HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 4424, Adopting Transportation Impact Fee Study 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
Resolution 4424
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, Sections 7-61601 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
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
Resolution 4424
Page 2 of 5
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;
(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, 2,012 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
Resolution 4424
Page 3 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Commission reviewed and discussed the Fee Study and accepts
and agrees with the portions of the content of the Fee Study which documents costs and expected
demand per service unit and sets a fee schedule 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 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 adolKed.
2. As of the effective date of this resolution, any person who seeks to obtain any of
the forms of development listed 2,06.1640, BMC must pay a Transportation Impact
Fee pursuant to the schedule included in Exhibit A of this Resolution.
3. The percentage of the fee collected shall be 100% percent of the amount calculated.
Effective Date.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana,
at a regular session thereof held on the 4th day of February, 2013. This resolution shall be in full
force and effect on the same day as Ordinance 1853 which is the 30th day of March, 2013.
Resolution 4424
Page 4 of 5
SEAN A. I3 fKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
�--- — re "
y;Y
STAG U a Cmc
City Clerk
w
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
G 'E ULLIVAN
City Attorney
Resolution 4424
Page 5 of 5
Streets
Development Impact Fee
City of Bozeman, Montana
October 24, 2012
Prepared by:
Tischlegim
4701 Sahgatnore Road
,Suite 5240
gethesda Mary
400AZ4.4919
1
f
r
f
20112 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozemarb Montana
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES...................................................................................................... ......1
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK.............................................................................................................~. ...........1
UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS op THE MONTANA IMPACT FEE ACT................................................... .........,.~~~...._.2
CONCEPTUAL IMPACT FEE CALCULATION....................... ............................................................___.... .............3
GENERAL METHODOLOGIES.................................................................................................................. ...............3
Recoupment(past improvements).................................................. _ ...... ...............-_.....................3
Incremental Expansion(concurrent 6mpxoaements)-- ... --...........-......__. ....... -____........................3
PYan-Buse6 Fee(future improvements)........._~..............................,................... ...............................4
Credits.... ........ ---____.__ .............. ...- ......................................... —_ ...... .....................4
IMPACT FEES FOR STREETS....................................................................................................................S
Figure 1.Street Impact Fee Formula......... .............. ..................................____............... ............5
1.OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..................................................................................................... ...........G
2,SERVICE AREA.................................................................................................................................. .............G
3.ExummNs CONDITIONS AND DEFICIENCIES............................~ ....... .................... ._...................................6
Figure 2. Functional ClasmificationMap..........---....... ...... .....................................................--... 7
Figure 3_2005 Volume tm Capacity Ratio ....... ....... ............. ............................................ ..................D
Figure 4. Existing Traffic Signals... ............ —............. --............................................... ............'~.9
Figure 5.Map of System Designations.... — ................. ........................................... ......................10
4. STANDARDS.......................... ............. ..............___................................................I1
Figure 6. Inventory of Arterial Streets.........— ....................................................... ......................... 12
Figure 7. Inventory of Collector Streets........--. ........................................................... ......... ......... J3
Figure 8. Inventory qf Improved Intersections...................................................... -......... ............... 14
5.GROWTH SHARE DETERMINATION.........................................................................................~.......~.... ....15
Figure.9. Cost Factors—...... ...... .........................'-.--------......... _-_-------._- ................ 16
6.FnrunEAomnwzmmL NEEDS..................................... ..............................................................~.. .............16
figurel87ru=al Demand Model Inputs--......... ......................... ...............' ........ .........................17
Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-By Trips.................................. ................_... ...... ..17
Figure 11. InflowlOutflow Analysis................................................................................. .............._18
Trip Length Weighting Factor 6v Type of Land Use......... ................................... ................... ........18
LaneCqPauitw_~.-.-'~^..'_.-........ ....................___............ .............____—..................................18
Future Travel Demmmrd ....... .-. ..... ,._-.---.-. .............. ...........--...................... ...................19
Figure 12. Needs Anm/ysis— ......... ............. .........- ... — ....... . ........... .........................................20
7.PROPORTIONATE SHARE CONSIDERATIONS...........-........ ................. ....... .... ....... .................. ..................20
Figure 13.Principal Payment Credit... -.---..—.----- ............___........ .................. ............2Q
8.METHODOLOGY......... ................... .......... ..............................................................................................20
9.IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE......................................................... ..................................................................21
Figure 14. Impact Fee Schedule for Streets............. ............................................... ......... ................22
Cash Flow Analysis for Streets System Improvements............ .- ............................ .........................23
10.CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.................................. ......................................................................................23
Figure 15-Streets System Capital _—_--_'—.---__.._--------.'~~24
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION........'...-....'.......'....'....................~.................................25
CAPITALIMPROVEMENTS PLAN.................................................................................. ........ ...........................Z5
CONSTRUCTION VpPUaUcFwuJLmEsVw LIEU OF Pm0mEmnPF IMPACT FEES........................................................25
lschWise
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
APPENDIX A: ~~... ..-.-~_.-_.~..~.....-.~-~~..20
SUMMARYOF GROWTH INDICATORS.................................~.^.................................................~,._.^,~,^,^,~,.26
Figure A l-Development Projections and Growth Rates.... .......--'....................................____27
RECENT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION................. ....~...................................................................................2M
Figure A2-Housing Units 6KDecade__-................................ ,.^_ ........ ................................__28
POPULATION AND Joes FORECAST.................................................................................. .............................29
Figure A3-City of Bozeman Population Share...... ................. ........ ..................................... _____30
Figure A4-City of Bozeman Job Share........................._-~^-_............. .......................... ........ _._.31
JOBS av TYPE Op NONRESIDF NTIAL DEVELOPMENT............................... ........~.............. .................................. ..3Z
Figure A5-Jobs and Floor Area Estimate........................-........_ ...... . ........................., ...............32
EMPLOYEES PER SQUARE FOOT oF NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT...................... .............................................33
Figure 46-Employee and Building Area Ratios...................... _~ ... ............... ...................... ........33
DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PnomscrmmS..._.....................................................................................................34
Figure A7-Annual Demographic Data_..-..~.-.-.--.--..-.......... .... ....................... .. ...^ .... 34
PERSONSPER HOUSING UNIT.......... .............................................~~.,,.,,,,.,,,,,~,,,~,.^.~_.~`.~',,.,~^,.,,,._34
Figure A,B-Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing............................. .___.........................35
CUSTOMIZEDTRIP GENERATION RATES PER HOUSING UNIT.......... .........................................,,,,.,,,,~^.~,,~^36
Figure AQ-Residemtiml Trip Generation Rates 6y Type of Housing............___............ ....................38
DEMANDINDICATORS eY SIZE n*HOUSING........................................................................... .........................3G
Figure A10-Floor Area oƒLiving Space by Bedrooms.....................................- ..... ........................37
Figure All-Vehicle Trips and Persons by Bedroom Range............................. ......................... .--3Q
TRIPGewEnmmnmBy FLOOR AREA.................................. .........~,,~,_,,,,,.^^...,.~.~,,,^,,..^,~^~,.^.~,~,~,~38
Figure Al2-Vehicle Trips 6x Dwelling Size' .................... ........................ ........ ............ ............... 39
APPENDIX B: FLOOR AREA CODES.....................................................................................................40
Twhlerffise
2012 SWeets Development Impact Fee Study Bozemajr4 Montana
1111 11 11 IN
The City of Bozeman, Montana retained TischlerBise to update impact fees for Water, Sewer., Fire, and
Streets infrastructure. This document is the written analysis required by(Montana's impact fee enabling
legislation. Consistent with this enabling legislation,it is the intent of the City of Bozeman to:
1. Ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve new growth and development;and
2. Promote cost effective growth and establish uniform standards by which the City may require
payment for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve
development.
Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements, identified through facility
planning, needed to accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth's
proportionate share of capital facility needs. Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be
regarded as the total solution for infrastructure financing needs. Rather,they are one component of a
comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities with the goal of maintaining
current levels of service in a community. By law,impact fees can only be used for capital improvements,
not operating, maintenance, or rehabilitation costs. Also, development impact fees cannot be used to
repair infrastructure or correct existing deficiencies.
,General Legal Framework
Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a
legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against
regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the
Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. To
comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a
legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees,that interest is in the protection of public
health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential
public services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive
due process. The process followed to receive community input, with open Advisory Committee
meetings, work sessions and public hearings with elected officials, provided opportunity for comments
and refinements to the impact fees.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees,although other rulings on other types
of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction
cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development
must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (see
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994),
the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by
development. However,the Dolan decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory
dedications of land than for monetary exactions such as development impact fees. These standards
have not been conclusively litigated in Montana in the context of impact fees, nor has "roughly
proportional" been defined as an acceptable range of value.
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely
related to "rational nexus" or"reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state
courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which,
courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, we prefer a more
rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "need," "benefit,"and "proportionality." The dual
1whiefflise
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
rational nexus:test explicitly addresses:only the first two,although Proportionality is reasonably implied,
and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. The reasonable
relationship standard of the Montana statute is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard
used by many courts. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following
paragraphs.
All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities
provided by local government, If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional
demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire, community will deteriorate.
Development impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities,but only to
the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees,. The
Notion decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate
conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed, That principle clearly applies to
impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of
quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities,
based on applicable level-of-service standards.
The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the relevance of that decision to impact fees has been
debated) and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through
the procedures used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate
impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is
measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (eg. a typical housing unit's
average weekday vehicle trips).
A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and
expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Impact fees must be expended in a
timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees.
However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded
with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may
extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking
and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated in state enabling legislation,as discussed further below.
All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development
benefits from the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement
impact fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of
subdivision or zoning review.
Unique Requirements of the Montana Impact Fee Act
All requirements of Montana Code Title 7, Chapter 6, Sections 1601-1604, have been met in the
supporting documentation prepared by Ti,schlerBise, There are three requirements of the Montana
legislation that are not common to impact fee enabling legislation in other states. These unique
requirements are highlighted below.
First, as specified in 7-6-1602 (7) (d), "New development may not be held to a higher level of service
than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to
the existing system to match the higher level of service.'
Second, Montana requires documentation of ten topics in the written analysis that supports the impact
fees(see 7-6-1602). These ten topics are addressed under separate headings in this report.
Twhieffl, ise 2
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Dozem an,Montana
Third, Montana specifically authorizes a maximum 5%increase in the amount collected to cover the cost
of impact fee administration [see 7-6-1601 (5)(a)]. The City of Bozeman impact fees include the 5%
administration surcharge.
Conceptual Impact Fee Calculation
In contrast to project-level improvements, impact fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will
benefit multiple development projects, or the entire jurisdiction (usually referred to as system
improvements). The first step is to determine,an appropriate demand indicator, or service unit, for the
particular type of infrastructure. The demand/service indicator measures the number of demand or
service units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for
parks is population growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of
persons per housing unit. The second step in the impact fee formula is to determine'infrastructure units
per demand unit,typically called Level-Of-Service (LOS) standards, In keeping with the park example,a
common LOS standard is park acreage per thousand people. The third step in the impact fee formula is
the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example,this part of the formula would
establish the cost per acre for land acquisition and/or park improvements.
General Methodologies
There are three general methods for calculating development impact fees. The choice of a particular
method depends primarily on the timing of infrastructure construction (past,concurrent,or future) and
service characteristics of the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and
disadvantages in a particular situation,and can be used simultaneously for different cost components.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development impact fees involves two main
steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those
costs equitably to various types of development. In practice,though,the calculation:of impact fees can
become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between
development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following paragraphs,
discuss three basic methods for calculating development impact fees and how those methods can be
applied.
Recoupment(past improvements)
The rationale for recoupment,often called cost recovery,is that new development is paying for its share
of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built,or land already purchased,from which
new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate
capacity before new development can take place. Montana enabling legislation specifically authorizes
recoupment in 7-6-1603(3).
incremental Expansion(concurrent improvements)
The incremental expansion method documents current level-of-service (LOS)standards for each type of
public facility, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. This approach ensures that there are
no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only
paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. LOS standards are determined in a
manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance companies.
However, in contrast to insurance practices, the fee revenues would not be for renewal and/or
replacement of existing facilities. Rather,revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities,
M=%MK%WXW%ffX�M= W
Twhiergise 3
2012 SLreets Development Impact Fee,Study Bozeman,Montan,a
as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited
for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments,concurrent with new development.
Plan-Based Fee,(future improvements)
The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of
development. Improvements are typically identified in a long-range facility plain and development
potential is identified by a land use plan. There are two options for determining the cost per demand
unit: 1)total cost of a public facility can be divided by total demand units,or 2)the growth-share of the
public facility cost can be divided by the net increase in demand units over the planning timeframe.
Credits
Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of"credits" is integral to the development of a legally
defensible impact fee methodology. There are two types of"credits" with specific characteristics, both
of which should be addressed in development impact fee studies. The first is a revenue credit due to
possible double payment situations, which could occur when other revenues may contribute to the
capital costs of infrastructure covered by the impact fee. Montana's enabling legislation requires,
"consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a
result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available
sources of funding the system improvements."[7-6-1602(7) (b) (!I)] This type of credit is integrated into
the impact fee calculation, thus reducing the fee amount. The second is a site-specific credit or
developer reimbursement for dedication of land or construction of system improvements. This type of
credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of the impact fee program.
MEN= ENEEMENIM
Twhier6i.sm 4
2012,St,reets Development Impact,Fee Study Hozeman,Montana
As, shown in Figure 1, the street impact fee is derived from trip generation rates, trip rate adjustment
factors and the net capacity cost per average length vehicle trip. The cost per average length vehicle trip
is a function of the average trip length, trip-length weighting factor, growth cost per lane mile, lane
capacity, and a credit for future principal payments on an existing General Obligation Bond for
transportation improvements. Each component in the fee formula will be explained in the following
sections that address all requirements of Montana's impact fee enabling legislation [see 7-6-16021
regarding the calculation of impact fees.
Figure I. Street Impact Fee Formula
City of Rozernan
Service Area
---------------
o
Attraction Trips per M ultiplied by Net
Capacity Cost per Average;Development Unit Length Vehicle Trip
Weekday Vehicle Trip Average Trip Length Multiplied by Trip Length
Ends per Development
Unit (miles) Weighting Factor
Multiplied by Trip Rate Multiplied by Capital Cost MOM Divided by Lane Capacity
Adjustment Factor per Lane Mile (vehicles per lane per day)
Less Credit for Other
Applicable Revenues
ww�=M
IschlerSISC-1. 5
20,12 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
1,. Operation and Maintenance
Impact fee revenue will not be used for operating and maintenance expenses. Capital items are
segregated operationally and for accounting purposes. The City of Bozeman will fund operation, and
maintenance costs with Gas Tax, Street Maintenance Assessment, and limited General Fund revenue.
City property owners annually pay street maintenance assessments based on the square footage of their
lot. These assessments are the major funding source for street maintenance.
2. Service Area
Bozeman's streets form a single integrated inetwork that serves all parcels within the city limits. For the
purpose of calculating and imposing Streets Impact Fees, the entire City will be treated as a single
service area pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1)(f),
3. Existing Conditions and Deficiencies
The following four maps provide a general understanding of the street network in Bozeman. Complete
documentation of existing conditions and deficiencies may be found in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (Robert Peccia and Associates 2007 Update). Impact fees will not be used to correct
existing deficiencies. Street segments, and intersections with existing deficiencies were deducted from
the inventories used to derive current infrastructure standards,as discussed further in the next section,
Twhlerffise 6
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
The map below is a portion of Figure 2-2 from the 2007 Transportation Plan. Arterial streets are shown
with red and blue lines. Collector streets are shown in green. For the purpose of street impact fees,
arterial and collector streets are considered to be system improvements, Impact fees will not be used to
improve local streets or Interstate 901.
Figure 2. Functional Classification Map
'j,
Wde
- J
!.01
—
L
L
71,
con
a TON
..............
d(
4 MINOR,
1
64
J
COL 0
hill T
n uwxiv�r'✓ntnawuwarrNi mat rem'0040 e
law ixp 1
MEW
.I........
Ischlefflise 7
H-d N—, 9 lu-",",0,-Ah,,,,
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
Vehicular traffic congestion is often measured by volume to capacity ratios,as shown below. This map
is a portion of Figure 3-19 from the 2007 Transportation Plan,based on 2005 traffic counts. Recent
improvements,such as the widening of S. 19't have solved some of the congestion problems.
Figure 3. 2005 Volume to Capacity Ratio
l
........... im wNr eNi ...... „ fPy,`
0A3
Nks
OA2
6�y N
0,04
4%, 0..........f
OAK
r . ......l i 00
qwx
01
P y
l O %
OP'l
k.
Wil,AV, jilmgww6
-ij
. ..........to
. r, 0
4
f
q
0
—0
SIN
m
LMMKO
r4l
53 j
0,22ai
'J
f
-71 *7
L
Tschleffiise, 8
0,12 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
The map below is a portion of Figure 2_$,from the 2007"Transportation Plan,updated by City staff(see
signal locations labeled with letters).
Figure 4. Existing Traffic Signals
vile .
i wnu�a�utiin!' �sa�a, rc�«m r��rl'r S�wrmrr�ruwru rmw�u ew ed j 0'*= WOMIN4MM ptt tlSM
rwM�w,�MUUPom�NWwWWWUwW�Wwwakrr.. imDiu � ..r�rr i�;vumAi77Mwv !w�mun "mow - �'!�M
L
O4145490wONNOMMA ,��arew Aqu mrumxrwuro
�OWw l �U f 6- uwawwro«
« ar.
IrallN �wna�a40nNUrnwY1Nmh'.a� � wvriwrt �0 a 1&k��a i �� ... ..
�A��H rorz tu%�tugm�mm0 om4�wll ca
P ,w _,. �au��rt�aW.wwixowuwisu .� 'Yi,,.
f,
I
� i it I luul0l0ltl�u OOimIl001mIV01 i
n
a
�nan��mmuragl�wraum'IhueN,
0001
! ; � �.
�.
4
�n gut y�,A��
�II4lrQ/pll@GJ�IgN2,YMaJ Jti&�lir P(;nI�AIYLAII"I'lptlW lA���fFW U'MI�M N�L1WI 6r fMIAIC k9ACi�0 INI AW{mp II I��i
7 � i
I j
yy � ry flg
9� ol
0
� � � wed
UFF mom i
o �
mmwm vu om
i �Ica
mH�nw�am mn�uumu �u�iwamiu�urvflrfl �u�n+ mu P i
'LUCOLN x of r i w a m
�wuwwrere4urv>mmwiun4wmi �u� gyp.P � �t'r � �.
i o
wive JON im
PIIYI/A'di7PkX118lN,�dlgll� V1 Y//�f�p0mgl��t„��rygp��pJDLYaCT�wl�/rAdiYl,�m„iY,UtlWYIpIDNYUIYihdXIY4M'➢y G4r.9�fMNfIVMP�ll I�AIWWWPAW NVMWypplll @IINIIWA"Jpg4'iI�NVdN�
iuw ur. - Y
�` J� Yb r ,. � I pp- ��� IUD "UVIWIIN4"I�IImINm�lmjryil�,�
J � OIOINIII � �NU {
J
III 011101111111111111 � � t
liin.rwa wx,.. RYAN �" � NNI010101 � 2WImM#I hrmmA�igiNri'rX'uWr4 I{°r�11N!NWII�YW1tllN,y,,
lwhlerffise 9
a f V s:W Vi it�r rc.,rf;n moa
2012 Streets,Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
The map below,obtained from Montana Department of Transportation,indicates National Highway
System roads(e.g. 1-90) and State Highways, Primary State Highway,like Huffine, Main,and Rouse,are
shown!in red. The extensive network of Urban State Highways,like 19th and 7tb,are shown in gold.
Figure S. Map of System Designations
.............
-j
............
-4W pwl .........
VOW
L
09 A�
"N
-.J
Twhleffllse 10
"'A
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman„Montana
4. Level-of-Service Standards
The Transportation Plan used various performance measures, such as the ratio to traffic volume to
street capacity, to identify the need' for capital improvements. For the purpose of impact fee
calculations, performance measures must be converted into infrastructure standards that document the
need for capital improvements required to serve new development [see MCA 7-6-1602.(7)(b)(i)).
Because Montana's impact fee enabling legislation specifies that new development may not be held to a
higher level of service than existing users, unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to
make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service [see MCA 7-6-
1602.(7)(d')), TischlerBise worked with City staff to document existing infrastructure standards for
arterial and collector lane miles,and improved intersections.
Figure 6 lists arterial streets in Bozeman, deducting three street segments with existing deficiencies as
defined by a volume to capacity ratio greater than 1.00 (see rows with gray shading) and seven street
segments that have reached their ultimate width of 5 lanes. According to City policy, no additional
improvements are expected to 5-lane streets. For the purpose of street impact fees, Bozeman's current
inventory is 55 lane miles of arterials. A lane mile is a rectangular area one lane wide and one mile long.
ss
lschWie.
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
Figure 6. Inventory of Arterial.streets
Direction Road Went Lanes Linear Miles Lune
Feet Miles
�l"//r r r/�� � d� ///rr / / / /
yy �,
/
�.,r, ,/!,✓,i„/� a rrrr��r, %///�/ /i/
N-S S 19th Kagy to Blackwood 2 6,619 1.3 2.6
i//,i %i/'r
W-E Babcock 8th to Rouse 2 4,046 0.8 1.6
E Baxter Cottonwood to 19th 2 9,767 1.8 3.6
N-S Bozeman Trail Main to Kagy 2 9,800 1.91 3.8
7//
W-E College Main to S 19th 2 3,608 03 1.4
N-S Cottonwood Huffine to Durston 2 5,316 1.0 2.0
N-S Cottonwood Durston to Oak 2 2,573 0.5 1.0
N-S Davis Valley Center to Baxter 2 81961 1.7 3.4
N-S Davis Baxter to Oak 4 2,614 OZI 2.0
W-E Durston Cottonwood to Fowler 2 5,321 10 1 2.0
W-E Durston Fowler to 7th 2 91394 1.81 3.6
N-S Fowler Durston to deadend 2 1,312 0.2 GA
N-S Fowler Babcock to Huffine 2 2,656 0.5 1.0
N-S Fowler Huffine to Garfield 4 1,354 03 1.2
r i/ / r MAN, 1L�
/ry
W-E Griffin 7th to Rouse 2 3,913 031 1.4
N-S Highland Main to Kagy 2 8,616 1.6 3.2
�ii1 Oo/% ;onr, r,rrr/i� //off ��, r/ v ani�iac rm/, ;r„m r //i r!ii%//% /i pia'.,/// /, "s'9 'a %/%i//rri „�,,,g..I'll p%/���;;"",{". "��r ,�,�r� iiiair arir/%r rr%//, %? �%i �i„ ;: i,, rj�% %�%� � %//ii��i % �/ �i r
MOW r %/ � a„ r// ,,.
r/viii r///////% %//"""""off'.r////%/ ;;i.:r fl„r✓�j /,� / I r/ r/ iiri �.2,'0 ;/'
WYE Kagy 19th to Bozeman Trail 2 16,430 3.1 ' 6.2
W-E Mendenhall 11th to Rouse 2 4,944 0.9 1.8
W-E Oak Ferguson to Davis 2 2,637 0.5 1.0
W-E Oak Davis to 25th, 4 3,255 0.61 2.4
W-E Oak 25th to 19th 2 2,100 0.41 0.8
W-E Oak 19th to 15th 4 1,407 0.3 1.2
7177!.,�' , `
W-E Oak 7th to Rouse 2 3,882 03 1.4
N-5 Rouse Story Mill to Main 2 10,389 2.0 4.0
N-S Springhill Frontage to City Limits 2 2,570 0.5 1.0
NW-SE Valley Center Davies to 27th 2 2,886 0.5 1.0
r 0/„r///rrr/fn%//////%//ii//%r �,,,, �r
WON P
TOTAL 136,370 2.5.8 55.0
Source: Figure 2-2 in 2007 Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. Segments with gray shading were
excluded due to existing deficiencies(see Figure 3-19 updated by City staff in 2012), Also,S-lone streets
were excluded because no further improvements will be made to these segments.
An inventory of existing collector streets is provided in Figure 7, indicating a total of 62.6 lane miles..
Consistent with City policy,no additional improvements are expected to 3-lane collectors and they were
excluded from the documentation of current infrastructure standards.
it mm 12
2'012 Streets Development Impact.Fee Study &rzemarL Montana
Figure 7. Inventory of Collector Streets
E-W Babcock St Cottonwood Rd to Ferguson Ave 2 2,690 0.5 1.0
E-W Babcock St Main St to S 8th Ave. 2 4,636 ', 0.9 1.8
rir. r v/
*i0 �'Y,*"%,irrii iii ,,,,..,r/i,ir,,,
.,, „,,,,r,,rr., .,..Fd / / ii ✓ v ,..,✓..,,/�
E-W Banter Lane earlier end to N 7th 2 3,505 03 1.4
E-W Blackwood Road Parkway Ave to S 31st Ave 2 2,140 0.4 0.8
N-S Broadway E Main St to Peach St 2 1,935 0.4 0.8
E-W Cattail/Dead Man's Gulch N 27th Ave to Simmental Way 2 2,662 0.5 1.0
N-S Church St Main St to Kagy Blvd 2 8,419 1.61 3.2
E-1M Cleveland S 8th Ave to Willson Ave 2 2,344 0.4 0.8
E-W College St S 8th Ave to Willson Ave 2 2,343 0.4 0.8
N-S Ferguson Ave Huffine Lane to Oak St 2 7,959 1.5 3.0
E-W Frontage(extension of Main) 1-90 to City limits 2 6,056 1.1 2.2
E-W Garfield St Fowler Ave to S 19th 2 5,087 1,01 10
E-W Graf St 519th to S 27th 2 2„535 0.5 1,0
E-W Graf St 5 3rd Ave to wrest end of road 2 555 0.1 ' 0.2
N-S Graf St S 3rd Ave to Goldenstien Ln 2 7,287 1.4 2.8
E-W Grant St IS 11th Ave to Willson Ave 2 3,360 0a6 1.2
E-W Koch 5t S 19th Ave to S 8th Ave 2 3,775 017 1.4
NE-SW L Street Tamarrack to Story Mill Rd 2 3,730 03 1A
N-S ,Laurel Parkway Durston Rd to Oak St 2 1 2,563 0.5 1.0
E-W Lincoln St S 19th Ave to S 27th.Ave 2 2,603 0.5 1.0
E-W Lincoln St. S 19th Ave to S 11th Ave 2 2,752 0.5 1.0
N-S Manley Rd Griffin Or to City limits 2 5,145 10 2,0
N-S Mcllhattan Rd Story Mill Rd to City limits 2 7,009 13 16
N-S N 11th Ave Oak to Baxter Lane 2 1,680 0.3 0.6
N-S N 11th Ave Main to Durston 2 2,265 0,4 0.8
N-S N 11th Ave Baxter Ln to 5 of Oak.St 2 2,394 015 110
N-5 N 15th Main St to north of Oak St 2 5,968 1.1 2.2
N-S N 27th Durston Rd to Baxter Ln 2 5,313 1.0 24
N 5 N 27th Cattail to Valley Center Rd 2 4,826 0.9 1.8
E-W Peach St N 7th Ave to Broadway Ave 2 5,855 11 2.2
N-S S 11th Opportunity Way to Main Street 2 8,690 1.6 12
N-S S 15th College St to Babcock St 2 2,665 0.5 1.0
N-S S 23rd Ave Main St to College St 2 2,614 0.5 1.0
N-5 S 27th Blackwood Rd to Graf St 2 2,656 0,5 1,0
N-S S 3rd Ave Goldenstein Ln to Kagy Blvd 2 10,599 2.0 4,0
N-S S 6th Ave Grant St to Cleveland St 2 1,459 0.3 0.6
N-S S 7th Ave Kagy Blvd to Grant St 2 1,771 03 0.6
N-S Story Mill L'Street to City limits 2 9,728 1.8 3.6
E-W Stucky Rd S 27th Ave to wrest 2 678 01 01
E-W Tammarack N 7th Ave to Wallace Ave 2 4,604 0.9 1.8
N-S, Thomas Drive(27th) Baxter Ln to end 2 1,322 03 0.6
Source: Figure 9-2 in 2007 Bozeman Area Transportation Plan TOTAL 166,177 31.3 62.6
with City of Bozeman staff updates 2012.
1whiefflise 13
Y dl .mi.,�f p�Cix^iv ine(S
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
As shown in Figure 8, Bozeman has an inventory of 39 improved intersections (i.e. traffic signals or
roundabouts). The three intersections with gray shading represent existing deficiencies that may not be
corrected with impact fee funding. If other funds are used to cure the deficiency,further expansion to
accommodate future development may be funded with impact fees,
Figure 8. Inventory of Improved Intersections
Count PrimaryArterial Secondary Arterial or
Collector
1 19th Babcock
2 19th Baxter
3 19th College
4 19th Dead Mans Gulch
5 19th Durston
6 19th Graf
7 19th Kagy
8 19th Koch
9 19th Oak
10 19th Stucky
11 19th Valley Center
12 7th Durston
13 7th Griffin
14 7th Mendenhall
15 7th Oak
16 7th Tamarack
17 College 11th
18 Durston 15th
19 Frontage Springhill
20 Huffine Cottonwood
21 Kagy 11th
22 Kagy Wilson
23 Main 11th
24 Main 15th
25 Main 19th
—4' �E
26 Main 8th
27 Main Babcock/23rd
29 Main Church
29 Main College
30 Main Fowler
31 Main Rouse
32 Main Wilson
33 Oak ISth t Traffic signals or roundabouts,updated by City
34 Rouse Griffin staff. Original source is Figure 2-8 in 2007
Bozeman Area Transportation Plan.
35 Rouse Mendenhall Intersections with gray shading were excluded
36 Rouse Oak due to existing deficiencies(see Figure 2-10).
37 Rouse Tamarack Also excludes signals at 1-90 access points and
38 Wilson Babcock at local streets(Wallace,Bozeman,Black,
39 Wilson Mendenhall Tracy,Grand,5th,Beall,and 7schache),
Thwhiefflise 14
2012'Stmets Developm ent Impact Fee Study BozernaM Montana
5. Growth Share Determination
Where specific improvements benefit existing development and expand capacity for new development,
the growth share of the capital cost can be determined by an engineering analysis of the specific
improvement. Also, the growth share to be funded by impact fees might be less than the total cost
because adjacent development is paying for project-level improvements. In Bozeman, sidewalks, curb
and gutter,and the initial two lanes,are considered to be project-level improvements,
Figure 9 summarizes the recent expenditures and the planned costs that were used to derive cost
factors for the impact fee calculations. For road segments,the growth cost of$914,000 per lane mile is
based on actual expenditures. Improvements to West Babcock, Baxter, and Cottonwood were in
conjunction with other project-level improvements. The amounts shown are only the growth share(i.e.
system improvements), not the total cost. MDT provided the cost of widening South le from 3 to 5
lanes. The cost of right-of-way is 100% ,growth-related, with 59✓ of all remaining costs deemed to be
impact fee eligible based on the increased capacity of the wider street.
For intersection improvements,the impact fee cost factor is a combination of three recent projects and
eight cost estimates from the City's approved FY13-17 CIP. Across the nation, many jurisdictions are
turning to greater use of roundabouts because they are more effective, even though the initial
construction cost might be higher. In comparison, the Bozeman roundabout was less than the MDT
expenditure for intersection improvements on College Street. The growth share determination for
improvements to existing intersections is a site-specific evaluation depending on current design and
performance of the intersection, compared to planned improvements. Typically, an intersection has to
"warrant"' improvement, meaning it no longer performs at an acceptable level of service. Given this
situation, TischlerBise recommends that 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. In other words, when existing intersections are
improved, impact fees should only fund the increase in design capacity. As shown below, impact fees
are based on an estimated growth cost of $869,000 per improved intersection. Given the existing
arterial and collector road network has 117.6 lane miles, the cost of intersection improvements is
$288,000 per lane mile. For both road segments plus intersection improvements, the impact fees are
based on a total cost of$1,202,000 per lane mile.
vmffw�
Tischlefflise 15
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study &rzemarr,Montana
Figure 9. Coast Factors
Road Segment Improvements
11 ER 11 No
W. Babcock $63,000 019
Baxter(widen from
$228,200 1.05
to 3 lanes)
Cottonwood(Fallon to
$689,250 0.75
Babcock)
S 19th(Main to Kagy)* $6,873,600 6.50
TOTAL $7,854,050 8.59
Cost per Lane Mlle $914,000
Intersection Improvements
SIF20 7th&Kagy $650,000
SIF22 College&8th $750,000
SIF24 Highland&Ellis $500,000
SIF25 Highland&Kagy $750,000
SIF26 Church&Kagy $750,000
SIF27 Cottonwood&Durston $500,000
SIF32 Manley&Griffin $925,000
SIF33 H 7th&Griffin $'500,000
Bozeman Signalization Kagy&11th $568,000
Bozeman Roundabout ,College&11th $1,085,000
MDT expenditure College&S 19th* $2,586,000
TOTAL $9,,564,000
Count of Intersections 1.1
Average Cost per Intersection $869,000
Existing improved Intersections 39
Lane Miles of Existing Arterials and Collectors 117.6
Cost per Lane Mile for Intersection Improvements $288,000
Total Cost per Lane Mile $1,202,000
*Based on the increase from 3 to 5 lanes, the growth share is 59 of the
project cast, except ROW cost which is 100%growth-related.
. Future Additional reed
The relationship between the amount of development in Bozeman and the need for impact fee system
improvements is documented in the following two tables. Figure 10 summarizes the input variables
used to determine average weekday vehicle trips and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT). In the table below
Twhieffiise 16
i� un:7�eu kp+•o-rdi4wn.,
2012 Streets Development impact Fee Study Bozeman,Momana
HU means housing units, KSF means square feet of nonresidential development, in thousands, and the
Institute of Transportation Engineers is abbreviated ITE. Data in each column are explained below.
Figure 10. Travel Demand Model Inputs
ITE Dev Weekday Dev Trip Trip Length,
Code Type VTE unit Ad! Wt Factor
RI 210 Residential 6,60 HU 57% 1.21
NRI 150 Industrial 3.56 KSF 50% 0.73
NR2 820 Commercial 4170 KSF 33% 0.66
NR3 610 Health,Care 13.22 KSF 509/0 0.73
NR4 710 All Other Services 11.03 KSF 1 50%1 0331
Avg Trip Length(miles) 5.80
Capacity Per Lane 7,500
Cost per Lane-Mile $1,202,000
Street impact fees are based on average weekday Vehicle Trip Ends (VTE). Trip generation rates are
from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(2012).
A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter
were placed across a driveway). To calculate street impact fees, trip generation rates are adjusted to
avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip
adjustment factor is 50%. As discussed further below,the impact fee methodology includes additional
adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of
development.
Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-By Trips
Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 57%,to account for commuters leaving
Bozeman for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (see, Table 30) weekday
work trips are typically 31% of production trips(i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50% of all trip ends).
As shown in Figure 11,the Census Bureau's web application OnTheMap indicates that 42%of Bozeman's
resident workers traveled outside the city for work in 2010. In combination, these factors(0.31 x 0.50 x
0.42=0.07)support the additional 7%allocation of trips to residential development.
Ischlefflise 17
2'012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
Figure 11.. lnflow;/+I utflawAnalysfs
i r 5av .,.I Load 7,5FOOdback I '1�1svlausE3aoM a i Hide Tabs *wu;HideChatVROp�stt aaMYOVfOut11ow job Counts dn2QS11
th
I 1 1 l
r
.,
r.. "A73 Itla 1x
�10 Alta,
1 � .
x
���16�370 f � � r;;r , �
'" ; aaa .. , , 'w Ir�lPcrvt6X7utikarw.P�;hcuerr wrl .PtYmY2
191 " �" � �t �� ?�0icl
wE lzdfk r � i�//1 G pJJJ J': covae 1 Sham
D0.0
f
�rlafy��d In ah� ���� . 1[Y4Y.Q
FYI ro � l n�
1
ro 10,370 671%
r � .. �� r �Y� n 4,014'
r n r
t
6,r4, 411%
Data contained in Volume 1 of Trip Generation (ITE 2012). indicate an inverse relationship between
commercial building size and pass-by trips. For commercial developments,the trip adjustment factor is
less than 50% because retail' development and some services, like day-care centers, attract vehicles as
they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example,when someone stops at a convenience store
on the way home from work,the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average size
commercial shopping center,the ITE data indicates that on average 34% of the vehicles that enter are
passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66%of attraction trips have
the commercial building as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the
trip adjustment factor is 66%multiplied by 50%,or approximately 33%of the trip ends.
Tripp length Weighting Factor by Type of land Use
The streets impact fee methodology includes a percentage adjustment, or weighting factor,to account
for trip length variation by type of land use. As documented in Table 6 of the 2009 National Household
Travel Survey, vehicle trips from residential development are approximately 121% of the average trip
length. The residential trip length adjustment factor includes data on home-based work trips,social and
recreational purposes. Conversely,shopping trips associated with commercial development are roughly
66% of the average trip length while other nonresidential development typically accounts for trips that
are 73%of the average trip length.
Larne'Capacity
Bozeman's street impact fees are based on a lane capacity standard of 7,500 vehicles per lane,as shown
in Table 4-5 of the 2007 Transportation Plan,
Twhlerffise 18
V+ h .e AJPf �fneu{,hrq.i
2012'S&eets Development Impact Fee Study Rozemam Montana
Future Travel Demand
The projected need for arterial and collector lane miles,plus improved intersections, is a function of the
ten-year development forecast (see Appendix A) and the existing infrastructure standards discussed
above. As shown in Figure 12, trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert projected
development into average weekday vehicle trips. A typical vehicle trip, such as a person leaving their
home and traveling to work,generally begins on a local street that connects to a collector street,which
connects to an arterial road and eventually to a state or interstate highway. For the purpose of impact
fees,this progression of travel up and down the functional classification chain narrows the average trip
length determination to the following question, "What is the average vehicle trip length on impact fee
system improvements (i.e., the same type of arterial and collector streets used to document current
infrastructure standards)?"
With 117.6 lane miles of system improvements and a lane capacity standard of 7,500 vehicles per lane,
the impact fee road network has approximately 882,000 vehicle miles of capacity(i.e.,7,500 vehicles per
lane using the entire 117.6 lane miles). To derive the average utilization i(i.e., average trip length
expressed in miles) of the system improvements, we divide vehicle miles of travel by the vehicle trips
attracted to development in Bozeman. As shown below, development in Bozeman currently attracts
169,460 average weekday vehicle trips. Dividing 882,000 vehicle miles of capacity by 169,460 average
weekday vehicle trips yields an unweighted average trip length of approximately 5.2 miles. However,
the calibration of average trip length includes the same adjustment factors used in the impact fee
calculations (Le.,journey-to-work commuting, commercial pass-by adjustment, and average trip length
adjustment by type of land use). Using a series of spreadsheet iterations, the weighted-average trip
length is 5.8 miles,as shown above in Figure 10.
A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. In the
aggregate, VMT is the product of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length'. Existing
infrastructure standards in Bozeman are 1.33 lane-miles of arterials and collectors per 10,000 VMT(see
Figure 12). With 39 improved intersections and 881,109 vehicle miles of travel, the existing
infrastructure standard is 0.44 improved intersections per 10,000 VMT. To maintain the existing
infrastructure standards, Bozeman needs an additional 24.6 lane miles of system improvements and 8.2
improved intersections to accommodate projected development over the next ten years. The total cost
of system improvements, including intersections, is estimated to be approximately $29.6 million in
current dollars(i.e.not inflated over time).
'Typical VMT calculations for development-specific traffic studies, along with most transportation models of an
entire urban area,are derived from traffic counts on particular road segments multiplied by the length of that road
segment. For the purpose of impact fees, VMT calculations are based on attraction (inbound) trips to
development located in the service area, with the trip lengths calibrated to the road network considered to be
system improvements. This refinement eliminates pass-through or external'- external trips, and travel on roads
that are not system improvements(e.g.interstate highways).
Twhiefflise 19
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,!Fontana
Figure 12. Needs Analysis
Year-> Vase 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year
Bozeman,Montana 2022 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 increase
Residential(housing,units) 18,140 18,468 18,842 19,203 19,571 19,946 21,933 3,793
industrial KSF 3,230 3,290 3,350 3,420 3,480 3,550 3,900 670
Commercial KSF 4,610 4,700 4,790 4,880 4,980 5,070 5,580 970
Health Care KSF 1,420 1,450 1,480 1,510 1,5301 1,560 1,720 300
All Other Services KSF 3,830 3,900 3,980 4,050 4,130' 4,210 4,630 800
Residential Trips 68,243 69,552 70,884 72,242; 73,626 75,037 82,512
industrial Traps 5,749 51856 5,963 6,088 6,194 61319 6,942
Commercial Trips 64,960 66,228 67,496 68,764 70,173 71„441 78,628
Health Care Trips 9,386 9,585 9,783 9,981 10,113 10,312 11,369
Alt Other Services Trips 21,122 21,519 21,950 22,336'` 22,777 23,218 25„534
Tcle Trips 169,460 172,729 176,075 179,410 182,884 1.86,327 204,985
of Travel(VMT) 881,109 898,077 915,438 932,825 950,815 968,806 1,065,698
LANE MILES 117.5 1193 122.1 124.4 126,8 129.2 142,1 24.6
ANL LN MI 23 2,3 2.3 2,4 2.4 2.7
Lane Miles per 10,000 VMT 1,33 133 1,33 133 1.33 1,33 1..33
Improved'Intersections 39.0 39.8 40.5 41,3 42.1 42.9 47,2 81
Anf Est 115 'sC✓ / $ '% / g / 2 / ';
,,, iii - ,„ ,,,,,,,,,, i i;: iiaiiiiiii�„ % ?'„ ,;: ?„�, //„1!„ iiiiii/j ,,,,,✓iiic ..ie
7'. Proportionate Share Considerations
A credit for future gas taxes is only necessary if there, is potential double payment for system
improvements. In Bozeman, gas tax revenue will be used for maintenance of existing facilities,
correcting existing deficiencies, and for capital projects that are not impact fee system improvements,
As shown in Figure 13, remaining principal payments on the City's General Obligation Bond for
transportation are divided by Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT). To account for the time value of imoney,
the annual revenue stream was discounted to yield a present value of $0.85 per VMT, which will be
deducted from the cost of system improvements. After the transportation bond is paid off, the City
could eliminate the principal payment credit,which would slightly increase the street impact fee.
Figure 13. Principal Payment Credit
Year Transportation G.p,Bond Vehicle Miles Credit
Principal Payment of Travel(VMT) Per VMT
2013 $395,000 898,077 $0,44
20141 _..... . ,. $415,000 915,438 $0.45
TOTAL $810,000 $01.89
Discount Hate 3.75%
Present Value $'0.85
8. Methodology
The formula for the updated street's impact fees (see Figure 1) is similar to Tindale-diver&Associates'
2008 study. Input variables for the streets impact fee are shown in Figure 14. Given a cost factor of
$11,202,000 per lane mile, which is shared by 7,500 vehicles on an average weekday, the capital cost is
Twhlefl3ise 20
2012 Streets Devetopment Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
$160.27 per VMT. Deducting the revenue credit of$0.85 per VMT yields the net capital cost,of$159.42
per VMT. To derive the street impact fee for a housing unit with 1,400 square feet or less of living space
multiply the following factors from Figure 14.
3.93 weekday vehicle trip ends per housing unit
x
0.57 trip ends to inbound trips adjustment factor
X
5.80 average miles per trip
X
1.21 trip length adjustment factor by general type of land use
x
$159.42 net capital cost per VMT
x
1.05 administrative surcharge
$2,631 per housing unit(truncated)
9. Impact Fee Schedule
In comparison to the current fee schedule, the proposed fee schedule (shown below) is easier to
administer, For example, current street impact fees for residential development required decisions
regarding type of construction, ownership, and possibly income of occupants. The proposed fee
schedule is the same for all housing units, but increases by floor area. Because house size is directly
correlated to persons, vehicles available, and income, larger units tend to have higher trip generation
rates than smaller dwellings. Supporting documentation on trip rates by house size may be found at the
end of Appendix A.
For nonresidential development,the proposed fee schedule has consolidated categories and eliminated
size thresholds for both retail and office. 'The current fee schedule requires smaller retail and office
development to pay more per 1,000 square feet of floor area than larger nonresidential development,
Pike big-box retail stores. The recommended approach should increase Bozeman's economic
competitiveness while helping small businesses,which tend to be locally owned and operated.
Proposed street impact fees (see the column with blue shading in Figure 14) are compared to the
current street impact fees,which are only 60%of the supportable fee amount. The current fee for the
smallest size residential unit (i.e. 1400 square feet or less) is the amount for an "Apartment." For all
other sizes, the current fee amount is based on detached housing according to three size thresholds.
The column on the right side of the table indicates the percentage,change compared to the fee amount
currently collected.
Appendix C provides supporting documentation for a recommended 29%reduction in street impact fees
within downtown Bozeman,designated as the Trip Exchange District(TED).
1whieffilse. 21
2'012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Rozemart,Montana
Figure 14. Impact Fee Schedule for Streets
Infrastructure Standards
Average Miles per Vehicle Trip 5,80 Cos,t per VMT $16017
System Improvements Cost per Lane Mile $1,202,000 Credit per VMT ($0,8q
Lane Capacity(vehicles per day) 7,500 Net Capital Cost per VMT $159.42
Administrative Surcharge 5%
ITE Weekday Trip Rate Trip Length Current Fee Increase Percent
Code Vehicle Adjustment Weighting (60%of the (Derr ease) Change
Residen dof(per Housing Unit) Trip Ends Factors Factors supportable from
Sq Ft of Living Space amount) Current
210 A 1400 or less 3.93 57% 1,21 254 $377 17%
210 81401-1600 4.62 57%, 1.21 678 $415 15%
210 C 1601-1800 5.24 57% 1.21 '642 ($134) 4%
210 D 1801-2000 5.79 57% 1.21 642 $234 6%
210 E 2001-2200 6.29 57% 1.21 642 $569 16%
210 57%. 1.21 $3,642 $877 24%
210 G 2401-2600 7,17 57% 1.21 $4,105 $695 17%
210 H 2601-2800 7.56 57% 111 $4,105 $957 23%
210 12801-3000 7.92 57% 1.21 $4,105 $1,198 29%
1,21
210.13001,or more 8.02 57% 1 $4,10; $1,265 31%1
Group Quarters(per person) 3.10 57% 1.21
Nonresidentfal
Retail/Restaurant(per
820 1,000 sq ft) 42.70 33% 0.66 $6,329,91 $2,699.03 43%
760 Research&Dev Ctr(per 8.11 SOG° 013
1,000 sq ft)
710 Office(per 1,000 sq ft) 11.03 50% 013 $2,694.37 $1,224.21 46%
610 spita I(per 1,000 sq ft) 13.22 50% 0.73 $4,065,37 $619.26 15%
565 Day Care(per student) 4.38 24% 013
550 University/College(per 1.71 50% 0.73 $357,06 $249.89 70%
student)
530 Secondary School(1,000 12.89 36% o.73
sq ft)
520 Elementary School(1,000 15,43 33% 0,73
sq ft)
320 Lodging(per room) 5.63 50% 0.,73 $1,132,,61 $862,43 76%,
254 Assisted Living(per bed) 2,66 50% 0.73
151 Mini-Warehouse(per 2.50 50% 033 $546.73 $339.16 62%
1,000 sq ft)
ISO sq W aret)housing(per 1,000 156 50% 0.73 $1,098,18 $163.33 15%
f
Manufacturing(per 1,000 $509,93 60%
140 3,82 50% 033 $843.72
sq ft)
110 Light Industrial(per 1,000 6.97 50% 0.73 $1,545.69 $924.19 60%
sq ft)
Twhiefflise 22
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
Cash Flow Analysisfor Streets System Improvements
Over the next ten years, streets impact fees should yield approximately$29 million, if implemented at
the proposed level. The cash flow estimate provides an indication of the impact fee revenue and
expenditures necessary to meet the projected demand for system improvements. To the extent the
rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the
impact fee revenue and the need for growth-related improvements. During the next ten years (2013
through 2022), Bozeman anticipates an increase of approximately 3,800 housing units and 2.7 million
square feet of nonresidential floor area. See Appendix A for additional discussion of the development
projections that drive the cash flow analysis.
10. Capital Improvements
A summary of planned growth-related system improvements for streets is shown in Figure 15. The
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY13-17 identifies 12 lane miles of road segments, which is about
half of the growth-related need shown in Figure 12. Planned intersection improvements (8 over the
next ten years) match the needs analysis. The cumulative cost of growth-related system improvements
to be funded by impact fees over the next ten years is approximately$29.6 million in the needs analysis
(see Figure 12) and approximately$25 million in the approved CIP (see Figure 15). The City of Bozeman
selects growth-related capital improvements from recommended projects for streets (see Figure 5-2 in
the 2007 Transportation Plan)and recommended intersection improvements(see Figure 5-4 in the 2007,
Transportation Plan).
Tsch . ise 23
281.2'Streets Development Impact Fee Study SozemuM Montana
Figure 15.Streets System Capital Improvements
Lane 1 2 3 4 5 6-10 Ten-Year
Miles FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY18-22 70`15A L
Roast Segments(funding from impact fees)
SIF01 Right Of Way $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Acquisition
Baxter
SIF02 (19th to Cottonwood) 2-6 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
College
SIF05 8th to 190) 0.9 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
(
Colle to 19th)ge
SIF06 (Mai 1.2 $4,490,500 $4,490,500
1 n
SIF08 IDurston to $900,000 $900,000
(Fowler to Ferguson)
51F09 Kagy son to 19th) 2.1 $650,000 $2,675,000 $3,325,000
1(Wi I
SIF21 I Graf Street 1,3
Connection $1,000,000 $1,000,000
SIF23 Highland
(p 119 $3,800,000 $3,800,000
art 1) (Main to Kagy)
!SIF28 N 27th 0,5 $200,000 $200,000
(Oak to Tschache St) 55`01 $1,500,000
SIF34 Fowler Connection 0,51 1 $1,500,
Subtotal 12.0 $4,790,500 $750,000 $2,775,000 $100,000 $100,000 $11,200,000 $19,715,500
Impact Fee Cost per Lane Mile for Road Segments $1,642,000
Intersection Improvements(fundingftom impact fees)
SIF20 7th&Kagy 5650,000 $650,000
SIF22 College&8th $750,000 $750,000
SIF24 Highland&Ellis $500,000 $500,000
SIF25 Highland&Kagy $750,000 $750,000
SIF26, Church&Kagy $750,000 $750,000
SIF27 Cottonwood&
Durston $500,000 $500,000
SIF32 Manley&Griffin $925,000 $925,000
SIF33 N 7th&Griffin $50q,000 $500,000
Count 8 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,325,000 $5,325,00-0
Average Cost per Intersection $666,000
Pundingfrom Other Revenue Sources
Subtotal $2,993,650 $0 $3,325,000 $0 $0 $7,050,000 $13,368,650
Percent of Total from Other Revenues 359
TOTAL $7,784,150 $750,000 $6,100,000 5100000 $100,000 $23,575,000 $38,409,150
Source., Street Impact fee projects from Bozeman Approved C(P FY13-1 7.
lvswx�
1whileffl, ise 24
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozemak Montana
OHIO!1! i I I NO 11 111 HE I ON 111 Oil
L I
Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested
with all interest accruing to the fund tsee 7-6-1603 (1) (a)]. The City of Bozeman complies with this
requirement.
Capital Improvements Plan
In 7-6-1602(2)(k),Montana requires a component of the budget that-
• Schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth;
• Projects costs of the capital improvements;
• Allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements;and
• Covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years.
The City of Bozeman complies with this requirement in the approved CIP, the latest version covering
FY13-17.
Construction of Public Facilities in Lieu of Payment of Impact Fees
In 7-6-1603 (4), Montana legislation addresses site-specific credits or developer reimbursements for
system improvements that have been included in the impact fee calculations. Project-level
improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not eligible for
credits against development impact fees. Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits
or developer reimbursements for system improvements have been addressed in the ordinance that
establishes the City's development impact fees.
Impact Fee Advisory Committee
The City of Bozeman has established the required advisory committee, as specified in 7-6-1604. The
committee reviews and monitors the process of calculating,assessing,and spending impact fees.
IN
TischlerBise 25
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Dozemam Montana
OEM=
Supporting documentation on population, housing units,jobs, and nonresidential floor area is essential
in order to update development impact fees for the City of Bozeman, Although long-range projections
are necessary for planning capital improvements,a shorter time frame of five to ten years is critical for
the impact fees analysis. Infrastructure standards are calibrated using the latest available data and the
first projection year is fiscal year 2012-13. In the City of Bozeman the fiscal year begins on July lt.
Summary of Growth Indicators
Development projections and growth rates are summarized in Figure Al. These projections will be used
to estimate impact fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure.
However, impact fees methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to accurate development
projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts, If actual development is
slower than projected, impact fees revenues will also decline, but so will the need for growth-related
infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated,the City will receive an increase in
impact fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate the capital improvements program to keep pace
with the actual rate of development.
Bozeman specific base data for the demographic analysis and development projections include 2010
census counts of population and housing units, American Community Survey tables and Public Use
Micro-data Samples (PUMS), plus databases provided by City staff including Montana Department of
Revenue data on floor area and utility billing records. The projected increase in housing units is based
on the City's population projection from the 2009 Community Plan, but instead of 54,500 residents by
2015, the projections for the impact fee, analysis assume this population level will not be reached until
2030. Projected population was converted to housing units using the 2010 average of 2.13 year-round
residents per housing unit. Given the five-year update cycle for impact fees, TischlerBise did not vary
this ratio over time or assume any changes to vacancy rates in Bozeman,which was approximately 10%
at the time of the 2010 census. From the 2000 to 2010 census, Bozeman had an average annual
increase of 589 housing units per year. According to the City's building permits (see Year 2010 Annual
Report from the Department of Planning and Community Development), 2005 was the peak year for
residential construction with 955 housing units. The low point for the past decade was 2009 with 182
housing units permitted, Residential constructed increased slightly in 2010 to 208 units, Based on
54,500 residents by 2030, Bozeman would see an increase of 341 units in 2012, increasing slowly over
time to 375 housing units being constructed in 2017.
W
TischlerBise 26
20!12.beets Development Impact Fee Study BoZemam Montana
Because the 2009 Community Plan does not provide job projections for Bozeman,TischlerBise assumed
a constant jobs-to-housing ratio, yielding 35,647 jobs in 20130. Current ratios of floor area per job, for
four general types of nonresidential development, were used to convert projected jobs into the floor
area increase shown below. For both residential and nonresidential development,the impact fee study
assumes a compound annual growth rate 1.9%.
Figure Al—Development Projections and Growth Rates
Bozeman, Montana 2012 to 2017
Year Average Annual
..................
In
01 4i/a 141
crease Compound
Growth Rate
Residential Units 18,140 18,488 1 18,842 1 19,2031 19,5711 19,9461 25,531 361 L9%
Nonresidential Sq Ft x 1000 13,090 13,340 113,600 1 13,8601 14,120 14,390 18,420 260 1,9190 1
..........
Bozeman Growth Indicators
30,000 ........ ......... ...........
25,000
20,000 ......
lo,000, -,+—Residential Units
-Ah--Nonresidential Sq Ft x 1000
..................
. .........2018 2020 40011'11"�'2024:' '20 '6� '�"20 8 —203df `2'62�,
4, 201 Z91, 4 "20,11
L
Twhiefflise 27
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee,Study ftzeman,Montana
Recent Residential Construction
Since 2000, Bozeman has increased by an average of 589 housing units per year. The chart at the
bottom of Figure A2 indicates the estimated number of housing units added by decade in Bozeman..
Consistent with the nationwide decline in development activity, residential construction has slowed
significantly since 2008. Even with the recent drop in housing starts, Bozeman added more units during
the past decade than any previous decade.
Figure A2—Housing Units by Decade
Bozeman, Montana
Census 2010 Population* 37,280
'From 2000 to 2010
Census 2010 Housing Units* 17,464 ,
Bozeman added an
Total Housing Units in 2000 11,577 average of 589 housing
New Housing Units 5,887 units per year.
U.S. Census Bureau SF1, ...........
Housing Units Added by Decade in Bozeman
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000 ..........
A
2,,000
1,000
0 4-
'000
AP
Source for 1990s and earlier is Table 825034 American Community Survey,2008-2010.
TwhieffINSL" 28
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Hozemam Montana
Population and Jobs Forecast
To provide context for population and job growth in Bozeman, Tisch:lerBise prepared comparisons to
Gallatin County projections published by Woods & Poole Economics (2011). As shown below, July I"
population data for the entire county is compared to 1990-2010 census data for the City of Bozeman
(April 15). Woods & Poole annually updates a database containing more than 900 economic and
demographic variables for every county in the United States. Their economic and demographic
projections use an integrated projection model, so that changes in one county will affect growth or
decline in other counties. The methods used by Wood's& Poole to generate county projections proceed
in four stages. First, forecasts to 2040 of total United States personal income, earnings by industry,
employment by industry, population, inflation, and other variables are made. Second, the country is
divided into 179 Economic Areas (EA) as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA). EAs are aggregates of contiguous counties that attempt to measure cohesive
economic regions in the United States. For each EA, a projection is made for employment, using an
"export-base" approach. The employment projection for each EA is then used to estimate earnings I in
each EA. The employment and earnings projections then become: the principal explanatory variables
used to estimate population and number of households in each E.A. The third stage is to project
population by age, sex, and race for each EA on the basis of net migration rates associated with
employment opportunities. For stages two and three,the U.S. projection is the control total for the EA
projections. The fourth stage replicates stages two and three except that it is performed at the county
level,using the EAs as the control total for the county projections.
Figure A3 indicates the City's share of countywide population over time. Bozeman's 2009 Community
Plan projected a population of 54,500 by 2015 (see Table A-12 in Appendix 8), based on growth rates
prior to the Great Recession. Due to the significant decrease in housing construction in recent years,the
impact fee update assumes this population level will not be reached until 2030. Given these projections
of total County and City population, Bozeman would experience a decrease in population share over the
next 20 years. To derive annual data for the impact fee analysis, TischlerBise used an exponential
growth formula to yield more conservative short-term development increases.
1whimflise 29
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montano
Figure A3—City of Bozeman Population Share
1990 2000 2010 2020: 2030
152,522 22
Gallatin County(July 1) 50,811 68,3691 93,2681 122,726 152
City of Bozeman(April 1) 22,660 27,5091 37,2801 45,075 54,5001
Remainder of County 28,151 40,8601 55,988 77,651 1
Bozeman Share 45% 40% 40% 37% 36%
Sources: Gallatin County from Woods&Poole Economics(2011), Appendix B of the
Bozeman Community Plan(2009)expected the City to reach$4,500 residents by 2015.
Due to the significant decrease in housing construction in recent years,this population
is not anticipated until 2030,
Lft Lulat%on Growthl'
180,000 .............
160,000 --+—City of Bozeman(April 1)
A Remainder of County
1400000 —6—Gallatin County(July 1)
120,000
... .....
100,000
W/1
80,000
60,000
3
.... ................
40,000
20,000 ........
0
1,985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on
nonresidential development. TischlerBise uses the term "jobs" to refer to employment by place of
work. Similar to the population share evaluation discussed above, countywide jobs are shown in Figure
A4 along with the City of Bozeman job share. Countywide jobs are from Woods & Poole Economics
(2011), scaled according to the year 2000 ratio of jobs reported by the Census Transportation Planning
Package (CTPP) compared to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)job data used by Woods & Poole.
For the purpose of transportation impact fees,CTPP data provide a better representation of the demand
for journey-to-work travel. BEA includes self-employed, sole proprietors, and part-time employment.
Even though 2010 CTPP data is not yet available, the methodology for deriving these two data sets has
not changed significantly over the past decade.
Ischlefflise 30
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
For the City of Bozeman,,TischlerBise assumed a constant jobs-to-housing ratio over time, starting from
the 2010 job estimate available from OnTheMap(U.S'.Census Bureau web application). TischlerBise also
used an exponential formula to derive annual jobs from 2010 to 2030, thus minimizing short-term
increases in jobs and nonresidential floor area. Jobs were converted to nonresidential floor area using
average square feet per employee multipliers,as discussed further below.
Figure A4—0ty of Bozeman Job Share
2000 2003 2006 2010' 2020 2030
Gallatin County 37,247 33,581 39,283 38,532 55,805 66,472
City of Bozeman 22,887 22,744 25,0111 24,384 29,483 35,647
Remainder of County 14,360 10,837 14,2721 14,148 26,322 1 30,825
Bozeman Share 61% 68°r6 64% 63% 53% 54%
Sources: Gallatin Countyand Bozeman 2000 are from Census Transportation Planning Package
(CTPP). County and City data for 2003-2010 ore from OnTheMop, U.S. Census Bureau web
application. Gallatin County 2020-2030 projections are from Woods&Poole Economics(2011),
scaled by the ratio of CTPP to W&Pjobs in 2000, Projected Bozeman jobs in 2030 assumes a
constan tjobs-to-housing ratio overtime.
LJO_L�r_o.
70,000
-4—City of Bozeman
60,000 —At—RemaMer of County —
10—Gallatin County
50,000 '00000�
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
o
A
g
g
0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Twhieffse 31
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozemam Montana
Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development
Figure AS indicates 2011 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area located in Bozeman. Current
floor area was derived from Montana Department of Revenue (DOIR) parcel data, aggregated into four
nonresidential categories using DOR land use descriptions'. General land use types are based on two-
digit industry sectors (NAILS),with Health Care&Social Assistance,shown separately for the purpose of
the fire impact fee analysis. The percentage distribution of jobs by type of nonresidential development
was obtained from the U.S, Census Bureau's On-The-Map web application. Average square feet of floor,
area per job,for the four categories, helped TischlerBise select nonresidential prototypes to be used in
the transportation and fire impact fee analysis,as discussed further below.
Figure A5—Jobs and Floor Area Estimate
2011 Sq Ft FloorArea
Jobs (1) perjob (2)
Industrial 3,233 13% __98111 3,170,000
Retail,Accommodation&Food Services 6,872 28% 659 4,530,000
Health Care&Social Assistance 3,033 12% 462 1,400,000
All Other Services(3) 11,714 47% 321 3,760,000
TOTAL 24,852 100% 517 12,860,000
(1) Source. Percentage distribution by type based on jobs by NAICS Sector, U.S.
Census Bureau,On-The-Map web application,2010 primary jobs.
(2) Square feet of nonresidential provided by City of Bozeman,based on MT
Department of Revenue data.
(3)Major sectors are Educational,Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services,
and Public Administration.
See Appendix B for a listing of the DOR categories aggregated into four general types of nonresidential
development.
TischlerBM,s 32
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
Employees per Square Foot of Nonresidential Development
In Figure A6,gray shading indicates four nonresidential development prototypes,used by TischlerBise to
derive vehicle trips and estimate potential impact fee revenue. The prototype development for
industrial jobs is "Warehousing". Average weekday vehicle trip generation rates are from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2012). The prototype for Retail, Food &Accommodation Services (i.e.
commercial development) is an average-size shopping center. The prototype for Health Care & Social
Assistance is"Hospital". For all other service jobs,the development prototype is an average-size general
office building.
Figure A6-Employee and Building Area Ratios
ITE Land Use/Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft
Code Unit Per DmdUf)it* Per Employee* Dmd Unit Per Emp,
110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 6.97 3.02 2.31 433
130 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 6.83 3.34 2.04 489
140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 182 2.13 1,79 558
//ii/3
741
...............
254 Assisted Living bed 2.66 3.93 0.68 na
320 Motel room 5.63 12.81 0,44 na
520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 15.43 15.71 0.98 1,018
530 High School 1:000 Sq Ft 12.89 19.74 0.65 1,531
540 Community College student 1.23 15.55 0.09 na
550 University/College student 1,71 8.96 0.19 na
565 Day Care student 4.38 26.73 0.16 na
J'1§11111111� 'Aly ti N,10,11 I'll P� ,`o" I P
1, I 1/ '1/ ex/gs,mpppgns/�'
(A/� IBM WEYER!
M
0/ -
",4
EMPIRE 7'71117/"11W111'
OR
620 Nursing Home 11000.5q Ft 7.60 3.26 2.33 429
gol (""0"1,
L11/1311/111/131-
760 Research&Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 8.11 2.77 2.93 342
770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 1 12.44 4.04 3.08 325
74777
,I T 7/7
,a
7
7
, '(6/1 1 7
Omi,M'00'01/ P.M'
Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,9th Edition(2012),
IschlerBise 33
2012,Strrets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montano
Detailed Development Projections
Demographic data shown in Figure A7 provide key inputs for updating development impact fees in the
City of Bozeman. Cumulative data are shown at the top and projected annual increases by type of
development are shown at the bottom of the table. Given the expectation that impact fees are updated
every three to five years,TischlerBise: did not evaluate long-term demographic trends such as declining
household size. As discussed in the next section, TischlerBise recommends the use Of persons per
housing unit to derive impact fees. Therefore, vacancy rates and number of households are not
essential to the demographic analysis.
Figure A7-Annual Demographic Data
Bozeman,Montana 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20,2.2 2030
cumulative Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 10 18
Year-Round Population 37,280 39,723 39,465 40,222 40,993 41,778 42,579 46,820 54,500
Jobs 24,394 25,328 25,814 26,308 26,812 27,326 27,849 30,624 35,647
Housing Units 17,464 18,140 18,488 18,842 19,203 19,571 19,946 21,933 25,531
Jobs to Housing Ratio 1:A0 1.40 1.40 1.40 1,40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
Persons per Hsg Unit 2.13 213 2.13 2.13 2.13 113 2.13 2,13 2,23
Nonres Sg Ft in thousands(KSF)
Industrial 3,230 3,290 3,350 3,420 3,480 3,550 3,900 4,540
Commercial 4,610 4,700 4,790 4,880 4,980 5,070 5,580 6,490
Health Care&Social Assistance 1,420 1,450 1,480 1,510 1,530 1,560 1,720 2,000
:AJI Other Services 3,830 31900 3,980 4,050 4,130 4,210 4,630 5,390
Total 13,090 13,340 13,600 13,860 14,120 14,390 15,830 18,420
,Avg Sci Ft Per Job 517 517 517 517 517 517 517 5171
2012-2030
Annuaflacrease 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-1.6 16-17 21-22 Avg Ant
Population 728 742 756 771 786 801 981 917
Jobs 476 486 494 504 514 523 577 600
Housing Units 341 348 354 361 368 375 413 430
Industrial KSF 60 60 60 70 60 70 70
Commercial KSF 80: 90 90 90 100 910 110
Health Care&Social Assistance KSF 20 30 30 30 20 30 30
All Other Services KSF 70 70 80 70 80 80 9021iial
Total Nonresidential KSF/Yr=> 230 250 260 260 260 270 3W 309
Persons per Housing Unit
The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a "long-form" questionnaire. Instead, the
U.S. Census Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known, as the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints in areas with relatively few
residents. For cities like Bozeman, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached
single units, (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for deriving fees by housing unit
size,as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and mobile
homes generally have less floor area than detached units,fees by house size ensure proportionality and
facilitate construction of affordable units.
TischlerBise 34
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bateman,Montana
According to the U.S, Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round
residents. Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per
household to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. When persons per housing unit are used in the
fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. When persons per
household are used in the fee calculations,the impact fee methodology assumes all housing units will be
occupied,thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards.
TischlerBise recommends that impact fees for residential development in the City of Bozeman be
imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit. As shown at the bottom of
Figure A8, census data indicates Bozeman had 17,464 housing units in 2010. In 2010, dwellings with a
single unit per structure (detached, attached, and mobile homes) averaged 2.23 persons per housing
unit, Dwellings in structures with multiple units averaged 1.62 year-round residents per unit.
Figure AS—Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing
2009 Summary by Type of Housing from American Community Survey
Units in Structure Renter&Owner
Persons House- Persons per Housing
holds Household Units'
ou
Units
t
Single Unit* 20,571 8,753 23S 9,726
2+Units 11,793 6,813 133 7,642
Subtotal 32,364 15,566 108 17,368 368
Group Quarters 4,759
01
TOTAL 37,123 15,566 17,368 368 0,
I
Single family includes detached,attached,and mobile homes.
Source: Tables B25024,825032,825033,and B26001.
2008-2010 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
2010 Census
Single Unit* 21,770 8,871 2.45 9,780
2+Units 12,480 6,904 1.81 7,684
Group Quarters 3,030 a%����1�/
TOTAL 37,280 15,775 2.36 17,464
Single unit includes detached,attached,and mobile homes.
Source: Totals from Summary File 1, U.S.Census Bureau.
Tmchlerffise 35
H A, ':Ah'�
2012 Stmers Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montano
Customized Trip Generation Rates per Housing Unit
As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development,
the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to
derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed
for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units, households and persons) are available from
American Community Survey (ACS 2008-2010) data for Bozeman. Customized average weekday trip
generation rates by type of housing are shown in Figure A9. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle
either entering or exiting a development,as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway.
Figure A9-Residential Trip Generation Rates by Type of Housing
Bozeman, Montana Households(2) Vehicles per
Vehicles Single Unit 2+Units Total Household
Available(1) per Structure per Structure by Tenure
Owner-occupied 14,422 6,473 914 7,387 1.95
Renter-occupied F 12,263 2,280 5,899 8J79 1.50
TOTAL 26,685 8,7531 6,813 15,566 1.71
Housing Units(6)=> 9,7261 7,642 17,3681
Units per Persons Trip Vehicles by Trip Average Trip Ends per
Structure (3) Ends(4) Type of Housing Ends(5) Trip Ends Housing Unit
Single Units 20,5711 53,251 16,0561 92,807 73,029 7.51
2+Units 11,7931 40,857 10,6291 42,172 41,514 5.43
TOTAL 32,364 94,1081 26,685 134,978 114,543 6.60
(1) Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046,American Community Survey,2008-2010.
(2) Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032,American Community Survey,
2008-2010.
(3) Persons by units in structure from Table 825033,American Community Survey,2008-2010.
(4) Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). For single unit
housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.91*LN(persons)+1.52). To approximate the average
population of the ITE studies,persons were divided by 37 and the equation result multiplied by 37. For 2+
unit housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.47*persons)-64.49.
(5)Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation'(ITE 2012). For single
unit housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.81), To approximate the
average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by 62 and the equation result
multiplied by 62. For 2+unit housing(ITE 220),the fitted curve equation is(3.94*vehicles)+293.58.
(6) Housing units from Table B25024,American Community Survey,2008-2010.
Demand Indicators by Size of Housing
The impact fee update recommends residential impact fees that increase with floor area of living space.
An extensive analysis of demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau and unit size data from
Montana DOR supports the proportionate share methodology for the proposed cost allocation. Number
of bedrooms is the common connection between the two databases, with the analysis limited to units
constructed during the past two decades. As shown in Figure 10, the average-size one bedroom
ravx�
IschleCkse 36
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montano
dwelling in Bozeman has 1,254 square feet of living area. The average size of a two-bedroom unit is
1,966 square feet of living area. Housing units with three bedrooms average 2,065 square feet of living
area., Due to sample-size limitations in the demographic data (discussed further below), TischlerBise
aggregated all units with four or more bedrooms. These large units average 3,189 square feet of living
space.
Figure A10—Floor Area of Living Space by Bedrooms
I Size of Residential Units by Bedroom in Bozeman,
[Le ooms ta[L a ,
.]Total
1 Sum of
I I Square Footage 61,450
I" -. __ ....
.........
Count of Geocode 49
Average of Square Footage2 1,254
2 Sum of Square Footage 495,355
Count of Geocode 252
Average of Square Footage2 1,966
3, Sum of Square Footage 6,282,153
. ..................
Count of Geocode 3,042
Average of Square Footage2 2,065
4" Sum of Square Footage 3,125,69_3
Count of Geocode 1,038
Average of Square Footage2 3,011
5 Sure of Square Footage 734,637
.. ........... .
Count of Geocode 186
... .......-.1. . .1 -I........... .... ...... .
Average of Square Footage2 3,950
6 Sum of Square Footage 94,336_
Count of Geocode 19
Average of Square Footage2 4,965
7 Sum of Square Footage 24,173
Count of Geocode 5
Average of Square Footage2 4,835
8 Sum of Square Footage 3,772
Count of Geocode
I Average of Square Footage2 3,772
Total Sum of Square Footage 10,821,569
Total Count of Geocode 4,592
Total Average of Square Footage2 2,357_
Note: universe is units built 1990-2010.
Twhiefflise. 37
2012 Streets Development ImpactFee Stu4r Bozeman,Montana
Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey
responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Micro-data Samples(PUMS).
Because PUMS files are only available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the City of Bozeman is
included in Public Use Micro-data Area (PUMA) 00500, which includes five counties (Meagher, Park,
Gallatin, Madison, and Beaverhead). As shown in Figure All,TischlerBise derived trip generation rates
and average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from PUMS data. Recommended multipliers
were scaled to make the average value for all housing units in PUMA 00500 match the average value
derived from 2010 census data for the City of Bozeman. For example,the PUMS-derived average of 1.87
persons per housing unit was less than the actual average in Bozeman (2.13 persons per housing unit as
shown in Figure AS). Multiplying the PUMS-derived average for each bedroom range by 2.13/1.87
increases persons per housing unit to the Bozeman-specific data. The recommended multipliers shown
below are for all types of housing units (consolidated residential analysis of units constructed 1990-
2010).
Figure All—Vehicle Trips and Persons by Bedroom Range
Bozeman, Moontana Recommended Multipliers(4)
Bedrooms Persons Trip Vehicles Trip Average Housing Trip Ends per Persons per
1 (1) Ends(2) Available(1) Ends(3) Trip Ends Units(1) Housing Unit Housing Unit
0-1 40 145 49 293 219 S3 3.23 038
2 173 549 1701 1,03811 793 124 5.00 1.44
3 728 2031 666 3,8751 2,953 330 7.00 2.27
4+ 470 1,364 3771 2,20611 1,785 174 8.02 2.78
Total 1,411 E4,088 1,268111 7,412 1 575 6.60, 2.131
(1) American Community Survey,Public Use Microdata Sample for MT PUMA 00500(2008-2010 unweighted
data for units built 1990-2010).
(2) Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2012). For single unit housing
(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(O.91*LN(persons)+1.52). To approximate the average population in the
ITE studies,persons were divided by 3 and the equation result multiplied by 3.
(3)Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation,(ITE 2012). For single unit
housing(ITE 2.10),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehlc1es)+1.81). To approximate the average number
of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by 5 and the equation result multiplied by 5.
(4) Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average values for PUMA 00500 match the average values
for Bozeman,derived from American Community Survey 2008-2010 data.
Trip GeI ne rat i'on by Floor Area
To derive average weekday vehicle trip ends by house size, TischlerBise combined demographic data
from the Census Bureau and floor area data obtained by City staff from the Montana Department of
Revenue. Average floor area and weekday vehicle trip ends by bedroom range are plotted in Figure
Al2, with a logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in Bozeman. TischlerBise used
the trend line formula to derive estimated trip ends by size of single unit house, in 200 square feet
intervals. The weighted average residential unit has 2,357 square feet of living space. A small unit of
1,400 square feet or less would pay W16 of the transportation impact fee paid by an average size unit, A
large unit of 3,001 square feet or more would pay 122% of the transportation impact fee paid by an
average size unit. In the 2008 transportation impact fee study,the fee schedule for single-family units
Ischlerffise 38
,"l h11,1,W"r.8 k..............
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Rozernak Montana
was also structured with size thresholds in combination with income criteria, but in one thousand
square feet thresholds.
Figure Al2—Vehicle Trips by Dwelling Size
,overage square feet of dwellings in Bedrooms Square Feet Trip Ends Square Feet Trip Ends
Bozeman fraim NIT Department of
Revenue. Average w€ekday vehicle 41 1,25 3.23' 1,�if l 3..93
trap ends derived from I TE formulas 2 11966 5.00 1,600 4.62
using 2010 Census Bureau data for 1 3 2,465 7.00 1,800, 5.24
Bozeman. 4* 3,589 8.02 2,404' 5.79
2,240 6.29
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 2,400 6.75
7.
4 17
Housing Unit Built 1990-2010 2 2,60800 7.17
9144 M ... m ............ ._....�_.. .�.... ....._ . ._.. 3,404 7.92
8.04 3,464 8.02
7.04 . .. .... ..... _ .:...
6.04
IA
z 5.04
4 00
a 3.44 y 5.2361n(x)f 34.005
2.44 8z=0.87983
1.44
»r»,,rr; ✓r✓ /��r r�l»r ✓., ✓ ,um„iorwi n Js✓owrrr ar✓lii�f�jn l(� riiiis�,,�i�,rrirmwd'
4.04
0 544 1,000 1,544 2,044 2,544 3,444 3,544
Square Feet of Uving Area
39
Y.I ,N:�1 4 n r�x,p^i,xalt aixhr
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
schleMis
SF ;/Jr 461,341 res r4v„"i 1)Residential a �e LSoreman Floor Area
X027.Dwelling 4.418.549 r;um 1)Residential Sum ofSquam Footage
_
1011 Apartma¢rt .... ....... ...__3„8�. mm 1)RosidanNai. '"Ifischlerf4 :.:Code Roal
Mohile.Home 1,135.423 Mob* 1)ResidenUad 1)Residential 32,337.454
i'T"nhouse .. 8718.640 res 1)Residential 2)Industrial 3',166,350
Cumioirunium 594.058 res 1)Residential 3)RetaigAccom/Food 4.528.,253
MOB __ 141 691 re„e, 1)Residential 4)Health Care 1,403,462
091-Basement Remidenfisf,u�nlinished .... 61,117...com 1)Residential 51 AMOltter 3,764.563
.091-MuftWoe Apartment 50.767 corn I Residential 45204,002
1045.Warehouse 1,315.242 corn 2)endustraal
1084-Multi-Uso Storage 596.733'',.com 2)fridust6bi
044-Light Mimutactudng ..... __. 524.644!crxtt 2)Industrial'
08fl Flax Wareibat:,o 457;396 Can 2)Ind-Inal
078 Chstnbutlon Warehouse .. .. 207 297 corn 2)1nduolnel
__
V777 Trit4sTarmrral. 49,390 can 2)industrial _...
043 Manudactunng .. .. £},248...corn 2)lnduatnai ''..
479•Cold Storage Warehouse 5,,206'.can 2)Indus”
034-Rela9 Snore 4 134.684 can 3)ReWRVA=mlFood
013 Metal .. . .... 844 AN corn 3)RetaipA=mfFood
10'33-Discount SlorerNarkol 917,477,,.corn 3)RotoiVAccomlFood
1493=Muftti•Use Sala 545.433'....com 3;)Rctaa1VA=rrVFood
047,Audi Pads)Sorvace:. 396,459 ruin 3)Retail)AccOmtPood
012-Hotel 240 990 cum 3)RelaWkoonafF'ood
031.Restaurant 22SA13 can 3)RetaltrAccomfFood
1448 Auto ShdrarroasrAr1�.11fico
124,376 can 3)RalaiUAcccm/F0od
O38 Convenience Store 50,388 corn 3)RetaillACCOmfFood
10351TsvePuSar 45.521 corn 3)RetailiAocom+Food..
X037-Cafeteria 23.W9 com 3)RolaRlACCOmIFood'..
;039-Lounge corn 3)RelaluAccomFFcod.
199-Local Fast Food 17.335 can 3)RetalllACSamlFood'
Me[htna_id"s 074_ared aher) , .... 9.988...Corn 3)RetaillAccom)Tood .
194-WomN)r*Old Fashioned Hamburgers corn 3)RelaiOAacomJFood:.
071.Service Station,Conversion Retali 4.425'com 3)Retail+AzwmTood
.'....140-Kentucky Fried Chk*en 3.097 corn 3)RetaibAccomlFood
162-Pizza Hut 2,814 corn 3)Roteib+AccomlFaad
134-Hardee`s 2,0181 com .3)ReWA10,coomiFood
,,026 bwoltd ...Crxworsi on Sokns .... 1.942 can 3)RetailfAccom(Food
.. _... _....... ..
192-To Johr's 9,703 can 3)RelaitlAccomlFood
!,143 Franchise Restaurant 1,844,can 3)Rota BAccom*ood'
110$2 Mul0•Uso Office 922.044 can 4)Health Care
1054•Nunum q Horne 408,424'.Cum 4)Health Care
1052.Medical Cooler . .. 172,594 com, 4)Health Cam
1053 OtficeBuilding .... ... t 999,883!.corn 5)AIt_Othor
1.041-Mani W, aretuauao 563.431 can 5)All Other....
051-BankSavintle institution 223,523 cone 5)All Other
1064.SocialiFtateraal Hall 207,979'corn 5)All Other
466-Su)rpurI koa 19.50951 Com S)ANl Other
455 School_ --_ 144,016 corm 5)All Other
.... ..
063-Rallg,ows Instltufdan _-. 42005'cum 5 All Other
426 l7wolting,Comrersxm.•Oftwe ...... .... 39,868 exam .. 5)All Other ..
1474 service Station ulpu Eta 7u 39,167'corn 6)All Other
1046-Tennls Club 31,381 com 5)All Other
f
058-Funeral Henri 24.889, can 5)AlIOther
1057-Lltrmry 29,148;coin, Ali Other
27,333;can 5)ADOther
030 LaundrdcaaUDryClearers 21,270;coin 5)AlrOther ..
040-8srberl"utyShap_ 20,924!corn 5)ANOther
024 Dweilmg,Conversion-Mutepm 17.1)05 corn 5'Ni Other
:050-Sloping,Rink Qcoor,Relief) _. 15,9751 corn ,5)All Other .
062-Cinema ,, 13,472�com 5)Alt Other
1074 Car Wash,Manual 13.405 corn 5)AltOther
385-Enclosure 12,4761 can.. 5)AV Other
Al•Audilcuiumnlreatet 9,7321 com 6)AAOther .
1089-ReslroonVLocdw Facility- 9,219;com 6)All Other
1075-Car Wa51n,Automatic 8,498', corn s)A04 Olhot
049 RacgyotbrllCourt .. 7319 com _. . 5)Alt-Other
042-Hanger 72001 com 5)A#other
1872 Service,Station,Conversion Storage ._. 4X99i can 6)AN Other ._. ... _.......
059 Poet Orza 1.456 corn 5)AX Other
WN
45�2ir9,1142,
40
2012 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
1= A 10
Urban areas like downtown Bozeman have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce
vehicle trips, such as higher internal capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking,
and superior transit service. A recent report "documents that vibrant downtown areas are associated
with lower greenhouse gas emissions from driving and greater public transit use .., seemingly unrelated
efforts, such as fighting crime and improving urban schools, actually make for good environmental
policy, as these efforts enable people to live in higher density, more compact neighborhoods where
people are comfortable driving less and walking and using transit more,"a
Downtown areas have more diverse travel options including public transportation and muscle-powered
mobility. For example, a study titled Trip Generation Rates for Urban lnfill Land Uses in California
documented auto trips averaged approximately 50% of the modal share, compared to 90% or higher
auto dependency in most metropolitan areas Lower dependency on private vehicles reduces the need
for street capacity and supports an impact fee reduction for new development in downtown Bozeman.
The report Driving and the Built Environment found a strong link between development patterns and
vehicle miles of travel, encouraging mixing of hand uses to reduce vehicle trip rates and reduce trip
lengths.' Recommended reductions up to 24%for transit service and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness is
recommended for nonresidential development in a 2005 study titled Crediting Low-Traffic
Developments.' However, the detailed methodology in this study requires extensive data on average
weekday bus stops within a quarter mile of the study area, intersection density, and the completeness
of sidewalk and bike networks.
Jobs-Housing Balance
By balancing the number of jobs with nearby housing units, urban centers have the potential for
reducing journey-to-work travel. The magnitude of effect is dependent on matching job and housing
locations of individual workers, which can be aided by offering a variety of housing styles and price
ranges within downtown Bozeman. Inclusionary policies, such as requiring at least 100/0 affordable
housing units within each development, can foster a better jobs-housing balance and reduce the need
for street capacity.
Mixed Use Development with Local-Serving Retail
Large-scale, mixed-use developments exhibit lower vehicular trips because of "internal capture" (i.e.,
many daily destinations do not require travel outside the study area'). For example, a study titled
Internalizing Travel by Mixing Lana Uses examined 20 mixed use communities in South Florida,
documenting internal capture rates up to 57 percent with an average of 25 percent.7 In addition to a
percent reduction for the jobs-housing balance in downtown Bozeman, credit can be given for local-
3 Matthew Holian and Matthew Icahn. Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Transportation. Mineta Transportation Institute,Report 11-13,2012.
4 James M.Daisa and Terry Parker,iTE.Journal,2009.
x Transportation Research Board Special Report 298,Washington,DC: 20019.
G Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates.
Reid Ewing,Eric Dumbaugh,and Mike Brown. Transportation Research Record 1780,2003.
EMMUMM
41
C' P ,nrdtiRa �,C rsrpeu tamtx
20112 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozemom Montana
serving retail. Urban, transit-oriented development offers coffee shops, restaurants, general retail
stores and services that reduce the need for vehicular trips outside the areas
Urban Development Pattern
Urban areas with grid streets and small blocks offer a variety of routes that encourage walking and
biking. Interesting streetscapes with human-scale design features encourage people to walk and bike
farther in urban areas, while lowering our perception of distance.9 Also, vehicle congestion in many
urban centers tends to minimize travel time differences across modes, especially when public transit is
provided in separate rights-of-way or given priority signaling at intersections.
TED Recommendation
Consistent with the literature summarized above, a recent analysis of mixed-use developments in six
regions of the United States found an average 29'% reduction in trip generation as a function of "D"
variables, including: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit,
demographics, and development scale."o Because mixed-use development located in downtown
Bozeman will put less strain on the external street network, trip generation rates should be less than
standalone suburban development. Therefore, TischlerBise recommends a 29% reduction in street
impact fees for all types of new development in downtown Bozeman.
The TED is currently delineated by the B3 zoning district, which is only used in downtown Bozeman.
TischlerBise also recommend the TED boundary be defined as the larger of the B3 Zoning (red line) or
the Tax Increment District(yellow line) shown in the map below. By using the larger of either area,the
TED will be slightly larger but still relies on existing geographic areas.
as Brian S. Bochner, Kevin G. Hooper, and Benjamin R. Sperry, Improving Estimation of Internal Trip Capture for
Mixed-Use Development,ITE Journal,2010.
"Alan Jacobs,2001. Great Streets. MIT Press,
'0 Reid[wing,Michael Greenwald,Ming Zhang,Jerry Walters,Mark Feldman,Robert Cervero,Lawrence Frank,and
John Thomas. Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments. Six-Region Study Using Consistent Built
Environmental Measures, Journal of Urban Planning and Development,2011,
Tischlefflise 42
h"A
20,12 Streets Development Impact Fee Study Bozeman,Montana
Map of Downtown Bozeman
A
f
�i
Pfd "
i i V�rriaq�Wl �
v
/� r y
p� s
i
rr
j�rrtJ'r
i
r 1
i
6
r
r
r
Vi
ri
la Y�
r
R
aui,s
m �iNra
a � ril
if
i
r
i
Y.
Tischlwgise &3
M' iIV rn�aE�h p,a mryo,i�a�n4n