Representatives of the Home Builders Association of Denver think
Castle Rock has put the cart before the horse with its plans to
increase development impact fees before hearing from voters on two
issues, said J.J. Martinez, director of public affairs for the
association.

“Our concerns are for impact fees for a recreation center that
hasn’t been approved by voters,” Martinez said. “It’s not fair to
charge a fee when there’s a possibility the center won’t be
built.”

The town says that the fees for the recreation center have more
to do with what’s happening in the town now than in the
future.

“Growth does create an increased demand for recreation,” said
Jay Beeton, communications manager for the town. “The recreation
center fee is to recognize the fact that more people are using
existing services. It’s appropriate to level a development impact
fee to widen a street that hasn’t yet been widened. It’s also
appropriate to collect an impact fee on demands put on
recreation.”

The town hired the firm Black and Veatch of Denver to conduct a
water and wastewater rate study, Tischler and Associates of Denver
to conduct a development fee study and Richard Giardina and
Associates for a fee structure for land-use applications. The
studies recommended that impact fees be increased so that “growth
can pay for growth.”

The new fee schedules are recommended to become effective May 1,
Castle Rock Town Manger Mark Stevens told the town council March
11.

Both Glen Smith, president of the Castle Rock Economic
Development Council, and Martinez expressed concern about the town
collecting fees that might fall under the Taxpayers Bill of Rights
Amendment before the voters have been asked to allow a TABOR
exemption on development fees.

In 1992, voters approved the constitutional amendment that
limits the amount of tax revenue governments can collect and keep.
Any revenue above the allowed amount from the formula must be
refunded to taxpayers unless voters allow the government to keep
the money.

The town refunded more than $7 million in excess revenue to its
residents in 2000. The bulk of the excess revenue was from
developer impact fees.

“The town should either de-Bruce or set aside developer impact
fees in a separate account to be refunded to the developers if the
TABOR exemption fails in November,” Smith said. “The impact fees
subject to TABOR, collected prior to de-Brucing, wouldn’t be used
for impact.”

De-Brucing refers to when voters exempt a government from TABOR
restrictions. The term comes from Douglas Bruce, who wrote and
pushed for the 1992 amendment.

Development impact fees pay for streets, parks, police, fire and
municipal buildings, Stevens said.

Water and wastewater system development fees apply toward the
supply, treatment, storage and transmission of water, said Rod
Redd, utilities director for the town.

The council voted unanimously to approve the increase in impact
fees on first reading but agreed to postpone the second reading
until early April so the town and developers can work through some
of their concerns, Beeton said.

Both Martinez and Smith said the town’s increases are not the
issue.

“In the big picture, these increases aren’t that much,” Smith
said. “As a developer, I’m aware of the need and support the town
in fair fees.”

Although the Home Builders Association has expressed concerns,
Martinez said it didn’t mean it wouldn’t support the fee increases
after the voters have responded to the recreation center issue on
the November ballot.

“If we don’t address this issue now, when do we address it?”
Beeton said. “If growth is to pay for growth, it has to begin
sometime.”

The town council has yet to decide whether there should be a
ballot issue asking for development fees to be exempted from TABOR,
Beeton said.

The town and members of the development community continue to
work through concerns, Beeton said.

“Philosophically we’re all pretty much on the same page,” Beeton
said.