Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-10 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes ** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson called the meeting to order at 1:41 p.m., in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present Staff Present Rick Hixson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director James Nickelson, Vice Chair Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Anna Rosenberry Members Absent Chris Mehl, Commission Liaison Visitors Present None ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2008. The minutes of December 4, 2008 were opened and continued to the next meeting of the IFAC due to lack of a quorum. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2009. The minutes of December 10, 2009 were opened and continued to the next meeting of the IFAC due to lack of a quorum. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2010. The minutes of September 1, 2010 were opened and continued to the next meeting of the IFAC due to lack of a quorum. ITEM 5. 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.} Seeing no general public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. ITEM 6. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed} No items were forthcoming. ITEM 7. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION 1.Annual CIP Update – Discussion and Recommendation to City Commission on: 1 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 18, 2010 Ms. Rosenberry stated the updating of the overall CIP had begun earlier in the year and it would be adopted prior by December 15, 2010. She stated the approval would not bleed into budget preparation. She noted the formats of the CIP had been changed and she hoped to update the information during the meeting. She stated Staff had prepared a draft proposal and presented it to the IFAC for recommendation in the past, but the updating process had been in progress throughout the year to accommodate a timely review and approval by the City Commission. She stated plans needed determined for the four areas of impact fees. She stated the CIP with the most questions would be the street CIP. c. Wastewater Impact Fee CIP Ms. Rosenberry stated all wastewater fees would go toward the construction of the wastewater treatment facility. She stated all of the other projects were unscheduled but would be scheduled after the completion of the wastewater facility the fees would go toward a new project. Ms. Rosenberry asked how it would affect the future fees if all of the 13 million dollars was paid and suggested she would like to contact a consultant. She stated design of phase 2 of the wastewater facility was no longer included as a project on the schedule for impact fee use. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson asked if the description of phase 2 of the facility should be changed. Ms. Rosenberry responded the dewatering storage building had been removed from the description as the majority of those improvements were not capacity expanding. Mr. Hixson stated there were components that were capacity expanding. Ms. Rosenberry asked for an estimate of a percentage of the whole that would be capacity expanding and if 50-50 would be a good estimate. Mr. Hixson responded he thought it would be a good estimate at 50-50 but he would provide a better estimate. Mr. Nickelson suggested some of the items seemed capacity driven and could be postponed. Ms. Rosenberry asked if there were any other projects that needed added to the CIP or scheduled. Mr. Hixson responded there were no other projects. Assistant Director Saunders asked if there was a short list that could be included to synchronize with planned maintenance; if the land was th already opened up the pipe could be expanded cost effectively. Ms. Rosenberry asked if 8 Avenue th should be included. Mr. Hixson responded 8 Avenue would just be the expansion of the water service. Ms. Rosenberry stated she did not have a list of the sewer projects. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson suggested the small projects could be added to the list. Mr. Hixson stated all the main replacements were large projects. Ms. Rosenberry stated phase 2 would stay on schedule and the estimate would be 50-50. Assistant Director Saunders suggested the language be included to indicate the project might come in portions. a.Water Impact Fee CIP Ms. Rosenberry stated the water was similar to the wastewater schedule and included the portions of the dam costs as well as the storage reservoir. She stated the storage reservoir was scheduled for 2017. Assistant Director Saunders stated the Water Facility Plan indicated construction by 2017. Mr. Hixson added it was likely it would be postponed for construction one year. Ms. Rosenberry stated the item would remain unscheduled and asked if all the items were capacity expanding. Mr. Hixson responded they were. Ms. Rosenberry asked what should happen to the item including the dam. Mr. Nickelson asked if the 2011 funds were already committed. Ms. Rosenberry responded part of the funds were already committed. Mr. Hixson added all of the side steps would need to be completed and noted other water supply options studies were to be completed; he asked if the study would be impact fee eligible. Assistant Director Saunders responded the study would be eligible. Ms. Rosenberry asked if more money should be dedicated to the item or if it was too uncertain. Mr. Hixson stated he thought it was too uncertain. He suggested changing the language to “water supply expansion”. Ms. Rosenberry stated she was concerned with changing the language. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would not remove references to the dam. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the dam project was for pre-design work. Mr. Hixson suggested the language “project feasibility study” to be expected in spring 2011 or before; he added they were uncertain who would be the reviewing authority for the project. 2 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 18, 2010 Ms. Rosenberry asked if water supply expansion should be added as a new project. Mr. Hixson responded yes, at $250,000. Ms. Rosenberry asked for a description of the project. Mr. Hixson responded it would be the study of alternative water supply options including, but not limited to, ground water supply options, lease or purchase of private water rights, and additional conservation measures. Ms. Rosenberry asked the advantages of the project. Mr. Hixson responded the information will be provided to the Commission for them to decide upon a method. Ms. Rosenberry listed the other items on the schedule and asked if any other items needed added or removed. Assistant Director Saunders responded he thought the Graf Street project could be removed as the subdivision in that location would expire in 2011 though the item could remain as it was unscheduled and would not hurt anything. Mr. Hixson suggested it would not hurt to leave the item on the project list until 2011. Assistant Director Saunders suggested that the shown growth percentage of revenue for water and wastewater impact fees should be congruent or at least provide an explanation of why they were incongruent. Ms. Rosenberry stated impact fees were really hard to predict so she had taken the modest approach; the impact fees were already overshooting the estimates they had provided. She asked if anyone thought there would be a decline from $400,000. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was too difficult to tell. b.Fire Impact Fee CIP Ms. Rosenberry stated there had been some really good news regarding the fire CIP; a grant had been obtained for one of the projects which would complete the project at a local cost of $17,000 instead of $170,000 – traffic signal preemption. She stated Station #4, Engine #4, and half the debt of Fire Station #3 were scheduled. She stated the City was near the end of the debt payment for Fire Station #3 leaving Fire Station and Engine #4 on the list. She suggested the removal of traffic signal preemption. The Committee concurred. c.Street Impact Fee CIP Ms. Rosenberry stated she had included all of the items on the list in the packet materials; she noted there were 13 items and they had been loaded as FY 16 projects. She stated she had funded the construction of Baxter Lane as the next thing that gets constructed and asked the Committee if that should remain. Assistant Director Saunders suggested items 10 and 11 could be removed as the Story Mill Neighborhood project had expired and he saw very little hope that anyone would do a project of the same scale in the near future. The Committee concurred. Mr. Hixson stated he thought there would be a lot of urban route money that could be used for one of the projects, but he did not know for certain until better data could be acquired; he added urban funds had th been saved since the 19 Avenue project and were 3 million dollars to the good for the College project currently. Ms. Rosenberry responded the revenue sheet indicated SID’s and urban fund amounts and asked if the total project cost should be increased to 8 million dollars. Mr. Hixson stated the amount should be increased. He stated the Kagy project was the next project in line per direction from the City Commission. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the Durston from Fowler to Ferguson language should be modified. Mr. Hixson suggested the language “significantly improved except this portion of the road (roughly ¼ mile)”. Ms. Rosenberry asked what needed done to the section. Mr. Hixson responded there were no sidewalks in that location. Assistant Director Saunders responded there would need to be additional lanes and bike lanes as well. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the item would still cost 5 million dollars. Mr. Hixson responded it would not and suggested the amount be 1.5 million dollars with the capacity expansion portion at around $600,000. Ms. Rosenberry asked if after College Street the Durston project should be completed. Mr. Hixson responded the Durston project was not a priority. Assistant Director Saunders responded he was not certain he concurred as there were no large scale development projects in that location to participate in funding those improvements. Mr. Hixson suggested leaving Durston unscheduled. Ms. Rosenberry responded Baxter would have the same issue. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were larger scale properties along Baxter. 3 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 18, 2010 thth Mr. Hixson stated he thought Kagy/11 to 19 Ave. should be moved up per City Commission direction. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson noted that Babcock and Highland had been listed as two of the highest priorities in the Transportation Plan. Mr. Hixson stated the impact fees could only be used for curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes while the rest would need to be funded elsewhere. Ms. Rosenberry asked if those projects should be included in the CIP. Assistant Director Saunders responded he did not think Babcock should be included at this time. The Committee concurred. Chairperson Pro Tem stated he thought Highland should be included to be consistent with the Transportation Plan. Ms. Rosenberry stated she would include a description of the Highland project. Mr. Hixson stated he did not know if intersection improvements should be included in the project or should be added separately; he suggested adding Highland & Ellis, Highland & Kagy, and Church & Kagy which were all hospital impacted intersections. Ms. Rosenberry asked if each intersection would be at $500,000. Mr. Hixson responded he thought they should all be $750,000 with the exception of one that might come in at $500,000; he added the Durston & Cottonwood intersection should be included as well at a rate of $500,000. Ms. Rosenberry asked the price for construction of Highland Boulevard. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson responded the Transportation Plan indicated 7.6 million dollars. Ms. Rosenberry asked how much would be impact fee eligible. Mr. Hixson responded he thought it might be 60-40. Assistant Director Saunders suggested the eligible amount was closer to 70-30 to be conservative since the existing condition was good. Ms. Rosenberry asked if Highland was an urban route that urban funds could be used for. Mr. Hixson responded it was definitely an urban route and urban funds would be used. Ms. Rosenberry clarified that Kagy should be scheduled while Highland remained unscheduled. The Committee concurred. Mr. Hixson suggested inclusion of the $650,000 for design in FY 15. He suggested Durston and Cottonwood should likely be scheduled. Assistant Director Saunders asked if a note needed included as an indication of funding of construction of corridors to include signalization. Ms. Rosenberry stated she would group those projects that were tied together. Mr. Hixson asked if there was enough money to schedule more items. Ms. Rosenberry responded there was enough money available that Kagy could be scheduled. Ms. Rosenberry asked the status of the IFAC. Assistant Director Saunders responded he had indicated to the Commission that the IFAC needed new members appointed. Recording Secretary Hastie added that there were no applications for volunteers to the Committee. Ms. Rosenberry stated she could see if the th presentation could be moved to the 13 of December City Commission meeting to allow time for the IFAC to meet once more before City Commission packets would be due. Assistant Director Saunders suggested including a map depicting where the money had been spent to construct projects. Ms. Rosenberry stated she knew the map was available but the last three years of projects would need to be added. Ms. Rosenberry stated the Tiger Grant had been turned down for Main Street and asked if the project would have been capacity expanding. Mr. Hixson responded he thought it would actually be capacity reducing. Assistant Director Saunders stated urban route designations would be reviewed next year. Mr. Hixson stated Engineering had been discussing the addition of urban routes to the City with MDT. ITEM 8. OLD BUSINESS Assistant Director Saunders stated the last comments had been returned on the RFQ for the impact fee updates and it would be issued shortly. ITEM 9. COMMITTEE COMMENTS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chairperson Pro Tem 4 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 18, 2010 Nickelson adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ James Nickelson, Chairperson Pro Tem Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Impact Fee Advisory Committee Dept of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 5 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 18, 2010