Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPresentation of parts of the Recommended Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2013-2017 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 FY2013-2017 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Policy Discussion MEETING DATE: December 5, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Listen to Presentation, ask questions and take public comment. Direct staff to bring back CIP for adoption, with or without changes, on a future Consent or Action Item agenda. BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Manager is required to prepare a 5 Year Capital Improvements Plan and submit it to the Commission by December 15th. The Commission usually then holds a public hearing and adopts the plan in parts, over the course of a number of meetings. Items for discussion at tonight’s meeting are: December 5: Impact Fee CIP’s • Fire Impact Fee • Water Impact Fee • Wastewater Impact Fee • Street Impact Fee 112 Unlike the majority of the Capital Improvement Plans, where staff develops a recommended plan for adoption, the Impact Fee Advisory Board is required by statue to review and monitor the “spending of impact fees,” MCA 7-6-1604 (2.) As a result, these CIP plans were developed by the Impact Fee Advisory Board over a series of three meetings this fall. What is presented tonight has been recommended for adoption by the Committee; minutes of their meetings are attached. Rating Criteria: NEW for this update of the Impact Fee CIP. Staff members thought it might be helpful if some criteria were developed that could express both the required elements for funding an Impact Fee capital project, and the preferred elements. Ranking projects is a concept that has been used successfully in the General Fund for a couple of years. The Criteria combine to reflect state law, local ordinance, and local Commission direction. Questions about how economic development efforts fit with impact fee capital improvements were discussed, and are primarily embodied in Criteria 4. The Impact Fee advisory board agreed that the criteria were helpful, approved some changes to staff suggestions, and recommended that the Commission move forward with the criteria for these four capital plans. If the Commission sees ways to improve on these criteria – please recommend some changes. Criteria – IMPACT FEE CIP Rating Notes This Project’s Score 1. REQUIRED Yes/No Infrastructure, Capital, or Debt Payment on Infrastructure or Capital Purchase. (Cannot be used for operations or maintenances costs.) MCA 7-6-1602(e) 2. REQUIRED Yes/No Useful Life of 10 Years or more. MCA 7-6-1601(1)(a) 3. REQUIRED Yes/No Improvements or Equipment made necessary by New Development since the inception of the Impact Fee Program. (MCA 7-6-1602 (7) & 7-6-1603(3) 4. Benefits to Impact Fee Payers Up to 20 pts 20 – Project facilitates development of numerous city properties, or potential city properties, in the immediate or near future (1-2 Years.) 10 – Project facilitates development of numerous properties in 3-5 Years, or immediate development of a small area of property. 5 – Project will likely facilitates development within 5-10 Years. 0 – Project will address development that has occurred since 1995, but will not likely facilitate new development. 113 Written Comments Received: During the course of the Advisory Board meetings, three written comments/documents were presented. All of them related to the Street Impact Fee schedule. They are attached for your review. • TD&H Letter – Manly & Griffin Improvements, SIF32 (addressed by the Board; included in the Street Impact Fee CIP, as unscheduled.) • Studio Architects Letter – 27th Street Connector, SIF28 (addressed by the Board; moved to FY13 for funding.) • Economic Development Director Letter – N. 7th Avenue & Griffin Drive Intersection, SIF33 (addressed by the Board, included in the Street Impact Fee CIP, as unscheduled.) Major Changes to project descriptions recommended by the Advisory Board: 1. Update/Change to WIF 01 – “Sourdough Dam” to become “Water Supply Planning & Infrastructure.” A substantial change was made to this item to better describe how the project has changed. 2. Rename of WIF05 – from “Redundant Transmission Main Loop” to “West Loop of Water Transmission Main” to help clarify that the project will have significant capacity expanding elements, and does not just provide a redundancy feature. Policy Issues Discussed: As you will see in their minutes, the Board frequently discussed a number of issues surrounding these schedules. These issues will continue to be discussed by the Board as it moves forward with the update of the Impact Fee Studies in the next few months. 5. Direct Benefits Up to 10 pts 10 – Direct Benefit to all system users, or Provides a “final link” in a piece of existing system infrastructure. 5 – Direct benefit to roughly half, or indirect benefit to all system users. 2 – Direct benefit to small area of the system users or indirect benefit to several areas of system users. 6. Funding Up to 10 pts 10 – Certain. No other funding options are available and/or All other required project funding is ready-to-proceed. 5 – Uncertain. Project is dependent on a mix of other funding sources that are not ready-to-proceed. 0 – Extremely Uncertain or Unlikely. Elements of Funding are deemed very unworkable or unlikely. 7. Commission Work Plan Up to 10 pts 10 – Identified project in Adopted Commission Work Plan 5 – Contributes to an indentified project in the Adopted Commission Work Plan. 0 – Not identified in Adopted Commission Work Plan. TOTAL Up to 50 pts. 114 1. Should these CIP schedules include a large number of “unscheduled” items, or is it better to just include a small list of the projects that are most likely to be funded in the 5 years of the Plan? 2. How and when should the committee comment on how Urban Funds are allocated to the “capacity expanding” vs. “maintenance” side of Street projects? 3. How and when should the committee comment on the “100% impact fee eligibility” of Intersections Improvement projects? UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no fiscal effect. Once adopted, the Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for FY13. Report compiled on: November 23, 2011 Fire Impact Fee CIP Water Impact Fee CIP Wastewater Impact Fee CIP Street Impact Fee CIP Impact Fee Advisory Board Meeting Minutes Letter: TD&H Engineering Letter: Studio Architects Letter: Economic Development Director 115 Fire Impact FeeCapital Improvement PlanFinancial SummaryCurrent YearFY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17Projected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP155,000$        156,850$            33,700$           222,419$       414,911$      611,254$         Plus:  Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP186,850$        186,850$            188,719$        192,493$       196,343$      200,270$         Less:  Scheduled CIP Project Costs(185,000)$       (310,000)$          ‐$                ‐$                ‐$               ‐$                Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP156,850$        33,700$              222,419$        414,911$       611,254$      811,524$       Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates:Current YearFY12FY13FY14FY15 FY16 FY17Estimated Annual Fire Impact Fee Revenues185,000$           185,000$               186,850$          188,719$          192,493$         196,343$            Estimated Annual Increase0.0%1%1%2%2%2%Total Estimated Revenues185,000$           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 CIP0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 0.0%0.0%  Total % Dedicated to CIP100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP185,000$           186,850$               188,719$          192,493$          196,343$         200,270$          4,000,0003,500,0003,000,0002,500,0002,000,0001,500,0001,000,000500,0000FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 UnscheduledFire Impact Fee Projects 1116 PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY13FY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17CIP PROJECT FUND:Impact Fees FireFIF08FIRE IFFIRE STATION #3, DEBT RETIREMENT$310,00050FIF06FIRE IFFIRE STATION #4$2,771,33630FIF07FIRE IFFIRE ENGINE, STATION #4$598,36330Summary for  Impact Fees Fire (3 items)Totals by year:$310,000$3,369,699FY13FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY172117 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Fire PROJECT NUMBER FIF06 DEPARTMENT FIRE IF PROJECT NAME FIRE STATION #4 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 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 3 118 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Fire PROJECT NUMBER FIF07 DEPARTMENT FIRE IF PROJECT NAME FIRE ENGINE, STATION #4 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 4 119 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Fire PROJECT NUMBER FIF08 DEPARTMENT FIRE IF PROJECT NAME FIRE STATION #3, DEBT RETIREMENT FY13 $310,000 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT At the time of construction of Fire Station #3, 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. Since February 2010, debt payments have been made, according to the terms of the loan. We have also been making extra principal payments when Fire Impact Fee collections are higher than expected. The goal is to retire this debt as soon as possible. At the end of Fiscal Year 2011, the balance owing on the loan was $483,500, with a variable annual interest rate of 1.95% ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City could opt to not pay this loan off early; instead making the annual payments each year. However, because the debt is ultimately backed by the City’s General Fund, borrowing authority under MCA 7-7-4104 is limited to a fixed amount, and interest ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL The General Fund will not be required to pay for capacity expanding costs of the Fire Station. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Currently supported in General Fund budget. FUNDING SOURCES Loan made on borrowing authority of the City’s General Fund (MCA.7-7-4104) All loan repayments will be made by Fire Impact Fee Fund. New Replacement Equipment Project Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:50 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)10 5 120 Water Impact FeeCapital Improvement PlanFinancial SummaryCurrent YearFY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17Projected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP8,500,000$     4,100,000$        1,883,210$     ‐$                (0)$                 (0)$                    Plus:  Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP850,000$        858,500$            867,085$        884,427$       902,115$      920,158$         Less:  Scheduled CIP Project Costs(5,250,000)$    (3,075,290)$       (2,750,295)$    (884,427)$      (902,115)$     (920,158)$      Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP4,100,000$     1,883,210$        ‐$                (0)$                  (0)$                 (0)$                  Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates:Current YearFY12FY13FY14FY15 FY16 FY17Estimated Annual Water Impact Fee Revenues850,000$           850,000$               858,500$          867,085$          884,427$         902,115$            Estimated Annual Increase0.0%1%1%2%2%2%Total Estimated Revenues850,000$           858,500$               867,085$          884,427$          902,115$         920,158$          Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP %100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%  Plus:  Increase Dedicated to Water Capacity Expansion CIP0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 0.0%0.0%  Total % Dedicated to CIP100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP850,000$           858,500$               867,085$          884,427$          902,115$         920,158$          50,000,00045,000,00040,000,00035,000,00030,000,00025,000,00020,000,00015,000,00010,000,0005,000,0000FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 UnscheduledWater Impact Fee Projects Page 1121 PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY13FY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17CIP PROJECT FUND:Impact Fees WaterW07WATER IFWATER TREATMENT PLANT 22MG MEMBRANE PLANT$3,075,290WIF08WATER IFWATER TREATMENT PLAN DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT$2,750,295$884,427$902,11550$920,158WIF07WATER IFGRAF STREET EXTENSION$150,00035WIF01WATER IFWater Supply Planning and Infrastructure$19,750,00032WIF03WATER IF5.3MG CONCRETE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR$5,300,00028WIF05WATER IFWest Water Transmission Main Loop$21,680,00010Summary for  Impact Fees Water (6 items)Totals by year:$3,075,290 $2,750,295 $884,427$902,115$46,880,000FY13FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY17$920,158Page 2122 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER W07 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME WATER TREATMENT PLANT 22MG MEMBRANE PLANT 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- 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE: FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts) DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts) FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts) COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts) Page 3 123 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF01 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME Water Supply Planning and Infrastructure FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $19,750,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The 2005 Water Facility Plan forecasts a growth-related water supply deficiency to occur within the 20 year planning horizon of the document. A new source of water supply must be planned for, including construction of related infrastructure, to meet the future water demands of the City before an actual supply problem arises. When this deficiency will actually occur is difficult to predict due to its nexus with multiple factors that may vary significantly with time. Important temporal-related variables include population growth, per capita water use, climate-related hydrological impacts, and the relative pattern of sectored growth (i.e. large industrial, residential, and commercial sectors, etc.). Further complicating the water supply issue are uncertainties surrounding the City’s existing water rights. The project consists of two main components: Planning; and Implementation. An Integrated Water Supply Plan (IWRP) will be prepared to document, analyze, and evaluate all pertinent and relevant information surrounding current water rights and water use, future demand, climate impacts, and alternative sources of future water supply. Alternative source analysis is intended to be a broad array of sources from deep groundwater, shallow groundwater, purchase of Hyalite Reservoir water, Sourdough Dam, Water Conservation, etc. The goal of the plan is to address the complexities of the City’s existing water rights, water use and future demand to determine a realistic set of water supply alternatives and capital estimates to further plan and develop through implementation of IWRP recommendations. The implementation component of the project will likely require additional specific planning and/or studies. For instance, a specific hydrogeologic characterization of a potential groundwater well field including pump testing; or a specific geotechnical, geological, and seismic characterization of a potential dam site. Furthermore, environmental permitting (i.e. NEPA/MEPA compliance) of the implemented alternative will be a likelihood and acquisition of a new beneficial water right permit will be required for any new water source development. These are complex issues with a protracted implementation future. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The IWRP will consider and evaluate a broad array of available water supply sources to satisfy the future needs of the City. ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Additional water is secured to meet future needs. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED Unknown at this time. FUNDING SOURCES 100% Water Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:32 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)2 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)5 Page 4 124 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF03 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME 5.3MG CONCRETE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:28 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)3 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 Page 5 125 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF05 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME West Water Transmission Main Loop 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. 4,525 N/A 12" Install New 12" $ 911,335 2,636 N/A 24" Install New 24" $ 1,101,716 5,154 N/A 36" Install New 36" $ 3,481,785 17,093 N/A 48" Install New 48" $16,187,712 Total Project Cost $21,682,548 The precise location of the required mains is somewhat flexible, but in general will be from Wagonwheel road (extended) in S. 19th to Goldenstein to South 3rd to Nash Road (see exhibit 5.B.3 of the facility plan). Given the priority of the Water Treatment Plant project, the City is not currently planning to complete these projects. 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. The City receives the majority of its water from the Water Treatment Plant through an existing 30 inch concrete 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:10 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)5 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)0 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 Page 6 126 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF07 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME GRAF STREET EXTENSION 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:35 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 Page 7 127 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Water PROJECT NUMBER WIF08 DEPARTMENT WATER IF PROJECT NAME WATER TREATMENT PLAN DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FY13 FY14 $2,750,295 FY15 $884,427 FY16 $902,115 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 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:50 FY17 $920,158.00 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)10 Page 8 128 Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvement PlanFinancial SummaryCurrent YearFY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17Projected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP‐$                 264,000$            264,000$        264,000$        264,000$     264,000$        Plus:  Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP668,000$        828,200$            836,482$        853,212$        870,276$     887,681$        Less:  Scheduled CIP Project Costs(404,000)$       (828,200)$          (836,482)$       (853,212)$      (870,276)$    (887,681)$    Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP264,000$        264,000$            264,000$        264,000$        264,000$     264,000$      Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates:Current YearFY12FY13FY14FY15 FY16 FY17Estimated Annual Wastewater Impact Fee Revenues820,000$           820,000$               828,200$          836,482$           853,212$        870,276$          Estimated Annual Increase0.0%1%1%2%2%2%Total Estimated Revenues820,000$           828,200$               836,482$          853,212$           870,276$        887,681$        Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP %100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%  Plus:  Increase Dedicated to Wastewater Capacity Expansion CIP0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  Total % Dedicated to CIP100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP820,000$           828,200$               836,482$          853,212$           870,276$        887,681$        7,000,0006,000,0005,000,0004,000,0003,000,0002,000,0001,000,0000FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 UnscheduledWastewater Impact Fee Projects 1129 PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY13FY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17CIP PROJECT FUND:Impact Fees WastewaterWWIF14WWATER IFWRF PHASE I DEBT RETIREMENT$828,200$836,482$853,212$870,276$960,00050$887,681WWIF12WWATER IFGRAF STREET EXTENSION$50,00035WW28WRF PLANTDESIGN PHASE II ‐ WRF PLANT IMPROVEMENTS$2,615,00030WWIF05WWATER IFHOSPITAL TRUNK LINE:  HAGGERTY TO KAGY$1,062,00027WWIF11WWATER IFREPLACE FRONT STREET: TAMARACK/ROUSE$1,800,00027Summary for  Impact Fees Wastewater (5 items)Totals by year:$828,200 $836,482 $853,212$870,276$6,487,000FY13FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY17$887,6812130 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WW28 DEPARTMENT WRF PLANT PROJECT NAME DESIGN PHASE II - WRF PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 3 131 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WWIF05 DEPARTMENT WWATER IF PROJECT NAME HOSPITAL TRUNK LINE: HAGGERTY TO KAGY 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:27 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)2 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 4 132 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WWIF11 DEPARTMENT WWATER IF PROJECT NAME REPLACE FRONT STREET: TAMARACK/ROUSE 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:27 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)2 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 5 133 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WWIF12 DEPARTMENT WWATER IF PROJECT NAME GRAF STREET EXTENSION 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:35 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 6 134 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Wastewater PROJECT NUMBER WWIF14 DEPARTMENT WWATER IF PROJECT NAME WRF PHASE I DEBT RETIREMENT FY13 $828,200 FY14 $836,482 FY15 $853,212 FY16 $870,276 Unscheduled $960,000 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:50 FY17 $887,681.00 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)10 7 135 Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17UnscheduledProjected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 7,330,000$     6,523,020$        2,446,590$     2,677,801$    (286,564)$     363,783$         Plus:  Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 707,000$        714,070$            721,211$        735,635$       750,348$      765,355$       ‐$                    Less:  Impact Fee Credits ‐ Mitchell Appeal (384,580)$         Plus:  Urban Funds:  SIF06, College (Main to 19th) 100,000$        2,993,650$          Plus:  Urban Funds:  SIF09, Kagy (Willson to 19th) 260,000$        2,400,000$      Less:  Scheduled CIP Project Costs (1,229,400)$    (7,784,150)$       (750,000)$       (6,100,000)$  (100,000)$     (100,000)$      (27,875,000)$   Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 6,523,020$     2,446,590$        2,677,801$     (286,564)$      363,783$      1,029,138$    (27,875,000)$   Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17Estimated Annual Street Impact Fee Revenues 707,000$           707,000$               714,070$          721,211$          735,635$         750,348$            Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 707,000$           714,070$               721,211$          735,635$          750,348$         765,355$          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 707,000$           714,070$               721,211$          735,635$          750,348$         765,355$          26,000,00021,000,00016,000,00011,000,0006,000,0001,000,000FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 UnscheduledStreet Impact Fee Projects 136 PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY13FY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17CIP PROJECT FUND:Impact Fees StreetsSIF01STREET IFRIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,00025$100,000SIF06STREET IFCollege Street from Main Street to North 19th Avenue$7,484,15030SIF28STREET IFNorth 27th Street, Oak Street to Tschache Street$200,00030SIF09STREET IFKagy Boulevard, Willson Avenue to 19th Avenue$650,000$6,000,00032SIF08STREET IFDurston Road, Fowler Avenue to Ferguson Avenue$1,500,00030SIF20STREET IFIntersection Control 7th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard$650,00030SIF21STREET IFGraf Street Connection$1,000,00030SIF23STREET IFHighland Boulevard, Main Street to Kagy Boulevard$7,600,00030SIF24STREET IFIntersection Control, Highland Boulevard and Ellis Street$500,00030SIF25STREET IFIntersection Control, Highland Boulevard and Kagy Boulevard$750,00030SIF26STREET IFIntersection Control, Church Street and Kagy Boulevard$750,00030SIF27STREET IFIntersection Control, Cottonwood Road & Durston Avenue$500,00030SIF33STREET IFIntersection Control, N. 7th Avenue and Griffin Drive$500,00030SIF02STREET IFBaxter Lane, 19th to  Cottonwood$3,350,00025SIF32STREET IFManley Road & Griffin Drive Intersection Improvements$925,00025SIF04STREET IFChurch Street, Main Street to Kagy Boulevard$5,800,00015SIF22STREET IFIntersection Control, College Street & 8th Avenue$750,00010SIF05STREET IFCollege Street 8th Avenue to 19th Avenue)$3,300,0007Summary for  Impact Fees Streets (18 items)Totals by year:$7,784,150 $750,000 $6,100,000$100,000$27,875,000FY13FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY17$100,000137 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF01 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION 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 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:25 FY17 $100,000.00 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)10 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 138 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF02 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Baxter Lane, 19th to Cottonwood 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. Continued development in the northwest quadrant of the city will be sustained by having this important east-west arterial improved to a complete street standard. 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:25 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)10 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 139 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF04 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Church Street, Main Street to Kagy Boulevard 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. This will include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes, curb and gutter, boulevards, on street parking and sidewalks. 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. Growth in the South Bozeman area as well as the county area to the south of town will be facilitated by this project. The use of street impact fee funds enables the 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:15 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)5 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 140 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF05 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME College Street 8th Avenue to 19th Avenue) FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $3,300,000 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. 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 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, 40% Urban, CTEP or other Funds - $1,300,000 New Replacement Equipment Project Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:7 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)0 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)2 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 141 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF06 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME College Street from Main Street to North 19th Avenue FY13 $7,484,150 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. This project is currently being designed by MDT. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Use of Urban funds for full financing, CTEP or TIGER 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 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 = $4,490,500.00 40% - State Urban Funds = $2,993,650.00 New Replacement Equipment Project Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)10 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 142 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF08 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Durston Road, Fowler Avenue to Ferguson Avenue 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 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 143 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF09 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Kagy Boulevard, Willson Avenue to 19th Avenue FY13 FY14 $650,000 FY15 $6,000,000 FY16 Unscheduled DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard from the intersection of S. 19th Avenue to Willson Avenue to a three lane urban arterial standard. This includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter throughout, boulevard, sidewalks and a raised median. 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 SID for full financing, Urban funds or incremental construction by developers. 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 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. 50% - Street Impact Fees = $3,325,000; 50% - Urban Funds = $3,325,000 New Replacement Equipment Project Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:32 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)7 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 144 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF20 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Intersection Control 7th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $650,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Control of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard, a collector and an arterial. Includes the installation of a traffic signal or roundabout. 7th Avenue is a two lane collector north of this intersection and a two lane local street south of the intersection. Kagy Boulevard is a two lane arterial. This intersection currently has stop control on 7th Avenue. Recent development and increased traffic indicate that a signal or roundabout will soon be not only warranted but justified. This intersection is a major access point for the MSU campus. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana Department of Transportation. Attempt to 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 145 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF21 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Graf Street Connection FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project consists of extending Graf Street approximately ¼ mile in order to connect the street with South 19th Avenue to allow through traffic to flow east and west to and from 19th Avenue. This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire and emergency services 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 Fees. New Replacement Equipment Project Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)0 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 146 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF22 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Intersection Control, College Street & 8th Avenue FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $750,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Install improved traffic 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:10 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)0 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 147 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF23 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Highland Boulevard, Main Street to Kagy Boulevard 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 contributions and/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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 148 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF24 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Intersection Control, Highland Boulevard and Ellis Street 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 149 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF25 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Intersection Control, Highland Boulevard and Kagy Boulevard 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 150 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF26 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Intersection Control, Church Street and Kagy Boulevard 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 151 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF27 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Intersection Control, Cottonwood Road & Durston Avenue FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $500,000 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 Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 152 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF28 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME North 27th Street, Oak Street to Tschache Street FY13 $200,000 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled 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 Completes an important north-south connection in the northwest part of town. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees New Replacement Equipment Project Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)10 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 153 CIP Project Fund Impact Fees Streets PROJECT NUMBER SIF32 DEPARTMENT STREET IF PROJECT NAME Manley Road & Griffin Drive Intersection Improvements FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled $925,000 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project consists of the installation of a Traffic Signal or roundabout at the intersection of Manley Road & Griffin Drive, installation of a Turn Lane on Griffin Drive and the Relocation of associated railroad crossing equipment on Griffin Drive. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL Facilitates development of property in the immediate area. ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED FUNDING SOURCES 100% Street Impact Fees. Project Estimates - Traffic Signal $575,000, Turn Lane $175,000, Railroad Equipment Relocate $175,000. New Replacement Equipment Project Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:25 FY17 REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)10 DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5 FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10 COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0 154 Page 1 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 ** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m., in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present Staff Present James Nickelson, Chairperson Pro Tem Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Anna Rosenberry Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Erik Nelson David Graham Rob Evans George Thompson Chris Mehl, City Commission Liaison Members Absent Randy Carpenter Rick Hixson Visitors Present Greg Megaard Brit Fontenot ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2011. MOTION: Mr. Nelson moved, Mr. Graham seconded, to approve the minutes of August 25, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Nickelson, Ms. Rosenberry, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Graham, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Thompson. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and not scheduled on this agenda. (Three-minute time limit per speaker.} No public comment was forthcoming. ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Mr. Nelson moved, Mr. Thompson seconded, to nominate Mr. Nickelson as Chairperson. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Ms. Rosenberry, Mr. Nelson, 155 Page 2 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 Mr. Graham, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Thompson with Mr. Nickelson abstaining. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Mr. Roberts moved, Mr. Thompson seconded, to nominate Mr. Graham as Vice Chairperson. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Nickelson, Ms. Rosenberry, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Thompson with Mr. Graham abstaining. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed} Mr. Mehl stated he had sent an e-mail late in the afternoon regarding the minutes of the August meeting and a discussion of the community economy and how it works. He presented the Committee with the American Community Survey data for Bozeman that encompassed 2005 to 2009, but he had also provided more general data showing the jobs in the County as a whole with employment numbers and income that included 2009 data averaged by sector. He stated he thought it might be helpful. Mr. Mehl stated he wanted to urge the committee with regard to discussions with the City Commission and City Manager; he wanted to make sure intersections were part of their discussion and their rationale for amendments to intersection projects. He asked the Committee to indicate to Tischler Bise to be more proactive in understanding the calculations involved in the updates. He stated the City Commission would be discussing the impact fees on October 24, 2011. He stated he was expecting the Commission would be putting the heat on the Impact Fee Committee to prepare a good report for review. He added he would be available for any questions Committee members might have. ITEM 6. PROJECT REVIEW Ms. Rosenberry presented the Staff memo noting she was a member of the Committee but also the Staff person for the City who prepares the CIP report. She stated that every year after an annual budget was adopted, projection of Capital needs for the following five years was reviewed. She stated that when the impact fees program started, the City began incorporating the impact fee funds into the existing Capital Fund process. She stated that regardless of charges for impact fees to the developer, there needs to be a plan to dictate how the money would be spent. She stated she had provided a memo that applied to all four impact fees. She stated the Committee would be planning for the next five years and she had included a sample scoring of the projects; scoring would help indicate which projects should be funded and which should wait. Mr. Evans asked if the criterion was also used to prioritize the general fund. Ms. Rosenberry responded there was a lot of literature giving instructions on how to create a Capital Improvement Plan; there were a lot of criteria that were used in the general fund but many were unique to the impact fee program. She noted those requirements that were State statute and would have to be met before being eligible for impact fee funding. She noted the difference in language that would allow a useful life of a project for 1 year in the General Fund Capital 156 Page 3 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 Improvement Program but would be required to be a useful life of 10 years for impact fee eligibility. She stated the next two criteria paralleled the ones in the General Fund Capital Improvement Program. She stated that when only a portion of a project could be paid with impact fees and the rest of the funding was uncertain, there would be little point in putting the project high on the list of priorities as the money would not be available. She stated if a project was a priority on the Commission Work Plan, it would be given higher points. Vice Chairperson Graham asked for clarification of whether they were scoring things based on whether it was on the Commission Work Plan or not. Ms. Rosenberry responded Vice Chairperson Graham was correct; the Work Plan was one element of the score. Mr. Mehl added that sometimes the priority was broad and sometimes very specific. Mr. Evans stated he noticed only one 20 point category and asked if the Benefits to Future Development rating had been intentional. Ms. Rosenberry responded it had been intentional; due to lack of funds 1/3 or more of the items went unfunded and the scoring was helpful to see what was important and why. She stated the Benefits to New Development category was one of those coming directly from statute. Assistant Planning Director Saunders added they were attempting to spend the money in a way that would be of the most benefit. Mr. Mehl added it would allow the City Commission to show the public their math; he stated the City would never have enough money to fund all of the projects. Mr. Evans added it would facilitate community understanding at the least. Vice Chairperson Graham asked if the scoring would be used primarily for capital improvements credits. Assistant Planning Director Saunders responded it would not exactly be an impact fee credit score but if it did not rise to the proper level of priority, a project would not be impact fee funded. Ms. Rosenberry added she thought the scoring system could help; it can be hard to remember how a conclusion was arrived at and it will be helpful to memorialize those items that the Committee and City Commission believe are important to fund. Chairperson Nickelson responded that Staff had generated a list in previous years and the Committee had found reasons to make adjustments; it had all been through Committee discussion in the past and the scoring would lend to interesting results. Ms. Rosenberry stated the proof was in the ranking and whether or not it made sense. Mr. Evans asked if the scoring had been applied retroactively to previous CIP’s. Ms. Rosenberry responded the scoring had not been applied retroactively; the Committee previously was pretty small and after discussions they had forwarded their recommendations to the City Commission. Mr. Thompson stated it would be tough to validate the recommendation of a project if the rating were excluded; the reality was that a few months later a different proposal would modify the scoring. Mr. Evans stated his concern was that new development was indicated at twice a value. Mr. Nelson stated he would be curious to hear the logic on why the benefits to new development criteria was scored so highly; the money was there to benefit people creating the impact. Assistant Director Saunders responded that normally what occurred was an 157 Page 4 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 improvement would need to be made prior to Final Plat; when he was looking at facilitating development, such as Harvest Creek and the light on 19th Avenue, impact fees were used to facilitate development of the subdivision and the impact fees came later with actual construction of homes in the subdivision. Mr. Nelson stated he saw it as a sort of credit; those providing the money would be getting a credit for the next people that came through. Assistant Director Saunders responded in many cases it was the developer doing the work that would draw the credit. Ms. Rosenberry stated the scoring could be modified as the Committee saw necessary; she directed the members to the Montana Code Annotated and its references to new development. Mr. Nelson stated that sometimes the scoring would be about debt retirement. Ms. Rosenberry stated she might be able to better match when fees are paid to consumption rates. Since there is no authority to bond against impact fee revenues it is harder to match. She stated utility payers and the general fund would have to make up some deficiencies. Mr. Thompson stated the City was not best poised to make those decisions; the benefits of new development were improvements to the City. Mr. Nelson stated he did not think the City could propose those items. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was sometimes City money to support private effort but could go either way as a privately or publicly initiated construction; he added impact fee credits could be requested. Ms. Rosenberry stated none of these projects would be up for actual funding until next year as they would be part of fiscal year 2013 Capital Improvements. Mr. Evans asked if the indicated scoring had been planned or was random. Ms. Rosenberry stated she provided scores and got feedback internally and had provided draft scores to the best of her ability based on previous comments. She stated if there were questions about specific projects, City Staff members would be brought to the next meeting. 1. Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Ms. Rosenberry directed the Committee to a summarization of the Fire CIP and indicated it was alright for a negative balance for one year as long as it wasn’t the last year; some method of fund recovery would need to be achieved prior to the last year. She stated there was an estimated amount of money that the City expected to receive and noted there were few scheduled projects and she thought the Fire Station #3 would be paid for in the next year. She stated the construction of Fire Station #4 and the engine for Station #4 would need to be scheduled. She stated if the consultant made large changes to the calculations, there would be changes to the CIP; she expected the numbers would stay on track. She stated there was a limited amount of projects that could be used on Fire; anything after capacity expansion was maintenance and would not be eligible for impact fee funding. Mr. Nelson asked if it was unrealistic to be so ambitious to build 5 million dollars worth of stuff and asked if Fire Station #4 was necessary. Ms. Rosenberry responded that buying the land would be eligible, but the land had been granted to the City for free. Mr. Megaard responded he did not anticipate a need for Station #4 for 8-10 years; the study done for Station #3 had been done during a period of substantial growth. Mr. Nelson asked if the City would be alright without the Fire Station for five years if the growth rate were based on 1-2% per year. Mr. Megaard responded Mr. Nelson was correct and the City was just not growing at the previous 158 Page 5 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 rate. Mr. Mehl added Fire Station #3 was not built completely with impact fee funds. Ms. Rosenberry responded the Fire Station #4 itself was the cheapest aspect of the project; the annual commitment of funds to staff the facility could be voted down by the community. 2. Sewer Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Ms. Rosenberry presented the Staff memo noting the wastewater and water schedules were similar. She stated the Wastewater Treatment Plant had almost been completed and had been a 36 month construction period that was near the end. She stated the City was short millions of dollars in capacity expanding portions of the project and the schedule reflected that the debt payment on the sewer plant was scheduled. She stated the estimated growth was not population and was strictly revenue; it was meant to be a modest estimate. She stated there were a lot of unscheduled items and she had estimated their scores. She stated the debt retirement was at the top of the list which would leave one more year of debt payment after the initial five year period on the current CIP. She stated the sewer line under Graf Street, design of Phase II of the sewer plant, hospital trunk line, and Front Street main replacement were also included. Mr. Mehl asked if it would save the City money if the debt was paid down faster; funds could be relocated. Ms. Rosenberry responded the policy was to pay every debt off as soon as possible. She stated the Graf Street extension project scores were interesting; she had given it a lot of points because it is a critical link to new development on the south side of Bozeman. Mr. Thompson stated Graf Street was in anticipation of future development. Assistant Director Saunders responded there had been two approved Preliminary Plats in that location but they have not moved forward to construction; Staff was positioning the project so that the City could partner with the private developers. If Graf Street went through, it would significantly enhance the fire support response; if it were sequenced correctly, it could be cost saving. He added it was a reaction to when and where development came into Bozeman. Mr. Nelson asked if in general, there was the option of a reserve fund to respond more nimbly to a project that needs funding immediately. Ms. Rosenberry responded that in order for a project to be eligible for and receive funding it would need to be listed on the approved CIP; she added for reserve funding to be available, you would need to leave a balance unspent. Mr. Nelson asked if the listed projects were the only ones eligible. Ms. Rosenberry responded they were the only ones and if the Committee identified projects that needed to be added. Mr. Nelson asked if there was a way to add items to the CIP list. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were methods to add items; not everything had been included or there would be a long list of unscheduled items. Mr. Nelson stated a broader list from which to choose might be beneficial; it would allow more transparency for private developers to get an idea of how they could partner with the City. Assistant Director Saunders responded impact fees were intended to meet growth needs but also to encourage people to make one decision over another to facilitate growth in that area. Chairperson Nickelson stated he did not think much thought had been put into adding items to the list due to the sewer plant being a top priority. Ms. Rosenberry responded Chairperson Nickelson was correct and suggested she could go back and investigate previous CIP’s to find items that have been eliminated; she stated the Planning and Engineering Departments might 159 Page 6 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 have the most clear idea of those items. Mr. Thompson stated the challenge would be to be nimble while including 100 projects on the list. Mr. Nelson stated he did not promote adding every project, but as an example, the City would like to see the Bridger Park Trailer Court cleaned up. Vice Chairperson Graham asked for clarification of how the process worked. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City had never pioneered the infrastructure work and some other Cities were now bankrupt for doing so. He added it was a lot of work to use that approach, but under the right circumstances, it would be allowable. Mr. Mehl added the Commission was reluctant to say they knew more than the market and they rarely had enough money to actually pay the costs. He stated there were a few communities in which it had worked and others had failed. Vice Chairperson Graham clarified that someone could ask for a project to be included on the CIP. Assistant Director Saunders responded they could. Mr. Mehl added the amendments were not on a dime, but could fairly quickly be facilitated. Ms. Rosenberry stated the schedules could be developed with everything in the far column with a request from a developer to initiate the spending of those funds. Chairperson Nickelson suggested that placing everything on the non-funded list might be the best solution. Ms. Rosenberry stated if it was a schedule without projects a notice could be included that the schedule was subject to amendment to allow eligible projects to be added to the list. Assistant Director Saunders stated that developers typically had a good idea what was going to be needed on the ground so discussions could begin in the early stages. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the Committee would like to see old projects related to the Story Mill Neighborhood and what could be done to reduce the blight and benefit the neighborhood. 3. Water Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Ms. Rosenberry presented the Staff memo noting ground had just been broken on the new water plant; a definitive answer on the total project cost would not be available until the completion of the site. She stated substantial expenditures were included but trailed off in 2015, 2016, and 2017 with modest estimates of revenue collection for that period. They were constructing now and would be next year with a reduction in borrowing amount in the latter years. She stated the construction of the Sourdough Creek Dam was a substantial amount of money. She stated the estimated Graf Street extension and the 5 million gallon water storage tank had been included. Mr. Mehl asked for an explanation of why the additional transmission line would be eligible. Ms. Rosenberry responded the impact fee eligible portions of the lines were related to building the lines beyond their 8 inch capacity; the 8 inch portion would have to be paid for by a developer or other funding sources. She stated the facility plan map identified a problem that only one line brought water into the City. Chairperson Nickelson stated that calling it redundant indicated that it wouldn’t increase capacity. Assistant Director Saunders suggested the item could probably be divided into two pieces. Chairperson Nickelson responded the concern stemmed from the crisis that would ensue if something happened to the one line that exists. 160 Page 7 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 Vice Chairperson Graham asked what dictated capacity expanding. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City always assumed the first 8 inches would be replaced using maintenance funds; the eight inch diameter was never charged or credited for. Vice Chairperson Graham asked where the 8 inch determination had come from. Assistant Director Saunders responded the size met the State standards for public mains and the City’s needs. Mr. Thompson stated the new line would not run right next to the existing. Assistant Director Saunders responded the new line would be approximately 2 miles away and a larger diameter that would definitely increase capacity. He added that Goldenstein Lane was currently the furthest water service south as water pressure could not be maintained to the City’s standards beyond that point. Ms. Rosenberry stated she had been concerned with the storage reservoir and it was 100% impact fee eligible when no money would be available to build it. Vice Chairperson Graham asked for clarification of the listed amounts. Ms. Rosenberry responded the transmission main project did include the full cost instead of just what was impact fee eligible. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Engineering Department could check those amounts for us; the actual amount could be included with an amount indicated as the percentage of what was eligible. He stated it might make sense to split this into two projects. Chairperson Nickelson stated the latest estimate on the dam was 30-50 million dollars instead of the 20 million dollars listed; he suggested it could be an unscheduled item. Mr. Mehl the need for the dam had been based on past growth; it would take an enormous amount of time to complete construction and he was loath to see it disappear from the schedule entirely though the Engineering Department was seeking alternatives. Chairperson Nickelson stated he did not think the values were critical, but the updated costs that were known today should be included. Ms. Rosenberry asked if she should describe one item as water resource development or if should separate them. Mr. Nelson responded the dam would be necessary in the future. Mr. Mehl responded the dam would not necessarily be the case and asked if water rights would be eligible for funding. Chairperson Nickelson suggested including one item described as Water Resource Development and estimate the amount at 50 million dollars so that it remained on the list. Ms. Rosenberry responded water right purchases were eligible for funding; cash in lieu of water rights were purchased as available and those funds did not always match up to when the rights were needed. She stated having it in the utility charges was more predictable. Vice Chairperson Graham asked why the holding tank was eligible for funding. Assistant Director Saunders responded the service area would be expanded to more land would be serviced and new users required more storage. 4. Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Ms. Rosenberry presented the Staff memo noting stated the transportation impact fee schedule was the most interesting as it held the most projects and carried a balance. She stated there were two years where larger projects were anticipated and the schedule included other sources of revenue. She noted our allocation of Urban Funds was a big factor in getting street projects completed. She stated total project costs had been included. 161 Page 8 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 Ms. Rosenberry stated one item on the list every year was right of way acquisition for expanding the street system. She stated the design stage for improvements to College Street was an Urban Funds project and would also partially be funded by impact fees. Mr. Nelson asked what allowed Urban Funds to be designated to the project. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Urban Funds could only be used on designated Urban Routes through the City; the last time the map was updated in 2001 the State recognized the growth rate of the City and allowed additional miles to be included. Once the route was designated and the funds granted, the street had to be constructed to the State of Montana standards. Vice Chairperson Graham clarified that outside of the Urban Funds, the project would be totally impact fee funded. Ms. Rosenberry responded Vice Chairperson Graham was correct for capacity expansion. Vice Chairperson Graham asked if the Committee could determine the percentages; shouldn’t the 40% that isn’t increasing capacity be paid out of the general fund instead of impact fees. Assistant Director Saunders responded a credit was granted that takes into account roadway construction on the cost calculation from other funding; on the expenditure side, the maintenance was not capacity expansion and the Urban Funds were the maintenance funding source. Mr. Mehl asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify the use of outside funding sources. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the Urban Funds coming from Federal gas tax money could be used exclusively for maintenance of the Urban Route and did not have to go to capacity expansion projects. Ms. Rosenberry added federal gas tax money could be used for either maintenance or capacity expansion. Vice Chairperson Graham clarified that if there were no Urban Funds, the maintenance would need to come from some source other that impact fees. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Vice Chairperson Graham was correct. Ms. Rosenberry added that the Committee could recommend using Urban Funds for capacity expansion exclusively. Chairperson Nickelson asked if it was in the scope of the Committee to say that maybe impact fees should be spread out more and Urban Funds be used more often. Ms. Rosenberry responded the Committee could make those recommendations if they saw fit but the ultimate decision would be made by the City Commission. Mr. Thompson asked why two points had been granted and suggested direct benefits might need to be a higher score. Ms. Rosenberry stated if the Committee saw College Street as a direct benefit to individual users she could score it higher. Assistant Director Saunders responded the score might be lower as a direct benefit to development as there was less undeveloped land for new development in that area but the street did connect new development on either end. Ms. Rosenberry stated the next item was an intersection that she did not know much about. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a lot of activity in the area of Cottonwood Road; it would likely be a City project instead of a developer. Chairperson Nickelson asked the current level of service. Assistant Director Saunders responded he did not know, but it was likely part of the Transportation Plan. Ms. Rosenberry stated the next item was requested by a developer per the written request from Thomas, Dean, and Hoskins. She invited Brit Fontenot to address the Committee. He stated 162 Page 9 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 there was interest in development of the Manley Road property. He stated it had begun a conversation about where in the City there was an intersection that needed upgraded and would also facilitate growth in those locations and the City could get in front of the improvements. He stated upgrades would continue to be identified and included on the list if possible. He stated the project proposal was in its infancy at this time. Mr. Nelson stated it was a great example of what they had discussed before regarding how firm the commitment would be on the part of the developer. Mr. Fontenot responded there was no current commitment but identifying those areas in advance would facilitate future discussions. Mr. Nelson stated this was a perfect example of someone wanting the improvements there, but backing out of the project; how would the projects be prioritized. Ms. Rosenberry responded the City could not over-commit, but when they were considering a project they wanted some certainty; she noted it was difficult to give developers the commitment that those improvements would be made, but the schedule would need to be amended, budgeted, and scheduled. Mr. Thompson stated he thought it would be a good precedent that would present the City as nimble in responding to their concerns. Mr. Nelson stated his view was opposite Mr. Thompson’s view and he thought the money should not be spent on uncertain projects when improvements were needed elsewhere. Vice Chairperson Graham suggested the developer could fund the project and then get reimbursed by impact fee funds. Mr. Fontenot concurred and noted it was easier to amend the CIP to move a project from unscheduled to scheduled. Mr. Mehl suggested that Mr. Nelson wanted the market to come to the City. Ms. Rosenberry added that it was not a wise assumption to make that the funds would be available upon the time the project was moved up on the list; just because it is placed in the unscheduled column, does not necessarily mean that it will be funded. Assistant Director Saunders added the unscheduled items column was a way to have a calendar system of actions that were on the City’s mind, but were not planned yet. Chairperson Nickelson responded if the City was willing to handle the project or if there was an area where multiple developments were occurring, it would be in the funded category while speculative items were left unscheduled. Vice Chairperson Graham asked for clarification of the 100% street impact fee eligibility and asked if there was a beginning year where all streets were eligible. Ms. Rosenberry responded it was the addition of a turn lane, relocation of railroad equipment, and the installation of a traffic signal. Mr. Fontenot stated Dave Crawford had tried in his request letter to explain those items which he thought were eligible though there was some question about the railroad equipment being eligible. Mr. Nelson asked if all the projects that had available impact fee funds were scored as a 10. Ms. Rosenberry clarified that certainty of funding played a role and as the funds were less, the scoring was less. Mr. Nelson stated he thought the funding certainty score should be included. Assistant Director Saunders stated there would be unique aspects to some of the projects on the CIP and this was the first draft and response to the request at Manley Road and Griffin Drive. Mr. Evans stated Mr. Nelson was getting an inkling of a “self fulfilling score” and how it could have a dramatic affect on development. He stated getting the idea out there where the public could look at it was a good idea, but he wondered if the list could be too long. Mr. Thompson concurred and added the City would be prepared to add an item if the developer was 163 Page 10 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 committed; the developer would need to drive the request. Mr. Fontenot stated he was not aware of a way to identify the instances where improvements should be undertaken and asked for suggestions on how to capture the information. Mr. Nelson suggested Mr. Fontenot should have a template of what the City would need to receive from the developer. Mr. Mehl stated there was no money available for the current list and adding to the schedule would not guarantee its funding. Mr. Nelson responded that actions speak louder than words and being included on the list would draw someone’s interest in the project. Mr. Fontenot responded he had already spoken with two separate people regarding the same location. Mr. Mehl stated there was still uncertainty either way; the developer would still have to have a long conversation with the City. Chairperson Nickelson stated he could see every landowner in town noticing an intersection that needed improving. Mr. Thompson suggested moving to the next item on the list. ITEM 7. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Mehl asked Assistant Director Saunders to give a rough estimate of time on document drafts from the consultant. Assistant Director Saunders responded shortly after the first of the year. ITEM 8. COMMITTEE COMMENTS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chairperson Nickelson adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. James Nickelson, Chairperson Impact Fee Advisory Committee City of Bozeman ATTEST: Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary PREPARED BY: 164 Page 11 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Approval date: 165 ** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Nickelson called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m., in the Conference room of the Professional Building, 20 E Olive St, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present Staff Present James Nickelson, Chairperson Ashlie Portnell, Recording Secretary Anna Rosenberry Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Erik Nelson Randy Carpenter George Thompson Rick Hixson Chris Mehl, City Commission Liaison Members Absent David Graham, Vice Chairperson Rob Evans Visitors Present Debbie Arkell Brit Fontenot Jason Schrauger Chuck Winn Dennis Carlson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2011. Chairperson Nickelson asked if there were comments or corrections to be made to the October 13, 2011 minutes. MOTION: Anna Rosenberry moved, Hixson seconded, to approve the minutes of October 13, 2011as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Nickelson, Ms. Rosenberry, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Hixson. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment was forthcoming. {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and not scheduled on this agenda. (Three-minute time limit per speaker.} ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON Chris Mel stated that the City Commission discussed the impact fees and whether or not to reduce the percentage from 60% to 40%., there was no motion made Page 1 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 166 at the meeting. He also stated that the City Commission would like this to continue on in the direction it is going, and that a study should be done to show if the numbers needed to be changed. The City Commission will eventually put this on their agenda. Randy Carpenter stated that when we take our recommendations to the City Commission that the staff be ready with some numbers. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW Chairperson Nickelson asked for the staff to go through these agenda items in order. He said we need to go through the first three before we talk about transportation because it is a difficult and tedious item to discuss. 1. Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Jason Schrauger, the Fire Chief for the City of Bozeman attended the meeting for discussion on the Fire Impact Fees. General discussion about the proposed Scoring Criteria: Anna Rosenberry had not received any requests from the committee members for changes to be made on the criteria for this schedule. Chris Saunders recommended that Criteria #4 is better described as “Benefits to Impact Fee Payers.” Fee payers can be those who have already paid, are presently paying, or will pay impact fees in the future. There will be benefits to those who construct in the future, in the areas where Impact Fee projects have been built. Chairperson Nickelson commented that he is interested in the ranking system. Anna asked if anyone had changes they wanted to share for the criteria. She would forward to the City Commission, anything that the Committee would like to recommend. No changes were noted. Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvements Schedules: Anna Rosenberry said that according to the schedule, there will not be any new projects started until Fire Station Three is completely paid for. After that, the next Fire Impact Fee project would be when the city starts building Fire Station Four. Chairperson Nickelson asked for a motion to adopt the Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program. MOTION: Mr. Nelson moved to approve the fire impact fee and recommend it by staff, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to approve the Fire Impact fee and recommend it by staff. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Nickelson, Ms. Rosenberry, Nr. Nelson, Mr. Carpenter Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hixson. Those voting nay being none. 2. Sewer Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Anna Rosenberry stated that the scheduled item for the Water Reclamation Facility Debt Service is to pay off the amount of Capacity Expanding costs for the wastewater reclamation facility that was not able to be paid in cash by the Impact Fee fund. No other items have been scheduled. There will likely be one more year after Fiscal Year 2017 to pay this off. Other items on the Schedule include Graff Street sewer main extension, Design of Phase II of the Water Reclamation Facility, Hospital Trunk Line, and Replacement of Front Street sewer main. Water Reclamation Facility Superintendent Tom Adams and Anna had a discussion about Phase II. Mr. Adams recommended removing Design of Phase II from the Impact Fee list because it is likely to have no capacity expanding elements. It is likely to be all regulation required improvements. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Thompson seconded, to approve the Sewer Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program with the removal of the Design of Phase II item. Those voting aye being Page 2 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 167 Chairperson Nickelson, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Rosenberry, Mr. Hixson and Mr. Nelson. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting nay being none. Erik Nelson asked if an item is removed from the list, how hard would it be to get back on the list if the city DID decide that it would benefit from the project? Rick Hixson responded that any item can be removed and added back in just as easy. However it would not go directly to the City Commission. That would take some time again. Chris Saunders stated that there might be value in having a formal CIP and having a separate candidates list readily available for people. It states we have gone through the work and could even be available for the public to view on the website. Erik Nelson asked if there are other Federal or State programs out there that can help fund these projects? Anna Rosenberry stated the most reliable resource for the city of Bozeman for Sewer projects has been state and Tribal Assistance Grants (Stag) money. We received a STAG grant in the past for the Hyalite Transmission Main and for the Water Reclamation Facility. This money comes to the City in lump sums and is not predictable. James Nickelson said that over the years he observed that Bozeman had been using state or federal money to do some work unrelated to impact fees. Anna said the city did use STAG money. Chris Saunders said one challenge is the pace of projects. Projects often move to fast to wait for the Federal Grant process, which can take years. He has never had that discussion with a developer to pursue. James said is observation is that there is no difference if item is on the list or not, they will often get funded if they move forward, with an Appeal to the Commission. James said he was not really interested in expanding the list. Not all items on the list have even been used yet. James commented that we could to think about taking longer to pay off the debt amounts so that we could fund items as they came forward. Anna said the goal has been to pay the amounts off as soon as possible. However, they are related to the 20 year Revenue Bonds that were issued by the Sewer Fund, so there isn’t a requirement to pay them off early. Erik asked Commissioner Mehl if he would find it easier to amend this list or to approve having reserve money set aside? If someone came forward with a viable project, would it be easier to use reserve money or just decide not to payback the WRF Debt Service amount quicker? Could the City have money in the impact fee program to provide seed money for infrastructure in a project? Chris Saunders said the city would not ever pay Impact Fee money until an Impact Fee project is completely finished. James had a question about hospital Trunk line and Front Street project , can we just remove them? Chris Saunders said , yes, we could just remove those. Someone could always come back in at some point and add them back on. Rick Hixson would be fine with shortening the list. Erik said if any of those projects are tied to a grant that would come through to pay for them, then those items would be wise to keep on the list. If STAG won’t pay for those, then take them off the list. Commissioner Mehl stated it would be beneficial to keep Graf Street Extension on the list. The question is do we keep these on? 3. Water Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Anna’s memo to the Committee listed two items that had been questions from the last meeting. Items WIF05- Redundant Transmission Main and WIF01- Sourdough Dam. Anna handed out the revised item name and description for WIF01. This was written by Engineer Brian Heaston, who is heading up the city’s effort to study our water supply and infrastructure. Brian’s plan will be prepared to document and Page 3 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 168 analyze information to water rights and use of future water supply and future water demands. It was recommended that we describe the project more broadly than just Sourdough Dam. Many other options are being discussed. A selection committee was formed to choose a consultant for the analysis of water supply and they narrowed it down to two firms. Their scores are being ranked and a decision about award of the Plan contract should be made by 10/28/11. Commissioner Mehl said there is money for the Study in this year’s budget. He is on Selection Committee. Erik asked if the funding was in the General Fund? Anna said, No, it is from the Impact Fee Fund. Anna said what is the next step, what should be in out 5 year capital plan for this item, should anything else be scheduled? Mr. Hixson responded that right now there is no idea what those elements would be. Commissioner Mehl said we should move to improve conservation. Mr. Hixson said the good thing about having a decent amount of money listed in the CIP is everything is getting more expensive anyway. Some projects from the IWRP could be pretty sizable. Anna asked if people are inclined to move to approve the changes that Mr. Heaston suggested. Erik Nelson moved to approve the name change to call it Water Supply Planning and Infrastructure-Phase 1. James asked if George wanted to follow up on his questions. George asked /stated one thing he noticed on item WIF05-Redundant Transmission Main is the 30 inch asbestos cement pipe. Looked at what the time frame was for when it is needed is only 8 years away, allowing two years for construction and 6 years for funding and approvals. He was thinking getting the funding and approvals plus 2 to 3 years construction is something that needs to be on the radar and move forward now. James asked if there was information regarding capacity? Rick Hixson stated he has not looked at the numbers, can’t give numbers on this. If there was no growth and per-capita demand is going down, he said George is right to be concerned. The existing pipe will have capacity for a few years beyond 2020. Commissioner Mehl has questions for Rick Hixson. If we always wanted to build this how come we put full amount on impact fee schedule? If we were going to do this anyway? How does it get funded out of one source? Rick said he thought we were paying for increments. Anna Rosenberry talked about when other sources from outside the city help fund a project we show the full project costs on the CIP listing, and then show the outside revenues coming in on the financial page of the CIP as additional revenues. It was anticipated that there would be a split on this project. Commissioner Mehl asked where is this money coming from? Chris Saunders said the city had a basic standard that all lines are looped. For example the Graf Street item is supposed to be a 24 inch line that will make a laddering effect and create a big loop. The existing line will stay in use to the new line isn’t maintenance. Anna is willing to take suggestions and revise this role impact fee money would play. George asked if we can at least change the name, it needs to be more accurate to what the situation actually is. James said we should get the advice from the people who wrote the facility plan. James asked for any further discussion, and asked for a motion. MOTION: Rick Hixson moved to adopt the Water Impact Fee as amended and including the new description of WIF01 and renaming WIF05 West Water Transmission Main Loop. Randy seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Anna Rosenberry started with looking at the Street Impact Fee list. During the last meeting the Page 4 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 169 committee talked about the projects prior to the Kagy project. Kagy project has been on the list for a long time. The project includes turning lanes added to Kagy. It is to be a combination of street impact fees and urban funds. College is the project we are working now. Once College is completed the intention was to work on Kagy. Rick Hixson said this is a top 10 project on the list for improvements in the Transportation Plan. The description does not talk about bike lanes but that would be included in the project. By using impact fees with the urban fees we could get the College Street project funded earlier and move on to Kagy project in short order too. Increasing traffic on Kagy makes it that much more ready, Rick said. Anna said both Kagy and College projects were walked about to our Federal Delegation. Chris Saunders talked about what the urban funds are and where that money can be spent. Rick Hixson said it’s a zero-sum game. The way it’s set up is that we must take miles of Urban Route off somewhere in order to add somewhere else. Otherwise, we can’t use urban funds on a project. The Urban Routes list is updated every 10 years. Debbie Arkell and Rick Hixson have talked with Montana Department of Transportation about adding more urban routes…that hasn’t worked out well because there is only so much money anyway. Next item discussed was improvements to Durston SIF08. Over the years a lot of Durston Road had been improved with the exception of a small segment. This project would require SIDS and impact fees. Next item discussed is SIF20 the intersection (either light or roundabout) at 7th & Kagy. The proposal for this is $540,000.00, scheduled for 100% street impact fee funding. This could be in conjunction with the Kagy improvements. Tick said yes it could go with that item but for now it is a standalone item. George asked if this was a realistic number? Rick said yes, but you can be surprised with what the actual bid would be. Next item discussed was SIF21 page 11. Estimated at a million to expand Graf Street. It would make a quicker response time from the fire station if there was a call on the south side of town. Next item discussed was SIF23 Highland Boulevard Improvements from Main to Kagy cost total $7.6 million. Widening boulevard from intersection of Main to Ellis, along Highland to a three lane standard. Debbie Arkell stated that this is an urban route. We get $850,000.00 a year for Urban Routes. Rick stated that in order for a project to be completed they need to be on the 5 year CIP list before hand. He said that if the demand for a project goes away, we don’t build it. The next 10 year update of the Urban Routes list will happen soon. Rick said we don’t really know how we’re are going to approach this. James talked about the urban fund and impact fees. Impact fees were put in to match the urban funds amount. Anna asked what should we bring back for next time on this schedule? James asked about the Cottonwood and Durston Intersection Improvements. This one does not hit the radar; he is uncomfortable having it on the list without something saying that it is actually broken. Rick said there isn’t anything right now saying that it’s “broken” It’s just loading up with cars at peak time. Debbie Arkell said there are traffic studies what have been done on that intersection, just not a part of the Transportation Plan. Anna asked if she should redo this list with the Manley Road project pushed back and the North 27th project moved forward? James said yes, that would be helpful. Anna will revise the schedule for the next meeting. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS November 10th is the next meeting. No other old business. ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS No items were forthcoming. Page 5 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 170 Page 6 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– October 13, 2011 ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chairperson Nickelson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. James Nickelson, Chairperson Impact Fee Advisory Committee City of Bozeman ATTEST: Ashlie Portnell, Recording Secretary PREPARED BY: Ashlie Portnell, Recording Secretary Approval date: 171 1 of 7 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17, 2011 BOZEMAN, MONTANA The Impact Fee Advisory Committee of the City of Bozeman met in the Commission room, City Hall at 121 North Rouse on Thursday, November 17, 2011. Present were board members Rob Evans, Randy Carpenter, George Thompson, James Nickelson and David Graham. Also present were Commission Liaison Chris Mehl, City Engineer Rick Hixson, Finance Director Anna Rosenberry, City Planner, Chris Saunders, and Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel taking minutes. Present in the audience were Director of Economic Development and Community Relations Brit Fontenot and Public Works Director Debbie Arkell. ITEM 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson James Nickelson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2011 Motion and Vote to approve the minutes of October 27, 2011 as submitted. It was moved by Anna Rosenberry, seconded by Rob Evans to approve the minutes of October 27, 2011 as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT James Nickelson opened public comment. No person commented. ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON Commissioner Chris Mehl thanked Committee members for volunteering. He also confirmed a Committee quorum would be present for the next meeting on December 8th. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Annual Update (Rosenberry) Ms. Rosenberry explained that the new packet provided have been updated with the changes the Committee made during the last meeting. In addition, City Engineer Rick Hixson was able to provide an updated estimate on the College project. Ms. Rosenberry said she would hope to have Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes, November 17, 2011 2 of 7 the list approved and recommended to the Commission in whatever manner the Committee wishes. Cr. Mehl asked about the rankings on the schedule. Ms. Rosenberry explained the rankings are included in the detailed individual forms and said she would add them back to the main schedule prior to the Commission discussion on this item. The Committee began discussion on staff’s recommendation. Responding to a question from David Graham, Ms. Rosenberry reviewed changes made since the last Committee meeting. These included: Dollar amounts Project #20, Manley Road intersection control improvements Project #32 unscheduled Project #28 improvements on North 27th – move from unscheduled and into the next year. This is a small piece of roadway that is not connected right now. City Planner Chris Saunders reported receiving a letter from the public regarding the North 27th project regarding an upcoming site plan on the corner. While city funding would handle costs from expansion, the developer would be contributing site improvement related work. Since there is a potential for development and partnering, this item was moved up in the CIP. Mr. Saunders also reported receiving public comment regarding project #32 from Director of Economic Development and Community Relations Brit Fontenot (see packet materials). Director of Economic Development and Community Relations Brit Fontenot said in addition to recommendations made in his November 7th memorandum to the Committee he would also like to add consideration of an intersection control device at North 7th and Griffin Drive as unscheduled. Mr. Saunders spoke regarding a letter in the first packet from TD & H Engineering asking for consideration of a possible signalization at the intersection of Griffin and Manley Drive. This was for a potential user that never materialized. Mr. Saunders and Mr. Fontenot spoke based on the discussion from the last meeting, how impact fee funding is partnered with other funding resources on this project. There is an existing signal at N. 7th and Griffin Drive but that intersection has two arterial, urban streets with large industrial property to the northwest. If there was significant development there, significant improvements would be needed at 7th and Griffin. The discussion then moved to leveraging other funding sources, minimizing impact fee expense while getting the most value while facilitating development. For this reason, Mr. Saunders and Mr. Fontenot would rather prioritize 7th and Griffin rather than Manley. Mr. Saunders explained they do not have a recommendation for what year to place this in as there is not anything pending Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes, November 17, 2011 3 of 7 though the TIF board is interested in encouraging development. The timing would be driven by an actual development, so this item could be placed under unscheduled with the idea that if something significant was started, this project would be queued up. Mr. Saunders said there is no cost estimate available at this time for 7th and Griffin. General signalization costs run about $500,000 with some right of way acquisition costs. There is potential for partner funding which would lower the impact fee cost share. Discussion and explanation occurred regarding partner funding. City Engineer Rick Hixson spoke regarding the possibility of using urban funds on urban routes and the process of approving those through the Transportation Coordinating Committee and then the Commission and considering the impact of taking urban funds from other planned projects. James Nickelson confirmed that should the Committee choose to add the 7th and Griffin project, they could estimate $500,000 for now. Mr. Fontenot reported working on a planning effort with Mandeville Farms and State lands to the south of that property. If that proceeds, the project in question would be an important piece. Mr. Nickelson confirmed with Ms. Rosenberry that an intersection control project could be added later into fiscal year 2017. Ms. Rosenberry explained that the more left on the table in the last year of the plan, the more flexibility to add a project in the middle of a plan year. It is important that the last year of the plan has a positive balance. If we want to leave flexibility for projects to come in as development opportunities arise, it is better to leave more of a balance in the plan. David Graham asked whether this item was being recommended for the CIP to encourage future development in this area. Mr. Saunders responded that it allows conversations to happen with the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Board. Ms. Rosenberry explained that having a project on the list keeps more focus on the needs of the different elements of a project such as right-of-way, etc. Mr. Fontenot added that the intention was to identify the strategically developable properties and get them front and center to help staff keep them in mind and to also show the community that we are trying to think ahead and be proactive. Cr. Mehl urged the Committee to keep the list moderate and that the important piece from the Commission’s perspective is to make it clear that if someone does come to the Commission with a proposal, the Commission will listen. Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes, November 17, 2011 4 of 7 Mr. Thompson asked whether staff would recommend pulling the Manley and Griffin project off and replace it with 7th and Griffin. Mr. Fontenot responded that he would prefer that the Manley and Griffin project remain on the list. The Committee continued discussion regarding what projects to keep on the list and in which year. Rick Hixson began a discussion regarding whether Church Street from Main to Kagy Blvd. should be removed from the list as the project will be extremely costly and difficult and is not anticipated for years to come. Ms. Rosenberry said the Committee needs to take one of the items within the first five years and move it to unscheduled to maintain a cash balance if the 7th and Griffin project is added as scheduled. Discussion continued regarding scheduled vs. unscheduled projects. David Graham asked whether intersection controls are always roundabouts or stoplights? Mr. Hixson said in general, the main options are signals, roundabouts or stop controls. Motion to adopt the street impact fee budget as recommended by staff. It was moved by Rick Hixson, seconded by George Thompson to adopt the street impact fee budget as recommended by staff. David Graham began discussion regarding what the Committee would be adopting; specifically whether other funding sources would be adopted. Mr. Saunders clarified the Committee would be making a recommendation on the draft in its entirety. He said as design work happens and as funding sources become solidified the dollar amounts change. Discussion continued regarding how money is allocated to projects and what projects the Impact Fee Committee would consider again. Cr. Mehl clarified that the City Commission will be considering this list on December 5th and the program can be changed by the Commission later as well. Ms. Rosenberry explained that if any changes need to be made to any of these projects regarding percent of allocated funding, etc. tonight would be the time to make those changes. Mr. Saunders explained that the City Commission actually approves individual projects during the yearly budget approval when more accurate numbers and information is available. Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes, November 17, 2011 5 of 7 Amendment and Vote to the main motion to add the North 7th and Griffin Drive signal improvements as a separate item to the schedule, and that they be unscheduled at half a million dollars. It was moved by Anna Rosenberry, seconded by Rick Hixson to add the North 7th and Griffin Drive signal improvements as a separate item to the schedule, and that they be unscheduled at half a million dollars. The amendment to the main motion passed unanimously. Motion and Vote to move the intersection control at Cottonwood Road and Durston Avenue to unscheduled. It was moved by Rick Hixson, seconded by Randy Carpenter to move the intersection control at Cottonwood Road and Durston Avenue to unscheduled. The amendment to the main motion passed unanimously. The Committee discussed whether Church Street should be dropped off the list. Chairperson Nickelson asked for further discussion or amendments to the main motion. Rob Evans began a discussion regarding how there has been very little discussion regarding the aspects of the CIP related to funding sources and percentages. He did not understand he was voting on that portion of the CIP at this juncture. Ms. Rosenberry explained how other funding elements contribute to projects in which impact fees are to be used and how it is decided how each will contribute. Mr. Hixson further explained the balancing act to determine funding sources and percentages that can be used on projects using urban funds as an example. Mr. Hixson explained that current capacity is a strict calculation based on the physical, capital structure measured across the roadway that exists. For example, the addition of bike lanes where there were none would be considered capacity expanding and would be impact fee eligible since the current capacity for bikes is 0. Mr. Hixson explained that staff uses the same logic for intersections. Using College and 11th as an example, Mr. Hixson explained in 1995 the level of service at that intersection was an A or B (how well an intersection is working based on delay rated from A (best) to E (worst)). Due to the impact of growth at that intersection, the level of service became degraded over time causing the need for the roundabout to replace the 4 way stop. Mr. Saunders further explained that whether two lanes are functioning at or over capacity, replacing asphalt as maintenance. Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes, November 17, 2011 6 of 7 Mr. Evans said the board has not really analyzed the percentages used to determine how much impact fees should be used on intersections or other projects and he did not understand recommendation of the document was all or nothing. Cr. Mehl emphasized that he understood the concerns raised and future discussions looking at the results of the impact fee study will explore these issues. In the meantime, none of the intersections are scheduled for 2013, so the Committee will have time to analyze this. Mr. Nickelson verified with Mr. Hixson that the final percentage split is based upon the actual project. Mr. Hixson explained how the calculation is reconciled. Mr. Graham continued questions regarding how the calculations are made and said he disagrees with staffs interpretation of the statute saying he reads it as net increase between the old and new demand and not that anything that’s greater is capacity expanding. Mr. Saunders said we hired a consultant to help us through these issues. Mr. Hixson explained that Tyndale and Oliver who conducted the original impact fee study verified that 100% impact fee allocation is absolutely legal and is the maximum amount that you could allocate to that project but the Commission can change that percent. Ms. Rosenberry began a discussion looking at different funding sources that may need to be found in lieu of impact fees in order to complete a project. She also spoke about projects that are impact fee eligible, but because other funding such as urban funds is available for a particular project, impact fees are not used because we know we have other projects that do not have other funding options. Ms. Rosenberry said her preferred option is urban funds, then impact fees, special improvement districts, etc. Ms. Rosenberry responded to questions from Mr. Graham about the general fund saying the general fund makes the match for CTEP (grants) but not a lot of improvement costs. The Committee continued discussion regarding the need to examine funding sources and percentages further and concerns by some members that the Committee may be approving a document they do not fully understand at this juncture. Cr. Mehl said the Commission will be most likely scrutinizing the percentages in the summer after this Committee has performed the bulk of the work with the consultant and before the final budget has been approved. Mr. Evans said his understanding is that while in fact the Committee will be approving the document in its entirety, practically speaking they are approving the priority of the projects. Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes, November 17, 2011 7 of 7 Cr. Mehl apologized if this was not clear and reiterated that members and public will have every opportunity this summer and also when the budget is approved in December to have an impact. Debbie Arkell mentioned that the Commission has not always chosen to use the full impact fees that staff recommended. They have created Special Improvement Districts in the past. Vote on the main motion as amended to adopt the street impact fee budget as recommended by staff. to add the North 7th and Griffin Drive signal improvements as a separate item to the schedule, and that they be unscheduled at half a million dollars to move the intersection control at Cottonwood Road and Durston Avenue to unscheduled. The main motion passed as amended 6-1 with David Graham opposed. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS Impact Fee Project Update Website Chris Saunders showed Committee members how to access an exciting new site on the city of Bozeman webpage for the impact fee update project. This page includes news, upcoming events, resources and an interactive impact fee map. The map is a great piece of work from the GIS department and allows the user to add different layers as needed to show things like zoning boundaries, city limits, annexations, the major water distribution system is, where we need to make major future line improvements and other similar information. To reach this site from the city of Bozeman home page at www.bozeman.net: Click the ‘Bids Projects’ icon on the left side of the page. On the next page click ‘Impact Fee Update’. Next Impact Fee Committee Meeting December 8th. There will be a break over the holidays and then a meeting will be scheduled when the consultant is ready to meet with the Committee. ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson James Nickelson adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m. James Nickelson, Chairperson, Impact Fee Advisory Committee, City of Bozeman ATTESTED AND PREPARED BY: Aimee Kissel, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: 172 173 174 175