add 953
new full-time equivalent residents at buildout, or by 2019 as shown in Table 6.
App. N-12
River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Final Report Table 6 Estimated Population River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type of Resident2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Total Housing Units0 0 055585858565327 0Total PopulationLocal Homeowner0 0 0 131 139 148 139 135 142 73 02nd Homeowner00077777640Total0 0 0 138 147 154 147 142 148 76 0Cumulative Housing Units00055 113 171 229 285 338 365 365 Cumulative PopulationLocal Homeowner0 0 0 131 271 418 558 693 835 908 9082nd Homeowner000714212835424545Total0 0 0 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953Persons/DU0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 2.52 2.57 2.56 2.55 2.59 2.61 2.61Source: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]12-Population App. N-13
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Final Report
Employment
To estimate new employment generated by construction, the development team provided an
estimate of total construction costs, including housing and site development, of $128.2 million.
Of this total, 70 percent is expected to be hard costs. Of hard costs, 50 percent is allocated
toward materials with the remaining 50 percent representing labor, as shown in Table 7. EPS
then divided estimated labor costs by the average annual wage of a construction employee in
Garfield County, or $53,363. Total temporary employment over the course of construction is
estimated at 841 annual jobs with an estimated peak of 141 jobs in 2017.
Table 7
Construction Employment
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Description Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Total Construction Costs $0 $0 $3,499,968 $18,740,875 $19,790,875 $19,786,875 $19,663,604 $21,445,696 $17,544,166 $7,776,000 $0 $128,248,060
Hard Costs 70% $0 $0 $2,449,978 $13,118,613 $13,853,613 $13,850,813 $13,764,523 $15,011,987 $12,280,916 $5,443,200 $0 $89,773,642
Labor Costs 50% $0 $0 $1,224,989 $6,559,306 $6,926,806 $6,925,406 $6,882,261 $7,505,994 $6,140,458 $2,721,600 $0 $44,886,821
Annual Wage1 $53,363
Construction Employment 0 0 23 123 130 130 129 141 115 51 0 841
1BLS 2009 Average Annual Wage Construction Industry (23)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]13-Const. Emp.
Average Daily Population
EPS estimated average daily population by summing total population and new non-resident
employees generated by the project, both during construction, as well as upon buildout. At this
time, no commercial uses are projected for the 6,000 square foot neighborhood center. As a
result, average daily population upon buildout only includes projected full-time equivalent
residents. Average daily population is estimated to total 953 upon project buildout and
stabilization, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8
Average Daily Population
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Description Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Housing Units 0 0 0 55 113 171 229 285 338 365 365
Total Population 0 0 0 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953
Construction Employment 0 0 23 123 130 130 129 141 115 51 0
Total Employment 0 0 23 123 130 130 129 141 115 51 0
Average Daily Employment1 32% Non-Resident Emp. 50% 0 0 4 19 21 21 20 22 18 8 0
Average Daily Population 0 0 4 158 305 460 606 750 895 961 953
1US Census Average Commuting Employment (2006-2008). Commuters are estiamted to have 50 percent of impact of full-time resident.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]14-Project Demo
Table 9 shows other fiscal assumptions made in the analysis. The property tax assumptions are
based on current State of Colorado rates, in which commercial property is assessed at a ratio of
29 percent and residential units at a rate of 7.96 percent. The subject property tax parcel has a
mill levy of 57.075, of which 13.464 flows to the funds examined in this analysis. The 1.0
percent sales tax is subdivided and allocated to departments, funds, and/or other entities
according to County funding thresholds, or which 0.45 percent is allocated to the County funds
examined.
App. N-14
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Final Report
Table 9
Other Fiscal Assumptions
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Assumptions
Assessment
County Property Tax Ratio
Commercial 0.2900
Residential 0.0796
Total Mill Levy 1 57.075
County Mills1 13.464
County Sales tax 1.000%
Library 0.25%
911/Communications 0.19%
Road and Bridge 0.26%
Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02%
Municipalities 0.09%
Sheriff's Office 0.09%
Public Health 0.09%
1 See Table 10
Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]2-Assump.
Revenue
Total General Fund Revenue for the County is estimated at approximately $52.4 million in 2010,
as shown in Table 10. Revenue to the remaining funds is estimated at $16.6 million for Human
Services, $25.0 million for Road and Bridge, $13.4 million for Capital Improvements, and $1.3
million for Public Health. As a new development in the County, the proposed project will
generate additional revenue streams to each of these funds in the form of increased property
tax, sales tax (point of sale and point of origin), specific ownership tax (automobiles), and
charges for services. These revenues are divided into two major categories: one-time and
ongoing revenues. One-time revenues are realized only during the construction period and
include building permit and plan check fees as well as sales tax generated from locally-purchased
construction materials. Ongoing revenues occur annually in perpetuity. EPS estimated
additional revenue using case study methods where project-specific data was available. The
methodology for each case study is outlined in the following section. All other revenue is
estimated using a factor approach as defined in the Methodology section of this chapter.
App. N-15
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Final Report
Table 10
County Revenue, 2010 Budget
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Revenues
Total Annual
Revenues
Forecasting
Method
Gross
Multiplier
Percent
Variable
Net
Multiplier
General Fund
Taxes
Property Tax $39,446,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Sales Tax $1,644,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Specific Ownership Tax $1,284,000 See Below --- --- ---
Misc. Taxes $10,000 N/A --- --- ---
Liscenses and Permits $5,000 N/A --- --- ---
Intergovernmental 1 $1,729,000 N/A --- --- ---
Charges for Services 2
Building Permits $500,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Other Charges for Services $4,802,000 Per Capita $81.35 75% $61.01
Fines and Forfeitures $135,000 N/A --- --- ---
Investment Earnings $1,508,000 N/A --- --- ---
Contributions $867,000 N/A --- --- ---
Miscellaneous Revenue $491,000 N/A --- --- ---
Subtotal $52,421,000
Human Services Fund
Taxes
Property Tax $3,000,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Specific Ownership Tax $161,000 See Below --- --- ---
Intergovernmental 1 $13,305,000 N/A --- --- ---
Investment Earnings $0 N/A --- --- ---
Miscellaneous Revenue $162,000 N/A --- --- ---
Subtotal $16,628,000
Road & Bridge Fund
Taxes
Property Tax $15,000,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Sales Tax $3,027,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Specific Ownership Tax $440,000 See Below --- --- ---
Other Taxes $0 N/A --- --- ---
Licenses and Permits $270,000 Per DU $11.70 75% $8.77
Intergov/State Highway User Fund $3,078,000 Per DU $133.38 75% $100.04
Charges for Services $5,000 N/A --- --- ---
Contributions 3 $3,122,000 N/A --- --- ---
Other $24,000 N/A --- --- ---
Subtotal $24,966,000
Capital Improvement Fund
Taxes
Property Tax $12,000,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Specific Ownership Tax $633,000 See Below --- --- ---
Intergovernmental 1 $800,000 N/A --- --- ---
Investment Earnings $0 N/A --- --- ---
Subtotal $13,433,000
Public Health Fund
Taxes
Sales Tax $374,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Intergovernmental 1 $710,000 N/A --- --- ---
Charges for Services $192,000 N/A --- --- ---
Other Revenue $1,200,000 N/A --- --- ---
Subtotal $1,276,000
Specific Ownership Tax 5 $2,518,000 Per DU $114.60 100% $114.60
Total $108,724,000
1 Intergovernmental includes transfers and all grants (Federal, State & Local)
2 Includes Treasurer's fees & other fees. Building permit & plan check fees not counted here.
3 Contributions are from Chevron for a specific road project
5 Specific Ownership Tax distributions change yearly, so the revenue stream is treated alone in this fiscal analysis
Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]4-Rev Factors
App. N-16
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Final Report
One-Time Revenue
Where sufficient data was available, EPS utilized a case study approach to estimate future revenue.
Building Permits and Sales Tax on Construction are both estimated using a case study approach.
Building Permits
Garfield County charges building permit and plan check fees for all new development in
unincorporated areas. These fees are based on the estimated valuation of the building
improvements. For example, for all building improvements with values exceeding $1.0 million,
the County charges a base fee of $5,609 for the first $1.0 million in building improvements and
$3.15 per $1,000 of valuation for all improvements exceeding $1.0 million. Plan check fees are
charged as 65 percent of building permit fees. The development team provided estimated
construction costs for each product type. Building permit and plan check fees at full buildout are
estimated to exceed $1.2 million, as shown in Table 11.
Table 11
Annual Building Permit and Plan Check Revenue
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
1
Description BP&PC Charge 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
per Unit (Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10)
Market
Estate $5,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,234 $0 $0 $0 $61,234
Town $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $59,245 $71,094 $63,195 $71,094 $27,648 $82,943 $0 $0 $375,220
Village $3,377 $0 $0 $0 $33,768 $33,768 $74,290 $33,768 $33,768 $91,174 $91,174 $0 $391,710
Attached $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $0 $0 $0 $130,637
Garden Home 1 $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $32,659 $32,659 $26,127 $0 $0 $0 $156,765
Garden Home 2 $2,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Affordable
Estate $5,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Town $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Village $3,377 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Attached $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Garden Home 1 $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Garden Home 2 $2,009 $0 $0 $0 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $10,046 $0 $0 $110,511
Neighborhood Center $6,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,260 $0 $0 $0 $6,260
Total $0 $0 $0 $178,425 $190,274 $190,237 $190,274 $207,789 $184,164 $91,174 $0 $1,232,336
Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $178,425 $368,699 $558,936 $749,209 $956,998 $1,141,162 $1,232,336 $1,232,336 $1,232,336
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]20-Case-B&P Annual
Sales Tax on Construction
Materials purchased locally during the construction of the proposed development will generate
new sales tax revenue to the County. Because Garfield County does not collect use tax, only
materials purchased in the County will be subject to sales tax. Based on EPS’ discussions with
the development team, an estimated 25 to 50 percent of materials could be purchased locally,
most likely from the Lowes Home Improvement store in Glenwood Springs. To be conservative,
EPS used the low end of the range, or 25 percent, as the estimate for locally purchased
materials. Applying this factor to the estimated materials cost of $44.9 million results in a total
of $11.2 million of locally purchased construction materials through buildout, generating
$449,000 in total one-time sales tax dollars, as shown in Table 12. Of this total, $50,000 flows
to relevant County funds.
App. N-17
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Final Report
Table 12
Sales Tax from Construction
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Description Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Total Construction Costs $0 $0 $3,499,968 $18,740,875 $19,790,875 $19,786,875 $19,663,604 $21,445,696 $17,544,166 $7,776,000 $0 $128,248,060
Hard Costs 70% $0 $0 $2,449,978 $13,118,613 $13,853,613 $13,850,813 $13,764,523 $15,011,987 $12,280,916 $5,443,200 $0 $89,773,642
Material Costs 50% $0 $0 $1,224,989 $6,559,306 $6,926,806 $6,925,406 $6,882,261 $7,505,994 $6,140,458 $2,721,600 $0 $44,886,821
Local Purchases 25% $0 $0 $306,247 $1,639,827 $1,731,702 $1,731,352 $1,720,565 $1,876,498 $1,535,115 $680,400 $0 $11,221,705
County Sales Tax Revenue
Library 0.25%$0 $0 $766 $4,100 $4,329 $4,328 $4,301 $4,691 $3,838 $1,701 $0 $28,054
911/Communications 0.19%$0 $0 $574 $3,075 $3,247 $3,246 $3,226 $3,518 $2,878 $1,276 $0 $21,041
Road and Bridge 0.26%$0 $0 $804 $4,305 $4,546 $4,545 $4,516 $4,926 $4,030 $1,786 $0 $29,457
Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02%$0 $0 $57 $307 $325 $325 $323 $352 $288 $128 $0 $2,104
Municipalities 0.09%$0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520
Sheriff's Office 0.09%$0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520
Public Health 0.09%$0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520
Total Sales Tax 1.00%$0 $0 $3,062 $16,398 $17,317 $17,314 $17,206 $18,765 $15,351 $6,804 $0 $448,868
Total County Sales Tax 0.45%$0 $0 $1,378 $7,379 $7,793 $7,791 $7,743 $8,444 $6,908 $3,062 $0 $50,498
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]16-Case-Sales Tax Cont.
Ongoing Revenue
A case study approach was used to estimate property and sales tax generated by the project. All
other ongoing revenue is estimated using a factor approach.
Property Tax
As a result of the proposed building improvements, new property tax revenue will be generated
to Garfield County. A total of 57.075 mills per $1,000 of assessed value are applied to the
subject property, as shown earlier in Table 7. However, only 13.464 mills will flow to the
County Funds examined. Assessments take place at the beginning of every calendar year in
Garfield County. Once a property is on the tax rolls, property tax is billed and paid the following
year, resulting in a two-year lag from initial permitting to revenue collection. Residential
property in Colorado is assessed at 7.96 percent of market value, while commercial property in is
assessed at 29.0 percent of market value.
Assessed value is estimated using market values provided by the development team and
applying a 5.0 percent downward adjustment to account for typical appraised values.
Assessment cycles occur every other year. As a result, new assessed value is generated one-
year following construction. The assessed value of the subject property in 2014 is estimated to
total $2.4 million, as shown in Table 13. Because property tax is billed and paid in the year
following assessment, an increase in property tax revenue for buildings permitted in 2013 is not
realized until 2015, totaling just over $136,000, of which $32,000 flows to the funds examined.
Total property tax revenue generated by the subject development upon buildout is estimated at
$965,000, of which $228,000 is collected by the relevant County funds.
App. N-18
River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Final Report Table 13 Property Tax Revenue River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Product TypeRate2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20211,000(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) (Year 11)Total Assessed Value$0$0$0$0 $2,385,811 $2,563,669 $2,554,746 $2,728,969 $2,876,131 $2,565,333 $1,225,044$0Cumulative Assessed Value$0$0$0$0 $2,385,811 $4,949,480 $7,504,226 $10,233,196 $13,109,327 $15,674,660 $16,899,704 $16,899,704Total Property Tax57.075$0$0$0$0$0 $136,170 $282,492 $428,304 $584,060 $748,215 $894,631 $964,551Applicable Total113.464$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,123 $66,640 $101,037 $137,780 $176,504 $211,044 $227,538CountyGeneral Fund 7.742$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,471 $38,319 $58,098 $79,225 $101,492 $121,353 $130,838Road & Bridge 2.861$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,826 $14,160 $21,470 $29,277 $37,506 $44,845 $48,350Human Services 0.572$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,365 $2,831 $4,292 $5,853 $7,499 $8,966 $9,667Capital 2.289$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,461 $11,329 $17,177 $23,424 $30,007 $35,879 $38,683Retirement 0.191$0$0$0$0$0$456$945$1,433$1,955$2,504$2,994$3,228Subtotal13.655$0$0$0$0$0 $32,578 $67,585 $102,470 $139,734 $179,008 $214,037 $230,765RE-1 School DistrictGeneral21.868$0$0$0$0$0 $52,173 $108,235 $164,102 $223,780 $286,675 $342,773 $369,563Mill Levy Override2.823$0$0$0$0$0 $6,735 $13,972 $21,184 $28,888 $37,008 $44,250 $47,708RE-1 Bond6.293$0$0$0$0$0$15,014$31,147$47,224$64,397$82,497$98,641$106,350Subtotal30.984$0$0$0$0$0 $73,922 $153,355 $232,511 $317,065 $406,179 $485,664 $523,620Carbondale FireGeneral Fund5.91$0$0$0$0$0 $14,100 $29,251 $44,350 $60,478 $77,476 $92,637 $99,877Fire Bond1.319$0$0$0$0$0$3,147$6,528$9,898$13,498$17,291$20,675$22,291Subtotal7.229$0$0$0$0$0 $17,247 $35,780 $54,248 $73,976 $94,767 $113,312 $122,168Water & SanitationBasalt Water Conserv. 0.044$0$0$0$0$0 $105 $218 $330 $450 $577 $690 $744CO River Water Conserv. Dist0.166$0$0$0$0$0$396$822$1,246$1,699$2,176$2,602$2,805Subtotal0.210$0$0$0$0$0 $501 $1,039 $1,576 $2,149 $2,753 $3,292 $3,549Colorado Mtn. College 3.997$0$0$0$0$0 $9,536 $19,783 $29,994 $40,902 $52,398 $62,652 $67,548Library1.000$0$0$0$0$0 $2,386 $4,949 $7,504 $10,233 $13,109 $15,675 $16,900Applicable Total113.464$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,123 $66,640 $101,037 $137,780 $176,504 $211,044 $227,5381Includes All County Mills except RetirementNote: Taxes are billed and paid the following year of assessmentSource: Garfield County Assessor; Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]15-Case-Prop Tax$ App. N-19
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Final Report
Sales Tax
New residential development generates new sales tax revenue through retail purchases made in
various locations throughout the County by new households moving into and occupying
residential units. According to the US Census of Retail Trade, State of Colorado residents spend
approximately 37.1 percent of their income on retail purchases. EPS estimates that 20 percent
of these purchases will likely be made outside the County, with the remaining 80 percent
representing local purchases.
EPS estimated annual household incomes based on the anticipated unit prices of the 365 new
residential units. Multiplying the estimated annual household incomes by the number of units
and the estimated percent of local expenditures results in an estimate of new annual household
retail spending in the County, as shown in Table 14. The resulting annual County retail
expenditures from new households are estimated to total $15.7 million upon buildout. A detailed
analysis of household expenditure potential is included in the full model. From these retail
expenditures, the County applies a one percent sales tax which is divided among several
departments. Total new annual sales tax revenue generated by the new households in the
development is estimated to total $167,000 annually upon buildout. Total County revenue for
the funds examined is estimated at $71,000 annually.
Table 14
Household Sales Tax Revenue
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Description Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10)
Annual Household Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $2,219,715 $4,605,709 $7,041,201 $9,427,196 $12,081,021 $14,531,163 $15,704,035 $15,704,035
County Sales Tax Revenue
Library 0.25%$0 $0 $0 $5,549 $11,514 $17,603 $23,568 $30,203 $36,328 $39,260 $39,260
911/Communications 0.19%$0 $0 $0 $4,162 $8,636 $13,202 $17,676 $22,652 $27,246 $29,445 $29,445
Road and Bridge 0.26%$0 $0 $0 $5,827 $12,090 $18,483 $24,746 $31,713 $38,144 $41,223 $41,223
Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02%$0 $0 $0 $416 $864 $1,320 $1,768 $2,265 $2,725 $2,945 $2,945
Municipalities 0.09%$0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723
Sheriff's Office 0.09%$0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723
Public Health 0.09%$0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723
Total Sales Tax 1.00%$0 $0 $0 $22,197 $46,057 $70,412 $94,272 $120,810 $145,312 $157,040 $157,040
Total County Sales Tax 0.45%$0 $0 $0 $9,989 $20,726 $31,685 $42,422 $54,365 $65,390 $70,668 $70,668
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]17-Case-Sales Tax (PO)
App. N-20
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Final Report
Total Revenue
In sum, total revenue generated to the County is estimated at approximately $438,000 in 2021
(two years after buildout when new property tax is fully realized), as shown in Table 15. In
addition, total one-time revenue is estimated at $1.3 million at final buildout. A breakout by
fund is as follows:
Total revenue generated to the County General Fund is estimated at approximately $204,000
annually in 2021.
Total revenue generated to the County Human Services Fund is estimated at approximately
$10,000 annually in 2021.
Total revenue generated to the County Road and Bridge Fund is estimated at approximately
$129,000 annually in 2021.
Total revenue generated to the County Capital Expenditures Fund is estimated at
approximately $39,000 annually in 2021.
Total revenue generated to the County Public Health Fund is estimated at approximately
$15,000 annually in 2021.
Specific Ownership Tax, which is distributed across a number of funds, is estimated at
$42,000 annually in 2021.
App. N-21
River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Final Report Table 15 Total Revenue River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type of FundTypeFactor2010 2011 2012 20132014 201520162017201820192020 2021(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3)(Year 4) (Year 5)(Year 6)(Year 7)(Year 8)(Year 9)(Year 10) (Year 11)On-Going RevenueGeneral FundProperty Tax Case Study7.742 mills$0$0$0$0$0 $18,471 $38,319 $58,098 $79,225 $101,492 $121,353 $130,838Sales TaxOn-Site Sales TaxCase Study0.09%$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study0.09%$0$0$0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723Misc. TaxN/A---------------------------------------Charges for ServicesPer Capita$61.01$0$0$0$8,429$17,376$26,790$35,737$44,421$53,480$58,147$58,147$58,147General Fund Subtotal$0$0$0 $10,510 $21,694 $51,862 $82,894 $113,844 $146,329 $174,362 $194,223 $203,707Human Services FundProperty TaxCase Study0.572 mills$0$0$0$0$0$1,365$2,831$4,292$5,853$7,499$8,966$9,667Human Services Fund Subtotal$0$0$0$0$0 $1,365 $2,831 $4,292 $5,853 $7,499 $8,966 $9,667Road & Bridge FundProperty TaxCase Study2.861 mills$0$0$0$0$0 $6,826 $14,160 $21,470 $29,277 $37,506 $44,845 $48,350Sales TaxOn-Site Sales TaxCase Study0.26%$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study0.26%$0$0$0 $5,827 $12,090 $18,483 $24,746 $31,713 $38,144 $41,223 $41,223 $41,223Other TaxN/A---------------------------------------Licenses & PermitsPer DU$8.77$0$0$0 $483$991 $1,500 $2,009 $2,501 $2,966 $3,202 $3,202 $3,202IntergovernmentalPer DU$100.04$0$0$0$5,502$11,304$17,106$22,908$28,510$33,812$36,513$36,513$36,513Road & Bridge Fund Subtotal$0$0$0$11,811 $24,386 $43,915 $63,824 $84,193 $104,199 $118,445 $125,784 $129,289Capital Expenditures FundProperty TaxCase Study2.289 mills$0$0$0$0$0$5,461$11,329$17,177$23,424$30,007$35,879$38,683Cap. Expenditures Fund Subtotal$0$0$0$0$0 $5,461 $11,329 $17,177 $23,424 $30,007 $35,879 $38,683Public Health FundSales TaxOn-Site Sales TaxCase Study0.09%$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study0.09%$0$0$0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723Public Health Fund Subtotal$0$0$0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723Specific Ownership TaxPer DU$114.60$0$0$0 $6,303 $12,950 $19,597 $26,244 $32,661 $38,735 $41,829 $41,829 $41,829Subtotal On-Going Revenue$0$0$0 $30,705 $63,347 $128,801 $195,961 $263,494 $332,163 $386,864$421,404 $437,898One Time RevenueGeneral FundConstruction Sales TaxCase Study0.09%$0$0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439$638$0$0Building & Planning Fee Revenue Case Study$0$0$0$178,425$190,274$190,237$190,274$207,789$184,164$91,174$0$0Subtotal$0$0 $287 $179,962 $191,897 $191,860 $191,887 $209,548 $185,603 $91,812$0$0Road & BridgeConstruction Sales TaxCase Study0.26%$0$0$804$4,305$4,546$4,545$4,516$4,926$4,030$1,786$0$0Subtotal$0$0 $804 $4,305 $4,546 $4,545 $4,516 $4,926 $4,030 $1,786$0$0Public HealthConstruction Sales TaxCase Study0.09%$0$0$287$1,537$1,623$1,623$1,613$1,759$1,439$638$0$0Subtotal$0$0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439$638$0$0Cumulative One Time Rev.$0$0 $1,378 $187,182 $385,249 $583,277 $781,293 $997,526 $1,188,598 $1,282,833 $1,282,833 $1,282,833Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]20-Rev. All App. N-22
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Final Report
Expenditures
Total General Fund Expenditures for the County are estimated to total approximately $40.0
million in 2010, as shown in Table 16. Expenditures to the remaining funds are estimated at
$3.0 million for Human Services, $20.2 million for Road and Bridge, $16.3 million for Capital
Expenditures, and $483,000 for Public Health. All expenditures have been adjusted to exclude
items paid for using grant revenue. The Capital Expenditures Fund represents a three-year
average to compensate for any large expenditure made in a single-year, as well as excludes
annual debt service for previous projects.
The proposed development will generate additional expenditures to the County in the form of
increased/enhanced County services. EPS estimated additional expenditures using a case study
method where information was available. The methodology for each case study is outlined in the
following section. All other expenditures are estimated using a factor approach as defined in the
Methodology section of this chapter.
App. N-23
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Final Report
Table 16
County Expenditures, 2010 Budget
River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Expenditures 2010 Budget 1,2
Forecasting
Method
Gross
Multiplier
Percent
Variable
Net
Multiplier
General Fund
General $451,000 Per Capita $7.64 50% $3.82
BOCC
O & M $710,000 Per Capita $12.03 75% $9.02
Discretionary Programs $2,630,000 Per Capita $44.55 50% $22.28
Assessor $2,080,000 Per DU $90.11 50% $45.06
Clerk & Recorder $1,983,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $31.47 50% $15.74
Treasurer $769,000 N/A --- --- ---
Sheriff $18,040,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Coroner $217,000 N/A --- --- ---
Surveyor $51,000 N/A --- --- ---
County Attorney $1,412,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $22.41 50% $11.21
County Manager $723,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $11.48 50% $5.74
Finance $1,082,000 Per Capita $18.33 50% $9.16
Human Resources $716,000 Per Capita $12.13 50% $6.06
Information Technology $1,368,000 Per Capita $23.17 50% $11.59
Purchasing $810,000 N/A --- --- ---
Oil & Gas $532,000 N/A --- --- ---
General Services $2,088,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $33.14 75% $24.86
Criminal Justice Services $2,517,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $39.95 50% $19.97
Building & Planning $1,581,000 Per DU $68.50 75% $51.38
County Engineer $268,000 Per Capita $4.54 50% $2.27
Public Health3 $0 N/A --- --- ---
Fund Administration $0 N/A --- --- ---
Total Expenditures $40,028,000
Human Services Fund $2,976,000 Per Capita $50.41 50% $25.21
Road & Bridge Fund $20,178,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $320.26 25% $80.06
Capital Expenditures Fund4
New Sheriff Vehicles $75,000 Case Study --- --- ---
Other $8,743,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $138.77 75% $104.07
Total $10,837,000
Public Health Fund $483,000 Per Capita $8.18 50% $4.09
Total Expenditures $74,502,000
Note: Items that do not have a natural relationship with growth are not estimated
1 Rounded numbers
2Excludes Grant/Intergovernmental Revenue and Grant Expenditures
3 Public Health Fund now separate fund
4 Represents 3-year Average, excluding cost of new Sheriff Vehicles estimated in Sheriff Case Study and 2010 debt service
Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River's Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model2.xls]5-Expend Factors
App. N-24
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Final Report
One-Time Expenditures
The proposed development does not trigger any upfront capital expenditures to the County as all
parks, open space, new roads and/or other facilities will be privately maintained by an HOA.
However, the addition of 365 housing units will likely impact regional capital needs over the
long-term. These long-term capital improvements are estimated as ongoing expenditures.
Ongoing Expenditures
The proposed development generates annual ongoing expenditures to the General Fund, Human
Services Fund, Road and Bridge Fund, Capital Expenditures Fund, and Public Health Fund. The
majority of these impacts are estimated using a factor approach. Where sufficient data is
available, EPS utilized a case study approach to estimate future County Expenditures. While EPS
typically estimates impacts to the Road and Bridge Fund using a case study approach, the
proposed development is fully accessed by a state highway and all internal roads will be privately
maintained. Therefore, impacts to the County Road and Bridge Fund will be minimal and are
estimated using a factor approach. Anticipated increased expenditures by the Sherriff
department are estimated using a case study approach.
Sheriff
The County Sheriff department will likely be directly impacted by the proposed development and
warrants a detailed examination of expenditures. According to department data, the County
received just over 26,000 calls for services in 2009. Based on a County population of just over
59,000, the annual call generation rate is estimated at 0.44 annual calls per person. As
development absorption occurs, the subject development is anticipated to total 1,995 new
residents which will generate an annual volume of 884 calls.
The majority of departmental expenses will increase in line with annual calls, with the exception
of the Jail which serves more regional needs. County patrol will likely be impacted the greatest
by the proposed development, as additional staff time will be incurred in the form of overtime or
new officer hires. The County currently has 32 full-time paid patrol officers, which translates to
0.001 officers per call. It is anticipated that additional staff will be covered through overtime of
existing officers until the demand of a new officer is reached. Upon the need to hire a new
officer (estimated at approximately 0.5 FTE), new training and equipment ($6,000) will be
required, as well as a patrol vehicle at the estimated purchase price of $45,000. All new patrol
vehicles are purchased in the Capital Improvements Fund and then transferred to the Motor Pool.
Thus, the cost of a new patrol car is included in the Sheriff analysis for informational purposes
only and is actually reflected in the Capital Improvements Fund. Patrol vehicles are replaced
every five years. The Motor Pool charges the Sherriff Department $0.75 per mile for both
operations and replacement. According to the department, patrol vehicles typically average
35,000 miles annually which is then applied to the incremental vehicle demand generated by the
development. Motor Pool/Operations and Replacement costs are estimated to total $13,000
annually at buildout (0.48 vehicles at 35,000 miles annually). In sum, annual ongoing Sheriff
expenses for this project are estimated to total $100,000, including $51,000 for operations,
$36,000 for patrol staff, and $13,000 for vehicle maintenance and replacement, as shown in
Table 17.
App. N-25
River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Final Report Table 17 County Sheriff Expenditures River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis DescriptionForecasting MethodFactor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10)Annual Call Volume26,163Average Daily Population63,0050 00 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953Annual Call Volume Generated0.42Annual Calls Generated0 00 57 118 182 243 302 364 396 396Operations & MaintenanceGeneral OperationsPer Call $90.66$0 $0 $0 $5,201 $10,722 $16,531 $22,052 $27,410 $33,000 $35,880 $35,880Animal ControlPer Call $15.23$0 $0 $0 $874 $1,801 $2,777 $3,705 $4,605 $5,544 $6,028 $6,028Hazards Response TeamPer Call $0.73$0 $0 $0 $42 $86 $132 $177 $220 $264 $287 $287Emergency ManagementPer Call $10.45$0 $0 $0 $600 $1,236 $1,906 $2,543 $3,160 $3,805 $4,137 $4,137Fire SupressionPer Call $1.20$0 $0 $0 $69 $142 $220 $293 $364 $438 $476 $476JailNot Estimated ------------------------------------PatrolSee Below------------------------------------Search & RescuePer Call $0.55$0 $0 $0 $32 $66 $101 $135 $168 $202 $219 $219Victim AdvocatePer Call $1.36$0 $0 $0 $78 $160 $247 $330 $410 $494 $537 $537InvestigationsPer Call $0.59$0 $0 $0 $34 $70 $108 $144 $179 $216 $234 $234Professional StandardsPer Call $5.06$0 $0 $0 $291 $599 $923 $1,232 $1,531 $1,843 $2,004 $2,004Community RelationsPer Call $2.52$0$0$0$145$298$460$614$763$918$998$998Total O & M$0 $0 $0 $7,364 $15,181 $23,406 $31,223 $38,810 $46,725 $50,803 $50,803Patrol Staff ImpactsPatrol Officers 32Per Call 0.001Patrol Officers Needed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.45 0.48 0.480.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.45 0.48 0.48Salary + Benefits (40.0%) $75,200Staff Cost$0 $0 $0 $5,276 $10,877 $16,771 $22,372 $27,808 $33,479 $36,401 $36,401Training/Equipment1$6,000$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $0Patrol VehiclesExisting Patrol Vehicles 32Vehicles per Patrol Officer 1.00Vehicles Needed0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.45 0.48 0.48Vehicle Purchase Cost$45,000Vehicle Cost (Capital Expenditures Fund)1$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $0Annual Miles 35,000 0 0 0 2,456 5,063 7,806 10,412 12,942 15,582 16,942 16,942Vehicle Repair/Maintenance/Replacement$0.75$0 $0 $0 $1,842 $3,797 $5,854 $7,809 $9,707 $11,687 $12,706 $12,706Total Cost2$0 $0 $0 $14,482 $29,856 $46,031 $61,405 $76,324 $91,891 $105,910 $99,9101One-Time capital costs for both Training/Equipment and Vehicle Purchase are only reflected when staff/vehicles exceed one2Excludes Vehicle Costs, New Vehicles are purchased (and reflected) in the Capital Expenditures FundSource: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]21-Case-Police App. N-26
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Final Report
Total Expenditures
In sum, annual expenditures to be incurred by the County are estimated at approximately
$464,000 in 2021 (two years after buildout), as shown in Table 18. A breakout by Fund is as
follows:
Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County General Fund are estimated to total
approximately $261,000 in 2021.
Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Human Services Fund are estimated to
total approximately $24,000 in 2021
Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Road and Bridge Fund are estimated to
total approximately $76,000 in 2021.
Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Capital Expenditures Fund are
estimated to total approximately $99,000 in 2021.
Annual expenditures to be incurred by the Public Health Fund are estimated to total
approximately $4,000 in 2021.
App. N-27
River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Final Report Table 18 Total Expenditures River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type of ExpenseFactor2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2021(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 10) (Year 11)General FundGeneral Per Capita $3.82 $0 $0 $0 $528 $1,088 $1,677 $3,641 $3,641BOCCO & MPer Capita $9.02$0 $0 $0 $1,246 $2,569 $3,961 $8,597 $8,597Discretionary Programs Per Capita $22.28$0 $0 $0 $3,077 $6,344 $9,781 $21,230 $21,230AssessorPer DU$45.06$0 $0 $0 $2,478 $5,091 $7,705 $16,446 $16,446Clerk & RecorderAvg. Daily Pop. $15.74$0 $0 $57 $2,480 $4,805 $7,233 $14,998 $14,998TreasurerN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---SheriffCase Study ---$0 $0 $0 $14,482 $29,856 $46,031 $99,910 $99,910CoronerN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---SurveyorN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---County AttorneyAvg. Daily Pop. $11.21$0 $0 $41 $1,766 $3,422 $5,151 $10,679 $10,679County ManagerAvg. Daily Pop. $5.74$0 $0 $21 $904 $1,752 $2,637 $5,468 $5,468FinancePer Capita $9.16$0 $0 $0 $1,266 $2,610 $4,024 $8,734 $8,734Human ResourcesPer Capita $6.06$0 $0 $0 $838 $1,727 $2,663 $5,780 $5,780Information Technology Per Capita $11.59$0 $0 $0 $1,601 $3,300 $5,088 $11,043 $11,043PurchasingN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---Oil & GasN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---General ServicesAvg. Daily Pop. $16.57$0 $0 $60 $2,612 $5,060 $7,616 $15,792 $15,792Criminal Justice Services Avg. Daily Pop. $19.97$0 $0 $73 $3,148 $6,099 $9,181 $19,037 $19,037Building & PlanningPer DU$51.38$0 $0 $0 $2,826 $5,805 $8,785 $18,752 $18,752County EngineerPer Capita $2.27$0 $0 $0 $125 $257 $388 $829 $829Public Health3N/A------ --- ------------ --- ---Fund AdministrationN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---Total$0 $0 $252 $39,377 $79,785 $121,923 $260,936 $260,936Human Services FundPer Capita $25.21$0 $0 $0 $3,482 $7,179 $11,068 $24,023 $24,023Road & Bridge FundAvg. Daily Pop. $80.06$0 $0 $291 $12,619 $24,448 $36,802 $76,306 $76,306Capital Expenditures FundNew Sheriff VehiclesCase Study ---$0 $0 $0$0$0$0 $0 $0OtherAvg. Daily Pop. $104.07$0 $0 $378 $16,403 $31,779 $47,838 $99,189 $99,189Total$0 $0 $378 $16,403 $31,779 $47,838 $99,189 $99,189Public Health FundPer Capita $4.09$0 $0 $0 $565 $1,165 $1,796 $3,899 $3,899Total Expenditures$0 $0 $921 $72,447 $144,356 $219,427 $464,354 $464,354Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]21-Exp. All App. N-28
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Final Report
Net Fiscal Impact
In sum, annual revenue and expenditures result in a negative net fiscal impact to the County of
approximately $26,000 after full buildout and stabilization in 2021, as shown in Table 19.
Including total one-time revenue from building permits and sales tax from construction, the
cumulative net fiscal impact is estimated to be a positive of $566,000.
Affordable housing is a requirement of the County because it benefits the community in a
number of ways. While these benefits are important and valuable contributions to the County,
affordable housing does not generate fiscally the same level of benefit as market rate home.
This is a result of lower market values (property tax) and lower household incomes generating
lower household retail expenditures (sales tax). Examining the fiscal impacts of the proposed
development without the required 55 affordable homes, or in other words the net fiscal impact of
just the 310 market-rate homes alone, results in an ongoing fiscally neutral residential
development upon buildout ($372 annually), as shown in Table 20. The cumulative net impact,
including one-time revenue, is estimated at a positive $715,000.
App. N-29
River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Final Report Table 19 Net Fiscal Impact River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3)(Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7)(Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) (Year 11)Ongoing Net Fiscal ImpactOngoing Revenues $0 $0 $0 $30,705 $63,347 $128,801 $195,961 $263,494 $332,163 $386,864 $421,404 $437,898Ongoing Expenditures $0$0($921)($72,447)($144,356)($219,427)($291,027)($360,986)($431,926)($517,400)($464,354)($464,354)Net Fiscal Impact$0 $0 ($921) ($41,742) ($81,009) ($90,626) ($95,067) ($97,491) ($99,763) ($130,535) ($42,950) ($26,456)One-Time Net Fiscal Impact1One-Time Revenues$0 $0 $1,091 $184,267 $196,443 $196,405 $196,403 $214,474 $189,633 $93,598 $0$0Annual Balance$0 $0 $170 $142,524$115,434 $105,779 $101,337 $116,982 $89,870 ($36,937) ($42,950) ($26,456)Total Cum. Balance$0 $0 $170 $142,695 $258,129 $363,908 $465,244 $582,227 $672,096 $635,159 $592,209 $565,7541One-Time Revenue includes Building Permit and Plan Check revenue and Sales Tax on locally purchased construction materialsSource: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]1-Summary App. N-30
River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Final Report Table 20 Net Fiscal Impact, exclusive of Affordable Homes River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3)(Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7)(Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) (Year 11)Ongoing Net Fiscal ImpactOngoing Revenues $0 $0 $0 $25,926 $53,789 $111,898 $171,712 $231,901 $295,614 $347,750 $381,007 $397,501Ongoing Expenditures $0$0($887)($59,831)($119,517)($182,366)($241,737)($299,563)($364,597)($399,175)($397,129)($397,129)Net Fiscal Impact$0 $0 ($887) ($33,906) ($65,729) ($70,468) ($70,025) ($67,662) ($68,983) ($51,425) ($16,122) $372One-Time Net Fiscal Impact1One-Time Revenues$0 $0 $1,051 $163,708 $175,884 $175,846 $175,838 $194,014 $179,463 $93,598 $0$0Annual Balance$0 $0 $164 $129,802 $110,156 $105,378 $105,813 $126,352 $110,480 $42,173 ($16,122) $372Total Cum. Balance$0 $0 $164 $129,966 $240,122 $345,500 $451,312 $577,665 $688,145 $730,318 $714,195 $714,5671One-Time Revenue includes Building Permit and Plan Check revenue and Sales Tax on locally purchased construction materialsSource: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]1-Summary App. N-31
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 Final Report
Net Fiscal Impact Comparison
In order to bring greater understanding to the net fiscal impact identified in the River Edge Fiscal
Impact Analysis, it is important to compare project fiscal results to the ongoing impacts of
existing development on County revenues and expenditures.
Any fiscal analysis of solely residential development is limited because it does not include the
offset of County revenues generated from commercial property elsewhere in the County. These
revenues include property tax on commercial development (assessed at approximately three
times the rate of residential), taxes and fees related to oil and gas extraction, and inflows of
retail sales tax expenditure from outside the County. These inflows primarily reflect sales tax on
household expenditures made by residents from Pitkin and Eagle County. Over time, the County
has maintained net positive fiscal balance – notwithstanding the net negative impact of
residential development – based on these and other dollar flows related to commercial
development. Similar to other counties in Colorado, these revenues offset the service impacts to
County operations from residential uses.
The purpose of the following analysis is to show the degree of impact from the proposed
development relative to the impact from the existing residential base of Garfield County. While
both are negative, the analysis is helpful as it quantifies the degree of impact and provides a
good method to compare service impacts of existing development to service impacts of proposed
development. It should be noted in years of negative revenue changes, Garfield County is able
to achieve fiscal solvency with annual adjustments to service levels. The methodology applied in
this analysis assumes constant levels of service.
The fiscal impact of River Edge differs from existing development in four distinct ways:
Average Household Size - The average household size in Garfield County is estimated
to be 2.71, using base estimates from the State demographer forecasted to 2010. This is
slightly higher than the average household size projected for River Edge of 2.61 persons
per household.
Property Tax - Based on 2009 data from the County Assessor’s office, the average
assessed value of a residential unit in Garfield County is $29,390 (based on an estimated
$389,000 market value). The average home price at River Edge, including affordable
housing, is anticipated to be $606,000. This results in an average assessed value of
$46,000. This significantly higher than existing development and will generate
substantially more annual property tax
Sales Tax - As a result of higher home values, residents at River Edge are estimated to
have higher incomes. Residents, in turn, are anticipated to spend more on retail goods in
the County than average residents of existing development, generating more sales tax
per unit.
Road and Bridge Impact - As mentioned in the earlier analysis, River Edge has minimal
impact on County-serviced roads. The proposed development is not located on a County-
serviced road and primary routes to retail or employment centers are all serviced by state
and federal highways. As a result, residents entering or leaving the proposed
App. N-32
River Edge Fiscal Analysis
November 16, 2010
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Final Report
development will not frequently utilize County roads and all interior roads will be privately
maintained. Existing development is scattered throughout the County on a variety of
County-serviced roads and will almost necessarily have a greater impact on County Road
and Bridge than River Edge. As a result, a variability factor of 50 percent (vs. 25
percent) is applied to existing development.
Comparison Results
To determine the difference in impact between existing development and the proposed River
Edge development, EPS tested 365 units at the County-wide average home price and household
size, utilizing a slightly higher Road and Bridge Impact factor, and compared the results with the
fiscal impact identified in the River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis. Generally, revenues from River
Edge are 48 percent higher and expenditures are 18 percent lower.
Considering the above, the fiscal impact of 365 units of existing development generates an
annual fiscal impact of -$268,000 under the applied methodology, as shown in Table 21. This
figure is substantially more negative than the -$26,000 annual fiscal impact (including affordable
housing) identified for River Edge (a difference of $242,000 annually). On a per unit basis,
existing residential development costs the County an estimated $735 versus $72 annually for
River Edge. This is a difference of $663 annually, reflecting the greater expense expected for
existing residential uses. This demonstrates that while the River Edge has a negative impact on
County finances, the impact is less than existing residential development in the County.
Table 21
Net Fiscal Impact Existing Development vs. River Edge
Rivers Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis
Description Existing River Edge
$%
365 Residential Units
Ongoing Net Fiscal Impact
Ongoing Revenues $296,786 $437,898 $141,112 48%
Ongoing Expenditures ($565,181)($464,354)$100,827 -18%
Net Fiscal Impact ($268,395) ($26,456) $241,939 -90%
Per Unit
Ongoing Net Fiscal Impact
Ongoing Revenues $813 $1,200 $387 48%
Ongoing Expenditures ($1,548)($1,272)$276 -18%
Net Fiscal Impact ($735) ($72) $663 -90%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3ExistingDev.xls]1-Summary
Difference
The estimates for existing residential development are likely conservative, as home prices in the
County have likely dropped from 2009 (established in 2008) data. In addition, the actual
reported average household income for the county ($80,000) is less than projected household
income under the current methodology (based on 30 percent of household income allocated to
annual housing costs).
App. N-33