The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About991431.tiff PUBLIC NOTICE The County of Weld, and the municipalities of Dacono, Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Mead, Longmont, Severance, and Windsor will conduct a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 7, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Erie Town Hall, 645 Holbrook, Erie, Colorado. The purpose of the meeting is to allow citizens, especially builders and developers, to review and comment on the studies in the Windsor/Severance area and Southwest Weld County area to develop roadway plans to accommodate growth, and to develop a financing mechanism to implement the roadway plan. The proposed financing mechanism is a road impact fee structure for all new construction in the areas. Written comments are also welcome and must be received by July 6, 1999, in the office of the Clerk to the Board, 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758, Greeley, Colorado 80632. Information and copies of the above studies are available at the office of the Clerk to the Board of the Weld County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATED: June 7, 1999 PUBLISHED: June 16, 1999 and June 30, 1999 in the Fort Lupton Press and Farmer-Miner June 17, 1999 and July 1, 1999 in the Windsor Beacon June 25, 1999 and June 30, 1999 in the Longmont Times-Call 991431 GY •—.11 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION DAILYTIM-ES-CALL State of Colorado County of Boulder I, the undersigned agent, do solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY-TIMES CALL is a daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the City of Longmont, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and which has general circulation therein and in parts of Boulder and Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously and uninterruptedly published for a period of more than six months next prior to the first publication of the PUBLIC NOTICE annexed legal notice of advertisement, that said newspaper The County de Weld, end the municipalities of Dacono, Erie, has been admitted to the United States mails as second-class Firestone, Frederick, Mead, Longmont,Severance,and Wind- matter under the provisions o' the Act of March 3, 1879, or any sor will at conduct an�Wpheoet• amendments thereat, and that said newspaper is a daily Julyb1999,inmeCouncilCham- ben of the Erie Town Hall, newspaper dulyqualified for publishing legal notices and 645 Holbrook, Erie, Colorado. The purpose of the eating Is to advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of allow citizens, aspecially meaning builders and developers, to re- Colorado; that a copy of each number of said newspaper, in In me and on the area which said notice of advertisement was published, was and Southwest Weld county area to develop roadway plans to transmitted by mail or carrier to each of the subscribers of accommodategrowth,andtode- velop a financing mechanism to said newspaper, according to the accustomed made of implement prtheoposed financing roadway plan. mechanissm Is a road ipec business in this office. structure for all new construction In the antes. Written comments are also That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published welcome and must be received by July 6, 1999, in the office of in the regular and entire edition of said daily er the Clerk torte Board,915 10th g news a 1 P XfF7PX-e Street, P.O. Box 755, Greeley, VitteRXXiteXlifoilkxklikkxltilOatthixViattAki4xXiMtk for the period of Calera®ME. Information and Capin of the above skWlde are e insertions and that the firstpublication of evaliabie at ter office of the 2 x xttR Xb3X Clerk totth�e mBoaar�d of n the Weld said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated rig; n weld c 'entinnla JUNE 25 , 19 99, ar.d that the last publication of said corder,Grona5a�taayID�ih re Third da through.rider,O a a.m.to notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated s:00 OLIO Of COUNTY JUNE 30 ' 19 99 c El atot iAa Times- )4-6444 GIL longm oat, Colorado, Jane ss;50,1999 Agent Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2ND day of 9 JULY,,(( - 99 6t.theiirt .-kcikn[ Notary Public 643'117429.71 ;. i FEE $ ur apiREs snow �.. COtaUOD not 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 FARMER&MINER that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation was printed and published in the town of FREDERICK in said county and state that the notice of advertisement, PINUO NOTICE of which the annexed is a true copy has been published in said weekly newspaper for The County of Weld, and the rmNYcpalltles of Dacono,E ne.Firestone, ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was Freak,Mead Severance,and Wltacr published in the regular and entire issue of every number we conduct a public meetng at 790 of said newspaper during the period and time of P.M.on Wednesday,July 7,1999,in the publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper Co ncitChambersofthe ErleTown Not and not in a supplement thereof: that the first publication 645 Holbrook, Erie, Colorado. The of said notice was contained in the issue of said Purpose of the meeting Is to dbw newspaper bearing the date of citizens, especially builders bna devetopels,to review and comment on JUNE 16 A.D. 1999 and the last publication the studies k the Windsor/Semiotics area and Southwest Weld County area thereof,in the issue of said newspaper,bearing date, to develop roadway plans to a carrmodategrowth.andtodevelop. the 16th day of JUNE 1999 that the said a Inarleing mechanem to knplenlMt the roadway plan. The proposed mancksg mechanism No road Impact FARMER &MINER fee slfucture far off newconshucxanthe ln has been published continuously and uninterruptedly 014,03. during the period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first issue thereof containing said notice Written comments ore also or advertisement above referred to: and that said welcome and muNLsereCebed beat, newspaper was at the time of each of the publications of 6,1999,in the office of the Clerk lo the said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the hood 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 751. meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal Greeley,Colorado 80632. Informatbn Notices,Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of and copies of the above studies are Printers and Publishers thereof,and to Repeal all Acts avallebleottheofflceofthe Clerk Mtn* and Parts of Acts in Conflict with the Provisions of this Board of the Weld County Commissioners, located In the Weld Act" approved,an par April 7, 19amended dand all amendments t , County Centennial Centel, 915 10th thereof,and particularly as amended by an act approved, Street,Third Floor,Greeley,Colorado, Ma 3 1923.and an act 3p �May l 93� Monday tnrougnFWaY.B:00a.m.to590 P.m. p.m. t�(� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �-- WELD COUNTY,COLORADO Publisher DATED:June 7,1999 Subscribed and swore to before me this 16th day of • Published EOM)°,theFaer5MlnerJ 16, JUNE A.D. 1999 1 ' K_____/..477 ..L1 (L4 ? Notary Public.' d/ P.O.BOX 125 FT.LUPTON. CO 80621_'_ spar P�Be • JAMIE YC,?FT"+ F.Ls'1\ My Commission Expires December 27,2001 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 FORT LUPTON PRESS that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation was printed and published in the town of FORT LUPTON POM0 woos in said county and slate that the notice of advertisement,of which the annexed is a true copy has been published in Me County of Weld,and said weekly newspaper for themunlelpostiesoMacono. Elle, Firestone, Fredrick, ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was Mead. Severance. and published in the regular and entire issue of every number WlntlsorwlEcontluetopubke of said newspaper during the period and time of meeting at 7:00 p.m. on publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper and Wednesday,July 7.1999 In not in a supplement thereof: that the first publication of IMCouneAChartBTeaof the said notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper Cole Sewn Hall,645 Holbrook, bearing the date of En,Colorado,the Pr oPose of the meeting Is to allow JUNE 16. A.D. 1999 and the last publication specs CRUMB, e builders developer, to thereof,in the issue of said newspaper,bearing date, and de to review concernment on the studies In the Windsor/Severance the 16th day of JUNE 1999,that the aid oleo and Southwest Weld County area to develop roadway plans to FORT LUPTON PRESS oaadevel oategrowth,and has been published continuously and uninterruptedly to develop a financing during the period of at least fifty-two consecutive weekspplymipyaplwnentlhe next prior to the first issue thereof containing said notice roancing e,.hainWn is or advertisement above referred to: and that said roadlitnp meahanem B a newspaper was at the time of each of the publications of ail new construction nfor said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the ail flew consRueBrn In the meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal area. Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of Printers and Publishers thereof,and to Repeal all Acts and WIwMn comments ate Parts of Acts in Conflict with the Provisions of this Act" aeo welcome and mud be approved April 7, 1921, and all amendments thereof, and received by JuH b.1999.lo particularly as amended by an act approved, March 30, toe office of the Clerk to the 1923,and an act approved May 13, 1931. Board,915 10th Stfeet ROo (,� Box 788,Greeley,CeoStine Yc%✓/(/J� rado 80632. Information and copies of the above dudles meavabbleoe the oor 01 the CNM 10 the BOatl at toe Publisher wealed In Weld COuntY �lo Center,91510th Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of Creel,third A,D, 1999 Colorado,o,Mondday+Nash Friday.89oa.m.to 5:00 p.m. BOARD Of COUNTY 7.2 iP BOARD COUNTY /�/' WELD COUNTY,COLORADO Notary Ptl DATED:June 7.1999 // P.O.BOX 125 published in the Fort Lupton Press June 16,1999. FT. LUPTON. CO 89621 ( ' ;.;a Flo CAF©F ..... CetV My Commission Expires December 27, 2001 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO County of Weld SS. 1 A. Winkler Riesel of said County of Adams being duly sworn,say that I am publisher of FORT LUPTON PRESS that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation was printed and published in the town of FORT LUPTON PUNIC NOTICE in said county and state that(he notice of advertisement,of • which the annexed is a true copy has been published in The County of Weld,and said weekly newspaper for the municipalities of Dacono. Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Mead, ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was Severance.and Windsor will published in the regular and entire Issue of every number conduct a pubkc meeting of said newspaper during the period and time of at 7:99 p.m.on Wednesday, publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper and July 7,1999,In the Council not in a supplement thereof: that the first publication of Chambers of the Erie Town said notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper Hall, 045 Holbrook, Erie, bearing the date of Colorado. The purpose of .TUNE 30. A.D. 1999 and the last publication the meeting Is to allow thereof,in the issue of said newspaper,bearing date, citizens,speck:MN builders and developers,to review and cormrent on the studies the 30th day of ,TUNE 1999,that the aid In the Windsor/Severance area and Southwest Weld County area to develop FORT LUPTON PRESS roadway Diane to has been published continuously and uninterruptedly oeeommodategrowtn.and during the period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks to develop a financing next prior to the first issue thereof containing said notice mechanism 10 1npYeertt or advertisement above referred to: and that said the roadway pion.' The newspaper was at the time of each of the publications of proposed IMancing said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the mechanemeoroadknpoct meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal lee structure fa all new Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of conmuctan kr the seas. Printers and Publishers thereof,and to Repeal all Acts and Parts of Acts in Conflict with the Provisions of this Act" written comments are approved April 7, 1921, and all amendments thereof, and aeo welcome:and must be particularly as amended by an act approved, March 30, received by July 0,1999,in the once of the Clerk to the W&4' ct appr193 Ioard,01510th Shea,P.O. Box IN,Greeley,Colorado 80632. Information and copies of the above seises are ctvakble orthodontics at Publisher the Clerkt°theaosdot the Weld County CSubscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of 1theeW Court yk. located al aria h ,TUNE A.D. 1999 Celter,IN510Matreet.Rad Floc, Greeley, Colorado, 1 Mondoyffvop.m. ay ll:03 /1 �'- am.to SOD p.m. -!- 'r 2,2(.7 7 / WARD OF COUNTY ` Notary PU 16 COMMISSIONERS '/ � WELD COUNTY, P.O.BOX 125 COLORADO. DATED:June 7,1999 Published in the Fort Lupton FT. LUPTON, CO 80621 Press June 30,1999. 7 I 'sppY PU � \\r 1 �' \ II I y JAMIE •1 i i YDARFA i F�F CO.dQo yl �%MY commission Expires December 27,X01 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 FARMER&MINER that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation was printed and published in the town of FREDERICK 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 MIMIC MOT10! and not in a supplement thereof; that the first publication of said notice was contained in the issue of said The County of Weld. and the newspaper bearing the date of munktle/IINMDoc e.lde Fkestone. iced ck,Mead,Severance,and Windsor MI conduct a public meeting at 7:170 1UNE 30 A.D. 1999 and the last publication p.m.on Wednesday,July 7,1999,In the thereof,in the issue of said newspaper,bearing date, Council Chambers of the EM Town Hall, 616 Holbrook, Erie, Colorado. The the 30th day of JUNE 1999 that the said purpose of the meeting Is to allow citizens, especially builders and develepers,to w and comment on FARMER &MINER cress hi theWindsor/Severance has been published continuously and uninterruptedly area and Southwed Weld County area during the period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks to develop roadway plans to next prior to the first issue thereof containing said notice acco m odategrowth,aldtoeNaop or advertisement above referred to: and that said a fl nonahp mechanism to Implement newspaper was at the time of each of the publications of the roadway Plan. The Propoletl said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the Plana to mechanism Is o roadI1pact meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal IM as torah new construction in Notices,Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of the*tn. Printers and Publishers thereof,and to Repeal all Acts Whiten comments alts also and Parts of Acts in Conflict with the Provisions of this wMeorneentlmust be received by also Act" approved April 7, 1921, and all amendments 6,1999,a the office of the tvedClerk to the thereof,and particularly as amended by an act approved, load, 915 10th Sheet, P.O. Box 756, March 30,1923,and anasa roved May 931.e Gn Colorado 80above Information and copies of the above Coact are available at the office of the Clerk lathe Board Board of the Weld County Commissioners, located In the Weld Pub Ter County` to nial Center, 916 10th Street.t,Third Floor,Greet,Colorado, Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of MondaythroughFrltlay.&00a.m.b6A0 p.m. JUNE A,D. 1999 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO DAMS June 7.1999 .�Uv.)�, ��(/ ,rl. , 1911. tllMheFarmer a Miner June30, v Notary Public IOM. P.O.BOX 125 FT.LUPTON, CO 80621 1/41itY P0 ti JAMIE N YE',RPA :`o +.1.9,i.",--- .. .....'4 O it e0FCil`O My Commission Expires December 27,2001 Road Impact Fee Study Windsor and Southwest Areas prepared for Weld County, Colorado • i LII III! Uis■ � � `■ I . .-_ 1--. ,_, ,,_ _ fl---Lr-i-, l, I L : ,. .,-,i _2„._ , . . : L L-1-L. -=_-J tI:' -.. prepared by ' duncan associates in association with Feisburg, Holt & Ullevig F. Craig Richardson, Esq. May 1999 Contents INTRODUCTION 1 SERVICE AREAS 2 MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM 4 SERVICE UNITS 8 DESIGN OF ROAD IMPACT FEES 8 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FORECASTS 10 ROADWAY CAPACITY 10 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ANALYSIS 11 ROAD IMPROVEMENT COSTS 12 ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS 13 NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT 14 TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS 19 POTENTIAL FEES 22 APPENDIX 25 List of Tables Table 1: MILES OF ROADWAY BY SURFACE TYPE 5 Table 2: DAILY CAPACITIES OF PAVED TWO-LANE ROADS 11 Table 3: EXISTING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES 12 Table 4: UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS 13 Table 5: COST PER VEHICLE-MILE OF CAPACITY 15 Table 6: SYSTEM-WIDE CAPACITY/DEMAND RATIOS 16 Table 7: DEFICIENCY CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT 16 Table 8: ROAD CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 1993-1997 17 Table 9: REVENUE CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT 18 Table 10: NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT 18 Table 11: TRIP GENERATION RATES 20 Table 12: AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH 21 Table 13: WINDSOR AREA NET COST SCHEDULE 23 Table 14: SOUTHWEST AREA NET COST SCHEDULE 24 Table 15: EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY 25 Table 16: PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 34 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page ii 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 bedrooms per dwelling unit. 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 payits 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. Two areas within Weld County are experiencing growth pressures expected to bring substantial new development to largely undeveloped, agricultural areas. Weld County and municipalities within these areas have identified the need to develop roadway plans to accommodate anticipated development within these areas, and to develop a financing mechanism to implement roadway plans. A roadway improvement plan for these areas has been developed (Felsburg, Holt&Ullevig, Weld County Radvay Inpvzeii nPlan• WindsorarilSazrthuestStudyArevs,March. 1999). The Raulzeaylnpmzcnent Plan forms the basis for the impact fee program developed in this report. The road impact fee system will facilitate the funding and implementation of needed roadway improvements on major county, city and town roads. The County has been working with the municipalities within the two areas to develop a road impact fee system to be jointly administered within the two areas. Developing a common fee to be applied within each area would avoid competition between jurisdictions over the fee amounts and would represent a rational approach to funding improvements whose benefits extend beyond jurisdictional lines. The maximum road impact fees per new single-family unit would be $1,878 in the Windsor study area and $2,050 in the Southwest study area, based on the Raulzury Inpozenrnt Plan and the data, methodology and assumptions presented in this report (see Tables 13 and 14). The County and participating municipalities could adopt the fees at some percentage of the maximum calculated in this report. It should be kept in mind that developers would be given credit against their impact fees for the value of any required dedications,construction or monetarypayment toward the expansion of the major road system identified in this report. Finally,the impact fees,if adopted,should be phased in over one to two years in order not to penalize developers whose projects are currently underway. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNrv/Road Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 1 SERVICE AREAS 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 service 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. A jurisdiction-wide service area is probably inappropriate for Weld County,given it si7P and the wide discrepancy in development patterns between urbanizing versus rural areas. Instead,this study focuses on the development of an initial system of road impact fees for two growing areas of the county. These two areas will comprise individual assessment districts,and each will have its own impact fee schedule based on existing conditions,improvement needs and projected growth within its boundaries.The size and number of areas included in the road impact fee system may be expanded to the remainder of the county over time. Figure 1 shows the two proposed assessment districts. The Windsor Study Area is an approximately 90-square mile area bounded by Weld County Road (WCR) 84 on the north,WCR 27 and the City of Greeley on the east, US 34 on the south, and the Weld/Larimer County line on the west. In addition to unincorporated parts of Weld County and part of the Town of Windsor are included in the Windsor Study Area. The Town of Severance was initially included in the service area, but decided not to participate in the impact fee system. The Southwest Study Area is a 126-square mile area bounded by State Highway(SH) 66 on the north, WCR 19 on the east, SH 7 and WCR 2 on the south, and the Weld/Boulder County line on the west. In addition to unincorporated parts of Weld County, all or portions of the cities of Longmont, Broomfield, and Northglenn, and the towns of Erie, Frederick, Firestone, Dacono and Mead are included in the Southwest StudyArea. Although portions of their jurisdictions are included in the study area,it is not anticipated that Broomfield and Northglenn will participate in the road impact fee system. The City of Broomfield and additional areas within Weld County that maybe annexed by Broomfield will become part of the soon-to-be-created Broomfield County. The only portion of Northglenn within the study area is a reservoir and wastewater treatment plant site owned by the City that is unlikely to be developed. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 2 Figure 1 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS r C L 140:VI L - 0 ..al` 1 I ;.. �. - - v,r.ne.l- 1 a0...t.. th ,f 1 ��' ` i . • I kv.:I•'.fit A •♦IrI .. - 1 Ni::-.ft: 43 L •_iyli — . .. YS k,i..a. 4 • I I 614.0 1 • _ ...r 1.1:.7.5 A•Ijnl•.»Ir I t 14'..10 I •1...n4.i r .... . . I• ± I 1 ... • • ."_.....".__ _. . . I I e:'n 4,:I. 1 i tn.II,. -.--t- I I _ ' "` _.�_.r.._. 1 I . .. • -F-,=•:t; • to\l = V.it: .11 1.•..g....wN 4 I... _ .!.O ../....: 111 -- . >l 1. V -Ti71F1114kb. "."-"-j ...I.Nta.N. .v.",n ..t t--- IL—, 1 Nr,.w.mle • `4...waat.; a T �. `+ duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT' WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 3 Weld County does not currently assess road impact fees on new development in unincorporated areas, and the only participating municipality that currently has a road impact fee is the Town of Erie. Erie would need to replace its current road impact fee with the regional road impact fee developed for the Southwest assessment district as part of this project if it is to participate in the regional system. While there will be two assessment districts for the purposes of fee calculation, it may be advisable to divide them into multiple benefit areas for the purpose of earmarking fee revenue to be spent in closer proximityto where it was collected.In some regional road impact fee systems,local jurisdictions retain control over the expenditure of impact fee revenues by being defined as individual benefit areas. Although these systems typically allow individual jurisdictions to spend impact fee revenue outside their jurisdiction on improvements of regional benefit,they do lose some of the advantages of a cooperative approach, which emphasizes pooling funds in order to finance major improvements. Using jurisdictional boundaries to define benefit areas would be feasible in the Windsor service area, which includes only two jurisdictions:the City of Windsor and Weld County. However, it would not be practical in the Southwest service area,which includes all or part of six participating municipalities in addition to the County,for a total of seven potential benefit areas. Dividing road impact fee revenues into so many separate pots would make it difficult to fund any significant improvements in this area. The identification of benefit area boundaries will need to be decided before the road impact fees can be implemented. Each of the assessment districts should probably be divided into at least two but no more that about four benefit areas. The County should engage in dialogue with the municipalities in each assessment district to determine the most appropriate benefit areas. MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM The Rardzray Inpmzemry2 Plan was geared towards county, city and town roads, and roadway improvement needs on state and U.S. highways were not evaluated. State and federal highways are within the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),and will not be funded with the road impact fees calculated in this report. Consequently,state roads and federal highways are excluded from the major roadway system to be funded with the road impact fees. There is a wide disparity between County and individual municipal roadway classification systems and nomenclature. For example, the Frederick Comprehensive Plan generally designates all section line roads as arterial streets and the plan includes an extensive collector road system with half-mile spacing. This system contrasts with the County's classification system that designates a large portion of section line roads as local streets. A simplified classification approach was used in the Rardwrylnprozenrnt Plan to reconcile the various classification systems that exist within the study areas, and to respond to the specific needs for development of an equitable impact fee program. This approach defines a major roadway system that includes all section line roadways and other roadways defined in existing plans that are judged to have significant continuity and non-local traffic-carrying functions. Windsor Area. The Weld County and City of Windsor roads forming the major roadway system for the Windsor study area are depicted in Figure 2. A segment-by-segment roadway inventory is provided duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 4 Windsor Area. The Weld County and City of Windsor roads forming the major roadway system for the Windsor study area are depicted in Figure 2. A segment-by-segment roadwayinventoryis provided in the Appendix(Table 15). The study area is traversed by US 34 and three state highways,SH 257,SH 392, and SH 14, and their frontage roads, which are excluded from the major roadway system to be funded with impact fees. All section-line roads are included,along with other roads that have significant continuity. Local roads that only serve particular developments and do not have significant:continuity are not included as part of the major roadway system.The major roads are generally on a one-mile grid system, although there are numerous gaps in this grid system where there are physical constraints or where development has not yet created the need for public roads. Of the 131.5 miles of major county, city and town roads included in the roadway inventory,73.2 miles are currently gravel roads and 58.3 miles are paved. All county,city and town roads currently have one through lane in each direction. Southwest Area. The existing major roadway network within the Southwest study area is depicted in Figure 3. A detailed inventory provided in the Appendix (Table 15). The Southwest area is traversed by Interstate 25 and four east-west state highways (SH 7,SH 52,SH 119,and SH 66) and their frontage roads,all of which are excluded from the impact fee system. This area also has a one-mile grid system of County and city roads,with several gaps. Of the 191.7 miles of major county, city and town roads included in the roadway inventory, 103.7 miles are currently gravel roads and 88 miles are paved. All county, city and town roads in the Southwest area also currently have one through lane in each direction. The major roadway systems that is potentially eligible to be funded with the proposed road impact fees within the Windsor and Southwest areas are summarized below. Only roadways within municipalities that participate in the road impact fee system would be eligible for funding. Table 1 MILES OF ROADWAY BY SURFACE TYPE Surface Type Windsor Area Percent SW Area Percent Gravel 73.23 56% 103.70 54% Paved 58.25 44% 88.01 46% Total 131.48 100% 191.71 100% Source: Appendix,Table 15. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 5 Figure 2 WINDSOR STUDY AREA co co in •"'4".1.... N v Ik a T I J. WCR 84 •I ::I I 1 I 1 I' ' I I 'I S• + 7 14 , 1 Iyeii WCR 80 —t-- - -- - - - ':I 1 :is I ® :I I AI>•3tDFvJ� ^Y 1 \:\ l WCR 76 � \. .'7' 7 ,\ 'I .t�.v 1 Il\\.\ \ •\\\\ Severance WCR 74 .: ,e t -,,.. I' / 4 a I I J r 0 IIFy� a o IS — rJ �- ....._ ______, . gc IIo ,,,,, I P j' ° - - 13 _ 1 _ I _ 392 A�_ + I ..River •- eI I l WCR 62 l__/ — I •I I 257 WCR 60 .r - - - - r� , 34 • . / 11 i ii e Air: 34 � . Pr LEGEND ' = Paved Roads €1)1 ' 34 = Gravel Roads Study Area Boundary duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 6 Figure 3 SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA I I • /.s Mead LARIMER COUNTY r "' ' _ .1 I ' 25 I • I I Lon mont //,' / WCR247f' ` i I I I a1 r :4/A 0; 0 _ J ` % T K,7 u . I !Y A , u 3v.74( ritny-fri 1 ;id k • I -,_---/-f_� r • L - - V. WCR 141 52 / /- I .',�� a WCR B: � - - - - . - - - i �r�/'� f--; 7 7/ I WCR2III flrJ(i l' ell f reek le le if�\\�R ` 6//1 Q Broomfield Northglenn:' °' cc 0 cc 2 cz LEGEND 3 3 = Paved Roads Gravel Roads Study Area Boundary duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 7 SERVICE UNITS Service units create the link between supply(roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new development). An appropriate service unit basis for transportation 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. Available traffic counts and projected volumes and roadway capacities from the Rwduay Iirprvzenrnt Plan are expressed in terms of vehicles per 24-hour period. Consequently, average daily VMT is the most appropriate service unit for the Windsor and Southwest area road impact fees. 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 road system as a whole,VMT is determined by multiplying the length of each road segment bythe average dailytraffic count and aggregating the results for all road segments. 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 to be aggregated for the major road system as a whole,however,capacities of individual road segments must be convened into vehicle-miles of capacity (VMC). This is accomplished by multiplying the capacity of each segment by the length of each segment in miles. DESIGN OF ROAD IMPACT FEES 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 transportation impact fee model generally underestimates the full cost of growth. It is, however,a conservative,legallysound and relativelysimple approach to the calculation of transportation 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 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. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNrv/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 8 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 bya 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 as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 RECOMMENDED ROAD IMPACT FEE FORMULA FEE = VMT x NET COSTNMT VMT = TRIPS x% NEW x LENGTH + 2 NET COSTNMT = COSTNMT- CREDITNMT COST/VMT = COSTNMC x VMCNMT CREDIT/VMT = DEFICIENCY + REVENUE DEFICIENCY = EXCESS VMT = TOTAL VMT x COSTNMT 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 road 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 improvements in Roadway Improvement Plan VMCNMT = The system-wide ratio of capacity to demand in the major roadway system, which is the lower of the existing ratio or the ratio of new VMC to new VMT provided in the Roadway Improvement Plan REVENUE = Revenue credit per VMT, based on percent of cost anticipated to be paid with other revenues EXCESS VMT = The sum of existing VMT on individual segments of major road system that is in excess of existing capacity TOTAL VMT = Total existing VMT on the major road system duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 9 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND FORECASTS As part of the Rawluay Imply/Trans Plan,traffic count information available from the County's roadway inventory and from other jurisdictions was compiled and supplemented by additional counts collected to fill gaps in existing data. The resulting traffic volume data is provided in the roadway inventories found in the Appendix. Most volume data reflect counts taken over the past three years,although older counts are included in some cases. Counts were not available on all road segments, but in those cases reasonable traffic volume estimates could be made based on nearby data. Traffic volume forecasts are required in order to identify roadway improvement needs on study area roadways. The Roadza InpvzennPlandeveloped year 2020 traffic forecasts from the combination of (1)previous forecasts and(2) forecasts derived using demographic growth factors. Traffic forecasts for several major roadways in parts of the study areas had been prepared as part of other platming processes, including those for the North Front Range region,Town of Erie,Mixed Use Development (MUD) area,and the I-25 widening project between SH 7 and WCR 8. To develop forecasts for other roadways,each study area was divided into sub-areas,and trip generation growth rates in these sub-areas were estimated based on forecasts of household and employment growth. These trip-making growth rates were then applied to existing traffic volumes to develop forecasted traffic volumes. Traffic forecasts developed through these two methods were reviewed, then balanced and adjusted for reasonableness to create the traffic forecasts that were used in the analysis. ROADWAY CAPACITY A roadway's capacity is the maximum traffic volume that: can be accommodated at desired levels of service. Capacityis defined differently for different roadwaytypes. Capacities for paved roads are based on Level of Service "C' (LOS C). Unpaved Roads. According to State Health Department dust abatement guidelines,all roads with an average daily traffic volume greater than 200 vehicles should be paved or treated for dust abatement. Within air quality non-attainment areas, which applies only to the southeastern pan of the Windsor study area that is within the Greeley non-attainment area., there is a lower 150 daily traffic threshold. Since dust abatement loses its effectiveness quickly, frequent treatments are needed, causing high maintenance costs over time. In order to minimize maintenance costs and comply with State Health Department regulations, the Roadzury Impure/ant Plan includes paving of roads that meet State dust abatement thresholds. The maximum volume thresholds of 200 vehicles per day(vpd) for most of the study areas can be used to define the capacity of gravel roads. The lower 150 vpd threshold is applied to urban areas. Paved Two-Lane Roads. A concept of level of service is commonly used to define the quality of traffic flow on various roadway types, based on a comparison of traffic volumes with roadway characteristics. LOS C is used as the standard in the road improvement plan, based on current Mixed Use Development Plan standards. Based on the nationally accepted source for highway capacity evaluations,the F ighwayCapacityManual,approximate maximum dailytraffic volumes were developed for two-lane roadways to maintain the LOS C standard. To estimate daily traffic thresholds, typical traffic flow characteristics were used, including 11% of daily traffic during a peak hour, peak hour directional traffic split of 60%/40%, 18% 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 duncan associates May 27, 1999 IlltiAF'1 WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 10 widths were assumed, since all paved roads in the major roadway inventory have widths of 24 feet or greater. Using these assumptions, Table 2 shows LOS C volume thresholds for different shoulder widths. Table 2 DAILY CAPACITIES OF PAVED TWO-LANE ROADS Usable Daily Shoulder{Ft.) Capacity(vpd) 6 6,000 4 5,500 2 4,900 0 4,200 Source: Felsburg, Holt 8 Ullevig, Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan: Windsor and Southwest Study Areas, March 1999,Table 2. Urban and Multi-Lane Roads. Capacities of urban roadways with separate left-turn lanes and roads with two or more through lanes per direction are generally higher than those for two-lane rural roads. Capacities for these roadways were estimated based on capacities per hour per lane that have been developed in the North Front Range regional planning process. Application of similar peaking characteristics as were used for two-lane analysis yielded LOS C capacity estimates of 8,300 vpd for two-lane urban roads and 16,600 vpd for four-lane roads. Traffic Signals. Traffic signal needs at major roadway intersections were estimated, based on a comparison of Year 2020 forecasts with peak hour traffic signal warrants included in the Manual 91 Uniform Traffic Cannot Deriz. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ANALYSIS Existing traffic volumes were compared with existing roadway capacities for each segment of the major road system in order to identify over-capacity road segments. For each over-capacity segment, the volume in excess of capacity was multiplied by the length of the segment to determine excess vehicle- miles of travel (VMT). These were summed to determine excess VMT on a system-aide basis. As summarized in Table 3, the amount of excess travel demand is a relatively small percentage of total travel demand in the two study areas,although it is considerably higher in the Windsor area than in the Southwest area. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 11 Table 3 EXISTING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES Windsor Area SW Area Excess VMT 8,421 2,297 Total VMT 105,802 104,809 Percent Deficiency 8.0% 2.2% Source: Major Roadway Inventory,Table 15. One of the principles of impact fees is that new development should not be charged, through impact fees, for a higher level-of-service than is provided to existing development. In the context of road impact fees, this has sometimes been interpreted to mean that impact fees should not be spent on roadways that were over-capacitywhen the fees were adopted. A variant of this approach is that impact fees should only be used to fund a percentage of the project that can be attributed to providing additional capacity beyond what is needed to remedy the existing deficiency. A problem with these approaches is that impact fees are restricted from being spent on roadways that are most in need of improvement. Our recommended approach is to reduce the impact fee bythe system-wide deficiency percentage. This ensures that new development is not held to a higher standard than existing development, while maintaining maximum flexibility in the expenditure of impact fee revenues. ROAD IMPROVEMENT COSTS In the road improvement plan,urban and rural designations were used to define roadway needs. These designations were based on the Weld County Urban Growth Boundary Map (December, 1998) and the Mixed Use Development planning area in the northern part of the Southwest study area. Urban growth areas for the two study areas are shown in Figure 10. It should be noted that incorporated areas that are not within urban growth boundaries as defined by Weld Countywere not considered as urban areas. Rural Two Lane Roads. Weld County's historical standards for two-lane rural roads include 12-foot lanes and 4-foot, typically gravel, shoulders. The Road Improvement Plan applied these standards to rural roads with relatively moderate traffic volume forecasts (less than 3,000 vehicles per day). For rural roads with higher traffic volume forecasts,higher standards with 6-foot paved shoulders were applied. These standards were applied to all section line roads, including those that may be designated as local roads on a County or municipal classification system. Based on Weld County's roadway construction experience,paving existing gravel roads to include 6-foot shoulders often requires additional right-of- way and is considerably more expensive than adding 4-foot shoulders when paving gravel roads. Costs for these two-lane rural road sections are estimated at$250,000 per mile for paving of gravel roads with the typical 4-foot gravel shoulder standard,$500,000 per mile for paving of gravel roads to a full 6-foot paved shoulder standard, and $1,250,000 per mile to construct new roads to either standard. Urban Two-Lane Roads. The Mixed Use Development Plan "Collector / 2 Lane With Painted Median" cross-section standard was applied to section line and other major 2-lane roadways within urban areas. This cross-section includes a 50-foot paved surface with one through lane and a bike lane in each direction and a median/left-turn lane. A 15-foot area on either side of the road is added with duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 12 six foot sidewalks,creating an 80-foot right-of-way width. Based on MUD cost estimates, inflated to 1999 levels,the cost of this roadway type would be $1,750,000 per mile. Four-Lane Arterials. Roadways where projected volumes exceed two-lane road capacity would be designed individually to meet particular roadway requirements. The Mixed Use Development Plan "Arterial / 4 Lane With Painted Median" cross-section standard was used as a typical 4-lane cross-section for costing purposes. This section includes a 76-foot street within a 100-foot right-of-way. Based on MUD cost estimates, inflated to 1999 levels, the cost of this roadway type would be $1,600,000 per mile to widen an existing 2-lane road and $1,950,000 per mile to construct a new roadway. Table 4 provides a summary of the unit cost assumptions used for planning purposes in the Rwdvay Inp vzerre t Plan. Table 4 UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS Roadwa Im rovement T e Unit Cost Pave Rural Road $250,000 per mile Pave Rural Road(Full Section) $500,000 per mile Improve to 2-Lane Urban Road $1,000,000 per mile Widen From 2 to 4 Lanes $1,600,000 per mile New 2-Lane Rural Road $1,250,000 per mile New 2-Lane Urban Road $1,750,000 per mile New 4-Lane Road $1,950,000 per mile Traffic Signal $100,000 per intersection Intersection Improvements at Rural Signalized Intersections $300,000 per intersection Brill a Widening $65 er s uare foot Source: Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig, Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan: Windsor and Southwest Study Areas,Table 3: Unit Cost Assumptions, March 1999. ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS In the Rozdzuzy Inpnwemnt Plan, existing capacities for each roadway segment were compared with forecasted traffic volumes to determine what improvements would be needed by the year 2020. For both study areas, paving of gravel roads is the most widespread project need. Widening projects to create four-lane roadways are less extensive. Three of the roadway widening projects in the Windsor Study Area include widening of bridges. The Razdwzy Inp oze vnt Plan used two methods to identify new roadways needed to complete major roadway systems for the two study areas. First,existing comprehensive and transportation plans were reviewed, including those related to Windsor, Greeley, Frederick, Erie, Dacono, and the Mixed Use duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 13 Development area. New roadway recommendations contained in these plans were examined to determine which ones should be included in major roadwayplans based on their planned function and level of specificity of the recommendation. For example, several roads that are included in a plan to form a hypothetical half-mile grid of streets were not included. Second,the grid of mile-spaced section line roads was reviewed to identify key missing links. These links were included as recommended new roads at locations where the missing link would help to complete a logical roadway network and where no overwhelming constraints to construction were identified. Excluded from the Rcndvaylnprownrnt Plan were three planned or potential new I-25 interchanges. An interchange at WCR 20 is included in the MUD Plan,and potential interchanges in the vicinity of WCR 6 and at WCR 10 are being investigated by surrounding jurisdictions and in the Upper Front Range planning process. Costs for these interchanges were not included in new road costs, since they are within I-25 right-of-way. The RwdwzyInproter,eat Plan compared traffic forecasts with the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on UnifaimTrafic Control Derih peak hour traffic signal warrants to determine which intersections are likely to warrant traffic signals by the year 2020. At intersections of two-lane rural roads at which signals are warranted, the plan assumes that an estimated $300,000 geometric improvement project would accompanysignalization. The Rwdwzylnprownrns Plan lists the 18 intersections at which traffic signals are forecast to be warranted by the year 2020. NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT There are three steps to calculate the net cost per service unit. First,the average cost per vehicle-mile of capacity (VMC) is calculated by dividing the total cost of the identified capacity-expanding improvements by the additional roadway capacity created by the improvements. Second,the cost per VMC is multiplied by the system-wide ratio of capacityto demand(e.g.,VMC/VMT) to determine the cost per VMT. Finally, the cost per VMT is reduced by the percent of existing deficiencies and appropriate revenue credits to determine the net cost per VMT. Dividing the total cost of the identified capacity-expanding improvements by the additional roadway capacity created by file improvements results in an average cost of about $120 per vehicle-mile of capacity to expand the major road system in the study areas, as shown in Table 5. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 14 Table 5 COST PER VEHICLE-MILE OF CAPACITY Improvement Type Windsor Area SW Area Pave 2-Lane Rural (4'shoulders) $11,710,000 $9,830,000 Pave 2-Lane Rural (6'shoulders) $3,250,000 $3,700,000 Pave 2-Lane Urban $8,470,000 $44,550,000 Upgrade 2-Lane Urban $4,720,000 $11,610,000 Widen 2-4 Lane Urban $18,320,000 $23,080,000 New 2-Lane Rural $14,125,000 $9,250,000 New 2-Lane Urban $13,000,000 $2,625,000 New 4-Lane Urban $0 $13,455,000 Subtotal,Segment Improvements $78,595,000 $118,100,000 Signalization, Intersection Improvements $1,100,000 $1,300,000 Total Improvement Costs 79,695,000 119,400,000 New Vehicle-Miles of Capacity(VMC) 656,386 995,524 Cosi per New VMC $121 $120 Source:Segment improvement costs and new VMC from Table 16; signalization and intersection improvement costs from Felsburg, Holt &Ullevig, Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan: Windsor and Southwest Study Areas,Table 5: Signal/Intersection Project Needs, March 1999. The cost per unit of new capacity must be multiplied by the system-wide ratio of capacity to demand to derive the cost per unit of additional demand. The system-wide ratios of VMC/VMT are presented in Table 6 for both existing conditions and for the new capacity and demand anticipated by the Weld County Rwdzwy Inprownnit Plan. For both study areas and for both existing conditions and for new capacity and demand, the ratio exceeds two units of roadway capacity for each unit of travel demand. A full-cost impact fee could charge new development to maintain this two-for-one ratio. However, most mature,urban roadway systems have VMC/VMT ratios of more than one but less than two. To be conservative, a VMC/VMT ratio of 1.5 is used to determine the cost per VMT, as shown in Table 6. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 15 Table 6 SYSTEM-WIDE CAPACITY/DEMAND RATIOS Windsor Area SW Area Existing VMC 302,953 461,162 Existing VMT 105,802 104,809 Existing VMCNMT 2.86 4.40 New VMC, Now-2020 656,386 995,524 New VMT, Now-2020 262,012 496,280 New VMC/New VMT 2.51 2.01 Recommended Ratios 1.50 1.50 CostperVMC $121 $120 Cost per VMT $182 $180 Source: Existing VMC and VMT from data in Table 15; new VMC from Table 16;new VMT is 2020 VMT derived from projected 2020 volumes from Felsburg, Holt Et Ullevig, Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan, March 1999 less existing VMT. The next step is to determine an appropriate credit for existing deficiencies. The costs per VMT calculated above are multiplied by the percent of existing deficiencies in each study area to determine the deficiency credit per VMT. The results are shown in Table 7. Table 7 DEFICIENCY CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT Windsor Area SW Area Cost per VMT $182 $180 Percent Existing Deficiencies 8.0% 2.2% Deficiency Credit per VMT $15 S4 Source: Cost per VMT from Table 6;percent deficiencies from Table 3. The final step is to reduce the cost per VMT by 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 capital funding for road improvements,or if outside funding can reasonably be anticipated for such improvements. Neither Weld County nor any of the participating municipalities has any outstanding debt for road improvements. Nor are significant state or federal highway funds likely to be available to improve the duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 16 major road system in the two study areas. A revenue credit will be provided, however, for potential local funding availability based on historical funding trends. For the purpose of this analysis,capacity- expanding expenditures were defined broadlyto include all expenditures for right-of-way,engineering and construction, excluding construction specifically designated as system preservation. Local governments in Weld County vary in the amount they expend annually on capacity-expanding improvements. Since the study areas account for only a small portion of the County's jurisdiction,and since the Southwest study area includes only a small part of the City of Longmont,only ten percent of the capacity expenditures of these two jurisdictions will be assumed to be available for expenditure in the study areas. In the aggregate,participating local governments have been spending an estimated$1.2 million annually on capacity-expanding road improvements within the study areas, as shown in Table 8. Table 8 ROAD CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 1993-1997 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Avera e Weld County $395,411 $412,491 $459,291 $550,452 $290,867 $422,000 Longmont $344,051 $369,574 $261,770 $14,712 $325,250 $263,000 Windsor $44,288 $251,087 $851,424 $236,626 $0 $277,000 Frederick $35,808 $121,261 $304,966 $403,016 $124,796 $198,000 Town of Erie $0 $0 $0 $8,279 $15,291 $5,000 City of Dacono $0 $32,728 $0 $160,493 $0 $39,000 Town of Mead $0 $0 $0 $1,402 $33,223 $7,000 Town of Firestone $21,444 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 Total $841,002 $1,187,141 $1,877,451 $1 374 980 $789 427 $1 215 000 Source: Counties,Cities and Towns Annual Statement of Receipts and Expenditures for Roads,Bridges and Streets, 1993 through 1997 calendar years; includes expenditures for right-of-way, engineering and construction, excluding construction costs for system preservation; Weld County and Longmont figures are 10% of total funding based on the percent assumed available for expenditure in the study areas; averages rounded to nearest thousand dollars; all figures adjusted to 1998 dollars based on U.S. Bureau of Census, Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers(CPI-U). The estimated annual expenditure of $1.2 million by the participating local governments on capacity- expanding road improvements within the study areas amounts to a little under $6 per vehicle-mile of travel within the study areas. Assuming that the local governments maintain this pattern of expenditures, 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$69 for every daily vehicle-mile of travel generated, as shown in Table 9. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 17 Table 9 REVENUE CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT Annual Capacity Expenditures $1,215,000 Existing Daily VMT 210,611 Annual Capacity Expenditures per VMT $5.77 Revenue Credit per VMT $69 Source: Annual capacity expenditures from Table 8; existing daily VMT is total VMT for both study areas from Table 15;revenue credit per trip is net present value of annual expenditure over 20 years at 5.5%discount rate. The net cost calculations are summarized in Table 10. The cost per VMT is reduced by the the amount of credits per VMT for existing deficiencies and for additional revenues that may be generated by or attributed to new development and used for capacity-expanding improvements to the major road system. The resulting net costs per VMT represent the net costs per service unit for the two study areas. Table 10 NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT Windsor Area SW Area Cost per VMT $182 $180 Deficiency Credit per VMT ($15) ($4) Revenue Credit per VMT ($69) ($69) Net Cost per VMT $98 $107 Source:Costs per VMT from Table 6;6deficiency credits from Table 7; revenue credit from Table 9. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD Coururv/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 18 TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS The travel demand generated by specific land use types is a product of three factors: 1) trip generation, 2)percent primarytrips 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 likelyto 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 bya"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 anc 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 rec.uction for pass-by and diverted trips was drawn from the I IL manual and other published informatio:i. The recommended trip generation rates and primary trip factors are presented in Table 11. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 19 Table 11 TRIP GENERATION RATES Daily Percent Primary Land Use T e Unit Trips Primar Trips Single-Family Detached Dwelling 4.79 100% 4.79 Multi-Family Dwelling 3.32 100% 3.32 Mobile Home Park Site 2.40 100% 2.40 HoteVMotel Room 4.46 100% 4.46 Retail/Commercial Shop :tr/Gen Retail <100,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 37.22 48% 17.87 Shop :tr/Gen Retail <500,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 19.86 74% 14.70 Shop :tr/Gen Retail <1 million sf 1000 sq.ft. 16.72 81% 13.54 Shop :tr/Gen Retail 1 million sf+ 1000 sq.ft. 14.47 81% 11.72 Auto Sales 1000 sq.ft. 18.75 49% 9.19 Auto Service/Repair/Tire Store 1000 sq.ft. 12.44 51% 6.34 Bank 1000 sq.ft. 132.60 25% 33.15 Bldg Materials/Hardware/Nursery 1000 sq.ft. 13.51 90% 12.16 Convenience Store 1000 sq.ft. 369.00 25% 92.25 Discount Store 1000 sq.ft. 23.48 90% 21.13 Furniture Store 1000 sq.ft. 2.53 90% 2.28 Movie Theater 1000 sq.ft. 39.03 90% 35.13 Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq.ft. 248.06 29% 71.94 Restaurant, Sit-Down 1000 sq.ft. 44.98 52% 23.39 Office/Institutional Office. General <100,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 8.09 100% 8.09 Office General <200,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 6.03 100% 6.03 Office, General 200,000 sf+ 1000 sq.ft. 4.99 100% 4.99 Office, Medical 1000 sq.ft. 18.07 100% 18.07 Hospi':al 1000 sq.ft. 8.39 100% 8.39 Nursing Home 1000 sq.ft. 2.44 100% 2.44 Churc'/Synagogue 1000 sq.ft. 4.56 100% 4.56 Day Care Center 1000 sq.ft. 39.63 24% 9.51 Elementary/Secondary School 1000 sq.ft. 6.02 50% 3.01 Industrial General Light Industrial 1000 sq.ft. 3.49 100% 3.49 Warehouse 1000 sq.ft. 2.48 100% 2.48 Mini-Warehouse 1000 s .ft. 1.25 100% 1.25 Source: "Daily trips"is 1/2 trip ends during a weekday,ITE,Trip Generation,6`"ed., 1997;shopping center and general off ce rates based on upper end of range; percent primary trips for shopping centers, banks, fast food restaurants and convenience stores from 5`"edition ITE manual; percentage for day care center from paper by Hitchens, 1990 ITE Compendium; percentages for auto uses from 0&D studies in Orange County, Florida: percentages for other land uses assumed. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD Couture/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 20 The average trip length on the major road system 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. The approach that is used here is to divide the existing VMT on the major road system in each study area by the number of daily trips generated by existing land use to determine an approximation of the average trip length on the major road system. As shown in Table 12,this approach indicates that the average trip length for the two study areas is in the range of 4.5 to 5 miles. To be conservative,an average trip length of four miles will be assumed for both study areas. Table 12 AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH Windsor Area SW Area Existing Households 3,248 3,700 One-Way ADT per Unit 4.79 4.79 Existing Residential Trips 15,558 17,723 Existing Employees 1,876 880 One-Way ADT per Employee 4.22 4.22 Existing Nonresidential Trips 7,917 3,714 Total Existing Daily Trips 23,475 21,437 Total Daily VMT 105,802 104,809 Average Trip Length (Miles) 4.51 4.89 Assumed Average Trip Length 4.00 4.00 Source: Existing households and employees from Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig, Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan: Windsor and Southwest Study Areas, Table 1: Demographic and Traffic Growth Projections, March 1999;households and employees in Southwest area increased by factor of 1.1 to account for incomplete coverage of data for subareas;one-way ADT per unit is one-half of trips during a week day for a single-family unit from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation,Sixth Edition, 1997; one-way ADT per employee is one-half of trips during a week day per employee, calculated as the average for general office building(1.66),industrial park(1.67)and average retail rates(9.33,which is average of rates for specialty retail,discount club,supermarket,furniture store,walk- in bank, drive-in bank, new car sales, nursery wholesale, nursery garden center, hardware/paint store, free-standing discount store and building materials and lumber store, reduced by assumed 50% passby factor). duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTv/Roai Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 21 POTENTIAL FEES The result of combining primary trip generation rates and average trip lengths is the daily vehicle-miles of travel(VMT) generated byvarious land use types per unit of development. The impact fee regulation will contain a provision allowing the option of independent fee determination studies for those applicants who feel that their development will have less impact on the need for road facilities than indicated by the equivalency table. Based on projected travel demand by land use and the net cost per service unit, the net costs to accommodate additional travel demand at the existing level of service per unit of development are shown in Tables 13 aid 14 for the Windsor and Southwest study areas, respectively. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNrv/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 22 Table 13 WINDSOR AREA NET COST SCHEDULE Primary Avg.Trip Daily Net Cost/ Net Cost/ Land Use Type Unit Trips Len th VMT VMT Unit Single-Family Detached Dwelling 4.79 4.00 19.16 $98 $1,878 Multi-Family Dwelling 3.32 4.00 13.28 $98 $1,301 Mobile Home Park Site 2.40 4.00 9.60 $98 $941 Hotel/Motel Room 4.46 4.00 17.84 $98 $1,748 Retail/Commercial Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <:100,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 17.87 4.00 71.48 $98 $7,005 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <:500,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 14.70 4.00 58.80 $98 $5,762 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <1 million sf 1000 sq.ft. 13.54 4.00 54.16 $98 $5,308 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1 million sf+ 1000 sq.ft. 11.72 4.00 46.88 $98 $4,594 Auto Sales 1000 sq.ft. 9.19 4.00 36.76 $98 $3,602 Auto Service/Repair/fire Store 1000 sq.ft. 6.34 4.00 25.36 $98 $2,485 Bank 1000 sq.ft. 33.15 4.00 132.60 $98 $12,995 Bldg Materials/Hardware/Nursery 1000 sq.ft. 12.16 4.00 48.64 $98 $4,767 Convenience Store 1000 sq.ft. 92.25 2.00 184.50 $98 $18,081 Discount Store 1000 sq.ft. 21.13 4.00 84.52 $98 $8,283 Furniture Store 1000 sq.ft. 2.28 4.00 9.12 $98 $894 Movie Theater 1000 sq.ft. 35.13 4.00 140.52 $98 $13,771 Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq.ft. 71.94 2.00 143.88 $98 $14,100 Restaurant, Sit-Down 1000 sq.ft. 23.39 4.00 93.56 $98 $9,169 Office/Institutional Office, General <100,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 8.09 4.00 32.36 $98 $3,171 Office, General <200,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 6.03 4.00 24.12 $98 $2,364 Office, General 200,1,00 sf+ 1000 sq.ft. 4.99 4.00 19.96 $98 $1,956 Office, Medical 1000 sq.ft. 18.07 4.00 72.28 $98 $7,083 Hospital 1000 sq.ft. 8.39 4.00 33.56 $98 $3,289 Nursing Home 1000 sq.ft. 2.44 4.00 9.76 $98 $956 Church/Synagogue 1000 sq.ft. 4.56 4.00 18.24 $98 $1,788 Day Care Center 1000 sq.ft. 9.51 4.00 38.04 $98 $3,728 Elementary/Secondary School 1000 sq.ft. 3.01 4.00 12.04 $98 $1,180 Industrial General Light Industrial 1000 sq.ft. 3.49 4.00 13.96 $98 $1,368 Warehouse 1000 sq.ft. 2.48 4.00 9.92 $98 $972 Mini-Warehouse 1000 s .ft. 1.25 4.00 5.00 $98 $490 Source: Primary trips from Table 11; average trip length from Table 12 (shorter trip length of 2 miles assumed for highest trip-generation uses of convenience store and fast food restaurant);net cost per VMT from Table 10. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 23 Table 14 SOUTHWEST AREA NET COST SCHEDULE Primary Avg. Trip Daily Net Cost/ Net Cost/ Land Use Type Unit Trips Length VMT VMT Unit Single-Family Detached Dwelling 4.79 4.00 19.16 $107 $2,050 Multi-Family Dwelling 3.32 4.00 13.28 $107 $1,421 Mobile Home Park Site 2.40 4.00 9.60 $107 $1,027 HoteVMotel Room 4.46 4.00 17.84 $107 $1,909 Retail/Commercial Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <100,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 17.87 4.00 71.48 $107 $7,648 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <500,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 14.70 4.00 58.80 $107 $6,292 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <1 million sf 1000 sq.ft. 13.54 4.00 54.16 $107 $5,795 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1 million sf+ 1000 sq.ft. 11.72 4.00 46.88 $107 $5,016 Auto Sales 1000 sq.ft. 9.19 4.00 36.76 $107 $3,933 Auto Service/Repair/Tire Store 1000 sq.ft. 6.34 4.00 25.36 $107 $2,714 Bank 1000 sq.ft. 33.15 4.00 132.60 $107 $14,188 Bldg Materials/Hardware/Nursery 1000 sq.ft. 12.16 4.00 48.64 $107 $5,204 Convenience Store 1000 sq.ft. 92.25 2.00 184.50 $107 $19,742 Discount Store 1000 sq.ft. 21.13 4.00 84.52 $107 $9,044 Furniture Store 1000 sq.ft. 2.28 4.00 9.12 $107 $976 Movie Theater 1000 sq.ft. 35.13 4.00 140.52 $107 $15,036 Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq.ft. 71.94 2.00 143.88 $107 $15,395 Restaurant, Sit-Down 1000 sq.ft. 23.39 4.00 93.56 $107 $10,011 Office/Institutional Office, General <100,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 8.09 4.00 32.36 $107 $3,463 Office, General <200,000 sf 1000 sq.ft. 6.03 4.00 24.12 $107 $2,581 Office, General 200,000 sf+ 1000 sq.ft. 4.99 4.00 19.96 $107 $2,136 Office, Medical 1000 sq.ft. 18.07 4.00 72.28 $107 $7,734 Hospital 1000 sq.ft. 8.39 4.00 33.56 $107 $3,591 Nursing Home 1000 sq.ft. 2.44 4.00 9.76 $107 $1,044 Church/Synagogue 1000 sq.ft. 4.56 4.00 18.24 $107 $1,952 Day Care Center 1000 sq.ft. 9.51 4.00 38.04 $107 $4,070 Elementary/Secondary School 1000 sq.ft. 3.01 4.00 12.04 $107 $1,288 Industrial General Light Industrial 1000 sq.ft. 3.49 4.00 13.96 $107 $1,494 Warehouse 1000 sq.ft. 2.48 4.00 9.92 $107 $1,061 Mini-Warehouse 1000 s .ft. 1.25 4.00 5.00 $107 $535 Source: Primary trips from Table 11; average trip length from Table 12 (shorter trip length of 2 miles assumed for highest trip-generation uses of convenience store and fast food restaurant);net cost per VMT from Table 10. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 24 APPENDIX Table 15 EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY Existing Excess Road From To Miles Surface Shldr Ca aci Volume VMT VMT WCR 13 WCR 66 Windsor CL 0.58 Paved na 4,200 200 116 0 WCR 13 Windsor CL St.Hwy 392 0.42 Paved na 4,200 200 84 0 WCR 13 St.Hwy 392 WCR 68.5 0.51 Paved na 4,200 200 102 0 WCR 13 WCR (38.5 WCR 70 0.57 Gravel na 150 200 114 28 WCR 13 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.00 Gravel na 200 200 200 0 WCR 13 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Gravel na 200 200 200 0 WCR 13 WCR 74 WCR 76 1.00 Gravel na 200 200 200 0 WCR 13 WCR 76 WCR 78 1.00 Gravel na 200 200 200 0 WCR 15 US 34 WCR 62 2.00 Gravel na 200 63 126 0 WCR 15 St.Hwy 392 WCR 68.5 0.30 Paved 2' 4,900 836 251 0 WCR 15 WCR 68.5 WCR 70 0.70 Paved 2' 4,900 836 585 0 WCR 15 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.02 Paved 2' 4,900 157 160 0 WCR 15 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Gravel na 200 240 240 40 WCR 15 WCR 74 WCR 76 1.04 Paved 2' 4,900 1,248 1,298 0 WCR 15 WCR 78 WCR 80 1.00 Gravel na 200 58 58 0 WCR 15 WCR 80 WCR 82 1.00 Gravel na 200 91 91 0 WCR 15 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 Paved 4' 6,000 1,577 1,577 0 WCR 17 US 34 WCR 62 2.07 Paved 3' 5,200 1,225 2,536 0 WCR 17 WCR 62 WCR 62.86 0.86 Paved 3' 5,200 2,003 1,723 0 WCR 17 WCR 62.86 St.Hwy 392 2.14 Paved na 4,200 7,520 16,093 7,105 WCR 17 WCR 82 WCR 82.5 0.50 Gravel na 200 na 0 0 WCR 19 St.Hwy 392 WCR 68.25 0.25 Paved na 4,200 2,343 586 0 WCR 19 WCR 68.25 WCR 74 2.61 Paved 3' 5,200 2,343 6,115 0 WCR 19 WCR 78 WCR 82 2.00 Gravel na 200 215 430 30 WCR 19 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 Gravel na 200 91 91 0 WCR 21 St.Hwy 392 WCR 74 3.19 Paved 2' 4,900 232 740 0 WCR 21 WCR 74 WCR 80 2.96 Gravel na 200 182 539 0 WCR 21 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 Gravel na 200 53 53 0 WCR 23 WCR 62.5 WCR 64.75 1.50 Gravel na 200 50 75 0 WCR 23 WCR 64.75 WCR 66 0.25 Paved 2' 4,900 412 103 0 WCR 23 WCR 66 WCR 68 0.99 Paved 2' 4,900 197 195 0 WCR 23 St.Hwy 392 WCR 70 1.02 Paved 2' 4,900 496 506 0 WCR 23 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.01 Paved 2' 4,900 495 500 0 WCR 23 WCR 72 WCR 72.35 0.35 Paved 2' 4,900 368 129 0 WCR 23 WCR 72.35 WCR 74 0.65 Paved 2' 4,900 368 239 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 25 Table 15 EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY Existing Excess Road From To Miles Surface Shldr Ca aci Volume VMT VMT WCR 23 WCR 74 WCR 82 4.00 Paved 2' 4,900 418 1,672 0 WCR 23 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 Gravel na 200 27 27 0 WCR 25 US 34 WCR 60 1.00 Gravel na 150 53 53 0 WCR 25 WCR 62 WCR 64.5 1.50 Gravel na 200 111 167 0 WCR 25 WCR 64.5 WCR 64.75 0.25 Paved 2' 4,900 412 103 0 WCR 25 St.Hwy 392 WCR 70 1.00 Gravel na 200 192 192 0 WCR 25 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.00 Gravel na 200 69 69 0 WCR 25 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Gravel na 150 69 69 0 WCR 25 WCR 80.5 WCR 82 0.50 Gravel na 200 25 13 0 WCR 25 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 Gravel na 200 48 48 0 WCR 27 US 34 US 34 Bus. 1.21 Paved 2 4,900 500 605 0 WCR 27 US 34 Bus. WCR 64.5 2.50 Paved 2 4,900 1,507 3,768 0 WCR 27 WCR 64.5 Colo. 392 1.51 Paved 2 4,900 246 371 0 WCR 27 Colo. 392 WCR 70 0.99 Paved 1 4,900 278 275 0 WCR 27 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.00 Paved 2 4,900 155 '55 0 WCR 27 WCR 72 WCR 74 0.98 Paved 2 4,900 280 274 0 WCR 27 WCR 74 WCR 76 1.00 Gravel na 200 166 166 0 WCR 27 WCR 78 WCR 80 1.00 Gravel na 200 7 7 0 WCR 27 Colo. 14 WCR 84 1.00 Gravel na 200 246 246 46 WCR 29 US 3ti WCR 56.5 0.50 Paved 4 6,000 1,200 600 0 WCR 29 WCR 58.5 US 34 Bus. 0.50 Paved 4 6,000 1,900 950 0 WCR 29 WCR 62.5 WCR 64 0.50 Gravel na 150 339 170 95 WCR 29 WCR 64 Colo. 392 2,00 Gravel na 200 339 678 278 WCR 29.5/31 US 34 WCR 58 1.21 Paved 4 5,500 4,000 4,1340 0 WCR 29.5/31 WCR 58 US 34 Bus. 1.00 Paved 4 5,500 4,300 4,300 0 WCR 29.5/31 US 34 Bus. WCR 60.5 0.54 Paved 4 5,500 4,300 2,322 0 WCR 29.5/31 WCR 64 WCR 66 0.50 Paved 4 5,500 2,300 1,I50 0 WCR 29.5/31 WCR 66 Colo 392 0.50 Paved 4 5,500 1,160 580 0 WCR 58 WCR 25 WCR 27 0.99 Paved 3 5,200 464 459 0 WCR 58 WCR 27 WCR 29 0.99 Paved 3 5,200 2,117 2,096 0 WCR 58 WCR 29 Ditch 0.24 Paved 4 5,500 2,117 508 0 WCR 60 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Gravel na 200 118 118 0 WCR 60 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Gravel na 200 118 118 0 WCR 62 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Gravel na 200 214 214 14 WCR 62 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Gravel na 200 314 314 114 WCR 62 WCR 17 St.Hwy.257 1,00 Gravel na 150 132 132 0 WCR 62 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Gravel na 200 na i 0 0 duncan associates May 27 1999 DRAFT WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 26 Table 15 EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY Existing Excess Road From To Miles Surface Shldr Ca aci Volume VMT VMT WCR 62 WCR 25 WCR 27 1,33 Gravel na 200 58 77 0 WCR 64 WCR '7 St.Hwy.257 1.40 Gravel na 150 Closed 0 0 WCR 64 WCR 27 WCR 29 2.00 Paved 2 5,800 1,113 2,226 0 WCR 64.5 WCR 64 WCR 64.75 1.42 Paved 3' 4,900 188 267 0 WCR 64.75 WCR 23 WCR 23.75 0.75 Paved 2' 4,900 412 309 0 WCR 66 WCR 5.75 WCR 21.75 3.00 Paved na 4,200 4,330 12,990 390 WCR 66 WCR 21.75 WCR 23 0.25 Paved 2' 4,900 412 103 0 WCR 66 WCR 27 WCR 31 2.00 Gravel na 200 279 558 158 WCR 68.5 WCR '3 WCR 15 1.00 Gravel na 150 273 273 123 WCR 70 WCR '9 WCR 21 0.98 Paved 2' 4,900 50 49 0 WCR 70 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Gravel na 200 67 67 0 WCR 70 WCR 23 WCR 23.75 0.55 Paved 2' 4,900 285 157 0 WCR 70 WCR 23.75 WCR 25 0.45 Gravel na 200 43 19 0 WCR 70 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Gravel na 200 123 123 0 WCR 72 WCR '5 St.Hwy.257 1.00 Gravel na 200 93 93 0 WCR 72 WCR '7 WCR 19 1.00 Paved 2' 4,900 196 196 0 WCR 72 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Gravel na 150 71 71 0 WCR 72 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Gravel na 150 88 88 0 WCR 72 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Gravel na 200 83 83 0 WCR 74 WCR '3 St.Hwy.257 1.90 Paved 2' 4,900 4,278 8,128 0 WCR 74 St.Hwy.257 WCR 19 1.06 Paved 2' 4,900 4,825 5,115 0 WCR 74 WCR ' 9 WCR 21 1.02 Paved 2' 4,900 2,028 2,069 0 WCR 74 WCR 21 WCR 21.5 0.45 Paved 2' 4,900 1,674 753 0 WCR 74 WCR 21.5 WCR 23 0.55 Paved na 4,200 1,674 921 0 WCR 74 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Paved na 4,200 1,322 1,322 0 WCR 74 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Paved 2 4,900 2,789 2,789 0 WCR 76 WCR '13 WCR 13.65 0.66 Gravel na 200 186 123 0 WCR 76 WCR '13.65 WCR 15 0.36 Gravel na 200 186 67 0 WCR 76 WCR '15 WCR 15.2 0.21 Gravel na 200 76 16 0 WCR 76 WCR 15.2 St.Hwy.257 0.79 Gravel na 200 76 60 0 WCR 76 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Gravel na 200 142 142 0 WCR 76 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Gravel na 200 142 142 0 WCR 76.5 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Gravel na 200 100 100 0 WCR 78 WCR 13 St.Hwy.257 2.00 Gravel na 200 69 138 0 WCR 78 St.Hwy.257 WCR 21 2.00 Gravel na 200 156 312 0 WCR 78 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Gravel na 200 105 105 0 WCR 78 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Gravel na 200 107 107 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 27 Table 15 EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY Existing Excess Road From To Miles Surface Shldr Ca aci Volume VMT VMT WCR 80 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Gravel na 200 176 176 0 WCR 80 WCR 15 St.Hwy.257 1.00 Gravel na 200 187 187 0 WCR 80 WCR 19 WCR 21 1.00 Gravel na 200 49 49 0 WCR 80 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Gravel na 200 118 118 0 WCR 80 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Gravel na 200 15 15 0 WCR 80 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Gravel na 200 114 114 0 WCR 84 WCR 13 WCR 15 0.95 Paved 4' 5,500 217 206 0 WCR 84 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Gravel na 200 108 216 0 WCR 84 WCR 19 WCR 21 1.00 Gravel na 200 102 102 0 WCR 84 WCR 21 WCR 25 2.00 Gravel na 200 127 254 0 WCR 84 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Gravel na 200 123 123 0 Windsor Study Area Total 131.48 105,802 8,421 WCR 1 Erie CL Arapahoe Rd. 0.54 Paved na 4,200 2,160 1,166 0 WCR 1 Arapahoe Rd. Erie CL 0.51 Paved na 4,200 2,090 1,066 0 WCR 1 Erie CL Erie CL 0.50 Paved na 4,200 2,090 1,045 0 WCR 1 Erie CL Isabelle Rd. 0.50 Paved na 4,200 2,080 1,040 0 WCR 1 Isabela Rd. Jay Rd. 1.05 Paved na 4,200 2,080 2,184 0 WCR 1 Jay Rd. Erie CL 0.76 Paved na 4,200 2,060 1,566 0 WCR 1 WCR 20.5 1500's SH 119 1.22 Paved 4' 5,500 5,090 5,210 0 WCR 1 1500'sSH 119 RR rt/o SH 119 0.81 Paved na 4,200 5,015 4,062 660 WCR 1 RR n/o SH 119 St. Hwy. 66 2.53 Paved 4' 5,500 5,015 12,688 0 WCR 1.5 Erie CL WCR 3 0.40 Gravel na 150 266 106 46 WCR 2 WCR 9 ( 1-25 ( WCR 9.5 0.56 Paved na 4,900 176 99 0 WCR 2 WCR 9.5 WCR 11 0.44 Paved na 4,900 176 77 0 WCR 2 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 Paved na 4,900 100 100 0 WCR 2 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Paved na 4,900 100 100 0 WCR 2 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Paved na 4,900 50 50 0 WCR 3 St. Hwy. 7 WCR 4 0.41 Paved 4' 5,500 642 263 0 WCR 3 WCR 8 WCR 10 1.00 Gravel na 200 148 148 0 WCR 3 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 Gravel na 200 116 116 0 WCR 3 WCR 12 St. Hwy. 52 1.00 Gravel na 200 288 288 88 WCR 3 WCR 28 St. Hwy. 66 1.00 Gravel na 200 91 91 0 WCR 3.25 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16.5 1.50 Gravel na 200 97 146 0 WCR 3.5 St. Hwy. 119 WCR 24.5 0.50 Paved 4' 5,500 45 23 0 WCR 3.5 WCR 24.5 WCR 26 0.50 Gravel na 150 44 22 0 WCR 4 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Gravel na 200 56 56 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 28 Table 15 EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY Existing Excess Road From To Miles Surface Shldr Ca aci Volume VMT VMT WCR 4 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Gravel na 200 68 68 0 WCR 4 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Gravel na 200 25 25 0 WCR 5 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 Paved 4' 5,500 1,938 1,938 0 WCR 5 WCR 4 WCR 6 1.00 Paved na 4,200 1,940 1,940 0 WCR 5 WCR 6 WCR 8 1.01 Paved na 4,200 610 616 0 WCR 5 WCR E. WCR 12 2.00 Paved 4' 5,500 720 1,440 0 WCR 5 WCR 12 St. Hwy. 52 0.99 Paved 4' 5,500 303 300 0 WCR 5 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16.5 1.50 Gravel na 200 146 219 0 WCR 5 WCR 16.5 WCR 20 0.65 Paved 4' 5,500 145 94 0 WCR 5 WCR 26 St. Hwy. 66 2.00 Gravel na 200 229 458 58 WCR 5.5 St. Hwy. 119 WCR 26 1.33 Paved 4' 5,500 150 230 0 WCR 6 WCR EI WCR 7 1.00 Gravel na 200 na 0 0 WCR 6 WCR 7 I - 25 0.96 Paved 2' 4,900 403 387 0 WCR 6 I -25 WCR 15 3.01 Paved 4' 5,500 688 2,071 0 WCR 6 WCR '5 WCR 17 1.00 Paved 4' 5,500 318 318 0 WCR 6 WCR '7 WCR 19 1.00 Paved 4' 5,500 973 973 0 WCR 7 WCR 2 WCR 2.5 0.50 Paved na 4,200 510 255 0 WCR 7 WCR 2.5 WCR 4.5 1.02 Paved 4' 5,500 509 519 0 WCR 7 WCR 4.5 WCR 8 1.49 Paved 4' 5,500 350 522 0 WCR 7 WCR 8 St. Hwy. 52 3.00 Paved 4' 5,500 320 960 0 WCR 7 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 18 2.05 Paved 3' 5,200 438 898 0 WCR 7 WCR '8 5430's SH 119 2.00 Paved 4' 5,500 439 878 0 WCR 7 5430'sSH119 St. Hwy. 119 1.03 Paved 4' 5,500 580 597 0 WCR 7 St. Hwy. 119 WCR 24.5 0.57 Paved 4' 5,500 436 249 0 WCR 7 WCR 26 WCR 28 1.00 Paved na 4,200 134 134 0 WCR 7 WCR 28 St. Hwy. 66 1.00 Paved na 4,200 146 146 0 WCR 8 Coal Creek WCR 3 0.32 Paved 3' 5,200 1,174 376 0 WCR 8 WCR 3 WCR 5 1.00 Paved 3' 5,200 593 593 0 WCR 8 WCR 5 WCR 7 0.99 Paved 3' 5,200 867 858 0 WCR 8 WCR 7 WCR 9 (1-25) 1.00 Paved na 4,200 1,680 1,680 0 WCR 8 WCR 3(I-25) RR-X 0.58 Gravel na 200 415 241 125 WCR 8 RR-X RR-X 0.71 Gravel na 200 240 170 28 WCR 8 RR-X Dacono CL 0.47 Gravel na 200 240 113 19 WCR 8 Dacoro CL WCR 13 0.13 Gravel na 200 240 31 5 WCR 8 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Gravel na 200 67 67 0 WCR 8 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Gravel na 200 24 48 0 WCR 9.75 WCR 24 WCR 24.75 0.75 Gravel na 150 100 75 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 D1tAF'1' WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 29 Table 15 EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY Existing Excess Road From To Miles Surface Shldr Ca aci Volume VMT VMT WCR 10 WCR 3 WCR 7 2,00 Gravel na 200 48 96 0 WCR 10 WCR 7 WCR 9 (1-25) 1.00 Gravel na 150 29 29 0 WCR 10 WCR 9(I-25) SRFCH 0.50 Gravel na 150 30 15 0 WCR 10 SRFCH WCR 11 0.49 Gravel na 150 30 15 0 WCR 10 WCR '5 WCR 19 2.00 Gravel na 150 60 120 0 WCR 10.5 WCR ' WCR 3 1.00 Paved 4' 5,500 218 218 0 WCR 11 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 Gravel na 200 180 130 0 WCR 11 WCR 4 WCR 8 2.00 Gravel na 200 179 358 0 WCR 11 WCR 8 WCR 10 1.00 Gravel na 150 127 127 0 WCR 11 WCR ' 0 WCR 12 1.00 Gravel na 150 125 125 0 WCR 11 WCR '12 St. Hwy. 52 1.00 Gravel na 150 312 312 162 WCR 11 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16 1.00 Gravel na 150 145 145 0 WCR 11 WCR 16 WCR 18 1.00 Gravel na 150 145 145 0 WCR 11 WCR 18 WCR 18.25 0.30 Gravel na 200 145 44 0 WCR 11 WCR 18.25 WCR 18.5 0.20 Gravel na 200 145 29 0 WCR 11 WCR 18.5 WCR 22 1.50 Gravel na 200 145 218 0 WCR 11 WCR 22 WCR 22.5 0.45 Gravel na 150 218 98 31 WCR 11 WCR 22.5 WCR 24 0.55 Gravel na 150 218 120 37 WCR 11 WCR 28 WCR 30 1.00 Gravel na 150 88 88 0 WCR 11.25 WCR 24.75 WCR 26 0.25 Gravel na 150 100 25 0 WCR 12 WCR 3 WCR 9 3.00 Gravel na 200 151 453 0 WCR 12 WCR 3 WCR 15 3.00 Gravel na 150 320 960 510 WCR 12 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Gravel na 150 38 38 0 WCR 13 WCR 2 WCR 6 2.00 Gravel na 200 177 354 0 WCR 13 WCR 6 WCR 6.5 0.50 Gravel na 200 175 88 0 WCR 13 WCR 6.5 WCR 10 1.50 Gravel na 150 175 263 38 WCR 13 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 Gravel na 150 175 175 25 WCR 13 WCR 12 Dacono CL 0.38 Paved 4' 5,500 420 160 0 WCR 13 Dacono CL Split 0.06 Paved 4' 5,500 420 25 0 WCR 13 Split SRFCH 0.02 Paved 4' 5,500 420 8 0 WCR 13 SRFCH Dacono CL 0.04 Paved 4' 5,500 420 17 0 WCR 13 4th Street St. Hwy. 52 0.27 Paved na 8,300 420 113 0 WCR 13 St. Hwy. 52 Frederick CL 0.55 Paved 4' 5,500 2,695 1,482 0 WCR 13 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16 1.00 Paved na 4,200 2,695 2,695 0 WCR 13 WCR 16 STR 0.96 Paved na 4,200 2,695 2,587 0 WCR 13 STR WCR 18 0.05 Paved na 4,200 2,695 135 0 WCR 13 WCR 18 WCR 20 1.01 Paved na 4,200 2,300 2,323 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 30 Table 15 EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY Existing Excess Road From To Miles Surface Shldr Ca aci Volume VMT VMT WCR 13 WCR 20 WCR 22 1.00 Paved 2' 4,900 1,897 1,897 0 WCR 13 WCR 22 WCR 24 1.02 Paved 2' 4,900 1,897 1,935 0 WCR 13 WCR 24 Firestone CL 0.35 Paved 2' 4,900 1,897 664 0 WCR 13 WCR 26 St. Hwy. 66 3.00 Paved 2' 4,900 1,897 5,691 0 WCR 14 WCR '7 WCR 19 1.00 Gravel na 200 124 124 0 WCR 15 WCR 2 WCR 6 2.00 Gravel na 200 112 224 0 WCR 15 WCR li WCR 12 3.00 Gravel na 150 43 129 0 WCR 15 WCR '2 Hwy 52 1.00 Paved 4' 5,500 118 118 0 WCR 15 Hwy 52 1st St. 1.00 Gravel na 150 335 335 185 WCR 15 1st St. Split 0.25 Gravel na 150 335 84 46 WCR 15 Split Frederick CL 0.25 Gravel na 150 335 84 46 WCR 15 Firestone CL Grant Ave 0.50 Gravel na 150 335 168 93 WCR 15 WCR 20 WCR 24 2.01 Gravel na 150 130 261 0 WCR 15 WCR 24 WCR 26.75 1.75 Gravel na 200 103 180 0 WCR 16 WCR 7 WCR 9 1.00 Gravel na 150 39 39 0 WCR 16 1-25 Frederick CL 0.63 Gravel na 150 na 0 0 WCR 16 Frederick CL WCR 11 0.37 Gravel na 150 na 0 0 WCR 16 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 Gravel na 150 na 0 0 WCR 16 WCR 15 WCR 15.5 0.50 Gravel na 150 na 0 0 WCR 16 WCR 15.5 WCR 19 1.50 Gravel na 200 151 227 0 WCR 16.5 WCR 1 WCR 5 2.00 Gravel na 200 176 352 0 WCR 17 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 Gravel na 200 79 79 0 WCR 17 WCR 1 WCR 6 1.00 Gravel na 200 79 79 0 WCR 17 WCR G WCR 8 1.00 Gravel na 200 79 79 0 WCR 17 WCR 3 WCR 10 1.00 Gravel na 150 100 100 0 WCR 17 WCR 12 St. Hwy 52 1.00 Gravel na 150 13 13 0 WCR 17 WCR 14 WCR 18 2.76 Gravel na 200 84 232 0 WCR 17 WCR 22 WCR 24 1.00 Gravel na 200 40 40 0 WCR 17 WCR ?4 WCR 26 1.00 Gravel na 200 75 75 0 WCR 17 WCR 26 WCR 30 2.00 Gravel na 200 101 202 0 WCR 18 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 Gravel na 200 103 103 0 WCR 18 WCR 5 WCR 7 0.82 Paved na 4,200 200 164 0 WCR 18 WCR 7 Service Rd. 1.00 Paved na 4,200 200 200 0 WCR 18 Service Rd. WCR 11 1.00 Paved na 4,200 200 200 0 WCR 18 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 Paved na 4,200 200 200 0 WCR 18 SRFCII WCR 15 0.33 Paved na 4,200 215 71 0 WCR 18 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Gravel na 150 136 136 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNrY/Roa1 Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 31 Table 15 EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY Existing Excess Road From To Miles Surface Shldr Capacity Volume VMT VMT WCR 18 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Gravel na 150 136 136 0 WCR 19 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 Paved 4' 5,500 550 550 0 WCR 19 WCR 4 WCR 6 0.99 Paved 4' 5,500 347 344 0 WCR 19 WCR 6 WCR 8 1.00 Paved 4' 5,500 346 346 0 WCR 19 WCR 8 St. Hwy 52 2.30 Paved 4' 5,500 263 605 0 WCR 19 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 20 3.50 Paved 4' 5,500 874 3,059 0 WCR 19 WCR 20 WCR 24 2.04 Paved 4' 5,500 486 991 0 WCR 19 WCR 24 St. Hwy. 66 3.07 Paved 4' 5,500 787 2,416 0 WCR 20 WCR 7 WCR 9(1-25) 0.97 Paved 2' 4,900 355 344 0 WCR 20 WCR 9(I-25) WCR 13 2.00 Paved na 4,200 425 850 0 WCR 20 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Paved na 4,200 350 350 0 WCR 20 WCR 15 WCR 17(E CL) 1.00 Paved na 4,200 275 275 0 WCR 20 WCR '17 WCR 19 1.00 Paved 2' 4,900 200 200 0 WCR 20.5 WCR 1 C &M Pit Ent. 1.53 Paved 2' 4,900 702 1,074 0 WCR 20.5 C & M Pit Ent. WCR 7 1.49 Paved 2' 4,900 606 903 0 WCR 20.5 WCR 7 E.to Dead End 1.00 Gravel na 150 90 90 0 WON 22 WCR 9 ( 1-25 ) SRFCH 0.30 Paved na 4,200 110 33 0 WCR 22 SRFCH WCR 17 2.65 Gravel na 150 90 239 0 WCR 22 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Gravel na 150 98 98 0 WCR 24 WCR 9 ( 1-25 ) WCR 15 2.71 Paved na 4,200 2,169 5,878 0 WCR 24 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Paved 4' 5,500 998 1,996 0 WCR 24.5 WCR 7 Park Entrance 0.75 Gravel na 150 210 158 45 WCR 24.5 1-25 Front. Rd. WCR 9.75 0.75 Gravel na 150 na 0 0 WCR 24.75 WCR 9.75 WCR 11.25 0.50 Gravel na 150 na 0 0 WCR 26 WCR 1 WON 3 1.00 Gravel na 150 168 168 18 WON 26 WCR 3 WCR 7 2.00 Gravel na 150 166 332 32 WCR 26 WCR 11.25 WCR 13 0.75 Gravel na 200 200 150 0 WCR 26 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Gravel na 200 200 200 0 WCR 26 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Gravel na 200 115 230 0 WCR 28 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 Gravel na 200 94 94 0 WCR 28 WCR 3 WCR 5 1.00 Gravel na 200 146 146 0 WCR 28 WCR 5 WCR 7 1.00 Gravel na 200 130 130 0 WCR 28 WCR 7 WCR 9 1.00 Gravel na 200 145 145 0 WCR 28 WCR 9 WCR 11 1.00 Gravel na 150 57 57 0 WCR 28 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 Gravel na 200 107 107 0 WCR 28 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Gravel na 200 78 78 0 Southwest Study Area Total 191.71 104,809 2,297 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTV/Road Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 32 Notes to Table 15: Road segments, segment lengths, surface type, shoulder width, existing average daily capacity at LOS C and existing average daily volumes from Felsburg, Holt&Ullevig, Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan: Windsor and Southwest Study Areas,March 1999;existing VMT is the product of segment length and existing volume;excess VMT is the product of segment length and the amount, if any, by which existing volume exceeds existing capacity. duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 33 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Im rovement Cost Existin Improved Added WCR 13 WCR 66 Windsor CL 0.58 2,436 2,436 0 WCR 13 Windsor CL St.Hwy 392 0.42 1,764 1,764 0 WCR 13 St.Hwy 392 WCR 68.5 0.51 2,142 2,142 0 WCR 13 WCR 68.5 WCR 70 0.57 Pave-Urban $570,000 86 4,731 4,645 WCR 13 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 13 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 13 WCR 74 WCR 76 1.00 Pave-Rural1 $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 13 WCR 76 WCR 78 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 15 US 34 WCR 62 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 15 St.Hwy 392 WCR 68.5 0.30 1,470 1,470 0 WCR 15 WCR 68.5 WCR 70 0.70 3,430 3,430 0 WCR 15 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.02 4,998 4,998 0 WCR 15 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 15 WCR 74 WCR 76 1.04 5,096 5,096 0 WCR 15 WCR 78 WCR 80 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 15 WCR 80 WCR 82 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 15 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 6,000 6,000 0 WCR 17 SH 14 WCR 84 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 0 5,500 5,500 WCR 17 US 34 WCR 62 2.07 10,764 10,764 0 WCR 17 WCR 62 WCR 62.86 0.86 4,472 4,472 . 0 WCR 17 WCR 62.86 St.Hwy 392 2.14 Widen-4 Lane $3,830,000 8,988 35,524 26,536 WCR 17 WCR 82 WCR 82.5 0.50 100 100 0 WCR 19 St.Hwy 332 WCR 68.25 0.25 Urban 2 Lane $250,000 1,050 2,075 1,025 WCR 19 WCR 68.25 WCR 74 2.61 Urban 2 Lane $760,000 13,572 21,663 8,091 WCR 19 WCR 78 WCR 82 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 19 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 21 St.Hwy 332 WCR 74 3.19 15,631 15,631 0 WCR 21 WCR 74 WCR 80 2.96 Pave-Rurall $740,000 592 16,280 15,688 WCR 21 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 23 WCR 62.5 WCR 64.75 1.50 Pave-Rural2 $750,000 300 9,000 8,700 WCR 23 WCR 64.75 WCR 66 0.25 1,225 1,225 0 WCR 23 WCR 66 WCR 68 0.99 4,851 4,851 0 WCR 23 St.Hwy 392 WCR 70 1.02 4,998 4,998 0 WCR 23 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.01 4,949 4,949 0 WCR 23 WCR 72 WCR 72.35 0.35 1,715 1,715 0 WCR 23 WCR 72.35 WCR 74 0.65 3,185 3,185 0 WCR 23 WCR 74 WCR 82 4.00 19,600 19,600 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 34 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Im rovement Cost Existin Improved Added WCR 23 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 25 US 34 WCR 60 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 25 WCR 62 WCR 64.5 1.50 Pave-Rural) $380,000 300 8,250 7,950 WCR 25 WCR 64.5 WCR 64.75 0.25 1,225 1,225 0 WCR 25 St.Hwy 332 WCR 70 1.00 Pave-Rural) $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 25 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.00 Pave-Rural) $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 25 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 25 WCR 74 WCR 80 3.00 New 2-L Rural $3,750,000 0 16,500 16,500 WCR 25 WCR 80.5 WCR 82 0.50 100 100 0 WCR 25 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 27 US 34 US 34 Bus. 1.21 Urban 2 Lane $1,210,000 5,929 10,043 4,114 WCR 27 US 34 Bus. WCR 64.5 2.50 Urban 2 Lane $2,500,000 12,250 20,750 8,500 WCR 27 WCR 64.5 Colo. 392 1.51 7,399 7,399 0 WCR 27 Colo. 392 WCR 70 0.99 4,851 4,851 0 WCR 27 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.00 4,900 4,900 0 WCR 27 WCR 72 WCR 74 0.98 4,802 4,802 0 WCR 27 WCR 74 WCR 76 1.00 Pave-Rural) $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 27 WCR 76 WCR 78 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 0 5,500 5,500 WCR 27 WCR 78 WCR 80 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 27 WCR 80 SH 14 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 0 5,500 5,500 WCR 27 SH 14 WCR 84 1.00 Pave-Rural) $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 29 US 34 WCR 56.5 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $920,000 3,000 8,300 5,300 WCR 29 WCR 58.5 US 34 Bus. 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 3,000 8,300 5,300 WCR 29 WCR 62.5 WCR 64 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 75 4,150 4,075 WCR 29 WCR 64 Colo. 392 2.00 Pave-Rural2 $1,000,000 400 12,000 11,600 WCR 29.5/31 US 34 WCR 58 1.21 Widen-4 Lane $1,940,000 6,655 20,086 13,431 WCR 29.5/31 WCR 58 US 34 Bus. 1.00 Widen-4 Lane $1,600,000 5,500 16,600 11,100 WCR 29.5/31 US 34 Bus. WCR 60.5 0.54 Widen-4 Lane $860,000 2,970 3,964 5,994 WCR 29.5/31 WCR 64 WCR 66 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 2,750 8,300 5,550 WCR 29.5/31 WCR 66 Colo 392 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 2,750 8,300 5,550 WCR 58 WCR 25 WCR 27 0.99 5,148 5,148 0 WCR 58 WCR 27 WCR 29 0.99 Widen-4 Lane $1,590,000 5,148 16,434 11,286 WCR 58 WCR 29 Ditch 0.24 Widen-4 Lane $390,000 1,320 3,984 2,664 WCR 58.5 Greeley CL Greeley CL 3.50 New 2-L Urban $6,125,000 0 29,050 29,050 WCR 60 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rural) $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 60 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Pave-Rural) $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 60.5 WCR 27 Greeley CL 0.50 New 2-L Urban $875,000 0 4,150 4,150 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 35 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Im rovement Cost Existin Improved Added WCR 62 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 62 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Pave-Rural2 $500,000 200 6,000 5,800 WCR 62 WCR 17 St.Hwy.257 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 62 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 62 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.33 Pave-Rurall $330,000 266 7,315 7,049 WCR 64 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 0 5,500 5,500 WCR 64 WCR 17 St.Hwy.257 1.40 Pave-Urban $1,400,000 210 11,620 11,410 WCR 64 WCR 27 WCR 29 2.00 Urban 2 Lane $2,000,000 11,600 16,600 5,000 WCR 64.5 WCR 64 WCR 64.75 1.42 6,958 6,958 0 WCR 64.75 WCR 23 WCR 23.75 0.75 3,675 3,675 0 WCR 66 WCR 15.75 WCR 21.75 3.00 Urban 2 Lane $3,000,000 12,600 24,900 12,300 WCR 66 WCR 21.75 WCR 23 0.25 1,225 1,225 0 WCR 66 WCR 27 WCR 31 2.00 Pave-Rurall $1,000,000 400 12,000 11,600 WCR 66.5/21.5 WCR 19 WCR 66 2.30 New 2-L Rural $2,875,000 0 12,650 12,650 WCR 68.5 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 70 WCR 15 WCR 19 2,10 New 2-L Urban $2,625,000 0 17,430 17,430 WCR 70 WCR 19 WCR 21 0.98 4,802 4,802 0 WCR 70 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 70 WCR 23 WCR 23.75 0.55 2,695 2,695 0 WCR 70 WCR 23.75 WCR 25 0.45 90 90 0 WCR 70 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 70/15.5 WCR 13 SH 392 2.70 New 2-L Urban $3,375,000 0 22,410 22,410 WCR 72 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 0 5,500 5,500 WCR 72 WCR 15 St.Hwy.257 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 72 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 4,900 4,900 0 WCR 72 WCR 19 WCR 21 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 0 5,500 5,500 WCR 72 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 72 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 72 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 74 WCR 13 St.Hwy.257 1.90 Widen-4 Lane $3,090,000 9,310 31,540 22,230 WCR 74 St.Hwy.257 WCR 19 1.06 Widen-4 Lane $1,700,000 5,194 17,596 12,402 WCR 74 WCR 19 WCR 21 1.02 4,998 4,998 0 WCR 74 WCR 21 WCR 21.5 0.45 2,205 2,205 0 WCR 74 WCR 21.5 WCR 23 0.55 2,310 2,310 0 WCR 74 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 WCR 74 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 4,900 4,900 0 WCR 76 WCR 13 WCR 13.65 0.66 Pave-Rurall $170,000 132 3,630 3,498 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 36 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Improvement Cost Existing Improved Added WCR 76 WCR 13.65 WCR 15 0.36 Pave-Rurall $90,000 72 1,980 1,908 WCR 76 WCR 15 WCR 15.2 0.21 Pave-Rurall $50,000 42 1,155 1,113 WCR 76 WCR 15.2 St.Hwy.257 0.79 Pave-Rurall $200,000 158 4,345 4,187 WCR 76 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 76 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 76.5 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 78 WCR 13 St.Hwy.257 2.00 400 400 0 WCR 78 St.Hwy.257 WCR 21 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 78 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 78 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 80 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 80 WCR 15 St.Hwy.257 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 80 WCR 19 WCR 21 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 80 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR BO WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 80 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 84 WCR 13 WCR 15 0.95 5,225 5,225 0 WCR 84 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 84 WCR 19 WCR 21 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 84 WCR 21 WCR 25 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 84 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 Windsor Study Area Total $78,595,000 302,953 959,339 656,386 WCR 1 Erie CL Arapahoe Rd. 0.54 Widen-4 Lane $860,000 2,268 8,964 6,696 WCR 1 Arapahoe Rd. Erie CL 0.51 Widen-4 Lane $820,000 2,142 8,466 6,324 WCR 1 Erie CL Erie CL 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 2,100 8,300 6,200 WCR 1 Erie CL Isabelle Rd. 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 2,100 8,300 6,200 WCR 1 Isabelle Rd. Jay Rd. 1.05 Urban 2 Lane $1,050,000 4,410 8,715 4,305 WCR 1 Jay Rd. Erie CL 0.76 Urban 2 Lane $760,000 3,192 6,308 3,116 WCR 1 WCR 20.5 1500's SH 119 1,22 Urban 2 Lane $1,220,000 6,710 10,126 3,416 WCR 1 1500's SH 119 RR n/o SH 119 0.81 Widen-4 Lane $1,300,000 3,402 13,446 10,044 WCR 1 RR n/o SH 119 St. Hwy. 66 2.53 Widen-4 Lane $4,040,000 13,915 41,998 28,083 WCR 1.5 Erie CL WCR 3 0.40 Pave-Urban $400,000 60 3,320 3,260 WCR 2 WCR 9( 1-25 ) WCR 9.5 0.56 2,744 2,744 0 WCR 2 WCR 9.5 WCR 11 0.44 2,156 2,156 0 WCR 2 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 4,900 4,900 0 WCR 2 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 4,900 4,900 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNTY/Road Impact Fee Study: Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 37 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Im rovement Cost Existin Im roved Added WCR 2 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 4,900 4,900 0 WCR 3 St. Hwy.7 WCR 4 0.41 2,255 2,255 0 WCR 3 WCR 8 WCR 10 1.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 200 6,000 5,800 WCR 3 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 3 WCR 12 St. Hwy. 52 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 3 WCR 28 St. Hwy. 66 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 3.25 St. Hwy. !i2 WCR 16.5 1.50 Pave-Rurall $380,000 300 8,250 7,950 WCR 3.5 St. Hwy. 119 WCR 24.5 0.50 2,750 2,750 0 WCR 3.5 WCR 24.5 WCR 26 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 75 4,150 4,075 WCR 4 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 4 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 4 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 4 1-25 County Line 4.40 New 2-L Rural $5,500,000 0 24,200 24,200 WCR 5 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 5,500 5,500 0 WCR 5 WCR 4 WCR 6 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 WCR 5 WCR 6 WCR 8 1.01 4,242 4,242 0 WCR 5 WCR 8 WCR 12 2.00 11,000 11,000 0 WCR 5 WCR 12 St. Hwy. 52 0.99 5,445 5,445 0 WCR 5 St. Hwy. 152 WCR 16.5 1.50 Pave-Rurall $380,000 300 8,250 7,950 WCR 5 WCR 16.5 WCR 20 0.65 3,575 3,575 0 WCR 5 WCR 26 St. Hwy. 66 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 5.5 St. Hwy. 119 WCR 26 1.33 7,315 ,315 0 WCR 6 WCR 5 WCR 7 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 6 WCR 7 I-25 0.96 Urban 2 Lane $960,000 4,704 7,968 3,264 WCR 6 I-25 WCR 15 3.01 16,555 16,555 0 WCR 6 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 5,500 5,500 0 WCR 6 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 5,500 5,500 0 WCR 7 WCR 2 WCR 2.5 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 2,100 8,300 6,200 WCR 7 WCR 2.5 WCR 4.5 1.02 Widen-4 Lane $1,630,000 5,610 16,932 11,322 WCR 7 WCR 4.5 WCR 8 1.49 Widen-4 Lane $2,390,000 8,195 24,734 16,539 WCR 7 WCR 8 St. Hwy. 52 3.00 16,500 16,500 0 WCR 7 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 18 2.05 10,660 10,660 0 WCR7 WCR 18 5430'sSH119 2.00 11,000 11,000 0 WCR 7 5430's SH 119 St. Hwy. 119 1.03 Urban 2 Lane $1,030,000 5,665 8,549 2,884 WCR 7 St. Hwy. 119 WCR 24.5 0.57 3,135 3,135 0 WCR 7 WCR 26 WCR 28 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 WCR 7 WCR 28 St. Hwy. 66 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 duncan associates May 27, 1999 I►IRAAFT WELD Coururr/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 38 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Improvement Cost Existin Improved Added WCR 7.5 SH 119 WCR 24.5 0.50 New 2-L Urban $875,000 0 4,150 4,150 WCR 7.5 SH 119 1-25 Fr. Rd 2.70 New 4-Lane $5,265,000 0 44,820 44,820 WCR 8 County Line Ex Terminus 0.80 New 4-Lane $1,560,000 0 13,280 13,280 WCR 8 Coal Creek WCR 3 0.32 Widen-4 Lane $510,000 1,664 5,312 3,648 WCR 8 WCR 3 WCR 5 1.00 Widen-4 Lane $1,600,000 5,200 16,600 11,400 WCR 8 WCR 5 WCR 7 0.99 Widen-4 Lane $1,590,000 5,148 16,434 11,286 WCR 8 WCR 7 WCR 9 (1-25) 1.00 Widen-4 Lane $1,600,000 4,200 16,600 12,400 WCR 8 WCR 9 (1 25) RR-X 0.58 Pave-Rural2 $290,000 116 3,480 3,364 WCR 8 RR-X RR-X 0.71 Pave-Rural2 $360,000 142 4,260 4,118 WCR 8 RR-X Dacono CL 0.47 Pave-Rural2 $240,000 94 2,820 2,726 WCR 8 Dacono Cl. WCR 13 0.13 Pave-Rural2 $60,000 26 780 754 WCR 8 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 8 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 9.5 1-25 Fr. Rcl WCR 24.5 3.40 New 4-Lane $6,630,000 0 56,440 56,440 WCR 9.75 WCR 24 WCR 24.75 0.75 Pave-Urban $750,000 113 6,225 6,112 WCR 10 WCR 3 WCR 7 2.00 400 400 0 WCR 10 WCR 7 WCR 9(1-25) 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 10 WCR 9(1-25) SRFCH 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 75 4,150 4,075 WCR 10 SRFCH WCR 11 0.49 Pave-Urban $490,000 74 4,067 3,993 WCR 10 WCR 11 WCR 15 2.00 New 2-L Rural $2,500,000 0 11,000 11,000 WCR 10 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Pave-Urban $2,000,000 300 16,600 16,300 WCR 10.5 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 5,500 5,500 0 WCR 11 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 11 WCR 4 WCR 8 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 11 WCR 8 WCR 10 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 11 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 11 WCR 12 St. Hwy. 52 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 11 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 11 WCR 16 WCR 18 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 11 WCR 18 WCR 18.25 0.30 Pave-Rurall $80,000 60 1,650 1,590 WCR 11 WCR 18.25 WCR 18.5 0.20 Pave-Rurall $50,000 40 1,100 1,060 WCR 11 WCR 18.5 WCR 22 1.50 Pave-Rurall $370,000 300 8,250 7,950 WCR 11 WCR 22 WCR 22.5 0.45 Pave-Urban $450,000 68 3,735 3,667 WCR 11 WCR 22.5 WCR 24 0.55 Pave-Urban $550,000 83 4,565 4,482 WCR 11 WCR 28 WCR 30 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 11.25 WCR 24.75 WCR 26 0.25 Pave-Urban $250,000 38 2,075 2,037 WCR 12 WCR 3 WCR 9 3.00 Pave-Rurall $750,000 600 16,500 15,900 dunoan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD Couture/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 39 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Im rovement Cost Existin Im roved Added WCR 12 WCR 9 WCR 15 3.00 Pave-Urban $3,000,000 450 24,900 24,450 WCR 12 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 150 150 0 WCR 13 WCR 2 WCR 6 2.00 Pave-Rural2 $1,000,000 400 12,000 11,600 WCR 13 WCR 6 WCR 6.5 0.50 Pave-Rural2 $250,000 100 3,000 2,900 WCR 13 WCR 6.E WCR 10 1.50 Pave-Urban $1,500,000 225 12,450 12,225 WCR 13 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 13 WCR 12 Dacono CL 0.38 2,090 2,090 0 WCR 13 Dacono CL Split 0.06 330 330 0 WCR 13 Split SRFCH 0.02 110 110 0 WCR 13 SRFCH Dacono CL 0.04 220 220 0 WCR 13 4th Street St. Hwy. 52 0.27 2,241 2,241 0 WCR 13 St. Hwy. 52 Frederick CL 0.55 Urban 2 Lane $550,000 3,025 4,565 1,540 WCR 13 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16 1.00 Urban 2 Lane $1,000,000 4,200 8,300 4,100 WCR 13 WCR 16 STR 0.96 Urban 2 Lane $960,000 4,032 7,968 3,936 WCR 13 STR WCR 180.05 0.05 Urban 2 Lane $50,000 210 415 205 WCR 13 WCR 18 WCR 20 1.01 Urban 2 Lane $1,010,000 4,242 8,383 4,141 WCR 13 WCR 20 WCR 22 1.00 4,900 4,900 0 WCR 13 WCR 22 WCR 24 1.02 4,998 4,998 0 WCR 13 WCR 24 Firestone CL 0.35 1,715 1,715 0 WCR 13 WCR 26 St. Hwy. 66 3.00 14,700 14,100 0 WCR 14 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 15 WCR 2 WCR 6 2.00 Pave-Rural2 $1,000,000 400 12,000 11,600 WCR 15 WCR 6 WCR 12 3.00 Pave-Urban $3,000,000 450 24,900 24,450 WCR 15 WCR 12 Hwy 52 1.00 5,500 5,500 0 WCR 15 Hwy 52 1st St. 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 15 1st St. Split 0.25 Pave-Urban $250,000 38 2,075 2,037 WCR 15 Split Frederick CL 0.25 Pave-Urban $250,000 38 2,075 2,037 WCR 15 Firestone CL Grant Ave 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 75 4,150 4,075 WCR 15 WCR 18 WCR 20 1.00 New 2-L Urban $1,750,000 0 8,300 8,300 WCR 15 WCR 20 WCR 24 2.01 Pave-Urban $2,010,000 302 16,683 16,381 WCR 15 WCR 2z, WCR 26.75 1.75 350 350 0 WCR 16 WCR 7 WCR 9 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 16 1-25 Frederick CL 0.63 Pave-Urban $630,000 95 5,229 5,134 WCR 16 Frederick CL WCR 11 0.37 Pave-Urban $370,000 56 3,071 3,015 WCR 16 WCR 1' WCR 13 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 16 WCR 15 WCR 15.5 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 75 4,150 4,075 WCR 16 WCR 15.5 WCR 19 1.50 Pave-Rurall $380,000 300 8,250 7,950 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 40 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Im rovement Cost Existin Ira roved Added WCR 16.5 WCR 1 WCR 5 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 17 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 17 WCR 4 WCR 6 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 17 WCR 6 WCR 8 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 17 WCR 8 WCR 10 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 17 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 0 5,500 5,500 WCR 17 WCR 12 St. Hwy 52 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 17 WCR 14 WCR 18 2.76 552 552 0 WCR 17 WCR 22 WCR 24 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 17 WCR 24 WCR 26 1.00 200 200 0 WCR 17 WCR 26 WCR 30 2.00 400 400 0 WCR 18 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 18 WCR 5 WCR 7 0.82 3,444 3,444 0 WCR 18 WCR 7 Service Rd. 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 WCR 18 Service Rd. WCR 11 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 WCR 18 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 WCR 18 SRFCH WCR 15 0.33 1,386 1,386 0 WCR 18 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 13,300 8,150 WCR 18 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 13,300 8,150 WCR 19 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 5,500 5,500 0 WCR 19 WCR 4 WCR 6 0.99 5,445 5,445 ' 0 WCR 19 WCR 6 WCR 8 1.00 5,500 5,500 0 WCR 19 WCR 8 St. Hwy 52 2.30 12,650 1 2,650 0 WCR 19 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 20 3.50 19,250 19,250 0 WCR 19 WCR 20 WCR 24 2.04 11,220 11,220 0 WCR 19 WCR 24 St. Hwy. 66 3.07 16,885 16,885 0 WCR 20 WCR 7 WCR 9(I-25) 0.97 4,753 4,753 0 WCR 20 WCR 9(125) WCR 13 2.00 8,400 13,400 0 WCR 20 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 WCR 20 WCR 15 WCR 17(E CL) 1.00 4,200 4,200 0 WCR 20 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 4,900 4,900 0 WCR 20.5 WCR 1 C Er M Pit Ent. 1.53 Urban 2 Lane $1,530,000 7,497 12,699 5,202 WCR 20.5 C Er M Pit Ent. WCR 7 1.49 Urban 2 Lane $1,490,000 7,301 12,367 5,066 WCR 20.5 WCR 7 E.to Dead End 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 22 WCR 9 ( 1-25 ) SRFCH 0.30 1,260 1,260 0 WCR 22 SRFCH WCR 17 2.65 Pave-Urban $2,650,000 398 21,995 21,597 WCR 22 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 duncan associates May 27, 1999 DRAFT - WELD COUNTY/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 41 Table 16 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Road From To Miles Im rovement Cost Existin Im roved Added WCR 24 WCR 9( 1-25) WCR 15 2.71 Widen-4 Lane $4,340,000 11,382 44,986 33,604 WCR 24 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 11,000 11,000 0 WCR 24.5 WCR 7 Park Entrance 0.75 Pave-Urban $750,000 113 6,225 6,112 WCR 24.5 1-25 Front. Rd. WCR 9.75 0.75 Pave-Urban $750,000 113 6,225 6,112 WCR 24.75 WCR 9.75 WCR 11.25 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 75 4,150 4,075 WCR 26 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 26 WCR 3 WCR 7 2.00 Pave-Urban $2,000,000 300 16,600 16,300 WCR 26 WCR 11.25 WCR 13 0.75 Pave-Rurall $190,000 150 4,125 3,975 WCR 26 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 26 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 400 11,000 10,600 WCR 28 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 28 WCR 3 WCR 5 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 28 WCR 5 WCR 7 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 5,500 5,300 WCR 28 WCR 7 WCR 9 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 200 8,300 8,100 WCR 28 WCR 9 WCR 11 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 150 8,300 8,150 WCR 28 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 200 8,300 8,100 WCR 28 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 200 200 0 Southwest Study Area Total $118 100 000 461 162 1 456 686 995 524 Source:Felsburg,Holt&Ullevig,Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan:Windsor and Southwest Study Areas,March 1999; "Pave-Rurall" is paving a gravel road and providing 4' shoulders; "Pave-Rural2" is paving a gravel road and providing 6' shoulders; "Pave-Urban"is paving a gravel road to urban standards with curb and gutter and underground drainage; "Urban 2 Lane"is converting a rural 2-lane road to an urban standard with two through lanes and a center turn lane. duncan associates May 21, 1999 DRAFT WELD CouNrv/Road Impact Fee Study:Windsor and Southwest Areas Page 42 ROAD IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE Table of Contents A. Findings 1 B. Short Title, Authority, and Application 3 C. Intent and Purpose 4 D. Intergovernmental Agreements. 4 E. Level Of Service Standard (LOS) 7 F. Definitions 7 G. Imposition of Fee. 10 H. Independent Fee Calculation Study. 13 I. Credits 16 J. Benefit Areas 19 K. Refund of Fees Not Spent. 21 L. Review Every Five Years 22 Section Road Impact Fee A. Findings. 1. Boundaries of Southwest and Windsor Service Areas. The boundaries of the Southwest Service Area of Weld County are identified on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The boundaries of the Windsor Service Area are identified on Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Efficient Use of Powers to Plan for and Fund Regional Roads. It is the objective of the governing bodies of the participating local government of the Southwest Service Area and Windsor Service Area (hereinafter "Southwest Service Area Governments"and"Windsor Service Area Governments") to make the most efficient use of their powers by jointly implementing planning, zoning, and subdivision requirements for the provision of road capital improvements for the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area in order to maintain an adopted Level of Service (LOS) on the Southwest Service Area Road System and the Windsor Service Area Road System. 3. Intergovernmental Agreements. a. Pursuant to Art. XIV, Sec. 18(2)(a) and (b), Col. Const., and Secs. 29-20- 105 and 29-1-102, C.R.S., the Southwest Service Area Governments (Weld County, City of Longmont, Town of Dacono, Town of Firestone, Town of Frederick, Town of Erie, and Town of Mead) have entered into the Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement (hereinafter "Southwest Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement") to regulate the development of land for the purpose of providing road capital improvements for the Southwest Service Area Road System in order to maintain an adopted LOS. b. Pursuant to Art. XIV, Sec. 18(2)(a) and (b), Col. Const., and Secs. 29-20- 105 and 29-1-102, C.R.S., the Windsor Service Area Governments (Weld County and City of Windsor) have entered into the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement (hereinafter "Windsor Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement") to regulate the development of land for the purpose of providing road capital improvements for the Windsor Service Area Road System in order to maintain an adopted LOS. 4. Weld County/Coordination. Pursuant tto the Intergovernmental Agreements, the Southwest Service Area Governments and the Windsor Service Area Governments have designated Weld County to coordinate their joint efforts and administer the transportation planning and road impact fee programs within each area, respectively. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 1 5. Roadway Improvement Plan and Road Impact Fee Study. The Southwest Service Area Governments and the Windsor Service Area Governments, pursuant to their authority to cooperate,have prepared Roadway Improvement Plans and Road Impact Fee Studies for the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area, respectively. 6. New Growth and Development. The Roadway Improvement Plans and Road Impact Fee Studies project that there will be a significant amount of new growth and development in both the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area over the next twenty (20) years. 7. Need for Capacity Expansion. The Roadway Improvement Plans and Road Impact Fee Studies have determined that the new growth and development in the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area will require a substantial expansion in road capital facilities if an adequate LOS is to be maintained. 8. Road CIP. The Roadway Improvement Plans and Road Impact Fee Studies have identified the improvements required to maintain adequate levels of service on the Southwest Service Area Road System and the Windsor Service Area Road System. The list of these improvements for the Southwest Service Area along with descriptions and cost estimates is referred to as the Southwest Service Area Road Capital Improvement Plan (hereinafter "the Southwest Service Area Road CIP"), which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "C,"and incorporated herein by reference. The list of these improvements for the Windsor Service Area along with descriptions and cost estimates is referred to as the Windsor Service Area Road Capital Improvement Plan (hereinafter "the Windsor Service Area Road CIP"), which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "D,"and incorporated herein by reference. 9. Additional Revenue Needed. The Road Impact Fee Studies demonstrate that the existing revenue generated by the new growth and development in the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area will not be adequate to fund the needed road capital improvements necessary to accommodate new growth and development in these areas if the desired LOS on the Southwest Service Area Road System and the Windsor Service Area Road System is to be maintained. 10. Proportionate Share Policy. In order to address this problem, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, along with the other Southwest Service Area Governments and the other Windsor Service Area Governments, have determined that new land development activity in the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area shall bear a proportionate share of the cost of the provision of new road capital improvements required by such development. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 2 11. Road Impact Fee Method. The Weld County Board of County Commissioners, along with the other Southwest Service Area Governments and the other Windsor Service Area Governments,have determined that the imposition of a road impact fee in the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area is one of the preferred methods of regulating land development in these areas in order to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of the costs of the road capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development while at the same time maintaining adopted LOS on the Road Systems within these areas and promoting and protecting the public health, safety and welfare. 12. Authority. a. The Southwest Service Area Governments have the authority to adopt a road impact fee for the Southwest Service Area pursuant to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado statutes. b. The Windsor Service Area Governments have the authority to adopt a road impact fee for the Windsor Service Area pursuant to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado statutes. 13. Coordinated Provision of Services. In order to implement this policy, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County adopts this Ordinance establishing: a. The Southwest Service Area Roadway Improvement Plan, Road CIP, Road Impact Fee Study and road impact fee for the unincorporated portions of the Southwest Service Area; and b. The Windsor Service Area Roadway Improvement Plan, Road CIP, Road Impact Fee Study and road impact fee for the unincorporated portions of the Windsor Service Area. 14. Assist. in Master Plan Implementation. The Roadway Improvement Plans, Road CIPs and road impact fees within the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area assist in the implementation and are consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the MUD Plan. B. Short Title, Authority, and Application 1. Title. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Road Impact Fee Ordinance." 2. Authority. The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to adopt this Ordinance pursuant to the Colorado Constitution,Secs. 29-20-101-107, 30-28-106, 30-28-133, C.R.S. and all other relevant laws of the State of Colorado. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 3 3. Application. This Ordinance shall apply to all lands within unincorporated Weld Coun:y within the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area, and pursuant to the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area Intergovernmental Agreements, all other lands within the Southwest Service Area lying within the boundaries of the other Southwest Service Area Governments and all other lands within the Windsor Service Area lying within the boundaries of the other Windsor Service Area Governments. C. Intent and Purpose 1. Intent. This Ordinance is intended to implement and be consistent with the Roadway Improvement Plans, Road CIPs and Road Impact Fee Studies of the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the MUD Plan, and the Master Plans of the other Southwest Service Area Governments and the Windsor Service Area Governments. 2. Purpose. This purpose is accomplished in this Ordinance by the establishment of a system for the imposition of road impact fees within the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area to assure that new development contributes its proportionate share of the cost of providing, and benefits from the provision of,Road Capital Improvements identified as needed to be built in the Road C:IPs of the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area. D. Intergovernmental Agreements. 1. General. a. The Southwest Service Area Governments have entered into the Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement ( hereinafter "Southwest Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement") for the purposes of making the most efficient use of their powers by jointly implementing planning, zoning, and subdivision requirements for the provision of road capital improvements for the Southwest Service Area Road System in order to maintain the adopted LOS on those roads. The Southwest Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement provides for implementation, through the Intergovernmental Agreement and the adoption of this Ordinance and similar Ordinances by the other Southwest Service Area Governments. b. The Windsor Service Area Governments have entered into the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement (hereinafter "Windsor Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement") for the purposes of making the most efficient use of their powers by jointly implementing planning, zoning, and subdivision requirements for the provision of road Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRA FT Page 4 capital improvements for the Windsor Service Area Road System in order to maintain the adopted LOS on those roads. The Windsor Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement provides for implementation, through the Intergovernmental Agreement and the adoption of this Ordinance and similar Ordinances by the other Windsor Service Area Governments. 2. Weld County/ Coordination. The Southwest Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement provides the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County and the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction the authority to coordinate the joint efforts of the Southwest Service Area Governments in their effort to coordinate the administration of the transportation planning and road impact fee program in the Southwest Service Area. The Windsor Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement provides the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County and the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction the authority to coordinate the joint efforts of the Windsor Service Area Governments in their effort to coordinate the administration of the transportation planning and road impact fee program in the Windsor Service Area. The administration of both impact fee programs will be carried out as follows: a. A Road Impact Fee Committee shall be responsible for the administration of the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area road impact fee programs. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall consist of the public works directors, county/city engineers and planning directors of each Participating Local Government. b. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall be responsible for administering independent fee calculation studies, credits, and refunds for each program. A Road Impact Fee Board shall serve as the appeal board for all decisions on independent fee calculations, credits, and refunds made by the Road Impact Fee Committee. The Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Board shall consist of one elected official from each of the Participating Local Governments (Weld County, City of Longmont, Town of Dacono, Town of Firestone, Town of Frederick, Town of Erie, and Town of Mead), who is appointed by a majority vote of the governing board of the appropriate Participating Local Government. The Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Board shall consist of one elected official from each of the Participating Local Governments (Weld County and City of Windsor), who is appointed by a majority vote of the governing board of the appropriate Participating Local Government. Members of the Road Impact Fee Board shall serve four year terms. c. The Weld County shall be responsible for collecting the fees in unincorporated Weld County and placing them in a trust fund. The other Participating Local Governments shall be responsible for collecting the road Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 5 impact fees within their jurisdictions and then transmitting the fees on a quarterly basis to the Weld County . The Weld County shall deposit the fees transmitted from the other Participating Local Governments in the trust fund. d. The expenditure of road impact fee funds shall be recommended by the Road Impact Fee Committee on an annual basis and shall be approved by the Road Impact Fee Board. Road impact fee expenditures shall be limited to projects included in the Road CIP that are on the Southwest Service Area or Windsor Service Area Road Systems, whichever is appropriate. The funds shall be spent within the Benefit Areas from which they are collected. e. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall prepare an annual report to the Participating Local Governments identifying the projects for which the Road Impact Fee Board has approved road impact fee funds. f. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall be responsible for initiating a review every five (5) years of the Roadway Improvement Plans, Road Impact Fee Studies, Road CIPs and the Ordinances of the Participating Local Governments to determine if any modifications need to be made. The results of this evaluation shall be submitted to the Governing Bodies of the Participating Local Governments. To be amended in the Southwest Service Area, the Roadway Improvement Plan, Road Impact Fee Study, Road CIP and the Ordinances within the Southwest Service Area must be approved by the Governing Bodies of all the Southwest Service Area Governments. To be amended in the Windsor Service Area, the Roadway Improvement Plan, Road Impact Fee Study, Road CIP and the Ordinances within the Windsor Service Area must be approved by the Governing Bodies of all the Windsor Service Area Governments. 3. Effective Date. a. This Road Impact Fee Ordinance shall become effective within the Southwest Service Area days after this Ordinance and similar Ordinances are adopted by all the Southwest Service Area Governments. b. This Road Impact Fee Ordinance shall become effective within the Windsor Service Area days after this Ordinance and similar Ordinances are adopted by all the Windsor Service Area Governments. 4. Termination. a. Any of the Southwest Service Area Governments may terminate their participation in the program if any of the other Participating Local Governments materially modify the Roadway Improvement Plan, Road Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 Ili{ tIT Page 6 Impact Fee Study, Road CIP and the Road Impact Fee Ordinances within their jurisdiction. b. Any of the Windsor Service Area Governments may terminate their participation in the program if any of the other Participating Local Governments materially modify the Roadway Improvement Plan, Road Impact Fee Study, Road CIP and the Road Impact Fee Ordinances within their jurisdiction. c. If any Participating Local Government terminates their participation in the appropriate Intergovernmental Agreement, they shall provide written notice of their termination to the Governing Body of the other Participating Local Governments and the reasons therefor a minimum of 120 days prior to the termination. The terminating local government shall have no right to a refund of any funds collected. d. If for any reason the road impact fee program in either the Southwest Service Area or the Windsor Service Area is disbanded, any remaining funds after refunds shall be spent on Road Capital Improvements on the appropriate Road CIP. 5. Duration. The duration of the Southwest Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement and the Windsor Service Area Intergovernmental Agreement shall be for ten (:-0) years. They may be renewed pursuant to State law. E. Level Of Service Standard (LOS). 1. Southwest Service Area. The Participating Local Governments have determined that the Southwest Service Area Road System shall operate at Level of Service "C" (LOS C) or better. 2. Windsor Service Area. The Participating Local Governments have determined that the Windsor Service Area Road System shall operate at LOS "C" or better. F. Definitions. Certain words or phrases unique to this Section shall be construed as herein set out unless it is apparent from the context that they have a different meaning. 1. Building Permit means that building permit issued in accordance with the Weld Cour ty Building Code Ordinance before any building or construction activity can be initiated on a parcel of land. 2. Capacity means the maximum number of vehicles that have a reasonable expectation of passing over a given section of a road during an average week day at the desired Level of Service, expressed in terms of vehicles per day. Weld County/Rod Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 'DRAFT Page 7 3. Existing Traffic-Generating Development means the most intense use of land within the twelve (12) months prior to the time of Commencement of Traffic- Generating Development. 4. Expansion of the capacity of a road includes any widening, intersection improvement, signalization or other capital improvement designed to increase the existing road's capacity to carry vehicles. 5. Fee payer means a person commencing Traffic-Generating Development who is obligated to pay a road impact fee in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance. 6. Level of Service (LOS) means a qualitative measure describing operational conditions, from "A" (best) to "F" (worst), within a traffic stream. 7. Non-Site Related Improvements mean Road Capital Improvements and right-of- way dedications for roads that are in the Road CIP that are not site- related improvements. 8. Person means an individual, corporation, governmental agency or body, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, two (2) or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other entity. 9. Road System, Southwest Service Area means all major roads, excluding state or federal highways, identified by the Roadway Improvement Plan in the Southwest Service Area. The Southwest Service Area Road System is identified in Exhibit"A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 10. Road System, Windsor Service Area means all major roads, excluding state or federal highways, identified by the Roadway Improvement Plan in the Windsor Service Area. The Windsor Service Area Road System is identified in Exhibit "B," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 11. Road Capital Improvement includes the transportation planning, preliminary engineering,engineering design studies,land surveys,alignment studies. right-of-way acquisition,engineering,permitting,and construction of all necessary features for any road on the Road CIP, undertaken to accommodate additional traffic resulting from new traffic-generating development, including but not limited to: (a) construction of new through lanes, (b) construction of new bridges, (c) construction of new drainage facilities in conjunction with new road construction, (d) purchase and installation of traffic signals, including new and upgraded signalization, (e) construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians and shoulders, (0 relocating utilities to accommodate new road construction, (g) the construction and reconstruction of intersections, (h) the widening of existing roads, (i) bus turnouts, Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 8 (j) acceleration and deceleration lanes, (k) interchanges, and (1) traffic control devices. 12. Road Impact Fee Board, Southwest Service Area shall serve as the appeal board for all decisions on independent fee calculations, credits, and refunds made by the Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Committee. The Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Board shall consist of one elected official from each of the Participating Local Governments (Weld County, City of Longmont, Town of Dacano, Town of Firestone, Town of Frederick, Town of Erie, and Town of Mead), who is appointed by a majority vote of the governing board of the appropriate Participating Local Government. Members of the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Board shall serve four year terms. 13. Road Impact Fee Board, Windsor Service Area shall serve as the appeal board for all decisions on independent fee calculations, credits, and refunds made by the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Committee. The Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Board consists of one elected official from each of the Participating Local Governments (Weld County and City of Windsor), who is appointed by a majority vote of the governing board of the appropriate Participating Local Government. Members of the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Board shall serve four year terms. 14. Road Impact Fee Committee, Southwest Service Area shall be responsible for administering independent fee calculation studies, credits, and refunds for the Southwest Service Area impact fee program. The Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Committee shall consist of the public works directors, county/city engineers and planning directors of each Participating Local Government (Weld County,City of Longmont, Town of Dacono,Town of Firestone,Town of Frederick, Town of Erie, and Town of Mead). 15. Road Impact Fee Committee, Windsor Service Area shalt be responsible for administering independent fee calculation studies, credits, and refunds for the Windsor Service Area impact fee program. The Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Committee shall consist of the public works directors, county/city engineers and planning directors of each Participating Local Government (Weld County and City of Windsor). 16. Site-Related Improvements mean those road capital improvements and right-of-way dedications that provide direct access to the development. Direct access improvements include but are not limited to the following: (a) driveways and streets leading to and from the development; (b) right and left turn lanes leading to those driveways and streets; (c) traffic control measures for those driveways; and (d) internal streets. Credit is not provided for site-related improvements under the terms of this Ordinance. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 9 17. Traffic-Generating Development is land development designed or intended to permit a use of the land that will contain or convert to more dwelling units or floor space than the most intensive use of the land within the twelve (12) months prior to the Commencement of Traffic-Generating Development in a manner chat increases the generation of vehicular traffic. 18. Traffic-Generating Development, Commencement of, occurs upon the issuance of a final plat for subdivision,a final plan for planned unit development (PUD),or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this Ordinance. 19. Trip means a one-way movement of vehicular travel from an origin (one trip end) to a destination (the other trip end). 20. Trip Generation means the attraction or production of trips caused by a certain type of land development. 21. Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) means the combination of the number of vehicles traveling during a given time period and the distance (in miles) that they travel. G. Imposition of Fee. 1. Time of Fee Obligation and Payment. a. After the effective date of this Ordinance, any person or government body who causes the Commencement of Traffic-Generating Development within unincorporated areas of the Southwest Service Area or the Windsor Service Area shall be obligated to pay a road impact fee, pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance. The fee shall be determined and paid to the at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. If any credits are due pursuant to Sec._I.,Credits,they shall also be determined at that time. The fee shall be computed separately for the amount of construction activity covered by the permit, if the building permit is for less than the entire development. If the fee is imposed for a Traffic-Generating Development that increases traffic impact because of a change in use, the fee shall be determined by computing the difference in the fee schedule between the new Traffic-Generating Development and the Existing Traffic-Generating Development. The obligation to pay the impact fee shall run with the land. b. Any person who prior to the effective date of this Ordinance agreed as a condition of development approval to pay a road impact fee, shall be responsible for the payment of the fee under the terms of any such agreement, Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 Dltt1I'T Page 10 and the payment of such fee by the developer will be offset against any impact fees due pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance. 2. Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from the terms of this Ordinance. An exemption must be claimed by the fee payer at the time of application for a building permit. a. Alterations or expansion of an existing building where no additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed, and where no additional vehicular trips will be produced over and above that produced by the existing use. b. The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not produce additional vehicular trips over and above that produced by the principal building or use of the land. c. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no additional trips will be produced over and above that produced by the original use of the land. 3. Establishment of Fee Schedule. a. Any person who causes the Commencement of Traffic-Generating Development, except those persons exempted or preparing an independent fee calculation study pursuant to Section H., Independent Fee Calculation Study, shall pay a road impact fee in accordance with the following fee schedule. The descriptions of the land use codes in the most current edition of the report titled Trip Generation prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) shall be used to determine the appropriate land use type. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 11 Southwest Windsor Service Service Land Use Type Unit Area Area Single-Family Detached Dwelling $2,050 $1,878 Multi-Family Dwelling $1,421 $1,301 Mobile Home Park Site $1,027 $941 Hotel/]vlotel Room $1,909 $1,748 Retail/Commercial Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <100,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. $7,648 $7,005 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <500,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. $6,292 $5,762 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <1 million sf 1000 sq. ft. $5,795 $5,308 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1 million sf+ 1000 sq. ft. $5,016 $4,594 Auto Sales 1000 sq. ft. $3,933 $3,602 Auto Service/Repair/Tire Store 1000 sq. ft. $2,714 $2,485 Bank 1000 sq. ft. $14,188 $12,995 Bldg Materials/Hardware/Nursery 1000 sq. ft. $5,204 $4,767 Convenience Store 1000 sq. ft. $19,742 $18,081 Discount Store 1000 sq. ft. $9,044 $8,283 Furniture Store 1000 sq. ft. $976 $894 Movie Theater 1000 sq. ft. $15,036 $13,771 Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq. ft. $15,395 $14,100 Restaurant, Sit-Down 1000 sq. ft. $10,011 $9,169 Office/Institutional Office, General <100,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. $3,463 $3,171 Office, General <200,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. $2,581 $2,364 Office, General 200,000 sf+ 1000 sq. ft. $2,136 $1,956 Office, Medical 1000 sq. ft. $7,734 $7,083 Hospital 1000 sq. ft. $3,591 $3,289 Nursing Home 1000 sq. ft. $1,044 $956 Church/Synagogue 1000 sq. ft. $1,952 $1,788 Day Care Center 1000 sq. ft. $4,070 $3,728 Elementary/Secondary School 1000 sq. ft. $1,288 $1,180 Industrial General Light Industrial 1000 sq. ft. $1,494 $1,368 Warehouse 1000 sq. ft. $1,061 $972 Mini-Warehouse 1000 s . ft. $535 $490 Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 IIItAPT Page 12 b. If the type of Traffic-Generating Development for which a building permit is requested is not specified on the fee schedule, the Road Impact Fee Committee shall determine the fee on the basis of the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type of land use on the fee schedule. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall be guided in the selection of a comparable type of land use by: (1) Using trip generation rates contained in the most current edition of the report titled Trip Generation prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), articles or reports appearing in the ITE Journal, or studies or reports done by the U.S. Department of Transportation or Colorado Department of Transportation, and applying the formula set forth in Section_ H.(2) ; or (2) Computing the fee by use of an independent fee calculation study as provided in Section_ H., Independent Fee Calculation Study. 4. Pre-Development Review Impact Fee Calculation Any person contemplating establishing a Traffic-Generating Development may request a preliminary determination of the impact fees due from such development. A person requesting a pre-development review impact fee calculation shall complete and submit to the proper application form and an application fee. Using the information regarding the proposed traffic generating land development activity as submitted on the application, will provide, within fifteen (15) days of the date of submittal of the completed application, a preliminary calculation of the road impact fees due for the proposed Traffic-Generating Development. H. Independent Fee Calculation Study. 1. General a. The impact fee may be computed by the use of an independent fee calculation study at the election of the fee payer or upon the request of the Road Impact Fee Committee for any proposed land development activity interpreted as not one of those types listed on the fee schedule or as one that is not comparable to any land use on the fee schedule, and for any proposed land development activity for which the Road Impact Fee Committee concludes the nature, timing,or location of the proposed development make it likely to generate impacts costing substantially more to mitigate than the amount of the fee that would be generated by the use of the fee schedule. b. The preparation of the independent fee calculation study shall be the responsibility of the fee payer. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 13 c. Any person who requests to perform an independent fee calculation study shall pay an application fee for administrative costs associated with the review and decision on such independent fee calculation study. 2. Formula. a. The independent fee calculation study for the road impact fee shall be calculated by the use of the following formula: FEE = VMT x NET COSTNMT VMT = TRIPS x% NEW x LENGTH = 2 NET = COSTNMT - CREDITNMT COSTNMT COSTNMT = COSTNMC x VMCVMT CREDITNMT = DEFICIENCY + REVENUE DEFICIENCY = EXCESS VMT - TOTAL VMT x COSTNMT 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 road 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 improvements in Roadway Improvement Pan VMCNMT = The system-wide ratio of capacity to demand in the major roadway system, which is the lower of the existing ratio or the ratio of new VMC to new VMT provided in the Roadway Improvement Plan REVENUE = Revenue credit per VMT, based on percent of cost anticipated to be paid with other revenues EXCESS VMT = The sum of existing VMT on individual segments of major road system that is in excess of existing capacity TOTAL VMT = Total existing VMT on the major road system b. The fee calculation shall be based on data, information, or assumptions contained in this Ordinance or independent sources, provided that: • (1) The independent source is an accepted standard source of transportation engineering or planning data or information; or (2) The independent source is a local study on trip characteristics carried out by a qualified traffic planner or engineer pursuant to an accepted methodology of transportation planning or engineering; or Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 14 (3) The percent new trips factor used in the independent fee calculation study is based on actual surveys prepared in Weld County. 3. Procedure. a. An independent fee calculation study shall be undertaken through the submission of an application for an independent fee calculation. A potential Fee payer may submit such an application. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall submit such an application for any proposed land development activity interpreted as not one of those types listed on the fee schedule or as one that is not comparable to any land use on the fee schedule, and for any proposed land development activity for which it is concluded the nature, timing, or location of the proposed development make it likely to generate impacts costing substantially more to mitigate than the amount of the fee that would be generated by the use of the fee schedule. b. Within ten (10) days of receipt of an application for independent fee calculation study, the Road Impact Fee Committee shall determine if the application is complete. If the Road Impact Fee Committee determines that the application is not complete, a written statement specifying the deficiencies shall be sent by mail to the person submitting the application. The application shall be deemed complete if no deficiencies are specified. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall take no further action on the application until it is deemed complete. c. When the Road Impact Fee Committee determines the application is complete, the application shall be reviewed and the Road Impact Fee Committee shall render a written decision in thirty (30) days on whether the fee should be modified, and if so, what the amount should be, based on the standards in Section H.4. 4. Standards. If on the basis of generally-recognized principles of impact analysis it is determined the data,information and assumptions used by the applicant to calculate the independent fee calculation study satisfies the requirements of this Section, the fee determined in the independent fee calculation study shall be deemed the fee due and owing for the proposed Traffic-Generating Development. The adjustment shall be set forth in a Fee Agreement. If the independent fee calculation study fails to satisfy the requirements of this Section, the fee applied shall be that fee established for the Traffic-Generating Development in Section G.3. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 15 5. Appeal of Independent Fee Calculation Study Decision. a. A fee payer affected by the administrative decision of the Road Impact Fee Committee on an independent fee calculation study may appeal such decision to the Road Impact Fee Board,by filing with the Road Impact Fee Committee within ten (10) days of the date of the written decision, a written notice stating and specifying briefly the grounds of the appeal. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall place the appeal on the Road Impact Fee Board's agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. b. The Road Impact Fee Board, after a hearing, shall have the power to affirm or reverse the decision of the Road Impact Fee Committee. In making its decision, the Road Impact Fee Board shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and apply the standards in Section H.4. If the Road Impact Fee Board reverses the decision of the Road Impact Fee Committee, it shall direct the Committee to recalculate the fee in accordance with its findings. In no case shall the Road Impact Fee Board have the authority to negotiate the amount of the fee or waive the fee. The decision of the Road Impact Fee Board shall be final. Credits. 1. General Standards. a. Any person initiating Traffic-Generating Development may apply for credit against road impact fees otherwise due, up to but not exceeding the full obligation for impact fees proposed to be paid pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance, for any contributions, construction, or dedication of land accepted or received by Weld County for Non-Site Related Capital Road Improvements that are identified in the Road CIP that are on the Road System. b. Credits for contributions, construction or dedication of land for Non-Site Related Capital Road Improvements on the Road System identified on the Road CIP shall be transferable within the same development,but shall not be paid for other public facilities. The credit shall not exceed the amount of the impact fees due and payable for the proposed Traffic-Generating Development. c. Weld County may enter into a Capital Contribution Front-Ending Agreement with any person initiating Traffic-Generating Development who proposes to construct Non-Site Related Capital Road Improvements on the Road CIP that are on the Road System. To the extent that the fair market value of the construction of these Road Capital Improvements exceed the Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRIFT Page 16 obligation to pay impact fees for which a credit is provided pursuant to this Section, the Capital Contribution Front-Ending Agreement shall provide proportionate and fair share reimbursement linked to new growth and development's use of the Road Capital Improvement constructed. 2. Credit Against Fees. Credit shall be in an amount equal to fair market value of the land dedicated for right-of-way at the time of dedication, the fair market value of the construction at the time of its completion, or the value of the contribution or payment at the time it is made for construction of a Non-Site-Related Capital Road Improvement on the Road CIP identified on the Road System. 3. Procedure for Credit Review. a. The determination of any credit shall be undertaken through the submission of an Application for Credit Agreement, which shall be submitted to the Road Impact Fee Committee. b. The application for a Credit Agreement shall include the following information: (1) If the proposed application involves a credit for any contribution, the following documentation must be provided: (a) A certified copy of the development approval in which the contribution was agreed; (b) If payment has been made, proof of payment; or (c) If payment has not been made, the proposed method of payment. (2) If the proposed application involves credit for the dedication of land: (a) A drawing and legal description of the land; (b) The appraised fair market value of the land at the date a building permit is proposed to be issued for the traffic generating land development activity, prepared by a professional Real Estate Appraiser who is a member of the Member Appraisal Institute (MAI) or who is a member of Senior Residential Appraisers (SRA), and if applicable, a certified copy of the development permit in which the land was agreed to be dedicated. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 lIRtFT Page 17 (3) If the proposed Application for Credit Agreement involves construction: (a) The proposed plan of the specific construction prepared and certified by a duly qualified and licensed Colorado engineer or contractor; (b) The projected costs for the suggested improvement, which shall be based on local information for similar improvements, along with the construction timetable for the completion thereof. Such estimated cost shall include the cost of construction or reconstruction, the cost of all labor and materials, the cost of all lands,property,rights,easements and franchises acquired, financing charges, interest prior to and during construction and for one (1) year after completion of construction, costs of plans and specifications, surveys of estimates of costs and of revenues, costs of professional services, and all other expenses necessary or incident to determining the feasibility or practicability of such construction or reconstruction. c. Within ten (10) days of receipt of the proposed Application for Credit Agreement, the Road Impact Fee Committee shall determine if the application is complete. If it is determined that the proposed Agreement is not complete, the Road Impact Fee Committee shall send a written statement to the applicant outlining the deficiencies. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall take no further action on the proposed Application for Credit Agreement until all deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled. d. Once the Road Impact Fee Committee determines the proposed Application for Credit Agreement is complete, it shall be reviewed within thirty (30) days. The Application for Credit Agreement shall be approved if it complies with the standards in Section I.1 and 2. e. If the Application for Credit Agreement is approved by the Road Impact Fee Committee, a Credit Agreement shall be prepared and signed by the applicant Weld County, and the participating Local Government where the land for which the credit is sought is located. It shall specifically outline the contribution, payment, construction or land dedication, the time by which it shall be completed, dedicated, or paid, and any extensions thereof, and the dollar credit the applicant shall receive for the contribution, payment or construction. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 18 4. Appeal of Credit Decision. A fee payer affected by the decision of the Road Impact Fee Committee regarding credits may appeal such decision to the Road Impact Fee Board by filing with the Road Impact Fee Committee, within ten (10) days of the date of the written decision, a written notice stating and specifying briefly the grounds of the appeal. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall place such appeal on the Road Impact Fee Board's agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Road Impact Fee Board, after a hearing, shall affirm or reverse the decision of the Road Impact Fee Committee based on the standards in Sec. I .1 and 2. If the Road Impact Fee Board reverses the decision, it shall direct the Road Impact Fee Committee to readjust the credit in accordance with its findings. The decision of the Road Impact Fee Board shall be final. J. Benefit Areas. 1. Establishment. For the purpose of further ensuring fee payers receive sufficient benefit for fees paid, two Benefit Areas are established in the Southwest Service Area and two Benefit Areas are established in the Windsor Service Area. The Southwest Service Area Benefit Areas are shown in Exhibit "E", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Windsor Service Area Benefit Areas are shown in Exhibit"F",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Expenditure. Impact fee funds shall be spent within the Benefit Area within which the Traffic-Generating Development paying the fee is located, except that where a road on the Road System is used to define Benefit Area boundaries, the road demarcating the boundary shall be considered as part of both Benefit Areas that it bounds, and impact fees from both Benefit Areas may be used to fund capital improvements for that road. The expenditure of impact fee funds shall be limited to those Road Capital Improvement projects included in the Road CIP for the respective area. 3. Establishment of Trust Fund. a. Weld County hereby establishes the Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Trust Fund and the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Trust Fund for the purpose of ensuring that fee payers receive sufficient benefit for road impact fees paid. b. Each other Participating Local Government of the Southwest Service Area and each other Participating Local Government of the Windsor Service Area also establishes a trust fund in their Ordinances into which road impact fees collected within their jurisdiction shall be placed until transfer to _ pursuant to this Ordinance and the appropriate Intergovernmental Agreement, and placement into the Southwest Service Area Road Impact Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 19 Fee Trust Fund or the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Trust Fund, whichever is appropriate. 4. Deposit in Trust Fund/General Requirements for Trust Fund a. All road impact fees collected by_ in the Southwest Service Area shall be immediately deposited into the Southwest Service Area Trust Fund. All road impact fees collected by in the Windsor Service Area shall be immediately deposited into the Windsor Service Area Trust Fund. b. All road impact fees collected by the other Participating Local Governments shall be immediately deposited into the Participating Local Government's Trust Fund. c. All proceeds shall be invested in an interest-bearing account. All income derived from these investments shall be retained in the trust fund until transferred or spent, whichever is appropriate. Record of each trust fund account shall be available for public inspection. d. Quarterly, and pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreements, the other Participating Local Governments shall transfer the impact fee funds in their Trust Fund to for deposit in the County's Southwest Service Area Trust Fund or the County's Windsor Service Area Trust Fund, whichever is appropriate. All proceeds in either the Southwest Service Area Trust Fund or the Windsor Service Area Trust Fund not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested in an interest bearing account. All income derived from these investments shall be retained in the trust fund. Record of the Southwest Service Area Trust Fund and the Windsor Service Area Trust Fund shall be available for public inspection in 's office, during normal business hours. 5. Limitations on Expenditures. Road impact fee funds spent within the Southwest Service Area shall only be expended from funds drawn from the County's Southwest Service Area Trust Fund. Road impact fee funds spent within the Windsor Service Area shall only be expended from funds drawn from the County's Windsor Service Area Trust Fund. For the purposes of determining whether impact fee funds have been spent or encumbered, the first fees collected shall be considered the first monies spent or encumbered. 6. Annual Recommendation for Expenditure of Fees. a. Each year, at the time the annual budget is reviewed, the Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Committee shall recommend appropriations to be spent from the Southwest Service Area Trust Fund to the Southwest Service Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 20 Area Road Impact Fee Board. After review of the recommendation, the Southwest Service Area Road Impact Fee Board shall approve or modify the recommended expenditures of the trust fund monies. Expenditures shall be made from the Southwest Service Area Trust Fund only for those capital road improvement projects on the Road CIP for the Southwest Service Area. Any amounts not appropriated from the Southwest Service Area Trust Fund together with any interest earnings shall be carried over to the following fiscal period. b. Each year, at the time the annual budget is reviewed, the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Committee shall recommend appropriations to he spent from the Windsor Service Area Trust Fund to the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Board. After review of the recommendation, the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Fee Board shall approve or modify the recommended expenditures of the trust fund monies. Expenditures shall be made from the Windsor Service Area Trust Fund only for those capital road improvement projects on the Road CIP for the Windsor Service Area. Any amounts not appropriated from the Windsor Service Area Trust Fund together with any interest earnings shall be carried over to the following fiscal period. 7. Annual Report on Expenditures. Each year, after the decision of the respective Road Impact Fee Boards of the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area about the expenditure of impact fee appropriations, the respective Road Impact Fee Committees shall prepare an annual report to the Southwest Service Area Governments and the Windsor Service Area Governments identifying the projects for which the Road Impact Fee Boards have approved funds. K. Refund of Fees Not Spent. 1. General. 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 (5%) percent a year. Fees shall be deemed to be spent on the basis of the first fee collected shall be the first fee spent. 2. Refund Procedure. The refund shall be administered by the appropriate Road Impact Fee Committee, and shall be undertaken through the following process: a. A Refund Application shall be submitted within one (1) year following the end of the tenth (10th) year from the date on which the building permit was issued on the proposed development. The Refund Application shall include the following information: Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 21 (1) A copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee; (2) A copy of the building permit; and (3) Evidence that the applicant is the successor in interest to the fee payer. b. Within ten (10) days of receipt of the Refund Application, the Road Impact Fee Committee shall determine if it is complete. If the Road Impact Fee Committee determines the application is not complete, a written statement specifying the deficiencies shall be forwarded by mail to the person submitting the application. Unless the deficiencies are corrected, the Road Impact Fee Committee shall take no further action on the Refund Application. c. When the appropriate Road Impact Fee Committee determines the Refund Application is complete,it shall be reviewed within thirty (30) days, and shall be approved if it is determined the fee payer or a successor in interest has paid a fee which has not been spent within the period of time permitted under this section. The refund shall include the fee paid plus interest of five (5%) percent a year. 3. Appeal of Refund Decision. A fee payer affected by a decision of the Road Impact Fee Committee may appeal such decision to the Road Impact Fee Board by filing with the Road Impact Fee Committee within ten (10) days of the date of the written decision, a written notice stating and specifying briefly the grounds of the appeal. The Road Impact Fee Committee shall place such appeal on the Road Impact Fee Board's agenda. The Road Impact Fee Board, after a hearing, shall affirm or reverse the decision of the Road Impact Fee Committee based on the standards in this Section. If the Road Impact Fee Board reverses the decision of the Road Impact Fee Committee, it shall direct the Committee to readjust the refund in accordance with its findings. In no case shall the Road Impact Fee Board have the authority to negotiate the amount of the refund. The decision of the Road Impact Fee Board shall be final. L. Review Every Five Years. At least once every five (5) years, the Road Impact Fee Committees of the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area shall recommend to the respective Road Impact Fee Boards and to the other Southwest Service Area Governments and the Windsor Service Area Governments whether any changes should be made to the Roadway Improvement Plans, Road Impact Fee Studies, and Road CIP of the Southwest Service Area and the Windsor Service Area, this Ordinance, and the Ordinances of the other Participating Local Governments. The purpose of this review is to analyze the effects of inflation on actual costs, to assess potential changes in needs, to assess any changes in the characteristics of land uses, and to ensure that the road impact fees will not exceed a proportionate share. To be amended in the Southwest Service Area, the Roadway Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 !Hurt tI'T Page 22 Improvement Plan, Road Impact Fee Study, Road CIP and the Ordinances within the Southwest Service Area must be approved by all the Southwest Service Area Governments. To be amended in the Windsor Service Area, the Roadway Improvement Plan,Road Impact Fee Study,Read CIP and the Ordinances within the Windsor Service Area must be approved by all the Windsor Service Area Governments. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 23 Exhibit A SOUTHWEST SERVICE AREA AND ROAD SYSTEM LAAIMER COUNTY k """" ,/�`� Mead 1NCFi 30 � O I ' ♦ 1I ;�1 L 25 ill i �— , Lr - _ _ � iI Longmont:/fy/ f� i WCR 24 / I _ J 4:L?_ - - -- 88 -- - I 1/ z q O, I W o^ 3 _ r7., r •• / I I I77 A I/ . WCR 14 , 152 , V/4 ; F „4/1 } % r I i f� I f I I WCR B; //'' ; a 7-I I/Alte :\`' ` \' \ WCR 21 Broo�eld\ 7-- Northglenn r CC U 0 0 0 0 LEGEND 3 3 Paved Roads Gravel Roads Study Area Boundary Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 Ii1G\FT Page 24 Exhibit B WINDSOR SERVICE AREA AND ROAD SYSTEM In 3 ^` 3 Il J i Il WCR84 f -------------�----;----F----r'-- :i I :p r r r 1. 11 ' :34r l 1' • r '' ! J WCR 80 -"I'--- -II----- "----�---- i r .I 57 ` .- :y sr OS COI) xNK WCR 76 -fi `» i✓ `V Severance WCR 74 t / // ' l /0 r i E.F iy 0r id V W y C � C4 i3 47/ : _-_ � @ I. • • �.st La f I _River __ i} WCR 62 -itKfil - -- ' l I 257 I' WCR 60 ---r---- r- - 34 ll U LEGEND Paved Roads 57 • 34 = Gravel Roads I ' it Study Area Boundary Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 'MITI Page 25 Exhibit C SOUTHWEST SERVICE AREA ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Road From To Miles Improvement Cost WCR 1 Erie CL Arapahoe Rd. 0.54 Widen-4 Lane $860,000 WCR 1 Arapahoe Rd. Erie CL 0.51 Widen-4 Lane $820,000 WCR 1 Erie CL Erie CL 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 WCR 1 Erie CL Isabelle Rd. 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 WCR 1 Isabelle Rd. Jay Rd. 1.05 Urban 2 Lane $1,050,000 WCR 1 Jay Rd. Erie CL 0.76 Urban 2 Lane $760,000 WCR 1 WCR 20.5 1500's SH 119 1.22 Urban 2 Lane $1,220,000 WCR 1 1500'sSH 119 RR n/oSH 119 0.81 Widen-4 Lane $1,300,000 WCR 1 RR n/o SH 119 St. Hwy. 66 2.53 Widen-4 Lane $4,040,000 WCR 1.5 Erie CL WCR 3 0.40 Pave-Urban $400,000 WCR 3 WCR 8 WCR 10 1.00 Pave-Rural2 $500,000 WCR 3 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 Pave-Rurali $250,000 WCR 3 WCR 12 St. Hwy. 52 1.00 Pave-Rurali $250,000 WCR 3 WCR 28 St. Hwy. 66 1.00 Pave-Rurali $250,000 WCR 3.25 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16.5 1.50 Pave-Rurali $380,000 WCR 3.5 WCR 24.5 WCR 26 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 WCR 4 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurali $250,000 WCR 4 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 4 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Pave-Rurali $250,000 WCR 4 1-25 County Line 4.40 New 2-L Rural $5,500,000 WCR 5 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16.5 1.50 Pave-Rurali $380,000 WCR 5 WCR 26 St. Hwy. 66 2.00 Pave-Rurali $500,000 WCR 6 WCR 5 WCR 7 1.00 Pave-Rurali $250,000 WCR 6 WCR 7 I - 25 0.96 Urban 2 Lane $960,000 WCR 7 WCR 2 WCR 2.5 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 WCR 7 WCR 2.5 WCR 4.5 1.02 Widen-4 Lane $1,630,000 WCR 7 WCR 4.5 WCR 8 1.49 Widen-4 Lane $2,390,000 WCR 7 5430'sSH 119 St. Hwy. 119 1.03 Urban 2 Lane $1,030,000 WCR 7.5 SH 119 WCR 24.5 0.50 New 2-L Urban $875,000 WCR 7.5 SH 119 1-25 Fr. Rd 2.70 New 4-Lane $5,265,000 WCR 8 County Line Ex Terminus 0.80 New 4-Lane $1,560,000 WCR 8 Coal Creek WCR 3 0.32 Widen-4 Lane $510,000 WCR 8 WCR 3 WCR 5 1.00 Widen-4 Lane $1,600,000 WCR 8 WCR 5 WCR 7 0.99 Widen-4 Lane $1,590,000 WCR 8 WCR 7 WCR 9 (I-25) 1.00 Widen-4 Lane $1,600,000 WCR 8 WCR 9 (1-25) RR-X 0.58 Pave-Rural2 $290,000 Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 26 Exhibit C SOUTHWEST SERVICE AREA ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Road From To Miles Improvement Cost WCR 8 RR-X RR-X 0.71 Pave-Rural2 $360,000 WCR 8 RR-X Dacono CL 0.47 Pave-Rural2 $240,000 WCR 8 Dacono CL WCR 13 0.13 Pave-Rural2 $60,000 WCR 8 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 8 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 WCR 9.5 1-25 Fr. Rd WCR 24.5 3.40 New 4-Lane $6,630,000 WCR 9.75 WCR 24 WCR 24.75 0.75 Pave-Urban $750,000 WCR 10 WCR 7 WCR 9(1-25) 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 10 WCR 9(1-25) SRFCH 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 WCR 10 SRFCH WCR 11 0.49 Pave-Urban $490,000 WCR 10 WCR 11 WCR 15 2.00 New 2-L Rural $2,500,000 WCR 10 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Pave-Urban $2,000,000 WCR 11 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 11 WCR 4 WCR 8 2.00 Pave-Rural1 $500,000 WCR 11 WCR 8 WCR 10 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 11 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 11 WCR 12 St. Hwy. 52 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 11 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 11 WCR 16 WCR 18 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 11 WCR 18 WCR 18.25 0.30 Pave-Rurall $80,000 WCR 11 WCR 18.25 WCR 18.5 0.20 Pave-Rurall $50,000 WCR 11 WCR 18.5 WCR 22 1.50 Pave-Rurall $370,000 WCR 11 WCR 22 WCR 22.5 0.45 Pave-Urban $450,000 WCR 11 WCR 22.5 WCR 24 0.55 Pave-Urban $550,000 WCR 11 WCR 28 WCR 30 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 11.25 WCR 24.75 WCR 26 0.25 Pave-Urban $250,000 WCR 12 WCR 3 WCR 9 3.00 Pave-Rurall $750,000 WCR 12 WCR 9 WCR 15 3.00 Pave-Urban $3,000,000 WCR 13 WCR 2 WCR 6 2.00 Pave-Rural2 $1,000,000 WCR 13 WCR 6 WCR 6.5 0.50 Pave-Rural2 $250,000 WCR 13 WCR 6.5 WCR 10 1.50 Pave-Urban $1,500,000 WCR 13 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 13 St. Hwy. 52 Frederick CL 0.55 Urban 2 Lane $550,000 WCR 13 St. Hwy. 52 WCR 16 1.00 Urban 2 Lane $1,000,000 WCR 13 WCR 16 STR 0.96 Urban 2 Lane $960,000 WCR 13 STR WCR 180.05 0.05 Urban 2 Lane $50,000 Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 27 Exhibit C SOUTHWEST SERVICE AREA ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Road From To Miles Improvement Cost WCR 13 WCR 18 WCR 20 1.01 Urban 2 Lane $1,010,000 WCR 14 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 15 WCR 2 WCR 6 2.00 Pave-Rural2 $1,000,000 WCR 15 WCR 6 WCR 12 3.00 Pave-Urban $3,000,000 WCR 15 Hwy 52 1st St. 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 15 1st St. Split 0.25 Pave-Urban $250,000 WCR 15 Split Frederick CL 0.25 Pave-Urban $250,000 WCR 15 Firestone CL Grant Ave 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 WCR 15 WCR 18 WCR 20 1.00 New 2-L Urban $1,750,000 WCR 15 WCR 20 WCR 24 2.01 Pave-Urban $2,010,000 WCR 16 WCR 7 WCR 9 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 16 1-25 Frederick CL 0.63 Pave-Urban $630,000 WCR 16 Frederick CL WCR 11 0.37 Pave-Urban $370,000 WCR 16 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 16 WCR 15 WCR 15.5 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 WCR 16 WCR 15.5 WCR 19 1.50 Pave-Rurall $380,000 WCR 16.5 WCR 1 WCR 5 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 WCR 17 WCR 2 WCR 4 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 17 WCR 4 WCR 6 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 17 WCR 6 WCR 8 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 17 WCR 8 WCR 10 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 17 WCR 10 WCR 12 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 WCR 17 WCR 12 St. Hwy 52 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 18 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 18 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 18 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 20.5 WCR 1 C &M Pit Ent. 1,53 Urban 2 Lane $1,530,000 WCR 20.5 C &M Pit Ent. WCR 7 1.49 Urban 2 Lane $1,490,000 WCR 20.5 WCR 7 E.to Dead End 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 22 SRFCH WCR 17 2.65 Pave-Urban $2,650,000 WCR 22 WCR 17 WCR 19 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 24 WCR 9 ( 1-25 ) WCR 15 2.71 Widen-4 Lane $4,340,000 WCR 24.5 WCR 7 Park Entrance 0.75 Pave-Urban $750,000 WCR 24.5 1-25 Front. Rd. WCR 9.75 0.75 Pave-Urban $750,000 WCR 24.75 WCR 9.75 WCR 11.25 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 WCR 26 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 IIIt3PT Page 28 Exhibit C SOUTHWEST SERVICE AREA ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Road From To Miles Improvement Cost WCR 26 WCR 3 WCR 7 2.00 Pave-Urban $2,000,000 WCR 26 WCR 11.25 WCR 13 0.75 Pave-Rurall $190,000 WCR 26 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 26 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 WCR 28 WCR 1 WCR 3 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 28 WCR 3 WCR 5 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 28 WCR 5 WCR 7 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 28 WCR 7 WCR 9 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 28 WCR 9 WCR 11 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 28 WCR 11 WCR 13 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 Southwest Service Area Total $118,100,000 Notes: "Pave-Rurall"is paving a gravel road and providing 4'shoulders;"Pave-Rural2"is paving a gravel road and providing 6' shoulders; "Pave-Urban" is paving a gravel road to urban standards with curb and gutter and underground drainage;"Urban 2 Lane"is converting a rural 2-lane road to an urban standard with two through lanes and a center turn lane. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 29 Exhibit D WINDSOR SERVICE AREA ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Road From To Miles Improvement Cost WCR 13 WCR 68.5 WCR 70 0.57 Pave-Urban $570,000 WCR 13 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 13 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 13 WCR 74 WCR 76 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 13 WCR 76 WCR 78 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 15 US 34 WCR 62 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 WCR 15 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 15 WCR 80 WCR 82 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 17 SH 14 WCR 84 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 WCR 17 WCR 62.86 St.Hwy 392 2.14 Widen-4 Lane $3,830,000 WCR 19 St.Hwy 392 WCR 68.25 0.25 Urban 2 Lane $250,000 WCR 19 WCR 68.25 WCR 74 2.61 Urban 2 Lane $760,000 WCR 19 WCR 78 WCR 82 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 WCR 19 WCR 82 WCR 84 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 21 WCR 74 WCR 80 2.96 Pave-Rurall $740,000 WCR 23 WCR 62.5 WCR 64.75 1.50 Pave-Rural2 $750,000 WCR 25 US 34 WCR 60 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 25 WCR 62 WCR 64.5 1.50 Pave-Rurall $380,000 WCR 25 St.Hwy 392 WCR 70 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 25 WCR 70 WCR 72 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 25 WCR 72 WCR 74 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 25 WCR 74 WCR 80 3.00 New 2-L Rural $3,750,000 WCR 27 US 34 US 34 Bus. 1.21 Urban 2 Lane $1,210,000 WCR 27 US 34 Bus. WCR 64.5 2.50 Urban 2 Lane $2,500,000 WCR 27 WCR 74 WCR 76 1,00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 27 WCR 76 WCR 78 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 WCR 27 WCR 80 SH 14 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 WCR 27 SH 14 WCR 84 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 29 US 34 WCR 56.5 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $920,000 WCR 29 WCR 58.5 US 34 Bus. 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 WCR 29 WCR 62.5 WCR 64 0.50 Pave-Urban $500,000 WCR 29 WCR 64 Colo. 392 2.00 Pave-Rural2 $1,000,000 WCR 29.5/31 US 34 WCR 58 1.21 Widen-4 Lane $1,940,000 WCR 29.5/31 WCR 58 US 34 Bus. 1.00 Widen-4 Lane $1,600,000 WCR 29.5/31 US 34 Bus. WCR 60.5 0.54 Widen-4 Lane $860,000 WCR 29.5/31 WCR 64 WCR 66 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 30 Exhibit D WINDSOR SERVICE AREA ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Road From To Miles Improvement Cost WCR 29.5/31 WCR 66 Cola 392 0.50 Widen-4 Lane $800,000 WCR 58 WCR 27 WCR 29 0.99 Widen-4 Lane $1,590,000 WCR 58 WCR 29 Ditch 0.24 Widen-4 Lane $390,000 WCR 58.5 Greeley CL Greeley CL 3.50 New 2-L Urban $6,125,000 WCR 60 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 60 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 60.5 WCR 27 Greeley CL 0.50 New 2-L Urban $875,000 WCR 62 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 62 WCR 15 WCR 17 1.00 Pave-Rural2 $500,000 WCR 62 WCR 17 St.Hwy.257 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 62 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 62 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.33 Pave-Rurall $330,000 WCR 64 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 WCR 64 WCR 17 St.Hwy.257 1.40 Pave-Urban $1,400,000 WCR 64 WCR 27 WCR 29 2.00 Urban 2 Lane $2,000,000 WCR 66 WCR 15.75 WCR 21.75 3.00 Urban 2 Lane $3,000,000 WCR 66 WCR 27 WCR 31 2.00 Pave-Rural2 $1,000,000 WCR 66.5;21.5 WCR 19 WCR 66 2.30 New 2-L Rural $2,875,000 WCR 68.5 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 70 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.10 New 2-L Urban $2,625,000 WCR 70 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 70/15.5 WCR 13 SH 392 2.70 New 2-L Urban $3,375,000 WCR 72 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 WCR 72 WCR 15 St.Hwy.257 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 72 WCR 19 WCR 21 1.00 New 2-L Rural $1,250,000 WCR 72 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 72 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Pave-Urban $1,000,000 WCR 72 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 74 WCR 13 St.Hwy.257 1.90 Widen-4 Lane $3,090,000 WCR 74 St.Hwy.257 WCR 19 1.06 Widen-4 Lane $1,700,000 WCR 76 WCR 13 WCR 13.65 0.66 Pave-Rurall $170,000 WCR 76 WCR 13.65 WCR 15 0.36 Pave-Rurall $90,000 WCR 76 WCR 15 WCR 15.2 0.21 Pave-Rurall $50,000 WCR 76 WCR 15.2 St.Hwy.257 0.79 Pave-Rural1 $200,000 WCR 76 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 76 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 31 Exhibit D WINDSOR SERVICE AREA ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Road From To Miles Improvement Cost WCR 76.5 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 78 St.Hwy.257 WCR 21 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 WCR 78 WCR 23 WCR 25 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 78 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 80 WCR 13 WCR 15 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 80 WCR 15 St.Hwy.257 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 80 WCR 21 WCR 23 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 80 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 84 WCR 15 WCR 19 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 WCR 84 WCR 19 WCR 21 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 WCR 84 WCR 21 WCR 25 2.00 Pave-Rurall $500,000 WCR 84 WCR 25 WCR 27 1.00 Pave-Rurall $250,000 Windsor Service Area Total $78,595,000 Notes: "Pave-Rurall"is paving a gravel road and providing 4'shoulders;"Pave-Rural2" is paving a gravel road and providing 6'shoulders;"Pave-Urban"is paving a gravel road to urban standards with curb and gutter and underground drainage; "Urban 2 Lane" is converting a rural 2-lane road to an urban standard with two through lanes and a center turn lane. Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 32 Exhibit E SOUTHWEST SERVICE AREA BENEFIT AREAS Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance, May 27, 1999 DRAFT Page 33 Exhibit F WINDSOR SERVICE AREA BENEFIT AREAS Weld County/Road Impact Fee Ordinance,May 27, 1999 lilt lit Page 34 WELD COUNTY RO •t3 ,, • Y IMPROVEMENT _ AN WINDSOR AND S•ciFb. ., ,T STUDY ARE •' , •r _re. Weld Ka my 915 T q'r h Stree : ' P.S . is ox 194: Grew , CO 8ra:2 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig ast Maplewood Avenue, Suite 200 Englewood, CO 80111 303/721-1440 FHU Reference No. 98-237 April 27, 1999 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEMS 3 FORECASTS 8 Demographic Forecasts 8 Traffic Forecasts 12 Capacity 12 Roadway Classification 16 Road Improvement Needs 19 Traffic Signals 23 New Roads 24 SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS 29 APPENDIX - MAJOR ROADWAY INVENTORIES Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Study Areas 2 2. Windsor Study Area - Inventory of Travel and Paved Roads 4 3. Southwest Study Area - Inventory of Travel and Paved Roads . 5 4. Windsor Study Area - Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 6 5. Southwest Study Area - Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 7 6. Sub-Area Growth Factors 1995 to 2020 - Windsor Study Area 9 7. Sub-Area Growth Factors 1995 to 2020 - Southwest Study Area 10 8. Windsor Study Area - Year 2020 Daily Traffic Forecasts 13 9. Southwest Study Area - Year 2020 Daily Traffic Forecasts 14 10. Urban Growth Areas 17 11 . Windsor Study Area - Capacity Improvement Needs 20 12. Southwest Study Area - Capacity Improvement Needs 21 13. Windsor Study Area - Major New Roads 25 14. Southwest Study Area - Major New Roads 26 LIST OF TABLES 1 . Demographic and Traffic Growth Projections 11 2. Daily Capacities of Paved Two-Lane Roads 15 3. Unit Cost Assumptions 18 4. Project Summary - Improvements to Existing Roads 22 5. Signal/Intersection Project Needs 23 6. Recommended New Roadways 27 7. Improvement Cost Summary 29 Fe!sburg Holt& Wieidg Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas INTRODUCTION Two areas within Weld County are experiencing growth pressures expected to bring substantial new development to largely undeveloped, agricultural areas. Weld County and municipalities within these areas have identified the need to develop roadway plans to accommodate anticipated development within these areas, and to develop a financing mechanism to implement roadway plans. The purpose of this report is to develop a roadway improvement plan for these areas. This roadway improvement plan will then form the basis of an impact fee program that will facilitate the funding and implementation of needed roadway improvements on major county, city and town roads. Since the roadway plan is geared towards county, city and town roads, roadway improvement needs on state and U.S. highways are not evaluated. Such improvements are within the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). On the county, city and town road system needs that are not directly attributable to development, such as safety improvements and bridge rehabilitation projects, are also excluded from the plan. The roadway improvement plans are based on short-range needs and needs projected for the Year 2020. Figure 1 shows the two study areas. The Windsor Study Area is an approximately 90 square mile area bounded by Weld County Road (WCR) 84 on the north, WCR 27 and the City of Greeley on the east, US 34 on the south, and the Weld/Larimer County line on the west. In addition to unincorporated parts of Weld County, the Town of Severance and part of the Town of Windsor are included in the Windsor Study Area. The Southwest Study Area is a 126 square mile area bounded by State Highway (SH) 66 on the north, WCR 19 on the east, SH 7 and WCR 2 on the south, and the Weld/Boulder County line on the west. In addition to unincorporated parts of Weld County, all or portions of the Cities of Longmont, Broomfield, and Northglenn, and the Towns of Erie, Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono are included in the Southwest Study Area. Felsbwg Holt& Ullevig Page 1 N CFELSBURG 3 i-,. 3 ' Si. HOLT ULLEVIG WCR84 A ' x 5AI 14 WCR80 - y SS LEGEND iThows Ass WCR 78 ": :Y' - Southwest Study Area "r. ,` \E+ton WCR 74 �1l, ® - Windsor Study Area ��rr L se Al WCR 62 /` I — y, _ .• WCR 60 I ■sod x Es .ypass- Q x I� _ I� Cteeley zi °s © Ism T _s_ �" ___ _ ns Johastowt �� _H_ rr,'- i He an WCR 48' 1 rt WCR 46 o.M r ( , tom''_ Berthoud 56 ?II' - . !liken i tr, 1 1 ;Ic . .. Gila 1_1 C WCR 36 ' I WCR 34 i1 � Platteville LARIH£R COUNT' iP — f _ L ■ a Longmont ills r 8 'Al j ( I t t C m , 4 I' �r .a ±4t WCR 14 t_ rd tim gtso -. pton WCRB n%WCR 2 'f .\ &H)).‘;'#X\ - ± (VBnen l .._.__ Broomfield —Northgknn rn U in 2 - S ij ii Figure 1 it 3 3 3 3 3 STUDY AREAS North Weld County Imoacl Fees 90237 3/4199 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEMS Figure 2 depicts the existing Windsor Study Area roadway network. A segment-by-segment roadway inventory is also provided in the Appendix. The study area is traversed by US 34 and three State Highways, including SH 257, SH 392, and SH 14. The County and city roads depicted on Figure 2 form the major roadway system for the Windsor Study Area. All section-line roads are included, along with other roads that have significant continuity. Local roads that only serve particular developments and do not have significant continuity are not included as part of the major roadway system. There are generally County and city roads on a one-mile grid system, although there are numerous gaps in this grid system where there are physical constraints or where development has not yet created the need for public roads. Of the 131 .5 miles of major county, city and town roads included in the roadway inventory, 73.2 miles are currently gravel roads and 58.3 miles are paved. All county, city and town roads currently have one through lane in each direction. Figure 3 depicts the existing Southwest Study Area major roadway network, with a detailed inventory provided in the Appendix. The Southwest Study Area is traversed by Interstate 25 and four east-west state highways, including SH 7, SH 52, SH 119, and SH 66. This study area also has a one-mile grid system of County and city roads, with several gaps. Of the 191 .7 miles of major county, city and town roads included in the roadway inventory, 103.7 miles are currently gravel roads and 88 miles are paved. All county, city and town roads in the Southwest Study Area also currently have one through lane in each direction. Traffic count information available from the County's roadway inventory and from other jurisdictions has been compiled. These data have been supplemented by additional counts collected to fill gaps in existing data. The resulting traffic volume data are summarized on Figures 4 and 5, with more detailed count information provided in the roadway inventory found in the Appendix. Most volume data reflect counts taken over the past three years, although older counts are included in some cases. At many location, counts were not available on all road segments, but reasonable traffic volume estimates could be made based on nearby data. Figure 4 shows that State and U.S. highway volumes in the Windsor Study Area range from more than 20,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on US 34 to approximately 1 ,000 vpd on segments of SH 257. Among county, city and town roads, the highest volumes include more than 7,500 vpd on WCR 17 through the Town of Windsor and more than 4,000 vpd on segments of WCR 74 and WCR 66. Other roadway segments with volumes in excess of 1 ,000 vpd are found on WCR 19 and on roads near the City of Greeley. Figure 5 shows that• traffic volumes on 1-25 through the Southwest Study Area are approximately 50,000 vpd. Volumes on east-west State Highways 7, 52, 119, and 66 are in the 5,000 vpd to 15,000 vpd range, with the highest volumes on SH 119. County and city roads with volumes in excess of 1,000 vpd include WCR 1 on the border of Weld and Boulder Counties, segments of WCR 5 and 8 in the Erie area, and WCR 13 through the northern part of the Study Area. Fe/sburg Holt& Ulkvlg Page 3 ill FELSBURG rn in r� N ULGLEVIG U ¢ `�`� U 4.0 WCR84 - - _ __ _ � __ __i _ __ _�_ _ _ CI I I I I 1 I , t , ill I ' I ' .0I ' 14 t , s it WCR80 -I- - - - 't - r :;I :I (I1 57 w,LG :I - •WCR 76 \.`\.\- 4\L `: Severance•VV\;V WCR 74 ,e, '..- v a. Ity t rid // I I' 1-� O I Z DDD II a /, G LO yp r It W < X13 ai " ti L *77,_ , yInHsb /�'//I ' 721 ,/ j I 1 lI _River..I. WCR 62 :4 • ...'�� 57 j ..r WCR60 — .-1- - - - rte —_ � 34 .,../ 1 • I.II I 1/4 X34 ...... •••.i1 . . ...� ® 34 1 LEGEND Figure 2 Paved Roads Gravel Roads WINDSOR STUDY AREA 7-7I = Study Area BoundaryZ . INVENTORY of GRAVEL and PAVED ROADS North Wald County Impact Fees 98-237 3/2/99 4HOFELSBURGLT Sr ULLEVIG — — f v Mead //LARIMER COUNTY • %t... r1 :Fr 7/, �66 WCR 30 . L : 1Y://� t • C 'S I I I L I .-;M I r - - • \\ 25 LoWCR 24 ' // /® - . I C _ _ _____. t1 O - I Y - - C I �i , 5: 3 r O - - C� , r r /1/5"//e/11 '11-/e/1,71/! K-1//11$ K�//j1 //1 2, WCR 11 52 • 'Dac/ofo A ' r r i i I WCRB [ : E/ir. '(//.7 fr' ' j \ 7/ "//////i i / 1 ' : % WCR2 7 cr Broomfield\ Northglenn.- °' rr o cc Q cr o 0 0 LEGEND 3 0 Paved Roads = Gravel Roads Figure 3 Study Area Boundary SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA 0 INVENTORY of GRAVEL and PAVED ROADS North Weld County Impact Fees 88.237 1/45,9 pi FELHOLSBYURG& cn c l0 .-,:� N ULLEVIG EC \C` CC 3 ^\ 3 I WCR 84 215 110 100 125 125 Y3 in{� cv ' in N n et 4500 3850 3600 14 3800 \�� a' 50 120 WCR 80 175 185 v 15 115 I b ® O y Li N N w.� . R .\•\ I 15� 105 S(\! `'`\, oco \;. //JJI 70 o O 100 NuZt,l1 , 185 ,-I 140 WCR 76 7s � „ :� I Nom:: Severance =° \: 4280 ‘NZ:;.- -"SCI 1675 'f 1320 2790 WCR 74 L 48� '� (I O ♦ Ol F. N rI"C N 95 • 195 70 90 85 C I H o n. in c is o 050 ry 65 28-�-- 125 rr� N C : 10,60) Vl�-A 7.0 h.--5100 I 5.7:—.--• �a ! 3� 5000in 4000 w ��1 N 71n a / N . � 280 _ / 410 o a �,/�/ • 00 1115 N / / o 'CAL.()SEE/ nc o to River NI • l La 1 11(6 _: \ :may' WCR 62 215 315 U M�r„.... "ui'° WCR 60 ! 120 130 257 11,000 •/{ry / 34 ,A,f,—7i in ' '"....i.4 o e / in 0▪1 Om to es N ....ea.....N •1vt /+� 9 / / 20,400 20,400 • I • 13,100 2,15 /7/ ' o •fir P I CD 700 591 LEGEND L)' ` / Study Area Boundary Figure 4 WINDSOR STUDY AREA Q Sources : Weld Country, CDOT, Latimer County and Greeley EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES North Weld County Impact Fees 99-237 1/21N9 ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG LAMER COUNTY I Mead / .... .. .. - WCR307 11100 _� i w • 4800 N / 95 m m u' 145 130 145 55 105 80 N <' o b 25 o b vNa: ^ cA ^ O cri m o co �W O N. 170 165 o b 115 in / b 210 < in r Longmont % v. / (..tom I WCR 24 / D 2170 1,000 13,700 14,200 O in a a N ^ Q vO I co i in 7 di 100 .n p 90 90 f .r U 700 605 90 in in o r O ri 355 u 425' �^ / 200 3 / In o t_ o F1 105 'N `� 1/r _ z° 175 Fride'ri k Z1/2�/ 135 \4/, /7 Co �IIn O ao r ,so_ N oc .#2;/:///2f C N` � " i m WCR 14I— 52 9050 ni f,l� 125 O 8700 8300 k' `/ g tf 8350 m N b o /efD/aeofo O CI c 320// i / /c' • j 150 •er / 40 j N 220 O �v �/ . e in T ? N /117' 2 / 50 o 50 30 -/--� - .� 60 mI' 30 O N / /\ a f ' N WCR 8 ///////1175 595 865 1680 #x.415 240 1 65 25 _ CO i cn /!r � 320 975 o /Ico Ln er 70 25 n N• • /1 /`a \ \$ Opp N WCR 2 /�I T.^w, t o /'/�\ \ Ln 6800 in Broomfield ¢ Northglenn cc cc cc O O O O LEGEND Figure 5 Study Area Boundary SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA FNSources : Weld County, Erie, CDOT Q and Counter Measures EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES North Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas FORECASTS Demographic Forecasts Identification of roadway improvement needs requires traffic volume forecasts on study area roadways. A combination of two techniques was used to develop these forecasts. First, the study area was divided into sub-areas. Trip generation growth rates in these sub-areas were estimated based on forecasts of household and employment growth. These trip making growth rates were then applied to existing traffic volumes to develop forecasted traffic volumes. Second, traffic forecasts for several major roadways in parts of the study areas have been prepared as part of other planning processes, including those for the North Front Range region, Town of Erie, MUD area, and the 1-25 widening project between SH 7 and WCR 8. Also, CDOT prepares estimated traffic growth rates for all roadways that comprise the state highway system. Traffic forecasts developed through these two methods were reviewed,then balanced and adjusted for reasonableness to create traffic forecasts that were used for further analysis. Figures 6 and 7 show the sub-areas that were used to develop growth rates. Table 1 shows the available household and employment estimates and forecasts for these sub-areas. Sources of information are shown. In some cases, definitive estimates and forecasts are not available, and assumptions used to develop forecasts are stated. In the Southwest Study Area, available forecasts do not cover the entire study area, so growth rates for adjacent areas are proposed to be used. For example, Mixed Use Development (MUD) area growth rates were applied to the extreme northwest portion of the study area and Firestone growth rates were applied to the northeast portion of the study area. Traffic growth factors were derived using a double weighting of household growth and a single weighting of employment growth (where available). This is based on the approximate trip generation rates that can be expected for households versus employees. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Page 8 P r 0) in FELSBURG N ULULEVIG ¢ •� ct U �� U I WCR 84 14 N • ' ' SUB-AP 'A WCR 80 , 2.6 257 4tH VA ti WCR 76 I a_14 .:�. . I v - " i Severance WCR 74 } I,. \ / I 1 0 ✓ 14 r s- .% : 1 r Ci ` //// e aIIIII�, i ' EELEY 'r fl,/ INFLU N ' ' EA j i je 11mt..1 River Ck- 143 WCR 62 / i i I OU H 2 WCR so I .. EA _ — — , sa 13. - .,./ , mi�n; I ® 34 LEGEND P / / X.X = Trip Generation Growth Factor Figure 6 (2020 Trip Generation/1995 Trip Generation) SUB-AREA GROWTH FACTORS 1995 TO 2020 .. WINDSOR STUDY AREA North ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG �I // Mead /_4 LARIMER COUNTY t r V _ 0 WCR 30 � / a-, MUD AREA 2s 12.4 IR : ST * NE Longmont 24 222 �� ' RE WCF1 .8 L, e E r a o %i r V/. Cs: CZ � �rl 'SICK a 3 / . _ , / WCR 14 52 ��2� 6',4' 7, V71 o ERIE r, //y/ AREA —ix, DA ONO '� 2.8 f , .0 WCRB 1 /Adid ' ssik. i t7 ' _ � . • / / a\ INit • .5 \\\ JkIkWCR2 _ i v Broomfield\ - Northglenn cc cc 3 3 O 3 � LEGEND X.X - Trip Generation Growth Factor Figure ? (2020 Trip Generation/1995 Trip Generation) SUB-AREA GROWTH FACTORS 1995 TO 2020 17\1 SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA North Wald County Impact Fees 93-237 3/4/99 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Table 1 Demographic and Traffic Growth Projections • tea°Ares T `1`64,..e :4-,T .t,•;,,.-, y, 2;u.: -,,,,,,.r_ f-. .::','+ .i• .�,,,„—,.,:,.. -.:L..• ,,,•;. . ,,� r � { .^;..•Households:� y;'•x ' 's e Employa►en ' Traffic' ,_,,,,-1,,,,,rR _,..,K6,1.,..- i .}f i c .. I 'Ar' 'r'Fae. a• r �' } jGroWth`. }e` 4:74. :4� s;'. '° ` .•Factor.;' ^',a �. . �.R '�`�'• °ti. � � �`_=,! "4� r� j,�4;%t�.ayRa'`.ai,A74t.. � e�' „ • t9,�,-- 1 02 Grow, ..N. . .202x.. n..,...':41"......."41 Gro ' a i'7 c: �i';�"..1' 1Le ,y 'Ss, c'0UZ ti '. A r�l 4- rr,- . :.: .._ ,,,,, ,,,,;;V:.'',7:,:.. .,,..._..,, =:171:7Oe.:71.. .. _ - Factor ` _�+;., 1v ;.--.,• -.,• • Windsor Study Area - North of SH NFR 732 2,240 3.1 518 640 1.2 2.6 392 Windsor Core NFR 1,937 2,877 1.5 657 732 1..1 1.4 Greeley NFR 544 3,502 6.4 697 12,736 18.3 11.1 Influence Area South of NFR 35 485 13.9 4 4 1.0 13.2 Windsor Southwest Study Area MUD Area MUD Plan 100•• 3,200 32.0 800" 5,950 7.4 12.4 Erie Planning Erie Comp Plan 1,155 3,250 2.8 N/A 6,290 N/A 2.8 Area Dacono [Iacono Comp 1,015 1,992 2.0 N/A N/A N/A 2.0 Planning Area Plan Frederick Frederick Comp 451 1,174 2.6 N/A N/A N/A 2.6 Planning Area Plan Trends•*" Town of Weld Co. Comp 582 1,053 1.8 N/A N/A N/A 1.8 Firestone Plan Trends SE of Estimated, Based 61 1,920 31.5 N/A N/A N/A 31.5 1-25/CR 8 cm Average 1 DU/5 Acres • Based on 2x weighting of household growth and lx weighting of employment growth, as available. •• Estimates based on MUD plan and 1996 aerial photography. ••• Based on average of MUD plan moderate and aggressive annual forecasts of housing units and commercial square footage. •••• Based on 3.9% compounded annual growth observed 1990 to 1994. Based on 2.4% compounded annual growth observed 1990 to 1993. - Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Page 17 Weld County Roadway improvement Man Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Traffic Forecasts Figures 8 and 9 show the Year 2020 traffic forecasts that were developed from the combination of previous forecasts and forecasts derived using demographic growth factors. Forecasts for each roadway segment are also shown in the inventories provided in the Appendix. These tables also list the forecast source for each segment, which include sub-area growth factors, previous forecasts, or adjusted forecasts using a combination of sources and adjustments for reasonableness. The roadway inventories in the Appendix provide summaries of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) on the major County and city roadway systems. In the Windsor Study Area, County and city road VMT is forecast to increase by more than three times, from 106,000 currently to 368,000 in 2020. VMT in the Southwest Study Area is projected to increase nearly six times from 105,000 current VMT to 601 ,000 in 2020. Capacity 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: Unpaved Roads According to State Health Department dust abatement guidelines, all roads with an average daily traffic volume greater than 200 vehicles should be paved or treated for dust abatement. Within air quality non-attainment areas, which applies only to the southeastern part of the Windsor Study Area that is within the Greeley non-attainment area, there is a lower 150 daily traffic threshold. Since dust abatement loses its effectiveness quickly, frequent treatments are needed, causing high maintenance costs over time. In order to minimize maintenance costs and comply with State Health Department regulations, this plan includes paving of roads that meet State dust abatement thresholds. The maximum volume thresholds of 200 vehicles per day for most of the study areas can be used to define the capacity of gravel roads. The lower 150 vpd threshold is applied to urban areas; however, all unpaved roads that directly serve developed or developing areas are designated in this plan as needing paving, even if traffic volume data are not available to determine whether specific volume thresholds are met. Thus, only low-traffic roads in undeveloped areas would remain unpaved. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Page 12 IFELSBURG rn Ln HOLT & « N ULLEVIG U ¢ v.,, U \.\.j I 'e1 WCR 84 : 600 300 300 300 300 O , Q O N o in I Q N o to • 9700 9000 14 O / 8700 N (, 130 300 WCR 80 500 500 v _ 40 300 o O tn 57 m m N I 40� 300 �•\:\,'.-fiNsisi` \" 180 0 !!� �tlb[� , o \\ O 300 .� to �� N �` 1 500 .-..--...k. 400 WCR 76 " O o 0 '\-\:\ Severance Q WCR 74 n 9700 14%400 '4 00 4900 / 3300 >•• \ . P / - n m O I F 240 ' 500 180 230 220 ! CC I � a o o m c in oo r a 130 u Q 170 700 300 N O 700 N ' / VIN O 15,100 •rod/r 6900 392 ��// / O 8600 4800 O :�j o in_, (fC/o"{/ NM $ as r P.- OD � J -\ 3100 e. N O 4600 I / 0 0 8000 I m m CQ, ... t° ,e River WCR 62 lsoo aloo 900 //,�� 0 . 57 57 9,1oo�i�/�� O WCR 60 ' 1600 O ii35,6x0 "r —� o o �y34 N a O Q m • u - 0 in I 58,600 55,200 .•• • n, .� 34 --32,700 - .... ...., ••• 10,.,, /o �� goo if/. 34 LEGEND --`-' = Study Area Boundary Figure 8 WINDSOR STUDY AREA YEAR 2020 DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS North / FELSBURG Oll HOLT & ULLEVIG I '/2 Mead / A LARIDIER COUNTY26 600 I / "" i :rfillsa 1 ," 66 -i- ------WCR 30 11soo 0 20 r. y m �� 0 1800 1600 ' 1800 700 190 I 140 O b \.vw O O N ,\:\ 0 0 25 m o er \.\.�,\:, O a O `j`� N e'J r 100 2100 or i 210 �— p a 500 p m o r e Longmont ;,/� /'e m 15,200 1800 WCR 24 16,400 e 17,000 -T_ 0 o 00 00 Ln el 0 7,(22. ra. N O _ _ 0 180 g_r_ el 160 160 I , 8700 7500 1100 0 O a 2 0 f 0 /<94 O f 400 V/ o m 'J/ or --r- 0 300 —1 0 II'eStOTlei n' SOO a ///� '///4 240 oT— F e erick >• O N 110 '//.f p {`(A 400 —_T_ zC o C %. Oo/�f Om OV l 52 12,700 //.1 /� / 300 WCR 14 p 1z,2aa G'/ i r z 0 O 11,600 /// . 11,700 f' c4 o o •�accoro g -� 3 m m /f/e 0] 400 r N 5O Cl 600 O 1% a 200 I 0 p o p `/ O ♦ O in to 1 w • / C'130 o 60 —/-. , r 120 _ 60 0 m C) el IJ 0 I 0 N WCR 8' • /13,0 23,00' 24,00C 25,000' 6500 n 6500 1800 400 �rEelp o \ o O O //,% to 1600 4900 / 000' o in CNI 2100 800 o o WCR 2 / 7 33 .. r p \ N Cr 7to Yf 2400 1600' •'r 21,000 LO cn Q Broomfield ' Northglenn Q U ¢ [C CC 3 0 0 0 LEGEND Figure 9 = Study Area Boundary SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA 0 YEAR 2020 DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS North Weld County Impact Fees 98237 3/499 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Paved Two-Lane Roads A concept of level of service (LOS) is commonly used to define the quality of traffic flow on various roadway types, based on a comparison of traffic volumes with roadway characteristics. A LOS scale ranging from A to F is used to define the quality of flow, with LOS A referring to an essentially free-flow situation and LOS F referring to the highest levels of congestion, with traffic volumes exceeding the intended capacity of the roadway. LOS C is used as the LOS standard for County roads in this plan, based on Mixed Use Development Plan standards. Based on the nationally accepted source for highway capacity evaluations, the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, approximate maximum daily traffic volumes have been developed for two-lane roadways to maintain the LOS C standard. To estimate daily traffic thresholds, typical traffic flow characteristics were used, including 11 % of daily traffic during a peak: hour, peak hour directional traffic split of 60%/40%, 18% 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 roads in the major roadway inventory have widths of 24 feet or greater. Using these assumptions, Table 2 shows LOS C volume thresholds for different shoulder widths. Table 2 Daily Capacities of Paved Two-Lane Roads Usable4 Daily' Shoulder(Ft S- 6 6,000 vpd 4 5,500 vpd 2 4,900 vpd 0 4,200 vpd Urban and Multi-Lane Roads Capacities of urban roadways with separate left-turn lanes and roads with two or more through lanes per direction are generally higher than those for two-lane rural roads. Capacities for these roadways were estimated based on capacities per hour per lane that have been developed in the North Front Range regional planning process. Application of similar peaking characteristics as were used for two-lane analysis yielded LOS C capacity estimates of 8,300 vpd for two-lane urban roads and 16,600 vpd for four-lane roads. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Page 15 Weld County Roadway Improvement Pfen Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Roadway Classification There is a wide disparity between County and individual municipal roadway classification systems and nomenclature. For example, the Frederick Comprehensive Plan generally designates all section line roads as arterial streets and the plan includes an'extensive collector road system with half-mile spacing. This system contrasts with the County's classification system that designates a large portion of section line roads as local streets. A simplified classification approach is used in this plan to reconcile the various classification systems that exist within the study areas, and to respond to the specific needs for development of an equitable impact fee program. This approach is driven by roadway capacity needs and area types. Therefore, this plan relates to a major roadway system that includes all section line roadways and other roadways defined in existing plans that are judged to have significant continuity and non-local traffic-carrying functions. Urban and rural designations used to define roadway needs were based on the Weld County Urban Growth Boundary Map (December, 1998) and the Mixed Use Development planning area in the northern part of the Southwest Study Area. Urban growth areas for the two study areas are shown in Figure 10. It should be noted that incorporated areas that are not within urban growth boundaries were not considered as urban areas. Rural Two Lane Roads Weld County's historical standards for two-lane rural roads include 12-foot lanes and 4-foot, typically gravel, shoulders. These standards are applied to rural roads in this plan with relatively moderate traffic volume forecasts (less than 3,000 vehicles per day). For rural roads with higher traffic volume forecasts, higher standards with 6-foot paved shoulders are applied. These standards would apply to all section line roads, including those that may be designated as local roads on a County or municipal classification system. Based on Weld County's roadway construction experience, costs for these two-lane rural road sections are estimated at $250,000/mile for paving of gravel roads with the typical 4-foot gravel shoulder standard, $500,000/mile for paving of gravel roads to a full 6-foot paved shoulder standard, and $1 ,250,000/mile to construct new roads to either standard. Urban Two-Lane Roads The Mixed Use Development Plan "Collector / 2 Lane With Painted Median" cross-section standard was applied to section line and other major 2-lane roadways within urban areas. This cross-section includes a 50 foot paved surface with one through lane and a bike lane in each direction and a median/left-turn lane. A 15 foot area on either side of the road is added with six foot sidewalks, creating an 80 foot right-of-way width. Based on MUD cost estimates, inflated to 1999 levels, the cost of this roadway type would be $1,750,000/mile. Feisburg Holt& Ullevig Page 16 N ' FELSBURG v u u ' HOLY & 3,v ULLEVIG WCR 84 • I WCR BO �� , ,_ I r� u WCR 78 .. N` - • inn, c vEl ton WCR 74 , J WINDSOR r,/ tell STUDY AREA iii.‘ LEGEND WCR 62 % +- �rr�j/// ' !qr 7 a WCR 60 N i// • i. i.,. . Urban Growth Areas ®N��% ` _: ,./ /j%mis��%/% ,: siIr ii./ ilii//"., . _ �— ...z,..;„ /... . . i j WCR 48 IIII WCR46 , j I ll 1 Berthoud ® uw alto° tf 7 I ItSil. .o .■■ il Iii WCR36 Emir I- WCR 34 1 -- Platteville t>ul�leu rm yn Pill t. 0 y_ b•�/ F! .; ■ Longmont MUD I ' DACONO, F. • SOUTHWEST ' AREA : FIRESTONE & STUDY AREA . .�' v..;::c 4' FREDERICK 1/217 WA -: IGA AREA WCR14 II' A' Mil . . 'Ert //., 61 Lupton _/hie- 1 :.� • AIM i WCR a111 Erie grio'/,A,,.'�i'N rslfflretz1. WCR2 MEMO rallinal Broomfield .-Northglenn o, 3 ..- 5 3 a 3 Figure 10 0 3 3 URBAN GROWTH AREAS North Weld County Impact Fees 98:?37 32/99 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Four-Lane Arterials Roadways where projected volumes exceed two-lane road capacity would be designed individually to meet particular roadway requirements. The Mixed Use Development Plan "Arterial / 4 Lane With Painted Median" cross-section standard was used as a typical 4-lane cross-section for costing purposes. This section includes a 76 foot street within a 100 foot right-of-way. Based on MUD cost estimates, inflated to 1999 levels, the cost of this roadway type would be 81 ,600,000/mile to widen an existing 2-lane road and $1,950,000/mile to construct a new roadway. Unit Cost Summary Table 3 provides a summary of the unit cost assumptions used for planning purposes in this report Table 3 Unit Cost Assumptions Roadway Type.'.;: Unit`Costr ._r Pave Rural Road $250,000 (Per Mile) Pave Rural Road (Full Section) $500,000 (Per Mile) Improve to 2-Lane Urban Road $1,000,000 (Per Mile) Widen From 2 to 4 Lanes $1,600,000 (Per Mile) New 2-Lane Rural Road $1,250,000 (Per Mile) New 2-Lane Urban Road $1 ,750,000 (Per Mile) New 4-Lane Road $1 ,950,000 (Per Mile) Traffic Signal $100,000 (Per Intersection) Intersection Improvements at Rural $300,000 (Per Intersection) Signalized Intersections Bridge Widening $65 (Per Square Foot) Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Page 78 Weld County Roadway Improvement flan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Road Improvement Needs Existing capacities for each roadway segment were compared with existing and forecasted traffic volume to determine what improvements are needed. Improvement needs are Identified in the roadway inventories provided in the Appendix. Short-range needs are defined as those improvements that are needed based on existing traffic levels and should, therefore, be programmed for in the short-range . Year 2020 needs are those improvements that are needed based on Year 2020 traffic forecasts. These roadway improvement needs are depicted on Figures 11 and 12. For both study areas, paving of gravel roads is the most widespread project need, with a total of 61.8 miles of roadway paving projects in the Windsor Study Area and 91.2 miles in the Southwest Study Area. Widening projects to create four-lane roadways are less extensive, with 11 .1 miles in the Windsor Study Area and 14.4 miles in the Southwest Study Area. However, the high unit costs for these projects generates estimated costs of approximately $18 million and $23 million for these widening projects in the two study areas. Costs for three of the roadway widening projects in the Windsor Study Area include widening of bridges. Table 4 provides a summary of improvement needs on existing roadways. The total cost for improvements to existing roadways is $51 .1 million for the Windsor Study Area and $92.8 million for the Southwest Study Area. Page 19 Felsburg Holt& Ullevig r t31 . N pl FELSBURGs U ¢ j\ c¢JHOLT & j ULLEVIG WCR 84 '1�" J•. I ca-- t , s 2 i s s sr i Ca r` WCR80 - - - - .� - �1-- 3 r = 3C = t 7C 257 = t TIM dA RIS , WCR 76 ,. � r: Severance WCR 74 a ,. % o CC =o 3 HHHH 392 `-c Windsor x ..- L x ..._h- HHHHHIHHIG • HHHH ........ • x , River 1-7 ----1 lit+l}I+It�'Vc�4e IA o��' J :. WCR 62 = . . . . HHH 'tom :: 257 ` -- f. Greeley WCR 60 - . 34 34 • C... .. • LEGEND 57 34 = Pave Rural Road Bypass IIIIIIIMIIMI = Pave Urban Road I_ = Improve Urban Road Standard I_ = Widen to 4 Lanes Figure 11 O = Traffic Signal WINDSOR STUDY AREA 11111111111111111111 - Short Range Needs 771 0 �il= = Long Range Needs CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS North Weld County Impact Fees 98.237 114/99 • Pil FELSBURG LAR1MER COUNTY ;;,; Mead ti (II H O LT & —••—YveR 66 ULLEVIG E i E t - 1 25 i tlxlxllo. xxifxxrl�+xxl� mow Longmont //o`� dr_o WCR 24 zit o = w� f' \ 1 ...;: 3 co f I � `J Firestone�,' G a � \ Fiedersk ."L r A { WOR 141 52 H . •� �' \ • E ' Dacoro "� a--r fllfltlR _fllllfC _ 41FIIFIIfFIf.ii11FIIFIIIFI- WCR ca— Erie,,- ` `;\\\ \\ • , \\ \\\fie ,\\\\ \\N \ \ • � — r , r \ \\.. fi\.>\ `. • WCR2 7 •... — ¢ Broomfield 7 Northglenn L cn Q U CC CL CC LEGEND INNIIIMINI = Pave Rural Road la = Pave Urban Road Improve Urban Road Standard I_ - Widen to 4 Lanes O = Traffic Signal Figure 12 Illlllllllllllllllll - Short Range Needs SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA 0 momm = Long Fange Needs CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS North w_u.•_.._�. —....�c�.0000 4,./00 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Table 4 Project Summary - Improvements to Existing Roads h. • i pritOrFof , "iengthr1 • .'war. t,;G4� _W. • Tay .. .!.' YI ' o e'ctaf:.� } :(tAife"s) 2,, .eii.i. "., 7.: Windsor Short-Range Paving (Rural) 8 9.0 $2,250,000 Paving (Rural Full) 3 5.0 $2,500,000 Paving (Urban) 4 3.5 $3,470,000 Urban 2 Lane 1 3.0 $3,000,000 I I I $11,220,000 Long-Range Paving (Rural) 33 37.8 S9,460,000 Paving (Full) 1 1.5 $750,000 Paving (Urban) 5 5.0 55,000,000 Urban 2 Lane 5 6.7 56,720,000 Widen to 4 Lanes 12 11.1 $113,320,000 I I I S40,250,000 Southwest Short-Range Paving (Rural) 3 4.0 $1,000,000 Paving (Full) 4 1.9 5950,000 Paving (Urban) 7 6.9 $6,900,000 I I I 58,850,000, Long-Range _- Paving (Rural) 29 35.2 $8,830,000 Paving (Full) 4 5.5 $2,750,000 Paving (Urban) 37 37.7 $37,650,000 Urban 2 Lane 12 11.6 $11,610,000 Widen to 4 Lanes 14 14.4 523,080,000 I I 1 583,920,000 Fe/sburg Holt&UUevig Page 22 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor end Southwest Study Areas Traffic Signals Traffic forecasts are: compared with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal Highway Administration), peak hour traffic signal warrants to determine which intersections are likely to warrant traffic signals by the year 2020. At intersections of two-lane rural roads at which signals are warranted, it is assumed that an estimated $300,000 geometric improvement project would accompany signalization. Table 5 lists the 18 intersections at which traffic signals are forecast to be warranted by the year 2020. Table 5 Signal/Intersection Project Needs is 7�ey'y Ttr'r►a7tits F.,n :.�—, ' j fv :` c i^ _• « . ? Ir1tEiS8Ctlbfl i. , Y �t ' '• ° • Signal Ceiste bsta Windsor Study Area WCR 66/WCR 17 $100,000 WCR 64.75/WCR 23 8100,000 $300,000 WCR 64 (0 Street)/WCR 27 (83rd Avenue) $100,000 WCR 64/WCR 29 (71st Avenue) $100,000 WCR 62/WCR 27 $100,000 WCR 74/WCR 15 $100,000 WCR 74/WCR 19 $100,000 WCR 58/WCR 27 $100,000 Study Area Total I 5800,000 I $300,0001 Southwest Study Area WCR 6/WCR 7 $100,000 WCR 8/WCR 'I (CL Road) $100,000 WCR 8/WCR 3 5100,000 WCR 8/WCR 15 $100,000 WCR 8/WCR 7 $100,000 WCR 8/WCR 13 . • $100,000 5300,000 WCR 20.5/WCR 1 (CL Road) $100,000 WCR 20.5/WOR 7 $100,000 WCR 24/WCFI 13 $100,000 WCR 26/WCF; 1 (CL Road) $100,000 Study Area Total I $1,000,000 I $300,000 I Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Page 23 Weld County Roadway Improvement Man Windsor and Southwest Study Areas New Roads New roadways that are needed to complete major roadway systems for the two study areas have been identified by two methods. First, existing comprehensive and transportation plans were reviewed, including those related to Windsor, Greeley, Frederick, Erie, Dacono, and the Mixed Use Development area. New roadway recommendations contained in these plans were examined to determine which ones should be included in major roadway plans based on their planned function and level of specificity of the recommendation. For example, several roads that are included in a plan to form a hypothetical half-mile grid of streets were not included. Second, the grid of mile-spaced section line roads was reviewed to identify key missing links. These links were included as recommended new roads at locations where the missing link would help to complete a logical roadway network and where no overwhelming constraints to construction were identified. The resulting new roadways are listed in Table 6, along with the source of the recommendation and estimated construction costs based on unit costs described previously. New roadways are depicted on Figures 13 and 14. The cost of new roadways is estimated at $27.1 million for the Windsor Study Area and $25.3 million for the Southwest Study Area. Figure 14 also shows three potential new 1-25 interchanges that have been proposed by a local jurisdiction or in a previous plan. Costs for these potential interchanges are not included in new road costs, since they would be within 1-25 right-of-way. Felsburg Holt& Ullewig Page 24 FELSBURG cc cc( .ry cc in iJ ¢ HOLT & 0 \,� � U ULLEVIG \\' WCR 84 3 14 ■■WCR 80 - — i57 3 a ..r . Cs WCR 76 :\\\. r r t q1:` / " : n Severance WCR 74 ; • / 1. ill - f 392 - A I 1 , 7 t River WCR 62 I Li 257 ;, f {reef WCR 60 I ` 34 , // _ - ,i 34 ice` i 25734 \' BY LEGEND • = New Rcadway Figure 13 WINDSOR STUDY AREA VN MAJOR NEW (ROADWAYS North 4 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEV1G IMead // LARIMER C0UNTYt ___-_ - - -WCR 301 /' 66 :...: / ■ `��„ 25 — Longmont: „,./A . ,•• WCR 24 119 r' 0 1 ..... ojo tt wic, 5 . 3 • • �l Fa 1 r me ne f �/ ! reildk 77. /X// WCR 14 52 i , p Daz ro 3 �,+ I //14 I ll 1 WCR 6 r f 4 ti I/' 0 • , i /WCR 2 \ 4. { Broomfield — Northglenn cc o cccc cc o o O O LEGEND • - New Roadway Figure 14 = Potential New Interchange MAJOR NEW ROADWAYS 0 SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA North Weld County Impact Fees 99237]/19/99 Weld County Roadway Improvement Man Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Table 6 Recommended New Roadways At tr. L c * . ern urae'asionr 4 �x k ,„ 1. tfi ';`,Cost.:.. 7:44:;.^p".' Type r {miles} .($1000 s) Windsor Study Area WCR 17 SH 14 to WCR 84 To complete 2-Lane Rural 1.0 $1,250 network WCR 25 WCR 74 to WCR 80 To complete 2-Lane Rural 3.0 I $3,750 network WCR 27 WCR 80 to SH 14 To complete 2-Lane Rural 1.0 $1,250 network WCR 27 WCR 76 to WCR 78 To complete 2-Lane Rural 1.0 $1,250 network WCR 72 WCR 13 to WCR 15 Windsor Plan 2-Lane Rural 1.0 51,250 WCR 72 WCR 19 to WCR 21 To complete 2-Lane Rural 1.0 $1,250 network WCR 70 WCR 15 to WCR 19 Windsor Plan 2-Lane Urban 2.1 $2,625 WCR 70/15.5 WCR 13 to SH 392 Windsor Plan 2-Lane Urban 2.7 $3,375 WCR 66.5/21.5 WCR 19 to WCR 66 Windsor Plan 2-Lane Rural 2.3 52,875 WCR 64 WCR 13 to Windsor Plan 2-Lane Rural 1.0• S1,250• WCR 17• WCR 60.5(4th St.) WCR 27(83rd Aye) Greeley Plan 2-Lane Urban 0.5 $875 to Greeley CL WCR 58.5(16th St.) Greeley CL to Greeley Plan 2-Lane Urban 3.5 $6,125 Greeley CL Windsor Area Subtotal 19.1 [ $27,125 Southwest Study Area WCR 7.5 SH 119 to WCR MUD Plan 2-Lane Urban 0.5 $875 24.5 WCR 7.5 SH 119 to 1-25 Fr. MUD Plan 4-Lane 2.7 55,265 Rd. @ WCR 20.5 Arterial WCR 9.5 l•25 Fr. Rd. @ WCR MUD Plan 4-Lane 3.4 $6,630 2O.5/WCR 24.5 Arterial WCR 15 WCR 18 to WCR 20 To complete 2-Lane Urban 1.0 S1,750 network WCR 17 WCR 10 to WCR 12 Dacono Plan 2-Lane Rural 1.0 $1,250 WCR 10 WCR 11 to WCR 15 Dacono Plan 2-Lane Rural 2.0 $2,500 Fe/sburg Holt& Ullevig Page 27 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas Table 6(Continuecl) Recommended New Roadways 7Recommendetio PSI; ;Cost} r ,?- Roadx ? ocatior� . Source , Type lmiles),` O10901.$) WCR 8 Existing Terminus to Erie Plan 4-Lane 0.8 $1,560 County Line Arterial WCR 4 I-25 to County Line Erie Plan 2-Lane Rural 4.4 $5,500 Southwest Subtotal I 15.8 I $25,330 Grand Total 34.9 $52,455 • Segment from WCR 15 to WCR 17 is committed with developer funding; cost includes WCR 13 to WCR 15 segment only. Fe/sburg Holt& Ullevig Page 28 Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan Windsor and Southwest Study Areas SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Table 7 summarizes the identified project needs, including improvements to existing roads, traffic signals and intersection improvements, and new roadways. Table 7 Improvement Cost Summary Short Range Long-Range 'r.;Totals e Ypr� iS,1,000's) � ($1;000's)<' : . ($1,000's)' ProjctT e,4��;?� Windsor Study Area Existing Roadway $11 ,220 $40,250 $51,470 Improvements Signals/Intersections - $1,100 $1 ,100 New Roads - S27,125 $27,125 Study Area Total $11,220 $68,475 S79,695 Southwest Study Area Existing Roadway $8,850 $83,920 $92,770 Improvements Signals/Intersections - $1 ,300 $1 ,300 New Roads - $25,330 $25,330 I Study Area Total $8,850 $110,550 $119,400 Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Page 29 Weld County Roadway Improvement Man Windsor and Southwest Study Areas APPENDIX MAJOR ROADWAY INVENTORIES Felsburg Holt 8 Ullevig I I — g I I ! 1 III§ I III R I • S k i I aag. RI RR R I k §i isfl k a - zgR E. - UUUU § MRRRR 8 Ilie o d I e � - F Fd iiI"- I e 5O : d d > F giiiiiiE f f {nRII ,r SREEFJER E ! !! ! fl ! ! 1E hh! l !ug fl!!!i!! . F ! §.mmuu U « b H N -I 'Sp $ 3 $ $ $ $ $ 558 $ R S $ R $ 88 $ 84 28 `3g $ $$ 5 3Ra $ $ $ $ Q $ 5 $ $ R9 $ 5oR $ $ R q 43333333 ₹ ₹ 333 3 "'- "'3 "'33 `' ." ^ 3 3 3 ^ 33 "' 33 3e"I" �" �" hN �" 3 3i }''333 3 3 «l n « « « « « « « «." « « « R RA « « « « « « « R « «« i «« « « « « « R RRxRRR3R « WIIIIIIIIII 11J111111$ IIIFM Ill ! :01111111 ! WO ! ! ! a ¢ o aSa . gaala a S8 § a R98pi,a R o El I`..? SR R - = RRRn $ RRURRa " I a laial w I. I I I I I �I- I I Qi a - n 7 R R a a R .. _ . a R : _ a_ _ o O5 ; �� - R a R l a = _ - ' o a E 3 g FM. SRe $ iRRs § BSR a@g a FkIkg !I ioa $ Racal- ags' - alegR'ieJs 1St MOO J ."1:114.4.i n e I o « • . . - o fi ui r n',;S n r ui, I n n dl;n'ui Y 11 n vii I..;,. z 2 IIRR§ § § § IIIII § g.!aIgEER !U! g.!y k§ I : !!!k!.R.Ig..9 $ I. I_I $ $ileal 8. • s $ I§ - Ss Is ss sss g 5' 2 - 2 Is' 4'�4446, 11O1113; alselslvxvJ a'a - - - - 6RP-- - - ssIR `31 sgR>la IsaIRsl I ,s,s sja «Iala 4.1 gRIR EsR EIs R - RRn9 ;'RSn ngRo3 gFj:,^II' !PH', jRa " R : aRt274 - _ E :g 'I l jzl> » > zzzzzzlz z » > zzzzz zz > Fz >> zlzI Izizlzz zzzzz >'> f. z > zo:IzzI>Iz'z v I ! Iii ( . _ ! Ill : iii i :l«'« i� ;I- « « « « « ''.- « « « l_I I R R M1111111111 1j1111111 111O dill Pli 111111111 11 : 31111 l3 Ra gRfigRRR : a e = oRgRRSa 2112; $ zaa egRa aRRRR- 7. : a Ry 'a Rfigva R �s a a n p as I ; a _� I z = Ralh "'I- - - RB ¢ gRRZRR2 = « 8 a 5RR = .-. a r44.- --1 - - ciE a r s � ai og-= Ra = =aaww Elie = w _ _ Ea : vm wga = ic E_ ' ie = I% = a = Epp = erI= I I 0 5c ¢ W Y I I Iy y QpppT .¢p .Yp pp-ppY p p p p pQ •—¢ 2 III « II I. A RR II BII U 8.i § I X !!X! RA i_ A % S I III, is li § 111§1 §g IR R§A R. R R �.UU v ! x : 2 y!!u 4 2g §ig R R R §I§ z I2 I g� SSgg 8 § k I. o { ! { { { i { I! — { U t21 F I i E 11§§ §§HRRI �U2u !!#!! ! RAI RR! RARER x ! {.! Ri 1 R Ro $R xxR sk � . . . . . 2 n n n n a I592i22929 2'295 99222 222 99 . 98588 $ 9 $9 $ 58 2 22299 92922 �o I < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < ≤ < < < « ^ -•^^ 3'₹3 L.- II 3 ^ ^ � ₹ ₹ 3 3 3 3 3 ₹ ^• w� 3 �' 3 j 3 ^ 3 �₹ ₹ z �` ₹ ₹ 3 W I ; I I i AIAIAAAR 22 IAiARR «« ««« AAA RR RRRRIR 3A « « « AIR R ARAIRA RAIRRR I F p y y DIM ! ! ! II ! ! LW) III li 33 ! 33 I ) II III 1 c' 3. II It�Ti ni da ¢ e81o21S ` s R $ e!1 !!“. § Ra.B k §. §3 $ o8 e § ax IRE 8 x1208 M1BSRR Ce o z Vsl- « nns « s ! U.!. . g.7 �$ ise . . 744(.5 ^ n1 r REI ,2 § j „I 1_ 23 = -I 281. x21 a I- 3 uSIBn Is2 ^ 2 9'a'a.$ safi ne PR.2 !s I $i$.ng€ ^ � IRs X18.RI I Isl !gs'AsE (Bldgslgl z zlx ! iaslslR$ IU ! R§.§.H $ RE §A !U� U8§ § « R. S.A. gR.g. IgI S IRRR' gt « R2'� R < ' 3l illi3 j fii IJla : s # ii 8 iii i iii = iii s 3 !� J111 11 # 11! > xlal2lxxx•221 Islsxs sass xass . 2s ^ ; 23x1 :IIx1 1= s xl: s sl v I22',s2sl 122122121 ti-IsIVI288 « al Ina ,. ! !! e.i„ - @ $ s 32 _ . R = r {I Is2!EaeI 2xc I I 's >lz zlz zIz zjzl I> >l> z » >z z z > > > z z > Iz z,F z'z Zrj> >I i zlzl IF > z z z z zlz > zl I"I' = I I ;� « « « « « «« « « r IWSE I ' fl € €€ € € € € € € 2 SZ € € x a 111111111Inn 1, 111 fill lqq 11111 D 11) J I 1 1 ; # 11 33111 gfflflfl !I I I 111111 !III ;11 ! H!!! 11!!! 11 11 jji 4 j !! ! a¢ RttzeEalk a +. PP'1 `s n2 ec :tin qi R ' 2g R _ « «n « ¢ «2 .2 011! "e" �¢ c ¢¢ � c c ¢ C c ¢ a Y C « « ¢ c a ¢ a « ¢ ¢ i a ¢a ¢ NRR iaR « V if < I nn < Ri a "x« a a Ess :211:1 asa c _C2R c _ 2 rryy « n ^ _ ., n _ � «^ V �` '. a ¢ ¢y Egg ¢ c c a a a C. a a ¢ Hip a a ¢ ¢ ¢ a rk$ A Rg UU ; ? s z ome ;I61R cal Ta 2 ! �.. I a I I II 1 Ig I§II 1aaaaaa a II! as a ! §Il� �= I I Iea��.,� h e ne IAA I § gAfl § §fl AA a A. a.A.g.g4 < AA PALM 8 88 Si 8 PA H" r _ !Al"2 iLoa I • I IA III 11111 B III II 8 E 1111 n o n a n n n n n > n n n I i 1¢'S 9999 $ 39 3 $93$ $ 9 9 $ $ $ 9 $ $ 99 $ 9$ $I99 IiI G N N h M < < < < < « « < t < < < L l< <I< < 11 -I Ilyii3 3 3333 333333 i @1113 ' Ak I I` L:"' - -ri- . . I« IRRRR« « 31 « RR « BRRR « « i«nP W o I„ I I= AIAA . IRe ,888 a aaaa'aaxa = a I aa'aak rc = I l > = IS -I_ I^ g_ M - e8 : _'8 RI^ - ❑ I RI 'sI^ '8 Elm PAWN l: ag_Ba s ag ! !,d awes ! a!al.a !fl z i !a *§§ a§ila gaga§ §'a I$ § aa'aaRa - a'g- gg #IAA II 3I# 331# 3131 I1uuuui'V 1111 milli 31i #*I* 20 l8 sl8ial I2242222,s Is s 22228I 8I 8 l - 118 i 6I�i I88RR : 8 gS82 R6a _ a I= Boc« =I=II= =l,-I> . i=I= = = = =l_ _ . .= I= = = z = =II = I=I=I=I¢I¢I I Athip' I _ =i ==I= = 111111 1 1111 111111 i 11111 i 3333 1 3 111111 33 3 3333 333333 g 33333 cflffil! !! !! ! ! a H!! ! ! ! ! ! !] ! ! ! ! ! IJ ¢ ¢ _ - «I� c ka¢� aaa ^ ¢= « Ar R a ¢ � ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ aa' as ,7, - i. I 8 I W V O f . : vet ... $ sr. a I I in ntr. 3 c U a e^ ! n a'0� ' m a § § § § § § a 111 gg a - - gg 1ilggs 1111111 1 11111111111 a HIGH JK M 190911m®IIII 1 _ 2 = 111111 H1111 II_DI F IT - - -00 00:.:- x: : : : : : : : : :01§ § - $ $ 5 $ $ $ 8 $ 91001011003333 88 $ $ $ 3 $ a 00013000$ 2301® Issas ig IIII ^z IIIIIIIII0 333333 " 3333 i - I'0001III ii0l• 1H - - 50 Yeegg = "00I10� € � I € 111300 cil € n 1 fl U! agFoa � � aa: ao � a MU a W o i f ea. " n0r�la 0 E E § « � � a�" „ : o a � aa < W I - I I 0 ? mi- aEa`azE mOg s I a aaa R = aas _anden I`alEigEla3 & IoxsmIr' N " a Irv „ aa : "el In� Igg� _ .. ! ! !IM _ W < O , 6am y C< , � " Ill' "10 001 "8 11111 14000 0nnnn l- nil c V p W w W WW W W W _� W W W W W W sIgIssis;sssss00 10g0asme stases sss 000100MOssssi s; LlImiss* i CF5 H232Z > > . :[ > 11S 22 2 2 > 10011 cZ222T. 2 >I Z2I c 2 I 'U IH H "Gift: J ! I J « ; r11I10®0« « «'I ; Jill ! < 'I � � F '� � ff .f 't P) y� y� W W ] Z I g y4s J L t Zr � < m' WIWWWWW11� W41 EMBin WI 5 I000IEN f WnNNi, N S I is{i$i 1 1 y[ .y{ yL y2 yj yj yLyL ss[[ IIj yj p Mil y2 $j j� WWWWW WiC �®�0� > SSiiY5�0�®0 -0 IS W555 9 ' ' !' ' 1!! 001 110 0010®011111 11110 L C C 1t �6l (¢1 l4'(j C ICJ }C�}]] C (¢(JJ ¢ y{j s W W , y 2g� > S S � S Iiiilliti S I $ n . h O 2F : N _n m . ,.. !vv M N � � O ' « O « �e p U ¢ U U Cy- U ,,E� _ C C C ! ¢ C C 6 6 6 C 2 aW illi ; i 'W f; ; ;; Ili ; ; ; ; ; ; �I ; ; ; 2 ° W OI 1!101 [11811) I I2 u ! - 11 I ICI ll 12" 1111113" 1 " I . , r § § § 4 li S 6 _ S $ $ S - S b S S $b - St " S l u € IIIIIIII1 immuiiiiiinio^ II 11 mill j IIHrHHIEIIlltUIIEEtttiIl1G;00110 n IIIIIi a na _ E I I MIIHE Fi Ilrlilmlmilitllll 6 - .0. ...... 9090 8 101000001910009 m0091§ O 1 3 ₹ "'t g g$1000003 ₹ $ $10E0®0101000000000000010 jg 3 ='h l0� h 10©0®0101 0®00®®0 _ yg 3 ' � 'I� 33 3333333 333 3133 33 i 100 « «« " "l0©0®0101000 RENO 1 _ 2 ' A AID nlrl« - « « " " < . " .. = « i inl« "�1::i333 ""`1I�ZII I 2 «l3n i i iIII 1I I I10BO08I I I I I18�0�01010001111111Opt 14 ! Iao p W � ~ ,,,,,,,,,.. .,. :4 , n i non . NI Ivi''i 'tr, n �0�®19©ZI��II-j ,� ;n; n o `3 € _ eaee " � RBga m $ia $ ! 8 $ awns $ e's . a Ce(2, . _� $ a8 8 [99� 10®0 E19900�00®999 a ° 1 j R111111111;111 FOCIMEMEEMBEREFE It] '; = 3 I s s.sjsls.sla s s lggppppoonnuCEppppIUID O89T9mo is salt sls Iu ins ilr� l>i>I> >I>1>lz zIF f F E l F y En= -, jil> > -I- I- R i i i i �8Z1 illll 11 I I I II! 6IW i I m iii:I1 < J I Ial08010I 1111�®80 j d i 11 N CCCCCC I I Wl IIII _ _ i ;III ii a I I j 1888 I��®01010 �_ l I ' 'I0 0EEIEEEi]Uh909 8I=48_ II, I . . 2 . . . t n ... P dD '^ ! .. 5F : xu �� R ; ! i ; l; � A ; ; ; = jai ;; ; ;S ; ; ; ; ;9 ; ;;I ; ; ; ; ; ; I «'I j« [ill�LIIIIIIII�II I I _0 i o� Iill n g < eac ::: # a I ' ll §I§ § :a: . f4 § S Y a sea e'e s e:e e e a Iri R� ' 1114 111'1111 I ' 111 ! IIC!: III II ifs �1 IIIIlIlIIIIflhIIIIllflhIIIIIII > R H MIMEI 11F H1111019 ' I !lit III I MIIIIIIIHHHIHEN "5"""t0000" 001000000/ 00000100009000 g "Q it 3 $ 33333 $ 3®®®® a 101mCE0000000®®010100000000$ 3333 i l " . "0` s h:hlk, 101®®000" <0<'<I<I<I 40000"44 < < < . 3 ₹ � ₹ ₹ ₹ 3 ₹ 3 3 331₹ ₹ 3 3 3�4 3 3 : - Ts": - - -Im�101®®000" " 00000100:I 1: n ii n0li0®101®®000®003 3 3 g' in! IIR000�0R ₹ nr raA it " `¢ Y $ llinfiz1J € Ip HHW000�n H III lip ill 1 111 ₹ N y 6 6 X16 � 6 6 6 LL � Y 1 4 4 � r > R oR o R ≤ R : £ R0® ' SSI IM 8 �- .. > .inn �� j u g R - $ ry e h nix ^ ®®��0 0 o it ry I n li H - - & r r 0 3 818 H o va 41:iii« !!! 101W1Ug[ - R -- 8RI 8R8I W Q '4 _ n e u� o o F & 1§1 !FA.42 “ .3 ? ?, § § § O LL n n ui I m.e n isk in ®®�� y � ,I �e 1: _ ₹,_ _ 1 : �1®��DIm�8A8# � 8313,3 Ill ill I I D 1 1 '18 w I>I1 sag sICajs a v a nre anfI 3DCD; ss 0®3 al is, lantnil:flsaa lass s I I 0.3 R kI R «UAW!!! 0l00Wta8 3 `₹ 3 `₹��I, 1,131 :' gs 8 vis o B O 8 I o.�$ $.$ $'n ti ' f-"N'')I> > >i >I>1>I>ISI OIMIII:i> Z II-N -H 12II IZ - Zi- �I i'2 Zlfii+ Rid '� rI ., 011100., 'rl� ' �� n � �i_I. 'e ogle ry e Ie o ei ' 1 I�I��Ie �I�n, e. e llHhI11HHaWUHI 111I809i1 IS0CIEHIND 1 IIME :iiirIDSIEDI # I , . � . , � Man©000000 W evd sd de egrylncd8 on ee eu ; nse e e aR nwa' ; a ;; Intif o l;;;; If ; ; ; ci ; ; ! ; ; ;!I 'I; ; ;0� ; ; ; ; ; ; I ; lu 12 :X IL eR � q�La nom do -1 ,l'c' tgx * - o e ry r I. . liii iIIJIHIUBI ; i 111111 I w o a � I I I I ' o QQ pp Q p p I § p Q Q § § § §§ p Q Q Q p p Q p g p t xM I ace IX X %% % seer § ifii El'Mii o u e e I e d d IV e e a a a n n n n n n a i MRN �.. I "I ¢S k Ilk §uu §§ §§.k§ r:- 28 §R Y� $ g o .S. 381 8Sl ARRRRS .I$ � 4 "I a1II ₹ II 1 II o .n aoa1Fd F W N U I ag _ I - lu a 8EssIAk .k§.1i IAREI $ R2 RRF 1RR EFF FFE § s EERERRE i33ig IgIggISggg $ 3338 8g $ z3S Sig ggg ggggg $ g $ $ ggg- 3, I ° ; < < « I-- . < < < < < < < < < . < < < < < < < < < < < < <- < � g 3333 j'I " " ` " 333 "' h3 333 33 ` z33 33333 333333113 3 5an „fin „I „I„ n „!in . „ „ .y „ „ „ n „ „ „ „ . „ „ n „ „ nn „ n „ „ „ „ nn „':( Cl l ` <3 <3RRI I„ „ n „ ntC „ . „I„ . n „ R « 3R AX ERR « RRRR nnnnnnn ₹ af. lMUM 1 € 1 II ! ill 111 ! II HHII U HHUUll! ₹� LI oare zn , § a . .iiRRkz $oa. ry E § & e8 R . s -�. !!§ .§ E, RR.!.!ss _I o z g :> E „ RRI lRl�1E „& ry : EAM1E is `2 s leg o01 S R, SRI . R ! I Im i > 1 " ! 1 lni» i n �1I I I la`�i W < oil 2I"Ig, Iryn $!Rsss Meals F = R in I lea $ RI .I$ ! F so ! T1 1 NICl . o,m On vnN -Frn --n N. F: IfIn „ na In2 -NIn Yi YNN,I.0 o Ri § 8 ! ii iEIN„1§ 6 § i. I§.§. § § § !8 !u .8k s ! niE !!!!.sss ILL „ n I , 1 l 111111 != = w DI 111 111 I 1 11 : : 1 HHHHH i g u) U I Isis'* jsls sls g s s Is s s s a sIs s s s sl Is s s a 3 3 slsisLs si a s s sis ss isl a R -1RR IS ^ o ^ ` S ^ lER � U S I ^ I< „ „ _'i_'i �NaaR;o . �1 �n . n � � s ass � �# r33 I$ gl� �� a : R : j 1 >H _ zlzz > > �I I>Irr > r > r > > r > rrr r > > > > ; zz zzzra:iz:' ,� it �II R i'1' ' i I . . . Ro % � I cc ro « : : 'I.T <; ; ; ; : : t ; ; Ir.-; : I Ir 111111] 11it gs3 1 gi gds gglisi sgsssii >I a " " . E EEE 32 II ° 21 _2 a gEl a 222 & EgI 1 111 111 111 11 j1 111 I X11 111 11111 111111E I PPUUU i ! ill ! ! Infl jj ; HH ! I < ! ! ! HH ! ! ! HH ! ! II II OQ I nn^ n $! 2 ! I„n » gR 3w z v » o R » n ^ « . ' nn ^ s _ r?. 1e I W N I $ ; W 5 1 ! 4 I I i y ; ¢ I 1 ^ nn o . ^ n s r ul ^ 2 = C ' n V t ^ a t ^ 1 I '—` O i I 2 R • R R 1 R Hello