3. Transportation Impact FeesReport for
City of Kalispell
Final Report
Impact Fees for the
Transportation System
February 2007
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 432-3700
February 25,2007
Mr. James Hansz, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59903
Sub j ect: Final Report - Impact Fees for the Transportation System
Dear Mr. Hansz:
HDR Engineering Inc. (d.b.a. HDR/EES) was retained by the City of Kalispell (City) to
determine impact fees for the transportation system for new development. To that end, please
find attached our final report detailing the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the
review undertaken by HDR/EES for the determination of cost based impact fee for the City's
transportation system. This final report has included the changes and comments from the Impact
Advisory Committee. HDR/EES recommends that the City have the charges set forth in this
report reviewed by its legal counsel to assure compliance with Montana law.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this technical report to the City. Should you have any
questions about this report, please call. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project.
We look forward to the opportunity to continue to provide assistance to the City.
Sincerely yours,
HDR ENGINEERING INC D.B.A. HDR/EES).
Randall P. Goff
Project Principal
Attachment
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.............................................................................................................. 3-3
4 Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fee 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 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 Recommendation............................................................................... 5-5
5.9 Summary.............................................................................................................. 5-5
Contents
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
Tables
5-1 City of Kalispell, Montana P.M. Hour New Trips ............................................... 5-2
5-2 Allowable Transportation Impact Fee................................................................. 5-4
5-3 Allowable Transportation Impact Fee — Residential Development ..................... 5-4
Appendix A — Transportation Impact Fees
A-1 Residential New Trips
A-2 Commercial New Trips
A-3 Street Cost
A-4 Equipment Lists
A- 5 Summary
A-6 Trip Examples
A-7 Allowable Fee Schedule
Appendix B- Montana Code - Impact Fees
Contents
-i - 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 transportation system. Impact fees are a one-time
assessment against new development to pay for the cost of "The objective of this
infrastructure required to provide service. Impact fees provide report is to properly place
the means of balancing the cost requirements for new in context the purpose of
infrastructure between existing customers and new customers. impact fees, and to
The portion of future capital improvements that will provide determine cost based
service (capacity) to new customers is included in the impact impact fees for the
fees. In contrast to this, the City has future capital improvement transportation system
projects that are related to curing existing deficiencies. These that complies with
infrastructure costs are typically funded by other sources and are Montana law."
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 the 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 ratemaking principles. This should not be construed as a
legal opinion with respect to Montana law. HDR/EES would recommend that the City have its
legal counsel review the methodology as discussed herein, to ensure compliance with Montana
law.
" Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-1
i
_ _ City of Kalispell, Montana
1.4 Summary
This section of the report has provided an overview of the report developed for the City
concerning impact fees. The next section of the report will discuss the "generally accepted"
utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees.
" Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-2
i
_ _ 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 the fees. Impact fees are
also often called system development charges (SDC's) '
capacity charges, buy -in fees, facility expansion charges,
plant investment fees, etc. 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 one-time charges assessed
against developers as a way to recover a part or all of the
"Impact fees are capital
recovery fees that are generally
established as one-time charges
assessed against developers as a
way to recover a part or all of
the cost of system capacity
constructed for their use.
cost of system capacity constructed for their use. Their application has generally occurred in
areas that are experiencing extensive new residential and/or commercial development."1 The
main objective of an impact fee is to assess against the benefiting party, their proportionate share
of the cost of infrastructure required to provide them service. Stated another way, impact fees
imply that new development creates new or additional costs on the system, and the impact fee
assesses that cost in an equitable manner to those customers creating the additional cost.
1 George A. Raftelis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and
Pricing (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73.
Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Utility Industry Practices 2-1
i
City of Kalispell, Montana
2.3 Historical Perspective
Historically, the financing of transportation infrastructure was typically paid for via taxes, grants,
or other funding sources. However, over the last twenty years, 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,
"Historically, thenancing of however there are a number of examples within the
infrastructure was typicallyaid '
p literature that point out this phenomena. As an
for taxes grants, or oth er un din p
' g f g survey a example of 67 Florida communities was
sources. However, over the last p Y
twenty years, the use of impact
�.Iliii
undertaken in 1986 and 1989. The number of
communities in 1986 using impact fees was 15. By
fees as a method ofnancrng 1989 the number of communities usingimpact fees
owth and infrastructure has p
g f had more than doubled to 32.2 As this funding
risen sharply. " g
mechanism gained popularity, legislatures across the
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
..........................
.............
...................................................................
...............................................................
.................................................................
................................
U.S. were developing legislation to provide utilities
with the authority to impose impact fees. Typical legislation generally provides the approach to
be used to develop the fees and requires that the fees be used only for growth -related needs and
not for current O&M requirements. At this time, the State of Montana has very specific
legislation related to impact fees. This specific legislation regarding the fees 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 towards
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 "fin impact fee is a
111
view new development as creating the need for new or regulation and not a used fee
p g ,,
Irrr
expanded facilities. As a result, without payment of impact o� revenue raising device. To
fees the utilitywould have insufficient revenues to provide understand this perspective,
the facilities, and therefore the community is unable to one must view new
accommodate new develo ment. With this said im act developmen as creating the
p � p111
fees do have certain financial objectives associated with need fob new or expanded
them. While on the surface it ma ppsimply a ear as 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. These objectives tend to lean more towards 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 "Generally Accepted" Utility Industry Practices 2-2
i
City of Kalispell, Montana
One key financial objective that is achieved from impact fees is equity. 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 results in longer commute times. This
occurs due to 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.
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.
These are as follows:
• Development will occur on those parcels with lower or non-existent 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. Provided below is a
brief explanation of each.
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 SDCs (impact fees) are
charged and the second is just outside where lower or no
SDCs (impact fees) 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
Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Utility Industry Practices 2-3
i
City of Kalispell, Montana
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
The other argument and myth that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they are bad for
economic development. The argument against this position is as follows:
"The argument goes that because SDCs (impactfees) raise the price of doing business,
they frustrate economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First,
remember that SDCs (impactfees) 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
SDCs (impact fees). Besides, local governments retain the option to waive SDCs
(impact fees) 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 SDCs (impactfees) 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."I
As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, availability
charges 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) no new development can
occur. Therefore, 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 has provided an overview of the financial objectives associated with
impact fees and some of the issues surrounding them. This section should have provided a basic
understanding of the fees such that when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning
the implementation of impact fees, they can be placed in proper perspective. The next section of
the report will provide an overview of methodologies for the imposition of impact fees.
3 Nelson. "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 55.
4 Nelson, "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 56.
Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Utility Industry Practices 2-4
i
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 that is used to establish
cost -based impact fees. Presented in the section of the report is an overview of impact fees
criteria and general methodologies that are used to develop cost -based fees.
3.2 Impact fee Criteria
In the determination and establishment of the impact fees, a number of different criteria are often
utilized. The criteria often used by utilities to establish impact fees are as follows:
• Understanding and acceptance
• Transportation planning criteria
• Financing criteria, and
• State/local laws
The component of understanding and acceptance implies that the charge is easy to understand.
This criterion has implications on the way that 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 which 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 the amount 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. System 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 that there be a
connection (nexus) established between new
development and expanded facilities required to
accommodate new development; and appropriate
apportionment of the cost to the new development in
relation to benefits reasonably received.
One of the driving forces behind establishing cost -based impact fees is that "growth pays for
growth." Therefore, impact fees are typically established as a means of having new customers
pay an equitable share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing
criteria for establishing impact fees relates to the method used to finance infrastructure of the
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-1
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
system and assures that customers are not paying twice for infrastructure — once through impact
fees and again through gas tax or property assessments.
Many states and local communities have enacted laws which govern the calculation and
imposition of impact fees. These laws must be followed in the determination of the 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 the 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 that are used to establish impact fees. Within the
"generally accepted" impact fee methodology, there are a number of different steps undertaken.
The steps undertaken are as follows:
• Determination of transportation planning criteria,
• Calculation of the transportation impact fee, and
• Determination 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 method for defining trips is on P.M. hour of
generation. 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. 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
generally used to describe LOS.
The transportation impact fee represents the portion of new street projects that provide additional
capacity to serve new development. 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. Next, the cost is then determined to serve 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 caused by
growth regardless of the benefit to existing customers.
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-2
-i - 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 the 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.
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 "Trip Generation ", published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The Trip Generation manual is a compilation of study measuring
traffic by development type and by some factor 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
transportation plan
Trips rates for commercial development are often time reduced for by-pass trips. By-pass trips
are trips that are recorded in the survey data, but actually not new trips. An example is a person
who drives to work in the morning and on the way home from work in the evening, stops at a
fast food restaurant to get dinner and then drives home. In this case, the fast food restaurant
would be charged for two trips, when in fact no new trips were generated, since 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 establishment such a paint store, flower shop, 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.
3.4 Summary
This section has 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. Given this background, the next
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-3
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
section of the report discusses any specific legal criteria that must be used by the City in the
establishment of its transportation impact fees.
Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-4
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
4.1 Introduction
An important consideration in establishing impact fees is any legal requirements at the state or
local level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact
fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used. Given that, it is important for the City to
understand these legal requirements. This section of the report provides an overview of the legal
requirements for establishing impact fees under Montana 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 assure that
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 I R S 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
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-1
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
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 requiredfor development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user
fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for
county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and
systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or
iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to
meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that
have been adopted by the governmental entity.
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or
resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which
an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve
documentation that:
(a) describes existing conditions of the facility,.
(b) establishes level of service standards;
(c)forecastsfuture additional needsfor servicefor 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;
(j) 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 foN construction of the capital
(iv) covers at least a S year period and is reviewed and updated at least
every 2 years.
.... S) An impact fee must meet the following requirements.,
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-2
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
(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 ofservice.
(e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of
the facility.
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits --
mechanismfor 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 costsfor
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 assure that the proportional share
standard is met and the impact fees are in compliance with Montana law.
4.3 Summary
This section of the report has 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 assure compliance with Montana law.
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-3
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
5.1 Introduction
This section of the report presents the development of the transportation impact fee. The
calculation of the transportation impact fees presented in this section are based on the City's
future capital improvements as identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan, and planning
criteria from the master plan entitled, Kalispell Area Transportation Plan and Bypass Feasibility
Study dated February 1993 prepared by CCRS Civil Engineers, Inc. (the Transportation Master
Plan). To the extent that the cost and timing of future capital improvements change, then the
impact fees presented in this section should be updated to reflect the cost of these 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 Master Plan established a service area that included the entire area of the
City and no breakdown was made as to specific areas of the City. Based on these factors and the
intuitive knowledge of the transportation system, the City and the Impact Advisory Committee
determined that for the purpose of calculating and imposing Transportation Impact Fees, that the
entire City would be treated as a single zone pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1) (g).
5.4 Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees
As was discussed in Section 3, the process of calculating impact fees is based upon a four -step
process. In summary form, these steps were as follows:
• Determination of new P.M hour 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
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
Each of these areas is discussed in more detail below.
5.4.1 P.M. Hour Trip Generation
The number of P.M. hour new trips was based on the planning criteria in the Transportation
Master Plan. The information from the Transportation Master Plan used to determine new P.M.
hour trips was population growth and employment growth from 1990 to 2015. These were
adjusted to reflect actual population and current projections. The population growth in the City
was divided by the number of persons per household to determine new households. This was
then multiplied by the number of trips per household to determine new P.M. hour trips. For the
commercial sector, the number of new employees per business type was estimated for the City
based on discussions with City staff. The number of new employees was then multiplied by the
number of P.M. hour trips per employee by business type to determine the number of new P.M.
hour trips. A summary of the new P.M hour trips is presented in Table 5-1.
Details of the new P.M. hour trips are provided in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 for the residential class
and commercial class, respectively. A summary of the new P.M hour trips is presented in Table
5-1
Residential 5,250
Commercial 14,617
Total New P.M Hour Trips 1907
The number of new P.M. hour 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 maj or 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 as follows:
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.
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-2
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
NEW STREETS AND INTERSECTIONS— The City's transportation master plan identified a number
of street and intersection improvements required to maintain the current level of service within
the City. While the transportation master plan identified improvements for the greater Kalispell
area, those improvements that were not within the City were eliminated from the calculation.
The allocation of street and intersection improvements were allocated to new development
based on maintaining the current level of service. To the extent that the current level of service
is increased by the improvement, then the allocation was reduced to reflect that portion of the
improvement that would provide capacity to serve new development. The CIP costs were then
escalated to current 2006 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.
The result was a cost of $833.06 per P.M hour of trip generation. Details of the calculations are
provided in Exhibit 3.
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 P.M. hour trip. Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 4.
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. Therefore, the City
has included a transportation administrative charge of $41.65 per P.M. hour trip which is equal to
5% of the impact fee collected.
5.4.3 Credits
The final step in calculating the transportation impact fee was to determine if a credit for
payment from other revenue sources was 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 used gas tax revenue and the street assessment fee for maintenance of the
street system and 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, net of any credits.
"Allowable" refers to concept that the calculated impact fee as shown in Table 5-2 is the City's
cost -based impact fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the
allowable impact fee, but not over that amount. 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
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-3
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
calculated net allowable transportation impact fee for the City is shown in the Table 5-2.
Street Cost $ 833.06
Equipment 0.00
Administrative Charge 41.65
Credit 0.00
Total per P.M. Hour Trip $874.71
The total impact fee as shown for a P.M. hour trip is $874.71. The details of the net allowable
impact fee are shown on Exhibit 5 of the Technical Appendices.
For ease of administration, the recommended charge for P.M. hour trip is $875. To determine
the cost per development type, the number P.M. hour trips per development type must be applied
to the cost per P.M. hour trip. A summary of the trips per development type based on the "Trip
Generation Seventh Addition ", published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers is provided
in Exhibit 6. These trips also include bypass trips.
The trip generation reports provided in "Trip Generation Seventh Addition ", published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers reflect an average of national conditions which may not be
applicable to the City. Therefore, the trip generation rates were reduced to 77% of the national
averages to reflect local conditions. This reduction was base on the trip generation rate for the
City (0.79 trips per dwelling unit) to the national average (1.02 per dwelling unit). The number
of categories was also reduced to reflect local business types.
A summary of the transportation impact feel for residential development is shown in Table 5-3.
Details of the impact fee for other development types are provided in Exhibit 7.
Residential $ 691 per unit
Apartment
Condominium/Townhouse
Rented Townhouse/Duplex
454 per unit
352 per unit
495 per unit
As shown, the transportation impact fee for a single family residential unit is $691.
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-4
-i - 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 utilized. These are as follows:
The City's asset records were used to determine the existing equipment costs.
The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing investments was 6.0%.
15.0 years worth of interest were included in the cost of equipment.
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 or
interest charges and inflation. Therefore, HDR/EES would recommend that 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 tracks 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 two-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 two 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 ratemaking
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
-i - City of Kalispell, Montana
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Residential New Trips
Exhibit 1
1990
591218
111917
20.12%
1995
661800
131000
11083
19.46%
2000
741471
141223
21306
19.10%
2005
831172
181480
61563
22.22%
2010
911500
231000
111083
25.14%
2015
1001000
281000
161083
28.00%
Average Household Size
2.42 Persons per DU
New Single Family Dwelling Units 61646
Trips per Dwelling Unit
0.79
New Trips 5,250
1 - Based on actual data and current projections.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Commercial New Trips
Exhibit 2
Farm
11056
11983
927
10.00%
93
0.45
42
Agri & Forest Service
494
11120
626
10.00%
63
0.45
28
Mining
41
118
77
10.00%
8
0.45
3
Construction
11951
41063
21112
28.00%
591
0.45
266
Manufacturing
31994
41983
989
30.00%
297
0.45
134
Transportation and Utilities
11832
21939
11107
30.00%
332
0.45
149
Wholesale Trade
801
11833
11032
30.00%
309
2.41
746
Retail Trade
61394
121235
51841
30.00%
11752
2.41
41223
Finance and Insurance
21145
51485
31340
30.00%
11002
2.41
21415
Services
81326
161759
81433
30.00%
21530
2.41
61097
Federal Government
11239
11882
643
40.00%
257
0.45
116
State and Local Gov.
21810
51018
21208
40.00%
883
0.45
397
Total
31,083
58,418
27,335
8J 17
14,617
1 - From transportation master plan - adjusted for new population projections.
2 - PM peak hour trips per employee includes by-pass trips.
N
d
d
LL
C.�
CL
E
CL O
Y o N
O
U
o CL �
U H cn
to
CL
•L
H
aa)
z
ice+ 4-
O O
CD
(7 z
a)
Q
4+
N
O
0
V- N
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Equipment List
Exhibit 4
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
Gallion T500
Grader
1969
20
41 K3371 C03626
1969
25,000
59,914
0.00% -
383
Mobile
Sweeper
1977
20
802-243
1977
35,081
84,074
0.00% -
300
1HC-DT 466
S1900 Tandem
1982
20
2HTAF159CCA19897
1982
45,316
108,602
0.00% -
306
IHC
Tymco Sweeper
1991
20
1 HTSAZRN 1 M H343712
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
41 C337
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
1 FDXHOC3RVA31037
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
Mulch Master
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
1 C9SY1017V1418230
1997
21,000
35,479
0.00% -
345
Tennant
830 II Sweeper
1999
20
P9613O26
1999
14,322
21,535
0.00% -
346
Tennant
830 II Sweeper
1999
20
P96113O131
199
14,324
34,328
0.00% -
330
Ford
L-9000 Flush Trk
1994
20
1FTYA95VOSVA26192
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
2FZAASAK1 3AM051 01
2003
75,505
89,928
0.00% -
301
Elgin
Eagle Sweeper
2005
10
5DN90189
2004
22,721
25,529
0.00% -
Total $
New Trips 19,867
Cost per Trip $ -
1 - No equipment costs were allocated to new development.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Summary
Exhibit 5
Streets $ 833.06
Equipment -
Administration at 5% 41.65
Total Transportation Impact Fee $ 874.71
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
Pass -By
ITE
P.M. Trips
Trip
Adjusted
Code Name
Description
Units'
2
Factor 3
PMTs
Residential
210
Single Family
Detached
Single family detach housing
DU
1.02
1
1.02
220
Apartment
Rental dwelling with at least 3
units in the same building
DU
0.67
1
0.67
Rented
Rented rather than owned
224
Townhouse/
units with a minimum of two
Duplex
units
DU
0.73
1
0.73
Residential condominium/
Condominium/
townhouses under
230
Townhouse
single=family ownership.
Minimum of two -units in the
same building
DU
0.52
1
0.52
Trailers or manufactured
240
Mobile Home
home sited on permanent
foundations
DU
0.2
1
0.20
Congregate
Independent living
252
Care
developments that provide
centralized amenities such as
dining, housekeeping,
transportation and activities.
DU
0.2
1
0.20
254
Assisted Living
Residential settings that
provide oversite or assistance
for independent, or mentally
or physically limited persons.
DU
0.38
1
0.38
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
Pass -By
ITE
P.M. Trips
Trip
Adjusted
Code
Name
Description
Units'
2
Factor 3
PMTs
Industrial
Typically less than 500
employees, free standing and
110
General Light
single use. Examples:
Industrial
printing plants, material
testing laboratories, data
processing and equipment
assembly.
GFA
1.08
1
1.08
Industrial park areas that
130
Industrial Park
contain a number of industrial
and/or related facilities. A mix
of manufacturing, service and
warehouse
GFA
0.86
1
0.86
Facilities that convert raw
materials or parts into finished
140
Manufacturing
products. Typically have
related office, warehouse,
research and associated
functions.
GFA
0.75
1
0.75
Facilities devoted to storage
150
Warehouse
of goods and materials.
Includes offices and
maintenance facilities
GFA
0.61
1
0.61
151
Mini
Storage units or vaults rented
h
Warehouse ouse
for storage of goods
GFA
0.29
1
0.29
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
Pass -By
ITE
P.M. Trips
Trip
Adjusted
Code Name
Description
Units'
2
Factor 3
PMTs
Lodging
Lodging facility that may
310 Hotel
include restaurants, lounges,
meeting rooms and/or
convention facilities
Room
0.61
1
0.61
Sleeping accommodations
320 Motel
and often a restaurants. Free
on -site parking and little or no
meeting spaces.
Room
0.56
1
0.56
Recreational
412 5
Local Park
Municipal owned parks,
varying widely as to location,
type and number of facilities.
Acres 6
0.59
1
0.59
Regional park authority owned
417
Regional Park
parks, varying widely as to
location, type and number of
facilities.
Acres 6
0.26
1
0.26
Municipal and private golf
430
Golf Course
courses. Mayor may not
have a driving range and
clubhouse
Holes
3.56
1
3.56
Multi -purpose recreational
Multipurpose
facilities containing two more
435 7
Recreation
or of the following uses at one
Facility
site: mini -golf, batting cages,
video arcade, bumper boats,
go-carts and driving ranges.
GFA
5.77
1
5.77
Recreational facilities with
437 7
Bowling Alley
bowling lanes which may
include a small lounge,
restaurant or snack bar.
Lane
4.5
1
4.50
Theaters with one or more
8
Movie Theater
screens (generally less than
444
w/ Matinee
10) and which show daily
matinees
Screens
102.87
1
102.87
Privately owned with
weightlifting and other
493
Athletic Club
facilities often including
swimming pools, hot tubs,
saunas, racquetball, squash
and handball courts.
GFA
5.84
1
5.84
Recreational facilities similar
Recreational
to and including YMCAs, often
495
Community
including classes, day care,
Center
meeting rooms, swimming
pools, tennis, racquetball,
handball, weightlifting, locker
rooms and food service
I GFA
2.39
1
2.39
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
Pass -By
ITE
P.M. Trips
Trip
Adjusted
Code
Name
Description
Units'
2
Factor 3
PMTs
Institutional
522
Elementary
Serves student attending
School
kindergarten through 5th or
6th grade Public or private.
GFA
3.13
1
3.13
522
Middle School
Public. Serves students that
have completed elementary
and not yet in high school.
GFA
2.52
1
2.52
530
High School
Public. Typically serving 9 to
12th Grades
GFA
2.64
1
2.64
Junior/
540
Community
Two-year junior or community
Collage
colleges
GFA
0.24
1
0.24
550
University /
Four-year and graduate
College
institutions
Student
0.21
1
0.21
Contains worship area. May
560
Church
include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area and
facilities
GFA
1.41
1
1.41
Facility for pre-school children
565
Day Care
care primarily during the
daytime hours. May include
classrooms, meeting area and
playground
GFA
13.91
1
13.91
590
Library
Public or Private. Contains
shelved books, reading rooms
and sometime meeting rooms
GFA
7.02
1
7.02
Includes a clubhouse with
Lodge /
dinning and drinking facilities,
591 7
Fraternal
recreational and
Organization
entertainment areas and
meeting rooms
Members
1 0.03
1 1
0.03
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
Pass -By
ITE
P.M. Trips
Trip
Adjusted
Code
Name
Description
Units'
2
Factor 3
PMTs
Medical
Medical and/or surgical care
facility with overnight
610
Hospitals
accommodations for
ambulatory and non -
ambulatory patients.
GFA
0.92
1
0.92
A facility whose primary
620
Nursing Home
function is to care for persons
who are unable to care for
themselves
I Beds
1 0.30
1 1
1 0.30
Office
Single Tenant
Usually contains offices,
715
Office Building
meeting rooms, file storage
areas, restaurants or cafeteria
and other service functions
GFA
1.73
1
1.73
Provides diagnosis and
7
Medical -Dental
outpatient care. Typically
720
Office
operated be private
physicians or dentists.
GFA
6.63
1
6.63
Park or campus -like planned
750
Office Park
unit development that
contains office buildings,
banks, restaurants and
service stations.
GFA
1.5
1
1.50
Single building or complex of
Research and
buildings devoted to research
760
Development
and development. May
Center
contain light fabrication
facilities.
GFA
1.08
1
1.08
Group of flex -type or incubator
1-2 story building served by a
common road system.
Typically includes a mix of
offices, retail and wholesale
770
Business Park
stores, restaurants,
recreational areas,
warehousing, manufacturing,
light industrial or research.
The average mix is 20% to
30% office / commercial and
70% to 80% industrial /
warehouse.
I GFA
1 1.29
1 1
1 1.29
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
Pass -By
ITE
P.M. Trips
Trip
Adjusted
Code
Name
Description
Units'
2
Factor 3
PMTs
Retail
Small free standing building
Building
that sells hardware, building
812
Materials and
materials and lumber. May
Lumber
include yard storage and
sheded storage areas which
are not included in the unit
calculation.
GFA
5.56
0.82
4.56
Discount
hfree-standing discount store
813
Supper Store
that also contains oII s a u
service grocery department
under the same roof.
GFA
4.03
0.82
3.30
Small strip shopping centers
containing a variety of retail
814
Specialty Retail
shops that typically specialize
in apparel, hare goods,
services such a real estate,
investment, dance studios,
florists and small restaurants.
GFA
5.02
0.82
4.12
Free-standing store that offers
815
Discount Store
a variety of customer services,
centralized cashiering and a
wide range of products.
GFA
5.43
0.82
4.45
Hardware /
Typically free-standing
816
Paint Store
buildings with parking that sell
hardware and paints.
GFA
4.74
0.82
3.89
Free-standing building with
yard containing planting and
817
Nursery /
landscape stock. Unit
Garden Center
calculation only applies to
building and not yard and
storage.
GFA
4.97
0.82
4.08
Integrated group of
commercial establishments
that is planned, developed
Shopping
and managed as a unit.
820
Center
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)
A shopping center that
823
Factory Outlet
primarily houses factory outlet
stores.
GFA
1.94
0.52
1.01
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
Pass -By
ITE
P.M. Trips
Trip
Adjusted
Code
Name
Description
Units'
2
Factor 3
PMTs
Retail
841
Car Dealership
New and used car dealership
with sales, service and parts,
GFA
2.72
0.82
2.23
Primary business is selling
848
Tire Store
and repair of tires
GFA
3.26
0.82
2.67
Free-standing grocery store.
850
Supermarket
May also contain ATMs, photo
center, pharmacies and video
rental.
GFA
12.02
0.64
7.69
Convenience
Sells convenience foods,
851
Market - 24
newspapers, magazines and
hours
often beer and wine. Open 24
hours per day.
GFA
53.42
0.39
20.83
Convenience
Sells convenience foods,
852
Market - 15 to
newspapers, magazines and
16 hours
often beer and wine. Open 15
to 16 hours per day.
GFA
36.22
0.39
14.13
Discount store / warehouse
861
Discount Club
where shoppers pay a fee to
get wholesale prices. May
have a wide variety of goods.
Many items are sold in bulk or
large quantities.
GFA
4.76
0.52
2.48
Pharmacy
Facilities filling medical
880
without drive
prescriptions without a drive
thru window
thru window.
GFA
11.07
0.47
5.20
Pharmacy with
Facilities filling medical
881
drive thru
prescriptions with a drive thru
window
window.
GFA
9.51
0.51
4.85
Sells furniture, accessories
890
Furniture Store
and often carpet / floor
covering.
GFA
0.53
0.47
0.25
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
Pass -By
ITE
P.M. Trips
Trip
Adjusted
Code
Name
Description
Units'
2
Factor 3
PMTs
Services
Usually a free-standing
911
Walk -In Bank
building with a parking lot
offering banking services. May
are ATMs
GFA
33.15
0.53
17.57
Usually a free-standing
Walk -In Bank
building with a parking lot
912
with Drive Thru
offering banking services. Has
Window
a drive thru window. May are
ATMs
GFA
53.46
0.53
28.33
Quality
High quality eating
931
Restaurant
establishment with turnover
rates greater than 1 hour
GFA
9.02
0.56
5.05
High Turnover
Sit down eating establishment
932
Sit -Down
with turnover rates of less
Restaurant
than 1 hour.
GFA
10.86
0.56
6.08
Fast Food
933
without Drive-
Fast food without a drive
Thru
through window.
GFA
52.4
0.50
26.20
934
Fast Food With
Fast food with a drive through
Drive-Thru
window.
GFA
46.68
0.50
23.34
Contains a bar where
936
Drinking Place
alcoholic beverages and light
food is served. Can provide
entertainment such as music
and games.
GFA
15.49
0.56
8.67
Sells gasoline and may also
944
Gas Station
provide vehicle service and
Fueling
repair.
Positions
15.65
0.58
9.08
Gas Station
with
Sells gasoline and may also
945
Convenience
provide vehicle service and
Market
repair. Also contains a
Fueling
convenience market.
Positions
13.38
0.44
5.89
Gas Station
Sells gasoline and may also
with
provide vehicle service and
946
Convenience
repair. Also contains a
Market and Car
convenience market and car
Fueling
Wash
wash.
Positions
13.77
0.44
6.06
�,�o
947
Self -Service
Allows self cleaning of cars by
Car Wash
providing stalls for drivers
Wash Stalls
5.79
0.44
2.55
Allows for the mechanical
948 7
Automated Car
cleaning of the exterior of
Wash
vehicles.
GFA
11.64
0.44
5.12
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Trip Examples
Exhibit 6
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1, 000 sq ft gross floor area.
GLA - 11 000 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) Peak hour trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(6) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(7) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(8) Limited study data uses Friday only data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Use the following formula for PM Peak Hour Trips and Pass -By Trip Factor.
PM Peak Hour Trips = Ln(Trips) = 0.66Ln(GFL) + 3.04
Pass -by Trip Factor - Ln(f) = -. 0291 Ln(GFL) + 5.001
(10) Based on peak hour of adjacent street traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 pm.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
Pass -By
ITE
P.M.Trip
Adjusted
Impact Fee
Code Name
Description
Units'
Trips 2
Factor s
4
PMTS
per Unit
Residential
210
Single Family Detached
Single family detach housing
DU
1.02
1
0.79
$ 691
220
Apartment
Rental dwelling with at least 3
units in the same building
DU
0.67
1
0.52
454
Rented rather than owned
224
Rented Townhouse/ Duplex
units with a minimum of two
units
DU
0.73
1
0.57
495
Residential condominium/
townhouses under
230
Condominium/ Townhouse
single=family ownership.
Minimum of two -units in the
same building
DU
0.52
1
0.40
352
Trailers or manufactured
240
Mobile Home
home sited on permanent
foundations
DU
0.2
1
0.15
136
Independent living
252
Congregate Care
developments that provide
centralized amenities such as
dining, housekeeping,
transportation and activities.
DU
0.2
1
0.15
136
254
Assisted Living
Residential settings that
provide oversite or assistance
for independent, or mentally
or physically limited persons.
DU
0.38
1
0.29
258
Industrial
Typically less than 500
employees, free standing and
110
General Light Industrial
single use. Examples:
printing plants, material
testing laboratories, data
processing and equipment
assembly.
GFA
1.08
1
0.84
732
Industrial park areas that
130
Industrial Park
contain a number of industrial
and/or related facilities. A
mix of manufacturing, service
and warehouse
GFA
0.86
1
0.67
583
Facilities that convert raw
materials or parts into
140
Manufacturing
finished products. Typically
have related office,
warehouse, research and
associated functions.
GFA
0.75
1
0.58
508
Facilities devoted to storage
150
Warehouse
of goods and materials.
Includes offices and
maintenance facilities
GFA
0.61
1
0.47
413
151
Mini -Warehouse
Storage units or vaults rented
for storage of goods
GFA
1 0.29
1 1
1 0.22
197
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
Pass -By
ITE
P.M.Trip
Adjusted
Impact Fee
Code
Name
Description
Units'
Trips 2
Factor s
4
PMTS
per Unit
Lodging
Lodging facility that may
310
Hotel
include restaurants, lounges,
meeting rooms and/or
convention facilities
Room
0.61
1
0.47
413
Sleeping accommodations
320
Motel
and often a restaurants. Free
on -site parking and little or no
meeting spaces.
Room
1 0.56
1 1
1 0.43
1 380
Recreational
412 5
Local Park
Municipal owned parks,
varying widely as to location,
type and number of facilities.
Acres 6
0.59
1
0.46
400
Regional park authority
417
Regional Park
owned parks, varying widely
as to location, type and
number of facilities.
Acres 6
0.26
1
0.20
176
Municipal and private golf
430
Golf Course
courses. Mayor may not
have a driving range and
clubhouse
Holes
3.56
1
2.76
2,413
Multi -purpose recreational
Multipurpose Recreation
facilities containing two more
435
Facility
or of the following uses at one
site: mini -golf, batting cages,
video arcade, bumper boats,
go-carts and driving ranges.
GFA
5.77
1
4.47
3,910
Recreational facilities with
437 7
Bowling Alley
bowling lanes which may
include a small lounge,
restaurant or snack bar.
Lane
4.5
1
3.49
3,050
Theaters with one or more
444 8
Movie Theater w/ Matinee
screens (generally less than
10) and which show daily
matinees
Screens
102.87
1
79.67
69,715
Privately owned with
weightlifting and other
493
Athletic Club
facilities often including
swimming pools, hot tubs,
saunas, racquetball, squash
and handball courts.
GFA
5.84
1
4.52
3,958
Recreational facilities similar
to and including YMCAs,
often including classes, day
495
Recreational Community
care, meeting rooms,
Center
swimming pools, tennis,
racquetball, handball,
weightlifting, locker rooms
GFA
1 2.39
1 1
1 1.85
1 1,620
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
Pass -By
ITE
P.M.Trip
Adjusted
Impact Fee
Code
Name
Description
Units'
Trips 2
Factor s
4
PMTS
per Unit
Institutional
522
Elementary School
Serves student attending
kindergarten through 5th or
6th grade Public or private.
GFA
3.13
1
2.42
2,121
522
Middle School
Public. Serves students that
have completed elementary
and not yet in high school.
GFA
2.52
1
1.95
1,708
530
High School
Public. Typically serving 9 to
12th Grades
GFA
2.64
1
2.04
1,789
540
Junior / Community Collage
Two-year junior or community
colleges
GFA
0.24
1
0.19
163
550
University / College
Four-year and graduate
institutions
Student
0.21
1
0.16
142
560
Church
Contains worship area. May
include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area and
facilities
GFA
1.41
1
1.09
956
Facility for pre-school children
565
Day Care
care primarily during the
daytime hours. May include
classrooms, meeting area
and playground
GFA
13.91
0.1
1.08
943
Public or Private. Contains
590
Library
shelved books, reading
rooms and sometime meeting
rooms
GFA
7.02
1
5.44
4,757
Lodge / Fraternal
5917
Organization
Includes a clubhouse with
dinning and drinking facilities,
recreational and
entertainment areas and
meeting rooms
Members
1 0.03
1 1
1 0.02
1 20
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
Pass -By
ITE
P.M.Trip
Adjusted
Impact Fee
Code
Name
Description
Units'
Trips 2
Factor s
4
PMTS
per Unit
Medical
Medical and/or surgical care
facility with overnight
610
Hospitals
accommodations for
ambulatory and non -
ambulatory patients.
GFA
0.92
1
0.71
623
A facility whose primary
620
Nursing Home
function is to care for persons
who are unable to care for
themselves
Beds
1 0.30
1 1
1 0.23
1 203
Office
Usually contains offices,
Single Tenant Office
meeting rooms, file storage
715
Building
areas, restaurants or
cafeteria and other service
functions
GFA
1.73
1
1.34
1,172
Provides diagnosis and
720'
Medical -Dental Office
outpatient care. Typically
operated be private
physicians or dentists.
GFA
6.63
1
5.14
4,493
Park or campus -like planned
750
Office Park
unit development that
contains office buildings,
banks, restaurants and
service stations.
GFA
1.5
1
1.16
1,017
Single building or complex of
Research and Development
buildings devoted to research
760
Center
and development. May
contain light fabrication
facilities.
GFA
1.08
1
0.84
732
Group of flex -type or
incubator 1-2 story building
served by a common road
system. Typically includes a
mix of offices, retail and
770
Business Park
wholesale stores, restaurants,
recreational areas,
warehousing, manufacturing,
light industrial or research.
The average mix is 20% to
30% office / commercial and
70% to 80% industrial /
warehouse.
GFA
1.29
1
1.00
1 874
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
Pass -By
ITE
P.M.Trip
Adjusted
Impact Fee
Code
Name
Description
Units'
Trips 2
Factor s
4
PMTS
per Unit
Retail
Small free standing building
that sells hardware, building
812
Building Materials and
materials and lumber. May
Lumber
include yard storage and
sheded storage areas which
are not included in the unit
calculation.
GFA
5.56
0.82
3.53
3,090
A free-standing discount store
813
Discount Supper Store
that also contains a full
service grocery department
under the same roof.
GFA
4.03
0.82
2.56
2,240
Small strip shopping centers
containing a variety of retail
814
Specialty Retail
shops that typically specialize
in apparel, hare goods,
services such a real estate,
investment, dance studios,
florists and small restaurants.
GFA
5.02
0.82
3.19
2,790
Free-standing store that
offers a variety of customer
815
Discount Store
services, centralized
cashiering and a wide range
of products.
GFA
5.43
0.82
3.45
3,018
Typically free-standing
816
Hardware / Paint Store
buildings with parking that sell
hardware and paints.
GFA
4.74
0.82
3.01
2,634
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
4.97
0.82
3.16
2,762
Integrated group of
commercial establishments
that is planned, developed
and managed as a unit.
820
Shopping Center
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)
A shopping center that
823
Factory Outlet
primarily houses factory outlet
stores.
GFA
1 1.94
1 0.52
1 0.78
1 684
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
Pass -By
ITE
P.M.Trip
Adjusted
Impact Fee
Code
Name
Description
Units'
Trips 2
Factor s
4
PMTS
per Unit
Retail
841
Car Dealership
New and used car dealership
with sales, service and parts,
GFA
2.72
0.82
1.73
1,512
848
Tire Store
Primary business is selling
and repair of tires
GFA
3.26
0.82
2.07
1,812
Free-standing grocery store.
850
Supermarket
May also contain ATMs,
photo center, pharmacies and
video rental.
GFA
12.02
0.64
5.96
5,213
Sells convenience foods,
851
Convenience Market - 24
newspapers, magazines and
hours
often beer and wine. Open
24 hours per day.
GFA
53.42
0.39
16.14
14,119
Convenience Market - 15
Sells convenience foods,
852
to 16 hours
newspapers, magazines and
often beer and wine. Open
15 to 16 hours per day.
GFA
36.22
0.39
10.94
9,573
Discount store / warehouse
861
Discount Club
where shoppers pay a fee to
get wholesale prices. May
have a wide variety of goods.
Many items are sold in bulk or
large quantities.
GFA
4.76
0.52
1.92
1,677
Pharmacy without drive thru
Facilities filling medical
880
window
prescriptions without a drive
thru window.
GFA
11.07
0.47
4.03
3,526
Pharmacy with drive thru
Facilities filling medical
881
window
prescriptions with a drive thru
window.
GFA
9.51
0.51
3.76
3,287
Sells furniture, accessories
land
890
Furniture Store
often carpet / floor
covering.
GFA
1 0.53
1 0.47
1 0.19
1 169
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
Pass -By
ITE
P.M.Trip
Adjusted
Impact Fee
Code
Name
Description
Units'
Trips 2
Factor s
4
PMTS
per Unit
Services
Usually a free-standing
911
Walk -In Bank
building with a parking lot
offering banking services.
May are ATMs
GFA
33.15
0.53
13.61
11,907
Usually a free-standing
Walk -In Bank with Drive
building with a parking lot
912
Thru Window
offering banking services.
Has a drive thru window. May
are ATMs
GFA
53.46
0.53
21.94
19,202
931
Quality Restaurant
High quality eating
establishment with turnover
rates greater than 1 hour
GFA
9.02
0.56
3.91
3,423
High Turnover Sit -Down
Sit down eating establishment
932
Restaurant
with turnover rates of less
than 1 hour.
GFA
10.86
0.56
4.71
4,121
933
Fast Food without Drive-
Fast food without a drive
Thru
through window.
GFA
52.4
0.50
20.29
17,756
Fast food with a drive through
934
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
window.
GFA
46.68
0.50
18.08
15,817
Contains a bar where
936
Drinking Place
alcoholic beverages and light
food is served. Can provide
entertainment such as music
and games.
GFA
15.49
0.56
6.72
5,879
Sells gasoline and may also
944
Gas Station
provide vehicle service and
Fueling
repair.
Positions
15.65
0.58
7.03
6,151
Gas Station with
Sells gasoline and may also
945
Convenience Market
provide vehicle service and
repair. Also contains a
Fueling
convenience market.
Positions
13.38
0.44
4.56
3,990
Sells gasoline and may also
Gas Station with
provide vehicle service and
946
Convenience Market and
repair. Also contains a
Car Wash
convenience market and car
Fueling
wash.
Positions
13.77
0.44
4.69
4,106
9471,11
Self -Service Car Wash
Allows self cleaning of cars by
Wash
providing stalls for drivers
Stalls
5.79
0.44
1.97
1,726
Allows for the mechanical
948 7
Automated Car Wash
cleaning of the exterior of
vehicles.
GFA
1 11.64
1 0.44
1 3.97
1 3,471
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
(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) Peak hour trips times Pass -By Trip Factor times 77.45% - reduced to reflect local conditions.
(5) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(6) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(7) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(8) Limited study data uses Friday only data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Use the following formula for PM Peak Hour Trips and Pass -By Trip Factor.
PM Peak Hour Trips = Ln(Trips) = 0.66Ln(GFL) + 3.04
Pass -by Trip Factor - Ln(f) = -. 0291 Ln(GFL) + 5.001
(10) Based on peak hour of adjacent street traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 pm.
7-6-1601. Definitions. Page 1 of 1
Montam Code Annotated 2005
PIgAiOl18 S9Cti011 MCA {;Oa911I'S Pad Czakmft S9BIch Fldp f"eft S9Ctic11
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.
PmWdad byftmMm LegOdsUm
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 Code Annotated 2005
PIgAiOl18 S9Cti011 MCA {;Oa911I'S Pad Czakmft S9BIch Fldp f"eft S9Ctic11
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;
(j) 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.
PmWdad byftmMm LegOdsUm
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
PIgAiOl18 S9Cti011 MCA {;Oa911I'S Pad Czakmft S9BIch Fldp f"eft S9Ctic11
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.
PmWdsdbyMbFdam Loodadw
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
Montam Code Annotated 2005
PIgAiOl18 S9Cti011 MCA {;Oa911I'S Pad Czakmft S9BIch Fldp f"eft S9Ctic11
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.
PmWded h ds'
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.htm 1/4/2006