Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-29-12 Impact Fee Advisory Committee MinutesPage 1 of 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 29, 2012 ** MINUTES ** THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2012 Chairperson Nickelson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m., in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present Staff Present James Nickelson, Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Carpenter Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Anna Rosenberry Rick Hixson George Thompson David Graham, Vice Chairperson Rob Evans Members Absent Erik Nelson Guests Present Chris Mehl ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2012. MOTION: Mr. Thompson moved, Vice Chairperson Graham seconded, to approve the minutes of September 13, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Thompson, Vice Chairperson Graham, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Hixson, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and not scheduled on this agenda. (Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing no public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed} No items were forthcoming. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Recommendations to the Commission for the Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Schedules for Fiscal Years 2014-2018 (Rosenberry) Page 2 of 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 29, 2012 Anna Rosenberry presented the information noting the Committee was supposed to provide recommendation on how the Impact Fee money was to be spent. She stated the City Commission relied on them to provide comments on the CIP’s. She noted she had provided last year’s template sheets but projects could be added; one Staff recommendation had been added for Oak Street. She asked if the Committee had questions or if she could just begin with the Fire schedule. No questions were forthcoming. Commissioner Mehl joined the IFAC. Ms. Rosenberry stated the final payment for Fire Station 3 would be made this year and Station 4 with engine #4 would also be included as unscheduled in the CIP. Vice Chairperson Graham asked for clarification of the unscheduled items. Ms. Rosenberry responded that the impact fee study had recommendations regarding the funding of station 4 and they were trying to have the CIP remain in keeping with the recommendations from the study. Chairperson Nickelson responded he thought it should be unscheduled as the study showed no need for it within the time frame outlined. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had met with the consultants and they had suggested the possibility of reanalyzing the study to do something similar to the Trip Exchange District that already existed and it would be discussed with the City Commission on December 10, 2012. If the Commission chose to do so, he noted his expectation was that it would be reviewed by the IFAC again, but that it was not certain as the City Commission could decide to adopt what was proposed. Vice Chairperson Graham asked the boundaries of the district. Assistant Director Saunders responded they had not yet defined those boundaries. Mr. Mehl asked what would be in effect in the meantime. Mr. Saunders responded the old impact fees would remain in effect. Mr. Mehl suggested if the Committee had thoughts he would love to hear them via e-mail or verbal comment. Mr. Evans joined the IFAC. Vice Chairperson Graham expressed concern with the time frame for review given that the City had paid for updated studies. Mr. Mehl stated asked why there was a $50,000 rollover from year 2012 to 2015. Ms. Rosenberry responded that the anticipated revenues were likely higher. Mr. Mehl stated it didn’t make up for the difference. Ms. Rosenberry responded she would review the numbers and connect the dots for him tomorrow. She added the point did not need to be belabored, but what was adopted in the study would dictate what part of Fire Station 4 and an engine were impact fee eligible. Mr. Mehl suggested that if the Committee wanted to add something else, use the new fee or the old one, it would just change the amount slightly and they would still not be close to achieving the amount they needed. Ms. Rosenberry responded that the study indicated Station 4 would not be capacity expanding; she added if the committee had an opinion now would be the time to state it. Mr. Evans suggested that existing citizens would stand to benefit from new fire service and they should be required to pay for it. Chairperson Nickelson responded that there would be no impact to the five year plan so perhaps their recommendation should be based on the current study. Assistant Director Saunders added that the issue of cost sharing would go away if another funding source was found. Ms. Rosenberry responded it Page 3 of 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 29, 2012 would most likely have to be a voter approved bond and if the outcome does or does not affect development, people might have an opinion about it. Mr. Mehl asked if the Committee thought it appropriate to pro-rate all of the stations and that the City Commission should make a policy decision as either method would be feasible and the City would be collecting for four or five years. Mr. Thompson stated he was concerned with setting the precedent that the next fire station would be funded by citizens and suggested some impact fees should be going toward the stations from this point forth. Vice Chairperson Graham asked if there would need to be a bond issue if there was 75% on all of the stations. Ms. Rosenberry responded that if the City Commission decided they could save the money and have a portion of it available to spread the debt over a number of years. She added that they would not necessarily have to have a bond and could possibly have a voted debt over a five year period. She noted the borrowing source had been used for the reconstruction of S. 8th Ave. but they did not know for certain if the same would be available at the time needed in the future. The Committee concurred that the debt service should be removed, Station 4 and engine 4 would remain funded at 75%, and no other projects would be added. MOTION: Mr. Evans moved, Vice Chairperson Graham seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City Commission for the Fire CIP. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Thompson, Vice Chairperson Graham, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Evans, Mr. Hixson, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. Ms. Rosenberry presented the water CIP and noted that there were no costs for water supply acquisition included in the updated water impact fee study. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was unknown which suggested that it should be removed from the CIP. Mr. Evans stated that just because the cost was unknown did not mean there was no cost. Mr. Mehl responded he would prefer to see it left off as he had not gone to the water resource needs meetings and there would be enough time; enough if the current was updated it would be better to leave it off than to guess an amount. Mr. Evans clarified that there would be enough time to wait until they knew a definitive answer. Mr. Mehl responded Mr. Evans was correct. Mr. Hixson asked for clarification that the current projects were funded and did not necessitate inclusion on the CIP and asked the balance of the cash in lieu of water rights. Ms. Rosenberry responded the current projects were fully funded and the cash in lieu amount was around $800,000.00. Mr. Hixson stated he just wanted to make sure the funds were available and suggested removing the item from the CIP. He asked the Committee if they concurred. The Committee concurred. Assistant Director Saunders asked the actual final due date for loans pay off. Ms. Rosenberry responded there was a 20 year clock but many of the payments would be made after the final payment was due on the loan; she added that the City Commission intended to pay it off as soon as possible. From the consultant’s standpoint was that a 20 year payment plan was not as good as a 10 year payment plan. Chairperson Nickelson suggested that Mr. Mehl’s comments last year to integrate School District projects should be included if it was appropriate. Assistant Director Saunders Page 4 of 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 29, 2012 responded the sewer would serve more people than the school and water was in closer proximity to the high school site so sewer would be more important. He added the second high school site on Stucky Road had not been discussed in detail at this time and it may make more sense to build the facility elsewhere; District 7 was reluctant to dictate a specific year. Chairperson Nickelson suggested leaving the item unscheduled. Ms. Rosenberry asked if improvements would be specific to the site. Assistant Director Saunders responded they were specific and ideally it would be relocated back down Stucky Road and hook to the main serving Meadow Creek Subdivision. Mr. Hixson responded he could come up with something unscheduled to provide for the item if the Committee was in agreement. Mr. Evans added that the social engineering aspect would be provided for if the item was included. Mr. Hixson stated that part of the consideration was the sewer to serve the site. Mr. Thompson suggested the land values might change out there. Vice Chairperson Nickelson concurred with the Committee that the item should be included as unscheduled on the CIP. Vice Chairperson Graham asked if the sewer would be included. Ms. Rosenberry responded both water and sewer were part and parcel and would be included. Ms. Rosenberry confirmed that the Committee was supportive of removing the water supply CIP item, updating the debt number and adding the School District water main project as unscheduled. The Committee concurred. Mr. Hixson suggested leaving the 5.3 million gallon storage tank on the CIP. Mr. Evans asked for clarification and noted the time frame would be a direct consequence of growth. Mr. Hixson clarified. Mr. Mehl suggested the dollar discrepancy be corrected. MOTION: Mr. Thompson moved, Mr. Evans seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Water CIP with the 5.3 million gallon storage tank. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Thompson, Vice Chairperson Graham, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Evans, Mr. Hixson, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. Ms. Rosenberry presented the Sewer schedule and noted there was a defined amount for the Water Reclamation Facility with a couple final items to finish the project; she noted she could update the number with FY18 likely being the last payment on the debt. She stated Ph. 2 of the Water Reclamation Facility needed to be removed from the list as it had been determined to not be capacity expanding. Mr. Hixson added there was a trunk sewer main called the Flanders Mill/Hidden Valley trunk sewer main to facilitate pumping across the interstate to the facility which would cost 13.2 million dollars. Assistant Director Saunders added that the northwest portion of the community was where there would likely be future development; it was a long run that might not be able to follow a publicly accessible space and it would help the City obtain key right of way acquisitions. He noted the idea was to be proactive to get the right of way linkages legally in place and to be able to say it was at least legally possible to connect to the necessary points. Mr. Hixson directed the Committee to a map of the trunk line being discussed. Assistant Director Saunders added that the balance of the project would be something that the City was committed to working with. Mr. Hixson added that future developments would always be responsible for an eight inch main, but it was too soon to know Page 5 of 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 29, 2012 the absolute dollar amount. Assistant Director Saunders responded he thought the starting amount, though there were others that would know better, would cost ~$300,000 to begin with, and then have $200,000 for acquisitions if FY 12-15. Ms. Rosenberry asked how any annexation requests would be affected in that area. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City would be happy to accept annexations, but would disclose that there was no supporting infrastructure in that location. Mr. Hixson added it made sense to acquire the right of way. Mr. Carpenter asked how it made sense. Mr. Hixson responded preliminary engineering could easily tell the City where the facility needed to be; the developer did not have ability to condemn right of way where the City could. He noted that everyone had seen how a road or water main had been diverted at a ninety degree angle, but a sewer line had to be on a certain grade with an established route and no diversions. Assistant Director Saunders responded that it also became a significant maintenance issue. Mr. Hixson suggested reconnaissance had to be the first step to determining the route. Mr. Thompson thought it would be positive and stated his other concern would be the location of the pump station. Mr. Hixson responded the pump station would easily fit into the City Commission meeting room space. Assistant Director Saunders added that there would be back up pumps and associated equipment that would be very complicated. Ms. Rosenberry confirmed that the Committee was supportive of $300,000 for preliminary investigation on the trunk for FY14 with FY15 being the procurement of right of way for the trunk at ~$200,000. Mr. Hixson added that the engineering involved getting all the way from Huffine Lane to the Interstate; he added it was necessary that the sewer always run down hill and any errors in the engineering would cause problems in the future. Vice Chairperson Graham asked if there was money for the item. Ms. Rosenberry responded the debt would not be immediately paid off and would be pushed another year to FY19 to accommodate those items; she noted it would still work and she thought it would be okay though they needed to be careful about the 10 year debt period. She noted the value of getting it done now had been described and she agreed. Mr. Evans concurred that it needed to be established for future development and asked if the granting of an easement could be included in the Planning approval. Assistant Director Saunders responded it could be included and it was nice if it could match up to an existing right of way; the City needed the drainage capacity in order to approve the project and did not want to be in a position to tell someone it could take five years to approve their development. Chairperson Nickelson responded it was a policy shift and set the City up for 70% of a 13 million dollar project so other projects would need to be put on the back burner. Mr. Hixson concurred with Mr. Nickelson that the project would set the stage for future development and the policy question of whether or not to extend the payments on the Water Reclamation Facility. Mr. Evans responded the City would know if it would really happen after expenditure of the original $300,000 and the rest of the finances could be addressed in FY15. Ms. Rosenberry added that the items were appropriate to spend the impact fees on. Chairperson Nickelson noted that he agreed they were appropriate, but in the past, those expenditures had always been driven by a specific development. Mr. Thompson stated he was supportive of being proactive. Mr. Evans added he thought it made sense. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was too big a project for a developer to take on and they would likely find another piece of land if faced with it. Page 6 of 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 29, 2012 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Graham moved, Mr. Thompson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Sewer CIP with the removal of phase 2 of the Water Reclamation Facility, updating of the dollar amount, including $300,000 for preliminary investigation of the Flanders Mill trunk for FY14 with FY15 being the procurement of right of way for the trunk at ~$200,000, and an unscheduled 13.3 million dollar amount. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Thompson, Vice Chairperson Graham, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Evans, Mr. Hixson, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. Ms. Rosenberry presented the Traffic CIP and noted there were more items included than with the previous CIP’s. She noted segments of Baxter Lane and Durston Road had both been included in the CIP and both items were listed as unscheduled. She noted the intersections that had been included on the schedule and how costs were shared for each. Vice Chairperson Graham asked how funding was calculated for College Street. Ms. Rosenberry responded it was an urban route that had not been bid yet. Mr. Hixson added he did not think they planned on building it this summer but were shooting for 2014; he noted he wished he had a better answer but the plans weren’t final. Ms. Rosenberry stated the project was a priority and the City was committed to completing it; it would be decided later how much would be funded by impact fees which would be roughly a 40-60 split. Ms. Rosenberry asked if there was any way Kagy Blvd. would begin design in 2014. Mr. Hixson suggested the item be pushed back to 2015 as it would not be possible for Staff to complete the design; he noted he thought there would be a lot more development in that part of town and he thought Kagy was still a priority. Chairperson Nickelson asked if the impact fee revenues were based on the new impact fee schedules. Ms. Rosenberry responded they were not and streets were usually stepped back from the full study amount; she had not adjusted those amounts yet or even the day after they adopt the study. Mr. Nickelson suggested that if the numbers were close to accurate there was a lot of money available to be spent. Mr. Hixson suggested the final lane of Oak Street, east off of 19th Avenue had been proposed to be added by Assistant Director Saunders. Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be a pretty straight forward improvement as the road bed was nearly entirely in place and would have an approximate cost of $250,000. Vice Chairperson Graham asked what item would be removed in place of the Oak Street project. Assistant Director Saunders responded the College and Kagy improvements would move back one fiscal year so nothing would need to be removed from the schedule. Ms. Rosenberry added that Oak and 19th had a fair number of traffic accidents and that would also be a consideration. Mr. Thompson noted the Kagy project would be contingent on the College Street project. Assistant Director Saunders responded the projects could go faster. Mr. Thompson asked if there would be any merit to engineering the College Street project. Ms. Rosenberry responded that only one project could be done at a time with urban funds. Page 7 of 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 29, 2012 Chairperson Nickelson clarified that Baxter and Durston remain unscheduled and College and Kagy were the recommended priorities. Assistant Director Saunders added there was a considerable portion of County land on the north side of Baxter than there was on Durston. MOTION: Mr. Evans moved, Mr. Hixson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Transportation CIP with the College project, the relocation of Kagy Blvd into FY 15 and FY16, and relocation of College to FY14. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being Mr. Thompson, Vice Chairperson Graham, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Evans, Mr. Hixson, Ms. Rosenberry, and Chairperson Nickelson. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS Vice Chairperson Graham stated he understood that the IFAC had recommended approval of the impact fee studies and he had a few caveats. He added he would like to forward recommendations to the City Commission in the form of a formal motion. Mr. Mehl suggested formal action should not be included as the discussion had not been publicly noticed, but the Committee’s comments would be forwarded to the City Commission. Vice Chairperson Graham stated he would recommend the proposed transportation fee be 60% of the recommended amount from the consultant. Mr. Carpenter asked for the rationale or precedent and suggested the amount could equally have been set to 57.2%. Vice Chairperson Graham stated the 60% had been based on the precedent previously set. He stated the Transportation fee seemed to be the most difficult one to quantify and the easiest one to provide a decreased rate. Mr. Evans asked if Vice Chairperson Graham was referring to both residential and commercial development. Mr. Mehl clarified that they could not make a distinction. Chairperson Nickelson clarified that he had no opinion either way but had based his decision on the studies. Mr. Evans asked the budgetary implications to the CIP if the City Commission adopted the 60%. Ms. Rosenberry responded it was difficult to say as actual revenue numbers drove the final amounts; trends could be identified and Building Permits could be tracked but it was difficult to project. Mr. Mehl added that the City Commission’s impression was that the Committee understood the policy without knowing what future Commission’s would decide and which projects would be done; you also could not raise everyone’s property taxes. He stated some development would pay for itself and some wouldn’t, depending on many different factors. Chairperson Nickelson concurred that it was hard to predict and where exactly would the tax revenue be going. Mr. Evans stated there had been some “holy smokes” for some of the increases and it would be a relevant factor in whether or not a building would be constructed in the City or County or at all. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Economic Development Council had also included some thoughts that would be forwarded to the City Commission for their 12/10/12 meeting and included what options were available and that information would be available online next Tuesday. He noted there would also be comparison data for other cities within the State as well as some national data. Vice Chairperson Graham suggested the Commission look at spreading the impact fees for commercial development over time to help a business start. Mr. Mehl responded it was already Page 8 of 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 29, 2012 on the mind of the Commissioners to provide “timing’ for the payments of those fees and suggested the Committee review the information as it would be considered. Mr. Evans added that timing was also considered on some residential developments. Ms. Rosenberry directed the Committee to the packet of materials for the City Commission on October 8, 2012. Assistant Director Saunders stated there had been a new revision to the Transportation Study as a new addition to the trip generation study had been provided; it had made a difference from between $20-70$ and wasn’t significant. He noted the schools had been changed from a metric by number of students to a metric of 1,000 sq. ft. which would be easier to figure out. He directed the IFAC to the website. ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chairperson Nickelson adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. James Nickelson, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Impact Fee Advisory Committee Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman