Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdditional information for Res. 44241 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Craig Woolard, Director of Public Works Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Additional Information for Use of Impact Fees for Intersection Funding MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Consider the attached information in the context of adopting Resolution 4424 and provide direction to staff regarding a possible policy discussion. BACKGROUND: During discussion on the adoption of the latest transportation (streets) impact fee study (Resolution 4424), the Commission requested information on the use of impact fees for intersection funding. Central to the discussion on January 28th, was the Staff’s suggestions regarding information provided by TischlerBise in the Street Development Impact Fee Report regarding the formula used to allocate impact fees for expanding the capacity of intersections. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. community planning zoning subdivision review annexation historic preservation neighborhood planning urban design GIS CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION FROM: Craig Woolard, Director of Public Works Steve Worthington, Interim Director of Community Development Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Community Development Rick Hixson, City Engineer RE: REVISED TEXT OF RESOLUTION 4424, AGENDA ITEM I.4 DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2013 During discussion on the adoption of the latest transportation (streets) impact fee study (Resolution 4424), the Commission requested information on the use of impact fees for intersection funding. Central to the discussion on January 28th, was the Staff’s suggestions regarding information provided by TischlerBise in the Street Development Impact Fee Report regarding the formula used to allocate impact fees for expanding the capacity of intersections. We believe TischlerBise’s recommendation creates a significant departure from the current City practice and should only be adopted after careful consideration regarding the financial implications of such a change. We prepared this memo to: a) Demonstrate the current methodology for the use of transportation impact fees for intersection improvements; b) Demonstrate the effect of adopting the formula recommended by TischlerBise for application of impact fees to intersection; c) Outline the implications of creating an intersection impact fee funding policy; and d) Provide recommendations for Commission action. Intersection Funding Formulas Currently the City uses the following formula to determine the impact fee eligible costs for an intersection improvement project: Total Project Cost – Project Related Improvements – Maintenance costs = Impact Fee Eligible Costs In its report on updating the street impact fee, TischlerBise recommended “the non-growth share of the cost of improvements (i.e. using revenue other than impact fees) be determined by the current design capacity divided by the design capacity of the intersection after improvements” (page 15 of the Streets Development Impact Fee report). Represented as a formula: [Total Project Cost – Project Related Improvements – Maintenance costs] x [Design Capacity of the Intersection/ Design Capacity of the Intersection after improvements] =Non-Growth Share Related Costs Page 2 Thus allowing the impact fee eligible costs to be calculated as follows: Total Project Costs – Non-Growth Share Related Costs = Impact Fee Eligible Costs After consulting with the City Attorney’s Office, we believe the current City practice and the formula proposed by TischlerBise are both permissible methodologies under State law for determining the share of the costs of an intersection improvement eligible for impact fees. As an initial matter, the City currently has definitions of Improvement, Maintenance, and Project Related Improvement contained in Section 2.06.1630, BMC. However, at this time, there is no formal definition within the municipal code of a term at the heart of TischlerBise’s formula: ‘Design Capacity’. Design capacity is established through a technical analysis specified in the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. Both formulas assume that the work performed is expanding the ability to service users. To illustrate the differences between the current City practice and the proposed TischlerBise formula, we summarize data from six recent intersection projects. The column titled “Nominal Existing Capacity” shows the level of service, measured as vehicles per hour (vph) passed by the intersection, at the time of upgrade. Please note this nominal capacity is a simplistic representation of a complicated intersection capacity assessment. The “Improved Capacity” column illustrates the nominal intersection capacity after the upgrade was complete. The “Overall Project Cost” includes the costs of design, construction and other services required to complete the project. The amount paid using impact fees as per current practice is provided in the next column. Current practice allocates all of the capacity upgrades to be growth related and as a result, nearly all of the projects costs have been covered using impact fees. The costs allocation of these intersection upgrades using the proposed TischlerBise formula is summarized in the last two columns. Intersection Location and Change Nominal Existing Capacity (vph) Improved Capacity (vph) Overall Project Cost Current City Impact Fee Practice TischlerBise Impact Fee Eligible Costs TischlerBise Non- Growth Share Costs Rouse/Griffin – Two way stop control to 4 way signal 140 321 $358,756 $358,756 $200,903 $157,853 Oak/Rouse - Two way stop control to 4 way signal 92 200 $578,396 $554,007 $299,164 $254,843 Durston/15th Ave - Two way stop control to 4 way signal 217 469 $97,243 $97,243 $52,511 $44,732 Oak/15th Ave - Two way stop control to 4 way signal 164 301 $272,771 $272,771 $125,475 $147,296 Page 3 Kagy/11th Ave - Two way stop control to 4 way signal 64 241 $496,220 $496,220 $362,241 $133,979 College/11th Ave - Four way stop control to roundabout 470 1086 $1,026,816 $1,026,816 $585,285 $441,531 Policy Implications Allocating impact fees to intersection upgrades using the TischlerBise formula has several implications that should be carefully considered before final adoption of the Resolution that adopts TischerBise’s formula. These include: • Consistent application of the TischlerBise formula will require that formal definition of design capacity be established in the municipal code. The definition of design capacity will impact the level of service of an intersection. • Application of the TischlerBise formula will fundamentally alter how the City pays for intersection upgrades. For the example intersections shown above, implementing the TischlerBise formula would have required that between 27-54% of the intersections costs be covered by non-impact fee funds such as property taxes, exactions, or urban funds • Changing the current City practice of funding intersection projects will impact funding of improvements on the entire transportation network. If the impact fees currently used to fund intersections are not available, non-impact fee funding sources will be required which will delay or defer projects currently planned for those funds. Recommendations for Commission Action: The TischlerBise “Streets Development Impact Fee” report provided an improved methodology for calculating how street impact fees are assessed. The report also made a recommendation on how those impact fees might be allocated We recommend the Commission separate the “assessment” and “allocation” components of the report by accepting the study with its calculations of cost factors and recognize that the suggested method of calculating intersections growth share is one of several possible options. This would temporarily preserve the status quo on expenditures but allow the benefits of the new study to begin. to intersection projects. We also recommend a policy discussion to evaluate how to assign the growth share expenses for intersection improvements and establish an approach that adequately considers level of service, funding source and project prioritization.