Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-07_Provisional Adoption of Ordinance No_ 1730, Amendm_19 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance 1730 - Amendments to Chapter 3.24 Impact Fees to incorporate the Transportation Impact Fee Study MEETING DATE: Monday, December 10, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the first reading of Ordinance 1730 with a specified effective date not less than 30 days after second reading, with direction on policy issues as deemed appropriate by the Commission. BACKGROUND: Revised elements from the Nov. 26, 2007 memo are in italics. This item was continued by the Commission from their November 26, 2007 public hearing. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) was provided a copy of the ordinance in their packets for their meeting on November 27, 2007. The IFAC opted to provide no recommendation on the revisions to the ordinance. Some of the recommendations they provided regarding the study also apply to elements of the ordinance. See the attached minutes. The revisions to Chapter 3.24 are primarily in implementation of the updated transportation impact fee study. The study itself is under final action by Resolution 4082. The two items are not required to have the same effective date. If first reading is passed on December 10th, given the holiday schedule, the second reading of the ordinance could occur not sooner than on January 14, 2008 and the effective date could be not sooner than Wednesday, February 13, 2008. Staff recommends that the effective date occur on a weekend or work holiday rather than during the work week. If the Commission decides to utilize a phase-in approach as described below it would be advantageous to have the same effective date for Resolution 4082 and Ordinance 1730. After the IFAC meeting on the 27th, a representative of SWMBIA discussed with TOA and staff the possibility of a conference call to facilitate consultant to consultant discussion of comments and responses. All parties agreed to the desirability of this approach and calls were scheduled for Wednesday, December 5th at 8 am and 11 am and December 7th at 9 am. As these times are after the deadline for packet submittals the results of the conference calls and any application to the draft ordinance revisions will be provided independent of the packet. In 1983 the City of Bozeman adopted a master plan for the community which included a policy that new development should pay its own way (see Bozeman Area Master Plan, page 4-3, Public Facility Goal 8). This policy has continued forward in various City documents ever since. The City of Bozeman adopted a street impact fee program which became effective in early 1996. In 2005, the state legislature established certain procedural and documentary requirements for adoption and implementation of an impact fee. The City contracted with Tindale-Oliver Associates (TOA) in 2006 to prepare an update of the fee study which examines demand, cost, and credits and provides a basis for the dollar amount collected. Revisions and updates to an 548 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum impact fee must comply with the new statutes. A summary of how all the documentation required has been provided was included with the packet materials for the November 26, 2007 meeting. TOA’s written response to public comment was provided to the Commission with an earlier packet. The consultant presented the report to the Commission and answered questions on November 26th. The draft report is consistent with the methodological approach and practices which were sanctioned by the settlement agreement and judicial order resolving the original impact fee litigation. Earlier information provided to the Commission outlined particular points of difference between the existing study and the update, particular points of similarity between the existing study and the update, listed materials transmitted, and listed materials related to the impact fee which had previously been given to the Commission. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Commission direction is required in several areas related to this action item. Some of the identified options below are mutually exclusive and others could be approved in combination. Depending on which of the policy choices the Commission chooses, some revisions to draft ordinance 1730 which helps implement the new study may be required. The policy options for the ordinance are not all the same as those for the updated study. Policy Options: A) Implement the impact fee ordinance revisions as presented. This option assumes the Commission finds all elements of the draft as presented acceptable and it may or may not wish to give direction on individual issues identified below. B) Abandon transportation impact fees. This option would require the City Commission to vote to repeal Section 3.24.050, BMC. Alternative funding for street development would be required. C) Phase-in changes in amount of the calculated fee collected. This would require amendment to Section 3.24.050.A. to add a subparagraph 4 stating the steps and time by which they would occur. This could occur between the first and second readings of the ordinance. If the Commission selects this option it is suggested to use a phase-in process of not more than two steps. A first step of one-half the difference between the existing street impact fee and the calculated full cost and a second step to bring the fees to full calculated amounts. The first step could take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance 1730 and the second step on July 1st. A routine inflationary adjustment is required to occur on January 1st if the new fee schedule is not adopted and effective prior on that date. A complete building permit submitted to the Building Division is subject to the impact fees in place on the date the permit application is made. The application is valid for a period of six months. If the permit is drawn during that six month period the application is shielded from changes in impact fees. This provides an automatic opportunity, or “grace period”, for persons to seek to avoid increases in the impact fee. It has been suggested that a phase-in approach would also allow the City to obtain the benefit of additional information from the update to the transportation plan now underway before the fee amount collected reached the full calculated 549 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum amount. The project manager indicates the anticipated time to a complete draft of the transportation plan update is 9-12 months at this time. Additional time will be required after draft distribution for the Commission to consider adoption of the updated transportation plan. If the Commission decides to utilize a phase-in approach it would be advantageous to have the effective date of Resolution 4082 and Ordinance 1730 be the same. Staff recommends that the effective date occur on a weekend or work holiday. D) Decline to implement the CBD option included in the study. This would amend Section 3.24.040.A and 3.24.050. As described in the transportation impact fee study and the cover memo for Resolution 4082, facts exist which support a different demand factor reflective of differences in travel patterns in the Downtown (referred to in the study and this memo as the CBD). This is described in more detail in Appendix K. As noted in the memo regarding Commission Resolution 4082 Staff suggests replacing the term CBD with TED. As noted in the study text and in Appendix K, the existing CBD is not the only place where such a pattern could possibly be found. If facts were provided establishing that another substantial area of town had similar travel characteristics then the City could equitably allow the CBD (TED) travel demand pattern to be used. An independent fee study would be required to demonstrate compliance with the criteria. Such a study is permitted under Section 3.24.050.B.3, BMC. Appendix K describes several physical characteristics believed to be indicators of likely opportunity to utilize the CBD calculation. These items have been included in the definition of central business district in Section 3.24.040.A, BMC. Staff suggests the addition of two other items to the list of characteristics. First, that the area is the subject of a legally enforceable common plan of development such as an urban renewal plan, detailed planned unit development, or similar document. Second, the area should be at least 50% developed as measured by lot area utilized. The reason for the addition of these items is that they help assure that the development will possess the identified physical characteristics and that there will be adequate density of development to provide the synergy of businesses required. If the Commission is not persuaded that the information presented is adequate to support the differentiated fee then this option should not be adopted. E) Administrative Fee. Currently, Section 3.24.110.F authorizes the City to obtain an administrative fee to cover the cost of operating the impact fee program. This administrative charge is specifically authorized by statute. The study as presented does not include an administrative charge. The City Commission could either direct that an administrative charge be added to the calculated amount or that the administrative charge be drawn from the amount already calculated. The maximum which could be used for this purpose is 5% of the value of the impact fee. The Commission could direct collection of less than the full possible amount for administration. It is not required that the Commission amend the ordinance to give direction on the percentage of the administrative 550 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum charge. However, formalizing the Commission’s intent in the ordinance helps ensure consistency in application. FISCAL EFFECTS: The intended effect is to enable adequate funding to support development of streets equivalent to the demand created by new development. The adoption of the ordinance helps to implement the Commission’s action on Resolution 4082. The policy choice on phase-in and administrative charge will affect the amount of funds available to cover costs of street construction and program operation. Over the past five years the collection of street impact fees has averaged $2.5 million per year. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 582-2260 if you have questions on this item. APPROVED BY: Chris Kukulski, City Manager Andrew Epple, Planning Director Attachments: Ordinance 1730 Impact Fee Advisory Committee 11-27-2007 minutes 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 p. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1730 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.24, IMPACT FEES, BMC TO CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW, ADOPT UPDATED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES, INCORPORATE AND ADOPT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. Preamble WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community’s expressed needs and desires for services; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands for services in a fiscally responsible manner; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interest of all of the system users now and in the future and not a limited subset of users; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted an impact fee capital improvements program, which distinguishes current and future transportation needs and provides a lawful, logical, balanced, operationally sound, and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City’s transportation system; and WHEREAS, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA provide specific authority and guidance about the necessary documentation to establish an impact fee and procedures to adopt and administer an impact fee; and WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman adopted an impact fee program in 1996 through ordinance 1414; and, WHEREAS, Bozeman has commissioned updates to the impact fee studies which calculate the cost of individual impact fees; and, WHEREAS, the State of Montana adopted Sections 7-16-1601 through 7-16-1604 providing guidance to local governments regarding impact fees and establishing certain standards for impact fee adoption; and, WHEREAS, Bozeman wishes to update its ordinance relating to impact fees to incorporate newly adopted studies for transportation facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. to analyze and assess growth and development projections capital improvement needs in order to determine the additional demand created by new development for transportation facilities anticipated to be placed on the City as a result of new development; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates reviewed the existing demand and needs for transportation facilities, the existing facilities available to meet that demand, and the method of financing the existing systems and needed new facilities; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates additionally reviewed the contribution made or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by property owners towards the capital costs of transportation facilities; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates reviewed and relied upon the City of Bozeman’s current level of service (LOS) standards and facility cost assumptions in recommending transportation 559 p. 2 impact fees; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates has prepared a transportation impact fee study dated October 31, 2007 (the Fee Study), including the assumptions, population and residential and non- residential development projections, capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations, which study has been submitted to and reviewed by City staff and officials; and, WHEREAS, in addition to the Fee Study, Tindale-Oliver & Associates and the City have prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation, as required by section 7-6-1602 of the Montana Code Annotated, in developing the transportation facilities impact fees adopted pursuant to this Ordinance (collectively, the “Impact Fee Data and Analysis”), including but not limited to the following: (1) 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; (2) Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance; BMC; (3) Design and Specifications Manual; (4) Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program; (5) Capital Improvements Program for General Fund, Street Maintenance Fund, and Street Impact Fee Fund; (6) the City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study, Final Report, dated August, 31 2007; (7) the City Budget; and (8) Specified bid tabulations. WHEREAS, the Fee Study and Impact Fee Data and Analysis are hereby incorporated and approved for purposes of developing and implementing transportation impact fees in accordance with Montana law; and WHEREAS, the Fee Study has been presented to and reviewed by the City’s Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City Commission, which have determined that: (1) impact fees are necessary to offset the costs to the City associated with meeting the transportation facility demands created by projected new residential and non-residential development in order to maintain the existing levels of service (LOS) currently provided to City residents and relied upon in the Fee Study and supported by other Impact Fee Data & Analysis; (2) the amount of the impact fees recommended in the Fee Study are reasonably related and attributable to new development’s share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by such development; (3) the expenditure of impact fees, pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance, will result in a beneficial use to such new development reasonably related to the impact fees, per dwelling unit, by type and per increment of non-residential development; (4) the recommended impact fees do not include the cost to correct any existing deficiencies in the transportation system or for operation or maintenance costs; (5) the amount of the impact fees recommended in the Fee Study to not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the City in accommodating the development, based on the identified need for transportation system improvements required to serve new development and the non-impact fee contributions new development is reasonably anticipated to make in the future; and, WHEREAS, based on the findings and recommendations set forth in the Fee Study and the 560 p. 3 Impact Fee Data and Analysis, the benefits resulting from impact fee expenditures for transportation facility improvements to be constructed with impact fee revenues is citywide and therefore the City has determined that one transportation service area, as established by this Ordinance, is appropriate; and WHEREAS, based on the findings and recommendations set forth in the Fee Study and the Impact Fee Data and Analysis, Central Business District land uses have reduced impacts on the transportation system; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared and will update on an annual basis impact fee capital improvement plans and documentation that include transportation improvements to ensure that new development paying impact fees under this Ordinance receive a beneficial use from facilities constructed through the expenditure of impact fees, as required by law; and, WHEREAS, the City has and will continue to designate impact fee revenues solely for the purpose of providing transportation system capital improvements required to accommodate new development and has and will continue to implement its impact fee capital improvement program to ensure impact fee revenues are not used to correct existing deficiencies in facilities or to fund operations and maintenance costs; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Bozeman; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee has reviewed and made recommendation regarding the impact Fee Study and revisions to ordinance and that recommendation has been received by the City Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Consultant assisting the City of Bozeman in the preparation of the transportation impact fee program did receive and respond to public comment and when appropriate made revisions to the draft Fee Study; and WHEREAS, the amendments were the subject of a public hearing held on November 26, 2007. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Bozeman City Commission: Section 1 That Chapter 3.24 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that it reads: Chapter 3.24 IMPACT FEES Sections: 3.24.010 Legislative Findings 3.24.020 Authority and Applicability 3.24.030 Intent 3.24.040 Definitions 3.24.050 Street Transportation Impact Fees 3.24.060 Fire Protection Impact Fees 3.24.070 Water Impact Fees 3.24.080 Wastewater Impact Fees 561 p. 4 3.24.090 Refunds of Development Impact Fees Paid 3.24.100 Credits Against Development Impact Fees 3.24.110 Miscellaneous Provisions 3.24.010 Legislative Findings The City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana finds that: A. The protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city requires that the street, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems of the city be expanded and improved to accommodate continuing growth within the city and within those areas directly served by its Fire Department and within those areas connected to its water and wastewater systems. B. New residential and nonresidential development imposes increased and excessive demands upon existing city facilities. C. New development often overburdens existing public facilities, and the tax revenues generated from new development often do not generate sufficient funds to provide public facilities to serve the new development. D. New development is expected to continue and will place ever-increasing demands on the city to provide public facilities to serve new development. E. The creation of an equitable development impact fee system would enable the City to impose a proportionate share of the costs of required improvements to the city's street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems on those developments that create the need for them. F. All types of development that are not explicitly exempted from the provisions of this chapter will generate demand for city's street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater services or facilities that will require improvements to city facilities and equipment. G. The city's street transportation impact fee study, dated January 1996 October 31, 2007, prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates and as updated, and the fire impact fee study dated October 1995 and as updated, prepared by James Duncan and Associates, and water and wastewater impact fee studies dated July 2007, prepared by HDR Engineering, set forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of development on the city's street, fire protection, water and wastewater systems and for determining the cost of acquiring land and the cost of acquiring or constructing facilities and equipment necessary to meet the demands for such services created by new development. H. The City establishes as city standards the assumptions and service standards referenced in the impact fee studies and other duly adopted documents as part of its current plans for the major street transportation system and for the city's fire protection, water, and wastewater systems. I. The documentation required by 7-6-1602, MCA is collectively contained in the City’s facility plans, impact fee studies, development regulations, financial records, capital improvements program, design and specification manual, and other city documents. IJ. The development impact fees described in this chapter are reasonably related to the service demands and needs of new development and are based on the above-cited impact fee studies and documentation and do not exceed the costs of acquiring additional land and the costs of acquiring or constructing additional facilities or equipment required to serve the new developments that will pay the fees. JK. All transportation improvements upon which the transportation impact fees are based and upon which transportation impact fee revenues will be spent, based on the 562 p. 5 limitations set forth in this chapter will benefit all new development in the city; and it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the entire city as a single service area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the street transportation impact fees, while recognizing differences in the demand for service based upon the identified factors set forth in the transportation impact fee study. KL. All of the fire protection improvements listed in the fire impact fee study will benefit all new development that receives fire protection service directly from the City Fire Department; and it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the entire city and all properties served directly by the City Fire Department as a single service area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the fire protection impact fees. LM. All of the water system improvements listed in the water impact fee study will benefit all new development that connects to the city water system; and it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the entire city and all properties connected to the city water system as a single service area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the water impact fees. MN. All of the wastewater system improvements listed in the wastewater impact fee study will benefit all new development that connects to the city wastewater system; and it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the entire city and all properties connected to the city wastewater system as a single service area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the wastewater impact fees. NO. There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts created by each type of development covered by this chapter and the development impact fees that such development will be required to pay. P. The City’s facility planning, capital improvement program, development review, and bidding processes create a public process by which, on a specific and detailed basis, the capacity expanding components of construction can be identified and funded distinctly from those components which are not capacity expanding by providing for evaluation by the City and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee of future needs related to growth, identification of applicable funding sources, and monitoring of construction and payments. OQ. This chapter creates a system by which development impact fees paid by new developments will be used to expand or improve the city transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems in ways that benefit the development that paid each fee within a reasonable period of time after the fee is paid. PR. This chapter creates a system under which development impact fees shall not be used to cure existing deficiencies in public facilities or to pay maintenance or operations costs associated with providing public facilities. 3.24.020 Authority and Applicability A. This chapter is enacted pursuant to the city's self-government powers, the authority granted to the City by the Montana State Constitution, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6- 1604, and Sections 7-1- 4123, 7-1-4124, 7-3-4313, 7-7-4404, 7-7-4424, 7-13-4304, and 69-7-101 of the Montana Code Annotated. B. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all of the territory within the limits of the city. C. The provisions of this chapter related to the fire protection impact fees shall also apply to all properties located outside the city that are served directly by the City Fire Department. D. The provisions of this chapter related to water impact fees shall also apply to all properties located outside the city that are connected to the city water system. 563 p. 6 E. The provisions of this chapter related to wastewater impact fees shall also apply to all properties located outside the city that are connected to the city wastewater system. 3.24.030 Intent A. This chapter is adopted to help implement the comprehensive plan of the city, the city's 1993 2001 transportation plan update prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates, and as updated, the September 2006 draft of the water facility plan prepared for the City by Allied Engineering and Robert Peccia and Associates, and as updated, and the May 2006 draft of the wastewater facility plan prepared for the City by HDR Engineering and Morrison-Maierlie, Inc., and as updated. B. The intent of this chapter is to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of improvements to the city street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems; to ensure that such proportionate share does not exceed the cost of the street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater facilities and equipment required to serve such new developments; and to ensure that funds collected from new developments are actually used to construct improvements to the city street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems that reasonably relate to the benefits accruing to such new developments. C. It is the further intent of this chapter that new development pay for its proportionate share of public facilities through the imposition of development impact fees that will be used to finance, defray, or reimburse all or a portion of the costs incurred by the City to construct improvements to the city street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems that serve or benefit such new development. D. It is not the intent of this chapter to collect any money from any new development in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for street transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements generated by that new development. E. It is not the intent of this chapter that any monies collected from any development impact fee and deposited in an impact fee fund ever be co-mingled with monies from a different impact fee fund or ever be used for a type of facility or equipment different from that for which the fee was paid. 3.24.040 Definitions A. “Central Business District” (CBD) means land uses established within a B-3, “Central Business District,” zoning district or land uses, not in the B-3 zoning district that meet the following criteria, pursuant to the transportation fee study and an independent fee calculation study as provided in section 3.24.050(B)(3): 1. The use of shared and consolidated parking; 2. A high degree of pedestrian and bicycle access to and throughout the proposed development; 3. The availability of public transit; 4. Extensive trip capture within the proposed development where trips to the proposed development result in visits to multiple businesses in the area via a mode other than automobile; The following additional physical development characteristics are associated with CBD land uses: 1. The majority of buildings associated with the proposed development are multi- story buildings, often more than two stories; 564 p. 7 2. Diverse business proprietorships within the development; 3. Primary use at the ground floor is commercial; 4. The majority of individual businesses within the development are less than 20,000 square feet; 5. Structures within the development are in near to each other and the public street (with small or no setbacks); 6. Having a high percentage building coverage on the lot and typically in excess of 0.5; and 7. The physical characteristics are shared among the entire business area, not just one or a few of the businesses. 8. The area should be at least 50% developed as measured by lot area utilized. 9. The area is the subject of a city enforceable common plan of development, such as an urban renewal plan. B. "Development" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use of land, which creates additional demand for public services. C. "Development impact fees" means the street transportation impact fee, fire protection impact fee, water impact fee, and wastewater impact fee established by this chapter. D. "Development Impact Fees Review Committee" means the committee composed of the Impact Fee Coordinator, the Building Official, the Director of Public Service, the Fire Chief, and the Director of Planning and Community Development, or their designees appointed to serve in the member's place at a meeting. E. "Encumber" means to legally obligate by contract, or otherwise commit to use by appropriation or other official act of the City. F. "Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program" means the capital improvements program for the street transportation system, the city fire protection system, and the city water and wastewater systems, which shall assign monies from each impact fee fund to specific projects and related expenses for improvements to the type of facilities or services for which the fees in that fund were paid, and shall not include improvements needed to correct existing deficiencies or operations or maintenance costs. G. “Impact Fee Coordinator” means the Director of the City’s Division of Planning and Community Development or the Director’s designee. H. "Impact fee funds" means the street transportation impact fee fund, fire protection impact fee fund, water impact fee fund, and wastewater impact fee fund established by this chapter. I. "Impact fee studies" means the street transportation impact fee study, dated January 1996 October 31, 2007, prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates and as updated, and the fire impact fee study, dated October 1995 and as updated, prepared by James Duncan and Associates, and the water and wastewater impact fee studies dated May 2007, prepared by HDR Engineering. J. "Improvement" means planning, land acquisition, engineering design, construction inspection, on-site construction, off-site construction, equipment purchases, and financing costs associated with new or expanded facilities, buildings, and equipment that expand the capacity of a facility or service system and that have an average useful life of at least ten years. “Improvement” does not include maintenance, operations, or improvements that do not expand capacity. K. "Independent fee calculation study" means a study prepared by an applicant for a building permit or water or wastewater connection permit calculating the cost of expansions or improvements to the city's street transportation, fire protection, water, or 565 p. 8 wastewater systems required to serve the applicant's proposed development; that is performed on an average cost (not marginal cost) methodology; uses the service units and unit construction costs stated in the impact fee studies; and is performed in compliance with any criteria for such studies established by this chapter or by the City. L. "Initiation of construction" means the date of the preconstruction meeting with the City Engineer or his/her designee, or the date of the first visible change in the physical condition of the improved site caused by the first person furnishing services or materials to effect construction of the improvement, whichever occurs first. M. "Project-related improvements" means site-related improvements including, without limitation, all access streets adjacent to the proposed development or leading only to the proposed development and not included on the transportation system; all streets and driveways within the development; all acceleration, deceleration, right, or left turn lanes leading to any streets and driveways within the development; all traffic control devices for streets and driveways within the development; all water lines or facilities adjacent to, leading to, or located within the development and serving only the development; all wastewater lines or facilities adjacent to, leading to, or located within and serving only the development; and all off-site improvements necessary for the safety and code compliance of a development. Credit for incidental improvements shall not be allowed. The presumption shall be made that the minimum improvement needed to serve a project shall be deemed to be a project improvement even if additional capacity is thereby created that may be potentially used by other developments presently or in the future. N. “Transportation system” means capacity-adding improvements to collectors or arterial roads of three lanes or more, which are included on the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update or the City’s impact fee capital improvement program, and which will benefit new development as required by law and this chapter. The transportation system includes only those bicycle and pedestrian facilities built in conjunction with and included in a capacity-adding transportation facility otherwise eligible for impact fee funding pursuant to the terms of this chapter. The “transportation system” does not include project-related improvements. 3.24.050 Street Transportation Impact Fees A. Imposition of Street Transportation Impact Fees 1. On or after March 23, 1996, any person who seeks to obtain any of the following forms of development approval is required to pay a transportation impact fee in the amount specified in Table 3.24.050: a. A building permit; b. Any other permit that will result in the construction of improvements that will generate additional traffic; or c. Any extension of any such permit that was issued before the effective date of this chapter;; or d. Any delayed payment of impact fees as specified and approved by the City Commission in accordance with the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 for Workforce Housing Lots. 2. Notwithstanding the above subsection, no impact fee shall be imposed earlier than the issuance of a building permit for developments requiring a building permit. 566 p. 9 3. No permits of the types described in Subsection A(1) of this section shall be issued until the street transportation impact fee described in this chapter has been paid, unless the development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Subsection F of this section. B. Computation of Amount of Street Transportation Impact Fee 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a street transportation impact fee may choose to have the amount of such fee determined pursuant to either Subsection (B)(2) or (B)(3) of this section. The amount of the fee calculated pursuant to either Subsection (B)(2) or (B)(3) shall be subject to the following adjustment: a. For the first expansion of an existing nonresidential building, the amount calculated shall not include the amount calculated for the expansion of up to thirty percent as compared with its size on February 22, 1996, or two thousand square feet, whichever is less. 2. Unless an applicant requests that the City determine the amount of such fee pursuant to Subsection (B)(3) of this section, the City shall determine the amount of the required street transportation impact fee by reference to Table 3.24.050. The fee amounts set forth in such table include credits for expected future receipts of state and federal highway funds and expected future receipts of gas tax revenues, and all other non-impact fee sources of funding anticipated to be made by or as a result of new development to be applied to the street transportation improvements required to serve new development. a. If the applicant's development is of a type not listed in Table 3.24.050, then the City shall use the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type or land use in the table. In making a decision about which use is most nearly comparable, the City shall be guided by the most recent edition of "Trip Generation: An Information Report" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; or if such publication is no longer available, then by a similar publication. If the City determines that there is no comparable type of land use listed in the table, then a new fee shall be determined by: 1. Finding the most nearly comparable trip generation rate from the above publication; and 2. Applying the formula set forth in Subsection (B)(3)(d) of this section. b. If the applicant's development includes a mix of those uses listed in Table 3.24.050, then the fee shall be determined by adding up the fees that would be payable for each use if it were a freestanding use pursuant to Table 3.24.050. c. If the applicant is applying for an extension of a permit issued previously, then the fee shall be the net increase between the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application and any street transportation impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for 567 p. 10 the same structure. In the event that the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application is lower than the street transportation impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure, there shall be no refund of street transportation impact fees previously paid. d. If the applicant is applying for a permit to allow a change of use or the expansion, redevelopment, or modification of an existing development, the fee shall be based on the net positive increase in the fee for the new use as compared to the previous use. However, no new fee shall be imposed unless an additional unit of service demand is created, in accordance with Table 3.24.50. If necessary to determine such net increase, the City shall be guided by the most recent edition of "Trip Generation: An Information Report" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; or if such publication is no longer available, then by a similar publication. In the event that the proposed change of use, expansion, redevelopment, or modification results in a net decrease in the fee for the new use or development as compared to the previous use or development, there shall be no refund of street transportation impact fees previously paid. 3. An applicant may request that the City determine the amount of the required street transportation impact fee by reference to an independent fee calculation study for the applicant's development prepared by qualified professional traffic engineers and/or economists at the applicant's cost and submitted to the City Engineer. Any such study must show the traffic engineering and economic methodologies and assumptions used, including, but not limited to, those forms of documentation listed in Subsections (B)(3)(a) and (B)(3)(b) of this section and must be acceptable to the City pursuant to Subsection (B)(3)(c) of this section. a. Traffic engineering studies must include documentation of trip generation rates, trip lengths, any percentage of trips from the site that represent net additions to current trips from the site, the percentage of trips that are new trips as opposed to pass-by or divert-link trips, and any other trip data for the proposed land use. b. Economic studies must include documentation of any special factors that the applicant believes will reduce the traffic volumes otherwise attributable to the proposed land use. c. The City shall consider all such documentation and any independent fee calculation study submitted by the applicant, but shall not be required to accept any such study or documentation that the City deems to be inaccurate or unreliable and may request that the applicant submit additional or different documentation for consideration. Any independent fee calculation study submitted by an applicant may be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating street transportation impact fees. d. Upon acceptance, or acceptance with modifications, of an independent fee calculation study and documentation, the City shall 568 p. 11 use the following formulas to determine the street transportation impact fee: Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost – Gas Tax Credit – Ad Valorem Credit Where: Total Impact Cost = ((Trip Rate × Assessable Trip Length × % New Trips) / 2) × (1 -Interstate Adj. Factor) × (Cost per Lane Mile / Avg. Capacity Added per Lane Mile) Total Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax Credit), given 4.6% interest rate & 25-year facility life Annual Gas Tax Credit = (((Trip Rate × Total Trip Length × % New Trips) / 2) × Effective Days per Year × $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency And where: Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle miles Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads % New Trips = adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway Divide by 2 = The total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate X length X % new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double-counting of travel generated among land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination. Interstate Adjustment Factor = adjustment factor to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways (15.0%) Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane mile($3,678,522 per study and will be subject to inflationary adjustments) Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day (8,658 per study) Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity = unit cost to construct to provide a vehicle mile of capacity ($472.92 per study) Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, “i,” and a number of periods, “n;” for 4.6% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 14.6768 Effective Days per Year = 365 days $/Gallon to Capital = the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.102) Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle- 569 p. 12 miles/gallon (17.70) C. Payment of Street Transportation Impact Fee 1. An applicant for any of the permits or extensions listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section shall pay the street transportation impact fee required by this chapter to the City prior to the issuance of any such permit. 2. All funds paid by an applicant pursuant to this chapter shall be identified as street transportation impact fees and shall be promptly deposited in the street transportation impact fee fund described in Subsection D of this section. D. Street Transportation Impact Fee Funds 1. A single street transportation impact fee fund is created and such fund shall be maintained in an interest bearing account. 2. Such fund shall contain only those street transportation impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter and any interest which may accrue from time to time on such amounts. E. Use of Street Transportation Impact Fee Funds. The monies in the street transportation impact fee fund shall be used only as follows: 1 To acquire land for and/or acquire or construct capacity-adding capital improvements to the street transportation system reasonably related to the benefits accruing to new development subject to the terms of this chapter, in accordance with the requirements of Montana law; or 2 To pay debt service on such capital improvements to the transportation system; or 3 For purposes of refunds or credits, as described in Sections 3.24.090 or 3.24.100(G)); and 4. May not be used for a. operations or maintenance purposes; b to correct existing deficiencies; or c. for bicycle or pedestrian facilities not built in conjunction with and included in a capacity-adding transportation system facility, otherwise eligible for impact fee funding. F. Exemptions from Street Transportation Impact Fee 1. The following types of development shall be exempted from payment of the street transportation impact fee: a. Alterations, remodeling, rehabilitations, expansions of existing buildings, or other improvements to an existing structure where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing use; b. Construction of accessory buildings or structures that will not produce additional vehicle trips over and above those produced by the primary building or land use; c. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original building or structure; d. The installation or replacement of a mobile home on a lot or a mobile home site when a street transportation impact fee for such lot or site 570 p. 13 has previously been paid pursuant to this chapter or where a mobile home legally existed on such site on or prior to the effective date of this chapter; e. Any other type of development for which the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed land use and development will produce no more vehicle trips from such site over and above the trips from such site prior to the proposed development, or for which the applicant can show that a street transportation impact fee for such site has previously been paid in an amount that equals or exceeds the street transportation impact fee that would be required by this chapter for such development. 2. Any such claim for exemption must be made no later than the time when the applicant applies for the first permit or a type listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section for the proposed development, and any claim for exemption not made at or before that time shall have been waived. 3. The City Manager or his designee shall determine the validity of any claim for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsection (F)(1) of this section. TABLE 3.24.050 571 p. 14 The following transportation impact fees apply to developments not designated as a Central Business District land use. ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(2) du $2,171 Less than 1,500 sf and low income (3) du $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf du $3,968 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $5,396 2,500 sf or larger du $6,082 220 Apartments du $3,339 230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du $2,946 240 Mobile Home Park du $1,593 LODGING: 310 Hotel room $3,063 320 Motel room $1,678 RECREATION: 430 Golf Course hole $12,295 411 City Park acre $546 444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf $6,463 INSTITUTIONS: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf $6,023 572 p. 15 ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* 620 Nursing Home bed $381 520 Elementary School student $315 530 High School student $477 540 University (7,500 or fewer students) (4) student $609 550 University (more than 7,500 students) (4) student $529 560 Church/ Synagogue 1,000 sf $2,428 565 Day Care 1,000 sf $7,433 OFFICE: 710 50,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $3,977 710 50,001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $3,623 710 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $3,084 710 greater than 200,000 1,000 sf $2,460 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $9,584 RETAIL: 820 under 50,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,378 820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,587 820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,331 820 200,000-299,000 sf 1,000 sf $8,567 820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $8,144 812 Building Material/ Lumber 1,000 sf $21,209 813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf $26,996 817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $18,903 851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf $44,607 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $22,036 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $61,225 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $12,033 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $1,684 912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $31,706 INDUSTRY: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $2,290 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $1,250 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,627 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $810 (1) Source: Transportation Impact Fee Study, Appendix F, Table F-1 (2) Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. The following transportation impact fees apply to developments designated as Central Business District land uses. ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(2) du $2,171 573 p. 16 ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* Less than 1,500 sf and low income(3) du $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf du $3,968 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $5,396 2,500 sf or larger du $6,082 220 Apartments du $3,339 230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du $2,946 240 Mobile Home Park du $1,593 LODGING: 310 Hotel room $2,835 320 Motel room $1,333 RECREATION: 430 Golf Course hole $4,333 411 City Park acre $182 444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf $2,333 INSTITUTIONS: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf $6,023 620 Nursing Home bed $381 520 Elementary School student $315 530 High School student $477 540 University (7,500 or fewer students) (4) student $609 550 University (more than 7,500 students) (4) student $529 560 Church/Synagogue 1,000 sf $2,428 565 Day Care 1,000 sf $7,433 OFFICE: 710 50,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $3,187 710 50,001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,911 710 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,475 710 greater than 200,000 sf 1,000 sf $1,974 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $9,584 RETAIL: 820 under 50,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,284 820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,452 820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,182 820 200,000-299,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,115 820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $4,999 812 Building Material/Lumber 1,000 sf $21,209 813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf $26,996 817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $18,903 851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf $44,607 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $6,009 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $22,164 841 New/ Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $12,033 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $1,684 912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $24,133 INDUSTRY: 574 p. 17 ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $2,290 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $1,250 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,627 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $810 (1) Source: Transportation Impact Fee Study, Appendix F, Table F-2 (2) Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. *Compiler's Note: The Street Transportation Impact Fees listed in this formula shall be adjusted annually as per 3.24.110.K. 3.24.060 Fire Protection Impact Fees A. Imposition of Fire Protection Impact Fees 1. On or after March 23, 1996, any person who seeks to obtain: a. A building permit; or b. Any other permit that will result in construction that will generate demand for fire protection services; or c. Any extension of any such permit that was issued before the effective date of this chapter, is required to pay a fire protection impact fee in the amount specified in this chapter; or d. Any delayed payment of impact fees as specified and approved by the City Commission in accordance with the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 for Workforce Housing Lots. 2. No permits of the types described in Subsection (A)(1) of this section shall be issued until the fire protection impact fee described in this chapter has been paid, unless the development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Subsection F of this section. B. Computation of Amount of Fire Protection Impact Fee 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a fire protection impact fee may choose to have the amount of such fee determined pursuant to either Subsection (B)(2) or (B)(3) of this section. The amount of the fee calculated pursuant to either Subsection (B)(2) or (B)(3) of this section shall be subject to the following adjustment: a. For the first expansion of an existing nonresidential building, the amount calculated shall not include the amount calculated for the expansion of up to thirty percent as compared with its size on February 22, 1996, or two thousand square feet, whichever is less. 2. Unless an applicant requests that the City determine the amount of such fee pursuant to Subsection (B)(3) of this section, the City shall determine the amount of the required fire protection impact fee by reference to Table 3.24.060. 575 p. 18 a. If the type of development that a permit is applied for is not listed in Table 3.24.060, then the City shall use the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type or land use in the table. b. If the type of development that a permit is applied for includes a mix of those uses listed in Table 3.24.060, then the fee shall be determined by adding up the fees that would be payable for each use if it were a freestanding use pursuant to Table 3.24.060. c. If the applicant is applying for an extension of a permit issued previously, then the fee shall be the net increase between the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application and any fire protection impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure. In the event that the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application is lower than the fire protection impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure, there shall be no refund of fire protection impact fees previously paid. d. If the applicant is applying for a permit to allow a change of use or for the expansion, redevelopment, or modification of an existing development, the fee shall be based on the net increase in the fee for the new use as compared to the previous use. In the event that the proposed change of use, expansion, redevelopment, or modification results in a net decrease in the fee for the new use or development as compared to the previous use or development, there shall be no refund of fire protection impact fees previously paid. 3. An applicant may request that the City determine the amount of the required fire protection impact fee by reference to an independent fee calculation study for the applicant's development prepared at the applicant's cost by qualified professional fire protection experts and/or economists and submitted to the City Fire Chief. Any such study shall be based on the same service standards and unit costs for fire protection used in the fire impact fee study prepared by James Duncan and Associates dated October 1995 and as updated, and must document the economic methodologies and assumptions used. Any independent fee calculation study submitted by an applicant may be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating fire protection impact fees. If such study is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the demand for new fire protection facilities and equipment created by the applicant's proposed development than the applicable fee shown in Table 3.24.060, then the fire protection impact fee due under this chapter may be calculated according to such study. 576 p. 19 C. Payment of Fire Protection Impact Fees 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a fire protection impact fee shall pay such fee to the City prior to the issuance of any of the permits listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section. 2. All funds paid by an applicant pursuant to this chapter shall be identified as fire protection impact fees and shall be promptly deposited in the fire protection impact fee fund described in Subsection D of this section. D. Fire Protection Impact Fee Funds 1. A single fire protection impact fee fund is created and such fund shall be maintained in an interest bearing account. 2. Such fund shall contain only those fire protection impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter and any interest which may accrue from time to time on such amounts. E. Use of Fire Protection Impact Fee Funds. The monies in the fire protection impact fee fund shall be used only: 1 To acquire or construct fire protection improvements within the city; or 2 To pay debt service on any portion of any future general obligation bond issue or revenue bond issue used to finance the acquisition or construction of fire protection improvements within the city; or 3 As described in Sections 3.24.090 or 3.24.100(G). F. Exemptions from Fire Protection Impact Fee 1. The following types of development shall be exempted from payment of the fire protection impact fee: a. Reconstruction, expansion, or replacement of a previously existing residential unit that does not create any additional residential units. b. Construction of unoccupied accessory units related to a residential unit. c. Projects that the applicant can demonstrate will produce no greater demand for fire protection from such land than existed prior to issuance of such permit. d. Projects for which a fire protection impact fee has previously been paid in an amount that equals or exceeds the fire protection impact fee that would be required by this chapter. 2. Any such claim for exemption must be made no later than the time when the applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section for the proposed development, and any claim for exemption not made at or before that time shall have been waived. 3. The City Manager or his designee shall determine the validity of any claim for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsection (F)(1) of this section. Table 3.24.060 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE 577 p. 20 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE RESIDENTIAL Single-Family Detached $178.61 per unit Single-Family Attached $149.99 per unit Duplex $112.49 per unit Multi-Family $ 81.90 per unit Mobile Home $ 81.90 per unit OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Under 10,000 square feet $ 90.79 Between 10,000 and 49,999 square feet $174.66 50,000 square feet and over $350.31 COMMERCIAL/HOTEL PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Under 10,000 square feet $174.66 Between 10,000 and 49,999 square feet $266.43 Between 50,000 and 99,999 square feet $441.10 100,000 square feet and over $524.97 INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Under 10,000 square feet $174.66 Between 10,000 and 49,999 square feet $350.31 50,000 square feet and over $524.97 *Compiler's Note: The Fire Protection Impact Fees listed in this formula shall be adjusted annually as per 3.24.110.K. 3.24.070 Water Impact Fees A. Imposition of Water Impact Fees 1. On or after March 23, 1996, any person who seeks to obtain a permit for connection to the city water system, or who is subject to subsection (B)(2)(b) and applies for a city permit to expand or add to the structure served by a previously approved water connection, or any extension of such a permit issued before the effective date of this chapter, is required to pay a water impact fee in the amount specified in this chapter; or 2. Any delayed payment of impact fees as specified and approved by the City Commission in accordance with the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 for Workforce Housing Lots. 3. No permits for connection to the city water system shall be issued until the water impact fee described in this chapter has been paid, unless the development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Subsection F of this section. B. Computation of Amount of Water Impact Fee 1. The City shall determine the amount of the required water impact fee by reference to Table 3.24.070 unless the applicant chooses to submit an individualized calculation pursuant to subsection (B)(2)(a) or the City determines the application to be subject to subsection (B)(2)(b). If the 578 p. 21 applicant is applying for a replacement for a water connection permit issued previously, then the fee shall be the net positive difference between the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application and any water impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure. In the event that the fee applicable at the time of the replacement permit application is lower than the water impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure, there shall be no refund of water impact fees previously paid. 3. Individualized Calculations. a. An applicant may request that the City determine the amount of the required water impact fee by reference to an independent fee calculation study for the applicant's development prepared at the applicant's cost by a professional engineer and/or economist and submitted to the City Public Service Director. Any such study shall be based on the same service standards and unit costs used in the water impact fee study prepared by HDR Engineering dated May 2007, and as updated, and must document the economic methodologies and assumptions used. Any independent fee calculation study submitted by an applicant may be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating water impact fees. If such study is accepted, or accepted with modifications, as a more accurate measure of the demand for new water facilities created by the applicant's proposed development than the applicable fee shown in Table 3.24.070, then the water impact fee due under this chapter may be calculated according to such study. b. The City may identify a user as having extraordinary demands for water service which are not accurately represented by the average usage which was relied upon by the methodology which generated Table 3.24.070. In this circumstance the City shall prepare a customized calculation based upon the Large Meter calculation methodology in Exhibit 6 of the Water Impact Fee study. The impact fee paid for water meters larger than 3 inches as of the effective date of this ordinance may be adjusted based on actual usage. If usage is greater than 110% of anticipated volume during the 12 month period of time beginning 6 months after building occupancy is granted by the City, an additional impact fee may be charged, using the same techniques for calculating peak day and storage EDUs and multiplying by the peak day impact fee cost per EDU and the storage impact fee cost per EDU then in effect. The additional impact fee is the positive net between a previously calculated impact fee and the impact fee based upon the metered demand. C. Payment of Water Impact Fee 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a water impact fee shall pay such fee to the City prior to the issuance of a water connection permit. 2. All funds paid by an applicant pursuant to this chapter shall be identified as water impact fees and shall be promptly deposited in the water impact fee fund described in Subsection D of this section. D. Water Impact Fee Funds 1. A single water impact fee fund is created and such fund shall be maintained in an interest bearing account. 579 p. 22 2. Such fund shall contain only those water impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter and any interest which may accrue from time to time on such amounts. E. Use of Water Impact Fee Funds. The monies in the water impact fee fund shall be used only: 1. To acquire or construct improvements to the city water system; or 2. To pay debt service on any portion of any future general obligation bond issue or revenue bond issue used to finance improvements to the city water system; or 3. As described in Sections 3.24.090 or 3.24.100(G). F. Exemptions from Water Impact Fees 1. The following types of development shall be exempted from payment of the water impact fee: a. Alteration or expansion of an existing building that does not require an additional or larger water meter; b. Replacement of a building or structure of the same size that does not require an additional or larger water meter; c. The location of mobile home on a site for which a water impact fee was previously paid, and that does not require an additional or larger water meter. 2. The installation of fire lines for fire protection shall be exempted from payment of the water impact fee. 3. Any such claim for exemption must be made no later than the time when the applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section for the proposed development, and any claim for exemption not made at or before that time shall have been waived. 4. The City Manager or his designee shall determine the validity of any claims for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsections (F)(1) and (F)(2) of this section. Table 3.24.070 WATER IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE* SIZE OF WATER METER COST PER METER 3/4 inch $ 3,310 1 inch $ 8,275 1 ½ inch $ 16,550 2 inch $ 26,480 3 inch $ 52,960 Larger than 3 inch calculated *Compiler's Note: The Cost Per Meter Fees listed in this formula shall be adjusted annually as per 3.24.110.K. 580 p. 23 3.24.080 Wastewater Impact Fees A. Imposition of Wastewater Impact Fees 1. On or after March 23, 1996, any person who seeks to obtain a permit for connection to the city wastewater system, or who is subject to subsection (B)(2)(b) and applies for a city permit to expand or add to the structure served by a previously approved water connection, or any extension of such a permit issued before the effective date of this chapter is required to pay a wastewater impact fee in the amount specified in this chapter; or 2. Any delayed payment of impact fees as specified and approved by the City Commission in accordance with the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 for Workforce Housing Lots. 3. No permits for connection to the city water system shall be issued until the water impact fee described in this chapter has been paid, unless the development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Subsection F of this section. B. Computation of Amount of Wastewater Impact Fee 1. The City shall determine the amount of the required wastewater impact fee by reference to Table 3.24.080 070 unless the applicant chooses to submit an individualized calculation pursuant to subsection (B)(2)(a) or the City determines the application to be subject to subsection (B)(2)(b). If the applicant is applying for a replacement for a wastewater connection permit issued previously, then the fee shall be the net positive difference between the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application and any wastewater impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure. In the event that the fee applicable at the time of the replacement permit application is lower than the wastewater impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure, there shall be no refund of wastewater impact fees previously paid. 2. Individualized Calculations. a. An applicant may request that the City determine the amount of the required wastewater impact fee by reference to an independent fee calculation study for the applicant's development prepared at the applicant's cost by a professional engineer and/or economist and submitted to the City Public Service Director. Any such study shall be based on the same service standards and unit costs used in the wastewater impact fee study prepared by HDR Engineering dated May 2007, and as updated, and must document the economic methodologies and assumptions used. Any independent fee calculation study submitted by an applicant may be accepted, rejected, or modified by the City as the basis for calculating wastewater impact fees. If such study is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the demand for new wastewater facilities created by the applicant's proposed development than the applicable fee shown in Table 3.24.080, then the wastewater impact fees due under this chapter shall be calculated according to such study. b. The City may identify a user as having extraordinary demands for wastewater service which are not accurately represented by the average usage which was relied upon by the methodology which generated Table 3.24.080. In this circumstance the City shall prepare a customized calculation based upon the methodology in the Water Impact Fee study. 581 p. 24 When applicable an adjustment for high strength discharge will be applied. The impact fee paid for water meters larger than 3 inches as of the effective date of this ordinance may be adjusted based on actual usage. If usage is greater than 110% of anticipated volume during the 12 month period of time beginning 6 months after building occupancy is granted by the City, an additional impact fee may be charged, using the same techniques for calculating treatment and collection in EDUs and multiplying by the impact fee cost per EDU. The additional impact fee is the positive net between a previously calculated impact fee and the impact fee based upon the metered demand. C. Payment of Wastewater Impact Fee 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a wastewater impact fee shall pay such fee to the City prior to the issuance of a wastewater connection permit. 2. All funds paid by an applicant paid pursuant to this chapter shall be identified as wastewater impact fees and shall be promptly deposited in the wastewater impact fee fund described in Subsection D of this section. D. Wastewater Impact Fee Funds 1. A single wastewater impact fee fund is created and such fund shall be maintained in an interest bearing account. 2. Such fund shall contain only those wastewater impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter and any interest which may accrue from time to time on such amounts. E. Use of Wastewater Impact Fee Funds. The monies in the wastewater impact fee fund shall be used only: 1. To acquire or construct improvements to the city wastewater system; or 2. To pay debt service on any portion of any future general obligation bond issue or revenue bond issue used to finance improvements to the city wastewater system; or 3. As described in Section 3.24.090 or Section 3.24.100(G). F. Exemptions from Wastewater Impact Fees 1. The following types of development shall be exempted from payment of the wastewater impact fee: a. Alteration or expansion of an existing building that does not require an additional or larger water meter; b. Replacement of a building or structure of the same size that does not require an additional or larger water meter; c. The location of mobile home on a site for which a wastewater impact fee was previously paid and that does not require an additional or larger water meter; 2. Any such claim for exemption must be made no later than the time when the applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section for the proposed development, and any claim for exemption not made at or before that time shall have been waived. 3. The City Manager or his designee shall determine the validity of any claim for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsection (F)(1) of this section. 582 p. 25 Table 3.24.080 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE SIZE OF WATER METER COST PER METER* 3/4 inch $ 2,955 1 inch $ 7,388 1 ½ inch $ 14,775 2 inch $ 23,640 3 inch $ 47,280 Larger than 3 inch calculated *Compiler's Note: The Cost Per Meter Fees listed in this formula shall be adjusted annually as per 3.24.110.K. 3.24.090 Refunds of Development Impact Fees Paid Refunds of development impact fees shall be made only in the following instances and in the following manner: A. Upon application to the Impact Fee Coordinator by the applicant, the City shall refund the development impact fee paid if capacity is available and service is denied. B. 1. Upon application to the Impact Fee Coordinator, the City shall refund the development impact fee paid and not expended or encumbered within ten years from the date the development impact fee was paid or in a manner not in accordance with this chapter or section 17-6-1602 of the Montana Code Annotated. Refunds shall be paid to the owner of the property at the time the refund is due. In determining whether development impact fees have been expended or encumbered, fees shall be considered encumbered on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. 2. When the right to a refund exists due to a failure to expend or encumber development impact fees, the City shall publish written notice within thirty days after the expiration of the ten year period from the date development impact fee was paid. The published notice shall contain the heading "Notice of Entitlement to Development Impact Fee Refund." C. If an applicant has paid a development impact fee required by this chapter and has obtained any of the types of permits or extensions listed in Sections 3.24.050 (A)(1), 3.24.060 (A)(1), 3.24.070 (A)(1), or 3.24.080(A)(1), and the permit or extension for which the fee was paid later expires without the possibility of further extension, then the applicant who paid such fee shall be entitled to a refund of the fee paid, without interest. In order to be eligible to receive such refund, the applicant who paid such fee shall be required to submit an application for such refund within thirty days after the expiration of the permit or extension for which the fee was paid. D. A refund application shall be made to the Impact Fee Coordinator within one year from the date such refund becomes payable under Subsections A and B of this section, or within one year from the date of publication of the notice of entitlement of a refund under Subsection B of this section, whichever is later. Any refund not applied for within said time period shall be deemed waived. 583 p. 26 E. A refund application shall include information and documentation sufficient to permit the Impact Fee Coordinator to determine whether the refund claimed is proper and, if so, the amount of such refund. F. A refund shall include a pro rata share of interest actually earned on the unused or excess development impact fee paid. G. All refunds shall be paid within sixty days after the Impact Fee Coordinator determines that such refund is due. (Ord. 1418 § 7, 1996; Ord. 1414 § 1 (part), 1996) H. Any refund payable pursuant to Subsections A and B of this section, shall be made to the record owner of property as of the date the refund was due. 3.24.100 Credits Against Development Impact Fees A. After the effective date of this chapter, mandatory or voluntary land or easement dedications for street transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements, and mandatory or voluntary acquisition or construction of capital improvements to the street transportation system or the city fire protection, water, or wastewater systems by an applicant in connection with a proposed development may result in a pro rata credit against the development impact fee for the same type of service or facility otherwise due for such development, except that no such credit shall be awarded for: 1. Projects or land dedications not listed on the impact fee capital improvements program; or 2. Land dedications for, or acquisition or construction of, project-related improvements as defined in Section 3.24.040(G) or Section 3.24.040; or 3. Any voluntary land or easement dedications not accepted by the City; or 4. Any voluntary acquisition or construction of improvements not approved in writing by the City prior to commencement of the acquisition or construction. B. In order to obtain a credit against development impact fees otherwise due, an applicant must submit a written offer to dedicate to the City specific parcels of qualifying land or easements, or to acquire or construct specific improvements to the major street transportation system or the City fire protection, water, or wastewater systems in accordance with all applicable State or City design and construction standards, and must specifically request a credit against such development impact fees. Such written request must be made on a form provided by the City, must contain a statement under oath of the facts that qualify the applicant to receive a credit, must be accompanied by documents evidencing those facts, and must be approved not later than the initiation of construction of improvements or the acceptance by the City of land dedications, or the applicant's claim for the credit shall be waived. The granting of credit shall be approved by the City Commission. The City shall approve a credit only after showing that the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to section 7-6-1602 of the Montana Code Annotated, and that any land dedication proposed for credit is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use. 1. Upon receipt of a complete application for impact fee credit the Impact Fee Coordinator shall coordinate review of the application for compliance with the requirements of this chapter and other relevant requirements. Upon completion of the review the Impact Fee Coordinator shall either: forward the application to the City Manager, or when required to the City Commission, for approval or; if the application is insufficient or otherwise does not conform to the City’s requirements shall communicate in writing to the applicant the reason the credit request failed. If the application satisfies the requirements and is approved the credit may be provided in any of the allowed forms as described in Subsection G. 584 p. 27 a. Factors for Consideration (1) When credit is sought for an improvement listed in the second through fifth years of the CIP after the current fiscal year there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any credit shall be awarded as a credit balance and not as cash. (2) The final decision to approve a credit request in excess of $1,000,000 from a single impact fee fund shall be made by the City Commission. (3) In the event that the City Manager believes that a credit request may result in a significant effect on policy decisions the credit request may be referred to the City Commission for final action regardless of the dollar amount. (4) In the event that the City considers that award of a credit may negatively impact its ability to construct improvements listed sooner in time on the CIP they may decline to award a credit at that time without removing the item from the CIP. 2. Appeals relating to staff decisions on credit requests may be appealed to the City Commission per Subsection 3.24.110.I C. The credit due to an applicant shall be calculated and documented as follows: 1. Credit for qualifying land or easement dedications shall, at the applicant's option, be valued at: a. One hundred percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the City Assessor; or b. That fair market value established by a private appraiser acceptable to the City in an appraisal paid for by the applicant. 2. In order to receive credit for qualifying acquisition or construction of street transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements, the applicant shall submit complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates to the City. The City shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if it determines that such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs acceptable to the City. D. Approved credits shall become effective at the following times: 1. Approved credit for land or easement dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the City in a form acceptable to the City, and at no cost to the City, and has been accepted by the City Commission. When such conditions have been met, the City shall note that fact in the credit record maintained by the City Finance Department. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall send the credit holder a letter stating the credit balance available to him (or her). 2. Approved credits for the acquisition or construction of street transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements shall generally become effective when: a. All required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the City; and 585 p. 28 b. A suitable maintenance and warranty bond has been received and approved by the City; and c. All design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been completed in compliance with all applicable City and State procedures. However, approved credits for the construction of improvements may become effective at an earlier date if the applicant posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or escrow agreement, and the amount and terms of such security are accepted by the City. At a minimum, such security must be in the amount of the approved credit or an amount determined to be adequate to allow the City to construct the improvements for which the credit was given, whichever is higher. When such conditions have been met, the City shall note that fact in the credit record maintained by the City Finance Department. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall also send the credit holder a letter stating the credit balance available to him (or her). E. Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of development impact fees due from any proposed development for the same type of service or facility for which the applicant dedicated land or acquired or constructed improvements until the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use credit from a mandatory or voluntary dedication, acquisition, or construction is presented to the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the development impact fee of the same type otherwise due from the applicant and shall note in the city records the amount of credit remaining, if any. In the case of a mandatory dedication, acquisition, or construction, any credit in excess of the amount of the development impact fee otherwise due under this chapter shall be deemed excess credit that is remaining and available for use by the applicant. In the case of a voluntary dedication, acquisition, or construction, any credit in excess of the amount of the development impact fee of the same type and applicable to the project, as shown in Tables 3.24.050, 3.24.060, 3.24.070, or 3.24.080, shall be deemed excess credit that is remaining and available for use by the applicant. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall also send the credit holder a letter stating the amount of credit remaining to him (or her). F. Approved credit shall only be used to reduce the amount of development impact fees of the same type otherwise due under this chapter and shall not be paid to the applicant in cash or in credit against any development impact fees for a different type of facility or service or against any other monies due from the applicant to the City, except as described in Subsection G of this section. G. If the amount of approved credit for a mandatory dedication, acquisition, or construction exceeds the amount of the development impact fees of the same type otherwise due under this chapter, the applicant may request in writing that the City provide for reimbursement of any excess credit to the applicant in cash. Such written request must be approved not later than the initiation of construction of improvements, or the acceptance by the City of land dedications, or the applicant's claim shall be waived. Upon receipt of such a written request, the City may, at its discretion: 1. Arrange for the reimbursement of such excess credit from the impact fee fund for the same type of service or facility from development impact fees paid by others; 586 p. 29 2 . Arrange for the reimbursement of such excess credit through the issuance of a promissory note payable in not more than ten years and bearing interest equal to the interest rate paid by the City for its long-term debt; or 3. Reject the request for cash and provide credit. Such excess credit shall be valued at one hundred percent of actual developer costs for the excess improvements, or at the actual appraised value of such excess improvements, at the City's option. H. Credit may be transferred from one holder to another by any written instrument clearly identifying the credit issued under Subsection C of this section that is to be transferred, provided that such instrument is signed by both the transferror and transferee, and that the document is delivered to the City for registration of the change in ownership. I. In the event that land is annexed into the city from Gallatin County after the effective date of this chapter, and that road or fire impact fees have been previously paid to the County, an applicant proposing a development on the land may request in writing a credit against the transportation impact fee equal to the amount of any road impact fee paid to the County for the same land and may also request a credit against the fire protection impact fee equal to the amount of any fire protection impact fee paid to the County for the same land. Such written request must be filed not later than the time when an applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Sections 3.24.050(A)(1) or 3.24.060(A)(1) that creates an obligation to pay the type of development impact fee against which the credit is requested, or the applicant's claim shall be waived. 3.24.110 Miscellaneous Provisions A. Interest earned on monies in any impact fee fund shall be considered part of such fund and shall be subject to the same restrictions on use applicable to the impact fees deposited in such fund. B. No monies from any impact fee fund shall be spent for periodic or routine maintenance of any facility of any type or to cure deficiencies in public facilities existing on the effective date of this chapter. C. Nothing in this chapter shall restrict the City from requiring an applicant to construct reasonable project improvements required to serve the applicant's project, whether or not such improvements are of a type for which credit is available under Section 3.24.100. D. The City shall maintain accurate records of the development impact fees paid, including the name of the person paying such fees, the project for which the fees were paid, the date of payment of each fee, the amounts received in payment for each fee, and any other matters that the City deems appropriate or necessary to the accurate accounting of such fees, and such records shall be available for review by the public during city business hours. E. At least once during each fiscal year of the City, the City Administrative Services Director shall present to the City Commission a proposed impact fee capital improvements program for the major street transportation system, fire protection system, water system, and wastewater system, which identifies the capacity-adding capital improvements that will benefit new development subject to the terms of this chapter, exclusive of any improvements needed to correct existing deficiencies or for operation or maintenance purposes. Such capital improvements program shall assign monies from each impact fee fund to specific projects and related expenses for improvements to the type of facilities or services for which the fees in that fund were paid. Any monies, including any accrued interest, not assigned to specific projects within such capital improvements program and 587 p. 30 not expended pursuant to Sections 3.24.090 or 3.24.100(G) shall be retained in the same impact fee fund until the next fiscal year. The Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program shall be adopted by the City Commission as a supplemental document to the city budget. The Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program shall schedule the construction of capital improvements to serve projected growth and project capital improvement costs, expenditures and impact fee fund revenues for a five year period. The individual fee funds shall maintain a positive fiscal balance. The program may be amended by a majority vote of the City Commission. The City Manager shall adopt and revise, as needed, an administrative impact fee manual to carry out the purposes of this chapter. F. The City shall be entitled to retain not more than five percent of the development impact fees collected as payment for the expenses of collecting the fee and administering this chapter. G. If a development impact fee has been calculated and paid based on a mistake or misrepresentation, it shall be recalculated. Any amounts overpaid by an applicant shall be refunded by the City to the applicant within thirty days after the City's acceptance of the recalculated amount, with interest at the rate of five percent per annum since the date of such overpayment. Any amounts underpaid by the applicant shall be paid to the City within thirty days after the City's acceptance of the recalculated amount, with interest at the rate of five percent per annum since the date of such underpayment. In the event the underpayment is caused by an error attributed solely to the City, the applicant shall pay the recalculated amount without interest. In the case of an underpayment to the City, the City shall not issue any additional permits or approvals for the project for which the development impact fee was previously paid until such underpayment is corrected; and if amounts owed to the City are not paid within such thirty day period, the City may also repeal any permits issued in reliance on the previous payment of such development impact fee and refund such fee to the then current owner of the land. H. In order to promote affordable workforce housing of the City, the City Commission may waive impact fees for Workforce Housing Lots approved by the City Commission pursuant to the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 by paying some or all of the impact fee from other funds of the city that are not restricted to other uses. In order to promote the economic development of the city and the provision of affordable housing in the city, the City Commission may agree to pay some or all of the development impact fees imposed on a proposed development by this chapter from other funds of the city that are not restricted to other uses. Any such decision to pay development impact fees on behalf of an applicant shall be at the discretion of the City Commission and shall be made pursuant to goals and objectives previously adopted by the City Commission to promote economic development and/or affordable housing. I. Any determination made by any official of the city charged with the administration of any part of this chapter may be appealed to the Development Impact Fees Review Committee by filing: 1. A written notice of appeal on a form provided by the City; 2. A written explanation of why the appellant feels that a determination was in error; and 3. An appeal fee of five hundred dollars with the Impact Fee Coordinator within ten working days after the determination for which the appeal is being filed. The Development Impact Fees Review Committee shall meet to review the appeal within thirty working days of the date the written appeal was presented to the 588 p. 31 Impact Fee Coordinator. If the appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Development Impact Fees Review Committee, the appellant may appeal the decision to the City Commission by filing a written request with the City Clerk within ten working days of the Committee's decision. At the regular meeting following the filing of the appeal, the City Commission shall fix a time and place for hearing the appeal; and the City Clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the appellant at the address given in the notice of appeal. The hearing shall be conducted at the time and place stated in such notice given by the City Commission. The determination of the City Commission shall be final. If the City Commission concludes that all or part of a determination made by an official of the city charged with the administration of any part of this chapter was in error, then the appeal fee described above shall be returned to the appellant. J. Updating of impact fee information. 1. The facility plans described in this chapter shall be reviewed by the City at least once every five years and if a revision of a facility plan to address changed conditions is deemed necessary, by the City, the plan shall be updated. 2. The development impact fees described in this chapter, fee studies, data and analysis relied upon and required by section 7-6-1602, MCA, and the administrative procedures and manual of this chapter shall be updated at least once every three fiscal years. 3. The impact fee capital improvement program shall be reviewed and updated as provided in section 3.24.110(E) above. 4. The purpose of the review and updating of impact fee related documentation is to ensure that: a The demand and cost assumptions underlying such fees are still valid; b. The resulting fees do not exceed the actual cost of constructing improvements that are of the type for which the fee was paid and that are required to serve new development; c. The monies collected or to be collected in each impact fee fund have been, and are expected to be, spent for improvements of the type for which such fees were paid; and d. That such improvements will benefit those developments for which the fees were paid. K. The development impact fees shown in Tables 3.24.050, 3.24.060, 3.24.070, and 3.24.080 shall be adjusted annually to reflect the effects of inflation on those costs for improvements set forth in the impact fee studies. On January 1st of each year unless and until the fees in Tables 3.24.050, 3.24.070, and/or 3.24.080 are revised or replaced, and then beginning in the subsequent calendar year, each fee amount set forth in each such table shall be adjusted by multiplying such amount by one(1) plus the value of the Construction Cost Index published in the first December edition of the current year. – Source: Engineering News Record. The right-of-way component of the transportation impact fee shall be adjusted by multiplying the value of the right-of-way component of the fee by one(1) plus the percentage value of the increase in taxable value from the preceding year. – Source: Montana Department of Revenue. Such adjustments in such fees shall become effective immediately upon calculation by the City and shall not require additional action by the City Commission to be effective. L. Violation of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor and shall be subject to those remedies provided in Bozeman Municipal Code Section 1.16.010. Knowingly furnishing false 589 p. 32 information to any official of the city charged with the administration of this chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this chapter, including without limitation the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size, use, or traffic impacts from a proposed development, shall be a violation of this chapter. In addition to, or in lieu of, any criminal prosecution, the City or any applicant for a permit of the types described in Sections 3.24.050(A)(1), 3.24.060(A)(1), 3.24.070(A)(1), or 3.24.080(A)(1) shall have the right to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of this chapter. M. The section titles used in this chapter are for convenience only and shall not effect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this chapter. N. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, or annul the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any development impact fee must be filed and service of process effected within ninety days following the date of imposition of the fee or the final determination of the City Commission, whichever is the later. Section 2 Repealer. All resolutions, ordinances and sections of the Bozeman Municipal Code and parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 3 Savings Provision. This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4 Severability. If any portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this ordinance which may be given effect without the invalid provisions or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 5 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the _________ day of ____________________, 20_____. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the ________________ day of _________________, 20_______. _________________________________________ JEFF KRAUSS, Mayor ATTEST: 590 - 33 - _____________________________________ STACY ULMEN City Clerk PASSED, ADOPTED AND FINALLY APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the _______ day of __________________20_____. _________________________________________ JEFF KRAUSS, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ STACY ULMEN City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ PAUL J. LUWE City Attorney 591 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance 1730 - Amendments to Chapter 3.24 Impact Fees to incorporate the Transportation Impact Fee Study MEETING DATE: Monday, November 26, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the first reading of Ordinance 1730 with an effective date 30 days after second reading, with direction on policy issues as deemed appropriate by the Commission. BACKGROUND: The revisions to Chapter 3.24 are primarily in implementation of the updated transportation impact fee study. The study itself is under final action by Resolution 4082. The two items are not required to have the same effective date. If first reading is passed on November 26th the second reading of the ordinance could occur on December 10th and the effective date would be January 9, 2008. If the Commission decides to utilize a phase-in approach as described below it would be advantageous to have the same effective date for Resolution 4082 and Ordinance 1730. In 1983 the City of Bozeman adopted a master plan for the community which included a policy that new development should pay its own way (see Bozeman Area Master Plan, page 4-3, Public Facility Goal 8). This policy has continued forward in various City documents ever since. The City of Bozeman adopted a street impact fee program which became effective in early 1996. In 2005, the state legislature adopted Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA establishing certain procedural and documentary requirements for adoption and implementation of an impact fee. Revisions and updates to an impact fee must comply with the new statutes. The City contracted with Tindale-Oliver Associates (TOA) in 2006 to prepare an update of the fee study which examines demand, cost, and credits and provides a basis for the dollar amount collected. The study is one part of the documentation required to support an impact fee. Documentation is also provided through the City’s transportation plan, development standards, impact fee ordinance, and capital improvements program. A public hearing on the draft report and on the companion changes to Chapter 3.24 BMC has been advertised and will be held by the City Commission on November 26th. Public comment has been received and TOA has prepared a written response, both of which have been provided to the Commission with this week’s packet for Resolution 4082. The consultant will be in attendance at the public hearing on November 26th. The draft report is consistent with the methodological approach and practices which were sanctioned by the settlement agreement and judicial order resolving the original impact fee litigation. Particular points of change in the ordinance are: 414592 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum Updated references to dates, titles, and names throughout the chapter Provide updated findings relating to street impact fees (primarily located in the preamble and Section 3.24.010) Update definitions in Section 3.24.040 Provide clarifications throughout the chapter Incorporated updated formulas, methodology, and amounts in Section 3.24.050 Adjust credit provisions in Section 3.24.100 to include review and approval by Staff with certain defined criteria and provide for an appeal from a Staff decision Clarify various items regarding development of the CIP and updating of information in Section 3.24.110 Related information which is not being transmitted under this cover but which previously has been, or will be, provided to the Commission: 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update (needs, demand forecast, future projects, standards) Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC (Chapters 18.02, 18.44 and 18.78 especially) City of Bozeman Street Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program (FY 2009-2013 will be presented to the Commission on December 10th [FY2008-2012 is now available through the City Finance webpage]) October 31, 2007 draft of the Transportation Impact Fee – Revisions provided under separate cover and for separate action by the Commission on Resolution 4082. Recommendation and minutes from the impact fee advisory committee (most recent Consultant presentation was on Nov 8th, action has been set by the Committee for November 27th) – Revisions provided under separate cover for the Commission with Resolution 4082. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Commission direction is required in several areas related to this action item. Some of the identified options below are mutually exclusive and others could be approved in combination. Depending on which of the policy choices the Commission chooses, some revisions to draft ordinance 1730 which helps implement the new study may be required. The policy options for the ordinance are not all the same as those for the updated study. Policy Options: A) Implement the impact fee ordinance revisions as presented. This option assumes the Commission finds all elements of the draft as presented acceptable and it may or may not wish to give direction on individual issues identified below. B) Abandon transportation impact fees. This option would require the City Commission to vote to repeal Chapter 3.24, BMC. Alternative funding for street development would be required. C) Phase-in changes in costs. This would require amendment to Section 3.24.050.A. to add a subparagraph 4 stating the steps and time by which they would occur. This could occur between the first and second readings of the ordinance. If the Commission selects this option it is suggested to use a phase-in process of not more than two steps. A first step of one-half the 415593 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum difference between the existing street impact fee and the calculated full cost and a second step to bring the fees to full calculated amounts. The first step could take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance 1730 and the second step on July 1st. A routine inflationary adjustment is required to occur on January 1st if the new fee schedule is not adopted and effective prior on that date. A complete building permit submitted to the Building Division is subject to the impact fees in place on the date the permit application is made. The application is valid for a period of six months. If the permit is drawn during that six month period the application is shielded from changes in impact fees. This provides an automatic opportunity, or “grace period”, for persons to seek to avoid increases in the impact fee. If the Commission decides to utilize a phase-in approach it would be advantageous to have the effective date of Resolution 4082 and Ordinance 1730 be the same. D) Decline to implement the CBD option included in the study. This would amend Section 3.24.040.A and 3.24.050. As described in the transportation impact fee study and the cover memo for Resolution 4082, facts exist which support a different demand factor reflective of differences in travel patterns in the Downtown (referred to in the study and this memo as the CBD). This is described in more detail in Appendix K. As noted in the study text and in Appendix K, the existing CBD is not the only place where such a pattern could possibly be found. If facts were provided establishing that another substantial area of town had similar travel characteristics then the City could equitably allow the CBD travel demand pattern to be used. An independent fee study would be required to demonstrate compliance with the criteria. Such a study is permitted under Section 3.24.050.B.3, BMC. Appendix K describes several physical characteristics believed to be indicators of likely opportunity to utilize the CBD calculation. These items have been included in the definition of central business district in Section 3.24.040.A, BMC. Staff suggests the addition of two other items to the list of characteristics. First, that the area is the subject of a legally enforceable common plan of development such as an urban renewal plan, detailed planned unit development, or similar document. Second, the area should be at least 50% developed as measured by lot area utilized. The reason for the addition of these items is that they help assure that the development will possess the identified physical characteristics and that there will be adequate density of development to provide the synergy of businesses required. If the Commission is not persuaded that the information presented is adequate to support the differentiated fee then this option should not be adopted. E) Administrative Fee. Currently, Section 3.24.110.F authorizes the City to obtain an administrative fee to cover the cost of operating the impact fee program. This administrative charge is specifically authorized by statute. The study as presented does not include an administrative charge. The City Commission could either direct that an administrative charge be added to the calculated amount or that the 416594 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum administrative charge be drawn from the amount already calculated. The maximum which could be used for this purpose is 5% of the value of the impact fee. The Commission could direct collection of less than the full possible amount for administration. It is not required that the Commission amend the ordinance to give direction on the percentage of the administrative charge. However, formalizing the Commission’s intent in the ordinance helps ensure consistency in application. FISCAL EFFECTS: The intended effect is to enable adequate funding to support development of streets equivalent to the demand created by new development. The adoption of the ordinance helps to implement the Commission’s action on Resolution 4082. The policy choice on phase-in and administrative charge will affect the amount of funds available to cover costs of street construction and program operation. Over the past five years the collection of street impact fees has averaged $2.5 million per year. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 582-2260 if you have questions on this item. APPROVED BY: Chris Kukulski, City Manager Andrew Epple, Planning Director Attachments: Ordinance 1730 417595 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 1 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) Response to City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Review Completed by Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) November 19, 2007 The Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) provided a review of the methodology, calculations, data sources, compliance with the impact fee state statute, and assumptions of the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study completed by TOA for the City of Bozeman. Through a summary of key issues outlined in a letter to Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director, dated November 6, 2007, the SWMBIA suggested several fundamental flaws with the study and purported its non-compliance with the Montana Act. The purpose of this document is to provide response to the various issues raised by SWMBIA and address the scope of the impact fee study relative to compliance with the 2005 Montana Impact Fee State Statute, hereafter referred to as “the statute.”In summary, TOA’s responses will demonstrate that there are no “fundamental flaws with the study” and that every requirement in the statute has been met.TOA’s responses have been formatted to match each corresponding issue. Introduction Based on the review of the overall comments presented by the SWMBIA, it is important to first provide an explanation of the key differences between a consumption-based impact fee study and a needs-based impact fee study. A consumption-based impact fee study charges new development based upon the proportion of lane miles of travel (demand), which is considered to be a reasonable estimate of the vehicle miles of travel, that each unit of new development is expected to consume on the roadway network. In addition, the cost of capacity being consumed used in the impact fee study is consistent with Section 7-6-1602 (3) of the statute, since the actual costs of local roadway improvement projects were used to calculate the cost component and these projects are considered to be typical of future projects. Finally, it is important to note that the consumption-based methodology is the same methodology used in the current City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee that has been in place since 1996. Conversely, a needs-based impact fee study is dependent on a specific set of “necessary” projects (i.e., needs) that are generally based on a fixed projection of future growth (usually including a socio-economic forecast of demand by land use). Hence, this approach attempts to identify with precision a set of future improvements that will be needed to serve future growth. Given the lack of flexibility to account for fluctuations in the rate of growth and the locations of where growth really occurs, this method leads to either over-charging or under-charging new growth. In addition, since the list of needs is a function of the existing roadway conditions, the more improvement needs there are, the higher the impact fees will be. Similarly, the fewer the 418596 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 2 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc improvement needs, the lower the impact fees will be. This approach fails to reasonably satisfy the rational nexus and rough proportionality tests since new development is not paying for the cost of the capacity being consumed, but rather the cost of a set of projects that it may or may not really needed or used to serve growth demands. Further, if the growth is faster than projected, additional projects may be needed to serve growth, indicating that those developments paying the current impact may have been undercharged for the cost of their new growth. If growth is slower than projected, then the projects for which the impact fee is charged may not be needed, and the developments paying the impact fee that were charged the full cost of these projects may actually be paying too high of an impact fee. Comment # 1 – Level of Service Baseline Nowhere in the City's documents do we see the level-of-service standards which constitute the baseline for establishing the City's responsibility for correcting existing deficiencies and future development's responsibility for correcting its deficiencies. Several subsections of 7-6-1602 cite the need to document existing conditions [(1)(a)], establish level-of-service standards [(1)(b)], and define the methodology for excluding correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee [(1)(i) and (5)(c)]. Further, new development must be held to the same level-of service standards as existing users [(5)(d)].The upshot of these requirements is that the City is responsible for correcting existing capacity and safety deficiencies, and future development is not. And as such, development is only responsible for correcting future capacity deficiencies caused by its traffic.The mechanism (level-of-service standards) which the City has utilized to divide these improvement responsibilities, never mind the resulting separate City- responsible and development-responsible capital improvement programs, are not evident in the traffic impact study reports. Response # 1 – Level of Service Baseline The commonly accepted level of service standard ranges from level A through level F. Level F represents significant congestion, e.g., a traffic jam. The City of Bozeman’s adopted level of service standard of “C” is defined in Section 18.44.060.D of the Bozeman Municipal Code. This standard has been consistent during and after the preparation of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. The character of streets is defined in Chapter 11 of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update, which was adopted after extensive opportunity for public comment and participation. In compliance with subsection 7-6-1602(1)(a) of the statute, the capacities used to develop the proposed impact fees are consistent with those presented in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update (Table 4-1). The capacities represent a conservative level of service 419597 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 3 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc standard since they are, at a minimum, consistent with the roadway level of service that is being provided to existing users of the roadway network. Chapter 2 of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update examines existing deficiencies at the time of the preparation of the plan. It notes few deficiencies (see Figure 2-4) and those noted have been or will be resolved with non-impact fee money, such as the state funded improvements to the intersection of Main Street and 19th Avenue. Projected deficiencies shown in Figure 4-1 are the result of the increased traffic from new development as discussed in Chapter 3 of the plan. As mentioned previously in the introduction, the proposed impact fee study is a consumption- based impact fee meaning that new growth is charged based on the amount of capacity consumed. By definition of this method, new growth is not charged to correct existing deficiencies since impact fee revenues are dedicated to capacity-adding projects along corridors that are not deficient (over-capacity). It should be noted that during the annual update cycle of the Streets Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), hereafter referred to as the “CIP,” the City evaluates each recommended improvement to make sure that funds are not spent to correct existing deficiencies. A detailed review is conducted of actual project bid tabulations to assign expenditures for portions that are associated with growth (impact fees) and non-growth (gas taxes and special improvement district funds). Comment # 2 – Improvement Identification The Code requires specific identification of capacity improvements necessary to address capacity needs occasioned by future development. These improvements would form the cost basis of the impact fees to be assessed against future development. While the proposed impact fees are based upon generic replacement of capacity consumed by each unit of development, we found no documentation in the impact fee study of the specific required capital improvement program occasioned by future development traffic, separated from the City's capital improvement program to correct existing safety and capacity deficiencies. We recognize that the impact fee studies propose fees based upon typical trip generation characteristics and trip lengths of the various land uses, and typical costs of improving (increasing the capacity of) roadways. But, no separate estimates of future development (intensity and types of land uses) for a specific time period have been made, and these future development estimates translated into estimated future traffic demands on the roadway network. And finally, no specific improvements required to remedy these development-created capacity deficiencies have been proposed in the impact fee study report.We found no specific correlation of development impact fees to specific capital improvements required by development for a specific time period, never mind separation of development responsibility from the City's (or other public entities') 420598 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 4 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc responsibility to correct existing deficiencies during that same time period.Section 7-6- 1602(1)(h) of the 2005 Code is specific in requiring the time period which the impact fees will cover needed development improvements. Response # 2 – Improvement Identification TOA acknowledges (as discussed previously in the introductory response) that compliance with the statute (Section 7-6-1602 (3)) requires that the impact fee “be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the costs to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of development.” As documented in Appendix B in the technical report, actual typical capacity expansion project costs for completed projects in the City of Bozeman (Babcock Road and Durston Road) were used to develop the impact fee costs. It should be noted that the standard quantities and unit prices were confirmed not only with City staff, but also with MDOT staff to ensure that the current replacement value of typical roadway improvements were reflected in the study. In response to the comment made regarding the time period of the impact fee study and the lack of “separate estimate of future development,” it should be noted that the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update defined future roadway needs through the year 2020. This plan was based on an extensive demographic and socio-economic forecasting analysis and the use of a travel demand model to project the future transportation system needs to support future growth. This is well documented in the plan. The City’s CIP further establishes priorities and funding sources for projects to be built during the five-year planning period of the CIP. The CIP is reviewed annually to ensure compliance with the Impact Fee Ordinance and the Montana Impact Fee Statute (Section 7-6-1602 (1) (k)). As documented previously, the City’s Streets Impact Fee CIP reflects only the capacity-adding expenditures associated with programmed improvements that do not correct existing deficiencies. This ensures that impact fee revenues are not spent to correct existing deficiencies. With the presence of these supporting documents, it is not necessary for the impact fee study report to replicate such information. It is sufficient to ensure coordination and correspondence among the plans, which the impact fee study effort has carefully and specifically done in terms of planned future roadway capacity improvements and the costing of these projects. Comment # 3 – No Funding Correlation in CIP The Street Impact Fee Fund (SIFF) FY09-13 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) defines specific future capital improvements and the projected sources of funding, including street impact fees, general and specific city funds, state urban funds, and other sources.However, the TIFF-CIP 421599 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 5 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc does not correlate funding sources (e.g., street impact fees and non-impact fee sources) to specific improvements required by future development alone (i.e., street impact fees), nor does it correlate to specific improvements required to mitigate existing safety and capacity deficiencies (other funding sources).That lack of correlation makes it impossible to determine whether both the City and future development are contributing their proportionate "fair share" of these improvements. What clouds that determination further are several project descriptions in the TIFF-CIP, which suggest that development (impact fees) may, or will, be paying more than development's fair share of these projects. Examples include the following: i)Public Works – PW02.This project budgets $990,000 of street impact fees to construction of a City Shops Complex Facility. This is a future municipal project, not a future private development. It is unclear how development traffic would create a future capacity deficiency for this public works facility. ii)Street Impact Fees – SIF01.One hundred percent of street impact fees are budgeted for future undefined right-of-way acquisition, with no specific projects attached to these right-of-wayneeds, and with no distinction whether future right-of- way will be required to correct existing safety and capacity deficiencies or future development capacity deficiencies. iii)Existing Deficiencies, and Safety, Bicycle, Pedestrian Improvements Projects.Several project descriptions cite improved capacity and safety, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Several of these projects are proposed to be funded through 100 percent street impact fees, without differentiating existing versus development capacity deficiencies, and without recognizing that correction of safety deficiencies is not the responsibility of future development, but the city, county, or state's responsibility. Some project descriptions, in fact, contain statements like "This section has already exceeded the volume of traffic projected . . . " and "backups at peak hours are already significant", which in our opinion identifies that the capacity problems are existing, yet 60 to 100 percent of funding is proposed through street impact fees. Further, it is our interpretation that bicycle and pedestrian facilities do not fall under the "transportation facility" definition of the 2005 Montana Code, in the sense of providing service capacity to a roadway. If they do, then we submit that these improvements too must be development capacity driven. In summary, the absence of a capital improvement program, with costs, which is well defined, covers a specific time period, and clearly separates future development's responsibilities to correct its deficiencies from the City's responsibilities to correct existing deficiencies, is our concern relative to conformance with Montana Code.Section 7-6-1602(5), subsections (a) through (e), make clear the "fair-share" approach to allocating the 422600 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 6 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc costs of future capital improvements between future development and the City (and implicitly, state and county, depending upon roadway ownership). Response # 3 – No Funding Correlation in CIP It is important to note that the current CIP is not part of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report that is being adopted. The City of Bozeman Five Year CIP is reviewed annually and updated to address the changing transportation needs of the community, appropriate funding sources, and other related transportation issues. More specifically, in response to Item (i), prior to the expenditure of impact fee funds, a determination was made that a portion of this improvement was associated with new growth. Further, as indicate above, if there are concerns about any specific project, there are opportunities to address issues at advertised City Commission meetings as well as, meetings of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. In response to Item (ii), street impact fees can be used to fund right-of-way acquisition since these acquisitions of land are along corridors where future lane widening projects are expected to occur. This expenditure is associated with capacity expansion projects and is preserving the corridor for future expansion of the road. The acquisition of this ROW minimizes the future cost of acquisition in areas with rapid growth and increasing land values. As noted previously, the expenditure of impact fee revenues will not occur to correct existing deficiencies. In response to item (iii), sidewalks are typically the responsibility of the adjacent development as set forth in Chapter 18.44 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities reduce potential conflicts between users of each mode (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian) and create a defined space for their respective travel needs. In addition, safety improvements enhance the capacity of the roadway by reducing the number of accidents (usually caused by vehicles trying to fit into inadequate spacing) and, therefore, increase the flow of through traffic and allow better utilization of the roadway capacity-expanding project. Finally, from an engineering design perspective, bicycle and pedestrian improvements improve safety and capacity by separating the vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of travel and are commonly included in capacity expansion projects. This component of the project (bicycle and pedestrian facilities) can be funded with either impact fee revenues or non-impact fee revenues. They are a small percentage of the total cost of these projects. The term “transportation facility” as mentioned in the statute (Section 7-6-1601 (7) (c)) is interpreted to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and a definition will be added to the Impact Fee Ordinance to clarify this. However, expenditure of a stand-alone bicycle and/or pedestrian project would not be considered an impact fee-eligible project. 423601 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 7 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc The last paragraph of the SWMBIA comments refers to the need for specific time period for future growth. This timeframe, as indicated in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update, is 2020. As indicated previously, the projected growth to the year 2020 and the needed improvements are well documented in the 2020 Plan. As referenced in the comment, Section 7- 6-1602(5), the “fair-share” approach to allocating costs in a consumption based impact fee is clearly documented in the impact fee study and is carried out through the City’s annual update to the Five Year CIP, which ensures that future development pays only for the costs associated with growth-generated improvements and not for correcting existing deficiencies. Comment # 4 – CBD Justification While the traffic impact fee study establishes two service areas: (1) non-CBD and (2) CBD, we have concern whether the size of the non-CBD service area satisfies the "rational nexus" standard of Section 7-6-1602(1)(g). This standard requires correlation of impact fees with benefits, and specifically, implies that development impact fees be applied to capital improvements required by development in the area proximate to the development, where development's impacts would be greatest. The size of the City's present incorporated limits, and with a CBD in the center, (approximately one square mile), suggest that impact fees collected from a development in one corner of the 12-mile approximate non-CBD service area could be spent on capital improvements in that same service area on "the other side of town", with no rational nexus, or correlation between the impact fees paid and the benefits gained from those improvements, both to the development itself and the street system surrounding that development. This non-CBD service area is expected to grow, as Appendix H-1 of the City's impact fee study final report states that "the rate of growth of building permits is projected to increase through 2025, as the City continues annex(ing) urbanized areas in its geographic proximity." In line with our review of the City's FY09-13 CIP (Comment 3 above) we also point out that the FY09-13 program does not break out the improvements by the separate non-CBD and CBD service areas. Further, it should be recognized that future traffic growth encompasses both traffic attributable to new development in each service area of the City and pass-through traffic, with neither origin or destination in each service area of the City. While the City's impact fee study recognized this regional and pass-through traffic component on the interstate system for the City as a whole, it did not recognize it on other state highways or county and city/local roads within each service area. Response # 4 – CBD Justification 424602 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 8 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc The proposed impact fee technical report identifies one service area (City of Bozeman) with two different impact fee schedules to account for a differential in demand for roadway consumption. The City of Bozeman is considered the only service area where impact fees will be collected and expended. The definition of the service area was based on the City being characterized as a compact area with the same roadway network used by all residents. In compliance with Section 7-6-1602(5)(a) of the statute, “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.” The differentiation of service demand in both areas (Central Business District and Non-Central Business District) satisfies this requirement of the statute, as well as the dual rational nexus test, since the presence of linked trips in the CBD requires an adjustment to the percent of new trips generated by certain non-residential land uses. As such, new development in the CBD pays for the vehicle miles of travel consumed on the roadway network in the CBD. The discussion on page 7 and Appendix K of the technical report dated October 31, 2007, documents the adjustments to the percent new trips for travel in the CBD. The last paragraph of this comment states, “While the City’s impact fee study recognized this regional and pass-through traffic component on the interstate system for the City as a whole, it did not recognize it on other state highways or county and city/local roads within each service area.” In response, as indicated in the report documentation, the impact fee study methodology incorporates into the fee calculation the generation of travel demand specific to the level for each land use included in the fee schedule. Hence, the fee calculated for each land use, whether residential or non-residential, is based on the amount of vehicle miles of travel each use generates because of its particular demand characteristics, and not on the general nature of the traffic on the nearby roadways. Therefore, the consideration of pass-through traffic in the vehicle stream on “other state highways or county and city/local roads” is immaterial to the study’s methodology. Conversely, in the case of the interstate system, since the service area being defined in the technical report is the City of Bozeman, there was a need to include only a single adjustment factor to account for interstate travel. As noted, while the study charges for travel on all city, county, and state roadways, travel on interstate facilities is excluded since the City has not previously and does not intend in the future to expend impact fee revenues on the interstate system. This adjustment factor excludes external-to-external trips since these trips go through the City of Bozeman, but do not stop in the city. Comment # 5 – Transportation Plan Inadequacies 425603 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 9 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc The City's separate 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan report recommends capital improvements to remedy existing deficiencies and future long- term deficiencies. But, like the City's FY09-13 TIFF-CIP, there appears to be no correlation between the City's transportation plan document and the traffic impact fee documents in assigning responsibilities for specific capital improvement projects, and their costs, to future development, and certainly not by service area(s). Response # 5 – Transportation Plan Inadequacies Again, the 2005 Montana Impact Fee Statute does not require the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update, the City’s FY 2009-2013 CIP, and Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report to be in the same document. Each document serves a different purpose in complying with the statute. Deficiencies are documented in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update and through the studies that support the development of the projects included in the CIP. Since new development is charged for consumption of capacity, the impact fee revenues collected are spent by the City based on priorities identified in the CIP. The annual evaluation of the CIP projects by the City addresses the new growth versus existing deficiency portions of improvements and assigns the appropriate revenue source for funding projects. Again, impact fee revenues collected from new growth are not spent to correct existing deficiencies. Comment # 6 – General Lack of Data and Analysis The 2005 Montana Code has altered the "ground rules" for continued application of impact fees. Now, because of the new state code, more detail is required in defining impact fees imposed on future development, to correct its capacity deficiencies, and defining the like responsibilities of cities for correcting existing deficiencies.The present impact fee study appears to fall short on these specifics of the 2005 code, including the provision of level-of-service standards, service areas, definition of existing versus future development deficiencies, and definition of a specific capital improvements program separating responsibility for correcting existing and future deficiencies between the City and future development over a specific time period.Therefore, the "fair share" assignment of improvement responsibility is not clear.While the analysis process on which the updated traffic impact fees is based is quite rigorous, analytically, it leaves too broad the City's ability to collect and utilize development impact fees for an indefinite period without correlating the collected fees to specific scheduled improvements required by development traffic.The City's 2001 Transportation Plan update has a 2020 planning horizon, the City has a FY09-13 Street Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvements Plan, and an 426604 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 10 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc appendix to the City's traffic impact study report references a traffic impact fee revenue projection to 2025, all of which are different with regard to the time periods, origins, and uses of projected development traffic impact fees. Response # 6 – General Lack of Data and Analysis As a general note, to help clarify the apparent confusion with the statute, existing City documents, and the information included in the updated Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, a Memorandum from Chris Saunders dated October 31, 2007, and entitled “Compliance with MCA Requirements for Street Impact Fee Development” is attached to this response. In the case of level of service standards, the City has already established level of service standards in Section 18.44.060D of the City’s Municipal Code. This was further carried forth by using the capacities identified in Table 4-1 of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update for calculating the cost per vehicle mile of capacity. The provision of the level of service standard is met from a consistency standpoint to ensure that new development is not held to a higher level of service than existing users (per Section 7-6-1602 (5)(d) of the 2005 Montana Impact Fee Statute). Further, as noted in the response under #1 previously, the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update identified deficiencies existing at that time and other funds were used to correct those. This practice continues through the annual updates of the City’s Five Year CIP. With regard to the issue of time periods, as mentioned previously, the horizon of the CIP is over a 5-year period with identified priorities based on needs in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update, which has a 2020 horizon. Although these plans have different length horizons, they are directly correlated nonetheless. Appendix H of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report provides an estimate of anticipated revenues through 2025. As discussed in that appendix, these revenues serve only as planning level guide of anticipated revenues based on the projected population growth in the 2007 Sewer Facility Plan. As such, these population projections reflect the most recent and localized data available at the time of the study. Transportation impact fee revenues will be used to offset the growth in vehicle miles of travel and will be budgeted accordingly to support projects in the CIP. The revenue projections assist with planning efforts to prioritize future improvements in the CIP consistent with long term improvements in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. Comment # 7 – Use of Daily Trips vs. Peak Hour We have significant concern that one primary basis of the calculated impact fees is daily trips, and not peak hour trips. Section 7-6-1601 of the 2005 code states that impact fees are charged 427605 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 11 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc to "fund the additional service capacity required by development". It is atypical to base transportation impact fee calculations on daily trips, rather than peak hour trips. The City's Comp Plan Update, like most transportation plans, itself bases its recommended improvements on weekday morning and afternoon peak hour trips, not daily trips. It is during these peak hour periods that the roadway network's capacity is taxed by traffic demands from all sources, capacity deficiencies are identified, and roadway improvements are proposed, scheduled, funded, and implemented. Therefore, examining roadway capacity on a daily basis is tenuous as best. For example, churches with Saturday or Sunday services, seldom tax the capacity of roadway systems, because their activities (travel demands) typically occur during off-peak (non- commute-to-work) travel periods. The methodology utilized, combined with no specific defined future land use projections, could lead to over-designed roadways attributable to development traffic. While the Montana Code does not specify the time period to be examined for determination of travel demands, deficiencies, and improvement needs, a peak period, such as the weekday afternoon commuter period, is more appropriate and reasonable to assess the impacts of both existing and future traffic on roadway capacity than a 24-hour (daily) period. Such is the case in other states. Then all land uses, relatively, would be compared to impacts for the same typical congested peak period baseline. Response # 7 – Use of Daily Trips vs. Peak Hour It is simply opinion that basing “transportation impact fee calculations on daily trips, rather than peak hour trips,” is atypical; this contention is not based on fact. The Consultant has completed numerous transportation impact fee and land use trip characteristics studies in Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. and all have been based on the use of average daily trip generation. Note that other studies in Montana, such as those for Gallatin County, the City of Belgrade, and the City of Missoula, all use daily trips in the calculation of the trip generation rate. As such, it does not appear to be atypical even in the State of Montana to rely on daily trips from data sources such as ITE to develop this demand component input variable. There is no legal requirement to use daily, a.m. or p.m. peak hour standards and capacity in the impact fee calculation. This is further supported by Section 7-6-1601 of the statute, which does not include any stipulation that “peak-hour values” should be used to develop the vehicle miles of travel consumed by new development. The concept of peak hour capacity also is brought up in the SWMBIA’s comment; however, it is important to note that development does not just consume capacity during the p.m. peak hour. Development consumes capacity on a daily basis, and the nexus of proportionality and equity between specific land uses is better served using daily information. Further, since the daily trip generation data are utilized only to help develop the appropriate transportation impact fees for 428606 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 12 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc each comparative land use in the fee schedule, it is not likely that this methodology is “going to lead to over-designed roadways attributable to development traffic.” It is important to recognize that the relationship between the average daily and peak hour measures can differ significantly depending on land use, geography, and time of day of the peak hour, among other factors. Using the same church example as the SWMBIA comment, while a church with weekend services may not have the same impact on the capacity of the roadway system as another land use because of the off-peak travel, it is still the case that a new church will generate demand for consumption of the adjacent roadway network, regardless of when that consumption may occur. Again, the concept behind the consumption-based fee is that land uses pay for what they consume on a daily basis, not just during peak periods. This helps ensure that there is equity and fairness between the rates charged for the various land uses contained in the transportation impact fee schedule. For these reasons, and because the majority of trip characteristic data is based on daily values, the analyses included in the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report utilize average daily measures and, in our professional opinion, this use of average daily values versus average peak hour values is justified. Comment # 8 – Lack of Pass-Through Analysis While regional (pass-through) trips for interstate roadways were excluded from the development impact fee calculations, no such allowances were made for state, county, and city roads within Bozeman. While we agree that the pass-through percentages may be lower on these roads than on interstate routes, they are not zero; some such trip making will occur. We point out also, that even with just two service areas, CBD, and non-CBD, development trips in one service area may be pass-through trips in the adjacent service area (e.g., a non-CBD to non- CBD trip that passes through the CBD). This latter example would take on greater importance if the non-CBD service area was further broken down into several service areas, for rational nexus reasons. Response # 8 – Lack of Pass-Through Analysis This issue also was brought up as part of the SWMBIA’s Comment #3, and a brief response was provided thereto. However, for purposes of completeness, this issue is again addressed in more detail herein. Since the City is considered one service area there is no need to consider pass- through traffic between the non-CBD and CBD. Given the typical person’s aversion to travel delay, it is unlikely that a significant quantity of traffic would choose to pass through the City without having some destination within the City. The exclusion of the external-to-external trips on the interstate system is directly related to excluding travel on the interstate system. As noted before, the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report explains that the study is consumption- 429607 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 13 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc based, charging for travel on city, county, and state roads. Therefore, the demand per unit of development accounts for the average number of daily trips, the lengths of these trips, and the proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is estimated to have been on the defined road system (city, county, and state roads). The study further accounts for travel on local roadways (subdivision roads) by adding a half mile to the total trip length assessed for the gas tax revenue credit. This provides a more conservative gas tax credit since the logic is that gas tax revenues are being generated by this travel. Comment # 9 – Need for New Plan Data (and Costs) The manner in which the costs are presented does not define what the cost is for each trip today. In summary, "a weighting was assigned based on project types in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan for all city roadway improvements." The weighting assumes 16% for new construction of two travel lanes and a continuous left turn lane (three lane section): 54% for addition of a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway (three lane section) and 30% of the addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five lane section). In other words, the weighted composite cost assumes a combination of the different types of improvements noted above (lane capacity expansion and related costs). Significantly, the Study notes that "the City of Bozeman is currently updating the Greater Bozeman. This is problematic given that the weighting is based on a previous study which is slated to be updated, and therefore will presumably alter these weighting factors. Another problem is that the State construction costs are part of the overall cost per lane mile. A blended cost analysis is used. The Study notes: "The weighted average cost per lane mile includes city and state projects and is based on weighting by the distribution of city and state lane miles of roadway being constructed in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan."2 Again, since the plan will be updated, the assumptions regarding improvements to State roads will also likely be modified. Accordingly, City costs are based on only two recent projects, are blended together with State costs to derive a cost per lane mile based on (1) the percentage of money spent by impact fee payers on state versus city roads and (2) the percentage allocation of the three types of road improvement projects forecasted in 2001 in the City's Transportation Plan. The Study notes that these figures will change once the update to the transportation plan is finished. So why not wait until accurate data is available before changing the fee levels? Response # 9 – Need for New Plan Data (and Costs) As mentioned previously, each unit of development is charged based on consumption of capacity using the cost per vehicle mile of capacity developed in the study. The Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report is based on an assessment that is a snapshot in time. It is the City’s 430608 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 14 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc prerogative to determine when this particular snapshot occurs; hence, the current study was completed on a schedule determined by the City and makes use of the most current information available during that time period. As such, the study utilizes the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update to develop the weighted costs since it represents the most recent and localized information available at the time of the study. City and MDOT staff confirmed that the mix of improvements included in this plan is consistent with recently completed city and state projects that provided the cost data used in the study. Projects designed to solve some of the identified needs in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update that have been built in the past two to three years are considered typical projects and it is not likely that the weighting used in the study will be significantly different than what would be reflected in the updated transportation plan now being developed. As noted previously, the sample of available project data was the best available during the time of the study. When the updated Transportation Plan is completed in the next 1 to 2 years, the Transportation Impact Fee could be revisited, if necessary. Given that the current Transportation Impact Fee is based on cost data that are more than 12 years old, waiting any longer to update the fee will only make the likely increase even greater than what is being proposed. Comment #10- Residential vs. Nonresidential Forecasts The Study does not include any type of independent forecast of demand for roads from new residential and nonresidential growth in Bozeman. The only reference to a specific data source for increased demand data is population (first noted on page 1), which is based on the 2007 City of Bozeman Sewer Facility Plan. This information appears to be used only in Appendix H to forecast gross revenues based on new population, residents per dwelling unit of 2.26 and an assumed residential mix of new housing of 37% single family, 53% multi- family and 2% mobile homes. The only discussion of nonresidential growth is in a footnote stating, "non-residential revenues are assumed to be 39% of total collections." No further breakdown or discussion is provided. To truly know what the likely demand from growth is for additional road miles, a forecast of growth for both residential and nonresidential land uses is needed. From this forecast, the capital projects for which impact fees would be utilized as well as the amount of impact fee revenues could be ascertained. Response #10 - Residential vs. Nonresidential Forecasts The 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update (see Chapter 3, Travel Demand Modeling) and the 2020 Bozeman Community Plan (see Chapter 5, Housing) include detailed demographic and socio-economic forecasts that are used as inputs to the travel demand model. The model provides a list of future needs that serve as a basis for accommodating anticipated 431609 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 15 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc growth. This is important since these plans help meet the statutory requirements of the Montana Code with regard to long range forecast needs and that then assist in the identification of capital improvements to meet them. The consumption-based approach allows the City the flexibility of selecting projects that best serve the demand for capacity to serve new growth. Further, the consumption-based fee enables a more responsive scheduling and location of capacity expanding projects that provides a greater correlation of fees paid and benefits received. As noted in a previous response, the impact fee revenue projections presented in Appendix H of the study serve only as a guide in terms of revenue generation based on population growth. Comment # 11 – Inadequate Local Demand Information The Study states, "There are 12 input variables used in the impact fee demand component equation."3 Of the 12, only three pertain to the demand component—number of trips generated, length of those trips and proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already on the road system. Since the Study does not forecast total new travel or all existing travel, information on the third component is not provided. Instead of calculating the trip length by using lane capacity (assuming a current level of service such as D) and existing trips in the City system (based on existing land uses), the Study's approach is to take a survey of only two or three local sites for only four of the land use categories and then use findings from these four categories to adjust Florida surveys of other land uses completed by the contractor. Local interviews were conducted at three single family, two condominium/townhouse, two office and three shopping center locations. Using only two or three sites is not adequate to provide meaningful data. As an example, one single family site had a trip length of 1.59 while a second had a trip length of 4.53, about three times longer than the other site. The third location was 3.23. For the two residential condominium/townhouse projects one trip length was over a third greater than the other. The three office samples range from 1.64 to 2.83, a 72% variation. The derivation of trip length is even more problematic for the shopping center category. The table indicates that the average weighted trip length for the sample of 35 sites is 3 miles. However, 32 of the 35 sites are in Florida, with most of them in unincorporated county areas. If one used the three Bozeman shopping center sites, the same figure is about 2 miles, a significant difference. This difference further indicates the problem of not relying on local, defensible data. In addition, the comprehensiveness of interviewing those using each site varies significantly. The first office site had a survey for every 316 square feet (153 for 48,344 square feet) while 432610 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 16 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc the third site had a survey of every 227 square feet (269 for 61,199 square feet), significantly more comprehensive in getting a full analysis of that particular site. A similar problem exists with the shopping center category. A total of 329 surveys were taken for a 35,888 square foot center while only 502 were taken for a 159,852 square foot center. To maintain the same ratio, 1,466 surveys should have been taken at the second site. Response #11 – Inadequate Local Demand Information The impact fee technical report does outline the 12 input variables used to develop the impact fee equation, including the demand, cost, and credit components. The three variables associated with the calculation of demand per unit of development are trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips. All three variables are indeed used to develop the total vehicle miles of travel per unit of development. Based on the SWMBIA comment, it is apparent that there is some confusion regarding the third demand variable, percent new trips. This variable refers to those trips to a particular land use that would not have been on the road otherwise if not for the need to access that use. This is what is meant by “new travel,” rather than travel that is already on the road system. A trip to a particular use that is classified as “travel that is already on the road” references the occurrence of trip capture, or pass-by trips, where a trip is already occurring for another purpose and a stop is made at that use because it is convenient to do so (e.g., it is “on the way” to the original destination). As a result, the information included in the study related to percent new trips (or, new travel) is correct and has no relation to the “forecast [of] total new travel or all existing travel” mentioned in the comment. Regarding the issue of trip length, trip length by land use was estimated using the relationship between the origin-destination survey data collected in the City of Bozeman for both residential and non-residential land uses and data collected previously in the Consultant’s Trip Characteristics Database (TCS). A detailed description of the information in the TCS database is presented in Appendix A, page A-1. A discussion of the data collected from local sites is included on pages 4 and 5 of the technical report and the raw data is summarized in the City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study, Final Report. While it is recognized that the ideal situation from a local data standpoint would be for the City to have available extensive trip characteristic study information for all of the specific land uses contained in its transportation impact fee schedule, this is an occurrence that the Consultant has not encountered previously. It is not the case in Bozeman, either. As a result, it was necessary to develop a method for estimating local trip characteristics in a manner that would meet the City’s schedule and budgetary requirements, while also providing the best estimates of the local 433611 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 17 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc condition—a method that has been utilized successfully elsewhere. As such, the local data produced for the City were used to the extent possible to estimate the average trip lengths for land uses that were not studied as part of the trip characteristics study, but are included in the TCS. As noted in the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, the Consultant’s TCS is a compilation of data collected for all three aforementioned demand variables (i.e., trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips). It is our professional opinion that this process (the use of data collected for the specific purpose of estimating the average length of trips to and from land uses) results in better trip length estimates for all uses than would the use of lane capacity, as suggested by the SWMBIA. In the impact fee methodology used, trip length is not directly tied to lane capacity since lane capacity is incorporated into the cost per vehicle mile of capacity variable to estimate the total impact cost (see pg. 23 of the technical report) by land use. Finally, regarding the specific trip length results of the local trip characteristics studies, it is important to note that travel characteristic variability is always going to be present among different sites of a particular land use. The SWMBIA’s comment discusses the differences in trip lengths for the three single family residential use sites. Because of the respective sites’ locations and socio-economic characteristics of their residents, the noted variability in trip length is not unexpected or unusual. This is why the data is combined with information from the other site studies to help mitigate the impact of the variability issue. In addition, it is important to note that the collection of local data for the non-residential sites, specifically the origin-destination surveys used to develop both the trip length and percent new trips variables, was driven by the number of trips to and from each site that the surveyors experienced and not the comparative square footages of the sites. Since the number of surveys completed at the sites met minimum statistical standards for sample size, there is no need or requirement for attempting to maintain some arbitrary surveys-per-square-foot ratio. Comment # 12 – Inadequate Local Trip Length Data Another problem with the calculation of the trip length is how the other land use category trip lengths are derived. Except for the four land uses noted above, all the other impact fee land use categories are using data solely from Florida. This includes the apartment category where the sample is 11 apartment complexes in four Florida counties. The consultant assumes that all the data in Florida is applicable to Bozeman except for the trip length. The consultant looks at the Bozeman trip length for single family and compares it to the Florida single family findings. For example, if the difference is 55%, it is assumed that other related categories from the Florida survey should be reduced by that amount. This is assumed even though Bozeman is a City, in a different climate and has different characteristics than the Florida 434612 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 18 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc counties. The consultant applies the following trip reduction factors! 55% of the single family trip lengths found in Bozeman to lodging and recreation land uses; a residential condominium trip length reduction of 55% to mobile home park; an office trip length reduction of 43% to institutions, medical office and industry land uses; and a retail trip length reduction of 62% to all retail land uses other than shopping centers. (As shown above, the retail shopping center category used as a base is overstated.) The consultant notes that a "review of 2000 Census Data specifically demographic and journey-to-work characteristics ... was conducted to establish a relationship between the studies in the Trip Characteristics Database and the City of Bozeman for land uses that were not studied locally. This review shows that the adjustment factor discussed previously for residential and non-residential trip lengths are justified."4 Further discussion on this analysis and conclusion is needed. Response # 12 – Inadequate Local Trip Length Data As noted in a previous response to a similar issue, the ideal situation is to have available all local data for every one of the specific elements needed to calculate a transportation impact fee for each land use pertaining to the City of Bozeman’s desired impact fee schedule. Since this is not the case, the impact fee study used local data where possible in the development of the demand component variables (trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips). As noted in the study, the trip generation rates primarily rely on data from ITE’s Trip Generation document, which is a national data source that is widely referenced and used in impact fee and other studies. Trip length and percent new trips data were developed based on the local studies conducted and data collected previously in the TCS database. Although most of the data included in the TCS database are from Florida, the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report provides additional support documentation that indicates that demographic (median age, age by sex, average household size, vacancy status, housing units), journey-to-work (travel time, mode share, vehicle occupancy), and socio-economic (median household income, income distribution) data were used to establish a comparative relationship between the City of Bozeman and communities in Florida in terms of travel characteristics. This analysis, along with the locally- collected trip characteristics data, provides a logical basis to account for the differences in travel demand using the trip length adjustment factors for residential and non-residential land uses noted in the study, given the present dearth of more specific local trip characteristic information for the City. It also should be noted, as documented on pages 4 and 5 of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, that the adjustment factors were applied uniformly to land use categories. 435613 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 19 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc Comment # 13 - Failure to Apply Existing Data It is interesting to note that although the consultant uses local data on four land uses to justify deriving local trip lengths for all land uses, the Study also states (in the same paragraph) "the trip generation rate data recommended in the fee schedule is primarily based on the ITE Trip Generation reference report (7th edition) which is a national source."5 This is a common approach. What is significant is that the local surveys and Florida surveys also have trip generation data, which have not been used. Given the problems with the trip length data, the consultant should have used a local city wide calculation process to derive more defensible and accurate trip length data. Response # 13 - Failure to Apply Existing Data It is the case that information from ITE’s Trip Generation report was used for the trip generation rates for most land uses. This was done specifically due to the number of data samples collected in that particular resource for many of the land uses. As mentioned previously for trip length, a larger number of samples is always more desirable to help mitigate data variability between site studies. Additionally, though, it is important to note that the local data collected is consistent with the recommended ITE trip generation rates for the respective uses. Furthermore, it should be noted that the ITE reference does not have available any trip length or percent new trips data that may have been collected in conjunction with the trip generation information; thus, it is not possible to estimate total vehicle miles of travel for any land use using just this document. Since the local trip characteristics information that was collected provides a sampling of local travel demand, the use of TCS data for the calculation of the trip length and percent new trips variables served two purposes. First, the unique travel demand in the City of Bozeman, collected by studying local sites, was incorporated into the recommended trip lengths and percent new trips calculations; and Second, since only four land use categories were studied out of a total of 34 land uses in the fee schedule, the local data were utilized to derive adjustment factors for the land uses where local data were not collected, but data were available for Florida-based sites. As suggested previously, the use of local data for the actual land uses studied and as a basis for adjusting the trip lengths for the studies of other land uses provides the most accurate measure of the lengths of trips (if complete local information is not available). Other impact fee studies in Montana have used National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) person travel data by trip purpose to make adjustments to trip purpose-specific trip 436614 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 20 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc lengths generated by the MDOT Urban Travel Demand Model. This method attempts to generate local specific land use trip characteristics information for impact fee calculation purposes by using national-level data to adjust Montana travel demand model data that do not include the specific land uses contained in an impact fee rate schedule. It is our professional opinion that using land use-specific impact fee origin-destination surveys provides a more accurate estimate of the travel demand by land use than the method described above. Comment # 14 – Justification of CBD Discounts The City's consultant includes a 15% discount for nonresidential that will be built in the Central Business District (CBD). The consultant cites a 1998 City of Tampa study, 1973 Downtown Portland study and a 2004 Montana study. The first two studies are quite old and reflect downtowns that are much denser than Bozeman and have high parking fees. The third study, "Montana Three City Parking Generation/Land Use Pattern Correlation Study," issued in September 2004, notes that a central business district is more parking efficient, but does not discuss percentage differences. Therefore, further discussion is needed in the Study to explain the 15% reduction. Response # 14 – Justification of CBD Discounts The comment refers to a “15% discount for non-residential that will be built in the Central Business District.” This reference was not discussed or presented in this manner anywhere in the impact fee study with respect to a CBD adjustment factor. The only reference for a “15% discount” would be the interstate adjustment factor; this is applied to the gross vehicle miles of travel calculated for each respective unit of development by land use to account for not charging for travel on the interstate system. With regard to the citation of the indicated studies, these were referenced in the discussion of the specific discounts applied to the percent new trips variable for certain non-residential land uses, as presented in Appendix K of the technical report. As discussed in the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report on page 7, these discounts are applied to account for the high level of captured trips in the downtown area. The Montana Parking Study provided confirmation that there are more linked trips in the CBD since there are parking efficiencies that arise from a business being located in the CBD. In addition, the study illustrated that, regardless of the density of the CBD (Tampa, Portland, Bozeman), there is a need to adjust the percent new trips (i.e., 1 minus the percentage of captured trips) factor to account for the linked trips. The adjustment in percent new trips for certain land uses in the CBD is recommended because the travel demand in the CBD for these land uses is lower than the same land uses located 437615 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 21 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc outside of the CBD. As mentioned previously, this is in compliance with Section 7-6-1602(5)(a) of the statute which states that, “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.” Comment # 15 – Home Size Differential Unjustified The impact fee differential by single family detached units is derived incorrectly. Although it is unlikely that new detached houses will be less than 1,500 square feet, the methodology affects the two remaining categories of 1,500 – 2,499 square feet and 2,500 square feet or larger. As reflected in Appendix E-1, "Analysis of the Travel Behavior of Low-Income Households," no local data is used. In addition, the national data that is used is based on different years. Data from 2001 was used for average national annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The year 2005 was used to compare median annual family/household national incomes with housing unit size. The year 2007 was used for Gallatin County definitions of low and very low income households. As part of the calculations, an "average size single family (detached) housing unit size of 1,500 – 2,499 square feet" is used.6 As indicated, this statistic is a national statistic upon which the local fee is calculated. Response # 15 – Home Size Differential Unjustified The main purpose in developing a tiered approach for the single family detached residential transportation impact fee is to provide a fee that is more proportional to the consumption of roadway capacity. In general, smaller homes have less people and cars and consume less capacity. Whether to implement the tiered fee for the single family detached land use is a policy decision for the City Commission. The effect of not implementing the tiered concept is to increase the impact fee for affordable housing. The Consultant has developed a methodology for tiering the single family detached residential transportation impact fee that uses a comparative relationship between housing unit size and household travel behavior to determine appropriate relative fees for each size tier. One concept related to residential tiering that must be highlighted is that this is a supplementary analysis that is used to provide specific tiers for the single family detached residential fee in order to support local efforts to consider affordable housing and low-income families in the determination of appropriate impact fees. Additionally, the single family tiering analysis is based on the best available data for completing such an analysis. Specifically, for purposes of tiering two primary data sources are used: the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the American Housing Survey (AHS). At the 438616 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 22 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc time of the Bozeman study, the most recent databases available to examine the housing size- travel relationship were 2005 for the AHS and 2001 for the NHTS. While local data would be preferable, the level of detailed information required to establish a relationship between home size and vehicle miles of travel is not available. In terms of the local data that were used, it was necessary to utilize the 2007 Average Median Income (AMI) and local definitions for the “very low income” (50 percent of the AMI) and “low income” (80 percent of the AMI) thresholds established by the Gallatin County “Road to Home” Down Payment Assistance Program (which relies on information from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development). This income information was used to help derive the vehicle miles of travel for these two low-income land use categories. This effort is consistent with the City’s process of evaluating workforce and affordable housing options in the planning process. Finally, it should be recognized that the specific housing size ranges for each of the tiers are based on the overall assessment of travel in the U.S. by housing unit size and represent break-points where comparatively significant changes in travel behavior are noted to occur—they do not necessarily reflect local experience in the size of housing that has been or will be constructed. Comment # 16 – Failure to Account for Non-Growth Costs Some of the road costs entail adding a third lane to a two lane road; however, the cost estimates indicate that the existing two lanes are being reconstructed when the third lane is added. This appears to be a concern as we have been unable to identify a "methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee" as required by Montana Code Annotated 7-6- 1601.1.i. As the reconstruction of two existing lanes may serve to offset maintenance costs or correct existing deficiencies rather than provide new capacity for new development, these costs should not be included in the impact fees. Response # 16 – Failure to Account for Non-Growth Costs As mentioned previously, the City reviews every bid tabulation for roadway improvements and assigns the growth and non-growth-related components to appropriate funding sources. In the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, Appendix B, Table B-3 presents a detailed breakdown of the two scenarios relating to the construction of a three-lane section (full reconstruct and offset). As shown in that table, the cost associated with full reconstruction is the cost to prepare capacity for use by new growth and is not an operational or maintenance cost. In addition, based on a review of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update and discussion with City Engineering staff, the weighting calculation shows that most of the future 439617 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 23 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc improvements will be offset construction and a lower cost per lane mile was used for improvements where offset construction was planned. As noted previously, corridors where these improvements are made, as well as future planned CIP projects, are reviewed individually to ensure that no impact fees are used to pay for deficiencies, operational improvements, or maintenance. Comment # 17 – Double Counting Insufficient detail appears in the improvement descriptions of the improvements utilized in the Final Report to determine whether the construction costs included in the "construction" line of Table 2 include design, engineering, and inspection costs as well as the costs of materials and installation of the roadway improvements. It is recommended that in order to ensure that design costs, engineering costs, and inspection costs are not being double counted in the impact fee methodology, that additional information and support be provided relative to the construction costs estimates employed in the Final Report. Response # 17 – Double Counting As documented in the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, Table 2 and Appendix B, Table B-6 provide full supporting documentation showing that there is no duplication of cost in the calculation of the total cost per lane mile. The design and construction engineering inspection costs (see page 8 of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report) are percentages of the total construction costs (8.5 percent each) based on discussion with City Engineering staff and a review of recently completed projects. It should be noted that the calculation of the construction cost is presented in Appendix B, Table B-3 and B-4 of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report in great detail. It is, therefore, the opinion of the Consultant that additional documentation is not needed to verify that there was no double counting of the construction costs. Comment # 18 – Additional Cost Data Necessary The tables in Appendix B appear to indicate that most of the lane mile costs are derived from the State roadway project of 19th Avenue between Babcock St. and Kagy Blvd. One must question whether a single roadway project can be representative of all future roadway projects within the City of Bozeman. Moreover, to the extent that this improvement exceeds the standards of other roadways located within the City, such reliance on the costs of a single roadway improvement represents a potential increase in the level of service standards to which new development will be held. As a result, it is recommended that cost estimates of additional roadway improvements be provided as support for the per lane-mile construction costs utilized in the report to provide a 440618 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 24 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc reasonable estimate of different roadway improvements and to ensure that the typical roadway level of service standards of the City of Bozeman are perpetuated to new development. Response # 18 – Additional Cost Data Necessary As previously discussed in Response #9, the Consultant did not base the construction costs for city and state roadway projects on one project. At the time of the study, the City had recently bid two capacity expansion improvements (Babcock Road and Durston Road) and MDOT had an engineer’s estimate for the South 19th Avenue lane widening project. The Consultant considered this availability of data to be promising since it provided a firm basis for evaluating the detailed bid tabulations that were provided by staff and ensuring that current market prices and standard quantities would be reflected in the impact fee cost estimates. The Consultant made additional inquiries to MDOT staff regarding other recent bid tabulations for lane widening projects within geographic proximity to Bozeman. These inquiries affirmed the fact that the State had not recently bid any of these projects and that the South 19th Avenue engineer’s estimate represented a typical improvement with respect to the addition of travel lanes. Based on discussion with City staff, city roads are constructed up to state standards so the weighted cost calculation employed the project costs for the South 19th Avenue project. The South 19th Avenue project is typical of an expansion within a less-constrained urban condition. In contrast is the possible future expansion of Rouse, where segments of the corridor are very constrained by existing development. The City has a long standing policy to acquire as much necessary right of way as possible for a planned street improvement and, therefore, South 19th Avenue is a reasonable approximation of future five-lane projects such as West Kagy Boulevard, West Oak Street, or Cottonwood Road. 441619 442620 443621 444622 445623 446624 447625 448626 449627 450628 451629 452630 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman August 2007 1 Impact Fee Study City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Study Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Response to 7/25 Draft Report Comments The following are responses to comments provided to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. 1. The draft report at Table C-3 lists the predicated City of Bozeman expansion projects. However, it includes Project No. 4306 concerning adding lanes and reconstruction from Four-Corners North. Please explain why is this would be considered a city project rather than a county project? As shown in Table C-3, this project was financed by the Montana Department of Transportation; as such it was funded using a combination of federal gas tax revenues and state matching gas tax revenues. In an effort to provide a conservative revenue credit, all capacity expansion projects in Gallatin County were considered to estimate the equivalent pennies of dedicated to capacity expansion. 2. Table C-3, includes numerous “intersection upgrades/signal” projects. Further explanation of how this is growth-related projects is necessary, particularly where it states “city-wide signals”. Why isn’t cost sharing with existing residents necessary for replacing signals? The intersection upgrade/signal is specifically for projects that added new signals to the roadway system. As such, these new signals are considered to be capacity adding and are used in the estimation of the average annual state expenditures dedicated to capacity expansion projects for purposes of the revenue credit. 3. Project No. 4952 lists lane reconstruction for Babcock to Kagy, but does not clarify which street it actually is, is it Wilson or Church? As shown in the final report, this project is on South 19th Avenue. This project is growth related since it adds travel lanes thereby adding capacity to the roadway network. 4. After reviewing Table F-1, concerning the changes to the impact fee schedule, it is disconcerting as to why Tindale-Oliver states that a percentage change is “N/A” for the various residential fee levels. Is this because they breakdown the fees based on square footage of the homes, and whether it is low income housing? Regardless, it appears the bulk of residential (i.e. 1,500 square feet and above) will increase almost $4,000 per unit. This comment has been addressed in the final report where the proposed fee schedule has been tiered and the current single family fee is comparable to all the tiered ranges. 5. Further explanation is necessary of why Tindale-Oliver utilizes the costs of the improvements on Durston and Babcock Roads to set the standard of per mile charge for future projects. Without knowing which specific projects will be upgraded (in fact they don’t even refer to the transportation plan or CIP to list various projects in their report), it is difficult to know if the Durston/Babcock costs are similar. As shown in pages 8 through 10 of the final report and Appendix B, the city costs were developed based on a detailed review of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan projects. Specific project types by improvement type (new road construction of two lanes, three lane sections, and 453631 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman August 2007 2 Impact Fee Study five lane sections) were reviewed and used to develop the weighted cost per lane mile. The calculation of the weighted cost per lane mile is directly related to programmed improvements in the plan, the Durston and Babcock Road bid tabulations were used since they reflect recent unit prices and quantities that reflect the cost to construction a lane mile of improvement. 454632 Southwest Montana Building Industry Association 1716 West Main Ste 8-G Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 585-8181 FAX (406) 585-7530 Wednesday, November 21, 2007 July 25, 2007 Impact Fee Advisory Committee PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Transportation Impact Fee Study Dear Committee Members, As you know, the proposed transportation study is technical and requires substantial time for thorough review. Given the limited timeframe, I would ask the committee to consider providing the building industry with additional time to thoroughly review the transportation study. Our past efforts with the water and wastewater studies were positive and resulted in a net change to the fees. As the Impact Fee Advisory Committee begins to review the proposed study, the following questions are submitted for your review: 1. The draft report at Table C-3 lists the predicted City of Bozeman expansion projects. However, it includes Project No. 4306 concerning adding lanes and reconstruction from Four Corners-North. Please explain why is this would be considered a city project rather than a county project? 2. Table C-3 includes numerous “intersection upgrades/signal” projects. Further explanation of how this is growth related projects is necessary, particularly where it states “city-wide signals”. Why isn’t cost sharing with existing residents necessary for replacing signals? 3. Project No. 4952 lists lane reconstruction for Babcock to Kagy, but does not clarify which street it actually is; is it Wilson or Church? Also, further explanation of why this is entirely growth related is necessary. 4. After reviewing Table F-1 concerning the changes to the impact fee schedule, it is disconcerting as to why Tindale-Oliver states that a percentage change is “N/A” for the various residential fee levels. Is this because they break down the fees 455633 Southwest Montana Building Industry Association 1716 West Main Ste 8-G Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 585-8181 FAX (406) 585-7530 Wednesday, November 21, 2007 based on square footage of the homes, and whether it is low income housing? Regardless, it appears the bulk of residential (i.e., 1500 square feet and above) will increase almost $4,000.00 per unit. 5. Further explanation is necessary of why Tindale-Oliver utilizes the costs of the improvements on Durston and Babcock Roads to set the standard of per mile charge for future projects. Without knowing which specific projects will be upgraded (in fact they don’t even refer to the transportation plan or CIP to list the various projects in their report), it is difficult to know if the Durston/Babcock costs are similar. Transportation is a critical component to the overall impact fee schedule and its imperative this study receive adequate review. I would appreciate Tindale-Oliver addressing these initial questions and concerns. The first hearing before the City Commission is scheduled for September 10th; which does not provide adequate time. While these questions are obviously from the laymen perspective, SWMBIA is in the process of retaining a consultant and will have additional questions and concerns. It would be in the public interest to keep this at the advisory level so these questions can be adequately addressed prior to forwarding onto the Commission. I encourage the IFAC to slow down this process and ensure the study receives the necessary review. Sincerely, Shawn Cote, Government Affairs Director Southwest Montana Building Industry Association 456634 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: October 31, 2007 RE: Compliance with MCA Requirements for Street 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(s) 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, unified development ordinance, and impact fee ordinance satisfy the required documentation. All referenced documents are available through the City offices. Documentation Item Document(s) Page or Section describes existing conditions of the facility 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC Chapter 2 Existing Conditions, Chapters 18.44 (Transportation Facilities and Access) and 18.78 (trip study) establishes level of service standards 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC, Design and Specifications Manual Chapter 11 (Recommended Major Street network and Street Standards), Chapter 18.44 (Transportation Facilities and Access) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Street Impact Fee Study Chapter 3 and 4; Chapter 2 identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service (please note the plan calls for improvements when demand requires, not on a fixed time frame) 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC Chapters 4, 6, 9, 10, 11; Chapter 18.78 (trip study) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC Chapters 4, 9-11; Chapter 18.78 (trip study) 457635 Page 2 Documentation Item Document(s) Page or Section 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 Street Impact Fee Study Chapter 2, Appendix K 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 Street Impact Fee Study Chapter 2, Appendix K 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 Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, Appendices B-D establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update & Street Impact Fee Study, Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Chapters 4, 9-11, 13; Chapter 2, Appendices C&D; Street CIP; individual project design establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, Appendix B 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 General Fund, Street Maintenance Fund and Street Impact Fee Fund Section for each fund when applicable to an individual funding source The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the public upon request 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update & Street Impact Fee Study, Unified Development Ordinance, Design and Specification Manual, City Budget, bid tabulations, impact fee ordinance All documents are available at City offices, many are also available on-line 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, 458636 p. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1730 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.24, IMPACT FEES, BMC TO CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW, ADOPT UPDATED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES, INCORPORATE AND ADOPT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. Preamble WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community’s expressed needs and desires for services; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands for services in a fiscally responsible manner; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interest of all of the system users now and in the future and not a limited subset of users; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted an impact fee capital improvements program, which distinguishes current and future transportation needs and provides a lawful, logical, balanced, operationally sound, and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City’s transportation system; and WHEREAS, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA provide specific authority and guidance about the necessary documentation to establish an impact fee and procedures to adopt and administer an impact fee; and WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman adopted an impact fee program in 1996 through ordinance 1414; and, WHEREAS, Bozeman has commissioned updates to the impact fee studies which calculate the cost of individual impact fees; and, WHEREAS, the State of Montana adopted Sections 7-16-1601 through 7-16-1604 providing guidance to local governments regarding impact fees and establishing certain standards for impact fee adoption; and, WHEREAS, Bozeman wishes to update its ordinance relating to impact fees to incorporate newly adopted studies for transportation facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. to analyze and assess growth and development projections capital improvement needs in order to determine the additional demand created by new development for transportation facilities anticipated to be placed on the City as a result of new development; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates reviewed the existing demand and needs for transportation facilities, the existing facilities available to meet that demand, and the method of financing the existing systems and needed new facilities; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates additionally reviewed the contribution made or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by property owners towards the capital costs of transportation facilities; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates reviewed and relied upon the City of Bozeman’s current level of service (LOS) standards and facility cost assumptions in recommending transportation 459637 p. 2 impact fees; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates has prepared a transportation impact fee study dated October 31, 2007 (the Fee Study), including the assumptions, population and residential and non- residential development projections, capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations, which study has been submitted to and reviewed by City staff and officials; and, WHEREAS, in addition to the Fee Study, Tindale-Oliver & Associates and the City have prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation, as required by section 7-6-1602 of the Montana Code Annotated, in developing the transportation facilities impact fees adopted pursuant to this Ordinance (collectively, the “Impact Fee Data and Analysis”), including but not limited to the following: (1) 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; (2) Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance; BMC; (3) Design and Specifications Manual; (4) Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program; (5) Capital Improvements Program for General Fund, Street Maintenance Fund, and Street Impact Fee Fund; (6) the City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study, Final Report, dated August, 31 2007; (7) the City Budget; and (8) Specified bid tabulations. WHEREAS, the Fee Study and Impact Fee Data and Analysis are hereby incorporated and approved for purposes of developing and implementing transportation impact fees in accordance with Montana law; and WHEREAS, the Fee Study has been presented to and reviewed by the City’s Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City Commission, which have determined that: (1) impact fees are necessary to offset the costs to the City associated with meeting the transportation facility demands created by projected new residential and non-residential development in order to maintain the existing levels of service (LOS) currently provided to City residents and relied upon in the Fee Study and supported by other Impact Fee Data & Analysis; (2) the amount of the impact fees recommended in the Fee Study are reasonably related and attributable to new development’s share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by such development; (3) the expenditure of impact fees, pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance, will result in a beneficial use to such new development reasonably related to the impact fees, per dwelling unit, by type and per increment of non-residential development; (4) the recommended impact fees do not include the cost to correct any existing deficiencies in the transportation system or for operation or maintenance costs; (5) the amount of the impact fees recommended in the Fee Study to not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the City in accommodating the development, based on the identified need for transportation system improvements required to serve new development and the non-impact fee contributions new development is reasonably anticipated to make in the future; and, WHEREAS, based on the findings and recommendations set forth in the Fee Study and the 460638 p. 3 Impact Fee Data and Analysis, the benefits resulting from impact fee expenditures for transportation facility improvements to be constructed with impact fee revenues is citywide and therefore the City has determined that one transportation service area, as established by this Ordinance, is appropriate; and WHEREAS, based on the findings and recommendations set forth in the Fee Study and the Impact Fee Data and Analysis, Central Business District land uses have reduced impacts on the transportation system; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared and will update on an annual basis impact fee capital improvement plans and documentation that include transportation improvements to ensure that new development paying impact fees under this Ordinance receive a beneficial use from facilities constructed through the expenditure of impact fees, as required by law; and, WHEREAS, the City has and will continue to designate impact fee revenues solely for the purpose of providing transportation system capital improvements required to accommodate new development and has and will continue to implement its impact fee capital improvement program to ensure impact fee revenues are not used to correct existing deficiencies in facilities or to fund operations and maintenance costs; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Bozeman; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee has reviewed and made recommendation regarding the impact Fee Study and revisions to ordinance and that recommendation has been received by the City Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Consultant assisting the City of Bozeman in the preparation of the transportation impact fee program did receive and respond to public comment and when appropriate made revisions to the draft Fee Study; and WHEREAS, the amendments were the subject of a public hearing held on November 26, 2007. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Bozeman City Commission: Section 1 That Chapter 3.24 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that it reads: Chapter 3.24 IMPACT FEES Sections: 3.24.010 Legislative Findings 3.24.020 Authority and Applicability 3.24.030 Intent 3.24.040 Definitions 3.24.050 Street Transportation Impact Fees 3.24.060 Fire Protection Impact Fees 3.24.070 Water Impact Fees 3.24.080 Wastewater Impact Fees 461639 p. 4 3.24.090 Refunds of Development Impact Fees Paid 3.24.100 Credits Against Development Impact Fees 3.24.110 Miscellaneous Provisions 3.24.010 Legislative Findings The City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana finds that: A. The protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city requires that the street, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems of the city be expanded and improved to accommodate continuing growth within the city and within those areas directly served by its Fire Department and within those areas connected to its water and wastewater systems. B. New residential and nonresidential development imposes increased and excessive demands upon existing city facilities. C. New development often overburdens existing public facilities, and the tax revenues generated from new development often do not generate sufficient funds to provide public facilities to serve the new development. D. New development is expected to continue and will place ever-increasing demands on the city to provide public facilities to serve new development. E. The creation of an equitable development impact fee system would enable the City to impose a proportionate share of the costs of required improvements to the city's street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems on those developments that create the need for them. F. All types of development that are not explicitly exempted from the provisions of this chapter will generate demand for city's street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater services or facilities that will require improvements to city facilities and equipment. G. The city's street transportation impact fee study, dated January 1996 October 31, 2007, prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates and as updated, and the fire impact fee study dated October 1995 and as updated, prepared by James Duncan and Associates, and water and wastewater impact fee studies dated July 2007, prepared by HDR Engineering, set forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of development on the city's street, fire protection, water and wastewater systems and for determining the cost of acquiring land and the cost of acquiring or constructing facilities and equipment necessary to meet the demands for such services created by new development. H. The City establishes as city standards the assumptions and service standards referenced in the impact fee studies and other duly adopted documents as part of its current plans for the major street transportation system and for the city's fire protection, water, and wastewater systems. I. The documentation required by 7-6-1602, MCA is collectively contained in the City’s facility plans, impact fee studies, development regulations, financial records, capital improvements program, design and specification manual, and other city documents. IJ. The development impact fees described in this chapter are reasonably related to the service demands and needs of new development and are based on the above-cited impact fee studies and documentation and do not exceed the costs of acquiring additional land and the costs of acquiring or constructing additional facilities or equipment required to serve the new developments that will pay the fees. JK. All transportation improvements upon which the transportation impact fees are based and upon which transportation impact fee revenues will be spent, based on the 462640 p. 5 limitations set forth in this chapter will benefit all new development in the city; and it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the entire city as a single service area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the street transportation impact fees, while recognizing differences in the demand for service based upon the identified factors set forth in the transportation impact fee study. KL. All of the fire protection improvements listed in the fire impact fee study will benefit all new development that receives fire protection service directly from the City Fire Department; and it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the entire city and all properties served directly by the City Fire Department as a single service area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the fire protection impact fees. LM. All of the water system improvements listed in the water impact fee study will benefit all new development that connects to the city water system; and it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the entire city and all properties connected to the city water system as a single service area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the water impact fees. MN. All of the wastewater system improvements listed in the wastewater impact fee study will benefit all new development that connects to the city wastewater system; and it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the entire city and all properties connected to the city wastewater system as a single service area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the wastewater impact fees. NO. There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts created by each type of development covered by this chapter and the development impact fees that such development will be required to pay. P. The City’s facility planning, capital improvement program, development review, and bidding processes create a public process by which, on a specific and detailed basis, the capacity expanding components of construction can be identified and funded distinctly from those components which are not capacity expanding by providing for evaluation by the City and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee of future needs related to growth, identification of applicable funding sources, and monitoring of construction and payments. OQ. This chapter creates a system by which development impact fees paid by new developments will be used to expand or improve the city transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems in ways that benefit the development that paid each fee within a reasonable period of time after the fee is paid. PR. This chapter creates a system under which development impact fees shall not be used to cure existing deficiencies in public facilities or to pay maintenance or operations costs associated with providing public facilities. 3.24.020 Authority and Applicability A. This chapter is enacted pursuant to the city's self-government powers, the authority granted to the City by the Montana State Constitution, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6- 1604, and Sections 7-1- 4123, 7-1-4124, 7-3-4313, 7-7-4404, 7-7-4424, 7-13-4304, and 69-7-101 of the Montana Code Annotated. B. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all of the territory within the limits of the city. C. The provisions of this chapter related to the fire protection impact fees shall also apply to all properties located outside the city that are served directly by the City Fire Department. D. The provisions of this chapter related to water impact fees shall also apply to all properties located outside the city that are connected to the city water system. 463641 p. 6 E. The provisions of this chapter related to wastewater impact fees shall also apply to all properties located outside the city that are connected to the city wastewater system. 3.24.030 Intent A. This chapter is adopted to help implement the comprehensive plan of the city, the city's 1993 2001 transportation plan update prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates, and as updated, the September 2006 draft of the water facility plan prepared for the City by Allied Engineering and Robert Peccia and Associates, and as updated, and the May 2006 draft of the wastewater facility plan prepared for the City by HDR Engineering and Morrison-Maierlie, Inc., and as updated. B. The intent of this chapter is to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of improvements to the city street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems; to ensure that such proportionate share does not exceed the cost of the street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater facilities and equipment required to serve such new developments; and to ensure that funds collected from new developments are actually used to construct improvements to the city street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems that reasonably relate to the benefits accruing to such new developments. C. It is the further intent of this chapter that new development pay for its proportionate share of public facilities through the imposition of development impact fees that will be used to finance, defray, or reimburse all or a portion of the costs incurred by the City to construct improvements to the city street transportation, fire protection, water, and wastewater systems that serve or benefit such new development. D. It is not the intent of this chapter to collect any money from any new development in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for street transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements generated by that new development. E. It is not the intent of this chapter that any monies collected from any development impact fee and deposited in an impact fee fund ever be co-mingled with monies from a different impact fee fund or ever be used for a type of facility or equipment different from that for which the fee was paid. 3.24.040 Definitions A. “Central Business District” (CBD) means land uses established within a B-3, “Central Business District,” zoning district or land uses, not in the B-3 zoning district that meet the following criteria, pursuant to the transportation fee study and an independent fee calculation study as provided in section 3.24.050(B)(3): 1. The use of shared and consolidated parking; 2. A high degree of pedestrian and bicycle access to and throughout the proposed development; 3. The availability of public transit; 4. Extensive trip capture within the proposed development where trips to the proposed development result in visits to multiple businesses in the area via a mode other than automobile; The following additional physical development characteristics are associated with CBD land uses: 1. The majority of buildings associated with the proposed development are multi- story buildings, often more than two stories; 464642 p. 7 2. Diverse business proprietorships within the development; 3. Primary use at the ground floor is commercial; 4. The majority of individual businesses within the development are less than 20,000 square feet; 5. Structures within the development are in near to each other and the public street (with small or no setbacks); 6. Having a high percentage building coverage on the lot and typically in excess of 0.5; and 7. The physical characteristics are shared among the entire business area, not just one or a few of the businesses. 8. The area should be at least 50% developed as measured by lot area utilized. 9. The area is the subject of a city enforceable common plan of development, such as an urban renewal plan. B. "Development" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use of land, which creates additional demand for public services. C. "Development impact fees" means the street transportation impact fee, fire protection impact fee, water impact fee, and wastewater impact fee established by this chapter. D. "Development Impact Fees Review Committee" means the committee composed of the Impact Fee Coordinator, the Building Official, the Director of Public Service, the Fire Chief, and the Director of Planning and Community Development, or their designees appointed to serve in the member's place at a meeting. E. "Encumber" means to legally obligate by contract, or otherwise commit to use by appropriation or other official act of the City. F. "Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program" means the capital improvements program for the street transportation system, the city fire protection system, and the city water and wastewater systems, which shall assign monies from each impact fee fund to specific projects and related expenses for improvements to the type of facilities or services for which the fees in that fund were paid, and shall not include improvements needed to correct existing deficiencies or operations or maintenance costs. G. “Impact Fee Coordinator” means the Director of the City’s Division of Planning and Community Development or the Director’s designee. H. "Impact fee funds" means the street transportation impact fee fund, fire protection impact fee fund, water impact fee fund, and wastewater impact fee fund established by this chapter. I. "Impact fee studies" means the street transportation impact fee study, dated January 1996 October 31, 2007, prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates and as updated, and the fire impact fee study, dated October 1995 and as updated, prepared by James Duncan and Associates, and the water and wastewater impact fee studies dated May 2007, prepared by HDR Engineering. J. "Improvement" means planning, land acquisition, engineering design, construction inspection, on-site construction, off-site construction, equipment purchases, and financing costs associated with new or expanded facilities, buildings, and equipment that expand the capacity of a facility or service system and that have an average useful life of at least ten years. “Improvement” does not include maintenance, operations, or improvements that do not expand capacity. K. "Independent fee calculation study" means a study prepared by an applicant for a building permit or water or wastewater connection permit calculating the cost of expansions or improvements to the city's street transportation, fire protection, water, or 465643 p. 8 wastewater systems required to serve the applicant's proposed development; that is performed on an average cost (not marginal cost) methodology; uses the service units and unit construction costs stated in the impact fee studies; and is performed in compliance with any criteria for such studies established by this chapter or by the City. L. "Initiation of construction" means the date of the preconstruction meeting with the City Engineer or his/her designee, or the date of the first visible change in the physical condition of the improved site caused by the first person furnishing services or materials to effect construction of the improvement, whichever occurs first. M. "Project-related improvements" means site-related improvements including, without limitation, all access streets adjacent to the proposed development or leading only to the proposed development and not included on the transportation system; all streets and driveways within the development; all acceleration, deceleration, right, or left turn lanes leading to any streets and driveways within the development; all traffic control devices for streets and driveways within the development; all water lines or facilities adjacent to, leading to, or located within the development and serving only the development; all wastewater lines or facilities adjacent to, leading to, or located within and serving only the development; and all off-site improvements necessary for the safety and code compliance of a development. Credit for incidental improvements shall not be allowed. The presumption shall be made that the minimum improvement needed to serve a project shall be deemed to be a project improvement even if additional capacity is thereby created that may be potentially used by other developments presently or in the future. N. “Transportation system” means capacity-adding improvements to collectors or arterial roads of three lanes or more, which are included on the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update or the City’s impact fee capital improvement program, and which will benefit new development as required by law and this chapter. The transportation system includes only those bicycle and pedestrian facilities built in conjunction with and included in a capacity-adding transportation facility otherwise eligible for impact fee funding pursuant to the terms of this chapter. The “transportation system” does not include project-related improvements. 3.24.050 Street Transportation Impact Fees A. Imposition of Street Transportation Impact Fees 1. On or after March 23, 1996, any person who seeks to obtain any of the following forms of development approval is required to pay a transportation impact fee in the amount specified in Table 3.24.050: a. A building permit; b. Any other permit that will result in the construction of improvements that will generate additional traffic; or c. Any extension of any such permit that was issued before the effective date of this chapter;; or d. Any delayed payment of impact fees as specified and approved by the City Commission in accordance with the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 for Workforce Housing Lots. 2. Notwithstanding the above subsection, no impact fee shall be imposed earlier than the issuance of a building permit for developments requiring a building permit. 466644 p. 9 3. No permits of the types described in Subsection A(1) of this section shall be issued until the street transportation impact fee described in this chapter has been paid, unless the development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Subsection F of this section. B. Computation of Amount of Street Transportation Impact Fee 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a street transportation impact fee may choose to have the amount of such fee determined pursuant to either Subsection (B)(2) or (B)(3) of this section. The amount of the fee calculated pursuant to either Subsection (B)(2) or (B)(3) shall be subject to the following adjustment: a. For the first expansion of an existing nonresidential building, the amount calculated shall not include the amount calculated for the expansion of up to thirty percent as compared with its size on February 22, 1996, or two thousand square feet, whichever is less. 2. Unless an applicant requests that the City determine the amount of such fee pursuant to Subsection (B)(3) of this section, the City shall determine the amount of the required street transportation impact fee by reference to Table 3.24.050. The fee amounts set forth in such table include credits for expected future receipts of state and federal highway funds and expected future receipts of gas tax revenues, and all other non-impact fee sources of funding anticipated to be made by or as a result of new development to be applied to the street transportation improvements required to serve new development. a. If the applicant's development is of a type not listed in Table 3.24.050, then the City shall use the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type or land use in the table. In making a decision about which use is most nearly comparable, the City shall be guided by the most recent edition of "Trip Generation: An Information Report" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; or if such publication is no longer available, then by a similar publication. If the City determines that there is no comparable type of land use listed in the table, then a new fee shall be determined by: 1. Finding the most nearly comparable trip generation rate from the above publication; and 2. Applying the formula set forth in Subsection (B)(3)(d) of this section. b. If the applicant's development includes a mix of those uses listed in Table 3.24.050, then the fee shall be determined by adding up the fees that would be payable for each use if it were a freestanding use pursuant to Table 3.24.050. c. If the applicant is applying for an extension of a permit issued previously, then the fee shall be the net increase between the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application and any street transportation impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for 467645 p. 10 the same structure. In the event that the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application is lower than the street transportation impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure, there shall be no refund of street transportation impact fees previously paid. d. If the applicant is applying for a permit to allow a change of use or the expansion, redevelopment, or modification of an existing development, the fee shall be based on the net positive increase in the fee for the new use as compared to the previous use. However, no new fee shall be imposed unless an additional unit of service demand is created, in accordance with Table 3.24.50. If necessary to determine such net increase, the City shall be guided by the most recent edition of "Trip Generation: An Information Report" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; or if such publication is no longer available, then by a similar publication. In the event that the proposed change of use, expansion, redevelopment, or modification results in a net decrease in the fee for the new use or development as compared to the previous use or development, there shall be no refund of street transportation impact fees previously paid. 3. An applicant may request that the City determine the amount of the required street transportation impact fee by reference to an independent fee calculation study for the applicant's development prepared by qualified professional traffic engineers and/or economists at the applicant's cost and submitted to the City Engineer. Any such study must show the traffic engineering and economic methodologies and assumptions used, including, but not limited to, those forms of documentation listed in Subsections (B)(3)(a) and (B)(3)(b) of this section and must be acceptable to the City pursuant to Subsection (B)(3)(c) of this section. a. Traffic engineering studies must include documentation of trip generation rates, trip lengths, any percentage of trips from the site that represent net additions to current trips from the site, the percentage of trips that are new trips as opposed to pass-by or divert-link trips, and any other trip data for the proposed land use. b. Economic studies must include documentation of any special factors that the applicant believes will reduce the traffic volumes otherwise attributable to the proposed land use. c. The City shall consider all such documentation and any independent fee calculation study submitted by the applicant, but shall not be required to accept any such study or documentation that the City deems to be inaccurate or unreliable and may request that the applicant submit additional or different documentation for consideration. Any independent fee calculation study submitted by an applicant may be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating street transportation impact fees. d. Upon acceptance, or acceptance with modifications, of an independent fee calculation study and documentation, the City shall 468646 p. 11 use the following formulas to determine the street transportation impact fee: Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost – Gas Tax Credit – Ad Valorem Credit Where: Total Impact Cost = ((Trip Rate × Assessable Trip Length × % New Trips) / 2) × (1 -Interstate Adj. Factor) × (Cost per Lane Mile / Avg. Capacity Added per Lane Mile) Total Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax Credit), given 4.6% interest rate & 25-year facility life Annual Gas Tax Credit = (((Trip Rate × Total Trip Length × % New Trips) / 2) × Effective Days per Year × $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency And where: Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle miles Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads % New Trips = adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway Divide by 2 = The total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate X length X % new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double-counting of travel generated among land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination. Interstate Adjustment Factor = adjustment factor to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways (15.0%) Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane mile($3,678,522 per study and will be subject to inflationary adjustments) Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day (8,658 per study) Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity = unit cost to construct to provide a vehicle mile of capacity ($472.92 per study) Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, “i,” and a number of periods, “n;” for 4.6% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 14.6768 Effective Days per Year = 365 days $/Gallon to Capital = the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.102) Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle- 469647 p. 12 miles/gallon (17.70) C. Payment of Street Transportation Impact Fee 1. An applicant for any of the permits or extensions listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section shall pay the street transportation impact fee required by this chapter to the City prior to the issuance of any such permit. 2. All funds paid by an applicant pursuant to this chapter shall be identified as street transportation impact fees and shall be promptly deposited in the street transportation impact fee fund described in Subsection D of this section. D. Street Transportation Impact Fee Funds 1. A single street transportation impact fee fund is created and such fund shall be maintained in an interest bearing account. 2. Such fund shall contain only those street transportation impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter and any interest which may accrue from time to time on such amounts. E. Use of Street Transportation Impact Fee Funds. The monies in the street transportation impact fee fund shall be used only as follows: 1 To acquire land for and/or acquire or construct capacity-adding capital improvements to the street transportation system reasonably related to the benefits accruing to new development subject to the terms of this chapter, in accordance with the requirements of Montana law; or 2 To pay debt service on such capital improvements to the transportation system; or 3 For purposes of refunds or credits, as described in Sections 3.24.090 or 3.24.100(G)); and 4. May not be used for a. operations or maintenance purposes; b to correct existing deficiencies; or c. for bicycle or pedestrian facilities not built in conjunction with and included in a capacity-adding transportation system facility, otherwise eligible for impact fee funding. F. Exemptions from Street Transportation Impact Fee 1. The following types of development shall be exempted from payment of the street transportation impact fee: a. Alterations, remodeling, rehabilitations, expansions of existing buildings, or other improvements to an existing structure where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing use; b. Construction of accessory buildings or structures that will not produce additional vehicle trips over and above those produced by the primary building or land use; c. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original building or structure; d. The installation or replacement of a mobile home on a lot or a mobile home site when a street transportation impact fee for such lot or site 470648 p. 13 has previously been paid pursuant to this chapter or where a mobile home legally existed on such site on or prior to the effective date of this chapter; e. Any other type of development for which the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed land use and development will produce no more vehicle trips from such site over and above the trips from such site prior to the proposed development, or for which the applicant can show that a street transportation impact fee for such site has previously been paid in an amount that equals or exceeds the street transportation impact fee that would be required by this chapter for such development. 2. Any such claim for exemption must be made no later than the time when the applicant applies for the first permit or a type listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section for the proposed development, and any claim for exemption not made at or before that time shall have been waived. 3. The City Manager or his designee shall determine the validity of any claim for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsection (F)(1) of this section. TABLE 3.24.050 471649 p. 14 The following transportation impact fees apply to developments not designated as a Central Business District land use. ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(2) du $2,171 Less than 1,500 sf and low income (3) du $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf du $3,968 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $5,396 2,500 sf or larger du $6,082 220 Apartments du $3,339 230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du $2,946 240 Mobile Home Park du $1,593 LODGING: 310 Hotel room $3,063 320 Motel room $1,678 RECREATION: 430 Golf Course hole $12,295 411 City Park acre $546 444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf $6,463 INSTITUTIONS: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf $6,023 472650 p. 15 ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* 620 Nursing Home bed $381 520 Elementary School student $315 530 High School student $477 540 University (7,500 or fewer students) (4) student $609 550 University (more than 7,500 students) (4) student $529 560 Church/ Synagogue 1,000 sf $2,428 565 Day Care 1,000 sf $7,433 OFFICE: 710 50,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $3,977 710 50,001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $3,623 710 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $3,084 710 greater than 200,000 1,000 sf $2,460 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $9,584 RETAIL: 820 under 50,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,378 820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,587 820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,331 820 200,000-299,000 sf 1,000 sf $8,567 820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $8,144 812 Building Material/ Lumber 1,000 sf $21,209 813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf $26,996 817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $18,903 851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf $44,607 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $22,036 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $61,225 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $12,033 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $1,684 912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $31,706 INDUSTRY: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $2,290 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $1,250 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,627 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $810 (1) Source: Transportation Impact Fee Study, Appendix F, Table F-1 (2) Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. The following transportation impact fees apply to developments designated as Central Business District land uses. ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(2) du $2,171 473651 p. 16 ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* Less than 1,500 sf and low income(3) du $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf du $3,968 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $5,396 2,500 sf or larger du $6,082 220 Apartments du $3,339 230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du $2,946 240 Mobile Home Park du $1,593 LODGING: 310 Hotel room $2,835 320 Motel room $1,333 RECREATION: 430 Golf Course hole $4,333 411 City Park acre $182 444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf $2,333 INSTITUTIONS: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf $6,023 620 Nursing Home bed $381 520 Elementary School student $315 530 High School student $477 540 University (7,500 or fewer students) (4) student $609 550 University (more than 7,500 students) (4) student $529 560 Church/Synagogue 1,000 sf $2,428 565 Day Care 1,000 sf $7,433 OFFICE: 710 50,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $3,187 710 50,001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,911 710 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,475 710 greater than 200,000 sf 1,000 sf $1,974 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $9,584 RETAIL: 820 under 50,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,284 820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,452 820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,182 820 200,000-299,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,115 820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $4,999 812 Building Material/Lumber 1,000 sf $21,209 813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf $26,996 817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $18,903 851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf $44,607 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $6,009 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $22,164 841 New/ Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $12,033 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $1,684 912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $24,133 INDUSTRY: 474652 p. 17 ITE LUC Land Use Unit Fee* 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $2,290 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $1,250 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,627 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $810 (1) Source: Transportation Impact Fee Study, Appendix F, Table F-2 (2) Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. *Compiler's Note: The Street Transportation Impact Fees listed in this formula shall be adjusted annually as per 3.24.110.K. 3.24.060 Fire Protection Impact Fees A. Imposition of Fire Protection Impact Fees 1. On or after March 23, 1996, any person who seeks to obtain: a. A building permit; or b. Any other permit that will result in construction that will generate demand for fire protection services; or c. Any extension of any such permit that was issued before the effective date of this chapter, is required to pay a fire protection impact fee in the amount specified in this chapter; or d. Any delayed payment of impact fees as specified and approved by the City Commission in accordance with the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 for Workforce Housing Lots. 2. No permits of the types described in Subsection (A)(1) of this section shall be issued until the fire protection impact fee described in this chapter has been paid, unless the development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Subsection F of this section. B. Computation of Amount of Fire Protection Impact Fee 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a fire protection impact fee may choose to have the amount of such fee determined pursuant to either Subsection (B)(2) or (B)(3) of this section. The amount of the fee calculated pursuant to either Subsection (B)(2) or (B)(3) of this section shall be subject to the following adjustment: a. For the first expansion of an existing nonresidential building, the amount calculated shall not include the amount calculated for the expansion of up to thirty percent as compared with its size on February 22, 1996, or two thousand square feet, whichever is less. 2. Unless an applicant requests that the City determine the amount of such fee pursuant to Subsection (B)(3) of this section, the City shall determine the amount of the required fire protection impact fee by reference to Table 3.24.060. 475653 p. 18 a. If the type of development that a permit is applied for is not listed in Table 3.24.060, then the City shall use the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type or land use in the table. b. If the type of development that a permit is applied for includes a mix of those uses listed in Table 3.24.060, then the fee shall be determined by adding up the fees that would be payable for each use if it were a freestanding use pursuant to Table 3.24.060. c. If the applicant is applying for an extension of a permit issued previously, then the fee shall be the net increase between the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application and any fire protection impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure. In the event that the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application is lower than the fire protection impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure, there shall be no refund of fire protection impact fees previously paid. d. If the applicant is applying for a permit to allow a change of use or for the expansion, redevelopment, or modification of an existing development, the fee shall be based on the net increase in the fee for the new use as compared to the previous use. In the event that the proposed change of use, expansion, redevelopment, or modification results in a net decrease in the fee for the new use or development as compared to the previous use or development, there shall be no refund of fire protection impact fees previously paid. 3. An applicant may request that the City determine the amount of the required fire protection impact fee by reference to an independent fee calculation study for the applicant's development prepared at the applicant's cost by qualified professional fire protection experts and/or economists and submitted to the City Fire Chief. Any such study shall be based on the same service standards and unit costs for fire protection used in the fire impact fee study prepared by James Duncan and Associates dated October 1995 and as updated, and must document the economic methodologies and assumptions used. Any independent fee calculation study submitted by an applicant may be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating fire protection impact fees. If such study is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the demand for new fire protection facilities and equipment created by the applicant's proposed development than the applicable fee shown in Table 3.24.060, then the fire protection impact fee due under this chapter may be calculated according to such study. 476654 p. 19 C. Payment of Fire Protection Impact Fees 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a fire protection impact fee shall pay such fee to the City prior to the issuance of any of the permits listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section. 2. All funds paid by an applicant pursuant to this chapter shall be identified as fire protection impact fees and shall be promptly deposited in the fire protection impact fee fund described in Subsection D of this section. D. Fire Protection Impact Fee Funds 1. A single fire protection impact fee fund is created and such fund shall be maintained in an interest bearing account. 2. Such fund shall contain only those fire protection impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter and any interest which may accrue from time to time on such amounts. E. Use of Fire Protection Impact Fee Funds. The monies in the fire protection impact fee fund shall be used only: 1 To acquire or construct fire protection improvements within the city; or 2 To pay debt service on any portion of any future general obligation bond issue or revenue bond issue used to finance the acquisition or construction of fire protection improvements within the city; or 3 As described in Sections 3.24.090 or 3.24.100(G). F. Exemptions from Fire Protection Impact Fee 1. The following types of development shall be exempted from payment of the fire protection impact fee: a. Reconstruction, expansion, or replacement of a previously existing residential unit that does not create any additional residential units. b. Construction of unoccupied accessory units related to a residential unit. c. Projects that the applicant can demonstrate will produce no greater demand for fire protection from such land than existed prior to issuance of such permit. d. Projects for which a fire protection impact fee has previously been paid in an amount that equals or exceeds the fire protection impact fee that would be required by this chapter. 2. Any such claim for exemption must be made no later than the time when the applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section for the proposed development, and any claim for exemption not made at or before that time shall have been waived. 3. The City Manager or his designee shall determine the validity of any claim for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsection (F)(1) of this section. Table 3.24.060 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE 477655 p. 20 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE RESIDENTIAL Single-Family Detached $178.61 per unit Single-Family Attached $149.99 per unit Duplex $112.49 per unit Multi-Family $ 81.90 per unit Mobile Home $ 81.90 per unit OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Under 10,000 square feet $ 90.79 Between 10,000 and 49,999 square feet $174.66 50,000 square feet and over $350.31 COMMERCIAL/HOTEL PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Under 10,000 square feet $174.66 Between 10,000 and 49,999 square feet $266.43 Between 50,000 and 99,999 square feet $441.10 100,000 square feet and over $524.97 INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Under 10,000 square feet $174.66 Between 10,000 and 49,999 square feet $350.31 50,000 square feet and over $524.97 *Compiler's Note: The Fire Protection Impact Fees listed in this formula shall be adjusted annually as per 3.24.110.K. 3.24.070 Water Impact Fees A. Imposition of Water Impact Fees 1. On or after March 23, 1996, any person who seeks to obtain a permit for connection to the city water system, or who is subject to subsection (B)(2)(b) and applies for a city permit to expand or add to the structure served by a previously approved water connection, or any extension of such a permit issued before the effective date of this chapter, is required to pay a water impact fee in the amount specified in this chapter; or 2. Any delayed payment of impact fees as specified and approved by the City Commission in accordance with the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 for Workforce Housing Lots. 3. No permits for connection to the city water system shall be issued until the water impact fee described in this chapter has been paid, unless the development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Subsection F of this section. B. Computation of Amount of Water Impact Fee 1. The City shall determine the amount of the required water impact fee by reference to Table 3.24.070 unless the applicant chooses to submit an individualized calculation pursuant to subsection (B)(2)(a) or the City determines the application to be subject to subsection (B)(2)(b). If the 478656 p. 21 applicant is applying for a replacement for a water connection permit issued previously, then the fee shall be the net positive difference between the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application and any water impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure. In the event that the fee applicable at the time of the replacement permit application is lower than the water impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure, there shall be no refund of water impact fees previously paid. 3. Individualized Calculations. a. An applicant may request that the City determine the amount of the required water impact fee by reference to an independent fee calculation study for the applicant's development prepared at the applicant's cost by a professional engineer and/or economist and submitted to the City Public Service Director. Any such study shall be based on the same service standards and unit costs used in the water impact fee study prepared by HDR Engineering dated May 2007, and as updated, and must document the economic methodologies and assumptions used. Any independent fee calculation study submitted by an applicant may be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating water impact fees. If such study is accepted, or accepted with modifications, as a more accurate measure of the demand for new water facilities created by the applicant's proposed development than the applicable fee shown in Table 3.24.070, then the water impact fee due under this chapter may be calculated according to such study. b. The City may identify a user as having extraordinary demands for water service which are not accurately represented by the average usage which was relied upon by the methodology which generated Table 3.24.070. In this circumstance the City shall prepare a customized calculation based upon the Large Meter calculation methodology in Exhibit 6 of the Water Impact Fee study. The impact fee paid for water meters larger than 3 inches as of the effective date of this ordinance may be adjusted based on actual usage. If usage is greater than 110% of anticipated volume during the 12 month period of time beginning 6 months after building occupancy is granted by the City, an additional impact fee may be charged, using the same techniques for calculating peak day and storage EDUs and multiplying by the peak day impact fee cost per EDU and the storage impact fee cost per EDU then in effect. The additional impact fee is the positive net between a previously calculated impact fee and the impact fee based upon the metered demand. C. Payment of Water Impact Fee 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a water impact fee shall pay such fee to the City prior to the issuance of a water connection permit. 2. All funds paid by an applicant pursuant to this chapter shall be identified as water impact fees and shall be promptly deposited in the water impact fee fund described in Subsection D of this section. D. Water Impact Fee Funds 1. A single water impact fee fund is created and such fund shall be maintained in an interest bearing account. 479657 p. 22 2. Such fund shall contain only those water impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter and any interest which may accrue from time to time on such amounts. E. Use of Water Impact Fee Funds. The monies in the water impact fee fund shall be used only: 1. To acquire or construct improvements to the city water system; or 2. To pay debt service on any portion of any future general obligation bond issue or revenue bond issue used to finance improvements to the city water system; or 3. As described in Sections 3.24.090 or 3.24.100(G). F. Exemptions from Water Impact Fees 1. The following types of development shall be exempted from payment of the water impact fee: a. Alteration or expansion of an existing building that does not require an additional or larger water meter; b. Replacement of a building or structure of the same size that does not require an additional or larger water meter; c. The location of mobile home on a site for which a water impact fee was previously paid, and that does not require an additional or larger water meter. 2. The installation of fire lines for fire protection shall be exempted from payment of the water impact fee. 3. Any such claim for exemption must be made no later than the time when the applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section for the proposed development, and any claim for exemption not made at or before that time shall have been waived. 4. The City Manager or his designee shall determine the validity of any claims for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsections (F)(1) and (F)(2) of this section. Table 3.24.070 WATER IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE* SIZE OF WATER METER COST PER METER 3/4 inch $ 3,310 1 inch $ 8,275 1 ½ inch $ 16,550 2 inch $ 26,480 3 inch $ 52,960 Larger than 3 inch calculated *Compiler's Note: The Cost Per Meter Fees listed in this formula shall be adjusted annually as per 3.24.110.K. 480658 p. 23 3.24.080 Wastewater Impact Fees A. Imposition of Wastewater Impact Fees 1. On or after March 23, 1996, any person who seeks to obtain a permit for connection to the city wastewater system, or who is subject to subsection (B)(2)(b) and applies for a city permit to expand or add to the structure served by a previously approved water connection, or any extension of such a permit issued before the effective date of this chapter is required to pay a wastewater impact fee in the amount specified in this chapter; or 2. Any delayed payment of impact fees as specified and approved by the City Commission in accordance with the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 for Workforce Housing Lots. 3. No permits for connection to the city water system shall be issued until the water impact fee described in this chapter has been paid, unless the development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Subsection F of this section. B. Computation of Amount of Wastewater Impact Fee 1. The City shall determine the amount of the required wastewater impact fee by reference to Table 3.24.080 070 unless the applicant chooses to submit an individualized calculation pursuant to subsection (B)(2)(a) or the City determines the application to be subject to subsection (B)(2)(b). If the applicant is applying for a replacement for a wastewater connection permit issued previously, then the fee shall be the net positive difference between the fee applicable at the time of the current permit application and any wastewater impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure. In the event that the fee applicable at the time of the replacement permit application is lower than the wastewater impact fee previously paid pursuant to this chapter for the same structure, there shall be no refund of wastewater impact fees previously paid. 2. Individualized Calculations. a. An applicant may request that the City determine the amount of the required wastewater impact fee by reference to an independent fee calculation study for the applicant's development prepared at the applicant's cost by a professional engineer and/or economist and submitted to the City Public Service Director. Any such study shall be based on the same service standards and unit costs used in the wastewater impact fee study prepared by HDR Engineering dated May 2007, and as updated, and must document the economic methodologies and assumptions used. Any independent fee calculation study submitted by an applicant may be accepted, rejected, or modified by the City as the basis for calculating wastewater impact fees. If such study is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the demand for new wastewater facilities created by the applicant's proposed development than the applicable fee shown in Table 3.24.080, then the wastewater impact fees due under this chapter shall be calculated according to such study. b. The City may identify a user as having extraordinary demands for wastewater service which are not accurately represented by the average usage which was relied upon by the methodology which generated Table 3.24.080. In this circumstance the City shall prepare a customized calculation based upon the methodology in the Water Impact Fee study. 481659 p. 24 When applicable an adjustment for high strength discharge will be applied. The impact fee paid for water meters larger than 3 inches as of the effective date of this ordinance may be adjusted based on actual usage. If usage is greater than 110% of anticipated volume during the 12 month period of time beginning 6 months after building occupancy is granted by the City, an additional impact fee may be charged, using the same techniques for calculating treatment and collection in EDUs and multiplying by the impact fee cost per EDU. The additional impact fee is the positive net between a previously calculated impact fee and the impact fee based upon the metered demand. C. Payment of Wastewater Impact Fee 1. An applicant required by this chapter to pay a wastewater impact fee shall pay such fee to the City prior to the issuance of a wastewater connection permit. 2. All funds paid by an applicant paid pursuant to this chapter shall be identified as wastewater impact fees and shall be promptly deposited in the wastewater impact fee fund described in Subsection D of this section. D. Wastewater Impact Fee Funds 1. A single wastewater impact fee fund is created and such fund shall be maintained in an interest bearing account. 2. Such fund shall contain only those wastewater impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter and any interest which may accrue from time to time on such amounts. E. Use of Wastewater Impact Fee Funds. The monies in the wastewater impact fee fund shall be used only: 1. To acquire or construct improvements to the city wastewater system; or 2. To pay debt service on any portion of any future general obligation bond issue or revenue bond issue used to finance improvements to the city wastewater system; or 3. As described in Section 3.24.090 or Section 3.24.100(G). F. Exemptions from Wastewater Impact Fees 1. The following types of development shall be exempted from payment of the wastewater impact fee: a. Alteration or expansion of an existing building that does not require an additional or larger water meter; b. Replacement of a building or structure of the same size that does not require an additional or larger water meter; c. The location of mobile home on a site for which a wastewater impact fee was previously paid and that does not require an additional or larger water meter; 2. Any such claim for exemption must be made no later than the time when the applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Subsection (A)(1) of this section for the proposed development, and any claim for exemption not made at or before that time shall have been waived. 3. The City Manager or his designee shall determine the validity of any claim for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsection (F)(1) of this section. 482660 p. 25 Table 3.24.080 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE SIZE OF WATER METER COST PER METER* 3/4 inch $ 2,955 1 inch $ 7,388 1 ½ inch $ 14,775 2 inch $ 23,640 3 inch $ 47,280 Larger than 3 inch calculated *Compiler's Note: The Cost Per Meter Fees listed in this formula shall be adjusted annually as per 3.24.110.K. 3.24.090 Refunds of Development Impact Fees Paid Refunds of development impact fees shall be made only in the following instances and in the following manner: A. Upon application to the Impact Fee Coordinator by the applicant, the City shall refund the development impact fee paid if capacity is available and service is denied. B. 1. Upon application to the Impact Fee Coordinator, the City shall refund the development impact fee paid and not expended or encumbered within ten years from the date the development impact fee was paid or in a manner not in accordance with this chapter or section 17-6-1602 of the Montana Code Annotated. Refunds shall be paid to the owner of the property at the time the refund is due. In determining whether development impact fees have been expended or encumbered, fees shall be considered encumbered on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. 2. When the right to a refund exists due to a failure to expend or encumber development impact fees, the City shall publish written notice within thirty days after the expiration of the ten year period from the date development impact fee was paid. The published notice shall contain the heading "Notice of Entitlement to Development Impact Fee Refund." C. If an applicant has paid a development impact fee required by this chapter and has obtained any of the types of permits or extensions listed in Sections 3.24.050 (A)(1), 3.24.060 (A)(1), 3.24.070 (A)(1), or 3.24.080(A)(1), and the permit or extension for which the fee was paid later expires without the possibility of further extension, then the applicant who paid such fee shall be entitled to a refund of the fee paid, without interest. In order to be eligible to receive such refund, the applicant who paid such fee shall be required to submit an application for such refund within thirty days after the expiration of the permit or extension for which the fee was paid. D. A refund application shall be made to the Impact Fee Coordinator within one year from the date such refund becomes payable under Subsections A and B of this section, or within one year from the date of publication of the notice of entitlement of a refund under Subsection B of this section, whichever is later. Any refund not applied for within said time period shall be deemed waived. 483661 p. 26 E. A refund application shall include information and documentation sufficient to permit the Impact Fee Coordinator to determine whether the refund claimed is proper and, if so, the amount of such refund. F. A refund shall include a pro rata share of interest actually earned on the unused or excess development impact fee paid. G. All refunds shall be paid within sixty days after the Impact Fee Coordinator determines that such refund is due. (Ord. 1418 § 7, 1996; Ord. 1414 § 1 (part), 1996) H. Any refund payable pursuant to Subsections A and B of this section, shall be made to the record owner of property as of the date the refund was due. 3.24.100 Credits Against Development Impact Fees A. After the effective date of this chapter, mandatory or voluntary land or easement dedications for street transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements, and mandatory or voluntary acquisition or construction of capital improvements to the street transportation system or the city fire protection, water, or wastewater systems by an applicant in connection with a proposed development may result in a pro rata credit against the development impact fee for the same type of service or facility otherwise due for such development, except that no such credit shall be awarded for: 1. Projects or land dedications not listed on the impact fee capital improvements program; or 2. Land dedications for, or acquisition or construction of, project-related improvements as defined in Section 3.24.040(G) or Section 3.24.040; or 3. Any voluntary land or easement dedications not accepted by the City; or 4. Any voluntary acquisition or construction of improvements not approved in writing by the City prior to commencement of the acquisition or construction. B. In order to obtain a credit against development impact fees otherwise due, an applicant must submit a written offer to dedicate to the City specific parcels of qualifying land or easements, or to acquire or construct specific improvements to the major street transportation system or the City fire protection, water, or wastewater systems in accordance with all applicable State or City design and construction standards, and must specifically request a credit against such development impact fees. Such written request must be made on a form provided by the City, must contain a statement under oath of the facts that qualify the applicant to receive a credit, must be accompanied by documents evidencing those facts, and must be approved not later than the initiation of construction of improvements or the acceptance by the City of land dedications, or the applicant's claim for the credit shall be waived. The granting of credit shall be approved by the City Commission. The City shall approve a credit only after showing that the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to section 7-6-1602 of the Montana Code Annotated, and that any land dedication proposed for credit is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use. 1. Upon receipt of a complete application for impact fee credit the Impact Fee Coordinator shall coordinate review of the application for compliance with the requirements of this chapter and other relevant requirements. Upon completion of the review the Impact Fee Coordinator shall either: forward the application to the City Manager, or when required to the City Commission, for approval or; if the application is insufficient or otherwise does not conform to the City’s requirements shall communicate in writing to the applicant the reason the credit request failed. If the application satisfies the requirements and is approved the credit may be provided in any of the allowed forms as described in Subsection G. 484662 p. 27 a. Factors for Consideration (1) When credit is sought for an improvement listed in the second through fifth years of the CIP after the current fiscal year there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any credit shall be awarded as a credit balance and not as cash. (2) The final decision to approve a credit request in excess of $1,000,000 from a single impact fee fund shall be made by the City Commission. (3) In the event that the City Manager believes that a credit request may result in a significant effect on policy decisions the credit request may be referred to the City Commission for final action regardless of the dollar amount. (4) In the event that the City considers that award of a credit may negatively impact its ability to construct improvements listed sooner in time on the CIP they may decline to award a credit at that time without removing the item from the CIP. 2. Appeals relating to staff decisions on credit requests may be appealed to the City Commission per Subsection 3.24.110.I C. The credit due to an applicant shall be calculated and documented as follows: 1. Credit for qualifying land or easement dedications shall, at the applicant's option, be valued at: a. One hundred percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the City Assessor; or b. That fair market value established by a private appraiser acceptable to the City in an appraisal paid for by the applicant. 2. In order to receive credit for qualifying acquisition or construction of street transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements, the applicant shall submit complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates to the City. The City shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if it determines that such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs acceptable to the City. D. Approved credits shall become effective at the following times: 1. Approved credit for land or easement dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the City in a form acceptable to the City, and at no cost to the City, and has been accepted by the City Commission. When such conditions have been met, the City shall note that fact in the credit record maintained by the City Finance Department. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall send the credit holder a letter stating the credit balance available to him (or her). 2. Approved credits for the acquisition or construction of street transportation, fire protection, water, or wastewater improvements shall generally become effective when: a. All required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the City; and 485663 p. 28 b. A suitable maintenance and warranty bond has been received and approved by the City; and c. All design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been completed in compliance with all applicable City and State procedures. However, approved credits for the construction of improvements may become effective at an earlier date if the applicant posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or escrow agreement, and the amount and terms of such security are accepted by the City. At a minimum, such security must be in the amount of the approved credit or an amount determined to be adequate to allow the City to construct the improvements for which the credit was given, whichever is higher. When such conditions have been met, the City shall note that fact in the credit record maintained by the City Finance Department. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall also send the credit holder a letter stating the credit balance available to him (or her). E. Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of development impact fees due from any proposed development for the same type of service or facility for which the applicant dedicated land or acquired or constructed improvements until the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use credit from a mandatory or voluntary dedication, acquisition, or construction is presented to the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the development impact fee of the same type otherwise due from the applicant and shall note in the city records the amount of credit remaining, if any. In the case of a mandatory dedication, acquisition, or construction, any credit in excess of the amount of the development impact fee otherwise due under this chapter shall be deemed excess credit that is remaining and available for use by the applicant. In the case of a voluntary dedication, acquisition, or construction, any credit in excess of the amount of the development impact fee of the same type and applicable to the project, as shown in Tables 3.24.050, 3.24.060, 3.24.070, or 3.24.080, shall be deemed excess credit that is remaining and available for use by the applicant. Upon request of the credit holder, the City shall also send the credit holder a letter stating the amount of credit remaining to him (or her). F. Approved credit shall only be used to reduce the amount of development impact fees of the same type otherwise due under this chapter and shall not be paid to the applicant in cash or in credit against any development impact fees for a different type of facility or service or against any other monies due from the applicant to the City, except as described in Subsection G of this section. G. If the amount of approved credit for a mandatory dedication, acquisition, or construction exceeds the amount of the development impact fees of the same type otherwise due under this chapter, the applicant may request in writing that the City provide for reimbursement of any excess credit to the applicant in cash. Such written request must be approved not later than the initiation of construction of improvements, or the acceptance by the City of land dedications, or the applicant's claim shall be waived. Upon receipt of such a written request, the City may, at its discretion: 1. Arrange for the reimbursement of such excess credit from the impact fee fund for the same type of service or facility from development impact fees paid by others; 486664 p. 29 2 . Arrange for the reimbursement of such excess credit through the issuance of a promissory note payable in not more than ten years and bearing interest equal to the interest rate paid by the City for its long-term debt; or 3. Reject the request for cash and provide credit. Such excess credit shall be valued at one hundred percent of actual developer costs for the excess improvements, or at the actual appraised value of such excess improvements, at the City's option. H. Credit may be transferred from one holder to another by any written instrument clearly identifying the credit issued under Subsection C of this section that is to be transferred, provided that such instrument is signed by both the transferror and transferee, and that the document is delivered to the City for registration of the change in ownership. I. In the event that land is annexed into the city from Gallatin County after the effective date of this chapter, and that road or fire impact fees have been previously paid to the County, an applicant proposing a development on the land may request in writing a credit against the transportation impact fee equal to the amount of any road impact fee paid to the County for the same land and may also request a credit against the fire protection impact fee equal to the amount of any fire protection impact fee paid to the County for the same land. Such written request must be filed not later than the time when an applicant applies for the first permit of a type listed in Sections 3.24.050(A)(1) or 3.24.060(A)(1) that creates an obligation to pay the type of development impact fee against which the credit is requested, or the applicant's claim shall be waived. 3.24.110 Miscellaneous Provisions A. Interest earned on monies in any impact fee fund shall be considered part of such fund and shall be subject to the same restrictions on use applicable to the impact fees deposited in such fund. B. No monies from any impact fee fund shall be spent for periodic or routine maintenance of any facility of any type or to cure deficiencies in public facilities existing on the effective date of this chapter. C. Nothing in this chapter shall restrict the City from requiring an applicant to construct reasonable project improvements required to serve the applicant's project, whether or not such improvements are of a type for which credit is available under Section 3.24.100. D. The City shall maintain accurate records of the development impact fees paid, including the name of the person paying such fees, the project for which the fees were paid, the date of payment of each fee, the amounts received in payment for each fee, and any other matters that the City deems appropriate or necessary to the accurate accounting of such fees, and such records shall be available for review by the public during city business hours. E. At least once during each fiscal year of the City, the City Administrative Services Director shall present to the City Commission a proposed impact fee capital improvements program for the major street transportation system, fire protection system, water system, and wastewater system, which identifies the capacity-adding capital improvements that will benefit new development subject to the terms of this chapter, exclusive of any improvements needed to correct existing deficiencies or for operation or maintenance purposes. Such capital improvements program shall assign monies from each impact fee fund to specific projects and related expenses for improvements to the type of facilities or services for which the fees in that fund were paid. Any monies, including any accrued interest, not assigned to specific projects within such capital improvements program and 487665 p. 30 not expended pursuant to Sections 3.24.090 or 3.24.100(G) shall be retained in the same impact fee fund until the next fiscal year. The Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program shall be adopted by the City Commission as a supplemental document to the city budget. The Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program shall schedule the construction of capital improvements to serve projected growth and project capital improvement costs, expenditures and impact fee fund revenues for a five year period. The individual fee funds shall maintain a positive fiscal balance. The program may be amended by a majority vote of the City Commission. The City Manager shall adopt and revise, as needed, an administrative impact fee manual to carry out the purposes of this chapter. F. The City shall be entitled to retain not more than five percent of the development impact fees collected as payment for the expenses of collecting the fee and administering this chapter. G. If a development impact fee has been calculated and paid based on a mistake or misrepresentation, it shall be recalculated. Any amounts overpaid by an applicant shall be refunded by the City to the applicant within thirty days after the City's acceptance of the recalculated amount, with interest at the rate of five percent per annum since the date of such overpayment. Any amounts underpaid by the applicant shall be paid to the City within thirty days after the City's acceptance of the recalculated amount, with interest at the rate of five percent per annum since the date of such underpayment. In the event the underpayment is caused by an error attributed solely to the City, the applicant shall pay the recalculated amount without interest. In the case of an underpayment to the City, the City shall not issue any additional permits or approvals for the project for which the development impact fee was previously paid until such underpayment is corrected; and if amounts owed to the City are not paid within such thirty day period, the City may also repeal any permits issued in reliance on the previous payment of such development impact fee and refund such fee to the then current owner of the land. H. In order to promote affordable workforce housing of the City, the City Commission may waive impact fees for Workforce Housing Lots approved by the City Commission pursuant to the BMC Title 17, Chapter 2 by paying some or all of the impact fee from other funds of the city that are not restricted to other uses. In order to promote the economic development of the city and the provision of affordable housing in the city, the City Commission may agree to pay some or all of the development impact fees imposed on a proposed development by this chapter from other funds of the city that are not restricted to other uses. Any such decision to pay development impact fees on behalf of an applicant shall be at the discretion of the City Commission and shall be made pursuant to goals and objectives previously adopted by the City Commission to promote economic development and/or affordable housing. I. Any determination made by any official of the city charged with the administration of any part of this chapter may be appealed to the Development Impact Fees Review Committee by filing: 1. A written notice of appeal on a form provided by the City; 2. A written explanation of why the appellant feels that a determination was in error; and 3. An appeal fee of five hundred dollars with the Impact Fee Coordinator within ten working days after the determination for which the appeal is being filed. The Development Impact Fees Review Committee shall meet to review the appeal within thirty working days of the date the written appeal was presented to the 488666 p. 31 Impact Fee Coordinator. If the appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Development Impact Fees Review Committee, the appellant may appeal the decision to the City Commission by filing a written request with the City Clerk within ten working days of the Committee's decision. At the regular meeting following the filing of the appeal, the City Commission shall fix a time and place for hearing the appeal; and the City Clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the appellant at the address given in the notice of appeal. The hearing shall be conducted at the time and place stated in such notice given by the City Commission. The determination of the City Commission shall be final. If the City Commission concludes that all or part of a determination made by an official of the city charged with the administration of any part of this chapter was in error, then the appeal fee described above shall be returned to the appellant. J. Updating of impact fee information. 1. The facility plans described in this chapter shall be reviewed by the City at least once every five years and if a revision of a facility plan to address changed conditions is deemed necessary, by the City, the plan shall be updated. 2. The development impact fees described in this chapter, fee studies, data and analysis relied upon and required by section 7-6-1602, MCA, and the administrative procedures and manual of this chapter shall be updated at least once every three fiscal years. 3. The impact fee capital improvement program shall be reviewed and updated as provided in section 3.24.110(E) above. 4. The purpose of the review and updating of impact fee related documentation is to ensure that: a The demand and cost assumptions underlying such fees are still valid; b. The resulting fees do not exceed the actual cost of constructing improvements that are of the type for which the fee was paid and that are required to serve new development; c. The monies collected or to be collected in each impact fee fund have been, and are expected to be, spent for improvements of the type for which such fees were paid; and d. That such improvements will benefit those developments for which the fees were paid. K. The development impact fees shown in Tables 3.24.050, 3.24.060, 3.24.070, and 3.24.080 shall be adjusted annually to reflect the effects of inflation on those costs for improvements set forth in the impact fee studies. On January 1st of each year unless and until the fees in Tables 3.24.050, 3.24.070, and/or 3.24.080 are revised or replaced, and then beginning in the subsequent calendar year, each fee amount set forth in each such table shall be adjusted by multiplying such amount by one(1) plus the value of the Construction Cost Index published in the first December edition of the current year. – Source: Engineering News Record. The right-of-way component of the transportation impact fee shall be adjusted by multiplying the value of the right-of-way component of the fee by one(1) plus the percentage value of the increase in taxable value from the preceding year. – Source: Montana Department of Revenue. Such adjustments in such fees shall become effective immediately upon calculation by the City and shall not require additional action by the City Commission to be effective. L. Violation of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor and shall be subject to those remedies provided in Bozeman Municipal Code Section 1.16.010. Knowingly furnishing false 489667 p. 32 information to any official of the city charged with the administration of this chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this chapter, including without limitation the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size, use, or traffic impacts from a proposed development, shall be a violation of this chapter. In addition to, or in lieu of, any criminal prosecution, the City or any applicant for a permit of the types described in Sections 3.24.050(A)(1), 3.24.060(A)(1), 3.24.070(A)(1), or 3.24.080(A)(1) shall have the right to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of this chapter. M. The section titles used in this chapter are for convenience only and shall not effect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this chapter. N. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, or annul the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any development impact fee must be filed and service of process effected within ninety days following the date of imposition of the fee or the final determination of the City Commission, whichever is the later. Section 2 Repealer. All resolutions, ordinances and sections of the Bozeman Municipal Code and parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 3 Savings Provision. This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4 Severability. If any portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this ordinance which may be given effect without the invalid provisions or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 5 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the _________ day of ____________________, 20_____. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the ________________ day of _________________, 20_______. _________________________________________ JEFF KRAUSS, Mayor ATTEST: 490668 - 33 - _____________________________________ STACY ULMEN City Clerk PASSED, ADOPTED AND FINALLY APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the _______ day of __________________20_____. _________________________________________ JEFF KRAUSS, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ STACY ULMEN City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ PAUL J. LUWE City Attorney 491669