HomeMy WebLinkAboutPolicy direction for Updating the Transportation Impact Fee Updates
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Policy issues direction for updating the transportation impact fee.
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to the Staff and Consultants on the questions below
to allow moving forward with the transportation impact fee update. Recommendations for each
of the four subjects are included with each subject.
BACKGROUND: The City funds its transportation system with multiple funding sources
including impact fees. It is necessary from time to time to update the study which sets the upper
limit for the unit costs for each type of impact fee. TischlerBise, the firm performing the work
has identified several items which need policy direction from the Commission in order to move
forward with the update. Decisions made in conjunction with impact fees affect and are affected
by decisions about other funding for transportation. This memo gives a summary of the policy
issues on which input is required to proceed with the impact fee study.
Each specific portion of the memo identifies the general issue needing direction and options.
This portion of the fee update process does not discuss the issue of special areas or modifications
such as for the Downtown. Such analysis will occur after the resolution of these items.
Process for the fee update:
The City conducted a request for qualifications followed by a request for proposal process to
select a consultant to assist the City in updating the four fees. A contract with the selected
consultant, TischlerBise, was completed on June 29, 2011. Since that time, the consultant has
been collecting and reviewing data, preparing preliminary analysis, and meeting with Staff and
the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) . The IFAC is the body required by statute and
formed by local resolution to advise the City Commission relating to impact fees.
During this process, the consultant and staff identified several possible options to consider in
going forward with the transportation impact fee update. The options are mutually exclusive in
each category. Overall City policy is established by the City Commission and carried out by
Staff. Therefore, it is necessary for the City Commission to provide guidance in these areas.
97
The initial guidance on these options is not the conclusion to the process. The Consultant will
use these general policy guidance items to enable them to work on the detailed analysis needed
to prepare a draft of the update. The IFAC will continue to work with the consultant as this
process moves forward. Eventually the IFAC will consider the draft and make a formal
recommendation to the City Commission. Their recommendation may include comments related
to any element of the fee process. The public is invited to attend the IFAC meetings, review the
materials provided to the IFAC, and offer verbal and written comment to the IFAC prior to any
recommendation being given to the City Commission.
The City Commission will then consider the draft document and the IFAC recommendation. One
or more public hearings will be held by the City Commission to consider the matter. The
Commission may accept the recommendation from the IFAC or may come to a different
conclusion. During this public hearing process or subsequent to acceptance of the fee study
update and prior to its implementation the Commission may discuss broader topics of
transportation funding as they believe appropriate.
As Task 6 in the scope of work for the contract the Consultant will work with the City to prepare
a funding and cash flow analysis. This material will be available to the City Commission prior to
any action on the update to the fee study. The present work and discussion is addressing work
tasks 3 and 4 which must be completed prior to being able to prepare the Task 6 funding
analysis. Several of the questions raised by the Commission at the February 13th meeting will be
addressed during the Task 6 portion of the work.
ALTERNATIVES:
On February 13th, there was a joint policy discussion meeting with the Impact Fee Advisory
Committee and the City Commission to hear a description of the issues and provide information
in advance. It is now time for the City Commission to provide direction.
Each of the subjects below has two or more possible options for discussion. The options are
identified by letter.
General methodology options:
A) Incremental expansion – This is similar to the presently used methodology in that it focuses
on identifying an amount of additional capacity need per unit of new development. This capacity
is generally applied to the system. Specific project identification for construction is then driven
by the transportation plan, Five year CIP, and location needs within the community as demand
occurs over time. This provides considerable flexibility for the City to partner with other non-
impact fee funding sources to meet needs as they arise.
B) Plan Based – This is a change from past practice. This approach identifies specific projects to
be constructed and then backs into a cost per unit needed to construct those projects. This
provides a very predictable set of improvements. However, it is less adaptable and a significant
change to the list of projects to be constructed or project costs requires recalculation of the fee.
The choice of which projects to include in the initial fee study and the time horizon therefore
becomes very important. The time window for this approach looks both backwards and forwards.
The general source for the project identification is the long range transportation plan. The five
year CIP would still be used to schedule timing of construction for individual projects. This type
of approach will require some reworking of the CIP process.
98
Both approaches enable the consultant to look at destinations of travel and to account for trips
which are outbound leaving the City.
Staff recommends option A.
System Improvements:
The definition of what is the ‘transportation system’ determines what streets can be improved
with impact fees and is a major element in the calculation of the demand component of impact
fees. The current definition of the transportation system is in Section 2.06.1630.A.14, BMC and
includes all those arterial and collector streets identified in the transportation plan. The language
is attached. Figure 9-2 from the transportation plan which maps those streets is attached. A map
of just the collector street system is also attached. Please be aware that the standard cross
sections for the collector and arterial streets include pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Similar
standards have been formally in place for over a decade. All local streets are excluded from the
impact fee system costs and eligibility for funding. The interstate system is also excluded.
Arterial streets carry the highest volumes of vehicle traffic and are focused on longer distance
travel. Collectors are the middle of the intensity categories and also carry higher volumes and
longer distances than local streets but less than arterials. Arterials and collector streets typically
are used for the longest portion of a vehicle trip. Local streets primarily exist to give immediate
access to adjacent properties and to link to the collector and arterial street network. Network
elements may be distinguished by function, ownership, or funding source for their development.
The consultants require direction on whether to include:
A) All the existing major street network, meaning arterials and collectors, as is currently done, or
B) If there are sections which the Commission would like removed, such as state highways.
The consequence of reducing the scope of the network would be to reduce the number and
location of the qualifying projects for impact fee funding and would therefore reduce total impact
fee cost/contribution in the system. It would also have the effect of eliminating some projects
from impact fee funding eligibility and therefore other non-impact fee funding sources would
have to be found to make up the difference. These alternate sources may result in different
minimum construction requirements or a need to commit or generate other dedicated funding.
This would also have the potential to place more burden on adjacent development and the timing
of executing private projects. For example, if collectors were removed from the impact fee
calculation no impact fee funding or credits would be available to assist with signalization of or
widening of the collector.
Staff recommends option A.
Funding Mix:
The funding for expanding, operating, and maintaining the transportation network comes from
several sources. Some funding such as the annual municipal streets assessment is dedicated for
daily operations and maintenance and deferred maintenance/reconstruction. Other funding
sources include Urban Funds. Urban Funds come from the gas taxes paid by existing systems
users and are, an intergovernmental transfer of money from the Federal and State government,
can be used for both maintenance and for capacity expansion but only on certain streets
designated as ‘urban routes’. Chapter 11 of the transportation plan describes the various funding
99
sources presently in use from Federal, State, and local sources. Please note this includes rural
funding as well since the transportation plan is a joint project with Gallatin County.
Many, but not all, of the City’s major street network sections are urban routes. A map of the
urban route system is attached. Urban Funds can be used to pay for maintenance or elements of
projects for which impact fees cannot be used such as correcting existing deficiencies.
Previously, the City has used Urban Funds for both expansion and maintenance projects. The
City could choose to expend Urban Funds only on project elements that are not impact fee
eligible. This will reduce costs to the general citizenry but may raise the impact fee.
Alternatively, the Commission could choose to use urban funds to reduce the amount of capacity
expansion to be paid for with impact fees. This will lower the impact fee but increase the amount
of money which must be provided from sources other than impact fees. Examples are SIDs,
development minimum standards and exactions, general fund contributions, or general obligation
bonds. Urban funds can be a source to pay for the outbound trips leaving the City on urban
routes to uses located outside the City which did not pay for their share of capacity through
impact fees. Unless both the origin and destination of the vehicle trip are located in the City
some of the travel will not be paying its share of demand through impact fees.
The consultants wish direction from the Commission on what expectation to use for the future
obligation of the City’s Urban Funds. In order to be used as a source to reduce impact fee
calculated costs a source of revenue must be dependable from year to year rather than subject to
annual swings in the budgetary process.
The Commission’s policy alternatives are as follows:
A) Dedicate urban funds solely to repair and maintenance or other non-impact fee funding
eligible expenses, or
B) Dedicate some defined amount or percentage of urban funds to pay for capacity expansion
and reduce impact fees.
Staff recommends option A.
Categories of Uses:
The fee calculated must be applied to a demand calculation which can be applied to specific
proposed construction. Staff and the advisory committee have discussed with the consultant the
possibility of revising how the schedule of fees is developed. The current schedule has many
different categories of non-residential uses and several categories of residential uses. Please see
the attached example of the transportation fee schedule. The consultants have suggested
modifying this approach. See the attached Setting the Stage document.
Residential – The suggestion is to modify the calculation to be based on increments of square
footage with a minimum and maximum. This enables the fee to be more closely linked to
average household occupancy. It also provides a built in lower cost to more modest homes. More
affordable homes tend to be smaller and would therefore have a cost reduction compared to
larger homes without the complexity of determining and tracking affordability based on income.
We have not used the income limited residential category since its adoption in 2008.
The Setting the Stage document shows the demand pattern in one hundred foot increments on
page 22, Figure A-12. The increments could be consolidated to larger segments. If the size
100
difference between increments becomes too large it may be advisable to simply take a median
size/cost approach.
The Commission’s policy alternatives are as follows:
A) Base residential fees on square footage increment, or
B) Base residential fees on a median size and cost.
C) No longer use the income based cost differential to distinguish residential transportation
impact fee categories.
Staff recommends options A and C.
Non-Residential – The current schedule of fees uses a variety of demand measures depending on
the characteristics of the use. It has more than 35 different categories. This can be beneficial in
supporting the proportionality of the fee to a specific site. However, over time as a building is
reused additional fees may become due as the uses in place change from one category to another.
There are also some categories that are infrequently used. The consultants have proposed to
consolidate the number of non-residential categories. A less detailed set of categories simplifies
the day to day administration of the program and may be advantageous to some users. It also
reduces the likelihood of additional fees being due with reuse of an existing building. This
corresponds with the Commission’s direction to be more business friendly and encourage
rehabilitation/reuse of existing structures. Fees are paid for the building lifetime use as a given
category.
The Consultants recommend the consolidation of categories as the supporting service demand
data for the fee becomes less thoroughly established as further separation into uses occurs.
Broader categories have more collective demand studies and smooths out some of the variation
in average demand for service. Determining a rough proportionality of future demand to fee
charged is recognized to be an imprecise process.
The Commission’s policy alternatives are as follows:
A) Accept a consolidation of non-residential uses, or
B) Retain the existing more detailed schedule.
Staff recommends option A.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Decision points are as described above.
FISCAL EFFECTS: This discussion was included in the contract cost for the impact fee
update. Discussion and decision at this time is to identify preferred methods to approach the fee
update. No specific costs can be estimated at this time.
Attachments: Section 2.06.1630.A.14, BMC
Transportation plan, Figure 9-2
Map of Collector Streets
Urban routes map
Existing Transportation Fee Schedule
101
Setting the Stage
Impact Fee Summary
Available Funding Mechanisms for Development Infrastructure
Infrastructure Funding Sources
Report compiled on: February 23, 2012
102
Section 2.06.1630.A.14, BMC
"Transportation system" means capacity-adding improvements to collectors or arterial roads of
three lanes or more, which are included on the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan
Update or the city's impact fee capital improvement program, and which will benefit new
development as required by law and this division. The transportation system includes only those
bicycle and pedestrian facilities built in conjunction with and included in a capacity-adding
transportation facility improvement otherwise eligible for impact fee funding pursuant to the
terms of this division. The "transportation system" does not include project-related
improvements.
103
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Interpretation of Map
This map presents the Recommended Major Street Network. It shows how the street network should develop over time and is intended to be used as a planning tool. It will assist in theevaluation of long-term traffic needs when planning future developments. The route alignments shown are conceptual in nature.The actual alignments may vary based on development patterns, geographic features, and other issues unknown at this time. The community planners will strive to designthe roads to fit the character of the landscape and minimize impacts on natural features such as wetlands, mature trees, and riparian corridors.Most of these routes are not recommended for construction at this time. The development of these conceptual routes will take decades to become reality, and will only become roadsif traffic needs materialize as a result of development in the area. Many of the existing roads identified as arterial routes are currently functioning as collectors or local streets and will beupgraded as traffic needs increase.It is important to note that although this major street network is recommended as part of the Transportation Plan, it does not reflect the federally approved functional classification criteriawhich is based on current conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Existing Major Street Network andFuture Right-Of-Way Corridor NeedsFigure 9-2
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Local Roadway
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Future Principal Arterial*
Future Minor Arterial*
Future Collector*
Note:
Future links identified where no roadcurrently exists will be constructed asthe surrounding are develops.
104
INTERSTATE 90 HWY
DURSTO N RD
S 19TH AVE
STUCKY RD
DAVIS LN
W M AIN ST
FRONTAGE RD
N 7TH AVE W OAK ST
HUFFINE LN
S
TO
RY
M
I
L
L
R
D
M
A
N
L
E
Y
R
D
S 11TH AVE
W CO LLEGE ST
W K OCH ST FALLON ST
L ST
BIG GULC H D R
FOWLER LN
COTTONWOOD RD
BAXTER LN
HAGGERTY LN
BLACKWOOD RD
S
O
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
R
D
N ROUSE AVE
GRAF ST
M
CI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
RD
E KAGY BLVD
S 4TH AVE
E MAIN ST
N 15TH AVE
HIGHLAND BLVD
A N N IE ST
S 3RD AVE
RED WING
D
R
N 27TH AVE
N 5T
H
A
V
E
MEAGHER AVE BOH
A
RT L
N
TAYABESHOCKUP RD
TSCHACHE LN
B R I D G E R C A N Y O N RD
W O LIV E ST
S 7TH AVE
SANDERS AVE
FLANDERS MILL RD
KAGY RD
N COTTONWOOD RD
EQUESTRIAN LN
N BLACK AVE
HIDDEN VALLEY RD
FRONT ST
W BABCOCK ST
OLD FARM RD
SIMMENTAL WAY
W G RAF ST
KURK DR
S 23RD AVE
ARNOLD ST
ADVAN
CE D
R
MAX AVE
S TRACY AVE RAVA LLI S T
MEA H LN
A S H D R
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E 9
0 HWY
FRONTAGE RD
BA XT ER LN
Legend
Collector
Collector
City Limits
Existing and Future CollectorStreets
Revised:
This map was created by theCity of BozemanDepartment of Planningand Community Development
¯
1 inch = 4,000 feet
Intended for Planning purposes onlysome layers may not line up properly.
105
10
6
STREET IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE - General
ITE
LUC
Type of Land Use Unit Measure
Amount Due Per
Unit*
RESIDENTIAL:
210 Single Family (Detached)
Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(2)dwelling unit $1,465.37
Less than 1,500 sf and low income (3)dwelling unit $2,124.14
Less than 1,500 sf dwelling unit $2,678.30
1,500 to 2,499 sf dwelling unit $3,642.16
2,500 sf or larger dwelling unit $4,105.19
220 Apartments dwelling unit $2,253.74
230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse dwelling unit $1,988.47
240 Mobile Home Park dwelling unit $1,075.23
LODGING:
310 Hotel room $2,067.45
320 Motel room $1,132.61
RECREATION:
430 Golf Course hole $8,298.81
411 City Park acre $368.54
444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf $4,362.36
INSTITUTIONS:
610 Hospital 1,000 sf $4,065.37
620 Nursing Home bed $257.17
520 Elementary School student $212.62
530 High School student $321.96
540 University (7,500 or fewer students) (4)student $411.06
550 University (more than 7,500 students) (4)student $357.06
560 Church/ Synagogue 1,000 sf $1,638.84
565 Day Care 1,000 sf $5,017.08
OFFICE:
710 50,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $2,684.37
710 50,001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,445.43
710 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,081.62
710 greater than 200,000 1,000 sf $1,660.44
720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $6,468.95
RETAIL:
820 under 50,000 sf 1,000 sf $6,329.91
820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 sf $6,470.98
820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $6,298.18
820 200,000-299,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,782.50
820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,496.99
812 Building Material/ Lumber 1,000 sf $14,315.52
813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf $18,221.60
817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $12,759.03
851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf $30,108.57
931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $14,873.73
934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $41,325.29
841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $8,121.96
890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $1,136.66
912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $21,400.73
INDUSTRY:
110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $1,545.69
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $843.72
150 Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,098.18
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $546.73
* Represents 60% of cost of service per Section 2.06.1640 BMC
CY 2012-v1 Effective January 1, 2012
107
SSeettttiinngg tthhee SSttaaggee:: PPrreelliimmiinnaarryy CChhaannggeess ttoo IImmppaacctt FFeeee
SSttrruuccttuurree aanndd SSuuppppoorrttiinngg DDeemmooggrraapphhiicc AAnnaallyyssiiss
November 29, 2011
Prepared by
108
2
Table of Contents
Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 3
Street Impact Fees .................................................................................................................... 3
Fire Impact Fees ........................................................................................................................ 4
Water and Sewer Impact Fees .................................................................................................. 6
Updated Demographic Analysis and Development Projections _______________________ 10
Summary of Growth Indicators ............................................................................................... 10
Figure A1 – Development Projections and Growth Rates ................................................ 11
Recent Residential Construction ............................................................................................. 12
Figure A2 – Housing Units by Decade ............................................................................... 12
Population and Jobs Forecast ................................................................................................. 13
Figure A3 – City of Bozeman Population Share ................................................................ 14
Figure A4 – City of Bozeman Job Share ............................................................................ 15
Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development ........................................................................ 16
Figure A5 – Jobs and Floor Area Estimate ........................................................................ 16
Employees per Square Foot of Nonresidential Development ................................................ 17
Figure A6 – Employee and Building Area Ratios ............................................................... 17
Detailed Development Projections ......................................................................................... 18
Figure A7 – Annual Demographic Data ............................................................................. 18
Persons per Housing Unit ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure A9 – Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing ........................................ 19
Demand Indicators by Size of Detached Housing ................................................................... 20
Figure A10 - Residential Trip Generation Rates by Type of Housing ................................ 20
Figure A11 – Vehicle Trips and Persons by Bedroom Range ............................................ 21
Trip Generation by Floor Area of Single Unit Housing ............................................................ 21
Figure A12 – Vehicle Trips by Size of Single Unit Housing ................................................ 22
Average Number of Persons by Square Feet of Single Unit Housing ..................................... 23
Figure A13 – Persons by Square Feet of Single Unit Residential ...................................... 23
Trip Generation by Floor Area of Residential Structures with Multiple Units ....................... 24
Figure A14 – Vehicle Trips by Size of Multifamily Housing ............................................... 25
Average Number of Persons by Square Feet in Residential Structures with
Multiple Units ......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure A15 – Persons by Square Feet of Multifamily Residential ..................................... 26
109
3
IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN
TischlerBise is under contract to update Street, Fire, Water, and Sewer impact fees for the City
of Bozeman. To set the stage for the impact fee update, which begins with demographic data
and development projections, the sections below provide excerpts from the previous impact
fee studies. Presenting the current fee structure and key demographic data provides context
for evaluating the updated information.
Street Impact Fees
As stated on page 3 of the 2008 Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Report,A“ThisAstudyAisA
based on a standards driven approach (consumption based). In the case of a standards driven
impact fee, roadway capacity is estimated to be consumed on all roads (state, county, and local
collectorAroadsAandAabove)AbyAnewAdevelopmentAwhetherAtheseAroadsAareAimprovedAorAnot…”
Even though the standards driven approach does not require specific development projections,
the Montana Impact Fee Act states [see Section 7-6-1602(1)(c)] “theAgovernmentalAentityAshallA
prepareAandAapproveAdocumentationAthatA.AforecastsAfutureAadditionalAneedsAforAserviceAforAaA
definedAperiodAofAtime…” To document the demand for transportation improvements, a forecast
of both residential and nonresidential development is essent ial, which is the purpose of this
report.
The current street impact fee schedule for residential development is shown below. Because
Section 7-6-1602(5)(a) the Montana Impact Fee ctAstatesA“the amount of the impact fee must
beAreasonablyArelatedAtoAandAreasonablyAattributableAtoAtheAdevelopment’sAshareAofAtheAcostAofA
infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development” TischlerBise is
proposing a couple of structural changes to the fee schedule. First, we recommend
consolidation of Singe Family Detached, Condominium/Townhouse, and Mobile Home Park
into a one category for all residential structures with only one unit. The proposed impact fees
would also vary by floor area and would be easier to administer because income
determinations would not be necessary. In contrast the one thousand feet thresholds, the
draft demographic analysis provides data in one hundred square feet increments, which could
easily be changed to 200-500 feet increments depending upon community input. The main
reasons for this change is the latest Census Bureau data often combines one -unit detached and
attached housing and provides no data on condominiums, which is a type of ownership that can
be applied to a variety of residential structures. Mobile Home Park is basically a legacy
category that is rare for new construction. Because townhouses and manufactured housing
units tend to be smaller than stick-built dwellings, fees that vary by floor area provide
proportionate demand indicators for these units. Second, this report also documents the
variation in demand indicators by unit size for residential structures with multiple units (e.g.
duplexes and apartments).
110
4
Fire Impact Fees
In contrast to the current street impact fees, the fire impact fee schedule (shown below) does
not vary by unit size and only has two residential categories. Also, all nonresidential
development pays the same fire impact fee per one thousand square feet of building space.
As shown in the table below, the current fire impact fee methodology is based on projected
increase in developed nonresidential acreage, with the fee amount converted to building space
using an average floor area ratio. Although not presented in this repo rt, City staff provided
TischlerBise a detailed parcel-level database with land use codes and floor area data that will be
used to evaluate whether fire impact fees for nonresidential development should be
disaggregated to ensure proportionality. The same database could also be used to derive fire
impact fees by square foot of residential development, to provide an alternative to the current
one-size-fits-all approach.
111
5
In addition to trip generation rates for single and multiple unit residential structures that vary
by size, this report also documents average number of persons by residential type and size. The
additional demographic analysis will enable street and fire impact fees to share a consistent fee
structure. As shown in the table below, the average number of persons per unit is currently
used to differentiate fire impact by unit type.
112
6
Water and Sewer Impact Fees
The 2007 water and sewer impact fees wereAbasedAonAtheACity’sAfixedAassetArecords,Afuture
capital improvements as identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan, and planning criteria
from the facility plan entitled, City of Bozeman Water Facility Plan, prepared by Allied
Engineering Services, Inc. and Robert Peccia and Associates, dated October, 2006 (the water
facility plan). Water and sewer impact fees typically allocate the cost of infrastructure to the
increase in demand to yield a cost per gallon of capacity. This approach provides a relatively
stable impact fee per equivalent dwelling unit that does not fluctuate with the r ate of
development. If growth accelerates or decelerates, the timing of improvements can be
adjusted to ensure utility capacity is available when needed. As shown in the table below, the
utility analysis included the projected increase in demand and equi valent dwelling units. This
report includes more conservative development projections that can be used to help the City of
Bozeman evaluate the timing of planned water and sewer improvements.
113
7
The table below indicates current water and sewer impact fees in the City of Bozeman, which
are imposed according to size of water meter.
114
8
If desired, the City could choose to impose water and sewer impact fees for residential
development by type of housing (single or multiple units per structure) and floor area. The
average number of persons per housing unit could be multiplied by gallons of capacity per
person to yield the average gallons of demand per housing unit. This is a policy decision that
we will discuss further with City staff. As shown in the table below, the current water impact
fee study already set the precedent for this approach.
115
9
116
10
UUPPDDAATTEEDD DDEEMMOOGGRRAAPPHHIICC AANNAALLYYSSIISS AANNDD DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT PPRROOJJEECCTTIIOONNSS
The following sections of this report provide supporting documentation on population, housing
units, jobs, and nonresidential floor area used to update development impact fees for the City
of Bozeman. Although long-range projections are necessary for planning capital improvements,
a shorter time frame of five years is critical for the impact fees analysis. Infrastructure
standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2011-12 data and the first projection year for the
cash flow model will be fiscal year 2012-13. In the City of Bozeman the fiscal year begins on
July 1st.
Summary of Growth Indicators
Development projections and growth rates are summarized in Figure A1. These projections will
be used to estimate impact fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth -related
infrastructure. However, impact fees methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to
accurate development projections in the determination of the proportionate -share fee
amounts. If actual development is slower than projected, impact fees revenues will also
decline, but so will the need for growth -related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is
faster than anticipated, the City will receive an increase in impact fee revenue, but will also
need to accelerate the capital improvements program to keep pace with the actual rate of
development.
Bozeman specific base data for the demographic analysis and development projections are
2010 census counts of population and housing units plus Montana Department of Revenue data
on nonresidential floor area, as provided by City staff. The projected increase in housing units
isAbasedAonAtheACity’sApopulation projection from the 2009 Community Plan, but instead of
54,500 residents by 2015, the projections for the impact fee analysis assume this population
level will not be reached until 2030. Projected population was converted to housing units using
the 2010 average of 2.13 year-round residents per housing unit. Given the five-year update
cycle for impact fees, TischlerBise did not vary this ratio over time or assume any changes to
vacancy rates in Bozeman, which was approximately 10% at the time of the 2 010 census. From
the 2000 to 2010 census, Bozeman had an average annual increase of 589 housing units per
year…AA ccordingAtoAtheACity’sAbuildingApermitsA(seeAYearA2010A nnualAReportAfromAtheA
Department of Planning and Community Development), 2005 was the peak year for residential
construction with 955 housing unit. The low point for the past decade was 2009 with 182
housing units permitted. Residential constructed increased slightly in 2010 to 208 units. Based
on 54,500 residents by 2030, Bozeman would see an increase of 341 units in 2010, increasing
slowly over time to 368 housing units being constructed in 2016.
Because the 2009 Community Plan does not provide job projections for Bozeman, TischlerBise
assumed a constant jobs-to-housing ratio to forecast 39,500 jobs in 2030. Current ratios of
floor area per job, for three general types of nonresidential development, were used to convert
projected jobs into the floor area increase shown below. For both residential and
nonresidential development, the impact fee study assumes a 2.0% annual growth rate.
117
11
Figure A1 – Development Projections and Growth Rates
118
12
Recent Residential Construction
Since 2000, Bozeman has increased by an average of 589 housing units per year. The chart at
the bottom of Figure A2 indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade in
Bozeman. Consistent with the nationwide decline in development activity, residential
construction has slowed significantly since 2008 . Even with the recent drop in housing starts,
Bozeman added more units during the past decade than any previous decade .
Figure A2 – Housing Units by Decade
119
13
Population and Jobs Forecast
To provide context for population and job growth in Bozeman, TischlerBise recommends
comparison to Gallatin County projections published by Woods & Poole Economics (2011). As
shown below, July 1st population data for the entire county is compared to 1990-2010 census
data for the City of Bozeman (April 1st). Woods & Poole annually updates a database containing
more than 900 economic and demographic variables for every county in the United States.
Their economic and demographic projections use an integrated projection model, so that
changes in one county will affect growth or decline in other counties. The methods used b y
Woods & Poole to generate county projections proceed in four stages. First, forecasts to 2040
of total United States personal income, earnings by industry, employment by industry,
population, inflation, and other variables are made. Second, the country is divided into 179
Economic Areas (EAs) as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA). The EAs are aggregates of contiguous counties that attempt to measure
cohesive economic regions in the United States. For each EA, a projection is made for
employment,AusingAanA“export-base”Aapproach…AATheAemploymentAprojectionAforAeachAE AisAthenA
used to estimate earnings in each EA. The employment and earnings projections then become
the principal explanatory variables used to estimate population and number of households in
each EA. The third stage is to project population by age, sex, and race for each EA on the basis
of net migration rates associated with employment opportunities. For stages two and three,
the U.S. projection is the control total for the EA projections. The fourth stage replicates stages
two and three except that it is performed at the county level, using the EAs as the control total
for the county projections.
Figure A3 indicates the City’sAshareAofAcountywideA population over time. Bozeman’sA2009A
Community Plan projected a population of 54,500 by 2015 (see Table A -12 in Appendix B). Due
to the significant decrease in housing construction in recent years, the impact fee update
assumes this population level will not be reached until 2030. Given these projections of County
and City population, Bozeman would experience a decrease in population share over the next
20 years. To derive annual data for the impact fee analysis, TischlerBise used an exponential
growth formula to yield more conservative short-term development increases.
120
14
Figure A3 – City of Bozeman Population Share
In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on
nonresidential development. TischlerBise usesAtheAtermA“jobs”AtoAreferAtoAemploymentAbyAplaceA
of work. Similar to the population share evaluation discussed above, countywide jobs are
shown in Figure A4 along with the City of Bozeman job share. Countywide jobs are from Woods
& Poole Economics (2011), scaled according to the year 2000 ratio of jobs reported by the
Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) compared to the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) job data used by Woods & Poole. For the purpose of transportation impact fees, CTPP
data provide a better representation of the demand for journey -to-work travel. BEA includes
self-employed, sole proprietors, and part-time employment. Even though 2010 CTPP data is
not yet available, the methodology for deriving these two data sets has not cha nged
significantly over the past decade.
121
15
For the City of Bozeman, TischlerBise assumed a constant jobs-to-housing ratio over time.
TischlerBise also used an exponential formula to derive annual jobs from 2010 to 2030, thus
minimizing short-term increases in jobs and nonresidential floor area. Jobs were converted to
nonresidential floor area using average square feet per employee multipliers, as discussed
further below.
Figure A4 – City of Bozeman Job Share
122
16
Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development
Figure A5 indicates 2011 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area located in Bozeman.
Current floor area was derived from Montana Department of Revenue parcel data, aggregated
into three nonresidential categories using City of Bozeman land use des criptions. The
percentage distribution of jobs by type of nonresidential development was obtained from the
U…S…ACensusABureau’sAOn-The-Map web application. Average square feet of floor area per job,
for the three categories1, helped TischlerBise select nonresidential prototypes to be used in the
transportation impact fee analysis, as discussed further below.
Figure A5 – Jobs and Floor Area Estimate
1 For Industrial, City of Bozeman Land Use Inventory includes Agricultural, Light and Heavy
Manufacturing and Industry. Retail/Restaurant includes Commercial Auto, Commercial Retail
Sales, Services, Banks, Restaurants, and Bars. All Other Services includes
Administrative/Professional, Church, Golf, Mixed Use, Public Facilities, Parks, Open Space,
Schools and Educational Facilities, and Undeveloped/Vacant.
123
17
Employees per Square Foot of Nonresidential Development
In Figure A6, gray shading indicates three nonresidential development prototypes that will be
used by TischlerBise to derive vehicle trips and estimate potential impact fee revenue. The
prototypeAdevelopmentAforAindustrialAjobsAisA“Manufacturing”…AA verageAweekdayAvehicleAtripA
generation rates are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2008). The prototype
forAretailAandArestaurantAjobsAisAaA“DiscountAClub”AorAtypicalAbig-box retailer. The prototype for
all other service jobs is a Research and Development Center, which is similar to a campus-style
industrial park but with more office space and less warehousing.
Figure A6 – Employee and Building Area Ratios
124
18
Detailed Development Projections
Demographic data shown in Figure A7 will be used as key inputs to update development impact
fees in the City of Bozeman. Cumulative data are shown at the top and projected annual
increases by type of development are shown at the bottom of the table. Given the expectation
that impact fees are updated every five years, TischlerBise did not evalua te long-term
demographic trends such as declining household size. As discussed in the next section,
TischlerBise recommends the use of persons per housing unit to derive impact fees. Therefore,
vacancy rates and number of households are not essential to the demographic analysis.
Figure A7 – Annual Demographic Data
Persons per Housing Unit
TheA2010AcensusAdidAnotAobtainAdetailedAinformationAusingAaA“long-form”Aquestionnaire…AA
Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing o f surveys,
known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints in
areas with relatively few residents. For cities like Bozeman, data on detached housing units are
now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the
rationale for deriving fees by housing unit size, as discussed further below, is to address this
ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and mobile homes generally have less floor area than
125
19
detached units, fees by house size ensure proportionality and facilitate construction of
affordable units.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year -
round residents. Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit o r
persons per household to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. When persons per housing
unit are used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year -round
population. When persons per household are used in the fee calculatio ns, the impact fee
methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak
population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. TischlerBise recommends that
impact fees for residential development in the City of Bo zeman be imposed according to the
number of year-round residents per housing unit. As shown at the bottom of Figure A9, census
data indicates Bozeman had 17,464 housing units in 2010. In 2010, dwellings with a single unit
per structure (detached, attached, and mobile homes) averaged 2.23 persons per housing unit.
Dwellings in structures with multiple units averaged 1.62 year-round residents per unit.
Figure A9 – Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing
126
20
Demand Indicators by Size of Detached Housing
As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential
development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve
formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data.
Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units,
householdsAandApersons)AareAavailableAfromAtheAUniversityAofAMissouri’sAwebsite…AATischlerBiseA
used American Community Survey (ACS 2008-2010) data for Bozeman to derive custom average
weekday trip generation rates by type of housing, as shown in Figure A10. A vehicle trip end
represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development, as if a traffic counter were placed
across a driveway.
Figure A10 - Residential Trip Generation Rates by Type of Housing
127
21
Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from survey
responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in files known as Public Use Micro -data Samples
(PUMS). Because PUMS files are only available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the City of
Bozeman is included in Public Use Micro-data Area 00500, which includes five counties
(Meagher, Park, Gallatin, Madison, and Beaverhead). As shown in Figure A11, Tisch lerBise
derived trip generation rates and average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from
PUMS data. Recommended multipliers were scaled to make the average value by type of
housing for PUMA 00500 match the average value derived from 2010 census d ata for the City
of Bozeman. Because single units are more numerous, with a greater range of size and value, it
is possible to derive four size categories. In contrast, residential structures with multiple units
are limited to three size categories.
Figure A11 – Vehicle Trips and Persons by Bedroom Range
Trip Generation by Floor Area of Single Unit Housing
To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by square feet of single unit housing, TischlerBise
combined demographic data from the Census Bureau and house size data obtained by City staff
from the Montana Department of Revenue. The number of bedrooms per housing unit is the
common connection between the two databases. As shown in Figure A12, the average size,
single unit house with less than three bedrooms has 1,611 square feet of living area. The
average size of a three-bedroom unit is 2,101 square feet of living area and four-bedroom units
128
22
average 2,782 square feet. Single unit dwellings with five or more bedrooms average 3,377
square feet of living area (i.e. heated space excluding garages).
Average floor area and weekday vehicle trip ends by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A12,
with a logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in Bozeman. TischlerBise
used the trend line formula to derive estimated trip ends by size of single unit house, in 100
square feet intervals. The weighted average single unit generates 7.5 weekday trip ends. A
small unit with 1,400 square feet would pay 60% of the transportation impact fee for an
average size unit. A large unit of 3,400 square feet would pay 148% of the transportation
impact fee for an average size unit. In the 2008 transportation impact fee study, the fee
schedule for single-family units was also structured with size thresholds in combination with
income criteria, but in one thousand square feet thresholds. Size increments can be adju sted
based on community input.
Figure A12 – Vehicle Trips by Size of Single Unit Dwelling
129
23
Average Number of Persons by Square Feet of Single Unit Dwelling
Determining the average number of persons by square feet of single unit housing requires a
combination of demographic data from the Census Bureau and house size data from the local
property-tax database, with number of bedrooms as the common connection between the two
databases. The average size single unit house, by bedroom range, is based on living area, which
excludes garages.
Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A13, with a
logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in the City of Bozeman. Using the
trend line formula shown in the chart, TischlerBise derived the estimated average number of
persons, by size of single unit house, using 100 square feet intervals. For the purpose of impact
fees, TischlerBise recommends a minimum fee based on a unit size of 1400 square feet and a
maximum fee based on a unit size of 3,400 square feet. The average single unit has 2.2
persons.
Figure A13 – Persons by Square Feet of Single Unit Residential
130
24
Trip Generation by Floor Area of Residential Structures with 2+ Units
GivenABozeman’sAbalancedAhousingAstock with a significant number of residential structures
with multiple units, TischlerBise also derived demand indicators by size for residential
structures with two or more units. For structures with multiple units, the average size dwelling
with less than two bedrooms has 977 square feet of living area. The average size of a two -
bedroom unit is 1,192 square feet of living area. Dwellings with more than two bedrooms
average 1,820 square feet of living area.
Average floor area and weekday vehicle trip ends by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A14,
with a logarithmic trend line derived from the three actual averages in Bozeman. TischlerBise
used the trend line formula to derive estimated trip ends by unit size for residential structures
with multiple units, in 100 square feet intervals. The weighted-average residential structure
with multiple units generates 5.4 vehicle trip ends on a weekday. The weighted-average trip
generation rate would be used to derive the updated transportation impact fee If City Council
makes a policy decision to not impose impact fees by size of multifamily housing. In the 2008
transportation impact fee study, fees for apartments are based on 6.64 trip ends per average
weekday. The proposed fee for a dwelling in a multi-unit structure with 900 square feet would
be 67% of the amount imposed on the average unit. A large unit with 1,800 square feet would
pay 139% of the amount imposed on the average dwelling in a multi-unit structure.
131
25
Figure A14 – Vehicle Trips by Dwelling Size for 2+ Units per Structure
132
26
Persons per Dwelling by Floor Area for 2+ Units per Structure
Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A15, with a
logarithmic trend line derived from the three actual averages in the City of Bozeman. Using the
trend line formula shown in the chart, TischlerBise derived the estimated average number of
persons, by dwelling size for residential structures with multiple units, using 100 square feet
intervals. For residential structures with two or more units, TischlerBise recommends a
minimum fee based on a unit size of 900 square feet and a maximum fee based on a unit size of
1,800 square feet.
Figure A15 – Persons by Square Feet in 2+ Units per Structure
133
City of Bozeman – Impact Fee Summary information
Page 1 of 6
Impact Fees Summary
Impact Fees are a tool to fairly and equitably provide for the timely installation of
infrastructure (transportation, fire services, water, and sewer) necessary to serve new
development.
History
In January 1996, the City Commission of the City of Bozeman adopted impact fees after an
extensive public process. This action was consistent with a policy the City adopted the 1983
Master Plan which included Public Facility Goal 8:
“Whenever possible, the cost of providing public facilities for future development should
be borne by the development that requires them.”
This concept has been continued forward in all subsequent long range planning and continues
to be incorporated into the current budget documents as shown in the following excerpt from
the 2012 Budget.
“Financial Policies – Revenue
5. User fees and charges will be used, as opposed to general taxes, when distinct
beneficiary populations or interest groups can be identified.
User fees and charges are preferable to general taxes because user charges can provide
clear demand signals which assist in determining what services to offer, their quantity, and
their quality. User charges are also more equitable, since only those who use the service
must pay--thereby eliminating the subsidy provided by nonusers to users, which is inherent
in general tax financing.”
The City periodically updates all the documents and calculations used for the impact fee. The
City is presently working with the consulting firm TischlerBise to prepare the most recent
update. The work is planned to be completed in 2012.
1. Purposes of Impact Fees
a. Provide infrastructure to enable development to continue and provide needed services.
b. Fairness – impact fees must be related to and proportional to the demand for services. They
therefore avoid pushing one person’s costs onto another.
c. Transparency – the process of calculating, collecting, and spending impact fees is open to
public review and input. Citizens can see why costs are charged, how funds are allocated, and
where the work is being done. Present and future needs must be identified to the public.
134
City of Bozeman – Impact Fee Summary information
Page 2 of 6
d. Accountability – the impact fee process requires government to disclose current and future
needs and status of infrastructure and requires both public and private parties to be
accountable to their decisions.
e. Improved decision making – by identifying the present and future needs and identifying
how to pay for those needs the consequences of decisions are more clear, the costs of
decisions are open for discussion, and the costs of development are not masked.
2. Basic Principles of Impact Fees
a. Development which uses up a measurable amount of capacity in public infrastructure
systems should pay the cost of providing the necessary infrastructure to replace the consumed
capacity. An impact fee is an estimated cost of providing the needed improvements or
additions to the system to serve the project charged the fee.
b. New development may not be held to a higher standard of service than existing
development, unless existing deficiencies are in the process of being remedied through
funding other than impact fees.
c. Impact fees may not be used to correct pre-existing problems or for maintenance.
d. The fee charged must be related in amount and purpose to the cost of providing the
infrastructure needed.
e. Those who are charged a fee for public infrastructure must receive benefit from those
infrastructure improvements.
f. The fee is universally applied; impact fee waivers must be paid for by other funding
sources. Governments or other tax exempt entities pay the impact fee based on the same
principles as others.
3. General formula
The general impact fee formula for any type of service can be represented as the equation of:
IMPACT FEE = (Demand x Unit Cost) – Credit
Where:
DEMAND = the amount of capacity needed to accommodate new development, based on the
adopted Level of Service standard, or the associated need for service (e.g., Vehicle Miles
Traveled or gallons of water per person per day);
UNIT COST = the cost per unit of demand based on the calculated value of the improvements
needed to provide service; and
CREDIT = the value of the future revenues other than impact fees that growth will generate,
which will also be used to pay for the capital facility expansion of that public infrastructure
plus the value of any past or present contributions to the cost of capital facility expansion.
135
City of Bozeman – Impact Fee Summary information
Page 3 of 6
EXAMPLE: Impact Fee [$3,200] = (Demand [200 gallons per household] x Unit Cost
[$17.50 per gallon]) - Credit [$1.50 per gallon] This simplified example summarizes many
different items which make up each component in the equation.
4. Establishment of Cost of Service
The cost of service for each of the four impact fees is established by a study called a service
area report. The first studies were prepared by James Duncan and Associates in 1995-1996.
The City is now on it second round of updates to the studies. The present study effort is
expected to be finished in mid-2012.
The City prepares facility plans which examine the overall operation of an infrastructure
system such as for municipal water. These plans establish acceptable levels of service to
customers; document needed maintenance and new work needed to service additional
demand; and where the City provides the services.
The service area reports examine anticipated needs for future growth, and the services needed
to accommodate growth to establish a cost per unit of demand for service. They also establish
whether services are provide in one or in more than one geographic areas that are considered
independently. A credit is calculated for outstanding debt used to fund system improvements
and that new development will help pay off, other funding sources, and system deficiencies. A
final cost per unit of service demand is then established. The City Commission may choose to
collect all or part of the calculated cost of services.
If an individual feels that their project is somehow substantially unique in its need for
services, the Impact Fee Ordinance establishes a mechanism for an independent fee study, to
be submitted to the City and following the same methodology as the original fee studies. If the
City agrees with the independent fee study conclusions, an appropriate modification will be
made to the Impact Fee assessment.
The City adjusts the fee annually to account for changes in the cost of construction. The fee
calculations and service area reports must be reviewed at least every three years to ensure that
the basis of the fee continues to be valid.
5. Capital Improvements Program and supporting documents
The use of impact fee revenue is planned out through the Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) which sets funding priorities for capital items over the next five years. It identifies
funding source(s) to be used for each project and estimates the costs of construction. The CIP
is updated annually through an open public process and adopted by the City Commission. The
CIP is available through the City’s website on the Finance Department web page.
The Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program is a subset of the overall Capital
Improvements Program and sets a list of projects to be funded with impact fees for the next
five years.
136
City of Bozeman – Impact Fee Summary information
Page 4 of 6
The CIP is adopted by the City Commission as part of the overall budgeting process. Public
participation in requesting projects and in ranking projects can occur before or during the
public hearings on the CIP which are held in the fall.
The Capital Improvement Program aids the City in providing cost effective and efficient
services to the public and new development. It can be reviewed on the City’s website.
6. Projects Funded by Impact Fees
All projects funded by impact fees must be related to the expansion of service capacity.
The City has constructed numerous projects using impact fees as total or partial funding the
project. A map is available on the City’s web site. Constructed projects to date include:
1. Widening of six transportation corridors and 15 intersection signalization or other
improvements.
2. Expansion of two water treatment plants at Lyman Creek and Sourdough Canyon. Eight
water mains were installed or expanded.
3. Multiple projects to expand the Water Reclamation Facility (sewer plant) and five
installations or expansions of sewage collection mains.
4. Construction of Fire Station 3 and purchase of accompanying fire engine.
Future projects are listed on the Impact Fees CIP.
7. Collection of Fees
Fees should be collected at a time which is known and predictable and when relevant to the
initial use of services. Each fee is legally separate from the others. A single fee may be
collected and not the others if additional demand is only in one service.
The City of Bozeman has set collection times for Fire and Street impact fees at building
permit issuance, and at the time of the connection permit for Water and Sewer impact fees.
Fees are calculated and assessed in accordance with the costs established by the service area
reports. Building Permit applications are submitted to the Building Division who then routes
them to the Planning Office. The Planning Office reviews the building permit application and
passes it on to the Impact Fee Coordinator who then completes the impact fee assessment and
returns the application to the Building Division. An assessment is valid for six months or until
the Building Permit application lapses, whichever occurs first. This "locks in" a fee cost even
if fees are raised after an application is submitted.
If the Building Permit application is for a renovation or accessory building which does not
increase impacts, or is for the replacement of a previously existing building with the same
demand for service, impact fees may not be applicable. If there is no new or additional
consumption of capacity in a specific type of infrastructure, no impact fee is assessed.
137
City of Bozeman – Impact Fee Summary information
Page 5 of 6
Fees will be collected for each of the services that a property receives. Properties outside the
City that contract for City services must pay the City impact fee for that service.
8. Appeals and Refunds
The Impact Fee Ordinance allows for appeals of decisions made in the administration of the
Impact Fee program and for refunds of fees paid under some conditions.
The Development Impact Fees Review Committee will hear initial appeals after the proper
filing of an appeal, including the payment of an appeal fee. If the appeal is successful the
appeal fee will be returned and an adjustment made in the impact fee which was appealed.
If the appellant is dissatisfied with the result of the Development Impact Fees Review
Committee's decision in the initial appeal they may subsequently appeal to the City
Commission.
Refunds of impact fees may be due for the following reasons: The abandonment of
construction of a project after the payment of fees but prior to commencement of
construction; an error in calculation by the City, or City's failure to use the funds within 10
years. To receive a refund an individual must fill out both an Impact Fee Refund form and a
warrant claim. The Impact Fee Coordinator will review the request and if it is substantiated
forward the warrant claim to the Finance Department for processing and payment. Refunds
are paid to the current owner of the property.
9. Impact Fee Credits
Impact fee credits are to reimburse, under certain conditions, developers who install
infrastructure which provides substantial benefit to the public and is not required for their own
project. The term ‘credit’ covers several different forms of reimbursement. Section 2.06.1690,
BMC describes the procedures for requesting credits.
To qualify for Impact Fee credits a project must meet the criteria established by statute and
municipal code:
1.Inclusion and funding of the project on the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program
2. The project is properly proposed and reviewed, including preliminary cost estimates
prior to any construction work on the project beginning.
3. The project must increase capacity in the major infrastructure system and not be work
uniquely required by the development.
Credits will be calculated and awarded after the project is completed and accepted by the City
or financially guaranteed. Credits may take different forms at the discretion of the City.
Credits may be freely traded or otherwise exchanged between private parties. Before
exchanges can be used the change must be recorded by the City. All credits expire 10 years
138
City of Bozeman – Impact Fee Summary information
Page 6 of 6
after their date of issuance. Credits may only be used to offset impact fees of the same type as
the original project which generated the credits, i.e., Streets, Fire, Water, or Wastewater.
10. Legal Basis for Impact Fees
The City of Bozeman has enacted it's impact fee program based on the City's general police
power; the authority granted to the City by the Montana State Constitution; and Sections 7-6-
1601 through 1604, 7-1-4123, 7-1-4124, 7-3-4313, 7-7-4424, 7-13-4304, and 69-7-1-1 of the
Montana Code Annotated.
11. More Information
For more information on impact fees in Bozeman you may contact the Department of
Planning and Community Development. Copies of the most recent fee studies and related
information is available through their web page.
139
Available Funding Mechanisms for Development Infrastructure (Fire, Major Streets, Water, and Sewer)
The following lists funding sources used for the key types of infrastructure to support development. This
list includes both expansion and maintenance. These funding sources are listed in the order in which they
are used to build and maintain facilities from greatest contribution to least. The four categories are for
work that serves the overall community.
Water
1) Water Source - Dedicated Water Rights or Cash-in-lieu obtained through annexation and
development, and Water service monthly fees.
2) Water Treatment Plant, Transmission Mains, and Storage - Water service monthly fees,
Impact Fees, Governmental transfers such as grants or matching funds.
3) Distribution Mains - Impact Fees, Development construction, Water service monthly
fees, Governmental transfers such as grants or matching funds, Paybacks, and Special
Improvement Districts.
Sewer
1) Wastewater Treatment Plant - Sewer service monthly fees, Impact Fees, and
Governmental transfers such as grants or matching funds.
2) Sewer Mains - Development construction, Impact Fees, Sewer service monthly fees,
Governmental transfers such as grants or matching funds, Paybacks, and Special
Improvement Districts.
Major Streets Network
Major Street - Impact Fees, Governmental transfers such as grants or matching funds
especially funds raised from gasoline taxes, Development construction, and Taxes.
Fire Protection
Fire Stations and Fire Trucks – Taxes, Impact Fees, and Governmental transfers such as
grants or matching funds.
Infrastructure Internal to the Subdivision
Water and Sewer mains and services to individual lots or buildings, local roads, and fire
lines and hydrants - The services within the subdivisions or individual project development
are the responsibility of the Developer.
140
Page 1 of 7
Infrastructure Funding Sources.
Introduction
The City of Bozeman draws from many different sources to pay for the long range planning for,
installation of, and maintenance of its water, sewer, transportation, and fire services. Each funding
source has legal limitations to its use. The limitations often result in a need to blend multiple funding
sources to construct or operate a single system or project. This also frequently results in
complexities that can be difficult to explain in a few sentences and is often specific to an individual
project.
The term “infrastructure” is used to generally refer to the fundamental framework of facilities and
systems serving the City and enabling its functions and services to the public. The term is
understood to apply to both hard elements like pipes and soft elements like personnel. This guide is
intended to help the public understand funding of infrastructure. It is not a definitive nor exhaustive
work. It does not attempt to explain all of the funding of all of the City’s operations.
Descriptions and Operations of Funding Sources:
Bonds – Bonds do not themselves create revenue but are a loan from the people who buy
the bonds which will be paid off by taxes or fees collected by the City. A bond can be used
to allow up-front installation of infrastructure that is paid for over time. Payments for bonds
include interest as well as repaying the amount borrowed.
Dedications- A dedication is typically mitigation for the impacts created by a particular
development. The most visible types of dedications are parks and street right-of-way. Both
parks and streets are required by state subdivision law. Street dedications arise from the
requirement that all subdivisions provide for legal and physical access to all lots. The amount
of improvement required with a dedication is variable depending on the intensity and
character of the development. Dedications of parks, streets, water and sewer lines installed in
new subdivisions transfer ownership and maintenance responsibility to the City.
Fees - "A charge fixed by law for services of public officers or for use of a privilege under
control of government. A recompense for an official or professional service or a charge or
emolument or compensation for a particular act or service." (Black's Law Dictionary, p. 614)
emphasis added. Impact fees are defined as a fee for service in state law, Section 7-6-1603(7)
MCA. The City has used fees instead of taxes when reasonably achievable for many years to
more closely match costs to the beneficiaries of City expenditures. Fees can be a one-time
cost such as for a building permit or can be a recurring cost such as a sewer bill.
Fees are paid by facility users in exchange for services or use of facilities controlled by
governmental agencies. Fees typically provide for items such as operations and maintenance,
and may contribute to debt service, expansion, repair or replacement of capital items, and
141
Page 2 of 7
other expenses of the facility for which they are charged. Fee revenue is typically allocated to
the specific purpose for which it is collected and cannot be redirected. Some City functions
like the water and sewer systems are considered “enterprise funds” and are required to be
operated and paid for independent of general taxes and rely primarily on fees.
Impact Fee - Impact fees are land development regulations, whose purpose is to protect
the public, rather than to raise general revenues. The intent of impact fees is not to raise
money for general governmental purposes, but rather, to ensure that necessary infrastructure
is timely and adequately provided to new development. Impact fees are distinct from and
take into account other revenue sources which may contribute to the same type of
infrastructure. In the City of Bozeman, impact fees have been established to provide for
expansion of the Water, Wastewater, Fire and Street systems. Impact fees cannot be used for
operation or maintenance of capital facilities.
The term impact fee is specifically defined in state law as:
7-6-1601 (5) (a) “ ‘Impact fee’ means any charge imposed upon development by a
governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional
service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may
include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact
fee collected.
(b) The term does not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs
associated with a permit required for development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special
improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county,
municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and
costs of ongoing maintenance; or
(iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the
safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been
adopted by the governmental entity.”
In the case of the City of Bozeman, improvements made using the impact fee program have
benefits city wide and therefore are different from the benefits from Special Improvement
Districts which are of a more limited nature. See Special Improvement District below.
Impact fees are a one-time charge. Unless the use, or scale of use, of the property changes
no further impact fees will be necessary. Impact fees are currently limited by ordinance to
Fire, Major Street, Water and Sewer systems. Prior to expenditures of impact fee funds,
projects must be included on a Capital Improvement Program as discussed above. Impact
142
Page 3 of 7
fees may not be used for operations, maintenance, repair, or to cure existing deficiencies in
existing public facilities.
Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program (IFCIP) - A listing of capital
improvement projects, intended for completion within the next five years, dependent on
Impact Fee revenues, relating to the Fire, Major Street, Water and Sewer systems, presented
to the City Commission on an annual basis by the City Finance Director. (Section
2.06.1700.E B.M.C.) The purpose of the IFCIP is to assist in the implementation of the duly
adopted growth policy and facility plans for the Bozeman area by assigning monies from
each impact fee fund to specific capital improvement projects which will support and
mitigate impacts of development. These projects comply with the limitations of impact fee
funding. By their location these projects shall assist in an orderly, efficient, and economical
expansion of the City's Fire, Major Street, Sewer, and Water facilities.
The long range facility plans look out over a 20 year planning horizon. All of the projects
projected are not needed at once. The IFCIP is a statement of where in the shorter term the
City wishes to expend public funds to expand the capacity of relevant infrastructure systems.
The IFCIP is a subset of the City’s overall Capital Improvement Program which looks at all
funding sources and services. The entire Capital Improvement Program document is
available through the Finance Department web page.
Impact Fee Credits - A credit off-sets the impact fees due from one of the four impact
fee categories, Fire, Major Streets, Water and Sewer. Credits may not transfer between
categories. Credits compensation for work performed or land dedicated, in accordance with
the City's Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program, and other criteria as established by
ordinance, administrative policy, or legal requirement.
• Criteria 1) Capacity Expanding (beyond project related).
• Criteria 2) Not Project Related.
• Criteria 3) Capital Improvement Program Listed.
• Criteria 4) Capital Improvement Program Funded.
• Criteria 5) Timely Request (before construction or dedication).
Credits have a functional duration of 10 years and only become effective when the work is
completed or land dedication is fully accepted by the City. Credits are issued in accordance
with, and governed by, Section 2.06.1690 of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
Intergovernmental Transfers – A transfer of money from the federal or state
government to the City. This may take several forms such as a one-time grant, loans, or be
an on-going revenue share transfer such as a portion of gas taxes. Whether
intergovernmental transfers occur and their amounts are generally outside the control of the
City and are made available to the City as part of a larger policy established by the federal or
state governments.
143
Page 4 of 7
Oversizing- The placement of infrastructure which has a greater capacity than necessary
to serve a specific development. Oversizing most often happens during the extension of
water or sewer main lines. Oversizing is often used for infrastructure which, while larger
than needed solely for a single development, is still not larger than minimum requirements
and is often shared by adjacent development. While oversizing is more of a practice than a
funding mechanism it does assist in providing for the efficient installation of public
infrastructure to accommodate future growth in an area. As much of the work to install the
infrastructure is already underway the City can compensate a developer for the additional
costs for increasing a pipe size and create a greater amount of capacity for a comparatively
low cost. Oversizing is often connected with a payback.
Payback- An agreement between a private party and the City of Bozeman, whereby the
private party agrees to install certain infrastructure benefiting others, as well as themselves.
In return, compensatory payment, to the original installer, is required of future development
at the time future development begins to utilize the relevant infrastructure. A payback
boundary is established at the time of the agreement which delineates those areas affected by
the payback agreement. Paybacks are limited in the time they may remain active and do not
become due until such time as future development connects to the installed infrastructure.
Paybacks commonly have duration of seven to ten years. A payback can be used in
conjunction with oversizing. Paybacks are sometimes referred to as latecomer agreements.
Project Related Improvements- Site-related improvements including, without
limitation, all access streets adjacent to the proposed development or leading only to the
proposed development; all streets and driveways within the development; all acceleration,
deceleration, right or left turn lanes leading to any streets and driveways within the
development; all traffic control devices for streets and driveways within the development; all
water lines or facilities adjacent to, leading to, or located within the development and serving
only the development; and all wastewater lines or facilities adjacent to, leading to, or located
within and serving only the development. (Section 2.06.1630, BMC)
Project related improvements are those items necessary for the proper functioning of a
specific development and is attributable to a particular development. They may be located
either on or off-site and are attributable directly to the presence, type, and scale of a specific
development. Project related improvements are the financial responsibility of the developer.
Project related improvements may eventually be dedicated to and transferred to City
ownership.
Special Improvement District- A special district is defined by Black's Law Dictionary
as "A limited governmental structure created to bypass normal borrowing limitations, to
insulate certain activities from traditional political influence, to allocate functions to entities
reflecting particular expertise, to provide services in otherwise incorporated area, or to
accomplish a primarily local benefit or improvement, e.g. parks and planning, mosquito
control, sewage removal." (Black's p. 1397) Special improvement districts are authorized by
144
Page 5 of 7
and governed by the requirements of Title 7, Chapter 12, Part 41 of the Montana Code
Annotated. An SID is often used for local level improvements for which it would be difficult
to arrange conventional financing due to the many different persons and properties
involved. A special improvement district can be initiated by the citizens or by the City.
Special Improvement Districts are primarily oriented to the provision of single, locally
oriented, improvements. They are generally initiated by, and are paid for by levies on, the
property owners who will be receiving the special benefits of the improvements. SIDs are
formed with specific boundaries and a change in the use of the land within the district does
not alter the total annual assessment of the district. SIDs are commonly funded through
bonds which are then paid off over time by annual assessments on the property owners
within the district. If parcels change ownership the SID assessment transfers to the new
owner. SIDs can be formed many types of capital project including, street lighting, road
improvements, parks, and traffic control devices. Special improvement districts can also be
an ongoing entity to pay for the operations of a specific utility such as a lighting district.
Taxes- "A charge by the government on the income of an individual, corporation, or trust,
as well as the value of an estate or gift. The objective in assessing the tax is to generate
revenue to be used for the needs of the public."
"Essential characteristics of a tax are that it is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an
enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority." In a discussion of
synonyms to taxes Black's offers the following additional explanation. "Taxes, as the term is
generally used, are public burdens imposed generally upon the inhabitants of the whole state,
or upon some civil division thereof, for governmental purposes, without reference to
peculiar benefits to particular individuals or property." (Black's p.1457)
As noted above, a tax is imposed without regard to peculiar benefit to those paying the tax.
This is in contrast to a special assessment or impact fee which differs from a unrestricted tax
in that it is levied for a specific purpose and in an amount which links the payment and cost
to the benefit received. (Black's p. 116) Taxes are generally unrestricted in their use and
provide a source of funding for a wide range of governmental services. Some few taxes are
specifically restricted in use such as gasoline and lodging taxes.
Property taxes are the most common taxes paid to local governments. The consolidated
billing from the semi-annual tax statements consolidates property taxes from several local
governments. The following table shows the 2011 fiscal year breakdown for the distribution
of property taxes in the City of Bozeman. The property tax funds such services as Police,
City Attorney, Parks, and Library services.
145
Page 6 of 7
Interrelationships:
Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program and Impact Fee Credits- Impact
fees are intended to assist in implementing the master plan and in providing an efficient, cost
effective, and timely provision of water, wastewater, fire, or street services. As infrastructure,
such as water, sewer, and street, is provided to service specific parcels the likelihood of their
being developed increases substantially. In order to facilitate both the location and timing of
infrastructure improvements a mechanism is required to compensate those developers who
undertake community scale improvements which are desired by the community.
First, the City Staff prepares a proposal for the Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program
(IFCIP), which is a listing of service capacity expanding projects; in this case limited to those
services wholly or partially funded through impact fees, anticipated to be undertaken in the
next five years. Private citizens may also propose specific projects for inclusion in the
program.
Second, the draft list and any public suggestions are considered by the Impact Fee Advisory
Committee, a City Commission appointed group representing the community. They make a
recommendation for consideration by the City Commission. Third the IFCIP is considered,
possibly amended, and then adopted by the City Commission and made a formal guiding
document for the City. This listing is not a guarantee of construction, but does indicate those
improvements seen as desirable or necessary by the city and for which the City is willing to
commit and schedule impact fee funds. An individual project description will identify if
funds other than impact fees are needed to complete the project. The IFCIP is prepared on
an annual basis and may be amended as the Commission chooses should an unexpected
situation arise.
The second part of the sequence is when a developer, in the interest of accelerating the
timing of a project, wishes to complete one of the projects on the IFCIP. Infrastructure
work within the four services covered by impact fees, and not on the IFCIP, is not eligible
for impact fee credits. Generally the IFCIP items are larger than a single development can be
held responsible to mitigate for, therefore some compensation for the additional work is
necessary. This occurs when a developer approaches the City offering to construct the
relevant item. This may occur during the project review and discussion of required
infrastructure for the project. In any case it must occur prior to the commencement of
construction of the improvements. Credits will be calculated as indicated in Article 2.06 of
the Bozeman Municipal Code. Project related improvements, as defined above, of the same
type as the improvement for which credits are sought, will be deducted from the value of the
work used to calculate credits. Credits can be issued in different ways: as cash payment,
repayment over time, or as a credit used to offset future impact fees due from individual
construction projects. Impact fee credits can be exchanged at will between private parties
and used by whoever is the current owner but are only valid for City of Bozeman impact
fees of the same type as are issued.
146
Page 7 of 7
Project Related Improvements, Oversizing, Impact Fee Credits- Oversizing
as defined above may be eligible for impact fee credits if the infrastructure project being
completed is listed in the Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program. If so, the criteria and
procedures described in Article 2.06 of the Bozeman Municipal Code would apply. If the
infrastructure work is not included in the Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program the
work would not be eligible for impact fee credits, but may be eligible for Paybacks, cash
reimbursement, or other mutually agreeable reimbursement mechanism between the City
and the installer.
Dedications and Impact Fee Credits- Dedications, as mentioned in the definitions
section above, commonly apply to subdivisions for the provision of streets and water and
sewer mains. Article 2.06 of the Bozeman Municipal Code allows for voluntary dedication of
easements and fee simple dedication of lands to be used to offset impact fees or be eligible
for impact fee credits when provided to further development of relevant service systems.
Mandatory dedications may qualify for credits under some situations. The same conditions
apply to dedications as to work-in-lieu. The project must be in the Impact Fee Capital
Improvement Program, be approved prior to the donation, and be first used to offset the
cost of impact fees which will be due from the project, if known. A dedication resulting
from a project related improvement is not eligible for impact fee credits.
Paybacks and Impact Fee Credits- Both paybacks and impact fee credits are ways of
reimbursing individuals for work done in providing infrastructure capacity beyond that
required by a specific project. Each has its limitations as discussed in the definitions section
above. It is possible for both a payback and impact fee credits to be used to reimburse a
developer for work done on a specific infrastructure installation so long as total
reimbursements do not exceed actual costs.
Fees- User fees may provide funding for the full range of needs of the service for which
they are collected, e.g. sewer services. Fees may cover such things as operations and
maintenance costs, debt and debt service, capital improvements, and acquisition of
equipment. Fees may be used directly or may repay bonds. Some fees, like impact fees, have
restrictions on their use.
Taxes- There is two classes of taxes, those that are unrestricted in use and those which are
limited to a single purpose. Restricted use taxes, such as the tax on gasoline, are earmarked
for a specific purpose and may not be diverted to other uses. Unrestricted taxes such as the
City portion of property taxes can be used for a broad range of purposes including such
things as street construction and maintenance, police services, and payment of bond
indebtedness.
References
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., Joseph R. Nolan, et al., West Publishing Co., 1990.
147