“Growth must pay its own way.” This is a mantra we’ve all heard and likely agree with provided the price tag is reasonable and truly reflective of the demands new development activity places upon our municipal infrastructure. State statute already makes clear that such fees must be proportional to the actual impact and that new development cannot be held financially accountable for deferred maintenance nor shoulder the burden of replacing existing infrastructure.

You can read more about the various types of impact fees here.

As our community transitions away from primarily suburban-expansion to urban infill development, the Fort Collins City Council recognizes that future impacts will not necessarily mirror those of the past. To be sure, limited opportunities for new subdivisions still exist, though redevelopment of existing properties that emphasize a blending of commercial and residential uses will become much more prevalent. As such, the way in which we assign costs to future growth needs to evolve.

At its February 11 Work Session, Council will discuss possible adjustments to the current methodology which assigns a per capita valuation to fire, police, parks, streets, and general government capital assets. Essentially, this means new development is/will be paying a pro rata share for replicating what we now have, rather than what we envision going forward.

Though formal studies will need to be conducted, a case can be made that more compact, higher density development within existing commercial corridors is more efficient than the greenfield expansion that informs the current methodology. Your Fort Collins Area Chamber is eager to support this effort as a matter of right-sizing our fee structure while supporting the long-term economic health of our community.

In this vein, statute does provide that municipalities can employ a tiered structure in assessing impact fees that reflects the specific impacts of a given proposal. We read that to mean the City is able to bridge the transition that is already underway. Project proposals that align with historical development patterns might be subject to the current fee methodology, while those that advance the 15-minute city concept are assessed lower fees that reflect more efficient use of public infrastructure.

Whether Council chooses to agree with this assertion remains a question. Though it is imperative they recognize that the type and mix of future development will not occur simply by virtue of their desires. Urban infill and mixed-use developments are more complex and often more expensive on a square footage basis, so a business case must be presented in order to attract more desirable projects.

If the path toward this vision can be made more favorable from a financial perspective, more players will engage, greater innovation within our built environment will be recognized, and residents and business alike will benefit from a more economically sustainable environment. However, if project sponsors are expected to embrace the ideals of a more compact urban lifestyle in the absence of incentives, we should expect to see more of the same.

Your Chamber remains a loud champion of embracing the future and look forward to engaging in this important conversation on your behalf.   Keep an eye out for opportunities to share your thoughts and visions with our team and local government.