Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-06 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dean called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm and directed the secretary to record attendance. Members Present Staff Present Anna Rosenberry Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development Debra Becker McKenzie Setcoski, Recording Secretary Randy Carpenter Rick Hixson Tim Dean Bill Simkins Ken Eiden Sean Becker, City Commission liaison Visitors Present There was no public present. ITEM 2. MINUTES Chairperson Dean asked for an addition to the minutes – Ken Eiden had an excused absence from the last meeting – otherwise approved as read. ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None to report {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.} ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIASON Commissioner Becker had nothing to report. ITEM 5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS– Review and comment on the proposed updated list of projects for funding with street impact fees. Debra Becker questioned what happens to the impact funds when they are paid in for a specific fund. Specifically, she wanted to know if the funds were held for the specific project they were paid in for. Assistant Director Saunders answered the funds are individually separated for each specific fund; however, the first money that comes in is the first money to go out. Funds are not allocated to individual projects but instead to the overall streets system. Otherwise, the accounting would be too complex. Hixson added the example that the stretch of Durston between 7th and 19th needs to be widened because of the growth that it has seen, but the surrounding area is already built out. There will be no more additional impact fees specifically for the road in that area and it will therefore be taken from fees paid toward improvements of the system as a whole. Saunders added Bozeman will need to review the possibility of keeping money from specific geographic areas in those areas with the upcoming fee update. He added that each time the fees are re-evaluated, whether or not we can reasonably divide the city into sections is evaluated. He used the example of the sewer plant being utilized by the entire city, and therefore using the entire city’s impact fees to make improvements makes sense. Mr. Eiden, being an accountant, added the only problem that saving those funds for specific repairs would be under the assumption that it will be needed, and that may not happen. Ms. Rosenberry noted that impact fees are not collected for one specific improvement; they are collected for a program as a whole that is recommended to commission. Mr. Simkins said that the county was making it too complex because at some point they will have to defend their decisions in court. In Big Sky, the county doesn’t provide roads, the homeowners association does. Therefore, it isn’t fair for the county to collect impact fees in Big Sky and spend them in Three Forks. Ms. Becker wasn’t certain how that differs from the city – the same argument that why you shouldn’t be collecting in Big Sky and spending in Three Forks is the same as collecting in the East Side of Bozeman and spending on the West Side. Saunders answered that we are a small community and there is only one of most types of destinations. Therefore, if someone builds a home, they will be using the entire system for the duration of their living in that home. He added as Bozeman grows we will need to find ways to see if a reasonable dividing line can be identified. Saunders added that one of the most important functions of this committee is to allocate how impact fees will be used. Fundamentally the CIP is a spending plan; what we plan to use the money for. The other piece is looking at what we expect to see as revenue so that we are not overspending. The CIP helps to balance the various commitments that we have. Using the CIP is a requirement by the State. We will have to review the CIP every two years, regardless of whether or not we change anything. This is a guiding financial document for the City. The City Commission is scheduled to view the CIP on Monday, April 17th, 2006. Dean asked what the percentage of the total project cost from impact fees is. Hixson added the numbers need refining, but about 50-60% is the capacity expanding portion of it. Rebuilding what is already there is excluded. For Durston and Babcock, it came out to about 50-60%. The only exception is signals. They will be 100%. The other one 100% eligible is Oak and Rouse signal. Dean asked if the developer was responsible for paying for that. Saunders replied that the answer to that question was no. It would be grossly unfair to have the developer do that since that is a major intersection that serves many persons over a large area. Saunders said that we like this approach because it is such a large network. Ms. Becker added that her understanding is that everything is proportional. Dean wanted to see a commercial and residential fee schedule. Saunders answered that this is a possibility and it is something that he will provide for the board. Rosenberry noted that it is our intention to update on an annual basis. We are revising the schedule as the new projects come along. This is a 5 year projection – but it is updated every year. The “not scheduled projects” are those that the city does not have the funds for or the project has some kind of issues. This is the opportunity for the commission to inform the public that we see those as priorities, but we just don’t have the funding for it. Hixson said that in order to make the improvements that are required on Church we would be displacing people from their homes, and that is not an option. It will eventually be the biggest project that we take on. Saunders added that the geographical area of Church adjacent to Highland is very difficult and that developers have said they will be paying for the road. Therefore, there will most likely not be any impact fees used on that project. Ms. Becker then questioned why Baxter to 19th was such a high priority and Hixson answered because of Lowe’s and that the surrounding land will be developed soon. Dean asked Commissioner Becker if this was tabled for two weeks that it would stall anything on his schedule. He replied that it would not, and that it would be a good idea. Carpenter said that he would agree with whatever staff said because they have more experience on the issue than he does. Chairperson Dean asked the board if they think that this should be continued. Lieb agreed. Eiden said that in order to replenish the dollars, we have to continue to let the developers develop and wait for the fees from that. He questioned what would happen if the growth stops. Saunders answered that it is important to remember that you are funding the entire network. If for some reason the demand goes flat, the fees goes down and the demand for service goes down. Hixson added that we are getting more in urban funds than ever before. We used to get around 500,000 and we are now getting about double that. Worst case scenario, we would be right back where we were in the 80’s, waiting on MDT funds. Eiden still questioned how the calculations work. He added that he thought the board just isn’t well enough informed to make a decision on what to recommend to the commission. Anna said the pressing need is that we are in the budget process and the preliminary budget is usually presented in May and we want to get the FY07 numbers in the budget, so a decision from the Impact Fee Committee is pertinent. Eiden questioned the percentage, and asked that when in looking at a project, what constitutes that it is 58% from impact fees? Hixson replied that the engineers come up with the numbers. For example, on West Babcock, what is there, if there was no growth, all we would ever do is maintain it. It serves the purpose for which it was intended. What we need now is a three lane road, so everything outside the original prism was eligible for impact fees. Only the new stuff, that didn’t exist before is eligible. It came out to about 58-60%. Impact fees can only be used for new additions that expand capacity, not maintenance or repair. Eiden then asked if the “big issue” is the perception by some that new developments are paying for all of the new infrastructure and changes and the existing (historical district, eg Willson Ave) aren’t getting charged these fees. Therefore, are we charging new developments to pay for the old part of town’s development? With that being said, the argument is if everyone could understand how the calculation is done and why particular sections are 58% here, and the older neighborhoods aren’t paying to even maintain their part of town. Therefore, we need to have some way to communicate to the general public where the calculations come from to have the new developments paying impact fees and the old are not even paying higher property taxes to cover these costs. Saunders replied that this depends on which part of town you live. The older residential areas are saying there are more cars than there used to be and the newer developments say we pay impact fees to benefit the old part of town. This is why we do the facility planning to show what we need to fix due to age, etc., so that appropriate balance is found. Hixson added that this is a multi-dimensional project. Ms. Becker noted that the board just doesn’t understand how staff got the calculations and that it is the board’s responsibility to do so before they make a recommendation to the commission. Hixson replied that he will work out some kind of sheet that explains his rationale and distribute it to the board to help them. Becker asked about the signals on Rouse – she asked Saunders if he views these as fee generating projects. Saunders replied that he did not. There is a lot of reciprocity because the people who live by the signal will most likely travel to Lowe’s and perhaps some of the employees who work at Lowe’s will live by the signal by Rouse. He added impact fees are not revenue generating, if we did not have them the general funds couldn’t cover the projects, they just wouldn’t be funded and therefore would not be done and development would not move forward. Anna moved to continue the discussion, Tim seconded. Everyone agreed, no one opposed. The next scheduled meeting will be in two weeks. That would be April 27, 2006. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Status report on consultant selection None to report. ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS Anna asked if there were any vacant positions on this board. Saunders replied that the board is full. She asked the terms of appointment to this committee and Saunders referred her to the clerk of the Commission. Commissioner Becker added that the commission will be interested in seeing more than just 16 projects. Hixson replied that the transportation plan had many more projects. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Dean adjourned the meeting at 8:52 pm _______________________________________ ____________________________________ Tim Dean, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director City Of Bozeman Impact Fee Advisory Committee Planning and Community Development and Staff Liaison to IFAC *City of Impact Fee Advisory Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a special need or disability, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).