Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPresentation of Parts of the Recommended Capital Improvements Plan - Impact Fee Funds.pdf Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director SUBJECT: Presentation of Parts of the Recommended Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for FY2012-2016 Item Type: Action MEETING DATE: December 13, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: Listen to Presentation, ask questions and take public comment. Inform staff as to how these items should be scheduled for adoption (ie. consent or action item on future agenda.) BACKGROUND: During November and December, we have been reviewing and adopting various parts of the City’s Capital Improvements Plan. Tonight, we will be presenting the impact fee portions of the plan: · Fire Impact Fee CIP · Water Impact Fee CIP · Wastewater Impact Fee CIP · Street Impact Fee CIP Advisory Committee: The City’s Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) met on November 18th and November 23rd to develop and discuss these recommended schedules. The committee 204 currently does not contain a quorum, so these recommendations were not formally voted on. However, draft meeting minutes are attached, and provide some background on the discussion that took place. Impact Fee Credits and the role of the Capital Improvements Plan: Attached is the relevant section of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC 3.24.100) describing under what circumstances a developer may receive impact fee credits, highlights added. Applicants must apply for the credits prior to constructing any improvements. Among several other exclusions, impact fee credits cannot be obtained for projects that are not on the Capital Improvements Plan (BMC 3.24.100.A.1). There is a distinct process for approval of these credits that involves the Planning Department (as Impact Fee Coordinator), the City Manager, and in some cases, the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no immediate fiscal effect – although scheduled impact fee projects may be eligible for impact fee credits under BMC 3.24.100. Once adopted, the Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for FY12. ALTERNATIVES: The Advisory Committee discussed a number of policy issues related to these schedules. While they didn’t come to any resounding conclusions, these questions will undoubtedly be a part of policy decisions with the upcoming Impact Fee Studies and future Capital Improvement Plans. Some of the issues include: · Should Street Impact Fees be held/saved until development begins to occur more quickly, or should we utilize some or all of the balance to make improvements in areas that are needed right now? The schedule recommends spending dollars to expand College and Kagy, as well as install intersection controls in areas needed now. · After construction of the Water Reclamation Facility or Water Treatment Plant facility, how long and to what extent will impact fees “pay-back” the utilities? How might this affect future projects on the Impact Fee CIP lists? The schedules include all future impact fee collections in the years of this plan going to pay back the multi-millions of dollars owed on these plants. 205 · What portion of Urban Funds should be allocated to a project eligible for both Street Impact Fees and Urban Funds? The schedules include the full amount of Urban Funds estimated to be eligible. Report compiled on: December 2, 2010 Attachments - BMC 3.24.100 Advisory Board Minutes – November 18, 2010 Draft Advisory Board Minutes – November 23, 2010 Draft Recommended - Fire Impact Fee CIP Recommended - Water Impact Fee CIP Recommended - Wastewater Impact Fee CIP Recommended - Street Impact Fee CIP 206 Page 132 of 924 D. A refund application shall be made to the Impact Fee Coordinator within one year from the date such refund becomes payable under Subsections A and B of this section, or within one year from the date of publication of the notice of entitlement of a refund under Subsection B of this section, whichever is later. Any refund not applied for within said time period shall be deemed waived. E. A refund application shall include information and documentation sufficient to permit the Impact Fee Coordinator to determine whether the refund claimed is proper and, if so, the amount of such refund. F. A refund shall include a pro rata share of interest actually earned on the unused or excess development impact fee paid. G. All refunds shall be paid within sixty days after the Impact Fee Coordinator determines that such refund is due. (Ord. 1418 i 7, 1996; Ord. 1414 i 1 (part), 1996) H. Any refund payable pursuant to Subsections A and B of this section, shall be made to the record owner of property as of the date the refund was due. (Code ????, i 3.24.090; Ord. No. 1418, i 7, 1996; Ord. No. 1414, i 1, 1996; Ord. No. 1707, i 1(3.24.090), 8-6-2007; Ord. No. 1730, i 1(3.24.090), 1-14-2008) 3.24.100 Credits against development impact fees. A. After the effective date of this chapter, mandatory or voluntary land or easement dedications for transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements, and mandatory or voluntary acquisition or construction of capital improvements to the transportation system or the city fire protection, water, or wastewater systems by an applicant in connection with a proposed development may result in a pro rata credit against the development impact fee for the same type of service or facility otherwise due for such development, except that no such credit shall be awarded for: 1. Projects or land dedications not listed on the impact fee capital improvements program; or 2. Land dedications for, or acquisition or construction of, project-related improvements as defined in Section 3.24.040(G) or Section 3.24.040; or 3. Any voluntary land or easement dedications not accepted by the City; or 4. Any voluntary acquisition or construction of improvements not approved in writing by the City prior to commencement of the acquisition or construction. B. In order to obtain a credit against development impact fees otherwise due, an applicant must submit a written offer to dedicate to the City specific parcels of qualifying land or easements, or to acquire or construct specific improvements to the transportation system or the City fire protection, water, or wastewater systems in accordance with all applicable State or City design and construction standards, and must specifically request a credit against such development impact fees. Such written request must be made on a form provided by the City, must contain a statement under oath of the facts that qualify the applicant to receive a credit, must be accompanied by documents evidencing those facts, and must be approved not later 207 Page 133 of 924 than the initiation of construction of improvements or the acceptance by the City of land dedications, or the applicant's claim for the credit shall be waived. The granting of credit shall be approved by the City Commission. The City shall approve a credit only after showing that the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to section 7-6- 1602 of the Montana Code Annotated, and that any land dedication proposed for credit is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use. 1. Upon receipt of a complete application for impact fee credit the Impact Fee Coordinator shall coordinate review of the application for compliance with the requirements of this chapter and other relevant requirements. Upon completion of the review the Impact Fee Coordinator shall either: forward the application to the City Manager, or when required to the City Commission, for approval or; if the application is insufficient or otherwise does not conform to the City's requirements shall communicate in writing to the applicant the reason the credit request failed. If the application satisfies the requirements and is approved the credit may be provided in any of the allowed forms as described in Subsection G. a. Factors for Consideration (1) When credit is sought for an improvement listed in the second through fifth years of the CIP after the current fiscal year there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any credit shall be awarded as a credit balance and not as cash. (2) The final decision to approve a credit request in excess of $1,000,000 from a single impact fee fund shall be made by the City Commission. (3) In the event that the City Manager believes that a credit request may result in a significant effect on policy decisions the credit request may be referred to the City Commission for final action regardless of the dollar amount. (4) In the event that the City considers that award of a credit may negatively impact its ability to construct improvements listed sooner in time on the CIP they may decline to award a credit at that time without removing the item from the CIP. 2. Appeals relating to staff decisions on credit requests may be appealed to the City Commission per Subsection 3.24.110.1 C. The credit due to an applicant shall be calculated and documented as follows: 1. Credit for qualifying land or easement dedications shall, at the applicant's option, be valued at: a. One hundred percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the City Assessor; or b. That fair market value established by a private appraiser acceptable to the City in an appraisal paid for by the applicant. 2. In order to receive credit for qualifying acquisition or construction of transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements, the applicant shall submit complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates to the City. The City shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if it determines that such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs acceptable to the City. 208 Page 134 of 924 D. Approved credits shall become effective at the following times: 1. Approved credit for land or easement dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the City in a form acceptable to the City, and at no cost to the City, and has been accepted by the City Commission. When such conditions have been met, the City shall note that fact in the credit record maintained by the City Finance Department. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall send the credit holder a letter stating the credit balance available to him (or her). 2. Approved credits for the acquisition or construction of transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements shall generally become effective when: a. All required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the City; and b. A suitable maintenance and warranty bond has been received and approved by the City; and c. All design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been completed in compliance with all applicable City and State procedures. However, approved credits for the construction of improvements may become effective at an earlier date if the applicant posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or escrow agreement, and the amount and terms of such security are accepted by the City. At a minimum, such security must be in the amount of the approved credit or an amount determined to be adequate to allow the City to construct the improvements for which the credit was given, whichever is higher. When such conditions have been met, the City shall note that fact in the credit record maintained by the City Finance Department. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall also send the credit holder a letter stating the credit balance available to him (or her). E. Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of development impact fees due from any proposed development for the same type of service or facility for which the applicant dedicated land or acquired or constructed improvements until the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use credit from a mandatory or voluntary dedication, acquisition, or construction is presented to the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the development impact fee of the same type otherwise due from the applicant and shall note in the city records the amount of credit remaining, if any. In the case of a mandatory dedication, acquisition, or construction, any credit in excess of the amount of the development impact fee otherwise due under this chapter shall be deemed excess credit that is remaining and available for use by the applicant. In the case of a voluntary dedication, acquisition, or construction, any credit in excess of the amount of the development impact fee of the same type and applicable to the project, as shown in Tables 3.24.050, 3.24.060, 3.24.070, or 3.24.080, shall be deemed excess credit that is remaining and available for use by the applicant. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall also send the credit holder a letter stating the amount of credit remaining to him (or her). F. Approved credit shall only be used to reduce the amount of development impact fees of the same type otherwise due under this chapter and shall not be paid to the applicant in cash or in credit against any development impact fees for a different type of facility or service or against any other monies due from the applicant to the City, except as described in Subsection G of this section. 209 Page 135 of 924 G. If the amount of approved credit for a mandatory dedication, acquisition, or construction exceeds the amount of the development impact fees of the same type otherwise due under this chapter, the applicant may request in writing that the City provide for reimbursement of any excess credit to the applicant in cash. Such written request must be approved not later than the initiation of construction of improvements, or the acceptance by the City of land dedications, or the applicant's claim shall be waived. Upon receipt of such a written request, the City may, at its discretion: 1. Arrange for the reimbursement of such excess credit from the impact fee fund for the same type of service or facility from development impact fees paid by others; 2. Arrange for the reimbursement of such excess credit through the issuance of a promissory note payable in not more than ten years and bearing interest equal to the interest rate paid by the City for its long-term debt; or 3. Reject the request for cash and provide credit. Such excess credit shall be valued at one hundred percent of actual developer costs for the excess improvements, or at the actual appraised value of such excess improvements, at the City's option. H. Credit may be transferred from one holder to another by any written instrument clearly identifying the credit issued under Subsection C of this section that is to be transferred, provided that such instrument is signed by both the transferror and transferee, and that the document is delivered to the City for registration of the change in ownership. I. In the event that land is annexed into the city from Gallatin County after the effective date of this chapter, and that road or fire impact fees have been previously paid to the County, an applicant proposing a development on the land may request in writing a credit against the transportation impact fee equal to the amount of any road impact fee paid to the County for the same land and may also request a credit against the fire protection impact fee equal to the amount of any fire protection impact fee paid to the County for the same land. Such written request must be filed not later than the time when an applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Sections 3.24.050(A)(1) or 3.24.060(A)(1) that creates an obligation to pay the type of development impact fee against which the credit is requested, or the applicant's claim shall be waived. (Code ????, i 3.24.1000; Ord. No. 1471, i 8, 1998; Ord. No. 1418, i 8, 1996; Ord. No. 1414, i 1, 1996; Ord. No. 1707, i 1(3.24.100), 8-6-2007; Ord. No. 1730, i 1(3.24.100), 1-14- 2008) 3.24.110 Miscellaneous provisions. A. Interest earned on monies in any impact fee fund shall be considered part of such fund and shall be subject to the same restrictions on use applicable to the impact fees deposited in such fund. B. No monies from any impact fee fund shall be spent for period or routine maintenance of any facility of any type or to cure deficiencies in public facilities existing on the effective date of this chapter. C. Nothing in this chapter shall restrict the City from requiring an applicant to construct reasonable project improvements required to serve the applicant's project, whether or not such improvements are of a type for which credit is available under Section 3.24.100. D. The City shall maintain accurate records of the development impact fees paid, including 210 1 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 18, 2010 ** 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: 211 2 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 already opened up the pipe could be expanded cost effectively. Ms. Rosenberry asked if 8th Avenue should be included. Mr. Hixson responded 8th 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. 212 3 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 been saved since the 19th 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. 213 4 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 18, 2010 Mr. Hixson stated he thought Kagy/11th to 19th 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 presentation could be moved to the 13th 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 214 5 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 215 1 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 23, 2010 ** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2010 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m., in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present Staff Present Rick Hixson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary James Nickelson, Vice Chair Anna Rosenberry Members Absent Chris Mehl, Commission Liaison Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Visitors Present Bob Murray 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. MINTUES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2010. The minutes of November 18, 2010 were opened and continued to the next meeting of the IFAC due to lack of a quorum. ITEM 6. 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.} 216 2 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 23, 2010 Seeing no general public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. ITEM 7. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed} No items were forthcoming. ITEM 8. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION 1. Finalize Recommendation on Street Impact Fee CIP for 2012-2016 (Saunders/Rosenberry) Ms. Rosenberry asked if she had gotten all of the recommended changes correct; moving Kagy, Baxter Lane to unscheduled, items 22-29 added as unscheduled. She stated she had put the unfunded portion as urban funds on Highland & Kagy. She stated that, all the items as listed would be “doable” if urban funding was available. Mr. Hixson responded he thought all the corrections had been completed. Ms. Rosenberry stated a policy decision would need to be made on whether or not to use impact fees for some of the projects. Mr. Murray asked why Mayor Krauss would consider using impact fees. Ms. Rosenberry responded there may be a cry from the community for help and the use of those fees. Mr. Hixson stated the previous Impact Fee Advisory Committee questioned when there was a big balance of impact fee funds not being used. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson added the current balance had been collected over the last three or four years and asked for clarification if those funds would be safe. Ms. Rosenberry responded those funds would be safe. Ms. Rosenberry stated the design of the roundabout at College & 11th had already been removed from the calculated amount and would be accounted for. Mr. Hixson responded he would attempt to get a more firm amount for the cost of the roundabout. Ms. Rosenberry responded next year would be the completion of the design for College Street. Mr. Murray asked what the amount was for with regard to the design. Ms. Rosenberry responded the design amount had been removed. Mr. Hixson added there may not be design fees, but there would at least be administrative fees involved and Staff would be required to pay 15-20 percent. Ms. Rosenberry stated that the description of College Street did not include design and had been described as ongoing work. Mr. Hixson responded he was certain fees would be required by MDT, but he was not sure when. Ms. Rosenberry stated she would make a note that on College & Kagy that MDT would take care of the design and administrative fees would be required. Mr. Hixson stated he would confirm whether MDT had approved the project or not. Ms. Rosenberry stated the intersection at College Street and 8th Avenue was scheduled for next year. Mr. Hixson suggested there would need to be a design for College and 8th first putting the project back to FY14. Ms. Rosenberry confirmed to total cost and which allotments should be in the first and second years. Mr. Murray asked if Oak & 27th was the highest priority intersection. Mr. Hixson responded it was a priority in the Transportation Plan, but was not the highest priority. Mr. Murray suggested Cottonwood and Durston should be a priority. Mr. Hixson stated he thought most of the future development would be west of Bozeman. 217 3 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 23, 2010 Ms. Rosenberry stated 7th & Kagy was currently unscheduled and asked if all the problem intersections had been addressed. Mr. Hixson responded they had been taken care of as College Street and 23rd Avenue had been addressed; he added Main Street and 19th Avenue was currently the worst intersection in Bozeman. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson asked if any intersections with capacity issues had been identified with crash statistics. Mr. Murray responded Kagy/Church and Kagy/Highland had capacity issues; he added he thought west of town would be developed before the hospital commenced those improvements. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson suggested staying away from Highland and Kagy until the widening had occurred. Mr. Murray stated he was alright with Oak & 27th being scheduled and he concurred with Mr. Hixson. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson concurred. Ms. Rosenberry asked if Cottonwood & Durston should be before College & 8th. Mr. Hixson responded Cottonwood should come before College & 8th and suggested another intersection could be moved up. Ms. Rosenberry suggested College & 8th could be moved to FY15 or 16 while Cottonwood & Durston could be moved up. Ms. Rosenberry confirmed that College & 8th would be unscheduled while Cottonwood & Durston would be moved up. Mr. Hixson confirmed. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the design of Kagy could be included in FY14 for design. Mr. Hixson and Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson concurred. Ms. Rosenberry stated she would move Kagy to design in FY14 and construction in FY15, the intersection at Cottonwood & Durston would be moved to FY14. She asked if there were any projects they were missing that should be included on the list. Mr. Hixson suggested North 27th Avenue needed filled in for roughly 1/3 of a mile. Ms. Rosenberry asked the project cost for the 1/3 mile. Mr. Murray suggested the cost would be $250.00 a foot or roughly $425,000. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson responded it was just half of the street and could be built at a cost of $200,000 without utilities. Mr. Hixson suggested he would come up with a better description of the 27th project and suggested the item should be unscheduled. Ms. Rosenberry asked if Baxer Lane from Boothill Court to 11th should be included. Mr. Murray responded it should be included and added there was another section that would need to be addressed as well. Ms. Rosenberry responded she would pull Baxter from Boothill Court to 11th. Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson suggested Baxter from 7th to 19th should be included as well. Mr. Hixson stated he would provide the descriptions of the added projects to forward to the City Commission. ITEM 9. OLD BUSINESS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 10. COMMITTEE COMMENTS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson adjourned the meeting at 4:51 p.m. 218 4 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 23, 2010 _____________________________________ _____________________________________ James Nickelson, Chairperson Pro Tem Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Impact Fee Advisory Committee Dept of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 219 Fire Impact FeeCapital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16Projected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP‐$                  ‐$                    1,850$             3,719$           7,492$           11,342$           Plus:  Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 150,000$        186,850$            188,719$        192,493$       196,343$      200,270$         Less:  Scheduled CIP Project Costs (150,000)$       (185,000)$          (186,850)$       (188,719)$      (192,493)$      ‐$                Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP‐$                 1,850$                3,719$             7,492$           11,342$         211,612$       Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16Estimated Annual Fire Impact Fee Revenues 150,000$           185,000$               186,850$          188,719$          192,493$         196,343$            Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 150,000$           186,850$               188,719$          192,493$          196,343$         200,270$          Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%  Plus:  Increase Dedicated to Fire Capacity Expansion CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 150,000$           186,850$               188,719$          192,493$          196,343$         200,270$          4,000,0003,500,0003,000,0002,500,0002,000,0001,500,0001,000,000500,0000FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 UnscheduledFire Impact Fee Projects 220 CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY12FY13FY14FY16UnscheduledFY15Impact Fees FireFIF06FIRE IFFIRE STATION #4$2,771,336FIF07FIRE IFFIRE ENGINE, STATION #4$598,363FIF08FIRE IFFIRE STATION #3, DEBT RETIREMENT$185,000$186,850$188,719$192,493Summary for  Impact Fees Fire (3 items)Totals by year:$185,000 $186,850 $188,719 $192,493$3,369,699FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16Unscheduled221 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Fire PROJECT NUMBER FIF06 DEPARTMENT FIRE IF PROJECT NAME FIRE STATION #4 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $2,771,336 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is identified as a priority in the adopted Fire Facility Plan because most of the City's north and west areas are located such that our response time exceeds four to six minutes for fire and medical emergencies. Land acquisition costs are not included. The City currently owns the site on the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Graf Street, which is ideally situated for this station. This station will be needed as our community grows in its South West Quadrant. We will need to watch annexations and subdivisions within the area and schedule this project accordingly. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Many are available: Scale down the project size and/or materials used in construction to accommodate a residential type facility similar to Station #2; require automatic sprinkler systems as built-in protection for all new construction located outside of existing stations' response time service districts; continue operating under current resources; relocated existing stations; accept ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL The completion of this project would enhance our ability to respond to growing parts of the community within a time frame that has been historically acceptable to the citizens of Bozeman. Station #1 and #2 are located in areas which ineffectively serve the existing community as well as the portions which are on Rouse street, a heavily traveled way with a stop light, which occasionally limits our drivers to unsafe access to Rouse or Mendenhall. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent on operations and maintenance costs. The City’s General Fund will bear the annual operating and maintenance expenses associated with this facility, estimated at $1,200,000, including all crew personnel. FUNDING SOURCES 100% Fire Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 222 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Fire PROJECT NUMBER FIF07 DEPARTMENT FIRE IF PROJECT NAME FIRE ENGINE, STATION #4 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $598,363 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is the purchase of an engine and accompanying equipment for use out of new Fire Station 4. It will be necessary to have this engine at the Station when it opens. There is an estimated 12 month lead time in delivery of this type of equipment. This engine will be needed for Station #4, which will be required as our community grows in its South West Quadrant. We will need to watch annexations and subdivisions within the area and schedule this project accordingly. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Use of 1989 Pierce Reserve Pumper Darley; buy a used engine; lease/purchase an engine. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Purchase of this unit will adequately equip Station #4 for fire and other emergency responses. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be used for annual operating and maintenance costs. The City’s General Fund will pay for the increased fuel, maintenance and insurance costs associated with this engine, estimated at less than $30,000 per year. FUNDING SOURCES 100% Fire Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 223 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Fire PROJECT NUMBER FIF08 DEPARTMENT FIRE IF PROJECT NAME FIRE STATION #3, DEBT RETIREMENT FY12 $185,000 FY13 $186,850 FY14 $188,719 FY15 $192,493 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The construction costs for Fire Station #3 are 100% impact fee eligible. At the time of construction, there was not enough cash in the Fire Impact Fee fund to pay all the eligible costs. As a result, the City’s general borrowing authority was used to borrow $890,000 to finish the project. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City could opt to not pay this loan off early; instead making the annual payments each year. However, because the debt is ultimately backed by the City’s General Fund, borrowing authority under MCA 7-7-4104 is limited to a fixed amount, and interest costs accumulate, it is best to pay this debt as soon as possible. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL The General Fund will not be required to pay for capacity expanding costs of the Fire Station. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Currently supported in General Fund budget. FUNDING SOURCES Loan made on borrowing authority of the City’s General Fund (MCA.7-7-4104) All loan repayments will be made by Fire Impact Fee Fund. New Replacement Equipment Project 224 Water Impact FeeCapital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16Projected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 7,791,000$     7,513,250$        2,667,250$      ‐$                (0)$                 (0)$                    Plus:  Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 475,000$        404,000$            408,040$        416,201$       424,525$      433,015$         Less:  Scheduled CIP Project Costs (752,750)$       (5,250,000)$       (3,075,290)$    (416,201)$      (424,525)$     (433,015)$      Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 7,513,250$     2,667,250$         ‐$                (0)$                  (0)$                 (0)$                  Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16Estimated Annual Water Impact Fee Revenues 400,000$           400,000$               404,000$          408,040$          416,201$         424,525$            Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 400,000$           404,000$               408,040$          416,201$          424,525$         433,015$          Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%  Plus:  Increase Dedicated to Water Capacity Expansion CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 400,000$           404,000$               408,040$          416,201$          424,525$         433,015$          50,000,00045,000,00040,000,00035,000,00030,000,00025,000,00020,000,00015,000,00010,000,0005,000,0000FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 UnscheduledWater Impact Fee Projects 225 CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENPROJECT NAMEFY12FY13FY14FY16UnscheduledFY15Impact Fees WaterW07WATER IFWATER TREATMENT PLANT 22MG MEMBRANE PLANT$5,000,000$3,075,290WIF01WATER IFSOURDOUGH CREEK DAM$19,750,000WIF03WATER IF5.3MG CONCRETE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR$5,300,000WIF05WATER IFREDUNDANT TRANMISSION MAIN FROM WTP$21,680,000WIF07WATER IFGRAF STREET EXTENSION$150,000WIF08WATER IFWATER TREATMENT PLAN DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT$416,201$424,525$433,015WIF09WATER IFWater Supply Expansion Study$250,000Summary for  Impact Fees Water (7 items)Totals by year:$5,250,000 $3,075,290 $416,201 $424,525$433,015$46,880,000FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16Unscheduled226 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER W07 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME WATER TREATMENT PLANT 22MG MEMBRANE PLANT FY12 $5,000,000 FY13 $3,075,290 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This new Membrane Filter Treatment Plant is the preferred water treatment alternative identified in the adopted Water Facility Plan. It is recommended to be built with an initial configuration providing 22MGD of water treatment capacity, with future expansion capability to 36MGD. This addresses both the 10- and 20- year capacity requirement forecast for the City’s water treatment system. It is expected to be online by October 2013. The current 15MGD WTP equipment is nearing the end of its useful life; the plant’s direct filtration treatment process, while effective most of the year, becomes only marginally effective during spring runoff or flash thunderstorms in the watershed, dropping plant efficiency as low as 70%; and, rapid population growth and expansion of city water services is increasing demand for water. The current plant capacity may be exceeded in as few as five years. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Water Facility Plan considered numerous alternatives for water treatment. This was identified as the preferred alternative in the adopted plan. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Planning for increased water supply to meet growing demands and to replace existing equipment that is at the end of its useful life. The New Plant will be located at the current site in a 49,620 sf building located directly north of the plant. It will include pre- oxidation, coagulation, flocculation, settling, strainers, membrane flitration, dissolved air flotation thickeners, disinfection, PH adjustment for corrosion control, drying beds, lagoon, and ancillary facilities. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED This plant is not estimated require an addition to existing plant staff. Annual O&M costs = est. $1,735,901 (including existing staff plus new plant expenses). None of these costs can be paid with Impact Fees. FUNDING SOURCES The most recent estimate of plant costs was provided in the Fall of 2010, at a total of $40.7 Million. It is estimated that 33% of total project costs (approx $13.4 Milion) are related to capacity expansion of the plant, and therefore are eligible for impact fee funding. TOTAL PROEJCT: FY08 Pilot Testing: $200,000. FY09,FY10, FY11 Design and Membrane equipment deposit, construction $7,267,000. FY12 $16,460,000. FY13 $16,460,000. New Replacement Equipment Project 227 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF01 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME SOURDOUGH CREEK DAM FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $19,750,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The City currently has storage rights to approximately 1,955 Million Gallons per Year, with a reservation for an additional 931 MGY, worth of storage rights on Sourdough Creek. These rights were historically allocated based on available storage in Mystic Lake. The Mystic Lake Dam, however, has been breached, rendering these storage rights essentially useless until a new dam is constructed on Sourdough Creek to replace the Mystic Lake Dam. Because this volume of storage right is very significant, the City intends to utilize these rights to meet future water needs. This option is suggested in addition to continued water conservation efforts throughout the City. In 2010 the City entered into a contract for a project feasibility study. The results of that study are expected in the Spring of 2011. Until the results are received, we do not have a estimate of project costs for the next 5 year period. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Facility Plan explores many options for additional future water in Section 3.C. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Additional water is secured to meet future resident needs. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Unknown at this time. FUNDING SOURCES 100% Water Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 228 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF03 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME 5.3MG CONCRETE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $5,300,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT According to the 2007 Water Facility Plan, a new 5.3MG partially buried concrete water storage reservoir was to be constructed by 2017. Given the recent slow-down in growth, we anticipate needing the tank some time after 2017. The proposed location of the reservoir is on City property adjacent (to the North) of the proposed new Hyalite/Sourdough water treatment plant. This reservoir is sized to meet the City’s storage needs up to 2025, assuming a 5% annual growth rate. Locating the storage reservoir at the recommended site will raise the hydraulic grade line in the City’s water system, which will increase pressure for the southern part of the City and will allow future development to occur in the south on a gravity system. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The water facility plan reviewed numerous options. This is the preferred alternative of the adopted plan. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Increased water storage to meet the needs of our growth community, and the requirement of MDEQ. Increased system water pressure in the southern part of the City. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Requires minimal operation and maintenance. Checking of valves, level sensors and vents on an annual basis and diver inspection and vacuuming every five years. Estimated at $4,000 annually. FUNDING SOURCES 100% Water Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 229 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF05 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME REDUNDANT TRANMISSION MAIN FROM WTP FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $21,680,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Water Facility Plan identifies this project as the most critical redundancy issue in the City’s water distribution system. The City receives the majority of its water from the Water Treatment Plant through an existing 30 inch concrete transmission main. If this main is off-line for any reason, the City will need to rely on storage from its three reservoirs. At 2005 water demand levels, storage reserves would be depleted in three days during the average day demand, and in 24 hours during the maximum day demand. Not only will a second transmission main provide the security of redundancy if the existing 30-inch main is removed from service, but the existing 30-inch main is expected to reach capacity by the year 2020. Redundancy Area: Water Treatment Plant New Size Description of Estimated Footage (ft) Old Si C t ti C t ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not build redundant transmission main. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL The city will be assured that water can be supplied even if one transmission main sustains damage and is offline for a number of days. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent on annual operations and maintenance costs. The Water Utility will see incremental increases in general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $12,500 per water-main mile maintained annually. FUNDING SOURCES Impact Fee eligible portions are related to improvement costs beyond an 8” line capacity. At this point in time, it is estimated that the 12” and 24” lines are most likely to be built within the next 5 years; the cost of over-sizing those lines would be eligible for impact fees and is estimated to total $1,874,886. Given the priority of the Water Treatment Plant project, it’s relative size and scope, these improvements have been moved to “unscheduled.” New Replacement Equipment Project 230 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF07 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME GRAF STREET EXTENSION FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $150,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is to extend Water Mains below Graf Street approximately ¼ mile in order to connect infrastructure east from 19th Avenue. This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire service to meet their response time requirements in areas where they currently cannot. The Water infrastructure should be installed at the same time the street connection is made. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing and wait for development to connect the infrastructure. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Water Impact Fee – to be recovered by developer payback. New Replacement Equipment Project 231 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF08 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME WATER TREATMENT PLAN DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FY12 FY13 FY14 $416,201 FY15 $424,525 FY16 $433,015 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Total adjusted project price for the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) construction of phase one is estimated at $40.7 Million. Of that amount, $13.3 Million is for capacity expanding costs of construction. The impact fee account will not have enough cash on hand to pay the costs of construction when the facility is built. As such, impact fee revenues will be dedicated to pay the outstanding debt in future years, as fee revenues are collected. At this point, approximately $5 Million of impact fee eligible costs will be paid with a long-term loan (20 years, 4%) through the State’s Revolving Loan Fund. A debt schedule will be updated semi-annually with the amount of impact fee dollars that have been dedicated to debt payments until the full amount owed is paid. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Major capital expansion of the Bozeman Water Treatment Plant (WTP) will enable the City to meet its ever growing demand for water services. Expansion of the Bozeman WTP is consistent with the City’s long-term need to accommodate growth and economic development in the Gallatin Valley. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES FY08 Pilot Testing: $200,000. FY09,FY10, FY11 Design and Membrane equipment deposit, construction $7,267,000. FY12 $16,460,000. FY13 $16,460,000. Of this total, approximately 33% is eligible for payment via impact fees. New Replacement Equipment Project 232 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF09 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME Water Supply Expansion Study FY12 $250,000 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT To further study alternative water supply options, possibly including: ground water development, additional water conservation measures, and lease or purchase of private water rights. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Numerous. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Provide information to make decisions about critical water supply infrastructure. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Water Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 233 Wastewater Impact FeeCapital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16Projected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP‐$                  ‐$                     ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                ‐$                  Plus:  Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 400,000$        404,000$            408,040$        416,201$       424,525$      433,015$         Less:  Scheduled CIP Project Costs (400,000)$       (404,000)$          (408,040)$       (416,201)$      (424,525)$     (433,015)$      Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP‐$                  ‐$                     ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$               0.00$              Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16Estimated Annual Wastewater Impact Fee Revenues 400,000$           400,000$               404,000$          408,040$          416,201$         424,525$            Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 400,000$           404,000$               408,040$          416,201$          424,525$         433,015$          Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%  Plus:  Increase Dedicated to Wastewater Capacity Expansion CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 400,000$           404,000$               408,040$          416,201$          424,525$         433,015$          6,000,0005,000,0004,000,0003,000,0002,000,0001,000,0000FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 UnscheduledWastewater Impact Fee Projects 234 CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENPROJECT NAMEFY12FY13FY14FY16UnscheduledFY15Impact Fees WastewaterWW28WRF PLANTDESIGN PHASE II ‐ WRF PLANT IMPROVEMENTS$2,615,000WWIFWWATER IFWRF PHASE I DEBT RETIREMENT$404,000$408,040$416,201$424,525$433,015WWIF05WWATER IFHOSPITAL TRUNK LINE:  HAGGERTY TO KAGY$1,062,000WWIF11WWATER IFREPLACE FRONT STREET: TAMARACK/ROUSE$1,800,000WWIF12WWATER IFGRAF STREET EXTENSION$50,000Summary for  Impact Fees Wastewater (5 items)Totals by year:$404,000 $408,040 $416,201 $424,525$433,015$5,527,000FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16Unscheduled235 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WW28 DEPARTMENT WRF PLANT PROJECT NAME DESIGN PHASE II - WRF PLANT IMPROVEMENTS FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $2,615,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT In January 2006 Morrison & Maierle Consulting Engineers completed a comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan. The plan recommends the City proceed with a 3-phased project schedule that includes the construction of the new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), capable of handling our increased flows while also reducing the amount of Total Nitrogen discharged to the East Gallatin River. Phase two is expected to include one new primary clarifier, more BNR reactor basins, clarifiers, tertiary deep bed filtration, liquid sludge storage tanks, anaerobic digestion, and effluent re-use pumping station. The capacity expanding (impact fee eligible) elements are: reactor basins, clarifiers, and pumping station. It is possible that this phase of the project could be further divided into phase 2A and phase 2B, if necessary. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A variety of treatment technologies and alternatives are presented in the January 2006 Wastewater Facilities Plan. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Major capital expansion of the Bozeman WRF will enable the City to meet its estimated demand for wastewater services and still produce a high quality effluent that is in full compliance with the City’s MPDES discharge permit. Expansion of the Bozeman WRF is consistent with the City’s long-term need to accommodate rapid growth and economic development in the Gallatin Valley. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: no estimates at this time. FUNDING SOURCES Total Design Cost: $5,230,000. We estimate that half of the costs are related to regulation and maintenance issues and would be borne by the Utility Fund. Half are related to capacity expansion, and would be borne by Impact Fees. 50% Wastewater Fund, 50% Wastewater Impact Fee Fund. New Replacement Equipment Project 236 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WWIF05 DEPARTMENT WWATER IF PROJECT NAME HOSPITAL TRUNK LINE: HAGGERTY TO KAGY FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $1,062,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Construct ~7,900 LF of 12" and 15" sewer collector from manhole C0507 to 1E22. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Limit future development in the area. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL If constructed to the line sizes master planned in the City’s Wastewater Facilities plan, capacity will be provided for anticipating the long-term future growth in this area. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Impact fees can not fund operating and maintenance costs. The city’s wastewater utility will pay for these costs, which are estimated to be a small increment of the city’s system as a whole. FUNDING SOURCES 70% Wastewater Impact Fees = $743,400 30% Developer Contribution = $318,600 New Replacement Equipment Project 237 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WWIF11 DEPARTMENT WWATER IF PROJECT NAME REPLACE FRONT STREET: TAMARACK/ROUSE FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $1,800,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project consists of construction of ~11,000 LF 18", 21" & 24" sewer pipe from manhole F0330 to C0507. The lower portion of the existing sewer is at capacity. Additional capacity is needed to serve the future Bozeman Deaconess Hospital development and lands to the south. It is estimated that 70% of this project costs will be due to capacity expansion and will be eligible for Wastewater Impact Fees. The remaining 30% of the project costs will need to be provided by a developer contribution or other source. At this time, the City’s Wastewater Utility does not have a need to replace the existing facility; as such, no utility dollars are scheduled to be spent. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Limit development to only that capacity of the existing sewer. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL This project will significantly increase the service area and capacity of the trunk sewer. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Impact fees can not fund operating and maintenance costs. The city’s wastewater utility will pay for these costs, which are estimated to be a small increment of the city’s system as a whole. FUNDING SOURCES 70% Wastewater Impact Fees = $1,260,000 30% Developer Contribution = $540,000 New Replacement Equipment Project 238 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WWIF12 DEPARTMENT WWATER IF PROJECT NAME GRAF STREET EXTENSION FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $50,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is to extend Wastewater Mains below Graf Street approximately ¼ mile in order to connect infrastructure east from 19th Avenue. This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire service to meet their response time requirements in areas where they currently cannot. The Wastewater infrastructure should be installed at the same time the street connection is made. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing and wait for development to connect the infrastructure. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Wastewater Impact Fee – to be recovered by developer payback. New Replacement Equipment Project 239 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WWIF14 DEPARTMENT WWATER IF PROJECT NAME WRF PHASE I DEBT RETIREMENT FY12 $404,000 FY13 $408,040 FY14 $416,201 FY15 $424,525 FY16 $433,015 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Total adjusted project price for the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) construction of phase one is estimated at $53.8 Million. Of that amount, $17.9 Million is for capacity expanding costs of construction. The impact fee account will not have enough cash on hand to pay the costs of construction when the facility is built. As such, impact fee revenues will be dedicated to pay the outstanding debt in future years, as fee revenues are collected. At this point, approximately $4.87 Million of impact fee eligible costs will be paid with a long-term loan (20 years, 3.75%) through the State’s Revolving Loan Fund. A debt schedule will be updated semi-annually with the amount of impact fee dollars that have been dedicated to debt payments until the full amount owed is paid. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Major capital expansion of the Bozeman WRF will enable the City to meet its ever growing demand for wastewater services and still produce a high quality effluent that is in full compliance with the City’s MPDES discharge permit. Expansion of the Bozeman WRF is consistent with the City’s long-term need to accommodate rapid growth and economic development in the Gallatin Valley. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES FY07 Design: Total $3.9 Million 67% Wastewater Utility Cash = $2.33 Million 33% Wastewater Impact Fee Cash = $1.57 Million FY09 & FY10 & FY11 Construction: Total $49.9 Million 67% Wastewater Utility = $33.5 Million New Replacement Equipment Project 240 Street Impact FeeCapital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16Projected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 7,240,000$     6,990,000$        6,947,000$     3,665,070$    3,903,421$   946,340$         Plus:  Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 700,000$        707,000$            714,070$        728,351$       742,918$      757,777$         Plus:  Urban Funds:  SIF06, College (Main to 19th) 100,000$        100,000$            2,264,000$       Plus:  Urban Funds:  SIF09, Kagy (Willson to 19th) 260,000$       2,400,000$     Less:  Scheduled CIP Project Costs (1,050,000)$    (850,000)$          (6,260,000)$    (750,000)$      (6,100,000)$  (100,000)$      Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 6,990,000$     6,947,000$        3,665,070$     3,903,421$    946,340$      1,604,117$    Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16Estimated Annual Street Impact Fee Revenues 700,000$           700,000$               707,000$          714,070$          728,351$         742,918$            Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 700,000$           707,000$               714,070$          728,351$          742,918$         757,777$          Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%  Plus:  Increase Dedicated to Street Capacity Expansion CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 700,000$           707,000$               714,070$          728,351$          742,918$         757,777$          30,000,00025,000,00020,000,00015,000,00010,000,0005,000,0000FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 UnscheduledStreet Impact Fee Projects 241 CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY12FY13FY14FY16UnscheduledFY15Impact Fees StreetsSIF01STREET IFRIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000SIF02STREET IFBAXTER (19TH TO COTTONWOOD)$3,350,000SIF04STREET IFCHURCH$5,800,000SIF05STREET IFCOLLEGE (8TH TO 19TH)$2,000,000SIF06STREET IFCOLLEGE (MAIN TO 19TH)$250,000$5,660,000SIF08STREET IFDURSTON (FOWLER TO FERGUSON)$1,500,000SIF09STREET IFKAGY (WILLSON TO 19TH)$650,000$6,000,000SIF19STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL: 27TH & OAK$500,000SIF20STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL: 7TH & KAGY$540,000SIF21STREET IFGRAF STREET CONNECTION$1,000,000SIF22STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL: COLLEGE & 8TH$750,000SIF23STREET IFHIGHLAND BLVD (MAIN STREET TO KAGY BLVD.)$7,600,000SIF24STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL:  HIGHLAND AND ELLIS STREET$500,000SIF25STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL:  HIGHLAND AND KAGY$750,000SIF26STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL:  CHURCH AND KAGY$750,000SIF27STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL:  COTTONWOOD ROAD & DURSTON AVE$500,000SIF28STREET IFNORTH 27TH STREET (OAK TO TSCHACHE)$200,000Summary for  Impact Fees Streets (17 items)Totals by year:$850,000 $6,260,000 $750,000 $6,100,000$100,000$24,740,000FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16Unscheduled242 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF01 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FY12 $100,000 FY13 $100,000 FY14 $100,000 FY15 $100,000 FY16 $100,000 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Annual allocation available for right-of-way purchases as they become available. Purchasing additional right-of-way is critical to expanding the capacity of streets in the city. This is deemed to be 100% impact fee eligible – as additional right-of-way is not required if we are not expanding the capacity of the street. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Condemn property for right-of-way; pay court costs as well as appraised value of property. Time consuming for city staff and a relatively expensive process. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Provides dollars for the purchase of necessary right-of-way as it becomes available on the market. Avoids the expensive, antagonistic condemnation process where possible. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Street Impact Fees can not be spent on operating and maintaining facilities. There is expected to be a very minimal, incremental cost to the Street Maintenance District from this expenditure. FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 243 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF02 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME BAXTER (19TH TO COTTONWOOD) FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $3,350,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Reconstruct Baxter Lane (from 19th Avenue to Cottonwood) to a Minor Arterial standard as shown in the Transportation Plan. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Full payment by SID, or developer constructed. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved capacity and safety in this corridor; ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually. FUNDING SOURCES 60% - Street Impact Fees = $2,000,000 40% - Special Improvement District (SID) or Other = $1,350,000 New Replacement Equipment Project 244 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF04 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME CHURCH FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $5,800,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Reconstruct Church Avenue to the collector standard identified in the Transportation plan from Main Street to Kagy Boulevard. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Use of Urban Funds, or creation of an SID for full financing. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and address more of the city’s pressing transportation needs. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually. FUNDING SOURCES 60% - Street Impact Fees = $5,800,000 40% - Urban Funds, SID, or other sources = $3,800,000 New Replacement Equipment Project 245 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF05 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME COLLEGE (8TH TO 19TH) FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $2,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Reconstruct West College Street (from 8th Avenue to 19th Avenue) to a minor arterial standard as shown in the Transportation Plan. This section of West College has already exceeded the volume of traffic it was projected to carry in 2020 according to the Transportation Plan. Planned improvements to South 19th and increased development in the South 19th corridor will only further increase traffic demand on this facility. Additionally this facility lacks pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Use of Urban funds for full financing, CTEP grants if available. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and address more of the city’s pressing transportation needs. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and address more of the city’s pressing transportation needs. FUNDING SOURCES 60% - Street Impact Fees = $2,000,000 New Replacement Equipment Project 246 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF06 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME COLLEGE (MAIN TO 19TH) FY12 $250,000 FY13 $5,660,000 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Reconstruct West College Street from Main Street (Huffine Lane) to 19th Avenue to a principal arterial standard as shown in the Transportation Plan. This section of West College has already exceeded the volume of traffic it was projected to carry in 2010 according to the Transportation Plan. In the peak AM hour traffic is backed up from 19th to Huffine and beyond. Planned improvements to South 19th and increased development in the Huffine Lane corridor will only further increase traffic demand on this facility. In addition this facility lacks pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Use of Urban funds for full financing, CTEP grants if available ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and address more of the city’s pressing transportation needs. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually. FUNDING SOURCES 60% - Street Impact Fees = $3,696,000 40% - State Urban Funds = $2,464,000 New Replacement Equipment Project 247 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF08 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME DURSTON (FOWLER TO FERGUSON) FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $1,500,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Over recent years, Durston Road has been significantly improved, except for this small portion of the road. This ~ 1/4 mile length of road needs to be improved with completed sidewalk, bike lanes, and additional driving/turning lanes. Incremental improvement of Durston Road with development projects may be possible, thus preventing a severe drop in service level similar to that experienced on West Babcock Street. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SID for full financing, or incremental construction by developers. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and address more of the city’s pressing transportation needs. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually. FUNDING SOURCES 60% - Street Impact Fees 40% SID or other funding. New Replacement Equipment Project 248 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF09 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME KAGY (WILLSON TO 19TH) FY12 FY13 FY14 $650,000 FY15 $6,000,000 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Widen Kagy Boulevard and add turning lanes at key intersections. This portion of Kagy currently carries about 12,000 vehicles per day. The capacity this two lane street can reasonably carry is about 12,000 vehicles per day. Expansion of capacity will be needed in the foreseeable future to handle current and future traffic loads. Kagy serves as an important element of Bozeman's perimeter street system connecting Highland Blvd., Willson Ave. and S.19th. It also serves as the primary access to Montana State University and the University's major athletic facilities. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Pursue the use of Urban Funds. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Kagy is a State Urban Route and is eligible for expenditure of State urban funds designated annually for the City of Bozeman; however, the availability of urban funds cannot match the pace of the City's transportation improvement needs. The need for this project comes from increased traffic due to growth in the Bozeman area and the project is eligible for Impact Fee Funds. Use of Street Impact Funds enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete projects and address more of its pressing transportation needs. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually. FUNDING SOURCES Total Project: $6,650,000. 60% - Street Impact Fees = $3,990,000; 40% - Urban Funds = $2,660,000 New Replacement Equipment Project 249 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF19 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME INTERSECTION CONTROL: 27TH & OAK FY12 $500,000 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Control of the intersection of 27th Avenue and Oak Street, a collector and an arterial. Recent development proposals indicate that the need for this improvement will soon be warranted. If a signal is chosen, there may be some emergency maintenance/repair events should the signal fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in general this will be an MDT maintained signal. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…) ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 250 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF20 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME INTERSECTION CONTROL: 7TH & KAGY FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $540,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Control of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Kagy, a collector and an arterial. Recent development proposals indicate that the need for this improvement will soon be warranted. If a signal is chosen, there may be some emergency maintenance/repair events should the signal fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in general this will be an MDT maintained signal. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…) ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 251 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF21 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME GRAF STREET CONNECTION FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is to extend Graf Street approximately ¼ mile in order to connect the street to allow through traffic to flow east from 19th Avenue. This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire service to meet their response time requirements in areas where they currently cannot. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing and wait for development to connect the street. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually. FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fee – to be recovered by developer payback. New Replacement Equipment Project 252 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF22 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME INTERSECTION CONTROL: COLLEGE & 8TH FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $750,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT nstall improved control (roundabout or signal) at the intersection of West College Street and 8th Avenue, a minor arterial and a collector. This intersection has seen steadily increasing demand with the growth of MSU. The Draft 2007 Transportation Plan Update indicates that LOS issues are beginning to appear at this intersection. If a signal is chosen as the improvement, there may be some emergency maintenance/repair events should it fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in general this would be an MDT maintained signal. This intersection improvement project will be identified as TSM 18 in the 2007 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…) ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 253 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF23 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME HIGHLAND BLVD (MAIN STREET TO KAGY BLVD.) FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $7,600,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project consists of widening Highland Boulevard from the intersection with Main Street to the intersection with Ellis Street to a five-lane urban arterial standard, and from the intersection with Ellis Street south to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard to a three-lane urban arterial standard. This roadway is currently a minor arterial roadway with one travel lane in each direction. This project serves as a long-term need that will be necessary to accommodate future development patterns in the region and serve north-south traffic flow. It is expected that a minimum of two travel lanes in each direction from Main Street to Ellis Street, one travel lane in each direction from Ellis Street to Kagy Boulevard, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevard, sidewalk, and a raised median will be required. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Use of Urban Funds, developer constructed or creation of an SID for full financing. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Increased capacity and safety in this corridor, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fees enables the community to leverage the available State Urban Funds to complete other needed projects. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually. FUNDING SOURCES Estimated: 50% Street Impact fees ($3,600,000.00), and 50% Urban Funds, Special Improvement District (SID) or Other, $3,600,000.00. New Replacement Equipment Project 254 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF24 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME INTERSECTION CONTROL: HIGHLAND AND ELLIS STREET FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $500,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Identified as TSM -20 in the 2007 Transportation Plan Update. Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. Highland Boulevard is currently a two-lane minor arterial roadway and Ellis Street is a two-lane local street. This intersection currently has stop control on Ellis Street. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by MDT. Create an SID or identify other and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…) ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Increased capacity and safety at this intersection. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 255 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF25 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME INTERSECTION CONTROL: HIGHLAND AND KAGY FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $750,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Identified as TSM -9 in the 2007 Transportation Plan Update. Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. Highland Boulevard is currently a two-lane minor arterial roadway and Kagy Boulevard is a two-lane principal arterial. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by MDT. Create an SID or identify other and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…) ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Increased capacity and safety at this intersection. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None. FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 256 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF26 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME INTERSECTION CONTROL: CHURCH AND KAGY FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $750,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Identified as TSM - 8 in the 2007 Transportation Plan Update. Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. This intersection currently has stop control on Church Street. Kagy Boulevard is a two-lane principal arterial and Church Street is a two-lane collector. Current LOS analysis shows that this intersection fails during Am and PM peak hours due to excessive delay on the north and south bound approaches. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by MDT. Create an SID or identify other and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…) ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Increased capacity and safety at this intersection. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 257 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF27 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME INTERSECTION CONTROL: COTTONWOOD ROAD & DURSTON AVE FY12 FY13 $500,000 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. Cottonwood Road is currently a two-lane principal arterial roadway and Durston Road is a three-lane minor arterial. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by MDT. Create an SID or identify other and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…) ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Increased capacity and safety at this intersection. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 258 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF28 DEPARTMENT PROJECT NAME NORTH 27TH STREET (OAK TO TSCHACHE) FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $200,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is the completion of the half-street section of North 27th that currently does not exist (preventing full utilization of an important part of North 27th Street.) Estimated length of 0.3 miles, half-street section. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Connected drive lanes on this part of North 27th Street ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project 259