Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-12 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes MINUTES THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 121 NORTH ROUSE AVENUE, THURSDAY,MARCH 8,2012 6:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Temp Carpenter 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 Pres Randy Carpenter, Chairperson Pro Temp Chris Sa s, tant Planning Director Erik Nelson George Thompson Rick Hixson Chris Mehl, City Commission Liaison Members Absent James Nickelson, Chairperson Anna Rosenberry David Graham, Vice Chairperson Rob Evans ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 26,2012. Mr. Thompson moved, Mr. Hixson seconded, to approve the minutes of January 26, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Temp Carpenter, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Hixson, and by proxy given to Mr. Hixson Ms. Rosenberry and Mr. Nickelson. 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. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed} Mr. Mehl asked the Chairperson Pro Temp is he could wait to give his report until Item 2 under the Project Reviews. His request was granted. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Presentation of Ordinance#1823 to revise credit provisions to prohibit after the fact refunds based on credits. (Saunders) Page 1 of 4 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—March 8,2012 Assistant Director Saunders presented the item to the Committee giving a short history of how the issue came under consideration, the discussion staff had had internally on the issue, and how they had not been able to define a solid rationale for allowing requests for reimbursement of fees already paid in exchange for credits for some but not others. The most equitable approach appeared to either allow for all or none and they had concluded that the possible benefits for allowing such refunds were not enough to overcome the disadvantages to the City. He summarized the discussion the Commission had had on the matter on March 5ti'. Assistant Director Saunders described the credit program as it operates today and the scope of the credit processes. He noted the municipal code is currently silent on this issue and staff believes that the ordinance should be clear on the matter. Mr. Mehl noted the Commission had voted on this on March 5th as a split 3-2 vote. Chairperson Pro Temp Carpenter asked why the split. Mr. Mehl noted the infrequency of the issue only once in 16 years and a desire to not limit the flexibility for businesses in using this option. Credits function like commodities and there was some concern about possibly reducing their value. Mr. Nelson said he didn't see the value being reduced by this approach. The Committee discussed how the credits can be like commodities; and how the options for exchanging and using them works now and would work if the ordinance was adopted. The Committee discussed the possible disadvantages if a large refund was requested in the future and whether it might affect other projects on the capital improvement program. Assistant Director Saunders described how the City had handled the first request that gave rise to the discussion of this issue. Mr. Nelson asked how the transfers would work and why someone would want to engage in this kind of impact fee credit exchange and refund process. Assistant Director Saunders explained how it would work. Mr. Nelson asked if the City helps facilitate connecting people who have the credits and people who may be able to use them and asked if more effort could be put in that direction. Assistant Director Saunders described the process the City uses and that the issue usually comes up with a larger commercial project. He noted that there have been several creative ways people have come up with to monetize a non- cash impact fee credit through private transactions. Chairperson Pro Temp Carpenter asked if there had been any public comment on the ordinance at the City Commission meeting. Assistant Director Saunders replied that there had not been. Assistant Director Saunders noted that either allowing or not allowing the ability to do a credit refund should be legally fine and it is a matter of deciding the City's preference. Mr. Nelson noted it could enable an upfront exchange of credits and avoid the concerns about timing if there was more effort put into sharing the opportunity for purchase of credits with the users so more people were seeking to acquire and use those credits. Assistant Director Saunders noted that the City prefers to simply pay for qualifying work with cash rather than a book balance impact fee credit as it is simpler for both the City and the person doing the work. Credits other than direct cash have only been issued in limited circumstances. There was a discussion on if there were credits which could move as there were changes in development on lots with constructed buildings. Page 2 of 4 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—March 8,2012 Mr. Hixson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 1823 to the City Commission. Mr. Thompson seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Hixson, Chairperson Pro Temp Carpenter,Mr. Thompson, Mr. Nelson, and by proxy given to Mr. Hixson Ms. Rosenberry and Mr. Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. 2. Update on March 5, 2012 City Commission discussion. (Saunders) Assistant Director Saunders noted that the City Commission had conducted a work session with the Committee and the consultants in February to consider several policy issues relating to the update to the transportation impact fees. He gave a report of the actions the City Commission took on each of the items at their follow up meeting on March 5th. He noted the Commission's decisions have been forwarded to the consultants and he will be working with the consultants to move the update project forward. The Commission direction was: Methodology—Use the incremental expansion option. Be very clear about what projects are currently expected to be constructed with this approach and how the existing/new split is worked out. System Improvements—Use the major street network as shown on Figure 9-2 in the transportation plan including the collectors. When describing the basis of the network please call out those elements that are state highways. The Commissioners are very interested in seeing what this means in the actual fee outcomes. Funding Mix—The Commission asked the consultants to assume 75% of the urban funds dedicated to maintenance and 25% to capaci ex_ansion. These funds may be used in both ways in the same project. Categories of uses —Residential: Commission chose to use increments of 200 square feet and delete the income based cost differential in the residential categories. This was discussed between the Committee and the consultants during the review of the Setting the Stage document. Categories of uses —Non-resi �4ial: Commission wanted to consolidate the uses to broader bands of similar activities. We rl be looking to see how the major outliers fit into the new structure. Mr. Mehl gave his liaison report on how the Commission had voted. There were questions and discussion on how the urban funds system works for designating particular streets as urban routes and how the funds are used on the urban routes. It was noted that urban funds are usually used for larger scale projects rather than routine small scale maintenance to get the most results. It takes years to save up enough money in the urban fund account to do a big enough project to make a difference in the level of service. Impact fees can't be used for maintenance but urban funds can be as can local assessments. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS Page 3 of 4 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—March 8,2012 No old business was raised. ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Mr. Hixson noted that Bozeman had been included in a recent list of the seven strongest micropolitan economies in the country. There was a discussion of the many good media reports on the City and that is was likely that there will be growth in the future as there are so many good attributes to the City. Mr. Hixson noted the City has been financially solid and that is a significant thing in combination with the many good reports to;draw people to the City. ITEM 8.ADJOURNMENT k. There being no further business to come before t mmltt t this time, Chairperson Pro Temp Carpenter adjourned the meeting at 6:56 Randy Carpenter, Chairperson Pro Temp Chris aunders, Assistant Plann Director Impact Fee Advisory Committee Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman ity of Bozeman Page 4 of 4 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—March 8,2012