The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/16/2000AGENDA CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:00 p.m. Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Economic Development and Revitalization Commission on May 16, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. Call The Meeting to Order 2. Introduce New EDARC Members 3. Roll Call of Members 4. Consideration of Absences 5. Approval of Minutes - March 16, 2000 6. Public Forum (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda) 7. Unfinished Business 8. New Business A. Duties and Responsibilities of EDARC - 10 minute presentation B. Selection of Economic Development Committee representative C. JEC Economic Development Model 9. Executive Session - Consultation with City Attorney to receive legal advice on the size and administration of the Urban Renewal Area. 10. Adjournment - June 21, 2000 ~ C:\Barbard\ECODEVOWGENDAS\000516.wpd MINUTES OF WHEAT RIDGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The Wheat Ridge Economic Development and Revitalization Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman ROACH at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commissioners present: Rae Jean Behm Sandra Collins John Hall Elwyn Kiplinger Janet Leo Richazd Matthews Jerry Roach Also attending were: Alan White, Planning Director Martin Omer, Economic Development Specialist Valerie Adams, City Manager Jerry DiTullio, City Council Member Odazka Figlus, City Council Member Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES There was consensus of the Commission that the absences of Norm Burkpile and Mazgy Platterbe excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner KIPLINGER to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2000 EDARC meeting. The motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC FORUM EDARC Reorganization - Council member Jerry DiTullio addressed the Commission to announce several changes which will affect EDARC. 1) The Economic Development Coordinator will become a full-tune position. 2) An ordinance has been introduced to City Council which will establish EDARC's role as solely focusing on urban renewal, specifically the 44th Avenue and Wadsworth azea. Two additional members wili be appointed by the mayor to serve on EDARC (an at-lazge member and a City Council member.) 3) An Economic Development Task Force will be formed by Cit}' Council resolution. The City Affairs Committee will oversee this task force which will include the four council members on the City Affairs Committee, two appointees from each district (one resident from each district and a business owner) and a represeutati\ e from Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission and EDARC. Other City Council members may join the task force as ex-officio members from time to time. The Task Force will focus on developing a master plan for the entire city. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Wheat Ridee Town Center Revitalization Plan - Reauest for Proaosals Alan White presented the draft request for proposal (RFP) for the Town Center Revitalization Plan and invited comments and suggestions from EDARC members. • Page 7, Schedule E- Completion date should be eliminated and replaced with wording which would refer to "on or before" a certain date. • Some kind of retainage should be included. Cost should be inclusive of all expenditures (direct or indirect.) • Page 10, under Termination of Awazd for Cause, the word "agency" in line six should be changed to "City." • Final review of the RFP should take place when the two additional EDARC members are on boazd. • Remove contractual terms from the proposal because the proposal is actually a request for qualification. The title of the document will be changed to Request for Qualification (RFQ)• • An aerial map should be included in the RFQ. • A mandatory meeting shouid be required for consultants who wish to submit an RFQ. • Page 7, under Schedule, the last sentence, "This project .................May 2001." should be removed in its entirery. Alan White will incorporate the suggested changes and bring the revised RFQ back to EDARC for further review at the April meeting. NEW BUSINESS A. Endorsement of Memo to Governor Owens from Urban Renewal Authorities - This item was introduced by Alan White. An unanswered question in current legislation is the ability for an urban renewal agency to issue taY increment bonds. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority will be submitting a memorandum to Governor Owens requesting that he submit this question directly to the Colorado Supreme Court to render a decision. Mr. White requested that EDARC endorse submission of the memorandum. It was moved by Commissioner Kiplinger and seconded by Commissioner Collins that EDARC endorse the submission of the memorandum to Governor Owens to be signed by EDARC Minutes Page 2 03/21/00 Alan White, Planning Director; Jerry Roach, EDARC Chairman; and Gretchen Cerven}. Mayor. The motion passed unanimously. B. TCBY and 44th and Upham ProQerties - Martin Orner presented an update on these properties. Mr. Orner reported that the TCBY property is presently under contract with an out-of-state buyer. Regarding the property located at the southwest comer of Upham and 44th, he stated that owners of both properties had been advised that the sites were under consideration as part of an urban renewal area. An opinion of value was obtained from the TCBY site which was approximately half of the cunent asking price. Due to a mix up, an opinion of value was not obtained for the 44'h/Upham site. Staff will continue to explore the purchase of this site including the issue of underground tanks and the requirements to qualify for an brown fields grant. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Janet Leo and seconded by Rae Jean Behm to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. The motion was unanimously carried. JERRY ROACH Chair C:~Barbara\ECODEVOWiIMJTES\000327.wpd EDARC Minutes 03/21/00 Ann Lazzeri Recording Secretary Page 3 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Valerie D. Adams, City Manager SUBJECT: Economic Development Model DATE: Apri126, 2000 The Jefferson Economic Council has developed an economic impact model to aid in determining the viability of a developmenVredevelopment project. The model measures local governments' revenues and costs of any proposed development. The facts are entered into the model which will then deternune whether the project, as proposed; would generate more revenues than costs. I have attached an example report prepazed using the economic impact model on the Bandimere Speedway redevelopment project. JEC has offered us the opportunity to utilize this modei on potential development and redevelopment opportunities as a means of detemuning the viability of various uses. It is my hope to set up a meeting with Council and with Tom Clark, President of JEC, to demonstrate this model. cc: EDARC Members Alan White, Director of Planning and Development A:\bandimere.wpd BANDIMERE SPEEDWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Report of Findings Prepared by the Jefferson Economic Council Presented to the Town ot Morrison and City of Lakewood April 21, 2000 Background In November 1999 the Town of Morrison and City of Lakewood requested the Jefferson Econanic Council perform an analysis of a proposed redecelopment of the Bandimere Speedway. A local developer had presented a plan to convert the existing facility and its adjacent lands to a multi-use office and retail complex. The communities desired to understand the economic impact of the proposal, potential strategic negotiation points as well as revenues and expenses that would be incurred if such a project went forward. The Jefferson Economic Councii assembled a team of volunteers comprised of developers, bankers, realtors, architects and lawyers. During 1999 the Jefferson Economic Council, in conjunction with the Jefferson County Commissioners, developed an economic impact model, measuring local governments' revenues and costs of any proposed development. JEC offered to utilize its modei along with the expertise of its volunteers to conduct an analysis of the developer's proposal. The following report is a summary of the committee's findings coupled with a sensitivity analyses as to the project's feasibility. Charge to the Committee The Bandimere Committee, as it was called, was asked to examine the redevelopment proposal for the Speedway and determine whether the project, as proposed, would generate more revenues than costs (including major infrastructure improvements and costs to local government to serve visitors and employees) to the two communities. In addition, it was charged with highlighting issues that would be crucial to the success of the project, if it goes forward. Issues Not Addressed by the Committee The Bandimere Committee was not asked to assess the mackeYs capacity to absorb this project. It was not asked to assess impacts on traffic, although it did examine the costs associated with constructing major traffic improvements, such as interchange improvements, interior roads, etc. The traffic studies are presently underway and will be submitted shortly to Morrison and Lakewood. The Committee was not asked to determine the "market feasibility" of the project. That decision is left to the negotiations between the developer and the respective communities. Nlethod of Investigation Redevelopment projects are difficult. Land prices are usually high. Previous uses of the property must be cleared, remodeled or remedied. Infrastructure typically must be redone, upgraded or installed. Road and access points must re rerouted and reconfigured. Unlike "greenfield" projects, redevelopment projects aze costly and profit margins are thin. Financing is often more difficult and assistance from local and state governments is often required in the projecYs initial stages. These elements are all pcesent in the proposed Bandimere project. The Committee met with representatives of the developer, officials from the Town of Morrison and City of Lakewood. It heard from transportation and public utilities staffs from Lakewood on roadway and water issues. It performed an on-site visit to understand the physical elements of the site and met with a developer who proposes to build office space on the site's north end. The Committee examined a number of cost issues including intersection and interchange improvements, water and sewer system extensions and expansions. It did not conduct any analysis of the potential market demand for either the proposed retail or office space. Their exper[ opinions and industry standards for costs of development were included in the econometric analysis performed by Jefferson Economic Council staff. ~ The Jefferson Economic Council Economic Impact Model (EIM) was first developed by the international consulting firm - Arthur Anderson. The model was subsequently refined to suit the unique characteristics of the Jefferson County economy by Development Research Partners, a Denver-based economic consulting company. The EIM analyzes the costs and revenues of any development project. It utilizes standard econometric techniques, coupled with data obtained directly from municipal budgets. Unlike commonly used "revenue projection models", the EIM calculates rates of return to a local government based on both cost and revenue projections. It also determines overall economic impact on the city and/or county economy, utilizing standard RIMS multipliers. Copies of each of the three EIM scenarios are attached. The Site Bandimere Speedway is located on a 163-acre site west of G470 and immediately north of the C-470 and Morrison Road highway interchange. The site, nestled along the hogback is long and narrow. Its unique location provides approximately one mile of visibility along C-470 and its elevation provides a spectacular view east towards Denver. The site is terraced to accommodate its present use (spectator motor sparts) and contains facilities for speedway operations - viewing stands, offices, pit areas, drag strip, large parking areas, etc. rindings The Committee examined a variety of options for the redevelopment of the Speedway offered by the developer. Four options were examined along widi a"sensitivit}' analysis": i. 750,000 square feet of office, 1.2 million of retai] and services. 2. 750,000 square feet of office, 1.0 million of retail and services 3. 750,000 square feet of office, 750,000 square feet of retail and services 4. 600,000 square feet of office, 1.2 million square feet of retail and services 5. A sensitivity test to determine the least amount of retail space that could he built and yet return a net revenue to the communitv, while retaining the 750,000 square feet of office as a constant. The office developer has publicly sta[ed his interest in an office complex of the proposed size. No other options for office space were examined. The office developer plans to construct Class A office space on the site. This high-end, quality office product does not presently exist in the South Jefferson County market. Demand is expected to be strong. Planned construction of an expanded I-25 and light rail along the Southeast Corridor will push development to other areas in Metro Denver. The Committee anticipated that the disivption caused by this major transportation improvement, scheduled to encompass five to seven years, will result in major tenants looking ou[side the Southeast market for new space. The Speedway's strategic location midway between executive housing in the Foothills and Southeast Denver makes this location an obvious choice for new, quality office development. As is true in virtually all proposed developments, density matters. The greater Ihe density of use, the higher the probability that the project will make financial sense. Employment The number ofjobs on the site varies depending on density. Under Option I above, 4,750 jobs are estimated on the site. 1,875 will be primary jobs, located in the office space. The remainder will be retaiUservice jobs. The number ofjobs in Option 2 drops to 4,375, with 1,875 being primary and 2,500 retail/service. Development Costs Because of the nature of the previous use, a substantial redesign of the site and removal of existing structures will be a necessary, added cost. Presently the site lacks interior roadways and will require an entirely new street system. The site lacks adequate water and sewer facilities, all of wliich will need to be brough[ to the site. Expansion of existing municipal water resources and waste treatment will also be required. Off sile impacts, especially traffic mitigation will be required. The following assumptions of costs are estimates only For purposes of our analysis, the best available information from reliable sources was used. However, since manv of the infrastructure issues have multiple options for solutions, the estimates can be subject to substantial swings in final costs. These are elements that cannot be adequately answered until more definitive information comes to the communities through the normal project application process. Assumptions: 1. The project can be built in a timely manner. 2. Cun•ent economic conditions will continue. 3. The projec[ must have a"return on investmenP' for the communities. 4. Costs directly related to the development must be borne by the project. 5. Costs to the cities to provide services to the site and to the employees must be offset by the revenues generated by the project. 6. There is a"market" for the space proposed. 7. The sale and leasing of the retail buildings will occur within 4 years. 8. Leasing of the office space occurs between years 5 and 10. 9. Retail sales will equal $300 per square foot. 10. Retail sales tax rate is 3%. 11. Retail sales receipts will grow at five percent annually. 12. No shared revenues between the employers/developers are included. 13. No revenue sharing plan between [he developer and the cities has been negotiated. 14. No plan of finance, financing strategies or other sources of capital are included. 15. Land acquisition and development costs are approximately $6/sq. ft. 16. Cost of construction of buildings equals $I 10/sq. ft. 17. The communities bear the costs of off-site infrastructure costs. 18. Impacts of police, roads etc. are borne by the community. *Tor all supporting documentation on the Economic Impact Model, please see attached data runs for each Option. Option 1- 750,000 square feet of office and 1.2 million square feet of retail - total pro,ject is 1.950,000 square feet. This is the developer's optimai proposal. It has a density between .26 and .28 FAR and generates the lazgest amount of retail sales tax to Ihe communities. Employment equals 4,750. Office-related employment is 1,875 jobs and retail/seryice employment is 2,875 Under this option the project generates $361.8 million annually in retail sales and $10.8 million in sales taxes. Development costs include the cost of land, buildings, infrastructure avd roadways (including improvements to existing interchanges and the construction of a new interchange at Alameda.). Total development and construction costs are estimated at $286 million. Of this amount $28.0 million is infrastructure - most notably roads. Costs to the community of maintaining each employee at the site are equal [o $1,000 per employee at the site and $2,179 per employee who lives in the community per year. Peak costs of police protection amount to $452,000 per year. Additional streets, landscaping, etc. amount to $290,000 per year. Total costs to the communities during the first 10 years of operation equal $79.5 million On an undiscounted basis the project would, in ten years, generate $144.6 million to the communities in property and sales taxes. This does not include development fees, water taps, etc., which are often a part of the negotiations between the cities and the developer. This is the most optimistic of the options explored. The modified internal rate of return based on a discount rate of 6% results in an 18.17% h1IIR ro the community. Over the course of 10 years, assuming that the city pays for the infrastructure costs of $28.0 million, for each dollar invested by the city $1.82 is returned to the public coffers in taxes. If the cost of infrastrucmre is not borne by the city, the rate of return increases. Option 2- 750,000 square feet office and 1.0 million square feet of retaiUservice - total project size of 1.75 million square feet. This option represents a mid-level development of [he site. Density is between ?2 and .23 FAR and generates slightly less in retail sales tax. Employment equals 4,375 jobs. Office-related employment is 1,875 jobs and retail/service employment is 2,500. Under Option 2 the project generates $300 million annually in retail sales and $9.0 million in sales taxes. Development costs include the cost of land, buildings, infrastructure and roadways (including improvements to existing interchanges and the construction of a new interchange at Alameda.). Total development and construction costs are estimated at $263 million. Cost of infrastructure in not materially affected by this change in density. The cost of infrastructure remains at $28.0 million. Costs to the community of maintaining each employee at the site are equal to $1,000 per employee at the site and $2,179 per employee who lives in the community per year. Peak costs of police protection amount to $452,000 per year. Additional streets, landscaping, etc. amount to $290,000 per year. Total costs to the communities during the first 10 years of operation drop from $79.5 million under Option One to $75.8 million under Option 2. On an undiscounted basis the project would, in ten years, generate $121.3 million to the communities in property and sales Laxes. This does not include developmen[ fees, water taps, etc.,_ whic,h~ar~g~often a part of the negotiations between the cities and the developer. The modified internal rate of return based on a discount rate of 6% results in a 16.29%. Over the course of 10 years, again assuming that the city pays for the infrastructure costs of $28A million, for each dollar invested by the city, $1.60 is returned to the pub]iC coffers in tax revenues. This cotnpares to $1.82 under Option 1. Option 3 750,000 square feet office and 750,000 square feet retail sereice - totai project 1.5 million square feet. The developer did not propose this option, but it is instructive in determining the point at which the project fails to generate adequate revenues to the communities to offset all costs of the development. Option 3 assumes $300 per square foot in revenue on the retail portion. Under Option 3 deosity drops to between .21 FAR. Sales tax revenues drop and employment equals 3,750 jobs. Office-related employment is 1,875 jobs and retail/service employment is 1,875. This option generates $225 million annually in retail sales and $6.7 million in sales taxes. Development costs include the cost of land, buildings, infras[ructure and roadways (including improvements to existing interchanges and the construction of a new interchange at Alameda.). Total development and construction costs aze estimated at $235 million. Cost of infrastructure remains at $28.0 miliion. Costs to the community of maintaining employees at the site and employed residents remain at are $1,000 and $2,179 respectively per year. Peak costs of police protection remain at $452,000 per year. Additional streets, landscaping, etc. amount to $290,000 per year. Total costs to the communities during the first 10 years of operation drop from $79.5 million under Option One to $69.8 million under this option. On an undiscounted basis the project would, in ten years, generate $91.9 million to the communities in property and sales taxes. This does not include development fees, water taps, etc. The modified internal rate of return based on a discount rate of 6% results in a 13.4%. Over the course of 10 years, again assuming that the city pays for the infrastructure costs of $28.0 million, for each dollaz invested by the city, $132 is returned to the public coffers in tax revenues. This compares to $1.82 under Option 1. The payback period for public dollars invested vs. public revenue received is estimated at 4.67 years. For Option 1 this is 3.41 years. Option 2 is 3.85 years. Option 4- 600,000 square feet office and 1.2 million square feet retail service - total project 1.8 million'square feet: Discussions with fhe developer indicated that 600,000 square feet of office may be the desired density for this use. Although the direct revenues to the communities are not significantly impacted by the change in office density it is included in the following table for comparative analysis. 6 Sensitivity Analysis =$~s~~~ C_ oN L - The point of negative return to the cities is one with 750,000 square feet of office and 750,000 square feet of retail with retail sales of $255 per square foot At this Iccel rates of remrn still exist but cash flow will be such that the project's feasibility would be questionable. ~ cosc ~4 L, -^r, 1_~ :.Z , wr,o .xs,3 , Exhibit 1 Development Options - Costs and Revenues NIIRR Return Option Employ- ment Retail Sales Sales Tax Infra- structure Costs 6% discount rate per $1 of public $ invested 1. 750,000 fr office 4,750 $360 $10.8 $28 1817 % $L82 1.2 mm million miilion million retail 2. 750,000 office 4,375 $300 $9.0 $28 16.29% $1.60 1.0 mm million million million retail 3. 750,000 office 3,750 $225 $6.7 $28 13.4% $132 750;000 million million million retail 4. 600,000 office 4,400 $360 $10.8 $28 18.13% $1.88 1.2 million million million i million retail * n.PMIa12lof L7im,n-~iwn>>Issues for Consideration During the course of our examination of tUe project several issues arose which we believe are crucial to the success of this project. We offer them as our best estimates of the challenges faced by this unique site with specia] challenges. - I; To what extenGwi1L•the two communities choose to involve themselves in a partnership with the developer? Major r.etail projects represent substantial revenue opportunities to a community, generating new funds for other community projects. Typically, cities develop a revenue sharing plan with the developer, with both sides absorbing some of the risk to ensure the project succeeds. The cost of land for a redevelopment project is rypically higher than if the project were developed on a"green field" site. Such is the case ~Iv ~ ~r w 7 with the Speedway, with the price of land is higher than normal. Committee members cited the price of the land as a concern. Efforts can be made through a public-private partnership among the parties to reduce this impact. 2. What infrastructure will be paid for by the communities and what will Ue the developer's responsibility? Some of the traffic improvements such as a new interchange at Alameda Avenue and interchange improvements at Morrison Road will accrue to the entire community, not just the site. The degree to which these costs are shared needs to be determined. 3. What is the plan of finance for the developer? Financing costs will have a significant impact on the success of the project. A close examination of the developer's financial structure for this project is crucial to avoid unnecessary risk. 4. Can the market absorb a project of this size in the time frames outlined? This project, if built to its highest density, is one of regional proportion. The Committee did not perform any market feasibility analysis. The conditions posted to the EIM assumed that the market was strong enough to accommodate such a project. A close examination of the developer's marketing studies is encouraged. The Committee is aware that a number of potentially competitive projects aze either presently underway or planned. These include: a major retail development wi[hin the Denver West Business Park, the planned opening of City Commons at Wadsworth and Alameda, Interplaza (6`h Avenue and I-70), the proposed redevelopment of Villa Italia Shopping Center, a proposed King Soopers-anchored village mall on U.S. 285 in Conifer, redevelopment of Westminster Mall, the redevelopment of Southwest Plaza Shopping Center and the opening of the super regional mall, Flatirons Crossing, in Broomfield. (See attached map) In the course of negotiations among the developer and communities, these other potentially competitive projects should be explored in depth. Many of the same retailers ue potential tenants for each of the possible projects. Each has both competitive advantages and disadvantages. The location of one of the firms at one location will preclude its location at another. Grocery stores, for example, inevitably take business away from one of their own stores when they locate in an adjacent area. On behalf'of the Committee; the Jefferson Economic Counci3` is pleased to have been of service to the Town ofMorrison and the City of Lakewood: `We hope that our efforts will help to focus and clarify the public debate on this project. Thank you for the opportunity. Attachments COMMITTEE MEMBERS Gregg Bradbury Robert Bruce David Clyne Paul Franke, III Kittie Hook Dennis Johnson Jim Neenan Bruce Nickerson Alice Reuman Mike Rock Dick Scott Ron Sholar Bob West Holli Baumunk Tom Clark Church Ranch Corporate Center. Frederick Ross Company Town of Morrison Hall and Evans Fuller and Company Norwest Bank The Neenan Company Vauxmont Intermountain Communities Jefferson County Planning City of Lakewood Town of Morrison The Sholar Group Jehn and Associates Jefferson Economic Council Jefferson Economic Council 9 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: EDARC Members FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director~{~ 1 U.Uvv SUBJECT: Survey of Public Opinion on Growth DATE: May 10, 2000 ~F WHEqr ~ P ~ a ~ U m c~C OR A~O Attached is a copy of the survey of public opinion on growth requested by the Commission. n14lk,,:, OF WNEqT ~ o ~ ~ m OR A00 _ To: Council, Mayor Cerveny, EDARC nd Planning Commissio From: Valerie D. Adams CC: Department Heads Date: February 20, 2000 Re: Growth Management Options Public Opinion Survey Attached for your review is a recent copy of the Growth Management Options Public Opinion Survey dated February 2000. I received this survey at the February 12 Metro Mayor's Caucus Retreat. This survey was done by the University of Colorado ac-Denver through the Institute for Policy Implementation Graduate School of Public Affairs. I think you will find this survey and the results very interesting and germane to some of the [opics that we have been discussing. The survey clearly indicates the following: • Citizens have a strong preference conceming the role of state, regional and local governments conceming growth management, • Citizens welcome growth, however they are concerned aboui the problems caused by growth, • Citizens want local governments to play a major role in growth management, and • The citizens want govemment at all levels to develop and initiate "out of the box" responses and programs to manage growth. I think that you will find some of the same themes [hat we also saw in the video "Subdivide and Conquer" . This survey will be a good tool to use a guide for our next group discussion. The notes on the front are mine from the February 12 Metro Mayor's Caucus Retreat. 1 VAUUWI NCWWDW ✓ ~ ~ ~ Mayor Cgy AVY• CityCW& (5tYTOS& Q{I'a' ~nA~L, . M E M O R A N D U M i Y . . . _ R ` I ' ~p,.. . ~.t. ~ _ ~ , •...a ~ The Mind of Colorado ~ Growth Management Options Public Opinion Survey .V ~V:J ~ J•• ` ~l l ~I I a(1~ F• . . • . . ' ~ ~,i I orW n Sr" s 0..~1.1s y . _ . , P - 12'' .~arn~ ~ fy i V f 031 C d t d b v: on uc e „ Institute for Public Policy -p- The Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Graduate School of Public Affairs University of Colorado at Denver p=p February, 2000 c_ • ~ ~ ~ P9 ~ 1 \y \ , T< Q~,,Q< . ~ i.A • a . . fn, ~ U Ip nS.➢....l1C{). . ~YOJ~!/~ m~..L cn>~~cs ; . r1LJ 7 University of Colorado at Denver [na4tutc (or Poifq Implemcnntion Gnduatc School of Public ARain 1445 :Aaricn Strcet Suitc 350 Drnver, Colorada 8020:-I':7 Phone:303•820-5602 Fax: 303-53~8 773 February 8, 2000 Tom Kaesemeyer Execu[ive Director Ga[es Familv Foundaton Denver, Colorado Dear Tom: We aze pieased to transmit the completed survey conceming the views of the ciuzens of Colorado on gowth management options now being discussed and debated in the state. We hope that the survey will assist the leaders of the state fmd common o ound on legislative as well as administrative initiacives. The surveyindicates that the citizens of the state have strong and cleaz preferences conceming the role of state, regional and local govemments conceming a owth management. The survcw• indicates that the citizens of the state do not view growth from a partisan poliacal lens. They welcome the benefits of growth. However, they are concerned about the problems caused by growth. They want govemment at al] levels to develop and iniaate "out of the box" comprehensive responses to gowth management. Clearly, citizens of the state want local govemments to play a major role in managing growth. But they, alsq want to s[rengthen the ability of regional govemments to meet regional objectives related to problems like pollution and congestion. They appear willing to rede£ne local convol in a manner that focuses more on effectiveness and faimess in responding to growth pressures than on traditional or historical definitions of the roles and responsibilities of govemment, the private sector, and indeed, the communirv. Basica]ly, citizens of this state want growth management efforts to work better than they have in the past. In this context, they are willin, to consider new and amended roles for local, re; onal and state govemment. I want to tharilc the Gates Family Foundation for its support of Ihe survey. I, also, want to thanl: [he bipartisan group of public, non-profit, communiry, and private sector leaders tha[ served as an informa] advisory board with respect to the survey instrument. Thev efforts helped strengthen the survey and he(ped assure its neutrality. I would be remiss if I didn't [haiil: Dr. Pegw Cuciti, staff director of the survey effort. While I provided overall guidance to the effort, Peggy was responsible for the fmal design of the survey, the samplin, approach, the administration of the survey, and the initial draft of the report. We were ably assisted by Fran Groff, Dr. Laura Appelbaum, Christine Velez Badar, Tom McCoy and a well qualified ,,oup of interviewers. Sincerely, Mazshall Kaplan' Executive Director Tabie of Contents Introduction ...............................................................1 Research Methods .....................................................i AnalysisPlan .........................................................1 Perceptions of Growth and Its Conseauences Pace of Growtn ^ Concerns ............................................................2 Assessmentof Effects Governments' Roie ....................................................3 Strensthenine Plannins to Manaee Cnowth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Desirability ofLocal Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Planning as a Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Making Plans More Meaningful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Enforceable Plans and Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 State Financial Support for Local Plannin, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Role ofReeiona] Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Should Regional Organizations 6e Involved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Specific Role to be Played . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Composition of Board .................................................10 W'r.at Should be Included in Local and Reeional Plans? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 35 Acre Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Strategies to Change Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I Congges:ion Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Growtt Limits ...............13 Tax Ba.;e Sharing ...............14 Iinpact Fees for Schoois . . . . . . . . : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Open Space Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Support 16 Altematives .........................................................16 Purposes ...........................................................17 Conclusions ...............................................................18 Appendix A: About the Institute for Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .ADD: :dix B: Survey with Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Introduction Growth is one of the main issues on Coloradans' minds and a dominant issue in the current legislative session. The liniversity of Colorado's Institute for Policy Research and Impiementa[ion and its ivonvest Public Opinion Research Proeram undertook a survey to examine rtow tne states residents feel about many of the growth manaeement options thaL are beinQ considered by ]eeisla[ors, local elected officials and planne:s throushout the state.' The survey addresses severa] key issues • Perceptions of growth and its consequences; • Whether and how to reshape plannin~ processes to better manage grow-th; • The role of regional governments in land use planning; • Choices that might be made in plans; • Open Space Programs: purpose and approach. Research Methods The survey was developed by liniversity stafFwith input from an advisory committee that included representatives of state and local govemment, pianning professionals, and representatives of home builder, environmental and agricultural interests. The survey was conducted between December 6, 1999 and January 26, 2000 using the Secretary of State's list of registered voters as a sampling frame. Over 900 interviews were completed. Citizens' interest in the topic is cleaz as evidenced by a hioh response rate: fully 60% of those we spoke with completed an interview despite its len-th and complexity. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% cq en e that the maximum error attributable to samplin; and other random effects is plus or minus.1.11.,percentage points. Analysis Plan For each set of questions, the report presents basic frequencies. An analysis by sub-group is then considered with the basic breakdowns reflectina: • Geographic Region reported in four categories: Denver, Denver metro area suburban counties, elsewhere along the Front Range, and outstate; • Type of community lived in: large city, suburb, smaller town or city, or rural area; • Party affiliation: Republican, Democrat and linaffiliated; • Other demoo aphics such as age and gender. We report whether the basic pattern of support or opposicion observed for all respondents holds within the sub-groups as well as differences that may exist. I The research was supported by the Gates Foundadon. " Generally differences described in the report aze statisticallv significant at the .1 level or better. Unrversiry of Colorado, Norwest Public Opiniot: Research Program Page 1 Perceptions of Growth and Its Consequences Pace of Growth Coloradans believe the state is growing at too fast a pace. Two thirds sa}• the rate of szrowth in th: state during the last several years is too fast; one quaner think it's about rieht. An even hiaher percentase -'3% - believe that the region of the state in which they live is erowing too fast. When the focus is on the focal community, somewhat fewer (63%) say the pace of growth is too fast. Almost one third judge the growth rate to be about rieht. The perception that growth is occurring too fast is more common along the urbanized Front Range than outstate: Residents of Denver's ~ suburbs are more likely to express this view with 82% saving growth in the region is too fast. eventy-nine percent o Denver's residents and 70% of those living elsewhere along the Front Range hold the same view compazed to only half of those living outstate. Over three-quarters of Democrats feel the growth rate is too high, compazed to 68% of Repubiicans. Concerns eo 70 so 50 40 30 20 10 0 Opinion on Rate of Growth 4.1 to 0.3 ~ Too Fast ~ Too Slow About Right DK Eight in ten Coloradans have concems about growth. When asked to describe the one or two things that concerned them most, fully 44% mentioned trafFic, congestion or a related t:ansportation issue. Thirty-five percent mentioned pollution, the negative effects of grov_tb on-air-or water,-or other aspects of the environment. For some, the concern is simpiy size and the number of people; these concerns are mentioned by one in five respondents. Fourteen percent talked about growth's effect on the cost of living generaily or the cost of land or housing. The same number of respondents expressed concern about how ?rowth is occurring; they were bothered by what they perceive to be insufficient planning or lack of infrastructure. Nine percent noted the impact of growth on education or overcrowding in schoois. Assessment of Effects Even thoush most Coloradans have concems about growth, many believe its positive effects outweigh negative ones. Asked to weigh both positive and negative effects, 21% concluded that growth is mostly positive and another 38% said it is somewhat positive. In contrast, 12°/a said growth is mostly negative and another 27% said it was somewhat negative. Even amon~ those who expressed concems about the state's growth rate, a majority (54%) see growth as having mostly positive (16°/a) or somewhat positive (37%) effects. Ur.; vers: r; of Colore.do, Norwest Public Oprnion Research Program Page 7 State Region Community Growth is perceived as being positive in all of the sub-groups. Metro area residents are less positive than those living elsewhere. In Denver's suburbs. sav srowth's effects are , positive while 43% perceive the effec:s as being negative. Denver residents feel similarly. In contrast, 64°/a of people living outside the Denver metro azea perceive erowth in their region as being positive. Republicans are more likely to see growth as being positive: compaze 64% with 54°rb among Democrats. Men are more positive (63%) than women (>j%). Govemment Role re: Growth 0.6 I 37.8 ;msx ~ MatlyPociWe ~ SomaaTatNepaWe ' No gra.vm in aiea Governments' Role (a)7 Governments' role is seen as r consider several possible roles preferred role, chosen by 59% of respondents, is for government to "accept that growth will occur at its present rate but manase it to limit negative effects." Fifteen percent preferred a strategy geared to reducing the rate of growth. Nineteen percent would fike the govemment to "fet the mazket define how and when growth occurs." t3x ,sx g+ Samewnat Peeitve P~'4 MoetfyNegaWe I I DK not limiting it. Respondents were asked to rith respect to growth in their own community. The Growth management is the prefeaed role of government in each of the sub-groups. The proportion that believes that growth should be determined solely by the mazket place varies somewhat by group. Metro azea residents are (ess likely than others to choose this option: 15% in Denver, 18% in the suburbs, 22% Effect ot Grovrth in Area 0.4 4 _q_%7 ,a.sx 0 Enwurege Growth IM Reduce Growth 17 DK ,o 12.8%1 ~ ~ Manape Growth ~ Let Market Define elsewhere along the Front Range and 23% in outstate areas. More Republicans hold this view (24%) than Democrats (15%) or linaffiliateds (18%). University of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Page 3 Stren;thening Planning to Manage Grow•th Growth is the result of a myriad of choices made by individuals, businesses and eovemments. Landowners decide whetner to make land available; builders decide wnether to invest capital in housina or commercial developments; and individuals decide whe:her [o buy or ren[ units. Governments influence private choices through their plans, their decisions as to when, where and how major infrastructure such as water, sewer and transportation will be made available, and throueh zonin„ subdivision and building resulations. Government actions may be taken in the context of a comprehensive plan, or they may ~e made on a more or less ad hoc basis. Many of the proposals for managing growth cali for making comprehensive plans into documen[s specific and strong enou.-h to ,guide decisions. Desirability of Local Planning The public believes that better local planning is important. Respondents were told that several state governments had premised their growth management strategies on stronger local planning. Recoenizing that there are costs to taxpayers, they were asked to judge how important it is for local government to prepare comprehensive or master land use plans to wide development. Fuily 94% believe plans aze very (71%) important or ~ somewhat (23%) important.' Planning is seen as desirable in each of the sub-groups. The proportion saying planning is important is above 90% for respondents living along the Front Range or out-state, whether in a high growth or low-growth area.° This is also true regardless of party affiliation or gender. Importance of Local Plans Q. 7a n Very Important 12 Somewhat Unimporont 17 DK 1]3.3% j ~ 1.4Y.I 2.SX ~ Somawhat Imporhnt ~ Vary Unimportant 3Note that in much of [he analysis we group those tivho stronaly and somewhat support an opiton and those who strongly and somewhat oppose an option. °The measure of growth is the percent of population increase in the respondent's county of residence. Low growth is defined as having less than a 9.5% increase in population from 1994 to 1998. University of Colorado, Norwest Publie Opinion Research Program Page 4 Planning as a Requirement Respondents were told that "local governments now decide whether or not to prepare plans." They were then asked whether they would support or oppose "state leeislation reguirrng cities and counties to prepare, with public involvement, comprehensive or master land use plans." This is the cr•lx of one of the debates in the legislature - whether the state should mandate local plans or adhere to a more decentralized framework. Eieht ` of ten respondents support a state tannino ~ requirement - wrt 49 /o sayin~ they strongly support the idea and another 34% saying they somewhat suppoR it. Legislative Requirement for local growth plans 0. 7b I18.BY.j EE ~ Stronpty SupppoR ~ Somwvhat Oppnse ❑ DK IV I6.8X 8.1X ~ . Somswhat SuDPOR ~ Strongfy Oppox Support for mandatory planning is high in all subgroups. Republicans appear a bit more skeptical than Democrats but even so 80% support a requirement that local governments prepare comprehensive plans. Women are more supportive (86%) than men (80%). Front Range residents are more supportive than those fiving elsewhere, but in every setting, at least 70% support the idea of the state requiring local governments to prepare plans. Making Plans More Meaningful States whose growth management strategies hinge on stronger planning have sought ways to make the plans themselves more meaningful as o ides to decision making. Plans can either be so vague as to be meaningless, or amended so oRen that they do not provide predictable land use direction. The public was asked to react to proposals that would make plans more meaningful as guides to decision- making. While the level of support varies somewhat by proposal, the pubiic likes the idea that the state should specify criteria for what plans address and how / plans relate to other tocal decision-maki 0 Strongty support IM Samewhatappoce ~ Somwvhat support ~ seronaN oPP. Proposed Legisiation Q.8 to 0.12 Balance jobs 8 housing Zoning eonsistent with plan Timely approval Intarjurisdictional Compatabiliry Urban Service Areas University of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program pcrge 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 af . qio/ ~~~iri s and ~to approve proposed develooments ir, a timely manner if they are consistent with the community's comorenensive nlan a::d development reeulations. There are vinually no differences among sub-gyroups in tne response to this questioa 90% support the state requiring cities and counties to make their zoning and development ~ LesulatinnS2IlCiIhe' budaets for inirastructure consicrPnt wiih their comorehensive plans Rural area residents are somewhat ess supportive (84%) than respondents li~~in in laree cities (91%), suburbs (92%) or smaller cities and towns (92%). Republicans are siishtly less supportive (88%) than Democrats (93%) or linaffiliateds (91°ro). There are virtually no differences based on region, growth rate, or gender. 7• 86% support the state requiring all city and county pians to balance residential and new ioos can of support are found in all sub-groups analyzed. 7- 77% support the state requiring compatibility amonQ the plans of neighboring jurisdictions Compatibility is more of an interest for those living along the Front Range where the support level is 79%. Outstate, 70% want a compacibility requirement. The lowest - support is in smaller towns or cities (70%) and the highest support is in large cities (83%). Interestingly, 75% of self-identified rural area residents would like a compatibility requirement. Democrats (81%) and Unaffiliateds (78%) are more supportive than Republicans (73%). Overall, regardless of subgroup, respondents would like to see some kind of compatibiliry requirement. 72% want plans to designate specific urban service areas. The survey asked whether the state s ou "require aii cities and counties to designate specific azeas where development will be allowed and infrastructure such as roads and sewers will be provided and to strictly limit development everywhere else." In all the sub-groups, there is support from at feast ~ 60%. Residents of Denver metro area suburban counties are most supportive (77%), foliowed by enver (74%), and then the other Front Range counties (73 0. n the outstate azeas, there is ess support, but still well over a majority (61%). Those who self- identify as living in a lazge city (76%) or suburb (80%) are more supportive than those living in small towns or rural azeas (65%). Among Democrats (74%) and tinaffiliateds (75%) support is higher than among Republicans (68%). Ur.iversity of Colorado, Nonvest Publrc Opinion Researeh Program Page 6 Enforceable Plans and Dispute Resolution: The survev asked whether neishbors should be able to stop developments that are consistent with a community's comprehensive pian as well as zoning and development resulations. Forty-nine percent said "no" while 36% supported the right of neiehbors to review and stop developments. Others were uncertain. Should Neighbors Be Able to Stop Development 0.26 Republicans were more likely (54%) than Democrats (42%) or Unaffiliateds (49%) to say that neighbors shouldn't be able to veto plan-consistent projects. Similarly, outstate residents were more likely (59%) to reject ~ the rights of neighbors to stop developments than other Front Range (50%), Denver metro suburban (46%) or Denver residents (39%). Not all disputes regarding the consistency of development decisions with the content of comprehensive plans occur within the boundaries of a single jurisdiction. Respondents were asked whether they support or oppose ggiving citizens, developers or government officials the rieht to appeal land use or development decisions of a neazby jurisdiction when they believe those decisions are incompatible withthe jurisdiction's or the region's comprehensive plan. Seven in ten respondents support the concept of an ~appea s process t at exten s across ~~urisdictional boundariec. Respondents don't agree, however, on how such a process should be structured. ~ There are about equal levels of support for ~ requiring the use of qualified mediators (32%) and the use of an agency or land Stronpty Support ~ Somewha[ Support Somewhat Oppose ~ Strongly Oppose DK use appeals boazd at the regional level (34%). Support for resolvino disputes at the state level through a state agency or appeals boazd is much lower (17%). University ojColorndo, Nonvest Public Opinion Research Program Page 7 Yes ffl No B Depends 17 DK Appeal of Land Use Decisions Across Jurisdcational Lines Support for a cross-jurisdictional appeals process is observed in ail of tne sub-eroups Respondencs outstate were least supponive. Even so, 6_°~b said they supporz the creacion o: a setcins wher: non-residents can challenize a local sovernment's development decision tna, they perceive to oe incompatible with the comprehensive plan. Support is lowest amone Republicans: two thirds favor an appeafs process, contrasted with 720io ofDemocrats. In all sub-srouos, the preference is for using either qualified mediators or a regional appeals board to resolve disputes, as opposed to a board at the state IeveL State Financial Support for Local Plannine A majority (58%) believe that the state should provide financial assistance to local govemments to help pay the costs of planning. A little more than one third (36%) say that local governments should pay for planning out of their own revenues. Who should pay for planning? 0.13 ■ sbm.e,ssumnu EE Loo1 covs. P+y ❑ DK University of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Researeh Program Page 8 The Role of Reaional Governments Should Regional Organizations be Involved?_.. There is an important role ior regiona( govemments in the planning process. Throush tne years, efforts have been made to create regional entities and involve them in planning. The federal eovernment explicitly recoenizes metropolitan planning organizations and gives them a role in determining how federal transoortation and other infrasttucture funds will be spent. Some areas of the state have reeional planning orsanizations, but their role is larsely advisorv. It is up to loca] governments to decide whether to adhere to any regional plans that are developed in Coforado. A number of states have soueht to streno-then the role of regional organizations by empowering them to set development priorities and adopt comprehensive plans. They also require local governments' plans 2o be compatibte with the region's plan. The survey asked respondents to react to potential state legislation that would have the effect of stren;thening reeional sovernment in Colorado. In the introduction to the questions, respondents were told that such proposals "would allow region-wide issues to be addressed, but could limit some of the planning and development choices now made by cities and counties." Specific Role to be Played About two thirds of respondents support each of the proposals to strengthen the role of regional governments in planning. 68"/o su,pport havme a re iona! eoverni ~,,n~.,$m 72% favor "state leeislation givinQ regional govemments the power to ~ rev~ew ciry and countv comprehensive plans and to require these plans to be reworked i they are inconsistent with reeional plans." Support for regional in their area that creates a plan and sets Role of Regional Govemment in Pianning Q.14 -Q.17 Develop pian for region Review of local plans Override locai decisions Incentives to locals to comply ~ Snongysupport Somawhatsupport Q Somewhat oppose ~ Sffonpy oppooae ri orities r development. Support for regional government involvement never drops below a majority •^S`Y'""'" , ~_-regardless of the subgroup. Support is higher in the more urbanized communities along the Front Ran~e (68°a) and lowest in low gowth areas outside the Front Range (54%). Support is stroneer among Democrats (71°a) than others (66%). review of loca] plans never drops below 60% in any of the sub.groups analyzed. Support in rural areas is lower (61%) than elsewhere. Republicans are somewhat ]ess supportive (66°io) than Democrats (76%). University af Colorado, Nonvest Public Opinion Research Program Page 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 67% favor "state legis(ation givin2 resional eovernments the ri=ht to revieu and po[entialk override speciiic city or county land use decisions if tney have signiiicant recienal imoac*.s " Support for regional review of local land use decisions never droos below maioricy leveis, resardless of the suo-eroup. Suppon is much higne; alons the Front Range (09° o) tnan eisewhere in the state (56%). Vote; s younger than 35 (770) are more supperive .han ;nei; olde: counterparts. Differences by party aze not statisticall} sienificant. 64% favor "using state and federal funds to reward local Qovernments who follow the reFon s pian and to penalize those who don't." There are much stronger differences of opinion on t s quesnon t an on most of the others. Outstate areas experiencing low growth appear somewhat wary of this idea - only 481.o said they could support it. Along the Front Range, especially in the Denver metro area, and in hisher orowth areas to the east and west, support is much higher. Support tends to e i~~er among Democrats and tinaffiliazeds and among voters younger than 45 yeazs old. Composition of Board Support exists for changing the composition of regional boards. Survey respondents were told that the governing boards of most regional councils are now made up of elected officials from the local governments in their azeas. They were asked if they prefer this approach or an alternative that would include appointed representatives from the business and environmental communities as well. The second option allowing for broader representation has greatet support, It was chosen by 55% of respondents compared to 41% who chose the status quo. _ Who should be on Regional Boards R. 20 N Elected Olficials ~ Elected and Appointed ❑ DK University of Colorado, Nonvest Public Opinion Research Program Page 10 What Should be Included in Local and Regional Plans° Thus far the survey focused on the value of reuional and loca] comprehensive plans as a context ior communities to make choices re2arding the shape, type and pace of development wnicn mac occur. The second part of the survey focused more on the substance of the choices that focal eovernments and/or reeions might make as they put together their plans. 35 Acre Subdivisions Currently under state law, up to one dwelling can be built on any parcel that is 35 acres or larger in size and larger land holdings can be broken into 35 acre-parcels without subdivision review by counties. About half of respondents believe counties should have the authority to regulate these types of subdivisions. 35 acre Subdivision Support for county rewlation of 35 acre or larger subdivisions falls below majority levels in several groupings of the population. Outstate the percentage voicing support is just 44%: In outstate areas experiencing relatively low growth, the proportion supporting county regulation drops to 37%. ~ Yes gg, No ❑ DK Democrats are more likely (55%) to support county regulation of these large subdivisions than Republicans (46%) or tinaffiliateds (51 Strategies to Change Land Use Patterns Critics of land use pattems in metropolitan areas describe them as "sprawl," and contend that they consume too many resources in an inefficient way. In particular, critics object to the practice of continuous (ow density developments at the urban fringe, including many projects that leapfrog or bypass undeveloped land within or adjacent to already built-up areas. Critics also object to the practice of sepazatins residential from commercial development because it increases the distance that people have to travel. They believe that sprawl results in too much land being developed and too little left in agicu:ture or open space. They object to extra infrastructure costs and a heavy dependence on the automobile. People who embrace this view would like to see decisions made in the context of a comprehensive land use planning process that wouid encouraee different patterns of development. r Unrversity o, f Colorado, Nonve.st Pzrblrc Opinion Researeh Proo am Pcrge 11 Shauld counties regulate? The survey tested how Coloradans feel about some policies that could chan_e the current shaoe or pattern of land development. ~ ~ sp(it on this ide:>, althou2h more p - _ a more open space ts preserved. Clustered Develoomen*,: .4 ootential policy would be "to encouraee developments where houses are lac~d closer toeether" so th t" 11 Few statistically significant differences emerse in the suberoup anafysis. Parzy affiliation is the only variable on which a major difference is found: only 49% of Republicans support the idea of clustered development compared to 62% of Democrats and 58% of Unaffiliated voters. Mxed lise Develooment: There is strong suppoR for a plan that encourages " ~e developments where housing and commercia( facilities are near each other so less d The pubhc is the concept than oppose it. Fiitv-six Forty-one percent opnosethe conceot. Possible components for plan Q22 - Q.25 I I Claser houses, mwe opan spaoe Eneouraga maed devalopment No 6uildinp hr ham srisNnp area¢ 0 Strongly support 91 Somewhat support IM Somewhat oppoce CK! Stronpty oppoce like the idea with somewhat more voicing strong 5up_p4LISh!D~.mld suooort. There aze ig eve s o support or t is i ea m every subsroup. The lowest level of support -69% - is found in low erowth counties outside the Front Range. There are statisticaily significant differences based on pany affiliation and age. Republicans are less supportive than Democrats but fully 75% of Republicans (ike the idea of mixed use development. Voters younger than 35 are substantially more positive than voters in older age groups, with 87% voicing support for the idea. Contiauous Development: or somewhat (29%) uo areas." Support for on "building on land distant trus type oi resuiatton ts lughet among Democrats (63%) than Republicans (52%) or linaffiliateds (58%). Younger voters like the idea better (69%) than those in older age groups. There are virtualfy no differences by region. Gniversity of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinron Research Program Page 12 0 20 40 60 80 100 Coneestion Pricine The survev soueht to eet at the idea of imposine tolls on roads, not so much as a financing tool, but rather as method of allocating marsinal costs to frequent drivers. The question asked whether Colorado should develop additional lanes on hiehways that would be kept free of consestion by charging tolls that vary depending on the amount of traffic. Opinion is closely divided, with 51°/a opposing the idea and 46°/a supponing it. The gap is bigger, however, if one looks at those with strong opinions: 29% strongly oppose the idea while 21% strongly support it. Congestion Pricing on Highways 0.25 N Stronply Support ffl Somewhat SuDaort IM Somewhat Opposa F&~! Strongly Oppose ['7, DK The idea of congestion pricing has more support along the Front Range (49%) than outstate (37%). There are no differences based on party. Women are somewhat more supportive (50%) than men (43%). Younger voters are more receptive (5 I%) than those in older age groupings. Growth Limits Often the public's desire to manage growth is translated into proposals to limit growth by imposing a cap on the number of building permits that can be issued or by imposing moratoria on Limit number of annual building permints development. In the survey, a majority say 0z1 a they would either strongly (29%) or somewhat (28%) support t eir community Iimiting the number of building permits that AIML can be issued in a eiven vear 6elow the level now ranted. Thirty-eight percent oppose the idea of limitina buildina permits. It should be noted that more supporters feel strongly on the subject than opponents. (`.c_-.r Ip c L ~ Strongty support ~ Somewhat wDPcrt Q Somwrhat oppose ` Strongiy oppose ❑ DK Ciniversity of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Page 13 When individual communities limit growth, critics contend it has some neeative enecu. One etiect is increased housing prices due to reduced suppiy. Another effect is increzsed erowtr oressures elsewhere. Supoorters of communitv-imposed srowth limits were asked if thev w•ould safl sunoor. ~ the idea if it had the a ove-mentioned consequences. About one n"frh sai their support. This would reduce support for caps below majority levels Support for srowth fimits is much stroneer along the Front Range (o'_10io) than outstate (38° o). Mostly the support fies in the Denver metro suburbs, where two thirds indicated thev would (ike their community to institute arowth limits. The lowest support is in low srowth counties outside of the Front Range (29%). There are splits along party lines. Among Republicans, 5?°ro favor limits (52%) compared to 60% of Democrats and 59% of Unaffiliateds. Women are much more supportive (63%) than men (51%). The proportion supporting caps is 62% among the younsest voters, at least six gercentage points hieher than in other age e oups. Tax Base Sharing State statutes specify the revenue sources ]ocal governments may use. Colorado is somewhat atypical in the extent to which local government must raise their own revenues and in their reliance on sales tax collections. This financing structure makes commercial developments particulazly attractive to local governments, since they are a prerequisite to generating sales taxes. This has several consequences. First, iurisdictions with large commercial developments have a fiscal advantaae. Either throuah circumstances or intent, jurisdictions which encomcass commercial Tax-Base Sharing Q.18 and Q.19 Neiph6oriny Communities ~ ~ I I I I , wrtnin Ra9iom I ~ I I I 20 40 60 80 100 developments may not have the residential 0 Stronpiy Support ~ Somewhat Support developments required to house the local = s'"'°w'"t oPaosa 6 swnDy oop.a economy's workforce. At the same time, ❑ DK the jurisdictions that do house the workforce may not have the tax base they need to support public services. Second, the tax system pushes locaf eovernments to compete wiih each other for lazge commercial developments and to skew land use deve(opment patterns. To counter the negative consequences of the local finance structure, vazious proposals for tax base sharing have surfaced over the yeus. Public opinion was sought on two vaziants, one focusing more on fiscal imbalances and inequities that arise in specific circumstances, and the other on reoional competition. Either way, there is majority support for tax base sharing. Universiry of Colorado, N'onvest Public Opinion Research Program Page 14 Three quarters (76%) say thev would stronefv (39°ro) or somewhat (37o) as stii areas to snare a oortion or me taxes they collect with neiahboring communities that provide infrastructure such as road or ~ the people who work there." Supnort is received from two-t Mrs or more of the respondents in each of the sub-groups. There are some differences in levels of supoort. Outstate there is less support (69%) than in Denver (81%), metro area suburbs (73°0) or elsewhere along the Front Ranee (74%). Support is lowest in smaller towns and cities (69%). In rural areas, the level of support (77%) is comparable to that which exists suburban areas (76°/a). Residents of laroe cities are somewhat more in favor (33°.0) of this type of tax base sharin.a. Support is lower among Republicans (71 than Democrats (77%) or tinaffiliateds (80%). Sixty-one percent of Colorado's reeistered voters would support a proposal reauiring "a portion o sales taa revenues to be shared among ail the local sovernments witnm a r gion" s developments. A majority supports the ppoposal n eea h of the subt-roupsQ Few of the observed differences are statistically significant. The only difference of note is based on ~party ~liation. Fifry-four percent of RepubIicans support regional tax base sharing, ~--compazed to 64% ofDemocrats and 67% of voters without a party affiliation. Impact Fees for Schools. The survey focused on one issue regarding impact fees - whether they should be imposed to cover costs for school construction. The courts have questioned the legality of such fees for this purpose, so the the legislature has been asked to explicitly authorize local govemments to levy them. The idea of impact fees was introduced in the survey in the following way: "Some people favor imposiag impact fees on newly built homes to help build new schools. While paid by developers, these fees are usuaily added to the cost of the home, meaning the buyer pays the fee plus the normal property taxes paid by everyone in the community. Others think school impact fees are unfair because they raise the Support. for Impact Fees 0.38 N Stronpty SuppoR JE Somewhat Support ~ Somwhat Oppose EZA Strongy oppose J DK cost of new homes and older schools were paid for by the whole community." Asked whether they would support or oppose school impact fees, respondents split equally with 48% opposing and 7 47% supporting. Support never climbs very high (above 52%) reeardless of.the oroup analyzed. The ereatest Universiry of Colorado, Norwest Pubfic Oprnion Research Program Page 15 ~ opposition exists outstate, particularly in low growth counties (69° o). Repubiicans ar: less inclined to be favorable (4:%) than Democrats (501.0) or L'~nafFiliateds (5 l°/o) Open Space Preservaticn Support Coloradans are interested in taking s4s to preserve open space in or near their communities. Two . ~ thirds indicate they would strongl_y (35%) or somewhat~3 .11/o2 support spending more pubiic t"unds to buy lan-d-'or open space even it'n means raismg taxes. ~ Outstate, barely half want more fundins and support drops below a majority if we look onl}• at low- growth counties outside the Front Range (39%). Support for additional open space funding is very high, however, in Denver (78%), other metro area counties (73%) and elsewhere along the Front Range (61%). There aze differences based on party affiliation but support is high among all groups: 59% of Republicans, 65% of Unaffiliateds and 75% of Democrats want to spend more on open space preservation. Alternatives Open space can be preserved through the outright purchase ofland orthroueh alternatives that. keep the land in private ownership. One alternative is for government to purchase conservation easements or development rights rather than the land itself. W"hen development rights are purchased, the land remains private but it is prevented from ever being developed. Nearly three- quarters (73%) support the idea of buying development rights. Aitematives to Buying Land 0.36 & 0.37 Buy Easements Lease Easements Recently, proposals have emerged that call N Strongly wpport El Somewhat support on govemment to lease, rather than buy, El sommn,.t ovm" El stronoy oPpou conservation easements. Facmers are sometimes forced to sell their land because they can't earn enoueh in aericulture. Leasing would prevent the premature conversion of land, but would not force decisions on the part of the farmer or the government reaarding the long term use of the land. This approach was explained in the survey in the following terms: "Farmers or ranchers would aeree not to develop their land for a period of time and the lease would provide part of the income they need to remain workin-, the land. Since the conservation easement is leased rather than purchased, the land may not be preserved as open space forever." There are about the same number of supporters (47°/0) and opponents (46%) for the proposal. Suppor for purchasing development riizhts or conservation easements is strong (60% or hi=her) in every subgroup, while support for leasing never gets to majority levels. University ojColorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Page 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 Purposes In makins decisions about the purposes of open space acquisition, according to surve} respondents, the highest priority should be accorded to purchases that: protect wildlife habitat (a high priority for 73% and a medium priority for 23%); preserve aericulture (a high priority for 71% and a medium priority for 23°.0); Acquisitions of open space for the following purposes are also highly valued, but support is lower than for protectina wildlife and preserving agriculture: Open Space Acquisition % Outstate Other Front Range Other Metro Denver preserve scenic views (a high priority for 58% and a medium priority for 34%) ~ provide recreational opportunities (a high ~ priority for 46% and a medium priority for ~ 39%) Buffers 7] Recreation Scenic Views EM AgricuRure Wtldl'rfe provide buffers between communities (a high priority for 37% and a medium priority for 41%) Protecting wildlife habitat is the top priority for Denver and the rest of the metro area and it is the second highest prioricy for voters elsewhere in the state. Preserving agriculture is the hishest priority for Front Range residents outside the metro area and for those living outstate. ~ Wildlife protection and agricultural preservation are top priorities for members ofboth major political parties but the relative position shift with wildlife protection more important for Democrats and asricultural preservation for Republicans. On each of the items, a hisher percentage of Democrats say it is a high priority. There is a relatively lazge gap in the proportions saying wildlife protection is a high prioriry - 79% among Democrats vs. 67% among Repubticans. Democrats are also markedly more likely to assign hi.-h priority status to providing recreationai opportunities (51% vs. 41°/a) and providing buffers between communities (41% vs. 33%). University of Colorado, Norwest Publie Opinion Research Program Page 17 0 20 40 60 80 100 Conclusion Clearly, the people of Coiorado have, at least intuitively, weiahed Ihe beneiits and costs or erowth. They have concluded thaz srowth, on balance, is positive. But they are very concerned abou: iu ne2ative effects including congestion, environmental degradation, and loss of open space. To avoid some of these problems, they are looking to government at all levels to bette: manage erowth. The survey shows support for comprehensive planning at the local fevel. Citizens want the sta[e to require comprehensive plannin.a. They want (ocal sovernments' plans to be compatibie with each other. They want loca] zoning and subdivision reaulations and infrastructure expenditures to be consistent with comprehensive plans. They want timely approval for develooments that are consistent with local plans. In short, they want plans that are meaningful guides :or decision- making 0.. The public seems t6 recoenize that effective management of growth requires a regional approach. About two thirds of the public believe that regional governments have a useful role to piay in developing regional plans and working with local governments to ensure that their plans are compatabile with the regional framework. Surprisingly, they even see a need for regional governments to have the authority to override specific local development decisions if they are incompatible with the region's plan. They support tax base sharing initiatives that are tailored to meet the needs of nei.ghboring jurisdictions or that are developed on a regionai basis. Acquisition of open space is an important strategy embraced by the public for managing erowth. It is valued for many purposes. According to the public, however, the highest priority for open space programs should be protecting wildlife habitat and preserving land in agriculture. . Based on the results of this survey, ,growth management is not a partisan issue. While levets of suppor[ may vary by political party, majorities exist among Republicans, Democrats and thos~ without a party affiliation for st'rong growth management options. Likewise, the appeal of growth management is not limited to any one region of the state. Majorities exist in the Denver metro area, eisewhere along the urbanized Front Range and in the more rura] areas outstate for a wide range of growth management strategies. Coloradans want their leaders to lead with respect to growth management. They want governments to put in place a more effective set of orowth management tools than now exist in the state. They appear willing to amend and reform eovernments' ro(e at al] levels and to experiment with stratesies that misht influence land use pattems. They want counties and cities to retain the primary erowth manaeement role but they want be:ter periormance than in the past. Universiry of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Page 18 qkJ liniversity of Colorado at Denver IneNtute for Public Policv Gnduatc School of Puhlic ARain 1445 Marke: Sveet. Swte 350D Denver, Co 80202•1727 Phone (303) 820-5630 Fac (303) 5348774 Appendix A Institute for Public Policy The Institute for Public Policy is housed in the Graduate Schoof of Public Affairs at the liniversity of Colorado at Denver. The Institute provides overail guidance for the Wirth Chair in Environmental and Community Development Policy, the Nonvest Public Opinion Research Program, and six additional centers. _ Under the leadership of former GSPA Dean Marshall Kaplan, the Institute is becoming one of Colorado's premier independent public policy think tanks. It offers careful nonpartisan examination of policy options facing the State of Colorado in diverse azeas from affordable housing to health care policy. The Norwest Public Opinion Research Program The NORWEST Public Policy Research Program is an initiative of the Institute for Public Policy, Graduate School of Public AtFairs, University of Colorado at Denver, and is founded on the premise that public opinion reseazch is essential to an enlightened society. The Proo am seeks to examine issues of public policy and analyze trends in the thinkin- of Colorado citizens. NORWEST also endeavors to provide a reliable, legitimate, and objective base of information for the people of Colorado. The Program links broad understanding of govemance and public issues found in GSPA with specialized skills and technology needed in public opinion research and analysis. The Program is an important resource for the pubiic, private, and non-profit sectors capable of responding to their information needs in a timely fashion. The NORWEST Prop am maintains an up-to-date data base of Colorado's registered voters for use in its own projects and provides samples for other research at a reasonable cost. Staff specializes in all aspects of survey reseazch and can assist with research design, sample selection, questionnaire development, survey administration via phone or mail, data analysis, and strategy development. As its centerpiece, the Program conducts the Mind of Colorado, a periodic statewide survey of the values, attitudes, and opinions of Colorado registered voters. The ivlind of Colorado suives to examine the components of pubiic trust in the basic societal institutions of our state. It provides the baseline data for the compilation and imerpretation of survey research on significant issues of public policy in Colorado. Appendix B Survey with Frequenciess SCrosstabular tables are available upon request. Universiry of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Page 20 Growth Survcy Hella, Is this <nxmc in sample>? IF NOT: Could I spcak to Mc name is and I am calling from the liniversin of Colorado at D:me:. W'e are conducune a survey about growth in Colorado and proposals for legislauon that would affcct how growth occurs. Could you take a few minures and assist in this survec. ~ noo iasc too : aoout : DI: ~ sloa ' neht . 11. Communiues in Colondo are grotiving at different ra[es. Would you say the rate of grow[h. 6-3.3"a ;.2°ie 31 100 un vour communitv durine the last several vears is too fast too slow_ or a6our r;ohr 9 too about in your region of the state?. Wduld vou sa}• the rate of growth there is too iast, . "_.?".6 2.9% _2.9°6 P. Now tltink about [he state as a whole. Would you say the rare of,rowth there is too fas[, i 65.7% 2.1% ?5.3°/u 6.9 ioo slow, or abou[ righc J ~ 4. Growth has both positive and negative effects. On balance, would you say the effecu of growth in your area aze READ RESPONSES _ 1 MosUy positive, 21.3% 2 Somewhatposidve, 37,8% 3 Somewhat negadve, or 26.5% 4 Mosdy negative 11.9% 5 Not applicable, area not growing (don't prompt) 1.0% 9 Don'[ Know (Don't Prnmpt) 1.5% 5. Do you have any concems about e owth? 1 Yes 82.5% No 17.4% DK ,1% a. Please tell me your top one or two concems? (Percent of cases, based on mult response) 1. TraiTic/transportation 43.8% 2. Impact on environmen[ 34J% 3. Overcrowding/populadongrowth2 I .3 % 4. Bad planning of infrastructure 13.8% 5. Cost of housing/living 13.6% 6. For your communiry, what should the governments' role be u•ith respect to growth. Should it: (READ RESPONSES) Try to encourage growth 4.0% Accept that growth will occur at its present rare 593% but manage it to limit negavve impaccs. Try to reduce growth 14.6% Let the market define how and when growth occurs 19.3% Don't know (Dox't prompt) 2, g"/u 7a. Several state govemments have developed growth management suateeies that are based on svonger local planning. Recognizing [hat there are costs involved in doing plans, do you think it is very~ imponant, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant or very unimportant for local governmenu to prepare comprehensive or master land use plans that guide how development is to occur? Very impoRant 70.3% somewhat impor[ant 23.3% somewhat unimponant 2.5% Very unimportant 1.4% Don'[ Know (Don'tprompt) 2.0% 7b. Local govemments now decidc whether or not to preparc plans. il%ould you stronely support, somcwhat support, somewhat oppose or scrongly oppose state Ic-isla[ion requiring cnics and counues [o prcpare. with publi: involvemcnt, comprehcnsive or master land usc plans? Strongly suppon :18.3"/0 Somewhat support 33.6% Somewhat oppose 8.1% strongly oppose 6.6"/0 Don't f:now 2.9"/0 For each of the following specific legisla[ive proposals, [ell me whether you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or stronelc oppose the oroposal. Snoum Coloraao svongly ~ somewhatt somewhat stroneic D~: I i support support i oppose ~opoose ~ Require ail ciues and counties to designate specific azeaz where development will be 1 34.0°/d 38 1% l4 8°/a g joo 4.6°0 rallowed and infrastrucrure such as roads and sewers will be provided and to strictly limi[ 6evelopment everywhere else. (Would you srronglv suppor{ somewhat support, somewhat oD ose or stson !v o oose this?) Require cities and counties to make their zoning and development regulations and I 56.5°/ 1 33.9 3. 7°/q 2.0% 3.9% kheir budgets for infrastructure consistent wi[h their comprehensive plans. 1 ~ I ~10 Require all ciry and count plans to 6alance residential and commercial development 57.:L°/q 23.6% 7.~1°n~ 3.6°5 3 0°,6 y i , so people v io fill new jobs can find housing neazby. I i ' 111. Requi: ziqes and counues ro approve proposed developments in a timely manner if ' S4.7°/' 36.0% 4.7% 2.0% ?.5% ,4hey are coi~sistent with the communiry's comprehensive plan and development ! 'rewlations. IL. Require the plans of neiahbonn, junsdictions to be consistent with each other. I 44.4% 32S°/a 14.0% 8.5% 45% 13 Should the state provide financial assistance to local govemments to help pay the costs of planning or should local goy ?ienu pay for planning out of their own revenues? state financial assistance 57.5% local govemmen[s pay 363°/a Don't Know 6?% Some s[ates [ry [o manage e ow[h by increasino Ihe authoriry of regional goveming bodies. This allows region-wide issues [o be addressed, but could limit some of the planning and deveiopment choices now made by cities and counties. I . Would you suongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or suongly ~ strongly somewhat i somewhat i strongly DK 'I oppose: support suppart ~ oppose oppose I 14. Havin- a regional government in your area tha[ creates a plan and sets 28.9°/q 38.6°/q 18.3°/q~ 10.7°/9 3.4% priorities for development ; ; I I li. State legislauon giving regional govemments the power ro review city and i 29.6%I 42315.2°/~ 8.70/(. 4?% :ounry comprehensive plans and to require these plans to be reworked if they are ~ I I nconsistent with regional plans. I I , i '.o. State legislauon giving regional govemments the right to review and 28.80 /1 37J%1 17.6%' 11.20/ 4.8% )otenually override specific ciry or county land use decisions iF the}• have 1 ~ ionificant re;ional impacts. I I Z Using stare and federal funds to rewazd ]ocal gocernments who follow the I 35.0°/a' 29.0% 16.5%' 14.7°/~ 4.9°,oI egion's plan and to penalize those who dodt. I I ~ 1 1 I Unrversrry of Colorado, Nonvest Publrc Oprnron Research Program Page 22 13. Local govemmcnts depend ro a large extent on 5a1es taxes. Somc peoplc think towns «ith laree wmmcrcial developmena such as skl areas should be required to share a portion of the taxes they collect with nerghborr.v; communities that provide infrastrucmre such as roads that support the commercial development and house many oC the ocople n ito work there. W'auld you stron;h support, somewhat suppon, somcwhat opposc or svongly oppose this rype of r:quired ta.e sharing^ S[ronely support 33.3"/0 Somewhat support 37,0o;, Somewhat oppose 11.2% Strongly oppose. 6.6% Don't know (Don't Prompt) ;.q% 19. In metropolitan areas, jurisdictions compete with each other and someames provide subsidies to atvact laree retail developments that result in large sales tax collecdons. Some people want a portion of sales tax revenues to be shared among all the local govemments within a region so this kind of competition is avoided. Would you strongly support, somewhat suppor[, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this type of regional tax sharing? Svongly support 22.5% Somewhat support 38,6% Somewhat oppose 23.6% Strongly oppose 9.2% Don't know (Don't Prorxpt) 6.1 % 20. The governing boazds of most regional councils in the state are now made up of elected officials from the local govemments in their azeas. Do you prefer this approach, or would you prefer to see a governing boazd that includes appointed representatives from [he business and environmental communides as well? elected local officials 40.9% Includes appoinced representatives az well 54.7% Don't know (Don't Prompt) q.;% 21a. Now I'd like to tallc to you about some ideas that might be included in local or regional plans. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or stmngiy appose your communiry limiting the number of building permits that can be issued in a given year below the level now granted. Sttongly Support 28.7°/a somewhat support 28.1% Somewhat oppose - skip to g12 24.9% strongly oppose- skip to q.31 1'_r,go/a don'[ know - skip rn g.22 5.5% 11b . IFSUPPORT: Woutd you still support this if it means increazed housing costs in your community and growth pressures elsewhere? Yes, still favor 70.2% No, would oppose 19.6% Don'[ Know 10?% Unrversiry of Colorado, Nonvest Public Opinion Research Program Page 23 ~or each of the foilowin;, tcll mc if you would stronply suppon, somewhat suppon, somewhat opposc or strongly oppos-, it being , pncluded as part of your own arca's comprchcnsive plan ~ svongh ' somewhat some«hat strongiy Dn i supoon 1 suooort oooose ' oonose ' Encourage dwelopments where houses are placed closer toeether but ! 28.0% 27.8% 20.=0110 ?0.4% ;.'_°a more open space is presened I , 23. Encoutage mixed use developments where housmg and commercial I 42.2°/d 37.4% 10 7% 7,1";a 2~5go facilities are located near each other so less drivinQ is required i i N. Prohibit building on land distant from exisung built up areas i 2'.9"/a 29.1°/a 2I.7% 10 '°/u 10.3° ~ C_. Develop additional lanes on highways that would be kept free of i 2 L4°a 24.9% Z 1.8°/a 29?°6 2.?°~6 tongesnon by chargin, tolls that vary depending on the amount of trafric 26. Should neighbors be able to stop a development even if the development is consistent with a community's comprehensive plan as well as all zoning and development reguladons? 1 Yes ~ 35.5% 2 No 48.5% 3 It depends (Don't Prompt) I3.4"/u 9 Don't Know (Dox't Prompt) 2.5% 27. In rural areas, owners can subdivide their land into 35 acre parcels without any review by the county govemment. Should counaes have the authoriry to regulate these rypes of subdivisions? I Yes 50.6% 2 No 41.3% 9 Dan't Know 8.1% 1 ) you support or oppose giving citizpns, developers or government officials the right to appeal land use or development decisions of a nearby jurisdiction when they believe those decisions aze incompa[ible with the jurisdiction's or Ihe region's comprehensive plan? 1 Svongly suppon 33.1°/a 2 Scmewha[ support 36S% 3 Somewhat oppose 1 6.5% 4 Svongly oppose 71% 9 Don'C know (Dort't Prorapt) 6.7°/a 29. Were there to be a process for resolving these land use disputes apart from [he couns, who should be responsible? (Read responses) 1 An agency or land use appeals boazd at the state level 16.7% 2 An agenry or land use appeals boazd at the regional tevel 33.7% 4 Qualified mediators 32.36/. 6 Some other way What? 11.6% 9 Don't know (Don't Prumpt) 5,8% 30. Would you strongh• support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose spending more public funds to buy land for open space, even if it means raising ta.ees? I Strongly suppart 34.6% 2 Somewhat support 31.7°ro 3 Somewhat oppose 18.0% 4 Strongly oppose 13.0% - 9 Don'[ know (Don'1 Prompt) 2.7% Universrty of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Page 24 I In acquinng opcn space, should cach of the following bc a higlt, mcdium or low prionty, or should i not be a priority? _ I high ; prionn~ i mcdium prioriro ~ lo« prionn not a; i prionn~ DK pl. Preservingscenicviews I 581°/a 336"/0 52°G 190,' 110' 62. Protecung wildlife habitat ! 72.9°/a 23 6°/a 1.0% 9"' 37. Providme a buffer benveen communmes . 3-.../a . 11.3in a 11 9ia ~ . .a + ~,a ,..io .n _ 35. Providine bikewavs, tiails. and recreadonal opDoaunities _ 46.3°a 38.3",0 11.3:a =.'°o .?°o 36. Buying land for open space can be cosU}. To protect more land from being built on, some people have suggested that government should purchase conservadon easements or development righu, rather than the land itsel£ When development nghts aze purchased, the land remains in privace ownership, bu[ it is prevented from ever being developed. Would you saongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or svongly oppose this idea? 1 Strongly suppon 35.4% 2 Somewhat support 37.3% 3 Somewhat oppose 11.8% 4 Strongly oppose 9.5% 9 Don't know (Don't Prompt) 6.1% . 37. Mother idea is to lease conservation easemenu. Farmers or ranchers would agree not to develop their land for a period of ume and the lease would provide part of the income they need to remain working the land. Since the conservanon easemen[ is leased rather than purchased, the land may not be preserved as open space forever. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the state leasing conservation easements? Strongly support 9.8% Somewhat support 373% Somewhat oppose 25.5% Strongiy oppose 20.8% Don'[ know (Don'r Prompt) 6.7% 38. Some people favor imposing impact fees on newly buiit homes to help build new schools. While paid by developers, these fees aze usually added to the cost of [he home meaning the buyer pays the fee ptus the normal property taxes paid by everyone in the communiry. Others think school impact fees aze unfair because they raise the cost of new homes and older schools were paid for by the whole community. Would you svongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or s[rongly oppose school impact fees? 1 SCrongly support 18.5% 2 Somewhat support 28.6% 3 Somewhat oppose 24.1% 4 Svongly oppose 23.6% 9 Don't Know (Don't Prompt) 4.8% 39. How many yeazs have you lived in Colorado? 1 Less than 5 years 5.3% 2 5 to 20 years 32.7% 3 More [han 20 years 62.1% 40. How would you characterize the place where you live? (Read Reponses) A large city 24.4% A suburb 31.3% A smaller city or toNm 30.8°io A mrat area 3.5% . Would you say that your annual household income is: (Read Responses) . Below 535,000 g,g^/o Between $25,000 K $50,000 30.7% Hetween $50,000 & $75,000 25.1% Above $75,000 25.9% Refused (Dnn't Prompt) 9.8% University of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Page 25 INTERVIEWER: RECORD THE FOLLOWING FROM THE SAMPLE SHEETS. 42. Region: Cicy of Denver 13.3% Other Metro 44.1% Other Front Range 216% Ou[state 20.0% 43. Age 1 18-35 19.3% ? 36-45 23.1% 3 46-54 23.4% 4 55-64 17.5% 5 65 and avez 16.5% 45. Gender: 1 Male 51.0% 2 Female 49.0% 46. Party Affiliation: _ 1 Republic2n 37.6% 2 Democrat 33.2% 3 Unaffiliated 29.2% University of Colorado, Norwest Public Opinion Research Program Page 26 V1 h~ ~ V 1 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ W Q O ~ C0 ~ ~ ~ Q Z Q H ~ w z w m 06 U) O U U) w > ~ z w U Z ~ H LL W Z W m U ~ O O w CO ~ ~ 0 U U ~ m Z) a U) W _ Z W > W w U J m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W a~ Q ~ O o ~ H ~ ~ ~ F--~ Z . O F a ~ ~ 0 LL 0 J 0 _ W cn D _ ~ o ~ = M o Q o W W ; a 5- cn 0 W w o ~ z ~ ~ ~ w o z m ~ ? m ~ z w ~ ~ O -i a ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P4 U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C3 ~ U O N ~ ~ N • • ~ 4-j ~ ct `3 . . . . . ~i--~ ~ V . C..) I' ~ ~ F-~-1 ~ N O • cn ~ cn cn ~ ~ ~ ~ bA "C N a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U p O 0 O U ~ 0 • ~ ~ ~ p 4~ U US ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ N U . .-r N ~ aj ~ ~ O cij cd ;z ct cn ~ p ~ ~ ~ o u~ W a w~~ w W~ . .0 . 0 0 0 ~ ~ O . ..i ~ ~ ~ . r, ~ O U ~ N ~ O N U ~ ~ W ~ ~ U ct N ~ ~ H w . . . . . ~ ~ v r ~ v M E 7 (1. Q ~ d ' W u u Rs w d Ln o ol in ~ b v, l~' w M e 0 ~ m" s" R .7 C+ y , Qi ~ ~ Cr O a U o u, o ~ M ~ W p +y v t~r d p . r o ~ o p-~ ~ ° ~ ~ C o p U ° U a > a U c n w F+ >4 e~ d 9 o o oI o Lr) o o o o o o i-+ in m N ~ w R O ~ V J O W~r O O W O 0 0 m M ~ ~ ~ 2 .L ~ i~ eC m O O O O tn M Q~j O ~y Lr) ~ ~ ~ 0 ~0 N Q ~ i m y~q Q ~ h r ~ ~ ~ M ~ M ~ n Q ~ ~ C~ V3 -1 e Hi Vf hy y R! ~ ln l1i U Lr M tn ~ ~ O O R o o :a ~ y 61 OD V .-~i ~ C4 V d • 7 Q) O v Cr ~ ~ R 'O CD 4 W `^y y s~, ~ . 0 ~ y r. . i d ° v ~ r-4 ~ o . a ~ ~ ..r R ~ v O O d d ~ v R ~ a G ~ a ~ G ~ h 3 3 0 0 ~ rr (y' FS] x W ~ z d z H V j, d ~ 0 R Ar V ? .C T+~ ~C 0 E-~ r.l W Q W W W U t N a ` Nq N ~ v d a 0 a > d 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ d L w O ~ Q ~y IH w v ~i ~ y~ V ~ ~ •r y ~ V O R F ~ C/] ¢ ~ P S ~ ~ 2 I ~ I_ i q ~ ~ ~ } W O ~ N ~ N ~ q ~ tlf Q ~ w w w ~ n p w } ~ n m m~ a ~ c° u ' " 'q w w w N W m ~ w$ N ~ ~ ~ ~ W M P M N G; H t~ m I b ~ c l N e~ F 1p N ° } " Mw tlf , • » ~ ~ o a 4° ~ . . . . . . C ::~..a . . . 0. 9 ~ - . . . . e ~ v N } Nf N N tl! N a Y y ~ : a ~ E d a m C a d U~ C o m dr 6°v i L`o_ u~l ~ E~ u O O o>[= F u O o~`n > r H F ~ N z ~ W ~ a ~{~n a u1 g ~ O C O ZU y 2 o w dr E~ W~ a'] r° u O`o Z> Z> N ~ ~ C 6 C G V :L L P Z p ~ r~i VN M I N O O r+ °o `fl `r3 lr N N I °o °e3 °v~ ~ I N N N o~ O~ I p~i o V31 O Q~ N N jI ~ ~ b? m ~ ~ y v a ~ v u C o ° v m o O 3 y h y F ~ y d~ ~ w o~ 0 M N N H~ ~ o~p ~ ff3 ER ff3 i~ A d ri O my~ R 7J ~ ~ O ~ P. G V a Q ~ ~ v °u OA o CIL O U 'l7 '17 i +N+ O +N+ O C P~ f O 4 O d o U a > > a o ro, : V :c V o 0 ~ V ° . .fl u A U U a'46 ~ V tQ). p G] V c0). C3 V sQi. C] U ~C-l ~0- E d C a u • w ~ d ~ O 1 GI ~ a M ~ ~ N1 O ~ Q ~ ~ F~ y v ~ V v o M F O ~ a s~ s- ~a 0 t N p b o ~ ° e e a b O F a, i. ~ n s~ "s o ~ { ~ N W ~y 4 e~ N j • w ~ Yf a e 0 O ~ e ~ ~ 0 ~ ti O ~ a T c 0 U ~ C e ~ ~ e W 0 F. ~ q T T q O V y m ~ ~ ~ 9 'c_ `m r a p X c 9 a ~ ~ 5 e ° d . a e v r a.e u i ~ p y a a ~ a v ~ O 2 ~ y ~ d v ~ a d a C 0 O 0 m U u w ~I ^a C N C u y ~ y Y z a m C y o ' ~ C A O ~ O e o'~ e ~ a ' e ~ } U d y V ~ a Q z O ~ s n U C z` a m °n v r 2 ZI ~n w w .n 9 V 9 e m c eh m ~ ~ o g ~ ,c 2 ZI~$~iu~ R~ OmY] °oel n 0 9 V C r a a ~ P u 9 e n O e = s? ° F LI ~ a a e ~ q a ~ o ~ C ~ N ~ ~ ~ O O ~ d .C ~ z ~ 0 ~ 1~ 00 ~ Q o 0 V V d d ~ Y ~ O ~ V m N O O N O O eM 0 m 0 N 0 ~ 0 ; r4 m v v ~ 0 v, N ~ N ~ N Ef~ O ~ C N Vi ~ O O L6 ~ k ~ d ~ O ~ M O ~ ~ I ~ o a a a T a v v ~ p.i 'm 'm m F ~ C ^ O O u O V V ~ d ti a u `m ~ d' C d E a 0 > d ~ i\ 0 ui ~ C M EA O O M fR O ui N V O v ~ C c i ~ o 93 O ^ Lfi ~ d, ~ o ~ o r+ m ~ d Lf) ~ O f~ ~ vj o ~ ~ ~ w t° p a F ? ed ~ ~ w ~ ~ ' w w G y ' o e U ~ ~ w d Z a t : ~ v a C a=i C 0 d n m O i - ~ , i ~ 5 ~a1C ~ ~ w v ~ P7 u z 0 ~ ~ £ zea,i m y o pa U F" m w. ■ ~ O U Z "ax I ~ i I m ~ O U ~ u ~ t ~ax ~ ~ y ~ a. I ❑ I 7 uo~nx4sUo' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 i 0 0 0 o 0 vi o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I