HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-07 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes.doc** MINUTES **
CITY OF BOZEMAN
IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2007
6:00 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chair Tim Dean called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. on Thursday, June 28, 2007, in the Commission Room at the Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Members Present:
Tim Dean, Chair
Debra Becker
Randy Carpenter
Rick Hixson
Ron Kaiser
Nicholas Lieb (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Anna Rosenberry
Bill Simkins
Members Absent:
Ken Eiden
Staff Present:
Sean Becker, Commissioner Liaison
Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
None
ITEM 2. MINUTES FROM MAY 24, 2007
Since there were no changes to the minutes of the meeting of May 24, 2007, Chair Tim Dean announced that the minutes are approved as submitted.
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}
Commissioner Liaison Sean Becker thanked the Committee members for their hard work, noting that advisory boards have a huge impact on the public process.
ITEM 5. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
(Initial review and discussion on the “Draft” Street Impact Fee Study.)
Chair Tim Dean voiced his disappointment that no one from Tindale-Oliver is present and neither is Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders. Responding to the Chair, Rick Hixson stressed
that he is simply a member of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and, as a result, has had the report for only one week and has gone through it just once.
Randy Carpenter suggested that the Committee go through the report conceptually section by section and identify any issues or questions.
Tim Dean noted that in the first paragraph of the introduction, the consultant is projecting a 2-percent growth rate over the next 18 years, bringing the population to nearly 48,000.
He questioned why this report is based on that growth rate when the other reports have been based on a 5-percent growth rate.
Randy Carpenter stated the actual growth rate is 1.7 percent, based on the 2006 estimate of 36,000 population.
Randy Carpenter asked for a description of the number of trips, length of trips and how many are new trips, and how each of those are calculated.
Rick Hixson responded the trip generation estimates are the ITE trip generations, which are a generally accepted standard.
Debra Becker asked that the consultant show when the information was gathered and the raw data used, particularly for retail.
Tim Dean questioned how a fee can be developed based on only one study of eleven sites rather than multiple times averaged out.
Ron Kaiser voiced his agreement, stating he would like to have the consultant explain the rationale for the calculations and why much of the statistical data is based on information
from Florida garnered throughout the year and information gathered in Bozeman in January, particularly since he is under the assumption that traffic patterns would be much different.
Randy Carpenter raised questions about use of the ITE study for the first two points and trip characteristic study, and how the length of the trips and the percentage of new trips were
calculated. He also questioned the use of Tampa and Portland for adjustment factors, the reduction factor for trip lengths, and the different percentages used for a single-family residence.
Ron Kaiser questioned why the December/January timeframe was used for the data from which the calculations were made. He stated it would also be helpful to have a discussion on the
use of data from other communities and the consultants’ thinking on that issue, particularly since the data is from communities that seem substantially different from Bozeman.
Bill Simkins stated it was his understanding that the studies were to be individualized for Bozeman, not extrapolations from other communities.
Debra Becker stressed the importance of making sure the ratio from which the extrapolations were made is valid, noting that if it is not, all of the numbers in the report are wrong.
Responding to Tim Dean, Anna Rosenberry stated the statement that Gallatin County has not recently constructed any lane miles in Bozeman is accurate but possibly unnecessary. She then
noted that there are a limited number of recent projects for which real data is available.
Debra Becker voiced concern that state rates for construction are higher, and the result of blending those costs was an $86,000 increase in the cost per mile for projects in Bozeman,
based on the chart on Page 12, and that higher estimated cost is the basis on which the impact fees are calculated. She further noted this impact fee study has been prepared based on
the 2001 transportation plan update and not the update currently underway.
Responding to questions from Debra Becker, Rick Hixson stated City impact fees can be used on state routes, citing the North 19th Avenue project as an example. He further noted that
the City Commission has the authority to determine the level of impact fees to be used on a project, up to 100 percent of the amount of the project eligible for use of those fees. He
then noted that when the City does a state highway, it must meet the State’s standards.
Anna Rosenberry responded that the historic cost information will not change even if the new transportation plan information is used.
Randy Carpenter asked what would happen if, after the transportation plan update and the impact fee study report are complete, it is determined the impact fee has been overestimated
based on the blending of Bozeman costs and State costs.
Tim Dean raised questions about the credit component of the program.
Responding to Debra Becker, Rick Hixson stated that gas tax monies are used for street maintenance. Anna Rosenberry added that if the gas tax monies were not used for street maintenance,
that void would have to be filled from another source. She further stressed that the use of those monies is a policy decision, within the statutory confines for those monies.
Sean Becker noted that the per lane mile cost was $1.5 million in the 1990s and is now estimated at $4 million, and questioned if that is appropriate.
Rick Hixson responded the cost of an asphalt road has increased 60 percent in the past two years, indicating that much of that increase is due to the cost of oil.
Debra Becker noted the capacity per lane mile is based on the 2001 transportation plan, and she anticipates those numbers will change dramatically with the new transportation plan update.
As a result, she reserves judgment on those numbers.
Tim Dean asked how the consultant arrived at the interstate adjustment and the calculation for how many stop at the rest area.
Sean Becker noted that the mileage has grown from 9 to 10, and indicated it would be nice to tie that increase to the impact fees.
Debra Becker suggested that 10 trips per day seems high, and she wants reassurance that is an accurate number.
Bill Simkins stated he is suffering from sticker shock, noting recent costs in the county and surrounding area are a lot lower than those for Bozeman. Rick Hixson stated that road construction
standards in the county are quite different from the City’s, which is why they are less expensive to build.
Responding to Debra Becker, Rick Hixson stated that the City has no control over the infrastructure in county subdivisions that may later annex to the city. He then indicated that almost
all of the recent annexations have been voluntary annexations of undeveloped land, with the Gardner Simmental Plaza being the exception.
Responding to Debra Becker, Randy Carpenter stated the transportation plan update contemplates a shared road standard in the donut.
Bill Simkins noted that the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) will be taking a look at this plan and will have someone review the data calculations and numbers
to ensure their validity.
Debra Becker stated additional data collection is needed in certain categories, particularly since much of the information is unique to Bozeman. She also asked that the consultant justify
the differences in fees for the central business district and the non-central business district, particularly since there is a large difference in the numbers.
Tim Dean raised questions about the revenue projections on Page 22 and the percentage breakdown on fees collected to date between commercial and residential development. He also addressed
the growth projections on Page 23, noting the disparity in percentages used was previously raised.
Debra Becker questioned the need for including a 5-percent administrative fee on every impact fee, particularly since the fee is now at 2 percent.
Randy Carpenter questioned the accuracy of Table 9, which shows an average of 297 additional homes per year.
Ron Kaiser stated that he, too, agrees that the impact fees should be based on the same growth assumptions to be defensible and noted it is awkward to have different growth projections
used for the different impact fees, particularly when they are all being updated at the same time.
Sean Becker noted that the daytime population was used for the water and wastewater impact fees, and it is possible this study is based on actual population figures instead. He then
requested that a glossary of definitions and acronyms be included in the report.
Tim Dean noted it appears the impact fees are subsidizing lower income housing and stressed that is a policy decision, not one that the consultant should make.
Debra Becker noted this is the only place where income levels have been interjected into the calculations and questioned why that component is included.
Sean Becker noted that question is an empirical foundation on which the report is based and stated it is important to also know if the consultant factored distinctions of housing sizes
into the rates.
Tim Dean expressed concern that, for a 2,000-square-foot home, the proposed rates would be a 433-percent increase over the 80-percent fee currently charged.
Debra Becker noted the table on Page G-2 proposes that the fees be increased by 8.5 percent every year, starting with the first year after adoption. She then suggested it may be necessary
to revise the capital improvement program list because it is not possible to afford the huge increases.
Randy Carpenter expressed concern that the report is written for planners and engineers who work with transportation, not for the lay audience. He also noted that the report mentions
a fuel efficiency adjustment but doesn’t have an explanation for why.
Responding to Debra Becker, Sean Becker stated the Commission is used to having reports with a more detailed executive summary than what is in the present report. He suggested that
the summary could be revised to be understandable to a lay person.
Randy Carpenter stated having a revised executive summary and responses to the questions that have been raised prior to the next meeting would be beneficial.
Chair Tim Dean stated it is imperative that a representative from Tindale-Oliver be present at the next meeting to discuss the report. He then indicated a delay on consideration of
this report is necessary so this Committee has adequate time to review it and make recommendations to the Commission.
Rick Hixson stated he anticipates the consultant could be present for the July 26 meeting and could have some responses to the questions raised if the minutes were made available as
soon as possible.
ITEM 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Sean Becker noted that on July 23, the Commission will continue its review of the water and wastewater impact fees. He suggested that any concerns about the formulas and calculations
as well as the consistency between impact fee documents should be raised to the Commission at that time. He also proposed a joint meeting between this Committee and the City Commission
might bring clarity to the process and allay some of the Committee members’ frustrations.
Chair Tim Dean stated he will call Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders after his vacation to talk about the timetable for upcoming meetings. He then announced the next meeting
will be scheduled for July 26 and, if the consultant is unable to attend that meeting, further consideration of this report will be delayed until August.
Sean Becker indicated he will make a preliminary call to the consultant tomorrow since the Assistant Planning Director is out of the office until July 9.
Bill Simkins and Anna Rosenberry announced they will not be present at the July 26 meeting.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the committee at this time, Chair Tim Dean adjourned the meeting at 7:13 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