Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-12 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes ** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2012 Chairperson Nickelson called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m., in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present Staff Present James Nickelson, Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary David Graham, Vice Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Anna Rosenberry Brian Heaston George Thompson Erik Nelson Rob Evans Members Absent Randy Carpenter Guests Present Daryl Schliem Ann Kesting Cordell Pool Chris Mehl, City Commission Liaison ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2012. MOTION: Ms. Rosenberry moved, Mr. Nelson seconded, to approve the minutes of May 24, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Graham, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Heaston, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2012. MOTION: Ms. Rosenberry moved, Mr. Heaston seconded, to approve the minutes of June 14, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Graham, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Heaston, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. 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. Page 1 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 ITEM 5. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed} Mr. Mehl noted that Mr. Evans was on his way, and that the City Commission hoped the fee studies would be adopted by the end of the year. ITEM 6. BY-LAWS 1. Revocation of proxy from adopted by-laws. Assistant Planning Director Saunders noted the by-laws had been reviewed by the City Attorney and he had requested the Impact Fee Advisory Committee repeal the by-laws. He added that the City Clerk and city Attorney are developing a model by-laws document for use by advisory boards. MOTION: Mr. Nelson moved, Mr. Mr. Thompson seconded, to approve the amendment to the by-laws as presented. Ms. Rosenberry stated she had a general understanding of what the City Attorney intended with regard to the removal of the proxy voting language and she was in favor of the repeal. She stated it was nice to keep the ability to conduct business through proxy votes. Chairperson Nickelson stated he echoed Ms. Rosenberry’s comments that it was nice to keep the ability to conduct business through proxy voting. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Graham, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Heaston, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 7. PROJECT REVIEW Assistant Planning Director Saunders noted the Committee had previously discussed draft of the studies and their suggestions had been incorporated into the current proposals. He noted this was the first public hearing that would be held and if they believed appropriate, they could act tonight or take more time to consider the proposals. He introduced Dwayne Guthrie from Tischler Bise and noted the City Commission would conduct at least one public hearing on the proposals. He stated the proposed were drafts and changes could be made if something needed clarification. He stated the impact fees were only one portion of the overall funding necessary to operate the systems, whatever they may be. A. Presentation by Tischler Bise. 1. Transportation Impact Fee update. 2. Fire/EMS Impact Fee update. Page 2 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 3. Water Impact Fee update. 4. Wastewater Impact Fee update. Mr. Guthrie stated he wanted to highlight the major changes first and then move to the more minor changes in each study. He noted compliance with Montana Law had initiated some of the changes and additional needs in Capital Improvements had also been addressed. He noted the amount for each unit increase in service demand had also been addressed. He stated the last time fees had been done were during the recession, but the most detailed data from the census bureau had been used to provide the current fees as well as data specific to Bozeman. He stated the Department of Revenue data had been used to determine the living space by number of bedrooms and persons per housing unit. Mr. Guthrie directed the Committee to the summary slides for methods and cost components and noted which fees included cost recovery; water and sewer. He noted for the streets the incremental expansion method would be utilized. He stated the current fees for water/sewer were proposed to be assessed by unit size instead of meter size and all development would pay water distribution and sewer collection fees based on the area of the lot. Mr. Guthrie directed the Committee to the current fees and the information necessary that was to determine the fees; he noted the summary indicated the proposed impact fees were all less than the current fees though there would be variations to those fees. He stated that generally the street impact fees would be less, but not always based on the size of the housing units. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that the white column in the examples was reflecting the number of dollars actually collected and was not 100% of the cost. Mr. Guthrie confirmed that Assistant Director Saunders was correct and that 60% could be assumed unless he noted otherwise. He noted it was basically the same pattern of lesser fees as had initially been proposed and the most significant change was within the Trip Exchange District which had been expanded to include discounts to all types of development. Examples of how the studied fees would apply to several uses were shown. Mr. Evans joined the Committee. Mr. Guthrie explained those types of development that had been consolidated into single categories for transportation fees and noted they generated higher trips than other uses. He stated the average trip lengths were longer than the previous draft had been and it was part of the methodology driven by the Montana Act to document a specific level of service. Assistant Director Saunders noted the actual lot sizes and meter sizes that would be used had been used to determine the rates. Mr. Guthrie noted the industrial use numbers were relatively close to those originally proposed and added that in the trip exchange district the numbers were a little bit higher for restaurants but would receive a 29% reduction for streets. Mr. Guthrie directed the Committee to the major changes in the water fees including; redundancy mains, water distribution, and the exclusion of a new dam due to more conservative development numbers. He noted the City of Bozeman water billing records from 2009 to 2011 for water/sewer demand were from newer units by year built. He suggested the City’s Page 3 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 conservation efforts were working and less was being used over time and still the average was slightly more than all the housing units in Bozeman; people were irrigating more and providing for the increased usage. He stated they had used the demand factors for the newer units for both the water and sewer fees proposed. He explained the per acres approach to the water distribution system and noted the relative size of the current city limits; he noted the areas with conservation easements or locations where there would be no development had been removed from the service area calculations. He revisited the mathematical calculation with regard to the water distribution cost for linear feet per acre and noted the gross acres were converted to net acres and the road right of ways had been removed. He noted the cost per gallon had been presented at the last meeting and they had used an average day basis instead of a peak day basis. He noted a credit would be allowed at a cost per gallon basis as a result of the bond financing. He noted the housing and lot size would play a factor in the water impact fee distribution as an average housing unit, which could lower the cost of the fee up to $1,068.00 than the current fee. Mr. Guthrie noted the cash flow analysis indicated a yield of 3.99 million dollars for the Water Treatment Plant debt service payments as well as 4.34 million dollars for the expansion of the water distribution system over 5 years. Mr. Nelson asked for clarification of the 18% reduction Mr. Guthrie had spoken of. Mr. Guthrie responded it was an allowable reduction to subtract the road right of way. Mr. Nelson asked if parkland had been considered. Mr. Guthrie responded it had not. Assistant Director Saunders responded private and public open spaces would be included and noted that the consideration was how far the pipes would have to reach in order to deliver the service and was purely a geographical distribution. Mr. Guthrie concurred. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the impact fee was paid, it would be for construction on a lot and not the parkland how the acreage cost would be calculated given that park projects paid impact fees as well. Mr. Guthrie suggested it would make the cost per acre go up, but the major park land area could be removed from the acreage. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff would have to investigate the issue and determine a recommendation. Vice Chairperson Graham asked if an average house size had been used to determine the proposed fees. Mr. Guthrie responded an average house size and had been used. Assistant Director Saunders further explained the range of sizes that would be representative of what was actually being constructed in Bozeman. Vice Chairperson Graham asked for clarification of how the lot size was also used to determine the fee. Mr. Guthrie responded the geographic spread of the surface area was a function of the amount of area that was being developed to cover the service area; more units per acres would mean cost would be reduced. Mr. Nelson asked that in the event of a 12,000 square foot lot that already had piping going past it, would the fee be cheaper for the infill of an existing boundary. Assistant Director Saunders responded the water distribution only referred to expansion or new construction. Mr. Guthrie added that an existing lot with something already on it would not be required to pay that fee. Assistant Director Saunders added that if the redevelopment were an intensification of use, the site would be required to make up the difference in uses. Page 4 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 Chairperson Nickelson asked if the land use inventory would have an effect on the fees assessed. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the data being used looked at physical occupancy of the site and would be considered undeveloped if it was vacant; he added the question would be whether or not it was a previously developed site but some may need additional demand. Mr. Heaston clarified that a larger project might demand a larger amount of capacity. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Mr. Heaston was correct. Ms. Rosenberry clarified that a residence could expand and conceivably incur a cost for that expansion. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Ms. Rosenberry was correct and that four attached dwellings that were large dwellings might pay a larger fee than four attached dwellings that were small. Vice Chairperson Graham asked if Mr. Guthrie would provide more examples of the non- residential development. Mr. Guthrie responded that he would provide more examples. Assistant Director Saunders added that the original examples could be utilized with some modification. Mr. Guthrie noted the major changes to the proposed sewer impact fees and noted there had been a reduction. He noted the sewer billing records had been utilized for the average daily sewer demand. He directed the Committee to the average day flow chart for the sewer usage and noted the existing and future sewer collection system standards utilizing linear feet per acres. Mr. Mehl asked why water and sewer fees were so different in number of miles of pipe. Mr. Guthrie responded the sewer system was more of a gravity system. Assistant Director Saunders added that there were already a lot of large lines in place with regard to the water system. Mr. Guthrie noted there was a small credit for the bonds due on the Water Reclamation Facility but would still be significantly less cost; he noted the next CIP update needed to identify more projects as there would be a little more money than was expected to be used. Mr. Mehl asked why the Water Reclamation Facility costs per gallon had increased from the previous impact fee study draft. Mr. Guthrie responded the original cost was before the phase 2 and phase 3 expansions had been removed. Mr. Thompson asked if the regulatory requirements were just a blanket requirement or based on the number of gallons treated. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was a matter of treating to a higher level of pollutants, but at this point it was an unknown amount. Vice Chairperson Graham asked if the water/sewer projections were supposed to match the CIP. Mr. Guthrie responded the next update to the CIP would bring those numbers more into line; part of the projects were unscheduled. Assistant Director Saunders responded that all of the funding had been dedicated to getting the plant built before additional project were assigned; he added the CIP was only a five year schedule with a five year revenue schedule. Mr. Guthrie noted the per acres basis had been utilized to be more in keeping with the water master plan driven by the CIP. Page 5 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 Chairperson Nickelson stated the schedule was based on the revenue. Ms. Rosenberry noted Chairperson Nickelson was correct and added they had discussed having a big laundry list on the CIP but had been using the facility plans to determine the order of importance of projects; she added it didn’t surprise her that those documents did not match up at this time. Mr. Evans asked if Vice Chairperson Graham had indicated there was a need to identify ways to spend the surplus. Mr. Guthrie responded the uncommitted funds were to be used to identify those items that had been unscheduled and get them scheduled. Mr. Mehl added that the CIP was full of projects but the impact fees were not due to a decrease in growth; growth would cause the need for those projects to appear. Mr. Evans clarified that the growth was the impetus. Mr. Thompson added it gave them the flexibility to identify projects that weren’t included in the CIP and he was cautious about the surplus and instead was attempting to anticipate some development. Mr. Guthrie directed the Committee to the draft Fire Impact Fee study. He noted the locations of the proposed future and existing fire stations. He stated the level of service had been based on acres and the first fire station built had been incorporated into the calculation. He noted the calculation used to determine that the level of service would remain constant in the future; population and land area growth had also been utilized. Mr. Mehl asked whether population or land should be used for our level of service. Mr. Guthrie suggested acreage was the best approach due to the response time. Mr. Mehl asked the size of units was also being considered and asked how the two were tied together. Mr. Guthrie responded the increase of population, jobs, etc. would determine how many calls were handled and the response time would be affected; he noted the response time had already been determined. Mr. Mehl suggested the fire fee combine the service area and the units. Mr. Guthrie added that some of the calls would be for emergency services which would support the units and increase in jobs or population. Assistant Director Saunders added that if we had density like New York City there would be a higher rate of calls per 1,000 acres although it was imprecisely linked; he added as a distinction to the other fees that the City did not measure how long it took for the water to get to the faucet. Mr. Guthrie noted that different incidents had been identified by type of development. He noted the current cost factors had been included so that new development would pay for the gross share, which was critical for the impact fee analysis. Mr. Guthrie explained that the revenues would increase over time and pay for the gross shares of future fire apparatus; if the City decided to use bonds for the next fire station, impact fees should not be used to pay the bond amount needed for existing users and should only be used to fund the growth share of the costs. Ms. Rosenberry stated the fire fee was where one of the policy changes had occurred as a quarter of the total cost would not be demanded by growth. Mr. Guthrie responded it was the number of calls for service and the response time, but the Fire Chief would be best to respond; he noted it was demand driven. Ms. Rosenberry responded the City would always need more money for future facilities. Mr. Guthrie responded the time frame was way out there, but a certain amount of revenue would be collected over 10 years; the next Fire Station could be bond financed and fees collected for the Fire Station after that. Ms. Rosenberry clarified that Fire Station #4 would be necessary. Mr. Guthrie responded that the Fire Chief had convinced Page 6 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 him to that affect. Chairperson Nickelson clarified that 25% of the next Fire Station will be funded with something other than impact fees. Mr. Evans added that response times were not the only factor, more congestion would cause more hurdles to overcome; he noted there was no question that there would be a lifestyle upgrade. Assistant Director Saunders stated that impact fees were reliant on averages and could not be specific to each individual user; there were two different approaches to the situation where each station was funded at 25% of alternate revenue or one of the next four stations could be funded to satisfy the requirement of not overcharging. He noted that once the time came, there would be better information regarding the need for another fire station. Ms. Rosenberry asked if that would lend to a general charge to apply just to those identified service areas. Assistant Director Saunders responded that it could. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the fire station was at capacity with regard to the ability to respond. Assistant Director Saunders responded that he would have to ask the Fire Chief although he had not indicated they were at full capacity for call response at this time. Mr. Thompson stated he was challenged with regard to industrial uses as he was thinking the industrial equipment would cause more serious calls to the site. Mr. Guthrie responded that just incidents had been taken into consideration. Assistant Director Saunders added that sometimes rural fire agencies assisted with fires in the City just as the City assisted them wherever possible. Mr. Evans suggested he was hesitant to say that a certain area pay for the costs of a Fire Station just because they are benefitting the most; he suggested he was more comfortable with spreading the costs and it made more sense to him. Assistant Director Saunders responded that if a benefit could be defined, the City Commission could decide to enact a geographic area. Chairperson Nickelson added he thought it could be difficult to force a portion of the community to pay those costs when the rest of the community did not have to pay. Mr. Mehl asked Mr. Guthrie if he knew communities that handled these fees in the same way Bozeman did. Mr. Guthrie responded that if it appeared not to be reasonable, maybe other avenues should be investigated. Mr. Mehl suggested the downtown explosion was very expensive. Mr. Guthrie responded most communities just did incidents. Mr. Evans responded that every job his company went out on was job-costed and he felt as though it was a good idea. Ms. Rosenberry responded that the capital involved in responding to a call was the same for any type of call and operations couldn’t be included n the impact fee. Mr. Guthrie stated the street fee amounts were exactly the same as had been proposed before and noted the boundary (whether it was the tax increment boundary or the B-3 boundary) for the Trip Exchange District. He noted they were trying to satisfy the State of Montana’s requirements. He directed the Committee to the inventory of arterial streets in Bozeman per the Transportation Plan. He noted there were a few inconsistencies with regard to inclusion of three lane facilities. He noted there were 39 approved intersections where two arterials or an arterial and collector street came together. He noted the cost factor had come out much better than the original proposal as the cost per lane miles would be less. He noted the current level of service and projected need and directed the Committee to a travel demand model that indicated an average trip length of 5.9 miles; the level of service would be maintained over time. He directed the Committee to the street impact fee formula and noted residential fees were done Page 7 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 based on the living area of the building. He noted the projected revenues compared to the scheduled projects in the current CIP. Mr. Mehl noted the number of residents commuting outside of Bozeman, staying in Bozeman, or coming into Bozeman to work and asked if Mr. Guthrie had taken that into consideration. Mr. Guthrie responded it was a commuting pattern graphic on page 21 and those were used in the methodology and analysis to determine that the overall demand for transportation was not being funded by those that had the advantage of using it. Mr. Mehl added that 2/3 of the jobs in the City were not filled by people that live in the City. Mr. Evans added that because it was more expensive to live in the City and have to pay impact fees which ultimately drove the impact fees up to make the necessary improvements. Mr. Guthrie suggested the allowable reductions were a step in the right direction. Mr. Evans noted that an alternative means of financing to force people from outside the City to pay would be helpful, though state statute would need to be altered. Mr. Guthrie noted sales taxes are often used to capture revenue from users in these situations but Montana law doesn’t allow it. Mr. Nelson asked how the boundary of the Trip Exchange District had been defined. Mr. Guthrie responded there were many factors that were characteristic of downtowns and urban centers and was why their trips were less. Mr. Nelson asked if the boundary were shirked, wouldn’t logic indicate the homes within a two block radius would be functioning in the same manner. Mr. Guthrie concurred with Mr. Nelson and suggested that was the reasoning behind a fuzzy boundary; he had suggested recognizable boundaries for the time being. Mr. Mehl asked Mr. Guthrie’s recommendation on how to handle future areas with high pedestrian/bicycle traffic. Mr. Guthrie stated some of the studies had very specific methodology but intersection density, etc. could be included in that methodology. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was easy to recognize downtown as it was established, and it was difficult to recognize what will be done with a specific piece of land though we know what we would like to see done with it. Chairperson Nickelson asked what percentage of an intersection improvement could be funded by impact fees. Mr. Guthrie responded the design of the intersection currently versus the improvements and it would be a site specific evaluation was their recommendation. Vice Chairperson Graham asked how far back they would go to look at the level of service. Mr. Guthrie responded the original design’s load and level of service standards; the existing versus the proposed. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the City went from 4 stops signs to an intersection with lights what that cost would be. Mr. Mehl suggested Ms. Rosenberry had asked the primary question. Vice Chairperson Graham clarified that the existing facility would factor into those improvement costs eligible to be funded through impact fees. Mr. Guthrie responded Mr. Graham was correct. Chairperson Nickelson opened the public comment period. Page 8 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 Cordell Poole, 717 N. Bozeman Ave., stated he was a local engineer. He noted the cost of improvements was not the cost of actual construction; it was an improvement, not starting over which was a growth allocated share for the most part. He stated he had read through the draft reports and he thought they were moving in the right direction with the area allocation for water/sewer fees. He stated the impact fee justification was not only for water mains surrounding the development, but to each plant for collection and distribution even if it was for redevelopment. He stated his main concern was with regard to impact fee credits. He stated the water and sewer were discreet improvements and suggested the developer should be credited for the improvements that he had made whether it was on the CIP or not; he thought that anytime someone voluntarily installed an improvement, it should be crossed off the list as it would no longer need to be funded. He noted some of the arterials were constructed as project level improvements; he suggested removing it from the cost basis or crediting it to the developer to be fair. Mr. Evans asked for clarification. Mr. Poole responded the current policy did not allow credit eligibility unless a project was on the CIP. Assistant Director Saunders responded Mr. Poole was correct, but there was a method in place that would allow the approval of a modification of the CIP upon request from the City Commission. Ms. Rosenberry responded that requiring the project be on the CIP before it was funded was intended to be an opportunity for public comment and prioritization of what the impact fee funds should be spent on. She added that the credit process requires that the City see what was spent to make the improvements to know that the costs in the studies were the true costs. Mr. Poole noted it was understandable if money was being paid out and noted there was a lot to it; specifically the costs as when a developer had to pay more to improve a lane mile than the impact fee study estimate indicated. Assistant Director Saunders responded that when the City paid credits, the payment was the actual costs. Mr. Poole suggested math to math so that up or down costs did not have to be considered. Mr. Evans clarified that Mr. Poole was suggesting a constant amount despite the cost to the developer. Mr. Poole responded he thought it would be the fairest method. Mr. Evans clarified that the City would pay the actual costs. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Mr. Evans was correct and actual bills needed to be provided for documentation. Seeing no further public comment, the public comment period was closed. Chairperson Nickelson suggested Mr. Guthrie address the park and open space questions with regard to the water fees. Assistant Director Saunders suggested it would also be applicable to the sewer fees; he added he could look back to see if parks had been included in the distribution. Mr. Heaston responded there is never going to be an irrigation demand for parkland. He added he would like to see the distribution system somehow applied to the cost of capacity for redevelopment. Mr. Guthrie agreed that an incremental change should be applied to redevelopment and that he would investigate further. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the incremental change in redevelopment was so small in Bozeman that it could fall into the maintenance and incidental operations category paid for by utility billing. Ms. Rosenberry stated that the weighting factor for meter indicated the capacity that still had to go through the distribution system and she understood what Mr. Heaston was indicating. Mr. Evans stated there were consequences to people able to live cheaper within the County and he thought it was new development that was not paying their way; he suggested if someone used they should have to pay and it should be a simpler process – the holes in the bucket should be plugged. Page 9 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 Chairperson Nickelson stated he did not know how much was billed in the County for impact fees, but he knew there was an amount. Mr. Evans responded Mr. Nickelson was correct. Vice Chairperson Graham stated he was not ready to cast a vote tonight given the new information and suggested the inclusion of an allowance to let commercial businesses pay their fees over time. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Committee could make that suggestion though it was not part of the fee studies as proposed. Mr. Mehl suggested the City Commission would be discussing the timing of the fees. Mr. Evans responded that he agreed with Mr. Graham. Chairperson Nickelson agreed that it was a great discussion item, but was a larger policy decision that he recommended discussion later; he noted he definitely saw the benefit. Chairperson Nickelson suggested the fire chief clarify the 25% share that went to the global community and the capacity with regard to the number of calls they can handle. Ms. Rosenberry asked Mr. Guthrie for an example of an intersection calculation with regard to the growth share and what should be paid with impact fee funds. Mr. Evans agreed that he would be interested in seeing that. Assistant Director Saunders added the collector size would also be investigated for its inclusion in the inventory charts. Chairperson Nickelson suggested a generic intersection be utilized for the example. Assistant Director Saunders responded that both specific and generic examples would be provided. Mr. Graham suggested the roundabout at 11th should be an example. Mr. Evans responded he liked the 15th & Oak intersection as Ms. Rosenberry had suggested. Chairperson Nickelson reopened and continued the public comment period to the next meeting of the IFAC. Due to the lateness of the hour, the action items were continued to the next meeting of the Committee. B. Discussion/Action by Committee 1. Transportation Impact Fee update. 2. Fire/EMS Impact Fee update. 3. Water Impact Fee update. 4. Wastewater Impact Fee update. ITEM 8. OLD BUSINESS Chairperson Nickelson asked when the Committee would like to meet next; on August 30, or September 13, 2012. The Committee concurred that they would meet on September 13, 2012. ITEM 9. COMMITTEE COMMENTS No items were forthcoming. Page 10 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 Page 11 of 11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012 ITEM 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chairperson Nickelson adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. James Nickelson, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Impact Fee Advisory Committee Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman