The URL can be used to link to this page

1. Transportation Impact FeesM%LLJ�LEU_ Chamber of Commerce __ A Providing Economic, Community, and Workforce Development Services www.kalispellchamber.com January 6, 2009 Kalispell City Council Impact Fee Advisory Committee Attn: Mayor Pam Kennedy PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 Ile: Transportation Impact Fees Dear Mayor Kennedy, Council Members & Members of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee: The Kalispell Chamber of Commerce has previously provided testimony supporting the concept of Impact Fees, whereby developers and real estate projects pay for their share of costs related to infrastructure improvements. However, the proposed fee schedule and plan for the implementation of Transportation Impact Fees, as described in the HDR report dated January 2009, are unacceptable. If adopted, these fees will diminish the business environment, slow the rate of investment, and put jobs at risk. We urge you to reduce the proposed fee schedule to a more reasonable level and grandfather in existing projects or structure a phase -in period over five years or more. As we enter 2009, the economy in Kalispell and the Flathead Valley are fragile. Unemployment is at 7.3 percent and rising. Home foreclosures are increasing. New commercial construction projects are at a standstill. Let's implement a transportation impact fee system that is reasonable and legal. In the end, we all benefit from a strong economic and investment environment. Sin c rely, I g 1 S g oeUJmer, President Kalispell Chamber of Commerce OFFICE 406.758.2800. 406.758.2805 FAX • 15 Depot Park, Kalispell, MT 59901 f 1GLACIER BANK January 6, 2009 Kalispell City Council Impact Fee Advisory Committee Attn: Mayor Pam Kennedy PO Box 1997 Kalispell, Mt. 59901 Re: Transportation Impact Fees Dear Mayor Kennedy, Council Members & Members of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee; Glacier Bank fully supports the concept of developers paying their fair share of costs for development related impacts to our transportation infrastructure. The proposed fees as outlined in the HDR report dated January 2009; however appears to be punitive to existing and prospective project owners. We feel the fees, as currently proposed, will make it difficult to finance new projects resulting in reduced new construction, fewer jobs and a reduction in new tax base. We are already seeing proposed construction projects being put on hold pending the Council's final decision on these fees which further exasperates our slowing economy and high unemployment rate. Our greater concern is the impact on existing developments that were built in cooperation with the city and aided by bank financing. The projected build -out of these projects did not anticipate excessively high transportation fees that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per building. The Old School Station industrial park is a good example. The developers of this project agreed to be annexed into the city and paid 100% of the cost to extend the city sewer line to the project. Their decision to build and the financing of the project was based, to a large degree, upon an agreement with the City of Kalispell to be reimbursed by late -comer hook up fees. The high SID's on this project coupled with the down turn in the economy have already brought land sales to a near halt. Adding tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in new fees to potential construction projects within the park will likely assure no or very limited new construction and late -comer hook up fees for years to come. It would seem unfair to penalize developers who have already made major investments in our city under the old rules by imposing massive new fees without some grandfather clause or phase -in period. New developments, under the HDR proposal, will have a keen advantage over existing projects. If the total cost of a new construction project, including land cost and the proposed fees, make a project economically unsound they can simply decide not to buy land in Kalispell. Existing developers who have already purchased land and invested in our city will be obligated to service debt, maintain their properties and pay taxes even if they lose sales because of excessive fees or to lower priced lots outside the city limits. HDR suggests (on page 2-3) that holding these unsold properties' in the "land market" for higher value developments is a positive for the city. Where are these "higher value developments" and how does anyone benefit by stalling development, the related jobs and creation of new tax base? The city's consultant also stated (on page 2-3) that; "The landowner must lower the land price to offset the fee in order to make a sale". Stated differently HDR is acknowledging that projects will not be feasible with the proposed fees without accessing price penalties to existing land owners. We'd ask, with all due respect, that you consider reducing the proposed fees to more reasonable levels and grandfather in existing land development projects or structure a phase -in period over five years or more. Sincerely, Dennis S. Beams Executive Vice President/Chief Credit Officer Glacier Bank 406-756-4256 City of Kalispell Impact Fee Advisory Committee January 7, 2009 City Council City of Kalispell 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903 Subject: Revised Transportation Impact Fee Recommendation Dear Council Members: At the October 13, 2008 Transportation Impact Fee City Council Work session, additional questions were asked regarding the Transportation Impact Fee Report dated August 2008. City Council directed the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) to review and address several items. It is our understanding that the items we were requested to review and address included reviewing the methodological approach and process in order to insure that there is not a better approach available, reviewing the CIP and growth related projects ( in particular MSN 2, 3, 23 and 28) to determine whether they are all appropriate for impact fee funding, determining whether the average daily new trip number was correct, again review and determine whether one zone is appropriate in Kalispell for determining impact fees and to listen to concerns from the community regarding other methodological issues within the impact fee report. After extensive discussion and evaluation by Public Works, engineers hired by community members and Pescia and Associates, changes to the number of new trips were made to the report. On November 19, 2008 and January 6, 2009 the IFAC met to discuss the concerns of the City Council, listen to public comment, and to review the Revised August 2008 Transportation Impact Fee Report. On January 6, 2009 we were directed that the City Council wanted to have the Impact Fee Report back for review at their January 12, 2009 work session. After much committee discussion, public and staff input, the IFAC voted on presenting the report to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. The vote was two against and two in favor of a favorable recommendation to the City Council. The City's IFAC members will attempt to attend the January 12, 2009, Council work session to answer questions and review reasons for our votes. We look forward to working with Council on finalizing the transportation impact fees. Sincerely yours, Merna Terry Chairperson Impact Fee Advisory Committee C.0 Impact Advisory Committee James Hansz, P.E. Terri Loudermilk Public Works Department 201 1" Avenue East, P.O. Box 1997, Kalispell, MT 59903 —Phone (406) 758-7720 — Fax (406) 758-7831 www.kalispelkcom December 31, 2008 To: Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Mayor, City Council From: Jim Hansz, Director of Public Works Subject: Questions on Impact Fee Process The City Attorney, City Manager, and Public Works have been working to answer several remaining questions related to the impact fee process. This has focused on the following eight areas: Policy Issues that will need to be addressed, by the council, if the transportation impact fee study is approved The City Manager and City Attorney have identified several policy issues that will need to be addressed by City Council when impact fees are adopted. These policy issues fall into five broad areas. • Level of fees imposed: will the fees be imposed at 100% or something less? If the fees are imposed at less than 100% will the fees be raised later on a specific schedule or event? • Credit: if a developer installs transportation infrastructure that benefits the main street network how will the developer get credit on transportation impact fees? • Grandfathering: if a developer has a multi -phase project that started before the imposition of impact fees and continues after the approval of the fees, does the developer get a break on the fees for the later phases that were started after the fees were approved? • Project prioritization: should projects be segmented into 5 year segments, for example, and prioritized based on need for the project to be completed? • Outside Funding: how will the receipt of outside funding, federaUstate, impact the fee administration? Findings of Fact The City Attorney will develop findings of fact based on the full record of discussion related to the transportation impact fee process. These findings of fact will become part of the record supporting any ordinance or resolution that adopts transportation impact fees. The City Attorney has developed a checklist for assessment of the impact fee process to ensure it conforms to state statutes. In addition, he has provided the IFAC with copies of the current City code detailing special impact fee administrative requirements and MCA related to impact fees. These are attached as exhibits 1, 2, and 3. Should Another Approach Be Used? The intent of this effort has been to employ an approach that generates an appropriate transportation impact fee based on a cost that is related to an impact. There is more than one way to determine impact fees and the two most accepted have been used in Montana. The City's consultant, HDR/EES Inc, has outlined the two approaches and summarized the respective methodologies. That summary is attached as exhibits 4 and 5. The results of the City's approach are detailed in the Impact Fee Draft Report. For this task, the alternate approach taken in Bozeman has been summarized and its theoretical application in Kalispell shows it to result in a fee substantially greater than the method recommended. In our opinion, this larger fee is not justified because conditions unique to Kalispell could prevent the construction of facilities sized as anticipated by the fee. Therefore, while an alternate method is available, and is widely used, it is not considered to be appropriate for Kalispell. Insure That MSN 2, 3, 23, 28, and 29 are Correctly Related to New Growth MSN 2, 3, 23, and 28 were identified by consultants working for Goldberg Properties as questionable to include in the impact fee CIP. MSN 29 was included in the review list at the request of Mayor Kennedy. A discussion of MSN 2, 3, 23, and 28 was held with the Goldberg consultant team on December 23`d during which the City sought any additional information as to why the projects were in question and whether an alternate approach to assessing projects was more appropriate. None was offered except to point out that some of these projects were identified as future needs in the 1993 Transportation Plan and therefore should not be included as future needs for the purpose of the current impact fee CIP. The City has considered this in light of the law's requirement that an improvement which provides a greater level of service is ineligible to be funded via impact fees. The City has concluded that the conventional method of assessing roadways via their level of service, i.e., A, B, C, D, E, F, as done with each of these projects, provides the most reliable and best understood measure for assessing their inclusion in the impact fee CIP. None of these projects raises the anticipated level of service. MSN 29 also does not raise the level of service of the roadway. Therefore, the City staff has concluded that including projects MSN 2, 3, 23, 28, and 29 is appropriate for establishing a CIP of growth - related transportation projects. Discuss Use of Extension Agreements/ SIDS with Impact Fees The improvement costs listed in the impact fee CIP reflect only those surface improvements related to meeting the level of service listed in the transportation plan. As an example, for a change from a two-lane to a three lane roadway, the improvement costs are intended to reflect the extra lane and appurtenances necessary to meet the standard listed. All other costs for any related work necessary to accomplish the recommended project are omitted from the estimate. This is in accordance with MDT's standard practice for transportation plans and project estimates. As a result, the cost for any additional level of future improvement deemed necessary at the time and any other typical costs for utility relocations, right of way, are not listed and would be separately funded at the time a project is constructed. The funding of these extras is most appropriately accomplished via extension agreements with developers or by SIDs, depending on the specific circumstances of a project and how/who provides for its construction, and the benefitted area. The City has in place well -established procedures for SIDs and extension agreements. To these last points, the City's current Extension of Services Plan, dated September 2004, Policies for the Cost of Future Services section attached as exhibit 6, specifically page 27, paragraph 5 and 6 describe the uses of extension agreements, which have been recently employed by the City for several privately -funded utility -related extensions. The same document, page 28, paragraph 7 speaks directly to the funding of streets and the appropriate use of SIDs for this purpose. Therefore, the City staff has concluded that use of extension agreements and SIDs is appropriate for funding elements of growth -related projects that should not be funded with impact fees, and there are currently in place well -established and effective policies and procedures to address funding issues when they arise. Devise a Simpler Method of Estimating Fees The City staff has reviewed this and concurs that a simpler method of estimating impact fees will benefit everyone potentially affected by transportation impact fees. As a result, staff has developed a simplified spread sheet estimating tool for this purpose. It is based on similar tools used elsewhere. Staff is currently working to incorporate this estimating tool into the City's website for general use. When this is completed it should be understood that the information will be only an estimate of impact fees based on the data input of the person(s) using it. Therefore, the estimated fee could be subject to change based on the final documentation submitted for approval. It is the intent of the City to adapt this estimating tool for use with all the adopted impact fees. A draft example of this work sheet is attached as exhibit 7. Validate 5% Administrative Fee City staff has reviewed the administrative costs to ensure the validity of the fee proposed in the impact fee report. The results of this review have been provided to the impact fee consultant who has analyzed all costs and concluded that actual costs exceed the 5% allowable amount. Therefore, the administrative fee should be set to the allowable 5% amount. This will be reflected in the final draft report, and is summarized in exhibit 8. Validate Trip Generation Data This has been the most problematic issue to resolve, but it appears the needed information has been obtained from MDT to answer the questions raised by Mr. Chuck Strum, transportation consultant for Goldberg Properties, on the derivation of the trip generation data. To be perfectly clear at the outset, MDT was not a party to the City's impact fee project. Their role was limited to providing the transportation modeling support for the City's transportation plan update, a totally separate project. In that role they received planning and other growth -related information developed by the City and its consultant RPA and applied the data to their regional transportation model for the Kalispell area to determine existing conditions and future impacts on the Kalispell area roadway network. In addition, MDT is bound by a strict confidentiality agreement with the Federal government related to confidential census data employed in the operation and management of the transportation modeling software. This created certain difficulties in our effort to extract information to address the trip generation issue. RPA provided support to the transportation plan project and the impact fee project. In this latter role, RPA provided analysis and calculations of total trips based on certain data provided by MDT. This data included trip rates from the model and the numbers of dwelling units, retail job growth and non -retail job growth. Data most recently provided by MDT varies slightly from that provided earlier to RPA. As a result, the calculation of total trips generated within the City has declined slightly, from 142,031 to 134,118, a 5.57% reduction in the number of trips. In general, based on several telephone discussions and email correspondence with Mr. Strum and RPA, the City staff has concluded the method of calculating trips generated is valid, and based on a current understanding of the data provided by MDT can be repeated when required. This is summarized in correspondence from RPA, and relevant email traffic, attached as exhibits 9 and 10. Summation In summary, several issues were raised that demanded resolution. Of the items handled by Public Works staff, the City has concluded that the issues have been properly addressed and the impact fee process can move forward to a conclusion. Further, the City staff concludes that further review of these issues by the staff and consultants involved will not yield a different result and therefore should not be revisited again by the same parties. Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Impact Fee Checklist Exhibit 2 — Kalispell City Code Exhibit 3 — Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 1604 Exhibit 4 - Memo from R. Goff dated December 31, 2008 Exhibit 5 - Attachment to Goff Memo, Excerpt from City of Bozeman Impact Fee Report Exhibit 6 - Kalispell Extension of Services Plan, pages 26-29 Exhibit 7 — Impact Fee Estimating Work Sheet Exhibit 8 — Calculation of Administrative Fee Exhibit 9 - Memo from RPA dated December 30, 2008 Exhibit 10 - Emails from Chuck Strum to Jeff Key (formerly of RPA) Exhibit 1 — Impact Fee Checklist Exhibit 1 Impact Fee Analysis Checklist Does the Transportation Plan adopted by City Council meet the following statutory requirements for Impact Fees? ❑ Does it describe the existing conditions of the facility? ❑ Does it establish level of service standards? ❑ Does it forecast future additional needs for service for a defined period of time? ❑ Does it identify capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service? ❑ Does it identify those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility? Does the Impact Fee Report and Recommendations meet the following statutory requirements for Impact Fees? ❑ Does the Impact Fee Report and Recommendations use the Transportation Plan adopted by City Council as a facility plan for its basis? ❑ Does it make 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? ❑ Does it make 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? ❑ Does it establish 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? ❑ Does it establish the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee? ❑ Does it establish the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand? Does the City have a component of the budget of the governmental entity that: ❑ schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth? ❑ utilizes the Transportation Plan to project costs of the capital improvements? ❑ allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements? ❑ covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years? ❑ Have the data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee been made available to the public upon request? ❑ Are the amounts of the impact fees imposed based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new development? ❑ Are the calculations of the impact fees in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles? Does the impact fee must meet the following requirements: ❑ Is the amount of the impact fee reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development? ❑ Considering the following factors, do the impact fees imposed exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development? (They must not) o The need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; o Consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements; o Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee; o New development may not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service; o Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility Exhibit 2 — Kalispell City Code Exhibit 2 Chapter 8 — Article 6 — Kalispell City Code 8-29 Establishment of a Standing Impact Fee Committee. The City shall maintain a standing Impact Fee Advisory Committee. This Impact Fee Advisory Committee shall include at least one representative of the development community and one certified public accountant. The Committee shall review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and spending impact fees. The Committee shall be provided with adequate financial reports on a semiannual basis, shall meet at least annually, and shall provide the City Council with a report of their findings and recommendations. The City shall provide the Committee with the appropriate advice and counsel of professional City staff and/or an appropriate professional consultant selected by the City. The City Council shall not consider or adopt any impact fees that have not been first considered by the Committee. The Impact Fee Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council. (Ord. 1587, 10-16-2006) 8-30 Calculation and Imposition of Impact Fees. Any impact fees to fund capital improvements of the City of Kalispell shall not be approved and adopted by City Council unless those fees have been calculated in accordance with 7-6-1602 MCA or as such statute may later be amended. Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure, or rebuilding a damaged structure, unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as set forth by State law. If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be imposed. The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee shall be available to the public upon request. (Ord. 1587, 10-16-2006) 8-31 Collection of Impact Fees. A. Upon collection, all impact fees shall be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which shall be invested with all interest accruing to the fund. B. The City may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts. C. If the impact fees are not hereafter collected or spent in accordance with this article or are not in compliance with 7-6-1602 MCA, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property at the time that the refund was due. D. The Kalispell Building Department shall collect all impact fees imposed and shall collect them no earlier than the date of issuance of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of wastewater or water service connection or well or septic permitting. (Ord. 1587, 10-16-2006) 8-32 Contributions in Lieu of Impact Fee Payments. The City may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of payment of impact fees if: A. The need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 MCA; and B. The land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use by the City of Kalispell; and C. The value of the proposed dedication or construction has been established by an independent appraiser or construction engineer, which appraisal or estimate has been subject to peer review; and D. In the event the value of the proposed dedication or construction exceeds the impact fee due from an individual development no credits against future impact fee obligation shall be established. In that event, the City shall pay the excess worth to the contributor. (Ord. 1587, 10-16-2006) 8-33 Appeal Process. Any party upon whom an impact fee has been imposed has the right to appeal the imposition or amount of the impact fee. The appellant must perfect the appeal by giving written notice of the appeal to the Building Department along with the full amount of the required impact fee, in cash or cash equivalent as an appeal bond. The form of the written notice shall be sufficient if it identifies the name and address of the appellant and a short statement giving the reason why the impact fee is wrongly imposed or in the wrong amount. Upon receiving the notice of appeal and cash bond, the building department official shall, within twenty-four (24) hours, notify the City Manager, who will place the matter before the City Council on its next regularly scheduled City Council meeting that is more than five (5) days following the filing of the appeal. The City Council shall hear evidence from the appellant and City staff and shall make the determination whether the impact fee imposed upon the appellant is compliant with State law and City ordinance. to the event that the City Council determines that the imposition of the impact fee is not compliant with either State law or the City ordinance, the City shall return the cash bond paid by the appellant. (Ord. 1587, 10-16-2006) Exhibit 3 — MCA 7-6-1601 to 1604 Exhibit 3 7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply: (1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more that increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility. (b) The term does not include consumable supplies. (2) "Connection charge" means the actual cost of connecting a property to a public utility system and is limited to the labor, materials, and overhead involved in making connections and installing meters. (3) "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or structure, a change in use of a building or structure, or a change in the use of land when the construction, installation, or other action creates additional demand for public facilities. (4) "Governmental entity" means a county, city, town, or consolidated government. (5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected. (b) The term does not include: (i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for development; (ii) a connection charge; (iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or (iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity. (6) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of capital system improvements that reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. A proportionate share must take into account the limitations provided in 7-6-1502. (7) "Public facilities" means: (a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility; (b) a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility; (c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights -of -way, traffic signals, and landscaping; (d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposal facility or a flood control facility; (e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and (f) other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6-160" that have been approved as part of an impact fee ordinance or resolution by: (i) a two-thirds majority of the governing body of an incorporated city, town, or consolidated local government; or (ii) a unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners of a county government. History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 299, L. 2005. 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve documentation that: (a) describes existing conditions of the facility; (b) establishes level of service standards; (c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time; (d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; (e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; (f) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area; (i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; (j) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and (k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that: (i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth; (ii) projects costs of the capital improvements; (iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and (iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years. (2) The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the public upon request. (3) The amount of each impact fee imposed must be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new development. The calculation of each impact fee must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (4) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the documentation required under subsection (1). (5) An impact fee must meet the following requirements: (a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development. (b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs: (i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and (ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements. (c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee. (d) New development may not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service. (e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility. History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005. 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required. (1) The collection and expenditure of impact fees must comply with this part. The collection and expenditure of impact fees must be reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees. The ordinance or resolution adopted by the governmental entity must include the following requirements: (a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested with all interest accruing to the fund. (b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts. (c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee ordinance or resolution or in accordance with 7-6- 1602, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property at the time that the refund was due. (2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no earlier than the date of issuance of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of wastewater or water service connection or well or septic permitting. (3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-160? in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity. (4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of payment of impact fees if: (a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 1-{% I(1?.; (b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use by the governmental entity; (c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or constructions are established as part of the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and (d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as part of the adopting ordinance or resolution if the dedication of land or construction of public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due from an individual development. (5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or for rebuilding a damaged structure unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be imposed. (6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refiuids or credits: (a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 7-0-1602 and this chapter; or (b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6- 1 ()02 and this chapter, between the governmental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the impact fees. (7) An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all users creating additional demand on the facility. (8) An impact fee ordinance or resolution must include a mechanism whereby a person charged an impact fee may appeal the charge if the person believes an error has been made. History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005. 7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governmental entity that intends to propose an impact fee ordinance or resolution shall establish an impact fee advisory committee. (2) An impact fee advisory committee must include at least one representative of the development community and one certified public accountant. The committee shall review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and spending impact fees. (3) The impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the governmental entity. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005. Exhibit 4 - Memo from R. Goff dated December 31, 2008 Exhibit 4 December 31, 2008 Mr. James Hansz, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Kalispell 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903 Subject: Transportation Impact Fees — Review of Methodologies Dear Mr. Hansz: Presented herein is HDR Engineering Inc. (d.b.a. HDR/EES) response to additional items that were requested to be reviewed by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City Council. Specifically, the IFAC and the City Council requested that a discussion on various methodologies used in the industry be reviewed. Provided in this letter is a discussion of the methodology used in the development of the transportation impact fees for the City and discussion of an alternative methodology. The alternative methodology was used in the determination of the impact fees for the City of Bozeman and the City of Missoula. Kalispell Impact Fee Methodology The transportation impact fee methodology used in the determination of impact fees for the City is a very complex and detailed analysis, which starts at the trip generation stage and ends at the fee schedule. The steps involved in calculating the impact fee for the City are as follows: i . The number of current and new trips is determined by a traffic analysis model. 2. These trips are then used to determine the volume the capacity ratio (V/C ratio) which will occur with the existing street system at the current number of trips and at the current number of trips plus new trips. 3. Based on the V/C ratios at the existing number of trips and the future number of trips, the improvements required to maintain the existing level of service or V/C ratio are determined. These improvements are then eligible to be included in the impact fee calculation. The improvements that are impact fee eligible are then divided by the number of new trips to determine a cost per trip. �. The cost per trip is then multiplied by the number of trips per land use category to determine the transportation impact fee. 1001 SW Fifth Avenue I Phone: (503) 423-3700 Suite 1800 Fax: (503) 423-3737 Portland, OR 97204-1134 Mr. James Hansz, P.E. December 31, 2008 Page 2 Two items are important to note in the steps outlined above. First, steps 1 to 3 are developed as part of the transportation master plan. Secondly, and by far more important is that all 5 steps are connected. Without this connectivity, the transportation impact fees would not be cost based. In accordance with these steps, information from the transportation master plan is used to develop the total number of new trips over the planning period. This creates the total "basket of trips" from which impact fee unit costs can be calculated. Traffic volume to roadway capacity ratios (V/C) are then determined for the roadways for the allocation of improvement costs to the impact fee calculation. Based on the allocation, future improvement costs are then divided by the total number of new trips to determine the unit cost per trip in the City. The trip generation rates used in the "Trip Generation Seventh Addition ", published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, are then used to divide the "basket of trips" among the various land use categories as development occurs to assure that each type of land use pays its fair share based on the number of trips generated. Once the trips for a land use are determined, the cost per trip can be applied to calculate the impact fee. This assures that impact fees are cost based and do not result in an over collection of revenue. Alternative Methodology An alternative methodology that has been used in the industry for a number of years assigns new development a cost that represents the amount of roadway improvements that would be required to maintain a level of service. In other words, new development is charged an impact fee that is based on the construction of new roadways such that additional capacity will be constructed based on the number of new trips and length of the trip that the new development will impose. The cost of the new roadways, capacity requirements and lengths of trips is based on the specific planning data of the community. Instead of repeating the detail steps involved in the calculation, provided as an attachment to this letter is an excerpt from the City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Study which details these steps in greater detail. A full copy of the study can be found at: l;rip, boT.Lrian.net/hozeI an/r`aililin-),/irr acts ues.LISt?x For illustrative purposes, if we used the formula from the City of Bozeman study, the impact fee for a single family residential customer for the City would be as follows: Cost per lane mile: $12,406,270/6.0 miles = $2,067,712 per mile Total Impact Fee Cost: ((9.57*3.52* 1.0)/2)*(1-0.15)*($2,067,712/8,658)) _ $3,408 It should be noted that no credits would apply, since the City does not use gas tax revenue for capital, nor does it have an Ad Valorem tax. As shown, the fee would be Mr. James Hansz, P.E. December 31, 2008 Page 3 considerably higher under the alternative approach. This increase would also be applicable to other types of development. Conclusions In determining the appropriate methodology to use in the determination of the transportation impact fees, a number of factors need to be considered. These include: 1. The availability of data from the transportation master plan. This includes the number of new trips, volume to capacity ratio analysis on existing and future roadways and the cost of specific projects. 2. The unique circumstances of the city. This would include state highways used as major transportation corridors and the ability of the city to construct additional transportation projects to maintain the existing level of service based on physical constraints (e.g. right of way acquisition). Based on these factors it was determined that the approach used by HDR/EES in the determination of the transportation impact fees for the City of Kalispell was the most appropriate and resulted in cost based impact fees. First, the transportation impact fee study was done in conjunction with the transportation master plan; hence the information on new trips, volume to capacity ratios for allocation of projects and the cost of specific improvements was available to be used in the impact fee study. Second, a number of the projects as identified in the transportation master plan do not maintain the existing level of service due to issues with right of way acquisition and other factors (see Exhibit 2 in the Impact Fee Report). Therefore, the use of an assumed level of service would result in the collection of fees that were greater than the ability of the City to construct projects that maintained a specified level of service. I hope that the information provided is helpful in understanding the approach used by HDR/EES is determining cost based impact fees for the City. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely yours, HDR ENGINEERING INC (D.B.A. HDR/EES). Randall P. Goff Project Principal Exhibit 5 - Attachment to Goff Memo, Excerpt from City of Bozeman Impact Fee Report Exhibit 5 CITY OF BOZEMAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT January 3, 2008 Prepared for: CITY OF BOZEMAN 20 E. Olive Street Bozeman, Montana 59715 Prepared by: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100 Tampa, Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106 497001-00.06 estimated unit values from the Consultant's experience in other jurisdictions and industry knowledge. An explanation of the methodology used to estimate ad valorem tax credit figures is included in Appendix D. 3.0 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE 3.1 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix F. This Appendix includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, this Appendix illustrates the impact fee demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips), the total impact fee cost, the annual gas tax credit and present value of the gas tax credit, the net impact fee, the current City of Bozeman impact fee, and the percent difference between the potential impact fee and the current impact fee. It should be noted that the net impact fee rates included in Appendix F represent the maximum reasonable defensible transportation impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in the City of Bozeman. The methodology used herein to calculate these fees is commonly accepted as one that results in an impact fee rate that satisfies the proportionality concept of the dual rational nexus test. It should be noted that this methodology is consistent with the 2005 Montana impact fee law (Senate Bill 185, sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604). As a result, development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle miles of capacity it is expected to consume on the city roadway network. For clarification purposes, it may be useful to walk through the calculation of an impact fee for one of the land use categories. In the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the single-family detached residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category (ITE LUC 210). This example calculation uses information from the proposed impact fee schedule included in Appendix F, Table F-1 (Non-TED Impact Fee Schedule). For each land use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee: Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost — Gas Tax Credit — Ad Valorem Credit Where: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 23 Impact Fee Study Total Impact Cost = ((Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length x % New Trips)12) x (I - Interstate Adj. Factor) x (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 yearfacility life Annual Gas Tax Credit = (((Trip Rate x Total Trip Length x % New Trips) /2) x Effective Days per Year x $/Gallon to Capital) /Fuel Efficiency Each of the inputs have been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided below, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the single-family detached residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category: • Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (9.57) • Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle - miles (3.52) • 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 (3.52 + 0.50 = 4.02) • % New Trips = adjustment factor to account for trips that are already on the roadway (1000/o) • 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 ($3,678,552) • 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) • Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity = unit cost to construct to provide a vehicle mile of capacity ($424.87) • 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, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 24 Impact Fee Study "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-miles/gallon (17.70) Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category as follows. Total Impact Cost = ((9.57 * 3.52 * 1.0) /2) * (1-0.15) * ($3,678,552/8,658) _ $6,083 Annual Gas Tax = (((9.57 * 4.02 * 1.0) /2) * 365 * $0.102) / 17.70 = $40 Gas Tax Credit = $40 * 14.6768 = $587 Ad Valorem Tax Credit = $100 (see Appendix E, Table E-1 for details of this calculation) Net Impact Fee = $6,083-$587-$100 = $5,396 Table 9 below presents the net impact fee for all land uses included in the proposed impact fee schedule in Appendix F, Table F-1. These fees will be charged for all areas not designated as the Trip Exchange District (TED) or that otherwise do not reflect travel characteristics of the TED area. Table 10 below presents the net impact fee for all land uses in the proposed fee schedule in Appendix F, Table F-2. These fees will be charged in areas designated as the TED or that other areas that exhibit characteristics as defined in Appendix K. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman January 2008 25 Impact Fee Study Exhibit 6 - Kalispell Extension of Services Plan, pages 26-29 Exhibit 6 CITY OF KALISPELL September 2004 RESOLUTION NO.4937 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN UPDATED EXTENSION OF SERVICES PLAN FOR THE CITY OF KALISPELL. WHEREAS, Title 7, Chapter 2, part 4732 of the Montana Code Annotated requires all local governments intending to annex property to have an extension of services plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has followed an extension of services plan, pursuant to statute, since November 6, 1995 when it adopted Resolution No. 4241. That plan was last amended on March 1, 1999 by Resolution 4450; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Kalispell and its citizens that the extension of services plan be reviewed and revised from time to time to take into account changes in growth patterns within the community, other changes in city policy and ordinances, and changes in state law; and WHEREAS, at the request of the City Council, the Public Works Department and Tri-City Planning Staff provided an analysis of the existing extension of services plan and recommended changes to that plan to allow for the orderly expansion of city services and municipal boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Extension of Services Plan herein considered should be approved and adopted by Council, replacing the plan currently existing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the City of Kalispell Extension of Services Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein fully by this reference, is hereby approved and adopted. SECTION II. That a copy of said City of Kalispell Extension of Services Plan shall be available for public review at the Office of City Clerk, City of Kalispell. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 20`h DAY OF SEPEMBER 2004. i �� /% Y-i amela B. Kennedy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk 2. If the property is to be annexed, the City's annexation ordinance or resolution shall specifically state the method and time frame for bringing the existing utilities or services into compliance with City standards, and shall identify the necessary improvement, the parties responsible for the improvements and the method of financing the costs of the improvements. 9. If City services are to be provided without concurrent annexation, the property owner shall submit a Waiver to Protest Annexation / Notice of Withdrawal from Rural Fire District with the Kalispell City Clerk who will record the document at the Flathead County Clerk and Recorders Office. The waiver to protest annexation shall be a covenant that runs with the land and shall not be affected by changes in ownership. Withdrawal from the rural fire district would not occur until such time as the property is annexed to the city. 10. A waiver to protest participation in the formation of any special improvement district that may be created to upgrade existing City utilities, services streets or other infrastructure shall be filed with the Kalispell City Clerk who will record the document at the Flathead County Clerk and Recorders Office. The waiver to protest participation in the special improvement district shall be a covenant that runs with the land and shall not be affected by changes in ownership. Policies for the Cost of Future Services It is the City's policy to insure that adequate funds are available for the long- term replacement, maintenance and upgrade of the various components of the physical plant and other infrastructure. To that end, the Kalispell City Council has developed and adopted a fee schedule for utilities that will be implemented through System Development Charge "connection" fees, utility rates for monthly service, and assessments for road and storm drainage. 1. For the purpose of setting aside adequate funds to replace components of the physical plant, the following shall be considered as the estimated life of each of the components: a. Structures - 30 Years b. Pipeline - 30 Years C. Stationary Equipment - 20 Years (motors, pumps, conveyors, etc.) d. Asphalt Surfaces: • Local Streets — 20 Years • Collector St. - 15 Years • Arterial St. - 10 Years 2. The amount to be set aside each year for the replacement of municipal infrastructure components shall be the cost of construction, if new, or the total estimated replacement cost divided by the remaining- number of years of the life of the component. 26 3. It shall be the responsibility of the developer or property owner to extend, and pay the cost thereof, all roadways and utilities from the existing City facilities to the site of development in accordance with all City standards and specifications and provide appropriate easements. 4. It shall be the responsibility of the developer or property owner to construct all streets and utilities to the furthest boundaries of the property to be developed in order to facilitate future development and to provide all easements. Further, the developer shall be responsible for the mitigation of all impacts associated with the development. 5. The ability of the City to increase existing utility or road system capac. des to meet the demands of growth is dependent upon the availability of funding. If the City's ability to finance the necessary enlargement of utility or road systems cannot keep pace -with development, or if the improvements schedule does not mesh with that of the developer, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to finance and construct City - approved alterations to the existing infrastructure sufficient to accommodate future development. In the event of this occurrence, the developer may be reimbursed for utility improvements by the City through utility service connection fees for said development. Said reimbursement shall not exceed the cost, including interest, of the improvements to the existing City system, nor shall the reimbursement exceed the value of the connection fees for said class of improvement collected from the specific development. Off -site improvements to the road system which exceed the mitigation requirements for the development may be reimbursed through a Developer's Extension Agreement. The City Council will determine the eligibility for cost reimbursement of any road system improvement. In general, improvement of the road system related to mitigating impacts arising from a proposed development shall not be considered eligible for cost reimbursement regardless of the potential for capacity enhancement of the system which said improvement(s) may provide. 6. If the developer bears the costs of extending utility service improvements of a size or capacity greater than needed to serve the proposed development, or off -site road system improvements to the existing roadway system are installed which exceed the mitigation requirements of said development, a Developer's Extension Agreement may be entered into between the developer and the City. This agreement, with a term not to exceed ten (10) years, allows the developer to recover excess costs associated with the extension of said utility services by establishing a surcharge upon the then current utility System Development Charge that is proportional to the equivalent residential unit (ERU) cost of excess capacity provided by the developer. The surcharge shall be collected by the City for reimbursement to the developer. Costs of eligible off -site road system improvements shall be recovered in similar fashion through a residential unit Late -Comer Transportation Development fee to be assessed upon each new residential unit, or equivalent thereof that is developed within the area benefiting from said improvements. P20 a. The Developer's Extension Agreement shall identify the total capacity of water and/or sewer infrastructure installed, expressed in equivalent residential units (ERUs), the capacity required to serve the development, in ERUs, and shall identify the available excess capacity in ERUs. Fire flow capacity shall be deducted from the calculation prior, to determining ERU capacity. The development capacity, in utility ERUs, so determined shall then become the basis of capacity for reimbursing eligible road system improvement costs. b. The ERU cost of facilities needed to serve the developer's project shall be identified and deducted from the total cost of utility and/or road facilities installed. The remaining costs are eligible for reimbursement and shall be apportioned in the manner described above to each new parcel subsequently developed and using said facilities and shall be collected as a surcharge upon the new development when approved by the City Council. C. The total connection surcharge or late -comer transportation development fee shall be paid prior to connection to or the use of any facilities covered by the Agreement. d. A request for a Developer Extension Agreement must be made prior to start of any facility construction to be included in the agreement. Said request must identify the proposed facilities, all capacities and preliminary estimates of cost to be included in the agreement. e. Actual costs and capacities related to the potential reimbursement to be derived from the Developer Extension Agreement must be reviewed and approved for accuracy by the City Engineer within 30 days of substantial completion of the work. f. The City Council shall approve all Developer Extension Agreements and the calculated SDC surcharges and late -comer transportation development fees identified therein. g. Once the Developer's Extension Agreement has been approved, the document shall be recorded by the Kalispell City Clerk at the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder's Office and filed as a lien against the properties to be paid at the time future development occurs. 7. Financing the construction of new streets in a proposed development, or the upgrading of streets in an existing developed area, shall be accomplished in one, or a combination of, the following methods: a. Use of private funds in connection with the development of a project. b. Through the formation of a Special Improvement District (S.I.D. C. Federal or State grant funds, provided said funds are available and their use for said improvements has been approved by the City Council. d. State Fuel Tax monies, provided said funds are available, that their use for said purpose does not impair the normal maintenance of City streets, and further provided that the use of said funds has been approved by the City Council and is in accordance with all applicable laws of the State of Montana. e. General Obligation Bond funds issued by the City for improvements having a benefit to the public beyond that related to a new project or development. 8. If the City requires the customer or developer extending a sewer or water line to install a facility of larger capacity than that required by City standards for a particular project, the City may elect to pay the difference in cost between the two lines. In such cases where the City has paid the cost of excess utility line capacity, no Developer Extension Agreement for excess costs will be permitted. 9. The City reserves the right to further extend sewer or water mains installed by the preceding developer or property owner without paying reimbursement to the developer or property owner. 10. Connection and user fees for properties located outside the city limits for sewer and water services shall be charged in accordance with the then applicable table of charges and fees for water and sewer services and connections as set by the city council. 11. As new City streets are constructed, and as existing streets are improved, storm drainage infrastructure shall be installed or improved to City standards. It is the responsibility of the developer to convey storm water from their property to an appropriate point of disposal in compliance with all Federal, State and City regulations for design, construction operation and maintenance thereof. The quantity, quality and rate of runoff from a developed parcel cannot exceed that which would occur had the property remained undeveloped. WE Exhibit 7 — Impact Fee Estimating Work Sheet Exhibit 7 Transportation Impact Fee 1. Determine the ITE Code from the attached fee schedule (5-page chart). 2. Enter the ITE Code into the Transportation Impact Fee Table (first page) 3. Enter the number of units for the specified ITE Code. 4. The Impact Fee Table will calculate the Transportation Impact Fee. Example: A commercial developer intends to build a discount super store. This is a retail use and falls under the ITE Code 813. The unit for this code is 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Assume 186,000 square feet of gross floor area. The number of units to enter in the Impact Fee Table is 186. The Impact Fee Table then multiplies the number of units by the cost per unit. In this case, the impact fee is $3,914 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (discount super store). The Impact Fee Table then calculates a total Transportation Impact Fee of $728,004 (186 units X $3,914 per unit). 0 m -n m m a O :0 O Cl) cf) -n r O O � D � m D aM m m m z --1 m ;D --1 m 0 O a m D 03 0 Z m D m me 61) -n C m Zm� man Z C O Z O -inm Cl)M n2= 0T-1 mom C: (D w 9 azQ C:m� Q y O v W m O D W m r U) a D m z n m� CD �m -� cn -+ ro O m z 2 �, c� v, o O� a y mC cn a cn O z b OZ co �O m ,y -n m 1 mp Z CETF.RMINE ITE CODE AND ENTER ON "FEE CALC" TAB _a TF Gx1n NAME DESCRIPTIGN PASS -BY IMPACT AVG. TRIP ADJUST. FEE per INIT ThIPS FACTOR AVTs UNIT RESIDENTIAL. 210 Single Family Detached Single family detach housing OU 9.57 1 9,57 $ 92800 220 Apartment Rental dwelling with at toast 3 units in the same building DU 6.'T2 1 62 $ 69200 224 Rented Townhouse, Duplex Rnnted rather than, -awned units with a mminmm of two units DU : 32 1 732 $ 710.00 Residential condommiuml tcrvmhouses under single family 230 Condommmm/ Townhouse ownership. Minimum of two -units in the same building DU 5 86 1 5 86 $ 568.00 240 Mobile Home Trailers or manufactured home sited on permanent foundations DU 199 1 4,99 $ 484.00 Independent living developments that provide centralized amenities 253 Congregate Care such as 1ning, housekeeoing, transportation and activa es. IDU 2,02 1 2.02 $ 196.00 Residential settings that provide overslte or assistanca for 254 Assisted Living independent, or mentally or phystcaltv limited persons. DU n66 i 2.66 S 258.00 Typwalty less than 500 employees, tree standing and single use. Examples: priming plants, material testing Iaboratenas, data INDUSTRIAL 110 General Light Industrial processing and equipment assembly. GFA 6.97 1 6.97 S 676.00 Industrial park areas that contain a numper of industrial and/or 4 130 Industrial Park related lacadies. A mix of manutactunng, service and warehouse GFA 6,96 696 $ 675,00 Facilities that convert raw materials or parts into finished products. Typically have related office. warehouse, research and associated 140 Manufacturing functions. IGFA 3.82 1 3.82 $ 3; 1.00 Facilities devoted to storage of goods and materials. Includes 150 warehouse offices and maintenance facilities GFA 96 4.96 $ 481.00 151 Mini -warehouse Storage units or vaults rented for storage of goods GFA 2.5 1 2.5 $ 243.00 Lodging facility that may include restaurants. !purges, meeting LODGING 310 Hotel rooms anddor convention facilities Room 8.17 1 8. 17 S -92,00 Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurants. Free on -site 320 Motel parking and little a no meeting spaces. IRoorn 1 56.31 11 5,63 $ 54600 Municipal rwned parks. varying widefy as to location, type and RECREATIONAL 412 Local Park number of facilities. Acres 2.28 1 228 S 221,00 Regional park authonty owned parks. varying widely as to location, 417 Ragiolal Park type and number of facilities. Acres 4.57 1 4,57 S 443.00 Municipal and private golf courses. May or may not have a driving 430 Golf Course range and clubhouse. Holes 35,74 1 35.74 $ 3.467.00 Multi -purpose recreational facilities containing two more or of the following uses at one site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade. 435 Multipurpose Recreation Facility bumper boats. go-carts and driving ranges. Acres 90.38 1 )0.38 $ 8.767.00 Privately owned with weghlfrfting and other facilities often including swimming pods, hot tubs, saunas, racquet ball, squash and 493 Athletic Club handball courts. GFA 43 t -13 $ 4,17100 Recreational facilities similar to and i ncludng YMCAs, often including classes, day care- meeting rcxM s. swimming pods. tennis. racquetball, handball, weightlifting, locker rooms and food 495 Recreational Community Center service IGFA 22.88 1 22,88 $ 2.219.00 Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include a small 437 Bowling Alley lounge, restaurant or snack bar. Lane 33.33 1 33.33 $ 3,233.00 Serves student attending kindergarten through 5th or 6th grade INSTITUTIONAL 522 Elementary Sctlod Public or private. GFA 14.49 1 14A9 $ 1,406.00 Public. Serves students that have completed elementary and not yet 5221 Middle School in high schod. GFA 1378 13.78 S 1,337,00 530 High Scholl Public. Typically serving 9 to 12th Grades GFA 12.89 1 12.89 $ 1,250.00 540 Junior r Community Collage Two-year junior or community colleges GFA 27.49 1 27.49 S 2.667.00 Contains worship area. May include meeting rooms. classrooms. 560 Church ding area and facilities GFA 9.+. 1 9.11 S 884.00 Facility for pre-school children care primarily during the daytime 565 Day Care hoes. May Include classrooms, meeting area and olayground GFA 79.26 1.1 7 93 $ 769.00 Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms and 590 Library sometime meeting rooms GFA 1 ;4 11 5 t S 5.238.00 550 University / C•nllege Fotr-year and graduate institutions Student 2.38 1 238 $ 231 00 Includes a clubhouse with dinning and drinking facilities. 591 Lodge % F•aternal Organization —.Feational and entertainment areas and meeting rooms Members n.2g 0.29 $ 2800 Medical ar,oior surgical care facility with overnight accommodations MEDICAL 610 Hospitals for arnbuiatory and non- ambulatory patients. -GFA 17.57 1 17 57 $ 1704.00 A facility whose onmary function is to care for persons who are 620 Nursing Home unable to care loi themselves Beds 2,37 1 2 37 S 230.00 Usually contains offices, meeting roams, file storage areas, OFFICE 715 Single Tenant Office Building restaurants a cafeteria and ninon service tuncticrw GFA 11,57 1 11.57 S 1,122.00 Provides diagnosis and outpatient care. Typically operated be 720 Madiral-Dental Office private physicians or dentists. GFA 36.13 t 36.13 S 3.505,00 (Park or cam us-6ke planned unit development that contains office P 750 Office Park buildings, banks, restaurants and service stations. GFA 11.42 1 11 42 S 1,108.00 Single budding or complex of t)uikings devoted to research and 760 Research and Development Center development. May Contain light fabrication facmties. GFA 8.11 1 8,1-1 $ 787 00 Grasp of flex -type or incubator 1.2 story building served by a common road system Typically includes a mix of offices, retail and wholesale stores, restaurants, recreational areas, warehousing, manufacturing, light industrial or research. The average mix is 20% 770 Btnslness Park to 30% orfice / commercial and 70�,s to 80% industrial / warehouse. GFA 12.78 1 12.76 S 1 .238.IX1 Small free standing building that sells hardware. buddinq materials and lumber. May mdude yard storage and sheded storage areas RETAIL 812 Budding Materials and Lumber ...which are not included in the unit calculation. GFA 45.16 0.92 37.03 $ 3.592.00 A free-standing discount store that also contains a full service 813 Discount Super Store grocery oopartmem under the same roof. GFA 19.21 0.82 40.35 S 3,914,00 Small sVlp shopping centers cartatning a variety of retail shops that typ-cally specialize in apparel. hate grn;ds, services such a real 814'Specialty Retail estate, investment. dance stuurcts. florists and small restaurants. GFA 44.32 36.34 S 3,525.00 Free-standing store that offers a variety of customer services, 815 Discount Store centralized cashiering and a wide range at products. GFA 56.02 082 45,94 $ 4 456.�Z Typically free-standing buildings with parking that sell hardware and 816 Hardware! Paint Store paints. GFA 5129 Ift +2.06 $ 4.680.00 Free-standing building with yard containing planting and landscape stock. Unit calculation only applies to budding and not yard and 817 Nursery / Garden Center storage. GFA 36.081 C fi2 29.59 S 2.870.00 823 Factory Outlet A shopping center that primarily houses factory outlet stores. GFA 1 26.59 0.52 13,83 S 1,341.00 Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed and manayed as a unit. Provides enough on -site parking fit serve us own demand. May include office buildings. theatres, a20 Shoppmd Center restaurants. post office, health club and recreation GLA NOTE 9 NOTE 9 NOTE 9 NOTE 9 a41 Car Dealership New and used car dealership with sales. service and parts. GFA 33,34 ; 82 27.34 $ 2.652.00 848 Tire Store Primary business is selling and repair of tires GFA 24.87 0.82 20.39 $ 1 978.00 Free-standing grocery store. May also contain ATMs, 850 Supermarket photo center. pharmacies and video rental. GFA 102.24 0.64 65.43 $ 6.347.00 Sells corwemence foods, newspapers. magazines and often beer 851 Convenience Market - 24 hours and wine. Open 24 hours per day. GFA ; 3Z99 0.391 287.82 S 27,918.00 Sells convemence foods, newspapers, magazines and often beer 852 Convenience Market - 15 to 16 hours and wine. Open 15 to 16 hours per day. GFA 500.37 0.39 195.15 S 18,929,00 'Discount store / warehouse where shoppers pay a fee to get wholesale prices. May have a wide variety of goofs. Many items are 861 Discount Club sold in bulk or large quantities. GFA 41.8 0.52 21.74 $ 2108.00 880 Pharmacy without drive thru window Facilities filling medical prescriptions without a drive thru window. GFA 90.p6 0.47 42.33 $ 4,106,00 881 Pharmacy with drive thru window Facilities tilling medical prescriptions with a drive thru window. GFA 86.16 0.51 43,94 S 4.262.00 890 Furniture Store Sells furniture, accessories and often carpet / floor covering. GFA 5.06 0.47 2.38 S 231.00 Usually a free-standng building with a parking lot offering banking 911 Walk-in Bank services. May are ATMs GFA 156.48 053 82.93 $ 8,045.00 Usually a free-standing building with a parking lot offering banking 912 Walk-in Bank with Drive Thru Window services. Has a drive thru window. May are ATMs GFA 246.49 0,53 130.64 S 12,672.00 High quality eating establishment with turnover rates greater than 1 931 lQualffy Restaurant h, r GFA 89,591 056 50.17 S 4,867.00 Sit down eating establishment with turnover rates of less than 1 932 High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant hour. GFA 127.15 ISIS 71.2 $ 6.907.00 933 Fast Food without Drive- Thru Fast food without a hive through window. GFA 716 0.5 358 $ 34,726.00 934 Fast Food with Drive-Thru Fast food with a drive through window. GFA 496.12 0.5 248.06 $ 24,062.00 Fueling 944 Gas Station Sells gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and repair. Positions 168.56 158 97,7615 9.483.00 Sells gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and repair. Also Fueling 945 Gas Station with Convenience Market contains a convenience market. Positions 152.78 0.44 7? 62 5 6.947,00 Gas Station with Convenience Market Sells gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and repair. Also fueling 946 and Car Wash contains a convenience market and car wash. Rxrtons 152.84 0.44 67,25 S 6,523.00 Wash 947 Self -Service Cal Wash Allows self cleaning of cars 6y pr-widinq stalls for drivers. Stalls 108 0.44 G 5^ $ 4,609 00 Exhibit 8 — Calculation of Administrative Fee Exhibit 8 City of Kalispell Transporation Impact Fee Adminstrative Charge Impact Fee Impact Fee Description Total Related Total Cost Admin Coord $ 9,006 50.00% $ 4,503 Superintendent 40,667 0.00% - Deputy Public Works Dir. 8,664 50.00% 4,332 Assessor 12,660 50.00% 6,330 Project Manager 20,950 50.00% 10,475 Surveyor 21,728 50.00% 10,864 Engineer 4,656 50.00% 2,328 Construction Manager 19,590 50.00% 9,795 Construction Manager 19,658 50.00% 9,829 Secretary 8,975 50.00% 4,488 Budget Resource Manager 6,181 50.00% 3,091 Subtotal $ 172,735 $ 66,034 Transportation Impact Study $ 15,703 100.00% $ 15,703 Admin Transfer' 51,193 38.23% 19,570 Data Processing' 10,898 38.23% 4,166 Office Space' 4,650 38.23% 1,778 Total $ 255,179 $ 107,251 Total Trips Annual Trips 2 Cost per Trip 1- Allocated based on labor. 2 - Total trips divided by 27 year study period. 134,118 4,967 $ 21.59 Exhibit 9 - Memo from RPA dated December 28, 2008 Exhibit 9 TO: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director Department of Public Works City of Kalispell FROM: Scott Randall, E.I. (Transportation Planner/Engineer) Brian Wacker, P.E. (Vice President) DATE: December 28, 2008 SUBJECT: Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update Supplemental Data for "Transportation Impact Fee Study" As a result of Chuck Strum's email dated December 18, we were asked to respond to two specific questions posed relative to the City's Transportation Impact Fee Study, and indirectly to a myriad of other questions that have arisen over the past several months. The specific questions posed by Chuck Strum are listed below, with responses to questions as applicable. Before presenting the narrative though, there are two facts that must be stated for the record: 1. The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) did not have a formal role in the City's Transportation Impact Fee Study project. The information utilized during the course of the study, gathered from the MDT, centered exclusively on the findings and information contained in the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) only. This manifested itself primarily in the development of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The projects that are contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Study's CIP were developed primarily through the transportation planning process. Much of the justification for projects relies on "volume -to -capacity" ratios, which of course came from the transportation planning effort. 2. Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) Inc. is not a contractual party to the Transportation Impact Fee Study. CDMs senior transportation engineer, Jeff Key, P.E., used to be employed by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and ceased employment with RPA on April 18th, 2008. RPA was the Consultant responsible for development of the community's long-range regional transportation plan. Questions and Responses to Chuck Strum's questions on December 18,2008. Question 1 — land Use Forecasts Tom Kahle (MDT) provided me with "sanitized" demographic data for the Kalispell area within the city limits. The data was sanitized by aggregating base year employment data to a single TAZ. The remainder of the data was left untouched. An examination of that data shows that household growth is expected to occur in only 8 TAZ's and will account for an additional 5,550 households by the year 2030. I can't tell where retail and non -retail growth is programmed to �. a occur, but from the numbers provided it looks like retail will grow by 2,544 jobs while non - retail will grow by 9,688 jobs. These growth numbers are significantly different (smaller) than those cited in the impact fee study. The attached map shows the location and magnitude of household growth, and shows the 2008 city limits as provided by Tom. Could you please look into the demographic data to see where the differences occur? It may he that you used a different area, or maybe different growth projections. From what we have been able to tell, the 10340 additional DU's from the February 13, 2008 memorandum and April 18, 2008 memorandum is in error and accounts for all additional dwelling units (DU's) inside the city limits of Flathead County (includes Kalispell, Whitefish and Columbia Falls). For just the existing city limits of Kalispell, the projected growth number is 7700 additional DU's. This number is still different than the 5550 DU's referenced by Chuck Strum. The difference between the 7700 DU's and the 5550 DU's is a matter of which census blocks you include in the GIS database query. There were three blocks that were omitted from Chuck Strum's analysis that we have included in ours. We included all blocks for employment and DU's that encompassed even a small portion of the city limits. We have felt this is a conservative estimate because exact development patterns are impossible to predict. If the existing city limits passed through even a portion of an individual census block, we included that in the forecasted total. Chuck Strum's analysis did include some blocks with portions inside and outside, but not all of them. Our revised analysis includes all of these blocks. This accounts for the 2150 DU's. The same holds true for the retail and non -retail jobs. For these units, there are more than three census blocks that are straddling the existing city limits. This information is shown on the attached graphic. Below are the revised totals versus the old totals as presented in the February 13 and April 18 memorandums: Table 1 Former Data/Estimate Description Forecast New 10,340 DU Dwelling Units New Retail 3,201 jobs Jobs New Non- 13,360 jobs Retail Jobs Table 2 Chuck Strum's Data/Estimate Description Forecast New 5,550 DU Dwelling Units New Retail 2,554jobs Jobs New Non- 9,688 jobs Retail Jobs Table 3 Revised Data/Estimate Description Forecast New 7,700 DU Dwelling Units New Retail 2,806 jobs Jobs New Non- 10,973 jobs Retail Jobs Question 2 —Average Trip Rate Generation Tom Kahle also provided average trip rates that he said he gave you when requested. He provided a rate of 9.2 trips/household, 13.7 trips/retail employee, and 4.7 trips/non-retail employee. He noted that rates are person trips, and thought you used an auto occupancy rate of 1.2 personslauto to convert rates to vehicle trips. While the math works for the household trips (matches that listed in the impact fee study), I cannot duplicate the numbers used for employment trips in the impact fee study. Could you also let me know how the average trip rates were determined for retail and non - retail employment? The residential rate is based on the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report. For a community the size of Kalispell the published rate is 9.2 "person trips per unit". To get the "vehicle trips per unit", the 9.2 is divided by the auto occupancy factor unique to Kalispell. MDT uses a factor of 1.2. So, the "vehicle trips per unit" becomes 9.2 divided by 1.2 = 7.67 trips per unit. I would not construe this as a "reduced trip rate unique to Kalispell" though. The only item unique here is the 1.2 persons per vehicle auto occupancy factor. This variable fluctuates depending where you live and/or whether public transportation is available. The default retail rate is 13.7 trips per employee (i.e. person trips per unit). The default non - retail rate is 4.7 trips per employee (i.e. person trips per unit). These are the default rates that come inherent to the TransCad modeling software. It has been our understanding that because the model holds the residential units as the more important input unit in the modeling process, the retail and non -retail model variables get constantly adjusted every time the model is run such that they "balance" with the dwelling units (productions and attractions have to balance). The number of trips per dwelling unit remains constant during this process while the number of trips per job gets adjusted so that these numbers match. Our understanding has been that each time the model is run, the model will give you a slightly different "trips per unit" result for retail and non -retail depending on the number of iterations it took Transcad to balance the productions and attractions. Another way of explaining this is that the model takes the number of dwelling units and assigns a number of productions, or trip beginnings, based on the national average. It then takes the number of jobs and applies the national averages to these to get the number of attractions (trip ends). What happens is that the number of productions and attractions don't match up. These numbers have to match in order to create a full trip (a trip has to have a beginning and an end). So the model balances the number of trips per job so that it matches the number created by the dwelling units. If there are more attractions than productions (more trips created by employment than trips created by dwelling units), the number of trips per job will be decreased to account for this. Everything gets balanced based on dwelling units since that number is generally more accurate than the employment numbers. This methodology has been our understanding of the trip rate generation and ultimately modified trip rates were presented in our February 13 and April 18 memorandums. Since one will never obtain the exact same "adjusted" rate for the retail and non -retail average trip rates, it is recommended from here on out that the default "unadjusted" trip rates be utilized going forward. Conclusion An attempt was made to answer the two specific questions posed by Chuck Strum in his December 18, 2008 email. Going forward, it may be an appropriate time to clarify some of the uncertainties that have previously been noted. To that end, the following is presented for consideration by the City. Table 4 - Number of New Trips (based on February 13 and April 18 memorandums) Description Forecast Average Trips per Total New Unit Trips New Dwelling Units 10,340 DU 7.67 trips per unit 79,306 (in City limits) New Retail Jobs 3,201 jobs 12.5 trips per unit 40,013 (in City limits) New Non -Retail Jobs 13,360 jobs 1.7 trips per unit 22,712 (in City limits) Total 142,031 trips Table 5 - Number of New Trips (based on Chuck Strum's Data) Description Forecast Average Trips per Total New Unit Trips New Dwelling Units 5,550 DU 7.67 trips per unit 42,569 (in City limits) New Retail Jobs 2,554 jobs 11.42 trips per unit 29,167 (in City limits) New Non -Retail Jobs 9,688 jobs 3.92 trips per unit 37,977 (in City limits) Total 109,713 trips Note: Average trip rates of 9.2 (DU), 13.7 (retail) & 4.7 (non -retail) are now divided by a consistent auto -occupancy factor of 1.2 persons per vehicle. Table 6 - Number of New Trips (based on RPA Revised Data) Description Forecast Average Trips per Total New Unit Trips New Dwelling Units 7,700 DU 7.67 trips per unit 59,059 (in City limits) New Retail Jobs 2,806 jobs 11.42 trips per unit 32,045 (in City limits) New Non -Retail Jobs 10,973 jobs 3.92 trips per unit 43,014 (in City limits) Total 134,118 trips Note: Average trip rates of 9.2 (DU), 13.7 (retail) & 4.7 (non -retail) are now divided by a consistent auto -occupancy factor of 1.2 persons per vehicle. Based on the three sets of data presented in Table 4 thru Table 6 above, it is recommended that going forward the number of new trips used in the City's Transportation Impact Fee Study be based on the revised growth figures and average trip rates shown in Table 6. This data incorporates those areas where growth has been forecasted and the existing City limits straddle individual census blocks that are located partially in the City and partially in the County. This is a conservative approach and, based on the default trip rates as per the NHCRP, still results in more "new trips" than Chuck Strum's data. Exhibit 10 - Emails from Chuck Strum to Jeff Key (formerly of RPA) Exhibit 10 Jim Hansz From: Chuck Strum [chucks@interstateeng.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 9:06 AM To: Jeffrey Key Cc: Jim Hansz Subject: RE: Kalispell Growth Demographics Jeff, I by no means intended to slight you for the delays ... and I apologize if I came across that way. You have been more than cooperative and I thank you for that. MDT is the party responsible for delays. Chuck Strum, P.E., P.T.O.E. Interstate Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 20953 Billings, MT 59104-0953 Ph: (406) 256-1920 Fax: (406) 256-9178 Cell: (406) 855-9230 »> "Key, Jeffrey" <Ke� a cds)n.com> 12/30/2008 7:23 PM >>> Hi Chuck — For the record I cannot claim liability for it "...taking 6 months to finally get the information necessary to understand and verify numbers cited in the Impact Fee Study". As you know, CDM is not a party to this effort, and I have not been employed by RPA for over 9 months now. ! would ask any future questions regarding this particular project be directed to either Scott Randall or Brian Wacker - 'oth at RPA. :"hanks Chuck. !eff From: Chuck Strum [mailto:chucks@interstateeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:36 AM To: Key, Jeffrey Cc: Ann Bowers; Mark Goldberg; Jim Hansz; Harley Harris Subject: Kalispell Growth Demographics Jeff, Thank you for your e-mail regarding Kalispell Growth Demographics. As we suspected, the area selected to represent growth within City Limits was in error and I'm glad it can be corrected. It's unfortunate it took 6 months to finally get the information necessary to understand and verify numbers cited in the Impact Fee Study. Regarding residential growth, I know that the 5,550 number I cited for new DU's is "in error". It was based on only TAZ's Tom Kahle thought should be included. Tom only sent me data for those TAZ's he "selected" as being within the City. In making his choice, he felt if most of a TAZ contained land outside of the city, he didn't include it. I see that you utilized growth identified in a TAZ if only just a part of it was within the current City Limits. All a matter of professional judgement, and I don't have a problem with either method as long as it's clearly documented. The same holds true for growth of retail and non -retail employment. Regarding the trip rates used, my aim all along was to have derivation of the rate used in the Impact Fee Study documented. Before your most recent e-mail, no documentation was ever provided on how the rates were derived. You are correct in that trip ends (productions and attractions) must be balanced in the modeling process. It is common practice to hold productions (developed from dwelling unit demographics) and to adjust attractions (developed primarily from employment demographics) when performing modeling. The method utilized is up to the modeler, and MDT has confirmed it held productions during trip balancing. While you may think of productions as the trip beginning, that is not the case. Productions and attractions are not the same as origins and destinations. While a dwelling unit "produces" a trip, the dwelling unit may well be the origin or destination of that trip. It is only after the productions and attractions are converted to origins and destinations that we know the directionality of a particular trip. It is also important to note that trip productions and attractions are balanced over the entire modeling area, and are not balanced for productions and attractions generated just within City Limits. The statement in your e-mail that "we will never end up with the same retail and non -retail rate each time the model is run" is not completely accurate. Provided model demographics are not changed, balanced productions and attractions will not change, and neither will origins and destinations. It is possible to utilize final model origins and destinations to directly determine modeled C;-_Y trip growth due to new development. While I'm not suggesting the model be utilized to determine the number of trips from new development, I don't want those not familiar with model operations to think the model generates different trip numbers with each model run. Thanks again for helping to facilitate understanding of the origin of the numbers. I know the new numbers will have ramifications throughout the Impact Fee Study as it will affect the cost/trip. I'm looking forward to seeing the revised study. Chuck Strum, P.E., P.T.O.E. Interstate Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 20953 Billings, MT 59104-0953 Ph: (406) 256-1920 Fax: (406) 256-9178 Cell: (406) 855-9230 Draft Report for City of Kalispell Impact Fees for the Transportation System January 2009 AM a 1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, OR 97201 (503) 423-3700 January 2, 2009 Mr. James Hansz, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Kalispell 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903 Subject: Draft Report - Impact Fees for the Transportation System Dear Mr. Hansz: HDR Engineering Inc. (DBA HDR/EES) was retained by the City of Kalispell (City) to determine impact fees for the transportation system for new development. Herein is our revised final report detailing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the review undertaken by HDR/EES for the determination of cost -based impact fees for the City's transportation system. This report has been revised from the August 2008 report to reflect changes as requested by the City Council and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. This final report includes the planning and cost information from the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the "Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the City Council in April 2008. HDR/EES recommends the City have this report reviewed by its legal counsel to ensure compliance with Montana law. Please review this draft report, any appropriate comments and changes will be incorporated into the final report It has been a pleasure working with you on this project and we appreciate the opportunity to provide this technical report to the City. Should you have any questions, please call. We look forward to the opportunity to continue to provide assistance to the City. Sincerely yours, HDR ENGINEERING INC (DBA HDR/EES). .d Randall P. Goff Project Principal Att 1 Introduction and Overview of the Study 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Overview of the Study......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Disclaimer............................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-2 2 Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Defining Impact Fees........................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Historical Perspective.......................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices ............................................... 2-2 2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees.................................................................... 2-3 2.6 Summary .............................................................................................................. 2-4 3 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Impact Fee Criteria.............................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology.......................................................... 3-2 3.4 Summary ..............................................................................................................3-4 4 Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Requirements under Montana Law...................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Summary .............................................................................................................. 4-3 5 Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Present Transportation Impact Fees...................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Transportation Zones........................................................................................... 5-1 5.4 Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees ......................................... 5-1 5.5 Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees ......................................................... 5-3 5.6 Key Assumptions................................................................................................. 5-5 5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees...................................................................... 5-5 5.8 Consultant Recommendations............................................................................. 5-5 5.9 Summary .............................................................................................................. 5-5 Contents i City of Kalispell, Montana Tables 5-1 City of Kalispell, Montana Average Daily New Trips ........................................ 5-2 5-2 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee ...................... 5-4 5-3 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee — Residential Development..................................................................................... 5-4 Appendices Appendix A — Transportation Impact Fees Exhibit 1 Engineering Planning Memorandum Exhibit 2 Street Capacity Analysis Exhibit 3 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 4 Street Cost Exhibit 5 Equipment Lists Exhibit 6 Administrative Fee Exhibit 7 Summary Exhibit 8 Allowable Fee Schedule Appendix B— Montana Code for Impact Fees AMS Contents City of Kalispell, Montana 1.1 Introduction HDR Engineering Inc. was retained by the City of Kalispell, Montana (City) to determine cost - based impact fees for the City's transportation system that complies with SB 185 (Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604). This report provides details of the development of cost -based impact fees for the City's "The objective of this transportation system. Impact fees are a one-time assessment report is to properly place against new development to pay for the cost of infrastructure in context the purpose of required to provide service. Impact fees provide the means of impact fees, and to balancing the cost requirements for new infrastructure between determine cost based existing customers and new customers. The portion of future impact fees for the capital improvements that will provide service (capacity) to new transportation system customers is included in the impact fees. In contrast to this, the that complies with City has future capital improvement projects that are related to Montana law." curing existing deficiencies. These infrastructure costs are typically funded by other sources and are not included within the impact fee. By establishing cost -based impact fees, the City will assure that "growth pays for growth" and existing utility customers will be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth. 1.2 Overview of the Study This report is divided into five distinct components. The next section of the report, Section 2, provides a review of "generally accepted" utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees. At the same time, it also discusses the financial objectives of impact fees and practices of other utilities in relation to this fee. Section 3 provides an overview of the criteria and methodologies used in the development of cost -based impact fees, and Section 4 provides a summary of the legal requirements for the enactment of impact fees under Montana law. The cost -based impact fee calculation for the City's transportation system is provided in Section 5. 1.3 Disclaimer HDR/EES, in its determination of impact fees presented in this report, has used "generally accepted" accounting, engineering, and rate -making principles. This should not be construed as a legal opinion with respect to Montana law. The City has had this report reviewed by its legal counsel and they have found that it complies with the requirement under Montana law. Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-1 City of Kalispell, Montana 1.4 Summary This section of the report provided an overview of the report developed for the City concerning impact fees. h-11:,iAees Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-2 City of Kalispell, Montana 2.1 Introduction An important starting point in discussing the City's implementation of transportation impact fees is an understanding of the purpose and concept of impact fees and the financial objective of those fees. This section of the report will discuss the concept of impact fees and the "generally accepted" practices of the industry. 2.2 Defining Impact Fees One must first define an "impact fee" before beginning an assessment and review of them. Impact fees are often called system development charges (SDC's), capacity charges, buy -in fees, facility expansion charges, or plant investment fees. Regardless of the name applied to the fee, the concept is still the same. Simply stated, impact fees "are capital recovery fees that are generally established as "Impact fees are capital one-time charges assessed against developers as a way to recovery fees that are generally recover a part or all of the cost of system capacity established as one-time charges constructed for their use. Their application has generally assessed against developers as a occurred in areas that are experiencing extensive new way to recover apart or all of residential and/or commercial development."' The main the cost of system capacity objective of an impact fee is to assess against the constructed for their use." benefiting party, their proportionate share of the cost of infrastructure required to provide them service. Stated another way, impact fees imply that new development creates new or additional costs on the system, and the impact fee assesses that cost in an equitable manner to those customers creating the additional cost. 1 George A. Raftelis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73. Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-1 City of Kalispell, Montana 2.3 Historical Perspective Historically, the financing of transportation infrastructure was paid for via taxes, grants, or other funding sources. Over the last 20 years, however, the use of impact fees as a method of financing growth and infrastructure has risen sharply. To the best of our knowledge, no clear "Historically, the financing of surveys or data exists to show this change; however, infrastructure was typically paid there are a number of examples within the literature that point out this phenomena. For example, a survey for via taxes, grants, or other of 67 Florida communities was undertaken in 1986 and funding sources. Over the last 20 1989. The number of communities in 1986 using years, however, the use of impact impact fees was 15. By 1989, the number of fees as a method of financing communities using impact fees had more than doubled growth and infrastructure has to 32.2 As this funding mechanism gained popularity, risen sharply." legislatures across the U.S. were developing legislation to provide utilities with the authority to impose impact fees. Typically, legislation defines the approach to be used to develop fees and requires they be used only for growth -related needs —not for current O&M requirements. At this time, the State of Montana has very specific legislation related to impact fees. This legislation provides the city with the authority to establish and collect impact fees. This authority is provided in Montana Code Section 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604. In summary, the use of impact fees has changed over time, as historical funding sources such as grants have been reduced or eliminated. In response, many communities have moved toward adoption of cost -based impact fees, particularly in areas of high growth. 2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue - raising device. To understand this perspective, one must view new development as creating the need for new or expanded facilities. As a result, without payment of impact fees, a utility would have insufficient revenues to provide facilities; therefore, the community would be unable to accommodate new development. With this said, impact fees do have certain financial objectives associated with them. While on the surface it may appear as simply a means to extract revenue from new develo ment the reali "An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue -raising device. To understand this perspective, one must view new development as creating the need for new or expanded facilities. " p tY is far more complicated. Impact fees help utilities achieve a number of different financial objectives, which lead to financial equity between customers, as opposed to simply producing revenue. 2 James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson and Julian C. Juergensmeyer, A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees (Chicago: Planners Press, 1991) p. 3. Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-2 City of Kalispell, Montana An impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new customers. As new residents or businesses develop in the community, they increase the amount of traffic on the existing road system. This results in increased roadway congestion and longer commute times. This occurs because of slower trip rates and waits at intersections. With impact fees, new development pays for the cost to construct additional roadways, which allow the level of service to be maintained. Most commonly, impact fees are adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources. Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of "growth paying for growth. " Even with the above discussion, not all communities have impact fees. Most commonly, impact fees are adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources. Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of "growth paying for growth." Impact fees comport with that philosophy, and it is achieved by applying the impact fees either directly against the capital cost of the expansion facilities, or against the debt service associated with it. 2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees There are a number of myths surrounding impact fees. In a very broad sense, some may argue that impact fees are bad for economic development. These arguments center around two issues: ■ Development will occur on parcels with lower or nonexistent impact fees. ■ Impact fees raise the cost of doing business and hinder development. Of the research conducted on these topics, just the opposite has been found. Developers look at many factors before a parcel is developed. One myth concerns the selection of parcels for development and whether impact fees are applied to the land. `:.. an impact fee is also a form of a financial reimbursement to existing ratepayers who paid for those facilities in advance of the new customer connecting to the system. " "The argument goes that if a developer is choosing between two parcels of land on which to build —where the first parcel is inside a city where SDC's (impact fees) are charged and the second is just outside where lower or no SDC's are charged —the developer will choose the second parcel. The trouble is this means that the owner of the first parcel does not make a sale. The landowner must lower the land price to offset the fee in order to make a sale. However, if the landowner does not lower the price, this indicates that the value of future development may be higher on that parcel. Thus, be wary of developers who claim they will choose the second parcel. Chances are they would not have chosen the first parcel anyway. In the meantime, the land market will be holding the first parcel available for higher value development. In effect what might look like a loss in the short term may be a much higher level of development in the long-term. "3 Nelson. "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 55. mem Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-3 City of Kalispell, Montana The other argument and myth that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they raise the cost of doing business and hinder development. The argument against this position follows: "The argument goes that because SDC's raise the price of doing business, they frustrate economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First, remember that SDC's will be offset by reduced land prices and by enabling the community to more easily expand the supply of buildable land relative to demand. Now, consider what economic development really looks for: skilled labor, access to markets, and land with adequate infrastructure. Competitiveness for economic development will be stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by SDC's). Besides, local governments retain the option to waive SDC's for specific kinds of economic development, such as development locating in enterprise zones. In the competition for certain kinds of development, it will be able to show developers the dollar value of SDC's waived as a solid demonstration of the local government's commitment to such development. " 4 "As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. " As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. It must be remembered that an important concept associated with impact fees is that the fees are required to develop infrastructure in advance of the actual development. From the developer's perspective, absent impact fees (i.e., a moratorium on new connections) result in no new development. Because of this, developers are generally supportive of cost -based impact fees, particularly when it provides available capacity and opportunities for development. 2.6 Summary This section of the report provided an overview of impact fees and the financial objectives associated with them as well as some of the issues surrounding them. This will be beneficial when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning the implementation of impact fees. 4 Nelson, "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 56. MeeSOverview of Impact Fees and 1°Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-4 City of Kalispell, Montana 3.1 Introduction An important starting point in establishing impact fees is to have a basic understanding of the purpose of these charges, along with criteria and general methodology used to establish cost - based impact fees. Presented in this section is an overview of impact fees criteria and general methodologies used to develop cost -based fees. 3.2 Impact Fee Criteria In the determination and establishment of impact fees, a number of different criteria are often utilized: ■ Understanding and acceptance ■ Transportation planning criteria ■ Financing criteria, and ■ State/local laws The component of understanding and acceptance implies that the charge is easy to understand. This criterion has implications on the way the fee is implemented, administered, and assessed to new development. For the transportation system, the fees are generally assessed by development type and the number of new trips that will be generated by the development type. The other implication of this criterion is that the methodology is clear and concise in its calculation of infrastructure necessary to provide service. "The use of transportation planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of the impact fees. Transportation planning criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. " The use of transportation planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of impact fees. Transportation planning criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. The rational nexus test requires there be a con- nection established between new development and the necessary expanded facilities to accommodate new development. In addition, to see benefits received, an appropriate apportionment of the cost must be realized in relation to the new development. One of the driving forces behind establishing cost -based impact fees is that "growth pays for growth." Therefore, impact fees are typically established so new customers pay an equitable share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing criteria for establishing impact fees relates to the method used to finance infrastructure of the system and Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-1 City of Kalispell, Montana ensures customers are not paying twice — once through impact fees and again through gas tax or property assessments. Many states and local communities have enacted laws that govern the calculation and imposition of impact fees. These laws must be followed when determining impact fees. Most statutes require a "reasonable relationship" between the fee charged and the cost associated with providing service (capacity) to the customer. The charges do not need to be mathematically exact, but must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed. As discussed above, the utilization of the planning criteria and the actual costs of construction and planned costs of construction provide the nexus for the reasonable relationship requirement. 3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology There are "generally -accepted" methodologies used to establish impact fees, which require the following: • Determine transportation planning criteria, • Calculate the transportation impact fee, and • Determine a charge basis for various development types. The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the transportation planning criteria. For transportation impact fees, the planning criteria is the number of new trips that will occur due to development. The most common methods for defining trips are on P.M. hour of generation (or average daily trips). Based on these trips, the transportation planning process determines the capital improvements required to maintain the current Level of Service (LOS). LOS refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection, which is measured as the volume of traffic to the capacity of the roadway (the "V/C ratio'). It is a measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, freedom to maneuver, and driving comfort. A letter scale of A to F is then used to describe LOS, based on the V/C ratio. The transportation impact fee represents the portion of new street projects that provide additional capacity to serve new developments. It does not include the portion of future street projects that are required to cure existing deficiencies. An example is a street with a current LOS of C. Without any improvements, new development would cause the street to drop to a LOS of D. The improvements required to maintain the street at a LOS of C would be included in the impact fee. Conversely, if the street was currently at a LOS of D and the improvements brought the street to a LOS of C with new development, then only a portion of the improvement would be included in the impact fee. There are three different approaches that can be used to determine the amount of the street project that is related to growth. These are: ■ Capacity Approach. The cost of a given project is allocated as growth -related based on the proportion of capacity made available for growth to the total capacity. • Incremental Approach. The cost of the project is first determined as if it were constructed to serve existing conditions. The cost is then determined as if it were serving both existing and future conditions. The difference in cost or incremental cost is then allocated to growth. • Causation Approach. The entire cost of the project is allocated to growth if it is caused by growth regardless of the benefit to existing customers. Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-2 City of Kalispell, Montana Of the three methods, the causation approach most aggressively allocates costs to growth. It is also the most likely approach to be subject to judicial challenge and may not meet the "rational nexus" test of the amount of infrastructure necessary to serve growth and cost to the customer. The incremental approach very conservatively allocates costs to growth. Any incremental cost saving from construction of a larger project are allocated to growth and not shared between existing and future customers. The capacity approach is the most commonly used approach and shares any benefits from construction of a large project between existing and new customers based on the use or benefit of the project by existing and new customers. It is recommended that this approach be used by the City, as it provides the most equitable allocation of new street projects between existing and new development. The allocation procedure recommended is the ratio of the current V/C ratio at current standards to the V/C ratio after the improvement. Once the street projects have been allocated to new development, the cost is divided by the number of new trips the projects will serve to determine the transportation impact fee on a cost - per -trip basis. The last part of the transportation impact fee analysis is the determination of the charge basis for various development types. The most common method used to assess transportation impact fees is on a trip basis. Trip rates are obtained from the "Trip Generation Manual, " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This manual is a compilation of studies that measure traffic by development type and factors such as employees, square footage, etc. The manual defines development type by standard industrial code and contains approximately 200 different development types. These may be adjusted for local conditions based on the City's transportation plan. Trip rates for commercial development are often time reduced for bypass trips. Bypass trips are those recorded in the survey data, but not actually new trips. For example, if a person drives to work in the morning, then stops at a fast food restaurant to get dinner on the way home, it is considered a bypass trip. In this case, the fast food restaurant would be charged for two trips, when in fact no new trips were generated, because the person would have been on the road anyway to go from home to the office and back home again. In development of the fee schedule, the utility needs to balance accuracy with administrative burden. A category for retail could be created, which would be an average of trips for certain types of retail establishments such a paint stores, flower shops, etc. Conversely, each category could be listed separately. Another policy issue is whether or not to allow development to provide alternative data on trip generation. While this allows for flexibility in the determination of the fee, it provides a potential for legal challenge. IM mem Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-3 City of Kalispell, Montana 3.4 Summary This section provided a discussion of the criteria typically used in the determination of transportation impact fees. In addition, an overview of the "generally accepted" methodology used in the calculation of the impact fees has been provided. Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-4 City of Kalispell, Montana 4.1 Introduction An important consideration in establishing impact fees are legal requirements at the state or local level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used. This section of the report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing impact fees under Montana law. The discussion within this section of the report is intended to be a summary of our understanding of the relevant Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fees. It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of Montana law by HDR/EES. 4.2 Requirements under Montana Law In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established specific laws regarding the establishment, calculation, and implementation of "The laws for the capacity fees. The main objective of most state laws is to ensure enactment of impact I these charges are established in such a manner that they are fair, fees in Montana are found in 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604 of the Montana Code. equitable, and cost -based. In other cases, state legislation may have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to establish the charges. The Montana law enabling legislation for impact fees was enacted in 2005 via Senate Bill 185. This was comprehensive legislation allowing public entities in the State of Montana to enact impact fees for various services. The legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found in Title 7, Chapter 6, and Part 1601 to 1604 of the Montana Code. A summary of the Montana Code is provided below. A copy of the full code is provided as Appendix B. A summary of the requirements under Montana law is as follows: "7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:... ...5) (a) `Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected. Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-1 City of Kalispell, Montana (b)The term does not include: (i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for development; (ii) a connection charge; (iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity. 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve documentation that: (a) describes existing conditions of the facility; (b) establishes level of service standards; (c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time; (d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; (e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; 69 makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area; (i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; 6) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and (k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that: (i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth; (ii) projects costs of the capital improvements; (iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital (iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years. S) An impact fee must meet the following requirements: (a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-2 City of Kalispell, Montana attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development. (b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs: (i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and (ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements. (c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee. (d) New development may not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service. (e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility. 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required.... ... (3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity. " The use of the methodology discussed in Section 3 should ensure the proportional share standard is met and impact fees are in compliance with Montana law. 4.3 Summary This section of the report reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in Montana. HDR concludes that the City has the authority to establish cost -based impact fees and the methodology used should ensure compliance with Montana law. Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-3 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.1 Introduction The calculation of the transportation impact fees presented in this section are based on the City's future capital improvements as identified in their Capital Improvement Plan and planning criteria from the master plan entitled, Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the "Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the City Council in April 2008. As cost and timing of future capital improvements change, the impact fees presented in this section should be updated to reflect such cost adjustments. 5.2 Present Transportation Impact Fees The City currently does not assess an impact fee for the transportation system. 5.3 Transportation Zones Pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1)(g) in the determination of transportation impact fees, the following must be considered: "...makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; " The Transportation Plan established a service area that included the entire area of the city and an area outside the current city limits (the "Study Area"); no breakdown was made as to specific areas of the city. For the purpose of the transportation impact fee calculation, only the trips generated and project costs within the current city limits were utilized. Based on these factors and the intuitive knowledge of the transportation system, the City and the Impact Advisory Committee determined the entire city would be treated as a single zone pursuant to MCA 7-6- 1602(1) (g) for calculating and imposing the transportation impact fees. 5.4 Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees As was discussed in Section 3, the process of calculating impact fees is based on a 4-step process: ■ Determination of new average daily trips ■ Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs ■ Determination of any impact fee credits ■ Determination of transportation impact fee by development type Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-1 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.4.1 Average Daily Trip Generation The number of average daily trips is based on the planning criteria in the Transportation Master Plan. New dwelling units, retail employment, and nonretail employment were determined as growth areas. This information was then further segregated between growth in the study area and growth within city limits. The growth factors were then multiplied by the number of trips per development type to determine new average daily trips. Details of the calculations of new average daily trips are provided in Exhibit 1, which is a memorandum prepared by RPA detailing the analyses used in the development of the Transportation Master Plan. A summary of the new average daily trips is presented in Table 5-1 Residential 59,059 Commercial — Retail 32,045 Commercial — Nonretail 43,014 Total New Average Daily Trips 134,118 The number of new average daily trips will be used to determine the cost per trip for new transportation system improvements required to serve growth. 5.4.2 Calculation of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components The next step of the analysis is to review each major functional component of plant in service and determine the impact fee for that component. In calculating the transportation impact fee for the city, only planned future capital improvement projects with a useful life of 10 years or greater were included within the calculation. The major components of the City's transportation system that were reviewed for purposes of calculating impact fee were: ■ New streets and intersections ■ Major equipment items ■ Administration costs A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each of the functional plant components is provided below. New Streets and Intersections — The City's Transportation Master Plan identified a number of street and intersection improvements required to maintain the level of service within the city. Based on the analysis prepared by RPA, V/C ratios, and levels of service, the percent allocated to new development was determined based on the V/C ratios in 2003 prior to the improvements, divided by the V/C ratio in 2030 after the improvements. That percent was eligible for inclusion in the impact fee calculation (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). While the Transportation Plan identified improvements for the greater Kalispell area, those improvements not within the city Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-2 City of Kalispell, Montana were eliminated from the calculation based on the analysis prepared by RPA (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3). The Capital Improvement Program costs were then escalated to current 2008 dollars using the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index. The cost of street and intersection improvements was then divided by the number of new trips. The result was a cost of $92.50 per average daily trip. Details of the calculations are provided in Exhibit 4. Maior Equipment — The City currently has a number of equipment items required to maintain the street system. These consist of snow plows, sweepers, and other heavy equipment. This equipment has a useful life of 10 years or greater. The original cost was used, including up to 15 years of interest. No equipment costs were allocated to new development. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee determined that equipment does not provide additional capacity in the transportation system. Based on the cost of the major equipment for the City, the impact fee for major equipment is $0.00 per average daily trip. Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 5. Administrative CharLe — Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact not to exceed 5% of the impact fee collected. Based on the costs for administration as provided by the City, the administrative fee is $21.59 per trip. Since this is greater than 5%, the City has included a transportation administrative charge of $4.63 per average daily trip, which is equal to 5% of the impact fee collected. Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 6. 5.4.3 Credits The final step in calculating the transportation impact fee is to determine if a credit for payment from other revenue sources is required. The City currently collects gas tax revenue, a street assessment fee, grants, and financial assistance from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). The City currently uses gas tax revenue and the street assessment fee for maintenance of the street system; therefore, no credit is applicable for the transportation impact fee. The grants received and financial assistance from MDT has been subtracted from the street and equipment costs. 5.5 Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable transportation impact fee can be determined. "Net" refers to the "gross" impact fee, less any credits. "Allowable" refers to the calculated impact fee as shown in Table 5-2 as the City's cost -based impact fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable impact fee, but not over that amount. Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus test of a cost -based impact fee. A summary of the calculated net allowable transportation impact fee for the City is shown in Table 5-2. FM xees Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-3 City of Kalispell, Montana Street Cost $92.50 Equipment 0.00 Administrative Charge 4.63 Credit 0.00 Total Per Average Daily Hour Trip $97.13 The total impact fee as shown for an average daily hour trip is $97.13. The details of the net allowable impact fee are shown in Exhibit 7. For ease of administration, the recommended charge for an average daily hour trip is rounded to $97. To determine the cost per development type, the number of average daily trips per development type must be applied to the cost per average daily trip. To determine the cost per various type of land development, the trip generation rate provided in "Trip Generation Seventh Addition, " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers were used. These were reduced as appropriate to reflect by-pass trips for commercial development based on the "Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001 " The number of categories was also reduced to reflect local business types. A summary of the transportation impact fee for residential development is shown in Table 5-3. Details of the impact fee for other development types are provided in Exhibit 8. Residential $928 Apartment 652 Condominium/Townhouse 568 Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-4 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.6 Key Assumptions In the development of the impact fees for the City's transportation system, a number of key assumptions were made: ■ The City's asset records were used to determine existing equipment costs. ■ The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing investments was 6.0%. 15 years' worth of interest were included in the cost of equipment. Ill The findings required under MCA 7-6-1602 were provided in the Transportation Master Plan and this report. 5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the "cost" of money (interest charges and rate of inflation). HDR/EES recommends the City adjust the impact fees each year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. The most frequently used source to escalate impact fees is the ENR index, which track changes in construction costs for municipal utility projects. This method of escalating the City's impact fee should be used for no more than a 2-year period. After this time period, as required by Montana law, the City should update the charges based on the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities that would be contained in an updated master plan or capital improvement plan. 5.8 Consultant Recommendations Based on our review and analysis of the City's transportation system, HDR/EES makes the following recommendations: ■ The City should implement impact fees for the transportation system that are no greater than the impact fees as set forth in this report. ■ The City should update the actual calculations for the impact fees based on the methodology as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the methodology for impact fees every 2 years as required by Montana law. 5.9 Summary The transportation impact fees developed and presented in this section of the report are based on the engineering design criteria of the City's transportation system, the value of the existing assets, future capital improvements and "generally accepted" accounting and rate -making principles. Adoption of the proposed impact fees will provide multiple benefits to the City and create equitable and cost -based charges for new customers. Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-5 City of Kalispell, Montana Exhibit 1 Engineering Planning Memorandum Exhibit 2 Street Capacity Analysis Exhibit 3 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 4 Street Cost Exhibit 5 Equipment Lists Exhibit 6 Administrative Fee Exhibit 7 Summary Exhibit 8 Allowable Fee Schedule TO: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director Department of Public Works City of Kalispell FROM: Scott Randall, E.I. (Transportation Planner/Engineer) Brian Wacker, P.E. (Vice President) DATE: December 30, 2008 SUBJECT: Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update Supplemental Data for "Transportation Impact Fee Study" The following information is being provided in support of the Transportation Impact Fee Study being developed by HDR Engineering, Inc (d.b.a EES/HDR). The primary objective of this memorandum is to quantify the number of new trips expected on the Major Street Network (MSN) out to the planning year of 2030. This year is the "year of interest" as it is the planning horizon of the recently adopted Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update). A secondary objective is to present relevant statistics on Capital Improvement Projects (CIP's) that fall within the city limits and county limits. It is relevant to note that previous memorandums have been prepared in support of the ongoing Transportation Impact Fee Study. This memorandum is intended to replace the previous memorandums and serve as a stand-alone memorandum for the project. It should be noted, though, that before presenting the information contained herein, it must be stated for the record that the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) did not have a formal role in the City's Transportation Impact Fee Study project. The information utilized during the course of the study, gathered from the MDT, centered exclusively on the findings and information contained in the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) only. This manifested itself primarily in the development of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The projects that are contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Study's CIP were developed and extracted primarily through the transportation planning process. Proiected Growth within the City Limits For the existing city limits of Kalispell, the projected residential growth out to the planning horizon is 7,700 additional dwelling units (DU's). This amount includes all area census blocks that either fall entirely within the existing city limits or straddle both the city and the county and where future growth has been predicted. In other words, all census blocks were included for DU's, and retail and non -retail jobs, that encompassed even a small portion of the city limits. This is thought to be a conservative approach because exact development patterns are impossible to predict, and the City does control annexation to a large degree. If the existing city limits passed through even a portion of an individual census block, it was included in the forecasted total. This information is shown on the attached graphic and is also summarized in Table A-1. Robert Peccie & Associates Page r of 5 Table A-1 Projected Growth within City Limits Description Forecast Dwelling Units 7,700 DU Retail Jobs 2,806 jobs Non -Retail Jobs 10,973 jobs Average Vehicle Trip Rates In an effort to compute the potential number of "new vehicle trips" out to the planning horizon (year 2030), average trip rates were selected as per the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report on travel demand modeling. In this report, for a community the size of Kalispell, the published residential rate is 9.2 "person trips per unit". To get the "vehicle trips per unit", the 9.2 is divided by the auto occupancy factor unique to Kalispell (1.2). Dividing the two values result in a residential trip generation rate of 7.67 vehicle trips per unit. In a similar manner, the default retail rate is 13.7 trips per employee (i.e. person trips per unit), which equates to 11.42 vehicle trips per unit. The default non -retail rate is 4.7 trips per employee (i.e. person trips per unit), which results in 3.92 vehicle trips per unit. The above noted vehicle trip rates are the default (unadjusted) average trip rates that also come inherent to the TransCad modeling software. Table A-2 below contains the potential number of "new vehicle trips" based on the forecasted growth and defined average trip rates. Table A-2 Number of Potential New Trips (City Limits Year 2030) Description Forecast Average Trips per Total New Unit Trips New Dwelling Units 7,700 DU 7.67 trips per unit 59,059 (in City limits) New Retail Jobs 2,806 jobs 11.42 trips per unit 32,045 (in City limits) New Non -Retail Jobs 10,973 jobs 3.92 trips per unit 43,014 (in City limits) Total 134,118 trips Note: Average trip rates of 9.2 (DU), 13.7 (retail) & 4.7 (non -retail) are divided by an auto -occupancy factor of 1.2 persons per vehicle. Robert Peccia & Associates Page 2 of 5 Robert Peccia & Associates Page 3 of 5 Proiect Statistics RPA was asked to quantify the percentages of CIP projects that are entirely under City jurisdiction, partially under City jurisdiction, and/or entirely outside of City jurisdiction. This is shown as below and is broken out by "number" of projects, "mileage" of projects, and "dollar cost" of projects. Based on the actual "Number" of Projects: Totally City projects = 5 projects / 29 projects = 17.24% Partial City & County = 6 projects / 29 projects = 20.69% Total County = 18 projects / 29 projects = 62.07% Based on the actual "Miles" of Projects: Total City project miles = 6.78 miles / 49.81 miles = 13.61% Total County project miles = 43.03 miles / 49.81 miles = 86.39% Based on the "Dollar Cost" of Proiects in 2008 Dollars*: Total City Cost = $13,694,499 / $112,685,536 = 12.15% Total County Cost = $98,991,037 / $112,685,536 = 87.85% (* Note that dollar values for '2008 Dollars" were obtained by adjusting the Transportation Plan cost estimates by 4 percent.) Proiect Cost Estimates Relative to dollar costs above, the City also asked RPA to confirm when the actual cost estimates for the various projects in the adopted Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) were prepared. The cost estimates were prepared during the end of August and early September during the calendar year 2007. The cost estimates were general "planning level" cost estimates. Assumptions for the various aspects of the cost estimating process were placed in the Appendix of the adopted Transportation Plan. There were no adjustments, however, to account for inflation and/or other increases between the time the estimates were prepared and the time the Transportation Plan was adopted. An adjustment was made, however, for the dollar values contained in this memorandum as shown above. Other Comments The City also asked RPA's opinion on a specific project contained within the adopted Transportation Plan (MSN-11) and whether that project recommendation is based on mitigating existing traffic patterns or is warranted by some other measure. It is our conclusion via the findings of the adopted Transportation Plan that South Meridian Road is acceptable from an operational viewpoint for the type of traffic currently being accommodated on it and likely to be encountered on it in the future if the development north of Foys Lake Road were not to be realized. With the development, South Meridian Road will become overcapacity. Due to constraints associated with South Meridian Road and the reality of not being able to expand the facility due to right-of-way constraints, the new development located north of Foys Lake Road has proposed a new north -south roadway through the development area. Robert Peccia & Associates Page 4 of 5 This has been recognized in the adopted Transportation Plan as a collector roadway and will serve to mitigate the traffic generated by the development itself. This new collector roadway will certainly accommodate the developments traffic and allow South Meridian Road to continue to function adequately without future improvements that would be unattainable on the facility. Robert Peccia & Associates Page 5 of 5 of of of of of of of oI oI oI of o) of of oI of of 6I -I of o (} ', W W L• W W ❑ W m W m U W W ❑ W W W ❑ U m ❑ O M:n<_�; W W W W W W W W W W U [_, L• W W W W W W' w W < i U m U ❑ < m ❑ m m m m W ❑ U m U MuU I I �n O Q jjs2 � V R' �nl 27 P E E E E E F '•• ,�',. a' < � < � GUI ? aTi K m C v G' s a' � U C ° U u C � W' � U O <`LU' � C s G' v C ° CU' 2 � n C n W' C w� Z U T ❑ :-0 -°0 0 c s � o o U z o a m -o �n c a cl c c o c c ti �` ❑ a°i > a O .� v ❑ - <.� c ',n °- G°. c o C] = 3 m t z k.LC m❑ � T - 3rxi. � v ca 0 > 3€ t m o °' u U i s =s.^�'.".•.O i o •� .? - rn�❑ �° C . � = ..G c _ s v 3 h _ U rn .� U m � c u uG] x > _ _ o .'-, "o � n t a '� r m<>[.:� O c ❑ u U .� ❑ a :.i ❑ ❑ = ❑ �, � .-7 _ a°' ti 3 3 v s m 3 3 s s° ,., W> W CceU3ti 3 z z 3 3 3 v 3 C ..c_�v�E, E ° c< T ., = c"3� n a Pis •., °i .. W cc3 a 4 �' O O o O O O O O o O 0 O 0 O po G aW W W w W W h1 N.r Q O ems. N� 3 � p M �r O O N O O O O O O Nr E TE t a Rm 3 — a C Fmm C 2 U — g72 a ` ° U° c�a ctnr"�a?a4z° c ° Y ,T• � Y U N N := z N z z z N z N z z H gK K N City ofKalispell Transportation ImpacFees Street Cost Allocation Exhibit ty West Reserve Drive Reconstruct to a 5- MSN-1 — Stillwater to West lane minor arterial I I S2,205,137 S2,205,137 so 0% Springcreck Road: standard. Four Mile Drive — A new segment US Highway 93 : lane urban minor arterial standard. Grandview Drive Extension — An extension of Grandview Dr. to an Whitefish Stage standard. Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a minor arterial Drive to Rose Crossing: travel lanes in each direction. Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to an Crossing to Birch Grove Road: standard. Helena Flats Road - Montana Highway econstruct to an Crossing: standard. Foys Lake Road (Whalebone Drive Reconstruct to an Drive): standard. Four Mile Drive — Road: roadway. Rose Crossing (western Corridor Construct a new Creation — Farm to cast/west corridor to Whitefish Stage arterial facility. Stillwater Road — MSN-10 Four Mile Drive to Reconstruct to a 3- West Reserve lane minor arterial I I S1,712,053 so S1,712,053 100% roadway. City of Kalispell Transportation ImpacFees Street Cost Allocation Exhibit gq New Roadway Construct new Highway 2: collector standard. Highway 2 to West . roadway. Reserve Drive: Willow Glen Drive Reconstruct to an Woodland Avenue: standard. Church Drive (western Corridor Construct and/or reconstruct portions Market Road to Whitefish Stage urban minor arterial facility. Crossing to Birch Grove Road: roadway. Conrad Drive — Reconstruct to an to Shady Lane: standard. Shady Lane — Reconstruct to an MT 35: standard. Reserve Drive — US Reconstruct to a 5- Whitefish Stage roadway. Reserve Drive — Reconstruct to a 3- Road to LaSalle arterial section. Reserve Drive — Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-20 LaSalle Road to lane minor arterial I I S1,712,053 S1,712,053 so 0% Helena Flats Road: section. Evergreen Drive — Reconstruct to a 3- Road to LaSalle section. Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a 3- Street to Reserve IDrive: section. 18'h Street West Construct new c Drive: collector standard. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 3 t onstruct new alle/ Conrad connection between 0.44 0.44 S1,470,240 S1,470,240 SO 0% ,e Connector: LaSalle Rd. and Conrad Dr. Reconstruct MT 35 35 Expansion: to a 4-lane facility 5.7 5.7 S20,754,177 S20,754,177 SO 0% with appropriate left turn bays. US Highway 2 East Reconstruct to a 6- MSN-26 — LaSalle Road to lane roadway section 1.17 1.17 S5,657,649 S5,657,649 SO 0% Woodland Park with appropriate left Drive: turn bays. 71h Avenue East North (E. Reconstruct to a MSN-28 California Street to minor arterial 0.2 0.2 S342,411 SO S342,411 100% Whitefish Stage standard. Road): Three -Mile Drive (W. Springereek Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-29 Road to Meridian lane minor arterial 2 1.7 0.3 S3,424,106 S2,910,490 S513,616 15% Road): standard. Two -Mile Drive (W. Springereek Reconstruct to a 2- MSN-30 Road to Meridian lane urban collector 1.98 1.46 0.52 S2,601,683 S1,918,413 S683,270 26% Road) standard. 3 U) d W v t- e o� U1 O N N N N �{ £...'O t1i o N m o N m v U =;t ga e o 0 0 O O n O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N O O O O O O O O O O Gi O O 6 O O 6 O O O O O O O O O O O 6 O O 6 O O 6 O O O O r N t0 O N M O M LL) N w N Lo W O M N Lo o o a <} O M t0 O M M t0 N O of t0 O M t0 t0 O ' (D t0 r V O M of tp M n V N m t0 O W W m N N F- n n m N m N N t0 C <} O n M fp n O n M to O N (O m V V tD M O� O M m m �O N 7 to m OJ Nn l0 E9 �i e e o s; N V M M N l0 M t0 O n O W O m m N V M M N N M M a O a l0 N n m m O W (O 'O M t0 O n O M (O •- t0 M L' O n m N N N N tD O tq M �O (O n O N . a O f0 O M m V' O N Cci t0 c0 N V M n N V M M N M V l0 �O M t0 O n fD n n Ili V a o� V m W ep M O in O m N N V ch O LL! N m N M N a t0 z: H3 n M M O n M M m M M M N O N M n l0 M n M m M t0 n n M N O V' �O O O N N V - ttJ O .- O W fp (O V O � n O tV m V ap O N (D W M .- cD M ap N t0 O O (D � O c0 M M N CO N e- i0 O 0p m n O O N a N CO O O M O (O N O n W R N N (D LO n n N m N N LO _ N ? 69 j. G t0 t9 tb Oca t0 C N N N N @ wt0 m M'O m m G y o @ N @ N m o It O N @ N N d o N d G m C N O a f0 m c c c o .a o o o c a ,Gm, m> E c EE c c 'E a~yi� •E o 'E .E c 2 a m E E c E c E n E E E a N y d d 3 d d U o d d m m d o o U U C r U m m C7 @ G N E m J C J C J C m M y an d N m @ M � m0 'O m M J G C m d 0 @ M J C J C m N m M m M m M @ M � o G G co U .< E E o o `o G G m o "' c 3 m m m m m o @ m m o o c o v d@ U •- "6 N 'w '� y "O 2.6 y 'O 2 ... 'O 2 ... E ` y ` o .. 2 ._. 'O __ .o o ` O _m N 2 y 2 N 'O U 2" 2 2 2 c N G D ..GO. o m o-o o v o v 8, ..., a Go 3 N o o 3 o v ,., y= co 3 Go .o co v i. co 3 a m o O y C o o C co O o y U ,., m G s U C U G U C U C U m G J U a G_ 'O U G C R U 9 U G U G U U O D U U V U U C C (n N Q @ Q J N O N N N U @ U coi K E K u U O m N N m N (09 N U U U J O N O t n G ` > >O N O O m O LL' a O O o O) O y L O L C m O O d U! H O O N L 3 (n U y O m M O a' S O m C .. O O U C.O. M R O 3 LL U 7i 0 I `. 'Eo O 2 >` R U1 m U C C' U1 0 m 0 c I �° o a R o. U 3 c o °' o, 'G '0 E o o 3 U o aci > 3 Lm t K ,,= 0 g o II. 3 x m m m .>c oa> o m o c V o m N ;c (� 3 m m > m � cc LL' m m v > 3 O LLo, Y m N O 7 J I W U ,2y> U`R (nn N in :OC� d y >OCY 0 y m �jION 3 U�O m Z c 3 OY > m O m N > m >..>�> 'o ' R >O m N> > > O `J U m N H m to N O LL O Y> O O 0 m 3 L G N O 0` rG U O Uo N 0 O U a' N o L O O U ., w O >i > N N N U m U J U N U A Z LL' V) LL' 3 3` .. d O m T d' N Z N u) N N OJ L L O Z 2 m 0 0 o '- y O (p O '- UI N V) O O > L O E> J O ui o G 'o m o y m R m y m 'o y m m m o (n «i a� L y m U) U` �i �iU �o] 2� LL� LLU) LL'LLQ' U1 �' Z7 �� Q m ULLd' I-U� U� (n 2U7 KJ Kx w �iE u) n z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z N z V z N z N z N z co fn U1 U) U1 (n U) w w w w w w w W 0 o n e o O O a h n O O O O O O O M m o n M (V N T U w T a N m c m w m d m m _ m M O O ` O � C U 6 O U L 2 ' (J 2 _ U _ U N 2 C c0 C m �G m o U U L m r UJ l.0 m m UU m m w O C m m w U m p K o 0 m a o o N o a ZO 0 d m cn U rn W ) c CO >� O W 2 Z w m> ..... m0 O0 W L C C L C C a N U d >U >L N N N N W N T N O M to 'S al m m 2 (n 2 0 0 0 N a c 3 N � l F T C h m O > Q Q a M N O O o y h h N City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Equipment List Exhibit 5 Linelazer III Airless Striper 15 2005 5,249 5,564 0.00% VonArx Milling Machine 1993 20 207 1993 6,500 13,863 0.00% 398 Denver/GardneAir Compressor 1990 20 1906622 1991 9,877 23,671 0.00% 212 Ingersol/Rand Air Compressor 2004 10 4FBCBDAA154351609 2005 10,795 11,443 0.00% 329 IHC Sani-vac Water Trk 1971 20 45608H079655 1971 15,692 37,607 0.00% 331 Chevy C50 Dump Trk 1972 20 CCS532VI46055 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% 332 Chevy C50 Dump Trk 1972 20 CCS532VIH6059 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00 333 Chevy C50 Patch Truck 1972 20 CCS532VI46024 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00 335 Chevy C50 Sand Truck 1972 20 CCS532VI46026 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% 368 GallionT500 Grader 1969 20 411<3371C03626 1969 25,000 59,914 0.00% 383 Mobile Sweeper 1977 20 802-243 1977 35,081 84,074 0.00% 300 IHC-DT 466 S1900 Tandem 1982 20 2HTAF159CCA19897 1982 45,316 108,602 0.00 306 IHC Tymco Sweeper 1991 20 1HTSAZRNlMH343712 1991 79,747 191,118 0.00% 336 Ford F-900 Tandem 1988 20 IFDYL90A8JVA23999 1988 43,033 103,131 0.00% 343 GMC 6000 Snowplow 1980 20 T16DAAV601488 1980 15,286 36,633 0.00% 344 GMC 6000 Snowplow 1980 20 T16DAAV601719 1980 15,286 36,633 0.00% 369 Cat Loader 1969 20 41C337 1969 24,000 57,517 0.00% 302 Ford Elgin Sweeper 1994 20 1FDXH70C7RVA31042 1994 93,529 188,199 0.00% 303 Ford Elgin Sweeper 1994 20 1FDXHOC3RVA31037 1194 93,529 224,148 0.00% 371 John Deere Loader 1985 20 R66466T314536 1986 78,564 188,283 0.00% 304 Ingersol/Rand DD24 Roller 1993 20 5513-S 8224894 1992 25,620 57,924 0.00% 399 Fair Snocrete Snow Blower 1998 20 107208 1998 35,870 57,171 0.00 379 Ingram Roller 1971 20 92800F41154lP56 1975 8,882 21,286 0.00% 380 MulchMaster Leaf Mach w/Hopper 2001 20 DT00620849475 2001 57,799 77,349 0.00 307 Ford Sunvac De-icer 1985 20 IFDXD74N6FVA30435 1991 20,000 47,931 0.00% 372 Cat 140G Grader 1985 20 08Z283442W0820 1985 82,788 198,406 0.00% 305 Ford L-8000 Tandem 1996 20 IFD4W82E6TVA-25495 1996 70,000 125,359 0.00% 325 Crafco SS125 Crack Sealer 1997 20 1C9SY1017V1418230 1997 21,000 35,479 0.00% 345 Tennant 83011 Sweeper 1999 20 P9613O26 1999 14,322 21,535 0.00% 346 Tennant 83011 Sweeper 1999 20 P96113O131 199 14,324 34,328 0.00% 330 Ford L-9000 Flush Trk 1994 20 1FTYA95VOSVA26192 2000 13,390 18,994 0.00 373 Cat 120H Grader 1999 20 4MK00722 2000 122,382 173,601 0.00% 361 IHC Icemelt 4700 Truck 1996 15 IHTSCAAP3TH674668 2001 26,796 35,859 0.00% 334 Sterling L7500 Dump trk/Sander/Plow 2003 10 2FZAASAK13AM05101 2003 75,505 89,928 0.00% 301 Elgin Eagle Sweeper 2005 10 5DN90189 2004 22,721 25,529 0.00% Total $ New Trips 134,118 Cost per Trip $ 1 - No equipment costs were allocated to new development. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Administrative Fee Exhibit 6 Admin Coord $ 9,006 50.00% $ 4,503 Superintendent 40,667 0.00% - Deputy Public Works Dir. 8,664 50.00% 4,332 Assessor 12,660 50.00% 6,330 Project Manager 20,950 50.00% 10,475 Surveyor 21,728 50.00% 10,864 Engineer 4,656 50.00% 2,328 Construction Manager 19,590 50.00% 9,795 Construction Manager 19,658 50.00% 9,829 Secretary 8,975 50.00% 4,488 Budget Resource Manager 6,181 50.00% 3,091 Subtotal $ 172,735 $ 66,034 Transportation Impact Study $ 15,703 100.00% $ 15,703 Admin Transfer 1 51,193 38.23% 19,570 Data Processing' 10,898 38.23% 4,166 Office Space' 4,650 38.23% 1,778 Total $ 255,179 $ 107,251 Total Trips 134,118 Annual Trips z 4,967 Cost per Trip $ 21.59 1- Allocated based on labor. 2 - Total trips divided by 27 year study period. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Summary Exhibit 7 Streets $ 92.50 Equipment - Administration fee4.63 Total Transportation Impact Fee $ 97.13 1- The lesser of Exhibit 6 or 5%. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 210 Single Family Detached Single family detach housing DU 9.57 1 9.57 $ 928 220 Apartment Rental dwelling with at least 3 units in the same building DU 6.72 1 6.72 652 Rented rather than owned 2245 Rented Townhouse/ Duplex units with a minimum of two units DU 7.32 1 7.32 710 Residential condominium/ townhouses under 230 Condominium/ Townhouse single --family ownership. Minimum of two -units in the same building DU 5.86 1 5.86 568 Trailers or manufactured 240 Mobile Home home sited on permanent 1 foundations DU 4.99 1 4.99 484 Independent living 253 Congregate Care developments that provide centralized amenities such as dining, housekeeping, transportation and activities. DU 2.02 1 2.02 196 254 Assisted Living Residential settings that provide oversite or assistance for independent, or mentally or physically limited persons. I DU 1 2.66 1 2.66 258 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1, 000 sq R gross Floor area. GLA - 1,000 sq It gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor. (5) Ratio ofpeak hour trips for similar land use. (6) Based on County packs data - City parks data limited. (7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units. (8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies. (9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies No average provided. 0 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1, 000 sq It gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq It gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor. (5) Ratio ofpeakhour trips for similarland use. (6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited. (7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units. (8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies. (9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies No average provided. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 412s Local Park Municipal owned parks, varying widely as to location, type and number of facilities. Acres 2.28 1 2.28 $ 221 Regional park authority 417 Regional Park owned parks, varying widely as to location, type and number of facilities. Acres 7 4.57 1 4.57 443 Municipal and private golf m 430 �GolfCourse courses. May or may not have a driving range and clubhouse Holes 35.74 1 35.74 3,467 Multi -purpose recreational a Multipurpose Recreation facilities containing two more 435 Facility or of the following uses at one '.. site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go-carts and driving ranges. Acres' 90.38 1 90.38 8,767 Privately owned with weightlifting and other 493 Athletic Club facilities often including swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquetball, squash and handball courts. GFA 43.00 1 43.00 4,171 Recreational facilities similar to and including YMCAs, Recreational Community often including classes, day 495 Center care, meeting rooms, swimming pools, tennis, racquetball, handball, weightlifting, locker rooms and food service GFA 22.88 1 22.88 2,219 mummosmoom Recreational facilitieswith bowling lanes which may 4378 Bowling Alley include a small lounge, restaurant or snack bar. Lane 33.33 1 33.33 3,233 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq /t gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor. (5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use. (6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited. (7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units. (8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies. (9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Tmt(c Studies No average provided. 3 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 ass. ITE � Arerage Trip Atljusfed hl�pact Fee r� < tnstitutionat 522 Elementary School Serves student attending kindergarten through 5th or 6th grade Public or private. GFA 14.49 1 14.49 $ 1,406 522 (a) Middle School Public. Serves students that have completed elementary and not yet in high school. GFA 13.78 1 13.78 1,337 530 High School Public. Typically serving 9 to 12th Grades GFA 12.89 1 12.89 1,250 540 Junior/Community Collage Two-year junior or community colleges GFA 27.49 1 27.49 2,667 Contains worship area. May 560 Church include meeting rooms, classrooms, dining area and facilities GFA 9.11 1 9.11 884 Facility for pre-school children care primarily during the 565 Day Care daytime hours. May include classrooms, meeting area and playground GFA 79.26 0.1 7.93 769 590 Library Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms and sometime meeting rooms GFA 54.00 1 54.00 5,238 550 University / College Four-year and graduate institutions Student 2.38 1 2.38 231 Includes a clubhouse with Lodge / Fraternal dinning and drinking facilities, 591 e Organization recreational and entertainment areas and meeting rooms Members 0.29 1 0.29 28 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1, 000 sq If gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 so If gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor. (5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use. (6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited. (7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units. (8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies. (9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies No average provided. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Medical and/or surgical care facility with overnight 610 Hospitals accommodations for ambulatory and non - ambulatory patients. GFA 17.57 1 17.57 $ 1,704 A facility whose primary 620 Nursing Home function is to care for persons who are unable to care for themselves Beds 2.37 1 2.37 23n Single Tenant Office Usually contains offices, 715 Building meeting rooms, file storage areas, restaurants or cafeteria and other service functions GFA 11.57 1 11.57 $ 1,122 Provides diagnosis and 720 ° Medical -Dental Office outpatient care. Typically operated be private physicians or dentists. GFA 36.13 1 36.13 3,505 Park or campus -like planned 750 Office Park unit development that contains office buildings, banks, restaurants and service stations. GFA 11.42 1 11.42 1,108 Single building or complex of Research and Development buildings devoted to research 760 Center and development. May contain light fabrication facilities. GFA 8.11 1 8.11 787 Group of flex -type or incubator 1-2 story building served by a common road '... system. Typically includes a mix of offices, retail and 770 Business Park wholesale stores, restaurants, recreational areas, warehousing, manufacturing, light industrial or research. The average mix is 20 % to 30 % office / commercial and 70 % to 80 % industrial / (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq it gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms torrent - Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor. (5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use. (6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited. (7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units. (8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies. (9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies No average provided. 5 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Y 17E Avera� Trip Atijusisd fmpact Fee Retail. Small free standing building that sells hardware, building 812 Building Materials and materials and lumber. May Lumber include yard storage and shaded storage areas which are not included in the unit calculation. GFA 45.16 0.82 37.03 3 3,592 A free-standing discount store 813 Discount Super Store that also contains a full service grocery department under the same roof. GFA 49.21 0.82 40.35 3,914 Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail 814 Specialty Retail shops that typically specialize in apparel, hare goods, services such a real estate, investment, dance studios, florists and small restaurants. GFA 44.32 0.82 36.34 3,525 Free-standing store that offers a variety of customer 815 Discount Store services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products. GFA 56.02 1 0.82 45.94 4,456 Typically free-standing 816 Hardware / Paint Store buildings with parking that sell hardware and paints. GFA 51.29 0.82 42.06 4,080 Free-standing building with yard containing planting and 817 Nursery / Garden Center landscape stock. Unit calculation only applies to building and not yard and storage. GFA 36.08 0.82 29.59 2,870 A shopping center that 823 Factory Outlet primarily houses factory outlet stores. GFA 26.59 0.52 13.83 1,341 Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed and managed as a unit. 820 Shopping Center Provides enough on -site parking to serve its own demand. May include office buildings, theatres, restaurants, post office, health club and recreation. I GLA 1 (9) (9) 1 (9) 1 (9) (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1, 000 sq It gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq /t gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor. (5) Ratio ofpeak hour trips for similar land use. (6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited. (7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units. (8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies. (9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies No average provided. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq If gross floor area. GLA - 1,000 sq it gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of moms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor. (5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use. (6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited. (7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units. (8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies. (9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies No average provided. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 ass ITE Average Trip AdJu Impact Fee' Guile .Marne. � Desrai n . ,. � �, <- �Unitsl Tri ' � �.-FactQr� �.A1rTs� Un Serv3 es Usually a free-standing 911 Walk -In Bank building with a parking lot offering banking services. May are ATMs GFA 156.48 0.53 82.93 $ 8,045 Usually a free-standing Walk -In Bank with Drive building with a parking lot 912 Thru Window offering banking services. Has a drive thru window. May are ATMs GFA 246.49 0.53 130.64 12,672 931 Quality Restaurant High quality eating establishment with turnover rates greater than 1 hour GFA 89.59 0.56 50.17 4,867 932 High Turnover Sit -Down Sit down eating establishment Restaurant with turnover rates of less than 1 hour. GFA 127,15 0.56 71.20 6,907 933 Fast Food without Drive- Fast food without a drive Thru through window. GFA 716.00 0.50 358.00 34,726 934 Fast Food With Drive-Thru Fast food with a drive through window. GFA 496.12 0.50 248.06 24,062 NOOMMONNOMME Sells gasoline and may also 944 Gas Station provide vehicle service and Fueling repair. Positions 168.56 0.58 97.76 9,483 Gas Station with Sells gasoline and may also 945 Convenience Market provide vehicle service and repair. Also contains a Fueling convenience market. Positions 162.78 0.44 71.62 6,947 Sells gasoline and may also Gas Station with provide vehicle service and 946 Convenience Market and repair. Also contains a Car Wash convenience market and car Fueling wash. Positions 152.84 0.44 67.25 6,523 947 ® Self -Service Car Wash Allows self cleaning of cars by Wash =524,60'9'� providing stalls for drivers Stalls 108.00 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1, 000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq it gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor. (5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use. (6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited. (7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units. (8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies. (9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies No average provided. 7-6-1601. Definitions. Page 1 of 1 Montanac F're�Aous Section MCA Contents Pert Contents Search Help Next Section 7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply: (1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more that increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility. (b) The term does not include consumable supplies. (2) "Connection charge" means the actual cost of connecting a property to a public utility system and is limited to the labor, materials, and overhead involved in making connections and installing meters. (3) "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or structure, a change in use of a building or structure, or a change in the use of land when the construction, installation, or other action creates additional demand for public facilities. (4) "Governmental entity" means a county, city, town, or consolidated government. (5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected. (b) The term does not include: (i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for development; (ii) a connection charge; (iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or (iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity. (6) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of capital system improvements that reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. A proportionate share must take into account the limitations provided in 7-6-1602. (7) "Public facilities" means: (a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility; (b) a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility; (c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights -of -way, traffic signals, and landscaping; (d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposal facility or a flood control facility; (e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and (f) other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6-1602 that have been approved as part of an impact fee ordinance or resolution by: (i) a two-thirds majority of the governing body of an incorporated city, town, or consolidated local government; or (ii) a unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners of a county government. History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 299, L. 2005. Pmoded by Aftfana Legidatfa Semces http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mea/7/6/7-6-1601.htm 1/4/2006 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirement... Page 1 of 1 Montana Code Annotated 2005 Pre, sous Section MCA Contents Fart Contents Search Help Next Section 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve documentation that: (a) describes existing conditions of the facility; (b) establishes level of service standards; (c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time; (d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; (e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; (f) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area; (i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; 0) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and (k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that: (i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth; (ii) projects costs of the capital improvements; (iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and (iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years. (2) The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the public upon request. (3) The amount of each impact fee imposed must be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new development. The calculation of each impact fee must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (4) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the documentation required under subsection (1). (5) An impact fee must meet the following requirements: (a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development. (b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs: (1) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and (ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements. (c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee. (d) New development may not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service. (e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility. History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005. ,Gmoded by taus Legisfative Sotwcas- http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm 1/4/2006 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal requir... Page 1 of 1 Montana Code Annotated 2005 Preiious Section MCAT Contents Perk Contents Search Help Next Section 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required. (1) The collection and expenditure of impact fees must comply with this part. The collection and expenditure of impact fees must be reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees. The ordinance or resolution adopted by the governmental entity must include the following requirements: (a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested with all interest accruing to the fund. (b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts. (c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee ordinance or resolution or in accordance with 7-6-1602, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property at the time that the refund was due. (2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no earlier than the date of issuance of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of wastewater or water service connection or well or septic permitting. (3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity. (4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of payment of impact fees if: (a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6-1602; (b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use by the governmental entity; (c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or constructions are established as part of the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and (d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as part of the adopting ordinance or resolution if the dedication of land or construction of public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due from an individual development. (5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or for rebuilding a damaged structure unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in 7-6- 1602(1)0). If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be imposed. (6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refunds or credits: (a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 7_6-J 602 and this chapter; or (b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 and this chapter, between the governmental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the impact fees. (7) An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all users creating additional demand on the facility. (8) An impact fee ordinance or resolution must include a mechanism whereby a person charged an impact fee may appeal the charge if the person believes an error has been made. History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005. Awcod by htntanat isatnveSetwcas http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1603.htm 1/4/2006 7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. Page 1 of 1 Montana Code Annotated 2005 Pre sous Section MCA Contents Fart Contents Search Help Next Section 7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governmental entity that intends to propose an impact fee ordinance or resolution shall establish an impact fee advisory committee. (2) An impact fee advisory committee must include at least one representative of the development community and one certified public accountant. The committee shall review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and spending impact fees. (3) The impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the governmental entity. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005. http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.htm 1 /4/2006