Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Growth Scenarios, Beaverhead County, Montana

F in a l

The Sonoran Institute thanks the dedicated people who are contributing to successful community building and conservation in Beaverhead County, Montana. Although too numerous to mention individually, we thank the many volunteers, landowners and citizens who work so hard to keep Beaverhead County special.

Beaverhead County is indeed a spectacular place. It cups the southwest corner of Montana and is surrounded on three sides by the Continental Divide. The state’s larg- est county, Beaverhead includes four different mountain ranges: the Beaverhead Mountains of the Bitterroot Range; the Tendoys; the Centennial Range; and the Pio- neer Mountains. The County forms the headwaters of the Missouri River with two major basins – the Beaverhead River and the Big Hole River, and one significant river sub-basin, the Red Rock River.

In addition to Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Na- tional Forest, public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and state wildlife areas, large working ranches have preserved much of the open space of the county. Tourism and recreation, particularly fishing, have grown in recent years, broadening the economic base of agriculture, minerals, education, retail, and government.

The county has not seen the pace of rapid growth in the past 30 years that many other western Montana counties have experienced; however, the county government wisely is taking steps to address public concerns with the high costs of scattered development and the amount of land consumed by new subdivisions. Community residents have questions about how the rapid change will impact their communities. Rapid growth and economic change challenge the traditional social fabric of this rural Western community.

Beaverhead County’s greatest challenge in the coming decade could very well be deal- ing with the transformation of its rural economy. Community leaders will be called upon to creatively redefine the county’s economic base into a new rural economy that will be much different than it was 20 years ago.

This report, commissioned by Beaverhead County, provides information that can help guide future land use decisions. County Commissioners now have data detailing the projected impacts of various future growth scenarios, addressing matters such as growth patterns, transportation, fire protection, public safety, and county services. The Sonoran Institute is grateful to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, whose support funded the background research and analysis which provide the foundation for the report. We also wish to express our appreciation to Gabe Preston and Andrew Klotz, whose expert research and analysis made the report possible.

We would like to thank the numerous people we have met and learned from during our work in Beaverhead County. Their love of the land and passion for place are in- spiring. We hope that this report helps the county’s elected officials, staff, and residents as they grapple with the choices presented by future growth in the magnificent landscape that constitutes Beaverhead County.

Luther Propst

Executive Director, Sonoran Institute

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 4 Introduction ...... 7 Report Organization ...... 9 Residential Growth and Traffic ...... 11 Existing-Projected Residential...... 11 Existing-Projected Traffic ...... 11 Traffic Modeling and Methodology ...... 12 Numeric Results ...... 13 Geographic Results ...... 13 Dynamic Fiscal Impact Analysis...... 16 Roads Level of Service ...... 16 Sheriff’s Dept. Level of Service ...... 18 Dynamic Analysis...... 20 Geographic Results ...... 22 Fiscal Impact Analysis of Centralized County Services...... 24 Administration, Health, and Community Services Proportionate Share ...... 24 Administration Level of Service...... 24 County Health and Misc. County Services Level of Service ...... 25 Fire District Fiscal Analysis ...... 27 Projected Growth and Traffic ...... 27 Dynamic Fiscal Impact Analysis ...... 29 Dynamic Fiscal Summary...... 30 Vehicle Fuel Use, Resident Expenditures, and Emissions ...... 31

Project Contact: Gabe Preston, Managing Partner RPI Consulting Durango, Colorado 970.382.9886 [email protected]

Northern Rockies Office

201 S. Wallace Ave, Suite B3C

Bozeman, MT 59771 406.587.7331

January 2007

Tables and Figures

Figure 1 –Percent More Status Quo Costs than Alternative Scenario ...... 5 Figure 2 - Fire District Capital Expenditures by Scenario ...... 6 Figure 3 - Current and Projected Housing Units ...... 11 Figure 4 – Vehicle Miles Traveled by Scenario...... 13 Figure 5 - Percent Growth in Vehicle Miles by Alternative Base Year 2005 ...... 13 Table 1 - Roads Capital Facilities Detail ...... 16 Table 2 - Roads Level of Service ...... 16 Figure 6 - Non-Traffic Law Enforcement Proportionate Share...... 19 Figure 7 - Traffic Enforcement & Incident as Percent of Law Enforcement Funds…..19 Table 3 - Beaverhead County Crimes by Type ...... 19 Table 4 - Law Enforcement Level of Service ...... 20 Figure 8 - Roads and Law Enforcement O&M Annual Cost by Scenario ...... 20 Figure 9 - Roads and Law Enforcement Capital Improvements Cost by Scenario .. 22 Figure 10 - Administration, Health, & Other County Services Proportionate Share . 24 Table 5 - Administration Level of Service ...... 24 Table 6 - Health and Community Services Level of Service...... 25 Table 7 - Other County Services Level of Service ...... 25 Table 8 - Maintaining LOS for Admin, Health, and Other Services ...... 26 Table 9 - Maintaining LOS for Admin, Health, and Other Services (per unit) ...... 26 Figure 11 - Dillon Fire Department 2004-05 Incident Summary ...... 27 Figure 12 - Grasshopper Valley Fire District 2004-05 Incident Summary...... 27 Table 10 - Fire District Growth Factors ...... 29 Table 11 - Fire District Structure Protection Level of Service ...... 29 Table 12 - Fire District Fiscal Summary ...... 30 Figure 13 - Capital Improvement Costs by Scenario ...... 30 Figure 14- Operations and Maintenance Costs by Scenario...... 30 Figure 15 - Vehicle Miles Traveled on Highways + County Roads ...... 31 Figure 16 - Fuel Consumption by Scenario ...... 31 Figure 17 - Average Household Annual Fuel Expenditures by Scenario...... 32 Figure 18 - Annual CO2 Emissions by Scenario...... 32

Executive Summary

Amenity-driven, dispersed rural develop- amenity-rich areas throughout the West. ment patterns underway throughout the Northern Rockies are expensive to serve Recognizing that Beaverhead County, with basic government services. In Bea- Montana could experience the next wave verhead County, MT, more compact de- of rural residential development occur- velopment patterns in the future could ring in neighboring counties, county offi- save money by reducing the amount of cials became interested in seeing how driving and reducing infrastructure growth patterns play out. costs. Laying and maintaining infrastructure for traffic, enforcing traffic Sonoran Institute (SI) ran the status quo laws, and responding to accidents is scenario GIS model in Beaverhead expensive, but can be made less expen- County to see what it would look like if sive. By focusing development closer to the development patterns underway existing communities and near main continue into the future. To visualize arteries of the transportation network, and evaluate development patterns in a and allowing limited densities in prime prime agricultural land conservation sce- Key Findings: agricultural land, Beaverhead County nario, SI worked with county officials to Status quo scenario is 46% and its fire districts would save millions create an alternative scenario that limits more expensive for roads and of dollars. residential densities in prime agricultural bridges and 14% more areas. expensive for law Sonoran Institute’s Growth Model enforcement than the In 2005-06, Sonoran Institute’s North- Development Patterns and Traffic alternative scenario. ern Rockies office produced a GIS This spatially dynamic analysis evaluates Alternative scenario saves growth model that imitates the amenity- the fiscal implications of the status quo $5.5 million in one-time driven residential growth patterns that scenario (development patterns under- capital improvements costs. have evolved over the years in rural, Alternative scenario saves $300k annually, equivalent to Map 1 a countywide property tax of 19 mills.

Dillon Fire District operates at 44% higher annual expenses in status quo than in alternative scenario.

way continue) and the alternative To evaluate the different implications of scenario (reduced development in prime each scenario on the demand for trans- Roads that were agricultural land) on county government portation-related services and infrastruc- built to handle and fire districts. ture, RPI Analysts developed a custom GIS county travel demand model agricultural traffic The alternative scenario concentrates designed specifically to quantify the evolve into more future residential development amount of driving based on the location near existing communities and generally residential collector and spatial distribution of future devel- closer to the arterial transportation net- roads. opment in Beaverhead County work, with fewer new homes out in the (measured in vehicle miles traveled). most rural reaches of the county road network. The results of the county travel demand model show that the status quo develop- Figure 1—% More Status Quo Costs than Alternative Scenario ment pattern, which tends towards more 50% 46% rural subdivisions, especially near water and other natural amenities, results in 40% longer drives and more vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on county roads. 30% Development Scenarios and County Costs 20% 14% As agricultural lands are converted to

10% residential areas, roads that were built to handle agricultural traffic evolve into 0% residential collector roads. Every addi- Roads Sheriff tional mile a vehicle travels on a daily

Map 2

communities and closer to the state basis adds to the expense of maintaining highway system. More driving means and improving county roads as well as more expense. enforcing traffic laws on those roads and responding to accidents. Scenarios and Fire/EMS Costs Fire districts are also affected by addi- Application of the travel demand model tional driving. Rural districts usually results in a dynamic fiscal impact analy- respond to vehicle accidents and other sis revealed that the status quo scenario road -related fires or emergencies and costs 46% more than the alternative provide ambulance service. scenario for roads and 14% more for law enforcement. These cost differences Since the county travel demand model hold for both annual costs and one-time was designed to count vehicle miles capital investment costs. The lower dif- traveled on both county and state roads, ference for law enforcement reflects the it accounted for the increased traffic on fact that most of the sheriff department highways (where most traffic incidents The alternative workload is not traffic-related. occur) and estimated associated vehicle miles traveled for the two future land scenario saves the The alternative scenario saves the use scenarios. annual equivalent of county about $5.5 million in capital fa- a countywide 19 cilities investments and capital improve- Over $200k savings in capital facilities mills property tax. ment costs for the road and sheriff result from fewer vehicle miles traveled departments over the course of the next in the alternative scenario, while opera- two decades and more than $300k an- tions and maintenance costs are 44% nually in operations and maintenance higher for fire protection in the status costs. This is roughly equivalent to a 19 quo scenario. mills countywide property tax according Other Implications to the latest countywide assessed valua- The lower vehicle miles traveled in the tion. alternative scenario could also save a

Figure 2– Fire District Capital Expenditures by Scenario household earning the Montana median income the equivalent of a week’s pay in $737,600 extra fuel costs each year. $800,000 $513,700 $600,000 Countywide, over 4,000 gallons of gas $400,000 and diesel would be saved every day if $150,900 $126,900 $200,000 growth patterns followed the alternative scenario, ultimately preventing 14,000 $0 tons of CO2 annually from entering our Status Quo Alternative Status Quo Alternative atmosphere. 2025 2025 2025 2025 By reducing the distances traveled and Dillon Grasshopper Valley time behind the wheel, more compact development patterns can save county and fire/EMS protection districts money. There is no mistaking that widespread Not only do counties and fire districts rural subdivisions cost more money to save, but residents save money at the serve than more compact development pump as well. Ultimately, fuel consump- patterns focusing growth in and near tion and greenhouse gas emissions are less.

Introduction Linking Future Land Use Scenarios with Fiscal Impact Analysis

The analysis project summarized in this tegrated into planning departments and report set out to find answers to two re- universities, efforts to model the out- search questions: comes of past and current land use trends into the future began. Generally, how do rural land use patterns affect costs of providing basic One of the earliest efforts in Colorado, public services? conducted by principals at Rock Creek Studios, Carbondale, Colorado, used More specifically, how would future 'measle mapping' techniques to imitate outcomes of an agricultural land conser- By looking at past development patterns to spatially vation policy affect costs in Beaverhead historic census distribute projected future populations in County, Montana? counts the Aspen, Carbondale, Glenwood geographically, the Urban planning departments have been Springs area. model 'learns' how modeling future land use patterns since More recently, the Center of the Ameri- development the 1970s. Early modeling efforts were can West's Western Futures Program1 patterns occur. typically focused on specific proposals, added sophistication to the modeling that is, they would demonstrate how process and increased the scale to the land use patterns would look if an area entire West. By looking at a geodata- were suburban residential versus more base of historic census counts, the mixed density residential, commercial, model 'learns' how development pat- or industrial land uses. When Geographic terns occur. Future growth projections Information Systems (GIS) were applied are then dumped into the model, and it to modeling land use patterns during the distributes the population across private land development boom of the 1990s, lands according to past tendencies. In modeling efforts began to encompass this way, the model encompasses the enough factors to yield intuitive, useful complexity of preferences driving past results. waves of settlement and development As growth pressures continued to mount and projects it into future development in the West and GIS technology was in- patterns.

The Spatially Dynamic Fiscal Impact Analysis summarized in this report is Fiscal Impact Analysis While efforts to model future develop- based on future growth patterns devel- ment patterns in the rural West have oped by the Sonoran Institute's growth been underway for some time now, model. Sonoran Institute's (SI) growth evaluating the fiscal implications of The alternative model contains innovations not pos- future rural development patterns is only scenario, based sessed by other rural residential devel- just beginning. on maintaining opment pattern models, most impor- productivity tantly, it identifies and statistically incor- This analysis treads new ground by spa- of prime porates known drivers of growth into the tially evaluating the fiscal implications of modeling process. Some of the key fac- agricultural land, future land use scenarios on Beaverhead tors include: County’s year-to-year operations and presents a more maintenance costs and capital compact develop- • Proximity to water and other natu- investment needs. ment pattern. ral resource amenities; • Transportation and other infra- Evaluation of impacts of future scenarios structure; requires the establishment of the level of • Proximity to high amenity commu- service. A simple analogy serves to nities; illustrate the concept. Suppose that you • And, location of existing develop- entered a restaurant with a small ment. kitchen, two tables, and two waiters; you sit at one of the tables and begin dinner. You would expect, given the While the model geographically distrib- ratio of waiters to tables, that the utes future development based on the service be good. identified drivers (status quo scenario), it also allows for integration of alterna- Consider entering the same restaurant a tive futures based on any number of po- week later, with the same kitchen and tential land use policies such as zoning, the same two waiters, to discover that they have added one hundred additional Model Comparison Sources: agricultural preservation, clustering or http://www.centerwest.org/ other significant factors influencing tables and that the restaurant is packed futures/ future land use patterns (alternative with people. Certainly, after having west- been seated, you would expect a signifi- ern_futures_final_draft.pdf scenario). 2 Project by Patty Gude, with cantly decreased level of service from contributions from Dr. Ray As represented in Map 3 (pg. 10), the the two waiters. Rasker and Dr. Andrew Han- alternative scenario, based on maintain- sen see http:// ing productivity of prime agricultural The same happens with provision of gov- www.sonoran.org/programs/ ernment services and infrastructure. If socioeconomics/ land, presents a more compact develop- yellowstone_data/ ment pattern, with more growth closer new growth is not accounted for in law to the highways and communities and enforcement, roads, fire, health, sewer less growth out in the rural agricultural and a host of other services while popu- areas of the county. lation is being added, we should expect to see a decrease in our overall level of service. Meaning, that perhaps we hit more potholes, it takes a year to get on

The analysis mirrors this functional divi- the agenda for a land use item, meeting sion in county departments, those af- rooms are crowded, or that our water fected by traffic are included in the dy- use is limited to certain times of day. namic analysis, those unaffected are Level of service also allows the commu- contained in the centrally located ser- nity to see where it stands in relation to vices analysis. Level of Service other communities or even against na- is a measuring tional standards. It is a measuring stick Report Organization stick from which from which the community can decide to This report has five main components: increase, decrease, or maintain the qual- the community Residential Growth and Traffic: In this ity of its existing services. can decide to section projected housing unit growth is increase, Providing road infrastructure is one of summarized and a GIS-based travel decrease or the top expenses for rural county gov- demand model is used to simulate the maintain the ernments. General wear and tear on the amount of driving on county roads quality of its roads system, the attendant mainte- associated with each future land use public services. nance requirements, and the need for scenario. expanding the capacity and safety of the Dynamic Fiscal Analysis of Roads system both accompany increased Department and Law Enforcement: This traffic. section makes the link between the Meanwhile, county law enforcement amount of driving associated with each workload is directly affected by the in- scenario and the costs to the Road and creased need for traffic enforcement and Bridge and Sheriff Departments. so is the local emergency management Fiscal Impact Analysis of Centrally system. Located County Departments: Levels of As evident in Map 3 (pg. 10), the alter- service for all remaining county depart- native scenario, based on maintaining ments are established and costs of productivity of prime agricultural land, maintaining those service levels are presents a more compact development given for the projected housing unit pattern, with more growth closer to the growth of the future land use scenarios. highways and communities and less Fire District Dynamic Fiscal Impact growth out in the rural agricultural areas Analysis: Two fire districts were included of the county. As described in detail in this comprehensive evaluation of the later in the report, the more dispersed implications of the scenarios on provi- development pattern suggested by the sion of fire protection and associated status quo scenario results in more driv- EMS. ing, and increases county costs. Vehicle Fuel Use, Expenditures, and Other county services are centralized, Emissions: This final step links future such as administration, planning, and land use patterns to gasoline consump- health services. These departments are tion, consumer spending, and associated also affected by growth in housing units, emissions. but not tangibly affected by spatial distribution of those housing units.

10 Residential Growth and Traffic

county, while the unincorporated areas Existing-Projected Residential around Dillon, together with the city

itself comprise the bulk of the dwelling Growth projections suggest that new units in Beaverhead County. development in the unincorporated por- The more vehicle tions of Beaverhead County will be pre- Existing-Projected Traffic miles traveled a dominantly residential. Additional de- Increased traffic is one of the most no- ticeable effects of growth. New land roads system has mand on county services and facilities uses cause new traffic. When someone to support, the results from this increase in residential builds a home on a vacant residential lot, more it will cost land uses. Assessor records show that additional traffic is generated by that to maintain the in the past decade, the unincorporated home’s residents, whether they are full portions of the county, including Wisdom current level of or part-time. Incremental increases in and the areas around Lima only ac- service. residential land uses in turn lead to in- counted for about one square foot of cremental increases in traffic. developed non-residential floor area out of every 10 square feet county-wide. Increased traffic is a result of increased driving. The most accurate way to Figure 3 - Current and Projected Housing Units measure the amount of driving occurring is to calculate the Vehicle Miles Traveled. The more vehicle miles traveled a road system has to support, the more it will cost to maintain the current level of service.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) directly relates to demand for road operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. 5,490 While some natural forces contribute to 4,250 road maintenance (water and erosion damage, etc.), driving is the prime Resdential Units ' reason for road degradation over time.

In addition to increased road costs, 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 increased driving in the county will 2005 2025 create the need for additional traffic enforcement to keep up with existing Thus non-residential development is a service levels. Figure 3 Sources: U.S. minor component of the total growth. Census, Sonoran Insti- tute’s Growth Model Both the status quo and alternative scenarios project 1,240 new residential units over the next 20 years, entirely located in the currently unincorporated portions on the county. The incorpo- rated portions of Dillon account for nearly half the residential units in the

Beaverhead County Travel Demand Model For the most part, off-the-shelf custom county travel demand transportation models are designed model. Creating the county travel for urban transportation systems demand model (using ESRI prod- and are extremely data intensive. ucts) involved 2 programming com- Therefore, RPI teamed with Animas ponents and the use of Network Geographic Services to produce a Analyst.

The traffic model Travel Demand Model Data & Methodology calculates the GIS Data length of trip on Beaverhead County GIS base data county and/or Montana NRIS Library: http://nris.mt.gov/gis/ state roads Montana Department of Transportation: transportation addressing system needed to get to USGS DEM for Beaverhead County: http://seamless.usgs.gov/ the nearest Sonoran Institute: 2005 existing conditions, Status Quo, and Alternative Scenarios quarter-section shape files highway .

Methodology

1. Set-up: Assembled data into geodatabase and made manual fixes to the road layer where necessary 2. Programming: Quarter section existing, status quo, and alternative housing unit projections (and their daily trips) were associated with nearest road. Programming Rules: Traffic from housing units initially accesses county roads if closer than Forest/BLM roads, but traffic will access state highways or interstate frontage roads if closer than county or Forest/BLM roads. Traffic initially accessing USFS/BLM roads accesses state highways if within 1/2 mile of a state highway or interstate.

3. Network Analyst: Routes created along road network to nearest interstate Exit or Municipality. Programming Rules: Traffic from housing units finds its way to the nearest interstate exit, unless the City of Dillon is closer. The assumption is that des- tinations are accessed in municipalities or via the interstate. The direction vehicles go once they reach the highway is not as important, for this analysis, as the amount of driving on county roads, which is largely unaffected by the direction vehicles turn when they reach the highway.

4. Programming: Routes were spatially associated with roads, allowing direct application of road data to roads. This also allowed analysts to differentiate between the length of travel on county roads vs. travel on state highways. 5. Mathematics: The key result from the analysis process is that it calculates the length of trip on county and/or state roads needed to get to the nearest highway, and onto the nearest exit or municipality. Based on 350 traffic studies summarized in the Institute of Transportation En- gineers Trip Generation 7th Edition, single family dwelling units produce a daily average of 9.57 trips (in + out). Thus VMT per quarter section = (quarter section trip length) X (average daily trips)

Numeric Results Geographic Results Placing the 1240 future residential dwell- Maps 4 and 5 show the growth in Vehicle ings according to the development pat- Miles Traveled by Transportation Analy- The status quo terns in the status quo and alternative sis Zone (TAZ). TAZ boundaries were scenario results scenarios results in a status quo increase generated in several iterations between in 46% more of 51% vehicle miles traveled and a the Beaverhead County Road and Bridge driving associ- 35% increase for the more compact Director and RPI analysts. They were ated with future alternative scenario (Figure 5). delineated based on the human and residential units physical geographic features that The status quo scenario results in 46% than the more influence travel behavior. compact alterna- more growth in driving associated with future residential units than the more A glance at each map shows that vehicle tive scenario. compact alternative scenario. miles traveled on county roads is signifi- cantly higher in the status quo develop-

Figure 4 - Vehicle Miles Traveled by Scenario ment pattern (see pg. 14) vs. the amount of driving in the alternative development pattern (see pg. 15). This is particularly true for the more remote portions of the county’s northern half, in

Big Hole and the Horse Prairie TAZs. The legend colors on the two maps are consistent, allowing comparison of the two. 166,400 148,700 The status quo scenario produces significant increases in vehicle miles traveled 109,900 in the Horse Prairie and Big Hole TAZs. Not surprisingly, the alternative scenario, which projects future development 50,000 100,0002005 150,000 200,000 Status Quo 2025 Alternative 2025 Scenario Scenario in concentrated areas and around Dillon, produces more vehicle miles in the TAZs surrounding Dillon.

Figure 5 - Percent Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled by Alternative Base Year 2005

51%

35% 0% 20% 40% 60% Status Quo 2025 Scenario Alternative 2025 Scenario

13 Map 4

14 Map 5

Dynamic Fiscal Impact Analysis

County Road Department and Sheriff Department

Table 1 - Roads Capital Facilities Detail Roads Current Level of Service Asset Replacement Value Level of service analysis consists of two Roads costs Rd and Bridge Equipment $1,919,784 main components: about $1,500 Rd and Bridge Facilities $1,344,501 Total $3,264,285 annually per Operations and Maintenance: the ongo- household living ing day-to-day expenses of running a Cost per 100 Daily VMT $3,000 10 miles out a county department, expressed annually. county road. Planned Improvements Capital Facilities: the one-time expenses associated with increasing the capacity 7 yr Planned Improvements $2,720,000 Average Annual $388,600 of infrastructure and capital facilities to 20 Year Total $7,772,000 keep up with demand. Cost per 100 Daily VMT $4,700 Operations and Maintenance According to the itemized mean expendi- Paving Gravel Roads tures from the 2004-2005 Beaverhead County audits, it costs about $1.2 Million Cost per Mile to Rebuild annually to provide the operations and and Pave a Gravel Road $386,000 Current Miles of Paved County Roads 65 maintenance now offered by the county Miles of Paved County Roads per 100 VMT 0.06 road department. Cost per 100 Daily VMT $22,800 Given the level of traffic on county roads, it costs about $1,500 annually to Roads System Improvements provide road maintenance for 100 aver- The level of service for roads capital fa- age daily vehicle miles traveled. One cilities is derived from planned improve- hundred average daily vehicle miles ments and the quantity of paved roads traveled is equivalent to one household in the county. The Roads Capital Im- living 10 miles out a county road. provement Plan in the Beaverhead County Growth Policy reflects the pace Capital Facilities of improvement expenditures that are Three types of capital contribute to the necessary to keep up with current levels maintenance and development of the of growth. Over twenty years the cur- Table 1 Sources: Beaverhead county road system: the road system; County Insurance Policy Property rent level of service for planned im- Inventory, maintenance facilities; and, equipment. provements is $4,700 per daily vehicle Road and Bridge Department mile traveled. This assumes that future project Budget for Airport Road vehicle miles traveled will be dictated by improvements, Beaverhead County Growth Policy Capital the status quo scenario. Improvement s Plan Table 2 - Roads Level of Service

Annual Operations Costs per 100 Capital Costs per 100 Vehicle Miles Travled Vehicle Miles Travled 2005 $1,500 $30,500

16 Map 6

Paving gravel roads is a major expense county roads. as the county grows and traffic levels trigger the need for an upgrade from As further testimony to this point, the and aggregate to a flexible pavement Beaverhead County Growth Policy Trans- surface. portation Improvements Plan cites several such projects, and as cited above, Bid prices from the To demonstrate ongoing paving demand, the county has recently invested in a recent Airport Road the county travel demand model was nearly half-million dollar project rebuild- pave and rebuild employed to find the maximum traffic ing Airport Road. project show costs flow given the traffic projections $386k per mile to contained in the status quo. Given current costs for road re-building rebuild and pave a and paving, it costs $22,800 per 100 Chapter 4 of the American Association of gravel road VMT (one-time) to maintain the current State Highway Officials Guide for Design level of service for incremental paving of of Pavement Structures includes a Flexi- gravel and dirt roads. ble Pavement—Aggregate Surface Cata- logue. This catalogue indicates that for Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Montana’s climate, roads with average As traffic increases, maintenance sched- daily trip (ADT) volumes in excess of ules get full and improvement projects 771 ADT should be paved. Volumes be- mount. The county will need to add low this level will function with aggre- capacity to its maintenance fleet and gate, or gravel/dirt surfaces. facilities to meet increased demand. Map 6 (pg. 17) shows entire roads that, Given the current county road VMT and based on maximum traffic flows, could the nearly $3.3 million current replace- need portions paved at some point dur- ment value of the road maintenance fa- ing the next 20 years in the status quo cilities and equipment, it will cost $3,000 scenario. for each 100 VMT to maintain the Bid prices from the recent Airport Road current level of service in the future. pave and rebuild project show that it In total, it will cost $30,500 per 100 ve- costs $386k per mile to rebuild and pave hicle miles traveled to maintain service a gravel road in Beaverhead County. The levels for roads capital improvements Beaverhead County Road and Bridge (paving, planned improvements) and Department estimated 65 miles of paved roads equipment and facilities. This is a county owned/maintained roads. Given one time cost that would accrue as that current average daily vehicle miles residential units are built. traveled on county roads total 109,900 VMT, there are .06 miles of paved road Sheriff Dept. Level of Service per 100 VMT. This is the level of service expression for county road paving. The majority of sheriff’s law enforcement services are not tangibly affected by de- Miles of paved roads per VMT is a par- velopment patterns. In order to isolate ticularly fitting level of service expres- the proportion of the sheriff depart- sion for rural county road systems be- ment’s law enforcement services that is cause as traffic increases, the county will affected by development patterns from need to incrementally rebuild and pave those that are driven by household

Table 3 - Beaverhead totals and growth in commercial A detailed categorization of crime County Crimes by Type and other non-residential land case data provided online by the Cases 04- Proport ionat e 05 Share Factors uses requires a proportionate Montana Board of Crime yielded a SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT CONSENT 2Domestic share analysis (Figure 7). break-down of 32% of general law SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT CONSENT - FORCIBLE 1Domestic

ASSAULT, PHYSICAL W/ LACERATIONS/BROKEN BONES 2Domestic enforcement dedicated to activity Proportionate Share CRIMINAL ENDANGERMENT 2Domestic in non-residential development PARTNER OR FAMILY ASSAULT - AGGRAVATED 6Domestic The Beaverhead County Sheriff HATE MOTIVATED INTIMIDATION OR HARASSMENT 1Domestic and 68% to cases oriented to- estimates that 20% of the depart- BURGLARY, RESIDENCE 11 Implied Location wards the residential population SHOP LI FT 2 Implied Locat ion ment’s efforts are directed towards T HEFT OF BELONGI NGS FROM MOT OR VEHI CLES 3Traffic (Figure 6).

THEFT OF MOTOR VEHICLES PARTS AND ACCESSORIES 1Traffic traffic enforcement with the Residential Vs remaining 80% dedicated to THEFT FROM BUILDINGS 6 Non-Resident ial Property Residential Vs general law enforcement. THEFT, ALL OTHERS 43 Non-Resident ial Property MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 3Traffic RESISTING ARREST 1Domestic Figure 6 - Non-Traffic Law Enforcement Proportionate Share ASSAULT, SIMPLE W/ NO LACERATIONS BROKEN BONES 9Domestic

STALKING 3Domestic

PARTNER OR FAMILY ASSAULT (NON-AGGRAVATED) 7Domestic

ASSAULT - SIMPLE - USE OF THREAT TO COERCE GA 1Domestic Non-Residential ISSUING A BAD CHECK 29 Implied Location Cases 32% DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES 1 Implied Locat ion

DECEPTIVE PRACTICES, COMPELLED STATEMENTS 2 Implied Locat ion

THEFT OF IDENTITY 3 Implied Locat ion

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 44 Domestic

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON 1Domestic

SEXUAL ASSAULT 2Domestic

INCEST 1Domestic

SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS 1Domestic

POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS 3Domestic

POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 6Domestic

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL 1Domestic ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN - ABANDON 1Domestic Residential UNLAWFUL TRANSACTIONS WITH CHI 1Domestic VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 1Domestic Cases 68% DUI 1Traffic

DUI 1Traffic

DUI, UNDER 21 WITH BAC OF 0.02 - LIQUOR 1Traffic

DUI (ALCOHOL OR DRUGS) 15 T r af f i c

ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS INTOXICATING 9Domestic

SELLS OR GIVES AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO MINOR 1Domestic

DISORDERLY CONDUCT 10 Implied Location Figure 7 - Traffic Enforcement & Incidents OBSTRUCTING A PEACE OFFICER OR OTHER PUBLIC 11 D o mes t i c as Percent of Law Enforcement Resources OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE 1Domestic Residential Vs PUBLIC NUISANCE 3 Non-Resident ial Traffic 20% Property UNLAWFUL RESTRAI NT 1Domestic

TRESPASS, CRIMINAL, TO VEHICLE 6Traffic Residential Vs TRESPASS,CRIMINAL, TO PROPERT 27 Non-Resident ial Property CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 3Domestic Residential Vs GARBAGE/ LITTERING 5 Non-Resident ial Property INTERFERENCE WITH A SENTENCE OR COURT ORDER 1Domestic

OBSCENE PHONE CALL - PRIVACY IN COMMUNICATION 5Domestic

Figure 4 and Table 3 Sources: Montana Board of Crime http:// General Law bccdoj.doj.state.mt.us/ Enforcement Figure 5 Source: Beaverhead 80% County Sheriff

Table 4 - Law Enforcement Current Level of Service Using this important baseline, the differ- Traffic Enforcement ences between costs associated with the Annual Operations Officers and Maintenace Costs Capital Improvement status quo vs. the alternative scenario per 10,000 VMT per 100 VMT Costs per 100 VMT can be represented by applying the costs 0.31 $218 $491 per vehicle mile traveled to the vehicle miles traveled as calculated earlier in the report using the county travel demand General Law Enforcement model.

Officers Annual Operations Capital Improvement By including the costs per residential per 100 residential and Maintenace Costs Costs per Residential unit that are not tangibly affected by Units Per Residential Unit Unit 0.4 $259 $346 increased daily driving, county officials can see the true relative cost savings Operations and Maintenance resulting from development patterns like The mean annual sheriff’s budget is those represented in the alternative nearly $1.2 million for 2004-05. Given scenario. the proportionate share factors cited Operations and Maintenance above, it costs about $218 annually and Annually, the alternative scenario devel- about $500 in one-time capital facilities opment pattern would save the county and equipment expansion costs to main- road and sheriff departments a com- tain the current level of service for one In terms of bined $304k (2005 fixed dollars) in an- household 10 miles out on county roads property taxes, the nual operations and maintenance costs (100 Ave. Daily VMT). alternative scenario (Figure 8). That is over 6% of the total would save the Having removed the non-residential de- county budget, which if aggregated over equivalent of 19 mand using the proportionate share the course of several years becomes a mills countywide. analysis discussed above, the remaining significant cost savings. In terms of costs per residential unit to maintain property taxes, the alternative scenario the current level of services general law would save the equivalent of 19 mills enforcement is $259 annually for opera- countywide, given the 2005 assessed tions and maintenance and almost $350 valuation. dollars in capital facilities expansion to

maintain current levels of service for facilities and equipment. Figure 8 - Roads and Law Enforcement Opera- tions and Maintenance Annual Cost by Scenario

Dynamic Analysis $847,500 Table 4 Sources: 2004, 2005 The level of service has $900,000 Beaverhead County Audit, Travel $800,000 $582,000 Demand Model Results (See been calculated for the $700,000 $600,000 $444,600 figure 4), County payroll list. US Road Department and $500,000 $406,100 Census, Montana Department of the Sheriff Department $400,000 Revenue Property Tax Division $300,000 both in terms of those $200,000 costs associated with Status Quo Alternative Status Quo Alternative traffic growth and those 2025 2025 2025 2025 that are not connected Roads Department Law Enforcement to traffic growth.

20 Map 7

Capital Improvements Figure 9 - Road and Law Enforcement One-Time Capital Improvement Cost by Scenario Capital improvements savings associated with $20,000,000 $17,232,500 the more compact alter- $15,000,000 $11,834,000 native scenario develop- The status quo ment pattern are signifi- $10,000,000 scenario would cant. The status quo $5,000,000 $706,100 $619,100 be 46% more scenario would be 46% $0 expensive for more expensive for the Status Quo Alternative Status Quo Alternative the road roads department alone, 2025 2025 2025 2025 department with an estimated one- Roads Department Law Enforcement alone. time costs savings total- ing almost $5.5 million associated with the alternative scenario

development pattern (Figure 9). Capital Looking at Map 8 (pg. 23) where improvement costs are one-time costs alternative scenario cost savings are as residential units develop. layered against both scenarios’ growth

As with operations and maintenance, the areas, the reason for the extra costs relative difference between the alterna- becomes even more clear: the status tive and status quo scenarios for law quo scenario’s growth areas tend to be enforcement are less than that for the far down county roads, resulting in more roads department because just 20% of driving and more expenses for the law enforcement is related to traffic. county.

Geographic Results

By looking at capital improvement cost savings of the alternative over the status

quo by transportation analysis zone (map 7, pg. 21), it becomes clear that the status quo costs mount up in the rural areas of the county. The South Dillon TAZ actually gains more traffic

and costs more in the alternative Recently Paved Airport Road scenario, which emphasizes development near Dillon. However, the $120k additional cost in the Dillon area is eclipsed by the millions saved in the

rural TAZs in the remainder of the county under the alternative scenario.

22 Map 8

Fiscal Impact Analysis for Centralized Services County Departments Unaffected by Development Patterns

Figure 10- Administration, Health, and Other County Services One reliable way to establish a planning Proportionate Share level ratio between residential and non- residential demand is to compare the fundamental demographic unit of commercial activity, employees, to the Non- fundamental unit of residential activity, Residential population (Figure 10). Residential Demand 46% Demand 54% This proportionate share methodology suggests that the breakdown for general administration, health and community services, and other services is nearly half and half.

Administration, Health, and Administration Level of Service Other County Services Currently, Beaverhead County admini- Proportionate Share stration requires 23 FTEs employees. Administration employees applied to the Fundamentally, demand for these core proportionate share above yields a level county services increases with the quan- of service of .3 administration FTEs per tity of activity Beaverhead County. The 100 residential units in the county at an demand for these services is split annual cost of $17,000 and .4 FTEs per between activities associated with 100,000 sq. ft. non-residential develop- residential land uses vs. non-residential ment at an annual cost of $21,700. land uses. This split varies widely Because most of the county’s adminis- between communities, depending on the trative responsibilities extend into the relative quantities of commercial and municipalities, the population and non- governmental activity located in a residential sq. ft. used in the above particular county. calculation include the entire county. Table 5 Sources: 2004, 2005 Beaverhead County Audit, County payroll list., US Census, Montana Department of Revenue Property Tax Division Table 5 - Administration Level of Service

Operations and Maintenance Administration Staff (Annual Cost) Capital Facilities Per 100 Residential Units 0.34 $17,000 $40,000 Per 100,000 s.f. Non-Residential Floor Area 0.4 $21,700 $51,000

Administration’s 48% share of the Court- annual cost hovering around $6k for house is valued at $3.18 million by Bea- each. verhead County’s insurance company. Due to the nature of health and other Maintaining this level of service as the county services functions, involving county grows will require $40k per 100 contributions to other organizations, housing units and $51k per 100k sq. ft. seasonal employees, and multi-tasking of non-residential floor area (one-time). county employees, there was insuffi- cient information to determine the capital facilities level Table 6 - Health and Community Services of service. Level of Service Operations and Maintenance (Annual Cost) Per 100 Residential Units $4,200 Per 100,000 s.f. Non-Residential Floor Area $3,700

County Health and Community Services and Other Services The county health department and support to local health organizations and other community services cost $337k for 2004-05, meaning that it costs roughly $4,200 per year per 100 residential units and $3,700 per year for 100k sq. ft. of non residential floor area.

Other county services include county extension, weed management, coroner, Non-Residential Land Uses In Wisdom and other assorted county responsibilities. In sum, the annual budget, for

Table 7 - Other County Services Level of Service

Other County Services Staff Operations and Maintenance (85% seasonal) (Annual Cost) Per 100 Residential Units 0.3 $6,600 Per 100,000 s.f. Non-Residential Floor Area 0.4 $5,700 Table 6 & 7 Sources: 2004, 2005 Beaverhead County Audit, these services over the past couple years County payroll list., US Census, is $523k annually. The level of service Montana Department of Revenue for miscellaneous services is .3 employees (mostly seasonal) per 100 residential units and .4 employees per 100k sq. ft. of non-residential floor area with an

Fiscal Summary for Centrally Located County Services

Aggregate Costs Maintaining the current level of service for county administration, health and community services, and other services for an additional 1240 residential units projected in both the alternative and status quo scenarios is going to require an additional 8 employees, and another $345k annually.

Table 8 - Total Costs of Maintaining Level of Service for 1240 Residential Units for Administration, Health and Community Services, and Other Services

Operations and Maintenance Staff (Annual Cost) Capital Facilities Cost of Maintaining Currentl Level of Service for Residential 1240 Residential Units 8.12 $344,700 $496,000

Facilities to accommodate the extra staff and demand for 1,240 residential units will cost just under $500k (one-time, Table 8).

Per Unit Costs The cost for each (1) housing unit dem- onstrates how the overall administration of a county government and the health, community services, and other services the county provides add up to a hefty sum of $278 per year needed to maintain the current level of service and $400 in one-time capital facilities expansion costs for each new housing unit (Table 9).

Table 9 - Costs of Maintaining Level of Service for per (1) Residential Unit for Administration, Health and Community Services, and Other Services

Operations and Maintenance (Annual Cost) Capital Facilities Cost of Maintaining Currentl Level of Service for One (1) Residential Unit $278 $400

26 Fire District Dynamic Fiscal Analysis

increased traffic vs. growth in structures Introduction vs. wildland fires, it was necessary to To evaluate fiscal impacts of future resi- conduct a proportionate share analysis. dential development patterns produced Proportionate share was established by by the status quo and alternative future analyzing incident records provided by land use scenarios, two fire districts the districts. Because motor vehicle ac- Figures 9 & 10 Source: 2004-05 were selected. Dillon Fire District was Fire District Detailed Incident cidents require both ambulance service selected because it serves most of the Summaries and fire protection, multi-tasking rural population in Beaverhead County, and as fire districts are more affected by growth a case study for the rural fire districts, in traffic than is obvious at first glance. Grasshopper Valley Fire District was included (Map 9, p. 28). To determine the connection between Figure 11 - Dillon Fire District 2004-05 Incident Summary demand for district services and traffic, traffic oriented responses (motor vehicle fire and medical incidents) were isolated from fire protection responses and other medical responses.

Since the travel demand model results Structure & Motor Vehicle established the connection between de- Other 47% velopment patterns and traffic, isolating Medical the portion of resources dedicated to 53% traffic response provides the analytical link between the fire districts and county development patterns.

The Grasshopper Valley Fire District is responsible for structure protection in Proportionate Share the wildland-urban interface, and is To determine the proportion of demand equipped and trained to fight wildland for fire district services related to fires. In fact, 39% of their responses are wildland fire responses coordinated Figure 12 - Grasshopper Valley Fire District 2004-05 Incident Summary with other fire protection agencies.

Traffic Projected Growth & Traffic 14% An inventory of property improvements contained in a report produced by the Structure & State of Montana Department of Reve- Other nue specifically for this project provided Medical information necessary to estimate the 47% number of residential units and commer- Wildland Fire cial structures within the boundaries of 39% each fire district. This provides the data necessary to calculate the level of service per structure under protection of the districts.

Map 9

Projected growth in traffic was estimated by aggregating the growth in traffic for Dynamic Fiscal Impact Study the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) In the fiscal impact analysis the level of in which each district falls. service for structure protection is calculated separately from a traffic growth The alternative scenario logged about impact assessment. The impact of devel- The increased per 1/2 the daily vehicle miles traveled that opment patterns on structure protection structure costs [for the status quo scenario accumulates in is related to response times more than Grasshopper Valley] both fire districts. to expenses, with the exception that reflect a geographi- wildland-urban interface fire protection Since fire districts respond to state high- cally limited service requires investment in specialized and way and interstate accidents and fires, area and the extra very expensive equipment. the traffic growth factors for the fire equipment and train- analysis includes traffic on state high- ing costs associated Table 11 - Fire District Structure ways as well as the vehicle miles trav- Protection Level of Service with protecting eled on county roads. The travel development in the Dillon demand model was designed to allow Operations Cost per Structure $20 wildland-urban analysis by road owner (county, city, Capital Investment Cost per Structure $283 interface. state), providing the ability to isolate

county road traffic for the county fiscal Grasshopper Valley impact analysis and include state high- Operations Cost per Structure $69 way and interstate traffic for the fire Capital Investment Cost per Structure $1,393

district assessment. Structure Protection Level of Service Table 10 - Fire District Growth Factors Given the proportionate share discussed

Dillon above, and the fire district’s operation budget, it costs the Dillon Fire District Traffic Growth (Includes State Highways) Fire District North Dillon, South $20 dollars per year per structure to Transportation Analysis Zone(TAZ) Dillon, Horse Prairie maintain operations and maintenance Status Quo Combined Growth Rate 81% LOS, and $283 dollars per structure for Alternative Combined Growth Rate 47% one-time capital facilities and equipment Structure Growth purchase. Table 10 Sources: Current Residential Improved Properties 2,490 Commercial Structures 170 Beaverhead County Total Protection Properties 2,660 Grasshopper Valley’s level of service ex- Audit, Travel Demand penditures are higher for both operations Model Results (See 2005-2025 New Residential Properties 710 figure 4), US Census, Structure Growth 2005-2025 27% and maintenance ($69 per structure) Montana Department of and $1,393 for capital facilities and Grasshopper Valley Revenue Property Tax equipment. The increased per structure Division, Sonoran Traffic Growth (Includes State Highways) Institute Growth Model costs reflect a geographically limited Fire District Table 11 Sources: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Big Hole service area and the extra equipment 2004-05 District Budg- Status Quo Combined VMT Growth Rate 30% and training costs associated with ets, District Asset Alternative Combined VMT Growth Rate 16% protecting development in the Inventories and Re- placement Values, Structure Growth wildland-urban interface. Current Residential Improved Properties 130 Total Protection Properties 130 2005-2025 New Residential Properties 70 Structure Growth 2005-2025 54%

savings associated with the alternative Dynamic Fiscal Summary scenario capital facilities expenditures In the Dillon Fire District, serving the shows the alternative scenario to be a greater Dillon area, the travel demand fiscally efficient development pattern. model projects traffic to almost double (81%) given the status quo devel- Figure 13 - Capital Improvement Costs by Scenario opment patterns. The status quo The alternative scenario produces 75% more traffic $800,000 $737,600 scenario is 44% than the alternative scenario in the $700,000 less expensive Dillon Fire District. $600,000 $513,700 for the Dillon Fire $500,000 $400,000 District than The extra traffic growth associated $300,000 with the status quo scenario re- $150,900 status quo future $200,000 $126,900 flects the relatively continuous rural land use pattern. $100,000 development occurring along Ban- $0 nack Bench Road, Taylor Creek Status Quo Alternative Status Quo Alternative Road, Birch Creek Road, and other 2025 2025 2025 2025 rural growth areas at the far Dillon Grasshopper Valley reaches of the road system (see Map 3) This growth in traffic, along with the per structure costs of Figure 14 - Operations and Maintenance Costs by maintaining service levels means Scenario that the alternative scenario is 44% less expensive for the Dillon 60000 $51,100 Fire District than status quo future 50000 land use pattern. $35,600 40000 Because Grasshopper Valley only 30000 has one stretch of state highway 20000 $5,600 $5,300 running through it and just a few 10000 county roads, the traffic incident 0 load is not as heavy relative to the Status Quo 2025 Status Quo 2025 structure and wildland interface Dillon Grasshopper Valley responses. Still, the nearly 25% Table 12 - Fire District Fiscal Summary

Annual Operations and Maintenance Capital Investment Costs for Projected Traffic and Structures for Projected Traffic and in District Structures in District

Status Quo 2025 $51,100 $737,600 Dillon

Alternative 2025 $35,600 $513,700

Status Quo 2025 $5,600 $150,900

Alternative 2025 $5,300 $126,900 Grasshopper Valley

30 Vehicle Fuel Use, Resident Expenditures, and Emissions

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to this thermody- Introduction namic cycle, a thorough evaluation of This analysis estimates the fuel con- land use patterns and vehicle miles sumed by automobiles in the status quo traveled includes an estimate of CO development pattern and the more com- 2 emissions. pact agricultural land conservation-

Figure 15 - Vehicle Miles Traveled on Highways + Fuel Consumption County Roads The traffic analysis in the dynamic fiscal impact assessments for county services and fire districts is based on vehicle miles traveled. Because fuel consump-

tion occurs regardless of whether a driver is on a county road or state high- State Highway way, the fuel consumption analysis in- 246,800 & Interstate cludes vehicle miles traveled on both 198,200 Vehicle Miles county roads and state highways. Traveled 156,400 County Road Average Fuel Economy for Passenger Vehicles Vehicle Miles Miles Per Gallon 17.1 Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled ' Miles Traveled Vehicle Gallons per Mile 0.06 166,400 148,700 109,900 Having obtained the combined county road and state highway vehicle miles

50,000 150,000 250,000 350,000 450,000 traveled from the travel demand model 2005 results (413k daily VMT for status quo, Scenario Scenario

Alternative and 345k daily VMT for the alternative Status Quo scenario), it is then possible to calculate fuel consumption. oriented alternative scenario de- Figure 16 - Automobile Fuel Consumption velopment pattern. by Scenario

Because gasoline and diesel costs have increased drastically in the past five years, gasoline consumption continues to be a hefty portion of Montanans’ expenditures. Since the petroleum industry is a global industry, other than retailing the fuel in local stations, local economies do not gain direct benefits from fuel sales. 24,160 In this sense, fuel purchases are a 20,290 low-return expenditure in regional 15,570 economy.

Given the continued confidence of Daily Gallons of Motor Fuel Consumed ' Consumed Fuel Motor of Gallons Daily

scientists in the reality of global - 10,000 20,000 30,000 warming, and the contribution of 2005 Status Quo Alternative Scenario Scenario

The EPA 2006 average passenger vehicle and current consumption, but increases fuel consumption rate of 17.1 miles per for the status quo scenario. gallon was converted to a gallon per mile The longer commutes and trips to the figure of .06 gallons consumed per mile. store implied by continued development Applying this consumption rate to the on the furthest reaches of county roads VMT projected in the travel demand have real implications on future Beaver- Longer model, we find that on average today, head County residents’ wallets. $700 commutes and county residents currently consume per year, a week’s wages or salary for a trips to the store around 15,000 to 16,000 gallons of fuel household earning the median household have real daily, with a projected 24,160 gallons income in Montana ($34,449/yr, 2003, implications on consumed daily to accommodate the BEA) will be spent on fuel under the residents’ wallets status quo scenario. The alternative sce- status quo scenario. nario results in about 20,300 gallons daily, almost 4,000 fewer daily gallons

consumed than under the status quo CO2 Emissions scenario . Carbon Dioxide emissions parallel fuel consumption. The lower amount of driving associated with the more Fuel Expenditure Study By multiplying the annual fuel consump- compact alternative future land use sce- tion by the September 2006 average nario reduces annual CO2 emissions by fuel cost of $2.70 per gallon for Montana 14,000 tons. (EPA– www. fueleconomy.gov), and

dividing by the projected new residential units (1,240 for both scenarios), we find that per household fuel consumption is the same for the alternative scenario

Figure 17 - Average Household Annual Fuel

Expenditures by Scenario Figure 18 - Annual CO2 Emissions by Scenario

$4,330 $3,610 $3,640 86,900 72,900 56,000 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 Annual Tons of Carbon Dioxide Dioxide Carbon of Tons Annual Annual Fuel Cost per Household ' per Household Fuel Cost Annual - 40,000 80,000 120,000 $- 2005 Status Quo Alternative ' Vehicles Beaverhead County from 2005 Status Quo Alternative Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario