Kalispell Stormwater Impact Fee Final Report 11-30-17FINAL REPORT
City of Kalispell
Stormwater Impact Fee Study
November 2017
F��
F)R
November 30, 2017
Ms. Susie Turner, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Kalispell
201 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Subject: Final Report—Stormwater Impact Fee Report
Dear Ms. Turner:
Enclosed please find HDR Engineering, Inc.'s (HDR) final report regarding the City of
Kalispell's (City) stormwater impact fees. The development of this report is intended to
provide to the City the basis to establish cost -based impact fees. The adoption of final
impact fees is a policy decision of the City Council. As a part of this study, HDR and the City
worked with the City's advisory committee and the development community in an open and
positive manner.
In 2006, HDR developed the City's stormwater impact fees and then, in 2010, updated that
analysis. This fee study reflects the current City Council policy positions (e.g., population
growth, annexation policy), along with the current stormwater capital improvement plan.
This study reflects the general methodology and approach used in those prior studies,
updated to reflect the City's current data, information and growth policies.
This report has been prepared using "generally accepted" financial, rate, and engineering
principles. The City's financial, planning, and engineering data were the primary sources for
much of the information contained in this report. HDR would recommend that the City
have the fees, developed as a part of this study, reviewed by their legal counsel to
determine compliance with Montana State law.
HDR appreciates the opportunity to assist the City in this matter. Thank you for the
assistance you provided to us during the development of this study.
Sincerely yours,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
1�9 J "111"
Tom Gould
Vice President/HDR Business Leader for
Finance and Rates
hdrinc.com
700 SW Higgins Avenue, Suite 200, Missoula, MT 59803-1489
(406)532-2200
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
Present Stormwater Impact Fee....................................................................................... 1
Overview of the City's Stormwater System.................................................................... 2
Calculation of the City's Stormwater Impact Fee........................................................... 2
Net Allowable Stormwater Impact Fee.......................................................................... 4
Annual Adjustments to the Stormwater Impact Fee ...................................................... 6
Stormwater Impact Fee Credits (Offsets)....................................................................... 6
Advisory Committee Review.......................................................................................... 6
Consultant's Recommendations.................................................................................... 7
Summary....................................................................................................................... 7
1 Introduction and Overview
1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 8
1.2 Overview of the Study......................................................................................... 8
1.3 Disclaimer............................................................................................................9
1.4 Summary.............................................................................................................9
2 Overview of Impact Fees
2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Defining Impact Fees..................................................................................................10
2.3 Economic Theory and Impact Fees.................................................................... 10
2.4 Impact Fee Criteria............................................................................................ 11
2.5 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology......................................................... 13
2.6 Summary......................................................................................................................14
3 Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees
3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Requirements Under Montana State Law .......................................................... 15
3.3 Summary...........................................................................................................17
4 Development of the City's Stormwater Impact Fee
4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Overview of the City's Stormwater System........................................................ 18
4.3 Present Stormwater Impact Fees....................................................................... 19
4.4 Calculation of the City's Stormwater Impact Fees .............................................. 20
4.4.1 System Planning Criteria....................................................................... 20
4.4.2 Equivalent Residential Units................................................................. 21
4.4.3 Calculation of the Stormwater Impact Fees .......................................... 21
4.5 Net Allowable Stormwater Impact Fee.............................................................. 23
FN Table of Contents
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
4.6 Annual Adjustments to the Stormwater Impact Fee .......................................... 25
4.7 Stormwater Impact Fee Credits (Offsets)........................................................... 25
4.8 Key Assumptions............................................................................................... 25
4.9 Consultant's Recommendations........................................................................ 26
4.10 Advisory Committee Review.............................................................................. 26
4.11 Summary...........................................................................................................26
Technical Appendix A — Stormwater Impact Fees
Technical Appendix B — Montana Code — Impact Fees
Technical Appendix C — Adopted Ordinance
FN Development of the Stormwater Impact fees ii
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
'. Executive Summary
Introduction
The purpose of stormwater impact fees is to bring equity between existing customers and new
customers connecting to the City's stormwater utility system. The objective of an impact fee
study is to calculate cost -based fees for new customers connecting to, or requesting additional
capacity to, the City's stormwater system. By establishing cost -based impact fees, the City
attempts to have "growth pay for growth" and existing utility customers will, for the most part,
be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth.
HDR was retained by City to review and update the City's stormwater impact fees. The City's
impact fees need to be reviewed and updated every five years as required under Montana
Code 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604, the Montana impact fee legislation. In addition the City growth
policy has changed and annexation has occurred since the adoption of the 2008 Stormwater
Facility Plan Update. Given these changes and the legal requirements, it is prudent for the City
to review and update their stormwater impact fees.
Present Stormwater Impact Fee
The City currently has a stormwater impact fee and is based on the 2006 impact fee study. The
impact fee utilizes an equivalent residential unit approach. Presented below in Table ES-1 is an
overview of the present stormwater impact fee.
Impact Fee Per Equivalent Residential Unit[11
Type of Use # of ERUs(l) Impact Fee
Single -Family 1.0 $1,121
Duplex or Multi -Family .75 ERUs Per Living Unit $841/Unit
Calculated on Impervious Area;
Commercial 2,400 sq. ft./ERU or a maximum of $1,121 / 2,400 s.f.
six (6) ERU's per acre if meeting up to
current detention standards $6,726/acre
[1] - Streets and highways are exempt from impact fees.
Stormwater fees for single-family, duplex, and multifamily are for each additional ERU or
percentage of ERU. Commercial is calculated based on impervious area at 2,400 square foot
per ERU or a maximum of six ERU's per acre if meeting current detention standards.
FN Executive Summary 1
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
Apartments are calculated as commercial. The use of an ERU/impervious surface approach is a
generally accepted and common method for determining stormwater impact fees for specific
parcels. Streets and highways are exempt from impact fees.
Overview of the City's Stormwater System
The City has a stormwater utility and it is responsible for managing stormwater run-off within
its boundaries. To provide a better understanding of the complexity of this utility, along with its
regulatory requirements and challenges, the following brief overview is provided.
The City is legally required to manage both the quantity and the quality of the City's stormwater
run-off. Stormwater runoff can collect pollutants from urbanized areas, which can add to or
create problems in local lakes and streams. Federal and state regulations require action by the
City of Kalispell to minimize pollution carried by stormwater runoff. At a federal level, the City is
subject to the federal regulations related to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). The City is required to implement a Stormwater Management Program
(SWMP) which consists of Best Management Practices (BMPs), involving six minimum control
measures, to control pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practical. However, the
City does require certain infrastructure (facilities) to manage stormwater quantity. These
facilities are needed for purposes of conveyance, detention and discharge. More specifically,
these facilities can include ponds, pipes, catch basins, ditches, curbs and gutters. While
management of stormwater is related to quantity, it is also related to water quality.
Finally, it is important to note that growth, in and of itself, creates additional impacts and
requires additional resources. This is true for all aspects of the City's services, and holds true
for the stormwater utility and its facilities. To determine the City's facility requirements for the
stormwater utility, a Stormwater Facility Plan is developed.
In summary, the City's approach to stormwater quantity management is two fold;
implementation of measures to manage runoff from new development to historic levels, and
provide adequate facilities downstream to convey, detain and discharge stormwater. Under
this approach, new development will typically make on -site improvements to manage runoff,
but also benefit from downstream facilities. It is the investment in "downstream facilities"
which are the basis for the City's impact fees. The City's 2008 Stormwater Facility Plan Update
also provides, in part, the basis for the development of the City's cost -based stormwater impact
fees.
Calculation of the City's Stormwater Impact Fees
The process of calculating impact fees is based upon a four -step process. In summary form,
these steps are as follows:
• Determination of system planning criteria
• Determination of Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs)
• Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs
FN Development of the Stormwater Impact fees 2
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
• Determination of any impact fee credits
System Planning Criteria - System planning criteria are used to establish the capacity needs of
an equivalent residential unit. The City's 2008 Stormwater Facility Plan Update did not directly
specify the number of ERUs to be served at the end of the planning period. The Facility Plan
Update focused on population served and area (acres). Given that limitation of the study, the
impact fee study needed to determine the current ERUs being served and the potential ERUs at
buildout. The existing 2015 ERUs shown in this report were based on planning policy, City
annexation maps, and dwelling land use designations per zoning. At the present time, the total
acres included within the planning area is 4,971 acres which equates to 21,298 ERUs. A more
detailed discussion of the determination of the total current ERUs can be found in subsection
4.4.1.
Residential Units - The planning horizon of this analysis was from 2015 to 2035. Based on
Kalispell growth policy, a 2% annual growth rate was assumed for the planning period. A
summary of the ERUs for 2015 and 2035 are presented below in Table ES-2.
Description Calculated ERUs
Equivalent Residential Units-2015
Equivalent Residential Units - 2035
Additional Units from 2015 to 2035
21,298
31,648
10,350
Calculation of the Stormwater Impact Fee - The next step of the analysis is to review existing
services and planned future improvements and determine the impact fee for each component.
For the stormwater system, given the limited assets, all assets were included in a single group.
These assets were subsequently increased from their original cost to current cost based on the
Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the 20-City average. This
amount was reduced by the percent that was contributed by developers or grants. Those
stormwater improvements that were funded through tax increment financing (TIF), grants and
special improvement districts (SID) were also excluded from the analysis. The value of the
existing assets (net of contributions, grants, etc.) was divided by the total ERUs at buildout
(31,648).
The City also has future planned capital projects which are contained in the Stormwater Facility
Plan. These future capital projects were reviewed by staff along with incorporating the City's
current working capital improvement plan for a 2035 time period horizon of the planning study.
Total Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) from 2016 to 2035 amounted to $18.9 million. Of this
amount, the total committed CIP, eligible for impact fees was $9.5 million. This total amount is
primarily related to two extension projects; Conveyance Outlet Pipe (COP) 124 and COP 118.
These two projects are growth dependent. Project COP 124 (Pipe conveyance from detention
ORExecutive Summary 3
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
pond 124 in West Stillwater Drainage) for $3.4 million and COP 118 (Pipe conveyance from
detention pond 118 to Stillwater/N. Kalispell drainage area) for $4.1 million are detailed
separately for review purposes. Exhibit 4 of Technical Appendix A, along with Exhibit 2,
contains the details of the capital improvement projects and the impact fee eligible portion of
the fee. The future components are divided by the future ERUs of 10,350.
Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact
fee not to exceed 5% of the impact fee collected. In calculating the City's stormwater impact
fee, an administrative component of 5% was added to the impact fee.
The final step in calculating the stormwater impact fee was to determine a credit for debt
service. The stormwater utility has no current outstanding debt related to any existing
infrastructure. It is also presumed future projects will not be debt funded. Rather, the future
projects will be funded as rate funding allows or funded from developer contributions. Given
that assumption, the stormwater impact fee does not contain a debt service credit.
Net Allowable Stormwater Impact Fee
Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable stormwater
impact fee can be determined. "Net" refers to the "gross" impact fee, minus any debt service
credits. "Allowable" refers to the concept that the calculated impact fee shown in Table ES-3 is
the City's cost -based impact fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to
the allowable impact fee, but not over that amount.
F)R Development of the Stormwater Impact fees 4
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
Impact Fee Component Existing Future Total
Fee with Future Projects Only
Stormwater Facilities
$264
$182
$446
5% Administrative Charge
13
9
22
Subtotal
$277
$191
$468
Fee with COP 124 Extension
Stormwater Facilities
$0
$333
$333
5% Administrative Charge
0
17
17
Subtotal
$0
$350
$350
Fee with COP 118 Extension
Stormwater Facilities
$0
$398
$398
5% Administrative Charge
0
20
20
Subtotal
$0
$418
$418
Net Allowable Impact Fee $277 $959 $1,236
Future +
COP 124 +
Fee with Future + COP 124 & 118 Projects
Existing
COP 188
Total
Stormwater Facilities
$264
$913
$1,177
Administrative Charge
13
46
59
Net Allowable Impact Fee
$277
$959
$1,236
For ease of administration and customer understanding, the impact fee is shown rounded to
$1,236 per ERU. This total includes future projects COP 124 ($333/ERU) and COP 118
($398/ERU) which can be seen in detail in Exhibits 2 and 4 of Technical Appendix A. Provided
below in Table ES-4 is a summary of the net allowable stormwater impact fee by customer type.
FN Executive Summary 5
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
Type of Use
Single -Family
Impact Fee Per Equivalent Residential Unit[11
# of ERUs(1) Impact Fee
1.0
$1,236
Duplex or Multi -Family .75 ERUs Per Living Unit $927/Unit
Calculated on Impervious Area;
Commercial [21 2,400 sq. ft./ERU or a maximum of $1,236 / 2,400 s.f.
six (6) ERU's per acre if meeting up to
current detention standards $7,416/acre
[1] - Streets and highways are exempt from impact fees.
[2] - Apartments are calculated as commercial
As noted previously, the current stormwater impact fee is $1,121/ERU. The calculated fee
shown above is $1,236/ERU or an increase of $115/ERU. No change in assessment
methodology is proposed.
Details of the analysis and key documents relied upon for this study are provided within the
Technical Appendix.
Annual Adjustments to the Stormwater Impact Fee
The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the cost of money or
interest charges and inflation. Therefore, HDR recommends the City adjust the impact fees
each year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. This method of
escalating the City's impact fee should be used for no more than a four-year period. After this
time period, as required by Montana law, the City should update the fees based on the actual
cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities contained in an updated master plan,
capital improvement plan or rate study.
Stormwater Impact Fee Credits (Offsets)
Credits or offsets against a stormwater impact fee may be appropriate under certain
conditions. A credit or offset against the stormwater impact fees are a policy decision of the
City. Any credits or offsets against stormwater impact fees would need to be determined on a
case -by -case basis. The City's ordinance No. 1656 allows for credits or offsets as outlined under
Montana law (7-6-1604).
Advisory Committee Review
Under Montana law (7-6-1604), the proposed impact fees must be reviewed by an impact fee
advisory committee. The City has convened an impact fee advisory committee for this specific
purpose. The role of the advisory committee is to serve in an advisory capacity to the City
F)R Development of the Stormwater Impact fees 6
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
Council. The advisory committee reviews and monitors the process of calculating, assessing
and spending impact fees. Ultimately, the City Council is the governing body responsible for
determination of and adoption of the final stormwater impact fees.
Consultant's Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of the City's stormwater system, HDR recommends the City
adopt stormwater impact fees at or below the net allowable impact fees as set forth in this
report ($1,236/ERU). As a matter of policy, the City may adopt a stormwater impact fee which
is less than the calculated fee as shown in this report, but in doing so, the City will be sharing
some portion of development impact costs with the existing stormwater utility ratepayers.
Summary
The impact fees developed and presented in this report are based on the planning and
engineering design criteria of the City's stormwater system, the value of the existing assets,
past financing of the system and nationally recognized ratemaking principles. The impact fees
will provide multiple benefits to the City and will continue the City's practice of establishing
equitable and cost -based impact fees for new development benefitting from the City's
stormwater system.
FN Executive Summary 7
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
1. Introduction and Overview
Is
1.1 Introduction
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) was retained by the City of Kalispell; Montana (City) to update the
City's current stormwater impact fees. The development of this study and the resulting
stormwater impact fees are intended to provide an equitable and cost -based method to
establish these impact fees while complying with the legal requirements of Montana Code 7-6-
1601 through 7-6-1604. This report discusses and documents the development of the City's
stormwater impact fee study.
Impact fees are a one-time assessment on new or expanded development to pay for the cost of
infrastructure required to provide service (i.e., accommodate development). Impact fees
provide the means of balancing the cost requirements for new utility infrastructure between
existing customers and new customers impacting the City's stormwater system. The portion of
existing system and future capital improvements that
will provide service (capacity) to new customers is "The primary purpose of
included in the impact fees. In contrast to this, the stormwater systems and
City has future Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) associated stormwater
that are related to renewal and replacement of management policies is to control
existing systems in service. These infrastructure costs runoff in ways that minimize
are included within the rates charged to the City's hazards to life and property, and
stormwater customers, and are not included within minimize inconvenience to the
the impact fee. general public."
The objectives in managing stormwater and establishing a stormwater utility are varied. Arthur
C. Nelson, a national expert in impact fees notes:
"Stormwater runoff usually occurs during or immediately after rainfall, but can
sometimes involve groundwater flow and snowmelt. The primary purpose of
stormwater systems and associated stormwater management policies is to control
runoff in ways that minimize hazards to life and property, and minimize inconvenience to
the general public. Urban development increases the frequency and severity of flooding
by removing vegetation, filling natural water storage areas, covering floodplains and
watersheds with pavement, and reducing the size of the natural channel available for
flood flows."1
1.2 Overview of the Study
The development of a cost -based stormwater impact fee requires a detailed technical analysis.
1 Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities (Boca Raton:
Lewis Publishers, 1995) p. 137.
FN Introduction and Overview 8
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
To better understand the approach and methodology used, along with the development of the
City's stormwater impact fee, this report has been divided into a number of sections (chapters)
to discuss and document the process used to establish the fees and reach our final conclusions
and recommendations. This report is organized in the following manner:
• Section 2 — Review methodologies and practices related to impact fees
• Section 3 — Overview of the legal requirements for impact fees under Montana law
• Section 4 — Review of the development of the cost -based stormwater impact fees
1.3 Disclaimer
HDR, in its determination of the stormwater impact fees presented in this report, has relied
upon data and information provided by the City. At the same time, HDR has used "generally
accepted" engineering, accounting and ratemaking principles in the development of the cost -
based stormwater impact fee. This should not be construed as a legal opinion with respect to
Montana law. HDR recommends the City have its legal counsel review the methodology, as
discussed herein, to ensure compliance with Montana law.
1.4 Summary
This section of the report has provided an introduction and overview of the stormwater impact
fee report developed for the City. This report provides the basis for the establishment of a
cost -based stormwater impact fee by the City.
The next section of the report will provide an overview of impact fees and the methodologies
and practices used by utilities to establish the fees.
FN Introduction 9
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
2. Overview of Impact Fees
2.1 Introduction
An important starting point in establishing impact fees is to have a basic understanding of the
purpose of these fees, along with the criteria and general methodology used to establish cost -
based impact fees. This section of the report presents an overview of impact fees and the
methodologies commonly used to develop cost -based impact fees. It should be noted, the City
has historically used these same methodologies to establish their utility impact fees.
2.2 Defining Impact Fees
The first step in establishing cost -based impact fees is to gain a better understanding of the
definition of an impact fee or, as it may also be referred to, a "system development charge".
For the purposes of this report, an impact fee is defined as follows:
"[Impact fees] . . . are one-time charges paid by new development to finance
construction of public facilities needed to serve them.I
Simply stated, impact fees are a contribution of capital to either reimburse existing customers
for the available capacity in the existing system, and/or help finance planned future growth-
". related capacity improvements. At other utilities, impact
..impact fees area fees may be referred to as system development fees,
contribution of capital to either capacity fees, impact fees, capacity reserve charges,
reimburse existing customers infrastructure investment fees, etc. Regardless of the
for the available capacity in label used to identify them, their objective is the same.
the existing system, and/or That is, these charges or fees are intended to provide
help finance planned future funds to the utility to finance all or a part of the capital
growth -related capacity improvements needed to serve and accommodate new
improvements." customer growth. Absent those fees, many utilities
would likely be unwilling and unable to build growth -
related facilities which could burden existing rate payers with costs of growth -related capacity
expansions.
2.3 Economic Theory and Impact Fees
Impact fees are generally imposed as a condition of service. The objective of impact fees is not
to generate money for a utility, but to create equity between existing customers and new
customers so that all customers seeking to connect to the utility's system bear an equitable
share of the cost of capacity that is invested in both the existing and any future growth -related
expansions. Through the implementation of equitable impact fees, existing customers will not
z Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Facilities, Lewis Publishers,
New York, 1995, p. 1.
FN Overview of Impact Fees 10
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
be unduly burdened with the cost of new development.
By updating the City's current stormwater impact fees, the City continues an important step in
providing adequate infrastructure to meet growth -related needs while providing this
infrastructure to new customers in a cost -based, fair, and equitable manner.
2.4 Impact Fee Criteria
In determining impact fees, a number of different criteria are utilized. The criteria most often
used by utilities to establish impact fees include the following:
• State/local laws
• System planning criteria
• Financing criteria
• Customer understanding
Many states and local communities have enacted laws governing the calculation and imposition
of impact fees. These laws must be followed in the development of impact fees. Most states
require a "reasonable relationship" between the fee imposed 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. The utilization of
the planning criteria, the actual costs of construction and the planned costs of construction
provide the nexus for the "reasonable relationship" requirement.
The use of system planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination
of the impact fees. System planning criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount
of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. In general
terms, the rational nexus test requires a connection (nexus)
established between new development and the new or "System planning criteria
expanded facilities required to accommodate new provides the "rational
development, and a reasonably appropriate apportionment nexus" between the
of the cost to the new development in relation to benefits amount of infrastructure
received. An example of using system -planning criteria is the necessary to provide
planning assumptions on post -development land use and service and the charge to
impervious area contained within the City's stormwater the customer."
facility plan update. This provides a direct connection
between the fees charged and the assumed (planned) level of development (impervious area).
A "rational nexus test" is used to evaluate the reasonable relationship between the impact fee
and the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the new development. A "rational nexus
test" typically contemplates the following:
1. "A connection be established between new development and the new or expanded
facilities required to accommodate such development. This establishes the rational
basis of public policy.
2. Identification of the cost of these new or expanded facilities needed to accommodate
FN Overview of Impact Fees 11
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
new development. This establishes the burden to the public of providing new facilities
to new development and the rational basis on which to hold new development
accountable for such costs. This may be determined using the so-called Banberry
factors. [Banberry Development Company v. South Jordan County (631 P.2d 899, Utah
1981)].
3. Appropriate apportionment of that cost to new development in relation to benefits it
reasonably receives. This establishes the nexus between the fees being paid to finance
facilities that accommodate new development and the benefit new development
receives from such new facilities."3
The first bullet of the rational nexus test requires the establishment of a rational basis of public
policy. This implies the planning and capital improvement studies used to establish the need
for new facilities to accommodate growth. Adopted master plans or facility plans should firmly
meet this first test since these plans assess existing facilities and capacity, project future
capacity requirements, and determine the future capital infrastructure needed to
accommodate growth.
The second portion of the rational nexus test discusses the Banberry Factors. In summary form,
"consideration must be given to seven factors to determine the proportionate share of costs to
be borne by new development:
1. The cost of existing facilities
2. The means by which existing facilities have been financed
3. The extent to which new development has already contributed to the cost of providing
existing excess capacity
4. The extent to which existing development will, in the future, contribute to the cost of
providing existing facilities used community wide or non -occupants of new development
5. The extent to which new development should receive credit for providing at its cost
facilities the community has provided in the past without charge to other development
in the service area.
6. Extraordinary costs incurred in serving new development
7. The time -price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amount of money paid at
different times.114
The final portion of the rational nexus test is the reasonable apportionment of the cost to new
development in relation to benefits it reasonably receives. This is accomplished in the
methodology to establish the impact fee, which is discussed in more detail within this section.
Impact fees are typically established as a means of having new customers pay an equitable
share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing criteria for
establishing impact fees relates to the method used to finance infrastructure on the system and
assures customers are not paying twice for infrastructure — once through the impact fees and
s Ibid, p. 16 and 17.
4 Ibid, P. 18 and 19.
OROverview of Impact Fees 12
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
again through rates. The double payment can come in through the imposition of an impact fee
and then the requirement to pay debt service within a customer's rates. The financing criteria
also reviews the basis under which facilities were built and funded such that the customer is
not charged for infrastructure that was provided (contributed) by developers (i.e., customer
contributions, contributions in aid of construction, etc.).
The component of customer understanding implies that the fee is easy to understand. This
criterion has implications for the way the fee is implemented and assessed to the customer.
For a stormwater system, the fee is based upon an Equivalent Residential Unit or ERU. The ERU
is equal to the impervious area of a typical or average residential customer. In the case of the
City, one (1) ERU is currently assumed to be 2,400 square feet. For non-residential customers,
the number of ERUs are calculated or determined by the City using the same definition of an
ERU. The other implication of this criterion is that the methodology is clear and concise in its
calculation of the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service.
2.5 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology
As a part of the cost -based methodology, there are four steps commonly undertaken. These
steps are as follows:
1. Determination of system planning criteria
2. Determination of equivalent residential units (ERU)
3. Calculation of system component costs
4. Determination of any credits
The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the system planning criteria.
For a stormwater system, total impervious area can be divided by the average impervious
square footage of a residential lot to determine total system ERUs. These are very important
calculations since it provides the linkage between the amounts of infrastructure necessary to
provide service to a set number of customers. This implies that if the system is designed to
provide service for demands up to the year 2035, then the infrastructure costs are divided by
the ERUs in 2035 to determine the cost per ERU.
Once the total number of equivalent units has been determined, an impact fee stated in $/ERU
is calculated. The calculation of the impact fee typically includes both historical (existing) assets
and planned future assets (i.e., capacity additions). The cost per equivalent unit is the "gross
impact fee". The "gross impact fee" is calculated before any credits for debt service.
The last step in the calculation of the impact fee is the determination of any credits. This is
generally a calculation to prevent customers from paying twice for an asset, once through the
value of the asset included within the impact fee, and then again through any debt service
associated with that same asset and included within the utility rates. A similar crediting
mechanism is also utilized if general obligation (G.O.) bonds or tax revenue has been used to
finance the infrastructure.
FN Overview of Impact Fees 13
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
The final impact fee is determined by taking the "gross impact fee" and subtracting any credits.
This results in a "net impact fee" stated in $/ERU. The general basis of this calculation for
stormwater system is the assumption that an equivalent unit is equivalent to the impervious
area and run-off from a typical or average residential customer. Other types of dwellings or
businesses are then assigned ERUs based on total impervious area divided by 1 ERU to
determine total ERUs5.
2.6 Summary
This section of the report has provided an overview of stormwater impact fees. This has
included a discussion of the basis for establishing the fees, considerations in establishing an
impact fee, and the connection (nexus) which must be established between new development
and the fee being imposed. The next section of the report will provide a brief discussion of the
legal considerations associated with impact fees.
5 The City uses a similar approach but "caps" the maximum per acre assessment for non-residential properties
based upon the City's current land use planning.
OROverview of Impact Fees 14
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
3. Legal Considerations
in Establishing Impact Fees
II.
3.1 Introduction
An important consideration in establishing any impact fee is review and consideration of any
legal requirements at the state or local level. The legal requirements often establish the
methodology around which the impact fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used.
Therefore, it is important for the City to understand these legal requirements. This section of
the report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing impact fees under
Montana State law. This summary represents HDR's understanding of the relevant Montana
State law as it relates to establishing impact fees.
3.2 Requirements Under Montana State Law
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 in
Appendix B.
A summary of the requirements under Montana law is as follows:
"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."
"7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity
as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity
required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a
fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee
collected.
(b) The term does not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs
associated with a permit required for development,
(ii) a connection charge,
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special
improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county,
municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and
systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance, or
(iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the
safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have
been adopted by the governmental entity.
F)R Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees is
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
"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 a service area report.
(2) The service area report is a written analysis that must:
(a) describe existing conditions of the facility;
(b) establish level -of -service standards,
(c) forecast future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
(d) identify capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service,
(e) identify those capital improvements needed for continued operation and
maintenance of the facility;
(f) 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;
(g) 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,
(h) 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,
(i) establish the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude
operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the
impact fee;
(j) establish the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of
increased service demand, and
(k) have 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 5
years.
(3) The service area report is a written analysis that must contain documentation of
sources and methodology used for the purposes of subsection (2) and must document
how each impact fee meets the requirements of subsection (7).
(7) 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
FN Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees 16
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
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 basic principle followed under Montana State law requires the fee to be based on a
proportionate share of the costs of the system required to provide service and adoption of fees
and accounting be in compliance with the State of Montana law.
The City's stormwater planning documents provide the planning criteria and need for any
future improvements. The use of the methodology discussed in this report should meet the
proportional share standard and provide final proposed impact fees in compliance with
Montana law.
The discussion within this portion of the report is intended to provide an overview of relevant
Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fees. This summary discussion does not
constitute a legal interpretation of Montana State law.
3.3 Summary
This section of the report reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in the State of
Montana and, in particular, the City. The next section of the report provides a detailed
discussion of the specific calculation of the stormwater impact fee for the City.
FN Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees 17
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
1
■
4. Development of the
City's Stormwater Impact Fee
4.1 Introduction
The City of Kalispell currently has stormwater impact fees in place. Under Montana law, impact
fees need to be reviewed and updated every five years. This section of the report will discuss
the development and update of the City's stormwater impact fee.
The current stormwater impact fee was developed and established in 2006. In 2010, the City
conducted another review and update of the fee. While the fees were reviewed in a
comprehensive manner during the 2010 study, the City Council made a policy decision to not
change the fees and maintained the stormwater impact fees at their current level.
This study is timely, not only from a legal perspective, but also from a policy and equity
perspective. Since the last study, the City's growth policy has changed and annexation has
occurred. In addition, since the completion of the City's 2008 Facility Plan and the 2010 impact
fee analysis, the City in 2011, shifted their planning policy (perspective) from a divided "core"
and "outside core" area to an overall annexation area.
This section of the report presents the key assumptions and details used in calculating the City's
stormwater impact fee. The calculation of the City's stormwater impact fee is based on City -
specific asset and planning information, along with other financial and accounting information.
The City's calculated stormwater impact fee is based on the value of the available system
capacity, along with the value of future or expansion -related capacity projects. In summary
form, the calculated buy -in component and the future/incremental component are added
together, including a debt credit, resulting in the total "net allowable impact fee".
4.2 Overview of the City's Stormwater System
The City has a stormwater utility and it is responsible for managing stormwater run-off within
its boundaries. To provide a better understanding of the complexity of this utility, along with its
regulatory requirements and challenges, the following discussion and overview is provided.
The City is legally required to manage both the quantity and the quality of the City's stormwater
run-off. Stormwater runoff can collect pollutants from urbanized areas, which can add to or
create problems in local lakes and streams. Federal and state regulations require action by the
City of Kalispell to minimize pollution carried by stormwater runoff. At a federal level, the City is
subject to the federal regulations related to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). The City is required to implement a Stormwater Management Program
(SWMP) which consists of Best Management Practices (BMPs), involving six minimum control
measures, to control pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practical. However, the
City does require certain infrastructure (facilities) to manage stormwater quantity. These
facilities are needed for purposes of conveyance, detention and discharge. More specifically,
FN Development of the City's Stormwater Impact Fee is
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
these facilities can include ponds, pipes, catch basins, ditches, curbs and gutters. While
management of stormwater is related to quantity, it is also related to water quality.
Finally, it is important to note that growth, in and of itself, creates additional impacts and
requires additional resources. This is true for all aspects of the City's services, and holds true
for the stormwater utility and its facilities. To determine the City's facility requirements for the
stormwater utility, a Stormwater Facility Plan is developed.
In summary, the City's approach to stormwater quantity management is two fold;
implementation of measures to manage runoff from new development to historic levels, and
provide adequate facilities downstream to convey, detain and discharge stormwater. Under
this approach, new development will typically make on -site improvements to manage runoff,
but also benefit from downstream facilities. It is the investment in "downstream facilities"
which are the basis for the City's impact fees. The City's 2008 Stormwater Facility Plan Update
also provides, in part, the basis for the development of the City's cost -based stormwater impact
fees.
Given this brief overview of the City's regulatory requirements to manage stormwater runoff
and its stormwater program, the focus can shift to the calculation of the City's stormwater
impact fees. Provided below is a more detailed discussion of the City's current stormwater
impact fees and how they are determined.
4.3 Present Stormwater Impact Fees
The City currently has a stormwater impact fee. The impact fee is based upon an equivalent
residential unit approach. Presented below in Table 4-1 is an overview of the present
stormwater impact fee.
Impact Fee Per Equivalent Residential Unit[11
Type of Use # of ERUs(l) Impact Fee
Single -Family 1.0
$1,121
Duplex or Multi -Family .75 ERUs Per Living Unit
$841/Unit
Calculated on Impervious Area;
2,400 sq. ft./ERU or a maximum of
$1,121 / 2,400 s.f.
Commercial [2]
six (6) ERU's per acre if meeting
up to
current detention standards
$6,726/acre
[1] — Streets and highways are exempt from impact fees.
[2] — Apartments are calculated as commercial
The use of an ERU/impervious surface approach is a generally accepted and common method
ORDevelopment of the Stormwater Impact fees
19
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
for determining stormwater impact fees for specific parcels. As can be seen from Table 4-1, the
City's current stormwater impact fee is assessed on the basis of $1,121/ERU. For single-family
residential properties, one (1) ERU is assessed. For duplex and multi -family customers it is
based upon a living unit approach. For commercial (non-residential) properties, the
stormwater impact fee is assessed based upon a property -specific impervious surface
calculation. If the commercial customer is meeting current detention standards, the parcel is
assessed a maximum of six (6) ERU's per acre 6. The fee's limitation on the number of maximum
ERUs for a parcel meeting current stormwater detention standards provides a financial benefit
and offset to the developer for building detention facilities and meeting current development
standards.
It should be noted that streets and highways are not included in the City's impact fee
calculation. This is a common practice of stormwater utilities and the justifications for this
policy are often centered around the following possible justifications:
✓ Streets and highways are an integral part of the stormwater conveyance system.
✓ The streets are owned by the City, and thus, any charge against the City is a charge to
the taxpayers
Given this overview of the present stormwater impact fee, the focus can shift to the
development of the calculated stormwater impact fee. In developing the calculated
stormwater impact fee, the starting point is to review the City's planning document for
stormwater planning. As noted previously, this is the City's 2008 Stormwater Facility Plan
Update.
4.4 Calculation of the City's Stormwater Impact Fee
As discussed in Section 2, the process of calculating impact fees is based upon a four -step
process. In summary form, these steps areas follows:
• Determination of system planning criteria
• Determination of Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs)
• Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs
• Determination of any impact fee credits
Each of these steps is discussed in more detail below.
4.4.1 System Planning Criteria
System planning criteria are used to establish the capacity needs of an ERU. The City's 2008
Stormwater Facility Plan Update did not directly specify the number of ERUs to be served at the
end of the planning period. The Facility Plan Update focused on population served and area
(acres). Given that limitation of the study, the impact fee study needed to determine the
current ERUs being served and the potential ERUs at buildout.
6 An acre is equal to 43,560 square feet. If a parcel does not meet current detention standards then the parcel
could be assessed up to approximately 17 ERU's (43,560 sq. ft. - 2,500 sq. ft./EU = 17.4 ERUs)
ORDevelopment of the City's Stormwater Impact Fee 20
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
The existing 2015 ERUs were based on planning policy, City annexation maps, and dwelling land
use designations per zoning. Table 4-2 shows the dwelling units per acre, the total acres, and
the total ERUs for 2015.
Description Units
High Density Residential
Urban Residential
Urban Mixed Use
Suburban Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total Acres 4,971
4.4.2 Equivalent Residential Units
10 dwelling units per acre
8 dwelling units per acre
8 dwelling units per acre
3 dwelling units per acre
6 dwelling units per acre
6 dwelling units per acre
Total ERUs 21,298
The planning horizon of this analysis was from 2015 to 2035. Based on Kalispell's current
growth policy, an annual growth rate of 2% was assumed for the planning period. A summary
of the ERUs for 2015 and 2035 are presented below in Table 4-3. Details of the determination
of ERUs are provided in Exhibit 1 of Technical Appendix A.
Description Calculated ERUs
Equivalent Residential Units-2015
Equivalent Residential Units — 2035
Additional Units from 2015 to 2035
21,298
31,648
10,350
As noted above, the assumed growth is consistent with the City's current growth policy. Given
the development of the total stormwater ERUs for the planning horizon, the focus can shift to
the calculation of the impact fee. This aspect of the analysis is discussed below.
4.4.3 Calculation of the Stormwater Impact Fees
The next step of the analysis was to review the major functional system infrastructure to
determine the stormwater impact fee for the system. In calculating the stormwater impact fee
for the City, existing facility components, debt service for existing facilities, if any, and future
FN Development of the Stormwater Impact fees 21
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
capital improvements relating to capacity expansion were included. The general approach or
methodology used to calculate each component is described in more below.
EXISTING OR Buy --IN COMPONENT —To calculate the value of the existing stormwater assets for
the buy -in component, the City's methodology considered the original cost of each stormwater
asset. The City provided a detailed asset listing for the various existing components and their
installation date. Given the value of the asset, the next step was to determine the portion of
the project costs that were deemed eligible to be included in the calculation of the impact fee.
The term "impact fee eligible" simply describes the amount of the asset to be included within
the calculation of the fee. This amount was reduced by the percent that was contributed by
developers or grants. Stormwater improvements funded through Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
and Special Improvement Districts (SIDS) were also excluded from the analysis. After making
these adjustments, the remaining balance reflects the amount of the asset eligible for inclusion
within the impact fee. These impact fee eligible assets were subsequently increased to reflect
present replacement cost. To accomplish this, the impact fee eligible cost of each asset was
escalated to current, July 2016 dollars, based on the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the 20-City average. The total value of the existing assets was
$14.7 million dollars. The total replacement value of the impact fee eligible assets was $8.3
million. The replacement value was then divided by the total ERUs at 2035 or 31,648 ERUs for a
total existing facilities (buy -in component) impact fee of $264.
FUTURE COMPONENTS — An important requirement for an impact fee study is the connection
between the anticipated future growth on the system and the needed facilities required to
accommodate that growth. For purposes of this study, the City's most current Capital
Improvement Plan through 2035 along with the projects from the Facility Plan were evaluated.
City staff reviewed/confirmed the existing Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and updated the
projects necessary to meet demand for the stormwater system. Total capital improvement
projects from 2016 to 2035 amounted to $18.9 million. Of this amount, the total committed
CIP, eligible and included within the impact fee was $9.5 million. This total amount is primarily
related to two extension projects; Conveyance Outlet Pipe (COP) 124 and COP 118. These two
project are growth dependent. Project COP 124 (Pipe conveyance from detention pond 124 in
West Stillwater Drainage) for $3.4 million and COP 118 (Pipe conveyance from detention pond
118 to Stillwater/N. Kalispell drainage area) for $4.1 million are detailed separately for review
purposes. Exhibit 4 of Technical Appendix A, along with Exhibit 2, contains the details of the
capital improvement projects and the impact fee eligible portion of the fee. The future
components were then divided by the future ERUs of 10,350 for a future collection impact fee
of $913.
DEBT SERVICE COMPONENT - The final step in calculating the stormwater impact fee was to
determine a credit for debt service. The stormwater utility has no current outstanding debt
related to any existing infrastructure. The stormwater utility has historically not utilized long-
term debt for capital projects. Rather, the utility has rate funded capital projects or used other
funding methods such as developer contributions or tax increment financing. Given this past
approach, it is assumed that no long-term debt will be incurred for this utility and therefore, no
debt service credit is provided.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE— In accordance with Montana statute, an impact fee may include a
FN Development of the City's Stormwater Impact Fee 22
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
fee for the administration of the impact not to exceed 5% of the impact fee collected.
4.5 Net Allowable Stormwater Impact Fee
The methodology used to establish the stormwater impact fees is a "combined approach". The
combined approach adds the buy -in component and the incremental or future component
together, and accounts for any existing debt credit resulting in a "net allowable impact fee". In
total, the stormwater impact fee was determined to be $1,236 per ERU ($1,121 impact fee +
$59 administrative charge = $1,236). A summary of these calculations is provided in Table 4-4.
Impact Total
Facility Component Fee ($000) $/ERU
Existing Stormwater Facilities
Total Existing Facilities [Original Cost] ($000)
Less: Contributed and Non -Eligible Capital ($000)
Total Eligible Existing Facilities ($000)
Total Eligible Existing Facilities [State in 2016 $] ($000)
Less: Net Impact Fee Eligible Outstanding Debt Principal
Total Eligible Existing Facilities [2016 $] ($000)
Existing and Future Equivalent Residential Units
Total Existing Facilities Impact Fee ($/ERU)
Future Stormwater Facilities
(a) Total Other Future Facilities (i.e., w/o COP's)
Future Residential Customer Equivalent Units
Total Other Future Facilities Impact Fee ($/ERU)
(b) COP 124
Future Residential Customer Equivalent Units
Total COP 124 Impact Fee ($/ERU)
(c) COP 118
Future Residential Customer Equivalent Units
Total COP 118 Impact Fee ($/ERU)
Total Future Collection Impact Fee ($/ERU)
Total Combined Stormwater Impact Fee ($/ERU)
Plus 5% Administrative Fee ($/ERU)
Total Combined Stormwater Impact Fee ($/ERU)
$14,672
(9,421)
$5,251
$8,348
(0)
$8,348
31,648
$1,888
10,350
$182
$3,444
10,350
$333
$4,122
10,350
$398
$264
913
$1,177
59
$1,236
The combined fee of $1,236 is slightly more than the City's current impact fee of $1,121 for 1
ERU connection; an increase of $115 per ERU. Table 4-5 shows the fee by existing and future
components. Details of the net allowable impact fee for the City are shown in Exhibit 3 of
F)R Development of the Stormwater Impact fees 23
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
Technical Appendix A.
Impact Fee Component
Existing
Future
Total
Fee with Future Projects Only
Stormwater Facilities
$264
$182
$446
5% Administrative Charge
13
9
22
Subtotal
$277
$191
$468
Fee with COP 124 Extension
Stormwater Facilities
$0
$333
$333
5% Administrative Charge
0
17
17
Subtotal
$0
$350
$350
Fee with COP 118 Extension
Stormwater Facilities
$0
$398
$398
5% Administrative Charge
0
20
20
Subtotal
$0
$418
$418
Net Allowable Impact Fee
$277
$959
$1,236
Future +
COP 124 +
Fee with Future + COP 124 & 118 Projects Existing COP 188 Total
Stormwater Facilities
$264
$913
$1,177
Administrative Charge
13
46
59
Net Allowable Impact Fee
$277
$959
$1,236
Table 4-6 are the present and calculated stormwater impact fees.
F)R Development of the City's Stormwater Impact Fee 24
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
Impact Fee Per Equivalent Residential Unit[11
Present Calculated
Type of Use #of ERUs(l) Impact Fee Impact Fee
Single -Family
Duplex or Multi -Family
Commercial [2]
1.0
.75 ERUs Per Living Unit
Calculated on Impervious
Area; 2,400 sq. ft./ERU or a
maximum of six (6) ERU's per
acre if meeting current
detention standards
$1,121
$841/Unit
$1,121/2,400 s.f.
up to
$6,726/acre
$1,236
$927/Unit
$1,236/2,400 s.f.
up to
$7,416/acre
[1] The calculated stormwater impact fee is based on 1 ERU. Streets and highways are exempt from impact fees.
[2] Apartments are calculated as commercial
Table 4-6 shows the stormwater impact fee can be potentially increased to $1,236 per ERU.
Stormwater fees for residential, duplex, and multifamily are for each additional ERU or
percentage of ERU. Commercial is calculated based on impervious area at 2,400 square foot
per ERU.
4.6 Annual Adjustments to the Stormwater Impact Fee
The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the cost of money or
interest charges and inflation. Therefore, HDR recommends the City adjust the impact fees
each year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. This method of
escalating the City's impact fee should be used for no more than a four-year period. After this
time period, as required by Montana law, the City should update the fees based on the actual
cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities contained in an updated master plan,
capital improvement plan or rate study.
4.7 Stormwater Impact Fee Credits (Offsets)
Credits or offsets against a stormwater impact fee may be appropriate under certain
conditions. Credits or offsets against the stormwater impact fee are a policy decision of the
City. Any credits or offsets against stormwater impact fees would need to be determined on a
case -by -case basis. The City's ordinance No. 1656 allows for credits or offsets and follow state
law.
4.8 Key Assumptions
In developing the impact fees for the City's stormwater system, a number of key assumptions
were utilized. These are as follows:
• The City's planning criteria was based on the City's current planning policy.
FN Development of the Stormwater Impact fees 25
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Report
• The impact fee methodology utilized within this study was the "combined"
methodology. The buy -in and incremental/future component were added together to
establish the net allowable charge.
• The City's asset records as of June 2015 were used to determine the existing stormwater
assets.
• The replacement cost method was used and was escalated to ENR construction cost
index levels for July 2016.
• The City provided the CIP for future improvements
• The City determined the portion of future improvements that were growth -related.
4.9 Consultant's Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of the City's stormwater system, HDR recommends the
following:
• The City should adopt stormwater impact fees that are no greater than the net
allowable impact fees as set forth in this report ($1,236/ERU). As a matter of policy, the
City may adopt a stormwater impact fee which is less than the calculated fee as shown
in this report. However, in doing so, the City will be sharing some portion of the costs
associated with new or expanded development with the existing ratepayers.
• The adopted stormwater impact fees should be updated annually by a local construction
cost index such as the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) for no
more than four years before a complete update of the charge is undertaken. This best
industry practice of annually adjusting the fee can keep the charge relatively current
with construction pricing practices.
• The City should update the actual calculation for the impact fees at such time when a
new capital improvement plan, public facilities plan, comprehensive system plan, or a
comparable plan is approved or updated by the City, every five years, or when a major
infrastructure project is completed.
4.10 Advisory Committee Review
Under Montana law (7-6-1604), the proposed impact fees must be reviewed by an impact fee
advisory committee. The City has convened an impact fee advisory committee for this specific
purpose. The role of the advisory committee is to serve in an advisory capacity to the City
Council. The advisory committee reviews and monitors the process of calculating, assessing
and spending impact fees. Ultimately, the City Council is the governing body responsible for
determination of and adoption of the final stormwater impact fees.
4.11 Summary
The stormwater impact fees developed and presented in this report are based on the planning
and engineering design criteria of the City's stormwater system, the value of the existing assets,
planned future capital improvements, and "generally accepted" ratemaking principles.
Adoption of final proposed net allowable impact fees will create equitable and cost -based
charges for new customers connecting to the City's stormwater system, or customers
expanding their existing capacity requirements.
ORDevelopment of the City's Stormwater Impact Fee 26
City of Kalispell - Stormwater Impact Fee Study
Technical Appendix A — Stormwater Impact Fee
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
City of Kalispell
Exhibit 1
Storm Water Impact Fee - 2016
Development of ERUs
ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit
Year
ERUs
Additional
ERUs per Year
Total New
ERUs
Rate of
Growth [2]
2015
21,298
[1]
2016
21,724
426
426
2.0%
2017
22,158
434
860
2.0%
2018
22,602
443
1,304
2.0%
2019
23,054
452
1,756
2.0%
2020
23,515
461
2,217
2.0%
2021
23,985
470
2,687
2.0%
2022
24,465
480
3,167
2.0%
2023
24,954
489
3,656
2.0%
2024
25,453
499
4,155
2.0%
2025
25,962
509
4,664
2.0%
2026
26,481
519
5,183
2.0%
2027
27,011
530
5,713
2.0%
2028
27,551
540
6,253
2.0%
2029
28,102
551
6,804
2.0%
2030
28,664
562
7,366
2.0%
2031
29,238
573
7,940
2.0%
2032
29,822
585
8,524
2.0%
2033
30,419
596
9,121
2.0%
2034
31,027
608
9,729
2.0%
2035
31,648
621
10,350
2.0%
Notes:
[11 2015 ERU based on City Engineer estimates based on planning, City annexation maps, and
the following land use designations per zoning. See "ELU Annex GP Developed" City excel file.
10 DU/AC High Density Residential
8 DU/AC Urban Residential
8 DU/AC Urban Mixed Use
3 DU/AC Suburban Residential
6 DU/AC Commercial
6 DU/AC Industrial
Total Acres 4,971 Total ERUs 21,298
[21 2% growth rate was used based on Kalispell Growth Policy.
Update,• page 2-11 shows historical growth rate of 1.3% and projected growth rate of 3%.
Technical Appendix A - Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
City of Kalispell
Exhibit 2
Storm Water Impact Fee -2016
Determination of Storm Water Impact Fee for Collection Plant
ENR:
Base
CCI
Year
7/1/2016
10,379
Page 1 of 4
Percent
Original
SIF
SIF
ENR
2016
Year Type
Cost
Eligible [2]
Eligible
Rate
$ Cost
Existing Collection Plant [1]
Jun-781st Ave
$127,106
34.3%
$43,597
3.74
$163,007
Jun-78 8th St to Courthouse
94,117
34.3%
32,282
3.74
120,701
Jun-78 Phase l 2nd Ave
23,636
34.3%
8,107
3.74
30,312
Jun-78 Fifth St
364,094
34.3%
124,884
3.74
466,933
Jun-78 7th Ave W
65,453
34.3%
22,450
3.74
83,940
Jun-78 7th Ave W (HUD) 6th to 11th (100%grant-HUD)
200,000
0.0%
0
3.74
0
Jun-78 Woodland Park
12,461
34.3%
4,274
3.74
15,981
Jun-78 Storm Sewer Construction
4,982
34.3%
1,709
3.74
6,389
Jun-80 E N Project
1,409,301
20.0%
281,860
3.21
903,769
Jun-82 Additions 1981
80,140
100.0%
80,140
2.71
217,462
Jun-84 SID 328
8,000
0.0%
0
2.50
0
Jun-86 400' 30' Concrete Storm (Mall)
12,000
0.0%
0
2.42
0
Jun-86 160' 18' 15' Concrete (Mall)
31,214
0.0%
0
2.42
0
Jun-87 21 RCP Storm Phase II
153,766
100.0%
153,766
2.36
362,228
Jun-87 18 RCP Storm Phase II
156,342
52.0%
81,298
2.36
191,514
Jun-87 15RCP Storm Phase II
14,692
100.0%
14,692
2.36
34,610
Jun-87 12 RCP Storm Phase II
46,112
100.0%
46,112
2.36
108,627
Jun-87 350' 15' Concrete-Kinshella St
10,500
0.0%
0
2.36
0
Jun-87 732 12 inch
18,549
54.0%
10,016
2.36
23,596
Jun-89 1St Alley West
29,579
100.0%
29,579
2.25
66,524
Jun-76 Storm Sewer Holding Ponds
11,550
100.0%
11,550
4.32
49,929
Jun-70 Storm Sewer Land - Ponds
15,000
100.0%
15,000
7.52
112,736
Jun-90 Meridian
97,570
100.0%
97,570
2.19
214,012
Jun-91 676' 12' 211' 8' Westside
41,935
0.0%
0
2.15
0
Jun-92 1263' 36' Center Market
173,826
0.0%
0
2.08
0
Jun-92 6th St W -811- 12' 256' 8'
38,545
0.0%
0
2.08
0
Jun-93 530' of 8" PVC
13,250
100.0%
13,250
1.99
26,396
Jun-93 E Washington St
4,000
100.0%
4,000
1.99
7,969
Jun-93 W Montana St
7,500
100.0%
7,500
1.99
14,941
Jun-94 18th St East
23,600
100.0%
23,600
1.92
45,294
Jun-94 6th Ave EN and California
2,000
100.0%
2,000
1.92
3,838
Jun-94 Sth Street West
11,750
100.0%
11,750
1.92
22,551
Jun-94 4th Street West
2,975
100.0%
2,975
1.92
5,710
Jun-94 Harrison Blvd
13,675
100.0%
13,675
1.92
26,246
Jun-94 325' 12' 3rd Ave W (West/Sykes)
15,700
0.0%
0
1.92
0
Jun-95 12th - 2dn to 3rd Ave
5,906
100.0%
5,906
1.90
11,205
Jun-95 4rh Street W
7,472
100.0%
7,472
1.90
14,175
Jun-95 8' Storm Greenbriar Subd.
34,650
0.0%
0
1.90
0
Jun-96 Corporate Way -SID 342
43,466
0.0%
0
1.85
0
Jun-96 160' 8' Belmar Subdivision
5,600
0.0%
0
1.85
0
Jun-96 Woodland Hill Boring
17,094
100.0%
17,094
1.85
31,570
Jun-96 198' 12' 909'10' 353' 8' 1st Ave
22,756
0.0%
0
1.85
0
Jun-96 Check Valve 8 inch
659
100.0%
659
1.85
1,217
Jun-96 Check Valve 24 inch
3,499
100.0%
3,499
1.85
6,462
Jun-96 14th Street East
153,537
100.0%
153,537
1.85
283,559
Jun-97 40' 8; Meadow Park II
1,200
0.0%
0
1.78
0
Jun-97 430' 15' 844' 12' S32' 10' Buffalo
67,048
0.0%
0
1.78
0
Jun-97 80' 18' 392' 12' Lonepine View
17,944
0.0%
0
1.78
0
Jun-96 120' 12' Woodland Court
8,380
0.0%
0
1.85
0
Jun-98 650' 12' 685' Buffalo Commons
33,375
0.0%
0
1.75
0
Jun-99 Caterpillar Model Back hoe 1/2
27,507
100.0%
27,507
1.71
47,120
Jun-98 336' 8" 1st Alley E Project
13,540
0.0%
0
1.75
0
Jun-99 1205' 23" Buffalo Stage phase III
29,048
0.0%
0
1.71
0
Jun-99 800' 15" 640'12" Willos Subd
68,000
0.0%
0
1.71
0
Technical Appendix A - Page 2 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
City of Kalispell
Exhibit 2
Storm Water Impact Fee -2016
Determination of Storm Water Impact Fee for Collection Plant
ENR:
Base
CCI
Year
7/1/2016
10,379
Page 2 of 4
Percent
Original
SIF
SIF
ENR
2016
Year Type
Cost
Eligible [2]
Eligible
Rate
$ Cost
Jun-98 1080' 12" 150' 6" Main Ballflds
15,385
0.0%
0
1.75
0
Jun-98 6th St to Woodland
12,839
100.0%
12,839
1.75
22,510
Jun-99 7th Ave 6th to 7th Street
7,863
100.0%
7,863
1.71
13,470
Jun-99 Montana 4th Ave EN to Sth Ave
5,526
100.0%
5,526
1.71
9,466
Jun-99 Oregon 7th EN Alley to 7 Ave
2,265
100.0%
2,265
1.71
3,880
Jun-99 Sth Ave NW RR to Montana
6,166
100.0%
6,166
1.71
10,563
Jun-99 370' 12" 290' 8" 9th St W 1st Sth
125,693
0.0%
0
1.71
0
Jun-99 2nd St W 7th to loth
26,426
100.0%
26,426
1.71
45,269
Jun-00 John Deere Loader
34,483
100.0%
34,483
1.67
57,532
Jun-01 Storm MN 580'/12" Bflo Sig IV
9,280
0.0%
0
1.64
0
Jun-01 Storm MN 208' 8" /595' 10"/705' 12"
23,533
0.0%
0
1.64
0
Jun-00 Storm MN 150'10"/60' 18"
3,450
0.0%
0
1.67
0
Jun-01993/4T Chevy W/V-Plow
13,332
100.0%
13,332
1.64
21,847
Jun-02 Lee's Meridian Bus. Park
13,622
0.0%
0
1.59
0
Jun-02 Stratford Vlg Ph 1
18,728
0.0%
0
1.59
0
Jun-02 Sunnyview Reconstruct
90,886
0.0%
0
1.59
0
Jun-03 Stratford Village Phse II
2,236
100.0%
2,236
1.55
3,467
Jun-03 Northview Ph 1-3 MI. DR&N Riding
448
100.0%
448
1.55
695
Jun-03 Ashley PK Ph 4
4,575
100.0%
4,575
1.55
7,094
Jun-02 Facility Plan
81,055
0.0%
0
1.59
0
Jun-02 2nd Ave W Parking Lot Keno Inn
20,105
100.0%
20,105
1.59
31,917
Jun-03 Open Bay Equipment Storage Bldg
18,092
100.0%
18,092
1.55
28,052
Jun-04 24'-12" & 172'-15" W. Wyoming
20,388
100.0%
20,388
1.46
29,742
Jun-04 Rate Study
16,796
0.0%
0
1.46
0
Jun-04 3107' 8" Ashley Pk Ph V
47,921
0.0%
0
1.46
0
Jun-04 413' 8"/503' 10"/Blue Hrrn Ph 1
23,976
0.0%
0
1.46
0
Jun-04 48' 8" /Vill Grns Ph 17&19
2,540
0.0%
0
1.46
0
Jun-04 1328' 10"/2764'12"/295'15"/497'18"
142,771
0.0%
0
1.46
0
Jun-0443'-10"/1&L Subd
1,658
0.0%
0
1.46
0
Jun-04 175' 8"/Sunnyside Subd Phil
30,000
0.0%
0
1.46
0
Jun-04 Pump Station/Ashley Pk Ph V
35,500
0.0%
0
1.46
0
Jun-05233'18"/5705'12"/351'10"
1,347,176
25.0%
336,794
1.39
469,471
Jun-05 Hywy93-1st Ave W&16th St
279,966
56.0%
156,781
1.39
218,544
Jun-05 Ashley Pk Ph Ph VII 549' 12"
39,512
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 Daley Fld, Lot 3 208' 8"
13,946
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 Empire Est Ph 1&2855'8"
55,697
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 Glcr Vill Grns 90'8"
10,863
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 Leisure His Ph 1119'12"
7,885
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 Muskrat Slough 368'8"
21,194
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 Sttfrd Phlll 840'8"/210'10"/85'12"
63,164
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 3 MI Sub 313'12"/74'18"
26,600
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 Wview Bus Cntr 240'8"
15,396
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 C Sch Museum RF Drain Project
8,557
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-0505 GMC Savana Utility Van
930
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 05 GMC Savana Utility Van (220)
930
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-04 Sewer Cleaning/Vacum Trick
44,354
100.0%
44,354
1.46
64,703
Jun-06 06 GMC Canyon
1,799
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 Storm Drain Laterals - Same Fe St
18,300
100.0%
18,300
1.34
24,505
Jun-06 420'4"/135'6"/190'8"/120'12"
14,848
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 280'8"-Cottonwood Pk Sub
17,037
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 23'12"/685'18"/90'24" Blue Heron
25,604
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 963'8" Empire Estates 3&4
22,027
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 50'15" Glacier High School
1,200
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 140'8" Sinopah
6,415
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 283'8" Daily Field Sub
12,883
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06735'8" Glacier Village Greens
27,202
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Technical Appendix A - Page 3 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
City of Kalispell
Exhibit 2
Storm Water Impact Fee -2016
Determination of Storm Water Impact Fee for Collection Plant
ENR:
Base
CCI
Year
7/1/2016
10,379
Page 3 of 4
Percent
Original
SIF
SIF
ENR
2016
Year Type
Cost
Eligible [2]
Eligible
Rate
$ Cost
Jun-06 540'8" Ashley Pk Ph 8
16,004
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 428'8" Strafford Village Ph 4
13,117
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06500'8"/250'10"/680'12"Greenery
59,811
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 1113'18"/938'24"/213'30"/900'36"
114,388
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 1138'8"/938'12" W View Estates
37,420
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-06 435'8"/160'12" Leisure Hts Ph2
17,303
0.0%
0
1.34
0
Jun-05 05 Chevrolet Malibu (410)
9,250
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-05 05 Chevrolet Malibu (409)
9,250
0.0%
0
1.39
0
Jun-07 Aspen Cr Ph.l (287'12")
6,336
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Meadows (557'8"/1228'12")
114,468
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Mtn Vista Ph. 1(Remarks)
61,137
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Mtn Vista Ph. 2 (628'12")
31,979
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Northland Phl(170'8")
8,921
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Northland Ph 2 (372'8")
20,384
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Old School St (660'15")
53,896
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Spring Cr (Remarks)
173,245
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Village Grns Ph. 18(385'8")
11,334
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Westwood Pk(1864'8")
74,266
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Stillwater Bluffs(140'8")
8,395
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 Lone Pine Mdws (1040'8")
45,958
0.0%
0
1.30
0
Jun-07 John Deere Cab Tractor
49,400
100.0%
49,400
1.30
64,355
Jun-07 Meridian Rd(12"/18"/24")
874,441
40.0%
349,776
1.30
455,668
Jun-07 Fairway Blvd Infiltration Tank
24,098
100.0%
24,098
1.30
31,393
Jun-08 FY08 Slipline Manhole
9,334
0.0%
0
1.25
0
Jun-08 FY08 Hyster 6000 LB Capacity
4,625
100.0%
4,625
1.25
5,776
Jun-08 08 Dodge lY W/Dump
18,078
100.0%
18,078
1.25
22,577
Jun-08 Diamond Ridge (137'8"/366'12")
32,163
0.0%
0
1.25
0
Jun-08 Treeline Rd (2-30" Catch Basins)
2,276
0.0%
0
1.25
0
Jun-08 Silverbrook
1,970,146
0.0%
0
1.25
0
Jun-08 Reserve LP
485,443
0.0%
0
1.25
0
Jun-08 W View Est Ph 2 (333'8"/362112")
40,131
0.0%
0
1.25
0
Jun-09 Replace Lift Station St#1(Mosquito Drain)
194,648
0.0%
0
1.21
0
Jun-09 Timberwolf Ph1A (165'12")
65,810
0.0%
0
1.21
0
Jun-09 2009 Bobcat
10,576
100.0%
10,576
1.21
12,802
Jun-09 Mobile Pipeline Inspection Unit
13,797
100.0%
13,797
1.21
16,700
Jun-09 2009 Ford Ranger
2,255
0.0%
0
1.21
0
Jun-09 2009 Ford Ranger
2,255
0.0%
0
1.21
0
Jun-10 Glenwood Dr 18"273' Culvert
72,441
0.0%
0
1.18
0
Jun-10 Leisure Hgts Russel Dr(1359'15"0
158,586
100.0%
158,586
1.18
186,995
Jun-10 Stillwtr Rd(54'12"/1435'24"/343'30")
216,865
100.0%
216,865
1.18
255,714
Jun-10 SE Ph 1(1207'12")
177,413
100.0%
177,413
1.18
209,195
Jun-10 Ashley Hgts(31'8"/119'12"/41'24")
17,219
0.0%
0
1.18
0
Jun-10 911 Center (61'12")
2,135
0.0%
0
1.18
0
Jun-11 S Meadows Survey
5,300
100.0%
5,300
1.14
6,062
Jun-10 Lower Spring Creek Storm Drain Dsgn
68,582
100.0%
68,582
1.18
80,868
Jun-11 11Th St E Improvement Project G
43,992
100.0%
43,992
1.14
50,320
Jun-12 20121T Gmc Excab W/Crane&Sery Body
41,684
100.0%
41,684
1.12
46,481
Jun-13 Ph.l & 2 S Meadow Proj
807,875
100.0%
807,875
1.09
878,338
Jun-13 Storm Drain Corrections
86,646
100.0%
86,646
1.09
94,203
Jun-13 Arc/Gis City Works System
24,626
100.0%
24,626
1.09
26,774
Jun-14 Survey Grade Gps System
7,797
100.0%
7,797
1.06
8,252
Jun-14 HP Designjet T1200 Hd Printer
5,596
0.0%
0
1.06
0
Jun-14 Rotating Scraper/Rooter-Lg Diameter
3,321
100.0%
3,321
1.06
3,515
Jun-14 Willows Sid(1248'18")
315,680
23.0%
72,606
1.06
76,847
Jun-14 Fred'S Appliance -Hwy 93 S(13'12")Developer
2,874
0.0%
0
1.06
0
Jun-14 Glacier Eye Clinic -Sect 36(37'12") Developer
6,080
0.0%
0
1.06
0
Technical Appendix A - Page 4 of 7
1 City of Kalispell
Page 4 of
2 Exhibit 2
ENR:
3 Storm Water Impact Fee-2016
Base
Year
7/1/2016
4 Determination of5torm Water Impact Fee for Collection Plant
CCI
10,379
5
6
Percent
7
Original
SIF
SIF
ENR
2016
8 Year Type
Cost
Eligible [2]
Eligible
Rate
$Cost
9
178 Jun-14 Northland Ph 4-4 Mi Dr(139'12"/105'18") Developer
33,222
0.0%
0
1.06
0
179 Jun-14 Spring Prairie Ph 3-Culver Under Treeline Rd -Developer
90,937
48.0%
43,650
1.06
46,199
180 Jun-132014 Freightliner Vactor Vacuum Truck
327,064
100.0%
327,064
1.09
355,590
181 Jun-15 9Th St E(254'8"/705'12")
294,672
100.0%
294,672
1.03
304,137
182 Jun-15 S Meadows Ph lii (1509'12")
231,026
100.0%
231,026
1.03
238,447
183 Jun-15 Willows Subdivision - See Asset U03156
5,067
100.0%
5,067
1.03
5,230
184 Jun-15 4Th Ave En Storm Improvements
25,454
100.0%
25,454
1.03
26,272
185 Jun-15 Parkway Dr Storm Improvements
54,518
100.0%
54,518
1.03
56,269
186 Jun-15 Mtn Vista Ph 4A(107'8"/187'15") Developer
22,445
0.0%
0
1.03
0
187 Total Existing Collection Plant
$14,672,079
$5,251,379
$8,348,229
188
189 Total ERUs at 2035 [3]
31,648
190
191 Total Existing Collection Impact Fee per ERU
$264
192
193 Future Committed Improvements [4]
151
194 Projects
195 Southeast Storm Drain Improvements Phase II (Phase I completed)
$1,534,151
0%
$0
$0
196 Liberty Street Storm Drain Improvements
193,916
0%
0
0
197 Storm Drain Corrections
1,600,000
0%
0
0
198 Spring Creek Re-route
3,194,483
5%
159,724
159,724
199 Stormwater Facility Upsizing
580,000
100%
580,000
580,000
200 Sylvan Drive Conveyance and Detention Impr (ph 1 -pipe, ph 2 WQ+pipe, ph 3 Detention)
971,400
0%
0
0
201 Sand/Cold Mix Storage Shed (total $103,000 split streets, sewer, water, storm)
25,771
0%
0
0
202 North Main Storm Improvement Project
94,576
0%
0
0
203 Elm's Stormwater Improvement Project
123,551
0%
0
0
204 Two Mile Drive Drainage Improvement from Hawthorn to Meridian
270,760
0%
0
0
205 3rd Ave E and 8th St E Intersection Drainage Improvements
186,754
0%
0
0
206 4th St W and 9th Ave W Intersection Drainage Improvements
200,698
0%
0
0
207 Shop Complex Pavement Restoration (Split b/t water, sewer, storm, streets, solid waste)
30,552
0%
0
0
208 Stormwater Quality Treatment Facility- Wyoming Street Outfall
143,154
0%
0
0
209 Stormwater Quality Treatment Facility-8th ave W and 11 St W Outfall
215,919
0%
0
0
210 Stormwater Quality Treatment Facility- 1st Ave W South of City Shops
215,919
0%
0
0
211 Stormwater Quality Treatment Facility- Meridian Detention Facility Outfall
191,417
0%
0
0
212 DP-127: Regional Detention Pond for New Develop. Areas North of Three Mile Dr and W. of Stillwater Rd
1,148,107
100%
1,148,107
1,148,107
213 Storm for 4th Ave E Water Project (project split with water and streets)
381,188
0%
0
0
214 Total Projects
$9,768,164
$1,887,831
$1,887,831
215
10,350
216
$182
217 Extension Projects
218 COP-124 (Pipe conveyance from detention pond 124 in West Stillwater Drainage)
$3,444,321
100%
$3,444,321
$3,444,321
219
10,350
220
$333
221
222 COP-118 (Pipe conveyance from detention pond 118 to Stillwater/N. Kalispell drainage area)
$4,121,996
100%
$4,121,996
$4,121,996
223
10,350
224
$398
225
226 Total Future Committed Improvements
$17,334,481
$9,454,148
$9,454,148
227
228 Total Additional ERUs from 2016 to 2035 [6]
10,350
229
230 Total Future Collection Impact Fee per ERU
$913
231
232 Total Existing & Future Collection Fee per ERU
$1,177
233
234
235 Notes:
236 /11 From Cityfixed asset records for 2015.
237 /21 Percentage growth relatedfixed assets shown on Cityfied a ssetrecordsfor2015.
238 Percentages were reduced for contributions by developers, grants, and assets funded by TIF or SIDS
239 /31 From Exhibit 1 showing ERUS at 2035.
240 [41 CIP are in 2016 dollars. See Exhibit for details.
241 [51 Committed CIP growth related from City.
242 [61 From Exhibit 1 showing additional ERUS to 2035.
Technical Appendix A - Page 5 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
City of Kalispell
Exhibit 3
Storm Water Impact Fee - 2016
Summary
Current Storm Water System Impact Fee
$1,068.10
Plus: Administrative Fee
53.40
Total Current Storm Water System Impact Fee
1,121.50
Total Current Storm Water System Impact Fee (rounded)
$1,121.00
Calculated Storm Water Impact Fee
Plus: Administrative Fee at 5%Allowed [1]
Total Calculated Storm Water System Impact Fee
$1,177
59
$1,236
Difference $115
Storm Water Impact Fee Calculation Results ($ per ERU)
Fee with Future Projects Only
Collection
Plus: Administrative Cost [1]
Net Allowable Impact Fee
27 Fee with COP 124 Extension Project
28 Collection
29 Plus: Administrative Cost [1]
30 Net Allowable Impact Fee
31
32 Fee with COP 118 Extension Project
33 Collection
34 Plus: Administrative Cost [1]
35 Net Allowable Impact Fee
36
37
Existing Future Total
$264 $182 $446
13 9 22
$277 $191 $468
COP 124
Only
Total
$333
$333
17
17
$350
$350
COP 118
Only
Total
$398
$398
20
20
$418
$418
Future +
COP 124 +
38 Fee with Future and COP 124 & 118 Extension Project
Existing
COP 118
Total
39 Collection
$264
$913
$1,177
40 Plus: Administrative Cost [1]
13
46
59
41 Net Allowable Impact Fee
$277
$959
$1,236
42
43
44 Notes:
45 [11 Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the
46 administration of the impact not to exceed 5% of the impact -fee collected.
Technical Appendix A - Page 6 of 7
I City of Kalispell
2 Exhibit
3 Storm Water Impact Fee - 2016
4 Capital Improvement Plan
5
6
7
Project
Impact Fee
8 Funding Number Committed Projects
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
to 2035
Total [1]
Rate [4] Growth [4]
Total [2]
9
10
Capital Projects
11 R
STX-5 Southeast Storm Drain Improvements Phase II (Phase I completed)
$1,534,151
$1,534,151
100%
0.0%
$0
12 R
STX-6 Liberty Street Storm Drain Improvements
$193,916
0
193,916
100%
0.0%
0
13 R
STX-21 Storm Drain Corrections
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
100,000
1,000,000
1,600,000
100%
0.0%
0
14 R /I
STX-26 Spring Creek Re-route
3,194,483
3,194,483
95%
5.0%
159,724
15 1
STX-32 Stormwater Facility Upsizing
130,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
300,000
580,000
0%
100.0%
580,000
16 R
STX-39 Sylvan Drive Conveyance and Detention Impr (ph 1 -pipe, ph 2 WQ+ pipe, ph 3 Detention)
581,400
390,000
0
971,400
100%
0.0%
0
17 R
STX-40 Sand/Cold Mix Storage Shed (total $103,000 split streets, sewer, water, storm)
25,771
0
25,771
100%
0.0%
0
18 R
STX-41 North Main Storm Improvement Project
94,576
0
94,576
100%
0.0%
0
19 R
STX-42 Elm's Stormwater Improvement Project
123,551
0
123,551
100%
0.0%
0
20 R
STX-43 Two Mile Drive Drainage Improvement from Hawthorn to Meridian
270,760
0
270,760
100%
0.0%
0
21 R
STX-45 3rd Ave E and 8th St E Intersection Drainage Improvements
186,754
0
186,754
100%
0.0%
0
22 R
STX-46 4th St W and 9th Ave W Intersection Drainage Improvements
200,698
0
200,698
100%
0.0%
0
23 R
STX-48 Shop Complex Pavement Restoration (Split b/t water, sewer, storm, streets, solid waste)
30,552
0
30,552
100%
0.0%
0
24 R
STX-49 Stormwater Quality Treatment Facility- Wyoming Street Outfall
143,154
0
143,154
100%
0.0%
0
25 R
STX-50 Stormwater Quality Treatment Facility-8th ave W and 11 St W Outfall
215,919
0
215,919
100%
0.0%
0
26 R
STX-51 Stormwater Quality Treatment Facility- 1st Ave W South of City Shops
215,919
0
215,919
100%
0.0%
0
27 R
STX-52 Stormwater Quality Treatment Facility- Meridian Detention Facility Outfall
191,417
0
191,417
100%
0.0%
0
28 1
STX-53 DP-127: Regional Detention Pond for New Develop. Areas North of Three Mile Dr and W. of Stillwater Rd
1,148,107
0
1,148,107
0%
100.0%
1,148,107
29 R
STX-54 Storm for 4th Ave E Water Project (project split with water and streets)
381,188
0
381,188
100%
0.0%
0
30
Total Projects
$1,248,911
$790,760
$1,588,412
$224,576
$689,771
$731,252
$6,028,634
$11,302,315
$1,887,831
31
32
Extension Projects
33 1
STX-28 COP-124 (Pipe conveyance from detention pond 124 in West Stillwater Drainage)
$3,444,321
$0
$3,444,321
0%
100.0%
$3,444,321
34 1
STX-29 COP-118 (Pipe conveyance from detention pond 118 to Stillwater/N. Kalispell drainage area)
4,121,996
0
4,121,996
0%
100.0%
4,121,996
35
Total Extension Projects
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,444,321
$4,121,996
$0
$7,566,317
$7,566,317
36
37
Total Committed Projects
$1,248,911
$790,760
$1,588,412
$224,576
$4,134,091
$4,853,248
$6,028,634
$18,868,632
$9,454,148
38
39
40 Notes:
41 [1]
Capital improvement plan projects were from City Committed CIP from 2017 to 2032.
42 [2]
City provided CIP in 2016 dollars.
43 [3]
Funding Designation
44
R = Rates
45
1= Impact Fees
46
SID= Special Improvement District
47
TIF-Tax Increment Funding
Technical Appendix A - Page 7 of 7
Technical Appendix B — Montana State Impact Fees
2015 Montana Code Annotated
Title 7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 6. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND TAXATION
Part 16. Impact Fees to Fund Capital Improvements
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.
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 a service area report. (2) The service area report
is a written analysis that must: (a) describe existing conditions of the facility; (b) establish level -
of -service standards; (c) forecast future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
(d) identify capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; (e) identify those
capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; (f) 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; (g) make a determination as to
whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to
Technical Appendix B - Page 1 of 3
establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (h) 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; (i) establish the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations
and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; (j) establish
the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand;
and (k) have 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 5 years. (3) The service area report is a written analysis that must contain documentation
of sources and methodology used for purposes of subsection (2) and must document how each
impact fee meets the requirements of subsection (7). (4) The service area report that supports
adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the public upon request. (5) 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. (6) The ordinance or resolution
adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the
documentation required under subsection (2). (7) An impact fee must meet the following
requirements: (a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably
attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made
necessary by the new development. (b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a
proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in
accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a
proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs: (i) the need for public
facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and (ii) consideration of
payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the
development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources
of funding the system improvements. (c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public
facility may not be included in the impact fee. (d) New development may not be held to a higher
level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to
make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service. (e) Impact
fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility.
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for
appeal required. (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
Technical Appendix B - Page 2 of 3
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(2)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 7-6-1602 and this chapter; or (b) in accordance
with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 and this chapter,
between the governmental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the impact fees. (7)
An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all users creating additional demand on
the facility. (8) An impact fee ordinance or resolution must include a mechanism whereby a
person charged an impact fee may appeal the charge if the person believes an error has
been made.
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. 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.
Technical Appendix B - Page 3 of 3
Technical Appendix C — Adopted Ordinance
City of Kalispell
P a` .
II Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903
l Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758
MONTANA
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Russell, City Manager DK
From: Susie Turner, Public Works Director
Re: Stormwater Impact Fee Report
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
BACKGROUND: In 2016 the City initiated the process to update the Stormwater Impact Fee
Report and associated fees. The 2017 Stormwater Impact Fee Report was completed in April,
recommended by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee in July, and presented to Council at a
work session in August. The updated report was developed to be compliant with Montana
legislation and includes the calculations, methods, assumptions, and the proposed cost based fee.
A copy of the 2017 Stormwater Impact Fee Report is enclosed for reference.
As part of the consideration for the adoption of the report, the updated report has been reviewed
with Council, public advertisement has been performed, and a public hearing was held on
October 16, 2017.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2017 Stormwater Impact Fee Report recommends increasing the
stormwater impact fee from $1,121/ERU to $1,236/ERU. Table 4-6 as referenced from the report
provides a break out of the differences between the present costs per ERU to the proposed
calculated 2017 cost per ERU.
Impact Fee Per Equivalent Residential Unit[l]
Present Calculated
Type of Use #of ERUsI`I Impact Fee Impact Fee
Single -Family
Duplex or Multi -Family
Commercial [2]
1.0
.75 ERUs Per Living Unit
Calculated on Impervious
Area; 2,400 sq. ft./ERU or a
maximum of six (6) ERU's per
acre if meeting current
detention standards
$1,121 $1,236
$841/Unit $927/Unit
$1,121/2,400 0. $1,236/2,400 s.f.
up to up to
$6,726/acre $7,416/acre
[1] The calculated stormwater impact fee is based on 1 ERU. Streets and highways are exempt from impact fees.
[2] Apartments are calculated as commercial
ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to approve Resolution No. 5845 to accept and adopt the
2017 Stormwater Impact Fee Report as findings of fact and to impose a Stormwater Impact Fee
at 50% of the maximum calculated fee.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by City Council.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 5845, and 2017 Stormwater Impact Fee Report
RESOLUTION NO.5845
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CITY OF KALISPELL 2017 STORMWATER
IMPACT FEE REPORT, TO AMEND THE CITY'S STORMWATER IMPACT FEES
AND TO SET AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority granted to municipalities operating utility services by
Section 69-7-101, MCA and the authority granted to municipalities by 7-6-1601
through 7-6-1604, MCA to charge impact fees to fund capital improvements to
utilities, it is prudent and necessary for the City to regularly review the fees,
schedules, charges and classifications it imposes on its inhabitants and other
persons served by the City of Kalispell Stormwater Utility; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Impact Fee Committee met with the City's consultant, HDR
Engineering, Inc. (HDR) in noticed public meetings to review the HDR report,
methodologies utilized and recommendations made on the City's stormwater
facilities and thereafter issued its recommendations to the City Council for an
amendment to the existing impact fee schedule, including data sources and
methodology supporting the amendment; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, the City Council set a public hearing to be held on October
16, 2017 on said proposed amendments to the stormwater impact fees of the City
of Kalispell and the City Clerk published the necessary Notice thereof as required
by Section 69-7-111, MCA; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was duly held by the City Council in the Kalispell City Hall on
October 16, 2017, and all oral and written comments were given consideration by
the Council; and
WHEREAS, based upon the recommendations of the Kalispell City Impact Fee Committee and
the written and oral evidence provided by the public, the City Council adopts as
its findings the HDR 2017 Stormwater Impact Fee Report, along with the data
sources and methodology used supporting the conclusions therein and further
finds it to be reasonable and necessary to adjust the stormwater impact fees to
50% of the maximum calculated fees set forth in the Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the stormwater fees applicable to the use of the City of Kalispell
Stormwater Utility and other services performed by said utility, as set
forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof, are found to be just and are hereby established and adopted to be
imposed for stormwater services to the inhabitants of the City of Kalispell
and those other persons served by its stormwater utility service.
SECTION 2. This resolution becomes effective ten (10) days after filing of this
Resolution with the City Finance Director. The Finance Director shall file
a copy hereof with the Public Service Commission of Montana at that
time.
SECTION 3. That the fees, schedules, charges and classifications applicable to the use
of the City of Kalispell Stormwater Utility and other services performed
by said utility shall be reviewed no later than five years after the effective
date of this resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR
THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.
ATTEST:
C),
Aim e Brunckhorst, CMC
City Clerk ®'pis
®/`tt�tlll�ea�
Type of Use
Single -Family
Duplex or Multi -Family
Commercial [2]
Exhibit "A"
Mark Joh
Mayor
Stormwater Impact Fee
Impact Fee Per Equivalent Residential Unit [1]
Approved
Current Final Report Impact Fee
Impact Fee Allowable Res. 5845
# of ERUs [1] Res. 5273 Impact Fee (50% of Allowable Fee)
$1,121
75 ERUs Per Living Unit $841/Unit
Calculated on Impervious $1,121/2,400 s.f
Area; 2,400 sq. ft./ERU or a up to
maximum of six (6) ERU's per $6,726/acre
acre if meeting current
detention standards
$1,236 $618
$927/Unit $464
$1,236/2,400 s.f. $618/2,400 s.f,
up to up to
$7,416/acre $3,708/acre
[1] The calculated stormwater impact fee is based on 1 ERU. Streets and highways are exempt from impact fees.
[2] Apartments are calculated as commercial