The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 5346 - Adopts Transportation Impact FeesRESOLUTION NO.5346 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING SCHEDULES AND CLASSIFICATIONS TO SET TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TO BE IMPOSED UPON CONSTRUCTION OF NEW IMPROVEMENTS FOR USES THAT PLACE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS UPON THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AND TO SET AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to §§7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604, MCA granting to municipalities the authority to impose impact fees to provide additional funding for capital improvements to transportation facilities, the Kalispell City Council has considered it prudent to impose transportation impact fees upon construction of new improvements within the City based upon the additional demands that the use of the new improvements place upon the transportation facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell Impact Fee Committee met numerous times over the past two years in noticed public meetings with the City's consultant, HDR/EES, reviewed the various permutations of its report and recommendations on the transportation facilities and examined the methodology utilized and issued its advisory letter to the Kalispell City Council on January 7, 2009 with two votes for and two votes against the adoption of an impact fee schedule along with the data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of the impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the advisory letter of the Kalispell Impact Fee Committee and directed the City Staff and its consultant, HDR/EES, to recalculate the impact fees based upon a capital improvement plan (CIP) with certain projects removed from the previously approved CIP based upon concerns raised that those certain projects may not be appropriately regarded as fully growth related; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on February 17, 2009 set a public hearing to be held on March 2, 2009 on said proposed transportation impact fees, schedules, charges and classifications of the transportation facilities of the City of Kalispell; and WHEREAS, due and proper Notice of said public hearing was given by the City Clerk by publication and mailing as required by law; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held by the City Council at a public meeting thereof in the Kalispell City Hall beginning at 7:00 o'clock P.M. on March 2, 2009, and all persons appearing at said hearing and expressing a desire to be heard were heard, and all written comments thereon furnished to the City Clerk at said meeting prior thereto were given consideration by the Council. WHEREAS, based upon the report and recommendations of the Kalispell City Impact Fee Committee, the considerable evidence provided by the City's consultants, City staff and public comment, written and oral, the City Council finds as follows: 1) The Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) adopted by the Kalispell City Council on April 21, 2008 and the HDR/EES study and report dated January 2009 meet the statutory requirements in that they a. describe existing conditions of the facility; b. establish the current level of service and the future level of service after improvements, assuring that growth related facility improvements and non -growth related improvements meet the same level of service standard; C. forecast future additional needs for service for a defined period of time; d. identify capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; e. identify those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; f. make the determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; g. establish the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development; h. establish the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; i. establish the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and 2) The impact fee schedule, along with the data sources and methodology used in support of the adoption and calculation of the impact fees meet the statutory requirements in that: a. the amount of the impact fee is reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development; b. considering the following factors, the impact fees imposed do not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development i. the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; ii. consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements; C. costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility are not included in the impact fee; d. new development will not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service; e. impact fees do not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility. 3) The proposed transportation impact fees, schedules, charges and classifications having been found to meet the statutory requirements are reasonable and just and in the best interest of the City of Kalispell and its citizens. WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council further adopts as its findings the report and recommendations of the City's consultant, HDR/EES, dated February 2009, along with the data sources and methodology used supporting adoption and calculation of the transportation impact fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I That the transportation impact fees, schedules, and classifications applicable to the use of the City of Kalispell Transportation Facilities as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, are hereby established and adopted to be imposed upon construction of new improvements for uses that place additional demands upon the transportation facilities of the City of Kalispell. SECTION II. That the transportation impact fees established by this resolution shall be imposed at the rate of 75% of the scheduled fee for any new construction that applies for a building permit within 2 years of the effective date of this resolution. SECTION III. That the transportation impact fees, schedules, and classifications that are hereby established for the City of Kalispell Transportation Facilities shall be reviewed no later than two years after the effective date of this resolution. SECTION IV. That this resolution shall become effective on the I51 day of April, 2009. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2O09. Pamela ATTEST: Mayor Theresa White City Clerk City of Kalispell Impact Fees for the Transportation System - Alternative 1 February 2009 1UR � tiff 1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, OR 97201 (503) 423-3700 February 18, 2009 Mr. James Hansz, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Kalispell 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903 Subj ect: Draft Report - Impact Fees for the Transportation System — Alternative 1 Dear Mr. Hansz: HDR Engineering Inc. (DBA HDR/EES) was retained by the City of Kalispell (City) to determine impact fees for the transportation system for new development. Herein is our revised draft report detailing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the review undertaken by HDR/EES for the determination of cost -based impact fees for the City's transportation system. This draft report has been revised from the January 2009 report to reflect changes as requested by the City Council and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. Specifically, capital projects MSN 2, 3, 23, 28 and 29 were excluded in the impact fee calculation. This draft report includes the planning and cost information from the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the "Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the City Council in April 2008. HDR/EES recommends the City have this draft report reviewed by its legal counsel to ensure compliance with Montana law. Please review this draft report; any appropriate comments and changes will be incorporated into the final report It has been a pleasure working with you on this project and we appreciate the opportunity to provide this technical report to the City. Should you have any questions, please call. We look forward to the opportunity to continue to provide assistance to the City. Sincerely yours, HDR ENGINEERING INC (DBA HDR/EES). Randall P. Goff Project Principal Attaclunents 1 Introduction and Overview of the Study 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Overview of the Study......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Disclaimer............................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-2 2 Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Defining Impact Fees........................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Historical Perspective.......................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices ............................................... 2-2 2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees.................................................................... 2-3 2.6 Summary.............................................................................................................. 2-4 3 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Impact Fee Criteria.............................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology.......................................................... 3-2 3.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 3-4 4 Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Requirements under Montana Law...................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Summary.............................................................................................................. 4-3 5 Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5.1 Introduction.. , ................................................................................. ..................... 5-1 5.2 Present Transportation Impact Fees..................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Transportation Zones........................................................................................... 5-1 5.4 Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees ......................................... 5-1 5.5 Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees ......................................................... 5-3 5.6 Key Assumptions................................................................................................. 5-5 5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees...................................................................... 5-5 5.8 Consultant Recommendations............................................................................. 5-5 5.9 Summary.............................................................................................................. 5-5 AfleM Contents i City of Kalispell, Montana Tables 5-1 City of Kalispell, Montana Average Daily New Trips ........................................ 5-2 5-2 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee ...................... 5-4 5-3 City of Kalispell, Montana Allowable Transportation Impact Fee — Residential Development..................................................................................... 5-4 Appendices Appendix A — Transportation Impact Fees Exhibit 1 Engineering Planning Memorandum Exhibit 2 Street Capacity Analysis Exhibit 3 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 4 Street Cost Exhibit 5 Equipment Lists Exhibit 6 Administrative Fee Exhibit 7 Summary Exhibit 8 Allowable Fee Schedule Appendix B— Montana Code for Impact Fees FM mm Contents ii City of Kalispell, Montana 1.1 Introduction HDR Engineering Inc. was retained by the City of Kalispell, Montana (City) to determine cost - based impact fees for the City's transportation system that complies with SB 185 (Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604). This report provides details of the development of cost -based impact fees for the City's "The objective of this transportation system. Impact fees are a one-time assessment report is to properly place against new development to pay for the cost of infrastructure in context the purpose of required to provide service. Impact fees provide the means of impact fees, and to balancing the cost requirements for new infrastructure between determine cost based existing customers and new customers. The portion of future impact fees for the capital improvements that will provide service (capacity) to new transportation system customers is included in the impact fees. In contrast to this, the that complies with City has future capital improvement projects that are related to Montana law. " curing existing deficiencies. These infrastructure costs are typically funded by other sources and are not included within the impact fee. By establishing cost -based impact fees, the City will assure that "growth pays for growth" and existing utility customers will be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth. 1.2 Overview of the Study This report is divided into five distinct components. The next section of the report, Section 2, provides a review of "generally accepted" utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees. At the same time, it also discusses the financial objectives of impact fees and practices of other utilities in relation to this fee. Section 3 provides an overview of the criteria and methodologies used in the development of cost -based impact fees, and Section 4 provides a summary of the legal requirements for the enactment of impact fees under Montana law. The cost -based impact fee calculation for the City's transportation system is provided in Section 5. 1.3 Disclaimer HDR/EES, in its determination of impact fees presented in this report, has used "generally accepted" accounting, engineering, and rate -making principles. This should not be construed as a legal opinion with respect to Montana law. The City has had this report reviewed by its legal counsel and they have found that it complies with the requirement under Montana law. Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-1 City of Kalispell, Montana 1.4 Summary This section of the report provided an overview of the report developed for the City concerning impact fees. lj� Introduction and Overview of the Study 1-2 FERCity of Kalispell, Montana 2.1 Introduction An important starting point in discussing the City's implementation of transportation impact fees is an understanding of the purpose and concept of impact fees and the financial objective of those fees. This section of the report will discuss the concept of impact fees and the "generally accepted" practices of the industry. 2.2 Defining Impact Fees One must first define an "impact fee" before beginning an assessment and review of them. Impact fees are often called system development charges (SDC's), capacity charges, buy -in fees, facility expansion charges, or plant investment fees. Regardless of the name applied to the fee, the concept is still the same. Simply stated, impact fees "are capital recovery fees that are generally established as "Impact fees are capital one-time charges assessed against developers as a way to recovery fees that are generally recover a part or all of the cost of system capacity established as one-time charges constructed for their use. Their application has generally assessed against developers as a occurred in areas that are experiencing extensive new way to recover apart or all of residential and/or commercial development."' The main the cost of system capacity objective of an impact fee is to assess against the constructed for their use." benefiting party, their proportionate share of the cost of —��i infrastructure required to provide them service. Stated another way, impact fees imply that new development creates new or additional costs on the system, and the impact fee assesses that cost in an equitable manner to those customers creating the additional cost. 1 George A. Raftelis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73. /,(eeS Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-1 City of Kalispell, Montana 2.3 Historical Perspective Historically, the financing of transportation infrastructure was paid for via taxes, grants, or other funding sources. Over the last 20 years, however, the use of impact fees as a method of financing growth and infrastructure has risen sharply. To the best of our knowledge, no clear surveys or data exists to show this change; however, "Historically, the financing of there are a number of examples within the literature infrastructure was typically paid that point out this phenomena. For example, a survey for via taxes, grants, or other of 67 Florida communities was undertaken in 1986 and funding sources. Over the last 20 1989. The number of communities in 1986 using years, however, the use of impact impact fees was 15. By 1989, the number of fees as a method of financing communities using impact fees had more than doubled growth and infrastructure has to 32.2 As this funding mechanism gained popularity, risen sharply. " legislatures across the U.S. were developing legislation to provide utilities with the authority to impose impact fees. Typically, legislation defines the approach to be used to develop fees and requires they be used only for growth -related needs —not for current O&M requirements. At this time, the State of Montana has very specific legislation related to impact fees. This legislation provides the city with the authority to establish and collect impact fees. This authority is provided in Montana Code Section 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604. In summary, the use of impact fees has changed over time, as historical funding sources such as grants have been reduced or eliminated. In response, many communities have moved toward adoption of cost -based impact fees, particularly in areas of high growth. 2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue - raising device. To understand this perspective, one must "An impact fee is a view new development as creating the need for new or regulation and not a user fee expanded facilities. As a result, without payment of impact or revenue -raising device. fees, a utility would have insufficient revenues to provide To understand this facilities; therefore, the community would be unable to perspective, one must view accommodate new development. With this said, impact new development as creating fees do have certain financial objectives associated with the need for new or expanded them. While on the surface it may appear as simply a facilities. " means to extract revenue from new development, the reality is far more complicated. Impact fees help utilities achieve a number of different financial objectives, which lead to financial equity between customers, as opposed to simply producing revenue. 2 James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson and Julian C. Juergensmeyer, A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees (Chicago: Planners Press, 1991) p. 3. Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-2 City of Kalispell, Montana An impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new customers. As new residents or businesses develop in the community, they increase the amount of traffic on the existing road system. This results in increased roadway congestion and longer commute times. This occurs because of slower trip rates and waits at intersections. With impact fees, new development pays for the cost to construct additional roadways, which allow the level of service to be maintained. Most commonly, impact fees are adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources. Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of "growth paying for growth. " Even with the above discussion, not all communities have impact fees. Most commonly, impact fees are adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources. Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of "growth paying for growth." Impact fees comport with that philosophy, and it is achieved by applying the impact fees either directly against the capital cost of the expansion facilities, or against the debt service associated with it. 2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees There are a number of myths surrounding impact fees. In a very broad sense, some may argue that impact fees are bad for economic development. These arguments center around two issues: ■ Development will occur on parcels with lower or nonexistent impact fees. ■ Impact fees raise the cost of doing business and hinder development. Of the research conducted on these topics, just the opposite has been found. Developers look at many factors before a parcel is developed. One myth concerns the selection of parcels for development and whether impact fees are applied to the land. "... an impact fee is also a form of a financial reimbursement to existing ratepayers who paid for those facilities in advance of the new customer connecting to the system. " "The argument goes that if a developer is choosing between two parcels of land on which to build where the first parcel is inside a city where SDC's (impact fees) are charged and the second is just outside where lower or no SDC's are charged the developer will choose the second parcel. The trouble is this means that the owner of the first parcel does not make a sale. The landowner must lower the land price to offset the fee in order to make a sale. However, if the landowner does not lower the price, this indicates that the value of future development may be higher on that parcel. Thus, be wary of developers who claim they will choose the second parcel. Chances are they would not have chosen the first parcel anyway. In the meantime, the land market will be holding the first parcel available for higher value development. In effect what might look like a loss in the short term may be a much higher level of development in the long-term. "' 3 Nelson. "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. /(LeeS Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-3 City of Kalispell, Montana The other argument and myth that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they raise the cost of doing business and hinder development. The argument against this position follows: "The argument goes that because SDC's raise the price of doing business, they frustrate economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First, remember that SDC's will be offset by reduced land prices and by enabling the community to more easily expand the supply of buildable land relative to demand. Now, consider what economic development really looks for: skilled labor, access to markets, and land with adequate infrastructure. Competitiveness for economic development will be stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by SDC's). Besides, local governments retain the option to waive SDC's for specific kinds of economic development, such as development locating in enterprise zones. In the competition for certain kinds of development, it will be able to show developers the dollar value of SDC's waived as a solid demonstration of the local government's commitment to such development. "4 "As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. " As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, impact fees do not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. It must be remembered that an important concept associated with impact fees is that the fees are required to develop infrastructure in advance of the actual development. From the developer's perspective, absent impact fees (i.e., a moratorium on new connections) result in no new development. Because of this, developers are generally supportive of cost -based impact fees, particularly when it provides available capacity and opportunities for development. 2.6 Summary This section of the report provided an overview of impact fees and the financial objectives associated with them as well as some of the issues surrounding them. This will be beneficial when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning the implementation of impact fees. 55. 4 Nelson, "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 56. FER (t[ Overview of Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Industry Practices 2-4 City of Kalispell, Montana 3.1 Introduction An important starting point in establishing impact fees is to have a basic understanding of the purpose of these charges, along with criteria and general methodology used to establish cost - based impact fees. Presented in this section is an overview of impact fees criteria and general methodologies used to develop cost -based fees. 3.2 Impact Fee Criteria In the determination and establishment of impact fees, a number of different criteria are often utilized: ■ Understanding and acceptance ■ Transportation planning criteria ■ Financing criteria, and ■ State/locallaws The component of understanding and acceptance implies that the charge is easy to understand. This criterion has implications on the way the fee is implemented, administered, and assessed to new development. For the transportation system, the fees are generally assessed by development type and the number of new trips that will be generated by the development type. The other implication of this criterion is that the methodology is clear and concise in its calculation of infrastructure necessary to provide service. "The use of transportation planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of the impact fees. Transportation planning criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. " The use of transportation planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of impact fees. Transportation planning criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. The rational nexus test requires there be a con- nection established between new development and the necessary expanded facilities to accommodate new development. In addition, to see benefits received, an appropriate apportionment of the cost must be realized in relation to the new development. One of the driving forces behind establishing cost -based impact fees is that "growth pays for growth." Therefore, impact fees are typically established so new customers pay an equitable share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing criteria for establishing impact fees relates to the method used to finance infrastructure of the system and Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-1 City of Kalispell, Montana ensures customers are not paying twice — once through impact fees and again through gas tax or property assessments. Many states and local communities have enacted laws that govern the calculation and imposition of impact fees. These laws must be followed when determining impact fees. Most statutes require a "reasonable relationship" between the fee charged and the cost associated with providing service (capacity) to the customer. The charges do not need to be mathematically exact, but must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed. As discussed above, the utilization of the planning criteria and the actual costs of construction and planned costs of construction provide the nexus for the reasonable relationship requirement. 3.3 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology There are "generally -accepted" methodologies used to establish impact fees, which require the following: ■ Determine transportation planning criteria, ■ Calculate the transportation impact fee, and ■ Determine a charge basis for various development types. The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the transportation planning criteria. For transportation impact fees, the planning criteria is the number of new trips that will occur due to development. The most common methods for defining trips are on P.M. hour of generation (or average daily trips). Based on these trips, the transportation planning process determines the capital improvements required to maintain the current Level of Service (LOS). LOS refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection, which is measured as the volume of traffic to the capacity of the roadway (the "V/C ratio'). It is a measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, freedom to maneuver, and driving comfort. A letter scale of A to F is then used to describe LOS, based on the V/C ratio. The transportation impact fee represents the portion of new street projects that provide additional capacity to serve new developments. It does not include the portion of future street projects that are required to cure existing deficiencies. An example is a street with a current LOS of C. Without any improvements, new development would cause the street to drop to a LOS of D. The improvements required to maintain the street at a LOS of C would be included in the impact fee. Conversely, if the street was currently at a LOS of D and the improvements brought the street to a LOS of C with new development, then only a portion of the improvement would be included in the impact fee. There are three different approaches that can be used to determine the amount of the street project that is related to growth. These are: ■ Capacity Approach. The cost of a given project is allocated as growth -related based on the proportion of capacity made available for growth to the total capacity. ■ Incremental Approach. The cost of the project is first determined as if it were constructed to serve existing conditions. The cost is then determined as if it were serving both existing and future conditions. The difference in cost or incremental cost is then allocated to growth. ■ Causation Approach. The entire cost of the project is allocated to growth if it is caused by growth regardless of the benefit to existing customers. Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-2 City of Kalispell, Montana Of the three methods, the causation approach most aggressively allocates costs to growth. It is also the most likely approach to be subject to judicial challenge and may not meet the "rational nexus" test of the amount of infrastructure necessary to serve growth and cost to the customer. The incremental approach very conservatively allocates costs to growth. Any incremental cost saving from construction of a larger project are allocated to growth and not shared between existing and future customers. The capacity approach is the most commonly used approach and shares any benefits from construction of a large project between existing and new customers based on the use or benefit of the project by existing and new customers. It is recommended that this approach be used by the City, as it provides the most equitable allocation of new street projects between existing and new development. The allocation procedure recommended is the ratio of the current V/C ratio at current standards to the V/C ratio after the improvement. Once the street projects have been allocated to new development, the cost is divided by the number of new trips the projects will serve to determine the transportation impact fee on a cost - per -trip basis. The last part of the transportation impact fee analysis is the determination of the charge basis for various development types. The most common method used to assess transportation impact fees is on a trip basis. Trip rates are obtained from the "Trip Generation Manual, " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This manual is a compilation of studies that measure traffic by development type and factors such as employees, square footage, etc. The manual defines development type by standard industrial code and contains approximately 200 different development types. These may be adjusted for local conditions based on the City's transportation plan. Trip rates for commercial development are often time reduced for bypass trips. Bypass trips are those recorded in the survey data, but not actually new trips. For example, if a person drives to work in the morning, then stops at a fast food restaurant to get dinner on the way home, it is considered a bypass trip. In this case, the fast food restaurant would be charged for two trips, when in fact no new trips were generated, because the person would have been on the road anyway to go from home to the office and back home again. In development of the fee schedule, the utility needs to balance accuracy with administrative burden. A category for retail could be created, which would be an average of trips for certain types of retail establishments such a paint stores, flower shops, etc. Conversely, each category could be listed separately. Another policy issue is whether or not to allow development to provide alternative data on trip generation. While this allows for flexibility in the determination of the fee, it provides a potential for legal challenge. FM Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-3 City of Kalispell, Montana 3.4 Summary This section provided a discussion of the criteria typically used in the determination of transportation impact fees. In addition, an overview of the "generally accepted" methodology used in the calculation of the impact fees has been provided. HIR I aeles Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3-4 City of Kalispell, Montana 4.1 Introduction An important consideration in establishing impact fees are legal requirements at the state or local level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used. This section of the report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing impact fees under Montana law. The discussion within this section of the report is intended to be a summary of our understanding of the relevant Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fees. It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of Montana law by HDR/EES. 4.2 Requirements under Montana Law In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is that they be developed and implemented in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established specific laws 7-6-1604 of the Montana Code. regarding the establishment, calculation, and implementation of capacity fees. The main objective of most state laws is to ensure these charges are established in such a manner that they are fair, equitable, and cost -based. In other cases, state legislation may have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to establish the charges. The Montana law enabling legislation for impact fees was enacted in 2005 via Senate Bill 185. This was comprehensive legislation allowing public entities in the State of Montana to enact impact fees for various services. The legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found in Title 7, Chapter 6, and Part 1601 to 1604 of the Montana Code. A summary of the Montana Code is provided below. A copy of the full code is provided as Appendix B. A summary of the requirements under Montana law is as follows: "7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:... ... 5) (a) "Impact fee " means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected. isms Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-1 City of Kalispell, Montana (b)The term does not include: (i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for development; (ii) a connection charge; (iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity. 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve documentation that: (a) describes existing conditions of the facility; (b) establishes level of service standards; (c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time; (d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; (e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; )9 makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area; (i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; 0) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and (k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that: (i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth; (ii) projects costs of the capital improvements; (iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital (iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years. S) An impact fee must meet the following requirements: (a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-2 City of Kalispell, Montana attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development. (b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate share ofpublic facilities capital improvements costs: (i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and (ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements. (c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee. (d) New development may not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service. (e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility. 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required.... ... (3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity. " The use of the methodology discussed in Section 3 should ensure the proportional share standard is met and impact fees are in compliance with Montana law. 4.3 Summary This section of the report reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in Montana. HDR concludes that the City has the authority to establish cost -based impact fees and the methodology used should ensure compliance with Montana law. 1AeM Legal Considerations in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4-3 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.1 Introduction The calculation of the transportation impact fees presented in this section are based on the City's future capital improvements as identified in their Capital Improvement Plan and planning criteria from the master plan entitled, Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update (the "Transportation Plan"), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) and approved by the City Council in April 2008. As cost and timing of future capital improvements change, the impact fees presented in this section should be updated to reflect such cost adjustments. 5.2 Present Transportation Impact Fees The City currently does not assess an impact fee for the transportation system. 5.3 Transportation Zones Pursuant to MCA 7-6-1602(1)(g) in the determination of transportation impact fees, the following must be considered: "...makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; " The Transportation Plan established a service area that included the entire area of the city and an area outside the current city limits (the "Study Area"); no breakdown was made as to specific areas of the city. For the purpose of the transportation impact fee calculation, only the trips generated and project costs within the current city limits were utilized. Based on these factors and the local knowledge of the transportation system, the City and the Impact Advisory Committee determined the entire city would be treated as a single zone pursuant to MCA 7-6- 1602(1) (g) for calculating and imposing the transportation impact fees. 5.4 Calculation of the City's Transportation Impact Fees As was discussed in Section 3, the process of calculating impact fees is based on a 4-step process: ■ Determination of new average daily trips ■ Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs ■ Determination of any impact fee credits ■ Determination of transportation impact fee by development type Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-1 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.4.1 Average Daily Trip Generation The number of average daily trips is based on the planning criteria in the Transportation Master Plan. New dwelling units, retail employment, and nonretail employment were determined as growth areas. This information was then further segregated between growth in the study area and growth within city limits. The growth factors were then multiplied by the number of trips per development type to determine new average daily trips. Details of the calculations of new average daily trips are provided in Exhibit 1, which is a memorandum prepared by RPA detailing the analyses used in the development of the Transportation Master Plan. A summary of the new average daily trips is presented in Table 5-1 Residential 59,059 Commercial — Retail 32,045 Commercial — Nonretail 43,014 Total New Average Daily Trips 134,118 The number of new average daily trips will be used to determine the cost per trip for new transportation system improvements required to serve growth. 5.4.2 Calculation of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components The next step of the analysis is to review each major functional component of plant in service and determine the impact fee for that component. In calculating the transportation impact fee for the city, only planned future capital improvement projects with a useful life of 10 years or greater were included within the calculation. The major components of the City's transportation system that were reviewed for purposes of calculating impact fee were: ■ New streets and intersections ■ Major equipment items ■ Administration costs A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each of the functional plant components is provided below. New Streets and Intersections — The City's Transportation Master Plan identified a number of street and intersection improvements required to maintain the level of service within the city. Based on the analysis prepared by RPA, V/C ratios, and levels of service, the percent allocated to new development was determined based on the V/C ratios in 2003 prior to the improvements, divided by the V/C ratio in 2030 after the improvements. That percent was eligible for inclusion in the impact fee calculation (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). While the Transportation Plan identified improvements for the greater Kalispell area, those improvements not within the city Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-2 City of Kalispell, Montana were eliminated from the calculation based on the analysis prepared by RPA (see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3). The Capital Improvement Program costs were then escalated to current 2008 dollars using the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index. The cost of street and intersection improvements was then divided by the number of new trips. Per the request of the City, capital projects MSN 2, 3, 23, 28 and 29 were excluded from the impact fee calculaton. The result was a cost of $47.03 per average daily trip. Details of the calculations are provided in Exhibit 4. Major Equipment — The City currently has a number of equipment items required to maintain the street system. These consist of snow plows, sweepers, and other heavy equipment. This equipment has a useful life of 10 years or greater. The original cost was used, including up to 15 years of interest. No equipment costs were allocated to new development. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee determined that equipment does not provide additional capacity in the transportation system. Based on the cost of the major equipment for the City, the impact fee for major equipment is $0.00 per average daily trip. Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 5. Administrative Charge — Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact not to exceed 5% of the impact fee collected. Based on the costs for administration as provided by the City, the administrative fee is $21.59 per trip. Since this is greater than 5%, the City has included a transportation administrative charge of $2.35 per average daily trip, which is equal to 5% of the impact fee collected. Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 6. 5.4.3 Credits The final step in calculating the transportation impact fee is to determine if a credit for payment from other revenue sources is required. The City currently collects gas tax revenue, a street assessment fee, grants, and financial assistance from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). The City currently uses gas tax revenue and the street assessment fee for maintenance of the street system; therefore, no credit is applicable for the transportation impact fee. The grants received and financial assistance from MDT has been subtracted from the street and equipment costs. 5.5 Net Allowable Transportation Impact Fees Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable transportation impact fee can be determined. "Net" refers to the "gross" impact fee, less any credits. "Allowable" refers to the calculated impact fee as shown in Table 5-2 as the City's cost -based impact fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable impact fee, but not over that amount. Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus test of a cost -based impact fee. A summary of the calculated net allowable transportation impact fee for the City is shown in Table 5-2. Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-3 City of Kalispell, Montana Plant Component IL Impact Fee Calculation Results Street Cost Equipment Administrative Charge $47.03 0.00 2.35 Credit 0.00 Total Per Average Daily Hour Trip $49.38 The total impact fee as shown for an average daily hour trip is $49.38. The details of the net allowable impact fee are shown in Exhibit 7. For ease of administration, the recommended charge for a average daily trip is rounded to $49. To determine the cost per development type, the number of average daily trips per development type must be applied to the cost per average daily trip. To determine the cost per various type of land development, the trip generation rated provided in "Trip Generation Seventh Addition, " published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers were used. These were reduced as appropriate to reflect by-pass trips for commercial development based on the "Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001 " The number of categories was also reduced to reflect local business types. A summary of the transportation impact fee for residential development is shown in Table 5-3. Details of the impact fee for other development types are provided in Exhibit 8. Type fee Pr udit Residential $469 Apartment 329 Condominium/Townhouse 287 a hes Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-4 City of Kalispell, Montana 5.6 Key Assumptions In the development of the impact fees for the City's transportation system, a number of key assumptions were made: ■ The City's asset records were used to determine existing equipment costs. ■ The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing investments was 6.0%. ■ 15 years' worth of interest were included in the cost of equipment. ■ Capital projects MSN 2, 3, 23, 28 and 29 were excluded from the impact fee calculation at the request of the City. ■ The findings required under MCA 7-6-1602 were provided in the Transportation Master Plan and this report. 5.7 Implementation of the Impact Fees The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the "cost" of money (interest charges and rate of inflation). HDR/EES recommends the City adjust the impact fees each year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. The most frequently used source to escalate impact fees is the ENR index, which track changes in construction costs for municipal utility projects. This method of escalating the City's impact fee should be used for no more than a 2-year period. After this time period, as required by Montana law, the City should update the charges based on the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities that would be contained in an updated master plan or capital improvement plan. 5.8 Consultant Recommendations Based on our review and analysis of the City's transportation system, HDR/EES makes the following recommendations: ■ The City should implement impact fees for the transportation system that are no greater than the impact fees as set forth in this report. ■ The City should update the actual calculations for the impact fees based on the methodology as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the methodology for impact fees every 2 years as required by Montana law. 5.9 Summary The transportation impact fees developed and presented in this section of the report are based on the engineering design criteria of the City's transportation system, the value of the existing assets, future capital improvements and "generally accepted" accounting and rate -making principles. Adoption of the proposed impact fees will provide multiple benefits to the City and create equitable and cost -based charges for new customers. Determination of the City's Transportation Impact Fees 5-5 City of Kalispell, Montana Exhibit 1 Engineering Planning Memorandum Exhibit 2 Street Capacity Analysis Exhibit 3 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 4 Street Cost Exhibit 5 Equipment Lists Exhibit 6 Administrative Fee Exhibit 7 Summary Exhibit 8 Allowable Fee Schedule TO: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director Department of Public Works City of Kalispell RMle FROM: Scott Randall, E.I. (Transportation Planner/Engineer) Brian Wacker, P.E. (Vice President) DATE: December 30, 2008 SUBJECT: Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update Supplemental Data for "Transportation Impact Fee Study" The following information is being provided in support of the Transportation Impact Fee Study being developed by HDR Engineering, Inc (d.b.a EES/HDR). The primary objective of this memorandum is to quantify the number of new trips expected on the Major Street Network (MSN) out to the planning year of 2030. This year is the "year of interest" as it is the planning horizon of the recently adopted Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update). A secondary objective is to present relevant statistics on Capital Improvement Projects (CIP's) that fall within the city limits and county limits. It is relevant to note that previous memorandums have been prepared in support of the ongoing Transportation Impact Fee Study. This memorandum is intended to replace the previous memorandums and serve as a stand-alone memorandum for the project. It should be noted, though, that before presenting the information contained herein, it must be stated for the record that the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) did not have a formal role in the City's Transportation Impact Fee Study project. The information utilized during the course of the study, gathered from the MDT, centered exclusively on the findings and information contained in the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) only. This manifested itself primarily in the development of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The projects that are contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Study's CIP were developed and extracted primarily through the transportation planning process. Projected Growth within the City Limits For the existing city limits of Kalispell, the projected residential growth out to the planning horizon is 7,700 additional dwelling units (DU's). This amount includes all area census blocks that either fall entirely within the existing city limits or straddle both the city and the county and where future growth has been predicted. In other words, all census blocks were included for DU's, and retail and non -retail jobs, that encompassed even a small portion of the city limits. This is thought to be a conservative approach because exact development patterns are impossible to predict, and the City does control annexation to a large degree. If the existing city limits passed through even a portion of an individual census block, it was included in the forecasted total. This information is shown on the attached graphic and is also summarized in Table A-1. Robert Peccia & Associates Page 1 of 5 Table A-1 Projected Growth within City Limits Description Forecast Dwelling Units 7,700 DU Retail Jobs 2,806 jobs Non -Retail Jobs 10,973 jobs Average Vehicle Trip Rates In an effort to compute the potential number of "new vehicle trips" out to the planning horizon (year 2030), average trip rates were selected as per the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report on travel demand modeling. In this report, for a community the size of Kalispell, the published residential rate is 9.2 "person trips per unit". To get the "vehicle trips per unit", the 9.2 is divided by the auto occupancy factor unique to Kalispell (1.2). Dividing the two values result in a residential trip generation rate of 7.67 vehicle trips per unit. In a similar manner, the default retail rate is 13.7 trips per employee (i.e. person trips per unit), which equates to 11.42 vehicle trips per unit. The default non -retail rate is 4.7 trips per employee (i.e. person trips per unit), which results in 3.92 vehicle trips per unit. The above noted vehicle trip rates are the default (unadjusted) average trip rates that also come inherent to the TransCad modeling software. Table A-2 below contains the potential number of "new vehicle trips" based on the forecasted growth and defined average trip rates. Table A-2 Number of Potential New Trips (City Limits Year 2030) Description Forecast Average Trips per Total New Unit Trips New Dwelling Units 7,700 DU 7.67 trips per unit 59,059 (in City limits) New Retail Jobs 2,806 jobs 11.42 trips per unit 32,045 (in City limits) New Non -Retail Jobs 10,973 jobs 3.92 trips per unit 43,014 (in City limits) Total 134,118 trips Note: Average trip rates of 9.2 (DU), 13.7 (retail) & 4.7 (non -retail) are divided by an auto -occupancy factor of 1.2 persons per vehicle. Robert Peccia & Associates Page 2 of 5 Robert Peccia & Associates Page 3 of 5 Project Statistics RPA was asked to quantify the percentages of CIP projects that are entirely under City jurisdiction, partially under City jurisdiction, and/or entirely outside of City jurisdiction. This is shown as below and is broken out by "number' of projects, "mileage" of projects, and "dollar cost" of projects. Based on the actual "Number" of Protects: Totally City projects = 5 projects / 29 projects = 17.24% Partial City & County = 6 projects / 29 projects = 20.69% Total County = 18 projects / 29 projects = 62.07% Based on the actual "Miles" of Protects: Total City project miles = 6.78 miles / 49.81 miles = 13.61% Total County project miles = 43.03 miles / 49.81 miles = 86.39% Based on the "Dollar Cost" of Protects in 2008 Dollars*: Total City Cost = $13,694,499 / $112,685,536 = 12.15% Total County Cost = $98,991,037 / $112,685,536 = 87.85% (*Note that dollar values for "2008 Dollors" were obtained by adjusting the Transportation Plon cost estimates by 4 percent.) Project Cost Estimates Relative to dollar costs above, the City also asked RPA to confirm when the actual cost estimates for the various projects in the adopted Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) were prepared. The cost estimates were prepared during the end of August and early September during the calendar year 2007. The cost estimates were general "planning level" cost estimates. Assumptions for the various aspects of the cost estimating process were placed in the Appendix of the adopted Transportation Plan. There were no adjustments, however, to account for inflation and/or other increases between the time the estimates were prepared and the time the Transportation Plan was adopted. An adjustment was made, however, for the dollar values contained in this memorandum as shown above. Other Comments The City also asked RPA's opinion on a specific project contained within the adopted Transportation Plan (MSN-11) and whether that project recommendation is based on mitigating existing traffic patterns or is warranted by some other measure. It is our conclusion via the findings of the adopted Transportation Plan that South Meridian Road is acceptable from an operational viewpoint for the type of traffic currently being accommodated on it and likely to be encountered on it in the future if the development north of Foys Lake Road were not to be realized. With the development, South Meridian Road will become overcapacity. Due to constraints associated with South Meridian Road and the reality of not being able to expand the facility due to right-of-way constraints, the new development located north of Foys Lake Road has proposed a new north -south roadway through the development area. Robert Peccia & Associates Page 4 of 5 This has been recognized in the adopted Transportation Plan as a collector roadway and will serve to mitigate the traffic generated by the development itself. This new collector roadway will certainly accommodate the developments traffic and allow South Meridian Road to continue to function adequately without future improvements that would be unattainable on the facility. Robert Peccia & Associates Page 5 of 5 d o 0 O o 0 O 0 o O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 o O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 M 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 3 ° � Q c� O J w w w w w q w m w m o w w q w w w q o m q O M O N O CD J w w w w w w w w w w O w w w w w w w w w w N M O 0 0 J O d O a U L1 d a L1 a a a a w L1 O a O N 6 d o S. MO Q o N a o ry N � L o M MO o o M m N OI O v-1 v�i 11 N h 11 r N C oo 0 0 0 QO ; o � o o o o 0 0 0 N H C o a 0 a 0 a 0 0 m O N O O N 'O ',a 'a C 3 JC p C 3 JC C 3 C JC b C 3 b C 'i.. b C 'i.. b C 3 b N C 'i.. b C Co b C p b C p O C O O b `'C� O b ,-. O .ti O i.. i.. O .ti O O O .ti O O .p a`di NNN" U U U O f� y y y G . y 3 ° ° 3 p ° `n F O O w' oF�p '.x Ll o°n o � b x ro ro ro u5 > ro° Q a°Ji >t u5 a' o 6b.M y y O" �° 3-2 o 9-2 M-w°>w°ao'ao'U z - z 1�1 � �) z � z ll� Z z z '? z z [� z 12 ":� z z z - z � z n z z z F z z z M 1 !- }] s■ |« �® § ( §) . �! b\k`o ~�k all \ \ § %} \{| n § a , § k , « ; \ \6 � \%\%/\ 2 � r- ) u3 : ¥ \ \ \\ u xa}\ ju « / / \ :)a§\) °®°9 ; 2 \ }) r 3 \ J°: / \ \ / City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 3 ID Identifier Description Total County City Total Cost County City Cost City Miles Miles Miles Cost Percent West Reserve Drive Reconstruct to a 5- MSN-1 — Stillwater to West lane minor arterial 1 1 $2,205,137 $2,205,137 $0 0110 Springcreek Road: standard. Four Mile Drive — A new segment constructed to a 3- MSN-2 Stillwater Road to 1 1 $1,712,053 $0 $1,712,053 100% US Highway 93: lane urban minor arterial standard. Grandview Drive An extension of Extension — Grandview Dr. to an MSN-3 Existing Bend to 0.83 0.83 $2,864,500 $0 $2,864,500 100% Whitefish Stage urban minor arterial Road: standard. Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a Road —Reserve minor arterial A-ISN-4 standard including 1 1 $2,205,137 $2?05,137 $0 O"o Drive to Rose travel lanes in each Crossing: direction. Whitefish Stage Road —Rose Reconstruct to an MSN-5 Crossing to Birch urban minor arterial 2.5 3. $4,280,133 $4,280,133 $0 0% Grove Road: standard. Helena Flats Road - Reconstruct Montana Highway to an MSN-6 urban minor arterial 2.12 2.12 $3,646,673 $3,646,673 $0 0% 35 to Rose standard. Crossing: Foys Lake Road (Whalebone Drive Reconstruct to an AISN-7 urban minor arterial 0.92 0.92 $Ls75,089 $L575,089 $0 0°0 to Valley View Drive): standard. Four Mile Drive — West Springcreek Reconstrnctto a 3- MSN-8 lane minor arterial 1 0.5 0.5 $1,712,053 $856,027 $856,027 50% Road to Stillwater Road: roadway. Rose Crossing (western Corridor Construct a new Creation —Farm to east/west corridor to MSN-9 - I t $9,784,943 $7,827,954 $1,956,989 20% Market Road to an urban minor Whitefish Stage arterial facility. Road): Stillwater Road — Four Mile Drive to Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-10 lane minor arterial 1 1 $1,712,053 $0 $1,712,053 100% West Reserve roadway. Drive: City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 3 ID Identifier Description Total County City Total Cost County City Cost City Miles Miles Miles Cost Percent New Roadway MSN-11 Construct new roadway to an urban 0.78 0 0.78 $1,238,682 $0 $1,238,682 100"o a�j collector standard. West Springcreek Road —LJS Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-12 lane minor arterial 2S OS $5,136,160 $4,280,133 W6,027 17"o Highway 2 to West roadway. Reserve Drive: Willow Glen Drive Reconstruct to an MSN-13 —Conrad Drive to urban minor arterial 1.15 1. t $1,968,861 $1,968,861 $0 000 Woodland Avenue: standard. Church Drive (western Corridor Constrict and/or Creation —Farm to reconstruct portions MSN-14 of this roadway to an 5 5 $9,260,082 $9,260,082 $0 0% Market Road to Whitefish Stage urban minor arterial road). facility. Trumble Creek Road Rose Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-15 lane minor arterial 2_� __ $4,280,133 $4,280,133 $0 0% Crossg to Birch Grove Road: roadway. Conrad Drive — Reconstruct to an MSN-16 Willow Glen Road urban minor arterial 1.2 1? $3,524,827 $3,524,827 $0 0% to Shady Lane: standard. Shady Lane — Reconstruct to an MSN-17 Conrad Drive to urban minor arterial 0.65 0.65 $1,112,835 $1,112,835 $0 0% MT 35: standard. Reserve Drive — US Highway 93 to Reconstruct to a 5- MSN-18 lane minor arterial 1 1 0 $2,205,137 $2,205,137 $0 u 0% Whitefish Stage roadway. Road: Reserve Drive — Whitefish Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-19 lane principal 1.5 1.5 $3,407,859 $3,407,859 $0 u 0/o Road LaSalle arterial section. Road: Reserve Drive— Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-20 LaSalle Road to lane minor arterial 1 1 $1,712,053 $1,712,053 $0 0% Helena Flats Road: section. Evergreen Drive — Whitefish Whitefish Stage Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-21 lane minor arterial 1.44 1.44 0 $2,482,477 $2,482,477 $0 o 0/o Road LaSalle Road: section. Whitefish Stage d—Oregon Road Reconstruct ctto a 3- MSN-22 lane minor arterial 2.43 2.43 0 $5,210,013 $5,210,013 $0 0% to Reserve StrDrive: section. 18a' Street West Construct new MSN-23 Extension/Sunnysidcorr idor to an urban 0.3 0.15 0.15 $864,321 $432,161 $432,161 50% e Drive: collector standard. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1 Street Cost Allocation Exhibit 3 ID Identifier Description Total County City Total Cost County City Cost City Miles Miles Miles Cost Percent Construct new LaSalle / Conrad connection between MSN-24 Drive Connector: LaSalle Rd. and 44 44 $1,470,240 $1470,240 $0 0°0 Conrad Dr. Reconstruct MT 35 to a 4-lane facility MSN-25 MT 35 Expansion: 5.7 5.7 $20,754,177 $20,754,177 $0 0% with appropriate left turn bays. US Highway 2 East Reconstruct to a 6- —LaSalle Road to lane roadway sectio �1SN-26 Woodland Park with appropriate left 1.17 1.17 $5,657,649 $5.657,649 $0 0% Drive: turn bays. 7fl' Avenue East North (E. Reconstruct to a MSN-28 California Street to minor arterial 0.2 0, 3 $342,411 $0 $342,411 100% Whitefish Stage standard. .Road): Three -Mile Drive (W. Springereek Reconstruct to a 3- MSN-29 lane minor arterial _ 1.7 0, 3 $3,424,106 $2,910,490 $513,616 15% Road to Meridian standard. Road): Two -Mile Drive (W. Springereek Reconstruct to a 2- MSN-30 lane urban collector 1.98 1.46 0.52 $2,601,683 $1,918,413 $693,270 26% Road to Meridian standard. Road A °' ooi m Q w V N U y LL O F C U C o O O 0 o 0 o 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O Q o � O O o O 0 O o O o O 0 O o O o O o O o O o O O o O f0 N O. O M m N m N V m I� M O r I� � r m V O M CO V CO CO _ d) N 2 2 V N � O LL F �3 LL y u m A o O O o O o O o O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O o O O o O O o O O o O 0 O O 0 O O o O O 0 O O 0 O O o O O 0 0 0 O O 0 O O o O O o O o O O a a E� W� N N r O m N O M m CO L2 O N M CO V V O N V 0 O N (� M N fA O N M N M M m m V M N M N o N M. -p N N (6 r (6 N r O O 'p o N r N N N r N UI © r 0 N r (6 (6 N N r N N r (6 N r (6 N r N N N (6 0O (6 UI N (6 O (6 O (6 O (6 O a (6 (6 O c O N O c N O c O Q (6 OIm (6 O (6 O c � E E E (6 O c E L� c E E c_ E c a c E c_ E c_ E O o �. c O. M, O Oc N n ' ' ' 2 UI r (6 3i m n ' OU m -2 n 2 2 2 2 2 c+ in p m E m ch a� m m -o ch 6 (6' o `t6 u-NpUUl O U--N U2�cc OEE OO Oo u m U O uU E U o O O N O N O N O N OOUOU N N O p O N mO � OO N O N O O O d 6dpNU d d U J O �0 0-' O > N y0 N I L co T Y yM U D 'O O O clf�pO O m .(nU) O O OO O N O 2 U in O O O _ U _>u a N mo W U S 0 U O .� .> _ .> i m � 2 M2 N Y U N �' 1. N U 'p .>_ N N (n m d C � c0 N � O � o © 9 - N W N N >>p v >O > L W C O U -O O N>� (n N [ O� 0 d' � d' d' _O 2p0' O> N N O a' > > O U S > J W [if Z Y O N m (6 m 0 (6 d' c© Y ._ a' .. > N O 0 O N N O L$ �>6• ry U m 0 N O ` O N ] N ] 'O N .> 'O m N N O > N N N N A.Z OMj N. (n N U m U j (6 U�1 W O�1 N N .> N UI O of t, _O . (6- N N U` '� N 0 N U O '� 0 C N N O 0 0 0 O U) 0 UI N. U [ifU '] UI UI UI U` (6 U p Ada U O Ada N O L N o O -p N 0-' > -p m J N N N N -p p N m N � N p 2> O .� L N O©� 5 O— E 0 O— 5 N S N (n in in O > E N O � O N N p m N� N m �_ w m >N U) LL S U > > > U >� > CO S � LL > LL in (6 � LL in � Z Z >O > > > >— > Q U LL � H C� (6 U J in w in J W J > J Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z {� �■ )� c -op op 10 E \ z /LL { ; 22 , ]0 mo \) » { \ \ \ / m -2 , E r . ( \ \ \/ \\ \\\\\\ za z�z�z=z� \4 \ \ o _ LU »w> 44 )a))\) LU \\ ))m§# \ \/ \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ f City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1 Equipment List Exhibit 5 Percent Impact 0Purchase Fee Impact Fee Equip # Make Model Year Deprec VIN # Date Original Cost Cost 2006 Related Cost Linelazer III Airless Striper 15 2005 5,249 5,564 0.00% VonArx Milling Machine 1993 20 207 1993 6,500 13,863 0.00% 398 Denver/GardneAir Compressor 1990 20 1906622 1991 9,877 23,671 0.00% 212 Ingersol/Rand Air Compressor 2004 10 4FBCBDAA154351609 2005 10,795 11,443 0.00% 329 IHC Sani-vac Water Trk 1971 20 45608H079655 1971 15,692 37,607 0.00% 331 Chevy C50 Dump Trk 1972 20 CCS532VI46055 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% 332 Chevy C50 Dump Trk 1972 20 CCS532VIH6059 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% 333 Chevy C50 Patch Truck 1972 20 CCS532VI46024 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% 335 Chevy C50 Sand Truck 1972 20 CCS532VI46026 1972 6,786 16,263 0.00% 368 GallionT500 Grader 1969 20 41K3371C03626 1969 25,000 59,914 0.00% 383 Mobile Sweeper 1977 20 802-243 1977 35,081 84,074 0.00% 300 IHC-DT 466 S1900 Tandem 1982 20 2HTAF159CCA19897 1982 45,316 108,602 0.00% 306 IHC Tymco Sweeper 1991 20 1 HTSAZRN1 MH343712 1991 79,747 191,118 0.00% 336 Ford F-900 Tandem 1988 20 IFDYL90A8JVA23999 1988 43,033 103,131 0.00% 343 GMC 6000 Snowplow 1980 20 T16DAAV601488 1980 15,286 36,633 0.00% 344 GMC 6000 Snowplow 1980 20 T16DAAV601719 1980 15,286 36,633 0.00% 369 Cat Loader 1969 20 41C337 1969 24,000 57,517 0.00% 302 Ford Elgin Sweeper 1994 20 1FDXH70C7RVA31042 1994 93,529 188,199 0.00% 303 Ford Elgin Sweeper 1994 20 1FDXHOC3RVA31037 1194 93,529 224,148 0.00% 371 John Deere Loader 1985 20 R66466T314536 1986 78,564 188,283 0.00% 304 Ingersol/Rand DD24 Roller 1993 20 5513-S 8224894 1992 25,620 57,924 0.00% 399 Fair Snocrete Snow Blower 1998 20 107208 1998 35,870 57,171 0.00% 379 Ingram Roller 1971 20 92800F411541P56 1975 8,882 21,286 0.00% 380 Mulch Master Leaf Mach w/Hopper 2001 20 DT00620849475 2001 57,799 77,349 0.00% 307 Ford Sunvac De-icer 1985 20 IFDXD74N6FVA30435 1991 20,000 47,931 0.00% 372 Cat 140G Grader 1985 20 08Z283442W0820 1985 82,788 198,406 0.00% 305 Ford L-8000 Tandem 1996 20 IFD4W82E6TVA-25495 1996 70,000 125,359 0.00% 325 Crafco SS125 Crack Sealer 1997 20 1C9SY1017V1418230 1997 21,000 35,479 0.00% 345 Tennant 830 11 Sweeper 1999 20 P9613O26 1999 14,322 21,535 0.00% 346 Tennant 830 11 Sweeper 1999 20 P96113O131 199 14,324 34,328 0.00% 330 Ford L-9000 Flush Trk 1994 20 IFTYA95VOSVA26192 2000 13,390 18,994 0.00% 373 Cat 120H Grader 1999 20 4MK00722 2000 122,382 173,601 0.00% 361 IHC Icemelt 4700 Truck 1996 15 IHTSCAAP3TH674668 2001 26,796 35,859 0.00% 334 SterlingL7500 Dumptrk/Sander/Plow 2003 10 2FZAASAK13AM05101 2003 75,505 89,928 0.00% 301 Elgin Eagle Sweeper 2005 10 5DN90189 2004 22,721 25,529 0.00% Total New Trips Cost per Trip 1 - No equipment costs were allocated to new development. 134,118 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1 Administrative Fee Exhibit 6 Description Admin Coord Superintendent Deputy Public Works Dir. Assessor Project Manager Surveyor Engineer Construction Manager Construction Manager Secretary Budget Resource Manager Subtotal Transportation Impact Study Admin Transfer' Data Processing' Office Space' Total Total Trips Annual Trips 2 Cost per Trip Impact Fee Impact Fee Total Related Total Cost $ 9,006 50.00% $ 4,503 40,667 0.00% - 8,664 50.00% 4,332 12,660 50.00% 6,330 20,950 50.00% 10,475 21,728 50.00% 10,864 4,656 50.00% 2,328 19,590 50.00% 9,795 19,658 50.00% 9,829 8,975 50.00% 4,488 6,181 50.00% 3,091 $ 172,735 $ 15,703 51,193 10,898 4,650 $ 255,179 1- Allocated based on labor. 2 - Total trips divided by 27 year study period. $ 66,034 100.00% $ 15,703 38.23% 19,570 38.23% 4,166 38.23% 1,778 $ 107,251 134,118 4,967 $ 21.59 City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1 Summary Exhibit 7 Impact Fee Item per Trip Streets Equipment Administration fee' $ 47.03 2.35 Total Transportation Impact Fee $ 49.38 1- The lesser of Exhibit 6 or 5%. City of Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees - Alternative 1 Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Rate Imposea at 75% of Scheduled Pass -By Fee Until ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee 4/11/11 Code Name Description Units' Tri s2 Factor AVTs4per Unit Residential 210 Single Family Detached Single family detach housing DU 9.57 1 9.57 $469 $352 220 Apartment Rental dwelling with at least 3 units in the same building DU 6.72 1 6.72 329 247 Rented rather than owned unit 2241 Rented Townhouse/ Duplex with a minimum of two units DU 7.32 1 7.32 359 269 Residential condominium/ townhouses under single=family 230 Condominium/ Townhouse ownership. Minimum of two -units in the same building DU 5.86 1 5.86 287 215 Trailers or manufactured home 240 Mobile Home sited on permanent foundations DU 4.99 1 4.99 245 184 253 Congregate Care Independent living developments that provide centralized amenities such as dining, housekeeping, transportation and activities. DU 2.02 1 2.02 99 74 254 Assisted Living Residential settings that provide oversite or assistance for independent, or mentally or physically limited persons. DU 2.66 1 2.66 130 - (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) 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 - Alternative 1 Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Rate Imposed at 75% of Pass -By Scheduled ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until Code &Name Description Units' Tri S2 Factor AVTs4 per Unit 4/11/11 Residential Typically less than 500 110 General Light Industrial employees, free standing and single use. Examples: printing plants, material testing laboratories, data processing and equipment assembly. GFA 6.97 1 6.97 $342 $257 Industrial park areas that contain 130 Industrial Park a number of industrial and/or related facilities. A mix of manufacturing, service and warehouse GFA 1 6.96 1 6.96 1 341 256 Facilities that convert raw 140 Manufacturing materials or parts into finished products. Typically have related office, warehouse, research and associated functions. GFA 3.82 1 3.82 187 140 150 Warehouse Facilities devoted to storage of goods and materials. Includes offices and maintenance facilities GFA 1 4.96 1 1 1 4.96 1 243 182 151 Mini -Warehouse Storage units or vaults rented for storage of goods GFA 2.50 1 2.50 1231 92 Average Lodging facility that may include restaurants, lounges, meeting 310 Hotel rooms and/or convention facilities Room 8.17 1 8.17 400 300 Sleeping accommodations and 320 Motel often a restaurants. Free on -site parking and little or no meeting spaces. Room 5.63 1 5.63 276 207 Average (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) 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 - Alternative 1 Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Rate Imposed at 75% of Pass -By Scheduled IfliUnits' ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until Code Na escri Tri s2 Factor AVTs4 per Unit 4/11111 Residential 4128 Local Park Municipal owned parks, varying widely as to location, type and number of facilities. Acres 7 2.28 1 2.28 $112 $84 Regional park authority owned parks, varying widely as to 417 Regional Park location, type and number of facilities. Acres 7 1 4.57 1 4.57 1 224 168 Average - A3 1.00 3.43 $168 Municipal and private golf courses. May or may not have a 430 Golf Course driving range and clubhouse Holes 35.74 1 35.74 1,751 1,313 Multi -purpose recreational 4358 Multipurpose Recreation facilities containing two more o Facility of the following uses at one site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go-cart and driving ranges. Acres' 1 90.38 1 1 90.38 4,429 3,322 Privately owned with weightlifting 493 Athletic Club and other facilities often including swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquetball, squash and handball courts. GFA 43.00 1 43.00 2,107 1,580 Recreational facilities similar to Recreational Community and including YMCAs, often 495 Center including classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming pools, tennis, racquetball, handball, weightlifting, locker rooms and food service GFA 22.88 1 22.88 1,121 841 Average 32.94 $1,614 $1,211 Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include 4378 Bowling Alley a small lounge, restaurant o snack bar. Lane 33.33 1 33.33 1,633 1,225 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq It gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) 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 - Alternative 1 Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Rate Imposed at 75% of Pass -By Scheduled ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until Code lam&Description Units' Tri s2 Factor AVTs4 per Unit 4/11/11 Residenti Serves student attending 520 Elementary School kindergarten through 5th or 6th grade Public or private. GFA 14.49 1 14.49 $710 $533 Public. Serves students that have 522 Middle School completed elementary and no yet in high school. GFA 1 13.78 1 1 13.78 675 506 530 High School Public. Typically serving 9 to 12th Grades GFA 12.89 1 12.89 632 474 540 Junior / Community Collage Two-year junior or community colleges GFA 27.49 1 27.49 1,347 1,010 Contains worship area. May 560 Church include meeting rooms, classrooms, dining area and facilities GFA 9.11 1 9.11 446 335 Facility for pre-school children 565 Day Care care primarily during the daytime hours. May include classrooms, meeting area and playground GFA 79.26 0.1 7.93 - - 291 Public or Private. Contains 590 Library shelved books, reading rooms and sometime meeting rooms GFA 54.00 1 54.00 2,646 1,985 Average 30.15 0.87 19.96 $978 $734 550 University / College Four-year and graduate institutions Student 2.3E 1 2.38 117 -- Includes a clubhouse with dinning 5918 Lodge / Fraternal Organization and drinking facilities, recreational and entertainment areas and meeting rooms Members 029 1 0.219 14 11 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) 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 - Alternative 1 Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Rate Imposed at 75% of Pass -By Scheduled ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until Code ame Description Units' Tri S2 Factor AVTs4per Unit 4/11/11 Residenti Medical and/or surgical care 610 Hospitals facility with overnight accommodations for ambulatory and non- ambulatory patients. GFA 17.57 1 17.57 $861 $646 A facility whose primary function 620 Nursing Home is to care for persons who are unable to care for themselves Beds 2.37 1 2.37 116 - Usually contains offices, meeting 715 Single Tenant Office Building rooms, file storage areas, restaurants or cafeteria and other service functions GFA 11.57 1 11.57 567 426 Provides diagnosis and 720 a Medical -Dental Office outpatient care. Typically operated be private physicians or dentists. GFA 36.13 1 36.13 1,770 Park or campus -like planned unit 750 Office Park development that contains office buildings, banks, restaurants and service stations. GFA 11.42 1 11.42 560 420 Single building or complex of 760 Research and Development buildings devoted to research Center and development. May contain light fabrication facilities. GFA 8.11 1 1 8.11 1 397 1,98 Group of flex -type or incubator 1- 2 story building served by a common road system. Typically includes a mix of offices, retail and wholesale stores, 770 Business Park restaurants, recreational areas, warehousing, manufacturing, lighrl industrial or research. The average mix is 20 % to 30 % office / commercial and 70 % to 80 % industrial / warehouse. GFA 12.76 1 12.76 625 469 16.00 1.00 16.00 1$7gq g5gg (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) 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 - Alternative 1 Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Rate Imposed at 75% of Pass -By Scheduled ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Fee Until Code Name Description Units' Tri S2 Factor AVTs4 per Unit 4/11/11 Residential Small free standing building that sells hardware, building material 812 Building Materials and Lumber and lumber. May include yard storage and shaded storage areas which are not included in the unit calculation. GFA 45.16 0.82 37.03 $1,815 $1,361 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 1,977 1,483 Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail shops that typically specialize in 814 Specialty Retail apparel, hare goods, services such a real estate, investment, dance studios, florists and small restaurants. GFA 44.32 0.82 36.34 1,781 1,336 Free-standing store that 815 Discount Store offers a variety of customer services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products. GFA 56.02 0.82 45.94 2,251 1,688 Typically free-standing buildings 816 Hardware / Paint Store with parking that sell hardware and paints. GFA 51.29 0.82 42.06 2,061 1.546 Free-standing building with yard containing planting and 817 Nursery / Garden Center landscape stock. Unit calculation only applies to building and not yard and storage. GFA 36.08 0.82 29.59 1,450 1,088 823 Factory Outlet A shopping center that primarily houses factory outlet stores. GFA 26.59 0.52 13.83 678 509 .10 0.78 35.02 $1,716 87 Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed and managed as a 820 Shopping Center pp g 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, (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq ft gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) 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 - Alternative 1 Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Rate Imposed at 75% of Pass -By Scheduled Fee Until ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee Code LNa-.Ai.Descnpti:on Units' TOPS2 Factor AVTs4 per Unit 4/11111 Residential 841 Car Dealership New and used car dealershipwith sales, service and parts, GFA 33.34 0.£2 27.34 $1,340 $1,005 848 Tire Store Primary business is sellingand repair of tires GFA 24.£7 0.82 20.39 999 749 Free-standing grocery store. May 850 Supermarket also contain ATMs, photo center, pharmacies and video rental. 1 GFA 102.24 0.64 65.43 3,206 2,405 Sells convenience foods, 851 Convenience Market -24 hours newspapers, magazines and often beer and wine. Open 24 hours per day. GFA 737.99 0.39 287.82 14,103 10,577 Sells convenience foods, 852' Convenience Market- 15 to 16 newspapers, magazines and hours often beer and wine. Open 15 to 16 hours per day. GFA 500.37 1 0.39 195.15 1 9.562 7,172 Discount store / warehouse wher shoppers pay a fee to gel 861 Discount Club wholesale prices. May have a wide variety of goods. Many item are sold in bulk orlarge quantities. GFA 41.8 0.52 21.74 1,065 799 Pharmacy without drive thru Facilities filling medical 880 prescriptions without a drivethru window window. GFA 90.06 0.47 42.33 2,074 1,556 Facilities filling medical 881 Pharmacy with drive thru windo prescriptions with a drive thru window. GFA 86.16 0.51 43.94 2,153 1,615 890 Furniture Store Sells furniture, accessories and often carpet/floor covering. GFA 5.06 0.47 2.38 117 88 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq It gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) 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 - Alternative 1 Allowable Fee Schedule Exhibit 8 Rate Imposed at 75% of Pass -By Scheduled Fee Until ITE Average Trip Adjusted Impact Fee 4111/11 LN.JmeLDescription Code Units' TOPS2 Factor AVTs4 per Unit Residential Usually a free-standing buildin 911 Walk -In Bank with a parking lot offering bankin services. May are ATMs GFA 156.48 0.53 82.93 $4,064 $3,048 Usually a free-standing building Walk -In Bank with DriveThru with a parking Iotoffering banking 912 Window services. Has a drive thru window. Mayare ATMs GFA 246.49 0.53 130.64 6,401 4,801 High quality eatingestablishment 931 Quality Restaurant with turnoverrates greater than 1 hour GFA 89.59 0.56 50.17 2,458 1,844 High Turnover Sit -Down Sit down eating establishmentvith 932 Restaurant turnover rates of less than 1 hour. GFA 127.15 0.56 71.20 3,489 2,617 Fast Food without Drive Thru Fast food without a drivethrough 933 window. GFA 716.00 0.50 358.00 17,542 13,157 Fast food with a drive through 934 Fast Food Wth Drive-Thru window. GFA 496.12 0.50 248.06 12,155 9,116 Average 156.83 $5,764 944 Gas Station Sells gasoline and may also Fueling provide vehicle service andrepair. Positions 168.56 0.58 97.76 4,790 3,593 Sells gasoline and may also Gas Station with Convenience provide vehicle service andrepair. 945 Market Also contains a convenience market. Fueling Positions 162.78 0.44 71.62 3,510 2,633 Sells gasoline and may also Gas Station with Convenience provide vehicle service andrepair. 946 Market and Car Wash Also contains a convenience market and carwash. Fueling Positions 152.84 0.44 67.25 3,295 2,471 161.39 0.49 78.88 947 s Self -Service Car Wash Allows self cleaning of cars by Wash providing stalls for drivers Stalls 108.00 0.44 47.52 2,328 1,746 (1) Land Use Units: GFA - 1,000 sq ft gross floor area. GLA - 1, 000 sq If gross leasable area. DU - dwelling unit. Rooms - number of rooms for rent. Fueling Positions - maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously. Student - full time equivalent student capacity. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, March 2001. (4) 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. 7-6-1601. Definitions. Page 1 of 1 Montana Code Annotated 2005 Pre�ous Section MCA OMeMs Pert comems Bearer Help NeM Seciion 7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply: (1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more that increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility. (b) The term does not include consumable supplies. (2) "Connection charge" means the actual cost of connecting a property to a public utility system and is limited to the labor, materials, and overhead involved in making connections and installing meters. (3) "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or structure, a change in use of a building or structure, or a change in the use of land when the construction, installation, or other action creates additional demand for public facilities. (4) "Governmental entity" means a county, city, town, or consolidated government. (5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected. (b) The term does not include: (i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for development; (ii) a connection charge; (iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or (iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity. (6) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of capital system improvements that reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. A proportionate share must take into account the limitations provided in 7-6-1602. (7) "Public facilities" means: (a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility; (b) a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility; (c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights -of -way, traffic signals, and landscaping; (d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposal facility or a flood control facility; (e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and (f) other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6-1602 that have been approved as part of an impact fee ordinance or resolution by: (i) a two-thirds majority of the governing body of an incorporated city, town, or consolidated local government, or (ii) a unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners of a county government. History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 299, L. 2005. http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-160I.htm 1 /4/2006 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirement... Page 1 of 1 Montana Code ►r117otated 2005 Pre�eus S-WiOn MCA GoteMs Part Comems Search Help foci Secilon 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve documentation that: (a) describes existing conditions of the facility; (b) establishes level of service standards; (c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time; (d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; (e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; (f) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (g) makes a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits; (h) establishes the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service area; (i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; 0) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and (k) has a component of the budget of the governmental entity that: (i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth; (ii) projects costs of the capital improvements; (iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and (iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years. (2) The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the public upon request. (3) The amount of each impact fee imposed must be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new development. The calculation of each impact fee must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (4) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the documentation required under subsection (1). (5) An impact fee must meet the following requirements: (a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development. (b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs: (i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and (ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements. (c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee. (d) New development may not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level of service. (e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility. History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005. Pl D-idod by Morarra Lopis'ari%e Sar%4cas http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm 1 /4/2006 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal requir... Page 1 of 1 Montana Code ►r117otated 2005 Previous Seetiorn MCA Gotents Pert Gemems Search Helga Next tior) 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required. (1) The collection and expenditure of impact fees must comply with this part. The collection and expenditure of impact fees must be reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees. The ordinance or resolution adopted by the governmental entity must include the following requirements: (a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested with all interest accruing to the fund. (b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts. (c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee ordinance or resolution or in accordance with 7-6-1602, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property at the time that the refund was due. (2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no earlier than the date of issuance of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of wastewater or water service connection or well or septic permitting. (3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity. (4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of payment of impact fees if: (a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6-1602; (b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use by the governmental entity; (c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or constructions are established as part of the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and (d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as part of the adopting ordinance or resolution if the dedication of land or construction of public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due from an individual development. (5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or for rebuilding a damaged structure unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in 7-6- 1602(1)0). If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be imposed. (6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refunds or credits: (a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 and this chapter; or (b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 and this chapter, between the governmental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the impact fees. (7) An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all users creating additional demand on the facility. (8) An impact fee ordinance or resolution must include a mechanism whereby a person charged an impact fee may appeal the charge if the person believes an error has been made. History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005. Prt -idol by Mnfana Lopia'ari :c Soc ia2s http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1603.htm 1 /4/2006 7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. Page 1 of I Montana Code Annotated d2005 Pre�OUS S-eetiara MCA GoMerrts Pert Gemems Search Help fact Section 7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governmental entity that intends to propose an impact fee ordinance or resolution shall establish an impact fee advisory committee. (2) An impact fee advisory committee must include at least one representative of the development community and one certified public accountant. The committee shall review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and spending impact fees. (3) The impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the governmental entity. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005. PYt) Ica by 0,-bf9ima bcgisiaf;-A7 Scr.�ccs http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.htm 1 /4/2006