Transportation Impact FeesCity of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997
Telephone (406) 758-7701 Fax - (406) 758-7758
February 5, 2009
TO: Mayor & City Council
FRM: Interim City Manager
Re: 9 February Workshop
The following staff information is submitted to the council in preparation for the 9 February
workshop:
• Memo on alternatives to the CIP (Jim Hansz)
Information paper on impact fee policy issues (Myrt Webb)
• Information paper comparing transportation impact fees (Myrt Webb)
• Draft example of an extension agreement for roads (Jim Hanz)
• Legal opinion (Charley Harball)
Public Works Department
M/VA -/VA
2011" Arenue East, P.O. Box 1997, Kalispell, MT 59903 Phone (406) 758- 7720 — Fax (406)758-7831
www.kalispell.com
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works
Myrt Webb, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Work Session Transportation Impact Fees
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2009
At the last work session on this subject City Council asked staff to estimate the change in fee if
the Capital Improvement Plan is modified to remove projects to reduce its value. It is recommended to
remove entire projects from the CIP rather than to arbitrarily reduce all project values. The present value
of the CIP is $12,406,270.00. Staff has reviewed the CIP and identified two reasonable alternatives based
on recent discussions.
ALTERNATIVE #1- REMOVE PROJECTS MSN 2, 3, 23, 28, AND 29
These projects have previously been questioned by the development community as not
sufficiently related to growth.
These projects have the following values:
MSN 2 =
$1,780,535.00
MSN 3 =
$2,979,080.00
MSN 23
= $449,447.00
MSN 28
= $356,107.00
MSN 29
= $534,161.00
Total =
$6,099,330.00
Removing the value of these projects from the CIP results in a new CIP value of
Original CIP $12,406,270.00
-$6,099,330.00
Revised CIP 41= $6,306,940.00
The resulting impact fee with this reduced CIP value is: $6,306,940/134,118 trips = $47.03/trip
The impact fee for atypical single family home would become: 9.57 trips/SFR x $47.03/trip = $450.00
ALTERNATIVE #2 - ALSO REMOVE PROJECT MSN 9 (ROSE CROSSING)
This project was noted by a Council member as one that could be reasonably covered by a
Developer Extension (Latecomer) Agreement if it is ever constructed. The CIP value of this project is:
MSN 9 = $2,03 5,268.00
Deducting the value of this project from the previously revised CIP value results in:
Revised CIP $6,3 06,940.00
MSN 9 -$2,03 5,268.00
Revised CIP #2 = K271fi72.00
The resulting impact fee with this reduced CIP value is: $4,271,672/134,118 trips = $31.85/trip
The impact fee for a typical single family home would become: 9.57 trips/SFR x $31.85 = $305.00
CI ATM A 12 V
Reducing the value of the growth -related CIP will reduce the impact fee. The CIP should be
reduced by the elimination of entire projects rather than by arbitrarily reducing the aggregate value of the
ten projects that make up the current CIP. By removing projects MSN 2, MSN 3, MSN 23, MSN 28, and
MSN 29 from the CIP there is a reduction in the impact fee of approximately 49%. By removing the
aforementioned projects and project MSN 9 from the CIP there is a total reduction of the impact fee of
approximately 65%.
Information Paper: Transportation Impact Fees
Policy Issues:
• Credit: it is common for cities that have transportation impact fee to give credit to developers
that construct all or part of the projects on the transportation impact capital improvement (CIP)
list. While the concept of credit is simple in practice there are several aspects to consider:
1. The improvement must directly assist a project that is on the impact CIP.
2. The costs being claimed must be verified by a city engineer to be reasonable and
directly related to a CIP project.
3. The credit should be applied when a building permit is issued and only as a credit not as
cash.
4. Credit should not be given for improvements required for the development even if the
improvements are on the CIP.
• Grandfathering: while it may seem reasonable to forgive impact fees for ongoing projects but
there should be a time limit. Some approved final plats may build out for 10-20 years. It does
seem reasonable to forgive impact fees for such an extended period. Grandfathering, if used,
should only be applied to building permits.
• Outside Funding: there is a reasonable probability that we will receive funds from federal or
other sources that could be used for CIP projects. These funds should first be applied to costs
that were not in the initial CIP estimates. Examples are right-of-way and upgrade of existing
capacity. If there were outside funds remaining they could be applied to the CIP costs which
would reduce the per unit fee. An alternative would be to credit previous impact fee payers.
Information Paper: Transportation Impact Fee(TIF) Comparison for Office, Retail and Industrial Use
Below is a comparison between the proposed Kalispell TIF's and the TIF's for Bozeman and Missoula. It
should be noted that there is a significant difference between the population and growth pattern of
Missoula and the patterns of Bozeman and Kalispell. Not only is Missoula a much larger city is has also
grown at a much slower rate that either Bozeman or Kalispell. Missoula also has a very different fee
structure that does not use ITE codes. The Bozeman fees are 60% of the recommended fees.
Missoula:
2000 population (census) 57053
2008 population (estimate) 67165
increase 2000-2008 18%
Bozeman:
2000 population (census) 27509
2008 population (estimate) 37981
increase 2000-2008 38%
Kalispell:
2000 population (census) 14223
2008 population (estimate) 20298
increase 2000-2008 43%
Fee Comparison ($ per 1000ft2): Kalispell Bozeman Missoula
Office (ITE code)
Medical-Dental(720) 3505 6011 2849
Single Tenant(710-715) 1122 1542-2494 1052-1447
Retail (ITE code)
24hr Market(851)
27918
27975
2231-3205
Quality Resta u ra nt(931)
4867
13820
"
Fast Food w/Drive-in(934)
24062
38397
"
Bank w/Drive-in(912)
12672
19884
"
Mall(820)
Indiv
5107-6012
"
>300k ft2
Industry(ITE code)
General Light Industrial(110)
676
1436
550
Manufacturing(140)
371
784
301
Warehouse(150)
481
1020
391
DRAFT
DEVELOPER EXTENSION (LATECOMERS) AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR
KALISPELL PUBLIC ROAD SYSTEM EXTENSIONS
AGREEMENT, made this day of , 200_, between , ("Developer")
and the City of Kalispell, situated in Flathead County, Montana ("City").
WITNESSETH:
RECITALS
A. The City owns, operates and maintains a system of public roads within its City
limits; and
B . Developer has constructed, under agreement with the City, extensions to said
public road system (collectively the "Extensions"), as more particularly depicted on Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which Extensions are capable of
serving parcels now owned by the Developer and others; and
C. The Extensions are located within the City's existing corporate limits, and shall
be subject to the City's public works standards for performance; and
D. The total project cost for design and construction of the Extensions amounted to
$ as more specifically itemized on Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference; and
E. The City and Developer desire and intend by this Agreement to provide for
collection of the fair pro rata share of the total project costs of the Extension from the owners of
the properties which benefit from the Extensions, but who did not contribute to the original cost
thereof.
F. The City has determined and Developer has agreed that the fair pro rata share of
the total project costs of the Extensions, to be collected from the owners of properties who
connect to and use the Extensions, shall be based upon the traffic generation associated with the
expected use of the subject properties determined at the trip rates set forth in Section 5 below,
and based upon the trip rate factors for traffic generation listed in the manual of Trip Generation
developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, current edition.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereafter
set forth, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
I. All of the recitals set forth above are adopted by the parties as material elements
of this Agreement.
LATECOMERS AGREEMENT P. 1
2. Developer shall transfer title, free and clear of all encumbrances, to the
Extensions, by a bill of sale to be executed and delivered by Developer to the City. Developer
shall assign easement deed for utilities from State of Montana to Developer (hereinafter referred
to as easement), to be executed and delivered by Developer to the City. In the event that any lien
or other claim against the Extensions are asserted after conveyance to the City, Developer shall
defend and save harmless the City from loss on account thereof. In the event the City shall be
put to any expense in defense of such claim or otherwise, then the City shall have a lien against
any funds then or thereafter deposited with it pursuant to this Agreement.
3. Developer warrants that it is the owner in title absolute of the Extensions, that it
has neither permitted nor suffered any person or other entity to use the Extensions prior to the
date of this Agreement, except the real property owned by Developer as identified on Exhibit
"C," and as described in Section 8 below.
4. The City agrees to accept the Extensions for ownership and maintenance as part
of its road system by acceptance of the bill of sale if the Extensions are constructed in
accordance to City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction, 2005. Further, the
City agrees to collect from owners of properties who have not heretofore contributed to the
project costs of the Extensions, and who subsequently connect to and use the Extensions, a fee
equal to the fair pro rata share of the total project costs as set forth in Section 5 below
("Assessment Fees"). Such Assessment Fees shall not be collected by the City with respect to the
property by the Developer, as more particularly set forth on Exhibit "C," and as described in
Section 8 below.
5. The total project costs for the Extensions including costs eligible for
reimbursement under this Agreement are as itemized on Exhibit "B." Said eligible portion of the
total project costs includes costs for design engineering, surveying, construction, construction
inspection and construction contract administration incurred and paid by Developer. The
Assessment Fees for each of the properties who subsequently connect to and use the Extensions
shall be based upon the estimated traffic associated with such properties in the amount set forth
in Section 5(a). The amount set forth in Sections 5(a) is based upon total capacity of as
described on Exhibit "C," for which no Assessment Fee shall be charged and for which
Developer shall not be entitled to reimbursement pursuant to this Agreement.
(a) The Assessment Fee for owners of properties who subsequently tap onto,
connect to or use the Extensions shall be $ per trip, adjusted annually in accordance
with Section 5(b) below. The maximum number of trips for which Developer shall be
entitled to reimbursement shall be
(b) The per trip Fee set forth in Sections 5(a) above shall be increased
annually, over the prior year's Assessment Fee, on the first day of January each year,
based upon the ten (10) year United States Treasury Note rate as of the last day of the
immediately preceding November, plus 1.5%.
6. The total trips for purposes of computing the Fees to be collected pursuant to this
Agreement shall be determined by in accordance with Exhibit "D," attached hereto and
LATECOMERS AGREEMENT P. 2
incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the Fees to be
collected pursuant to this Agreement shall not be collected with respect to property owned by
Developer as described on Exhibit "C," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
8. The City agrees not to allow any use of the Extensions without the owners of
properties to be benefited from said use having first paid to the City the Fees and such other
charges as set forth in Sections 4 and 5 above. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall
not have the authority to waive the Fees for using the Extensions, without the prior written
consent of Developer. To the extent that the City does waive any Fees, the City shall be
responsible for payment to Developer of the Fees that would have otherwise been payable by the
owner of such properties benefiting from using the Extensions.
9. The City shall pay to Developer the sums agreed by it to be collected pursuant to
the provisions of this Agreement within sixty (60) days after receipt thereof at the address of
Developer as set forth hereinafter or at such other addresses as Developer shall provide to the
City.
10. In the event of the assignment or transfer of the rights of Developer voluntarily,
involuntarily or by operation of law, the City shall pay all benefits accruing hereunder, to the
assignee or successor of the Developer after notice of the transfer has been given. In the event
conflicting demands are made upon the City for benefits accruing under this Agreement, the City
may, at its option, commence an action in interpleader joining any party claiming rights under
this contract, or other parties which the City believes to be necessary or proper, and the City shall
be discharged from further liability upon paying the person or persons whom any court having
jurisdiction of such interpleader action shall determine, and in such action the City shall be
entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and cost, which fees and costs shall constitute a
lien upon all funds accrued or accruing pursuant to this Agreement.
12. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to affect or impair in any manner the
right of the City to regulate the use of road system, of which the Extensions shall become a part
under the terms of this Agreement, pursuant to the provisions of any ordinance, resolution or
policy now or hereafter in effect. The imposition by the City of any such requirement shall not be
deemed an impairment of this Agreement though it may be imposed in such a manner as to
refuse service to an owner or owners of a parcel in the benefited area in order to secure
compliance with any such requirement of the City.
13. This Agreement shall become operative as of the date first written above, and
shall remain in full force and effect for a period of years after the date first written above,
or until Developer, or its successors or assigns, shall have been fully reimbursed as aforesaid,
whichever event occurs earlier; provided, that in the event the Extensions, or any portions
thereof, shall during the term of this Agreement, be rendered useless by the redesign or
reconstruction of a portion of the Extension, or of the City's road systems, then the City's
obligation to collect for Developer the Assessment Fees provided pursuant to this Agreement
LATECOMERS AGREEMENT P. 3
shall cease.
14. An administrative fee of six (6) percent, in addition to the per trip fees described
previously in this Agreement, will be assessed by the City of Kalispell, Montana.
15. No waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and
Developer.
16. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the
addresses listed below, unless notified to the contrary.
17. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements of this Agreement
shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of Developer, as if they were specifically
mentioned herein.
18. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Montana, and jurisdiction of any resulting dispute shall be in Flathead County, Montana. The
prevailing party in any legal action arising from this Agreement shall be entitled to all costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees or other witness fees and any such fees
and expenses incurred on appeal.
19. Any invalidity, in whole or in part, of any of the provisions of this Agreement
shall not affect the validity of any other of its provisions.
20. No term or provision herein shall be deemed waived and no breach excused unless
such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived or
consented.
21. This Agreement, including its exhibits and all documents referenced herein,
constitutes the entire agreement between the City and Developer, and supersedes all proposals,
oral or written, between the parties on the sub j ect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year above
written.
DEVELOPER
[NAME]
[TITLE]
DATE , 200
LATECOMERS AGREEMENT P. 4
NOTARY BLOCS
Exhibit A — Road system extension drawings
Exhibit B — Breakdown of Reimbursable Costs
Exhibit C — Legal Description of Development
Exhibit D — Trip determination
CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA
[NAME]
[TITLE]
DATE , 200
LATECOMERS AGREEMENT P. 5
City of Kalispell
Charles A. Harball Office of City Attorney
City Attorney 201 First Avenue East
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903-1997
DATE:
LEGAL OPINION
January 29, 2009
TO: Myrt Webb, Interim City Manager
Mayor Pamela B. Kennedy
and Kalispell City Council
FROM:
Charles Harball, City Attorney
Tel 406.758.7977
Fax 406.758.7979
charball@kalispcll.com
ISSUE: Whether the Kalispell City Council has the legal authority
to enact impact fees at any rate less than formulated by a
legitimate study setting forth the maximum fee allowable?
CONCLUSION: Yes. The City of Kalispell has the legal authority to enact
impact fees at any rate less than formulated by a
legitimate study setting forth the maximum fee allowable.
1. The City of Kalispell is a General Powers ci. The electors of the City of
Kalispell have not granted the City of Kalispell a self governing power
through a City Charter, therefore the authority of the City is regulated by
MCA. 7-1-4124. Under these general powers, the City may enact ordinances
and resolutions and otherwise exercise powers not inconsistent with law
necessary for effective administration of authorized services and functions.
Although this is a fairly broad mandate, the City must find its authority
under the laws of the State of Montana.
2. State law currently allows, but does not require. the Citv of KalisDell to
develop and impose impact fees. In 2005, the state legislature enacted MCA
7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604. This law first defines impact fees and then gives
local governments the authority to enact these fees so long as certain
empirical validation and documentation is in place to ensure that the fees
that are imposed are not in excess of the proportionate share of the costs
incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the
development charged. It is important to note that the statute does not, in
any way, require local government to impose impact fees. That choice is left
to the discretion of the local government.
Legal Opinion
Imposition of Less Than Maximum .Allowable Impact Fees
January 29, 2049
Page - 2
3. The determination by the City of Kalispell to impose impact fees is
discretionary which leads to the legal conclusion that the City may therefore
impose an impact fee at a level that is less than the proportionate share of
costs incurred or to be incurred by the City in accommodating the
development charged. If it is legal for the City to determine to pay for its
infrastructure by means that do not include impact fees, it is also legal for it
to include the charge of impact fees that may be less than the maximum
allowable charges. Any impact fee charged, however, must meet the
requirements that an empirical analysis has been made to ensure that the fee
charged does not exceed the proportionate share of costs incurred or to be
incurred by the City in accommodating the development charged.
4. The City of Kalispell has made the empirical analysis to ensure that the
impact fee charged does not exceed the proportionate share of costs incurred
or to be incurred by the City in accommodating the development charged.
The City of Kalispell contracted with competent qualified professional
engineers who conducted a transportation analysis and developed a
transportation plan which was duly considered, approved and adopted by the
City Council. This transportation plan is consistent with the requirements of
the State's impact fee law. The City also contracted with a competent
qualified professional engineer who, utilizing the transportation plan,
provided an analysis and methodology of determining, by discrete units, the
impacts of various new developments on the City's transportation facilities.
This analysis and study, also consistent with the State's impact fee law, sets
forth the maximum impact fee, per discrete unit, that the City may charge
that is a proportionate share of costs incurred or to be incurred by the City in
accommodating each discrete unit of the development charged.
Respectfully submitted,
Char A. Harba 1, City Attorney
Office of City Attomey
City of Kalispell
WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 9, 2009
1y stance
a.I have been in favor of the methodology used to determine source of trips, number of trips
and trip allocation.
b. I've had no quarrel with the projects listed to determine an estimated cost realizing the list
will need to be revised from time -to -tinge as growth occurs.
c, The fees were WAY too high because they did not factor in our existing regulations and other
sources funding. My fear is that we 'would generate a huge pot of money, hire consultants and
build roads perhaps leading to nowhere. (challenge?)
d. I have never bought into the idea "eve need to build a tax base". This is a mantra on a six month's
cycle -- at budget time "we need more money because of growth", six months later "we need
growth to build our tax base". Taxes = services if we are fain ! ! !
e. GROWTH IS INEVITABLE
f, Impact fees are necessary. Over time Development A occurs along, say Stillwater Road, mitigating
their impacts in accordance with the .extension of Services Plan along Stillwater. Then
Development B builds along Stillwater. Impact fees along with SIDs are needed to build
between for continuity of roadway.
l h are.fees too high
Explain existing rates used:
2006, 2007 & 2008 fees (Planning Dept. report) ----------$3, 9553200
Add Glacier Town Center, Phase I fees (Exhibit A)--------- 6,835,400
Add MSN9 required by extension ofServices Plan------- ......220351300
Subtotal ---------------------- 1238259900
Add 186,000 sf Wal-Mart - ----( $3,712/15000 SO ----------- 690,400
Total----------------------------------$13,516,300
That's more in 3 to 6 years than the $ 12.4 million in25 years
Plus add in the mitigating measures like stop lights, turn lanes, alignments and width of roads
for growth. by Home Depot, Hutton Ranch, Spring Prairie and even the Starling roundabout, all funded
by developers and state and federal gas taxes, all development in accordance with the Extension of
Services Plan.
Recommendations
Re: Hansz memo 2I9109 By removing certain roads from the list results in a more equitable way
of determining the fees. (explain each road )
However, from. tune--to-time as traffic increases, from whatever source or direction, it may be
necessary to use impact fees for other roads noted on the Transportation Plan. Examples:
MSN4 -- whitefish Stage from Reserve to Rose Crossing If development occurs and
the City annexes it and the Extension of Services Plan is beyond the
scope of the developer's requirement, impact fees may need to be used because of
growth throw pout the Coun , not specifically related to the project, or
M SN 8 — Four Mile Drive from Springcreek to Stillwater -- may need to be dropped if
development occurring abutting Four Mile is required by the .extension of
Services Plan to build all the road.
Roads should not be added to increase ees.
I also agree that any grandfathering needs parameters but related to time and Council action. If
grandfathering is adopted, grandfathered developments affected would still have to follow the existing
.extension of Services Plan which does Not have a Developer Extension Agreement for Roads that
allows for developer rebating for oversizing and for latecomers.
The existing categories NOT PRACTICAL for Kalispell (explain from Planning Office report)
It is suggested that an ordinance be adopted ASAP to:
a. Adopt the methodology to arrive at 134,118 trips (cite report),
b. Adopt and name source for average trips and trip factor (cite report)
c.A.dopt roads eligible for impacts fees.. MSN S, 10, 12, and 30, as a basis for
estimating the amount to be funded (cite Transportation Plan)
d. A statement that as development occurs, other roads may be added or dropped,
but this would not be a method used to specifically increase or decrease fees,
e. The Council may revise the fees from time -to -time based on a re-evaluation of the
methodology, growth patterns and construction costs,
f. Adopt a grandfatheriAg clause effective date with parameters (between July 1, 2004
and July 1, 2009 effective for 6 years after approval of Preliminary Plat)
g, Include a revised category list and charges
After adoption of Ordinance have the staff revise the Extension ofServices vices Plan to include
parameters such as Developer Extension Agreement for Roads as an Exhibit, cite a source for
determining capacities of local, collector and minor arterial roads, a souce to be used for estimating
trips generated by developments, etc. (comment on Silverbrook Extension)
5. Silverbrook Latecomers Agreement
Was a water well developed, on or off the Silverbrook property and connected to the system.?
Is the well included in the $1.7 million water system extension costs?
Amend item. 8 after City by adding bv approval of the Citv C'o un cil
This Agreement is not clear whether it follows our Extension of ,Services Flan. I believe this is
supposed to be a Develo er Extension Agreement which is intended to reimburse the developer by
people who "hook on" and for the hookers -on, i.e., "latecomers", to pay their proportional share of the
costs of the extend line. This is a charge IN ADDITION to the city's System Development charge
also known as an "Impact Fee". (read 1 A & 1 B). Oversizing the line is su osed to be paid to the
develo er witi im act ees when someone "hooks -on"
The city has no mechanism in their regulations called a Latecomers Agreement
Here's the real dilemma: Water system-- Exhibit D--- 804 EDIT (ERU under fire flow). (Explain
4000 gprn, ISO, construction type, sprinklers, well with separate fire line, 2 hour storage, etc.)
by formula @ 2000 gpm $2.50 x 700,000 sf 113 54 = 1294 — exceeds 804 EDUs
I !Volford was the xrst to build would the others have to Pav an thin ?
Could o fiord even build?
Wouldn't the hones on& in Vall .iRanch Mark Owens and Wol ord plus Silverbrook .exceed 1396
EDUs
*%at are the estimated EDUs Lorthe firstphase Glacier Town Center
This Agreement is fraught with potential problems. I wonder how much the developer
understands ghat is written. This Agreement should have been made before construction started (read
page 28).
An Agreement should be VERY CLEAR. that there are two fees-- a latecomers fee and and an
Impact Fee. It appears to me that only one charge is being applied herein. It appears to be a total charge
for both latecomers and impact fees which is okay in uncomplicated situations in that both can go to the
developer. But in this case one entity or two entities can end up paying the total amount to compensate
the developer for both latecomers and impacting fees (oversizing). The fire flow fees really throws this
whole thing into a "cocked hat".
January 29, 2009
Editor
Daily .Inter Lake
P.O. Box 7610,
Kalispell, MT 59904
After listening to much testimony and reading written statements and newspaper articles on the
transportation impact fees, it become clear to me that the public is not familiar with the City's existing
regulation called the Extension ofServices Plan. This plan already requires developers to mitigate
impacts their development has on traffic. The plan has been in effect for over 25 years.
As an example; the wolford development will aleady have to construct the estimated $2 million
road from whitefish Stage to US 93, and reconstruct a portion of the $2 million Whitefish Stage from
Reserve to Rose Crossing. These are roads listed and calculating in the fees for the $12.4 million of
road enlargements and new roads to be paid from impacted fees.
In addition the mall project must provide rights -of -way and roads that mainly benefit future
development by others to the north so that project by others will have access, through the mall project,
to US 2 and US 93.
The foregoing are roads and mitigation measures already required in the Extension of Services
Plan.
Now add in impact fees calculated by Public works for the first phase project called Glacier
Center of $6.8 million to be paid as the mall buildings are built. Plus add in the future transportation
impact fees for the hones of the project to be built in the future.
All totaled the wolford project would be paying between $9 and $10 million of the total
estimated $12.4 million for roads to be upgraded and built due to impacts. The rates proposed do not
factor in the City's existing regulations. That's the dilemma. ,
Robert Hafferman
1337 Third Street west,
Kalispell, mt 59901
752--1341