La Plata County officials are taking the first steps in assessing the feasibility of impact fees.
In a Thursday work session focused on imposing road impact fees to fatten the county’s wanting road and bridge fund, the county commissioners and other staff heard a presentation from Carson Bise of fiscal, economic and planning consulting firm TischlerBise.
Bise told officials an impact fee would not be a fix-all to funding problems, and he said the next steps would include studies on the fiscal impact and necessity of adopting such a cost.
County officials have probed potential revenue sources to feed road and bridge infrastructure and compensate for the shortfall from the downturn in natural gas production. Voters will decide in November whether to increase property taxes by up to 2.4 mills, which would exclusively benefit roads and bridges.
Terms of the ballot item also stipulate that the county board will continue examining other funding avenues, such as impact fees, which are one-time payments levied on developers. They come with several limitations. Revenues can be used on facilities and improvements to new developments, but not on maintenance and repairs, operating costs or improvements to existing deficiencies. And unlike a tax, an impact fee proposal does not require voter approval.
But navigating fee strategies in areas like La Plata County can be a tough nut to crack. Development limited to certain pockets of the county, maintenance needs and impacts of extractive industries are all challenges rural counties face, Bise said, and there are multiple ways to implement fee structures. Greeley, for example, has a tiered road fee based on vehicle miles traveled in specific areas.
Commissioner Gwen Lachelt inquired about the results when growth fails to pay for itself. Bise said levels of service deteriorate and officials are forced to examine alternative funding methods.
A divisive proposal to slap impact fees on new development came before a previous board of commissioners in 2010, but the measure was voted down with the fear that the payments would put a stopper on new residential and commercial development during a crucial recession-rebound period. The board debated charging developers from 10 to 60 percent of the county’s net road cost.
Fee advocates, which included many frustrated residents, took particular issue with the Southern Ute Growth Fund’s Three Springs subdivision. By failing to charge the developers, proponents for the fees said the county cheated itself out of $2 million, passing off the burden of road and bridge funding to taxpayers.
Commissioner Julie Westendorff suggested an impact fee may not be received well by gas companies, should the industry pick up again.
“Oil-and-gas companies could say, ‘Yes, we use county roads, but we bring more than our share of revenue. Our impacts should be offset by the revenue,’” she said. “Anyone can say, ‘I’m a net-plus for you.’”
The city of Durango adopted an impact fee in the late 1990s. Director of Planning and Community Development Greg Hoch said the Home Builders Association at the time pushed for a property-tax increase instead, but taxpayers wanted the cost to fall on developers.
“I’d say (the fees) have been pretty successful, but they’re never enough,” Hoch said. “Builders ultimately pay because they really do want to build here, and it’s the cost of doing business in Durango.”
jpace@durangoherald.com
