Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 2016-01-06Town Board Briefing January 4, 2016 Please note that members of the Town Board will have dinner together starting at 5:30pm. The Board will begin the meeting at 6pm with an executive session for the annual Town Manager evaluation. This is anticipated to conclude by 7pm at which time the regular meeting will begin. See enclosed materials regarding the music festivals. We just received notice that Touch the Sun would like to amend their approval to eliminate the 15,000 attendee cap. Note that these hearings are scheduled before the Grand County Board of Commissioners for January 26th, the Fraser Town Board has the opportunity to comment on behalf of the Town of Fraser if so desired. Finally, it would be beneficial for the Town Board to discuss its priorities and work plan for 2016. As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Jeff Durbin Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com FRASER BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 MEETING: Board of Trustees Regular Meeting PLACE: Fraser Town Hall Board Room PRESENT Board: Mayor Peggy Smith; Mayor Pro -Tem Philip Vandernail; Trustees; Eileen Waldow, Katie Soles, Cody Clayton Taylor, Andy Miller and Jane Mather Staff: Town Manager Jeff Durbin; Town Clerk, Lu Berger; Finance Manager Nat Havens; Public Works Director Allen Nordin; Town Planner, Catherine Trotter; Police Chief, Glen Trainor, Others: See attached list Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Regular Meeting: Roll Call 2. Executive Session: For a conference with the Town's Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4) (b) and for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) regarding the Fraser Hwy 40 Improvement Project Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Mather seconded the motion to enter executive session. Motion carried: 7-0. Enter: 6:01 p.m. Exit: 6:47 p.m. Attorney's Opinion Required by C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(B). As the attorney representing the Town of Fraser, I am of the opinion that the entire Executive Session, which was not recorded, constituted a privileged attorney-client communication. Rod McGowan, Town Attorney Trustee Vandernail moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to exit executive session. Motion carried: 7-0. 3. Approval of Agenda: Page 2 of 5 Trustee Vandernail moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to approve the Agenda. Motion carried: 7-0. 4. Consent Agenda: a) Minutes — November 4 & 18, 2015 b) Directing the Town Manager to execute contracts/agreements with the following agencies and entities as provided with the 2016 Budget: 1) Resolution 2015-12-01 NWCCOG 2) Resolution 2015-12-02 Double Diamond Data 3) Resolution 2015-12-03 JRS Engineering 4) Resolution 2015-12-04 Bowman Consulting 5) Resolution 2015-12-05 McLaughlin Water Engineers Ltd. C) Directing the Town Manager to execute leases/licenses for Town property with the following individuals and/or entities: 1) Resolution 2015-12-06 Dale Booth, 105 Fraser Avenue 2) Resolution 2015-12-07 John Hartlauer, 400 Doc Susie Avenue 3) Resolution 2015-12-08 Cory Rees, 200 Eisenhower 4) Resolution 2015-12-09 Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District, Fraser Historic Church 5) Resolution 2015-12-10 Sharky's License Agreement 6) Resolution 2015-12-11 Rendezvous License Agreement d) Naming the following Town Officials: 1) Water Attorney: Chris Thorne, Holland & Hart 2) Fire Chief: Todd Holzwarth, East Grand Fire Protection District #4 3) Designate Chief of Police Glen Trainor as Emergency Response Authority 4) Town Engineer: Jim Swanson, JRS Engineering 5) Town Water Rights & Supply Engineer: HRS Water Consultants 6) Town Manager: Jeffrey L. Durbin e) Designating the Fraser Town Hall foyer as the Town's official posting location. f) Resolution No. 2015-12-12, Renewing the Town's Three Mile Plan, as recommended by the Fraser Planning Commission and as authorized and required by Colorado State Statutes. Trustee Vandernail moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried: 7-0. 5. Open Forum: 6. Public Hearings: a) Julio's Mexican Grill Liquor License Application Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to open the public hearing on Julio's Mexican Grill Liquor License Application. Motion carried: 7-0. TA McGowan outlined the hearing procedures and entered into evidence: Proof of Publication Application Findings of Fact Page 3 of 5 Petition Trustee Taylor moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to accept the exhibits into the record. Motion carried: 7-0. The applicant expressed her desire to have a liquor license, and the expansion of the current restaurant. Public Comment was taken from: Sam Brewer, Fraser, spoke in support of the application. Vesta Shapiro, Fraser, spoke in support of the application. Julio's Mexican Grill, LLC (the "Applicant") filed an application with the Town of Fraser for a Hotel & Restaurant License for the premises located at 535 Zerex Street, Unit B- 101 & 102 Fraser, CO 80442 The application was filed on October 28, 2015 in the Town Clerk's office and a public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday December 2, 2015. In accordance with C.R.S. 12-47-311(1) the Town must hold the application for not less than 30 days. This location will be a new Hotel and Restaurant license as opposed to a transfer of an existing license due to the fact no existing license is in force. Staff recommends approval. Trustee Taylor moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to close the public hearing on Julio's Mexican Grill Liquor License Application. Motion carried: 7-0. b) Resolution 2015-12-13 Julio's Mexican Grill Liquor License Application Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to approve Resolution 2015-12-13 Julio's Mexican Grill Liquor License Application. Motion carried: 7-0. TA McGowan was excused from the meeting. C) 2016 Budget Hearing Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to open the public hearing on 2016 Budget Hearing. Motion carried: 7-0. This is the final Public Hearing for the 2016 Budget. The 2016 Budget and resolutions adopting the budget and related matters are provided for Town Board consideration. Changes to the Budget document were needed on: • Page 3, Budget Message, graph needs to be revised to include water and wastewater fees. • Page 2 of the budget had a typo on line 10-45-370, missing a zero • Page 5 of the budget, General Fund Expenditure totals, line items need to be adjusted per adjustment of 10-45-370. • Page 6 of the budget, line 12-40-610 reduced to from $450,000 to $400,000, line item 12-40-715 increased to $50,000. Clark Lipscomb addressed the Board regarding the budget. Ron Anderson commented on the water and wastewater fee increase. 7 Page 4 of 5 In the General Fund 12-40-610 will be revised to read $400,000 for transportation from $450,000 to fund line item 12-40-415 $50,000 for trails. Staff recommends approval of Resolutions 2015-12-14 through 2015-12-21. These motions can be made individually or via one motion. Trustee Vandernail moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to close the public hearing on 2016 Budget Hearing. Motion carried: 7-0. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding: a) Resolution 2015-12-14 Adopting the Town of Fraser's Financial Policies In an on-going effort to continue building upon the Town's Finical Policies a 2015 revision is up for adoption. The Policies provide a framework for the Town to optimize its financial footprint and outline best practices for our community. b) Resolution 2015-12-15 Transferring Funds to Reserves The following transfers to committed reserves from unassigned fund balance will be authorized: General Fund - $250,000 transfer to committed reserves for emergencies, bringing the total committed reserve to $1,000,000. Water Fund - $40,000 transfer to committed reserves for O&M emergencies to $500,000 from $460,000. Wastewater Fund - $500,000 transfer to committed reserves for O&M, $221,000 transfer to committed reserves for capital emergencies, and $330,000 to committed reserves for JFF capital emergencies. d) Resolution No. 2015-12-17, Levying Property Taxes for the Year 2015 to Help Defray the Costs of Government for Fraser for the Budget Year 2016. f) Resolution No. 2015-12-19 Adopting the Police Budget for 2016. g) Resolution No. 2015-12-20 Adopting the Winter Park/Fraser Building Department Budget for 2016 h) Resolution No. 2015-12-21, Adopting Fees for Water and Sewer Service in Fraser. Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to approve Resolution No's. 2015-12-14, 2015-12-15, 2015-12-17, 2015-12-19, 2015-12-20 and 2015-12-21, Adopting Fees for Water and Sewer Service in Fraser. Motion carried: 6-1. Vandernail - Aye Miller - Aye Taylor - Aye Smith - Aye Mather - Nay Soles - Aye Waldow - Aye Page 5 of 5 C) Resolution No. 2015-12-16, Summarizing Revenues and Expenditures for Each Fund and Adopting the 2015 Budget. Resolution changed to reflect corrected General Fund Expenditures from $3,253,092 to $3,343,092. Trustee Vandernail moved, and Trustee Soles seconded the motion to approve Resolution No. 2015-12-16, Summarizing Revenues and Expenditures for Each Fund and Adopting the 2015 Budget with General Fund Expenditure totals, line item 10-45- 370 adjusted, associated adjustments to the General Fund bottom line, and amend restricted revenue fund to provide for a $400,000 transit and $50,000 trail expenditures. Motion carried: 7-0. Vandernail - Aye Miller - Aye Taylor - Aye Smith — Aye Mather - Aye Soles - Aye Waldow - Aye e) Resolution No. 2015-12-18, Appropriating Sums of Money to Various Funds and Spending Agencies, in the Amount and for the Purpose as Set Forth Below for Fraser for the Budget Year 2016. Resolution changed to reflect corrected General Fund Expenditures from $3,253,092 to $3,343,092. Trustee Waldow moved, and Trustee Vandernail seconded the motion to approve Resolution No. 2015-12-18, Appropriating Sums of Money to Various Funds and Spending Agencies, in the Amount and for the Purpose as Set Forth Below for Fraser for the Budget Year 2016 with General Fund Expenditure totals, line item 10-45-370 adjusted. Motion carried: 7-0. Vandernail - Aye Miller - Aye Taylor - Aye Smith - Aye 8. Other Business: Mather - Aye Soles - Aye Waldow - Aye Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion carried: 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Lu Berger, Town Clerk Memo to: Mayor Smith and the Board of Trustees From: Jeffrey L. Durbin, Town Manager Date: October 29, 2015 Subject: Byers Peak Ranch Music Festivals MATTER BEFORE BOARD The Town Board has the opportunity to provide comments regarding two Temporary Use Permits pending consideration before the Grand County Board of Commissioners. ACTION REQUESTED No action is required. Grand County has requested comment from the Town of Fraser and the applicants have requested letters of support. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Grand County is in receipt of an application for a Temporary Use Permit for Touch the Sun country music and camping festival planned for June 24-26, 2016. Additionally, an application for Temporary Use Permit is pending for the Divide Music Festival, proposed for the same location July 22-24, 2015. The Town of Fraser has opportunity to provide comments to Grand County via the public hearing process. Other interested parties can attend the hearings and/or provide comment to Grand County. BACKGROUND The application for a Temporary Use Permit for Touch the Sun has been submitted to Grand County and public hearing has been scheduled before the County Commissioners November 24, 2015. Application materials and background is included in this packet. The application for Divide Music Festival is anticipated to be submitted within the next week, thus the required public hearing has yet to be scheduled. Preliminary information is included in this packet. Given that the festivals both occur on the same property and are anticipated to have similar impacts, it may be more effective to consider them concurrently. While both these proposed festivals can be expected to have more direct benefit to the Fraser economy than festivals held at Hideaway Park or Winter Park Resort, we have heard concern about how these events may conflict with other events in Winter Park. Touch the Sun would occur during the same weekend as the Blues Festival at Hideaway Park (June 25, 2016). There is not currently any other music festival planned for July 22-24, 2016, Jazz Fest would occur the third weekend of July (July 15-17, 2016). Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com I believe that both festivals would be consistent with some of the provisions of Resolution 2015-10-02 regarding economic development given the proximity to Fraser businesses. Unlike Snowball, where much of the pedestrian traffic leaving the venue went into Winter Park, I would expect much more direct benefit to Fraser businesses. We have informed both promoters of the importance of providing safe pedestrian routes into town along CR 72. ALTERNATIVES The Town Board has the option of providing comment to Grand County and/or letters of support/opposition. RECOMMENDATION: Staff intends to provide Grand County with suggested conditions for inclusion on any permit in order to mitigate impacts to our community. At this time, those conditions include the following: • The Town of Fraser lacks sufficient resources to manage the impact of the proposed festival on the community, supplemental resources will be required and those costs will be the responsibility of the permittee. • Traffic Control must be provided, including temporary directional signage. Additionally, pre -event mapping should route attendees to the site via CR72, NOT through old town Fraser. Access to old town Fraser will be limited to local traffic only. • A safe designated pedestrian route along CR 72 should be provided under the railroad grade separated crossing. • Dust control measures should be implemented on CR 72 and CR 721 before the event and as needed during the event. • Provide/confirm adequate water supply. The Town of Fraser may be able to provide a bulk water supply only if provided adequate notice and subject to terms and conditions of a bulk water permit. • Provide facility for disposal of wastewater from travel campers and trailers. The Upper Fraser Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility is not accessible to the public, a suitable public location must be provided. • Consider identification of alternate approved camping facilities should the property be too wet for vehicular access. Transportation facilities and/or parking provisions should be included. • Fraser/Winter Park Police Department lacks resources to effectively manage the impacts of this event on our community (especially in light of other anticipated events/business during those times) and anticipates that the Grand County Sheriff's Office will address event related security/public safety. Should Fraser/Winter Park Police Department need additional resources to protect community interests, or be involved in event related security matters, the permittee must reimburse those expenses. Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 308 Byers Ave • P.O. Box 238 • Hot Sulphur Springs • Colorado • 80451 970-725-3347 Ext 140 or Fax 970-725-3303 MEMO TO: Interested Parties FROM: Department of Planning & Zoning DATE: December 23, 2015 RE: Divide Music Festival —Temporary Use Permit (Permit for music festival at 566 County Rd 72, Fraser, Co - July 21 - 24, 2016) The above referenced item has been scheduled for a public hearing before the Grand County Board of County Commissioners on January 26, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter. The meeting will be held in the Commissioners Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 308 Byers Avenue, Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado. You are being notified of this hearing because you are an interested party or own property within 500'. You do not have to attend the meeting, but may do so if you desire. Please let us know if you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed amendment. Thank you. common\BOCC\Letters\2015\16-divide Temp SUP INT GRAND COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Grand County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 239 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 50451 Phone (970) 725-3347 / Fax (970) 725-3303 www.co.grand.co.us TYPE OF APPLICATION & ASSOCIATED FEES Subdivisions Special Use Permit (SUP) ❑ Subdivision Sketch Plan ($1,000) ❑ SUP -New ($250*) ❑ Subdivision Preliminary Plat ($2,500+$40/Lot) ❑ SUP - Renewal or Amendment ($100*) ❑ Subdivision Final Plat ($2,000) ❑ SUP -Temporary ($100*) Subdivision Exemption Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ Subdivision Exemption ($1,000) ❑ PUD - Schematic Plan ($2,000) ❑ PUD - Final Plan ($2,000) Outright Exemption ❑ PUD - Amended Schematic Plan ($1,000) ❑ Outright Exemption ($1,000) ❑ PUD - Amended Final Plan ($1,000) Vacation Rural Land Use (RLU) ❑ Vacation Fees ($750*) ❑ RLU - Sketch Plan ($1,000) ❑ RLU - Preliminary Plan ($2,500 + $40/Lot) Variance ❑ RLU - Final Plan ($2,000) ❑ Variance ($1,000*) ❑ Variance - Sign ($300*) Amended Final Plat ❑ Amended Final Plat ($500) 1041 Permit ❑ 1041 Permit ($1,500 minimum or 10% of Rezoning project cost and additional expenses incurred by ❑ Rezoning ($1,000*) Grand County) Z OtherIfvv�rf—O "�V15 �- Please check box(s) that applies *Plus the cost of Public Notice & Certified Mailings f ) I -1�1-15 Total Fees $ Date: INVOLVED PARTIES Applicant Name:JCAS®VI OMAe- r Vl Surveyor/Engineer: Business-FeA I. 0[kV C 9MJVA%(9Vt,S Business: Address: IJ5�;rA ela-4e- Address: VC'mj&-�-, Lo 3C)20d�-- Phone Number:] 777' Phone Number: Email;T�OV1(�- eJEVtiS � LO V1 Email: Owner's Name: da k L -I QSCOVVI Other Contact: ( J Business: (-0Ivfz�L o VVVI'AVe VUf Business: Address: -566 �a y 72- Address: Fickae�-a c -o �?dHL4L Phone Number:II-- Phone Number: Email: ��(;�r�C511 0vt� V1�l�i`w1Gf� ,LOVV1 Email: All correspondence and billing will be sent to the Applicant unless otherwise requested PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION Project Name: 1 �Vl del"QUI Sid �e� r� Vu Assessor's Parcel Number: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: -RAI VlC �t I I Number of Existing Lots: Number of Proposed Lots: Type of Housing Proposed: Physical Street Address: 15b U (0 RA —) Site Area in Acres or Square Feet: I AC re,,� Legal Description: Subdivision: Lot: Block: Filing: Tract: Section: Township: Range: --OR-- Attach a Metes and Bounds legal description and survey depicting the property bounds Written Description of Project: 1 7 uGl I L(� IM rI PIC ' V cki Vi S 1 Vi:1 l V✓; I` PROJECT DATA CckV✓ 101 Vtq dM6- 6 VWVi,5i C- 7 --Zi - I ra n A d c lose 7-z5- 16 '-fogy 7 Zz-i6 }o 7-2-L4 -16, xoecko"i �-o be a000 10 Is Project in a Growth Area: ll Proposed Source of Water: l ©yt - 1 Proposed Source of Waste Disposal: ecw� Al VL OAS Proposed Access: Uses of adjacent property: i North of Property: 95 f �e South of Propety: East of Property: i I e q � ('a � CAVE � Zr Soo 4 CkL^/(i��/ West of Property: /VA MINERAL RIGHTS NOTIFICATION Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101 et al., when there is an application for all surface development, it is the responsibility of the applicant to notify the owner(s) and/or lessee(s) of the mineral rights of the land of such development. This notification shall be mailed 30 days before the date scheduled for the initial public hearing. Similarly, when the owner(s) / lessee(s) of mineral rights apply for drilling for oil and gas, such applicant shall evidence their intention to conduct such operations by giving the surface owner written notice describing their proposed actions. It is incumbent upon any applicants to notify Grand County if there is proposed development activity and there are severed mineral and surface rights on a property. Please see our Mineral Estate Owner Notification Procedure Manual for more details. AFFIDAVIT rter`/ being duly sworn, declare that I am (please check one) the authorized representative to act for the property owner, the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. By signing this application, I agree to pay the fees listed above and acknowledge and agree to pay any additional fees such as but not limited to certified mailings and legal notices. Signatut�l�ner Date arfature of Re i•esen ative Dat Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Other material required to constitute a complete application are listed in the Zoning Regulations. REQUIRED PRE -APPLICATION MEETING OYES ONO If yes, date of meeting: December 14, 2015 Sent via E-mail Grand County Planning Department P.O. Box 239 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 RE: Special Use Permit for The Divide Music Festival Dear Grand County Planning Department: This letter is to confirm Byers Peak Properties, LLC and Byers Peak Downhill Properties, LLC subject to Grand County issuing a special event permit has given permission to Team Player Productions, Inc., Jason Ornstein, to utilize its land for the purposes of a music festival known as The Divide Music Festival to be held on July 22-24, 2016 along with the necessary set up and tear down days required for such an event. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 970-948-1883. Sincerely, Byers Pejkq'roperties, LLC Byers Peak Downl-ill Properties, LLC Cl, rpscomb, President PHONE: 970-726-5779 FAX: 970-726-4005 P.O. BOX 870 FRASER, CO 80442 The Divide Music Festival 1. Dates and duration of event, including pre -event mobilization, set-up and demobilizing. a. Event Date: July 22-24, 2016 b. Set up/Tear Down: July 17th - July 26th, 2016 c. Expected attendance 8,000 per day d. Music genre - POP, Adult Hit Radio 2. Location and alternative sites. a. Colorado Adventure Park (Byers Peak Properties) - 566 Co Rd 72, Fraser, CO 80442 b. Alternative sites include ancillary program venues in both Fraser and Winter Park. Side concerts, Hiking and Biking seminars, etc. 3. Proximity to residential areas. a. To the North: 1,588 ft b. To the South: over 5,000 ft c. To the East: 3,080 ft d. To the West: over 5,000 ft 4. Access and transportation to and from the site. (See Parking Map). a. Personal Cars Options i. Car Camping, patrons can purchase a camping pass, this will allow them to pull into a car camping spot. Car camping will open Thursday July 21 st at 10am. Cars will be parked in the ordered they enter. Once a car is in, there is no in and out. Patrons will need to ride a shuttle, walk or bike to leave the site. Cars will remain parked in the camping spot until patron leaves the festival. Cars must be off site by Monday July 25th by Noon ii. Day Parking, patrons have the option to day park in two lots. Room for 3,420 cars. These lots will be available Friday, Saturday and Sunday. b. Shuttle Busses - The Divide Music Festival would like to work with the current bus infrastructure in both Winter Park and Fraser for the weekend of July 22nd - 24th. Potentially enhancing, adding busses, slight changes to routes and schedules to accommodate as many patrons as possible while driving business into the respective communities. c. Peak times - Divide would like to work with local law enforcement to assist at Peak times of departure. This will be at the end of show July 22nd, 23rd and 24th. Divide would like to devise an exit plan from the concert site to get people quickly and safely onto US 40 heading in both directions. Please keep in mind that peak crowds would look no different than a high density ski day. Divide crowds shall disperse as their favorite band's set culminates. Unlike a ski day when the vast majority depart the resort between 3-4pm. 5. Traffic and Parking Control. a. Two separate day parking lots will be available to patrons that are not camping. These lots are located less than a half mile from the festival entrance (See Parking Lot Map) b. Patrons that are camping will be directed towards their campgrounds and to their specific camp site. (See Camping Traffic Plan) i. Alternate camping traffic plan also attached. This alternate route will relieve traffic off of US 40 and move campers into their site quicker. At the time that this was submitted, we were still investigating the feasibility of this route. c. Vendor Traffic will be directed onto the festival grounds through a one way traffic route. All load in and load out will be done when patrons are not present on site. (See Vendor Traffic Plan) d. Patrons with valid handicapped parking verification will be allowed to park in the designated handicapped parking area (See Handicapped Parking Area) 6. Camping area location, size and density and types of camping. a. Car Camping and Tent Camping (I Oft x 30ft spaces) top of tubing hill (approx 550 spots) b. RV Camping (25ft x 45ft) available in lower camping lot next to empty pond (approx 500 spots) will also be car camping overflow c. Camping will be set in double rows with aisleway between for emergency and foot access. Once a car or RV is parked it is set for the weekend. There will be no in and out of the camping areas. Port -o -potties, dumpsters, water available in camping areas. 7. Waste and wastewater facilities to serve the event. Will provide enough portable restrooms to keep the ratio 150:1. i. Portable restrooms will be serviced once a day to ensure cleanliness and proper maintenance throughout the festival. Will provide multiple 40 yard dumpsters to collect trash and recycling. i. Trash cans will also be dispersed throughout the festival and camping areas. Investigating a composting option in the Fraser Valley c. Waste water tanks will be provided to vendors for any gray water that is produced. i. Grease barrels will also be provided to vendors that produce grease. d. Festival will be hiring a third party to support in trash and keeping the sight clean and clear of debris. This company will also assist in all Greening Efforts. e. An adequate water supply will be provided by the water pumps that are located on site. Confirmation of this has been approved by the landowner. 8. Sound and noise impacts. a. Pointing the stage toward the hill, for least sound impact. b. Music to go no later than Midnight, final schedule still being determined 9. Stage construction and lighting. a. See attached "Stage Plot" diagrams. 10. Food and liquor services and other retail vendors. a. Food Vendors - to be open to 3rd party food vendors, concessions and food trucks. Looking to have between 15 - 25 different food vendors onsite within concert footprint. Food vendors will be required to have proper permitting and be prepared for an inspection from fire and health departments. First opportunity for food vendors may be made available to Fraser and Winter Park businesses. b. All Non -Alcoholic and Alcoholic Beverages will be sold by the festival. This includes but not limited to Bottled Water, Soda, Beer, Wine, Cocktails. There will be free water available to re -fill water bottles. c. Other vendor booths will be available for Sponsors, Businesses and Nonprofits, approx 30 booths. d. Over 21 wristbands will be used, once a patron has been ID'd. TIPS training for all alcohol servers and volunteers. e. Designated proceeds from the festival shall be directed to selected area non-profit partners in the Winter Park/Fraser communities. 11. Public Safety and Emergency Services. a. Chain of Command within the festival grounds, communication via radios. Important phone numbers shared with local authorities. Festival Headquarters onsite - control center for all aspects of festival. b. EMS Services - EMT team and ambulance onsite 24/7 in festival footprint and campground. c. TIPS training for all volunteers and staff serving alcohol d. Festival Rules and regulations to be emailed to patrons, posted onsite, website and via festival app, social media, and enforced by festival staff and hired security company. e. Rules currently consist of the following - No fires, no pets, no weapons, no glass, no drugs, no drug paraphernalia, no outside food and drink (only allowed in camping area) 12. Security and Crowd Control. a. Fence and barricade will be used to create areas within the festival footprint. Camping Areas, Festival Main Area, VIP Area, Backstage Area b. Gates, this is a 100% ticketed and wristbanded event. Patrons will be able to come in and out of the festival grounds with proper wristbands and credentials. This will be the same for campground, VIP area, backstage and back of house. c. Bag Check at Gates - no glass, no weapons, no outside beverages, no drugs d. Hired Security Company - will assist with gate monitoring, bag checks, front of stage security, and overnight. e. Over 21 wristbands for those consuming alcohol f. Local Police will use as visual deterrent, having a presence on site. g. All tents, staging, temporary structures to be permitted and inspected as required by county. 13. About the Producers a. Team Player Productions is a Denver based Event Production company that is behind several large, multi -day events. This year they celebrate 20 years in business. Events they produce include Taste of Fort Collins, Winter Park Wipe Out, Steamboat Wine Festival, Park City Food & Wne, Southern Brewers Festival and Springs Beer Festival, just to name a few. b. Jason Ornstein, owner and mastermind behind The Divide Music Festival remembers the days of the Winter Park Music Festival and is excited to bring a new tradition to the Fraser Valley. Also a Winter Park/Fraser resident and longtime supporter of the community, who is looking to establish this as a tradition in the Fraser Valley, generating revenue for the community, it's non -profits (namely towards education), and a festival that not only the community can be proud of, but the state of Colorado. We are looking to the Divide to be the premier music and outdoor festival in the state and working with the Governor's office to align with their outdoor, economic and green initiatives. Q a-+ O d4 C Y L a Camping Traffic Plan Alternate Campine Traffic Plan RV Camping Car Camping Vendor Traffic Paan ��������d.. .. ���� _��v . ������� �� \ .. . %yam«�\�= /: \ � � %G� m�� 7� », ����w����... . � � ���� � /\» 2��2\\\ M- V �1 A w. rsar �� y_ Ln \ N a L c � 0 a � N Q7 Z L m � a cn Y" an ma: ` ■:a � wt aik r.a t.a V�kVM, i ■.t ra iRi 1:6wat r.� ,. r.r NEI s ut rta NIN i i I � '. �-� Memo to: Mayor Smith and the Board of Trustees From: Jeffrey L. Durbin, Town Manager Date: October 29, 2015 Subject: Byers Peak Ranch Music Festivals MATTER BEFORE BOARD The Town Board has the opportunity to provide comments regarding two Temporary Use Permits pending consideration before the Grand County Board of Commissioners. ACTION REQUESTED No action is required. Grand County has requested comment from the Town of Fraser and the applicants have requested letters of support. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Grand County is in receipt of an application for a Temporary Use Permit for Touch the Sun country music and camping festival planned for June 24-26, 2016. Additionally, an application for Temporary Use Permit is pending for the Divide Music Festival, proposed for the same location July 22-24, 2015. The Town of Fraser has opportunity to provide comments to Grand County via the public hearing process. Other interested parties can attend the hearings and/or provide comment to Grand County. BACKGROUND The application for a Temporary Use Permit for Touch the Sun has been submitted to Grand County and public hearing has been scheduled before the County Commissioners November 24, 2015. Application materials and background is included in this packet. The application for Divide Music Festival is anticipated to be submitted within the next week, thus the required public hearing has yet to be scheduled. Preliminary information is included in this packet. Given that the festivals both occur on the same property and are anticipated to have similar impacts, it may be more effective to consider them concurrently. While both these proposed festivals can be expected to have more direct benefit to the Fraser economy than festivals held at Hideaway Park or Winter Park Resort, we have heard concern about how these events may conflict with other events in Winter Park. Touch the Sun would occur during the same weekend as the Blues Festival at Hideaway Park (June 25, 2016). There is not currently any other music festival planned for July 22-24, 2016, Jazz Fest would occur the third weekend of July (July 15-17, 2016). Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com I believe that both festivals would be consistent with some of the provisions of Resolution 2015-10-02 regarding economic development given the proximity to Fraser businesses. Unlike Snowball, where much of the pedestrian traffic leaving the venue went into Winter Park, I would expect much more direct benefit to Fraser businesses. We have informed both promoters of the importance of providing safe pedestrian routes into town along CR 72. ALTERNATIVES The Town Board has the option of providing comment to Grand County and/or letters of support/opposition. RECOMMENDATION: Staff intends to provide Grand County with suggested conditions for inclusion on any permit in order to mitigate impacts to our community. At this time, those conditions include the following: • The Town of Fraser lacks sufficient resources to manage the impact of the proposed festival on the community, supplemental resources will be required and those costs will be the responsibility of the permittee. • Traffic Control must be provided, including temporary directional signage. Additionally, pre -event mapping should route attendees to the site via CR72, NOT through old town Fraser. Access to old town Fraser will be limited to local traffic only. • A safe designated pedestrian route along CR 72 should be provided under the railroad grade separated crossing. • Dust control measures should be implemented on CR 72 and CR 721 before the event and as needed during the event. • Provide/confirm adequate water supply. The Town of Fraser may be able to provide a bulk water supply only if provided adequate notice and subject to terms and conditions of a bulk water permit. • Provide facility for disposal of wastewater from travel campers and trailers. The Upper Fraser Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility is not accessible to the public, a suitable public location must be provided. • Consider identification of alternate approved camping facilities should the property be too wet for vehicular access. Transportation facilities and/or parking provisions should be included. • Fraser/Winter Park Police Department lacks resources to effectively manage the impacts of this event on our community (especially in light of other anticipated events/business during those times) and anticipates that the Grand County Sheriff's Office will address event related security/public safety. Should Fraser/Winter Park Police Department need additional resources to protect community interests, or be involved in event related security matters, the permittee must reimburse those expenses. Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com November 19, 2015 Grand County Board of Commissioners PO Box 264 Not Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Fraser I own tioara regarding the Temporary Use Permit for Touch the Sun Music and Camping Festival. The Town Board supports the issuance of the permit for the festival provided that the following conditions are included/addressed on the permit: • The Town of Fraser lacks sufficient resources to manage the impact of the proposed festival on the community, supplemental resources will be required and those costs must be the responsibility of the permittee. Traffic Control must be provided, including temporary directional signage. Additionally, pre -event mapping should route attendees to the site via CR72, NOT through old town Fraser. Access to old town Fraser will be limited to local traffic only. • A safe designated pedestrian route along CR 72 should be provided under the railroad grade separated crossing. Dust control measures should be implemented on CR 72 and CR 721 before the event and as needed during the event. Provide/confirm an adequate water supply. The Town of Fraser may be able to provide a bulk water supply only if provided adequate notice and subject to terms and conditions of a bulk water permit. Provide facility for disposal of wastewater from travel campers and trailers. The Upper Fraser Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility is not accessible to the public, a suitable public location must be provided. • Consider identification of alternate approved camping facilities should the property be too wet for vehicular access. Transportation facilities and/or parking provisions should be included. • Fraser/Winter Park Police Department lacks resources to effectively manage the impacts of this event on our community (especially in light of other anticipated events/business during those times) and anticipates that the Grand County Sheriffs Office will address event related security/public safety. Should Fraser/Winter Park Police Department need additional resources to protect community interests, or be involved in event related security matters, the permittee must reimburse those expenses. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. Jeffrey L. Durbin Town Manager Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 308 Byers Ave • P.O. Box 239 • Hot Sulphur Springs • Colorado • 80451 970-725-3347 Ext 140 or Fax 970-725-3303 MEMO TO: Interested Parties FROM: Department of Planning & Zoning DATE: December 30, 2015 RE: Touch the Sun Music Festival —Temporary Special Use Permit Amendment (Amendment to remove the 15,000 capacity for sales) The above referenced item has been scheduled for a public hearing before the Grand County Board of County Commissioners on January 26, 2016 at 4:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter. The meeting will be held in the Commissioners Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 308 Byers Avenue, Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado. You are being notified of this hearing because you are an interested party or own property within 500'. You do not have to attend the meeting, but may do so if you desire. Please let us know if you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed amendment. Thank you. common\BOCC\Letters\2014\15-Touch the Sun Temp SUP INT 2 BUCEIVED LTVE nATIone Sean O'Connell 2399 Blake Sircci 4120 Ucnnvcr, CO 80105 Phone! 303- 837- 1 QU2 Bill Gray Grand County Planner 308 Byers Aventic: 1.10t Sulphur ;springs, CO 80451 Phone: 970-725-3128 Mr. Gray, Thank you for your work on the permit for the Touch the Sun Festival 2016. As discussed, Live Nation would like to see a change to one provision which was added to the permit. While we still expect the 2016 festival to draw in the range of 10,000-15,000 guests, we need to know our potential for success will not be minimized in the case that we exceed expectations in 2016, and to be clear that our goal for the future is to safely accommodate a significantly larger event. We think it is important to remove the 15,000 capacity for sales. The space was chosen because of its premium and beautiful location in Grand County, an area that is a proven tourist destination, and for its potential to expand as the festival grows. If Touch the Sun becomes as successful as some of our other festivals across the country, the space at Colorado Adventure Park could hold as many as 40,000 guests in the future, and we are confident that with the right plan we will be able to make it work with additional parking, camping and a traffic plan to accommodate that number of guests. In accordance with the permit provisions, Live Nation is in the process of contracting with a traffic and parking company who will work with Grand County, CDOT and the local municipalities to ensure that we have a plan in place that will best serve the event and the community, and chat we will report on sales throughout the process and meet with the emergency management teams to ensure that they are comfortable that any potential situations will be managed properly based on the anticipated number of guests. The event itself is a multi-million dollar investment from Live Nation, so it is important to us that we are able to succeed with the event as it grows into the great annual tradition we hope and expect it will. I look forward to discussing this with the Commissioners and to developing the Touch the Sun Festival in Grand County. Best, Sean O'Connell Live Nation Rocky Mountain December 11, 2015 caws.♦. wn- {,. ,f 7? xt•, If 71 4A k : t qy� __ - - { i SITEl► I i� i` • . • K � - 4�\ "AST^ —� ' Y ( I � SITE Fraser ValleyParkway CR 721 �w TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 JOINT FACILITIES FUND ASSETS 40-10100 CASH ALLOCATED TO OTHER FUNDS 50,223.20 40-10210 JFOC CHECKING -GMB 0318047507 75,241.27 40-10215 GMB MONEY MARKET -O&M RESERVE 31,044.34 40-11550 A/R - WPR 12,054.12 40-11560 A/R - GC#1 18,876.42 40-11570 A/R - TOF 10,924.05 TOTAL ASSETS 198,363.40 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY LIABILITIES 40-20920 JFOC O&M RESERVE 196,631.34 TOTAL LIABILITIES 196,631.34 FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 1,732.06 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 1,732.06 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 1,732.06 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 198,363.40 TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 JOINT FACILITIES FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT REVENUE 40-30-100 INTEREST - O&M ACCOUNTS 20.79 273.74 300.00 26.26 91.3 40-30-200 O&M REIMBURSEMENT - WPR 12,054.12 154,936.17 242,567.00 87,630.83 63.9 40-30-210 O&M REIMBURSEMENT - GC#1 18,876.42 243,834.86 386,932.00 143,097.14 63.0 40-30-220 O&M REIMBURSEMENT - TOF 10,924.05 136,646.78 209,833.00 73,186.22 65.1 40-30-900 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE .00 1,458.32 .00 ( 1,458.32) .0 40-30-999 CARRYOVER BALANCE .00 .00 196,089.00 196,089.00 .0 TOTAL REVENUE 41,875.38 537,149.87 1,035,721.00 498,571.13 51.9 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 41,875.38 537,149.87 1,035,721.00 498,571.13 51.9 TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 JOINT FACILITIES FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT PLANT EXPENDITURES 40-85-110 SALARIES 13,109.79 162,834.26 207,713.00 44,878.74 78.4 40-85-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 3,458.20 30,416.47 56,448.00 26,031.53 53.9 40-85-220 FICA TAX 979.14 11,821.09 15,890.00 4,068.91 74.4 40-85-230 RETIREMENT 381.04 5,883.84 8,309.00 2,425.16 70.8 40-85-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 39.45 489.76 623.00 133.24 78.6 40-85-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS .00 240.00 3,000.00 2,760.00 8.0 40-85-290 TRAVEL - MEALS AND LODGING .00 95.45 3,500.00 3,404.55 2.7 40-85-295 MEALS - LOCAL BUSINESS .00 45.35 500.00 454.65 9.1 40-85-310 LEGAL FEES .00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0 40-85-320 AUDIT FEE .00 4,074.00 4,750.00 676.00 85.8 40-85-330 ENGINEERING FEES .00 .00 15,000.00 15,000.00 .0 40-85-350 SLUDGE REMOVAL 1,426.09 29,660.90 65,000.00 35,339.10 45.6 40-85-370 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 267.96 2,947.56 10,000.00 7,052.44 29.5 40-85-375 REIMBURSABLE PROF SERVICES .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 40-85-410 BANK CHARGES .00 .00 100.00 100.00 .0 40-85-430 INSURANCE - PLANT .00 25,176.54 32,000.00 6,823.46 78.7 40-85-440 ADVERTISING .00 1,074.55 500.00 ( 574.55) 214.9 40-85-460 PLANT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 952.68 27,483.22 50,000.00 22,516.78 55.0 40-85-475 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE .00 1,017.69 2,500.00 1,482.31 40.7 40-85-480 EQUIPMENT RENTAL .00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0 40-85-490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS .00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0 40-85-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES 193.38 2,630.71 20,000.00 17,369.29 13.2 40-85-506 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHEMICALS 1,643.11 23,693.34 75,000.00 51,306.66 31.6 40-85-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR .00 4,445.05 20,000.00 15,554.95 22.2 40-85-520 TESTING 3,269.59 32,730.28 65,000.00 32,269.72 50.4 40-85-525 PERMITS .00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0 40-85-550 POSTAGE .00 215.68 .00 ( 215.68) .0 40-85-560 UTILITIES - TELEPHONE 279.38 2,997.72 3,500.00 502.28 85.7 40-85-562 UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY 15,379.71 155,206.79 145,000.00 ( 10,206.79) 107.0 40-85-565 UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS 142.77 2,187.04 6,500.00 4,312.96 33.7 40-85-567 UTILITIES - PLANT GENERATOR .00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0 40-85-569 UTILITIES - TRASH REMOVAL 168.48 1,853.28 2,500.00 646.72 74.1 40-85-650 VEHICLE EXPENSES 163.82 6,047.24 7,500.00 1,452.76 80.6 40-85-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE .00 150.00 1,000.00 850.00 15.0 TOTAL PLANT EXPENDITURES 41,854.59 535,417.81 839,333.00 303,915.19 63.8 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 41,854.59 535,417.81 839,333.00 303,915.19 63.8 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 20.79 1,732.06 196,388.00 194,655.94 .9 47-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 47-10220 COLOTRUST 8006 - CRR 47-10310 CB MONEY MARKET - CRR 47-10410 GMB MONEY MARKET - CRR 47-10526 CDARS - 1015300872 - CRR 47-10527 CDARS - 1017868876 - CRR 47-10528 CDARS - 1018437569 - CRR 47-10529 CDARS - 1018459163 - CRR TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND EQUITY I IAQII I-- 47-20910 JFOC-CRRFUNDS TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD BALANCE - CURRENT DATE TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 JFF - CRR/CIP FUND ( 132,580.09) 50,223.20) 418,649.81 231,945.61 40,044.91 386,356.37 300,478.03 386,818.70 2,233,428.19 TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 JFF - CRR/CIP FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT CRR AND CIP FUND REVENUES 47-30-100 INTEREST INCOME - CRR ACCOUNTS 869.94 11,418.53 12,000.00 581.47 95.2 47-30-800 SALE OF JFOC FIXED ASSETS .00 14,215.69 .00 ( 14,215.69) .0 47-30-990 CRR CARRYOVER BALANCE .00 .00 1,879,684.00 1,879,684.00 .0 TOTAL CRR AND CIP FUND REVENUES 869.94 25,634.22 1,891,684.00 1,866,049.78 1.4 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 869.94 25,634.22 1,891,684.00 1,866,049.78 1.4 TOWN OF FRASER - JOINT FACILITIES EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 JFF - CRR/CIP FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT CAPITAL RPLMNTRESERVE PROJECTS 47-60-370 ENG, LEGAL & OTHER PROF SRVCS 47-60-730 CRR PROJECTS .0 .0 TOTAL CAPITAL RPLMNTRESERVE PROJEC 90,859.31 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 47-65-370 ENG, LEGAL & OTHER PROF SRVCS 47-65-730 CIP PROJECTS .00 ( 145,000.00 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS .0 46.4 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 67,355.00 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 11,819.50 .00 90,859.31 .00 .00 ( 25,700.00 90,859.31) 25,700.00 .0 .0 11,819.50 90,859.31 25,700.00 ( 65,159.31) 353.5 25.00 .00 25.00 67,330.00 .00 ( 145,000.00 25.00) 77,670.00 .0 46.4 25.00 67,355.00 145,000.00 77,645.00 46.5 11,844.50 158,214.31 170,700.00 12,485.69 92.7 ( 10,974.56) ( 132,580.09) 1,720,984.00 1,853,564.09 ( 7.7) TOWN OF FRASER COMBINED CASH INVESTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 2015 COMBINED CASH ACCOUNTS 01-10200 GENERAL CHECKING #878-000884 01-10220 GENERAL CO -01-0160-8001 TOTAL COMBINED CASH 01-10100 CASH ALLOCATED TO OTHER FUNDS TOTAL UNALLOCATED CASH CASH ALLOCATION RECONCILIATION 10 ALLOCATION TO GENERAL FUND 20 ALLOCATION TO CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 30 ALLOCATION TO CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND 32 ALLOCATION TO CAPITAL ASSET FUND 40 ALLOCATION TO DEBT SERVICE FUND 50 ALLOCATION TO WATER FUND 55 ALLOCATION TO WASTEWATER FUND TOTAL ALLOCATIONS TO OTHER FUNDS ALLOCATION FROM COMBINED CASH FUND - 01-10100 ZERO PROOF IF ALLOCATIONS BALANCE 306,920.27 8,877,503.64 9,184,423.91 ( 9,184,423.91) .00 3,287,502.57 10,772.13 460,511.59 118,595.41 575,651.72 1,440,739.33 3,290,651.16 9,184,423.91 ( 9,184,423.91) .00 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 1 10-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND 10-10290 CASH WITH TREASURER 10-11100 PROPERTY TAXES RECEIVABLE 10-11550 ACCTS REC - BILLINGS 10-21760 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND EQUITY ISI\ 71�Y�IK�1 10-20210 ACCRUED A/P - AUDIT 10-21730 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 10-21740 UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES PAYABLE 10-21755 457 DEFERRED COMP PAYABLE 10-21760 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 10-21773 DEPENDENT CARE PAYABLE 10-21775 FLEX HEALTH PLAN PAYABLE 10-22210 DEFERRED TAXES 10-22920 SUBDIVISION IMP SECURITY DEP 10-22930 DRIVEWAY PERMIT SURETY 10-22950 RENTAL PROPERTY DEPOSITS HELD TOTAL LIABILITIES - 1- -1 IITV 10-27000 COMMITTED FUND BALANCE 10-27100 TOTAL RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD BALANCE -CURRENT DATE TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERALFUND 3,287,502.57 615.82 197,206.00 77,809.30 3,600.00 2,831.00 679.94 704.00) 20,253.80 668.47 3,358.47 197,206.35 245,242.25 21,125.00 nnn nn 494,461.28 750,000.00 251,805.00 2,066,867.41 2,066,867.41 3,068,672.41 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 2 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERALFUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT TAXES 10-31-100 GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX .00 196,849.29 197,265.00 415.71 99.8 10-31-200 SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP TAX 899.64 10,911.85 10,000.00 ( 911.85) 109.1 10-31-300 MOTOR VEHICLE TAX 446.50 3,504.50 4,200.00 695.50 83.4 10-31-400 TOWN SALES TAX 187,934.73 1,351,144.12 1,595,000.00 243,855.88 84.7 10-31-410 USE TAX- BUILDING MATERIALS 2,081.99 261,278.36 65,000.00 ( 196,278.36) 402.0 10-31-420 USE TAX- MOTOR VEHICLE SALES 5,198.27 53,785.86 55,000.00 1,214.14 97.8 10-31-430 STATE CIGARETTE TAX 296.83 2,883.51 4,000.00 1,116.49 72.1 10-31-800 FRANCHISE FEES 8,233.64 39,778.63 50,000.00 10,221.37 79.6 TOTAL TAXES 205,091.60 1,920,136.12 1,980,465.00 60,328.88 97.0 LICENSES & PERMITS 10-32-100 BUSINESS LICENSE FEES 120.00 12,780.00 12,750.00 ( 30.00) 100.2 10-32-110 REGULATED INDUSTRY FEES/TAXES 7,123.61 86,726.31 25,000.00 ( 61,726.31) 346.9 TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS 7,243.61 99,506.31 37,750.00 ( 61,756.31) 263.6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 10-33-100 GRANTS 67,847.44 77,847.44 166,000.00 88,152.56 46.9 TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 67,847.44 77,847.44 166,000.00 88,152.56 46.9 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10-34-100 ANNEXATION FEES .00 275.00 1,000.00 725.00 27.5 10-34-110 ZONING FEES .00 8,925.00 1,500.00 ( 7,425.00) 595.0 10-34-120 SUBDIVISION FEES .00 29,550.00 1,500.00 ( 28,050.00) 1970.0 10-34-130 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING FEES 40.00 2,220.00 1,000.00 ( 1,220.00) 222.0 TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 40.00 40,970.00 5,000.00 ( 35,970.00) 819.4 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 10-36-100 INTEREST EARNINGS 584.92 4,421.15 3,250.00 ( 1,171.15) 136.0 10-36-300 RENTAL INCOME 1,275.00 14,310.00 9,500.00 ( 4,810.00) 150.6 10-36-610 REIMBURSABLE - PROF SERVICES 14,104.56 113,219.11 100,000.00 ( 13,219.11) 113.2 10-36-900 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE .00 22,648.61 30,000.00 7,351.39 75.5 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 15,964.48 154,598.87 142,750.00 ( 11,848.87) 108.3 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 3 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERALFUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS 10-39-900 TRANSFERS IN FROM OTHER FUNDS 10-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS TOTAL FUND REVENUE 10,000.00 .00 10,000.00 2,116,144.50 10, 000.00 2,003,613.00 ( .00 112,531.50) 100.0 105.6 10,000.00 2,126,144.50 2,013,613.00 ( 112,531.50) 105.6 306,187.13 4,419,203.24 4,345,578.00 ( 73,625.24) 101.7 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 4 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERALFUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT Ifelyty ki1.107-11:11p 10-41-110 SALARIES .00 15,360.00 26,000.00 10,640.00 59.1 10-41-220 FICA TAX .00 1,175.05 1,989.00 813.95 59.1 10-41-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS .00 3,152.17 6,000.00 2,847.83 52.5 10-41-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING 100.00 1,946.18 5,000.00 3,053.82 38.9 10-41-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT 2,729.10 6,525.57 8,000.00 1,474.43 81.6 10-41-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE .00 ( 14,379.45) 8,000.00 22,379.45 (179.7) 10-41-860 GRANTS AND AID TO AGENCIES 10,000.00 14,155.00 .00 ( 14,155.00) .0 10-41-861 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS 4,500.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 .00 100.0 10-41-862 FRASER/WINTER PARK POLICE DEPT 33,835.00 372,185.00 432,000.00 59,815.00 86.2 10-41-863 STREET LIGHTING AND SIGNALS 1,152.07 15,397.80 15,250.00 ( 147.80) 101.0 10-41-864 SPECIAL EVENTS .00 12,500.00 10,000.00 ( 2,500.00) 125.0 10-41-867 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - IGA 16,276.20 44,993.10 68,114.00 23,120.90 66.1 10-41-868 WINTER SHUTTLE - IGA .00 64,750.00 80,000.00 15,250.00 80.9 10-41-870 BUSINESS DIST STREETSCAPE .00 3,200.00 100,000.00 96,800.00 3.2 10-41-871 BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS 8,334.00 48,089.92 105,000.00 56,910.08 45.8 TOTAL TOWN BOARD 76,926.37 598,050.34 874,353.00 276,302.66 68.4 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 5 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERALFUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT ADMINISTRATION 10-45-110 SALARIES 17,127.94 220,437.26 250,000.00 29,562.74 88.2 10-45-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 3,550.56 38,620.36 35,000.00 ( 3,620.36) 110.3 10-45-220 FICA TAX 1,079.34 14,160.96 19,125.00 4,964.04 74.0 10-45-230 RETIREMENT 598.08 7,527.25 10,000.00 2,472.75 75.3 10-45-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 51.86 666.49 750.00 83.51 88.9 10-45-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS 16.82 3,324.82 4,000.00 675.18 83.1 10-45-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING 62.34 6,605.51 5,000.00 ( 1,605.51) 132.1 10-45-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT 247.80 809.49 3,500.00 2,690.51 23.1 10-45-310 LEGAL FEES 6,394.71 44,354.28 65,000.00 20,645.72 68.2 10-45-320 AUDIT FEES .00 12,221.00 22,672.00 10,451.00 53.9 10-45-330 ENGINEERING FEES .00 5,554.65 10,000.00 4,445.35 55.6 10-45-360 COMPUTERS -NETWORKS AND SUPPORT 1,601.16 30,945.55 65,000.00 34,054.45 47.6 10-45-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,963.38 31,117.97 90,000.00 58,882.03 34.6 10-45-375 REIMBURSABLE PROF SERVICES 12,847.52 105,615.27 100,000.00 ( 5,615.27) 105.6 10-45-380 JANITORIAL SERVICES 663.68 6,904.28 15,300.00 8,395.72 45.1 10-45-385 TREASURER'S FEES .00 3,936.94 5,918.00 1,981.06 66.5 10-45-395 RECORDING FEES .00 500.00 1,000.00 500.00 50.0 10-45-410 BANK CHARGES 48.50 593.48 1,000.00 406.52 59.4 10-45-420 ELECTIONS .00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0 10-45-430 INSURANCE - ALL DEPARTMENTS 20,425.00 37,970.04 42,000.00 4,029.96 90.4 10-45-440 ADVERTISING .00 98.09 2,500.00 2,401.91 3.9 10-45-490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS 20.00 6,887.52 7,000.00 112.48 98.4 10-45-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES 497.04 7,902.78 12,000.00 4,097.22 65.9 10-45-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR .00 4,237.67 15,750.00 11,512.33 26.9 10-45-550 POSTAGE .00 1,126.38 2,000.00 873.62 56.3 10-45-560 UTILITIES -TELEPHONE 485.60 5,828.38 6,500.00 671.62 89.7 10-45-561 UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS 277.63 2,929.32 6,000.00 3,070.68 48.8 10-45-562 UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY 460.26 4,286.32 7,000.00 2,713.68 61.2 10-45-569 UTILITIES - TRASH REMOVAL 108.61 1,093.05 2,500.00 1,406.95 43.7 10-45-670 PROP MGMT - 107 EISENHOWER DR 1,374.06 12,327.51 29,000.00 16,672.49 42.5 10-45-671 PROP MGMT - 105 FRASER AVE .00 2,382.27 500.00 ( 1,882.27) 476.5 10-45-673 PROP MGMT - 153 FRASER AVE 537.93 4,330.15 20,000.00 15,669.85 21.7 10-45-674 PROP MGMT - 200 EISENHOWER DR .00 28.98 1,000.00 971.02 2.9 10-45-676 PROP MGMT - 400 DOC SUSIE AVE .00 110.53 500.00 389.47 22.1 10-45-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 177.00 1,325.50 8,000.00 6,674.50 16.6 10-45-810 LEASE/PURCHASE - PRINCIPAL .00 20,206.87 20,207.00 .13 100.0 10-45-820 LEASE/PURCHASE- INTEREST .00 18,166.89 18,167.00 .11 100.0 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 79,616.82 665,133.81 908,889.00 243,755.19 73.2 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 6 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERALFUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT PUBLIC WORKS 10-60-110 SALARIES 28,185.76 351,504.98 410,296.00 58,791.02 85.7 10-60-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 6,560.12 70,050.13 75,000.00 4,949.87 93.4 10-60-220 FICA TAX 2,051.59 25,471.74 31,388.00 5,916.26 81.2 10-60-230 RETIREMENT 1,092.76 11,047.99 16,412.00 5,364.01 67.3 10-60-250 UNEMPLOYMENTTAX 85.67 1,063.17 1,231.00 167.83 86.4 10-60-260 WORKERS COMP CLAIMS 98.19 468.70 .00 ( 468.70) .0 10-60-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS .00 804.25 2,000.00 1,195.75 40.2 10-60-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING .00 1,280.72 2,000.00 719.28 64.0 10-60-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT 52.00 339.11 750.00 410.89 45.2 10-60-330 ENGINEERING FEES 1,332.50 9,848.77 45,000.00 35,151.23 21.9 10-60-360 COMPUTER NETWORK SUPPORT 150.00 1,570.00 2,000.00 430.00 78.5 10-60-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES .00 3,968.00 2,500.00 ( 1,468.00) 158.7 10-60480 EQUIPMENT RENTAL .00 .00 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0 10-60490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS .00 440.75 750.00 309.25 58.8 10-60-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES 1,636.80 53,192.79 75,000.00 21,807.21 70.9 10-60-506 PLANTS/PLANTER SUPPLIES 42.00 11,770.10 12,000.00 229.90 98.1 10-60-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR 3,104.05 45,845.73 35,000.00 ( 10,845.73) 131.0 10-60-560 UTILITIES - TELEPHONE 211.29 3,151.96 2,700.00 ( 451.96) 116.7 10-60-561 UTILITIES -NATURAL GAS 449.32 4,186.21 6,000.00 1,813.79 69.8 10-60-562 UTILITIES -ELECTRICITY 164.86 1,539.70 3,000.00 1,460.30 51.3 10-60-569 UTILITIES - TRASH REMOVAL 293.45 1,928.49 2,100.00 171.51 91.8 10-60-670 PROP MGMT - 125 FRASER AVE 198.72 687.37 5,000.00 4,312.63 13.8 10-60-673 PROP MGMT - FRASER RIVER TRAIL 1,870.00 14,248.16 13,000.00 ( 1,248.16) 109.6 10-60-674 PROP MGMT - HWY 40 PEDESTRIAN .00 4.86 18,000.00 17,995.14 .0 10-60-675 PROP MGMT - KOPPERS PARK 240.00 1,717.26 .00 ( 1,717.26) .0 10-60-676 PROP MGMT - OLD SCHLHOUSE PK .00 1,227.76 5,000.00 3,772.24 24.6 10-60-678 PROP MGMT - OUTDOORACTIVITYCTR .00 51.07 .00 ( 51.07) .0 10-60-679 PROP MGMT - SCHOOL BUS GARAGE 266.24 3,470.61 7,000.00 3,529.39 49.6 10-60-681 PROP MGMT - COZENS RANCH PARK 909.95 142,909.80 230,000.00 87,090.20 62.1 10-60-684 PROP MGMT - FRODO .00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0 10-60-685 PROP MGMT - MTN MAN PARK .00 700.00 500.00 ( 200.00) 140.0 10-60-686 GORANSON STATION 138.62 1,541.78 1,500.00 ( 41.78) 102.8 10-60-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 204.31 1,614.98 1,500.00 ( 114.98) 107.7 10-60-725 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 806.63 18,743.56 285,000.00 266,256.44 6.6 10-60-730 CAPITAL PROJECTS .00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 50,144.83 786,390.50 1,309,127.00 522,736.50 60.1 120 ZEREX AVENUE 10-65-380 JANITORIAL SERVICES 450.00 4,350.00 5,610.00 1,260.00 77.5 10-65-561 UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS 86.03 872.56 1,515.00 642.44 57.6 10-65-562 UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY 70.00 669.12 1,010.00 340.88 66.3 10-65-670 PROP MGMT - 120 ZEREX .00 319.50 5,000.00 4,680.50 6.4 TOTAL 120 ZEREX AVENUE 606.03 6,211.18 13,135.00 6,923.82 47.3 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 7 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERALFUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT TRANSFERS 10-90-935 TRANSFER TO CAF .00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .00 100.0 10-90-940 TRANSFER TO DEBT SERVICE FUND .00 246,550.00 246,550.00 .00 100.0 TOTAL TRANSFERS .00 296,550.00 296,550.00 .00 100.0 FISCAL AGENT 10-95-110 SALARIES 10-95-220 FICA TAX 10-95-230 RETIREMENT 10-95-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX TOTAL FISCAL AGENT TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 6,414.09) .00 .00 .00 C 477.16) .00 .00 .00 C 190.16) .00 .00 .00 C 19.24) .00 .00 .00 C ( 7,100.65) .00 .00 .00 C 200,193.40 2,352,335.83 3,402,054.00 1,049,718.17 69.1 105,993.73 2,066,867.41 943,524.00 ( 1,123,343.41) 219.1 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 8 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND ASSETS 20-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 10.772.13 BALANCE -CURRENT DATE TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 10,772.13 10,772.13 10,772.13 10,772.13 10,772.13 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 9 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT REVENUE 20-30-100 CONS TRUST (LOTTERY) PROCEEDS 1,361.77 4,261.92 6,500.00 2,238.08 65.6 20-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS 1.76 15.24 15.00 ( .24) 101.6 20-30-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 16,494.97 6,899.00 ( 9,595.97) 239.1 TOTAL REVENUE 1,363.53 20,772.13 13,414.00 ( 7,358.13) 154.9 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 1,363.53 20,772.13 13,414.00 ( 7,358.13) 154.9 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 10 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT EXPENDITURES 20-40-910 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 ( 10,000.00) .0 20-40-920 TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS .00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 100.0 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 100.0 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 8,636.47) 10,772.13 3,414.00 ( 7,358.13) 315.5 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 11 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND ASSETS 30-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 460,511.59 BALANCE -CURRENT DATE TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 460,511.59 460,511.59 460,511.59 460,511.59 460,511.59 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 12 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT REVENUE 30-30-100 HWY USE TAX PROCEEDS 2,853.88 37,070.16 45,039.00 7,968.84 82.3 30-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS 93.13 632.92 300.00 ( 332.92) 211.0 30-30-920 TRANSFER FROM UTILITY FUNDS .00 20,000.00 20,000.00 .00 100.0 30-30-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE .00 465,578.04 464,835.00 ( 743.04) 100.2 TOTAL REVENUE 2,947.01 523,281.12 530,174.00 6,892.88 98.7 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 2,947.01 523,281.12 530,174.00 6,892.88 98.7 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 13 EXPENDITURES 30-40-745 PUBLIC SAFETY FLEET PURCHASE 30-40-750 REGULAR FLEET PURCHASE 30-40-755 HEAVY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE 30-40-810 LEASE/PURCHASE - PRINCIPAL 30-40-820 LEASE/PURCHASE - INTEREST TOTAL EXPENDITURES TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CAPITAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT 00 8,312.50 48,000.00 39,687.50 17.3 .00 9,039.16 90,000.00 80,960.84 10.0 .00 .00 20,000.00 20,000.00 .0 .00 42,014.94 42,015.00 .06 100.0 .00 3,402.93 3,403.00 .07 100.0 .00 62,769.53 203,418.00 140,648.47 30.9 .00 62,769.53 203,418.00 140,648.47 30.9 2,947.01 460,511.59 326,756.00 ( 133,755.59) 140.9 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 14 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CAPITAL ASSET FUND ASSETS 32-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 118,595.41 BALANCE -CURRENT DATE TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 118,595.41 118,595.41 118,595.41 118,595.41 118,595.41 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 15 CAPITAL ASSET REVENUE 32-30-100 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE 32-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS 32-30-910 TRANSFER IN FROM GENERAL FUND 32-30-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TOTAL CAPITAL ASSET REVENUE TOTAL FUND REVENUE TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CAPITAL ASSET FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT .00 1,399,453.53 1,420,000.00 20,546.47 98.6 147.61 1,178.40 250.00 ( 928.40) 471.4 .00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .00 100.0 .00 671,470.94 667,788.00 ( 3,682.94) 100.6 147.61 2,122,102.87 2,138,038.00 15,935.13 99.3 147.61 2,122,102.87 2,138,038.00 15,935.13 99.3 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 16 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 CAPITAL ASSET FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT CAPITAL ASSET EXPENDITURES 32-40-815 CAPITAL PROJ - STREETS NEW 4,580.35 2,003,507.46 2,138,038.00 134,530.54 93.7 TOTAL CAPITAL ASSET EXPENDITURES 4,580.35 2,003,507.46 2,138,038.00 134,530.54 93.7 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 4,580.35 2,003,507.46 2,138,038.00 134,530.54 93.7 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 4,432.74) 118,595.41 .00 ( 118,595.41) .0 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 17 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 DEBT SERVICE FUND 40-10100 CASH -COMBINED FUND 575,651.72 40-10290 CASH WITH TREASURER 251.52 40-11100 PROPERTY TAXES RECEIVABLE 80.000.00 TOTAL ASSETS 655,903.24 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY LIABILITIES 40-22210 DEFERRED PROPERTY TAXES 80,000.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES 80,000.00 ter, — 40-27000 RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE 300,000.00 40-27100 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 245,940.84 UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 29,962.40 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 29.962.40 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 575,903.24 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 655,903.24 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 18 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 DEBT SERVICE FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT REVENUE 40-30-100 PROPERTY TAX .00 79,762.97 80,000.00 237.03 99.7 40-30-200 SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP TAX 364.53 4,231.10 3,000.00 ( 1,231.10) 141.0 40-30-800 INTEREST EARNINGS 105.44 836.12 250.00 ( 586.12) 334.5 40-30-910 TRANSFER IN FROM GENERAL FUND .00 246,550.00 246,550.00 .00 100.0 TOTAL REVENUE 469.97 331,380.19 329,800.00 ( 1,580.19) 100.5 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 469.97 331,380.19 329,800.00 ( 1,580.19) 100.5 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 19 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 DEBT SERVICE FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT 40-40-385 TREASURER'S FEES GO BOND 00 1,595.29 2,000.00 404.71 79.8 40-40-810 BOND PRINCIPAL - 02 S&U ISSUE .00 25,000.00 25,000.00 .00 100.0 40-40-811 BOND PRINCIPAL - 98 GO ISSUE 45,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 .00 100.0 40-40-812 BOND PRINCIPAL - 98 S&U ISSUE .00 180,000.00 180,000.00 .00 100.0 40-40-820 BOND INTEREST - 02 S&U ISSUE 2,475.00 5,637.50 5,638.00 .50 100.0 40-40-821 BOND INTEREST - 98 GO ISSUE 3,762.50 7,525.00 7,526.00 1.00 100.0 40-40-822 BOND INTEREST - 98 S&U ISSUE 15,525.00 35,910.00 35,910.00 .00 100.0 40-40-850 BOND AGENT FEES .00 750.00 3,000.00 2,250.00 25.0 40-40-910 TRANSFER TO DSF RESERVES .00 .00 25,726.00 25,726.00 .0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 66,762.50 301,417.79 329,800.00 28,382.21 91.4 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 66,762.50 301,417.79 329,800.00 28,382.21 91.4 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 66,292.53) 29,962.40 .00 ( 29,962.40) .0 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 20 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 WATER FUND 50-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 1,440,739.33 50-10290 CASH W/TREASURER - COLLECTIONS 2,437.79 50-11500 A/R CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES 323.62 50-11550 A/R - BILLINGS 264.45 50-16100 LAND 100,000.00 50-16200 BUILDINGS 2,946,174.49 50-16203 WELLS SYSTEM 768,371.74 50-16212 WATER DISTRIBUTION/STORAGE 9,845,211.82 50-16213 WELLS 1,076,740.43 50-16400 EQUIPMENT 353,994.02 50-16500 WATER RIGHTS 19,775.86 50-17900 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION ( 3,568,312.67) 50-17901 ACCUMULATED DEPR - BLDGS& IMPR ( 145,747.00) 50-17902 ACCUMULATED DEPR - SYSTEM&IMPR ( 601.534.00) TOTAL ASSETS 12,238,439.88 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY LIABILITIES 50-20775 DUE TO RENDEZVOUS - TAPS 23,100.00 50-20776 DUE TO GRAND PARK - TAPS 15,400.00 50-21100 ACCRUED PTO AND BENEFITS 4,746.10 50-22910 ROAD CUT SURITY FEES 16,100.00 50-22920 BULK WATER SECURITY DEP 5,000.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES 64,346.10 50-27000 COMMITTED FUND BALANCE 460,000.00 UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: 50-29800 RETAINED EARNINGS 10,794,683.01 REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 919,410.77 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 11.714.093.78 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 12,174,093.78 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 12,238,439.88 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 21 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 WATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT LICENSES & PERMITS 50-32-100 EXCAVATION PERMIT FEES TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS CHARGES FOR SERVICES 50-34-100 CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES 50-34-150 PENALTIES & INTEREST 50-34-200 PLANT INVESTMENT FEES 50-34-300 WATER METER SALES TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 50-36-100 INTEREST EARNINGS 50-36-900 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS 50-39-200 GRANTS AND AID FROM AGENCIES 50-39-910 TRANSFERS IN 50-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS TOTAL FUND REVENUE .00 550.00 275.00 ( 275.00) 200.0 .00 550.00 275.00 ( 275.00) 200.0 .00 587,141.57 760,040.00 172,898.43 77.3 ( 396.60) 3,161.32 1,000.00 ( 2,161.32) 316.1 .00 15,400.00 15,400.00 .00 100.0 .00 38,418.69 2,000.00 ( 36,418.69) 1920.9 ( 396.60) 644,121.58 778,440.00 134,318.42 82.8 235.47 1,780.98 800.00 ( 980.98) 222.6 484.45 3,625.70 2,500.00 ( 1,125.70) 145.0 719.92 5,406.68 3,300.00 ( 2,106.68) 163.8 .00 50,000.00 25,000.00 ( 25,000.00) 200.0 .00 .00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .0 .00 766,652.00 720,401.00 ( 46,251.00) 106.4 .00 816,652.00 795,401.00 ( 21,251.00) 102.7 323.32 1,466,730.26 1,577,416.00 110,685.74 93.0 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 22 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 WATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT ►(9�17tii9:7 50-40-110 SALARIES 13,779.86 167,598.34 185,000.00 17,401.66 90.6 50-40-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,232.89 23,556.24 26,000.00 2,443.76 90.6 50-40-220 FICA TAX 1,022.70 12,409.50 14,153.00 1,743.50 87.7 50-40-230 RETIREMENT 487.72 5,571.51 6,500.00 928.49 85.7 50-40-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 41.81 504.68 555.00 50.32 90.9 50-40-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS .00 359.00 3,000.00 2,641.00 12.0 50-40-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING .00 100.30 3,000.00 2,899.70 3.3 50-40-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT 19.76 150.04 2,000.00 1,849.96 7.5 50-40-310 LEGAL FEES 3,605.00 59,993.25 75,000.00 15,006.75 80.0 50-40-330 ENGINEERING FEES .00 14,272.50 10,000.00 ( 4,272.50) 142.7 50-40-360 COMPUTERS -NETWORKS AND SUPPORT 350.00 5,343.39 6,000.00 656.61 89.1 50-40-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.49 483.88 5,000.00 4,516.12 9.7 50-40430 INSURANCE .00 17,084.32 20,000.00 2,915.68 85.4 50-40440 ADVERTISING .00 240.66 500.00 259.34 48.1 50-40-460 SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT - PROD 1,166.99 8,045.76 75,000.00 66,954.24 10.7 50-40-465 SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT - DIST 6,199.28 19,334.27 70,000.00 50,665.73 27.6 50-40490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS 125.00 8,545.00 8,000.00 ( 545.00) 106.8 50-40-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES -PRODUCTION 200.00 10,532.13 35,000.00 24,467.87 30.1 50-40-505 OPERATING SUPPLIES-DISTRIB 170.35 35,442.76 25,000.00 ( 10,442.76) 141.8 50-40-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR .00 997.04 10,000.00 9,002.96 10.0 50-40-520 TESTING 432.00 1,400.44 10,000.00 8,599.56 14.0 50-40-550 POSTAGE & BILLING SUPPLIES 1,000.00 1,750.00 2,500.00 750.00 70.0 50-40-560 UTILITIES - TELEPHONE 332.81 3,969.86 3,500.00 ( 469.86) 113.4 50-40-562 UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY 2,585.90 26,938.48 55,000.00 28,061.52 49.0 50-40-670 PROP MGMT - FRASER WTP .00 1,196.51 3,000.00 1,803.49 39.9 50-40-680 PROP MGMT - MARYVALE WTP .00 426.76 3,000.00 2,573.24 14.2 50-40-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 68.11 77.10 2,000.00 1,922.90 3.9 50-40-715 WATER RIGHTS - DIVERSION & DEV .00 6,481.87 15,000.00 8,518.13 43.2 50-40-730 CAPITAL PROJECTS 00 88,657.50 204,000.00 115,342.50 43.5 50-40-760 FRASER FIRMING - CAPPROJ .00 15,856.40 680,000.00 664,143.60 2.3 50-40-930 TRANSFER TO CERF .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 100.0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 33,881.67 547,319.49 1,567,708.00 1,020,388.51 34.9 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 33,881.67 547,319.49 1,567,708.00 1,020,388.51 34.9 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES ( 33,558.35) 919,410.77 9,708.00 ( 909,702.77) 9470.7 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 23 55-10100 CASH - COMBINED FUND 55-10290 CASH W/TREASURER - COLLECTIONS 55-11500 A/R CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES 55-15950 CAP REPL RES HELD W/JFOC 55-15955 O&M RESERVE HELD W/JFOC 55-16100 LAND 55-16200 SEWER TREATMENT PLANT 55-16210 METER BUILDING & IMPROVEMENTS 55-16220 SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 55-16250 CONSOLIDATED COLLECTION SYSTEM 55-16400 EQUIPMENT 55-17900 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION 55-17905 ACCUM DEPR - PLANT/JFOC 55-17910 ACCUMDEPR - SEWER COLLECT-FSD 55-17915 ACCUM DEPR-EQUIPMENT TOTAL ASSETS TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 WASTEWATER FUND 3,290,651.16 1,841.51 6,535.06 760,929.23 46,920.69 144,320.40 3,308,298.56 8,056.39 10,816,277.19 279,069.00 98,106.17 ( 884,726.42) ( 48,836.52) ( 3,629,247.72) ( 42,697.20) LIABILITIES AND EQUITY LIABILITIES 55-21100 ACCRUED PTO AND BENEFITS 4,769.34 TOTAL LIABILITIES 4,769.34 UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: 55-29800 RETAINED EARNINGS 10,048,619.90 55-29820 RETAINED EARNINGS - RESTRICTED 807,849.92 REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES - YTD 3,294,258.34 BALANCE - CURRENT DATE 14,150,728.16 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 14,150,728.16 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 14,155,497.50 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 24 TOWN OF FRASER REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 WASTEWATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT CHARGES FOR SERVICES 55-34-100 CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARGES 55-34-150 PENALTIES & INTEREST 55-34-200 PLANT INVESTMENT FEES 2,564.63 TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,564.63) MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 55-36-100 INTEREST EARNINGS 55-36-500 JFF MANAGEMENT FEE 1950.0 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 774,388.55 OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS 121,204.55) 55-39-999 UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS TOTAL FUND REVENUE .00 479,323.92 637,184.00 157,860.08 75.2 ( 420.52) 2,564.63 1,000.00 ( 1,564.63) 256.5 .00 292,500.00 15,000.00 ( 277,500.00) 1950.0 ( 420.52) 774,388.55 653,184.00 ( 121,204.55) 118.6 590.44 4,474.19 3,000.00 ( 1,474.19) 149.1 .00 21,750.00 29,000.00 7,250.00 75.0 590.44 26,224.19 32,000.00 5,775.81 82.0 .00 3,011,956.00 2,968,217.00 ( 43,739.00) 101.5 .00 3,011,956.00 2,968,217.00 ( 43,739.00) 101.5 169.92 3,812,568.74 3,653,401.00 ( 159,167.74) 104.4 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 25 TOWN OF FRASER EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 11 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 WASTEWATER FUND PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT ►(»I90tlj:7 55-40-110 SALARIES 13,889.14 171,053.44 195,000.00 23,946.56 87.7 55-40-210 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,270.23 23,958.00 28,000.00 4,042.00 85.6 55-40-220 FICA TAX 1,030.01 12,667.41 14,918.00 2,250.59 84.9 55-40-230 RETIREMENT 497.92 5,724.29 7,000.00 1,275.71 81.8 55-40-250 UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 42.14 515.01 585.00 69.99 88.0 55-40-280 TRAINING PROGRAMS .00 200.00 2,500.00 2,300.00 8.0 55-40-290 TRAVEL, MEALS AND LODGING .00 20.49 2,500.00 2,479.51 .8 55-40-295 MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT 19.77 94.43 1,000.00 905.57 9.4 55-40-310 LEGAL FEES .00 693.25 15,000.00 14,306.75 4.6 55-40-330 ENGINEERING FEES .00 8,392.00 10,000.00 1,608.00 83.9 55-40-360 COMPUTERS -NETWORKS AND SUPPORT 342.33 4,247.53 6,000.00 1,752.47 70.8 55-40-370 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.49 437.45 10,000.00 9,562.55 4.4 55-40-410 BANK CHARGES .00 .00 100.00 100.00 .0 55-40-430 INSURANCE .00 4,404.60 6,500.00 2,095.40 67.8 55-40-440 ADVERTISING .00 92.62 500.00 407.38 18.5 55-40-460 SYSTEM REPAIR AND MAINT-COLLEC .00 74,982.29 130,000.00 55,017.71 57.7 55-40490 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS 125.00 1,525.00 6,000.00 4,475.00 25.4 55-40-500 OPERATING SUPPLIES -COLLECTIONS 200.00 474.03 5,000.00 4,525.97 9.5 55-40-510 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND REPAIR .00 280.17 5,000.00 4,719.83 5.6 55-40-520 TESTING .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 55-40-550 POSTAGE & BILLING SUPPLIES 1,000.00 1,803.42 3,000.00 1,196.58 60.1 55-40-560 UTILITIES -TELEPHONE 117.50 1,554.15 500.00 ( 1,054.15) 310.8 55-40-650 WW TREATMENT CHARGES/JFOC 12,705.46 125,722.73 209,833.00 84,110.27 59.9 55-40-690 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 63.79 63.79 3,000.00 2,936.21 2.1 55-40-730 CAPITAL PROJECTS 66,577.94 69,404.30 370,000.00 300,595.70 18.8 55-40-930 TRANSFER TO CERF .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 100.0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 98,942.72 518,310.40 1,042,936.00 524,625.60 49.7 98,942.72 518,310.40 1,042,936.00 524,625.60 49.7 ( 98,772.80) 3,294,258.34 2,610,465.00 ( 683,793.34) 126.2 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 26 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS ASSETS 91-16100 LAND 730,630.35 91-16200 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 208,379.39 91-16203 MAINTENANCE BUILDING 57,722.51 91-16208 HOUSE - 400 DOC SUSIE AVE 54,839.27 91-16209 VISITOR CENTER 183,895.00 91-16211 BUSBARN & 105 FRASER AVE HOUSE 100,000.00 91-16250 CHURCH 267,000.00 91-16306 PARKS 367,800.08 91-16311 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 3,439,840.00 91-16312 HIGHWAY 40 PATH 8,872.00 91-16490 EQUIPMENT - OTHER 872,015.00 91-16500 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 57,261.75 91-17900 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION ( 2,260,048.61) TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND EQUITY FUND EQUITY UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE: 91-29800 INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS 4,088,206.74 BALANCE -CURRENT DATE TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 4,088,206.74 4,088,206.74 4,088,206.74 4,088,206.74 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 27 TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT 3,131,161.31 360,000.00 2,035,000.00 475,000.00 15, 677.17 245,484.14 3,131,161.31 3,131,161.31 3,131,161.31 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 28 ASSETS 95-18100 AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND EQUITY LIABILITIES 95-25050 2002 SERIAL BONDS 95-25060 1998 REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS 95-25070 1998 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 95-25200 ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES 95-25500 CAPITAL LEASES KOMATSU LOADER TOTAL LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY TOWN OF FRASER BALANCE SHEET NOVEMBER 30, 2015 GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT 3,131,161.31 360,000.00 2,035,000.00 475,000.00 15, 677.17 245,484.14 3,131,161.31 3,131,161.31 3,131,161.31 FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 92 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 12/15/2015 09:16AM PAGE: 28 '�-, (0)About NAHB / BuilderBooks / HBA Resources/ How To Join/ Shop Search Home > Research > Housing Economics > Page 1 of 7 How Government Regulation Affects the Price of a New Home Special Studies, July 5, 2011 By Paul Emrath, Ph.D. Economics and Housing Policy Group National Association of Home Builders Report available to the public as a courtesy of HousingEconomics.com Over the past several years, the market for new housing has suffered through a severe slump, with housing starts running at one-third of what had been the normal rate going back to the 1950s. Stumbling blocks on the path to recovery include competition from sales of distressed existing properties, uncertainty about the health of the overall economy and labor markets, and difficulty in qualifying prospective buyers for mortgages. Once these particular obstacles are overcome and normality returns, however, home builders and developers will still be contending with markets in which homes cost more to build and sell than would otherwise be the case due to government regulations. Regulations come in many forms and can be imposed by governments at different levels. At the local level, jurisdictions may charge permit, hook-up, and impact fees and establish development and construction standards that either directly increase costs to builders and developers, or cause delays that translate to higher costs. State governments may be involved in this process directly or indirectly. Several states, for example, have adopted state-wide building codes. And although impact fees are imposed by local governments, such fees typically cannot be imposed without enabling legislation at the state level. The federal government can also impact the price of a home—for exarnple, by requiring permits for stormwater discharge on construction sites, which may lead to delays in addition to the hard cost of filing for a permit. These are only a few examples of regulations that builders and developers encounter in practice. This article introduces new NAHB estimates of the impact that such regulations have on the price of a home. The estimates show that, on average, regulations imposed by government at all levels account for 25.0 percent of the final price of a new single-family home built for sale. Nearly two-thirds of this -16.4 percent of the final house price—is due to a higher price for a finished lot resulting from regulations imposed during the lot's development. A little over one -third -8.6 percent of the house price—is the result of costs incurred by the builder after purchasing the finished lot. The relatively high share of regulatory cost affecting a home during development is particularly significant in the current environment, when there is a low level of developed land in the pipeline, as many builders have stopped acquiring single- family lots and developers have stopped developing them.[1] Thus, in most cases the full range of regulatory costs—those that fall on development as well as construction—will need to be overcome if production and employment in the housing industry are to get back on track. The discussion in this article is confined to regulatory costs. No attempt is made to estimate possible benefits resulting from a particular regulation, or category of regulations, or to argue that costs associated with particular regulations are (or are http://www.nahb.org/en/research/housing-economics/special-studies/how-government-regul... 1/6/2016 Page 2 of 7 not) justified. Governments usually have justifications forth e regulations they impose, and the justifications are sometimes contentious, but these contentions are better left fore tsew here. The issue of regulatory costs embodied in the price of a house is by itself complex and substantial enough for a separate article devoted to the topic. Survey Background In addition to a broad range of regulations that needs to be captured, estimating the impact of regulations on house price can be challenging in other ways as well. The impact of regulation on the price of a finished lot is often invisible to the builder who buys the lot, for instance, and developers may not keep records in a way that allows them easily to track delays and translate them into dollar values. NAHB's Economics and Housing Policy Group tackled these problems recently, through a series of special questions on the monthly survey that serves as the basis for the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI). In addition to the standard questions used to compute the HMI, the survey often also includes a set of "special" questions on a topic of current interest to the housing industry. The special questions on the costs of regulation were included in the April 2011 survey (questionnaire available in the "Additional Resources" box at the top of this article). Although the survey is sent to a panel of single-family builders, prior experience has shown that a significant proportion of the panel also has experience in land development. Of 352 builders who responded to a screening question on this topic (number4 on the questionnaire), 140 (40 percent) indicated that they did indeed have substantial experience in acquiring land and developing lots. The April 2011 special questions were structured around the leading case of a developer who acquires land, obtains approval for a subdivision, and develops a finished lot for sale to a builder; and a builder who then purchases the lot, constructs a single-family home built for -sale on it, and sells the home to an ultimate buyer. A summary of the regulatory costs captured by the questionnaire is shown in Table 1. In addition to listing each cost category, the table shows the share of respondents who said costs in a particular category were typically negligible orzero, and the complementary share reporting some positive cost. Each question contained specific instructions to indicate when a particular type of cost was negligible, and these were counted as 0 for purposes of computing averages and other statistics, to avoid overstating costs. Table 1. Categories of Regulatory Costs Captured in the Survey Snare Normal add-ons (such as carrying costs with zero Share Mh arid retrun on equity) whece regulatory cost positive cost costs era posititia A. During Devctopment - - — — -- Cosi of applying for zoning r subdivision approval Costs incurred after approval i before construction (impact fees, environmental m;tioat on. 31c) Value of land dedicated I left unbuill Costs of cornpiyirog uvh changes in development Mar+dnrds (setbacks. road YNrlih,, ete) B. During Construction Added cost clam to changes in construction ccdas 1 standards over the past 10 year,,; paints on acquisition loon +interest from 10% 90% application to lime let is SOId to burldet + developer profit points on development loan + interest 5% 95% From 172 time betty cen approval and time lot is said to budder + profit 19% 81% same as above 13% 87% same as above paints on construction taan + interest 6% 9456 from lag time between start and sate + brokors feU& + buiidor profit Prarrrtil. hods -up, irnpa.:1 ur outer fees paid by K,0 92% same as above builder $our:.e. A.:w2G1t Table 1 also describes the additional costs, such as interest on construction loans and return on equity, that builders and developers and homebuyers typically incur when each type of hard regulatory cost is imposed. When estimating these additional costs, long-term assumptions (on items such as loan terms and profit margins) are used to produce estimates that http://www.nahb.org/elilresearchlhousino,-economics/special-studies/how-c,overmnent-rec,ul... 1/6/2016 Page 3 of 7 reflect normal economic times, rather than current credit/housing market conditions which are historically anomalous and unsustainable. Each of these assumptions is listed and documented in an appendix (also available in the "Additional Resources" box). Regulation During Development Question 5 on the April NAHB survey asked respondents with land development experience about six different types of delays and hard costs associated with the development process. Item response rates were relatively high, with at least 131 of the 140 eligible respondents providing a usable answer to each of the first five parts of the question. Only 120 responded to the sixth part, which asked about changes in development requirements over the past 10 years. Most of the non -responders to part six indicated that they couldn't answer because they were not developing lots 10 years ago. In order to analyze variation in regulatory costs, a consistent sample across all parts of the question is desirable, to allow for the possibility that some costs may be high in areas where others are low. Forexample, higher costs of applying for subdivision approval could, in theory, be offset by more expeditious processing and reduced time to obtain the approval. The analysis of regulatory costs during development is based on 135 respondents who answered at least three of the first four parts of question 5. In the relatively few cases where a particular response was missing for one of these, it was imputed at the average for those who responded. The imputation has no effect on average cost estimates and, due to the relatively small number of irnputations, only a minor effect on the high -low cost spreads reported in Table 2. Table 2. Estimated Impact of Regulation During Development A. Regulatory costs in the price of the finished tot sold to a builder "Low" Average .High" ` "Pure" cost of delay 0.8% S.9% 11.0% Cost of applying for zoning I subdivision approval 0.0% U15% 23.4% Costs incurred after approval / before construction 0.7% 13.2% 25,6% Value of land dedicated I left unbuilt 0.0% 10.3% 20,6% Impact of changes in development standards 3.2% 16.4% 29.6% Total 23.0% 57.3% 91.7% B. Regulatory costs in the price of the home sold to the ultimate buyer .. ... "Low"' Average "High"' "Pure" cost of delay 0.2% 1.7°% 3.1% Cost of applying for zoning 1 subdivision approval 0.0% 3.3% 6.7% Costs incurred after approval i before construction 0.2% 3.8% 7.3°% Value of land dedicated I left unbuilt 0.0% 2.9°% 5.9% Impact of changes in development standards 0.9% 4.7% 8.5% Total 6.6% 16.4% 26.2% 'Nvmt,L-rS in the "ItrK' and "high columns are one standard dcwation array from the average, hounded at Zero on the loan end. Due to the o`fsesing tendency for certain types of costs to be low in areas where others are high, rows in the "toe!' and "high" columns mil not sura to the total. Pure cost of delay assurnes that governments impose no regulatory costs at all other than !ha delay. and that raw land is 10.6% (and the ivnished lot 23.7%) of the final house price. Increase in final home p: ice assumes the finished lot accounts for 23.745 of the Final house price, and increases the dollar cost of the lot by 20.396 to acca.,nt for points and interest on a roan, brokers fees, and bu Ideft retu`n on equity. source: survey used to generate the KAHS.Welis Fargo W.M. April 2011; carious assumptions as described in Tab'd 1 and iho Appendix. The estimates in Table 2 show that, on average, regulation accounts for a little over 57 percent of the price of a developed lot. The average impacts of the individual components range from just under 6 percent for a "pure" cost of delay to over 16 percent for changes in development standards, such as setbacks and road widths. The pure cost of delay is the estimated cost that the delays of waiting for approval and complying with development regulations would impose in the absence of any other type of regulatory cost.[2] http://www.nahb.org/enlresearcl-ilhousing-economics/special-studies/how-goveriunent-regul 1/6/2016 Page 4 of 7 Delay also factors into the other regulatory costs listed in Table 2 through higher interest payments on land acquisition and development loans. Follow-up conversations with survey respondents revealed that some of them were able to estimate the cost of current development standards more easily than the incremental cost due to changes over the past 10 years. The survey thus provides data on costs associated with development requirements, but these should probably not be rigidly interpreted as costs that materialized over precisely the last 10 -year period. Several land developers expressed an interest in seeing a range of regulatory costs, rather than just averages. For that reason, Table 2 shows "high" and "low" costs, calculated at one standard deviation from the average. Other ways to generate a high -low spread are difficult to implement here due to the nature of the survey data, especially the large share of respondents providing information about costs during construction but not development. In practice, most of the highs shown in this article occur at roughly the 90th percentile of a cost distribution (i.e., roughly 10 percent of respondents report costs at least this high). The averages in Table 2 are additive, but the "highs" and "lows" generally are not. At the low end of the scale, it is relatively common for developers to report zero cost for one category of regulation, but not for all five. Thus, the "low" cost of regulation imposed during development is 23 percent of the finished lot price, much higher than the sum of the "lows" for individual cost categories. The survey sample was neither large enough nor stratified in a way to permit detailed geographic analysis, but it was possible to see that regulatory delays tended to be somewhat longer, and hard costs of applying for subdivision approval somewhat higher, in the Northeast Census region. Table 2 also shows regulatory development costs as a percentage of the final price of the house. The calculations assume that a finished lot accounts for 23.7 percent of the house price and that the builder also incurs associated costs that increase this by 20.5 percent based on the considerations described in Table 1 and the assumptions described in the Appendix. The bottom line is that regulation during development on average accounts for 16.4 percent of the final price of a single-family home. Regulation During Construction The April 2011 survey concluded with a two-part question on regulation during construction. Estimates of regulatory costs during this phase of the project are based on 302 respondents who provided usable answers to either part of the question. A total of 294 answered the first part, and 283 answered the second, which dealt with changes in building codes over the past 10 years. Most who answered part one but not part two indicated that they were not building homes 10 years ago. Two responses indicating that code changes had caused construction costs to increase by more than 35 percent were deleted as unreasonably high outliers. In cases where usable answers were provided for one part of the question but not the other, the missing value was imputed at the average for those who provided responses. The resulting impacts of regulation on construction costs are shown in Table 3. http://www.nalib.org/enlresearchlhousing-economics/special-studies/how-goveriunent-regul... 1/6/2016 Page 5 of 7 Table 3. Estimated Impact of Regulation During Construction 11 A, Regulatory cosh as a share of construction costs "Lown ' Average "High" ' Permit, hook-up, impact, other fees paid by builder 0.00/0 5.8% 12.3% Changes in codes / standards over past 10 years 1.1% 8.3% 15.5% Total 3.3% 14.1% 24.9% B. Regulatory costs in the final price of the home sold to the ultimate buyer "Low"" Average "High"' Permit, honk -up, impact, other fees paid by builder 0.0% 3,6%. 7.5% Changes in codes / standards over past 10 years 0.6% 5.1% 9.5% Total -__ 2.0% 8.6% 15.3% 'Numbers in the "loW' and "YqW co.umns are one standard deviation away from the average, bounded at sera on the low and, Because the impact of code changes and fees are not perfectly correlated urith each other, rows in the "loW' and "high" columns will not sum to the total. Increase in final home price assumes construction costs &=unt for 521% of the house price arxi aye Inumsed by 16.0% to account for points and interest on a loan, brokers fees, and return on equity.. Sources: Survey used to generate the t+IAHBfwefls Fargo Wdl, April 2071: aa. -ictus assumptions as described in Table 1 and the Appendrz The estimates in Table 3 show that, on average, regulation accounts for a tittle over 14 percent of construction costs. Of this, a little under 6 percent is the cost of actual fees, and the rest is the cost of changes to construction codes and standards over the past 10 years. In contrast to development requirements, respondents seemed to have little trouble assessing the impacts of construction code changes over the past 10 years (provided they were building homes 10 years ago). Although it doesn't necessarily imply that recent code changes have been in some sense excessive, it is still useful to remember that, as of 10 years ago, building codes had already been well established in most parts of the country for decades and typically revised many times during that span. Regionally, the impact of code changes on construction costs was higher in the Northeast and West than in the Midwest and South. Actual construction fees paid by builders were higher in the West than in the other 3 regions. The West region, of course, includes California where particular types of fees are known to be especially high. In the 2010 survey of impact fees conducted by Duncan Associates, for example (http://www.impactfees.com/publications0/020pdf/2010_survey,pdf , the state average impact fee for a standard single-family home in California was nearly $32,000—over twice the average fee for the next highest state (Oregon, which is also in the West). Table 3 also shows regulatory costs imposed during the construction phase as a percentage of the final house price. These calculations assume that construction costs account 52.9 percent of the house price and that the costs are increased by 16.025 percent before being passed on to the buyer, based on the assumptions described in Table 1 and the Appendix. The bottom line is that regulation imposed during actual construction of a single-family home accounts for, on average, 8.6 percent of the horne's final sale price. Summary and Conclusion This article describes that way NAHB has recently addressed the issue of regulatory costs embodied in the price of a home through special questions on the monthly survey that underpins the NAHB/Wells Fargo HMI. Responses to these questions were averaged and associated costs were included using average long- run assumptions about loan terms, profit margins, and time lags between different phases of the construction project to show that, on average 1) regulation imposed during development accounts for 16.4 of the price of a home built forsale, 2) regulation imposed during construction accounts for 8.6 percent of the price. Thus, in total, 25.0 percent of the price of an average single-family home built for sale is attributable to regulation imposed by all units of government at various points along the development/construction process (Table 4). http://www.nahb.org/en/research/housing-economics/special-studies/how-goveriunent-regul... 1/6/2016 Page 6 of 7 Table 4. Total Regulatory Costs in the Final Price of a Home "Low" ` Average "High"' Regulatory costs incurred during development 6.6% 16.4% 26.2% Regulatory costs incurred during construction 2.16 8.6% 15.3% Total 14.1% 25.0% 35.9% 'Numbers in the "low" and "high" columns are one standard deviation away from the average. Because costs incurred during development and construction are not perfectly correlated with each other, rows in the "low" and "high" columns will notsum to the total. Source: Survey used to generate the NAHB/Wells Fargo HMI, Aprill 2011; various assumptions as described in Table 1 and the Appendix. The table also shows the spread between "high" and "low" costs of regulation, using a conventional statistical technique is used to control for lack of perfect correlation between regulatory costs incurred during development and construction.[3] Other tables in the article break down these cost impacts according to different categories of regulation—delays in the development process, changes in building codes, etc. The breakdown may be useful for local jurisdictions trying to assess how much the affordability of new homes could be improved by reducing particular regulatory burdens, or how affordability may be adversely impacted by new regulations. Estimates of regulation in the price of a new home may also be useful in national discussions. Over the past few years, for example, it has become relatively common for proposed federal legislation to contain provisions encouraging local jurisdictions to adopt particulartypes of building codes or land development patterns. An informed discussion of these proposals should recognize that regulation already on average accounts for one-fourth of a new home's purchase price. Several other, related items policymakers way wish to keep in mind: employment in residential construction is down almost 1.5 million from its peak -,[41 a similar number of jobs have been lost in related industries (such as manufacturing, trade, and professional services) because homes are not being built;[5] builders are already reporting new homes appraising at less than the cost required to produce them.[5] Thus, in orderto restore the millions of jobs lost in home building and related industries—even if the macro economy improves so Americans return to normal rates of household formation and home buying, and even if credit markets improve so loans can be obtained to build and buy new homes—it would be necessary to overcome regulations that already account for 25 percent of the price of a new home in markets where new homes sometimes appraise for less than it costs to build them. The regulatory cost estimates in this article could only be produced thanks to the efforts of individual builders who provided high-quality answers to a fairly onerous set of survey questions. The NAHB Economics and Housing Policy Group would therefore like to express gratitude to the panel of builders who responded to the April 2011 HMI survey and took the time to answer the questions on regulatory costs. Resources: Download the Full Article (PDF) Survey Questionnaire (PDF) Appendix (PDF) See other Special Studies Foornotes: [1] Responding to special questions on the March 2011 HMI survey, nearly three-fourths of builders indicated that their firm had, at that time, stopped acquiring single-family lots. http://www.nahb.or-lenlresearclilhousinc,-economics/special-studies/how-goveriunent-regul... 1/6/2016 Page 7 of 7 [2] The pure cost of delay also assumes that land is purchased at the time of application for subdivision approval. Alternatives are possible, such as purchasing a call option on the land to be exercised at a later date, which, if adopted as a general strategy would result in costs for options not exercised. Equilibrium in land and credit markets would tend to equate costs of the alternatives. [3] The number of respondents who provided information about construction costs but not development costs was too large to disregard, or to address through imputation. Total costs were thus treated as the sum of two dependent random variables, with an estimated covariance of -.00109, based on the subsample of the survey providing usable information for both development and construction costs. In addition, sample variances were .00964 for the regulatory development costs and .00441 for the regulatory construction costs; so a resulting standard deviation of .10889 was used to generate the high - tow spread for total regulatory costs shown on the bottom line of Table 4. [4] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Current Employment Statistics. [5] See Table 2 in NAHB's study on "The Direct Impact of Home Building and Remodeling on the U.S. Economy". [6] For example, in response to special questions on the August 2010 HMI survey, two-thirds of builders said they had experienced appraisals below their contract sales price. Of these, over half had experienced appraisals below their cost of production. Related Resources Breaking Down House Price and Construction Costs GSE and FHA Loan Limit Changes for 2011: Scope of Impact Households Priced -Out by Higher House Prices and Interest Rates http://www.nahb.org/en/researchlhousing-economics/special-studies/how-govermllent-regul... 1/6/2016 Page 1 of 5 000000",Z-- .71 I-- (0)About NAHB / BuilderBooks / HBA Resources / How To Join / Shop Search Home >Research >Housing Economics > State and Metro Area House Prices: the "Priced Out" Effect August 1, 2014 By Natalia S. Siniayskaia, Ph.D. Report available to the public as a courtesy of HousingEconomics.com One of the often overlooked impacts of building regulations is their effect on housing affordability. Every time a local or higher level government issues a new construction regulation it raises construction costs by, for example, increasing the price of construction permits or impact fees. Higher costs invariably translate into higher horne prices and higher prices in turn disqualify more households from being able to afford new homes. NAHB Economics relies on its Priced Out model to evaluate effects of pending new regulations on housing affordability in local markets. The model estimates how many households can qualify for a mortgage before and after a house price increase. The resulting difference is the number of priced out households. NAHB regularly updates the Priced Out model to account for changing economic environment. This article presents and discusses the new 2014 priced out estimates for the United States and 324 metro areas. The 2014 estimates show that nationally a $1,000 increase in the home price leads to pricing out about 206,269 households. The size of the impacts varies across states and metro areas and largely depends on their population, income distribution and new home prices. The Priced Out Methodology and Data Most home buyers take out a mortgage to finance a purchase of a new home, so the Priced Out model uses ability to qualify fora mortgage as an affordability standard. To qualify for conventional loans, housing expenses should not exceed 28 percent of homebuyers' gross monthly income. Monthly housing costs include principal and interest on the mortgage, property taxes and homeowner's Insurance - often abbreviated as "PITI". The affordability standard is thus a ratio of housing expenses to income, and the number of households that qualify for a mortgage to buy a home of a given price will depend on the income of households in an area and current mortgage rates. The American Community Survey (ACS) which replaced the decennial Census long form provides the detailed income distribution for the United States and all states and metro areas with population of 65,000 people or more annually. The most recent income estimates are now available for2012. To adjust for expected 2012-2014 income growth, NAHB uses the annual estimates of median family income published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for every state and county. The 2014 estimates were made available in December 2013[1]. To adjust for population growth, NAHB relies on annual household estimates reported by the ACS and extrapolates the most recent household growth into 2014. Table below shows the projected US household income distribution that underlies the 2014 priced out estimates. http://www.nahb.org/enlresearchfhousing-economics/special-studies/state-and-metro-area-h... 1/6/2016 Page 2 of 5 US Household Income Distribution for 2014 Income Range: Households I Cumulative $0 to $10,219 9,037,576 9,037,576 $10,220 to $15,328 6,661,937 15,699,513 $15,329 to $20,438 6,469,445 22,168,958 $20,439 to $25,548 6,6410,002 28,808,960 $25,549 to $30,658 6,039,287 34,848,247 $30,659 to $35,768 6,199,590 41,047,837 $35,769 to $40,877 5,664,673 46,712,511 $40,878 to $45,987 5,635,887 52,348,398 $45,988 to $51,097 4,943,760 57,292,157 $51,098 to $61,317 9,372,913 66,665,070 $61,318 to $76,646 11,849,492 78,514,562 $76,647 to $102,195 14,015,339 92,529,901 $102,196 to $127,744 9,281,283 101,811,184 $127,745 to $153,293 5,330,786 107,141,970 $153,294 to $204,391 5,436,702 112,578,672 $204,392 to More 1 5,371,513 117,950,185 Other assumptions used in the priced out calculations are a down payment equal to 10 percent of the purchase price and a 30 -year fixed rate mortgage. The mortgage interest rate is set at 4.5 percent with zero points. For this typical loan, the model also assumes lenders require private mortgage insurance with an annual premium of 45 basis points[2]. Effective local property tax rates come from the 2012 ACS. The ACS reports both median home values and real estate taxes paid and, thus, allows estimating the effective property tax rates for all metro areas. For the US, the rnedian rate is $12 per $1,000 of property value. Property hazard insurance rates are constructed based on the 2007 ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)[3]. For the US as a whole, the insurance rates work out to $5 per $1,000 of property value. House Prices The priced out analysis requires a representative house price as a starting point. Data availability pretty much limits the choices to basic summary statistics, like the median or average home price. Of the two, the median usually makes a better starting point for priced -out calculations, as the average tends to be skewed upward by a handful of expensive homes, while the median typically lies in the center of the price range where more new homes are built. To analyze changes in regulatory or other construction costs, prices of new homes are most relevant, since new homes are the ones directly affected by new regulations. The median new home price for the United States is set at $275,000 for 2014. It is based on monthly median new home prices reported by the Census Bureau over 2013 and the first four months of 2014. First, the average of monthly medians is estimated over 2013. It is then adjusted for expected inflation based on price appreciation that took place over the first four months of 2014. To estimate median new home prices for states and metropolitan areas, NAHB relies on data reported by the 2013 Census Bureau's Building Permits Survey and Survey of Construction (SOC). The Permits Survey provides both the number and http://www.nahb.org/enlresearch/housing-economics/special-studies/state-and-metro-area-h... 1/6/2016 Page 3 of 5 aggregate value of new housing units authorized by building permits and, thus, allows calculating average permit values for all states and metro areas. For metro areas where average permit values are highly volatile and likely to have a large margin of error, the averages are smoothed out across most recent years. Permit values, however, do not include brokerage commissions, marketing/finance costs, the cost of raw land and may not include the cost of lot's development. These additional costs are likely to differ across geographic areas but not available for metro areas. Nevertheless, the SOC provides enough data to tabulate median new home prices for all nine Census divisions and, consequently, division -wide ratios of median new home prices to average permit value. The ratios are then used as scaling mark-ups to convert state and metro average permit values into median new home prices. The resultant median new home prices range from less than $116,704 in Brownsville -Harlingen, TX to more than $878,625 in Bridgeport -Stamford - Norwalk, CT (see Table 2). Metro Priced Out Results Table 1 and Table 2 present the priced out results and data that underlie the estimates for all states and 324 metropolitan areas. In addition to median new home prices, the tables display income needed to qualify for a mortgage to buy a median price new and the number of households that will be priced out of the market for a new home if its price increases by $1,000. A typical household in Brownsville -Harlingen, TX, where half of all new homes are sold for less than $116,704, needs an annual income of $35,831 to qualify for a mortgage, while a household in Bridgeport -Stamford -Norwalk, CT will need to earn $240,996 to qualify for a new home loan. Clearly, these differences are driven by large divergences in new home prices across metropolitan areas. The more expensive new homes, the higher monthly principal and interest payments, the higher income required to qualify for a mortgage. But the relationship is not always linear as property tax and insurance payments also affect monthly housing costs. For example, even though Brownsville -Harlingen, TX metro area has the lowest median price new homes, the income needed to qualify for a mortgage to buy these homes are not the lowest in the nation. Sumter, SC, Florence -Muscle Shoals, AL, Valdosta, GA, Clarksville, TN -KY all have new homes that are more expensive but require a lower income to qualify for a mortgage. This is a result of higher property tax and insurance payments in Texas. Next, the priced out model estimates how many households in each state and metro area actually earn enough income to qualify for new home loans. Not surprisingly, in Bridgeport -Stamford -Norwalk, CT rnetro area where new homes largely target the high income households, only 1 percent of all households residing in this metro area earn enough money to qualify for a new home loan. Among other metro areas with least affordable new homes are Buffalo -Niagara Falls, NY, Barnstable Town, MA, Sebastian -Vero Beach, FL, and Napa, CA where less than 15 percent of all households can afford a median price new home. In sharp contraststand metro areas like Dover, DE and Jacksonville, NC where two out of three households residing in these metros can afford a median -priced new home. These differences translate into different effects of adding $1,000 to a new home price. When starting affordability of new homes is low the priced out effects will be small since they would only affect a few households at the thin end of the household income distribution. On the contrary, if new homes are widely affordable, rising home prices would affect a bigger slice of households in the thicker part of the income distribution and the priced out effects will be larger. Increasing a price of a new home in New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -PA, by $1,000 disqualifies 5,742 households from buying a new home. This is by far the largest priced out effect among metropolitan areas, mainly as a result of being the most populous metro area with more than 7 million households. The second largest number of priced out households is in Chicago -Naperville -Joliet, IL -IN -WI, where more than 5,325 households are priced out. The Chicago metro is half the size of the New -York metro area but the priced out effects are similarly large. This is because the Chicago area is relatively more affordable to begin with. Close to a third of all local households are able to afford new homes here while in the New -York area only 19 percent of households can qualify for new home mortgages before any price hikes. Los Angeles -Long Beach -Santa Ana, CA - the second most populous metro area with more than 4 million households but low affordability - registers only the sixth highest number of priced out households, 3,813. Ahead of Los Angeles on the priced - out effects list are three large metro areas with more affordable new homes. In Houston -Sugar Land -Baytown, TX and Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA, where almost half of all households can afford new homes, the priced out effects exceed http://www.nahb.org/enlresearcli/housing-economics/special-studies/state-and-metro-area-h... 1/6/2016 Page 4 of 5 4,000 households. In Philadelphia -Camden -Wilmington, PA -NJ -DE -MD where 41 percent of households can afford new homes an increase in new home price of $1,000 disqualifies 3,914 households. At the other end of the spectrum are small and often unaffordable high new home priced metropolitan areas. In Barnstable Town, MA where half of all new hornes sell for more than $616,381, adding another thousand to a price, affects only 24 households, since there were only a few of them who could afford such expensive new homes in the first place. In Napa, CA, where new homes are similarly unaffordable the priced out effects are only limited to 19 households. Looking at the affordable metro areas, where close or more than fifty percent of households can afford new homes, the priced out effects are typically large and can often disqualify thousands of new home buyers, as in case of Houston -Sugar Land -Baytown, TX, Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA, Las Vegas -Paradise, NV MSA, Baltimore -Towson, MD among other metro areas. Among the states, Texas registers the highest priced out effects where more than 18,000 households can be pushed out of the market for a median -priced new home here if its price increases by $1,000. California that is more populous but has less affordable new homes register the second highest priced out effects -14,423 households. Conclusion Quite frequently and often unintentionally local regulations raise construction costs and trigger hikes in home prices. NAHB consistently relies on the priced out model to estimate the impacts of price changes. Even though the model does neither answer all questions nor estimate effects of regulation on new home sales or housing starts, it highlights often overlooked effects of regulation on affordability of new homes. The new 2014 estimates show that, in relatively affordable metro areas, hundreds and sometimes thousands of households can be priced out of the new home markets as a result of prices rising by $1000. Note: Regulatory Costs Boost Home Prices by up to 39 Percent More than Building Fee Increases Hidden in median new home prices is the cost of government regulations. NAHB research shows that, on average, regulations imposed by government at all level account for 25 percent of the final price of a new single family home built for sale[4]. Every time a local or regional government raises construction costs by, for example, increasing the price of construction permits or impact fees, the cost of building a house rises. In fact, the final price of the home to the buyers will usually go up by more than the increase in the government fee. This is because each time construction costs increase other costs such as commissions and financing charges automatically rise as well. As a result, most cost increases are passed on to the buyers with additional charges. The size of these charges depends both on the type of fee/cost increase and when it is imposed in the development/construction process. NAHB estimates that the add-on charges range from 0 percent if a fee is imposed directly on buyers to 39 percent if cost is incurred when applying for site development approval (see Table 3). So that for every $1 increase in fees incurred, for example, when acquiring a building permit, the final price of a new home to its final customer rises by $1.20. Alternatively, every $833 increase in fees results in a $1,000 increase in house prices. Table 3: Additional Charges on Building Fees Building Costs/Fees Add-on Charges Imposed directly on buyer W/O During construction 1610 At start of construction 18% When building permit acquired 2€P/o Durl ng development 37% When applying for site development approval 39% Resources: Download the Full Article (PDF) Table 1- Metro (PDF) http://Www.nahb.org/enlresearchlhousing-economics/special-studies/state-and-metro-area-h... 1/6/2016 Page 5 of 5 Table 2 - State (PDF) See other Special Studies Footnotes: [1] In cases, where counties comprising a metro area are estimated to have different median incomes, an estimate for the county containing the core urban area listed first in the name of the metro area is set to represent the median family income for the entire metro area. [2] In the PITI formula, mortgage insurance is essentially treated as part of the interest payment. Like interest on the loan, it is a percentage of the declining mortgage balance. [3] Producing metro level estimates from the ACS PDMS involves aggregating PUMA level data according to the latest definitions of metropolitan areas. Due to complexity of these procedures and since metro level insurance rates tend to remain stable over time, NAHB revises these estimates only periodically. [4] See P. Emrath "How Government Regulation Affects the Price of a New Home", Housing Economics Online, July 2011. CONTACTS Natalia Siniayskaia 202-266-8441 nsiniayskaia@nahb.org Related Resources A $1,000 Increase in Home Prices Keeps More than 200,000 Households Out of the Market GSE and FHA Loan Limit Changes for 2011: Scope of Impact Economic Effects of a Policy to Stimulate Home Buying http://www.nahb.org/enlresearchlhousinb economics/special-studies/state-and-metro-area-h... 1/6/2016 Page 1 of 5 -1-0 (0)About NAHB / BuilderBooks / HBA Resources / How To Join / Shop Search Home > Research > Housing Economics > Interest Rates and House Prices: the "Priced Out" Effect Housing Policy, March 11, 2005 by Paul Emrath Ph.D Report available to the public as a courtesy of HousingEconomics.com A question that economists at NAHB are often called upon to answer is, "What happens to housing affordability?" when either interest rates or house prices go up. The most straightforward way of answering begins with a representative house price and interest rate, changes one of those parameters, and then observes the impact on affordability. The most convenient concept of affordability to use is based on mortgage underwriting standards. Under those standards, the question becomes, "How many households can qualify for a mortgage before the change, but not afterwards?" Those are the households that are effectively `priced out' of the market for a home. Applying this method to the U.S. as whole shows that in 2005 — under typical assumptions about the nature of the mortgage, property taxes, and insurance — 25 basis points tacked on to the mortgage rate will price about 1.2 million households out of the market forthe median -priced new home. A $5,000 increase in the price of the home has a similar impact, also pricing out about 1.2 million households. The same method can be applied to individual metro areas. The size of the impacts varies across metros, for the obvious reason that U.S. metropolitan areas themselves vary in size and therefore contain drastically different numbers of households to price out. In the 318 metro areas studied here, the impacts of a 25 -basis point interest rate hike and $5,000 increase in the median new home price range from fewer than 200 households priced out of the market in some of the smaller metros to more than 20,000 in metro areas like Chicago, Houston, and Washington, DC. The Priced Out Calculation Most home buyers take out a mortgage (according to the Census Bureau's 2003 American Housing Survey, welt over three- fourths of the owners who reported moving within the past year also reported having at least one mortgage), so it's reasonable to use ability to qualify for a mortgage as an affordability standard. A qualifying criterion used by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines limits the "front end ratio" (also known as "PIT[" for Principal and Interest on the mortgage, plus property Taxes and homeowner's Insurance) to 28 per cent of household income. Mortgage originators sell about half of their conventional loans within a year, so acceptability of these loans to the secondary market is an important consideration, and originators for that reason are inclined to follow the Fannie/Freddie guidelines. Many of them in fact use a standard application form developed jointly by Fannie and Freddie.[' http://www.nahb.org/enlresearch/housing-economics/special-studies/interest-rates-and-hous... 1/6/2016 Page 2 of 5 Other underwriting standards are based on "back end" ratios, which incorporate consumer debt. From the standpoint of a priced -out calculation, the primary disadvantage of back end ratios is that sufficiently detailed information about household debt is not always available. The front end ratio, on the other hand, requires only an income distribution for the area of study. The impact of interest rate and house price changes on PITT is the same whether a front end or back end ratio is used. The affordability standard is thus a ratio of housing expenses to income, and the number of households that qualify for a mortgage to buy a home of a given price will depend on the income of households in an area. Reasonably detailed income distributions for all parts of the country are available from the Census Bureau, but not always for the current year, so they most often need to be adjusted for the most recent changes in population and incomes. To adjust for income growth, NAHB typically uses the estimates of median family income published each year by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for every state and county in the country. HUD published median income estimates for 2005 early in February. Population or households estimates rates are available from a number of government sources. Table 1 shows a U.S.household income distribution based on the number of households in the Census Bureau's Housing Vacancy Survey. The total number of U.S.households in 2005 is projected by applying the growth rate from the first half of 2004 to the number of households in 4th quarter of 2004. Table 1: 2005 Income Range: Households Cumulative $0 to $11,588 10,284,365 10,284,365 $11,589 to $17,383 6,800,951 17,085,316 $17,384 to $23,178 6,743,530 23,828,846 $23,179 to $28,972 7,085,686 30,914,531 $28,973 to $34,767 6,947,837 37,862,369 $34,768 to $40,562 6,863,272 44,725,641 $40,563 to $46,356 6,370,825 51,096,466 $46,357 to $52,151 6,094,666 57,191,13.3 $52,152 to $57,946 5,357,429 62,548,561 $57,947 to $69,535 9,743,074 72,291,635 $69,536 to $86,919 11,240,983 83,5.32,618 586,920 to $115,892 11,032,390 94,565,008 $115,893 to $144,866 5,610,083 100,175,091 $144,867 to $173;339 2,713,647 102,888,738 $173,840 to $231,786 2,.372,169 1051260,907 $231,787 or More 12,556,705 1107,817,612 Other assumptions used in the priced out calculations are a downpayment equal to 10 percent of the purchase price and a 30 -year fixed rate mortgage. For a loan like that, the calculations also assume lenders require private mortgage insurance with an annual premium of 45 basis points.- Effective property tax and hazard insurance rates can be constructed from decennial Census data.`'] Forthe U.S.as a whole, the rates work out to $11.27 per $1,000 of property value for property taxes and $3.06 per $1,000 of property value for insurance. Under these conditions, 39.7 million of the 107.8 million U.S.households could afford to buy the median priced new home in 2005 -assuming that they pay a 5.75% interest rate on the mortgage. This is different from the number of households that currently own a home, but of course current owners bought their homes at different times in the past, when house prices and the othervariables that go into the analysis were sometimes quite different. Interest Rates http://www.nahb.org/enlresearchlhousing-economics/special-studies/interest-rates-and-hous... 1/6/2016 Page 3 of 5 If the mortgage rate rises, the monthly mortgage payments will be higher and some of the 39.7 million households will no longer qualify to purchase the home. The size of the priced -out effect depends in part on the starting house price. A median price of $224,400 for new homes in 2005 was generated by starting with the Census Bureau's median price for new homes sold in 2004 and assuming one year of inflation at 2.5 percent, based on NAHB's forecast for changes in the Consumer Price Index. Figure 1 shows the number of households priced out of the market for a $224,400 home by each 25 basis -point increase in the mortgage rate between 5.75% and 7.00%. The figure shows that an increase in the mortgage rate from 5.75% to 6.00% will price about 1.2 million households out of the market, and the increases from 6.00% to 6.25% and 6.50% wilt have comparable impacts. Above that, the impacts begin to taper off slightly, so that boosting the interest rate from 6.75% to 7.00% prices about 950,000 households out of the market. The tapering off occurs, because we are moving into a slightly thinner part of the U.S.income distribution, where there somewhat fewer households to be priced out. House Prices House prices may go up for many reasons. Some are the result of changes in demand, such as those driven by rising household incomes. The priced -out calculation, however, is designed to estimate the impacts of something that takes place on the supply side of the market—conditions somehow changing so that it becomes more costly to deliver a home to its final consumer. An example often encountered by developers is an impact fee. If an impact or other construction -related fee goes up, all else equal, the price of the home will go up and fewer households wilt be able to afford it. In fact, the final price of the home to the buyer will usually go up by more than the increase in the fee. The reason is that, when costs of construction and development rise, other costs such as commissions and financing charges also rise. Rates of return to home building also need to remain competitive with other investments, or businesses will leave the industry until the rates even out. As a result, most cost increases are passed on to the buyerwith a mark-up. The size of the mark-up depends both on the type of cost increase and when it's imposed in the development/construction process. NAHB has estimated that a $1 increase in impact fees imposed at the time of development will typically raise the price of a house to its final customer by $1.25. So an increase of $5,000 in the price of the home is consistent with an increase of $4,000 in impact fees, the way many of the fees are imposed. If the price of the median -priced home goes up by $5,000 (from $224,400 to $229,400), the effect is similar to a 25 basis -point interest rate hike, pricing out about 1.2 million U.S. households (Figure 2). The size of the priced out effect is largely a function of the income distribution in Table 1. The $5,000 price increase stays within the same part of the distribution, simplifying the process of approximating the impacts for smaller price changes. The impact of each $1,000 price increase in that range, for instance, is roughly one-fifth of the $5,000 impact, or about 240,000 households priced out of the market. As the house price gets higher and higher, the problem again shifts into a F,=;,n? <. US HDUSEhr_.;'sPricaSCiutat,;,y thinner part of the income distribution with fewer households to be t�t� k3t t moraas�s .[hr- Median Hcue ,:52a , RT priced out. The last $5,000 price increase at the right of Figure 2 prices an additional 930,000 households out of the market. Over most of the price z sa.Wa 2.415 Al E http://www.nahb.org/en/research/housing-economics/special-studies/interest-rates-and-hous... 1/6/2016 points a developer is likely to be interested in, the number of households priced out tends to become smaller as the house price goes up.l4i Individual Metros Page 4 of 5 e t 238.?69 f l i22c,W3 fr :�ep30 &:3430 5.3??37 j:�i4 sG] i'tcd?33 An advantage of the priced -out method outlined above is that it can easily be adapted to local markets. NAHB has often applied the method to smaller geographic areas, as many of the crucial supply-side effects that drive up house prices—e.g., impact fees and constraints on land use—are imposed at the local level. The most recent data source providing household income distributions for a large number of local areas is the 2000 Census. Using the Census data, the number of households priced out of the market by a 25 -basis point interest rate hike and a $5,000 price increase were calculated for 318 metro areas.`51 It makes little sense to use the same price for all metro areas, as a representative new home price for, say, Pine Bluff Arkansas would seem inappropriate in a high-priced metro area like San Francisco, so the analysis is based on an estimated median new home price that varies from metro to metro.[Gl The number of households priced out of the market for a median -priced new home by a 25 -basis point interest rate increase (from 5.75% to 6.00%) ranges from 78 in Syracuse, NY to 26,652 in Chicago, IL. The number priced out by a $5,000 increase in the house price varies from 139 in Syracuse to 22,292 in Houston, TX. As a general rule, the house -price effect tends to be high relative to the interest -rate effect in metro areas that start out with lower median new home prices. House price effects would be more similar across metros, and therefore perhaps easier to compare, if they were based on a percentage change in the price, rather than a straight $5,000 increase. Experience has shown, however, that the largest share of NAHB's audience is most interested in house price increases, expressed in dollar terms, within a particular market area. Summary and Conclusion This article describes the priced out analysis that NAHB uses frequently to estimate the impacts of changes in housing markets. The analysis shows the number of households that will no longer be able to afford a particular home if either its price or interest rates go up. The article also gives numerical examples for the U.S.as a whole, as well as for several hundred metro areas. The results of a priced out analysis don't answer all possible questions, such as, "How many households will not buy a house when they otherwise would have?" or "What will the resulting reduction in home building be?" Although these are important questions, doing a good job of answering them requires a complex economic model that addresses issues such as the willingness of households to accept homes that are somewhat smaller or have fewer amenities to achieve affordability, how different segments of a local housing market are related to one another, and how builders will adjust the product they build when affordability problems are on the rise. An analysis that substitutes crude assumptions for this type of complex modeling will be difficult to justify, especially to a skeptical audience. In contrast, the priced out effect is relatively easy to understand and justify, straightforward to calculate, and available for any local housing market in the U.S. Download Households Priced Out of the Market fora New Home in 2005, by Metro Area: Tables (Excel) http://www.nahb. org/enlresearchlhousing-economics/special-studies/interest-rates-and-hous.. 1/6/2016 Page 5 of 5 Footnotes: [1] In recent years, automated underwriting has become more common. This form of underwriting automatically examines many borrower characteristics to assess ability to make loan payments, so the simple front end ratio is not as important to the secondary market as it used to be. [2] In the PIT] formula, mortgage insurance is essentially treated aspart of the interest payment. Like interest on the loan, it is a percentage of the declining mortgage balance. [3] Property Taxes in the 2000 Census [4] Seethe NAHB Housing Affordability Pyramid [5] To estimate income distributions in 2005, HUD median income estimates are first used to inflate the income ranges. Then the number of households in each range is adjusted for population growth, using data either from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey or the Regional Economic Information System from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. As these data are generally available only through 2003, recent growth rates are used to project population levels to the middle of 2005. [6] There is no convenient source for median new home prices. To estimate them for a large number of metros, it's necessary to combine data from a variety of sources. For the metro area table discussed in this article, information from the 2000 Census, National Association of REALTORS existing home prices, OFHEO repeat sales indices, and regional new home prices from the Census Bureau's Survey of Construction were used. Some of the estimates are betterthan others, and readers should not assume they are extremely precise in all cases. CONTACTS Paul Emrath 202-266-8449 pemrath@nahb.org Related Resources Home Operating Costs Housing Opportunity Index by Race/Ethnicity in 2010 How Government Regulation Affects the Price of a New Home http://www.nahb.org/enlresearchlhousing-economics/special-studies/interest-rates-and-hous... 1/6/2016 _r! (0)About NAHB / BuilderBooks / HBA Resources/ How To Join/ Shop Search Home > Research > Housing Economics > Page 1 of 2 Households Priced -Out by Higher House Prices and Interest Rates A question that NAHB Economics is often called upon to answer is "What happens to housing affordability?" when either interest rates or house prices go up. The NAHB Priced Out Model provides most straightforward answers. The model estimates that nationally a $1,000 increase in the home price leads to pricing out about 206,269 households out of the market for a median -priced new home. View the US income distribution and number of households priced out by a $1,000 price increase. The size of the impacts varies across metros and largely depends on their population and income distribution. "State and Metro Area House Prices: the "Priced Out" Effect" discusses the priced out results for more than 300 metropolitan areas. The article also explains the methodology that underlies the priced out estimates and can serve as a background document for any of the material in this section. For a brief explanation of the priced out model, view the one-page methodology document. The Priced Out Model also allows generating the Housing Affordability Pyramid. The pyramid shows that, as the price of a home goes up, there are fewer and fewer households in each tier who are able to afford it. For a brief explanation of the pyramid, view the introduction to the affordability pyramid. Prospective home buyers are also adversely affected when interest rates rise. The Priced Out Model estimates that as many as 1.2 million U.S. households can be priced out of the market for a median -priced new home by a quarter point increase in the rate on a 30 -year fixed rate mortgage. View the number of households priced -out by interest rate increases. A related issue is the difference between builder costs and the final price of a new home. When construction -related fees are imposed, the final price of the home to the buyers will usually go up by more than the increase in the government fee, as other builder costs, such as financing and broker commissions, also rise. NAHB estimates that the add-on charges range from 0 percent if a fee is imposed directly on buyers to 39 percent if cost is incurred when applying for site development approval. View NAHB's estimates of add-on charges on building fees. C014TACTS Natalia Siniayskaia 202-266-8441 nsiniayskaia@nahb.org Related Resources 11ttp://www.nahb.org/eiilresearchlhousing-economicslhousings-economic-impactlhousehold... 1/6/2016