2011 Review of Impact Fees for Transportation System (Draft) - November 17, 2011City of Kalispell
2011 Review of Impact Fees for the
Transportation System (DRAFT)
November 17, 2011
Executive Summary Page 1-2
1 Introduction and Overview of the Study
1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Overview of the Study......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-1
2 Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry
Practices
2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Defining Impact Fees........................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Historical Perspective.......................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices ............................................... 2-2
2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees.................................................................... 2-3
2.6 Summary.............................................................................................................. 2-4
3 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies
3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Impact Fee Criteria.............................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology.......................................................... 3-2
3.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 3-4
4 Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Requirements under Montana Law...................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Summary.............................................................................................................. 4-4
5 Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees
5.1
Introduction..........................................................................................................
5-1
5.2
Present Transportation Impact Fees.....................................................................
5-1
5.3
Transportation Zones...........................................................................................
5-2
5.4
Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees .........................................
5-2
5.5
Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees .........................................................
5-4
5.6
Key Assumptions.................................................................................................
5-5
5.7
Implementation of the Impact Fees......................................................................
5-5
5.8
Staff Recommendations.......................................................................................
5-6
5.9
Summary..............................................................................................................
5-6
Contents
ii
City of Kalispell, Montana
Tables
5-1 City of Kalispell, Present Transportation Impact Fees ........................................ 5-1
5-2 City of Kalispell, Montana Average Daily New Trips ........................................ 5-3
5-3 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee ...................... 5-4
5-4 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee —
Residential Development..................................................................................... 5-5
Appendices
Appendix A - Transportation Impact Fees
Exhibit 1 Engineering Planning Memorandum
Exhibit 2 Street Capacity Analysis
Exhibit 3 Street Cost Allocation
Exhibit 4 Street Cost
Exhibit 5 Equipment Lists
Exhibit 6 Administrative Fee
Exhibit 7 Summary
Exhibit 8 Allowable Fee Schedule
Appendix 13- Montana Code for Impact Fees
Contents ii
City of Kalispell, Montana
Premise of the Transportation Impact Fee
The transportation impact fee is a one-time charge on new development to recover the cost of
providing transportation facilities necessary to serve the new development. The existing
transportation system provides a specific level of service to the existing residents or customers.
Additional traffic loads may decrease the current level of service. The transportation impact fee
may then be used to make improvements necessary to maintain the current level of service. The
transportation impact fee may not be used to increase the level of service above the current level
of service.
Review of the City's Transportation Impact Fees
The City of Kalispell Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) met several times to discuss,
review and update the City's current transportation impact fees. These fees are related to new
development and based on the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the
"Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA), and approved by the
City Council in April 2008. While the City currently has a transportation impact fee in place,
this fee is required to be reviewed and updated every two years per Montana Code 7-6-1601 to
7-6-1604, the Montana impact fee legislation.
Calculation of the transportation impact fees are based on the City's planning criteria and future
capital improvements as identified in the City's Transportation Plan. The methodology was
established in the 2009 Transportation Impact Fee Report. As part of the 2011 review, the IFAC
discussed the methodology and concurred it would remain the same for this update. The
calculations and exhibits have been updated to reflect current costs and conditions, including
updating the capital improvement costs from 2008 to current 2011 costs.
Proiects Included in the Impact Fee Analysis
As part of the update, the IFAC reviewed and discussed the Transportation Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) included in the 2009 impact fee analysis (exhibit 4). The transportation impact fee
analysis includes portions or the entirety of the following Major Street Network (MSN) projects:
MSN 8, MSN 9, MSN 10, MSN 12, MSN 30. The IFAC recognized that these projects are
sufficiently related to growth and should be included in the impact fee analysis.
In 2009, several projects were removed from the analysis after they were identified as not being
sufficiently related to growth; MSN projects: MSN 2, MSN 3, MSN 23, MSN 28, MSN 29. The
2011 review concurred, and the projects were not included in the 2011 update. The CIP (exhibit
4) has been updated from 2008 dollars to 2011 dollars using the industry standard Engineering
News Record construction cost indices.
Executive Summary Page 7
City of Kalispell, Montana
Distribution of Costs through the Impact Fee
The total 2008 estimated cost for the analyzed projects was $6,306,940. The total number of
new daily trips generated over the planning period is 134,118. The planning period extends from
2003 to 2030. The individual daily trip cost is developed by dividing the total project cost
($6,306,940) by the number of additional daily trips (134,118) or $47.03 per trip. The current
transportation impact fee includes an allowed administration fee of $2.35 per trip and is
rounded to $49.00.
The total 2011 estimated cost for the analyzed projects is $6,968,038. The total number of new
daily trips generated over the planning period is 134,118. The planning period extends from
2003 to 2030. The individual daily trip cost is developed by dividing the total project cost
($6,968,038) by the number of additional daily trips (134,118) or $51.95 per trip. The 2011
proposed transportation impact fee includes an allowed administration fee of $2.60 per trip
and is rounded to $55.00.
Summary
Attached is the 2011 Review of the Impact Fees for the Transportation System draft report
summarizing the IFAC's findings, conclusions and recommendations. HDR did the initial study,
titled City of Kalispell Impact Fees for the Transportation System -Alternative 1, dated February
2009, and adopted by City Council on March 9, 2009. The IFAC updated the original report to
reflect the 2011 findings.
Executive Summary Page 2
City of Kalispell, Montana
1.1 Introduction
HDR Engineering Inc. was retained by the City of Kalispell, Montana (City) in 2006 to
determine cost- based impact fees for the City's transportation system that complies with SB 185
(Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604). This report provides
details of the development of cost -based impact fees for the "The objective of this
City's transportation system. Impact fees are a one-time report is to properly place
assessment against new development to pay for the cost of in context the purpose of
infrastructure required to provide service. Impact fees provide impact fees, and to
the means of balancing the cost requirements for new determine cost based
infrastructure between existing customers and new customers. impact fees for the
The portion of future capital improvements that will provide transportation system
service (capacity) to new customers is included in the impact that complies with
fees. In contrast to this, the City has future capital improvement Montana law."
projects that are related to curing existing deficiencies. These
infrastructure costs are typically funded by other sources and are
not included within the impact fee. By establishing cost -based impact fees, the City will assure
that "growth pays for growth" and existing utility customers will be sheltered from the financial
impacts of growth.
1.2 Overview of the Study
This report is divided into five distinct components. The next section of the report, Section 2,
provides a review of "generally accepted" utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees.
At the same time, it also discusses the financial objectives of impact fees and practices of other
utilities in relation to this fee. Section 3 provides an overview of the criteria and methodologies
used in the development of cost -based impact fees, and Section 4 provides a summary of the
legal requirements for the enactment of impact fees under Montana law. The cost -based impact
fee calculation for the City's transportation system is provided in Section 5.
1.3 Summary
This section of the report provided an overview of the report developed for the City concerning
impact fees.
Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
Section 2 is a replication from HDR, Inc., taken from the adopted 2009 Transportation Impact
Fee Report.
2.1 Introduction
HDR, Inc. An important starting point in discussing the City's implementation of transportation
impact fees is an understanding of the purpose and concept of impact fees and the financial
objective of those fees. This section of the report will discuss the concept of impact fees and the
"generally accepted" practices of the industry.
2.2 Defining Impact Fees
One must first define an "impact fee" before beginning an assessment and review of them.
Impact fees are often called system development charges (SDC's), capacity charges, buy -in fees,
facility expansion charges, or plant investment fees. Regardless of the name applied to the fee,
the concept is still the same. Simply stated, impact fees
"are capital recovery fees that are generally established as "Impact fees are capital
one-time charges assessed against developers as a way to recovery fees that are generally
recover a part or all of the cost of system capacity established as one-time charges
constructed for their use. Their application has generally assessed against developers as a
occurred in areas that are experiencing extensive new way to recover apart or all of
residential and/or commercial development."' The main the cost of system capacity
objective of an impact fee is to assess against the constructed for their use."
benefiting party, their proportionate share of the cost of
infrastructure required to provide them service. Stated another way, impact fees imply that new
development creates new or additional costs on the system, and the impact fee assesses that cost
in an equitable manner to those customers creating the additional cost.
1 George A. Raftelis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and
Pricing (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73.
Overview of Impact Fees and 00Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
2.3 Historical Perspective
Historically, the financing of transportation infrastructure was paid for via taxes, grants, or other
funding sources. Over the last 20 years, however, the use of impact fees as a method of
financing growth and infrastructure has risen sharply. To the best of our knowledge, no clear
"Historically, the financing of surveys or data exists to show this change; however,
there are a number of examples within the literature
infrastructure was typically paid that point out this phenomena. For example, a survey
for via taxes, grants, or other of 67 Florida communities was undertaken in 1986 and
funding sources. Over the last 20 1989. The number of communities in 1986 using
years, however, the use of impact impact fees was 15. By 1989, the number of
fees as a method of financing communities using impact fees had more than doubled
growth and infrastructure has to 32.2 As this funding mechanism gained popularity,
risen sharply." legislatures across the U.S. were developing legislation
to provide utilities with the authority to impose impact
fees. Typically, legislation defines the approach to be used to develop fees and requires they be
used only for growth -related needs —not for current O&M requirements. At this time, the State of
Montana has very specific legislation related to impact fees. This legislation provides the city
with the authority to establish and collect impact fees. This authority is provided in Montana
Code Section 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604.
In summary, the use of impact fees has changed over time, as historical funding sources such as
grants have been reduced or eliminated. In response, many communities have moved toward
adoption of cost -based impact fees, particularly in areas of high growth.
2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices
An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue -
raising device. To understand this perspective, one must "An impact fee is a
view new development as creating the need for new or regulation and not a user fee
expanded facilities. As a result, without payment of impact or revenue -raising device.
fees, a utility would have insufficient revenues to provide To understand this
facilities; therefore, the community would be unable to perspective, one must view
accommodate new development. With this said, impact new development as creating
fees do have certain financial objectives associated with the need for new or expanded
them. While on the surface it may appear as simply a facilities. "
means to extract revenue from new development, the reality
is far more complicated. Impact fees help utilities achieve a number of different financial
objectives, which lead to financial equity between customers, as opposed to simply producing
revenue.
2 James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson and Julian C. Juergensmeyer, A Practitioner's Guide to
Development Impact Fees (Chicago: Planners Press, 1991) p. 3.
Overview of Impact Fees and 00Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-2
City of Kalispell, Montana
An impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new customers. As new
residents or businesses develop in the community, they increase the amount of traffic on the
existing road system. This results in increased roadway congestion and longer commute times.
This occurs because of slower trip rates and waits at intersections. With impact fees, new
development pays for the cost to construct additional roadways, which allow the level of service
to be maintained.
Most commonly, impact fees are
adopted in high growth areas
where infrastructure expansion
has strained existing financial
resources. Philosophically,
many utilities desire to have a
policy of "growth paying for
growth. "
Even with the above discussion, not all communities
have impact fees. Most commonly, impact fees are
adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure
expansion has strained existing financial resources.
Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of
"growth paying for growth." Impact fees comport with
that philosophy, and it is achieved by applying the
impact fees either directly against the capital cost of the
expansion facilities, or against the debt service
associated with it.
2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees
There are a number of myths surrounding impact fees. In a very broad sense, some may argue
that impact fees are bad for economic development. These arguments center around two issues:
■ Development will occur on parcels with lower or nonexistent impact fees.
■ Impact fees raise the cost of doing business and hinder development.
Of the research conducted on these topics, just the opposite has been found. Developers look at
many factors before a parcel is developed. One myth concerns the selection of parcels for
development and whether impact fees are applied to the land.
`:.. an impact fee is also a
form of a financial
reimbursement to existing
ratepayers who paid for
those facilities in advance
of the new customer
connecting to the system. "
"The argument goes that if a developer is choosing
between two parcels of land on which to build where the
first parcel is inside a city where SDC's (impact fees) are
charged and the second is just outside where lower or no
SDC's are charged the developer will choose the second
parcel.
The trouble is this means that the owner of the first parcel
does not make a sale. The landowner must lower the land
price to offset the fee in order to make a sale. However, if
the landowner does not lower the price, this indicates that the value of future
development may be higher on that parcel. Thus, be wary of developers who claim they
will choose the second parcel. Chances are they would not have chosen the first parcel
anyway. In the meantime, the land market will be holding the first parcel available for
higher value development. In effect what might look like a loss in the short term may be
a much higher level of development in the long-term. "3
3 Nelson. "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 55.
Overview of Impact Fees and 00Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
The other argument and myth that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they raise the
cost of doing business and hinder development. The argument against this position follows:
"The argument goes that because SDC's raise the price of doing business, they frustrate
economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First, remember that
SDC's will be offset by reduced land prices and by enabling the community to more
easily expand the supply of buildable land relative to demand.
Now, consider what economic development really looks for: skilled labor, access to
markets, and land with adequate infrastructure. Competitiveness for economic
development will be stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by
SDC's). Besides, local governments retain the option to waive SDC's for specific kinds
of economic development, such as development locating in enterprise zones. In the
competition for certain kinds of development, it will be able to show developers the dollar
value of SDC's waived as a solid demonstration of the local government's commitment to
such development. "4
"As can be seen, at least
in the opinion of
Nelson, impact fees do
not hinder growth, but
in fact may help to spur
growth. "
As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do
not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. It must
be remembered that an important concept associated with impact
fees is that the fees are required to develop infrastructure in
advance of the actual development.
From the developer's perspective, absent impact fees (i.e., a
moratorium on new connections) result in no new development.
Because of this, developers are generally supportive of cost -based impact fees, particularly when
it provides available capacity and opportunities for development.
2.6 Summary
This section of the report provided an overview of impact fees and the financial objectives
associated with them as well as some of the issues surrounding them. This will be beneficial
when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning the implementation of impact fees.
4 Nelson, "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 56.
Overview of Impact Fees and 00Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-4
City of Kalispell, Montana
Section 3 is a replication from HDR, Inc., taken from the adopted 2009 Transportation Impact
Fee Report.
3.1 Introduction
An important starting point in establishing impact fees is to have a basic understanding of the
purpose of these charges, along with criteria and general methodology used to establish cost -
based impact fees. Presented in this section is an overview of impact fees criteria and general
methodologies used to develop cost -based fees.
3.2 Impact Fee Criteria
In the determination and establishment of impact fees, a number of different criteria are often
utilized:
■ Understanding and acceptance
■ Transportation planning criteria
■ Financing criteria, and
■ State/local laws
The component of understanding and acceptance implies that the charge is easy to understand.
This criterion has implications on the way the fee is implemented, administered, and assessed to
new development. For the transportation system, the fees are generally assessed by development
type and the number of new trips that will be generated by the development type. The other
implication of this criterion is that the methodology is clear and concise in its calculation of
infrastructure necessary to provide service.
"The use of transportation
planning criteria is one of the
more important aspects in the
determination of the impact
fees. Transportation planning
criteria provides the "rational
nexus" between the amount of
infrastructure necessary to
provide service and the charge
to the customer. "
The use of transportation planning criteria is one of the
more important aspects in the determination of impact
fees. Transportation planning criteria provides the
"rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure
necessary to provide service and the charge to the
customer. The rational nexus test requires there be a con-
nection established between new development and the
necessary expanded facilities to accommodate new
development. In addition, to see benefits received, an
appropriate apportionment of the cost must be realized in
relation to the new development.
One of the driving forces behind establishing cost -based
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
impact fees is that "growth pays for growth." Therefore, impact fees are typically established so
new customers pay an equitable share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The
financing criteria for establishing impact fees relates to the method used to finance infrastructure
of the system and ensures customers are not paying twice — once through impact fees and again
through gas tax or property assessments.
Many states and local communities have enacted laws that govern the calculation and imposition
of impact fees. These laws must be followed when determining impact fees. Most statutes
require a "reasonable relationship" between the fee charged and the cost associated with
providing service (capacity) to the customer. The charges do not need to be mathematically
exact, but must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed. As discussed above,
the utilization of the planning criteria and the actual costs of construction and planned costs of
construction provide the nexus for the reasonable relationship requirement.
3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology
There are "generally -accepted" methodologies used to establish impact fees, which require the
following:
■ Determine transportation planning criteria,
■ Calculate the transportation impact fee, and
■ Determine a charge basis for various development types.
The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the transportation planning
criteria. For transportation impact fees, the planning criteria is the number of new trips that will
occur due to development. The most common methods for defining trips are on P.M. hour of
generation (or average daily trips). Based on these trips, the transportation planning process
determines the capital improvements required to maintain the current Level of Service (LOS).
LOS refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection, which is measured as the
volume of traffic to the capacity of the roadway (the "V/C ratio'). It is a measure of vehicle
operating speed, travel time, travel delays, freedom to maneuver, and driving comfort. A letter
scale of A to F is then used to describe LOS, based on the V/C ratio.
The transportation impact fee represents the portion of new street projects that provide additional
capacity to serve new developments. It does not include the portion of future street projects that
are required to cure existing deficiencies. An example is a street with a current LOS of C.
Without any improvements, new development would cause the street to drop to a LOS of D. The
improvements required to maintain the street at a LOS of C would be included in the impact fee.
Conversely, if the street was currently at a LOS of D and the improvements brought the street to
a LOS of C with new development, then only a portion of the improvement would be included in
the impact fee. There are three different approaches that can be used to determine the amount of
the street project that is related to growth. These are:
■ Capacity Approach. The cost of a given project is allocated as growth -related based on the
proportion of capacity made available for growth to the total capacity.
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-2
City of Kalispell, Montana
■ Incremental Approach. The cost of the project is first determined as if it were constructed to
serve existing conditions. The cost is then determined as if it were serving both existing and
future conditions. The difference in cost or incremental cost is then allocated to growth.
■ Causation Approach. The entire cost of the project is allocated to growth if it is caused by
growth regardless of the benefit to existing customers.
Of the three methods, the causation approach most aggressively allocates costs to growth. It is
also the most likely approach to be subject to judicial challenge and may not meet the "rational
nexus" test of the amount of infrastructure necessary to serve growth and cost to the customer.
The incremental approach very conservatively allocates costs to growth. Any incremental cost
saving from construction of a larger project are allocated to growth and not shared between
existing and future customers.
The capacity approach is the most commonly used approach and shares any benefits from
construction of a large project between existing and new customers based on the use or benefit of
the project by existing and new customers. It is recommended that this approach be used by the
City, as it provides the most equitable allocation of new street projects between existing and new
development. The allocation procedure recommended is the ratio of the current V/C ratio at
current standards to the V/C ratio after the improvement.
Once the street projects have been allocated to new development, the cost is divided by the
number of new trips the projects will serve to determine the transportation impact fee on a cost -
per -trip basis.
The last part of the transportation impact fee analysis is the determination of the charge basis for
various development types. The most common method used to assess transportation impact fees
is on a trip basis. Trip rates are obtained from the "Trip Generation Manual, " published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers. This manual is a compilation of studies that measure
traffic by development type and factors such as employees, square footage, etc. The manual
defines development type by standard industrial code and contains approximately 200 different
development types. These may be adjusted for local conditions based on the City's
transportation plan.
Trip rates for commercial development are often time reduced for bypass trips. Bypass trips are
those recorded in the survey data, but not actually new trips. For example, if a person drives to
work in the morning, then stops at a fast food restaurant to get dinner on the way home, it is
considered a bypass trip. In this case, the fast food restaurant would be charged for two trips,
when in fact no new trips were generated, because the person would have been on the road
anyway to go from home to the office and back home again.
In development of the fee schedule, the utility needs to balance accuracy with administrative
burden. A category for retail could be created, which would be an average of trips for certain
types of retail establishments such a paint stores, flower shops, etc. Conversely, each category
could be listed separately. Another policy issue is whether or not to allow development to
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
provide alternative data on trip generation. While this allows for flexibility in the determination
of the fee, it provides a potential for legal challenge.
3.4 Summary
This section provided a discussion of the criteria typically used in the determination of
transportation impact fees. In addition, an overview of the "generally accepted" methodology
used in the calculation of the impact fees has been provided.
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-4
City of Kalispell, Montana
Section 4.1 is a replication from HDR, Inc., taken from the adopted 2009 Transportation
Impact Fee Report. Under Section 4.2, A summary of the requirements under Montana law
was updated to reflect the changes in Montana Code 7-6-1601-7-6-1604 implemented in the
2009 legislative session.
4.1 Introduction
An important consideration in establishing impact fees are legal requirements at the state or local
level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees
must be calculated or how the funds must be used. This section of the report provides an
overview of the legal requirements for establishing impact fees under Montana law.
The discussion within this section of the report is intended to be a summary of our understanding
of the relevant Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fees. It in no way constitutes a
legal interpretation of Montana law by HDR/EES.
4.2 Requirements under Montana Law
In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented
in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established specific laws
7-6-1604 of the
Montana Code.
regarding the establishment, calculation, and implementation of
capacity fees. The main objective of most state laws is to ensure
these charges are established in such a manner that they are fair,
equitable, and cost -based. In other cases, state legislation may have
been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to
establish the charges.
The Montana law enabling legislation for impact fees was enacted in
2005 via Senate Bill 185. This was comprehensive legislation
allowing public entities in the State of Montana to enact impact fees for various services. The
legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found in Title 7, Chapter 6, and Part 1601 to 1604
of the Montana Code. A summary of the Montana Code is provided below. A copy of the full
code is provided as Appendix B.
A summary of the requirements under Montana law is as follows:
"7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:...
Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 47
City of Kalispell, Montana
... S) (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.
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:
(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;
()9 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;
0) 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;
Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 42
City of Kalispell, Montana
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital
improvements; and
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every
2 years.
(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 ofpublic 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 o 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. "
Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 43
City of Kalispell, Montana
The use of the methodology discussed in Section 3 should ensure the proportional share standard
is met and impact fees are in compliance with Montana law.
4.3 Summary
This section of the report reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in Montana. HDR
concludes that the City has the authority to establish cost -based impact fees and the methodology
used should ensure compliance with Montana law.
Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-4
City of Kalispell, Montana
5.1 Introduction
The calculation of the transportation impact fees presented in this section are based on the City's
future capital improvements as identified in their Capital Improvement Plan and planning criteria
from the master plan entitled, Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the
"Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the City
Council in April 2008. The methodology was established in the 2009 report updated with current
capital improvement costs. As cost and timing of future capital improvements change, the impact
fees presented in this section should be updated to reflect such cost adjustments.
5.2 Present Transportation Impact Fees
The City currently assesses impact fees for transportation. A summary of the current
transportation impact fee for residential development is shown in Table 5.1. Details of the impact
fee for other development types are provided in Exhibit 8.
iL
F Rate
Imposed
at75% .4
Residential $469 $352
Apartment 329 $247
Condominium/Townhouse 287 $215
Table 5-1 shows the allowable impact fee calculated for the City of Kalispell. The
Kalispell City Council, by means of Resolution No. 5346 resolved that the
transportation impact fees shall be imposed at the rate of 75% of the allowable fee.
On March 21, 2011 the Kalispell City Council extended for one year the 75% limit
on Transportation Impact Fees through the passing of Resolution No. #5489. The
original purpose of establishing the transportation impact fee at 75% of the
scheduled fee was to avoid discouraging private investment in the City. It was
again discussed that since the economic environment of Flathead County and the
City of Kalispell continues to show no signs of imminent recovery from the
nationwide recession it was in the best interest of the City of Kalispell, its citizens
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
and taxpayers, that the current reduced transportation impact fee schedule be
continued for an additional year.
5.3 Transportation Zones
Pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1)(g) in the determination of transportation impact fees, the
following must be considered:
"...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; "
The Transportation Plan established a service area that included the entire area of the city and an
area outside the current city limits (the "Study Area"); no breakdown was made as to specific
areas of the city. For the purpose of the transportation impact fee calculation, only the trips
generated and project costs within the current city limits were utilized. Based on these factors
and the local knowledge of the transportation system, the City and the Impact Advisory
Committee determined the entire city would be treated as a single zone pursuant to MCA 7-6-
1602(1) (g) for calculating and imposing the transportation impact fees.
5.4 Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees
As was discussed in Section 3, the process of calculating impact fees is based on a 4-step
process:
■ Determination of new average daily trips
■ Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs
■ Determination of any impact fee credits
■ Determination of transportation impact fee by development type
5.4.1 Average Daily Trip Generation
The number of average daily trips is based on the planning criteria in the Transportation Master
Plan. New dwelling units, retail employment, and nonretail employment were determined as
growth areas. This information was then further segregated between growth in the study area and
growth within city limits. The growth factors were then multiplied by the number of trips per
development type to determine new average daily trips.
Details of the calculations of new average daily trips are provided in Exhibit 1, which is a
memorandum prepared by RPA detailing the analyses used in the development of the
Transportation Master Plan. A summary of the new average daily trips is presented in Table 5-2
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-2
City of Kalispell, Montana
Residential 59,059
Commercial — Retail 32,045
Commercial — Nonretail 43,014
Total New Average Daily Trips 134,118
The number of new average daily trips will be used to determine the cost per trip for new
transportation system improvements required to serve growth.
5.4.2 Calculation of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components
The next step of the analysis is to review each major functional component of plant in service
and determine the impact fee for that component. In calculating the transportation impact fee for
the city, only planned future capital improvement projects with a useful life of 10 years or
greater were included within the calculation. The major components of the City's transportation
system that were reviewed for purposes of calculating impact fee were:
■ New streets and intersections
■ Major equipment items
■ Administration costs
A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each of the functional plant components is
provided below.
New Streets and Intersections — The City's Transportation Master Plan identified a number of
street and intersection improvements required to maintain the level of service within the city.
Based on the analysis prepared by RPA, V/C ratios, and levels of service, the percent allocated to
new development was determined based on the V/C ratios in 2003 prior to the improvements,
divided by the V/C ratio in 2030 after the improvements. That percent was eligible for inclusion
in the impact fee calculation (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). While the Transportation Plan
identified improvements for the greater Kalispell area, those improvements not within the city
were eliminated from the calculation based on the analysis prepared by RPA (see Exhibit 1 and
Exhibit 3). The Capital Improvement Program costs were then escalated to current 2011 dollars
using the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index. The cost of street and intersection
improvements was then divided by the number of new trips. Per the request of the City, capital
projects MSN 2,3,23,28 and 29 were excluded from the impact fee calculation. The result was a
cost of $51.95 per average daily trip. Details of the calculations are provided in Exhibit 4.
Major Equipment — The City currently has a number of equipment items required to maintain the
street system. These consist of snow plows, sweepers, and other heavy equipment. This equipment
has a useful life of 10 years or greater. The original cost was used, including up to 15 years of
interest. No equipment costs were allocated to new development. The Impact Fee
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
Advisory Committee determined that equipment does not provide additional capacity in the
transportation system. Based on the cost of the major equipment for the City, the impact fee for
major equipment is $0.00 per average daily trip. Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 5.
Administrative Charge — Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the
administration of the impact not to exceed 5% of the impact fee collected. Based on the costs for
administration as provided by the City, the administrative fee is $16.11 per trip. Since this is greater
than 5%, the City has included a transportation administrative charge of $2.60 per average daily trip,
which is equal to 5% of the impact fee collected. Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 6.
5.4.3 Credits
The final step in calculating the transportation impact fee is to determine if a credit for payment from
other revenue sources is required. The City currently collects gas tax revenue, a street assessment
fee, grants, and financial assistance from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT).
The City currently uses gas tax revenue and the street assessment fee for maintenance of the street
system; therefore, no credit is applicable for the transportation impact fee. The grants received and
financial assistance from MDT has been subtracted from the street and equipment costs.
5.5 Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees
Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable transportation impact
fee can be determined. "Net" refers to the "gross" impact fee, less any credits. "Allowable" refers to
the calculated impact fee as shown in Table 5-3 as the City's cost -based impact fee. The City, as a
matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable impact fee, but not over that amount.
Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus test of a cost -
based impact fee. A summary of the calculated net allowable transportation impact fee for the City is
shown in Table 5-3.
Plant Component
Impact Fee Calculation Results
Street Cost $51.95
Equipment 0.00
Administrative Charge 2.60
Credit 0.00
Total Per Average Daily Hour Trip $54.55
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-4
City of Kalispell, Montana
The total impact fee as shown for an average daily hour trip is $54.55. The details of the net
allowable impact fee are shown in Exhibit 7. For ease of administration, the recommended
charge for an average daily hour trip is rounded to $55. To determine the cost per development
type, the number of average daily trips per development type must be applied to the cost per
average daily trip.
To determine the cost per various type of land development, the trip generation rate provided in
"Trip Generation Seventh Addition, " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers were
used. These were reduced as appropriate to reflect by-pass trips for commercial development
based on the "Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE
Recommended Practice, March 2001 " The number of categories was also reduced to reflect
local business types.
A summary of the transportation impact fee for residential development is shown in Table 5-4
Details of the impact fee for other development types are provided in Exhibit 8.
Type Fee Per Unit Rate
Imposed at
75%_
Residential $526 $395
Apartment 370 $278
Condominium/Townhouse 322 $242
* Included in the above table is the fee if imposed at 75% of the allowable fee. The City's
current transportation impact fee was imposed at 75% of the scheduled fee.
5.6 Key Assumptions
In the development of the impact fees for the City's transportation system, a number of key
assumptions were made:
■ The City's asset records were used to determine existing equipment costs.
■ The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing investments was 6.0%.
■ 15 years' worth of interest were included in the cost of equipment.
■ Capital projects MSN 2, 3, 23, 28 and 29 were excluded from the impact fee calculation at
the request of the City.
■ The findings required under MCA 7-6-1602 were provided in the Transportation Master Plan
and this report.
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-5
City of Kalispell, Montana
5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees
The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the "cost" of money
(interest charges and rate of inflation). It is recommended the City adjust the impact fees each
year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. The most frequently used
source to escalate impact fees is the ENR index, which track changes in construction costs for
municipal utility projects. This method of escalating the City's impact fee should be used for no
more than a 2-year period. After this time period, as required by Montana law, the City should
update the charges based on the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities that
would be contained in an updated master plan or capital improvement plan.
5.8 Staff Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of the City's transportation system, City staff makes the
following recommendations:
■ The City should implement impact fees for the transportation system that are no greater than
the impact fees as set forth in this report.
■ The City should update the actual calculations for the impact fees based on the methodology
as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the methodology for impact fees
every 2 years as required by Montana law.
5.9 Summary
The transportation impact fees developed and presented in this section of the report are based on
the engineering design criteria of the City's transportation system, the value of the existing
assets, future capital improvements and "generally accepted" accounting and rate -making
principles. Adoption of the proposed impact fees will provide multiple benefits to the City and
create equitable and cost -based charges for new customers.
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-6
City of Kalispell, Montana
Exhibit 1
Engineering Planning Memorandum
Exhibit 2
Street Capacity Analysis
Exhibit 3
Street Cost Allocation
Exhibit 4
Street Cost
Exhibit 5
Equipment Lists
Exhibit 6
Administrative Fee
Exhibit 7
Summary
Exhibit 8
Allowable Fee Schedule
TO: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director
Department of Public Works
City of Kalispell RM
FROM: Scott Randall, E.I. (Transportation Planner/Engineer)
Brian Wacker, P.E. (Vice President)
DATE: December 30, 2008
SUBJECT: Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update
Supplemental Data for "Transportation Impact Fee Study'
The following information is being provided in support of the Transportation Impact Fee Study
being developed by HDR Engineering, Inc (d.b.a EES/HDR). The primary objective of this
memorandum is to quantify the number of new trips expected on the Major Street Network
(MSN) out to the planning year of 2030. This year is the "year of interest" as it is the planning
horizon of the recently adopted Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update). A secondary
objective is to present relevant statistics on Capital Improvement Projects (CIP's) that fall within
the city limits and county limits.
It is relevant to note that previous memorandums have been prepared in support of the ongoing
Transportation Impact Fee Study. This memorandum is intended to replace the previous
memorandums and serve as a stand-alone memorandum for the project. It should be noted,
though, that before presenting the information contained herein, it must be stated for the
record that the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) did not have a formal role
in the City's Transportation Impact Fee Study project. The information utilized during
the course of the study, gathered from the MDT, centered exclusively on the findings
and information contained in the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) only.
This manifested itself primarily in the development of the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP). The projects that are contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Study's CIP were
developed and extracted primarily through the transportation planning process.
Projected Growth within the City Limits
For the existing city limits of Kalispell, the projected residential growth out to the planning
horizon is 7,700 additional dwelling units (DU's). This amount includes all area census blocks
that either fall entirely within the existing city limits or straddle both the city and the county and
where future growth has been predicted. In other words, all census blocks were included for
DU's, and retail and non -retail jobs, that encompassed even a small portion of the city limits.
This is thought to be a conservative approach because exact development patterns are
impossible to predict, and the City does control annexation to a large degree. If the existing city
limits passed through even a portion of an individual census block, it was included in the
forecasted total.
This information is shown on the attached graphic and is also summarized in Table A-1.
Robert Peccia & Associates
Page 1 of 5
Table A-1
Projected Growth within City Limits
Description
Forecast
Dwelling Units
7,700 DU
Retail Jobs
2,806 jobs
Non -Retail Jobs
10,973 jobs
Average Vehicle Trip Rates
In an effort to compute the potential number of "new vehicle trips" out to the planning horizon
(year 2030), average trip rates were selected as per the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) report on travel demand modeling. In this report, for a community the size of
Kalispell, the published residential rate is 9.2 "person trips per unit". To get the "vehicle trips
per unit", the 9.2 is divided by the auto occupancy factor unique to Kalispell (1.2). Dividing the
two values result in a residential trip generation rate of 7.67 vehicle trips per unit. In a similar
manner, the default retail rate is 13.7 trips per employee (i.e. person trips per unit), which
equates to 11.42 vehicle trips per unit. The default non -retail rate is 4.7 trips per employee (i.e.
person trips per unit), which results in 3.92 vehicle trips per unit.
The above noted vehicle trip rates are the default (unadjusted) average trip rates that also come
inherent to the TransCad modeling software. Table A-2 below contains the potential number of
"new vehicle trips" based on the forecasted growth and defined average trip rates.
Table A-2
Number of Potential New Trips (City Limits Year 2030)
Description
Forecast
Average Trips per
Total New
Unit
Trips
New Dwelling Units
7,700 DU
7.67 trips per unit
59,059
(in City limits)
New Retail Jobs
2,806 jobs
11.42 trips per unit
32,045
(in City limits)
New Non -Retail Jobs
10,973 jobs
3.92 trips per unit
43,014
(in City limits)
Total
134,118 trips
Note: Average trip rates of 9.2 (DU), 13.7 (retail) & 4.7 (non -retail) are divided by an
auto -occupancy factor of 1.2 persons per vehicle.
Robert Peccia & Associates
Page 2 of 5
Robert Peccia & Associates
Page 3 of 5
Project Statistics
RPA was asked to quantify the percentages of CIP projects that are entirely under City
jurisdiction, partially under City jurisdiction, and/or entirely outside of City jurisdiction. This is
shown as below and is broken out by "number" of projects, "mileage" of projects, and "dollar
cost" of projects.
Based on the actual "Number" of Pro
Totally City projects = 5 projects / 29 projects = 17.24%
Partial City & County = 6 projects / 29 projects = 20.69%
Total County = 18 projects / 29 projects = 62.07%
Based on the actual "Miles" of Projects:
Total City project miles = 6.78 miles / 49.81 miles = 13.61%
Total County project miles = 43.03 miles / 49.81 miles = 86.39%
Based on the "Dollar Cost" of Projects in 2008 Dollars*:
Total City Cost = $13,694,499 / $112,685,536 = 12.15%
Total County Cost = $98,991,037 / $112,685,536 = 87.85%
(* Note that dollar values for "2008 Dollars" were obtained by adjusting the Transportation Plan cost estimates by 4
percent.)
Project Cost Estimates
Relative to dollar costs above, the City also asked RPA to confirm when the actual cost estimates
for the various projects in the adopted Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) were
prepared. The cost estimates were prepared during the end of August and early September
during the calendar year 2007. The cost estimates were general "planning level" cost estimates.
Assumptions for the various aspects of the cost estimating process were placed in the Appendix
of the adopted Transportation Plan. There were no adjustments, however, to account for
inflation and/or other increases between the time the estimates were prepared and the time
the Transportation Plan was adopted. An adjustment was made, however, for the dollar values
contained in this memorandum as shown above.
Other Comments
The City also asked RPA's opinion on a specific project contained within the adopted
Transportation Plan (MSN-11) and whether that project recommendation is based on mitigating
existing traffic patterns or is warranted by some other measure. It is our conclusion via the
findings of the adopted Transportation Plan that South Meridian Road is acceptable from an
operational viewpoint for the type of traffic currently being accommodated on it and likely to be
encountered on it in the future if the development north of Foys Lake Road were not to be
realized. With the development, South Meridian Road will become overcapacity. Due to
constraints associated with South Meridian Road and the reality of not being able to expand the
facility due to right-of-way constraints, the new development located north of Foys Lake Road
has proposed a new north -south roadway through the development area.
Robert Peccia & Associates
Page 4 of 5
This has been recognized in the adopted Transportation Plan as a collector roadway and will
serve to mitigate the traffic generated by the development itself. This new collector roadway
will certainly accommodate the developments traffic and allow South Meridian Road to
continue to function adequately without future improvements that would be unattainable on
the facility.
Robert Peccia & Associates
Page 5 of 5
2011 - UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees -Alternative 1
Annotation to Exhibit 1 - Robert Peccia Memorandum
The information supplied in the Engineering Planning Memorandum from Robert Peccia & Associates
has been reviewed and remains correct.
This annotation is an update to the 2008 project costs on page 4 of 5 of the planning memorandum.
Below is the original 2008 project costs taken from the memorandum and an update to 2011 project
cost using the Engineering New Record construction cost index.
ORIGINAL
Based on the "Dollar Cost" of Projects in 2008 Dollars*:
Total City Cost = $13,694,499 / $112,685,536 = 12.15%
Total County Cost = $98,991,037 / $112,685,536 = 87.85%
(* Note that dollar values for "2008 Dollars" were obtained by adjusting the Transportation Plan cost estimates by 4 percent.)
2011 UPDATE
Based on the "Dollar Cost" of Projects in 2011 Dollars*:
Total City Cost = $15,129,965 / $124,497,316 = 12.15%
Total County Cost = $109,367,351 / $124,497,316 = 87.85%
(* Note that dollar values for "2011 Dollars" were based on inflationary changes in the ENR Construction Cost Index.)
H
m
2
X
W
0
W
F-
M
N
Gl
LLN
U A
Q
E Q
Q O .0
N �
f6
r Q
Y QU
O ul W
U F cn
d o
'
0
O
o
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
3 °
� Q
c�
Ow
J
w
w
w
w
q
w
m
w
m
U
w
w
q
w
w
w
q
U
m
O
M
O
N
O
C D
N J
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
U
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
O M
O Q
J
U
d
U
a
U
L1
d
a
L1
a
a
a
a
w
L1
U
a
N
d
O S.
MO Q
a
1
N
a
m
N �
O
N
O �
N
p
o
0
0
0
0
N
c
MIm
c6a
a
O
N
p
Q
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
x
ro
0
V� .ti
p�
k
ro
ro
O
ro
O ..
T
O
ro
ro
x ro
yy
v]
ro
'C
y
L1 a°�i
1
>
m
Ca
ao'�qv�
.a
b
a�'
k
k
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
M
H
m
2
X
W
0
W
F-
M
°
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 °
@Q
c�
Oq
J
w
w
w
w
w
w
O
M
O
N
con D
N J
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
O M
O D
J
U
w
w
U
d
U
N
d
O
Iq
OQ
N
M
m
a
O �
N
M
N �
O
o
N
c
Q
o
o
0
o
0
O
N
O
Q
M
O
�
�
�
O
N
fn
O b
O U
M O
m 0
�
fn
cv ti
O
O
y
U 6
U w
p
y p
y
x y
x 6
o
b
C
ro
o
aCi
,E
>
y
W
z
z
N
z
z
z
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
U
2011 - UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Street Cost Allocation
Exhibit 3
ID
Identifier
Description
Total
Miles
County
wigs
City
Miles
Total Cost
County
Cost
City Cost
City
Percent
West Reserve
—
Drive — Stillwater
Reconstruct to a 5-
MSN-1
lane minor arterial
1
1
$2,533,732
$2,533,732
$0
0°'0
to West
standard.
Springcreek Road:
Four Mile Drive —
A new segment
constructed to a3-
MSN-2
Stillwater Road to
1
1
$1,967,172
$0
$1,967,172
100%
lane urban minor
US Highway 93:
arterial standard.
Grandview Drive
An extension of
Extension —
Grandview Dr. an
MSN-3
Existing Bend to
0.83
0.83
$3,291,349
$0
$3,291,349
100%
Whitefish Stage
urban minor arterial
er al
Road:
standard.
Whitefish Stage
Reconstruct to a
Road —Reserve
minor arterial
MSN-4
standard including 2
1
1
$2,533,732
$2,533,732
$0
0%
DriveRose
travel lanes in each
Crossinn g:
direction.
Whitefish Stage
Road —Rose
Reconstruct to an
MSN-5
urban minor arterial
15
2.5
$4,917,931
$4,917,931
$0
0%
Crossing to Birch
Grove Road:
standard.
Helena Flats Road -
Reconstructto
Montana Highway
an
MSN-6
urban minor arterial
2.12
2.12
$4,190,077
$4,190,077
$0
0%
35 to Rose
standard
Crossing:.
Foys Lake Road
( Whalebone Drive
Reconstruct to an
MSN-7
urban minor arterial
0.92
0.92
$1,809,799
$1,809,799
$0
0%
to Valley View
Drive):
standard.
Four Mile Drive —
West Springcreek
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-8
lane minor arterial
1
0.5
0.5
$1,967,172
$983,586
$983,586
u
50%
Road Stillwater
roadway.
Road:
Rose Crossing
(western Corridor
Construct a new
Creation—Farmto
east/west corridor to
MSN-9
5
4
1
$11,243,033
$8,994,426
$2,248,607
20%
Market Road to
an urban minor
Whitefish Stage
arterial facility.
Road):
Stillwater Road —
Four Mile Drive to
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-10
West Reserve
lane minor arterial
roadway.
1
1
$1,967,172
$0
$1,967,172
100%
Drive:
New Roadway
MSN-11
Connecting Foys
Construct new
roadway to an urban
1
0.78
0
0.78
$1,423,262
$0
$1,423,262
100%
Lake Road to US
collector standard.
Hiwa 2:
2011 - UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Street Cost Allocation
Exhibit 3
ID
Identifier
Description
Total
County
City
Total Cost
County
City Cost
City
West Springcreek
Road —US
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-12
lane minor arterial
3
2.5
0.5
$5,901,517
$4,917,931
$983,586
17 %
Highway 2 to West
roadway.
Reserve Drive:
Willow Glen Drive
Reconstruct to an
MSN-13
— Conrad Drive to
urban minor arterial
1.15
1.15
$2,262,248
$2,262,248
$0
0°'0
Woodland Avenue:
standard.
Church Drive
Construct and/or
(western Corridor
Creation —Farm to
reconstruct portions
MSN-14
ofthis roadway to
5
5
$10,639,960
$10,639,960
$0
0%
Market Road to
an urban minor
Whitefish Stage
arterial facility.
Road):
Trumble Creek
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-15
Road —Rose
lane minor arterial
15
2.5
$4,917,931
$4,917,931
$0
0%
Crossing to Birch
roadway.
Grove Road:
Conrad Drive —
Reconstruct to an
MSN-16
Willow Glen Road
urban minor arterial
L2
1.2
$4,050,074
$4,050,074
$0
0%
to Shady Lane:
standard.
Shady Lane—
Reconstruct to an
MSN-17
Conrad Drive to
urban minor arterial
0.65
0.65
$1,278,662
$1,278,662
$0
0%
MT 35:
standard.
Reserve Drive —
Reconstruct to a 5-
MSN-18
US Highway 93 to
lane minor arterial
1
1
0
$2,533,732
$2,533,732
$0
0%
Whitefish Stage
roadway.
Road:
Reserve Drive —
Whitefish Stage
Whitefish
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-19
lane principal
1.5
1.5
$3,915,676
$3,915,676
$0
u
0%
Road LaSalle
arterial section.
Road:
Reserve Drive —
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-20
LaSalle Road to
lane minor arterial
1
1
$1,967,172
$1,967,172
$0
0%
Helena Flats Road:
section.
Evergreen Drive —
Whitefish
Whitefish Stage
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-21
lane minor arterial
1.44
1.44
0
$2,852,400
$2,852,400
$0
u
0%
Road LaSalle
Road:
section.
Whitefish Stage
MSN-22
Road— Oregon
Reconstruct to a 3-
lane minor arterial
2.43
2.43
0
$5,986,376
$5,986,376
$0
0%
Street to Reserve
Drive:
section.
18m Street West
Construct new
MSN-23
Extension/Sunnysi
corridor toanurban
0.3
0.15
0.15
$993,117
$496,559
$496,559
50%
de Drive:
collector standard.
2011 - UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Street Cost Allocation
Exhibit 3
ID
Identifier
Description
Total
County
City
Total Cost
County
City Cost
City
Construct new
LaSalle / Conrad
connection between
MSN-24
0.44
0.44
$1,689,326
$1,689,326
$0
0°'0
Drive Connector:
LaSalle Rd. and
Conrad Dr.
Reconstruct MT 35
to a 4-lane facility
MSN-25
MT 35 Expansion:
5.7
5.7
$23,846,831
$23,846,831
$0
0°'0
with appropriate left
turn bays.
US Highway 2 East
Reconstruct to a 6-
- LaSalle Road to
lane roadway
MSN-26
section with
1.17
1.17
$6,500,716
$6,500,716
$0
0%
Woodland Park
appropriate left -turn
Drive:
bays.
7m Avenue East
North (E.
Reconstruct to a
MSN-28
California Street to
minor arterial
0.2
0.2
$393,434
$0
$393,434
100%
Whitefish Stage
standard.
Road
Three -Mile Drive
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-29
lane minor arterial
2
1.7
0.3
$3,934,344
$3,344,192
$590,152
15%
ELEJ
standard
Two -Mile Drive
(W' Springereek
Reconstruct to a 2-
MSN-30
lane urban collector
1.98
1.46
0.52
$2,989,369
$2,204,282
$785,087
26%
Road to Meridian
standard.
Road)
I
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
°'
O
m
m
O
O
�
N
coo
O
m
m
m
(�
N
U y
A LL
O
F
y
O
o
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C N
O. O
L
�
M
�
m
m
O
�
O
�
m
m
V
N
m
O
O
O
CO
N
M
CO
m
O
O
I�
N
�
I�
m
m
�
m
m
O LL
F
�3
N "
LL y
Cf
A
o
O
O
o
O
o
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
o
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
o
O
o. a
E �
N0
fA
O
O
r
M
I-
M
�_
N
N
O
O
O
I-
O
O
CO
com
O
V
M
C
N V
N
N
N
V
M
O
N
O
V
M
N
M
N
CO
r
r
o
o
r
r
r
o o
r
r
�
r
F
r
mo
r
o
��o���
0
0
0
00
o
0
0
c
aE
m
0
0
0
m
0
m
0
m
0
m
0
�E���E�
E
E
E
��
o
E
E
L�
E
E
a
E
E
E
o
a
m
n
n
m
m
m
oo '
m
m
m
m
m
m
.N
in r
m
N
-2
.�
5
-2
-2
n
m
o m
C7
E m
o
o
o
m
m
m
m
o -o
0
WE.=
o
w o
O
O
O
Oo
0
0
0
0
E
cn
O
iO
-2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
iUo
o
"
"
"
o
a
o
""
a
oL
a
a
wa
"
w
"o
o"
U
n
if w
w
U oU`n
>
S
0
N
m
O
>
M
i6
N
O
d'
SO
UI
o
O
O
N
O
(6
L
m
O
(6
in
>
O
w
(6
O
-O
O
N
wd'
m6
Ul
N
W
U
S
0
U
O
o '-
ON
[ifOa
mMS
c�n
I
-N
.
n
o
�
O
c o
°
mm
m
o�
o
0
w
>
O
N(
9
>
-
>
O
,>,0000O
(
20
�
J
>
m
Wdo
a
0
'O
O
U
>mN
j
a
N
UI
..
O�
UI/1
O. j
$
m N
Q
O
jIllf
0
N
N
N L
O
O
��/1
IL O1
O N
.>
0 a
N
N
O
a
N
N >i-
.> �p
0
N
U O
'�
D
c
N
0
O
0 a
0
O
a
O
N
� U
i6
> UI
UI U
U`
m U
J 0
U
��6 Z
L_
(n a'
(6
O ..
a
>.
-O
-O
O N
m
.w Z
N
'�O/1'�
O
N �O/1
N O
. >
`
�O/1 N
0 O-
5 �O/1
N
>i S
N (n
UI UI
N
O O
O
`
O
>
O
N
NN
N (6
N
N O
(6
N>
2_ N
(nLLUa'
O
>
>
>
> Co
S a'
O
LL >
O-
LL (n
(6
a' LL a'
(n a'
Z D
>
> >
> >
(6
U LL a
H C7
(6
U J
(n
a'
J
a' a'
W J
> a'
Q
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
M
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
E
�a
b■
LL
w
)
)
)
\
\
\
))
;
§
E
\
e
-
2LL
o
22
,
22
mo
f
)/
\ $
(6 [
{
/
�
2
\{
§ £
{ [
\\\/\\\/\/\/0
o=
zaz�=[if
\
)
(
k
LU
\
\
)
\>
0
®a
~G%J00
±
_
\
\
\/
\
\
\
\
\
\
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Equipment List
Exhibit 5
Percent
Impact
Purchase Fee Impact Fee
Equip Y(11111MDate Original Cost Cost 2006 Related 1 Cost
Linelazer III
Airless Striper
15
2005
5,249
5,564
0.00%
VonArx
Milling Machine
1993
20
207
1993
6,500
13,863
0.00%
398
Denver/GardneAir Compressor
1990
20
1906622
1991
9,877
23,671
0.00%
212
Ingersol/Rand
Air Compressor
2004
10
4FBCBDAA154351609
2005
10,795
11,443
0.00%
329
IHC
Sani-vac Water Trk
1971
20
45608H079655
1971
15,692
37,607
0.00%
331
Chevy
C50 Dump Trk
1972
20
CCS532VI46055
1972
6,786
16,263
0.00%
332
Chevy
C50 Dump Trk
1972
20
CCS532VIH6059
1972
6,786
16,263
0.00%
333
Chevy
C50 Patch Truck
1972
20
CCS532VI46024
1972
6,786
16,263
0.00%
335
Chevy
C50 Sand Truck
1972
20
CCS532VI46026
1972
6,786
16,263
0.00%
368
GallionT500
Grader
1969
20
41K3371C03626
1969
25,000
59,914
0.00%
383
Mobile
Sweeper
1977
20
802-243
1977
35,081
84,074
0.00%
300
IHC-DT 466
S1900 Tandem
1982
20
2HTAF159CCA19897
1982
45,316
108,602
0.00%
306
IHC
Tymco Sweeper
1991
20
1HTSAZRNlMH343712
1991
79,747
191,118
0.00%
336
Ford
F-900Tandem
1988
20
IFDYL90A8JVA23999
1988
43,033
103,131
0.00%
343
GMC
6000 Snowplow
1980
20
T16DAAV601488
1980
15,286
36,633
0.00%
344
GMC
6000 Snowplow
1980
20
T16DAAV601719
1980
15,286
36,633
0.00%
369
Cat
Loader
1969
20
41C337
1969
24,000
57,517
0.00%
302
Ford
Elgin Sweeper
1994
20
1FDXH70C7RVA31042
1994
93,529
188,199
0.00%
303
Ford
Elgin Sweeper
1994
20
1FDXHOC3RVA31037
1194
93,529
224,148
0.00%
371
John Deere
Loader
1985
20
R66466T314536
1986
78,564
188,283
0.00%
304
Ingersol/Rand
DD24 Roller
1993
20
5513-S 8224894
1992
25,620
57,924
0.00%
399
Fair Snocrete
Snow Blower
1998
20
107208
1998
35,870
57,171
0.00%
379
Ingram
Roller
1971
20
92800F41154lP56
1975
8,882
21,286
0.00%
380
MulchMaster
Leaf Mach w/Hopper
2001
20
DT00620849475
2001
57,799
77,349
0.00%
307
Ford Sunvac
De-icer
1985
20
IFDXD74N6FVA30435
1991
20,000
47,931
0.00%
372
Cat 140G
Grader
1985
20
08Z283442W0820
1985
82,788
198,406
0.00%
305
Ford
L-8000 Tandem
1996
20
IFD4W82E6TVA-25495
1996
70,000
125,359
0.00%
325
Crafco SS125
Crack Sealer
1997
20
1C9SY1017V1418230
1997
21,000
35,479
0.00%
345
Tennant
830 11 Sweeper
1999
20
P9613O26
1999
14,322
21,535
0.00%
346
Tennant
830 11 Sweeper
1999
20
P96113O131
199
14,324
34,328
0.00%
330
Ford
L-9000 Flush Trk
1994
20
IFTYA95VOSVA26192
2000
13,390
18,994
0.00%
373
Cat 120H
Grader
1999
20
4MK00722
2000
122,382
173,601
0.00%
361
IHC Icemelt
4700 Truck
1996
15
IHTSCAAP3TH674668
2001
26,796
35,859
0.00%
334
Sterling L7500
Dump trk/Sander/Plow
2003
10
2FZAASAK13AM05101
2003
75,505
89,928
0.00%
301
Elgin
Eagle Sweeper
2005
10
5DN90189
2004
22,721
25,529
0.00%
Total $
New Trips 134,118
Cost per Trip $
1 - No equipment costs were allocated to new development.
2011 - UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Administrative Fee
Exhibit 6
Impact Fee Impact Fee
Description Total Related Total Cost
Director
$
23,154
20.00%
$ 4,631
City Engineer
$
20,055
30.00%
$ 6,017
Budget Resource Manager
$
12,630
10.00%
$ 1,263
Admin Coord/Assessments
$
15,243
3.00%
$ 457
Administrative Coordinator
$
9,520
3.00%
$ 286
Construction Manager
$
19,733
50.00%
$ 9,867
Construction Manager
$
19,896
50.00%
$ 9,948
Project Manager
$
21,212
3.00%
$ 636
Public Works Superintendent
$
40,934
3.00%
$ 1,228
Engineering Tech
$
12,813
3.00%
$ 384
Steet Operator/Foreman
$
59,154
3.00%
$ 1,775
Street Operator
$
42,123
3.00%
$ 1,264
Street Operator
$
50,897
3.00%
$ 1,527
Street Operator
$
61,022
3.00%
$ 1,831
Street Operator
$
56,058
3.00%
$ 1,682
Street Operator
$
59,123
3.00%
$ 1,774
Street Operator
$
56,641
3.00%
$ 1,699
Street Operator
$
48,340
3.00%
$ 1,450
Street Operator
$
56,312
3.00%
$ 1,689
Street Operator
$
51,607
3.00%
$ 1,548
Secretary
$
9,637
3.00%
$ 289
Subtotal
$
746,104
6.87%
$ 51,244
Transportation Impact Study
$
23,083
100.00%
$ 23,083
Admin Transfer' 64,707 6.87% 4,444
Data Processing' 10,689 6.87% 734
Office Space' 7,838 6.87% 538
Total $ 852,421 $ 80,044
Total Trips
Annual Trips 2
Cost per Trip
1- Allocated based on labor.
2 - Total trips divided by 27 year study period.
134,118
4,967
2011 - UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative
Summary
Exhibit 7
Impact Fee
Item per Trip
Streets $ 51.95
Equipment -
Administration fee' 2.60
Total Transportation Impact Fee $ 54.55
1- The lesser of Exhibit 6 or 5%.
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Pass -By
Rate Imposed
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
at 75 % of
Code Name Description Units' Trips 2 Factor 3 AVTs 4 per Unit
Scheduled Fee
Residential
210
Single Family Detached
Single family detach housing
DU
9.57
1
9.57
$ 526
S 395
Rental we ing wit at least
220
Apartment
units in the same building
DU
6.72
1
6.72
370
278
224 s
Rented Townhouse/ Duplex
Rented rather than owne
units with a minimum of two
units
DU
7.32
1
7.32
403
302
townhouses under
230
Condominium/ Townhouse
single=family ownership.
Minimum of two -units in the
same building
DU
1 5.86
1
1 5.86
322
242
240
Mobile Home
rai ers or manu ac ure
home sited on permanent
foundations
DU
4.99
1
4.99
274
206
developments that provide
253
Congregate Care
centralized amenities such as
dining, housekeeping,
transportation and activities.
DU
2.02
1
2.02
1 111
83
Residential settings that
254
Assisted Living
provide oversite or assistance
for independent, or mentally
or physically limited persons.
DU
2.66
1
2.66
146
110
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1,000 sq ftgross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 sq ftgross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student- full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Pass -By
Rate Imposed
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
at 75 % of
Code Name Description Units' Trips 2 Factor 3 AVTs 4 per Unit
Scheduled Fee
Industrial
employees, free standing and
single use. Examples:
110
General Light Industrial
printing plants, material
testing laboratories, data
processing and equipment
assembly.
GFA
6.97
1
6.97
S 383
S 287
contain a number of industrial
130
Industrial Park
and/or related facilities. A mix
of manufacturing, service and
warehouse
GFA
1 6.96
1
6.96
383
287
racii
materials or parts into finished
products. Typically have
140
Manufacturing
related office, warehouse,
research and associated
functions.
GFA
3.82
1
3.82
210
158
Facilities evo e o s orage
of goods and materials.
150
Warehouse
Includes offices and
maintenance facilities
GFA
4.96
1
4.96
273
205
Storage units or vaults rentecr-
for storage of goods
GFA
2.50
1 1
1 2.50
138
104
Average
5.04 1.00 5.04 $ 277
$ 208
Lodging
Lodging tacility triatmay
include restaurants, lounges,
310
Hotel
meeting rooms and/or
convention facilities
Room
8.17
1
8.17
S 449
S 337
bleeping accommo a ions
and often a restaurants. Free
320
Motel
on -site parking and little or no
meeting spaces.
Room
5.63
1
5.63
S 310
S 233
Average
6.90 1.00 6.90 $ 380
$ 285
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1,000 sq ftgross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 sq ftgross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Pass -By
Rate Imposed
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
at 75 % of
Code Name Description A Units' Trips 2 Factor 3 AVTs 4 per Unit
Scheduled Fee
Recreational
Municipal owned parks,
412'
Local Park
varying widely as to location,
type and number of facilities. Acres 7
2.28
1
2.28
S 125
S 94
Regional park authority
owned parks, varying widely
417
Regional Park
as to location, type and
number of facilities. Acres 7
4.57
1
4.57
251
188
Average 3.43 1.00 3.43 $ 188
$ 141
municipal and private goit
courses. Mayor may not
430
Golf Course
have a driving range and
clubhouse
Holes
35.74
1
35.74
1.966
1,475
Multi -purpose recreational
facilities containing two more
435 s
Multipurpose Recreation
or of the following uses at one
Facility
site: mini-golt, batting cages,
video arcade, bumper boats,
go-carts and driving ranges.
Acres
90.38
1 1
90.38
1 4.971
3.728
weightlifting and other
facilities often including
493
Athletic Club
swimming pools, hot tubs,
saunas, racquetball, squash
and handball courts.
GFA
43.00
1
43.00
2.365
1.774
to and including YMCAs,
often including classes, day
Recreational Community care, meeting rooms,
495
Center swimming pools, tennis,
racquetball, handball,
weightlifting, locker rooms
and food service
GFA
22.88
1
22.88
1.258
944
1,812
$ 1,359
bowling laneswhich may
4378
Bowling Alley include a small lounge,
restaurant or snack bar.
Lane
33.33
1
33.33
1,833
1,375
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA- 1,000 sq ftgross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 so l gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Pass -By
Rate Imposed
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
at 75 % of
Code Description Units' Trips 2 Factor 3 AVTs 4 per Unit
Scheduled Fee
Institutional
erves sfu—d—enT—attending
520
Elementary School
kindergarten through 5th or
6th grade Public or private.
GFA
14.49
1
14.49
S 797
S 598
522
Middle School
Public. berves s u ens a
have completed elementary
and not yet in high school.
GFA
13.78
1
13.78
758
569
530
High School
Public. Typically serving to
12th Grades
GFA
12.89
1
12.89
709
532
wo-yearjunior or commundy
540
Junior/Community Collage
colleges
GFA
27.49
1
27.49
1,512
1,134
on ains worship areaay
include meeting rooms,
560
Church
classrooms, dining area and
facilities
GFA
9.11
1
9.11
501
376
Facility for pre-school children
care primarily during the
565
Day Care
daytime hours. May include
classrooms, meeting area and
playground
GFA
79.26
0.1
7.93
436
327
590
Library
Public or Private. Contains
shelved books, reading rooms
and sometime meeting rooms
GFA
54.00
1
54.00
2.970
2,228
Average 0.87 19.96 $ 1,098
$ 823
our -year and graduate
550
University / College
institutions
Student
2.38
1
2.38
131
98
dinning and drinking facilities,
591 s
Lodge / Fraternal
recreational and
Organization
entertainment areas and
meeting rooms
Members
0.29
1
0.29
16
12
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1,000 so fl gross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 so fl gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Pass -By
Rate Imposed
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
at 75 % of
Code Name Description Units' Trips 2 Factor 3 AVTs 4 per Unit
Scheduled Fee
Medical
facility with overnight
610
Hospitals
accommodations for
ambulatory and non -
ambulatory patients.
GFA
17.57
1
17.57
$ 966
$ 725
facility whose primary
function is to care for persons
620
Nursing Home
who are unable to care for
themselves
Beds
2.37
1
2.37
130
$ 98
Usually contains offices,
715
Single Tenant Office
meeting rooms, file storage
Building
areas, restaurants or cafeteria
and other service functions
GFA
11.57
1
11.57
S 636
S 477
rove es ciiagnosis an
outpatient care. Typically
720 a
Medical -Dental Office
operated be private
physicians or dentists.
GFA
36.13
1
36.13
1,987
S 1,490
unit development that
750
Office Park
contains office buildings,
banks, restaurants and
service stations.
GFA
11.42
1
11.42
628
S 471
buildings devoted to research
760
Research and Development
and development. May
Center
contain light fabrication
facilities.
GFA
8.11
1
8.11
446
S 335
incubator 1-2 story building
served by a common road
system. Typically includes a
mix of offices, retail and
wholesale stores, restaurants,
770
Business Park
recreational areas,
warehousing, manufacturing,
light industrial or research.
The average mix is 20% to
30% office I commercial and
70% to 80% industrial I
warehouse.
GFA
12.76
1
12.76
702
S 527
880
$
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA- 1,000 sq It gross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 sq fl gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Pass -By
Rate Imposed
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
at 75 % of
Code Name Description Units' Trips 2 Factor 3 AVTs 4 per Unit
Scheduled Fee
Retai
that sells hardware, building
materials and lumber. May
812
Building Materials and
include yard storage and
Lumber
sheded storage areas which
are not included in the unit
calculation.
GFA
45.16
0.82
37.03
S 2,037
S 1,528
Atree-stanaing iscoun sore
that also contains a full
813
Discount Super Store
service grocery department
under the same roof.
GFA
49.21
0.82
40.35
2,219
1,664
Small strip shopping centers
containing a variety of retail
shops that typically specialize
814
Specialty Retail
in apparel, hare goods,
services such a real estate,
investment, dance studios,
florists and small restaurants.
GFA
44.32
0.82
36.34
1,999
1,499
1- ree-9rJl71TMU'9MT9TMM—
offers a variety of customer
815
Discount Store
services, centralized
cashiering and a wide range
of products.
GFA
56.02
0.82
45.94
2,527
1,895
Typically ree-s an mg
816
Hardware / Paint Store
buildings with parking that sell
hardware and paints.
GFA
51.29
0.82
42.06
1 2,313
1,735
yard containing planting and
landscape stock. Unit
817
Nursery / Garden Center
calculation only applies to
building and not yard and
storage.
GFA
36.08
0.82
29.59
1,627
1,220
shopping center a
823
Factory Outlet
primarily houses factory outlet
stores.
GFA
26.59 0.52 13.83 760
570
IIIIIIIIIIIIIllu 0.78 $ 1,926
$
commercial establishments
that is planned, developed
and managed as a unit.
Provides enough on -site
820
Shopping Center
parking to serve its own
demand. May include office
buildings, theatres,
restaurants, post office,
health club and recreation.
GLA
(9) (9) (9) (9)
(9)
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1,000 so ftgross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 so ftgross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Pass -By Rate Imposed
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee at 75 % of
Code Name Description Units' Trips 2 Factor 3 AVTs 4 per Unit Scheduled Fee
Retail
841
Car Dealership
ew and used car ea ers ip
with sales, service and parts,
GFA
33.34
0.82
27.34
$ 1,504
$ 1,128
848
Tire Store
Primary business is se ing
and repair of tires
GFA
24.87
0.82
20.39
1,122
842
Free-s an ing grocery s ore.
May also contain ATMs,
850
Supermarket
photo center, pharmacies and
video rental.
GFA
102.24
0.64
65.43
3,599
2,699
bells convenience Toocis,
Convenience Market - 24
newspapers, magazines and
851
hours
often beer and wine. Open
24 hours per day.
GFA
737.99
0.39
287.82
15,830
11,873
bells convenience oo s,
Convenience Market - 15 to
newspapers, magazines and
852 s
16 hours
often beer and wine. Open
15 to 16 hours per day.
GFA
500.37
0.39
195.15
10,733
8,050
where shoppers pay a fee to
get wholesale prices. May
861
Discount Club
have a wide variety of goods.
Many items are sold in bulk or
large quantities.
GFA
41.8
0.52
21.74
1,195
896
ac_ i ies i ing me ica
880
Pharmacy without drive thru
prescriptions without a drive
window
thru window.
GFA
90.06
0.47
42.33
2,328
1,746
Facilities filling medical
881
Pharmacy with drive thru
prescriptions with a drive thru
window
window.
I GFA
86.16
0.51
43.94
2,417
1,813
e s furniture, accessories
890 Furniture Store
and often carpet / floor
covering.
GFA
5.06 0.47 2.38
131
98
Average
180.21 0.56
4,318
$ 3,238
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA- 1,000 sq ftgross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 so ftgross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
2011 UPDATED EXHIBIT
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Pass -By
Rate Imposed
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
at 75 % of
Code Name Description Units' Trips 2 Factor 3 AVTs 4 per Unit
Scheduled Fee
Services
usually atree-s an ing
building with a parking lot
911
Walk -In Bank
offering banking services.
May are ATMs
GFA
156.48
0.53
82.93
S 4,561
1 S 3,421
building with a parking lot
912
Walk -In Bank with Drive
offering banking services.
Thru Window
Has a drive thru window. May
are ATMs
GFA
1 246.49
0.53
1 130.64
7,185
5,389
High quality eating
931
Quality Restaurant
establishment with turnover
rates greater than 1 hour
GFA
89.59
0.56
50.17
2,759
2,069
High Turnover Sit -Down
Sit own eating establis men
932
Restaurant
with turnover rates of less
than 1 hour.
GFA
127.15
0.56
71.20
3,916
2,937
Fast Food without Drive-
Fast foodwithout a rive
933
Thru
through window.
GFA
716.00
0.50
358.00
19,690
14,768
Fast food with a drive through
934
Fast Food Wth Drive-Thru
window.
GFA
496.12
1 0.50
248.06
13,643
10,232
Average
re
6
$ 1i,469
s gaso ine an may a so
944
Gas Station
provide vehicle service and
Fueling
repair.
Positions
168.56
0.58
97.76
5,377
4,033
bells gasoline and may a so
Gas Station with
provide vehicle service and
945
Convenience Market
repair. Also contains a
Fueling
convenience market.
Positions
162.78
0.44
71.62
3,939
2,954
Gas Station with
provide vehicle service and
946
Convenience Market and
repair. Also contains a
Car Wash
convenience market and car
Fueling
wash.
Positions
152.84
0.44
67.25
3,699
2,774
Average
161.39 0.49 78.88 $ 4,338
$ 3,254
ows self c eamng or cars oy
as
947 a
Self -Service Car Wash
providing stalls for drivers
Stalls
1 108.00
0.44
F 47.52
2,614
1,961
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1,000 so It gross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 so ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student- full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
i-o- i eu i . L)etuutions.
Page 1 of 1
Precious Section MCA Contents Part Contents Search Help Next Section
7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more that
increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility.
(b) The term does not include consumable supplies.
(2) "Connection charge" means the actual cost of connecting a property to a public utility system and is limited to
the labor, materials, and overhead involved in making connections and installing meters.
(3) "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or structure, a change in use of a
building or structure, or a change in the use of land when the construction, installation, or other action creates
additional demand for public facilities.
(4) "Governmental entity" means a county, city, town, or consolidated government.
(5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the
development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is
collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact
fee collected.
(b) The term does not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for
development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district
assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water
districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or
(iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other
minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity.
(6) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of capital system improvements that reasonably relates to
the service demands and needs of the project. A proportionate share must take into account the limitations provided in
7-6-1602.
(7) "Public facilities" means:
(a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility;
(b) a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility;
(c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights -of -way, traffic signals, and landscaping;
(d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposal facility or a flood control facility;
(e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and
(f) other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6-1602 that have been approved as part of
an impact fee ordinance or resolution by:
(i) a two-thirds majority of the governing body of an incorporated city, town, or consolidated local government; or
(ii) a unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners of a county government.
History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
Provided by Montana Legisiative Services
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1601.htm 11 /9/2011
i-e-iouz. uaiculation of impact tees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirement... Page 1 of 1
Precious Section MCA Contents Part Contents Search Help Next Section
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for impact
fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve 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;
0) 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 2 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.
History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 358, L. 2009.
Provided by Montana Legislative Services
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6n-6-1602.htm 11 /9/2011
i-b-ibus. uonectnon and expenditure of impact tees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal requir... Page 1 of 1
Pr+e\ious Section MCA Contents Part Contents Search Help (Next Section
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required. (1) The
collection and expenditure of impact fees must comply with this part. The collection and expenditure of impact fees must be
reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees. The ordinance or resolution adopted
by the governmental entity must include the following requirements:
(a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested with all interest
accruing to the fund.
(b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts.
(c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee ordinance or resolution or in accordance
with 7-6-1602, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property at the time that
the refund was due.
(2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no earlier than the date of issuance
of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of wastewater or water
service connection or well or septic permitting.
(3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has
been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities
constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602
in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from
continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to
recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring,
constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess
capacity.
(4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of payment of
impact fees if:
(a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6-1602;
(b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the
proposed use by the governmental entity;
(c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or constructions are established as part of
the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and
(d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as part of the adopting ordinance or
resolution if the dedication of land or construction of public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due from an
individual development.
(5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or for
rebuilding a damaged structure unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in 7-6-1602(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.
History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 358, L. 2009.
Provided by Montana Legislative Services
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1603.htm 11/9/2011
/-0-1eu4. impact tee advisory committee.
Page 1 of 1
Precious Section MICA Contents Pert Contents Search Help Next Section
7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governmental entity that intends to propose an impact fee
ordinance or resolution shall establish an impact fee advisory committee.
(2) An impact fee advisory committee must include at least one representative of the development community and
one certified public accountant. The committee shall review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and
spending impact fees.
(3) The impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the
governmental entity.
History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
Provided by Montana Legislative Services
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.htm 11/9/2011