Transportation Impact FeesREPORT TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James C. Hansz, P.E,, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT.* Transportation Impact — Update for City Council.
MEETING DATE: Work Session — October 13, 2008
As you know, the Kalispell Impact Fee Advisory has been working on the development of
Transportation Impact Fees for nearly two years. Several drafts of the report have been prepared in
response to changes in the transportation plan, changed direction provided by City Council, and
corrections resulting from the continuing dialog between the City and the development community. These
were summarized in the City Manager's memo dated. October 3, 2008. The work session on the 13d'will
provide an update for the City Council on the progress to date as well as the on -going effort to address the
concerns raised by the development community as this process has unfolded.
The work session will be attended by members of the impact fee advisory committee, the City's
impact fee consultant, Randy Goff of HDRfEES, and staff who have supported this effort thus far. It is
anticipated that several members of the development community will also be in attendance. I will be out
of state and unable to attend this meeting.
01l `` Avenme East, l'. 0. Box 1997, KaHspe14 MT 59903 —Phone (406) 758- 7720 -- Fax (406) 758- 7831
www. kalispelL corm
r
C* of
.y... �:�::i`.r. .,wr: F-'�- ';s:.�-':r _ ity
Kalispell
Post Office Fox 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997
Telephone (406) 758-7000 Fax - (406) 758-7758
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: James H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee
DATE: October 3, 2008
I have attached several documents for your review in preparation of the October 13th
P Council
Work Session on Transportation Impact Fees.
The first enclosure is addendum one to the Transportation Impact Fee Report r
P p provided to the
Impact Fee Committee last Wednesday evening and the Chamber/developers on Thursday, rsday.
During the course of reviewing the methodology, as requested b the developers,it wa
y s noted
that an assumption on where a number came from was wrongleading to a reduction
20 �o g n of about
an what the impact fees should have been. This is only the fourth the last two change to the im act
in g p fees
a years. The first change was Council directing staff to use the "average dail "
y
rates instead of "PM peak" rates. The second was the Impact Fee Committee moving g from a
fifteen year old plan to the 2006 Transportation Plan. The third was a correction to the
consultants use of an insufficient detailed annexation map that was used to calculate capital
costs and resulted in a reduction of the capital improvement plan size.
The next enclosure is a copy of my notes from the September 10t` meetin with the M
g e Mayor,
Chamber members, and developers. This and the next enclosure Chamber's note
(the s of the
same meeting) will be a focus of discussion at the work session.
The remaining enclosures are memos Council received in the past and may want to review
bef
ore the work session.
Res ec y,
ames H. atnck
City Manager
September 25, 2008
Mr. James Hansz, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59903
Subject: Addendum No. 1 to Transportation Impact Fee Report
Dear Mr. Hansz:
HDR Engineering Inc. (d.b.a. HDR/EES) was retained by the City of Kalispell (City) to
determine impact fees for the transportation system. A revised final report was issued on
August 19, 2008. This letter and attachments will serve as Addendum No. 1 to the report.
In the calculation of the fee schedule in Exhibit 7, HDR/EES used the "Trip Generation
Seventh Addition, " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for various
development types. These rates were then adjusted downward in an effort to be consistent
with the rates used in the Kalispell Transportation Plan. In our review of the adjustment
from the Kalispell Transportation Plan to the ITE Trip Generation rates, we discovered an
error. Correction of the error results in an increase in the fee, due to no reduction factor
being used to convert from the trip rate data used in the Kalispell Transportation Plan to
the ITE trip rates used in the fee schedule. The rate for a single family residential unit
increases from $706 per unit to $880. Other land use types are similarly increased. A
new revised Exhibit 7 to our report is provided as an attachment to this letter.
The City of Kalispell approach to determining trip -based fees relies on two time -tested
methodologies for 1) determining the number of trips, and 2) distributing those trips
among classes of development. The Kalispell Transportation Plan used high quality land
use, demographic and employment data derived form US census tract data for the
Kalispell study area. This data was input into the MDT TransCad transportation model to
project future growth on the transportation system. This planning effort, on a macro -scale
formed the basis for determining transportation growth impacts and the improvements
needed to deal with those impacts. The Impact fee process extracted the trip generation
data for employment and residential growth from this study and then used the ITE Trip
Generation Manual to distribute those trips across various development classes. The ITE
trip generation rates are based on empirical data extracted from thousands of specific
traffic impact studies of actual development projects.
In order to correlate the two different data sets used in the Kalispell Transportation Plan
and the use of ITE Trip Generation data for the assessment of the fee, HDR/EES adjusted
the trip generation rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual downward. our initial
1001 SW Fifth Avenue Phone: (503) 423--3700
H;DR/EES Suite 1800 Fax: (503) 423-3737
Portland, OR 97204-1134 www.hdrinc.com
Mr. Jaynes Hansz, P.E.
September 25, 2008
Page 2
assumption was that an adjustment was necessary based on the trip generation rates used
in the Kalispell Transportation Plan and the ITE Trip Generation rates for a single family
dwelling unit. This resulted in a reduction of the ITE rates to 80% (7-67/9.57). This
effort to adjust the ITE trip generation rates was in error. The trip generation rate within
the transportation model is an average rate for all classes of residential development.
Individual trip generation rates for specific types of development vary widely and are
listed in the ITE handbook. When all these rates are blended together the result would be
a lower rate, as is used in the transportation model.
Based on the analysis conducted for the Kalispell Transportation Plan, HDRJEES is of
the opinion that no adjustment to the ITE Trip Generation rates is warranted. This is
reflected in the revised Exhibit 7 attached to this letter.
The additional issue that has been brought up is the use of the ITE Trip Generation rates
for assessment of the Transportation Impact Fee to various land use categories and not
the trip generation factors used in the Kalispell Transportation Plan. While the use of
employment and new dwelling units are appropriate for the development of new trips
from a planning or macro basis (as used in the Kalispell Transportation Plan), the use of
ITE data for assessment of fees based on employment has a number of problems and is
not appropriate for the following reasons:
1. There is a lack of data on employment in the ITE Trip
Generation information. Therefore, in the initial assessment of
the fee, data would have to be developed. The use of square
footage is a more widely used measurement for trip generation.
2. The use of employment has a number of problems with respect
to administration of the fee. This comes about for a number of
reasons:
a. The basis for determining the number of employees. This
would require information from the business at the time of
,the building permit and then require the City to verify
employment records to determine if the information
provided in the initial fee assessment was correct. For
retail business, this would require a policy as how the
number of employees is established. Is it an average over
the year or during the peak holiday season?
b. The need to reassess the business on a one to two year basis
to determine if the number of employees has increased as
the business has matured and become established in the
community.
As can be seen, the use of employees can result in a large administrative burden to
determine the fee that may result in an over or under collection of the fees depending on
how employment is defined and used in assessment of the fees. The use of more
Mr. James Hansz, P.E.
September 25, 2008
Page 3
traditional measurable methods, such as square footage, will result in a more equitable
fee assessment over time and will also allow the developer to know the fee at the time of
issuance of a building permit and not be subject to additional fees in the future. In fact, in
Oregon, the use of employment is being discouraged through legislation, since cities are
no longer allowed to assess fees based on new employees after the initial assessment of
the fee.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this additional information to the City. I
apologize for any confusion this may have caused, but the development of Transportation
Impact Fees is a very complicated process. I appreciate the work of the development
community, public and IFAC in assuring that we have "left no stone unturned" in the
quest for accuracy in determining cost based fees for the City. Should you have any
questions about this addendum please call. It has been a pleasure working with you on
this project. We look forward to the opportunity to continue to provide assistance to the
City.
Sincerely yours,
HDR ENGINEERING INC (D.B.A. HDRIEES).
r
Randall P. Goff
Project Principal
Attachments
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule - Revised No Trip Rate Reduction
Exhibit 7
210
Single Family Detached
Single family detach housing
DU
9.57
1
9.57
$ 880
220
Apartment
Rental dwelling with at least 3
units in the same building
❑U
6.72
1
6.72
618
Rented rather than owned
2245
Rented Townhouse/ Duplex
units with a minimum of two
units
DU
7.32
1
7.32
674
Residential condominium/
townhouses under
230
Condominium/ Townhouse
single --family ownership.
Minimum of two -units in the
same building
DU
5.86
1
5.86
539
Trailers or manufactured
240
Mobile Home
home sited on permanent
foundations
DU
4.99
1
4.99
459
Independent living
253
Congregate Care
developments that provide
centralized amenities such as
dining, housekeeping,
transportation and activities.
DU
2.02
1
2,02
186
254
Assisted Living
Residential settings that
provide oversite or assistance
for independent, or mentally
or physically limited persons.
DU
2.66
1
2.66
245
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1, 000 sq It gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area.
❑U - dwelling unit,
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An 1TE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks date 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.
E
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule - Revised No Trip Rate Reduction
Exhibit 7
r A rAd'
;, �frr r•
v
- � yam.. ,f �?. •.
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
6.97
$ 641
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
6.96
640
Faculties that convert raw
materials or parts into finished
140
Manufacturing
products. Typically have
related office, warehouse,
research and associated
functions.
GFA
3.82
1
3.82
351
Facilities devoted to storage
150
Warehouse
of goods and materials.
Includes offices and
maintenance facilities
GFA
4.96
1
4.96
456
151
Mini -Warehouse
Storage units or vaults rented
for storage of goods
GFA
2.50
1
2.50
230
finder#�i�=_ ,- , ° n •.. . �. •-':
Lodging facility that may
310
Hotel
include restaurants, lounges,
meeting rooms and/or
convention facilities
Room
8.17
1
8.17
$ 752
Sleeping accommodations
320
Motel
and often a restaurants. Free
on -site parking and little or no
meeting spaces.
Room
5.63
1
5.63
$ 518
Land Use Units.
GFA - 1, 000 sq ft grass floor area.
GL4 - 1,000 sq R gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously..
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edibion.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trios for similar laird use.
(s) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule - Revised No Trip Rate Reduction
Exhibit 7
4124
Local Park
Municipal owned parks,
varying widely as to location,
type and number of facilities.
Acres 7
2.28
1
2.28
210
Regional park authority
417
Regional Park
owned parks, varying widely
as to location, type and
number of facilities.
Acres T
4.57
1
4.57
420
..
.�7r6iSY�
.• ..... .. ... r. a,.. .. ..... ...
... .1. .. .. �.......... ... ... ..
...u__.,._ _ ....._.>. ,,' ,h ..., ...-��,. ..../, ,,, _. .,._.,�,,..
.✓ .... �, s ... .. r
.r... ..�... ,,,... ..ice .. �`�. .,. r✓..
_.. s,,..,:r,;..,c,. .,,,�.� ,®s:�.._...Sr✓°a13.�:.��,.... r.,. s.,.� ,r
..,. ......�•..'.:
w`,r. r^'. _. "':.
..a"H
__...; 4'i�i1'�..:�, Y..
..;'�"�ii3/.a?v_,n2__..
-
,_., .._': 7"Lit _..._.,.,._
.e,•F::.:':::;fir:^:.�'-:�'L::,..:.::� �_•:�
., .,,,... .,..; _'13.�
Municipal and private golf
430
Golf Course
courses. May or may not
have a driving range and
clubhouse
Holes
35.74
1
35.74
3,288
Multi -purpose recreational
Mult€purpose Recreation
facilities containing two more
following
435
Facility
or of the uses at one
site: mini -golf, batting cages,
video arcade, bumper boats,
go-carts and driving ranges.
Acres'
90.38
1
90.38
8,315
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
43.00
3,956
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
22.88
2,105
_ `'vim - - - •Y n :r
' .:..... Sw. n ...,. t�f-�.4^.'•'.i':ri - vim- ,�.'t.y#S� ... K. :.: r. ?-'•...
'rr y{- ,y� - •s - i'
... ..asfir'_y"i�+a.'+..: -. E,: ii. ..�¢ H%:. ..'xr: "n+a?:'�''.
Recreational facilities with
437 a
Bowling Alley
bowling lanes which may
include a small lounge,
restaurant or snack bar.
Lane
33.33
1
33.33
3,066
Land Use Units,-
GFA - 1, 000 sq ft gross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 sq R gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An 1TE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule - Revised No Trip Rate Reduction
Exhibit 7
522
Bementary School
Serves student attending
.............
kindergarten through 5th or
6th grade Public or private.
GFA
14.49
1
14.49
$ 1,333
522
Middle School
Public. Serves students that
have completed elementary
and not yet in high school.
GFA
13.78
1
13.78
1,268
530
High School
Public. Typically serving 9 to
12th Grades
GFA
12.89
1
12.89
1,186
540
Junior/ Community Collage
Two-year junior or community
colleges
GFA
27.49
1
27.49
2,529
Contains worship area. May
560
Church
include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area and
facilities
GFA
9.11
1
9.11
838
Facility for pre-school children
care primarily during the
565
Day Care
daytime hours. May include
classrooms, meeting area
and playground
GFA
79.26
0.1
7.93
729
590
Library
Public or Private. Contains
shelved books, reading rooms
and sometime meeting rooms
GFA
54.00
1
54.00
4,968
W
550
University 1 College
Four-year and graduate
institutions
Student
2,38
1
2.38
219
Includes a clubhouse with
dinning and drinking facilities,
591 a
Lodge 1 Fraternal
recreational and
Organization
entertainment areas and
meeting rooms
Members
9.29
1
0.29
27
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1, 000 sq ft gross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) lnstitufe of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County pars data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule - Revised No Trip Rate Reduction
Exhibit 7
Single Tenant Office
Usually contains offices,
715
Building
meeting rooms, file storage
areas, restaurants or cafeteria
and other service functions
GFA
11.57 1
11.57
$ 1,064
Provides diagnosis and
72p
Medical -Dental Office
outpatient care. Typically
operated be private
physicians or dentists.
GFA
36.13 1
36.13
3,324
Park or campus -like planned
750
Office Park
unit development that
contains office buildings,
banks, restaurants and
-
service stations.
GFA
11.42 1
11,42
1,051
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
8.11
746
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 Paris
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 1
warehouse. I
GFA 1
12.76 j 1 1
12.76
1,174
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area.
GL4 - 1,000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of morns for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the 1TE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule - Revised No Trip Rate Reduction
Exhibit 7
Remelt '-
Small free standing building
that sells hardware, building
812
Building Materials and
materials and lumber. May
Lumber
include yard storage and
shaded storage areas which
are not included in the unit
calculation.
GFA
45.16
0.82
37.03
3,407
A free-standing discount store
813
Discount Super Store
that also contains a full
service grocery department
under the same roof.
GFA
49.21
0.82
40.35
$ 3,712
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
36.34
3,344
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
45.94
4,226
Typically free-standing
816
Hardware / Paint Store
buildings with panting that sell
hardware and paints.
GFA
51.29
0.82
42.06
3,869
Free-standing building with
yard containing planting and
817
Nursery 1 Garden Center
landscape stock. Unit
calculation only applies to
building and not yard and
storage.
GFA
36.08
0.82
29.59
2,722
A shopping center that
823
Factory Outlet
primarily houses factory outlet
stores.
GFA
26.59
0.52
13.83
1,272
A s
Integrated group of
commercial establishments
that is planned, developed
and managed as a unit.
820 Shopping Center Provides enough on -site
parkJng to serve its own
demand. May include office
buildings, theatres,
restaurants, post office,
health club and recreation. GLA (9) (9) (9) (9)
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1, 000 sq fi 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 serried 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 1TE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the 1TE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule - Revised No Trip Rate Reduction
Exhibit 7
841
Car Dealership
New and used car dealership
with sales, service and parts,
GFA
33.34
0.82
27.34
$ 2,515
848
Tire Store
Primary business is selling
and repair of tires
GFA
24.87
0.82
20.39
1,876
Free-standing grocery store.
850
Supermarket
May also contain ATMs,
photo center, pharmacies and
video rental.
GFA
102.24
0.64
65.43
6,020
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
287.82
26,479
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
195.15
17,953
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
21.74
2,000
Pharmacy without strive thru
Facilities filling medical
880
window
prescriptions without a drive
thru window.
GFA
90.06
0.47
42.33
3,894
Pharmacy with drive thru
Facilitles filling medical
881
window
prescriptions with a drive thru
window.
GFA
86.16
0,51
43.94
4,043
Sells furniture, accessories
890
Furniture Store
and often carpet 1 floor
covering.
GFA
5.06
Q.47
2.38
219
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1, 000 sq ft gross floor area.
GL4 - 1,000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2007.
(4) Avenge trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(5) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(7) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(8) limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Shall be determined by the City based on the ITE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees - Average Daily Trips
Allowable Fee Schedule - Revised No Trip Rate Reduction
Exhibit 7
Usually a free-standing
911
Walk -In Bank
building with a parking lot
offering Banking services.
May are ATMs
GFA
156.48
0.53
82.93
$ 7,630
Usually a free-standing
Walk-in Bank with Drive
building with a parking lot
912
Thm Window
offering banking services.
Has a drive thru window. May
are ATMs
GFA
246.49
0.53
130.64
12,019
931
Quality Restaurant
High quality eating
establishment with turnover
rates greater than 1 hour
GFA
89.59
0.56
50.17
4,616
932
High Turnover Sit -Dawn
Sit down eating establishment
Restaurant
with turnover rates of less
than 1 hour.
GFA
127.15
0.56
71.20
6.551
933
Fast Food without ❑rive-
Fast food without a drive
Thru
through window.
GFA
716,00
0.50
358.00
32,936
934
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
Fast food with a drive through
window.
GFA
496.12
0.50
248.06
22,822
y.:A _... A.... .. N :r.
Sells gasoline and may also
944
Gas Station
provide vehicle service and
Fueling
repair.
Positions
168.56
0.58
97.76
8,994
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
71.62
6.589
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
-�iitiK MY ri:_Z:�l;i
� n.f.-.-. ..�r:f .... �..._. [c.. ..........................
wash.
............ .. ...
Positions
152.84
....{lh'i.,NA'::
0.44 1
i::A•::=Y
67.25
6,187
+'4 � rf: .. R"Z-=•:: ika::s;�c6i :.?-:.ar: �:=U's,'. i�sT. -••p ✓ _ .;. '3 .�, r ,�;- ;.i3Yi FT+��2r': :'�,!-� -
94711 Self -Service Car Wash Allows self cleaning of cars by Wash
providing stalls for drivers Stalls 108.00 0.44 47.52 4,372
(1) Land Use Units;
GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area.
GL4 - 1,000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An 1TE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Average trips times Pass -By Trip Factor.
(5) Ratio of peak hour trips for similar land use.
(6) Based on County parks data - City parks data 11mited.
(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 1TE Manual and Developer Traffic Studies
No average provided.
lzz
T11
City ofKalispell
Post office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903 - 1 997
Telephone (406) 758-7000 Fax - (406) 758-7758
FROM. James H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee Issues
DATE: September 12, 2008
On September 10h, the Mayor and City Manager met with members of the he Chamber and
Development community to discuss perceived i s sues with the Transportation on hm
proposed p pact
Fees. The following is a list of those issues.
1. why do the fees need to be paid up front? It is hard for a small contractor/develop er to
pay all of the fees up front and carry this as part of the construction loan. Can payment
a ment
be made somewhat like assessments, over a period of years?
2. Can transportation impact fees be phased in so that they do not hurt current
developments? This could have a direct impact on bus finesses choosing to locate in
Kalispell. Most businesses will not let the developer/contractor charge these fees to
them. Pro forma's are significantly affected since there were no on trans ortatiimpact
p p
fees when the development/project started and now the transportation impact fees add a
p p
significant financial disincentive to build.
3. Developers are not afforded their "due process" since their development is fully
approved.
P
4. The enabling legislation is very clear requiring cities to show a nexus. However
Kalispell does not seem to have any methodology to show this nexus. It appears that
comrnerci al is paying 100% of these impact fees.
5. Is it fair for the City to come back and require impact fees after the development is
approved? After the preliminary plat the developer now has additional charge.
6. what additional road revenue can the City get from "608" funding? The City can collect
by requiring developers to improve roads under "608." what can be generated b
� y
requiring developers to improve under "608, especially the 6 projects west of US Hwy93
and north of 2 Mile Rd`�"
7. It seems like it is hard to prove who should be involved and responsible for transportation
portation
impact fees in new developments.
8. Look at roads out of the City and take them off the CEP. Developers should pay f . p p y or their
own needed upgrades in and around their developments.
9. Develop service areas to reinforce nexus instead of one big service area.
10. Grand Junction, Colorado has transportation impact fees tied to land use and average
g
distances that people have to drive from development. This creates a cause relationship
.
11. There is a fairness issue with transportation impact fees for those developers already
y n
the process. Move the clock out several years and grandfather projects in prelimina
ry
and final plat. This may delay the build out of the corridors.
12. The trip basis is in question. Use of trips seems to be appropriate but where the formula .la
fails down is using the ITF manual to determine dollars. # of per trips x $ trip and
P P
applying the wrong $ numbers to the right trip numbers. As an example, e there are trips
P � s P
being generated from people living in Columbia Falls that are not accounted for.
13. Yes the methodology looks good. However, the City needs to look at the assumptions p ons
that have been made. There is not an accurate portrayal between commercial and
residential. The residential versus commercial numbers seem skewed and the amount of
growth in trips at 3% is a guess. Over a 5 year period this seems to be over estimated.'
The methodology does not seem to conform to Montana lave.
14. If a comparison is made with Grand Junction, Colorado, a grocery store in Kalispell
would pay approximately $237,000 and in Grand Junction they would pay $163 000. It
seems like the Grand Junction model of land use, new trips, and P
length of trips in the
g
development service area may be a better approach.
15. The City's consultant was short with developers and stated that we "would agree to
disagree." He only responded to one issue and not all of the issues the developer had.
16. The development community would like an explanation on how reimbursements work
.
Do they pay up front and then get paid back in the end? There are no written rules on
how this works.
17. Could the City do the computations on the transportation impact fees for a 1.5 million
square foot shopping center? There has not been an answer yet. How do the impact fees
in Bozeman and Missoula work and what would they be compared to Kalispell?
18. Transportation Impact Fees should not be used to pay 100% of the' project. what are the
alternate � P � sources of funding? what percent is the City's portion? what about SIDS?
19. The CIP projects should be prioritized and the City must schedule this construction. This
would shorten the list.
20. What is the City's share and is that amount in the budget?
21. How does Kalispell compare to Bozeman and Missoula Impact Fee ordinances?
Respectfully,
Jaynes H. Patrick
City Manager
Transportation Impact Fee Meeting
September 10, 2008
Alternatives:
1. Phase -in of fees.
2. Payment of fees at some point later than when pulling buildingpermits.
3. Use of a local option tax for a portion of the City's road costs.
4. Collection of fees under Section 608.
5. Special Improvement Districts
Overall Concerns
1. Impact on the City's investment climate.
2. Impact on security for financing purposes.
3. Issues of due process.
4. Correlation between impact fee and the development being charged.
5. Erroneous use of trip generation studies.
6. The offset of fees for the reasonable value of economic benefits.
7. Use of impact fees to cure existing infrastructure deficiencies.
S. Fees are overly weighted towards commercial, specifically retail.
9. Fees apply to public and private non-profit facilities.
lo. Lack definition for "late --corner" road reimbursement policy.
11. Need for prioritization of road projects.
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2008
BACKGROUND: The Kalispell Impact Fee Advisory Committee has worked on the development of
Transportation Impact Fees for more than a year. Several options have been reviewed and discussed with
City Council. Each option has been based upon a specific plan of growth -related capital improvements.
P p
Prior to the adoption of a Transportation Impact Fee, the City should adopt a Capital Improvement Plan
P P
(CIP) as the basis of the fee. After much work and many revisions, the attached CIP reflects the final
recommendation of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee for projects eligible to be included in calculation
of impact fees for the City of Kalispell. The projects in the CIP are those identified in the Kalispell Area
Transportation Plan Update (2005) as required over the 25 year planning period of the plan. The
Transportation Plan Update involved a planning area much larger than the City of Kalispell. The J rojects
P .
shown on this CIP are only those within the City of Kalispell. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommended Transportation Impact Fee is based upon the listing of projects shown in this Capital
Improvement Plan.
At the July 28, 2008 work session, Councilman Hafferman recommended including project MSN-
I 1 in the Impact Fee CIP for transportation as a City project. This was reviewed;
Councilman Hafferman described the project as a new arterial street. In fact, project MSN--1 I is
described in the transportation plan as a collector street, which is a street that provides for traffic
circulation within and between neighborhoods. Project MSN-1 I is further described in chapter 9 of the
Transportation Plan. Update, pg. 9r-7, as a new roadway needed to relieve travel pressure on Meridi
P an
Road and its intersections from the developing area (currently known as willow Creek). The willow
Creek project area has been annexed into the City and as a result Councilman Hafferman is correct that it
should be shown as a City project.
However, following further review of the Willow Creek project and additional discussion of the
matter with Mr. Jeff Ivey, the consulting engineer who prepared the City's current Transportation Plan
Update, it was readily determined that the need for this project is clearly and directly linked to the added
traffic resulting from development of the 'Dillow Creek residential project. The new roadway section as
currently planned lies wholly within the Willow Creek project boundary and is a development
requirement upon the project necessary to prevent traffic impacts on Meridian Road that would be caused
by this development.
Unlike the Rose Crossing project (MSN--9) which addresses a long --standing need for an east/west
arterial corridor connector that benefits the whole community, MSN- I I is limited in its ability to serve the
wider community by being truly a neighborhood roadway, beginning and endingwithin the willow Creek
k
project area, and with a narrowly focused goal of preventing the addition of unmanageable traffic from
the new Willow Creek development onto Meridian Road. Including this project in the CEP would result in
an increase of the impact fee calculation paid by all development. It would also result in the potentia
l l for
impact fee funds being used to reimburse private development costs of infrastructure required solely . � Y to
meet the needs of the private development project.
The IFAC members will consider the foregoing information and advise staff whether this ' roect
p �
should be included in the transportation impact fee CEP. Their meeting will be on August 6, 2008. If the
IFAC determines it is appropriate to include MSN-1 l in the CIP a new recommendation will be brought
to City Council as an amendment of the CIP presented for adoption at this meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED: AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 4, MOTION TO ADOPT
THE IFA C RECOMMENDED GR U WTH RELA TED T ANSPOR TA TION IMPR O VEMENT .PLAN.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Provides basis for calculation of Transportation Impact Fees.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council
Respectfully submitted,
Jaynes C. Hansz, P.E. James H. Patrick
Director of Public works 1 City Engineer City Manager
Attachments: Growth Related Transportation CIP
2011" Avenue Last, P. 0..Box 1997, Kalispell, MT 59903 --Phone (406)755-7720 -- Fax 4D6 75S-
( j 7S3I
www.kalispell.com
May13, 2008
Mr. James Hans z, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Supplemental Information Transportation Impact Fees
Mr. Hans z :
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 HDR/EES 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
■ 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 form 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
1001 SW Fifth Avenue Phone: (503) 423-3700
HDR/EES Suite 1800 Fax: (503) 423-3737
Portland, OR 97204-1134 www.hdrinc.com.
Mr. James Fans z
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
"by-pass" 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 Hans z
May 13, 2008
Page 3
Residential 79,306
Commercial -- Retail 40,013
Commercial -- Nonretail 22,712
Total New Average Daily 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
105340 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
■ 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. HDR/EES).
Randall P. Goff
Project Principal
Attachment
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Exhibit 1
IT
Numb ar o#.. •,fferso
esa
Cad '
s N
knit , ..:.
1nits
4
Kakis i1 n :.
z3.'r-
Nlis►ula :> Jllvu .,ai
ul
210
Single Family Detached
DU
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 Park
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
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
11,058
NIA
NIA
N/A - 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.
January 14, 2008
City Council
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59903
Subject: Transportation Impact Fee Review
Dear Council Members:
HDR Engineering Inc. (d.b.a. HDR/EE5) (the impact fee consultant) was retained by the
City of Kalispell (City) to determine impact fees for the transportation system for new
development. A draft report was prepared and reviewed with the Impact Fee Advisory
Committee (IFAC). Based on the recommendation of the IFAC, the final draft report was
presented to the City Council. A public hearing was held on April 16, 2007. During that
meeting, the City Council referred the Transportation Impact Fee Study back to the IFAC
for further review.
The IFAC received input and analysis from the impact fee consultant and met on October
17, 2007 to discuss and review the issues raised by City Council. The purpose of this
letter is to document the items reviewed by the IFAC and provide the City Council with
the recommendations of the IFAC with respect to those items.
The issues reviewed by the IFAC are as follows:
Issue: Develop the impact fee on the basis of average daily trips.
Discussion: The IFAC requested the impact fee consultant to determine the cost per land
use type based on average daily trips. The results of that analysis and a comparison of
the change from P.M. peak hour trips are provided in Attachment 1. During review of
the consultant's analysis, the IFAC noted that while there is a small shift of the overall
fee requirement from business to residential, the change in the cost per business land use
type also varies. That is, some business types would see reductions in the transportation
impact fee, while other business types would see increases.
Recommendation. Based on the review of the analysis provided by the impact fee
consultant, the IFAC is still recommending that the fee be based on P.M. peak hour trip
generation rates. The basis for this recommendation is that the greatest amount of traffic
congestion and hence need for improvements is driven by the P.M. peak hour trips and
hence the use of P.M. pear hour trips most closely reflects the costs imposed by various
land use classifications on the system..
Issues: Provide broader categories for the different types of commercial development,
such as an averaging of restaurant types into a single category.
Kalispell City Council
January 14, 2008
Page 2
Discussion: The IFAC discussed and reviewed this issue at great length. The IFAC
requested that the impact fee consultant use an average of the broad land use categories
as defined in the ITE manual. A summary of the . results are provided in Attachment Z.
The IFAC would note that the use of an average implies that some land use types will pay
less than the cost to provide service while other land use types will pay more; the net
result is that broader land use categories result in the same amount of fees in comparison
to the more detailed land use categories.
Recommendation: The IFAC recommends that the City Council adopt a transportation
fee using the more detail land use categories because this best reflects the impact imposed
by the specific land use on the City's transportation system..
Issues: Provide a comparison to other communities in Montana and the United States.
Discussion: The IFAC directed the impact fee consultant to provide a comparison of
impact fees charged or proposed to be charged by Montana communities and other cities
in the United States. The survey results are provided as Attachment 3. The survey
results showed that the land use categories vary. They range from Bozeman which uses
very detailed land use categories (much like those proposed for Kalispell) to very simple
three (3) category land use designations. Most cities in Montana are somewhat more
simplified in the number of land use categories.
Recommendation: Based on the results of the survey, the IFAC recommends the use of
more detailed land use categories for the assessment of the transportation impact fee.
While the survey showed that some communities do indeed use a more simplified land
use designation, the approach recommended by the IFAC is not uncommon and better
reflects the impact imposed on the transportation system by the various. land use
categories.
Issue: Provide a better discussion in the report on the methodology used to develop the
number of trips and the data sources.
Discussion: The IFAC discussed this issue a number of tunes with the impact fee
consultant. The problem with the trip data development arose due to the use of a 1993
transportation master plan. This plan was not developed in a manner for it to be easily
used to determine impact fees. Since that time, the City prepared a new transportation
master plan. The City's impact fee consultant worked with the City's transportation plan
consultant to develop the plan and supporting data in the form required for the
determination of impact fees. This will assure that the information used in the impact fee
calculation is consistent with the data used in the transportation plaster plan.
Recommendation: The City should direct the impact fee consultant to update the
transportation impact fee based on the new transportation master plan.
Kalispell City Council
January 14, 2008
Page 3
Issue: Provide detail of appeal process
Discussion: Based on the IFAC's discussions with the City Attorney, it was determined
that the appeal process was clearly stated in the overall ordinance adopted by the City and
no changes were recommended.
Recommendation: That the City continues to use the current appeal process as stated in
the overall impact fee ordinance adopted by the City. The IFAC also recommended that
the impact fee consultant provide a reference to the appeal process and applicable City
code, in the report.
Issue: review the ability of the City to provide tax credits to new business to help offset
the cost of transportation impact fees.
Discussion: The IFAC discussed this issue at great length and determined that the use of
tax credits was not a viable option to off -set transportation impact fees. The IFAC felt
that the cost imposed by new development must be fairly reflected to all new
development. The use of a tax credit to off -set transportation impact fees would not send
the proper price signal to new development regarding the true cost to provide service.
Furthermore, the IFAC felt that the use of a tax' credit would result in a burden on other
public services such as fire and police and thus result in new development not paying its
fair share of the cost of services provided by the City.
Recommendation: That the City not provide tax credits.
Issue: Review options for small businesses to prepare independent studies for traffic
input.
Discussion-. while the IFAC clearly understands the concerns of small business, it felt
the cost burden for any studies should be borne by the business. The IFAC determined
that the impact fee was not so significant for small business to warrant a subsidy to
undertake an independent traffic analysis. For those businesses where the impact fee is
significant, then the business can prepare and pay for an independent study. In fact many
of these developments are required as part of the planning process to prepare traffic
studies to determine the level of development specific improvements required to serve the
development.
Recommendation: That the City requires all significant development to provide
independent traffic studies at their expense.
Kalispell City Council
January 14, 2008
Page 4
Thank you for your attention to these issues. If you have any questions, please contact
me or any other member of the impact fee advisory committee. We look forward to
finalizing the transportation impact fees.
Sincerely yours,
Merna Terry
Chairperson
Impact Fee Advisory Committee
C.0 Impact Advisory Committee
James Hansz, P.E.
Terri Loudermilk
Randall Goff --- H DR Engineering
Attachments
Attachment 1
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Fee Schedule Compariosn
4 .:.......:...
210
Single Family Detached
Single family detach housing
DU
$ 815 $ 691 ( 124)
220
Apartment
Rental dwelling with at least 3
units in the same building
DU
573 454 119
Rented rather than owned
224
Rented Townhouse/ Duplex
units with a minimum of two
units
DU
NIA 495 NIA
Residential condominium)
townhouses under
230
Condominium/ Townhouse
single --family ownership.
Minimum of two -units in the
same building
DU
499 352 jjj7j
Trailers or manufactured
240
Mobile Home
home sited on permanent
foundations
DU
425 135 (289)
Independent living
252
Congregate Care
developments that provide
centralized amenities such as
dining, housekeeping,
transportation and activities.
DU
172 136 36
254
Assisted Living
Residential settings that
provide oversite or assistance
for independent, or mentally
or physically limited persons.
DU
227 237 101
f
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
594 732 138
Industrial park areas that
130
Industrial Park
contain a number of industrial
and/or related facilities. A mix
of manufacturing, service and
warehouse
GFA
593 583 10
Facilities that convert raw
materials or parts into
140
Manufacturing
finished products. Typically
have related office,
warehouse, research and
associated functions.
GFA
325 508 183
Facilities devoted to storage
150
Warehouse
of goods and materials.
Includes offices and
maintenance facilities
GFA
423 413 10
151
Mini -Warehouse
Storage units or vaults rented
for storage of goods
GFA
213 197 (16).
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Fee Schedule Compariosn
Lodging facility that may
310
Hotel
include restaurants, lounges,
meeting rooms and/or
convention facilities
Room
$ 52 413 $ 361
Sleeping accommodations
320
Motel
and often a restaurants. Free
on -site parking and little or no
meeting spaces.
Room
48 380 332
�g ..:...:..:. ...
412 5
Local Park
Municipal owned parks,
varying widely as to location,
type and number of facilities.
Acres 6
$ 194
400 $
206
Regional park authority
417
Regional Park
owned parks, varying widely
as to location, type and
number of facilities.
Acres 6
389
176
(213
Municipal and private golf
430
Golf Course
courses. Mayor may not
have a driving range and
clubhouse
Hales
3,445
2,413
(632)
Multi -purpose recreational
7
Multipurpose Recreation
facilities containing two more
435
Facility
or of the following uses at one
site: mini -golf, batting cages,
video arcade, bumper boats,
go-carts and driving ranges.
GFA
7,700
7,821
121
Recreational facilities with
4377
Bowling Alley
bowling lanes which may
include a small lounge,
restaurant or snack bar.
Lane
2,840
3,050
210
Theaters with one or more
4448
Movie Theater wl Matinee
screens (generally less than
10) and which show daily
matinees
Screens
NIA
25,637
N/A
Privately owned with
weightlifting and other
493
Athletic Club
facilities often including
swimming pools, hot tubs,
saunas, racquetball, squash
and handball courts.
GFA
NIA
3,958
NIA
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
1,949
1,620
(329
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Fee Schedule Compariosn
r Fi F... I .....
i •f • • L F ,�iFfipRc:- D�G'f SiV�
F y
■ .a. .
Y r at.�!r■ram■ ay(
a" ,
r a.
G
.
.:...::.. . .................
: . ... . .
.... .
-
522 Elementary School
Serves student attending
kindergarten through 5th or
6th grade Public or private.
GFA $
1,234
2,121 $
887
522 Middle School
Public. Serves students that
have completed elementary
and not yet in high school.
GFA
1,174
1,708
534
530 High School
Public. Typically serving 9 to
12th Grades
GFA
1,098
1 ,437
339
540 Junior 1 Community Collage
Two-year junior or communitycolleges
GFA
2,342
1,789
(553
550 University 1 College
Four-year and graduate
institutions
Student
203
163
{40
Contains worship area. May
560 Church
include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area and
facilities
GFA
203
956
753
Facility for preschool children
565 Day Care
care primarily during the
daytime hours. May include
classrooms, meeting area
and playground
GFA
675
943
268
590 Library
Public or Private. Contains
shelved books, reading rooms
and sometime meeting rooms
GFA
4,601
4,757
156
Includes a clubhouse with
Lodge / Fraternal
dinning and drinking facilities,
7
591 Organization
recreational and
entertainment areas and
meeting rooms
Members
25
20
5
a
Medical and/or surgical care
facility with overnight
610 Hospitals
accommodations for
ambulatory and non -
ambulatory patients.
GFA $
1,497
1,091 $
(406
A facility whose primary
620 Nursing Home
function is to care for persons
who are unable to care for
themselves
Beds
202
203
1
City of Kalispell
Transportation impact Fees
Fee Schedule Companosn
Single Tenant Office Usually contains offices,
715
Building meeting rooms, file storage
areas, restaurants or cafeteria
and other service functions
GFA
$ 986
1,172 $ 186
Provides diagnosis and
7207
Medical -Dental Office outpatient care. Typically
operated be private
physicians or dentists.
GFA
3,078
3,016 fit
Paris or campus -like planned
750
Office Park unit development that
contains office buildings,
banks, restaurants and
service stations.
GFA
973
1,017 44
Single building or complex of
Research and Development buildings devoted to research
760
Center and development. May
contain light fabrication
facilities.
GFA
691
732 41
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 1
warehouse.
GFA
1,087
874 213
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Fee Schedule Compariosn
e'tF
'I
M Ct F
I .... . Pa. -.-.PR
{: ��.
w Y
1P
MTV&.,
r.
. ...... t... .. r r.-. .. w .. V.. n . .... r. ..r- .. . .. :...y .... r... +., ....- A.., ...... ..�'.
Y..- k'
.. .._. .. .. - _ _ -.
..., ... .... - MT
Yi........ .
........... .
,r
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
3,155
3,090 $
65
A free-standing discount store
813
Discount Supper Store
that also contains a full
service grocery department
under the same roof.
GFA
$ 3,438
2,240 $
1,198
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
3,096
2,799
306
Free-standing store that
offers a variety of customer
815
Discount Store
services, centralized
cashiering and a wide range
of products.
GFA
3,914
3,918
896
Typically free-standing
816
Hardware 1 Paint Store
buildings with parking that sell
hardware and paints.
GFA
3,914
2,634
1,280
Free-standing building with
yard containing planting and
817
Nursery 1 Garden Center
landscape stock. Unit
calcuiation only applies to
building and not yard and
storage.
GFA
3,583
2,762
821)
Integrated group of
commercial establishments
that is planned, developed
and managed as a unit.
820
Shopping Center
Provides enough on -site
parking to serve its own
demand. May include office
buildings, theatres,
restaurants, post office,
health club and recreation.
GLA
9
9
A shopping center that
823
Factory Ouflet
primarily houses factory outlet
stores.
GFA
1,178
684
494
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Fee Schedule Compariosn
tMP�t Fee 1"PR �;�F�I: 0 ff!���e;
n . J
ROO
841
Car Dealership New and used car dealership
with sales, service and parts,
GFA $
2,329
1,512 $
817
848
Tire Store Primary business is selling
and repair of tires
GFA $
1,737
1,812 $
75
Free-standing grocery store.
850
Supermarket May also contain ATMs,
photo center, pharmacies and
video rental.
GFA $
5,575
5,213 $
(362
Sells convenience foods,
851
Convenience Market - 24 newspapers, magazines and
hours often beer and wine. Open
24 hours per day.
GFA $
24,521
14,119 $
(10.402
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
NIA
9,573
NIA
Discount store / warehOuse
861
Discount Club where shoppers pay a fee to
get wholesale prices. May
have a wide variety of goods.
Many items are sold in bulk or
large quantities.
GFA $
1,852
1,677 $
i75
Facilities filling medical
Pharmacy without drive thru
884
prescriptions without a drive
window
thru window.
GFA $
3,606
3,526 $
(80
Pharmacy with drive thru Facilities filling medical
881
window prescriptions with a drive thru
window.
GFA $
3,744
3,287 $
457
Sells furniture, accessories
890
Fumiture Store and often carpet 1 floor
covering.
GFA $
203
169 $
34
6
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Fee Schedule Compariosn
............... .... ......
...:..::...:::::
lI ry
t
z
r
......:.....
Usually a free-standing
911
Walk -In Bank
building with a parking lot
offering banking services.
May are ATMs
GFA
$ 7,066
15,093
$ 8,027
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
11,130
19,202
8,072
931
Quality Restaurant
High quality eating
establishment with turnover
rates greater than 1 hour
GFA
4,274
3,423
851
932
High Turnover Sit -Down
Sit down eating establishment
Restaurant
with turnover rates of less
than 1 hour.
GFA
6,066
7,135
1,069
933
Fast Food without Drive-
Fast food without a drive
Thru
through window.
GFA
30,500
17,756
(12,744
934
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
Fast food with a drive through
window.
GFA
21,134
15,817
5,317
Contains a bar where
936
Drinking Place
alcoholic beverages and light
food is served. Can provide
entertainment such as music
and games.
GFA
NIA
5,879
NIA
Sells gasoline and may also
944
Gas Station
provide vehicle service and
Fueling
repair.
Positions
8,329
6,151
2,178
Gas Station with
Sells gasoline and may also
945
Convenience Market
provide vehicle service and
repair. Also contains a
Fueling
convenience market.
Positions
6,102
4,046
2,055
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
5,729
4,106
1,623
947 7.10
Self -Service Car Wash
Allows self cleaning of cars by
providing stalls for drivers Wash Stalls
4,049
2,385
1,264
Allows for the mechanical
948 7
Automated Car Wash
cleaning of the exterior of
vehicles.
GFA
NIA
3,471
NIA
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1, 000 sq ft gross floor area.
GLA - 1,000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity.
(5) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(6) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(7) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(8) Limited study data uses Friday only data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Use the fallowing formula for PM Peak Hour Trips and Pass -By Trip Factor:
Average Trips = Ln(Trips) = 0.65Ln(GLA) + 5.83
Pass -by Trip Factor - Ln(f) _-. 029 1 Ln(GFL) + 5.001
(10) Based on peak hour of adjacent street traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 pm.
NIA Data not avaiable in Trip Generation Manual
Attachment 2
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
.............:
,.•,:. _ -
iENri
' M1
-�
Ad" ae a
lit
.M s.
4I . . . ', S
per r �
at'
210 Single Family Detached
Single family detach housing DU
1.02
1
0.79 $
691
220 Apartment Rental dwelling with at least 3
units in the same building DU
0.67
1
0.52
454
Rented rather than owned
224 Rented Townhouse/ Duplex units with a minimum of two
units DU
0.73
1
0.57
495
Residential condominium/
230 Condominium/ Townhouse townhouses under
single=famity ownership.
Minimum of two -units in the
same building DU
0.52
1
0.40
352
Trailers or manufactured
240 Mobile Nome home sited on permanent
foundations DU
0.20
1
0.15
136
Independent living
252 Congregate Care developments that provide
centralized amenities such as
dining, housekeeping,
transportation and activities. DU
0.20
1
0.15
136
254 Assisted Living Residential settings that
provide oversite or assistance
for independent, or mentally
or physically limited persons. DU
0.35
1
0.27
237
•Y +
- i �'`�
777
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
Yrr .Yi . ............ .. .. ... . . .... .� . ... .. ,.. ..... .., . y..... „r ..... tir. .r . 1. {...;: t:ti�
P :. �. • : Div .
,;.
.:::. ..
S • k..µ
r
cr,€e•• Wt.
. .. _. �•:..... .... .. ... .. ... ,. � .-,.. .mot.
-
-
e t.
Typically less than 500
employees, free standing and
110 General Light Industrial single use. Examples:
printing plants, material
testing laboratories, data
processing and equipment
assembly.
GFA
1.08 1
0.84
732
Industrial park areas that
130 Industrial Park contain a number of industrial
and/or related facilities. A mix
of manufacturing, service and
warehouse
GFA
0.85 1
0.57
583
Facilities that convert raw
materials or parts into finished
140 Manufacturing products. Typically have
related office, warehouse,
research and associated
functions.
GFA
0.75 1
0.58
508
Facilities devoted to storage
150 Warehouse of goods and materials.
Includes offices and
maintenance facilities
GFA
0.61 1
0.47
413
151 Mini -Warehouse
Storage units or vaults rented
for storage of goods
GFA
0.29 1
0.22
197
F� .h
A�YMA�. _. ...�.. r ..._ ... ... ....._ ........ ..... ... ,�..Y �. .. -
;;�����►► -}},iice� -
.:...... .... .. .. .....:..tr_�. _. .:...:.=ter. .. .,yy
i
Lodging facility that may
310
Hotel
include restaurants, lounges,
meeting rooms and/or
convention facilities
Room
0.61
1
0.47
413
Sleeping accommodations
320
Motel
and often a restaurants. Free
on -site parking and little or no
meeting spaces.
Room
0.56
1
0.43
380
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
Municipal and private golf
430
Golf Course
courses. Mayor may not
have a driving range and
clubhouse Holes 3.56 1 2.76 2,413
Multi -purpose recreational
T
Multipurpose Recreation
facilities containing two more
435
Facility
or of the following uses at one
site: mini -golf, batting cages,
video arcade, bumper boats,
go-carts and driving ranges. GFA 11.54 1 8.94 7,821
Privately owned with
weightlifting and other
493
Athletic Club
facilities often including
swimming pools, hot tubs,
saunas, racquetball, squash
and handball courts. GFA 5.84 1 4.52 3,958
Recreational facilities similar
Recreational Community
to and including YMCAs, often
495
Center
including classes, day care,
meeting rooms, swimming
pools, tennis, racquetball,
handball, weightlifting, locker
rooms and food service GFA 2.39 1 1.85 1,620
Recreafional facilities with
437 '7
Bowling Alley
bowling lanes which may
include a small lounge,
restaurant or snack bar. Lane 4.50
1
3.49 3,050
Theaters with one or more
4.44
Movie Theater wl Matinee
screens (generally less than
10) and which show daily
matinees Screens 37.83
1
29.30 25,637
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
550
University 1 College
Four-year and graduate
........ .....
institutions Student 0.24
1
0.19 163
Contains worship area. May
560
Church
include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area and
facilities GFA 1.41
1
1.09 956
Facility for pre-school children
565
Day Care
care primarily during the
daytime hours. May include
classrooms, meeting area and
playground GFA 13.91
0.1
1.08 943
590
Library
Public or Private. Contains
shelved books, reading rooms
�.w..rrr rra.r..
.�. .. .. ......�.. �: ..._... :.:. :... ... �: .:. .. _•.. .: ::.. ..........
and sometime meeting rooms GFA 7.02
... ............ ... ...... •......... ......-.. .,. ....�. ... _.... ... ,....._... .. .. ....... ... ... _. .__ .. .� _....._ ...rY'. .�. �.. .::i :.:.i.•�^:'.:.�.n _..�...�. .. ... ti...
1
.r .... _ _—.�... .. �.. �.x
5.44 4,757
....i-.... .-... .. .. .. ..— i-r..r-.. _.... ...✓..... .... .... ... ....
.::..:::::... .
i
Includes a clubhouse with
Lodge 1 Fraternal
dinning and drinking facilities,
591
Organization
recreational and
entertainment areas and
meeting rooms Members 0.03
1
0.02 20
.... - _ ... _ ... .. ..... ... ..... .. ..s ..
.. .n. n ..
.... i.. ..:... [ I-
•r .•
w
Medical and/or surgical care
facility with overnight
610
Hospitals
accommodations for
ambulatory and non -
ambulatory patients. GFA 1.61
1
1.25 1,091
A facility whose primary
620
Nursing Home
function is to care for persons
who are unable to care for
themselves Beds 030
1
0.23 203
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
. is
rassr
P B
.. .... ..
T x :T ;
..... . . ..
. . ..... . .......
Aa
.. . ...... ..
.. ....
...
,.. .,
.............. .:.. .
.. ..... .. ..... .. _ E. .., ...... ... .... .... ..,.. .......
=yam}
.. ]/■ aot
..': ... :. ..'":.' Q '..ti4►
.i• r.w.
....
c
..:.....:.... - :........:..
,... i .,.. .. .. .. . • -
'f
1
r
7� 5
Single Tenant Office Usually contains offices,
Building meeting rooms, fife storage
areas, restaurants or cafeteria
and other service functions
GFA
1.73 1
1.34
1,172
Provides diagnosis and
720 7
Medical -Dental Office outpatient care. Typically
operated be private
physicians or dentists.
GFA
4.45 1
3.45
3,016
Park or campus -like planned
750
Office Park unit development that
contains office buildings,
banks, restaurants and
service stations.
GFA
1.50 1
1.16
1,017
Single building or complex of
Research and Development buildings devoted to research
760
Center and development. May
contain light fabrication
facilities.
GFA
1.08 1
0.84
732
Group of flex -type or incubator
1-2 story building served by a
common road system.
Typically includes a mix of
770
Business Park offices, retail and 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 1
warehouse.
GFA
1.29 1
1.00
874
ti < M
N
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
. a -
-
'. .. .. .. ... .. ... . .. .. •."tea. � ./•.
ITE
ee
OFF#}7F _per
t:'
fir ] r•
Small free standing building
Building Materials and
that sells hardware, building
812 Lumber
materials and lumber. May
include yard storage and
sheded storage areas which
are not included in the unit
calculation.
GFA
5.56
0.82
3.53
3,090
A free-standing discount store
813 Discount Supper Store
that also contains a full
service grocery department
under the same roof.
GFA
4.03
0.82
2.56
2,240
Small strip shopping centers
containing a variety of retail
814 Specialty Retail
shops that typically specialize
in apparel, hare goods,
services such a real estate,
investment, dance studios,
florists and small restaurants.
GFA
5.02
0.82
3.19
2,790
Free-standing store that offers
815 Discount Store
a variety of customer services,
centralized cashiering and a
wide range of products.
GFA
5.43
0.82
3.45
3,018
Typically free-standing
816 Hardware 1 Paint Store
buildings with parking that sell
hardware and paints.
GFA
4.74
0.82
3.01
2,634
Free-standing building with
yard containing planting and
817 Nursery 1 Garden Center
landscape stock. Unit
calculation only applies to
building and not yard and
storage.
GFA
4.97
0.82
3.16
2,762
A shopping center that
823 Factory Outlet
primarily houses factory outlet
stores.
GFA
1.94
1 0.52
1 0.78
684
AA
G ✓.
Integrated group of
commercial establishments
that is planned, developed
820
Shopping Center
and managed as a unit.
Provides enough on -site
parking to serve its own
demand. May include office
buildings, theatres,
restaurants, post office, health
club and recreation.
GLA
{9)
(9)
(9)
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
•
• _ , N -
.. r
.• ram. . •
... .... ..... .... ...... .;,. .. is +.... .. ,'''::::.:.:.:.:.: - -
•., r4
--<.':.-�.'„..`.',:•`;;r.i.::i.r :`;:.;ir.:,:.'':,
. ...... ...: ... r :e. _ .
.r
• '., . -.- may., r , ,ram
a
s
-
Y
rL ' y ,
x
r
841
Car Dealership
New and used car dealership
with sales, service and parts,
GFA
2.72 0.82
1.73
1,512
848
Tire Store
Primary business is selling
and repair of tires
GFA
3.26 0.82
2.07
1,812
Free-standing grocery store.
850
Supermarket
May also contain ATMs, photo
center, pharmacies and video
rental.
GFA
12.02 0.64
5.96
5,213
Sells convenience foods,
851
Convenience Market - 24
newspapers, magazines and
hours
often beer and wine. Open 24
hours per day.
GFA
53.42 0.39
16.14
14,119
Convenience Market - 15 to
Sells convenience foods,
852
16 hours
newspapers, magazines and
often beer and wine. Open 15
to 16 hours per day.
GFA
36.22 0.39
10.94
9,573
Discount store / warehouse
861
Discount Club
where shoppers pay a fee to
get wholesale prices. May
have a wide variety of goods.
Many items are sold in bulk or
large quantities.
GFA
4.76 0.52
1.92
1,677
Pharmacy without drive thru
Facilities filling medical
880
window
prescriptions without a drive
thru window.
GFA
11.07 0.47
4.03
3,526
Pharmacy with drive thru
Facilities filling medical
881
window
prescriptions with a drive thru
window.
GFA
9.51 0.51
3.76
3,287
Sells furniture, accessories
890
Fumiture Store
and often carpet 1 floor
covering.
GFA
0.53 0.47
0.19
159
t Y.A .
• rF�
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
X }► yT
ti +�
1
y-.. ....
.. .. .. .. ..
-h r H .
-
...
e too
co€N F6.0
�:: •� i PSe
n.
.... .. .. .. _ ... .. . .. .. is .[.
,
i .. ._.. .
Usually a free-standing
911
Walk -In Bank
building with a parking lot
offering banking services. May
are ATMs
GFA
42.02
0,53
17.25
15,093
Usually a free-standing
Walk -In Bank with Drive
building with a parking lot
912
Thru Window
offering banking services. Has
a drive thru window. May are
ATMs
GFA
53.46
0.53
21.94
19,202
931
Quality Restaurant
High quality eating
establishment with turnover
rates greater than 1 hour
GFA
9.02
0.56
3.91
3,423
932
High Turnover Sit -Down
Sit down eating establishment
Restaurant
with tumover rates of less
than 1 hour.
GFA
18.80
0.56
8.15
7,135
933
Fast Food without Drive-
Fast food without a drive
Thru
through window.
GFA
52.40
0.50
20.29
17,756
934
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
Fast food with a drive through
window.
GFA
46.68
0.50
18.08
15,817
Contains a bar where
936
Drinking Place
alcoholic beverages and light
food is served. Can provide
entertainment such as music
and games.
GFA
15.49
0.56
6.72
5,879
_ :-t
Sells gasoline and may also
944
Gas Station
provide vehicle service and Fueling
repair. Positions 15.65
158
7.03 6,151
Gas Station with
Sells gasoline and may also
945
Convenience Market
provide vehicle service and
repair. Also contains a Fueling
convenience market. Positions 13.57
0.44
4.62 4,046
Sells gasoline and may also
Gas Station with
provide vehicle service and
946
Convenience Market and
repair. Also contains a
Car Wash
convenience market and car Fueling
wash. Positions 13.77 1
0.44
4.69 4,106
947"'t'14
Self -Service Car Wash
Allows self cleaning of cars by
providing stalls for drivers Wash Stalls 8.00
0.44
2.73 2,385
Allows for the mechanical
948 7
Automated Car Wash
cleaning of the exterior of
vehicles. GFA 11.64
0.44
3.97 3,471
City of Kalispell
Transportation Impact Fees
Consolidated Fee Schedule
.... ..... ... ,..... .. ... ... ...... . �,... ... .. �.•......<.. :�v - =:ice
.. ... ..... .. .. .. -ti.. ._ . ,.. ter..
a
•• ..�1�.
TV... ........ ... . ... ..... .
Ad
a
....
.• .. ...... _ �• ... . • r:
Fai
. des
(1) Land Use Units:
GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area.
GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area.
DU - dwelling unit.
Rooms - number of rooms for rent.
Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously.
Student - full time equivalent student capacity,
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An 1TE Recommended Practice, March 2001.
(4) Peak hour trips times Pass -By Trip Factor times 77.45 % - reduced to reflect local conditions.
(5) Based on County parks data - City parks data limited.
(6) Percent of area used varies - use caution when defining units.
(7) Limited study data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(8) Limited study data uses Friday only data - should be supplemented with local studies.
(9) Use the following formula for PM Peak Hour Trips and Pass -By Trip Factor.
PM Peak Hour Trips = Ln(Trips) = 0.66Ln(GFL) + 3.04
Pass -by Trip Factor - Ln(0 .0291Ln(GFL) + 5.001
(10) Based on peak hour of adjacent street traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 pm.
Denotes non averaged land uses due to trip generation basis
9
Attachment 3
Bozeman
DRAFT
Table 1
Summary of Trip Characteristic Studies {1)
.. ...:.: : . :...<... . ..:.::. .:
f
.:.: ..: .,.. <. .:. .
r
.. ....:..:.
4
' V
�r
Tit
y�(�p
P� l fi.r�r�t
r
..
y
�"
� ac R�
�
q}�y
D 1 e
_ :...< , :
•:
T e p
, . , .7 NCI W
!
�f
r.
-Fee
4'
f
'i
h Y:.
) IM ,5 {f
SINGLE FAMILY
Site 1
Residential
142
du 9.69
3.23
100%
31.30
15.65
Site 2(3)
Residential
105
du NIA
1.59
100%
NIA
NIA
Site 3
Residential
41
du 9.32
4.53
100%
42.22
21.11
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMITOWNHOUSE
Site 4
Residential
63
du
7.70
2.67
100%
20.56
10.28
Site 5
Residential
57
du
5.74
3.58
100%
20.55
10.27
OFFICE
Site 6
Non -Residential
48,344
1,000 sf
21.37
2.83
69%
41.73
20.86
Site 7(4)
Non -Residential
39,027
1,000 sf
NIA
1.64
77%
NIA
NIA
Site 8
Non -Residential
613199
1,000 sf 1
28.92 1
1.74 1
72%
1 36.23
18.12
SHOPPING CENTER
Site 9
Non -Residential
351888
13000 sf
69.30
1.39
74%
71.28
35.64
Site 10
Non -Residential
104,257
11,000 sf
46.96
3.35
49%
77.08
38.54
Site 11
Non -Residential
159,852 1
1,000 sf
56.49
1.56 1
54%
1 47.59
23.79
kit l,1Ly Of -nozeman inp Characteristics Study, Ilndale-Vliver & Associates, Inc., 2007
(2) VMT is divided by two to avoid over -charging a land use since ITE trips are trips to and from two land uses.
(3) Trip generation was not calculated due to the presence of cut -through traffic from construction on adjacent street.
(4) Trip generation was not calculated due to the presence of cut -through traffic from construction on adjacent street.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman
June 2007 4 Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 7
Interstate Adjustment Factor
`a f
-
Zo
Roa.d.n."
I-90
701265
15.0%
State Roads
244,43 8
53.0%
County Roads
11341
0.0%
City Roads
1475227
32.0%
JAII Roads
463,2711
100.0%
( 1 ) Source: City of Bozeman Planning
Department, Centerline Street Maintenance
GI S Layer and MDOT Urban Travel Demand
Model
3.0 PROPOSED
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEE SCHEDULE
3.1 Proposed Transportation
Impact Fee Schedule
The impact fee calculations for each land
use are included in Appendix F . This
Appendix includes the major land use
categories and the impact fees for the
individual land uses contained in each of
the major categories. For each land use,
this Appendix illustrates the impact fee
demand component variables (trip rate,
trip length, and percent of new trips), the
total impact fee cost, the annual gas tax
credit and present value of the gas tax
credit, the net impact fee, the current
City of Bozeman impact fee, and the
percent difference between the potential
impact fee and the current impact fee. It
should be noted that the net impact fee
rates included in Appendix F represent
the maximum reasonable defensible
transportation impact fee per unit of land
use that could be charged in the City of
Bozeman. The methodology used herein
to calculate these fees is commonly
accepted as one that results in an impact
fee rate that satisfies the proportionality
concept of the dual rational nexus test. It
should be noted that this methodology is
consistent with the 2005 Montana Impact
Fee Law (Senate Bill 185). As a result,
development is charged based upon the
proportion of vehicle miles of travel
(demand) it is expected to consume on
the city roadway network.
For clarification purposes, it may be
useful to walk through the calculation of
an impact fee for one of the land use
categories. In the following example,
the net impact fee is calculated for the
Single --Family Detached Residential
(1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman
June 2007 18 Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
category (ITE LUC 210). This example
calculation uses information from the
proposed impact fee schedule included
in Appendix F, Table F-1 (Non-CBD
Impact Fee Schedule). For each land use
Where:
category, the following equations are
utilized to calculate the net impact fee:
Net Impact .pee = Total Impact Cost — Gas Tax Credit
Total Impact Cost = ((Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length x % New Trips) / 2) x (l -
Interstate Ad� j. Factor) x (Costper Lane Mile I Avg. Capacity Added per Lane Mile)
Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax), given 5% interest rate & 25 year
facility life
Annual Gas Tax =(((Trip Rate X Total Trip Length X %New Trips) / 2) X Effective
Days per Year x $/Gallon to Capital) /Fuel Efficiency
Each of the inputs have been discussed
previously in this document; however,
for purposes of this example, brief
definitions for each are provided below,
along with the actual inputs for the
Single -Family Detached Residential
(1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use
category.
• Trip Rate = the average daily trip
generation rate, in vehicle-
trips/day (9.57)
• Assessable Trip Length — the
actual average trip length for the
category, in vehicle -miles (3.52)
• Total Trip Length = the
assessable trip length plus an
adjustment factor of half a mile is
added to the trip length to account
Tindale-diver & Associates, Inc.
June 2007 19
for the fact that gas taxes are
collected for travel on all roads
including local roads (3.52 + 0.50
4.02)
■ % New Trips = adjustment factor
to account for trips that are
already on the roadway (100%)
• The total daily miles of travel
generated by a particular category
(i.e., rate X length X % new trips)
is divided by two to prevent the
double -counting of travel
generated among land use codes
since every trip has an origin and
a destination.
• .interstate Adjustment Factor
adjustment factor to account for
the travel demand occurring on
interstate highways (15.0%)
City of Bozeman
Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
s
0
•
■
Fast per Lane Mile = unit cost to
construct one lane mile of
roadway, in Mane -mile
($4,094,532)
Average Capacity Added per
Lane Mile = represents the
average daily traffic on one travel
lane at capacity for one lane mile
of roadway, in vehicles/lane-
mile/day (8,658)
Present Value = calculation of
the present value of a uniform
series of cash flows, gas tax
payments in this case, given an
interest rate, "i," and a number of
periods, "n;" for 4.6% interest and
a 25-year facility life, the uniform
series present worth factor is
14.6768
Effective Days per Year = 365
days
$/Gallon to Capital =the amount
of gas tax revenue per gallon of
fuel that is used for capital
improvements, in $/gallon
($0.145)
Fuel Efficiency =average fuel
efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-
miles/gallon (17.70)
Using these inputs, a net impact fee can
be calculated for the Single -Family
Residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet)
land use category as follows.
Tindale- ]liver & Associates, Inc.
June 2007 20
Total Impact Cost = ((9.57 * 3.52 * 1.0)
/2) * (1—.015) * ($4,0941532/85658) _
$6,771
Annual Gas Tax = (((9-57 * 4.02 * 1.0)
/2) * 365 * $0.145) / 17.70 = $58
Gas Tax Credit = $58 * 14.6768= $851
Ad Valorem Tax Credit = $25 (see
Appendix E, Table E-1 for details of this
calculation)
Net Impact Fee = $615771-$851-25 =
$5,895
3.2 Transportation Impact Fee
Schedule Comparison
As part of the work effort in developing
the City of Bozeman transportation
impact fee program, a comparison of
transportation impact fee schedules of
surrounding jurisdictions was completed.
In addition, two impact fee schedules
were developed for the City of
Bozeman. Specifically, a fee schedule
for the Central Business District (CBD)
and a fee schedule for the non CBD area
were calculated. The CBD fee schedule
provides a reduction to the percent new
trips variable for certain recreation,
lodging, retail, office, restaurant, and
bank land uses. Table 8 presents the
existing City of Bozeman impact fees
and proposed City of Bozeman impact
fees compared to transportation impact
fees in the other jurisdictions.
City of Bozeman
Impact Fee Study
DRAFT
Table 8
Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison
�j) Source: Appenaix r, table r-1 (Non-U-BO) and Table F-2 (C;BD)
(2) Source: Gallatin County Transportation Impact Fee Study, March 2007. Note, fee shown includes a five percent administration
charge. The commercial/shopping center fee is shown for the quality restaurant, retail, and bank w/drive-in land uses in the City of
Bozeman.
(3) Source: City of Belgrade Transportation Impact Fee Study, February 2007.The commercial/shopping center (50,000 sf or less) fee is
shown for the quality restaurant and bank w/drive-in land uses
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman
June 2007 21 Impact Fee Study
Missoula
Transportation Impact Fees
Missoula, Montana
Input variables for the citywide road impact fee are shown in Figure 8. The trip generation rate
and trip adjustment factor by type of development are multiplied by the net capital cost for an
average length vehicle trip to yield the road impact fee. The net capital cost for an average
length vehicle trip is obtained by subtracting the revenue credit per trip from the average trip
length multiplied by the trip length weighting factor (by type of land use) multiplied by the cost
per lane mile divided by the lane capacity. For example, the road impact fee for a detached
housing unit is 9.57 x 0.50 x [(1.22 x 1.81 x 1641000 / 7000) — 0], or $2,477 per housing unit.
Figure S — Road Impact .fee Input Variahles
Missoula, Montana
ITE
Code
Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
Residential.per Household
210 Single Family Detached
230 All other Housing Types
Nonresidential r
.per 1 000 Sq �"t of f loor area
- -
820 Commercial/Shop Ctr 100,000 SF or less
820 Com 1 Shop Ctr 100, 001-200,000 SF
820 Com 1 Shop Ctr 200,001 SF or more
770 Business Park
720 Medical -Dental office Bldg
710 Office 25,000 SF or less
710 office 25,001-50,000 SF
710 office 50,001 SF or more
610 Hospital
151 Mini -Warehouse
150 Warehousing
140 Manufacturing
110 Light Industrial
520 Elementary School
Nonresidential(per uni ue demand indicator
620 Nursing Home (per bed)
565 Day Care (per student)
530 Secondary School (per student)
520 Elementary School (per student)
320 Lodging (per room)
Infrastructure Standards
Average Miles per Vehicle Trip
Cost per Lane Mile
Lane Capacity (vehicles per day)
Revenue Credit Per Trip
9.57
50%
122%
5.86
50%
122%
67.91
33%
68%
53.28
36%
68%
41.80
39%
68%
12.76
33%
75%
36.13
50%
75%
18.35
50%
75%
15.65
50%
75%
13.34
50%
75%
17.57
50%
75%
2.50
50%
75%
4.96
50%
75%
3.82
50%
75%
6.97
50%
75%
14.49
33%
75%
2.37
50%
75%
4.48
24%
75%
1.71
36%
75%
1.29
33%
75%
5.63
50%
75%
1.81
$1,6415000
7,000
$0
4 TischlerBi
Transportation Impact Fees Missoula, Montana
Maximum Supportable Road Impact Fees
The input variables discussed above yield the maximum supportable impact fees shown in Figure
9. Fees for most types of nonresidential development are listed per square feet of floor area.
Some of the nonresidential development types have unique demand indicators. For example, the
impact fee for lodging is based on the number of rooms in the hotel/motel.
Figure 9 -- Impact Fees for Citywide Transportation Improvements
Residential(per housin unit
Single Family Detached
$25477
All Other Housing Types
$1,516
Nonresidential(per 1000 SA Ft of oar area
820 ConmrrciallShop Ctr 100,000 SF or less
$65466
820 ComI Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF
$51534
820 Com / Shop Ctr 200,001 SF or more
$43703
770 Business Park
$11340
720 Medical -Dental mice Bldg
$55748
710 Office 25,000 SF or less
$2,919
710 Office 25,001--50,000 SF
$2,490
710 ice 50,001 SF or more
$2,122
610 Hospital
$2,795
151 Mini. -warehouse
$397
150 Warehousing
$789
140 Manufacturing
$607
110 Light Industrial
$15109
520 Elementary School
$1,521
Nonresidential(per uni ue demand indicator
620 Nursing Home (per bed)
$377
565 Day Care (per student)
$342
530 Secondary School (per student)
$195
520 Elenrntary School (per student)
$135
320 Lodging (per room)
$895
Is TischlerBise
rNr
� '" i i ""
Impact Fees
Belgrade, Montana
Figure 28 -- Road Impact Fee Input Variables
ITE
Code
Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
Residential (per Household)
210 Single Family Detached
230 All Other Housing Types
Nonresidential er 1000 Sq Ft of floor area
820 Conmwrcial 1 Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less
820 Corrrwrcial 1 Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF
820 Commercial 1 Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF
770 Business Park
720 Medical -Dental Office Bldg
710 General Office 25,000 SF or less
710 General Office 25,001-50,000 SF
710 General Office 50,001-200,000 SF
610 Hospital
151 Mini -Warehouse
150 Warehousing
140 Manufacturing
110 Light Industrial
520 Elemntary School
Nonresidential(per uni e demand indicator
620 Nursing Home (per bed)
565 Day Care (per student)
530 Secondary School (per student)
520 Elementary School (per student)
320 Lodging (per room)
I"n` fras&ucture Standards
Average Miles per Vehicle Trip
Cost per Lane Mile
Lane Capacity (vehicles per day)
Revenue Credit Per Trip
.. ..:......:...
7-7,77
9.57
62%
122%
5.86
62%
122%
86.56
31 %
68%
67.91
33%
68%
53.28
36%
68%
12.76
33%
75%
36.13
50%
75%
18.35
50%
75%
15.65
50%
75%
13.34
50°/a
75%
17.57
50%
75%
2.50
50%
75%
4.96
50%
75%
3.82
50%
75%
6.97
50%
75%
14.49
33%
75%
2.37
50%
75%
4.48
24%
75%
1.71
36%
75%
1.29
33%
75%
5.63
50%
75%
2.26
$1,650,000
7,000
28 Tischler i e
Soledad, CA
CITY TRAFFIC FEE
The 2007 T1F was calculated by dividing the City's portion of the traffic facilities cost, minus fees already collected and any cost related to correction of
existing deficiencies, with the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) trips generated by forecasted City future development. The total cost of improvements in
the T1F is $370.3 million, the balance in the City's traffic impact fee fund is approximately $2.0 million, and the net traffic facilities cost allocated to future
development within the City is approximately $141.5 million. Table ES-1 shows the calculated City traffic fees based on the $139.5 million net traffic
facilities cost.
TABLE ES-1
C ITV TRAFFIC FF.F ei.i nCATInw
j. i.v. iVVrt1tri6 Luna, 11+J1- -- I,vvv L.)gcrureFeei.
2. Trip generation rate taken from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition. Trip generation rate is used for per trip cost calculation only. The
assessed fee will be determined by the City based on the Project Use Category Table (Appendix C)
3. Commercial - office square footage split based on the City of Soledad Public Facilities Fee Study. Munijlnancial, 2006. (Commercial - 62%, Office - 38%)
City of Soledad —City Traffic Impact Fee, 2007 Update Page vi
August 2007 (R1140TS004.DDC25-6683-02)
The fees presented in Table ES-- I are based on generalized trip generation rates found in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7Ih Edition and are provided as an example fee for a typical
unit of development. The Soledad Planning or Public works Departments will ultimately determine the land
use category for each future development in the City. The appropriate traffic impact fee will be calculated by
the City based on the estimated average daily trips using the Project Use Category Table (Appendix Q. City
policy states that only City Agencies will be exempt from payment of the impact fees.
The traffic fees for areas within the City Redevelopment Area are subject to fee reduction (Infill Discount),
which is intended by the City to encourage infill development.
Table ES-2 compares the proposed fee against the current fee. Note that non --residential development in the
City Redevelopment Area will receive a fee discount from the current fee.
TABLE ES-2
CITY TRAFFIC FEES
y_ _,.. .. ,.
_.._... _
.:..:::::.:..........:......... ...: .
�a
Y =
a. . ....
ere
City Redevelopment Area
SFDU
DU
$55554
$15700
$3,854
MFDU
DU
$4,443
$1,360
$3,083
Retail
KSF
$41776
$55024
4248
Office
KSF
$23444
$35737
-$1,293
Industrial
KSF
$1,777
$1,569
$208
Ci Expansion Area
SFDU - Full Fee
DU
$11,107
$1,700
$9,407
SFDU - Moderate Income
DU
$91,997
$1,700
$8,297
SFDU - Low Income
DU
$85886
$11700
$75186
SFDU - Very Low Income
DU
$7,775
$1,700
$6,075
MFDU
DU
$8,886
$15360
$73526
Retail
KSF
$9,552
$5,024
$41528
Office
KSF
$43887
$31737
$19150
Industrial
KSF
$31554
$1,569
$1,985
I. D. U. = Dwelling Unit; KSF = 1, 000 Square Feet.
FEE CREDITS OR REIMBURSEMENTS
The City will credit traffic fees or provide reimbursement to developers that dedicate land for improvements
or directly construct fee -funded facilities included in the 2007 TIF. Fee credits or reimbursements will be the
lesser of the improvement cost listed in the 2007 TIF, subject to periodic inflation adjustment, and the actual
construction cost. The fee credit or adjustment will not exceed the improvement cost listed in the 2007 TIF
and will be repaid based on the priority of the improvement, as determined by the City.. Repayment delays
may occur for constructed facilities considered to be of low priority.
INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS
Fees calculated in this 2007 TIF Report reflect 2007 dollars. Future fee adjustment should reflect revised
facility standards, receipt of alternative source funding (e.g. state and federal grants), revised replacement
costs, and changes in demographics or the land use plan. In addition to periodic adjustments, the fees must be
adjusted annually to reflect inflation by a predetermined index, such as the Engineering News Record City
Construction Cost Index for San Francisco.
City of Soledad —City Trafc Impact Fee, 2007 Update page vii
August 2007 (R1140TS004.DOC125-6683-02)
Bellevue, WA
LAND USE
UNITS
P.M. PEAK NEW TRIPS REDUCED
TRIPS/UNIT. % TRIP RATE
TRIP
LENGTH
1
$$ngle Family
DWELLING
1,01
100
1,01
3.5
2
Multi -family
DWELLING
0.51
100
0.51
3.7
2
Multifamily (D)
DWELLING
0,38
100
0,38
17
3
Senior Citizen Dwelling
OCC. DWELL.
0.11
100
0.11
2.8
3
Senior Citizen Dwelling )
OCC. DWELL.
0,11
100
0,11
2.8
4
Nursing Home
BED
0.22
100
0.22
2.8
5
Congregate CarelAssisted Living
OCC. DWELL.
0,17
100
0.17
2v6
6
Hotel/Motel
OCC. ROOM
0.65
80
0.52
4.0:
6
HoteliMotel (D)
OCC. ROOM
0.49
80
0.39
5.1
7
Bank/S&L wo Window
1000 GSF
33.15
60
19.89
2.9
8
ank$S L w Window
1000 GSF
45J4
5
25�16
2.9
9
Day Care Center (exempt)
1000 GSF
13.18
75
9.89
2.0
10
Service Station
VFP
13,86
50
6r93
1.7
11
Service Station w Convenience Mk
VFP
13.38
45
6.02
1.7
12
Convenience Market
1000 GSF
52,41
40
20.96
1.3
13
Convenience Mkt w Gas Pumps
1000 GSF
60.61
35
21.21
1.3
14
Movie Theater w/Matinee
SCREEN
44,53
85
37,85
13
15
Car Wash - Self Service
STALL
5.54
65
3.60
1.6
16
fed€cai Clinic
DOCTOR
3.78
75
2.34
4.8
17
Medical/Dental Office
1000 GSF
3.72
75
2.79
4.8
18
Hospital (non-profit exempt)
1000 GSF
1.18
80
0.94
5.0
19
Elementary School
STUDENT
0.01
100
0.01
3.7
20
High School
STUDENT
0,14
100
0,14
3.7
21
Junior College
STUDENT
0.12
100
0.12
3.7
22
Religious Institution
1000 GSF
0,66
100
0,66
3.7
23
Quality Restaurant
1000 GSF
7.49
65
4.87
3.4
24
High Turnover Restaurant
1000 GSF
10.92
65
7,10
2.3
25
Fast Food Restaurant w window
1000 GSF
34.64
50
17.32
2.0
26
Fast Food Restaurant wo Window
1000 GSF
26,15
50
13.08
2.0
27
Shopping Center 0 - 9999
1000 GLSF
14.24
40
5.70
1.3
28
Shopping Center 10,000 - 49,999
1000 GLSF
9.43
45
4,24
1.5
29
Shopping Center 50,000 - 99,999
1000 GLSF
6.90
60
4.14
1.5
30
Shopping Center 100,000 - 199e999
1000 GLSF
5.45
65
3r54
1.7
31
Shopping Center 200,000 - 299,999
1000 GLSF
4.58
70
3.21
1.7
32
Shopping Center 300,000 - 399,999
1000 GLSF
4.09
7 0
2.86
2.1
33
Shopping Center 400,000 - 499,999
1000 GLSF
3.75
75
2.81
2.4
34
Shopping Center 500,000+
1000 GLSF
3.51
75
2.63
3.2
35Supermarket
1000 GSF
'10.45
7y
7.3'2�
2.'1
�36
p�q+�
Discount Supermarket arket
1000 GSF
s 0
�0k
d 0
,23
.1
37.
Discount Store
1000 GSF
5.06
80
4.05
1.7
38
Discount 5uperstore
1000 GSF
3.87
7 5
2.90
1.7
39
Miscellaneous Retail
1000 GSF
4.80
50
2.40
1.7
40
Retail Warehouse (Hardware,)
1000 GSF
2.45
60
1.47
3.
41
Retail Warehouse (Gen.Merch.)
1000 GSF
4.24
70
2.97
3.2
42
Fur€inure Store
1000 GSF
0,46
50
0.23
1.7
43
Car Sales - New/Used
1000 GSF
2.64
80
2.11
4.6
44
Office 0 9999
1000 GSF
4.09
90
3,68
5A
44
Office 0 - 9999 (D)
1000 GSF
3.07
90
2.76
5.1
45
Office 10,000 - 49,999
1000 GSF
2,55
90
2.30
5.1
45
1�{0�$,000 - 4�9fQ,,9$S9�.{9k{ (D)
'100}0�$
1.9{'1
'1.72
5.1
46
$O��ff�ic�eS
'+Mffccc 0.000 - 99,99
$G^,1W�SF
1000 GSF
2t0V
p9tl�0
M�'0
1,80
5A
46
Office 50,000 - 99,999(D)
1000 GSF
'1.50
90
'1.35
5.147
Office 100,000 - 199,999
1000 GSF
1,65
90
1.49
5.1
47
Office 100,000-199,999 (D)
1000 GSF
1.24
90
1.12
5.1
48
Office 200.000 - 299, 99
1000 GSF
1A4
90
1.30
5,1
48
Office 200,000 - 299,999 (D)
1000 GSF
1.08
90
0.97
5.1
49
Office 300,000+
1000 GSF
1 r39
90
1.25
5A
49
Office 300,000+ (D)
1000 GSF
1.04
90
0.94
5.1
50
Light Industr iManufacturing
1000 GSF
0.98
100
0.98
SA
51
Industrial Park
1000 GSF
0.86
100
0.86
5.1
52
WarohousingiStor ge
1000 GSF
0,47
100
0.47
5A
53
Mini -Warehouse
1000 GSF
0.26
100
0.26
5.1
San Diego County, CA
Fee Methodology
Trip Generation
te,4
Projected EDU's
Trip generation rates are the cornerstone of most traffic modeling
efforts. By definition, trip generation rates provide a relative measure
of estimated vehicular volumes by land use and other property
characteristics. The relationship between generation of trips and
utilization of transportation facilities is clear. Trip generation rates are
commonly used to apportion the benefits associated with
transportation infrastructure improvements.
Equivalent dwelling units (EDU's) are a unit of measure representative
of the estimated trip generation rate for a single family residence. By
comparing the trip generation rate for a given land use to that of a
single family residence, EDU's can be established for the various land
uses. Table ? summarizes trip generation rates and EDU equivalency
factors for land uses with potential growth identified in 'rab .e . .
TABLE 2: Trip Generation Rates & EDU Equivalencies
LAND USE
Trip Rate
EDU Factor (2)
Single Family Residential
12 trips/unit
1.000 EDUlunit
Multi -Family Residential (3)
5 — 8 trips/unit
0.417 — 0.667 EDU/unit
Commercial/Services
400 trips/acre
33.333 EDU/acre
Industrial
150 trips/acre
12.500 EDU/acre
Office
300 trips/acre
25.000 EDU/acre
Parks
5 trips/acre
0.417 EDU/acre
Roads & Freeways (4)
0 trips/acre
0.000 EDU/acre
Schools
50 trips/acre
4.167 EDU/acre
I Trip generation rates based on a review of data contained in San Diego Traffic
Generators Manual (SAMDAG, April 2002).
(2) EDU equivalency factor represents the ratio between the applicable trip rate (for the
subject land use) and the Single Family Residential trip rate (i.e., 12 trips = 1 EDU).
(3) Includes condominiums, duplexes, apartments, mobile homes and other multi -unit
development for modeling purposes.
(4) Roads and freeways (as a land use) do not generate new trips.
The total cost of the County TIF program (i.e., estimated cost of
facilities, administration, etc.) will be funded through separate fee
schedules applicable to future development within each community
County of San Diego 7 13C74rLLF
County of San Diego TlF Progam
VALLEY CENTER FEE SCHEDULE
LAND USE
APPLICABLE FEE
Residential - single Family
$67961 1 unit
Residential - Condominium & Multi -Family �'�
$4,641 1 unit
Residential - Retirement Community
$2,320 / unit
Commercial -- General (including Retail & Dining)
$23.20 l sq ft
Commercial - Regional Shopping center
$29.00 / sq ft
Commercial - Community Shopping center
$46.41 1 sq ft
Commercial - Neighborhood shopping Center
$69.61 l sq ft
Industrial - General (including Business Parks)
$5.80 I sq ft
Industrial - Manufacturing, Storage & Warehousing
$2.32 l sq ft
Industrial - Research & Development
$4.64 l sq ft
Office - Low Rise (up to 5 stories)
$11.60 I sq ft
Office - High Rise (6 or more stories)
$9.86 / sq ft
Recreation - Golf Course
$4,061 I acre
Other
$580.08 l trip
(1) Includes condominiums, duplexes, apartments, mobile homes and other multi -unit development
Fee Schedules (2004W12-17).xls 1 VALLEY CENTER Page 21 of 21 12/17/2004
North San Jose, CA
due to the North San Jose development dissipates quickly as the distance from North San Jose increases.
The study intersections are shown graphically in Figures 2 and 3.
Traffic Impact Fees on New Development
The North San Jose traffic impact fee will be determined based on a calculated cost per vehicle trip
utilizing identified improvement costs, land use types, sizes, and trip generating characteristics. Using PM
peak --hour trip -making characteristics of the particular land use proposed for development in North San
Jose a proportioned fee can be calculated for each land use type. The PM peak hour is used because it is
the PM peak hour during which traffic conditions are the worst, as described above. The cost per vehicle
trip for the anticipated growth is calculated by dividing the total package cost of improvements by the
increase in peak hour trips. The cost is then distributed upon each of the land uses based on their trip
generating characteristics using the following rates:
Single -Family Residential 0.63 trips per unit
Multi --Family Residential 0.50 trips per unit
Industrial Uses 0.93 trips per 1,000 s.f.
The land use trip rates are established by the traffic model and account for internalization, transit use, and
bicycle/pedestrians. Multiplying the cost per trip figure by each of the rates determines, the applicable fee
for each land use.
Retail development will be exempt from traffic impact fees because it is anticipated that retail will be
primarily local serving and will not put any additional burden on the road system. The retail space will
serve as supporting retail to the industrial land uses and residents of North San Jose. Although it is
assumed that vehicle trips will be made to the North San Jose retail land uses, the vast majority of trips to
the retail uses will be generated by the other land uses within North San Jose. Therefore, the trips to the
retail land uses are already accounted for in the residential and industrial trip generation estimates.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Draft North San Jose Traffic Impact Pee Plan, February 2005 Page 4
5.
North San Jose Traffic Impact Fee
This section presents the traffic impact fees for future development within North San Jose. The
calculation method for the traffic impact fees is presented.
Summary of San Jose Traffic Impact Fees
A portion of the funding for the needed improvements will be contributed by the City of San Jose and
other regional programs, but the majority of funding will be collected via a traffic impact fee for all new
development within North San Jose. The traffic impact fee is calculated based on proposed development
type and size. Collected fees will only be used towards the cost of implementation of the identified
improvements outlined in this report. with the exception of retail/commercial land uses, all new
development within the North San Jose boundaries will be required to contribute appropriate fees.
The North San Jose traffic impact fee is based on PM peak --hour trip -making characteristics of the
particular land use proposed for development in North San Jose. The PM peak hour is used because it is
the PM peak hour during which traffic conditions are the worst. The total increase in PM peak hour trips
with the anticipated development was estimated to be 41,300, as shown in Table 4. The traffic impact fee
is determined by calculating the cost per vehicle trip for the anticipated growth by dividing the total cost
of improvements ($519 million minus $59 million = $460 million) by the increase in peak hour trips
(41,300) to come up with $11,13 8 per trip. The cost is then distributed upon each of the land uses based
on their trip generating characteristics determined based on the following rates:
Single -Family Residential 0.63 trips per unit
Multi -Family Residential 0.50 trips per unit
.Industrial Uses 0.93 trips per 1,000 s.f.
Multiplying the cost per trip figure times each of the rates determines the applicable fee for each land use.
Traffic impact fees by land use type are presented in Table 5.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Draft North San Jose Traffic Impact Pee Pfau, February 2005 Page 31
Table 4
North San Jose Trip Estimates
R•
L � �x
s
SF Detached 3,530 units .6279 per unit
MF Attached 28,470 units .5024 per unit
Industrial 26.7 m.s.f .9371 per s.f.
Table 5
North San Jose Land Use Traffic Impact Fees
ju
SF Detached $67994.00 Per dwelling unit
MF Attached $5,596.00 Per dwelling unit
Industrial $10.44 Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per s . ft. e uivalent
In order to completely fund the cost of the improvements at the time of actual construction, the fees
indicated in Table 5 should he escalated annually in an amount of 3.3 %, which represents the average
increase in the Consumer Price Index as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor for the previous 20
years (1985-2004) for the San Francisco -Oakland --San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area as depicted
in Table 6.
Table 6
Consumer Price Index
r
ear
an o
ti�i
1985
4.2
1995
2.0
1986
3.0
1996
2.3
1987
3.4
1997
3.4
1988
4.4
1998
3.2
1989
4.9
1999
4.2
1990
4.5
2000
4.5
1991
4.4
2001
5.4
1992
3.3
2002
1.6
1993
2.7
2003
1.8
1994
1.6
2004
1.2
20 Year Average
= 3% per Year
Hexagon Transporfation Consultants, Inc.
Draft North San Jose Traffic Impact Pee Plan, February 2005 Page 32