HomeMy WebLinkAbout20023287 EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
ORD #2002-11
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. County Attorney Memo re: Amendments on Final Reading
(12/20/2002)
caws <, .'de. Wed
B. .Deft i4tirae04 } .e- S ccdVL Alt vens,Acr P'40
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
2002-3287
‘Ir
TO:in Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney
W I i417De. DATE: December 20, 2002
RE: Recommended Amendments and Corrections to Weld
COLORADO County Code Ordinance 2002-11 on Third Reading
The Department of Planning Services staff has brought to my attention a few minor amendments
and corrections we recommend for the third reading of Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-11.
They are the following:
1. Clarify that the "2,500 square feet of total floor space" under the definition of
"Agricultural Commercial" is "per lot."
Amend Sec. 20-1-130. Definitions. to state the following for"Agricultural
Commercial:"
Agricultural Commercial means, for the purposes of this Article, any nonresidential
commercial development not permitted by right in the A (Agricultural) Zone District
described in Chapter 23 of this Code, having less than 2,500 square feet of total floor
space per lot.
2. Clarify that fee payers may apply to get refunds of the fees collected if no work has
been done under a permit issued in accordance with the Building Code.
Amend Sec. 20-2-600. Refund of fees not spent. as follows:
Sec. 20-2-600. Refund of fees not spent.
Any fees collected shall be returned to the Fee Payer or the Fee Payer's successor in
interest if the fees have not been spent within ten (10) years from the date the building
permit for the development was issued, along with interest of five percent (5%) a year.
Fees shall be deemed to be spent on the basis of the first fee collected shall be the first fee
spent.
Any fees collected may be refunded to the fee payer if no work has been done under a
building permit issued in accordance with Chapter 29 of this Code. The Director shall
not authorize the refunding of any fees collected except upon written application for such
refund filed by the original fee payer not later than one hundred eighty(180) days after
the date of the fee collection.
2 EXHIBIT
3 Ord ascz- I I
Memorandum, Board of County Commissioners
December 20, 2002
Page 2
Amend Sec. 20-2-610. Refund procedure. as follows:
Sec. 20-2-610. R.fa.,d pi oceduw c. Procedure for refund of fees not spent.
The refund of fees not spent shall be administered by the Director, and shall be
undertaken through the following process:
The remaining portions of Sec. 20-2-610 remain the same.
3. Jeff Reif found two errors in Appendix 20-A. The distance on WCR 13, from WCR 8 to
WCR 12, should be corrected to 2 miles, not 4 miles as stated. The distance on WCR 13,
from WCR 50 to WCR 54, should also be corrected to 2 miles, not 1 mile as stated.
A Memorandum from Jeff Reif detailing the Building Code procedure for refunds and
stating the necessary corrections to Appendix 20-A is attached.
Bruce T. Earker
Weld County Attorney
Attachment
pc: Clerk to the Board
Monica Mika
Don Warden
MEMORANDUM
To:COLORADOF omruce Jeff Reif, r December 17, 2002
Building Official4 'Y
Subject: Road Impact Fee Refunds
Monica asked me to furnish the enclosed portions of the Weld County Code and the 1997
Uniform Building Code. I have highlighted the "fee refund" provisions of these two codes. Both
codes allow for a refund of 80% of the fees that were paid as long as no work was performed.
I also noticed two errors in Appendix 20-A. The first error is on page 22. The distance on WCR
13 from WCR 8 to WCR 12 should be 2 miles, not 4 miles as stated. Also, on page 23 the
distance on WCR 13 from WCR 50 to WCR 54 should be 2 miles, not 1 mile as stated.
Building Regulations—Building Permits Sec.29-3-220
Sec.29-3-220. Plan review fees. by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond
the control of the applicant have prevented action
A. When submittal documents are required by from being taken. No application shall be extended
Section 29-3-130 of this Chapter, a plan review fee more than once. In order to renew action on an
shall be paid at the time of submitting the submittal application after expiration, the applicant shall
documents for plan review. Said plan review fee resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee.
shall be as established by the Board of County
Commissioners. Sec.29-3-240. Investigation fee.
B. Where plans are incomplete or changed so as A. Whenever work for which a permit is
to require additional plan review or when the project required by this Building Code has been commenced
involves deferred submittal items, an additional plan without first obtaining said permit, a special investi-
review fee shall be charged at the rate established by gation shall be made before a permit may be issued
the Board of County Commissioners. for such work.
C. Where several structures are to be built by a B. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit
single contractor on the basis of a standardized plan, fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then
the plan review shall be accomplished when the first or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall
building permit is requested for such structure and be fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the permit
the fee charged shall be in accordance with the fee as established by the Board of County Commis-
established fee schedule. On subsequent permits, sioners. In no event shall the investigation fee
when the structure is to be built in accordance with exceed the amount set by the Board of County
the previously reviewed standardized plans, and Commissioners. The payment of such investigation
there have been no changes in the applicable codes, fee shall not exempt any person from compliance
additional fees for plan review shall not be charged. with all other provisions of this Building Code nor
Charges for review of changes in standardized plans from any penalty prescribed by law.
shall be made in accordance with the fee schedules
established by the Board of County Commissioners. Sec.29-3-250. Reinspection fee.
Prior approval of said standardized plans shall not be
deemed to grant authorization for any work to be A reinspection fee, as established by the Board of
done in any manner in violation of current or future County Commissioners, may be assessed for each
provisions of this Building Code. However, if this inspection or reinspection when such portion of work
Building Code is changed, a new plan check will be for which inspection is called is not complete or
required and a fee charged as established by the when corrections called for are not ready. (See
Board of County Commissioners. Section 29-3-190 B of this Chapter.)
Sec.29-3-230. Expiration of plan review. Sec.29-3-260. Fee refunds.
Applications for which no permit is issued within A. The Building Official may authorize refund-
one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of ing of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously
application shall expire by limitation, and plans and paid or collected.
other data submitted for review may thereafter be
returned to the applicant or destroyed by the Build- B. The Building Official may authorize the
ing Official. The Building Official may extend the refunding of not more than eighty percent (80)%) of
time for action by the applicant for a period not to the permit fee when no work has been done under a
exceed one hundred eighty (180) days upon request permit issued in accordance with this Building Code.
29-28
Building Regulations—Building Permits Sec.29-3-260
C. The Building Official may authorize the Sec.29-3-290. Manufactured home certificate of
refunding of not more than eighty percent (80%) of occupancy.
the plan review fee paid when an application for a
permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is Mobile, manufactured or factory-built homes
withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is shall receive a manufactured home certificate of
done. occupancy. Such certificate shall indicate that at the
time of issuance, no code violations were observed at
D. The Building Official shall not authorize the the final inspection, and it appears to conform with
refunding of any fee paid except upon written appli- this Chapter regulating manufactured home installa-
cation for such refund filed by the original permittee tion standards.
not later than one hundred eighty(180)days after the
date of fee payment. Sec.29-3-300. Moved structures,additions or
remodel certificates of occupancy.
Sec.29-3-270. Conduct of building permit
inspections. Moved structures, additions or remodel projects
shall receive a certificate of occupancy for the work
All construction or work for which a permit is described on the certificate. The certificate shall
required shall be subject to inspection by the Build- further state that the issuance of this certificate does
ing Official according to the procedure set out in not certify that the building meets all the require-
Section 108.5 of the Uniform Building Code, which ments of this Chapter for new buildings.
section is hereby incorporated into and made a part
hereof by this reference. (See Subsections 29-2-20 C Sec.29-3-310. Temporary certificate of
and D of this Chapter.) occupancy.
Sec.29-3-280. Certificate of occupancy. A temporary certificate of occupancy may be
issued by the Building Official for the use of a
A. No building or structure shall be used or portion or portions of the building or structure prior
occupied and no change in the existing occupancy to completion of the entire building or structure. The
classification of a building, structure or portion temporary certificate shall be valid for a certain
thereof shall be made until the Building Official has period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days and
issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided may be renewed only once by the Building Official.
by this Section. Issuance of a certificate of occu-
pancy shall not be construed as an approval of a Sec.29-3-320. Change in use.
violation of the provisions of this Building Code or
of other ordinances of the County. Certificates Changes in the character or use of a building shall
presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the not be made except as specified in Section 3405 of
provisions of this Building Code or of other ordi- the UBC. (See Section 29-3-50 A of this Chapter.)
nances of the County shall not be valid. (See Section
29-9-10 C of this Chapter.) Sec.29-3-330. Certificate issued.
B. Group U Occupancies do not require a certifi- After the Building Official inspects the building
cate of occupancy. (See Section 29-2-20 E of this or structure and finds no violations of the provisions
Chapter.) of this Building Code or other laws which are
enforced by the County, the Building Official shall
29-29
106A.1 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
107.6
and that the fees specified in Section 107 have been paid, the incorrect information supplied,or in violation of any ordinance or
building official shall issue a permit therefor to the applicant. regulation or any of the provisions of this code.
When the building official issues the permit where plans are re-
quired,the building official shall endorse in writing or stamp the SECTION 107-FEES
plans and specifications APPROVED.Such approved plans and 107.1 General. Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the
specifications shall not be changed,modified or altered without provisions of this section or shall be as set forth in the fee schedule
authorizations from the building official, and all work regulated adopted by the jurisdiction.
by this code shall be done in accordance with the approved plans.
The building official may issue apermit for the construction of 107.2 Permit Fees. The fee for each permit shall be as set forth
in Table 1-A.
part of a building or structure before the entire plans and specifica-
tions for the whole building or structure have been submitted or The determination of value or valuation under any of the provi-
approved,provided adequate information and detailed statements sions of this code shall be made by the building official.The value
have been filed complying with all pertinent requirements of this to be used in computing the building permit and building plan re-
code.The holder of a partial permit shall proceed without assur- view fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which
ante that the permit for the entire building or structure will be the permit is issued,as well as all finish work,painting,roofing,
granted. electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-
extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment.
106.4.2 Retention of plans. One set of approved plans,specifi- 1073 Plan Review Fees. When submittal documents are re-
cations and computations shall be retained by the building official quired by Section 106.3.2, a plan review fee shall be paid at the
for a period of not less than 90 days from date of completion of the time of submitting the submittal documents for plan review.Said
work covered therein;and one set of approved plans and specifica- plan review fee shall be 65 percent of the building permit fee as
tions shall be returned to the applicant,and said set shall be kept on shown in Table 1-A.
the site of the building or work at all times during which the work
authorized thereby is in progress. The plan review fees specified in this section are separate fees
from the permit fees specified in Section 107.2 and are in addition
106.43 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a permit to the permit fees.
or approval of plans,specifications and computations shall not be When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to
construed to be a permit for,or an approval of,any violation of any require additional plan review or when the project involves de-
of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the juris- ferred submittal items as defined in Section 106.3.4.2, an addi-
diction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel tional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate shown in Table
the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction 1-A
shall not be valid.
107.4 Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no
The issuance of a permit based on plans,specifications and oth- permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application
er data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter re- shall expire by limitation,and plans and other data submitted for
quiring the correction of errors in said plans, specifications and review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by
other data,or from preventing building operations being carried the building official.The building official may extend the time for
on thereunder when in violation of this code or of any other ordi- action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days on re-
nances of this jurisdiction. quest by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the
106.4.4 Expiration. Every permit issued by the building officialcontrol of the applicant have prevented action from being taken.
under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and be- No application shall be extended more than once.In order to re-
come null and void if the building or work authorized by such per- new action on an application after expiration,the applicant shall
mit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee.
permit,or if the building or work authorized by such permit is sus- 1073 Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit.
pended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for
a period of 180 days.Before such work can be recommenced, a 107.5.1 Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit
new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the fee therefor is required by this code has been commenced without first obtain-
shall be one half the amount required for a new permit for such ing said permit,a special investigation shall be made before a per-
work,provided no changes have been made or will be made in the mit may be issued for such work.
original plans and specifications for such work,and provided fur- 107.5.2 Fee. An investigation fee,in addition to the permit fee,
ther that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently
year.In order to renew action on a permit after expiration,the per- issued.The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the
mittee shall pay a new full permit fee. permit fee required by this code.The minimum investigation fee
Any permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in Table 1-A.The
extension of the time within which work may commence under payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person
that permit when the permittee is unable to commence work with- from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from
in the time required by this section for good and satisfactory rea- any penalty prescribed by law.
sons.The building official may extend the time for action by the 107.6 Fee Refunds. The building official may authorize refund-
permittee for a period not exceeding 180 days on written request ing of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or
by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond the control of collected.
the permittee have prevented action from being taken.No permit The building official may authorize refunding of not more than
shall be extended more than once. 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done un-
106.4.5 Suspension or revocation. The building official may, der a permit issued in accordance with this code.
in writing,suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions The building official may authorize refunding of not more than
of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a
1-4
1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 107.6
108.8
permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or There shall be a final inspection and approval of all buildings
canceled before any plan reviewing is done. and structures when completed and ready for occupancy and use.
The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee 108.5 Required Inspections.
paid except on written application filed by the original permittee 108.5.1 General. Reinforcing steel or structural framework of
not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment. any part of any building or structure shall not be covered or con-
cealed without first obtaining the approval of the building official.
Protection of joints and penetrations in fire-resistive assemblies I
shall not be concealed from view until inspected and approved.
SECTION 108—INSPECTIONS The building official,upon notification,shall make the inspec-
tions set forth in the following sections.
108.1 General. All construction or work for which a permit is 108.5.2 Foundation inspection. To be made after excavations
required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and for footings are complete and any required reinforcing steel is in
all such construction or work shall remain accessible and exposed place. For concrete foundations, any required forms shall be in
for inspection purposes until approved by the building official.In place prior to inspection.All materials for the foundation shall be
addition, certain types of construction shall have continuous in- on the job, except where concrete is ready mixed in accordance
spection, as specified in Section 1701.5. with approved nationally recognized standards,the concrete need '
not be on the job.Where the foundation is to be constructed of ap-
Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be
an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other proved treated wood, additional inspections may be required by
the building official.
ordinances of the jurisdiction.Inspections presuming to give au-
thority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other 108.53 Concrete slab or under-floor inspection. To be made
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. after all in-slab or under-floor building service equipment, con-
duit,piping accessories and other ancillary equipment items are in
It shall be the duty of the permit applicant to cause the work to place, but before any concrete is placed or floor sheathing
remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes.Neither installed,including the subfloor.
the building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense
entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to 108.5.4 Frame inspection. To be made after the roof,all fram-
allow inspection. ing,fire blocking and bracing are in place and all pipes,chimneys
and vents are complete and the rough electrical, plumbing, and
A survey of the lot may be required by the building official to heating wires,pipes and ducts are approved.
verify that the structure is located in accordance with the approved 108.5.5 Lath or gypsum board inspection. To be made after all
plans. lathing and gypsum board,interior and exterior,is in place,but be-
fore any plastering is applied or before gypsum board joints and
108.2 Inspection Record Card. Work requiring a permit shall fasteners are taped and finished.
not be commenced until the permit holder or an agent of the permit
holder shall have posted or otherwise made available an inspec- 1 e building Final inspection. To readybe made after finish grading and
tion record card such as to allow the building official to conve-
niently the is completed and for occupancy.
make the required entries thereon regarding inspection of 108.6 Special Inspections. For special inspections,see Chapter
the work.This card shall be maintained available by the permit 17
holder until final approval has been granted by the building
official. 108.7 Other Inspections. In addition to the called inspections
specified above,the building official may make or require other
108.3 Inspection Requests. It shall be the duty of the person do-
the of any construction work to ascertain compliance with
ing the work authorized by a permit to notify the building official the provisions of this code and other laws which are enforced by
that such work is ready for inspection.The building official may the code enforcement agency.
require that every request for inspection be filed at least one work- 108.8 Reinspections. A reinspection fee may be assessed for
ing day before such inspection is desired.Such request may be in each inspection or reinspection when such portion of work for
writing or by telephone at the option of the building official. which inspection is called is not complete or when corrections
called for are not made.
It shall be the duty of the person requesting any inspections re-
quired by this code to provide access to and means for inspection This section is not to be interpreted as requiring reinspection
of such work. fees the first time a job is rejected for failure to comply with the
requirements of this code,but as controlling the practice of calling
for inspections before the job is ready for such inspection or re-
108.4 Approval Required. Work shall not be done beyond the inspection.
point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtain- Reinspection fees may be assessed when the inspection record
ing the approval of the building official. The building official, card is not posted or otherwise available on the work site, the
upon notification,shall make the requested inspections and shall
either indicate that portion of the construction is satisfactory as approved plans are not readily available to the inspector,for fail-
completed,or shall notify the permit holder or an agent of the per- ure to provide access on the date for which inspection is requested,
mit holder wherein the same fails to comply with this code.Any or for deviating from plans requiring the approval of the building
portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion official.
shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building To obtain a reinspection,the applicant shall file an application
official. therefor in writing on a form furnished for that purpose and pay the
1-5
County-Wide Road
Impact Fee Study
prepared for Weld County, Colorado
ij
' i
prepared by duncan associates
in association with
Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig
November 2002
Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
LEGAL AUTHORITY 3
GROWTH PROJECTIONS 4
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM 5
SERVICE AREA 5
SERVICE UNIT 7
METHODOLOGY 7
ROADWAY CAPACITY 9
COST PER SERVICE UNIT 10
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT 12
TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS 14
MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE 18
FEE COMPARISON 19
APPENDIX 20
List of Tables
Table 1: WELD COUNTY GROWTH PROJECTIONS,2000-2020 4
Table 2: DAILY CAPACITIES OF PAVED ROADS 9
Table 3: S 1_RATEGIC ROADS AND JURISDICTIONS 10
Table 4: UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS 11
Table 5: COST PER SERVICE UNIT 12
Table 6: REVENUE CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT 13
Table 7: NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT 14
Table 8: AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH 15
Table 9: AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY TRIP PURPOSE 16
Table 10: TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE 17
Table 11: NET COST SCHEDULE 18
Table 12: COMPARISON TO CURRENT ROAD IMPACT FEES 19
Table 13: STRATEGIC ROADWAY INVENTORY 20
WELD CO NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanIaeaYri rtes Page i
INTRODUCTION
Impact fees are one of the most direct ways for local government to require new development to pay a
larger portion of the costs they impose on the community. They are charges that are assessed on new
development based on a standard formula such as the amount of square footage or the number of
dwelling units. The fees are one-time,up-front charges,with the payment usually made at the time of
building permit issuance. Essentially,impact fees require that each new residential or commercial project
pay its pro-rata share of the cost of new infrastructure facilities required to serve that development.
Impact fees and other forms of developer exactions are not the sole answer to local government's capital
funding needs. These funding mechanisms do not address the costs of maintenance,rehabilitation or
replacement of existing facilities,nor can they be used to fund capital improvements required to remedy
existing capacity deficiencies or safety problems. Rather than the ultimate solution to a community's
capital funding needs,impact fees should be viewed as a supplemental financing mechanism to be used
in concert with more traditional funding sources
In July 1999,Duncan Associates prepared an initial road Figure 1
impact fee study for two areas within Weld County that WINDSOR AND SOUTHWEST
were experiencing the pressures of growth. The County ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
implemented the road impact fees in both service areas
effective December 1, 1999. Figure 1 shows the original
Windsor and Southwest assessment districts. ,M
fR
The fees for the growth areas were intended to be multi- �
jurisdictional. In addition to the unincorporated areas,
the Windsor Study Area originally included the Towns of
Windsor and Severance; however, the towns ultimately "x
decided not to participate in the County road impact fee
I
program. Similarly, the Southwest Study Area originally
included the municipalities of Firestone, Frederick, „ {' W
Dacono,Erie,Longmont,and Mead,but only Frederick m•
and Longmont ultimately decided to participate. In June - n
2001,Duncan Associates prepared an update of the road
impact fees in the Southwest Study Area to reflect the •az
fact that only two municipalities were participating ly'l' Y 4 "`- t
9 :„ Windsor
Recently, the County has learned that those two southwest
municipalities are reconsidering their participation.
� ' +, s
Given that the municipalities are not participating in the "' ..r Oitie.
. 't•
growth area fees, and that they are likely to annex and
141 rig
make the improvements to many of the roads in those x=
areas that were to be funded with the growth area fees, �:«i `
the County is now considering replacing the growth area fi
fees with a county-wide road impact fee.
WELD Co rtrv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanicscoriates Page 1
In 2002,the Weld County Public Works Department developed a Strategic Roadway Plan that identified
long-term improvements to the County's major roadway system. The Strategic Roadway Plan identifies
seven major roadway corridors in the county that are primarily the County's responsibility and that will
help complete the major roadway network in Weld County. The location of the seven strategic roadway
improvements are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2
PLANNED STRATEGIC ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
v
r
, „."
w�III
j 0 ,
r , , §. ----
392 err , ..
'?'
Ir. (' L.-.WI,
71, ir f. ; ` �%: , .. ;
r ;; '
ll ....
i
...n,--
. ; t.._.
' '1i i
.-� 1 I -
h!i' u
igA rt-*"."
z .' �/ ,
:, ' rii'Llini 4 L_ 4- 4, •tar ••• II : r• I .
i NSA �a 52 .._ '� , it
P 6 .. [i _ , -- _ I-1-+-1 ,
./.'" ... k . ' :.E
op
WELD CopNty/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
dunaan atecriates Page 2
The County proposes to replace the road impact fees currently being assessed in the Windsor and
Southwest growth areas with a county-wide road impact fee that will fund the capacity-expanding
improvements identified in the Strategic Roadway Plan. Since none of the municipalities in Weld County
have elected to participate in any type of regional impact fee program,the county-wide road impact fee
will only be assessed and expended in the unincorporated portions of Weld County.
This report calculates the maximum impact fees that could be assessed for the major road network in
the unincorporated portions of Weld County. The consultant recommends only those major roadways
identified in the Strategic Roadway Plan be funded with the proposed county-wide road impact fee.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Impact fees were pioneered by local governments in the absence of explicit state enabling legislation.
Consequently, such fees were originally defended as an exercise of local government's broad "police
power" to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The courts gradually developed
guidelines for constitutionally valid impact fees,based on a"rational nexus"that must exist between the
regulatory fee or exaction and the activity that is being regulated.
With the governor's signature of Senate Bill 15 on Figure 3
November 6,2001, Colorado became the 24th state to IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS
adopt impact fee enabling legislation. These acts have
tended to embody the constitutional standards that
have been h de lo by the copula. Howevsuch as Florida,some
states where impact fees are popular, such as F
still do not have impact fee enabling legislation. One of
the reasons that Florida does not have an impact fee
enabling act is that local governments felt that they had
more freedom under Florida and national case law than
they would under an explicit enabling statute. Indeed,
one of the provisions in most state enabling acts is a sr.cut o;w
limitation on the types of facilities for which impact
fees can be assessed. Road impact fees are one of the
most common types of impact fees;all of the states with enabling acts authorize road impact fees.
When Weld County first began considering road impact fees in 1999, the authority of counties in
Colorado to impose road impact fees was not entirely clear. Several counties had adopted impact fees,
which they felt were authorized under counties'implied powers. This changed with the passage of SB
15 last year. Among other things,this bill created a new section 104.5:Impact Fees,in Article 20 of Tide
29, Colorado Revised Statutes,which specifically provides that:
Pursuant to the authority granted in section 29-20-104 (1) (g) and as a
condition of issuance of a development permit, a local government may
impose an impact fee or other similar development charge to fund
WELD Corm-nit/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
eluncan aeanriates Page 3
expenditures by such local government on capital facilities needed to serve
new development.
One problem that remains,however,is some confusion over when in the development approval process
impact fees may be imposed. Prior to the enabling legislation, counties could make a strong case for
implied powers to enact road impact fees based on their subdivision authority. Most road impact fees,
however,are collected at time of building permit.
The new state law provides that local governments may impose impact fees"as a condition of issuance
of a development permit" (Section 29-20-104.5(1)). "Development permit"is defined in Section 29-20-
103 as follows:
"Development permit" means any preliminary or final approval of an
application for rezoning,planned unit development,conditional or special
use permit,subdivision,development or site plan,or similar application for
new construction.
It is not clear from this definition whether the term "development permit" includes a building permit.
A subsequent section(Section 29-20-104.5(6)) does state that actual collection of the impact fee can be
deferred to the time of issuance of the building permit. Ultimately, this issue will be resolved by the
courts. In the interim, local governments will need to make their own determination as to whether
impact fees should be collected at building permit or earlier in the development process.
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
Growth projections for Weld County indicate that the county-wide population will continue to grow
at a rapid rate, exceeding a three percent annual compound growth rate, as shown in Table 1. Net
growth in the unincorporated area,even after some growth is annexed by municipalities,will continue
to be rapid. It is projected that the unincorporated area will add a net new 25,000 residents over the next
20 years. Growth in traffic on the six strategic roadways is projected to increase from about 163,000
vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) today to over 1 million VMT by 2020.
Table 1
WELD COUNTY GROWTH PROJECTIONS, 2000-2020
Annual
2000 2020 Increase Growth
Unincorporated Area Population 41,832 67,221 25,389 2.40%
Incorporated Area Population 140,099 277,812 137,713 3.48%
Total County Population 181,931 345,033 163,102 3.25%
Strategic Roadway VMT 163,245 1,069,035 905,790 9.85%
Source: 2000 population data and 2020 county-wide population forecast from Colorado
Department of Local Affairs for Weld County (aka 'Greeley PMSA"): 2020 population
breakdown by incorporation status and VMT estimates and projections by Felsburg Holt&
Ullevig,October 2002.
WELD CO rTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanl ssociates Page 4
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM
A road impact fee system should include a clear definition of the major roadway system that is to be
funded with impact fees. For the purposes of this analysis, the major roadway system is comprised
exclusively of arterial roads in Weld County as defined by the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Excluded from the definition of the major road system are the interstate, freeways,collectors and local
streets. In addition, the major road system includes only the arterial road segments located in
unincorporated areas of the County.
SERVICE AREA
In an impact fee system,it is important to clearly define the geographic areas within which impact fees
will be collected and within which the fees collected will be spent. There are really two types of
geographic areas that serve different functions in an impact fee system: assessment districts and benefit
areas. Assessment districts,which may also be called service areas,define the area within which a set of
common capital facilities provides service,and for which a fee schedule based on average costs within
that district is calculated. Benefit areas, on the other hand, represent an area within which the fees
collected must be spent. They ensure that improvements funded with impact fees are constructed within
reasonable proximity of the feepaying development, as a means of helping to ensure that feepaying
development benefit from the improvements.
Although assessment districts and benefit areas are coterminous in many impact fee systems,this is not
necessary. For example,in many impact fee systems,the entire jurisdiction serves as the single assessment
district for the purpose of calculating a uniform,jurisdiction-wide fee schedule,while the jurisdiction
is divided into multiple benefit areas.
In Weld County's previous road impact fee studies,two assessment districts were developed that focused
on two growing areas of the County. Each area had its own impact fee schedule based on existing
conditions,improvement needs and projected growth within its boundaries. At least initially,the service
areas consisted of both unincorporated and incorporated areas,although as the towns and cities have
elected not to participate they have became less multi-jurisdictional.
In the proposed new county-wide road impact fee system, the focus has been restricted to arterials
serving development in the unincorporated areas of the county. In this context,a county-wide service
area is appropriate. The arterial system is designed to facilitate the movement of traffic over long
distances. Even though Weld County is large,most of the development is occurring in the southwest
quadrant of the county. In addition,development that occurs in the rest of the county tends to generate
traffic to or through this area. For these reasons, it is appropriate to treat the entire unincorporated
county as one assessment district or service area. While it would be reasonable to designate the entire
unincorporated area of the county as a single benefit district as well,the County has decided to divide
the county into four quadrants,with the boundaries defined by US 85 and SH 34. Figure 4 shows the
proposed service area and benefit districts.
WELD CO NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
dnncanrassociates Page 5
Figure 4
SERVICE AREA AND BENEFIT DISTRICTS
I —
�4i •
I I i 1.
71 '..± - tai -� I T - - -�. ._ 1 11 ._.. '
T • • J
`� i, , ...(: �i t. . i 1 1 I, I , - H I-. : ._. --i - I -_ ..
. __
— .I f ' - F1 --- —} is
4...
> :k'�I
�-
.-. I ,lli— }
", ,'•1 :T..-- --. •I _'�- "_, — Planned Roads
vi'4_- _ -
— — Benefit District
- I�. .I• 1 4.' �T.* . , •-I ;:-
1 - . !•,.7.-L__ I t _ ." j
WELD CO NTy/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanrassociates Page 6
SERVICE UNIT
Service units create the link between supply (roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new
development). An appropriate service unit basis for road impact fees is vehicle-miles of travel(VMT).
Vehicle-miles is a combination of the number of vehicles traveling during a given time period and the
distance(in miles) that these vehicles travel. The unit of capacity that is consumed by the demand unit
represented by a VMT is a vehicle-mile of capacity (VMC). VMC is calculated as the capacity of a
roadway segment multiplied by the length of the segment miles.
The two time periods most often used in traffic analysis are the 24-hour day(average daily trips or ADT)
and the single hour of the day with the highest traffic volume(peak hour trips or PHT). Available traffic
counts for arterial streets are for average daily trips. Consequently, average daily VMT will be used as
the service unit for Weld County's county-wide road impact fee.
For an individual development,average daily trip (ADT) generation rates are the most appropriate for
assessing the impact of a new development on the need for road improvements. The trip generation rate
is multiplied by the percent new trip factor and the average trip length to determine the number of VMT
generated. For the major roadway system,daily VMT was obtained from the Colorado Department of
Transportation's web site.
The capacity of a roadway segment is the maximum number of vehicles per day that can be
accommodated at a desired level-of-service. In order for the capacity of multiple roadway segments to
be aggregated as a whole,the capacities of individual road segments must be converted into vehicle-miles
of capacity (VMC). This is accomplished by multiplying the capacity of each segment by the length of
each segment in miles.
METHODOLOGY
The proposed road impact fee methodology is based on a "demand-driven" model, which basically
charges a new development the cost of replacing the capacity that it consumes on the major road system.
That is,for every service unit of traffic generated by the development,the impact fee charges the net cost
to construct an additional service unit of capacity. Since travel is never evenly distributed throughout
a roadway system,actual roadway systems require more than one VMC for every VMT in order to keep
most road segments functioning at an acceptable level of service. Consequently,the demand-driven road
impact fee model generally underestimates the frill cost of growth. It is,however,a conservative,legally
sound and relatively simple approach to the calculation of road impact fees.
While the demand-driven model is probably the most commonly-used approach for road impact fees
in the nation, many communities have used other models. The most common alternative is the
"improvements-driven" model. The improvements-driven approach essentially divides the cost of
growth-related improvements required over a fixed planning horizon (or to build-out) by the number
new service units (e.g.,VMT) projected to be generated by growth over the same planning horizon in
order to determine a cost per service unit. This approach requires a sophisticated level of planning,as
WELD CO NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
dunaanrotcnriates Page 7
well as consideration of fiscal constraints in developing the capital improvement plan to ensure that it
does not include low priority, marginally-needed improvements. Despite these difficulties, the
improvements-driven model can come closer to capturing the full cost of maintaining desired levels of
service on most roadway segments than the demand-driven approach.
The consultant has developed a modification to the standard demand-driven road impact fee model that
more accurately identifies the full growth-related cost of maintaining desired service levels, while
avoiding the difficulties associated with the improvements-driven approach. Essentially,the idea is that
new development should be required to pay for the cost to construct more capacity than it directly
consumes in order to maintain the system-wide ratio of capacity to demand.
In the standard demand-driven model,the VMT generated by a development is multiplied by the cost
per VMC of new roadway capacity to develop the impact fee. Implicit in this formula is the conversion
of the cost per VMC to a cost per VMT. In other words,the standard model implicitly assumes that the
ratio of VMC to VMT is one-to-one. The recommended approach simply makes the implicit
VMC/VMT ratio an explicit part of the formula. The recommended formula for road impact fees in
Weld County is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5
RECOMMENDED ROAD IMPACT FEE FORMULA
FEE = VMT x NET COSTNMT
VMT = TRIPS x% NEW x LENGTH +2
NET COSTNMT = COSTNMT- CREDITNMT
COSTNMT = COSTNMC x VMCNMT
Where:
VMT = Vehicle-miles of travel placed on the major road system during an average
week day
TRIPS = Average daily trip ends
%NEW = Percent of trips that are primary trips,as opposed to passby or diverted-link
trips
LENGTH = Average length of a trip on major roadway system
± 2 = Avoids double-counting trips for origin and destination
COSTNMC = Average cost to create a new vehicle-mile of capacity(VMC) based on planned
major roadway improvements
VMCNMT = The system-wide ratio of capacity to demand in the major roadway system
CREDIT = Revenue credit per VMT,based on the present value of future revenues
anticipated to be generated by the development and used for capacity-
expanding improvements to the major road system
WELD Co NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanresnciotes Page 8
ROADWAY CAPACITY
For the purpose of this study, a roadway's capacity is the maximum traffic volume that can be
accommodated at desired levels of service. Capacity is defined differently for different roadway types.
For existing gravel roads, the maximum volume threshold of 200 vehicles per day is used. This is the
threshold at which the County Health Department requires dust mitigation measures on grave roads.
For existing paved roads(all of which are two-lane roads),capacities are based on the Highway Capacity
Manual for Level of Service "C" (LOS C). To estimate daily traffic thresholds for existing two-lane
roads, assumptions were made about typical traffic flow characteristics, including 11 percent of daily
traffic during a peak hour,peak hour directional traffic split of 60/40,seven percent of vehicles being
trucks, buses, or recreational vehicles,' 0.94 peak hour factor, and an average between parameters for
rolling and flat terrain. Also, full 12-foot lane widths were assumed, since all paved roadways in the
Strategic Roadway Plan have widths of 24 feet or greater. Table 2 shows LOS C volume thresholds for
different shoulder widths that were used in this report to establish existing paved two-lane capacities.
Table 2
DAILY CAPACITIES OF PAVED ROADS
Paved Usable Daily
Width(Ft.) Shoulder(Ft.) Capacity(vpd)
36 6 7,100
32 4 6,500
28 2 5,800
24 0 5,000
Source: Felsburg Holt 5 Ullevig,October 10,2002,memorandum.
The proposed cross-section for the County's improved strategic roads consists of 12-foot lanes and
eight-foot shoulders.The proposed road improvements also incorporate banked curves and intersection
improvements such as turn lanes consistent with a design speed of 55 miles per hour. For this type of
road,urban capacities are more appropriate than rural road capacities. The starting point was the North
Front Range regional model's estimate of 800 vehicles per-hour per-lane for a minor arterial. Based on
the assumptions detailed above for existing roads,the capacity at LOS C of the proposed improvements
is estimated to be 11,000 vehicles per day.
11n the previous two growth area studies,18"/s of traffic was attributed to heavy vehicles.For this county-
wide analysis,Colorado Department of Transportation data,which attributes 7/o of traffic to heavy vehicles on state
highways in Weld County,is a more appropriate figure and is therefore used to calculate the daily capacities of paved
two-lane roads on the major roadway system.
WELD CO nr/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
dnncan cscnciotes Page 9
COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Expanding the capacity of the County's major roadway system is generally not accomplished by building
new roads. In most cases, existing gravel roads are paved and existing paved roads are widened to
increase capacity. Rarely can the existing pavement be incorporated into the improved road;instead,the
existing pavement must be generally removed before constructing the improved cross-section. Thus,
expansion of the major roadway system is generally accomplished by building new,wider and higher-
speed two-lane cross-sections to replace pre-existing rural gravel or paved two-lane sections.
An inventory of the existing conditions of the strategic roads was compiled in order to determine the
cost of the improvements and the capacity added by the improvements (see Table 13 of the appendix).
The table includes the street name,segment description(from-to),existing right-of-way,existing segment
length,proposed segment addition (if any), total segment length after improvements,paved width (if
paved),existing road surface,existing capacity,existing volume,VMC added by the improvements,and
total cost of improvements. Estimated average daily traffic volumes on existing segments are based
generally on Weld County traffic count data that had been collected over the past three years.
For the most part,the improvement of the strategic roads will be the County's responsibility. Currently,
about 15 percent of the length of the strategic roadways lies within incorporated cities and towns, as
shown in Table 3. While this percentage may increase over time as municipalities annex additional
portions of the strategic roads,the County will still be responsible for the majority of the improvements.
Table 3
STRATEGIC ROADS AND JURISDICTIONS
Length(miles) Percent
Strategic Road From/To Affected Cities/Towns Incorp. Total Incorp.
WCR 5/7 SH 52 to SH 60 Johnstown,Mead,Frederick 3.55 19.00 19%
WCR 11/9.5 SH 119 to SH 60 Firestone,Johnstown,Frederick 3.75 17.00 22%
WCR 13 SH 7 to WCR 82 Dacono,Firestone,Windsor,Frederick 10.20 42.00 24%
WCR 24/22 1-25 to WCR 49 Firestone 2.30 18.30 13%
WCR 27(SH 60) WCR 36.5 to WCR 82 Greeley 3.25 23.80 14%
WCR 49 WCR 2 to WCR 82 0.00 40.00 0%
WCR 74 WCR 13 to SH 392 Eaton,Severance,Windsor 5.25 27.85 19%
Total 28.30 187.95 15%
Source: Approximate lengths in cities and towns from Felsburg, Holt 8 Ullevig,October 7,2002 memorandum;total lengths
from Table 13.
The cost estimates identified in the Strategic Roadway Plan are generalized planning estimates based on a
windshield survey conducted by the Weld County Public Works Department. Table 4 below identifies
the unit cost assumptions that were used by the Weld County Public Works Department in determining
the overall cost for the capacity-expanding improvements to the major roadway system.
WELD Co NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
dunaanroccnriates Page 10
Table 4
UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Roadway Improvement Unit Unit Cost
Removal of Asphalt Square Yard $5
Drainage Structures Each $50,000
Concrete Ditch Linear Foot $10
Asphalt Ton $40
Base Ton $20
House Removal Each $300,000
Building Removal Each $100,000
State Hwy Access Each $250,000
Need for Frontage Road Linear Foot $200
Narrow Bridges Each $400,000
Right of Way for Widening Acre $24,000
New Right of Way Acre $50,000
Tree Removal Each $500
Wetlands Impacted Acre $30,000
Vertical Hill Each $100,000
Curve Each $100,000
Move Gas Facility Each $50,000
Move Electric Facility Each $50,000
Move Power Poles Mile $20,000
Move Power Poles(Transmission Lines) Mile $400,000
Move Water Facility Each $50,000
Move Water Well Each $100,000
Pivot Sprinkler Each $150,000
Railroad Crossing Each $500,000
Intersection Needing Turn Lanes Each $250,000
New Bridge Linear Foot $12,500
Contract Design and Survey Mile $50,000
Fill Across Lake Cubic Yard $5
Source:Weld County Public Works Department,Strategic Roadway P/an.
While the cost estimates prepared by Weld County Public Works Department were for two-lane
roadways,the estimates included sufficient right-of-way and major bridge width to accommodate future
expansion to four through-lanes. Since the future expansion to four lanes is not likely to occur for many
years,and will not be reflected in the capacity of the improved roadways, these costs were adjusted by
limiting ROW costs to the 80 feet of width that is suitable for a two-lane road (versus the 120 feet that
the County is likely to acquire for the ultimate four-lane cross-section) and including only half of the
bridge costs. In addition,no utility relocation or house moving costs were included for roadway sections
that already have an existing ROW width of 80 feet.
WELD CO NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanrassociates Page 11
No attempt was made to separate out segments that might be improved by municipalities rather than the
County. Instead,the estimated cost of improving the entire length of the strategic roadways was used
to determine the average cost of adding capacity. The most variable cost is likely to be ROW,but ROW
cost estimates were based on a standard cost of$50,000 per acre that is applicable to rural areas as well
as some urban areas of the county.
Summarizing the cost and capacity data presented in the appendix,Table 5 identifies the average cost per
vehicle-mile of travel(VMT)to add additional capacity to the existing major roadway system. Dividing
the total cost of the improvements by the additional capacity results in an average cost of about$197 per
vehicle-mile of capacity to expand the major roadway system in Weld County.
The cost per unit of capacity must be multiplied by the system-wide ratio of capacity to demand to derive
the cost per service unit of additional demand. In the previous Windsor and Southwest area studies,it
was determined that system-wide ratios of capacity to demand exceeded two units of roadway capacity
for each unit of travel demand. To be conservative, the previous two area studies used a VMC/VMT
ratio of 1.5 to determine the cost per VMT. For this study,insufficient county-wide data was available
to determine the system-wide ratio of capacity to demand. Nevertheless,it is reasonable to assume that
the actual ratio exceeds 1.0,which means that there are no system-wide deficiencies. Due to the lack of
data,a conservative VMC/VMT ratio of 1.0 was used to determine the cost per VMT,as shown in Table
5.
Table 5
COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Arterial Estimated Cost New VMC Cost/VMC
WCR 5&7 $30,317,284 184,200 $165
WCR 11 &9.5 $34,019,036 169,900 $200
WCR 13 $60,995,510 325,700 $187
WCR 24/22 $27,935,843 121,300 $230
WCR 27 $39,276,691 149,790 $262
WCR 49 $43,175,041 294,700 $147
WCR 74 $47,125,188 189,500 $249
Cost per New VMC $282,844,593 1,435,090 $197
Assumed VMC/VMT Ratio 1.00
Cost per VMT $197
Source: Segment improvement costs and new VMC from Table 13 of the appendix.
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
To determine the net cost per service unit, the cost per VMT is reduced by the appropriate credits to
account for other revenues that will be generated by new development and used for capacity-expanding
road improvements. Revenue credits are appropriate if there is outstanding debt for past road
improvements, or if there are dedicated or historical local sources of a capital funding for road
improvements,or if outside funding can reasonably be anticipated.
WELD Co v/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanraNrsanriotes Page 12
Weld County does not currently have any outstanding debt for road improvements.Nor are significant
state or federal highways funds likely to be available to improve arterial streets in the unincorporated
portions of Weld County. A revenue credit will be provided,however,for the potential availability of
County funding for road improvements based on historical funding trends. For the purposes of this
study,capacity-expanding expenditures were defined broadly to include all expenditures for right-of-way,
engineering and construction,excluding construction specifically designated as system preservation.
The average annual expenditures by Weld County on capacity-expanding road improvements over the
last five years are presented in Table 6 below. Annual capital expenditures have been adjusted to 2002
dollars based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. The average capacity-expanding
expenditure by Weld County over the last five years,adjusted to 2002 dollars,is$2.46 million annually.
This average annual expenditure is then divided by daily vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) in the
unincorporated portions of the County. Daily VMT in the unincorporated portions of the County is
estimated using daily VMT data for arterials in Weld County from the Colorado Department of
Transportation and population data for Weld County from the 2000 U.S.Census. According to census
data,only 23 percent of the Weld County's population resides in the unincorporated portions of the
County, so only 23 percent of daily VMT of the major roadway system will be used to calculate the
revenue credit.
This average annual expenditure on capacity-expanding road improvements within the unincorporated
portions of Weld County amounts to$406,802.00 per vehicle-mile of travel.Assuming that this pattern
of expenditures remains the same, new development will generate revenues that will be spent on
capacity-expanding road improvements over the next 20 years (the useful life of road improvements)
equivalent to about$75 for every daily vehicle-mile of travel generated,as shown in Table 6.
Table 6
REVENUE CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Annual Capacity-Expanding Expenditures $2,862,855 $2,322,567 $1,507,842 $3,013,403 $1,687,982
Inflation Cost Factor 1.126 1.109 1.085 1.049 1.020
Adjusted Cost $3,223,575 $2,575,727 $1,636,009 $3,161,060 $1,721,742
Estimated Average Annual Capacity-Expanding Expenditure, 1997-2001 $2,460,000
Daily VMT on Major Roadway System in Unincorporated Portions of Weld County 406,802
Cost per VMT $6.05
Present Value Factor(20 years @ 5%) 12.46
Revenue Credit per VMT $75
Source:Annual capital expenditures from Counties, Cities, &Towns Annual Statement of Receipts&Expenditures for Roads,
Bridges and Streets for Weld County 1997 through 2001 calender years;includes expenditures for right-of-way and engineering
and construction unless construction noted not for capacity expanding projects;inflation cost factor adjusts to August 2002
using the Consumer Price Index,All Urban Customers,All Items,U.S.Average(CPI-U)from the U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics;
daily VMT derived from the Colorado Department of Transportation, State Highway Statistics-Daily Vehicle-Mlles of Travel for
All Vehicles by County, 2001 for Weld County and the 2000 U.S. Census data for Weld County.
WELD CO NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
dunaanlas nriotes Page 13
The net cost calculations are summarized in Table 7 below. Reducing the cost per vehicle-mile of travel
by the revenue credit calculated above yields a net cost of$122 per VMT.
Table 7
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Cost per VMT $197
Revenue Credit per VMT $75
Net Cost per VMT $122
Source: Cost per VMT from Table 5; revenue credit per
VMT from Table 6.
TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS
The travel demand generated by specific land use types is a product of three factors: 1) trip generation,
2)percent primary trips and 3)trip length. The first two factors are well documented in the professional
literature,and the average trip generation characteristics identified in studies of communities around the
nation should be reasonably representative of trip generation characteristics in Weld County. In contrast,
trip lengths are much more likely to vary between communities,depending on the geographic size and
shape of the community and its major roadway system.
Trip generation rates were based on information published in the most recent edition of the Institute
of Transportation Engineers' (ITE)Trip Generation manual. Trip generation rates represent trip ends,or
driveway crossings from the site of a land use. Thus,a one-way trip from home to work counts as one
trip end for the residence and one trip end for the work place. To avoid over-counting,all trip rates have
been divided by two. This places the burden of travel equally between the origin and destination of the
trip and eliminates double-charging for any particular trip.
Trip rates also need to be adjusted by a"primary trip factor"to exclude pass-by and diverted trips. This
adjustment is intended to reduce the possibility of over-counting by only including primary trips
generated by the development. Pass-by trips are those trips that are already on a particular route for a
different purpose and simply stop at a particular development on that route. For example,a stop at a
convenience store on the way home from the office is a pass-by trip for the convenience store. A
diverted trip is similar to a pass-by trip,but a diversion is made from the regular route to make an interim
stop. The reduction for pass-by and diverted trips was drawn from the I IE manual and other published
information
The average trip length is the most difficult travel demand factor to determine, because it should be
based on local data and exclude travel on all roadways that are not part of the major road system. For
this analysis, the average trip length for Weld County can be approximated by the total daily travel
demand (VMT) on the major roadway system by the total number of average daily trips generated by
existing development in the County.
WELD Co NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
DuncanJaarriates Page 14
Existing county-wide land use data in each of nine general categories have been multiplied by average
daily trip generation rates and summed to determine a reasonable estimate of total county-wide trips.
Dividing the total vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) on Weld County's major roadway system from the
Colorado Department of Transportation by the estimated trips generated by existing land uses in Weld
County yields a reasonable estimate of the average distance traveled on the County's major roadway
system per daily trip,as demonstrated in Table 8.
Table 8
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH
2000 2002 Trip Daily
Land Use Unit Units Units Rate Trips
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 44,367 48,551 4.79 232,559
Multi-Family Dwelling 14,312 15,662 3.32 51,998
Mobile Home Dwelling 7,429 8,130 2.41 19,593
Hotel/Motel Employee 441 483 6.79 3,280
Restaurant Employee 5,723 6,263 3.36 21,044
Retail Employee 19,281 21,099 7.44 156,977
Office Employee 31,377 34,336 1.66 56,998
Industrial Employee 16,587 18,151 1.67 30,312
Warehouse Employee 4,419 4,836 1.95 9,430
Total Daily Trips 582,191
Total Daily VMT on Maior Roadway System 1,768,706
Average Trip Length,Miles 3.04
Source:2000 dwelling units and employees from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs web site;2002 units based on the
Colorado's State Demographer's projections of a 9.43%overall growth rate for Weld County between 2000 and 2002;trip rates
are one-half of average daily trip ends on a weekday reported in Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE). Trip Generation,
Sixth Edition, 1997 for ITE land use codes 210(Single-Family Detached), 220(Apartment), 240(Mobile Home Park),310/320
(Hotel/Motel),710(General Office Building). 130(Industrial Park), 150(Warehousing); restaurant derived from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers(ITE),Trip Generation,Fifth Edition, 1991 p. 1267 for ITE land use code 832(High Turnover Sit Down
Restaurant)employees per 1,000 square feet times the average primary trip rates per 1.000 sq.ft.of Fast Food and Sit Down
Restaurant from Table 10;retail derived from 1.96 employees per 1,000 sq.ft.from National Association of Office and Industrial
Parks,America's Future Office Space Needs, 1990 p. 22 times the primary trip rate for Shop Ctr/Gen Retail<500,000 sf from
Table 10;total daily VMT on major roadway system from the Colorado Department of Transportation,State HighwayStahstics-
Daily Vehicle-Mi/es of Travel for A//Vehicles by County, 2001 for Weld County.
WELD Co ny/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanlascoriates Page 15
The ratio of the average local trip length on Weld County's major roadway system to the national average
trip length identified in the U.S.Department of Transportation's 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation
Survey is computed in Table 9. Weld County's average trip length on the major roadway system is lower
than the national average because for this analysis,the major roadway system includes only travel on the
arterial streets, excluding travel on state and federal highways, local streets and collectors. Using this
ratio, reasonable trip lengths were derived for specific trip purposes, including home-to-work trips,
doctor/dentist, school/church, shopping,and other personal trips. In addition,an average residential
trip length was determined,using a weighting of 40 percent work trips and 60 percent average trips.
Table 9
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY TRIP PURPOSE
National Local Est.Local
Trip Purpose Data Data Ratio Trip Lengths
To or from work 11.73 na 0.34 4.0
Residential na na na 3.4
Doctor/Dentist 9.23 na 0.34 3.1
Average 8.92 3.04 0.34 3.0
School/Church 8.05 na 0.34 2.7
Family/Personal 6.88 na 0.34 2.3
Shopping 5.61 na 0.34 1.9
Source:Average trip lengths in miles; national data from US. Department of
Transportation,Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 1995; local data
from Table 8; ratio is average local divided by average national trip length;
estimated local trip lengths are products of national data by ratio,estimated
local residential trip length is weighted 40% local work trip length and 60%
average trip length.
Average daily travel demand must be estimated for a broad variety of land uses in order to develop the
fee schedule. The result of combining trip generation rates,new trip factors and average trip lengths is
a travel demand schedule that establishes the vehicle-miles of travel(VM'I)during the average weekday
generated by various land use types per unit of development. The recommended travel demand schedule
is presented in Table 10.
WELD CO NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
dunaanrssariates Page 16
Table 10
TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE
ITE Trip 1-Way %New Length Daily
Land Use Type Code Unit Ends Trips Trips (miles) VMT
Single-Family Detached 210 Dwelling 9.57 4.79 100% 3.4 16.29
Multi-Family 220 Dwelling 6.63 3.32 100% 3.4 11.29
Mobile Home Park 240 Pad 4.81 2.40 100% 3.4 8.16
Hotel/Motel 310/320 Room 9.02 4.51 80% 3.4 12.27
Retail/Commercial
Shop Ctr/Gen Retail (0-99,999 sf) 820 1000 sq.ft. 68.17 34.09 51% 1.5 26.08
Shop Ctr/Gen Retail(100,000-249,999 sf) 820 1000 sq.ft. 49.15 24.58 60% 1.7 25.07
Shop Ctr/Gen Retail(250,000-499,999 sf) 820 1000 sq.ft. 38.37 19.18 66% 1.9 24.05
Shop Ctr/Gen Retail (500,000 sf+) 820 1000 sq.ft. 29.96 14.98 70% 2.1 22.02
Auto Sales 841 1000 sq.ft. 37.50 18.75 49% 1.9 17.46
Auto Service/Repair/Tire Store 848 1000 sq.ft. 24.87 12.44 51% 1.9 12.05
Bank 912 1000 sq.ft. 265.21 132.60 27% 1.9 68.02
Convenience Store 851 1000sq.ft. 737.99 369.00 16% 1.0 59.04
Discount Store 813 1000 sq.ft. 46.96 23.48 50% 1.9 22.31
Furniture Store 890 1000 sq.ft. 5.06 2.53 90% 1.9 4.33
Movie Theater 443 1000 sq.ft. 78.06 39.03 50% 1.9 37.08
Restaurant,Fast Food 834 1000 sq.ft. 496.12 248.06 27% 1.0 66.98
Restaurant,Sit-Down 831 1000 sq.ft. 89.95 44.98 38% 1.9 32.48
Office/Institutional
Office,General(0-99,999 sf) 710 1000 sq.ft. 13.27 6.64 75% 4.0 19.92
Office,General (100,000 sf+) 710 1000 sq.ft. 11.30 5.65 75% 4.0 16.95
Office,Medical 720 1000 sq.ft. 36.13 18.07 75% 3.1 42.01
Hospital 610 1000 sq.ft. 16.78 8.39 75% 3.1 19.51
Nursing Home 620 1000 sq.ft. 4.70 2.35 75% 3.1 5.46
Church 560 1000 sq.ft. 9.11 4.56 75% 2.7 9.23
Day Care Center 565 1000 sq.ft. 79.26 39.63 24% 2.7 25.68
School 522 1000 sq.ft. 12.41 6.21 24% 2.7 4.02
Industrial
General Light Industrial 110 1000 sq.ft. 6.97 3.49 95% 4.0 13.26
Warehouse 150 1000 sq.ft. 4.96 2.48 95% 4.0 9.42
Mini-Warehouse 151 1000 sq.ft. 2.50 1.25 95% 2.3 2.73
Agricultural Commercial 140 1000 sq.ft. 3.82 1.91 95% 2.3 4.17
Source:"Trip Ends"is average daily trips(ADT)during weekday from Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),Trip Generation,
6th ed., 1997; "1-Way Trips' = 'h Trip Ends; "ITE Code is land use code from ITE manual used for land use category(where
more than one code shown, rates were averaged); shopping center and general office rates based on upper end of range;
nursing home ADT derived from peak hour trip(PHT)rate and ADT and PHT rates per bed;new trip percentages for most uses
from ITE, Trip Generation Handbook, October 1998; percentage for day care center from paper by Hitchens, 1990 ITE
Compendium;percentage for school assumed same as for day care;percentage for movie theater assumed;percentages for
auto uses from O 8 D studies in Orange County, Florida; percentages for other land uses taken from Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.,Lee County Impact Fee Transportation Data, 1990;average trip lengths from Table 9; shopping average trip
length used for centers of 250,000-499,999 square feet, reduced by 10% and 20%, respectively for the next two smaller
categories and increased by 10% for the next larger category, and reduced by 50%for convenience stores and fast food
restaurants.
WELD Co NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
efuncan ocsnriates Page 17
MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE
Multiplying the net cost per VMT by the average daily travel demand generated by various land use types
results in the net capital cost of major roadway improvements to serve new development,as presented
in Table 11 below for a range of land use types.
Table 11
NET COST SCHEDULE
Daily Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit VMT VMT Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 16.29 $122 $1,987
Multi-Family Dwelling 11.29 $122 $1,377
Mobile Home Park Pad 8.16 $122 $996
Hotel/Motel Room 12.27 $122 $1,497
Retail/Commercial
Shop Ctr/Gen Retail (0-99,999 sf) 1000 sq.ft. 26.08 $122 $3,182
Shop Ctr/Gen Retail (100,000-249,999 sf) 1000 sq.ft. 25.07 $122 $3,059
Shop Ctr/Gen Retail (250,000-499,999 sf) 1000 sq.ft. 24.05 $122 $2,934
Shop Ctr/Gen Retail(500,000 sf+) 1000 sq.ft. 22.02 $122 $2,686
Auto Sales 1000 sq.ft. 17.46 $122 $2,130
Auto Service/Repair/Tire Store 1000 sq.ft. 12.05 $122 $1,470
Bank 1000 sq.ft. 68.02 $122 $8,298
Convenience Store 1000sq.ft. 59.04 $122 $7,203
Discount Store 1000 sq.ft. 22.31 $122 $2,722
Furniture Store 1000 sq.ft. 4.33 $122 $528
Movie Theater 1000 sq.ft. 37.08 $122 $4,524
Restaurant,Fast Food 1000 sq.ft. 66.98 $122 $8,172
Restaurant,Sit-Down 1000 sq.ft. 32.48 $122 $3,963
Office/Institutional
Office,General (0-99,999 sf) 1000 sq.ft. 19.92 $122 $2,430
Office,General (100,000 sf+) 1000 sq.ft. 16.95 $122 $2,068
Office,Medical 1000 sq.ft. 42.01 $122 $5,125
Hospital 1000 sq.ft. 19.51 $122 $2,380
Nursing Home 1000 sq.ft. 5.46 $122 $666
Church 1000sq.ft. 9.23 $122 $1,126
Day Care Center 1000 sq.ft. 25.68 $122 $3,133
School 1000 sq.ft. 4.02 $122 $490
Industrial
Industrial Park 1000 sq.ft. 13.26 $122 $1,618
Warehouse 1000 sq.ft. 9.42 $122 $1,149
Mini-Warehouse 1000 sq.ft. 2.73 $122 $333
Agricultural Commercial 1000 sq.ft. 4.17 $122 $509
Source; Daily VMT per unit from Table 10; net cost per VMT from Table 7.
WELD CO NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
Duncan associates Page 18
Impact fee regulations contain a provision allowing the option of independent fee determination studies
for those applicants who can demonstrate that their development will have less impact on the need for
road facilities than indicated by fee schedule. It is also important to note that the proposed county-wide
road impact fees could be adopted at less than 100 percent of levels than the levels shown in the net cost
schedule,provided that the reduction is applied uniformly across all land use categories in order to retain
the proportionally of the fees.
FEE COMPARISON
Table 12 below compares the proposed county-wide fees by land use type to the County fees currently
being assessed in the Windsor and Southwest study areas. The proposed county-wide road impact fees
are higher than existing area fees for a majority of the land uses types,but are lower for some commercial
land uses. The reason for this reduction is that the original area fee studies used the overall average trip
length for most land use types,while this analysis utilizes national data to adjust the average trip length
by land use and trip purpose.
Table 12
COMPARISON TO CURRENT ROAD IMPACT FEES
Current Fee Proposed Potential Change
Land Use Windsor Southwest County-Wide Fee Windsor Southwest
Single-Family Detached $1,878 $1,456 $1,987 6% 36%
Multi-Family $1,301 $1,009 $1,377 6% 36%
Mobile Home Park $941 $730 $996 6% 36%
Hotel/Motel $1,615 $1,252 $1,497 -7% 20%
Retail $8,150 $6,320 $3,182 -61% -50%
Office $3,171 $2,459 $2,430 -23% -1%
Industrial $1,364 $1,058 $1,618 19% 53%
Warehouse $972 $754 $1,149 18% 52% _
Source:Proposed county-wide fee from Table 11;current Windsor area road fee from Duncan Associates report,Road Impact
Fee Study:Windsor and SouthwestArea, 1999;current Southwest area road fee from Duncan Associates report,Road Impact
Fee Study:Southwest Area Update,2001;retail fee compares Shopping Ctr/Gen Retail<100,000 sf;office fee compares Office,
General <100,000; industrial fee compares General Light Industrial.
WELD Co NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanrssociates Page 19
APPENDIX
Table 13
STRATEGIC ROADWAY INVENTORY
Exist New Total Paved New
Road From To ROW Miles Miles Miles Width Gravel Capacity Volume VMC Cost
WCR 5&7 Hwy 52 WCR 18 50 2.00 0.00 2.00 0 X 200 100 21,600 $3,440,414
WCR 5&7 WCR 18 Hwy 119 0 0.00 3.00 3.00 0 0 0 33,000 $7,398,171
WCR 5&7 Hwy 119 WCR 25 80 0.50 0.00 0.50 24 5,000 100 3,000 $353,229
WCR 5&7 WCR 25 WCR 26 80 0.50 0.00 0.50 0 X 200 100 5,400 $318,029
WCR 5&7 WCR 26 Hwy 66 60 2.25 0.75 3.00 0 X 200 200 32,400 $4,468,771
WCR 5&7 Hwy 66 WCR 34 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 24 5,000 200 12,000 $2,118,114
WCR 5&7 WCR 34 WCR 38 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 24 5,000 600 12,000 $3,473,114
WCR 5&7 WCR 38 Hwy 56 60 3.00 0.00 3.00 0 X 200 200 32,400 $3,844,471
WCR 5&7 Hwy 56 Hwy 60 60 3.00 0.00 3.00 0 X 200 200 32,400 $4,902,971
Subtotal,WCR 5&7 19.00 184,200 $30,317,284
WCR 11&9.5 Hwy 52 WCR 18 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 0 X 200 200 21,600 $3,227,314
WCR 11 89.5 WCR 18 WCR 20 80 1.00 0.00 1.00 24 5,000 200 6,000 $706,457
WCR 11 &9.5 WCR 20 WCR 22 60 1.00 0.00 1.00 24 5,000 200 6,000 $1,554,057
WCR 11 &9.5 WCR 22 WCR 24 60 1.00 0.00 1.00 X 200 200 10,800 $983,657
WCR 11 &9.5 WCR 24 Hwy 66 0 0.00 3.00 3.00 0 0 0 33,000 $9,156,671
WCR 11 &9.5 Hwy 66 WCR 32 100 1.00 0.00 1.00 32 6,500 200 4,500 $779,924
WCR 11 8 9.5 WCR 32 WCR 50 0 0.00 8.00 8.00 0 0 0 88,000 $17,610,956
Subtotal,WCR 11 8 9.5 17.00 169,900 $34,019,036
WCR 13 WCR 2 WCR 6.25 60 2.25 0.00 2.25 0 X 200 225 24,300 $2,782,228
WCR 13 WCR 6.25 WCR 8 60 0.75 0.00 0.75 0 X 200 225 8,100 $1,083,243
WCR 13 WCR 8 WCR 12 60 4.00 0.00 4.00 0 X 200 225 43,200 $2,968,814
WCR 13 WCR 12 Hwy 52 60 0.75 0.25 1.00 24 5,000 2,000 6,000 $2,594,557
WCR 13 Hwy 52 WCR 26 80 6.00 0.00 6.00 24 5,000 2,000 36,000 $3,988,742
WCR 13 WCR 26 Hwy 66 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 30 5,800 2,000 10,400 $5,929,814
WCR 13 Hwy 66 Hwy 60 60 9.00 0.00 9.00 30 5,800 900 46,800 $16,746,913
WCR 13 Hwy 60 WCR 50 60 0.50 0.50 1.00 24 5,000 1,300 6,000 $2,390,057
WCR 13 WCR 50 WCR 54 60 1.00 0.00 1.00 0 X 200 400 10,800 $1,948,657
WCR 13 WCR 54 Hwy 34 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 0 X 200 400 21,600 $4,333,314
WCR 13 Hwy 34 WCR 62 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 0 X 200 400 21,600 $1,777,314
WCR 13 WCR 62 WCR 392 80 3.00 0.00 3.00 40 7,100 400 11,700 $0
WCR 13 WCR 392 WCR 68.5 60 0.50 0.00 0.50 24 5,000 200 3,000 $397,029
WCR 13 WCR 68.5 WCR 74 60 2.50 0.25 2.50 0 X 200 200 27,000 $5,311,143
WCR 13 WCR 74 WCR 80 60 3.00 0.00 3.00 0 X 200 200 32,400 $4,598,471
WCR 13 WCR 80 WCR 81 60 1.00 0.25 1.00 24 5,000 200 6,000 $2,742,807
WCR 13 WCR 81 Hwy 114 60 1.00 0.00 1.00 0 X 200 200 10,800 $1,402,407
Subtotal,WCR 13 42.00 325,700 $60,995,510
WCR 24/22 WCR 23 Hwy 85 0 0.00 2.30 2.30 0 0 0 25,300 $9,269,931
WCR 24/22 Hwy 85 WCR 49 60 11.00 0.00 11.00 24 5,000 700 66,000 $12,469,627
WCR 24/22 I-25 WCR 23 60 5.00 0.00 5.00 24 5,000 1,300 30,000 $6,196,285
Subtotal,WCR 24/22 18.30 121,300 $27,935,843
WELD CO NTv/County-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanrossociates Page 20
Exist New Total Paved New
Road From To ROW Miles Miles Miles Width Gravel Capacity Volume VMC Cost
WCR 27 Hwy 85 WCR 396 100 5.50 0.00 5.50 30 5,800 2,100 28,600 $5,733,814
WCR 27 Hwy 60 1 Mi N. 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 32 6,500 1,400 4,950 $4,595,663
WCR 27 1 Mi N. WCR 54 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 32 6,500 1,400 9,000 $3,575,047
WCR 27 WCR 54 Hwy 34 80 2.20 0.00 2.20 30 5,800 1,400 11,440 $2,812,925
WCR 27 Hwy 34 Hwy 34 Bus 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 30 5,800 1,500 10,400 $3,734,314
WCR 27 Hwy 34 WCR 64.5 60 2.50 0.00 2.50 24 5,000 1,500 15,000 $4,134,643
WCR 27 WCR 64.5 WCR 392 60 1.50 0.25 1.50 24 5,000 600 9,000 $2,749,586
WCR 27 WCR 392 WCR 74 60 3.00 0.50 3.00 24 5,000 300 18,000 $4,330,671
WCR 27 WOR 74 WCR 78 60 2.00 0.60 2.00 0 X 200 200 21,600 $3,732,814
WCR 27 WCR 78 WCR 80 60 1.00 0.00 1.00 0 X 200 50 10,800 $1,398,657
WCR 27 WCR 80 Hwy 114 0 0.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 11,000 $2,478,557
Subtotal,WCR 27 23.80 149,790 $39,276,691
WCR 49 WCR 2 WCR 4 0 0.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 11,000 $1,693,557
WCR 49 WCR 4 Hwy 52 60 4.00 0.00 4.00 0 X 200 100 43,200 $5,004,628
WCR 49 Hwy 52 1-76 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 0 X 200 1,400 21,600 $13,987,314
WCR 49 1-76 WCR 30 80 7.00 0.00 7.00 40 7,100 1,600 27,300 $0
WCR 49 WCR 30 WCR 40 80 5.00 0.00 5.00 40 7,100 1,600 19,500 $0
WCR 49 WCR 40 WCR 48 80 4.00 0.00 4.00 40 7,100 1,600 15,600 $0
WCR 49 WCR 48 Hwy 34 80 4.00 0.00 4.00 40 7,100 1,600 15,600 $0
WCR 49 Hwy 34 Hwy 263 0 0.00 2.50 2.50 0 0 0 27,500 $8,565,143
WCR 49 Hwy 263 WCR 62.5 60 1.00 0.00 1.00 0 X 200 200 10,800 $1,043,657
WCR 49 WCR 62.5 WCR 66 60 1.50 0.00 1.50 0 X 200 200 16,200 $3,377,986
WCR 49 WCR 66 Hwy 392 60 1.00 0.00 1.00 0 X 200 200 10,800 $1,878,657
WCR 49 Hwy 392 WCR 74 60 3.00 0.00 3.00 0 X 200 100 32,400 $3,085,971
WCR 49 WCR 74 Hwy 14 60 4.00 0.00 4.00 0 X 200 100 43,200 $4,538,128
Subtotal,WCR 49 40.00 294,700 $43,175,041
WCR 74 WCR 13 Hwy 257 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 24 5,000 4,900 12,000 $4,039,614
WCR 74 Hwy 257 WCR 19 60 1.00 0.30 1.10 24 5,000 4,900 6,600 $1,681,963
WCR 74 WCR 19 Severance 60 0.50 0.00 0.50 24 5,000 2,000 3,000 $1,807,029
WCR 74 Severance WCR 25 60 2.25 0.00 2.25 24 5,000 2,000 13,500 $8,269,128
WCR 74 WCR 25 Eaton 60 5.00 0.00 5.00 24 5,000 2,300 30,000 $7,095,285
WCR 74 Eaton WCR 39 60 2.00 0.00 2.00 30 5,800 2,300 10,400 $4,013,314
WCR 74 WCR 39 Gailton 60 6.00 0.00 6.00 24 5,000 1,500 36,000 $9,734,342
WCR 74 Gailton WCR 59 60 4.00 0.00 4.00 24 5,000 400 24,000 $5,206,228
WCR 74 WCR 59 WCR 392 60 5.00 0.00 5.00 0 X 200 100 54,000 $5,278,285
Subtotal,WCR 74 27.85 189,500 $47,125,188
Total,Strategic Roads 187.95 1,435,090 $282,844,593
Source:Majority of data from the Weld County Public Works Strategic Roadway P/an,October 2002;costs adjusted by Duncan Associates;
capacity data from Felsburg, Holt 6 Ullevig.
WELD Cori-iv/county-Wide Road Impact Fee Study November 8, 2002
duncanjacsiriates Page 21
Hello