Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-16 IFAC - MinutesImpact Fee Advisory Committee Thursday, February 11, 2016 6:00pm, City Commission chambers, City Hall– 121 N. Rouse Ave. A. 06:05:50 PM Call meeting to order Chris Saunders - Present Anna Rosenberry - Present George Thompson – Present James Nicholson - Present Rob Evans - Present Rick Hixson - Present Chris Mehl – Present B. 06:06:24 PM Changes to the Agenda C. 06:06:31 PM Approve minutes from 12/3/2015 – Minutes unanimously approved D. 06:07:05 PM Public Comment – No public comment E. 06:07:09 PM Action Items 1. 06:07:12 PM Ordinance 1936 Review and recommendation to the City Commission on Ordinance 1936 amending Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9, Impact Fees to revise definitions, authorize reimbursement districts, and establish procedures for reimbursement district. Chris Saunders begins discussion on the ordinance. 06:12:42 PM Chris Saunders finishes presentation and opens up for questions from the board. 06:12:51 PM Mr. Nicholson questions the section regarding creating reimbursement districts and the ability for the commission to create a district to fill in missing pieces. Mr. Saunders responds to his question in detail. Board questions what an example of this would be. Mr. Saunders responds with an example. Board discusses examples of when the City may develop these districts and that many of these districts would be evaluated on a case by case basis. 06:16:10 PM Rick Hixson comments that infill is a priority and he feels this program would be beneficial to encouraging developers to develop with regards to infill instead of extending out to the west. 06:18:12 PM Rob Evans states that he feels this is implied equity for a property – that by installing the infrastructure in advance, and guaranteeing that the City will be reimbursed in the future, it is incentive for the home owner because the cost is fixed and the work has been done. 06:19:28 PM Rob Evans states that he does not like that some property owners may not have to pay it back eventually. He said it may be hard for the public to accept. 06:20:08 PM Anna Rosenberry clarifies that it is her understanding that there will always be a local share, the ordinance was just leaving flexibility for the local share to come from another source. Discussion between Anna Rosenberry and Rob Evans regarding the requirement for the funds to be reimbursed in the future. 06:21:15 PM Chris Saunders agrees that yes, there will be a collection, but the means for collecting may be different on a case by case basis. 06:21:37 PM Mr. Nicholson states that perhaps that language should be adjusted. Mr. Hixson notes that “may” is not a bad word and just means that we won’t have to adjust it in the future. Mr. Saunders states that if the board agrees, they can add wording to make it clear that it is mandatory to collect the funds. Mr. Evans makes a suggestion. 06:22:53 PM Mr. Nicholson questions if City staff could offer insight on to why it was worded as it is – assuming that the City attorney likely was involved. 06:23:03 PM Mrs. Rosenberry responds with some insight as to why the word may be as it is. She states that when the improvements are happening, there is no project, so these districts will allow an Impact Fee construction project in the future be responsible for repayment. 06:24:21 PM Mr. Thompson expresses concerns regarding payback from adjacent project owners – but appreciates that we will be getting infrastructure in place for others to use while we are waiting on development to occur. He is concerned with the cost increase for projects over time. 06:26:06 PM Rob Evans questions if for those areas that pay back at a later date, if they will charge rate at the time the improvements were made, the rate plus interest, or current costs. Board discusses what is legal and what is in the community’s interest. 06:27:20 PM Chris Saunders discusses the various methods that repayment could be recalculated. 06:28:28 PM Rob Evans indicates that this is designed to be an incentive to connect areas within the city, not to spread to the west of town and this should be an incentive for people to develop infill. 06:28:52 PM Chris Saunders states that with an ordinance like this, they try to set the framework up front and leave it flexible enough to evaluate each project on a case by case basis. 06:29:45 PM George Thompson questions what will happen for the county parcels that are within city limits. Mr. Saunders responds that for individual home lots, they will likely make the improvements at the time of annexation, but with larger tracts of land, they will likely wait for a site plan. But it will be determined on a case by case basis. They want to encourage people to come into the city and reduce the cost burden up front. 06:31:15 PM Mr. Thompson questions how this is different from an SID. Mr. Saunders states that this does not allow for protest or negotiation. Whereas, with an SID, the community can vote against it. Anna Rosenberry indicates that with an SID, there is immediate payback of costs. With this program, there is no money flowing until whatever trigger is made to require repayment. 06:32:36 PM Mr. Nicholson states that he would be comfortable moving this forward as presented, but including comments regarding getting the impact fee fund reimbursed through projects that were not typically impact fee projects. 06:33:30 PM Richard Hixson states he does not agree with the local share portion, because there will be roads that do not provide local access to homes – and he cites examples. He thinks there are plenty of places were arterials provide no local access. He supports maximum flexibility. He will support moving this ordinance forward and sees their point of view, but argues that there are cases where there is no local share. 06:35:34 PM George Thompson comments that there may be a better way of wording it, not using “local share” – that there should be a community development fund since the community benefits as a whole from providing streets and sidewalks. 06:36:20 PM Rob Evans states that George Thompson brings up a good point, as currently it applies to adjacency, not use. If the use will be absorbed by the community at large, then the funding should be absorbed by some other mechanism than impact fees. He feels funding through impact fees is just the easy answer and the only answer we have right now. 06:37:35 PM Mr. Thompson stated that he thinks there may be a way to blend a community development fund, local shares fund, etc. to allow for flexibility. Mr. Evans provides an example where it is a disadvantage to the adjacent property owners to put a major road behind their home, but that doesn’t increase access to their property and would ultimately hurt their property value. Mr. Saunders indicates that is why it is important to look at such on a case by case basis, because there are so many variables. 06:39:28 PM Mr. Thompson discusses further Mr. Evan’s point about decreasing property value. 06:40:29 PM Mr. Hixson recommends that the city commission adopts ordinance 1936 Second by George Thompson Board unanimously approves. F. 06:40:59 PM FYI/Discussion 06:41:10 PM Mr. Thompson states that he was appreciative of early notice for the meeting. G. 06:41:45 PM 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).