The URL can be used to link to this page

2. Kalispell Transportation Impact FeesCity of Kalispell Impact Fee Advisory Committee June 3, 2008 City Council City of Kalispell 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903 Subject: Revised 'Transportation Impact Fee Recommendation & Supplemental Information and Comparison Data Memorandum Dear Council Members: At the March 31, 2008 City Council Work session, additional questions were asked regarding the Transportation Impact Fee Report dated March 2008. City Council directed the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) and Randy Goff of HDRIEES, the impact fee consultant retained by the City of Kalispell, to review several items and provide the City Council with additional information and comparison data from other communities. Mr. Goff has prepared a Supplemental Information and Comparison Data Memorandum, and also has revised the March 2008 Transportation Impact Fee Report. While examining the growth related projects in exhibit 3 of the Transportation Impact Fee Report and annexations of property in the vicinity of the projects, it was determined that, while the adjacent lands were annexed into the City, in most cases the roads were not annexed. Consequently, the value of the transportation impact fee capital program for projects within the City of Kalispell decreased, and the Transportation Impact Fee Report was revised to reflect these changes. On May 28, 2008 the IFAC met to discuss the concerns of the City Council, and to review the Revised May 2008 Transportation Impact Fee Report and the Supplemental Information and Comparison Data Memorandum. After extensive discussion, the IFAC agreed that the methodology used to prepare the Revised May 2008 Transportation Impact Fee Report is sound and a consensus was reached to recommend the Report, and the Supplemental Information and Comparison Data Memorandum to the City Council for review and adoption. P Kalispell City Council June 3, 2008 Page 2 The City's consultant and the IFAC will attend the June 9, 2008, Council work session to review the Transportation Report and Supplemental Information and answer questions. We look forward to working with Council on finalizing the transportation impact fees. Sincerely yours, Merna Terry Chairperson Impact Fee Advisory Committee C. C Impact Advisory Committee Jaynes Hansz, P.F. Terri Loudermilk Randall Goff — HDR Engineering Mayl3, 2008 Mr. James IIansz, P.E. Director of Public works City of Kalispell 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Supplemental Information Transportation Impact Fees Mr. Hansz: Presented herein is supplemental information on the Revised Final Transportation Impact Fee Report (Impact Fee Report) prepared by HDR/EES dated May 2008 for the City of Kalispell, Montana (City). The additional information provided in this letter is in response to comments raised by both the public and the City Council during the City Council Workshop held on March 31, 2008. Introduction During the City Council workshop, a number of concerns and items requiring additional clarification were raised in response the Final Transportation Impact Fee Report Prepared by IIDR.IEES dated March 2008. The report has since been revised to incorporate the concerns raised. A summary of the concerns raised during the workshop are as follows: ■ Methodology review ® Business subsidization of transportation improvements e Comparison of fees charges by other jurisdictions. Each of these items is discussed below. Methodology Review The basic approach to the development of the transportation impact fee can be broken down into two (2) distinct parts. The first part is the determination of the cost per trip to provide capacity in the transportation system at the existing level of service. The second part of the transportation impact fee methodology is the basis under which the number of trips and hence cost per various land use types is determined. In the determination of the cost per trip, the information used was forum the Kalispell Transportation Plan, adopted by the City in April 2008.. This information was further supplemented by letter reports which were provided as Exhibit 1 to the Impact Fee HN% r% 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Phone: (503) 423-3700 uts/EES Suite 1800 Fax: (503) 423--3737 Portland, OR 97204-1134 www.hdrinc.com Mr. Jaynes Hansz May 13, 2008 Page 2 Report as to the specific impact within the City. The Transportation Plan reviewed three aspects of the transportation system used in the determination of the impact fee. The first was the level of service. This analysis was used to allocate new transportation improvements to the impact fee. Only that portion of the improvement that maintained the existing level of service was allocated to the impact fee. If the improvement increased the level of service, only that portion that would maintain the existing level of service was allocated to the impact fee. The second analysis determined the portion of the improvements that were within the City and hence eligible for inclusion in the impact fee. Based on a review of the properties that were recently annexed into the City, this number was reduced due to the fact that the roads were not annexed as part of the property. This resulted in a reduction in the amount of improvements allocated to the impact fee and hence a reduction in the impact fee. The last analysis determined the number of new trips that would be generated by new development within the City. This number was then divided into the allowable improvements allocated to the impact fee to determine a cost per trip. A five (5) percent administrative fee was then added to the cost per trip as allowed under Montana law. Based on the cost per trip, the trip generation rates as specified in the ITE Trip Generation Manual were then used to determine the cost per unit for various land use categories. These were adjusted downward to reflect the trip generation rates used in the Transportation Plan in comparison to the ITE Trip Generation rates and to reflect that certain land use categories do not generate all new trips and are the result of existing or "bypass" trips. Business Subsidization of Transportation improvements During the public comment period, a number of concerns were raised that business was subsidizing the transportation improvements. This concern was raised, since certain land use types are high traffic generators and in any given year can pay a larger amount of the transportation improvements. while this can be true for any given year, when viewed over the planning period, this will not occur under the methodology used in the determination of the impact fee. An example is that two fast food restaurants are developed in one year. Given their high trip rate, they could pay more in that year than residential customers. However, two fast food restaurants will not be developed every year of the planning period and hence in other year's residential development will pay more in impact fees than business development. A quick review of the numbers proves this point. The numbers of new trips used in the impact fee development are shown in Table 1. Mr. James Hansz May 13, 2008 Page 3 Residential 7%306 Commercial -- Retail 405013 Commercial — Nonretail -- 22,71 2 Total New Average DailZ Trips 142,031 As shown, the number of residential trip is 79,306 or 56% of the total trips and represents 10,340 new dwelling units (see Exhibit 1 of the Impact Fee Report). If we multiply the 10,340 dwelling units by the impact fee per dwelling unit less the administrative fee ($695) this results in $7,186,300 in impact fee revenue. Dividing this by the total impact fee improvement costs of $12,885,717 (see Exhibit 4 of the Impact Fee Report) is 56%, which is equal to the number of new trips generated by residential land development. What is important to note in the assessment of fees all land use categories pay the same price per trip. Comparison with other Jurisdictions The City Council requested a comparison of the transportation impact fees charge by other jurisdictions. A number of different jurisdictions were reviewed and a comparison by land use classification is provided in Exhibit 1 to this letter. The jurisdictions reviewed and the number of land use classifications is as follows: ® Kalispell, Montana -- 63 ■ Bozeman, Montana -- 45 ■ Missoula, Montana — 43 ■ Bend, Oregon — 71 e Mesa County, Colorado — 27 ® Bellevue, Washington — 53 ■ Jefferson County, Colorado — 9 As shown, the number of land use types varies by jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions also allow for the submission of alternative trip generation studies. Mr. James Hansz May 13, 2008 Page 4 I hope this information is helpful in clarifying the approach used in the determination of transportation impact fees for the City. I look forward to discussing this with you and the City. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, HDR ENGINEERING INC (D.B.A. HDRIEES). Randall P. Goff Project Principal Attachment City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fee Comparison Exhibit I gun �:�oun 210 Single Family Detached ❑U 1 $ 729 $ 4,356 $ 3,649 $ 1,331 $ 415 $ 1,589 $ 2,591 110 General Light Industrial GFA 200,000 106,200 845,200 274,800 110,000 118,000 231,000 326,000 310 Hotel Room 50 31,100 127,200 91,850 22,200 NIA 74,900 122.400 560 Church GFA 20,000 13,880 45,540 29,136 64,100 5,800 24,400 38,400 750 Office Paris GFA 100,000 87,000 582,200 217,300 105,200 89,000 166,500 303,200 816 Hardware 1 Paint Store GFA 3,000 9,606 19,725 16,880 9,615 1,650 NIA 16,890 820 Shopping Center GFA 550,000 1,011,085 2,306,700 2,676,520 1,282,050 431,200 1,205,050 2,477,200 850 Super Market GFA 100,000 498,200 1,425,400 559,860 320,500 180,000 NIA 563,000 912 Bank with Drive thru GFA 4,000 39,788 178,636 76,094 12,820 34,240 15,836 22,520 933 Fast Food with Drive thru GFA 4,000 75,548 150,576 146,900 12,820 16,240 28,692 22,520 944 Gas Station Fueling Positions 8 59,552 112,656 NIA NIA 11,058 NIA NIA NIA - Not available in fee schedule. Uses different basis for fee assessment. 1 - Represents 60% of allowable fees. 2 - Represents 50% of allowable fees. 3 - Bellevue has divided City in to multiple areas with slightly different fees - Area 1 fees were used.. 4 - Assumes 440,000 sq. ft. of gross lease able area. Reprised Final Report for City of Kalispell Impact Fees for the Transportation System May 2008 ............:. . .... ......:.. lilll�ll � III Illli illliilli i R ;� �� - I''llllllll II r "�I I I �� II II �I rd ;•gam � -"?�� c Rom., �:.. ' ::e:�� 'x� a�a".�^,.�=c`y ^� �•=,»� `� •�'" �•�.��. � may.'^ a'� :'33;c". May 12, 2008 Mr. James Hansz, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Kalispell 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903 Subject: Revised Final Report - Impact Fees for the Transportation System Dear Mr. Hansz : HDR Engineering Inc. (DBA HDR/EES) was retained by the City of Kalispell (City) to determine impact fees for the transportation system for new development. Herein is our revised final report detailing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the review undertaken by HDR/EES for the determination of cost -based impact fees for the City's transportation system. This final report includes the planning and cost information from the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the "Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the City Council in April 2008. HDR/EES recommends the City have this report reviewed by its legal counsel to ensure compliance with Montana law. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project and we appreciate the opportunity to provide this technical report to the City. Should you have any questions, please call. We look forward to the opportunity to continue to provide assistance to the City. Sincerely yours, HDR ENGINEERING INC (DBA HDR/EES). Randall P. Goff Project Principal Att 'i Introduction and Overview of the study 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 overview of the Study ...................................... r .... r . r......................................... 0 1-1 1.3 Disclaimer ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-2 2 Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted' Industry Practices 2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Defining Impact Fees........................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Historical Perspective.......................................................................................... 2-w2 2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices ............................................... 2-2 2.5 Financial objectives of Impact Fees.................................................................... 2-3 2.6 Summary.............................................................................................................. 2-4 3 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Impact Fee Criteria.............................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 overview of the Impact Fee Methodology.......................................................... 3-2 3.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 3-4 4 Legal considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Requirements under Montana Law...................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Summary.............................................................................................................. 4-3 5 Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Present Transportation Impact Fees..................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Transportation Zones........................................................................................... 5-1 5.4 Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees ......................................... 5-1 5.5 Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees ......................................................... 5-3 5.6 Ivey Assumptions................................................................................................. - 55 5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees...................................................................... 5--5 5.8 Consultant Recommendations............................................................................. - 55 5.9 Summary.............................................................................................................. 5-5 Contents i City of Kalispell, Montana Tables 5-1 City of Kalispell, Montana Average Daily New Trips ........................................ 5-2 5-2 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee ...................... 5-4 5--3 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee — Residential Development..................................................................................... 5-4 Appendices Appendix A — Transportation Impact Fees Exhibit 1 Engineering Planning Memorandum Exhibit 2 Street Capacity Analysis Exhibit 3 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 4 Street Cost Exhibit 5 Equipment Lists Exhibit 6 Summary Exhibit 7 Allowable Fee Schedule Appendix 13— Montana Code for Impact Fees Contents City of Kalispell, Montana 1.1 Introduction HDR Engineering Inc. was retained by the City of Kalispell, Montana (City) to determine cost - based impact fees for the City's transportation system that complies with SB 185 (Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604). This report provides details of the development of cost -based impact fees for the City's "The objective of this transportation system. Impact fees are a one-time assessment report is to properly place against new development to pay for the cost of infrastructure in context the purpose of required to provide service. Impact fees provide the means of impact fees, and to balancing the cost requirements for new infrastructure between determine cost based existing customers and new customers. The portion of fixture impact fees for the capital improvements that will provide service (capacity) to new transportation system customers is included in the impact fees. In contrast to this, the that complies with City has future capital improvement projects that are related to Montana law." curing existing deficiencies. These infrastructure costs are typically funded by other sources and are not included within the om impact fee. By establishing cost -based impact fees, the City will assure that "growth pays for growth" and existing utility customers will be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth. 1.2 Overview of the Study This report is divided into five distinct components. The next section of the report, Section 2, provides a review of "generally accepted" utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees. At the same time, it also discusses the financial objectives of impact fees and practices of other utilities in relation to this fee. Section 3 provides an overview of the criteria and methodologies used in the development of cost -based impact fees, and Section 4 provides a summary of the legal requirements for the enactment of impact fees under Montana law. The cost -based impact fee calculation for the City's transportation system is provided in Section S. 1.3 Disclaimer HDRIEESI in its determination of impact fees presented in this report, has used "generally accepted" accounting, engineering, and rate -making principles. This should not be construed as a legal opinion with respect to Montana law. The City has had this report reviewed by its legal counsel and they have found that it complies with the requirement under Montana law. Introduction and Overview of the Study I �I City of Kalispell, Montana 1.4 Summary This section of the report provided an overview of the report developed for the City concerning impact fees. Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-2 �` City of Kalispell, Montana 2.1 Introduction An important starting point in discussing the City's implementation of transportation impact fees is an understanding of the purpose and concept of impact fees and the financial objective of those fees. This section of the report will discuss the concept of impact fees and the "generally accepted" practices of the industry. 2.2 Defining Impact Fees One must first define an "impact fee" before beginning an assessment and review of them. Impact fees are often called system development charges (SDC's), capacity charges, buy -in fees, facility expansion charges, or plant investment fees. Regardless of the name applied to the fee, the concept is still the same. Simply stated, impact fees "are capital recovery fees that are generally established as "Impact fees are capital one-time charges assessed against developers as a way to recovery fees that are generally recover a part or all of the cost of system capacity established as one-time charges constructed for their use. Their application has generally assessed against developers as a occurred in areas that are experiencing extensive new way to recover apart or all of residential and/or commercial development."" The main the cost of system capacity objective of an impact fee is to assess against the constructed for their use. " benefiting party, their proportionate share of the cost of infrastructure required to provide them service. Stated another way, impact fees imply that new development creates new or additional costs on the system, and the impact fee assesses that cost in an equitable manner to those customers creating the additional cost. 1 George A. Raftelis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricin (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73. Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" industry Practices 2-1 City of Kalispell, Montana 2.3 Historical Perspective Historically, the financing of transportation infrastructure was paid for via taxes, grants, or other funding sources. Over the last 20 years, however, the use of impact fees as a method of financing growth and infrastructure has risen sharply. To the best of our knowledge, no clear "Historically, the f nancing of surveys or data exists to show this change; however, infrastructure was typically paid p there are a number of examples within the literature that paint out this phenomena. For example, a survey for via taxes, grants, or other of 67 Florida communities was undertaken in 1986 and funding sources. over the last .2D 1989. The number of communities in 1956 using years, however, the use of impact impact fees was 15. By 1989, the number of fees as a method of financing communities usingimpact fees had more than doubled growth and infrastructure has z p to 32. As this funding mechanism gained popularity, risen sharply' g legislation legislatures across the U.S. were developing g p g to provide utilities with the authority to impose impact fees. Typically, legislation defines the approach to be used to develop fees and requires they be used only for growth -related needs -not for current U&VI requirements. At this time, the State of Montana has very specific legislation related to impact fees. This legislation provides the city with the authority to establish and collect impact fees. This authority is provided in Montana Code Section 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604. In summary, the use of impact fees has changed over time, as historical funding sources such as grants have been reduced or eliminated. In response, many communities have moved toward adoption of cost -based impact fees, particularly in areas of high growth. 2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue - raising device. To understand this perspective, one must "An impactfee is a view new development as creating the need for new or regulation and not a user fee expanded facilities. As a result, without payment of impact or revenue -raising device. fees, a utility would have insufficient revenues to provide To understand this facilities; therefore, the community would be unable to perspective, one must view accommodate new development. with this said, impact new development as creating fees do have certain financial objectives associated with the need for new or expanded them. while on the surface it may appear as simply a facilities. " means to extract revenue from new development, the reality is far more complicated. Impact fees help utilities achieve a number of different financial objectives, which lead to financial equity between customers, as opposed to simply producing revenue. 2 James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson and Julian C. Juergensm.eyer, A Practitioner's Guide to DevelopmentImpactFees (Chicago: Planners Press, 1991) p. 3. Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-2 City of Kalispell, Montana An impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new customers. As new residents or businesses develop in the community, they increase the amount of traffic on the existing road system. This results in increased roadway congestion and longer commute times. This occurs because of slower trip rates and waits at intersections. with impact fees, new development pays for the cost to construct additional roadways, which allow the level of service to be maintained. Most commonly, impact fees are adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources. Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of "growth paying for growth. " Even with the above discussion, not all communities have impact fees. Most commonly, impact fees are adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources. Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of "growth paying for growth." Impact fees comport with that philosophy, and it is achieved by applying the impact fees either directly against the capital cost of the expansion facilities, or against the debt service associated with it. 2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees There are a number of myths surrounding impact fees. In a very broad sense, some may argue that impact fees are bad for economic development. These arguments center around two issues: ® Development will occur on parcels with lower or nonexistent impact fees. • Impact fees raise the cost of doing business and hinder development. Of the research conducted on these topics, just the opposite has been found. Developers look at many factors before a parcel is developed. One myth concerns the selection of parcels for development and whether Impact fees are applied to the land. `:.. an impact fee is also a form of a ftnancial reimbursement to existing ratepayers who paid for those facilities in advance of the new customer connecting to the system. " "The argument goes that if a developer is choosing between two parcels of land on which to build —where the first parcel is inside a city where SDC's (impactfees) are charged and the second is just outside where lower or no SDC's are charged —the developer will choose the second parcel. The trouble is this means that the owner of the fiYst parcel does not make a sale. The landowner must lower the land price to offset the fee in order to make a sale. However, if the landowner does not lower the price, this indicates that the value of future development may be higher on that parcel. Thus, be wary of developers who claim they will choose the second parcel. Chances are they would not have chosen the first parcel anyway. In the meantime, the land market will be holding the first parcel available for higher value development. In effect what might look like a loss in the short teem may be a much higher level of development in the long-term. "3 Nelson. "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 55. Overview of impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" industry Practices 2-3 Yam City p of Kalispell, Montana The other argument and myth that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they raise the cost of doing business and hinder development. The argument against this position follows: "'The argument goes that because SDC"s wise the price of doing business, they frustrate economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First, remember that S.DC"s will be offset by reduced land prices and by enabling the community to more easily expand the supply of buildable land relative to demand. Now, consider what economic development really looks for.- skilled labor; access to markets, and land with adequate infrastructure. Competitiveness for economic development will be stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by SDC s). Besides, local governments retain the option to waive SDC's for speck kinds of economic development, such as development locating in enterprise zones. In the competition for certain kinds of development, it will be able to show developers the dollar value of SDC's waived as a solid demonstration of the local government's commitment to such development. i4 "As can he seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. " As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. It must be remembered that an important concept associated with impact fees is that the fees are required to develop infrastructure in advance of the actual development. From the developer's perspective, absent impact fees (i.e., a moratorium on new connections) result in no new development. Because of this, developers are generally supportive of cost -based impact fees, particularly when it provides available capacity and opportunities for development. 2.6 Summary This section of the report provided an overview of impact fees and the financial objectives associated with them as well as some of the issues surrounding them. This will be beneficial when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning the implementation of impact fees. Nelson, "System development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 56. € verview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-4 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 used to establish cost - based impact fees. Presented in this section is an overview of impact fees criteria and general methodologies used to develop cost -based fees. 3.2 Impact Fee Criteria In the determination and establishment of impact fees, a number of different criteria are often utilized: • Understanding and acceptance ® Transportation planning criteria ® Financing criteria, and ® State/local laws The component of understanding and acceptance implies that the charge is easy to understand. This criterion has implications on the way the fee is implemented, administered, and assessed to new development. For the transportation system, the fees are generally assessed by development type and the number of new trips that will be generated by the development type. The other implication of this criterion is that the methodology is clear and concise in its calculation of infrastructure necessary to provide service. "The use of transportation planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of the impact fees. Transportation planning criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. " The use of transportation planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of impact fees. Transportation planning criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. The rational nexus test requires there be a con- nection established between new development and the necessary expanded facilities to accommodate new development. In addition, to see benefits received, an appropriate apportionment of the cost must be realized in relation to the new development. One of the driving forces behind establishing cost -based impact fees is that "growth pays for growth." Therefore, impact fees are typically established so new customers pay an equitable share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing criteria for establishing impact fees relates to the method used to finance infrastructure of the system and Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-1 City of Kalispell, Montana ensures customers are not paying twice — once through impact fees and again through gas tax or property assessments. Many states and local communities have enacted laws that govern the calculation and imposition of impact fees. These laws must be followed when determining impact fees. Most statutes require a "reasonable relationship" between the fee charged and the cost associated with providing service (capacity) to the customer. The charges do not need to be mathematically exact, but must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed. As discussed above, the utilization of the planning criteria and the actual costs of construction and planned costs of construction provide the nexus for the reasonable relationship requirement. 3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology There are "generally --accepted" methodologies used to establish impact fees, which require the following: Determine transportation planning criteria, Calculate the transportation impact fee, and Determine a charge basis for various development types. The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the transportation planning criteria. For transportation impact fees, the planning criteria is the number of new trips that will occur due to development. The most common methods for defining trips are on P.M. hour of generation (or average daily trips). Based on these trips, the transportation planning process determines the capital improvements required to maintain the current Level of Service (LDS). 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 "VIC 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 LDS, based on the VVIC ratio. The transportation impact fee represents the portion of new street projects that provide additional capacity to serve new developments. It does not include the portion of future street projects that are required to cure existing deficiencies. An example is a street with a current LDS of C. Without any improvements, new development would cause the street to drop to a LDS of D. The improvements required to maintain the street at a LDS of C would be included in the impact fee. Conversely, if the street was currently at a LDS of D and the improvements brought the street to a LDS of C with new development, then only a portion of the improvement would be included in the impact fee. There are three different approaches that can be used to determine the amount of the street project that is related to growth. These are: Capacity Approach. The cost of a given project is allocated as growth -related based on the proportion of capacity made available for growth to the total capacity. Incremental Approach. The cost of the project is first determined as if it were constructed to serve existing conditions. The cost is then determined as if it were serving both existing and future conditions. The difference in cost or incremental cost is then allocated to growth. Causation Approach. The entire cost of the project is allocated to growth if it is caused by growth regardless of the benefit to existing customers. Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-2 City of Kalispell, Montana Of the three methods, the causation approach most aggressively allocates costs to growth. It is also the most likely approach to be subject to judicial challenge and may not meet the "rational nexus" test of the amount of infrastructure necessary to serve growth and cost to the customer. The incremental approach very conservatively allocates costs to growth. Any incremental cost saving from construction of a larger project are allocated to growth and not shared between existing and future customers. The capacity approach is the most commonly used approach and shares any benefits from construction of a large project between existing and new customers based on the use or benefit of the project by existing and new customers. It is recommended that this approach be used by the City, as it provides the most equitable allocation of new street projects between existing and new development. The allocation procedure recommended is the ratio of the current VIC 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 the "Trip Generation Manual, " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This manual is a compilation of studies that measure traffic by development type and factors such as employees, square footage, etc. The manual defines development type by standard industrial code and contains approximately Zoo different development types. These may be adjusted for local conditions based on the City's transportation plan. Trip rates for commercial development are often time reduced for bypass trips. Bypass trips are those recorded in the survey data, but not actually new trips. For example, if a person drives to work in the morning, then stops at a fast food restaurant to get dinner on the way home, it is considered a bypass trip. In this case, the fast food restaurant would be charged for two trips, when in fact no new trips were generated, because the person would have been on the road anyway to go from home to the office and back home again. In development of the fee schedule, the utility needs to balance accuracy with administrative burden. A category for retail could be created, which would be an average of trips for certain types of retail establishments such a paint stores, flower shops, etc. Conversely, each category could be listed separately. Another policy issue is whether or not to allow development to provide alternative data on trip generation. While this allows for flexibility in the determination of the fee, it provides a potential for legal challenge. mees Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-3 City of Kalispell, Montana 3.4 Summary This section provided a discussion of the criteria typically used in the determination of transportation impact fees. In addition, an overview of the "generally accepted" methodology used in the calculation of the impact fees has been provided. full Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-4 City of Kalispell, Montana 4.1 Introduction An important consideration in establishing impact fees are legal requirements at the state or local level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used. This section of the report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing impact fees under Montana law. The discussion within this section of the report is intended to be a summary of our understanding of the relevant Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fees. It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of Montana law by HDRIEBS. 4.2 Requirements under Montana Law In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established specific laws 7-6-1604 of the Montana Code. regarding the establishment, calculation, and implementation of capacity fees. The main objective of most state laws is to ensure these charges are established in such a manner that they are fair, equitable, and cost -based. In other cases, state legislation may have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to establish the charges. The Montana law enabling legislation for impact fees was enacted in ?005 via Senate Bill 185. This was comprehensive legislation allowing public entities in the State of Montana to enact impact fees for various services. The legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found in Title 7, Chapter 6, and Part 1 601 to 1 604 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: "7-6-16d1. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:... ...5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed S% of the total impact fee collected. Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-1 City of Kalispell, Montana (b)The term does not include: (i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for development; (ii) a connection charge; (iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity. 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- 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; 0 makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area; (i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; (j) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and (k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that: (i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth,- (ii) projects costs of the capital improvements; (iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital (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: (a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-2 City of Kalispell, Montana attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development. (b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate share 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. 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required.... ... (3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity. " The use of the methodology discussed in Section 3 should ensure the proportional share standard is met and impact fees are in compliance with Montana law. 4.3 Summary This section of the report reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in Montana. HDR concludes that the City has the authority to establish cost -based impact fees and the methodology used should ensure compliance with Montana law. Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-3 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.1 Introduction The calculation of the transportation impact fees presented in this section are based on the City's future capital improvements as identified in their Capital Improvement Plan and planning criteria from the master plan entitled, Kalispell .area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the "Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the City Council in April 2008. As cost and tinning of future capital improvements change, the impact fees presented in this section should be updated to reflect such cost adjustments. 5.2 Present Transportation Impact Fees The City currently does not assess an impact fee for the transportation system. 5.3 Transportation Zones Pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1)(g) in the determination of transportation impact fees, the following must be considered: "...mares a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits, " The Transportation Plan established a service area that included the entire area of the city and an area outside the current city limits (the "Study Area"); no breakdown was made as to specific areas of the city. For the purpose of the transportation impact fee calculation, only the trips generated and project costs within the current city limits were utilized. Based on these factors and the intuitive knowledge of the transportation system, the City and the Impact Advisory Committee determined the entire city would be treated as a single zone pursuant to MICA 7-6- 1602(l) (g) for calculating and imposing the transportation impact fees. 5.4 Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees As was discussed in Section 3, the process of calculating impact fees is based on a 4-step process ® Determination of new average daily trips ® Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs ® Determination of any impact fee credits ® Determination of transportation impact fee by development type Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-1 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.4.1 Average Daily Trip Generation The number of average daily trips is based on the planning criteria in the Transportation Master Plan. New dwelling units, retail employment, and nonretail employment were determined as growth areas. This information was then further segregated between growth in the study area and growth within city limits. The growth factors were then multiplied by the number of trips per development type to determine new average daily trips. Details of the calculations of new average daily trips are provided in Exhibit 1, which is a memorandum prepared by RPA detailing the analyses used in the development of the Transportation Master Plan. A summary of the new average daily trips is presented in Table 5-1 Residential 791306 Commercial — Retail 401013 Commercial — Nonretail 22�712 Total New Average Daily Trips 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: • New streets and intersections ■ Major equipment items ■ Administration costs A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each of the functional plant components is provided below. New Streets and Intersections — The City's Transportation Master Plan identified a number of street and intersection improvements required to maintain the level of service within the city. Based on the analysis prepared by R.PA, VIC ratios, and levels of service, the percent allocated to new development was determined based on the VIC ratios in 2003 prior to the improvements, divided by the VIC ratio in 2030 after the improvements. That percent was eligible for inclusion in the impact fee calculation (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). while the Transportation Plan identified improvements for the greater Kalispell area, those improvements not within the city Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-2 City of Kalispell, Montana were eliminated from the calculation based on the analysis prepared by RPA (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3). The Capital Improvement Program costs were then escalated to current 2008 dollars using the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index. The cost of street and intersection improvements was then divided by the number of new trips. The result was a cost of $90.51 per average daily trip. Details of the calculations are provided in Exhibit 4. Major -Equipment.— The City currently has a number of equipment items required to maintain the street system. These consist of snow plows, sweepers, and other heavy equipment. This equipment has a useful life of 10 years or greater. The original cost was used, including up to 15 years of interest. No equipment costs were allocated to new development. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee determined that equipment does not provide additional capacity in the transportation system. Based on the cost of the major equipment for the City, the impact fee for major equipment is $0.00 per average daily trip. Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 5. Administrative Charge — Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact not to exceed 5% of the impact fee collected. The City has included a transportation administrative charge of $4.53 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 is to determine if a credit for payment from other revenue sources is required. The City currently collects gas tax revenue, a street assessment fee, grants, and financial assistance from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). The City currently uses gas tax revenue and the street assessment fee for maintenance of the street system; therefore, no credit is applicable for the transportation impact fee. The grants received and financial assistance from MDT has been subtracted from the street and equipment costs. 5.5 Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable transportation impact fee can be determined. "Net" refers to the "gross" impact fee, less any credits. "Allowable" refers to the calculated impact fee as shown in Table 5-2 as the City's cost -based impact fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable impact fee, but not over that amount. Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus test of a cost -based impact fee. A summary of the calculated net allowable transportation impact fee for the City is shown in Table 5-2. I� .mem Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-3 City of Kalispell, Montana Street Cost $90.51 Equipment Administrative Charge Credit 4.53 0.00 Total Per Average Daily Hour Trip $95.04 The total impact fee as shown for an average daily hour trip is $95.04. The details of the net allowable impact fee are shown in Exhibit 6. For ease of administration, the recommended charge for a P.M. hour trip is rounded to $95. To determine the cost per development type, the number of average daily trips per development type must be applied to the cost per average daily trip. The trip generation reports provided in "Trip Generation Seventh Addition', " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers reflect an average of national conditions that may not be applicable to the City. Because of this, 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 based 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 fee for residential development is shown in Table 5-3. Details of the impact fee for other development types are provided in Exhibit 7. Residential $729 Apartment 512 Condominium/Townhouse 446 tam Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-4 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.6 Key Assumptions In the development of the impact fees for the City's transportation system, a number of key assumptions were made: ® The City's asset records were used to determine existing equipment costs. ® The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing investments was 6.0%. ® 15 years' worth of interest were included in the cost of equipment. ® The findings required under MCA 7-6-1602 were provided in the Transportation Master Plan and this report. 5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the "cost" of money (interest charges and rate of inflation). HDRIEES recommends the City adjust the impact fees each year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. The most frequently used source to escalate impact fees is the ENR index, which 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 2-year period. After this time period, as required by Montana law, the City should update the charges based on the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities that would be contained in an updated master plan or capital improvement plan. 5.8 Consultant Recommendations Based on our review and analysis of the City's transportation system, HDRIEES makes the following recommendations: ® The City should implement impact fees for the transportation system that are no greater than the impact fees as set forth in this report. ® The City should update the actual calculations for the impact fees based on the methodology as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the methodology for impact fees every 2 years as required by Montana law. 5.9 Summary The transportation impact fees developed and presented in this section of the report are based on the engineering design criteria of the City's transportation system, the value of the existing assets, future capital improvements and "generally accepted" accounting and rate -making principles. Adoption of the proposed impact fees will provide multiple benefits to the City and create equitable and cost -based charges for new customers. Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-5 City of Kalispell, Montana Exhibit l Engineering Planning Memorandum Exhibit 2 Street Capacity Analysis Exhibit 3 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 4 Street Cost Exhibit S Equipment Lists Exhibit 6 Summary Exhibit 7 Allowable Fee Schedule TO: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director' Department of Public works City pof Kalispell - FROM: Jeff Ivey, 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 Policy, US Census Bureau data, forecasts available through the Montana Department of Commerce, and the recent City of Kalispell Water Robert Peccia & Associates Page 1 of 5 Utility Plan 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-1 Transportation Plan Study Area Boundary — Control Totals Total Projected Population and Employment 2030 Iald s Stud... 1 t s na on ......:........ Bouda t 'a e�ad oath .;�a e d .. ...... ... .. :..,.: w .. .. �.. `r ,.. .. .. :). :. .. ...;'........, .n. .. .: .. :Coup. � � ..............oud Coin C`ou005) .......:............ ..... ` �a3o Total 151)713 171086 321799 31,709 17,220 489711 Dwelling 1395282 f 42,714 f 835172 179,273 1425505 1121,778 Units ......... ...... . peoplel peoplelpeople eo 1e eo leL ___peoplel peoplel___people Retail 3,741 jobs 4,052 jobs 7,793 jobs 85498 4,576 131074 Employment jobs Non -Retail 22,632 jobs 24,517 jobs 47,149 jobs 48,435 2600 745515 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 from 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 Peccie & Associates Page 2 of 5 Assignments: within City Limits Households 10,340 dwelling units Retail 3,201 jobs Non --Retail 13,3 60 J obs 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 new i ri s %. atc unl tlull escri t on,> p .............exa or.cat ::: ...:T rs g.. :eta ew rA s New Dwelling Units 103340 DU 7.67 trips per 79,306 (in Citylimits) uni New Retail Jobs 3,201 jobs 12.5 trips per unit 40,013 (in Ci limits) New Non -Retail Jobs 13,360 jobs 1.7 trips per unit 22,712 (in C1 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 (v/c) 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 'age 3 of 5 Approxim IL XT 0Table A-3V" aie v otumes Ior rianninu of ruiure noaawav JIM l�ri:�s �o---- Two Lane Road Up to 12,000 VPD Three Lane Road Up to 18,000 VPD Four Lane Road o 245000 VPD Five Lane Road _1Jp Up to 30,000 VPD Five Lane Road Up to 36,000 VPD rovernents 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 vlc 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 major corridors. By definition, the "vlc 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 VA, Kazios m Lvz!o .uesmynazions .:........:.... ........ .::. :..... .:::..:..::..: ;. �C matzo: .:.....:.............:... .........:.:....... ......:.:.... ton-:-� .. .........: ......:....:.:........:......: c .......:..... � r . .::..::..: o � a �o � r 0.59 well Under Capacity LOS A and B > 0.50 -- 0.79 Under Capacity_LOS C > 0.80 — 0.99 1 Nearing Capacity LOS D > 1.00 — 1.19 At Ca aci LOS B > 1.20 over Capacity LOS F Both the vlc 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 take years to develop and usually consist of expansion and/or new roadway projects. Reference is made to the actual Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 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, vlc 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: Rased on the actual "Number" of Pro'ects: 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% Rased on the actual "Miles" of Pro' ects: Total City project miles = 8.4 miles 148.81 miles = 17.21 % Total County project miles = 40.41 miles 148.81 miles = 82.79% Based on the "Dollar Cost" of Pro'ects in 2007 dollars: Total City Cost = $16,875,4751$108,351,477 = 15.58% Total County Cost = $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 .Flan 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% 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 Page 5 at 5 TO: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director Department of Public works City of Kalispell DATE: April 18, 2008 SUBJECT: Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update Supplemental .Data for "Transportation Impact Fee Study " As requested, RPA has reviewed Exhibit 3 of the Impact Fee Study being developed by I IDR_ Engineering, Inc (d.b.a EE S/HDR) . Based on recent annexations that have occurred within the City of Kalispell during the months of January thru April 2008, some of the relevant data necessary for calculations of the city's impact fees have changed (i.e. costs, percentages, etc.). Appropriate modifications have been made to Exhibit 3 of the Impact Fee Study, and the revised exhibit is being transmitted in MSEXCEL format with this memorandum. Additionally, because of the occurrence of recent annexations since January 2008, there have been subsequent modifications necessary to RPA's initial memorandum dated February 13, 2008. The new information, which relates to the breakdown of project costs by percentages contained in Exhibit 3 of the Impact Fee Study, is as follows: Based on the actual "Number" of Projects: Totally City projects = 5 projects 129 projects = 17.24% Partial City & County = 5 projects 129 projects = 17.24% Total County = 19 projects 129 projects = 65.52% Based on the actual "Miles" of Projects: Total City project miles = 6.15 miles 149.81 miles = 12.3 5 % Total County project miles = 43.66 miles 149.81 miles = 87.65% Based on the "Dollar Cost" of Projects in 2007 dollars: Total City Cost = $12,371,5551$108,351,477 = 11.90% Total County Cost = $95,450,6891$108,351,477 = 88.10% Robert Peccia & Associates Page I of 2 You had also asked that we verify the information contained in Table A-2 of our initial memorandum dated February 13, 2008. The forecasted information contained in Table A-2 has not changed from our initial memorandum, and is based on the TransCAD "Travel Demand Model" utilized for the Kalispell Transportation Plan (2006 Update). This table is reiterated below: Table A-2 ,r T rr, ■ If" 'N V . . It should be noted that the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) TransCAD model is used for the sole purpose of developing the comprehensive Transportation Plan. It is a tool that can be used for overall regional transportation planning. As a tool, we have been able to extract from the model the land use forecasts which were assigned by census blocks via current City limits. Land use forecasting is not an exact science, however the data being utilized for the City's Transportation Impact Fee Study is the same data being utilized for the Kalispell Transportation Plan (2006 Update) in regards to land use forecasting and the development of recommended projects. A final comment is warranted regarding the "average trips per unit" generation for dwelling units, retail jobs and non -retail jobs. A question about this came up at the City Council work session held on April 14, 2008 from a member of the public. The MDT TransCAD model does not use the ITE trip generation rates for trip generation calculations. The model uses rates for dwelling units, retail jobs and non -retail jobs. Because of this, there becomes a need for an adjustment factor. This manifests mainly in the "dwelling unit" trip generation rate. In the TransCAD model, an overall rate is developed for a "dwelling unit" — which can be a single family home, apartment, duplex, etc. That rate is 7.67 trips per unit. In the Transportation Impact Fee Study, the calculations are based on more detailed land uses and actual ITE trip generation rates. To be in concert with the procedure used in the TransCAD model and the Transportation Plan project, adjustments to the ITE trip generation rates were made to reflect the use of the "7.67 trips per unit" used in the traffic model. Robert Peccia & Associates Page 2 of 2 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Street Capacity Analysis Exhibit 2 23 � Q��Q : � .. F MSN-1 West Reserve Drive - Stillwater to Reconstruct to a 5-lane minor arterial 6,900 31,400 31;400 ;.:..::::: 0.68 3.15 1;05 :::::::::'::..:: C F E West Springcreek Road: standard. 100% MSN-2 Four Mile Drive -- Stillwater Road to A new segment constructed to a 3- Soo 17,300 17,300 ::.. :. 0.19 2.04 1 AS : :: : A F F.::::: US Highway 93: ]anc urban minor arterial standard. 100% MSN-3 Grandview Drive Extension - Existing An extension of Grandview Dr. to an -- 19.900 1.66 I.b6 :..:: : -- F F Bend to Whitefish Stage Road: urban minor arterial standard. 100% MSN-4 Whitefish Stage Road -Reserve Drive Reconstruct to a minor arterial 6,8011 30,400 30,400 :::.:.:.: 0,68 3,05 117 .::.::::: C F F ....:.:: . to Rose Crossing: standard including 2 travel lanes in each direction. 100% MSN-5 Whitefish Stage Road - Rose Crossing Reconstruct to an urban minor 5,400 25.500 0.54 2.56 2,13 :::::..:::.: $ F F::':.:::::.:.:: to Birch Grove Road: arterial standard. 100% MSN-6 Helena Flats Road - Montana Iligbw•ay Reconstruct to an urban minor 6.000 10.600 .. A0,60{} :.:.:::;.:::: 0.6 1.09 Q.8& :.:..:..: .: C E 35 to Rose Crossing: arterial standard. MSN-7 Foys Lakc Road (Whalcfsone Drive to Reconstruct to an urban minor 9.200 15,900 15,900::::...:.:::. 0.92 1.6 i.33 ::::::::::.: D F Valle View Drive): arterial standard. 100% MSN-8 Four Mile Drive -- West Springcreek Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 400 8,300 8,3QD ::::::::::. 0.07 L66 0.4fi .:.::::::::. A F B Road to Stillwater Road: roadway, .. ... 10D35 MSN-9 Rose Crossing (western Corridor Construct a new eastlwest con7dor to -- 18,300 18,300 .:..::.. -- 1,53 : . I,53 -- F F Creation - Farm to Market Road to an urban minor arterial facility" Whitefish Sta �c Road): 100% MSN-10 Stillwater Road - Four Mile Drive to Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 1.700 7,800 7,800 ::....:.: 0,38 1,57 Q.43.:.::':..::...: B F West Reserve Drive: roadwa . 100% MSN-11 New' Roadway Connecting Foys Lake Construct new roadway to an urban -- 9,000 9,000 ::.:...:: -- 0.75 0.7 : ::::.:.: -- C C:::::. Road to US Highway 2: colIector standard. 100°1n MSN•12 West Springercck Road -US Highway Reconstruct: to a 3-lane minor arterial 4,2011 15,000 :15,000 :::.. 0.85 L51 1.S 1 :...:.: :: D F F.:. 2 to West Reserve Drive: roadwa . 100% MSN-13 Willow Glen Drive --Conrad Drive to Reconstruct to an urban mittor 6,800 14.500 14,5D4 0.57 1.21 1.21 ::. ;:::::: B F F::::..:. Woodland Avenue: arterial standard. 100% MSN-14 Church Drive (western Corridor Construct andlor reconstruct portions Creation - Farm to Market Road to of this roadway to an urban minor Whitefish Stajge Road): arterial facility.100% MSN-15 ITrumble Creek Road -- Rose Crossing Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 5,200 14,400 14,400 .. 0.52 1.44 0.8 B F D to Birch Grove Road: roadway.100°/° MSN-16 Konrad Drive -- Willow Glen Road to Reconstruct to an urban minor 6,300 16,200 16,200 :::::: 0,52 L35 L35 :::.:...: B F F had Lane: arterial standard. 100% MSN-17 Shady Lanc - Conrad Drive to MT 35: Reconstruct to an urban minor 6,600 16,100 16,100 .:::::: 0.55 1.34 1.34 .. ::::. B F F arterial standard. 100°1° MSN-18 Reserve Drive - US Highway 93 to Reconstruct to a 5-lane minor arterial 15.202 31,700 31,700 :::::..: 1,27 2.64 1.Q6 ::::.:.: .: F F Whitefish Stage Road: roadway.$3°/° MSN-19 Reserve Drive - Whitefish Stage Road Reconstruct to a 3-Iane principal 9,300 16.200 16;200:::.::.. 0.93 1.37 0.9..::::: ...:: D F D;:::::::: to LaSalle Road: arterial section. 97% MSN-20 Reserve Drive - LaSalle Road to Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 7,100 13,700 13,700..:..:::.. 0.71 1.38 0,76 ..:::....:::. C F Helena Flats Road: section. 100°/° MSN-21 Evergreen Drive -Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 5,400 13,000 I3,(}Of7 ::::..::: 0,49 L19 0.72 : ::::: B E 8.:.:.... ... Road to LaSalle Road: section_ 100% MSN-22 Ito Whitefish Stage Road - Oregon Street Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 8.400 17,600 .17,600 :..:.:.:. 0.76 1.6 0.98.::.:: .: C F Reserve Drive: section. 100% 1 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees -Average Daily Trips Street Capacity Analysis Exhibit 2 . ..... .. .... ......... ... .. . Zd 03W� . . .... ... . . . .. . . ......... .......... . ... . .......... . . . . . ... .... . ......... . . ... . . ..... . . . ........... . ... ............. ------- - - ------------ ---- - MSN-23 181, Street West Exterision/Sunnyside Construct new corridor to an urban Drive: collector standard- 100% MSN-24 LaSalle 1 Conrad Drive Connector: Construct new connection between 13.300 13,300 1.12 E E LaSalle Rd. and Conrad Dr, 100% MSN-25 MT 35 Expansion- Reconstruct MT 35 to a 4-lane 21,300 27,600 2700 1.42 1.84 1.84 F F F.:: facility with appropriate left -turn bays. 100% MSN-26 US Highway 2 East — LaSalle Road to Reconstruct to a 6-lane roadway 41,200 65,100 .65,100 1.65 148 1.8 F F F.. Woodland Park Drive- section with appropriate left -turn hays. 100% MSN-28 7' Avenue East North (E. California Reconstruct to a minor arterial 8,000 17.400 .17,400 0,72 1.59 1.45 C F . :. F Street to Whitefish Stage Road) standard. 100% NISN-29 Three -Mile Drive (W- Springereek- Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 2,300 30.500 3M00 0.26 3 b5 L69 A Road to Meridian Road): standard. Icollector 100% frN7Two-Mile Drive (W, Springcreek Road Reconstruct to a 2-lane urban 6,700 12.200 ..12,200 OA7 1,22 L02 . . . C F to Meridian Road) standard. 100% (1) - VIC ratio in 2030 after improvements dii,,ided h), 171C ratio in 2003. If greater that 1006 set to 100%A 2 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 3 X� . ... ...... . ..... .. West Reserve Driv Reconstruct to a 5- MSN-1 — Stillwater to West lane minor arterial I I S2,205,137 S2,205,137 so 0% Springcreek Road: standard. ................ Four Mile Drive — A new segment MSN-2 Stillwater Road to constructed to a 3- 1 1 S1,712,053 so S1,712,053 100% US Highway 93: lane urban minor arterial standard. Grandview Drive Extension — An extension of MSN-3 Existing Bend to Grandview Dr. to an 0.83 0.83 S2,864,500 so S2,864,500 100% Whitefish Stage urban minor arterial Road: standard. Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a Road — Reserve minor arterial MSN-4 Drive to Rose standard including 2 1 1 S2,205,137 S2,205,137 so 0% Crossing: travel lanes in each direction. Whitefish Stage Road — Rose Reconstruct to an MSN-5 Crossing to Birch urban minor arterial 2.5 2.5 S4,280,133 S4,280,133 so 0% Grove Road: standard. Helena Flats Road - Reconstruct Montana Highway to an MSN-6 urban minor arterial 2.12 2.12 S3,646,673 S3,646,673 so 0% 35 to Rose standard. Crossing: Foys Lake Road Reconstruct to an MSN-7 (Whalebone Drive urban minor arterial 0.92 0.92 S1,575,089 S1,575,089 so 0% to Valley View standard. Drive): Four Mile Drive - West Springereek Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-8 Road to Stillwater lane minor arterial 1 0.5 0.5 S1,712,053 S856,027 S856,027 50% Road: roadway. .......... . . Rose Crossing (western Corridor Construct a new MSN-9 Creation — Farm to cast/west corridor to 5 4 1 S9,784,943 S7,827,954 S1,956,989 20% Market Road to an urban minor Whitefish Stage arterial facility. Road): Stillwater Road — Four Mile Drive to Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-10 West Reserve lane minor arterial I I S1,712,053 so S1,712X3 100% Drive: roadway. L I City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 3 .... . ... .. ... ii . . . . . . 0- ...... C110 . . . . . . . zz .. ....... .. 11,11 I . es. C . ......... Im 1 11 New Roadway Construct new MSN- I I Connecting Foys roadway to an urban 0.78 0.78 S1,238,682 S1,238,682 so 0% Lake Road to US collector standard. Highway 2: ......... . West Springcreek Reconstruct to a 3- Road — US MSN-12 lane minor arterial Highway 2 to West 3 2.5 0.5 S5,136,160 S4,280,133 S856,027 17% roadway. Reserve Drive: Willow Glen Drive Reconstruct to an MSN- 13 — Conrad Drive to urban minor arterial 1.15 1.15 S1,968,861 S1,968,861 so 0% Woodland Avenue: standard. Church Drive Construct and/or (western Corridor reconstruct portions Creation — Farm to MSN-14 Market Road to of this roadway to an 5 5 S9,260,082 S9,260,082 so 0% Whitefish Stage urban minor arterial Road): facility. Trumble Creek Reconstruct to a 3- Road — Rose MSN-1 5 lane minor arterial Crossing to Birch 2.5 2.5 S4,280,133 S4,280,133 so 0% roadway. Grove Road: Conrad Drive — Reconstruct to an MSN-16 Willow Glen Road urban minor arterial 1.2 1.2 S3,524,827 S3,524,827 so 0% to Shady Lane: standard. lReconstruct Shady Lane — to an MSN-17 Conrad Drive to urban minor arterial 0.65 0.65 S1,112,835 S1,112,835 so 0% MT 35: standard. Reserve Drive — US Reconstruct to a 5- Highway 93 to MSN- 18 lane minor arterial Whitefish Stage I 1 0 S2,205,137 S2,205,137 so 0% roadway. Road: Reserve Drive — Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-19 Road to LaSalle lane principal 1.5 1.5 S3,407,859 S3,407,859 so 0% arterial section. Road: Reserve Drive — Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-20 LaSalle Road to lane minor arterial I I S1,712,053 S1,712,053 so 0% Helena Flats Road: section. Evergreen Drive — Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-21 Whitefish Stage lane minor arterial 1.44 1.44 0 SIX2,477 S2,482,477 so 0% Road to LaSalle section. Road: Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a 3- Road — Oregon MSN-222 lane minor arterial Street to Reserve 2.43 2.43 0 S5,210,013 S5,210,013 so 0% section. Drive: 18 th Street West Construct new MSN-23 Extension/Sunnysid corridor to an urban 0.3 0.3 S864,321 so S864,321 100% e Drive: collector standard. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 3 ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .... ........... .. Construct new MSN-24 LaSalle 1 Conrad connection between 0.44 0.44 S 1,470,240 51,)470,240 so 0% Drive Connector: LaSalle Rd. and Conrad Dr. Reconstruct MT 35 MSN-25 MT 35 Expansion: to a 4-lane facility 5.7 5.7 S20,754,177 S20,754,177 so 0% with appropriate left- turn bays. US Highway 2 East Reconstruct to a 6- MSN-26 - LaSalle Road to lane roadway section 1.17 1.17 S5,657,649 $5,657,649 so 0% Woodland Park with appropriate left- Drive: turn bays. 7 th Avenue East North (E. Reconstruct to a MSN-28 California Street to minor arterial 0.2 0.2 S342,411 so S342,411 100% Whitefish Stage standard. Road): Three -Mile Drive (W. Springereek Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-29 Road to Meridian lane minor arterial 2 1.7 0.3 S3,424,106 S2,910,490 S513,616 15% Road): standard. Two -Mile Drive Reconstruct to a 2- MSN-30 (W. Springcreek Road to Meridian lane urban collector 1.98 1.46 0.52 S2,601,683 S1,918,413 S683,270 26% Road) I standard. V City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Street Cost Exhibit 4 ice.; 11►i lien .T 1.. ::;,_: •�J � IAA v-.1101" . MSN 1 West Reserve Drive — Stillwater to West Reconstruct to a 5-lane minor arterial $ 2,205.137 $ 2,293,342 100% $ 2.293,342 0.00% $0 Springcreek Road: standard. MSN-2 Four Mile Drive — Stillwater Road to US A new segment constructed to a 3- 1,712,053 1,780,535 100% 1,780,535 100,00% 1,780,535 Highway 93: lane urban minor arterial standard. MSN-3 Grandview Drive Extension — Existing Bend to An extension of Grandview Ear. to an 2,864,500 2,979,080 100% 2,979,080 100.00% 2,979,080 Whitefish Sta a Road: urban minor arterial standard. Whitefish Stage Road — Reserve Drive to Rose Reconstruct to a minor arterial MSN-4 Crossing: standard including 2 travel lanes in 2,205,137 2,293,342 100% 2,293,342 0,G0% 0 each direction. MSN-5 Whitefish Stage Road — Rose Crossing to Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial 4,280,133 4,451,338 100% 4.451,338 0.00% 0 Birch Grove Road: standard. MSN-6 Helena Flats Road - Montana Highway 35 to Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial 3,646,673 3,792,540 100% 3,792,540 0.00% 0 Rose Crossing! standard. MSN-7 Foys Lake Road (Whalebone Drive to Valley Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial 1,575,089 1,638,093 100% 1,638,093 0.00% 0 View Drive): standard, MSN-8 Four Mile Drive — West Springcreek Road to Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 1,712,053 1,780,535 100% 1,780.535 50.00% 890,268 Stillwater Road: roadway. Rose Crossing (western Corridor Creation — Construct a new east/west corridor to MSN-9 Farm to Market Road to Whitefish Stage an urban minor arterial facility. 9,784,943 10.176,341 1000/0 10,176,341 20,00% 2,035,268 Road): MSN-10 Stillwater Road — Four Mile Drive to West Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 1.712,053 1,780,535 100% 1,780,535 100.00% 1.780,535 Reserve Drive: roadway. MSN-11 New Roadway Connecting Foys Lake Road to Construct new roadway to an urban 1,238,682 1,288,229 100% 1.288,229 0.00% 0 US Hi 2hwa 2: collector standard_ 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 16.67% 890,268 West Reserve Drive: roadway. MSN-13 Willow Glen Drive — Conrad Drive to Woodland Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial 1,968,861 2.047,615 100% 2,047,615 0.00% 0 Avenue: standard. Church Drive [western Corridor Creation — Construct and/or reconstruct portions MSN-14 Farm to Market Road to Whitefish Stage of this roadway to an urban minor 9,260,082 9,630,485 100%n 9,630,485 0.00% 0 Road : arterial facility. MSN-15 Trumble Creek Road — Rose Crossing to Birch Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 4,280,133 4,451,338 100% 4.451,338 0.00% 0 Grove Road: roadway. MSN-16 Conrad Drive — Willow Glen Road to Shady Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial 3,524,827 3,665.820 100% 3,665.820 O.OG%a 0 Lane: standard. MSN-17 Shad Lane -- Conrad Drive to MT 35: y Reconstruct to an urban minor arterial 1,112,835 1.157,348 100°5 1,157,348 0.00 /o 0 standard. MSN-18 Reserve Drive — US Highway 93 to Whitefish Reconstruct to a 5-lane minor arterial 2,205,137 2,293,342 83%fl 1,914,128 0,00% 0 Stage Road: roadway. MSN-19 Reserve Drive —Whitefish Stage Road to Reconstruct to a 3-lane principal 3,407,859 3,544,173 97% 3,429,845 0.00% 0 LaSalle Road: arterial section. MSN-20 Reserve Drive -T LaSalle Road to Helena Flats Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 1,712,053 1,780,535 100% 1,780,535 0.00% 0 Road: section. MSN-21 Evergreen Drive -- Whitefish Stage Road to Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 2,482,477 2,581,776 100% 2,581,776 0.00% O LaSalle Road: section. MSN-22 Whitefish Stage Road — Oregon Street to Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 5,210,013 5.418,414 100% 5.418,414 0.00% 0 Reserve Drive: section. MSN-23 18u` Street West Extension/Sunnyside Drive: Construct new corridor to an urban 864,321 898,894 100% 898,894 100.00% 898,894 collector standard. MSN-24 LaSalle / Conrad Drive Connector: Construct new connection between 1,470,240 1,529,050 100% 1,529,050 0.00% 0 LaSalle Rd. and Conrad Dr. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Street Cost Exhibit 4 . . S T , . RE . ... .............. .... a ......... jq1t ...... ...... MSN-25 MT 35 Expansion: Reconstruct MT 35 to a 4-lane facility 20,754,177 21,584,3" 100% 21,584,3" 0.00% 0 with appropriate left -turn bays. MSN-26 US Highway 2 East — LaSalle Road to Reconstruct to a 6-lane roadway 5,657,649 5,883,955 100% 5,883,955 0.00% 0 Woodland Park Drive: section with appropriate left -turn bays. MSN-28 7 Avenue East North (E. California Street to Reconstruct to a minor arterial 342.411 356,107 100% 356,107 100.00% 356.107' Whitefish Stage Road): standard. MSS!-29 Three -Mile Drive (W. Springcreek Road to Reconstruct to a 3-lane minor arterial 3,424,106 3,561,070 100% 3,561,070 15.00% 534,161 Meridian Road): standard. MSN.-30 Two -Mile Drive (W. Springcreek Road to 1collector Reconstruct to a 2-lane urb7n 1 2 601 683 2,705,750 F 100% 2,705,750 26.263'a 710,601 Meridian Road) standard. Total New Average City Daily TripsTrips 2003 to 2030 5 Cost Per Average Trip I - From Kalispell Area Trissisparation Plan- 2 - Increased front to 2008,rissundkz a cost esculationfixtor of 4% 3 - &,e Exhibit I andExhihif 2. 4 - See Exhibit 3. 5 - See F_xhihir I $ 108,351,477 $ 112,685,536 $ 112,191,994 $ 12,855,717 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Equipment List Exhibit 5 Unelazer III Airless Striper 15 2005 5,249 5,564 0.00% - VonArx Milling Machine 1993 20 207 1993 6,500 13,863 0.00% - 398 DenverlGardne Air 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 San! -vac Water Trk 1971 20 45608HO79655 1971 15,692 37,607 0.00% - 331 Chevy C50 Dump Trk 1972 20 CCS532VI46055 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% - 332 Chevy C50 Dump Trk 1972 20 CCS532VIH6059 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% - 333 Chevy C50 Patch Truck 1972 20 CCS532VI46024 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% - 335 Chevy C50 Sand Truck 1972 20 CCS532VI46026 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% _ 368 Gallion T500 Grader 1969 20 41 K3371 C03626 1969 25,000 59,914 0.00% _ 383 Mobile Sweeper 1977 20 802-243 1977 35,081 84,074 0.00% - 300 IHC-DT 466 S1900 Tandem 1982 20 2HTAF159CCA19897 1982 45,316 108,602 0.00% - 306 IHC Tymco Sweeper 1991 20 1HTSAZRNlMH343712 1991 79,747 191,118 0.00% - 336 Ford F-900 Tandem 1988 20 IFDYL90A8JVA23999 1988 43,033 103,131 0.00% - 343 GMC 6000 Snowplow 1980 20 T16DAAV601488 1980 15,286 36,633 0.00% - 344 GMC 6000 Snowplow 1980 20 T16DAAV601719 1980 15,286 36,633 0.00% - 369 Cat Loader 1969 20 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 1FDXHCC3RVA31037 1194 93,529 224,148 0.00% - 371 John Deere Loader 1985 20 R66466T314536 1986 78,564 188,283 0.00% - 304 Ingersol/Rand DD24 Roller 1993 20 5513-S 8224894 1992 25,620 57,924 0.00% - 399 Fair Snocrete Snow Blower 1998 20 107208 1998 35,870 57,171 0,00% - 379 Ingram Roller 1971 20 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 0.00% - 372 Cat 140G Grader 1985 20 08Z283442W0820 1985 82,788 198,406 0.00% - 305 Ford L-8000 Tandem 1996 20 IFD4W82E6TVA-25495 1996 70,000 125,359 0.00% - 325 Crafco SS125 Crack Sealer 1997 20 1C9SY1017V1418230 1997 21,000 35,479 0.00% - 345 Tennant 830 ll Sweeper 1999 20 P9613026 1999 14,322 21,535 0.00% - 346 Tennant 830 II Sweeper 1999 20 P961130131 199 14,324 34,328 0.00% - 330 Ford L-9000 Flush Trk 1994 20 IFTYA95VOSVA26192 2000 13,390 18,994 0.00% - 373 Cat 120H Grader 1999 20 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 trklSanderlPlow 2003 10 2FZAASAK13AM05101 2003 75,505 89,928 0.00% - 301 Elgin Eagle Sweeper 2005 10 5DN90189 2004 22,721 25,529 0.00% - Total $ New Trips 142,031 Cost per Trip $ 1 - No equipment costs were allocated to new development. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Summary Exhibit 6 Streets $ 90.5 1 Equipment - Administration at 5% 4.53 Total Transportation Impact Fee $ 95.04 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 7 210 Single Family Detached Single family detach housing DU 9.57 1 7.67 $ 729 220 Apartment Rental dwelling with at least 3 units in the same building ❑U 6.72 1 5.39 512 Rented rather than owned 224 $ Rented Townhouse/ Duplex units with a minimum of two units ❑U 7.32 1 5.87 557 Residential condominium/ townhouses under 230 Condominium/ Townhouse single=family ownership. Minimum of two -units in the same building DU 5.86 1 4.70 446 Trailers or manufactured 240 Mobile Home home sited on permanent foundations DU 4.99 1 4.00 380 Independent living 253 Congregate Care developments that provide centralized amenities such as dining, housekeeping, transportation and activities. ❑U 2.02 1 1.62 154 254 Assisted Living Residential settings that provide oversite or assistance for independent, or mentally or physically limited persons. DU 2.66 1 2.13 203 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 5.59 531 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 5.58 530 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 3.06 291 Facilities devoted to storage 150 Warehouse of goods and materials. Includes offices and maintenance facilities GFA 4.96 1 3.98 378 151 Mini -Warehouse Storage units or vaults rented for storage of goods GFA 2.50 1 2.00 190 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 7 ;:. e ..... . La,0,00 �i33..�H.,%:..a i.li<:•". ilex: ��::`� �•':�:�.`.=';.:;: .. •y } Y �>.0 y,� `� 6 .�:`.�:� �:`C: �] �q� ('��[� s�n .�:: wE ..�f. l Lodging facility that may 310 Hotel include restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms and/or convention facilities Room 8.17 1 6.55 622 Sleeping accommodations 320 Motel and often a restaurants. Free on -site parking and little or no meeting spaces. Room 5.63 1 4.51 429 rrsai n ITS: l.. 412 Local Park Municipal owned parks, varying widely as to location, type and number of facilities. Acres 7 2.28 1 1.83 174 Regional park authority 417 Regional Park owned parks, varying widely as to location, type and number of facilities. .." Acres 7 4.57 1 3.66 348 Municipal and private golf 434E Golf Course courses. May or may not have a driving range and clubhouse Holes 35.74 1 28.64 2,721 Multi -purpose recreational Multipurpose Recreation facilities containing two more 435 Facility or of the following uses at one site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go-carts and driving ranges. Acres 90.38 1 72.44 6,881 Privately owned with weightlifting and other 493 Athletic Club facilities often including swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquetball, squash and handball courts. GFA 43.00 1 34.46 3,274 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 22.88 1 18.34 1,742 Recreational facilities with 437 ° Bowling Alley bowling lanes which may include a small lounge, restaurant or snack bar. Lane 33.33 1 26.71 2.538 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit T - S S TT a> any � n lr�� to Q. n z 522 Middle School Public. Serves students that have completed elementary and not yet in high school. GFA 13.78 1 11.04 1,049 530 High School Public. Typically serving 9 to 12th Grades GFA 12.89 1 10.33 981 540 Junior J Community Collage Two-year junior or community colleges GFA 27.49 1 22.03 2,093 Contains worship area. May 560 Church include meeting rooms, classrooms, dining area and facilities GFA 9.11 1 7.30 694 Facility for pre-school children care primarily during the 565 Day Care daytime hours. May include classrooms, meeting area and playground GFA 79.26 0.1 6.35 603 590 Library Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms y and sometime meeting rooms GFA y 54.00 1 43.28 4,112 550 University J College Four-year and graduate institutions Student 2.38 1 1.91 181 Includes a clubhouse with Lodge J Fraternal dinning and drinking facilities, a 591 Organization recreational and entertainment areas and meeting rooms Members 0.29 1 0.23 22 M"I 610 Hospitals Medical and/or surgical care facility with overnight accommodations for ambulatory and non - ambulatory patients. GFA 17.57 1 14.08 $ 1,338 A facility whose primary 620 Nursing Home function is to care for persons who are unable to care for themselves Beds 2.37 1 1.90 180 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 7 i f 5. �"� :"Nib„�;,:;�i,,:',` :��•. ,. ,:� .s z ��`� a�� am '"sir' � =�=.�: • ." Fw<:�::.�:= z:u ... ..... ...,rmax...,.. ,. N"N.mil=-i':� I. Single Tenant Office Usually contains offices, 715 Building meeting rooms, fife storage areas, restaurants or cafeteria and other service functions GFA 11.57 1 9.27 $ 881 Provides diagnosis and 72011 Medical -Dental Office outpatient care. Typically operated be private physicians or dentists. GFA 36.13 1 28.96 2,751 Park or campus -like planned 750 Office Park unit development that contains office buildings, banks, restaurants and service stations. GFA 11.42 1 9.15 870 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 6.50 617 Group of flex -type or incubator 1-2 story building served by a common road system. Typically includes a mix of offices, retail and 770 Business Park wholesale stores, restaurants, recreational areas, warehousing, manufacturing, light industrial or research. The average mix is 20% to 30% office 1 commercial and 70% to 80% industrial J warehouse. GFA 12.76 1 10.23 972 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 7 ,> av r,2•- Rig :,.=.,:' :"=:.. .:.•..Yi., Fah...• ..aM.,.. ..; "F v:.. °.... . '�{ �r 2 6t.................��::<:F,�;�:::, i�5=:• Small free standing building that sells hardware, building 812 Building Materials and materials and lumber. May Lumber include yard storage and sheded storage areas which are not included in the unit calculation. GFA 45.16 0.82 29.68 2,820 A free-standing discount store 813 Discount Super Store that also contains a full service grocery department under the same roof. GFA 49.21 0.82 32.34 $ 3,072 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 29.13 2,767 Free-standing store that offers a variety of customer 815 Discount Store services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products. GFA 56.02 0.82 36.82 3,498 Typically free-standing 816 Hardware 1 Paint Store buildings with parking that sell hardware and paints. GFA 51.29 0.82 33.71 3,202 Free-standing building with yard containing planting and 817 Nursery J Garden Center landscape stock. Unit calculation only applies to building and not yard and storage. GFA 36.08 0.82 23.71 2,253 A shopping center that 823 Factory Outlet primarily houses factory outlet stores. GFA 26.59 0.52 11.08 '1,053 w.. < .................. 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 1 (9) (9) (9) 1 (9) City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 7 asp.. CS F F' f . r e 841 Car Dealership New and used car dealership with sales, service and parts, GFA 33.34 0.82 21.91 2,082 848 Tire Store Primary business is selling and repair of tires GFA 24.87 0.82 16.34 1,553 Free-standing grocery store. 850 Supermarket May also contain ATMs, photo center, pharmacies and video rental. GFA 102.24 0.64 52.44 4,982 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 21,914 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 14,858 [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 bulk or large quantities. GFA 41.8 0.52 17.42 1,655 Pharmacy without drive thru Facilities filling medical 880 window prescriptions without a drive thru window. GFA 90.06 0.47 33.92 3,223 Pharmacy with drive thru Facilities filling medical - 881 window prescriptions with a drive thru window. GFA 86.16 0.51 35.22 3,346 Sells furniture, accessories 890 Furniture Store and often carpet 1 floor covering. GFA 5.06 0.47 1.91 181 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees w Average Daily Trips Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 7 ..::....:.,:,,,.,,..,:.:.:,.:..,,...., , ... F. 'F..'. :,lz.: .:+..s. � tvs... •mob.•...... ,<. `.. :.ti.. .. ..<:....:... ..,t••...•• .... .,,,,y.<. .. , ...,.. , E.z , . �A� tiisie� : ,. �.. _ p� ��.. . L►G 7:''Fr� 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 $ 6,315 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 9,947 931 Quality Restaurant High quality eating establishment with turnover rates greater than 1 hour GFA 89.59 0.56 40.21 3,820 932 High Turnover Sit -Down Sit down eating establishment Restaurant with turnover rates of less than 1 hour. GFA 127.15 0.56 57.07 5,421 Fast Food without Drive- Fast food without a drive 933 Thru through window. GFA 716.00 0.50 286.92 27,258 934 Fast Food With Drive-Thru Fast food with a drive through window. GFA 496.12 0,50 19&81 18,887 tg- Sells gasoline and may also 944 Gas Station provide vehicle service and Fueling repair. Positions 168.56 0.58 78.35 7,444 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 5,453 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 5,120 947 s Self -Service Car Wash Allows self cleaning of cars by Wash providing stalls for drivers Stalls 108.00 0.44 38.09 3,618 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1, 000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Roams - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor 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) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies No average provided. 7--6-1601. Definitions. Page I of I Montana Colde Annotated .2005 Previous Section MCA Contents Part. Contents, Search Help Next. Section 7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply: (1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more that increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility. (b) The term does not include consumable supplies. (2) "Connection charge" means the actual cost of connecting a property to a public utility system and is limited to the labor, materials, and overhead involved in making connections and installing meters. (3) "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or structure, a change in use of a building or structure, or a change in the use of land when the construction, installation, or other action creates additional demand for public facilities. (4) "Governmental entity" means a county, city, town, or consolidated government. (5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected. (b) The term does not include: (i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for development; (11) a connection charge; (iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or (iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity. (6) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of capital system improvements that reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. A proportionate share must take into account the limitations provided in 7-6-1602. (7) "Public facilities" means: (a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility; (b) a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility; (c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights -of -way, traffic signals, and landscaping; (d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposal facility or a flood control facility; (e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and (f) other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 77.6 _6 02 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. http:Ildata.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6--I601.htm 1/4/2006 7-6- 602. Calculation of impact fees - - documentation required -- ordinance or resolution W- requirement... Page 1 df 1 - Montana Code Annotated. 2005 Preuous Section MCA Contents Part Contents Search Help fVext. Section 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve documentation that. - (a) describes existing conditions of the facility; (b) establishes level of service standards; (c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time; (d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; (e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; (f) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area; (i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; (j) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and (k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that: (i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth; (ii) projects costs of the capital improvements; (iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and (iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years. (2) The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the public upon request. (3) The amount of each impact fee imposed must be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new development. The calculation of each impact fee must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (4) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the documentation required under subsection (1). (5) An impact fee must meet the following requirements: (a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development. (b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs: (i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and (ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements. (c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee. (d) New development may not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service. (e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility. History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005. Pmwdad by Mntana LeVis(ative Somme' http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm 1/4/2006 7-6- 1603 . Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal requir... Page I of I Montana Code Annotated .2005 Pretiious Section MBA Contents, Part Contents Search Help Next Section 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required. (1) The collection and expenditure of impact fees must comply with this part. The collection and expenditure of impact fees must be reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees. The ordinance or resolution adopted by the governmental entity must include the following requirements: (a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested with all interest accruing to the fund. (b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts. (c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee ordinance or resolution or in accordance with 7-6-1602, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property at the time that the refund was due. (2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no earlier than the date of issuance of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of wastewater or water service connection or well or septic permitting. (3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity. (4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of payment of impact fees if: (a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6- i 602; (b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use by the governmental entity; (c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or constructions are established as part of the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and (d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as part of the adopting ordinance or resolution if the dedication of land or construction of public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due from an individual development. (5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or for rebuilding a damaged structure unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in 7-6- 1602(1)0). If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be imposed. (6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refunds or credits: (a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 776-1.602 and this chapter; or (b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 and this chapter, between the governmental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the impact fees. (7) An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all users creating additional demand on the facility. (8) An impact fee ordinance or resolution must include a mechanism whereby a person charged an impact fee may appeal the charge if the person believes an error has been made. History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005. Pm by Aftfana Lh6 http-.//data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1603.htm I1412006 7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. Page 1 of 1 Montana Code Annotated 2005 Preuous Section MBA Contents Part. Contents Search Help Next. Section 7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governmental entity that intends to propose an impact fee ordinance or resolution shall establish an impact fee advisory committee. (2) An impact fee advisory committee must include at least one representative of the development community and one certified public accountant. The committee shall review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and spending impact fees. (3) The impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the governmental entity. History: En. sec. 4. Ch. 2991, L. 2005. http-.Hdata.opi.state.mt-us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.htm 1/4/2006 May 28, 2008 Mayor Kennedy and Members of Kalispell City Council City of Kalispell PO Box 1.997 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Transportation Impact Fees Public Comment Dear Mayor Kennedy and Members of City Council: On behalf of our Board of Directors, I would like to comment on the draft transportation impact fee schedule offered for public comment. The Kalispell Chamber is supportive of impact fees as a reasonable tool for keeping pace with municipal infrastructure demands in quickly growing communities like Kalispell. However, we oppose the transportation impact fee schedule as currently proposed. The proposed transportation impact fee schedule seems to rely too heavily on commercial development to fund capital improvements in our transportation system. For example, had this fee schedule been in place in 2007, the fee for Sportsman and Ski Haus and Universal Athletic stores ($26 1,963 ) would have exceeded the fees generated by all of the residential development that year (322 units = $260,000). This is not an equitable distribution of capital costs. If implemented, this schedule runs the risk of driving commercial development into unincorporated areas _ or losing it altogether. Kalispell's growth as a regional commercial center continues to increase in response to the area's residential development and population growth. Therefore, funding vehicles which recognize that Kalispell's transportation system serves a trade area of at least 150,000 and a non-resident visitor population estimated at 2 million per year should be given consideration. Kalispell"s residents and business owners should not have to shoulder the burden for all of the region's infrastructure needs. The Kalispell Chamber appreciates the work of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City Council to plan for the current and future needs of its citizens and business owners. If we fall to address our transportation infrastructure challenges, we will lose jobs to other communities and states. The Kalispell Chamber looks forward to continued work with you to solve this important community challenge. Sincerely, Jo Unterrdiner, President alispell Chamber of Commerce OFFICE 405.758.2800.406.758.2805 FAX 9 15 Depot Park, Kalispell, MT 59901 HU TTON RANcH PLAZA AssoCIATEs, LL 135 HUTTON RANCH RD, SUITE 103 ..ALISPELL, SST 59901 April I b, 2045 The Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor City of Kalispell PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Madame Mayor: Because I am not as articulate as I would like when speaking before a group in an extemporaneous fashion., I am writing this letter to each of you with the hope that I can better express some of any concerns regarding your impending actions relating to the imposition of traffic impact fees and, in fact, many other impact fees already created and assessed by the City. While I am not speaking for any other developers within the City, I want to make it clear that I do not oppose the concept of impact fees as a matter of personal or public policy. I am only concerned that a particular fee or ordinance establishing a fee comply with constitutional protections, and State and/or Federal enabling laws. I have deep concerns in five areas relating to the City's actions in establishing and implementmg impact fees in general, and the proposed traffic impact fee in. particular. They are: 1. Failure to comply with constitutional protection of Niue process; 2. Failure to establish correlations between the proposed impact fee and the development to be charged; 3. The erroneous use of trip generation studies; 4. The fa lure to offset fees by the reasonable value of economic benefits derived; and 5. The erroneous use of impact fees to cure existing infrastructure deficiencies. April 16, 2008 Page 2 1. Federal and State Dine Process Due process, required and guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States and in all States under either their Constitutions or enacted laws, is a simple concept. It requires that before an individual or entity can be punished, taxed or otherwise negatively affected by any law or ordinance, he, she or it, must have notice of the existence of the law. Under the enabling Statute, Montana defines an impact fee as a charge imposed upon development by a government entity as part of the development approval process [sic] to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected." The development approval process in Kalispell is similar to that which exists in most cities, counties and states in the United States. It includes a petition for annexation of property (if necessary), a petition for zoning or modification thereof (if necessary), an application for use permit or conditional use permit, and the execution of a development agreement in concert with creation of a Planned Unit Development. once all entitlements have been secured under the above, or under other discretionary types of applications and/or petitions, the development process has been completed. At this point, the compliance phase begins. If a developer has come before the City, received all of the discretionary approvals necessary to allow the developer to move to the compliance phase, and been given notice that to construct a building there will be particular fees (of any nature, including impact fees) then the requirements of due process will have been met and the exaction of fees at that time, or at some future time, will be appropriate. On the other hand, if a developer receives all of its discretionary approvals, and executes a .Development Agreement, and at that time a particular set of fees (such as impact fees) have not even been publicly discussed, much less voted on, then the developer has had no notice, and cannot be charged the fees at a later date. As one example, Dutton Ranch Plaza completed the Development Process for its project in August, 2005. It executed a binding Development Agreement on January 5, 2006. The City Council did not create a resolution even to appoint an advisory committee until February 21, 2006 and no members were appointed until March 2006. Obviously, Hutton Ranch Plaza had no notice that enormous and potentially devastating fees would be later enacted and charged as a condition to receiving a building permit on land already having gone through the "Development Process". Even your own Consultant, Randy Geoff, inadvertently deals with the above concept in section 2.5 of his report where he admonishes the Council not to believe developers that the creation and exaction of a traffic impact fee will create financial hardship since the developer of the land will pay less for it knowing that the fee will be assessed. If Mr. Geoff is correct, then the developer would have to have known about the fee at the time he buys the land, makes concessions to the City for its development, and enters into a Development agreement, obligating him to spend enormous dollars for public improvements. Since Hutton. Ranch Plaza had no knowledge that impact fees were on the horizons it was not able to take into consideration any of these fees in the acquisition of its property, its pricing of the project for itself or subsequent users of its space. Hutton Ranch Plaza is only one of several developments that have 406.756.2771 (phone) 406.756.2777 (fax) April 16, 2008 Page 3 already been charged "look back impact fees" that have clearly violated the constitutional right to due process. 2. Correlation between Impact Fee and the Development to be Charged. Throughout Sections 7-6- 1602 and 7-6-1603 of the Montana Code Annotated 2005, the drafters require a correlation between any impact fee charged and the benefits to be derived. The law doesn't allow an advisory committee or the City Council simply to make a finding that a correlation exists between a development and widening of a road miles away from the development, because, (as was stated at an earlier workshop) "Kalispell is a small town" and therefore justifies a single service area. It must, in fact, demonstrate a direct and real connection between the road to be improved and the new development to be constructed. It is clear that if 1000 homes are to be developed and constructed at one end of a new road or newly widened road, there is a clear correlation between the cost to build or widen it and serving the basic traffic needs of the development. Mr. Geoff s report shows no connection between public improvement and new development. It simply assumes it. what Mr. Geoff has done in his report is to identify every road that needs to be, or has needed to be improved over the past several years. He then uses trip studies for a hypothetical new corninercial development, assuming that there is a 100% correlation between the trips on each of these roads and the new development. This is inappropriate because it fails to recognize that all developments, old and new, are benefited by road improvements. The framers of the enabling laws authorized cities to collect from new development its "Proportionate Share" of costs to be incurred, not the entire cost. In fact, Section 7-6-1603 (7) defines an Impact fee as "a fee for service payable by all users creating additional demand on the facility". It is inconceivable that a given new shopping center, office building, or stand alone restaurant could be responsible for creating 00% of the demand on a roadway located miles from its location. while the enabling laws do not allow you to charge back against already existing developments, they do restrict you from applying to a new development more than its proportional share of costs. 3. Use of Trip Generation Studies The use of trip generation studies to determine how to apportion Transportation hnpact Fees makes a great deal of sense when determining whether a developer should contribute, and how much, to the widening of a road surrounding the development, or the creation of a new road, or the placement of a traffic light, or even the widening or creation of roads adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the development to be charged (a nested service area). But ITE traffic generation studies are inappropriate when they are used in a setting where costs have not first been apportioned between all persons and developments benefited by the infrastructure construction. What has happened here is that your consultant has used this particular methodology to work backwards into a set of numbers that are aimed at paying for all of the costs associated with one 406 756.2 771 (phone) 406 7562777 (fax) April 16, 2008 Page 4 particular capital improvement plan. This can be witnessed in the absurdity of some of the numbers. For example, last year the numbers proposed by Mr. Geoff would have applied a rate to a new movie theatre that would have resulted in the new Stadium. 14 paying almost $1.,000,000 in traffic impact fees alone. This inequity was so obvious that lam-. Geoff was asked to go back and reexamine his numbers. He did such a good job that he deleted movie theatres altogether in his latest report. while politically expedient, it is totally inappropriate. He has come up with a set of numbers that would have cost the new McDonalds on Highway 93, over $100,000 in Traffic Impact fees; a cost that would have amounted to 25 % of its building construction. This fee would have billed the project. An examination of numerous other categories results in the same absurd results. When asked how the attached fee structure compares with other cities and towns of comparable size, Mr. Geoff stated that the residential fees were 115 to 116 of most other towns. He stated that the commercial fees were comparable to other towns and followed up by saying that the proposed Kalispell commercial fees were also 1/5 to 116 of most fees in other towns. This statement is ridiculous. If his comment were true, to construct the aforementioned McDonalds in other towns would require the payment of a traffic impact fee of over $500,000. This is more than the cost of the building itself! 4. Requirement to offset Fees by Economic Benefits Derived Section 7-6-1602(5)(ii) states that any impact fee MUST consider system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as the result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes .... Nowhere in the report, or any report from staff that I have seen, is there an analysis of the enormous property tax increment that will flow from any of the developments (residential or conznnercial) sought to be charged by this or other of your impact fees. You now have impact fees for virtually every service to be provided by the City. Has staff considered that on full build out in the near future, property taxes generated by Hutton Ranch Plaza and Spring Prairie, alone, should generate between two and three million dollars each and every year? The City's proportion of just those taxes would enable bonding of between seven and ten million. dollars. If you add an additional two to three million dollars in gross property tax increment from the Glacier Town Center project, the City's incremental tax receipts would support bonding that would pay for all of the improvements in its Transportation Plan. 5. The Erroneous Use of Impact Fees to Cure Existing Infrastructure Deficiencies The enabling Statutes at Section 7-6-1602(3) provides "The amount of each impact fee 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." At Section 7-6-1602(5)(c) the Statute provides that "Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in an impact fee." Virtually every road intended to be 406 756.2 771 (phone) 406 756.2777 (fax) April 16, 2008 Page S improved as described in the Impact fee report has an existing substantial deficiency. It is inconceivable that the need to, and therefore, the cost of creating, widening or otherwise improving roads miles away from a particular commercial development could be created only by new development. Yet Mr. Geoff s report suggests that only new development should pay, and pay 100% of its cost. This is not what Montana law allows. I realize how hard the Impact Fee Committee has worked to provide you with reconunendations regarding various impact fees. However, if you provide any group of bright, well meaning, civic minded individuals (the vast majority of whom otherwise have little if any experience in the law, public financing or real estate development) with bad or incomplete information, what will come out of the group is exactly what was fed into the group: bad information and bad results. As a member of the development community here in Kalispell, I am ready, willing and able to work with the Council and its staff to help solve the infrastructure problems that we face. As a property owner and developer I am willing to pay my fair and proportionate share of the costs associated with improving our infrastructure. In return I ask only that you take the time to consider the tough questions relating not to whether we need to assess impact fees, but whether in so doing we are doing it correctly and in compliance with the law. 'hank you for your time and consideration. Lcil Members Charles Harb a.l.l, City Attorney James H . Patrick, City Manager 406.756.2771 (phone) 406 756.2777 (fax) KALvIG & LEDuc, P.C. KEN A. KALVIG kern@kalviglamcom ANGEL4 M. LEDuc angie@kalvig w.com MARSH.ALL MURRAY marshall@kalviglaw.com ERIC S. HLMMEL eric@kalviglaw.com Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 ATTO RNEys AT LAw Southfield Tower 1830 3=a Avenue East, Suite 301 Kalispell, MT 59901 February 27, 2009 P.Q. Box 1678 KALISPELL, MT 59903 PHONE: 406-257-6001 FAX.- 406-257-6082 Re: Kalis ell Trans ortation Plan LZO06, Update — Public Comment Dear Mayor Kennedy and Kalispell City Council: I have analyzed the final review of the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update). The basis for nay analysis comes from over 50 years of legal experience, serving as Kalispell's city attorney, and being a member of the committee responsible for drafting Kalispell's most recent transportation plan in 1993. Before I started my analysis, I made the following assumptions: l . The City/MDT contracted with a reputable and competent expert. 2. The engagement agreement with your expert would be followed to its logical completion. 3. The final Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) would serve as the foundation for future transportation planning and as an amendment to the Kalispell growth policy. 4. The Plan includes impact fees which are being considered, and which, in part, would be based on the foundation of the 2006 update. 5. The 2006 update would be accurate (the term used for the materials to be gathered for the report is "verified") or at least substantially accurate so that the recommendations to the City and MDT could reasonably be relied upon in future planning. 6. Since multiple ,jurisdictions are involved, they would be clearly delineated among City, County, and MDT. Mayor Kennedy Kalispell City Council February 27, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Based on these assumptions, and because it has long been my experience that to evaluate a product: submitted by an expert one needs to also know what was contracted for, I obtained a copy for engineering services for the 2006 update, dated April 18, 2006, (and two amendments) between the City and Robert Peccia and Associates, and the final draft of the 2006 update. In addition, I reviewed several of the reports, guides, and reevaluations referred to in both the contract and the 2006 update. In my opinion, the report is incomplete because it does not contain all of the information contracted for. It is inaccurate because some of the information has obviously not been verified. It is inconsistent in certain areas that should have been addressed -W if only to furnish to you and MDT the very serous nature of right-of-way acquisition in some of the proposed improvements. Let me detail these matters to you in very brief fashion, 1. with respect to incomplete information, the report fails to address the problem of hazardous materials being; transported through the Kalispell area (except in cursory fashion). It does not assess truck problems in any detail. Igor does it reflect the collection of historic crash data for the last three years or identify locations with a high level crash frequency or severity, except intersections (even though road corridors are identified in the contract). 2. The report also fails to delineate public or TAC input in any detail. Although this may not be a matter of contract, it certainly is a matter of legal significance. 3. with respect to inconsistency, the report indicates that it does not furnish any information relative to right-of-way acquisition costs. It does identify some areas where right-of-way acquisition is involved, while at the same time failing to recognize other areas where right-of-way acquisition would be an extreme problem due to high costs, perhaps even costlier then the improvement figures that are noted. If this document is to be used as a plan, it should at least be noted that there are severe right-of-way acquisition problems with many of the recommendations which may make those recommendations not viable now or in the future. The same comment can be made to major infrastructures such as bridges. 4. with respect to verification of information, one need only review Figure 39, Land Use Forecasting -residential, to recognize that at least one of the density areas is completely wrong. Figure 39 notes that the number of dwelling units for the area encompassing Stillwater Estates (northwest of Highway 93 and Reserve) is 300 dwelling units. I represent Stillwater Estates. I have reviewed their covenants and the deeds to the subdivision. There are only 128 lots in the entire subdivision. The information used for land use forecasting in the plan is not accurate; nor has it been verified. I do not know the explanation for the discrepancy, but it leads Mayor Kennedy Kalispell City Council February 27, 2008 Page 3 of 4 e to question the accuracy of the report. It also makes me question the underlying data upon which impact fees are being based. If the Plan states that a particular land area has 300 dwelling units when there may be less, then growth projections are incorrect. If growth is not correct, then there will be less traffic and less need for added infrastructure and traffic impact fees. It is important that that data included within the 2006 plan be accurate. The 2006 Transportation Plan update is an integral part of the Kalispell growth policy. The council is currently considering traffic impact fees, and much of the data included in the Transportation Plan will serge as the foundation for the implementation of transportation impact fees. In addition to the foregoing, there are other areas of considerable concern that I noted, because I have been involved with them for a number of years: MSN3 -- Grand View Dr. extension from grand View Corner to Whitefish Stage Rd. There is no data explaining how the cost of $2,865,000.00 was arrived at, nor any recognition of the extreme right-of-way and infrastructure problems that would be involved in this project. I have been advised that the bridge to cross the Stillwater River would be a multimillion dollar project in itself. If right-of-way and bridge costs are not addressed in the project, hover can its feasibility and prioritization be considered' MSN9 Rose Crossing — Hwy 93 -- Junior Interchange - There is no data to support the design, the cost, or the right-of-way problems associated with the project. Since the west side of Highway 93 is not presently intended to be developed, hour will such a structure be beneficial? MSN21 Evergreen Dr. — 'Litefish Stage to LaSalle Rd. This particular recommendation is so confusing that it is impossible for me to determine what is intended. The project recommends a three -lane road, between Whitefish Stage and LaSalle Rd. There is no discussion regarding the severe right-of-way problems which face the project. The description of the project on page 9-2 states that the project extends from LaSalle to Helena Flats. The project description on page 9- 1 o states the project extends from Whitefish Stage to LaSalle, but recommends that Evergreen be reconstructed from LaSalle to Helena Flats. The project description should be clarified. MSN 24 Conrad Dr. connector. This was the No. 4 priority in the 1993 report. There is virtually no recognition of the significance of that priority, nor the significant effect it would have on downtown traffic if it were constructed. Considering the relatively minor costs of this project when compared to the westside by-pass, it is a major oversight to fail to address these issues. I also note the fallowing problems: The report does not include toll roads as a financing alternative. The report does not address whether traffic calming measures will cause added air pollution. Mayor Kennedy Kalispell City Council February 27, 2008 Page 4 of 4 - The report does not address existing traffic problems in downtown Kalispell (the purpose of the 1993 report) and how downtown truck traffic will be relieved. -- The report does not coordinate with Flathead County. Flathead County has retained. Robert Peccia and Associates to prepare a transportation plan. The city and county should coordinate with one another to prepare similar plans which contain the same facts and underlying recommendations. w The report does not address whether the proposed west -side bypass should be extended farther north. - According to page 2-13, intersection LOS (level of service) was calculated in the summer of 2006. Sumner is the busiest time of the year in Kalispell. Other times of the year, intersection LDS may be different. Should year-round transportation needs be based on traffic counts that may only exist for three months of the ye'ar? The report does not address accidents caused by wildlife. - The report does not address issues related to traffic noise and mitigation. The Kalispell Planning Office has made noise mitigation a condition of subdivision approval for property adjacent to the proposed bypass. This policy should be included in the plan. - The report does not address implementation. If the report is going to be useful, it should explain the process and provide a timeline for when its goals will be implemented. As a final note, 1 understand that there is a connection between Chapter 10 of the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 and the 2006 plan. It remains unclear which, document controls transportation issues, and I find no record of reconciliation between the two documents in the went of an inconsistency. Based on Montana case law, it is important to ensure that growth policy documents are internally consistent, I urge the council to consider the above concerns and to return the plan to the Kalispell planning Board for further deliberation and consideration. mm:mmi Yours Truly, Marshall Murray S.-NM o1fordlGiz6er'Town CenteflTransporta1i0" PianlMayor Kenroedy - City Council 42-254.dot gr and Associates, Inc. Street, Suite 210 Deer, Colorado 2 3- 15 (303) 446-2-626 FAX (303) 446-0270 eruar 27, `,108 Mayor and CIty Councilors amity of Kalispell PO Box 9. 2 V" Avenue East Kafispeli. Montana 6990 4 i 5 7' Or F Deer MO-Yor Kennedy and Councilors n behalf the • _off rd Developmem, I have reviewed the Kabspell. Area. Transportation Plan (2006 Update), prepared by Robert Peccia & Assocdiates, Kallispell.l. An area ranspor- tabor, plan is nimportant. o n a lon br uitur �" s rta �`� f cifit � �� - ; h re re, a, careful' r iewis appropriate to obtain the best results possible. Based or, my review., i offer the ollowingcot-n rr r' , . 'ii � '"` i � g sed I r e Analysi's of Ex'sfin f*L q ... Siqnalized Intersections I was <azlstitraffic operations at exi:sfing signalized i # erszc Fon and" the nUmercus intersections hich were shown operating at a poor or faffina 1&velf serves., My e peri � in driving r an Kalispell did not Indicate the poor operations ��a were h en within the analysis} A review of the actual Highway Capacity Software analysis sheets for each :intersection indicates that the majority f failing n er ec- tins f, currently timed with excessively long Sfgn cycle �: � a Iengths ctirrently in use ,nary_ -1r m PM seconds per cycle to 2.00 -s-acondsper cycle, A c e- f ri g an inters ect€ n with a 200-selcond cycle may have to wartwalt three minutes fir green g h, even with no other vehlicles waiting, Typical cycle leng h urban areas n,.ange from 7G seconds to 120 seconds per -rcycfe. Tease cycle J�ng t allow enough gh time to maximAze the vofumafficthrough the intersection without ca,using excessive delays, Also, the existing cycle lengths along corridors vary greatly. For example, on Highway 3,' e .1 �� :�� is 88 seconds. The cycle length for the Home Depot signal is 126 seconds, arid the cycle length at Reserve Street signal is 157 seconds. These signals are with one- half mile of each ether, and should have the same cycke length-, so that she signals can be oordinat.d to improve trafficfloe o. r r Hsg Ewa 9'. The area Transpoilation Plan does inot address these signal filming prb ems_ and leads the rawer to assume that there are capacity Problems, at each intersection.. Impm-ved signal s �`'i �� t"�s� t`9 fit- ,°"� � M� re � �t' � '�' ; �c,.v.� �.,• < , ,� _y,,, A vT �rf f �w6 T ' L.� 5 �� i' � 1 5 i pro M4.i ;''$^� g�;.0 W K� �w � {"'; y`'': { � � '[�+S j L'� i lL 'L [' r 5, � s e r • a c`L S "-.Sr e `�^rozM yy,�-] �ni��rtl{; 9r•� {F 0 +J�, -++c,c �'ke - iRJ' �:• � �t \aF f ..f % %.J�i. ( �'f wf. � �F.' �wi.i 1 �{�!�i' .;.,� 3 ten. 6 (�i � � ni.F4i ��3 t!wd> '� c ..Ex � x� R� i t�� ]' i iE �s � ? n.f 7�/ Y�� `�e'e.'� 'k �� ` sw'. yeen brie t the S phas f-othe. s-wne CC ,Mayar,Kenloedy apa; %C""'Ity %C'Outirr Cily of Kafisg,lerg I FebruaxT 227, 2008 Page 2-1 L, I uming and a coordinated signal system could greatly improve the flow of traffic t.hrough Kt-21"Ispell. 2-- Travel Dernand Forecasting 1"he Area Transpo.rtation Plan provides a Year 2030 traffic rnodel -for thel recommended plan, as well as numerous scenarios, While o, erfe- Ction is not possible ttihen forecasting future ftraffic:, the. mole ac.,---.u,rate the ITOd-el, the easier it VVIII be, to usefhz..z-., model in traffic impact an,,,.flvsis, A ciursory rev.:ew of the rnodd in the area of North Kalispell indicate- s sever I plfoblerns. The mode ndicates if a large vehicle usage. on Reserve Drive between Highway 93 and Whitefisth Sege Road, A coy nipar es -on with the othetr 1 model runs Ind'cates that th;s Volulerle is too high by at least 10,000 vehicles per day. Similarly, the valumes on A. UMx'maely 10,000 S Highway 2 riorth of Reserve Drive Cap to be too low by appL I I I vehicles per day. Al--.:�,o, a Tetony street system is shown irk the area of Glacier o',wn C�rtter, but- rio Traffic volumes have been identiffed. with- this stria et sysAc; Traffic VOILIMes should be ass`gar-d to the secondary street wstem, which will ,reduc� traffic on parallel roadways, in particular on Whitefish Stage Road and Highway 93.- 3. Costs The Area Trah sport-aflon Plan provides an es-timated cost for eachr Ofthe rec-o-mmended improvements. However, since no unit costs were p It X rovidecf,. it. is difficult to determin e if theses costs are realist.10. The unift cost 'n-for- mation should be provided in an appendix so that it. could be reviewed. Also. the ,Gosts do riot 'include estimated costs for right of way acquisition, I understand -that It rnay nw:L be in the scope of an' area transportation plan to estimate right of way costs; nowev.er, tclentriTying the pro mat aMOUnt of' Fight of way taking, the land -io .1 ia ing, and any improvements on the dght of use desfq tat n of the r'ght of way' k' r vicay would be useful to the reader, It is i,,appro pdate to let the reader assume 111-1-iat a $500,000.00 o. �ect-vvino th right of way purchase is the same as a $500.000,00 rOJ project wit -III eXdtensive right of way pfurchases and relocations. I I ties. t d.eficient areas and be released io r public revise and comment before being approvedby W, 'the Kalispell City Council. This is an impo.rtant and . expensive projec-A for the (C.'.4ty or Kalispell to undertake, and th ese addifitonal re'visions are needed "to provide the C,4ty with je an nsp area tray nefl m we-41, oration plan that will se . h, I ince rely, Kathleen 1'. Krager "n-r-ansportation Engineer REACTOR`$' Northwest Montana Association of REALTORS@,, Inc. 110 Cooperative Way Kalispell, Fontana 59901 www.nmar.com February 28, 2008 City Council C/O City of Kalispell 12 l st Avenue East Kalispell., MT 59901 Dear City. Council: Office (408) 752-4813 Fax (408) 752-7834 nmar rnlsnmar,com RFALTORS® recognize the need to sustain and enhance the duality of life enjoyed by Montana`s citizens. We believe we can build better communities by supporting quality grwA th. and seeking sustainable economies and housing opportunities that embrace the Mviran.rnental dualities e cherish; �x.hile protecting a property owner's ability to own, use, buy, and sell property, REALTOR don't just sell homes., we sell communities - we sell Quality of Life. We created the Quality of Life 'rogram to educate, provide tools. develop policies, influence legislation and enhance the overall REALTOR6 image. Our five Quality of Life Principles helps elected officials and the communities, at large., understand what we are about. Quality of Life Principles Protecting Property Owners R ACTORS®/ believe that private property rights are fundamental to our free-market economic system and a cornerstone upon which this nation Nvas founded. The united States and Montana Constitutions recognize and protect the natural right to own property. A strong economy depends upon preserving the .night to freely own, use and transfer real Property. Ensuring Economic Vitality R.EALTOR.S9- believe a strong economy with full ernpl oYment for our citizens throughout the state remains the single biggest key to our quality of life. A healthy economy sustains vibrant communities for living and working. Commercial, industrial and residential growth, in turn, sustains a healthy economy. Economic development brings new opportunity and improved quality of life for city residents by increasing jobs., tag bases purchasing power, diversity, availability of goods and services, and offering community revitalization and improvement. An increased tax base is crucial to government's ability to deliver necessary public services, new amenities for neighborhoods; and maintain infrastructure to serve the needs of the community. Providing .Mousing opportunities REALTORSO believe home ownership is the cornerstone of the American Dream and deserves a preferred place in our system of values. Horne ownership contributes to community responsibility; civic; economic, business and employment stability; family security and well being. Every citizen has the right to sale, decent and affordable housing near where they work, shop and play, and that choice in style and location is critical to increasing hone ownership, Furthermore, these objectives should be met through market - driven approaches that faster a wide -range of urban, suburban and rural housing choices at all price levels. Accommodating growth relieves pressure on housing prices and provides increased opportunities for homeownership. Preserving our Environment REALTORS @ recognize the incredible gift that Montana's natural environment offers to our state's citizens. Furthermore, we recognize the importance of parks. open space and the environment to our quality of life and therefore the marketahility� of surrounding property. To maintain our region's quality of life and to protect the environment, REALTORSiR) supp011 policies that encourage conservation and wise use of natural resources and critical areas through incentives and sufficient compensation. In order to protect the environment effectively, REALTORS® believe governmentmust accommodate quality commercial, industrial and- residential growrth using innovative planning techniques, while recognizing the importance of local decision -making, private property rights, and the vatue of a healthy economic sector and attainable homeownership opportunities. Building Better Communities REAI..TORSCRf believe eoMmunities flourish best when they offer a high. quality of life at a reasonable cost. Livable communities offer a variety of affordable housing choices, nearby employment opportunities, an economically viable commercial sector. good schools, safe neighborhoods, quality public services, ample recreation and park areas, open space, efficient transportation systems, and the infrastructure that provides the framework to the quality of life we enjoy in our communities. To promote livable communities, governments should encourage quality gro-wth through policies sufficiently funding transportation and infrastructure (roads, water, sever, etc.) that provides the framework for a community's quality of life, and Lays the essential groundwork for accommodating quality con-.nercial, industrial and residential growth. To provide good livable communities, a good transportation plan must be in place. According to a 2007 Growth and. Trans ortation Study conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for the National Association ofREALTORS9-. three -fourths of Americans believe that improving public transportation and building smarter development are better long-term solutions for reducing traffic congestion than building roads. More than 70 percent are concerned with how growth and development affects global warming. The proposed Kalispell Transportation Plan doesn't go far enough to address the needs of a long term solution nor addresses the specific dollars needed to fund the recommendations. We believe the following items need to be researched further and addressed before the City of Kalispell approves this plan. Robert Peccia and Associates have been asked to conduct a Transportation plan for the City of Kalispell., City of Whitefish and the County of Flathead. Yet, there is no mentioning of how all three plans could work together and possibly form a regional transportation plan, to include how the US 93 :bypass could alleviate some of Kalispel.l's concerns. The City of Kalispell will be deciding to adopt their plan on March 3 'd. The City of Whitefish is in the "birthing " stage of their Transportation Plan and the County of Flathead will be developing their plan by the end of 2008 beginning of 2009. All three governments should work together to provide a regional transportation plan which addresses the needs of each. For example, a county vide standard for traffic Noise Abatement should be considered.. Currently, some jurisdictions are berms and landscaping and some are thirty foot walls. This creates hardships for developers not knowing which will be asked for. 4'he City requires one plan, the County requires a different plan and the State requires a third plan. In essence, a new community along city, county and state lands could see berms. walls and trees within 3 miles of each other due to different noise abatement requirements. With recent developments in expanding the City Airport, this plan does not tale into account gays to increase the needs of the City Airport or Glacier International Airport. To be effective, this plan CAN NOT be a read transportation plan. It must consider all nodes of transportation: buses; air and possibly rail.. As the region grows, so will the needs for better. transportation. A five, ten and thirty year plan or benchrnark.ing should be considered. As the community grows, we wi l l begin to see an increase in senior residents, especially since the baby boomer generation will begin to retire. The City should consider safety stops for Eagle Transit and increase Commuter bus routes. Seniors and people with disabilities need access to employment, social activities, shopping, medical treatments and mane other accommodations. Without a seven day a week commuter bus system, they and other citizens can not enjoy the Quality of Life we all cherish. By offering alternative modes of transportation, such as frequent bus routes, this would cut down on traffic and protect our environment. This would also serve as a deterrent, during the summer months. due to summer tourism. Citizens prefer to live in a community that is walkable or attainable without spending more time in their vehicles. As population in Kalispell and the region grows, the need for adequate parking will increase at existing businesses and public places. This transportation plan does not discuss the need for increased parking structures or lots along these amenities. By including new parking spaces or structures, this would provide parking for all uses within a reasonable walking distance. This would create two solutions: reduce congestion on streets, especially during summer months, as people walk from location to location and reduce the amount of vehicle pollLItion and emissions into the atmosphere. Per Nt ontajia. Code Annotated 61-3-- 62, older vehicles (l l years or older) can be permanently registered. According to the Environment Canada, "in 2007, an estimated 5 million old vehicles (model year 1995 or older) are still in use, out of a total fleet of 18 million personal vehicles. It is estimated that nearly 3 million of these older vehicles will. still be on the road in 2010. These vehicles predate current, more stringent eini ssions standards, so that while they account for less than one-third of personal - eh.icles in the study, they contribute up to two-thirds of smog -fanning pollutants." Therefore, with no mechanism in place to address older vehicles on the streets and the environmental impact they cause due to their age, Kalispell's roads (and air) suffer the most. The City of Kalispell should take the lead in addressing this issue by .requesting the state of .Montana to change the statute to require emission testing and registration on all vehicles. A portion of the fees should come back to the City and County for use towards road and transportation. improvements. Reconfiguring traffic is another issue. For example, by having all north bound and left turn lanes precede together, then all south bound and left tuna lanes together this would prevent a backup on the main arterials. Left turn lanes do not load with. enough vehicles compared to time allowed to turn and when the straight through traffic proceeds; left turn lane reloads and overflow extends causing a restriction in flow. Other findings not mentioned were: added turn signals near Target and Costco; additional East/West arterials from East valley to west valley; both an East and West Bypass; synchronization of lights to keep traffic flowing; Control signal at Hwy 2 and. woodland Park Drive; Reconstruction of. Spring creek and levy Z West. Finally, in consideration of the needs related to coordinating efforts between the cities and county; all transportation modes; future growth; traffic flow and potential fees for an income source, we request that the City Council send this back to the Planning Board to address the points mentioned above. Thank you for your consideration. erel George G. Culpepper., Jr. Government Affairs Director Northwest Montana Assocl*ation of REALTORS I 17 s s�, . `•�'��`:��""-`�.-"�.�°" ��"" �'�'� wow ' .,/ � .q,.. ..,•� ��,>4�"�'F,w'.��,�� `�� .. � �- <✓F„,y, / `,. �,,�� .�, ;dam .�« �.,,,� ��,- � ; �"`�� /�"�,y� , w.f�" y y a N 'r o w �a ✓ °.�` :;fib _ �w�."'z S��7r%� �-`,yho`�,�j ��;,•%< y`a�r� �"�:� . ��"""��, .�'r,�-v;�,i�� ,,,v.�'�� ^ � � ��"�^,"'��K''�`�J„� ,<` � i` "��,:� . 'i'\- � `•``, �"-�..^'�` ��y �/ .� _�'"'�r-� y � •,,.r a, - \K' a; C\,,.'�c. ^� ✓,r'-�"'w;,z e z < i �-�-.,ram C ' "� '^.z;�,-'^', y\�.,o�.„„-a.`,z�;....wzzr� jz%� ��7^'r �''•�-� �? C IS, III ME- WOMMUT 5. A. y ^ M�� ' N.✓. jZa:.C�� :�.,��.,J.� "a�''K'�``Ty'c-"•n` C.�wv'`1f' .e>. °"a �"K ✓/.>.!.PhD ^ -r �> `q'`�'a^��Jr✓ ^Z`z'\ 11,1" .� vj it "��=�•�v;�i'` �/P��✓��"�i� ��'" . MINE- /`. -/ a•.�rr' tea`%' <"":�.'� ✓"-r ` � r` � �`�` z ✓.ate\„.,.iF, a r U �r`�...za„�' �. '� SLIDEI r . w ismS� un� /. " aw r,: a l �l .0 ii. �T k� .., f�° -' .. .... .. ... '��_� ✓ ..i",,.-i ^ g .,�-�,-,� � of Provide: improved public trans portation incl'uding ra,11 and buds Require homes and other buildings to be more energy efficient Suffd communities where people can, walk, places so that people can use their cam less Increate taxes on, gasoline to I 60lo(84% Total Disapprove) discourage driving.1- 83% ew Unde,cide4 4% .4 film Americans see smarter development pafterns as a viable way to reduce traffic and shorten commutes. am now going to read you several about growth, and after f read each one,., please tell me whether yof7 agree or disagree with that statement,,"' New home con 15truction shout' d be filmited lj in outlyingareas and encouraged In very urban areas to shorten commutes and prevent more traffic congestion B . iness and homes should be built us closer together, �so that and shops Ith"n walking distance and don"t are W1 I I 41 require the use of an automobile Business and homes should be built ctoser together, often fn the same community, to shorten commutes and limit traffic congestion �Wo Transportat*lon, privatization: NOI 'Would you support or oppose selling key roads, highways or freeways to. private companies who would own -the roads, charge a toll. to use the road and gNe a portion of the toft money to your state:7.11 Somewhat Somewhat Oppose SUPPOrt Strongly 7..% Support )onit 4vow 2% Stronqiy Oppose 72% "'Would, you support or oppose allowing private companies to build new roads, highways or freeways who would own the roads, charge a toll to use the, roa4' .. 7- . .. and give a poTfion of the toll money to your state? tL6 Kamm ....... ..... ozppos�- 14% A Support 19% Strongly Oppose 5,2% ...................................................... ............... ............ eg ion Hispanic 630 Rural 53% Democrat 62 en Age 18-54 51 % Age 65 62 Diner South legion 5 % Homemaker 61 % Non -White e Men. 50 Women Age 55+ 61 % Independent 9% West Region 60% Akan Am en'C n 9 Women 60% Men 49% White Women 6' % Whig en 9 Rent Looking to Move 60% Farm Belt Region- % Urban 59 Age 1 ' `8.% Non -White Women 59% North-east Rhin 7% Great Lakes Region 58% Men Age 55+ 47% Age 45-54, Income - Under K 47% Working Women 5 Women Age ! - 5% Income - Over $80K 58% Approval of Tolls by Region New Wtd- Great Farm Deep Outer Mountain Pactfic End Atlantic Lakes Belt South South (7%) (.16%) 0 A pprove 0 Disapprove Don't Kri alm going to read you a list of- proposals a -bout what to spend moneq on, 'If more tolls are charged on roads, After I read each one, please -tell me if you. approve or d[sapprove of spending the money raise from tolls from that proposal." I Toll, road, money would be spent on building and maintaining. all roads Toll road m*ney would be spent on tmproving public transportation as well as roads Toll road money would be spent L only on buil.ding and mailintaginin the toll roads be- 70%; Approve 01sappro v Tolls,: as a way to restrict travel No, o provide alternative transportation May -be. 'Would you support or oppose charging tolls on "Woutd you support or oppose charging tolls on some freeways during rush hours as a way to fr8eways during rush hours as a way to reduce reduce the congestion on those freeways? congestion if the money were spent to provide transportation alternatives to the freeway?' 4* WrIf"TRUTIM Oppose: 14% 7 Support 't 17%lol Strongly Oppose 47% Som:ewh,---. Oppose 14% Strongly, 0 1 �Ppose 35% Clon*t Know 2% Expanding and. m. road, highways, f n 'ldgA. 2