HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - E-Packet 5-21-07_Wastewater Impact Fee Study Update, opened and con_13
Report compiled on May 15, 2007
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Wastewater Impact Fee Study Update
MEETING DATE: Monday, May 21, 2007
RECOMMENDATION: The Impact Fee Advisory Committee recommends the study as
presented by HDR with amendments detailed in the HDR letter of May 3, 2006. [A revised study
incorporating the amendments has been provided with this memo.]
BACKGROUND: Since 1983 the City of Bozeman has had an adopted policy that growth
will pay for the costs of growth. The corollary to this is that existing users will be responsible for
the costs of service delivery to themselves. Fairness and equity of cost assignment to all
contributors while ensuring the public safety through provision of adequate infrastructure is the
intent of the City’s choices of funding mechanisms.
The City adopted an impact fee program in 1996. The Legislature passed a law in 2005
specifically authorizing impact fees and establishing criteria and guidelines for their
development and utilization. A listing of how the City has meet those documentary requirements
is attached. The City has recently completed and adopted a Wastewater Facility Plan examining
the current and future needs for wastewater infrastructure. The City Commission directed an
update to the impact fee studies to take into account changed conditions since the initial program
adoption.
Overall wastewater system funding is provided by three primary revenue sources. Impact fees
may only be used for capital (significant price, long life) service capacity expansion work.
Operations and maintenance of the system is paid for primarily through the monthly service
charges (rates). The rates needed to support the operations and maintenance components of the
facility plan have been updated this spring. The third component is “project related
improvements”, typically the minimum standard pipe installed to service individual
developments. The three funding sources can be used in cooperation for a single water system
project. Occasionally, the City obtains grant funding for some elements but the grant
contribution is unpredictable and a minor amount of the total funding needed.
HDR Engineering was selected to prepare the impact fee update after a competitive proposal
process. The wastewater impact fee study is based on the recently adopted wastewater facility
plan which details the necessary work to continue to operate the existing wastewater system as
well as expand the wastewater system. The facility plan examines existing conditions, considered
future needs, and identifies work needed to maintain or expand the system to meet those needs.
The facility plan is a demand based plan. This means that expansion projects occur as needed for
actual use rather than based on a calendared schedule. Impact fees are only one portion of the
funding package that will enable the plan to be carried out. The facility plan is the first means by
which capacity expanding work is distinguished from maintenance/operational needs.
154
Report compiled on May 15, 2007
Commission Memorandum
The City annually develops a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This CIP identifies projects
for construction over the following 5 year period and identifies funding sources for the work. An
important part of this process is the identification of maintenance vs expansion work. This
process enables the City to appropriately assign the use of funds that benefit the paying party. It
also enables coordination of work to avoid duplication or wasteful efforts and expense. The CIP
is an accountability tool to ensure that funds are used for the purpose for which they were
collected. Each funding source has its own section of the CIP. The CIP is approved as a budget
supplement by the Commission after public consideration and is available to the public through
the City’s website.
The draft report on the wastewater impact fee update was made available to the public on April
6, 2007. A revised draft was provided to the public on April 18, 2007. The Impact Fee Advisory
Committee (IFAC), comprised of seven appointed citizens and two City staff members, is tasked
with reviewing the impact fee study drafts and providing recommendations to the Commission.
The IFAC considered the drafts at their public meetings on April 12th and 26th, and May 3rd. The
minutes of their meetings are attached. Public comments were received and responses provided
during those public meetings. Copies of comments and responses are attached. The IFAC
recommended favorably on the April 18 draft with adjustments described in the HDR letter of
May 3rd. The HDR letter is attached. The IFAC also requested a review and verification of the
dollar values shown in the study. The review identified no changes to the cost of the fee.
A public hearing has been scheduled and advertised for May 14, 2007 to consider the draft fee
study and the recommendations forwarded by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC). As
the revised studies were not available in time for the May 14th packets the Commission opened
and continued the public hearing to May 21st. The IFAC made their recommendation on May 3,
2007. The recommendations, minutes, and public comment are included in the May 21st packet.
The 100% calculated cost of service adjusted for inflation from the 1996 study is $3,540.57 for
the fee tied to a ¾ inch water meter, the typical size for a single detached home. The 100%
calculated cost of service from the new revised study is $2,955 for the fee tied to a ¾ inch water
meter.
Staff has considered the matter and offers the following reasons why this may be so. Normally,
the fee study would have been updated every three years since 1996. Litigation inhibited the
updating of the fee studies. Changes are therefore more dramatic than would occur with a more
frequent update cycle. Many of the items listed below compound each other to magnify the
overall effect.
1) The average number of persons per EDU (Equivalent Dwelling Unit) has changed. The 1996
fee study used 2.82 persons per dwelling, the 2007 fee study uses 2.3 persons per dwelling.
This mirrors the changing demographic in Bozeman and nationwide of fewer persons
residing in each home. The effect of this is that each new service has a lower average demand
and a lesser corresponding share in cost of infrastructure. This compounds the effect of lower
per person daily demand (discussed below).
2) The 1996 impact fee study calls out a per person daily demand of 117 gallons, page 16,
(average demand per EDU of 330 gallons per day) referencing the facility plan available at
that time. The new facility plan adopted in May 2006 calls out a per person daily demand of
155
Commission Memorandum
Report compiled on May 15, 2007
89 gallons, page 2-19 (average demand per EDU of 205 gallons per day). This is a per capita
reduction of 25% and reflects the effects of the practices noted in the following selection
from the new facility plan. A lesser number of gallons per person per day increases the
number of individual services which can be accommodated by a given pipe size. Therefore,
the cost per EDU decreases.
From Section 2.6.2 of the Wastewater Facility Plan, page 2-13.
3) The 1996 fee study, p 17 notes an Infiltration/Inflow volume of 1.83 MGD, nearly 32% of
plant hydraulic capacity. The 1996 fee study does not describe effects of I/I on treatment
capacity since at the time the 1996 study was completed treatment capacity was not included
in the fee. Section 4.3.3 of the new wastewater facility plan also discusses infiltration and
notes that total gallons since the previous wastewater facility plan has stayed fairly stable in
terms of total gallons. The system has expanded greatly, nearly doubling in total miles of
pipe, so the Infiltration/Inflow percentage of overall transmission capacity would have to go
down for the total Infiltration/Inflow to stay fairly stable. Reduction in I/I as a percentage of
total wastewater flow enables a larger number of users to be served by the existing pipe sizes.
4) Impact fees exclude project related improvements as defined in 3.24 BMC. The old fee study
included as impact fee expenses 8 inch diameter pipes. The 8 inch pipe sections were 14 of
32 of the listed projects for impact fee funding. The 8 inch pipe cost was $6,999,750 of
$21,096,250 or 33.1% of the total improvements included in the 1996 fee study. Since the
1996 fee study was implemented the City’s minimum standards were revised to require an 8
inch diameter sewer main. The updated fee therefore does not include 8 inch pipes as those
are now identified in the City’s Design and Specifications Manual as the minimum size pipe
allowed for any sewer main. This both removes that minimum pipe size from calculation in
the fee or granting of credits for installing that size pipe. The projected cost of the 8 inch pipe
extensions from the new wastewater facility plan is $24,640,000 (see Appendix A, Exhibit 3
from the new fee study). If the 8 inch pipe were fully included in the fee it would increase by
approximately $600 per EDU.
5) The original 1996 fee increased through cumulative annual inflation adjustments by about
23.5% over the past 11 years.
156
Report compiled on May 15, 2007
Commission Memorandum
6) The higher density of development which Bozeman has seen over the past five years reduces
the number of feet of pipe required to deliver service to each home. This lessens the total
improvement costs which must be funded and reduces per unit cost.
The Commission may consider the updated fee study on more than one date if they so choose. If
the Commission decides to go forward with the report as presented at the May 21st meeting a
resolution adopting the fee study will be prepared for Commission action at a future meeting. In
order to satisfy the requirements of state law some revisions are needed in Chapter 3.24, Impact
Fees, BMC. Direction on the use of a large capacity meter/high strength discharge alternative
calculation is required prior to the adoption of the ordinance. This alternative enables a more
effective fit between intensive users and the costs of providing service to those users. For more
discussion please review Section 3.3 and Appendix A, Exhibit 5. Currently the revised ordinance
is scheduled to be discussed by the IFAC on May 24th and the City Commission on June 4th. The
effective dates of the resolutions adopting the updated fee studies and the ordinance revisions
need to be coordinated.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 1) Does the Commission wish to direct preparation of an
implementing resolution for the updated fee study .
2) Does the Commission wish to utilize the extra strength discharge alternative calculation
option as presented.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Impact fees affect the City’s ability to finance infrastructure and continue
to support growth and public safety.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net if you have
questions prior to the public hearing on May 21st.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Revised Draft Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Minutes of IFAC April 12th and 26th and May 3rd meetings
Compliance with statutory requirement summary
Response to public comment
Public Comment
157
City of Bozeman
Final Draft Report
Impact Fees for the
Wastewater System
May 2007
Prepared by
HDR Engineering, Inc.
158
May 14, 2007
Mr. Chris Saunders
City of Bozeman
20 E Olive Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Subject: Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Dear Mr. Saunders:
HDR Engineering Inc. was retained by the City of Bozeman (City) to develop recommended
impact fees for the water and wastewater systems for new development. While the City
currently has impact fees for the water and wastewater systems, these fees need to be updated
and assure compliance with Montana law. To that end, please find attached our final draft report
detailing the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the review undertaken by HDR
Engineering for the determination of cost based impact fee for the City’s wastewater system.
Please review this draft report. Any appropriate comments and changes will be incorporated into
the final report. HDR Engineering, Inc. recommends that the City have the charges set forth in
this report reviewed by its legal counsel to assure compliance with Montana law.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this technical report to the City. Should you have any
questions about this report, please call. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project.
We look forward to the opportunity to continue to provide assistance to the City.
Sincerely yours,
HDR ENGINEERING INC.
Randall P. Goff
Project Principal
Attachments
159
Table of Contents i
City of Bozeman, Montana
Contents
1 Introduction and Overview of the Study
1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Overview of the Study.........................................................................................1-1
1.3 Disclaimer............................................................................................................1-2
1.4 Summary..............................................................................................................1-2
2 Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility
Industry Practices
2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Defining Impact Fees...........................................................................................2-1
2.3 Historical Perspective..........................................................................................2-2
2.4 Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Practices ...............................................2-3
2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees....................................................................2-6
2.6 Relationship of Impact Fees and New Construction Activity .............................2-7
2.7 Summary..............................................................................................................2-9
3 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Impact Fee Criteria ..............................................................................................3-1
3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology..........................................................3-2
3.4 Summary..............................................................................................................3-4
4 Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City
4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Requirements under Montana Law......................................................................4-1
4.3 Summary..............................................................................................................4-4
5 Determination of the City Wastewater Impact Fees
5.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Overview of the City’s Wastewater System........................................................5-1
5.3 Present Wastewater Impact Fees .........................................................................5-1
5.4 Service Areas.......................................................................................................5-2
5.5 Calculation of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees..............................................5-2
5.6 Net Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee ...............................................................5-5
5.7 Key Assumptions.................................................................................................5-6
5.8 Implementation of the Impact Fees......................................................................5-7
5.9 Consultant Recommendation...............................................................................5-7
5.10 Summary..............................................................................................................5-7
160
Table of Contents ii
City of Bozeman, Montana
Tables
5-1 Present Wastewater Impact Fees .........................................................................5-2
5-2 Wastewater System Equivalent Residential Units...............................................5-3
5-3 Allowable Wastewater Impact Fees.....................................................................5-5
5-4 Allowable Wastewater System Impact Fees........................................................5-6
Figures
2-1 Overview of the Three-Interrelated Analyses to Review Rates...........................2-5
2-2 Overview of the “Cash-Basis” Approach to Establishing
Revenue Requirements........................................................................................2-6 Appendix A – Wastewater Impact Fees
1 Development of Level of Service and EDUs
2 Wastewater Treatment
3 Collection System
4 Summary
5 High Strength Summary
Appendix B – Montana Code for Impact Fees
161
Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-1
City of Bozeman, Montana
“The objective of this
report is to properly place
in context the purpose of
impact fees, and to
determine cost based
impact fees for the
wastewater system that
complies with Montana
law.”
Section 1
Introduction and Overview of the Study
1.1 Introduction
HDR Engineering, Inc. was retained by the City of Bozeman; Montana (City) to update and
develop recommended cost based impact fees for the City’s wastewater system that comply with
Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604. This report provides details of the development of cost
based impact fees for the City’s wastewater system. Impact fees
are a one-time assessment against new development to pay for
the cost of infrastructure required to provide service. Impact fees
provide the means of balancing the cost requirements for new
utility infrastructure between existing customers and new
customers. The portion of existing plant and future capital
improvements that will provide service (capacity) to new
customers is included in the impact fees. In contrast to this, the
City has future capital improvement projects that are related to
renewal and replacement of existing facilities in service. These
infrastructure costs are typically included within the rates
charged to the City’s customers, and are not included within the
impact fee. Impact fees and rates exclude those portions of infrastructure directly related to
individual development projects.
By establishing cost-based impact fees, the City will assure that “growth pays for growth” and
existing utility customers will be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth. The City
formally adopted the policy of having beneficiaries of services pay for the services in 1983. The
policy has remained in effect ever since and is reflected in many aspects of the City financial
structure.
1.2 Overview of the Study
This report is divided into five distinct components. The next section of the report, Section 2,
provides a review of “generally accepted” utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees.
At the same time, it also discusses the financial objectives of impact fees and the practices of
other utilities in relation to this fee. Section 3 provides an overview of the criteria and
methodologies used in the development of cost-based impact fees and Section 4 provides a
summary of the legal requirements for the enactment of impact fees under Montana law. The
cost based impact fee calculation for the City’s wastewater system is provided in Section 5. The
study relies upon the adopted wastewater facility plan and other standards established by the
City. These additional materials are cited to but not directly included in this study.
162
Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-2
City of Bozeman, Montana
1.3 Disclaimer
HDR Engineering, Inc., in its determination of impact fees presented in this report, has used
“generally accepted” engineering, accounting and ratemaking principles. This should not be
construed as a legal opinion with respect to Montana law. Prior to adoption of this study, the
City conducted a legal analysis of its impact fee program, including this study, and concluded
that the program conforms to all legal requirements.
1.4 Summary
This section of the report has provided an overview of the report developed for the City
concerning wastewater impact fees. The next section of the report will discuss the “generally
accepted” utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees.
163
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-1
City of Bozeman, Montana
“Impact fees are capital
recovery fees that are generally
established as one-time charges
assessed against developers or
new wastewater customers as a
way to recover a part or all of
the cost of system capacity
constructed for their use.
Section 2
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally
Accepted” Utility Industry Practices
2.1 Introduction
An important starting point in discussing the City’s continued implementation of wastewater
impact fees is an understanding of the purpose and concept of impact fees and the financial
objective of those fees. This section of the report will discuss the concept of impact fees and the
“generally accepted” practices of the industry.
2.2 Defining Impact Fees
One must first define an “impact fee” before beginning
an assessment and review of the fees. Impact fees are
also often called system development charges (SDC’s),
capacity charges, buy-in fees, facility expansion charges,
plant investment fees, etc. Regardless of the name
applied to the fee, the concept is still the same. Simply
stated, impact fees “are capital recovery fees that are
generally established as one-time charges assessed
against developers or new wastewater customers as a way
to recover a part or all of the cost of system capacity
constructed for their use. Their application has generally
occurred in areas that are experiencing extensive new residential and/or commercial
development.”1 The main objective of an impact fee is to assess against the benefiting party,
their proportionate share of the cost of infrastructure required to provide them service. Stated
another way, impact fees imply that new development creates new or additional costs on the
system, and the impact fee assesses that cost in an equitable manner to those customers creating
the additional cost.
1 George A. Raftelis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and
Pricing (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73.
164
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-2
City of Bozeman, Montana
2.3 Historical Perspective
Governments are established to protect the health and safety of the public. Provision of
infrastructure, such as wastewater collection and treatment systems, directly advance this
purpose by avoiding disease. Due to its importance, provision of adequate infrastructure to
deliver adequate service has long been a concern of local, state, and federal governments.
Historically, the financing of infrastructure was typically paid for via long-term debt and “pay as
you go” rates. However, over the last twenty years, the use of impact fees as a method of
financing growth and infrastructure has risen sharply. According to recent national surveys,
about 60 percent of all cities with over 25,000 residents and almost 40 percent of all metropolitan
counties use some form of impact fees. In California and Florida, the extent of cities and counties
using impact fees is at 90 and 83 percent, respectively. Since1987, 26 states have passed impact
fee enabling acts. Most of these states are located in the western United States, Great Lakes
region, and on the Atlantic coast. Unfortunately, many of these acts are as prohibitive as they are
permissive.2 At this time, the State of Montana has very specific legislation related to impact
fees. This specific legislation regarding the fees provides the City specific authority to establish
and collect impact fees. This authority is provided in Montana Code Section 7-6-1601 to 7-6-
1604.
While many utility managers viewed impact fees as an important and alternative source of
funding for new capital construction, these fees were also being rationalized from a number of
different perspectives. Among these were the following:3
To shift the fiscal burdens from growth from existing development to new development.
To synchronize the construction of new or expanded facility capacity with the arrival of new
development.
To ensure that new development decisions include broad and realistic cost information.
To respond to locally vocal anti-growth sentiments.
Each of these different perspectives is discussed in more detail below. In addition, impact fees
allow the continued ability to develop land by avoiding failed or insufficient infrastructure that
constrains growth.
Historically, existing development was often subsidized by federal or state resources. As an
example, in the early 1970’s, many wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. were 90% grant
funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Today, grants are nearly extinct,
replaced instead by low-interest state revolving fund (SRF) loans. City’s ability to issue bonds
are constrained by state law and voter initiatives have limited the ability to increase taxes.
Citizens of communities have also expressed increasing reluctance to increase their taxes and
fees to provide benefits primarily to others. Therefore, as existing customers were being
impacted by the cost of growth, local communities searched for methods to help minimize rate
2 www.impactfees.com.
3 Adapted from: Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and
Stormwater Facilities (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1995) p. 6-7.
165
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-3
City of Bozeman, Montana
increases and the impacts of the cost of growth.
Unchecked growth and inefficient low density development is very costly on a per unit of service
capacity basis. In response to this dilemma, many legislative bodies created urban growth
boundaries. At the same time, utilities moved towards impact fee and extension policies that
assist in managing system growth in an orderly and coordinated manner. As a result, improved
planning and cost-based fees have helped utilities provide necessary services, manage the costs
of growth, while stabilizing rates to existing customers.
Establishing the price of a commodity equal to its cost is a basic economic and market principle.
In theory, consumers of a service will make “optimal” consumption decisions when the price of
the commodity is set equal to its cost. By establishing cost-based impact fees, developers should
be in a position to make better and more rational decisions concerning new development. At the
same time, proper pricing of impact fees also encourages “right sizing” of facilities to serve new
development. In other words, given the proper price signal, the developer will properly size their
service facilities to meet their realistic needs (e.g. installing a ¾-inch meter and service pipeline
versus a 2” meter and service pipeline).
Within all communities, there is a segment of the population that wishes to maintain the status
quo. Concerns over the possibility of increased taxes and service rates and decreased quality of
services due to new development can be a material factor in opposition to growth. Adoption of
impact fees, even if only partially cost-based, helps to constrain cost impacts and loss of service
quality to existing system users.
Accountability, efficiency, and transparency of government has received greater emphasis over
the past two decades. The process of developing and utilizing impact fees is heavily focused on
clear identification of future demand, current conditions, and equitable assignment of costs. The
use of impact fees helps coordinate provision of service to needed locations in a timely manner.
Impact fees therefore, when use correctly, support accountability, efficiency, and transparency in
government.
In summary, the use of impact fees has changed over time, as historical funding sources such as
grants have been reduced or eliminated. In response, many communities have moved towards
adoption of cost-based impact fees, particularly in areas of high growth.
2.4 Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Practices
Impact fees are one input into the rate setting process. Therefore, it is important to understand
how, within the context of “generally accepted” utility industry practices, impact fees may be
used. In conducting a comprehensive rate study, three interrelated analyses are typically
conducted. They are a revenue requirement analysis, cost of service analysis and rate design
analysis. Figure 2-1 provides an overview of each of these analyses.
166
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-4
City of Bozeman, Montana
Figure 2-1
Overview of the Three-Interrelated Analyses to Review Rates
Impact fees are factored into the revenue requirement analysis. The revenue requirement
analysis for most municipal utilities is referred to as the “cash basis” approach. Figure 2-2,
shown below, provides an overview of the key components of the “cash basis” approach to
developing revenue requirements.
Revenue Requirement Analysis Compares the sources of funds (revenues) to
the expenses of the utility to determine the
overall adjustment to rates
Cost of Service Analysis Allocates the total revenue requirements to the
various customer classes of service in a “fair
and equitable” manner
Rate Design Analysis Consider both the level and the structure of the
rate design to collect the appropriate and
targeted level of revenue
167
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-5
City of Bozeman, Montana
Figure 2-2
Overview of the “Cash-Basis” Approach to Establishing Revenue Requirements
As can be seen in Figure 2-2, there are two elements to establishing the “cash basis” revenue
requirements. The top or blue box shows the four basic cost components that are included within
the “cash basis” revenue requirements. In contrast, the bottom or yellow box illustrates the
various methods used to fund capital infrastructure projects.
It should be noted in Figure 2-2 that impact fees might be used (applied) in two different ways,
each having a different impact upon the utility’s revenue requirements and rates. The first
possible use of impact fees is shown in the bottom or yellow box. In that particular case, the
impact fees are applied directly against growth or expansion related capital projects. The effect
of using the funds in this manner is that it helps to minimize long-term borrowing. For each
dollar of impact fees applied in this manner, one less dollar of long-term borrowing and
associated increased interest costs is required.
+ Operation and Maintenance Expenses
+ Taxes / Transfer Payments
+ Debt Service (Net of Applied Impact Fees)
+ Capital Improvements Funded From Rates
= Total Revenue Requirements
– Miscellaneous Revenues
= Total Required From Rates
Total Capital Improvement Projects
Less: Outside Funding Sources
– Capital Reserves
– Impact Fees
– Grants
– Long-Term Debt
– Other Capital Funding Sources
= Total Capital Improvements Funded From Rates
168
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-6
City of Bozeman, Montana
“An impact fee represents a
fee for service payable by all
users creating additional
demand on the facility. To
understand this perspective,
one must view new
development as creating the
need for new or expanded
facilities.”
The other potential use of impact fees is to apply the fees against growth-related debt service.
As shown in Figure 2-2, debt service paid for by rates is shown as net of any impact fees
revenues used to pay for debt service. In contrast to applying impact fees directly against the
capital project, in this particular case, for every dollar applied in this manner, there is a
corresponding dollar decrease in revenue requirements and the resulting rates. This is a very
effective method to help minimize rates, but even better at matching the cost of growth to the
way in which customer growth occurs. In other words, a utility may build or expand a facility
with sufficient capacity to handle growth over the next ten to twenty years. That growth doesn’t
occur in the first year, but rather, trickles in over a number of years. Therefore, applying the
impact fees against the debt service associated with the project creates a better matching of the
cost incurrence (debt payments) to the actual customer growth.
2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees
An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all
users creating additional demand on the facility. To
understand this perspective, one must recognize that new
development creates the need for new or expanded facilities.
As a result, without payment of impact fees, the City would
have insufficient revenues to provide the facilities, and
therefore the community is unable to accommodate new
development. Protection of public safety requires the
provision of public infrastructure; therefore the City has
adopted regulations which require its installation so that
adequate service can be delivered. In some circumstances it
is more effective and efficient to collect money payments.
For example, rather than requiring each development to try to build a tiny part of a major
wastewater pipe.
Impact fees help the City achieve a number of different financial objectives. These objectives
include financial equity between customers; maintaining cost effective services, avoiding costly
debt, and protecting public safety.
One key financial/rate objective that is achieved from impact fees is equity. Equity is achieved
in two different ways. First, an impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers
and new customers. For example, assume that a wastewater treatment plant is expanded by 5
million gallons per day (MGD) to accommodate growth and the facility is financed over a 20-
year period. Without an impact fee, new customers connect to the system and pay for the debt
service on the facility via their rates. The customer that connects to the system in year one will
contribute to the cost of that facility for 20 years. In contrast, the person who connects in year 10
will only pay for debt service on the facility for ten years, even though the “value” of the
capacity was the same for the person connecting in year 1 or year 10. Impact fees create equity
within the system by addressing the issue of timing and the “value” of the assets and the “value”
of the capacity.
The second way in which impact fees help to create equity is after a facility is paid for.
169
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-7
City of Bozeman, Montana
Most commonly, impact fees are
adopted in high growth areas
where infrastructure expansion
has strained existing financial
resources. Philosophically,
many utilities desire to have a
policy of “growth paying for
growth.”
Continuing with the example above, after the debt service is fully paid off in year 20, and
assuming that capacity is still available, a new customer connecting to the system would “in
theory” receive their capacity at zero cost, because the debt service is paid in full. All the
existing customers connected to the system, over the past twenty years, paid for that customer’s
capacity. Therefore, an impact fee is also a form of a financial reimbursement to existing
ratepayers who paid for those facilities in advance of the new customer connecting to the system.
Based upon the above example, impact fees also have an equity perspective associated with the
rate setting process. That is, impact fees are a form of “system buy-in.” A properly established
impact fee implies that a new customer connecting to the system has bought into the system at its
current cost. Therefore, from a rate setting perspective the utility does not need to have rates for
“old” and “new” customers. Again, existing customers have been equitably reimbursed for past
investments.
Even with the above discussion, not all communities
have impact fees. Most commonly, impact fees are
adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure
expansion has strained existing financial resources.
Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of
“growth paying for growth.” Impact fees comport with
that philosophy, and it is achieved by applying the
impact fees either directly against the capital cost of the
expansion facilities or against the debt service
associated with it.
2.6 Relationship of Impact Fees and New Construction
Activity
There are a number of misconceptions surrounding impact fees. In a very broad sense, some
may argue that impact fees are bad for economic development. These arguments center around
two issues. These are as follows:
Development will occur on those parcels with lower or non-existent impact fees.
Impact fees raise the cost of doing business and hinder development
Of the research conducted on these topics, just the opposite has been found. Provided below is a
brief explanation of each.
Developers look at many factors before a parcel is developed. One misconception concerns the
selection of parcels for development and whether impact fees are applied to the land.
“The argument goes that if a developer is choosing between two parcels of land on which
to build—where the first parcel is inside a city where SDC’s (System Development
Charge - impact fees) are charged and the second is just outside where lower or no
SDC’s (impact fees) are charged—the developer will choose the second parcel.
170
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-8
City of Bozeman, Montana
“As can be seen, at least
in the opinion of
Nelson, impact fees do
not hinder growth, but
in fact may help to spur
growth.”
The trouble is this means that the owner of the first parcel does not make a sale. The
landowner must lower the land price to offset the fee in order to make a sale. However, if
the landowner does not lower the price, this indicates that the value of future
development may be higher on that parcel. Thus, be wary of developers who claim they
will choose the second parcel. Chances are they would not have chosen the first parcel
anyway. In the meantime, the land market will be holding the first parcel available for
higher value development. In effect what might look like a loss in the short term may be
a much higher level of development in the long-term.”4
The other argument and misconception that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they
are bad for economic development. The argument against this position is as follows:
“The argument goes that because SDC’s (impact fees) raise the price of doing business,
they frustrate economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First,
remember that SDC’s (impact fees) will be offset by reduced land prices and by enabling
the community to more easily expand the supply of buildable land relative to demand.
Now, consider what economic development really looks for: skilled labor, access to
markets, and land with adequate infrastructure. Competitiveness for economic
development will be stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by
SDC’s (impact fees). Besides, local governments retain the option to waive SDC’s
(impact fees) for specific kinds of economic development, such as development locating
in enterprise zones. In the competition for certain kinds of development, it will be able to
show developers the dollar value of SDC’s (impact fees) waived as a solid demonstration
of the local government’s commitment to such development.”5
As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do
not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. It must
be remembered that an important concept associated with impact
fees is that the fees are required to develop infrastructure
concurrently with or in advance of the actual development.
From the developer’s perspective, absent impact fees (i.e. a
moratorium on new connections) no new development can
occur. Therefore, developers are generally supportive of equitable cost-based impact fees,
particularly when it provides available capacity and opportunities for development.
4 Nelson. “System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities” P. 55.
5 Nelson, “System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities” P. 56.
171
Overview of Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Utility Industry Practices 2-9
City of Bozeman, Montana
2.7 Summary
This section of the report has provided an overview of the financial objectives associated with
impact fees and some of the issues surrounding them. This section should have provided a basic
understanding of the fees such that when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning
the continued implementation of impact fees and the imposition of new impact fees, they can be
placed in proper perspective. The next section of the report will provide an overview of
methodologies for the imposition of impact fees.
172
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-1
City of Bozeman, Montana
“The use of system planning
criteria is one of the more
important aspects in the
determination of the impact
fees. System planning criteria
provides the “rational nexus” or
logical connection between the
amount of infrastructure
necessary to provide service and
the charge to the customer.”
Section 3
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies
3.1 Introduction
An important starting point in establishing impact fees is to have a basic understanding of the
purpose of these charges, along with criteria and general methodology that is used to establish
cost-based impact fees. Presented in the section of the report is an overview of impact fees
criteria and general methodologies that are used to develop cost-based fees.
3.2 Impact fee Criteria
In the determination and establishment of the impact fees, a number of different criteria are often
utilized. The criteria often used by utilities to establish impact fees are as follows:
Customer understanding
System planning criteria
Financing criteria, and
State/local laws
The component of customer understanding implies that the charge is easy to understand. This
criterion has implications on the way that the fee is implemented, administered and assessed to
the customer. For wastewater systems, the charge can be based on meter size or the type of
dwelling or business type being assessed. For example, a school could be assessed based on a
per student basis corresponding to the sanitary sewer flow per student. The other implication of
this criterion is that the methodology is clear and concise in its calculation of the amount of
infrastructure necessary to provide service.
The use of system planning criteria is one of the more
important aspects in the determination of impact fees.
System planning criteria provides the “rational nexus”, or
logical connection, between the amount of infrastructure
necessary to provide service and the charge to the
customer. The rational nexus test requires that there be a
connection (nexus) established between new
development and the existing or expanded facilities
required to accommodate new development; and
appropriate apportionment of the cost to the new
development in relation to benefits reasonably received.
An example using system-planning criteria is the
determination that a single-family residential customer requires 204.7 gallons on average of
wastewater treatment. The impact fee methodology then charges the customer for 204.7 gallons
of wastewater treatment at the cost of treatment.
173
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-2
City of Bozeman, Montana
One of the driving forces behind establishing cost-based impact fees is the City’s adopted policy
since 1983 that “growth pays for growth.” Therefore, impact fees are typically established as a
means of having new customers pay an equitable share of the cost of their required capacity
(infrastructure). The financing criteria for establishing impact fees relates to the method used to
finance infrastructure of the system and assures that customers are not paying twice for
infrastructure – once through impact fees and again through rates. The double payment can
come in through the imposition of impact fees and then the requirement to pay debt service
within a customer’s rates. The financing criterion also reviews the basis under which collection
line extensions were provided and assures that customers are not charged for infrastructure that
was provided (contributed) by developers.
Many states and local communities have enacted laws, which govern the calculation and
imposition of impact fees. These laws must be followed in the determination of the impact fees.
Most statutes require a “reasonable relationship” between the fee charged and the cost associated
with providing service (capacity) to the customer. The charges do not need to be mathematically
exact, but must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed. As discussed above,
the utilization of the planning criteria and the actual costs of construction and the planned costs
of construction provide the nexus for the reasonable relationship requirement.
3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology
There are “generally-accepted” methodologies that are used to establish impact fees. Within the
“generally accepted” impact fee methodologies, there are a number of different steps undertaken.
These steps are as follows:
Determination of system planning criteria
Determination of equivalent residential dwelling units (EDUs)
Calculation of system component costs
Determination of any credits
The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the system planning criteria as
established in the wastewater facilities plan. A common unit of capacity demand is needed in
order to enable calculation of demand across many different types of users. This is the amount of
wastewater generated by a single-household residential customer, or EDU. For the wastewater
system, the common unit of capacity demand is the average wastewater flow per EDU. The use
of strength can also be developed if the system contains very high strength customers. While a
wastewater system has many planning factors, such as peak flow, if these are consistent for
customer types, then the use of average flow is appropriate. The average flow approach
recognizes that the demand at a specific location may vary greatly over time. Since impact fees
are a one time charge the average allows a reasonable representative calculation. Special cases
may be identified that require an alternative approach. Such special cases will be addressed on a
case by case basis.
Once the system planning criteria are determined, the number of EDUs able to be served by
expansion of system capacity can be determined. For the wastewater system total number of
EDUs is determined by dividing the total system average flow by the average wastewater flow
per EDU. This is a very important calculation since it provides the linkage between the amounts
174
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-3
City of Bozeman, Montana
of infrastructure necessary to provide service to a set number of customers. This implies that if
the system is designed to provide service to flow up to the year 2025, then the infrastructure
costs are divided by the EDUs in 2025.
Once the number of EDUs has been determined, a component by component (e.g. treatment,
collection, etc.) analysis is undertaken to determine the component impact fee in $ per EDU.
Individual plant components are analyzed separately for the wastewater system given that the
planning criteria for the design of the various system components differ. The calculation of the
component impact fee includes both historical assets and planned future assets. Historical assets
can be valued in a number of different ways. These include original cost plus interest,
replacement cost and depreciated replacement costs. Costs are limited to those providing
capacity expansion beyond that required for minimum local service needs, such as the local
collection system. As shown in Exhibit 3, these costs are not included as part of the impact fee
calculation.
The original cost plus interest method includes original cost plus ten (10) years worth of
interest. This calculation is done to reflect the fact that existing customers have provided for
excess capacity in the system and hence need to be reimbursed for not only their initial
investment, but also the “carrying cost” on that investment. The reimbursement to existing
customers is accomplished by the fact that without an impact fee, rates would otherwise be
higher than they would be without impact fees.
The replacement cost method values existing assets based on the cost to replace the assets in
today’s dollars. This is done by escalating the original cost by the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost (ENR) index. The theoretical basis for the use of replacement cost is that
customers are indifferent since they would have to pay replacement cost if the infrastructure
was built today to serve their needs.
The use of depreciated replacement cost reflects the fact that the assets have been used and
hence their value to the new customer is less than the replacement cost. Caution needs to be
exercised in the use of depreciated replacement cost, since the book or accounting lives used
by many utilities are not reflective of the actual life of the asset and may result in the assets
being undervalued. An example is using a useful life for a storage reservoir of 40 years,
when in reality, with maintenance, the actual life maybe between 60 to 80 years.
Each of these three (3) methods are used in the industry and the appropriate method selected by
the City should be based on the method that best reflects the cost of providing capacity in the
systems. HDR Engineering, Inc. recommends the use of the original cost with interest method,
since it will reflect the actual cost of the City’s system. The City’s system is developed to serve
future development through existing capacity and planned future capacity additions. This has
been accomplished by the City building excess capacity. Therefore, the use of the original cost
with interest method will reflect the actual costs that have been incurred or will be incurred by
the City in providing capacity to new development. This is also the most commonly used
method to value capacity in wastewater systems. This method also appears to comply with the
requirements under Montana law wherein in the “actual cost” of infrastructure is required.
175
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-4
City of Bozeman, Montana
The total cost of the capital infrastructure is then divided by the appropriate number of
equivalent dwelling units the infrastructure will serve to determine the cost per EDU for the
specific plant component.
After each plant component is analyzed and a cost per EDU is determined, the cost per EDU for
each of the plant components is added together to determine the “gross impact fee.” The “gross
impact fee” is calculated before any credits for debt service.
The last step in the calculation of the impact fee is the determination of any credits. This is
generally a calculation to assure that customers are not paying twice − once through impact fees
and again through debt service included within the wastewater rates. A crediting mechanism is
also utilized if general obligation or tax revenue has been used to finance the infrastructure.
The final impact fee is determined by taking the “gross impact fee” and subtracting any credits.
This results in a “net impact fee” stated in dollars per EDU. The general basis of this calculation
for a wastewater system is the assumption of an EDU. Larger meter sizes are then assigned fees
based on the number of EDUs for a given meter size based on operating capacity. The theory for
this approach is that larger meter sizes create greater flows on the wastewater system and hence
impose additional costs on the wastewater system.
In order to maintain the necessary proportionality in cost to service benefits the impact fees need
to be periodically updated. Updates should examine both increased costs of construction and
changes in the number and type of infrastructure to be constructed.
3.4 Summary
This section has provided a discussion of the criteria typically used in the determination of
impact fees. In addition, an overview of the “generally accepted” methodology used in the
calculation of the impact fees has been provided. Given this background, the next section of the
report discusses any specific legal criteria that must be used by the City in the establishment of
its impact fees.
176
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-1
City of Bozeman, Montana
“The laws for the
enactment of impact
fees in Montana are
found in 7-6-1601 to
7-6-1604 of the
Montana Code.
Section 4
Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact
Fees for the City
4.1 Introduction
An important consideration in establishing impact fees is any legal requirements at the state or
local level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact
fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used. Given that, it is important for the City to
understand these legal requirements. This section of the report provides an overview of the legal
requirements for establishing impact fees under Montana law.
The discussion within this section of the report is intended to be a summary of our understanding
of the relevant Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fee. It in no way constitutes a
legal interpretation of Montana law by HDR Engineering, Inc.
4.2 Requirements under Montana Law
In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented
in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established specific laws
regarding the establishment, calculation and implementation of
capacity fees. The main objective of most state laws is to assure that
these charges are established in such a manner that they are fair,
equitable and cost-based. In other cases, state legislation may have
been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to
establish the charges.
In general, the power to impose exactions must either be expressly
granted by statute, or be reasonably inferred from express statutory
provision. Montana Subdivision statutes authorize monetary exactions in separate sections of the
Montana Code. Mont. Code Ann. § 76-3-510 provides that, as a condition of subdivision
approval, the City may require that a development pay or guarantee payment for part or all of the
costs of extending capital facilities related to the public health and safety, including but not
limited to public roads, sewer lines, water supply lines, and storm drains to a subdivision. Mont.
Code Ann. § 76-3-621 requires that subdividers dedicate a portion of a proposed subdivision for
use as parks or open space. Alternatively, the statute authorizes the City to require the
subdivider to pay the cash equivalent to the fair market value of the required portion that would
have otherwise been utilized as a park. These statutes apply only to subdivisions.
The Montana Supreme Court has also recognized a city’s authority to impose development fees
in other circumstances. In Lechner v. City of Billings, (Mont. 1990) 797 P.2d 191, the Court
concluded that if a statutory framework authorizing the operation of an improvement or system
177
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-2
City of Bozeman, Montana
of improvements existed (e.g., sewer or water system), and a provision allowing for charge of a
fee for the service or the improvement existed, then it is a reasonable extension of the city’s
express statutory authority to accumulate fees to pay for the implementation of that authority.
Cities and counties, prior to 2005, enacted impact fees through the authority of these and other
statutes and powers.
The Montana enabling legislation for impact fees was enacted in 2005 via Senate Bill 185. This
was comprehensive legislation specifically allowing public entities in the State of Montana to
enact impact fees for various services. The legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found
in Title 7, Chapter 6, and Part 1601 to 1604 of the Montana Code. A summary of the Montana
Code is provided below. A copy of the full code is provided as Appendix B.
A summary of the requirements under Montana law is as follows:
“7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:...
…5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a
governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the
additional service capacity required by the development from which it is
collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee
not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected.
(b)The term does not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection
costs associated with a permit required for development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user
fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for
county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and
systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or
(iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to
meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that
have been adopted by the governmental entity.
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or
resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which
an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve
documentation that:
(a) describes existing conditions of the facility;
(b) establishes level of service standards;
(c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
(d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service;
(e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and
maintenance of the facility;
(f) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one
service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and
benefits;
178
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-3
City of Bozeman, Montana
(g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one
service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation
between impact fees and benefits;
(h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental
entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the
facility to provide service to new development within each service area;
(i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude
operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the
impact fee;
(j) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit
of increased service demand; and
(k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that:
(i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to
serve projected growth;
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital
improvements; and
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least
every 2 years.
….5) An impact fee must meet the following requirements:
(a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably
attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements
made necessary by the new development.
(b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs
incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the
development. The following factors must be considered in determining a
proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs:
(i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve
new development; and
(ii) 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.
(c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be
included in the impact fee.
(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.
(e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of
the facility.
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits --
mechanism for appeal required….
…(3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing
capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of
the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the
179
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-4
City of Bozeman, Montana
facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess
capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that
demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a
governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for
excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs
to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual
cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more
than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity.”
The use of the methodology discussed in Section 3, is designed to assure that the proportional
share standard is met and the impact fees are in compliance with Montana law.
4.3 Summary
This section of the report has reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in Montana.
HDR concludes that the City has the authority to establish cost-based impact fees and the
methodology used is designed to assure compliance with Montana law.
180
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees 5-1
City of Bozeman, Montana
Section 5
Determination of the City’s Wastewater
Impact Fees
5.1 Introduction
The calculation of wastewater impact fees presented in this section are based on the City’s fixed
asset records, future capital improvements, and planning criteria from the facility plan entitled,
Bozeman Wastewater Facilities Plan, dated March, 2007 (the wastewater facilities plan).
To the extent that the cost and timing of future capital improvements change, then the impact
fees presented in this section should be updated to reflect the cost of these adjustments.
5.2 Overview of the City’s Wastewater System
The City’s wastewater system consists of conventional sewer mains and lift stations to deliver
wastewater to the City’s treatment plant. The City has a single wastewater treatment plant with a
current design capacity of 5.80 MGD average annual flow. To meet capacity and effluent
quality requirements, the City’s capital improvement plan calls for a number of improvements to
the solids handling processes and liquid treatment facilities at the wastewater treatment plan.
These improvements will be accomplished in three phases. The improvements through Phase 3
will expand the wastewater treatment plant from 5.80 mgd average daily flow to 13.9 mgd
average daily flow.
The City will also need to make improvements to the existing collection system by upsizing
existing pipe or paralleling existing pipe to accommodate growth. The City will also need to
add a large number of new extensions and pump stations to the existing system to service growth
in currently unsewered areas. The City’s discharge of treated wastewater is subject to permitting
by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Recent changes in the pollutant discharge
standards under which the permit is issued will have a substantial impact on the City treatment
plant and future capacity expansion.
5.3 Present Wastewater Impact Fees
The City currently assesses an impact fee for connection to the wastewater system. By policy,
the City has chosen to only assess 80% of the allowable fee. The current allowable wastewater
impact fees and currently assessed wastewater impact fees are shown in Table 5-1.
181
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees 5-2
City of Bozeman, Montana
Table 5-1
City Bozeman, Montana
Present Wastewater Impact Fees
Meter Size EDU Factor Allowable Charge Assessed Charge (80%)
¾" 1.00 $3,540.57 $ 2,832.46
1” 2.50 8,852.08 7,081.67
1-1/4" 3.50 12,392.66 9,914.12
1-1/2" 5.00 17,702.86 14,162.29
2" 8.00 28,324.57 22,659.66
3" 16.00 56,649.14 45,319.31
4" 25.00 88,514.29 70,811.43
6" 50.00 177,028.57 141,622.86
8" 80.00 283,245.72 226,596.57
5.4 Service Areas
Pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1) (f) in the determination of Wastewater Impact Fees, the following
must be considered:
“makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service
area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits;”
The City operates the wastewater system as a single integrated utility. This allows all assets to
service all customers.
Based on these factors and a knowledge of the wastewater system, the City has determined that
for the purpose of calculating and imposing Wastewater Impact Fees, that the entire City will be
treated as a single service area pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1) (f).
5.5 Calculation of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees
As was discussed in Section 3, the process of calculating impact fees is based upon a four-step
process. In summary form, these steps were as follows:
Determination of system planning criteria
Determination of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs)
Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs
Determination of any impact fee credits
Each of these areas is discussed in more detail below.
182
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees 5-3
City of Bozeman, Montana
5.5.1 System Planning Criteria
The number of wastewater equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) was determined based on the
wastewater facilities plan. The wastewater facilities plan determines average daily flow per
capita. The facilities plan documents an average of 89 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and
incorporates the 2000 Census average number of persons per household of 2.3. This results in a
usage per EDU of 204.70.
5.5.2 Calculation of Equivalent Dwelling Units
The planning horizon of this impact fee study was 2005 – 2025. This is the same planning
horizon used in the wastewater facilities plan for which the City’s existing wastewater system
and future improvements will provide service to an expanded area.
As a part of this impact fee study, a projection of the number of new/additional EDUs per year
must be determined, along with the total number of EDUs at 2025. The City’s total number of
EDUs for each year was determined by dividing the total system average flow by the average
flow per EDU. The total system average flow was based on the flow projections per the
wastewater facilities plan.
A summary of the EDUs for 2005 and 2025 are presented in Table 5-2. Details of the
determination of EDUs are provided in Exhibit 1 of the Technical Appendix.
Table 5-2
City of Bozeman, Montana
Number of Wastewater Equivalent Dwelling Units
Equivalent Dwelling Units – 2005 25,403
Equivalent Dwelling Units – 2025 67,904
After the determination of the total future wastewater EDUs for each year of the planning period,
the focus can shift to the calculation of the impact fee for each plant component. This aspect of
the analysis is discussed in detail below.
5.5.3 Calculation of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components
The next step of the analysis is to review each major functional component of plant in service
and determine the impact fee for that component. In calculating the impact fee for the City, both
existing plant assets with excess capacity, along with planned future improvements were
included within the calculation. Only existing and future assets with a useful life of 10 years or
greater were included in the impact fee calculation. The major components of the City’s
wastewater system that were reviewed for purposes of calculating impact fees are as follows:
183
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees 5-4
City of Bozeman, Montana
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Collection System
Administrative Charge
A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each system component below.
TREATMENT PLANT – The City currently operates a 5.80 million gallon per day wastewater
treatment plant. This plant is currently at or near capacity and the City has begun design on an
expansion to the treatment plant to accommodate growth and more rigorous regulatory standards.
The new treatment plant will be constructed in three phases and will bring the total capacity of
the treatment plant to 13.90 mgd. The estimated costs in the wastewater facilities plan were
2005 dollars. To more accurately reflect probable future costs the facilities plan estimates were
increased to 2007 dollars based on the rate of inflation. Those costs which would provide new
capacity were then allocated to the impact fee. A portion of the Phase 1 improvements were not
included in the impact fee calculation, due to these improvements being required to treat existing
flows to higher level and to correct current deficiencies at the wastewater treatment plant. The
total cost of new wastewater treatment that would serve new development was divided by the
additional capacity which resulted in a cost per gallon of $5.21. This cost per gallon was then
multiplied by the usage per EDU to determine the wastewater treatment plant impact fee. Based
on the costs and capacity of treatment plant for the City, the impact fee for treatment is $1,065.73
per EDU. Details of the calculations are provided in Exhibit 2 of Technical Appendix.
COLLECTION SYSTEM – The City’s collection network consists of numerous pipes of varying
diameters. To determine the impact fee for the wastewater collection system, an inventory of the
existing system was undertaken, as well as those planned improvements, including both priority
projects and expansion projects, as identified in the wastewater facility plan. The historical
investments of the City were adjusted for interest charges up to a maximum of ten years and
allocated to growth based on the number of new EDUs to total EDUs in 2025. All lines 8” and
less were excluded from the impact fee calculation. For existing plant it was assumed that all
lines were provided by development and therefore excluded from the impact fee calculation.
The installation of 8” or less represents City minimum standard improvements which are the
obligations of new development or the correction of existing deficiencies that are paid for by
rates. The remaining investments were subsequently divided by the number of new EDUs added
from 2005 to 2025 to determine the cost per EDU. This approach provides that new
development only pay their proportional share to the cost of existing assets providing service.
Future capital improvements were assumed to serve new development for the planning horizon
from 2005 to 2025 and were then divided by the number of new EDUs added over the planning
horizon. Only those improvements that would provide new capacity were allocated to the impact
fee. A line by line review was undertaken of the improvements. For those improvements that
would be oversized and replace an existing line, only new capacity was included in the impact
fee.
In the calculation of the impact fee for collection plant a number of items were excluded. First,
all existing collection system expansions that were contributed by developers, financed through
improvement districts or contributed by grants were excluded from the analysis. Additionally,
for future collection plant, an item by item review was undertaken for future capital
184
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees 5-5
City of Bozeman, Montana
improvements to determine the percentage that would serve new development. Replacements
were also excluded since these are not growth related and should be paid for through rates.
For extensions to the system, it was assumed that new development would be required to pay for
a pipe size up to 8-inches. This size is the smallest main allowed by the City’s Design Standards
and Specifications Policy. In some circumstances an individual project may require more than
the 8 inch sewer main to service its specific needs. Over-sizing beyond the minimum size of pipe
may be paid for by the City through impact fees in compliance with the procedures for
expending impact fee funds. Based on the cost incurred by the City, the impact fee for existing
collection system is $121.21 per EDU. For future collection system expansion, the impact fee is
$1,625.59 per EDU. This results in a total impact fee for collection plant of $1,746.80 per EDU.
Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 3 of the Technical Appendix.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE – Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the
administration of the impact fee program not to exceed 5% of the impact fee collected. The City
will implement the allowed 5%. The City has included a wastewater administrative charge of
$140.63 per EDU.
5.5.4 Debt Service Credits
The final step in calculating the wastewater impact fee was to determine if a credit for payment
on debt service for the City’s outstanding bonds. The City currently has no outstanding
wastewater revenue bonds or loans and does not plan to issue additional revenue bonds to
finance the wastewater treatment plant expansion. Therefore, no credit for debt service is
required.
5.5 Net Allowable Wastewater Impact Fees
Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable wastewater impact
fee can be determined. “Net” refers to the “gross” impact fee, less any debt service credits.
“Allowable” refers to the concept that the calculated impact fee shown in the following tables is
the City’s cost-based impact fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to
the allowable impact fee, but not over that amount. Charging an amount greater than the
allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus test of a cost-based impact fee. A summary of
the calculated net allowable wastewater impact fees for the City are shown in the Table 5-3.
Table 5-3
City of Bozeman, Montana
Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee
Plant Component Fee
Wastewater Treatment $1,065.73
Collection 1,746.80
Administrative Charge 140.63
Debt Service Credit for Bonds 0.00
Total $2,953.16
185
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees 5-6
City of Bozeman, Montana
The impact fee for wastewater system is $2,953.16 per EDU. Details of the net allowable impact
fees for the City are shown in Exhibit 4 in the Technical Appendix. For ease of administration,
the recommended maximum allowable charge for an EDU is $2,955.
Based on the impact fee for “1 EDU”, the charges for the various sized service lines would result
in the following impact fees as shown in Table 5-4. Other meter sizes are then weighted based
on American Water Works Association capacity flow ratings.
Table 5-4
City of Bozeman, Montana
Allowable Wastewater System Impact Fees
Meter Size EDU Factor Maximum Allowable
Charge
3/4” 1.00 $2,955
1” 2.50 7,388
1-1/2”” 5.00 14,775
2” 8.00 23,640
3” 16.00 47,280
Over 3” 1 Calculated 1
1 – The impact fee for meter sizes over 3” shall be calculated by first determining the number of EDUs by dividing
the average annual daily flow by 204.70 gallons per EDU. The impact fee shall then be the number of EDUs times
the impact fee for 1 EDU. A strength surcharge shall also apply based on the number of pounds.
In Table 5-4 the impact fees for the larger meter sizes up to 3” are determined by multiplying the
impact fees for an EDU by the weighting factors. The weighting factors reflect the increased
flow that the customer can impose on the system and hence the increased cost required to
provide capacity to the customer. For meter sizes over 3”, the wastewater impact fee is
calculated based on the actual flow and the flow definition for an EDU.
The wastewater impact fees as calculated assume a strength level equivalent to a single family
residential unit. To the extent that a commercial or industrial customer has a strength level
greater than a single family residential meter, then the treatment plant component of the impact
fee will be increased in proportion to the increase strength and then multiplied by the EDU factor
to reflect the additional treatment plant costs incurred by the City to treat the customer’s
wastewater. See Exhibit 5 for the detailed calculations.
5.6 Key Assumptions
In the development of the impact fees for the City’s wastewater system a number of key
assumptions were utilized. These are as follows:
The City’s asset records were used to determine the nature and value of existing wastewater
collection and treatment assets.
The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing investments was 5.0%
10 years worth of interest were included in the cost of existing plant.
186
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees 5-7
City of Bozeman, Montana
The findings required under MCA 7-6-1602 were provided in the wastewater facilities plan
and this report
5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees
The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the cost of money or
interest charges and inflation. Therefore, HDR Engineering, Inc. would recommend that the City
adjust the impact fees each year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and
inflation. The most frequently used source to escalate impact fees is the ENR index which tracks
changes in construction costs for municipal utility projects. This method of escalating the City’s
impact fee should be used for no more than a two-year period. After this time period, as required
by Montana law, the City should update the charges based on the actual cost of infrastructure and
any new planned facilities that would be contained in an updated facilities plan, capital
improvement plan or rate study.
5.8 Consultant Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of the City wastewater impact fees, HDR Engineering, Inc.
makes the following recommendations:
The City implement impact fees for new and expanded connections to the wastewater system
that are no greater than the impact fees as set forth in this report.
The City update the impact fees calculations based periodically as required by State law and
City ordinance.
5.9 Summary
The wastewater impact fees determined and presented in this section of the report are based on
the engineering design criteria of the City’s wastewater system, the value of the existing assets,
future capital improvements and “generally accepted” impact fee calculation principles.
Adoption of the proposed impact fees will provide multiple benefits to the system users as well
as the City and create equitable and cost-based charges for new customers connecting to the
City’s wastewater system.
187
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
188
Wastewater Impact Fees – Calculation Basis
Exhibit 1 – Determination of LOS and Equivalent Dwelling Units
Average Usage per EDU = Average Residential Usage (gpcd) * Persons per Household
EDUs = Average Flow / Average Usage per EDU
Exhibit 2 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Impact Fee
Treatment Plant Impact Fee = Impact Fee Costs / Plant Capacity * Average Usage per EDU *
High Strength factor [only when applicable – See Exhibit 5]
Exhibit 3 – Collection System Impact Fee
Collection System Impact Fee = Impact Fee Costs / Number New EDUs Served by
Improvements (per Facilities Plan)
Exhibit 4 – Wastewater Impact Fee
Administrative Impact Fee = (Treatment Plant Impact Fee + Collection System Impact Fee) * .05
Wastewater Impact Fee = (Treatment Plant Impact Fee + Collection System Impact Fee – Debt
Service Credit)+ Administrative Impact Fee
Wastewater Debt Service Credit
Debt Service Credit = NPV from Year1 to Yearn of Impact Fee Revenue – Annual Debt Service/
ERUs 1 to n
189
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Determination of LOS and Equivalent Dwelling Units
Exhibit 1
Average Usage Residential 1 89.00 gpcd
Number of Persons per Household 2 2.3
Average Usage 3 204.70 per EDU
1 - See page 2-19 of the Wastewater Facilities Plan.
2 - See page 2-10 of the Wastewater Facilities Plan.
3 - Average Usage Residential times number of persons per household.
1 5/14/2007
190
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Determination of LOS and Equivalent Dwelling Units
Exhibit 1
Average Day Equivalent Additional
Year Demand 1 Dwelling Units 2 EDUs
2005 5.20 25,403
2006 5.47 26,724 1,321
2007 5.75 28,113 1,390
2008 6.05 29,575 1,462
2009 6.37 31,113 1,538
2010 6.70 32,731 1,618
2011 7.03 34,326 1,595
2012 7.37 35,999 1,673
2013 7.73 37,754 1,755
2014 8.10 39,594 1,840
2015 8.50 41,524 1,930
2016 8.93 43,642 2,118
2017 9.39 45,867 2,226
2018 9.87 48,207 2,339
2019 10.37 50,665 2,458
2020 10.90 53,249 2,584
2021 11.44 55,902 2,653
2022 12.01 58,687 2,785
2023 12.61 61,611 2,924
2024 13.24 64,681 3,070
2025 13.90 67,904 3,223
1 - See page 2-17 of the Wastewater Facilities Plan.
2 - Average day demand divided by Average Day EDU Usage Factor.
2 5/14/2007
191
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment
Exhibit 2
Original Impact Fee Cost
Year Equipment List Cost Related 3 $2007 1,2
Future Construction Projects 1,2
2008 Phase 1 - Liquid Treatment Improvements 23,713,281$ 38% 9,746,348$
2008 Phase 1 - Solids Handling and Treatment Improvements 8,830,469 38% 3,629,393
2008 Phase 1 - Engineering Legal and Contract Administration 5,556,250 38% 2,283,663
2014 Phase 2 - Liquid Treatment Improvements 11,708,537 100% 12,663,954
2014 Phase 2 - Solids Handling and Treatment Improvements 3,970,136 100% 4,294,099
2014 Phase 2 - Engineering Legal and Contract Administration 3,835,555 100% 4,148,537
2020 Phase 3 - Liquid Treatment Improvements 2,665,270 100% 2,882,756
2020 Phase 3 - Solids Handling and Treatment Improvements 1,499,214 100% 1,621,550
2020 Phase 3 - Engineering Legal and Contact Administration 832,897 100% 900,861
Total Future Construction Projects 42,171,161$
Total Wastewater Treatment 42,171,161$
Plant Capacity (MGD) 3 8.10
Cost per Gallon 5.21$
Requirement per EDU 204.70
Impact Fee Wastewater Treatment per EDU 1,065.73$
1 - Existing plant was not included since treatment plant is at or near capacity.
2 - Future plant is increased from 2005 construction costs by the rate of inflation.
3 - New plant capacity to serve development to 2025.
1 5/14/2007
192
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Phase 1 Allocation
Exhibit 2
Total Non Impact Fee Impact Fee
Equipment List Cost Related Related
Headworks 3,159,512$ 2,155,902$ 1,003,610$
Primary Effluent Pumping 2,822,652 1,926,045 896,607
Activated sludge system 9,954,787 6,792,678 3,162,109
Secondary Effluent Pumping 2,090,854 1,426,700 664,154
Clarification 2,683,262 2,683,262
RAS and WAS pumps 2,555,488 1,743,745 811,743
Anaerobic Digestion 4,530,183 3,091,184 1,438,999
Dewatering 5,807,927 3,963,056 1,844,871
Disinfection 3,682,226 2,512,577 1,169,648
Outfall 813,110 813,110
Total 38,100,000$ 23,611,887$ 14,488,113$
Percent Impact Fee Related 38.03%
2 5/14/2007
193
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Collection System
Exhibit 3
Original Impact Fee Cost
Year Equipment List Cost Related 3 $2007 1,2
Existing Assets 1
1955 Pipelines -$ 62.59% -$
1956 Pipelines 6 62.59% 6
1957 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1958 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1959 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1960 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1961 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1962 Pipelines 639 62.59% 651
1963 Pipelines 2,262 62.59% 2,306
1964 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1965 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1966 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1967 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1968 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1969 Pipelines 26,412 62.59% 26,928
1970 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1971 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1972 Pipelines 6,513 62.59% 6,640
1973 Pipelines 3,148 62.59% 3,209
1974 Pipelines 3,790 62.59% 3,864
1975 Pipelines 3,662 62.59% 3,734
1976 Pipelines 1,526 62.59% 1,556
1977 Pipelines 28,811 62.59% 29,374
1978 Pipelines 7,451 62.59% 7,597
1979 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1980 Pipelines 163,527 62.59% 166,720
1981 Pipelines 48,424 62.59% 49,369
1982 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1983 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1984 Pipelines 52,236 62.59% 53,256
1985 Pipelines 9,285 62.59% 9,467
1986 Pipelines 17,285 62.59% 17,622
1987 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1988 Pipelines 48,108 62.59% 49,047
1989 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1990 Pipelines 4,792 62.59% 4,886
1991 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1992 Pipelines 199,883 62.59% 203,785
1993 Pipelines 88,959 62.59% 90,696
1994 Pipelines 41,314 62.59% 42,120
1995 Pipelines 173,228 62.59% 176,610
1996 Pipelines 115,547 62.59% 117,802
1997 Pipelines 65,987 62.59% 67,275
1998 Pipelines 5,986 62.59% 5,812
1999 Pipelines 598,373 62.59% 553,338
2000 Pipelines 166,014 62.59% 146,209
2001 Pipelines 93,703 62.59% 78,595
2002 Pipelines 572,358 62.59% 457,213
2003 Pipelines 666,507 62.59% 507,068
2004 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1 5/14/2007
194
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Collection System
Exhibit 3
Original Impact Fee Cost
Year Equipment List Cost Related 3 $2007 1,2
2005 Pipelines - 62.59% -
1955 Manholes - 62.59% -
1956 Manholes - 62.59% -
1957 Manholes - 62.59% -
1958 Manholes 5 62.59% 5
1959 Manholes 78 62.59% 80
1960 Manholes 15 62.59% 16
1961 Manholes 249 62.59% 254
1962 Manholes 391 62.59% 398
1963 Manholes 35 62.59% 35
1964 Manholes 303 62.59% 309
1965 Manholes 179 62.59% 182
1966 Manholes 48 62.59% 49
1967 Manholes 241 62.59% 246
1968 Manholes 3,493 62.59% 3,561
1969 Manholes - 62.59% -
1970 Manholes - 62.59% -
1971 Manholes 1,755 62.59% 1,789
1972 Manholes 824 62.59% 840
1973 Manholes 1,751 62.59% 1,785
1974 Manholes 2,202 62.59% 2,245
1975 Manholes 4,982 62.59% 5,080
1976 Manholes 13,946 62.59% 14,219
1977 Manholes 13,498 62.59% 13,762
1978 Manholes 6,998 62.59% 7,135
1979 Manholes 53,274 62.59% 54,314
1980 Manholes 1,414 62.59% 1,442
1981 Manholes 6,514 62.59% 6,642
1982 Manholes 1,186 62.59% 1,209
1983 Manholes 30,500 62.59% 31,095
1984 Manholes 39,769 62.59% 40,545
1985 Manholes 21,436 62.59% 21,855
1986 Manholes 14,510 62.59% 14,793
1987 Manholes 14,972 62.59% 15,264
1988 Manholes 17,479 62.59% 17,820
1989 Manholes 18,755 62.59% 19,121
1990 Manholes 7,483 62.59% 7,629
1991 Manholes 75,778 62.59% 77,258
1992 Manholes 24,230 62.59% 24,703
1993 Manholes 34,116 62.59% 34,782
1994 Manholes 179,373 62.59% 182,875
1995 Manholes 82,159 62.59% 83,763
1996 Manholes 159,224 62.59% 162,332
1997 Manholes 88,586 62.59% 90,315
1998 Manholes 113,490 62.59% 110,196
1999 Manholes 336,774 62.59% 311,428
2000 Manholes 165,006 62.59% 145,321
2001 Manholes 415,513 62.59% 348,518
2002 Manholes 272,646 62.59% 217,796
2003 Manholes 195,741 62.59% 148,917
2004 Manholes 65,000 62.59% 47,096
2005 Manholes - 62.59% -
Total Existing Assets 5,151,776$
EDUs added 2005 to 2025 42,501
Total Existing Collection System Impact Fee per EDU 121.21$
2 5/14/2007
195
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Collection System
Exhibit 3
Original Impact Fee Cost
Year Equipment List Cost Related 3 $2007 1,2
Future Construction Projects 2
Priority Projects 4
2008 Shop Complex 4,995,000$ 19.82% 990,009$
2008 E8 - Hospital Trunk 1,062,000 70.00% 743,400
2007-2025 S. Rosuse Trunk: E Babcock to Kagy 970,000 70.00% 679,000
2007-2025 Mendehall to Tramarack from Grand to Rouse 3,100,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Front Street: Tramarack to Haggerty 1,800,000 70.00% 1,260,000
2007-2025 College to Babcock from 5th to 11th Avenue 3,400,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 21 inch Interstate Crossing/Wal-Mart 600,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Front Street Collector 90,000 55.56% 54,080
2007-2025 Babcock between Hunter Way and Siver Maple 50,000 55.56% 30,044
2007-2025 South Black from College South 300,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Durston between 10th and 11th to 9th and 10th Ave 50,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Frontage Road Phase I 1,100,000 82.64% 983,204
2007-2025 Frontage Road Phase II 1,500,000 82.64% 1,340,733
2007-2025 Frontage Road Phase II 1,900,000 86.28% 1,773,142
2007-2025 Water Treatment Plant Interceptor 500,000 100.00% 540,800
2007-2025 Willson Improvements 200,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Bridger Canyon Interceptor 400,000 75.00% 324,480
2007-2025 Trancy and Wilson 300,000 36.00% 116,813
2007-2025 Lincoln and 19th Replacement 500,000 55.56% 300,444
2007-2025 Mendehall from 3rd to 5th Avenue 80,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Lamme/ Plum 100,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Plum/ Davis 100,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 S Bozeman/ Garfield 60,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Cottonwood/ East of Wallace 50,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 3rd/ Villard 100,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Rouse/ N Frontage Replacement 800,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Upper Rouse Replacement 300,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Fairway Replacement 40,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 Other Annual Projects and Repair 140,000 0.00% -
Extensions 5
2011 S15 - Install 21" Sewer Interceptor at Davis/Fowler 843,648 70.00% 590,554
2007-2025 8 inch 24,640,000 0.00% -
2007-2025 10 inch 7,990,000 36.00% 3,111,114
2007-2025 12 inch 15,786,000 55.56% 9,485,632
2007-2025 15 inch 13,658,000 71.56% 10,570,539
2007-2025 18 inch 7,938,000 80.25% 6,889,792
2007-2025 21 inch 4,584,352 85.49% 4,238,844
2007-2025 24 inch 4,896,000 88.89% 4,707,123
2007-2025 27 inch 1,378,000 91.22% 1,359,596
2007-2025 30 inch 1,372,000 92.89% 1,378,429
2007-2025 36 inch 7,847,000 95.06% 8,068,189
2007-2025 42 inch 34,000 96.37% 35,440
Pump Stations
2007-2025 Gooch Hill Lift Station and Force Main 1,800,000 100.00% 1,946,880
2007-2025 Hidden Valley Lift Station and Force Main 5,400,000 100.00% 5,840,640
2007-2025 Spring Hills Lift Station and Force Main 1,600,000 100.00% 1,730,560
Total Future Construction Projects 69,089,483$
EDUs added 2005 to 2025 42,501
Total Future Collection System Impact Fee per EDU 1,625.59$
Total Collection System Impact Fee per EDU 1,746.80$
3 5/14/2007
196
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
Collection System
Exhibit 3
Original Impact Fee Cost
Year Equipment List Cost Related 3 $2007 1,2
1 - Existing plant is increased by interest charges from the date of construction up to 10 years.
2 - Future plant is increased from 2005 construction costs by the rate of inflation.
3- All lines less than 8 inches excluded and pipe greater that 65 years old.
Allocation for existing plant based on new EDUs/total EDUs in 2025. Future plant allocation see 4 and 5 below.
4 - Priority projects allocated to new development based on increased capacity per master plan.
5 - Extensions allocated to new development based on capacity above an 8 inch line.
4 5/14/2007
197
City of Bozeman, MontanaImpact Fees for the Wastewater SystemSummaryExhibit 4Wastewater Treatment $ 1,065.73 Collection 1,746.80 Debt Service Credit - Total $2,812.54 Plus: Maximum Allowable of 5% 140.63 $2,953.16 Impact Fees by Meter Size (inches)Meter SizeEDU Factor 1Treatment Impact FeeCollection Impact Fee Total Impact Fee3/4" 1.00 $1,118 $1,837 $2,9551 2.50 2,796 4,592 7,388 1 1/2 5.00 5,591 9,184 14,775 2 8.00 8,946 14,694 23,640 3 16.00 17,892 29,388 47,280 Over 3" 2Calculated Calculated Calculated1 - Weighting factor based on AWWA meter capacity ratingsWastewater Impact Fee Calculation ResultsProposed Wastewater Impact Fee per EDU2 – The impact fee for meter sizes over 3” shall be calculated by first determining the number of EDUs by dividing the average annual daily flow by 204.70 gallons per EDU. The impact fee shall then be the number of EDUs times the impact fee for 1 EDU. A strength surcharge shall also apply based on the number of pounds.5/14/2007]198
City of Bozeman, Montana
Impact Fees for the Wastewater System
High Strength Summary
Exhibit 5
Allowable Strength (lbs per day) 1
Meter Size EDU Factor 2 BOD 3, 4 TSS 3, 4
3/4" 1.00 0.60 0.64
1 2.50 1.50 1.61
1 1/2 5.00 2.99 3.22
2 8.00 4.78 5.15
3 16.00 9.57 10.30
Over 3"55 5
1- Nitrogen and phosphate will be treated in the same manner if required.
2 - Weighting factor based on AWWA meter capacity ratings
3- See page 2-17 of the Wastewater Facility Plan.
4- If loadings exceed these levels, then the treatment plant component of the impact fee
will be multiplied by actual lbs divided by allowable lbs.
5 - For meter sizes over 3" the EDU factor and allowable pounds of BOD and TSS will be
equal to the number of EDUs determined by dividing the average annual daily flow by 204.70
gallons per EDU times the allowable pounds per 1 EDU.
199
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
MONTANA CODE
200
7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more that
increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility.
(b) The term does not include consumable supplies.
(2) "Connection charge" means the actual cost of connecting a property to a public utility system and is limited to
the labor, materials, and overhead involved in making connections and installing meters.
(3) "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or structure, a change in use of a
building or structure, or a change in the use of land when the construction, installation, or other action creates
additional demand for public facilities.
(4) "Governmental entity" means a county, city, town, or consolidated government.
(5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the
development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is
collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact
fee collected.
(b) The term does not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for
development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district
assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water
districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or
(iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other
minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity.
(6) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of capital system improvements that reasonably relates to
the service demands and needs of the project. A proportionate share must take into account the limitations provided in
7-6-1602.
(7) "Public facilities" means:
(a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility;
(b) a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility;
(c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights-of-way, traffic signals, and landscaping;
(d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposal facility or a flood control facility;
(e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and
(f) other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6-1602 that have been approved as part of
an impact fee ordinance or resolution by:
(i) a two-thirds majority of the governing body of an incorporated city, town, or consolidated local government; or
(ii) a unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners of a county government.
History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
Page 1 of 17-6-1601. Definitions.
1/4/2006http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1601.htm
201
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for
impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and
approve documentation that:
(a) describes existing conditions of the facility;
(b) establishes level of service standards;
(c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
(d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service;
(e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility;
(f) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a
correlation between impact fees and benefits;
(g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is
needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits;
(h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate
share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area;
(i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs
and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee;
(j) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and
(k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that:
(i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth;
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years.
(2) The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the
public upon request.
(3) The amount of each impact fee imposed must be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or
improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new
development. The calculation of each impact fee must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
(4) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the
documentation required under subsection (1).
(5) An impact fee must meet the following requirements:
(a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's
share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development.
(b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the
governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a
proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs:
(i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and
(ii) 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.
(c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee.
(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.
(e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility.
History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
Page 1 of 17-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirement...
1/4/2006http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm
202
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required.
(1) The collection and expenditure of impact fees must comply with this part. The collection and expenditure of impact
fees must be reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees. The ordinance or
resolution adopted by the governmental entity must include the following requirements:
(a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested with all
interest accruing to the fund.
(b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts.
(c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee ordinance or resolution or in
accordance with 7-6-1602, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property
at the time that the refund was due.
(2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no earlier than the date of
issuance of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of
wastewater or water service connection or well or septic permitting.
(3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess
capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of
the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented
pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a
governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing
facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental
entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share
of the costs to provide the excess capacity.
(4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of
payment of impact fees if:
(a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6-1602;
(b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the
proposed use by the governmental entity;
(c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or constructions are established as part
of the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and
(d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as part of the adopting ordinance
or resolution if the dedication of land or construction of public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due
from an individual development.
(5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or
for rebuilding a damaged structure unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in 7-6-
1602(1)(j). If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or
use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be imposed.
(6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refunds or credits:
(a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 and this chapter; or
(b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 and this chapter, between
the governmental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the impact fees.
(7) An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all users creating additional demand on the facility.
(8) An impact fee ordinance or resolution must include a mechanism whereby a person charged an impact fee may
appeal the charge if the person believes an error has been made.
History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
Page 1 of 17-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal requir...
1/4/2006http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1603.htm
203
7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governmental entity that intends to propose an impact fee
ordinance or resolution shall establish an impact fee advisory committee.
(2) An impact fee advisory committee must include at least one representative of the development community and
one certified public accountant. The committee shall review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and
spending impact fees.
(3) The impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the
governmental entity.
History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
Page 1 of 17-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee.
1/4/2006http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.htm
204
** MINUTES **
CITY OF BOZEMAN
IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2007
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chair Tim Dean called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., in the Commission Room at the
Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Members Present:
Tim Dean, Chair
Ken Eiden
Rick Hixson
Ron Kaiser
Nicholas Lieb (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Anna Rosenberry
Bill Simkins
Members Absent:
Debra Becker
Randy Carpenter
Staff Present:
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Randy Goff, HDR Engineering, Inc.
Shawn Cote, SWMBIA
Camden Easterling, Bozeman Daily Chronicle (arrived at 6:20 p.m.)
MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2007
Tim Dean delayed action on the minutes of the January 25, 2007, meeting to the next meeting
since they were not included in this packet.
Tim Dean submitted the following correction to the minutes of February 15: Page 5 – second
paragraph – change vote to read “… Anna Rosenberry and Rick Hixson voted for it while Debra
Becker, Nicholas Lieb, and Debra Becker Tim Dean voted against it …”
There were no additional changes; and Chair Dean announced the minutes of the meeting of
February 15, 2007, are approved as amended.
205
- 2 -
CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tim Dean characterized the Phase I of the Committee’s work as education, and noted that
phase is now complete. Phase II of the Committee’s work was going through the capital
improvement programs for each of the four impact fees; and that step has also been completed
with no real disagreements among Committee members. He noted, however, that he senses
some discontent on the Committee and invited members to either talk to him individually or raise
issues during these meetings. He stressed that it is not “government versus private sector” but is
an effort to determine what development or growth should pay for. He then noted the
Committee is in Phase III of its work, which is evaluating the systems review and the
consultant’s reports. He stressed the importance of this phase, particularly since it sets the stage
for the future.
Chair Dean characterized the Commissioners’ decision to approve a $35,000 expenditure from
impact fees for the transportation plan update as disrespectful to this Committee, particularly
when they then sent a memo to the Committee seeking its blessing. He met with Commissioner
Sean Becker and City Manager Chris Kukulski and expressed his concerns, speaking for the
entire Committee as much as possible and stressing that this is a volunteer board on which all
members work hard; and indicated they were receptive to his comments. He also asked that the
Committee be given an opportunity to present its recommendations directly to the Commission
rather than through the Commissioner Liaison and, at this time, he is uncertain if that request will
be granted.
Rick Hixson stated the recommendation from the Engineering Division was that Bike Board
monies be used for the transportation update, particularly since the Board supported that
recommendation. He noted the Commission’s decision to use impact fee monies was formulated
at the Commission meeting.
Chair Dean thanked staff for forwarding the data and methodology for setting of the impact fees
ahead of time and for granting additional time for review and absorbing that information.
Chair Tim Dean raised the issue of attendance at these meetings. He voiced concern that some
Committee members are just not showing up at meetings, and he wants to avoid the need to go
through the educational process again. He then asked if the Committee wishes to set guidelines
for attendance.
Rick Hixson noted that if one misses one or two meetings, “you’re lost at sea.” He does not see
how one can miss three meetings and then make an informed vote on an issue like the one before
the Committee tonight. As a result, he suggested that if a member misses three meetings, the
Chair should ask the Commission to appoint a replacement.
Ron Kaiser stated what is most hurtful is missing consecutive meetings, noting that one cannot
be an informed member when doing so. He also noted that the duration over which those misses
occurred is another component to consider.
Bill Simkins stated it is important to look at the time period and the reasons for missing the
meetings. He cautioned that care must be taken in replacing members, particularly since it may
be difficult to get someone to serve and hard to get that individual up to speed.
206
- 3 -
Chair Dean concluded this item by indicating he will handle the attendance issue, taking into
consideration the members’ comments.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders highlighted the schedule for upcoming meetings. He
stressed the importance of giving this Committee more than one meeting to look at the
information on impact fees and make its recommendation before the issue is scheduled for public
hearing before the City Commission. He noted that Randy Goff will be making his presentations
at this meeting, and suggested the decisions be made at the Committee’s April 26 meeting. The
public hearings before the City Commission can then be set for May 14 and, if the Committee is
unable to make its decision at the April 26 meeting, it would then have time to call a special
meeting for the following week to make its recommendation.
The Committee agreed with the timeline as outlined by Chris Saunders.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No comment was submitted under this agenda item.
CITY COMMISSION LIAISON
Commissioner Liaison Sean Becker was not present.
PRESENTATION
(A Presentation by Randy Goff, HDR Engineering, Inc., to discuss the results of
the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study.)
A. Water Impact Fee Study Results.
Randy Goff, HDR Engineering, Inc., suggested that a review of the exhibits and numbers will
help Committee members understand the rationale and basis for the proposed impact fees.
Randy Goff stated the data is considered on an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) basis, with
commercial uses being converted to a specific number of EDUs based on the size of the water
meter. He noted the average daily usage has been calculated at 83.04 gallons per day per person;
a 12.7 percent loss factor increases that number to 93.59 gallons per day. Based on an average of
2.3 persons per household, the average daily usage is 190.99 gallons per day per EDU.
Randy Goff stated that water facilities must be sized to meet the peak day demand, which has
been calculated at 439.28 per EDU. He stressed that storage per EDU also plays an important
part in the calculations, since it is imperative that adequate storage be provided to meet the ups
and downs in demand during the day as well as storage to cover an emergency, such as a broken
water main, and fire flows at a certain level. The calculations reflect that is 201.63 gallons per
EDU.
207
- 4 -
Randy Goff noted the next step is to determine how many EDUs are to be served over the next
twenty years. He indicated that the City’s master plan projects growth for the next twenty years
at 5 percent. In 2005, the EDU calculation is 29,776; in 2025 it is projected at 78,947 based on
that growth rate.
Mr. Goff turned has attention to the breakdown of the different components in the system, the
first of which is supply and treatment. He identified the existing assets and the percentages that
have been allocated as impact fee related. He noted that the existing water treatment plant is to
be abandoned and replaced with a new membrane plant. That plant will serve both existing
customers and new development and, as a result, 32 percent of that project has been identified as
impact fee eligible. He noted that existing customers have invested in additional capacity for
future development; and the new plant will be designed to accommodate additional growth as
well. The new plant will increase treatment capacity from 15 million gallons per day to 22
million gallons per day, at an estimated cost of $2.31 per gallon. When that cost is multiplied by
the 439.28 gallon daily requirement per EDU, the result is a $1,015 per EDU impact fee related
to source of supply and treatment.
Responding to questions from Committee members, Mr. Goff confirmed that the peak day usage
is the design standard for treatment plants. He also confirmed that the percentages listed in this
impact fee report are linked to, and tie back to, the percentages in the capital improvement
program.
Randy Goff stated that the estimated costs for the Sourdough Creek Dam include only the design
and permitting, since this document is based on a ten-year horizon and it is not anticipated that
the dam will be constructed in the period of time, if at all.
Randy Goff turned his attention to Exhibit 3, which pertains to storage. He noted that the storage
calculation of 201.63 gallons per EDU is used as the basis for these calculations. He indicated
that the Lyman Creek Reservoir is fully eligible for impact fees. Based on the calculations, $191
per EDU is eligible for impact fees.
Responding to questions from Tim Dean, Chris Saunders stressed that the basis for these
calculations is equivalent dwelling units, which includes commercial and industrial development,
so it is not possible to tie the numbers in this report back to the actual building permits issued for
the last ten years.
Randy Goff noted that these projections are based on the 5-percent growth rate used in the
master planning documents. He noted, however, that if growth slows down, the improvements
can be delayed but will still serve the 79,000 EDUs contained in the projections.
Rick Hixson stated that using a lower growth rate for the plans done in the last two decades has
resulted in those plans not lasting as long as anticipated. He recognized that the 5-percent
growth rate is conservative but, if the market softens and growth slows a bit, that simply means
the plan will last longer than anticipated.
Chris Saunders noted that if a facility is overplanned, it will not be built. On the other side, the
revenues will not be coming in from development, so this is a self-regulating system. He
stressed that EDUs are the basis of the report; the timeframe is simply provided for convenience.
208
- 5 -
Bill Simkins stated he needs to know how much of the demand is based on commercial
development and how much is based on industrial development since the population is not
increasing at the rate projected.
Chris Saunders responded that information is contained in the facilities plan update, noting the
City knows the size of every meter in the system. Since weighting factors are assigned to the
increased meter sizes, the non-residential factors have been built into the plan. He then stressed
that commercial and industrial uses and schools draw on the system, with many of those working
at or using the facilities often traveling to their homes outside city limits.
Responding to Tim Dean, Randy Goff stated that if growth slows, the nexus will remain because
it will cost x dollars to serve y units.
Chris Saunders stated that by 2025, the Committee will have gone through this exercise four
more times. These reviews will provide the opportunity to identify any fundamental differences
and to make any needed adjustments.
Randy Goff turned his attention to Exhibit 4, which pertains to the distribution system. He stated
the planning standard is the peak day demand plus fire flow. He noted the distribution system is
like a spider web and grows outward, so a portion of the existing system is included in the
impact fee calculation. The standard for future lines is 8-inch pipe, and the developer will be
required to install that line. Any oversizing of that pipe to support the overall system will then
be eligible for impact fees. The calculations, based on those premises, result in an impact fee per
EDU of $1,648.
Mr. Goff noted that Exhibit 5 provides the calculations for the total impact fee, which includes a
5-percent administrative charge and is rounded to the nearest $5. The result is a recommended
impact fee of $3,000 for a ¾-inch water meter. That rate is then used for calculating the impact
fees for larger meters, based on AWWA meter capacity ratings.
Responding to Tim Dean, Chris Saunders confirmed that the City is now charging 80 percent of
the impact fees in the tables. He indicated that the fees on those tables reflect the costs
calculated in 1995-1996 plus annual adjustments for inflation, based on the CPI. He confirmed
that the proposed impact fees reflect a 7½-percent increase.
Chris Saunders noted that Exhibit 4 shows redundancy lines from the water treatment plant at
zero impact fee for 36 and 48-inch mains. He noted the current main is a 30-inch line, and the
larger lines would provide additional capacity as well as redundancy. Randy Goff responded
that he will review that issue and adjust the calculations if necessary.
Randy Goff asked for Committee feedback on the information at the beginning of the exhibits,
noting that staff asked for information on the basis of calculations.
Chris Saunders noted that those portions of the projects not covered by impact fees will be
covered from other sources, such as the monthly bills and possibly an occasional grant.
209
- 6 -
Responding to Tim Dean, Chris Saunders stated the facilities plan identifies the usage rates for
different uses. He then noted that the population is increasing faster than water usage, which
reflects a decreased per-capita usage and helps reduce the fees.
Randy Goff responded to several questions from Committee members. He then noted it is
cheaper to build treatment facilities than to build storage facilities.
Chris Saunders stated it is important to size the treatment plant to meet the seven or eight days of
peak summer demand because people demand that water be available when they turn on the
shower or the dishwasher. He further reiterated the City has a legal obligation to provide storage
for fire flows and emergencies, such as a main break.
Randy Goff returned to Exhibit 5, noting that the chart is currently based on AWWA weighting
factors. He noted the alternative is usage, citing the potential that a commercial or industrial use
that uses water at full flow 24 hours a day could choose to locate in Bozeman. He had backed
away from that option because of the administrative burden it would place on staff.
Chris Saunders noted this would be an alternative for rare events that might arise once every two
or three years.
B. Wastewater Impact Fee Study Results.
Randy Goff noted this study is very similar to the water study. He began with a review of
Exhibit 1, which reflects an average residential usage of 89 gallons per day per person. Based on
2.3 persons per household, the calculation is 204.7 gallons per EDU. Mr. Goff compared those
calculations to the water calculations of 90 gallons per day per person. He indicated that these
calculations are based on normal strength effluent, noting that high strength waste costs more to
process than household waste.
Rick Hixson gave a brief overview of BOD, characterizing it as the demand for bugs. He noted
that higher demand for BOD results in the demand for more oxygen fed into the water through
enormous centrifugal blowers. He noted it is easy to accommodate what a household puts into
the system; however, some industrial users can significantly load the system. He cited milk as an
example, noting it is almost 100 percent BOD. He also noted that any kind of food processing
plant generates high strength effluent.
Randy Goff stated that the pipes in the collection system are sized for peak day usage, but the
treatment plant is sized for average day demand. He indicated that the new wastewater treatment
plant is to be constructed in three phases, with 1.8 million gallons of capacity added in the first
phase. After his review and calculations, he determined that 67 percent of the first phase is
capacity related while the remainder is system related. He noted that the subsequent phases are
for additional capacity and, as a result, are impact fee related.
Anna Rosenberry raised questions about the calculation, noting that her conversations with
Amanda McGinnis reflected a ⅓ impact fee related and ⅔ user fee related split.
210
- 7 -
Chris Saunders indicated that this issue will be carefully reviewed, to ensure that it is
appropriately addressed in the impact fee report.
Randy Goff turned his attention to the collection system, noting the same process was followed
as used for the water distribution system. He noted that any pipe greater than 8 inches would be
considered oversized and, thus, eligible for impact fees. He briefly reviewed the impact fees for
the various components of the wastewater system, noting that the proposed impact fee is $3,266
per EDU.
Tim Dean noted that is a 15-percent increase from the current fees. Randy Goff responded that
part of the increased fee is driven by increasingly stringent treatment requirements and increased
costs of building capacity for new customers.
Tim Dean noted that Section 5.5.2. of this report references equivalent residential use; Randy
Goff responded that reference will be corrected.
Responding to Nicholas Lieb, Randy Goff stated the percentages are based on the formulas used
for identifying that portion of the existing system that is eligible for impact fees. He indicated
that AWWA standards are used in doing so, noting the calculation is simple and is standard in
the industry.
Randy Goff suggested an alternative for calculating the fees could be an assessment on
industrial processes that result in higher strength effluent.
Responding to Ron Kaiser, Rick Hixson stated the City is currently trying to level the playing
field on charges for high strength effluent, but the charges do not yet cover the additional costs.
Further responding to Ron Kaiser, Mr. Goff stated the cost structure will need to be changed to
address high strength discharges. He acknowledged the City may want a mechanism to capture
additional costs or to encourage the installation of a pretreatment system.
Rick Hixson stated that under the current review process for new development, a pretreatment
survey identifies the potential of extra strength effluent and allows the City to negotiate with a
significant industrial user.
Chris Saunders suggested that language could be added to the table that indicates the figures
reflect the average load on the plant from a single household and that a review of flow strength
could result in additional costs or the requirement for a pretreatment system.
Randy Goff turned his attention to the issue of affordable housing. He stated that affordable
housing discounts on impact fees can be provided; however, those discounts cannot result in
collecting higher impact fees from others. He noted that, as a policy decision, the Commission
could choose to cover the discount from another funding source. He stressed that issues of
policy are best addressed outside the impact fee report and voiced a willingness to address it in a
letter.
211
- 8 -
Responding to Anna Rosenberry, Mr. Goff stated that sometimes smaller houses can create more
demand than larger houses, depending on the number of persons in the household.
Chris Saunders noted that an impact fee is a one-time charge. He cautioned that if a house is
initially constructed as an affordable house but is later converted to a market price home, any
discount monies will be lost.
Responding to Ron Kaiser, Chris Saunders indicated one possible source of revenue would be
the mill levy that is being earmarked for affordable housing.
Chris Saunders asked for Committee feedback on providing procedures for addressing special
cases, noting that they would be rare circumstances that might have a sizeable impact on the
system.
Following discussion, the Committee members generally agreed that a statement be added to
reflect that additional charges may be imposed for additional strength.
Committee members requested that the split between impact fees and user fees for the first phase
of the wastewater plant be reviewed to ensure they are correct, and that any needed adjustments
be made.
Randy Goff indicated he will also look at the water main redundancy issue.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the committee at this time, Chair Tim Dean
adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
212
** MINUTES **
CITY OF BOZEMAN
IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2007
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice Chair Ron Kaiser called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., in the Commission Room at the
Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Members Present:
Ron Kaiser, Vice Chair
Debra Becker
Ken Eiden
Rick Hixson
Nicholas Lieb (arrived at 6:20 p.m.)
Bill Simkins
Members Absent:
Randy Carpenter
Tim Dean
Anna Rosenberry
Staff Present:
Sean Becker, Commissioner Liaison
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Randy Goff, HDR Engineering, Inc.
CITY COMMISSION LIAISON
Commissioner Liaison Sean Becker addressed the issue of the Committee e-mails resulting from
the Commission’s decision to use impact fees for a portion of the costs of the transportation plan
update. He stated that he tried to make the point, on behalf of this advisory board, that acting on
that proposal was not an acceptable course of action, but action was taken anyway. He assured
the Committee that its input is very important and that it may have substantial influence on the
Commission’s decisions. He concluded by noting that, hopefully, in the future the Commission
will have more time and latitude to send things back to the Committee.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Art Wittich, attorney representing the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association
(SWMBIA) expressed his appreciation for this Committee’s interest in expediting its review of
213
- 2 -
the impact fee studies but requested that he be given more time to review and comment on the
revised report that just came out earlier this week. He voiced an interest in having someone with
expertise in impact fees review the document and comment on it prior to forwarding his
comments. He expressed concern that if adequate time is not given to make the comments to this
body and he will be forced to make his comments to the Commission, and the issue may simply
be referred back for review and a recommendation.
Vice Chair Ron Kaiser stated that, while the agenda indicates the Committee is to make
decisions on the water and wastewater impact fee reports, it is simply being briefed on the
revisions and will make its decisions at a special meeting to be held next week. Those
recommendations will then be forwarded to the Commission for its consideration during the
public hearings scheduled for May 14.
Responding to Mr. Wittich, Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated that the
Commission will conduct its public hearings on May 14. At that time, the Commission may
choose to continue to the public hearings to another date, to close the hearings and delay the
decisions, or to act immediately. He stressed that, after the Commission makes a decision on
adoption of the report, a resolution must be prepared and brought back for Commission action to
formally adopt it.
Sean Becker noted that if there are any critical flaws in the report, the Commission should
receive that information before the May 14 meeting.
Vice Chair Ron Kaiser asked that the Committee be kept informed. He noted that, if the
Committee receives any comments by next Thursday’s meeting, it will take them into
consideration during the decision-making process.
Responding to Mr. Wittich, the Assistant Planning Director estimated that the public draft report
on street impact fees will be ready in mid-June.
MINUTES FROM JANUARY 25 AND APRIL 12, 2007
Since there were no amendments to the minutes of the meetings of January 25 and April 12,
2007, Vice Chair Ron Kaiser announced that the minutes are approved as submitted.
DECISION ON WATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
A Review and Decision on the recommendation to the City Commission
regarding the Final Draft for the Water Impact Fee Study by HDR Engineering.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders noted that, in light of discussions with Chair Tim
Dean and Committee members, it was determined that this meeting should be devoted to a
review of the revised information and that a special meeting be called for May 3, at which time
decisions will be made. He indicated that tonight’s meeting was advertised in the newspaper and
posted on the City’s website to let the public know that this Committee was considering action
on the two impact fee reports. He indicated that a letter from the Southwest Montana Building
Industry Association was received late this afternoon, and copies have just been distributed to the
214
- 3 -
Committee. He indicated that staff has been able to respond to only Question No. 5 in the time
available, and noted a photocopy of one page in the 1983 Bozeman Area Master Plan has been
provided as the answer to that question. He indicated that essentially the same statement was
included in the 1990 and 2001 master plans, with slightly different wording.
Randy Goff, HDR Engineering, reviewed the revisions to the draft report, noting that that portion
of the new transmission main over 30 inches has now been included in the impact fee
calculations. The result is a $150 increase in the impact fee per EDU. He noted that the average
residential customer uses 2 percent of the water capacity of the meter; however, some large
industrial customers may turn on the water full bore and run it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
365 days a year. He stated that, based on the cost of $2.31 per gallon for water treatment
capacity, the investment cost for an 8-inch meter could be $5.3 million. He proposed that, for
large industrial customers, the impact fees be calculated based on the customer’s actual peak day
use plus storage and determine the number of EDUs based on those figures. He stressed that this
calculation would apply to only those meters over 3 inches, and would probably be used only
once every three or four years.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated that 4-inch meters are used for larger motels,
and there is one 6-inch meter providing redundancy for the hospital.
Responding to Debra Becker, Randy Goff stated that part of the water storage calculations is for
fire protection and, as a result, no additional costs are included in the impact fee calculations.
Responding to Ron Kaiser, Randy Goff stated that an electronics manufacturer uses a huge
amount of water and typically knows how much is needed. He stressed that the impact fees
would not be subject to a negotiated rate schedule; rather, the number of EDUs on which the
impact fee is calculated would be negotiated and then the rate schedule used to determine the
total fee.
Randy Goff also proposed that the resolution adopting the impact fees include a change of use
provision that states if the usage exceeds 110 percent of the calculation base, the fee can be
revised. He noted this will allow the City to recover additional impacts to the system for a
phased in business.
Randy Goff concluded his presentation by stating that the text in the draft reports has been
revised to reference EDUs rather than ERUs, as requested by the Committee at the last meeting.
Responding to questions from Bill Simkins, Randy Goff identified an error in the current impact
fee figures in the table on Page 5-1. He then asked if including columns for both the full impact
fees and the 80 percent currently charged would be helpful; the Committee members indicated it
would be. Mr. Goff indicated he will revise the report to include both columns in both this
impact fee report and the wastewater impact fee report.
Debra Becker noted she has raised questions about the growth rates via e-mails to staff. She had
thought when the capital improvement programs were being reviewed that the Committee was in
spending mode and that the growth rates would be reviewed in conjunction with the fees. She
now realizes that will not happen, but she remains concerned that the growth rates seem
optimistic, which could result in higher impact fees than necessary.
215
- 4 -
Randy Goff stated this issue was discussed at the last meeting, and noted that the impact fees
would most likely not change with a slower growth rate. He stated that, if growth slows down,
the demands go down and the installation of infrastructure will be delayed accordingly. He
stressed, however, that the amount of infrastructure needed for each additional unit will not
change.
Responding to additional questions from Debra Becker, Rick Hixson stated the water facility
plan recommends the installation of a 42-inch transmission line from the water treatment plant,
based on the planning boundary and the size of the main needed to serve development within that
boundary. He stressed that, while a lower growth rate will slow the need for that main, it will
remain.
Assistant Planning Director Saunders stated installing the large line is the least costly option,
noting that it requires only one set of engineering plans and staging for one construction period,
while the area is still generally a green field. He drew attention to the costs and inconveniences
encountered in upgrading the infrastructure on the west end of town during the past two
summers.
Further responding to Debra Becker, Randy Goff stated the number of units to be served by the
main are divided into the cost of the pipe, resulting in a cost per unit. He stressed that if fewer
units are constructed, the City will recover less of that cost. He concluded by noting this is a
cash flow issue, which is separate from the issue of setting impact fees.
Bill Simkins stated he sees a potential problem with overestimating growth, particularly if the
population stalls at 80,000 rather than reaching the projected population of over 100,000. Randy
Goff responded that if that occurs, the ratepayers will bear the costs not recovered through the
payment of impact fees.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders acknowledged there is a chance that the
infrastructure will be oversized based on the growth projections; however, that is less costly than
if it is undersized. He then cautioned there are a lot of forces pushing growth into municipalities,
including the County Commission’s interest in creating a TDR system that encourages
development inside city limits and specific county areas. He stressed that every year the
Commission has the right to choose not to expend monies.
Randy Goff noted that the master plan will be updated every five years, which will allow for
regular re-examination of this issue. He further noted that this impact fee information can be
updated at that time as well.
Rick Hixson stressed that the master plan and facility plans are designed to look at the next
twenty years. The last facility plans lasted ten years, and the transportation plan lasted six years
because of the growth rate over the past decade.
Assistant Planning Director Saunders reviewed the actual growth rates for the last six years,
noting that they range from 2.8 percent to 6.2 percent. He then noted the population projections
lag one year behind the number of building permits issues. He also reminded the Committee that
industrial and commercial users are part of the demand on the system.
216
- 5 -
Rick Hixson stated the average growth rate over the last five years is 4.7 percent.
Vice Chair Ron Kaiser recognized the concerns that have been expressed about the assumptions
on growth rates. He suggested that those who have continuing concerns about the growth rate
articulate them at next week’s meeting prior to the decision being made.
Ken Eiden stated that he, too, feels the growth rate is too high. He noted the community is
experiencing the biggest growth it has seen in years, and reminded the Committee members of
the 1980s, when there was no growth. He voiced concern that if a high rate is used to calculate
the per-unit cost of infrastructure improvements, the result could be that the users are required to
bear the costs not covered by growth.
Assistant Planning Director Saunders stressed that timing of infrastructure improvements is
critical. He noted that once the Commission decides to build a new treatment plant, it will be
five years before that plant is in use. If such improvements are not constructed at the appropriate
time, the result could be a moratorium, so it is essential that adequate headroom be provided. He
then stated that if it is determined an anticipated improvement is not yet needed, it can be
deferred for a year.
Responding to Ron Kaiser, Rick Hixson stated the size of the transmission main has nothing to
do with the growth rate; rather, it has to do with the ultimate demand on that pipe inside the
planning boundary and growth boundary as adopted by the City Commission two years ago. He
stressed that if the growth rate slows, it will simply take longer to utilize the pipe’s full capacity.
He concluded by stating the water facility plan is a demand-based plan and is not based on any
projected growth rate.
Responding to Nicholas Lieb, Rick Hixson stated that some of the City’s lines are over 100 years
old; and with the City’s requirements and maintenance program he anticipates the new lines will
last at least that long.
In response to concerns voiced by Debra Becker, Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders
stated the property within the growth boundary but not currently within city limits will probably
be annexed before the infrastructure is installed. He noted that, in some rare instances a property
may be connected to City services without being annexed but will be required to pay City impact
fees upon connection.
Further responding to Debra Becker, the Assistant Planning Director stated that, under certain
circumstances, the City can initiate annexation of properties; however, he stressed that doing so
would be a significant departure from the Commission’s policy over the last few decades.
Randy Goff noted that cities are always in the development process because they are upgrading
infrastructure to provide for future growth. Those improvements are typically funded through
the issuance of bonds, so an interest rate of 5 percent for up to ten years can be added to the
actual costs of the improvements when calculating impact fees.
217
- 6 -
Responding to Nicholas Lieb, Randy Goff stated that there are strong limitations on the interest
that may be earned on bonds, and those monies must be expended within three years. He noted
that failure to comply with those requirements results in significant penalties.
Responding to Ken Eiden, Assistant Planning Director Saunders stated that grants are available
through the Community Development Block Grant program and the Treasure State Endowment
Program; however, Bozeman does not compete well with the small communities in Montana
because it has other resources available. He indicated that if the City does receive a grant, those
monies will be backed out of the calculations. He further noted that, since the City keeps track
of all impact fee payers and the amounts paid, the Commission could direct staff to refund
monies to those that had already paid the higher fee.
DECISION ON WASTEWATERWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
A Review and Decision on the recommendation to the City Commission
regarding the Final Draft for the Wastewater Impact Fee Study by HDR
Engineering.
Randy Goff stated that, in light of concerns voiced at the last meeting, he went through the
allocation of costs for Phase I of the wastewater treatment plant expansion. He indicated that the
review, conducted in conjunction with engineers from his firm evaluated each component of the
new plant and determined those that are part of the current system and those that are capacity
expanding. As a result of that process, the percentage eligible for impact fees dropped from 67
percent to 38 percent and the proposed impact fee dropped by $310.
Mr. Goff noted that at the last meeting, the possibility of an adjustment factor for high strength
customers was discussed. He suggested that a certain strength factor for single-family residential
customers be identified and that the cost for extra strength discharge be based on that strength.
He stressed that extra strength discharge affects only the treatment plant and not the pipes.
Debra Becker requested that the Committee members be provided a copy of the calculations for
the wastewater treatment plant and suggested that it may be beneficial to include those
calculations as an exhibit to the report.
Assistant Planning Director Saunders noted that those with extra strength discharge may choose
to pretreat it before discharging it into the system or may choose to pay the additional cost. He
noted that, either way, the City recovers its treatment costs.
Responding to Ron Kaiser, Randy Goff confirmed that a recommendation to include a
negotiation process for extra strength discharge was discussed at the last meeting. He noted that
he did not include any specifics in the report, but suggested that it should be addressed in a
separate paper. He stated the issue is not addressed in the proposed fee schedule, but noted that
if a charge is to be added, it is necessary to clearly state that if the discharge is over a certain
percentage of regular strength then additional costs will be incurred based on specific multipliers.
In response to a recent newspaper article, Rick Hixson noted a consultant is in the process of
finishing the wastewater rate study, and he anticipates that in the next week or two discussions
with Darigold regarding its extra strength discharge will be undertaken.
218
- 7 -
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Letter from SWMBIA. Responding to Bill Simkins, Randy Goff stated he will make a written
response back to SWMBIA and will also forward a copy to City staff so it can be part of this
Committee’s record.
Forwarding of report. Responding to Randy Goff, Assistant Planning Director Saunders stated
that a cover memo will forward the final draft of the impact fee report as recommended by this
Committee, along with copies of the minutes of the meetings, to the Commission for its
consideration. He noted the cover memo will identify any significant issues along with the
Committee’s recommendations.
Belgrade impact fees. Debra Becker reported that she attended the Belgrade City Council
meeting on Monday night, when they took action on implementing impact fees. She noted that
their advisory body recommended implementation of impact fees for streets, fire, water,
wastewater and parks totaling $14,112. As a result of the public hearing held the week before
and discussion among the Council members, they chose to implement the fees at 60 percent of
the calculated rates plus 5 percent for administration, for a total of $9,172 for a single-family
residence and a total of $449,389 for a 50,000-square-foot commercial building. Ms. Becker
noted that these figures compare with Bozeman’s current impact fees of $7,158 for a single-
family residence and $433,313 for a 50,000-square-foot commercial building.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders noted that much of the growth is immediately
outside Belgrade rather than within city limits. He cited the River Rock Subdivision, which was
originally platted in the 1970s, as an example of a subdivision that pre-dates County subdivision
standards but has developed only in recent years and has significantly impacted the road system.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the committee at this time, Vice Chair Ron
Kaiser adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
219
** MINUTES **
CITY OF BOZEMAN
IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chair Tim Dean called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., in the Commission Room at the
Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Members Present:
Tim Dean, Chair
Debra Becker
Randy Carpenter
Ken Eiden
Rick Hixson
Ron Kaiser
Nicholas Lieb (arrived at 6:20 p.m.)
Anna Rosenberry
Members Absent:
Bill Simkins
Staff Present:
Sean Becker, Commissioner Liaison
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Shawn Cote, SWMBIA
MINUTES FROM APRIL 26, 2007
Since there were no corrections to the minutes of the meeting of April 26, 2007, Chair Tim Dean
announced that they are approved as submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Shawn Cote, Southwest Montana Building Industry Association, noted he has just received a
copy of the HDR Engineering response to the questions raised in letters from his organization.
He requested that this Committee give the building industry more time to review the information
and come back with their comments, noted he feels it would be more appropriate to respond to
this advisory body than to the Commission.
220
- 2 -
CITY COMMISSION LIAISON
Commissioner Liaison Sean Becker indicated he has no comment at this time.
DECISION ON WATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
A Review and Decision on the recommendation to the City Commission
regarding the Final Draft for the Water Impact Fee Study by HDR Engineering.
Chair Tim Dean reviewed the current and proposed impact fees, revised as a result of last week’s
meeting, as follows.
Water impact fees –
Current fees at 100 percent - $2,792.64
Current fees at 80 percent - $2,234.11
Proposed fees at 100 percent - $3,150.00
Wastewater impact fees –
Current fees at 100 percent - $3,540.57
Current fees at 80 percent - $2,832.46
Proposed fees at 100 percent - $2,955.00
Tim Dean noted that, based on those figures, the water impact fees would increase $915.89, or a
41-percent increase from the fees currently paid; and the wastewater impact fees would increase
by $122.54, or a 4.3-percent increase.
Randy Carpenter noted that if the new fees were implemented at 80 percent of the proposed rate,
the wastewater impact fee would actually decrease.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders reviewed the information contained in the packets
distributed to the Committee members at the beginning of the meeting. He noted that the
information includes HDR Engineering’s responses to the questions that have been raised;
memos from him to the Committee regarding the wastewater impact fees and water impact fees;
the documentation which the City needs to show the impact fees are appropriate; a copy of the
allocation table that HDR Engineering prepared to determine what portion of the wastewater
treatment plant is eligible for impact fees; copies of two letters from the Southwest Montana
Building Industry Association, dated April 26 and May 2, providing input on the reports; and
copies of the cover from the Bozeman Area Master Plan from 1983, along with a page from that
document that sets the policy that growth shall pay for growth.
Chair Tim Dean encouraged all of the Committee members to take a few minutes to review the
information prior to proceeding with discussion.
Responding to questions from Randy Carpenter, Rick Hixson stated that 8-inch lines are the
minimum size required for any development. As a result, only those lines over 8 inches are
capacity expanding and, thus, eligible for impact fees. He noted this standard applies to both the
water and wastewater systems.
221
- 3 -
Further responding to Randy Carpenter, Rick Hixson stated that 100 percent of the costs of
constructing a dam in the Sourdough Creek drainage are impact fee eligible. He noted, however,
that construction of a dam is a major undertaking and the costs are unknown at this time, so the
only portion included at this time is a study to identify the steps to be completed for permitting of
a new dam and to identify the hurdles that will be encountered in trying to re-establish the dam.
Also, it is anticipated it will take twenty years to complete the process of constructing a new
dam.
Responding to Tim Dean, Rick Hixson noted that the facilities plan estimates water consumption
at 150 gallons per day per person across all total users. The consumption rate in the impact fee
represents 89 gallons per person in a residence which is 201 gallons per EDU. This more
accurately represents future demand. Using the 150 gallons per day per person which would be
well over 300 gallons per unit. He cautioned that if the higher consumption rate were used as the
basis of calculations, the proposed impact fees would be significantly higher.
Ron Kaiser characterized the revisions between the first and second drafts as fairly minor. He
also noted that a majority of the discussion at last week’s meeting revolved around growth rates,
and he feels Randy Goff did a good job of making it clear that the growth rate really does not
matter. He identified the change in the wastewater impact fee as the biggest change in the report.
Ken Eiden stated he still does not feel that he has his arms around how everything ties together in
these reports. He feels the growth rate is high, and that causes him significant concern. He also
questioned whether the City really needs the “Cadillac of facilities”. He concluded by stating he
would like more time to review and more fully understand the reports.
Anna Rosenberry voiced her appreciation for Randy Goff’s responses to the issues raised by the
Southwest Montana Building Industry Association. She is satisfied that the reports are good and
include the best information the City has about all of these facilities at this time. She noted that
long-range planning necessarily involve estimates; and in this instance, those estimates include
large facilities and big costs. She acknowledged the report is not perfect, but noted it is as good
as possible.
Responding to Tim Dean, Anna Rosenberry stated the bulk of the expenditures are for the two
treatment plants; and the technology of those plants and associated costs are driven by the
regulations with which the City is required to comply. She does not view the facilities as
“Cadillacs”; rather, they are what is necessary to protect the natural resources, meet public health
requirements, and meet State permitting requirements.
Rick Hixson voiced his agreement, noting that the most advanced technology available is
necessary to meet the State’s discharge requirements for the East Gallatin River, particularly
those pertaining to nitrogen and phosphorous levels. He characterized the facilities themselves
as unadorned concrete basins; and the operations buildings are to be masonry unit type buildings
with the possible use of break-off bricks to provide a more aesthetic view from the interstate and
adjacent commercial uses. He stressed that the cost issues revolve around the treatment
processes and stressed there is no cheaper way to do it.
Further responding to Tim Dean, Rick Hixson stated the net effect of not putting in a new
wastewater treatment plant will be the City’s inability to discharge into the East Gallatin River.
222
- 4 -
He then stressed that the water treatment plant is also subject to similar regulatory requirements,
which trigger the need to construct a plant with the highest level of technology available.
Responding to Nicholas Lieb, Anna Rosenberry confirmed that, since the wastewater treatment
plant must be replaced to meet stricter standards, two-thirds of the costs are to be borne by the
ratepayers.
Responding to comments from Tim Dean, Rick Hixson stated that the $5.3 million for a new
water storage reservoir is $1 per gallon, which has been the cost of storage for a long time.
Responding to Nicholas Lieb, Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated the total
contract with HDR Engineering is for $180,000, which includes water and wastewater rate
studies in addition to the water impact fee report and the wastewater impact fee report. He noted
that the cost is essentially broken into quarters, making each study approximately $45,000.
Nicholas Lieb noted he was shocked at the magnitude of the error made on the wastewater
impact fee calculations and noted that error makes him wonder about the other numbers.
Anna Rosenberry stated City Manager Chris Kukulski was also very disappointed with the errors
in the draft reports, noting that City staff had higher expectations.
Ken Eiden voiced his agreement with those concerns, noting that he feels the reports are good for
the most part, but the unknowns are what concern him. He noted that this Committee has spent
over a year in meetings, and is now expected to make a decision on these reports in a short
period of time.
Nicholas Lieb stated Committee members are now being expected to become experts on various
issues like EDUs and pipe sizes, and it is a lot of information to assimilate in a short period of
time. He expressed concern that what the Committee is deciding will have a big impact on the
future of the city.
Debra Becker noted this is the culmination of a long, slow process that started last February. To
date, the Committee has gone slowly and steadily through the capital improvement plans and had
questions answered along the way. The expert is now applying the numbers from those plans,
and this Committee’s charge is to see that the methodology and formulas applied are fair. She
has no problem with delaying the decision if that is the wish of the Committee, and she shares
the others’ concerns about the arithmetic errors. She indicated that the Southwest Montana
Building Industry Association has also done a good job of reviewing the report and raising
legitimate questions that she finds have been answered in a detailed way. She concluded by
stating she feels if the consensus is that the rates are fair, the Committee’s work is done.
Randy Carpenter noted he, too, does not know what he would do with additional time but would
not object to granting more time if other Committee members feel it would be of benefit.
Responding to Tim Dean, Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders indicated that the public
hearings before the City Commission have been scheduled for May 14. At that time, the
Commission may hold the public hearings or continue them to a date certain. Subsequent to its
action to proceed with adoption of the reports, staff will come back with resolutions to adopt
223
- 5 -
them. The Assistant Planning Director noted, however, that some ordinance changes will be
required before the resolutions adopting the reports can be enacted, so the adoption of the
ordinance and the resolution will be coordinated so that all have the same effective date. He
estimated that this process will take sixty days after the Commission makes a decision to
proceed, so there is still adequate time to raise concerns or make comments as a result of further
review of these reports.
Sean Becker encouraged Committee members to identify any concerns or problems prior to first
reading of the ordinance, noting that once that step is taken, it is more difficult to make changes.
Responding to Debra Becker, Sean Becker stated the Commission expects this Committee’s
recommendation prior to holding the public hearing, noting that it is important to have that
recommendation.
Responding to Tim Dean, Sean Becker stated the level at which impact fees are set will depend
on staff’s recommendation. He noted that if the staff recommends continuing the level at 80
percent of the calculated fees, the Commission will probably follow that recommendation;
however, he noted that if staff recommends implementing the fees at 100 percent, the
Commission will probably accept that recommendation.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders noted that funding sources for various improvements
may include developer contributions, impact fees, ratepayer fees, and possibly grants. He
stressed that these sources are unique and don’t overlap; and cautioned that if a shortfall occurs
in one of those sources, then it must be funded through another source.
Tim Dean noted that he has listened to this City talk about affordable housing for a long time,
and stressed that providing affordable housing must be a conscious effort of everyone involved,
including government. He expressed concern that if it is not addressed, then Bozeman will be
known as a city for the rich and famous. He feels that HDR Engineering has done a good job
and that the rates are fair, but he has serious concerns about how they will impact affordable
housing. He then voiced his interest in this Committee recommending that the Commission
enact these fees at 80 percent and this Committee reviewing every project post-bid.
Assistant Planning Director Saunders stated he plans to bring the draft ordinance to this
Committee prior to Commission action, currently scheduled for June 4th.
Debra Becker stated she sees the percentage of impact fees implemented as a political decision
and not within the purview of this Committee.
Tim Dean countered that this is an advisory committee, and suggested that it advise the
Commission to implement the fees at 80 percent.
Responding to Randy Carpenter, Assistant Planning Director Saunders stated that depreciation is
primarily for tax purposes. When it comes to water and sewer lines, they retain their value for
their entire lives, so there is no depreciation. He noted, however, that the City must build
reserves for replacement of those pipes, but that is funded by the ratepayers rather than by impact
fees.
224
- 6 -
Debra Becker asked if the fee schedule is to be revised again in light of HDR Engineering’s
response to Item No. 27 in the SWMBIA letter.
Assistant Planning Director Saunders stated all HDR Engineering responses that indicate
agreement with the suggestions from SWMBIA will result in revisions to the report.
Responding to Nicholas Lieb, Anna Rosenberry stated that staff has not gone through the report
and reviewed the numbers; only this Committee has done so.
Debra Becker noted that many of the issues and questions raised by the Southwest Montana
Building Industry Association were raised by the Committee members, thoroughly discussed,
and answered a long time ago.
Ron Kaiser voiced his agreement with Debra Becker, noting this Committee must be comfortable
with the methodology used. He noted this Committee must either agree with the method or not;
the professionals will make recommendations on the details.
It was moved by Debra Becker, seconded by Randy Carpenter, that the Committee recommend
to the Commission that the revised draft report from HDR Engineering, as revised to incorporate
the changes in text and fee schedule resulting from the latest review, be accepted. The motion
carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Randy Carpenter, Debra
Becker, Nicholas Lieb, Rick Hixson, Anna Rosenberry and Ron Kaiser; those voting No being
Ken Eiden and Tim Dean.
DECISION ON WASTEWATERWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
A Review and Decision on the recommendation to the City Commission
regarding the Final Draft for the Wastewater Impact Fee Study by HDR
Engineering.
Chair Tim Dean noted that much of the discussion in the previous agenda item applies to this
item as well. He then reiterated that this impact fee would actually be lower than the current fee.
Ken Eiden stated that in light of the fact that costs for everything are going up, including fuel and
materials, he has a hard time believing that this fee could actually be going down. He noted that,
given the errors that have already been identified in the calculations in this report, he has
concerns that there may be others leading to an erroneously low fee.
Tim Dean suggested that the impact fee proposed in this report may be more appropriate than the
fee in the previous report.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated the methodology used in this study is similar
to that used in the previous study. He identified several changes that have occurred between the
two studies, including a decrease in per-capita use of water and wastewater discharge, an
aggressive maintenance program that has addressed infiltration/inflow problems, and changes
that make the treatment plant more efficient. He stressed that collection pipes must be sized to
accommodate peak flows, which are 2.3 times the average flows, so any decrease in flows can
dramatically affect the number of units that a line may serve.
225
- 7 -
Responding to Nicholas Lieb, the Assistant Planning Director acknowledged that figures in the
last study may have been incorrect, stressing that the figures in a study must be based on best
estimates for the future.
Nicholas Lieb suggested that the Committee ask HDR Engineering to review the numbers in this
report once again; the Assistant Planning Director confirmed that could be done. The Committee
members all agreed that request should be made.
It was moved by Ron Kaiser, seconded by Debra Becker, that the Committee recommend to the
Commission that the revised draft report from HDR Engineering, as revised to incorporate the
changes in text and fee schedule resulting from the latest review, be accepted. The motion
carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Randy Carpenter, Debra
Becker, Nicholas Lieb, Rick Hixson, Anna Rosenberry, Ron Kaiser and Tim Dean; those voting
No being Ken Eiden.
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders noted that the “public” in the public hearing before
the Commission includes the members of this Committee and encouraged them to provide input
either in writing before the public hearing or orally at the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Sean Becker encouraged this Committee to discuss and comment on any issues or concerns it
might have, citing affordable housing and the potential of moving the payment of impact fees
from building permit to certificate of occupancy as possible topics on which Committee
comment would be appreciated by the Commissioners.
Ken Eiden suggested it may be beneficial for the Committee to discuss the percentage of impact
fees to be implemented. He expressed his concern about implementing less than 100 percent of
the fee because that would immediately create a shortfall that must be funded through another
source. He voiced his position that government needs to assess the real costs of doing business
rather than passing shortfalls on to future generations.
Sean Becker stated he appreciates this type of dialogue and input by advisory boards, noting he
sometimes feels that consultants are directing the City’s direction because their reports are
simply approved and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the committee at this time, Chair Tim Dean
adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
226
1001 SW Fifth Avenue Phone: (503) 423-3700
Suite 1800 Fax: (503) 423-3737
Portland, OR 97204-1134 www.hdrinc.com
May 3, 2007
Mr. Chris Saunders
City Planning Department
c/o Impact Advisory Committee
City of Bozeman
Bozeman, MT
Subject: Response to Southwest Montana Building Industry Association’s review of Impact
Fee Studies
Dear Mr. Saunders and Advisory Committee Members:
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) was retained by the City of Bozeman, Montana (City) to develop
recommended impact fees for the water and wastewater new development within the City (the
“Impact Fee Studies”). While the City currently has impact fees for the water and wastewater
systems, these fees need to be updated to comply with SB 185, the new legislation in Montana
for imposition of impact fees, codified as MCA 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604. To that end, HDR
provided the City with draft reports of our findings and recommendations. These finding and
recommendations were made using generally accepted accounting, engineering and ratemaking
principals. These finding and recommendations were also reviewed by the Impact Advisory
Committee as required by Montana law.
The Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) subsequently reviewed the
Impact Fee Studies. Their findings were transmitted to you via a letter from the SWMBIA on
April 26, 2007 and May 2, 2007. Presented herein is HDR’s response to the issues and concerns
raised by the SWMBIA. The responses are organized in a sequential manner for the May 2,
2007 letter as set forth in the letter.
April 26th letter:
1. The purpose of the water and wastewater studies submitted by HDR is to provide the
documentation required for calculation of impact fees for those facilities. The studies
necessarily include a description of existing conditions, level of of service standards,
projected additional needs, identified capital improvements needed, and applicable
methodologies for assigning proportionate shares of capital costs for expansion of those
facilities. Occasional commentary or statements of opinion - though not essential to the
underlying analysis - are appropriate to provide context or background to the studies. This
comment asks for a statement of opinion responding to a statement of opinion
2. The purpose of the impact fee studies is to look at funding of future infrastructure, not to try
to cure all possible perceived imbalances over time. A new home creates new demand. The
227
Mr. Chris Saunders and Impact Advisory Committee
May 3, 2007
Page 2
old home is occupied by a new occupant who continues the demand from the existing home.
Regardless of who occupies which home the fundamental increased demand created by a
new home remains.
3. SWMBIA’s citation is from the second part of a general discussion of two different methods
of applying impact fees.
The method the city uses (due, in part, to the difficulty of marketing impact fee bonds) is the
first described; to have impact fees “applied directly against growth or expansion related
capital projects.” The City does not anticipate using the second method. The City does not
anticipate borrowing for the growth or expansion related capital costs.
May 2, 2007 letter:
Page 1, Comments and Questions: The requested material is already provided by the
combination of documents. No additional new document is needed. A cross referencing
directing readers to the existing document could be added. The law does not require every
possible piece of information regarding impact fees to be provided in the fee study. Data may be
organized in many different manners as it makes sense for the community.
1. The City is conducting both impact fee and rate studies. In the rate study, those
improvements that are related to growth have been separated and financed through impact
fee. Improvements that are not related to growth are financed through rates.
2. The City has invested in excess capacity to serve future development. This can be
accomplished by cash reserve or debt financing. Either method incurs an economic carrying
cost associated with the investment until such time as an impact fee is paid for the excess
capacity. Therefore, the inclusion of interest is appropriate and represents the actual cost of
the investment. To not include interest would result in existing ratepayers subsidizing new
development. An example would be the construction and financing of a new reservoir with
bonds. Interest on the bonds would be paid every year. To not charge new development a
proportional share of the interest would result in them not only receiving the benefit of the
economies of scale from constructing a larger reservoir, but would also requiring existing
customers to finance the benefits of the economies of scale until such time as the new
development connects to the system.
3. A review was taken of assets that were financed with grants. Yes, some portions of the
system have been paid for with grants, e.g. portions of the existing wastewater treatment
plant and the replaced Hyalite transmission line. Those portions were not included in the
calculation of impact fees or rates since the funds did not originate from either source.
Therefore, no “buy-in” charges resulted for grant funded projects.
4. No debt is being used to fund impact fee related improvements.
5. The growth rates were obtained from the master plan studies approved by the City. Each
228
Mr. Chris Saunders and Impact Advisory Committee
May 3, 2007
Page 3
facility plan has a section on future demand growth and population. The plans are
coordinated and utilize a common planning area and population projection which was
prepared at the time the wastewater plan was begun. Section 2 of the wastewater plan
explains in detail the process and data used to prepare the project. Page 2-10 specifically
notes that the plan presents recommendations of needed facilities to serve a specific demand
and recommendations are not tied to specific years independent of demand.
6. The administrative charge in the capital projects is for administration of planning, design and
construction. The administrative charge in the impact fee is administration of the impact fee
as allowed under MCA 7-6-1601(5)(a).
7. We agree with the SWMBIA.
8. The correct reference should be page 6 of Section 2 of the Water Facility Plan. This will be
corrected in the final report
9. The dam is expected to be 100% impact fee eligible. The City will search for alternative
funding if available. The 20% design and permitting number was used to reflect that
construction of a dam is a major undertaking and many items are unknown at this time. As
initial scoping is prepared and more data becomes available the expected costs will be refined
and included with future impact fee updates. It could be included at full estimated cost at this
time based upon the facility plan estimate. If 100% of the dam cost were included in the
impact fee calculation, the impact fee would increase by approximately $1,000 per EDU.
10. The water impact fees will be updated in the future to reflect the cost of additional capacity.
The building is being sized for the larger treatment 36 MGD capacity with the new plant
upgrade and additional equipment to increase capacity will be added incrementally as
demanded.
11. Storage for public fire protection is included in the impact fee. The City does not meter fire
service lines; the storage is a bulk charge that is used on an infrequent and unpredictable
basis for an individual building but regularly on a system wide basis.
12. These weighting factors are based on the flows that can be obtained through the meter per
AWWA capacity flow ratings and hence reflect the potential demands and hence costs
imposed on the water system.
13. This is set by the ordinance - Chapter 3.24 BMC, not the fee study. The ordinance will be
updated subsequent to the Commission review of and decision on the fee study to incorporate
any changed policies. The draft ordinance will also be brought to the IFAC for comment on
its way to the Commission for action. Current schedule is for the ordinance to be presented to
Commission on May 28th.
14. We agree with the SWMBIA.
15. We will discuss the amount of detail required with the SWMBIA.
16. The Lyman reservoir serves both existing and future development. Since a unit cost
approach was used, new development is allocated an equitable share of both existing and
future costs.
229
Mr. Chris Saunders and Impact Advisory Committee
May 3, 2007
Page 4
17. The 58.41% represent new EDUs divided by total EDU in 2025 which provides that new
development is only paying a proportionate share of the existing system. Inclusion of these
assets is appropriate, since development generally occurs outside the current service area and
if these assets were not is place with excess capacity, new development would be required to
construct a new system with connection to the existing storage and from the storage to the
treatment plant.
18. The percentages are different due to the exclusion of the first 8 inches from the cost, since it
is assumed that development will pay for the first 8 inches. For redundancy pipelines, these
are further reduced by the ratio of new EDUs to total EDUs, since a portion of the
redundancy will benefit existing customers.
19. The establishment of an EDU for wastewater was based upon the data and analysis
presented in the wastewater facility plan. It looks at actual flows into the wastewater system
and therefore automatically excludes any water delivered through a meter for irrigation
purposes. Irrigation water is only relevant for the Water EDU. The City does not meter or
charge impact fees for fire suppression lines that supply fire sprinklers in buildings. The
quantity of demand is minimal and not sufficiently routine to enable good documentation for
inclusion in the impact fee.
20. The 150 gpcd is for planning purposes and includes residential, commercial and industrial
use. The 89 gpcp represents residential use and is therefore appropriate. The use of the 150
gpcd would result in the impact fee almost doubling and would not be representative of the
costs imposed by an Equivalent Dwelling Unit.
21. Please see the response to number 17.
22. Based on the last IAC meeting, this will be included in the final report.
23. Please see response to number 17.
24. The City currently requires developers to build the lift stations (force mains) that serve their
specific development customers. Annual operating and maintenance costs for those lift
stations are recovered from the benefiting customers through a monthly charge. Only those
property owners/customers that require lift station services are paying lift station costs.
Therefore, no special increase in the impact fee is needed for lift stations.
25. A more conservative approach was used for financial planning to assure adequate funds are
available for construction. This will not change the impact fee calculation and will be
adjusted in the rate model as impact fees are collected.
26. “Unidentified CIP” accounts for the difference between annual depreciation and CIP
scheduled projects. The rates are designed so that the City is assured that annual depreciation
is funded each year. Annual depreciation is not a part of any impact fee calculation – it is the
responsibility of the rate payers.
27. $30 Million is the estimated construction cost of the plant. Design work is estimated at $3
Million. Testing is estimated at $200,000. Total $33.2 Million. A typing error was made in
the amount for design and will be corrected in the final report. The impact fee will increase
by approximately $70 per EDU.
230
Mr. Chris Saunders and Impact Advisory Committee
May 3, 2007
Page 5
28. The “equity” of the results of the rate studies are that rate-payers adequately fund the costs
associated with operations, maintenance, repair and replacement of the City’s existing
systems. This is done through robust revenue and expense estimates, asset (and depreciation
estimates) and funding requirements, future borrowing estimates and costs, and reserve
requirement calculations. The “equity” of the results of the impact fee studies is that impact
fees adequately fund the capacity expanding, growth related costs of the City’s systems.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond the SWMBIA’s concerns and would be happy to
discuss or response with them and the IAC. Should you have any questions about these
comments, please call. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. Please feel free
to pass our comments on the SWMBIA. We look forward to the opportunity to continue to
provide assistance to the City.
Sincerely yours,
HDR ENGINEERING INC.
Randall P. Goff
Project Principal
Attachments
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood
coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
____________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Impact Fee Advisory Committee
FROM: Chris Saunders
DATE: May 3, 2007
RE: Compliance with MCA Requirements for Wastewater Impact Fee Development
____________________________________________________________________________________
Section 7-6-1602 MCA establishes the requirements in state law for documentation for the development of
an impact fee. The statute leaves to the judgment of each community where each piece of information is
organized. The table below lists each element and shows where in the City of Bozeman documentation of
facility planning and fee calculation the required item is provided. The listed section is a primary, but not
exclusive, location where the subject is discussed. Collectively the facility plan, design standards and
specifications policy, fee study, capital improvement program, and impact fee ordinance satisfy the required
documentation. All referenced documents are available through the City’s website as well as at the City
offices.
Documentation Item Document(s) Page or Section
describes existing conditions of the facility Wastewater Facility Plan Section 3, 4, and 5
establishes level of service standards Wastewater Facility Plan,
Design Standards and
Specifications Policy
Section 2; Section V
forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined
period of time Wastewater Facility Plan Sections 3, 4, and 5
identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future
needs for service Wastewater Facility Plan &
Wastewater Impact Fee
Study
Sections 6, 7, 8, and
10; Appendix A
identifies those capital improvements needed for continued
operation and maintenance of the facility
Wastewater Facility Plan Sections 4, 5, and 6
makes a determination as to whether one service area or
more than one service area is necessary to establish a
correlation between impact fees and benefits
Wastewater Impact Fee
Study
Section 5.4
makes a determination as to whether one service area or
more than one service area for transportation facilities is
needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and
benefits
Not applicable to Wastewater NA
establishes the methodology and time period over which
the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share
of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide
service to new development within each service area
Wastewater Impact Fee
Study
Sections 3, 5, and
Appendix A
establishes the methodology that the governmental entity
will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and
correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee
Wastewater Facility Plan &
Wastewater Impact Fee
Study, Water Impact Fee
Capital Improvement
Program
Section 4-8; Section 5
and Appendix A;
Individual project
detail sheets
240
Page 2
Documentation Item Document(s) Page or Section
establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be
imposed for each unit of increased service demand
Wastewater Impact Fee
Study
Section 5 and
Appendix A
has a component of the budget of the governmental entity
that:
(i) schedules construction of public facility capital
improvements to serve projected growth;
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of
the capital improvements; and
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and
updated at least every 2 years
Capital Improvements
Program for Wastewater
Enterprise Fund and
Wastewater Impact Fee Fund
Entire Section for
each fund
The data sources and methodology supporting adoption
and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the
public upon request
Wastewater Facility Plan,
Wastewater Impact Fee
Study, Capital Improvements
Program, Design Standards
and Specifications Manual,
impact fee ordinance
Documents available
on-line and in hard
copy at City offices
The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must
include a time schedule for periodically updating the
documentation required under subsection (1)
Chapter 3.24, BMC Section 3.24.110,
additional specificity
to be provided
241