Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBozemanProposal Alk p a i ``�: � .Jam" afll •,. �,j •(�.�►�1: s �., s<X!'� ���C<✓ �. ?. lJl v � �!._ poodi IF y _ ,i 1i� � �Itr�� UIUUIIf=:';::ti il-,�t' 4 r toI�1C Ir.V r• ',j.` "J+ '*' ` ice .`,• ,'•'r "�� i_^•', �Ty r✓:'.., - ',•''t'�s 7�f, `.;- yi +',I � •� ../'�C .•� /,yw� �.� �y'��;, +r='� 1✓ } J!y4'�J(y ^�l'a Proposal for Update to Water, Sewer, Fire/EMS and Transportation Impact Fee Cost of Service Studies City of Bozeman, Montana ~F Table of Contents Section 1 : Project Summary 1 Section 2: Company Description/Capabilities 2 Section 3: Project Team 5 Section 4: References 9 Section 5: Outline of Services 11 Section 6: Affirmation of Nondiscrimination 19 Tischsch er-&se r15CAL ECONOM.0 I PUNNING Section 1 : Project Summary The City of Bozeman, Montana, seeks to update its Streets, Water, Wastewater and Fire/EMS Impact Fee Studies. The City's current fee structure, prepared by TischlerBise, was adopted in 2012/2013. As part of that update, the TischlerBise analysis took into account that urban areas like downtown Bozeman have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce vehicle trips, such as higher internal capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking, and superior transit service. In addition, due to the demographic analysis conducted as part of the study, the proposed fees are better targeted, taking into consideration new components such as the number of people who occupy a housing unit and the size of the lot a home sits on. Since the last study was adopted, the City has adopted a new facility plan for wastewater, plans for water and transportation are almost completed and a new fire/EMS plan will complete by the summer. This updated fees needs to be coordinated closely with these efforts. In addition, based on conversations with staff approximately a year ago, the transportation impact fee methodology should be revisited to better reflect a change in policy related to capacity-adding capital improvements funded by future development, and the creation of a"payback district." We anticipate a 10-month schedule to complete the study, assuming a March startup date. As noted in the schedule and work scope, several meetings are assumed to occur on the same trip. PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR BOZEMAN,MONTANA Tasks Anticipated Dates Meetings* Meetings/Deliverables Task 1:Project Initiation/Data Acquisition March,2017 1 Data Request,Revised Schedule if necessa Task 2:Prepare Land Use Assumptions and March-April,2017 1 Technical Memorandum Development Projections Outlining Recommended Land Task 3: Determine Capital Facility Needs and April July,2017 2 See Task 7 Service Levels Task 4:Evaluate Different Allocation "Stroryboard"Presentation on August-September, 2017 1 Methodologies Fee Categories Task 5:Determine Need for"Credits"to be October,2017 0 See Task 7 Applied Against Capital Costs Task 5:Conduct Funding and Cash Flow October, 2017 0 See Task 7 Analysis Task 7:Prepare Impact Fee Reports,Public November,2017-January,2018 2 Draft and Final Impact Fee Presentations Studies and Presentation Task 8:Assist with Impact Fee Advisory April-December,2017 fi Presentation Materials as Committee Appropriate *In some cases it is assumed meetings are held with multiple departments over one(1)trip. As President, I am authorized to contractually bind the firm. Sincere) , L. Carson Bise II, AICP, President, TischlerBise Tmchler ise FISCAL ECONOMIC I PLANNING Section 2: Company Description/Capabilities TischlerBise, Inc. TischlerBise, Inc., was founded in 1977 as Tischler, Montasser& Associates. The firm became Tischler & Associates, Inc., in 1980 and TischlerBise, inc., in 2005. The firm is a Subchapter (S) corporation, is incorporated in Washington, D.C., and maintains offices in Bethesda, Maryland and Bradenton, Florida. The firm's legal address is: Principal Office Florida Office L. Carson Bise, AICP, President Dwayne Guthrie PhD. AICP 4701 Sangamore Rd, Suite 240 606 3rd Avenue West, Suite 304 Bethesda, MD 20816 Bradenton, FL 34205 301.320.6900 x12 (w) 1301.320.4860 (f) 301.320.6900 x12 (w) carson@tischlerbise.com TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in fiscal/economic impact analysis, impact fees, market feasibility, infrastructure financing studies, and related revenue strategies. Our firm has been providing consulting services to public agencies for over thirty years. In this time, we have prepared over 700 fiscal/economic impact evaluations and over 900 impact feelinfrastructure financing studies — more than any other firm. Through our detailed approach, proven methodology, and comprehensive product, we have established TischlerBise as the leading national expert on revenue enhancement and cost of growth strategies. TischlerBise consistently exceeds our client's expectations, which is due in large part to the heavy involvement of our highly skilled principal-level professionals. We are proud of the fact that most of our clients retain TischlerBise for return engagements. There are several areas that make our qualifications unique: ■ Unsurpassed Expertise. Our qualified professionals bring an unparalleled depth of experience to this assignment. We have managed over 900 impact fee studies across the country — more than any other firm. • Innovators. TischlerBise has been at the forefront of developing unique and innovative approaches for impact fees that are based on the client's policy objectives and backed by rigorous primary data development and expert analysis. For example, TischlerBise has developed and refined methodologies for calculating impact fees by size of housing unit and developing distance-related/tiered transportation impact fees. More important, a TischlerBise Impact fee methodology has never been challenged in a court of law. ■ National Thought Leaders. Both of the TischlerBise principals for this assignment are considered national thought leaders on the subjects of impact fees, infrastructure financing strategies, and fiscal/economic sustainability. Carson Bise, AICP, recently Chaired the American 2 TEschl re Bise FISCAL ECONOMIC I PLANNING Planning Association's Paying for Growth Task Force and was recently named an Affiliate of the National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education. Mr. Bise also serves on the Board of Directors for the Growth and Infrastructure Consortium, where he is a frequent presenter at the annual conference. Dwayne Guthrie, PhD, AICP, is also a frequent presenter at the Growth and Infrastructure Finance Consortium and co-authored, with Carson Bise, "Next Generation Transportation Impact Fees," for the American Planning Association. Both Mr. Bise and Mr. Guthrie are frequent speaker on impact fees and infrastructure financing at the state and national level for the American Planning Association, National Association of Homebuilders, Urban Land Institute, and the Government Finance Officers Association. ■ Consensus Builders. Our seasoned Project Team has actively participated in legislative body meetings and citizen committees to educate stakeholders regarding the technical process of impact fee calculations as well as the pros and cons of impact fees, particularly during challenging economic times. We have unsurpassed experience as consensus builders working with a broad cross-section of urban, suburban, and rural communities across the country. TischlerBise Montana Experience In addition to our unsurpassed national experience, an important factor to consider related to this work effort is our relevant experience working in the State of Montana (including the City of Bozeman), which makes us quite familiar with the local government revenue structures as well as the planning issues facing Montana jurisdictions. A summary of our Montana development impact fee experience is shown below. CLIENT 0 Belgrade Bozeman Corvallis School District Flathead County Florence School District Gallatin Co. Gallatin Co.Fire Districts Great Falls Madison County Manhattan Missoula Missoula Co. Poison Tischl re Base 3 _GNOMIC I PLANNING CL ln Ln Ravalli County Management/Communication Plan TischlerBise is a small consulting firm and therefore has to actively and carefully monitor current and projected workloads. The firm does not include personnel on a proposal unless said personnel can devote the time and resources necessary to complete the assignment on time and within budget. We are amenable to a penalty clause once a final work scope and contract have been agreed upon. TischlerBise utilizes a project management process which ensures our projects are completed on time and within budget, and, most importantly, they yield results that match our clients' expectations. Our project management plan employs the following principles for successful projects: • First, we begin by defining the project to be completed. Based on discussions that occur as part of our Project Initiation task, Carson Bise will identify the final project goals and objectives in collaboration with City staff, list potential challenges to the process, and develop a plan to ensure successful outcomes and effective communication. • Second, we will plan the project schedule. As part of the Project Initiation task, Mr. Bise will work with City staff to create an agreed-upon timetable to meet the project schedule. Prior to beginning the project, Mr. Bise will assign roles that will ensure that the project schedule is met on time and within budget. • Third, we will actively manage the project process. Mr. Bise and Ms. Hedands have a long history of strong project management skills that are supported by past project successes (we encourage you to contact our references in this regard). Mr. Bise will manage the work in progress, provide guidance and oversight to staff, and be accountable to the City of Bozeman for meeting the schedule, budget, and technical requirements of the project. • Finally, we will review all project deliverables and communication through a formal quality assurance process that requires review at the peer level, project manager level, and executive officer level. Prior to the delivery of work product to the City, deliverables will go through a structured quality assurance process involving up to three levels of review and utilizing a formal checklist tool. The first level involves a peer-to-peer review of work products and computer models. Next, Mr. Bise will be responsible for a second set of reviews comparing the work product to the completed quality checklist form. Tischl re Bise ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING Section 3: Project Team To successfully navigate through the City of Bozeman's impact fee study, the successful consultant must possess specific, detailed, and customized knowledge, not only of the technical analysis, but also of the context of the impact fee structure in achieving the City's land use, transportation, and economic development policy goals. Our Project Team for this assignment includes our most senior and experienced impact fee professionals. We have unsurpassed experience performing projects requiring the same expertise as that needed to serve the City of Bozeman. The role of each team member and their qualifications are briefly discussed in this section, and the organizational chart shows our project team for this assignment. City of Bozeman CarsonAICP ImpactAdvisory • Committee Herlands,JUe AICP Project ,•- Dwayne Guthrie, AICP Project Support Carson Bise, AICP, President of TischlerBise, will serve as Principal-In-Charge and coordinate our Project Team's interaction with the City of Bozeman to ensure that all work is completed properly, on time, and within budget. He will work closely with Julie Herlands and Dwayne Guthrie, developing and reviewing all aspects of the project and providing overall quality assurance for the project. Julie Herlands, AICP, is Vice President of TischlerBise, and has been selected as Project Manager for this project because of her substantial experience preparing impact fees and financing strategies, as well as her strong project management skills. Ms. Herlands will be responsible for controlling the work in progress, providing feedback to project team members and staff, and will be responsible for the technical requirements of the project. Most importantly, Ms. Herlands, in conjunction with Mr. Bise, will ensure constant collaboration and communication between City staff and our team through frequent progress memorandums, conference calls, and in-person meetings. TischlerBise 5 FISCAL I ECONDMIC I PLANNING Dwayne Guthrie, Ph.D., AICP, is Principal of our Florida office. Mr. Guthrie will provide support as needed throughout the project, particularly in the area of transportation impact fees. Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Bise were the two primary staff members on our previous Impact Fee Study for the City of Bozeman. Complete staff resumes are provided below. L. Carson Bise, 11, AICP, President EXPERIENCE Carson Bise has twenty-four years of fiscal, economic, and planning experience and has conducted fiscal and infrastructure finance evaluations in thirty-six states. Mr. Bise Is a leading national figure in the calculation of impact fees, having completed over 250 Impact fees for the following categories: parks and recreation, open space, police, fire, schools, water, sewer, roads, municipal power, and general government facilities. In his seven years as a planner at the local government level, he coordinated Capital Improvement Plans, conducted market analyses and business development strategies, and developed comprehensive plans. Mr. Bise has also written and lectured extensively on fiscal impact analysis and infrastructure financing. His most recent publications are Next Generation Transportation Impact Fees and Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners, both published by the American Planning Association, a chapter on fiscal Impact analysis in the book Planning and Urban Design Standards, also published by the American Planning Association, and the ICMA IQ Report, Fiscal Impact Analysis:How Today's Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budgets. Mr. Bise Is currently on the Board of Directors of the Growth and Infrastructure Finance Consortium and recently Chaired the APA's Paying for Growth Task Force. He was also recently named an Affiliate of the National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education. EDUCATION M.B.A., Economics, Shenandoah University Bachelor of Science, Geography/Urban Planning, East Tennessee State University Bachelor of Science, Political Science/Urban Studies, East Tennessee State University SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ■ Fiscal Impact Assessment,AICP Training Workshop, APA National Planning Conference ■ Dealing with the Cost of Growth:From Soup to Nuts, ICMA National Conference ■ Demand Numbers for Impact Analysis, National Impact Fee Roundtable ■ Calculating Infrastructure Needs with Fiscal Impact Models, Florida Chapter of the APA Conference ■ Economic Impact of Home Building, National Impact Fee Roundtable ■ Annexation and Economic Development, APA National Conference ■ Economics of Density, APA National Conference ■ The Cost/Benefit of Compact Development Patterns, APA National Conference ■ From Soup to Nuts:Paying for Growth, APA National Conference ■ Growing Pains, ICMA National Conference ■ Mitigating the Impacts of Development in Urban Areas, Florida Chapter of the APA ■ Impact Fee Basics, National Impact Fee Roundtable ■ Fiscal Impact Analysis and Impact Fees, National Impact Fee Roundtable s Tischler�E'3ise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING F ■ Are Subsidies Worth It?,APA National Conference PUBLICATIONS • "Next Generation Transportation Impact Fees,"APA, Planners Advisory Service • "Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners", APA • "Planning and Urban Design Standards", APA, Contributing Author on Fiscal impact Analysis • "Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today's Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budgets", ICMA Press ■ "The Cost/Contribution of Residential Development", Mid-Atlantic Builder ■ "Smart Growth and Fiscal Realities", ICMA Getting Smart! Newsletter ■ "The Economics of Density", AICP Training Series, 2005, Training CD-ROM (APA) Julie HerlandS, AICP, Principal Julie Herlands is a Principal with TischlerBise and has 15 years of planning, fiscal, and economic development experience. Prior to joining TischlerBise, Ms. Herlands worked in the public sector in Fairfax County, Virginia for the Office of Community Revitalization and for the private sector for the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) in their Advisory Services and Research Department. For IEDC, she conducted a number of consulting projects including economic and market feasibility analyses and economic development assessments and plans. Her economic, fiscal impact, and impact fee/infrastructure finance experience includes a wide-range of assignments in over 15 states. She is a frequent presenter at national and regional conferences including serving as co-organizer and co- presenter at a half-day AICP Training Workshop entitled Fiscal impact Assessment at the American Planning Association National Planning Conference. A session on impact fees and cash proffers presented at the APA National Conference is available through the APA training series, Best of Contemporary Community Planning. She is currently the Immediate Past Chair of the Economic Development Division of the APA and recently chaired the APA Task Force on Planning and Economic Development. EDUCATION Masters of Community Planning, University of Maryland Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, University of Buffalo SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS • What Are the Costs to Serve Development?, APA National Planning Conference ■ Local Fiscal Challenges and Planning Solutions, APA National Planning Conference ■ Cash Proffers and Impact Fees, APA Virginia Chapter Annual Conference ■ Fiscal Sustainability, APA Webcast ■ infrastructure Financing:Funding the Gap, APA National Planning Conference • Economic Development for Planning Practitioners, Training Workshop, APA National Planning Conference ■ Voluntary Mitigation Payments:An Alternative to impact Fees,APA National Planning Conference ■ Proffers vs. Impact Fees: The Virginia Experience, National Impact Fee Roundtable ■ Impact Fee—Or Is It?, APA National Planning Conference ■ Integrating Planning with School Demands, APA National Planning Conference Tischl re Bise 7 FISCAL 'GNOMIC PLANNING • Planning and Fiscal Reality, APA National Planning Conference PUBLICATIONS ■ "Should Impact Fees Be Reduced in a Recession?", Economic Development Now, August 10, 2009 (International Economic Development Council) ■ "Agreements, Fees, and CIP", The Best of Contemporary Community Planning, 2005, Training CD- ROM (APA and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy) Dwayne Guthrie, Ph.D. AICP, Principal EXPERIENCE Dr. Guthrie has thirty-two years of experience as a professional planner working primarily in the areas of impact fees, demographic analysis, infrastructure funding, fiscal evaluations, and transportation planning. His career includes twenty-three years of work as a planning consultant and eight years of public sector experience. At TischlerBise, Dr. Guthrie is the impact fee team leader, with over 380 studies completed for approximately 120 jurisdictions in twenty-five states/provinces. Dr. Guthrie has also served as an expert witness on the topic of impact fees. As a planning practitioner, Dr. Guthrie promotes smart growth through revenue strategies and pricing policies. By helping communities implement development impact fees, he guides local governments in creating a nexus between private sector development and the demand for public facilities. Rather than subsidize growth with general tax revenues, Dr. Guthrie works to ensure designated funding for infrastructure that also helps to minimize externalities like traffic congestion. He has pioneered innovative methods for tabulating census data to support higher fees for larger housing units and reducing fees for infill development located in urban centers. EDUCATION Ph.D., Planning, Governance, and Globalization,Virginia Tech Masters of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida Bachelor of Arts, Education, University of Florida SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS • Impact Fees, Utah City Engineers Association ■ Funding the Infrastructure Gap,APA National Conference • Development Impact Fees,Association of Idaho Cities Conference ■ Reasonable Impact Fees, National Association of Home Builders Conference ■ Impact Fees: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Continuing Legal Education Intemational, Growth Management Conference • Do Impact Fees Fit Your Comprehensive Revenue Strategy?, Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Conference • Developing a Capital Improvements Program, Utah League of Cities & Towns Conference PUBLICATIONS ■ "Next Generation Transportation Impact Fees,"APA, Planners Advisory Service. ■ "Introduction to Infrastructure Financing", 1Q Service Report, Vol. 31, No. 3, ICMA, 1999. 8 Tischl re B1se KISCAL ECONOMIC PLANNING Section 4: References Below are summaries of previous projects that highlight our Team's capacity and ability to complete the City's project. We have only listed projects with which our Project Team members were associated. City of Buckeye, Arizona— Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Fee Study Project Contact: George Flores, Development Services Director Phone: (623)349-6209 E-mail: gflores@buckeyeaz.gov Population: 56,683 Number of Employees: 237 Project Start and Completion Date: June 2013 to August 2014 TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Dwayne Guthrie TischlerBise recently prepared an SB1525 compliant Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Fee Study. The fee categories included water, sewer, stormwater, police, library and transportation. The City has made extensive use of developer agreements for water and sewer service, which necessitates the need for multiple service areas. Arizona's enabling statue takes a year to complete with mandatory adoption waiting periods. Extensive stakeholder outreach was conducted as part of the adoption. TischlerBise was just rehired to update the study In 2016. City of West Jordan, Utah — Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fees Project Contact: Stephen Glain, Assistant to the City Manager Phone: (801) 569-5156 E-mail: steveg@wjordan.com Population: 103,712 Number of Employees: 585 Project Start and Completion Date: August 2015 to August 2016 TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise (2012, 2016), Dwayne Guthrie(2004, 2009) TischlerBise has prepared impact fees for this community on four separate occasions. The fee categories included water, sewer, roads, parks, municipal facilities and storm drainage. As part of our two most recent updates, TischlerBise worked with a stakeholder group through a multi-meeting process to come to consensus on assumptions and methodologies. There was no opposition at the public hearing and the fees passed unanimously. City of Boulder, Colorado— Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee Study Project Contact: Chris Meschuk, Senior Planner Phone: (303)4414293 E-mail: MeschukC@bouldercolorado.gov Population: 107,167 Number of Employees: 1,447 Project Start and Completion Date: October 2015 to November 2016 TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Julie Herlands, Dwayne Guthrie TischlerBiserBise 9 :ONOMIC MANNING J4 M. TischlerBise recently prepared our third impact fee/excise tax assignment for the City of Boulder. This update included updates for fire/rescue, parks, trails, police, general government and libraries. In addition, TischlerBise completed a multimodal excise tax methodology. This update included preparation of progressive housing multipliers (i.e. the fee increases with the size of the dwelling unit). An extensive stakeholder outreach strategy was conducted throughout the process. Town of Erie, Colorado - Townwide Impact Fee Study Project Contact: Steve Felten, Finance Director Phone: (303) 926-2751 E-mail: sfelten@edeco.gov Population: 21,571 Number of Employees: 189 Project Start and Completion Date: September 2015 to August 2016 TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Malcolm Munkittrick The Town of Erie retained TischlerBise to update impact fees for parks and recreation, public buildings, stormwater, roads, and law enforcement. The Town's current impact fees were 20 years old and not in compliance with the State enabling statutes, nor do they reflect current state of practice. TischlerBise prepared a comprehensive update of the fees, which included multiple worksessions with the Board of Trustees and development community.The fees passed unanimously. City of Louisville, Colorado - Citywide Impact Fee Study Project Contact: Heather Balser, Deputy City Manager Phone: (303)335-4530 E-mail: Heatherb@Louisvilleco.gov Population: 20,480 Number of Employees: 234 Project Start and Completion Date: September 2016 to present TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise (2011 and present), Dwayne Guthrie(2004) The City of Louisville recently retained TischlerBise for the fourth time to update impact fees for parks and recreation, public buildings, library, roads, and police. As the City begins to approach buildout, one issue is whether certain impact fees should remain in place, and/or should other financing sources be pursued. In addition, there is less need for traditional transportation capacity projects, and an Increasing need for multimodal improvements. As a result, TischlerBise has prepared the draft transportation fee using a"mobility fee"approach. 10 Tischl rr ise FISCAL ECONOniC I PLANNING Section 5: Outline of Services Project Approach TischlerBise considers the discussion In this section to be proprietary and requests that all Information In this section of the proposal remain confidential. Impact fees are fairly simple in concept, but complex in delivery. Generally, the jurisdiction imposing the fee must: (1) identify the purpose of the fee, (2) identify the use to which the fee is to be put, (3) show a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project, (4) show a reasonable relationship between the facility to be constructed and the type of development, and (5) account for and spend the fees collected only for the purpose(s) used in calculating the fee. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves the following two steps: 1. Determine the cost of development-related improvements, and 2. Allocate those costs equitably to various types of development. There is, however, a fair degree of latitude granted in constructing the actual fees, as long as the outcome is "proportionate and equitable." Fee construction is both an art and a science, and it is in this convergence that TischlerBise excels in delivering products to clients. Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees for the City. Each method has advantages and disadvantages given a particular situation, and to some extent they are interchangeable because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. In practice, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for capital facilities. The following paragraphs discuss the three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods can be applied. Flan-Based Fee Calculation - The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of future improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a CIP. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. The plan-based method is often the most advantageous approach for facilities that require engineering studies, such as roads and utilities. Cost Recovery Fee Calculation - The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities from which new growth will benefit. To calculate an impact fee using the cost recovery approach, facility cost is divided by the ultimate number of demand units the facility will serve. An oversized arterial roadway is an example. Incremental Fee Calculation - The incremental expansion method documents the current level-of- service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard such as square feet per capita or park acres per capita. The LOS standards are determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, clients do not use the 11 Tischsch a 8ise FISCAL I ECONOMIC PLANNING pp- PPPA funds for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, the jurisdiction uses the impact fee revenue to expand or provide additional facilities as needed to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community. Evaluation of Alternatives. Designing the optimum impact fee approach and methodology is what sets TischlerBise apart from our competitors. Unlike most consultants, we routinely consider each of the three methodologies—cost recovery, incremental expansion, and the planned approach—for each component within a fee category. The selection of a particular methodology for each component of the impact fee category will be dependent on which is most beneficial for the City. In a number of cases, we will prepare the impact fee using several methodologies and will discuss the various trade-offs with the City. There are likely to be policy and revenue tradeoffs. We recognize that "one size does not fit all" and create the optimum format that best achieves our clients' goals. Lending a Sense of Market Reality to the Development Projections. Projecting future residential and nonresidential development is more difficult now than in the past due to the recent economic downturn. This is compounded by shifting trends in the housing market as a result of changing demographics and lifestyle choices. Changes in the retail sector combined with existing surpluses of retail space in many communities are also a concern. TlschlerBise's extensive national experience conducting market analysis and real estate feasibility studies Is invaluable In determining the appropriate development projections used in the impact fee calculations. These projections include both the amount of development and the geographic location. Depending on the methodology employed, overly optimistic development projections can increase the City's financial exposure if impact fee revenue is less than expected. Public Outreach. The importance of public outreach when considering impact fees and infrastructure funding options should not be overlooked. Based upon our experience with impact fees and infrastructure funding efforts across the country, we anticipate that this study may attract controversy. Therefore, it is important to build a coalition of support early in the process to educate and inform the public and other key stakeholders about the purpose of the study, and to explain how it will benefit both key constituents (developers) and the general public. It is critical to develop a communications strategy that will offset and correct any misinformation that might proliferate and to provide clear and compelling logic for public adoption of an updated impact fee program. Our seasoned project team has actively participated in legislative body meetings and citizen committees to educate and lead stakeholders regarding the technical process of impact fee calculations as well as the pros and cons of impact fees. In addition to the above elements, we believe the transportation fee requires new thinking regarding traditional transportation impact fee and funding programs (some of this was considered during our previous engagement with the City). TischlerBise is pioneering the following innovative approaches toward transportation/mobility fees: As shown in the table below from a recent American Planning Association publication entitled "Next Generation Impact Fees," written by Carson Bise and Dwayne Guthrie, traditional transportation impact fees were designed with a suburban worldview and designed to increase capacity for vehicle travel. Traditional impact fees are typically uniform across the entire jurisdiction, are driven by generic 12 T1sch erBlerBl ise 015CAL ECONOMIC I PLANNING r - formulas, tend to focus on 20-year master plans or build-out guesstimates, and are designed to fund infrastructure that will move vehicles. In contrast, the basis of "next-generation" transportation impact fees is the recognition that the fees can actually function like a land-use regulation to help shape development patterns. Planning and policy objectives drive Next-Generation Transportation Impact Fees, which vary geographically to reflect cost differences, and are intended to move people rather than vehicles alone. TischlerBise will evaluate the feasibility of including not only needed road capacity and intersection improvements, but also bike lanes, sidewalks,trails, transit, and other multi-modal improvements. Traditional Impact Fees Next Generation Impact Fees "pay to play" revenue source contractual arrangement to build improvements driven by generic formulas driven by plans and policy long range to buildout five to ten year planning horizon one and done ongoing planning and budgeting process suburban focus apply transect concept uniform across jurisdiction vary geographically moving vehicles moving people vehicle trips inbound vehicle miles of travel one size fits all residential by dwelling size loose cost analysis and generous credits specific improvements with a funding strategy Source-rischler8ise,Inc Benefit/Service Areas. As mentioned above, traditional transportationitransit fees have a suburban worldview. This perspective is evident in trip generation rates, typically obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), that are derived from traffic surveys primarily in suburban settings. A useful tool to facilitate spatial thinking is application of the transect concept during the development of next-generation transportation and mobility fees. Just as land-use regulations and smart growth techniques need to vary by transect, so must next-generation transportation impact fees be tailored to the characteristics of the area. On average, higher density, mixed-use residential development has fewer persons and vehicles available per unit relative to suburban residential development, thus lowering vehicular trip generation rates. Higher density, mixed use settings also provide options for walking, biking, and transit travel, thus lowering the vehicular mode share. Finally, mixed land uses (vertical and horizontal), more compact development, and a better jobs-housing balance work together to reduce average trip lengths in urban areas. The evidence is compelling that next-generation transportation and mobility fees must differentiate between urban, suburban, and rural scales. Tischl rare gise 13 FISCAL ECONOMIC PLANNING The picture below, from our regional transportation impact fee prepared for the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Nevada (serving Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County), summarizes the rationale and results for establishing an urban service area. The data sources and analysis from this study are transferable to the City of Bozeman and can be used to evaluate transportation impact fees and benefit areas for Bozeman. Urban Service Area Rationale and Results On average, urban residential has Sr­e Area Urban S"burban fewer vehicles available and persons per unit,thus lowering Wicks Im 170 vehicular trip generation rates HwangL%lt ➢ Urban settings provide options for peraone per Heueln=unk 19e 132 walking, biking, and transit travel, Sir&UrAu 40% 76% thus lowering the vehicular mode share 2•UNn p-So—Aur* box 24% ➢ Mixed land use, more compact "Erd.p*l qk UnIeTr'p 7M �4t per shale Unit development, and better jobs- A_r$VW_kd Vohlde Trip housing balance reduces average Ends per24 UM 441 S.70 trip length Aume to Work 74% 903 For the deffmViphk a ayrx c urban service area Wal�.&ka 3—to work 26% 10% Ind udo 2010 comattaera IAI.1=2.01.ML 7.91161I.I8A3.1941.19Aieed30. AverapVeNd*TrlpM M. 3.93 5.40 Source TrschlerBise,Inc. Work Scope TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION 1 DATA ACQUISITION During this task, we will meet with City staff to establish lines of communication, review and discuss project goals and expectations related to the project, review (and revise if necessary) the project schedule, request data and documentation related to new proposed development, and discuss City staffs role in the project. The objectives of this initial discussion are outlined below: • Obtain and review current demographics and other land use information for the City of Bozeman. • Review and refine work plan and schedule. ■ Discuss current and previous work efforts related to this topic. • Assess additional information needs and required staff support. • Identify and collect data and documents relevant to the analysis. • Identify any major relevant policy issues. Meetings: One (1)on-site visit to meet with City project management team/City staff as appropriate. Deliverables: 1) Revisions to project schedule, if necessary. 2) Data request memorandum. 14 Tischl re Bise FISCAL ECONOMIC PLANMNG e 1♦:, TASK 2: PREPARE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS The purpose of this task is to review and understand the current demographics of the City as they relate to growth and development and determine the likely development future for the City in terms on new population, housing units, employment, and nonresidential building area over the next 10-20 years. Information from the City, as well as TischlerBise's experience preparing market analyses throughout the country will serve as the basis for preparing projections of residential and nonresidential development for consideration by staff and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. TischlerBise will prepare a plan that includes projections of changes In land uses, densities, intensities, and population for specific service areas. A map of the area(s)to which the land use assumptions apply will also be included in this task. Meetings: Discussions with the Community Development Department will be held as part of Task 1, as well as conference calls as needed. One(1)meeting with City Council to discuss the fee update process. Deliverables: TischlerBise will prepare a draft technical memorandum discussing the recommended land use factors and projections. After review and sign-off by the City, a final memorandum will be issued, which will become part of the final Impact Fee Reports. TASK 3: DETERMINE CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS AND SERVICE LEVELS This Task as well as Tasks 4-6 may vary somewhat depending on the methodology applied to a particular impact fee category. The impact fee study for each facility type would be presented in separate chapters in the impact fee report. Identify Facilities/Costs Eligible for Impact Fee Funding. As an essential part of the nexus analysis, TischlerBise will evaluate the Impact of development on the need for additional facilities, by type, and identify costs eligible for impact fee funding. Elements of the analysis include: • Review facility plans, fixed asset inventories, and other documents establishing the relationship between development and facility needs by type. • Identify planned facilities, vehicles, equipment, and other capital components eligible for impact fee funding. • Prepare forecast of relevant capital facility needs. ■ Adjust costs as needed to reflect other funding sources. As part of calculating the fee, Bozeman may include the construction contract price; the cost of acquiring land, improvements, materials, and fixtures; the cost for planning, surveying, and engineering fees for services provided for and directly related to the construction system improvement; and debt service charges, if the City might use impact fees as a revenue stream to pay the principal and interest on bonds, notes or other obligations issued to finance the cost of system improvements. All of these components will be considered in developing an equitable allocation of costs. Identify Appropriate Level of Service (LOS) Standards. We will review needs analyses and LOS for each facility type. Activities related to this Task include: Tisch erBl ise 15 FISCAL J ECONOMIC I PLANNING ■ Apply defined service standards to data on future development to identify the impacts of development on facility and other capital needs. This will include discussions with staff of the existing versus adopted LOS, as appropriate. • Ascertain and evaluate the actual demand factors (measures of impact) that generate the need for each type of facility to be addressed in the study. ■ Identify actual existing service levels for each facility type. This is typically expressed in the number of demand units served. ■ Define service standards to be used in the impact fee analysis. ■ Determine appropriate geographic service areas for each fee category. Meetings: Two (2) meetings with City staff to discuss capital facility needs and levels-of-service. Deliverables: Memoranda as appropriate. Results integrated into Draft/Final Impact Fee Reports. TASK 4: EVALUATE DIFFERENT ALLOCATION METHODOLOGIES The purpose of this Task is to determine the methodology most appropriate for each impact fee category. Selection of the particular methodology for each component of the impact fee category will depend on which is most beneficial for Bozeman. In a number of cases, we will prepare the impact fees for a particular infrastructure category using several methodologies and will discuss the trade-offs with the City. This allows the utilization of a combination of methodologies within one fee category. For instance, a plan-based approach may be appropriate for a new building while an incremental approach may be appropriate for support vehicles and equipment. By testing all possible methodologies, the City is assured that the maximum supportable impact fee will be developed. Policy discussions will then be held at the staff and City Council level regarding the trade-offs associated with each allocation method prior to proceeding to the next task. Meetings: One (1) meeting with Bozeman staff and City Council to discuss issues related to allocation methodologies Deliverables: "Storyboard"presentation on fee categories. See Task 7. TASK 5: DETERMINE NEED FOR "CREDITS" TO BE APPLIED AGAINST CAPITAL COSTS A consideration of"credits" is integral to the development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There is considerable confusion among those who are not immersed in impact fee law about the definition of a credit and why it may be required. There are two types of "credits" that are included in the calculation of impact fees, each with specific, distinct characteristics. The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations. This could occur when a property owner will make future contributions toward the capital costs of a public facility covered by an Impact fee. The second is a credit toward the payment of an impact fee for the required dedication 16 Tischle 31se FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING of public sites and improvements provided by the developer and for which the impact fee is imposed. Both types of credits will be considered and addressed in the impact fee study. Deliverables: Memoranda as appropriate. See Task 7. TASK 6: CONDUCT FUNDING AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS In order to prepare a meaningful capital funding strategy, it is important to not only understand the gross revenues, but also the capital facility costs and any deficits. In this case, some consideration should be given to anticipated funding sources. This calculation will allow the City to better understand the various revenue sources possible and the amount that would be needed if the impact fees were discounted. The initial cash flow analysis will indicate whether additional funds might be needed or if the funding strategy might need to be changed to have new growth pay its fair share of new capital facilities. This could also affect the total credits calculated in the previous task. Therefore, it is likely that a number of iterations will be conducted in order to refine the cash flow analysis reflecting the capital improvement needs. Deliverables: See Task 7. TASK 7: PREPARE IMPACT FEE REPORTS, PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS TischlerBise will prepare a draft report for the City's review. The report will summarize the need for water, sewer, fire/ems and transportation impact fees in Bozeman and the relevant methodologies employed in the calculations. It will also document all assumptions and cost factors. The report will include at a minimum the following information: ■ Executive summary. ■ A detailed description of the methodologies used during the study. ■ A detailed description of all L.OS standards and cost factors used and accompanying rationale. ■ A detailed schedule of all proposed fees listed by land use type and activity. • Other information which adequately explains and justifies the resulting recommended fee schedule ■ Cash flow analysis. ■ Implementation and administration procedures. Following the City's review of the draft report, we will make mutually agreed upon changes to the development impact fee report and issues a final version. TischlerBise's report(s)will have flow diagrams clearly indicating the methodology and approach, a series of tables for each activity showing all of the data assumptions and figures, and a narrative explaining all of the data assumptions, sources and the methodologies. The report will be a stand-alone document clearly understood by all interested parties. Because of the firm's extensive experience in calculating impact fees and preparing such reports, we have developed a very succinct written product that leaves a well- understood paper trail. Tischl re Bise 17 FISCAL I EWNQMIC PLANN:NS Meetings: Two (2)meetings/presentations to present the draft and final Impact Fee Studies with the City Council. Deliverables: Draft and final reports and presentation materials for meetings. Two hard copies and 1 PDF version of all preliminary and final drafts shall be provided to City of Bozeman.All documents shall be provided at least 14 working days prior to any public hearing or meetings with the City Commission in an electronic format approved upon by the City. TASK 8: ASSIST WITH IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Per the Montana Impact Fee Act, the City is required to establish an Advisory Committee to assist in the development and review of land use assumptions, capital improvement plans, and impact fees. The purpose of this committee is to allow interested parties designated by the City in accordance with the Act, to understand assumptions and raise questions about the technical demographic, cost, revenue, credit and other data and supporting documentation that is being used in the calculation of impact fees. This will not be a forum to discuss the political and/or philosophical use of fees. Rather it will be an opportunity for these interested parties to understand the soundness and the reasonableness of the technical impact fee methodology. Based on our experience during our previous impact fee assignment with the City, we propose six meetings with this group. The first meeting would be an "open house" where members of the Advisory Committee, elected and appointed officials and the general public can come to learn about impact fees in general, as well as the process going forward. Meetings 2-4 would focus on the land use assumptions as well as the initial data assumptions proposed methodologies and services areas. Meetings 5 through 6 would focus on the presentation of the final Impact Fee Reports. If we find additional meetings are required,we will "piggyback"those on existing trips or trips to other western client, at no charge to City. Deliverable: Draft and final reports and presentation materials for meetings. Meetings: Six (6) meetings with Impact Fee Advisory Committee. 18 Tisch re Bise KISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING P pp� PA Section 6: Affirmation of Nondiscrimination TischlerBise, inc., hereby affirms it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and acknowledges and understands the eventual contract will contain a provision prohibiting discrimination as described above and this prohibition on discrimination shall apply to the hiring and treatments or proposer's employees and to all subcontracts. L. Carson Bise 11, AICP President Tisch eCBI use 19 FISCAL I ECONOM;C I PLANNING