Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-06 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes.docMINUTES THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2006 7:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Tim Dean called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. The location of the meeting was changed to the Al Stiff Professional Building. Members Present Rick Hixson, City Engineer Anna Rosenberry, Director of Finance Tim Dean William Simkins Ron Kaiser Randy Carpenter Debra Becker Staff Present Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development Visitors Present Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman Sean Becker, Commissioner, City of Bozeman ITEM 2. MINUTES Corrections or additions to the minutes. Approved as presented. Tim asked if the Committee had any concerns to be brought before the committee. 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.} Clint Litle, HKM Engineering, spoke in favor of the proposed signal at Oak and Rouse as the area is under redevelopment and the signal would greatly benefit the community. Sean Becker, Commissioner, noted a member of the public has voiced concern about putting the extension of Cedar Street through the wetlands. He also encouraged this committee to work closely with the County Impact Fee Committee. ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIASON { A standing item to be used as needed} ITEM 5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS– Review and comment on the proposed updated list of projects for funding with street impact fees. (Continued from April 13th) Chairperson Dean noted this is a continued discussion from April 13, 2006. He stated several members of the committee wanted more time to consider the proposal. He asked Mr. Hixson to explain the calculations prepared for Durston Road East. Mr. Hixson distributed a packet of information. He explained the calculations and diagrams. He noted approximately 65% of the cost of the construction of Durston Road East is eligible for impact fee. Chris explained the formation of the CIP list. Rick explained the methodology for calculating the cost of various types of signals. Mr. Kaiser asked if the Committee was to determine the percentage of a project eligible for impact fees. Mr. Hixson stated the Committee could very well influence the TSM list and the CIP list. He noted the Committee would have to be familiar with the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update and the projects which are on the table in the planning office. Mr. Simkins stated it seemed unfair to charge the new businesses and new people for all the improvements. Chris noted that issue was studied in the original impact fee studies and explained how the trips were calculated and existing problems taken out of the improvement costs used to calculate the impact fee. Anna noted the committee is being asked to adopt the long range list, which is a floating list. It can be added to, have the completed projects subtracted each year, with another year added as a previous year is removed. Rick noted that in 1995 the impact fee money would have been enough to construct the improvements to Durston Road East. However, in the years it has taken to obtain the right-of-way, an additional source of funding will be used – the General Obligation Bond passed by the public in 1995. Other funding sources were discussed. Ms. Becker asked if the committee is really being asked to recommend approval of the spending of impact fees for the projects on the list. Anna explained that the recommendation is on project priorities and if impact fees should be used to help fund the projects on the list. Rick noted the percentage of eligibility will not change substantially. He noted the CC will have the final authority as to how much of the impact fees will be used for a project. Chris noted the concept of nexus is not a neat and tidy uniform number. He noted the nexus is usually completed within the fee study. The committee’s recommendation will be taken seriously by the City Commission. Ms. Becker asked what a recommendation to the City Commission means to them. Commissioner Becker stated they look at the recommendations, ask questions, and then determine where the highest and best use of the funding and how it will best serve the community. Ms. Becker asked if the CC would reexamine the numbers or will they respect the numbers accepted by the Committee. Mr. Kaiser noted the accuracy and nexus tests could be reviewed after the submittal of each project on a project by project basis. He noted he felt more comfortable that the Impact Fee Advisory Committee would review the project lists every year. Mr. Carpenter noted the short term projects may need to have the exact figures to make a recommendation on the projects. Mr. Simkins stated he concurred and asked if these numbers would be given to the consultant. Chris stated the CIF is to determine the amount of money which could be spent after the projects have been bid. He noted the future consultant will tell the CC what a project would cost, the CC will determine how each project will be funded, and how the projects will be prioritized. He stated each year, the methodology for funding may be changed or projects dropped from the list. He noted the estimated amount of impact fees is based on numbers from previous trends. Mr. Lieb noted he was concerned that the engineer’s report isn’t near amount the amount of impact fees estimated to be collected. Mr. Hixson noted he felt the bid was short, and he used current project numbers to establish his figures. Chris noted the effect of overestimating a project cost is that there would be money for another project. However, if the error is short, the project may be delayed until more funding is available. Chairperson Dean noted he felt the Committee should vote on the percentage of a project to be paid for with impact fees. Rick explained that he felt his numbers are more accurate. Chris noted the charge of the Committee is to recommend to the CC primarily to do with priorities, not go over the bid number. Mr. Kaiser asked if a footnote could be added that the impact fee monies should not be over the percentage. Tim suggested voting on the projects first, then vote on the amounts. Randy noted he felt the Committee was to see if this year’s projects would pass the straight faced test on this budget year’s priorities. He felt that prioritizing beyond this year is developing a CIP list. Chris noted there is some overlap with the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Rick noted that Lowe’s is asking for either the use of Impact fees or impact fee credits for the improvements to Baxter Lane. He has been asked to estimate the amount of money available. He noted the same methodology would be used to determine the percentage of impact fees available for helping to fund any other project. Chris noted it would be unfair to have one developer pay for all of the improvements. There are other users now and in the future. He noted the City realizes they should have some participation in the funding of the improvements. Row acquisition – all in favor Baxter 19th to Cottonwood – all in favor Baxter 7th to 19th – all in favor Church – not in the next five years – all in favor College 8th to 19th – all in favor College Main to 19th – all in favor Durston 7th to 19th – all in favor Durston Fowler to Cottonwood – not in the next five years – all in favor Kagy Willson to 19th - all in favor Oak Cedar to Main – not in the next five years – all in favor Oak Rouse to Cedar – all in favor Shops Complex – all in favor Signals Griffin Rouse – approved Oak Rouse – approved 11th / College approved 11th /Kagy approved Chairperson Dean called for a motion for the set aside of the amount recommended by staff. MOTION: Ms. Becker moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to recommend approval the CIP schedule as presented to the Committee based upon Mr. Hixson’s explanation of the figures and a further review of the numbers following the bid acceptance. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Status report on consultant selection Chris noted HDR has accepted the contract for the waste water impact fee analysis. The Waste Water Facilities Plan will be presented on May 8th to CC with a May 22nd public hearing. Drafts will be ready for review immediately following the May 8th CC meeting. Chris noted an offer has been extended to Tindale-Oliver for a contract for the street impact fee study. He noted the County has extended interest in cooperating with the City on the selection of a consultant for fire. Vice versa, investigating a joint project with the County with separate contracts. The County has an October 1st deadline, while the City has none. Chris asked if the Committee will want to meet prior to a meeting following the CC public hearing on the waste water needs. The tentative date is June 8, 2006. ITEM 8. NEW BUSINESS None. ITEM 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.