Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-12 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes ** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY,JUNE 14, 2012 Chairperson Pro Tem Graham called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present Staff Present David Graham, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Anna Rosenberry Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Brian Heaston Rob Evans Chris Mehl, City Commission Liaison Members Absent Randy Carpenter James Nickelson, Chairperson George Thompson Erik Nelson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2012. The minutes of May 24, 2012 were opened and continued to the next meeting of the Committee due to lack of a quorum. 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 stated he would send an e-mail to the members to encourage their attendance. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Presentation by Dwayne Guthrie of Tischler Bise of revised Transportation Impact Fee Study updates. (Saunders) Dwayne Guthrie of Tischler Bise presented the draft revisions to the Transportation Impact Fee Study. He stated they had addressed previous comments and concerns from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee meeting in January. He directed the Committee's attention to a rendering of road designations and noted the different color road designations and what they meant. He Page 1 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—June 14,2012 stated that besides taking out existing road segments with existing deficiencies, they had removed those arterial streets that would need no further improvements (80 lane miles). He stated they had re-evaluated the collector streets as well and had determined there would be 60 lane miles assessed. He stated they had tried to capture all the improved intersections as well and ended up with 39 intersections; he noted local roads had not been included but were listed. He stated the cost factors contained most of the modifications per City Commission and Impact Fee Advisory Committee advice and included only the costs for road segment system level improvements. He noted intersection improvements were also included as planned improvements for additional intersections over the next five years. He noted the costs per lane mile while including an average cost for intersections for a total cost per lane mile. Mr. Mehl asked why the road segment samples were so small and if it had been an issue. Mr. Guthrie responded that the cost for lane mile was significantly less and they had decided to go with actual expenditures per lane mile so it was not really a sample. He clarified that the cost of system improvements was also included; it was just the impact fee share of the projects. Mr. Evans joined the Committee. Chairperson Pro Tem Graham asked if the sample project would drive up the cost per lane mile. Mr. Guthrie responded that the costs per lane mile for the sample project provided a solid estimate of what a lane mile of construction would cost. Ms. Rosenberry added there were project anomalies, but the present information was the most up to date information available and they were attempting to obtain an average amount. Mr. Guthrie responded they had basically done a little different approach using the current amount of travel in the community with the current inventory and spreading it out equally instead of the survey type of approach to come up with an average trip length. He stated an addition of 25.8 arterial and collector roadways with the addition of 8 intersections would be necessary to maintain the level of service for the existing arterials and collectors. Chairperson Pro Tem Graham asked if the current method had been used for years. Mr. Guthrie responded the community had not used the proposed method, but his firm had used the method many times. Mr. Guthrie directed the Committee to a flowchart of how the calculations worked and explained the process and different cost components and values. He noted what the total cost per housing unit would be and noted the trip generation rate was slightly lower based on Bozeman specific information regarding number of persons and vehicles per housing unit. He stated the trip length was also based on an average trip length with three general types of land use. Mr. Mehl asked why the AWWTE amount had shrunk. Mr. Guthrie responded the data used had been specific to Bozeman. Assistant Director Saunders added the amount would vary based on the size of the unit as well. Mr. Guthrie stated the trip adjustment rate had been bumped up to account for the number of people driving to work from out of town. He directed the Committee to an available Page 2 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—June 14,2012 application on the Census website that indicated commuting patterns from 2009 and 2010 that had been used to provide some of the data. He noted it also showed that the number of jobs for commuters from outside the City from 2010 to 2009 had decreased and his numbers would need to be amended. Ms. Rosenberry asked how customers to retail businesses were captured in the calculations. Mr. Guthrie responded they were basing it all on in-bound trips while making sure improvements were being paid for by development in Bozeman; that was the purpose for the trip adjustment factor of the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders added that there was a share of the traffic that was leaving and those were not captured in the impact fees; the trip in would be captured, but not the trip out. Mr. Guthrie stated they were more concerned with capturing the growth related costs for development of the City. Ms. Rosenberry asked about a movie theatre and how the trip rate adjustment would vary. Mr. Guthrie responded those would just be based on the amount of trips coming into the theatre. Assistant Director Saunders responded the out bound trips would need to be covered elsewhere. Mr. Evans responded it would be part of the "shadow population" calculation. Mr. Guthrie responded that usually cost factors were just additional lanes, but in this instance the total cost was a combination of project level improvements and system improvements; they were capturing all the cost based on the amount of development within the community. Assistant Director Saunders added that many times the City would make a cooperative effort to expand a road(such as Cottonwood Road) while the road was being improved by the developer. Ms. Rosenberry stated she was concerned that only the third, fourth, or fifth lane was being funded but none of the rest of it. Assistant Director Saunders responded that efficiency could, in theory, create capacity in the system the effort to prove it could be accomplished; he added it would have to be a limited and strategic approach. Mr. Guthrie added that hopefully most of the time it would be cooperative with development. Mr. Mehl asked if anyone had tried to figure out the margin of error. Assistant Director Saunders responded that based on the commuting, everything was distributed so that out bound traffic was not being overly captured in the system; some of it would be made up with a project's share, urban funds, or other inputs into the network. Ms. Rosenberry responded the inputs would not be of the necessary magnitude. Mr. Mehl asked why the cost per lane mile was so much higher. Mr. Guthrie responded the higher cost was from the boom period where materials were much more costly and had larger projects included for that year. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were several projects that could not be leveraged from the beginning. Mr. Mehl stated he was still concerned that the small sample size might be a problem. Ms. Rosenberry stated the City did not get to pay what they wanted for these projects and asked if it included sidewalk and gutter such as complete street projects would have. Assistant Director Saunders responded that some projects required a lot more work; some were done simultaneously with other work that was not part of the impact fee share. Mr. Guthrie added that this method was the most cost effective. Mr. Heaston asked if the current fee was based on the actual project's cost. Ms. Rosenberry responded they were actual costs. Page 3 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—June 14,2012 Mr. Evans clarified that Mr. Guthrie thought the Study was reflective of the construction costs in the community. Mr. Guthrie responded that he did. Mr. Guthrie stated they had also had to do away with some of the larger units which was partly due to using a smaller sample sizes and more recent units; he added four bedroom units and everything above that had been lumped into one category. He stated that redoing the size information caused a lot of units to be lost as they were less than the average while the newer units tended to be larger; the mean size of a household went up to an average of 2,357 square feet. He noted the number of housing units being surveyed was 681 and that data had been used for the Bozeman specific rates. Mr. Mehl asked if non-residential was the same as before. Mr. Guthrie responded it was the same. He noted the calculations had been based on the units built over the last twenty years. Mr. Heaston asked if PUMSA was a random sampling. Mr. Guthrie responded it was. Chairperson Pro Tem Graham asked if the previous draft had been a smaller sampling and how it had changed the fee. Mr. Guthrie responded it had been a smaller sample and the higher end fees had been reduced by a little while the lower end fees did not change. He stated the City was currently only collecting 60%. Mr. Evans clarified that the fees would still be increased. Mr. Guthrie responded there would be an increase; at the upper end 35% and on the lower end it would be 2%. Mr. Guthrie added he still had to tweak the numbers based on the new data. Chairperson Pro Tem Graham asked if the trip ends had changed. Mr. Guthrie responded they had only changed slightly with the smaller sample area and the current proposal would be more accurate. Mr. Mehl stated he understood the equation, but the reason they were below where they were before was due to significantly lower road costs. Mr. Guthrie responded Mr. Mehl was correct. Ms. Rosenberry added that the most recent street project was the reconstruction of South 8t' Avenue and it had been cheaper than anticipated. Mr. Evans added that the median would be at least the total cost of a lane so that would need to be considered. Ms. Rosenberry stated it seemed like the new calculation was in the ball park. Mr. Mehl suggested all the data used be from the same years. Mr. Guthrie responded that he would be reevaluating the data to provide revised amounts for water and sewer based on the same years. Mr. Guthrie noted further changes that had been made to include Assisted Living instead of Nursing Homes and Day Cares were now evaluated by student. Mr. Heaston asked if the proposed was a newer version of trip generation rates. Mr. Guthrie responded it was; they were catching flack as the employee rates were much lower so it had been revised. Page 4 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—June 14,2012 Mr. Guthrie noted that the CIP amounts were very close, but the differences might need refined with the next adjustments to the CIP. He stated that before, a specific area had been identified with "D" factors which basically support why fees should be lower in a downtown, mixed use environment which factored into the 29% trip adjustment factor for downtown; he asked how downtown should be defined and suggested the area should be a little larger. Mr. Mehl asked why Mr. Guthrie had expanded the boundary to the east. Mr. Guthrie responded he had just given them an example; he had not made an attempt to analyze the specific properties. Mr. Mehl asked if there was any other area of the City that would qualify for the trip exchange district. Mr. Guthrie responded it seemed that the core of downtown was the B-3 core zoning district. Mr. Evans stated that the area east of town was considered remote, but it isn't and those areas would be relevant in 10 years. He added they were trying to define the present by the past while looking to fund the future. Mr. Guthrie stated the last study had attempted to consolidate every study done prior. Mr. Mehl asked if there was anything that indicated some uses should not be granted the trip exchange district fee. Mr. Guthrie suggested the reduction should be allowed for uses across the board and equally within the trip exchange district. Ms. Rosenberry asked if 7t'Avenue should be added to the trip exchange district. Assistant Director Saunders stated the area would be reviewed under the "D" factor criteria. Mr. Mehl stated he wanted to get downtown businesses involved to get their ideas on the boundaries of the trip exchange district. Assistant Director Saunders responded the B-3 district was conveniently recognizable, but would also allow many of the "D" factors to be realized. Assistant Director Saunders responded that more stories could be added to a structure within the downtown area. Mr. Mehl stated the City Commission would be interested in intersections and whether or not they would be 100% impact fee related. Mr. Guthrie responded the City's precedent was that they could not be 100% impact fee related. He cited the roundabout and that there were more and more of them instead of traditionalized intersections; roundabouts might cost more but may work better. He stated he thought it was better to bump up the cost per intersection and try to move toward more roundabouts than to traditional signals. Mr. Mehl asked if it would be 100% funded and what was the causation. Mr. Guthrie responded the quality was a factor and the City might need to realize they should not ask a developer to pay if the development is an asset to the City. Mr. Mehl confirmed that it would be a policy issue. Ms. Rosenberry asked who would pay for the improvements if they weren't paid for by impact fees. Mr. Evans responded it would be a bond issue before the tax payers and it would be the City's job to promote the levies. Mr. Mehl asked how come an improvement district or maintenance fees could pay for it. Ms. Rosenberry responded that it would depend on the nature of the improvements. Assistant Director Saunders added that work external to the original intersection was an addition that might not be capacity related. Mr. Mehl suggested written guidance from the consultant might help in their consideration of the City's approach; he asked for the pros and cons from investigation of other Cities. Mr. Evans stated the hot topic would be why the Commission had not taken 100% of the impact fees that were approved in Page 5 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—June 14,2012 2008; he asked how much further down the line in the CIP the City would be if the Commission had approved the full amount of the funds. Assistant Director Saunders responded that one example would be improvements to College Street. Mr. Mehl stated it sounded like Mr. Guthrie was looking into the measurement of new homes as far as water and sewer usage. Chairperson Pro Tem Graham asked for clarification on whether or not other places were using the same method as Bozeman. Mr. Guthrie responded other places generally did not use the same method. Assistant Director Saunders added that the mechanics of the fees would be the most difficult component to sort out. Assistant Director Saunders added that there was a new MDT standard that signalization be included in multi lane roundabouts. He noted Mr. Guthrie would continue to modify the proposal and Staff was considering a meeting after the public had time to review the draft documentation; he added dates would be forwarded to the Board as soon as possible. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS I. Revocation of proxy from adopted by-laws. Opened and continued. ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS No comments were forthcoming. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chairperson Pro Tem Grahan adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. David Graham, Chairperson Pro Tem Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Impact Fee Advisory Committee Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman Page 6 of 6 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting—June 14,2012