HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsideration of possible change of percentage collected of cost of service for Transportation Impact Fees
Page 1 of 6
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of request to amend Section 3.24.050 BMC to collect a reduced percentage of transportation impact fees
MEETING DATE: Monday, October 24, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item RECOMMENDATION: Consider request from South West Montana Building Industry
Association and provide staff with direction on whether and how to proceed.
BACKGROUND: The City adopted impact fees through Ordinance 1414 on January 22, 1996. The fees have been continuously in place since that time. An update to the studies providing
documentation and support for the impact fees is presently underway. During the public
comment portion of the September 26th City Commission meeting a request was made for the
City Commission to consider reducing the percentage of the transportation impact fee collected
from 60% to 40% of the calculated cost of service.
Staff was requested by Commissioners to address/provide information on several questions
related to this topic. Please see the responses below.
• A brief timeline for the history of transportation impact fees in Bozeman, including the process to establish the fees in 1996, any processes to update/amend the fees, the major
components of the updates/amendments, and any major changes to the statutory requirements
for impact fees.
The City adopted the 1983 Master Plan which included Public Facility Goal 8: “Whenever possible, the cost of providing public facilities for future development should
be borne by the development that requires them.” This concept has been continued
forward in all subsequent long range planning and continues to be incorporated into the
current budget documents as shown in the following excerpt from the 2012 Budget.
“Financial Policies – Revenue
5. User fees and charges will be used, as opposed to general taxes, when distinct
beneficiary populations or interest groups can be identified.
User fees and charges are preferable to general taxes because user charges can provide
clear demand signals which assist in determining what services to offer, their quantity, and their quality. User charges are also more equitable, since only those who use the
121
Page 2 of 6
service must pay--thereby eliminating the subsidy provided by nonusers to users, which
is inherent in general tax financing.”
The City initially undertook an evaluation of impact fees in concert with Gallatin County. James Duncan and Associates was the consultant retained to support this project. A
steering/advisory committee was appointed to assist in that project. The work resulted in
final adoption of Ordinance 1414 on January 22, 1996 which created Chapter 3.24, BMC;
with the Transportation Impact Fee adopted at 10% of the calculated cost of service. At
that time there was no specific state adopted impact fee enabling act. Chapter 3.24, BMC has been the subject of 11 ordinances, not all of which were adopted and not all of which
addressed impact fees. Only those ordinances/actions which affected Transportation
impact fees are addressed below.
Citizen Initiative 19 was approved by the voters on November 3, 1998. The initiative raised the Transportation impact fee percentage collected to 75% of the cost of service on
January 14, 1999 and 90% of the cost of service on July 14, 1999. This initiative was
later challenged in court; the resulting legal process delayed the regular tri-annual update
process for the fee studies until issues of dispute could be resolved. This litigation was
not settled until 2005 (see below for more information).
The City adopted an updated transportation plan in 2001 which became a primary data set
for the impact fee update process. The revised plan includes several policies to maximize
overall system efficiency and thereby limit the need for additional transportation
improvements. The City’s ordinance requires a periodic update of the baseline information upon which an impact fee is based. The time period for the update of the
facility plans is usually every seven years.
The 2005 Legislature passed Senate Bill 185 which created specific enabling language
and standards for cities and counties to adopt impact fees. The legislation primarily incorporated the prevailing standards for development of a defensible impact fee which
had been established in other states and through the courts. This bill included a timeframe
within which any existing impact fees needed to be adopted in conformance with the
procedures and standards established in the act. In 2005, the on-going litigation regarding
impact fees was settled between the parties. As part of that settlement the City adopted Ordinance 1633 on April 4, 2005 which set the percent of the cost of service collected for
all fees to 80%.
Subsequent to the resolution of the suit the City conducted an RFQ/RFP process to select
consultants to assist in the necessary update to the Transportation impact fee (and others) study. The City selected Tindale-Oliver to do the work for Transportation with
Commission approval of the contract on September 11, 2006. The City Commission also
passed Resolution 3840 establishing a 9 member advisory board to work on impact fees
along with staff and the consultant. The advisory board and City Commission collectively
conducted five public meetings including two public hearings to consider the draft of the updated study. A summary of the public process is included in Resolution 4082 which is
attached.
122
Page 3 of 6
On August 6, 2007, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 1707 which made changes
to incorporate new requirements from state law, implemented updated water and sewer
studies, and set the percent of the cost of service collected for all impact fees to 100%.
Ordinance 1730, adopted on January 14, 2008 implemented the updated Transportation
Impact Fee study prepared by Tindale-Oliver. That ordinance set the percentage collected
of the calculated cost of service at 60%. A copy of the minutes of that meeting is
attached.
The current fee study update is well under way. The City has selected the firm
TischlerBise to prepare the updated studies for all impact fees. The contract was signed
on June 26, 2011. The consultant has met with the advisory board, stakeholder groups,
and staff for data collection and issue identification. Data analysis is now in progress.
Drafts of documents are expected shortly after the first of the year. Public meetings and hearings will be conducted to consider and review the drafts. The City Commission will
act to approve or not after receiving the recommendation from the advisory board.
• A summary of transportation impact fees collected and expended since the program inception. A map of impact fee funded transportation projects would be helpful to illustrate this,
along with a summary table.
Since the Transportation impact fee was initiated, revenues of $ $23.2 Million have been
collected over the nearly 15 year period. In 2005, the settlement returned $1.8M of this to the plaintiffs. To date, funds have been expended on the following projects which are
depicted on the attached map. Future expenditures are not listed.
1. North 19
Corridor improvements th
2. Valley Center Avenue from Durston to I-90 (multiple projects)
3. Durston Road from 19th
4. Babcock Street from Main Street to Yellowstone Avenue, and from Cottonwood
Road to Water Lily Drive
Avenue to Fowler Avenue
5. Cottonwood Road from Fallon Street to W. Babcock Street 6. Baxter Lane from N. 19th and N. 11th
(two projects)
1. Cottonwood Road/Huffine Lane
Intersection Improvements
2. Ferguson Avenue/Huffine Lane 3. Fowler Avenue/Huffine Lane
4. S. 19th
5. N. 19
Avenue/Kagy Boulevard th
6. N. 19
Avenue/Durston Road th
7. N. 19
Avenue/Oak Street th
8. N. 19 Avenue/Baxter Lane th
9. N. 19 Avenue/Cattail & Deadman’s Gulch th
10. N. 15
Avenue/Valley Center Road th
11. N. 15
Avenue/Durston Road th Avenue/Oak Street
123
Page 4 of 6
12. S. 11th
13. S. 11
Avenue/Kagy Boulevard th
14. N. Rouse Avenue/Oak Street
Avenue/College Street
15. N. Rouse Avenue/Griffin Drive
1. Settlement of SWMBIA v. City of Bozeman lawsuit Non-Improvement Expenditures
• An estimate of the impact to the general fund to pay for growth related transportation improvements if the transportation impact fee program did not exist.
We are frequently asked to describe the financial impact on the General Fund, if impact fees
were not available to pay for capacity-expanding projects. In October 2010, we held a policy
discussion with the Commission about Impact Fees. The complete Funding Presentation slides are attached to this memo, with the final slide reproduced below. Both “Current Street Impact Fee Collections” and our “Current Levy” are substantially the same as they were a year ago. We
would need an approximate 5% increase in our property tax levy to replace the amount of
revenue that is currently being generated by Street Impact Fees.
Could we replace Street Impact
Fee Dollars with Property Taxes?
•Current Street Impact Fee Collections are
$750,000/year. They were much higher in the past,
averaging approximately $2-2.5M/year.
•With the approval of the voters, we would need to levy 9.28 Mills above our current levy of 168.75 mills = 5.5% increase in city property taxes.
•All property taxpayers would be funding the infrastructure expansion related to our growing community.
Over the past couple years, the City has not levied its maximum property tax levy, mostly due to one-time savings in the General Fund. Whether or not “voter approval” would be required would depend on if the Commission would be willing to make sustained cuts in our General
Fund budget to make room within the existing tax authority, or would seek to ask voters to
approve raising the tax levy authority to make room for current operations and a replacement of Street Impact Fees.
124
Page 5 of 6
• What is the “legal” definition of “capacity expanding” vs. “capacity building”
At this time we do not know of any Montana case or statute that makes a distinction between these two terms. The term capacity is not itself defined in either Montana impact fee statute or local ordinance. It is used in both documents in describing certain requirements or uses of the
fees. The term “capacity” as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary includes a variety of
applications to different fields. The definition element relevant to impact fees is:
“2 a : the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating b : the maximum amount or number that can be contained or accommodated”
An example of how the term “capacity” is used in the statute is:
“7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more that increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility.”
An example of how the term “capacity” is used in local ordinance is:
3.24.040. J. "Improvement" means planning, land acquisition, engineering design,
construction inspection, on-site construction, off-site construction, equipment purchases, and financing costs associated with new or expanded facilities, buildings, and equipment that expand the capacity of a facility or service system and that have an average useful
life of at least ten years. “Improvement” does not include maintenance, operations, or
improvements that do not expand capacity.”
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
FISCAL EFFECTS: A reduction from 60% of the cost-of-service to 40%of the cost-of-service
is an estimated 33% reduction in current collections, or a total reduction of $250,000/year.
Either new sources would need to be identified to replace this amount and/or changes in the Capital Improvement Plan for scheduling of street capacity projects would need to be made. On a per-residence basis, this would be approximately $1,200 per home constructed. Non-
residential construction is too diverse to provide a reasonable average estimate per project.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives for Commission action have been identified. These are:
• Leave the percentage of the transportation impact fee collected at the existing 60% level
for the time being, with direction to Staff to develop a recommendation on this issue as
part of the current Impact Fee Update Study;
• Reduce the percentage of the transportation impact fee collected to 40%, as requested by SWMBIA;
• Increase the percentage of the transportation impact fee collected from 60% to a level
determined by the City Commission; or,
• Reduce the percentage of the transportation impact fee collected from 60% to a level
determined by the City Commission.
Attachments: Resolution 4082
City Commission Minutes of Nov. 26 and Dec. 10, 2007
125
Page 6 of 6
Map of Transportation Impact Fee expenditures
2010 PowerPoint slides from Finance Director
Report compiled on: October 15, 2011
126
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 4082
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN MONTANA ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE COST OF SERVICE STUDY UPDATE
WHEREAS the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community s
expressed needs and desires for services and
WHEREAS the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a fiscally responsible manner and
WHEREAS the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interest of all of the system users
now and in the future and not a limited subset of users and
WHEREAS the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted a transportation facility
plan which examined current and future needs and provides a lawful logical balanced
operationally sound and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City s
transportation system and
WHEREAS the City Commission has chosen to utilize impact fees as one portion of an
integrated approach to provide transportation services and
WHEREAS Sections 7 6 1601 through 7 6 1604 MCA provide specific authority and
guidance about the necessary documentation to establish an impact fee and procedures to adopt
and administer an impact fee and
WHEREAS the City contracted with Tindale Oliver Associates to provide
professional services in development of an updated transportation impact fee study
WHEREAS Tindale Oliver Associates reviewed the existing demand and needs for
transportation facilities the existing facilities available to meet that demand and the method of
financing the existing systems and needed new facilities and
WHEREAS Tindale Oliver Associates additionally reviewed the contribution made
or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes fees or assessments by property owners towards
the capital costs of transportation facilities and
WHEREAS Tindale Oliver Associates reviewed and relied upon the City of
Bozeman s current level of service LOS standards and facility cost assumptions III
recommending transportation impact fees and
WHEREAS Tindale Oliver Associates prepared a transportation impact fee study
dated October 31 2007 the Fee Study including the assumptions population and residential
127
and non residential development projections capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations
which study has been submitted to and reviewed by the public City staff and officials and
WHEREAS in addition to the Fee Study Tindale Oliver Associates and the City have
prepared updated and relied upon other documentation as required by section 7 6 I 602 of the
Montana Code Annotated in developing the transportation facilities impact fees adopted
pursuant to Chapter 324 Impact Fees BMC collectively the Impact Fee Data and Analysis
including but not limited to the following
1 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update
2 Title 18 Unified Development Ordinance BMC
3 Design and Specifications Manual
4 Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program
5 Capital Improvements Program for General Fund Street Maintenance Fund and
Street Impact Fee Fund
6 the City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study Final Report dated August 31 2007
7 the City Budget and
8 Specified bid tabulations
WHEREAS the City develops its transportation facility plans and its capital
improvements program in a manner open to the public and accepts and responds to public
comment and input and
WHEREAS the City and Consultant have developed the transportation impact fee study
in a manner open to the public and accepted and responded to comment and input and
WHEREAS the City of Bozeman Impact Fee Advisory Committee has considered and
made recommendation to the City Commission on the draft document and
WHEREAS the City Commission or Impact Fee Advisory Committee conducted public
meetings on the subject of the transportation impact fee on October 9 2006 July 26 2007
October 25 2007 November 8 2007 and December 10 2007 and
WHEREAS public comment was received and the consultant provided a written
response to the comment and where deemed appropriate made revisions to the draft of the
transportation impact fee study prior to the public hearing on November 26 2007 and
WHEREAS the City Commission conducted a public hearing on November 26 2007
and December 10 2007 and
WHEREAS the Consultant and Staff conducted three conference calls with consultants
representing the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association on December 5th ih 2007
to discuss comments provided regarding the study and
WHEREAS the City Commission has reviewed and discussed this impact fee study
update and accept and agree with the content of the impact fee study update and recognize that
128
updates and modifications will be made to it in the future in accord with the requirements of
Chapter 324 BMC and
WHEREAS the City Commission found that all required elements necessary for
compliance with standards for development of an impact fee have been satisfied through the
study and related documentation and
WHEREAS the City Commission was advised by Staff that some revisions in text had
been prepared to help clarify points of how the study and related documents collectively
complied with all statutory requirements and that the clarifying text could be incorporated into
the study without making revisions to the substantive technical components ofthe study and
WHEREAS the City Commission expressed a desire to have such clarifications
included in the final draft text
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman Montana that the October 31 2007 draft of the Transportation Impact Fee Study
Update as contained in Exhibit A and updated to include the clarifying language suggested by
Staff which revised draft is dated January 3 2008 attached hereto and by this reference made a
part hereof is hereby adopted
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman Montana
at a regular session thereof held on the 10th day of December 2007 and specifying that the study
shall be implemented simultaneously with the effective date of Ordinance No 1730
ATTEST
129
I130
CITY OF BOZEMAN
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
r
c
a
i f
s
ca
January 3 2008
Preparedfor
CITY OF SOZEMAN
20 E Olive Street
Bozeman Montana 5971 S
Prepared by
TindaleOliver Associates Inc
1000 N Ashley Dr 100
Tampa Florida 33602
ph 813 2248862 fax 813 2262106
4970010006
131
Linked Minute o tlle Bozeman City Commission Meeting December 10 2007
1 44 24 Discussion
1 44 41 Mr Kukulski
Mr Kukulski suggested that a plan for the building should be brought back with the budget
amendment
1 48 36 Vote on the Motion to direct the City Manager to come back with a budget
amendment of 50 000 to get the Save America s Treasures Grant in operation
Those votinAye beinCrs Rupp Jacobson Becker and Kirchhoff
Those votinNo beinMayor Krauss
The motion carried 4 1
1 48 50 Motion to add this property to our list that we created in our work sessions a few
months ago of properties moving to park status
It was moved by Cr Rupp Seconded by Cr Becker to add this property to our list that
we created in our work sessions a few months ao of properties movintopark status
1 49 1 0 Mayor Krauss
Mayor Krauss explained that the Commission named 3 or 4 properties that they wanted to have
resurveyed to dedicate as park land The motion is to include the Story Mansion property to the
list
1 49 47 Discussion
1 49 52 Vote on the Motion to add this property to our list that we created in our work
sessions a few months ago of properties moving to park status
Those votinAye beinCrs Rupp Kirchhoff Jacobson and Becker
Those votinNo beinMayor Krauss
The motion carried 4 1
1 56 24 Mayor Krauss
Mayor Krauss suggested that Kukulski consider a staff member be dedicated as a project
manager for the Story Mansion project
1 57 50 Break
2 18 343 Resolution No 4082 Transportation Impact Fee Study Update opened and
tabled to December 10 2007 from November 26 2007 Saunders
2 19 59 Tim Dean Chairman ofthe Impact Fee Committee
132
Linked Minute ofthe Bozeman City Comminion Meeting December 10 2007
Mr Dean stated that the Impact Fee Study Committee has looked over the Transportation Impact
Fee Study and highlighted the board s issues
2 23 04Ron Kaiser Impact Fee Committee representative
Mr Kaiser spoke for those from the Impact Fee Committee who voted in favor ofthe
Transportation Impact Fee study
2 27 22 Debra Becker Impact fee Committee representative
Ms Becker spoke for those from the Impact Fee Committee who voted against the
Transportation Impact Fee study
2 40 15 Public Comment
Mayor Krauss opened public comment
2 40 24 Shawn Cote South West Montana Buildinll Industrv Association SWMBIA Public
Comment
Mr Cote spoke regarding the Impact Fee Advisory Committee s deadlocked decision on the
Transportation Impact Fee Study Mr Cote highlighted the telephone conference conversations
with Tindale Oliver on how to determine the proper impact fee
2 43 36 Dennis Carlson Government Affairs Director for the Gallatin Association ofRealtors
Public Comment
Mr Carlson of 1345 Nelson Road spoke regarding the concerns ofthe Gallatin Association of
Realtors
2 44 53 Public comment closed
Mayor Krauss closed public comment
3 06 57 Vote to resolve the current Motion It was moved by Cr Kirchhoff Seconded by
Cr Jacobson that we zero out and abandon Transportation Impact Fees from
November 26 2007
Those votine Ave beinCrs Kirchhoff and Rupp
Those votinNo beinCrs Jacobson Becker and Mavor Krauss
The motion failed 2 3
3 09 32 Motion to accept the Transportation Impact Fee Study as given to us Includes
hand outs presented by Mr Saunders
It was moved bv Cr Kirchhoff Seconded bv Cr Jacobson to accept the Transportation
Impact Fee Studv as eiven to us includes hand outs presented bv Mr Saunders
133
Linked Minutes o the Bozemall Ci V Comllli siol Meetilg December 10 2007
3 09 38 Discussion
3 20 36 Reiteration of Motion to accept the Transportation Impact Fee Study report
It was moved by Cr Kirchhoff Seconded by Cr Jacobson to acceDt the TransDortation
ImDact Fee Study reDort
3 20 44 Discussion
3 24 12 Cr Kirchhoff
Cr Kirchhoff asked for clarification that his motion to adopt the study included Policy Options
listed in the Staff Memorandum A C D E and F
3 24 27 Mr Saunders
Mr Saunders clarified that the motion would skip C drop D E include F and drop G Policy
Options listed in the Staff Memorandum
3 24 35 Cr Kirchhoff
CrKirchhoff asked that it be clarified if his motion includes the affordable housing option
3 24 39 Mr Saunders
Mr Saunders stated the motion would leave in the affordable housing option
3 28 11 Vote on the Main Motion to accept the Transportation Impact Fee Study
Approving Resolution No 4082 Transportation Impact Fee Study Update as given to us
Those votine Aye beine Crs Kirchhoff Jacobson Becker and RUDD
Those votine No beine Mayor Krauss
The motion carried 4 1
3 28 53 4 Provisional Adoption of Ordinance No 1730 Amendments to Chapter 3 24
Impact Fees to incorporate the Transportation Impact Fee Study opened and tabled to
December 10 2007 from November 26 2007 Saunders
3 29 03Mr Saunders
Mr Saunders stated that Ordinance No 1730 has been updated since the first reading
3 33 33 Public Comment
Mayor Krauss opened public comment
No person commented
Mayor Krauss closed public comment
134
Lillked Millute Ifthe Bozeman Ci V Commission Meeting December 10 2007
3 42 07 Motion to provisionally adopt Ordinance No 1730 amendments to Chapter 3 24
Impact Fees to incorporate the Transportation Impact Fees Study with adjustments with
the same effective date as Resolution No 4082 and Ordinance No 1730 to phase in initially
at 72 over the course in 12 months going to 100
It was moved by Cr Becker Seconded by Cr Rupp to provisionally adopt Ordinance No
1730 amendments to Chapter 3 24 Impact Fees to incorporate the Transportation Impact
Fees Study with adiustments with the same effective date as Resolution No 4082 and
Ordinance 1730 to phase in initially at 72 over the course in 12 months twinf to 100
343 04 Discussion
3 4443 Motion withdrawn
Cr Becker withdrew his motion to provisionally adopt Ordinance No 1730 amendments to
Chapter 324 Impact Fees to incorporate the Transportation Impact Fees Study with adjustments
with the same effective date as Resolution No 4082 and Ordinance No 1730 to phase in
initially at 72 over the course in 12 months going to 100
3 50 20 Motion to implement Transportation Impact Fees at 100 phasing in at 60 for
12 months with the same effective date for Resolution No 4082 and Ordinance 1730
It was moved by Cr Becker to implement Transportation Impact Fees at 100 phasinf
in at 60 for 12 months with the same effective date for Resolution No 4082 and
Ordinance 1730
3 50 48 Motion Seconded to implement Transportation Impact Fees at 100 phasing in
at 60 for 12 months with the same effective date for Resolution No 4082 and Ordinance
1730
The Motion was Seconded by Cr Rupp to implement Transportation Impact Fees at
100 phasinf in at 60 for 12 months with the same effective date for Resolution No
4082 and Ordinance 1730
3 50 51 Discussion
3 50 56 Vote on the Motion to implement Transportation Impact Fees at 100 phasing
in at 60 for 12 months with the same effective date for Resolution No 4082 and
Ordinance 1730
Those votinf Aye beinf Crs Becker and Mavor Krauss
Those votinf No beinf Crs Rupp Kirchhoff and Jacobson
The motion failed 2 3
135
Linked Minute ofthe Bozeman City Comminion Meeting December 0 20in
3 55 01 Motion to Reconsider our prior vote to implement Transportation Impact Fees
at 100 phasing in at 60 for 12 months with the same effective date for Resolution No
4082 and Ordinance 1730
It was moved by Cr RUDD Seconded by Cr Becker to reconsider our Drior vote to
imDlement TransDortation ImDact Fees at 100 Dhasinl in at 60 for 12 months with
the same effective date for Resolution No 4082 and Ordinance 1730
3 55 32 Vote on the Motion to Reconsider our prior vote to implement Transportation
Impact Fees at 100 phasing in at 60 for 12 months with the same effective date for
Resolution No 4082 and Ordinance 1730 Cr Kirchhoff asked for Clarification on the
Motion
3 57 31 Vote on the Motion to Reconsider our prior vote to implement Transportation
Impact Fees at 100 phasing in at 60 for 12 months with the same effective date for
Resolution No 4082 and Ordinance 1730
Those votinl Aye beinl Crs RUDD Becker Kirchhoff and Jacobson
Those votinl No beinl Mayor Krauss
The motion carried 4 1
3 59 53 Vote on the Motion to implement Transportation Impact Fees at 100 phasing
in at 60 for 12 months with the same effective date for Resolution No 4082 and
Ordinance 1730
Those votinSAye beinSCrs Becker and Kirchhoff
Those votinl No beinl Crs RUDD Jacobson and Mavor Krauss
The motion failed 2 3
4 00 33 Motion to provisionally adopt Ordinance No 1730 amendments to Chapter 3 24
Impact Fees to incorporate the Transportation Impact Fee Study with phasing in 60 of
the maximum net impact fee for the first 6 months and at that point phase it in at 100
It was moved by Cr Jacobson Seconded bv Cr RUDD to Drovisionally adoDt Ordinance
No 1730 amendments to ChaDter 3 24 ImDact Fees to incorDorate the TransDortation
ImDact Fee Study with DhasinSin60 of the maximum net imDact fee for the first 6
months and at that Doint Dhase it in at 100
4 01 45 Discussion
4 01 47 Mayor Krauss
Mayor Krauss suspended the rules for 1 minute
136
Linked Minutes ofthe Bozeman Ci J Commi sion Meeting December 10 Z007
4 01 56 Vote to provisionally adopt Ordinance No 1730 amendments to Chapter 3 24
Impact Fees to incorporate the Transportation Impact Fee Study with phasing in 60 of
the maximum net impact fee for the first 6 months and at that point phase it in at 100
Those votine Aye beine Crs Jacobson and Rupp
Those votine No beine Crs Kirchhoff Becker and Mayor Krauss
The motion failed 2 3
4 02 31 Motion to accept the impact fees at 100 and implement impact fees at 60
It was moved by Cr Becker Seconded bv Cr Kirchhoff to accept the impact fees at 100
and implement the impact fees at 60
4 02 48 Discussion
4 03 17Mayor Krauss
Mayor Krauss suspended the rules for 5 minutes
4 04 27 Vote to accept the impact fees at 100 and implement the impact fees at 6
Those votine Aye beine Crs Becker Kirchhoff and Mayor Krauss
Those votine No beine Crs Jacobson and Rupp
The motion carried 3 2
4 04 45 5 Provisional Adoption of Ordinance No 1734 Revising Chapter 5 32 of the
Bozeman Municipal Code pertaining to Regulation of Pawn and Secondhand Shops
Knight
4 05 25 Public Comment
Mayor Krauss opened public comment
No person commented
Mayor Krauss closed public comment
4 05 45 Motion and Vote to provisionally adopt Ordinance No 1734 Revising Chapter
5 32 of the Bozeman Municipal Code pertaining to Regulation of Pawn and Secondhand
Shops
It was moved by Cr Jacobson Seconded bv Cr Kirchhoff to provisionally adopt
Ordinance No 1734 Revisine Chapter 5 32 of the Bozeman Municipal Code pertainine to
Reeulation of Pawn and Secondhand Shops
Those votine Ave beinCrs Jacobson Kirchhoff Becker RUPD and Mavor Krauss
137
LinkedMinuteoftheBozemanCityCommiionMeetingDecember102007ThosevotineNobeinenoneThemotioncarried5040613HSpecialPresentationNationalCitizenSurveyPresentationKukulskiThisitemwillbemovedtoafutureagenda40615IFYIlDiscussion40632JAdjournmentThemeetingwasadjournedat1006pmLLLJereausZMayorATTESTsmcyf0PREPAREDBYJStacityClerkApprovedonrj712008138
LINKED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN MONTANA
November 26 2007
The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in the Community Room Gallatin County
Courthouse 311 West Main Street on Monday November 26 2007 at 6 00 pm Present were
Mayor Jeff Krauss Cr Kaaren Jacobson Cr Jeff Rupp Cr Steve Kirchhoff Cr Sean Becker
City Manager Chris Kukulski Assistant City Manager Ron Brey Planning Director Andy Epple
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders Finance Director Anna Rosenberry City Attorney
Paul Luwe Neighborhood Coordinator Brit Fontenot Director of Public Works Debbie Arkell
and Deputy City Clerk Cynthia Jordan Delaney
0 13 45 A Call to Order 6 00 pm Community Room Gallatin County Courthouse
311 West Main Street
Mayor Krauss called the meeting to order
0 13 47 B Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence
0 14 44 Changes to the Agenda Chris Kukulski City Manager
Mr Kukulski stated that they received an email requesting that items E 4 Finally adopt
Ordinance No 1726 Ethics Luwe and E 5 Finally adopt Ordinance No 1727 Rules of
Procedure Luwe be pulled off the Consent agenda For item E 4 the request is to move that to
an Action item For item E 5 consider postponing that decision to another meeting because of
the heavy agenda Under G Special Presentation 2 National Citizen Survey Presentation
Kukulski consider putting that last on the agenda If they run out of time they ll postpone it
Action item H 1 Provisional Adoption of Ordinance No 1728 Amending the Bozeman
Municipal Code to provide for a New Chapter for the Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance
Fontenot may need to be postponed because of the heavy agenda
0 16 07 Mayor Krauss
Mayor Krauss stated that there are several people here for H 1 so that will be left on the agenda
Mayor Krauss clarified that the Action items tonight will be H 1 4 and E 4 Consent item E 5
will be postponed
0 16 41 C Public Service Announcement
0 16 471 Taxes and Assessments Update Rosenberry
0 16 49 Anna Rosenberry Finance Director
Ms Rosenberry gave a friendly reminder to all property owners within the City that half of their
City assessments for street and tree maintenance and special improvement districts are due this
Friday November 30 by 5 pm
139
Linked Minutes ofthe Bozeman City Commission Meeting November 26 20n7
0 18 062
Delaney
Citizen Advisory Board Vacancies and End of Year Term Expirations
0 18 20 Cynthia Jordan Delaney Deputy City Clerk
Ms Delaney informed the public and the Commission about end of year term expirations and
ongoing vacancies on the City s citizen advisory boards and also described the new procedures
for re applying for those positions
0 24 56 D Minutes June 18 2007 July 2 2007 July 9 2007 July 12 2007 Policy
Meeting October 1 2007 October 11 2007 Policy Meeting October 15 2007
0 25 12 Motion and Vote to approve the Minutes of June 18 July 2 July 9 July 12
October 1 October 11 and October 15 2007
It was moved bv Cr Becker seconded bv Cr Rupp to approve the Minutes of June 18
Julv 2 Julv 9 Julv 12 October 1 October 11 and October 15 2007
Those votinAve beinCrs Becker Rupp Kirchhoff Jacobson and Mavor Krauss
Those votinNo beinnone
The motion carried 5 0
0 25 33 E Consent
1
2
Authorize Payment of Claims LaMeres
Approve Final Plat of Baxter Meadows Planned Unit Development Phase 4A
Major Subdivision and authorize the Director of Public Service to execute the
same on behalf of the City of Bozeman Cooper
Authorize Payment of Recovery Costs incurred by MDEQ during the period of
September 2007 for the Buttrey s Solvent Site Luwe
Finally adopt Ordinance No 1726 Ethics Luwe MOVED TO ACTION
ITEM
Finally adopt Ordinance No 1727 Rules of Procedure Luwe MOVED TO
ANOTHER MEETING
Finally adopt Ordinance No 1729 Budget Administration Rosenberry
Finally adopt Ordinance No 1733 Fixing the Salaries of the City Commissioners
and Mayor Kukulski
3
4
5
6
7
0 25 44 Public Comment
Mayor Krauss opened and closed public comment on items E 1 3 6 and 7 No person
commented
0 26 44 Motion and Vote approval of Consent items E 1 2 3 and 6
It was moved bv Cr Rupp seconded bv Cr Kirchhoff approval of Consent items E 1 2 3
and 6
140
LinkedMinutesuftheBuzemanCityCommissionMeetingNovember262007ThosevotinAvebeinCrsRuppKirchhoffJacobsonBeckerandMavorKraussThosevotinNobeinnoneThemotioncarried5002710MotionapprovalofConsentitemE7ItwasmovedbvCrRuppsecondedbvCrKirchhoffapprovalofConsentitemE702719CrRuppCrRuppwantedtoreadintotherecordhisthoughtsonraisingtheircompensationHebelievesitiswrongforelectedofficialstobeabletoraisetheirownsalariesbythisvoteHeremoveditfromConsentbecauseheisunabletovoteforthismotion02803VoteapprovalofConsentitemE7ItwasmovedbvCrRuppsecondedbvCrKirchhoffapprovalofConsentitemE71ThosevotinAvebeinCrsKirchhoffJacobsonBeckerandMavorKraussThosevotinNobeinCrRuppThemotioncarried4102814FPublicCommentMayorKraussopenedpubliccomment02855JoeGutkovskvPublicCommentMrGutkovskyresidesat304North18thAvenueandheisinfavorofimpactfeesHestatedthattheCommissionislookingforwardbyconsideringimpactfeesandthatsgoodbeforethecommunitysufferstheimpactsHestatedthereisagreatgameinGallatinValleytomakesomeoneelsepayforyourimpactsTheseimpactsusuallyfallonthebacksofthetaxpayerandhomeowneritisonlyfairtopayinadvanceforinevitableimpactsofexpansion03203PublicCommentclosedMayorKraussclosedpubliccomment03208GSpecialPresentation032111SnowRodeoCompetitionAwardspresentationtoLarryRuhdandMattHeckelVanDelinder03220JohnVanDelinderStreetSuperintendentMrVanOelinderrecognizedoutstandingemployeesfortheCityStreetDeptLarryRoodMattHeckelSteveKirkwhowonawardsattheSnowRodeoinGreatFallsinSeptember03339HActionItems141
Linked Minutes the Bozeman City Commission Meeting November 26 2007
0 33 461 Provisional Adoption of Ordinance No 1728 Amending the Bozeman
Municipal Code to provide for a New Chapter for the Neighborhood Recognition
Ordinance Fontenot
0 33 53 Brit Fontenot Neighborhood Coordinator
Mr Fontenot presented the staff report and introduced the members of the Neighborhood
Recognition Ordinance Task Force
0 38 20 Katherine Bird
Ms Bird a member of the Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance Task Force stated that this
ordinance creates a solid form of communication and behavior between neighborhoods the City
and developers She encouraged the Commission to pass the document before them
0 40 24 Public Comment
Mayor Krauss opened and closed public comment No person commented
042 55 Motion that we adopt provisionally Ordinance No 1728 amending the Bozeman
Municipal Code to provide for a new chapter for the Neighborhood Recognition
Ordinance
It was moved by Cr Jacobson seconded by Cr Becker that we adopt provisionally
Ordinance No 1728 amendine the Bozeman Municipal Code to provide for a new chapter
for the Neiehborhood Recoenition Ordinance
0 47 45 Vote that we adopt provisionally Ordinance No 1728 amending the Bozeman
Municipal Code to provide for a new chapter for the Neighborhood Recognition
Ordinance
rIt was moved bv Cr Jacobson seconded by Cr Becker that we adopt provisionally
Ordinance No 1728 amendine the Bozeman Municipal Code to provide for a new chapter
for the Neiehborhood Recoenition Ordinance l
Those votine Ave beine Crs Jacobson Becker Rupp and Kirchhoff
Those votine No beine Mayor Krauss
The motion carried 4 1
048 01 2 Resolution No 4082 Transportation Impact Fee Study Update Saunders
048 29 Chris Saunders Assistant Planning Director
Mr Saunders presented the staff report
0 59 39 Anna Rosenberry Finance Director
Ms Rosenberry presented a staff report about funding streets
1 08 04 Bob Wallace Tindale Oliver and Associates
142
Unked Minutes olthe Bozeman City Commission Meeting November 26 2007
Mr Wallace presented a detailed report about the figures and methodologies for creating the
Transportation Impact Fee Study Update
2 28 15 Mayor Krauss
Mayor Krauss declared a fifteen minute break
2 28 34 Break
2 50 19 Call to Order
Mayor Krauss called the meeting back to order
2 50 38 Public Comment opened
Mayor Krauss opened public comment
2 50 53 Tim Dean Public Comment
Mr Dean resides at 2777 Hamilton Court He is the Chairman of the City s Impact Fee Advisory
Committee Referencing his November 13 letter he asked the Commission to delay or table their
vote until they receive the recommendation of the Impact Fee Committee that should be
solidified at their meeting on November 27
2 53 57 Shawn Cote Public Comment
Mr Cote of the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association respectfully disagrees that
the Tindale Oliver study complies with the Montana Impact Fee Act or the settlement agreement
or judicial order Due to methodology flaws it is impossible to determine if the proposed fees are
accurate or inaccurate He asks that before taking action the Commission should request a legal
opinion from its outside counsel and grant more time SWMBIA strongly opposes the enactment
of this study or any ordinance increasing impact fees as a result of this study s findings
2 56 43 Dennis Carlson Public Comment
Mr Carlson is the Government Affairs Director for the Gallatin Association of Realtors GAR
hopes the Commission will consider the issues SWMBIA raised He stated that families and
small businesses will face an avalanche of new impact fees He believes a vote to raise impact
fees is a vote to raise taxes on those who can least afford it He said Gallatin County has set a
precedent Please give careful consideration to the advisory committee
2 58 10 Public Comment closed
Mayor Krauss closed public comment
3 19 02 Cr Kirchhoff
Cr Kirchhoff stated that abandoning transportation impact fees seems outrageous He stated that
if the City and County unlink themselves we stop working well as a county Since the County s
system of impact fees is broken it is irresponsible of us to do the responsible thing because we
are stimulating that attractive alternative to move out to rural lands We want smart growth that
pays its own way but we lose a greater good if we are responsible It s his inclination to set our
impact fee for streets at zero We are unfortunately pushed to this edge
143
LinkedMinutesrtheBozemanCityCommissionMeetingNovember26200732357MotionthatwezerooutthatweabandontransportationimpactfeesItwasmovedbyCrKirchhoffsecondedbvCrJacobsonthatwezerooutthatweabandontransportationimpactfees32703CrJacobsonCrJacobsonstatedthatthereisnodoubtthatifallthegrowthgoestotheCountyweincreasesprawlShesaidthatthiswholethingmakeshersickbecausetheaftermathofabandoningtransportationimpactfeeswillhithard32807MayorKraussMayorKrausssaidhewantstomakethisdecisionfortherightreasonsHestatedthatthissoundslikeweregivingupourstandardsTheCitydoingthewrongthingwillnotmakethisrightStripdevelopmentalongHuffineandJackrabbittrashestheCountyHeiswillingtogomakethisargumentbeforetheCountyCommission33205CrBeckerCrBeckerclarifiedthatimpactfeesarenotataxitsafeeforconsumptionHestatedthatimpactfeesimprovemanyfacetsofthecommunityItsaninvestment33607MrKukulskiMrKukulskistatedthatthisisanextremelydifficultsituationBytheCountytakingthisirresponsibleactiontheyaresayingcomedobusinessoutintheCountyHesaidthatabandoningwouldhaveimmenseimpactsthatcantevenbecalculatedoverfiveyearsthisimpactfeehasraised12millionforessentialtransportationinfrastructureHeaskedtheCommissiontodelaytakingactionandnottotakeactiontoabandonitHesuggestedthatthecitiesofBelgradeManhattanandBozemanshouldleveragetheCountyCommission34352MotiontotablethemotionuntildatecertainItwasmovedbyCrKirchhoffsecondedbyCrBeckertotablethemotionuntildatecertain34413MayorKraussMayorKraussstatedthattablingtakesprecedenceoverthemotionanditsnotdebatable34433MsDelaneyMsDelaneyclarifiedthattheywillbevotingontablingthemotion34436CrKirchhoffCrKirchhoffrespondedthathewantstotableitforadatecertain34454MayorKraussMayorKrausssuggestedtablingfortwoweeks34556ClarificationofMotion144
LinkedMinutesotheBozemanCityCommissiunMeetingNuvember262007MayorKraussverifiedthatDecember10wasokaywithCrsKirchhoffandBeckerItwasmovedbyCrKirchhoffsecondedbvCrBeckertotablethemotionuntilDecember10200734600CrKirchhoffCrKirchhoffaskedwhetherheistablingthisitemorthepriormotion34606MrLuweMrLuwestatedthatheassumesCrKirchhoffistablingthisitemuntilDecember10ThemotiononthetablewillcomebackonDecember1034623VotetotablethemotionuntilDecember102007rItwasmovedbyCrKirchhoffsecondedbyCrBeckertotablethemotionuntilDecember1020071ThosevotinAyebeinCrsKirchhoffJacobsonBeckerRUDDandMavorKraussThosevotinNobeinnoneThemotioncarried50348223ProvisionalAdoptionofOrdinanceNo1730AmendmentstoChapter324ImpactFeestoincorporatetheTransportationImpactFeeStudySaunders34841PublicCommentMayorKraussopenedandclosedpubliccommentNopersoncommented34849MotionandVotetotablethisProvisionalAdoptionofOrdinanceNo1730toDecember102007ItwasmovedbyCrRUDDsecondedbvCrBeckertotablethisProvisionalAdoDtionofOrdinanceNo1730toDecember102007ThosevotinAyebeinCrsRUDDKirchhoffJacobsonBeckerandMavorKraussThosevotinNobeinnoneThemotioncarried5034923MayorKraussMayorKraussdeclaredabreak34933Break402044CemeteryStorageBuildingSitePlanZ07241Riley40218MrEppleMrEpplepresentedthestaffreport145
Linked Minutes the Bozeman City ommission Meeting Novemher 26 2007
4 05 24 Public Comment
Mayor Krauss opened and closed public comment No person commented
4 05 56 Motion and Vote that we approve the Cemetery Storage Building Site Plan Z
07241 with the conditions and code provisions as outlined in the Staff Report to be
completed only if funding and resources are made available
It was moved by Cr Jacobson seconded by Cr Becker that we approve the Cemetery
Storaee Buildine Site Plan Z 07241 with the conditions and code provisions as outlined in
the Staff Report to be completed only if fundine and resources are made available
Those votine Ave beine Crs Jacobson Becker Rupp Kirchhoff and Mavor Krauss
Those votine No beine none
The motion carried 5 0
Refer to the Staff Report in the November 26 2007 packet for the conditions and code
provisions
4 06 27 Suspension of the Rules of Procedure
Mayor Krauss suspended the Rules of Procedure for 30 minutes until 10 30 pm
4 06 445 Finally adopt Ordinance No 1726 Ethics Luwe
4 06 57 Mr Luwe
Mr Luwe presented the staff report He asked them to make a typo change to correct an error in
Section 2 01 160B 2 01250 should be 2 01 160
4 14 1 9 Public Comment opened
Mayor Krauss opened public comment
4 14 34 Brian Close Public Comment
Mr Close resides at 1140 Cherry Drive and represents the members of the Study Commission
that wrote this charter He stated that all four members are very concerned about the statute of
limitations provision in this charter being only six months and the immunization opinion This
task force is willing to reconvene to work with the liaison Mayor Krauss and the City Attorney
to work on these issues to achieve a positive result for City employees and a check and balance
method
4 17 56 Jim Walseth Public Comment
Mr Walseth stated that he was impressed with the process to create the charter He advised that
where the Ethics Board is concerned be cautious to make changes to what was approved by the
voters after years of work He supports the suggestion to re form the task force briefly to try to
create changes
4 19 53 Mayor Krauss
146
Unked Minutes ojthe Bozeman CilY Cummission Meeting November 26 2007
Mayor Krauss clarified that they are not actually changing the charter What the charter says is
that the City Commission needs to create an Ethics Board and an Ethics Ordinance
4 20 32 Cr Jacobson
Cr Jacobson doesn t think this ordinance is creating an independent Board of Ethics and she
wants the Ethics Board have separate counsel apart from the City Attorney on a case by case
basis Also she suggests changing the statute of limitations to two years because six months
isn t adequate The immunity is also a way to completely go around the Ethics Board She
recommends that the Study Commission look at this again
4 35 40 Suspension of Rules of Procedure
Mayor Krauss suspended the Rules of Procedure for an additional 15 minutes
4 38 00 Mayor Krauss
Mayor Krauss stated that he doesn t think it is unethical to act on advice from the City Attorney
4 44 49 Motion to finally adopt Ordinance 1726
It was moved by Cr Rupp seconded by Cr Kirchhoff to finally adopt Ordinance 1726
4 45 06 Clarification of Motion
Crs Rupp and Kirchhoff agreed to the inclusion of changing the typo
It was moved by Cr Rupp seconded by Cr Kirchhoff to finally adopt Ordinance 1726
and chanee the typo
4 45 12 Amendment to Motion
It was moved bv Cr Jacobson seconded by Cr Kirchhoff that we chanee the statute of
limitations to two years
4 45 30 Mr Luwe
Mr Luwe stated that he recommends one year based on state statute
4 45 57 Friendly Amendment to Cr Jacobson s Amendment
Cr Jacobson made a friendly amendment to amend the statute of limitations to one year and that
was seconded by Cr Kirchhoff
It was moved by Cr Jacobson seconded by Cr Kirchhoff that we chanee the statute of
limitations to one year
4 46 24 Vote on Amendment
It was moved by Cr Jacobson seconded by Cr Kirchhoff that we chanee the statute of
limitations to one year
147
Linked Minutes ofthe Bozeman Ci v Commission Meeting November 26 2007
Those votinS Aye heinS Cn Jacohson Becker Kirchhoff and Mavor Krauss
Those votinS No heinS Cr Rupp
The motion carried 4 1
447 34 Vote to finally adopt Ordinance 1726 and change the typo
It was moved by Cr Rupp seconded hy Cr Kirchhoff to finally adopt Ordinance 1726
and chanSe the typo
Those votinS Aye beinS Crs Rupp Kirchhoff Becker and Mayor Krauss
Those votinS No heinS Cr Jacobson
The motion carried 4 1
4 47 54 I FYIDiscussion
4 48 09 Mr Kukulski
Mr Kukulski clarified the meeting dates for particular items the Story Mansion and street
impact fees on December 10 bus shelters on December 17 and red light traffic cameras on
December 13
4 49 55 Ms Delaney
Ms Delaney stated that Story Mill will be on December 3
4 51 15 Cr Rupp
Cr Rupp wanted the Iraq Resolution on December 17 and Mayor Krauss agreed
4 52 38 Debbie Arkell Director of Public Works
Ms Arkell checked about scheduling the curbside recycling business plan on December 10
Mayor Krauss said to move it to January
4 53 53 Mr Kukulski
Mr Kukulski said that the first meeting in January will be the swearing in and in the past they
do Consent items and that is it
4 54 28 Ms Delaney
Ms Delaney asked about scheduling Consent 5 Ordinance No 1727 Rules of Procedure
Mayor Krauss said that will be an Action item on December 3 For the Citizen Survey Mr
Kukulski said it will be at the end ofthe December 3 agenda after Story Mill
4 55 04 Cr Rupp wanted to know about the language change about the Mayor with the consent
of two Commissioners
4 55 11 Mayor Krauss
Mayor Krauss said it says shall seek the consent If you don t give the Mayor consent she can
still appoint
148
UnkedMinutesrtheBozemanCityCommissionMeetingNovonher600745531CrJacobsonCrJacobsonaskedaboutmeetingat7pminsteadof6pmonJanuary745604MayorKraussMayorKrausssaidthereneedstobeconsistencysousualtimeusualplace45706JAdjournmentMayorKraussadjournedthemeetingtjJefauJsMayorATTEStPREPAREDBYerkApprovedonDGeJu17007t149
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
èéë
Legend
èéë Intersections
Funded_Street_projectsCity Limits
Transportation Impact Fee Expenditures as of Sept. 2011
Revised: September 27, 2011
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 3,354 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
150
1
Impact Fee Discussion
Financing Issues
October 2010
Fiscal Policies - Fees
• User Fees will be used, as opposed to
General Taxes, when distinct beneficiary
populations or interest groups can be
identified.
– User fees are preferable to General Taxes because
user charges can provide clear demand signals which
assist in determining what services to offer, their
quantity and their qualityquantity, and their quality.
– User charges are also more equitable, since only
those who use the service must pay – thereby
eliminating the subsidy provided by non-users to
users, which is inherent in general taxes.
151
2
Fiscal Policies – Capital Costs
• Major Capital Projects which benefit future
ll t id t ill bas well as current residents, will be
financed with current revenues as well as
other financing sources (ie. debt.)
– Those who benefit from a capital project
should pay for the project.
Funding Options
• Infrastructure Development/Expansion
– Expanding Roadways: adding new streets, additional lanes, turn
lanes bike lanes sidewalks where none exist curbs gutterslanes, bike lanes, sidewalks where none exist, curbs, gutters,
etc.
– Expanding Capacity of Treatment Plants:Ability to treat higher
volumes of water or wastewater; Ability to store more treated
water.
– Expanding Capacity of Pipe Systems:New water or sewer lines
to serve new areas of town; larger lines to serve new areas or
densitydensity.
– Expanding Ability to Respond to Fire/EMS Emergencies:New
Fire Station (but not the staffing); Opticom Signal Improvements
NOT Maintenance of existing streets, plants, stations.
152
3
Funding Options
– General Taxes.
– Voted Levies/Bonds.
–Increased Utility Rates to ResidentsIncreased Utility Rates to Residents.
– Creation of Assessment Districts (Special Improvement Districts,
Special Improvement Lighting Districts.)
– Increased Assessments to existing Districts (for instance, Street
Maintenance District.)
– Tax Increment Finance Districts.
– Federal Funds.
SFd–State Funds.
– Cash in Lieu of Water Rights.
– Developer Exactions.
– Impact Fees.
Revenue Source
In the areas of
Water/Sewer/Streets/Fire,
Currently Used for: Charge: Charge is Based On:
Charactarization of
Annual Revenue Stream
for City:
General Taxes.
Staffing numerous City Departments,
including Fire & Police Stations;
Maintenance of Existing Fire Facilities and
Equipment
Semi‐Annually; Perpetual.
Often paid by Escrow
account. City Taxable Property Value.
Predictible, but limited by
Statute.
SemiAnnually or
Voted Levies/Bonds.Supporting Staff in Police & Fire
Departments; Fire Equipment Replacement;
Transportation Improvements; Library
Capital Expansion
Semi‐Annually or
According to Voted Levy;
for the life of the bonds
(usually 20 Years.) Similar
to General Tax. City Taxable Property Value.
Predictible, but limited by
Voter Approval and Statute.
Creation of Assessment
Districts (Special Improvement
Districts, Special Improvement
Lighting Districts.)
Street Maintenance (replacement of existing
street infrastructure);
Installation/Maintenance of Lighting
Infrastructure.
Semi‐Annually; for the life
of the bonds, if debt was
issued.
Usually on Property Square
Footage within the District's area.
District creation is not
predictible; Property Owners
can protest and bar creation of
the district.
Increased Assessments to
iti Ditit i &iexisting Districts (for instance,
Street Maintenance District.)
Street Maintenance & Equipment
Replacement. Also funds new equipment
purchases.
Semi‐Annually, for as long
as the District functions. Property Square Footage. Predictible.
Tax Increment Finance
Districts.Urban Renewal‐Type Projects, including
Industrial Zone infrastructure.
Semi‐Annually; for 15‐40
years, depending on debt.
Based on Taxable Value of NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED Property within
the District's area.
p
to bond in today's climate.
Subject to changes in State tax
laws.
Increased Utility Rates to
Residents.
Operations, Maintenance, Regulatory
Obsolescense at Treatment Plants & Pipe
Systems. "Underwrites" debt that Impact
Fee funds can not. Monthly.
Consumption of Water by
Property Owner.
Predictible, but sensitive to
price, economic, and weather
changes.
153
4
Revenue Source
In the areas of
Water/Sewer/Streets/Fire,
Currently Used for: Charge: Charge is Based On:
Charactarization of
Annual Revenue Stream
for City:
Federal Funds.Street Replacements & Expansions; Plant
Improvements & Expansions; Fire
Equipment Purchases. N/A N/A
Unpredictible and limited;
Often includes project
mandates.
State Funds.Plant Improvements & Expansions; Fire
Equipment Purchases. N/A N/A Unpredictible and limited.
Cash in Lieu of Water Rights PurchaseofWaterRights.
One‐Time; Financed by
AnnexingPropertyOwner.
Based on land‐use plan for the
AnnexingProperty.Unpredictible.Purchase of Water Rights.Annexing Property Owner.Annexing Property.Unpredictible.
Developer Exactions.Historically used for various infrastructure
projects.
One‐Time; Developer
Funded/Financed.
Unpredictible. Charged to project
developers. Unpredictible.
Impact Fees.
Water, Sewer, Streets & Fire Service
Capacity Expanding Capital Costs.
One payment to the City;
Often rolled into project
financing.
Charged to Building Permit
Applicant. According to Adopted
Studies; Based on Meter Size,
Building Size, Utilization and/or
Building Type.
Unpredictible; Cannot bond
against the revenue stream.
City Property Taxes and
Street Improvements
• Could we fund major Street Improvements from
existing Annual Property Taxes?existing Annual Property Taxes?
• How much of my Property Tax Bill goes to the
City and how many dollars does that add up to
for city government?
• Could we fund major Street Improvements from
Street & Tree Maintenance Assessments?Street & Tree Maintenance Assessments?
• Could we borrow to fund major Street
Improvements?
154
5
How much of my property tax
bill goes to the City each year?
City $0.29
Ct
Local School
Districts $0.34
Property Tax Dollar 2010 About 29 cents of
each property tax
dollar went to the
City in 2010.
The other 71 cents
went to fund
Bozeman schools,
State $0.23County $0.14 Statewide education,
and Gallatin County
services.
How many dollars does all of
that add up to?
Health/Medical
Total Dollars Collected For the Transportation
General Fund $8,899,055
Insurance $1,962,219 Planning Fund $161,566 Police Retirement $344,943
Firefighters Retirement $227,000
Public Employees Retirement $372,410
Comprehensive Insurance $377,257
Senior
Transportation
Debt levy, just like
all debt-service
levies, once the
bonds are paid off, we will NOT be
allowed to continue
to collect those
dollars.Senior Transportation
$80,783
Library Debt $318,285 Transporation Debt $472,581 Total Taxes for
2010-$13,600,000
155
6
What about the General Fund?
Commission1%CM Admin
Courts
Commission
CM Admin
CM Admin
4%3%
Attorney
4%Finance
4%
Facilities
6%
IT
4%Public Svc
2%
Cemetery2%
Parks
5%
Library
7%
Recreation6%
Other
3%
CM Admin
Courts
Attorney
Finance
Facilities
IT
Police
Fi
Police30%
Fire21%
Fire
Public Svc
Cemetery
Parks
Library
Recreation
We also collect
Street & Tree Assessments…
Median/Avg. Residence Property Taxes
& S i l A t $552 56
The City also bills f
$447.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
& Special Assessments = $552.56 property owners for
the maintenance of
streets and trees,
each year.
These amounts are
required by law to
fund the Street Maintenance & Tree
$16.86
$88.70
$-
$100.00
Tree Maintenance Assessments Street Maintenance Assessments Property Taxes - median
Maintenance
purposes.
156
7
Could we borrow to build Streets?
• With the approval of the voters, we could borrow/bond
up to a maximum of:p
- $61 Million in General Obligation Bonds financed
over 20 years at a cost of approx $4.7 Million/yr.
- 58 Mill increase; 34% increase in General Taxes
- Additional tax of $164/year/Median Home.
•Little to no borrowing capacity would be available forLittle to no borrowing capacity would be available for
future other needs.
Could we replace Street Impact
Fee Dollars with Property Taxes?
• Current Street Impact Fee Collections are
$750,000/year. They were much higher in the past,$750,000/year. They were much higher in the past,
averaging approximately $2-2.5M/year.
• With the approval of the voters, we would need to levy
9.28 Mills above our current levy of 168.75 mills = 5.5%
increase in city property taxes.
• All property taxpayers would be funding the
infrastructure expansion related to our growing
community.
157