Transportation Impact Fee RecommendationCity of Kalispell Public Works Department
Posh Office Box .l 997, Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 w Telephone (406)7 )8-77?ti, Fax (406)758-7831
REPORT To: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee Recommendation
MEETING DATE: 31 March 2008 Work Session
The Kalispell impact Fee Advisory Committee has re-evaluated the issue of
transportation impact fees for the City of Kalispell in light of the recently completed update of
the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan. Based on that re-evaluation, the iFAC has reached
consensus regarding a recommendation for appropriate transportation impact fees.
Members of the 1 FAC committee, the C ity's consultant, and staff will meet with City
Council to review and discuss the committee's fee recommendation and to answer any questions
posed by the City Council.
transportationmemo.doe
March 18, 2007
City Council
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 51s 03
Subject: 'Transportation Impact Fee Recommendation
Dear Council Members:
The Kalispell Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) has been working with Randy
Goff of HDR/EES, the impact fee consultant retained by the City of Kalispell to
determine impact fees for the transportation system for new development.
After extensive discussions, some of which included the impact to new development and
the recent decline in new development activity as well as discussion that the Council has
the ability to choose to establish a lower fee; a final draft transportation impact fee report
was prepared and reviewed by the IFAC. on March 5, 2008, the IFAC arrived at a
consensus to recommend the Transportation System Impact Fee Report, and the
methodology used by the City's consultant, to City Council for review and adoption.
Exhibit 7 of the report outlines the categories that will be used to calculate the impact fee
for each development type. While Exhibit 7 will suffice for the majority of applicants, it
is anticipated that City staff will have to refer to the Institute Transportation Engineering
(ITE) Trip Generation manual for developments that don't fit into an adopted category,
but the same methodology will be used. The applicant has the option of submitting to the
City a traffic generation study for review by City staff.
The City's consultant and the IFAC will be at the March 31, 2008, Council work session
to review the transportation report and answer any questions. We look forward to
working with Council on finalizing the transportation impact fees.
Sincerely yours,
Merna Terry
Chairperson
Impact Fee Advisory Committee
C.0 Impact Advisory Committee
James Hansz, P.E.
Terri Loudermilk
Randall Goff — HDR Engineering
Report for
City of Kalispell
Final Report
Impact Fees for the
Transportation System
March 2008
March 271,2008
Mr. Barnes Hansz, P.E.
Director of Public wo ��.
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59903
Subject: Final Report - Impact Fees for the Transportation System
Dear Mr. Hansz:
HDR Engineering Inc. (d.b.a. HDRIEES) 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 HDRIEES for the determination of cost based impact fee for the City's
transportation system. This final report has included 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 March 2008.
HDRIEES recommends that the City have 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
1.2 Overview of the Study......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Disclaimer............................................................................................................ T -1
1.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-
2 Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry
Practices
2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Defining Impact Fees........................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Historical Perspective ......................... ea ............................ , p o o p .... poet ...................... 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
M ' mees Contents
City of Kalispell, Montana
Tables
5--1 City of Kalispell, Montana Average Daily New Trips ........................................ 5-2
5-2 Allowable Transportation Impact Fee................................................................. -4
5-.3 Allowable Transportation impact Fee — Residential Development ..................... 5-4
Appendix A -- Transportation Impact Fees
I. Engineering Planning Memorandum
Z Street Capacity Analysis
3 Street Cost Allocation
4 Street Cost
5 Equipment Lists
6 Summary
7 Allowable Fee Schedule
Appendix E3-- Montana Cade Impact Fees
&
H- R..Contents #1
City of Kalispell, Montana
l sliUrg'Hol _[_
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"-111'' 111111111,
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
HDRIEES, 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. 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
��� 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
�� 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 "Impact fees are capital
an assessment and review of the fees. Impact fees are
also often called system development charges (SDC's), recoveryfees that are generally
Yg
established as one-time charges
capacity charges, buy -in fees, facility expansion charges,
plant investment fees, etc. Regardless of the name assessed against developers as a
applied to the fee, the concept is still the same. Simply way to recover a part or all of
stated, impact fees "are capital recovery fees that are the cost of system capacity
generally established as one-time charges assessed constructed for their use,
against developers as a way to recover a part or all of the
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."I 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 there 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. Raftetis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and
Pricin (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73.
Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Utility Industry Practices 2-1
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 Qrowth and infrastructure has risen sharply. To the best of our knowledge,
. no clear surveys or data exists to show this change,
"Historically, ti�e.�nuncrng of infrastructure was typically paid p
however, there are a number of examples within the
literature that. paint out this phenomena. As an
for taxes, grants, or other funding le a survey of 67 Florida communities was
sources. However, over the last example, Y
undertaken in �.9$6 and 1959. The number of
twenty years, the use of impactundertaken
in 1956 usin im act fees was �.5. f3
fees as a method of financing g p y
infrastructure 1989, the number of communities using impact fees
growth and has had more than doubled to 32r As this funding
risen sharply. " .g
mechanism gamed 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
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. To
fees, the utility would have insufficient revenues to provide understand this perspective,
the facilities, and therefore the community is unable to one must view new
accommodate new development. With this said, impact development as creating the
fees do have certain financial objectives associated with 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. These objectives tend to lean more towards financial equity between customers, as
opposed to simply producing revenue.
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
City of a
KaliS ell Montana
Kalispell,
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.
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
polley 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.
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 loop at many factors before a parcel is developed. one Smyth 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 thesystem. ?,
"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 (impactfees) are
Charged and the second is just outside where lower or no
SDC 's (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
:KIR In Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Utility Industry Practices 2-3
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 o f tl'evelopment in the long-term. 1 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 SDUS (impactfiees) raise the price cif doing business,
they frustrate econonic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First,
remember that SDC° 's (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
de,t.7elopment will be stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by
SDI 's (impact fees). Besides, local governments retain the option to waive SDI' 's
(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 SDC's (impact fees) waived as a solid demonstration
cif the local government's commitment to such development. '14
"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
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, ab
moratorium on new connections) no
occur. Therefore, developers are generally supportive of cost -based
when it provides available capacity and opportunities for development.
2.6 Summary
sent impact fees (i.e. a
new development can
impact fees, particularly
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.
Nelson. "System Development Charges for water, wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 55.
Nelson, "System Development Charges for water, wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 56.
Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" utility Industry practices 2-4
to City p 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/locallaws
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
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,
E Calculation of the transportation impact fee, and
R 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 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).
LDS 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 VIC ratio.
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 lv, 1C'®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.
Overview of impact Fee Methodologies 3-2
City of Kalispell, Montana
N Causation Approach. The entire cost of the project is allocated to growth if it caused by
growth regardless of the benefit to existing customers.
Of the three methods, the causation approach most aggressively allocates costs to growth. It is
also the most likely approach to be subject to judicial challenge and may not meet the -rational
nexus" test of the amount of infrastructure necessary to serge 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. It is recommended that this approach be used by the
City, since it provides for the most equitable allocation of new street projects between existing
and new development. The allocation procedure recommended is the ratio of the current Vf C
ratio at current standards to the VIC 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 "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 Zoo
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.
&e, Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
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
section of the report discusses any specific legal criteria that must be used by the City in the
establishment of its transportation impact fees.
FD : tit Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-4
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 HDRIEES.
4.2 Requirements under Montana Law
In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented
in conformance with local lavers. In particular, many states have established specific laws
7-6-1604 of the
Montana Code.
regarding the establishment, calcuiation 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 1R5. This vvas com.prehen6ve 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
City of Kalispell, Montana
not to exceed Sao 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 uselo
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 set -vice, 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) forecasts future additional needs for service for a decried period of time;
(d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet facture 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
benefats;
(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
W 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.
....5) An impact fee must meet the following requirements:
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-2
City of Kalispell, Montana
(a) The amount of the impact f�e 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 Feld to a higher level of service than existing
users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make
improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service.
(e) .Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of
the facility.
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits --
inechanism 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 7-6-1 6o2. 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 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.
tit Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity Charges for the City 4-3
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 muster plan entitled, Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the
"Transportation Plan'), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the
City Council on March , 2008. 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(l) (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 enti; e area of the
City and area outside the current City limits (the "Study Area") and no breakdown was made as
to specific areas of the City. However, for the purpose of calculation of the transporation impact
fees, only the trips generated and project costs within the current City limits were utilized.
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:
Im mee Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-1
City of Kalispell, Montana
• 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
Each of these areas is discussed in more detail below.
5.4.1 Average Daily "Trip Generation
The number of average daily trips was based on the planning criteria in the Transportation
Master flan.. The information used was new dwelling units, retail employment and non -retail
employment. This information was then further segregated between growth in the study area and
growth within the 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. Exhibit 1 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 791306
Commercial — Retail 40,013
Commercial — Nonretail Z271
Total New Average Dail Tri s 1421031
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 as follows:
■ New streets and intersections
• Major equipment items
s Administration costs
A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each of the functional plant components is
provided below.
at Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-2
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 level of service within.
the City. Based on the analysis prepared by RPA, and volume to capacity (V/C ratios and levels
of service, the percent allocated to new development was was determined based on the VCc
ratios in 2003 prior to the improvements divided by the Vf 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 master plan identified improvements for the greater Kalispell area, those
improvements that were not within the City were eliminated from the calculation based on the
analysis prepared by RPA (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3). The CIP 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. The result
was a cost of $122.93 per average daily trip. Details of the calculations are provided in Exhibit
4.
MAJOR EQuIP�tENT 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. Therefore, the City
has included a transportation administrative charge of $6.15 per average daily 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 sung 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
tit
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-3
City of Kalispell, Montana
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 the Table 5-2.
Street Cost $ 122.93
Equipment
Administrative Charge
Credit
Total per Average Daily Hour Trig
0.00
6.15
0.00
$129.08
The total impact fee as shown for an average daily hour trip is $129.08. The details of the net
allowable impact fee are shown on Exhibit 6.
For ease of administration, the recommended charge for P.M. hour trip is $129. To determine
the cost per development type, the number average daily trips per development type must be
applied to the cost per average daily trip.
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 80% of the national
averages to reflect the planning data used in the development of the Transportation Master Plan.
This reduction was base on the trip generation rate for the City (7.67 trips per dwelling unit) to
the national average (9.57 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.
fee
Residential $ 969 per unit
Apartment 695 per unit
Condominium/Townhouse 606 per unit
As shown, the transportation impact fee for a single family residential unit is $959.
Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5.4 L R.; la
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 rakes 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
City of Kalispell, Montana
Exhibit 1
Engineering Analysis Memorandum
TO: James C. Hansz, RE., Director �
Department of Public WorksAm
�r
City of Kalispell
FROM: Jeff Key, P.E.
Manager, Traffic & Transportation Division
Robert Peccia & Associates
DATE: February .13, 2008
SUBJECT: Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update
Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) was requested by the City to provide a short
memorandum discussing certain processes, assumptions and conclusions reached as part
of the ongoing effort associated with the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006
Update (the "'Transportation Plan'). The purpose of this memorandum is to provide
background and information as required under Montana law to support HDR
Engineering, Inc (d.b.a EESIHDR) in its calculation of Transportation Impact Fees for
the City as set forth in the report entitled "City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees'
dated February 2008 (the "impact Fee Report"). Consent is herein given by RPA for
inclusion of this memorandum in the Impact Fee Report.
RPA has been working on this project for the past eighteen (18) months. The draft
Transportation Plan has been adopted by both the Kalispell Technical Advisory
Committee (on December 4, 2007) and the Kalispell City Planning Board (on January 8,
2008). The Transportation Plan will be considered for adoption by the Kalispell City
Council on March 3, 2008.
The Transportation Plan is intended to be a "blueprint"' for the community to help guide
transportation decisions as the community grows. Not only is an attempt made to
identify and mitigate existing transportation system issues, but the attempt is also made to
identify and mitigate future transportation issues related to growth in the community. To
that end, an intricate process is used to assess what the future might hold out to the
planning horizon of the Transportation Plan (year 2030).
Perhaps the most crucial input for assessing future needs are the demand units associated
with growth. dwelling units, non -retail jobs, and retail jobs. These demand units are
paramount in the Transportation Plan because the travel demand model used to assess
future traffic characteristics in the community relies on these growth parameters and
where they will be located. As part of the Transportation Plan effort, a detailed
socioeconomic analysis was completed to arrive at the required growth related needs.
In general, forecasting for areas within the study area boundary were completed via
research of the current city Growth Polio, US Census Bureau data, forecasts available
through the Montana Department of Commerce, and the recent City of Kalispell Water
Robert Peccia & Associates
Page l of 5
Utility Platy Update completed by HDR Engineering. The ultimate growth scenario
selected amounted to a growth rate of 3.0 percent per year within the study area
boundary. .Population estimates at the time of this work task (2005) consisted of a total
population of 39,282 people within the study area boundary. A projected population of
79,273 people was made within the study area boundary utilizing the selected 3.0 percent
growth rate per year out to the year 2030. Additionally, forecasts for jobs, both retail and
non -retail were within the study area boundary.
The relevant forecasts made for the Transportation Plan project are shown in Table A-1
below. Note that the difference in year 2030 and year 2005 numbers are the "forecasts"
within the study area boundary that were assigned to the various census tracts to evaluate
the travel demand. model.
Table A-i
Transportation Plan Study Area Boundary -- Control Totals
Total Projected Population and Employment (2030)
T
at
-B 3u da
F14.
t �
A 'a
� th ad
�`lkh a
.. .. ..
a
l
Coteo
777
od.
r-.
ou
Court
2
r
2
Total
15,713
1706
32,799
31,709
177220
481711
Dwelling
�39.)282
f 42,714
{837172
17%273
f 42,505
1121,778
Units
pe2plel
people
eo le
ea le1
_peoplel
peSIplel
Retail
3,741 jobs
41,052 jobs
7,793 jobs
87498
4,576
13,074
Employment
jobs
f= k
Non -Retail 22,632 jobs 24,517 jobs 47,149 jobs 48,435 26,080 74,515
Employment jobs
A household is expected to consist of 2.5 people.
Jobs are proportioned between the study area boundary and the rest of the County using percentages
fxom population forecasts.
Assignments: Within Study Area Boundar
Households 15,996 dwelling units
Retail 4,757 jobs
Non -Retail 25,803 jobs
An interesting caveat of the data described above and referenced in Table A-1 is that the
growth totals of 15,996 dwelling units, 4,757 retail jobs and 25,803 non -retail jobs are
forecasts for the study area boundary used in the Transportation Plan. This is not the
same as the current city limits within the City of Kalispell. For growth forecasted within
the current city limits, the following growth forecasts are realized over the planning
horizon:
Robert Peccia & Associates
Page 2 of 5
Assignments: Within Cit-
y Limits
Households 10,340 dwelling units
Retail 3,201 jobs
Non -Retail 13,360 jobs
By viewing the growth totals expected in the city limits as compared to the totals within
the study area boundary, it can be seen that the percentage of growth envisioned within
the current city limits, as compared to the growth forecasts for the entire study area,
amount to the following percentages:
Dwelling units: 64.64% of total growth within the current city limits
Retail jobs: 67.29% of total growth within current city limits
Non -Retail jobs: 51..77% of total growth within current city limits
An additional item of interest required for the Impact Fee Study is the number of new
trips generated due to growth within the City limits. The number of new trips within the
current City limits can be computed as follows and shown in Table A-2:
Table A-2
Ik r rr,l • r-E r r . •
rips
._ rT__2A.
per 179,306
New Retail Jobs 3,201 jobs 12.5 trips per unit 40,013
in City limits
New Non -Retail Jobs 13,360 jobs 1.7 trips per unit 223,712
-(inCit limits
Total 142,031 trips
The development of growth forecasts via the 'Transportation Plan also allows a
comparison of the relevant travel demand model output. The results of the travel demand
model lends to the availability of certain parameters that are important to the discussion
of "growth related impacts" to the transportation system. Most typically, the variables of
interest are both the "Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes" and the "volume -to -
capacity (vlc) ratios". These two parameters are a product of the travel demand model
that can be used to compare the baseline model year (2003) to the planning horizon year
(2030).
From a planning level perspective, roadways have a volume threshold according to
roadway geometry under which safe and suitable traffic flow is realized. Table A-3
below shows the generally accepted planning level "Average Daily Traffic (ADT)"'
volume threshold for roadway corridors.
Robert Peccia & Associates
Page 3of5
Approxin
Table A-3
• ra tin
rovenents
Table A-3 shows capacity levels which are appropriate for planning purposes in
developing areas within the study area boundary. The careful, appropriate, and consistent
use of the capacity guidelines listed above can provide for long-term cost savings and
help maintain roads at a scale comfortable to the community.
The other important parameter when consider capacity issues along roadway corridors is
the ``volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio". The v/c ratio is perhaps the best tool generated by
the traffic model for comparing the current traffic volumes to the existing number of
travel lanes on the inajor corridors. By definition, the "v/c ratio" is the result of the flow
rate of a roadway lane divided by the capacity of the roadway lane. Table A-4 shows
``v/c ratios" and their corresponding roadway corridor "Level of Service" designations.
Table A-4
rr r i It" ,ram . ■ n V X_% rr r. . •
v A, natios m uv :5 ijesmnations
Both the v/c ratios and the ADT's are used in analysis to determine which roadways in
the community are either under capacity, at capacity, or approaching capacity. The travel
demand model is the best tool available to determine where growth related impacts will
be realized on the transportation system. The results of the travel demand model also
allow for development of a capital list of needed transportation improvements.
Exhibit 2 of the Impact Fee Study shows the major street network (MSN) projects that
were identified through the Transportation Plan process. These recommended MSN
projects are such that they typically tape years to develop and usually consist of
expansion and/or new roadway projects. Reference is made to the actual Kalispell Area
Transportation Flan 2006 Update for detailed information about each of the projects
contained in Exhibit 2 of the Impact Fee Study
Robert Peccie & Associates
Page 4 of 5
The purpose of Exhibit 2 of the Impact Fee Study is to present those projects, along
with the appropriate vlc ratios, ADT's and level of service. In viewing this table, it can
be seen all projects are related to serving growth based on accepted traffic engineering
parameters (i.e. ADT"s, We ratios and levels of service (LOS))
In addition to the information presented in Exhibit 2 of the Impact Fee Study, a
breakdown of the potential costs associated with each project has been made based on the
breakdown of each project within the current City limits versus those outside the current
City limits. This information is contained in Exhibit 3 of the Impact Fee Study and is
summarized below:
Based on the actual "Dumber" of Projects:
Totally City projects = 6 projects 129 projects = 20.69%
Partial City & County = 5 projects 129 projects = 17.24%
Total County = 18 projects 129 projects = 62.07%
Based on the actual "Miles" of Pro' ects:
Total City project miles = 8.4 miles 148.81 smiles = 17.21 %
Total County project miles = 40.41 miles / 48.81 roues = 82.79%
Based on the "Dollar Cost" of Projects in 2007 dollars:
Total City Cost = $16,875,4751$108,351,477 = 15.58%
Total County Cast = $91,476,002 / $108,351,477 = 84.42%
In conclusion, the methodology to arrive at the needed transportation system
improvements is well documented within the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006
Update document. This brief memorandum is intended to supplement the Transportation
Plan by extracting pertinent concepts and presenting a summary of growth, costs and
major street network needs required to support the calculation of transportation impact
fees within the context of Montana law.
Based on the results of our analyses and recommendations as part of the Transportation
Plan, RPA makes the following opinions and recommendations:
1. The number of new average daily trips generated within the City limits over the
study period is 142,031.
2. The projects as identified in the Transportation Plan and highlighted in Exhibit 2
of the Impact Fee Report are 100%d growth related and therefore eligible for
inclusion in the Transportation Impact Fee.
3. The allocation of project costs within the City limits as set forth in this report and
Exhibit 3 of the Impact Fee Report are reasonable and are based on the amount
of construction and costs which will be incurred to construct roads within the City
limits.
Robert Peccia & Associates
'age 5 of 5
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Street Capacity Analysis
Exhibit 2
mom
No
.
...... .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Kalispell
Trartsportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Street Capacity Analysis
Exhibit 2
I rv=,
Olt
Elm
ffm
M
OEM
Reconsi ru ct wr 35 to a 4-In rte
facilily with aptnopriale left-tum
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Jurisdictional Allocation
Exhibit 3
-7-
ad[ #
ow
Jr a fer'. $Crept, On...
C 7�
V
NisN-i
West Reserve
Reconstruct to a 5-
1
1
$2,205,137
$2,205,137
Dn-ye — StilINVaICT
lane minor arterial
to West
siandard.
Springcrcek Road,
MSN-2
Four Ale Drive —
A new segment
1
1
$1,712,053
$1,712,053
1 00�4'1
Stillwater Road io
constructed to a 3-
ilane
US I I ighway 93:
urban minor
arterial standard.
MSN-3
Grandview Drive
An extension of
lGrandview
0.S3
0.83
$2,804,500
$2,864,500
1001 111,
Extension —
Dr. to an
I'Xisting, Bend to
Urban minor arterial
Whitefish Stage
standard.
Road:
MN-4
Whitefish Stage
Reconstruct to a
1
I
$2,205,137
$2,205,137
0%
Road — Reserve
minor arterial
Drive to Rose
standard including 2
Crossing:
travel lanes in each
direction.
MSN-5
Whitefish Stage
Reconstruct to an
23
2.5
$4,280,133
$4,280.133
0 'j"
Road — Rose
urban minor arterial
Crossing it) Birch
standard.
[rove Road:
MSN -6
1 felena Flats Road -
Reconstruct to an
2.12
2.12
$3,646,673
$3,646,673
(K;)
Montana I I ighway
urban minor arterial
35 to Rose
standard.
Crossing:
MSN-7
lFoys Lake Road
Reconstruct to an
0.92
0.92
$1,575,089
$1,575,089
0%
(Whalebone Drive
urban minor arterial
to Valley View
standard.
Drive):
MSN-8
Four Mile Drive —
Reconstruct to a 3-
1
1
$1,712,053
$1,712,053
0%
West Springcreek
lane minor arterial
Road to Stillwater
roadway.
Road:
MSN-9
Rose Crossing
Cmistruct a new
5
5
$9,794,943
$9,784,943
0%
[western Corridor
east/west corridor to
Creation -- Fann to;
an urban minor
Market Road to
arterial facility.
Whitel'ish Stage
Road 1:
MSN-10
Stillwater Road —
Reconstruct to a 3-
1
$1,712,053
$1.712.053
1 00("
l"Our Mile Drive to
lane minor arterial
West Reserve
roadway.
Drive:
MSN-1 I
Ilake
New Roadway
1collector
Construct new
0.78
0.78
$1,238,682
S1,238,682
0%
Connecting Foys
roadway to an urban
Road to US
standard.
fliahwax I
MSN-12
Wcsi Springcreek
Reconstruct to a 3-
2
1.75
0.25
$5,136,160
$4,519,821
$616,339
1 12%
Road — US I
lane minor arterial
I fighway 2 to West
roadway.
Reserve Drive:
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average 'Daily Trips
Jurisdictional Allocation
Exhibit 3
om
t<lll�lIoitttricatfQr�
f? S+CI"iCp Q#
Ot a :
�+tnt� . :.
C'�t� !�il��
T'�t�tl, Ct�St
�p tt►tt
tCft�r l��s�
���
II45N-13
WllloW 61 n Drive
Reconstruct to a:t
1.15
1.15
$1,968.861
S1,` 68,861
-- Conrad Drive to
urban « inor arterial
Woodland Avenue:
standard.
MS1�f-14
Church l3 Drive
Construct ail ifor
5
5
$9,260,082
$9,260,082
t]%
(western Corridor
reconstruct portions
Creation - Farm to
of this roadway to
Market Road to
an urban minor
whitefish Stage
arterial facility.
Road):
MSN-15
Trumhle ('reek
Reconstruct it) a 3-
2.5
2.5
S4,280, l33
$4.280, 113
Road -- Rose
lane minor arterial
Crossing to Birch
roadway.
Grove Road:
,\,ISN-16
CoFtrad Drive -
Reconstruct to an
1.2
1.2
S3,524,527
$3,524,527
tl%
Willow (glen Road
urban minor arterial
to Shady Lane:
standard.
N,ISN-17
Shady Lane --
Reconstruct to an
(165
0,65
$1,112,935
(10'
Conrad Drive to
urban minor arterial
MT 35:
standard.
IMSN-1 S
Reserve Drive --
Reconstruct to a 5-
1
0.7
0.22 4
$2 205,137
$1,675,904
$529,233
241,;,
US l lighway 93 to
lane minor arterial
Whitefish Stagg!
rtaaclway.
Road:
iVISN-19
Reserve Drive --
Reconstruct to a 3-
1.5
1.5
$3,407,859
$3,407,959
W1 11
WhitLtihh Stage
lane principal
Road to LaSalle
arterial section.
Rmd:
MSN-24
Reserve Drive --
Reconstruct to a 3-
1
1
S 1,712,t153
$1,712,053
0`:�
LaSalle Road tea
lane minor arterial
I Ielcria 1-'fats Road:
section,
'vISN-? t
Evergreen Drive —
1�et;caz~strttct to a 3-
1.44
(1.73
0.71
$2,452,4`17
$1,266,t)E�3
1,216,414
4E7{ r,
Whitel'ish Stage
lane minor arterial
Road to I.aSalle
section.
Road:
MSN-22
Whitei'ish Stage
Reconstruct to a 3-
2.43
1.08
1.35
$5,210,013
$2,292,406
$2,917,fit)7
50
Road - C3regOn
Sane minor arterial
Street to Reserve
section,
Drive::
MSN-23
18"' Street West
Construct new
03
0.3
$864,321
$804,3 1
100'ror�
I :xtension/Sunnysi
corridor it) an urban
de Drive:
c:nllcitcar slandard.
MSN-24
LaSalle IConrad
Construct new
0.44
0.44
$1,470,240
$1,470,240
tl':;t
Drive Connector:
connection between
LaSalle M. and
Conrad Dr.
MSN-25
MT 35 Fxpansion:
Reconstruct MT 3i
5.7
5.7
S20,754,177
$20.754.177
to a 4-late facility
with appropria(e felt
turn hays.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Jurisdictional Allocation
Exhibit 3
$ 10 d16#6
low:-
'1060tiff
Dose
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a Tot
C i ;w . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
oun
. .... .. ... .
- . . M1
T tar C4.
t ...
V� eat
ti
NISN-20
US I I ilhway 2 East t
Reconstruct to a 6-
1.17
1.17
57,649
$5A
$5,657,649
W7,
- LaSalle Road to
lane ro.-idway
Woodiand Park,
Section will)
Drivc:
appropriate left -turn
hav"s.
NISN-28
71" Avenue Vast
lCalifornia
RCCOnNtruct to a
0.2
0.2
$342,411
$342,411
1 00140
North 0'.
minor arterial
Street to
standard.
whitefish Stage
Road):
MSN-29
Threc-Mile Drivc
Reconstruct m a 3-
13
$3,424, 106
%3.424106
]()()";j
(W. Sprijigcreek
lane minor arterial
Road to Meridian
standard.
Road):
MSN-30
Two-mile Drive
17construct to a 2-
1.98
t.46
0.52
$2,601,693
$1,925,245
$676,439
6 9
(W. Springcreek
lane urban collwor
Road to Meridian
standard.
3
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Street Cost
Exhibit 4
idy impact
ib
ki�r'tti#iIN
i3 scr tit
Crate
Cart
E3afatad
F Cant
witi'ikA Ci
Ftatp Cpa!
West Reserve Drive - Stillwater to West
Reconstruct to a 5-lane minor arterial
MSN-1
Springcreek Roads
standard. 5
2,205.137 S
2,293,342
100%
S 2.293,342
0.00%
50
Four Mile Drive - Stillwater Road to US
A new segment constnrCted to a 3-
MSN-2
Highway 93,
lane urban minor arterial standard,
1.712,053
1,780,535
100%
1.780,535
100.00%
1,780,535
Grandview drive Extension -- Existng Bend to
An extension of Grandview Dr. to an
MSN-3
Whitefish Stage Road:
urban minor arterial standard.
2,664,500
2,979,080
100%
2.979,080
100,0G%
2,97S,0bo
Whitefish Stage Road - Reserve Onve to Rose
Reconstruct to a minor arterial
Crossing:
standard including 2 travel lanes In
MSN-4
each direction.
Z205,137
2,293,342
100%
2,293.342
0.()G%
0
Whitefish Stage Road - Rose Crossing to
Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial
MSN-5
Birch Grove Road.
standard.
4,280,133
4,451.338
1100%
4.451.338
0.00%
0
Helena Flats Road • Montana Highway 35 to
Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial
MSN-6
Rose Crossing.
standard.
3.646,673
3.792,540
100%
3.792,540
O7 0010
0
Foy$ Lake Road lWhalebone Drive to Valley
Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial
MSN-7
View Drive].
standard.
1,575,089
1,638,093
100%
1.636,093
0.00%
0
Four Mile Drive -West Springcreek Road to
Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial
MSN-8
Stillwater Road.
roadway.
1,712,053
1,780,535
100%
1,780,535
0,00%
0
Rose Crossing (western Corridor Creation -
Construct a new east/west corridor to
Farm to Market Road to Whitefish Stage
an urban minor arterial facility.
MSN-9
Road)
8,784,943
10,176,341
100%
10,176.341
0,00%
0
Stillwater Road - Four Mile Drive to West
Reconstruct to a 3•lane minor arterial
MSN-10
Reserve Drive.
roadway.
1,712,053
1,780,535
1004;
1.780,535
100.00%
1.780,535
New Roadway Connecting Foys Lake Poad to
Construct new roadway to an urban
MSN-1 1
US Highway 2.
collector standard.
1,238,682
1,288,229
100%
1.268,229
0.00%
❑
MSN• 12
West Springcreek Road - US Highway 2 to
Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial
5,136,160
5,341.606
100%
5,341,606
12.00%
640.993
Willow Glen Drive - Conrad Drive to Woodland
Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial
MSN-13
Avenue
standard.
1,968,861
2,047,615
100%
2,047.615
0,001%
0
Church Drive {western Corridor Creation -
Construct and/or reconstruct portions
Farm to Markel Road to Whitefish Stage
of this roadway to an urban minor
MSN-14
Road).
arterial facility.
9.260,082
9,630.485
100%
9,630A85
0.00%
g
Trumble Creek Road -- Rose Crossing to Birch
Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial
MSN-15
Grove Road:
roadway.
4.280,133
4,451,335
100%
4,451,338
0,0006
0
Conrad Drive -Willow Glen Road to Shady
Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial
MSN-16
Lane.
standard.
3,524,827
3,665,820
100%
3,665,820
0.00%
0
Shady Lane w Conrad Drive to MT 35.
Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial
MSN•17
standard.
1,112,835
1.157,548
100%
1.157,348
0.00%
0
Reserve Drive - US Highway 93 to llVhitefish
Reconstruct to a 5-lane minor arterial
MSN-18
Stage Road.
roadway.
2,205,137
2.293.342
83%
1,914,128
24.00%
459.391
Reserve Drive - Whitefish Stage Roast to
Reconstruct to a 3-lane principal
MSN-19
LaSalle Road.
arterlai section.
3.407.859
3.544.173
97%
3,429,845
0.00%
0
Reserve Drive - LaSalle Road to Helena Flats
Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial
MSN-20
Road.
section,
1,712,053
1,780,535
100%
1,780,535
0.00%
0
Evergreen Drive -- Whitefish Stage Road to
Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial
MSN-21
LaSalle Road
section.
2,4B2,477
2.581.776
100%
2.581,776
49,00%,
1,265.071
Whitefish Stage Road - Oregon Street to
Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial
MSN-22
Reserve Drive.
section.
5,210,013
5,418.414
100%
5,418.414
56.00%
3,034,311
181h Street West Extension/Sunnyside Drive:
Construct new corridor to an urban
MSN•23
collector standard,
864,321,
898,894
100%
898 894
100,000;
898.894
LaSalle i Conrad Drive Connector;
Construct new connection between
MSN-24
LaSalle Rd. and Conrad Dr.
1,470,240
1,529.050
100%
1.529,050
0.00%
0
City of Kalispell
Transportation impact Fees - Average daily Trips
Street Cost
Exhibit 4
.:.
.. ..:... ..
................ .: ....
�':'.::.:. ;..:::::::':
ire :. ..
:...Tolal
ptircont
TOW C.1ty knpact. .
...
ri
t i':
0>4
a >
Ni bctt
3�11! C s
F Cry
MT 35 Expansion.
Reconstruct MT 35 to a 4-lane facility
with appropriate left turn bays.
MSN-25
20,754.177
21.584,344
1€ 0 a
21 ,584,344
0.00%
0
MSN-26
US Highway 2 East — LaSalle Road to
Reconstruct to a 6-lane roadway
Woodland Park Drive:
section with appropriate left -turn bays.
5,657.649
5,883,955
100%
5,8a3,955
0.00%
4
MSN-28
7"' Avenue East North (E. California Street to
Reconstruct to a minor arterial
Whitefish Stage Roady:
standard.
342A11
356,107
100%
366,107
100,00%
356,107
MSN-29
Throe -Mite Mwe (W. Spcingcmek Road to
Reconstruct to a Vane minor arterial
3,424,106
3,561,070
100%
3,561.070
100,00%
3.561,070
MSN-30
Two -Mile Drive (W, Springcreek Road to
Reconstruct to a 2-tane urban
Meridian Road)
collector standard.
2,601.683
2.705,750
100%
2.705,750
26,00%
703.496
Total
New Average City flatly
`fripsTrips 2003 to 2030
Cost Per Averaue Trio
i l 1'1rrr,pr,r•,illon Pl )rr, dr led I _°[ os
' lr+� rrer�r'rf fromrr+ ?1111+ u��+rr++iu,� rr a'utir etlrlrrru+n frr�+rrr o J'
4 • sel,PAh+lrr+ i.
i • ee t:.thrl+rr )
S 108,351,477 $ 112,685,536
9
$ 112,191.994 $ 17,459,483
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Equipment List
Exhibit 5
Irnact
olte �e
15 q%.;uIddoi iC F ela#
Linelaxer III
Airless Striper
15
2005
5,249
5,564
0.00% -
VonArx
Milking Machine
1993
20
207
1993
6,500
13,863
0.00% -
398
❑enver/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
45608HO79655
1971
15,692
37,607
0.000/6 -
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
CCS532V146024
1972
6,786
16,263
0,00% -
335
Chevy
C50 Sand Truck
1972
20
CCS532V146026
1972
6,786
16,263
0.00% -
368
Gallion T500
Grader
1969
20
41 K3371 G03626
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
2HTAF1 59CCAl 9897
1982
45,316
108,602
0.00%
306
lHC
Tymco Sweeper
1991
20
1 HTSAZRNI MH343712
1991
79,747
191,118
0.00% -
336
Ford
F-900 Tandem
1988
20
I FDYL90A8JVA23999
1988
43,033
103,131
0.00% -
343
GMC
6000 Snowplow
1980
20
T16DAAV601488
1960
15,286
36,633
0.0011YQ -
344
GMC
6000 Snowplow
1980
20
T161)AAV601719
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
1 FDXH70C7RVA31042
1994
93,529
188,199
0.00% -
303
Ford
Elgin Sweeper
1994
20
1 FDXHQC3RVA31037
1194
93,529
224,148
0.0010,a -
371
John Deere
Loader
1985
20
R66466T314536
1986
78,564
188,283
0.00% -
304
Ingersol/Rand
❑D24 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
92800F411541 P56
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
0.009a -
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 11 Sweeper
1999
20
P9613026
1999
14,322
21,535
0.00% -
346
Tennant
83011 Sweeper
1999
20
P961130131
199
14,324
34,328
0.00°a -
330
Ford
L-9000 Flush Trk
1994
20
IFTYA95VOSVA26192
2000
13,390
18,994
0,00:ti -
373
Cat 120H
Grader
1999
20
4MKO0722
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
2FZAASAKI 3AMO 5101
2003
75,505
89,928
0.00% -
301
Elgin
Eagle Sweeper
2005
10
5DN90189
2004
22,721
25,529
0.00% -
Total $
New Trips 142,031
Cost per Trip $ -
I - No equipment costs were allocated to new development.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Summary
Exhibit 6
f
T
w
Streets $ 122.93
Equipment
Administration at 5% 6.15
Total Transportation Impact Fee $ 129.08
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
passa
ITS . T I T i Ad' �,act. ee
4. it
R Mtn
210
Single Family Detached
Sin le family detach housing
DU
9.57
1
7.67
$ 989
220
Apartment
Rental dwelling with at least 3
units in the same buildin2
DU
6.72
1
5.39
695
Rented rather than owned
2241
Rented Townhouse/ Duplex
units with a minimum of two
units
DU
7.32
1
5.87
757
Residential condominium/
townhouses under
230
Condominium/ Townhouse
singie=family ownership.
Minimum of two -units in the
same building
❑U
5.86
1
4.70
606
Trailers or manufactured
240
Mobile Home
home sited on permanent
foundations
DU
4.99
1
4.00
516
Independent living
252
Congregate Care
developments that provide
centralized amenities such as
dining, housekeeping,
transportation and activities.
DU
2.02
1
1.62
209
254
Assisted Living
Residential settings that
Provide ouersite or assistance
for independent, or mentally
or physically limited persons.
❑U
2.66
1
2.13
275
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
6.97
1
5.59
$ 721
Industrial park areas that
130
Industrial Park
contain a number of industrial
and/or related facilities, A mix
of manufacturing, service and
warehouse
GFA
6.96
1
5.58
720
Facilities that convert raw
materials or parts into finished
140
Manufacturing
products. Typically have
related office, warehouse,
research and associated
functions.
GFA
3.82
1
3.06
395
Facilities devoted to storage
150
Warehouse
of goods and materials.
Includes offices and
maintenance facilities
GFA
4.96
1
3.98
513
151 Mini -Warehouse Storage units or vaults rented
far story e of oods
GFA 2.50
1 2.00
258
.. .r g u _.ate
A.. _ ^Rv°` . �i5..,. �..:��... s;`�.,. ^ �.. .�,. �. ..�'..K
Via.
;
yv
�': - :�
�•'�: �:� �,� u
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
.._� .77777
>
lT� dui �t F
lC0 1.
Lodging
Lodging facility that may
310
Hotel
include restaurants, lounges,
meeting rooms and/or
convention facilities
Room
0.61
1
0,49
$ 63
Sleeping accommodations
320
Motel
and often a restaurants. Free
on -site parking and little or no
rneetltn2 spaces.
Room
0.56
1
0.45
$ 58
� a '��ax �.� �.d• »' �...Cra
w..��A ,`TF�,'� �.,,, n8 x`.g' ��d`,Y
� `v,.:.
y "' ��.'Y�-.Ci
Recy j
}fig ... .: .. .: ..
412 6
Local Park
Municipal owned parks,
varying widely as to location,
type and number of facilities.
Acres
2.28
1
1.83
$ 236
Regional park authority
417
Regional Park
owned parks, varying widely
as to location, type and
number of facilities.
Acres 7
4.57
1
3.66
472
Municipal and private golf
430
Golf Course
courses. May or may not
have a driving range and
clubhouse
Holes
35.74
1
28.64
3,695
Multi -purpose recreational
Multipurpose Recreation
facilities containing two more
435 s
Facility
or of the following uses at one
site: mini -golf, batting cages,
video arcade, bumper boats,
go-carts and driving ranges.
GFA
90.38
1
72.44
9,344
Privately owned with
weightlifting and other
493
Athletic Club
facilities often including
swimming pools, hot tubs,
saunas, racquetball, squash
and handball courts.
GFA
35.74
1
28,64
3,695
Recreational facilities similar
to and including YMCAs,
Recreational Community
often including classes, day
495
Center
care, meeting rooms,
swimming pools, tennis,
racquetball, handball,
weightlifting, locker rooms
and food service
GFA
90.38
1
72.44
9,344
Privately owned with
weightlifting and other
493
Athletic Club
facilities often including
swimming pools, hot tubs,
saunas, racquetball, squash
and handball courts.
GFA
35.74
1
28.64
3,695
Recreational facilities similar
to and including YMCAs,
Recreational Community
often including classes, day
495
Center
care, meeting rooms,
swimming pools, tennis,
racquetball, handball,
weightlifting, locker rooms
and food service
GFA
90.38
1
72.44
9,344
City of Kalispell
Transportation impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
Pan-
TL
�. Trite Tlr�p j� . MpactF
.Y
Recreational facilities with
437 s
Bowling Alley
howling lanes wNch may
include a small lounge,
restaurant or snack bar.
Lane
33.33
26.71
3,446
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable 'Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
-By.
7E
AXl*fire 'i'rr i
A.....
u eda�itneri
etrh�tr
... ....
�4
rnit' .
Institutional
522
Elementary School
Serves student attending
kindergarten through 5th or
6th grade Public or rivate.
GFA
14.49
1
11,61
$ 1,498
522
Middle School
Public. Serves students that
have completed elementary
and not yet in high school,
GFA
13.78
1
11.04
1,425
530
High School
Public. Typically serving 9 to
12th Grades
GFA
12.89
1
10,33
1,333
a40
Junior J Community Collage
Two-year junior or community
colle es
GFA
27.49
1
22.03
2,842
560
Church
Contains worship area. May
include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area and
facilities
GFA
2.38
1
1.91
246
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
6.35
819
590
Library
Public or Private. Contains
shelved books, reading rooms
and sometime meetin5 rooms
GFA
54.00
1
43.28
5,583
560
University 1 College
Four-year and graduate
institutions
Student
0.29
1
0.23
30
591 a
Lodge f Fraternal
Organization
Includes a clubhouse with
dinning and drinking facilities,
recreational and
entertainment areas and
meetin rooms
Members
0.29
1
0.23
30
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
'Pass
ITS ri p - d u
.... .... . ........ . .
�Caa�r 1tT i....
nnz
f�edfcal
Medical and/or surgical care
facility with overnight
610
Hospitals
accommodations for
ambulatory and non -
ambulatory patients.
GFA
17.57
1
14.08
$ 1,817
A facility whose primary
620
Nursing Home
function is to care for persons
who are unable to care for
themselves
Beds
2.37
1
1.90
245
office
Single Tenant Office
Usually contains offices,
715
Building
meeting rooms, file storage
areas, restaurants or cafeteria
and other service functions
GFA
11.57
1
9.27
$ 1,196
Provides diagnosis and
7208
Medical -Dental office
outpatient care. Typically
operated be private
physicians or dentists.
GFA
36.13
1
28.96
3,735
Park or campus -like planned
750
Office Park
unit development that
contains office buildings,
banks, restaurants and
service stations.
GFA
11.42
1
9.15
1,181
Single building or complex of
Research and development
buildings devoted to research
760
Center
and development. May
contain light fabrication
facilities.
GFA
8.11
1
6.50
838
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 200,10 to
30% office / commercial and
70% to 80% industrial /
warehouse.
GFA
12.76
1
10.23
1,319
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
7"
Too:T�
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 knit
calculation.
GFA
45.16
0.82
29.68
3,829
A free-standing discount store
813
Discount Supper Store
that also contains a full
service grocery department
under the same roof.
GFA
49,21
0.82
32.34
$ 4,172
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
44.32
0,82
2913
3,757
Free-standing store that
offers a variety of customer
815
Discount Store
services, centralized
cashiering and a wide range
of products_
GFA
56.02
6.82
36.82
4,749
Typically free-standing
816
Hardware J Paint Store
buildings with parking that sell
hardware and paints.
GFA
56.02
0.82
36.82
4,749
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
51.29
0.82
33.71
4,348
A shopping center that
823
Factory Outlet
primarily houses factory outlet
stores.
GFA
51.29
6.52
21.38
2.757
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
6
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
a
1 i :,:.. ..... .Ta y �rs T 1P. 7' djkie Impact..
ti,R ill
Retail
841
Car Dealership
New and used car dealership
with sales, service and parts,
GFA
33.34
0,82
21.91
$ 2,827
848
Tire Store
Primary business is selling
and re air of tires
GFA
24.87
0,82
16,34
2,108
Free-standing grocery store.
850
Supermarket
May also contain ATMs,
photo center, pharmacies and
video rental.
GFA
102.24
0.64
52.44
6,765
Sells convenience foods,
851
Convenience Market - 24
newspapers, magazines and
hours
often beer and wine. Open
24 hours per day.
GFA
737.99
0.39
230.67
29,757
s
Convenience Market - 15 to
Sells convenience foods,
852
16 hours
newspapers, magazines and
often beer and wine. Open
15 to 16 hours per day.
GFA
500.37
0.39
156.40
20,176
Discount store 1 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 Caulk or
large quantities.
GFA
41.8
0.52
17.42
2,247
Pharmacy without drive thru
Facilities filling medical
880
window
prescriptions without a drive
thru window.
GFA
90.06
0.47
33.92
4,376
Pharmacy with drive thru
Facilities filling medical
$B1
window
prescriptions with a drive thru
window.
GFA
$6.16
0.51
35.22
4,543
Sells furniture, accessories
890
Furniture Store
and often carpet 1 floor
coverin .
GFA
5.06
0,47
1,91 246
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
A m
ITS ' p a p�
. .. . ....
C-
S%
Usually a free-standing
911
Walk -In Bank
Building with a parking lot
offering banking services.
May are ATMs
GFA
156.48
0.53
66.47
$ 8,574
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
246.49
0.53
104.70
13,507
931
Quality Restaurant
High quality eating
establishment with turnover
rates greater than 1 hour
GFA
89,59
0.56
40,21
5,187
High Turnover Sit -Down
Sit down eating establishment
932
Restaurant
with turnover rates of less
than 1 hour,
GFA
127.15
0.56
57.07
7,362
Fast Food without Drive-
Fast food without a drive
933
Thru
throe h window.
GFA
716.00
0.50
286.92
37,013
934
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
Fast food with a drive through
window.
GFA
496.12
0.50
198.81
25,647
Sells gasoline and may also
944
Gas Station
provide vehicle service and
Fueling
repair,
Positions
168,56
0.58
78.36
10,108
Gas Station with
Sells gasoline and may also
945
Convenience Market
provide vehicle service and
repair. Also contains a
Fueling
convenience market.
Positions
162.78
0.44
57.40
7,405
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
152.84
0.44
53.90
6,953
9473 Self -Service Car Wash Allows self cleaning of cars by
1providing stalls for drivers Wash Stalls 108.00 1 0.44 1 38.09 1 4,913
8
City of Kalispell
Transportation impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule
Exhibit 7
A ' r. Ps
'!'alp _ ....
........ ... . . .
As a
(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 Positrons - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - fall firne equivalent student capacity.
(2) institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An /7'E Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor times 80.15% - reduced to reflect planning model,
(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) Use the following formula for PM Peak Hour Trips and Pass -By Trip Factor:
Average Trips = Ln(Trips) = 0.65Ln(GLA) + 5.83
Pass -by Trip Factory - fLn(O = -.0291 Ln(GFL) + 5.0011, where f is percent of by-pass trips.
No average provided.
7�-6- l 60 l . Definitions. Page I of I.
Montana Code Annotated 2005
Precious Section MBA Conienis Part. Con[erata Search Help Next Section
7w64601, Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of to 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 terra 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) "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 7-67.1 60 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.
Proof de by rl?bi?tana Leg Sia6 Soro'CGIS
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bilis/mca/7/6/7-6-1601.htm 1/4/2006
7- 6-1.602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirement... Page rl of 1
Montana Code Antiotated 2.005
Preuc>us Section MCA CaMersts Part Contents Search Help Next Sect ion
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. 2993 L. 2005.
http:Hdata.opi.state.m.t.usfbills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm 1/4/2006
- - ()(.)J. collection and expenditure of impact fees --- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal requir... Page I of .l.
Montana Code Annotated 2005
PfeUt7U8 SBCtiO1'# MCA CoflfBiitS Part Z'AI'1ferAS Search He4 p Next 'S'E3Ct1QCi
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required.
(f) 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 7-6-1 ,60-11, 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- 6- 32 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 unposed 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 '
- I"60'2:
(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-
10 74 )6). 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 7-6-160 2 and this chapter; or
(b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of -6- 60' 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.
v;i .`9 `i 7 s. a S
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7--6-1603.htm 1f4{2006
7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. Page 'I of 1.
Monta-na Code Annotated 2005
Preuaus Section MCA Contents Part Corderds Search i-lelp Next Saciion
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.
http://data.opi.state.ant.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.htm 1/4/2006
Impact Fee Schedule
A single family home is (1) ERU all other types of construction to be calculated.
An apartment, duplex, or multi -family home is 0. 75 ERU per unit.
Sto rmwater Impact Fees
ang
impact Fee Per ERU $ 19092 $ 1,121 $ 29 2.70%
A single family home is (1) ERU all other types of construction to be calculated.
An ERU is defined as 2,400 square feet of impervious area.
An apartment, duplex, or multi -family home is 0. 75 ERU per unit.
Water System Impact Fees
ere
Change,
Residential
$
21155
$
21213
$ 58
2.70%
ill
$
51388
$
51533
$ 145
2.70%
1 1 /2"
$
10,775
$
11,066
$ 291
2.70%
2"
$
17,240
$
17,705
$ 465
2.70%
3"
$
34,480
$
35,411
$ 931
2.70%
4"
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
2.70%
A residential meter is a 3/4" meter. Commercial customers with residential type usage
pay the residential fee.
Police Impact Fees
a� erceha
Single Family (residential) per unit $ 43 $ 44 $ 1 2.70%
Apartment per unit (multi -family) $ 34 $ 35 $ 1 2.70%
Commercial per 1,000 sq ft of build space (or fraction thereof) $ 13 $ 13 $ 0 2.70%
Fire Impact Fees
r z�
.. .. ... ....:. - . -. :,;, . -. .. ..,: ,.>.,-: ri . .-c:• r:.�, v 3J.'. .r��•.'A�.�.e?3' a`ri.�.`r�x. .�:�._ ";� ,... .•��"sw ;=r�rw �5 �:.r� .r . i77.. sr . ,';•A p`:a.n. r �. >s,:.r-.�a'.�'•..'., .... .. .... .. ..
Single Family (residential) per unit $ 533 $ 547 $ 14 2.70%
Apartment per unit (multi -family) $ 422 $ 433 $ 11 2.70%
Commercial per 1 1000 sq ft of build space (or fraction thereof) $ 240 $ 246 $ 6 2.70%