Loading...
04/06/09 Harball/Impact Fee and Credit CalculationCharles A. Harball Office of City Attorney Tel 406.758.7977 City Attorney 201 First Avenue East Fax 406.758.7979 P.O. Box 1997 charball@kalispell.com Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 April 6, 2009 Ken A. Kalvig Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1678 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Impact Fee and Credit Calculation Dear Ken: I have attached a memo drafted by the Kalispell Public Works Department that provides some figures for you based upon the information that has been provided to the City. I believe this should answer your initial questions about transportation impact fees the Glacier Town Center could anticipate. The balance of your questions go to what credits your client can anticipate receiving through his construction of the Rose Crossing extension. We clearly do not have enough developed information to be able to give answers with numbers. I would start off by going back to the enabling statute that defines impact fees. MCA 7-6-1601(5)(b)(iii) and (iv) states that impact fees are not: (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. Is your client required to construct any part of the Rose Crossing extension to meet the safety, level of service or other minimum development standards of his own development? If so, the cost of that portion of the project is not going to be considered as reimbursable as it will not be a part of the growth related CIP. If, on the other hand, your client enters into a development agreement, in which he agrees to construct additional traffic carrying capacity upon that roadway, that are beyond his requirements, he will be reimbursed for that additional contribution. That reimbursement may take the form of credits against transportation impact fees that he would otherwise be required to pay, within that development, or it may take the form of cash payments to him, over time, according to the agreement that he enters into with the City. More likely, I would anticipate the agreement to include a combination of the above. Ken A. Kalvig Attorney at Law April 6, 2009 Page - 2 I do not have a development agreement to present to you because there are far too many unknowns about the project. At such time that your client is ready with the preliminary engineering on the transportation portion of his project I would expect that he would come into the City with his engineers to discuss the carrying capacity and costs of that transportation system. I would also suspect that MDOT will also be involved in those discussions given the fact that your client's plans will necessarily affect Highway 93, Whitefish Stage Road and Reserve Drive. It will then be determined whether your client will be asked to contribute additional property and construction costs for additional carrying capacity, beyond the needs of his development. If so, the engineers will be tasked to determine the costs of doing that and we will then discuss the program of reimbursement and credits. This may not answer all of your questions, or may raise more. Please do not hesitate to call me so that we can sit down and discuss this more at length. Many of your questions have already been addressed in other development agreements regarding other facilities. I may be able to go through these with you so that you can see the parallels with the other developer installed utilities. Sincerely les A. Harball City Attorney Office of City Attorney City of Kalispell Public Works Department OlVr YVA 201 1' Avenue East, P.O. Box 1997, Kalispell, MT 59903 —Phone (406)758-7720 — Fax (406)758-7831 wwm%kalisvell.coin To: Charles Harball, City Attorney Cc: James C. Hansz, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer From: Paul E. Burnham, P.E., Assistant City Engineer Date: April 1, 2009 Re: Glacier Towne Center, Lifestyle Center Transportation Impact Fee Review Ken Kalvig has requested transportation impact fee estimates on the proposed lifestyle center and the shopping center based on the recently adopted transportation impact fee schedule. Kalvig describes the two centers as follows: Lifestyle Center: 550,000 square feet Shopping Center: 650,000 square feet The traffic impact study (TIS), submitted by Krager and Associates in September 2007 and provided by Ken Kalvig earlier this year, places the lifestyle center and the shopping center into a single "shopping center" category for planning and traffic projection purposes. The TIS uses the 24-hour average trip generation rate of 42.94 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the shopping center. These rates are taken directly from the ITE Manual. The TIS applies a pass -by trip factor of 1.0. Krager and Associates indicated that this pass -by trip factor is representative of a "destination" shopping area. As a side note — the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 71h Edition (ITE Manual) uses gross leasable area for the shopping center category. Kalvig's letter did not specify how much area would be leased. I will assume 100% leasable unless Kalvig provides a different area to include in leasable space. In some cases, there may be common space that is not leasable. Where Krager and Associates refer to gross floor area, I will assume the intent of the TIS is to represent 100% of gross floor area as leasable. I reviewed the TIS last year and had the City's consultant (Robert Peccia and Associates) review it as well. The comment from the consultant was, "We agree with the presented trip generation analysis. The trip generation analysis is accurate and was completed in accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual (7' Edition) and ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The selected land use categories appear to be appropriate." In light of our own review and the consultant's review of the TIS, I recommend using the 24-hour average trip generation rate of 42.94 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (gla) for the shopping center category. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Total Transportation Impact Fee as adopted by City Council March 9, 2009: $49.00 per trip lowered to 75% of total Impact Fee per Unit until April 1, 2011. Shopping and Lifestyle Center Trip Generation Rate: 42.94 vehicles per 1,000 sf gla Pre -April 1, 2011 Transportation Impact Fee per Unit: $1,578 Post -April 1, 2011 Transportation Impact Fee per Unit: $2,104 Lifestyle Center Units: 550 thousand square feet gross leasable area Lifestyle Center Transportation Impact Fee prior to April 1, 2011: $867,900 Lifestyle Center Transportation Impact Fee after April 1, 2011: $1,157,200 Shopping Center Units: 650 thousand square feet gross leasable area Lifestyle Center Transportation Impact Fee prior to April 1, 2011: $1,025, 700 Lifestyle Center Transportation Impact Fee after April 1, 2011: $1,367,600 This memo responds to Kalvig's first three requests in his March 13, 2009 letter. The remaining requests concern credits or reimbursements for construction of Rose Crossing. The estimates in this memo are based on current information provided by the developer's consultants. Any changes to the size of the project or any additional details may result in different transportation impact fees.