Adopted Report for Impact Fees for Transportation System - February 2009RESOLUTION NO.5346
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING SCHEDULES AND CLASSIFICATIONS TO SET
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TO BE IMPOSED UPON CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW IMPROVEMENTS FOR USES THAT PLACE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS UPON
THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AND TO SET
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to §§7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604, MCA granting to municipalities the authority
to impose impact fees to provide additional funding for capital improvements to
transportation facilities, the Kalispell City Council has considered it prudent to
impose transportation impact fees upon construction of new improvements within
the City based upon the additional demands that the use of the new improvements
place upon the transportation facilities of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Impact Fee Committee met numerous times over the past two years
in noticed public meetings with the City's consultant, HDR/EES, reviewed the
various permutations of its report and recommendations on the transportation
facilities and examined the methodology utilized and issued its advisory letter to
the Kalispell City Council on January 7, 2009 with two votes for and two votes
against the adoption of an impact fee schedule along with the data sources and
methodology supporting adoption and calculation of the impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the advisory letter of the Kalispell Impact Fee
Committee and directed the City Staff and its consultant, HDR/EES, to
recalculate the impact fees based upon a capital improvement plan (CIP) with
certain projects removed from the previously approved CIP based upon concerns
raised that those certain projects may not be appropriately regarded as fully
growth related; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on February 17, 2009 set a public hearing to be held on
March 2, 2009 on said proposed transportation impact fees, schedules, charges
and classifications of the transportation facilities of the City of Kalispell; and
WHEREAS, due and proper Notice of said public hearing was given by the City Clerk by
publication and mailing as required by law; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held by the City Council at a public meeting thereof
in the Kalispell City Hall beginning at 7:00 o'clock P.M. on March 2, 2009, and
all persons appearing at said hearing and expressing a desire to be heard were
heard, and all written comments thereon furnished to the City Clerk at said
meeting prior thereto were given consideration by the Council.
WHEREAS, based upon the report and recommendations of the Kalispell City Impact Fee
Committee, the considerable evidence provided by the City's consultants, City
staff and public comment, written and oral, the City Council finds as follows:
1) The Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) adopted by the
Kalispell City Council on April 21, 2008 and the HDR/EES study and
report dated January 2009 meet the statutory requirements in that they
a. describe existing conditions of the facility;
b. establish the current level of service and the future level of service
after improvements, assuring that growth related facility
improvements and non -growth related improvements meet the
same level of service standard;
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 the 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;
g. 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;
h. establish the methodology that the governmental entity will use to
exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of
existing deficiencies from the impact fee;
i. establish the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for
each unit of increased service demand; and
2) The impact fee schedule, along with the data sources and methodology
used in support of the adoption and calculation of the impact fees meet the
statutory requirements in that:
a. the amount of the impact fee is reasonably related to and
reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of
infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new
development;
b. considering the following factors, the impact fees imposed do not
exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred
by the governmental entity in accommodating the development
i. the need for public facilities capital improvements required
to serve new development;
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 are
not included in the impact fee;
d. new development will 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 do not include expenses for operations and
maintenance of the facility.
3) The proposed transportation impact fees, schedules, charges and
classifications having been found to meet the statutory requirements are
reasonable and just and in the best interest of the City of Kalispell and its
citizens.
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council further adopts as its findings the report and
recommendations of the City's consultant, HDR/EES, dated February 2009, along
with the data sources and methodology used supporting adoption and calculation
of the transportation impact fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I That the transportation impact fees, schedules, and classifications
applicable to the use of the City of Kalispell Transportation Facilities as
set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference made a
part hereof, are hereby established and adopted to be imposed upon
construction of new improvements for uses that place additional
demands upon the transportation facilities of the City of Kalispell.
SECTION II. That the transportation impact fees established by this resolution shall be
imposed at the rate of 75% of the scheduled fee for any new construction
that applies for a building permit within 2 years of the effective date of
this resolution.
SECTION III. That the transportation impact fees, schedules, and classifications that are
hereby established for the City of Kalispell Transportation Facilities
shall be reviewed no later than two years after the effective date of this
resolution.
SECTION IV. That this resolution shall become effective on the I51 day of April, 2009.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR
THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2O09.
Pamela
ATTEST: Mayor
Theresa White
City Clerk
City of Kalispell
Impact Fees for the
Transportation System - Alternative 1
February 2009
r--
a
1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 423-3700
February 18, 2009
Mr. James Hansz, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59903
Subject: Draft Report - Impact Fees for the Transportation System — Alternative 1
Dear Mr. Hansz:
HDR Engineering Inc. (DBA HDR/EES) was retained by the City of Kalispell (City) to
determine impact fees for the transportation system for new development. Herein is our revised
draft report detailing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the review undertaken
by HDR/EES for the determination of cost -based impact fees for the City's transportation
system. This draft report has been revised from the January 2009 report to reflect changes as
requested by the City Council and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. Specifically, capital
projects MSN 2, 3, 23, 28 and 29 were excluded in the impact fee calculation. This draft report
includes the planning and cost information from the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006
Update (the "Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and
approved by the City Council in April 2008.
HDR/EES recommends the City have this draft report reviewed by its legal counsel to ensure
compliance with Montana law. Please review this draft report; any appropriate comments and
changes will be incorporated into the final report
It has been a pleasure working with you on this project and we appreciate the opportunity to
provide this technical report to the City. Should you have any questions, please call. We look
forward to the opportunity to continue to provide assistance to the City.
Sincerely yours,
HDR ENGINEERING INC (DBA HDR/EES).
Randall P. Goff
Project Principal
Attachments
1 Introduction and Overview of the Study
1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Overview of the Study......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Disclaimer............................................................................................................1-1
1.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-2
2 Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry
Practices
2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Defining Impact Fees........................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Historical Perspective.......................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices ............................................... 2-2
2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees.................................................................... 2-3
2.6 Summary.............................................................................................................. 2-4
3 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies
3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Impact Fee Criteria.............................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology.......................................................... 3-2
3.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 3-4
4 Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Requirements under Montana Law...................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Summary.............................................................................................................. 4-3
5 Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees
5.1
Introduction..........................................................................................................
5-1
5.2
Present Transportation Impact Fees.....................................................................
5-1
5.3
Transportation Zones...........................................................................................
5-1
5.4
Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees .........................................
5-1
5.5
Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees .........................................................
5-3
5.6
Key Assumptions.................................................................................................
5-5
5.7
Implementation of the Impact Fees......................................................................
5-5
5.8
Consultant Recommendations.............................................................................
5-5
5.9
Summary..............................................................................................................
5-5
F mees
Contents
i
City of Kalispell, Montana
Tables
5-1 City of Kalispell, Montana Average Daily New Trips ........................................ 5-2
5-2 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee ...................... 5-4
5-3 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee —
Residential Development..................................................................................... 5-4
Appendices
Appendix A - Transportation Impact Fees
Exhibit I 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
mees Contents ii
City of Kalispell, Montana
1.1 Introduction
HDR Engineering Inc. was retained by the City of Kalispell, Montana (City) to determine cost -
based impact fees for the City's transportation system that complies with SB 185 (Montana Code
7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604). This report provides details of the
development of cost -based impact fees for the City's "The objective of this
transportation system. Impact fees are a one-time assessment report is to properly place
against new development to pay for the cost of infrastructure in context the purpose of
required to provide service. Impact fees provide the means of impact fees, and to
balancing the cost requirements for new infrastructure between determine cost based
existing customers and new customers. The portion of future impact fees for the
capital improvements that will provide service (capacity) to new transportation system
customers is included in the impact fees. In contrast to this, the that complies with
City has future capital improvement projects that are related to Montana law. "
curing existing deficiencies. These infrastructure costs are
typically funded by other sources and are not included within the
impact fee. By establishing cost -based impact fees, the City will assure that "growth pays for
growth" and existing utility customers will be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth.
1.2 Overview of the Study
This report is divided into five distinct components. The next section of the report, Section 2,
provides a review of "generally accepted" utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees.
At the same time, it also discusses the financial objectives of impact fees and practices of other
utilities in relation to this fee. Section 3 provides an overview of the criteria and methodologies
used in the development of cost -based impact fees, and Section 4 provides a summary of the
legal requirements for the enactment of impact fees under Montana law. The cost -based impact
fee calculation for the City's transportation system is provided in Section 5.
1.3 Disclaimer
HDR/EES, in its determination of impact fees presented in this report, has used "generally
accepted" accounting, engineering, and rate -making principles. This should not be construed as
a legal opinion with respect to Montana law. The City has had this report reviewed by its legal
counsel and they have found that it complies with the requirement under Montana law.
Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
1.4 Summary
This section of the report provided an overview of the report developed for the City concerning
impact fees.
Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-2
L)� !![eeS City of Kalispell, Montana
2.1 Introduction
An important starting point in discussing the City's implementation of transportation impact fees
is an understanding of the purpose and concept of impact fees and the financial objective of those
fees. This section of the report will discuss the concept of impact fees and the "generally
accepted" practices of the industry.
2.2 Defining Impact Fees
One must first define an "impact fee" before beginning an assessment and review of them.
Impact fees are often called system development charges (SDC's), capacity charges, buy -in fees,
facility expansion charges, or plant investment fees. Regardless of the name applied to the fee,
the concept is still the same. Simply stated, impact fees
"are capital recovery fees that are generally established as "Impact fees are capital
one-time charges assessed against developers as a way to recovery fees that are generally
recover a part or all of the cost of system capacity established as one-time charges
constructed for their use. Their application has generally assessed against developers as a
occurred in areas that are experiencing extensive new way to recover a part 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.
M. Overview of Impact Fees and 0°Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
2.3 Historical Perspective
Historically, the financing of transportation infrastructure was paid for via taxes, grants, or other
funding sources. Over the last 20 years, however, the use of impact fees as a method of
financing growth and infrastructure has risen sharply. To the best of our knowledge, no clear
surveys or data exists to show this change; however,
"Historically, the financing of 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 0°Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-2
City of Kalispell, Montana
An impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new customers. As new
residents or businesses develop in the community, they increase the amount of traffic on the
existing road system. This results in increased roadway congestion and longer commute times.
This occurs because of slower trip rates and waits at intersections. With impact fees, new
development pays for the cost to construct additional roadways, which allow the level of service
to be maintained.
Most commonly, impact fees are
adopted in high growth areas
where infrastructure expansion
has strained existing financial
resources. Philosophically,
many utilities desire to have a
policy of "growth paying for
growth. "
Even with the above discussion, not all communities
have impact fees. Most commonly, impact fees are
adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure
expansion has strained existing financial resources.
Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of
"growth paying for growth." Impact fees comport with
that philosophy, and it is achieved by applying the
impact fees either directly against the capital cost of the
expansion facilities, or against the debt service
associated with it.
2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees
There are a number of myths surrounding impact fees. In a very broad sense, some may argue
that impact fees are bad for economic development. These arguments center around two issues:
■ Development will occur on parcels with lower or nonexistent impact fees.
■ Impact fees raise the cost of doing business and hinder development.
Of the research conducted on these topics, just the opposite has been found. Developers look at
many factors before a parcel is developed. One myth concerns the selection of parcels for
development and whether impact fees are applied to the land.
`:.. an impact fee is also a
form of a financial
reimbursement to existing
ratepayers who paid for
those facilities in advance
of the new customer
connecting to the system. "
"The argument goes that if a developer is choosing
between two parcels of land on which to build where the
first parcel is inside a city where SDC's (impact fees) are
charged and the second is just outside where lower or no
SDC's are charged the developer will choose the second
parcel.
The trouble is this means that the owner of the first parcel
does not make a sale. The landowner must lower the land
price to offset the fee in order to make a sale. However, if
the landowner does not lower the price, this indicates that the value of future
development may be higher on that parcel. Thus, be wary of developers who claim they
will choose the second parcel. Chances are they would not have chosen the first parcel
anyway. In the meantime, the land market will be holding the first parcel available for
higher value development. In effect what might look like a loss in the short term may be
a much higher level of development in the long-term. "3
3 Nelson. "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P.
4n. Overview of Impact Fees and 0°Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
The other argument and myth that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they raise the
cost of doing business and hinder development. The argument against this position follows:
"The argument goes that because SDC's raise the price of doing business, they frustrate
economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First, remember that
SDC's will be offset by reduced land prices and by enabling the community to more
easily expand the supply of buildable land relative to demand.
Now, consider what economic development really looks for: skilled labor, access to
markets, and land with adequate infrastructure. Competitiveness for economic
development will be stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by
SDC's). Besides, local governments retain the option to waive SDC's for specific kinds
of economic development, such as development locating in enterprise zones. In the
competition for certain kinds of development, it will be able to show developers the dollar
value of SDC's waived as a solid demonstration of the local government's commitment to
such development. "4
"As can be seen, at least
in the opinion of
Nelson, impact fees do
not hinder growth, but
in fact may help to spur
growth. "
As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do
not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. It must
be remembered that an important concept associated with impact
fees is that the fees are required to develop infrastructure in
advance of the actual development.
From the developer's perspective, absent impact fees (i.e., a
moratorium on new connections) result in no new development.
Because of this, developers are generally supportive of cost -based impact fees, particularly when
it provides available capacity and opportunities for development.
2.6 Summary
This section of the report provided an overview of impact fees and the financial objectives
associated with them as well as some of the issues surrounding them. This will be beneficial
when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning the implementation of impact fees.
55.
4 Nelson, "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P.
56.
Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-4
a- llL City of Kalispell, Montana
3.1 Introduction
An important starting point in establishing impact fees is to have a basic understanding of the
purpose of these charges, along with criteria and general methodology used to establish cost -
based impact fees. Presented in this section is an overview of impact fees criteria and general
methodologies used to develop cost -based fees.
3.2 Impact Fee Criteria
In the determination and establishment of impact fees, a number of different criteria are often
utilized:
■ Understanding and acceptance
■ Transportation planning criteria
■ Financing criteria, and
■ State/locallaws
The component of understanding and acceptance implies that the charge is easy to understand.
This criterion has implications on the way the fee is implemented, administered, and assessed to
new development. For the transportation system, the fees are generally assessed by development
type and the number of new trips that will be generated by the development type. The other
implication of this criterion is that the methodology is clear and concise in its calculation of
infrastructure necessary to provide service.
"The use of transportation
planning criteria is one of the
more important aspects in the
determination of the impact
fees. Transportation planning
criteria provides the "rational
nexus" between the amount of
infrastructure necessary to
provide service and the charge
to the customer. "
The use of transportation planning criteria is one of the
more important aspects in the determination of impact
fees. Transportation planning criteria provides the
"rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure
necessary to provide service and the charge to the
customer. The rational nexus test requires there be a con-
nection established between new development and the
necessary expanded facilities to accommodate new
development. In addition, to see benefits received, an
appropriate apportionment of the cost must be realized in
relation to the new development.
One of the driving forces behind establishing cost -based impact fees is that "growth pays for
growth." Therefore, impact fees are typically established so new customers pay an equitable
share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing criteria for
establishing impact fees relates to the method used to finance infrastructure of the system and
f(MS Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
ensures customers are not paying twice — once through impact fees and again through gas tax or
property assessments.
Many states and local communities have enacted laws that govern the calculation and imposition
of impact fees. These laws must be followed when determining impact fees. Most statutes
require a "reasonable relationship" between the fee charged and the cost associated with
providing service (capacity) to the customer. The charges do not need to be mathematically
exact, but must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed. As discussed above,
the utilization of the planning criteria and the actual costs of construction and planned costs of
construction provide the nexus for the reasonable relationship requirement.
3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology
There are "generally -accepted" methodologies used to establish impact fees, which require the
following:
■ Determine transportation planning criteria,
■ Calculate the transportation impact fee, and
■ Determine a charge basis for various development types.
The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the transportation planning
criteria. For transportation impact fees, the planning criteria is the number of new trips that will
occur due to development. The most common methods for defining trips are on P.M. hour of
generation (or average daily trips). Based on these trips, the transportation planning process
determines the capital improvements required to maintain the current Level of Service (LOS).
LOS refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection, which is measured as the
volume of traffic to the capacity of the roadway (the "V/C ratio'). It is a measure of vehicle
operating speed, travel time, travel delays, freedom to maneuver, and driving comfort. A letter
scale of A to F is then used to describe LOS, based on the V/C ratio.
The transportation impact fee represents the portion of new street projects that provide additional
capacity to serve new developments. It does not include the portion of future street projects that
are required to cure existing deficiencies. An example is a street with a current LOS of C.
Without any improvements, new development would cause the street to drop to a LOS of D. The
improvements required to maintain the street at a LOS of C would be included in the impact fee.
Conversely, if the street was currently at a LOS of D and the improvements brought the street to
a LOS of C with new development, then only a portion of the improvement would be included in
the impact fee. There are three different approaches that can be used to determine the amount of
the street project that is related to growth. These are:
■ Capacity Approach. The cost of a given project is allocated as growth -related based on the
proportion of capacity made available for growth to the total capacity.
■ Incremental Approach. The cost of the project is first determined as if it were constructed to
serve existing conditions. The cost is then determined as if it were serving both existing and
future conditions. The difference in cost or incremental cost is then allocated to growth.
■ Causation Approach. The entire cost of the project is allocated to growth if it is caused by
growth regardless of the benefit to existing customers.
/ eeS Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-2
City of Kalispell, Montana
Of the three methods, the causation approach most aggressively allocates costs to growth. It is
also the most likely approach to be subject to judicial challenge and may not meet the "rational
nexus" test of the amount of infrastructure necessary to serve growth and cost to the customer.
The incremental approach very conservatively allocates costs to growth. Any incremental cost
saving from construction of a larger project are allocated to growth and not shared between
existing and future customers.
The capacity approach is the most commonly used approach and shares any benefits from
construction of a large project between existing and new customers based on the use or benefit of
the project by existing and new customers. It is recommended that this approach be used by the
City, as it provides the most equitable allocation of new street projects between existing and new
development. The allocation procedure recommended is the ratio of the current V/C ratio at
current standards to the V/C ratio after the improvement.
Once the street projects have been allocated to new development, the cost is divided by the
number of new trips the projects will serve to determine the transportation impact fee on a cost -
per -trip basis.
The last part of the transportation impact fee analysis is the determination of the charge basis for
various development types. The most common method used to assess transportation impact fees
is on a trip basis. Trip rates are obtained from the "Trip Generation Manual, " published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers. This manual is a compilation of studies that measure
traffic by development type and factors such as employees, square footage, etc. The manual
defines development type by standard industrial code and contains approximately 200 different
development types. These may be adjusted for local conditions based on the City's
transportation plan.
Trip rates for commercial development are often time reduced for bypass trips. Bypass trips are
those recorded in the survey data, but not actually new trips. For example, if a person drives to
work in the morning, then stops at a fast food restaurant to get dinner on the way home, it is
considered a bypass trip. In this case, the fast food restaurant would be charged for two trips,
when in fact no new trips were generated, because the person would have been on the road
anyway to go from home to the office and back home again.
In development of the fee schedule, the utility needs to balance accuracy with administrative
burden. A category for retail could be created, which would be an average of trips for certain
types of retail establishments such a paint stores, flower shops, etc. Conversely, each category
could be listed separately. Another policy issue is whether or not to allow development to
provide alternative data on trip generation. While this allows for flexibility in the determination
of the fee, it provides a potential for legal challenge.
(tip Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
3.4 Summary
This section provided a discussion of the criteria typically used in the determination of
transportation impact fees. In addition, an overview of the "generally accepted" methodology
used in the calculation of the impact fees has been provided.
aLees Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-4
City of Kalispell, Montana
4.1 Introduction
An important consideration in establishing impact fees are legal requirements at the state or local
level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees
must be calculated or how the funds must be used. This section of the report provides an
overview of the legal requirements for establishing impact fees under Montana law.
The discussion within this section of the report is intended to be a summary of our understanding
of the relevant Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fees. It in no way constitutes a
legal interpretation of Montana law by HDR/EES.
4.2 Requirements under Montana Law
In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented
in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established specific laws
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:...
...5) (a) "Impact fee " means any charge imposed upon development by a
governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the
additional service capacity required by the development from which it is
collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee
not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected.
Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 47
City of Kalispell, Montana
(b)The term does not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection
costs associated with a permit required for development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user
fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for
county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and
systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or
iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to
meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that
have been adopted by the governmental entity.
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required o ordinance or
resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which
an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve
documentation that:
(a) describes existing conditions of the facility;
(b) establishes level of service standards;
(c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
(d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service;
(e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and
maintenance of the facility;
(� makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one
service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and
benefits;
(g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one
service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation
between impact fees and benefits;
(h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental
entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the
facility to provide service to new development within each service area;
(i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude
operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the
impact fee;
0) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit
of increased service demand; and
(k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that:
(i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to
serve projected growth;
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least
every 2 years.
.S) An impact fee must meet the following requirements:
(a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably
Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 42
City of Kalispell, Montana
attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements
made necessary by the new development.
(b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs
incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the
development. The following factors must be considered in determining a
proportionate share 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. "
The use of the methodology discussed in Section 3 should ensure the proportional share standard
is met and impact fees are in compliance with Montana law.
4.3 Summary
This section of the report reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in Montana. HDR
concludes that the City has the authority to establish cost -based impact fees and the methodology
used should ensure compliance with Montana law.
Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
5.1 Introduction
The calculation of the transportation impact fees presented in this section are based on the City's
future capital improvements as identified in their Capital Improvement Plan and planning criteria
from the master plan entitled, Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the
"Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the City
Council in April 2008. As cost and timing of future capital improvements change, the impact
fees presented in this section should be updated to reflect such cost adjustments.
5.2 Present Transportation Impact Fees
The City currently does not assess an impact fee for the transportation system.
5.3 Transportation Zones
Pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1)(g) in the determination of transportation impact fees, the
following must be considered:
"...makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one
service area for transportation facilities is necessary to establish a correlation
between impact fees and benefits; "
The Transportation Plan established a service area that included the entire area of the city and an
area outside the current city limits (the "Study Area"); no breakdown was made as to specific
areas of the city. For the purpose of the transportation impact fee calculation, only the trips
generated and project costs within the current city limits were utilized. Based on these factors
and the 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
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
5.4.1 Average Daily Trip Generation
The number of average daily trips is based on the planning criteria in the Transportation Master
Plan. New dwelling units, retail employment, and nonretail employment were determined as
growth areas. This information was then further segregated between growth in the study area and
growth within city limits. The growth factors were then multiplied by the number of trips per
development type to determine new average daily trips.
Details of the calculations of new average daily trips are provided in Exhibit 1, which is a
memorandum prepared by RPA detailing the analyses used in the development of the
Transportation Master Plan. A summary of the new average daily trips is presented in Table 5-1
Residential 59,059
Commercial — Retail 32,045
Commercial — Nonretail 43,014
Total New Average Daily Trips 134,118
The number of new average daily trips will be used to determine the cost per trip for new
transportation system improvements required to serve growth.
5.4.2 Calculation of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components
The next step of the analysis is to review each major functional component of plant in service
and determine the impact fee for that component. In calculating the transportation impact fee for
the city, only planned future capital improvement projects with a useful life of 10 years or
greater were included within the calculation. The major components of the City's transportation
system that were reviewed for purposes of calculating impact fee were:
■ New streets and intersections
■ Major equipment items
■ Administration costs
A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each of the functional plant components is
provided below.
New Streets and Intersections — The City's Transportation Master Plan identified a number of
street and intersection improvements required to maintain the level of service within the city.
Based on the analysis prepared by RPA, V/C ratios, and levels of service, the percent allocated to
new development was determined based on the V/C ratios in 2003 prior to the improvements,
divided by the V/C ratio in 2030 after the improvements. That percent was eligible for inclusion
in the impact fee calculation (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). While the Transportation Plan
identified improvements for the greater Kalispell area, those improvements not within the city
FDR arm Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-2
City of Kalispell, Montana
were eliminated from the calculation based on the analysis prepared by RPA (see Exhibit I and
Exhibit 3). The Capital Improvement Program costs were then escalated to current 2008 dollars
using the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index. The cost of street and intersection
improvements was then divided by the number of new trips. Per the request of the City, capital
projects MSN 2, 3, 23, 28 and 29 were excluded from the impact fee calculaton. The result was
a cost of $47.03 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
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 $21.59 per trip. Since this is
greater than 5%, the City has included a transportation administrative charge of $2.35 per
average daily trip, which is equal to 5% of the impact fee collected. Details of the calculation are
provided in Exhibit 6.
5.4.3 Credits
The final step in calculating the transportation impact fee is to determine if a credit for payment
from other revenue sources is required. The City currently collects gas tax revenue, a street
assessment fee, grants, and financial assistance from the Montana Department of Transportation
(MDT).
The City currently uses gas tax revenue and the street assessment fee for maintenance of the
street system; therefore, no credit is applicable for the transportation impact fee. The grants
received and financial assistance from MDT has been subtracted from the street and equipment
costs.
5.5 Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees
Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable transportation
impact fee can be determined. "Net" refers to the "gross" impact fee, less any credits.
"Allowable" refers to the calculated impact fee as shown in Table 5-2 as the City's cost -based
impact fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable impact
fee, but not over that amount. Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would
not meet the nexus test of a cost -based impact fee. A summary of the calculated net allowable
transportation impact fee for the City is shown in Table 5-2.
FM Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
Plant Component A Impact Fee Calculation Results
Street Cost
Equipment
Administrative Charge
$47.03
0.00
2.35
Credit 0.00
Total Per Average Daily Hour Trip $49.38
The total impact fee as shown for an average daily hour trip is $49.38. The details of the net
allowable impact fee are shown in Exhibit 7.
For ease of administration, the recommended charge for a average daily trip is rounded to $49.
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 rated provided in
"Trip Generation Seventh Addition, " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers were
used. These were reduced as appropriate to reflect by-pass trips for commercial development
based on the "Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE
Recommended Practice, March 2001 " The number of categories was also reduced to reflect
local business types.
A summary of the transportation impact fee for residential development is shown in Table 5-3.
Details of the impact fee for other development types are provided in Exhibit 8.
Residential $469
Apartment 329
Condominium/Townhouse 287
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-4
City of Kalispell, Montana
5.6 Key Assumptions
In the development of the impact fees for the City's transportation system, a number of key
assumptions were made:
■ The City's asset records were used to determine existing equipment costs.
■ The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing investments was 6.0%.
■ 15 years' worth of interest were included in the cost of equipment.
■ 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.
5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees
The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the "cost" of money
(interest charges and rate of inflation). HDR/EES recommends the City adjust the impact fees
each year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. The most frequently
used source to escalate impact fees is the ENR index, which track changes in construction costs
for municipal utility projects. This method of escalating the City's impact fee should be used for
no more than a 2-year period. After this time period, as required by Montana law, the City
should update the charges based on the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned
facilities that would be contained in an updated master plan or capital improvement plan.
5.8 Consultant Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of the City's transportation system, HDR/EES makes the
following recommendations:
■ The City should implement impact fees for the transportation system that are no greater than
the impact fees as set forth in this report.
■ The City should update the actual calculations for the impact fees based on the methodology
as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the methodology for impact fees
every 2 years as required by Montana law.
5.9 Summary
The transportation impact fees developed and presented in this section of the report are based on
the engineering design criteria of the City's transportation system, the value of the existing
assets, future capital improvements and "generally accepted" accounting and rate -making
principles. Adoption of the proposed impact fees will provide multiple benefits to the City and
create equitable and cost -based charges for new customers.
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-5
City of Kalispell, Montana
Exhibit 1
Engineering Planning Memorandum
Exhibit 2
Street Capacity Analysis
Exhibit 3
Street Cost Allocation
Exhibit 4
Street Cost
Exhibit 5
Equipment Lists
Exhibit 6
Administrative Fee
Exhibit 7
Summary
Exhibit 8
Allowable Fee Schedule
TO: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director
Department of Public Works
City of Kalispell 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
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
M
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
3 °
� Q
c�
O
J
w
w
w
w
w
q
w
m
w
m
U
w
w
q
w
w
w
q
U
m
q
O
M
O
N
O
CD
J
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
U
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
N
M
O
O Q
J
U
d
U
a
U
L1
d
a
L1
a
a
a
a
w
L1
U
a
U
N
L d
d
o S.
M Q
o
a
1
m
m
a
a
mo
N L
M
ml
O
N
O
N
C
L �
o
0
0
0
a
m
O Z"
a
m
o
N
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
N
O
M
O
a
N
�
�
O
N
°
b ti
pp
b b
b
b
b
b
C
p
b
C 3
C
JC
b
C 3
b
C
C w
JC
p
C 3
b
C
b
C
b
C 3
b N
C m
b
C p
b
C p
b
C p
4JC
:
`,�
o .ti
O .p
O .p
O .p
0
r� y
a`di
Rf
a'
.N
�
�
uu
Ca
xro
'
yayo
a°
°Uv�v�
aN°'�a°'
°a°''�'
W a'�
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
!-
}]
s■
|«
�®
§
(
§)
.
�!
§\k`o
~�k
all
.
%}
en
n
k
a
I
OM
,
k
k
,
~
;
\
\6
�
f
a
=
Z»
!
)
\\.
/\
{
«
)
)y§
\
\
\\
u
xa}\
\2\
;
3
%3\
\
\
\
/
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
Miles
Miles
Miles
Cost
Percent
West Reserve Drivc
Reconstruct to a 5-
MSN-1
— StillwatertoWestlaneminorarterial
1
1
$2,205,137
$2,205,137
$0
0%
Springcreek Road:
standard.
Four Mile Drive —
A new segment
constructed to a 3-
MSN-2
Stillwater Road to
1
1
$1,712,053
$0
$1.712.053
100%
US Highway 93:
lane urban minor
arterial standard.
Grandview Drive
An extension of
Extension —
Grandview Dr. to an
MSN-3
Existing Bend to
0.83
0.83
$2,864,500
$0
$2,864,500
100%
Whitefish Stage
urban minor arterial
Road:
standard.
Whitefish Stage
Reconstruct to a
Road —Reserve
minor arterial
MSN-4
standard including 2
1
1
$2,205,137
$2,205,137
$0
0%
Drive to Rose
travel lanes in each
Crossing:
direction.
Whitefish Stage
Road —Rose
Reconstruct to an
MSN-5
urbanminorarterial
2.5
2.5
$4,280,133
$4,280,133
$0
0%
Crossing to Birch
standard.
Grove Road:
Helena Flats Road -
Reconstruct
Montana Highway
to an
MSN-6
urban minor arterial
2.12
2.12
$3,646,673
$3,646,673
$0
�
0%
35 to Rose
standard.
Crossing:
Foys Lake Road
(Whalebone Drive
Reconstruct to an
MSN-7
to Valley View
urban minor arterial
0.92
0.92
$1,575,089
$1,575,089
$0
0%
Drive):
standard.
Four Mile Drive —
West Springcreek
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-8
lane minor arterial
1
0.5
0.5
$1,712,053
$856,027
$856,027
�
50%
Road Stillwater
Road:
roadway.
Rose Crossing
(western Corridor
Construct a new
Creation — Farm to
east/west corridor to
MSN-9
5
4
1
$9,784,943
$7,827,954
$1,956,989
20%
Market Road to
an urban minor
Whitefish Stage
arterial facility.
Road):
Stillwater Road —
Four Mile Drive to
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-10
lane minor arterial
1
1
$1,712,053
$0
$1,712,053
100%
West Reserve
roadway.
Drive:
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
Miles
Miles
Miles
Cost
Percent
New Roadway
MSN-11
Connecting F
Construct new
roadway to an urban
0.78
0
0.78
$1,238,682
$0
$1,238,682
100°'0
U
Lake Road to US
collector standard.
Hi hwa 2:
West Springcreek
Road — US
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-12
lane minor arterial
3
2.5
0.5
$5,136,160
$4,280,133
$856,027
17°'0
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
$1,968,861
$1,968,861
$0
0%
Woodland Avenue:
standard.
Church Drive
Construct and/or
(western Corridor
Creation — Farm to
reconstruct portions
MSN-14
ofthis roadway to an
5
5
$9,260,082
$9,260,082
$0
0%
Market Road to
Whitefish Stage
urban minor arterial
facility.
Road):
Trumble Creek
Road —Rose
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-15
lane minor arterial
2.5
2.5
$4,280,133
$4,280,133
$0
0%
Crossing to Birch
roadway.
Grove Road:
Conrad Drive —
Reconstruct to an
MSN-16
Willow Glen Road
urban minor arterial
1.2
1.2
$3,524,827
$3,524,827
$0
0%
to Shady Lane:
standard.
Shady Lane —
Reconstruct to an
MSN-17
Conrad Drive to
urban minor arterial
0.65
0.65
$1,112,835
$1,112,835
$0
0%
MT 35:
standard.
Reserve Drive — US
Highway 93 to
Reconstruct to a 5-
MSN-18
lane minor arterial
1
1
0
$2,205,137
$2,205,137
$0
�
0%
Whitefish Stage
roadway.
Road:
Reserve Drive —
Whitefish
Whitefish Stage
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-19
lane principal
1.5
1.5
$3,407,859
$3,407,859
$0
0%
Road LaSalle
arterial section.
Road:
Reserve Drive—
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-20
LaSalle Road to
lane minor arterial
1
1
$1,712,053
$1,712,053
$0
0%
Helena Flats Road:
section.
Evergreen Drive —
Whitefi
Whitefish Stage
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-21
Road LaSalle
lane minor arterial
1.44
1.44
0
$2,482,477
$2,482,477
$0
0%
Road:
section.
Whitefish Stage
Road — Oregon
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-22
lane minor arterial
2.43
2.43
0
$5,210,013
$5,210,013
$0
0%
Street to Reserve
Drive:
section.
1eStreet West
Construct new
MSN-23
Extension/Sunnysid
corridor to an urban
0.3
0.15
0.15
$864,321
$432,161
$432,161
50%
e Drive:
collector standard.
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
Miles
Miles
Miles
Cost
Percent
Construct new
LaSalle / Conrad
connection between
MSN-24
0.44
0.44
$1,470,240
$1,470,240
$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
$20,754,177
$20,754,177
$0
0°'0
with appropriate left
turn bays.
US Highway 2 East
Reconstruct to a 6-
—LaSalle Road to
lane roadway sectio
MSN-26
1.17
1.17
$5,657,649
$5,657,649
$0
0
0%
Woodland Park
with appropriate left
Drive:
turn bays.
7m Avenue East
North (E.
Reconstruct to a
MSN-28
California Street to
minor arterial
0.2
0.2
$342,411
$0
$342,411
100%
Whitefish Stage
standard.
.Road):
Three -Mile Drive
(W' Springcreek
Reconstruct to a 3-
MSN-29
lane minor arterial
2
1.7
0.3
$3,424,106
$2,910,490
$513,616
15%
Road to Meridian
standard.
Road):
Two -Mile Drive
(W' Springcreek
Reconstruct to a 2-
MSN-30
lane urban collector
1.98
1.46
0.52
$2,601,683
$1,918,413
$683,270
26%
Road to Meridian
standard.
Road)
I
A
°'
E c
co
o
�
co
V
N
U y
U.
O
F
C
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
a«
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
f0 N
O. O
M
m
N
m
N
V
m
I�
M
O
r
I�
�
r
m
V
O
M
CO
V
CO
CO
_
d)
N
2
2
V
N
�
N
O LL
F
�3
LL y
uO
Cp A
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
o
0
O
O
0
O
O
o
O
O
o
O
o
O
O
a a
E�
W�
N
N
r
O
m
N
O
M
m
CO
L2
O
N
M
CO
V
V
O
N V
fA
0 O
N (�
M
N
fA
O
N
M
N
M
M
m
m
V
M
N
M
N
o
m
m-2
m
m
c
UI
m
r
m
(6
r
m
(6
r
m
N
r
m
O
O
'O
o
N
r
m
(6
N
N
r
m
m
UI
O
r 0
O_
N
r
m
(6
(6
m
N
r
m
m
N
r
m
m
N
r
m
m
N
r
m
N
N
-Q
N
.�
O
c_
O
c_
O
c
O a
c
O
c
O
c
O
c
O
O
O
O
c
-p �p0`
m
E
E
E
oE
E
2
c
E
EE
c
c
c
c
c
E
o
o
N
> t6
m
m
m
N
N
>`
N
m
c c
N
m
m
N
N
N
N
N
O.
M.
UI
Oc N
n
n
n
m
UI�
m
�i
m
n
OU
NM
m
n
n
m
m
m
m
m
'00
c
O
E m
u
M
M
M
M
-O p
UO
U2�
--pmoN
O
p
Ow
O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
EE
U'0
C
m
CMcOm
w�
U
u
-O
"
2
m
-2
U
2
2
N yC
Oo
y[If
o
y[If
o 6o
y[If
O
6o
y[if
0,
m
O
m
w
O
m
N
OO
N m
O
m
NNyN'
O�O
6
6
O
m
O
N
O
O
O
p'
�OO
[If
'
Up'
'
U
ly
ly
'
m
'
'
'OdU
U J
O
-O
�O/1
O
a'
O
N>
y
y0
O
L
Y
Um
S
m
>
m
i
O
O
'
O
O
0
O
(
O
m
m
O
m
-ap
nU)
O
M
O
O
_
N
p
W
U
�
>
m
O
20
MNn
m
m
Y
�I
LL0
0
%.oacc
c
°
�
o
n
c p
o
�o
Ow
WOm'
>m
km
OUoami
Oo
U
9
=
m
m
m
cO
o
i
m
>
.0NUNm
> N
N
'
m
0
UN
2
JW
j
N
W
Uo
>
'
0
m
m N
U
�
W.
O
_ON
m.
NN
N
N
j
O1
U2
O
�0
O m
m'>cU
U
mm0
0
O
N�LL
] U
U
Co
N
m
�
O
O
N
S
nn
O
w
m
w
N
m
>
w
N
>
n
LL
� >
>>>
n
lwlf LL
n
>
Q
Z
N
Z
M
Z
V
Z
Z
(O
Z
Il
Z
C?
Z
m
Z
O
Z
Z
N
Z
M
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
{�
�■
)�
c
)
)
\
-op
op
k
10
E
\
z
/LL
{ ;
22
,
20
mo
\\
\\
\
\
{
E
°
e
r
.
(\
\
\/
\ \
\\\\\\
za
z�z�z�z�
\4
\§U)
\
_
LU
»w>
44
)a))\)
LU
\\
))m§#
\
\/
;
;
;
;
;
/
\
\
f
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Equipment List
Exhibit 5
Percent
Impact
Purchase Fee Impact Fee
Equip # Make Year Deprec i VIN # Date Original Cost Cost 2006 Related 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-900 Tandem
1988
20
IFDYL90A8JVA23999
1988
43,033
103,131
0.00%
343
GMC
6000 Snowplow
1980
20
T16DAAV601488
1980
15,286
36,633
0.00%
344
GMC
6000 Snowplow
1980
20
T16DAAV601719
1980
15,286
36,633
0.00%
369
Cat
Loader
1969
20
41C337
1969
24,000
57,517
0.00%
302
Ford
Elgin Sweeper
1994
20
1FDXH70C7RVA31042
1994
93,529
188,199
0.00%
303
Ford
Elgin Sweeper
1994
20
1FDXHOC3RVA31037
1194
93,529
224,148
0.00%
371
John Deere
Loader
1985
20
R66466T314536
1986
78,564
188,283
0.00%
304
Ingersol/Rand
DD24 Roller
1993
20
5513-S 8224894
1992
25,620
57,924
0.00%
399
Fair Snocrete
Snow Blower
1998
20
107208
1998
35,870
57,171
0.00%
379
Ingram
Roller
1971
20
92800F411541P56
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.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees -Alternative 1
Administrative Fee
Exhibit 6
Impact Fee Impact Fee
Description Total Related Total Cost
Admin Coord $
9,006
50.00% $
4,503
Superintendent
40,667
0.00%
-
Deputy Public Works Dir.
8,664
50.00%
4,332
Assessor
12,660
50.00%
6,330
Project Manager
20,950
50.00%
10,475
Surveyor
21,728
50.00%
10,864
Engineer
4,656
50.00%
2,328
Construction Manager
19,590
50.00%
9,795
Construction Manager
19,658
50.00%
9,829
Secretary
8,975
50.00%
4,488
Budget Resource Manager
6,181
50.00%
3,091
Subtotal $
172,735
$
66,034
Transportation Impact Study
Admin Transfer'
Data Processing'
Office Space'
Total
Total Trips
Annual Trips 2
Cost per Trip
$ 15,703
51,193
10,898
4,650
$ 255,179
1- Allocated based on labor.
2 - Total trips divided by 27 year study period.
100.00% $ 15,703
38.23% 19,570
38.23% 4,166
38.23% 1,778
$ 107,251
134,118
4,967
$ 21.59
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Summary
Exhibit 7
Impact Fee
Item per Trip
Streets $ 47.03
Equipment -
Administration fee 1 2.35
Total Transportation Impact Fee $ 49.38
1- The lesser of Exhibit 6 or 5%.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Kate IFTI
at
75% of
Scheduled
Pass -By
Fee Until
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee 4111111
Code Name Description Units' Tri s2 Factor3 AVTs4 per Unit
Residential
210
Single Family Detached
Single family detach housing
DU
9.57
1
9.57
$469
$352
220
Apartment
Rental dwelling with at least 3
units in the same building
DU
6.72
1
6.72
329
247
Rented rather than owned unit
2246
Rented Townhouse/ Duplex
with a minimum of two units
DU
7.32
1
7.32
359
269
Residential condominium/
townhouses under single=family
230
Condominium/ Townhouse
ownership. Minimum of two -units
in the same building
DU
5.86
1
5.86
287
215
Trailers or manufactured home
240
Mobile Home
sited on permanent foundations
DU
4.99
1
4.99
245
184
253
Congregate Care
Independent living developments
that provide centralized amenities
such as dining, housekeeping,
transportation and activities.
DU
2.02
1
2.02
99
74
254
Assisted Living
Residential settings that provide
oversite or assistance for
independent, or mentally or
physically limited persons.
DU
2.66
1
1 2.66
130
98
(1) Land Use Units_
GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition-
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use-
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units-
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies-
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Rate
Imposed at
75% of
Pass -By Scheduled
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until
Code fiName Description Units' Tri PS2 Factor AVTs4 per Unit 4/11/11
Residential
Typically less than 500
110
General Light Industrial
employees, free standing and
single use. Examples: printing
plants, material testing
laboratories, data processing and
equipment assembly.
GFA
6.97
1
6.97
$342
$257
Industrial park areas that contain
130
Industrial Park
a number of industrial and/or
related facilities. A mix of
manufacturing, service and
warehouse
GFA
1 6.96
1
6.96
1 341
256
Facilities that convert raw
140
Manufacturing
materials or parts into finished
products. Typically have related
office, warehouse, research and
associated functions.
GFA
3.82
1
3.82
187
140
150
Warehouse
Facilities devoted to storage of
goods and materials. Includes
offices and maintenance facilities
GFA
4.96
1
4.96
243
182
151
Mini -Warehouse
Storage units or vaults rented for
storage of goods
GFA
2.50
1
2.50
123
92
1.00
5.04
$247
Lodging facility that may include
restaurants, lounges, meeting
310
Hotel
rooms and/or convention facilities
Room
8.17
1
8.17
400
300
Sleeping accommodations and
320
Motel
often a restaurants. Free on -site
parking and little or no meeting
spaces.
I Room
1 5.63
1
5.63
276
207
Average
1.00 6.90
1 $338
$254
(1) Land Use Units_
GFA - 1,000 sq It gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq It gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition-
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use-
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units-
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies-
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Rate
Imposed at
75% of
Pass -By Scheduled
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until
Code INajasc,. bon Units' TO PS2 Factor3 AVTs4 per Unit 4/11/11
Residenti
412 s
Local Park
Municipal owned parks, varying
widely as to location, type and
number of facilities.
Acres?
2.28
1
2.28
$112
$84
Regional park authority owned
parks, varying widely as to
417
Regional Park
location, type and number of
facilities.
Acres 7
4.57
1
4.57
224
168
Average
3.43 1.00 3.43
Municipal and private gol
courses. May or may not have a
430
Golf Course
driving range and clubhouse
Holes 35.74 1 35.74
1,751
1,313
Multi -purpose recreational
4358
Multipurpose Recreation
facilities containing two more o
Facility
of the following uses at one site:
mini -golf, batting cages, video
arcade, bumper boats, go-cart
and driving ranges.
Acres
90.38
1 1
90.38
1 4,429
3,322
Privately owned with weightlifting
493
Athletic Club
and other facilities often including
swimming pools, hot tubs,
saunas, racquetball, squash and
handball courts.
GFA
43.00
1
43.00
2,107
1,580
Recreational facilities similar to
Recreational Community
and including YMCAs, often
495
Center
including classes, day care,
meeting rooms, swimming pools,
tennis, racquetball, handball,
weightlifting, locker moms and
food service
GFA
22.88
1
22.88
1,121
841
Average 32.94 1.00 32.94
$1,614
$1,211
Recreational facilities with
bowling lanes which may include
4378
Bowling Alley
a small lounge, restaurant o
snack bar.
Lane
33.33
1
33.33
1,633
1,225
(1) Land Use Units_
GFA - 1,000 sq It gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq It gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity,
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition-
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use-
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited-
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units-
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies-
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Rate
Imposed at
75% of
Pass -By Scheduled
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until
Code Name Description Units' Tri PS2 Factor3 AVTs4 per Unit 4/11/11
Residential
Serves student attending
520
Elementary School
kindergarten through 5th or 6th
grade Public or private.
GFA
14.49
1
14.49
$710
$533
Public. Serves students that have
522
Middle School
completed elementary and no
yet in high school.
GFA
13.78
1
13.78
675
506
530
High School
Public. Typically serving 9 to 12th
Grades
GFA
12.89
1
12.89
632
474
540
Junior/ Community Collage
Two-year junior or community
colleges
GFA
27.49
1
27.49
1,347
1,010
Contains worship area. May
560
Church
include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area and
facilities
GFA
9.11
1
9.11
446
335
Facility for pre-school children
565
Day Care
care primarily during the daytime
hours. May include classrooms,
meeting area and playground
GFA
79.26
0.1
7.93
388
291
Public or Private. Contains
590
Library
shelved books, reading rooms
and sometime meeting rooms
GFA
54.00
1
54.00
2,646
1,985
Average
30.15 0.87
$978
$734
550
University / College
Four-year and graduate
institutions
Student
2.38
1
2.38
117
88
Includes a clubhouse with dinning
591 a
Lodge / Fraternal Organization
and drinking facilities,
recreational and entertainment
areas and meeting rooms
Members
0.29
1
0.29
14
11
(1) Land Use Units_
GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition-
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use-
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units-
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies-
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Rate
Imposed at
75% of
Pass -By Scheduled
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until
Code Name Description Units' Tri PS2 Factor3 AVTs4 per Unit 4/11/11
Residenti
Medical and/or surgical care
610
Hospitals
facility with overnight
accommodations for ambulatory
and non- ambulatory patients.
GFA
17.57
1
17.57
$861
$646
A facility whose primary function
620
Nursing Home
is to care for persons who are
unable to care for themselves
Beds
2.37
1
2.37
116
87
Usually contains offices, meeting
715
Single Tenant Office Building
rooms, file storage areas,
restaurants or cafeteria and other
service functions
GFA
11.57
1
11.57
567
425
Provides diagnosis and
7208
Medical -Dental Office
outpatient care. Typically
operated be private physicians or
dentists.
GFA
36.13
1
36.13
1,770
1,328
Park or campus -like planned unit
750
Office Park
development that contains office
buildings, banks, restaurants and
service stations.
GFA
11.42
1
11.42
560
420
Single building or complex of
760
Research and Development
buildings devoted to research
Center
and development. May contain
light fabrication facilities.
GFA
8.11
1 1
8.11
1 397
298
Group of fex-type or incubator 1-
2 story building served by a
common mad system. Typically
includes a mix of offices, retail
and wholesale stores,
770
Business Park
restaurants, recreational areas,
warehousing, manufacturing, ligh
industrial or research. The
average mix is 20q to 30q office
/ commercial and 70q to 80q
industrial / warehouse.
GFA
1 12.76
1 1
1 12.76
1 625
469
(1) Land Use Units_
GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity,
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition-
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use-
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited-
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units-
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies-
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Rate
Imposed at
75% of
Pass -By Scheduled
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until
Code Ablame Description Units' Tri PS2 Factor3 AVTs4 per Unit 4/11/11
Residential
Small free standing building that
sells hardware, building material
812
Building Materials and Lumber
and lumber. May include yard
storage and sheded storage
areas which are not included in
the unit calculation.
GFA
45.16
0.82
37.03
$1,815
$1,361
A free-standing discount store
813
Discount Super Store
that also contains a full service
grocery department under the
same roof.
GFA
49.21
0.82
40.35
1,977
1,483
Small strip shopping centers
containing a variety of retail
shops that typically specialize in
814
Specialty Retail
apparel, hare goods, services
such a real estate, investment,
dance studios, florists and small
restaurants.
GFA
44.32
0.82
36.34
1,781
1,336
Free-standing store that
815
Discount Store
offers a variety of customer
services, centralized cashiering
and a wide range of products.
GFA
56.02
0.82
45.94
2,251
1,688
Typically free-standing buildings
816
Hardware / Paint Store
with parking that sell hardware
and paints.
GFA
51.29
0.82
42.06
2,061
1,546
Free-standing building with yard
containing planting and
817
Nursery / Garden Center
landscape stock. Unit calculation
only applies to building and not
yard and storage.
GFA
36.08
0.82
29.59
1,450
1,088
823
Factory Outlet
A shopping center that primarily
houses factory outlet stores.
GFA
26.59
0.52
13.83
678
509
Integrated group of commercial
establishments that is planned,
developed and managed as a
820
Shopping Center
pp 9
unit. Provides enough on -site
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 sq It gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq It gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition-
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use-
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited-
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units-
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Rate
Imposed at
75% of
Pass -By Scheduled
Fee Until
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
4/11/11
Code Name scription Units TripsZ Factory AVTs4 per Unit
Residential
841
Car Dealership
New and used car dealershipwith
sales, service and parts,
GFA
33.34
0.82
27.34
$1,340
$1,005
848
Tire Store
Primary business is sellingand
repair of tires
GFA
24.87
0.82
20.39
999
749
Free-standing grocery store. May
850
Supermarket
also contain ATMs,
photo center, pharmacies and
video rental.
GFA
102.24
0.64
65.43
3,206
2,405
Sells convenience foods,
851
Convenience Market -24 hours
newspapers, magazines and
often beer and wine. Open
24 hours per day.
GFA
737.99
0.39
287.82
14,103
10,577
Sells convenience foods,
852'
Convenience Market- 15 to 16
newspapers, magazines and
hours
often beer and wine. Open
15 to 16 hours per day.
GFA
500.37
1 0.39
195.15
1 9,562
7,172
Discount store /warehouse wher
shoppers pay a fee to gel
861
Discount Club
wholesale prices. May have a
wide variety of goods. Many item
are sold in bulk orlarge quantities.
GFA
41.8
0.52
21.74
1,065
799
Pharmacy without drive thm
Facilities filling medical
880
window
prescriptions without a drivethru
window.
GFA
90.06
0.47
42.33
2,074
1,556
Facilities filling medical
881
Pharmacy with drive thm wincloi
prescriptions with a drive thm
window.
GFA
86.16
0.51
43.94
2,153
1,615
890 Furniture Store
Sells furniture, accessories and
often carpet / floor covering.
GFA
5.06
0.47
2.38
117
88
Average
ENF78
(1) Land Use Units_
GFA - 1,000 sq It gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq It gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition-
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use-
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units-
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies-
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 8
Rate
Imposed at
75% of
Pass -By Scheduled
Fee Until
ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee
4/11/11
Code Name escription Units Trips2 Factory AVTs4 per Unit
Residential
Usually a free-standing buildin
911
Walk -In Bank
with a parking lot offering bankin
services. May are ATMs
GFA
156.48
0.53
82.93
$4,064
$3,048
Usually a free-standing building
with a parking Iotoffering banking
912
Walk -In Bank with DriveThm
Window
services.
Has a drive thru window. Mayare
ATMs
GFA
246.49
0.53
130.64
6,401
4,801
High quality eatingestablishment
931
Quality Restaurant
with turnoverrates greater than 1
hour
GFA
89.59
0.56
50.17
2,458
1,844
High Turnover Sit -Down
Sit down eating establishmenWith
932
Restaurant
turnover rates of less than l hour.
GFA
127.15
0.56
71.20
3,489
2,617
Fast Food without Drive Thm
Fast food without a drivethrough
933
window.
GFA
716.00
0.50
358.00
17,542
13,157
Fast food with a drive through
934
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
window.
GFA
496.12
0.50
248.06
12,155
9,116
Average
$5,764
944
Gas Station
Sells gasoline and may also
Fueling
provide vehicle service andrepair.
Positions
168.56
0.58
97.76
4,790
3,593
Sells gasoline and may also
Gas Station with Convenience
provide vehicle service andrepair.
945
Market
Also contains a convenience
market.
Fueling
Positions
162.78
0.44
71.62
3,510
2,633
Sells gasoline and may also
Gas Station with Convenience
provide vehicle service andrepair.
946
Market and Car Wash
Also contains a convenience
market and carwash.
Fueling
Positions
152.84
0.44
67.25
3,295
2,471
$2,899
947 s
Self -Service Car Wash
Allows self cleaning of cars by
Wash
providing stalls for drivers
Stalls
108.00
0.44
47.52
2,328
1,746
(1) Land Use Units_
GFA - 1,000 sq It gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq It gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition-
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use-
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units-
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies-
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
7-6-1601. Definitions. Page 1 of 1
Montana Od Annotated 2005
Fre,ious Section W-A Cxwdenta Part Canter>ta 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.
PrawrdRnf by Oeboraoa Lopjsiar;vo Soria s
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1601.htm 1/4/2006
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirement... Page 1 of 1
Montam CodeAnnotated 2005
Pre�iaus Section W-A CoMenie 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 documentation that:
(a) describes existing conditions of the facility;
(b) establishes level of service standards;
(c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
(d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service;
(e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility;
(f) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a
correlation between impact fees and benefits;
(g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is
needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits;
(h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate
share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area;
(i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs
and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee;
0) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and
(k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that:
(i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth;
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years.
(2) The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the
public upon request.
(3) The amount of each impact fee imposed must be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or
improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new
development. The calculation of each impact fee must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
(4) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the
documentation required under subsection (1).
(5) An impact fee must meet the following requirements:
(a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's
share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development.
(b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the
governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a
proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs:
(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.
Pm%ddenf by Oeboraoa LL2p;&;af;-,-o Scric:s
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm 1/4/2006
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal requir... Page 1 of 1
Montam Code Annotated 2005
Flre,ious Section W-A CoMenia Para Canier>ta Search Help Next Section
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required.
(1) The collection and expenditure of impact fees must comply with this part. The collection and expenditure of impact
fees must be reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees. The ordinance or
resolution adopted by the governmental entity must include the following requirements:
(a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested with all
interest accruing to the fund.
(b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts.
(c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee ordinance or resolution or in
accordance with 7-6-1602, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property
at the time that the refund was due.
(2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no earlier than the date of
issuance of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of
wastewater or water service connection or well or septic permitting.
(3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess
capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of
the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented
pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a
governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing
facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental
entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share
of the costs to provide the excess capacity.
(4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of
payment of impact fees if -
(a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6-1602;
(b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the
proposed use by the governmental entity;
(c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or constructions are established as part
of the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and
(d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as part of the adopting ordinance
or resolution if the dedication of land or construction of public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due
from an individual development.
(5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or
for rebuilding a damaged structure unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in 7-6-
1602(1)0). If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or
use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be imposed.
(6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refunds or credits:
(a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 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.
Ru-idcnf by Oeboraoa Lopjslar;vo Soria s
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1603.htm 1/4/2006
7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. Page 1 of 1
Montana Code Annotated 2005
Flre,ious Section W-A CoMenta Part Canter>ta 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.
Prawrtfsnf by O{foruaoa Lopislaf;vo Scrr;c:s
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.htm 1/4/2006