F in a l Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Growth Scenarios, Beaverhead County, Montana 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 ma- jor 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 govern- ment. 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 de- velopment and the amount of land consumed by new subdivisions. Community resi- dents 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 resi- dents 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 2 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 3 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 infra- structure 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