HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-12 City Commission Packet, entireTable of Contents
Agenda 4
Authorize Payment of Accounts Payable
Claims Memo 7
Authorize Mayor to sign Findings of Fact and Order for the
Cowdrey Minor Subdivison and the Findings of Fact and Order
for the preliminary plat of the Cowdrey Minor Subdivision,
Application P-12012
P12012 Cowdrey MiSub Findings of Fact and Order --
CC Cover Memo 8
P12012 Cowdrey MiSub Findings of Fact and Order 10
P12012 Cowdrey MiSub Findings of Fact and Order -
Preliminary Plat 19
Approve the attached list for renewal of their Liquor Licenses or
Beer & Wine Licenses for calendar year 2013
Memo 20
Approve Resolution No. 4417, annexing Tract B-1A of
Certificate of Survey 2392B as amended by the right-of-way
highway acquisition and direct the City Manager to sign the
Annexation Agreement for Ditton Annexation, Application A-
12003
A12003 Ditton Annexation - CC Cover Memo 21
12003 Ditton Annexation - Ditton Annexation Map 22
A12003 Ditton Annexation - Annexation Agreement 23
A12003 Ditton Annexation - Resolution 4417 39
Provisionally adopt Ordinance No. 1847, establishing an initial
zoning designation of Residential Suburban for Track B-1A of
Certificate of Survey 2392B and adjacent right-of-way for Ditton
Application Z-12056
Z12056 Ditton ZMA Ordinance - CC Cover Memo 43
Z12056 Ditton ZMA Ordinance - ZMA Map 44
Z12056 Ditton ZMA Ordinance - Ordinance 1847 45
Resolution No. 4421, adopting the updated Water Impact Fee
Study and discussion of possible related amendments to
Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 of the Bozeman Municipal Code
Cover Memo 50
Commission Resolution 4421 67
Water study 9-23-2012 71
IFAC minutes 8-16-2012 113
IFAC minutes 9-13-2012 124
Examples of Fees 133
I-90 Corridor fee comparison 139
Comparison to National Averages Non-residential 140
2012 National Impact Fee Survey 141
Impact Fee Reduction - Florida 2012 182
Bozeman building permit record 188
MBIA housing starts reports 189
1
Rae system development fees 193
Billings system development fees 195
Helena system development fees 196
Resolution No. 4422, adopting the Wastewater Impact Fee
Update and discussion of possible related amendments to
Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 of the Bozeman Municipal Code
Cover memo 197
Commission Resolution 4422 213
Wastewater impact fee study 217
Resolution No. 4423, adopting the updated Fire/Emergency
Management System Impact Fee Study and discussion of
possible related amendments to Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9
of the Bozeman Municipal Code
Cover Memo 257
Commission Resolution 4423 274
Fire/EMS impact fee study 279
Resolution No. 4424, adopting the updated Transportation
Impact Fee Study and discussion of possible related
amendments to Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code
Cover memo 311
Commission Resolution 4424 332
Transportation study 10-24-2012 337
Definition of transportation system 383
Figure 9-2, LRTP 384
Current transportation categories 385
Billings arterial fee information 386
Adoption of the Building Inspection Capital Improvement Plan
for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018
Building Insp CIP Memo 396
Draft Building Insp CIP 398
Adoption of the Fire Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan
for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018
Fire IF CIP Memo 404
Draft Fire IF CIP 406
Adoption of the Water Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement
Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018
Water Impact Fee CIP Memo 410
Draft Water Impact Fee CIP 412
Adoption of the Wastewater Impact Fee Fund Capital
Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018
Wastewater IF CIP Memo 419
Draft Wastewater IF CIP 421
Adoption of the Street Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement
Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018
Street IF CIP Memo 428
Draft Street IF CIP 430
Reappointments to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
2
12-10-12 Rec and Parks Board Appointment 449
Cook (partial) Rec & Park App, 10-12 450
Dodge (partial) Rec. and Park App, 11-12 451
3
Bozeman City Commission Agenda, December 10, 2012
1 of 3
THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
AGENDA
Monday, December 10, 2012 A. Call to Order – 6 p.m. – Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse
B. Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence
C. Changes to the Agenda
D. Public Service Announcement – City Office Closures and Commission Meeting
Schedule for the remainder of 2012 (Ulmen)
E. Consent
1. Authorize Payment of Accounts Payable (LaMeres)
2. Authorize Mayor to sign Findings of Fact and Order for the Cowdrey
Minor Subdivision and the Findings of Fact and Order for the preliminary plat of the Cowdrey Minor Subdivision, Application P-12012 (Skelton)
3. Approve the attached list for renewal of their Liquor Licenses or Beer &
Wine Licenses for calendar year 2013 (Neibauer)
4. Approve Resolution No. 4417, annexing Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey 2392B as amended by the right-of-way highway acquisition and direct the City Manager to sign the Annexation Agreement for Ditton
Annexation, Application A-12003 (Skelton)
5. Provisionally adopt Ordinance No. 1847, establishing an initial zoning
designation of Residential Suburban for Track B-1A of Certificate of Survey 2392B and adjacent right-of-way for Ditton Application Z-12056 (Skelton)
Consider the motion: I move to approve Consent items E. 1-5 as submitted.
F. Public Comment - Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling
within the purview of the Bozeman City Commission. There will also be an
opportunity in conjunction with each agenda item for comments pertaining to that
item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
4
Bozeman City Commission Agenda, December 10, 2012
2 of 3
G. Special Presentation – Swearing in Ceremony for two new Firefighters
(Megaard)
H. Action Items 1. Resolution No. 4421, adopting the updated Water Impact Fee Study; and
discussion of possible related amendments to Chapter 2, Article 6,
Division 9 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (Saunders)
Consider the motion: I move to approve Resolution 4421, adopting the September 23, 2012 draft Water Impact Fee Study.
2. Resolution No. 4422, adopting the Wastewater Impact Fee Update; and
discussion of possible related amendments to Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (Saunders)
Consider the motion: I move to approve Resolution 4422, adopting the September 23,
2012 draft of the Wastewater Impact Fee Study.
3. Resolution No. 4423, adopting the updated Fire/Emergency Management System Impact Fee Study; and discussion of possible related amendments
to Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 of the Bozeman Municipal Code
(Saunders)
Consider the motion: I move to approve Resolution 4423, adopting the September 23, 2012 draft of the Fire/EMS Impact Fee Study.
4. Resolution No. 4424, adopting the updated Transportation Impact Fee
Study; and discussion of possible related amendments to Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (Saunders) Consider the motion: I move to approve Resolution 4424, adopting the October 24,
2012 draft of the Transportation Impact Fee Study.
5. Adoption of the Building Inspection Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018 (Rosenberry)
Consider the motion: I move to adopt the Building Inspection Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018. 6. Adoption of the Fire Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan for
Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018 (Rosenberry)
Consider the motion: I move to adopt the Fire Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018.
5
Bozeman City Commission Agenda, December 10, 2012
3 of 3
7. Adoption of the Water Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan for
Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018 (Rosenberry)
Consider the motion: I move to adopt the Water Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018.
8. Adoption of the Wastewater Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan
for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018 (Rosenberry)
Consider the motion: I move to adopt the Wastewater Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018.
9. Adoption of the Street Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan for
Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018 (Rosenberry) Consider the motion: I move to adopt the Street Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement
Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018.
10. Reappointments to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (Brunckhorst)
Consider the motion: I move to reappoint David Cook and Sandy Dodge to the
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board.
I. FYI/Discussion 1. Update regarding Good Neighbor Committee (Kukulski)
J. Adjournment City Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
Commission meetings are televised live on cable channel 20 and streamed live at www.bozeman.net.
City Commission meetings are re-aired on cable Channel 20 Wednesday at 4 p.m., Thursday at noon, Friday at 10 a.m. and Sunday at 2 p.m.
6
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian LaMeres, City Controller
Anna Rosenberry, Director of Administrative Services
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission approves payment of the claims.
BACKGROUND: Section 7-6-4301 MCA states that claims should not be paid by the City until
they have been first presented to the City Commission. Claims presented to the City Commission
have been reviewed by the Finance Department to ensure that all proper supporting documentation
has been submitted, all required departmental authorized signatures are present indicating that the goods or services have been received and that the expenditure is within budget, and that the account
coding is correct.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The total amount of the claims to be paid is presented at the bottom
of the Expenditure Approval List posted on the City’s website at
http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Finance/Purchasing/Reports.aspx
Individual claims in excess of $500,000: to be announced in weekly e-mail from Accounts Payable Clerks Jenna Louttit and Marcy Yeykal.
Attachments: Expenditure Approval List (e-mailed)
and posted on the City of Bozeman’s website at http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Finance/Purchasing/Reports.aspx
Report compiled on: November 26, 2012
7
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director SUBJECT: Cowdrey Minor Subdivision (#P-12012)
Findings of Fact and Order MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda (Quasi-Judicial)
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Findings of Fact and Order for the
preliminary plat of the Cowdrey Minor Subdivision.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “Having considered all of the information presented and a public hearing having previously been held on November 19, 2012, I hereby approve the Findings of Fact and Order for the Cowdrey Minor Subdivision and authorize the Mayor
to sign the Findings of Fact and Order for the preliminary plat of the Cowdrey Minor
Subdivision.”
BACKGROUND: On November 19, 2012 the City Commission held a public hearing on an application for preliminary plat approval for the Cowdrey Minor Subdivision. The Commission
approved the proposed subdivision, subject to conditions and code provisions to ensure the final
plat would comply with all applicable regulations and all required criteria. State law provides
that the governing body shall “provide a written statement to the applicant detailing the
circumstances of the condition imposition.” The statement must include: 1) the reason for the condition imposition; 2) the evidence that justifies the condition imposition; and 3) information
regarding the appeal process for the condition imposition.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Staff is unaware of any unresolved issues.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approval of the Findings of Fact as drafted.
2) Approval of the Findings of Fact with modifications.
3) As determined by the City Commission FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased
property tax revenues from new development, along with increased costs to deliver municipal
services to the property. Impact fees will be collected with issuance of building permits for
individual lots along with City sewer and water connection fees. As no residential development
8
will occur with the filing of this subdivision plat there is no requirement for parkland dedication
as part of this application.
Attachment: Findings of Fact Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Report compiled on: November 20, 2012
9
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
1
BEFORE THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT INTERMOUNTAIN DEVELOPERS, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY AND ORDER PLAT REVIEW OF A TWO-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2A OF MINOR SUBDIVISION 358A, CITY OF BOZEMAN,
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
PURSUANT to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, Section 76-3-101 through 76-3-625,
Montana Codes Annotated, and the City of Bozeman Growth Policy and City of Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, a public hearing was scheduled, after notice given, before the Bozeman City
Commission on November 19, 2012, on the above-entitled application. The applicant presented to the
City Commission a proposed preliminary plat for a Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision From a
Tract of Record to subdivide 5.006 acres and create two commercial lots for B-2 (Community Business
District) development.
The purpose of the public hearing was to consider all relevant evidence relating to public
health, safety, and welfare, including the required environmental assessment and recommendation of
the Development Review Committee, to determine whether the plat should be approved, conditionally
approved, or disapproved.
It appeared to the City Commission that all parties and the public wishing to appear and
comment were given the opportunity to do so, and therefore, being fully advised of all matters having
come before it regarding this application, the City Commission makes the following Findings of Fact,
as required:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
10
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
2
The complete application for the preliminary subdivision plat review of a Second or
Subsequent Minor Subdivision From a Tract of Record for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A a two-
lot commercial subdivision, was submitted to the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and
Community Development by Madison Engineering, LLC, on October 3, 2012. The subject property is
legally described as Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A, located in the Southeast One-Quarter of
Section 26, T1S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.
On October 10, 2012 the application was deemed acceptable for initial review by the
Department of Planning and Community Development. On October 17, 2012 the Development Review
Committee determined the required submittal material containing the detailed supporting information
was adequate to allow for the review process to continue.
II.
No variances to the Uniform Development Code have been requested with this preliminary plat
application and no specific variances have been identified during the review of the preliminary plat
application. Pursuant to Section 38.03.040.A.4, BMC the Planning Director reviewed the two-lot
minor subdivision, provided findings in a staff report and made a written recommendation for
consideration by the City Commission.
The Planning Director found that the proposed preliminary plat would comply with the City’s
adopted growth policy and the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code if certain conditions were
imposed, and therefore forwarded a recommendation of conditional approval for the preliminary plat to
the Bozeman City Commission as set forth in the Planning Director’s findings and recommendation of
the City Commission staff report for Planning Application #P-12012.
11
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
3
III.
The matter of preliminary plat review of the two-lot minor subdivision was considered at a
public hearing before the City Commission on Monday, November 19, 2012.
The Planning Staff reviewed the project at that time and forwarded the Planning Director’s
findings and recommendation of conditional approval of the preliminary plat as set forth in the City
Commission Staff Report, Planning Application #P-12012.
IV.
Chris Budeski of Madison Engineering, LLC, representing the applicant stated that they have
reviewed the recommended conditions of approval and finds all of the conditions of approval
acceptable.
The public hearing portion on this matter was then opened to hear public testimony on the
matter with no members of the general public offering comment on the matter of the preliminary plat
application.
V.
The City Commission then considered the Planning Office staff report, Planning Director’s
findings and recommendation, public record, the developer's testimony, and weighed the proposed
subdivision against the primary criteria for consideration of subdivisions established in Title 76-3-608,
and found as follows:
A. Primary Review Criteria
1. Effects on Agriculture
The site is located within a developed (urban) part of the City and has no agricultural components that would be impacted by the proposed subdivision.
2. Effects on Agricultural Water User Facilities
No effects on agricultural water user facilities were identified.
12
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
4
3. Effects on Local Services
Water/Sewer: Municipal sanitary sewer and water mains currently exist in the adjacent Valley Center
Road right-of-way. The Engineering Department has recommended a condition #8 that construction of
water and sanitary services for the two parcels will deferred until the time of site development.
Police/Fire: The property is well within the City’s Police and Fire emergency response area.
Streets: The subject property is bound on the south by Valley Center Road, a designated major arterial
road. No changes to the arterial road or alterations to the existing egress/ingress access point are
proposed with this application. The City Engineer’s Office did not identify any impacts to the area’s
street network that would need to be mitigated with subdivision of the subject property.
Sidewalks: The Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan (PROST) calls for a proposed shared
use path along Valley Center Road. The City Engineer’s Office is recommending a condition #7
where a pedestrian pathway shall be constructed, or financially guaranteed across the entire frontage of
East Valley Center Road and be contained within a pedestrian access easement prior to the final plat
approval. The pathway shall be constructed to the same standard that exists on the neighboring lot to the south.
Stormwater: The Engineering Department did not require a Stormwater Master Plan as a condition of
preliminary plat approval finding that no development is proposed at this time with the preliminary
plat application. The applicant is on notice that with any future development of the proposed lots the
existing stormwater facilities will be evaluated to meet City design standards and may require future improvements prior to any City Engineering office approval. No significant site or grading changes
are proposed as part of this minor subdivision.
Parklands: As a commercial subdivision, no dedicated park land or affordable housing requirements
apply to this proposal unless a residential component is anticipated with any the future development on
the proposed lots.
Utilities: As this is a subsequent subdivision of an existing urban tract of land private utilities (i.e.,
electricity, gas, cable and phone) currently exist in the adjacent street right-of-way or along the
perimeter of the parcel within existing utility easements.
4. Effects on the Natural Environment
This property is located in an area of the City which has been identified and developed for urban commercial uses. The Planning Department has not identified any natural environment features that would be impacted with this subdivision.
5. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
No known endangered species or critical game ranges have been identified on the subject property.
This area of the City has been identified and developed for urban purposes in a location of the City which essentially eliminates the potential for development of any wildlife habitat.
6. Effects on Public Health and Safety
The intent of the regulatory standards as set forth in the Bozeman Municipal Code is to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare. The subdivision has been reviewed and, with the required
conditions and code provisions, has been determined to be in general compliance with the title. Any conditions deemed necessary to ensure compliance with public health and safety have been listed by
13
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
5
the Development Review Committee and are noted accordingly as conditions of approval in this staff
report.
B. Compliance with the survey requirements provided for in Part 4 of the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act.
The preliminary plat has been prepared in accordance with the survey requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. As noted in recommended condition #1, the final plat must comply with
State statute and the Bozeman Municipal Code.
C. Compliance with the Bozeman Unified Development Code.
The following requirements are standards of the Bozeman Unified Development Code and shall be addressed with the final plat submittal:
1. Pursuant to Section 38.03.040.A.5(f), conditional approval of the preliminary plat shall be in force
for not more than one calendar year. Prior to that expiration date, the applicant may submit a letter of
request for the extension of the period to the Planning Director for the City Commission’s
consideration. The City Commission may, at the written request of the applicant, extend its approval for a mutually agreed upon time. More than one extension may be requested for a particular subdivision. Each request shall be considered on its individual merits as provided for in Section
38.03.040.A.5(g), BMC.
2. Pursuant to Section 38.03.040.A.1, the applicant shall submit with the application for final plat
review and approval, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval has been satisfactorily addressed, and specifically (tab, page, paragraph, etc.) where this information can be found.
3. Pursuant to Section 38.23.060.A, all easements, existing and proposed, shall be accurately depicted
and addressed on the final plat and in the final plat application.
4. Pursuant to Section 38.27.090, executed waivers of right to protest the creation of special improvement districts (SIDs) for a park maintenance district will be required to be filed and of record with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder.
5. Section 38.28.150 “Billboards and other off-premises advertising” states that off-premise
commercial advertising signs are not permitted within the City limits except as permitted by state or
federal law. As a result, the billboard sign situated at the southeast corner of the site must be removed from the site of the preliminary plat application. The applicant has indicated that it is not their intent to renew the existing lease for the billboard sign that expires September 1, 2012 and is requesting they be
given until October 1, 2012 to remove the sign (see attached letter dated December 16, 2011).
6. Section 38.41.050.A.8 requires that any noxious weeds be identified and mapped by a person with
experience in weed management and knowledgeable in weed identification. A noxious weed management and revegetation plan, approved by the County Weed Control District, shall be submitted with the final plat.
7. When applicable, the final covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements shall be submitted
with the final plat application for review and approval by the Planning Department and shall contain,
but not be limited to, the provisions required in Section 38.38.020, BMC.
8. Pursuant to Section 38.39.01., if it is the developer’s intent to file the final plat prior to installation, certification, and acceptance of all required improvements by the City of Bozeman, an Improvements
14
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
6
Agreement shall be entered into with the City of Bozeman guaranteeing the completion of all
improvements in accordance with the Preliminary Plat submittal information and conditions of
approval. If the final plat is filed prior to the installation of all improvements, the developer shall
supply the City of Bozeman with an acceptable method of security equal to 150 percent of the cost of the remaining improvements.
D. Compliance with the required subdivision review process.
A subdivision pre-application was submitted on September 12, 2012. The pre-application was
reviewed by the DRC on September 26 and October 3, 2012 and summary review comments were
forwarded to the applicant in preparation of the preliminary plat application.
A complete preliminary plat application was submitted on October 3, 2012. The preliminary plat was
reviewed by the DRC on October 17 and 24, 2012. On the final week of DRC review, a favorable
recommendation was forwarded for consideration by the Planning Director and City Commission.
Public notice for this application was placed in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on Sunday, October 28
and November 4, 2012. The site was posted with a public notice on October 27, 2012. Public notice was sent to adjacent property owners via certified mail, and to all other property owners of record
within 200 feet of the subject property via first class mail, on October 27, 2012. No letters of public
testimony have been received at the Department of Planning & Community Development in regards to
this project.
On November 7, 2012 the minor subdivision staff report was drafted and forwarded with a recommendation of conditional approval by the Planning Director for consideration by the City
Commission. The City Commission is scheduled to make a final decision at their November 19, 2012
public hearing. The final decision for a Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of
Record Preliminary Plat must be made within 45 working days of the date it was deemed complete or
in this case by December 12, 2012.
E. Provision of easements for the location and installation of any planned utilities.
No new utilities are planned or necessitated as part of this subdivision other than the installation of
individual separate sanitary and water service lines to serve the two lots.
F. Provision of legal and physical access to each parcel.
Both proposed lots will have legal and physical, shared access with the adjacent lot to the north from Valley Center Road. An existing 30-foot wide access easement as required by the Montana
Department of Transportation with the original minor subdivision is currently of record for the site.
VI.
After considering all matters of record presented at the public hearings the City Commission
found that the proposed preliminary plat for a two-lot minor subdivision to divide 5.006 acres and
create two commercial lots would comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Unified Development
Code and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act if certain conditions were imposed.
15
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
7
VII.
The City Commission then considered approval of the preliminary plat application for a two-lot
minor subdivision with the recommended conditions of approval provided in City Commission Staff
Report, Planning Application #P-12012. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, on a vote of 5-0, that the Preliminary Subdivision Plat to
subdivide 5.006 acres and create two commercial lots has been found to meet the primary criteria of
the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, and is therefore approved, subject to the conditions listed
below. The evidence as stated in the Findings of Fact, justifies the conditions imposed on the
subdivision to ensure that the final plat complies with all applicable regulations, and all required
criteria, that appropriate and safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation is provided, adequate
infrastructure and public services are provided, and adequate public access, utility easements, and
rights-of-way are provided.
1. The Final Plat shall conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the Uniform
Standards for Final Subdivision Plats and shall be accompanied by all required documents, including
certification from the City Engineer that as-built drawings for public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and corrected certificates. The Final Plat application shall include
four (4) signed reproducible copies on a 3 mil or heavier stable base polyester film (or equivalent); two
(2) digital copies; one (1) PDF copy; and five (5) paper prints. The applicant is advised that unmet
code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not,
in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
a. The Certificate of Director of Public Service and Certificate of Exclusion From Montana
Department of Environmental Quality review will need to be amended to identify the new Director of
Public Service, Craig Woolard.
b. The Certificate of Completion of Improvements will still need to be included on the final plat to verify completion of the said subdivision improvements.
2. The applicant shall submit with the application for Final Plat review and approval, a written
narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval and noted code provisions
have been satisfactorily addressed, and shall include a digital copy (pdf) of the entire Final Plat
16
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
8
submittal. This narrative shall be in sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan,
sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal.
3. The final plat shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Bozeman Municipal
Code. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful
requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
4. Because this is a commercial subdivision no dedicated park land or affordable housing
requirements apply to this proposal unless a residential component is anticipated with future
development of the two lots.
5. Water rights, or cash-in-lieu thereof, as calculated by the City Engineer’s Office, is due prior to
submitting a final plat application for the minor subdivision, unless said water rights have already been
addressed with Minor Subdivision No. 358A.
6. Section 38.23.060.B, BMC “Private Utility Easements” – If a utility easement is greater than the
building setback required by the U.D.O. (sanitary sewer easement) a note to that effect shall be placed on the final plat and/or final site plan. Utility easements must be clearly shown on the preliminary plan and the preliminary plat application will need to provide written comment from all utility companies
that the development can be adequately served with said easements proposed.
7. A pedestrian pathway shall be constructed, or financially guaranteed along with an improvements
agreement, across the entire frontage of East Valley Center Drive and be contained within a pedestrian access easement prior to the final plat approval. The pathway shall be constructed to the same standard that exists on the neighboring lot to the south.
8. The applicant is notified that construction of water/sewer services for the new parcels will be
deferred until the time of site development.
This City Commission order may be appealed by bringing an action in the Eighteenth District
Court of Gallatin County, within 30 days after the adoption of this document by the City Commission,
by following the procedures of Section 76-3-625, M.C.A.
The preliminary approval of this subdivision shall be effective for one (1) year from the date of
Preliminary Plat approval, or November 27, 2013. At the end of this period the City Commission may,
at the written request of the subdivider, extend its approval as provided in the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance for not more than one (1) calendar year.
DATED this day of , 2012.
17
Cowdrey MiSub for Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision 358A – Findings of Fact and Order
9
BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
SEAN A. BECKER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ Stacy Ulmen, City Clerk GREG SULLIVAN, City Attorney
18
MH
MH
WV
MH4650MH
MH
WV
HF
PHN
PM
STOP
LP
PT
WV
PT
PHN
H
F
MH
LP
W 46554655465546554655 46554655H
F
LP
LP
WV
CS
LP
WV
WV
146.21’N 80 43’ 29" E
G20
G21
G22
G23
G24
G26
G27
G29
G30
PP1
PP2
G25
CH. L. = 351.11’
CH. BRG. = N 16 08’ 19" W
L = 351.57’
= 10 13’ 33"
R = 1969.86’
NON-TANGENT CURVE
CH. L. = 227.04’
CH. BRG. = S 12 38’ 26" E
L = 227.46’
»¿˛ = 12´ 6
R = 1075.92’
NON-TANGENT CURVE
57.70’N 59 31’ 08" E
414.60’S 81 08’ 31" W121.29’N 08 49’ 25" W39.50’
S 06 37’ 18" E
402.79’N 80 27’ 17" E
152.98’N 69 18’ 46" E
1
69.84’S
1
7
3
8’
3
7" E(SPI
RAL CHORD)139.90’N 09 32’ 42" W(SPIRAL CHORD)
12.39’
N 09 32’ 42" W
CH. L. = 252.14’
CH. BRG. = S 25 25’ 35" E
L = 252.72’
»¿˛ = 13´ 27
R = 1075.92’
NON-TANGENT CURVE
(406) 586-0262 | (406) 586-5740 FAX
Suite 203, bozeman, mt 59715
895 Technology Boulevard
PROJECT SURVEYOR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:PROJECT NO.
Sec.T.R. 1/4
OF
SHEET
Scale 1" = ’
Sec.T.R. 1/4
586.4490 Fax
586.5599 Office
Bozeman, MT 59715
Suite B
1970 Stadium Drive,
1 1
COWDREY
057-02
NH
TG
TG
26 1 S.5 E.
40
N
Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County
____________________________________________________
Document Number ____________________
Records of the Clerk and Recorder, Gallatin County, Montana.
and recorded as Minor Subdivision No. ___________
this ___________ day of _____________A.D., ______,
_________ o’clock ____.M.,
in my office at:
Montana, do hereby certify that the foregoing instrument was filed
I, ____________________Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County,
CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND RECORDER
A
NATNOM ROYEVRUS DNAL LANOISSEFORPDERETSI
GERNo. 13601 LS
GNAUCK
THOMAS
COWDREY 2-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION
10-2-12
2 lots 5.006 acres
Subdivision Area:
RANGE 5 EAST, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,
A SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 2A OF MINOR SUBDIVISION 358A LOCATED
THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED FOR BUZ COWDREY
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO CREATE A 2-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MINOR SUBDIVISION No.
H
F
PROJECT AREA
PER M.S. 358A
20’ UTILITY EASEMENT
PER M.S. 358A
20’ UTILITY EASEMENT
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING SEWER MAINZONED B-2M.S. 358LOT 1ZONED B-2
2.503 ACRES
LOT 2
ZONED B-2
2.503 ACRES
LOT 1ZONED B-2M.S. 358ALOT 2BI
NTE
RS
T
ATE
9
0ZONED B-2C.O.S. 1827TRACT A1VALLEY CENTER ROAD130’ R/W
PER DOC. No. 2275905
50’ ACCESS EASEMENT
PER DOC. No.2202603
EASEMENT
20’ WATER LINE
PER M.S. 358A
ACCESS EASEMENT
12’ PEDESTRIAN
PER M.S. 358A
EASEMENT
20’ UTILITY
PER DOC. No. M.S. 2044565
30’ WIDE SEWER EASEMENT
PER FILM 180, PAGE 4157
FROM AS-BUILT SEWER
EASEMENT LOCATION
30’ WIDE SEWER
DOC. No. 2175409
PER M.S. 358A)
EASEMENT (LOCATION
30’ WIDE ACCESS
PER FILM 180, PAGE 4157
FROM AS-BUILT SEWER
EASEMENT LOCATION
30’ WIDE SEWER
P.O.B.
MH
WV
Coniferous Tree
Deciduous Tree
Sign
Transformer
Phone Pedestal
Power Meter
Light Pole
Manhole
Sewer line
Water Line
Well
Water Valve
Fire Hydrant
Set 2" Alpine Aluminum Cap
Found Property Corner
Fence Line
Adjoining Property Line
Easement Boundary Line
Property Boundary Line
W
LP
PHN
PT
PM
STORM WATER EASEMENT NOTE
PER MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 358:
A 20’-WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TRANSMITTING STORM WATER RUNOFF TO THE DETENTION POND
IN THE COMMON AREA, IS RESERVED ON LOT 2 FOR THE BENEFIT
OF LOT 1, THE LOCATION OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE MUTUAL
CONSENT OF THE OWNERS OF LOTS 1 & 2.
area designated on this plat as Utility Easement to have and to hold forever.
maintenance, repair and removal of their lines and other facilities in, over, under and across each
other similar utility or service, the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction,
private, providing or offering to provide telephone, electric power, gas, internet, cable television or
The undersigned hereby grants unto each and every person, firm or corporation, whether public or
GRANT OF UTILITY EASEMENTS
hereby dedicated to public use.
obligation to maintain the lands included in all streets, avenues, alleys, and parks or public lands
the City accepts no responsibility for maintaining the same. The owner agrees that the City has no
avenues, alleys, and parks or public lands dedicated to the public are accepted for public use, but
for the public use and enjoyment. Unless specifically listed herein, the lands included in all streets,
and parks or public lands shown on said plat are hereby granted and donated to the City of Bozeman
City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and the lands included in all streets, avenues, alleys,
The above-described tract of land is to be known and designated as Cowdrey 2-Lot Minor Subdivision,
SUBJECT to all easements of record or apparent from a visual inspection of the property.
5.006 acres, more or less.
thence North 69 18’ 46" East a distance of 152.98 feet to the Point of Beginning containing
of North 16 08’ 19" West and a chord length of 351.11 feet to a Gaston yellow plastic cap;
having a radius of 1969.86 feet, a central angle of 10 13’ 33", a chord bearing
thence north a distance of 351.57 feet along a non-tangential curve concave west
a distance of 152.31 feet to an aluminum cap;
thence along a spiral curve to the left with a chord of North 09 32’ 42" West, 152.29 feet
thence North 08 49’ 25" West a distance of 121.29 feet to an aluminum cap;
thence South 81 08’ 31" West a distance of 414.60 feet to a TD&H aluminum cap;
thence South 06 37’ 18" East a distance of 39.50 feet to a Gaston yellow plastic cap;
bearing of South 19 22’ 11" East and a chord length of 476.21 feet to an MDT aluminum cap;
southwest having a radius of 1075.92 feet, a central angle of 25 34’ 17", a chord
thence southeast a distance of 480.19 feet along a non-tangential curve concave
thence North 59 31’ 08" East a distance of 57.70 feet to a Gaston yellow plastic cap;
thence North 80 43’ 29" East a distance of 146.21 feet to a Gaston yellow plastic cap;
thence South 17 38’ 37" East a distance of 169.84 feet to a Gaston yellow plastic cap;
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 2A a Gaston yellow plastic cap;
Gallatin County, Montana being more particularly described as follows:
Township 1 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian Montana (P.M.M), City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Southeast One-quarter of Section 26
A tract of land being Lot 2A of Minor Subdivision No. 358A on record with the
this plat hereunto included, the following described tract of land, to-wit:
surveyed, subdivided and platted into lots, blocks, roads and alleys, as shown by
We, the undersigned property owners, do hereby certify that we have caused to be
CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION
My commission expires ___________________________
Residing at _____________________________________
Notary Public for the State of ________________________
printed name
______________________________________________
signature
______________________________________________
Notarial Seal the day and year first written above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
me that such Corporation executed the same.
of the Corporation executed the within instrument and acknowledged to
___________________ known to me to be the _________________
before me, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared
On this ______________day of ______________________, 2012,
County of ________________________)
s.s.
State of _________________________)
By:__________________________________________
Intermountain Developers, Inc.
Buz Cowdrey
______________________________________
DATED this ___________ day of ______________________, __________.
City of Bozeman, Montana
Director of Public Service
_____________________________________________________________
DATED this _____________ day of __________________, ____________.
use of any and all lands shown on the plat as being dedicated to such use.
and hereby accepts the dedication to the City of Bozeman for the public
examined and has found the same to conform to the law, approves it,
Montana, do hereby certify that the accompanying plat has been duly
I, _______________________ Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman,
CERTIFICATE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE
City of Bozeman, Montana
Director of Public Service
_________________________________________________________
DATED this _____________ day of __________________, ____________.
from the requirement for Montana Department of Environmental Quality review.
Therefore, under the provisions of §76-4-125(2)(d) MCA, this subdivision is excluded
and can be provided with adequate storm water drainage and adequate municipal facilities.
of the Bozeman growth policy which was adopted pursuant to §76-1-601 et seq., MCA,
City of Bozeman, Montana, a first-class municipality, and within the planning area
Cowdrey 2-Lot Minor Subdivision No. _________, Gallatin County, Montana, is within the
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
CERTIFICATE OF EXCLUSION FROM MONTANA
Treasurer of Gallatin County
____________________________________________________
Dated this______ day of ___________, _______
land to be surveyed have been paid.
that all real property taxes and special assessments assessed and levied on the
certify that the accompanying Minor Subdivision Plat has been duly examined and
I, _____________________the Treasurer of Gallatin County, Montana do hereby
CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY TREASURER
the Gallatin County Subdivision Regulations.
Subdivision and Platting Act, §76-3-101 through §76-3-625 M.C.A., and
accompanying plat and as described, in accordance with the Montana
or under my supervision, and the same was platted as shown on the
the accompanying Minor Subdivision Plat was surveyed by me,
do hereby certify that between August 4th, 2008 and September 21st, 2012
I, Thomas Gnauck, the undersigned Professional Land Surveyor,
Montana Registration No. 13,601 L.S.
Thomas Gnauck, PLS
_______________________________
Dated this 2nd day of October, 2012.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR
NAVD 88 Int. Feet
Basis of Elevations:
August 4, 2008
MTSU CORS - NAD 83
Long. W 111 04’ 06.34933"
Lat. N 45 42’ 55.90202"
Geodetic North at:
BASIS OF BEARING
PRELIMINARY PLAT LEGEND
VICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 1000’
19
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Carol Neibauer, Licensing Clerk
Laurae Clark, Treasurer
Anna Rosenberry, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Approval of the Beer & Wine or Liquor License renewals for calendar
year 2013.
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached list for renewal of their Liquor Licenses or Beer
& Wine Licenses for calendar year 2013.
BACKGROUND: The City Commission may grant a license to sell Beer & Wine or Liquor
(Bozeman Municipal Code 4.02.030 and 4.03.020) upon receipt of a completed city application,
and this license must be renewed annually.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None
FISCAL EFFECTS: None
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attached Documents: Renewal List
Report compiled on: November 29, 2012
20
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Dave Skelton, Senior Director
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution No. 4417 Ditton Annexation, A-12003
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission approves Commission Resolution No. 4417
annexing Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey No. 2392B as amended by the right-of-way highway acquisition and direct the City Manager to sign the Annexation Agreement for the A-12003 Ditton Annexation.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “Having considered all of the information presented, I
hereby adopt Commission Resolution No. 4417 annexing Tract B-1 of Certificate of Survey
No. 2392B as amended by the right-of-way highway acquisition and direct the City Manager to sign the Annexation Agreement for the A-12003 Ditton Annexation”
BACKGROUND: Clara O. Ditton Living Trust received preliminary approval to annex a
19.42 acre parcel and adjacent right-of-way at 2210 Bridger Drive on June 11, 2012. The
annexation agreement has been signed and returned to the City for processing. Applicable
actions have been taken to address the terms of annexation. The City Manager must now be directed to sign the annexation agreement and this resolution be passed to complete the annexation process.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the resolution and annexation agreement.
2. Deny the resolution and annexation agreement. FISCAL EFFECTS: No significant fiscal effect has been identified.
Attachments: Annexation Agreement, Annexation Map and Commission Resolution No. 4417
Report compiled on: November 20, 2012
21
RS(COUNTY)AS(COUNTY)ASR1R-SR-SR-1Existing A-SProposed R-S (City)AS(COUNTY)DITTON ANNEXATION MAP RTSec.1/4COUNTY:0FeetDRAWN :DATE :1SHEET NO.404 East Madison AvenueBelgrade, Montana 59714Phone:(406)539-9086E-MAIL: davidmalbert@aol.comDAVID M. ALBERTProfessional Land Surveyor10020040022
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4417
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF A CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TRACT OF LAND, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN AND THE EXTENSION OF
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN SO AS TO INCLUDE SAID CONTIGUOUS TRACT.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman received a request for annexation from the Clara O. Ditton Living
Trust requesting the City Commission to extend the boundaries of the City of Bozeman so as to include a certain
contiguous tract of land containing 20.00 acres lying generally on the south side of Highway 86/Bridger Drive
approximately one mile east of the intersection with Story Mill Road in the County of Gallatin, State of
Montana; and
WHEREAS, Clara O. Ditton Living Trust is the current landowner of record of property described as
Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey No. 2392B as modified by the right-of-way highway acquisition located in
the SE ¼ of Section 32, T1S, R6E, P.M.M. Gallatin County, Montana, requesting the City Commission to extend
the boundaries of the City of Bozeman; and
WHEREAS, an annexation staff report has been prepared in accordance with the Commission's goals
and policies for annexation and was presented to the Commission on June 11, 2012; and
WHEREAS, a public meeting on said annexation petition was duly noticed and held on June 11, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, no members of the public spoke in regards to said annexation at the public meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City did not receive any written protest from the real property owners of the area to be
annexed; and
WHEREAS, on June 11 2012, the Commission preliminarily approved the annexation and authorized
City Staff and the Clara O. Ditton Living Trust to negotiate the final annexation agreement to be presented for
consideration at a future City Commission meeting; and
39
2
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2012, the Commission reviewed and approved the final annexation
agreement and authorized City Staff and the Landowner to prepare the final annexation documents and execute the
documents; and
WHEREAS, the provision of available services, including, but not limited to, streets, rights-of-way,
easements, water rights or cash in lieu, waivers of protest against creation of SID's and water and sewer hookup
fees, to said contiguous tract as described is the subject of a written agreement between the City and the
Landowner; and
WHEREAS, said contiguous tract is described as Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey No. 2392B as
modified by the right-of-way highway acquisition located in the SE ¼ of Section 32, T1S, R6E, P.M.M.
Gallatin County, Montana; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission hereby finds that the annexation of this contiguous tract is
in the best interests of the City of Bozeman and the inhabitants/owners thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana:
Section 1
That it is hereby declared that, pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46, M.C.A., the following-described
property, which is contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the City of Bozeman, be annexed to the City of
Bozeman and that the boundaries of said City shall be extended so as to embrace and include such 20.00 acres of
land, to wit:
Legal Description (Tract B-1A)
A tract of land in the south east quarter of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 6 East, Principal
Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana, being Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey 2392B as modified by right-of-way highway acquisition and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the south east corner of said Tract B-1A from which the southeast corner of said Section 32 bears S 89o 25′ 40″ E 371.03 ft.; thence N 89o 25′ 40″ W 581.40 ft. along the south line of said Section 32; thence N 2o 14′ 30″ E 472.65 ft; thence S 89o 33′ 56″ W 223.35 ft.;thence S 89o 05′ 10″
W 190.50 ft.; thence N 1o 05′ 03″ W 451.35 ft. to a point on the southerly Right of Way of Secondary Highway 293; thence, along said Right of Way, easterly 23.88 ft. along a non-tangent curve to the left
with a radius of 1196.00 ft. a central angle of 1o 08′ 38″ and a chord that bears N 82o 42′ 34″ E 23.88
ft.; thence S 70o 19′ 40″ E 60.24 ft.; thence easterly 160.34 ft. along a non-tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1225.00 ft., a central angle of 7o 29′ 58″ and a chord that bears N 75o 54′ 17″ E
160.23 ft.; thence N 65o 33′ 01″ E 53.57 ft.; thence easterly 319.37 ft. along a non-tangent curve to
the left with a radius of 1220.00 ft., a central angle of 14o 59′ 56″ and a chord that bears N 62o 09′
40
3
21″ E 318.46 ft.; thence N 38o 35′ 33″ E 54.74 ft.; thence northeasterly 42.26 ft along a non-tangent
curve to the left with a radius of 1206.00 ft., a central angle of 2o 00 ′ 28″ and a chord that bears N 51o
09′ 09″ E 42.26 ft.; thence N 50o 08′ 55″ E 109.84 ft.; thence N 75o 47′ 23″ E 55.46 ft.; thence N 50o 08′ 55″ E 212.82 ft.; thence, leaving said Right of Way, S 1o 19′ 28″ E 1407.18 ft to the point of
beginning containing 19.42 acres.
Legal Description (Highway 86/Bridger Drive R/W)
A tract of land in the south east quarter of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 6 East, Principal Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana, being part of Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey 2392B and
being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the highway right of way from which the north west corner of said Tract B-
1A bears S82o 42′ 34″W 23.88 ft.; thence S 70o 19′ 40″ E 60.24 ft.; thence easterly 160.34 ft. along a
non-tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1225.00 ft., a central angle of 7o 29′ 58″ and a chord that bears N 75o 54′ 17″ E 160.23 ft.; thence N 65o 33′ 01″ E 53.57 ft.; thence easterly 319.37 ft. along a
non-tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1220.00 ft., a central angle of 14o 59′ 56″ and a chord
that bears N 62o 09′ 21″ E 318.46 ft.; thence N 38o 35′ 33″ E 54.74 ft.; thence northeasterly 42.26 ft along a non-tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1206.00 ft., a central angle of 2o 00 ′ 28″ and a
chord that bears N 51o 09′ 09″ E 42.26 ft.; thence N 50o 08′ 55″ E 109.84 ft.; thence N 75o 47′ 23″ E 55.46 ft.; thence N 50o 08′ 55″ E 212.82 ft.; thence, N 1o 19′ 28″ W 43.46 ft. thence S 50o 08′ 55″ W 399.73 ft. thence southwesterly 668.06 ft. on a curve to the right with a radius of 1196.00, and a
central angle of 32o 00′ 20″ to the point of beginning containing 0.58 acres.
The described parcel has an area of 20.00 acres, more or less and is along with and subject to any
existing easements and includes adjacent un-annexed road right-of-way for Highway 86/Bridger Drive as
described on the Ditton Annexation Map.
Section 2
The effective date of this annexation is December 10, 2012
Section 3
The annexation of the above-described tract is subject to the terms of the Agreement dated September
10, 2012, by and between the City of Bozeman and Clara O. Ditton Living Trust owners of said tract of land.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular
session thereof held on the 10rd day of December, 2012.
41
4
_________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
STACY ULMEN City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________ GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
42
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: First reading and preliminary approval of Ordinance 1847 adopting an initial zoning designation of RS for Tract B-1 of Certificate of Survey No. 2392B as amended by the right-of-way highway acquisition in conjunction
with annexation, Zoning Application Z-12056.
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission preliminarily approve Ordinance 1847 establishing an initial zoning designation of R-S for Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey No.
2392B and adjacent right-of-way.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “Having considered all of the information presented and a
public hearing having previously been held on June 11, 2012, I hereby approve Ordinance 1847 establishing an initial zoning designation of R-S, Residential Suburban, for Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey No. 2392B and adjacent right-of-way”
BACKGROUND: Clara O. Ditton Living Trust received preliminary approval to annex a
19.42 acre parcel and adjacent right-of-way at 2210 Bridger Drive on June 11, 2012. The
annexation agreement has been signed and returned to the City for processing. The initial zoning of R-S, Residential Suburban, was approved for this area by the Commission, and now requires the implementing ordinance in association with the completion of the annexation process.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the resolution and annexation agreement.
2. Deny the resolution and annexation agreement. FISCAL EFFECTS: No significant fiscal effect has been identified.
Attachments: Ordinance 1847 and ZMA Map Exhibit
Report compiled on: November 20, 2012
43
44
ORDINANCE NO. 1847 Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 1847
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, AMENDING THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONE MAP TO INCLUDE THE AREA OF TRACT B-1A OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 2392B AND ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAYS, LOCATED IN THE SE ¼ OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, P.M.M. AS “R-S” (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT) FOR 20.00
ACRES LOCATED IN THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 3, T2S, R5E, PMM, GALLATIN
COUNTY, MONTANA. WHEREAS, the proposed zone map amendment to establish an initial municipal zoning
designation of “R-S” (Residential Suburban District) has been properly submitted, reviewed and
advertised; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on June 11, 2012,
to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a zone map amendment;
and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman Zoning Commission recommended to the Bozeman City
Commission that the zone map amendment be approved as proposed; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice, the City Commission held its public hearing on June 11,
2012, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a zone map
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed and considered the thirteen zone map
amendment criteria established in Section 76-2-304, M.C.A., and found that the proposed zone
map amendment to R-S (Residential Suburban District) would be in compliance with the thirteen
criteria; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting held on June 11, 2012, the City Commission found that the
proposed zone map amendment would be in compliance with Bozeman’s adopted growth policy
and would be in the public interest if R-S was the adopted initial zoning.
45
ORDINANCE NO. 1847 Page 2 of 5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana:
Section 1
That the zoning district designation of the following-described property is hereby
designated as "R-S" (Residential Suburban District):
Legal Description (Tract B-1A)
A tract of land in the south east quarter of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 6 East,
Principal Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana, being Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey 2392B as modified by right-of-way highway acquisition and being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the south east corner of said Tract B-1A from which the southeast corner
of said Section 32 bears S 89o 25′ 40″ E 371.03 ft.; thence N 89o 25′ 40″ W 581.40 ft. along the south line of said Section 32; thence N 2o 14′ 30″ E 472.65 ft; thence S 89o
33′ 56″ W 223.35 ft.;thence S 89o 05′ 10″ W 190.50 ft.; thence N 1o 05′ 03″ W 451.35
ft. to a point on the southerly Right of Way of Secondary Highway 293; thence, along
said Right of Way, easterly 23.88 ft. along a non-tangent curve to the left with a radius
of 1196.00 ft. a central angle of 1o 08′ 38″ and a chord that bears N 82o 42′ 34″ E 23.88 ft.; thence S 70o 19′ 40″ E 60.24 ft.; thence easterly 160.34 ft. along a non-tangent
curve to the left with a radius of 1225.00 ft., a central angle of 7o 29′ 58″ and a chord
that bears N 75o 54′ 17″ E 160.23 ft.; thence N 65o 33′ 01″ E 53.57 ft.; thence easterly
319.37 ft. along a non-tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1220.00 ft., a central
angle of 14o 59′ 56″ and a chord that bears N 62o 09′ 21″ E 318.46 ft.; thence N 38o 35′ 33″ E 54.74 ft.; thence northeasterly 42.26 ft along a non-tangent curve to the left
with a radius of 1206.00 ft., a central angle of 2o 00′ 28″ and a chord that bears N 51o
09′ 09″ E 42.26 ft.; thence N 50o 08′ 55″ E 109.84 ft.; thence N 75o 47′ 23″ E 55.46 ft.;
thence N 50o 08′ 55″ E 212.82 ft.; thence, leaving said Right of Way, S 1o 19′ 28″ E
1407.18 ft to the point of beginning containing 19.42 acres.
Legal Description (Highway 86/Bridger Drive R/W)
A tract of land in the south east quarter of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 6 East,
Principal Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana, being part of Tract B-1A of Certificate of Survey 2392B and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the highway right of way from which the north west corner of
said Tract B-1A bears S82o 42′ 34″W 23.88 ft.; thence S 70o 19′ 40″ E 60.24 ft.; thence
easterly 160.34 ft. along a non-tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1225.00 ft., a central angle of 7o 29′ 58″ and a chord that bears N 75o 54′ 17″ E 160.23 ft.; thence N 65o 33′ 01″ E 53.57 ft.; thence easterly 319.37 ft. along a non-tangent curve to the left
46
ORDINANCE NO. 1847 Page 3 of 5
with a radius of 1220.00 ft., a central angle of 14o 59′ 56″ and a chord that bears N 62o
09′ 21″ E 318.46 ft.; thence N 38o 35′ 33″ E 54.74 ft.; thence northeasterly 42.26 ft
along a non-tangent curve to the left with a radius of 1206.00 ft., a central angle of 2o
00′ 28″ and a chord that bears N 51o 09′ 09″ E 42.26 ft.; thence N 50o 08′ 55″ E 109.84 ft.; thence N 75o 47′ 23″ E 55.46 ft.; thence N 50o 08′ 55″ E 212.82 ft.; thence, N 1o 19′ 28″ W 43.46 ft. thence S 50o 08′ 55″ W 399.73 ft. thence southwesterly 668.06 ft.
on a curve to the right with a radius of 1196.00, and a central angle of 32o 00′ 20″ to
the point of beginning containing 0.58 acres.
The described parcel has an area of 20.00 acres, more or less and is along with and
subject to any existing easements and includes adjacent un-annexed road right-of-way for
Highway 86/Bridger Drive as described on the Ditton Annexation Map.
Section 2
Repealer.
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances
of the City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 3 Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. All other provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 4 Severability.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman
Municipal Code as a whole.
47
ORDINANCE NO. 1847 Page 4 of 5
Section 5
Codification.
This Ordinance shall not be codified but shall be kept by the City Clerk and entered into a disposition list in numerical order with all other ordinances of the City and shall be organized in
a category entitled “Zoning Map Amendments.”
Section 6 Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, on first reading, at a
regular session thereof held on the 10th day of November 2012.
_____________________________
SEAN A. BECKER, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
STACY ULMEN, City Clerk
PASSED, ADOPTED AND FINALLY APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana, on second reading, at a regular session thereof held on the ____ day
of ________________ 2012.
_____________________________ SEAN A. BECKER, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
STACY ULMEN, City Clerk
48
ORDINANCE NO. 1847 Page 5 of 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
49
1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4421 adopting the update to the Water impact fee
study to establish methodology, and document required information to conform to statute, and
determine the generalized average cost per unit of service. MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Commission Resolution 4421 adopting the updated water
impact fee study [also known as a service area report] as presented.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having received and considered the updated study for water impact
fees, the recommendation from the impact fee advisory committee, and having heard and considered public comment I move to approve Commission Resolution 4421 adopting the
September 23, 2012 draft of the Water Impact Fee Study.
BACKGROUND: The City operates a municipal water utility comprised of two treatment
plans, multiple reservoirs, and 257 miles of water piping. The utility requires funding for maintenance and operations to serve existing users, and also funding to expand the system to
serve future users. Funding for operations and maintenance comes primarily from the monthly
service charges assessed to system customers. This includes funding for both daily operations
such as wages and supplies and for the replacement of existing capital goods. The City expends
approximately 5.5 million dollars per year operating the water system. Capital goods are generally defined as having a service life in excess of 10 years and are physical items such as
pipes, treatment and collection buildings, and vehicles. The City dedicates approximately one
million dollars per year from monthly fees to replace and maintain capital for water distribution
piping and additional annual funding to replace and maintain the water treatment plants.
Capital expansion of the system is achieved by combined funding sources such as impact fees,
development project related installations of piping, and applicable grants which occur
infrequently. All these funding sources must work together to provide the reliable and adequate
service needed for a healthy community. Coordination is provided through the long range facility
plan and the annual capital improvement programming system as well as the operational oversight of the staff and Commission. Expansion of water supply is provided through other
processes.
50
2
This memo discusses one element of the overall funding structure for the water system, impact
fees. Bozeman initially adopted impact fees in 1996. Most recently the fee studies were updated
in 2007. The present fee study began in 2011. Impact fees have helped the City provide needed
services during high, moderate, and slow growth periods. The memo is structured in sections identified by letter. Each section addresses an individual topic. The majority of the sections are focused on the content of the new fee study, the presentation of information that occurred on
October 8th, and related questions. Section F identifies questions and issues that will be
addressed with implementation. Many of these items interrelate to other issues, programs, and
standards. These interrelationships are often complex and on-going. These items do not all need to be resolved prior to acceptance and adoption of the fee studies.
The sections are:
A. Responses to questions from October 8th
B. Summary History C. Process D. Common Study Elements and Changes
E. Water specific items
F. Issues for Future Discussion and Implementation
Sections: A. Question from October 8th:
How to fit in the Integrated Water Resource Plan (IWRP) results? – The IWRP is
investigating options for providing additional sources of water supply to enable the City
to continue to grow. It is expected to be completed in mid-2013. All water in the state is owned by the state and may only be used with permission from the State of Montana. Obtaining additional water supply is a complex process. The expectation is that the
IWRP will identify several different approaches for acquiring water with the associated
costs and timeframes. The City Commission will be able to select which option to pursue
first. The costs for each option can be translated into an expected cost per gallon. The impact
fee study has a gallons per service unit factor. The additional cost can be readily adapted
to fit into the impact fee study at such time as the Commission has completed its review
and decision. Beginning on page 6 of the study and summarized in Figure 12 the number of gallons per user and the cost components to deliver those gallons are identified. The IWRP results can be similarly identified as costs per gallon and added to the existing cost
components. Alternatively, the Commission could choose to keep any costs for the IWRP
separate from the impact fee program.
B. Summary History: The City funds its water, sewer, fire/EMS, and transportation systems with multiple funding sources including impact fees. The City of Bozeman initially
adopted impact fees in 1996. Fees were initially adopted at a fraction of the calculated
cost of service to provide a transition period. The percentage of the fees collected has
varied by time and type of fee. It is necessary from time to time to update the study which documents and sets the upper limit for the unit costs for each type of impact fee.
The City adopted updates to the various facility plans which provide much of the base
information for the impact fees for transportation in 2001 and 2009, fire in 2006, and
both wastewater and water in 2007. The City retained consultants in 2006 to update the
fee studies. The four fees were updated and adopted over the following 14 months.
51
3
The City has adopted a three year cycle to update the impact fee studies and a five year
cycle to evaluate and if needed update the facility plans. In 2011, the City began the
consultant selection process to again update the impact fee studies. TischlerBise was
selected as the consultant for this update cycle with the contract being signed in June 2011.
C. Process: 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 analysis and draft reports, 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.
The IFAC conducted public hearings on August 16th and September 13th to hear input
from members of the public on the draft impact fee studies. After conducting the public hearings the IFAC voted on motions to recommend approval of the individual fee studies.
The Committee recommended favorably on all four studies having found that the studies
were consistent with the requirements of state law regarding impact fees. The minutes of
the IFAC hearings are attached and provide greater detail on their actions. Minutes of all
of the IFAC meetings are available through the Planning Department.
On October 8th the City Commission received the reports and heard a presentation from
TischlerBise regarding the reports. No action on the studies was taken. The meeting was
for receiving information, hearing from the public, and formulating questions from the
Commission to be answered at a future meeting when all Commissioners are present.
The Commission set November 26th for follow up action on the water study. This action was moved to December 10th. The Commission passed Ordinance 1843 making structural
changes to the impact fee ordinance language which will be in effect on December 5th.
These changes specify that adoption of the new water impact fee study is by resolution. A
draft resolution has been prepared for Commission action should the Commission wish to
take action on December 10th.
A resolution of the Commission can be effective immediately. Staff recommends a delay
in the effective date of the implementing resolution in order for implementation
procedures to be set up and information to be provided to the public. Staff recommends
the effective date to be January 1, 2013 and the draft resolution includes that effective
date.
D. Common Study Elements and Changes:
Each fee is the subject of an independent study as each fee is legally independent of the
others and relies on different data and demand characteristics. The introductory material
in each study is very similar. There are three main sections of each report: 1) Introduction
to impact fees, 2) Impact fee calculations for each fee type, and 3) Implementation and administration. The second section of the report contains the data sources and analysis
and presents the resulting fee calculation broken into cost per demand unit. This section
will be most interesting to most people.
52
4
Several significant changes are occurring with this round of impact fee updates. Data was
available on home sizes from the MT Dept. of Revenue for the first time. This in
conjunction with other data sets enabled the consultants to perform analysis to document
certain demands for service by home size. Please see the Setting the Stage document for this analysis on home size and occupancy. They were then able to expand on this analysis with each individual fee study for those elements unique to that fee type as documented
in Appendix A of each study.
All four of the fee types now base residential fees on expected occupancy per size of
home. The same home size range was used for all four fees with a lower end of 1,400 square feet and an upper end of 3,000. The range is broken into 200 square foot increments so movement between increments will result in a small impact fee charge.
The consultant had analyzed the home range originally for detached and attached home
styles. After discussing the results with the IFAC it was decided to consolidate the two as
there was a substantial amount of overlap between the size increments. There is also a special residential category for group living which is distinguished by population rather than dwelling area. The occupancy level per home in the studies reflects the population
spread across all housing units constructed from 1990 to 2010. This represents demand at
any given point in time and accounts for vacancies without being tied to a particular
vacancy rate. As a result the occupancy per home used in the calculation is slightly less than the actual number of residents expected to live in an occupied dwelling.
These are averages over large samples of the City housing stock. Therefore, some homes
will have different demands above or below the average at any given point in time.
However, the overall system should equalize to the average. This occupancy approach
has the effect of recognizing the differences in occupancy and demand which come from smaller and larger homes and reduce fees on units which generate less demand. This is consistent with the City’s overall encouragement for land efficient development.
Because of this change all residential fees are on home size. Attached and detached
homes are no longer separate categories. Affordable housing distinctions to individual
categories are also removed since the primary difference was also related to size of homes.
Sustainability: Impact fees are a tool used to provide infrastructure and maintain levels of
service in essential systems. Having adequate infrastructure facilitates urban
development. Enabling land efficient urban development patterns reduces energy
consumption both from municipal operations and from private development and land use. Construction is very energy intensive. Having funding to coordinate facility over sizing
with private development reduces the number of times construction must be undertaken.
This reduces energy consumption from delayed expansions and needless repairs. The new
approach for water distribution and sewer collection systems directly rewards land
efficient development. Land efficient development is more likely to support pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduce motor vehicle emissions and energy consumption.
E. Water specific study elements and changes
Fee Components: 1) The draft study divides the water impact fee into two explicit parts;
treatment plant capacity and distribution (piping) capacity. This is shown in figure 12 of
the report. Both parts were included as part of the cost calculations in the previous fee studies but were consolidated into a single charge based on the size of the water meter.
53
5
The 2012 study keeps them separated. The treatment capacity portion is based on either
the size of the home or the meter serving the non-residential property. The distribution
capacity portion is based on the land area of the parcel and the concept that larger parcels
require a greater amount of distribution piping to span their perimeter and transmit water. This has been expressed as cost per acre for service. The dollar cost for the second portion will vary for each project depending on the size of the lot.
This area based approach for distribution piping has the effect of recognizing the
differences in distribution pipe length which come from smaller and larger parcels and
reducing fees on smaller units which generate less demand. This is consistent with the City’s overall encouragement for land efficient development and improves the proportionality of cost to impact. This will apply to both residential and non-residential
uses. This split will require slightly more administrative effort to track the different
revenue components of the fee.
2) Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP): One important change from the 2007 study is that the new 2012 study does not include a cost component for new water supply
development. In the 2007 study the source of supply storage was the second largest
component of the fee and was 34% of the total fee. . This is shown in table 5-4 of the
2007 study. The city’s Engineering Division is presently preparing the Integrated Water
Resources Plan (IWRP) to evaluate the City’s needs and options to provide additional water supply capacity. Therefore, it is not timely to include a cost factor for new water
supply development at this time for several reasons.
First, it is unknown at this point what the new water supply development project(s) will
actually be. It could be that a new reservoir in Sourdough Canyon is recommended to
meet the City’s projected water needs, or perhaps a groundwater well field or wastewater effluent re-use project is the solution. Secondly, each alternative has a unique cost associated with it. Because the type of new water supply development project is
unknown, the cost of such a project is unknown and cannot be reasonably ascertained
until the IWRP is completed in the 2nd quarter of 2013. A recommended water supply
development alternative, or portfolio of alternatives, will be presented to the City Commission at the conclusion of the IWRP effort. Planning level cost estimates will be available at this time for the recommended alternative(s). The estimate(s) can be used to
update future water impact fees in order to account for water supply development costs.
The omission in the current fee study will mean the City forgoing some collection of
revenue to meet the need for new water supply.
3) Water Rights: Also excluded from the current and past impact fee studies is the cost of
providing water rights, the legal ability to divert water into the City’s treatment system.
This issue is also under evaluation simultaneously to the IWRP and will return for
Commission consideration at a future time.
Residential: Current practice in Bozeman is to charge water impact fees on the basis of the size of the water meter serving the property. As noted above, the proposed fee
structure would replace that approach to have a distinction based on the size of the home
by 200 sq ft increments and the size of the parcel.
The present approach using meter sizing has given builders price motivation to use the
smallest possible meter size which can cause problems with water pressure and meter
54
6
wear and tear. It also has made the cost per multi-household dwelling less predictable as
the combination of plumbing fixtures, water pressure at the main, and many other factors
influence the size of meter needed. A size per dwelling approach will increase
predictability for the number of homes. In the event of home additions, the fractional difference between the old and new sizes will be charged. In the event of a new dwelling the amount due from a home of the new size will be charged even if the home previously
had service. Basing the distribution component on parcel size will be predictable by size
but potentially different by project.
The change in approach to home size also allows the City to pro-actively address the issue of residential fire sprinklers which piggyback on the metered domestic service line. Presently there is a question of when or if such a requirement may be implemented in the
building codes. Some users have installed them voluntarily. By decoupling the impact
fee from the meter size an increase in impact fee resulting from increased meter size to
support the possible surge demand from the fire sprinkler but which doesn’t reflect daily water demand can be avoided. Dedicated fire sprinkler lines for non-residential uses or large apartment complexes are not charged impact fees and are not affected by this
change.
Non-Residential: The new report recommends continuing to use the meter size for non-
residential as there is not adequate data to show a correlation to building size and water demand and there is a greater diversity of user types.
Consumption Rates: The analysis prepared for the water and sewer impact fees both
looked at the demand patterns for homes constructed in the past 20 years rather than the
entire city as being most representative of likely demand of new construction. This is a
change from the prior studies.
Special Cases: There are certain special cases relating to the change in how the piping
component (distribution system) is handled which must also be addressed and are
described below. The capacity component will continue to be handled as it is today.
These items will be included in future updates to the administrative manual for impact
fees so that these special cases are applied consistently.
a. Infill sites not previously developed: A property that has not had water/sewer service
during the time when impact fees were in place (March 26, 1996 to now). These
should pay the capacity and the distribution/collection charge as they are completely
new demand and will require additional capacity in both parts of the
treatment/distribution system to serve them. As the system is a whole, the funds can be legitimately used to extend the major items like the West Transmission Loop
which will benefit them.
b. Redevelopment/further development of sites which had service: These have paid for
needed service capacity expansion in fees paid earlier, either impact or monthly. The
calculations for impact fees do not require exacting precision and usually must be generalized due to their future oriented nature. The City also acts to create additional
capacity in its distribution and collection systems as part of the regular and on-going
maintenance of the system, especially in the older areas of the City. An example of
this is the replacement of an older 6 inch main with a new one for maintenance
reasons with the new pipe meeting the new minimum dimensional standard of 8
55
7
inches. The City conducts these types of replacements annually and has a structured
maintenance program for such work. These two factors together provide some
flexibility in considering how to treat redevelopment of a site.
The City has adopted a standard for the provision of water rights with new development. This is located in Section 38.23.180. Unlike impact fees which come at the time of building permits, the water rights standard is often met during the
subdivision or site development process. If a project creates additional demand that
meets or exceeds an additional acre-foot of water they have to mitigate this additional
demand for service. In Bozeman an acre-foot generally provides for about 3 homes over the course of a year. To keep consistency and to allow for some incremental changes within the developed area the need to pay distribution/collection charges
should be linked to this same increase in consumption trigger. This recognizes the
variability inherent in averaging and the incremental capacity improvements from
maintenance work. If you don’t need an additional acre foot then there will be no distribution /collection area fee. Costs would be charged for the additional dwelling’s area or meter size per normal to cover the capacity component.
c. Phased multi-building development: It would be inappropriate to charge each part of
a multi-unit complex the full fee for the distribution/collection systems of the entire
site. Therefore, the costs will be prorated. Example: A site plan on 2 acres with ten duplexes is proposed. As each duplex comes in for building permit they would be
charged 1/10th of the overall distribution/collection cost component for the project.
This may be infill or Greenfield. An alternative approach would be to charge the first
of the units for the entire distribution component and then only the home/meter size
charge to the remaining units. Staff recommends the first option.
d. Parks: The area of the city dedicated to public parks has been removed from the
calculation for the future area served. This only applies to the distribution component.
Development within the park will still directly pay the plant capacity costs
attributable to the meter size installed.
e. Mixed use buildings: With the change from meter size based fees for residential the way to calculate fees for mixed use buildings must also change. Rather than simply assessing the overall meter size for the building as a whole, the demand will be
broken into residential and non-residential. The residential will be calculated as if it
were free standing number of homes. The non-residential meter requirement will be
determined as if the non-residential were free-standing. The two will then be added together to be the required fee.
F. Issues for Future/Additional Discussion related to Water. Several of these items are
generally applicable to all impact fees and are repeated with each individual Commission
cover memo. Notes on action are shown at the end of each segment in italic text.
Consumption Rates: The analysis prepared for the water and sewer impact fees both looked at the demand patterns for homes constructed in the past 20 years as being most
representative of likely demand of new construction. One interesting trend discovered
was that although both average water and sewer use has been decreasing over time the
consumption of water in new construction was higher than the city-wide average and has
been trending downwards at a much slower pace than sewer usage over time. This diverging consumption trend is counter intuitive to the more prevalent use of water
conserving fixtures in new construction and likely points to a greater percentage of use
for outside uses. This has an impact on the amount of the fee in the present study and
56
8
provides interesting opportunities to consider policy changes to reduce water
consumption. No action is required with the impact fee program. This is information
applicable to other programs or City activities.
Water Sense: During the evaluation of water consumption at the IFAC meetings the possibility of having a different fee for homes with superior water conservation measures was discussed. This came before the analysis discussed above which showed an
unexpected water utilization trend in new construction. As the available data didn’t
presently support such a distinct fee it did not move forward. However, the US EPA does
have a water conservation program called Water Sense which provides a metric and procedure to pursue high efficiency water use certification. This was seen as a starting point for this discussion. The IFAC agreed that even though it wasn’t ready for
implementation in this fee study the idea should carry forward for future analysis. The
greatest questions on this subject revolved around verification and implementation. No
action is required related to the study on this item. An implementation of this program would require new procedures. This is likely a large project that would require Commission prioritization and dedication of resources. It is not expected that ordinance
changes would be required.
Generally Applicable Items
Capital Improvements Program (CIP): One of the responsibilities of the IFAC is to advise the Commission regarding the spending of impact fees. This is fit into the regular CIP document which the City Commission considers and adopts annually. The CIP covers a
rolling six year window with the current budget year and five future years. A point of
discussion at the IFAC is the relative merits of how to list projects on the CIP.
Three options were discussed. First, having a short list of high priority projects which are all funded and leave no material uncommitted funds and no unfunded projects on the list.
Second, have a lengthy list of projects which are impact fee eligible but which
collectively are beyond the five year financial reach of the program in order to
communicate possible options for the future. Third, have a short list of high priority
funded projects and deliberately leave an uncommitted balance in the program to enable the City or individual developers to ask for partner funding as opportunities arise. No
action is required related to the study on this item. This is more of a preference for the
Commission to express as it considers the CIP update.
Credit management: One of the public comments during the public hearings before the
FIAC was related to how credits are managed. This is related to the CIP item above. The current approach used by the City requires CIP listing prior to work being eligible for
funding with impact fees either as a city project or as a developer request. The request
was to allow as credit projects all qualifying work whether or not CIP listed and would
establish the value of credits available based on the CIP listed values. Staff has
considered this option and believes it would cause several difficulties in managing the impact fee funds and in showing that fees were expended appropriately. No action is
required related to the study on this item. This change would require an ordinance.
Data tracking: The revised approaches for assessing the impact fees by home size and
water and sewer by lot size will require additional data tracking. Coordination among
departments will be needed to ensure consistent collection and retention of the needed
57
9
information. It is believed that this can be accomplished with existing software tools. No
action is required related to the study on this item.
Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study Updates: As noted above, the City relies upon its
facility plans as essential information in preparing and administering the impact fee program. The City has completed several major projects in the various plans and in some cases the documents were prepared several years ago. The City’s ordinance requires a
periodic review, and if needed update, to these foundation documents. It is likely that
updates to the water, wastewater, and fire facility plans will be needed before the next
impact fee update. These are major endeavors and use a lot of staff and commission time and financial resources. It is advisable to begin this process soon so as to be completed before the next required study update.
The City has established a schedule of updates in Section 2.06.1700.J, BMC. This
schedule was put in place at a time of high growth rates and when the impact fee program
was new. The impact fee and facility plan updates require significant investments of money, staff and Commission time, and time from the public. It is recommended to
consider the possibility to lengthen the cycle time. Recent inquiry to Missoula shows that
they don’t have a fixed update cycle for their impact fees studies but do so about every
five years. There are advantages to coordinating the processes to review and update the
monthly service rates and the impact fee study updates. No action is required related to the study on this item. Changes to the update schedule requirement require an ordinance.
No action on this item is required before adopting the updated fee study.
Deferred payment: A member of the IFAC raised the question of timing of the required
payment of impact fees. Presently the fees are due at issuance of building permit or
connection to water or sewer systems. The Commission has considered this issue several times before and concluded the benefits were not adequate to justify the change. It is important to remember in discussing this topic that the amount of immediate impact
varies among the different fees. The individual fees may be treated differently for the
manner in which they are collected although this would add complexity. An additional
matter is whether there is a minimum threshold of cost below which fees would not be deferred. Additional discussion on this item is presented under the economic development segment below. A change of timing for required payment of fees would
require an ordinance.
Economic Development Considerations
How does the implementation of a revised impact fee methodology synchronize with the Commission’s established economic development goals, priorities and policy initiatives?
Specifically, how will the application of a new impact fee methodology impact the
implementation of the adopted economic development plan?
It is important to discuss if, and how the implementation of a new impact fee
methodology will complement, or challenge, other guiding economic development principles and priorities of the Bozeman City Commission. For context please refer to
the City’s broad economic development policy direction shown in Sections 1 – 4 below.
Section 1.
The adopted 2012 – 2013 Work-Plan includes the following priorities:
58
10
1. Implement the adopted economic development plan, integrating
economic development principles throughout the organization;
2. Adopt comprehensive strategies and financial plans to address
deferred maintenance;
3. Improve parks and recreation amenities;
4. Complete an integrated water resources plan;
5. Create a storm-water utility;
6. Enhance downtown development opportunities;
7. Support Gallatin College programs;
8. Implementation of the community climate action plan; and
9. Develop a legislative agenda.
Section 2.
In 2009 the Bozeman City Commission adopted its first economic development plan. Since adoption, the City’s Economic Development Council and city staff implement programs, practices and partnerships that add value to the City’s economic development
efforts and builds capacity to serve more businesses in the area. The tenets of the
economic development plan are:
1. Support the expansion and retention of existing businesses and economic clusters that will continue to strengthen and diversify the economy and create higher paying jobs in Bozeman.
2. Maintain and upgrade infrastructure to support current and future
needs of business.
3. Support education and workforce development initiatives to provide Bozeman with the qualified workers to meet the needs of business.
4. Leverage local, state and federal economic development resources
to enhance economic growth in Bozeman.
5. Create a more collaborative and effective working partnership between the business community and the City of Bozeman and effectively manage the City of Bozeman’s regulatory environment
to accomplish goals without hindering business expansion and
economic growth.
6. Maintain the high quality of life that is considered an important asset to the business community.
Section 3.
Additionally, from the adopted plan, the EDC delineated the following priorities
and recommendations:
59
11
1. Commitment to a business-friendly process with a focus on
retention and expansion of existing local businesses.
2. Stabilize existing local incubators and create a full service business
incubator program to achieve a healthy business ecosystem.
3. Core Services and Infrastructure.
4. Identification and Establishment of Business Incentives.
5. Workforce Development.
Section 4.
The City of Bozeman’s economic development goals are rooted in a job creation and industry diversification strategy adopted in the 2009 Economic Development Plan. The City has determined that supporting the start-up, growth or relocation of the following
high growth potential sectors will create high paying jobs and add diversity to the local
economy:
1. Manufacturing and fabrication;
2. Bio-Sciences and Bio-Technology;
3. Hi-Technology ;
4. Photonics; and
5. the Outdoor industry.
Support for high growth potential sectors includes creating partnerships where others can take the lead in areas of workforce training, appropriate incentives, business resources. The City has taken the lead on streamlining the development review process and
facilitating economic growth by strengthening and creating partnerships and matching
businesses with resources.
Impact Fees and Economic Development
New development relies upon the availability of infrastructure to move forward in a
timely manner. Delay can be a strong disincentive to investments. Impact fees help
provide infrastructure in a timely manner thereby avoiding delays. Impact fees help
provide predictability in short and long term cost structures to business by identifying
costs up front and avoiding unplanned large tax or user fee increases in the future. Different users are more or less sensitive to the known and upfront costs compared to
more predictable long term costs over the average business lifecycle. The impact fee
ordinance makes allowance for the City to provide financial support to offset the effects
of impact fees on desired development. The City can take advantage of this to focus
efforts on desired economic sectors. The change in the transportation impact fee to consolidate non-residential uses for initial use and reuse should be supportive of reuse
and redevelopment in existing facilities.
A well integrated policy and regulatory environment is advantageous for both the public
and private entities who work with the imapct fee program. The effect of the new impact
fee methodology on the adopted work plan and implementation of the City’s Economic Development Plan should be considered in the overall impact fee implementation discussion.
60
12
Ideally, in its’ consideration of the implementation of an impact fee policy, the
Commission discuss the synchronization of the impact fee program with the
Commission’s established economic development goals, priorities and policy initiatives.
The Economic Development Council (EDC) discussed the issue of impact fees on numerous occasions, hosting various experts on the issue. Through their staff liaison, the
EDC submitted the following discussion points for Commission consideration:
1. Prepare materials to educate potential investors, business owners and
entrepreneurs, on the short and long-term investor-advantages of charging impact
fees when compared to other fee recovery solutions;
2. Identify specific sectors, job creating, industry diversifying sectors with high
growth potential, for deferral of commercial impact fees, or a percentage thereof,
until the application for Certificate of Occupancy.
i. Manufacturing and fabrication (industrial production, in which raw
materials are transformed into finished goods on a large scale
which may include but are not limited to textiles, outdoor goods
and products, bio-science and technology products and photonics)
ii. Bio-Science and Bio-Technology (including but not limited to
technological applications that use biological systems, living
organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or
processes for specific uses)
iii. High-Technology (including but not limited to aerospace, artificial
intelligence, information technology, electrical engineering,
information systems, nanotechnology, nuclear physics, robotics
and telecommunications)
iv. Photonics (including but not limited to laser manufacturing,
advanced measuring devices, biological and chemical sensing,
medical diagnostics and therapy, display technology, and optical
computing)
v. the Outdoor industry (active outdoor recreation businesses
including but not limited to manufacturers, distributors, suppliers,
marketers, sales representatives and retailers in the industry)
3. Commit to training and educating employees that interface with investors and
developers because there is value in appreciating that the City competes locally,
regionally and nationally to attract new and retain existing business. City
attitudes, customer service, professionalism and shared values for business
attraction and retention each play a part in the business decision. Economic
development is everyone’s business.
61
13
4. Regularly compare the City’s development fee schedule against the development
fee schedules of other communities;
5. Identify specific sectors (see sector details in 2. i – iv above) for targeted impact
fee assistance.
6. Work deliberately to make raw land developable as appropriate (with respect to
subdividing and infrastructure development);
Options to address EDC comments:
Comment 2: There are several options for changing the time fees are due. Changes in payment
timing should likely be made uniformly across all users. Careful legal review would be needed to
restrict procedural benefits to only some users.
1) The time of payment was originally set prior to permit issuance as it provides the most surety of payment prior to impacts on the systems beginning. This timing of payment is the current
standard. The city has the funds in hand and can therefore have the greatest ability to carry
forward construction of necessary improvements to meet demands for service. Payment prior
to permit means the fee is paid early in the process. It a project is abandoned after permit
issuance and before construction begins fees can be refunded as no impact has yet occurred. Early payment of a fee requires greater financial commitment by the private party earlier in
the construction process but provides the least risk to the City.
2) The next most reliable time would be prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. An
occupancy permit is certification by the Building Division that the requirements of the
building code have been met and the building is ready for safe use. Not all types of construction which generate new service demand require an occupancy permit and would
therefore need some exception to this timing requirement to ensure fee payment.
The positive argument for this change is that it does not require as much financial
commitment as early in the process which may reduce interest paid on a loan or simplify
financing for certain owner constructed homes. A review of a recent sample of single detached homes showed a time range between permit issuance and certificate of occupancy
of 53-204 days with an average of 132 days. Deferral to occupancy could then possibly
provide an opportunity to avoid interest charges on $9,455 for a median size home and lot
assuming 100% collection of cost of service. Commercial construction is more variable in
demand and is expected to take longer. Therefore no commercial example is provided. As a single point in time payment the occupancy permit approach is less complicated than a
distributed payment.
The negative argument is that it is more likely that a project will reach completion and have
exhausted its available budget and not have the funds to pay the impact fee. The City would
then be in the position of having to deny occupancy of a completed building after significant expense. It may be possible to help mitigate this risk by requiring provision of an escrow of
funds to ensure the fees are held and available although not paid immediately. This would
require development of appropriate procedures both internally and with the lending
institutions. Also, by deferring availability of funds it adds some complexity in planning for
expenditure of the funds. This also has potential for additional stress on Building Division
62
14
personnel who must handle the issuance of the certificates of occupancy and who are the
receiving point for the impact fee payments.
3) A third option is payment over a period of time. Kalispell has set up this process but also
requires payment of any outstanding amounts upon sale of the property. The sale requirement would make this approach less beneficial for many residential projects which sell shortly after completion. Selection of duration of the time period would be up to the City. Use of the
approach requires several steps and has some direct costs for recording documents at the
Clerk and Recorder’s office.
The positive argument for this change is the deferral of costs which reduces the upfront expenses of development. However, it is important to note that this does not reduce the total expenses and if interest on the deferral is charged as Kallispell does may actually increase the
end cost.
The negative argument is that significant additional legal and procedural complexity is added
for an undependable amount of benefit. The additional complexity adds costs to the process of collecting and administering the impact fee program. There is no judicial sanction for this approach at this time in Montana. Contact with Kalispell staff indicates that the option is
infrequently used. Staff does not recommend this approach. A change of timing for required
payment of fees would require an ordinance.
Comment 4: Comparison to Other Communities: Settlement and development of the Gallatin Valley has been actively ongoing since the 1860’s. People have chosen to settle in many different locations for many different reasons and have created several villages, towns,
municipalities and other settlements in our area. These decisions came long before any
discussion of impact fees. Location of resources, costs, service quality, timing of land
availability, and many other factors affect the decision to choose a particular site. At this time three of the four municipalities in the Gallatin Valley have adopted impact fees. A comparison sheet is attached showing Bozeman, Belgrade, and Manhattan; Missoula is also included. This
sheet shows impact fee costs for various types of development. Please note that the orange
highlight shows those costs which are highest in the comparison. Some communities have
reduced the percentage of the fee they collect. The cost comparisons for other communities shows actual collected amounts. The Bozeman column shows actual cost of service as determined by the new studies and does not reflect any reductions. Conversation with the other
communities indicates that they do not have a funding program in place to make up the
uncollected portion of the impact fees.
A second comparison sheet is provided which summarizes costs from three types of non-residential uses: manufacturing, retail, and office. This comparison is based on costs per thousand square feet for sample projects applying the proposed methodology of the four fee
update studies. Please note that for purposes of simplifying the comparisons the actual project
costs are divided to be presented on a cost per thousand square feet although not all fees are
assessed in that manner. The referenced 271 city averages are from the attached impact fee survey by Duncan. Please note the fact that differences in revenue options affects reliance upon any particular funding source. There are a wide range of types of fees and costs of fees imposed
as shown in that study.
A set of four reports produced by the Montana Building Industry Association is also provided.
This set tracks single detached home construction statewide in counties and larger cities. The report set is provided on a quarterly basis. The second quarter (April-June) is provided for 2009-
63
15
2012. As shown in this data set, even during the significant downturn of the past few years and
as the economic recovery has begun Bozeman has remained more active with construction than
most locations in the state.
Not all fees charged to expand system capacity are called impact fees. They are also called system development charges or system investment fees among other names. These fees can be charged by water and sewer utility providers under a different statutory authority than the impact
fee program relies upon. Three examples of this are those charged by the Rae Water and Sewer
district west of Bozeman, Helena, and by the City of Billings. Copies of the fee amounts they
charge are attached. All these use the equivalent of meter size to determine the fee for various commercial and multi-household developments. Costs vary as would be expected as the infrastructure necessary to provide service also vary across communities. Note that Billings
made the policy choice to charge a single amount for all residential meter sizes thereby choosing
to undercharge multi-household users.
A comparison and contrast with other communities must also look at more than just impact fees. The following table from the FY2013 City of Bozeman budget depicts mill levy rankings.
City 2010 Census Populations FY2012 Mills Levy Rank As a % of Bozeman’s Levy
Havre 9,310 241.26 1 145%
Missoula 66,788 233.34 2 140%
Livingston 7,044 209.06 3 125%
Great Falls 58,505 183.24 4 110%
Kalispell 19,927 175.93 5 106%
Billings 104,170 168.73 6 101%
Bozeman 37,280 166.75 7 100%
Belgrade 7,389 156.69 8 94%
Helena 28,190 155.82 9 93%
Whitefish* 6,357 120.40 10 72%
West Yellowstone* 1,271 88.21 11 53%
*West Yellowstone and Whitefish both utilize Local Option Resort Taxes as an alternative or
supplement to property taxes, which the City of Bozeman is currently prohibited from doing by
state law.
There are many different comparisons between communities on this issue which could be made.
When determining comparisons to make in this report it was decided by Staff that the scope
must, of necessity, be restricted to keep the discussions focused. Evaluation of specific
communities outside of Montana brings in additional factors such as different tax and infrastructure financing tools and statues. This increases the level of complexity beyond what could be achieved with the resources available.
Comment 5: This comment discusses the possibility of creating methods to offset costs for
targeted industries which significantly advance the City’s economic development goals. The
impact fee program does not specify who needs to pay the impact fee. Section 2.06.1700.H states that the City may pay impact fees from other funding sources to advance economic development. Revenues from monthly rates can also be used to pay for capacity expanding
64
16
projects. For example, the City has approximately 10,800 water accounts. If the City
Commission established an additional fee of 25 cents per month per account over the course of a
year it could create revenue of $32,400 per year. This amount would likely be adequate to offset
the water impact fees for 2-6 non-residential projects per year depending on the intensity of water demand. The Commission could establish a program with criteria for qualification. Projects which met the criteria could have their water impact fees paid for up to the limits of the
program funding. No change to the impact fee ordinance would be required for this approach.
Creation of such a program and any rate adjustment would likely be coordinated with the annual utility rate setting process which typically occurs in July –August.
Comment 6: Impact fees make certain costs of land development explicit instead of hidden in land costs or monthly bills. They therefore help to provide better information for decision
making. They also act to overcome one of the principal barriers to availability of land which is
the lack of needed infrastructure. For example, it is very difficult for a single development to
overcome a barrier such as a needed but not funded traffic signal. However, when costs are shared and that development may pay a small portion of the cost of the needed traffic signal and move forward both time and dollar expenses are reduced. This helps to make land more readily
available for development. Effectiveness of public infrastructure investments can be increased by
more active coordination between long range facility planning, CIP scheduling, and operational
activities in the Public Works, Economic Development and Community Development departments. This does not require any change in ordinance. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As shown in Section F there are implementation items needing
additional discussion. However, the primary focus of the November 26th meeting is to decide
whether or not to adopt the Resolution accepting the water impact fee study update. Additional discussion, consideration and actions will be necessary to carry out the options presented under
Section F of the memo and these may occur after adoption of the study.
ALTERNATIVES:
Study: 1) Adopt the water impact fee study as presented.
2) Delay adoption to a future time.
3) Adopt the water impact fee study with directed changes after having made findings to
demonstrate why the changes are needed.
4) Decline to adopt the water impact fee study and continue to use the study now in place. Implementation:
1) Discuss the various options described under Section F and give direction on which ones
to pursue further.
2) Defer discussion to a future date.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The fiscal effects of this specific policy discussion are not immediate.
These proposed studies directly impact the amounts the City will collect in Impact Fee revenues
in the coming years. Expenditures of the fees will enable continued new construction which
contributes on-going revenues and which will incur on-going expenses for provided services.
Below are the total Impact Fee revenues collected for each of the past 5 years. The street fee
collection reflects the 40% discount now in place. How much the city collects each year depends
on a number of factors:
1. The level of the fee charged to the developer/property owner. (i.e. 60%, 80%, 100% of
the study amount.) and,
65
17
2. The mix of projects built in the City each year. (A Drive-Thru Restaurant will have a
higher Street Impact fee than a Single Family Residence; a change in use to remodel an
office might require additional street impact fees but no water impact fees, etc.)
City Impact Fee Collections FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 TOTAL FY08-FY12
Street Impact Fees $1,948,550 $1,198,319 $ 751,223 $1,208,135 $1,090,715 $ 6,196,942
Fire Impact Fees $259,726 $186,690 $187,476 $190,292 $245,250 $1,069,434
Water Impact Fees $1,237,939 $768,363 $744,557 $713,387 $981,095 $4,445,341
Sewer Impact Fees $1,306,893 $663,766 $667,909 $636,878 $986,905 $4,262,351
$4,753,108 $2,817,138 $2,351,165 $2,748,692 $3,303,965 $15,974,068
These studies also affect the policies around how Impact Fees may be spent. For instance,
• if the adopted Fire Impact Fee study only supports 75% contribution to Fire Stations, our
Capital Plans will need to be updated and/or changed to reflect this change in policy.
We will need to find another source of revenues to offset 25% of the costs of building future fire stations.
• if the Water Impact Fee study no longer contains an element related to Water Supply
development costs, we will need to change our funding plans for some of the future
IWRP outcomes and projects.
• If the Street Impact Fee Study does not contain collector streets then additional funding sources must be identified and implemented.
Attachments: Commission Resolution 4421 Water Impact Fee Study dated 9/23/2012
Impact Fee Advisory Committee minutes from 8/16 and 9/13
Examples of applied and current fees
Comparison of I-90 corridor impact fees Comparison of Bozeman to national averages National impact fee survey 2012
Impact fee reduction Study – Florida 2010
Bozeman building permit history
MBIA housing starts Rae system investment fees Billings water and sewer system development fees
Helena system development fees
Report compiled on: 11/29/2012
66
Resolution 4421
Page 1 of 4
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4421 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ADOPTING THE WATER IMPACT FEE STUDY PER ARTICLE 2.06,
BMC.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community’s
expressed needs and desires for services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a fiscally responsible manner; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interests of all of the system users
now and in the future and not a limited subset of users; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted a water master plan
which examined current and future needs and provides a lawful, logical, balanced, operationally
sound, and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City’s water system; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has chosen to utilize impact fees as one element of
an integrated approach to fund and provide Water services; and
WHEREAS, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA provide specific authority
and guidance regarding the documentation necessary to establish an impact fee and procedures to
adopt and administer an impact fee; and
67
Resolution 4421
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the City contracted with TischlerBise, Inc. to provide professional
services in development of an updated Water impact fee study (the “Fee Study”);
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. reviewed the existing demand and needs for water
facilities, the existing facilities available to meet that demand, and the method of financing the
existing systems and needed new facilities; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. also reviewed the contribution made or to be made in
the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by property owners towards the capital costs
of Water facilities; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. reviewed and relied upon the City of Bozeman’s level
of service (LOS) standards and facility cost assumptions as established by recently constructed
projects in recommending Water impact fees; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. has prepared the Fee Study dated September 23, 2012,
including the assumptions, population and residential and non-residential development
projections, capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations, which study has been submitted to
and reviewed by City staff, Impact Fee Advisory Committee, and City Commission; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to the Fee Study, TischlerBise, Inc. and the City have
prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation, as required by section 7-6-1602MCA,
in developing the Water facilities impact fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution, including but
not limited to the following which has been summarized in the required service area report:
(1) The most current water facility plan;
(2) City of Bozeman Design and Specifications Manual;
(3) Most recent bids and costs for actual construction of piping and plant expansions;
(4) Adopted Water Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program;
68
Resolution 4421
Page 3 of 4
(5) Adopted Water Capital Improvement Program, and
(6) the City Budget; and
WHEREAS, the City develops its Water facility plans, and its capital improvements
program in a manner open to the public and accepts and responds to public comment and input;
and
WHEREAS, the City and TischlerBise Inc. have developed the Fee Study in a manner
open to the public and accepted and responded to comment and input; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Impact Fee Advisory Committee has considered
and made a recommendation to the City Commission on the Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee conducted public hearings on the
subject of the transportation impact fee study on August 16, 2012 and September 13, 2012, and
the City Commission conducted a public hearing on October 8, 2012, and a public meeting on
December 10, 2012; and
WHEREAS, public comment was received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission reviewed and discussed the Fee Study and accepts
and agrees with the content of the Fee Study and recognizes that updates and modifications will
be made to the fee schedule in the future in accord with the annual cost adjustment requirements
of Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 BMC; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that all required elements necessary for
compliance with standards for development of an impact fee have been satisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, that
69
Resolution 4421
Page 4 of 4
1. The September 23, 2012 draft of the Water Impact Fee Study Update, as contained in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, is hereby adopted.
2. As of the 1st day of January 2013, any person who seeks to obtain any of the forms of
development listed 2.06.1660, BMC must pay a Water Impact Fee pursuant to the
schedule included in Exhibit A of this Resolution.
Effective Date.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana,
at a regular session thereof held on the _____ day of ________, 2012. This resolution shall be in
full force and effect on January 1, 2013.
___________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER Mayor ATTEST:
________________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Page 1 of 11
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– August 16, 2012
** 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.
113
Page 2 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.
114
Page 3 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
115
Page 4 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.
116
Page 5 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.
117
Page 6 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
118
Page 7 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
119
Page 8 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.
120
Page 9 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.
121
Page 10 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.
122
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
123
Page 1 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN
IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 Chairperson Nickelson called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m., in the Madison Meeting Room,
City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
Members Present Staff Present James Nickelson, Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Rob Evans Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Anna Rosenberry
Brian Heaston
George Thompson Erik Nelson
Randy Carpenter
Members Absent
David Graham Guests Present
Chris Mehl, City Commission Liaison
Chris Kukulski
Greg Megaard Brit Fontenot Dick Milligan
Bonny Milligan
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2012. MOTION: Mr. Thompson moved, Mr. Nelson seconded, to approve the minutes of August 16,
2012 as presented. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Evans, Mr. Carpenter,
Mr. Nelson, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Heaston, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson 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.}
Dick Milligan stated he and his wife Bonny were at the meeting because they owned property on N. 27th Avenue and they were under the understanding that impact fee changes would be
made to enhance the viability of owning property in Bozeman. He stated they felt they had
been impacted pretty heavily and had begun with raw land and converted it to three, 3.3 acres
lots. He stated they had installed the infrastructure along N. 27th Avenue and then had recently been included in an SID after they had been told there would be no further SID’s on their
property. He stated that recently they had been told that Catamount Street would need to be
124
Page 2 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
completed prior to being approved on future Building Permits. He stated they had been
impacted very heavily and some of the costs were contingent costs that may come up including
the impact fees and the cost would be close to $900,000.00 total cost to them. He stated they
were not in the development business and the subdivision process for Bozeman had taken 2 ½ years while the same process in Belgrade had taken only 8 months. He stated they were asking,
from a sales price standpoint, less than the property was worth. Ms. Milligan stated they had a
property on the market for over a year due to all the entitlements constraining the site. She
added the City may make more money on the property than they would ever see. Mr. Milligan
added that more impact fees would be a hell of an impact. Mrs. Milligan stated the next person would be a buyer and would check into the costs associated with new development of the
property. Mr. Milligan stated the tax man indicated the lots were worth $600,000 a piece, but
were selling the lots for $200,000. He added that if the City of Bozeman were looking for land
they would make them a great deal.
Mr. Thompson confirmed that the fees would need to be paid to the City prior to any
construction on the site. Mr. and Mrs. Milligan confirmed that Mr. Thompson was correct.
Mrs. Milligan added that their engineer had indicated that there had been no condition of
approval with their subdivision to pay for streets in the future and they had completed what had
been required of them. Mr. Evans confirmed that Planning Staff had required the street improvements. Mrs. Milligan stated they were being knocked out of the market. Mr. Milligan
added that there had been an indication from Planner Riley that the Impact Fee Advisory
Committee would take their concerns into consideration. Mrs. Milligan asked for direction.
Mr. Thompson asked if there was an appeal process that the Milligan’s could consider pursuing; he suggested there should be some type of an appeals format that meshed with the
planning process. He added the owner would have no revenue to pay the taxes that were
already assessed for the property. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was an appeal
process that would be reviewed by the City Commission; he added Staff had some flexibility
administratively but most appeals of that nature would be reviewed by the City Commission. Mrs. Milligan responded that she had already notified the City Commission in writing of their
concerns. Mr. Mehl responded that discussions among the City Commission would include
setting the policy for impact fee assessments in addition to the impact those fees would have on
the community and fee implementation. He invited the Milligan’s to attend the City
Commission meetings and encouraged them to contact Staff representative Chris Saunders if they had any questions regarding credit requests or appeals. Mr. Carpenter suggested Assistant
Director Saunders discuss impact fee credits. Assistant Director Saunders responded that
impact fee credits work in lieu of payments and were intended to offset the costs of the work.
Mrs. Milligan stated it sounded like she needed to speak with Assistant Director Saunders with
regard to the impact fee credit request. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Planner Riley should also be involved in the discussions as he had handled the projects in that vicinity
recently. Chairperson Nickelson noted the fees being discussed at the meeting were proposed
to be modified with the current updates.
ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed}
125
Page 3 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
Mr. Mehl stated they had covered the process and tentative schedule for City Commission
consideration of the proposed updates. He thanked the Committee members for their
dedication and willingness to put in the time on the Committee. He stated they had given the
Commission the groundwork upon which to make their decision.
Chairperson Nickelson thanked Mr. Mehl for his support. Assistant Director Saunders added
that October 8, 2012 was the tentative date the City Commission was scheduled to initially
review the updates and they would schedule additional meetings as necessary. Mr. Mehl added
he suspected they would actually vote on the studies in November. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW (Continued from August 16, 2012.)
A. Discussion/Action by Committee
1. Question responses from 8/16/12 meeting.
Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff had provided responses from questions brought up by
Committee members at the last meeting. He stated the first response was with regard to both
water and sewer fees and how infill development would fit into the calculation for piping. He stated properties that had never been developed would be all new demand and would pay the
distribution component of the development. He stated City maintenance of mains below the
minimum standard would bring the pipes up to meet the minimum standard which adds some
capacity. He stated the longstanding developments and those that had paid impact fees would
be granted flexibility and not automatically charged the full distribution fee. He noted there was a standard the Commission had adopted that indicated a threshold for redevelopment of a
site and it would provide consistency between the similar programs and a reasonable threshold
for incidental expansion and significant expansion. He gave the example of the Armory that
had water/sewer service for a really long time, but adding a hotel to the site would significantly
increase the use of those facilities on the site and a distribution fee would be applied. He stated when there were phased or multi-building developments; they would be prorated and
considered with regard to their total consumption.
Ms. Rosenberry asked how the administration of the program would be handled as it was no
longer based on a per meter system. Assistant Director Saunders responded that it would add complexity to the administration of the policy, but it would be possible and manageable; he
added most developments existed for long periods of time but it would be more work. Ms.
Rosenberry asked how MSU would be handled. Assistant Director Saunders responded that
MSU was unique in that they had meters they had already paid for all around their site and each
instance would have to be investigated. Mr. Nelson asked whether or not there would be an ability to incentivize projects by allowing phased commercial development if the owner entered
into an agreement with the City to pay impact fees over a period of four or five years to allow
businesses to find a way to avert the burden of carrying those costs until their businesses were
established. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had investigated that avenue in the
past and the Commission had concluded that the down sides outweighed the good sides; he noted it was a policy discussion that the City Commission could discuss though it had not been
included in the proposed studies. Mr. Nelson responded that financing was still the burden of
126
Page 4 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
the owner. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the money would still need to be
accounted for in addition to the consideration that the owner may go bankrupt, etc. Mr. Mehl
assured Mr. Nelson that the topic would be discussed by the Commission. He noted questions
regarding the fourth fire station and funding would come up and be brought up at the meeting.
Assistant Director Saunders stated another question that had come up was with regard to public
parks and their consumption. He stated Mr. Guthrie would modify the language to include the
necessity to account for public parks; he added concession stands and things usually came later
on down the line with donation funding.
Assistant Director Saunders stated fire and EMS services had come into question on whether or
not they were at capacity for demand. He stated the Fire Department had operational data that
could possibly be parsed out, but it was difficult to say whether or not capacity was reached on
any given day. Chairperson Nickelson stated his understanding of the original question had been whether or not the new fire station could be funded 75% by impact fees. Assistant
Director Saunders responded that the funds could be distributed evenly amongst the stations or
distributed in a different manner. Mr. Heaston asked if there was an expiration of the time that
the funds were allowed to be spent. Assistant Director Saunders responded that there was an
expiration time but it had been set locally. Mr. Megaard added that the City was never left uncovered whether utilizing mutual aid or funding from another source; he added the growth
had died down after the construction of station #3. Mr. Thompson asked what was necessary to
commit those funds. Assistant Director Saunders responded committed was defined and it was
more than just having the money in the account; it did not have to be spent yet, but he did not
have the specific ordinance at the evening’s meeting.
Mr. Kukulski asked if any of the fire impact fee money had been spent on anything other than
fire station #3. Ms. Rosenberry responded that the opticom system had been 10% funded by
impact fees and 90% by a grant. Mr. Kukulski asked how if station #3 had been fully funded
while station #4 was not eligible for impact fees. Assistant Director Saunders responded that it was in how the funding was distributed amongst the construction of the stations. Ms.
Rosenberry stated that if by virtue of the location of where development occurred would it
mean development in certain places should have a local cost that did not just go to the general
impact fee. Mr. Evans noted it got sticky when the resources were pushed outside of the
delineated boundary. Ms. Rosenberry asked if it was reasonable to charge the whole City for a station constructed in a certain part of town. Assistant Director Saunders responded the metric
used was a key because of travel time, number of gallons pumped, number of vehicles sent,
hydrant locations, etc. were all factors that could be considered. Mr. Megaard responded the
ISO was that standard and took all those components into consideration. Mr. Nelson suggested
the void in the level of service would need to be filled with regard to annexations of large developments. Mr. Kukulski responded that the scenario had happened and indicated the City
was stretched too thin and needed to provide a third fire station. Mr. Megaard added it was part
of the ISO evaluation and noted the City had obtained the property to build station #4.
Assistant Director Saunders noted there had been a question regarding the difference in the size of collector streets. The biggest collector was for three lanes while the smallest was for two
lanes. He stated Mr. Heaston and Mr. Nickelson had looked into how there were a whole lot of
127
Page 5 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
factors in determining the capacity of an intersection and its classification including the time
frame; he added a fifteen to twenty year review was standard for those requirements. Mr.
Heaston added that before the signalization of intersection, the major leg has no impediment
while installing a traffic light impedes both legs of the intersection. Assistant Director Saunders added the metric that gets adopted is the level of service while considering the overall
functionality of the intersection; the nature of traffic signals was a balancing act. Mr. Heaston
added that the overall level of service would go up. Assistant Director Saunders noted he had
found an article regarding the State giving the City of Billings water rights to handle a
population of 500,000 people and he thought it was a great illustration of the differences from city to city and how it affected infrastructure needs.
2. Transportation Impact Fee update.
MOTION: Mr. Nelson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Draft Transportation Impact Fee Study Update as
proposed and amended by the Committee.
Mr. Carpenter asked if discussions of separate service areas had been discussed. Assistant
Director Saunders responded that the issue had been included as an appendix and was not readily visible. An adjustment to make it easier to find would be made in the final draft. He
added that overall there was a 29% benefit to the type of business located downtown so 29%
would be taken off the top and though it was not as steep a discount as in the past, it would
even the uses out. Mr. Mehl added that right now the downtown area was the only area
demonstrating compliance with the criteria for reduction but other areas could be considered for the same reduction. Mr. Nelson asked for clarification that each fee offered an opportunity to
request a reduction. Assistant Director Saunders responded a reduction could be requested for
any fee and would be required to be reviewed by the City Commission for approval.
Assistant Director Saunders added that after further discussion with the consultant, the final draft would remove the collector streets that had already been constructed as being fully built
out. He noted collector streets served an essential role in the overall traffic patterns and there
was a lot of additional expense with regard to the addition of a third lane and added the City
Commission would have to decide whether or not collector streets would be included or would
the City’s development standards be modified to automatically include the third lane; he noted there would be an additional annual expense for maintenance of those roadways. Mr. Mehl
asked how much more the impact fees would cost for installing the third lane. Assistant
Director Saunders responded it would cost no more as those fees had already been included.
Mr. Nelson asked if there was a different way to consider collector streets as two lanes instead of three lanes while upgrading some of the collector streets to arterials streets to provide for the
three lane construction. Mr. Evans suggested the upgrade would be a good investment even if
ten percent of them turned out to be unnecessary. Mr. Mehl added that the City got to designate
whether streets were an arterial or collector. Assistant Director Saunders directed the
Committee to the Transportation Plan Figure 9-2 map.
128
Page 6 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
Ms. Rosenberry stated she thought it was the second or third study she had reviewed and they
were tough; she thought it would get better and her understanding would be better, but the
methodology changed a lot. She noted she liked that the data being used was more recent; she
just thought it was difficult and complicated. She added she was concerned with regard to administration of the policy and the City Commission would also take additional public
comment.
Mr. Evans stated he did not have the impression that there had been enough public comment
and suggested he would feel more comfortable waiting for the next meeting. Assistant Director Saunders responded the draft documents had been posted on the website for public view for two
months.
Mr. Nelson recommended that the City include the information on the front page of the
Chronicle to engage the public in what was proposed. Assistant Director Saunders responded his expectation was that it would become new again once it was scheduled to be heard before
the City Commission. Mr. Mehl noted the Commission review would likely take 6 weeks and
he would request the Chronicle write an article prior to the November meeting so they would
have plenty of time. Mr. Carpenter suggested an overview of the updated impact fees be
provided to members of the public.
Mr. Evans added that the residential aspect of the fee made sense to him and seemed sound, but
the commercial aspect and consequences being drawn did not seem to make sense. Assistant
Director Saunders responded there were a lot of differences in the two calculations and it was
due to the differences in the uses within those districts. Mr. Evans stated he thought that warehouses and similar uses would move to the County while fast food restaurants would litter
Bozeman; he suggested the Commission consider the economic impetus and the impact on
development. Mr. Nelson responded if the study shows their impact is what it is, a mechanism
to pay over time should be put in place to allow the business to access the market they are
trying to access. Mr. Thompson stated they heard anecdotal stories with regard to the cost of impact fees in addition to all the equipment and added that part of the challenge was to get the
information out to the public. Assistant Director Saunders noted that part of the answer was a
policy question that the City Commission would need to consider.
Ms. Rosenberry stated she thought the Committee had done good work on the proposals and she thought they should move it forward to the City Commission. Mr. Carpenter stated it was
not just what Bozeman charged, but what was happening in the County as well.
The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Evans, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Heaston, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none.
3. Fire/EMS Impact Fee update.
MOTION: Mr. Evans moved, Mr. Nelson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Draft Fire Impact Fee Study Update as proposed and amended
by the Committee to use population as the applicable metric.
129
Page 7 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
Mr. Mehl encouraged the Committee to discuss the level of service and clarify if exceeding
level of service should be impact fee eligible and in what percentages.
Mr. Evans stated he was not a huge fan of impact fees though he thought the process was
sound; he felt the existing residences were in fact benefiting from improvements especially
concerning fire and despite their location. He stated it was almost the jurisdictions
responsibility to provide the service and everyone should pay; he added he liked paying 25% of
each of the four stations with general funding.
Ms. Rosenberry stated she took issue with the indicated deficiency in the current fire service as
it was not her current understanding of the level of service. She stated there was no policy for
the local portion of the fire station like there was a policy for the local portion of a street and
she thought there might be something missing. She stated new development paying its way as not being upheld with the proposal as by design there was no local portion of funding allocated
to the fire station without increasing taxes.
Mr. Nelson asked if the consultant was correct that new development could not be held in a
higher standard unless there was a mechanism otherwise in place and asked if that would be a levy. Mr. Mehl responded it would be a levy and explained that time would be used as the
determinate.
Chairperson Nickelson stated that when fire station #4 was built a certain part of town would
attain a much better level of service. Mr. Megaard added that he agreed with Ms. Rosenberry that the level of service in Bozeman was adequate as it was not just the geographical location of
the station, but the closest equipment available to take the call. Chairperson Nickelson noted
fire station proximity would benefit individuals on their fire insurance rates as well. Ms.
Rosenberry noted the fire station could not be built until there was enough money to staff it
even if impact fees paid for the entire thing. Mr. Evans responded that with development there was a broader tax base that would account for the difference. Mr. Mehl stated he struggled with
the consultant’s recommendation as it went against ISO with regard to the level of service; a
current level of service would make the station eligible when facility increases would not be
eligible. Assistant Director Saunders responded that he thought it was positive to bring the
point forward.
Ms. Rosenberry stated she had thought it was always the level of service that was indicated
when the impact fee was implemented. Mr. Mehl suggested the level of service has to move
and could not go back to the original baseline. Ms. Rosenberry responded that she was
referring to identified deficiencies and it seemed situational.
Mr. Heaston asked what the enabling statute indicated. Assistant Director Saunders responded
it just indicated the level of service and added the Facility Plan could be updated to include
language regarding the ISO rating. Mr. Megaard added that the City had more water in the
distribution than they could pump. Mr. Mehl suggested that the study would indicate what the City wanted to see new development bring to the City.
130
Page 8 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
Assistant Director Saunders asked the timeframe in which the ISO rated the City. Mr. Megaard
responded they were rated every 10 years unless they requested one earlier. Assistant Director
Saunders suggested considering including ISO in the definition of the level of service for fire in
the future. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Thompson moved, Mr. Nelson seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Draft Fire Impact Fee Study
Update with the defining marker being population instead of land area.
Ms. Rosenberry stated she did not want to go against the decision of the Committee, but she
disagreed with the consultant that there is a less than adequate level of service. Assistant
Director Saunders responded that using population instead of land area would be included and
the language would be revised accordingly.
The amended motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Evans, Mr. Carpenter, Mr.
Nelson, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Heaston, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those
voting nay being none.
4. Water Impact Fee update.
MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Thompson seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for the Draft Water Impact Fee Study Update as proposed and
amended by the Committee to address parks per Assistant Director Saunders 9/13/12 memo.
Mr. Evans stated he concurred with Mr. Nelson that any of the fees getting collected before
service was implemented was problematic to him because during construction fire, water, and
sewer usage is not applicable. He suggested collecting impact fees at the time of the request for
Final Occupancy as it seemed fairer.
Mr. Nelson asked for clarification of water impact fees and asked if those two numbers on page
19would be added together. Assistant Director Saunders responded the fractional cost for acres
would be factored into the equation. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Evans if he felt the discussion
and its reflection in the minutes would be adequate to convey his opinion to the City
Commission. Mr. Evans responded it would and he was also planning on attending the City Commission meetings to provide his input as well; when the fees were collected would make
the housing more affordable.
Mr. Evans responded it was hard enough to convince a home owner to build a new home and
then they are the bearers of the bad news of the cost of impact fees.
Ms. Rosenberry stated she hoped the shift in impact fee trigger with the change of a meter size
would not catch the community by surprise. Mr. Evans responded the Building Division would
need to distribute the information. Mr. Mehl suggested people were aware of the requirements
already and it was starting to catch on even if the general public was not aware of the change; he added there were other benefits. Mr. Evans added it would be fairer.
131
Page 9 of 9
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– September 13, 2012
The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Evans, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Heaston, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being
none.
5. Wastewater Impact Fee update.
MOTION: Ms. Rosenberry moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for the Draft Wastewater Impact Fee Study Update as
proposed and amended by the Committee to address parks per Assistant Director Saunders 9/13/12 memo.
Chairperson Nickelson noted for the record that the water discussion also applied to the sewer
discussion.
The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Evans, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Heaston, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being
none.
ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS There were no items forthcoming.
ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Ms. Rosenberry stated the Committee had completed their revisions of the studies and noted the
CIP’s would be under their review in October or November as the Commission was required to
review the proposals in December.
Mr. Nelson suggested an easier way for individual projects to be included on the CIP could be identified and encouraged his fellow members to consider it. Assistant Director Saunders
responded there is a method in place for those types of requests to be considered. Ms.
Rosenberry suggested she did not know how to better spread the information to the public.
Assistant Director Saunders noted that every approval through Planning included a letter stating
that impact fees would be assessed and explaining the necessity for those assessments. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chairperson
Nickelson adjourned the meeting at 9:04 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
132
s
s
s
s
Bozeman Impact Fee Examples ‐ Residential
Example 1 ‐ ASHR
Living Area (sq ft)1,500
Lot Size (sq ft)3,000 Proposed
Meter Size (inche 0.75 Current
Street $3,093.00 $3,642.16
Fire $205.00 $873.62
Capacity Distribution Water
$1,235.00 $250.76 =>$1,485.76 $3,849.79
Treatment Collection Sewer
$487.00 $279.96 =>$766.96 $3,436.90
Total $5,550.72 $11,802.47
Example 2 ‐ DSHR
Living Area (sq ft)2,000
Lot Size (sq ft)5,000 Proposed
Meter Size (inche 0.75 Current
Street $3,876.00 $3,642.16
Fire $281.00 $873.62
Capacity Distribution Water
$1,694.00 $417.93 =>$2,111.93 $3,849.79
Treatment Collection Sewer
$668.00 $466.60 =>$1,134.60 $3,436.90
Total $7,403.53 $11,802.47
Example 3 ‐ DSHRp
Living Area (sq ft)2,500
Lot Size (sq ft)7,000 Proposed
Meter Size (inche 0.75 Current
Street $4,800.00 $4,105.19
Fire $369.00 $873.62
Capacity Distribution Water
$2,227.00 $585.10 =>$2,812.10 $3,849.79
Treatment Collection Sewer
$878.00 $653.24 =>$1,531.24 $3,436.90
Total $9,512.34 $12,265.50
Example 4 ‐ DSHR
Living Area (sq ft)3,000
Lot Size (sq ft)9,000 Proposed
Meter Size (inche 0.75 Current
Street $5,303.00 $4,105.19
Fire $418.00 $873.62
Capacity Distribution Water
$2,517.00 $752.27 =>$3,269.27 $3,849.79
Treatment Collection Sewer
$992.00 $839.88 =>$1,831.88 $3,436.90
Total $10,822.15 $12,265.50
133
s
s
s
Example 5 ‐ 2 Attached Dwellings
Living Area (sq ft)1,500
Lot Size (sq ft)6,000 Proposed
Meter Size (inche 0.75 Current
Street $6,186.00 $4,507.48
Fire $410.00 $1,468.92
Capacity Distribution Water
$2,470.00 $501.52 =>$2,971.52 $3,849.79
Treatment Collection Sewer
$974.00 $559.92 =>$1,533.92 $3,436.90
Total $11,101.44 $13,263.09
Total per Unit $5,550.72 $6,631.55
Example 6 ‐ 4 Attached Dwellings
Living Area (sq ft)1,500
Lot Size (sq ft)12,500 Proposed
Meter Size (inche 1.50 Current
Street $12,372.00 $9,014.96
Fire $820.00 $2,937.84
Capacity Distribution Water
$4,940.00 $1,044.82 =>$5,984.82 $19,248.96
Treatment Collection Sewer
$1,948.00 $1,166.49 =>$3,114.49 $17,184.49
Total $22,291.31 $48,386.25
Total per Unit $5,572.83 $12,096.56
Example 7 ‐ 24 Attached Dwellings
Li i A (f)Living Area (sq ft)1 2001,200
Lot Size (sq ft)43,560 Proposed
Meter Size (inche 2.00 Current
Street $63,144.00 $54,089.76
Fire $3,840.00 $17,627.04
Capacity Distribution Water
$23,136.00 $3,641.00 =>$26,777.00 $30,798.33
Treatment Collection Sewer
$9,120.00 $4,065.00 =>$13,185.00 $27,495.19
Total $106,946.00 $130,010.32
Total per Unit $4,456.08 $5,417.10
134
s
Example 8 ‐ 24 Attached Dwellings (in TED)
Living Area (sq ft)1,200
Lot Size (sq ft)35,000 Proposed
Meter Size (inche 2.00 Current
Street $44,832.24 $54,089.76
Fire $3,840.00 $17,627.04
Capacity Distribution Water
$23,136.00 $2,925.51 =>$26,061.51 $30,798.33
Treatment Collection Sewer
$9,120.00 $3,266.18 =>$12,386.18 $27,495.19
Total $87,119.93 $130,010.32
Total per Unit $3,630.00 $5,417.10
135
,
Bozeman Impact Fee Examples ‐ Non Residential
Example 1 ‐ Medical Office, N 7th Ave
Building Sq Ft 7,400
Parcel Acres 0.514 Proposed
Meter Size (inches)0.750 Current
Street $28,923.49 $47,870.23
Fire $7,392.60 $1,481.92
Capacity Distribution Water
$1,987.00 $1,871.47 =>$3,858.47 $3,849.79
Treatment Collection Sewer
$1,332.00 $2,089.41 =>$3,421.41 $3,436.90
Total $43,595.97 $56,638.84
Example 2 ‐ Office Building
Building Sq Ft 14,483
Parcel Acres 0.992 Proposed
Meter Size (inches)1.500 Current
Street $56,607.96 $38,877.73
Fire $4,562.15 $2,900.37
Capacity Distribution Water
$9,935.00 $3,611.87 =>$13,546.87 $19,248.96
Treatment Collection Sewer
$6,664.00 $4,032.48 =>$10,696.48 $17,184.49
Total $85,413.46 $78,211.55
Example 3 ‐ Retail, 19th & Mainp
Building Sq Ft 14,698
Parcel Acres 2.305 Proposed
Meter Size (inches)1.500 Current
Street $132,707.36 $93,037.02
Fire $5,203.09 $2,943.42
Capacity Distribution Water
$9,935.00 $8,392.51 =>$18,327.51 $19,248.96
Treatment Collection Sewer
$6,664.00 $9,369.83 =>$16,033.83 $17,184.49
Total $172,271.79 $132,413.89
Example 4 ‐ Fast Food, Tschache Lane
Building Sq Ft 3,342
Parcel Acres 0.833 Proposed
Meter Size (inches)1.500 Current
Street $30,174.72 $138,109.12
Fire $1,183.07 $669.27
Capacity Distribution Water
$9,935.00 $3,032.95 =>$12,967.95 $19,248.96
Treatment Collection Sewer
$6,664.00 $3,386.15 =>$10,050.15 $17,184.49
Total $54,375.89 $175,211.84
136
Example 5 ‐ Manufacturing
Building Sq Ft 10,000
Parcel Acres 1.500 Proposed
Meter Size (inches)1.000 Current
Street $13,536.50 $8,437.20
Fire $260.00 $2,002.60
Capacity Distribution Water
$4,570.00 $5,461.50 =>$10,031.50 $9,624.48
Treatment Collection Sewer
$3,065.00 $6,097.50 =>$9,162.50 $8,592.83
Total $32,990.50 $28,657.11
Example 6 ‐ Warehousing
Building Sq Ft 40,000
Parcel Acres 1.500 Proposed
Meter Size (inches)1.000 Current
Street $50,460.40 $43,927.20
Fire $1,040.00 $8,010.40
Capacity Distribution Water
$4,570.00 $5,461.50 =>$10,031.50 $9,624.48
Treatment Collection Sewer
$3,065.00 $6,097.50 =>$9,162.50 $8,592.83
Total $70,694.40 $70,154.91
Example 7 ‐ Retail Building (in TED)
Building Sq Ft 14,483
Parcel Acres 0.550 Proposed
M Si (i h )Meter Size (inches)1 0001.000 CCurrent
Street $92,843.96 $51,654.49
Fire $5,126.98 $2,900.37
Capacity Distribution Water
$4,570.00 $2,002.55 =>$6,572.55 $19,248.96
Treatment Collection Sewer
$3,065.00 $2,235.75 =>$5,300.75 $17,184.49
Total $109,844.24 $90,988.31
Example 8 ‐ Restaurant (in TED)
Building Sq Ft 4,000
Parcel Acres 0.330 Proposed
Meter Size (inches)1.500 Current
Street $25,642.19 $16,223.68
Fire $1,416.00 $801.04
Capacity Distribution Water
$9,935.00 $1,201.53 =>$11,136.53 $19,248.96
Treatment Collection Sewer
$6,664.00 $1,341.45 =>$8,005.45 $17,184.49
Total $46,200.17 $53,458.17
137
Example 9 ‐ Mixed 50% Restaurant & 50% Office Building (in TED)
Building Sq Ft 14,483
Parcel Acres 0.550 Proposed
Meter Size (inches)1.500 Current
Restaurant Street $46,421.98 $29,370.94
Office Street $20,095.83 $15,577.48
Restaurant Fire $2,563.49 $1,450.18
Office Fire $2,281.07 $1,450.18
Capacity Distribution Water
$9,935.00 $2,002.55 =>$11,937.55 $19,248.96
Treatment Collection Sewer
$6,664.00 $2,235.75 =>$8,899.75 $17,184.49
Total $69,822.77 $84,282.23
138
Missoula Bozeman Belgrade Manhattan
Missoula Data Point Fees Fees
Bozeman Data Point ‐
Proposed 100% Fee
Schedule
Fees (55% of
Posted) Belgrade Data Point
Fees (50% and
33% of Posted)
Manhattan Data
Point
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Single Dwelling Unit, Detached and
Mobile Home
<1200 72$ 205$ 504$ 250$ reduced 50%
>3200 142$ 418$
Development Impact Fee for
Nonresidential Development.
<50,000 sf, commercial shopping center,
Fee per 1,000 SF = 15,000 sf
of Total GFA 2,010$ 5,203$ 5,775$ $.70 sf = 15,000 sf 5,894$
$.59 = 15,000 sf,
reduced 33%
>200,000 sf, commercial shopping
center, fee per 1,000 sf of Total GFA 94$
<25,000 sf, Office Institutional, fee per
1,000 sf of Total GFA = 7,500 sf 1,417$ 7,392$ 866$ $.21 sf = 7,500 sf 1,000$
0.2 sf = 7,500
reduced 33%
>100,000 sf, Ofc Institutional fee per
1,000 sf of Total GFA 157$
Industrial, per 1,000 sf of Total GFA =
10,000 sf @108 1,080$ 260$ 660$ $.12 sf = 10,000 667$
.10 sf = 10,000 sf,
reduced 33%
Warehousing, per 1,000 sf of Total GFA
= 40,000 @$60 per 1000 2,400$ 1,040$ 1,980$ $.09 = 40000 sf 1,868$
.07 sf = 40,000 sf,
reduced 33%
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE.
<1200 sf,Single Dwelling Unit, Detached
and Mobile Home cost per dwelling unit 814$ 1,812$ 1500 sf w/o coll 2,121$ 529$ reduced 50%
> 3,200 sf, Single Dwelling Unit,
Detached and Mobile Home, cost per
dwelling unit 1,505$ 3,107$ 3000 sf w/o coll
< 50,000 SF shopping center, Fee per
1,000 SF = 15,000 sf
of Total GFA 48,075$ 78,209$ 14,698 sf w/o coll 57,255$ $6.94 sf = 15,000 sf 23,712$
2.37 sf = 15,000,
reduced 33%
< 200,000 SF shopping center, Fee per
1,000 SF
$
Comparison of Impact Fees along the I‐90 Corridor
of Total GFA 2,331$
<25,000 sf, Office Institutional, fee per
1,000 sf of Total GFA = 15,000 21,705$ 16,919$ 14483 sf w/o coll 21,945$ $2.66 sf = 15,000 9,105$
$.91 sf = 15,000,
reduced 33%
>100,000 sf, Ofc Institutional fee per
1,000 sf of Total GFA 1,052$
Hospital fee per 1,000 sf of Total GFA 1,335$
Mini‐Warehouse fee per 1,000 sf of
Total GFA
Industrial fee per 1,000 sf of Total GFA 550$
Warehousing fee per $391 per 1,000 sf
of Total GFA = 40,000 sf 15,303$ 29,572$ 40,000 sf w/o coll 21,780$ $.99 per sf = 40,000 9,071$
$.34 sf = 40,000 sf,
reduced 33%
Transportation Impact Fee for
Nonresidential Development per
Unique Demand Indicator.
Nursing Home (per bed) Number of
beds 187$ $942 473$ per bed $160 bed
Daycare (per student) Number of
students 170$ $745 429$ per student
Secondary School (per student) Number
of students 97$ $3,288.76/1000 sf 245$ per student .60 per student
Elementary School (per student)
Number of students 67$ $3,608/1000 sf 170$ per student
Lodging (per room) Number of rooms 444$ $1,995.00 1,124$ per room $382 per room
Utility Fees
Water ASHR 1,485$ .75 meter 5,128$ .75 meter size 1,756$
Sewer ASHR 767$ 2,708$ 4,774$
Park 831$
139
FACILITY TYPE Retail
14,698 sq ft building 271 Cities Average Bozeman
Per 1,000 sq ft Per 1,000 sq ft % difference
Roads*5,685.00$ $ 9,029.00 159%
Water 690.00$ $ 382.00 55%
Wastewater 741.00$ $ 367.00 50%
Drainage
Parks
Library
Fire 402.00$ $ 356.00 89%
Total 7,518.00$ $ 10,134.00 135%
Office
7,400 sq ft building 271 Cities Average Bozeman
Per 1,000 sq ft Per 1,000 sq ft % difference
Roads 3,430.00$ $ 3,909.00 114%
Water 629.00$ $ 1,109.00 176%
Wastewater 690.00$ $ 963.00 140%
Drainage
Parks
Compares Bozeman Development Impact Fees with 271 Cities per Duncan 2012 Survey
Library
Fire 358.00$ $ 315.00 88%
Total 5,107.00$ $ 6,296.00 123%
Industrial
10,000 sq ft building 271 Cities Average Bozeman
Per 1,000 sq ft Per 1,000 sq ft % difference
Roads 2,076$ 2470 119%
Water 656$ 821 125%
Wastewater 765$ 713 93%
Drainage
Parks
Library
Fire 248$ 26 10%
Total 3,745$ $ 4,030 108%
140
duncan associates # 360 nueces street #2701 # austin tx 78701 # 512 423 0480 # clancy@duncanassociates.com p. 1
NATIONAL IMPACT FEE SURVEY: 20121
This report summarizes the results of a detailed survey of impact fees that individual jurisdictions
across the country are charging. Unlike in-kind developer exactions, impact fees are expressed in
dollars and have published fee schedules, making it easy to compare fees charged by different
jurisdictions. The results of the survey reveal where impact fees are most common, how much
jurisdictions in various states are charging, and the types of facilities for which fees are being charged.
Comparisons with surveys from previous years also show how fees have been changing over time.
Structure of the Survey
The survey that follows this introductory text2 contains, for each jurisdiction, the amount of impact
fees (and similar charges) by type of facility (roads, water, wastewater, etc.) for five typical land use
types: single-family detached, multi-family, retail, office and industrial. Residential fees are per
dwelling unit; nonresidential fees are per 1,000 square feet of building area. The “updated” column
gives the date we last verified the fee amounts, not the date that the jurisdiction adopted the fees.
The survey data is presented in 35 sheets, seven sheets for each of the five land use types. The
jurisdictions are listed in alphabetical order, by state, county and jurisdiction. The last page for each
land use summarizes average fees by state and for the nation. For example, page seven (of the survey
data, not this summary text) provides the average fees for single-family detached units.
What Qualifies as an Impact Fee?
The multitude of names used to refer to impact fees is one obstacle to developing an accurate survey
of such fees. Common terms used to refer to impact fees include “capacity fees,” “facility fees,”
“system development charges” and “capital recovery fees.” Their common characteristics are that (1)
they are charged only to new development, (2) they are standardized fees as opposed to ad hoc,
negotiated payments and (3) they are designed and used to fund capital improvements needed to serve
growth.
Utility Connection Fees. Water and wastewater connection fees that are used to fund
growth-related capital improvements should be classified as impact fees. However, connection fees
often mix impact fee components with service fees that cover other types of costs, such as the
purchase of a water meter, the inspection of the connection, or the administrative cost of establishing
a new customer account. This presents the researcher with a problem. Counting only clearly-labeled
water and wastewater impact fees is likely to under-represent them, but seldom are there sufficient
resources to interview local officials to determine what portion of a connection fee is actually an
impact fee. In addition, because water and wastewater fees preceded other kinds of impact fees, they
are often less controversial than other types of impact fees. For these reasons, it is often useful to
look at “non-utility” impact fees separately from total impact fees.
Fees-in-Lieu. Fees charged in-lieu of land dedication for parks and schools are conceptually very
similar to impact fees, and should also be counted in an impact fee survey. Essentially, they function
much like an impact fee for the land component of the facility. Indeed, some communities use an
impact fee for the construction cost component, and combine that with a land dedication/fee-in-lieu
1 prepared by Clancy Mullen, Duncan Associates, Austin, TX on August 20, 2012
2 if the full survey is not attached, it can be obtained from www.impactfees.com
141
duncan associates # 360 nueces street #2701 # austin tx 78701 # 512 423 0480 # clancy@duncanassociates.com p. 2
requirement for the land component. In California, park fees in-lieu of land dedication are known as
“Quimby fees,” after the name of the 1966 state act authorizing such fees. Because they are not
labeled as impact fees, land dedication fees-in-lieu are often overlooked in impact fee surveys.
Development Taxes. Another class of fee that is functionally very similar to an impact fee is the
development tax, which is sometimes also referred to as a development excise tax, privilege tax or
facilities tax. This is a tax that only applies to new development, often on a per square foot basis, and
is earmarked for capital improvements. For example, Boulder, Colorado hired consultants to
conduct a nexus study and adopted an ordinance that had all of the trappings of an impact fee
ordinance, including earmarking of funds for specific types of capital facilities and providing credit
against the charges for developer-constructed improvements, but instead of adopting them as impact
fees the City adopted them as development taxes. This survey includes development taxes.
Some Caveats
The results of impact fee surveys can be misinterpreted. This can be avoided if the reader keeps the
following caveats in mind.
Not Exhaustive Samples. Like most impact fee surveys, this survey only includes communities
that charge some impact fees, and excludes those that do not (although some jurisdictions that have
temporarily suspended fees have been retained). Thus, an “average impact fee” must be understood
as an average fee for those communities that charge impact fees, not as an average for all communities
(communities with suspended fees are not counted in the average). Although in California state limits
on local taxing authority and relatively liberal impact fee enabling legislation have combined to make
impact fees virtually universal, in most other parts of the country, communities that have impact fees
(other than the ubiquitous water and wastewater connection fees) still tend to be in the minority.
Not Random Samples. Impact fee surveys tend to be opportunistic, and this one is no exception.
For the most part, the inclusion of a community is determined by how readily available the
information is. Communities that post their fee schedules on their web site are more likely to be
included in a survey than communities that do not. Consultants who compile surveys are more likely
to include communities that have been clients or that are in the same region with former clients. For
example, our firm compiled extensive surveys of impact fees in Arizona and Florida for client
communities in those states. For these reasons, the fact that a state is not well represented in a
national survey does not necessarily mean that the state does not have many impact fees (although that
may be true).
Average Total Fee or Sum of Average Fees. In this chapter, average fees are presented for a
variety of capital facilities. These averages exclude communities that are represented in the survey but
do not charge impact fees for the particular facility type. One could sum these average fees by facility
type, but this “sum of the average fees” does not represent the average fee for communities that charge
impact fees. A more meaningful statistic, and the one reported here, is the “average of the total
impact fees” charged by all communities represented in the survey.
Only Published Fees. The fact that a community does not charge a particular impact fee does not
mean that developers make no contributions to that type of capital facility. This is particularly true in
the case of roads, because many communities without road impact fees require developers to dedicate
right-of-way and often to make substantial improvements to abutting roadways as a condition of
development approval. In communities with road impact fees, developers who are required to make
in-kind contributions receive credit against their impact fees for the value of those contributions.
142
duncan associates # 360 nueces street #2701 # austin tx 78701 # 512 423 0480 # clancy@duncanassociates.com p. 3
Thus, developers may contribute more on average to the cost of major road improvements in
communities without road impact fees than in communities with modest road impact fees.
Eligible Facilities
State enabling legislation obviously influences the kind of impact fees that local governments enact.
In most states, local governments have the authority to impose impact fees for water and wastewater
facilities, although they may be called something else. The types of facilities that are eligible for
impact fees in the various state impact fee acts are listed in Figure 1 (it should be noted that water and
wastewater impact fees may be authorized under separate legislation).
Figure 1: Facilities Eligible for Impact Fees by State
State Roads Water Sewer
Storm
Water Parks Fire Police Library Solid
Waste School
Arizona (cities) # # ######
Arizona (counties) # # ####
Arkansas (cities) # # ######
California # # ###### # #
Colorado # # ###### #
Florida # # ###### # #
Georgia # # ######
Hawaii # # ###### # #
Idaho # # #####
Illinois #
Indiana # # ###
Maine # # ### #
Montana # # ##*##* * *
Nevada # # ##### **
New Hampshire # # ###### # #
New Jersey # # ##
New Mexico # # #####
Oregon # # ### ***
Pennsylvania #
Rhode Island # # ###### # #
South Carolina # # #####
Texas (cities) # # ##
Utah # # #####
Vermont # # ###### # #
Virginia**** #
Washington # ## #
West Virginia # # ##### #
Wisconsin (cities) # # ###### #
* can be imposed by super-majority vote of city council or unanimous vote of county commission
** school construction tax up to $1,600 per unit authorized in districts with populations up to 50,000 (NRS 387.331)
*** development tax of up to $1.00/sq. ft. for residential and $0.50/sq. ft. for nonresidential may be imposed by school districts
**** impact fees may be imposed on by-right residential subdivision of agriculturally-zoned parcels for a broad array of facilities
under certain circumstances
Source: Clancy Mullen, Summary of State Impact Fee Acts, January 2012 (www.impactfees.com - state information)
143
duncan associates # 360 nueces street #2701 # austin tx 78701 # 512 423 0480 # clancy@duncanassociates.com p. 4
It is noteworthy that only 10 states authorize school impact fees or development taxes. School
impact fees are found almost exclusively in Florida, California, Washington and Maryland (where they
are authorized in some counties by special acts of the legislature). School impact fees tend to be high
fees that are imposed only on residential development, and their prohibition in most of the country is
an indication of the political clout of homebuilder associations.
Average Fees by State
As noted earlier, this survey is opportunistic, so
the number of jurisdictions represented in the
survey is not proportional to the actual incidence
of impact fees. Nevertheless, the survey
jurisdictions do provide some indication of the
states where impact fees are most common.
The 2012 survey includes 271 jurisdictions (plus
10 Florida counties that have suspended all of
their fees, and so are excluded from the average
fee totals). Not surprisingly, the surveyed
jurisdictions are concentrated in the South and
West, especially Washington, Oregon, California,
Arizona, Colorado and Florida (see Figure 2).
Average impact fees vary significantly by state. As illustrated in Figure 3, the average total non-utility
fee charged for a single-family detached unit is much higher in California than elsewhere in the country
(the chart excludes states with fewer than four jurisdictions represented in the survey).
Figure 3. Average Single-Family Non-Utility Fees by State, 2012
Figure 2: Survey Jurisdictions by State, 2012
144
duncan associates # 360 nueces street #2701 # austin tx 78701 # 512 423 0480 # clancy@duncanassociates.com p. 5
Average Fees by Land Use
Average impact fees by land use and facility type
are presented in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure
4 and Figure 5. Except in the few states where
school fees are charged,3 road, park and utility
fees are the primary components of total fees for
residential land uses. Other types of fees tend
to be small (fire, police, library) or infrequently
charged (general government or drainage). For
nonresidential land uses, park fees are seldom
charged, and road and utility fees are the
dominant components of the total fee.
Table 1. Average Fees by Land Use and Facility Type, 2012
Single- Multi-
Family Family Retail Office Industrial
Facility Type (Unit) (Unit) (1,000 sf) (1,000 sf) (1,000 sf)
Roads $3,228 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430 $2,076
Water $3,863 $1,440 $690 $629 $656
Wastewater $3,725 $1,771 $741 $690 $765
Drainage $1,476 $790 $1,013 $868 $983
Parks $2,774 $2,086 ** ** **
Library $402 $305 ** ** **
Fire $512 $376 $402 $358 $248
Police $372 $295 $401 $260 $180
General Government $1,699 $1,285 $618 $607 $385
Schools $4,677 $2,494 ** ** **
Total Non-Utility* $8,111 $5,359 $6,174 $4,172 $2,763
Total* $11,583 $6,718 $6,347 $4,483 $3,190 * Average of total fees charged by jurisdictions, not sum of average fees by facility type (non-utility excludes
water and wastewater
** rarely charged to nonresidential land uses, with the exception of school fees in California
Figure 5. Average Single-Family Fees by Facility Type, 2012
3 Florida, Washington and Maryland have extensive and significant school impact fees. California’s school fees are
widespread, but are capped by State law at a relatively modest level.
Figure 4. Average Fees by Land Use, 2012
145
duncan associates # 360 nueces street #2701 # austin tx 78701 # 512 423 0480 # clancy@duncanassociates.com p. 6
Trends, 2008-2012
Average impact fees have been trending down over the last three to four years, although this has not
been uniform in all parts of the country. In an attempt to quantify this trend, a constant sample was
compiled from the last five annual surveys, consisting of 256 jurisdictions that that were included in all
five surveys and charged some non-utility fees in every year. This is consistent with the methodology
used in this survey of not including jurisdictions that don’t charge fees in computing average fees
charged, but it does tend to understate fee reductions by not factoring in jurisdictions that eliminate or
suspend all fees, a trend that has been seen mostly in Florida.
The three states with the most impact fees, Arizona, Florida and California, account for over half of all
the jurisdictions in the survey and are shown in Table 2 along with the national averages. In Arizona,
legislation was passed prohibiting new or increased impact fees from June 30, 2009 until January 1,
2012, accounting for the relative stability of impact fees in 2010 and 2011. A new law passed in 2011
outlawed some types of impact fees, including general government and solid waste, as well as fees for
parks over 30 acres, libraries over 10,000 square feet and public safety training facilities after January 1,
2012, resulting in significant fee decreases in 2012. Unlike Arizona, where voluntary reductions or
suspensions of impact fees have been rare, such actions have become common practice in Florida,
beginning in 2008 following the collapse of the housing market. Some Florida jurisdictions have
updated studies and lowered fees to reflect reduced land and construction costs, while others reduced
or suspended some or all fees based on policy, in the hopes of stimulating new development.
California came late to the fee-reduction party – although fee increases had been slowing, actual
reductions were not seen until this year.
Table 2. Average Single-Family Non-Utility Fees, 2008-2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008-12
Arizona $6,053 $6,458 $6,440 $6,501 $5,383 na
Florida $9,832 $9,397 $9,112 $7,924 $7,662 na
California $19,669 $21,928 $23,441 $23,849 $22,154 na
National $8,235 $8,628 $8,736 $8,630 $8,233 na
Without CA $6,303 $6,381 $6,252 $6,059 $5,882 na
% Change
Arizona na 6.7% -0.3% 1.0% -17.2% -11.1%
Florida na -4.4% -3.0% -13.0% -3.3% -22.1%
California na 11.5% 6.9% 1.7% -7.1% 12.6%
National na 4.8% 1.3% -1.2% -4.6% 0.0%
Without CA na 1.2% -2.0% -3.1% -2.9% -6.7% Source: Duncan Associates’ annual surveys, using constant sample of 256 jurisdictions that were included
in all five surveys and charged some non-utility fees in every year.
146
Single-Family Unit (3-BR, 2,000 sf, on 10,000 sq. ft. lot at density of 4 UPA and value of $200,000)State CountyJurisdiction Updated Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherAR Benton Bentonville 7/28/12 $3,789 $1,306 $1,366 $1,117 $791 $515AR Benton Lowell 7/28/12 $1,504 $504 $1,000 $504AR FaulknerConway7/28/12 $1,698 $1,698 $1,039 $659AR Washington Fayetteville 7/28/12 $2,155 $312 $971 $872 $150 $162AZ Cochise Sierra Vista 7/28/12 $4,818 $4,818 $1,531 $1,988 $609 $436 $509AZ Gila Sedona 7/28/12 $16,351 $8,822 $1,917 $7,529 $660 $5,932 $313AZ Maricopa Avondale 7/28/12 $17,934 $7,190 $1,857 $5,251 $5,493 $2,501 $345 $952 $326 $905 $304AZ Maricopa Buckeye 7/28/12 $11,062 $3,204 $246 $3,689 $4,169 $1,109 $165 $1,178 $506AZ Maricopa Chandler7/28/12 $20,009 $8,403 $3,983 $6,167 $5,439 $3,740 $75 $344 $164 $97AZ Maricopa Fountain Hills 7/28/12 $8,298 $8,298 $5,614 $2,118 $79 $207 $112 $168AZ Maricopa Gilbert 7/28/12 $18,532 $6,269 $423 $6,397 $5,866 $4,030 $821 $612 $383AZ Maricopa Glendale 7/28/12 $6,186 $2,286 $694 $3,420 $480 $625 $398 $317 $252AZ Maricopa Goodyear7/28/12 $12,434 $3,452 $941 $4,789 $4,193 $939 $138 $1,057 $377AZ Maricopa Mesa 7/28/12 $7,505 $2,626 $2,220 $2,659 $366 $1,122 $464 $272 $402AZ Maricopa Peoria 7/28/12 $17,470 $11,657 $8,160 $3,890 $1,923 $2,212 $209 $624 $452AZ Maricopa Phoenix7/28/12 $11,729 $3,441 $1,273 $5,110 $3,178 $1,613 $53 $325 $177AZ Maricopa Scottsdale 7/28/12 $10,321 $0 $6,450 $3,871AZ Maricopa Surprise 7/28/12 $15,873 $8,143 $5,396 $4,691 $3,039 $785 $133 $688 $371 $661 $109AZ Maricopa Tempe 7/28/12 $5,893 $3,045 $2,848AZ Mojave Bullhead City7/28/12 $726 $726AZ Navajo Show Low7/28/12 $1,849 $1,849 $1,112 $557 $180AZ Pima Pima County7/28/12 $5,199 $5,199 $5,199AZ Pima Marana 7/28/12 $17,541 $10,666 $7,372 $2,331 $4,544 $3,294AZ Pima Oro Valley7/28/12 $10,333 $2,784 $1,933 $7,549 $555 $296AZ Pima Tucson 7/28/12 $9,194 $7,683 $4,300 $1,511 $1,720 $488 $674 $501AZ Pinal Apache Junction 7/28/12 $9,139 $9,139 $6,323 $1,801 $721 $294AZ Pinal Casa Grande 7/28/12 $11,067 $6,777 $3,465 $4,290 $646 $359 $892 $1,415AZ Pinal Eloy7/28/12 $4,443 $1,516 $1,617 $1,310 $539 $151 $345 $481AZ Pinal Florence 7/28/12 $10,884 $3,449 $583 $3,330 $4,105 $857 $1,096 $913AZ Pinal Queen Creek 7/28/12 $13,883 $8,941 $631 $4,942 $4,325 $1,370 $704 $693 $1,218AZ Yavapai Yavapai County7/28/12 $3,400 $3,400 $3,400AZ Yavapai Chino Valley7/28/12 $5,815 $854 $4,961 non-utility fees suspendedAZ Yavapai Prescott 7/28/12 $16,158 $2,551 $469 $10,334 $3,273 $715 $253 $525 $589AZ Yuma Yuma 7/28/12 $2,772 $2,772 $856 $1,011 $399 $506CAAlameda Fremont 7/29/12 $77,194 $77,194 $3,879 $29,093 $386 $3,336 $40,500CAAlameda Hayward 7/29/12 $35,909 $20,103 $1,200 $8,106 $7,700 $11,953 $6,200 $750CAAlameda Livermore 7/29/12 $40,667 $32,243 $10,172 $3,646 $4,778 $1,120 $13,334 $1,677 $5,940CAAlameda San Leandro 7/29/12 $27,687 $23,795 $1,222 $3,892 $14,750 $6,400 $1,423CAContra Costa Orinda 7/29/12 $21,096 $21,096 $6,093 $5,080 $9,923CAEl Dorado El Dorado Co 7/29/12 $28,344 $28,344 $22,404$5,940CAFresno Clovis 7/29/12 $19,934 $7,390 $4,573 $4,380 $8,164 $1,984 $514 $319CAKern Bakersfield 7/29/12 $24,702 $20,702 $12,870 $4,000 $1,716 $5,580 $536CALos Angeles Lancaster 7/29/12 $13,881 $13,881 $2,841 $4,659 $3,534 $1,751 $119 $800 $177CALos Angeles Long Beach 7/29/12 $16,817 $16,817 $1,125 $4,613 $496 $703 $9,880CAMontereySalinas 11/5/11 $11,803 $7,395 $3,110 $4,408 $1,404 $2,409 $472CANapa St. Helena 7/29/12 $50,500 $27,160 $8,220 $12,920 $10,420 $40 $2,500 $5,460 $5,940 $5,000CAOrange Brea 7/29/12 $26,810 $12,876 $1,974 $13,934 $9,818 $1,029 $55CAPlacerRocklin 7/29/12 $16,116 $16,116 $6,578 $293 $2,696 $6,549CASacramento Citrus Heights 7/29/12 $17,137 $9,687 $2,434 $7,450 $1,894 $1,079 $4,280CASacramento Elk Grove 7/29/12 $33,021 $15,752 $7,661 $6,069 $11,200 $8 $725 $1,731 $439 $645 $4,543 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 1 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)147
Single-Family Unit (3-BR, 2,000 sf, on 10,000 sq. ft. lot at density of 4 UPA and value of $200,000)State CountyJurisdiction Updated Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherCASacramento Sacramento 7/29/12 $42,492 $33,660 $7,013 $1,382 $7,450 $3,780 $7,393 $5,940 $9,533CASan Bernardino Highland 7/29/12 $20,598 $20,598 $12,540 $765 $3,480 $857 $746 $210 $2,000CASan Bernardino Redlands 7/29/12 $13,880 $13,880 $2,488 $700 $4,482 $764 $996 $1,806 $2,644CASan Bernardino Rialto 7/29/12 $20,145 $10,785 $2,829 $5,638 $3,722 $3,135 $2,932 $127 $519 $624 $619CASan Diego Carlsbad 7/29/12 $38,225 $27,085 $3,280 $8,041 $3,099 $685 $6,208 $7,000 $6,300 $3,612CASan Diego Escondido 7/29/12 $29,382 $12,866 $3,015 $9,016 $7,500 $1,071 $4,129 $4,533 $118CASan Diego San Diego 7/29/12 $36,103 $24,606 $2,474 $7,373 $4,124$5,260 $16,872CASan Joaquin Lodi 7/29/12 $28,153 $20,583 $4,069 $1,430 $6,140 $5,231 $7,900 $550 $562 $2,271CASan Joaquin Ripon 7/29/12 $61,183 $48,209 $9,530 $9,172 $3,802 $2,430 $13,056 $434 $2,710 $498 $4,239 $6,160 $9,152CASan Luis Obispo Paso Robles 7/29/12 $50,019 $25,769 $7,398 $17,750 $6,500 $2,020 $4,803 $1,154 $884 $74 $4,176 $5,260CASan Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 7/29/12 $34,682 $13,457 $3,457 $17,092 $4,133$10,000CASanta Barbara Carpinteria 7/29/12 $37,086 $37,086 $13,066 $2,333 $15,433 $1,654 $4,100 $500CASanta Barbara Santa Maria 7/29/12 $23,436 $18,112 $8,730 $1,533 $3,791 $6,672 $824 $822 $736 $328CASanta Clara Gilroy7/29/12 $45,934 $28,167 $11,809 $5,236 $12,531 $158 $16,200CASanta Clara Palo Alto 7/26/12 $28,975 $16,475 $3,017 $5,000 $7,500 $12,556 $902CASanta Cruz Santa Cruz Co 7/29/12 $10,440 $10,440 $6,000 $4,440CASanta Cruz Scotts Valley 7/29/12 $22,267 $16,130 $4,855 $6,137 $330 $8,933 $748 $882 $382CAShasta Redding 7/29/12 $25,143 $11,334 $5,582 $6,889 $6,920 $891 $3,996 $865CASolano Vacaville 7/29/12 $46,140 $29,673 $8,745 $7,643 $8,824 $2,039 $4,208 $305 $682 $677 $4,100 $8,917CASonoma Windsor 7/29/12 $48,396 $27,004 $10,527 $7,161 $14,231 $3,036 $8,870 $4,571CAYolo Davis 7/29/12 $23,216 $23,216 $8,093 $305 $5,877 $992 $2,389 $5,560CO Adams Adams Co 7/29/12 $1,599 $1,599 $1,599CO Adams Commerce City7/29/12 $6,698 $5,723 $1,181 $975 $521 $3,402 $619CO BoulderBoulder7/29/12 $37,058 $17,380 $2,062 $15,542 $4,136 $7,120 $4,012 $431 $196 $277 $402 $2,420 $460CO Eagle Eagle Co 7/29/12 $6,931 $6,931 $4,378 $2,553CO Eagle Basalt 7/29/12 $7,967 $2,750 $750 $5,217$2,000CO El Paso Colorado Springs 7/29/12 $17,148 $5,083 $10,197 $1,868 $1,770 $1,781 $1,532CO Fremont Canon City7/29/12 $304 $304$304CO Jefferson Jefferson Co 7/29/12 $3,276 $3,276 $3,276CO La Plata Durango 7/29/12 $10,516 $3,414 $2,169 $5,582 $1,520 $300 $945CO LarimerLarimer Co 7/29/12 $5,677 $5,677 $2,927 $1,259 $1,491CO LarimerLoveland 8/18/12 $23,851 $14,481 $2,170 $5,560 $2,560 $569 $6,386 $1,229 $736 $957 $1,052 $1,382 $1,250CO LarimerFt. Collins 7/29/12 $20,502 $12,432 $2,792 $4,630 $3,440 $733 $3,419 $540 $194 $134 $245 $1,591 $2,784CO Mesa Mesa Co 7/29/12 $2,748 $2,748 $1,678 $150 $920CO Pitkin Pitkin Co 7/29/12 $21,674 $21,674 $6,883 $10,900 $917 $2,974CO Weld Weld Co 7/29/12 $3,305 $3,305 $2,269 $400 $636CO Weld Windsor 7/29/12 $18,302 $7,877 $2,115 $6,725 $3,700 $735 $5,027CO Weld Greeley7/29/12 $5,433 $5,433 $1,571 $280 $3,174 $275 $133DE New Castle New Castle Co 7/29/12 $9,321 $1,157 $8,164 $328 $138 $517 $62 $112FL Alachua Alachua Co 8/4/12 $9,412 $9,412 $5,372 $2,520 $1,520FL Brevard Brevard Co 8/4/12 $4,834 $4,834 rd fees susp until 3/1/2014 $64 $93 $4,445 $232FL Brevard Cocoa 8/4/12 $6,530 $4,780 $1,750 $64 $39 $4,445 $232FL Brevard Melbourne 8/4/12 $5,570 $5,570 $540 $64 $39 $250 $4,445 $232FL Brevard Palm Bay8/4/12 $11,941 $6,059 $2,460 $3,422 $958 $64 $322 $38 $4,445 $232FL Brevard Rockledge 8/4/12 $4,780 $4,780 $64 $39 $4,445 $232FL Broward Broward Co 8/4/12 $10,494 $10,494 $3,556 $894 $6,044FL Broward Ft. Lauderdale 8/4/12 $8,419 $8,419 $2,375 $6,044FL Charlotte Charlotte Co 8/4/12 $1,832 $1,832 $1,832 non-road fees suspended until 7/13/2013FL Citrus Citrus Co 8/4/12 $5,672 $5,672 $1,985 $566 $238 $393 $290 $264 $1,936 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 2 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)148
Single-Family Unit (3-BR, 2,000 sf, on 10,000 sq. ft. lot at density of 4 UPA and value of $200,000)State CountyJurisdiction Updated Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL ClayClay Co 8/4/12 $7,034 $7,034 road fee adopted/suspended 1/1/09 thru 6/30/13 $7,034FL CollierCollier Co 8/4/12 $23,817 $17,392 $5,753 $3,205 $3,220 $3,133 $315 $1,200 $359 $766 $5,378 $488FL Columbia Columbia Co 9/5/11 suspended fees through Jan. 1, 2010: moratorium extended one year to Jan. 1, 2011; 7/11/11 suspension extended indefinitelyFL Dade Miami/Dade Co 8/4/12 $9,824 $9,824 $3,698 $2,789 $386 $503 $2,448FL Dade Miami 8/4/12 $14,245 $14,245 $3,698 $6,818 $704 $164 $413 $2,448FL DeSoto DeSoto Co 8/4/12 suspended fees effective January 1, 2008 and refunded all fees collected since adoption in 2006FL FlaglerFlagler Co 8/4/12 $5,306 $5,306 $1,438 $268 $3,600FL FlaglerPalm Coast 8/4/12 $12,724 $7,814 $2,687 $2,430 $2,480 $1,322 $205 $3,600FL Gilchrist Gilchrist Co 8/4/12 $3,500 $3,500 $1,750$1,000 $750FL Glades Glades Co 8/4/12 all fees suspended eff 11/24/2008 until 12/1/2010, then until 2/12/2013FL Hardee Hardee Co 8/4/12 all fees suspended indefinitely effective 1/1/2009FL HendryHendry Co 8/4/12 all fees suspended through December 31, 2012. Effective Jan 1, 2013, fees at 50% of stated amount in schedule.FL Hernando Hernando Co 8/4/12 all fees suspended for one year effective 11/15/2011FL Highlands Highlands Co 8/6/12 all fees suspended for 1 yr eff. 7/1/2009; 3 add'l 1-yr extensions until 7/1/2013FL Hillsborough Hillsborough Co 8/4/12 $9,428 $5,878 $1,475 $1,650 $1,900 $354 $49 $4,000FL Hillsborough Plant City 8/4/12 $11,787 $7,877 $1,856 $790 $3,120 $582 $538 $363 $538 $4,000FL Hillsborough Tampa 8/4/12 $5,581 $5,581 $1,581$4,000FL Indian RiverIndian River Co 8/4/12 $8,708 $8,708 $4,483 $1,463 $483 $278 $245 $1,756FL Lake Lake Co 8/4/12 $803 $803 rd fees susp until 3/1/2013 $222 $191 $390 sch fees susp until 4/1/2013FL Lake Eustis 8/4/12 $4,699 $1,177 $854 $2,668 $599 $293 $147 $138FL Lee Lee Co 8/4/12 $12,612 $12,612 $6,701 $1,463 $524 $3,924FL Lee Bonita Springs 8/4/12 $14,002 $14,002 $8,719 $872 $487 $3,924FL Lee Cape Coral 8/4/12 $13,971 $9,593 $3,347 $1,516 $2,862 $1,115 $610 $597 $3,924FL Lee Ft. Myers 8/4/12 $14,985 $10,996 $6,701 $2,023 $1,966 $371 $3,924FL LevyLevy Co 8/4/12 $2,066 $2,066 $1,046 $150 $53 $817FL Manatee Manatee Co 8/4/12 $6,249 $6,249 $3,946 $1,427 $304 $572FL Marion Marion Co 8/4/12 all fees suspended until 12/31/2013FL Martin Martin Co 8/4/12 $14,525 $14,525 $4,209 $2,969 $515 $355 $423 $487 $5,567FL Monroe Monroe Co 8/6/12 $1,534 $1,534 $633 $340 $242 $105 $150 $64FL Nassau Nassau Co 2/2/12 $3,726 $3,726 all fees exc school susp until 12/31/2012 $3,726FL Okaloosa Destin 8/18/12 $2,087 $2,087 $1,425 $479 $160 $23FL Orange Orange Co. 8/18/12 $10,760 $10,760 $2,869 $1,043 $167 $156 $6,525FL Orange Ocoee 8/18/12 $17,819 $10,850 $2,976 $1,756 $5,213 $780 $318 $251 $6,525FL Orange Orlando 11/6/11 $11,843 $9,306 $2,781 $2,537$6,525FL Orange Winter Garden 8/18/12 $14,166 $11,313 $3,517 $1,086 $1,767 $671 $340 $260 $6,525FL Osceola Osceola Co 8/18/12 $8,742 $8,742 non-school fees susp until 9/30/2012$8,742FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Co 8/18/12 $11,367 $11,367 $4,822 $1,540 $161 $528 $170 $148 $3,998FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Gardens 8/18/12 $15,394 $11,103 $6,449 $3,737 $161 $390 $511 $148 $3,998FL Pasco Pasco Co 8/18/12 $17,689 $13,398 $8,570 $1,561 $2,730 park/lib/fire susp til 1/1/2013 $4,828FL Pinellas Pinellas Co 8/18/12 $2,418 $2,066 $2,066 $352FL Polk Polk Co 8/18/12 $4,160 $4,160 all fees exc school susp 2 yrs until 7/31/2012, ext to 1/31/2014 $4,160FL Polk Lakeland 8/18/12 $12,702 $12,702 $4,895 $2,707 $349 $591 $4,160FL Putnam Putnam Co 9/7/11 all fees suspended for 2 yrs eff. 3/1/2009; in 2010, extended until 3/1/2013FL Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Co 8/18/12 all fees suspended for 2 yrs eff. 1/1/2008 (extended through 2010, then 2011, then 2012)FL St Johns St. Johns Co 8/18/12 $11,795 $11,795 $4,292 $449 $657 $80 $538 $5,779FL St Lucie St. Lucie Co 8/18/12 $13,075 $13,075 $4,523 $1,466 $208 $533 $197 $322 $5,826FL Sarasota Sarasota Co 8/18/12 $12,035 $7,284 $2,887 $2,720 $2,031 $2,348 $380 $339 $195 $339 $796FL Sarasota North Port 8/18/12 $1,485 $1,485 rd fees susp 1/31/12-1/31/14 $559 $380 $207 $195 $144FL Seminole Seminole Co 8/18/12 $6,251 $6,251 $1,025 $54 $172 $5,000 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 3 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)149
Single-Family Unit (3-BR, 2,000 sf, on 10,000 sq. ft. lot at density of 4 UPA and value of $200,000)State CountyJurisdiction Updated Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL Seminole Altamonte Springs 8/18/12 $6,747 $6,747 $996 $302 $91 $172 $186 $5,000FL Seminole Winter Springs 8/18/12 $10,823 $10,823 $3,167 $1,200 $700 $356 $400 $5,000FL SumterSumter Co 8/18/12 $2,997 $2,997 $2,600 $397FL Volusia Volusia Co 8/18/12 $6,065 $6,065 rd, park, fire fees for resid. In non-growth areas susp. 7/1/11-7/1/13 $6,065FL Volusia Daytona Beach 8/18/12 $9,707 $7,543 $931 $1,233 $1,478 $6,065FL Volusia Deland 8/18/12 $6,065 $6,065 all City fees suspended two years from 10/1/2011-9/30/2013) $6,065FL Volusia Deltona 8/18/12 $13,800 $8,995 $1,044 $1,429 $3,376 $1,556 $214 $116 $6,065FL Volusia Ormond Beach 8/18/12 $10,721 $6,771 $90 $2,000 $1,950 $69 $547 $6,065FL Volusia Port Orange 8/18/12 $11,467 $8,372 $902 $1,555 $1,540 $1,275 $130 $6,065GACherokee Canton 8/18/12 $3,293 $3,293 $1,760 $1,054 $385 $94GACherokee Cherokee Co 8/18/12 $1,952 $1,952 $590 $284 $281 $537 $260GAEffingham Effingham Co 8/18/12 $4,600 $2,000 $2,600GAForsyth Forsyth Co 8/18/12 $1,030 $1,030 $686 $116 $228GAFulton Alpharetta 8/18/12 $1,940 $1,940 $1,131 $545 $264GAFulton Atlanta 8/18/12 $1,544 $1,544 $987 $410 $114 $33GAFulton Roswell 8/18/12 $1,998 $1,998 $162 $1,303 $533GAHall Hall Co 8/18/12 $1,242 $1,242$1,242GAHenryHenry Co 8/18/12 $1,662 $1,662$1,662GAHenryMcDonough 8/18/12 $1,105 $1,105$1,105HI Honolulu Honolulu 8/18/12 $1,836 $1,836 $1,836ID Ada Boise 8/18/12 $5,068 $5,068 $3,047 $1,355 $515 $151ID Kootenai Post Falls 8/18/12 $10,600 $2,471 $852 $2,212 $5,917 $1,284 $307 $28IL DeKalb DeKalb (city) 8/18/12 $4,622 $4,622 $3,435 $1,187IL DuPage DuPage County8/18/12 $624 $624 $624IL Kane Kane County8/18/12 $1,842 $1,842 $1,842IN Hamilton Fishers 8/18/12 $5,745 $3,345 $2,275 $2,400 $1,070IN Hamilton Noblesville 8/18/12 $4,904 $2,189 $1,053 $2,715 $1,136KS Johnson Lenexa 8/18/12 $4,052 $4,052 $2,539 $977 $461 $75KS Johnson Olathe 8/18/12 $11,292 $2,902 $2,382 $4,030 $4,360 $520KS Johnson Overland Park11/13/11 $2,341 $2,341 $2,341LAE Baton Rouge Baton Rouge 8/18/12 $2,910 $760 $760 $2,150LASt TammanySt Tammany Parish 8/18/12 $3,077 $3,077 $1,468 $1,609MD Anne Arundel Anne Arundel Co 8/18/12 $25,195 $11,295 $3,894 $6,300 $7,600 $260 $7,141MD CalvertCalvert Co 8/18/12 $21,350 $12,950 $3,500 $3,000 $5,400 $1,300 $7,800 $350MD Carroll Carroll Co 11/13/11 $6,836 $6,836 $533 $6,303MD Charles Charles Co 8/18/12 $22,760 $12,097 $3,988 $6,675$12,097MD Frederick Frederick Co 8/18/12 $26,885 $15,185 $4,884 $6,816 $759 $14,426MD Harford Harford Co 8/18/12 $6,000 $6,000$6,000MD Howard Howard Co 8/18/12 $2,160 $2,160 $2,160MD MontgomeryMontgomery Co 8/18/12 $41,383 $36,293 $12,425 $2,240 $2,850$23,868MD Queen Anne's Queen Anne's Co 8/18/12 $8,500 $8,500 $760 $800 $6,940MD St. Mary's St. Mary's Co 8/18/12 $4,500 $4,500 $450 $675 $3,375MO Clay/Jackson Kansas City 8/18/12 $711 $711 $711MO Jackson Lee's Summit 8/18/12 $1,041 $1,041 $1,041MT Gallatin Bozeman 8/18/12 $11,803 $4,516 $3,642 $3,850 $3,437 $874 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 4 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)150
Single-Family Unit (3-BR, 2,000 sf, on 10,000 sq. ft. lot at density of 4 UPA and value of $200,000)State CountyJurisdiction Updated Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNC Chatham Chatham Co. 8/18/12 $6,948 $3,448 $3,500 $548 $2,900NC Durham Durham 8/18/12 $6,054 $3,615 $968 $1,524 $915 $647 $2,000NC Orange Orange Co. 8/18/12 $11,017 $5,623 $1,895 $3,499$5,623NC Wake Cary8/18/12 $5,681 $1,243 $1,243 $1,471 $2,967NC Wake Raleigh 8/18/12 $5,412 $2,741 $1,578 $1,679 $992 $1,163NE Lancaster Lincoln 8/18/12 $4,685 $2,800 $2,466 $1,261 $624 $334NH Hillsborough Manchester 8/19/12 $2,923 $2,923$190 $2,733NH Merrimack Concord 8/19/12 $5,022 $5,022 $2,002 $960 $2,060NH Rockingham Salem 8/19/12 $5,532 $5,532NH Rockingham Fremont 8/19/12 $3,761 $3,761$3,761NM Bernalillo Albuquerque 8/19/12 $11,732 $3,893 $1,831 $5,765 $2,074 $645 $1,210 $207NM Bernalillo Bernalillo Co 8/19/12 $4,162 $4,162 $1,309 $1,334 $1,048 $353 $117NM Dona Ana Las Cruces 8/19/12 $4,459 $1,439 $1,855 $1,165 $800 $639NM Lincoln Ruidoso 8/19/12 $5,895 $3,839 $2,056NM Sandoval Rio Rancho 8/19/12 $14,347 $8,785 $2,691 $3,264 $2,298 $4,465 $1,258 $339 $32NM Santa Fe Santa Fe 7/28/12 $2,748 $2,013 $735 Non-utility residential fees suspended 2 years eff. 1-23-2012NM Santa Fe Santa Fe County 8/19/12 $550 $550$550NM Valencia Los Lunas 8/19/12 $3,227 $850 $898 $1,479 $850NV Churchill Churchill County8/19/12 $4,200 $4,200 $2,300 $1,000 $900NV Clark Las Vegas 8/19/12 $3,861 $1,841 $995 $2,020 $720 $126NV Clark Mesquite 8/19/12 $1,237 $1,237 $1,111$126NV Washoe Reno 8/19/12 $5,177 $5,177 $4,177 $1,000OH ButlerMiddletown 12/13/09 $500 $500 $500OH Delaware Delaware (city) 8/19/12 $13,103 $2,068 $5,650 $5,385 $1,226 $314 $162 $366OK Cleveland Moore 8/19/12 $1,347 $647 $647 $700OR Clackamas Clackamas Co. 8/19/12 $20,844 $14,039 $5,621 $205 $6,600 $6,418 $2,000OR Clackamas West Linn 8/19/12 $32,554 $18,839 $6,810 $8,775 $4,940 $1,005 $10,516 $508OR Deschutes Bend 8/19/12 $16,986 $9,626 $4,576 $4,520 $2,840 $5,050OR Josephine Grants Pass 8/19/12 $8,690 $3,516 $1,971 $2,663 $2,511 $422 $1,123OR Lane Eugene 8/19/12 $8,236 $6,107 $1,793 $2,129 $557 $3,757OR Lane Springfield 8/19/12 $5,744 $2,207 $1,187 $3,537 $1,020OR Marion Salem 8/19/12 $13,193 $6,193 $1,954 $3,500 $3,500 $494 $3,745OR Marion Silverton 8/19/12 $19,233 $9,606 $3,135 $4,964 $4,663 $2,072 $4,399OR Multnomah Portland 8/19/12 $17,460 $11,308 $2,773 $1,817 $4,335 $783 $7,752OR Washington Tigard 8/19/12 $16,284 $11,537 $6,665 $4,747 $4,872OR Washington Washington Co 8/19/12 $11,830 $7,165 $6,665 $4,665 $500PAMontgomeryTowamencin Twp 8/19/12 $2,220 $2,220 $2,220 $1,711 $1,610 $1,000 $250SC Beaufort Beaufort Co 8/19/12 $2,811 $2,811 $1,126 $627 $553 $505SC Beaufort Hilton Head 8/19/12 $8,562 $3,122 $1,942 $2,400 $3,040 $627 $553SC BerkeleyMt. Pleasant 8/19/12 $8,291 $1,791 $958 $2,000 $4,500 $358 $231 $60 $184 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 5 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)151
Single-Family Unit (3-BR, 2,000 sf, on 10,000 sq. ft. lot at density of 4 UPA and value of $200,000)State CountyJurisdiction Updated Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherTN Rutherford La Vergne 8/19/12 $5,045 $2,695 $884 $500 $1,850 $311 $1,500TN Rutherford Smyrna 8/19/12 $3,201 $3,201 $851 $611 $239 $1,500TN SumnerPortland 8/19/12 $3,065 $3,065 $1,228 $1,400 $437TN SumnerWhite House 8/19/12 $1,525 $1,525 $38 $40 $19 $28 $1,400TN Williamson Franklin 8/19/12 $12,927 $7,294 $3,514 $2,089 $3,544$3,780TN Williamson Nolensville 8/19/12 $6,912 $6,912 $2,912$4,000TX Brazos College Station 8/19/12 $3,149 $2,021 $770 $358 $2,021TX Collin Allen 8/19/12 $2,350 $650 $650 $1,200 $500TX Collin McKinney8/19/12 $5,334 $3,500 $3,500 $1,628 $206TX Denton Denton 8/19/12 $5,430 $3,700 $1,730TX Tarrant Arlington 8/19/12 $2,813 $1,953 $670 $480 $380 $1,283TX Tarrant Colleyville 8/19/12 $5,321 $2,187 $2,187 $2,491 $643TX Tarrant Ft. Worth 8/19/12 $3,052 $2,000 $867 $185TX Williamson Georgetown 8/19/12 $2,785 $1,530 $1,255UT Cache Logan 8/19/12 $2,451 $1,258 $669 $258 $935 $77 $118 $34 $360UT Davis Layton 8/19/12 $7,612 $7,012 $2,399 $600 $2,239 $1,873 $501UT Salt Lake Draper8/19/12 $8,841 $7,428 $1,749 $1,413 $1,161 $3,990 $310 $218UT Salt Lake Salt Lake City 8/19/12 $1,992 $1,992 $374 $681 $485 $452UT Salt Lake Sandy City8/19/12 $6,213 $4,684 $1,529 $1,133 $3,315 $165 $71UT Salt Lake West Jordan City 8/19/12 $12,178 $5,403 $1,891 $3,944 $2,831 $1,527 $1,633 $247 $105UT Salt Lake West Valley City 8/19/12 $3,216 $3,216 $846 $181 $2,032 $91 $66UT Tooele Tooele 8/19/12 $8,310 $2,475 $4,320 $1,515 $2,125 $350UT Utah Payson 8/19/12 $7,415 $3,205 $1,620 $2,590 $2,800 $405UT Utah Provo 8/19/12 $6,954 $4,964 $986 $760 $1,230 $890 $3,088VALoudoun Leesburg 8/19/12 $11,975 $4,683 $7,292VAStafford Stafford Co 8/19/12 $12,003 $1,603 $1,603 $6,900 $3,500VT Chittenden Burlington 8/19/12 $4,918 $4,918 $364 $1,392 $862 $416 $84 $1,800VT Chittenden Williston 8/19/12 $11,857 $11,857 $303 $840 $10,714WA Clark Vancouver8/19/12 $11,146 $8,246 $1,778 $2,900 $2,084 $4,384WA Cowlitz Woodland 8/19/12 $12,446 $5,396 $2,800 $4,250 $1,116 $1,530 $2,750WA King King Co 8/19/12 $7,103 $7,103 $1,228$5,875WA King Bellevue 8/19/12 $1,768 $1,768 $1,768WA King Bothell 8/19/12 $13,077 $8,352 $5,181 $3,093 $1,632 $1,826 $1,345WA King Issaquqh 8/19/12 $13,298 $13,298 $1,739 $6,998 $688 $171 $134 $3,568WA King Kirkland 8/19/12 $25,340 $13,151 $3,825 $9,133 $3,056 $481 $3,845 $5,000WA Kitsap Kitsap Co 8/19/12 $2,428 $2,428 $640 $604 $1,184WA Pierce Pierce Co 8/19/12 $5,119 $5,119 $1,759 $355 $3,005WA Skagit Anacortes 8/19/12 $14,535 $4,045 $900 $3,062 $7,428 $2,530 $615WA Skagit Burlington 8/19/12 $6,289 $3,159 $1,835 $3,130 $549 $625 $150WA Snohomish Snohomish Co 8/19/12 $6,245 $6,245 $2,369 $544 $3,332WA Thurston Olympia 8/19/12 $11,091 $11,091 $3,054 $5,068 $2,969WA Thurston Tumwater8/19/12 $14,295 $9,990 $2,828 $4,305 $3,727 $203 $3,233WA Whatcom Bellingham 8/19/12 $20,756 $9,271 $1,931 $3,848 $7,637 $678 $4,808 $1,854WV Jefferson Jefferson Co 8/19/12 $13,070 $13,070 $752 $698 $262 $11,358WI Dane Fitchburg 8/19/12 $4,900 $4,900 $4,900WI Jefferson Oconomowoc8/19/12 $6,120 $1,814 $103 $877 $3,429 $1,310 $218 $183WI Ozaukee Cedarburg 8/19/12 $4,761 $2,559 $1,640 $562 $996 $729 $834WI St CroixHudson 8/19/12 $2,839 $1,297 $1,177 $365 $785 $512 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 6 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)152
Single-Family Unit (3-BR, 2,000 sf, on 10,000 sq. ft. lot at density of 4 UPA and value of $200,000)SummaryTotal Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNational Average $11,583 $8,111 $3,228 $3,863 $3,725 $1,476 $2,774 $402 $512 $372 $1,699 $4,677 $2,762Sample Size 271 261 206 130 138 63 187 58 116 91 50 107 52National Avg w/o CA$8,510 $5,791 $2,545 $3,144 $3,059 $1,158 $1,864 $342 $446 $300 $465 $4,520 $891Sample Size w/o CA234 224 169 109 113 39 156 49 101 77 29 90 35AR 4 $2,287 $955 $1,039 $1,169 $996 n/a $725 n/a $390 $162 n/a n/a n/aAZ 30 $10,227 $5,383 $2,820 $4,169 $3,906 $513 $1,917 $334 $616 $420 $590 n/a $609CA37 $31,014 $22,154 $6,348 $7,591 $6,737 $1,993 $7,350 $726 $954 $769 $3,403 $5,508 $6,613CO 17 $11,352 $7,064 $2,521 $6,804 $2,871 $1,516 $3,619 $733 $710 $375 $584 $1,313 $1,894DE 1 $9,321 $1,157 n/a n/a $8,164 n/a $328 $138 $517 $62 $112 n/a n/aFL 58 $9,014 $7,662 $3,294 $1,670 $2,589 $69 $1,397 $225 $365 $281 $401 $4,682 $313GA10 $2,037 $1,752 $926 $2,000 $2,600 n/a $714 $199 $344 $129 n/a n/a $1,336HI 1 $1,836 $1,836 $1,836 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aID 2 $7,834 $3,770 $1,950 $2,212 $5,917 n/a $1,320 n/a $515 $229 n/a n/a $28IL 3 $2,363 $2,363 $1,233 n/a n/a n/a $3,435 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,187 n/aIN 2 $5,324 $2,767 $1,664 n/a $2,558 n/a $1,103 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aKS 3 $5,895 $3,098 $2,421 $4,030 $4,360 $977 $491 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $75LA2 $2,994 $1,919 $1,114 n/a $2,150 $1,609 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMD 10 $16,557 $11,582 $4,486 $4,082 $5,868 n/a $817 $759 $800 $260 n/a $9,772 $350MO 2 $876 $876 $876 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMT 1 $11,803 $4,516 $3,642 $3,850 $3,437 n/a n/a n/a $874 n/a n/a n/a n/aNC 5 $7,022 $3,334 $1,263 $2,014 $2,093 n/a $786 n/a n/a n/a n/a $3,508 n/aNE 1 $4,685 $2,800 $2,466 $1,261 $624 n/a $334 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNH 4 $4,310 $4,310 $2,002 n/a n/a n/a $960 n/a $190 n/a n/a $2,851 n/aNM 8 $5,890 $3,280 $1,944 $2,939 $1,635 $2,148 $1,033 n/a $470 $207 n/a n/a $75NV 4 $3,619 $3,114 $2,146 n/a $2,020 n/a $907 n/a n/a n/a n/a $900 $126OH 2 $6,802 $1,284 n/a $5,650 $5,385 n/a $863 n/a $314 $162 $366 n/a n/aOK 1 $1,347 $647 $647 n/a $700 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aOR 11 $15,550 $9,104 $3,923 $3,899 $3,972 $857 $5,292 n/a n/a n/a n/a $2,000 $508PA1 $2,220 $2,220 $2,220 n/a $1,711 $1,610 $1,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $250SC 3 $6,555 $2,575 $1,342 $2,200 $3,770 n/a $537 $553 $368 $60 n/a n/a $184TN 6 $5,446 $4,115 $1,640 $1,295 $2,697 n/a $547 n/a $129 $28 n/a $1,400 $2,243TX 8 $3,779 $2,062 $1,801 $1,583 $657 n/a $1,652 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aUT 10 $6,518 $4,164 $1,423 $1,806 $1,820 $948 $2,393 n/a $274 $213 n/a n/a $360VA2 $11,989 $1,603 $1,603 $5,792 $5,396 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aVT 2 $8,387 $8,387 $334 n/a n/a n/a $1,116 $862 $416 $84 n/a $6,257 n/aWA 15 $10,996 $7,244 $2,202 $4,139 $4,491 $1,213 $2,441 n/a $643 $171 $134 $3,378 n/aWV 1 $13,070 $13,070 n/a n/a n/a n/a $752 n/a $698 $262 n/a $11,358 n/aWI 4 $4,655 $2,643 $103 $1,231 $1,452 $785 $2,402 $621 $218 $509 n/a n/a n/aState Average Fees (sample size) 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 7 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)153
Multi-Family Unit (2 bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. unit, density of 12 UPA; $100,000 value; 7-2" meters (2 for irrigation) for 240 unit complex)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherAR Benton Bentonville $1,122 $938 $116 $68 $568 $370AR Benton Lowell $1,173 $373 $800 $373AR FaulknerConway$1,218 $1,218 $771 $447AR Washington Fayetteville $1,623 $312 $691 $620 $150 $162AZ Cochise Sierra Vista $3,345 $3,345 $1,076 $1,373 $421 $302 $350AZ Gila Sedona $8,189 $8,189 $1,346 $1,255 $247 $5,073 $268AZ Maricopa Avondale $7,232 $5,091 $1,137 $1,225 $916 $1,970 $272 $742 $257 $713AZ Maricopa Buckeye $2,830 $2,344 $124 $269 $217 $832 $124 $884 $380AZ Maricopa Chandler$10,677 $5,831 $2,446 $2,356 $2,490 $2,865 $58 $263 $125 $74AZ Maricopa Fountain Hills $6,626 $6,626 $3,942 $2,118 $79 $207 $112 $168AZ Maricopa Gilbert $11,818 $5,524 $297 $2,767 $3,527 $3,465 $821 $612 $329AZ Maricopa Glendale $2,245 $1,663 $408 $529 $53 $492 $314 $250 $199AZ Maricopa Goodyear$4,175 $2,977 $575 $737 $461 $898 $132 $1,011 $361AZ Maricopa Mesa $4,728 $1,947 $1,265 $1,516 $195 $802 $332 $230 $388AZ Maricopa Peoria $8,899 $8,134 $5,730 $571 $194 $1,520 $144 $429 $311AZ Maricopa Phoenix$5,098 $1,886 $879 $2,438 $774 $581 $41 $250 $135AZ Maricopa Scottsdale $5,365 $2,754 $2,611AZ Maricopa Surprise $6,869 $5,815 $3,789 $722 $332 $580 $98 $508 $274 $489 $77AZ Maricopa Tempe $1,185 $711 $475AZ Mojave Bullhead City$600 $600AZ Navajo Show Low$1,458 $1,458 $874 $441 $143AZ Pima Pima County$3,900 $3,900 $3,900AZ Pima Marana $9,301 $8,000 $5,529 $544 $757 $2,471AZ Pima Oro Valley$5,463 $1,843 $1,331 $3,620 $336 $176AZ Pima Tucson $4,593 $4,240 $2,150 $353 $860 $360 $499 $371AZ Pinal Apache Junction $6,871 $6,871 $4,440 $1,555 $622 $254AZ Pinal Casa Grande $4,785 $4,313 $2,384 $472 $435 $234 $315 $945AZ Pinal Eloy$1,773 $1,405 $237 $131 $391 $109 $260 $645AZ Pinal Florence $3,690 $2,472 $410 $648 $570 $617 $788 $657AZ Pinal Queen Creek $6,425 $5,882 $415 $543 $2,846 $901 $456 $463 $801AZ Yavapai Yavapai County$3,400 $3,400 $3,400AZ Yavapai Chino Valley$961 $134 $827AZ Yavapai Prescott $4,703 $2,551 $469 $1,606 $546 $715 $253 $525 $589AZ Yuma Yuma $2,053 $2,053 $590 $797 $267 $399CAAlameda Fremont $44,617 $44,617 $3,009 $21,329 $283 $2,446 $17,550CAAlameda Hayward $21,479 $13,113 $960 $1,513 $6,853 $9,653 $2,050 $450CAAlameda Livermore $26,339 $21,825 $6,772 $851 $3,663 $560 $10,225 $1,298 $2,970CAAlameda San Leandro $21,914 $18,674 $1,222 $3,240 $12,892 $3,200 $1,360CAContra Costa Orinda $12,540 $12,540 $3,838 $2,540 $6,162CAEl Dorado El Dorado Co $17,553 $17,553 $14,583$2,970CAFresno Clovis $8,877 $6,494 $3,811 $1,022 $1,361 $1,984 $514 $185CAKern Bakersfield $13,443 $10,898 $6,213 $2,545 $1,716 $2,790 $179CALos Angeles Lancaster $12,162 $12,162 $2,648 $4,659 $3,284 $876 $119 $400 $177CALos Angeles Long Beach $10,543 $10,543 $1,125 $3,563 $378 $537 $4,940CAMontereySalinas $8,818 $4,846 $2,068 $3,972 $936 $1,606 $236CANapa St. Helena $19,250 $12,290 $2,820 $2,810 $4,150 $20 $1,250 $2,730 $2,970 $2,500CAOrange Brea $11,086 $7,835 $1,453 $3,251 $5,611 $731 $40CAPlacerRocklin $10,443 $10,443 $4,100 $116 $2,368 $3,859CASacramento Citrus Heights $6,060 $4,818 $2,013 $1,242 $665 $2,140CASacramento Elk Grove $16,133 $13,075 $5,415 $566 $2,492 $3,063 $479 $1,139 $290 $425 $2,264 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 8 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)154
Multi-Family Unit (2 bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. unit, density of 12 UPA; $100,000 value; 7-2" meters (2 for irrigation) for 240 unit complex)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherCASacramento Sacramento $23,340 $17,462 $5,895 $291 $5,588 $1,060 $4,359 $2,970 $3,178CASan Bernardino Highland $15,406 $15,406 $8,372 $327 $3,348 $825 $242 $332 $1,960CASan Bernardino Redlands $9,608 $9,608 $1,747 $343 $3,151 $538 $700 $1,270 $1,859CASan Bernardino Rialto $11,470 $7,410 $1,958 $872 $3,188 $864 $2,327 $112 $524 $1,031 $594CASan Diego Carlsbad $19,073 $17,212 $1,968 $1,344 $517 $416 $5,025 $3,500 $3,150 $3,154CASan Diego Escondido $21,914 $12,123 $2,675 $4,166 $5,625 $428 $4,129 $4,533 $358CASan Diego San Diego $24,328 $16,501 $1,979 $3,703 $4,124$2,630 $11,892CASan Joaquin Lodi $24,853 $17,049 $4,137 $1,664 $6,140 $1,744 $7,373 $791 $885 $2,120CASan Joaquin Ripon $35,867 $27,376 $4,956 $6,115 $2,376 $555 $8,160 $271 $1,807 $312 $3,063 $3,080 $5,172CASan Luis Obispo Paso Robles $27,943 $19,284 $5,919 $2,759 $5,900 $995 $4,208 $1,013 $774 $87 $3,658 $2,630CASan Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo $25,047 $8,068 $3,068 $13,673 $3,306$5,000CASanta Barbara Carpinteria $24,882 $24,882 $8,583 $829 $11,670 $1,250 $2,050 $500CASanta Barbara Santa Maria $16,200 $11,249 $4,511 $1,533 $3,418 $5,379 $412 $411 $368 $168CASanta Clara Gilroy$32,191 $23,292 $9,572 $2,118 $6,781 $90 $13,630CASanta Clara Palo Alto $12,655 $10,618 $1,852 $788 $1,250 $8,227 $539CASanta Cruz Santa Cruz Co $6,420 $6,420 $4,200 $2,220CASanta Cruz Scotts Valley $16,453 $12,013 $2,881 $4,440 $165 $6,955 $748 $882 $382CAShasta Redding $10,603 $7,842 $3,593 $1,607 $1,153 $438 $3,115 $696CASolano Vacaville $31,702 $21,656 $5,421 $2,987 $7,059 $1,738 $2,894 $105 $595 $418 $2,050 $8,435CASonoma Windsor $29,784 $18,779 $6,462 $1,113 $9,892 $3,036 $6,124 $3,157CAYolo Davis $14,873 $14,873 $4,942 $85 $4,486 $757 $1,823 $2,780CO Adams Adams Co $983 $983 $983CO Adams Commerce City$2,172 $2,172 $726 $174 $1,134 $138CO BoulderBoulder$21,763 $10,870 $1,528 $8,530 $2,363 $3,560 $3,165 $354 $265 $228 $330 $1,210 $230CO Eagle Eagle Co $4,174 $4,174 $3,034 $1,140CO Eagle Basalt $3,910 $1,750 $750 $2,160$1,000CO El Paso Colorado Springs $8,730 $2,222 $5,295 $1,213 $590 $1,264 $368CO Fremont Canon City$304 $304$304CO Jefferson Jefferson Co $2,725 $2,725 $2,725CO La Plata Durango $8,995 $1,893 $1,298 $5,582 $1,520 $300 $295CO LarimerLarimer Co $4,365 $4,365 $2,055 $819 $1,491CO LarimerLoveland $18,631 $13,511 $1,508 $3,370 $1,750 $250 $5,898 $1,132 $678 $881 $968 $946 $1,250CO LarimerFt. Collins $13,637 $9,737 $1,929 $1,490 $2,410 $266 $2,529 $400 $144 $98 $181 $923 $3,267CO Mesa Mesa Co $2,259 $2,259 $1,189 $150 $920CO Pitkin Pitkin Co $12,456 $12,456 $5,025 $5,450 $340 $1,641CO Weld Weld Co $2,158 $2,158 $1,486 $200 $472CO Weld Windsor $8,696 $6,977 $1,483 $1,234 $485 $467 $5,027CO Weld Greeley$3,790 $3,790 $1,082 $202 $2,221 $192 $93DE New Castle New Castle Co $6,025 $762 $5,263 $225 $95 $322 $43 $77FL Alachua Alachua Co $4,706 $4,706 $2,686 $1,260 $760FL Brevard Brevard Co $3,046 $3,046 $38 $53 $2,794 $161FL Brevard Cocoa $4,449 $3,049 $1,400 $38 $34 $2,794 $183FL Brevard Melbourne $3,722 $3,722 $450 $38 $34 $223 $2,794 $183FL Brevard Palm Bay$3,800 $3,800 $524 $38 $233 $28 $2,794 $183FL Brevard Rockledge $3,049 $3,049 $38 $34 $2,794 $183FL Broward Broward Co $6,337 $6,337 $2,471 $638 $3,228FL Broward Ft. Lauderdale $5,103 $5,103 $1,875 $3,228FL Charlotte Charlotte Co $1,287 $1,287 $1,287FL Citrus Citrus Co $4,168 $4,168 $1,137 $425 $179 $296 $218 $198 $1,715 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 9 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)155
Multi-Family Unit (2 bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. unit, density of 12 UPA; $100,000 value; 7-2" meters (2 for irrigation) for 240 unit complex)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL ClayClay Co $3,236 $3,236$3,236FL CollierCollier Co $13,608 $9,304 $4,314 $2,147 $2,157 $1,685 $160 $640 $193 $388 $1,672 $252FL Columbia Columbia CoFL Dade Miami/Dade Co $6,712 $6,712 $2,597 $1,696 $386 $503 $1,530FL Dade Miami $7,299 $7,299 $2,597 $3,959 $409 $95 $239FL DeSoto DeSoto CoFL FlaglerFlagler Co $2,599 $2,599 $1,400 $268 $931FL FlaglerPalm Coast $5,965 $4,985 $2,527 $567 $413 $1,322 $205 $931FL Gilchrist Gilchrist Co $3,500 $3,500 $1,750$1,000 $750FL Glades Glades CoFL Hardee Hardee CoFL HendryHendry CoFL Hernando Hernando CoFL Highlands Highlands CoFL Hillsborough Hillsborough Co $6,249 $4,094 $1,022 $825 $1,330 $230 $49 $2,793FL Hillsborough Plant City $8,202 $5,834 $1,290 $184 $2,184 $503 $486 $308 $454 $2,793FL Hillsborough Tampa $3,608 $3,608 $815$2,793FL Indian RiverIndian River Co $4,381 $4,381 $2,428 $844 $285 $176 $148 $500FL Lake Lake Co $561 $561 $171 $146 $244FL Lake Eustis $3,764 $842 $708 $2,214 $428 $210 $105 $99FL Lee Lee Co $7,364 $7,364 $4,659 $1,089 $393 $1,223FL Lee Bonita Springs $8,292 $8,292 $6,116 $588 $365 $1,223FL Lee Cape Coral $8,968 $5,892 $2,347 $1,046 $2,030 $1,115 $610 $597 $1,223FL Lee Ft. Myers $9,579 $6,160 $4,659 $1,734 $1,685 $278 $1,223FL LevyLevy Co $1,327 $1,327 $734 $124 $53 $416FL Manatee Manatee Co $2,830 $2,830 $1,627 $702 $181 $320FL Marion Marion CoFL Martin Martin Co $13,502 $13,502 $4,047 $2,856 $495 $342 $407 $5,355FL Monroe Monroe Co $1,331 $1,331 $430 $340 $242 $105 $150 $64FL Nassau Nassau Co $3,726 $3,726$3,726FL Okaloosa Destin $1,479 $1,479 $1,016 $335 $112 $16FL Orange Orange Co. $6,879 $6,879 $2,011 $752 $146 $49 $3,921FL Orange Ocoee $13,137 $7,332 $2,062 $1,463 $4,342 $780 $318 $251 $3,921FL Orange Orlando $7,802 $5,874 $1,953 $1,928$3,921FL Orange Winter Garden $7,537 $6,989 $2,470 $253 $295 $598 $3,921FL Osceola Osceola Co $10,675 $10,675 $4,126 $679 $165 $5,705FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Co $7,614 $7,614 $3,375 $1,778 $123 $248 $46 $113 $1,931FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Gardens $10,324 $10,324 $4,610 $2,858 $123 $298 $391 $113 $1,931FL Pasco Pasco Co $9,814 $7,700 $5,845 $769 $1,345$1,855FL Pinellas Pinellas Co $1,596 $1,420 $1,420 $176FL Polk Polk Co $1,571 $1,571$1,571FL Polk Lakeland $6,663 $6,663 $2,261 $2,123 $263 $445 $1,571FL Putnam Putnam CoFL Santa Rosa Santa Rosa CoFL St Johns St. Johns Co $8,259 $8,259 $3,470 $363 $531 $64 $435 $3,396FL St Lucie St. Lucie Co $8,293 $8,293 $3,298 $1,308 $135 $108 $176 $288 $2,980FL Sarasota Sarasota Co $8,895 $5,569 $2,209 $1,904 $1,422 $1,794 $291 $259 $149 $259 $608FL Sarasota North Port $942 $942 $329 $291 $122 $115 $85FL Seminole Seminole Co $3,011 $3,011 $685 $54 $172 $2,100 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 10 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)156
Multi-Family Unit (2 bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. unit, density of 12 UPA; $100,000 value; 7-2" meters (2 for irrigation) for 240 unit complex)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL Seminole Altamonte Springs $3,482 $3,482 $692 $259 $91 $172 $168 $2,100FL Seminole Winter Springs $6,979 $6,979 $2,224 $1,200 $700 $356 $400 $2,100FL SumterSumter Co $2,176 $2,176 $1,779 $397FL Volusia Volusia Co $6,065 $6,065$6,065FL Volusia Daytona Beach $9,232 $7,068 $931 $1,233 $1,003 $6,065FL Volusia Deland $6,065 $6,065$6,065FL Volusia Deltona $11,701 $7,857 $774 $1,143 $2,701 $839 $116 $63 $6,065FL Volusia Ormond Beach $7,488 $6,592 $90 $333 $563 $21 $416 $6,065FL Volusia Port Orange $11,055 $7,960 $665 $1,555 $1,540 $1,100 $130 $6,065GACherokee Canton $1,673 $1,673 $906 $527 $193 $47GACherokee Cherokee Co $1,775 $1,775 $413 $284 $281 $537 $260GAEffingham Effingham Co $3,038 $1,322 $1,716GAForsyth Forsyth Co $515 $515 $343 $58 $114GAFulton Alpharetta $1,722 $1,722 $1,123 $396 $203GAFulton Atlanta $857 $857 $470 $285 $79 $23GAFulton Roswell $1,775 $1,775 $110 $1,303 $362GAHall Hall Co $1,242 $1,242$1,242GAHenryHenry Co $1,662 $1,662$1,662GAHenryMcDonough $1,105 $1,105$1,105HI Honolulu Honolulu $1,245 $1,245 $1,245ID Ada Boise $3,735 $3,735 $1,870 $1,199 $515 $151ID Kootenai Post Falls $7,206 $2,200 $721 $347 $4,659 $1,171 $280 $28IL DeKalb DeKalb (city) $2,108 $2,108 $1,907 $201IL DuPage DuPage County$564 $564 $564IL Kane Kane County$1,131 $1,131 $1,131IN Hamilton Fishers $4,269 $2,589 $1,572 $1,680 $1,017IN Hamilton Noblesville $4,420 $1,705 $739 $2,715 $966KS Johnson Lenexa $2,285 $2,285 $1,038 $711 $461 $75KS Johnson Olathe $6,929 $1,344 $824 $2,685 $2,900 $520KS Johnson Overland Park$780 $780 $780LAE Baton Rouge Baton Rouge $1,845 $660 $660 $1,185LASt TammanySt Tammany Parish $1,487 $1,487 $902 $585MD Anne Arundel Anne Arundel Co $11,935 $8,692 $3,041 $1,470 $1,773 $204 $5,447MD CalvertCalvert Co $9,710 $7,750 $3,500 $700 $1,260 $1,300 $2,600 $350MD Carroll Carroll Co $2,787 $2,787 $530 $2,257MD Charles Charles Co $10,774 $8,730 $931 $1,113$8,730MD Frederick Frederick Co $5,575 $2,845 $1,140 $1,590 $477 $2,368MD Harford Harford Co $1,200 $1,200$1,200MD Howard Howard Co $1,080 $1,080 $1,080MD MontgomeryMontgomery Co $21,300 $19,264 $7,906 $896 $1,140$11,358MD Queen Anne's Queen Anne's Co $4,250 $4,250 $380 $400 $3,470MD St. Mary's St. Mary's Co $4,500 $4,500 $450 $675 $3,375MO Clay/Jackson Kansas City $435 $435 $435MO Jackson Lee's Summit $639 $639 $639MT Gallatin Bozeman $4,459 $2,988 $2,254 $898 $573 $734 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 11 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)157
Multi-Family Unit (2 bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. unit, density of 12 UPA; $100,000 value; 7-2" meters (2 for irrigation) for 240 unit complex)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNC Chatham Chatham Co. $1,417 $950 $467$950NC Durham Durham $2,410 $1,956 $288 $302 $152 $513 $1,155NC Orange Orange Co. $6,148 $1,743 $1,321 $3,084$1,743NC Wake Cary$4,241 $762 $762 $1,164 $2,315NC Wake Raleigh $4,280 $1,900 $1,054 $1,605 $775 $846NE Lancaster Lincoln $1,966 $1,701 $1,501 $196 $69 $200NH Hillsborough Manchester $1,315 $1,315$146 $1,169NH Merrimack Concord $2,911 $2,911 $1,376 $613 $922NH Rockingham Salem $2,923 $2,923NH Rockingham Fremont $2,438 $2,438$2,438NM Bernalillo Albuquerque $2,290 $1,630 $760 $430 $230 $161 $605 $104NM Bernalillo Bernalillo Co $2,381 $2,381 $919 $417 $716 $248 $80NM Dona Ana Las Cruces $1,618 $1,266 $243 $109 $800 $466NM Lincoln Ruidoso $1,239 $896 $343NM Sandoval Rio Rancho $5,303 $4,158 $1,887 $762 $383 $1,191 $832 $225 $23NM Santa Fe Santa Fe $896 $335 $561NM Santa Fe Santa Fe County $275 $275$275NM Valencia Los Lunas $1,260 $850 $189 $221 $850NV Churchill Churchill County$4,200 $4,200 $2,300 $1,000 $900NV Clark Las Vegas $2,957 $1,341 $935 $1,616 $360 $46NV Clark Mesquite $1,053 $1,053 $1,007$46NV Washoe Reno $3,845 $3,845 $2,845 $1,000OH ButlerMiddletown $500 $500 $500OH Delaware Delaware (city) $3,511 $1,295 $1,318 $898 $767 $197 $101 $230OK Cleveland Moore $1,347 $647 $647 $700OR Clackamas Clackamas Co. $11,561 $10,413 $3,847 $48 $1,100 $5,566 $1,000OR Clackamas West Linn $15,491 $12,290 $4,181 $2,048 $1,153 $503 $7,294 $312OR Deschutes Bend $13,413 $7,525 $2,813 $3,616 $2,272 $4,712OR Josephine Grants Pass $5,635 $2,421 $1,298 $1,607 $1,607 $1,123OR Lane Eugene $5,786 $3,752 $1,030 $2,034 $346 $2,376OR Lane Springfield $3,818 $2,177 $1,667 $1,641 $510OR Marion Salem $5,050 $4,123 $1,372 $541 $386 $302 $2,449OR Marion Silverton $9,057 $7,767 $2,178 $772 $518 $2,072 $3,517OR Multnomah Portland $11,286 $7,399 $1,984 $419 $3,468 $328 $5,087OR Washington Tigard $10,026 $8,228 $4,325 $1,798 $3,903OR Washington Washington Co $8,557 $4,825 $4,325 $3,732 $500PAMontgomeryTowamencin Twp $1,362 $1,362 $1,362 $1,425 $583 $1,000 $250SC Beaufort Beaufort Co $2,392 $2,392 $791 $627 $553 $421SC Beaufort Hilton Head $7,911 $2,471 $1,291 $2,400 $3,040 $627 $553SC BerkeleyMt. Pleasant $2,599 $1,382 $664 $467 $750 $358 $231 $69 $60 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 12 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)158
Multi-Family Unit (2 bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. unit, density of 12 UPA; $100,000 value; 7-2" meters (2 for irrigation) for 240 unit complex)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherTN Rutherford La Vergne $4,751 $2,289 $543 $587 $1,875 $246 $1,500TN Rutherford Smyrna $2,660 $2,660 $521 $458 $181 $1,500TN SumnerPortland $1,931 $1,931 $907 $700 $324TN SumnerWhite House $779 $779 $26 $25 $12 $17 $700TN Williamson Franklin $8,552 $4,046 $2,336 $1,671 $2,835$1,710TN Williamson Nolensville $4,043 $4,043 $2,043$2,000TX Brazos College Station $2,492 $1,646 $578 $269 $1,646TX Collin Allen $763 $400 $400 $280 $83TX Collin McKinney$4,260 $3,985 $3,985 $252 $23TX Denton Denton $1,151 $863 $288TX Tarrant Arlington $2,112 $1,953 $670 $107 $52 $1,283TX Tarrant Colleyville $2,030 $1,342 $1,342 $581 $107TX Tarrant Ft. Worth $1,461 $1,228 $202 $31TX Williamson Georgetown $726 $517 $209UT Cache Logan $1,202 $986 $461 $60 $156 $37 $100 $28 $360UT Davis Layton $6,781 $6,532 $1,508 $249 $3,252 $1,381 $391UT Salt Lake Draper$6,085 $5,003 $1,202 $1,082 $1,161 $2,463 $107 $70UT Salt Lake Salt Lake City $1,743 $1,743 $125 $681 $485 $452UT Salt Lake Sandy City$2,835 $2,349 $357 $129 $378 $1,841 $92 $38UT Salt Lake West Jordan City $8,230 $3,612 $1,523 $2,688 $1,930 $509 $1,301 $196 $83UT Salt Lake West Valley City $2,181 $2,181 $514 $181 $1,379 $62 $45UT Tooele Tooele $3,361 $1,456 $1,523 $382 $1,250 $206UT Utah Payson $2,798 $2,405 $151 $242 $2,000 $405UT Utah Provo $4,381 $3,999 $657 $177 $205 $556 $2,786VALoudoun Leesburg $9,596 $3,744 $5,852VAStafford Stafford Co $3,588 $1,395 $1,395 $1,610 $583VT Chittenden Burlington $2,459 $2,459 $182 $696 $431 $208 $42 $900VT Chittenden Williston $4,412 $4,412 $186 $667 $3,559WA Clark Vancouver$5,680 $4,814 $1,249 $866 $1,523 $2,042WA Cowlitz Woodland $3,432 $2,907 $280 $245 $831 $1,426 $650WA King King Co $2,602 $2,602 $737$1,865WA King Bellevue $907 $907 $907WA King Bothell $5,624 $4,658 $2,983 $694 $272 $913 $762WA King Issaquqh $6,623 $6,623 $1,057 $4,408 $944 $142 $72WA King Kirkland $10,415 $6,328 $2,242 $2,131 $1,956 $185 $2,515 $1,386WA Kitsap Kitsap Co $1,397 $1,397 $420 $294 $683WA Pierce Pierce Co $2,811 $2,811 $1,046 $180 $1,585WA Skagit Anacortes $6,359 $2,780 $900 $2,341 $1,238 $1,265 $615WA Skagit Burlington $4,783 $2,280 $1,126 $2,503 $275 $625 $254WA Snohomish Snohomish Co $4,214 $4,214 $1,663 $376 $2,175WA Thurston Olympia $5,267 $5,267 $1,982 $3,050 $235WA Thurston Tumwater$5,503 $4,785 $1,836 $718 $2,413 $101 $435WA Whatcom Bellingham $8,229 $6,315 $1,185 $641 $1,273 $452 $3,524 $1,154WV Jefferson Jefferson Co $7,594 $7,594 $566 $525 $197 $6,306WI Dane Fitchburg $4,457 $4,457 $4,457WI Jefferson Oconomowoc$2,438 $1,661 $103 $205 $572 $1,310 $133 $115WI Ozaukee Cedarburg $3,302 $1,699 $1,230 $373 $661 $484 $554WI St CroixHudson $1,928 $622 $941 $365 $366 $256 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 13 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)159
Multi-Family Unit (2 bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. unit, density of 12 UPA; $100,000 value; 7-2" meters (2 for irrigation) for 240 unit complex)SummaryTotal Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNational Average $6,718 $5,359 $2,202 $1,440 $1,771 $790 $2,086 $305 $376 $295 $1,285 $2,494 $1,676Sample Size 271 260 207 128 138 61 187 58 116 90 49 105 51National Avg w/o CA$4,807 $3,822 $1,760 $1,212 $1,276 $632 $1,378 $260 $333 $236 $356 $2,455 $674Sample Size w/o CA234 223 170 107 113 38 156 49 101 76 28 88 34AR $1,284 $710 $771 $404 $496 n/a $508 n/a $298 $162 n/a n/a n/aAZ $4,975 $4,145 $1,985 $1,204 $933 $221 $1,461 $253 $485 $332 $434 n/a $511CA$18,807 $14,618 $4,236 $2,607 $4,011 $1,051 $5,647 $549 $665 $617 $2,523 $2,692 $3,682CO $7,044 $4,844 $1,787 $3,952 $1,624 $714 $2,542 $629 $454 $325 $488 $737 $1,478DE $6,025 $762 n/a n/a $5,263 n/a $225 $95 $322 $43 $77 n/a n/aFL $5,948 $5,181 $2,325 $1,008 $1,711 $21 $1,015 $172 $261 $220 $312 $2,908 $227GA$1,536 $1,370 $604 $1,322 $1,716 n/a $523 $170 $248 $110 n/a n/a $1,336HI $1,245 $1,245 $1,245 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aID $5,471 $2,968 $1,296 $347 $4,659 n/a $1,185 n/a $515 $216 n/a n/a $28IL $1,268 $1,268 $848 n/a n/a n/a $1,907 n/a n/a n/a n/a $201 n/aIN $4,344 $2,147 $1,155 n/a $2,198 n/a $992 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aKS $3,331 $1,470 $881 $2,685 $2,900 $711 $491 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $75LA$1,666 $1,074 $781 n/a $1,185 $585 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMD $7,311 $6,110 $3,195 $1,027 $1,375 n/a $721 $477 $400 $204 n/a $4,534 $350MO $537 $537 $537 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMT $4,459 $2,988 $2,254 $898 $573 n/a n/a n/a $734 n/a n/a n/a n/aNC $3,699 $1,462 $701 $972 $1,582 n/a $680 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,283 n/aNE $1,966 $1,701 $1,501 $196 $69 n/a $200 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNH $2,397 $2,397 $1,376 n/a n/a n/a $613 n/a $146 n/a n/a $1,510 n/aNM $1,908 $1,760 $1,189 $476 $308 $590 $761 n/a $304 $104 n/a n/a $52NV $3,014 $2,610 $1,772 n/a $1,616 n/a $787 n/a n/a n/a n/a $900 $46OH $2,006 $898 n/a $1,318 $898 n/a $634 n/a $197 $101 $230 n/a n/aOK $1,347 $647 $647 n/a $700 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aOR $9,062 $6,447 $2,638 $1,356 $1,791 $651 $4,003 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,000 $312PA$1,362 $1,362 $1,362 n/a $1,425 $583 $1,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $250SC $4,301 $2,082 $915 $1,434 $1,895 n/a $537 $553 $326 $69 n/a n/a $60TN $3,786 $2,625 $1,094 $1,129 $2,355 n/a $409 n/a $96 $17 n/a $700 $1,407TX $1,874 $1,865 $1,525 $422 $133 n/a $1,465 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aUT $3,960 $3,026 $977 $786 $507 $775 $1,676 n/a $205 $166 n/a n/a $360VA$6,592 $1,395 $1,395 $2,677 $3,218 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aVT $3,436 $3,436 $184 n/a n/a n/a $682 $431 $208 $42 n/a $2,230 n/aWA $4,923 $3,913 $1,381 $1,159 $1,172 $618 $1,624 n/a $681 $142 $72 $1,221 n/aWV $7,594 $7,594 n/a n/a n/a n/a $566 n/a $525 $197 n/a $6,306 n/aWI $3,031 $2,110 $103 $792 $437 $366 $2,143 $370 $133 $335 n/a n/a n/aState Average Fees 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 14 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)160
Retail per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. shopping center; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherAR Benton Bentonville $528 $180 $191 $156 $180AR Benton Lowell $504 $455 $49 $455AR FaulknerConway$1,915 $1,915 $1,915AR Washington Fayetteville $976 $681 $155 $140 $293 $388AZ Cochise Sierra Vista $3,130 $3,130 $2,440 $210 $210AZ Gila Sedona $8,535 $7,330 $6,830 $1,205 $500AZ Maricopa Avondale $7,627 $6,470 $3,960 $562 $595 $607 $1,153 $750AZ Maricopa Buckeye $3,736 $3,107 $1,137 $295 $334 $1,378 $592AZ Maricopa Chandler$9,991 $8,140 $7,390 $981 $870 $430 $200 $120AZ Maricopa Fountain Hills $4,139 $4,139 $3,835 $129 $70 $105AZ Maricopa Gilbert $4,525 $2,562 $1,593 $1,024 $939 $438 $327 $204AZ Maricopa Glendale $3,089 $2,660 $2,156 $376 $53 $200 $304AZ Maricopa Goodyear$4,235 $3,150 $2,240 $583 $502 $510 $400AZ Maricopa Mesa $1,552 $771 $355 $425 $238 $215 $318AZ Maricopa Peoria $20,100 $19,526 $18,490 $390 $184 $602 $434AZ Maricopa Phoenix$3,410 $2,404 $1,948 $767 $239 $148 $29 $181 $98AZ Maricopa Scottsdale $1,350 $708 $642AZ Maricopa Surprise $12,323 $11,501 $9,570 $500 $322 $604 $428 $493 $406AZ Maricopa Tempe $825 $426 $399AZ Mojave Bullhead City$116 $116AZ Navajo Show Low$609 $609AZ Pima Pima County$2,116 $2,116 $2,116AZ Pima Marana $1,100 $373 $727AZ Pima Oro Valley$5,243 $3,527 $3,436 $1,716 $91AZ Pima Tucson $5,751 $5,509 $4,282 $242 $269 $699 $259AZ Pinal Apache Junction $14,960 $14,960 $13,220$1,740AZ Pinal Casa Grande $8,518 $8,061 $6,912 $457 $442 $375 $332AZ Pinal Eloy$1,296 $972 $183 $141 $375 $597AZ Pinal Florence $4,378 $3,585 $2,618 $356 $438 $167 $629 $171AZ Pinal Queen Creek $5,430 $4,903 $3,063 $527 $869 $180 $791AZ Yavapai Yavapai CountyAZ Yavapai Chino Valley$1,461 $84 $1,377AZ Yavapai Prescott $2,177 $1,653 $524AZ Yuma Yuma $2,087 $2,087 $986 $152 $949CAAlameda Fremont $9,769 $9,769 $8,700 $146 $923CAAlameda Hayward $6,589 $6,589 $3,960 $1,037 $1,232$360CAAlameda Livermore $28,226 $28,226 $22,958 $583 $1,060 $560 $1,690 $5 $470 $900CAAlameda San Leandro $5,043 $5,043 $3,790 $623$510 $120CAContra Costa Orinda $5,130 $5,130 $2,590 $2,540CAEl Dorado El Dorado Co $9,258 $9,258 $8,788$470CAFresno Clovis $10,646 $8,639 $6,999 $701 $1,306 $830 $625 $185CAKern Bakersfield $9,081 $8,441 $7,643 $640$470 $328CALos Angeles Lancaster $3,443 $3,443 $1,760 $760 $876 $47CALos Angeles Long Beach $4,179 $4,179 $3,000 $267 $442 $470CAMontereySalinas $15,441 $14,736 $13,354 $705 $909$472CANapa St. Helena $64,570 $45,370 $36,870 $10,690 $8,510 $20 $1,250 $1,680 $470 $5,080CAOrange Brea $4,825 $2,596 $2,350 $2,229 $191 $55CAPlacerRocklin $11,233 $11,233 $9,727 $106 $1,400CASacramento Citrus Heights $10,637 $9,445 $8,155 $1,192 $180 $340 $770CASacramento Elk Grove $16,216 $12,340 $9,030 $388 $3,488 $840 $1,500 $80 $120 $770 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 15 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)161
Retail per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. shopping center; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherCASacramento Sacramento $26,430 $24,957 $13,621 $280 $1,192 $2,840 $390 $470 $7,636CASan Bernardino Highland $12,471 $12,471 $11,779 $170 $182 $121 $219CASan Bernardino Redlands $12,714 $12,714 $11,164 $170 $110 $500 $310 $460CASan Bernardino Rialto $9,525 $8,221 $6,500 $564 $740 $1,105 $140 $238 $112 $126CASan Diego Carlsbad $11,661 $10,352 $5,668 $813 $496 $763 $3,500 $420CASan Diego Escondido $8,653 $6,490 $3,360 $883 $1,280 $700 $2,130 $300CASan Diego San Diego $16,100 $14,537 $13,183 $903 $660 $294 $420 $640CASan Joaquin Lodi $16,091 $14,549 $5,182 $560 $982 $4,259 $1,548 $905 $1,418 $1,237CASan Joaquin Ripon $28,327 $20,994 $13,562 $2,800 $4,533 $2,333 $1,200 $1,536 $200 $1,277 $470 $416CASan Luis Obispo Paso Robles $12,449 $10,020 $7,620 $1,775 $654 $1,380 $550 $50 $420CASan Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo $20,274 $17,282 $7,282 $2,393 $599$10,000CASanta Barbara Carpinteria $41,839 $41,839 $37,430 $1,714 $2,060 $260 $330 $45CASanta Barbara Santa Maria $12,044 $9,080 $8,306 $1,612 $1,352 $24 $155 $59 $368 $168CASanta Clara Gilroy$27,216 $22,412 $19,687 $838 $3,966 $285 $2,440CASanta Clara Palo Alto $35,013 $33,813 $11,142 $1,200 $4,473 $228 $17,970CASanta Cruz Santa Cruz Co $27,984 $27,984 $25,764 $2,220CASanta Cruz Scotts Valley $14,052 $14,052 $9,650 $982 $165 $3,101 $154CAShasta Redding $16,037 $16,037 $12,669 $1,102 $1,107 $559 $600CASolano Vacaville $12,772 $12,772 $4,728 $1,773 $1,760 $1,502 $188 $1,270 $379 $330 $841CASonoma Windsor $15,140 $15,140 $8,790 $716 $2,277 $2,453 $903CAYolo Davis $23,559 $23,559 $20,239 $118 $856 $1,078 $928 $340CO Adams Adams Co $2,131 $2,131 $2,131CO Adams Commerce City$4,808 $4,808 $3,229 $319 $1,260CO BoulderBoulder$9,408 $6,260 $2,480 $2,487 $662 $2,340 $360 $450 $130 $500CO Eagle Eagle Co $9,652 $9,652 $9,026 $626CO Eagle Basalt $2,690 $2,000 $1,000 $690$1,000CO El Paso Colorado Springs $3,552 $1,084 $2,044 $424 $1,084CO Fremont Canon City$152 $152$152CO Jefferson Jefferson Co $7,120 $7,120 $7,120CO La Plata Durango $4,534 $3,810 $3,810 $558 $166CO LarimerLarimer Co $7,728 $7,728 $7,728CO LarimerLoveland $6,552 $6,552 $5,020 $452 $290 $380 $410CO LarimerFt. Collins $13,590 $10,484 $9,120 $1,653 $1,453 $782 $207 $144 $231CO Mesa Mesa Co $2,647 $2,647 $2,647CO Pitkin Pitkin Co $40,045 $40,045 $10,710 $4,100 $25,235CO Weld Weld Co $3,954 $3,954 $3,146 $200 $608CO Weld Windsor $6,085 $4,640 $3,476 $932 $513 $1,164CO Weld Greeley$7,458 $7,458 $6,491 $298 $499 $170DE New Castle New Castle Co $1,603 $297 $1,306 $169 $33 $95FL Alachua Alachua Co $9,734 $9,734 $8,974 $760FL Brevard Brevard Co $367 $367$207 $160FL Brevard Cocoa $526 $246 $280 $86 $160FL Brevard Melbourne $914 $914$86 $668 $160FL Brevard Palm Bay$517 $517$291 $66 $160FL Brevard Rockledge $246 $246$86 $160FL Broward Broward Co $15,152 $15,152 $15,152FL Broward Ft. LauderdaleFL Charlotte Charlotte Co $2,287 $2,287 $2,287FL Citrus Citrus Co $2,882 $2,882 $1,787 $455 $335 $305 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 16 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)162
Retail per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. shopping center; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL ClayClay CoFL CollierCollier Co $13,887 $12,859 $10,247 $513 $515 $743 $389 $883 $597FL Columbia Columbia CoFL Dade Miami/Dade Co $8,606 $8,606 $7,844 $413 $349FL Dade Miami $8,775 $8,775 $7,844 $227 $609 $95FL DeSoto DeSoto CoFL FlaglerFlagler Co $1,997 $1,997 $1,997FL FlaglerPalm Coast $6,647 $5,861 $5,602 $389 $397 $259FL Gilchrist Gilchrist Co $560 $560 $500$60FL Glades Glades CoFL Hardee Hardee CoFL HendryHendry CoFL Hernando Hernando CoFL Highlands Highlands CoFL Hillsborough Hillsborough Co $3,942 $3,374 $3,352 $264 $304 $22FL Hillsborough Plant City $3,218 $2,601 $1,562 $119 $499 $533 $506FL Hillsborough Tampa $3,797 $3,797 $3,797FL Indian RiverIndian River Co $4,107 $4,107 $3,163 $503 $441FL Lake Lake Co $1,301 $1,301$1,301FL Lake Eustis $2,101 $941 $280 $880 $485 $456FL Lee Lee Co $8,550 $8,550 $7,933 $617FL Lee Bonita Springs $12,733 $12,733 $12,160 $573FL Lee Cape Coral $6,735 $6,035 $5,709 $243 $458 $162 $163FL Lee Ft. Myers $9,060 $8,370 $7,933 $354 $335 $437FL LevyLevy Co $1,790 $1,790 $1,710 $80FL Manatee Manatee Co $7,796 $7,796 $7,152 $128 $516FL Marion Marion CoFL Martin Martin Co $6,177 $6,177 $4,324 $520 $619 $714FL Monroe Monroe Co $3,398 $3,398 $1,168 $64 $112 $2,054FL Nassau Nassau CoFL Okaloosa Destin $1,800 $1,800 $1,752$48FL Orange Orange Co. $11,019 $11,019 $10,585 $186 $249FL Orange Ocoee $7,574 $5,246 $4,846 $587 $1,741 $235 $165FL Orange Orlando $9,659 $9,253 $9,253 $406FL Orange Winter Garden $9,183 $8,755 $7,645 $163 $265 $610 $500FL Osceola Osceola Co $300 $300$300FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Co $6,767 $6,767 $6,256 $226 $71 $214FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Gardens $8,930 $8,930 $8,257 $214 $245 $214FL Pasco Pasco Co $7,695 $7,051 $7,051 $234 $410FL Pinellas Pinellas Co $3,683 $3,627 $3,627 $56FL Polk Polk CoFL Polk Lakeland $7,996 $7,996 $6,754 $461 $781FL Putnam Putnam CoFL Santa Rosa Santa Rosa CoFL St Johns St. Johns Co $5,062 $5,062 $3,678 $119 $163 $1,102FL St Lucie St. Lucie Co $6,323 $6,323 $5,011 $495 $335 $482FL Sarasota Sarasota Co $8,784 $7,834 $5,660 $544 $406 $442 $254 $441 $1,037FL Sarasota North Port $666 $666$252 $238 $176FL Seminole Seminole Co $2,901 $2,901 $2,741 $160 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 17 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)163
Retail per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. shopping center; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL Seminole Altamonte Springs $4,397 $4,397 $3,744 $160 $493FL Seminole Winter Springs $6,679 $6,679 $4,298 $1,264 $355 $762FL SumterSumter Co $4,147 $4,147 $3,637 $510FL Volusia Volusia Co $3,080 $3,080 $3,080FL Volusia Daytona Beach $5,165 $5,165 $3,080 $359 $610 $1,116FL Volusia Deland $3,080 $3,080 $3,080FL Volusia Deltona $7,053 $5,227 $5,227 $543 $1,283FL Volusia Ormond Beach $4,227 $3,595 $3,519 $320 $312 $76FL Volusia Port Orange $5,270 $4,775 $4,575 $249 $246 $200GACherokee Canton $2,644 $2,644 $2,256 $173 $173 $43GACherokee Cherokee Co $1,338 $1,338 $845 $325 $168GAEffingham Effingham Co $501 $213 $288GAForsyth Forsyth Co $216 $216$216GAFulton Alpharetta $4,424 $4,424 $4,166 $14 $244GAFulton Atlanta $1,983 $1,983 $1,189 $584 $163 $47GAFulton Roswell $736 $736 $426 $310GAHall Hall Co $86 $86$86GAHenryHenry Co $361 $361$361GAHenryMcDonough $344 $344$344HI Honolulu Honolulu $4,053 $4,053 $4,053ID Ada Boise $6,960 $6,960 $6,690 $210 $60ID Kootenai Post Falls $3,282 $2,114 $1,450 $221 $947 $650 $14IL DeKalb DeKalb (city)IL DuPage DuPage County$916 $916 $916IL Kane Kane County$4,413 $4,413 $4,413IN Hamilton Fishers $8,689 $7,121 $7,121 $1,568IN Hamilton Noblesville $5,158 $4,723 $4,723 $434KS Johnson Lenexa $4,484 $4,484 $3,013 $1,184 $121 $165KS Johnson Olathe $3,206 $1,947 $1,817 $605 $654 $130KS Johnson Overland Park$1,433 $1,433 $1,433LAE Baton Rouge Baton Rouge $1,652 $1,044 $1,044 $608LASt TammanySt Tammany Parish $3,003 $3,003 $1,833 $1,170MD Anne Arundel Anne Arundel Co $10,194 $7,970 $7,032 $1,008 $1,216 $938MD CalvertCalvert Co $1,454 $110 $480 $864$110MD Carroll Carroll CoMD Charles Charles Co $1,706 $638 $1,068MD Frederick Frederick Co $1,872 $781 $1,091MD Harford Harford CoMD Howard Howard Co $1,080 $1,080 $1,080MD MontgomeryMontgomery Co $10,962 $10,150 $10,150 $352 $460MD Queen Anne's Queen Anne's Co $1,050 $1,050$1,050MD St. Mary's St. Mary's CoMO Clay/Jackson Kansas City $1,458 $1,458 $1,458MO Jackson Lee's Summit $1,913 $1,913 $1,913MT Gallatin Bozeman $7,663 $6,498 $6,298 $616 $549 $200 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 18 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)164
Retail per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. shopping center; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNC Chatham Chatham Co. $300 $300NC Durham Durham $3,833 $3,450 $3,450 $223 $160NC Orange Orange Co. $1,553 $574 $979NC Wake Cary$2,051 $1,341 $1,341 $235 $475NC Wake Raleigh $4,160 $2,561 $2,561 $854 $744NE Lancaster Lincoln $3,461 $3,260 $3,260 $134 $67NH Hillsborough ManchesterNH Merrimack Concord $3,470 $3,470 $3,470NH Rockingham Salem $570 $570$570NH Rockingham FremontNM Bernalillo Albuquerque $2,814 $2,297 $1,804 $295 $222 $323 $171NM Bernalillo Bernalillo Co $1,115 $1,115 $564 $383 $168NM Dona Ana Las Cruces $1,031 $182 $114 $735NM Lincoln Ruidoso $943 $614 $329NM Sandoval Rio Rancho $7,320 $6,430 $4,196 $522 $368 $1,430 $755 $49NM Santa Fe Santa Fe $5,350 $4,896 $4,597 $314 $140 $221 $78NM Santa Fe Santa Fe County $460 $460$460NM Valencia Los Lunas $375 $146 $229NV Churchill Churchill CountyNV Clark Las Vegas $1,414 $1,091 $1,007 $323$84NV Clark Mesquite $1,068 $1,068 $984$84NV Washoe Reno $7,611 $7,611 $7,611OH ButlerMiddletownOH Delaware Delaware (city) $2,960 $1,194 $904 $862 $389 $456 $349OK Cleveland Moore $250 $250 $250OR Clackamas Clackamas Co. $1,306 varies $1,056$250OR Clackamas West Linn $21,260 $19,066 $17,100 $1,404 $790 $690$1,276OR Deschutes Bend $9,735 $8,999 $8,999 $452 $284OR Josephine Grants Pass $8,218 $7,414 $7,414 $402 $402OR Lane Eugene $7,071 $6,730 $5,982 $341 $384 $364OR Lane Springfield $8,329 $7,763 $6,597 $566 $1,166OR Marion Salem $9,839 $9,069 $8,767 $385 $385 $302OR Marion Silverton $2,388 $1,360 $530 $498 $1,360OR Multnomah Portland $7,533 $6,570 $5,900 $269 $694 $328 $342OR Washington Tigard $10,062 $9,302 $8,968 $760 $334OR Washington Washington Co $10,214 $9,468 $8,968 $746 $500PAMontgomeryTowamencin Twp $5,109 $5,109 $5,109 $342 $161 $500 $300SC Beaufort Beaufort Co $2,374 $2,374 $2,319 $55SC Beaufort Hilton Head $6,506 $5,636 $5,636 $384 $486SC BerkeleyMt. Pleasant $4,187 $3,280 $2,840 $187 $720 $190 $120 $130 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 19 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)165
Retail per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. shopping center; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherTN Rutherford La Vergne $1,318 $942 $942 $80 $296TN Rutherford Smyrna $1,261 $1,261 $711 $550TN SumnerPortland$400TN SumnerWhite House $289 $289 $155 $53 $81TN Williamson Franklin $8,593 $7,016 $4,836 $585 $992$2,180TN Williamson Nolensville $2,849 $2,849 $849$2,000TX Brazos College Station $180 $123 $57TX Collin Allen $1,772 $1,500 $1,500 $192 $80TX Collin McKinney$4,424 $4,131 $4,131 $260 $33TX Denton Denton $1,222 $833 $389TX Tarrant Arlington $1,635 $1,393 $1,393 $135 $107TX Tarrant Colleyville $2,009 $1,508 $1,508 $399 $103TX Tarrant Ft. Worth $2,202 $1,973 $189 $40TX Williamson Georgetown $556 $355 $201UT Cache Logan $691 $511 $270 $39 $140 $90 $118 $33UT Davis Layton $13,486 $13,342 $3,730 $144 $8,957 $655UT Salt Lake Draper$7,119 $6,907 $5,859 $212 $371 $410 $267UT Salt Lake Salt Lake City $8,849 $8,849 $8,000 $229 $320 $300UT Salt Lake Sandy City$1,670 $1,227 $443 $694 $78 $322 $133UT Salt Lake West Jordan City $6,297 $5,574 $4,340 $421 $302 $934 $140 $160UT Salt Lake West Valley City $1,797 $1,797 $1,343 $185 $156 $113UT Tooele Tooele $798 $320 $354 $124 $320UT Utah Payson $604 $225 $146 $233 $225UT Utah Provo $3,263 $2,952 $2,396 $114 $197 $556VALoudoun Leesburg $1,916 $749 $1,167VAStafford Stafford Co $3,700 $2,036 $2,036 $1,104 $560VT Chittenden Burlington $1,596 $1,596 $689 $392 $186 $329VT Chittenden Williston $1,125 $1,125 $1,125WA Clark Vancouver$8,646 $7,978 $7,978 $668WA Cowlitz Woodland $933 $510 $195 $228 $510WA King King CoWA King Bellevue $2,740 $2,740 $2,740WA King Bothell $11,587 $10,803 $9,890 $523 $261 $913WA King Issaquqh $5,823 $5,823 $4,230 $708 $840 $45WA King Kirkland $6,615 $4,665 $4,480 $1,461 $489 $185WA Kitsap Kitsap Co $910 $910 $910WA Pierce Pierce Co $2,151 $2,151 $2,151WA Skagit Anacortes $2,654 $1,265 $201 $1,188 $1,265WA Skagit Burlington $8,071 $7,777 $6,776 $294 $275 $500 $227WA Snohomish Snohomish Co $9,035 $9,035 $9,035WA Thurston Olympia $4,900 $4,900 $4,900WA Thurston Tumwater$5,666 $5,011 $4,910 $655 $101WA Whatcom Bellingham $10,476 $8,638 $7,132 $616 $1,222 $1,507WV Jefferson Jefferson Co $1,740 $1,740$1,653 $87WI Dane FitchburgWI Jefferson Oconomowoc$1,497 $808 $358 $140 $549 $225 $225WI Ozaukee Cedarburg $564 $212 $262 $90 $212WI St CroixHudson $2,560 $673 $1,440 $447 $673 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 20 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)166
Retail per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. shopping center; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)SummaryTotal Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNational Average $6,347 $6,174 $5,685 $690 $741 $1,013 $837 $131 $402 $401 $618 $411 $1,957Sample Size 255 234 201 124 134 60 28 4 118 91 51 15 44National Avg w/o CA$4,605 $4,523 $4,486 $509 $521 $896 $575 $380 $346 $425 $1,452Sample Size w/o CA217 196 163 104 109 37 16 102 77 30 27AR 4 4 $981 $808 $1,915 $173 $115 n/a n/a n/a $309 $388 n/a n/a n/aAZ 29 22 $4,959 $5,482 $4,706 $585 $545 $238 $158 $29 $463 $458 $406 n/a $406CA37 37 $16,612 $14,965 $11,000 $1,632 $1,701 $1,201 $1,186 $164 $541 $704 $894 $423 $2,758CO 17 17 $7,771 $7,090 $5,142 $1,394 $644 $830 $2,680 n/a $356 $286 $345 n/a $8,912DE 1 1 $1,603 $297 n/a n/a $1,306 n/a n/a n/a $169 $33 $95 n/a n/aFL 54 54 $5,356 $5,105 $5,323 $321 $564 $76 n/a n/a $371 $349 $517 n/a $561GA10 9 $1,263 $1,348 $1,776 $213 $288 n/a $257 n/a $238 $86 n/a n/a $264HI 1 1 $4,053 $4,053 $4,053 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aID 2 2 $5,121 $4,537 $4,070 $221 $947 n/a n/a n/a $210 $355 n/a n/a $14IL 2 2 $2,665 $2,665 $2,665 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aIN 2 2 $6,924 $5,922 $5,922 n/a $1,001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aKS 3 3 $3,041 $2,621 $2,088 $605 $654 $1,184 $126 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $165LA2 2 $2,327 $2,024 $1,439 n/a $608 $1,170 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMD 7 5 $4,045 $4,072 $6,087 $652 $940 n/a n/a n/a $1,050 $938 n/a n/a $110MO 2 2 $1,685 $1,685 $1,685 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMT 1 1 $7,663 $6,498 $6,298 $616 $549 n/a n/a n/a $200 n/a n/a n/a n/aNC 5 3 $2,379 $2,451 $2,451 $437 $590 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNE 1 1 $3,461 $3,260 $3,260 $134 $67 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNH 2 2 $2,020 $2,020 $3,470 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $570 n/a n/a n/aNM 8 5 $2,426 $3,040 $2,790 $346 $234 $712 n/a n/a $468 $124 n/a n/a $49NV 3 3 $3,364 $3,257 $3,201 n/a $323 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $84OH 1 1 $2,960 $1,194 n/a $904 $862 n/a n/a n/a $389 $456 $349 n/a n/aOK 1 1 $250 $250 $250 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aOR 11 10 $8,723 $8,574 $8,744 $600 $576 $676 $347 n/a n/a n/a n/a $250 $1,276PA1 1 $5,109 $5,109 $5,109 n/a $342 $161 $500 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $300SC 3 3 $4,356 $3,763 $3,598 $285 $603 n/a n/a n/a $123 $120 n/a n/a $130TN 5 5 $2,862 $2,471 $1,499 $333 $644 n/a n/a n/a $302 $81 n/a n/a $1,527TX 8 4 $1,750 $2,133 $2,101 $311 $126 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aUT 10 10 $4,457 $4,170 $3,705 $234 $199 $1,502 $78 n/a $293 $189 n/a n/a n/aVA2 1 $2,808 $2,036 $2,036 $927 $863 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aVT 2 2 $1,361 $1,361 $907 n/a n/a n/a $392 n/a $186 $329 n/a n/a n/aWA 14 14 $5,729 $5,158 $5,428 $611 $619 $829 $500 n/a $387 $840 $45 n/a n/aWV 1 1 $1,740 $1,740 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,653 $87 n/a n/a n/aWI 3 3 $1,540 $564 $358 $614 $362 $673 n/a n/a $225 $219 n/a n/a n/aState Average Fees 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 21 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)167
Office per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. general office building; 0.25 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherAR Benton Bentonville $658 $310 $191 $156 $310AR Benton Lowell $698 $649 $49 $649AR FaulknerConway$1,280 $1,280 $1,280AR Washington Fayetteville $976 $681 $155 $140 $293 $388AZ Cochise Sierra Vista $1,230 $1,230 $970 $70 $70AZ Gila Sedona $3,665 $3,665 $2,280 $1,205 $180AZ Maricopa Avondale $4,548 $3,391 $1,286 $562 $595 $917 $341 $847AZ Maricopa Buckeye $2,978 $2,349 $379 $295 $334 $1,378 $592AZ Maricopa Chandler$8,311 $6,460 $5,880 $981 $870 $330 $160 $90AZ Maricopa Fountain Hills $4,072 $4,072 $3,835 $62 $70 $105AZ Maricopa Gilbert $3,502 $1,539 $570 $1,024 $939 $438 $327 $204AZ Maricopa Glendale $3,050 $1,034 $2,173 $376 $53 $302 $146AZ Maricopa Goodyear$2,655 $1,570 $680 $583 $502 $770 $120AZ Maricopa Mesa $1,552 $771 $355 $425 $238 $215 $318AZ Maricopa Peoria $7,915 $7,341 $6,305 $390 $184 $602 $434AZ Maricopa Phoenix$3,008 $2,002 $1,337 $767 $239 $313 $33 $207 $112AZ Maricopa Scottsdale $1,350 $708 $642AZ Maricopa Surprise $5,863 $5,041 $3,128 $500 $322 $911 $126 $745 $131AZ Maricopa Tempe $825 $426 $399AZ Mojave Bullhead City$116 $116AZ Navajo Show Low$410 $410AZ Pima Pima County$1,721 $1,721 $1,721AZ Pima Marana $1,100 $373 $727AZ Pima Oro Valley$3,033 $1,317 $1,290 $1,716 $27AZ Pima Tucson $6,556 $6,314 $5,087 $242 $269 $699 $259AZ Pinal Apache Junction $4,850 $4,850 $4,330$520AZ Pinal Casa Grande $3,999 $3,542 $2,261 $457 $667 $112 $502AZ Pinal Eloy$1,248 $924 $183 $141 $124 $800AZ Pinal Florence $4,378 $3,585 $2,618 $356 $438 $167 $629 $171AZ Pinal Queen Creek $2,982 $2,455 $940 $527 $267 $55 $1,193AZ Yavapai Yavapai CountyAZ Yavapai Chino Valley$1,461 $84 $1,377AZ Yavapai Prescott $2,177 $1,653 $524AZ Yuma Yuma $1,261 $1,261 $535 $258 $468CAAlameda Fremont $12,477 $12,477 $10,766 $234 $1,477CAAlameda Hayward $5,629 $5,629 $3,000 $1,037 $1,232$360CAAlameda Livermore $23,491 $23,491 $17,814 $583 $1,060 $560 $2,418 $7 $470 $579CAAlameda San Leandro $4,643 $4,643 $3,390 $623$510 $120CAContra Costa Orinda $5,130 $5,130 $2,590 $2,540CAEl Dorado El Dorado Co $2,719 $2,719 $2,249$470CAFresno Clovis $11,015 $9,008 $6,999 $701 $1,306 $830 $625 $554CAKern Bakersfield $3,102 $2,462 $1,795 $640$470 $197CALos Angeles Lancaster $3,443 $3,443 $1,760 $760 $876 $47CALos Angeles Long Beach $3,333 $3,333 $2,000 $325 $538 $470CAMontereySalinas $5,147 $4,442 $3,424 $705 $546$472CANapa St. Helena $27,280 $17,480 $9,460 $5,390 $4,410 $20 $1,250 $2,270 $470 $4,010CAOrange Brea $4,923 $2,694 $2,350 $2,229 $267 $77CAPlacerRocklin $13,424 $13,424 $11,410 $64 $1,950CASacramento Citrus Heights $7,712 $6,520 $4,840 $1,192 $370 $340 $970CASacramento Elk Grove $14,147 $11,190 $7,180 $388 $2,569 $1,210 $1,500 $130 $200 $970 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 22 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)168
Office per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. general office building; 0.25 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherCASacramento Sacramento $21,374 $19,901 $10,310 $280 $1,192 $2,840 $530 $470 $5,752CASan Bernardino Highland $12,471 $12,471 $11,779 $170 $182 $121 $219CASan Bernardino Redlands $5,033 $5,033 $2,863 $170 $150 $720 $460 $670CASan Bernardino Rialto $7,910 $5,631 $3,910 $564 $1,715 $1,105 $140 $238 $112 $126CASan Diego Carlsbad $6,973 $5,663 $1,453 $813 $496 $458 $3,500 $252CASan Diego Escondido $6,003 $3,840 $710 $883 $1,280 $700 $2,130 $300CASan Diego San Diego $6,717 $5,154 $3,380 $903 $660 $294 $420 $1,060CASan Joaquin Lodi $12,869 $11,551 $4,888 $336 $982 $2,555 $1,567 $497 $768 $1,276CASan Joaquin Ripon $17,708 $13,228 $7,572 $1,760 $2,720 $1,400 $720 $1,807 $120 $890 $470 $249CASan Luis Obispo Paso Robles $12,449 $10,020 $7,620 $1,775 $654 $1,380 $550 $50 $420CASan Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo $19,925 $16,933 $6,933 $2,393 $599$10,000CASanta Barbara Carpinteria $41,153 $41,153 $37,430 $1,028 $2,060 $260 $330 $45CASanta Barbara Santa Maria $8,258 $5,294 $4,520 $1,612 $1,352 $24 $155 $59 $368 $168CASanta Clara Gilroy$27,102 $22,298 $19,687 $838 $3,966 $171 $2,440CASanta Clara Palo Alto $28,322 $27,122 $4,451 $1,200 $4,473 $228 $17,970CASanta Cruz Santa Cruz Co $8,826 $8,826 $6,606 $2,220CASanta Cruz Scotts Valley $12,812 $12,812 $9,650 $982 $165 $1,861 $154CAShasta Redding $13,463 $13,463 $9,853 $1,102 $1,107 $513 $888CASolano Vacaville $11,309 $11,309 $3,590 $1,773 $2,240 $901 $113 $671 $292 $330 $1,399CASonoma Windsor $12,676 $12,676 $6,706 $716 $2,277 $1,472 $1,505CAYolo Davis $8,512 $8,512 $5,192 $118 $856 $1,078 $928 $340CO Adams Adams Co $1,178 $1,178 $1,178CO Adams Commerce City$2,688 $2,688 $1,741 $191 $756CO BoulderBoulder$9,408 $6,260 $2,480 $2,487 $662 $2,340 $360 $450 $130 $500CO Eagle Eagle Co $5,790 $5,790 $5,164 $626CO Eagle Basalt $3,035 $2,000 $1,000 $1,035$1,000CO El Paso Colorado Springs $3,118 $650 $2,044 $424 $650CO Fremont Canon City$152 $152$152CO Jefferson Jefferson Co $4,790 $4,790 $4,790CO La Plata Durango $3,547 $2,823 $2,823 $558 $166CO LarimerLarimer Co $3,779 $3,779 $3,779CO LarimerLoveland $4,852 $4,852 $3,020 $752 $290 $380 $410CO LarimerFt. Collins $7,535 $4,429 $3,378 $1,653 $1,453 $469 $207 $144 $231CO Mesa Mesa Co $1,801 $1,801 $1,801CO Pitkin Pitkin Co $48,044 $48,044 $5,040 $4,100 $38,904CO Weld Weld Co $2,577 $2,577 $2,075 $200 $302CO Weld Windsor $4,983 $3,538 $2,840 $932 $513 $698CO Weld Greeley$3,526 $3,526 $2,560 $254 $623 $89DE New Castle New Castle Co $1,759 $453 $1,306 $297 $14 $142FL Alachua Alachua Co $5,035 $5,035 $4,275 $760FL Brevard Brevard Co $78 $78$44 $34FL Brevard Cocoa $332 $52 $280 $18 $34FL Brevard Melbourne $239 $239$18 $187 $34FL Brevard Palm Bay$230 $230$153 $43 $34FL Brevard Rockledge $52 $52$18 $34FL Broward Broward Co $4,214 $4,214 $4,214FL Broward Ft. LauderdaleFL Charlotte Charlotte Co $656 $656 $656FL Citrus Citrus Co $2,346 $2,346 $1,803 $226 $166 $151 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 23 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)169
Office per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. general office building; 0.25 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL ClayClay CoFL CollierCollier Co $9,316 $8,288 $6,758 $513 $515 $668 $178 $404 $280FL Columbia Columbia CoFL Dade Miami/Dade Co $5,011 $5,011 $4,356 $306 $349FL Dade Miami $5,038 $5,038 $4,356 $336 $206 $140FL DeSoto DeSoto CoFL FlaglerFlagler Co $1,500 $1,500 $1,500FL FlaglerPalm Coast $4,771 $3,985 $3,726 $389 $397 $259FL Gilchrist Gilchrist Co $560 $560 $500$60FL Glades Glades CoFL Hardee Hardee CoFL HendryHendry CoFL Hernando Hernando CoFL Highlands Highlands CoFL Hillsborough Hillsborough Co $2,502 $1,934 $1,893 $264 $304 $41FL Hillsborough Plant City $2,433 $1,815 $1,281 $119 $499 $262 $272FL Hillsborough Tampa $3,425 $3,425 $3,425FL Indian RiverIndian River Co $4,260 $4,260 $3,798 $246 $216FL Lake Lake Co $1,301 $1,301$1,301FL Lake Eustis $2,426 $666 $430 $1,330 $343 $323FL Lee Lee Co $5,643 $5,643 $5,355 $288FL Lee Bonita Springs $7,364 $7,364 $7,097 $267FL Lee Cape Coral $3,660 $2,960 $2,634 $243 $458 $162 $163FL Lee Ft. Myers $6,249 $5,559 $5,355 $354 $335 $204FL LevyLevy Co $898 $898 $818 $80FL Manatee Manatee Co $2,562 $2,562 $1,823 $133 $606FL Marion Marion CoFL Martin Martin Co $2,676 $2,676 $1,970 $198 $236 $272FL Monroe Monroe Co $2,914 $2,914 $684 $64 $112 $2,054FL Nassau Nassau CoFL Okaloosa Destin $1,429 $1,429 $1,404$25FL Orange Orange Co. $4,285 $4,285 $4,071 $152 $62FL Orange Ocoee $6,409 $4,081 $3,681 $587 $1,741 $235 $165FL Orange Orlando $3,814 $3,408 $3,408 $406FL Orange Winter Garden $6,004 $5,576 $4,466 $163 $265 $610 $500FL Osceola Osceola Co $90 $90$90FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Co $2,359 $2,359 $2,026 $151 $64 $118FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Gardens $3,241 $3,241 $2,725 $184 $214 $118FL Pasco Pasco Co $1,495 $851 $851 $234 $410FL Pinellas Pinellas Co $2,823 $2,767 $2,767 $56FL Polk Polk CoFL Polk Lakeland $4,790 $4,790 $4,233 $207 $350FL Putnam Putnam CoFL Santa Rosa Santa Rosa CoFL St Johns St. Johns Co $2,597 $2,597 $1,913 $164 $67 $453FL St Lucie St. Lucie Co $3,496 $3,496 $2,594 $315 $303 $284FL Sarasota Sarasota Co $4,827 $3,877 $3,004 $544 $406 $178 $102 $177 $416FL Sarasota North Port $322 $322$122 $115 $85FL Seminole Seminole Co $1,944 $1,944 $1,872 $72 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 24 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)170
Office per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. general office building; 0.25 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL Seminole Altamonte Springs $1,523 $1,523 $1,176 $72 $275FL Seminole Winter Springs $7,156 $7,156 $4,775 $1,264 $355 $762FL SumterSumter Co $3,389 $3,389 $3,269 $120FL Volusia Volusia Co $2,310 $2,310 $2,310FL Volusia Daytona Beach $2,310 $2,310 $2,310FL Volusia Deland $2,662 $2,662 $2,310 $0 $0 $22 $30 $300FL Volusia Deltona $5,404 $3,578 $3,578 $543 $1,283FL Volusia Ormond Beach $3,129 $2,497 $2,435 $320 $312 $62FL Volusia Port Orange $4,114 $3,619 $3,419 $249 $246 $200GACherokee Canton $1,377 $1,377 $989 $173 $173 $43GACherokee Cherokee Co $1,611 $1,611 $631 $646 $334GAEffingham Effingham Co $501 $213 $288GAForsyth Forsyth Co $86 $86$86GAFulton Alpharetta $1,423 $1,423 $1,211 $14 $198GAFulton Atlanta $1,935 $1,935 $1,608 $241 $67 $19GAFulton Roswell $897 $897 $280 $617GAHall Hall Co $172 $172$172GAHenryHenry Co $1,225 $1,225$1,225GAHenryMcDonough $684 $684$684HI Honolulu Honolulu $3,403 $3,403 $3,403ID Ada Boise $4,765 $4,765 $4,495 $210 $60ID Kootenai Post Falls $1,942 $774 $540 $221 $947 $220 $14IL DeKalb DeKalb (city)IL DuPage DuPage County$2,114 $2,114 $2,114IL Kane Kane County$2,717 $2,717 $2,717IN Hamilton Fishers $3,210 $2,610 $2,610 $600IN Hamilton Noblesville $1,646 $1,211 $1,211 $434KS Johnson Lenexa $2,847 $2,847 $1,376 $1,184 $121 $165KS Johnson Olathe $2,479 $1,220 $1,090 $605 $654 $130KS Johnson Overland Park$860 $860 $860LAE Baton Rouge Baton Rouge $1,403 $795 $795 $608LASt TammanySt Tammany Parish $3,343 $3,343 $2,173 $1,170MD Anne Arundel Anne Arundel Co $8,399 $6,175 $5,846 $1,008 $1,216 $329MD CalvertCalvert Co $1,454 $110 $480 $864$110MD Carroll Carroll CoMD Charles Charles Co $1,706 $638 $1,068MD Frederick Frederick Co $1,872 $781 $1,091MD Harford Harford CoMD Howard Howard Co $1,080 $1,080 $1,080MD MontgomeryMontgomery Co $12,112 $11,300 $11,300 $352 $460MD Queen Anne's Queen Anne's Co $1,580 $1,580$1,580MD St. Mary's St. Mary's CoMO Clay/Jackson Kansas City $1,049 $1,049 $1,049MO Jackson Lee's Summit $848 $848 $848MT Gallatin Bozeman $3,447 $2,282 $2,082 $616 $549 $200 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 25 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)171
Office per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. general office building; 0.25 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNC Chatham Chatham Co. $300 $300NC Durham Durham $2,089 $1,706 $1,706 $223 $160NC Orange Orange Co. $1,553 $574 $979NC Wake Cary$2,543 $1,833 $1,833 $235 $475NC Wake Raleigh $3,039 $1,953 $1,953 $598 $488NE Lancaster Lincoln $3,821 $3,620 $3,620 $134 $67NH Hillsborough ManchesterNH Merrimack Concord $1,620 $1,620 $1,620NH Rockingham Salem $560 $560$560NH Rockingham FremontNM Bernalillo Albuquerque $2,456 $1,939 $1,708 $295 $222 $194 $38NM Bernalillo Bernalillo Co $1,117 $1,117 $753 $230 $134NM Dona Ana Las Cruces $660 $182 $114 $364NM Lincoln Ruidoso $943 $614 $329NM Sandoval Rio Rancho $5,785 $4,895 $3,094 $522 $368 $1,430 $335 $36NM Santa Fe Santa Fe $3,051 $2,597 $2,429 $314 $140 $124 $44NM Santa Fe Santa Fe County $335 $335$335NM Valencia Los Lunas $375 $146 $229NV Churchill Churchill CountyNV Clark Las Vegas $1,390 $1,067 $983 $323$84NV Clark Mesquite $1,078 $1,078 $994$84NV Washoe Reno $3,991 $3,991 $3,991OH ButlerMiddletownOH Delaware Delaware (city) $3,096 $1,330 $904 $862 $574 $240 $516OK Cleveland Moore $250 $250 $250OR Clackamas Clackamas Co. $8,165 $7,109 $6,859 $1,056$250OR Clackamas West Linn $12,405 $10,211 $8,860 $1,404 $790 $690$661OR Deschutes Bend $4,048 $3,312 $3,312 $452 $284OR Josephine Grants Pass $2,864 $2,060 $2,060 $402 $402OR Lane Eugene $4,405 $4,064 $2,680 $341 $384 $1,000OR Lane Springfield $2,961 $2,395 $1,229 $566 $1,166OR Marion Salem $3,320 $2,550 $2,248 $385 $385 $302OR Marion Silverton $2,388 $1,360 $530 $498 $1,360OR Multnomah Portland $5,285 $4,322 $3,560 $269 $694 $328 $434OR Washington Tigard $8,397 $7,637 $6,869 $760 $768OR Washington Washington Co $8,115 $7,369 $6,869 $746 $500PAMontgomeryTowamencin Twp $6,549 $3,274 $3,274 $571 $161 $500 $300SC Beaufort Beaufort Co $1,320 $1,320 $1,265 $55SC Beaufort Hilton Head $4,123 $3,253 $3,253 $384 $486SC BerkeleyMt. Pleasant $2,447 $1,540 $1,100 $187 $720 $190 $120 $130 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 26 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)172
Office per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. general office building; 0.25 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherTN Rutherford La Vergne $1,681 $1,305 $1,305 $80 $296TN Rutherford Smyrna $1,566 $1,566 $1,256 $310TN SumnerPortland$400TN SumnerWhite House $155 $155 $93 $25 $37TN Williamson Franklin $7,048 $5,471 $3,291 $585 $992$2,180TN Williamson Nolensville $2,753 $2,753 $753$2,000TX Brazos College Station $180 $123 $57TX Collin Allen $1,022 $750 $750 $192 $80TX Collin McKinney$3,564 $3,271 $3,271 $260 $33TX Denton Denton $1,222 $833 $389TX Tarrant Arlington $1,495 $1,253 $1,253 $135 $107TX Tarrant Colleyville $1,280 $779 $779 $399 $103TX Tarrant Ft. Worth $2,244 $2,015 $189 $40TX Williamson Georgetown $556 $355 $201UT Cache Logan $419 $239 $112 $39 $140 $47 $62 $18UT Davis Layton $11,759 $11,615 $2,190 $144 $8,957 $468UT Salt Lake Draper$3,329 $3,117 $2,331 $212 $137 $542 $107UT Salt Lake Salt Lake City $4,337 $4,337 $3,580 $137 $320 $300UT Salt Lake Sandy City$1,199 $756 $443 $416 $49 $206 $85UT Salt Lake West Jordan City $3,407 $2,684 $1,470 $421 $302 $934 $200 $80UT Salt Lake West Valley City $1,547 $1,547 $1,245 $111 $111 $80UT Tooele Tooele $798 $320 $354 $124 $320UT Utah Payson $604 $225 $146 $233 $225UT Utah Provo $1,481 $1,170 $614 $114 $197 $556VALoudoun Leesburg $1,916 $749 $1,167VAStafford Stafford Co $4,270 $2,606 $2,606 $1,104 $560VT Chittenden Burlington $1,541 $1,541 $634 $392 $186 $329VT Chittenden Williston $447 $447 $447WA Clark Vancouver$2,714 $2,046 $2,046 $668WA Cowlitz Woodland $933 $510 $195 $228 $510WA King King CoWA King Bellevue $3,420 $3,420 $3,420WA King Bothell $11,717 $10,933 $10,020 $523 $261 $913WA King Issaquqh $2,679 $2,679 $2,300 $221 $113 $45WA King Kirkland $9,535 $7,585 $7,400 $1,461 $489 $185WA Kitsap Kitsap Co $430 $430 $430WA Pierce Pierce Co $1,795 $1,795 $1,795WA Skagit Anacortes $2,654 $1,265 $201 $1,188 $1,265WA Skagit Burlington $4,002 $3,708 $2,707 $294 $275 $500 $227WA Snohomish Snohomish Co $2,318 $2,318 $2,318WA Thurston Olympia $6,540 $6,540 $6,540WA Thurston Tumwater$6,836 $6,181 $6,080 $655 $101WA Whatcom Bellingham $5,591 $3,753 $2,849 $616 $1,222 $904WV Jefferson Jefferson Co $577 $577$548 $29WI Dane FitchburgWI Jefferson Oconomowoc$1,497 $808 $358 $140 $549 $225 $225WI Ozaukee Cedarburg $564 $212 $262 $90 $212WI St CroixHudson $1,536 $404 $864 $268 $404 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 27 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)173
Office per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. general office building; 0.25 FAR; 3" meter)SummaryTotal Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNational Average $4,483 $4,172 $3,430 $629 $690 $868 $888 $142 $358 $260 $607 $411 $2,195Sample Size 255 235 202 125 135 60 28 4 118 91 51 15 44National Avg w/o CA$3,183 $2,926 $2,623 $501 $509 $816 $604 $324 $209 $334 $1,915Sample Size w/o CA218 198 165 105 110 37 16 102 77 30 27AR $903 $730 $1,280 $173 $115 n/a n/a n/a $417 $388 n/a n/a n/aAZ $3,097 $3,020 $2,286 $585 $545 $238 $240 $33 $488 $246 $527 n/a $131CA$12,148 $10,837 $7,030 $1,304 $1,486 $950 $1,266 $178 $573 $543 $997 $423 $2,641CO $6,518 $5,816 $2,911 $1,452 $644 $694 $2,428 n/a $376 $266 $268 n/a $13,468DE $1,759 $453 n/a n/a $1,306 n/a n/a n/a $297 $14 $142 n/a n/aFL $3,141 $2,878 $2,953 $311 $557 $62 n/a n/a $257 $211 $251 n/a $365GA$991 $1,046 $944 $213 $288 n/a $143 n/a $298 $132 n/a n/a $694HI $3,403 $3,403 $3,403 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aID $3,354 $2,770 $2,518 $221 $947 n/a n/a n/a $210 $140 n/a n/a $14IL $2,416 $2,416 $2,416 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aIN $2,428 $1,910 $1,910 n/a $517 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aKS $2,062 $1,642 $1,109 $605 $654 $1,184 $126 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $165LA$2,373 $2,069 $1,484 n/a $608 $1,170 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMD $4,029 $4,049 $6,075 $652 $940 n/a n/a n/a $1,580 $329 n/a n/a $110MO $949 $949 $949 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMT $3,447 $2,282 $2,082 $616 $549 n/a n/a n/a $200 n/a n/a n/a n/aNC $1,905 $1,831 $1,831 $386 $525 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNE $3,821 $3,620 $3,620 $134 $67 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNH $1,090 $1,090 $1,620 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $560 n/a n/a n/aNM $1,840 $2,177 $1,996 $346 $234 $618 n/a n/a $258 $41 n/a n/a $36NV $2,153 $2,045 $1,989 n/a $323 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $84OH $3,096 $1,330 n/a $904 $862 n/a n/a n/a $574 $240 $516 n/a n/aOK $250 $250 $250 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aOR $5,668 $4,763 $4,455 $600 $576 $676 $734 n/a n/a n/a n/a $250 $661PA$6,549 $3,274 $3,274 n/a $571 $161 $500 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $300SC $2,630 $2,038 $1,873 $285 $603 n/a n/a n/a $123 $120 n/a n/a $130TN $2,641 $2,250 $1,340 $333 $644 n/a n/a n/a $167 $37 n/a n/a $1,527TX $1,446 $1,513 $1,614 $311 $126 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aUT $2,888 $2,601 $1,649 $234 $199 $1,412 $49 n/a $267 $141 n/a n/a n/aVA$3,093 $2,606 $2,606 $927 $863 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aVT $994 $994 $541 n/a n/a n/a $392 n/a $186 $329 n/a n/a n/aWA $4,369 $3,797 $3,992 $611 $619 $708 $500 n/a $265 $113 $45 n/a n/aWV $577 $577 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $548 $29 n/a n/a n/aWI $1,199 $475 $358 $422 $302 $404 n/a n/a $225 $219 n/a n/a n/aState Average Fees 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 28 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)174
Industrial per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. building; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherAR Benton Bentonville $538 $190 $191 $156 $190AR Benton Lowell $469 $420 $49 $420AR FaulknerConway$808 $808 $808AR Washington Fayetteville $567 $272 $155 $140 $117 $155AZ Cochise Sierra Vista $720 $720 $670 $40 $40AZ Gila Sedona $2,675 $2,675 $1,400 $1,205 $70AZ Maricopa Avondale $3,268 $2,111 $672 $562 $595 $632 $209 $598AZ Maricopa Buckeye $2,241 $1,612 $232 $295 $334 $965 $415AZ Maricopa Chandler$3,701 $1,850 $1,660 $981 $870 $110 $50 $30AZ Maricopa Fountain Hills $1,472 $1,472 $1,235 $62 $70 $105AZ Maricopa Gilbert $3,337 $1,374 $405 $1,024 $939 $438 $327 $204AZ Maricopa Glendale $1,476 $1,047 $735 $376 $53 $208 $104AZ Maricopa Goodyear$2,095 $1,010 $410 $583 $502 $530 $70AZ Maricopa Mesa $1,878 $1,097 $355 $425 $238 $215 $318 $326AZ Maricopa Peoria $5,275 $4,701 $3,665 $390 $184 $602 $434AZ Maricopa Phoenix$2,204 $1,198 $814 $767 $239 $110 $26 $161 $87AZ Maricopa Scottsdale $1,350 $708 $642AZ Maricopa Surprise $4,039 $3,217 $1,918 $500 $322 $628 $77 $513 $81AZ Maricopa Tempe $825 $426 $399AZ Mojave Bullhead City$116 $116AZ Navajo Show Low$525 $525AZ Pima Pima County$2,187 $2,187 $2,187AZ Pima Marana $1,100 $373 $727AZ Pima Oro Valley$2,437 $721 $705 $1,716 $16AZ Pima Tucson $3,665 $3,423 $2,196 $242 $269 $699 $259AZ Pinal Apache Junction $2,530 $2,530 $2,260$270AZ Pinal Casa Grande $2,718 $2,261 $1,385 $457 $460 $70 $346AZ Pinal Eloy$953 $629 $183 $141 $77 $552AZ Pinal Florence $1,770 $977 $425 $356 $438 $92 $362 $98AZ Pinal Queen Creek $2,247 $1,720 $668 $527 $190 $39 $823AZ Yavapai Yavapai CountyAZ Yavapai Chino Valley$1,461 $84 $1,377AZ Yavapai Prescott $2,177 $1,653 $524AZ Yuma Yuma $806 $806 $339 $171 $296CAAlameda Fremont $4,408 $4,408 $3,552 $117 $739CAAlameda Hayward $4,069 $4,069 $1,440 $1,037 $1,232$360CAAlameda Livermore $14,637 $14,637 $11,281 $583 $270 $560 $1,193 $3 $470 $277CAAlameda San Leandro $2,343 $2,343 $1,090 $623$510 $120CAContra Costa Orinda $5,130 $5,130 $2,590 $2,540CAEl Dorado El Dorado Co $1,900 $1,900 $1,430$470CAFresno Clovis $11,015 $9,008 $6,999 $701 $1,306 $830 $625 $554CAKern Bakersfield $2,734 $2,094 $1,296 $640$470 $328CALos Angeles Lancaster $2,353 $2,353 $670 $760 $876 $47CALos Angeles Long Beach $1,920 $1,920 $1,100 $132 $218 $470CAMontereySalinas $4,254 $3,549 $2,168 $705 $909$472CANapa St. Helena $23,730 $10,530 $5,980 $7,350 $5,850 $20 $1,250 $1,580 $470 $1,230CAOrange Brea $3,657 $1,428 $1,250 $2,229 $138 $40CAPlacerRocklin $7,027 $7,027 $5,951 $106 $970CASacramento Citrus Heights $6,672 $5,480 $4,440 $1,192 $90 $340 $610CASacramento Elk Grove $10,176 $6,300 $4,640 $388 $3,488 $410 $560 $30 $50 $610 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 29 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)175
Industrial per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. building; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherCASacramento Sacramento $15,504 $14,032 $4,266 $280 $1,192 $1,890 $160 $470 $7,246CASan Bernardino Highland $8,676 $8,676 $8,193 $203 $54 $7 $219CASan Bernardino Redlands $2,622 $2,622 $1,812 $150 $50 $240 $150 $220CASan Bernardino Rialto $4,780 $3,476 $2,220 $564 $740 $1,023 $120 $26 $26 $61CASan Diego Carlsbad $6,913 $5,604 $920 $813 $496 $763 $3,500 $420CASan Diego Escondido $4,463 $2,950 $340 $883 $630 $700 $1,610 $300CASan Diego San Diego $5,057 $3,494 $2,140 $903 $660 $294 $420 $640CASan Joaquin Lodi $12,772 $11,562 $4,982 $228 $982 $4,259 $1,112 $215 $103 $890CASan Joaquin Ripon $22,002 $12,736 $6,989 $2,933 $6,333 $2,800 $467 $994 $67 $533 $470 $416CASan Luis Obispo Paso Robles $7,254 $4,825 $3,715 $1,775 $654 $910 $50 $20 $130CASan Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo $14,994 $12,002 $2,002 $2,393 $599$10,000CASanta Barbara Carpinteria $21,599 $21,599 $17,830 $1,714 $1,490 $190 $330 $45CASanta Barbara Santa Maria $7,358 $4,394 $3,620 $1,612 $1,352 $24 $155 $59 $368 $168CASanta Clara Gilroy$11,272 $6,468 $5,178 $838 $3,966 $210 $1,080CASanta Clara Palo Alto $26,768 $25,568 $2,897 $1,200 $4,473 $228 $17,970CASanta Cruz Santa Cruz Co $6,402 $6,402 $4,182 $2,220CASanta Cruz Scotts Valley $10,147 $10,147 $5,750 $982 $165 $3,101 $149CAShasta Redding $8,131 $8,131 $5,068 $1,102 $1,107 $374 $480CASolano Vacaville $16,245 $16,245 $2,627 $1,773 $8,842 $1,502 $188 $190 $204 $330 $588CASonoma Windsor $10,431 $10,431 $4,339 $716 $2,277 $2,453 $645CAYolo Davis $1,682 $1,682 $480 $118 $223 $280 $241 $340CO Adams Adams Co $776 $776 $776CO Adams Commerce City$2,725 $2,725 $1,146 $319 $1,260CO BoulderBoulder$9,408 $6,260 $2,480 $2,487 $662 $2,340 $360 $450 $130 $500CO Eagle Eagle Co $3,816 $3,816 $3,190 $626CO Eagle Basalt $2,518 $2,000 $1,000 $518$1,000CO El Paso Colorado Springs $3,552 $1,084 $2,044 $424 $1,084CO Fremont Canon City$152 $152$152CO Jefferson Jefferson Co $2,060 $2,060 $2,060CO La Plata Durango $2,687 $1,963 $1,963 $558 $166CO LarimerLarimer Co $2,538 $2,538 $2,538CO LarimerLoveland $1,698 $1,698 $870 $708 $30 $40 $50CO LarimerFt. Collins $6,090 $2,984 $2,042 $1,653 $1,453 $782 $57 $39 $64CO Mesa Mesa Co $1,249 $1,249 $1,249CO Pitkin Pitkin Co $16,734 $16,734 $2,520 $4,100 $10,114CO Weld Weld Co $2,395 $2,395 $2,043 $200 $152CO Weld Windsor $4,224 $2,779 $1,799 $932 $513 $980CO Weld Greeley$1,733 $1,733 $1,144 $136 $403 $50DE New Castle New Castle Co $1,578 $272 $1,306 $177 $7 $88FL Alachua Alachua Co $3,617 $3,617 $2,857 $760FL Brevard Brevard Co $78 $78$44 $34FL Brevard Cocoa $332 $52 $280 $18 $34FL Brevard Melbourne $128 $128$18 $76 $34FL Brevard Palm Bay$210 $210$157 $19 $34FL Brevard Rockledge $52 $52$18 $34FL Broward Broward Co $2,891 $2,891 $2,891FL Broward Ft. LauderdaleFL Charlotte Charlotte Co $1,182 $1,182 $1,182FL Citrus Citrus Co $844 $844 $628 $90 $66 $60 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 30 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)176
Industrial per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. building; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL ClayClay CoFL CollierCollier Co $6,572 $5,544 $4,333 $513 $515 $645 $119 $271 $176FL Columbia Columbia CoFL Dade Miami/Dade Co $4,318 $4,318 $2,720 $1,249 $349FL Dade Miami $3,124 $3,124 $2,720 $210 $107 $87FL DeSoto DeSoto CoFL FlaglerFlagler Co $794 $794 $794FL FlaglerPalm Coast $3,227 $2,441 $2,182 $389 $397 $259FL Gilchrist Gilchrist Co $560 $560 $500$60FL Glades Glades CoFL Hardee Hardee CoFL HendryHendry CoFL Hernando Hernando CoFL Highlands Highlands CoFL Hillsborough Hillsborough Co $1,571 $1,003 $994 $264 $304 $9FL Hillsborough Plant City $1,240 $622 $278 $119 $499 $139 $205FL Hillsborough Tampa $1,359 $1,359 $1,359FL Indian RiverIndian River Co $2,629 $2,629 $2,404 $120 $105FL Lake Lake Co $104 $104$104FL Lake Eustis $2,127 $367 $430 $1,330 $189 $178FL Lee Lee Co $4,773 $4,773 $4,626 $147FL Lee Bonita Springs $6,154 $6,154 $6,017 $137FL Lee Cape Coral $3,336 $2,636 $2,310 $243 $458 $162 $163FL Lee Ft. Myers $5,420 $4,730 $4,626 $354 $335 $104FL LevyLevy Co $789 $789 $709 $80FL Manatee Manatee Co $994 $994 $776 $76 $142FL Marion Marion CoFL Martin Martin Co $2,008 $2,008 $1,601 $114 $136 $157FL Monroe Monroe Co $2,543 $2,543 $406 $64 $19 $2,054FL Nassau Nassau CoFL Okaloosa Destin $894 $894 $888$6FL Orange Orange Co. $2,636 $2,636 $2,565 $33 $38FL Orange Ocoee $5,224 $2,896 $2,496 $587 $1,741 $235 $165FL Orange Orlando $2,275 $1,869 $1,869 $406FL Orange Winter Garden $2,942 $2,514 $1,404 $163 $265 $610 $500FL Osceola Osceola Co $50 $50$50FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Co $1,263 $1,263 $1,064 $145 $5 $49FL Palm Beach Palm Beach Gardens $1,786 $1,786 $1,439 $279 $19 $49FL Pasco Pasco Co $1,644 $1,000 $1,000 $234 $410FL Pinellas Pinellas Co $1,470 $1,414 $1,414 $56FL Polk Polk CoFL Polk Lakeland $945 $945 $675 $100 $170FL Putnam Putnam CoFL Santa Rosa Santa Rosa CoFL St Johns St. Johns Co $1,728 $1,728 $1,482 $17 $29 $200FL St Lucie St. Lucie Co $952 $952 $770 $71 $46 $65FL Sarasota Sarasota Co $3,460 $2,510 $1,987 $544 $406 $106 $61 $106 $250FL Sarasota North Port $216 $216$82 $77 $57FL Seminole Seminole Co $768 $768 $762 $6 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 31 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)177
Industrial per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. building; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherFL Seminole Altamonte Springs $820 $820 $725 $6 $89FL Seminole Winter Springs $5,785 $5,785 $3,404 $1,264 $355 $762FL SumterSumter Co $1,674 $1,674 $1,584 $90FL Volusia Volusia Co $1,220 $1,220 $1,220FL Volusia Daytona Beach $1,220 $1,220 $1,220FL Volusia Deland $1,489 $1,489 $1,220 $0 $0 $51 $15 $203FL Volusia Deltona $3,767 $1,941 $1,941 $543 $1,283FL Volusia Ormond Beach $1,975 $1,343 $1,274 $320 $312 $69FL Volusia Port Orange $2,572 $2,077 $1,877 $249 $246 $200GACherokee Canton $522 $522 $134 $173 $173 $43GACherokee Cherokee Co $1,082 $1,082 $399 $450 $233GAEffingham Effingham Co $501 $213 $288GAForsyth Forsyth Co $52 $52$52GAFulton Alpharetta $799 $799 $513 $14 $272GAFulton Atlanta $1,255 $1,255 $1,025 $169 $47 $14GAFulton Roswell $606 $606 $177 $429GAHall Hall Co $119 $119$119GAHenryHenry Co $499 $499$499GAHenryMcDonough $476 $476$476HI Honolulu Honolulu $2,019 $2,019 $2,019ID Ada Boise $3,196 $3,196 $2,926 $210 $60ID Kootenai Post Falls $1,662 $494 $340 $221 $947 $140 $14IL DeKalb DeKalb (city)IL DuPage DuPage County$1,049 $1,049 $1,049IL Kane Kane County$1,769 $1,769 $1,769IN Hamilton Fishers $1,782 $1,652 $1,652 $130IN Hamilton Noblesville $1,201 $767 $767 $434KS Johnson Lenexa $2,926 $2,926 $1,620 $1,184 $121KS Johnson Olathe $3,146 $1,887 $1,817 $605 $654 $70KS Johnson Overland Park$1,433 $1,433 $1,433LAE Baton Rouge Baton Rouge $1,111 $503 $503 $608LASt TammanySt Tammany Parish $2,132 $2,132 $1,254 $878MD Anne Arundel Anne Arundel Co $6,552 $4,328 $4,174 $1,008 $1,216 $154MD CalvertCalvert Co $1,454 $110 $480 $864$110MD Carroll Carroll CoMD Charles Charles Co $1,706 $638 $1,068MD Frederick Frederick Co $1,872 $781 $1,091MD Harford Harford CoMD Howard Howard Co $550 $550 $550MD MontgomeryMontgomery Co $6,462 $5,650 $5,650 $352 $460MD Queen Anne's Queen Anne's Co $1,008 $1,008$1,008MD St. Mary's St. Mary's CoMO Clay/Jackson Kansas City $647 $647 $647MO Jackson Lee's Summit $743 $743 $743MT Gallatin Bozeman $2,911 $1,746 $1,546 $616 $549 $200 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 32 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)178
Industrial per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. building; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNC Chatham Chatham Co. $300 $300NC Durham Durham $1,092 $709 $709 $223 $160NC Orange Orange Co. $1,553 $574 $979NC Wake Cary$1,841 $1,131 $1,131 $235 $475NC Wake Raleigh $2,972 $1,234 $1,234 $913 $825NE Lancaster Lincoln $2,421 $2,220 $2,220 $134 $67NH Hillsborough ManchesterNH Merrimack Concord $1,030 $1,030 $1,030NH Rockingham Salem $300 $300$300NH Rockingham FremontNM Bernalillo Albuquerque $2,554 $2,037 $1,673 $295 $222 $323 $42NM Bernalillo Bernalillo Co $1,006 $1,006 $477 $383 $146NM Dona Ana Las Cruces $481 $182 $114 $185NM Lincoln Ruidoso $943 $614 $329NM Sandoval Rio Rancho $4,475 $3,585 $1,955 $522 $368 $1,430 $177 $23NM Santa Fe Santa Fe $2,164 $1,710 $1,610 $314 $140 $74 $26NM Santa Fe Santa Fe County $460 $460$460NM Valencia Los Lunas $375 $146 $229NV Churchill Churchill CountyNV Clark Las Vegas $1,319 $996 $912 $323$84NV Clark Mesquite $1,181 $1,181 $1,097$84NV Washoe Reno $2,534 $2,534 $2,534OH ButlerMiddletownOH Delaware Delaware (city) $2,583 $817 $904 $862 $359 $135 $323OK Cleveland Moore $360 $360 $360OR Clackamas Clackamas Co. $5,645 $4,589 $4,339 $1,056$250OR Clackamas West Linn $12,405 $10,211 $8,860 $1,404 $790 $690$661OR Deschutes Bend $5,179 $4,443 $4,443 $452 $284OR Josephine Grants Pass $1,731 $927 $927 $402 $402OR Lane Eugene $3,024 $2,683 $1,686 $341 $384 $613OR Lane Springfield $2,553 $1,987 $821 $566 $1,166OR Marion Salem $2,495 $1,725 $1,423 $385 $385 $302OR Marion Silverton $1,890 $1,360 $530 $1,360OR Multnomah Portland $3,757 $2,794 $2,250 $269 $694 $328 $216OR Washington Tigard $5,776 $5,016 $4,682 $760 $334OR Washington Washington Co $5,928 $5,182 $4,682 $746 $500PAMontgomeryTowamencin Twp $2,154 $2,154 $2,154 $171 $161 $500 $300SC Beaufort Beaufort Co $945 $945 $890 $55SC Beaufort Hilton Head $2,355 $1,485 $1,485 $384 $486SC BerkeleyMt. Pleasant $1,957 $1,050 $700 $187 $720 $190 $30 $130 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 33 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)179
Industrial per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. building; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)State CountyJurisdiction Total Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherTN Rutherford La Vergne $1,234 $858 $858 $80 $296TN Rutherford Smyrna $943 $943 $747 $196TN SumnerPortland $400 $400$400TN SumnerWhite House $58 $58 $28 $12 $18TN Williamson Franklin $6,391 $4,814 $2,634 $585 $992$2,180TN Williamson Nolensville $2,498 $2,498 $498$2,000TX Brazos College Station $180 $123 $57TX Collin Allen $872 $600 $600 $192 $80TX Collin McKinney$1,317 $1,024 $1,024 $260 $33TX Denton Denton $1,222 $833 $389TX Tarrant Arlington $715 $473 $473 $135 $107TX Tarrant Colleyville $2,623 $2,122 $2,122 $399 $103TX Tarrant Ft. Worth $1,444 $1,215 $189 $40TX Williamson Georgetown $556 $355 $201UT Cache Logan $362 $183 $59 $39 $140 $79 $35 $10UT Davis Layton $11,727 $11,583 $2,552 $144 $8,957 $74UT Salt Lake Draper$1,796 $1,584 $1,275 $212 $228 $43 $38UT Salt Lake Salt Lake City $2,229 $2,229 $1,380 $229 $320 $300UT Salt Lake Sandy City$1,352 $909 $443 $694 $31 $130 $54UT Salt Lake West Jordan City $2,607 $1,884 $770 $421 $302 $934 $130 $50UT Salt Lake West Valley City $1,086 $1,086 $815 $185 $50 $36UT Tooele Tooele $798 $320 $354 $124 $320UT Utah Payson $604 $225 $146 $233 $225UT Utah Provo $1,256 $945 $389 $114 $197 $556VALoudoun Leesburg $1,916 $749 $1,167VAStafford Stafford Co $3,174 $1,510 $1,510 $1,104 $560VT Chittenden Burlington $1,153 $1,153 $246 $395 $183 $329VT Chittenden Williston $294 $294 $294WA Clark Vancouver$1,963 $1,295 $1,295 $668WA Cowlitz Woodland $933 $510 $195 $228 $510WA King King CoWA King Bellevue $2,190 $2,190 $2,190WA King Bothell $8,127 $7,343 $6,430 $523 $261 $913WA King Issaquqh $1,879 $1,879 $1,500 $221 $113 $45WA King Kirkland $8,035 $6,085 $5,900 $1,461 $489 $185WA Kitsap Kitsap Co $220 $220 $220WA Pierce Pierce Co $1,582 $1,582 $1,582WA Skagit Anacortes $2,654 $1,265 $201 $1,188 $1,265WA Skagit Burlington $3,057 $2,764 $1,762 $294 $275 $500 $227WA Snohomish Snohomish Co $1,467 $1,467 $1,467WA Thurston Olympia $3,790 $3,790 $3,790WA Thurston Tumwater$4,756 $4,101 $4,000 $655 $101WA Whatcom Bellingham $5,199 $3,361 $1,855 $616 $1,222 $1,507WV Jefferson Jefferson Co $356 $356$338 $18WI Dane FitchburgWI Jefferson Oconomowoc$1,067 $378 $176 $140 $549 $102 $100WI Ozaukee Cedarburg $564 $212 $262 $90 $212WI St CroixHudson $2,560 $673 $1,440 $447 $673 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 34 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)180
Industrial per 1,000 sq. ft. (100,001 sq. ft. building; 0.15 FAR; 3" meter)SummaryTotal Non-Util Roads WaterSewer Drain Parks LibraryFire Police GenGovSchools OtherNational Average $3,190 $2,763 $2,076 $656 $765 $983 $689 $115 $248 $180 $385 $411 $1,471Sample Size 256 236 202 125 134 60 28 4 118 91 52 15 43National Avg w/o CA$2,217 $1,894 $1,660 $504 $506 $882 $544 $26 $237 $137 $220 $824Sample Size w/o CA219 199 165 105 109 37 16 1 102 77 31 26AR $595 $423 $808 $173 $115 n/a n/a n/a $242 $155 n/a n/a n/aAZ $2,112 $1,788 $1,167 $585 $545 $238 $101 $26 $355 $183 $376 n/a $81CA$8,949 $7,438 $3,930 $1,455 $1,893 $1,146 $883 $144 $315 $418 $630 $423 $2,460CO $3,786 $3,114 $1,788 $1,365 $644 $819 $2,680 n/a $271 $145 $99 n/a $3,871DE $1,578 $272 n/a n/a $1,306 n/a n/a n/a $177 $7 $88 n/a n/aFL $2,069 $1,807 $1,804 $311 $557 $69 n/a n/a $201 $122 $157 n/a $331GA$591 $601 $450 $213 $288 n/a $119 n/a $237 $97 n/a n/a $365HI $2,019 $2,019 $2,019 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aID $2,429 $1,845 $1,633 $221 $947 n/a n/a n/a $210 $100 n/a n/a $14IL $1,409 $1,409 $1,409 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aIN $1,492 $1,209 $1,209 n/a $282 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aKS $2,502 $2,082 $1,624 $605 $654 $1,184 $96 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aLA$1,621 $1,318 $879 n/a $608 $878 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMD $2,801 $2,329 $3,458 $652 $940 n/a n/a n/a $1,008 $154 n/a n/a $110MO $695 $695 $695 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMT $2,911 $1,746 $1,546 $616 $549 n/a n/a n/a $200 n/a n/a n/a n/aNC $1,552 $1,025 $1,025 $449 $610 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNE $2,421 $2,220 $2,220 $134 $67 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNH $665 $665 $1,030 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $300 n/a n/a n/aNM $1,557 $1,759 $1,429 $346 $234 $712 n/a n/a $208 $34 n/a n/a $23NV $1,678 $1,570 $1,514 n/a $323 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $84OH $2,583 $817 n/a $904 $862 n/a n/a n/a $359 $135 $323 n/a n/aOK $360 $360 $360 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aOR $4,580 $3,720 $3,411 $600 $585 $676 $388 n/a n/a n/a n/a $250 $661PA$2,154 $2,154 $2,154 n/a $171 $161 $500 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $300SC $1,752 $1,160 $1,025 $285 $603 n/a n/a n/a $123 $30 n/a n/a $130TN $1,921 $1,595 $953 $333 $644 n/a n/a n/a $104 $18 n/a n/a $1,527TX $1,116 $1,055 $1,087 $311 $126 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aUT $2,382 $2,095 $1,034 $234 $199 $1,483 $31 n/a $126 $115 n/a n/a n/aVA$2,545 $1,510 $1,510 $927 $863 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aVT $724 $724 $270 n/a n/a n/a $395 n/a $183 $329 n/a n/a n/aWA $3,275 $2,704 $2,666 $611 $619 $829 $500 n/a $265 $113 $45 n/a n/aWV $356 $356 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $338 $18 n/a n/a n/aWI $1,397 $421 $176 $614 $362 $673 n/a n/a $102 $156 n/a n/a n/aState Average Fees 2012 National Impact Fee Survey Page 35 of 35 Duncan Associates (www.impactfees.com)181
1
Impact Fee Reductions and Development Activity:
A Quantitative Analysis of Florida Counties1
With the collapse of the housing bubble starting in 2006, many communities in formerly
high-growth areas found their economies, which were heavily dependent on housing
construction, begin to slow and even contract. These same high-growth communities had
been using development impact fees as a way to raise funds for growth-related
infrastructure needs, particularly for roads but also for other facilities such as parks,
schools and fire stations. Impact fee revenues began to shrink, and the development
industry began to call for impact fee reductions or suspensions as a way to rekindle
development and stimulate the local economy. Many jurisdictions have heeded these
calls. Now that we have had several years of experience with such efforts, it should be
possible to measure their affects.
This paper focuses on the experience of Florida counties from 2007 to the present.
Florida provides an appropriate setting for this analysis, given the widespread use of
impact fees and the severity of the housing downturn in the state. A focus on counties is
appropriate because of the relative dominance of counties in the provision of non-utility
infrastructure, including roads and schools.2 There are 64 Florida counties, and about 40
of them have used impact fees.
The Public Debate
Prior to the housing downturn, impact fee opponents in Florida generally used a two-
pronged attack: residential fees were resisted on the grounds that they would drive up
home prices and hurt housing affordability, while fees on nonresidential developments
were resisted on the grounds that they would make the jurisdiction less competitive for
economic development projects. Rarely was it claimed that high residential fees would
deter homebuilders, who presumably would be able to pass through these costs to buyers.
Since the housing downturn, however, the nature of the discourse has changed. Now,
reducing or suspending fees for residential development is sometimes promoted as a way
to spur residential construction, which in turn will create jobs and revitalize local
economies.
Even proponents of impact fee reductions or suspensions sometimes admit the effort may
be little more than window dressing. For example, a member of Sarasota County’s impact
fee advisory committee was quoted in 2008 as saying of a proposed impact fee
suspension: “Even if it is just a gesture, I think it's extremely important to encourage the
community, because I don't think we've seen the bottom of the well yet.”3 Others
contend that while there is no assurance that lowering fees will stimulate growth, “If
1 Draft of analysis by Clancy Mullen, Executive Vice President of Duncan Associates, Austin, Texas and
Dr. James C. Nicholas, Professor Emeritus of Florida State University, to be presented at the annual
conference of the Growth and Infrastructure Consortium, November 4, 2010. 2 While school boards have independent taxing authority, their boundaries are coterminous with counties
and they rely on counties to enact and collect school impact fees on their behalf. 3 Sarasota Herald-Tribune, “Sarasota Looks at Impact Fees,” November 15, 2008
182
2
don’t try it, we won’t know.”4 Even in the face of continuing declines in permits after a
year of reduced fees, the chair of the Indian River County Commission argued that there
is no way to tell how much further building would have dropped off under the full
amount of the fees.5
Are impact fee reductions simply a way for local officials to signal to developers and
builders that they “feel their pain,” or do they actually stimulate construction that would
not have happened in the absence of such action? While a full exploration of this
question for both residential and nonresidential construction would be desirable,
analyzing the effect of fee reductions on nonresidential development poses some
significant difficulties.6 In this paper, we confine the analysis to residential development.
Research Design
The method employed was to define a period of time
during which a number of counties reduced their
impact fees significantly, and compare the number of
single-family permits issued the year before and the
year after for a set of counties that include some that
reduced their fees and others that did not. The first
fee reductions occurred in January 2008. In order to
define a large enough sample, while still allowing a
year of subsequent building permit history, the fee
reduction period was defined as the 19-month period
of January 2008 to July 2009. The year before was
2007, and the year after the 12-month period of
August 2009 to July 2010.
The starting point was to identify Florida counties that charged impact fees in 2007.
Using the 2007 National Impact Fee Survey, 42 Florida counties were identified as
charging impact fees.7 The 2009 National Impact Fee Survey was used, along with an
updated survey of Florida counties, to identify counties that had reduced their impact fees
significantly between January 2008 and July 2009. Nine fee-reduction counties were
included in the analysis: Brevard, Charlotte, Citrus, Highlands, Indian River, Manatee,
Martin, Nassau and Polk. Eleven “non-reduction” counties were identified that charged
impact fees of at least $4,000 per single-family unit in 2007 and did not reduce them
during the period: Collier, Lee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, St. Lucie, St.
Johns, Sarasota and Volusia. Characteristics of the 20 counties utilized in the analysis are
summarized in the following table. A number of counties had to be excluded for a
variety of reasons (the excluded counties, their characteristics and reasons for exclusion
are provided in Table 2 at the end of the paper).
4 Mike Secor, President, Highlands County Builders Association, CentralFloridaPolitics.com, posted on
June 17, 2009 by Heath.Whiteaker 5 TCpalm.com, March 16, 2010 6 There is no “standard” unit of nonresidential development comparable to the single-family house for
residential, fees vary significantly for various types of nonresidential development, and building permit
data is much more difficult to acquire. 7 Wakulla County was identified as charging impact fees, but was not included in the 2007 survey.
Figure 1. Sample Counties
183
3
Table 1. Summary of Sample Counties
2008 2000-08 Pop. Fee %
County Population ChangeGrowth Before After ChangeBefore AfterChange
Fee Reduction Counties
Brevard 556,213 79,983 17% $9,187 $4,834 -$4,353 2,039 1,129 -45%
Charlotte 165,781 24,154 17% $8,380 $4,002 -$4,378 932 271 -71%
Citrus 142,043 23,958 20% $9,314 $6,920 -$2,394 933 154 -83%
Highlands 100,207 12,841 15% $5,218 $0 -$5,218 918 68 -93%
Indian River 141,667 28,720 25% $9,877 $8,185 -$1,692 1,130 269 -76%
Manatee 317,699 53,697 20% $15,529 $5,499 -$10,030 1,086 1,181 9%
Martin 143,868 17,137 14% $11,511 $9,839 -$1,672 318 143 -55%
Nassau 71,915 14,252 25% $6,211 $3,726 -$2,485 626 288 -54%
Polk 585,733 101,809 21% $13,415 $9,765 -$3,650 3,854 1,199 -69%
Average 247,236 39,617 19% $9,849 $5,863 -$3,986 1,315 522 -60%
Non-Reduction Counties
Collier 332,854 81,477 32% $24,428 $28,416 $3,988 1,069 760 -29%
Lee 623,725 182,837 41% $15,503 $15,310 -$193 4,356 1,118 -74%
Miami-Dade 2,477,289 223,510 10% $6,157 $7,999 $1,842 3,246 913 -72%
Orange 1,114,979 218,635 24% $12,217 $18,067 $5,850 4,053 2,199 -46%
Osceola 273,709 101,216 59% $17,941 $18,173 $232 2,389 784 -67%
Palm Beach 1,294,654 163,463 14% $11,367 $11,367 $0 2,101 1,279 -39%
Pasco 438,668 93,900 27% $11,686 $16,828 $5,142 2,052 1,006 -51%
Sarasota 276,585 83,890 44% $12,203 $12,203 $0 1,129 535 -53%
St. Johns 393,608 67,647 21% $9,605 $10,122 $517 2,139 1,225 -43%
St. Lucie 426,413 61,214 17% $8,729 $9,602 $873 1,690 269 -84%
Volusia 510,750 67,407 15% $9,108 $9,108 $0 1,520 654 -57%
Average 742,112 122,291 20% $12,631 $14,290 $1,659 2,340 977 -56%
All County Avg. 519,418 85,087 20% $11,379 $10,498 -$881 1,879 772 -58%
Single-Family Fees Single-Fam Permits
Notes: Some “after” fees changed in 2010 as follows and are not reflected here: Citrus suspended road fees 5/26/2010 ($1,577
reduction); Martin suspension of all fees except roads and schools ended 10/1/2010 ($4,749 increase); Collier reduced road and
park fees in 10/2010 ($3,671 reduction); St. Lucie increased some fees on 10/1/2020 ($1,662 increase)
Source: Population from University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida Population Studies, Vol. 42,
Bulletin 154, June 2009; single-family fees “before” from Duncan Associates, 2007 National Impact Fee Survey, August 2007; single-family fees “after” from Duncan Associates survey, October 2010; single-family building permits issued from U.S. Census,
http://www.census.gov/const/www/permitsindex.html (“before” is 2007 calendar year, “after” is August 2009 through July 2010).
All of the sample counties experienced significant population growth between 2000 and
2008. The fee-reduction counties tend to be considerably smaller than the non-reduction
counties (average population of 247,236 versus 742,112). All of the counties had
relatively high impact fees in 2007, averaging almost $10,000 per single-family unit in
the fee-reduction counties, and over $12,000 in the non-reduction counties, with none of
the counties charging less than $6,000 per house. The fee-reduction counties reduced
their single-family fees by an average of almost $4,000 from 2007-2010, while the non-
reduction counties on average increased their fees by about $1,600. Consistent with the
state-wide trend, annual single-family permit issuance declined from 2007 to the 12-
month August 2009-July 2010 period in all counties but Manatee, with the average
decline among fee reduction counties slightly higher than among the non-reduction
counties (60% versus 56%).
184
4
The average percentage change in permit issuance between fee reduction and non-
reduction counties does not suggest a strong correlation between fee reductions and an
increase (or a lower decline) in building permit issuance. However, the averages conceal
large variations between counties. To take into account those variations, it is necessary to
employ linear regression analysis. Regression analysis plots a line that most closely fits
the data, and produces statistics that indicate the percent of variation explained (r-square),
and the level of confidence that the relationship is not a random one (f-statistic).
Regression Analysis Results
If fee reductions do stimulate increased
development (or at least slow declines in
permit issuance), one would expect to see
a negative correlation between fee
increases and changes in building permit
issuance. In other words, an increase in
impact fees should be associated with a
greater percentage decline in permit
issuance, while a reduction in impact fees
should be associated with an increase (or a
lower decline) in the rate of permit
issuance. To test this hypothesis, a linear
regression analysis was performed, with
the independent variable equal to the
absolute change in the amount of impact
fees and the dependent variable equal to
the percent change in building permit
issuance. The results indicate that there is
no significant relationship between the
two variables. While the coefficient has the predicted sign (negative, indicating an
inverse relationship), it is very small (a $1,000 decrease in impact fees is associated with
0.7% more building permits), explains only 1% of the variation, and has a 64% chance of
being a random relationship.8 Plotting the data, as shown in Figure 2, reveals the extent
to which Manatee County is an outlier.
8 The linear regression equation is y = -0.00000694 x– 0.582, the r-square is 0.0126, the f-statistic is 0.637
and the t-statistic for the x coefficient is -0.480
Figure 2. Fee Change vs. Permit Change
185
5
Running the regression analysis without
Manatee County results in a weak but
statistically significant relationship in the
opposite direction. The equation explains
22% of the variation, and there is only a 4%
chance of a random relationship. The
equation indicates that a $1,000 increase in
impact fees is associated with 2.6% more
building permits being issued.9 The
researchers do not suggest that the results of
this regression analysis indicate causality (i.e.,
increases in impact fees stimulate
development), particularly since it was
necessary to exclude the one county that
reduced its fees the most and experienced an
actual increase in building permits in order to
achieve this result. Nevertheless, it clearly
shows that the opposite relationship is not
supported by these data.
Conclusion
This analysis has been unable to confirm any statistically significant relationship between
impact fee reductions and higher rates of building permit issuance for single-family
development. This finding will certainly not end the debate about the effects of impact
fees on development activity, but hopefully it will inject some rationality into a discourse
that up to now has been largely dominated by wishful thinking.
9 The linear regression equation is y = 0.00000262 x– 0.600, the r-square is 0.2225, the f-statistic is 0.041
and the t-statistic for the x coefficient is -2.206
Figure 3. Fee Change vs. Permit Change
(Excluding Manatee County)
186
6
Table 2. Impact Fee Counties Excluded from Analysis
Growth
County 2008 Pop. 2000-08 2007 2010 Notes
Counties that both adopted and suspended fees during the period
Clay 185,168 31% $7,034 $7,034 rd fee adopted 1/1/09, suspended 2 yrs eff. 1/1/2009
Columbia 66,121 17% $0 $0 fees adopted 2/2008; suspended 1/1/2009
Counties that reduced fees during period, then increased them
Wakulla 30,717 34% ? ? 1 yr suspension 9/2008, fees reinstated 3/17/2010
Counties that reduced fees after the period
Hernando 164,907 26% $9,238 $4,862 rollback all fees to 2001 levels for 1 yr eff. 12/1/2009
Lake 288,379 37% $10,026 $10,127 rd fees suspended 1 yr eff 3/1/2010
Marion 329,418 27% $5,714 $4,254 road fees suspended for 1 yr eff. 1/1/2010
Counties with relatively low fees in 2007
Alachua 252,388 16% $2,508 $5,776
Broward 1,758,494 8% $2,718 $5,731 road fee could not be determined
Gilchrist 17,256 20% $3,500 $3,500
Hillsborough 1,200,541 20% $3,878 $5,878
Levy 40,817 18% $1,249 $1,249
Santa Rosa 181,180 47% $1,801 $0 1 yr suspension eff. 2/19/2009, later extended thru end of 20
Seminole 144,136 22% $2,635 $6,251
Sumter 93,034 74% $2,393 $2,997
Low-growth counties
DeSoto 34,487 7% $9,212 $0 suspended all fees 1/1/2008
Glades 11,323 7% $8,143 $0 suspended all fees on 11/24/2008 until 12/1/2010
Hardee 27,909 4% $2,628 $2,628
Monroe 76,081 -4% $1,534 $1,534
Pinellas 938,461 2% $2,066 $2,066
Putnam 74,989 6% $7,023 $0 all fees suspended for 2 yrs eff. 3/1/2009
Counties for which building permit data not available
Flagler 95,512 92% $5,307 $5,307
Hendry 41,216 14% $7,591 $0 all fees suspended c 9/2008, extended 2/24/09 until 1/1/2011
Single-Family Fees
187
Housing YTD YTD YTD
December Permits Units Valuation Permits Units Valuation
2011 65 9 5,611,023 1783 189 101,367,936
2010 121 12 6,195,067 3072 206 102,902,171
2009 44 6 2,218,610 1274 180 100,638,969
2008 68 5 3,831,004 1044 249 135,832,707
2007 45 25 11,802,228 900 758 243,751,248
2006 57 51 10,962,014 832 670 192,676,993
2005 30 49 8,580,985 893 954 199,033,213
2004 61 68 16,112,357 964 879 143,919,205
2003 41 41 14,860,019 853 614 133,215,335
2002 55 60 5,734,666 806 526 85,786,121
2001 45 42 4,009,425 682 422 78,899,715
2000 25 41 3,554,059 629 415 81,199,818
1999 34 12 5,699,393 672 546 83,799,006
1998 35 33 3,617,603 736 423 58,191,682
1997 36 31 2,843,423 787 309 66,391,699
1996 31 12 1,318,553 757 454 52,404,916
1995 54 29 3,536,645 736 474 53,383,602
1994 29 21 2,210,391 493 323 52,206,522
1993 23 14 2,317,422 533 339 43,811,105
1992 29 22 1,864,515 442 231 27,309,713
1991 21 13 1,151,439 340 215 33,750,305
1990 9 3 6,731,478 229 106 20,174,666
1989 6 4 417,420 166 80 14,387,920
1988 6 3 241,560 137 47 7,226,204
1987 9 2 208,800 190 48 10,408,674
1986 12 6 592,304 236 113 15,983,415
1985 9 7 185,452 272 183 16,518,111
1984 20 17 1,279,088 334 228 29,618,661
1983 16 29 1,510,820 382 289 20,475,998
Month of December
TWENTY-NINE YEAR BUILDING PERMIT BREAKDOWN
188
Montana Single Family Housing Starts 2009
County Jan.Feb.March April May June Total 2nd Qtr 09 Total 2nd Qtr 08 2009 - 2008 - % Change
Beaverhead 2 2 4 1 3 4 8 18 -55.6%Big Horn 0 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 0.0%Blaine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -100.0%Broadwater 2 2 2 1 1 4 6 17 -64.7%Carbon 1 1 5 6 5 4 15 26 -42.3%Carter 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.0%Cascade 8 2 6 7 6 11 24 24 0.0%Great Falls 4 12 6 10 6 6 22 36 -38.9%Choteau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -100.0%Custer 1 1 0 7 3 1 11 6 83.3%Daniels 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.0%Dawson 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0.0%Deer Lodge 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 -100.0%Fallon 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Fergus 0 0 2 3 2 2 7 9 -22.2%Flathead 14 14 22 30 33 44 107 187 -42.8%Gallatin 7 10 8 10 18 31 59 88 -33.0%Belgrade 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 100.0%Bozeman 6 1 3 6 3 12 21 46 -54.3%Garfield 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -100.0%Glacier 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 1 200.0%Golden Valley 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0.0%Granite 0 0 2 1 4 1 6 4 50.0%Hill 0 0 0 5 0 1 6 17 -64.7%Jefferson 1 0 0 3 7 5 15 26 -42.3%Judith Basin 0 0 2 1 2 0 3 5 -40.0%Lake 6 6 7 4 8 9 21 44 -52.3%Lewis & Clark 6 12 12 15 21 30 66 54 22.2%Helena 4 6 3 4 12 6 22 13 69.2%Liberty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Lincoln 8 5 5 14 10 13 37 66 -43.9%Madison 2 6 5 3 6 11 20 31 -35.5%McCone 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 -100.0%Meagher 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 100.0%Mineral 1 1 0 4 2 2 8 27 -70.4%Missoula Cnty.2 5 6 11 9 11 31 61 -49.2%Missoula City 2 1 13 15 15 15 45 51 -11.8%Musselshell 0 1 1 1 4 1 6 3 100.0%Park 6 1 5 6 8 7 21 29 -27.6%Petroleum 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 -50.0%Phillips 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 -Pondera 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.0%Powder River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -100.0%Powell 1 1 0 3 0 1 4 4 0.0%Prairie 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 -Ravalli 4 3 12 9 12 12 33 51 -35.3%Richland 0 0 1 1 2 2 5 5 0.0%Roosevelt 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 50.0%Rosebud 0 0 0 2 1 2 5 5 0.0%Sanders 2 3 9 7 5 7 19 36 -47.2%Sheridan 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 100.0%Silverbow/Butte 1 0 2 3 5 2 10 25 -60.0%Stillwater 0 2 1 3 12 9 24 24 0.0%Sweetgrass 2 0 0 1 0 3 4 6 -33.3%Teton 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 4 -50.0%Toole 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 -Treasure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -100.0%Valley 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 0.0%Wheatland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -100.0%Wibaux 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -Yellowstone 7 17 9 19 13 8 40 73 -45.2%
Billings 2 15 13 17 29 30 76 89 -14.6%
Total 112 141 171 242 275 323 840 1245 -32.5%
Total does not include new homes built within city limits of Belt, Big Sandy, Broadus, Chester, Chinook, Choteau, Conrad, Cut Bank, Darby, Deer Lodge, East Helena, Forsyth,
Fort Benton, Glasgow, Glendive, Hamilton, Harding, Harlem, Havre, Hot Springs, Hysham, Laurel, Lewistown, Libby, Livingston, Malta, Miles City, Pinedale, Plains, Polson, Red
Lodge, Ronan, Roundup, St. Ignasius, Shelby, Sidney, Stevensville, Three Forks, Townsend, Troy, West Yellowstone, Wolf Point.
County figures represent housing starts in unincorporated areas. Aggregate county totals are determined by adding together city and county numbers.
189
Montana Single Family Housing Starts 2010
County January February March April May June 2010 YTD 2009 YTD YTD Change
Beaverhead 1 1 3 4 3 3 15 16 -6.3%Big Horn 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 7 -42.9%Blaine 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 #DIV/0!Broadwater 0 2 4 0 2 1 9 12 -25.0%Carbon 2 5 0 3 4 7 21 22 -4.5%Carter 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 -50.0%Cascade 7 8 1 3 10 5 34 40 -15.0%Great Falls 3 2 11 6 10 15 47 44 6.8%Choteau 0 10 0 0 1 1 12 0 #DIV/0!Custer 0 2 1 3 0 0 6 13 -53.8%Daniels 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 50.0%Dawson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -100.0%Deer Lodge 2 1 0 0 2 2 7 3 133.3%Fallon 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 100.0%Fergus 1 1 1 4 4 4 15 9 66.7%Flathead 21 30 28 38 34 31 182 157 15.9%Gallatin 10 27 11 27 14 16 105 84 25.0%Belgrade 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 50.0%Bozeman 10 8 26 16 12 20 92 31 196.8%Garfield 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.0%Glacier 1 1 0 1 0 2 5 4 25.0%Golden Valley 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 100.0%Granite 0 1 3 0 4 1 9 8 12.5%Hill 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 6 -33.3%Jefferson 4 4 2 2 5 2 19 16 18.8%Judith Basin 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 5 -40.0%Lake 2 8 8 8 9 13 48 40 20.0%Lewis & Clark 17 24 13 45 23 22 144 96 50.0%Helena 8 5 9 7 14 8 51 35 45.7%Liberty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!Lincoln 5 11 11 15 11 13 66 55 20.0%Madison 2 7 6 3 10 5 33 33 0.0%McCone 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0.0%Meagher 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 -33.3%Mineral 2 2 1 0 1 3 9 10 -10.0%Missoula Cnty.1 6 3 9 7 6 32 44 -27.3%Missoula City 10 6 15 18 11 6 66 61 8.2%Musselshell 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 8 -62.5%Park 1 5 6 5 5 7 29 33 -12.1%Petroleum 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 2 50.0%Phillips 0 1 0 1 1 2 5 5 0.0%Pondera 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 200.0%Powder River 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 #DIV/0!Powell 0 0 1 4 2 0 7 6 16.7%Prairie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -100.0%Ravalli 9 7 7 15 10 7 55 52 5.8%Richland 0 3 0 5 1 2 11 6 83.3%Roosevelt 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 -50.0%Rosebud 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 5 -60.0%Sanders 3 6 5 5 1 5 25 33 -24.2%Sheridan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -100.0%Silverbow/Butte 1 0 10 4 7 8 30 13 130.8%Stillwater 1 9 1 5 1 5 22 27 -18.5%Sweetgrass 0 1 0 0 3 1 5 6 -16.7%Teton 0 3 0 0 1 1 5 4 25.0%Toole 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 -33.3%Treasure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!Valley 0 1 3 0 0 0 4 3 33.3%Wheatland 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 #DIV/0!Wibaux 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -100.0%Yellowstone 15 20 7 20 23 16 101 73 38.4%
Billings 10 15 45 23 12 24 129 106 21.7%
Total 153 251 244 311 263 280 1502 1264 18.8%
Total does not include new homes built within city limits of Belt, Big Sandy, Broadus, Chester, Chinook, Choteau, Conrad, Cut Bank, Darby, Deer Lodge, East Helena, Forsyth, Fort Benton, Glasgow, Glendive, Hamilton, Harding, Harlem,
Havre, Hot Springs, Hysham, Laurel, Lewistown, Libby, Livingston, Malta, Miles City, Pinedale, Plains, Polson, Red Lodge, Ronan, Roundup, St. Ignasius, Shelby, Sidney, Stevensville, Three Forks, Townsend, Troy, West Yellowstone, Wolf
Point.
County figures represent housing starts in unincorporated areas. Aggregate county totals are determined by adding together city and county numbers.
190
Montana Single Family Housing Starts 2011
County January February March April May June 1st half 2011 1st half 2010 1st half 2006 Comparison to 2010 Comparison to 2006
Beaverhead 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 15 27 -40.0%-66.7%Big Horn 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 10 -75.0%-90.0%Blaine 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 -50.0%0.0%Broadwater 3 3 0 5 0 2 13 9 43 44.4%-69.8%Carbon 1 1 4 3 3 6 18 21 59 -14.3%-69.5%Carter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 -100.0%-100.0%Cascade 6 2 3 2 5 10 28 34 45 -17.6%-37.8%Great Falls 2 2 0 7 9 2 22 47 102 -53.2%-78.4%Choteau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 -100.0%-100.0%Custer 0 0 1 3 0 1 5 6 13 -16.7%-61.5%Daniels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 -100.0%-100.0%Dawson 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 --33.3%Deer Lodge 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 9 -57.1%-66.7%Fallon 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 1 50.0%200.0%Fergus 0 1 0 2 4 1 8 15 20 -46.7%-60.0%Flathead 11 11 11 24 35 32 124 182 554 -31.9%-77.6%Gallatin 9 3 16 8 12 10 58 105 321 -44.8%-81.9%Belgrade 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 50 -33.3%-96.0%Bozeman 6 8 9 10 22 22 77 92 144 -16.3%-46.5%Garfield 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 0.0%-75.0%Glacier 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 -80.0%-50.0%Golden Valley 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 -50.0%-50.0%Granite 1 0 2 1 0 2 6 9 11 -33.3%-45.5%Hill 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 6 -75.0%-83.3%Jefferson 1 0 1 4 1 4 11 19 49 -42.1%-77.6%Judith Basin 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 -33.3%-Lake 3 4 2 8 8 5 30 48 78 -37.5%-61.5%Lewis & Clark 9 10 15 20 14 17 85 144 201 -41.0%-57.7%Helena 4 3 5 5 7 12 36 51 58 -29.4%-37.9%Liberty 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 --Lincoln 0 2 6 16 12 7 43 66 106 -34.8%-59.4%Madison 2 1 1 3 5 6 18 33 81 -45.5%-77.8%McCone 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 100.0%0.0%Meagher 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 7 0.0%-71.4%Mineral 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 9 26 -66.7%-88.5%Missoula Cnty.1 5 5 4 5 3 23 32 175 -28.1%-86.9%Missoula City 3 2 10 2 8 17 42 66 176 -36.4%-76.1%Musselshell 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 3 12 33.3%-66.7%Park 3 2 7 1 3 2 18 29 93 -37.9%-80.6%Petroleum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 -100.0%-100.0%Phillips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 -100.0%-Pondera 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 -66.7%0.0%Powder River 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 0.0%100.0%Powell 1 1 1 0 2 1 6 7 10 -14.3%-40.0%Prairie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 --100.0%Ravalli 8 6 5 12 8 11 50 55 228 -9.1%-78.1%Richland 0 0 0 3 2 4 9 11 5 -18.2%80.0%Roosevelt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 -100.0%-100.0%Rosebud 1 0 0 1 2 2 6 2 1 200.0%500.0%Sanders 1 1 3 7 6 7 25 25 66 0.0%-62.1%Sheridan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --Silverbow/Butte 1 8 1 8 5 2 25 30 24 -16.7%4.2%Stillwater 2 2 3 1 7 3 18 22 50 -18.2%-64.0%Sweetgrass 1 3 0 0 0 2 6 5 12 20.0%-50.0%Teton 1 0 0 0 1 3 5 5 14 0.0%-64.3%Toole 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 0.0%0.0%Treasure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --Valley 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 5 -50.0%-60.0%Wheatland 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0.0%100.0%Wibaux 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --Yellowstone 7 4 10 11 14 19 65 101 108 -35.6%-39.8%
Billings 6 11 19 20 19 20 95 129 228 -26.4%-58.3%Total 99 100 147 202 226 249 1023 1502 3258 -31.9%-68.6%
Total does not include new homes built within city limits of Belt, Big Sandy, Broadus, Chester, Chinook, Choteau, Conrad, Cut Bank, Darby, Deer Lodge, East Helena, Forsyth, Fort Benton, Glasgow, Glendive, Hamilton, Harding, Harlem,
Havre, Hot Springs, Hysham, Laurel, Lewistown, Libby, Livingston, Malta, Miles City, Pinedale, Plains, Polson, Red Lodge, Ronan, Roundup, St. Ignasius, Shelby, Sidney, Stevensville, Three Forks, Townsend, Troy, West Yellowstone, Wolf
Point.
County figures represent housing starts in unincorporated areas. Aggregate county totals are determined by adding together city and county numbers.
191
Montana Single Family Housing Starts 2012 - 1st Quarter
County Jan Feb March April May June 2012 Total 2011 Total Comparison to 2011 Comparison to 2006Beaverhead04531316977.8%-40.7%Big Horn 0 0 3 2 1 1 7 1 600.0%-30.0%Blaine 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.0%0.0%Broadwater 2 1 3 3 2 4 15 13 15.4%-65.1%Carbon 2 1 2 3 4 7 19 18 5.6%-67.8%Carter 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 -0.0%Cascade 3 3 5 5 5 6 27 28 -3.6%-40.0%Great Falls 2 1 10 3 4 5 25 22 13.6%-75.5%Choteau 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 --25.0%Custer 0 0 2 0 2 1 5 5 0.0%-61.5%Daniels 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -0.0%Dawson 0 2 0 1 1 1 5 2 150.0%66.7%Deer Lodge 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0.0%-66.7%Fallon 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 -66.7%0.0%Fergus 0 2 1 4 1 2 10 8 25.0%-50.0%Flathead 13 8 15 28 26 13 103 124 -16.9%-81.4%Gallatin 18 10 10 19 26 25 108 58 86.2%-66.4%Belgrade 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 -50.0%-98.0%Bozeman 9 18 17 23 34 40 141 77 83.1%-2.1%Garfield 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0.0%-75.0%Glacier 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 100.0%0.0%Golden Valley 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0.0%-50.0%Granite 3 1 2 0 0 1 7 6 16.7%-36.4%Hill 0 1 0 1 2 1 5 1 400.0%-16.7%Jefferson 1 2 2 2 6 4 17 11 54.5%-65.3%Judith Basin 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 50.0%-Lake 4 2 2 5 6 10 29 30 -3.3%-62.8%Lewis & Clark 11 6 18 20 9 21 85 85 0.0%-57.7%Helena 3 4 5 7 7 5 31 36 -13.9%-46.6%Liberty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -100.0%-Lincoln 4 5 12 7 10 16 54 43 25.6%-49.1%Madison 3 1 2 7 5 7 25 18 38.9%-69.1%McCone 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 -50.0%-50.0%Meagher 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 -50.0%-85.7%Mineral 1 0 0 1 0 2 4 3 33.3%-84.6%Missoula Cnty 3 3 4 10 13 9 42 23 82.6%-76.0%Missoula City 1 2 7 11 19 15 55 42 31.0%-68.8%Musselshell 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 4 -25.0%-75.0%Park 4 1 2 7 7 11 32 18 77.8%-65.6%Petroleum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --100.0%Phillips 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 --Pondera 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 300.0%300.0%Powder River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -100.0%-100.0%Powell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 -100.0%-100.0%Prairie 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 --50.0%Ravalli 3 7 4 9 9 6 38 50 -24.0%-83.3%Richland 1 0 3 0 0 5 9 9 0.0%80.0%Roosevelt 0 0 2 1 5 1 9 0 -800.0%Rosebud 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 -66.7%100.0%Sanders 1 4 3 2 1 9 20 25 -20.0%-69.7%Sheridan 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 --Silverbow/Bu 4 2 2 5 13 3 29 25 16.0%20.8%Stillwater 1 1 1 3 5 2 13 18 -27.8%-74.0%Sweetgrass 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 6 -33.3%-66.7%Teton 0 1 2 2 1 1 7 5 40.0%-50.0%Toole 0 1 0 1 0 4 6 2 200.0%200.0%Treasure 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 --Valley 2 1 2 0 0 1 6 2 200.0%20.0%Wheatland 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0.0%100.0%Wibaux 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 --Yellowstone 6 9 10 21 19 24 89 65 36.9%-17.6% Billings 12 24 26 33 37 31 163 95 71.6%-28.5%Total 99 100 147 254 290 305 1297 1023 26.8%-60.2%
Total does not include new homes built within city limits of Belt, Big Sandy, Broadus, Chester, Chinook, Choteau, Conrad, Cut Bank, Darby, Deer Lodge, East Helena, Forsyth, Fort Benton, Glasgow, Glendive, Hamilton, Harding,
Harlem, Havre, Hot Springs, Hysham, Laurel, Lewistown, Libby, Livingston, Malta, Miles City, Pinedale, Plains, Polson, Red Lodge, Ronan, Roundup, St. Ignasius, Shelby, Sidney, Stevensville, Three Forks, Townsend, Troy, West
Yellowstone, Wolf Point.
County figures represent housing starts in unincorporated areas. Aggregate county totals are determined by adding together city and county numbers.
192
System Investment Fee
Water & Sewer
RAE Subdivision
County Water & Sewer District
No. 313
Water System Investment Fee
System cost $525,000
Less remaining debt - $ 89,369
Net cost $435,631
Net cost $435,631
Total system EDU(1)’s 271.8 = $1,603
Annual debt & reserve payments = $145
Water Investment Fee for the first year = $1,603
Water Development Fee = + $1,800
Total Water System Investment Fee = $3,403
This fee will increase $145 each year
Sewer System Investment Fee:
System cost $1,505,000
Less remaining debt -$428,263
Net cost $1,076,737
Net cost $1,076,737
Total system EDU’s 271.8 = $3,962
Annual debt & reserve payments = $217
Sewer Investment Fee for the first year = $3,962
Sewer Development Fee = +$2,250
Total Sewer System Investment Fee = $6,212
This fee will increase $217 each year
Total System Investment Fee for Water and Sewer = $9,615
In addition, inspection fee for new hookups is $50 for water and $50 for Sewer
(1) EDU is an Equivalent Dwelling Unit and herein corresponds to the District’s VRU or
Volume Ratio Unit. A ¾ -inch pipe size has a VRU of 1. Hookups with larger pipe sizes
would pay a higher SIF based on the VRU formula (Commercial is a minimum of 1-inch
= 1.8 VRU’s; 1.5-inch = 4.0 VRU’s, 2-inch = 7.0 VRU’s, 4-inch = 28 VRU’s).
Ref: C://District/Ordinaces/sys-invest-fee-0607
193
Basis for the System Investment Fee
Initial System Investment Fee based on the initial cost (minus current debt) divided by
the number of initial EDU’s. This is the amount the initial users paid into the system and
does not include interest.
System Development Fee based on the cost to develop new capacity.
For water, this is the cost to install and develop wells, pump houses, backup generators,
controls, water rights, and infiltration galleries. This does not include the value of land
donated for these uses.
For sewer, this is the cost to expand the plant and is based on a conservative estimate of
$9 per gallon. This does not include the value of the land.
194
Meter
Size
SDF
$
4%
Franchise
Fee - $
Total w/
4%
Fee - $
Meter
Size
SDF
$
4%
Franchise
Fee - $
Total w/
4%
Fee - $
Meter
Size
Total for Both
Water &
Sewer at 4%
¾" 1,985 79.40 2,064.40 ¾" 1,878 75.12 1,953.12 ¾"4,017.52
1" 1,985 79.40 2,064.40 1" 5,766 230.64 5,996.64 1"8,061.04
1½" 1,985 79.40 2,064.40 1½" 16,734 669.36 17,403.36 1½"19,467.76
2" 1,985 79.40 2,064.40 2" 28,885 1,155.40 30,040.40 2"32,104.80
3" 1,985 79.40 2,064.40 3" 74,937 2,997.48 77,934.48 3"79,998.88
4" 1,985 79.40 2,064.40 4" 175,434 7,017.36 182,451.36 4"184,515.76
Meter
Size
SDF
$
4%
Franchise
Fee - $
Total w/
4%
Fee - $
Meter
Size
SDF
$
4%
Franchise
Fee - $
Total w/
4%
Fee - $
Meter
Size
Total for Both
Water &
Sewer at 4%
¾" 6,406 256.24 6,662.24 ¾" 1,878 75.12 1,953.12 ¾"8,615.36
1" 10,861 434.44 11,295.44 1" 5,766 230.64 5,996.64 1"17,292.08
1½" 21,721 868.84 22,589.84 1½" 16,734 669.36 17,403.36 1½"39,993.20
2" 34,754 1,390.16 36,144.16 2" 28,885 1,155.40 30,040.40 2"66,184.56
3" 69,509 2,780.36 72,289.36 3" 74,937 2,997.48 77,934.48 3"150,223.84
4" 108,607 4,344.28 112,951.28 4" 175,434 7,017.36 182,451.36 4"295,402.64
COMMERCIAL
WATER SEWER TOTAL
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES & 4% FRANCHISE FEES
WATER SEWER TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL
2011 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES & 4% FRANCHISE FEES
195
WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES
(BASED ON WATER METER SIZE)(BASED ON WATER METER SIZE)
WATER METER SIZE FEE AMOUNT WATER METER SIZE FEE AMOUNT
3/4" 484.00$ 3/4" 750.00$
1" 806.00$ 1" 1,252.50$
1 1/2" 1,612.00$ 1 1/2" 2,497.50$
2" 2,580.00$ 2" 3,997.50$
3" 4,837.00$ 3" 8,002.50$
4" 8,063.00$ 4" 12,502.50$
6" 16,125.00$ 6" 24,997.50$
8" 29,025.00$ 8" 39,997.50$
WATER TAPPING FEES
SIZE OF TAP FEE AMOUNT
3/4" & 1" 75.00$
1 1/2" & 2" 90.00$
4" THRU 8" 190.00$
10" & OVER 240.00$
196
1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4422 adopting the update to the Wastewater
impact fee study to establish methodology, and document required information to conform to
statute, and determine the generalized average cost per unit of service.
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Commission Resolution 4422 adopting the updated
wastewater impact fee study [also known as a service area report] as presented.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having received and considered the updated study for wastewater
impact fees, the recommendation from the impact fee advisory committee, and having heard and
considered public comment I move to approve Commission Resolution 4422 adopting the
September 23, 2012 draft of the Wastewater Impact Fee Study.
BACKGROUND: The City operates a municipal wastewater utility comprised of a single
treatment plant and 205 miles of sewer piping. The utility requires funding for maintenance and
operations to serve existing users, and also funding to expand the system to serve future users.
Funding for operations and maintenance comes primarily from the monthly service charges
assessed to system customers. This includes funding for both daily operations such as wages and supplies and for the replacement of existing capital goods. The City expends approximately 7.5
million dollars per year operating the wastewater system. Capital goods are generally defined as
having a service life in excess of 10 years and are physical items such as pipes, treatment and
collection buildings, and vehicles. The City dedicates approximately one million dollars per year
from monthly fees to replace and maintain capital for wastewater collection piping and significant additional annual funding to replace and maintain the wastewater treatment plants.
Capital expansion of the system is achieved by combined funding sources such as impact fees,
development project related installations of piping, and applicable grants which occur
infrequently. All these funding sources must work together to provide the reliable and adequate service needed for a healthy community. Coordination is provided through the long range facility
plan and the annual capital improvement programming system as well as the operational
oversight of the staff and Commission. Costs for treatment facilities are heavily affected by
regulations imposed by the state and federal governments to protect water quality in the East
Gallatin River and other waters.
197
2
This memo discusses one element of the overall funding structure for the wastewater system,
impact fees. Bozeman initially adopted impact fees in 1996. Most recently the fee studies were
updated in 2007. The present fee study began in 2011. Impact fees have helped the City provide
needed services during high, moderate, and slow growth periods. The memo is structured in sections identified by letter. Each section addresses an individual topic. The majority of the sections are focused on the content of the new fee study, the presentation of information that
occurred on October 8th, and related questions. Section F identifies questions and issues that will
be addressed with implementation. Many of these items interrelate to other issues, programs, and
standards. These interrelationships are often complex and on-going. These items do not all need to be resolved prior to acceptance and adoption of the fee studies.
The sections are:
A. Responses to questions from October 8th
B. Summary History C. Process D. Common Study Elements and Changes
E. Wastewater specific items
F. Issues for Future Discussion and Implementation
Sections: A. Question from October 8th:
The only question from the Commission on October 8th was relating to the frequency of
the update cycle. This is discussed under Section F, page 8 since it applies to all of the
impact fees.
B. Summary History: The City funds its water, sewer, fire/EMS, and transportation systems
with multiple funding sources including impact fees. The City of Bozeman initially
adopted impact fees in 1996. Fees were initially adopted at a fraction of the calculated
cost of service to provide a transition period. The percentage of the fees collected has varied by time and type of fee. It is necessary from time to time to update the study which documents and sets the upper limit for the unit costs for each type of impact fee.
The City adopted updates to the various facility plans which provide much of the base
information for the impact fees for transportation in 2001 and 2009, fire in 2006, and
both wastewater and water in 2007. The City retained consultants in 2006 to update the fee studies. The four fees were updated and adopted over the following 14 months.
The City has adopted a three year cycle to update the impact fee studies and a five year
cycle to evaluate and if needed update the facility plans. In 2011, the City began the
consultant selection process to again update the impact fee studies. TischlerBise was
selected as the consultant for this update cycle with the contract being signed in June 2011.
C. Process: 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 analysis and draft reports, 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.
198
3
The IFAC conducted public hearings on August 16th and September 13th to hear input
from members of the public on the draft impact fee studies. After conducting the public
hearings the IFAC voted on motions to recommend approval of the individual fee studies.
The Committee recommended favorably on all four studies having found that the studies were consistent with the requirements of state law regarding impact fees. The minutes of the IFAC hearings are attached and provide greater detail on their actions. Minutes of all
of the IFAC meetings are available through the Planning Department.
On October 8th the City Commission received the reports and heard a presentation from
TischlerBise regarding the reports. No action on the studies was taken. The meeting was for receiving information, hearing from the public, and formulating questions from the Commission to be answered at a future meeting when all Commissioners are present.
The Commission set November 26th for follow up action on the water study. This action
was moved to December 10th. The Commission passed Ordinance 1843 making structural
changes to the impact fee ordinance language which will be in effect on December 5th. These changes specify that adoption of the new water impact fee study is by resolution. A
draft resolution has been prepared for Commission action should the Commission wish to
take action on December 10th.
A resolution of the Commission can be effective immediately. Staff recommends a delay
in the effective date of the implementing resolution in order for implementation procedures to be set up and information to be provided to the public. Staff recommends
the effective date to be January 1, 2013 and the draft resolution includes that effective
date.
D. Common Study Elements and Changes:
Each fee is the subject of an independent study as each fee is legally independent of the others and relies on different data and demand characteristics. The introductory material
in each study is very similar. There are three main sections of each report: 1) Introduction
to impact fees, 2) Impact fee calculations for each fee type, and 3) Implementation and
administration. The second section of the report contains the data sources and analysis
and presents the resulting fee calculation broken into cost per demand unit. This section will be most interesting to most people.
Several significant changes are occurring with this round of impact fee updates. Data was
available on home sizes from the MT Dept. of Revenue for the first time. This in
conjunction with other data sets enabled the consultants to perform analysis to document
certain demands for service by home size. Please see the Setting the Stage document for this analysis on home size and occupancy. They were then able to expand on this analysis
with each individual fee study for those elements unique to that fee type as documented
in Appendix A of each study.
All four of the fee types now base residential fees on expected occupancy per size of
home. The same home size range was used for all four fees with a lower end of 1,400 square feet and an upper end of 3,000. The range is broken into 200 square foot
increments so movement between increments will result in a small impact fee charge.
The consultant had analyzed the home range originally for detached and attached home
styles. After discussing the results with the IFAC it was decided to consolidate the two as
there was a substantial amount of overlap between the size increments. There is also a
199
4
special residential category for group living which is distinguished by population rather
than dwelling area. The occupancy level per home in the studies reflects the population
spread across all housing units constructed from 1990 to 2010. This represents demand at
any given point in time and accounts for vacancies without being tied to a particular vacancy rate. As a result the occupancy per home used in the calculation is slightly less than the actual number of residents expected to live in an occupied dwelling.
These are averages over large samples of the City housing stock. Therefore, some homes
will have different demands above or below the average at any given point in time.
However, the overall system should equalize to the average. This occupancy approach has the effect of recognizing the differences which come from smaller and larger homes and reducing fees on smaller units which generate less demand. This appears consistent
with the City’s overall encouragement for land efficient development.
Because of this change all residential fees are on home size. Attached and detached
homes are no longer separate categories. Affordable housing distinctions to individual categories are also removed since the primary difference was also related to size of homes.
Several examples of how these different approaches to the fee apply to development are
attached. There are both residential and non-residential examples for different intensities
and types of development as well as for the downtown area which is subject to special standards.
E. Wastewater specific study elements and changes
Fee Components: 1) The draft study divides the wastewater impact fee into two explicit
parts; treatment plant capacity and collection (piping) capacity. This is shown in figure 12
of the report. Both parts were included as part of the cost calculations in the previous fee studies but were consolidated into a single charge based on the size of the water meter.
The 2012 study keeps them separated. The treatment capacity portion is based on either
the size of the home or the meter serving the non-residential property. The collection
capacity portion is based on the land area of the parcel and the concept that larger parcels
require a greater amount of distribution piping to span their perimeter and collect wastewater. This has been expressed as cost per acre for service. The dollar cost for the
second portion will vary for each project depending on the size of the lot. This area based
approach has the effect of recognizing the differences in distribution pipe length which
come from smaller and larger parcels and reducing fees on smaller units which generate
less demand. This is consistent with the City’s overall encouragement for land efficient development and increases proportionality of cost to impact. This will apply to both
residential and non-residential uses. This split will require slightly more administrative
effort to track the different revenue components of the fee.
Residential: Current practice in Bozeman is to charge wastewater impact fees on the basis
of the size of the water meter serving the property. As noted above, the proposed fee structure would replace that approach to have a distinction based on the size of the home
by 200 sq ft increments and the size of the parcel.
The present approach using meter sizing has given builders price motivation to use the
smallest possible meter size which can cause problems with water pressure and meter
wear and tear. It also has made the cost per multi-household dwelling less predictable as the combination of plumbing fixtures, water pressure at the main, and many other factors
200
5
influence the size of meter needed. A size per dwelling approach will increase
predictability for the number of homes. In the event of home additions, the fractional
difference between the old and new sizes will be charged. In the event of a new dwelling
the amount due from a home of the new size will be charged even if the home previously had service. Basing the distribution component on parcel size will be predictable by size but potentially different by project.
The change in approach to home size also allows the City to pro-actively address the
issue of residential fire sprinklers which piggyback on the metered domestic service line.
Presently there is a question of when or if such a requirement may be implemented in the building codes. Some users have installed them voluntarily. By decoupling the impact fee from the meter size an increase in impact fee resulting from increased meter size to
support the possible surge demand from the fire sprinkler but which doesn’t reflect daily
water demand can be avoided. Dedicated fire sprinkler lines for non-residential uses or
large apartment complexes are not charged impact fees and are not affected by this change. Since the wastewater impact fee has been tied to the size of the water meter, changes in water meter size also had effects on the wastewater impact fee. The change to
a home size/occupancy derived fee will separate the wastewater impact fee issue from the
question of residential fire sprinklers.
Non-Residential: The new report recommends continuing to use the meter size for non-residential as there is not adequate data to show a correlation to building size and
wastewater treatment service demand and there is a greater diversity of user types.
Consumption Rates: The analysis prepared for the water and sewer impact fees both
looked at the demand patterns for homes constructed in the past 20 years rather than the
entire city as being most representative of likely demand of new construction. This is a change from the prior studies. The trend in wastewater generation indicates that the efficiency efforts the City has been undertaking such as the toilet trade out program are
reducing flows into the treatment plant and the collection system. These improved
efficiencies allow the same infrastructure to serve a greater number of users.
Special Cases: There are certain special cases relating to the change in how the piping component (collection system) is handled which must also be addressed and are
described below. The capacity component will continue to be handled as it is today.
These items will be included in future updates to the administrative manual for impact
fees so that these special cases are applied consistently.
a. Infill sites not previously developed: A property that has not had water/sewer service during the time when impact fees were in place (March 26, 1996 to now). These
should pay the capacity and the distribution/collection charge as they are completely
new demand and will require additional capacity in both parts of the
treatment/distribution system to serve them. As the system is a whole, the funds can
be legitimately used to extend the major items which will benefit them.
b. Redevelopment/further development of sites which had service: These have paid for
needed service capacity expansion in fees paid earlier, either impact or monthly. The
calculations for impact fees do not require exacting precision and usually must be
generalized due to their future oriented nature. The City also acts to create additional
capacity in its collection systems as part of the regular and on-going maintenance of
201
6
the system, especially in the older areas of the City. An example of this is the
replacement of an older 6 inch main with a new one for maintenance reasons with the
new pipe meeting the new minimum dimensional standard of 8 inches. The City
conducts these types of replacements annually and has a structured maintenance program for such work. These two factors together provide some flexibility in considering how to treat redevelopment of a site.
The City has adopted a standard for the provision of water rights with new
development. This is located in Section 38.23.180. Unlike impact fees which come at
the time of building permits, the water rights standard is often met during the subdivision or site development process. If a project creates additional demand that meets or exceeds an additional acre-foot of water they have to mitigate this additional
demand for service. In Bozeman an acre-foot generally provides for about 3 homes
over the course of a year. To keep consistency and to allow for some incremental
changes within the developed area the need to pay the collection component related charges should be linked to this same increase in consumption trigger. This recognizes the variability inherent in averaging and the incremental capacity
improvements from maintenance work. If you don’t need an additional acre foot then
there will be no distribution /collection area fee. Costs would be charged for the
additional dwelling’s area or meter size per normal to cover the capacity component.
c. Phased multi-building development: It would be inappropriate to charge each part of
a multi-unit complex the full fee for the collection systems of the entire site.
Therefore, the costs will be prorated. Example: A site plan on 2 acres with ten
duplexes is proposed. As each duplex comes in for building permit they would be
charged 1/10th of the overall collection cost component for the project. This may be infill or Greenfield. An alternative approach would be to charge the first of the units for the entire distribution component and then only the home/meter size charge to the
remaining units. Staff recommends the first option.
d. Parks: The area of the city dedicated to public parks has been removed from the
calculation for the future area served. This only applies to the collection piping component. Development within the park will still directly pay the plant capacity
costs attributable to the meter size installed.
F. Issues for Future/Additional Discussion related to Wastewater. Several of these items are
generally applicable to all impact fees and are repeated with each individual Commission
cover memo. Notes on action are shown at the end of each segment in italic text.
Consumption Rates: The analysis prepared for the water and sewer impact fees both
looked at the demand patterns for homes constructed in the past 20 years as being most
representative of likely demand of new construction. One interesting trend discovered
was that although both average water and sewer use has been decreasing over time the
consumption of water in new construction was higher than the city-wide average and has been trending downwards at a much slower pace than sewer usage over time. This
diverging consumption trend is counter intuitive to the more prevalent use of water
conserving fixtures in new construction and likely points to a greater percentage of use
for outside uses. This has an impact on the amount of the fee in the present study and
provides interesting opportunities to consider policy changes to reduce water consumption. No action is required with the impact fee program. This is information
applicable to other programs or City activities.
202
7
Water Sense: During the evaluation of water consumption at the IFAC meetings the
possibility of having a different fee for homes with superior water conservation measures
was discussed. This came before the analysis discussed above which showed an
unexpected water utilization trend in new construction. As the available data didn’t presently support such a distinct fee it did not move forward. However, the US EPA does
have a water conservation program called Water Sense which provides a metric and
procedure to pursue high efficiency water use certification. Since water intake is related
to wastewater generation improving efficiency in water use may also benefit wastewater
matters. This was seen as a starting point for this discussion. The IFAC agreed that even though it wasn’t ready for implementation in this fee study the idea should carry forward
for future analysis. The greatest questions on this subject revolved around verification
and implementation. No action is required related to the study on this item. An
implementation of this program would require new procedures. This is likely a large project that would require Commission prioritization and dedication of resources. It is not expected that ordinance changes would be required.
Generally Applicable Items
Capital Improvements Program (CIP): One of the responsibilities of the IFAC is to advise
the Commission regarding the spending of impact fees. This is fit into the regular CIP
document which the City Commission considers and adopts annually. The CIP covers a rolling six year window with the current budget year and five future years. A point of
discussion at the IFAC is the relative merits of how to list projects on the CIP.
Three options were discussed. First, having a short list of high priority projects which are
all funded and leave no material uncommitted funds and no unfunded projects on the list.
Second, have a lengthy list of projects which are impact fee eligible but which collectively are beyond the five year financial reach of the program in order to communicate possible options for the future. Third, have a short list of high priority
funded projects and deliberately leave an uncommitted balance in the program to enable
the City or individual developers to ask for partner funding as opportunities arise. No
action is required related to the study on this item. This is more of a preference for the Commission to express as it considers the CIP update.
Credit management: One of the public comments during the public hearings before the
FIAC was related to how credits are managed. This is related to the CIP item above. The
current approach used by the City requires CIP listing prior to work being eligible for
funding with impact fees either as a city project or as a developer request. The request was to allow as credit projects all qualifying work whether or not CIP listed and would
establish the value of credits available based on the CIP listed values. Staff has
considered this option and believes it would cause several difficulties in managing the
impact fee funds and in showing that fees were expended appropriately. No action is
required related to the study on this item. This change would require an ordinance.
Data tracking: The revised approaches for assessing the impact fees by home size and
water and sewer by lot size will require additional data tracking. Coordination among
departments will be needed to ensure consistent collection and retention of the needed
information. It is believed that this can be accomplished with existing software tools. No action is required related to the study on this item.
203
8
Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study Updates: As noted above, the City relies upon its
facility plans as essential information in preparing and administering the impact fee
program. The City has completed several major projects in the various plans and in some
cases the documents were prepared several years ago. The City’s ordinance requires a periodic review, and if needed update, to these foundation documents. It is likely that
updates to the water, wastewater, and fire facility plans will be needed before the next
impact fee update. These are major endeavors and use a lot of staff and commission time
and financial resources. It is advisable to begin this process soon so as to be completed
before the next required study update.
The City has established a schedule of updates in Section 2.06.1700.J, BMC. This schedule was put in place at a time of high growth rates and when the impact fee program
was new. The impact fee and facility plan updates require significant investments of
money, staff and Commission time, and time from the public. It is recommended to
consider the possibility to lengthen the cycle time. Recent inquiry to Missoula shows that they don’t have a fixed update cycle for their impact fees studies but do so about every five years. There are advantages to coordinating the processes to review and update the
monthly service rates and the impact fee study updates. No action is required related to
the study on this item. Changes to the update schedule requirement require an ordinance. No action on this item is required before adopting the updated fee study.
Deferred payment: A member of the IFAC raised the question of timing of the required
payment of impact fees. Presently the fees are due at issuance of building permit or
connection to water or sewer systems. The Commission has considered this issue several
times before and concluded the benefits were not adequate to justify the change. It is
important to remember in discussing this topic that the amount of immediate impact varies among the different fees. The individual fees may be treated differently for the
manner in which they are collected although this would add complexity. An additional
matter is whether there is a minimum threshold of cost below which fees would not be
deferred. Additional discussion on this item is presented under the economic
development segment below. A change of timing for required payment of fees would require an ordinance.
Economic Development Considerations
How does the implementation of a revised impact fee methodology synchronize with the
Commission’s established economic development goals, priorities and policy initiatives?
Specifically, how will the application of a new impact fee methodology impact the implementation of the adopted economic development plan?
It is important to discuss if, and how the implementation of a new impact fee
methodology will complement, or challenge, other guiding economic development
principles and priorities of the Bozeman City Commission. For context please refer to
the City’s broad economic development policy direction shown in Sections 1 – 4 below.
Section 1.
The adopted 2012 – 2013 Work-Plan includes the following priorities:
1. Implement the adopted economic development plan, integrating
economic development principles throughout the organization;
204
9
2. Adopt comprehensive strategies and financial plans to address
deferred maintenance;
3. Improve parks and recreation amenities;
4. Complete an integrated water resources plan;
5. Create a storm-water utility;
6. Enhance downtown development opportunities;
7. Support Gallatin College programs;
8. Implementation of the community climate action plan; and
9. Develop a legislative agenda.
Section 2.
In 2009 the Bozeman City Commission adopted its first economic development plan.
Since adoption, the City’s Economic Development Council and city staff implement
programs, practices and partnerships that add value to the City’s economic development efforts and builds capacity to serve more businesses in the area. The tenets of the economic development plan are:
1. Support the expansion and retention of existing businesses and
economic clusters that will continue to strengthen and diversify the
economy and create higher paying jobs in Bozeman.
2. Maintain and upgrade infrastructure to support current and future needs of business.
3. Support education and workforce development initiatives to
provide Bozeman with the qualified workers to meet the needs of
business.
4. Leverage local, state and federal economic development resources to enhance economic growth in Bozeman.
5. Create a more collaborative and effective working partnership
between the business community and the City of Bozeman and
effectively manage the City of Bozeman’s regulatory environment to accomplish goals without hindering business expansion and economic growth.
6. Maintain the high quality of life that is considered an important
asset to the business community.
Section 3.
Additionally, from the adopted plan, the EDC delineated the following priorities
and recommendations:
1. Commitment to a business-friendly process with a focus on retention and expansion of existing local businesses.
205
10
2. Stabilize existing local incubators and create a full service business
incubator program to achieve a healthy business ecosystem.
3. Core Services and Infrastructure.
4. Identification and Establishment of Business Incentives.
5. Workforce Development.
Section 4.
The City of Bozeman’s economic development goals are rooted in a job creation and
industry diversification strategy adopted in the 2009 Economic Development Plan. The
City has determined that supporting the start-up, growth or relocation of the following high growth potential sectors will create high paying jobs and add diversity to the local economy:
1. Manufacturing and fabrication;
2. Bio-Sciences and Bio-Technology;
3. Hi-Technology ;
4. Photonics; and
5. the Outdoor industry.
Support for high growth potential sectors includes creating partnerships where others can
take the lead in areas of workforce training, appropriate incentives, business resources.
The City has taken the lead on streamlining the development review process and facilitating economic growth by strengthening and creating partnerships and matching businesses with resources.
Impact Fees and Economic Development
New development relies upon the availability of infrastructure to move forward in a
timely manner. Delay can be a strong disincentive to investments. Impact fees help provide infrastructure in a timely manner thereby avoiding delays. Impact fees help
provide predictability in short and long term cost structures to business by identifying
costs up front and avoiding unplanned large tax or user fee increases in the future.
Different users are more or less sensitive to the known and upfront costs compared to
more predictable long term costs over the average business lifecycle. The impact fee ordinance makes allowance for the City to provide financial support to offset the effects
of impact fees on desired development. The City can take advantage of this to focus
efforts on desired economic sectors. The change in the transportation impact fee to
consolidate non-residential uses for initial use and reuse should be supportive of reuse
and redevelopment in existing facilities.
A well integrated policy and regulatory environment is advantageous for both the public and private entities who work with the regulations. The effect of the new impact fee
methodology on the adopted work plan and implementation of the City’s Economic
Development Plan should be considered in the overall impact fee implementation
discussion.
206
11
Ideally, in its’ consideration of the implementation of an impact fee policy, the
Commission discuss the synchronization of the impact fee program with the
Commission’s established economic development goals, priorities and policy initiatives.
The Economic Development Council (EDC) discussed the issue of impact fees on numerous occasions, hosting various experts on the issue. Through their staff liaison, the
EDC submitted the following discussion points for Commission consideration:
1. Prepare materials to educate potential investors, business owners and
entrepreneurs, on the short and long-term investor-advantages of charging impact
fees when compared to other fee recovery solutions;
2. Identify specific sectors, job creating, industry diversifying sectors with high
growth potential, for deferral of commercial impact fees, or a percentage thereof,
until the application for Certificate of Occupancy.
i. Manufacturing and fabrication (industrial production, in which raw
materials are transformed into finished goods on a large scale
which may include but are not limited to textiles, outdoor goods
and products, bio-science and technology products and photonics)
ii. Bio-Science and Bio-Technology (including but not limited to
technological applications that use biological systems, living
organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or
processes for specific uses)
iii. High-Technology (including but not limited to aerospace, artificial
intelligence, information technology, electrical engineering,
information systems, nanotechnology, nuclear physics, robotics
and telecommunications)
iv. Photonics (including but not limited to laser manufacturing,
advanced measuring devices, biological and chemical sensing,
medical diagnostics and therapy, display technology, and optical
computing)
v. the Outdoor industry (active outdoor recreation businesses
including but not limited to manufacturers, distributors, suppliers,
marketers, sales representatives and retailers in the industry)
3. Commit to training and educating employees that interface with investors and
developers because there is value in appreciating that the City competes locally,
regionally and nationally to attract new and retain existing business. City
attitudes, customer service, professionalism and shared values for business
attraction and retention each play a part in the business decision. Economic
development is everyone’s business.
207
12
4. Regularly compare the City’s development fee schedule against the development
fee schedules of other communities;
5. Identify specific sectors (see sector details in 2. i – iv above) for targeted impact
fee assistance.
6. Work deliberately to make raw land developable as appropriate (with respect to
subdividing and infrastructure development);
Options to address EDC comments:
Comment 2: There are several options for changing the time fees are due. Changes in payment
timing should likely be made uniformly across all users. Careful legal review would be needed to
restrict procedural benefits to only some users.
1) The time of payment was originally set prior to permit issuance as it provides the most surety of payment prior to impacts on the systems beginning. This timing of payment is the current
standard. The city has the funds in hand and can therefore have the greatest ability to carry
forward construction of necessary improvements to meet demands for service. Payment prior
to permit means the fee is paid early in the process. It a project is abandoned after permit
issuance and before construction begins fees can be refunded as no impact has yet occurred. Early payment of a fee requires greater financial commitment by the private party earlier in
the construction process but provides the least risk to the City.
2) The next most reliable time would be prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. An
occupancy permit is certification by the Building Division that the requirements of the
building code have been met and the building is ready for safe use. Not all types of construction which generate new service demand require an occupancy permit and would
therefore need some exception to this timing requirement to ensure fee payment.
The positive argument for this change is that it does not require as much financial
commitment as early in the process which may reduce interest paid on a loan or simplify
financing for certain owner constructed homes. A review of a recent sample of single detached homes showed a time range between permit issuance and certificate of occupancy
of 53-204 days with an average of 132 days. Deferral to occupancy could then possibly
provide an opportunity to avoid interest charges on $9,455 for a median size home and lot
assuming 100% collection of cost of service. Commercial construction is more variable in
demand and is expected to take longer. Therefore no commercial example is provided. As a single point in time payment the occupancy permit approach is less complicated than a
distributed payment.
The negative argument is that it is more likely that a project will reach completion and have
exhausted its available budget and not have the funds to pay the impact fee. The City would
then be in the position of having to deny occupancy of a completed building after significant expense. It may be possible to help mitigate this risk by requiring provision of an escrow of
funds to ensure the fees are held and available although not paid immediately. This would
require development of appropriate procedures both internally and with the lending
institutions. Also, by deferring availability of funds it adds some complexity in planning for
expenditure of the funds. This also has potential for additional stress on Building Division
208
13
personnel who must handle the issuance of the certificates of occupancy and who are the
receiving point for the impact fee payments.
3) A third option is payment over a period of time. Kalispell has set up this process but also
requires payment of any outstanding amounts upon sale of the property. The sale requirement would make this approach less beneficial for many residential projects which sell shortly after completion. Selection of duration of the time period would be up to the City. Use of the
approach requires several steps and has some direct costs for recording documents at the
Clerk and Recorder’s office.
The positive argument for this change is the deferral of costs which reduces the upfront expenses of development. However, it is important to note that this does not reduce the total expenses and if interest on the deferral is charged as Kallispell does may actually increase the
end cost.
The negative argument is that significant additional legal and procedural complexity is added
for an undependable amount of benefit. The additional complexity adds costs to the process of collecting and administering the impact fee program. There is no judicial sanction for this approach at this time in Montana. Contact with Kalispell staff indicates that the option is
infrequently used. Staff does not recommend this approach. A change of timing for required
payment of fees would require an ordinance.
Comment 4: Comparison to Other Communities: Settlement and development of the Gallatin Valley has been actively ongoing since the 1860’s. People have chosen to settle in many different locations for many different reasons and have created several villages, towns,
municipalities and other settlements in our area. These decisions came long before any
discussion of impact fees. Location of resources, costs, service quality, timing of land
availability, and many other factors affect the decision to choose a particular site. At this time three of the four municipalities in the Gallatin Valley have adopted impact fees. A comparison sheet is attached showing Bozeman, Belgrade, and Manhattan; Missoula is also included. This
sheet shows impact fee costs for various types of development. Please note that the orange
highlight shows those costs which are highest in the comparison. Some communities have
reduced the percentage of the fee they collect. The cost comparisons for other communities shows actual collected amounts. The Bozeman column shows actual cost of service as determined by the new studies and does not reflect any reductions. Conversation with the other
communities indicates that they do not have a funding program in place to make up the
uncollected portion of the impact fees.
A second comparison sheet is provided which summarizes costs from three types of non-residential uses: manufacturing, retail, and office. This comparison is based on costs per thousand square feet for sample projects applying the proposed methodology of the four fee
update studies. Please note that for purposes of simplifying the comparisons the actual project
costs are divided to be presented on a cost per thousand square feet although not all fees are
assessed in that manner. The referenced 271 city averages are from the attached impact fee survey by Duncan. Please note the fact that differences in revenue options affects reliance upon any particular funding source. There are a wide range of types of fees and costs of fees imposed
as shown in that study.
A set of four reports produced by the Montana Building Industry Association is also provided.
This set tracks single detached home construction statewide in counties and larger cities. The
209
14
report set is provided on a quarterly basis. The second quarter (April-June) is provided for 2009-
2012. As shown in this data set, even during the significant downturn of the past few years and
as the economic recovery has begun Bozeman has remained more active with construction than
most locations in the state.
Not all fees charged to expand system capacity are called impact fees. They are also called system development charges or system investment fees among other names. These fees can be
charged by water and sewer utility providers under a different statutory authority than the impact
fee program relies upon. Three examples of this are those charged by the Rae Water and Sewer
district west of Bozeman, Helena, and by the City of Billings. Copies of the fee amounts they charge are attached. All these use the equivalent of meter size to determine the fee for various commercial and multi-household developments. Costs vary as would be expected as the
infrastructure necessary to provide service also vary across communities. Note that Billings
made the policy choice to charge a single amount for all residential meter sizes thereby choosing
to undercharge multi-household users.
A comparison and contrast with other communities must also look at more than just impact fees. The following table from the FY2013 City of Bozeman budget depicts mill levy rankings.
City 2010 Census Populations FY2012 Mills Levy Rank As a % of Bozeman’s Levy
Havre 9,310 241.26 1 145%
Missoula 66,788 233.34 2 140%
Livingston 7,044 209.06 3 125%
Great Falls 58,505 183.24 4 110%
Kalispell 19,927 175.93 5 106%
Billings 104,170 168.73 6 101%
Bozeman 37,280 166.75 7 100%
Belgrade 7,389 156.69 8 94%
Helena 28,190 155.82 9 93%
Whitefish* 6,357 120.40 10 72%
West Yellowstone* 1,271 88.21 11 53%
*West Yellowstone and Whitefish both utilize Local Option Resort Taxes as an alternative or
supplement to property taxes, which the City of Bozeman is currently prohibited from doing by state law.
There are many different comparisons between communities on this issue which could be made.
When determining comparisons to make in this report it was decided by Staff that the scope
must, of necessity, be restricted to keep the discussions focused. Evaluation of specific communities outside of Montana brings in additional factors such as different tax and infrastructure financing tools and statues. This increases the level of complexity beyond what
could be achieved with the resources available.
Comment 5: This comment discusses the possibility of creating methods to offset costs for
targeted industries which significantly advance the City’s economic development goals. The impact fee program does not specify who needs to pay the impact fee. Section 2.06.1700.H states that the City may pay impact fees from other funding sources to advance economic
210
15
development. Revenues from monthly rates can also be used to pay for capacity expanding
projects. For example, the City has approximately 10,800 water accounts. If the City
Commission established an additional fee of 25 cents per month per account over the course of a
year it could create revenue of $32,400 per year. This amount would likely be adequate to offset the water impact fees for 2-6 non-residential projects per year depending on the intensity of water demand. The Commission could establish a program with criteria for qualification.
Projects which met the criteria could have their water impact fees paid for up to the limits of the
program funding. No change to the impact fee ordinance would be required for this approach. Creation of such a program and any rate adjustment would likely be coordinated with the annual utility rate setting process which typically occurs in July –August.
Comment 6: Impact fees make certain costs of land development explicit instead of hidden in
land costs or monthly bills. They therefore help to provide better information for decision
making. They also act to overcome one of the principal barriers to availability of land which is
the lack of needed infrastructure. For example, it is very difficult for a single development to overcome a barrier such as a needed but not funded traffic signal. However, when costs are shared and that development may pay a small portion of the cost of the needed traffic signal and
move forward both time and dollar expenses are reduced. This helps to make land more readily
available for development. Effectiveness of public infrastructure investments can be increased by
more active coordination between long range facility planning, CIP scheduling, and operational activities in the Public Works, Economic Development and Community Development departments. This does not require any change in ordinance.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As shown in Section F there are implementation items needing
additional discussion. However, the primary focus of the November 26th meeting is to decide whether or not to adopt the Resolution accepting the wastewater impact fee study update. Additional discussion and actions will be necessary to carry out the options presented under
Section F of the memo and these may occur after adoption of the study.
ALTERNATIVES: Study: 1) Adopt the wastewater impact fee study as presented.
2) Delay adoption to a future time.
3) Adopt the wastewater impact fee study with directed changes after having made findings
to demonstrate why the changes are needed. 4) Decline to adopt the wastewater impact fee study and continue to use the study now in place.
Implementation:
1) Discuss the various options described under Section F and give direction on which ones
to pursue further. 2) Defer discussion to a future date.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The fiscal effects of this specific policy discussion are not immediate.
These proposed studies directly impact the amounts the City will collect in Impact Fee revenues
in the coming years. Expenditures of the fees will enable continued new construction which contributes on-going revenues and which will incur on-going expenses for provided services.
Below are the total Impact Fee revenues collected for each of the past 5 years. The street fee
collection reflects the 40% discount now in place. How much the city collects each year depends
on a number of factors:
211
16
1. The level of the fee charged to the developer/property owner. (i.e. 60%, 80%, 100% of
the study amount.) and,
2. The mix of projects built in the City each year. (A Drive-Thru Restaurant will have a
higher Street Impact fee than a Single Family Residence; a change in use to remodel an office might require additional street impact fees but no water impact fees, etc.)
City Impact Fee
Collections FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
TOTAL
FY08-FY12
Street Impact Fees $1,948,550 $1,198,319 $ 751,223 $1,208,135 $1,090,715 $ 6,196,942
Fire Impact Fees $259,726 $186,690 $187,476 $190,292 $245,250 $1,069,434
Water Impact Fees $1,237,939 $768,363 $744,557 $713,387 $981,095 $4,445,341
Sewer Impact Fees $1,306,893 $663,766 $667,909 $636,878 $986,905 $4,262,351
$4,753,108 $2,817,138 $2,351,165 $2,748,692 $3,303,965 $15,974,068
These studies also affect the policies around how Impact Fees may be spent. For instance,
• if the adopted Fire Impact Fee study only supports 75% contribution to Fire Stations, our Capital Plans will need to be updated and/or changed to reflect this change in policy. We will need to find another source of revenues to offset 25% of the costs of building
future fire stations.
• if the Water Impact Fee study no longer contains an element related to Water Supply
development costs, we will need to change our funding plans for some of the future IWRP outcomes and projects.
• If the Street Impact Fee Study does not contain collector streets then additional funding
sources must be identified and implemented.
Attachments:
Commission Resolution 4422
Wastewater Impact Fee Study dated 9/23/2012
The remaining attachments listed below are the same as and provided with the agenda item materials for the Water Impact Fee and Commission Resolution 4421 and are relevant but are not
duplicated with this agenda item.
Impact Fee Advisory Committee minutes from 8/16 and 9/13
Examples of applied and current fees Comparison of I-90 corridor impact fees Comparison of Bozeman to national averages
National impact fee survey 2012
Impact fee reduction Study – Florida 2010
Bozeman building permit history MBIA housing starts Rae system investment fees
Billings water and sewer system development fees
Helena system development fees
Report compiled on: 11/28/2012
212
Resolution 4422 Page 1 of 4
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4422 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ADOPTING THE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY PER ARTICLE 2.06, BMC.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community’s
expressed needs and desires for services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a fiscally responsible manner; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interests of all of the system users
now and in the future and not a limited subset of users; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted a wastewater facility
plan which examined current and future needs and provides a lawful, logical, balanced,
operationally sound, and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City’s
transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has chosen to utilize impact fees as one element of
an integrated approach to fund and provide Wastewater services; and
WHEREAS, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA provide specific authority
and guidance regarding the documentation necessary to establish an impact fee and procedures to
adopt and administer an impact fee; and
213
Resolution 4422 Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the City contracted with TischlerBise, Inc. to provide professional
services in development of an updated Wastewater impact fee study (the Fee Study) [also known
as a service area report];
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. reviewed the existing demand and needs for
wastewater facilities, the existing facilities available to meet that demand, and the method of
financing the existing systems and needed new facilities; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. also reviewed the contribution made or to be made in
the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by property owners towards the capital costs
of Wastewater facilities; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. reviewed and relied upon the City of Bozeman’s level
of service (LOS) standards and facility cost assumptions as established by recently constructed
projects in recommending Wastewater impact fees; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. prepared the Fee Study dated September 23, 2012,
including the assumptions, population and residential and non-residential development
projections, capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations, which study has been submitted to
and reviewed by City staff, Impact Fee Advisory Committee, and City Commission; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to the Fee Study, TischlerBise, Inc. and the City have
prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation, as required by section 7-6-1602 MCA,
in developing the Wastewater facilities impact fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution,
including but not limited to the following which has been summarized in the required service
area report:
(1) The most current wastewater facility plan;
(2) City of Bozeman Design and Specifications Manual;
214
Resolution 4422 Page 3 of 4
(3) Most recent bids and costs for actual construction of piping and plant expansions;
(4) Adopted Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program;
(5) Adopted Wastewater Capital Improvement Program, and
(6) the City Budget; and
WHEREAS, the City develops its Wastewater facility plans, and its capital
improvements program in a manner open to the public and accepts and responds to public
comment and input; and
WHEREAS, the City and TischlerBise have developed the Fee Study in a manner
open to the public and accepted and responded to comment and input; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Impact Fee Advisory Committee has considered
and made a recommendation to the City Commission on the Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee conducted public hearings on the
subject of the transportation impact fee study on August 16, 2012 and September 13, 2012, and
the City Commission conducted a public hearing on October 8, 2012, and a public meeting on
December 10, 2012; and
WHEREAS, public comment was received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission reviewed and discussed the Fee Study and accepts
and agrees with the content of the Fee Study and recognizes that updates and modifications will
be made to the fee schedule in the future in accord with the annual cost adjustment requirements
of Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 BMC; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds all required elements necessary for
compliance with standards for development of an impact fee have been satisfied.
215
Resolution 4422 Page 4 of 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, that
1. The September 23, 2012 draft of the Wastewater Impact Fee Study Update, as
contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, is
hereby adopted.
2. As of the 1st day of January 2013, any person who seeks to obtain any of the forms of
development listed 2.06.1670, BMC must pay a Wastewater Impact Fee pursuant to the
schedule included in Exhibit A of this Resolution .
Effective Date.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana,
at a regular session thereof held on the _____ day of ________, 2012. This resolution shall be in
full force and effect on January 1, 2013.
___________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER Mayor ATTEST:
________________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4423 adopting the update to the Fire/EMS impact
fee study to establish methodology, and document required information to conform to statute,
and determine the generalized average cost per unit of service.
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Commission Resolution 4423 adopting the updated Fire/EMS
impact fee study [also known as a service area report] as presented.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having received and considered the updated study for Fire/EMS
impact fees, the recommendation from the impact fee advisory committee, and having heard and
considered public comment I move to approve Commission Resolution 4423 adopting the
September 23, 2012 draft of the Fire/EMS Impact Fee Study.
BACKGROUND: The City operates a municipal fire department with three stations and three
engine companies and a ladder company. The department also provides and receives mutual aid
and specialty services to and from surrounding areas. The fire department requires funding for
maintenance and operations to serve existing users, and also funding to expand the system to
serve future users. Funding for operations and maintenance comes primarily from the general fund taxes and special purposes levy charged to properties within the City. This includes funding
for both daily operations such as wages and supplies and for the replacement of existing capital
goods. The City expends approximately 4.5 million dollars per year operating the fire
department. The large majority of those costs are for personnel. Capital goods are generally
defined as having a service life in excess of 10 years and are physical items such as stations, command vehicles, the training facility and other equipment such as portable defibrillators. The
City voters have authorized an on-going special property tax levy to replace existing capital
equipment as needed.
Capital expansion of the system is achieved by combined funding sources such as impact fees, general property taxes, and applicable grants which occur infrequently. All these funding sources
must work together to provide the reliable and adequate service needed for a healthy community.
Coordination is provided through the 2006 Fire Protection Master Plan and the annual capital
improvement programming system as well as the operational oversight of the staff and
Commission.
257
2
This memo discusses one element of the overall funding structure for the fire department, impact
fees. Bozeman initially adopted impact fees in 1996. Most recently the fee studies were updated
in 2007. The present fee study began in 2011. Impact fees have helped the City provide needed
services during high, moderate, and slow growth periods. The memo is structured in sections identified by letter. Each section addresses an individual topic. The majority of the sections are focused on the content of the new fee study, the presentation of information that occurred on
October 8th, and related questions. Section F identifies questions and issues that will be
addressed with implementation. Many of these items interrelate to other issues, programs, and
standards. These interrelationships are often complex and on-going. These items do not all need to be resolved prior to acceptance and adoption of the fee studies.
The sections are:
A. Responses to questions from October 8th
B. Summary History C. Process D. Common Study Elements and Changes
E. Fire specific items
F. Issues for Future Discussion and Implementation
Sections: A. Questions from October 8th:
1) Why is there a deficiency? See the discussion on this subject in Section E, page 5.
2) How to set the level of service – what is the best metric to use? The fire service has some of the most complicated measures of service with the type of response; e.g. structure fire, vehicle collision, or cardiac arrest, changing for each call and needing different numbers
and types of personnel and equipment. Although the stations are geographically
distributed to provide the shortest response time as possible, the various stations all
interact in providing services. The ISO rating only looks at fire response, not emergency medical services (EMS), or other emergent responses. Emergency medical represents the majority of the calls for service. Response time for first unit on scene is the primary
indictor in measuring response capability. The City Commission has adopted a 5-7
minute response time standard. Response time is made up of two components, turn out
time (the time from alarm to the truck rolling out the door) and travel time (the time it takes to physically drive to the address) This indicator is for first apparatus on scene. As our community continues to grow the instances of concurrent events, and calls where the
response time is not met, become more frequent. There is no perfect single measure that
will capture all of the nuances. The most appropriate approach is a hybrid that heavily
weights adopted minimum response time with numbers and types of calls, geographic location, resources required by call type, and equipment density. The area of our community where the response times are routinely beyond the adopted minimum would
be where we would consider our next station. The analysis to do this would reasonably be
included in an update to the Fire Protection Master Plan.
3) When do we need station number 4? When our average response times go beyond the
commission adopted standard response time. Assuming the relationship between
population and structure area is used, the probable due date would be in 2017. However,
there are also other ways to help meet those needs such as basing a second engine or an
EMS vehicle at station three. This would provide ability to respond to calls without an additional physical station. This illustrates the challenge of establishing adequate service
258
3
measures. At some point the amount of additional equipment and staffing would exceed
the ability to be hosted at existing buildings.
The question of when to build the next station also involves when the funds are available to construct and staff it. The impact fee is paid as construction which causes new demand occurs. This can cause a cash flow difficulty as the need for the station happens before
the full amount of the funding to construct the station can be received. It is therefore
likely that funds would need to be borrowed and the debt repaid with future impact fees.
This is similar to how we funded Station Three. However, statute does not provide for issuing bonds against future impact fee revenues so the general fund must stand as security for the bonds.
If the construction of the station is deferred in order to collect funds and reduce
borrowing some may claim that a reduction is service level has occurred which must then be reflected in future fee calculations. However, the payment of the fee is itself a manner to prevent service levels from falling in that it has mitigated the demand for future service
by contributing the proportionate share to a future station. Therefore, the collection of the
impact fee should hold the level of service determination stable even if the physical
construction is deferred for a time.
4) Why is the residential fee amount so different? – This answer requires comparison of key
factors from the previous and proposed fire impact fee studies. One important factor is
the growth share, which is higher in the proposed fees (75%) than in the previous study
(36%).
Even though the recommended growth share is higher, the fee amounts for residential
development have decreased due to a major change in the growth assumptions. The
previous study allocated the growth cost to an increase of only 11,625 persons. The
proposed study is allocating the growth cost to 49,977 persons. A greater number of
persons equals a greater number of homes divided into the same overall costs, which is the reason for the decrease in the fees for residential development.
For nonresidential development, there is also a big difference in the demand units, but the
relationship is reversed. The previous study allocated the growth cost to an increase of
21,258,000 square feet of nonresidential development. The proposed study allocates the
growth cost to an increase of 16,910,000 square feet of nonresidential development. This places the costs against a smaller building area which is the reason for the increase in the fees per unit of measure for nonresidential development.
B. Summary History: The City funds its water, sewer, fire/EMS, and transportation systems
with multiple funding sources including impact fees. The City of Bozeman initially adopted impact fees in 1996. Fees were initially adopted at a fraction of the calculated cost of service to provide a transition period. The percentage of the fees collected has
varied by time and type of fee. It is necessary from time to time to update the study which
documents and sets the upper limit for the unit costs for each type of impact fee.
The City adopted updates to the various facility plans which provide much of the base information for the impact fees for transportation in 2001 and 2009, fire in 2006, and
259
4
both wastewater and water in 2007. The City retained consultants in 2006 to update the
fee studies. The four fees were updated and adopted over the following 14 months.
The City has adopted a three year cycle to update the impact fee studies and a five year
cycle to evaluate and if needed update the facility plans. In 2011, the City began the consultant selection process to again update the impact fee studies. TischlerBise was selected as the consultant for this update cycle with the contract being signed in June
2011.
C. Process: 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 analysis
and draft reports, 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.
The IFAC conducted public hearings on August 16th and September 13th to hear input
from members of the public on the draft impact fee studies. After conducting the public
hearings the IFAC voted on motions to recommend approval of the individual fee studies.
The Committee recommended favorably on all four studies having found that the studies
were consistent with the requirements of state law regarding impact fees. The minutes of the IFAC hearings are attached and provide greater detail on their actions. Minutes of all
of the IFAC meetings are available through the Planning Department.
On October 8th the City Commission received the reports and heard a presentation from
TischlerBise regarding the reports. No action on the studies was taken. The meeting was
for receiving information, hearing from the public, and formulating questions from the Commission to be answered at a future meeting when all Commissioners are present.
The Commission set November 26th for follow up action on the water study. This action
was moved to December 10th. The Commission passed Ordinance 1843 making structural
changes to the impact fee ordinance language which will be in effect on December 5th.
These changes specify that adoption of the new water impact fee study is by resolution. A draft resolution has been prepared for Commission action should the Commission wish to
take action on December 10th.
A resolution of the Commission can be effective immediately. Staff recommends a delay
in the effective date of the implementing resolution in order for implementation
procedures to be set up and information to be provided to the public. Staff recommends the effective date to be January 1, 2013 and the draft resolution includes that effective
date.
D. Common Study Elements and Changes: Each fee is the subject of an independent study
as each fee is legally independent of the others and relies on different data and demand
characteristics. The introductory material in each study is very similar. There are three main sections of each report: 1) Introduction to impact fees, 2) Impact fee calculations for
each fee type, and 3) Implementation and administration. The second section of the report
contains the data sources and analysis and presents the resulting fee calculation broken
into cost per demand unit. This section will be most interesting to most people.
260
5
Several significant changes are occurring with this round of impact fee updates. Data was
available on home sizes from the MT Dept. of Revenue for the first time. This in
conjunction with other data sets enabled the consultants to perform analysis to document
certain demands for service by home size. Please see the Setting the Stage document for this analysis on home size and occupancy. They were then able to expand on this analysis with each individual fee study for those elements unique to that fee type as documented
in Appendix A of each study.
All four of the fee types now base residential fees on expected occupancy per size of
home. The same home size range was used for all four fees with a lower end of 1,400 square feet and an upper end of 3,000. The range is broken into 200 square foot increments so movement between increments will result in a small impact fee charge.
The consultant had analyzed the home range originally for detached and attached home
styles. After discussing the results with the IFAC it was decided to consolidate the two as
there was a substantial amount of overlap between the size increments. There is also a special residential category for group living which is distinguished by population rather than dwelling area. The occupancy level per home in the studies reflects the population
spread across all housing units constructed from 1990 to 2010. This represents demand at
any given point in time and accounts for vacancies without being tied to a particular
vacancy rate. As a result the occupancy per home used in the calculation is slightly less than the actual number of residents expected to live in an occupied dwelling.
These are averages over large samples of the City housing stock. Therefore, some homes
will have different demands above or below the average at any given point in time.
However, the overall system should equalize to the average. This occupancy approach
has the effect of recognizing the differences which come from smaller and larger homes and reducing fees on smaller units which generate less demand. This appears consistent with the City’s overall encouragement for land efficient development.
Because of this change all residential fees are on home size. Attached and detached
homes are no longer separate categories. Affordable housing distinctions to individual
categories are also removed since the primary difference was also related to size of homes.
Several examples of how these different approaches to the fee apply to development are
attached. There are both residential and non-residential examples for different intensities
and types of development as well as for the downtown area which is subject to special
standards.
E. Fire specific study elements and changes
Use categories: The fire impact fee uses the same approach to residential as used in the
other fees. This consolidated two categories and changed to the dwelling size based
approach discussed above. The non-residential categories were divided into four separate
categories after the current analysis found significant demand differences between them. The costs across non-residential categories show significant spread which directly reflects
the demand for services.
Existing Unmet Capital Needs [deficiencies]: The consultant concluded that a portion of
the remaining facilities to be constructed over the full build out of the fire master plan
should not be paid for with impact fees. They found that this amount was one quarter of
261
6
the remaining facilities and does not select how to divide that amount. The remaining ¾
could be paid for by impact fees.
This issue generated more discussion at the IFAC than any other during the update process. First, it is important to recognize that this question is not one of inadequate operational quality of service but of why there are unmet capital needs for the Fire
Department. There are several parts to this answer.
The fundamental challenge is the difficulty in finding a single measure which represents what total capital needs are. This is affected by the density of development, physical location, road networks, type of services delivered, and the infrequency with which major
capital purchases are made. Unlike water and sewer when new piping must be extended
with each new home, fire stations are fixed in their location and the fire truck comes to
the point of service. In the absence of more refined data the consultant used the relationship between building area in the fire stations and the population of the community.
Second, there are some existing areas of the City which lie outside of the present adopted
travel time standard. These areas would potentially receive shorter response times if properly located new stations were constructed. Third, the City did not collect the full cost of service for the fire impact fee from its inception in 1996 until 2008. This left a
short fall in funding. Fourth, due to lengthy litigation there was an extended delay in
updating the fee studies during a time when construction costs significantly increased.
A small amount of fire impact fees, less than $20,000, were also used to match a significant federal grant to install traffic preemption for traffic signals and fire trucks
which enables them to reach their destinations more safely and efficiently. This was a
legitimate use of the funds. However, the match used some money from the Fire Impact
Fee Fund which was then not available for future projects. The traffic signal project occurred after Station Three was built so this use of funds impacts the next set of capital purchases.
The fire impact fee is unusual due to the infrequency with which capital is acquired e.g.
stations are constructed or new engines purchased. As described in Section 4 on page 7 of the study, the time separation between constructions in Bozeman has varied between 90 and 34 years apart. This means that more than any other form of infrastructure the
infrastructure needed to provide service shows the greatest swings from just before and
just after construction. The physical city does not have the same radical leaps in
annexation or population change.
The fire service also has some of the most complicated measures of service capacity with the type of response; e.g. structure fire, vehicle collision, or cardiac arrest, changing for
each call and needing different numbers and types of equipment. Although the stations
are geographically distributed to provide a soonest time response option, the various
stations all interact in providing services. There are also opportunities to improve service response. These include nearest unit dispatch becoming available with recent improvements at the 911 center. In addition, there was not a formal fire facility plan in
place in 1996 when the impact fees were adopted.
As a result of these complexities, it was more difficult to identify and document what
constituted the established level of service to evaluate whether there was any existing
262
7
deficiency in service and to measure ability to provide additional service. Change in ISO
rating is noted which rating was recently upgraded. ISO only looks at fire suppression
and doesn’t include emergency medical responses. After consideration, a relationship
between square footage of fire stations and populations was used by the consultant to attempt a single measure to identify overall service capacity.
The fire facility master plan was adopted in 2006 and identified an eventual need for five
additional stations to be constructed to meet the eventual needs from the service
population by the end of the planning period. The first of those stations was constructed
in 2008 primarily with impact fees but a loan backed by the General Fund was also needed to meet project financing requirements. Four more stations are called for as need occurs. Based upon the future demand the consultants concluded that although the City
does not presently have a deficient service capacity but that a need for more capital
investment may occur before the next station can be built with collected revenues.
Therefore, in order to manage cash flow for station construction it is probable that bonds or other borrowing would be needed to build the fourth station.
The 911 system, funded by existing taxpayers, also added the capability to do “Closest
Available Dispatching” without contribution from development impact fees. It is still
early in data collection but it is anticipated that this capability has assisted in decreasing
average response times across the city. The City has also acquired land for station four independent of the impact fee program and this value would meet some of the non-impact fee contribution required.
As shown in the minutes from the IFAC, there was vigorous debate on the findings of the
consultant. Possible means to address these finding is discussed under Section F.
Alternative: Discussion with the consultants after the October 8th meeting has identified an alternate approach to the study. TischlerBise could revise the latest draft of the Fire Impact Fee Study (dated 09/23/12) to derive fees for two geographic areas. Rather than a
citywide growth share (also known as proportionate share) of 75% for future stations, the
revised study will derive distinct factors for land near to, and farther from, existing
stations. Land near stations will likely have a lower proportionate share, to be determined by City staff’s GIS analysis of the current ratio of vacant acres to total acres within the geographic area. Land farther from stations will probably be assigned a 100%
proportionate share factor.
The revisions to the Fire Impact Fee Study to use two geographic areas could likely be
completed within one week of receiving the GIS analysis indicating the current ratio of vacant to total acres within the area close to existing fire stations. The cost to revise the study is $5,200, excluding the cost of an optional additional trip to Bozeman to present
the revised study. The cost of the additional trip to Bozeman is $3,200.
This alternate approach would be somewhat similar to that used for the transportation
impact fee trip exchange district. A location near to existing stations would be expected to have less need for new infrastructure than one far away. The response needed to an EMS call generally requires one engine company. A response to a home structure fire
generally requires three. As the City goes beyond a three station system it may be timely
to begin to consider whether a multi-zone system in merited. There is no assurance that
the conclusion of the analysis would show an overall difference in the total percentage of the future station costs which could be covered by impact fees.
263
8
F. Issues for Future/Additional Discussion related to Fire/EMS. Several of these items are
generally applicable to all impact fees and are repeated with each individual Commission
cover memo. Notes on action are shown at the end of each segment in italic text.
Facility Plan: As described in Section E, there is a question on future unmet capital needs for the Fire/EMS impact fee. One of the possible remedies to the confusion is an update to the facility plan to more precisely document existing conditions, service capacities, and
to establish a more robust set of service capacity metrics. The current plan was adopted in
2006 and is our oldest facility plan. An update could also provide an opportunity to more
clearly establish level of service standards reflecting the diverse missions and activities of the Fire Department in a way that will simplify future impact fee updates. As with all facility plan updates, much of the present information would move forward. Adjustments
can be made to account for activities which have taken place since the last plan such as
the building of Station 3 and additional roads which change travel routes. Finally, new
and updated information can be used to evaluate how best to measure service delivery.
Generally Applicable Items
Capital Improvements Program (CIP): One of the responsibilities of the IFAC is to advise
the Commission regarding the spending of impact fees. This is fit into the regular CIP
document which the City Commission considers and adopts annually. The CIP covers a
rolling six year window with the current budget year and five future years. A point of discussion at the IFAC is the relative merits of how to list projects on the CIP.
Three options were discussed. First, having a short list of high priority projects which are
all funded and leave no material uncommitted funds and no unfunded projects on the list.
Second, have a lengthy list of projects which are impact fee eligible but which
collectively are beyond the five year financial reach of the program in order to communicate possible options for the future. Third, have a short list of high priority
funded projects and deliberately leave an uncommitted balance in the program to enable
the City or individual developers to ask for partner funding as opportunities arise. No
action is required related to the study on this item. This is more of a preference for the
Commission to express as it considers the CIP update.
Credit management: One of the public comments during the public hearings before the
FIAC was related to how credits are managed. This is related to the CIP item above. The
current approach used by the City requires CIP listing prior to work being eligible for
funding with impact fees either as a city project or as a developer request. The request
was to allow as credit projects all qualifying work whether or not CIP listed and would establish the value of credits available based on the CIP listed values. Staff has
considered this option and believes it would cause several difficulties in managing the
impact fee funds and in showing that fees were expended appropriately. No action is
required related to the study on this item. This change would require an ordinance.
Data tracking: The revised approaches for assessing the impact fees by home size will require additional data tracking. Coordination among departments will be needed to
ensure consistent collection and retention of the needed information. It is believed that
this can be accomplished with existing software tools. No action is required related to the
study on this item.
264
9
Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study Updates: As noted above, the City relies upon its
facility plans as essential information in preparing and administering the impact fee
program. The City has completed several major projects in the various plans and in some
cases the documents were prepared several years ago. The City’s ordinance requires a periodic review, and if needed update, to these foundation documents. It is likely that
updates to the water, wastewater, and fire facility plans will be needed before the next
impact fee update. These are major endeavors and use a lot of staff and commission time
and financial resources. It is advisable to begin this process soon so as to be completed
before the next required study update.
The City has established a schedule of updates in Section 2.06.1700.J, BMC. This schedule was put in place at a time of high growth rates and when the impact fee program
was new. The impact fee and facility plan updates require significant investments of
money, staff and Commission time, and time from the public. It is recommended to
consider the possibility to lengthen the cycle time. Recent inquiry to Missoula shows that they don’t have a fixed update cycle for their impact fees studies but do so about every five years. There are advantages to coordinating the processes to review and update the
monthly service rates and the impact fee study updates. No action is required related to
the study on this item. Changes to the update schedule requirement require an ordinance. No action on this item is required before adopting the updated fee study.
Deferred payment: A member of the IFAC raised the question of timing of the required
payment of impact fees. Presently the fees are due at issuance of building permit or
connection to water or sewer systems. The Commission has considered this issue several
times before and concluded the benefits were not adequate to justify the change. It is
important to remember in discussing this topic that the amount of immediate impact varies among the different fees. The individual fees may be treated differently for the
manner in which they are collected although this would add complexity. An additional
matter is whether there is a minimum threshold of cost below which fees would not be
deferred. Additional discussion on this item is presented under the economic
development segment below. A change of timing for required payment of fees would require an ordinance.
Economic Development Considerations
How does the implementation of a revised impact fee methodology synchronize with the
Commission’s established economic development goals, priorities and policy initiatives? Specifically, how will the application of a new impact fee methodology impact the
implementation of the adopted economic development plan?
It is important to discuss if, and how the implementation of a new impact fee
methodology will complement, or challenge, other guiding economic development
principles and priorities of the Bozeman City Commission. For context please refer to the City’s broad economic development policy direction shown in Sections 1 – 4 below.
Section 1.
The adopted 2012 – 2013 Work-Plan includes the following priorities:
265
10
1. Implement the adopted economic development plan, integrating
economic development principles throughout the organization;
2. Adopt comprehensive strategies and financial plans to address
deferred maintenance;
3. Improve parks and recreation amenities;
4. Complete an integrated water resources plan;
5. Create a storm-water utility;
6. Enhance downtown development opportunities;
7. Support Gallatin College programs;
8. Implementation of the community climate action plan; and
9. Develop a legislative agenda.
Section 2.
In 2009 the Bozeman City Commission adopted its first economic development plan. Since adoption, the City’s Economic Development Council and city staff implement programs, practices and partnerships that add value to the City’s economic development
efforts and builds capacity to serve more businesses in the area. The tenets of the
economic development plan are:
1. Support the expansion and retention of existing businesses and economic clusters that will continue to strengthen and diversify the economy and create higher paying jobs in Bozeman.
2. Maintain and upgrade infrastructure to support current and future
needs of business.
3. Support education and workforce development initiatives to provide Bozeman with the qualified workers to meet the needs of business.
4. Leverage local, state and federal economic development resources
to enhance economic growth in Bozeman.
5. Create a more collaborative and effective working partnership between the business community and the City of Bozeman and effectively manage the City of Bozeman’s regulatory environment
to accomplish goals without hindering business expansion and
economic growth.
6. Maintain the high quality of life that is considered an important asset to the business community.
Section 3.
Additionally, from the adopted plan, the EDC delineated the following priorities
and recommendations:
266
11
1. Commitment to a business-friendly process with a focus on
retention and expansion of existing local businesses.
2. Stabilize existing local incubators and create a full service business
incubator program to achieve a healthy business ecosystem.
3. Core Services and Infrastructure.
4. Identification and Establishment of Business Incentives.
5. Workforce Development.
Section 4.
The City of Bozeman’s economic development goals are rooted in a job creation and industry diversification strategy adopted in the 2009 Economic Development Plan. The City has determined that supporting the start-up, growth or relocation of the following
high growth potential sectors will create high paying jobs and add diversity to the local
economy:
1. Manufacturing and fabrication;
2. Bio-Sciences and Bio-Technology;
3. Hi-Technology ;
4. Photonics; and
5. the Outdoor industry.
Support for high growth potential sectors includes creating partnerships where others can take the lead in areas of workforce training, appropriate incentives, business resources. The City has taken the lead on streamlining the development review process and
facilitating economic growth by strengthening and creating partnerships and matching
businesses with resources.
Impact Fees and Economic Development
New development relies upon the availability of infrastructure to move forward in a
timely manner. Delay can be a strong disincentive to investments. Impact fees help
provide infrastructure in a timely manner thereby avoiding delays. Impact fees help
provide predictability in short and long term cost structures to business by identifying
costs up front and avoiding unplanned large tax or user fee increases in the future. Different users are more or less sensitive to the known and upfront costs compared to
more predictable long term costs over the average business lifecycle. The impact fee
ordinance makes allowance for the City to provide financial support to offset the effects
of impact fees on desired development. The City can take advantage of this to focus
efforts on desired economic sectors. The change in the transportation impact fee to consolidate non-residential uses for initial use and reuse should be supportive of reuse
and redevelopment in existing facilities.
A well integrated policy and regulatory environment is advantageous for both the public
and private entities who work with the regulations. The effect of the new impact fee
methodology on the adopted work plan and implementation of the City’s Economic Development Plan should be considered in the overall impact fee implementation discussion.
267
12
Ideally, in its’ consideration of the implementation of an impact fee policy, the
Commission discuss the synchronization of the impact fee program with the
Commission’s established economic development goals, priorities and policy initiatives.
The Economic Development Council (EDC) discussed the issue of impact fees on numerous occasions, hosting various experts on the issue. Through their staff liaison, the
EDC submitted the following discussion points for Commission consideration:
1. Prepare materials to educate potential investors, business owners and
entrepreneurs, on the short and long-term investor-advantages of charging impact
fees when compared to other fee recovery solutions;
2. Identify specific sectors, job creating, industry diversifying sectors with high
growth potential, for deferral of commercial impact fees, or a percentage thereof,
until the application for Certificate of Occupancy.
i. Manufacturing and fabrication (industrial production, in which raw
materials are transformed into finished goods on a large scale
which may include but are not limited to textiles, outdoor goods
and products, bio-science and technology products and photonics)
ii. Bio-Science and Bio-Technology (including but not limited to
technological applications that use biological systems, living
organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or
processes for specific uses)
iii. High-Technology (including but not limited to aerospace, artificial
intelligence, information technology, electrical engineering,
information systems, nanotechnology, nuclear physics, robotics
and telecommunications)
iv. Photonics (including but not limited to laser manufacturing,
advanced measuring devices, biological and chemical sensing,
medical diagnostics and therapy, display technology, and optical
computing)
v. the Outdoor industry (active outdoor recreation businesses
including but not limited to manufacturers, distributors, suppliers,
marketers, sales representatives and retailers in the industry)
3. Commit to training and educating employees that interface with investors and
developers because there is value in appreciating that the City competes locally,
regionally and nationally to attract new and retain existing business. City
attitudes, customer service, professionalism and shared values for business
attraction and retention each play a part in the business decision. Economic
development is everyone’s business.
268
13
4. Regularly compare the City’s development fee schedule against the development
fee schedules of other communities;
5. Identify specific sectors (see sector details in 2. i – iv above) for targeted impact
fee assistance.
6. Work deliberately to make raw land developable as appropriate (with respect to
subdividing and infrastructure development);
Options to address EDC comments:
Comment 2: There are several options for changing the time fees are due. Changes in payment
timing should likely be made uniformly across all users. Careful legal review would be needed to
restrict procedural benefits to only some users.
1) The time of payment was originally set prior to permit issuance as it provides the most surety of payment prior to impacts on the systems beginning. This timing of payment is the current
standard. The city has the funds in hand and can therefore have the greatest ability to carry
forward construction of necessary improvements to meet demands for service. Payment prior
to permit means the fee is paid early in the process. It a project is abandoned after permit
issuance and before construction begins fees can be refunded as no impact has yet occurred. Early payment of a fee requires greater financial commitment by the private party earlier in
the construction process but provides the least risk to the City.
2) The next most reliable time would be prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. An
occupancy permit is certification by the Building Division that the requirements of the
building code have been met and the building is ready for safe use. Not all types of construction which generate new service demand require an occupancy permit and would
therefore need some exception to this timing requirement to ensure fee payment.
The positive argument for this change is that it does not require as much financial
commitment as early in the process which may reduce interest paid on a loan or simplify
financing for certain owner constructed homes. A review of a recent sample of single detached homes showed a time range between permit issuance and certificate of occupancy
of 53-204 days with an average of 132 days. Deferral to occupancy could then possibly
provide an opportunity to avoid interest charges on $9,455 for a median size home and lot
assuming 100% collection of cost of service. Commercial construction is more variable in
demand and is expected to take longer. Therefore no commercial example is provided. As a single point in time payment the occupancy permit approach is less complicated than a
distributed payment.
The negative argument is that it is more likely that a project will reach completion and have
exhausted its available budget and not have the funds to pay the impact fee. The City would
then be in the position of having to deny occupancy of a completed building after significant expense. It may be possible to help mitigate this risk by requiring provision of an escrow of
funds to ensure the fees are held and available although not paid immediately. This would
require development of appropriate procedures both internally and with the lending
institutions. Also, by deferring availability of funds it adds some complexity in planning for
expenditure of the funds. This also has potential for additional stress on Building Division
269
14
personnel who must handle the issuance of the certificates of occupancy and who are the
receiving point for the impact fee payments.
3) A third option is payment over a period of time. Kalispell has set up this process but also
requires payment of any outstanding amounts upon sale of the property. The sale requirement would make this approach less beneficial for many residential projects which sell shortly after completion. Selection of duration of the time period would be up to the City. Use of the
approach requires several steps and has some direct costs for recording documents at the
Clerk and Recorder’s office.
The positive argument for this change is the deferral of costs which reduces the upfront expenses of development. However, it is important to note that this does not reduce the total expenses and if interest on the deferral is charged as Kallispell does may actually increase the
end cost.
The negative argument is that significant additional legal and procedural complexity is added
for an undependable amount of benefit. The additional complexity adds costs to the process of collecting and administering the impact fee program. There is no judicial sanction for this approach at this time in Montana. Contact with Kalispell staff indicates that the option is
infrequently used. Staff does not recommend this approach. A change of timing for required
payment of fees would require an ordinance.
Comment 4: Comparison to Other Communities: Settlement and development of the Gallatin Valley has been actively ongoing since the 1860’s. People have chosen to settle in many different locations for many different reasons and have created several villages, towns,
municipalities and other settlements in our area. These decisions came long before any
discussion of impact fees. Location of resources, costs, service quality, timing of land
availability, and many other factors affect the decision to choose a particular site. At this time three of the four municipalities in the Gallatin Valley have adopted impact fees. A comparison sheet is attached showing Bozeman, Belgrade, and Manhattan; Missoula is also included. This
sheet shows impact fee costs for various types of development. Please note that the orange
highlight shows those costs which are highest in the comparison. Some communities have
reduced the percentage of the fee they collect. The cost comparisons for other communities shows actual collected amounts. The Bozeman column shows actual cost of service as determined by the new studies and does not reflect any reductions. Conversation with the other
communities indicates that they do not have a funding program in place to make up the
uncollected portion of the impact fees.
A second comparison sheet is provided which summarizes costs from three types of non-residential uses: manufacturing, retail, and office. This comparison is based on costs per thousand square feet for sample projects applying the proposed methodology of the four fee
update studies. Please note that for purposes of simplifying the comparisons the actual project
costs are divided to be presented on a cost per thousand square feet although not all fees are
assessed in that manner. The referenced 271 city averages are from the attached impact fee survey by Duncan. Please note the fact that differences in revenue options affects reliance upon any particular funding source. There are a wide range of types of fees and costs of fees imposed
as shown in that study.
A set of four reports produced by the Montana Building Industry Association is also provided.
This set tracks single detached home construction statewide in counties and larger cities. The
270
15
report set is provided on a quarterly basis. The second quarter (April-June) is provided for 2009-
2012. As shown in this data set, even during the significant downturn of the past few years and
as the economic recovery has begun Bozeman has remained more active with construction than
most locations in the state.
Not all fees charged to expand system capacity are called impact fees. They are also called system development charges or system investment fees among other names. These fees can be
charged by water and sewer utility providers under a different statutory authority than the impact
fee program relies upon. Three examples of this are those charged by the Rae Water and Sewer
district west of Bozeman, Helena, and by the City of Billings. Copies of the fee amounts they charge are attached. All these use the equivalent of meter size to determine the fee for various commercial and multi-household developments. Costs vary as would be expected as the
infrastructure necessary to provide service also vary across communities. Note that Billings
made the policy choice to charge a single amount for all residential meter sizes thereby choosing
to undercharge multi-household users.
A comparison and contrast with other communities must also look at more than just impact fees. The following table from the FY2013 City of Bozeman budget depicts mill levy rankings.
City 2010 Census Populations FY2012 Mills Levy Rank As a % of Bozeman’s Levy
Havre 9,310 241.26 1 145%
Missoula 66,788 233.34 2 140%
Livingston 7,044 209.06 3 125%
Great Falls 58,505 183.24 4 110%
Kalispell 19,927 175.93 5 106%
Billings 104,170 168.73 6 101%
Bozeman 37,280 166.75 7 100%
Belgrade 7,389 156.69 8 94%
Helena 28,190 155.82 9 93%
Whitefish* 6,357 120.40 10 72%
West Yellowstone* 1,271 88.21 11 53%
*West Yellowstone and Whitefish both utilize Local Option Resort Taxes as an alternative or
supplement to property taxes, which the City of Bozeman is currently prohibited from doing by state law.
There are many different comparisons between communities on this issue which could be made.
When determining comparisons to make in this report it was decided by Staff that the scope
must, of necessity, be restricted to keep the discussions focused. Evaluation of specific communities outside of Montana brings in additional factors such as different tax and infrastructure financing tools and statues. This increases the level of complexity beyond what
could be achieved with the resources available.
Comment 5: This comment discusses the possibility of creating methods to offset costs for
targeted industries which significantly advance the City’s economic development goals. The impact fee program does not specify who needs to pay the impact fee. Section 2.06.1700.H states that the City may pay impact fees from other funding sources to advance economic
271
16
development. Unlike water or sewer the City does not have a source other than the general fund
form which to draw funds to reduce Fire/EMS impact fees. No change to the impact fee
ordinance would be required to commit general funds to offsetting impact fees. However, such a commitment would likely be done in conjunction with the annual budgetary process.
Comment 6: Impact fees make certain costs of land development explicit instead of hidden in land costs or monthly bills. They therefore help to provide better information for decision
making. They also act to overcome one of the principal barriers to availability of land which is
the lack of needed infrastructure. For example, it is very difficult for a single development to
overcome a barrier such as a needed but not funded traffic signal. However, when costs are shared and that development may pay a small portion of the cost of the needed traffic signal and move forward both time and dollar expenses are reduced. This helps to make land more readily
available for development. Effectiveness of public infrastructure investments can be increased by
more active coordination between long range facility planning, CIP scheduling, and operational
activities in the Public Works, Economic Development and Community Development departments. This does not require any change in ordinance. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As shown in Sections E and F there are implementation items
needing additional discussion. However, the primary focus of the December 10th meeting is to
decide whether or not to adopt the Resolution accepting the Fire/EMS impact fee study update. Additional discussion and actions will be necessary to carry out the options presented under
Section F of the memo and these may occur after adoption of the study.
ALTERNATIVES:
Study: 1. Adopt the Fire/EMS impact fee study as presented.
2. Delay adoption to a future time.
3. Adopt the Fire/EMS impact fee study with directed changes after having made findings
to demonstrate why the changes are needed.
4. Decline to adopt the Fire/EMS impact fee study and continue to use the study now in place.
Implementation:
1) Discuss the various options described under Section F and give direction on which ones
to pursue further.
2) Defer discussion to a future date.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The fiscal effects of this specific policy discussion are not immediate.
These proposed studies directly impact the amounts the City will collect in Impact Fee revenues
in the coming years. Expenditures of the fees will enable continued new construction which
contributes on-going revenues and which will incur on-going expenses for provided services.
Below are the total Impact Fee revenues collected for each of the past 5 years. The street fee
collection reflects the 40% discount now in place. How much the city collects each year depends
on a number of factors:
1. The level of the fee charged to the developer/property owner. (i.e. 60%, 80%, 100% of the study amount.) and,
2. The mix of projects built in the City each year. (A Drive-Thru Restaurant will have a
higher Street Impact fee than a Single Family Residence; a change in use to remodel an
office might require additional street impact fees but no water impact fees, etc.)
272
17
City Impact Fee Collections FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 TOTAL FY08-FY12
Street Impact Fees $1,948,550 $1,198,319 $ 751,223 $1,208,135 $1,090,715 $ 6,196,942
Fire Impact Fees $259,726 $186,690 $187,476 $190,292 $245,250 $1,069,434
Water Impact Fees $1,237,939 $768,363 $744,557 $713,387 $981,095 $4,445,341
Sewer Impact Fees $1,306,893 $663,766 $667,909 $636,878 $986,905 $4,262,351
$4,753,108 $2,817,138 $2,351,165 $2,748,692 $3,303,965 $15,974,068
These studies also affect the policies around how Impact Fees may be spent. For instance,
• if the adopted Fire Impact Fee study only supports 75% contribution to Fire Stations, our
Capital Plans will need to be updated and/or changed to reflect this change in policy. We will need to find another source of revenues to offset 25% of the costs of building future fire stations and purchasing apparatus.
• if the Water Impact Fee study no longer contains an element related to Water Supply
development costs, we will need to change our funding plans for some of the future
IWRP outcomes and projects.
• If the Street Impact Fee Study does not contain collector streets then additional funding
sources must be identified and implemented.
Attachments: Commission Resolution 4423
Fire/EMS Impact Fee Study dated 9/23/2012
The remaining attachments listed below are the same as and provided with the agenda item
materials for the Water Impact Fee and Commission Resolution 4421 and are relevant but are not duplicated with this agenda item.
Impact Fee Advisory Committee minutes from 8/16 and 9/13
Examples of applied and current fees
Comparison of I-90 corridor impact fees Comparison of Bozeman to national averages National impact fee survey 2012
Impact fee reduction Study – Florida 2010
Bozeman building permit history
MBIA housing starts Rae system investment fees Billings water and sewer system development fees
Helena system development fees
Report compiled on: 11/29/2012
273
Resolution 4423 Page 1 of 5
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4423 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ADOPTING THE FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEE STUDY PER ARTICLE 2.06, BMC.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community’s
expressed needs and desires for services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a fiscally responsible manner; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interest of all of the system users
now and in the future and not a limited subset of users; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted a fire services master
plan which examined current and future needs and provides a lawful, logical, balanced,
operationally sound, and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City’s
transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has chosen to utilize impact fees as one element of
an integrated approach to fund and provide fire and emergency medical services (Fire/EMS); and
WHEREAS, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA provide specific authority
and guidance regarding the documentation necessary to establish an impact fee and procedures to
adopt and administer an impact fee; and
274
Resolution 4423 Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City contracted with TischlerBise, Inc. to provide professional
services in development of an updated Fire/EMS impact fee study (the “Fee Study”);
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. reviewed the existing demand and needs for
transportation facilities, the existing facilities available to meet that demand, and the method of
financing the existing systems and needed new facilities; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. also reviewed the contribution made or to be made in
the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by property owners towards the capital costs
of Fire/EMS facilities; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. reviewed and relied upon the City of Bozeman’s level
of service (LOS) standards and facility cost assumptions as established by recently constructed
projects in recommending Fire/EMS impact fees; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. prepared the Fee Study dated September 23, 2012,
including the assumptions, population and residential and non-residential development
projections, capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations, which study has been submitted to
and reviewed by City staff, Impact Fee Advisory Committee, and City Commission; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to the Fee Study, TischlerBise, Inc. and the City have
prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation, as required by section 7-6-1602 of the
Montana Code Annotated, in developing the Fire/EMS facilities impact fees adopted pursuant to
this Resolution, including but not limited to the following which has been summarized in the
required service area report:
(1) 2006 Fire Master Plan;
(2) Adopted Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program; and
(3) the City Budget; and
275
Resolution 4423 Page 3 of 5
WHEREAS, the Consultant found that there was a likelihood of future unmet capital
needs that impact fees could not be used to correct; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the imposition of the impact fee and collection of
impact fee revenues is mitigation of service demand which blocks any further deterioration in
unmet capital needs; and
WHEREAS, the City develops its Fire/EMS facility plans, and its capital
improvements program in a manner open to the public and accepts and responds to public
comment and input; and
WHEREAS, the City and TischlerBise Inc. developed the Fire/EMS impact fee study
in a manner open to the public and accepted and responded to comment and input; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Impact Fee Advisory Committee has considered
and made a recommendation to the City Commission on the Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee conducted public hearings on the
subject of the transportation impact fee study on August 16, 2012 and September 13, 2012, and
the City Commission conducted a public hearing on October 8, 2012, and a public meeting on
December 10, 2012; and
WHEREAS, public comment was received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission reviewed and discussed the Fee Study and accepts
and agrees with the content of the Fee Study and recognizes that updates and modifications will
be made to the fee schedule in the future in accord with the annual cost adjustment requirements
of Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 BMC; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that all required elements necessary for
compliance with standards for development of an impact fee have been satisfied.
276
Resolution 4423 Page 4 of 5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, that
1. The September 23, 2012 draft of the Transportation Impact Fee Study Update, as contained
in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, is hereby adopted.
2. As of the 1st day of January, 2013, any person who seeks to obtain any of the forms of
development listed 2.06.1650, BMC must pay a Fire/EMS Impact Fee pursuant to the
schedule included in Exhibit A of this Resolution.
Effective Date.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the _____ day of ________, 2012. This resolution shall be in
full force and effect on January 1, 2013.
___________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
277
Resolution 4423 Page 5 of 5
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4424 adopting the update to the Transportation
impact fee study to establish methodology, and document required information to conform to
statute, and determine the generalized average cost per unit of service.
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Commission Resolution 4424 adopting the updated
transportation impact fee study [also known as a service area report] as presented.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having received and considered the updated study for transportation
impact fees, the recommendation from the impact fee advisory committee, and having heard and
considered public comment I move to approve Commission Resolution 4424 adopting the
October 24, 2012 draft of the Transportation Impact Fee Study.
BACKGROUND: The City has approximately 255 miles of roadways of different types
within its boundaries. These streets are a mix of local, state, and federal roadways. These streets
provide service to over 169,000 vehicle trips per day as well as many thousand pedestrian and
bicyclists. A mix of local, state, and federal funding provides for maintenance and operations to
serve existing users, and also funding to expand the system to serve future users. Local funding for operations and maintenance comes primarily from the semi-annual assessment on real
property. In FY2013 this is expected to create $2,986,000 of revenue. This includes funding for
daily operations such as wages and supplies and also some funding for the repair and
replacement of existing streets. The City also received $659,500 in revenue sharing from the fuel
taxes collected by the state and federal governments. Like the local assessment these funds are primarily used for maintenance. The City also receives “urban funds” a special restricted use
funding to maintain and expand certain defined streets.
Capital goods are generally defined as having a service life in excess of 10 years and are physical
items such as pipes, treatment and collection buildings, and vehicles. Capital expansion of the street system is achieved by combined funding sources such as impact fees, development project
related installations of local streets and portions of the major street network, urban funds, and
applicable grants which occur infrequently. All these funding sources must work together to
provide the reliable and adequate service needed for a healthy community. Overall, in FY2013
the City expects to expend in excess of $8,896,000 to maintain and expand the street system in
311
2
addition to funds expended directly by the State and Federal government of roadways they
maintain.
Coordination of these various efforts is provided through the long range facility plan and the annual capital improvement programming system as well as the operational oversight of the staff and Commission. The City also plays a major role in the Transportation Coordinating
Committee; a multi-agency interlocal agreement between the City, County, State, Federal
governments, MSU, and transportation advisory groups. The TCC helps prepare long range
transportation plans, coordinates between member activities, and works to obtain maximum effectiveness and efficiency in the transportation system and related expenditures.
This memo is focused on one element of the overall funding structure for the transportation
system, impact fees. Bozeman initially adopted impact fees in 1996. Most recently the fee
studies were updated in 2007. The present fee study began in 2011. Impact fees have helped the City provide needed services during high, moderate, and slow growth periods. The memo is structured in sections identified by letter. Each section addresses an individual topic. The
majority of the sections are focused on the content of the new fee study, the presentation of
information that occurred on October 8th, and related questions. Section F identifies questions
and issues that will be addressed with implementation. Many of these items interrelate to other issues, programs, and standards. These interrelationships are often complex and on-going. These
items do not all need to be resolved prior to acceptance and adoption of the fee studies.
The sections are:
A. Responses to questions from October 8th B. Summary History C. Process
D. Common Study Elements and Changes
E. Transportation specific items
F. Issues for Future Discussion and Implementation After the October 8th meeting of the Commission, the Institute of Transportation Engineers
released a new edition of the Trip Generation Manual (ITE manual). The ITE manual is the
collection of transportation research which forms the basis for expected numbers of vehicle trips
created by new development. The City is committed to using the most up to date available information in its impact fee program. Therefore, the consultant prepared a new draft of the
transportation study dated October 24, 2012 which uses the data from the newly published
edition in the fee calculations. The effect of the change may be determined by comparing figure
14 from the October 24 and the September 23rd studies. Financially there is a small, as little as
1.2%, increase in the calculated cost of service. There is also a change in uses where the metric for elementary and secondary schools changed from a cost per student to a cost per 1,000 square
feet of building area. This memo presents the October 24, 2012 draft for potential action.
Sections:
A. Question from October 8th:
1) Intersections – Please see Section F, Intersections segment, page 11 for this response.
2) Should Collector street be included in the impact fee – Please see Section F,
Transportation Systems Improvements segment, page 8 for this response.
312
3
3) Commuters – Page 18 of the study notes that Bozeman experiences significant
commuting which affects total travel demand. Impact fees are charged for those trips
whose destination lies within the City. Therefore, commuters, whose travel by definition
includes at least one trip destination outside of the City, are placing demand on the transportation network that is not mitigated by impact fees paid to the City. Therefore, impact fees are not an adequate sole source of funding to address the need for increased
capacity in the transportation network. As discussed in the background section and in
Section F, Alternative Transportation Funding segment and Funding Mix segment, page
XX the City does not rely solely on impact fees for transportation capacity expansion funding. The City Commission as part of the impact fee update has chosen to set aside 25% of the Urban fund allocation from the state to be used for capacity expansion needs
that impact fees cannot meet such as commuter travel. As a regional tourism and services
hub it is inevitable that Bozeman will experience significant use of its street network by
persons who are visiting as tourists, coming to shop or visit professional services, or otherwise.
4) Tracking needs and when items are required – The long (20 year) range transportation
plan (LRTP) formally inventories and evaluates existing conditions and future needs for
transportation. This plan provides an early warning of expected major projects.
Construction of major roadway projects are major undertakings and usually require several years to complete design, bidding, and construction processes. In addition to the formal transportation plan processes, the city and the state conduct annual traffic counts
on corridors and intersections. These counts provide key information on where within the
transportation system activity is increasing.
The city often receives additional information through the development review process. Many subdivision applications include a traffic study of surrounding areas as part of their submittal material. As part of the review of these application an evaluation of service
capacity is made to determine if the roads will continue to function at an acceptable level
of service after the development is complete. The City uses all of this information in
preparing the capital improvements plan selecting specific projects for funding and construction over the short (5 year) term.
In addition to traffic counts and level of service analysis the LRTP also contains standard
configurations for roadway construction and expected numbers of vehicles expected to be
able to use those configuration. As the Staff evaluates existing and proposed traffic
counts and forecasts, they can compare the demand numbers against the physical configurations. This helps identify when expansions of roadways are likely to be needed and what scope of work is required. After this initial scoping is completed formal
engineering design studies refine the scope of work prior to finalizing the decision to
proceed.
5) Use categories – Should restaurant and retail be consolidated into a single category or remain separate. – Please see the segment on use categories of Section E, page 6 for this response.
6) Fees paid in other communities and related alternate funding sources – Please see Section
F, Funding Mix and Alternate Transportation Funding segments, pages 9-10 for this
response.
313
4
7) Payment timing – Please see comment 2 under the Economic Development
Considerations segment of Section F, page 16 for this response.
8) Credit process – exact cost or estimates to establish credit values – Please see the Section
F, Generally Applicable Items segment, Credit Management item on page 11 for this response.
B. Summary History: The City funds its water, sewer, fire/EMS, and transportation systems
with multiple funding sources including impact fees. The City of Bozeman initially
adopted impact fees in 1996. Fees were initially adopted at a fraction of the calculated cost of service to provide a transition period. The percentage of the fees collected has varied by time and type of fee. It is necessary from time to time to update the study which
documents and sets the upper limit for the unit costs for each type of impact fee.
The City adopted updates to the various facility plans which provide much of the base
information for the impact fees for transportation in 2001 and 2009, fire in 2006, and both wastewater and water in 2007. The City retained consultants in 2006 to update the fee studies. The four fees were updated and adopted over the following 14 months.
The City has adopted a three year cycle to update the impact fee studies and a five year
cycle to evaluate and if needed update the facility plans. In 2011, the City began the
consultant selection process to again update the impact fee studies. TischlerBise was selected as the consultant for this update cycle with the contract being signed in June 2011.
C. Process: 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 analysis
and draft reports, 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.
The IFAC conducted public hearings on August 16th and September 13th to hear input from members of the public on the draft impact fee studies. After conducting the public
hearings the IFAC voted on motions to recommend approval of the individual fee studies.
The Committee recommended favorably on all four studies having found that the studies
were consistent with the requirements of state law regarding impact fees. The minutes of
the IFAC hearings are attached and provide greater detail on their actions. Minutes of all of the IFAC meetings are available through the Planning Department.
On October 8th the City Commission received the reports and heard a presentation from
TischlerBise regarding the reports. No action on the studies was taken. The meeting was
for receiving information, hearing from the public, and formulating questions from the
Commission to be answered at a future meeting when all Commissioners are present.
The Commission set November 26th for follow up action on the water study. This action
was moved to December 10th. The Commission passed Ordinance 1843 making structural
changes to the impact fee ordinance language which will be in effect on December 5th.
These changes specify that adoption of the new water impact fee study is by resolution. A
314
5
draft resolution has been prepared for Commission action should the Commission wish to
take action on December 10th.
A resolution of the Commission can be effective immediately. Staff recommends a delay
in the effective date of the implementing resolution in order for implementation procedures to be set up and information to be provided to the public. Staff recommends the effective date to be January 1, 2013 and the draft resolution includes that effective
date.
D. Common Study Elements and Changes:
Each fee is the subject of an independent study as each fee is legally independent of the others and relies on different data and demand characteristics. The introductory material
in each study is very similar. There are three main sections of each report: 1) Introduction
to impact fees, 2) Impact fee calculations for each fee type, and 3) Implementation and
administration. The second section of the report contains the data sources and analysis
and presents the resulting fee calculation broken into cost per demand unit. This section will be most interesting to most people.
Several significant changes are occurring with this round of impact fee updates. Data was
available on home sizes from the MT Dept. of Revenue for the first time. This in
conjunction with other data sets enabled the consultants to perform analysis to document
certain demands for service by home size. Please see the Setting the Stage document for this analysis on home size and occupancy. They were then able to expand on this analysis
with each individual fee study for those elements unique to that fee type as documented
in Appendix A of each study.
All four of the fee types now base residential fees on expected occupancy per size of
home. The same home size range was used for all four fees with a lower end of 1,400 square feet and an upper end of 3,000. The range is broken into 200 square foot
increments so movement between increments will result in a small impact fee charge.
The consultant had analyzed the home range originally for detached and attached home
styles. After discussing the results with the IFAC it was decided to consolidate the two as
there was a substantial amount of overlap between the size increments. There is also a special residential category for group living which is distinguished by population rather
than dwelling area. The occupancy level per home in the studies reflects the population
spread across all housing units constructed from 1990 to 2010. This represents demand at
any given point in time and accounts for vacancies without being tied to a particular
vacancy rate. As a result the occupancy per home used in the calculation is slightly less than the actual number of residents expected to live in an occupied dwelling.
These are averages over large samples of the City housing stock. Therefore, some homes
will have different demands above or below the average at any given point in time.
However, the overall system should equalize to the average. This occupancy approach
has the effect of recognizing the differences in occupancy and demand which come from smaller and larger homes and reduce fees on units which generate less demand. This is
consistent with the City’s overall encouragement for land efficient development.
Because of this change all residential fees are on home size. Attached and detached
homes are no longer separate categories. Affordable housing distinctions to individual
categories are also removed since the primary difference was also related to size of homes.
315
6
Sustainability: Impact fees are a tool used to provide infrastructure and maintain levels of
service in essential systems. Having adequate infrastructure facilitates urban
development. Enabling land efficient urban development patterns reduces energy
consumption both from municipal operations and from private development and land use. Construction is very energy intensive. Having funding to coordinate facility over sizing
with private development reduces the number of times construction must be undertaken.
This reduces energy consumption from delayed expansions and needless repairs. The new
approach for water distribution and sewer collection systems directly rewards land
efficient development. Land efficient development is more likely to support pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduce motor vehicle emissions and energy consumption.
E. Transportation
General methodology of 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. Commission directed use of this methodology on March 5,
2012.
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
discussed with the consultant the possibility of revising how the schedule of fees is
developed. Several changes to current practice are proposed in the draft study and are
described below.
1) Residential Uses: Current impact practice in Bozeman is to charge impact fees
primarily on the basis of type of residence with some size distinction for detached
homes. The proposed fee structure would use the size of the home by 200 sq ft
increments approach as described in the common elements section and would not
distinguish between attached or detached homes. There is also a special category for group living which is distinguished by population.
2) Non-Residential Uses: 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 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 is 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 Commission accepted the recommendation and the
new fee study uses a much consolidated list of non-residential uses.
316
7
The primary impact of the change is the consolidation of retail and restaurants
into a single category. As a result of blending the two the cost per unit has gone
up for retail and significantly reduced for restaurants. One of the most common
changes between use categories on a particular site is between retail and restaurant. Having them in a single category will reduce the number of times a new user has to pay transportation impact fees to occupy an existing building.
Impact fees are supposed to consider the uses over the life of the building. A more
general category provides a more consistent measure on average although there
will be some outliers where the structure remains a single use over its entire service life. Page 22 of the transportation impact fee study presents the proposed list of use categories. The current list of categories is attached to this memo.
Examples of these changes are included with the fee examples.
The question of whether or not to combine the retail and restaurant categories was
raised at the October 8th Commission meeting. The consultant provided the following written response to that question.
“As requested, the text below from Trip Generation, ITE 9th edition, can be used
to support our recommendation for using ITE land use 820 Shopping Center for
general commercial development.
A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments. Shopping centers, including neighborhood, community, regional, and super
regional centers, were surveyed for this land use. Some of these centers
contained non-merchandising facilities, such as office buildings, movie theaters,
restaurants, post offices, banks, and health clubs. Many shopping centers, in addition to the integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around a mall, include out parcels (peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the
center adjacent to the streets and major access points). These buildings are
typically drive-in banks, retail stores, restaurants, or small offices. Although the
data herein do not indicate which of the centers studied include peripheral buildings, it can be assumed that some of the data show their effect.
The shopping center trip generation rates are based on 302 studies with an r-
squared value of 0.79. The latter is a goodness of fit indicator between the
individual studies and the regression curve. R-square values range from 0 to 1,
with higher values indicating the independent variable (floor area) provides a
better prediction of the dependent variable (average weekday vehicle trip ends). If the r-squared value is less than 0.50, ITE does not publish the value because
factors other than floor area provide a better prediction of trip rates.
City Commissioner asked about the possibility of maintaining separate categories
for restaurants. In the current fee schedule, Bozeman has fees for Quality
Restaurant (ITE 931) and Fast Food with Drive Through (ITE 934). The trip rates are based on 15 and 21 studies, respectively, with no published r-squared value.
Based solely on difference in trip generation rates, the impact fee for a quality
restaurant would be 2.1 times higher [18,960.77], per thousand square feet, than
the proposed fee for general commercial [9028.94]. Similarly, an impact fee for a
fast food restaurant with drive through would be 11.6 times higher [104,735.70], per thousand square feet, than the proposed fee for general commercial.”
317
8
Trip Exchange District: Downtown – The 2008 impact fee update introduced the Trip
Exchange District (TED); a way to identify areas of town with demonstrably different
trip generation characteristics and resulting differentiated transportation impact fees
within the larger service area. The consultants have reevaluated the TED in this update. Recent research, see attached, has demonstrated that in a mixed use development
environment there is an overall 29% reduction in vehicle trip generation when all users
are blended together. The 2008 TED provided cost reductions for only selected use types
for which data was available. The 2012 TED has spread the cost reductions to all types of
uses, but are a more generalized approach and some uses will receive less of a cost reduction. In both cases the TED was applied consistent with the best available data. The
2012 TED is proposed to be slightly expanded to include both the B-3 zoning district and
the downtown tax increment district boundary. The TED is discussed in detail in
Appendix C of the Transportation Impact Fee study. Fully implementing the
recommended expansion to the TIF boundary would require a municipal code amendment.
Percentage collected: The transportation impact fee is the one impact fee which is not
presently collected at the full calculated cost of service. No recommendation is made in
the fee study on this issue. Additional discussion on this topic is in the future issues
section, Section F, Economic Development Considerations segment.
F. Issues for Future/Additional Discussion related to Transportation. Several of these items
are generally applicable to all impact fees and are repeated with each individual
Commission cover memo. Notes on action are shown at the end of each segment in italic
text.
Transportation Specific
Transportation 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. All local streets are
excluded from the impact fee system costs and eligibility for funding. The interstate
system is also excluded.
The Commission directed the consultant to use the major street network, meaning
arterials and collectors as the basis for the study. The inventory of these streets is shown in Figure 6 and 7 of the report. Each street type represents about 50% of the major street
network. A greater portion of the arterials were excluded from consideration in the fee
study as they have been built to their maximum standards and don’t represent opportunity
for additional expansion. Some of the collectors were also excluded for the same reasons.
Individual elements of the network could be removed with a reduction in fee directly proportional to the length of lane miles included in the street segment removed.
The consequence of reducing the scope of the network would be to reduce the number
and location of the projects which could qualify 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. Since
318
9
those road segments would be removed from the basis for calculating the fee it would be
inappropriate to expend the fees on them. The alternate sources may result in different
minimum construction requirements or a need to commit or generate other dedicated
funding such as general obligation bonds or special improvement districts. This would also have the potential to place more burdens 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. The collector streets play a very important
role in Bozeman’s major street network. Staff does not support removing collectors from the major street network for the purposes of impact fees. To remove collectors from the definition of the major street network would require an ordinance.
Initial Street Construction Requirements: One of the differences which gave a different
cost per lane mile of construction between the 2008 and 2012 studies is when the
construction happened. The 2008 study had construction costs resulting from projects where collector and arterial roadways were expanded after initial construction. The 2012 study has projects where the center turn lane was included with initial construction. The
difference in timing results in considerably different costs.
The new study relies on the costs for the initial construction approach which are quite a
bit less costly. This reduces overall capital costs but increases the number of lane miles being maintained. The City currently maintains 235 miles of streets and alleys. The City
has adopted an initial minimum construction standard of two travel lanes for all streets.
The City could consider modifying this standard to require that three lanes be constructed
with the initial street construction to minimize capital costs. These ‘third lane’ projects
would be potentially impact fee credit eligible to offset the additional expense of the third lane. This approach would require the City to set aside some funds for this which would
lessen funds immediately available for other projects. To change the initial construction
requirements would require an ordinance.
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 such as Urban Funds which come
from the gas taxes paid by existing systems users are an intergovernmental transfer of
money from the Federal and State government. Urban funds can be used for both
maintenance and for capacity expansion but only on certain streets designated as ‘urban routes’. The Commission on March 5, 2012 directed that 75% of urban funds would be
designated for maintenance and 25% for capacity expansion to offset capacity needs for
non-impact fee payers and corrections of existing deficiencies. Existing deficiencies are
shown in the transportation report in section 4 beginning on page 11.
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) is responsible for coordinating the Urban Routes program statewide. The location of urban routes is modified once every ten
years following the federal census. The MDOT has begun this process and we are now
working to schedule a meeting to consider changes to the local map of urban routes.
Urban routes are typically collector or arterial streets. The number of miles allowed to the
city is generally fixed so adding the urban route designation to one street means another must be removed from the list.
319
10
The amount of money available for use on the urban routes is set by the Federal
commitment of transportation funding provided in the transportation bill. This was
recently reauthorized as MAP-21 which restructured several federal transportation
programs. Dollar allocations for urban funds have been trending downward. The current annual allocation is $805,177. The gas tax has been a fixed number of cents per gallon of motor fuel sold and has not changed for many years. As the costs of construction have
escalated the funding available has not kept pace with increased need for funding.
Alternate transportation funding: The transportation impact fee is the one impact fee that
is presently collected at less than the calculated cost of service. The City Commission when adopting the 2008 transportation study decided to collect the fee at 60% of the calculated cost of service. Therefore, the City is required to find other funds to make up
the 40% difference to maintain levels of service. Over the past four years the City has
collected $4,248,392 in transportation impact fees. This means that the 40% discount
results in an alternate cumulative funding need of $2,832,261. This alternative funding would only be for capacity expansion and not for any maintenance or correction of existing problems. At this point, a single federal earmark used to expand South 19th
Avenue has offset the discount. However, at some point this will no longer be the case
and additional funds will need to be found if the discount is to continue. To change the percentage of transportation impact fee collected would require an ordinance.
There are different methods which could be used to make up this difference. A single mil
of general property tax is valued at approximately $83,000. An annual levy of 7.68 mils
would meet the annual average need for alternative funding over the past four years. This
spreads the cost to the general tax payers. The City recently received an appropriation
(earmark) of $5,000,000 from the federal government. These funds were used to expand South 19th Avenue from 3 lanes to five lanes thereby increasing system capacity.
Earmarks are unpredictable in their frequency and amount.
The City could use SIDs to pay for portions of work along roadway corridors. Such
special districts would require the City to demonstrate a particular benefit to those within
the district from the additional charges. Depending on the type of road and nature of the improvements this can be a difficult standard to satisfy. An SID must be designed and
approved on a case by case basis for each project. The SID formation process is largely
directed by detailed state statutes.
State law authorizes the County to establish a local gas tax of up to two cents per gallon.
Establishment and distribution of such funding would require an interlocal agreement and countywide voter approval. This seems an unlikely option at this time.
One alternative option is to create an alternative funding source. The City of Billings has
established an assessment program which they use to construct arterial and collector
streets. The structure is very similar to the program that Bozeman uses for street
maintenance. These funds could be used for target fee reductions to specific industries or could be used to provide a regular source of capacity expanding funding. In the second
circumstance, the amount of funds needed to offset the present 40% reduction in the fees
collected would be approximately $710,000 per year. This figure is based on an annual
average of the impact fee collections for the past four years. To raise this amount of
revenue would be equivalent to 25% of the current street maintenance assessment for FY2013. No change to the impact fee ordinance would be required for this approach.
320
11
Creation of such a program and any new charges would likely be coordinated with the
annual budget process which typically occurs in April-June.
Intersections: The manner and amount of funding intersection improvements has
generated community discussion. A determination of what is new work and what may be a maintenance item will vary by intersection and the proposed work. Each intersection must be evaluated individually for its existing conditions and how a proposed project
may alter those conditions. As a basic standard, impact fees may not be spent on
maintenance. Intersections were one of the items the consultant was asked about during
the study update process. This item is related to the funding mix and alternate street funding items above. There are two different elements to this question: 1) What should be calculated going forward; and 2) how do you use funds received both before and after
updated studies.
An average cost approach as suggested by TischlerBise applies the cost of improvements
to all users of the intersection. A marginal cost approach as used by the City previously applies the cost of improvements to the new/future users of an intersection. As an
example: an intersection presently serves 5,000 vehicles per day, post improvements will
serve 10,000 vehicles per day, and the work will cost $500,000 and will only add new
hardware and turning lanes making no changes or repairs to existing components. An
average cost approach would charge each of the 10,000 vehicles both new and old $50. A marginal cost approach would charge each of the additional 5,000 vehicles $100.
This issue is also related to the manner in which level of service is measured. Intersection
level of service is measured by delay; corridor level of service is measured by number of
vehicles passing through in addition to delay. The transportation plan describes these
measures in Section 2.2.4 and identifies locations where known problems exist and future problems are likely. Concerns over this item may be best addressed by creating a
definition of ‘maintenance’ for inclusion with the impact fee standards in the municipal
code. Creation of a definition of maintenance would require an ordinance.
Generally Applicable Items
Capital Improvements Program (CIP): One of the responsibilities of the IFAC is to advise the Commission regarding the spending of impact fees. This is fit into the regular CIP
document which the City Commission considers and adopts annually. The CIP covers a
rolling six year window with the current budget year and five future years. A point of
discussion at the IFAC is the relative merits of how to list projects on the CIP.
Three options were discussed. First, having a short list of high priority projects which are all funded and leave no material uncommitted funds and no unfunded projects on the list.
Second, have a lengthy list of projects which are impact fee eligible but which
collectively are beyond the five year financial reach of the program in order to
communicate possible options for the future. Third, have a short list of high priority
funded projects and deliberately leave an uncommitted balance in the program to enable the City or individual developers to ask for partner funding as opportunities arise. No
action is required related to the study on this item. This is more of a preference for the
Commission to express as it considers the CIP update.
321
12
Credit management: One of the public comments during the public hearings before the
FIAC was related to how credits are managed. This is related to the CIP item above. The
current approach used by the City requires CIP listing prior to work being eligible for
funding with impact fees either as a city project or as a developer request. The request was to allow as credit projects all qualifying work whether or not CIP listed and would
establish the value of credits available based on the CIP listed values. Staff has
considered this option and believes it would cause several difficulties in managing the
impact fee funds and in showing that fees were expended appropriately. No action is
required related to the study on this item. This change would require an ordinance.
Data tracking: The revised approaches for assessing the impact fees by home size and water and sewer by lot size will require additional data tracking. Coordination among
departments will be needed to ensure consistent collection and retention of the needed
information. It is believed that this can be accomplished with existing software tools. No action is required related to the study on this item.
Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study Updates: As noted above, the City relies upon its
facility plans as essential information in preparing and administering the impact fee
program. The City has completed several major projects in the various plans and in some
cases the documents were prepared several years ago. The City’s ordinance requires a
periodic review, and if needed update, to these foundation documents. It is likely that updates to the water, wastewater, and fire facility plans will be needed before the next
impact fee update. These are major endeavors and use a lot of staff and commission time
and financial resources. It is advisable to begin this process soon so as to be completed
before the next required study update.
The City has established a schedule of updates in Section 2.06.1700.J, BMC. This schedule was put in place at a time of high growth rates and when the impact fee program was new. The impact fee and facility plan updates require significant investments of
money, staff and Commission time, and time from the public. It is recommended to
consider the possibility to lengthen the cycle time. Recent inquiry to Missoula shows that
they don’t have a fixed update cycle for their impact fees studies but do so about every five years. There are advantages to coordinating the processes to review and update the monthly service rates and the impact fee study updates. No action is required related to
the study on this item. Changes to the update schedule requirement require an ordinance.
No action on this item is required before adopting the updated fee study.
Deferred payment: A member of the IFAC raised the question of timing of the required payment of impact fees. Presently the fees are due at issuance of building permit or
connection to water or sewer systems. The Commission has considered this issue several
times before and concluded the benefits were not adequate to justify the change. It is
important to remember in discussing this topic that the amount of immediate impact
varies among the different fees. The individual fees may be treated differently for the manner in which they are collected although this would add complexity. An additional
matter is whether there is a minimum threshold of cost below which fees would not be
deferred. Additional discussion on this item is presented under the economic
development segment below. A change of timing for required payment of fees would require an ordinance.
322
13
Economic Development Considerations
How does the implementation of a revised impact fee methodology synchronize with the
Commission’s established economic development goals, priorities and policy initiatives?
Specifically, how will the application of a new impact fee methodology impact the implementation of the adopted economic development plan?
It is important to discuss if, and how the implementation of a new impact fee
methodology will complement, or challenge, other guiding economic development
principles and priorities of the Bozeman City Commission. For context please refer to
the City’s broad economic development policy direction shown in Sections 1 – 4 below.
Section 1.
The adopted 2012 – 2013 Work-Plan includes the following priorities:
1. Implement the adopted economic development plan, integrating
economic development principles throughout the organization;
2. Adopt comprehensive strategies and financial plans to address deferred maintenance;
3. Improve parks and recreation amenities;
4. Complete an integrated water resources plan;
5. Create a storm-water utility;
6. Enhance downtown development opportunities;
7. Support Gallatin College programs;
8. Implementation of the community climate action plan; and
9. Develop a legislative agenda.
Section 2. In 2009 the Bozeman City Commission adopted its first economic development plan.
Since adoption, the City’s Economic Development Council and city staff implement
programs, practices and partnerships that add value to the City’s economic development
efforts and builds capacity to serve more businesses in the area. The tenets of the
economic development plan are:
1. Support the expansion and retention of existing businesses and
economic clusters that will continue to strengthen and diversify the
economy and create higher paying jobs in Bozeman.
2. Maintain and upgrade infrastructure to support current and future
needs of business.
3. Support education and workforce development initiatives to
provide Bozeman with the qualified workers to meet the needs of
business.
4. Leverage local, state and federal economic development resources
to enhance economic growth in Bozeman.
5. Create a more collaborative and effective working partnership
between the business community and the City of Bozeman and
323
14
effectively manage the City of Bozeman’s regulatory environment
to accomplish goals without hindering business expansion and
economic growth.
6. Maintain the high quality of life that is considered an important asset to the business community.
Section 3.
Additionally, from the adopted plan, the EDC delineated the following priorities
and recommendations:
1. Commitment to a business-friendly process with a focus on
retention and expansion of existing local businesses.
2. Stabilize existing local incubators and create a full service business
incubator program to achieve a healthy business ecosystem.
3. Core Services and Infrastructure.
4. Identification and Establishment of Business Incentives.
5. Workforce Development.
Section 4.
The City of Bozeman’s economic development goals are rooted in a job creation and industry diversification strategy adopted in the 2009 Economic Development Plan. The City has determined that supporting the start-up, growth or relocation of the following
high growth potential sectors will create high paying jobs and add diversity to the local
economy:
1. Manufacturing and fabrication;
2. Bio-Sciences and Bio-Technology;
3. Hi-Technology ;
4. Photonics; and
5. the Outdoor industry.
Support for high growth potential sectors includes creating partnerships where others can take the lead in areas of workforce training, appropriate incentives, business resources. The City has taken the lead on streamlining the development review process and
facilitating economic growth by strengthening and creating partnerships and matching
businesses with resources.
Impact Fees and Economic Development
New development relies upon the availability of infrastructure to move forward in a
timely manner. Delay can be a strong disincentive to investments. Impact fees help
provide infrastructure in a timely manner thereby avoiding delays. Impact fees help
provide predictability in short and long term cost structures to business by identifying
costs up front and avoiding unplanned large tax or user fee increases in the future. Different users are more or less sensitive to the known and upfront costs compared to
324
15
more predictable long term costs over the average business lifecycle. The impact fee
ordinance makes allowance for the City to provide financial support to offset the effects
of impact fees on desired development. The City can take advantage of this to focus
efforts on desired economic sectors. The change in the transportation impact fee to consolidate non-residential uses for initial use and reuse should be supportive of reuse and redevelopment in existing facilities.
A well integrated policy and regulatory environment is advantageous for both the public
and private entities who work with the regulations. The effect of the new impact fee
methodology on the adopted work plan and implementation of the City’s Economic Development Plan should be considered in the overall impact fee implementation discussion.
Ideally, in its’ consideration of the implementation of an impact fee policy, the
Commission discuss the synchronization of the impact fee program with the
Commission’s established economic development goals, priorities and policy initiatives. The Economic Development Council (EDC) discussed the issue of impact fees on
numerous occasions, hosting various experts on the issue. Through their staff liaison, the
EDC submitted the following discussion points for Commission consideration:
1. Prepare materials to educate potential investors, business owners and
entrepreneurs, on the short and long-term investor-advantages of charging impact
fees when compared to other fee recovery solutions;
2. Identify specific sectors, job creating, industry diversifying sectors with high
growth potential, for deferral of commercial impact fees, or a percentage thereof,
until the application for Certificate of Occupancy.
i. Manufacturing and fabrication (industrial production, in which raw
materials are transformed into finished goods on a large scale
which may include but are not limited to textiles, outdoor goods
and products, bio-science and technology products and photonics)
ii. Bio-Science and Bio-Technology (including but not limited to
technological applications that use biological systems, living
organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or
processes for specific uses)
iii. High-Technology (including but not limited to aerospace, artificial
intelligence, information technology, electrical engineering,
information systems, nanotechnology, nuclear physics, robotics
and telecommunications)
iv. Photonics (including but not limited to laser manufacturing,
advanced measuring devices, biological and chemical sensing,
medical diagnostics and therapy, display technology, and optical
computing)
325
16
v. the Outdoor industry (active outdoor recreation businesses
including but not limited to manufacturers, distributors, suppliers,
marketers, sales representatives and retailers in the industry)
3. Commit to training and educating employees that interface with investors and
developers because there is value in appreciating that the City competes locally,
regionally and nationally to attract new and retain existing business. City
attitudes, customer service, professionalism and shared values for business
attraction and retention each play a part in the business decision. Economic
development is everyone’s business.
4. Regularly compare the City’s development fee schedule against the development
fee schedules of other communities;
5. Identify specific sectors (see sector details in 2. i – iv above) for targeted impact
fee assistance.
6. Work deliberately to make raw land developable as appropriate (with respect to
subdividing and infrastructure development);
Options to address EDC comments:
Comment 2: There are several options for changing the time fees are due. Changes in payment
timing should likely be made uniformly across all users. Careful legal review would be needed to
restrict procedural benefits to only some users.
1) The time of payment was originally set prior to permit issuance as it provides the most surety of payment prior to impacts on the systems beginning. This timing of payment is the current
standard. The city has the funds in hand and can therefore have the greatest ability to carry
forward construction of necessary improvements to meet demands for service. Payment prior
to permit means the fee is paid early in the process. It a project is abandoned after permit issuance and before construction begins fees can be refunded as no impact has yet occurred. Early payment of a fee requires greater financial commitment by the private party earlier in
the construction process but provides the least risk to the City.
2) The next most reliable time would be prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. An
occupancy permit is certification by the Building Division that the requirements of the building code have been met and the building is ready for safe use. Not all types of construction which generate new service demand require an occupancy permit and would
therefore need some exception to this timing requirement to ensure fee payment.
The positive argument for this change is that it does not require as much financial
commitment as early in the process which may reduce interest paid on a loan or simplify financing for certain owner constructed homes. A review of a recent sample of single detached homes showed a time range between permit issuance and certificate of occupancy
of 53-204 days with an average of 132 days. Deferral to occupancy could then possibly
provide an opportunity to avoid interest charges on $9,455 for a median size home and lot
assuming 100% collection of cost of service. Commercial construction is more variable in demand and is expected to take longer. Therefore no commercial example is provided. As a
326
17
single point in time payment the occupancy permit approach is less complicated than a
distributed payment.
The negative argument is that it is more likely that a project will reach completion and have
exhausted its available budget and not have the funds to pay the impact fee. The City would then be in the position of having to deny occupancy of a completed building after significant expense. It may be possible to help mitigate this risk by requiring provision of an escrow of
funds to ensure the fees are held and available although not paid immediately. This would
require development of appropriate procedures both internally and with the lending
institutions. Also, by deferring availability of funds it adds some complexity in planning for expenditure of the funds. This also has potential for additional stress on Building Division personnel who must handle the issuance of the certificates of occupancy and who are the
receiving point for the impact fee payments.
3) A third option is payment over a period of time. Kalispell has set up this process but also
requires payment of any outstanding amounts upon sale of the property. The sale requirement would make this approach less beneficial for many residential projects which sell shortly after completion. Selection of duration of the time period would be up to the City. Use of the
approach requires several steps and has some direct costs for recording documents at the
Clerk and Recorder’s office.
The positive argument for this change is the deferral of costs which reduces the upfront expenses of development. However, it is important to note that this does not reduce the total expenses and if interest on the deferral is charged as Kallispell does may actually increase the
end cost.
The negative argument is that significant additional legal and procedural complexity is added
for an undependable amount of benefit. The additional complexity adds costs to the process of collecting and administering the impact fee program. There is no judicial sanction for this approach at this time in Montana. Contact with Kalispell staff indicates that the option is
infrequently used. Staff does not recommend this approach. A change of timing for required
payment of fees would require an ordinance.
Comment 4: Comparison to Other Communities: Settlement and development of the Gallatin Valley has been actively ongoing since the 1860’s. People have chosen to settle in many different locations for many different reasons and have created several villages, towns,
municipalities and other settlements in our area. These decisions came long before any
discussion of impact fees. Location of resources, costs, service quality, timing of land
availability, and many other factors affect the decision to choose a particular site. At this time three of the four municipalities in the Gallatin Valley have adopted impact fees. A comparison sheet is attached showing Bozeman, Belgrade, and Manhattan; Missoula is also included. This
sheet shows impact fee costs for various types of development. Please note that the orange
highlight shows those costs which are highest in the comparison. Some communities have
reduced the percentage of the fee they collect. The cost comparisons for other communities shows actual collected amounts. The Bozeman column shows actual cost of service as determined by the new studies and does not reflect any reductions. Conversation with the other
communities indicates that they do not have a funding program in place to make up the
uncollected portion of the impact fees.
327
18
A second comparison sheet is provided which summarizes costs from three types of non-
residential uses: manufacturing, retail, and office. This comparison is based on costs per
thousand square feet for sample projects applying the proposed methodology of the four fee
update studies. Please note that for purposes of simplifying the comparisons the actual project costs are divided to be presented on a cost per thousand square feet although not all fees are assessed in that manner. The referenced 271 city averages are from the attached impact fee
survey by Duncan. Please note the fact that differences in revenue options affects reliance upon
any particular funding source. There are a wide range of types of fees and costs of fees imposed
as shown in that study.
A set of four reports produced by the Montana Building Industry Association is also provided. This set tracks single detached home construction statewide in counties and larger cities. The
report set is provided on a quarterly basis. The second quarter (April-June) is provided for 2009-
2012. As shown in this data set, even during the significant downturn of the past few years and
as the economic recovery has begun Bozeman has remained more active with construction than most locations in the state.
Not all fees charged to expand system capacity are called impact fees. They are also called
system development charges or system investment fees among other names. These fees can be
charged by water and sewer utility providers under a different statutory authority than the impact
fee program relies upon. Three examples of this are those charged by the Rae Water and Sewer district west of Bozeman, Helena, and by the City of Billings. Copies of the fee amounts they charge are attached. All these use the equivalent of meter size to determine the fee for various
commercial and multi-household developments. Costs vary as would be expected as the
infrastructure necessary to provide service also vary across communities. Note that Billings
made the policy choice to charge a single amount for all residential meter sizes thereby choosing to undercharge multi-household users.
A comparison and contrast with other communities must also look at more than just impact fees.
The following table from the FY2013 City of Bozeman budget depicts mill levy rankings.
City 2010 Census
Populations
FY2012 Mills Levy Rank As a % of
Bozeman’s Levy
Havre 9,310 241.26 1 145%
Missoula 66,788 233.34 2 140%
Livingston 7,044 209.06 3 125%
Great Falls 58,505 183.24 4 110%
Kalispell 19,927 175.93 5 106%
Billings 104,170 168.73 6 101%
Bozeman 37,280 166.75 7 100%
Belgrade 7,389 156.69 8 94%
Helena 28,190 155.82 9 93%
Whitefish* 6,357 120.40 10 72%
West Yellowstone* 1,271 88.21 11 53%
*West Yellowstone and Whitefish both utilize Local Option Resort Taxes as an alternative or supplement to property taxes, which the City of Bozeman is currently prohibited from doing by
state law.
328
19
There are many different comparisons between communities on this issue which could be made.
When determining comparisons to make in this report it was decided by Staff that the scope
must, of necessity, be restricted to keep the discussions focused. Evaluation of specific
communities outside of Montana brings in additional factors such as different tax and infrastructure financing tools and statues. This increases the level of complexity beyond what could be achieved with the resources available.
Comment 5: This comment discusses the possibility of creating methods to offset costs for
targeted industries which significantly advance the City’s economic development goals. The
impact fee program does not specify who needs to pay the impact fee. Section 2.06.1700.H states that the City may pay impact fees from other funding sources to advance economic development. The City does not have a ready source of revenue besides the general fund with
which to offset the impact fees. Please see the discussion on alternate transportation funding
options above.
Comment 6: Impact fees make certain costs of land development explicit instead of hidden in land costs or monthly bills. They therefore help to provide better information for decision making. They also act to overcome one of the principal barriers to availability of land which is
the lack of needed infrastructure. For example, it is very difficult for a single development to
overcome a barrier such as a needed but not funded traffic signal. However, when costs are
shared and that development may pay a small portion of the cost of the needed traffic signal and move forward both time and dollar expenses are reduced. This helps to make land more readily
available for development. Effectiveness of public infrastructure investments can be increased by
more active coordination between long range facility planning, CIP scheduling, and operational
activities in the Public Works, Economic Development and Community Development
departments. This does not require any change in ordinance. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As shown in Section F there are implementation items needing
additional discussion. However, the primary focus of the November 26th meeting is to decide
whether or not to adopt the Resolution accepting the water impact fee study update. Additional
discussion, consideration and actions will be necessary to carry out the options presented under Section F of the memo and these may occur after adoption of the study.
ALTERNATIVES:
Study:
1) Adopt the transportation impact fee study as presented. 1) Delay adoption to a future time.
2) Adopt the transportation impact fee study with directed changes after having made
findings to demonstrate why the changes are needed.
3) Decline to adopt the transportation impact fee study and continue to use the study now in
place. Implementation:
1) Discuss the various options described under Section F and give direction on which ones
to pursue further.
2) Defer discussion to a future date.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The fiscal effects of this specific policy discussion are not immediate.
These proposed studies directly impact the amounts the City will collect in Impact Fee revenues
in the coming years. Expenditures of the fees will enable continued new construction which
contributes on-going revenues and which will incur on-going expenses for provided services.
329
20
Below are the total Impact Fee revenues collected for each of the past 5 years. The street fee
collection reflects the 40% discount now in place. How much the city collects each year depends
on a number of factors: 1. The level of the fee charged to the developer/property owner. (i.e. 60%, 80%, 100% of the study amount.) and,
2. The mix of projects built in the City each year. (A Drive-Thru Restaurant will have a
higher Street Impact fee than a Single Family Residence; a change in use to remodel an
office might require additional street impact fees but no water impact fees, etc.) City Impact Fee Collections FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 TOTAL FY08-FY12
Street Impact Fees $1,948,550 $1,198,319 $ 751,223 $1,208,135 $1,090,715 $ 6,196,942
Fire Impact Fees $259,726 $186,690 $187,476 $190,292 $245,250 $1,069,434
Water Impact Fees $1,237,939 $768,363 $744,557 $713,387 $981,095 $4,445,341
Sewer Impact Fees $1,306,893 $663,766 $667,909 $636,878 $986,905 $4,262,351
$4,753,108 $2,817,138 $2,351,165 $2,748,692 $3,303,965 $15,974,068
These studies also affect the policies around how Impact Fees may be spent. For instance,
• if the adopted Fire Impact Fee study only supports 75% contribution to Fire Stations, our
Capital Plans will need to be updated and/or changed to reflect this change in policy. We will need to find another source of revenues to offset 25% of the costs of building future fire stations.
• if the Water Impact Fee study no longer contains an element related to Water Supply
development costs, we will need to change our funding plans for some of the future
IWRP outcomes and projects.
• If the Street Impact Fee Study does not contain collector streets then additional funding
sources must be identified and implemented.
Attachments: Commission Resolution 4424
Transportation Impact Fee Study dated 9/23/2012
Definition of Transportation System from 2.06.1640
Figure 9-2 from the transportation plan List of current transportation categories City of Billings arterial levy materials
The remaining attachments listed below are the same as and provided with the agenda item
materials for the Water Impact Fee and Commission Resolution 4421 and are relevant but are not
duplicated with this agenda item. Impact Fee Advisory Committee minutes from 8/16 and 9/13
Examples of applied and current fees
Comparison of I-90 corridor impact fees
Comparison of Bozeman to national averages National impact fee survey 2012 Impact fee reduction Study – Florida 2010
Bozeman building permit history
MBIA housing starts
330
21
Rae system investment fees
Billings water and sewer system development fees
Helena system development fees Report compiled on: 11/29/2012
331
Resolution 4424 Page 1 of 5
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4424 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY PER ARTICLE 2.06, BMC.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community’s
expressed needs and desires for services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a fiscally responsible manner; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands
for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interests of all of the system users
now and in the future and not a limited subset of users; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted a transportation facility
plan which examined current and future needs and provides a lawful, logical, balanced,
operationally sound, and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City’s
transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has chosen to utilize impact fees as one element of
an integrated approach to fund and provide transportation services; and
WHEREAS, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA provide specific authority
and guidance regarding the documentation necessary to establish an impact fee and procedures to
adopt and administer an impact fee; and
332
Resolution 4424 Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City contracted with TischlerBise, Inc. to provide professional
services in development of an updated transportation impact fee study (the “Fee Study”);
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. reviewed the existing demand and needs for
transportation facilities, the existing facilities available to meet that demand, and the method of
financing the existing systems and needed new facilities; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. also reviewed the contribution made or to be made in
the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by property owners towards the capital costs
of transportation facilities; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. reviewed and relied upon the City of Bozeman’s level
of service (LOS) standards and facility cost assumptions as established by recently constructed
projects in recommending transportation impact fees; and,
WHEREAS, TischlerBise, Inc. has prepared a transportation impact fee study dated
October 24, 2012 including the assumptions, population and residential and non-residential
development projections, capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations, which study has been
submitted to and reviewed by City staff and Impact Fee Advisory Committee and City
Commission; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to the Fee Study, TischlerBise, Inc. and the City have
prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation, as required by Section 7-6-1602 MCA,
in developing the transportation facilities impact fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution
including but not limited to the following which has been summarized in the required service
area report:
(1) Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update;
(2) Chapter 38, Unified Development Code; BMC;
333
Resolution 4424 Page 3 of 5
(3) City of Bozeman Design and Specifications Manual;
(4) Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program;
(5) Adopted Capital Improvements Program for General Fund, Street Maintenance
Fund, and Street Impact Fee Fund;
(6) the City Budget; and
(7) Specified bid tabulations; and
WHEREAS, the City develops its transportation facility plans, and its capital
improvements program in a manner open to the public and accepts and responds to public
comment and input; and
WHEREAS, the City and TischlerBise Inc. developed the transportation impact fee
study in a manner open to the public and accepted and responded to comment and input; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Impact Fee Advisory Committee considered and
made a recommendation to the City Commission on the Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee conducted public hearings on the
subject of the transportation impact fee study on August 16, 2012 and September 13, 2012, and
the City Commission conducted a public hearing on October 8, 2012, and a public meeting on
December 10, 2012; and
WHEREAS, public comment was received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission reviewed and discussed the Fee Study and accepts
and agrees with the content of the Fee Study and recognizes that updates and modifications will
be made to the fee schedule in the future in accord with the annual cost adjustment requirements
of Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 9 BMC; and
334
Resolution 4424 Page 4 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Commission found that all required elements necessary for
compliance with standards for development of an impact fee have been satisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, that
1. The October 24, 2012 draft of the Transportation Impact Fee Study Update, as
contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof,
is hereby adopted.
2. As of the 1st day of January 2013, any person who seeks to obtain any of the forms
of development listed 2.06.1640, BMC must pay the a Transportation Impact Fee
pursuant to the schedule included in Exhibit A of this Resolution.
Effective Date.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the _____ day of ________, 2012. This resolution shall be in
full force and effect on January 1, 2013.
___________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
335
Resolution 4424 Page 5 of 5
GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
2.06.1630.A.14, BMC
14. "Transportation system" means capacity-adding improvements to collectors or arterial
roads of three lanes or more, which are included most current long range transportation plan 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.
383
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Interpretation of MapThis 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.
384
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
385
386
387
388
Ordinances of City of Billings, Montana.
ORDINANCE NO. 08-5478
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA
PROVIDING THAT THE BILLINGS, MONTANA CITY CODESECTION 22-LOO3 PROVIDING FOR AN ARTERTAL
CONSTRUCTION FEE, PROVIDING FOR A PROCEDURE
WHEREBY FEES CAN BE DETERMINED, IMPOSED, AND
APPEALED, ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE BE AMENDED FOR
CLARIFICATION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BILLINGS,
MONTANA:
Section 1. That the Billings, Montana City Code Section 22-1003 be amended to read as
follows:
(a) For the purpose of paying the cost of construction and/or reconstruction of arterial
roadways and depreciation and replacement of arterial roadways to provide safe facilities on
which citizens and visitors may travel, including the principal and interest on all revenue bonds
to be issued for that purpose, as authorized by MCA Title 7 Chapter 7 Part 44 or Title 7
Chapter 13 Part 43, as amended, an annual arte1ral construction fee is imposed and made
applicable to all premises within the city limits. The financial services manager shall report to the
city council when all revenue bonds issued for the construction or reconstruction of such artenal
roadways, and bond refunding the same, have been fully paid and redeemed, and the city council
shall then provide for the reduction of the charge to such amount as will be sufficient to pay the
reasonable expense of the construction or reconstruction of arterial roadways. The charge shall
be based on both the area of the parcel of land and its zone classification. Charges against
properties zoned Residential-s000 (R-50), Residential-6000 (R-60), Residential 6,000Restricted (R-60R), Residential-7O0O (R-70), Residential 7,000 Restricted (R-70R),
Residential-80O0 (R-80), and Residential-9600 (R-96) shall be capped at a maximum of the
applicable rate for that zoning classification times 9600 square feet per parcel. Other residential
zoning classifications created in the future will be similarly treated, except that Residential
Multi-Family (RMF), Residential Manufactured Home (RMH), Residential Professional (Rp),
and Residential Multi-Family-Restricted (RMF-R) will not be subject to any such maximum
square footage cap. Planned Development (PD) zones will be charged based on their underlying
zoning classifications and will be subject to the maximum 9600 square footage cap for the
underlying zorung classifications of R-50, R-60, R-60R" R-70, R-70R" R-80, and R-96. All other
underlying zonrng classifications will not be subject to any such maximum square footage cap. If
the underlying zoning does not match any zoning classification listed bele¡¡r in ArtÍcle 27-300,
Zoning Districts and Official Maps, the parcel will be charged at the rate of the most
reasonably comparable zoning classification. If there is no reasonably comparable zoning
classification, the parcel will be charged at the Planned Development (PD) zoningrate. The city
council may provide an exemption to commercially zoned and Residential Manufactured
Home @MH)-zoned properties that are currently owner-occupied as a single-family residence.
The property owner must annually request the exemption through the public works department
389
Ordinances of City of Billings, Montana.
by August 31 of each year. The per square foot charges for each parcel shall be as-felle+vs set by
resolution and shall be made to the owner of the parcel as the same shall appear according to the
tax code number or account number thereof in the office of the Department of Revenue,
Yellowstone County, Montana:
TÂBtE INSET:
Zenfu-+repesee+ate-
r W
R#-0s03++-
R-T 0s0@+-
R=+r OW
RlÆ{-eÆe417
RS-0,00+t+
PÞ 0$0s85-
R-60-0sggr-
RP-0s069+
R}4F+0Ãeæ+-
rur4f 0,00748
NêL_0s0+69-
N+0s0s24-
BL+0s08?t--
lúel4Ð-0s08se-
e+0s08+9-
BL+0s099+
PÆ_0s089+
H+gs09g+-
€r 0s096r
HT 0s+€68-
eBr eÆ+?19+
BTT CIs09+?-
@in6-0s0r++
390
Ordinances of City of Billings, Montana.
The arterial construction assessment rates shall be established on an annual basis
consistent with state law by resolution passed by a simple majority of the city council, but the
assessment rates may only be changed through passage of a resolution by a super-majority of the
city council consisting of at least two-thirds (213) of all council members present and voting. The
zone classification shall be that which is on the official map on record at the city-county planning
department.
(b) The financial services manager shall, on or before the last day of October of each
year, cause to be mailed by the county treasurer to every owner of a lot or parcel within the city,
on the same date and in the same manner as are real property taxes, a separate statement of
arterial construction charges setting forth the annual charge to be assessed on the lot or parcel for
arterial roadway construction thereto. Such charge shall be due and payable on or before 5:00
p.m. on the thirtieth day of November of each year. Upon failure of the owner to pay the charge,
the same will be in arrears and delinquent on December 31st of such year, and shall be collected
by the financial services manager according to the provision and authority of MCA $$ 7-1-101
through 120, and the City Charter.
(c) All arterial construction charges shall be collected as provided in this article and
credited to a fund to be known as the "municipal arterial construction system fund", which fund
shall be at all times segregated and maintained by financial services manager on the books of the
city as a separate and special fund. Upon adoption by the city council of a resolution authonzing
the issuance of revenue bonds of the city payable from arterial roadway construction charges or
otherwise establishing a system of funds and accounts for such charges, all arterial construction
charges shall be applied and accounted for in the manner provided in such resolution.
(d) Any party who considers the charges applicable to his premises unfair, inequitable or
unreasonable may apply to the public works director for adjustment thereof, stating the facts and
grounds of complaint, and the public works director may notify the owner of any premises as to
which he considers the rates and charges to be inadequate. In either case, the public works
director shall cause appropriate investigation and report to be made by himself or his duly
authorized representative.
(e) The public works director, or his duly authorized representative, shall consider each
and all of such complaints and reports and communicate his findings with respect thereto to the
city council. The city council shall have the right to order a public hearing as to any such matter
and, if convinced that an adjustment of the charges for such premises is necessary to provide
reasonable equality with those charged to others, it shall so provide, either by ordinance
amendatory hereto, or by resolution fixing special charges for individual premises during the
period of continuance of special circumstances which make the standard charges unfair,
inequitable, unreasonable or inadequate.
Section 4. EFFECTTVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after
second reading and final adoption as provided by law.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other
provisions of this ordinance, which may be given effect without the invalid provisions or
application, and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
PASSED by the City Council on first reading this 8th day of September, 2008.
391
2008.
Ordinances of City of Billings, Montana.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED on second reading this 22nd day of September,
CITY OF BILLINGS
Cari Matin, City Clerk
392
393
394
395
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Building Inspection Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
for FY14-18.
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Building Inspection Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) for FY14-18.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Manager is required to prepare a 5 Year Capital
Improvements Plan and submit it to the Commission by December 15th. In the past, plans have
been presented to the Commission prior to approval. This year, in instances where schedules are
not changing much, we are opting to put the CIP on consent for approval. We will have staff
available during the Consent agenda to answer questions from Commissioners or the public, as
necessary.
Building Inspection and other city staff met in October to develop the attached Capital Plan for
the equipment needs of the Building Inspection division.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
396
FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no fiscal effect. Once adopted, the
Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for
FY14.
Report compiled on: November 5, 2012
Attached: Building Inspection CIP, with Vehicle Listing
397
Building InspectionCapital Improvement PlanFinancial SummaryCurrent YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 UnscheduledProjected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 260,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ Plus: Building Inspection Revenues Dedicated to CIP‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Less: Scheduled CIP Project Costs (100,000)$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ (292,500)$ Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18Estimated Annual Building Inspection Revenues 965,525$ 965,525$ 965,525$ 965,525$ 975,180$ 984,932$ Estimated Growth in Revenues‐ 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%Total Estimated Revenues 965,525$ 965,525$ 965,525$ 975,180$ 984,932$ 994,781$ Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plus: Increase Dedicated to Capital Improvements % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total % Dedicated to CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Total Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ProjectedProjected350,000300,000250,000200,000150,000100,00050,0000Building Inspection Projects & Equipment398
CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15FY17FY18Building InspectionBI01BUILD. INSP.STAFF VEHICLE ‐ REPLACEMENTS$260,000BI03BUILD. INSP.STAFF VEHICLE ‐ ADDITION$32,500Summary for Building Inspection (2 items)Totals by year:$292,500FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY18FY17399
CIP Project Fund
Building Inspection
PROJECT NUMBER
BI01
DEPARTMENT
BUILD. INSP.
PROJECT NAME
STAFF VEHICLE - REPLACEMENTS
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$260,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This item is for the scheduled replacement of Building Inspection vehicles based on age and use of the vehicle. Vehicles will be
replaced according to the City's Vehicle Replacement policy. This program will address the long term vehicle needs of the
Building Division by allowing careful replacement of vehicles as vehicle conditions and department needs warrant. Right now, all
vehicles are in use by Department staff, averaging approx 8,000 miles per year. Vehicle Mileage updated October 2012.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Utilize vehicles beyond the recommendations of the vehicle use policy; consider replacements of different model of vehicle.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Based on the age and use of the vehicle a new vehicle will be purchased as replacement.
In the past, vehicles were replaced after 5 years. We are stretching the useful life within the division to match the newly-revised
vehicle purchase/replacement policy.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Generally, annual operating and maintenance costs are expected to decrease when older vehicles are replaced with newer ones.
More fuel efficiency and lower repair costs are financial benefits.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Building Inspection Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
FY17 FY18
400
Building Inspection Vehicles - DetailsProject NumberAsset #MakeModel YrCurrent MileageFY14FY15FY16UnscheduledNotesFY17FY18BI013144Jeep Liberty200348,307$32,500Beyond FY183218Grand Cherokee200444,574$32,500Beyond FY183328Dodge Durango200656,725$32,500Beyond FY183329Dodge Durango200847,115$32,500Beyond FY183353Jeep Liberty200625,896$32,500Beyond FY183354Jeep Liberty200638,390$32,500Beyond FY183404Dodge Durango200813,343$32,500Beyond FY183405Dodge Durango200837,441$32,500Beyond FY18$260,000Total By Year for Vehicle Replacements401
CIP Project Fund
Building Inspection
PROJECT NUMBER
BI03
DEPARTMENT
BUILD. INSP.
PROJECT NAME
STAFF VEHICLE - ADDITION
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$32,500
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The existing vehicle fleet is assigned to current staff (see BI01 - Replacements). When a new Building Inspector is hired, a new
vehicle will need to be purchased. We are hoping to make improvements to existing Inspector efficiency with in-the-field mobile
applications and equipment; however, the point will come when an additional inspector is needed on a full or part-time basis.
Regardless of whether their work schedule, a vehicle is a criticial piece of equipment for an inspector that needs.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Have inspectors/staff share vehicles (not likely to be efficient use of inspector time.)
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Staff will be adequately equipped to perform building inspections around town.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Because this is an addition to the fleet, additional gas and maintenance costs will be
paid by the Building Inspeciton Fund. Currently, vehicles average 5,000 - 8,000 miles per year. Routine maintenance will be
performed as necessary.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Building Inspection Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
FY17 FY18
402
403
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Fire Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) for FY14-18.
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Fire Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for FY14-18.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Manager is required to prepare a 5 Year Capital
Improvements Plan and submit it to the Commission by December 15th. The City’s Impact Fee
Advisory Committee (IFAC) met on November 29th to review and make recommendations for
the planned expenditures of Fire Impact Fees. The Committee forwards the attached schedules
for approval, with the following notations:
• It is estimated, given current growth, that FIF06 - Fire Station #4 and FIF07 - Fire Engine
#4 will not be built/acquired between FY14-18, so both items are listed as “unscheduled”.
• The Funding Source for both Fire Station #4 and Fire Engine #4 are the subject of
discussion in the Fire Impact Fee Study, which is under consideration by the Commission
right now. As such, we noted on each item sheet that their funding should be consistent
with the policy adopted in the Study.
o Given some past discussion about the allocation of Impact Fees to future stations,
the Committee was in favor of a 75% Impact Fee share for Stations 4-7, as
404
opposed to paying for all of Station 4 from outside sources, and 100% of stations
5-7 from impact fees.
• In general, the amount of Impact Fees collected going forward could be greatly impacted
by the results and implementation of the adopted Impact Fee Study. Because the amount
of impact fees collected each year reflect the individual nature of the projects built around
town, it is very difficult to predict revenues at this point. The CIP schedules reflect
revenues at their current levels. Next year, we will be able to adjust the schedules to
better reflect any adopted Impact Fee Study ramifications.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. If the Commission is does
not wish to adopt this schedule tonight, it can be scheduled for approval on a later agenda.
FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no fiscal effect. Once adopted, the
Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for
FY14.
Report compiled on: November 30, 2012
Attached: Fire Capital and Equipment Fund CIP
405
Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18UnscheduledProjected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 206,000$ 86,000$ 277,900$ 471,719$ 669,414$ 871,064$ ‐$ Plus: Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 190,000$ 191,900$ 193,819$ 197,695$ 201,649$ 205,682$ ‐$ Less: Scheduled CIP Project Costs (310,000)$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ (3,369,699)$ Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 86,000$ 277,900$ 471,719$ 669,414$ 871,064$ 1,076,746$ Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18Estimated Annual Fire Impact Fee Revenues 190,000$ 190,000$ 191,900$ 193,819$ 197,695$ 201,649$ Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 190,000$ 191,900$ 193,819$ 197,695$ 201,649$ 205,682$ Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Plus: Increase Dedicated to Fire Capacity Expansion CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 190,000$ 191,900$ 193,819$ 197,695$ 201,649$ 205,682$ 4,000,0003,500,0003,000,0002,500,0002,000,0001,500,0001,000,000500,0000FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 UnscheduledFire Impact Fee Projects 406
CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15FY17FY18Impact Fees FireFIF06FIRE IFFIRE STATION #4$2,771,336FIF07FIRE IFFIRE ENGINE, STATION #4$598,363Summary for Impact Fees Fire (2 items)Totals by year:$3,369,699FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY18FY17407
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Fire
PROJECT NUMBER
FIF06
DEPARTMENT
FIRE IF
PROJECT NAME
FIRE STATION #4
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$2,771,336
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project is identified as a priority in the adopted Fire Facility Plan because most of the City's north and west areas are located such that our
response time exceeds four to six minutes for fire and medical emergencies. Land acquisition costs are not included. The City currently owns
the site on the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Graf Street, which is ideally situated for this station. This station will be needed as our
community grows in its South West quadrant. We will need to watch annexations and subdivisions within the area and schedule this project
accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Many are available: Scale down the project size and/or materials used in construction to accommodate a residential type facility
similar to Station #2; require automatic sprinkler systems as built-in protection for all new construction located outside of
existing stations' response time service districts; continue operating under current resources; relocated existing stations; accept
longer-than-historical response times and high life and fire losses; acquire fire district's fixed facilities as annexation by the City
continues.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The completion of this project would enhance our ability to respond to growing parts of the community within a time frame that
has been historically acceptable to the citizens of Bozeman. Station #1 and #2 are located in areas which ineffectively serve the
area station 4 would be placed in. Current response times to the areas South of Kagy are approaching being out of our desired
response time of 6 minutes or less 90% of the time.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent on operations and maintenance costs. The City’s General
Fund will bear the annual operating and maintenance expenses associated with this facility, estimated at $1,200,000, including all
crew personnel.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Fire Impact Fees. This Funding Source should reflect the adopted Impact Fee Study, which is currently under review.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
408
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Fire
PROJECT NUMBER
FIF07
DEPARTMENT
FIRE IF
PROJECT NAME
FIRE ENGINE, STATION #4
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$598,363
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project is the purchase of an engine and accompanying equipment for use out of new Fire Station 4. It will be necessary to have this engine
at the Station when it opens. There is an estimated 12 month lead time in delivery of this type of equipment. This engine will be needed for
Station #4, which will be required as our community grows in its South West Quadrant. We will need to watch annexations and subdivisions
within the area and schedule this project accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Use of 1989 Pierce Reserve Pumper Darley; buy a used engine; lease/purchase an engine.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Purchase of this unit will adequately equip Station #4 for fire and other emergency responses.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be used for annual operating and maintenance costs. The City’s
General Fund will pay for the increased fuel, maintenance and insurance costs associated with this engine, estimated at less than
$30,000 per year.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Fire Impact Fees. This Funding Source should reflect the adopted Impact Fee Study, which is currently under review.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
409
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Water Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) for FY14-18.
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Water Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for FY14-18.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Manager is required to prepare a 5 Year Capital
Improvements Plan and submit it to the Commission by December 15th. The City’s Impact Fee
Advisory Committee (IFAC) met on November 29th to review and make recommendations for
the planned expenditures of Water Impact Fees. The Committee forwards the attached
schedules for approval, with the following notations:
• The WIF01 - Water Supply Planning and Infrastructure project is removed from the
schedule this year. This is meant to reflect the fact that our current Water Impact Fee
Study is moving forward without these costs; and, some of these elements will likely be
added back later, after more information is gained from the Integrated Water Resource
Plan.
• The WIF09 – Cottonwood/Stucky Trunk Main Loop project to expand service in the
South West part of town (Cottonwood/Stucky area) is being added to the list,
410
unscheduled. The committee felt this was a needed piece of infrastructure and would
signal to the development community that the project is on our radar.
• The IFAC thought it best to continue to pay Debt Service off as quickly as possible,
given that there weren’t any other immediate projects in need of funding. When the
project construction is completed, we will be able to finalize total debt amounts owing.
• In general, the amount of Impact Fees collected going forward could be greatly impacted
by the results and implementation of the adopted Impact Fee Study. Because the amount
of impact fees collected each year reflect the individual nature of the projects built around
town, it is very difficult to predict revenues at this point. The CIP schedules reflect
revenues at their current levels. Next year, we will be able to adjust the schedules to
better reflect any adopted Impact Fee Study ramifications.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. If the Commission is does
not wish to adopt this schedule tonight, it can be scheduled for approval on a later agenda.
FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no fiscal effect. Once adopted, the
Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for
FY14.
Report compiled on: November 30, 2012
Attached: Water Impact Fee Fund CIP
411
Water Impact Fee Capital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18UnscheduledProjected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 5,000,000$ 2,774,710$ 882,915$ 865,573$ 847,885$ 829,842$ ‐$ Plus: Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 850,000$ 858,500$ 867,085$ 884,427$ 902,115$ 920,158$ ‐$ Less: Scheduled CIP Project Costs (3,075,290)$ (2,750,295)$ (884,427)$ (902,115)$ (920,158)$ ‐$ (31,330,000)$ Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 2,774,710$ 882,915$ 865,573$ 847,885$ 829,842$ 1,750,000$ Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18Estimated Annual Water Impact Fee Revenues 850,000$ 850,000$ 858,500$ 867,085$ 884,427$ 902,115$ Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 850,000$ 858,500$ 867,085$ 884,427$ 902,115$ 920,158$ Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Plus: Increase Dedicated to Water Capacity Expansion CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 850,000$ 858,500$ 867,085$ 884,427$ 902,115$ 920,158$ 35,000,00030,000,00025,000,00020,000,00015,000,00010,000,0005,000,0000FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 UnscheduledWater Impact Fee Projects 412
CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15FY17FY18Impact Fees WaterWIF03WATER IF5.3MG CONCRETE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR$5,300,000WIF05WATER IFWEST WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN LOOP$21,680,000WIF07WATER IFGRAF STREET EXTENSION$150,000WIF08WATER IFWATER TREATMENT PLANT DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT$2,750,295$884,427$902,115$920,158WIF09WATER IFCOTTONWOOD/STUCKY TRUNK MAIN LOOP$4,200,000Summary for Impact Fees Water (5 items)Totals by year:$2,750,295 $884,427$902,115$31,330,000FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY18$920,158FY17413
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Water
PROJECT NUMBER
WIF03
DEPARTMENT
WATER IF
PROJECT NAME
5.3MG CONCRETE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$5,300,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
According to the 2007 Water Facility Plan, a new 5.3MG partially buried concrete water storage reservoir was to be constructed by 2017.
Given the recent slow-down in growth, we anticipate needing the tank some time after 2017. The proposed location of the reservoir is on City
property adjacent (to the North) of the proposed new Hyalite/Sourdough water treatment plant. This reservoir is sized to meet the City’s
storage needs up to 2025, assuming a 5% annual growth rate. Locating the storage reservoir at the recommended site will raise the hydraulic
grade line in the City’s water system, which will increase pressure for the southern part of the City and will allow future development to occur
in the south on a gravity system.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The water facility plan reviewed numerous options. This is the preferred alternative of the adopted plan.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased water storage to meet the needs of our growth community, and the requirement of MDEQ. Increased system water
pressure in the southern part of the City.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Requires minimal operation and maintenance. Checking of valves, level sensors and vents on an annual basis and diver inspection
and vacuuming every five years. Estimated at $4,000 annually.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Water Impact Fees
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:28
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)3
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
414
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Water
PROJECT NUMBER
WIF05
DEPARTMENT
WATER IF
PROJECT NAME
West Water Transmission Main Loop
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$21,680,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Water Facility Plan identifies this project as the most critical redundancy issue in the City’s water distribution system. 4,525 N/A 12" Install
New 12" $ 911,335 2,636 N/A 24" Install New 24" $ 1,101,716 5,154 N/A 36" Install New 36" $ 3,481,785 17,093 N/A 48" Install New 48"
$16,187,712 Total Project Cost $21,682,548 The precise location of the required mains is somewhat flexible, but in general will be from
Wagonwheel road (extended) in S. 19th to Goldenstein to South 3rd to Nash Road (see exhibit 5.B.3 of the facility plan). Given the priority of
the Water Treatment Plant project, the City is not currently planning to complete these projects.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not build redundant transmission main.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The city will be assured that water can be supplied even if one transmission main sustains damage and is offline for a number of
days. The City receives the majority of its water from the Water Treatment Plant through an existing 30 inch concrete
transmission main. If this main is off-line for any reason, the City will need to rely on storage from its three reservoirs. At 2005
water demand levels, storage reserves would be depleted in three days during the average day demand, and in 24 hours during
the maximum day demand. Not only will a second transmission main provide the security of redundancy if the existing 30-inch
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent on annual operations and maintenance costs. The Water
Utility will see incremental increases in general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $12,500 per water-main mile
maintained annually.
FUNDING SOURCES
Impact Fee eligible portions are related to improvement costs beyond an 8” line capacity. At this point in time, it is estimated that
the 12” and 24” lines are most likely to be built within the next 5 years; the cost of over-sizing those lines would be eligible for
impact fees and is estimated to total $1,874,886. Given the priority of the Water Treatment Plant project, it’s relative size and
scope, these improvements have been moved to “unscheduled.”
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:10
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)5
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)0
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
415
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Water
PROJECT NUMBER
WIF07
DEPARTMENT
WATER IF
PROJECT NAME
GRAF STREET EXTENSION
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$150,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project is to extend Water Mains below Graf Street approximately ¼ mile in order to connect infrastructure east from 19th Avenue. This
is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire service to meet their response time requirements in areas where they
currently cannot. The Water infrastructure should be installed at the same time the street connection is made.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing and wait for development to connect the infrastructure.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Water Impact Fee – to be recovered by developer payback.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:35
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
416
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Water
PROJECT NUMBER
WIF08
DEPARTMENT
WATER IF
PROJECT NAME
WATER TREATMENT PLANT DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT
FY14
$2,750,295
FY15
$884,427
FY16
$902,115
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Total adjusted project price for the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) construction of phase one is estimated at $40.7 Million. Of that amount,
$13.3 Million is for capacity expanding costs of construction. The impact fee account will not have enough cash on hand to pay the costs of
construction when the facility is built. As such, impact fee revenues will be dedicated to pay the outstanding debt in future years, as fee
revenues are collected. At this point, approximately $5 Million of impact fee eligible costs will be paid with a long-term loan (20 years, 4%)
through the State’s Revolving Loan Fund. A debt schedule will be updated semi-annually with the amount of impact fee dollars that have been
dedicated to debt payments until the full amount owed is paid.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Major capital expansion of the Bozeman Water Treatment Plant (WTP) will enable the City to meet its ever growing demand for
water services. Expansion of the Bozeman WTP is consistent with the City’s long-term need to accommodate growth and
economic development in the Gallatin Valley.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
FY08 Pilot Testing: $200,000. FY09,FY10, FY11 Design and Membrane equipment deposit, construction $7,267,000. FY12
$16,460,000. FY13 $16,460,000. Of this total, approximately 33% is eligible for payment via impact fees.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:50
FY17
$920,158
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)10
FY18
417
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Water
PROJECT NUMBER
WIF09
DEPARTMENT
WATER IF
PROJECT NAME
COTTONWOOD/STUCKY TRUNK MAIN LOOP
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$4,200,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Installation of a trunk water main loop from the intersection of Cottonwood and Huffine Lane south to Stucky Road then east to South 19th
Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Postpone installation to some future time. It is unlikely that such an ambitious and expensive project could or would be installed
by the concerted effort of private developers. Even if that were to happen, the City would be asked to participate in the
oversizing of these mains, all of which exceed the local 8” diameter requirement.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Provides the water main backbone which will support future growth In a large area of the City.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Incremental increase in the cost of operation and maintenance
FUNDING SOURCES
Impact fees, developer contribution for local equivalent share.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:45
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)5
FY18
418
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Wastewater Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for FY14-18.
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Wastewater Impact Fee Fund Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY14-18.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Manager is required to prepare a 5 Year Capital
Improvements Plan and submit it to the Commission by December 15th. The City’s Impact Fee
Advisory Committee (IFAC) met on November 29th to review and make recommendations for
the planned expenditures of Wastewater Impact Fees. The Committee forwards the attached
schedules for approval, with the following notations:
• The WW28 – Design of Phase II of WRF project is removed from the schedule this year.
This project once had capacity expanding elements; now, the project consists of
regulation-related improvements, and is no longer eligible for impact fees.
• The WWIF15- Flanders Mill – Hidden Valley Trunk Main and Lift Station project to
expand service in the West part of town (from the Huffine Lane area back to the Water
Reclamation Facility) is being added to the list. The early design, and identification and
purchase of utility right-of-way could prove to save millions of dollars, if done before
419
more development occurs in the area. The Committee recommends spending $300,000
next year, and $200,000 to design and acquire right of way in the next two years.
• The IFAC thought it best to continue to pay Debt Service off as quickly as possible, but
balance that with the need to begin engineering and design on the Flanders Mill area
project. The interest costs to delay paying down $500,000 in debt would less than
$30,000. The financial advantages of early design and right-of-way acquisition in
WWIF15 – Flanders Mill project could easily be in excess of millions of dollars in
construction and operating costs in the future.
• In general, the amount of Impact Fees collected going forward could be greatly impacted
by the results and implementation of the adopted Impact Fee Study. Because the amount
of impact fees collected each year reflect the individual nature of the projects built around
town, it is very difficult to predict revenues at this point. The CIP schedules reflect
revenues at their current levels. Next year, we will be able to adjust the schedules to
better reflect any adopted Impact Fee Study ramifications.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. If the Commission is does
not wish to adopt this schedule tonight, it can be scheduled for approval on a later agenda.
FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no fiscal effect. Once adopted, the
Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for
FY14.
Report compiled on: November 30, 2012
Attached: Wastewater Capital and Equipment Fund CIP
420
Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18UnscheduledProjected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 264,000$ 255,800$ 255,800$ 247,435$ 238,903$ 230,200$ ‐$ Plus: Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 820,000$ 836,482$ 844,847$ 861,744$ 878,979$ 896,558$ ‐$ Less: Scheduled CIP Project Costs (828,200)$ (836,482)$ (853,212)$ (870,276)$ (887,681)$ (896,558)$ (16,812,000)$ Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 255,800$ 255,800$ 247,435$ 238,903$ 230,200$ 230,200$ Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18Estimated Annual Wastewater Impact Fee Revenues 828,200$ 828,200$ 836,482$ 844,847$ 861,744$ 878,979$ Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 828,200$ 836,482$ 844,847$ 861,744$ 878,979$ 896,558$ Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Plus: Increase Dedicated to Wastewater Capacity Expansion CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 828,200$ 836,482$ 844,847$ 861,744$ 878,979$ 896,558$ 18,000,00016,000,00014,000,00012,000,00010,000,0008,000,0006,000,0004,000,0002,000,0000FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 UnscheduledWastewater Impact Fee Projects 421
CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15FY17FY18Impact Fees WastewaterWWIF05WWATER IFHOSPITAL TRUNK LINE: HAGGERTY TO KAGY$1,062,000WWIF11WWATER IFREPLACE FRONT STREET: TAMARACK/ROUSE$1,800,000WWIF12WWATER IFGRAF STREET EXTENSION$50,000WWIF14WWATER IFWRF PHASE I DEBT RETIREMENT$536,482$653,212$870,276$600,000$887,681$896,558WWIF15WWATER IFFLANDERS MILL ‐ HIDDEN VALLEY TRUNK MAIN AND LIFT STATION$300,000$200,000$13,300,000Summary for Impact Fees Wastewater (5 items)Totals by year:$836,482 $853,212$870,276$16,812,000FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY18$896,558$887,681FY17422
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Wastewater
PROJECT NUMBER
WWIF05
DEPARTMENT
WWATER IF
PROJECT NAME
HOSPITAL TRUNK LINE: HAGGERTY TO KAGY
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$1,062,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Construct ~7,900 LF of 12" and 15" sewer collector from manhole C0507 to 1E22.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Limit future development in the area.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
If constructed to the line sizes master planned in the City’s Wastewater Facilities plan, capacity will be provided for anticipating
the long-term future growth in this area.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Impact fees can not fund operating and maintenance costs. The city’s wastewater
utility will pay for these costs, which are estimated to be a small increment of the city’s system as a whole.
FUNDING SOURCES
70% Wastewater Impact Fees = $743,400 30% Developer Contribution = $318,600
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:27
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)2
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
423
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Wastewater
PROJECT NUMBER
WWIF11
DEPARTMENT
WWATER IF
PROJECT NAME
REPLACE FRONT STREET: TAMARACK/ROUSE
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$1,800,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project consists of construction of ~11,000 LF 18", 21" & 24" sewer pipe from manhole F0330 to C0507. The lower portion of the
existing sewer is at capacity. Additional capacity is needed to serve the future Bozeman Deaconess Hospital development and lands to the
south. It is estimated that 70% of this project costs will be due to capacity expansion and will be eligible for Wastewater Impact Fees. The
remaining 30% of the project costs will need to be provided by a developer contribution or other source. At this time, the City’s Wastewater
Utility does not have a need to replace the existing facility; as such, no utility dollars are scheduled to be spent.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Limit development to only that capacity of the existing sewer.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This project will significantly increase the service area and capacity of the trunk sewer.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Impact fees can not fund operating and maintenance costs. The city’s wastewater
utility will pay for these costs, which are estimated to be a small increment of the city’s system as a whole.
FUNDING SOURCES
70% Wastewater Impact Fees = $1,260,000 30% Developer Contribution = $540,000
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:27
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)2
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
424
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Wastewater
PROJECT NUMBER
WWIF12
DEPARTMENT
WWATER IF
PROJECT NAME
GRAF STREET EXTENSION
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$50,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project is to extend Wastewater Mains below Graf Street approximately ¼ mile in order to connect infrastructure east from 19th
Avenue. This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire service to meet their response time requirements in areas
where they currently cannot. The Wastewater infrastructure should be installed at the same time the street connection is made.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing and wait for development to connect the infrastructure.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Wastewater Impact Fee – to be recovered by developer payback.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:35
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
425
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Wastewater
PROJECT NUMBER
WWIF14
DEPARTMENT
WWATER IF
PROJECT NAME
WRF PHASE I DEBT RETIREMENT
FY14
$536,482
FY15
$653,212
FY16
$870,276
Unscheduled
$600,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Total adjusted project price for the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) construction of phase one is estimated at $53.8 Million. Of that
amount, $17.9 Million is for capacity expanding costs of construction. The impact fee account will not have enough cash on hand to pay the
costs of construction when the facility is built. As such, impact fee revenues will be dedicated to pay the outstanding debt in future years, as fee
revenues are collected. At this point, approximately $4.87 Million of impact fee eligible costs will be paid with a long-term loan (20 years,
3.75%) through the State’s Revolving Loan Fund. A debt schedule will be updated semi-annually with the amount of impact fee dollars that have
been dedicated to debt payments until the full amount owed is paid.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Major capital expansion of the Bozeman WRF will enable the City to meet its ever growing demand for wastewater services and
still produce a high quality effluent that is in full compliance with the City’s MPDES discharge permit. Expansion of the Bozeman
WRF is consistent with the City’s long-term need to accommodate rapid growth and economic development in the Gallatin
Valley.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
*We anticipate having a minimum of $13.1 Million available from Impact Fees through the end of the construction period.
Impact fee collections during the construction period will be dedicated to the project. The remainder of eligible construction
costs would be dedicated to debt service on the Utility Revenue Bonds, as it is collected in the Impact Fee Fund.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:50
FY17
$887,681.00
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)10
FY18
$896,558
426
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Wastewater
PROJECT NUMBER
WWIF15
DEPARTMENT
WWATER IF
PROJECT NAME
FLANDERS MILL - HIDDEN VALLEY TRUNK MAIN AND LIFT STATION
FY14
$300,000
FY15
$200,000
FY16 Unscheduled
$13,300,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project consists of the installation of large diameter sewer from Huffine Lane to the City Water Reclamation Facility along the
Cottonwood-Flanders Mill- Hidden Valley alignment as identified in the Wastewater Facility Plan. It also includes a Regional Lift Station located
at the north of the alignment and the installation of the force-main necessary to complete the project.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Limit development in the area served by this trunk sewer to that which can currently be served.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This project will significantly increase the area which can be served by the City’s wastewater treatment infrastructure making
development in this corridor possible.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual operating and maintenance costs. Impact fees may not be used to finance those costs. The City’s wastewater utility will
pay for these costs which are estimated to be a small increment of the City’s system as a whole.
FUNDING SOURCES
70% Wastewater Impact Fees (est.) = $9.3M 30% Development contribution =$4M
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
427
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Street Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) for FY14-18.
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Street Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for FY14-18.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Manager is required to prepare a 5 Year Capital
Improvements Plan and submit it to the Commission by December 15th. The City’s Impact Fee
Advisory Committee (IFAC) met on November 29th to review and make recommendations for
the planned expenditures of Street Impact Fees. The Committee forwards the attached
schedules for approval, with the following notations:
• Add SIF35 – Oak Street 5th Lane project, in FY14. This small project could be
completed without interfering with the large Urban Fund (College and Kagy) project
schedules.
• The College Street improvements are roughly a year behind our original timeframe
estimates. This will likely push the SIF09 - Kagy Blvd project into FY15 & FY16. (The
State doesn’t allow us to start one Urban Funds project until the other is completed. Both
of these are Urban Funds projects, designed, bid and constructed by Montana Department
of Transportation.)
428
• The improvements to College and Kagy streets remain top priorities. Until we get more
certainty on the costs (ie. Out to bid on College this spring; further design of Kagy, etc)
we wouldn’t move any other larger street expansions onto the schedule.
• Intersection improvement costs and their eligibility for Impact Fee Funding is of specific
subject in the current Impact Fee Study. We have noted in the Funding Sources for these
projects that the percentage of Impact Fee dollars used should mirror the policy adopted
in the Study.
• In general, the amount of Impact Fees collected going forward could be greatly impacted
by the results and implementation of the adopted Impact Fee Study. Because the amount
of impact fees collected each year reflect the individual nature of the projects built around
town, it is very difficult to predict revenues at this point. The CIP schedules reflect
revenues at their current levels. Next year, we will be able to adjust the schedules to
better reflect any adopted Impact Fee Study ramifications.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. If the Commission is does
not wish to adopt this schedule tonight, it can be scheduled for approval on a later agenda.
FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no fiscal effect. Once adopted, the
Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for
FY14.
Report compiled on: November 30, 2012
Attached: Street Impact Fee Fund CIP
429
Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18UnscheduledProjected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 7,499,816$ 3,715,316$ 4,381,376$ 4,917,597$ 2,264,342$ 3,232,022$ Plus: Impact Fee Revenues Dedicated to CIP 1,006,000$ 1,016,060$ 1,026,221$ 1,046,745$ 1,067,680$ 1,089,034$ ‐$ Plus: Urban Funds: SIF06, College (Main to 19th) 2,993,650$ Plus: Urban Funds: SIF09, Kagy (Willson to 19th) 260,000$ 2,400,000$ Less: Scheduled CIP Project Costs (7,784,150)$ (350,000)$ (750,000)$ (6,100,000)$ (100,000)$ (100,000)$ (23,575,000)$ Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 3,715,316$ 4,381,376$ 4,917,597$ 2,264,342$ 3,232,022$ 4,221,055$ (23,575,000)$ Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates: Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18Estimated Annual Street Impact Fee Revenues 1,006,000$ 1,006,000$ 1,016,060$ 1,026,221$ 1,046,745$ 1,067,680$ Estimated Annual Increase 0.0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%Total Estimated Revenues 1,006,000$ 1,016,060$ 1,026,221$ 1,046,745$ 1,067,680$ 1,089,034$ Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Plus: Increase Dedicated to Street Capacity Expansion CIP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 1,006,000$ 1,016,060$ 1,026,221$ 1,046,745$ 1,067,680$ 1,089,034$ 26,000,00021,000,00016,000,00011,000,0006,000,0001,000,000FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 UnscheduledStreet Impact Fee Projects 430
CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15FY17FY18Impact Fees StreetsSIF01STREET IFRIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000SIF02STREET IFBAXTER LANE, 19TH TO COTTONWOOD$3,350,000SIF05STREET IFCOLLEGE STREET 8TH AVENUE TO 19TH AVENUE)$3,300,000SIF08STREET IFDURSTON ROAD, FOWLER AVE. TO FERGUSON AVE.$1,500,000SIF09STREET IFKAGY BOULEVARD, WILLSON AVENUE TO 19TH AVENUE$650,000$6,000,000SIF20STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL 7TH AVE. & KAGY BLVD.$650,000SIF21STREET IFGRAF STREET CONNECTION$1,000,000SIF22STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL, COLLEGE STREET & 8TH AVENUE$750,000SIF23STREET IFHIGHLAND BOULEVARD, MAIN ST. TO KAGY BLVD.$7,600,000SIF24STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL, HIGHLAND BLVD. AND ELLIS ST.$500,000SIF25STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL, HIGHLAND BOULEVARD AND KAGY BOULEVARD$750,000SIF26STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL, CHURCH STREET AND KAGY BOULEVARD$750,000SIF27STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL, COTTONWOOD ROAD & DURSTON AVENUE$500,000SIF32STREET IFMANLEY ROAD & GRIFFIN DRIVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS$925,000SIF33STREET IFINTERSECTION CONTROL, N. 7TH AVENUE AND GRIFFIN DRIVE$500,000SIF34STREET IFFOWLER CONNECTION$1,500,000SIF35Street Impact OAK STREET 5TH LANE$250,000Summary for Impact Fees Streets (17 items)Totals by year:$350,000 $750,000$6,100,000$23,575,000FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY18$100,000$100,000FY17431
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF01
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
FY14
$100,000
FY15
$100,000
FY16
$100,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Annual allocation available for right-of-way purchases as they become available. Purchasing additional right-of-way is critical to expanding the
capacity of streets in the city. This is deemed to be 100% impact fee eligible – as additional right-of-way is not required if we are not expanding
the capacity of the street.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Condemn property for right-of-way; pay court costs as well as appraised value of property. Time consuming for city staff and a
relatively expensive process.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Provides dollars for the purchase of necessary right-of-way as it becomes available on the market. Avoids the expensive,
antagonistic condemnation process where possible.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Street Impact Fees can not be spent on operating and maintaining facilities. There is
expected to be a very minimal, incremental cost to the Street Maintenance District from this expenditure.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:25
FY17
$100,000.00
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)10
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
$100,000
432
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF02
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Baxter Lane, 19th to Cottonwood
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$3,350,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Reconstruct Baxter Lane from 19th Avenue to Cottonwood to a Minor Arterial standard as shown in the Transportation Plan. Continued
development in the northwest quadrant of the city will be sustained by having this important east-west arterial improved to a complete street
standard.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Full payment by SID, or developer constructed.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved capacity and safety in this corridor;
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost
estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
FUNDING SOURCES
60% - Street Impact Fees = $2,000,000 40% - Special Improvement District (SID) or Other = $1,350,000
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:25
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)10
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
433
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF05
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
College Street 8th Avenue to 19th Avenue)
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$3,300,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Reconstruct West College Street from 8th Avenue to 19th Avenue to a minor arterial standard as shown in the Transportation Plan. This
section of West College has already exceeded the volume of traffic it was projected to carry in 2020 according to the Transportation Plan.
Improvements to South 19th and increased development in the South 19th corridor will only further increase traffic demand on this facility.
Additionally this facility lacks pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Use of Urban funds for full financing, CTEP grants if available.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds
enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and address more
of the city’s pressing transportation needs.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds
enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and address more
of the city’s pressing transportation needs.
FUNDING SOURCES
60% - Street Impact Fees = $2,000,000, 40% Urban, CTEP or other Funds - $1,300,000
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:7
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)0
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)2
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
434
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF08
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Durston Road, Fowler Ave. to Ferguson Ave.
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$1,500,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Over recent years, Durston Road has been significantly improved, except for this small portion of the road. This ~ 1/4 mile length of road
needs to be improved with completed sidewalk, bike lanes, and additional driving/turning lanes. Incremental improvement of Durston Road with
development projects may be possible, thus preventing a severe drop in service level similar to that experienced on West Babcock Street.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SID for full financing, or incremental construction by developers.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds
enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and address more
of the city’s pressing transportation needs.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost
estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
FUNDING SOURCES
60% - Street Impact Fees; 40% SID or other funding.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
435
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF09
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Kagy Boulevard, Willson Avenue to 19th Avenue
FY14 FY15
$650,000
FY16
$6,000,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard from the intersection of S. 19th Avenue to Willson Avenue to a three lane urban arterial
standard. This includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter throughout, boulevard, sidewalks and a raised
median. Kagy serves as an important element of Bozeman's perimeter street system connecting Highland Blvd., Willson Ave. and S.19th. It also
serves as the primary access to Montana State University and the University's major athletic facilities.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SID for full financing, Urban funds or incremental construction by developers.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Kagy is a State Urban Route and is eligible for expenditure of State urban funds designated annually for the City of Bozeman;
however, the availability of urban funds cannot match the pace of the City's transportation improvement needs. The need for this
project comes from increased traffic due to growth in the Bozeman area and the project is eligible for Impact Fee Funds. Use of
Street Impact Funds enables the community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to complete projects and
address more of its pressing transportation needs.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost
estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
FUNDING SOURCES
Total Project: $6,650,000. 60% - Street Impact Fees = $3,990,000; 40% - Urban Funds = $2,660,000
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:32
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)7
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
436
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF20
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Intersection Control 7th Ave. & Kagy Blvd.
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$650,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Control of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard, a collector and an arterial. Includes the installation of a traffic signal or
roundabout. 7th Avenue is a two lane collector north of this intersection and a two lane local street south of the intersection. Kagy Boulevard
is a two lane arterial. This intersection currently has stop control on 7th Avenue. Recent development and increased traffic indicate that a signal
or roundabout will soon be not only warranted but justified. This intersection is a major access point for the MSU campus.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana Department of Transportation. Attempt to create an SID
or identify and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…)
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees. This Funding Source should reflect the adopted Impact Fee Study, which is currently under review.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
437
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF21
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Graf Street Connection
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$1,000,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project consists of extending Graf Street approximately ¼ mile in order to connect the street with South 19th Avenue to allow through
traffic to flow east and west to and from 19th Avenue. This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire and
emergency services to meet their response time requirements in areas where they currently cannot.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing and wait for development to connect the street.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost
estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)0
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
438
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF22
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Intersection Control, College Street & 8th Avenue
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$750,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Install improved traffic control, roundabout or signal, at the intersection of West College Street and 8th Avenue, a minor arterial and a
collector. This intersection has seen steadily increasing demand with the growth of MSU. The Draft 2007 Transportation Plan Update indicates
that LOS issues are beginning to appear at this intersection. If a signal is chosen as the improvement, there may be some emergency
maintenance/repair events should it fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in general this would be an MDT maintained signal. This
intersection improvement project will be identified as TSM 18 in the 2007 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify
and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…)
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees. This Funding Source should reflect the adopted Impact Fee Study, which is currently under review.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:10
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)0
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
439
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF23
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Highland Boulevard, Main St. to Kagy Blvd.
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$7,600,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project consists of widening Highland Boulevard from the intersection with Main Street to the intersection with Ellis Street to a five-lane
urban arterial standard, and from the intersection with Ellis Street south to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard to a three-lane urban arterial
standard. This roadway is currently a minor arterial roadway with one travel lane in each direction. This project serves as a long-term need that
will be necessary to accommodate future development patterns in the region and serve north-south traffic flow. It is expected that a minimum
of two travel lanes in each direction from Main Street to Ellis Street, one travel lane in each direction from Ellis Street to Kagy Boulevard, bike
lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevard, sidewalk, and a raised median will be required.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Use of Urban Funds, developer contributions and/or creation of an SID for full financing.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased capacity and safety in this corridor, both for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street
impact fees enables the community to leverage the available State Urban Funds to complete other needed projects.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current
cost estimate of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
FUNDING SOURCES
Estimated: 50% Street Impact fees ($3,600,000.00), and 50% Urban Funds, Special Improvement District (SID) or Other,
$3,600,000.00.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
440
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF24
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Intersection Control, Highland Blvd. and Ellis St.
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$500,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Identified as TSM -20 in the 2007 Transportation Plan Update. Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic
control device when warrants are met. Highland Boulevard is currently a two-lane minor arterial roadway and Ellis Street is a two-lane local
street. This intersection currently has stop control on Ellis Street.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by MDT. Create an SID or identify other and apply for other potential
sources of funding (CMAQ…)
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased capacity and safety at this intersection.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees. This Funding Source should reflect the adopted Impact Fee Study, which is currently under review.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
441
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF25
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Intersection Control, Highland Boulevard and Kagy Boulevard
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$750,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Identified as TSM -9 in the 2007 Transportation Plan Update. Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control
device when warrants are met. Highland Boulevard is currently a two-lane minor arterial roadway and Kagy Boulevard is a two-lane principal
arterial.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by MDT. Create an SID or identify other and apply for other potential
sources of funding (CMAQ…)
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased capacity and safety at this intersection.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees. This Funding Source should reflect the adopted Impact Fee Study, which is currently under review.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
442
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF26
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Intersection Control, Church Street and Kagy Boulevard
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$750,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Identified as TSM - 8 in the 2007 Transportation Plan Update. Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic
control device when warrants are met. This intersection currently has stop control on Church Street. Kagy Boulevard is a two-lane principal
arterial and Church Street is a two-lane collector. Current LOS analysis shows that this intersection fails during Am and PM peak hours due to
excessive delay on the north and south bound approaches.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by MDT. Create an SID or identify other and apply for other potential
sources of funding (CMAQ…)
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased capacity and safety at this intersection.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees. This Funding Source should reflect the adopted Impact Fee Study, which is currently under review.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
443
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF27
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Intersection Control, Cottonwood Road & Durston Avenue
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$500,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. Cottonwood Road is
currently a two-lane principal arterial roadway and Durston Road is a three-lane minor arterial.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by MDT. Create an SID or identify other and apply for other potential
sources of funding (CMAQ…)
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased capacity and safety at this intersection.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees. This Funding Source should reflect the adopted Impact Fee Study, which is currently under review.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
444
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF32
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Manley Road & Griffin Drive Intersection Improvements
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$925,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project consists of the installation of a Traffic Signal or roundabout at the intersection of Manley Road & Griffin Drive, installation of a
Turn Lane on Griffin Drive and the Relocation of associated railroad crossing equipment on Griffin Drive.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Facilitates development of property in the immediate area.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Street Impact Fees. Project Estimates - Traffic Signal $575,000, Turn Lane $175,000, Railroad Equipment Relocate $175,000.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:25
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)10
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
445
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF33
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
Intersection Control, N. 7th Avenue and Griffin Drive
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$500,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Control of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Griffin Drive. Includes the installation of a traffic signal or roundabout. Future development and
the resulting increased traffic indicate that intersection improvements will be needed.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify
and apply for other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…)
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
Street Impact Fees, North 7th Tax Increment District, Urban Funds, or Developer Contribution could all assist in funding this
improvement.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:30
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)5
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)5
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
446
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF34
DEPARTMENT
STREET IF
PROJECT NAME
FOWLER CONNECTION
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$1,500,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Fowler Avenue is classified as a minor arterial and is an important north-south corridor in the west part of the City. This project would fill in
the quarter mile gap in the roadway that exists between West Babcock and Durston Road. This project would involve the purchase of the
necessary right-of-way and construction of a two lane minor arterial between West Babcock Street and Durston Road.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do nothing.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Traffic on Fowler Avenue between Garfield and West Babcock Street has increased dramatically since the connection to Garfield
and hence South 19th was made. Once north-bound traffic reaches West Babcock travelers are forced to drive on local streets
such as Hunter’s Way or Michael Grove. Construction of this section of Fowler will both allow motorists to stay on the arterial
system and reduce traffic on local streets.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Routine O & M will be required once constructed.
FUNDING SOURCES
Impact Fees, Special Improvement District, developer contribution.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:20
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)0
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
447
CIP Project Fund
Impact Fees Streets
PROJECT NUMBER
SIF35
DEPARTMENT
Street Impact Fee
PROJECT NAME
OAK STREET 5TH LANE
FY14
$250,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Complete the missing 5th lane of Oak Street on the south side of the street. This will finish the full section from 7th to 19th Avenues. This will
not only provide additional lane capacity from the immediate construction but will enable full utilization of the existing lane segments and bike
lanes. The intersections at either end of this road segment are already configured for full lanes in between them. The Right of Way and road
base are in place. This project will complete the paved surfaces. In addition, the 5th eastbound lane of Oak Street located immediately west of
the intersection with Oak Street would be included. The project could be divided into two parts, one on either side of 19th Avenue
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Wait for adjacent development – no time frame known; fund from other sources; do nothing
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Finishes the street section and enables maximum effectiveness from this key portion of the transportation network. Small
construction cost for the anticipated benefits.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Fractional additional maintenance for the additional one-quarter to one-third lane mile.
FUNDING SOURCES
The project is fully impact fee eligible. Oak Street is also an urban route (U-1202) which could allow the use of Urban Funds for a
share of the project.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
Impact Fee Funds Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL SCORE:40
FY17
REQUIRED - CAPITAL or DEBT SERVICE
REQUIRED - USEFUL LIFE 10+ YEARS
REQUIRED - CAPACITY EXPANDING BENEFITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT: (Up to 20 pts)20
DIRECT BENEFITS: (Up to 10 pts)10
FUNDING CERTAINTY: (Up to 10 pts)10
COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITY: (Up to 10 pts)0
FY18
448
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Aimee Brunckhorst, Deputy Clerk / Advisory Board Coordinator
Stacy Ulmen CMC, City Clerk SUBJECT: Reappointments to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012 MEETING TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Reappoint two members to the Recreation and Parks Advisory
Board.
BACKGROUND: The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board has four terms expiring December 31st and an ongoing student vacancy. Two of the four members with terms expiring
have reapplied for another term.
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board is established under Section 2.36.030 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. It consists of up to fourteen members who serve three-year terms, except for the two students, who serve one-year terms. They shall represent as many facets of recreational
programs as possible.
A majority of the members, regardless of the Board's size, shall be residents of the City. The
Board is advisory, making recommendations to the City Commission on policy and procedural matters in the field of recreation and playgrounds as well as parkland dedications or cash-in-lieu
proposals forwarded during the planning/subdivision process.
There are four terms expiring and one ongoing student vacancy. Two members have re-
applied.
Re-applying Applicants: David Cook
Sandy Dodge
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: Board Applications
449
Date: October 29
Which Board or Commission are you applying for?: Recreation and Parks
Are you a new applicant or are you applying for another term.: another term
Enter your first name: David
Enter your last name: Cook
Email Address:
Physical Address:, Bozeman,MT
Phone Numbers: 406-
Length of time in the Bozeman area: 18 yrs
Do you live in the city limits? (Depending on the board this may or may not be required.): yes
Occupation: retired
Employer: n/a
Have you ever served on a City or County Board or Commission?: yes
If so, where and how long?: Bozeman,RPAB-9 yrs
Please explain your relevant qualifications, interests and experiences: see above
Please list a reference and a contact phone or email: Chris Mehl at cmehl@bozeman.net
List a 2nd reference with contact phone or email: Sandy Dodge at
What representative position are you applying for?: Rec and Parks advisory Board
The Bozeman City Charter voted in by the citizens of Bozeman in 2008 requires yearly ethics training. If
appointed, do you understand you will be expected to take online and in person ethics trainings?: yes
Is there any other information you feel may be relevant to your application?: no
How did you hear about this board or vacancy?: informed by city clerk
Form inserted: 10/29/2012 11:11:42 AM
450
Date: 11/18/2012
Which Board or Commission are you applying for?: Recreation and Parks
Are you a new applicant or are you applying for another term.: Another term
Enter your first name: Sandy
Enter your last name: Dodge
Email Address:
Physical Address:
Phone Numbers:
Length of time in the Bozeman area: 29 years
Do you live in the city limits? (Depending on the board this may or may not be required.): yes
Occupation: retired
Employer: none
Have you ever served on a City or County Board or Commission?: Yes
If so, where and how long?: RPAB since 1998
Please explain your relevant qualifications, interests and experiences: I am a frequent user of parks and
trails, have put 2 children through numerous city recreation department programs (e.g. t-ball, swim
lessons) have served on the RPAB subdivision review committee for many years, assisted with drafting
the POST and PROST plans, UDO, and Condition 21 with Bozeman Deaconess.
Please list a reference and a contact phone or email: Penelope Pierce, GVLT 587-8404 ext. 5
List a 2nd reference with contact phone or email: Dave Skelton, City Planning dept. 582-2260
What representative position are you applying for?: city resident
The Bozeman City Charter voted in by the citizens of Bozeman in 2008 requires yearly ethics training. If
appointed, do you understand you will be expected to take online and in person ethics trainings?: Yes
Is there any other information you feel may be relevant to your application?: no
How did you hear about this board or vacancy?: email reminder from the clerk
451