Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-26 ccmSPEC --...--------. ~-:-... ~- - --------- MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA September 26, 1995 ***************************** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in special session in the Conference Room, Municipal Building, September 26, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence. Authorize absence of Mayor Vincent from meeting. in comDliance with Section 7-3-4322(2), M.C.A. It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the Commission authorize the absence of Mayor Vincent from this meeting, in compliance with Section 7-3-4322(2), M.C.A. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost and Mayor . Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. Signing of Notice of Scecial Meetina Each of the Commissioners in turn signed the Notice of Special Meeting. Public hearina - Commission Resolution No. 3078 - leyyina and assessina lightina district assessments for Fiscal Year 1996 This was the time and place set for the pUblic hearing on Commission Resolution No. 3078, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3078 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, . MONTANA, LEVYING AND ASSESSING MAINTENANCE AND ELECTRICAL CURRENT COSTS FOR SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck opened the public hearing. The assessments levied under this resolution are for actual electrical current costs which the City paid during Fiscal Year 1995 for lights within the various lighting district. The 09-26-95 Special - 2 - total to be assessed is $69,371.83, which is $3,903.17 lower than last year's total assessments. No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the adoption of Commission Resolution No. 3078. . Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 3078, levying and assessing lighting district assessments for Fiscal Year 1996. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. Public hearing - Commission Resolution No. 3079 - leVYing and assessina delinauent snow removal charges for Fiscal Year 1995 This was the time and place set for the public hearing on Commission Resolution No. 3079, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3079 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONT ANA, LEVYING AND ASSESSING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UPON CERTAIN SPECIFIED REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, COUNTY OF GALLATIN, STATE OF MONTANA, UNLESS PROVISIONALLY EXEMPTED, TO DEFRAY THE COST AND EXPENSE FOR REMOVAL OF SNOW AND ICE FROM SIDEWALKS IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 12.24 OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck opened the public hearing. City Manager Wysocki stated that there are eighteen assessments to be levied under this resolution, totaling $1,205.00. He noted that these result from the failure of property owners or tenants to remove snow from the sidewalks during the past winter, and then failure to pay the bill which was incurred when the City had a contractor remove the snow. Responding to questions from Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck, Administrative Services . Director Gamradt reviewed the process which is followed in getting snow removed from the sidewalks. He stated that property owners are given 24 hours to clean the sidewalk after an initial notice is given before the City has the work done. He then stated that these eighteen accounts have been billed; however, the property owner has failed to pay the bill. The next 09-26-95 Special - -..-..- - 3 - step is to place that amount on the assessment bill and, if not paid, then on the property tax notice. Mr. Paul Borgeson, 2518 Landoe, forwarded several questions about the snow removal process as well as the ordering in of sidewalks. He questioned why some people seem . to be singled out to ensure that their sidewalks are shoveled. He noted that one of his friends has never shoveled the sidewalk during the winter and has never had his sidewalk cleaned for him; however, he failed to clean his sidewalk one time this spring, when the weather was warm, and the City had its contractor clean the sidewalk. He stated that, rather than facing additional harassment and costs, he paid the bill. He suggested that if the City is going to order in sidewalks, it should provide for shoveling of the sidewalks rather than enslaving the residents to do so. Mr. Borgeson stated that when he was ordered to put in sidewalks, he was given until September 1 to have a contractor put the sidewalk in. He was able to retain Big Sky Cement at the last possible moment, but needed a two-week extension to get the sidewalk installed. Engineering Technician Andy Kerr denied the two-week extension, so the City's contractor . installed the sidewalk. Mr. Borgeson expressed concern that residents in Valley Unit Subdivision were ordered to install sidewalks prior to residents in Figgins Addition being ordered to do so; however, many of the sidewalks in Valley Unit have not yet been installed. He indicated this does not represent consistency in enforcing of the order, questioning why residents of Figgins Addition have been harassed. Mr. Borgeson also questioned why sidewalks have not been required on the cul-de-sac streets of Morrow, Cutting and Spring Creek, which are located in the Figgins Addition when sidewalks have been required on the other cul-de-sac streets. He also questioned why the Figgins Addition was singled out for ordering in sidewalks. City Manager Wysocki asked for the address of the property where the sidewalk had . not been cleaned all winter; Mr. Borgeson refused to give it to him. He reiterated his position that the City seems to single out certain people, however, rather than enforcing the snow removal ordinance on a fair basis. Responding to Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck, Commissioner Youngman noted that Mr. 09-26-95 Special n. ...........__ ... ...--.--.- - 4 - Borgeson's questions are on the record for this public hearing. She suggested that staff could respond to those questions, based on the minutes from this meeting. City Attorney Luwe noted that Mr. Borgeson's testimony crossed between this pUblic hearing and the next agenda item, and suggested that his testimony be considered for both . hearings. He then stated that a review of the delinquent snow removal list reveals that Mr. Borgeson's name is not included. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck closed the public hearing. Commissioner Youngman recognized that staff attempts to enforce the snow removal ordinance on a fair basis. She suggested that next snow season, the Commission receive progress reports from staff as well as an outline of how the neighborhoods are covered and in what order. She noted that this information could be beneficial in helping the Commissioners respond to citizen questions. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 3079, levying and assessing delinquent snow removal charges for Fiscal Year 1995. The motion carried by the following . Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. Public hearina - Commission Resolution No. 3080 -Ievvina and assessing sidewalk assessments for 1993 and 1994 Sidewalk Programs This was the time and place set for the public hearing on Commission Resolution No. 3080, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3080 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT AND TAX AGAINST EACH LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN FRONT OF WHICH SIDEWALKS, CURBS, GUTTERS, AND ALLEY APPROACHES OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED UNDER ORDER OF CITY COMMISSION DATED JUNE 28, 1993, FOR THE 1993 SIDEWALK PROGRAM, AND . UNDER ORDER OF CITY COMMISSION DATED JULY 5, 1994, FOR THE 1994 SIDEWALK PROGRAM, TO DEFRAY THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF SAID SIDEWALKS, CURBS, GUTTERS AND ALLEY APPROACHES OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck opened the public hearing. City Manager Wysocki stated that the assessments for the 1993 and 1994 Sidewalk 09-26-95 Special - 5 - Programs total slightly over $117,000, a portion of which is assessed against the City. He then noted that these assessments are at the interest rate of 6.13 percent. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck recognized that Mr. Borgeson's comments from the previous public hearing are to be considered as a part of the record for this public hearing. . The Mayor Pro Tempore then asked for staff response to Mr. Borgeson's comment that Mr. Kerr had not allowed his contractor to install the sidewalk by granting a two-week extension. He noted that the residents had been an extension in getting their sidewalks installed because contractors were so difficult to obtain. No other testimony was submitted in support of or in opposition to this resolution. Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 3080, levying and assessing sidewalk assessments for the 1993 and 1994 Sidewalk Programs. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. . Adjournment -7:19 D.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Pro Tempore Stueck; those voting No, none. (?If)?L ~ DON E. STUECK Mayor Pro Tempore ATTEST: . (}~;/ ~ ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission 09-26-95 Special - --. --- - --.------ --- ---.------ -- n_ __._~_,. ""'_, MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOlEMAN, MONTANA September 27, 1995 ***************************** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in special session in the Community Room of the Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, on September 27, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Vincent, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. County Commission Chair Kris Dunn welcomed everyone to the public meeting, noting that County Commissioners Jane Jelinski and Phil Olson are also in attendance at this joint public meeting to receive formal presentation of the draft impact fee studies which have been completed by James Duncan and Associates. Mayor Vincent stressed the fact that this is a public meeting, and not a public hearing. . He noted that members of the public are invited to ask questions about the impact fee studies; however, the public hearings on these studies are to be held at a later date. Siqning of Notice of SD9cial Meeting Each of the Commissioners in turn signed the Notice of Special Meeting. Presentation of ImDact Fee Studies for County Roads and Fire County Planning Director Dale Beland stated that this is the next in the series of steps in the process of considering implementation of impact fees. He characterized impact fees as one tool for dealing with change in a community. He stated that tonight's meeting is designed for listening to the formal presentation of the draft impact fee studies, as prepared by James . Duncan and Associates, to raise questions about the studies, and to share any concerns that may arise during the presentations. Mr. Jim Duncan, James Duncan and Associates, stated that much of the data used in developing these studies came from the local staffs, although use of national data was necessary in some instances because local data is not typically available. He characterized , 09-27-95 Special -------- - -- ---------- --- - ----~-_.__._----------- n__. ._ - 2 - impact fees as one of several tools for providing infrastructure for future growth. He stated that another tool is a transfer tax on real estate transactions; however, that tool is not currently available in Montana. He noted that impact fees are typically assessed in conjunction with issuance of building permits. In the County, however, since no building permits are required, . the trigger point will be filing of the final plat. He stated that the underlying premise of impact fees is that new growth should not decrease the current level of service. He emphasized that in the County, only improved lots were used in calculation of maximum impact fees. He stated that, because of the size of the County, he has proposed that it be divided into three districts, although it could also be divided into two districts, using Interstate 90 as the dividing line between north and south districts. He also stressed that impact fees can be used only for off- site network infrastructure improvements, and not for on-site improvements that benefit only the development. Mr. Duncan reviewed the draft County Road and Fire Impact Fee Study in depth. He stated there are 629 miles of road in Gallatin County, 132 of which are paved and 497 of which are gravel roads. He stated that, based on miles of road and vehicle trips per day, the . vehicle mile trips were calculated; and the figures of 1,200 average vehicles per day was derived for paved roads and 260 average vehicles per day on gravel roads. He also determined that, based on the County's average capital budget for roads, 62 percent of the funds for roads are local funds. As a result of calculations, he derived a local cost per vehicle mile trip at $57. Further calculations suggest that each lot in the County generates 28 vehicle mile trips per day, resulting in a maximum impact fee of $1,596 per lot to maintain the current level of service. Mr. Duncan turned his attention to the fire portion of the study. He noted that there are 20 rural fire districts in Gallatin County, 14 of which are active districts. He stated that standard replacement figures have been applied to their various assets, including buildings and equipment. Since impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies and since it is assumed that new residents to the area will participate In retiring of any existing debt, those . items have been subtracted from the replacement values which have been assigned to each of the districts to establish a net value. That net value has then been divided by the number of improved lots serviced by each district; and the resulting value per lot varies substantially, ranging from $500 to over $5,000 per lot. Mr. Duncan noted that, legally, the County can establish individual impact fees for each of the fire districts, although that could become 09-27-95 Special ------- ----------------- - ------ ------- -----. --..--.".-" --_.,- - 3 - administratively cumbersome. The other option is to create a uniform fee set at the lowest district cost, which would be $496 per lot. Several questions and concerns were voiced by members of the public. One question raised is how existing unimproved lots in the County, which total conservatively 5,000 to . 10,000, might be assessed impact fees since they are already platted. Another question was whether County roads for which maintenance has been abandoned by the County, such as Big Gulch Road, will be once again maintained by the County if impact fees are implemented. Mr. Duncan stated that impact fees cannot be used for operations and maintenance, rather, they must be used for capacity-enhancing capital facilities. He stressed that the courts have been very specific and very clear in this requirement. In response to a question about what is considered County, Mr. Duncan stated that everything located outside the municipal limits of the incorporated communities would be subject to the County impact fees. Mr. Dale Beland stated that in the fourteen planning and zoning districts within Gallatin County, the trigger point for impact fees could be different from other properties in the . County because there are some permits required in those areas that are not required in the general County area. Responding to questions from County Attorney Mike Salvagni, County Planning Director Beland stated that implementation of impact fees should not negatively impact installation of impacts for subdivisions. He recognized that a developer has three years in which to install infrastructure improvements for a subdivision; and the County may not be in a position to complete necessary road improvements to accommodate that subdivision. He stated, however, that the developer could bear the costs of the needed improvements; and he would then be reimbursed over time as impact fees are collected. Mr. Duncan stressed the point that this problem would occur only with leapfrog development. Responding to questions, County Planning Director Beland stated that Bozeman city . limits serve as the breaking point between City and County road impact fees. Mr. Duncan noted that if an area close to city limits is platted as a County subdivision and is subsequently annexed into the City prior to development of lots, the City could collect the difference between what was paid in County impact fees and what the City's impact fees would generate 09-27-95 Special -----. ------- - 4 - at the time a building permit is issued. He cautioned that one critical item to remember is that there may be no "double dipping" where impact fees are involved. Mr. Jim Duncan stated that impact fees must be reviewed every three years, and recalculated if necessary. He noted that some communities choose to conduct that review . more often than mandated. Mr. Mike Delaney raised the issue of cost/benefit, suggesting that should be taken into consideration as well as ensuring that growth does not diminish the quality of life. Responding to questions from Mr. Delaney, Mr. Duncan stated that commercial development in the County has not been factored into the proposed impact fees, particularly since nearly all of the development in the County is residential. Discussion revolved around the potential of assessing County impact fees at a different stage, so that those lots which are currently platted but not developed would be required to participate. Several different options were identified, including the possible triggering of impact fees in conjunction with issuance of a septic tank permit; however, it was noted that none of those options were found to be legal. . Significant discussion also revolved around the difference in the proposed impact fees for the City and the County. During that discussion, Mr. Duncan stated it is important to compare "apples to apples" rather than "apples to oranges". He noted that the differences between the proposed impact fees in the City and the County for roads and fire are minimal; the real difference occurs when the proposed water and wastewater impact fees are added to the City side. Mr. Delaney stated that implementation of the Master Plan has already caused people to move to the County to save money. He expressed concern that implementation of these impact fees will further compound the problem; and further negatively impact the City's infrastructure as people drive from the County into the City to work, to shop or for pleasure. Responding to Mr. Terry Lonner, County Planning Director Dale Beland recognized that . there are models for impact fee studies. He cautioned, however, that one of the legislative requirements for impact fees is that they are logically connected to the costs of those services in that particular community. Because of that requirement, it is essential that local data be gathered and that the most appropriate method for setting of impact fees be identified. 09-27-95 Special - 5 - Presentation of ImDact Fee Studies for City Streets. Fire. Water and Wastewater City-County Planning Director Andy Epple briefly introduced the impact fee studies for the City. He encouraged everyone to remember that, as an offset to the impact fees for water and wastewater within city limits, sewage disposal systems may cost $7,000 to $8,000 . and wells may cost $4.000 to $5,000 in the County. He suggested that when those costs are factored into development costs in the County, the City's proposed impact fees for water and wastewater do not appear so large. Mr. Jim Duncan began his review of the City's impact fee studies with the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study. He stated that recent completion of the draft facilities plans for water and wastewater operations, with its up-to-date data, made preparation of these impact fee studies quite easy. He noted that the City currently has 6,067 customer accounts; and, based on the size of the meter, an Equivalent Residential Meters (ERM) count of 8,449 was established. He noted that a population per ERM of 2.82 was established; and that factor was applied against the projected population for Bozeman over the next thirty years to generate the anticipated number of meters. He noted that the water demand for each individual was . established, with projections being made for water needs over the next thirty years. He stated that the current outstanding debt was subtracted from the costs of needed infrastructure improvements and then divided by the number of equivalent residential meters to arrive at a net cost in the report of $1,993. Mr. Duncan stated that this figure should actually be $139 higher, or slightly over $2,100; however, failure to change calculations throughout the draft document caused the error to remain. Mr. Duncan turned his attention to the proposed wastewater impact fee. He noted that the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant has been projected through the year 2044; and it appears that the plant capacity is adequate through the year 2014. He stated that existing deficiencies in the collection system have been identified as well as the needed improvements. After completing the necessary calculations, based on net costs of . improvements and the current number of Equivalent Residential Meters, a maximum impact fee of $ 2, 703 was identified. Responding to questions about infiltration and inflow in the older sewer lines, Director of Public Service Phill Forbes stated that the City recognizes those deficiencies; and correction of the problem cannot be included in the impact fees. 09-27-95 Special ----- --------------- - 6 - Responding to questions, Mr. Duncan stated that the calculations are based on current replacement value. Commissioner Stueck stated that even after a developer pays $4,835 in impact fees for water and wastewater services, he must still bear the costs of extending the water and . sewer lines to the individual lots, at an approximate cost of $5,000 per lot. He noted that this still results in costs within the city limits being higher than in the county. He expressed concern that this, coupled with the lack of vacant lots within the city limits, will drive development into jurisdictional area, where septic systems run the potential of groundwater degradation. County Planning Director Beland stated that the County is addressing the issue of water quality; and he anticipates that as a result of that review, the cost of installing a septic system in the County will increase dramatically. He also noted that the impending creation of a water quality district should result in improved information and the ability to maintain better controls on the drilling of new wells and monitoring of groundwater to ensure it does not become degraded. . Mr. Richard Barber. local contractor. expressed concern that implementation of impact fees in the City will drive development into the County. He noted that the cost of building permits in the City has doubled over the past year; and adding impact fees at the same time will cause contractors to reconsider where they are building. Questions and concerns about the negative impact that the implementation of impact fees may have on affordable housing were raised. Mr. Duncan responded to those questions, noting that impact fees must be uniformly applied to all development; however, a governing body may choose to pay those costs, possibly through an Affordable Housing Fund, rather than requiring the developer to bear the costs. He stated that a review of communities with impact fees reveals that the cost of housing has not increased in those areas because of the impact fees and, in fact, a reverse trend has sometimes been encountered because more land has been . opened up for development because of the ability to fund extension of needed infrastructure improvements. Responding to Commissioner Stueck, City Attorney Luwe stated that if an impact fee on all properties within the twenty-year service area for water and sewer is desired, then a cooperative agreement between the City and the County must be developed. 09-27-95 Special _.__ ..._...uon.._._ -..-- ,.--.- ...-..-.--.-- -.---- -.--.-.-. - 7 - Responding to questions about his work in other communities, Mr. Duncan stated a willingness to provide copies of those documents to County Planning Director Dale Beland, for review by any public members who are interested in doing so. Mr. Duncan reviewed the Street Impact Fee Study. He stated that, since the . Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update was completed in 1993, some of the data required updating to provide current base data upon which to base a proposed impact fee. He stated that, based on the model information available in the Transportation Plan, it was determined that the average trip length is 6.72 miles, with 3.27 miles of that being on major roads. He emphasized that the study and the impact fees are based on the network of major roads only, and does not take into consideration the neighborhood streets. Mr. Duncan stated that, since the City contains several different zoning districts, he was able to develop a table which takes into consideration the different types of uses and zones, determining the impacts that each of those uses would have on the major roadway system. He noted that the calculated cost per vehicle-mile of capacity is $258, based on the identified road improvements through the year 2010. He noted that a review of the average . annual expenditure for roads over the past five years reflects that 43.9 percent of the monies are derived through local funding sources. On that basis, an impact fee of $113 per vehicle mile of capacity is derived, which translates to an impact fee of $1,766 for a single-family home. Mr. Duncan noted that this figure compares to the $1,596 impact fee proposed for the County. Mr. James Duncan reviewed the Fire Impact Fee Study, noting that the basis for this proposed fee is substantially different from any of the other fire impact fee studies his firm has undertaken. He stated that the required fire flow in gallons per minute, construction type, total floor area of the structure, occupancy factor and exposure factor were all incorporated into development of the formula and basis upon which the fire impact fees were developed. He stated that the various land uses were taken into consideration when determining the required . fire flow. He stated that fire demand units were then established by land use type, using a 1.0 factor for single-family residential units as the basis. Calculations based on the replacement values of the existing fire stations and equipment lead to a cost of $168 per demand unit; and that cost was then applied to the factor previously established cost per demand unit to determine the impact fee for the various types of land uses; and those fees range from $86 to 09-27-95 Special ------.- --."..-. -- -------. --.-- - 8 - $551 per 1,000 square feet of office, commercial or industrial use. Responding to City Manager Wysocki, County Planning Director Beland stated that copies of the City's impact fee studies are available to the public in City-County Planning Director Epple's office; and copies of the County's impact fee studies are available to the public . in his office. Also, two sets of the studies are available for public review in the Bozeman Public Library. Responding to questions, Mr. Duncan stated that impact fees provide a level playing field and afford predictability in processing of applications for subdivisions and development. He noted that developers and builders typically prefer impact fees to other alternatives because the costs of development can be more readily determined; and the impact fees can tend to provide for a more streamlined process. He once again stressed the importance of remembering that impact fees cannot result in "double dipping". He stated that if a developer has borne the costs of improving an off-site road that is part of the major road network, the costs encountered by the developer must be subtracted from the impact fees that can be assessed against that development. . Responding to additional questions, Mr. Duncan stated that impact fees are adopted by the governing body, and not subject to a vote of the people. He then noted that, typically, the general public is supportive of impact fees. Concern was raised that property owners within the new developments on the west end of town will have an unfair advantage when impact fees are implemented because the year-old homes will suddenly increase in value in an amount equal to those impact fees. Concerns were also raised, once again, about the potential negative impact that impact fees could have on the Commission's interest in providing affordable housing in the community. Additional concerns were also raised about the large difference between the total impact fees proposed for the County and the City. Strong public concern was also expressed . that this difference could cause development to move to the County, negatively impacting both the City and the County. This development could jeopardize existing open space, through encouragement of urban sprawl. The point was raised that Bozeman has been experiencing a building boom over the past few years; however, building is beginning to slow. 09-27-95 Special __..._._n___..'. __.. ____._..'u_....._ - 9 - Commissioner Stueck expressed concern that, under the proposed structure for impact fees, a developer could develop a subdivision without a single home being constructed within that subdivision before he has divested himself of any ownership in the property. The result would be that the developer did not incur any of the impact fees associated with the . subdivision; rather, that debt had been assumed by the purchaser. County Planning Director Dale Beland closed the presentation by stating that the input received during this meeting will be taken into consideration as the draft study is revised and submitted for further consideration by the governing bodies. Mayor Vincent noted that current real estate sales figures reflect that, without impact fees, 52 percent of all sales of property are in the County and that many City residents are moving into the County. He recognized that some people may be moving from the County into the City, but not at the same pace. He stated that people have recognized that growth does cost; and one option to implementation of impact fees is for the general property taxpayer to bear the costs. . Adjournment - 9:35 D.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Stueck, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none. ATTEST: c?~~ L~~ . ROBIN l. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission 09-27-95 Special ---. --- ---.------ _.. ___. ._.__.._.._....__ __....uo.._._...___n.___.________._