HomeMy WebLinkAboutImpact Fee Public Comment from Steve Kirchoff 4-23-14From:Steve Kirchhoff
To:Agenda
Subject:impact fees and intersection improvements
Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:34:25 PM
Dear City Commissioners:
A recent article in the Bozeman Chronicle piqued my interest as a citizen. It wasstated that the commission will be soon discussing ways to pay for improvements tobusy intersections on the growing northwest side of Bozeman.
The article caused a double-take for me, because I don't recall such improvementsrequiring a creative search by city officials to find funding sources. I thought we hadcreated that mechanism with the advent of our impact fee program.
Of course, the program has been tweaked and revised many times since I sat on thecommission. Unfortunately, it seems that the most recent tweak has caused someinconvenience and some shortfall in funding sources. This is unfortunate, because itseems you have not only tweaked the program in the last couple of years, but youhave reduced its effectiveness and strayed from its intent--at the expense of thecommunity, so it seems.
Specifically, two changes I have been able to uncover in my research of documentsare troubling:
1. You changed the formula for calculating impact fees, particularly the mostexpensive of them, street fees. Now you charge less for them. So, when you saytoday that you are charging "100%" of the fees as recommended by the most recentconsultant, that 100% is roughly the same as what was formerly considered to be60% of the maximum allowable collection. That is not good, because you havelowered the ceiling for charging fees.
I assume that getting more is better than getting less, so long as you have alegitimate, legal, fair, and reliable method for calculating the amount. That numberfluctuates in direct relation to the firm you select to do the calculating, not in relationto what is legitimate, legal, fair, and reliable.
2. You changed the way intersection improvements are funded. The change involvessome complicated figuring that is too intricate to go into here. The fancy footworkdemonstrated by your last consultant's work is intricate--and, I think, nonsensical.
It is plainly and simply nonsensical to think that less than 100% of intersectionfailures are attributable to new growth. But that, remarkably, appears to be whatyou all have concluded based on the recommendations of your latest consultant. Ido not know what caused the consultants to separate intersection improvementsfrom roadway improvements that lead to these intersections. That too isnonsensical.
But there you have it. You are now searching for new ways to come up with moneyto pay for the intersection improvements, even though the roads leading to theseintersections might be (and usually are) 100% eligible for impact fee monies forimprovements!
As a result, you have caused uncertainty, delay, and arguably an unequitablesituation for the payment of intersection improvements in new parts of town. Peopleand businesses who paid their impact fees thinking they would get these kinds ofimprovements in the bargain might find themselves captive to improve and paybackdistricts--in other words, to being double-dipped.
This is not a sexy issue, but it is an important one. I hope in the coming months youwill meet to roll-back and invalidate your recent policy adoption that creates the60% threshold for using impact fees to improve intersections.
As usual, good luck with everything.
Steve Kirchhoff