Glenwood Springs council hears study recommending police and fire impact fees; work session urged

A consultant presented a study to the Glenwood Springs City Council recommending that new development pay impact fees to help fund police and fire capital needs.

Michael Burdon, managing director at BBC Research & Consulting, told the council the study follows Colorado legal requirements that fees have an "essential nexus" to the impact and be roughly proportional to it. Using a capital buy‑in method, the firm calculated a replacement value for police capital of about $7.8 million, and recommended an impact fee of about $1,400 per single‑family dwelling and about $1,000 per multifamily unit for police services. Nonresidential police fees in the report were roughly $1.00 per square foot for retail and $0.95 per square foot for office uses, the presenter said.

For the fire protection district, Burdon said the study totaled roughly $37 million in capital facilities and recommended a sliding residential fee tied to dwelling size: the study listed an example of about $3,200 for a smaller dwelling and up to $12,000 for a very large home; multifamily fees were estimated near $2,800 per unit. Nonresidential fire fees ranged in the study from about $1.00 to $2.83 per square foot, depending on use.

The report estimated revenue outcomes using recent growth patterns: Burdon said the police fee schedule might generate on the order of $70,000 per year, while fire‑related fees could generate on the order of $400,000 annually if adopted at the recommended levels. He also recommended updating fees regularly (for example with a CPI or construction‑cost index), adopting credit mechanisms so developers are not double‑charged when they build required infrastructure, and creating an administrative process for atypical developments.

Councilors used the question period to press technical and policy points. They discussed whether multifamily units could be charged differently, how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or hotels would be categorized, whether fees can be triggered on additions or only on new units, and how to protect current projects from sudden fee adoption. Legal limits were repeatedly emphasized: the consultant said the council cannot exceed the fee ceiling established by the nexus math but can set rates below it.

Multiple members urged more study and a work session. Councilors asked the consultant to consider an alternative methodology focused on emergency call volumes and to confirm whether multifamily or single‑family assumptions produce materially different results. The consultant said a call‑volume study would be a materially different engagement and estimated an additional 6–8 weeks if hired to do that work, but also said that across many municipal studies single‑family per‑unit fees are commonly higher than multifamily fees regardless of method.

Next steps: staff and council agreed to schedule a dedicated workshop, loop in absent councilors and return draft ordinance and resolution language once the council provides policy direction. The consultant offered to draft ordinance language and to advise on phasing, indexing, and credit provisions.