Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-07 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes.doc** MINUTES ** CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2007 6:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair Tim Dean called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m., in the Commission Room at the Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present: Tim Dean, Chair Randy Carpenter Ken Eiden Rick Hixson Bill Simkins Members Absent: Debra Becker Ron Kaiser Nicholas Lieb Anna Rosenberry Staff Present: Sean Becker, Commissioner Liaison Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Walt Williams, Bozeman Daily Chronicle Shawn Cote, SWMBIA ITEM 2. MINUTES FROM MAY 3, 2007 Sean Becker requested that the fourth paragraph on Page 5 of the May 3 minutes be changed to read “Responding to Tim Dean, Sean Becker stated the discussion on the level at which impact fees are set will depend on staff’s recommendation. He noted that if the staff recommends continuing the level at 80 percent of the calculated fees, the Commission will probably follow discuss that recommendation; however, he noted that if staff recommends implementing the fees at 100 percent, the Commission will probably accept discuss that recommendation first.” Chair Tim Dean announced that the minutes of the meeting of May 3, 2007, are approved as amended. ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} No comment was received under this agenda item. ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON { A standing item to be used as needed} At Chair Dean’s request, Sean Becker reviewed the motion passed by the City Commission at Monday night’s meeting. He stated the report was neither accepted nor rejected; rather, the Commission will reconvene on July 23 to accept or reject it. At that point, the Commission will begin discussion on the percentages to be implemented. He noted the delay is to give the public time to respond to the research that has been completed. Further responding to Chair Dean, Sean Becker stated the amendment proposed by Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff to increase the fee by $1,000 to pay for Sourdough Dam was an acknowledgement that additional storage is needed. He noted the amendment includes asking staff to put a memo together addressing what the impact fee would be if 100 percent of the dam were included, but not actually including that figure in the impact fee recommendations. He noted part of the frustration he has felt at the Commission level is the fact that it feels like a policy decision has been made within the creation of the impact fee formula; and that decision should be made by the policy making body. He suggested that if 100 percent of the real cost is $40,000 per house, then the report should state that; and the policy making body should then have the ability to adjust the impact fee back to a more realistic figure. Ken Eiden voiced his frustration that the Commission is playing politics with the entire issue. He continues to have concern about the errors that have been identified in the reports from HDR and the potential that other errors remain. He indicated that conversations with Anna Rosenberry reveal she, too, feels the reports should be reviewed by another office, and the Committee has not heard if that is to be done. He stated charging 100 percent of the impact fees that have been calculated based on real information and data is appropriate; however, he continues to have concern about the hypothetical growth rates. He concluded by stating he believes in impact fees and that they should be part of the overall package of growth but they need to be the right amount and, if the Commission is going to play politics, he has no more time to spend on this Committee. Bill Simkins noted that SB185 was very specific that impact fees must be tied to specific projects over a specific period of time, and it is his understanding that Commissioner Kirchhoff wanted to begin collecting an additional amount of fees based on the potential need for storage. Responding to Randy Carpenter, Bill Simkins stated he is waiting for the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association’s review of the report before deciding whether he feels it is flawed. Rick Hixson noted it was SWMBIA’s review that suggested the City should be collecting impact fees for 100 percent of the costs of the dam. He stated this Committee recommended that 20 percent of the costs be covered, and reminded the Committee members that Commissioner Kirchhoff is one member of the decision-making body. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated what was requested from staff is an assessment of the impact the proposed addition would have on the impact fee figure. He noted that information will be provided, and the Commission will continue its discussion on July 23. He stated there is a policy decision to be made and, based on that decision, staff will prepare the necessary documents to implement the decision. He stated that once the decision is made on the dam, monies can be collected for pursuing permitting for a new dam. He stressed that if a dam is not constructed, then some other form of water storage will be needed to allow for continued growth. Chair Tim Dean noted this Committee recommended approval of the report on a 6-2 vote; and he finds the Commission’s discussion both digressing and disrespectful to this Committee and to HDR Engineering. He noted that he voted against the water report because he felt, in large part, it was inaccurate from a math standpoint. He is concerned about implementing those fees at 100 percent because of its impact on affordable housing; and he is even more concerned if $1,000 is added because the result would be a 59 percent increase. He stated that, after watching the Commission meeting on television, he questioned why the Committee has even existed for the last sixteen months. Sean Becker responded that the minutes from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee meetings are included in the Commissioners’ packets. He stated that he brings the concerns raised during the Committee meetings to the Commission table for discussion, citing the decision on expenditure of impact fees for the transportation plan update as an example. He further stressed that Commission meetings are open and that Committee members may attend and speak. Ken Eiden stressed the importance of paying the full cost rather than relying on future residents to bear the costs of any shortfall resulting from implementing impact fees at less than 100 percent of the true costs. He reiterated, however, his discomfort with the figures in the HDR Engineering report in light of the mathematical errors that have been identified and the hypotheticals on which the numbers are based. Sean Becker stated water storage is a critical issue and questioned why only 20 percent of those costs would be included in the water impact fee calculations when 100 percent of the costs are related to future growth. He suggested that if the City identifies the project as a water storage facility, the monies can be used for any type of storage facility; however, if the project is listed as a dam and the City does not receive permission to construct it, that portion of the impact fees relating to the project can be returned. Tim Dean acknowledged that the City has an infrastructure funding crisis and commended staff’s vision reflected in the facilities plans. He further acknowledged that growth must pay its own way. He stressed that this Committee is charged with determining what is fair and equitable; however, the problem is that no one is listening. He concluded by stating this Committee has studied the issue for sixteen months, and he feels it is important for the Commission to give consideration to its expertise and recommendations. ITEM 5. RECOMMENDATION (Consideration and recommendation regarding revisions to Chapter 3.24 BMC, Impact Fees.) Responding to Chair Tim Dean, Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated the draft ordinance contains a variety of revisions. They include changes to conform to the existing status of the impact fee program, to conform to the new studies, and to clean up references. He stated the public hearing on these revisions has been scheduled before the Commission on June 4 and stated that, since they are inter-related with the impact fee studies, any future actions will be coordinated with the decisions on those studies. Assistant Planning Director Saunders led a page-by-page review of the proposed revisions in the ordinance. He noted that some of the revisions include changing the references to the impact fee studies to include the HDR Engineering studies for water and wastewater, separating the references to the water and wastewater impact fee studies, changing references to the City’s form of government to reflect the change from general to self-governing powers and the attendant statutory references, changing references to the facilities plans studies to include the new updates, and changing reference to the Director of Planning and Community Development to reflect the new name. He then indicated that the definition of “improvement” has been clarified with a slight revision to its wording. The Assistant Planning Director turned his attention to the revision at the top of Page 5, noting that in 2005, the court settlement set the impact fee at 80 percent of the amount calculated. That limitation was for a period of two years or until the impact fee studies were updated. The time expired on May 15, 2007, and the impact fee studies have now been updated but not yet accepted. Chair Dean suggested that this portion of the ordinance should not be addressed until Tindale Oliver has completed the street impact fee update. Bill Simkins voiced his concurrence, stating that revising this section before adopting the updated report is “putting the cart before the horse”. Assistant Planning Director Saunders stated that, with the inter-relationship between the reports and ordinances, staff will ensure that action is taken in a manner that results in both documents becoming effective on the same day. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders identified the changes on Pages 12 and 13 as being substantive. He noted these pertain to a large meter assessment and the option for an individualized study for an extraordinary water user. He indicated that, since the fee is to be calculated, there is a provision that the fee will be based on actual usage for six months, and will be checked after the next twelve months. If the fee is within 110 percent of the actual usage, no adjustment will be made; however, if it is greater than 110 percent, the necessary adjustment will be made. The Assistant Director highlighted the other revisions in this section, which include a change in reference from “water tap” to “water meter” to maintain consistency, and include the new figures in the water impact fee schedule. He indicated that similar revisions have been made to the wastewater impact fee portion of the ordinance. Assistant Planning Director Saunders turned his attention Paragraph H on Page 18, which clarifies how refunds of impact fees will be distributed; and the provisions of Section 3.24.100, which clarify when credits are requested and how they will be addressed. He then indicated the revisions to Paragraph F on Page 22 bring the paragraph into compliance with State law and allow for a 5-perent administrative fee. The Assistant Planning Director briefly highlighted the revisions to the remaining sections in the ordinance, noting that the changes in Paragraph I increase the appeal fee and clarify references; changes in Paragraph J reflect a statutory change to require updating of the facilities plans at least once every five years; and changes in Paragraph K change the reference source for annual inflation adjustments. Responding to Randy Carpenter, Assistant Planning Director Saunders stated the Construction Cost Index is more accurate and has been increasing faster than the Consumer Price Index. He indicated that the inflation rate for the past five years has fluctuated between 1.9 and 2.5 percent, with an average of 2.3 percent for the last ten years. Chair Dean stated he feels it is appropriate to not address the percentages of impact fees to be implemented until all of the updated studies have been completed. Assistant Planning Director Saunders responded that each of the four functions are separate and do not overlap. He recognized the logic of deferring discussion on the percentages of fees to be implemented; however, he suggested that each report can be accepted when completed. He then noted that increases on the impact fees can be staged over a period of time; and a delayed implementation date can be set so that those with projects ready to submit can do so under the old fee structure. Randy Carpenter voiced his agreement with the Assistant Planning Director’s suggestion. He recognized the interest in setting the percentage of all four fees at one time if the issue is ensuring they are affordable. Ken Eiden noted that the impact fees should remain at 80 percent of the calculated amount until SWMBIA has completed its review; however, the fee should be set at 100 percent of the true cost once the report is accepted. Assistant Planning Director Saunders noted the Commission has delayed continued discussion on the report to July 23 to give the consultant an opportunity to respond to concerns raised and to give SWMBIA an opportunity to complete an independent review. He stressed that the percentage of fees to be assessed will not be addressed until after that process is complete. The Assistant Planning Director asked if the Committee wishes to make any recommendations for the June 4 Commission meeting. Chair Dean responded he wants to continue review of the ordinance revisions to the Committee’s next meeting. The Assistant Planning Director noted the next regularly scheduled meeting is for June 14. He noted, however, that Tindale Oliver expects to submit its public draft to the City by July 12 and he has tentatively scheduled review of that study for the July 26 and August 9 Committee meetings. Responding to Ken Eiden, the Assistant Director stated he anticipates the review of the water and wastewater impact fee studies should be completed thirty days from last Monday. Ken Eiden stated he would like to obtain a copy of that review and have a Committee meeting prior to the July 23 Commission meeting; Bill Simkins and Tim Dean voiced their concurrence. Assistant Planning Director Saunders indicated that this item can be placed on the June 28 agenda; the Committee agreed. Chair Tim Dean suggested the regularly scheduled meeting for June 14 be cancelled; the Committee agreed. Chair Tim Dean noted he did not hear a lot of discussion on population projections during the Commission meeting. He stressed that the water and wastewater impact fee studies are based on a day population of 92,500 in 2025, and he is not sure the Commissioners realize that. Sean Becker responded that the EDUs on which the impact fees are based include daytime impacts. ITEM 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Setting of dates for upcoming meetings. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders announced that Committee meetings will be scheduled for June 28, July 26 and August 9. General comments. Chair Dean stated he had come to this meeting with the idea that this Committee should be dissolved, based in large part, on the Commission’s discussion at Monday night’s meeting. He noted tonight’s discussion helped and thanked Commission Liaison Becker for his insight. Sean Becker encouraged the Committee to follow the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board’s model, which includes motions and votes on all issues that it wishes the Commission to consider. He further noted that when issues arise before the Commission, members of the Board will attend and testify on the matter. Responding to Assistant Planning Director Saunders, the Committee members agreed that they will continue discussion on the ordinance at the June 28 meeting so their recommendations can be forwarded to the Commission for consideration at their July 23 meeting. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the committee at this time, Chair Tim Dean adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Tim Dean, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Impact Fee Advisory Committee Dept of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman