Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-15 IFAC - Minutes    Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting Impact Fee Advisory Committee Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:00pm, Madison Room, City Hall– 121 N. Rouse Ave. A. Call meeting to order B. Changes to the Agenda – No Changes to the Agenda C. Public Comment – No public comment D. Action Items 1. Election of Officers – James Nickelson was selected unanimously as board chair – no other volunteers. Rob Evans was selected unanimously as vice chair. 2. Revision to By-laws Chris Saunders gave background on the by-laws and need for updates. James Nickelson questioned if the other by-laws will be thrown out. Confirmation that agreeing to the new by-laws replaces the old ones. Anna Rosenberry made a motion: I move to adopt the rules of procedure as presented and request the City Commission to ratify them. Second by Randy Carpenter Unanimously adopted. 3. Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Anna Rosenberry began presentation on Impact fees starting with fire impact fees as they are the most simple. Anna discussed where the impact fee numbers are coming from and future programs.     Questions for staff: James Nickelson questioned if the 5 year average makes sense or if we’re collecting more or less than is needed. Anna Rosenberry clarified the question and responded that what is collected is based on the project, but that typically we collect what is needed. She stated that we do see fluctuations and it’s a conservative number. She feels the 5 year average is a good estimate. She feels a 2 or 3 year average could be used, but a 5 year may be the best projections. Chris Saunders clarified that how much is brought in is largely determined by the type of project. He continued to explain difference between demand for various types of projects. Chris Mehl stated that it may be better to have one consultant do all four studies on the impact fees instead of 3 and then 1 more. Chris Saunders stated that if they can complete the needs study in time for the fire impact fee, they may be able to do it that way. Josh Waldo stated that they will begin the study in July of 2016 and should be done by the beginning of 2017. Rick Hixson made a motion: I move to recommend to the City Commission approval of the Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program as presented for 2017-2021. Second by George Thompson Unanimously approved. 4. Street, Water, and Sewer Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Presentation Anna Rosenberry began the presentation on the street, water and sewer impact fees and coordination of projects that relate to those funds. Craig Woolard began discussion on how we currently use impact fees. He feels we are moving away from capital improvements process to an asset management process. Mr. Woolard stated that they have reviewed all projects and tried to find the best way to coordinate them. He stated that the new funding sources and new policies have changed the process. The arterial and collector district for additional non-growth funding for streets is a significant change. They are making an attempt to plan ahead for     certain corridors instead of waiting on development to come – getting ahead of some projects can make a better capital plan. The goal is to map and track projects that the public can better understand. Mr. Woolard displayed as an example a 5 year plan on a prioritized road reconstruction plan, that - assuming they are approved - can be completed with maintenance funding. Rob Evans questioned the cost estimates and how much they think they may change over time. Mr. Woodlard said that it can vary tremendously, but they’re hoping not to see much change in price over time. Can be impacted by a bad bid or a bad bidding environment. He highlighted that ultimately he is just saying that the timeline is right. Anna Rosenberry added that there is identified funding for these projects – and continued to explain where that funding may be coming from. Mr. Woolard explained how transportation, waste water, etc. are all linked. Changing the use of the street impact fees can dictate where development takes place. Mr. Woolard discussed the projects and intersections that need to be done. He feels the need to get the projects completed; we need to change how we use impact fees. Currently how we use impact fees is based on development. The impact fees are chasing development, not leading it. He feels that the board typically looks at where we think development will take place and are often wrong – and we respond to their needs. Anna Rosenberry discussed what the local share “provides” (two lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk) and that we base our impact fees on what is needed beyond that. Rob Evans questioned if that is required by state statute. Chris Saunders clarified. Mr. Woolard stated that our capital improvements plan is completely dependent on developers – we cannot lead our own plan. “The system we have gives us the system we have”. The system has holes because the right development hasn’t come along to fill those holes.     Chris Saunders called attention to the unannexed areas within the city as an example of how development has not occurred evenly. Chris Kukulski stated that the previous plan worked to get us here, but now we need to reevaluate it to fill in the holes. Mr. Woolard stated that to fill in the holes in infrastructure we need to change how we use impact fees. He displayed a map that shows the difference between what needed to be done and what was planned to be done over a 5 year period. There was a serious lag in what needs to be completed. Randy questioned what parts of the map indicate – whether it is current needs or previous needs. Mr. Woolard stated that it was an old plan, but just shows what we expected to do and what is actually able to be done. Mr. Woolard stated that he sees beyond the 5 year plan, but he thinks we should focus just on the next 5 years – they do keep other projects in their line of vision. George Thompson clarified the difference between two maps – the 5 year plan and the list of known projects that need to be completed. Mr. Woolard moved on to discuss how we can change our use of impact fees. There is a lot of system dysfunction that lead to public safety issues. In addition, it leads to inefficient construction – some areas are not getting completed on the first round and need to be redone multiple times, ultimately costing us additional money. We knew 10 years ago what the needs would be, but only update according to the present needs – not the long term forecast. Mr. Saunders mentioned that the traffic control and engineering costs of the projects can be saved drastically by only doing it once. Mr. Woolard stated that those parts alone can be 15-20%. In addition, the projects are small and the construction industry is small and we can’t attract larger companies outside of the city, so the bidding is limited and we get higher prices. By planning ahead, we are in a better competitive position with larger projects that can attract outside contractors. Anna Rosenberry explained we are doing it this way because of the way our impact fees are done. We don’t currently have another funding source to change how we do it.     Rob Evans questioned if we included the traffic control and studies needed in the numbers presented. Mr. Woolard stated it was, that being able to fund the design piece of a project is huge. Rick Hixson gave examples of how much of the cost of a project is beyond the required two lanes, side walk, etc. Designing infrastructure ahead of development is a new concept for us. He doesn’t know how we address problem areas without doing this. Chris Kukulski stated that this is the right thing to do, but it’s a matter of how we do it. Anna Rosenberry explained how this would be public financing to cover until development is done and we can collect the impact fees. Craig Woolard explained that we could use this funding to build infrastructure and once annexation or local development occurs, they would “pay back” the fund. Mr. Woolard explained how this policy change could help and gave specific example of 11th and Graff. Eventually we will receive funding back as that area is developed. There’s no certainty that we will develop to future needs. Chris Mehl stated that we may promote faster growth by having areas opened up already for building. Mr. Kukulski stated that perhaps it may slow development if we don’t develop an area that property owners are waiting on. Discussion continued regarding pros and cons. Chris Mehl questioned how we can account for inflation if this takes years to pay back. Discussion among board members about how to insure we get funds back – Mr. Hickson explained how we can ensure we are still receiving funds replacement. Rob Evans stated that transparency is key when dealing with the developers. Letting them know the plan and where money is going. Chris Budeski stated that a benefit can be that the developers will know the cost of the road upfront, before they bid for a project if the infrastructure is     in place in advance. Mr. Woolard stated that the system condition is getting bad – we can wait, but it will get worse. Board discussed difference between pay back for an intersection vs the local street in front of the home and individual’s willingness to fund different projects. Chris Kukulski stated that depending on what we use the funds for determines how much money we will get back - intersections are harder to get funds back for. Board discussed further a 60/40 growth share/local share split that is currently in place and how that compares to the consultant’s recommendations with the last fee study. Craig Woolard and Rick Hixson stated that the 60/40 split is derived from traffic numbers before and after the project is completed. Rick Hixson also stated that the value of existing intersections could be valued at near zero as a depreciated asset – you have to scrap the original to build the new one. Mr. Woolard stated that the 60/40 was so that the developer wasn’t paying for everything. Chris Mehl stated that changing the formula doesn’t change what we ask for from the developers. Mr. Woolard stated the options are to keep the program as is and use some Arterial and Collector funds to make some improvements or change the system to be more proactive. That there is no point in meeting to plan capital improvements that we can’t have an opinion on in the current system – we would have to meet monthly and reevaluate plan based on projects coming in. Anna Rosenberry stated that we will be scrutinized on where the money is going and what improvements were made that they are being asked to refund. Mr. Woolard stated that the system collapses if we do not continue to get refunded for the impact fees. You cannot guess wrong on what     development will happen in the future, or you will sink the system. Mike Balch stated that there should be a local share for some of these projects, because others in the area will be using the streets as well. Rick Hixson pointed out that we’re planning in the future. Some might argue that they shouldn’t be responsible for paying for certain streets because they don’t drive there – but in future expansion, people will be drawn to other areas of town. Board also discussed the use of roads to access property outside of the city limits and how we can not necessarily account for that transportation when calculating costs and needing to figure out ways to collect from people using the roads – even though some may fall outside of city boundaries. Chris Kukulski stated that we’d like to see projects getting started so that people can see where their money is going. Mr. Woolard stated that the big projects won’t get done, but the little holes can be filled in. He stated he’s concerned that we may not be fast enough to get ahead for the project to be successful. Chris Mehl stated that this may require us to say “no” to developers who are coming in and maybe don’t fit into the plan. Anna Rosenberry explained further how this plan would change the current policy. Chris Mehl asked what happens if developers come in and want to develop outside of the plan. Mr. Woolard stated that we should have a reserve fund to be able to address those types of situations. It would be a mistake to spend it all down and not have anything in reserve. We could easily spend it all now, but need to spend smartly. Chris Kukulski stated that to some extent we will still need to follow development. Chris Saunders stated that planning ahead avoids us having to come back later and needing to expand intersections and roads multiple times. Anna Rosenberry stated there are risks we need to manage to go down this road. There may be legal issues and how will this be written into the code to make it work. We should see how the pay backs actually work before we get too deep into the system. We could get into a legal battle and lose or no     development takes place and we never recoup any of the money. Discussion regarding the legal side and how the city can secure itself. Discussion among board members regarding public right of ways – whether we are given it or have to purchase it. Anna Rosenberry stated that local landowners cannot donate their way out of paying for any of the hard costs of the project. Chris Saunders agrees, but states that there is value to that land. Mr. Woolard stated that we’re “stuck” in terms of capital improvements until they decide which way to go from here. He stated that we should move forward with some sewer projects before we start developing as it will only get more costly in the future once things get set in place. Anna Rosenberry stated that she would like the board to let them take a shot at preparing an impact fee schedule and arterial and collector schedule that will work with one another and how they should prepare the intersection schedule. She said the board seems to be in support of that. Chris Mehl questioned who supports developing using impact fees with the repayment schedule. James Nickelson said he’d like to see how that pencils out. Mr. Kukulski clarified what he means – that we should walk it and test the water before going too deep. Mr. Woolard stated that this is a way to address serious needs, not just to front developers. Rick Hixson stated that if we build to the plan, people will build to the book and know that’s where infrastructure will be in place – but we save some funds for the “great” projects that need infrastructure. Chris Mehl questioned how individuals felt about how intersections are funded. Randy stated that without thinking about it, he thinks 100%. It’s the cleanest and makes the most sense. George Thompson stated that it provides a great planning tool for     developers. It can also make the land more valuable. James Nickelson stated the old system seemed to be working fine and then a consultant came in and said it didn’t seem legal. But he seems to agree with the old system. Discussion continued among board members regarding how we should draw the line. 100%, 60/40, etc. Mike Balch proposed that it should be based on a traffic study. If the project increases an intersection by 10%, they should be responsible for that. Mr. Woolard states that it makes sense, but we can’t build portions of an intersection – we have to build them 100%. We will build the intersections and then just receive money back when development comes. Chris Mehl stated that we’ll work through it, but it will require a lot of public education. Randy Carpenter mentioned the benefits of community development by doing it this way – we can achieve community plans more effectively. James Nickelson questioned the water plan and how impact fees balance with cash-in-lieu of water rights. Craig Woolard responded in detail about how we can acquire the water rights and that we wouldn’t do it unless we had the rights to do it. The two funding sources will be kept strictly separate but will be coordinated in accomplishing the necessary work. Discussion continued regarding cash-in-lieu. Staff agreed to prepare a plan on how to move forward to present to the board at the next meeting. Discussion regarding whether this will address wastewater – now that there’s some direction with the streets, staff can look at it on a project by project basis to see how it fits in. James Nickelson asked for clarification on how it will be presented – with water and streets together, or all streets, all water, etc. Anna Rosenberry commented that they will start with the street schedule and then work in the water and sewer. E. FYI/Discussion     Chris Mehl stated that is the board members can’t make it on the 3rd of December, to let them know as this is an important issue. Chris Saunders stated that tomorrow 11/18 there is a workshop regarding the UDC update. F. Adjournment For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This Committee generally meets the 2nd and 4th Thursday of the month as needed at 6:00pm. Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-3207 (TDD 582-2301).