The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About972385.tiffRESOLUTION RE: APPROVE INCREASED FEE SCHEDULE FOR FEES COLLECTED BY THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES FOR PROCESSING AND REVIEWING BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS,a public hearing was held on the 10th day of December, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of considering an increased fee schedule for fees collected by the Weld County Department of Planning Services for processing and reviewing building and electrical permit applications, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, after study and review, the Board deems it advisable to approve the proposed 1994 Uniform Building Code Fee Schedule, amended as follows: Residential Plan Check Fees - 50% of the proposed increase to be effective each year of a two-year period. Commercial Plan Check Fees - no increase was proposed; therefore, no change to said fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the 1994 Uniform Building Code Fee Schedule, as amended, be, and hereby is, approved for fees collected by the Weld County Department of Planning Services for processing and reviewing building and electrical permit applications. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said fee schedule shall become effective January 1, 1998. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 10th day of December, A.D., 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD, ,LINTY, COLORA O ATTEST: Weld Count BY. Deputy Cler W. H. Webste eorge E�axter, Chair yuL;-A-Y ce L. Harbert, ProT Dale K. Hall EXCUSED Barbara J. Kirkmeyer r i rte ?1 (; m 111111 IIIII IIIIII III IIIIIIII III 1111111 III 11111 IIII IIII 2588290 01/08/1998 12:34P Weld County CO 1 of 2 R 0.00 D 0.00 JR Sukl Tsukamoto 972385 PL0001 BUILDING INSPECTION COST ANALYSIS Utilizing 1994 Fees Budgeted Costs Budgeted Revenue Sub -total Indirect Costs $431,408 $575,200 -143,792 148,749 Grand Total $4,957 Revenue as a percentage of gross costs 99.1% NOTE: In municipalities and in adjacent counties with sales tax the citizen taking out the building permit is also paying a local sales tax on the building materials collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit. Weld County has not such sales tax. 111111111111111111 III/11/1111 III 1111111 Ill 1111111111111 2888290 01/08/1998 12:34P Wald County CO SERVICE, TEAMWORK, INTEGRITY, QUALITY 972395 PUBLIC NOTICE DOCKET NO: 97-61 The Board of County commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, will conduct a public hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 10, 1997, in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners, at the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, for the purpose of considering increased fee schedules for fees collected by the Weld County Department of Planning Services for processing and reviewing land -use permit applications, and building and electrical permit applications. All persons in any manner interested in the proposed fee schedules are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that copies of the proposed increased fee schedules may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Room 317, Greeley, Colorado, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Dated: November 12, 1997 Published: November 26, 1997, in the Platteville Herald 9'x^795 Publisher Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO County of Weld SS. I A. Winkler Riesel of said County of Adams being duly sworn, say that I am publisher of PLATTEVILLE HERALD that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation was printed and published in the town of FORT LUPTON in said county and state that the notice of advertisement, of which the annexed is a true copy has been published in said weekly newspaper for ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper during the period and time of publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper and not in a supplement thereof: that the rust publication of said notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper bearing the date of NOVEMBER 26. A.D. 1997 and the last publication thereof, in the issue of said newspaper, hearing date, the 2 61 h day of 1997 that the said NOVEMBER PLATTEVILLE HERALD has been published continuously and uninterruptedly during the period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the rust issue thereof containing said notice or advertisement above referred to: and that said newspaper was at the time of each of the publications of said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of Printers and Publishers thereof, and to Repeal all Acts and Pans of Acts in Conflict with the Provisions of this Act" approved April 7, 1921, and all amendments thereof, and ularly as amended by an act approved, March 30, d ary act approfld [yfay 13,}SL'{a.• Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of FT. LUPTON, CO 80621 ;9 VEMBER A.D. 1997 JAMIE 1'8ari,A I co.. ......... F'.. \: My Commission expires December 27, 1997 PUBLIC NOTICE DOCKET NO: 97-61 The Board of County commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, will conduct a public hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 10, 1997, in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners. at the WeldCountyCentennlal Center, 915 10th Street, Flat Floor, Greeley, Colorado, for the purpose of considering Increased fee schedtles for fees collected by the Weld County Department of Planning Services for processing and reviewing land -use penMt apPllcatlons, and building and electrical permit appicatbru. All persona In any manner Interested in the moored fee schedules are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that copies of the proposed Increased fee schedules may be examined in the office 01 the clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located In the Weld County CenMMMd Center, 915 10th Street, Room 317, Greeley. Colorado. Monday flour Friday, BA0 a.m. to 5:0017.m. BOARD OF COUNW COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Dated: November 12, 1997 Published in the Platteville Ilecald November 26. 1997. 977.7.1P7, - I � FROM : SAM AINSWORTH 8 CO. 12,-06/87 14:38 FAX PHONE NO. : 970 352 2240 Dec. 09 1997 09:29AM P2 Z002 December 6, 1997 Subject: Recommendation by Building Trades Advisory Board A meeting of the Building Trades Advisory Board was held December 5. 1997, in the main conference room at 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO. In attendance were Sam Ainsworth, Scott Kinnison, and Mark Muse. Also in attendance were Monica Mika, Dave Sprague. Roger Vigil, Sharyn Frazer from the Weld County Planning Department As members of the Building Trades Advisory Board, we would like to make the following recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in their consideration of the adoption of the 1994 UBC fee schedule: Pertaining exclusively to residential permits, we would like to see the gradual implementation of the Ices for plan reviews_ The 1994 UBC rails for a plan review fee based on 65% of the building permit fee. We suggest that h M If that amount (32.5%) be charged beginning January 1, 1998. Not until one year later, January 1, 1999. would the entire 65% be assessed. Please have this recommendation presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the December ,10, 1997, public hearing. Sam Ainsworth Scott Kinnison Mark Muse 12/08/97 07:31 EXHIBIT cea X 7-10 97t!F j TX/RX N0.9424 P.002 • ADVISORY BOARD jr-yuL YYl. r3Qty MEMBERS ORIG. APPT. EXPIRES BUILDING TRADES ADVISORY (3 Year term expiring April 10) 13. Members, Est. 4-10-78 'ey, CO 80634 Mark Muse (Small Indp. Gen. Contractor) Muse Carpentry 36026 Appy Road Eaton, CO 80615 454-2320(8) 381-1412(M) Scott Kinnison (Small Cont.) 9405 WCR 49 Hudson, CO 80642 381-4124 (M) 536-0126 (H) Tom Roche (Large Cont.) Roche Constructors P. O. Box 1727 Greeley, CO 80632 356-361I(B) 346-0340(H) Tom Fisher (Plumber) 1807 Delwood Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 356-8636(B) 356-2204(H) Sam Ainsworth (Heating Contractor) P. O. Box 103 Greeley, CO 80632 352-2117 (B) 330-6856 (H) Larry Jorgensen (Electrical Cont.) 2109 11th Street Greeley, CO 80631 356-2448(H) 381-0841 (B) VACANT: formerly Lynn Cassedy (Cement Contractor) Jim Morris (City of Greeley Rep.) City of Greeley Building Insp. 1100 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 350-9836 Dan Gongloff (Home Builders Assoc. of Northern Colorado Rep.) Lifestyle Homes 4422 W. 14th Street Drive Greeley, CO 80634 353-1331(B) 352-7I25(H) Vacant: Formerly Brian Boos (Home Builders Assoc.of Northern Colorado Rep.) Jeffrey Richardson (Weld County Home Builders Rep.) 3300 17th Avenue Evans, CO 80620 330-5333(B) Scott Renfroe (Weld County Home Builders Rep.) 6180 W. 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 352-0876 (B) 356-8749 (H) Bill Webster - Commissioner 05-03-93 05-06-96 05-06-96 06-12-95 06-12-95 05-06-96 05-06-96 06-12-95 04-30-97 05-03-93 05-06-96 04-30-90 re 05-03-93 re 06-12-95 04-30-97 04-10-96 04-10-99 04-10-99 04-10-98 04-10-96 04-10-99 04-10-98 04-10-98 4-10-94 04-10-2000 04-10-96 04-10-99 04-10-97 04-10-95 04-10-98 04-10-2000 01-01-97 12-31-97 /,2nr- BOARDWALK BUILDERS OF NORTHERN COLORADO, INcn 1 When it's your move ... Buy Boardwalk November 126, 1997 Mr. George E. Baxter 915 Tenth Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Proposed Building permit and plan review fee increase WIELD COU; 7 N1311 13 t,'. 9: 53 CLERK TO THE BOARD Dear Mr. Baxter: I have recently been informed of the proposed changes you are set to consider regarding the update of the building code to the 1994 UBC and the subsequent increase in building permit and plan review fees associated with that change. As a building industry professional in Weld County, I am deeply concerned about the significant negative impact the dramatic increase in fees will have on our industry, as well as the overall impact on economic development countywide. As one of the last "affordable" regions in Colorado, Weld County has the opportunity to manage its growth carefully while maintaining the integrity of the county's greatest assets. Dramatically increasing fees as proposed could threaten that future by intimating uncertainty for our industry as well as future home buyers, commercial developers and investors. I would like to encourage the county to reconsider this dramatic increase in fees and instead encourage you to consider phasing in the new fees associated with the update to the 1994 UBC over an extended period of time. If we can be assured of some certainty to the fees and the increases the county needs to maintain its level of current service, we can in turn budget and plan our future business accordingly. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this issue. Respectfully submitted, Q Ronald K. Randolph - President Boardwalk Builders of Northern Colorado, Inc. Countyletl t^ L Pt; fit 1246 51ST AVENUE COURT • GREELEY, CO 80634 • (970) 351-7596 FOUNDATION BUILDERS, INJC.o rnr- Y' 6180 West 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 1991 NOV 20 Al In: 47 CLERK TO THE BOARD November 19, 1997 Dear George E. Baxter, District 1 County Commissioner: (970) 352-0876 I have recently been informed of the proposed changes you are set to consider regarding the update of the building code to the 1994 UBC and the subsequent increase in building permit and plan review fees associated with that change. As a building industry professional in Weld County, I am deeply concerned about the significant negative impact the dramatic increase in fees will have on our industry, as well as the overall impact on economic development countywide. It is irresponsible to consider fee increases of 184%, 476%, or 639%! An increase this drastic in fees will threaten any future growth in Weld County. As one of the last "affordable" regions in Colorado, Weld County has the opportunity to manage its growth carefully while maintaining the integrity of the county's greatest assets. I would encourage the county to reconsider this dramatic increase in fees and instead to consider phasing in the new fees associated with the update to the 1994 UBC over an extended period of time. Builders do pay their own way and want to continue to pay their fair share. If we can be assured of some certainty to the fees and the increases the county needs to maintain its level of service, we can in turn budget and plan our future business accordingly. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this issue. Respectfully submitted, Scott W. Renfroe Cc: 4ecc- At - CONCRETE PLACING - FOUNDATIONS - FLATWORK SINCE 1972 A• Lifestyle Homes Inc. November 17, 1997 George E Baxter PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 20 fl 9. 09 CLERK TO MT Dear George: Lifestyle Homes, Inc. has recently been informed of the intended changes you are set to consider regarding the update of the building code to the 1994 UBC and the following increase in building permit and plan review fees associated with the change. As a leading Home Builder in Weld County I am strongly concerned about the significant negative impact the climactic growth in fees will have on our industry, as well as its overall impact on economic development countywide. As one of the last "Affordable" regions in Colorado, Weld County has the chance to manage its development carefully while presuming the integrity of the county's greatest assets. Dramatically increasing fees as proposed could threaten that future by intimating doubt for our industry as well as future home buyers and commercial developers and investors. I would like to encourage the county to reevaluate this climactic growth in fees and instead encourage you to consider phasing in the new fees associated with the update to the 1994 UBC over an extended period time. If we can be guaranteed of some assurance to the fees and the increases the county needs to sustain its level of service, we can in turn budget and plan our future business conformably. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this issue. Respectfully, Dan Gongloft Vice President bjv -7/P CC ,gores; 920 54th Avenue, Suite 200 • Greeley, Colorado 80634 • (970) 353-1331 • Fax (970) 353-0811 97 err P,5 Weld County Builder's Association Est. 1956 WELD COUUTY Y !997 !'M 20 ;',"'i 9; 18 CLERK TO THE c :.' r' November 17, 1997 George E. Baxter Weld County Commissioner P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear George: This letter is written to comment on the proposed changes the Commissioners will consider to the County's building code, specifically the update to the 1994 UBC. It is my understanding that substantial increases to the current building permit and plan review fees will be associated with this update. The Weld County Builders Association has consistently taken the position that we are willing to bear our fair share of the costs of development. We are, however, concerned about the significant percentage increases being proposed. The plan review fee for a 2,000 sq. ft. home will be increased by 639%, and the increase in commercial construction plan review fees for a project over $25,000 range from 127% to 273%. Have the County's costs relating to servicing these functions increased by these amounts? The advantage Weld County enjoys as one of last "affordable" regions in Colorado is at risk with these actions. Growth is being forced our direction from other Northern Colorado communities and I applaud your efforts to manage it. I would encourage you to consider the negative impacts the dramatic increases will have on the economic development across the county. Perhaps you might consider phasing these increases in over a two or three year period which would soften the impact and allow the building industry to plan accordingly. I would appreciate your favorable consideration of this important issue. ,Sincerely Christopher W. Jeavons President U Home Builders Association Governmental Affairs Department • • • V^'"LD CCU]TY HBA of Northern Colorado ♦ P.O. Box 669 • Windsor, CO. 805,5p. Phone (970) 686-2798 ♦ Fax (970) 686-9223 ♦ Email KKMAEVERS@compuserve corn Kimberly Maevers, Director !'"7 EC —5 !` If: cg December 4, 1997 CLE?` T T • - - Weld County Commissioners George Baxter, Constance Harbert, Barbara Kirkmeyer, Dale Hall and W.H. "Bill" Webster P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO. 80632 RE: Proposed increases to land use and building code fees Dear Commissioners, On December 10, 1997 you will consider adopting and updating the fee schedules for land use processes as well as building codes. We would like to take this opportunity to share with you our concerns and offer some suggestions to make the impact much less negative on our industry and the final end user, the home buyer or renter. This letter will reiterate much of the testimony we offered to the Planning Commission on December 2, and will hopefully illustrate more clearly the problems we face. First, we'd like to share with you a little about the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Northern Colorado. The HBA of Northern Colorado is a non-profit membership association comprised of home builders, developers, lenders, sub contractors, suppliers and other associates related to the building trade such as title companies, engineers and architects. Our membership is 380 companies strong in Northern Colorado and represents over 9,000 individuals who live, work, and shop in this area. We are part of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), as well as our state association Colorado Association of Home Builders (CAHB). One of our main goals is to be a single point of contact for resources related to the home-building industry for elected officials, staff, and appointed representatives of our local governments. We are the professional that build the "sticks and bricks" according to the regulations local government imposes, and we are business people who employ local residents and contribute a huge amount to the local economy. GROWTH PAYING ITS WAY: There exists an age old discussion about growth paying its own way, and many of us can debate that issue fori'ours. The HBA's position has always been one that we ARE willing to pay our fair share for growth. Local governments have been challenged in the courts nation wide to prove a rational nexus and provide an accounting that indicates the resulting revenue generated will actually stay to pay for those services we are being forced to pay for...most discussions on growth and whether or not its paying its way stop short of recognizing the long term revenue generators of sales tax, personal income, and property tax revenue that continues long after the construction ends. We are providing you an article published by NAHB two months ago that discusses the positive long term benefits local governments enjoy from careful planning and reasonable growth. AFFORDABILITY FACTORS: One of the growing concerns in Weld County, and in fact all of northern Colorado is the affordable housing crisis. More and more local government officials are becoming aware of the dilemma of how to provide for the entry level priced product the working poor &C Pt) LA; ,=/ ; ^,^n need. In Weld County the average price of a home today is $ 151,925, a $31,000 increase since the February 1995 figure of $120,000. Many factors of course affect those increases, but the most dramatic increase usually comes from regulation, and costs associated with local governments. Weld County's affordability rating is down now at 46.8% which means that the average wage earner (with a salary of $41,000) in Weld County can only afford to purchase 46.8% of the product on the market. That fact obviously limits the choices available to lower income families and individuals. National statistics show that every time the price of a home increases just $1,000 dollars it knocks another 20,000 prospective home buyers out of the marketplace. These increases also translate into higher rental prices as landlords attempt to recover their mortgage costs. Todays market of home buyers and renters are our kids, our grandchildren, and even our parents who just need a safe, attainable place to call home. State representatives Bill Kaufman, Peggy Reeves, Steve Johnson and Bob Bacon have recognized the affordability issue and have been working with us and other agencies to develop dialogue to continue to address the growing problem. THE PROPOSED INCREASES YOU'RE REVIEWING: There are two issue you will be addressing on December 10th. The first is the increase to land use fees which represent an average increase of 40%. Then, you'll also be considering the proposal to increase the UBC fee schedule from the 1988 to the 1994 which will force a dramatic 639% increase in plan review fees alone! The county staff did an excellent job during the planning commission meeting of explaining the fact that land use fees have not been raised in four years and that the UBC rates are 10 years behind...but that DIDN'T prove a rational nexus. The UBC is a nationally recognized standard that local governments tune to fit their need. The rational that "we haven't raised it in ten years" is not defensible in court, nor does it justify the NEED to raise fees 639%...we all know the county staff has been extremely efficient in their duties and the fact the county hired three new staffers in the building department to maintain their level of service was an indication of that commitment. But, can the county prove they are running at a deficit to the extent that these proposed fee increases will actually cover them? One has to wonder if the building department really was running at this dramatic of a deficit why weren't fees raised more regularly to keep pace with the demand? Now, you the commissioners are being forced to make a difficult decision to play "catch up". OUR PROPOSAL: The HBA board of directors discussed this issue at length recently and voted to recommend to you that if in fact you can prove the rational nexus for the proposed fees, and if in fact you can justify the accountability of the revenue you are projecting to raise by these increases, that you at least consider phasing these increase in over an 18 month period. The purpose for this request is three fold: First, it would give those projects already in the funding pipeline the ability to be repackaged to accommodate this dramatic increase in costs. Second, it would give any prospective homebuyers the opportunity to come up with the extra money they need to keep their deals intact. And third, it would build some predictability back into the county market for new projects that may be in the initial phases of discussion. The UBC fee schedule has been ten years coming according to your staff, and the land use fees four years and the market "should know fees are going to go up". But that isn't necessarily the case and for the county to raise the costs on development to this extent, effective January 1st, with no warning is unconscionable. We would like to strongly encourage you to reconsider the recommendation the planning commission made and suggest instead you phase these increases to the land use and UBC fees over 18 months to allow the market to "catch up". THANK YOU FOR YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION eleCtif Bill Gurski, HBA President Kimber Director of G ental Affairs Economic Benefits of Growth By Elliott Dubin NAHB's model provides a tool for estimating the economic and fiscal benefits of residential development. The economic and fiscal benefits of growth to a local community start at the land development stage and continue during and beyond the en- tire construction period. The Hous- ing Policy Department of the National As- sociation of Home Builders has developed a model that estimates the positive aspects of home building within a community. The model captures the directimpact of the con- struction activity itself, the indirect impacts when incomes earned from the construc- tion activity are spent within the commu- nity, and the ongoing impacts when new homes are occupied. In NAHB's model, a local community resembles a small regional economy rather than a neighborhood or other small area. Household residents live, work, shop, and seek entertainment within their local com- munity. In addition, local business firms purchase supplies and services from other firms within the local economy. Usually, the area would be a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as defined by the federal govern- ment's Office of Management and Budget. Such areas are integrated economies that define a local labor market and are suffi- ciently large enough to contain an ample number and variety of business firms to satisfy the demands of households and lo- cal businesses. Larger nonmetropolitan counties or combinations of smaller non - metropolitan counties can also define a lo- cal community. The NAHB model captures the direct effects of the jobs, wages, local business owners' income, and local government rev- enues generated by the construction and sale of new homes in the community. Jobs TABLE 1 Impact of Building 100 Single -Family and 100 Multifamily Homes in a Typical City, 1996 Impact Sum of Direct and Indirect Impacts Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Ongoing Impacts Local Area Incomes (hundreds of thousands) Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Government Revenues Local Jobs Supported Local Area Incomes (hundreds of thousands) Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Government Revenues Local Jobs Supported SINGLE-FAMILY $10,059 $ 2,670 $ 7,388 $ 854 253 $7,041 $2,152 $4,888 $ 655 158 $3,018 $ 518 $2,500 $ 199 94 $2,399 $ 416 $1,983 $ 393 76 MULTIFAMILY $4,824 $1,280 $3,543 $ 409 121 $3,376 $1,032 $2,344 $ 314 76 Source: NAHB Housing Policy Department. "The Local Impact of Home Building in Average City, USA," March 1997. $1,448 $ 248 $1,199 $ 95 45 $1,183 $ 238 $ 945 $ 243 36 Land Devel gSPflf¢'1437 19 TABLE 2 Local Government Revenue Impact of Building 100 Housing Units in a Representative City Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Ongoing Impacts Local Revenue Source Single -Family Multifamily Single -Family Multifamily Single -Family Multifamily Total Local General Revenues $655,000 $314,000 $200,000 $95,000 $393,000 $243,000 Taxes $87,000 $42,000 $129,000 $62,000 $282,000 $174,000 Business Property Taxes 31,000 15,000 61,000 29,000 45,000 33,000 Residential Properly Taxes 0 0 0 0 160,000 91,000 General Sales Taxes 12,000 6,000 25,000 12,000 18,000 13,000 Specific Sales and Excise Taxes' 7,000 3,000 14,000 7,000 10,000 7,000 Income Taxes 32,000 15,000 19,000 9,000 40,000 24,000 Licenses and Other Taxes 5,000 2,000 10,000 4,000 7,000 6,000 User Charges and Fees $568,000 $272,000 $71,000 $34,000 $111,000 $69,000 Residential PermiUlmpact Fees 483,000 231,000 0 , 0 0 0 Hospital Charges 21,000 10,000 9,000 4,000 26,000 15,000 Sewage and Solid Waste Charges 18,000 9,000 14,000 7,000 23,000 14,000 Transportation Charges 9,000 4,000 12,000 6,000 13,000 8,000 Education Charges2 10,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 12,000 7,000 Other Fees and Charges3 27,000 13,000 32,000 15,000 37,000 24,000 Note: Details may not add due to rounding. 'Primarily taxes on motor fuels, tobacco products, and alcoholic beverages. 'Primarily school lunch sales and fees and tuition at local higher education institutions. 'Primarily charges for parks and recreational facilities. Source: NAHB Housing Policy Department, "The Local Impact of Home Building in Average City, USA," March 1997. include both on- and off -site construction work as well as jobs resulting from the wholesale and retail sales of materials and components, local transportation of mate- rials to the site, and all the professional ser- vices required to build and sell new homes. Indirect impacts include the additional jobs, wages, business owners' incomes, and local government revenues generated when in- comes earned during the development and construction phases are spent by workers and business owners on locally produced goods and services. The ongoing or "rip- ple" effects from recycling income back into the community produce more jobs, wages, and revenues. The NAHB model also captures the an - 20 Land Development/Fall 1997 nual impact on the community when the new homes are occupied and occupants spend a portion of their incomes on locally produced goods and services. The occupants of the new homes do not necessarily come from outside the local area. The average new - home -occupying household may come from within the local area while an existing -home - occupying household may move into the area and occupy the home vacated by the first household. Accordingly, the model as- sumes that the occupation of a new home represents the addition of a household to the community. The spending of the addition- al household creates its own ripple effect as local businesses and workers make purchases from other local businesses. Although each new home contributes positively to the local economy and to lo cal government treasuries, new household generate costs for local governments. Local jurisdictions must frequently expand road capacity, sewer systems, school buildings, recreational facilities, and other capital fa- cilities to accommodate population growth. This article focuses on the positive aspects of home building; it does not address the question of whether growth "pays for itself?' Indeed, the answer to this question is sig- nificantly more complex than simply com- paring the additional cost of local public services required to accommodate addi- tional residents with the additional prop- erty taxes generated by new homes. To ar- The impact of a new home causes a permanent increase in the level of economic activity within the community. rive at a reasonable answer, all additional costs must be weighed against all addition- al benefits. Derivation of Local Impact The local economic and revenue impacts of home building in a representative met- ropolitan area are presented in the follow- ing sections. A representative metropolitan area is a statistical construct. For purposes of this article, it is assumed that housing prices and the cost components of housing (land, labor, fees and charges, and materi- als) are identical to national averages. Sim- ilarly, it is assumed that median household income and spending patterns are identi- cal to national averages. It is further as- sumed that the revenue structure of the local governments that comprise the rep- resentative metropolitan area is the same as the revenue structure of all local gov- ernments in the United States. Estimating the impact of home build- ing within a local area involves several steps. The first step calls for determining the value of new single- and multifamily homes constructed less the value of the raw land on which these homes are built.' Estimates of the products and the quantity of those products that are required to produce a new home (or any other product) come from the 1987 benchmark input/output (I/O) ta- bles of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. The local impact is estimated by using a subset of the more than 500 industries and commodi- ties in the I/O tables. Wages and salaries, lo- cal business owners' income, and local tax- es are derived from the estimates of the output of the local industries. The local im- pacts of the spending of the wages and salaries, business owners' incomes, and lo- cal tax revenues (the indirect impacts) are derived from the I/O tables and the Con- sumer Expenditure Survey (CES) of the Bu- reau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. The ongoing local impacts are es- timated from the spending patterns of the occupants of the new homes derived from the CES and the I/O tables. A more com- plete description of the model and the im- pacts by industry is available from NAHB's publication Housing Economics.' Jobs and Income Construction of 100 average -priced, single- family homes in a representative metro- politan area generates approximately $7 million in local wages, salaries, and busi- ness proprietors' incomes during the de- velopment and construction phases (see Table 1, direct impacts).' An additional $3 million in local area incomes (wages, salaries, and local business proprietors' in- comes) is generated when workers spend their wages in local businesses (indirect im- pacts). When the 100 newly constructed homes are occupied, local area incomes in- crease annually by $2.4 million (permanent impacts). The direct impact of construct- ing 100 single-family homes is $10 million in local area incomes. Development and construction generate 114 full-time jobs and support 44 full-time jobs in noncon- struction industries. Construction of 100 multifamily homes generates $3.4 million in local area incomes and supports 76 full- time jobs during the development and con- struction phases.° A portion of the additional wages is spent in local businesses (stores, restaurants, services, etc.) and creates a ripple effect (in- direct impact) as local businesses hire more staff and expand their scale of operations. It is estimated that construction of 100 sin- gle-family homes generates $3 million in local area incomes and supports 94 full- time jobs. Construction of 100 multifami- ly homes generates about 48 percent of the local area income and jobs that would re- sult from 100 single-family homes —$1.4 million in local area incomes and 45 full- time jobs. The impact of a new home causes a per- manent increase in the level of economic activity within the community. As new homes are occupied, new residents spend a portion of their earnings in local busi- nesses and trigger the need for more staff and expanded operations. Expansion of ex- isting businesses and the influx of new busi- nesses induced to come into the area by the increased volume of trade increases the de- mand for construction and other services, thereby continuing the ripple effect. Table 1 illustrates the ongoing impacts. Over a period of years, the spending of both the occupants of the new single-family homes and business owners and their workers gen- erates approximately $2.4 million in local area incomes (annual average) and supports 76 full-time jobs. Construction of 100 mul- tifamily units results in an average annual increase in local area incomes of $1.2 mil- lion and supports 36 full-time jobs. Local Revenue Impact of Development While the most visible increase in revenues resulting from the construction of new housing is additional property taxes on for- merly vacant or agricultural land convert- ed to residential use, the direct and indirect impacts of construction and development also generate other sources of revenue for local governments. Though often over- looked, these revenues are not insignificant. As incomes are spent in local business- es, local general and sales tax revenues grow. In addition, purchases of building materi- als by builders are subject to sales taxation in some states, further increasing sales tax revenues. Where applicable, incomes earned by workers and local business owners are also subject to local income taxes.' More- over, as new housing is occupied, some lo- cal governments collect revenues from mortgage and deed transfer taxes. Table 2 shows the impact on local gov- ernment revenues from the construction of 100 housing units. The largest single source of revenue is residential construction per- mits and fees, including impact fees of $4,826 per single-family home and $2,315 per multifamily unit (direct impacts). Busi- ness property tax revenues are expected to increase by $383 per single-family home and by $184 per multifamily unit as a re- sult of projected increases in the value of existing businesses and the addition of new business firms (or new branches of exist- ing firms). The local incomes generated by constructing 100 single-family units and 100 multifamily units lead to an addition - Land DevelopmeSprc9¢Z 31 al $32,000 and $15,000, respectively, in per- sonal income tax. User charges and fees, other than those connected with construc- tion, generate $85,000 from single-family home building and $41,000 from multi- family home building. Table 2 shows that the direct impacts on local government rev- enues from constructing 100 single-family homes and 100 multifamily units are $655,000 and $314,000, respectively. Additional revenues are generated as the incomes earned by workers and business owners in both the construction industry and the industries that directly provide goods and services to the construction in- dustry are spent in local businesses (indi- rect impacts). It is estimated that local rev- enues would increase by $200,000 per 100 single-family homes and by $95,000 per 100 multifamily units. New businesses and in- creases in the value of existing businesses are expected to boost business property tax revenues by $61,000 per 100 single-family homes and by $29,000 per 100 multifami- ly units. The increased spending is expect- ed to generate an additional $39,000 in lo- cal general and specific sales taxes ($19,000 per 100 multifamily units). The increase in local user fees and charges is estimated at $71,000 per 100 single-family homes and $34,000 per 100 multifamily units. In contrast to the direct and indirect im- pacts of residential construction, which are short-term stimuli to local economies, the permanent impact represents the long-term effect of development. For each new single- family home, it is estimated that residential property taxes increase by $1,600 per year.' As newly constructed units are occupied, residents spend a portion of their earnings on locally provided goods and services, there- by increasing local sales tax revenues. As the volume of local trade grows, the number of local jobs and total earnings likewise grow, generating additional sales and income tax revenues. Other revenues that grow with the expansion of the community include busi- ness income and franchise taxes, public util- ity excise taxes, and gasoline and other spe- cial excise taxes. Each new single-family home is expected to generate an additional 22 Land Development/Fall 1997 $3,930 per year and each new multifamily unit an additional $2,430 per year. Home building also generates signifi- cant amounts of state government revenues in the form of individual and corporate in- come taxes, general and specific sales tax- es, and other taxes, charges, and fees. A sig- nificant portion of these revenues is often returned to local governments as grants- in-aid; general local government support; property tax relief for residents based on age, income, disability, and/or veteran sta- tus; and other types of assistance. Given the The economic benefits to communities of residential development are far greater than merely the increase in property taxes associated with new homes. extreme variability in grant formulas and other criteria for revenue sharing, the NAHB model does not account for esti- mates of these revenue types. Summary and Conclusion The economic and fiscal benefits to lo- cal communities of residential development are far greater than merely the increase in property taxes associated with new homes. Spending by new residents and those in- volved in the development and construc- tion phases translates into new jobs and increased wages and local business propri- etors' incomes. Augmenting the income and spending streams means growth in local government revenues from sales and in- come taxes and user fees and charges. To be sure, residential and business de- velopment imposes costs on local govern- ments. The data presented in this article do not answer the question of whether the ad- ditional government revenues resulting from development offset the additional costs to local government. Because of the wide variation in fiscal conditions and structures among local governments, it may not be possible to make general statements on the net local impact of development. The broad results presented here apply to a representative U.S. city. Representative in this sense means statistically average. The model can be adapted to specific metro- politan statistical areas, specific nonmetro- politan counties, or combinations of coun- ties. Requests for more customized analyses can be made through state or local home builder associations. For details on the re- quirements to customize the U.S. model to a specific area, contact any of the following: • David A. Crowe, NAHB Staff Vice President, (202) 822-0383 • Paul Emrath, NAHB Senior Economist, (202) 822-0449 • Elliott Dubin, NAHB Senior Policy Analyst, (202) 822-0398. ■ Elliott Dubin is a senior policy analyst in the Housing Policy Department at the National Asso- ciation of Home Builders in li'ashington, D.C. 'Because raw land has an economic and tax val- ue that is not a result of construction activity, it is important to exclude it from the analysis. 'Paul Emrath, "Local Economic Impact of Home Building;' Housing Economics, March 1997, pp. 5-9. 'Emrath, 1997, p. 7. 'National Association of Home Builders, Local Impact of Home Building in Average City, USA: A Brief Description of the Model, March 1997. `Approximately 4,100 local governments, 2,800 of which are in Pennsylvania, impose some form of local income tax. U.S. Advisory Com- mission on Intergovernmental Relations, Sig- nificant Features of Fiscal Federalism: 1995, Vol- ume I, Budget Processes and Tax Systems, p. 70. `This represents the difference between the es- timated property tax on the total value of the property and the estimated property tax that would have been generated from the undevel- oped land. No estimates for increases in prop- erty taxes that may result from increases in property values over time have been made. r 972r 5 I BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION 117_9 COL:"Ty Pm ? r CLERKRESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE 'ME BDAI" D Moved by Marie Koolstra, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the proposed building permit fee increase to become effective January 1, 1998, be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: Attached is an example of the 1994 Building Permit Fee Schedule. The (1994) Uniform Building Code was adopted in the Fall of 1996, and we are recommending adoption of the corresponding 1994 fee schedule This fee schedule is targeted to simply recover the full costs of the activities being performed. It is the philosophy of Weld County that building inspection fees should be fully paid for by the applicant and not subsidized by property taxes, since the applicant generates the need for the inspection costs. Attached is a cost analysis representing revenue projections, and cost associated with the adoption of the 1994 fee schedule, and a regional fee comparison. Motion seconded by Cristie Nicklas. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Cristie Nicklas Marie Koolstra Jack Epple Bruce Fitzgerald Stephen Mokray Rusty Tucker Glenn Vaad Fred Walker The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the attached materials to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Wendi Inloes, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on December 2, 1997. Dated the 2ndday f Decem ber, 1997. Wendi Inloes Secretary 972385 l Fricv WUDC COLORADO MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission Members November 13, 1997 From: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Dept. of Planning Services Subject: Building Inspection Permit Fees for 1998 Attached is an example of the 1994 Building Permit Fee Schedule. The (1994) Uniform Building Code was adopted in the Fall of 1996, and we are recommending adoption of the corresponding 1994 fee schedule This fee schedule is targeted to simply recover the full costs of the activities being performed. It is the philosophy of Weld County that building inspection fees should be fully paid for by the applicant and not subsidized by property taxes, since the applicant generates the need for the inspection costs. Attached is a cost analysis representing revenue projections, and cost associated with the adoption of the 1994 fee schedule, and a regional fee comparison. SERVICE, TEAMWORK, INTEGRITY, QUALITY 972385 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BUILDING INSPECTION FEES JANUARY 1,1998 .,UILDING, PLUMBING, AND MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES: TOTAL VALUATION FEE $1 TO $500 $21 $501.00 TO $2000 $21 FOR THE FIRST $500 PLUS $2.75 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $100 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $2000. $2,001 TO $25,000 $62.25 FOR THE FIRST $2000 PLUS $12.50 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING S25,000. $25,001 TO $50,000 $349.75 FOR THE FIRST $25,000 PLUS $9.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $50,000. $50,001 TO $100,000 $574.75 FOR THE FIRST $50,000 PLUS $6.25 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1000 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $100,000. $100,001 TO $500,000 $887.25 FOR THE FIRST $100,000 PLUS $5.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1000 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $500,000. $500,001 TO $1,000,000 $2,887.25 FOR THE FIRST $500,000 PLUS $4.25 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $1,000,000. $1,000,001 AND UP $5,012.25 FOR THE FIRST $1,000,000 PLUS $2.75. FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1000. FOR FRACTION THEREOF. PLAN CHECK FEE: 65% OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE (107.3 UBC) MOBILE HOME, MANUFACTURED HOME, AND FB UNITS ALL MOBILE HOMES, MANUFACTURED HOMES, AND FB UNITS $150. MOBILE HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOMES USED AS TEMPORARY STORAGE OR AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE $75. * *A PLAN CHECK FEE IS REQUIRED FOR HOMES SET ON PERMANENT CRAWLSPACE AND BASEMENT FOUNDATIONS.** OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES: INSPECTIONS OUTSIDE OF NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS (MINIMUM CHARGE - TWO HOURS) $42. PER HOUR REINSPECTION FEE $42. PER HOUR INSPECTIONS FOR WHICH NO FEE IS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED (MINIMUM CHARGE - ONE-HALF HOUR) $42. PER HOUR ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED BY CHANGES, ADDITIONS, OR REVISIONS TO APPROVED PLANS (MINIMUM CHARGE • ONE-HALF HOUR) $42. PER HOUR INVESTIGATION FEE; THE AMOUNT FOR ANY INVESTIGATION SHALL NOT EXCEED ACTUAL COSTS PRE -MOVE INSPECTIONS FOR DWELLINGS: - ANYWHERE WITHIN WELD COUNTY - $75. OUTSIDE WELD COUNTY $150. 972385 WELD COUNTY ELECTRICAL FEES JANUARY 1,1998 RESIDENTIAL: THIS INCLUDES MODULAR HOMES, MOBILE HOMES AND TRAVEL TRAILERS. ALSO DUPLEXES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND TOWNHOUSES; CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENSIVE REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO (BASED ON ENCLOSED LIVING AREA). 0 TO 500 SD. FT. $37.00 OVER 500 SO. FT. AND NOT MORE THAN 1000 SO. FT. $53.00 OVER 1000 SO. FT. AND NOT MORE THAN 1500 SD. FT. $72.00 OVER 1500 SO. FT. AND NOT MORE THAN 2000 SQ. FT. $78.00 *PER 100 SO. FT. IN EXCESS OF 2000 SQ. FT. $5.00 * EXAMPLE: 2100 SO. FT. = $78.00 + $5.00= $83.00 ALL OTHER FEES, EXCEPT FOR INSPECTIONS IN MOBILE HOMES AND TRAVEL TRAILER PARKS SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS, INCLUDING TIME AND MATERIAL (TOTAL COST TO THE CUSTOMER), AND SUCH FEES SHALL BE COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS: VALUATION OF WORK: (ACTUAL COST TO CUSTOMER • LABOR AND MATERIALS) NOT MORE THAN $300 $37.00 MORE THAN $300, BUT NOT MORE THAN $2000 $44.00 MORE THAN $2000, BUT NOT MORE THAN $3000 $51.00 MORE THAN $3000, BUT NOT MORE THAN $50,000 $17.00 THOUSAND OR FRACTION THEREOF OF TOTAL VALUATION *EXAMPLE $3001 TO $4000 -$51 + $17=$68 & $4001 TO $5000-$51 + $34=$85 MORE THAN $50,000 CONTACT THE WELD COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT (970)-353-6100 #3521. MOBILE HOMES AND TRAVEL TRAILER PARKS PER SPACE $37.00 REINSPECTION ON ALL OF THE ABOVE $44.00 CONSTRUCTION METER $37.00 WHEN WORK FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED BY THE WELD COUNTY BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE IS STARTED OR PROCEEDED WITH PRIOR TO OBTAINING THE ELECTRICAL PERMIT, AN ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION FEE SHALL BE ADDED TO THE COST OF THE ELECTRICAL PERMIT. THE INVESTIGATION FEE SHALL BE 50% OF THE FEE ESTABLISHED BY SEPARATE ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE INVESTIGATIONS FEE EXCEED AN AMOUNT SET BY SEPARATE ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE PAYMENT OF SUCH INVESTIGATION FEE SHALL NOT RELIEVE ANY PERSONS FROM FULLY COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WELD COUNTY BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE IN THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, NOR FROM ANY OTHER PENALTIES PRESCRIBED WITHIN THE WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE. 972385 BUILDING INSPECTION COST ANALYSIS Utilizing 1994 Fees Budgeted Costs Budgeted Revenue Sub -total Indirect Costs $431,408 $575,200 -143,792 148,749 Grand Total $4,957 Revenue as a percentage of gross costs 99.1% NOTE: In municipalities and in adjacent counties with sales tax the citizen taking out the building permit is also paying a local sales tax on the building materials collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit. Weld County has not such sales tax. SERVICE, TEAMWORK, INTEGRITY, QUALITY 972385 a MEMORANDUM To: Monica Daniels -Mika( Director June 10, 1997 WI`'Dc. COLORADO From: Sharyn Frazer, Office Manager Subject: Comparison/Building Inspcction Fees cc: Ed Stoner, Lead Combination Ini`pector The following is a list of surrounding communities and the Uniform Building Code they are operating under for a comparison of fees charged: Town or County Agency Uniform Building Code Town of Windsor 1988 UBC , 1qc•') proposed l�q% City of Greeley 1991 UBC r City of Longmont 1994 UBC City of Loveland 1991 UBC Adams County 1991 UBC Larimer County 1994 UBC Douglas County 1991 UBC Attachments include a cost breakdown from the City of Greeley. The City of Loveland and Douglas County have also included their building permit report through the month of May, 1997. SERVICE. TEAMWORK. INTEGRITY. QUALITY 972385 FEE COMPARISONS The following table is a comparison of the current adopted fees and the fee schedule as shown in the 1994 Uniform Building Code. The 1994 fee schedule represents an increase of approximately 40% over the current fees. We currently have a minor plan review fee of $25.00 for small additions and remodels. The residential plan review fee is $100.00. The building code calculates the plan review fee at 65% of the building permit fee. For commercial facilities the 1994 fee schedule represents an increase of approximately 175%. Since our current plan review for residential is $100.00, regardless of value, the 1994 schedule represents a substantial increase. For examples of this increase, please see the residential comparisons below. Current Fees 1994 Fees % Building Permit Fee $639.50 $ 887.25 39 Plan Review Fee $100.00 $ 576.71 476 Electrical Fee $ 78.00 $ 78.00 0 Construction Meter $ 37.00 $ 37.00 0 Total 854.50 $1,578.96 85 feecomp.sef 972385 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Revenue Support 1. Growth should pay for itself in terms of initial costs, and in long range, through good design and functional efficiency. (p. 3-1) I.Goal.6 All new industrial development should pay its own way. (p.3-5) C.Goal. 7 MI new commercial development should pay its own way. (p.3-7) R.Goal.4 Ml new residential development should pay its own way. (p. 3-8) PUD.Goal.5 Ml new planned unit development should pay its own way. (p.3-10) MUD.Goal 7 All new mixed use development should pay its own way. (p.3-15) cprevsup.sef 972383 v;04 PROPOSED CHANGES a Sr tOOMD O co Let ES 69 01 .Q 8 tL LA N m N Q N N CU a Ca an Li- IO S ' C O yg c _'MI f69-fR(HN y e c N ai L ci a- a N X I O '0 O C cti d 3 N NON-RESIDENTIAL" (10,000 y b •. 0 Q LI C w'� I^ m .= _'. V J mu O co'41 a...., v V 0 Fy a .Swocisg E. 'o�00 4 -8a) aid N F r.O.•O...'c7 2y .D �" N O w U .: o r; -;.'S y O N' a a E.d hlr C 7 4— y0 ca O bq 9 u w a O � d y `4' u 0. u.a. T u ,i yN O N E N .; y Er NN E O Q O N �c.., Cw O 7J O QC.. • T ro .L). u a 1 ,N„ ..'.. Q O 0 m z ❑ h . U Ri a0. W u0 J. y.' 0 t F • m ro 0 a C .0 y O N TJ O F Q N ate. c'• v _ N.0 ❑ • Nw TF 0 c6 bSL y .- T z ,C aortic• 3 •3 •N_ 0 O ��c �a°66=40 g�'yN E$° OE E' - E3 ct '()n V❑ -0 E 4 y -0, H o C- c 6.N a .Y ro °°U' Q c86 o". tna$L)1 z C4 r U p y 4 Cry EE Eo 'cLh o one a"E^�� c c c O.0 O V 3 'k, e > d'° 0 Ii 'O r V ots.� V 04.2 �-I N E oo U u F y 4 .r ',C`� T.• taa G E V 1 L N E,°Ji N •. .ct ,0 CPrN E 0 V W 3 o Y ~ " V F c N It 81 ^ fA y N w S O V 3r cina zC"aac ' Li i (7,ii> 972atio li i ii [41 c ; bWk.e. GROWTH ' other Colorado cities. "It's a nice, convenient place to live," said City Manager PaulCirgttet. "You have a lot of amenities in the community, and you are stillcloseto Defter." According to the Census Bureau, the largest city in northern Colorado is Fort Collins with a population of 104,196 in 1996. Almost 17,000 peo- ple moved into Fort Collins between 1990 and 1996. But Loveland was the fastest - growing city in the region during that period. The new census report shows that Loveland grew from 37,357 residents in 1990 to 44,923 residents in 1996 a growth rate of 20.3 percent. The population in Fort Collins jumped 19;1; percent and Longmont's size in- creased 12.2 percent — from 51,976 residents in 1990 to 58,318 residents six years later. Greeley's growth of 13.5. percent ranked the city No. 17 among 34 cities in Colorado with populations of more than 10,000 residents. No other Weld County towns are listed. The fastest -growing city in the state during the first six years of this decade was Parker, according to the census bureau. The population there jumped from 5,450 to 11,802 — an increase of 116.6 percent. Pueblo reported a .8 growth rate to make it the slowest -growing city in the state, according, to the census bu- reau. A similar report released by the census in March for county popula- tions showed that Weld County's population grew from 131,821 resi- dents in'1990 to 152,189 resident in July last year. That's an increase of 15.5 percent. TOP 1O ■'Coktradeetargest oit on July 1, 1998 1. Deliver 497,840, r 2. Colorado Springs 345,127 3. -Aurora 252,341 4. Lakewood 134,999 5. Fort Collins 104,196 r. 6. Pueblo 99,406 7: Arvada. 96,340 8. Westminster 93,115 9. Boulder ' ' 90,928 10 . Greeley 88,593 — Sources:. U.S. Census Bureau: 1. T The state of Colorado's population grew by 16 percent during the same period. In Greeley, meanwhile, local offi- cials expect steady growth to contin- ue. Just look at Greetey`s No: 6 ranking nationally on the "Market hotness" chart of the Washington, D.C.-based publication U.S. I$( using Markets, they say. f The market hotness chart, re- leased in September, represents the number of permits issued per, 1,000 population in the past 12 months, The tpp-rated hot market for single-fami- ly homes in the United States was Wilmington, N.C., and Las Vegas was ranked second. Fort Collins -Loveland is ranked No. 9, and Grand Junction is No. 19. Butler said the growth in Fort Collinsand Loveland is g$opd for Greeley. "We are all benefiting be; cause of the same reasons, ant are job growth and the qua life," he said. Greeley continues to grow, stats show By ERIC BROWN Greeley Tribune Growth during the first six years of the decade was enough to keep Greeley among the 1lrlargest cities in Colorado, according to the latest population numbers from the Cen- sus Bureau. "This will just confirm what the chamber, the city, the county aml the Economic Devel- opment Action Partnership have been saying — that there has been significant growth in the area," said Lyle Butler, president of the Greeley -Weld Chamber of Commerce. A new census reports shows Greeley with a population of 68;593 on July 1, 1996. That's : , an increase of 8,139 over the April 1, 1990, population count, giving Greeley a growth' rate of 13.5 percent during the first six years of this decade. "I think that's right on track," Butler said. "The growth has come because jobs have been created." Officials also attribute the steady growth in Greeley to a low cost -Of living compared to See GROWTH, Page Al2, 972385 FEES Greeley. But Grattet said he did r the higher fees would would detriment" to development. keep pace with the increasing ex* of development, he said. Even still, the council directed Grattet to draft a proposal that would phase in the fee bike. Fees for residential development also will increase. According to the proposed rate schedule, charges for drainage and street fees will jump between $190 and $495 depending on the size of the home. A fire fee is also based on home size, and a park fee may jump from $600 per home to $650. Thenew rates, both for commer- cial and residential projects, will. take effect Jan. 1 and are expected to gen! erate up to $2 million in revenue for the city each year. Developer Kris.Pickett said after listening to the council's discussion on Tuesday that the proposed fees are reasonable. "The developer is not paying the fee," Pickett said. "The homeowner and the customer who goes to the re- tail outlet. ... We all pay for it." Another way to raise money for IN An ordinance changing the development fees will be introduced at the Dec. 2 meet- ktg oti he Greeley City Council. A public hearing will be Dec. 16, at which time the council will consider giving the new fee schedule final approval, improvements is to 'ass a utility fee charged to all local homeowners and businesses, council members' were told during their meeting. A letter to Grattet from public works director Bill Sterling outlined a plan that could raise $3.2 million annually for street and storinwater drainage improvements. But each lo- cal household would be charged be- tween $5 and $5:25 each month, and businesses would be charged be- tween $78 and $89 per acre each month. Council members quickly rejected the plan. "I personally would like to take cover before you do that," council- man Jerzy Wones sad. 972385 FT. LUPTON, CO 80621 - Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO County of Weld SS. I A. Winkler Riesel of said County of Adams being duly sworn, say that I am publisher of PLATTEVILLE HERALD that the same as a weekly newspaper of general circulation was printed and published in the town of FORT LUPTON in said county and state that the notice of advertisement, of which the annexed is a true copy has been published in said weekly newspaper for ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper during the period and time of publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper and not in a supplement thereof: that the first publication of said notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper bearing the date of NOVEMBER 19. A.D. 1997 and the last publication thereof, in the issue of said newspaper, bearing date, the j9th day of NOVEMBER 1997, that the said PLATTEVILLE HERALD has been published continuously and uninterruptedly during the period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks next poor to the first issue thereof containing said notice or advertisement above referred to: and that said newspaper was at the time of each of the publications of said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of Printers and Publishers thereof, and to Repeal all Acts and Parts of Acts in Conflict with the Provisions of this Act" approved April 7, 1921, and all amendments thereof, and particularly as amended by an act approved, Mich 30, an_act appro)41 tyjey 13 Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of OVEMBER A.D. 1997 My Commission expires December 27, 1997 NOTICE Of POETIC NEARING The Weld County Panning Commission MI hole apublic heating Tuesday, .Tuesday, December 2, 1997, at 1:30 p.m., for the purpose of considering the adopted on the 1994 uniform Building Code Fee Schedule. The ' public hearing we be held In the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room,FIrsty Centennial Center, Tenth Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request shouldbesulitedIn writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Senlces,1400 N.17ih Avenue. Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public healing on December2,1997. A copy of the proposed lee schedule S available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services. 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631, Please call Wend Woes, of Phone a (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540, or Fax 5 (970)352- 6312, prior to the day of the hearing so that reasonable accommodations can be made If, In accordance with the Amedc answlht Dbabetea Act, you require special accommodations In order to ponlcipate in this hearing as a result of a disability. Glenn Vaod, Chairman Weld County Planning CaMn*on • Published In the Platteville Herald November 19, 1997. Weld County Planning Dept. N0V 2 41997 RECEIVED 972385 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 2, 1997, at 1:30 p.m., for the purpose of considering the adopted on the 1994 Uniform Building Code Fee Schedule. The public hearing will be held in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on December 2, 1997. A copy of the proposed fee schedule is available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631. Please call Wendi Inloes, at Phone # (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540, or Fax # (970) 352-6312, prior to the day of the hearing so that reasonable accommodations can be made if, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, you require special accommodations in order to participate in this hearing as a result of a disability. Glenn Vaad, Chairman Weld County Planning Commission To be published in the Platteville Herald. To be published pne(1) time by vember 20, 1997. Received by: Date: bilegal.sef 972385 PRESS RELEASE The Department of Building Inspection for Weld County will be adopting the 1994 Uniform Building Code Fee Schedule effective January 1, 1998. A copy of the proposed fee schedule is on file in the Department of Planning Services, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley CO 80631. pressfee.sef 972385 Hello