The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 4082 Adopting Transportation Impact Fee Study COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COST OF SERVICE STUDY UPDATE. WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community's expressed needs and desires for services; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands for services in a fiscally responsible manner; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interest of all of the system users now and in the future and not a limited subset of users; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted a transportation facility plan which examined current and future needs and provides a lawful, logical, balanced, operationally sound, and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City's transportation system; and WHEREAS, the City Commission has chosen to utilize impact fees as one portion of an integrated approach to provide transportation services; and WHEREAS, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA provide specific authority and guidance about the necessary documentation to establish an impact fee and procedures to adopt and administer an impact fee; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with Tindale-Oliver & Associates to provide professional services in development of an updated transportation impact fee study; WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates reviewed the existing demand and needs for transportation facilities, the existing facilities available to meet that demand, and the method of financing the existing systems and needed new facilities; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates additionally reviewed the contribution made or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by property owners towards the capital costs of transportation facilities; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates reviewed and relied upon the City of Bozeman's current level of service (LOS) standards and facility cost assumptions III recommending transportation impact fees; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates prepared a transportation impact fee study dated October 31, 2007 (the Fee Study), including the assumptions, population and residential and non-residential development projections, capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations, which study has been submitted to and reviewed by the public, City staff, and officials; and, WHEREAS, in addition to the Fee Study, Tindale-Oliver & Associates and the City have prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation, as required by section 7-6- I 602 of the Montana Code Annotated, in developing the transportation facilities impact fees adopted pursuant to Chapter 3.24, Impact Fees, BMC (collectively, the "Impact Fee Data and Analysis"), including but not limited to the following: (1) 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; (2) Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance; BMC; (3) Design and Specifications Manual; (4) Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program; (5) Capital Improvements Program for General Fund, Street Maintenance Fund, and Street Impact Fee Fund; (6) the City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study, Final Report, dated August, 31 2007; (7) the City Budget; and (8) Specified bid tabulations. WHEREAS, the City develops its transportation facility plans, and its capital improvements program in a manner open to the public and accepts and responds to public comment and input; and WHEREAS, the City and Consultant have developed the transportation impact fee study in a manner open to the public and accepted and responded to comment and input; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Impact Fee Advisory Committee has considered and made recommendation to the City Commission on the draft document; and WHEREAS, the City Commission or Impact Fee Advisory Committee conducted public meetings on the subject of the transportation impact fee on October 9, 2006, July 26, 2007, October 25,2007, November 8, 2007, and December 10,2007; and WHEREAS, public comment was received and the consultant provided a written response to the comment and, where deemed appropriate, made revisions to the draft of the transportation impact fee study prior to the public hearing on November 26,2007; and WHEREAS, the City Commission conducted a public hearing on November 26, 2007 and December 10,2007; and WHEREAS, the Consultant and Staff conducted three conference calls with consultants representing the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association on December 5th & ih, 2007 to discuss comments provided regarding the study; and WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed and discussed this impact fee study update and accept and agree with the content of the impact fee study update and recognize that updates and modifications will be made to it in the future in accord with the requirements of Chapter 3.24 BMC; and WHEREAS, the City Commission found that all required elements necessary for compliance with standards for development of an impact fee have been satisfied through the study and related documentation; and WHEREAS, the City Commission was advised by Staff that some revisions in text had been prepared to help clarify points of how the study and related documents collectively complied with all statutory requirements and that the clarifying text could be incorporated into the study without making revisions to the substantive technical components of the study; and WHEREAS, the City Commission expressed a desire to have such clarifications included in the final draft text. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, that the October 31, 2007 draft of the Transportation Impact Fee Study Update, as contained in Exhibit "A" and updated to include the clarifying language suggested by Staff, which revised draft is dated January 3, 2008, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 10th day of December 2007 and specifying that the study shall be implemented simultaneously with the effective date of Ordinance No. 1730. ATTEST: - , . " /.. ~- .:-..... - I. :" _'.......,......~ .. '...... _ CITY OF BOZEMAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT ~~~ ~' " ~r ~~' ~ ~~ + 'c • • ~ ^ ~ • ~~, ~' ~~ ~ ~ • • • ~ ~ a ~'"' • `~.. ,- i f • '~ ~ • .-° .,_ .. ~ , ~ °• s ~{.~• ~;, • ca. January 3, 2008 Prepared. for: CITY OF SOZEMAN 20 E. Olive Street Bozeman, Montana 5971 S Prepared by: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100 Tampa, Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226- 2106 497001-00.06 Tir7dc~le-Oliver & Associates, Inc. .. Plannii~~; and F.t~t~ia~eeritig 7anuary 3, 2008 Mr. Chris Saunders, AICP Assistant Director Department of Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771 RE: City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fcc Update Study -Final Report January 3, 2008 Dear Mr. Saunders: Enclosed is the City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Final Report revised based on discussions with City staff and the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) on December 5`" and 7`~'. if you should have any qucstiot~s concerning these final deliverables, please do not hesitate to contact me or Marto Chavarria. It has been our pleasure to have worked with the City on the update of the transportation impact fee program. Sincerely, Tindale-Oliver & Associates Robert P. Wallace, P.E., AICP Vice President Enclosure 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657-9210 • Fax: (407) 657~910fi CITY OF BOZEMAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... l 2.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CALCULATION ....................... 4 2.1 Demand Component .............................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Individual Land Use Trip Characteristics .............................. 5 2.2 Cost Component of Transportation Capacity ........................................ 9 2.2.1 City Costs ............................................................................... 10 2.2.2 State Costs .............................................................................. 13 2.2.3 Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) ......................... 15 2.3 Credit Componcnt ................................................................................. 16 2.3.1 Gasoline Tax Credit (Equivalent) .......................................... 16 2.3.2 Facility Life ............................................................................ 17 2.3.3 Interest Rate ........................................................................... 18 2.3.4 Fucl Efficicncy ....................................................................... 18 2.3.5 Effective Days per Year ...................... 19 2.4 Capacity per Lane Mile ........................................................................ 19 2.5 Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity ....................................................... 20 2.b Interstate Adjustment Factor ................................................................ 21 2.7 Ad Valorem Tax Credit ......................................................................... 22 3.0 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEE SCHEDULE ......................... 23 3.1 Proposed Transportation Impact Fce Schedule ...................................... 23 3.2 Indexing ................................................................................................. 31 3.3 Compliance with State Statute --City Impact Fce Expenditures ........... 31 3.3.1 Preparation of Long Range Transportation Plan ................... 32 3.3.2 Classification of the Types of Projects .................................. 32 3.3.3 Development and Update of Capital Improvement Program 32 3.3.4 Project Implementation and Cost Verification ...................... 34 3.4 Revenue prajections ............................................................................... 34 APPENDICES Appendix A--Trip Characteristics Database Appendix B- Cost Component Calculation Appendix C- Credit Component Calculation Appendix D- Ad Valorem Credit Calculation Tindalc-Oliver & Associates, lnc. City of Bozeman ,lanuary 2008 i Impact Fee Study Appendix E--Analysis of Travel Behavior ofLow-Income Hauscholds Appendix F- Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fcc Schedule Appendix G-- Indexing Appendix H- Revenue Projections Appendix I-Evaluation of Funding Sources Appendix J-Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions Appendix K- Trip Exchange District (TED) Definition Characteristics Appendix L- Transportation Impact Fce Comparison Appendix M- Compliance with. State Statute Appendix N-Historical Street Impact Fee Funded Projects Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 ii li~ipact Fee Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Boaeman's Strcet Impact Fee Ordinance (Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), Chapter 3.24.050 -Street impact Fecs) was adopted in 1996. The impact fee ordinance was imposed to assist the City in providing adequate transportation facilities needed to accommodate the roadway capacity consumed by new development. The primary purpose of the roadway system is to ensure public safety, specifreally in the event of an emergency such as providing a means of mobility for fire and ambulance response vehicles. In addition, the roadway system provides the transportation capacity needed to serve new development. Based on 2000 Census Data, between 1980 and 1990, the city's population increased by 5 percent and between 1990 and 2000 by 21 percent. The 2007 City of Bozeman Sewer Facility :Plan projects that the city's population is expected to increase by approximately another 147 percent over the next 18 years. This growth results in a need for an increase in roadway capacity. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) was retained to conduct the City's 2007 Transportation Impact Fec Study. This summary report, which acts as a technical support document. to the Ordinance, presents the results of this study. Included in this docwnent is an updated fee schedule, as well as the necessary support material utilized in its calculation. It is recognized that this study is one component in an integrated transportation impact tee program which collectively satisfies the requirement of Title 7, Chapter 6, Part l b of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA). Tindale-Oliver & Associates and the City of Bozeman have prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation in developing the transportation facilities impact fee. Much of this information is immediately available to the public through the City of Bozeman wcbsite. All information cited is subject to change and updating to maintain currency and some elements are updated at least yearly. This information satisfies the requirements of section 7-6-1602 of the MCA and includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) Chapter 3.24, Impact Fecs, Bozeman Municipal Code (2) Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update; (3) Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance; BMC; (4) Design and Specifications Manual; (5) Strcet Impact Fee Capital Improvement .Program; Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lnc. City of Bozeman ,lanuary 2008 1 linpact Fee Study (6) Capital Improvements Program for General Fund, Street Maintenance Fwid, and Street Impact Fee Fund; (7) the City Budget; and (8) Specified bid tabulations. The purpose of this collective information and associated established procedures is to implement and administer tl~e impact fee program in a manner that ensures that: a) The amount of the impact fee is reasonably related to and rcasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of capacity consumed per unit of development and the associated infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new developmetrt. b) The impact fees imposed do not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. In accomplishing this, the following factors have been considered in determining a proportionate share of transportation capital improvements costs: (i) the need for public facilitr`es capital improvements required to serve new development caused by consumption of capacity by new development; and (ii) consideration of payments for system improvements rcasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form ofuser fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available non-impact fcc sources of funding the system improvements. c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility have been excluded from the impact fee calculation and expenditure of impact fee funds. d) New development has not been held to a higher level of service than existing users. e) Non-impact fee funding mechanisms have been identified to provide for installation of improvements necessary to address transportation needs not related to new development. f) Impact tees are prohibited from being used far operations and maintenance of the facility. g) Provision has been made for regular periodic review and updating of information and programs to maintain currency of information and to support development of an accurate fee. To accurately reflect the cost to provide roadway capacity, this study used recently bid roadway improvements to develop the input variables used herein. The increased impact Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 2 Impact Pee Study ices presented in this report are a direct result of cost increases in such items as concrete, asphalt, fuel, and steel. Specifically, in the last two years global demand for these inputs, with growth in other sectors, such as housing, has inllatcd the unit prices in the roadway construction industry. In addition, this report includes an evaluation of alternative funding sources to pay for capacity expansion and maintenance projects. New innovative financing sources for future roadway capacity expansion projects is necessary since current estimates project that the Highway Trust Fund balance (that provides a majority of funding for improvements on the state roadway system) will approach zero in 2009 or 2010. The general equation used to compute the transportation impact fee for a given land use is: Demand xCost -Credits =Fee The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is usually expressed in units of vehicle miles or lane miles of roadway capacity consumed per unit of development. The cost of building capacity is typically expressed in units of dollars per vehicle-mile or lane- milc of roadway capacity. The credits are an estimate ofnon-impact fee revenues generated by a unit of each land use of new development that are allocated to roadway capacity expansion construction projects. Thus, the fee represents an "up front" payment for a portion of the cost to replace the transportation facilities consumed by each unit of new development. This study is based on a standards driven approach (consumption- based). In the case of a standards driven impact fee, roadway capacity is estimated to be consumed on all roads (state, county and local collector roads and above) by new development whether these roads are improved or nat. This review and update recommends changes to the input variables used. in the existing impact fee schedule. Additional information relevant to transportation impact fees was reviewed and. used in the update process. The general topics considered for the update process arc as follows: • Demand Component o Individual land use trip characteristics (local data collection) • Cost Component o City roadway improvement cost estimates o State roadway improvcinent cost estimates • Credit Component Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 200H 3 Impact Fee Study o Gasoline tax distributions and allocations o Other funds • Other variables used in the impact fee formula. These items are all discussed in subsequent sections of this document, with the result being an updated transportation impact fee rate schedule. 2.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CALCULATION There arc 12 input variables used in the impact fee equation: • Nunnber of daily trips generated • Length of those trips • Proportion of travel That is new travel, rather than travel that is already traveling on the road system • Cost per lane mile • Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies) • Facility life • Interest raft • Fuel efficiency • Effective days per year • Capacity per lane mile • Interstate adjustment factor • Ad valorem tax credit A review of these variables and corresponding recommendations are presented in the following sections. 2.1 Demand Component The Demand Component includes three of the twelve impact fee variables. Thcsc are the number of daily grips generated, the average length of those trips, and the proportion of those trips that are new trips, as apposed to trips that were already traveling on the road system. Each of these variables are discussed in this section. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inr. City of Bozeman January 2008 4 Impact Fee Study 2.1.1 lndividual Land Use Trip Characteristics The amount of road system capacity consumed by a new land development is calculated using the following units of measure: • Number of daily trips generated; • Length of those trips; and • Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is estimated to have already been on the road system. For the purpose of this study, the trip characteristics variables have been obtained primarily from two sources: previous similar trip characteristics studies, including those conducted in the City of Bozeman, and from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (7`h edition). The trip characteristics studies that were conducted as part of this current study arc presented in the City gf'Bozernan Trip Churacterirtics Study report. These studies include a survey and review of travel characteristics for the following land uses: • single family residential; • residential condominium/townhouse; • office; and • shopping center. Local Trip Chcu°acteristics The analysis of trip characteristics data (trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips) is used to estimate the lane miles of capacity consumed by specific types of land uses. In order to better understand trip characteristics in the City of Bozeman, a total o.f 11 sites from the four identified land use categories were studied. This includes the review of three single-family residential sites, two residential condominium/tawnhouse sites, three office sites, and three shopping center sites. As previously mentioned, the details of these site surveys can be found in the document titled, City cif Bozeman Trip Chaructcristics Study. Data. resulting from the trip characteristics surveys are summarized in Table 1 and are used in the development of the demand component of the transportation impact fee for Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 20Q8 5 Impact Fee Study the four land uses. Table l provides a summary of the data collected for the three variables (trip generation rate, trip 1enl,~th, and percent new trips] and the resulting; vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for each land use category that was calculated. Land use-based survey/study results that were incorporated into the Trip Characteristics Database are included in Appendix A. This database was used to document the trip length, percent new trips, and trip rate for the land uses contained in the impact fee schedule. An analysis of the trip characteristics of lower income households is presented in Appendix E. The trip characteristics variables used in the calculation of the impact fee for each ]and use included in the proposed fee schedule are presented in Appendix F. Local Ti°ip Cha`•crcterrstics Adjua~tment Factor The local trip characteristics data collected for the City of .Bozeman land use sites were compared to data contained in the Trip Characteristics Database. Based on this review, trip length reduction factors were applied to both residential and non-residential land uses not studied as part of the local trip characteristics process. The specific adjustment factors presented below were applied to the trip lengths obtained from data in the Trip Characteristics Database for land uses not studied in the City of Bozeman. Appendix A presents the trip lengths for all land uses in the Trip Characteristics Database as well as the adjusted City of Bozeman trip lengths based on the application of the following reduction factors. 1. Single family trip length. reduction factor (SS%) was applied to the following land uses: • lodging land uses (hotel, motel) • recreation land uses (golf course, city park, movie theaters) 2. Residential condominium trip length reduction factor (5S%) was applied to the following land uses: • mobile home park Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 6 Impact Fec Study Table 1 Summary of Bozeman Trip Characteristic Studies (t~ ~e~velttpinent Type .. Net Size ~e>~~ra~tfttrl `~h,~pin ~+Tevv --;AMT Fee y SINGLE FAMILY Site 1 Residential 142 dwelling unit 9.69 3.23 104% 31.30 15.65 Site 2{;} Residential 105 dwelling unit NIA 1.59 100% NIA NIA Site 3 Residential 41 dwelling unit 9.32 4.53 100% 42.22 21.11 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINI UMITOWNHOUSE Site 4 Residential 63 dwelling unit 7.70 2.67 140% 20.56 10.28 Site 5 Residential 57 dwellin unit 5.74 3.58 100% 20.55 10.27 OFFICE Site 6 Non-Residential 48,344 1,000 sf 21.37 2.83 69% 41.73 20.86 Site 7{4~ Non-Residential 39,427 1,000 sf NIA 1.64 77% NIA NlA Site 8 Non-Residential 61,199 1,040 sf 2892 I.74 72% 36.23 18.12 SHOPPING C ENTER Site 9 Nan-Residential 35,888 1,000 sf 69.30 1.39 74% 71.2$ 35.64 Site 10 Non-Residential 104,257 1,440 sf 46.96 3.35 49% 77.08 38.54 Site 11 Non-Residential 159,852 1,000 sf 56.49 1.56 54% 47.59 23.79 (1} Source: City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study, Tindale-Uliver ~ Associates, 1nc., Luu ~ (2} VMT is divided by two to avoid over-charging a land use since ITE trips are trips to and from two land uses. {3} Trip generation was not calculated due to the presence ofcut-through traffic from construction on adjacent street. [4) Trip generation was not calculated due to the presence afeut-through traffic from construction on adjacent street. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. c;~ty at t3ozeman January 2048 7 Impact Fee Study 3. Office trip length reduction factor (43%~) was applied to the following land uses: institution land uses (hospital, nursing home, elementary school, high school, university, church/synagogue, and day care center) • medical office • industrial land uses (general light industrial, manufacturing, warehouse, and mini-warehouse) 4. Retail trip length reduction factor (62%) was applied to the following land uses: • retail land uses (all retail tiers, building material/lumber, discount superstore, nursery/garden center, convenience store, quality restaurant, fast-food restaurant with drive-through, new/used auto sales, furniture store, bank savings with drive-thru) In addition, it should be noted that a review of 2000 Census data specifically demographic (median age, age distribution, population, household size), economic (income distribution), and journey-to~work characteristics (travel time, travel mode, vehicle ownership) was conducted to establish a relationship between the studies iti the Trip Characteristics Database and the City of Bozeman for land uses that were not studied locally. This review shows that the adjustment factor discussed previously for residential and non-residential trip lengths are justified since journey-to-work travel characteristics indicate that on average trip lengths in Bozeman are shorter than data. collected from sites included in the Trip Characteristics Database. 1n addition, the trip generation rate data recommended in the fee schedule is primarily based on the (1TE) Trip Genes°atinn reference report (ern edition) which is a national source. Ti°ip Exchar7ge District (TED) Trip Characteristics In addition, adjustment factors were calculated for the percent new trips for non-residential land uses to account for the travel characteristics unique to the trip exchange district of the City of Bozeman. These adjustments were made to the lodging, recreation, office, retail, restaurant, and bank land uses. Typically, the adjustments reduced the percent new trips variable since in the trip exchange district people link trips as opposed to traveling by vehicle. The adjustment factors were calculated based on the City of Tampa Transportation Impact FE:e Stur.~!v. conducted by Kirnley-Na°n ur~d Associates, 1988 using the relationship between trip purpose and person trips. The City of Tampa. study utilized 1TE trip generation rates at~d the results of a Downtown Portlaj~d Cis°culatinn Studt~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Lnc• City of Bozeman January 2008 H lmpact Fee Study conducted by DeLeuw, Catl~er; and Cnmpanv, 1973 that documented the reasons for individuals entering a building by their main purpose for coming downtown. The data facilitated the- calculation of trip adjustment factors for percent new trips that reflect the high level of captured trips in the downtown area. In addition, this data. presented the mode of travel to the downtown buildings. A local study in Montana, the Montana Three City Parking Generation/Land Use Pattern Corr-c~lation Studv, 2004 also confirms the unique characteristics of the TED. This study collected survey data in the cities of Bozeman, Billings, and Great Falls to examine the relationship between trip purpose, number of stores visited, and duration of stay in the TED and other areas of the cities. The results of this study indicate there are more linked trips in the TED (more places are visited). In addition, the study recommends that parking requirements be reduced for businesses that locate in the TED due to parking efficiencies that arise from the linked trips. The results of this study confirm that given the mixture of land uses present in the TED, the travel characteristics ofcertain land uses in the TED warrant adjusnl~ents to the percent new trips variable since the capture rate (1 minus the percent new trips) is higher in the downtown area with trips being linked among land uses. Further, as long as the mix of land uses observed in the TED is present, the adjustment to travel characteristics is warranted regardless of the size of the TED (Portland, Tampa, Bozeman) 2.2 Cost Component of Transportation Capacity Cost Over°view The cost of providing transportation system capacity has increased in recent years. Certain phases of lane widening projects, such as canstructian, have seen significant cost increases recently. Appreciation in land values has resulted in higher right-of--way costs. Infannation from the City of Bozeman and the Montana. Department of Transportation (MDOT) was used to develop a unit cost for all. phases involved in the addition of one lane mile of roadway capacity. Lt should be noted that Gallatin County does not construct any lane mile addition projects in the City of Bozeman. The following sub-sections detail the analyses that were undertaken to review the different costs associated with the construction of city and state roads. Appendix B provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses. ~t"indale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozet~an January 2008 9 Impact Fcc Study The cost is separated into four phases: design, righC-of--way (ROW), construction, and construction engineering/inspection (CEl) costs. Each of these cost components are further discussed for city and state roads below. 2.2.1 City Costs This section examines the construction costs of transportation capacity improvements associated with city roads in the City of Bozeman. For this purpose, recent bids and final project costs of two projects that were recently constructed were used to identify and provide supporting cost daia for roadway improvements. Specifically, these two projects include the West Babcock Street project and the West Durston Road project. It should be noted that these improvements were built to be consistent with MDOT design standards. Based on discussion with City staff, design casts were estimated at 8.5 percent of construction costs. It should be noted that the design cost is a separate cost component and was calculated as a percentage of the construction cost. This percentage is based on recent construction project cost estimates and recently completed City projects. The ROW cost was developed based on a review of property acquisitions for the West Babcock Street (22) and West Durston Road (10) projects. Most of the ROW for construction of both projects was obtained in advance of the lane additions. Temporary easements were provided by property owners along the corridor at no cost to the city. City staff confirmed that the ROW acquisition for these two projects is typical of future roadway construction for improvements that will add left-turn storage along atwo-lane undivided roadway segment. The weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is presented in Appendix B, Table B-1. As shown in the table, the weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is approximately $280,000 for city roads. As previously mentioned, the construction cost per lane mile was developed based on a. review of recent bid prices for the West Babcock Street improvement and the West Durston Road projects in the City of Bozeman. City staff confirmed that the projects used to develop the construction. cost are typical of the type of roadway project that the City intends to construct in the future. During discussion with City staff, it was noted that based on prior experience, the following three factors contribute to higher construction costs in the City of Bozeman (relative to other areas in the state of Montana): Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 10 Impact Pee Study • Labor market conditions -wage rates in Bozeman arc comparatively higher than the rest of Gallatin. County and other parts of Montana. • Lack of construction companies bidding on roadway projects. This lack of compctition also leads to an increase in overall roadway construction costs. Based on discussion with City staff, the cost to build city collector roadways is fairly consistent with the state arterial roadway projects due to this compctition. • Bascd on discussion with City staff, it was noted the city and state roads are built with the similar design specifications. Based on this analysis, the construction cast of $3.1 million per lane mile to build state roads that add two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided section (a total of five lanes) was used as a proxy for city roadways of similar type. Since the construction cost per lane mile is intended to reflect the observed cost of future capacity, a weighting was assigned based on project types in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update for all city roadway improvements (specifically for programmed projects). These improvements represent the impact fee eligible roads that have not been constructed to date and are contemplated to be built in the Bozeman area. Appendix B, Table B-3 provides the list of improvements and Table B-4 provides a summary of the lane miles by project type used to develop tl~e percentages used in the weighted cost calculation. It should be noted that the Greate~° Bozeman Area Ti~ansportatio~a Plan, 2001 Update has a planning horizon through 2020. The percentages used by improvement type are listed below: • New construction of two travel lanes and a continuous left turn lane (three-lane section) (16 percent). • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along atwo-lane undivided roadway where the city only pays for the addition of the third lane (three-lane section) (28 percent). • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along atwo-lane undivided roadway that is either a reconstruction of the existing lanes or an offset (three-lane section) (26 percent). • The addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five lane section) (30 percent). As shown in Appendix B, Table B-6, the resulting city construction cast per lane mile is approximately $2.8 million. The two projects (West Babcock Street and West Durston Road) arc being constructed as an urban cross-section and are consistent with MDOT and Tindalc-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 ] ] lmpact Fee Study City design standards. City staff also indicated that it is anticipated that all future city roadway projects will be built utilizing urban cross-section design. It should be noted that the City of Bozeman is currently updating the Grcatcr Bozcman Area Transportation Plan. Upon completion of this upda.tc, it is recommended that the City evaluate the rnix of planned future roadway improvements in the updated Grcatcr Bozcman Transportation Plan to determine if adjustments in the mix of project types being used to estimate the construction cost per lane mile in the impact fcc calculation need to be made. The mix (addition of travel lanes and continuous left turn lanes to existing two-lane undivided roadways) of future improvements is a policy decision based on the assessment of future growth needs. Further, as a policy decision and consistent with City Code, the City requires new development to construct the first two lanes of a new road project. if the City determines that it is in its best interests to construct a new three-lane roadway section, the City contributes the cost for the third lane. For projects where only two lanes are initially built, the City pays for the cost to improve the two-lane undivided segment to athree-lane section with the addition of the continuous left turn lane. It should be noted that the impact fee network that provides the basis for the consumption-based impact fee approach includes only two-lane undivided roadways and above given this requirement for new developments. The calculations used to develop the city construction costs are shown in Appendix B, Tables B-3 through B-6. Based on an analysis of the project cost information for city roadway capacity-adding projects, the total cost per lane mile is estimated at approximately $3.5 million. Table 2 presents the breakdown of the estimated average cost for each phase of a typical roadway capacity-expansion project in the City of Bozeman. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman .lanuary 2008 12 Impact Fec Study Table 2 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mlle by City Project Phase (in 2006 Dollars) ti~ v r ~,wn R f`e ' .u ~'`p5t ~~t't1E 4$ 1'~ ~ * S , '~{1t ' ~+ Desi n $236,459 Right-of-Wa $276,316 Construction $2,781,$69 CEI $23G,459 Total Cost $3,531,103 (1) Source: Appendix. B, Table B-8 2.2.2 State Costs A similar review also was completed for state roadway projects in order to estimate the typical phase and total costs for capacity-adding projects. A total of four state projects were identified that were either completed (2) or the full project cost was programmed (2) in t11c FY 2006-2008 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Of the four projects, the two completed projects provided a basis with which to estimate construction costs for state projects in the City of Bozeman because they were found to be representative of future state projects in the City of Bozeman. The two projects with fully programmed costs from the STIP were used to develop a cost for urban-design state roadways in the City of Bozeman.. The construction cost per lane mile was calculated based on weighting project types in the Greater BozE:man Area Transportatror~ Playa, '001 U~~dute for all state roadway improvements. Appendix B, Table B-3 provides the list of improvements and Table B-4 provides a sununary ofthc lane miles by project type used to develop the percentages used in the weighted cost calculation. The percentage used by improvement type includes the following: • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along atwo-lane undivided roadway (three-lane section) (26 percent). • The addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five-lane section) (74 percent). Tisdale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Crty of Bozeman January 2008 13 Impact Fee Study The detailed calculations used to dcvclop the state construction cost by section design are presented in Appendix B, Table B-6. As shown in that table, the resulting state construction cost per lane mile for an urban design arterial roadway is approximately $3.4 million. Based on discussion with MDOT staff, it was confirmed that the project used to dcvclop the state costs, South 19th Avenue (Babcock Street to Kagy Boulevard), is typical of future roadway improvements. The South 19th Avenue project is typical of two travel lanes being added to a two-lane divided roadway. 1n addition, the bid tabulation for the South 19th Avenue project was used to develop standard quantities and current unit prices for estimating cost of adding a continuous left turn lane along atwo-lane undivided roadway. The detailed analysis used to develop this construction cost is presented in Appendix B, Table B-5. The construction cost for the Rouse Avenue project were not used since the project scope includes additional features that have a financial impact on the overall project cost that are considered to be atypical when compared to future improvements of this type. Based on discussions with City and MDOT staff, this construction cost was not used in developing the weighted average construction cost per lane mile. It should be noted that other recently bid projects in the state of Montana were also reviewed to confirm consistency of unit prices and quantities with the projects used in this analysis. ROW cost data for the two roadway projects discussed above were used to estimate the ROW cost.per lane mile. The ROW acquisitions associated with these improvcmcnts were confirmed to be typical of future improvements. Specifically, the ROW plans for the South 19t'' Avenue project were evaluated for acquisitions associated with the cross section width and easements. 1t should be noted that unlike the construction cost for the Rouse Avenue project, the ROW cost was considered typical of future improvements where a continuous left-turn lane is added to a two-lane undivided roadway. As shown in Appendix B, Table B-2, the weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is approximately $335,000. Table 3 summarizes the estimated average cost per lane mile for state roads. As shown in the table, the total average cost per lane mile for state roads (including all phases) is approximately $4.5 million. It should be noted that the mix of improvements (2 to 3 lane sections and 3 to 5 lane sections) explains the construction cost per lane mile. differential between the city and the state. Based on the revised Hst of Greate~° Boze~nara Area Ti°ansportatlo~z Plan. 2001 Update projects, the State is constructing a higher percentage five lane sections (74 percent) than the City (30 percent). As noted previously, state projects included in the analysis are presented in Appendix B, Table B-2. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lnc. City of Bozeman January 2008 14 Impact Fee Study Table 3 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile by State Project Phase (in 2006 Dollars) ,, ' ~ n ~ ~1~J G h~~ ~{~{ ~7'1~ 1(~~~e ~ ^~ ^t 4' ~r ^ Deli n 3,101 $34 Ri =ht-of-Wa $335,446 Construction $3,431,005 CEI $343,101 Total Cost $4,452,653 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-8 2.2.3 Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) The weighted average cost per lane mile for city and state roads is calculated and presented in Table 4. The resulting weighted average cost of approximately $3.7 million per lane mile will be utilized as the cost input in the calculation of the impact fee schedule. This weighted average cost per lane mile includes city and state projects and is based on weighting by the distribution of city and state lane miles of roadway being constructed in the Gr°eater° Bozenaarr Area Transpnrtatiorr Plan, 2001 Update (Appendix B, Table B-7), which is 84 percent City roads and 16 percent State roads. As noted previously, the project. inforn~ation and methodology used in these calculations is included in Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-8. Table 4 City of Bozeman City & State Roadway Capital Projects Estimated Adjusted Total Cost per Lane Mile (in 2006 Dollars) ~ .. ~~ Desi =n $236,459 $343,101 $253,522 Construction $2,781,869 $3,431,005 $2,885,731 Ri ht-of-Wa $276,31 G $335,446 $285,777 CEl $236,459 $343,101 $253,522 Total $3,531,103 $4,452,653 $3,678,552 (1) Source: Appendix .B, Table B-8 Tindalc-Oliver & Associates, ]nc. City of Bozeman ,ianuary 2008 15 Impact Fcc Study 2.3 Credit Component Based on the requirements of section 7-6-1602, (5) (b) (iii) of the MCA, a revenue crcdit is given for capacity expansion expenditures from non-impact fee revenue sources. Sections 2.3.1, 2.7, Appendix C, Tables C-1 through C-4, and Appendix D present the detailed calculations used to develop the revenue credit. 2.3.1 Gasoline Tax Credit (Equivalent) The present value of gasoline taxes generated by a new dcvclopment over a 25-year period is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. This is because travel from new dcvclopment generates gasoline tax revenues, a portion of which is typically allocated to expansion of the transportation system. City A review of the city roadway financing program shows that a combination of impact fees and General Obligation (GO) Bonds are being used to fund capacity expansion projects. The City uses the local allocation of gas tax revenues provided annually by MDOT based on MCA Section 15-70-10 to fund maintenance-related projects such as roadway rc- paving, traffic signal maintenance and drainage improvements. It should be noted as described below that the federal transfer of gas tax revenues known as "urban funds" arc expended on capacity expansion projects and a credit is given under the state gas tax discussion. Since tl~e City is not spending any of the locally allocated gas tax revenues on capacity expansion projects, no gas tax credit is given. The portion of the GO Bond that is allocated to capacity expansion projects and being backed by ad valorem funds will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. County 1t should be noted that, based on a review of the Gallatin County roadway financing program, it was determined that Gallatin County has not. programmed any funds to be spent on capacity expansion projects in the City ofl3ozeman. As such, no crcdit is given for gas tax revenues received by the County and spent in the City. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman ,lanuary 2008 16 lmpact. F'ee Study State State expenditures in Gallatin County were reviewed and a credit for the capacity expansion portion attributable to state projects was provided. It should be noted that. these revenues known as "urban funds" originate from federal gas tax revenues requiring a match provided by MDOT using state gas tax revenues and are expended on state roadway projects identified as local priorities on state routes. The state credit includes this federal funding on projects identified as capacity expansion improvements on state routes. The equivalent taumber of pennies allocated to fund state projects was deternlined using information far a 9-year period of the MDOT Work Program (FY 2000 through FY 2008). A list ofcapacity-adding roadway projects was identified, including lane additions, new road construction, intersection improvements, traffic signal. projects, and other capacity-addition projects. This review (which is summarized in Appendix C, Table C-4) indicates that MDOT spending generates an equivalent gas tax credit of 10.2 pennies of gas tax revenue annually. It should be noted that the historical work program for FY 2000 through FY 2006 included preliminary engineering for several capacity expansion projects discussed previously. As such, the variance in the amlual revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects between this period and FY 2007 through FY 2008 is explained by the fact that the ROW and construction phases are programmed in. the current phase of the MDOT Wark Program. Table 5 provides a summary of the results of the gas tax credit analysis. Table 5 Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies (in 2006 Dollars) r , ~, y ~ ~„ , k Y.: ~ ~ ti }Y ~~ ~ r `~ r7 '. ,} State Gas Tax Credit ~ ~ $0.102 Total $0.102 (1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-4 2.3.2 Facility Life The facility life used in the proposed fee is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of the roadway. Tindale-sliver & Associates, lnc. City of C3ozcinan January 2008 17 I inpact Fce Study 2.3.3 )<nterest Rate This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be botidcd. It is used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 4.6 percent is determined based on discussions with representatives from the City's Finance Department and reflects the rate at which the City is likely to borrow in the future. 2.3.4 Fuel Efficiency In order to calculate future gas tax revenues, it is necessary to estimate the future consumption of gas. The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with each unique land use. Appendix C documents the calculation of~fuel efficiency value (Table C-5), based on the following equation, where "VMT" is vehicle miles of travel and "MPG" is fuel cfftciency in terms of miles per gallon. Fuel Effciencv- VMT ~~ VMT,~•j„~r<=rL,~~ Rnudwm~ Type MYG~,el~iclr777~c Rnad~~gp7)/» The methodology utilizes non-interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs) and large trucks (i.e., single-unit, 2-axle, 6-tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to calculate the total gallons of fuel. utilized by each of these vehicle types. The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined. total gallons of fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a "weighted" fuel efficiency value that appropriately accounts for the existing fleet mix of traffic on non-interstate roadways. The VMT and average fuel efficiency data were obtained from the most recent Federal Highway Administration's Highwrrv Sfutistics 2005.1 Based on the calculation completed ~ The data used in Table C-5 in Appendix C was compiled liom Table VM-I (section V) of the document, Ilrgl~wcrv S7atrstics 2(1(15, Office of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C (see Table C-6). The document can be accessed on-line at ht~://www,fhwa.doi.~vlnoli~/ohim/hs05/re.htm. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, inc. City of Bozetrtan January 200$ 18 Impact Fee Study in Table C-5 of Appendix C, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 17.70 miles per gallon. 2.3.5 Effective Days per Year An effective 3G5 days per year of operation was estimated for all. land uses in the proposed fee. While not all land uses operate 365 days per year (c.g., office buildings and seasonal land uses such as schools), the use of 3GS days per year provides a "conservative" estimate of the amount of gas consumed annually, ensuring that gasoline taxes are adequately credited against the fee. 2.4 Capacity per Lane Mile The C ity of Bowman's adopted level of service standard of "C" is defined in Section 18.44.060.D of the Bozeman Municipal Code. This standard has been consistent during and after the preparation of the Greater Bozeman Area Ti~arasportation Plan, 2001 Update. The City uses this standard to make decisions as to what roads need capacity expansion. From an impact fee perspective, no impact fee funds are used to construct any road or portion of a road that is operating below the adopted level of service standard. An additional component of the impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane mile of roadway constructed. The capacities in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update represent trigger volumes and are conservative for impact fee purposes. Based on discussion with City staff, the weighted average capacity added per lane mile was calculated using Table 4-1 of the Creater Bozeman Area Transportation Plart, 2001 Update (specifically for programmed projects). The plan was used because it ref7ccts the most reasonable source of the. type of roads and their associated capacity that arc planned to be built in the future on which impact fcc funds may be spent. City staff indicated that the capacity associated with ideal management conditions (the higher of the two capacity values from Table 4-1 of the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation .Plan, 2001 Update) should be used in the calculation of the impact fee since current policies are in place to actively pursue improved access control and optimal signal timing. The use of this higher capacity in the impact fee calculations is conservative and further ensures that new development is not charged at a rate that corrects deficiencies or that is a higher standard than that enjoyed by existing users of the roadway network. Upon completion of the 2007 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 19 hnpact Fee Study Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update, the impact fee capacity figures should be reviewed and updated, if appropriate. The weighted average capacity per lane mile was estimated using the planning level capacities and weighted by the lane distribution of future roadway improvements by jurisdiction in the Greater Bozeman Area Truri.~partation Plan, 2001 Update. As mentioned previously, the mix of future projects is strictly a policy decision based on the assessment of future growth needs. Appendix B, Table B-9 provides the detailed calculation used to develop the weighted average capacity added per lane mile. As shown in Table 6, the resulting weighted average capacity added per lane mile is 8,658. Table 6 Weighted Average Capacity per Lane Mile h ~~,.~ n ~ s ,~ ~~~ht~ ~ y i ~Greatgr` 1~~1]iRhl~Yl 1 ~ 1 ~ fdt'~~~~~~ ~~.~r ~ ~ i ., ~~ ~ , ~~T { ~ F~ L, i t IC ` ' ~'{Y ,~~ ~ ~y ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ t i~, y,l.' ~f ~ 1~ 4 :~I1 , ~ F~ ,~~.~ ~ /~ 1 'Y' ~ ,~° ~ ~ tic on n ~y,~~y,~ ~~~ ~~ f `~e ~ler'~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ t ~ , ~y~.~jJ ~~ el I // VY., , i ~ ~ ll ff ' Ii~F*'~ Cit Roads 8,438 $4% 7,088 State Roads 9,$13 16% 1,570 Total Weighted Average Capacity Added~3~ 8,658 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-9 for city and state roads respectively (2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-7 (3) Item (1) for city and state roads weighted by Item (2) 2.S Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity The impact fee cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle mile of capacity. As shown in Tables 2, 3, and 6, the cast and capacity for city and state roads Dave been. calculated based ot~ typical roadway improvements. in order to estimate the weighted average cost per vehicle mile of capacity, the cast per vehicle anile of capacity for city and. state roads was weighted by the lane distribution of future roadway improvements by jurisdiction in the Greater Bnze~na~ Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update. As shown in Table 7, the cost per vehicle mile of capacity for travel on all roads within the City of Bozeman is $424.87. This weighted average cost per vehicle mile of capacity figure is used in the impact fee calculation to determine the total impact cost per unit of development based on the vehicle miles of travel consumed. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 20 Impact Fcc Study Table 7 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity City and State Roadways in Bozeman .. Great k »,c ~;;~.~~ ~~ r r ,~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~"~~~ ~,~5 i~ ~0~ ~ r Si , ~ti ~ ~~' >~DArC~ r La~1~5 .r ~M I ,~ill~~ ~,~ Y~ , ~ _ . ~ ~d R y Cit Roads 84% $3,531,103 8,438 $418.48 State Roads 16% $4,452,GS3 9,813 $453.75 Total 100% Weighted Average ' $3,678,551 8,658 $424.87 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-7 (2) Source: Table 2 for city roads and Table 3 for state roads (3) Source: Table 6 for city and state roads (4) Cosi per lane mile (Itcrn 2) divided by average capacity added per lane mile (Item 3) for city roads and state roads respectively (S) Cost per lane mile and average capacity added per lane mile weighted by Greater Bozcman Plan lane miles distribution in Item (1). Cast per VMC is based on weighted average cost per lane mile, Item (2) divided by weighted average capacity added per lane mile (Item 3). 2.6 Interstate Adjustment Factor This variable is used to recognize that interstate highway improvements arc funded by the State using earmarked state and federal funds. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements and the portion of vehicle miles traveled on the interstate system is therefore eliminated from the total travel for each use. Based on centerline street maintenance data obtained from the City of Bozeman Planning Department and the Montana Department of Transportation's Urban Travel Demand Model, an interstate adjustment factor of 15 percent is incorporated into the impact fee calculations. It should be noted that the interstate adjustment factor calculation excludes external-to-external trips, which represent traffic that goes through the City of Bozcman using the interstate, but does not stop in the city. This traffic is excluded from the calculations since it does not travel on the local road system for which impact fees arc allocated. Table 8 shows the calculation of the interstate adjustment factor. This factor is used to reduce the vehicle miles of travel that the impact fee charges for each land use. Tindalc-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 21 lmpact Fec Study Table 8 Interstate Adjustment Factor tl~ ~^~r ~Uq7 ~ Y '~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ r ~ yl ~ ti,;v «• ~ ~ r-9o 7o,26s ~ s.o"ro State Roads 244,438 53.0% Count Roads 1,341 0.0% Ci Roads 147,227 32.0% All Roads 463,27] ]00.0"/0 (1) Source: City of Bozeman Planning Department, Centerline Strcct Maintenance GIS Layer and MDOT Urban Travel Demand Model 2.7 Ad Valorem Tax Credit Based on a review of historical expenditures, the City of Bozeman has been using a portion of ad valorem revenues to fund capacity expansion projects. Of the ad valorem revenues available, approximately $271,417 is projected to be dedicated to transportation capacity expansion projects annually. The value per l -mil from the general fund calculated based on the FY 2006/2007 City Budget is $63,251. Therefore the ad valorem revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects translate into 4.29 mills ($217,417 divided by $63,251). Thus, the general fund millage used toward capacity expansion annually is approximately 4 percent (4.29 mills divided by 110.57 mills). Because the City does not have a dedicated percentage of the ad valorem taxes being applied to transportation capital expansion projects, the total ad valorem revenues used toward transportation capacity projects is estimated to be fixed at $271,417 per year. As such, as the tax base increases, the percent of total ad valorem revenues used for capacity projects will decrease. Since the City has historically used ad valorem revenues to retire the debt associated with the 1995 GO Bond that funds capacity expansion projects, a credit is given. Credit due to ad valorem tax revenues for residential uses is calculated based on a review of recent sale prices and taxable values of single family homes in the City of Bozeman, and discussions with the City's Finance Division. The ad valorem tax credit for non-residential land uses is based on the taxable value of office and commercial properties within the City and Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 22 Impact Fcc Study cstimatcd unit values from the Consultant's experience in other jurisdictions and industry knowledge. An explanation of the methodology used to estimate ad valorem tax credit figures is included in Appendix D. 3.0 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE 3.1 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix F. This Appendix includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, this Appendix illustrates the impact fee demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips), the total impact fee cost, the annual gas tax credit and present value of the gas tax credit, the net impact fcc, the current City of Bozeman impact fee, and the percent difference between the potential impact fcc and the current impact fee. It should be noted that the net impact fcc rates included in Appendix F represent the maximum reasonable defensible transportation impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in the City of Bozeman. The methodology used herein to calculate these fees is commonly accepted as one that results in an impact fee rate that satisfies the proportionality concept of the dual rational nexus test. It should be noted that this methodology is consistent with the 2005 Montana impact fee law (Senate Bill 185, sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604). As a result, development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle miles of capacity it is expected to consume on the city roadway network. For clarification purposes, it may be useful to walk through the calculation of an impact fee for one of the land use categories. 1n the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the single-family detached residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category (ITE LUC 210). This example calculation uses information from the proposed impact fee schedule included in Appendix F, Table F-1 (Non-TED Impact Fee Schedule). For each land. use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee: Net In7pact Fee = Tatal In7pact Cost -Gas Tax Credit -- Ad VaCorem Credit Where: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 23 Impact Fee Study Total Impact Cast =((Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length X % New Trips) /2) x (1- Interstate Adj. Factar) X (Cast per Lane Mile /Avg. Capacity Added per Lane Mile) Total Gas Tax Credit =Present Value (Annual Cas Tax Credit), give~~ 4.6°,~, interest rate 8r ?5 .vear.facility lifE~ Annual Cas Tax Credit =(((Trip Rate x Total Trip Length x % New Trips) /2) x Effective Days per Year x $/Gallon to Capital) /Fuel Efficiency Each of the inputs have been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided below, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the single-family detached residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category: • Trip Rate =the average daily trip generation. rate, in vehicle-trips/day (9.57) • Assessable Trip Length =the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle- miles (3.52) • Total Trip Length =the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads (3.52 + 0.50 = 4.02) • % New Trips =adjustment factor to account for trips that arc already on the roadway (100%) • Divide by 2 =The total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate X length X % new trips) is divided by two to prevent the doublacounting of travel generated among land use codes since every trip has an origin and a. destination. • I~zterstate Adjustment Factar =adjustment factor to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways (15.0%) • Cast per Lane Mile =unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane- mile ($3,678,552) • Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile =represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mils/day (8,658) • Cast per Vehicle Mile of Capacity =unit cost to construct to provide a vehicle mile of capacity ($424.87) • Present Value =calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash slows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, "i," anal a number of periods, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 24 Impact Fcc Study "n;" for 4.6% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 14.6768 • Effective Days per Year = 365 days • $/Calluii to Capital =the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.102) • Fuel Effciency =average fuel efficiency of vehicles, invehicle-miles/gallon (I 7.70) Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category as follows. Total impact Cost =((9.57 * 3.52 * 1.0) /2) * (1.15) * ($3,678,552/8,658) _ $6,083 Annual Gas Tax =(((9.57 * 4.02 * I.0) /2) * 368 * $0.102) / 17.70 = $40 Gas Tax Credit = $40 * 14.6768 = $587 Ad Valorem Tax Credit = $100 (see Appendix E, Table E-1 for details of this calculation) Net Impact Fee = $6,083-$587-$100- $5,396 Table 9 below presents the net impact fee far all land uses included in the proposed impact fcc schedule in Appendix F, Table F-l . These fees will be charged for all areas not designated as the Trip Exchange District (TED) or that otherwise do not reflect travel characteristics of the TED area. Table 10 below presents the net impact fee for all land uses in the proposed fee schedule in Appendix F, Table F-2. These fees will be charged in areas designated as the TED or that other areas that exhibit characteristics as defined in Appendix K. Tisdale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozcn~an January 2008 25 Impact Fee Study Table 9 Proposed Transportation impact Fee Schedule (Non-TED) ~~~ '~~'~~ ~ , 5' ~ `' I ~ f .'~. '~. vhµ r~~ r.11 'J' "Unit ~ ~ . ]1; ~~~.i:~. RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low incorne~21 du $2,171 Less than 1,500 sf and low income~~~ du $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf du $3,968 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $5,396 2,500 sf or larger du $6,082 220 Apartments du $3,339 230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du $2,946 240 Mobile Home Park du $1,593 LODGING: 310 Hotel room $3,063 320 Motel room $1,678 RECREATION: 430 Golf Course hole $12,295 411 City Park acrc $546 444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf $6,463 INSTITUTIONS: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf $6,023 620 Nursing Home bed $381 520 Elementary School student $315 530 High School student $477 540 University (7,500 or fewer students)~4' student $609 550 University (more than 7,500 students)'4' student $529 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 26 Impact k'ee Study Table 9 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Non-TED) (continued) ~~~ ITL UC ~ i~~ ~~ Y 1 { r L if ~. * :,act. ;..~. Ir,~ , ~i ~' INSTITUTIONS: 560 Church/ Synagogue 1,000 sf $2,428 5G5 Day Care 1,000 sf $7,433 OFFICE: 710 50,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $3,977 710 50,00].-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $3,623 710 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $3,084 710 greater than 200,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,460 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $9,584 RETAIL: 820 under 50,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,378 820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,587 820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,331 820 200,000-299,000 sf 1,000 sf $8,567 820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $8,144 8 ] 2 Building Material/ Lumber 1,000 sf $21,209 813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf $26,996 817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $18,903 8S 1 Convenience Store 1,000 sf $44,607 931 Quality Kestaurant 1,000 sf $22,036 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1.,000 sf $61,225 841 Ncw/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $12,033 890 Furniture Store 1.,000 sf $1,684 912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $31,706 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 27 hnpact Fee Study Table 9 Proposed "Transportation impact Fee Schedule (Nan-CSD) (continued) (t) Y1 I~xJ' " ~ ,~I iM ,~, ~~,: f~? 17rerH ~'v~ ~rS ;';i c ~ ~ 1 9~ 4~jwA ~ ,~N~rt ~'~'~` <~y ~ kt~ ~~~H ~y ~ ~ ~ "~~ r ~ ii ~ ~r,;'+ c ~+ x" X11 gCt 1 r r r~ y ~4 ~^~ r~ ~y 'I.. ~l~. l'~',iC, a' .,7 :~1 ~: 11.7 INDUSTRY: 110 General Light Industrial 1.,000 sf $2,290 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $1,250 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,b27 15l Mini-Warchousc 1,000 sf $810 (1) Source: Appendix F, Table F-1 (2) Detned as 50`% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) hnpact fec to be assessed on structures with classrooan facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. Tindale-0livcr & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 28 hnpact Fcc Study Table ] 0 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (TED) ~~l 471 ~ y E~ y-~+ ~ C~r ~ C , ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ {'~X~ ~~ ~y~y„p~.~ /MF W { IT~ ~~ h 4i~'t ~ ~; ~ ~, F ~Y,l~'~'"N ~~.~ ~ z"i~r RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf anal very low income~2~ du $2,171 Less than 1,500 sf and low income131 du $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf du $3,968 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $5,396 2,500 sf or larger du $6,082 220 Apartments du $3,339 230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du $2,946 240 Mobile Home Park du $1,593 LODGING: 310 Hotel room $2,835 320 Motel room $1,333 RECREATLON: 430 Golf Course hole $4,333 411 City Park acre $182 444 Movie "Theaters 1,000 sf $2,333 INSTITUTIONS: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf $6,023 620 Nursing Home bed $381 520 Elementary School student $3l 5 530 High School student $477 ,540 University (7,500 or fewer students)~4~ student $609 550 University (more than 7,500 students)~a~ student $529 SGO Church/Synagogue 1,000 sf $2,428 565 Uay Care 1,000 sf $7,433 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lne. City of Bozeman January 2008 29 Impact Fee Study Table 10 Proposed Transportation lmpact Fee Schedule (TED) (continued) (~~ ~' ~! ~ _ r ~ ~, n ~~y ,.,+~ I~,~+" ~1~ ~ ~, ~~ °`'n~S'Fw~r ~ ,~"~~~ 5 i OFFICE: 710 SO,OOU sf or less 1,000 sf $3,187 710 50,001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,91 ] 71 U 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,475 710 greater than 200,0(10 sf 1,000 sf $1,974 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $9,584 Rl[;TAIL: 820 undar SO,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,284 820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 st• $5,452 820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,182 820 200,000-299,000 si' I,OOU sf $5,115 820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $4,999 812 Building Material/Lumber 1,000 sf $21,209 813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 st` $26,946 817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $18,903 851. Convenience Store 1,000 sf $44,607 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf` $6,009 934 Fasi Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $22,164 841 New/ Used Auto Sales 1,00(1 sl` $12,033 890 Furniture Store 1,ODU sf $1,684 912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $24,133 INDUSTRY: 110 General Light lndusU•ial 1,000 sf` $2,290 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $],250 150 Warehouse 1,000sf $1,627 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 st` $810 (]) Source: Appendix F, Table F-2 (2} Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as $0"/0 of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) lmpact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozetnan January 2008 30 lmpact Fee Study 3.2 Indexing Currently, the City of Bozeman indexes its transportation impact fees on an annual basis based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This section presents a method that calculates a combined index based on the cost variables included in the impact fee calculation. This method helps moderate annual fluctuations from one year to another. The cost variables being recommended for annual adjustment arc design, construction, CEI, and ROW costs. First, the design, construction, and CEl casts should be indexed a fixed amount each year based on the Engineering News Recnrc~'s Construction Cost Index to account for general increases in the cost for construction materials. Similarly, the land value component of ROW costs should be indexed based on the five-year historical trend in total market values for all property as updated annually by the Gallatin County Property Appraiser. It should be noted that since total market values for all property were not available, the flue-year historical trend for total taxable values was used. In addition, the source- used to index the construction cost (Engineeri~ag News Reco~°c1's Construction Cost Index) may be underestimating the recent increase in construction casts. As such, it is recommended that the City consider conducting an independent evaluation of local construction cost increases on an annual basis for the next few years until the recent increases subside. If, however, the City chooses not to conduct such a study, tlae index included in this study will provide a conservative level of indexing. The method for developing an indexed transportation impact fee is further discussed in Appendix G. 3.3 Compliance with Montana Statute -City Impact Fee Expenditures The law relating to impact fees, Title 7, Chapter 6, Part 16 MCA, contains several restrictions on the use of impact fee funds. These restrictions are intended. to ensure that impact fees charged are proportionate to the actual impacts of new development and that the fees are then used to off-set those impacts as required by law. The City ensures compliance with these restrictions through a four step process that examines need for and use of funds throughout the entire impact fee process. 'I'indale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 20013 31 ln~pact Fee Study 3.3.1 Preparation of Long Range Transportation Plan First, the City periodically prepares a long range transportation plan (LRTP) for the city and surrounding areas. This is done- in cooperation with the Montana Department of Transportation, Gallatin County, and other partners. This document is currently titled the Greater Bozeman Area Transpnr^tutinrt Plan, 2001 Update. The planning horizon time frame of this Plan is 20 years. The plan begins by identifying current conditions of the transportation network. Demand for transportation facilities needed to serve future growth is then forecast and the impact of that new demand on the transportation system is analyzed. The outcome of the analysis is the identification of future transportation programs and improvements projected to be required to meet the future travel demand at the adopted level of service standards. 3.3.2 Classification of the Types of Projects The second step is to identify those projects which will be required far maintenance, operations, and correction of existing deficiencies, in contrast to capacity expansion projects of existing and future roads on transportation network for which impact fees may be spent. Chapters 9 and 10 of the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plait, 2001 Update identify and describe the extensive list ofprojccts. These descriptions give a summary of the problem the project is intended to solve and any known issues or challenges related to the project. This list includes all the projects anticipated to be required over a twenty year period. This first description of projects allows an initial examination of which projects are likely to be growth related. 3.3.3 Development and Update of Capital improvement Program Twenty years is a long time and the development patterns and the timing of growth used to develop the G~°errter Bo~emar~ Area Trarrspoi°tatioya Plan, 2001 Update can also change. Therefore, in order to meet the requirements of the MCA, the City, on an annual basis, looks more closely at where new growth is occurring and the additional demand for services being generated by that growth. This is the third step of the process and is where the City develops its Capital Lmprovement Program (C1P). The CIP is a five-year program of scheduled road construction projects. The CIP is updated each year in connection with preparation of the City's budget. The City has a distinct transportation impact fcc CIP which is also coordinated with other City CTP programs. The CIP identifies each specific project, including the project location, expected outcnrne of Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman ,lanuary 2008 32 Impact Fee Study construction, such as additional lanes, anal what funding sources and amounts are to be used for project construction. Because the project is defined in more detail at this stage, a more accurate estimate of costs in total and those necessitated by new demand are identified. The City continually monitors its transportation network through review of proposed development, daily operations, and periodic formal monitoring such as traffic counts. This enables the City to identify locations where new development is creating the need for additional capacity on the transportation network. It is during this step that the City distinguishes planned improvements that arc needed in part to correct existing deficiencies, for which impact fees cam~ot be used to fund tlae entire project and those that arc needed because new growth has occurred and created an impact on the road system. This determination is based, in part, on an analysis of existing level of service standards. Appendix N provides a list of roadway capacity expansion projects that have been constructed over the past 11 years using impact fee and non-impact fee revenues. The following hypothetical example discusses how impact fees could be allocated for a project where the current level of service is deficient. A calculation would be performed to determine how much over the level of service "C" standard capacity the road is operating. if it was determined that the road was operating 2,000 vehicles per day over capacity at the adopted standard, and the capacity improvement being made would add a daily capacity increase of 1.0,000 vehicles per day, then at least 20 percent of the cost would need to be funded from non-impact fee funding sources because existing traffic is consuming 20 percent of the increased capacity. The remaining 80 percent of capacity resulting from the capacity improvement (10,000 increase in capacity less 2,000 vehicles over capacity) could be funded with impact fees since new growth has the benefit of the increased capacity. 1t is important to note that during this third step, the City Engineering Division works with other departments in preparation of the CIP. Individual citizens and developers may also nominate projects for inclusion on the CIP. If a project is approved to be listed on the CIP by the City Commission, it begins the process of design, right of way acquisition, and other steps needed to become a constructible project. As design proceeds, improved estimates of costs become available. These improved costs are incorporated into the next annual. update of the CIP. The updated information also enables an annual rc-evaluation of the appropriate blend of funding sources for each project. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lne. City of Bozeman January 2008 33 Impact Fec Study 3.3.4 Project Implementation and Cost Verification The fourth step occurs once a project is ready for construction and the project is moved into the upcoming year's budget. The City competitively bids its construction work. The actual bid prices, along with any approved change orders, ultimately determine the final' cost of the construction. At the end of the process the City verifies the final costs of work done and whether that work was capacity expanding in nature. The heal verification of costs then sets the ultimate payout of funds from the different funding sources which have been allocated for the project. This process has been used for years in Bozeman and has been refined as described above to ensure compliance with Montana Code requirements for impact fee implementation; in particular the requirements that impact fees (1) be proportionate in amount to the actual impacts of development paying the fee; and (2) be spent so as to benefit those paying them. This study, and its supporting documentation (see Appendix Mfor across- reference table providing specific section references to the impact fee statute and the documents that address these sections), ensures compliance with the first point and the procedures required by the impact fee ordinance itself ensure compliance with the second. Much of the process described in these four steps is formally incorporated into the City's impact fee ordinance. Further, Chapter 3.24, BMC, requires the impact fee program to be periodically reviewed and updated to ensure that it continues to represent a reasonable basis upon which to collect and expend impact fees. It should also be noted that this process ensures that impact fees arc not used to fund operations and maintenance of the existing facility (i.e., resurfacing projects) per section 7-6-1CQ2, (5) (e) of the MCA. 3.4 Revenue Projections Based on the proposed impact fcc schedule presented in Table 9, revenue estimates were developed for the City of Bozeman. The proposed impact fees have been calculated based on a standards driven approach (consumption-based), as such new development will be charged based on capacity consumed. It should be noted that, for impact fee purposes, revenue projections serve only as an overall guideline in planning future infrastructure needs. In their simplest form, impact fees charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits) of infrastructure needed to serve that unit of growth. if the growth rates remain high, the City will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth-related projects sooner rather than later. If the growth rate slows down, less revenue will be Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 34 Impact. Fcc Study generated, and the timing and need for future u~frastructurc improvements will be later rather than sooner. Appendix H presents revenue projections based on the proposed impact fees. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 35 Impact Fcc Study APPENDIX A Trip Characteristics Database Trip Characteristics Database The Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 1 S years. Data from these studies include trip generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information has been used in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip characteristics for communities throughout Florida and the U.S. The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses arc set at entrances to residential subdivisions for the residential layid uses and at all access points for non_residential land uses. The trip length infornation is obtained through origin-destination. surveys that ask respondents where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving the site. The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use. Sirnil.arly, the percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin-destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured. Single-~amlly betached Housing (ITE I.UC 21p) - 6ozeman Trlp Characteristics Studies Location $1Ze ~ Units Date Total # Inlervlewa # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rata Time Period Trlp Langlh PerCenl New Trlpa VMT Source 6uzeman M7 41 Oe6UE 180 190 9.32 4,53 N/A 4222 Tlndele•OliverBAasocietes Bozeman, MT 105 ~ev06 249 24A N/A 1.59 NIA NIA T'mdale-Olivtlr & Assnriatea Bozeman, MT 142 Dec-OG 919 819 9.69 3.23 NIA 31~3D Tindale-Oliver&Azseciataa Total Size 1ft3 Waighled Average Trip Generation Race: N/A ITE Average Trip CGtlneratlOn Rate: 9.57 Average VMT: 55.33 ITE Avarege Trip GeneraliUn Rale'~ 35.58 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 A-1 impact Fee Study Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) -Florida Trip Characteristics Studies Location Slze / Unite Data Total # Interviews # Trip Length Intervlew6 Trlp Gan Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent Naw Trips VMT Source Gwinn¢tt Co. GA 12/13-18!92 5.80 5.40 N/A 31.32 Street Smarts Gwinnen Cn. Gn 12/13-18192 ti.4n 8,10 N/A 32.9A Street Smarts LaKe Co FL A2 Deo-Ofi t22 1138 5..56 62,51 Tlndale-Ollv¢r $ Associates Lake Co FL A9 A r-02 970 8.70 7e-6 10.20 N/A fiA.34 Tlndale-OIWer 8 AasnClatea Lak¢ Go FL 51 Deo-06 34fi 1832 9.A6 172.36 Tindele-Dllver 8 Assorlates Lake Cv, FL 52 A r.Oy 212 90.00 7a-6 7.50 NIA 78.00 TingalP.•Ollver & A35oCIa1P.4 Pa5C0 Co FL 55 A r-02 1 R;i 8.00 8a-6 0.12 NIA 55.22 Tlndale-Oliver $ AsspClates Lake CO FL 59 Deo-08 144 1207 10.79 130.24 Tindele-Oliver B Assoriatee Palm Cn FL 80 A r-02 106 7.73 8a-8 0.75 NIA G7.64 Tindele-Oliver & Aesocietea Pasco Cv FL 70 A r•07 186 7.80 8a-6 6.0:1 rylA 47.03 Tintlale-Dllver & A55oolate5 Pnsoo CO FL 74 A r-02 18R 8.18 Be-8 5.85 N/A 4R.67 Tindele-Oliver 8 Asaorlates Hernando Co. FL 76 Ma -98 140 148 10.01 9a.fi 4,85 N/A 48.55 Tindalo-Dllver 8 Associates Sarasota Co FL 76 Jun-B3 7n 7D 10.03 6.00 N/A fiO.tH Sarasota Count Sarasota Cv, FL 7B Jun,93 88 06 9.77 4AD NIA 42.98 SaraSOla Count GDIII®r Co FL 90 Dec-BB 91 12.00 8a-8 11.40 N/A 145.92 Tindal¢-Okv¢r $ AasoClates Lake Co FL 80 Dec-D6 184 9,12 5.70 52.71 Tindele-Oliver 8 Asaoclatee Sarasota Cv, FL 97 Jun.9:i 33 33 13.20 3.00 N/A 39,80 Sarasota Count Marlon Co FL 102 A r-02 167 8.02 7a-6 5.10 N/A 40.90 Kimle -Horn 8 Asannlatee Marlon CD FL 105 A r-02 169 733 7a-8 7.22 N/A 52.20 Kimle -Horn 8 Associates Citrus Co FL 111 OCt-03 273 8.66 7a•fi 7.70 N/A 88.68 Tintlale-Olivard Associates Marlon Ca FL 124 A r-02 t 70 B.OA 7e-6 7.29 N/A g4.n3 Klml¢ -Horn 8 Assonlal¢s Lak¢ Co FL 128 A r-02 217 8.50 7a-6 8.30 N/A 70.55 Tintlale-Dllver & Assoriates Hernando Co., FL 12R Ma -96 205 205 8.17 Pa.6 6.03 N/A 49.27 TintlalC-Oliver 8 Associate3 Marion Cv, FL 132 A r-02 171 7.87 7a-G 7A0 rylA 55.09 Klml¢ •HOrn & ASSUUiat¢3 Marion Cn FL 133 A r-02 209 R.04 7.++-8 4.92 N/A 38.58 Klmle -Horn & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 135 J011.93 75 75 R.05 5,90 NfA 47.50 Sarasota Count Charlotte Co, FL 135 Oct-97 230 5.30 9a•5 7.90 N/A 41.87 Tlntlal¢-Oliver & ASSOCialeS Charlotte Co FL 142 Or.[-97 245 5.20 Ba-5 4.10 N/n 21,32 71npalp.~Okver & A55oCIateS Cherlnde Co, Fk 150 Oct-97 160 5.f10 9A-5 10.00 N/A 54.00 Tintlale-Oliver 8 Asaociates Sarasota Cv FL 152 Jun-93 63 63 R.55 7.30 N/A 82.42 Sarasota Count Paarp Co FL 109 A r-02 261 7.48 Ba-8 8.98 N/A 67.07 Tintlale-Dllver 8 Aasociates Sarasota Cv, FL 193 Jun-93 123 123 6.R5 4,80 N/A 31.51 Sarasota Count Cnarlotte Co FL 215 Oct-97 158 7.80 Be-5 4.60 N!A W.96 Tlndale-OIN¢r$ASSOdat¢s C'nrua Co FI,. 231 Ocl-03 155 5.71 7a-8 4.82 N/A 27.52 Tintlale-Dllver & Associates Hamando Co., FL 232 Ma •98 182 102 7.24 9a-6 5.tl4 N/A 38,49 TinUAle-Oliver 8 A55ooiale5 Lake Co FL 239 Deo-06 305 7,50 0.93 67.68 Tlndale-Ollvar 6 Assoria[ea Charlotte Cn Fk 257 Ott-97 225 7.50 9A-5 7.40 N/A 56.24 Tlndale-Oliver & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 202 Jun-g3 148 146 6.61 R.40 N/A 5552 SarasOtfl Count Hernando Co. FL 301 Me -B6 264 284 8.93 9e~ 3.28 N/A p9.29 Tlndale-Dllver 8 Assnrlatea Citrus Co, FL 30a Oct-03 148 8.40 7a-e 3.94 NIA 33.10 Tindalo-Dllver & Associates Charlotte Cv FL 365 Ort-97 181 7.00 Ba-5 6.60 NlA 4830 Tlndale-Dllver $ A35oClales CItm9 CO FL 384 Oct-03 345 730 7a-8 9.14 N/A 65.81 Tindele-Oliver 8 Associates Cherlode Cn Ft. 380 Dot-97 152 fi,fi0 9a-5 5.70 NIA 37.62 Tlndale-Oliver & Associates Citrus Cv, FL 374 OCI-03 240 12.30 7a•6 8,88 WA 84.62 Tintlale-Oliver & AsSOCial65 Cnartolte Co FL Sarasota Co FL 3R3 393 gnt•97 Jun-93 518 207 207 8.40 7.78 9a-5 5.00 5.40 NIA N/A 42.00 41.80 Tisdale-Dllver & A58oCiateS Sarasota Count Cdlier Cn FL 400 Dec-99 300 7.80 Ba-8 6.40 N/A 49.82 Tlndale-Dllver & Aeaocietes Charlotte Co FL 441 Oct-97 195 0.20 9a•5 4,70 N1A 38.54 Tintlale-OllverBAssociates Cdlier Co FL 770 Deo-99 175 4.32 Be-6 4.96 N/A 21.81 Tlndale.-Oliv¢raAasnclatea Cnadotte Co FL 1 189 Oct-97 34A 8.1D 9a-5 8.00 N/A 4R.R0 Tlndale-Oliver 8 Aasnriatea Tn6rlsl:¢ tn,14r ,,a: welylnted Average Trip Generation Rate: 7.53 ITE Average Trip Generation Rete: 9.57 Average VMT: 55.03 Note: Georgia Studies are not included in summary atatlstlra. Apartment (ITE WC 220) Location Slze / Units Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rata Tlme Period Trip Length Percent New Trips yMT Source Lake Ce FL 157 Deo-06 265 265 13.97 NIA D.DO Tlndale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 169 Dec-n6 212 0.09 N/A 0.00 Tlndale-pliver $ Associates Sarasota Cn FL 212 Jun-93 42 42 5.78 NIA 0.00 Sarasota Count Marion Co FL 214 A r•D2 175 175 6.84 NIA D.OD Klmle -Horn & Associates Lake Co FL 228 pec-n8 3D1 6.74 N/A 0.00 Tindel¢-Oliver & Associates Marion Gc FL 24D A r-02 17A 174 6.96 NIA 0.00 Kimlo -Horn & AssucialBs $ara501a Cu FL 243 Jun-93 36 36 5.BA N/A O~OD Sarasota Count Lake [p FL 250 Dbo-08 135 135 6.71 NIA 0.00 Tintlale-DI'IVar 8 Associates Marius Cv FL 2R(i A r•02 175 175 5.06 N/A O.OD Kimle -Hom & Associates Marion pn FL 460 A r-02 175 175 5,73 N/A 0.00 KimIB -Horn & Associates Marion CO FL 500 A r-n7 170 170 5.48 N/A 0,00 Kimle -Horn & A9aoCiales Total Siza 2,979 - ITE 1.696 _ Blended total 4,675 Weighted Ave raga Trip Ganeratlnn RatP.: 6.60 ITE Average Trip Generation Rat¢. 6.77 Blend of FL Studla6 end ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 8.84 Residential CondominiumlTownhouse ITE LUC 230 -Bozeman Trl Characteristics Studies Location Size I Date Total # # Trip Length Trip Gen lima Period Trip Parcenl New VMT Source Units IntBrvlew6 Intervlew6 Rete Length Tripe Bozeman MT 57 ,lan•07 95 95 5.74 3.5R NIA 2055 Tlndale•pllver $ A55oclata5 8uzemen MT 63 DeD06 200 200 7.70 2.67 NIA 20.56 Tindaa•Oiver6 AS5uLlattla Trial SIEe 12U ~'k Weighted Average Trip Ganerativn Rete: 6.77 ITF Average Tfip GeneratlUn Rata: 5.68 Average VMT', ?9 fit Tintlale-sliver & Associates, inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 A-2 impact Fee Study o...•:.4n..H.a1 /~..., d.....I..:r.... Tr....r.hr...¢n fITC 1 11/` 74!11 _ Clnrirla Trin f'hararfariafira RTf frliwx Size I Total # # Trlp Length Trip Gen P l d Ti Trlp Percent New VMT Source Locatien Units Date Intervlewa Interviews Rate ar o me Length Trips Ilcrnando Co. Fl 31 Me-B6 31 31 6.12 Ba-6 4.98 N/A 30.5 TInUeIP.•GllverBAssocietes Hernando Cv., FL 128 Ma -98 IBA 198 8A7 9a-6 5.18 N/A 33.5 Tlndele-Oliver 8 AssoClales Peace Co FL 229 A r-n2 1B8 198 4.77 9a~6 12.09 N/A 57.7 Tindale-Oliver & Assor:lates Pasty Cv FL 'l4A A r-02 353 353 4,24 Ba-6 NIA 15.0 Tlntlale-Guyer 8 Asanrietee Weighted Averago Trip GP.nP.YAllnn Rare: 4.97 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.A6 Average VMT: 34.16 Mnh:la LJmm~ O~r4 lITF 1 I If: 7dD1 Location Marlnn Count FL Sae / Unite 87 Date Jul-91 Total # Interviews 22 # Trlp Length Interviawb 22 Trip Gen Rata 5.40 Tima Parlod 48hr3~ Trlp Length 2.29 Percent New Tripe N/A VMT 12,37 Source Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marian Count , FL 82 Jul-91 58 58 10.80 24hr. 3.72 N/A 40.1 B Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marlpn Gnunt , FL _ 137 Jul-91 22 22 3.10 24hr, 4.89 N/A 15.13 7lndale-Oliver & Aasociales Marion Co, FL 188 A r-OZ 147 3.51 2411x. 5.48 N/A 19,23 Kimle -Horn 8 Associates Marion Co FL 227 A r-02 173 2.76 24hr. 8.80 NIA 24.28 Kiml9 -Morn 6 Assorlatea Sarasota Cn, Ft. 235 Jun-93 100 100 3.51 5.10 NIA 17.90 Sarasota Count Marlnn Co FL 297 A r-02 175 4.76 24hr, 4.76 NIA 22,75 Kimle -Horn & Asauclales Sarasota Co FL 99fi Jun-93 181 161 4.19 4.40 NIA 18.44 Sflrasn[a Count liurnantlO Co. FL 1A92 Ma -B6 425 42e 4.13 9a-8 4.13 N/A 17.06 Tindale-OliveraAssociates i vrni alto •...c. -- I, iL. W ~.d•Ited Average Tflp Generfltlon Rate: 4.17 ITE Average Trlp Generation Rate: 4.99 Average VMT 20.82 Nntel /ITE LL1C 3101 Size Total # # Trip Length Trip Gen Tlme Trip Percent VM7 Source Location (Rooms) Data Interviews Interviews Rate Parlod Length Naw Trips Plnellaa Co. FL 114 Ocl-69 3D 14 7.30 12.73D F.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale-Oliver & Assoclales Pinellas Ce. FL 174 Au -89 134 toe 12.50 7.11a13-7 6.30 78.0 62.21 Tindale-Oliver&ASboelales ~Vra~ ITE 4760.0 I elentled wtal 5048.D Welghted Percent Naw Trip Aveage: 66.3 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rale: 1 n,44 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 8.17 Blentl o} ITE 8 FL Studlas -Average Trip Generation Rata: 8.30 Average VMT 41.74 MnTPI (ITE LL1C 3201 Loeatlon Size Date Tdlal # # Trlp Length Trip Gen Time Period Trlp Percent New yMT Source (Rooms) Intervlewb Interviews Rete Langlh Trips Plnellee Co. FL 4B OCl-89 46 24 10a•2:20 2.80 85,0 Tindale-Oliver i4 AsaOnlates Pinellas Co. FL 54 Oc[-BB 32 22 12 -7 3.80 6B.0 - Tindale-OI'IVer 8 Aesociales Plnepfla Gn. FL 120 Oct-89 28 22 2 7 a 2n 84.8 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates i v~ni .a~cc ... ~~•">~.IMIWP1Af~F.~r '~.:~'~Ai~.l H' Weighted Percent Naw Trlp Average: 78.8 Welghted Average Trip Ganer211un Rfl IP.: - ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.6:{ Average VMT Movie Theater with Matinee (ITE LUC 444) Size Total # # Trlp Length TYip Gen Trip Percent Naw VM7 Source Location ($creens) Date Interviews Interviawb Tlme Period Rata Length Tripe Vlnellas Cn.,FL 8 Oct-89 151 116 113.18 2 -8 2.70 77.0 235.13 Tindale-Oliver 6 ASSUCIatP.s Pinellas Cv.,FL 17 Se -A9 122 118 63,40 2 -8 1.90 95.0 114.4A TinUaIP.•Gllver 8 Associates iorai alze eu :'~~ '. _ _. ~_~~ I '-~$:i Weighted Percent New Trlp Aveage: 87.8 Weighted Average Trip Generatlnn Rate: 83.28 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (per 1,1700 sf): :1A.00 Average VM1 17A.79 I1w (T~rc Rontnr /ITF I I IC SR51 Size Total # # Trip Length Trip Gen Tlme Trip Percent yMT Source Location (1,000 sf) Dace Interviews Interviews Rate Period Length New Trips Pinellas Co. 5.6 Au -69 94 66 67.00 7e-e 1.90 70.0 88.11 1'Indale•Oliver d Asavciatas Pinellas co. 10.0 Se -89 179 134 67.00 7a•6 2117 75.0 105.53 Tindale-olivar & AssOClates Tam a FL Mar-86 28 25 2.60 89,0 - Kimle •Hprn & Associates ivwi ITE .tQ.~ '~'•A. 1 ~Pi Blended total 45.6 .-'`-s - - Walghled Percent Naw Trip Average: 732 Welghted Average Trip Generation Rate: 66.99 11'E Average Trip Generation Rate: 79.26 Bland of ITE & FL Studlas -Average Trip Grneratlon Rale: 75.07 Average VMT: 97.32 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 A-3 I)xlpact Fee Study Nursing Home (ITE LUC 620) Location Size (Beds) Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trlp Gen Tlme Rata Period Trip Length Percent New Tripe VMT Source Lakeland, FL 12D Mar-90 74 ec 2.88 tts-0 2.58 89.D 6.59 7lndale-Oliverd ASSUUiates Tnlal Size 120 ~ '.r ,~.v~:- - 17E 415 - ITE Blended total 535p Weighted Percent New Trip Average: e9.9 weighted Average Trip Generallon Rafe: 2.86 ITE Average Trip Generetion Rnte: 2.37 Bland of ITE 8 FL StudiP-a -Average Tflp Generation Rale: 2.48 Average VMT: 8.59 General Office Building fITE LUC 7101 -Bozeman Trio Chnracterictirc Studia7x Location Siza (1,000 sf) Dale Total # Interviews # Trip Langih Interviews Trlp Gen Time Period Trip Rata Length Percent New Tripe VMT Source Bozeman, MT 38.0 Oeu08 107 107 NIA 1.66 77.0 Tlndale•Olivef & A55uciates Bozeman MT 48.3 Oec-06 153 153 21.37 2,83 69.0 41.73 Tintlale-0liver&Associatas Bozeman MT 61.2 Oec•06 269 266 28,92 1.74 72.n 36,23 Tlndale•Ollver d Associates Welghletl Perc:enl Naw Trip Average: 71.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rflte: 25.59 ITC Average Trip Generation Rate: 11.01 Averege VMT 3fl.9ft General Office Building pTE LUC 710) -Trip Characteristics Studies Location Size Date Total # # Trip Length Trlp Gen TImB Perlad Trip Percent New VMT Source (1,000 sfl Interviews Interviews Rate length Trips Sarasota Co, FL 1q.3 Jun-93 14 14 48.95 11.30 529.41 Sarasota Count Gwlnnett CO. GA 98.0 11113.19/92 4.an 5.40 Street.'"+mart5 Gwinnen Cn. GA 190.0 12/13-18/82 3.80 5.90 Street Smens Plnella5 Co. 187.0 Ort.Bg 431 388 1 A.qg 7a-5 8.38 80.0 1n4.64 T'Indele-Gllwrr & A35otiatc5 St. Peterahur FL 282.8 Se -8B ;791 274 7a-5 ' n" 94.0 Tindele-Dllver & Assarlates Welgnted Perrent New Irlp AVerege: 92.3 Weighted Average Trip Generetion Rate: 10.fl4 ITE Averflge. T11p Generation Rale: 11.01 Average VMT 317 12 M®dical-Dental Office 8uildina fITE LUC 7201 location Srxe (7,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trlp Gen Rate Time Period Trip length Percent New TNps VMT Source Cllrus Co F4 5.3 Oeo-03 20 29.36 9-5 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tintlale-Oliver 8 Associates Citrus Co FL 19.0 Nov-03 340 40,56 8-630 6.20 92.4 232.33 Tindele-Oliver &Associatas Cnarlolle Cn FL 11.D Oct-97 186 49.58 9a-5 4.60 92.1 209.67 Tintlale-Oliver 8 Aeeocialea Palm Harbor, pL 14.6 Oct•89 104 76 33.98 9a-5 8.30 73.0 15627 Tindale•Oliver & Associates Hernando Ca FL 28.0 Ma -96 202 189 49.75 9a-6 6,D6 93.6 282.84 Tintlale-Oliver & Assnriates Charlotte Co FL 28.0 Oct-97 186 31.90 9a-5 3.6D 81.6 91.D4 7lndale-Oliver & Associates Cnarlolle Cn FL 30.4 OCl-97 324 39.80 Be-5 3,30 83.5 109.88 Tintlal9-Oliver &Associatas Citrus Co FL 38.9 Ocl-03 168 3226 6-6 8.99 97.1 213.03 Tintlale-Oliver &Associatas Hernando Co. FL 58.4 Ma -98 39p 349 29.52 9e-6 6,47 89.5 165.99 Tintlale-Oliver 8 Associates St. Petersbur FL - Nnv-P9 34 30 .57,2D 9a•4 1.29 99.9 Tintlale-Oliver d Associates Tam a, FL - Mar-86 33 ?6 6.00 79.0 Klmle -Horn 8 AssoCialbs ~V,n' ITE 450.0 ~,'~~-~ ' Blended total 674.5 Weighted Percent New Trip Averflge: 88.9 Bozeman AdJusted Perc6nt New Trip Avamgel1l~ 69.0 Average Trip Generation Rate: 35.59 ITE Average Trlp Generation Rata: 36.13 Blend ai ITE & FL Studies • Avaraga Trip Generation Rate: 35.85 Average VMT. 178.51 11) The percrlnt new trips variahle has been adjusted based on the relatinnshin observed between Ina uHice land use studies nnndurted in Bozeman (71 %) and those previously cullactad in the TCS t)atabase (92%). Building Materials and Lumher Store IITE LUC 8121 Lotatian Size (7,000 sf) Date Total # Interviews #Tdp Length Trip Gen TImB Period Interviews Rate Trip Length Percent Naw Trips yMT Source Tam a FL A6.9 Jbn-83 40 7a-430 8.58 73.0 Tisdale-Oliverd Associates Tam a FL 99.5 Jun-9:1 40 7a-430 8.00 Tintlale-Dllver 8 nssnClntes Tam a, FL Jun-93 40 7e-430 5.97 75:7 Tintlale-Oliver &Associatas 74.4 Weighted Average Trip Geneetnn Rate: - 17E Average Trlp Generation Ra[e: 45.16 Average VMT - Free-Standing Discount Superstore (ITE LUC 813) lovation Size Date Total # #Tdp Length Trlp Gen Tlme Period Trip Percent Naw VMT Source (1,000 af) Infervlewa Inlervlawy Rate Length Trios varaga. 91.9 Weighted Average T/Ip Generallon Rate: 55.01 ITE Average Trip Generetion Rate: 49.11 AvefapB VMT 298.55 Tintlale-Oliver & Associates, ]ne. City of Bozeman January 200 A-4 Impact Fee Study Shonnlna Center (ITE LUC 6201 Location Size (1,000 si) Data Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interview6 Trip ben Rate Tlme Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Tem a, FL Mar-88 527 3A0 66.0 Kimle -Flom a Asavualas Tampa, FL Mar-B8 170 1.70 Kimle -Hom a ASSndatas Tam a, FL Mar-88 354 269 78.0 KimM ~Harn & Associates Tam a, FL Mfl+-R6 1d4 2.50 Kimle -HOm & AssvdatEs SL Peterst)ur , FL 1,192.0 Au -89 304 298 11a-7 3.60 78.0 Tlndale-Olivera Associates Lar p, FL 425.0 Au -89 180 120 26,73 10a-6 2.30 75.0 A8,11 Tisdale-Oliver a K socielas Dunedin, FL Bn.S 9ep•A9 776 290 81,48 9a-5 1.40 78,0 86.69 1'IndalaOliver 8 Aeaociales Pinellas Palk, FL 896.0 9P.P-88 405 300 9a-6p 3.70 R0.0 Tindele-Oliver a Associates Seminole, FL 425.0 Ort-8D 674 508 87.0 Tintlale•Oliver a A53oriales Hills6oruu n Co, FL 134.0 Jul-91 1.30 74.0 TintlalP.-Oliver a ASSnriates ryillasnr h Co, FL 151.0 JuL91 1.30 73.0 Tlndale-Oliver 8 Aasaciales Collier Co, F L Au -91 68 64 3,33 94.1 0.00 Tintlak ONvar & Assocates Collier Gn, FL Au -91 208 154 2.64 74.0 0.00 Tindale•Ollver a A53orlatea i3t.Peters6ur h,FL 132.3 Sep-92 400 368 77,00 t0a-7P 7.80 92.0 127.51 Tlntlele-Olivel8 AaeocialPs Saresolal8rfldenton, FL 109.0 Se -92 300 185 12a-6 61.8 Kin En inP.erln Associates, Inc. Ocala, FL 133.4 Sep•92 300 102 12a-8 84.0 Kin En inearin Associale3, Inr.. Gwinnoll Gn,GA 09.1 Dec-92 48,00 3.Z0 70.0 103.04 Street Smarts Gwinne[t Co, GA 31-0.7 Dec92 27,00 8.50 84.0 192,7A SVeet Sn+flds Sarasota Cv, FL 1100 Jun~93 8R 50 122.1A 3.20 Seresu9a Coun Sarasota Co, FL 146.1 Jun-93 65 85 51,SA 2.R0 Samsota Count Sarasota Co, FL 157.5 Jun-93 57 57 T9.7B 3.40 3areaola Count Sanaota Cv, FL 191.0 Jun-93 82 fit 66,79 G.90 Sarabolfl Count Hemandv Co, FL 107.8 Ma -96 608 331 77.80 9a-6 4.bA 54.5 187.85 Tisdale-Oliver a Associates ChartullP. Cn, FL 88.0 Oct-97 73.50 9a-5 1.80 57.1 75.58 Tindale.Oliver a Assoriates Cnflnotte Cv, FL 191.9 OCl-97 72.OD 9a-5 2.40 50.9 87.97 Tlndale-Oliver & Associates Chartotte Co, FL 51.3 OCI.97 43,00 9a-5 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tlndela-Oliver 8 AssoCialea Lake Cv, FI. a7.A Apr-01 246 177 102.80 3.40 71.2 248.37 Tisdale-Oliver a Associates Lakc Co. FL 72.3 A r-01 40.4 375 85.30 a.50 59.0 173.37 TindalP.•Olivera ASSnrletes pasco Co, FL 85,6 A r-02 222 145.84 9a-5 1.48 4F.9 99.62 Tlndale-Olive+ 8 Aesocialas Pasco Co, FL 75.A q r.02 134 38.23 9a-5 2.36 5R.2 52.52 Tisdale-Olver 8 Assooiatee Citrus Cn, FL 185.0 Ort-D3 784 55,84 8fl•6 2 40 88.1 118.05 Tisdale-Oliver a Assoriates Citrus Co, FL 91.3 Nav~n3 390 54.50 8e- 1.80 88.0 7fi.77 Tlndale-Oliver & Aeaocialea Bozeman, MT 104.3 bar.-06 359 359 48.98 3.35 49.0 77.00 Tindal~Oliver 8 Associates Bozeman, MT 159.6 Dec-08 502 502 F6,49 1.56 54.0 A7,59 TiMale.•Olivera ASSnclates Bozeman, MT 35.9 DP.o-06 329 329 69.30 1.39 74.0 71.28 Tlndale-Oliver 8 Associa9es 169.3 Weighleq Percent New Tdp Average; 75,6A Weighted Average Top Genemtlnn Rala; 59.4G ITC Averege Tdp Generation Rate: 42.94 Nora. Georgia slurry with trip lerry9h n18.50 is an nuttier and has keen ezGUded imm weighed average ldp length caloulatinn. Average VMT; 9A.47 New Car Sales (ITE LUC 8411 Location Slze pate Total # # Trip Length Trip Gen lime Trip Percent VMT Source (1,000 sf) Interviews Interviews Rate Period Length New Trips SLPelarsbur FL 43.0 Oct•69 152 120 9am•5 m 4.70 79.0 Tindall-Oliver&ASSOGatea Clearwater F~ L _ 43.0 Oct-B9 _ 13@ 106 29.40 gam-SPm 4,50 76.0 103.19 T'mdale•Oliver 8 Associates T oral aize a3.D s' ITE 374.0 ~+ 1 ~ - ~ - "Ar"1wa-1'1 Blended total 417.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rale; 29.40 ITE Average Trip Ganerallon Rate: 33.34 eland of ITE & PL Studies • Average Trlp 13enaration Rate: 32.93 Average VMT 103.19 Convenience Market-24hrs. IITE LUC 8511 Location Size (1,0006f) pate Tvlal # Intervlawa # Trip Length Interviews Trlp ben Rale Tima Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Clearwater 2.1 Nnv-89 143 50 835.24 24nr. 1.60 35.0 355.73 TindalP.-DI'rver d A59nriates Marion Count , FL 2.5 Jun-91 94 43 787.20 48nrs. 1.52 48.2 552.80 Tlndale-Oliver 8 Associates Marlon County, FL 2r5 Jun-91 74 7n 714.00 48hrs. 0.75 27.0 144.SB Yindale-Oliver 8 AssocialP..s Lar 0 FL 2.5 @/15,25/89 171 118 834.80 1.2n 68.0 518.00 Tlndale-Ollvera Associates Clearwater, FL 2.5 Au -89 237 B4 890,80 1.fi0 27.0 29@,43 Tinnala-Driver B Associates GWklnatt Co. GA 2.9 12113-18/92 2.30 48.0 Street Smarts Gwlnnett Co. GA 3.7 12/13-1@192 37.0 SVeet Smarts Collier Count FL Au -91 148 38 2,53 24.7 Tisdale.Olivera ASSSrrates ' Collier Cnun . FL Au -91 14@ 38 1.08 25.7 Tlndale-Oliver B Aasociates T am a FL Mar-86 80 1.10 Kimle -Horn a Aesoclatas ~nra+.~,e ~e~ iP. w w Weighted Percent NaW Trlp Average: 41.3 Weighted Average Tnp Generation Rate: 894,3n ITE Average Trip Generatnn Rete'. 737.A9 Average VMT 373.91 Furniture Store (ITE LUC 8901 Size (per Total # # Trlp Length Trip Gan Trip Percent New Location 1,000 sf) Date Interviews Interview6 Time Parlad Rate Length Trips VMT Svurva Le o, FL 15.0 7/28-30/92 fi4 34 4.83 52.5 Tisdale-Oliver a Assorlatee Tem a F'L 16.9 Jul-92 68 39 7.38 55.7 Tintlale•Olivera Associates +. I oral srze ei.n Weighted Perr~nl New Trip Average; 54.2 Average T rip Generation Rete: ITE Average Trip Ganerfltlnn Rele'~ Average VMT 6.08 Tlndale-Oliver & Associates, ]nc. City of Bozeman January 2008 A-5 Impact Fcc Study Drive-In Bank (ITE LUC 912) Location SI;@ (1,000 Sf] Date Total # Intervlewa # Trip Langth Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Tripe VMT Source Clearwater FL D.4 Au -8g 113 52 gam-e m 5.20 48.o Tndale-Oliver&Associates Lar o FL 2.0 Se -89 129 94 192.50 1.60 73.D 224.84 Tindale-Driver & Associates Marion Count FL 2.3 Jun-91 89 29 680.00 24hr. 1,33 42.D 37985 Tindale•Oliver 8 Assoclatas Marion Count FL 2.4 A r-02 70 642.00 24hr. 3.55 54.8 1245.31 Klmle -Horn d Asspuiele9 Marion Couni FL 2.5 Jul-91 57 26 386.00 48hrs. 27D 45.6 476.24 Tindale-Oliver & Assoclatas Marion Count FL 2.T Ma -D2 50 24666 24hr, 2.88 40.5 285.44 Kimle -Horn & Aeapciales Marlon count FL 3.1 Jun-91 47 32 580.80 24hr. 1.75 68.1 692.17 Tindale-Oliver4Associates Seminole FL 4.5 Oct-89 201.78 Tindale•Ollver &Assoclatas Hbrnandp Co. FL 5.A Ma -96 164 1 364.72 9a-8 2.77 24.7 249.54 Tintlale-Oliver & Associates Tam a FL Mar-66 77 2.40 Kimle -Horn 8 Associates lam a FL Mar-86 211 54.0 Klmle -Flom 8 gssociatea Collier Couni FL Au -gi 162 96 24hr, 0.88 59.3 Tindale-pliver d ASSociate3 Copier count FL Au -91 116 Sa 1.58 46.6 Tindale-Oliver & Associates ITE Z6_0 blended total 1D1.2 eignted percent New Trip Average: 46.2 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rata: 393.tD ITE gveYage Trip Generation Rete'. 246.49 blend of ITE & FL Studiea • Average Trlp Ganere6on Rale: 281.55 Average VMT 504.63 Quality Restaurant (ITE WC 931) Location Sire (1,000 sf) Date Total # Intervlewa # Trfp Langth Trip Gen Time Trip Percent Interviews Rate Period Length New Trips VMT Source $t. Petera6ur FL 7,5 Oct•69 177 15d 30-230/430-e 3.50 87.0 Tlrrdele'OllVer Aeavciate3 Clearwater FL 8.0 Ocl-89 60 40 110.80 1D-23015-83n 2.60 67.0 207.49 Tindale-Oliver4 Associates Tama FL Mar-86 76 82 2.10 82.D Kimle -Horn 8 Associates Total Size 8.D 15.5 7 i I iY ITE 1350 ]~5_0 r. Blended fatal 143.0 150.5 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rale: 110.83 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 89,95 Blend of ITE & FL Studley -Average Trip Generation Rah: 91.10 Average VMT' 20749 Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive Thru (ITE LUC 984) Location Si~e (1,OD0 sf) Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Intervlewa Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Marlon count FL 1.8 Jun-91 60 32 982.50 48hrs. 0.91 53.3 466.&7 Tindale-pliver&ASSOCietes Pinellas Co. 2.2 Au -89 81 48 502.80 11am-2 m 1.70 59.0 504.31 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, Fi 2.2 A r•01 376 252 934.3D 2.50 74.6 1742,47 Tindale-0liver 8 Associates Pasco Go FI 2.7 A r-D2 10n 46 283.12 9a-8 5.1 D 46.0 664.20 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Cu FI 3.0 A r-D2 466 164 515.32 9a•6 2.72 33.7 472,82 Tindale-Oliver 8 Aeapciates Hernando Co. FL 3.1 Ma -96 18A 82 547.34 fla-8 1.59 48.8 425.04 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co FL 3,2 A r-D1 171 1A2 664.90 4,10 47,A 12A3.47 Tindale-OllvarBAeapciates Lake Cp FL 3.8 A r-01 18A 137 353.70 3.30 70.8 A26.38 Tindale-Oliver d Associates Marion Count FL 4.0 Jun-91 75 46 825.00 48hrs, 1.54 81.3 590.01 Tindale-Oliver d Aesociete3 Pinellas Co. 4.3 Oct-89 458 260 660.40 1 da 2.30 67,0 865.78 Tindale•Ollvbr a Associates PAapU Ca FI 4 4 A r-02 168 120 759,24 9e-6 1.A9 71.4 102A.99 Tindale-Olivet & Aaevclale5 Hernando Cp. FL 5.4 Ma -96 136 82 311.83 9a-6 1.68 60.2 31527 Tindale-Oliver 8 A.gsoclates Tar pn 5 ri s FL Pei•89 233 i 14 Ism-7 m 3.f+0 49.0 Tindale-Ollvef &Aesociale5 Colllbr Couni FL Au -91 R6 44 1.91 66.7 Tindals-Oliver & Assoriates Collier Count FL Au 91 118 40 1.17 33,9 Tindale-Oliver 8 gsspciales Tam a FL Mar-86 61 2.70 Kimle -Horn&ASepcietes Tam a, FL Mar-86 308 65.0 Kimle -Horn & Aaapclales Tplal Siie 39.9 ITF ¢~Q Blended total 1D2,9 Ly "~ ~ I __~ (less TL exclusions) 34.0 Weighted Percent Now Trip Average. 5>.9 Weignled Average Trip Generation Rate: 564.46 ITE Average Trip Generation Rata: 496.12 Blend o} ITE 8 FL S[udtes -Average Trip Generation Rate: 522.62 Note; Studiea with trip length pf 5.1D and 4.10 are oplliers and have bbbn excluded IrOm weighted average trip Ian9lh calculation. Average VMT. 755.14 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 A-6 Impact Fee Study Cost Component Calculations All information used to compute a typical cost per lane mile and a typical average daily capacity added per lane mile is presented in this Appendix. As noted, the primary sources for the city project data are recent engineer estimates and recent bids for projects being built and funded in the City of Bozeman. In the case of the state projects data, the source is the MDOT project reports for recently completed or fully programmed capacity expansion projects in the City of Bozeman. As mentioned previously, the cost calculations are based on city and state projects in the City of Bozeman (presentcd at the end of this section in Tables B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B- 6, B-7, and 8-8). These projects wcrc utilized in the calculation of the average cost per lane mile figure that is utilized in the update of the impact fee equation for the City of Bozeman. Ri ht-Of-Wa Cost City The ROW cost was developed based on two projects that are representative of future roadway improvements. Specifically, the ROW costs associated with the West Babcock Street and West Durston Road street projects were used to calculate a weighted average ROW cost per lane mile. The weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is presentcd in Table B-1. The weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is approximately $276,31 G for city roads. Based on discussion with city staff it was noted that the City acquires right-of- way primarily through the development review process. State As mentioned in the report, ROW cost data for the South 19t~' Avenue and Rouse Avenue state projects are believed to be representative of typical state land acquisitions. These two projects had a weighted average ROW cost per lane mile of approximately $335,446. Given the fact that the projects evaluated include both future estimate and recent bid. roadway improvements, it is expected that the recent increases in land values and recent land purchases associated with these state projects in the City of Bozeman wcrc accounted for in the calculation, which is presentcd in Table B-2. The Rouse Avenue project costs are based on the acquisitions associated with the addition of a continuous left turn latae to the two-lane undivided roadway. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, ]ne. City cif Bozeman January 2008 B-1 Impact Fee Study Construction Cost The same projects used to calculate the respective ROW costs for city and state projects were used to determine the cost of construction. Tables B-3 through B-8 present the construction cost calculations for the city and state roads. Table B-3 prescnts the list of projects that will be built based on the Greater Bozeman Area Transpor^tatrnrr Plan, ?001 Update. Table B-4 prescnts a lane milt summary of the projects presented in Table B-3. Table B-5 presents the weighted average calculation for the addition of a continuous left turn lane along atwo-lane undivided roadway for city projects. Table B-h prescnts the weighted average construction cost per lane mile for city and state roads. Table B-7 presents the lane mile distribution for city and state roads based on the GrE:ater Bozer~~an Area Trarasportatla~ Plan, ?001 Update. Table B-8 presents the weighted average total cost per lane mile for city and state. roads combined. Table B-9 presents the calculation of the weighted average capacity added per lane mile. Adjustments were made to account far the proportion of future roads based on project features expected to be representative of future City and the State projects. These adjustments were used to develop a weighted average construction cost per lane mile for both city and state roadways. Specifically, as shown in Table B-4 based on the Greater Bozenza» Area Ti°ansportation Plan, '001 Update, it is estimated that the following project types will be constructed by the City of Bozeman: • Ncw construction of two travel lanes and a continuous left turn lane (three-lane section) (16 percent). • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along atwo-lane undivided roadway where the city only pays for the addition of the third lane (three-Lane section) (28 percent). • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along atwo-lane undivided roadway that is either a reconstruction of the existing lanes or an offset (three-lane section) (26 percent). • The addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five lane section) (30 percent). 'Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 B-2 Impact Fcc Study Similarly, based on the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, ?001 Update, MDOT will construct the following project types within the City of Bozeman city limits: • The addition ofa continuous left turn lane along atwo-lane undivided roadway (three lane section) (26 percent). • The addition. of twn travel lanes to an existingtwo-lane divided roadway (five lane section) (74 percent). Again, based on a review of the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Recommended Major Improvements Plan projects (specifically for programmed projects) and consultation with City staff, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the City will build in the future will consist of urban dcsign cross-sections. It should be noted that dcsign costs are estimated io be 8.5 percent of construction for city roads and 10 percent for state roads, based on discussions with the City and MDOT staff, respectively. The dcsign and CEI costs arc merely percentages of the construction cost and arc separate components ofthc total cost for adding a lane mile of roadway. It is thus important to further note that these costs are not included in the construction costs. This estimate is based on design cost percentages observed on recently bid city and state projects. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, ]nc. City of Bozeman January 2008 B-3 Impact Fee Study Table B-1 City of Bozeman Roadway Projects {in 200fi Doiiarsyt'} i~edal}et J .r]~t ~ from t ~- ~ '~ r r ,_ ~.~~~t -__ iF;Ctii~itTC.. - .. ; ! - Pref~ :3stai5ls' :- .~, 'f%~$iic. 3f$r~} ~ -add . ~i~rts ' ~~_ -_ROW Ctxet _ }, ~ a=. 1 14'est Babcock St Main St Yello~+stone A~~e Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes Recent Bid Urban 0.9 1 fl.9 $2fl0,000 5222,222 2 West Durston Rd N 19th Are Fowler A~~e Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes Recent Bid Urban 1.0 i 1.0 $325,004 5325,flfl0 Total 1.90 $525,000 $276,316 i I 1 Source: Ciri of Bozeman Engineering D3c isioa Table B-2 State Roadway Projects in the City of Bozeman {in 2006 Doilars] 1'I ia1 4952 S 19th Are Babcock St Ka Blcd Add Lanes and Reconstruct 3-5 Lanes Future Estimate Urban 1.3 2 2.6 $708,750 5272,596 S8,113,987 $3,120.7h4 4805 Rouse Ave Main St Storo Mill Rd Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes Future Estimate Urban 2.0 1 2.fl $834.3fl0 5417,150 N~A N+A 'Focal 4.6 $1,543,050 $335,446 N+'A N+A I 1 } Source: Montana Department of Transportation Project Reports {a) (b] Tindale-Oli4er & Assuciates, Inc. City of Bozeman Januarc 2008 B-4 lrnpact Fee Study Table B-3 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update -Recommended Major Improvements ~'} ndrrrbi~ ~ e° ~Stirta ~ _ _ 1t" - ,'Frtrtn` ~ .:l ~le5s ~'~ - "`~ ~, >~t~. =1filtns 1 full reconstruct State S 19th Ace Colle e St Main St Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 3-5 Lanes 2D-4D 0.6 2 1? 2 full reconstruct State S 19th Ace Ka Blvd Colle e St Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 3-5 Lanes 2D-4D 0.8 2 l .[, 3 offset Ci Ka • Bhd S 19th Ace L4iilson Ave Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes 2U-2D l.4 l 1.4 4 offset City S 3rd Ave Graf St Ka Blr-d Collector Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes 2U-2D 1.9 1 1.9 5 full reconstruct State Rouse Ave Oak Street Story Mill Rd Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes 2U-2D l.fl 1 1.0 b full reconstruct City Colle e St LV Main St S 19th Ace Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-5 Lanes 2U-4D {3.5 3 1.5 7 cih:'developer City Cottonwood Rd-Part 1 Stec • Rd Huf6ne Ln Arteriat Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes 2U-2D l.0 1 1.0 8 offset Cite Cottonwood Rd-Part 2 1-Iufftne Ln Oak Street Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-5 Lanes 2U-4D l.5 3 4.5 9 citFddeveIoper City Cottonwood Rd-Part 3 Oak Street Valley Center Rd Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes 2U ?D 2.5 l 2.5 3 0 ciri~'developer Citc Fowler'Davis Ace Oak Street Valle Center Rd Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes 2U-2D 2.2 1 2.2 13 full reconstruct City Durston Road Focr•Ier Avenue Cottonwood Rd Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes 2U-2D 1.Q 1 1.D 12 new construction City Oak Street N 19th Ave Cottonwood Rd Arterial New Road Construction - 3 Lanes 6-2D 1.1 3 33 ] 3 offset Citc Oak Street N 19th Ave Cottonwood Rd Arterial Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes 2U-2D 0.9 l 0.9 Total 24.0 City Roads 2-3 Additional Lane Offset ~"~ 81% 4.2 Cih' Roads 2-3 Additional Larre (RecoustructionJ~3t 19% 1.D [ 1 } Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update and discussion with City staff regarding projects that have been constructed since the initial deV elopment of the plan. (2 } Sum of total lane miles for Projects 3, 4 and 13 (3} Sum of total lane miles for Project ll Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 B-5 Impact Fee Study Table B-4 Greater Boaeman Area Transportation Plan, 200'! Update - Recommended Maior Improvements Lane Mile Summary 1 j -A~ r ~ StA~ 1~4A~4 µAf- - Lane~~ - "~ ~~~ : . __: ~ Y - {{ ]~-~ pp ~``tyFy~ ~~+yyp~• tT ~ - .y . Yn~lt ~+I 0 to 3t1~ 3.3 16% 0.0 0% 3.3 2 to 3 (cirylde~eloper}{21 5.7 28% 4.0 0% 5.7 2 to 3 {additional lane}{~' S.2 26% 1.0 26% b.2 3 to 5~~i 6.0 30% 2.8 74% 8.8 Total 20.2 100% 3.8 100% 24.0 (1} Source: Table B-3, total lane miles for project 12 (2} Source: Table B-3, total lane miles for projects 7, 9, and 10 (3} Source: Table B-3 for city roads and state roads {sum of projects 3, 4, 11, and 13 for city roads; project 5 for state roads} (4} Source: Table B-3 for city and state roads (sum of projects b and 8 for city roads; sum of projects 1 and 2 for state roads) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 B-6 Impact Fee Study Table B-5 Weighted Average Construction Cost City Roads ~2 to 3 Lane Sections -Offset and Reconstruction) tin ZOOfi Dolfars~ _ `~; ~f~ ; _ - a~ ~ _ : ~ ~ ' _ - t L' St _k ~~~~~ ~ ~~}- _ X_ _ _ fd -. ~ ..,w{ Syyri ~'.- } t '~y. q~ '3L-Sly= Z - - 'L r~ s*"~cy.' ~ rr ~-G - _ Full Reconstruct with Added Turn Lane~~ ~ $4,800,040 19°l0 $912,000 City Offset`' $4,244,000 81 % $3,402,000 City Weighted Construction Cost per Lane Mile (2 to 3 Lanes)~6}: $4,314,000 (1) Full reconstruction estimates that the City pays 100 percent for reconstructing the existing two lanes, adding, the third lane, new curblgut#erlsidewalk on one side (existing to remain on the other side), and all associated roadway costs. Note, the cost includes the addition of the third lane and the cost per lane mile for adding a travel lane (2) Offset construction estimates reasonable and usable sub-base on existing lanes overlaid with three- quarter inch of new asphalt. It also includes the cost of striping, new signals, drainage needs, and utility extensions to make the roadway segment functional (3} Cost per lane mile derived based on a review of quantities associated with each improvement type using unit prices from recently bid city projects [4) Source: Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2401 Update projects adjusted by city staff and consultant comments and review [see Table B-3} {5} Cost per lane mile {Item 3} multiplied by weight (Item 4} for city project features (6} Sum of weighted cost per lane mile (Item 5}for city 2 to 3 lane projects Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 B-7 Impact Fee Study Table B-fi Weighted Average Construction Cost City and State Roads din 200fi Dollars] _ xx _ 3V"?~ ~- ~ ~ ~`~c.'~}~- ~ ~a p _ 3.. - lam." ~y~_yp {• 0-3 LanesE'~ $1,900,444 16% 4,000 $30 2-3 Lanes -New Road City Contribution'`} $1,540,444 28% $420,000 City 2-3 Lanes -Offset and Reconstructionf3' $4,314,044 26% $1,121,640 3-5 Lanes~`~' $3,120,764 30% $936,229 City Total Weighted Construction Cost per Lane Milet9~: $2,781,869 2-3 Lanes~s} $4,314,000 26% $1,121,640 State 3-5 Lanes{6} $3,120,764 74% $2,349,365 State Total Weighted Construction Cost per Lane Milet1D}: $3,431,045 [ 1) This improvement type estimates that the City pays for the cost associated with all three brand new lanes in a corridor where no road currently exists. These improvements will be constructed along corridors with no anticipated adjacent development to pay for the construction of the two new lanes consistent with the city code. [2} This improvement type estimates that the City only pays for the costs associated with a third lane in a corridor where no road currently exists. Given current city policy, the developer pays far the new construction of the two travel lanes associated with this improvement type. [3} Source: Table B-5 {4} Source: Table B-2, Item (b} {5) Source: Table B-5 {6) Source: Table B-2, Item (b} {7) Source: Table B-4 [8) Cost per lane mile multiplied by weight (Item 7) far city and state project features [9} Sum of weighted cost per lane mile (Item 8) for city project features [ 10} Sum of weighted cost per lane mile (Item 8) for state project features Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 B-8 Impact Fee Study Table B-7 Lane Mile Distribution (1) Source: Table B-4 Table B-8 Weighted Average Cost per Lane Mile (in 200fi Dollars) 'µ+yfi~, i f [H i ~ ~ ~ ~' Desi m ~ ~ ~ $236,459 $343,101 $253,522 Construction~z~ $2,781,869 $3,431,005 $2,885,731 Right-of-Wayt3~ $276,316 $335,446 $285,777 CC1~4~ $236 459 343 101 253 522 Total $3,531,1Q3 $4,452,653 $3,678,552 (1) City roads estimated at 8.5 perecnt and state roads at 10 pcrccr-t of the construction cost based on discussion with City and MDOT staff respectively (2) Source: Table B-6 for city and state roads respectively (3) Sourcc: Table B-1, Item (a) for city roads and Table B-2, ltem (a) for state roads (4) City roads estimated at 8.5 percent and state roads at 10 percent of construction cost based on discussion with City and M.DOT staff respectively (5) Lane mile distribution from Table B-7 (84 percent city, 16 percent state), multiplied by the design, construction, CEI, and ROW phase costs by j urisdiction to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 B-9 Impact Fee Study Table B-9 City of Bozeman Capacity Calculations _ - , ~- a ~ ~ ~ .~ , ; ~: , - ~ - ~ ..~ `capacity Capacity Ittiti~t ~~< ;~~ .Ca~Ity ~tie~ ,~i~~p~it ~ Add~~per C :~-` ~ 1~'F~ts,. ~ ~~t~{~ ' .i6~ ~t~~~~. ~l~d;~ ~~{4S itn} ~~ j~BH~~~~11)^' 0-3 Lanes~t} 0 22,500 22,500 3 7,500 16% 1,200 Ci 2-3 Lanes -New Road City Contribution~'° 15,000 22,500 7,500 i 7,500 28% 2,100 ty 2-~ Lanes -Offset and Reconstruction ~ 15,000 22,500 7,500 1 7,500 26% 1,950 3-5 Lanesi41 22,500 43,750 21,250 2 10,625 30% 3,188 City Weighted Average Capacity Added~'=t 8,435 S 2-3 Lanest3} 15,000 22,500 7,500 1 7,500 26% 1,950 tate 3-5 Lanes~41 22,500 43,750 21,250 2 10,625 74% 7,863 State Weighted Average Capacity Added{f3j 9,813 { 1) Project includes the initial construction of two travel lanes and addition of a continuous left turn lane to a two lane undivided roadway (2) Project includes the addition of a continuous left turn lane to a two lane undivided roadway. This project type estimates that the city will only contribute the funds associated with the addition of the third lane with the developer construction the first two lanes (3} Project includes the addition of a continuous left turn lane to a two lane undivided roadway (4) Project includes the addition of two travel lanes to a two lane divided roadway (5} Source: Table 4-1, Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update ideal management condition volumes {6} Source: Table 4-1, Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update ideal management condition volumes l7} Final capacity {Item 6) less initial capacity {Item 5} (8) Total lanes added based an project feature (9} Capacity added (Item 7} divided by lanes added (Item 8) { 10} Source: Table B-4 (11) Capacity added per lane mile {Item 9} multiplied by weight (Item 10} for city project features (0 to 3 Lanes, 2 to 3 Lanes and 3 to 5 Lanes) { 12} Sum of weighted capacity added per lane mile (Item 11) for city project features (13) Sum of weighted capacity added per lane mile (Item 11 ]for state project features Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 B-10 Impact Fee Study APPENDIX C Credit Component Calculations Montana Department of Transportation Fuel Tax Distribution Currently, the primary source of revenue for capacity expansion projects in the City of Bozeman is the impact fees and federal and state gas tax revenues. As discussed in the report, the city is allocated a portion of the federal and state gas tax revenues using a formula. that accounts for lane miles and population as outlined in MCA 15-70-101. Ad valorem is another source of revenue and is presented in Appendix D of this report. The methodology used to calculate tl~e fuel tax distribution per penny of gas tax is based on the following process summarized. below and presented in Table C-1. It should be noted that the fuel tax distribution was calculated for Gallatin County since the impact fee is based on consumption of capacity on all roads regardless of ownership (city, county, and state), the revenue credit is applied to new development in the same mamler. • Estimating the value per penny using the 2006 gross gasoline tax of $135,1b2,030 divided by 27 pennies • Calculating the value per penny per penny of gas tax • Estimating the fuel tax distribution in Gallatin County based on the value per penny per person multiplied by the 2006 population estimate Table C-1 MDOT Fuel Tax Distribution per Penny rpry~ ~, f ~h ... xE .l ~, ~.:1tLl4+r'!I4 ~fi ~!' ~ J~lk,.:~.-~ "4' _ ~. ~ 1~.,'\r Value per Penny -State of Montana" $5,006,001 State of Montana 2006 Population Estimate~2~ 942,500 Value per Penny per Person~3~ $5.31. Gallatin County 2006 Po elation Estimatc«~ 80,470 MDOT Fuel Tax Distribution per Penny to Gallatin County t5t $427,296 (1) Montana Department of Transportation (2), (4) 2006 population estin~atc obtained by applying the 2000-2005 average annual growth rate; 2000 population obtained from Census, 2005 population estimate provided by the Montana Department of Cotnmcrec, Census and Economics Information Center. (3) Value per penny (item 1) divided by the 2006 population (Item 2) (5) Value per penny per person (Item 3) multiplied Gallatin County 2006 population (ltern 4) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 C-1 hnpact. Fee Study Gas Tax Credit Ci Portion A review of the City's roadway projects and its funding sources reveals that the City uses all gas tax revenues on maintenance projects only. Because no capacity expansion projects are funded with this source now, or in the foreseeable future, no gas tax credit can be applied for City spending. State Portion In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, the MDOT Work Program was reviewed for capacity expansion projects in the City of Bozeman, as well as Gallatin County, for the 9-year period from 2000 to 2008. The two years of "future" roadway projects from the currently adopted 2007-2008 Work Program indicate a total state expenditure of almost $26.4 million for capacity-adding projects in the city and county. The specifrc State projects that were utilized in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Tables C-2 through C-3. On an annual basis, this level of expenditure is equivalent to 30.8 pennies of gas tax revenue. Comparatively, the total cost of the capacity-adding projects for the 7-year "historical" period from 2000 to 200G equates to 4.3 pennies. The combined weighted average over the 9-year total of state expenditures in the City for capacity-adding roadway projects results in a total equivalency of 10.2 pennies. Table C-4 documents this calculation. Note that because most of the construction expenditures for the projects included in this analysis are programyr-ed for construction in 2007 and 2008, the historical expenditures consist primarily of design costs only. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 C-2 hnpact Fee Study Table C-2 IVIDOT FY 2000 - 200fi Work Program -City of Bozeman and Gallatin County Expansion Projects Ci o Bozeman Ca aci ~ Ex ansaon Pro'ects 4918 Intersection U ade~Si als S 19th & Colle e $0 $D $b16 $47;787 $75,924 $23,069 $79,511 $226,847 4555 ]ntersection Upgrade,~Signals Citywide $0 $5,652 $26,883 $22,333 $9,743 $13,526 $11,862 $89,999 4713 Intersection U ade~Si als 5i al- 19th & Koch $0 $0 $1,922 $10,142 $11,566 $14,346 $3,178 $41,154 537b Intersection U adelSi als Colle e St Si al $0 $U $0 $0 $16,760 $1b,902 $43,264 $76,92fi 4952 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Bahcock to Kagy $U $0 $2,245 $6b9 $4,457 $5.696 $152,9b7 $166,034 4805 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Ronse Are $4 $0 $905 $2,153 $4,458 $41;018 $582,145 $631,179 Gallatin County Ca aci ~ Ex ansion Pro'ects 4471 lntersection U ade.~Si~nals Main & Jackrabbit $b95 $3,855 $118,601 $109,155 $52,726 $1D6,867 $3,508,755 $3,900,648 4U68 Add Turn Lanes Little Sear Rd $39,009 $16,416 $51,300 $18,654 $904,308 $0 $D $1,029,687 4U09 Intersection U rade.~Si als U5 20.IL]S 191 Int $10,241 $55,725 $1.047,018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,112;984 4026 Add Turn Lanes Turn Ba s-S of Bei rode $33,371 $32,822 $15,4b8 $651,732 $4 $4 $6 $733,393 4306 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Four Corners-North $615 $124,940 $135,913 $36,258 $44 $63,033 $139,207 $500,010 4433 Add Turn Lanes W of Bozeman $0 $23,32D $23,025 $25,859 $73,426 $1,516,029 $D $1,661,659 4179 Intersection UpgradelSi als 19th & Main $7,805 $61,5D8 $80,289 $56,445 $2,508,746 $0 ($2,000} $2,712,793 Total $91,736 $324,238 $1,504,185 $981,187 $3,662,552 $1,800,426 $4,518,889 $12,883,3]3 Source: Montana Department of Transportation Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc City of Bazerrtan January 2408 C-3 Impact Fee Study Table C-3 MDOT FY 2007 - 2008 Work Program -City of Bozeman and Gallatin Coun#y Expansion Projects ~'} City of Bozeman Capacity Expansion Projects 4918 Intersection UpgradelSignals S. 19th & Calle e $3,952,423 SO $3,962,423 4555 Intersection U gradelSi a1s Citywide Signals -Bozeman $3,416,634 $0 53,016,634 4713 Intersection U gradelSi als Signal - 19th & Koch -Bozeman $232,737 $0 $232,737 5376 Intersection UpgradelSignals 2002- College Street Signal -Bozeman 5278,769 $0 $278,769 4952 Add Lanes & Reconstruct S. I9th Ave. from Babcock St. to Kagy Blvd. -Bozeman $0 $9,263,758 $9,263,758 4805 Add Lanes & Reconstruct - Rouse Avenue from Main St. to Story Mill Rd. -Bozeman $411,451 SO 5411,451 Gallatin Corrnty Ca acity E.rpansion Projects 4306 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Four Corners- North $7,193 $9,164,693 59,171,886 Total $7,909,207 $18,428,451 $26,337,658 11) source: Montana Department at "transportation [2) Based on discussion with city staff, the construction phase of this project has been postponed until beyond 2011. As such the revenue credit has been adjusted accordingly. Table C-4 Equivalent Penny Calculation for S#ate Portion {'~ {I} {2} (3) {4y a g8~~~ r ~ Historical Work Program {2000-2006) $12,883,313 7 $427,296 $1,840,473 $0.043 Future Work Program {2007-2008} $26,337,658 2 $427,296 $13,168,829 $0.308 Total $39,220,971 9 $427,295 $4,357,886 $0.102 Source: Montana Department of Transportation Source: Table C-2 for the historical work program and Table C-3 for the future work program Source: Table C-1 Total cost of projects (Item 2) divided by number of years. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc City of Bozeman January 2008 C-4 Impact Fee Study Table C-5 Average Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency -Excluding Intersta#e Travel t'} - ~~~ - Y ~ s_ 19.7 6.7 Other Arterial Rural 356,437,241,b50 40,123,037,750 396,560,279,400 Other Rural 348,080,891,010 28,852,429,199 376,933,320,209 Other Urban 1,414,612,160,557 62,0$8,922,445 1,476,701,083,001 Total 2,119,134,293,217 131,064,389,393 2,250,194,682,610 ~-~ ~ _ Ee~el Co~sn ._ -~- _ _: .. _~ `'u 7. v ~ ~ tx~-:.+%`~`3 k tic _+~:» ~.3 Other Arterial Rural 1$,093,260,997 5,988,513,097 24,481,774,094 Other Rural 17,669,080,762 4,306,332,716 21,975,413,47$ Other Urban 71,807,723,886 9,267,003,350 81,074,727,236 Total 107,570,065,645 19,5GI,849,163 127,131,914,808 Percent VMT 90% 10% 92% 8% 9b% 4% 94% 6% - - _..~ };~'~ 2,25U,195 miles (millions) 127,132 gallons (millions} 17.70 mpg (1 } Source: Table VM-1 {Section V} of the document, Highwm~ Statistics 2005, Office afHighway Policy information, Federal Highway Administration, Washington. D.C (See Table C-6) Tindale-Oli~~er & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 C-5 Impact Fee Study Table C-6 Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled and Refaced Data - By Highway Category and Vehicle Type ~'} Y k~.s~ ~ '• x 1 _ ~ ~t s _ _~ YL' ~ A ~ M~~ ~, I1~i C ~ ~ , ~ y ~C~ F 3' Motor-V e h is Ie Tra ve I: [ m illio n s o f v e h is le -miles} 2005 Interstate fdiraE 122,470 1,433 971 82,208 7,758 43,950 204,679 51,708 258,790 2004 129,415 1,354 999 83,181 7,713 43,583 212,596 51,296 2fi6,245 2005 OtherArterial Rura! 208,127 1,411 961 148,314 14,102 2fi,021 356,437 40,123 398,932 2004 217,495 1,435 992 148,802 14,276 26,414 366,297 40,690 4D9,413 2005 OtherRural 208,472 1,624 1,858 139,fi09 14,716 14,136 348,081 28,852 380,215 20 4 217 1 5 1 700 142 2 1 2 14 316 fi 1 1 2 44 7 2005 All F3iral 539,070 4,467 3.589 370,127 38,577 84,107 909,197 72Q,fi83 1,037,937 2004 564 509 4 381 3 fi91 374 515 37 D17 4 313 939 024 121 30 1 4 8 426 2005 Interstate Urban 259,602 2,296 964 166,144 10,492 29,572 425,748 40,063 489,070 2004 258,666 2,089 98fi 155,714 9,729 28,355 414,378 38,083 455,538 20D5 Qther Urban 891,293 4,D06 2,093 523,319 32,105 29,984 1,414,612 82,089 1,482,800 2004 876 715 3 652 2 124 49fi 935 31 69fi 29 702 1 373 651 fit 98 1 440 824 2005 All Urban 1,150,895 6,302 3,057 689,463 42,597 59,556 1,840,359 102,152 1,951,870 4 11 1 741 11 2 424 1 7 481 1 9 2 2005 TotalRuraland Urban 1,689,965 1D,770 6,646 1,059,590 79,174 143,662 2,749,555 222,83fi 2,989,807 2 1 9 9 1 122 1 1 27 1 7 443 4 70 2 27 22 11 2 4 7 2005 Number of motorvehicles 136,568,083 6,227,146 847,053 95,33fi,839 8,395,240 2,086,759 231,944,922 8,481,999 247,421,120 2044 registered 4I 136,430,651 5,7fi7,934 795,274 91,845,327 6,161,028 2,090,335 228,275,978 8,171,364 243,010,550 2D05 Average milestraveied 12,375 1,729 8,235 11,114 12,380 68,845 11,856 26,272 12,084 2004 pervehicle 12,460 1,755 8,552 11,184 12,732 70,819 11,946 27,423 12,200 2005 Person-milesof travel 51 2,670,145 13,677 140,910 1,836,988 79,174 143,662 4,507,933 222,836 4,884,557 2004 [millions) 2,685,827 12,855 144,188 1,784,771 78,441 142,370 4,466,598 220,811 4,844,452 2005 Fuel consumed 61 73,870,371 215,393 1,329,254 65,419.170 9,042,283 24,410,512 139,289,541 33,452,796 174,286,984 2004 [thousand gallons) 75,401,891 2D2,447 1,360,178 63,417,148 8,958,fi22 24,190,904 138,819,039 33,149,526 173,531,190 2005 Average fuelcansumption per 541 35 1,647 686 1,474 11,69$ 601 3,944 704 2004 vehicle [gallons} 61 553 35 1,710 fi90 1,454 12,033 fi08 4,057 714 2005 Average milestraveled per 22.9 50.0 5.0 16.2 8.8 5.9 19.7 6.7 17.2 2004 aNon of fuel consumed 61 22.5 50.0 5.0 1fi.2 8.8 5.9 19.6 6.7 17.1 11 The 50 statesand the District of Columbia report travel by highway category, numberof mctorvehiclesregistered, and totaifuel consumed. The travel and fuel data by vehicle type and stratification of trucksare estimated by [he Federal Highway Administration [FHWAI. Entriesfor2004 may have been revised based on the availability of more current data E~imation proceduresinclude use of Sale-supplied data. the 2002 Census of Transportation Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (ViUS}, and othersouroes Same S[atesmay still be using 1990 Cens~sba~d urbanized area boundadeswhich may in turn affect hghway data by category. 2! Other2-Axle 4-Tire Vehicleswhich are no! passengercars. these include vans, pickup trucks, and ~ortlutilityvehicles 31 Sngle-Unit 2-Axle 6-Tre or More Truckson a angle frame with at leasttwo axlesand six tires 4I Truck registration figuresare from tables MV-1 and MV-9 with !ruck di~ribution e~imafed by the FHWA using the 2002 ViU& 51 Vehicle occupancy ise3imated byFhe FHWA from the 2001 National F#ausehold Travel Survey (NNTS}with nominal valuesforheavy trucks fi! Totalfuelconsumptien figuresare from tablesMF-21 and MF27. Distribution by vehicle type is estimated by the FHWA based on miles pergalion forboth diesel and gasoline powered vehiclesusng Sate-supplied data, the 2002 VIU$ and othersuurceswith nominaEvaluesformotorcyclesand buses[revised]. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2fl08 C-6 Impact Fee Study APPENDIX D Transportation Ad Valorem Credit Calculations This Appendix presents the calculations used to determine the credit due to ad valorem tax revenues being used to fund capacity expansion projects. The following sections provide an explanation of credit calculations. Residential Land Uses In determining the ad valorem credit for residential land uses, the study evaluated recent single family home sales and determined the taxable value of a borne. Discussions with the City of Bozeman Chamber of Commerce provided a typical home value that could be used for estimating the ad valorem credit for residential land uses. Staff at the Chamber of Commerce provided information regarding recent home sales in the City of Bozeman. Based on this review of sales infornation, the average market value of a single family home was estimated at $346,112. To determine, the average taxable value of a single family borne, tlae relationship between market and taxable values for non-residential uses was evaluated. Based on this analysis, a taxable value of approximately $211,000 was used for single family homes in the City of Bozeman. It should be noted that the ad valorem revenues used for transportation capital projects are estimated as a percentage of the City's ad valorem revenues based on the General Obligation Bond. being used by the City of Bozeman to finance transportation irnprovemcnts. Over the next five years and beyond, this amount is projected to be approximately four percent per year based on the capacity expansion expenditures of the General Obligation Bond (specifically the ad valorem revenues being used to retire this debt). Table D-1 presents the projected ad valorem contributions of a new home over a 24- year period, beginning with the 2006 taxable value of approximately $211,000. An eight percent annual increase is applied to provide a generous credit (which results on a conservative impact fee) for the increase in the value of homes in the City of Bozeman. This is based on the increase in taxable values observed between. 2002 and 2006. The resulting ad valorem taxes arc brought to present value based on an interest rate of 4.6 percent, which is consistent with the interest rate at which the City currently borrows. Table D~1 also provides the portion of the ad valorem collections that would be applied toward transportation capita.] expansion projects, and the total credit per square foot. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, ]nc. City of Bozeman January 2008 D-1 hnpact Fee Study Table D-1 Ad Valorem Credit Calculation for Single Family Home Land Use (Based on Taxable Value) 'Total allocation from the General Fund FY 2007~~ ~ $6,993,655 City General Fund Millage~21 110.57 Revenues generated from 1-mil«~ $63,251 Annual ad valorem revenue that goes to transportation capacity~41 $271,417 Total mills dedicated transportation ca acity~s~ 4.29 Percentage of rnillage used for transportation capacity addition projcets~~~ 4% Average value of a home subject to tax~'~ $211,128 annual increase in citywide taxable values~s~ 8% 2007 $211,128 $211 $8 $8 2008 $7 $7 2009 $6 $5 2010 $6 $5 2011 $6 $5 20]2 $6 $5 2013 $6 $5 2014 $6 $4 2015 $6 $4 2016 $6 $4 2017 $6 $4 2018 $6 $4 2019 $6 $3 2020 $6 $3 2021 $6 $3 2022 $6 $3 2023 $6 $3 2024 $6 $3 2025 $6 $3 2026 $6 $3 2027 $6 $2 2028 $6 $2 2029 $6 $2 2030 $6 $2 Total $147 $92 Square footage ~ ~ ~ 2,219 Credit per square foot $0.04 Interest Rate";~ 4.6% Period 24 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, ]nc. City of Bozeman January 2008 D-2 Impact Fcc Study (1) Source: City of Bozcrnan FY 2006-2007 Approved Budget; Gcncral Fund allocation obtained by attributing 68 percent of the total property taxes levied in 2007 to the General Fund (General Fund Lcvy of 110.57 divided by Total Levies of 163.42 is 68%) (2) Total millage assessed to city residents within Bozeman applied to the General Fund. (3) Total allocation fa-om the ad valorem FY 07 (item 1) divided by City's millage rate (Item 2). (4) Portion of the General Obligation Bond being used for capacity expansion. (5) Annual ad valorem that goes to transportation capacity (Item 4) divided by revenue generated by 1-mil. (Item 3). (6) Total mills dedicated to transportation capacity (Itcyn 5) divided by city general fund millage (I tem. 2). (7) Source: Market value obtained from discussions with local rcaltors and adjusted to taxable value (39°/~) (8) Annual increase in total. citywide taxable values between 2002 and 2006 in the City of Bozeman. (9) Average home value used for credit divided by 1,000. (10)1-mil tax (Item 8) multiplied by the percentage dedicated to transportation capital additions (Item 5). (11)Present value of the ad valorem for transportation (Item 9) based on an annual interest rate of 4.6 percent (Item 12). (12)Avcrage siac of a home based on 2004 salts. (] 3)4.6 percent discount rate is used based on discussions with the City's Finanec Department To determine the credit for other residential uses (with the exception of multi-family), ad valorem credit per square foot is calculated based on the above table ($0.04 per square foot) and multiplied by the average size of each category. The average size is determined based on home size information obtained from the Montana Department of Revenue. Non-Residential Land Uses Table D-2 provides an explanation of how the ad valorem credit was calculated for non- residential land uses. Tt should be noted that the ad valorem credit calculations for these land uses represent broad estimates based on data. obtained from the Montana Department. of Revenue, as available, and the Consultant's experience in other jurisdictions and knowledge of the industry. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman ,lanuary 2008 D-3 Impact Fee Study Table D-2 Ad Valorem Credit Calculation for Non-Residential Land Uses .~ ~ _ -- _ - - .~nnaal T~1 11D Industrial sq ft $b6,D20 $2.64 $19.82 150 Warehouse sq ft $44,080 $1.76 $13.90 151 Mini Warehouse sq ft $59,840 $2.39 $18.65 220 Multi-Family sq ft $135,391 $5.42 $42.47 310 Hotel room $23,884 $0.96 $7.47 320 Matel sq ft $17,913 $0.72 $5.64 411 Ciry Park acre $85,000 $3.40 $26.59 430 Golf Course hole $595,OOD $23.84 $186.25 444 Movie Theater sf $300,000 $12.00 $93.94 520 Schools student $40,000 $1.60 $12.47 565 Daycare Center sq ft $222,000 $8.88 $69.47 b10 Hospital sq ft $255,500 $10.22 $79.92 620 Nursing Home bed $20,000 $D.84 $6.25 710 Office {Multiple stories} sq ft $88,970 $3.56 $27.86 720 Medical Office sq ft $63,440 $2.54 $19.91 812 BuildinglLumber Storage sq ft $15,680 $Q63 $4.95 813 Discount Store sq ft $60,120 $2.40 $18.68 820 RetaillOffice [ 1-2 stories] sq ft $62,510 $2.50 $19.62 851 Convenience Store sq ft $91,140 $3.65 $28.58 912 Banks sq ft $121,980 $4.88 $38.19 931 Quality Restaurant sq ft $100,820 $4.03 $31.59 934 Fast-Food Restaurant sq ft $127,410 $5.10 $39.92 [ 1 ] Source: Montana Department of Revenue [2; Annual ad valorem credit based on one percent dedication to capacity expansion expenditures. [ 3 } Total ad valorem credit based over a 25-year period in present day dollars. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 D-4 Impact Fee Study APPENDIX E Analysis of Travel Behavior of Low-Income Households Analysis of the Travel Behavior of Low-Income Households The Ciry of Bozeman has begun the process of evaluating workforce and affordable housing options within the city planning process. To accommodate this, an analysis was completed on the comparative relationship between housing unit size and household travel behavior. In addition, an analysis was completed on the travel behavior of lower income households. Thcsc analyses utilized data from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2005 American. Housing Survey (AHS) to examine the overall trip-making characteristics oflow-income households in the United States. Table E-1 (presented at the end of this section) presents the existing trip characteristics being utilized in the proposed impact fee schedule for the Single Family (Detached) subcategory. The 2001 NHTS database was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual household income levels. In addition, the 2005 AHS database was used to compare median annual family/household incomes with housing unit size. 1t is important to recognize that the use of the income variable in each of these databases is completed simply to provide a convenient linking mechanisnn between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS. This review helped develop three potential tiers for the Single Family (Detached) category based on ranges of housing unit size: less than 1,500 sf, 1.,500 to 2,499 sf, and 2,500 sf or more. The results of the analyses of these two sources are included in Tables E-2 and E- 4(presented at the end of this section). First, the data shown in Table E-2 indicate that the median income in the U.S. for families/households living in housing units smaller than 1,500 square feet in size ($34,579) is significantly lower than even the overall median income for the U.S. ($49,702). Then, in Table E-4, annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS database for a number of different income levels and ranges related to the resulting AHS income data in Table E-2. These ranges are selected based on the reporting of NHTS data in income ranges of $4,999 increments (i.c. $30,000 to $34,999). In addition, annual average household VMT was calculated for two additional income levels based on the 2007 Gallatin County definitions for low income (c$46,720) and very low income (c$29,200) households, based on a household size of 4 persons as shown in Table E-3(presented at the end of this section). Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Aozetnan ,lanuary 2008 E-1 lmpact Fee Study The results of these analyses indicate that the most logical income-restricted categories to utilize in conjunction with the smallest Single Family (Detached) housing unit size is the less-than-$46,720 (i.e., median of $23,360 category from Table E-4) and the less-than- $29,200 (i.e., median of $14,600 category from Table E-4) segments. In order to calculate a corresponding trip rate for these new subcategories, however, it was necessary to rely on comparative ratios. The term median is used since as mentioned previously, the NHS data is stratified in increments and the specific income level was estimated using an interpolation procedure. As an example, consider the subcategory for the Single Family (Detached) that is less than 1,500 sf and low income. First, it was determined that the average annual household VMT for the median income level of the less-than-$46,720 segment (median of $23,360 category from Table E-4) is 1.6,701 miles. This figure was then compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S., normalized to the median-of-$57,167 (28,541 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.585. Next, this ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average Single Family (Detached) housing unit size (i.e., 1,500 to 2,499 s.f.) to generate a daily VMT of 19.71 for the new subcategory, as shown in Table E-5. This daily VMT tigurc was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 3.52 miles to obtain a typical trip rate of 5.60 trips per day. ~ it should be noted that the second income-restricted subcategory was derived in this carne manner for the Single Family (Detached) residential land use category of less than 1,500 s.f. and very low income, or annual household income of less than $29,200 (using the r~onnalized ratio to the mean for the median of $14,600 income category from Table E-4). The travel rate calculations for this subcategory are the same as that described previously for the other new subcategory. The calculated daily trip rate for this subcategory is 3.88 trips. Then, these two trip rates were placed in the impact fee schedule to generate a net impact fee value for the new "income-restricted" subcategories. Table E-6 illustrates the impact that the incorporation of the housing unit size and low- income tiers for the Single Family (Detached) land use has on the City's proposed impact fee schedule. As shown in the table, the net impact fee for a housing unit of less than 1,500 square feet and very low income is $2,171. The net impact fee for a housing unit of less than 1,500 square feet and low income is $3,147. ' Assessable trip length is assumed to be 3.52 miles based on the trip characteristics studies performed in the City of Bozeman. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of I3ozctnan January 2008 E-2 Impact Fee Study Table E-1 Proposed Values F.xcluding'1'icring Assessable Daily Ratio . 'Trip Ratc 'Trip Length VMT to Mean SinglePamily(Uetached) 9.57 3.52 33.69 lA0 Source: Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fcc Schedule. '1'ahle E-2 Table k:-3 2005 AHS Median Income Data by Annual City of Bozeman Housing Unit Size (US) Income SHIP Definitions Leas than 1,500 of $34,579 1,5(1(1 to 2,499 sf $57,167 Median income ---~ $58,400 2,.500 sfor more $80,889 Low income ---? Less than $46,720 Mean of All Housing Unit Sizes $49,702 Very low income ---~ i,css than $29,200 Source: Amer°icxnl Horrsnls; S:v~~ev.Jbr 1/re United Stoles in 2005, U.S. Census Bureau, Table 2-18. Source: Gallatin County Average Median hlcome - "Road to Hon1c" - Downpaymcnt Assisnrnce Prog7trm . Very low incumc is define as 50 percent of the median income and low income is 8(1 percent of the median income for a farm ly of four persons. Table E-4 2001 NH'I'S'1'ravcl Data by Annual Daily Ratio Normalized Annual HH Income (US) VMT/HH Days VMT to Mcan to LI2R Median of $14,600 11,559 365 31.67 0.457 0.405 Median of $23,360 16,701 365 4.5.76 0.660 (1.585 Mcdianof$34,579 20,976 365 57.47 0.829 0.735 Mean --=='total 25,294 365 (9.30 1.000 Median of 557,167 28,541 3fi5 78.19 1.128 1.D00 Median of $80,889 32,285 365 88.45 1.276 1.131 Source: 2001 National Household "Travel Survey Database, H'edet'al Highway Administration. Table E-5 Nstimation of"Trip Rate By Tier Assessable Daily Katio Trip Rate Trip Length VMT to Mcan Smglc Fannly (Detached) Less than 1,500 st and very low income 3.RR ;5.52 13.(14 0.405 Less than 1,500 sfand low income 5.60 3.52 19.71 0.585 Less than 1,500 of 7.03 3.52 24.76 0.735 Mcan _-=~ 1,500 to 2,499 sf 9.57 3.52 33.69 1.000 2,500 sf or larger I O,R2 3.52 38.10 1.131 Table E-6 Impact nf'I'icring nn Fcc Schedule Assessable Daily Net Trip Rate Trip Length V M'1' Fee Single Family (Detached) Less than 1 „500 sf and very low income 3.RR 3.52 13.64 $2,171 Less than I,SUU sfand low income S.fiO 3.52 19.71 $3,147 Loss than 1,500 sf 7.03 3.52 24.76 $3,968 Mean --=- 1,500 to 2,499 sf 9.57 3.52 33.69 $5,396 2,500 a1'or larger 10.82 3.52 38.10 $6,082 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, ]nc. City of Bozcmala January 200K E-3 hnpact Fee Study APPENDIX F Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 'Fable F-1 Proposed Cite of Boaeman Transportation Impact Fee Seheduke (Von-TEDk Gasoline Tax L'nit Construction Cosa $3.6-+8,552 $$ per gallon to capital: $0.1(1' Capacity per lane mile 8,658 Interstate 9djusiment Factor: 1 i~; Facility life !years Y- 25 Fue] Efficiency: 17'0 mpg Cost per Vi1C $4'_4.87 Interest rate: 4.6"•~ ERccti~•c days per year 3b5 Rerommend Assessable Total Recommended Recommended %Sew~ Total Annual Gas Ad \et Current Fee Percent ITE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length % Sew' Trips \el impact Gas lax 4'alorem ]mpact {700°•al Increase) LLiC Land Lse Cnil Rate Saarre Length Length 5aarce Trips Source V]~i'Ir" Cost Tax Credit Credit Fee 1996 Study Decrease RESIDE\T1AL: 210 Single Farnily IDctachcd.l !TE IKPT5..4HS. Local Stndics Less than LSDD sf and ren~lnw~ income"' du 3.8R Censusl 3.52 3A2 IBoze:nan3 IDU"•~~ n.'a S.Rf} $2.466 516 $235 $611.00 $2,]71 $',241 47"•0 ITE [1:PTS.AHS. Local Studies Lass than 1500 sf and low inmmc''' du 5.6a Censusl i.s? 3,02 IBozemanl 1DD% nra R.3R $3559 $23 $352 $611.(H] $3,14? S224t f4t1?•~ 1TE f1:PTS.AHS. Local Studies Less than L5D0 sf du 7.03 Censusl 3.52 3.02 fBozemanl IDD"s. nra 10.92 $4,46R $30 $440 $6D.00 $3.968 $2,241 I77°•o ITE [NPT5,.4H5. Local Studies 1.5001n 2,494 sf du 9.S Censusl ?.52 4.02 (Bozcmanl i[H1".~~ n.'a ]4.32 56.DR? $40 $5R7 $]OD.INI $5391+ 52,24! 24]°0 ITE INPT5..4H5. Local Studes 2,50D sf or larger du 10.82 Census) ?.52 3,02 IBozernan) !DD°r~ nra ]6.19 $6,8?? $36 $075 $12U.IH1 $6.D82 52,24! ??]°•a Blend of 1TE ?th 220 Apanmcnts du 6.64 & TC Studies ?.10 3.60 Same as LUC 23(3 1Dp°•o n;'a A.?5 $3,71? $25 $3h7 $30.51 $?,339 $],519 ?20^.•0 Local Studies ?30 Rzsidznlial Condnminiune' Tms~nhousc du 5.86 ITE ?th Edition 3.10 3.60 !Bozeman) 4DD:•6 nla '?2 $3280 $22 $323 $3051 $L936 $] 514 194°~a TC Studio 240 A~inhilc Hnmc Park du 4.99 lTE 7th Edition 2.02 2.52 [Adjusted) 300 o n~a 4.2R S1,R20 $I3 $!91 $3(.IN} $1543 5],130 l41°•a LODGI\G: R€cnd of lTE '.•th TC Studies 3 ] D Hotc] room K ?0 & TC Shtdics 3.44 3.93 (Adjusted) b6°~o TC Studies R.O] 53.4[}3 $23 $3331 S] 93 $3.D63 52,040 150".•° TC Studies 320 hlntet mom 5.63 1TE 7th Edition 2.39 2.84 lAdjasted) 77°6 TC Shidies 4.40 51,8;! $13 $]9] 51.59 $1,6'8 52,030 8'_".a RECREATION: TIF Schedules 430 Golf Cnursc hole 35.'4 ITE 7th Edilinn 2.3? 2.87 ~ Adjusted) 90°•o TC Ctudics 32.40 $(3,766 597 $ L424 546.5 ] $12,295 5?,?4] ] 5i5".~~ Same a; 1TE 41 ] City Park acre 1.59 ITE 7th Edilinn 2.3? 2.87 LL1C 430 90°~~ TC Studies !A4 5612 54 $59 $6.69 $546 5232 23h°~~ TC Studies 444 !~lovic Theaters 1.DD0 sf 38.DU ITE ?th Edition ]22 ].+? Adjusted] R8"~ TC Studies 1' 34 $?,367 56D $881 $23.50 56,463 $?.P3 911".•;, ISST3TUTIOSS: TiF Schcdulcs G10 Hospital I,flDEl sf ]7.5? 1TE 7thEdition 2.75 325 fAdjustedl 77 %~ TIF Schcdulcs 15.81 $6,7iR $46 $675 $19.99 56,023 $2.3h5 243'• Blend of ITE 7th TC Studies 62D 1tiar;ing Hame lx:d 2AR & TC Shidics ].1! 1.61 L-Adjustcdl 89":6 TC Studies 1.D4 $442 $4 $54 $1.69 $381 S78R 48"4, TiOdale-Oliver &.Associates, Inc. Ciri' of Bozeman Januan 20pS F-1 Impact Fee Stud Table F-1 (contineed} Proposed Ciir- of Boaeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Ion-TED) Recammende Assessable Total Recommended Recommended Yo \ess• Tota# Annual Cas Ad \~et Current Fee Percent iTE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Leny:th %\ew Trips \e[ Impact Gas Tax Valorem Impact (100 % ] increase! LL:C Land Use C~nit Ra[e Source Length Length Source Trips Source V~47`r[ Cost Tax Credi[ Credit Fee 19965tndv Decrease I\ST1FIfTIOi\S: T1F Schedules 530 Elementaro School student ].29 ITE ?th Edition 1 94 2.44 EAdj usled3 8U':h TIE Sch~ules p.85 $3fi3 $3 544 $3.14 $315 S19n ltifi".~" TIF Schedielcs 530 High School swdcnt 1.71 iT£ ?th Edition 1.44 2.44 f.Adjusledl 90"r~ T1F Schedules L27 $539 $4 S59 $3.i4 $4'•? 54D2 114"0 TIF Schedules 530 Uni.•enit}' f 7.500 or fen•cr sludents3'" student 2 fill ITE ?th Fdition L3? 2.5'• f-Adjus[zd] RD"•~ 71F Schedules 3.6} 5685 $5 $73 $3.13 5609 NSA i`IA TIF Schedules 550 llnivaaity (more than ?,500 students!"' stoden! L50 1TE ?th Edition 2?? 2.87 !Adjusted! 93".o T1F Schedules 1.39 5591 $4 $59 $3.33 5529 $]?49 39"0 TIF Schcdul cs 56!1 Church SvTaeo_2ue ],f1fN1 sF 9.1I #TE?ih Edition ].84 L34 fAdjusrdy 90":;, TIF Schcduln fi.41 $2.724 520 $243 5].43 $?A2R Sl ;64 1??"•a SEcad of 1TE ?th TC Studies 565 Da4 Care lA[Nl sf 75,0' & TC Studies U_8? ].37 t_idjusted] ?3".~" 7C Studies 20.26 $8.609 5?9 51,159 Sl"'40 $'.433 51,39? 532°, OFFICE: Loco] Studies Local Studies '] 0 SO.U00 sf or Icsi " 13!00 sf ] 5.65 ITE ?th equation ? ~? ? ?? (Bozeman! ? 1".•o I Sozcmany ] 0.48 $4,454 532 $4?0 56.95 $3.9?? 53,895 ] 02'h Local Studies Local Studies ?]n 540D1-3DD,Olllls£01 1.000sf ]}29 1TE'thequation 222 2.72 {Bnzcnrany ?l°~ f.Bozc-moot 9.55 54,056 529 $426 5695 $3,b23 53,895 93"~ Local Studies Local Studies ?ln lrw.nnt-200,000 ~P"' 1 non sf 12.15 1TE 7th zqualinn 2.22 !.Bozeman} ?1°.0 {Bozeman} 8.i4 53,458 325 536? Sb.95 53,084 53,895 ?9"•fi Local Studies Local Studies Tln ucater than 200.IX1n sf E' 1.000 sf 9.?ly 1TE 7r}r equation 3.22 ^'2 {Bozeman] ?I".•a {Bozeman! 6.50 S2,?6i 520 5294 Sfi 95 $2,4fiD 53,895 63"•~ Blend of ITE 7th TC Sludics TC Studies ?2n Medical Of£cc I,t3Dn sf s ys RTC Studies 2.39 2.89 !Adjusted) 69^:0 {Adjusted} 25.^0 51 U,'US 575 $1.]Dl 519.91 59,584 S7,U81 ]35".•u RETAiL: H2I] under 50,00!1 ;F s' LDDO sf 86.56 ITE 7th equation I?4 1.+4 TC Curve. ss":o TC Curve 2.5.09 510,660 S8? $1,2?? 54.95 59,378 3b,341 ]48°•~ 830 50.000-44.fN10 sf"' i fH10 sf 75.10 1TE 7th equation 1.38 1.88 TC Curve sR°6 TC Curve 25.55 S]i1,R54 $36 $1,262 54.95 59,587 Sb.669 ]44";~ RZtI iW.OUn-]99,OIH1 sf°' LIN10 sf 58.93 1TE '•th equation 1.5? ? D? TC Curve 63°•o TC Cun'e 34.77 E]0,525 $X] $1,389 54.95 59,331 $b183 ]49"•~ R2f1 200 iN1I1-299A00 sP°' 1.[WO sf 3128 ETE ?th cquari on 1.b2 212 TC Curve 6?°•o TC C urve 22 ; 3 59,658 $?3 $lABb 54.95 58,5b7 $1,791 348"~~ 820 nn:ater thou 300,000 st fi' 1,000 sf 38bfi 1TE 7rh equation ] +5 ? 25 TC Curve 75°.~ TC Curve 11.5? 59,I61 3b9 $ Lf113 54.95 SF.34~-i 55,46? l49"6 TC Studies 81? Building hlalcria].~Lurnbcr 1.000 sf 45.16 1TE +th Edition 3.89 4.39 {.4djustcd} ?3°~ TC Sn[dies 55.25 523.1'4 5154 $2260 54.95 521.309 53,?50 566"•0 TC Studies 813 Discount Super-S[ore 1,000 sf 4921 ITE ?[h Edilinn 3.66 4.16 l.adjn5tedl 9?^e TC Studies ?U 42 529,92] 519k $2.906 $]8.C,8 52[.996 56,466 4]?".•u Same as 17E 81? Nursen~rGardcn Center 1.IN10 sf 36.08 1TE 7th Edilinn 3.78 4.2R LUC 890 85",a TIF Schedules 49 ^<? 520.433 5]38 $2025 54.95 SiR,903 S3.i26 568°•~ Tindale-Oliver & Associates, inc. Cin' ufBuzeman January 201}g F-2 impact Fee Study TableF-1 (continued) Proposed Cit-' of Bowman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (\ on-TED) Recommend Assessable Total Recommended Recommended :Yew Total Annual Gas Ad Yet Current Fee Percent ITL Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length ° o Yew Trips Yet impact Gas lax L'abrem impact [100%I Increase) LCC band lise Urtit Rate Source Length Length Snurce Iris Source ~.}llau Cost Tax Credit Credit Fee 1996 Studv' Decrease RETAi L: TC Studies 851 Conecmencc Store 1,tH10 sf '3'.99 ITE 'th Edition 0.94 1.44 {Adjusted) 4]";, TC Studies 120.88 551,358 5458 $6.722 $28.58 5-k3,6D' $i?,'Ih 325°•~ Blend of iT£',•th TC Studies 4;] Qualin• Restaurant 1,900 sF 9E.10 K TC Smdics. 1 95 2.45 iAdiustcdl 7?".~ TC Studies 58.33 524?00 5181 $2,ti5ti $? 92 $22p36 SR,S9? '_4R".~s Blend of 1TE ?th TC Sludies 434 Fast Fnnd Resi w: L3ricc-Thm LOU© sf 522fi2 & TC Studies. 1:_'? 1 T LAdjustcdl 5R i TC Sludies 163.81 569,513 5564 $8,278 $9.95 $61 X25 S] 1,744 5 2 ['o Blend of iT£ ith TC Sludies R4] Ne.w'llsed Aulo Sales 1,{300 sf 32.93 & TC Studies 2.85 3.35 lAdjusledl '9"h TC Studies 31.51 513.388 592 $L35U $4.95 $12,033 $4,41' TC Sludtes R9lI Fuminuc Store 1,000 sf 5.176 iTE ?th Edition ~?R 428 tAdjustcd) 54^,•~ TC Sludies 4.39 S],R55 512 5176 $495 $1,884 $4f1U 42t" ~o Blend of 1TE 7th TC Sludies 912 Bank Sarines fYrivc-in I,t10D;f 281.55 & TC Studies 1.53 2.03 IAdjusied) 46Y•~ TC Studies 8422 535.781 52'7 $4.[165 $4.56 $31 70b 59,854 322R•o IYDD STRY'~ TIF Schedules 110 General Light tndwtria] 1,IX70 sf 6.4? ITE Rh Editwn ~ 21 Z71 }Adjusted) 92". ,, IC Sludies 6.02 52,5>9 518 5264 $4.98 $2.29D 51,635 ]4(Yso TIF Schedules f 4!1 Rlanufactuting t.DDO s 3.82 iTE ?ih Edition 221 ? ?1 lAdjusledl 92 ~ TC Studies 3.3D $1.402 $ ID 514± 54.48 $1,250 $9D4 ] 3R"; 7lF Schedules l5D Warehuwe 1-D00 sf 4.96 1TE ?lh Edition 2.2I Z.?1 lAdjusledl 42°.a TC Studies 419 $1,821 $13 5l9] 53A1 $L627 51,144 142°.•U T1F Schedules i91 R4ini-R'archouse 1,DD0 sf 2.50 ITE ?lh Edition 2a1 2.71 }Adjusted) 42"~~ TC Sludies 2.16 $418 $? $ ] 03 $4.?? SR10 $614 13?"•~ f 1 } Vet VhiT calculated as f {Trip Generation Rate* Trip Length* °% Vesv Trips)*f 1-Interstate;Toll Facility Adjustment Faaor)'2 }. This reflects the unit of vehicle miles of capacity consumed per unit of development and is multiplied by the cost per vehicle mile of capacity to determine the total impact cost. f2} Defined as 5(Y°%of city median income based on 20U7 Gallatin County .overage Median lncome fAMII 13 } Defined as 80° e of cite median incame based on 20©7 Gallatin County Average Median income {AMII f4J Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and reseazch centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. f S} I he trip generation rate recommended for tbe of&ce and retail Less than 50,000 sf categories used the end-point of SQ,000 16) The trip generation rate recommended for all other office and retail tiered categories used the mid-point of each tier of the respective categar}• Tindaie-Oliver ~ Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman Ianuary _'OBR F-3 lmpac[Fee Study Table F-2 Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee 5chednle (TED) Gasoline Tax Unit Cnnstruc[knn CosC 53,678552 SS per gallon to capital: 50.1 n? Capacii}• per lane mile: R.fiSR Intexstate:ldiustmenE Factor 15".•a Facility Life iyearl: 25 Fuel Efficiency 17.70 mpr Cosl per ~,7viC: 5424.8+ Interest nte~ 4.6".b EfFectice dal5 per pear: 3fi5 Recommended Assc. sahk Total Recommended Recommended % New 7o[al usual Gas .-ld Net Current Fee Pereeul 1FE Trip Trip Rafe Trip Trip Frip Length % Nen~ Frips Net Impact Gas Fax Valnrcm Impa[[ f 100a Incrcasel LC~C Laud l.se i~teit Rate Snuree Length Length Source Trips. Source ~'j~" Cost Tar Credit Credit Fer 1996 Stndr Dcrrease RESEDENTC.AL: 2l0 Single Family f. Defachedl ITE fNPr5,AH5, Ltxal Studies Less than, l SIIII sf and ~~en• irnc income " du 3.88 Ctnsw i 352 4.02 fBozemanl 100°'.. n'a i.RU 52,466 S16 52+5 SW.OD 52, l71 52,241 9?"•~ ITE fNPF5.AH5. Local Studies Less than 1 son sf and ]ow income'-' du 5.6D Cersusl 4.02 fBozemanl l00".~~ nra R.3R 53,559 524 5312 500.DD 53,14? 52.241 ]4D°~6 1FE fNPT5,AH5. Local Studio Liss ihaa ] Sq0 sf du 7A3 Cersus} 3,52 4.02 fBozemanl 100°~~ n'a IU52 S4,4fi8 530 534U SfiU.DD S3,9ti8 52.241 i"".•b IIE fNPFS,AHS, Local Studtes l,5t H1 to 2.484 sF du 9.57 Censwl 3.52 4.U2 (Bozemanl lnn"~ n~a 14.?: Sfi,n83 540 55 R' $1iN I.OD 55,?96 52.41 241"~ IFE f Iti PT5.AH5. Local Studies 2,5t Ki sf or larger du ]DS2 Census) 352 4.02 (Bozeman) 100:• nra 16.19 Sb,87? S46 5575 5120.DD 56,082 52,'41 27]"•~ Blend of 1TE '•th 220 Apanmenls du 6.64 & TC Studies 3 IU 36D Same as LS:•C 230 100?o nra R.'•5 53,?1? 525 536' S1U.5] Sz?39 Sk,519 22n"-i, Local Studies 2?0 Residential Condominiums Towrhnuse du 5.86 ITE 7th Edition 3.1U 3.+SD fBozemanl 100"~6 n~a 7.73 S3 280 S22 5323 S1U.5] 52,946 S1,5l9 ]94"•a TC Studies 24n hinhle Hnme Park du 4.99 1TE 71h [dition 2(12 2.52 (Adjusted) l00°•o nra 3.28 S1,R20 S13 5191 536.nn S1,s93 S€,130 ]41".fi L(lI1Gf\G: Blend of ITE '•th TC Studies Cih~ of Tampa ?In Hotel mom iC.3n &TC Studies 3.44 3.94 iAdjustedl Al°~ C$D Study '.411 53,145 521 S;nR 53.93 52,%35 S2,U4U 139°~" 7C Studies Cily oFTampa ?2n '<3otel mom 5.63 lTE7thEditi~n 2.39 2.89 i:ldjusted) hl"•'o C$DStudy 3.49 51,482 Sln 514' 53.55 Sl,?33 52040 h5""~ RECREAr1U\: TIF Schedules Cim of Tampa 4?0 Gp]f Cour,e hale 35.74 1TE 7th Gditipr. 2.37 Lldj ustedl ?2°fi CBD SIudy ll52 54,894 535 5514 S4ti.51 54,333 S?,?93 sfi';;, Same as ITE Ciri of Tampa 41 C Cirv Park acre l59 1TE ?th Edition 2.37 2.87 LUC 43D 3?^.~o CSD Study D.5 3 5218 S2 529 56.69 S] R2 S2?2 79".•~~ TC Studiei CiH oFTampa 444 Ddocie Theaters 1,DD0 sf 38.OD iTE ?ih Edilinn ].22 ] '2 fAdjwtedl 324a C'BD Siudi~ 6.3U S2 fi79 S22 5323 523.50 5?,??? 57,173 33°~~ I~srITl;rlo~s: TIF Schedules 61D Hospital 1,000 sf [?.s7 ITE 7th Edition 2?5 3.25 [-Adjusted'( TC Sudies 15.81 56.; l8 54fi 5675 S]9.99 S6,o23 5'_,465 244" IIlend of ITC 7th TC' Studies 62D Vutsine Home trd 2.48 & TC Studies 1.11 Lfil f:ldiustedl R9°•o TC Studies 1.04 5442 54 S59 SL69 5381 S7RR 48"s: Tindate-0liser & Associates, Inc. City ofBuzeman January 2[H1R F-4 impact Fee Study Table F-2 {continued) Proposed Cih' of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedufe [TED) Recommended Assessable To[sl Recommended Rernmmrnded ^/.New Tn[al Annual Gas Ad \et Curren[ Fec Pcrcrn[ iTE Frip Trip Rate Frip Trip Trip Length ^/. \e+s 7rips \e[ Impact Gas Tax F'alnrcm Impart { 100 .1 inrrcase' LCC Land Use unit Ra[e Source Length Length Source Trips Source e]7T" Cast Taz Credit Credit Fee 39965tuds Dcrrrasc I\57IFUTIUNS: TiF Schedules 5"%n Elemenian• School student 1.'9 ITE 7th Lditine. 1.94 2.44 f.Adjtatedj RD':b T7F Schedules U.RS 5362 53 544 5;.14 5315 Sltxl ]~^~' TIF Schedules 530 Hivh Sehonl ;indent E.'• I 1TL 70t Editior. ] 94 2.44 i Adj ustedl 9(I`:~; TIF Schedules !27 SSt9 54 559 53.14 537' 53(12 ] E9", T1F Schedules 540 Uni~~e>`tty f.7.50l1 or fewer smdentsl'~ student ann ITE 7th Edition 2.R' f:1dj toted) RiM~~ TIF Schedules 1.61 S6%5 SS 5±3 S3.k4 5bD9 \;:1 \:;~ TIF Schedules gg0 Ilniceniri imere than' S0D studznts}'" student L5U iTF 7th [ditien 2.R7 IAdj astedl y2°:y TIF Schedules k39 5541 S4 $59 53 [4 5539 SL349 39°~ TIF Schedule; 560 ChurchrSVnago ue 1.[%Kl sf 4i1 ITE 7th Edition 3.84 234 lAdjtcstedl 9!1?•o TIF Schedules 6.4] 53'24 5211 5244 51.93 52,42X 51,369 E7~°;, Blend of ITE 7th TC Studies C6t Dav Cam 1.1IlX7 sf 75,07 & TC Studies f1.8' 13? E:1dj cted) 73°% TC Smdies 20.26 S8.6D9 579 SL159 S17A0 57,433 Sl 497 532°~ UFFICE: Local Studies Local Stadies- 7] D 5[1,[1[#1 sf or lest `' I.fKKI sf 15.55 ITE Rh equation 2.22 f Doietnan) 57°•o Bozeman {adlusled] k,42 53.576 526 5382 56.95 53,] 87 S3.ft95 %?":~ Local Studies Losxl Studies- ]]D 5[1,Df11-In[I,i%MI S4'' 1,000 sC 1425 ITE Rh equation ~.~: fBozemanl 57:•~ Bozeman {adjusted} 7.66 53.25b 523 5338 56.95 52 91 ] 53,895 75".:;, Local Studies Loca[ Studies- 710 ]Df1,n[II ?[Ifl,[I0C1 sf °i 1,[100 sC 1215 ITE 7th equation ?.?' 2.72 {Bo-remanl 5?°i;, Bozeman{adjusted. 6.53 52,776 520 5294 56.95 S2A75 53.895 64°-6 Local Studies Local Studies- 710 greaterlhan 2UV.OW sC°' L000 sf 9.70 ITE Rh equation 222 2.72 (Bozeman) 5?°i;, Bozeman ladiusled. 522 5221b 516 5239 $6.95 51,9'4 $3,895 51"a Dlend of lTE ±[h TC SIUdies TC Studies 720 Medical Office 1,000 sC 35.95 & TC SWdies 239 2.89 IAdjus[edl 69°:~ (Adjus[edl 25.2(1 510,705 575 S1,1D1 51991 59584 57,{18] 135".•' RETAIL: City of Tampa 820 wader 5f1,IH70 sP`~ 1,000 sC 86.56 ]TE 7th eyuation 1.24 1.74 TC Cun~e 31 :•~ CBD Stud}' ]4,14 56.OOR 549 5719 54.95 S5,2R4 56341 83"% Cit}' of Tampa 82[1 SU,U[%i-99,[N%i st'"' l,nnn sC 75.10 ITE 7th equation l3R 1.%8 TC Curve ~ li".~ CBD Study 14.54 $6,I?6 549 5719 54.95 55.452 56.889 8"% City of Tampa 820 100,UW-149.f100;P" 1,000 sC 58.93 ITE 7th equation E.57 207 7C Cune 35^.~ CBD Smd}' 13.7b 55.847 545 Sbb0 54.95 55,182 5628+ 82 r City of Tampa 82U 2Df1,iKlfl-299.[M1f1 sf °' 1,nn0 sf 49.28 ITE 7th equation L62 212 TC Cun~e 40"~~ CBD Study ] 3.5? 55,766 544 5646 54.95 55, I € 5 55.791 88°•' City of Tampa 82(1 greater than 3[q,[100 sf °' 1,000 sf 38.66 ]TE 7th equation k.75 22,9 TC Cone 46^,•~ Cf3D Stud}' ] 323 55,6?n 542 5816 54.95 54.999 S5A62 92~•~ TC Studies 812 Ruildiag }7ateria]rLumber LMIn sf 45.16 ITE 'th Edition 3.89 434 IAdjusledl ?4"..•~ TC Studtes ss,75 5'3.4,'•4 5154 52.26D 53.95 5?t2[W 53.75U 566`:•' TC Studies 8] 3 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf 49.2] ITE 'th Edition 3.66 4.16 {Adiusted3 92"~;, TC Studies 70.42 5'9,921 Sl98 52,9D6 S18.b8 526.996 Sb.466 41' :•' Same as lTE 817 Nurerv Liardee. Center 1,IH%I sf 36.Dx ITE Rh Edition 3.?% 4.2% LUC 890 85".~ TIF Schealuies 49.2? S'n.933 SE3% 52,025 54.95 S1R.9n3 5;.326 568°•' Tisdale-Oli~er6z.Associates, Inc. Cite ofBnzemaa ]anuan 2C}08 FS Impact Fee Study Tahie F-2 (conrinued) Proposed Cify of Bozeman Transportation impact Fee Schedule (TED) Recommended .'assessahk Total Recommended Recommended ~ Ten' Total Aannal Gas Ad Nel CurrenF Fer PcYCCnt ITE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length a Nen' Trips Net Impact Gas Tae ~'abrem Impact [100°.1 Incrcasei LUC Land Ilse I~oit Rate Source Length Length Source Trips Source ~'~'1TI" Cost Tax Credit Credit Fec 1946 Study Decrease RETAEL: TC Studies 8j] Cnmenience Store Lflfq sF 7379'4 ITE 7th Edition n.44 1.44 f:ldius[edl 41°6 TC Studies 326.88 551?SR S4jR 5fi,?22 528.58 544,EB7 513,i 15 _ _ Blend of 1TE ?th TC Studies City of Tampa 933 tluaLtr Restauran! k,IXkl;F 91.IU 8 TC Studies. 1.9j 2.4j Irldjmted] 21 ".~~ CBD Study 15.85 5(+,7?6 S39 S?I9 57.92 36,IX19 SR.R9i 68':•" Blend of ITE 7th TC Studies Cily of Tampa 9;4 Fall Fond Rest wi Drive-Thru ! [1iNt sF 522 h2 & TC Studies. 1.27 1.77 t:ldjus[edl 21 ".•~ CBD Study i9 24 525,168 S2fN 32,993 59.95 522.] Cwt 51 k,'49 184"-~ Blend of liE ?th TC Studies 833 New': Used Auto Sakes LtNN1 sf 32.93 & TC Studies 2.8j 3.3j [Adjusredl ?9':-~ TC Studies 3 Ls l 3l?,?R8 S92 Sl,3jf1 54.95 5] 2,[1„ 54.; €? - TC Studies R9fl Furniture Store l,6t16 sf 5.f1fi ITE 7th Ldition 3.78 4.28 [Adjusredl 54°fi TC Studies 139 S1,8fi5 532 SI'h 54.95 51,684 330D 42]".~" Blend of ITE 7th TC Studies City of Tampa 912 Bank Savings Dn ve-in l,MM sF 2R 1.55 & TC Studies Lj3 2 fli IAdjustedl ?5°~~ CBD Study 54.68 $21,225 5216 3?,OR2 59.55 524,] 33 59.859 235% f V DIISTRY: TiF Schedules i IU General Light Industrial l,lRkf sf 5.9' ITE 7th Edition 2.2] 2.71 LAdjuslrA] 92"~ TC Studies 5.112 52,559 S] R S2b3 54 9R 52,29n SI fi35 14f1".~" T1F Schedules 14U hlanufacmring t Mlll ;f 3 R' iTL 7th Edition 2.27 2.71 IAdjusredl 42°~" TC Studies 330 51,402 SiU 5147 54.98 31 5[1 59[14 138".~" TiF Schedules 15U 'h'arehnuse L6110 sf 4.9fi ITE 7th Edition '_.' ] 2.71 tAdjusled] 42".6 TC Studies 129 $1,82 t 513 5191 53.41 51,62 7 SL E44 142°•~~ u es 1j1 A4ini-R'arehowe E.000 sf 2.iU ITE th Edition 2.21 2,71 Iadiusledi 92"„ TC Studies 2.16 5918 S7 3]U3 54.?7 3R1U 3fi13 1?2°.•~ I I } !+fet VhTf calculated as [[Trip Generation Rate* Trip Lena h* °a 1Tell• Tripslr`f 1-interstate'-Doll Facili€y Adjustment Factorl.%2 }. This reflects the unit of lehicle miles of capacity consumed per unit of des elopment and is multiplied by the cost per ^ehicle mile of capacity [o determine the total impact cast. f 2 } Defined as 5[]2.0 of cite median income based on 2067 Gallatin Counh .Average 'vTadian income {Ahfl} f 3 } Deftned as R09o of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average i7edian income {Ahflp 141 Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxilian structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at [he office land use rate. 151 The trip generation rate recommended fur the office and retail less than 50,OD[} sf categories nsed the end-point of 50,000 16} The trip generation rate recommended for all other office and retail tiered categories used the mid-point of each tier of the respective eategon• Tindale-0li~'er & Associates. inc. City of Bozeman 3anuary :.DOS F-6 Impact Fee Study Land Cost As shown in Table G-1, the taxable property values for the City of Bozeman increased over the past five years by approximately 8.2 percent per year between 2002 and 2006. It should~be noted that market values are typically used to determine the actual increase in land values. Since these data were not available, to provide a conservative estimate of the increase in land values, taxable values were used. Table G-1 Clty of Bozeman Taxable Property Value Increase ~'~ ~~t~~r , r~~~r ~~:. ,, 2002 $42,450,000 N/A 2003 $46,055,000 8.5% 2004 $49,559,000 7.6% 2005 $52,985,000 6.9% 2006 $58,063,000 9.6% Avera a 8.2% (1) Source: City of Bozeman Annual Financial Report, Part III., Rcvcnuc Capacity Construction Cost For construction costs, it is recommended that the construction cost index provided by E»girreering News Record be used. for indexing purposes. The average annual increases in the construction cost index are used for the design, CEi, and construction cost components of the transportation impact fee indexing. As shown in Table G-2, over the past five years the average annual index is 4.4 percent. It should be noted that this index does not reflect the actual increases in construction costs that have occurred over the past five years. As mentioned previously, the City may consider conducting a separate analysis to determine the increase in local construction costs, or at a minimum, review annual increases in the construction cost per lane mile figures provided by MDOT and consider adjusting the index accordingly. in the absence of such studies or analyses, the index calculated in this section provides a conservative estimate. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman ,lanuary 2008 G-1 Impact Fee Study Table G-2 ENR Construction Cost lndex tt~ ,;. ~r-. f 2002 r+t+~ ,538 /A 2003 6,694 2.4% 2004 7,115 6.3% 2005 7,446 4.7% 2006 7,751 4.1% Avera a 4.4% (I) Source: E~aciiaeei°inc News Recur^d's Construction Cost Index (2002-2006) Application As prescntcd in Table G-3, ofthc weighted average total cost per lane mile, 93 percent is for Design, CEI, and Construction Cost, and 7 percent is for ROW. As shown in the table, applying these percentages to the average cost increases prescntcd previously would provide a combined index of 4.7 percent, which then can be applied to the cost component for all land uses prescntcd in the transportation impact fee schedule. Table G-3 Indexing Application ` ~ ~ ~ yl nY'~A IrrI ~ x~ r. ~~,F~Y Ir .~ _ ~. ' ~' S ~~,~~ f ~ '. t y a., a Desi rn $253,522 6.9% 4.4% 0.3% ROW $285,777 7.8% 8.2% 0.6% Construction/CEI $3,139,253 85.3% 4.4% 3.8% Total Cost $3,678,552 Total Applicable Indext5t 4.7% (1) Source: Table 4 (2) Source: Item (1) for each phase (design, ROW, construction/CEI) divided by total cost (3) Source: Table G-1 for ROW costs and Table G-2 for design and construction/CEI (4) Annual increase (Item 3) multiplied by the percent of total (Ite-n 2) (5) Sum of index components for design, ROW, and construction/CEI With this index, net impact fee for the single family 1,500 - 2,499 s.f. detached land use would increase to $5,650 ($5,396 x 1.047) at the end of first year after adoption and Tindalc-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 G-2 ltnpact Fee Study implementation of the updated fee schedule. This index would change all fees within the fee schedule accordingly. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2UU8 G-3 Impact. Fee Study REVENUE PROJECTIONS Revenue estimates are based on a review of building permit activity and future population growth estimates. The impact fee schedule by land use presented in Appendix F, Table F- l, provides the basis for this analysis. Table H-1 presents the projected residential units per year through 2025. Thcsc population projections are based on the information from the 2007 Sewer Facility Plan and reflect the most recent and localized data. The following estimates were made by projecting the transportation impact fee revenues based on a review of the City of Bozeman historical building permit activity. • Based on historical impact fee revenue collections, revenues from residential land uses represent 61 percent of total collections and non-residential land uses represent 39 percent. • Residential building permits are estimated to be generated by single family units (37 percent), townhomcs (8 percent), multi-family (53 percent), and mobile homes (2 percent). • The rate of growth of building permits is projected to increase through 2025 as the City continues annex urbanizing areas in its geographic proximity. • The average annual number of bui lding permits between 2002 and 2006 was 724. Based on projected population, approximately 23,406 new homes will be constructed in the next 18 years as the county approaches its build-out population in 2025. • The projection of revenues will be based on an average of 1,300 new homes per year between now and 2025 given the expected population growth. Table H-l Residential Units per Year (200$-2025) ,~ z 1 ~r~~ {Fr ~ Ian' ~ ' . ~^' +~~ y~ i. . ~ ,i ~F ~ ~~ i y r lQ~~'~ Zoos 39,602 2025 92,500 Population. Growth (2008-2025) 52,898 Residents Per Dwelling Unit 2.26 New Homes (2008-2025) ~ 23,406 New Homes per Year 1,300 (1) Sourer: Source: Bozeman Sewer Facility Plan, 2007 (2) Source: 2000 Census Data, Table P17 (3- Population growth (ltcm 1) divided by residents per dwelling unit (ltcm 2). (4) New homes (2008-2025) (item 3) divided by 18 years. Tindalc-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 H-l Impact Fcc Study As shown in Table 11-2, the transportation impact fee program will generate a total of approximately $154.8 million, generating an average of approximately $8.6 million annually through 2025. These estimates are based on using the population growth approach. Compared to historical collections, these projections are optimistic since they are based on a higher annual projected number of building permits. Table H-2 Frojected Transportation Impact Fee Revenues (2008-2025) (in 2007 Dollars) .; ,;. ~ ~ ~~. .r~ ~ r ~ ~ q: ~„ ~ tal.:: v Sin lc Family 37% 8,661 $5,396 $46,734,756 Townhomes 8% 1,872 $2,946 $5,514,912 Multi-Family (Apartments) 53% 12,405 $3,339 $41,420,295 Mobile Home Park 2% 468 $1,593 $745,524 Total Residential Revenues 100% 23,406 N/A $94,415,487 Non-Residential Impact Fee Revenues $60,364,000 Total Residential and Non-residential Impact Fee Revenues $154,779,487 (1) Source: Distribution of historical building permits from 2002 through 2006 (2) Source: Table H-1 for total pcrinits. Permits distributed for residential uses by estimated percentages in (Item 1) (3) Source: Appendix F, Table F-1 (4) Permits (Item 2) multiplied by impact fee (Item 3) (5) Non-residential revenues are estimated to be 39 percent of total collections (6) Sum of total residential impact fees and total non-residential impact fee revenues (Item 5) Based on the analysis shown in these tables, the City of Bozeman is projected to generate an average of $8.6 million annually in transportation impact fee revenue between 2008 and 2025, and a total of $154.8 million during this 18-year time period. This projection is in 2007 dollars and does not take into account the indexing of the impact fees. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lne. City of Bozeman January 2008 H-2 Impact Fee Study APPENDIX I Evaluation of Funding Sources Current Conditions The City's roadway financing program, including expenditure and revenue policies that have historically been used for capital and operations, was evaluated. It is recommended that the City evaluate alternative revenue sources once every three years to make sure that a dynamic process is in place in case there are any new revenue options. As a part of this review, historical expenditures were reviewed dating to Fiscal Year 2002. Specifically, expenditures were categorized as personnel, operations, capital, other, and capacity expansion. Table 1-1 provides a summary of the percentage of the annual street maintenance expenditures by funding source. As shown in the table, the primary funding source has been the Street Maintenance District Fund. Similarly, there has been a strong increase in revenues from impact fees in more recent years primarily due to the settlement of a law suit such that the City could begin expending the impact fees that were collected during the litigation period. Table 1-1 Historical Roadway Expenditures by Funding Source~t~ ;` ~.,~M ~_ Street Maintenance 76°/, 57°/, 68% 19%, 11% 19% 42% Gas Tax Allocation 22'% 37`% 28'% 6'% 4% 6% 17% S ccial improvement Districts 0% 0% 0% 5 ] % 11 % U% 10% impact Fees 2% 3% 2% 23% 74% 58% 27% G.O. Bonds 0%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 0% 17% 4% (1) Source: City of Bozeman Finance Department Table I-2 presents transportation expenditures by task as a percentage of total expenditure. As shown in the table, the three categories that dominate transportation expenditures on average since 2002 are operations, capacity expansion, and personnel projects. Specifically, an average of 30 percent of funds has been devoted to operations and capacity expansion, while 25 percent has been expended on personnel. Capital expenditures refer to the purchase of specific equipment needed to support the roadway program's capacity expansion and operational activities. As mentioned previously, as impact fees became available as a source of funding, the percentage of total funds being allocated to capacity expansion projects increased. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 1-1 lmpact Fee Study Table I-2 Historical Roadway Maintenance Expenditure by Task ~' 1 k ''C L N J ~ ~k ~`~ ^ • I ~ ~ 1 ,. f iyi r i H 5... ` ~l}Yry '1M1 l?~ l ~~ V ~ -3h .~iX, r ~.;5 ~~~1 ~• L. Personnel 44% 39% 41% 9%~ 6% 10% 25% Operations 39% 28% 34% 55% 16% 9% 30% Ca ]tal 15% 28% 22% 8% 3% 12% 15% Ca aci Ex ansion 2% 5% 3% 28% 74% 69% 30°/, (1) Source: City of Bozeman Finance Department Surrounding Communities Table i-3 below presents the funding sources of various cities near the City of Bozeman. The most common source of funding comes from gas tax rcvcnue as distributed by the State of Montana Department of Transportation. 1t should be noted that this funding source is used primarily for maintenance related expenditures by the City of Bozeman. As shown in the table, the City ofBillings has enacted an arterial street fee as an. innovative way of generating revenues for the construction and reconstruction of arterial streets within the city. Similarly, special assessments, or special improvement districts, as well as, impact fees, are also common sources of rcvcnue to meet the transportation needs of other communities besides the City of Bozeman. Table I-3 Comparison of Funding Sources for Transportation Expenditures t'1 / ~ ~{.yC)b~~ i ~~ ~~ ~r,i T. . # 1~ ~ '~w1 Ji13C~ . ~ ~ ~ 'P~r~+~t'. .~:~ ~'~ `1L•!1(~.' ~U,~ . ^pIk~ '. i'~~!LIE~PF+'~~'i I .r- ~ -' ~ . y,~~ p ~:YT:CC7 k ! '~~ '~ ' ~. ~yy• ,, Gl'~.Y{( ~, Ci of E3ozemai~ X X X X X City of Billings X X X X X X City of Great Falls X X City of Missoula X X City of Belgrade X X X Gallatin County X X X X (11 Source: Adon tcd budgets for Fiscal Year 2007 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lne. City of Bozeman January 2008 1-2 ].mpact Fcc Study Funding Options Aside from the funding sources presented in Table 1-3, two other possible funding sources were evaluated. First, a retail sales tax scenario was examined and is presented in Table 1-4 below. We understand that the implementation of sales tax may be difficult; since recently the state legislature did not consider this to be a feasible funding option at this time. However, since the sales tax has the potential of generating significant revenues, the sales tax analysis is included as one of the options for purposes of illustration. Based on data collected on retail sales in the City of Bozeman, as well as for the State of .Montana, the estimated 2007 retail sales is multiplied by each sales tax scenario. For example, it is estimated that aone-half cent sales tax in the Ciry of Bozeman will generate approximately $4.4 million in revenue annually. Table I-4 Sales Tax Scenario ~ a»,. ~ p ~ h ._ .& ~ n ~ r jtii ~.r, 1 ~ , ~ 1 f Estimated 2007 Ci o Bozeman Retail Sales State of Montana 2002~1~ $10 122 625 000 .. ~y~~"`~ '" ". , , , • State of Montana 2005~Z~ $11 886 957,000 > > ! ~ rr~h ,~~~ i ~ State of Montana Average Annual , . ~~ ' ~~;~ ~ ) Growth Rate Of Retail Sales 5.5% ~ ~ ~ r City of Bozeman 2002~~~ $679 846 000 > '~~ ° z °' re} ~> ~ ~ r ~ ,, Number of Years Between 2002-2007 5 , r'~`'~ "~ ~~,~'•~ Estimated 2007 City of Bozeman~4~ $888,531,533 .~ A;'~ rW Sales Tax Scenario $0.005 ,{`;' ~' Lh,' p °, $4,442,658 $0.010 ~'~Mf a~,Al -, ;~ 1 ~; " `~ $8,885,315 $0.020 ,,~ ~c n rT;~ ~ ~.M,~ ;~ ,~~ $17,770,631 (1) Source: 2002 Economic Census (2) Source: Montana Department of Commerce, Census and Economics Information Center (3) Source: 2002 Economic Census (4) Based on the average annual growth rate of retail sales in the State of Montana (5) Sales tax multiplied by the estimated 2007 retail sales in the City of Bozeman (ltem 4) Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman ,lanuary 2008 I-3 ]mpact Fee Study Table I-5 shows the equivalent pennies of gas tax calculation. for the three sales tax scenarios that can be applied to the transportation impact fee in the same way gas tax credit is applied. Table I-6 presents the credit that would be applied to the transportation impact fee for selected land uses if a sales tax were to be implemented. Three credit scenarios are shown to reflect the three sales tax scenarios presented above in Table 1-4. Note that this analysis estimates that 100 percent of all sales tax revenue collected will be allocated to road capacity expansion projects. As an example, an additional $602 would be credited to the single family land use if a $0.005 sales tax were to be implemented. It should be noted that additional sales tax revenues are not likely given recent state legislative action. Table I-5 Equivalent Pennies Titadale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 I-4 Impact Fee Study (1) Source: Table I-4 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-1 Table I-fi Transpor#ation Impact Fee Sales Tax Credit ~'~ _ ~ ~ -_ ~- - ~ ` ` ' ' ~ ~ ' ' a ~ ! ~e~~ ;< $z ~4~ ~ ai ~~'# i aY ~ea ;1`a~ 5>~9 ~x _ ~_ ~ttecomrnended ; -='1'~ ~[~e~d~ O'redlt = t'et~t ' ~fe~4~~ ~ `-!'~[iiE Z ~" ~ t` etc ~rcd~ ,: _ _ _ _ Sin le Famil (1,500 to 2,499 sfj du 9.57 4.02 100°/n $41 $602 $83 $1,218 $165 $2,422 Office {50,000 sf} 1,000 sf 15.65 2.72 71% $32 $470 $65 $954 $130 $1,908 Retail (100,000 sf] 1,000 sf 5$.93 2.07 63% $82 $1,203 $165 $2,422 $330 $4,843 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf 91.10 2.45 77°io $184 $2,701 $367 $5.386 $734 $10,773 BanklSavin s Drive-in 1,000 sf 281.55 2.03 46% $283 $4,154 $566 $8,307 $1,133 $16,629 General Li t Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 2.71 92% $19 $279 $37 $543 $75 $l,lOl (1) Trip characteristics variables are presented in the demand component in Appendix F, Table F-1. Sales tax credit is based on a facility life of 25 years, 4.6 percent interest rate, 365 effective days, and a fuel efficiency of 17.70 miles per gallon. (2} This scenario estimate 100 percent of the sales tax revenue will be allocated to capacity expansion projects. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 I-5 Impact Fee Study A millage option was also evaluated as a form of revenue to fund transportation projects. Presented in Table 1-6 are various scenarios of levying a millage tax. Based on the revenues generated from 1-mil as presented in Appendix D, Table D-1, a one mil levy will generate approximately $63,251 in revenue per year. Similarly, a three mil levy will generate approximately $189,753 in annual revenue. Table 1-7 Millage Tax Scenario .~ ~,~ A •F Revenue Generated from 1-rnil $63,251 Milla a Scenario: 1:0 $63,251 2.0 $126,502 3.0 $189,753 (1) Source: Appendix D, Table D-1 (2) Millagc scenario multiplied by the amount of revenue generated from one mil (Item 1). As prescntcd in Table 1-6 in the sales tax scenario, Table I-8 below presents the effect on the transportation impact fcc if the City of Bozeman levied a 1, 2, or 3-mil tax for the single family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) land use. The additional ad valorem credit that would be applied to various non-residential land uses is presented in Table I-9. Note that the calculation for this analysis is done in the same manner as prescntcd in the applied ad valorem credit analysis in Appendix D. For example, the additional ad valorem credit for the mid-tier single family detached land use of levying a 1-mil tax would be $75. The additional credit that would be applied to a 50,000 square foot office land use is $6.95 if a 1-rnil tax were implemented. As shown. in the analysis of funding sources presented above, the City has the option of using two primary funding sources (sales tax and ad valorem tax) to finance operations expenditures. 1t should be noted that additional mills require an independent vote from city residents. These funding sources can be used to develop a cost affordable maintenance prngrarn that meets the growing demands of the roadway system. In addition, depending of the use of the special improvement district funds these additional revenues can be used to provide leverage for any funding shortfalls. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 I-6 lmpact Fee Study Table I-8 Additional Transportation Impact Fee Ad Valorem Credit for the Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) Land Use (1) Credit per square foot multiplied by 2,500 sf 'I'indalc-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeanan January 2008 1-7 Impact Fee Study Table I-9 Additional Transportation Impact Fee Ad Valorem Credit for Sample Non-Residential Land Uses* ~~ ~ ~ ~ At~~ Tt~ta>r ~ - T 'J~v. r ~./~f ~ ~ 1~ Office (50,000 sf) 50.89 $6.95 $1.78 $13.96 $2.67 $20.89 Retail (144,000 sf) $0.63 $4.95 $1.25 $9.80 $1.88 $14.74 Quality Restaurant $lAl $792 $2A2 $15.73 $3.02 $23.59 Fast Food Rest wI Drive-Tlzni $1.27 $995 $2.55 $19.94 $3.82 529.98 BanklSavings Drive-in $1.22 $9.56 $2.44 $19.14 $3.66 $28.64 General Light Industrial $0.66 $4.98 $1.32 $9.74 $198 S14.79 Note: Credit shown for all land uses is per 1,040 square feet { 1) Taxable value of land use divided by 1,000 and multiplied by the percentage of one mill that is attributed to transportation capacity expansion {1%} [2), {4), (6) Total ad ~alarem credit over the 24-year period in present day dollar {3) Taxable value of land use divided by 1,000 and multiplied by the percentage of one mill that is attributed to transportation capacity expansion {2%~ {5) Taxable value of land use divided by 1,000 and multiplied by the percentage of one mill that is attributed to transportation capacity expansion {3%} Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 1-8 Impact Fee Study APPENDIX J Acronyms and Definitions Acronyms AMI - Average Median Income CBD - Central. Business District CEl - Construction Engineering/inspection CPI - Consumer Price Index. GO Bonds - General Obligation Bonds ITE - institute of Transportation Engineers LUC - Land Use Code MDOT - Montana Department of Transportation MPG - Miles per Gallon PNT - Percent (%) New trips PV - Present Value ROW - Right-of--Way STIP - State Transportation Improvement Plan TC Database - Trip Characteristics Database TGR - Trip Generation Ratc TL - Trip Length VMC - Vehicle Miles of Capacity VMT - Vehicle Miles of Travel Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 J-1 Impact Fee Study Definitions "Ad Valorem Tax Credit" shall mean a credit applied to the total impact cost that is based on an estimate of the property tax revenues per millage that is generated by a unit of each land use of new development that arc allocated to transportation system capacity expansion. "Average Median Income" shall mean the mid-point value in the total distribution of all income levels in the United States. "Capacity" shall mean the maximum number of vehicles for a given time period which a road can safely and efficiently carry, expressed in terms of vehicles per day. "Capacity per Lane Mile" shall mean the number of vehicles added to the roadway network based on an additional lane mile of roadway constructed. "Central Business District" shall mean is the commercial (and often) geographic heart of a city. The CBD is also commonly referred to as "downtown." "Construction Engineeringllnspection" shall mean the review process of ensuring that roadway construction projects are built in accordance with their plans and specifications. "Consumer Price Index (CPI)" shall mean inflationary indicator that measures the change in the cost of a fixed basket of products and services, including housing, electricity, food, and transportation. The CPI is published monthly. Also called cost-of-living index. "Cost per Lane Mile" shall mean the unit cost to construct on lane mile of roadway. "Design" shall mean to the process of developing a roadway design plan based on a selected roadway section alternative. "Dollar ($)/Gallon to Capital" shall mean the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon. "Effective Days per Year" shall mean the total number of days used in the impact fee equation to calculate the consumption of gasoline taxes credited against the fee. "Facility Life" shall mean the reasonable life of a roadway which is proposed at 25 years Tindalo-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 J-2 Impact Fee Study "Fuel Efficiency" shall mean tlae average energy efficiency of a particular vehicle model, where its total output (mileage) is given as a ratio of range units per a unit amount of input fuel (gasoline, diesel, etc.). "Gas Tax Credit" shall mean a credit applied to the total impact cost that is based on an estimate of the gas tax revenues per gallon of future gasoline consumption that is generated by a unit of each land use of new development that are allocated to roadway construction or transportation system capacity expansion. "General Obligation Bonds" shall mean a municipal bond secured by the taxing and borrowing power of the municipality issuing it. "Interest Rate" shall mean the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. "Institute of Transportation Engineers" shall mean the ITF, Trip Generation 7`h Edition, Journal. The three-volume report contains introductory and instructional material as well as two data volumes with land use descriptions, trip generation rates, equations and data plots. Data from more than 500 sites has been included in the seventh edition, bringing the number of data points contained in the database to more than 4,250. 1n addition, the seventh edition contains a total of I SO land use classifications. "Interstate Adjustment Factor" shall mean an adjustment factor applied to an impact fee calculation to account for the travel demand occun•ing on interstate highways. "Land Use Code" shall mean the three (3) digit. nu»iber designated to a specific land use by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. "Montana Department of Transportation" shall mean tl7e governmental entity assigned the task of providing a transportation system and services that emphasize quality, safety, cost. effectiveness, econorraic vitality and sensitivity to the environment for the citizens of the state of Montana.. "Miles per Gallon" shall mean the number of miles a vehicle can travel per gallon of gasoline consumed. "Net Impact Fee" shall mean the "up-front" fee that is charged to new development based on the adopted City of Bozeman Impact Fee Schedule. "Percent ("/") New Trips" shall mean tike proportion oftravcl that is new travel, rather than travel that is estimated to have already been on the road system. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lnc. City of Bozeman January 2008 J-3 Impact Fee Study "Present Value" shall mean the calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, given an interest rate, "i," and a number of periods, "n." "Right-of--Way" shall mean an casement or strip of land granted for transportation purposes. "Square Foot" as referred to in the Fee Schedule, it means total square footage under roof used for occupancy or storage. "Square Footage" shall. mean the gross area measured in square feet from the exterior faces of exterior walls or other exterior boundaries of the building, including all floors and mezzanines within said building, but excluding areas within the interior of the building which are utilized for parking. "State Transportation 1<mprovement Plan" shall mean the frve-year capital and maintenance program developed by the Montana. Department of Transportation. The plan is developed in accordance with the requirements of Section 1.35 of 23 USC (United States Code). "Total Trip Length" shall mean the (assessable) trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads, including local roads. "Transportation )<mpact Fee" shall mean aone-time, "up front" payment for a portion of the cost to replace the transportation facilities consumed by each unit of new development "Trip" shall mean aone-way movement of vehicular travel from an origin (one trip end) to a destination (the other trip end). "Trip Characteristics Database" shall mean the database of information collected by TOA containing trip characteristic data for a variety of land uses spanning the state of Florida. Trip characteristic data. includes trip lengths, trip generation rates and percent new trips. "Trip Generation Rate" shall mean the average number of daily trips caused by a given land use, given in vehicle-trips/day. "Trip Length" shall mean the average length of daily trips (in miles) or travel by land use. "Vehicle Miles of Capacity" shall mean the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day. "Vehicle Miles of Travel" shall mean a measurement of the total miles traveled for each respective land use in the impact fee schedule and provides the basis for the gross fee Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Lne. City of Bozeman January 2008 J-4 lrmpact Fee Study calculation. It is calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips variable. For impact fcc purposes, to allocate the assessment for a trip evenly between origin-end development and destination-end development, the vehicle miles of travel are divided in half. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of $ozeman January 200$ J-5 Impact Fcc Study APPENDIX K Trip Exchange District (TED) Definition Characteristics Trip Exchange District (TED) Defining Characteristics The City of Bozeman is committed to having impact fees which accurately reflect demand on the transportation system. Therefore, the City has adopted different impact fees for the Trip Exchange District (TED) than for other areas in the community. This reflects a difference in the travel characteristics of travel in the TED and a corresponding lower consumption of transportation capacity per unit of development within the TED. Over time, other areas of the community may develop similar travel characteristics and should therefore pay a similar transportation impact fee as development does within the TED. Development that desires to be categorized as "TED" has the responsibility to demonstrate that their travel demand on the transportation system will have a similar demand as do development projects being built in the TED. Some of the defining characteristics of the TED, relating to different demands on transportation are: • Shared and consolidated parking; • A high degree of pedestrian and bicycle access to and throughout the TED; • Public Transit availability. • Extensive trip capture within the TED where a person will make one vehicle trip to the TED and then visit multiple businesses via a mode other than automobile thereby reducing the overall vehicle miles of capacity being consumed; Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 200 K-1 linpact Fee Study Example potential reductions in trip capture are illustrated in Table K-1 below. Table K-] TED Percent New Trips Reductions p }~ Office _ ~~ 71 F., ~~ ~ 57 ~~ ri 20% Sho in Center Low 55 31 44% Sho in Center Hi h 74 46 38% Quali Restaurant 77 21 73% Fast Food Restaurant 58 21 64% Bank 46 35 24% (icncral. Li ht Industrial 92 92 0% Hotel 66 61 S% Motel 77 61 21 (1) Sources: C'it~~ of Tama Transyortation Impact Fee Study, 1988 and Downtown Por°tland Circulation Study ca~ducted by DeLeuw, Cather~, and Con2party, 1973 Some of the physical development characteristics of the TED that facilitate the different travel characteristics are: • Multi-story development for the majority of buildings, often more than two stories; • Diverse business proprietorships within the TED area; • Primary use at the ground floor is commercial operations of some type; • Businesses tending to be smaller scale (e.g., less than 20,000 sf for the majority of the businesses); • Structures are in near proximity to each other and the public street (with small or even zero foot setbacks); • Having a high percentage of each lot covered by buildings and a ratio of total building floor area. typically in excess of 0.5; • The physical characteristics are shared among the entire business area, not just one or a few of the businesses. Each potential development desiring to be categorized as a TED type development will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, lnc. City of Bozeman January 2008 IC-2 lmpact Fee Study APPENDIX L Transportation Impact Fee Comparison Transportation Impact Fee Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the City of Bozeman transportation impact fee program, a comparison of transportation impact fcc schedules of surrounding jurisdictions was completed. 1n addition, two impact fee schedules were developed for the City of Bozeman. Specifically, a fee schedule for the Trip Exchange District (TED) anal a fee schedule for the non-TED area were calculated. The TED fee schedule provides a reduction to the percent new trips variable for certain recreation, lodging, retail, office, restaurant, and bank land uses. Table L-1 presents the existing City of Bozeman impact fees and proposed City of Bozeman impact fees compared to transportation impact fees in the other jurisdictions. Tisdale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 L-1 hnpact Fee Study Table L-1 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison - -- - l f.- ..tea - ~~' ~ 5 L 7c, ~ _=s9 ~ - Laud Use- = Unit '~~#: ~ ~d~ a ~ ~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~~Y ~ Date of Last Update 2447 2007 1996 2007 2007 Residential.• Single Fatuity Detached (2,040 sq ft du $5,396 $5,396 $2,241 $1,192 $2,506 Non-residential: General Light Industrial 1,404 sf $2,290 $2,290 $1,635 NIA $944 Office (50,000 sf) 1,404 sf $3,187 $3,977 $3,895 NIA $2,028 Quality Restaurant 1,044 sf $6,009 $22,036 $8,897 NIA $6,318 Retail {100,004 sf) 1,000 sf $5,182 $9,331 $6,283 NIA $5,272 Bank wlDrive-In 1,000 sf $24,133 $31,706 $9,859 NIA $6,318 { 1) Source: Appendix F, Table F-2 for TED and Table F-1 for Non-TED (2) Source: Gallatin County Transportation Impact Fee Study, March 2007. Note, fees shown include a five percent administration charge and represent the BOCC adoption of the full cost at 30 percent for residential uses and an exemption of impact fee far all non-residential land uses (3} Source: City of Belgrade Transportation Impact Fee Study, February 2007. The commerciallshopping center {50,000 sf or less) fee is shown for the quality restaurant and bank wldrive-in Iand uses. Impact Fees for the City of Belgrade have been adopted at 65 percent of the impact fee in the 2007 Technical Report Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2x08 L-2 Impact Fee Study APPENDIX M Compliance with Statute Review CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 Past Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net Com~lian~e with MCA Reduirement~ for Street Inrtpact Fee DeveloFment Section 7-6-1602 MCA establishes the requirements in state law fire documentation for the development of an impact fee. The statute leaves to the judgment of each cotnmunittT where each piece of information is c>rganixcd. The table below lists each element and shows where in the City of Bozeman documentation of facility planning and fee calculation the required item is provided, The listed section(s) is a primary, but nor. exclusive, location where the subject is discussed. Collectively the facility plan, design standards and specifications policy, fee study, capital improvement program, unified development ordinance, and impact. fee ordinance satisfy the required documentation. All referenced documents are available through the City offices. It should he noted that the document was initially issued on October 31, 2007 as a memorandum to the Impact bee Committee; it has since been updated by TOA Inc. (1)(a) describes existing conditions of the facility Greater Bozeman Chapter 2, Existing Transportation Plan, 2001 Conditions U date Title ] 8, Unified Development Chapters 18.44 Ordinance, BMC. (Transportation Facilities and Access) and 18.78 tri stud (I)(b) establishes level oi'service standards 2001 Greater Bozeman Chapter 1 1 Transportation Plan, 2001 (Recommended Major Update; Street Network and Street Standards Title 18, Unitied Development Chapter 18.44 Qrdinance, BMC, Design and (Transportation S ecifications Manual Facilities and Access) (I)(c) forecasts t'uture additional needs for service fora Greater Bozeman Chapters 3 and 4 defined period of time Transportation Plan, 2001 U date Street Im act Fee Stud Cha ter 2 (1)(d) identifies capital improvements necessary to Greater Bozeman Chapters 4, 6, 9, 10, meet future needs for service (please note the Transportation Plan, 2001 11 plan calls for improvements when demand U date requires, not on a fixed time frame) Title 18, Unified Development Chapter 18.78 (trip Ordinance, BMC stud (1)(e) identifies those capital improvements needed for Greater Bowman Chapters 4, 9-I I continued operation and maintenance of the Transportation Plan, 2001 facility U date Title 18, Unitied Development. Chapter 18.78 (trip Ordinance, BMC stud (1)(g) makes a determination as to whether one service Street Impact Fee Study Chapter 2, Appendix area or more than one sewice area for K transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between im act. fees and benefits Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 M-1 Impact Fee Study (1)(h) establishes the methodology and time period over Street ]mpact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, which the governmental entity will assign the Appendices B-D proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the tacility to provide service to new develo meat within each service area (1)(i) establishes the methodology that the Greater Bozeman Chapters 4, 9-11, 13 governmental entity will use to exclude Transportation Plan, 2001 operations and maintenance; costs and correction U date of existing deficiencies from the impact fee Street Impact Fee Study Chapter 2, A endices C&D Street lmpact Fee Capital Street C:II ;individual Improvement Program project review by City staff (1)(j) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, be imposed for each unit of increased service Appendix B demand (I)(k) has a component of the budget of the Capital Improvements Program Section for each fund governmental entity that: for General Fund, Street when applicable to an (i) schedules construction of public facility Maintenance Fund and Street individual ftrndinl; ca ital im rovements to serve ro'ected rowth Im act Fee Fund source (ii) projects costs of the capital improvements Capital Improvements Program Section for each fiord for General Fund, Street when applicable to an Maintenance Fund and Street individual funding Im act Fee Fund source (iii) allocates collected impact fees far Capital lrnprovernents Program Section for each fund construction of the capital improvements for General Fund, Street when applicable to an Maintenance Fund and Street individual funding lm act Fee Fund source (iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is Capital Improvements Program Section for each fund reviewed and updated at least every 2 years for General Fund, Street. when applicable to an Maintenance Fund and Street individual funding lm act I"ee Fund source (2) The data sources and methodology supporting Greater Bozeman All documents are adoption and calculation of an impact fee must Transportation Plan, 2001 available at City be available to the public upon request Update & Street Impact Fee offices, many are also Study, Unified Development available on-line Ordinance, Design and Specification Manual, City Budget, bid tabulations, impact fee ordinance (3) The amount of each impact fee imposed must be Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, based upon the actual cost of public facility Appendix B expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new development, The calculation of each impact fee must he in accordance with generally accepted accountin ~ rind . als. (4) The ordinance or resolut%on adopting the impact Chapter 3.24, BMC Section 3.24.110 fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the documentation required under subsection (1) Tindalc-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2UU8 M-2 Impact Fcc Study I5) An impact fee must meet the following Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, requirements: Appendices B & l' (a) The amount of the in-rpact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessa b the new develo ment (h) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3 proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements cost; (i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new develo meat (ii) consideration of payments for system Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, improvements reasonably anticipated Appendix C to be made by or as a result of development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the s stem im rovements (c) costs for con•ection of existing deficiencies Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2, Section in a public facility may not be included in 2.4 the impact fee; (d) new development may not be held to a Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2, Section higher level of service than existing users 2.4 unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service (e) impact fees may not include expenses for Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, operations and maintenance of the facility Appendix C Tindale-Oliver & Associates, hoc • City of Bozeman January 2008 M-3 Impact Fee Study APPENDIX N Street Impact Fee Funded Projects CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planningL~bozeman.net www.bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 MEMORANDUM TO: Impact Fee Advisory Committee FROM: Chris Saunders DATE: November 8, 2007 RE: Street Impact Fee Funded Projects List The City's impact fee program became effective on March 26, 1996. Since that time the City has used impact fee revenues to construct various capacity expanding projects. A list of projects is presented below. The majority of these projects also received funding other than impact. fees. Lane Additions N 19'" Avenue - Uak Street to Baxter Lane, included signal instal..lation N 19''' Avenue ~-Baxter Lane to Valley Center Vallev Center - N 19`" Avenue to N 27'" Avenue Baxter Lane - N 19`" Avenue to the east Durston Road - N 19`'' Avenue to Fowler Avenue Babcock Street -Main Street to Meaf;h.er Avenue Signal Installation or Ube>rade N 19`'' Avenue/ llurston Road S 19`'' Avenue/ ILagy Boulevard Main Street /Cottonwood Road Main Street/ Ferguson Avenue Durston Road/ N 1.5`" Avenue Rouse Avenue/GrifFn Drive* Rouse Avenue/Oak Street planning • zoning .subdivision review .annexation historic preservation .housing .grant administration .neighborhood coordination