Impact Analysis-CI REC PUD Final Complete · Final Report River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Prepared for: ... [20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]7-MKT Unit-Detail ... Annual Change 166 221

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.

Summa ry o f F ind ings

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


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


2. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND ABSORPTION

Pro jec t Desc r ip t ion

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 4,200Town (Detached) 49 46 95 2,800Village (Detached) 52 64 116 2,400Attached 20 20 40 2,300Garden Home 1 (Detached) 30 18 48 2,300Garden Home 2 (Aff. Detached) 30 25 55 1,400Subtotal 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



Pro jec t P has ing and Absorp t ion

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

BaseFactor 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 232Total Change 111 166 221 232 232 1,160 1,160Cumulative 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 254Total Change 166 221 243 254 254 1,271 1,271Cumulative 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



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 2,122Low Capture 15% 17 25 33 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 318High 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 2,409Low Capture 15% 25 33 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 361High 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



Table 4 River Edge Annual Absorption River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Estate 11 0 11Town 15 18 16 18 7 21 0 95Village 10 10 22 10 10 27 27 116Attached 10 10 0 10 10 0 0 40Garden Home 1 10 10 10 10 8 0 0 48Garden Home 2 10 10 10 10 10 5 55Subtotal 0 0 0 55 58 58 58 56 53 27 0 365Cumulative 0 0 0 55 113 171 229 285 338 365 365 365

Neighborhood Center 6,000 6,000Cumulative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]6-Abs Unit

App. N-10


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.

Methodo logy

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



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 23,080Households 19,555 20,317 21,032 21,274 21,808Total Population 52,969 55,063 57,050 57,587 59,032

Employment 36,800 39,065 41,221 37,655 37,655Non-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 3,973Average 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 data2Non-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



Table 6 Estimated Population River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Type of Resident 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Total Housing Units 0 0 0 55 58 58 58 56 53 27 0Total Population

Local Homeowner 0 0 0 131 139 148 139 135 142 73 02nd Homeowner 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 6 4 0Total 0 0 0 138 147 154 147 142 148 76 0

Cumulative Housing Units 0 0 0 55 113 171 229 285 338 365 365 Cumulative Population

Local Homeowner 0 0 0 131 271 418 558 693 835 908 9082nd Homeowner 0 0 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 45 45Total 0 0 0 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953Persons/DU 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 2.52 2.57 2.56 2.55 2.59 2.61 2.61


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]12-Population

App. N-13



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 $128,248,060Hard 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 $89,773,642Labor 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 $44,886,821Annual Wage1 $53,363Construction Employment 0 0 23 123 130 130 129 141 115 51 0 841

1BLS 2009 Average Annual Wage Construction Industry (23)


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 365Total Population 0 0 0 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953Construction Employment 0 0 23 123 130 130 129 141 115 51 0Total 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 0Average 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.


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



Table 9 Other Fiscal Assumptions River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Assumptions

AssessmentCounty Property Tax Ratio

Commercial 0.2900Residential 0.0796

Total Mill Levy 1 57.075County 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



Table 10 County Revenue, 2010 Budget River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Revenues Total Annual

RevenuesForecasting

MethodGross

MultiplierPercent Variable

Net Multiplier

General FundTaxes

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 FundTaxes

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 FundTaxes

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% $8.77Intergov/State Highway User Fund $3,078,000 Per DU $133.38 75% $100.04Charges for Services $5,000 N/A --- --- ---Contributions 3 $3,122,000 N/A --- --- ---Other $24,000 N/A --- --- ---Subtotal $24,966,000

Capital Improvement FundTaxes

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 FundTaxes

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 project5 Specific Ownership Tax distributions change yearly, so the revenue stream is treated alone in this fiscal analysis


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]4-Rev Factors

App. N-16



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

1Description 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)

MarketEstate $5,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,234 $0 $0 $0 $61,234Town $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $59,245 $71,094 $63,195 $71,094 $27,648 $82,943 $0 $0 $375,220Village $3,377 $0 $0 $0 $33,768 $33,768 $74,290 $33,768 $33,768 $91,174 $91,174 $0 $391,710Attached $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $0 $0 $0 $130,637Garden Home 1 $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $32,659 $32,659 $26,127 $0 $0 $0 $156,765Garden Home 2 $2,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

AffordableEstate $5,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Town $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Village $3,377 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Attached $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Garden Home 1 $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Garden 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 $1,232,336Cumulative $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


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



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 $128,248,060Hard 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 $89,773,642Material 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 $44,886,821Local 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 RevenueLibrary 0.25% $0 $0 $766 $4,100 $4,329 $4,328 $4,301 $4,691 $3,838 $1,701 $0 $28,054911/Communications 0.19% $0 $0 $574 $3,075 $3,247 $3,246 $3,226 $3,518 $2,878 $1,276 $0 $21,041Road and Bridge 0.26% $0 $0 $804 $4,305 $4,546 $4,545 $4,516 $4,926 $4,030 $1,786 $0 $29,457Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02% $0 $0 $57 $307 $325 $325 $323 $352 $288 $128 $0 $2,104Municipalities 0.09% $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520Sheriff's Office 0.09% $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520Public Health 0.09% $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520Total Sales Tax 1.00% $0 $0 $3,062 $16,398 $17,317 $17,314 $17,206 $18,765 $15,351 $6,804 $0 $448,868Total 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


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



Table 13 Property Tax Revenue River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Product Type Rate 2010 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 Tax 57.075 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $136,170 $282,492 $428,304 $584,060 $748,215 $894,631 $964,551Applicable Total1 13.464 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,123 $66,640 $101,037 $137,780 $176,504 $211,044 $227,538

CountyGeneral 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 $3,228Subtotal 13.655 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,578 $67,585 $102,470 $139,734 $179,008 $214,037 $230,765

RE-1 School DistrictGeneral 21.868 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,173 $108,235 $164,102 $223,780 $286,675 $342,773 $369,563Mill Levy Override 2.823 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,735 $13,972 $21,184 $28,888 $37,008 $44,250 $47,708RE-1 Bond 6.293 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,014 $31,147 $47,224 $64,397 $82,497 $98,641 $106,350Subtotal 30.984 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,922 $153,355 $232,511 $317,065 $406,179 $485,664 $523,620

Carbondale FireGeneral Fund 5.91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,100 $29,251 $44,350 $60,478 $77,476 $92,637 $99,877Fire Bond 1.319 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,147 $6,528 $9,898 $13,498 $17,291 $20,675 $22,291Subtotal 7.229 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,247 $35,780 $54,248 $73,976 $94,767 $113,312 $122,168

Water & SanitationBasalt Water Conserv. 0.044 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105 $218 $330 $450 $577 $690 $744CO River Water Conserv. Dist 0.166 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $396 $822 $1,246 $1,699 $2,176 $2,602 $2,805Subtotal 0.210 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $501 $1,039 $1,576 $2,149 $2,753 $3,292 $3,549

Colorado Mtn. College 3.997 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,536 $19,783 $29,994 $40,902 $52,398 $62,652 $67,548Library 1.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,386 $4,949 $7,504 $10,233 $13,109 $15,675 $16,900

Applicable Total1 13.464 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,123 $66,640 $101,037 $137,780 $176,504 $211,044 $227,538

1Includes All County Mills except Retirement

Note: Taxes are billed and paid the following year of assessment

Source: Garfield County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems

H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]15-Case-Prop Tax$

App. N-19



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 RevenueLibrary 0.25% $0 $0 $0 $5,549 $11,514 $17,603 $23,568 $30,203 $36,328 $39,260 $39,260911/Communications 0.19% $0 $0 $0 $4,162 $8,636 $13,202 $17,676 $22,652 $27,246 $29,445 $29,445Road and Bridge 0.26% $0 $0 $0 $5,827 $12,090 $18,483 $24,746 $31,713 $38,144 $41,223 $41,223Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02% $0 $0 $0 $416 $864 $1,320 $1,768 $2,265 $2,725 $2,945 $2,945Municipalities 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723Sheriff's Office 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723Public Health 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723Total Sales Tax 1.00% $0 $0 $0 $22,197 $46,057 $70,412 $94,272 $120,810 $145,312 $157,040 $157,040Total County Sales Tax 0.45% $0 $0 $0 $9,989 $20,726 $31,685 $42,422 $54,365 $65,390 $70,668 $70,668


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]17-Case-Sales Tax (PO)

App. N-20



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



Table 15 Total Revenue River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Type of Fund Type Factor 2010 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)

On-Going RevenueGeneral Fund

Property Tax Case Study 7.742 mills $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,471 $38,319 $58,098 $79,225 $101,492 $121,353 $130,838Sales Tax

On-Site Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723Misc. Tax N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Charges for Services Per 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 $203,707

Human Services FundProperty Tax Case Study 0.572 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 $9,667

Road & Bridge FundProperty Tax Case Study 2.861 mills $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,826 $14,160 $21,470 $29,277 $37,506 $44,845 $48,350Sales Tax

On-Site Sales Tax Case Study 0.26% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study 0.26% $0 $0 $0 $5,827 $12,090 $18,483 $24,746 $31,713 $38,144 $41,223 $41,223 $41,223Other Tax N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Licenses & Permits Per DU $8.77 $0 $0 $0 $483 $991 $1,500 $2,009 $2,501 $2,966 $3,202 $3,202 $3,202Intergovernmental Per 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 $129,289

Capital Expenditures FundProperty Tax Case Study 2.289 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 $38,683

Public Health FundSales Tax

On-Site Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723

Public Health Fund Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723

Specific Ownership Tax Per DU $114.60 $0 $0 $0 $6,303 $12,950 $19,597 $26,244 $32,661 $38,735 $41,829 $41,829 $41,829

Subtotal On-Going Revenue $0 $0 $0 $30,705 $63,347 $128,801 $195,961 $263,494 $332,163 $386,864 $421,404 $437,898

One Time RevenueGeneral Fund

Construction Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $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 $0

Road & BridgeConstruction Sales Tax Case Study 0.26% $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 $0

Public HealthConstruction Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $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 $0

Cumulative 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 $1,282,833


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]20-Rev. All

App. N-22



Expend i tu res

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



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 FundGeneral $451,000 Per Capita $7.64 50% $3.82BOCC

O & M $710,000 Per Capita $12.03 75% $9.02Discretionary Programs $2,630,000 Per Capita $44.55 50% $22.28

Assessor $2,080,000 Per DU $90.11 50% $45.06Clerk & Recorder $1,983,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $31.47 50% $15.74Treasurer $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% $11.21County Manager $723,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $11.48 50% $5.74Finance $1,082,000 Per Capita $18.33 50% $9.16Human Resources $716,000 Per Capita $12.13 50% $6.06Information Technology $1,368,000 Per Capita $23.17 50% $11.59Purchasing $810,000 N/A --- --- ---Oil & Gas $532,000 N/A --- --- ---General Services $2,088,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $33.14 75% $24.86Criminal Justice Services $2,517,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $39.95 50% $19.97Building & Planning $1,581,000 Per DU $68.50 75% $51.38County Engineer $268,000 Per Capita $4.54 50% $2.27Public 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% $25.21Road & Bridge Fund $20,178,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $320.26 25% $80.06Capital Expenditures Fund4

New Sheriff Vehicles $75,000 Case Study --- --- ---Other $8,743,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $138.77 75% $104.07Total $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 estimated1 Rounded numbers2Excludes Grant/Intergovernmental Revenue and Grant Expenditures3 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


H:\20813-Garfield County River's Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model2.xls]5-Expend Factors

App. N-24



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



Table 17 County Sheriff Expenditures River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

DescriptionForecasting

Method 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 Call Volume 26,163Average Daily Population 63,005 0 0 0 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953Annual Call Volume Generated 0.42Annual Calls Generated 0 0 0 57 118 182 243 302 364 396 396

Operations & MaintenanceGeneral Operations Per Call $90.66 $0 $0 $0 $5,201 $10,722 $16,531 $22,052 $27,410 $33,000 $35,880 $35,880Animal Control Per Call $15.23 $0 $0 $0 $874 $1,801 $2,777 $3,705 $4,605 $5,544 $6,028 $6,028Hazards Response Team Per Call $0.73 $0 $0 $0 $42 $86 $132 $177 $220 $264 $287 $287Emergency Management Per Call $10.45 $0 $0 $0 $600 $1,236 $1,906 $2,543 $3,160 $3,805 $4,137 $4,137Fire Supression Per Call $1.20 $0 $0 $0 $69 $142 $220 $293 $364 $438 $476 $476Jail Not Estimated --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Patrol See Below --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Search & Rescue Per Call $0.55 $0 $0 $0 $32 $66 $101 $135 $168 $202 $219 $219Victim Advocate Per Call $1.36 $0 $0 $0 $78 $160 $247 $330 $410 $494 $537 $537Investigations Per Call $0.59 $0 $0 $0 $34 $70 $108 $144 $179 $216 $234 $234Professional Standards Per Call $5.06 $0 $0 $0 $291 $599 $923 $1,232 $1,531 $1,843 $2,004 $2,004Community Relations Per 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 $50,803

Patrol 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 0.48

0.00 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 $0

Patrol VehiclesExisting Patrol Vehicles 32Vehicles per Patrol Officer 1.00Vehicles Needed 0.00 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 $12,706

Total Cost2 $0 $0 $0 $14,482 $29,856 $46,031 $61,405 $76,324 $91,891 $105,910 $99,910

1One-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 Fund


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]21-Case-Police

App. N-26



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



Table 18 Total Expenditures River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Type of Expense Factor 2010 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 $3,641BOCC

O & M Per 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 $21,230

Assessor Per DU $45.06 $0 $0 $0 $2,478 $5,091 $7,705 $16,446 $16,446Clerk & Recorder Avg. Daily Pop. $15.74 $0 $0 $57 $2,480 $4,805 $7,233 $14,998 $14,998Treasurer N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Sheriff Case Study --- $0 $0 $0 $14,482 $29,856 $46,031 $99,910 $99,910Coroner N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Surveyor N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---County Attorney Avg. Daily Pop. $11.21 $0 $0 $41 $1,766 $3,422 $5,151 $10,679 $10,679County Manager Avg. Daily Pop. $5.74 $0 $0 $21 $904 $1,752 $2,637 $5,468 $5,468Finance Per Capita $9.16 $0 $0 $0 $1,266 $2,610 $4,024 $8,734 $8,734Human Resources Per 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 $11,043Purchasing N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Oil & Gas N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---General Services Avg. 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 & Planning Per DU $51.38 $0 $0 $0 $2,826 $5,805 $8,785 $18,752 $18,752County Engineer Per Capita $2.27 $0 $0 $0 $125 $257 $388 $829 $829Public Health3 N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Fund Administration N/A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Total $0 $0 $252 $39,377 $79,785 $121,923 $260,936 $260,936

Human Services Fund Per Capita $25.21 $0 $0 $0 $3,482 $7,179 $11,068 $24,023 $24,023Road & Bridge Fund Avg. Daily Pop. $80.06 $0 $0 $291 $12,619 $24,448 $36,802 $76,306 $76,306Capital Expenditures Fund

New Sheriff Vehicles Case Study --- $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Other Avg. 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 $99,189

Public Health Fund Per Capita $4.09 $0 $0 $0 $565 $1,165 $1,796 $3,899 $3,899

Total Expenditures $0 $0 $921 $72,447 $144,356 $219,427 $464,354 $464,354


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]21-Exp. All

App. N-28



Net F i s ca l Im pac t

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



Table 19 Net Fiscal Impact River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Description 2010 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 Impact1

One-Time Revenues $0 $0 $1,091 $184,267 $196,443 $196,405 $196,403 $214,474 $189,633 $93,598 $0 $0

Annual 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 $565,754

1One-Time Revenue includes Building Permit and Plan Check revenue and Sales Tax on locally purchased construction materials


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]1-Summary

App. N-30



Table 20 Net Fiscal Impact, exclusive of Affordable Homes River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Description 2010 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) $372

One-Time Net Fiscal Impact1

One-Time Revenues $0 $0 $1,051 $163,708 $175,884 $175,846 $175,838 $194,014 $179,463 $93,598 $0 $0

Annual 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 $714,567

1One-Time Revenue includes Building Permit and Plan Check revenue and Sales Tax on locally purchased construction materials


H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]1-Summary

App. N-31



Net F i s ca l Im pac t Compar i son

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



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 UnitsOngoing 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 UnitOngoing 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%


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

Documents

Impact Analysis-CI REC PUD Final Complete · Final Report River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Prepared for: ... [20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]7-MKT Unit-Detail ... Annual Change 166 221