The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-29 TOV Transportation Impact Fee ScheduleRESOLUTION NO. 29 Series of 2017 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE, PURSUANT TO TITLE 12-26; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town "), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter "); WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council ") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, Title 12, Chapter 26 of the Vail Town Code requires the adoption of a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (the "Fee Schedule"); WHEREAS, the Council finds and determines that the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study dated March 10, 2017 supports the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule shall be updated from time to time to account for construction cost, inflation and updated Town Master Plans. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Council hereby approves the Fee Schedule. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect on January 1, 2018. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetin• of t e T•w. 'uncil of the Town of Vail held this 7h day of November, 2017. Dave Chapin, Town Mayor TOWN ofva • TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUD_Y>• • • • y, • •• • vas 1.14. March 10, 2017 Prepared By TuschlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC I PLANNING www.tischlerbise.com Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 2 COLORADO IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION 2 ADDITIONAL LEGAL GUIDELINES 2 DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE TOWN OF VAIL 4 Figure 1— Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area 5 LOWER FEES IN CORE AREA 5 Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas 5 Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas 6 Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas 6 CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES 7 Figure 2 — Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 8 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 9 Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula 9 TRIP GENERATION 10 Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail 10 Figure 4 — Summary of Projected Travel Demand 11 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 11 Figure 5 — Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share 12 CREDIT FOR OTHER REVENUES 13 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FORMULA AND INPUT VARIABLES 13 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables 14 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 15 Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 15 FUNDING STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 16 Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection 16 APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 17 TRIP GENERATION BY TYPE AND SIZE OF HOUSING 17 Figure Al — PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House 18 TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING 19 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet 20 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 21 CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS 21 TOWN -WIDE SERVICE AREA 21 DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES 22 Residential Development 22 Commercial Development 22 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES 24 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 INTRODUcT1ON Although Colorado is a "home -rule" state and home -rule municipalities were already collecting "impact fees" under their home -rule authority granted in the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Legislature passed enabling legislation in 2001, as discussed further below. Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to determine basic options and requirements established by state law. Some states have more conservative legal parameters that basically restrict local government to specifically authorized actions. In contrast, "home -rule" states grant local governments broader powers that may or may not be precluded or preempted by state statutes depending on the circumstances and on the state's particular laws. Impact fees are one-time payments imposed on new development that must be used solely to fund growth -related capital projects, typically called "system improvements". An impact fee represents new growth's proportionate share of capital facility needs. In contrast to project - level improvements, impact fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the new development and the need for the growth -related infrastructure. Project -level improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to transportation improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes. According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, impact fees must be legislatively adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of property. The purpose of impact fees is to defray capital costs directly related to proposed development. The statutes of other states allow impact fee schedules to include administrative costs related to impact fees and the preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not specifically authorized in Colorado's statute. Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities. Because system improvements are larger and more costly, they may require bond financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. To be funded by impact fees, Section 29-20-104.5 requires that the capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Also, development impact fees cannot be used to repair or correct existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure. Additional Legal Guidelines Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without 2 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, by ensuring development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings) provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees. There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (see NoIlan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely related to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, TischlerBise prefers a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "need," "benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Development impact fees may be used to cover the cost of development - related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The NoIlan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development -related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in 3 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g. a typical housing unit's vehicular trip generation rate). A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of impact fees should also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review. Impact fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects include, but are not limited to the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e., turning lanes, signalization or roundabouts) and "complete street" improvements to provide multimodal infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, bike lanes and sidewalks). Whenever improvements are made to existing roads, non -impact fee funding is typically required to help pay a portion of the cost. Development Pattern in the Town of Vail Vail is a resort community of approximately 5,000 year-round residents that surges to approximately 40,000-45,000 persons during peak tourism season when employees and visitors are present. The occupied bed base of the community swells from 5,000 to 35,000 during these peak periods. Figure 1 delineates the core area of Vail. Actual boundaries of the Town extend six miles to the east and four miles to the west of the core area (see map inset). Given its location in a mountain valley, the Town has a compact development pattern and a multi -modal transportation system that relies on pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular travel. Consistent with this setting, the proposed impact fees will fund multi -modal transportation improvements necessary to accommodate projected development within the Town of Vail. 4 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 1— Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area Vail Core Area Lionshead YHage tcc 1000 Fee 2.000 Lower Fees in Core Area Development of attached housing units and hotels in the core area will facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use, thus requiring less vehicular travel. In recognition of lower vehicular travel demand in the core area, proposed transportation impact fees are lower in the core area. This policy recommendation is consistent with the literature summarized in the three subsections below and a recent analysis of mixed-use developments in six regions of the United States. This study found an average 29% reduction in trip generation as a function of "0" variables, including: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit, demographics, and development scale (see Ewing, Greenwald, Zhang, Walters, Feldman, Cervero, Frank, and Thomas 2011). Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas Single-family housing is generally located in low-density suburbs where there are few alternatives for travel except by private motor vehicle. On average, urban housing has fewer 5 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 persons and vehicles available, thus lowering vehicular trip generation rates per unit when compared to housing in the suburban unincorporated area. Currans and Clifton (2015) developed and tested methods for adjusting ITE trip generation rates for urban settings. They recommend mode -share adjustments based on the number of residents and jobs per acre, which serves as a proxy for urban form. Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas Urban areas have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce vehicle trips, such as higher internal capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking, and superior transit service. Urban areas with grid streets and small blocks offer a variety of routes that encourage walking and biking. Interesting streetscapes with human -scale design features encourage people to walk and bike farther in urban areas, while lowering our perception of distance (Jacobs 2001). Urban areas also have more diverse travel options including public transportation and muscle -powered mobility. A study titled "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" documented auto trips for infill development averaged approximately 50% of the modal share, compared to 90% or higher auto dependency in most metropolitan areas (Daisa and Parker, 2009). Lower dependency on private vehicles reduces the need for street capacity and supports an impact fee reduction for new development within the core area of Vail. Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas Mixed land use and better job -housing balance reduces average trip length. By balancing the number of jobs with nearby housing units, urban areas have the potential for reducing journey - to -work travel. The magnitude of effect is dependent on matching job and housing locations of individual workers, which can be aided by offering a variety of housing styles and price ranges. Inclusionary policies, such as requiring at least 10% affordable housing units within each development, can foster a better jobs -housing balance and reduce the need for street capacity (Nelson, Dawkins and Sanchez 2007). Mixed-use areas like the center of Vail exhibit lower vehicular trip rates because of "internal capture" (i.e., many daily destinations do not require travel outside the area). For example, a study titled "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" examined 20 mixed use communities in South Florida, documenting internal capture rates up to 57 percent with an average of 25 percent. In addition to a percent reduction for the jobs -housing balance, credit can be given for local -serving retail. Urban, transit -oriented development offers coffee shops, restaurants, general retail stores and services that reduce the need for vehicular trips outside the area (Ewing, Dumbaugh and Brown 2003). The report "Driving and the Built Environment" (TRB 2009) found a strong link between development patterns and vehicle miles of travel, encouraging mixing of land uses to reduce vehicle trip rates and reduce trip lengths. Reductions up to 24% for transit service and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness are recommended for nonresidential development in a 2005 6 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 study titled "Crediting Low -Traffic Developments" (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates 2005). Current and Proposed Transportation Fees Figure 2 provides a comparison of current and proposed transportation fees for new development in the Town of Vail. Current amounts are shown with dark shading and white numbers. Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions given for multi -modal travel. The Town currently assesses transportation -related mitigation fees (see Vail code section in the footnote). This requirement is specific to certain zone districts and does not provide a codified fee schedule. The current fees are determined and agreed upon by the Town and developers during the development entitlement process. Proposed fees are shown with light shading and black numbers in the table below. For consistency with a national impact fee survey, the fee amount for a detached house assumes construction of an average size unit, which in Vail and Pitkin County is approximately 4,000 square feet (i.e. twice the national average). Fee amounts for commercial development are expressed per thousand square feet of floor area. 1 12-7A,H,I,J: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) 7 Tischlerase FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 2 - Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 8 Per Housing Unit Single Family Multifamily Per 1,000 Sq Ft Retail Office National Average (1) $3,228 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430 Durango (1) Ft. Collins 2016 Draft (2) Vail current* $2,169 $6,217 $1,298 $4,095 $3,810 $8,113 $2,823 $5,977 Eagle Co. (1) Jefferson Co. (1) Larimer Co. (2) Pitkin Co. (2) Weld Co. (2) $4,378 $3,276 $3,418 $9,339 $2,377 $3,034 $2,725 $5,115 $9,026 $7,120 $8,812 $10,910 $3,296 $5,164 $4,790 $4,726 $5,130 $ 2,174 Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes 2,000 square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100,000 square feet of floor area. (2) TischlerBise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4,000 square feet. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Basic steps in a conceptual impact fee formula are illustrated below (see Figure 3). The first step (see the left part of the equation) is to determine an appropriate demand indicator, for a particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of demand units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for roads is vehicle trips. The second step in the conceptual impact fee formula is shown in the middle section of the equation. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called Level -Of - Service (LOS) or infrastructure standards. Road impact fee studies for suburban communities often establish a relationship between lane miles and vehicle miles of travel (note: a lane mile is a rectangular area of pavement one lane wide and one mile long). Because the Town of Vail has a more compact, urban development pattern, multi -modal transportation improvements were identified in a recently approved Transportation Master Plan. In essence, the Town of Vail has combined the second and third step in the conceptual impact fee formula (see the right side of the equation below). The cost of growth -related transportation improvements was allocated to the expected increase in vehicle trips. Figure 3— Conceptual Impact Fee Formula Demand Units per Development Unit Infrastructure Units X per Demand Unit X Dollars per Infrastructure Unit When applied to specific types of infrastructure, the conceptual impact -fee formula is customized using three common impact fee methods that focus on different timeframes. The first method is the cost recovery method. To the extent that new growth and development is served by previously constructed improvements, local government may seek reimbursement for the previously incurred public facility costs. This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new development, at least for the next five years. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of an existing facility that was constructed in anticipation of additional development. The second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost method. This method documents the current infrastructure standard for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures. The local government uses impact fee revenue to incrementally expand infrastructure as needed to accommodate new development. A third impact fee approach is the plan -based method. This method is best suited for public facilities that have commonly accepted engineering/planning standards or specific capital improvement plans. Proposed transportation impact fees for the 9 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Town of Vail are derived using a plan -based method, with one cost recovery item for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. Trip Generation Transportation models and traffic studies for individual development projects typically use average weekday or afternoon (PM), peak -hour trips. The need for transportation improvements in Vail was determined through the Transportation Master Plan process using an extensive engineering analysis. In contrast to the engineering analysis, the impact fee methodology is essentially an accounting exercise whereby the cost of growth -related system improvements is allocated to new development within the Town of Vail. For the purpose of impact fees, trip generation is based on attraction (inbound) trips to development located in the Town of Vail. This approach eliminates the need for adjustments to account for pass- through trips (i.e. external -external travel) and trips to destinations outside Vail (i.e. internal- external travel). One of the major trip destinations in Vail is the base of the ski mountain. In addition to people working in Town and those staying over night, the ski mountain draws thousands of 'day skiers' that typically leave their vehicles in a parking garage while in Town. Because parking structures are ancillary uses, impact fees are typically not imposed on the floor area of a garage, but the floor area of nearby development that actually attracts people to the area. Given this practice, future growth of 'day skiers' will not be directly accounted for in the development projections shown in Figure 4. However, the Town and Vail Resorts have agreed the maximum skiers at one time that can be handled by the Town's infrastructure is 19,900, as specified in the agreement titled "Town of Vail & Vail Associates, Inc. Program to Manage Peak Periods." Therefore, if the maximum -skiers agreement or lift capacity is increased without a significant increase in nonresidential buildings, a traffic impact fee for additional day skiers should be contemplated. Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail The relationship between the amount of new development anticipated within Vail and the projected increase in vehicle trips is shown in Figure 4. Expected development in Vail is based on trends within the Town, Eagle County, and the state of Colorado. The projected increase in development and afternoon, peak -hour trips are consistent with Appendix E in Vail's Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and the development stats database, updated by Town staff. Although the specific year is not important to the analysis, the net increase in development is expected to occur by the year 2040. A faster pace of development would accelerate the collection of impact fees and the construction of planned improvements. Conversely, slower development would reduce fee revenue and delay the construction of capital improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, planned development in Vail is expected to generate an additional 838 PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 10 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Figure 4— Summary of Projected Travel Demand Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Development Type Additional Development Units (2) Inbound Trip Rate per Development Unit (3) Additional PM -Peak Inbound Trips Two Family or Multiple Family Units in Core Area 705 0.24 169 Two Family or Multiple Family Units Outside Core 554 0.30 166 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 0.24 10 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 0.30 93 Single Family Units 120 0.39 47 Accommodation Units in Core Area 270 0.24 65 Accommodation Units Outside Core 102 0.30 31 Restaurant & Retail KSF (1) 320 0.56 179 Facilities Health Care KSF (1) 140 0.40 56 Office & Other Services KSF (1) 88 0.25 22 TOTAL=> 838 (1) KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands. (2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and Town staff (12/06/16). (3) Trip generation rates are from Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan, except Transportation Impact Fee System Improvements Transportation system improvements to be funded by impact fees are shown in Figure 5. Specific projects were identified in the Transportation Master Plan for the Town of Vail and updated by Town staff. Road sections listed below will be constructed as "complete streets" with bus, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. Town staff prepared the planning -level cost estimates and identified the growth share of projects that will be funded with impact fees, based on the expected increase in vehicular trips. The total cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development through 2040 is estimated to be approximately $95 million in current dollars (not inflated over time). Impact fees will fund approximately $20.8 million, which is 28% of systems improvements. Funding from non -impact fee sources, such as the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), and the Town of Vail General Fund will cover the remaining cost of system improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, the capacity cost of $24,836 per additional trip is equal to the growth share of transportation improvements divided by the increase in PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 11 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC I PLANNING Figure 5 - Summary of Transportation Impr 12 Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Transportation Improvements Town of Vail, Colorado Estimated Cost Project- Level Cost _ System -Level Improvements Percent Funded By Impact Fee Percent Other Revenue Cost by Impact Fee Cost by Other Revenue ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Millions) A West Vail Commercial Roundabout & Medians $ 6.70 $ 6.70 0% 0% $ $ B Buffehr Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 52% 48% $ 0.62 $ 0.58 C Buffehr Creek NRT connection to Marriott Roost $ 0.50 $ 0.50 0% 0% $ - $ - D Marriott Roost Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ - 5 - E Timber Ridge Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ - $ - F Lions Ridge Loop Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 G Red Sandstone Drive Turn lanes $ 1.20 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 H Main Vail North Roundabout Expansion to Two Lanes $ 5.60 $ - 35% 65% $ 1.98 $ 3.62 Main Vail Underpass Revesible Lane $ 2.00 $ 35% 65% $ 0.71 $ 1.29 1 Gore Creek Drive Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 14% 86% $ 0.17 $ 1.03 K Underpass (Cost Recovery) $ 9.10 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.96 $ 7.14 L Underpass to Forest Road Imrpovements (5 Lane/Walk) $ 7.00 $ 7.00 0% 0% $ $ M Vail Spa to ELHC Improvements (5 Lane/Walk) $ 4.50 $ 46% 54% $ 2.05 $ 2.45 N ELHC to LH Parking Structure Entrance Medians $ 0.75 $ - 46% 54% $ 0.34 $ 0.41 O LH Parking Structure Entrance to Municipal Bldg (5 Lane & Rdabt) $ 9.00 $ 2.25 39% 36% $ 3.55 $ 3.20 P Village Ctr Road to Vail Valley Drive (Medians, TC Device, Compact Rdabt) $ 6.50 $ - 29% 71% $ 1.92 $ 4.58 Q PW/VVD Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 R Booth Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 S GVT Dowd Junction to WV Rdabt $ 8.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.83 $ 6.67 T Donovan to Westhaven Drive Walk $ 1.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 U WLHC walk (Vail Spa to S. Frtge) $ 0.75 $ 0.75 0% 0% $ - $ - V WD Path imrpovements $ 1.20 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.26 $ 0.94 W Vail Rd (Willow Way to Forest Rd) Walk $ 0.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.11 $ 0.39 X ELHC (LHWC to Dobson) Walk $ 1.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Y West Vail Pedestrian Overpass $ 6.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.29 $ 4.71 Z VMS to Bighorn Path $ 1.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 MFrontage ELHC (Vantage Point to S. Road) Walk $ 0.20 $ 22% 78% $ 0.04 $ 0.16 BB Chamonix (Arosa to Chamonix) $ 1.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 CC Chamonix (Chamonix to Buffehr Creek Rd) $ 1.00 $ 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 DD Line Haul Transit Stop Improvement Projects $ 1.60 $ 22% 78% $ 0.34 $ 1.26 EE Vail Bus Stops (10 Shelters) $ 1.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 FF Arosa Transit Parking $ 2.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.54 $ 1.96 GG Frontage Road Lighting Improvements $ 5.00 $ 0% 100% $ $ 5.00 HH Structured Parking Expansion & Buses $ $ 0% 100% $ $ Grand Totals $ 95.00 $ 19.60 28% 72% $ 20.81 $ 54.59 Net New PM Peak Inbound Trips => 838 Capacity Cost per Additional PM Peak Inbound Trip => $ 24,836 Tischl re Bise FISCAL I ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Credit for Other Revenues A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the one-time payment of an impact fee plus other revenue payments that may also fund growth -related capital improvements. The determination of credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Vail's transportation impact fees are derived primarily using a plan -based method, with a minor cost recovery component for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. Given the plan -based approach, the credit evaluation focuses on the need for future bonds and revenues that will fund planned capital improvements. Because the Town does not expect to bond finance transportation projects, a revenue credit for future principal payments is not applicable. Some impact fee studies include a credit for gas taxes and/or General Fund revenue. A credit for future revenue generated by new development is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system improvements. In the Town of Vail, transportation impact fees are derived from the growth cost of system improvements, not the total cost of capital improvements. Impact fee revenue will be used exclusively for the growth share of improvements listed in Figure 5. Other, non -impact fee funds, such as the General Fund and gas tax revenue, will be used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies and for making improvements not listed in the transportation CIP. Based on expected development in Vail (see Figure 8), future impact fee revenue approximates the growth cost of planned system improvements (approximately $21 million). If elected officials in Vail make a legislative policy decision to fully fund the growth share of system improvements from impact fees, a credit for other revenue sources is unnecessary. Transportation Impact Fee Formula and Input Variables Input variables for the transportation impact fee are shown in Figure 6. Inbound trips by type of development are multiplied by the net capital cost per trip to yield the transportation impact fees. For example, the transportation impact fee formula for a two family or multiple family unit in the core area is 0.24 x $24,836 = $5,960 (truncated) per housing unit. Because the core area of Vail has a walkable, urban development pattern, impact fees for two family or multiple family housing and accommodation units are lower in the core area, as supported by the engineering analysis in the adopted Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009). Trip generation rates are from the Transportation Master Plan, except for single family dwellings, which are only expected outside the core area. Inbound trip rates per detached dwelling are documented in Appendix A. 13 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables 14 Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In Core Area) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside Core Area) Dwelling, Single Family Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) Commercial (per 1,000 Sq Ft of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments Facilities Health Care Office & Other Services Infrastructure Standards Cost per Trip => Revenue Credit Per Trip => 0.24 0.30 0.39 0.24 0.30 0.56 0.40 0.25 $24,836 $0 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees The input variables discussed above yield the maximum supportable impact fees shown in Figure 7. Fees for most types of commercial development are listed per square foot of floor area. The impact fee for accommodation is based on the number of units. Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 15 Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) Dwelling, Single Family Employee Housing Unit Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments Facilities Health Care Office & Other Services $5,960 $7,450 $9,686 $0 $5,960 $7,450 $13.90 $9.93 $6.20 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Funding Strategy for Transportation System Improvements Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the maximum supportable transportation impact fee. Projected revenues essentially match the growth share of the capital improvements plan for transportation (i.e. $20.8 million). Impact fee revenue can be accumulated over several years to construct major projects, but annually completing at least one capital project will ensure benefit to fee payers. The percentage of total impact fee revenue expected from each development type is shown below in the right column. New housing units in Vail will generate approximately 58% of the transportation impact fee revenue. New accommodation will generate approximately 11%, while other types of commercial development will yield approximately 31% of projected revenue. Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection Development Type Additional Development Units Fee per Development Unit $5,960 $7,450 $5,960 $7,450 $9,686 $5,960 $7,450 $13,900 $9,930 $6,200 Projected Revenue $4,202,000 $4,127,000 $244,000 $2,310,000 $1,162,000 $1,609,000 $760,000 $4,448,000 $1,390,000 $546,000 Percent of Impact Fees 20% 20% 1% 11% 6% 8% 4% 21% 7% 3% Two Family or Multiple Family Units in Core Area 705 Two Family or Multiple Family Units Outside Core 554 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 Single Family Units 120 Accommodation Units in Core Area 270 Accommodation Units Outside Core 102 Restaurant & Retail KSF 320 Facilities Health Care KSF 140 Office & Other Services KSF 88 16 Total => $20,798,000 100% TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX A - DEMOGRAPHK DATA In this Appendix, TischlerBise documents the demographic data used to derive trip rates by size of single family housing. In the Town of Vail, the fiscal year begins on January ft. Impact fees are calibrated using 2016 as the base year and 2017 as the first projection year. Trip Generation by Type and Size of Housing Although the Town of Vail only expects a few single family (detached) housing units to be constructed each year, TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule whereby larger units pay higher transportation impact fees. Benefits of the proposed methodology include: 1) proportionate assessment of infrastructure demand using local demographic data, 2) progressive fee structure (i.e. smaller units pay less and larger units pay more), and 3) more affordable fees for workforce housing. Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS files are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the Town of Vail is included in Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 400 that includes Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties. At the top of Figure Al, cells with yellow shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per dwelling. These multipliers are adjusted to match the control totals for Vail. According to ACS table B25033 (five-year estimates) Vail had 5,277 year-round residents in 2014 and table B25032 indicates Vail had 2,451 households in 2014, or an average of 2.15 persons per household. TischlerBise used ACS tables B25046 and B25032 to derive the average number of vehicles available per household. In 2014, there were 3,738 aggregate vehicles available and 2,451 households, or an average of 1.53 vehicles available per household. The middle section of Figure Al provides nation-wide data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). VTE is the acronym for Vehicle Trip Ends, which measures vehicles coming and going from a development. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per person yields an average of 2.17 persons per occupied condominium/townhouse and 3.78 persons per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix of 77.7% condominium/townhouses and 22.3% single-family dwellings yields a weighted average of 2.53 persons per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail only has an average of 2.15 persons per household. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per vehicle available yields an average of 1.68 vehicles available per occupied condo/townhouse and 1.52 vehicles available per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix yields a nation-wide weighted average of 1.64 vehicles available per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail has fewer vehicles available, with an average of 1.53 per housing unit. 17 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Rather than rely on one methodology, the recommended trip generation rates shown in the bottom section of Figure Al (see Vail PM -Peak VTE per Household), are an average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available, for single family housing units by bedroom range. In the Town of Vail, each household in a single family unit is expected to generate an average of 0.57 PM -Peak Vehicle Trip Ends, compared to the national average of 0.63 trip ends per household. Figure Al - PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House Calibrated to Demographic Control Totals for Vail, Colorado ACS 2013 5 -Year PUMS Data for PUMA 400 (Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties) Bedroom Range Persons (1) Vehicles Available (1) Households (1) PUMA 400 Hshld Mix Unadjusted Persons/Hshld Adj Persons per Hshld (2) Unadjusted VehAvI/Hshld Adj Veh Avl per Hshld (2) 0-2 134 156 75 19.7% 1.79 1.62 2.08 1.38 3 409 376 165 43.4% 2.48 2.24 2.28 1.52 4 248 229 97 25.5% 2.56 2.31 2.36 1.57 5+ 114 112 43 11.3% 2.65 2.39 2.60 1.73 Total 905 National Averages According to ITE 873 380 ITE Code PM -Peak VTE per Person PM -Peak VTE per Vehicle Available PM -Peak VTE per Household Vail Hshld Mix 230 Condo / Townhouse 0.24 0.31 0.52 77.7% 210 SFD 0.27 0.67 1.02 22.3% Wgtd Avg 0.25 0.39 Recommended Trip Rate by Bedroom Range 0.63 Bedroom Range PM -Peak VTE per Hshld Based on Persons (3) PM -Peak VTE per Hshld Based on Veh Available (4) Vail PM -Peak VTE per Hshld (5) 0-2 0.41 0.54 0.48 3 0.56 0.59 0.58 4 0.58 0.61 0.60 5+ 0.60 0.67 0.64 Total 18 0.54 0.60 037 2.38 Persons per Household 2.17 3.78 2.30 (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for CO PUMA 400 (2013 Five -Year unweighted data). (2) Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the average PUMS values match control totals for Vail (ACS 2014 Five -Year data). (3) Adjusted persons per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per person. (4) Adjusted vehicles available per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per vehicle available. (5) Average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available per housing unit. Does not show adjustment to inbound trips (64% entering). TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Trip Generation by Floor Area of Single Family Housing To derive afternoon peak hour inbound trips by square feet of single family housing, TischlerBise combined demographic data from the Census Bureau (discussed above) and single family house size data from the County Assessor's parcel database. The number of bedrooms per housing unit is the common connection between the two databases. In Vail, the average size single family housing unit with two or less bedrooms has 1,594 square feet of heated space. The average three-bedroom unit has 2,667 square feet of floor area. The average size of a four-bedroom unit is 3,698 square feet of floor area. Single family housing units with five or more bedrooms average 5,706 square feet of floor area. Average floor area and number of inbound trips by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A2, with a logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in the Town of Vail. TischlerBise used the trend line formula to derive estimated average PM -Peak, inbound trips by size of single family housing unit, in 300 square feet intervals. Square feet measures heated floor area (excluding porches, garages, unfinished basements, etc.). Based on the size of single family housing units in Vail, TischlerBise recommends limiting transportation impact fees for single family housing to the floor area range shown below. In other words, a single family house with 2,099 or less square feet would pay a transportation impact fee based on 0.33 inbound vehicle trips. Likewise, single family units with 6,300 or more square feet of heated space would pay a maximum transportation impact fee based on 0.42 inbound vehicle trips. 19 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet Average dwelling size by bedroom range is from County Assessor parcel database. PM-Peakvehicle trip ends are derived using ACS PUMS data and calibrated to Town of Vail demographics. unbound tris are 64% of trip „ 21. 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Bedrooms ;quare Feet Inbound Trips Square Feet 0-2 1,594 0.31 2099 or less 3 2,667 0.37 2100 to 2599 4 3,698 0.38 2600 to 3099 5+ 5,706 0.41 3100 to 3599 3600 to 4099 Inbound Trips 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.38 PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips per Detached Dwelling by Size within Vail, CO y = 0.076In(x) - 0.2431 R2 = 0.9513 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Square Feet of Heated Area 4100 to 4599 4600 to 5099 5100 to 5599 5600 to 6099 6100 or more 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.42 20 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Development impact fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation using an index, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the Town should redo the fee calculations. Colorado's enabling legislation allows local governments to "waive an impact fee or other similar development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or affordable employee housing, as defined by the local government." However, projected impact fee revenue from employee housing accounts for approximately 12% of the growth cost to be funded by impact fees. Given this magnitude, waiving impact fees for workforce housing will create a significant funding gap. Credits and Reimbursements Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements will be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the transportation impact fees. Project - level improvements, normally required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement (see the impact fee funded improvements listed in Figure 5), it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a site-specific credit. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. TischlerBise recommends establishing reimbursement agreements with the developers that construct a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the Town should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The Town should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the Town pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient impact fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the Town to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the service area. If the Town collects impact fees for other types of infrastructure, site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate payment of impact fees for other types of infrastructure. Town -wide Service Area The transportation impact fee service area is defined as the entire incorporated area within the Town of Vail. Even though Colorado's enabling legislation uses the phrase "direct benefit" Vail is a relatively small geographic area with a strong core area. Transportation improvements along the 1-70 corridor will benefit new development throughout the entire Town. 21 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Development Categories Proposed transportation fees are assessed based on general land use categories. The categories within the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule are further defined within Title 12-2-2 of the Town of Vail Code. Any uses or development types not specifically defined below or within Title 12-2-2 shall be interpreted by the Administrator in accordance with the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Residential Development Residential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar characteristics. 1. Single Family includes: • Dwelling, Single -Family 2. Two Family or Multiple Family includes: • Dwelling, Multiple -Family • Dwelling, Two -Family • Fractional Fee Club Unit 3. Accommodation includes: • Accommodation Unit • Accommodation Unit, Attached • Lodge Dwelling Unit • Lodge, Limited Service • Timeshare Unit Commercial Development Commercial development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar characteristics. 1. Facilities Health Care includes: • Healthcare Facilities 2. Office & Other Services includes: • Professional Offices, Business Offices, and Studios • Banks and Financial Institutions • Personal Services and Repair Shops • Child Daycare Center • Health Clubs / Spas • Commercial Ski Storage / Ski Clubs • Religious Institutions 3. Restaurant & Retail includes: • Eating and Drinking Establishments • Retail Stores and Establishments • Theaters 22 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Even though churches are a common type of development, they do not have a specific impact fee category due to a lack of sufficient data. For churches and any other atypical development, staff must establish a consistent administrative process to reasonably treat similar developments in a similar way. When presented with a development type that does not match one of the development categories in the published fee schedule, the first option is to look in the ITE trip generation book to see if there is land use category with valid trip rates that match the proposed development. The second option is to determine the published category that is most like the proposed development. Churches without daycare or schools are basically an office area (used throughout the week) with a large auditorium and class space (used periodically during the week). Some jurisdictions make a policy decision to impose impact fees on churches based on the fee schedule for warehousing. The rationale for this policy is the finding that churches are large buildings that generate little weekday traffic and only have a few full time employees. A third option is to impose impact fees on churches by breaking down the building floor area into its primary use. For example, a church with 25,000 square feet of floor area may have 2,000 square feet of office space used by employees throughout the week. At a minimum, impact fees could be imposed on the office floor area. An additional impact fee amount could be imposed for the remainder of the building based on the rate for a warehouse. An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in the transportation impact fee methodology. The independent fee study will be reviewed by Town staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to elected officials for their consideration. 23 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDSX C: REFERENCES Been, Vicki. 2005. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability", Cityscape: Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 139-185. Blanton, Whit. 2000. "Integrating Land Use and Transportation" Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 40: 9-13. Bochner, Brian, Kevin Hooper, and Benjamin Sperry. 2010. "Improving Estimation of Internal Trip Capture for Mixed -Use Development" ITE Journal 80(8): 24-28, 33. Cherry, Nathan and Kurt Nagle. 2009. Grid /Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts. American Planning Association Planners Press. Currans, Kristina and Kelly Clifton. 2015. "Using Household Travel Surveys to Adjust ITE Trip Generation Rates" Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 85-119. Daisa, James and Terry Parker. 2009. "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" ITE Journal. Daisa, James, M. Schmitt, P. Reinhofer, K. Hooper, B. Bochner and L. Schwartz. 2013. "Trip Generation Rates for Transportation Impact Analyses of Infill Developments" Transportation Research Board NCHRP Report 758. Downs, Anthony. 1992. Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institute. Dumbaugh, Eric, and Robert Rae. 2009. "Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety." Journal of the American Planning Association 75(3): 309-329. Ewing, Reid, Eric Dumbaugh and Mike Brown. 2003. "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" Transportation Research Record 1780. Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment" Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:3, 265-294. Frank, Lawrence and Gary Pivo. 1992. "Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single -Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking" Transportation Research Record 1466. Frank, Lawrence. 1994. Analysis of Relationships Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington. Frank, Lawrence. 2000. "Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life" Journal of Planning Education and Research 20, 6-22. TischlerBise 24 FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Giuliano, Genevieve. 1989. "New Directions for Understanding Transportation and Land Use" Environment and Planning A, Volume 21: 145-159. Hanson, Susan, and Genevieve Giuliano, eds. 2004. Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press. Holian, Matthew and Matthew Kahn. 2012. Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation. Mineta Transportation Institute, Report 11-13. Jacobs, Allan. 2001. Great Streets (sixth edition). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Jones, David. 1985. Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice -Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Layton, Colleen, Tawny Pruitt and Kim Cekola (editors). 2011. Economics of Place: The Value of Building Communities Around People. Michigan Municipal League. Leinberger, Christopher. 2009. The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. Island Press. Litman, Todd. 2015. Analysis of Public Policies that Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize Urban Sprawl. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. Mathur, Shishir and Adam Smith. 2012. Decision -Support Framework for Using Value Capture to Fund Public Transit: Lessons from Project -Specific Analyses. Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University. Moore, Terry, and Paul Thorsnes. 1994. The Transportation /Land Use Connection. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 448/449. Chicago: American Planning Association. Moore, Terry, Paul Thorsnes and Bruce Appleyard. 2007. The Transportation/Land Use Connection (new edition). PAS Report 546-47. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Myers, Dowell (editor). 1990. Housing Demography: Linking Demographic Structure and Housing Markets. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Nelson, Arthur, ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Nelson, Arthur, Casey Dawkins and Thomas Sanchez. 2007. Social Impacts of Urban Containment. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Nelson, Arthur, Liza Bowles, Julian Juergensmeyer, and James Nicholas. 2008. A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing Affordability. Island Press. 25 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Nelson, Arthur. 2013. Reshaping Metropolitan America: Development Trends and Opportunities to 2030. Island Press. Nelson / Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2005. Crediting Low -Traffic Developments. Nicholas, James, Arthur Nelson, and Julian Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Pucher, John and Lefevre, Christian. 1996. The Urban Transportation Crisis. London: MacMillan Press. Reconnecting America. 2008. Capturing the Value of Transit. Federal Transit Administration. Reid Ewing, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, Mark Feldman, Robert Cervero, Lawrence Frank, and John Thomas. 2011. "Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments: Six - Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures" Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137(3): 248-61. Resource Systems Group, Fehr & Peers, Robert Cervero, Kara Kockelman, and Renaissance Planning Group. 2012. Effect of Smart Growth Policies on Travel Demand. Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Report S2 -C16 -RR -1. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Ross, Catherine and Anne Dunning. 1997. Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data. Georgia Institute of Technology. Schiller, P., E. Bruun, and J. Kenworthy. 2010. Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning, and Implementation. Earthscan. Schneider, Robert, Susan Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh. 2014. "Trip Generation for Smart Growth Projects" Access 45, University of California Transportation Center. Seggerman, Karen, Kristine Williams, Pei -Sung Lin, and Aldo Fabregas. 2009. Evaluation of the Mobility Fee Concept. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. Shoup, Donald. 2011. High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association. Speck, Jeff. 2012. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Steiner, Ruth, and Siva Srinivasan. 2010. VMT-Based Traffic Impact Assessment: Development of a Trip Length Model. Center for Multimodal Solutions at the University of Florida. Transportation Research Board. 1994. Curbing Gridlock: Peak -Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Special Report 242. 26 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work. National Academy Press Special Report 257. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment. National Academy Press Special Report 298. Urban Land Institute and National Multi Housing Council. 2008. Getting Density Right: Tools for Creating Vibrant Compact Development. Vuchic, Vukan. 2000. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. 27 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Resolution No. 29 Series 2017 Exhibit A Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) 5,066$ Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) 6,333$ Dwelling, Single Family 8,233$ Employee Housing Unit $0 Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) 5,066$ Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) 6,333$ Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments 11.82$ Facilities Health Care 8.44$ Office & Other Services 5.27$ Core Area is defined per Figure 1 in the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Per Unit is defined as any type of Dwelling Unit, Fractional Fee Unit, Accommodation Unit, Lodge Unit, or Timeshare Unit as listed below. Per Square Foot of Floor Area is defined as, per each net new gross square foot of enclosed floor area constructed, excluding; enclosed vehicular loading and delivery areas, and vehicular parking facilities. The above Trasnportation Impact Fee schedule rates are equivalent to $9,520 per net new PM-Peak hour vehicular trip. The categories within the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule are further defined below, and within Title 12-2-2. Any uses or development types not specifically defined below or within Title 12-2-2 shall be interpreted by the Administrator in accordance with the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family includes; Dwelling, Two Family Dwelling, Multiple Family Fractional Fee Club Unit Accommodation Unit includes; Accommodation Unit Accommodation Unit, Attached Lodge Dwelling Unit Lodge Unit, Limited Service Timeshare Unit Restaurant and Retail includes; Eating and drinking establishments Retail stores and establishments Theaters Office & Other Services includes; Professional offices, business offices and studios Banks and financial institutions Personal services and repair shops Child Daycare Center Health Clubs / Spa Commercial Ski Storage/Ski Club Religious Institutions Vail Transportation Impact Fees