Arapahoe County officials said Tuesday they will seek board approval to advance an impact‑fee plan to help pay for a relocated interchange on I‑70 at Monahan (the Airpark interchange), a project they and the lead developer say is needed to allow continued development in and around SkyRanch and Eastgate.

County staff and the two developers described a funding structure in which SkyRanch would bond the $40 million construction cost and the county would collect impact fees at the time of building permits and remit proceeds to repay the developer’s bond. County staff said the county would not be legally responsible for paying off those bonds if a developer defaults.

Why it matters: The interchange sits where growth from SkyRanch, Eastgate and nearby unincorporated and Aurora lands will concentrate traffic. County planners say the facility currently operates without major congestion because access is restricted, but development will produce travel demand that requires an upgraded interchange before full build‑out of the neighborhoods it serves.

County presentation and funding gap

Public Works and Development staff reviewed the project alternatives and finances and said the preferred design shifts the interchange to a section line alignment that minimizes modifications to I‑70 but connects the interchange to the county road network and, eventually, US‑36. Construction cost was estimated at $40,000,000. Staff said borrowing and finance costs over a 20‑year payout raise the project’s total to about $68,000,000.

The draft impact‑fee study defines a roughly 6‑square‑mile benefit area south of the interstate (two tiers: closer = higher share). Staff reported projected impact‑fee revenue for unincorporated county development of about $34,000,000 from SkyRanch and roughly $11,500,000 from Eastgate, with an estimated $5,000,000 shortfall attributable to existing development that legally cannot be charged an impact fee. Staff also said roughly $17,500,000 of projected fee revenue would not be collected if the City of Aurora chooses not to implement a compatible fee inside city limits, producing an approximate $22,500,000 shortfall versus the total project cost.

County staff said the shortfall would be the developers’ business decision to address. “SkyRanch Cab is solely responsible for paying off the bonds; it’s not Arapahoe County,” Jim Kotsu, Public Works and Development, said during the presentation. “The county would not be responsible for paying off those funds.”

Developer role and metro‑district mills

SkyRanch’s developer, Mark Harding, told commissioners SkyRanch originally expected a roughly $40 million obligation under earlier designs but that the revised full interchange yields a revised estimate of SkyRanch’s ratable impact at about $34 million. Harding characterized SkyRanch’s current position as funding the construction and then seeking reimbursement from impact‑fee collections and regional mill levy revenues: “We’re not paying our ratable cost. We’re paying everyone’s cost,” Harding said, adding that where impact fees and mill levies do not cover borrowing costs immediately, regional mill revenues can bridge the financing.

County attorney and staff cautioned that the county cannot lawfully charge impact fees for existing traffic or existing development; impact fees must be tied to future improvements and future demand under the county’s interpretation of the applicable impact‑fee statute and practice. Staff said they are drafting a fee schedule, a draft impact‑fee resolution, and intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with developers, and that they intend to submit the project to CDOT’s “16 o 1” review process required for interstate interchange approvals.

Maintenance and CDOT responsibilities

Staff said the county is beginning maintenance negotiations with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Their starting assumption is CDOT will maintain like‑for‑like highway facilities (bridges and ramps) while the county would likely maintain traffic signals and stormwater/water‑quality features if they are included. Staff indicated metro districts and developer agreements will be considered as part of final maintenance and construction arrangements.

Next steps and board direction

Staff told the board they plan to finish the impact‑fee report and fee schedule, finalize IGAs with SkyRanch and Eastgate, submit required CDOT documentation for the 16 o 1 process (staff said submittal was targeted for August–September with CDOT approval sought in October–November), and then return to the board with a final fee resolution at a general business meeting. Commissioners gave informal direction—four commissioners signaled support for advancing the study to a business meeting for formal action; one commissioner asked for another study session before final approval.

What was not decided

No formal county action or vote was taken in the study session. Staff repeatedly framed outstanding items (final fee calculations, specific IGA language, metro‑district mill‑levy adjustments, and CDOT maintenance agreements) as matters to be settled in upcoming negotiations or at the business meeting where the board will be asked to adopt a fee resolution.

Ending

County staff said they will continue to refine cost estimates, complete design to the next milestones, finalize developer agreements and maintenance IGAs with CDOT, and present a final fee resolution at a future business meeting for formal board action.