Loading...
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