HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-07 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes.doc** MINUTES **
THE CITY OF BOZEMAN
IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2007
6:00 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chair Tim Dean called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Members Present Staff Present
Tim Dean, Chair Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Rick Hixson Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service
Ron Kaiser, Vice Chair Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Anna Rosenberry
Debra Becker
Randy Carpenter
Bill Simkins
Members Absent
Ken Eiden
Nick Lieb
Visitors Present
Sean Becker, City Commission Liaison
Bob Wallace
Jason Delmue
Adrian Vaughn, SWMBIA Representative
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11TH, 2007 and OCTOBER 25th, 2007.
MOTION: Chair Dean moved, City Engineer Hixson seconded, to approve the minutes of October 11, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 7-0. The minutes of October 25, 2007 were continued
to the next meeting.
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.}
Adrian Vaughn stated SWMBIA had sent a letter regarding alleged flaws in the road impact fee study. Ms. Becker asked if a transportation expert had reviewed the report. Mr. Vaughn
responded there had been two experts reviewing the document, but he was unsure which ones. Assistant Director Saunders responded he had provided the Committee a copy of the letter SWMBIA
had sent by e-mail and a hard copy was provided on the dias.
Chair Dean stated an email had been sent by Ken Eiden regarding proxy’s being disallowed. He suggested the Committee adopt a by-law to allow voting by proxy. The committee concurred
that a by-law should be adopted. Mr. Simkins added that sometimes a Committee member must be absent. Ms. Becker presented a proposed by-law for telephone participation and the use
of proxy’s. Chair Dean suggested written response and e-mail be added to the proposed by-laws. Ms. Becker responded there was no reason people could not participate in whatever fashion
they wish. City Engineer Hixson added that it would be concern if there had been changes added at the time the motion was adopted as the person would not know for certain what they
were voting on. Chair Dean responded a proxy would have to be specific to what was being voted on. Ms. Becker added the agenda items would be limited. Ms. Rosenberry added she supported
voting by proxy and it would be helpful if the minutes reflected that a vote had been made by proxy. Assistant Director Saunders suggested that if someone was going to delegate a proxy,
it should be in some form of written notice. Ms. Becker suggested she could add that language to the proposed by-law. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the written vote would have a deadline
by which the votes were to be given to the clerk. Ms. Becker responded the vote would need to be presented at the meeting; suggesting language be included that “no votes shall be recorded
after the completion of the meeting”.
MOTION: Ms. Becker moved, Mr. Simkins seconded, to approve the proposed by-law to allow vote by proxy with Committee additions. The motion carried 7-0.
Vice Chair Kaiser stated he had some pause if the instance arose that only two members attended the meeting and the rest voted by proxy; adding the item could change significantly during
discussion. He suggested it would be prudent to consider if a quorum needs to be established in person. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would inquire about the matter with
the City Attorney.
ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON
{A standing item to be used as needed}
Commissioner Becker stated that often the recommendations from this Committee were specific and by the time the recommendation came to the City Commission it had been differently shaped;
suggesting the Committee could include a phasing plan for implementation with their recommendations. He stated the information being voted on had iterations and raised some confusion
with the final calculations and the level of certainty with the cost of service numbers. He suggested the Committee articulate the level of uncertainty pertaining to the calculations
to lessen the confusion. Chair Dean responded he was uncertain the City Commission would want to hear the minority report. Commissioner Becker responded the level of research and amount
of time was not clearly expressed in the minutes and could be better presented. Ms. Becker responded the function of the Committee was pertinent only to the statutory requirements,
not the level at which the item would be adopted. Commissioner Becker stated it was important that any element that the Committee felt strongly about was clearly expressed to the City
Commission. Assistant Director Saunders explained the procedure for expressing specific concerns. None of the members were cut out of the standard public comment process because they
serve on an advisory board. Ms. Becker noted she felt the minutes well reflected any contentious items. Chair Dean stated the level of service being presented would be quite nice and
asked if impact fees should pay for that level of service, or only what is beyond the normal existing level of service in the City of Bozeman. Commissioner Becker responded there were
many issues regarding level of service and many developers in the community were feeling the pinch due to that. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the City Commission would be interested in the
Committee’s suggestions on how to lessen the amount of the impact fees. Commissioner Becker responded those adjustments had already been established. Assistant Director Saunders added
that individual traffic impact studies were included and analyzed with each plat as part of the subdivision process. Each development would have to be accountable for meeting the level
of service established by ordinance. The level of service standard has not changed. Ms. Becker stated one standard could not be used for every street constructed in the future; adding
if the level of service could not be discussed by the Committee, the amount of the impact fees could not be specifically assessed. City Engineer Hixson added that the Transportation
Plan would need to be revised if the level of service on streets were modified. Mr. Simkins stated the impact fee statute was clear on whether or not a new development could be held
to a higher standard for impact fees. Assistant Director Saunders responded the statute and the Transportation Plan were not in conflict and explained how the two worked in concert.
He cited the Lowe’s PUD and how they had been reimbursed for the installation of a widened street and a traffic light modification that would support more traffic.
Commissioner Becker noted it was unusual to have proxy’s as approved with the previously proposed by-laws; he suggested absent members would degrade the vote as the discussion portion
of the motion would be important.
ITEM 5. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
Approval of the 2009 – 2013 water impact fee Capital Improvements Program.
Assistant Director Saunders updated the Committee on the status of the traffic light at South 7th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard. He had inquired of the Staff planner for the South Towne
Square proposal. As a result of the change to state law requirements for condominium review, the development had decided not to subdivide and there would be structures erected before
the signal was installed.
Chair Dean stated that the study indicated 12 to 24 inch lines were most likely to be built and asked why it had been included in the CIP if it was uncertain. Assistant Director Saunders
responded there was no development proposal in hand for that location, but Staff wanted to make those funds available and be in a position to be supportive of development in that area.
Ms. Becker asked why the impact fees would need to be so high if the summary for the projected cash balance was equal. Ms. Rosenberry responded the Water Treatment Plant would be a
very large project and the City did not want to over commit those funds due to not knowing the true cost of the Water Treatment Plant. Ms. Becker stated the money present in the fund
could be used to lessen the amount of impact fees. Ms. Rosenberry responded the Water Treatment Plant was not shown in its entirety as it would be completed in phases and not within
the next five years. City Engineer Hixson responded some projects could come up that had not been scheduled and there would need to be funds reserved to provide for items such as those.
He added that in terms of a Capital project for water services, the projected fee was not much. He stated the facilities plan identified millions of dollars that would be needed to
provide for future growth. Ms. Rosenberry added projects would be eligible for impact fee credits which would impact the available cash flow. Assistant Director Saunders added the
study planned for an expected 4% increase in revenues and it would be more cost effective to construct some things as one project instead of in phases; adding there would be some unknowns
that could cause significant problems. Ms. Becker stated the use of impact funds could not be allowed if development did not occur. Assistant Director Saunders responded capital advancements
could be made using those funds and the City would later be reimbursed; adding the new development
could not be charged for all of the expense. He stated the water/wastewater impact fees had been assessed on an individual usage basis. Ms. Becker stated the impact fees could not
be used for growth that had not yet occurred. Assistant Director Saunders responded that it was the intent of the facility plans and the expenditure of the fees was based on the information
in the facility plans; adding money would not be spent if there were no expectation of future users. City Engineer Hixson stated a facility could not be built incrementally; adding
it would be inefficient and a waste of money. Ms. Becker responded the excess capacity should be carried by the City until such a time as new development occurred; adding the impact
fees should not be put into a reserve fund. Assistant Director Saunders responded the new development would only be buying back the excess capacity the City had already paid for with
initial plant construction.
Chair Dean noted which items the committee had discussed at length at the last meeting.
Ms. Rosenberry stated she had reviewed the reason for the proposed 33% increase in cost for the plant expansion and explained that it had come about over a two year period before the
final facility plan had been adopted. Chair Dean responded he had just compared the current information with the year prior.
Vice Chair Kaiser noted the membrane plant was the only item not completely eligible for impact fees.
MOTION: Vice Chair Kaiser moved, City Engineer Hixson seconded, to approve the 2009-2013 water impact fee Capital Improvements Program as presented. The motion carried 5-2 with Ms.
Becker and Chair Dean voting in opposition.
Chair Dean noted he had an issue with not knowing the actual cost of the membrane and that the cost had been inflated for protection.
Approval of the 2009 – 2013 sewer impact fee Capital Improvements Program.
Chair Dean noted sludge dewatering had been added to the sewer plant and had caused an increase to 33.6 million and the Graf Street extension had been added. Ms. Becker stated there
were significant reserves and suggested the reserves should be spent before additional fees were charged. Chair Dean concurred.
MOTION: City Engineer Hixson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to approve the 2009-2013 sewer impact fee Capital Improvements Program as presented. The motion carried 4-3 with Ms. Becker,
Mr. Simkins, and Chair Dean voting in opposition.
Recommendations to City Commission regarding street impact fees.
Assistant Director Saunders directed the Committee’s attention to the handout provided by Staff from SWMBIA and himself; explaining those items and their intents. Chair Dean asked where
the costs had ended up on the signal at Oak Street and Rouse Avenue. Assistant Director Saunders responded he had not yet seen final documentation and it would be scrutinized once presented.
Bob Wallace stated his goal was to help the committee understand why changes had been made to the street impact fee report and the effects of those changes. He added a written response
would be provided to SWMBIA regarding errors within the study; adding he would be glad to meet with anyone to explain those changes and the different approach. He noted he was satisfied
the report conformed to the statute. He stated the committee knew about the population, growth, and key concepts and the new growth was directly proportionate to the expected capacity.
He listed items that had been requested be included in the report; adding a County project within the City list had been identified and that had been corrected. He stated information
had been updated based on Staff and Committee comments within the appendices and definitions; adding the cost information had also been reviewed and recalculated. He stated the sequence
of changes came from the meeting of the IFAC he had attended, comments from Staff, and comments from SWMBIA; noting the credit calculations might need to be modified at a later date
if other funds were committed to streets. He stated the demand component did not change, but the cost and credit components had changed and the localized data always provided a more
accurate estimate; adding the references would be tied back to the report. He stated the cost component had been assessed using recent bids the City and State had received for projects;
adding they were lucky to have three bids to use. He explained the issue was the cost to make the additional capacity available; adding all the projects looked at came from the 2001
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan and represented the best available data. He noted that if the updated Transportation Plan altered the costs significantly, the report would
need to be revised. He explained the classification of some of the roads had been modified so that the offset construction could benefit the report and reduce the fee. He stated they
had reviewed the bids and data and modified the report to reflect the reduction in cost per lane mile. He summarized the total cost including design, right of way, etc. which were all
impact fee eligible costs. He stated the 2-3 lane cost calculations had been reduced; adding that the distribution of City improvements and State improvements was 84% City to 16% State.
He stated the major reason for the significant increase in impact fees was the difference in cost per lane mile from 1996 to 2007; he added that the costs of materials had also substantially
increased from 1995. He stated that capacity was level of service; adding that in this case, between the 1996 to 2007 impact fee studies there had been a higher capacity pre lane achieved
that reflected the enhancements and optimization of the arterial streets in Bozeman.
Mr. Wallace stated the credit was the safeguard that there would be a reduction in the impact fee and a credit had been applied for funds that would be used for Capital expansion. He
stated the credit had dropped roughly 10% overall due to removal of projects; including the one identified as being outside the City. He noted the vehicle miles were greater for credits
than for cost due to part of the trip length not being calculated for costs. The calculation had been corrected to reflect fewer credit projects. He noted that averages indicated larger
homes with more people and cars would generate greater demand; adding this method of estimation had been widely adopted. He stated there would need to be administrative requirements
made for the affordable housing portions of the report and those qualifications. Mr. Carpenter asked why CBD and non-CBD were not being tiered for residential. Mr. Wallace responded
there would not be as the intent was to provide for pedestrians and generating fewer new trips than the same corresponding retail/office establishments outside the CBD; residences do
not show the same interchange of trips. Ms. Becker asked if there were any economic benefits being reflected in the transportation rates. Mr. Wallace explained there was no way to
give credit for intangible economic benefit and it was reflected in tax increases and Ad Valorum contributions. Mr. Simkins explained it was a policy decision and commercial was a big
benefit for the City; adding the benefits should be offset. Mr. Wallace responded the fundamental flaw was the difference between the gross cost per lane mile and the replacement of
revenue. Mr. Simkins suggested borrowing the money for Capital improvements and paying it back through increased tax revenues; adding only the cost side was being analyzed in the study.
Mr. Wallace explained that cash flow would not be
present to build capacity if the difference between revenues was not collected. Ms. Becker suggested another revenue source be dedicated for that purpose. Mr. Wallace responded that
in many circumstances, tax monies barely covered fire and police costs. Mr. Kaiser noted State law would need to be revised to make revenues available. Mr. Carpenter added it would
get complicated due to other services being provided by the City. Assistant Director Saunders explained the averaging of trip demand was an effort to account for the different levels
of user for the life of the building. Mr. Wallace added that a reconstruction of a new residence or commercial use would not require new payment of impact fees. Mr. Simkins asked the
reason for the 3.5 times greater fees established for restaurants outside the CBD. Mr. Wallace responded more trips would be generated outside the CBD; adding that the characteristics
of a large and small CBD had a relative chaining of trips that were the same; adding it was a pro-active approach to multiple land-uses working together. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the
City encouraged the redevelopment of an area to be more like the central business district, could the lower impact fees be adopted. Mr. Wallace responded the ordinance would need to
be revised to provide safeguards to require that mix of development; suggesting the residential development be tempered with commercial development. Mr. Carpenter asked how Bozeman
could move into this type of development practices. Assistant Director Saunders explained how the mixed use could be attained in an area such as the Story Mill Neighborhood site.
Mr. Wallace explained the comparison between Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade with a maximum fee recommendation. Ms. Becker noted that Belgrade had consolidated use categories
at their recent meeting and had a percentage of the calculated fee. Mr. Wallace responded he would review the most current information and make any necessary modifications, but was
concerned that the changes might not charge a proportional share of the cost of the capacity that would be consumed. Mr. Simkins asked why banks were being charged three times more
in Bozeman than in Gallatin County. Mr. Wallace responded he would provide an answer at a later date, but he thought it was due to trip generation. He reiterated the legalities of
the report and how the statutes had been met with a sound, defensible methodology. He stated the trip data had changed slightly from the previous report; adding that larger homes generated
more trips. He stated there had been a misunderstanding that this had been a “needs” based impact fee; noting it had been “consumption” based methodology that would be fairer whether
or not growth occurred. Vice Chair Kaiser added that correcting existing deficiencies had been a major concern of SWMBIA. Assistant Director Saunders responded that as design proceeded
it became necessary to start doing survey and design work, every item on that corridor could be mapped and specified to adjust the eligible portion of the impact fees that would be capacity
related; adding that every project would be followed up on to avoid using impact fees for non-capacity items.
Mr. Wallace stated the long range plan had been used to prioritize projects and identify deficiencies. He suggested safeguards had been put in the process to ensure that projects are
properly using impact fees. He stated there had been an increase in level of service capacity from 1996 and the proposed estimates of 8,658 were conservative. City Engineer Hixson
responded it required controlled access to achieve those numbers and still carry that kind of traffic; suggesting the impact fee was based on a very high number and a median break would
diminish that number.
Mr. Wallace explained that local studies had been done with regard to vehicle miles of travel as opposed to trip lengths; adding that actual data studying trip characteristics had been
used instead of land use models. He presented vehicle mile travel comparison data for different land-uses; adding that rural travel was expected to be higher than in urban areas. He
stated he had
compared the data and was comfortable defending the vehicle travel miles. Chair Dean suggested Mr. Wallace respond in writing to SWMBIA and the Committee delay the vote on the proposal
to provide time for a more thorough review of the report. Ms. Becker noted it was the most important recommendation the Committee would make. Assistant Director Saunders responded
he did not think there would need to be a material change to the methodology of the report. Mr. Simkins stated he thought SWMBIA had addressed some fundamental issues and there should
be some revisions made. The Committee concurred to continue the item until after Thanksgiving to provide time for Committee members to review the information.
Mr. Simkins suggested the street impact fee study report be continued until Tuesday, November 27, 2007. The majority of the Committee present concurred.
ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS
No issues were raised under this agenda item.
ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
No issues were raised under this agenda item.
ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chair Tim Dean adjourned the meeting at 8:46 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