River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis

Transcription

1 Final Report Prepared for: Carbondale Investments Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. EPS #20813 App. N-2

2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS... 1 Summary of Findings PROJECT OVERVIEW AND ABSORPTION... 3 Project Description... 3 Project Phasing and Absorption FISCAL MODEL... 7 Methodology... 7 Revenue Expenditures Net Fiscal Impact Net Fiscal Impact Comparison App. N-3

3 List of Tables Table 1 Development Program... 3 Table 2 Housing Unit Forecast, Roaring Fork Valley... 4 Table 3 River Edge Capture Forecast... 5 Table 4 River Edge Annual Absorption... 6 Table 5 Existing Conditions, Garfield County... 8 Table 6 Estimated Population... 9 Table 7 Construction Employment Table 8 Average Daily Population Table 9 Other Fiscal Assumptions Table 10 County Revenue, 2010 Budget Table 11 Annual Building Permit and Plan Check Revenue Table 12 Sales Tax from Construction Table 13 Property Tax Revenue Table 14 Household Sales Tax Revenue Table 15 Total Revenue Table 16 County Expenditures, 2010 Budget Table 17 County Sheriff Expenditures Table 18 Total Expenditures Table 19 Net Fiscal Impact Table 20 Net Fiscal Impact, exclusive of Affordable Homes Table 21 Net Fiscal Impact Existing Development vs. River Edge App. N-4

4 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS River Edge is a 160-acre master-planned residential development located in Garfield County at the intersection of Highway 82, County Road 114, and County Road 113. The development is proposed to include 365 residential units, of which 55 units will be affordable, and a 6,000 square foot neighborhood center for use as a community amenity. As part of the ongoing entitlement process, Carbondale Investments has requested Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to conduct a fiscal impact analysis, evaluating the impacts of the proposed project on Garfield County revenues and operating costs. The intent of the analysis is to provide an estimate of the impacts of new development on County revenue and the corresponding demand for services over time. Summary of Findings 1. Based on projected growth in the Mid-Valley and estimated project capture of 25 percent, River Edge is projected to absorb just under 60 units annually. The Mid-Valley area of the Roaring Fork Valley is projected to add between 3,300 and 3,700 new housing units through At a project capture of 25 percent beginning in 2013, the 365 units are estimated to reach full absorption and buildout by The proposed development generates 841 temporary annual construction jobs over the course of the development. Based on the estimated development costs and average construction wages in the County, the project generates 841 temporary construction jobs over the construction period. This figure represents the sum of annual employment. The peak annual employment during this period is estimated to be The proposed development results in an ongoing net fiscal impact of -$26,000 annually upon project buildout. Annual ongoing revenue is estimated at $438,000 in 2021 (two years after project buildout when property tax is fully realized). Annual ongoing expenditures are estimated at $464,000 in The cumulative net fiscal impact including one-time revenue is positive $566,000. The project is expected to generate $1.2 million of building permit revenue during construction and $50,000 of sales tax revenue on locally-purchased construction materials. Summing one-time revenue with annual ongoing net fiscal impacts results in the cumulative net fiscal impact in 2021 (two years after project buildout) of $566,000. Holding all revenue and expenditures constant, the cumulative net fiscal impact will cover annual shortfalls for another 21 years, or through the year Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Final Report App. N-5

5 5. Excluding affordable units, the ongoing fiscal impact of the proposed development is neutral (positive $664 annually). The provision of affordable units is a requirement of the County. These units generate significantly less property and sales tax as a result of lower market values and household incomes. When affordable units are excluded, annual ongoing revenue offsets estimate annual ongoing expenditures. On a cumulative basis, including one-time revenue, the project generates a positive net fiscal impact of $716,000 and remains positive in perpetuity. 6. Comparing the fiscal impact of River Edge to 365 units of existing development, using average home prices and household size, the annual net fiscal impact to the County is $242,000 less, or on a unit basis $663 per unit less impactful to the County than the existing residential base. To determine the difference in impact between existing development and the proposed River Edge, EPS tested 365 units at the County-wide average home price and household size. The average revenues and expenditures generated by existing residential development were then compared to the proposed development. The fiscal impact of 365 units of existing development generate an annual fiscal impact of -$268,000, compared to the -$26,000 annual fiscal impact (including affordable housing) identified for River Edge. This is a difference of $242,000 annually. On a per unit basis, the River Edge generates a burden of $72 per unit. This is $663 better than the current average cost of $735 per unit to the County. This demonstrates that while the River Edge has a negative impact on County finances, the impact is less negative than existing residential development in the County. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Final Report App. N-6

6 2. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND ABSORPTION Project Description River Edge is a 160-acre master-planned residential development located in Garfield County at the intersection of Highway 82, County Road 114, and County Road 113. The project abuts the Roaring Fork River and has been designed to provide trails, parks, and open space adjacent the river. The development team is proposing 365 new residential units and a 6,000 square foot neighborhood/community center to provide meeting and recreation space to the residents, as shown in Table 1. Included in the 365 units are 55 affordable garden homes. Table 1 Development Program Development Program Type North South Total Size Estate (Detached) ,200 Town (Detached) ,800 Village (Detached) ,400 Attached ,300 Garden Home 1 (Detached) ,300 Garden Home 2 (Aff. Detached) ,400 Subtotal ,000 Neighborhood Center 6,000 6,000 Total 876,000 Source: Carbondale Investments; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]7-MKT Unit-Detail Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Final Report App. N-7

7 Project Phasing and Absorption The project is located in the Roaring Fork Valley and will draw from future residential growth in Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and unincorporated areas of Garfield and Eagle Counties. As of 2010, the Mid-Valley area is estimated to contain 12,900 housing units. Based on historical residential building permit data, the area is projected to add approximately 220 new housing units annually over the next 10 to 15 years. In the near-term, projected new housing units will likely be lower than 220 units annually, while in the long-term, annual units will likely exceed this total. The timing of project phasing will be entirely dependent on the project s competitive ability to capture future growth. EPS ran several iterations of potential project absorption scenarios in the Mid-Valley, as shown in Table 2. The first projection uses a base housing unit forecast for the Mid-Valley, beginning at 50 percent of historical totals and reaching 105 percent of historical production by The second projection represents a more optimistic forecast with future housing units beginning at 75 percent of historical averages and reaching 115 percent by New housing units between 2010 and 2015 for the Mid-Valley are estimated to total 851 with an additional 2,321 units expected to be added between 2015 and This represents annual growth of approximately 1.6 percent. Total new housing units under the optimistic scenario are forecasted to reach over 1,100 by 2015 with an additional 2,500 to be added by This represents annual growth of approximately 1.7 percent. Table 2 Housing Unit Forecast, Roaring Fork Valley Base Factor Total Ann. % Total Ann. % Mid-Valley Housing Unit Projection % of Average Annual Activity % 75% 100% 105% 105% 105% 105% Basalt 43 1,548 1,570 1,602 1,645 1,691 1,736 1,963 2, % % Carbondale 60 2,343 2,373 2,419 2,479 2,543 2,606 2,923 3, % % Glenwood Springs 31 3,865 3,880 3,903 3,934 3,966 3,999 4,160 4, % % El Jebel 32 2,338 2,355 2,379 2,411 2,445 2,479 2,649 2, % % Unincorporated Garfield 54 2,842 2,869 2,909 2,964 3,021 3,078 3,362 3, % % Housing Units ,936 13,047 13,212 13,433 13,665 13,898 15,058 16, % 2, % Annual Change Total Change ,160 1,160 Cumulative New Units ,122 3,282 Optimistic Recovery Scenario % of Average Annual Growth 75% 100% 110% 115% 115% 115% 115% Housing Units ,936 13,102 13,323 13,566 13,820 14,074 15,345 16,616 1, % 2, % Annual Change Total Change ,271 1,271 Cumulative New Units ,138 2,409 3,680 Source: U.S. Census; DOLA; Municipal and County Building Departments; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River's Edge Fiscal Analysis\Models\[20813-Fiscal Model.xls]Market Capture Projection The River Edge project is expected to capture a reasonable portion of regional growth. Considering current projects in the development pipeline, a reasonable capture rate of projected future growth is likely between 15 and 25 percent, as shown in Table 3. Applying these capture rates to each housing unit forecast results in a projected absorption by 2020 of 320 to 530 units for the base forecast and 360 and 600 for the more optimistic forecast. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Final Report App. N-8

8 Table 3 River Edge Capture Forecast Description Capture Total Base Mid-Valley Unit Projection ,122 Low Capture 15% High Capture 25% Optimistic Mid-Valley Unit Projection ,409 Low Capture 15% High Capture 25% Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Carbondale Investments Property Fiscal Analysis\Models\[20813-Fiscal Model.xls]Abs Unit To be reasonably conservative, EPS chose the higher capture rate of the lower (base) forecast, which projects 530 units to be absorbed by the project by Using the identified 365 unit development program, EPS developed a ten-year absorption schedule, as shown in Table 4. Housing construction is not anticipated to occur until 2013, absorbing a maximum of 58 units annually through The neighborhood center is not anticipated to be developed until Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Final Report App. N-9

9 Table 4 River Edge Annual Absorption Type Total Estate Town Village Attached Garden Home Garden Home Subtotal Cumulative Neighborhood Center 6,000 6,000 Cumulative ,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]6-Abs Unit Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Final Report App. N-10

10 3. FISCAL MODEL This chapter summarizes the projected fiscal impacts of River Edge on Garfield County based on the development and absorption schedule identified in the previous chapter. The annual operating revenues and costs are evaluated and applied to the project s annual development program. Case studies were developed to estimate revenue sources and expenditures where specific project-related data was available, while an average factor approach was utilized for all other revenue and expenditure items. Methodology The fiscal analysis evaluates the impacts of the project on estimates of revenues and expenditures provided in the 2010 County budget. EPS conducted a detailed budget analysis to gain an understanding of the structure of the County budget and to understand the types of services provided. The relevant major funds analyzed include: General Fund; Human Services Fund; Road and Bridge Fund; and Capital Expenditures Fund. These funds were considered the most relevant to the fiscal impacts of River Edge on the County. The funds not included, such as the Airport Fund, were determined to be less relevant to County-wide fiscal trends and new development. In addition, expenditure items that are too small were not included in this analysis. EPS also conducted a series of interviews with departmental staff to gain an understanding of current operations and to discuss ways additional growth may impact each department s ability to maintain existing service standards. Information from the County s 2010 Budget was used to quantify current revenues and costs. Revenues and costs are estimated and applied to the River Edge development program using one of the following methodologies: case study, per capita, per dwelling unit (DU), or per average daily population. The methodologies were applied to all relevant funds. A definition of each methodology is applied below: Case Study This refers to a specific calculation of the costs or revenues derived from the project based on available data. Case studies were developed for revenues sources when refined calculation methods were available (e.g., real estate taxes). Per Capita This is an average measure based on current per capita estimates of costs or revenues. This estimating technique is used when more detailed data is not available. Budget items are divided by the population served to derive an average cost or revenue estimate. A percent variable is also applied to represent the revenue or cost item s relationship to new development growth. Per Dwelling Unit (per DU) Similar to per capita calculations, this is an average measure based on current housing unit estimates of costs or revenues. Budget items are divided by the dwelling units served to derive an average cost or revenue per DU. A percent variable is also applied to represent the revenue or cost item s relationship to new development growth. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Final Report App. N-11

11 Per Average Daily Population Similar to per capita calculations, this is an average measure based on total population plus non-resident employees. Non-resident employees are estimated to have approximately half of the impact as full-time residents as these individuals are only in the County during the day. Budget items are divided by average daily population served to derive an average cost or revenue factor. A percent variable is also applied to represent the revenue or cost item s relationship to new development growth. Existing (2010) demographic data was used to derive the average costs or revenue factors. As of 2010, the population of Garfield County is estimated at 59,032 persons, as shown in Table 5. The County services 23,080 housing units (DUs), of which approximately 21,808 are occupied. Average daily population in 2010 is estimated to total 63,005. Table 5 Existing Conditions, Garfield County Garfield County Existing Conditions Factor Housing Units 20,585 21,199 21,857 22,515 23,080 Households 19,555 20,317 21,032 21,274 21,808 Total Population 52,969 55,063 57,050 57,587 59,032 Employment 36,800 39,065 41,221 37,655 37,655 Non-Resident Employment (Commuters) 1 32% 8,066 8,617 9,076 7,946 7,946 Average Daily Employment 2 50% 4,033 4,308 4,538 3,973 3,973 Average Daily Population 57,002 59,371 61,588 61,560 63,005 1 Non-Resident Employment estimated as 32 percent of Wage and Salary Employment based on 3-year avg. of LEHD Census data 2 Non-resident employees (commuters) are estimated to have an impact of 50 percent of full-time residents. Source: DOLA; BEA; BLS; LEHD on the Map Census Data; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]3-Existing Cond. Population and Housing Units Based on the estimated absorption schedule, EPS projected the number of new full-time residents anticipated to occupy the development. Because of the proposed mix of residential products, it is anticipated that the development will cater to local homeowners. However, it is likely that some units will be purchased by second homeowners. As a result, secondhomeowners are anticipated to occupy 10 percent of all single-family homes, 25 percent of all attached homes, and 20 percent of garden homes. A second-home is estimated to spend approximately 60 days over the course of the calendar year in the County. Thus all second homes have the equivalency of 16 percent (60/365) of full-time homeowners. Single-family detached homes are estimated at three persons per unit, while attached units are estimated at 2.5 persons per unit. Based on the above, the proposed development is anticipated to add 953 new full-time equivalent residents at buildout, or by 2019 as shown in Table 6. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Final Report App. N-12

12 Table 6 Estimated Population Type of Resident Total Housing Units Total Population Local Homeowner nd Homeowner Total Cumulative Housing Units Cumulative Population Local Homeowner nd Homeowner Total Persons/DU Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]12-Population Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Final Report App. N-13

13 Employment To estimate new employment generated by construction, the development team provided an estimate of total construction costs, including housing and site development, of $128.2 million. Of this total, 70 percent is expected to be hard costs. Of hard costs, 50 percent is allocated toward materials with the remaining 50 percent representing labor, as shown in Table 7. EPS then divided estimated labor costs by the average annual wage of a construction employee in Garfield County, or $53,363. Total temporary employment over the course of construction is estimated at 841 annual jobs with an estimated peak of 141 jobs in Table 7 Construction Employment Description Factor Total Total Construction Costs $0 $0 $3,499,968 $18,740,875 $19,790,875 $19,786,875 $19,663,604 $21,445,696 $17,544,166 $7,776,000 $0 $128,248,060 Hard Costs 70% $0 $0 $2,449,978 $13,118,613 $13,853,613 $13,850,813 $13,764,523 $15,011,987 $12,280,916 $5,443,200 $0 $89,773,642 Labor Costs 50% $0 $0 $1,224,989 $6,559,306 $6,926,806 $6,925,406 $6,882,261 $7,505,994 $6,140,458 $2,721,600 $0 $44,886,821 Annual Wage 1 $53,363 Construction Employment BLS 2009 Average Annual Wage Construction Industry (23) Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]13-Const. Emp. Average Daily Population EPS estimated average daily population by summing total population and new non-resident employees generated by the project, both during construction, as well as upon buildout. At this time, no commercial uses are projected for the 6,000 square foot neighborhood center. As a result, average daily population upon buildout only includes projected full-time equivalent residents. Average daily population is estimated to total 953 upon project buildout and stabilization, as shown in Table 8. Table 8 Average Daily Population Description Factor Total Housing Units Total Population Construction Employment Total Employment Average Daily Employment 1 32% Non-Resident Emp. 50% Average Daily Population US Census Average Commuting Employment ( ). Commuters are estiamted to have 50 percent of impact of full-time resident. Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]14-Project Demo Table 9 shows other fiscal assumptions made in the analysis. The property tax assumptions are based on current State of Colorado rates, in which commercial property is assessed at a ratio of 29 percent and residential units at a rate of 7.96 percent. The subject property tax parcel has a mill levy of , of which flows to the funds examined in this analysis. The 1.0 percent sales tax is subdivided and allocated to departments, funds, and/or other entities according to County funding thresholds, or which 0.45 percent is allocated to the County funds examined. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Final Report App. N-14

14 Table 9 Other Fiscal Assumptions Assumptions Assessment County Property Tax Ratio Commercial Residential Total Mill Levy County Mills County Sales tax 1.000% Library 0.25% 911/Communications 0.19% Road and Bridge 0.26% Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02% Municipalities 0.09% Sheriff's Office 0.09% Public Health 0.09% 1 See Table 10 Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]2-Assump. Revenue Total General Fund Revenue for the County is estimated at approximately $52.4 million in 2010, as shown in Table 10. Revenue to the remaining funds is estimated at $16.6 million for Human Services, $25.0 million for Road and Bridge, $13.4 million for Capital Improvements, and $1.3 million for Public Health. As a new development in the County, the proposed project will generate additional revenue streams to each of these funds in the form of increased property tax, sales tax (point of sale and point of origin), specific ownership tax (automobiles), and charges for services. These revenues are divided into two major categories: one-time and ongoing revenues. One-time revenues are realized only during the construction period and include building permit and plan check fees as well as sales tax generated from locally-purchased construction materials. Ongoing revenues occur annually in perpetuity. EPS estimated additional revenue using case study methods where project-specific data was available. The methodology for each case study is outlined in the following section. All other revenue is estimated using a factor approach as defined in the Methodology section of this chapter. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Final Report App. N-15

15 Table 10 County Revenue, 2010 Budget Revenues Total Annual Revenues Forecasting Method Gross Multiplier Percent Variable Net Multiplier General Fund Taxes Property Tax $39,446,000 Case Study Sales Tax $1,644,000 Case Study Specific Ownership Tax $1,284,000 See Below Misc. Taxes $10,000 N/A Liscenses and Permits $5,000 N/A Intergovernmental 1 $1,729,000 N/A Charges for Services 2 Building Permits $500,000 Case Study Other Charges for Services $4,802,000 Per Capita $ % $61.01 Fines and Forfeitures $135,000 N/A Investment Earnings $1,508,000 N/A Contributions $867,000 N/A Miscellaneous Revenue $491,000 N/A Subtotal $52,421,000 Human Services Fund Taxes Property Tax $3,000,000 Case Study Specific Ownership Tax $161,000 See Below Intergovernmental 1 $13,305,000 N/A Investment Earnings $0 N/A Miscellaneous Revenue $162,000 N/A Subtotal $16,628,000 Road & Bridge Fund Taxes Property Tax $15,000,000 Case Study Sales Tax $3,027,000 Case Study Specific Ownership Tax $440,000 See Below Other Taxes $0 N/A Licenses and Permits $270,000 Per DU $ % $8.77 Intergov/State Highway User Fund $3,078,000 Per DU $ % $ Charges for Services $5,000 N/A Contributions 3 $3,122,000 N/A Other $24,000 N/A Subtotal $24,966,000 Capital Improvement Fund Taxes Property Tax $12,000,000 Case Study Specific Ownership Tax $633,000 See Below Intergovernmental 1 $800,000 N/A Investment Earnings $0 N/A Subtotal $13,433,000 Public Health Fund Taxes Sales Tax $374,000 Case Study Intergovernmental 1 $710,000 N/A Charges for Services $192,000 N/A Other Revenue $1,200,000 N/A Subtotal $1,276,000 Specific Ownership Tax 5 $2,518,000 Per DU $ % $ Total $108,724,000 1 Intergovernmental includes transfers and all grants (Federal, State & Local) 2 Includes Treasurer's fees & other fees. Building permit & plan check fees not counted here. 3 Contributions are from Chevron for a specific road project 5 Specific Ownership Tax distributions change yearly, so the revenue stream is treated alone in this fiscal analysis Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]4-Rev Factors Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Final Report App. N-16

16 One-Time Revenue Where sufficient data was available, EPS utilized a case study approach to estimate future revenue. Building Permits and Sales Tax on Construction are both estimated using a case study approach. Building Permits Garfield County charges building permit and plan check fees for all new development in unincorporated areas. These fees are based on the estimated valuation of the building improvements. For example, for all building improvements with values exceeding $1.0 million, the County charges a base fee of $5,609 for the first $1.0 million in building improvements and $3.15 per $1,000 of valuation for all improvements exceeding $1.0 million. Plan check fees are charged as 65 percent of building permit fees. The development team provided estimated construction costs for each product type. Building permit and plan check fees at full buildout are estimated to exceed $1.2 million, as shown in Table 11. Table 11 Annual Building Permit and Plan Check Revenue 1 Description BP&PC Charge Total per Unit (Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) Market Estate $5,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,234 $0 $0 $0 $61,234 Town $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $59,245 $71,094 $63,195 $71,094 $27,648 $82,943 $0 $0 $375,220 Village $3,377 $0 $0 $0 $33,768 $33,768 $74,290 $33,768 $33,768 $91,174 $91,174 $0 $391,710 Attached $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $0 $0 $0 $130,637 Garden Home 1 $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $32,659 $32,659 $26,127 $0 $0 $0 $156,765 Garden Home 2 $2,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Affordable Estate $5,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Town $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Village $3,377 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Attached $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Garden Home 1 $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Garden Home 2 $2,009 $0 $0 $0 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $10,046 $0 $0 $110,511 Neighborhood Center $6,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,260 $0 $0 $0 $6,260 Total $0 $0 $0 $178,425 $190,274 $190,237 $190,274 $207,789 $184,164 $91,174 $0 $1,232,336 Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $178,425 $368,699 $558,936 $749,209 $956,998 $1,141,162 $1,232,336 $1,232,336 $1,232,336 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]20-Case-B&P Annual Sales Tax on Construction Materials purchased locally during the construction of the proposed development will generate new sales tax revenue to the County. Because Garfield County does not collect use tax, only materials purchased in the County will be subject to sales tax. Based on EPS discussions with the development team, an estimated 25 to 50 percent of materials could be purchased locally, most likely from the Lowes Home Improvement store in Glenwood Springs. To be conservative, EPS used the low end of the range, or 25 percent, as the estimate for locally purchased materials. Applying this factor to the estimated materials cost of $44.9 million results in a total of $11.2 million of locally purchased construction materials through buildout, generating $449,000 in total one-time sales tax dollars, as shown in Table 12. Of this total, $50,000 flows to relevant County funds. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Final Report App. N-17

17 Table 12 Sales Tax from Construction Description Factor Total Total Construction Costs $0 $0 $3,499,968 $18,740,875 $19,790,875 $19,786,875 $19,663,604 $21,445,696 $17,544,166 $7,776,000 $0 $128,248,060 Hard Costs 70% $0 $0 $2,449,978 $13,118,613 $13,853,613 $13,850,813 $13,764,523 $15,011,987 $12,280,916 $5,443,200 $0 $89,773,642 Material Costs 50% $0 $0 $1,224,989 $6,559,306 $6,926,806 $6,925,406 $6,882,261 $7,505,994 $6,140,458 $2,721,600 $0 $44,886,821 Local Purchases 25% $0 $0 $306,247 $1,639,827 $1,731,702 $1,731,352 $1,720,565 $1,876,498 $1,535,115 $680,400 $0 $11,221,705 County Sales Tax Revenue Library 0.25% $0 $0 $766 $4,100 $4,329 $4,328 $4,301 $4,691 $3,838 $1,701 $0 $28, /Communications 0.19% $0 $0 $574 $3,075 $3,247 $3,246 $3,226 $3,518 $2,878 $1,276 $0 $21,041 Road and Bridge 0.26% $0 $0 $804 $4,305 $4,546 $4,545 $4,516 $4,926 $4,030 $1,786 $0 $29,457 Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02% $0 $0 $57 $307 $325 $325 $323 $352 $288 $128 $0 $2,104 Municipalities 0.09% $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520 Sheriff's Office 0.09% $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520 Public Health 0.09% $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520 Total Sales Tax 1.00% $0 $0 $3,062 $16,398 $17,317 $17,314 $17,206 $18,765 $15,351 $6,804 $0 $448,868 Total County Sales Tax 0.45% $0 $0 $1,378 $7,379 $7,793 $7,791 $7,743 $8,444 $6,908 $3,062 $0 $50,498 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]16-Case-Sales Tax Cont. Ongoing Revenue A case study approach was used to estimate property and sales tax generated by the project. All other ongoing revenue is estimated using a factor approach. Property Tax As a result of the proposed building improvements, new property tax revenue will be generated to Garfield County. A total of mills per $1,000 of assessed value are applied to the subject property, as shown earlier in Table 7. However, only mills will flow to the County Funds examined. Assessments take place at the beginning of every calendar year in Garfield County. Once a property is on the tax rolls, property tax is billed and paid the following year, resulting in a two-year lag from initial permitting to revenue collection. Residential property in Colorado is assessed at 7.96 percent of market value, while commercial property in is assessed at 29.0 percent of market value. Assessed value is estimated using market values provided by the development team and applying a 5.0 percent downward adjustment to account for typical appraised values. Assessment cycles occur every other year. As a result, new assessed value is generated oneyear following construction. The assessed value of the subject property in 2014 is estimated to total $2.4 million, as shown in Table 13. Because property tax is billed and paid in the year following assessment, an increase in property tax revenue for buildings permitted in 2013 is not realized until 2015, totaling just over $136,000, of which $32,000 flows to the funds examined. Total property tax revenue generated by the subject development upon buildout is estimated at $965,000, of which $228,000 is collected by the relevant County funds. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Final Report App. N-18

18 Table 13 Property Tax Revenue Product Type Rate ,000 (Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) (Year 11) Total Assessed Value $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,385,811 $2,563,669 $2,554,746 $2,728,969 $2,876,131 $2,565,333 $1,225,044 $0 Cumulative Assessed Value $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,385,811 $4,949,480 $7,504,226 $10,233,196 $13,109,327 $15,674,660 $16,899,704 $16,899,704 Total Property Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $136,170 $282,492 $428,304 $584,060 $748,215 $894,631 $964,551 Applicable Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,123 $66,640 $101,037 $137,780 $176,504 $211,044 $227,538 County General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,471 $38,319 $58,098 $79,225 $101,492 $121,353 $130,838 Road & Bridge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,826 $14,160 $21,470 $29,277 $37,506 $44,845 $48,350 Human Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,365 $2,831 $4,292 $5,853 $7,499 $8,966 $9,667 Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,461 $11,329 $17,177 $23,424 $30,007 $35,879 $38,683 Retirement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $456 $945 $1,433 $1,955 $2,504 $2,994 $3,228 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,578 $67,585 $102,470 $139,734 $179,008 $214,037 $230,765 RE-1 School District General $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,173 $108,235 $164,102 $223,780 $286,675 $342,773 $369,563 Mill Levy Override $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,735 $13,972 $21,184 $28,888 $37,008 $44,250 $47,708 RE-1 Bond $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,014 $31,147 $47,224 $64,397 $82,497 $98,641 $106,350 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,922 $153,355 $232,511 $317,065 $406,179 $485,664 $523,620 Carbondale Fire General Fund 5.91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,100 $29,251 $44,350 $60,478 $77,476 $92,637 $99,877 Fire Bond $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,147 $6,528 $9,898 $13,498 $17,291 $20,675 $22,291 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,247 $35,780 $54,248 $73,976 $94,767 $113,312 $122,168 Water & Sanitation Basalt Water Conserv $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105 $218 $330 $450 $577 $690 $744 CO River Water Conserv. Dist $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $396 $822 $1,246 $1,699 $2,176 $2,602 $2,805 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $501 $1,039 $1,576 $2,149 $2,753 $3,292 $3,549 Colorado Mtn. College $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,536 $19,783 $29,994 $40,902 $52,398 $62,652 $67,548 Library $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,386 $4,949 $7,504 $10,233 $13,109 $15,675 $16,900 Applicable Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,123 $66,640 $101,037 $137,780 $176,504 $211,044 $227,538 1 Includes All County Mills except Retirement Note: Taxes are billed and paid the following year of assessment Source: Garfield County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]15-Case-Prop Tax$ Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Final Report App. N-19

19 Sales Tax New residential development generates new sales tax revenue through retail purchases made in various locations throughout the County by new households moving into and occupying residential units. According to the US Census of Retail Trade, State of Colorado residents spend approximately 37.1 percent of their income on retail purchases. EPS estimates that 20 percent of these purchases will likely be made outside the County, with the remaining 80 percent representing local purchases. EPS estimated annual household incomes based on the anticipated unit prices of the 365 new residential units. Multiplying the estimated annual household incomes by the number of units and the estimated percent of local expenditures results in an estimate of new annual household retail spending in the County, as shown in Table 14. The resulting annual County retail expenditures from new households are estimated to total $15.7 million upon buildout. A detailed analysis of household expenditure potential is included in the full model. From these retail expenditures, the County applies a one percent sales tax which is divided among several departments. Total new annual sales tax revenue generated by the new households in the development is estimated to total $167,000 annually upon buildout. Total County revenue for the funds examined is estimated at $71,000 annually. Table 14 Household Sales Tax Revenue Description Factor (Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) Annual Household Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $2,219,715 $4,605,709 $7,041,201 $9,427,196 $12,081,021 $14,531,163 $15,704,035 $15,704,035 County Sales Tax Revenue Library 0.25% $0 $0 $0 $5,549 $11,514 $17,603 $23,568 $30,203 $36,328 $39,260 $39, /Communications 0.19% $0 $0 $0 $4,162 $8,636 $13,202 $17,676 $22,652 $27,246 $29,445 $29,445 Road and Bridge 0.26% $0 $0 $0 $5,827 $12,090 $18,483 $24,746 $31,713 $38,144 $41,223 $41,223 Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02% $0 $0 $0 $416 $864 $1,320 $1,768 $2,265 $2,725 $2,945 $2,945 Municipalities 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 Sheriff's Office 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 Public Health 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 Total Sales Tax 1.00% $0 $0 $0 $22,197 $46,057 $70,412 $94,272 $120,810 $145,312 $157,040 $157,040 Total County Sales Tax 0.45% $0 $0 $0 $9,989 $20,726 $31,685 $42,422 $54,365 $65,390 $70,668 $70,668 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]17-Case-Sales Tax (PO) Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Final Report App. N-20

20 Total Revenue In sum, total revenue generated to the County is estimated at approximately $438,000 in 2021 (two years after buildout when new property tax is fully realized), as shown in Table 15. In addition, total one-time revenue is estimated at $1.3 million at final buildout. A breakout by fund is as follows: Total revenue generated to the County General Fund is estimated at approximately $204,000 annually in Total revenue generated to the County Human Services Fund is estimated at approximately $10,000 annually in Total revenue generated to the County Road and Bridge Fund is estimated at approximately $129,000 annually in Total revenue generated to the County Capital Expenditures Fund is estimated at approximately $39,000 annually in Total revenue generated to the County Public Health Fund is estimated at approximately $15,000 annually in Specific Ownership Tax, which is distributed across a number of funds, is estimated at $42,000 annually in Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Final Report App. N-21

21 Table 15 Total Revenue Type of Fund Type Factor (Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) (Year 11) On-Going Revenue General Fund Property Tax Case Study mills $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,471 $38,319 $58,098 $79,225 $101,492 $121,353 $130,838 Sales Tax On-Site Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723 Misc. Tax N/A Charges for Services Per Capita $61.01 $0 $0 $0 $8,429 $17,376 $26,790 $35,737 $44,421 $53,480 $58,147 $58,147 $58,147 General Fund Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $10,510 $21,694 $51,862 $82,894 $113,844 $146,329 $174,362 $194,223 $203,707 Human Services Fund Property Tax Case Study mills $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,365 $2,831 $4,292 $5,853 $7,499 $8,966 $9,667 Human Services Fund Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,365 $2,831 $4,292 $5,853 $7,499 $8,966 $9,667 Road & Bridge Fund Property Tax Case Study mills $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,826 $14,160 $21,470 $29,277 $37,506 $44,845 $48,350 Sales Tax On-Site Sales Tax Case Study 0.26% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study 0.26% $0 $0 $0 $5,827 $12,090 $18,483 $24,746 $31,713 $38,144 $41,223 $41,223 $41,223 Other Tax N/A Licenses & Permits Per DU $8.77 $0 $0 $0 $483 $991 $1,500 $2,009 $2,501 $2,966 $3,202 $3,202 $3,202 Intergovernmental Per DU $ $0 $0 $0 $5,502 $11,304 $17,106 $22,908 $28,510 $33,812 $36,513 $36,513 $36,513 Road & Bridge Fund Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $11,811 $24,386 $43,915 $63,824 $84,193 $104,199 $118,445 $125,784 $129,289 Capital Expenditures Fund Property Tax Case Study mills $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,461 $11,329 $17,177 $23,424 $30,007 $35,879 $38,683 Cap. Expenditures Fund Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,461 $11,329 $17,177 $23,424 $30,007 $35,879 $38,683 Public Health Fund Sales Tax On-Site Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723 Public Health Fund Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723 Specific Ownership Tax Per DU $ $0 $0 $0 $6,303 $12,950 $19,597 $26,244 $32,661 $38,735 $41,829 $41,829 $41,829 Subtotal On-Going Revenue $0 $0 $0 $30,705 $63,347 $128,801 $195,961 $263,494 $332,163 $386,864 $421,404 $437,898 One Time Revenue General Fund Construction Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $0 Building & Planning Fee Revenue Case Study $0 $0 $0 $178,425 $190,274 $190,237 $190,274 $207,789 $184,164 $91,174 $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $287 $179,962 $191,897 $191,860 $191,887 $209,548 $185,603 $91,812 $0 $0 Road & Bridge Construction Sales Tax Case Study 0.26% $0 $0 $804 $4,305 $4,546 $4,545 $4,516 $4,926 $4,030 $1,786 $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $804 $4,305 $4,546 $4,545 $4,516 $4,926 $4,030 $1,786 $0 $0 Public Health Construction Sales Tax Case Study 0.09% $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $0 Cumulative One Time Rev. $0 $0 $1,378 $187,182 $385,249 $583,277 $781,293 $997,526 $1,188,598 $1,282,833 $1,282,833 $1,282,833 Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]20-Rev. All Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Final Report App. N-22

22 Expenditures Total General Fund Expenditures for the County are estimated to total approximately $40.0 million in 2010, as shown in Table 16. Expenditures to the remaining funds are estimated at $3.0 million for Human Services, $20.2 million for Road and Bridge, $16.3 million for Capital Expenditures, and $483,000 for Public Health. All expenditures have been adjusted to exclude items paid for using grant revenue. The Capital Expenditures Fund represents a three-year average to compensate for any large expenditure made in a single-year, as well as excludes annual debt service for previous projects. The proposed development will generate additional expenditures to the County in the form of increased/enhanced County services. EPS estimated additional expenditures using a case study method where information was available. The methodology for each case study is outlined in the following section. All other expenditures are estimated using a factor approach as defined in the Methodology section of this chapter. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Final Report App. N-23

23 Table 16 County Expenditures, 2010 Budget Expenditures 2010 Budget 1,2 Method Forecasting Gross Multiplier Percent Variable Net Multiplier General Fund General $451,000 Per Capita $ % $3.82 BOCC O & M $710,000 Per Capita $ % $9.02 Discretionary Programs $2,630,000 Per Capita $ % $22.28 Assessor $2,080,000 Per DU $ % $45.06 Clerk & Recorder $1,983,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $ % $15.74 Treasurer $769,000 N/A Sheriff $18,040,000 Case Study Coroner $217,000 N/A Surveyor $51,000 N/A County Attorney $1,412,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $ % $11.21 County Manager $723,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $ % $5.74 Finance $1,082,000 Per Capita $ % $9.16 Human Resources $716,000 Per Capita $ % $6.06 Information Technology $1,368,000 Per Capita $ % $11.59 Purchasing $810,000 N/A Oil & Gas $532,000 N/A General Services $2,088,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $ % $24.86 Criminal Justice Services $2,517,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $ % $19.97 Building & Planning $1,581,000 Per DU $ % $51.38 County Engineer $268,000 Per Capita $ % $2.27 Public Health 3 $0 N/A Fund Administration $0 N/A Total Expenditures $40,028,000 Human Services Fund $2,976,000 Per Capita $ % $25.21 Road & Bridge Fund $20,178,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $ % $80.06 Capital Expenditures Fund 4 New Sheriff Vehicles $75,000 Case Study Other $8,743,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $ % $ Total $10,837,000 Public Health Fund $483,000 Per Capita $ % $4.09 Total Expenditures $74,502,000 Note: Items that do not have a natural relationship with growth are not estimated 1 Rounded numbers 2 Excludes Grant/Intergovernmental Revenue and Grant Expenditures 3 Public Health Fund now separate fund 4 Represents 3-year Average, excluding cost of new Sheriff Vehicles estimated in Sheriff Case Study and 2010 debt service Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River's Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model2.xls]5-Expend Factors Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Final Report App. N-24

24 One-Time Expenditures The proposed development does not trigger any upfront capital expenditures to the County as all parks, open space, new roads and/or other facilities will be privately maintained by an HOA. However, the addition of 365 housing units will likely impact regional capital needs over the long-term. These long-term capital improvements are estimated as ongoing expenditures. Ongoing Expenditures The proposed development generates annual ongoing expenditures to the General Fund, Human Services Fund, Road and Bridge Fund, Capital Expenditures Fund, and Public Health Fund. The majority of these impacts are estimated using a factor approach. Where sufficient data is available, EPS utilized a case study approach to estimate future County Expenditures. While EPS typically estimates impacts to the Road and Bridge Fund using a case study approach, the proposed development is fully accessed by a state highway and all internal roads will be privately maintained. Therefore, impacts to the County Road and Bridge Fund will be minimal and are estimated using a factor approach. Anticipated increased expenditures by the Sherriff department are estimated using a case study approach. Sheriff The County Sheriff department will likely be directly impacted by the proposed development and warrants a detailed examination of expenditures. According to department data, the County received just over 26,000 calls for services in Based on a County population of just over 59,000, the annual call generation rate is estimated at 0.44 annual calls per person. As development absorption occurs, the subject development is anticipated to total 1,995 new residents which will generate an annual volume of 884 calls. The majority of departmental expenses will increase in line with annual calls, with the exception of the Jail which serves more regional needs. County patrol will likely be impacted the greatest by the proposed development, as additional staff time will be incurred in the form of overtime or new officer hires. The County currently has 32 full-time paid patrol officers, which translates to officers per call. It is anticipated that additional staff will be covered through overtime of existing officers until the demand of a new officer is reached. Upon the need to hire a new officer (estimated at approximately 0.5 FTE), new training and equipment ($6,000) will be required, as well as a patrol vehicle at the estimated purchase price of $45,000. All new patrol vehicles are purchased in the Capital Improvements Fund and then transferred to the Motor Pool. Thus, the cost of a new patrol car is included in the Sheriff analysis for informational purposes only and is actually reflected in the Capital Improvements Fund. Patrol vehicles are replaced every five years. The Motor Pool charges the Sherriff Department $0.75 per mile for both operations and replacement. According to the department, patrol vehicles typically average 35,000 miles annually which is then applied to the incremental vehicle demand generated by the development. Motor Pool/Operations and Replacement costs are estimated to total $13,000 annually at buildout (0.48 vehicles at 35,000 miles annually). In sum, annual ongoing Sheriff expenses for this project are estimated to total $100,000, including $51,000 for operations, $36,000 for patrol staff, and $13,000 for vehicle maintenance and replacement, as shown in Table 17. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Final Report App. N-25