Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-07 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes.doc** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007 6:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair Tim Dean called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Ron Kaiser, Vice Chair Anna Rosenberry Ken Eiden Debra Becker Bill Simkins Randy Carpenter Nick Leib Members Absent Visitors Present Sean Becker, City Commission Liaison Bob Wallace, Tindale Oliver & Associates Dennis Carlson Shawn Cote, SWMBIA Representative Art Wittich ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25th, 2007 & NOVEMBER 8th, 2007. Chair Dean stated that on page 4, the motion should have been a 5-2 result with Chair Dean in opposition. MOTION: Ms. Becker moved, Mr. Simkins seconded, to approve the minutes of October 25, 2007 and November 8, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 7-0. Chair Dean explained how Gallatin County had approved their impact fees and asked the Committee to keep in mind that the City Commission had reviewed the impact fee study the previous evening and had considered eight options in connection with the proposal. He stated he had asked for a delay in the vote at City Commission due to concerns by some members of the IFAC about not having enough time to review the information. He suggested another option would be to vote on whether or not the impact fee proposal should be delayed; noting which commissioners had stated they would prefer the vote not be delayed. He stated a motion had been made at the City Commission to abandon all proposed transportation impact fees; adding the motion for abandonment would still be on the table, but the proposal had been opened and continued to the December 10, 2007 meeting of the City Commission. Ms. Becker asked if any action had been taken on the proposed transportation impact fee ordinance. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the ordinance had also been opened and continued to December 10, 2007. Mr. Eiden asked why abandonment of the transportation impact fee had been suggested. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Commission thought the disparity between one jurisdiction and another might be too large due to the recent approval of the Gallatin County impact fee proposal. 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.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed} Commissioner Becker had no items to address at this time. ITEM 5. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Ms. Becker stated it seemed to her that the City Commission had three, and possibly four, votes for the abolishment of the impact fees altogether; adding that if the Commission eliminated street impact fees, the IFAC discussion would be all for naught. City Engineer Hixson and Chair Dean concurred. City Engineer Hixson added that there was never any discussion regarding waiting for the County to do an impact fee study and the City had been the first to move forward. Chair Dean suggested he had told the Commission to respect the IFAC as they had worked hard on the proposed fees; adding that the immediate two votes against the proposal were insulting to the Committee. Recommendation to the City Commission regarding the street impact fee study update. (Continued from 11/8/07.) Assistant Director Saunders explained that part of the reason his memo had been structured as it had was due to some options carrying other items with them upon approval; he reiterated those options. He explained each option, how it would operate, and the downside (if applicable) of that option. The Committee chose to examine questions of implementation first. After considering various implementation options, the Committee returned to the discussion of recommendation of the study as a whole. Chair Dean polled the Committee on their thoughts. Chair Dean asked Mr. Lieb if he agreed with the impact fee study as presented. Mr. Lieb responded the study should have been completed a long time ago; adding he was in favor of the study. Ms. Rosenberry stated she was in favor of the study as presented; adding she thought the consumption based approach had been the correct one and the study satisfied the requirements. Mr. Carpenter responded he supported adoption of the study as presented and believed it met the necessary requirements. Mr. Eiden stated he was not supportive of adoption of the proposed study as he had definite concerns regarding the changes taking place throughout the course of the study and it contained too many hypothetical pieces to the overall process. City Engineer Hixson stated he supported the adoption of the study as presented as real costs were depicted and impact fees could do more to foster growth in the community than anything else. Ms. Becker stated she was not supportive of the study as the methodology was sound but there were discrepancies between this study and those of Gallatin County and Belgrade. She stated she questioned the use of data that was not local (Portland/Florida might not be compatible). She stated that she did not think that sidewalks and curbing should be included in capacity expansion as it would be a violation of the statute; adding that upgrading for efficiency should not be called expansion capacity. She stated her belief that the credit component should include effects of development beyond direct payments. Mr. Simkins stated he was not supportive of the proposed study and concurred with Ms. Becker’s comments. He stated there had been two contemporaneous studies done and he was not convinced that the difference in costs was realistic. He stated the impact fee statute had criteria that needed satisfied to have a legal impact fee and there were still deficiencies in that compliance with the law. Ms. Rosenberry requested Mr. Simkins identify specific concerns as had Ms. Becker. Mr. Simkins noted the letter from SWMBIA, but did not call out specific items. Vice Chair Kaiser stated he was supportive of the study as presented and he saw no solid critique of the methodology; adding there were always uncertainties in the future. He stated the study had been adjusted in response to concerns as the proposal was moved forward. Chair Dean stated he did not support the study as presented as he was not comfortable that Staff had had to request other changes. He added that he thought the methodology was sound, the demand component was accurate, but he did not agree with the credit component or the cost component which did not factor out. He stated he was concerned with the overall impact fee amount of this community within the state being the largest, and number two in the nation if the study was approved. He stated he was pro-housing and was disturbed by the proposed increase amount. He stated his concern was that mistakes in the study could cause a challenge to those impact fees and the City would lose. MOTION: Mr. Hixson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for adoption of the impact fee study as presented - option A. The motion was not approved on a vote of 4-4-1 with Mr. Eiden, Ms. Becker, Mr. Simkins, and Chair Dean voting in opposition; Vice Chair Kaiser, Ms. Rosenberry, City Engineer Hixson, and Mr. Carpenter voting in agreement; and Mr. Lieb abstaining. Recommendation to the City Commission regarding implementation of the study update. Chair Dean directed the Committee to discuss affordable housing option D from Assistant Director Saunders memo. Ms. Becker stated it would not be a good option as affordable housing had just been implemented and the Affordable Housing Administrator had just been hired and did not yet have a well run program. She added that implementation of the option would be difficult. Chair Dean asked if it would be difficult to implement the program. Mr. Wallace responded there would need to be administrative changes by the City and those changes would not be tremendously onerous, but would require some effort on the part of the City. Chair Dean asked the price for a single family home if the affordable housing option were not available. Mr. Wallace explained the difference between the low income qualification and standard impact fee assessment. Ms. Rosenberry added that the City currently funds the Road to Home Program which assists people within the City with down payments on houses; adding the Workforce Housing Administrator will be hired before the end of the year and the City Commission had made a decision to graduate the payment of impact fees for those of less income as part of the Workforce Housing Program. Assistant Director Saunders concurred. He noted that the provisions for Affordable Housing in the study were not limited only to those homes constructed under the workforce housing requirements but could also apply to tax credit or other funding sources. He stated when procedures were followed and deed documents were recorded, the workforce housing documents would be recorded as well. Mr. Wallace added that the less than 1,500 square foot and the 1,500 to 2,500 square foot categories had been tiered. Chair Dean asked who would be able to qualify for a reduction in the impact fee. Mr. Wallace explained. Mr. Carpenter stated he thought every time provisions for affordable housing were proposed it was a complicated issue and suggested the Committee consider the option. City Engineer Hixson added he did not think street construction funding could be perfectly fair due to the variety and complexity of circumstances and limitations of funding programs; adding that he knew affordable housing would be a consideration. MOTION: Ms. Rosenberry moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission to implement affordable housing in the study – against option D. The motion carried 7-2 with Ms. Becker and Mr. Eiden voting in opposition. Chair Dean directed the Committee to discuss option E from Assistant Director Saunders memo. Chair Dean asked if MSU would qualify as a CBD district. Assistant Director Saunders responded that MSU would probably not qualify due to their trips being within a single entity instead of to several entities; adding that the criteria in appendix K offered an independent fee study option to make an argument that a new district should be created. Assistant Director Saunders suggested using Ms. Rosenberry’s term Transportation Exchange District (TED) in lieu of CBD since the use of the TED is not limited to only downtown. Mr. Wallace explained how the district would be defined and the parameters would be set; adding that reductions could be anywhere from 20-60% of the impact fees. Mr. Carpenter stated he had attempted to apply the Story Mill project to appendix K and the existing ordinance and he had not been able assess whether or not the project would qualify for a reduction. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Story Mill had a large unknown in the types of uses within the site and the impact fees that would be assessed for those uses; citing the Kagy Crossroads development and how it would be using transportation capacity as if there were no adjacent uses since it was not part of a large commercial area at this time. Mr. Wallace added that a break could be given once half of the development had been completed and could be applied with tax increment financing or other such device to provide for the desired trip interchange and a rebate to the developer who went first. Mr. Simkins added that separate service districts might be too great or small depending on whether or not a development was within the CBD or outside of it; adding there should be more than one service district. Ms. Becker added there would be a disparity in property values as land inside the CBD would cost more due to the impact fee break they would receive. She noted that the community would need to coordinate to create that type of a district. Assistant Director Saunders responded that coordination of that sort can be done in several ways but it would not be a frequent event, but the other option would be the owners coming together to take advantage of the process as a group. He stated the change of fee in a TED is a direct result of a change in demand; adding the community contained one hospital, one high school, etc. and is therefore considered one service area. He stated there would be a commonality of benefit if major circulation points were improved. Ms. Rosenberry stated she believed trip exchange occurred and she did not think there was a place in the community where she would not need to drive from one place to another other than in the proposed district. Mr. Carpenter stated he supported the TED within the CBD and all future proposed TED’s as it would help to implement the Growth Policy. City Engineer Hixson stated he agreed that the TED were good ideas, but implementation would make the affordable housing option look like child’s play. He stated he thought it would be difficult, but was supportive and in agreement. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, City Engineer Hixson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission to implement the CBD option E – and appendix K in the study should include that future TED’s could qualify for the option. The motion carried 6-3 with Mr. Eiden, Mr. Simkins, and Mr. Lieb voting in opposition. MOTION: Ms. Rosenberry moved, Mr. Hixson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the least cost approach to building center turn lanes with development option F. The motion carried 9-0. Chair Dean directed the IFAC to discuss option G from Assistant Director Saunders memo. Mr. Hixson stated he did not think it was a good idea to limit the use of impact fees to arterial street networks only. Ms. Becker stated that increased capacity should require the addition of a driving lane. Planner Saunders responded that the capacity would be addressed in the ordinance portion of the meeting; adding that capacity expansion included the necessary adjustments to the sidewalks, curb and gutter. Mr. Hixson stated he would fight for sidewalks and bike lanes as they were capacity expanding and were elements of a transportation network. Chair Dean suggested bike lanes and sidewalks were amenities. Mr. Wallace stated it would be a policy issue on whether to continue spending impact fees on collector streets or just arterial streets; adding that flexibility would be the best option as funding mechanisms could be put in place on a case by case basis. He stated the cost of building a roadway within the City would be allocated to different types of new development. Chair Dean stated the proposed increase in property taxes should not even be considered. MOTION: Mr. Hixson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for impact fees to be used for both collector and arterial streets - against option G. The motion failed 4-5 with Mr. Lieb, Mr. Eiden, Ms. Becker, Mr. Simkins, and Chair Dean voting in opposition. Chair Dean directed the IFAC to discuss option H from Assistant Director Saunders memo. Vice Chair Kaiser responded it would be advantageous for the City Commission to see a motion from the Committee. He asked for clarification on how a gas tax would be implemented. Ms. Rosenberry responded it would be proposed County-wide and placed on a ballot; adding the revenue would be split between each of the cities and the county. Vice Chair Kaiser suggested those revenues would capture tourists and others who share the road. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Vice Chair Kaiser seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission to seek other funding sources option H. The motion carried 9-0. No discussion or vote was taken on option B from Assistant Director Saunders memo. Chair Dean directed the IFAC to discuss option C from Assistant Director Saunders memo. Assistant Director Saunders stated that an amendment to the impact fee ordinance would need to be formulated to accommodate phasing of the changes in impact fees; adding he had suggested the first phase be half the difference between the existing fees and the proposed fees, followed by the second step. Mr. Carpenter stated that in his opinion, the percentage should not be decided by the IFAC and should be decided by the City Commission. No vote was taken on option C from Assistant Director Saunders memo. After considering various implementation options, the Committee returned to the discussion of recommendation of the study as a whole. Vice Chair Kaiser stated he thought the purpose of the process was to come up with a justifiable, analyzed fee that would be implemented at 100%. He stated he thought the goal was to get to a point where there would be a defensible model and impact fee strategy that would pass on justifiable costs for future growth. Chair Dean stated he felt a little empty going to the City Commission with a draw vote. Mr. Carpenter stated he felt the study was something that the City should adopt; adding he did not think the phasing should even be considered by the IFAC. He added that he thought it was not appropriate for the County to charge no increase in impact fees for commercial development in Gallatin County. Mr. Simkins stated he agreed with Mr. Carpenter that nothing but the study should be voted on by the IFAC as there had not been a clear recommendation of approval or denial. Assistant Planning Director Saunders noted the proposed amendments to Chapter 3.24, Impact Fees, had been included in their packets and asked if the IFAC had any comments or questions regarding the proposed ordinance. The IFAC had none. Recommendation to the City Commission regarding amendments to Chapter 3.24 to reflect the updated fee study. MOTION: Ms. Becker moved, Mr. Simkins seconded, to make no recommendation to the City Commission on item C. The motion carried 8-0 with Mr. Lieb abstaining. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS No issues were raised under this agenda item. ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Chair Dean noted for the record that if the City Commission had not allowed the IFAC the opportunity to further review the study, he would have resigned at this evening’s meeting. Vice Chair Kaiser stated he was concerned with the discussion by the City Commission regarding the impact fee study and the approved Gallatin County impact fees. He believed that abandoning the study at this stage was not correct. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chair Tim Dean adjourned the meeting at 8:25 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