Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC8. Bylaws for Impact Fee Committee Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, AICP Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Commission Ratification of Revised Bylaws for the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. MEETING DATE: February 8, 2016 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission ratify the revised bylaws for the Impact Fee Advisory Committee as presented. BACKGROUND: The City Attorney and City Clerk have established standardized bylaws for advisory boards. Updated bylaws conforming to the new standards were presented to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee at their November 17, 2015 meeting. No changes were suggested by the members and the draft was approved unanimously. As stated in the bylaws all revisions must be submitted to the City Commission for final approval. UNRESOVLED ISSUES: None known at this time. FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified. No budgeted expenses will be affected by this change. Attachments: Revised bylaws Minutes from November 17, 2015 meeting Report compiled on: January 28, 2016 111 1 of 9 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure 11/10/2015 Section 1 Applicability. A. These rules shall govern the conduct of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee established by Commission Resolution 3840. B. These rules are supplementary to the provision of Title 7, Chpt. 1, Part 41, MCA, Title 7, Chpt. 5, Parts 41 and 42, MCA, and Title 2, Chpts. 2 and 3, MCA as they relate to procedures for conducting meets and public hearings before City boards. Section 2 Chairperson and Vice Chairperson – Powers and Duties. During the first meeting of the Committee each year the Committee shall appoint by majority vote, a chairperson and a vice chairperson. If appropriate, they shall also appoint a Committee secretary. The recording secretary may be a staff liaison. The chairperson shall be the presiding officer of the Committee. During the absence of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall discharge the duties and exercise the powers and authority of the chairperson. The presiding officer shall preserve strict order and decorum at all meetings and confine members in debates to the question under consideration. The presiding officer may move or second any item of business then before the Committee. The presiding officer shall state, or cause to be stated, every motion coming before the Committee, announce the decision of the Committee on all subjects, and decide all questions of order, subject, however to an appeal to the Committee, in which event a majority vote of the Committee members present shall govern and conclusively determine such question of order. The presiding officer shall vote on all questions. Section 3 Parliamentary Authority. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein or by ordinance or statute, all meetings and hearings of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee shall be conducted in accordance with these rules. In all cases not covered by these rules, the controlling parliamentary authority shall be the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. Section 4 Meeting Agendas. A. The chairperson, staff liaison, or another designated Committee member shall arrange a list of matters to be brought before the Committee according to the 112 2 of 9 order of business specified herein, and furnish each member and the public through the city’s website with a copy of the agenda and all supporting information no later than 48 hours immediately preceding the meeting for which that item has been scheduled. All material to be presented to the Committee for consideration with an agenda item shall be made available to the public within the above time frame. Copies of the agenda shall be available from the City Clerk and one copy shall be posted at the designated posting board in the City Hall for public viewing and made available on the City’s website. Pursuant to Section 7-1-4135, MCA, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee designates as the official posting place for all boards the posting board in the lobby of City Hall located at 121 North Rouse, Bozeman, Montana. B. The staff liaison or Committee chair shall prepare the meeting agenda and may consult with other Committee members in preparing the agenda. The chair person or a majority of Committee members may add to or remove an item from the agenda. The agenda shall be in substantially the following form: i. Executive Session (if required) (only necessary if an executive session is being held). ii. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication such as comments or information received. iii. Changes to the Agenda. iv. Public Service Announcement (if scheduled). v. Approval of Minutes (if required). vi. Consent items (consent items are those which the staff liaison or Committee chair considers that no discussion will be necessary. However, at the beginning of each meeting, any Committee member may request item(s) be removed from the consent agenda for the purpose of discussion) (if necessary). vii. Public comment on non agenda items (always required). viii. Special Presentations (if required). ix. Action items. x. FYI/Discussion1. xi. Adjournment. Order of the above may be adjusted by the presiding officer. Section 5 Meetings. All meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public unless authorized by law. Prior to closing any meeting of the Committee the chairperson or staff liaison shall consult with the city attorney. 1 No action may be taken on items brought up during this section which are not on the agenda. Discussion must be limited to informational items only or to discuss placing an item on a future agenda; for more substantive or detailed discussion on an item it must be scheduled for an upcoming agenda. 113 3 of 9 A. General/Regular Meetings: xii. The Committee shall hold a regular meeting quarterly. xiii. Any meeting of the Committee may be adjourned to a later date and time, provided that no adjournment shall be for a longer period than until the next regular or specially scheduled meeting. xiv. The presiding officer, staff liaison or majority of the Committee may cancel a regular meeting if no business is scheduled for that meeting. B. Public Hearings: xv. Public Hearings are meetings required of some citizen advisory boards to be held as a public hearing pursuant to law. The provisions of subsection A of this section apply to Public Hearings. xvi. Unless prohibited by law, a public hearing may be rescheduled or adjourned to a later date and time. C. Executive Sessions: Executive Sessions are meetings of the Committee with the purpose to discuss litigation strategy, a matter of individual privacy, or other matters wherein a meeting may be closed pursuant to law and will be scheduled as needed. Although each Executive Session will commence as an open public meeting, Executive Sessions may be closed to the public pursuant to authority and limitations in Title 2, Chpt. 3, Part 2, MCA. An Executive Session may be called at any time during any meeting if authorized by law. D. Special Meetings: The presiding officer, a majority of the Committee or the staff liaison may call special meetings of the Committee, upon at least forty eight (48) hours notice to each member personally served on each member through email or left at the member’s usual place of residence and also notice to the public by, at a minimum, posting the agenda on the City’s website and posting board. Section 6 Order of Presentation/Public Participation. A. The order of presentation in which items are presented to the Committee shall generally be as follows: i. The staff liaison shall present the agenda item to the Committee, if appropriate. ii. If applicable, the staff liaison may present a background report on the matter for discussion. Upon conclusion of a staff presentation, Committee members may ask questions of staff for the purposes of understanding and clarification. If the agenda item is a public hearing, the presiding officer will open the public hearing prior to staff presentation. iii. If applicable, comments from the applicant, or the applicant’s agent, shall be heard. The applicant’s presentation/testimony is limited, subject to the 114 4 of 9 discretion of the presiding officer, to ten (10) minutes. iv. After being recognized by the presiding officer, a Committee member may direct questions to the staff or applicant. v. Members of the audience or their agent may be invited to present testimony or evidence. To be recognized, each person desiring to give testimony or evidence shall step forward and, after being recognized, give their name and address for the record. The presiding officer may establish a timeframe for each public comment but in no case shall such timeframe be less than three (3) minutes per speaker. The presiding officer may lengthen or shorten the time allotted for public testimony. vi. After being recognized by the presiding officer, a Committee member may direct questions to any person so testifying for purposes of clarification. vii. Following public comment, the staff liaison shall be given the opportunity to comment on any testimony or other evidence. viii. Following staff comment and if a public hearing, the applicant will be given the opportunity to rebut or comment on any testimony or other evidence. The applicant’s comments and rebuttal is limited, subject to the discretion of the presiding officer, to five (5) minutes. ix. If a public hearing, following applicant rebuttal and any further questions, the presiding officer will close the hearing and bring the agenda item forward for discussion, motion and vote. x. If a public hearing, after being recognized by the presiding officer, a Committee member may direct questions limited to the rebuttal testimony and evidence. xi. The Committee secretary shall enter into the record all correspondence that has been received but was not yet provided. xii. Unless required to act by a certain date pursuant to law, the Committee may continue the discussion to a date certain, close discussion and vote on the matter, or close the discussion and continue the vote to a date certain. B. All testimony and evidence shall be directed to the presiding officer. No person, other than a Committee member and the person recognized as having the floor shall be permitted to enter into the discussion. No questions shall be asked of a Committee member except through the presiding officer. C. The Committee may ask the staff liaison for its recommendation. D. If a public hearing, in the event the applicant does not appear at the scheduled time and place, unless the applicant has waived his or her appearance in writing, and which waiver has been accepted, or unless the matter is submitted as a consent item, the matter shall be continued to the next available regular meeting, public hearing date, or other date certain. E. All testimony and evidence shall be directed to the presiding officer. No person, other than a Committee member and the person recognized as having the floor shall be permitted to enter into the discussion. No questions shall be asked of a 115 5 of 9 Committee member except through the presiding officer. F. For all public hearings involving land use and annexation decisions, the Committee will wait a minimum of one week before making a decision whenever requested by a member unless a decision is required due to a statute, ordinance or other law. G. Committee members are urged to state the reasons for their decisions, particularly on land use issues; the record must reflect findings regarding legal criteria for all quasi-judicial decisions. H. Witnesses may be required to testify under oath. I. The Committee shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence and may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent or unduly repetitious testimony or evidence. J. The presiding officer shall rule on all questions relating to the admissibility of evidence with advice from the City Attorney, which ruling may be overruled by a majority vote of the Committee. K. A public hearing which has been formally closed for all public input may not be reopened and no additional evidence or testimony from the public shall be received or considered except as provided herein. If additional information is required from the public before a decision can be made, the Committee upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, may call for an additional public hearing which hearing shall be noticed as required by law, specifying date, time place and subject matter of hearing. This paragraph does not preclude the Committee, after the public hearing, from asking questions of staff or receiving additional evidence from staff. Upon decision by the presiding officer or upon a duly adopted motion of the Committee to reopen the public hearing prior to close of the agenda item in which the hearing was held, the requirement to provide public notice does not apply; the public hearing may be reopened and the additional input provided prior to a final decision on the item. Section 7 Quorum and Voting. Unless otherwise provided by law, a quorum shall consist of a majority of existing appointed Committee members. If a quorum is not present, those in attendance shall be named and the Committee shall adjourn to a later time. The Committee secretary shall reduce motions to writing and, upon request shall read a motion prior to the vote. Upon every vote, the outcome shall be stated and recorded. A Committee member has an obligation to vote unless there is a conflict of interest. Email, telephonic, or proxy voting shall be prohibited. Where membership on the Committee is assigned to a specific title, per section 1.01.100, BMC the person acting in that position may designate a person under their supervision to perform the required duties of a Committee member. 116 6 of 9 Section 8 Rules of Debate/Reconsideration/Conflict of Interest. A. Every Committee member desiring to speak shall address the presiding officer and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine discussion to the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language. B. A Committee member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless the member is to be called to order, or as herein otherwise provided. If a Committee member, while speaking is called to order, they shall cease speaking until the question of order be determined, and, if in order shall be permitted to proceed. C. Order of rotation in matters of debate or discussion shall be at the discretion of the presiding officer. D. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Committee must be made on the day such action was taken. It must be made either immediately during the same session, or at a recessed and reconvened session thereof. Such motion shall be made by one of the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any member, and may be made at any time and have precedence over all other motions or while a Committee member has the floor. It shall be debatable. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Committee member from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of the Committee, but the matter must be duly scheduled as an agenda item. E. Pursuant to the City’s Code of Ethics, a Committee member may seek the advice of the City Attorney as to whether the member has a conflict of interest pursuant to law. If the Committee member is advised there is a conflict of interest, the member shall recuse himself/herself, step away from the meeting table, and refrain from discussion and vote on the matter. F. After a motion, duly made and seconded, by the Committee, no person shall address the Committee without first securing the permission of the presiding officer. Section 9 Open Meetings and Email. A. Except for properly-called executive sessions as permitted by state law, all meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public and media, freely subject to recording by radio, television and photography at any time, provided that such arrangements do not interfere with the orderly conduct of the meetings. 117 7 of 9 B. A majority of the Committee shall not conduct synchronized email discussions involving a matter over which the Committee has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. Synchronized email discussions are email exchanges among a majority of Committee members within minutes of each other that create the quality of simultaneity similar to instant messaging or chat room discussions. Such discussions are characterized as an active exchange of information rather than the passive receipt of information. An example of synchronized email discussion would be a majority of Committee members sitting at their computers and instantly exchanging emails concerning Committee business, whereas a passive receipt of information is where a Committee member receives an email and responds in the normal course of time similar to responding by letter received in the mail. The Committee shall not view emails or other electronic communication mechanisms concerning any matter on the agenda during a Committee meeting unless the submission is part of a specifically approved and adopted electronic public testimony program. Electronic communication mechanisms include text messaging or any other emerging technology that violates the spirit of open meeting laws. This does not preclude viewing emails or electronic communication mechanisms that were received prior to the Committee meeting. Emails received by Committee members concerning an agenda item shall be forwarded to the staff liaison or Committee secretary and retained in accordance with the City’s retention policy. Section 10 Decorum. A. While the Committee is in a session, Committee members must preserve order and decorum, and a member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Committee nor disturb any member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Committee or its presiding officer. B. Any person making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks or who shall become boisterous while addressing the Committee may be denied further audience with the Committee by the presiding officer, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority vote of the Committee. C. The Committee shall not debate, in a heated or argumentative manner, with a member of the public presenting testimony during a meeting. D. Speakers shall only address the agenda item before the Committee. Any person speaking on an agenda item not before the bard may be called out of order. Section 11 Recording of Meetings and Minutes. 118 8 of 9 A. The Committee secretary shall prepare a summary of all meetings to be known as the “Minutes” and to be approved by the Committee. It shall not be necessary to formally read out loud the Minutes prior to approval. Such Minutes may be revised by the staff liaison or Committee secretary to correct spelling, numbering, and other technical defects. Prior to approval, any Committee member may request the privilege of amending or correcting the Minutes to accurately reflect the substance of the prior meeting. If objection is made by any Committee member to such amendment or correction, a majority vote of the Committee shall be necessary for adoption of the correction or amendment. The minutes shall be forwarded to the City Clerk’s office for posting within three months of the meeting. B. Executive Session Minutes. Executive session minutes shall be taken and prepared by the Committee secretary. The Committee shall approve the minutes of an executive session in open meeting; provided, however that any discussion concerning the contents of the minutes, prior to approval, shall be conducted in executive session. The staff liaison or Committee secretary will distribute the draft executive session minutes to the members in a manner that ensures and retains confidentiality. The Committee shall follow the provision 2.02.130, BMC related to dissemination of executive session minutes. C. Televising, broadcasting or audio recording of meetings: At the discretion of the Committee and City Clerk’s office, meetings may be televised, broadcast or an audio recording made. If recorded, audio recordings shall be made available to the public unless required to be kept confidential by law. Section 12 Attendance at Meetings/Removal by City Commission/Terms. All Committee members are expected to contribute the time necessary to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the Committee. All Committee members are required if they are to be absent from a meeting to contact the presiding officer and the staff liaison prior to the meeting. If prior contact is made, the absence will be determined excused. If the Committee member fails to contact the presiding officer or staff liaison prior to the meeting, the absence will be considered unexcused. The City Commission will be notified by the staff liaison of any Committee member with three or more unexcused absences in any calendar year. The Committee, via motion and vote, may forward to the City Commission the name of any Committee member having three or more excused absences, or a combination of excused and unexcused absences. As provided by law, the City Commission may remove a Committee member for excessive absences. A Committee member’s term may be extended for up to 30 days after term expiration on a case by case basis by the Deputy City Clerk if the Committee member has reapplied for a subsequent term but the application process has not yet been heard by the City Commission. Section 13 119 9 of 9 Compliance with the City Code of Ethics. All Committee members are required to follow State ethics laws regarding appointed officials and the city of Bozeman Code of Ethics. New Committee members will receive the City of Bozeman ethics handbook and must sign a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook, take an oath they will uphold the state and city ethics codes. Committee members are also required to take an initial ethics training within two months after appointment. Each year Committee members are required to attend city sponsored ethics. Non-compliance with the City Code of Ethics and training requirements may result in removal of a Committee member. See the City Code of Ethics for more details. Section 14 Compliance with the City Purchasing Policy. All boards are subject to the City purchasing policy (Administrative Order 2009-06), as revised, unless specified by law. City staff liaisons shall handle financial transactions unless specific arrangements have been made in writing through the City controller. Section 15 Compliance with State Records Retention Policy. All City boards are subject to the State of Montana records retention policy. A. The City Clerk will handle retention of all agendas, minutes and Committee resolutions once they have been forwarded to the clerk’s office. B. E-mails, websites and social networking sites are subject to adopted records retention schedules. For social media and websites please refer to the current Information Technology Social Media Use Policy for further guidelines. 120 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting Impact Fee Advisory Committee Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:00pm, Madison Room, City Hall– 121 N. Rouse Ave. A. Call meeting to order B. Changes to the Agenda – No Changes to the Agenda C. Public Comment – No public comment D. Action Items 1. Election of Officers – James Nickelson was selected unanimously as board chair – no other volunteers. Rob Evans was selected unanimously as vice chair. 2. Revision to By-laws Chris Saunders gave background on the by-laws and need for updates. James Nickelson questioned if the other by-laws will be thrown out. Confirmation that agreeing to the new by-laws replaces the old ones. Anna Rosenberry made a motion: I move to adopt the rules of procedure as presented and request the City Commission to ratify them. Second by Randy Carpenter Unanimously adopted. 3. Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Anna Rosenberry began presentation on Impact fees starting with fire impact fees as they are the most simple. Anna discussed where the impact fee numbers are coming from and future programs. 121 Questions for staff: James Nickelson questioned if the 5 year average makes sense or if we’re collecting more or less than is needed. Anna Rosenberry clarified the question and responded that what is collected is based on the project, but that typically we collect what is needed. She stated that we do see fluctuations and it’s a conservative number. She feels the 5 year average is a good estimate. She feels a 2 or 3 year average could be used, but a 5 year may be the best projections. Chris Saunders clarified that how much is brought in is largely determined by the type of project. He continued to explain difference between demand for various types of projects. Chris Mehl stated that it may be better to have one consultant do all four studies on the impact fees instead of 3 and then 1 more. Chris Saunders stated that if they can complete the needs study in time for the fire impact fee, they may be able to do it that way. Josh Waldo stated that they will begin the study in July of 2016 and should be done by the beginning of 2017. Rick Hixson made a motion: I move to recommend to the City Commission approval of the Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program as presented for 2017-2021. Second by George Thompson Unanimously approved. 4. Street, Water, and Sewer Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Presentation Anna Rosenberry began the presentation on the street, water and sewer impact fees and coordination of projects that relate to those funds. Craig Woolard began discussion on how we currently use impact fees. He feels we are moving away from capital improvements process to an asset management process. Mr. Woolard stated that they have reviewed all projects and tried to find the best way to coordinate them. He stated that the new funding sources and new policies have changed the process. The arterial and collector district for additional non-growth funding for streets is a significant change. They are making an attempt to plan ahead for 122 certain corridors instead of waiting on development to come – getting ahead of some projects can make a better capital plan. The goal is to map and track projects that the public can better understand. Mr. Woolard displayed as an example a 5 year plan on a prioritized road reconstruction plan, that - assuming they are approved - can be completed with maintenance funding. Rob Evans questioned the cost estimates and how much they think they may change over time. Mr. Woodlard said that it can vary tremendously, but they’re hoping not to see much change in price over time. Can be impacted by a bad bid or a bad bidding environment. He highlighted that ultimately he is just saying that the timeline is right. Anna Rosenberry added that there is identified funding for these projects – and continued to explain where that funding may be coming from. Mr. Woolard explained how transportation, waste water, etc. are all linked. Changing the use of the street impact fees can dictate where development takes place. Mr. Woolard discussed the projects and intersections that need to be done. He feels the need to get the projects completed; we need to change how we use impact fees. Currently how we use impact fees is based on development. The impact fees are chasing development, not leading it. He feels that the board typically looks at where we think development will take place and are often wrong – and we respond to their needs. Anna Rosenberry discussed what the local share “provides” (two lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk) and that we base our impact fees on what is needed beyond that. Rob Evans questioned if that is required by state statute. Chris Saunders clarified. Mr. Woolard stated that our capital improvements plan is completely dependent on developers – we cannot lead our own plan. “The system we have gives us the system we have”. The system has holes because the right development hasn’t come along to fill those holes. 123 Chris Saunders called attention to the unannexed areas within the city as an example of how development has not occurred evenly. Chris Kukulski stated that the previous plan worked to get us here, but now we need to reevaluate it to fill in the holes. Mr. Woolard stated that to fill in the holes in infrastructure we need to change how we use impact fees. He displayed a map that shows the difference between what needed to be done and what was planned to be done over a 5 year period. There was a serious lag in what needs to be completed. Randy questioned what parts of the map indicate – whether it is current needs or previous needs. Mr. Woolard stated that it was an old plan, but just shows what we expected to do and what is actually able to be done. Mr. Woolard stated that he sees beyond the 5 year plan, but he thinks we should focus just on the next 5 years – they do keep other projects in their line of vision. George Thompson clarified the difference between two maps – the 5 year plan and the list of known projects that need to be completed. Mr. Woolard moved on to discuss how we can change our use of impact fees. There is a lot of system dysfunction that lead to public safety issues. In addition, it leads to inefficient construction – some areas are not getting completed on the first round and need to be redone multiple times, ultimately costing us additional money. We knew 10 years ago what the needs would be, but only update according to the present needs – not the long term forecast. Mr. Saunders mentioned that the traffic control and engineering costs of the projects can be saved drastically by only doing it once. Mr. Woolard stated that those parts alone can be 15-20%. In addition, the projects are small and the construction industry is small and we can’t attract larger companies outside of the city, so the bidding is limited and we get higher prices. By planning ahead, we are in a better competitive position with larger projects that can attract outside contractors. Anna Rosenberry explained we are doing it this way because of the way our impact fees are done. We don’t currently have another funding source to change how we do it. 124 Rob Evans questioned if we included the traffic control and studies needed in the numbers presented. Mr. Woolard stated it was, that being able to fund the design piece of a project is huge. Rick Hixson gave examples of how much of the cost of a project is beyond the required two lanes, side walk, etc. Designing infrastructure ahead of development is a new concept for us. He doesn’t know how we address problem areas without doing this. Chris Kukulski stated that this is the right thing to do, but it’s a matter of how we do it. Anna Rosenberry explained how this would be public financing to cover until development is done and we can collect the impact fees. Craig Woolard explained that we could use this funding to build infrastructure and once annexation or local development occurs, they would “pay back” the fund. Mr. Woolard explained how this policy change could help and gave specific example of 11th and Graff. Eventually we will receive funding back as that area is developed. There’s no certainty that we will develop to future needs. Chris Mehl stated that we may promote faster growth by having areas opened up already for building. Mr. Kukulski stated that perhaps it may slow development if we don’t develop an area that property owners are waiting on. Discussion continued regarding pros and cons. Chris Mehl questioned how we can account for inflation if this takes years to pay back. Discussion among board members about how to insure we get funds back – Mr. Hickson explained how we can ensure we are still receiving funds replacement. Rob Evans stated that transparency is key when dealing with the developers. Letting them know the plan and where money is going. Chris Budeski stated that a benefit can be that the developers will know the cost of the road upfront, before they bid for a project if the infrastructure is 125 in place in advance. Mr. Woolard stated that the system condition is getting bad – we can wait, but it will get worse. Board discussed difference between pay back for an intersection vs the local street in front of the home and individual’s willingness to fund different projects. Chris Kukulski stated that depending on what we use the funds for determines how much money we will get back - intersections are harder to get funds back for. Board discussed further a 60/40 growth share/local share split that is currently in place and how that compares to the consultant’s recommendations with the last fee study. Craig Woolard and Rick Hixson stated that the 60/40 split is derived from traffic numbers before and after the project is completed. Rick Hixson also stated that the value of existing intersections could be valued at near zero as a depreciated asset – you have to scrap the original to build the new one. Mr. Woolard stated that the 60/40 was so that the developer wasn’t paying for everything. Chris Mehl stated that changing the formula doesn’t change what we ask for from the developers. Mr. Woolard stated the options are to keep the program as is and use some Arterial and Collector funds to make some improvements or change the system to be more proactive. That there is no point in meeting to plan capital improvements that we can’t have an opinion on in the current system – we would have to meet monthly and reevaluate plan based on projects coming in. Anna Rosenberry stated that we will be scrutinized on where the money is going and what improvements were made that they are being asked to refund. Mr. Woolard stated that the system collapses if we do not continue to get refunded for the impact fees. You cannot guess wrong on what 126 development will happen in the future, or you will sink the system. Mike Balch stated that there should be a local share for some of these projects, because others in the area will be using the streets as well. Rick Hixson pointed out that we’re planning in the future. Some might argue that they shouldn’t be responsible for paying for certain streets because they don’t drive there – but in future expansion, people will be drawn to other areas of town. Board also discussed the use of roads to access property outside of the city limits and how we can not necessarily account for that transportation when calculating costs and needing to figure out ways to collect from people using the roads – even though some may fall outside of city boundaries. Chris Kukulski stated that we’d like to see projects getting started so that people can see where their money is going. Mr. Woolard stated that the big projects won’t get done, but the little holes can be filled in. He stated he’s concerned that we may not be fast enough to get ahead for the project to be successful. Chris Mehl stated that this may require us to say “no” to developers who are coming in and maybe don’t fit into the plan. Anna Rosenberry explained further how this plan would change the current policy. Chris Mehl asked what happens if developers come in and want to develop outside of the plan. Mr. Woolard stated that we should have a reserve fund to be able to address those types of situations. It would be a mistake to spend it all down and not have anything in reserve. We could easily spend it all now, but need to spend smartly. Chris Kukulski stated that to some extent we will still need to follow development. Chris Saunders stated that planning ahead avoids us having to come back later and needing to expand intersections and roads multiple times. Anna Rosenberry stated there are risks we need to manage to go down this road. There may be legal issues and how will this be written into the code to make it work. We should see how the pay backs actually work before we get too deep into the system. We could get into a legal battle and lose or no 127 development takes place and we never recoup any of the money. Discussion regarding the legal side and how the city can secure itself. Discussion among board members regarding public right of ways – whether we are given it or have to purchase it. Anna Rosenberry stated that local landowners cannot donate their way out of paying for any of the hard costs of the project. Chris Saunders agrees, but states that there is value to that land. Mr. Woolard stated that we’re “stuck” in terms of capital improvements until they decide which way to go from here. He stated that we should move forward with some sewer projects before we start developing as it will only get more costly in the future once things get set in place. Anna Rosenberry stated that she would like the board to let them take a shot at preparing an impact fee schedule and arterial and collector schedule that will work with one another and how they should prepare the intersection schedule. She said the board seems to be in support of that. Chris Mehl questioned who supports developing using impact fees with the repayment schedule. James Nickelson said he’d like to see how that pencils out. Mr. Kukulski clarified what he means – that we should walk it and test the water before going too deep. Mr. Woolard stated that this is a way to address serious needs, not just to front developers. Rick Hixson stated that if we build to the plan, people will build to the book and know that’s where infrastructure will be in place – but we save some funds for the “great” projects that need infrastructure. Chris Mehl questioned how individuals felt about how intersections are funded. Randy stated that without thinking about it, he thinks 100%. It’s the cleanest and makes the most sense. George Thompson stated that it provides a great planning tool for 128 developers. It can also make the land more valuable. James Nickelson stated the old system seemed to be working fine and then a consultant came in and said it didn’t seem legal. But he seems to agree with the old system. Discussion continued among board members regarding how we should draw the line. 100%, 60/40, etc. Mike Balch proposed that it should be based on a traffic study. If the project increases an intersection by 10%, they should be responsible for that. Mr. Woolard states that it makes sense, but we can’t build portions of an intersection – we have to build them 100%. We will build the intersections and then just receive money back when development comes. Chris Mehl stated that we’ll work through it, but it will require a lot of public education. Randy Carpenter mentioned the benefits of community development by doing it this way – we can achieve community plans more effectively. James Nickelson questioned the water plan and how impact fees balance with cash-in-lieu of water rights. Craig Woolard responded in detail about how we can acquire the water rights and that we wouldn’t do it unless we had the rights to do it. The two funding sources will be kept strictly separate but will be coordinated in accomplishing the necessary work. Discussion continued regarding cash-in-lieu. Staff agreed to prepare a plan on how to move forward to present to the board at the next meeting. Discussion regarding whether this will address wastewater – now that there’s some direction with the streets, staff can look at it on a project by project basis to see how it fits in. James Nickelson asked for clarification on how it will be presented – with water and streets together, or all streets, all water, etc. Anna Rosenberry commented that they will start with the street schedule and then work in the water and sewer. E. FYI/Discussion 129 Chris Mehl stated that is the board members can’t make it on the 3rd of December, to let them know as this is an important issue. Chris Saunders stated that tomorrow 11/18 there is a workshop regarding the UDC update. F. Adjournment For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This Committee generally meets the 2nd and 4th Thursday of the month as needed at 6:00pm. Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-3207 (TDD 582-2301). 130