Loading...
03/02/09 City Council MinutesA REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00 P.M., MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2009, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR PAMELA B. KENNEDY PRESIDED. COUNCIL MEMBERS KARI GABRIEL, BOB HAFFERMAN, RANDY KENYON, TIM KLUESNER, DUANE LARSON, HANK OLSON AND WAYNE SAVERUD WERE PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM ATKINSON WAS ABSENT. Also present: Interim City Manager Myrt Webb, City Attorney Charles Harball, City Clerk Theresa White, Chief of Police Roger Nasset, Acting Fire Chief Dan Diehl, Public Works Director Jim Hansz, Budget Resource Manager Terri Loudermilk, Finance Director Amy Robertson, Parks and Recreation Director Mike Baker, Economic and Community Development Director Kellie Danielson, Information Technology Director Erika Hess, Planning Director Tom Jentz, Senior Planner Sean Conrad, and Recording Secretary Judi Funk. Mayor Kennedy called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. A. AGENDA APPROVAL Larson moved approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote with Atkinson absent. B. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL Council Minutes — Regular Meeting — February 17, 2009 2. Proclamation — National Nutrition Month Kenyon moved approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote with Atkinson absent. C. STUDENT ISSUES None. D. PUBLIC COMMENT Shannon Nalty, 1845 Highway 93 South, Nalty Real Estate, asked that his company be included in any discussions concerning boundary changes at the City Airport because their property, Southfield Towers, is located across the street. Nalty emphasized the airport is an economic juggernaut for the valley. Kalispell City Council Minutes March 2, 2009 Page 1 Clara LaChappelle, 3580 Farm to Market Road, said she heard the Council wants to use $5.6 million of the stimulus package to enlarge the Hockaday Museum, but there are more important needs to be met in the valley right now. Doug Kauffman, 1412 6th Avenue West, TD&H, stated he represents the Cornerstone Church project and noted that his client is agreeable to all of the planning board conditions. E. PUBLIC HEARING — TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing and asked for comments. Patricia Johnson, 714 Fourth Avenue East, said as a small business owner in Kalispell she is in support of the impact fees effective immediately. She asked the Council not to let this opportunity pass them by to make growth pay for growth. Clara LaChappelle, 3580 Farm to Market Road, stated if the developers want to put in their malls they need to pay impact fees. She said it's time the Council takes a stand because current business owners and residents are tired of getting taxed and taxed and taxed. Merna Terry,1505 Whalebone Drive, read a letter to the Council emphasizing that it is important for everyone to understand that taxpayers will be responsible for part of the road costs despite the impact fees, and the higher the impact fees the higher the cost to taxpayers. (Letter is attached and by this reference made a part of the official record) Joe Unterreiner, 136 Fifth Avenue East, Kalispell Chamber of Commerce President, read a letter asking the Council not to approve the impact fees at this time. (Letter is attached and by this reference made a part of the official record) John DeNeeve, 670 Concord Lane, disagreed with Unterreiner stating this is an excellent time to have strong impact fees. He said large developers need to be held accountable for traffic and Council needs to be strong, represent the taxpayer, and not capitulate to pressure from developers. Tom Kern, 395 Manning Road, remarked that he lived in Bozeman when impact fees were implemented and from then on it was not possible to build affordable homes in the area. He said if you implement impact fees he predicts you will lose low income families along with 10 to 15 percent of your teachers. Steven Lorch, MT DNRC, noted that DNRC is the trustee of 620 acres of Spring Prairie trust land north of Kalispell. He said the elimination of the obviously questionable projects helps address some of the issues, but there are still many questions remaining and at this time impact fees would act as a deterrent to development. Denise Smith, Flathead Business and Industry Association Executive Director, asked the Council not to pass impact fees at this time. She stated the HDR report is flawed and the business community feels their concerns are falling on deaf ears. Smith emphasized that business owners and developers are also taxpayers who may not build if these fees are enacted and 100% of zero is still zero. Kalispell City Council Minutes March 2, 2009 Page 2 Scott Hadwin,128 Greenbriar Drive, local McDonald's owner, commented the best way to stimulate new growth is to attract more businesses and if enacted the impact fees need to be lower than those in Missoula and Bozeman. He counseled the Council to implement the impact fees if needed, but do so with caution. Andy Miller, 175 East Many Lakes Drive, one of the developers for Old School Station, said the Wall Street Journal has reported that the economy is in the worst fall since 1982. He said a Fortune 500 company is interested in locating to Old School Station, but if the impact fees are implemented they will probably walk away. Miller closed by saying developers are not the enemy and he hopes everyone can work together. Steven Thompson, 395 Summit Ridge Drive, Semi Tool, explained that when Semi Tool came to Kalispell over 70% of the equipment we build remained in the United States, today over 70% of our equipment is shipped overseas in order to remain competitive. He said by not implementing the impact fees the City can take advantage of an opportunity to make Kalispell one of the most attractive places to do business. Terry Kramer, 3150 North Ashley Lake Road, Kramer Enterprises, commented he is confident the HDR report is flawed and the current proposal is neither proportional nor meets State law. He said he has lost two projects due to the fear of impact fees and suggested it would be better to increase other fees, such as the application fees, rather than enacting impact fees. Shannon Nalty, 1845 Highway 93 South, Nalty Real Estate, submitted a letter he had written earlier to the Council outlining his concerns. He asked the Council to reconsider impact fees as the timing right now is critically bad. In closing, Nalty asked the Council to push for a local option tax and get away from mill levies. (Letter is attached and by this reference made a part of the official record) Dennis Beams, 126 Ridgeview Drive, remarked the developers of Old School Station to the south and Silverbrook Estates to the north paid 100% of the cost to extend the sewer lines with the expectation that some of that cost would be returned when other businesses hooked on. He said impact fees will punish those businesses that have already partnered with the City and stated the Council needs to consider a serious grandfather clause for those projects that have already been approved. David Mitchell, 249 Sherry Lane, Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Board Member, agreed that developments have already paid their own way, including roads, sewer, water, etc. He encouraged the Council not to adopt impact fees because they will affect every business, small and large. Mark Goldberg, Denver, Goldberg Properties, said he was originally concerned that impact fees were what would probably destroy his project, but now his bigger concern is the economy in the Flathead Valley and Kalispell. He said the City's problem right now isn't growth, the City's problem is making sure that businesses don't leave. Goldberg stated we need to keep Kalispell from shrinking and if impact fees are adopted, grandfathering is probably a reasonable compromise, for five years or more. (Letter submitted prior to public hearing is attached and by this reference made a part of the official record) Kalispell City Council Minutes March 2, 2009 Page 3 Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead, agreed these are challenging times and we need to work together to find a way to sustain our economy and attract people. She said impact fees are only one part of the fee stream; we also need to look at local option and gas taxes. Flowers distributed a letter and encouraged the Council move forward with the adoption of impact fees that will take effect immediately. (Letter is attached and by this reference made a part of the official record) George Culpepper, Flathead Building Association Government Affairs Director, stated the association is not in favor of impact fees that do not comply with the law. He reemphasized the higher the impact fees, the higher the taxes and he urged the Council to table the fees for the benefit of all. Pauline Sjordal, 234 Third Avenue West, remarked that she just learned in a history class that the profits of Montana have left the state for 200 years, and that every major mineral commodity we have in Montana goes to profits outside of Montana. She said "these people are talking about prosperity for themselves" and I'm talking about prosperity for the people of Kalispell. Sjordahl said we're focusing on a fantasy of box stores when people should be concentrating on the downtown and the real issues facing Kalispell. Ken Kalvig, counsel for Wolford Development, said the Council is not ready to adopt impact fees and this is about the worst possible time to do so. He said he has followed the entire process and does not feel the fees are fair, legal, or understandable. He submitted a letter and supporting information regarding the report and the Major System Network (MSN) improvements. (Letter and submittals are attached and by this reference made a part of the official record) Roxanne Brothers, 786 4th Avenue WN, commented the Council doesn't listen to citizens, only to attorneys and developers who have money. She said it is important to enact the impact fees as originally recommended by the committee and she submitted additional petitions in favor of implementing the impact fees. (Petitions are attached and by this reference made a part of the official record) Jerry Reckin, 160 Ritzman Lane, remarked he is on the Impact Fee Committee and he feels the committee has recommended a good report. He said he is not in favor of grandfathering, but he would like to exempt public schools. Bill Schottelkorb, 730 5th Avenue West, remarked he has cut his employees by 35% and emphasized that business does pay its fair share. He said more taxes and more fees are going to crush business recovery. Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing. (All comments received from the first publication of notice to the start of the public hearing are attached and by this reference made a part of the official record) Kalispell City Council Minutes March 2, 2009 Page 4 F. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION F/1. RESCHEDULE MARCH 16 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Mayor, Council President, and at least one other Council member will be out of town on March 16. Staff is recommending the second regular meeting date in March be changed to March 23. Saverud moved the Council reschedule the second regular meeting date in March to March 23. The motion was seconded. Webb answered questions. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote with Atkinson absent. F/2. ORDINANCE 1655 — ZONE CHANGE WITH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY — CORNERSTONE CHURCH —1ST READING This is a request by Cornerstone Church to change the zoning from R-3 to B-1 with a planned unit development overlay on three acres of their four acre property located at the intersection of Northridge Drive and Highway 93 to accommodate a new bank facility. Kenyon moved first reading of Ordinance 1655, an ordinance to amend Section 27.02.010, official zoning map, City of Kalispell zoning ordinance, (Ordinance No. 1460), by zoning certain real property more particularly described as Lot IA, Kalispell Addition No. 15A located in Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana (previously zoned City R-3 (Urban Single Family Residential)) to City B-1 (Neighborhood Buffer District) with a Planned Unit Development overlay in accordance with the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, and to provide an effective date. The motion was seconded. Conrad gave a staff report and answered questions. Mayor Kennedy and Gabriel expressed concern regarding children using the bike path and vehicles moving in and out of the neighborhood. They said it is common for drivers in the Northridge area to cut through the parking lot at Buffalo Hills Funeral Home to beat the light and they can see it happening here also. Hansz explained that MDT is aware of the volume of traffic in that area, but they could have additional discussion regarding the bike path and driveway. Gabriel moved to table Ordinance 1655 until March 23. The motion was seconded. The motion carried unanimously upon vote with Atkinson absent. Kalispell City Council Minutes March 2, 2009 Page 5 F/3. RESOLUTION 5343 — RESOLUTION OF INTENT AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING — SEWER BUDGET AMENDMENT A budget amendment is required to authorize staff to bid the Grandview Lift Station project. Resolution 5343 schedules a public hearing on the proposed amendment for the second meeting in March. Saverud moved Resolution 5343, a resolution of intent calling for a public hearing to amend the annual appropriations of the City of Kalispell, Montana, as set forth in the 2008-2009 budget adopted by the City Council. The motion was seconded. Hansz gave a staff report and answered questions. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. F/4. RESOLUTION 5344 — RESOLUTION OF INTENT AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING — PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGET AMENDMENT A budget amendment is required to create and designate a special revenue fund to operate the Parks and Recreation department. Resolution 5344 schedules a public hearing on the proposed amendment for the second meeting in March. Larson moved Resolution 5344, a resolution of intent to amend the 2008-2009 budget of the City of Kalispell, Montana by segregating the revenue and expenditures of the Parks and Recreation Department, removing certain budget authority from the General Fund and establishing budget authority in a Parks and Recreation Special Revenue Fund for the remaining three months of the fiscal year, and calling for a public hearing. The motion was seconded. Robertson gave a staff report and answered questions. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. F/5. BUSINESS LOAN WRITE-OFF One of the businesses receiving funds from the Community Development Department's Intermediary Loan Program defaulted on its note in 2007. Staff is requesting the Council authorize the Finance Director to write-off the loan. Danielson gave a staff report and answered questions. Kalispell City Council Minutes March 2, 2009 Page 6 Olson moved Council authorize the Finance Director to write off a business loan in the amount of $35,424.53 from the 2007-2008 IRP Revolving Loan Fund Budget. The motion was seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote with Atkinson absent. G. MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR'S REPORTS (No Action) The following department supervisors gave reports: Community and Economic Development: Kellie Danielson, Finance: Amy Robertson, Information Technology: Erika Hess. Mayor Kennedy gave a tribute to the founder of the Nurturing Center, Susan Christofferson, who passed away last week and offered Council's condolences to her family. Olson asked that the "life span" of impact fee monies be discussed at the next meeting. Hafferman noted he saw a legal notice for a Request for Proposals on a rate study and asked if notices were being mailed out to interested companies. Hansz replied they do not have a list of specific companies who may be interested. Mayor Kennedy announced that there are a number of Board openings coming up and asked anyone interested to send a letter to the City Clerk. Mayor Kennedy explained why the Hockaday's request was placed on the stimulus list. f:��71T�):7►1 The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Pamela B. Kennedy ATTEST: Mayor Theresa White City Clerk Approved March 23, 2009 Kalispell City Council Minutes March 2, 2009 Page 7 March 2, 2009 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing this letter not as a member of the Impact Fee Advisory Conu-nittee, but as a builder of affordable homes in our community, a small business owner and a concerned community member. As I listened to the council discussion during the last work session in which the transportation impact fee was discussed, I was struck by a thought that has not been spec11 cd11y 1r1eUL101leu ray Lue pumic or ale councH UIUL l LHougHL was very 111npORWIc WRI deserves your review as you consider the transportation impact fee. Throughout the transportation impact fee discussion process, Mr. Hanz, Director of Public works, has repeatedly mentioned to the council that impact fees will only cover a percentage of the needed monies for roads and that you will need to be ready to raise the funds for the other portion in other ways (i.e., SIDs or raising tax rates). In addition, when questioned directly by Councilman Atkinson, he stated that the amounts included in the impact fee study for the roads will not be enough to actually complete the building of those roads. Other funds will be needed. The impact fee law states that "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". My interpretation of these facts is that for every road included in the impact fee calculations, taxpayers will be required to increase their tax amounts to pay for their portion of those roads. What that means, as I interpret it, is that the higher the amount the impact fee is, the more taxpayer funds you w R he committing to raise to pay their fair share of the roads* I believe that it is important for our community to pay for needed transportation as we grow and have grown. It is important to note that since the 1993 Transportation plan, not a single road on that plan has been built with local taxpayer money or by the growth that oecur.red since that time. The only road completed from that plan was Meridian Road. The funding for that road came from outside resources. Current taxpayers (which include growth which has occurred up to this point) must pay their fair share also since they have not paid anything as of yet (at least since 1993). Surprisingly, the law seems to be fair in that the higher the impact fees, the more money will be required by taxpayers to pay their share. All in all, it appears to me that it would be important to be aware of how much money for each project will be needed to be raised in addition to the impact fees to complete the project. As you add projects to the list to be paid for by impact fees, you will also be adding projects that will need to be funded by taxpayers. Thank you for your time and dedication to this issue. I know it is a difficult topic, but as I have listened to your discussion on the topic, I have gained tremendous respect for the commitment you all have to our community. Sincerely, Merna Terry, Vice -President Cl� Ron Terry Construction, Inc. February 25, 2009 Dear Colleagues and Business Partners, We are sending this letter first of all to thank you all for continuing to work with us building homes that are affordable as well as of good quality for people who live and work in our valley. While things are tough right now, we are hopeful that our housing market will start to turn around late this spring or early summer and we can get more people back to work building homes in our community. A recent issue we have had to contend with is eroding home prices due to the high number of 4'� ''[ \ A 1 O !1+ � r11^f [ 0�7+t 7 � !t Yf Cl �-Y�7 7 !1 Y1 r� f+r.Z '� '�- r� rt r� s�ah sh r�'� r� i 1V1Vu1V�]11i �11V JL.lL1Lr� ill VU1 VQllVy. VV G LPL It.VII I GIl Y t.VIIJLI Uk,LIVII CUG LLIlaUIQ LV k VIIl JGLG W1Lll some of the prices we are seeing out there due to "distressed sales". We can't build homes if we can't sell them for enough to cover the costs of building the home. As a result of the falling home prices, we are in a position to need to ask you to see if you can find a way to temporarily reduce your prices as we have had to in order to sell our homes. we have received a significant number of unsolicited very competitive bids from people we have not worked with in the past. Because we value our long-term relationship with our current business partners, we wanted you to be aware of the situation we find ourselves in. If we can bring homes to the market at a competitive price, we can all continue to have work until this market turns around. Ron and I understand that the pricing you have given us throughout the years has been competitive and we appreciate the long-term relationships we have with you. Asking you to work with us in this way is a difficult, but necessary step we need to take in these times. Again, we expect that the market will begin to turn around within the second half of this year and hope that this is a short-term solution to keep us all working over the next few months. Please talk with Merna or Ron if you are able to reduce your pricing or if you have any questions or concerns about this request. We appreciate working with you and plan to continue to have successful working relationships far into the future. Sincerely, �..,>....� ..�•°' � � .n� F is >E Ron and Merna Terry iRon' .Chamber of f ommerre Providing Economic, Community, and Workforce Development Services www.kalispelichamber.com March 2, 2009 The Honorable Pam Kennedy and Members of City Council City of Kalispell PO Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Transportation Impact Fee Public hearing Dear Mayor Kennedy and Members of City Council: On behalf of our Board of Directors, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to offer our thinking on the Transportation Impact Fee plan and alternatives, which have been presented for your approval. The Kalispell Chamber of Commerce is a membership organization consisting of 700 businesses and organizations. These members emplo3, 60 percent of the workforce in Flathead County, Montana. We have now been actively engaged in analysis and discussion with you and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee for over two years. Our first formal comments to you were submitted in March 2007 and since then we have submitted written and verbal testimony multiple times. During this time we have all come a long way in our understanding of the enabling law and the formulation of a plan and fee schedule. Recently, the Council 's consideration for the removal of some projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), grandfathering, and credit offsets are appreciated as steps towards creating fairness in the system. Nevertheless, even with this progress, major flags remain in the plan and its timing which we will elaborate on. 'Therefore, we recommend that you do not pass a transportation impact fee ordinance at your special council meeting on March 9tl'. Fairness and Proportionality: The plan unfairly targets business — especially retail business — in its fee schedule. There is no factor for trip length which takes into account the reality that multiple retail destinations are often included in the same shopping trip. Additionally, some categories such as "shopping centers" are ill-defined and do not provide understandable and predictable guidance to landowners and developers about what impact fee they can expect to pay. Adverse Timing: linpact fee authority for emergency services and transportation was approved by the Montana Legislature in 2005, the peak of this economic cycle for real estate transaction OFFICE 406.758.2800 * 406.758.2805 FAX • 15 Depot Park, Kalispell, MT 59901 volume. Today, the economic environment in Kalispell could hardly be more different. The unemployment rate in Flathead County is at 8.7 percent and rising. As a region, Northwest Montana has the highest unemployment rates of any part of the state: Lincoln County 12.8 percent, Sanders County 13.9 percent. In 2008, residential construction permits dropped by 42 percent in the City of Kalispell and at the end of the year there was a 12-month inventory of residential listings on the market. Times like this stress families and communities, deteriorate the tax base for all jurisdictions, and challenge us all use our best efforts to accelerate job recovery and improve the investment climate as quickly as possible. This can best be accomplished by not adding new fees/taxes to investment and to business start-up and expansion. What is the lost opportunity cost for the City and other jurisdictions when a $50 or $100 million project is delayed for five years, or never develops at all? Multiple Tools: Impact fees are not the only tool available for improving municipal transportation systems. Unfortunately, it has been the vehicle that has absorbed most of our attention the past two years. Let's develop an overall vision which addresses not just growth related impacts but also existing deficiencies that were reported in earlier meetings to be on the order of $80+ million. Other tools include general obligation bonds, special improvement districts, and local option gas taxes. Charities and Low-income Housing: Churches, hospitals, schools and other charitable groups are all subject to these proposed fees. Low-income and self-help housing are some of the few construction permits being filed in this enviromient. How will this affect their ability to create new projects? This plan is too flawed and the timing is too poor to endorse this program, even with the progress made on the CIP, grandfathering, and credit offsets. We strongly advise that you do not pass a transportation impact fee ordinance at your special council meeting on March 9 h. 6Since ely, ::::7 o me einer, President ispell Chamber of Commerce 2 1P4A-LT1Y RE.A, . t:F .&3 r j% re A6 A P #1�?C_.)P11:i' T_V AorC :Ark T., "a �K, - , , - f-, ­4'� Jr www.naltvtrealestate.com January 6, 2009 To.- Madam Mavor, City Council Members. and City Manager From: Shannon Malty, owner Malty Peal Estate & Property Mgmt., LLC. And Partner. Riverview Associates L.L.C. Re: Transportation Impact Fees I want to thank you and your advisory committee's efforts to try and initiate an impact fee policy. In light of the regressive economy that has specifically impacted the national regionai office/ retail, and housing development; I believe that an additional tax would stifle any future development significantly. As we move to a greater service economy in the United States, [wall Street Journal. projects 85% of all jobs are related to the service economy), we need to encourage development. The tax revenue from new development would be significant and could offset anv deficiency. The planning process is an excellent opportunity to address anv infrastructure deficiencv, also giving the city the elasticity to prioritize those needs. Along with many others, I hope the new administration and Congress can commit infrastructure capital for necessary projects. 'hen we developed The Southfield Park Project, we participated in an increased guaranteed initial tax assessment (TIF); we also paid for capital improvements, such as a sewer extension, a signal light. and sidewalk improvements. Along with our development, the Hilton Garden Inn has added substantial tax revenues. It would be a shame to lose future growth and the tax revenues it would bring, with a short-term economic band aid. My greatest concern is the dire need for a local option tax. The debates against this may have been valid in the past. but not in today' s market. Montana is in the predicament that groNvth is fiscally punitive. Mill levies and S.I.D.s are tools, but should not be the only forNva.ra-ioo ins revenue source. -�� HNiv .youth. u're 240, KaIisi)e 11. NIT 5990I * 406-756--I030 - Fax. 406- 50-66"0 I've statebe ro re. baby, boomers become retirees. Thev look for areas to relocate that offer a ffreat q uai i tv o f i i fe_ outstanding medical services, retirement co=u.niiies with assisted facilities. and low or affdrdable property yes. We have everhinut the latter! y. the re:trovtcycle won't pass our State by. We need a moder nizincy and re ,1Tampin c.Y of the tax revenue codes that will encouracre the rierht kind of development and infrastructure that we are increasinialy dependant upon. We can build a state that can help our children. those less fortunate, and elderly (I hate to sav it. the boomers soon!). I hope we can work in concert to increase the quality of life for all and exceeds our children's and their children's expectations. We nave created a fluid and. unpredictable tax assessment structure. we use nrll levies and TIF Districts to try to keep Prow-th funded. Unfortunately, this play help create the economic cul-de-sac we are in. An impact fee In this economic cycle would possibly hinder or preclude our ability to attract substantial development and further lWIMI our ability to create sustainable oncroinor tax revenue. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. S l lc gar e Ity, r Shannon P Naity � k The Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy February 25'h, 2006 Mayor and City Council of Kalispell City Hall P.o Box 1997 Kalispell Montana 59001 RE: Transportation Impact Fee Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Council Members, XxIa b�Yrr, r*nrn�a a 1n»rV vu-n r �,n fly Tr►�nt+r�r�rtotir�r� T�r%nt►f T-',A 'PTV r� cr rcF� inr� A4,-%vp r r %W XJLU V 4+ L+LJ1114 U. 1V116 VV ay 111 L1LIa 1 1 GL-L'OF V1 LUL1V11 1111 "%- L -L 1 11.' u1O%.oU711V11. 1VJ.V1 %-, recently the dialogue among City Council members to deal with TIP in a reasonable fashion has been for the most part encouraging. I want express my appreciation to you, the members of the City Council for your exploration of rational solutions for the TIP. Transportation Impact Fees came into vogue when this country and Kalispell were experiencing unprecedented growth. When TIF were first discussed in 2006 in Kalispell the community was realizing growth in proportions that had not ever been experience in the history of the community. Today, Kalispell is experiencing the complete opposite growth and economic dynamics, a recession that has not been experienced since the Great Depression. City Council has made it clear that it is your expressed intent to pass TIF in one form fashion by March 91h 2009. The backdrop of economic conditions in Kalispell. and the Flathead as you proceed to adopting TIF in any form could not be worse. Unemployment in the Flathead far exceeds national averages and are higher than any other area in Montana. Home prices have fallen to unprecedented levels. For sale inventories will take years to absorb. It only seems logical the TIF should not be adopted at this time but should be tabled until the effects of growth are once more an issue versus the current economic shrinkage that is affecting each and every citizen in Kalispell. Notwithstanding that it would seem that the most reasonable approach that City Council should take at this time by tabling any action on TIF I will offer, in the remainder of this correspondence what I hope is constructive Input. HDR Report: I have offered in previous written correspondence and oral testimony before City Council the many deficiencies of the HDR report. The report is inadequate in conclusions, data and methodologies. The Citizens Advisory Committee, who has worked with the consultant for years and invested countless hours in the report could not adopt the report and could not recommend the report to City Council. The report is so poorly construed that it is enviable that the report will be subject to challenge. The most glaring error is the trip volumes in the VIC ratios which according the outcomes in the report are caused the solely by the prospective payers of the TIP. The facts as to various constituents of trip volumes are clearly contained the Transportation Plan and even the staff has refuted the notion that the prospective payers of the TIF are not the only parties contributing to furture trip volumes and therefore growth in Kalispell. Lastly, it would seem incredulous to me and others that the City of Kalispell would adopt as publicly accepted report, the conclusions reached by the reports author in section 2.4 and 2.5. I submit that any new businesses or enterprises that would read the HDR report as part of their due diligence on the City of Kalispell could only conclude that Kalispell has a no growth policy and attitude and leadership in Kalispell has shut the doors rather than open them for business. This perceived attitude is wrong always and certainly the wrong message in these economic times. Eliminating CIP Projects that are existing deficiencies: We have long pointed out that many of the proposed CIP projects included in the report are ex1S L11 g U011U encIes anti Lnerelore can support an aoopiion of 1 itTY-n roar eliminate inese projects to bring this element of the report into comportment with the enabling law. we would support what has been described as by HDR as the draft number 2, dated February 2009. Grandfathering: We have long argued that it is unfair and therefore unreasonable to have real estate development projects subject to TIF if they have processed their respective projects through the annexation or planning and zoning regulations of the City of Kalispell. This follows the axiom of "Buyer be ware". If developer has vetted their project through the Kalispell system and knew of all costs including other Impact Fees and then chose to proceed with their project they did so knowing fully what to expect in municipal cost. Imposing TIF after one has vetted their project is unreasonable. Never the less, should City Council proceed with adopting TIF a grandfather mechanism is perhaps a equitable compromise between no Impact Fees for those who have preliminary plats and collecting fees from projects that are not fully built out that also have preliminary plats. Given that current economic conditions have all but completely halted residential and commercial development a period of five (5) years would be reasonable for a grandfathering mechanism. A grandfathering mechanism related to the issuance of building permits for those projects that have preliminary plats seems reasonable. The notion reducing the fees to induce development cannot be supported. This concept does not follow the premise as stated above that grandfathering should be included in the TIF policy because the vetting process for developments. 2 Credits of offsets: We support the inclusions of credits or offsets in the adoption of TIF. The enabling law suggests that policy should include consideration of credits. However, a credit system that would only provide a partial credit for the installation of a roadway is unreasonable. If a development installs a roadway the cost of the roadway will not be paid for by others (unless a late comer concept as suggested by Councilman Hafferman is included in the policy). Therefore a credit for one hundred percent (100%) should be the credited against any TIF that that same development would b subject to. The notion that credits or offsets be allowed for only that element of roadway that is needed due to growth be is a subjective concept and gives much latitude for argument. As we have pointed out many times, how much of a roadway is needed due to growth has been unclear and flawed (see current and fanner discussions on the VIC ratios). Leaving the negotiations on credits and offsets to discretion of the Public 'Works Director is a perhaps the worst idea as it unclear and subjective policy. Credits should be allowed for projects that are other than those included in the current list of CIP's. If a development installs or has installed a public roadway system that benefits the transportation system or as has been noted by various Council members the "grid" than then these system improve the overall transportation system then they should f71C 7/17 fA �'!l l 1el f'! 74-^Al74- e%v- A�'Yri -%+ ti +LY1eat rti tTrF�!t r%4- +Lr r1r � r 4-:.r ., rr7i�1 A 1,t Ns-f �tA N!'1 rtiC 4--LTTT- a V aIIaulc Lv a t.1 Sul L V I V11�G L LV L11Vac W 11V a UIU �a111G L.1111G W V U1U UG Pay G1 N V1 UIt; 1 1P . As an example the Spring Prairie development installed a section of the Reserve Loop which is also a part of the highway 93 bypass system and Treeline Road and made improvements to Highway 93. Most of the improvements installed by the Spring Prairie development improved the roadway systems for all constituents who use these very same roadways in Kalispell including our customers to our development, citizens of Kalispell, tourists and those outside of Kalispell. Specific work that was for our development only, such as acceleration or deacceleration lanes should not be eligible for credits or offsets, whereas other roadway improvements including traffic signalization should be eligible. I have attached to this letter a list of the improvements and costs. overall Spring Prairie spent in excess of $2.6 million on roadway system that benefit the City of Kalispell with no payment or offsets. We should be eligible for credits or offset for all but $347,908 (acceleration and deacceleration lanes and chip seal) Very Truly Yours, Mark A. Goldberg President Goldberg Properties, Inc. 3 PROPERTIES, INC. Kalispell, MT Spring Priarie Center Improvements to Highway 93, Reserve Loop, and Treeline Rd. 10/13/2008 Highway 93 Accel and Decel lanes $ 244,343.00 Chip Seal Phases 1 and 2 $ 1039565.00 Treeline Signal Modifications $ 90,505.00 Reserve Loop Signal $ 425,000.00 $ 863,413.00 Reserve Loop Roadway Improvement $ 643,383.32 Blvd Landscape (North and South) $ 123,601.40 Sidewalk (North and South) $ 1715569.32 $ 938 5 554.03 Treeline Road Roadway Improvement $ 6547873.51 Blvd Landscape (South) $ 62,855.00 Sidewalk $ 875242.74 $ 804, 971.25 Total Improvements $ 2, 696, 938.29 Po Box 771 * 35 4"' Street west 406.756.8991 Kalispell, Montana 59903 March 2, 2009 C(TIZENS� FOR A BETTER FLATHEAD www.flatlieadcitizens.org T: 406.756.8993 0 F: citizens@flatheadcitizens.org The Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor and City Council of Kalispell City Hall, P.0 Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59901 We appreciate the opportunity to -comment on the proposed changes to the Kalispell Transportation Impact Fee proposal. To date you have received over 300 written corn ments and additional calls from residents urging you to move forward with the adoption of these fees as proposed and without the amendments that you will be considering as part of this hearing this evening. Getting these transportation impact fees in place to address the full impacts of new growth is an essential step forward. The growing traffic gridlock and safety issues in and around Kalispell are factors that must be addressed to attract the tourism a.nd investment that 04V V will keep Kalispell an attractive and prosperous community. We urge you tonight to impose transportation impact fees that: Ensure that new growth from subdivisions and commercial development pay for the traffic impacts they create. This means you should adopt the fees as recommended by the consultant and not at a reduced rate. Reducing -these fees simply shifts this cost burden to all city tax payers and forces them to pay the cost of this new growth. ■ 'Tale effect immediately, we urge you not to adopt proposed amendments that would wave these fees for any project proposed between 2004 and July 2009 for a proposed six year time frame or for even a shorter period. [This would potentially wave fees for over 4,000 new homes and maj or new commercial developments including the Glacier Mall/Town Center.) In this re and we want to remind ou of past hearings on Ana.' or developments including the Glacier Town Center and Starling where we urged you to condition a0proval.of these developments as you do wit s ecial inz rovement district conditions to give notice that the would be sub' ect to impact fees. At the Glacier Mall hearings, the Mayor even asked the city manager if that was necessary, and the city manager assured her and the public that the developers were well aware that the city would be adopting impact fees and that these would be in place prior to these developments pulling building permits for the new growth moving forward around the city. It is also important to consider that having impact fees in place, now, at full value is more transparent and predictable a cost for businesses to plan for than to have a SID district imposed at some unknown time in the future. * Cover the real costs of these additional traffic impacts. Urge the council not to adopt a proposed amendment that would reduce the impact fees charged and thus the real costs by 25% or more. This simply means that all city taxpayers will have to pick up and pay this 25% or more. The materials provided for this hearing provide no economic analysis of the amendments like this that you are considering and this should be provided so that tax payers have a real understanding of the cumulative impacts of the amendments you are considering tonight. As a city and as a country it is clearer than ever that we are living beyond our means and we can no longer afford to not ensure that new growth pays for its full impacts. ! Include the entire network of roads identified to be impacted by new growth and recommended in the Kalispell Transportation plan as major street network projects. It appears, that based on comments at your last workshop, however, that an apparent majority of the city council may support dropping five or six of these road projects from the impact fee proposal for now and that this would result in an almost 50% reduction in fees that the city could collect from new subdivisions and new commercial development as traffic impact fees. If the council chooses to drop some of these roads, which would reduce fees collected by some 50-60%, other reductions like the 25% "grandfathering" or "across the board" reduction of fees should not be coupled with this reduction. while we do not support this alternative, if the council chooses to support this amendment, we ask you to support Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would remove six roads MSN 2,3,9, 23,28, 29. This would give clearer priority to directing impact fees collected to improvements to roads that would be of benefit to Kalispell residents as a ,whole and not Just individual subdivisions or projects. Additional research supporting the adoption of transportation fees at the full level proposed is provided for your consideration. ` According to a growing body of research, adding more retail stores is more likely to be a drain on City government and not at all the economic boost developers are claiming in recent hearings. Recent national studies on the economic impact of retail development document that retail growth is failing to pay for the cost of services it requires from municipalities including road impacts. (See citations from some of these studies below). Recent results of almost a decade of rapid retail growth in Kalispell confirm that retail growth is not paying its way. * Despite almost a decade of rapid growth in Kalispell, traffic is worse and the city has little funding for needed road improvements. Instead, the city is on the verge of having to layoff essential staff, like fire and police personnel, to live within a shrinking budget. Growth has not paid its way. * Failing to implement Transportation Impact fees quickly will only mean further worsening of traffic, higher taxers for city residents, and declining appeal to those who might consider investing or bringing a new business to Kalispell. Business interests currently opposing Transportation Impact fees have not shown any data to demonstrate that the annual taxes a new business pays can provide adequate income to cover the road impacts they create. Extensive research from around the country (some cited below) and failure of over a decade of rapid growth to pay for traffic impacts, however, speak loud and clear for the need to for Kalispell to adopt traffic impact fees. ON * The City has wisely moved forward to put in place new studies and policy recommendations to reverse this trend. The City has recently completed a new transportation plan and a transportation impact fee study with the help of leading experts in the Feld. when new businesses or subdivisions come to the City of Kalispell, the transportation impact fee plan provides a formula to determine how this new growth will impact city roads and calls for new growth to pay a one -tinge fee to offset this new impact. ' Recent new studies from around the country show that large --scale retail development is costing more than the services it requires, creating a drain on municipal governments. A number of recent studies compare the municipal tax benefits of big -box development with the cost of providing these stores with city services, such as road maintenance, police and fire --finding that cities do not always come out ahead. "In a study of seven of the eight Ohio communities, retail development created a drain on municipal budgets (i.e., it required more in public services, such as road maintenance and police, than it generated in tax revenue). on average, retail buildings produced a net annual loss of $0.44 per square foot. "The concept that growth is always good for a community does not seem to correlate with the findings from various fiscal analyses conducted throughout central Ohio," the report concludes. It cautions cities not to be taken in by the promise of high tax revenue from a new development without also considering the additional costs of providing services. [1 In another study done in Massachusetts, it was found that big box retail generates a net annual deficit of $468 per 1,000 square feet. Shopping centers likewise produce an annual drain of $314 per 1,000 square feet. By far the most costly are fast-food restaurants, which have a net annual cost of $55168 per 1,000 square feet. In contrast, the study found that specialty retail, a category that includes small-scale Main Street businesses, has a positive impact on pubic revenue (i.e., it generates more tax revenue than it costs to service). Specialty retail produces a net annual return of $3 26 per 1,000 square feet. other commercial land uses that are revenue winners include business parks, offices, and hotels. The two main factors behind the higher costs for big box stores, shopping centers, and fast-food outlets, compared to specialty retail shops, are higher road maintenance costs (due to a much greater number of car trips per 1,000 square feet) and greater demand for public safety services. 2j * Retail work-ers in Montana make less than the average wage needed to afford rental housing. "Montana's unemployment rate has dropped 20% over the past eight years since 2005j; much of the job growth and available jobs continue to be in low paying industries such as agriculture, forestry, and fishery, retail trade, and services... Although the state's per capita personal income growth has outpaced the national average, it is still among the lowest levels in the nation." [31 The median wage earned by retail salespersons in Montana is[4] less than the amount needed to afford rental housing. 5 j * The downturn in the economy nationally and locally with the significant lost of good paying industry j obs-- -will not be mitigated by adding some of the lowest paying jobs.. in the economy through expanded retail development proposed north of Kalispell. These businesses need to pay for their traffic impacts before they build. That's why traffic impact fees are needed. This way Kalispell can focus on attracting the business and industries that are really needed to help our local economy. one of the biggest limitations of retailing as a form of economic development is the fact that retail J obs can seldom sustain a family. Retail jobs most often pay lower than a living wage. In fact, many retail jobs have pay 3 scales that hover near minimum wage. Retail jobs also are most commonly part-time jobs with fewer hours and no medical benefits. Also, retail jobs typically lack career tracks. The chances of significant advancement from a retail job are slim.. Unionized grocery stores are the only exception to the poverty -wage problem. But without a union, most retail jobs are dead-end jobs that fail to support working families. [6] * Because many of their employees do not earn enough to make ends meet, states are reporting high costs associated with providing healthcare (Medicaid) and other public assistance to big -box employees. [7] In June 2005, the Great Falls Tribune examined records for the state's CHIP program and found that the private employer with the largest number of workers with dependents receiving the health insurance was Wal-Mart. Its 193 employees using CHIP represented about 4 percent of the company's workforce in the state. Other companies high on the list were McDonald's, Pizza Hut, NAPA Auto Parts and Subway-[S] * New study finds that Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual is underestimating the traffic impacts of large retail centers. This study found that supercenters of 200,000 square feet or more generate an average of 42 percent more traffic than the rate listed in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Traffic engineers, developers, and city officials use the figures in this manual to estimate the traffic impact of development projects. This study, which relies on traffic counts conducted at five supercenters in Oklahoma and Texas, indicates that the manual significantly underestimates the traffic generated by large supercenters (stores that combine general merchandise and a full grocery department) and that traffic analyses based on it are unreliable indicators of the actual traffic impact of a supercenter development. [9] * Retail growth north of Kalispell has already siphoned off Federal funding from the proposed Kalispell Bypass to build a new series of roads to mitigate traffic impacts from extensive retail development in the this area. New growth north of Kalispell will only further worsen this situation without the adoption of adequate transportation impact fees. Recent articles in the local papers suggest that the city is now posed to ask the Federal government for funds to build new sewer lines for growth north of Kalispell ----further evidence that new grow is not paying its way. * Traffic Studies presented to the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) for the Glacier Town Center/Mall were found inadequate and have been rejected as such. New studies have been required. The rejected studies suggested a much lower traffic impact based in part on the Glacier Town Center/Mall making assumptions that the state would be responsible for upgrading area roads and would have these upgrades in place when the mall is built. The developer also relied on traffic figures were not based on reliable data according to MDT. Representatives of retail stores wanting to locate largely north of Kalispell are some of the loudest opponents of Kalispell's proposed Traffic Impact Fees, but these stores want to attract traffic from all across the county to their stores, which will significantly increase traffic on city roads. These stores should be the ones paying for these traffic impacts not residents/taxpayers of Kalispell who may have no desire to even shop at these stores and thus should not be taxed for these stores' traffic impacts. Misinformation provided the city council by those oposing impact fees at a recent hearing suggested that developers should n only be charged for trips/traffic generated within the city limits ---this makes no sense at all and has never been the basis of impact fees anywhere in the country. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual, which is the professional reference for transportation planners and engineers across the country, used to estimates car trips that will be generated by different types of land uses and does not limit these estimates to city limits. * The extension of Rose Crossing has been held up as an example by the developers of the Glacier Town Center/Mall as a road they are building at their own expense. what they have failed to make clear though is that they expect the city to reimburse them for this road when it is built; even suggesting most recently that the city should take out loan funding to pay them back right away! The only reason the developers would build this road now is because it is central to their mall and Kalispell has no money to build it presently. Rose Crossing extension is not a priority for the city at this time over other needed improvements. The city has identified the need for the extension of Rose Crossing at some time in the future and at some point in the future, they can apparently be required to reimburse the mall developer for some of the cost of this road with the developer only paying for his direct impact. * Traffic Impact fees proposed for new growth in Kalispell are the lowest in the state and lower than impact fees nationally. it's time for Kalispell to put these reasonable fees in place and get on with the important business of working to attract living wage jobs to our area. [I] Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio - by Randall Gross, Development Economics, August 2004 [2] Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes - by Tischler & Associates, July 2002. [3], Economic And Demographic Analysis 4f Montana, 2005, Center for Applied Economic Research, MSU Billings. [41 Average hourly wage for Montana from. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. [51 Economic And Demographic Analysis Of Montana, 2005, Center for Applied Economic Research, MSU Billings. [61 See web site for Good Jobs First [7] Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs - by UC Berkeley's Institute for Industrial Relations, August 2004 [81 Source: Mire Dennison, "State Insurance for Rids Going to Employees You Might Not Expect," great Falls Tribune, June 26, 2005, p. I6A. [9] Trip Generation Characteristics of Free -Standing Discount Superstores W by Georgiena M. Vivian, ITE Journal, August 2006 Sincerely, Citizens for a Better Flathead KaLVIG & LEDuc, P.C. KEN A. KALVIG ken@kalviglazv.com ANGELA M. LEDUC angie@kalviglazv.com BRUCE A. FREDRICKSON bruce@kalviglaw.com MARSHALL MURRAY (of counsel) Mayor Pamela Kennedy City Council Members City of Kalispell 201 1"Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 ATTORNEYs AT LAW Southfield Tower 1830 3rd Avenue East, Suite 301 Kalispell, MT 59901 March 2, 2009 Re: Transportation Impact Fees Dear Mayor Kennedy and Council Members: P.O. Box 1678 KALISPELL, MT 59903 PHONE: 406-257-6001 FAX: 406-257-6082 Via Hand Delivery L0ty. Clerk Thank you for the opportunity to again comment on transportation impact fees. We appreciate the attention that everyone on the City Council has given to this topic and its many and complicated issues. We are pleased that some of our and others' public comment has resulted in positive and correct changes to the impact fee program proposal. Members of the City Council have responded to public comments about grandfathering projects that originated and developed pro formas long before transportation impact fees were proposed, the high cost of the fees, and existing deficiencies. It appears that the will of the City Council is to vote on transportation impact fees on March 9, 2009, and likely adopt them in some form, under the belief that the proposed program is legally sound, fair, and needed. Wolford Development and I hope that my reading of the Council is incorrect and that you will not adopt these impact fees. When I spoke to the City Council on April 14, 2008, I stated to you that the impact fees needed to be legal, fair, and understandable. Despite much work by the impact fee committee, City staff, City Council, development and business community leaders and representatives, and general public, the transportation impact fee proposal still is not legal, fair, nor understandable. I have provided earlier letters to you addressing many legal concerns, most of which are still not fixed. You can read again my October 13, 2008 and January 20, 2009 letters, along with the many letters from Phil Harris, Mark Goldberg, Harley Harris, Esq., William VanCanagan, Mayor Kennedy & City Council March 2, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Esq., council for the National Association of Realtors, and reflect on the comments made to you in April and May of 2008 by Michael Kakuk, Esq. to refresh yourselves in more detail on the many legal deficiencies. Some of the outstanding legal issues include not meeting the requirement of nexus and proportionality; using impact fees to fund existing deficiencies and road improvements not necessary or needed to meet future needs; no prioritization of projects; no schedule or timetable for construction; payment and funding of the City's proportionate share; and violation of due process and equal protection. The proposed impact fee program is not fair. I have contended for a year now that business and retail uses are being unfairly burdened. When we first raised that point in April of 2008, HDR insisted that such a claim was unsubstantiated and defended its work by saying that residential development would pay 56% of the impact fees. If you review IIDR's January report, it now says that commercial development pays 56% of the impact fees. Not only is commercial development in general being unfairly treated, Wolford Development's Glacier Town Center Proj ect's impact fees have been estimated by the City (using one of multiple calculations) at more than 50% of all the project costs to be raised through impact fees. Considering where its project is located, its construction of Rose Crossing, the millions of dollars in roadways that it will build on nearly one section of land, and improvements to the roadways adjacent to its property, it is not fair for Wolford Development to shoulder that much of your program. It is also unfair that the City expects new development to pay impact fees into a fund, but the City does not know how much it costs to build the entire road project for which impact fee funds are being raised nor how the City will come up with the money. Likewise, why should development be expected to pay into a fund when the City does not know how it will pay for its "proportionate share" as required in the statutes? The impact fee program is not understandable. Although your transportation plan and HDR's impact fee report say that impact fees are paying 100% of the cost of road improvements, we have heard City staff and Council members state, publicly, that the impact fees are not paying 100%. As part of this discussion, City staff said that the true cost of the road construction projects is not known. How is it possible for you to not know the cost to build a road at the time you intend to start assessing people for the cost of building it? It is still unclear how impact fees for Wolford's Glacier Town Center project will be calculated. Despite attempting to obtain clarification for nearly a year, my questions still have not been answered. You have further complicated our ability to understand and assess the financial impact to Wolford by changing in the last few weeks your position on credits against impact fees. Dating back to a meeting Chad and I had with Jim Patrick, former City Manager, and Charlie Ilarball, we were told that Wolford would receive a credit against impact fees for building the extension of Rose Crossing. Now, this credit is on the chopping block, which makes no sense. Extending Rose Crossing not only builds one mile of entirely new road, it provides an Important east -west connection between U.S. 93 -and U.S. 2 -and is clearly growth driven. Of the ten projects originally in your CIP, only two were not included in your 1993 Transportation Plan MSN 10 and MSN 9 (Rose Crossing Extension). I do not understand why MSN 9 would be removed from the CIP. I have delivered to you today a letter from Dr. Arthur C. Nelson addressing a couple of the issues with IIDR's work, including proportionality. Dr. Nelson, FAICP, is Presidential S:MWolford\Glacier Town Centerllmpact Fees\Mayor & Council 3-2-09.doc Mayor Kennedy & City Council March 2, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Professor of City & Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah where he is Director of Metropolitan Research. Dr. Nelson is an internationally recognized authority in impact fees. His impact fee books include Development Impact Fees, A Practitioners' Guide to Development Impact Fees; System .Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater .Facilities; A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing Affordability; Impact Fees & Housing Affordability; and Impact Fees: principles and Practice of Proportionate Share Development Fees. He has assisted in the preparation of more than 100 impact fees nationally. Dr. Nelson's impact fee clients have included cities and counties, developers, the American Planning Association, the Urban Land Institute, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and the US Department of Dousing and Urban Development among others. Most important to the City of Kalispell is that Dr. Nelson's work was cited by HDR in its impact fee reports for the City of Kalispell. Dr. Nelson's work was also cited by Chief Justice Rehnquist in the leading case of Dolan v. City of Tigard as Chief Justice Rehnquist crafted his "rough proportionality" test in that case. It is Dr. Nelson's opinion that HDR has not correctly dealt with transportation impact fees including proportionality and trip calculation. Wolford Development has expressed concern that the transportation impact fee proposal likely would kill its ability to develop the Glacier Town Center PUD project that was approved by the City of Kalispell in February of 2008. Wolford Development has worked in good faith with the City to try to help you develop an impact fee program that would enable you to put transportation impact fees in place while still allowing Wolford to develop its approved project. Considering what is now or still in the transportation impact fee program, the state of the current economy; and DEQ's new policy position on additional sewer system hookups on the north end of Kalispell, adoption of the proposed transportation impact fees prohibits Wolford Development from being able to move forward its approved project. Wolford Development has spent nearly a decade attempting to bring to the community a first class mixed -use project. It has attempted to address community concerns about water quality of our aquifers, municipal versus on -site wastewater treatment, architectural themes and a "main street" appearance to the shopping center, an integrated community —center, pedestrian and bicycle trail systems, landscaping, a fully developed and new central park, use of traffic circles within the internal transportation system, connectivity points to neighboring properties, and improvement of adjacent roadways. Wolford has proposed what it can do for the Kalispell and Flathead valley community and believes it has far exceeded that required by your local regulations. As Chad stated to you in his January 12, 2009 letter, Wolford Development simply cannot endure you putting more on its back given the weight of what it has already committed to do. We hope that you will set aside transportation impact fees and let us get back to working with the City on the technical issues that need to be addressed for us and you to move forward the Glacier Town Center project. Attached to this letter is an article entitled "Beyond the Box," which Chad Wolford asked me to share with you. The article discusses how a retail development in Fort Collins, Colorado was able to move forward in large part due to the City of Fort Collins acting as a partner with the developer. Chad wanted to share this article with you to point out that, in these challenging economic tinges, it makes it very hard for Wolford Development to attract new tenants to Kalispell when those tenants are now building fewer stores and look to locate in communities actively working to help the developer attract the tenants. Adoption of the transportation impact S:1W1Wolford\Glacier Town Center\lrnpact Fees\Mayor & Council 3-2-09.doc Mayor Kennedy & City Council March 2, 2009 Page 4 of 4 fees at this time mares Wolford's challenge even greater by sending the wrong message to prospective businesses. Thank you for your continued deliberation and consideration of these comments. The impact fee proposal is not ready for adoption and the timing of adopting it is not good. We respectfully ask that this matter be tabled until the many problems with it have been fully addressed and the economic picture vastly improves. As I have been at all times in the past, I remain available to discuss these topics further and to offer what assistance I can. Sincerely, t Z4o�,,, L Ken A. Kalvig cc: Chad Wolford Bucky Wolford Bruce Fredrickson Enc: As stated SAW\Wolford\Glacier Town Centerllmpact Fees\Mayor & Council 3-2-09.doc By Katherine Field o be competitive, espe- cially in an economy where being competi- tive is the name of the game, power centers are being forced . . . . . . 7 to up the amenity and atmos- Front Range Village, in Fort Collins, Colo., is a new breed of power center, featuring big -box retail phere antes, or face assured elevated by an amenity -rich environment. vacancies. based Bayer Properties, is located on The library — a 10,000-sq.-ft. branch The f6ii-nat that traditionally featured 110 acres in the heart of the northern of the Fort Collins Library System — is a series of big -box retailers in a size- Colorado market of Fort Collins, at the stated to open at the end of March. "The able strip has cTway to an open-air, tt Zeigler intersection of Harmony and Zeicrler library and the office space will both add amenity -rich shopping center that corn- Roads just west of Interstate 25. Opened further synergy to the site,," said David tines the expected power retailers with a in July 2008, the project is anchored by Silverstein, principal of Bayer Properties. lineup of lifestyle tenants and restaurants. SuperTarget, Lowe's, Staples, Sports The office space is currently leasing, with The result is powered -up version of a Authority, DSW and a joint Toys "R" some of the space coming oil line ill suln- power center that is finding a surprising Us and Babies "R" Us format. Of the mer 2009 or sooner. degree of success even when firnes are 900,000 sq. ft. total, 645,000 sq. ft. is Components such as office and civic tough. big -box retail along with junior anchors uses have been shown to add measurable Case in point: Front Range Village in and surrounding retail and restaurants; pull to a shopping center, but Front Range Fort Collins, Colo. 175,000 sq. ft. is Main Street specialty Village has managed to find a high degree The 900,000-sq.-ft. hybrid power cen- retail, restaurants and a library; and of draw prior to the opening of the added ter, developed by Birmingham, Ala.- nearly 80,000 sq. ft. is office space. uses. The property, said Silverstein, ('yen- . 4- 122 www.chainstoreage.com CHAIN STORE AGE, FEBRUARY 2009 ........... ... erated the highest store -opening sales in the country for Supef -ct get and Sports Authority, and Toys "'R" Us/Babies "R" Us and DSw both exceeded plan by double-digit margins. "The SuperTarget at Front lunge Tillage continues to exceed sales plan driven by a strong initial opening, good customer traffic during the fall and steady traffic during the holiday season,' said SuperTarget team leader Tyson Buhre. "The location and shopping environ- ment at Front Range 'Village have been instrumental in SupelTarget's success." SuperTarget had the highest sales in the nation out of 43 store openings in the same time period in July 2008, and Sports Authority had top sales compared to l l other stoles. That is weighty testament in today's downturn. when retailers in every corner t ra; 'g4 w of the country are struggling to stay afloat, a success story can elevate belief that the right format in the right location still can work. "The site is terrific, as Fart Collins has been the retail hub of northern Colorado for years," said Silverstein. "But there is more to Fart Collins than its retail offer- ings." The corarnunity of 290,000 people has been named one of the best places to raise kids and, in 2006, as the No. 1 place to live in the United States. The metro- politan statistical area is the second - fastest expanding market in the state of Colorado. "In short, the center's success can be attributed to three things," said Silver- stein. "First, to the market itself; second, to the center's location within the market; and, third, to the fact that we have been able to expand certain concepts such as the 175,000-scl.-ft. Super= Target, which had a smaller, non -superstore elsewhere in Fort Collins; and the 45,000-sq.-i-t. Sports Authority, which also had a smaller facility in town" Sprouts Farmer's Market will join the center with a late -spring or early - summer 2009 opening, building its home in a project filled with unlikely power -center amenities fountains, sculptures, green space, lush landscap- ing and an attractive Main Street, mak- ing Front Range Tillage a center of which the city and its residents can be proud. "It's important to recognize Fort Collins' willingness to work with us on trt public/private partnership," said Silver- stein. "The project wouldn't have hap- pened without the city's cooperation." r kii a ld@ch a i n s#oreage. co rn 124 www.chainstoreage.com CHAIN STORE AGE, FEBRUARY 2009 ►4rthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICP Presidential Professor Director of Metropolitan Research University of Utah Residence: 1048 Chartwell Court Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 801.581.8253 acnelson@utah.edu March 2, 2009 Mr. Ken Kalvig Mr. Bruce Fredrickson Kalvig & LeDuc, P.C. P.O. Box 1678 Kalispell, MT 69903 Re: Kalispell Transportation Impact Fees via: Electronic transmission IN CONFIDENCE Dear Messrs. Kalvig and Fredrickson: At your request, I reviewed the August Zoos report with addenda for transportation impact fees being considered by the City of Kalispell, MT. I understand that report was updated in January 2009 to reduce the number of new trips projected over the planning period and again in February 2009 to reduce the number of projects for which impact fees would be assessed, thereby reducing the total cost of projects. The August 2008 impact fee was calculated at $91.72 per trip but then rounded up to $92 per trip. The impact fee is thus higher than the impact cost which is inconsistent with national practice. It is customary professional practice for transportation impact fees such as this to be charged to the penny, but of course the last penny would be rounded as needed. However, it appears based on new information provided by the City's consulting firm in September 2008 that the impact fee per trip should be $73.51 (see below). Mr. Ken Ka ivig Mr. Bruce Fredrickson Kalvig & LeDuc, P.C. March 2, 2009 Page 2 My comments in this letter are based on the number of trips and project costs from the August 2008 report. Although the City's consultant has revised the total number of trips from 142,031 (August 2008) to 134,118 (January 2009) and the February 2009 alternative report considers reducing the total number of projects and thus total costs, using the August 2008 information will illustrate my concerns that the total number of trips may not be accurate and that retail uses will be assessed disproportionately higher impact fees. My calculations shown below are not provided in the form of a definitive opinion as to how much your client should be assessed in impact fees but rather to illustrate that changing the report to address trip length in addition to other factors would result in substantial changes in how much your client would pay in impact fees. As background, the initial impact fee was based on the 71h edition of the ITE Trio Generation manual less 20%. (HDR assumed 7.67 trips per single family home in Kalispell which is about 80/ of the ITE Trip Generation figure for single family homes, being 9.57 daily trips. This 20¢I adjustment was applied to all land uses.) The impact fees presented in the August 19, 2008 report were based on costs divided by taps accordingly: Impact Fee Per Tri $12,406,,270 impact fee eligible capacity expansion costs 142,031 trips $87.35 per trip + $ 4.37 administrative charge �- $91.72 total impact fee per trip In its correspondence of September 25, 2008, HDR determined its adjustment of August 19, 2008 was not appropriate and proposed a new fee schedule based on 100% of the ITE Trip Generation figures. For a single family home the fee would become $88❑ ($92 per trip x 9.57 trips). However, if the number of trips per land use category is increased total projected trips will also increase. As the impact fee is based on costs (the numerator) divided by trips (the denominator) the impact fee per trip would be reduced as follows: Mr. Ken Kalvig Mr. Bruce Fredrickson Kalvig & LeDuc, P.C. March 2, 2009 Page 3 Revised Impact Fee Per Trip $12,406,270 impact fee eligible capacity expansion costs - 1771,216 trips (estimated based on HRD adjustments) _ $70.01 per trip + $ 3.50 administrative charge _ $73.51 total impact fee per trip The appropriate impact fee would be $73.51 per trip. However, it appears that if the new trips are assessed the original impact fee the city will raise about $3.2 million more revenue than would be justified based on costs.' I turn now to how the impact fee is calculated relative to shopping centers. The subject would be a retail shopping center of 550,000 square feet, which would generate 13,279 net new trips (adjusting for by pass trips) based on prior analysis by the City's consultant.2 However, basing the impact fee on only trips shifts the impact fee burden to retail and most other nonresidential land uses disproportionate to impact. It is my experience that generally accepted practice for calculating road impact fees considers the number of trips generated and average trip length, so the impact fee is based on the vehicle mile traveled impact. This is not a trivial consideration. Traffic engineering studies show routinely that single family residential land uses generate the longest average trip lengths of all land uses, and retail among the shortest. For instance, Bozeman, MT, has adopted an impact fee that is based on the following trip lengths per trip: 3.52 miles per trip for single family residential land uses 1.31 miles per trip for the subject shopping center (adjusted for pass -by trips) In other words, in Bozeman and generally elsewhere, the average trip length for retail shopping centers is substantially less than that for single family residential land uses. Because the City's impact fee is based only on trips and does not consider trip lengths, residential land uses pay less than their proportionate share and retail (and many other nonresidential land uses) pays more than their proportionate share. Inasmuch as Montana's impact fee statute requires proportionate share assessment, the impact fees as proposed may not be consistent with state law. 1 ($92 X 177,216 = $16,303,872) -- ($92 X 142,031 = $13,066,852) = $3,237,020 2 Excluding adjustments that have since been removed. Mr. Ken Kalvig Mr. Bruce Fredrickson Kalvig & LeDuc, P.C. March 2, 2009 Page 4 A proportionate -share impact fee reflecting trips and trip lengths based on the Bozeman analysis would be as follows:3 Road Facility Impact 9.57 trips per residential land use X 3.52 net miles per trip X 10,340 new units = 347,317 VMT 15.60 trips per retail worker X 1.31 net miles per trip X 3,201 new workers = 65,526 VMT 2.12 trips per nonretail worker X 1.58 net miles per trip X 13,360 new workers = 44,G57 VMT Total VMT 458,510 VMT Impact Fee per VMT $12,406,.270 impact fee eligible capacity expansion costs 4581510 VMT -� $27.06 per VMT + $ 1.35 administrative charge $28-41 total The resulting shopping center impact fee would be $494,206 (13.279 trips X 1.31 net miles per trip X $28.41 per VMT). At $92 per trip, the impact fee that may be assessed is $1,221,668 which may be $727,462 or perhaps in the order of 1.5 times higher than would be proportionate. Sincerely, Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICP 3 This is an illustrative assessment subject to refinement. Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICP Presidential Professor of City & Metropolitan Planning Director of Metropolitan Research 375 S. 1530 E. University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 V: 801.581.8253 E: acneson agutah.edu December 2008 EDUCATION AND CAREER SUMMARY Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Studies specializing in regional science and regional planning, Portland State University, 1984 (earned degree while managing west Coast consultancy) Master of Urban Studies in Public Administration, Research Track, Portland State University, 1976 (earned degree while managing west Coast consultancy) Bachelor of Science in Political Science, certificates in Urban Studies and Social Service, Portland State University, 1972 (graduated in two years to accept invitation for commission into the US Navy or US Air Force after completion of Officer Candidate School if service was needed during the Viet Nam era) Practicing professional in management, development policy, and economic analysis for federal., state, and local government agencies, businesses, and non-profit organizations since 1972 Member of faculties in urban and regional planning, and public policy since 1984 ACADEMIC MILESTONES Appointed Presidential Professor of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah, 2008 Appointed full professor with tenure, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2002 Appointed adjunct professor of law, Georgia State University, 2000 Promoted to full professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1992 Awarded tenure, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1991 Appointed untenured associate professor of city and regional planning, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1987 Awarded early promotion to untenured associate professor in urban affairs, University of New Orleans, 1987 Appointed untenured assistant professor of urban affairs and planning, University of New Orleans, 1986 Appointed visiting assistant professor in regional and community planning, Kansas State University, 1984 SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTIONS FAICP -W-- Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners Lt. Colonel, Georgia Militia, honorary commission by Governor Joe Frank Harris for service to the state Editor, Housing Policy Debate — (world's top -rated journal in housing and urban studies) Editor, Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies Associate Editor. Journal of the American Planning Association Associate Editor, Journal of Urban Affairs Book Review Co -Editor, Journal of the American Planning Association Planners' Notebook Editor, Journal of the American Planning Association Fellow, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Paul Davidoff best book award recognition as co-author of edited volume winning the award Scholar of the Year, College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Tech Commendation for Service to US Department of Housing and Urban Development Teacher of the Year in Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology Continuing Education Teacher of the Year in Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology Citation for being among the most effective teachers in the College of Architecture, Georgia Tech Best of Association. of Collegiate Schools of Planning conference paper (from more than 700 presented) Teacher of students winning National Student Project of the Year award, American Institute of Certified Planners Commendations by Georgia Institute of Technology for publications Professional Education Teacher of the Year, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology Sponsor/advisor, Elected Official of the Year Award, American Planning Association Sponsor/advisor to winner of the McClure Prize, Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Young Researcher of the Year, University of New Orleans Teacher of the Year in Planning, Kansas State University Outstanding dissertation recognition by Urban Geography section of the Association of American Geographers SUMMARY ACADEMIC RECORD University of Utah: 2008 to present Appointed Presidential Professor in City and Metropolitan Planning. (Distinction held by less than one percent of all faculty members.) Founding director of metropolitan research. Member of inter -college committee preparing a master of real estate degree between Business and Architecture + Planning. Member of committee preparing proposal for a doctoral degree in. city and metropolitan planning. Primary teaching responsibility (by major subject matter area): Growth management and smart growth Urban development finance Metropolitan governance Public finance and planning City and metropolitan economics Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: 2002 to 2008 Appointed full professor with tenure, August 2002 Appointed director of graduate studies in urban affairs and planning for Northern Virginia, August 2002 Appointed co -director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, July 2006 Appointed associate director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, September 2002 Primary teaching responsibilities (by major subject area): Federal, state, and local public finance economics and policy Land use planning and growth management policy Urban development and redevelopment methods and finance Metropolitan governance Principal accomplishments: Simultaneous (point} degrees created between urban and regional planning and landscape architecture, natural resources, public administration, and public and international affairs — these are the first such degrees at Virginia Tech Graduate Certificate in Metropolitan Studies Concurrent degrees developed between Virginia Tech. and law schools at George Washington University and American University (others pending) Founded the "Planning Academy at Virginia Tech" to provide professional and executive education services Reformed the planning curriculum to modernize content, improve relevance to professional education and create an efficient segue into doctoral work for selected students Launched national -scale research and outreach program in 2005 Georgia Institute of Technology: 1987 to 2002 Appointed associate professor of city planning, July 1987 Awarded early tenure, 1991 Awarded early promotion to full professor, 1992 Chair, College Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Committee, 1995-98 Chair, College of Architecture Advisory Committee, 1993-95 Chair, College of Architecture Research Committee, 1993-94 Member, Institute Faculty Status and Grievance Committee, 1994--97 2 Awarded joint appointment in the School of Public Policy, 1988 Member, Center for Transportation Education and Research, College of Engineering Coordinator of joint Planning and Urban Design degrees Founding Coordinator, Certificate Programs in Urban Policy and Land Development University commendations for publishing, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2000 Professional Education Teacher of the Year, College of Architecture, 1994 Teacher of the Year, College of Architecture, 2000 Member, Institute Statutes Committee, 2000-2002 Appointed adjunct professor of law, Georgia State University, 2001 Primary teaching responsibilities (by major subject area) Federal, state, and local public finance economics and policy Land use planning and growth management policy Urban and real estate development Fiscal and socioeconomic impact assessment Local and regional economic development Principal accomplishments: Administered nation's largest professional education program for practicing planners Created certificate Programs in Urban Policy and Land Development Developed nation's first bi-university dual planning and law degree (Georgia Tech and Georgia State) Co -managed nation's only bi-university academic program in planning and real estate (Georgia Tech and Georgia State) Created graduate co-op program that has grown into a multi -million dollar effort supporting College of Architecture graduate students University of New Orleans: 1.986 - 1987 Appointed assistant professor of urban and regional planning on tenure --earning track, January 1986 Early promotion to associate professor, 1987 Joint appointment in public administration, 1987 Founding Director, Division of Urban Research and Policy Studies Founding Coordinator, Graduate Program in Land Development Advisor, Louisiana Urban Technical Assistance Center Coordinator, undergraduate urban studies focus in general studies. University Young Researcher of the Year, 1987 Principal course responsibilities: Urban public policy analysis Urban and regional spatial structure Public works planning and finance Land development impact assessment Public -private land development process .Kansas State University: 1984 - 1985 Appointed visiting assistant professor of regional and community planning, July 1984 Founding coordinator of undergraduate certificate program in regional and community planning, 1985 Teacher of the year, shared honors, College of Architecture, 1985 Member, College Futures Task Force, Library Committee, College Curriculum Committee (Chair), Architecture Curriculum Committee, Environmental Design Curriculum Committee, Gerontology Curriculum Committee, Graduate Program Coordinating Council, and advisor, College Research Center Principal course responsibilities: Planning administration and implementation Planning principles Public --private Partnerships in economic development Community development planning Regional planning (urban and regional economics) Portland State University: 1983-84 M. J. Clark Fellow, the College of Urban and Public Affair's most prestigious award Dissertation: Evaluating Urban Containment Programs. Outstanding dissertation recognition by the Urban Geography section of the Association of American Geographers, 1985 BOOKS Refereed Arthur C. Nelson, John Randolph, Joseph Schilling, Jonathan Logan, James McElfish, and Newport Partners, 2008. Environmental Regulations and Dousing Costs. Washington, DC: Island Press. Arthur C. Nelson, James C. Nicholas, Julian C. Juergensmeyer. 2009. Impact Fees: Principles and Practice of Proportionate -Share Development Fees. Chicago: American Planning Association. Arthur C. Nelson, Liza Bowles, Julian C. Juergensmeyer and James C. Nicholas. 2008. Impact Fees and Housing Affordability. Washington, DC: Island Press. Testimonial: In a revenue -constrained world, impact fees will not disappear. The challenge is to ensure that such fees do not undermine a balanced community, Nelson et al. lay out a clear, fact -filled road map to address that challenge. Communities and developers should take freed....... Nicholas P. Retsinas, Director, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University. Arthur C. Nelson., Thomas W. Sanchez, Casey J. Dawkins. 2007. Second, revised printing 2008. Urban Containment and Society. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate. Nominated for the Paul Davidoff Award. Book is in second printing. Testimonial: Nelson, Dawkins and Sanchez extend the exploration of the effects of containment Beyond urban form and (rousing prices, providing new insights into its consequences for broad array of social and economic issues. As such, the authors break new ground and provide a comprehensive assessment of the thinking on these issues to date. — Gerrit Knaap, National Center for Smart Growth Director, University of Allaryland. Newport Partners and Arthur C. Nelson (lead author). 2007. Impact Fees and Dousing Affordability Guidebook. Washington, DC: Department of Housing and Urban Development. John R. Randolph, Arthur C. Nelson, Joseph. Schilling, James McElfish, Jonathan Logan and Mark Nowak. 2006. .Environmental Regulations and Housing affordability. US Department of Housing and Urban Development: Washington, DC. Arthur C. Nelson and Casey J. Dawkins. 2004. Urban Containment in the United States. Chicago: American Planning Association. Arthur C. Nelson. 2004. Planners Estimating Guide: Projecting Land Use and Facility Needs. Chicago: American. Planning Association. Testimonial: This is a gem of a book that deserves a place on every planner's reference shelf. It superbly delivers on its objective to present a straiglitforward method and. framework for estimating future land -use and facility needs for a variety of growth scenarios. - David Listokin, Co -Director, Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, in Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (4): 460-61. Arthur C. Nelson. and James B. Duncan. 1995. Growth Allanagement Principles and Practices. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Recognized as one of the top professional planning books during the first 25 years of the American .Planning Association. Arthur C. Nelson. 1995. Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater System Development Charges. Boca Raton, FL: CRC and Lewis Publishers. Gerrit J. Knaap and Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. The Regulated Landscape: .lessons of Statewide Planning From Oregon. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Several printings. Translated into Chinese in 2003. James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson, and Julian C. Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Arthur C. Nelson, ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees: Theory, Issues, and Practice. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Refereed Forthcoming Arthur C. Nelson. 2009. Reshaping America. Chicago: American Planning Association. Refereed in Progress Arthur C. Nelson. 2009 (projected). Leveraging Private Real Estate Investment: Local Government options. In negotiation with Island Press. Robert E. Lang, Arthur C. Nelson, and Katrin Anacker eds. A suburban World? Global Decentralization and the New Metropolis. Rutgers University Press. Robert E. Lang and Arthur C. Nelson. Megapolitan America. Chicago: American Planning Association. Arthur C. Nelson, Douglas Allen, Richard Dagenhart, Jonathan Logan and John Skach. subdivision Codes and Urban Form: Reform to Achieve Smart Growth. Chicago: American Planning Association. Nonrefereed Arthur C. Nelson, Barbara L. Allen, David Trauger. 2006. Toward a Resilient Metropolis: A New Role for State and Land Grant Universities. Alexandria, VA: Metropolitan Institute Press. Susan M. Wachter, J. Leo Penne, and Arthur C. Nelson, eds. 2000. Bridging the Divide: Making Regions Work. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC. Office of Policy Development and Research.. 2000. State of the Cities 2000. Washington: Department of Housing and Urban Development. Content Reviewer Eugenie L. Birch, Gary Hack, et al., 2008-09. Practice of Local Government Planning, 4 Edition. Washington, DC: International City -County Management Association. REFEREED MONOGRAPHS Arthur C. Nelson and Robert E. Lang. 2008. The New State Planning Politics. Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute. Arthur C. Nelson. 2007. Where Will Everybody Live? Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. Robert E. Lang and Arthur C. Nelson. 2007. Beyond the Metroplex: Examining Commuter Patterns at the "Megapolitan" Scale. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Robert E. Lang and Arthur C. Nelson. 2007. The Megapolitan rest. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Arthur C. Nelson. 2004. Toward a New .Metropolis: The opportunity to Rebuild America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution (ranked as the third most downloaded monograph of the Metropolitan Program in 2005) . Robert Burchell, Arthur C. Nelson, et. al. 2007. Calculating the Transportation Cost .Impacts of New Development: Literature Review. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Arthur C. Nelson.. 2006. Getting ahead of the (Housing) Curve. Boca Raton, FL: Funders Netrwork for Smart Growth. Arthur C. Nelson. 2005. Desperately Seeking Equity: Apartments and Impact Fee Practice. National Apartment Association. Arthur C. Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Casey J. Dawkins and Gerrit J. Knaap. 2002. Growth Management and Affordable Housing: The Academic Evidence. Washington DC: Brookings Institution (ranked as seventh most downloaded monograph of the Metropolitan Program in 2003). Arthur C. Nelson. 2004. Top Ten Reasons for .Meeting Workforce Housing .Needs. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation. Arthur C. Nelson and Raymond J. Burby. 2003. Urban Containment and Ventral City Reinvestment. 'Washington, DC: Ford Foundation and Jobs First. Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody. 2003. Paying for Growth: Impact Fees and Job Growth. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Arthur C. Nelson. 1998.... And Then There Were Property Taxes: A Primer on Property Tax Structure and Policy. Urban Land Institute (Washington, DQ. William Drummond and Arthur C. Nelson. 1998. Handbook for .Economic Development Geographic Information Systems. Washington, DC: Economic Development Administration. Arthur C. Nelson. 1997. Location of Professional Sports stadia to Facilitate Urban Economic Development. National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities. Steven. P. French and Arthur C. Nelson. 1996. Land -Use Planning and Earthquake Hazard .Mitigation. National Science Foundation. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Regional Development Management and Central City Revitalization. National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities. 1993. Arthur C. Nelson, William P. Drummond, David S., Sawicki. 1992. Exurban Industrialization. Economic Development Administration. Arthur C. Nelson with James E. Frank and Jaynes C. Nicholas. 1990. The Incidence of Development Impact Fees on Undeveloped Urban Land. Urban Land Institute (Washington). Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. Statewide Land Use Planning Policy Considerations for Georgia. Center for Urban Planning and Development, City Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology. Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. Land Use Planning Processes of Selected States, Elements of Successful Land Use Planning Processes, and Statewide Land Use Planning Process Considerations for Georgia, Governor's Growth Strategies Task Force on Land Use. Arthur C. Nelson and Raymond J. Burby. 1.988. Regional Sewer .Planning Among Southeastern United States Coastal Regions. City Planning Program, Georgia. Institute of Technology. BOOK CHAPTERS Nelson, Arthur C. and Robert E. Lang. 2008. Defining Megapolitan Regions. In Catherine B. Ross and Cheryl Contant, eds., Megaregions in America (preliminary title). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Burby, Raymond J., Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez. 2006. The Problems of Containment and the Promise of Planning. In Eugenie L. Birch and Susan M. Wachter, eds., Rebuilding Urban Places After Disaster, University of Pennsylvania Press (Philadelphia), pp 47-65. Arthur C. Nelson, Barbara L. Allen and David L. Trauger. 2006. Introduction: Toward a Resilient Metropolis. In Arthur C. Nelson, Barbara L. Allen, David Trauger. 2006. Toward a Resilient .Metropolis: A New Role for State and Land Grant Universities. Alexandria, VA: Metropolitan Institute Press, pp. x-xiii. Joy Wilkins, William Riall, and Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. Rural. Industrial Zoning and Economic Development. Economic Development Journal 5(4): 24-33. Joy Wilkins, William Riall, and Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. Rural Industrial. Zoning and Economic Development. Economic Development Journal 5(4): 24--33. Arthur C. Nelson, Casey Dawkins, Thomas Sanchez and .Karen. Danielson. 2006. Urban Containment Effects on Housing and Neighborhood Quality in Florida. In Charles Connerly ed., Growth Management in Florida: A 20-Year Assessment. Birmingham, AL: M.E. Sharpe (in press). Arthur C. Nelson and Raymond J. Burby. 2005. The Effect of Regional Smart Growth on Metropolitan Growth and Construction: A Preliminary Assessment. In Fritz W. Wagner, et al. eds, Revitalizing the City: Strategies to Contain Sprawl and Revive the Core. Birmingham, AL: M.E. Sharpe. Rolf Pendall, Arthur C. Nelson, Casey J. Dawkins, and Gerrit -Jan K.naap. 2005. Connecting Smart Growth, Housing Affordability, and Racial Equity. In Xavier de Sousa Briggs, ed., The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America, pp. 219--245. Washington.: Brookings Institution. (Book received the Paul Davidoff Book Award by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, 2007.) Arthur C. Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Casey J. Dawkins and Gerrit J. Knaap. 2004. Growth Management and Affordable Housing: The Academic Evidence. In Anthony Downs, ed., Growth Management and Affordable Housing. Washington DC: Brookings Institution. Arthur C. Nelson. 2004. Urban Containment American Style. In Christine Bae and Harry Richardson, Urban Sprawl in Europe and the United States. London: Ashton. Arthur C. Nelson, Smart Growth or Business -as -Usual. 2003. In Strategies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Vienna, VA: Landscape Architectural Registration Boards Foundation. Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez. 2002. Lassoing Exurban Sprawl In Post Suburbia: Examining the New Metropolitan Form. Washington: Fannie Mae Foundation, pp. 43--102. Arthur C. Nelson. 2002. How Do You Know Smart Growth when You See It? In Terry Szold, Armando Carbonelle, eds. Smart Growth: Form and Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Arthur C. Nelson. 2000. Regulations to Improve Development Patterns. In H. James Brown, ed., Metropolitan .Development Patterns, pp. 72-79. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Arthur C. Nelson, 2000. Smart Growth or Business as Usual? Which. is Better at Improving Quality of Life and Central City Vitality? In Susan M. Wachter, R. Leo Penne and Arthur C. Nelson, eds, Bridging the Divide: Making Regions Work for Everyone, chapter 3, pp.. 83-106. Washington, DC: HUD. Arthur C. Nelson, 1999. The Exurban Battleground. In Contested Landscapes edited by Mark Lapping and Owen Furuseth. London: Avebury. Arthur C. Nelson, 1999. Sports Stadia and Central City Revitalization. In Fritz W. Wagner, Timothy E. Joder and Anthony J. 1V umphrey, Jr., eds., .Physical Managing Capital Resources for Central City Revitalization, New York: Garland, pp. 117-146. Arthur C. Nelson. 1999. Growth Management. In Practice of Local Government Planning, ICMAIAPA publishers, Frank S. So, editor. Arthur C. Nelson. 1999. La Nuova Generazione di oneri Urbanizzativi Negli Stati Uniti. In Fausto Curti, ed, Urbanistica e Fiscalita .Locale: Orientamenti di Riforma e Buone Pratiche in Italia e all'Estero. Rome: Maggioli Editore, pp. 95-134 (translated into the Italian by Fausto Curti). Arthur C. Nelson. 1996. A New Metropolitan Umbrella. In Regional Politics: America in a Post City Era, Hank V. Savitch and Ronald K. Vogel, eds. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage. Arthur C. Nelson with Jeffrey H. Milgroom. 1994. Central City Revitalization Through Regional Growth Management. In Fritz W. Wagner, Anthony Mumphrey, and Timothy Joder, eds., Central City Revitalization, Thousand oaks, CA: Sage. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Regional Development Theory. In Regional Economic Development: A Theoretical Perspective, Richard D. Bingham et al. eds. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. The Urban. Growth Boundary as a Growth Management Tool. In Planning the Oregon Way: A Twenty -Year Appraisal, Carl Abbott and Deborah Howe, eds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Arthur C. Nelson. 1990. An Appraisal of Farmland Preservation Policies: Which work as Intended? In Protecting Our Common Future: Conflict Resolution Within the Farming Community, Ronald Corbett, ed. New Brunswick, NS: Rural and Small Town Research and Studies Programme, Mount Allison University. Mark P. Barneby, Tom MacRostie, Arthur C. Nelson, Gary J. Schoennauer, George T. Simpson, and Jan Winters. 1.988. Paying for Growth: Community Approaches to Development Impact Fees. In Arthur C. Nelson, ed., Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association. Jane H. Lil.lydahl, Arthur C. Nelson, Timothy V. Ramis, Antero Rivasplata, and Steven R. Schell. 1988. The Need for a Standard State Impact Fee Enabling Act. In Arthur C. Nelson, ed., Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association. Jeff Bachrach, Julian C. Juergensmeyer, Arthur C. Nelson., James C. Nicholas, Timothy V. Ramis, and Eric J. Strauss. 1988. A Standard Development Impact Fee Enabling Statute. In Arthur C. Nelson, ed., Development Impact .Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association. James C. Nicholas and Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. The Rational Nexus Test and Appropriate Development Impact Fees. In Arthur C. Nelson, ed., Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association. Robert A. Blewett and Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. A Public Choice and Efficiency Argument for Development Impact Fees. In Arthur C. Nelson, ed., Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association. Forrest E. Huffman,, Jr., Arthur C. Nelson, Marc T. Smith, and Michael Stegman. 1988. Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees? In Arthur C. Nelson, ed., .Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association. Arthur C. Nelson. 1987. Financing Infrastructure With Development Impact Fees. In Public .Infrastructure Planning and Management Jay M. Stein et al.. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Arthur C. Nelson. 1987. How Regional Planning Policies Designed to Contain Urban Sprawl and Sustain Agriculture Near Cities Should Influence Rural Land Values. In Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities. Soil Conservation Service (Washington), 1987. V1 ARTICLES IN REFEREED JOURNALS, REFEREED PROCEEDINGS, AND LAW JOURNALS Arthur C. Nelson and Kathy Tullos. 2008. The Limits of Downtowns in Meeting Metropolitan Housing Needs. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. Lang, Robert E., Arthur C. Nelson and Rebecca Sohmer. 2008. Boomburb Downtowns: The Next Generation of Urban Centers. Journal of Urbanism. Burge, Gregory, Arthur C. Nelson and John Matthews. 2008. Economic Development and Housing Effects of Impact Fees. dousing Policy Debate. Arthur C. Nelson, Liza Bowles and David Daquisto. 2007. Impact Fees and Housing Affordability. Practicing Planner: 5(3): Robert E. Lang and Arthur C. Nelson. 2007. Boomburb Politics and the Rise of Private Government. Housing Policy Debate 18(2): Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. Commentary: Can State Review of Local Planning Increase Housing Production? Housing Policy Debate 16(2): 201-207. Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. Leadership in a New Era. Journal of the American Planning association. 72(4): 393--409. Robert E. Lang, Jennifer LeFurgy and Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. The Six Suburban Eras of the United States. Opolis 2(1 ): 65-72. Joy Wilkins, William Riall, and Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. Rural Industrial Zoning and Economic Development. Economic Development Journal 5(4): 24-33. Arthur C. Nelson, Casey J. Dawkins and Thomas W. Sanchez. 2005. The Effect of Urban Containment and Mandatory Housing Elements on Racial Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas. Journal of Urban affairs 26(3): 339-350. Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez. 2005. The Effectiveness of Urban Containment Regimes in Reducing Exurban Sprawl. DISP 160: 42-47 (January). Arthur C. Nelson, Thomas W. Sanchez and Casey J. Dawkins. 2004. "Urban Containment and Residential Segregation: A Preliminary Investigation." Urban Studies.41(2): 423-440. Arthur C. Nelson, Thomas W. Sanchez, James F. Wolf and Mary Beth Farquhar. 2004. Metropolitan Planning Organization Voting Structure and Transit Investment Bias. Transportation Research Record 1895 : 1-14. Arthur C. Nelson, Raymond J. Burby, Edward Feser, Casey J. Dawkins, Roberto Quercia, and Emil Malizia. 2004. "Urban Containment and Central City Revitalization." Journal of the American Planning Association 70(4): 411-425. Casey J. Dawkins and Arthur C. Nelson. 2003. "Statewide Growth Management Policy and Central City Revitalization." Journal of the American Planning- association. 69(4): 381-396. Arthur C. Nelson. 2003. "Locating Major Public Venues where They Make a Difference." Journal of Public Forks .1llanagement and Policy 7(2): 98-114. Arthur C. Nelson and Susan M. Wachter. 2003. "Growth Management and Affordable Housing Policy." Journal of Housing and Community Development Law. 12(2): 173--187. Arthur C. Nelson. 2002. "Comment: Have Housing Prices Risen Faster in Portland Than Elsewhere?" Housing Policy Debate 13 (l ) : 3 3 -42 . Casey J. Dawkins and Arthur C. Nelson. 2002. "Urban Containment and Housing Prices: An International Comparison." Land Use Policy. 19(l. ): 1-12. Arthur C. Nelson and Steven P. French. 2002. "Plan Quality and Mitigating Damage From Natural Disasters: Case Study of the Northridge Earthquake With Planning Policy Considerations. Journal of the American Planning association. 68(2):194-207. Raymond J. Burby, Arthur C. Nelson, Dennis Parker, and John Handmer. 2001. "Urban Containment Policy and Exposure to Natural Hazards: Is There a Connection?" Journal of .environmental Planning and Management 44(4) 475-490. Arthur C. Nelson. 2001. "Exclusionary Housing, Urban Sprawl, and Smart Growth." Georgia State University Law Review. 17(4): 1087-1.1.02 Arthur C. Nelson. 2001. "Prosperity or Blight? A Question of Major League Stadia Locations." Economic Development Quarterly 15(3): 255-265. Arthur C. Nelson and Mitchell Moody. 2000. "Effect of Beltways on Metropolitan Economic Activity." Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 1.26(4): 189-196. Arthur C. Nelson and David R. Peterman. 2000. "Does Growth Management Matter?" Journal of Planning .Education and Research. 19(3): 277-286. Arthur C. Nelson. 2000. "Reducing Financial Risk Through Needs Certification." Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 126(1): 39-54. Arthur C. Nelson. 2000. "New Kid in Town: The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority." Wake Forest University Law Review. 35(3): 625-644. Arthur C. Nelson. 1999. "Transit Stations and Commercial Property Values." Journal of Public Transportation, 2(3): 77-96. Rhonda Hise and Arthur C. Nelson. 1999. "State Strategies for Brownfield Redevelopment." Economic Development Review. 17: Arthur C. Nelson. 1999. "Comparing States With and Without Growth Management: Analysis Based on Indicators With Policy Implications." Land Use Policy 16: 121-127. Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez. 1999. "Debunking the Exurban Myth." Housing Policy Debate. 10(3): 689-709. Arthur C. Nelson and Katherine Foster. 1999. "Metropolitan Governance Structure and Economic Performance." Journal of Urban Affairs, 21(3): 309-324. Arthur C. Nelson with William J. Drummond and David S. Sawicki. 1998. "Determinants of Exurban Industrialization with Implications for Economic Development Practitioners." Economic Development Review. 16: Raymond J. Burby, Steven P. French, and Arthur C. Nelson. 1998. "Plans, Code Enforcement, and Damage Reduction: Evidence from the Northridge Earthquake." Earthquake Spectra, 14(1 ): 59--74. Zhong-ren Peng and Arthur C. Nelson. 1998. Rural Transit Services: A Local Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis." Transportation Research Record 1623: 57-62. Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas Sanchez. 1997. "Influence of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority on Population and Employment Patterns." Transportation Research Record, 1604: 18-25. Richard B. Peiser and Arthur C. Nelson. 1997. "Using Master Planning Expert Panels to Achieve Planning Obi ectives." Journal of the .American Planning Association 63(4): 439--453. Arthur C. Nelson with Michael E. Meyer and Catherine B. Ross. 1997. "Rail Transit in the Suburbs: Case Study of Transit Use in Atlanta's Affluent Northern Tier," Transportation Research Record, 1571: 142-150. Arthur C. Nelson with Michael E. Meyer and Catherine B. Ross. 1997. "Parking Supply Policy and Public Transit Use," Transportation Research Record, 1604: 60-68. Thomas W. Sanchez and Arthur C. Nelson. 1997. "Exurban and Suburban Residents: A Departure from Traditional Location Theory?" Journal of Mousing Research, 8(2): 249-276. Arthur C. Nelson with John Genereux and M. Michelle Genereux. 1997. "Price Effects of Landfills on Different House Value Strata." Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 123(3): 59-67. Arthur C. Nelson and Terry Moore. 1996. "Assessing Growth Management Policy and Implementation," Land Use Policy, 13 (4): 241-259. Arthur C. Nelson. 1995. "Growth Management and the Savings -and -Loan Bailout." Urban Lawyer 27(1 ): 71-85. Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez. 1.995. "Socio-Economic Considerations of Road Development Impact Fees." Transportation Research Record 1498: 32-35. Arthur C. Nelson. 1995. "Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicycle Ways: Public Policy Rationale and the Nature of Public and Private Benefits." Transportation Research Record 1502: 96-104. Arthur C. Nelson. 1995. "Development Impact Fees: The Next Generation," Urban Lawyer, 26(3): 541-562. Arthur C. Nelson. 1995. "The Planning of Exurban America: Lessons from Frank Lloyd Wright's Broadacre City." Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 12(4): 337-356. (Cited by the Public Affairs Information Service in 1996 as among the world's 100 most significant contributions to PAIS cited journals in 1995.) Arthur C. Nelson with William J. Drummond, and David S. Sawicki. 1995. "Exurban Industrialization: Implications for Economic Development Policy." Economic Development Quarterly 9(2): 119-133. Arthur C. Nelson. 1995. "Comparative Judicial Land -Use Appeals Processes." Urban Lawyer 27(2): 251-265. Judy S. Davis, Arthur C. Nelson, and Kenneth J. Dueker. 1994. "The New 'Barbs." Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(l): 45-60. Arthur C. Nelson with. William J. Drummond, and David S. Sawicki. 1994. "Economic Development Policy Implications of Exurban Industrialization," Economic Development Review, 12. Terry Moore and Arthur C. Nelson.. 1994. Lessons for Effective Urban -Containment and Resource -Land - Preservation." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 120(4): 157-173. I Arthur C. Nelson and Terry Moore. 1993. "Assessing Urban Growth Management." Land Use Policy 10(3): 293- 3 02 . Arthur C. Nelson and Terry Moore. 1993. "Case Study of the Effectiveness of Coastal Growth Management in a Growth Management State." Coastal Management 197-208. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. "Disamenity Influences of Edge Cities on Exurban Land Values: A Theory with Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications." Urban Studies 30(10): 1683-1690. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. "Attitudes of Business Climate for High -Tech Industry." Economic Development Review 11(4): 53-62. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Estimating Land -Use and Facility Needs for Small Geographic Areas. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management. Vol. 1. Arthur C. Nelson and Shigeo Ggawa. 1992. "Characteristics of Japanese Investment in the United States." Economic Development Review 10. Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. "Effects of Heavy --Rail Transit Stations on House Prices with Respect to Neighborhood Income," Transportation Research Record, 13 59: 127--132. Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas. 1992. "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(2): 45-58. Arthur C. Nelson with James E. Frank and James C. Nicholas. 1992. "Positive Influence of Impact -Fee Policy in Urban Planning and Development," Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 118(2): 59-64. Arthur C. Nelson with John Genereux. 1992. "Price Effects of Landfills on House Values." Land Economics 68(4): 359-367. Arthur C. Nelson with John Genereux and Michelle Genereux. 1992. "Price Effects of Landfills on Vacant Residential Land Values." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 128-137. Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. "Characterizing Exurbia." Journal of Planning Literature 6(4): 350-368. Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. "Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization," Journal of the American Planning Association 58(4): 467-488. Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. "Elements of Effective State Land -Use Planning Policy." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(3): 97-105. Arthur C. Nelson. 1991. "The Analytic Basis for Farmland Preservation Policies," Journal of Rural Studies 6(3): 337346, 1990. Robert G. Patterson, Arthur C. Nelson., and Raymond J. Burby. 1991. "Sewering the Coast: Bane or Blessing to Marine water Quality." Coastal Management, 19, 2: 239--252. Arthur C. Nelson and Jane H. Lillydahl with James E. Frank and James C. Nicholas. 1991. "Price Effects of Transportation and Other Impact Fees on Urban Land," Transportation Research Record, 1305: 36-4 L Arthur C. Nelson and Raymond J. Burby with William J. Drummond. 199 L "wastewater Planning and Administration Concerns Along Southeastern U.S. Coast." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 117( 1): 32-40. Arthur C. Nelson and Janice Talley. 1991. "Revitalizing Minority Commercial Areas Through Historic District Designation." Journal of Urban Affairs 13(2): 221-232. Raymond J. Burby and Arthur C. Nelson. 1991. "Local Government and Public Adaptation to Sea -Level Rise." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 1.17 (4) : 140--15 3 . Arthur C. Nelson. 1990. "The Design and Administration of Urban Growth Boundaries." Real Estate Finance 8(4): 1.1-22. Arthur C. Nelson with James C. Nicholas, and Julian C. Juergensmeyer. 1990. "Critical Elements of Impact Fee Programs." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 116(1): 34--47. Arthur C. Nelson with. Kenneth J. Dueker. 1990. "The Exurbanization of America." Journal of Planning .Education and Research 9(2): 91-100. Arthur C. Nelson. 1.990. "Regional Patterns of Exurban Industrialization," Economic Development Quarterly, 4(4): 320-333. Arthur C. Nelson. 1990. "Economic Critique of Prime Farmland Preservation Policies in the United States." Journal of Rural Studies 6(2): 119-142. Arthur C. Nelson and Susan J. McClesky. 1990. "Elevated Rapid Rail Station Impacts on Single -Family House Values," Transportation Research Record, 1266: 173-180. Arthur C. Nelson with Kenneth J. Dueker. 1989. "Exurban Living Through Improved water and wastewater Technology." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 115(3): 101--113 . 10 Arthur C. Nelson and Elizabeth Sanford. 1989. "Integrated Solid waste Management is Around the Corner." Public Works 1. 20(l 0): 151-157. Arthur C. Nelson with Robert K. Whelan. 1989. "Rural Enterprise Zones: Evaluating Their Effectiveness in Louisiana." Economic Development Commentary 13(3): 27-35. Arthur C. Nelson with Philip Cosson. 1989. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Speculative Industrial Building Program." Economic Development Review 7(3): 55--57. Arthur C. Nelson. 1989. "Advancing Planning Practice: A Guide for 'Planner's Notebook' Contributors." Journal of the American Planning Association 55(4): 484--485. Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. "An Empirical Note on How Regional Urban Containment Policy .Influences An Interaction Between Greenbelt and Exurban Land Markets." Journal of the American Planning Association 54(3): 178 184. Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. "Additional and Reduced Demand/Amenity and Disamenity Increment Recapture: Considerations of Urban Containment Policies." Real .Estate Issues 13(1): 47-51. Gerrit Knaap and Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. "The Effects of Regional Land Use Controls in Oregon: A Theoretical and Empirical Review." The Review of Regional Studies 18(2): 37-46. Thomas N. Debo, Michael L.P. Elliott, and Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. "County Begins Impact Fee Program." Public Works 119(12): 44-46. Arthur C. Nelson, Michael L.P. Elliott, and Thomas N. Debo. 1988. "Impact Fee Program for Fulton County, Georgia." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 115(1): 18-32. Forrest E. Huffman, Arthur C. Nelson, Marc T. Smith, and Michael A. Stegman. 1988. "Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?." Journal of the American Planning association 54(1 ): 49-55. Jane H. Lillydahl, Arthur C. Nelson, Timothy V. Ramis, Antero Rivasplata, and Steven R. Schell. 1988. "The Need for a Standard Impact Fee Enabling Act." Journal of the American Planning Association 54(1 ): 7- 17. James C. Nicholas and Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. "Determining the Appropriate Development Impact Fee Using the Rational. Nexus Test." Journal of the .American Planning Association 54(l): 56-66. Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. "Introduction: Symposium on Development Impact Fees." Journal of the American Planning Association 54(1): 3-6. Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. "Introduction: Downtown Office Development and Housing Linkage Fees." Journal of the American Planning Association 54(2): 1.97-1.98. Arthur C. Nelson with J. Richard Recht. 1988. "Inducing the Residential Land Market to Grow Timber in an Antiquated Rural Subdivision Plat. Journal of the .American Planning- Association 54(4): 529--38. Arthur C. Nelson. 1987. "Towards a Theory of the American. Rural Residential Land Market." Journal of Rural Studies 2(4): 309-31.9. Arthur C. Nelson. 1987. "The Effect of Regional Service on Land Values, Growth Patterns, and Regional Fiscal Structure Within a Metropolitan Area." Urban Resources 4(2): 15-18, 58-59. Arthur C. Nelson and Gerrit J. Knaap. 1987. "A Theoretical and Empirical Argument for Regional Sewer Planning." Journal of the American Planning .Association 53(4): 479-486. Arthur C. Nelson and Michael A. Stegman. 1987. "Planners and Tax Reform." Journal of the American Planning Association 53(3):299-302. Arthur C. Nelson and Yu Hsing. 1987. "Determinants of Unemployment in New Orleans: A 'Working Paper with Policy Implications." Urban Resources (New Orleans Edition) 3 (3): NO 1--N04. Arthur C. Nelson. 1987. "Teaching Civil Engineers about Planning: The View from Planning Educators." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 113(2): 44-53. Arthur C. Nelson. 1987. "Teaching Planners about Infrastructure: A Call to Civil Engineers." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 113(2): 67--78. Arthur C. Nelson. 1986. "Using Land Markets to Evaluate Urban Containment Programs." Journal of the American Planning Association 52(2): 156-71. Arthur C. Nelson. 1986. "Impact Fees as an Emerging Method of Infrastructure Finance." Florida Policy Review. 2(1 ): Arthur C. Nelson. 1986. "Urban Growth Management and the Declining Availability of Housing to Farmworkers." The Rural Sociologist 6(2): 80--87. Thomas L. Daniels and Arthur C. Nelson. 1986. "Is Oregon's Farmland Preservation Program working?" Journal IF of the American Planning Association 52(1 ): 22-32. Arthur C. Nelson. 1986. "More Lessons on Negotiated Replatting in Oregon." The Platted Lands Press: A Journal of Antiquated Subdivision Studies 3. Arthur C. Nelson. 1985. "Demand, Segmentation, and Timing Effects of an Urban Containment Program on Urban Fringe Land Values." Urban Studies 22(4): 439-443. Arthur C. Nelson. 1985. "An Overview of Greenbelt Influences on Regional Land Values: Implications for Regional Planning Policy," Growth and Change 16(2): 43--48. Arthur C. Nelson. 1985. Antiquated Replatting in Oregon. The Platted Lands Press: A Journal of .Antiquated Subdivision Studies 2(10): 1--7. Arthur C. Nelson. 1985. Case Study of Replatting to Advance Resource Use. The Platted Lands Press: A Journal of Antiquated Subdivision Studies 2. Arthur C. Nelson. 1983. "Comment on Minimum Lot Size Zoning: Implications for Commercial Agricultural Land Preservation.: The Oregon Experience." Journal of the American Planning- Association 49(l ): 85- 87. Arthur C. Nelson. 1983. "Comment on Oregon's Statewide Agricultural Land Use Planning Program." .Natural Resources Journal 23 (1 ): 1-5 . Refereed Articles In Progress Lang, Robert E., Arthur C. Nelson, Dwayne Guthrie. America's Emerging Metropolitan Geography with Implications for Planning Policy. To be submitted to Journal of the American Planning Association. Arthur C. Nelson, John Randolph, Joseph Schilling, Jonathan Logan, Mark Nowak, James M. McElf sh, Jr. Effects of Environmental Regulatory Systems on Housing Affordability. Submitted to Housing Policy Debate. Nonrefereed Articles, Reference Book and Encvclouedic Entries, Periodical Content Contributions Arthur C. Nelson and Robert E. Lang. 2007. The Next 100 Million. Planning Magazine 73 (1): 4-6. Robert E. Lang and Arthur C. Nelson. 2007. America 2040: The Rise of the Megapolitans. Planning 1lllagazine 73(1):7-12. Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. America Circa 2030. Architect. 1(1): 92-97. Feature article in premier issue of new magazine published by nation's largest professional builder/developer magazine group. Maya El Nasser. 2006. where will Everybody Live? USA Today. Cover story 25(31) (October 27-29, 2006). Provided story line including statistical, graphical and editorial assistance. Issue was a "best seller" for the year. Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. Contributor to Planning and Urban Design Standards in urban containment and impact fees. New York: Wiley. Arthur C. Nelson. 2005. Contributing analyst to article on "The Next Real Estate Boom" published by Business 2.0, published by the Forbes group and the nation's leading business monthly. Issue was the best-selling ever. Arthur C. Nelson. 2005. Impact Fees and Equity. Units Magazine. National Apartment Association. Arthur C. Nelson. 2004. Multi -Family Housing and Impact Fees. Units Magazine. National Apartment Association. Haya El Nasser. 2004. Buildings to go up like never before. USA Today. Cover story and companion article Report Gives Communities a Tool to Match Development to Growth, page 4A, 23(50) (December 13, 2004). Provided story line including statistical, graphical and editorial assistance. Arthur C. Nelson. 2001. "Growth Management." International Encyclopedia of Social and .Behavioral Sciences. Arthur C. Nelson. 1.999. "Growth Management and Economic Development." Economic Development, publication of the Economic Development Division of the American Planning Association. Arthur C. Nelson. 1.998. "The Urban Fringe." International Encyclopedia of Urban Affairs. Arthur C... Nelson. 1997. "Telecommunications and Central City Revitalization." Journal of World Transportation. Arthur C. Nelson. 1990. "Land Use Planning in Georgia." Carolina Planner. Arthur C. Nelson. 1989. "Preventing Urban Sprawl." Florida Quality Cities 63(6): 16--20. Arthur C. Nelson. 1989. "Development Impact Fees Are Coming." Georgia County Government 41(5): 10--15. Arthur C. Nelson. 1986. "The Amenity and Disamenity Effects of Urban Containment Programs on Urban -Fringe 12 Land Values." Environmental Planning Quarterly (Winter): 13-16. Arthur C. Nelson, James C. Nicholas, and Lindell Marsh. 1.992. "New Fangled Impact Fees. Planning .Magazine 58:10. PHOTO CREDITS IN BOOKS Impact Fees and Housing affordability. 6 photo credits. Washington, DC: Island Press (2008). Toward a Resilient Metropolis: The Role for State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Cover photo credit. Alexandria, VA: Metropolitan Institute Press (2006). Boomburbs. I photo credit. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution (2007). Practice of Local Government Planning. 2 photo credits. Washington, DC: International City -County Management Association (1999). Principles and Practice of Growth Management. 7 photo credits. Chicago: American Planning Association (1995). NONREFEREED MONOGRAPHS (Not otherwise published or under consideration for publication.) Arthur C. Nelson. 1997. Metropolitan Governance Structures and Metropolitan Economic Development. National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities. University of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson. 1996. Location of Professional Sports Venues and Metropolitan Economic Development. New Orleans, LA: National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities, University of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson, William J. Drummond, and David S. Sawicki. 1994. Exurban Industrialization. Atlanta, GA: Center for Planning and Development, City Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. The Role of Regional Development Management in Revitalizing Central Cities. New r\ i t' A i 1 n Y T1 !• r" t r-1 7 T 1+ 1 T /\ 1 Orleans, LH: National k. enter for the Revitalization or k;entral �:1ties, university of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson, et al. 2006. Multi -Family Housing and Proportionate -Share Impact Fees. Metropolitan Institute, Alexandria, VA. Arthur C. Nelson. 2005. Volcano Heights Impact Fee Reductions associated with Development Efficiencies. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Arthur C. Nelson, et al. 2005. How Congress Can Help Communities Reclaim, Reuse, and Recover From the 2005 Round of Military Base Closures? International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Arthur C. Nelson. 2005. Designing- Impact Fee Systems to Internalize Efficiencies. DeKalb County, Georgia Arthur C. Nelson. 2004. Development Impact Fee Policy. DeKalb County, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 2004. Development Impact Fee Policy. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch. Moody. 2003. Price Effects of apartments on Nearby Single Family Residential Housing. Washington: National Association of Realtors. Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez. 2002. Lassoing Exurban Sprawl. The Brookings Institution. Joy Wilkins, William Riall and Arthur C. Nelson. 2002. Zoning and Economic Development. Georgia Department of Tourism, Trade and Commerce. Arthur C. Nelson. 2001. Livable Communities Assessment. Atlanta Regional Commission. Arthur C. Nelson. 2000. Plan far Port Wentworth, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson, et al. 2000. City of Cordele Capital Recovery Program, Cordele, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson and. Richard Dagenhart. 1999. oxford Unified Town Planning Code, Oxford, Mississippi. Michael Meyer, Arthur C. Nelson, Zhong--Ren Peng. 1999. Development of a .Methodology to Evaluate the .Economic Impact of Rural Public Transportation on Georgia Counties. Georgia Department of Transportation. Arthur C. Nelson. 1997. Differential Wastewater Rate Study. City of Calhoun, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1996. Wireless Communication Tower Plan. City of Athens, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson et al. 1995. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit authority Impact Study: Level of Service, Operating Economics, and Social Benefits. Atlanta Regional Commission. Arthur C. Nelson et. al. 1995. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit authority Impact Study: Patronage analysis. Atlanta Regional Commission. Arthur C. Nelson et.al. 1995. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit authority Impact Study: North and Northeast Lines Travel Market analysis. Atlanta Regional Commission. Arthur C. Nelson et. al. 1995. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit authority Impact Study: Regional Propensity to 13 Use MARTa. Atlanta Regional Commission. Arthur C. Nelson et al.. 1995. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit authority, Logistic and Regression analysis. Federal Transit Administration. Arthur C. Nelson, Erik T. Ferguson, Michael D. Meyer, Catherine B. Ross. 1995. Atlanta: Special Public Interest District Case Study. Transportation Research Board. Arthur C. Nelson et. al. 1994. Comprehensive Plan. City of Hahira, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Comprehensive Development Plan Revisions. City of Atlanta, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. The Role of Growth Management in Preventing Overbuilding, Reducing Bankrupty Costs, Stimulating Central City Revitalization, and Making the U.S. Globally Competitive. New Orleans, LA: National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities, University of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Capital Improvements Program Revisions. City of Atlanta, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas N. Debo. 1993. Urban Stormwater Facility Financing. City of Atlanta, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. The Role of Regional Development Management in Revitalizing Central Cities. New Orleans, LA: National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities, University of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson et. al 1993. Transportation Facility Development Impact Fee Policy for the City of Columbus, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Self -Help Housing Programs and Central City Revitalization. New Orleans, LA: National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities, University of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson.. 1993. Transportation Facility .Impact Fee Feasibility Study. Cobb County, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1.993. Transportation Facility Development Impact Fee Policy. DeKalb County, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Dater and Wastewater Connection Fees for the City of Columbus, Georgia. City of Atlanta, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Water and Sewer Connection Fee Analysis. Cobb County, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. Water and Sewer Connection Fee analysis. Glynn County, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. application of Proportionate Share Requirements To The Calculation of Sewer and Dater Capital Component Connection Fees. Cobb County, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. Comprehensive Development Plan Revisions. City of Atlanta, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. Capital Improvements Program Revisions. City of Atlanta, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. Development Impact Fees for the City of Atlanta, Georgia. City of Atlanta, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. Development Impact Fees. City of Roswell, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson, et al. 1991. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, City of Sandersville, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson. 1990, revised 1991. Urban Planning Manual, two volumes, Georgia Institute of Technology, Education. Extension. Arthur C. Nelson with Janes E. Frank and James C. Nicholas. 1990. Final Report on Research into the Incidence of Impact Fees in a Relatively Competitive Urban Land Market. Urban Land Institute (Washington). Arthur C. Nelson. 1990. Planning Commissioners Manual, Georgia Institute of Technology, Education .Extension, Arthur C. Nelson. 1990. annexation Program for the City of Sandersville, Georgia.. Kevin J. McMeen, Arthur C. Nelson. 1989. Financial Feasibility analysis for Different Housing Schemes. CASA of Oregon Inc. Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. Successful Elements of Effective Statewide Land Use Planning. Center for Urban Research, Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, Georgia. Arthur C. Nelson and Robert K. Whelan. 1987. assessing the Effectiveness of Rural Enterprise Zones in Louisiana. Report to Louisiana State Office of Economic Development. Arthur C. Nelson. et. al 1987. airport Industrial Park Strategic Plan. City of Kenner, Louisiana, Arthur C. Nelson. 1987. Economic analysis of .alternative Sites for the New Orleans aquarium, City of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson. 1987. Neighborhood Revitalization. National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities. University of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson and Fritz W. Wagner. 1987. Environment and Human Ecology. College of Urban and Regional Affairs. University of New Orleans. Arthur C. Nelson. 1986. assessing the Effectiveness of Kansas' Enterprise Zones. Kansas State University. Arthur C. Nelson. 1985. Evaluating Urban Containment Programs. Center for Urban Studies, Portland State University. Portland, Oregon. 14 INSTRUCTIONAL TEXTS PREPARED (not course packets) Impact Fees: Principles and Practice, 2006 (Virginia Tech) Public -Private Partnerships for Economic Development 2006 (Virginia Tech) Public Finance for Planners, 2006 (American Planning Association.) Financing Your Plan, 2006. (Atlanta Regional Commission) Real Estate Development Policy and Finance, 2005 (Virginia Tech) Impact Fees: Principles and Practice, 2005 (Atlanta Regional Commission) Training for Planning officials, 2002 (City of Roswell, GA) Systems Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities, 1995 (Georgia Tech) Development Impact Fees, 1988-1994 (Georgia Tech) Urban Growth .Management: Portland Style, 1993 (Portland State University) Litigating- and Defending Development Impact Fees, 1992 Transportation Facility Development and operations Impact Fees, 1992 (Georgia Tech) Community Planning Sourcebook, 1992 (Georgia Tech) Urban Planning Summer Institute, 1991, 1992 (Georgia Tech) Development Impact Fees: Advanced, 1988 (Georgia Tech) Social Impact Assessment. 1986 (New Orleans) Small Town Planning Sourcebook, 1985 (Kansas State University) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOR EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE IN PUBLISHED BOOKS Here insert book acknowledgements Harvard impact fees 1992ish Fwinsr 9.009 I I --- C-- - - Cisneros 2008 Steinemann 2004ish Downs metro Downs stuck Island Press urban design book SCHOLARLY PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS "America at 1 Billion." American Planning Association, Plenary, Las Vegas, 2008. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability," American Planning Association, Las Vegas, 2008. "Urban Form and Infrastructure Financing," American Planning Association, Las Vegas, 2008. "The New American Landscape", Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, Keynote, Denver, 2008. "Suburban Reformation," Partners for Smart Growth Conference, Washington, 2008. "Leadership in. a New Era" American Planning Association, Philadelphia, 2007. "Sunbelt Megapolitan Regions" American Planning Association, Philadelphia, 2007. "Smart Growth and Impact Fees." National Impact Fee Roundtable, 2006. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability." National Impact Fee Roundtable, 2006. "Impact Fees and Proffers." National Impact Fee Roundtable. "Emerging Housing Market Needs." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Fort Worth, 2006. "Environmental Regulations and Housing Affordability." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Fort Worth, 2006. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability." American Planning Association annual conference. San Antonio 2006. "Case Studies of Housing Affordability and Impact fees." American Planning Association annual conference. San Antonio 2006. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability Plenary." National Impact Fee Roundtable. Arlington, VA. 2006. "The Mathematics of Affordable. Housing." American Planning Association annual conference. San Antonio 2006. "Effects of Urban Containment on Neighborhood and Housing Quality." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Kansas City 2005. "What's in a Name: Proffers and Impact Fees." American Planning Association annual conference. San Francisco 15 2005. "Impact Fee Equity and Parity." National Impact Fee Roundtable. Denver. 2005. "Albuquerque Impact Fee Program." National Impact Fee Roundtable. Denver. 2005. "Infrastructure and Smart Growth." American Planning Association annual conference. Washington, DC 2004. "Growth Management and Affordable Housing,: American Planning Association annual conference. Washington, DC 2004. "Impact Fees in the Trenches," American Planning Association annual conference. Washington, DC 2004. "Planning Books in Review," American Planning Association annual conference. Washington, DC 2004. "Smart Growth and Alternative Development Studies," American Planning Association annual conference. Washington, DC 2004. "Calculating Impact Fees to Achieve Equity." National Impact Fee Roundtable. Naples, FL. 2005. "Keynote: Equity and Efficiency of Impact Fees." National Impact Fee Roundtable. Naples, FL. 2005. "MPO Voting Structure and Transit Expenditures," Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC 2004. "Transit Spending Equity among MPOs: Preliminary Evidence," American Society of Public Administration, Portland, 2004. "Measuring New Community Quality of Life," DeVoe Center, Florida. State University, Tallahassee, 2004. "Urban Containment in the West," Stanford University, Palo Alto, 2004. "Why Are Housing Prices so High" Partners for Smart Growth, Portland, 2004. "The Calculus of Smart Growth, "Growth Management Leadership Alliance, Burlington, 2003. "Urban Containment Typology." (with Casey J. Dawkins). Joint AESOPIACSP Meetings, Belgium. July 2003. "The Relation Between Urban Containment and Inclusionary Housing with Racial Desegregation and Income Disparity." Urban Affairs Association. Cleveland, Ohio. March 2003. "Urban Containment and Property Loss" (with Raymond J. Burby and Laura Steinberg). Fifth International Hazards Conference. Oxford England. October 2002. "Price Effects of Apartments on Single Family Homes" (with Mitchell Moody). Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. November 2002. "Lassoing Exurban Sprawl" (with Thomas W. Sanchez). Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. November 2002. "No Place to Hide" (with Casey J. Dawkins and Thomas W. Sanchez). Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. November 2002. "when 'UGB' is a Dirty Word." American Planning Association. Chicago. April 2002. "Urban Containment and Central City Revitalization: Analysis Using Census Building Permit Data." (Arthur C. Nelson and Raymond J. Burby). Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. November 2001. "Impact Fees and Economic Development." (Mitchell Moody and Arthur C. Nelson.) Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. November 2001. "Exclusionary Zoning and Housing Choice." Design Matters Conference, University of Illinois at Chicago. October 2001. "Metropolitan Governance." University of Utah Law School Symposium. February 2001. "Prosperity or Blight: A Question of Sports Stadia Location." Urban Affairs Association. Los Angeles, California. May 2000. "How Do You Know Smart Growth When You See It?" Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. March 2000. "When Urban Growth Boundaries Cause Sprawl." Ventura County, California. March. 2000. "Housing Price Effects of Urban Containment." Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. February 2000. "Smart Growth = Urban. Containment + Central City Vitality." Bridging the Divide, US Department of Housing and Urban Development. December 1999. "Smart Growth: The Big Picture." Smart Growth Coalition. San Diego, California. November 1999. "Regulation and Urban Form." Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. November 1999. "Ready or Not, Here They Come." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Chicago, Illinois. October 1999. ............ "Stadium Location and Metropolitan Economic Activity." American Planning Association. Seattle, Washington. May 1999. "Metropolitan Governance Structure and Economic Performance" (with Kathryn Foster). Urban Affairs Association. Fort worth, Texas. April 1998. "The Association Between Urban Form and Post -Industrial Economic Activity." Association of Collegiate In Schools of Planning. Los Angeles, California. November 1998. "Effective Farmland Preservation." Conference on Farmland Retention. Columbus, OH. September 1998. "So You Want an Urban Growth Boundary?" Conference on Suburban Development. Phoenix, Arizona. June 1.998. "Metropolitan Governance Structures and Metropolitan Economic Development." Urban Affairs Association. Fort Worth, Texas. April 1998. "Prise Effects of Transit on Commercial Property." Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. January 1998. "Rural Transit Economic Impacts." Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. January 1998. "Cross-section Analysis of Growth Management Impacts." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. November 1997. "The Association Between Rail. Transit and Crime." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. November 1997. "Development Impact Fees and Economic Development." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. November 1997. "Comparing Florida Ten Years Later and Oregon Twenty Years Later." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. November 1997. "Parking Supply and Transit Use." Annual Meetings of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. January 1997. "The Influence of MARTA on Population and Employment Location." Annual Meetings of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. January 1997. "Land Use Impacts of MARTA Rail." Annual Meetings of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. January 1997. "If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: The Association Between. Bicycle Facilities and Commuter Use." Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. January 1997. "Professional Sports Venue Location and Metropolitan Economic Development." Urban Affairs Association. Toronto, Canada. "Reassembling Land in Antiquated Plats: Problems and Promise." American Planning Association Conference. Orlando, FL. March 1996. "Determinant Analysis of Exurban Households." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Detroit, October 1995. "Mandated Planning and Equity Considerations." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Detroit, October 1995. "Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Logistic and Regression Analysis." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Detroit, October 1995. "Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Level of Service and Operating Economics." Association. of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Detroit, October 1995. "Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Patronage Analysis." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Detroit, October 1995. "What do the Savings and Loan Bailout, Central City Revitalization, and U.S. Global Competitiveness Have in Common? Growth Management." Urban Affairs Association. 1995. "Socioeconomic Considerations of Transportation Facility Development Impact Fees." Transportation Research Board. 1994. "Exurban Industrialization." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 1993. "Central City Revitalization and Urban Development Policy." Urban Affairs Association. 1993. "Overview of the Georgia Impact Fee Act with Special Reference to Water and Wastewater Facility Connection Fees." Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia. 1993. "Combining Theory and Empiricism to Evaluate Comprehensive Plan Performance." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 1992. "Capitalization of Proximity to Elevated Transit Stations a Matter of Class Distinction." Transportation Research Board. 1992. "Incidence of Transportation and Other Impact Fees." Transportation Research Board. 1991. "Impact Fees as a Win -Win Policy." Urban Affairs Association. 1991. "Preliminary Assessment of Exurban Industrialization in the United States." Association of Collegiate Schools of 17 Planning. 1990. "Empirical Evidence of Impact Fee Incidence in the Urban Land Market." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 1990. "Urban Growth Management Policy in the 1990s." American Society for Public Administration. 1990. "Southeastern Coastal Wastewater Management." With Raymond J. Burby and William Richardson. Urban Affairs Association. 1990. "Urban Policy Implications of Exurbanization." With Judy S. Davis and Kenneth J. Ducker. Urban Affairs Association. 1.990. "Elevated Rapid Rail Transit Station Price Impacts on Single Family Residential Neighborhoods." With Susan J. McCleskey. Transportation Research Board. 1990. "Investigating the Association Between Development Highways and Economic Development in Georgia." Transportation Research Board. 1990. "Appropriate Boundary Effects of Urban Containment Programs." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 1989. "Towards an Overall Approach to Evaluating Farmland Preservation Programs," Association of American Geographers. 1989. "Assessing the New Industrialization," Conference of the Urban Affairs Association, 1989. "Towards a Definition of Exurbia." With Kenneth J. Ducker. Conference of the Urban Affairs Association. 1989. "Mortgage Redlining Atlanta." With Stan Fitterman and Larry Keating. Conference of the Urban Affairs Association, 1989. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Rural Enterprise Zones in Louisiana." With Robert K. Whelan. Urban Affairs Association. 1988. "Improving Property Service Technology or Severing the Urban Umbilical Cord." With Kenneth J. Ducker. Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 1987. "On Teaching Planners Physical Infrastructure Engineering -- And Teaching Civil Engineers Planning." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 1987. "Impact Fees as a Maturing Method of Infrastructure Finance." Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 1986. "Exurban Dynamics." With Kenneth J. Ducker. Urban Affairs Association. 1987. "Price Effects of Centralized Regional Sewerage Systems." With Gerrit J. Knaap. Urban Affairs Association. 1986. "The Peculiarities of the Rural Residential Land Market within. metropolitan Areas with Implications for Urban Containment Planning." Urban Affairs Association. 1986. "Assessing the Effect of Urban Containment Policies." Urban. Affairs Association and nominated for the Best Paper Award. 1986. "Enterprise Zones in Kansas." National Conference on Economic Development. 1986. "Turning Human Ecology Theory in. Urban Planning Action," with Fritz W. Wagner, presented to the World Health Organization Meeting on Human Ecology and Health, Delphi, Greece, 1986. "Evaluating Oregon's Statewide Urban Growth Management Program," a session sponsored by the School of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University, State Capitol Building, Salem, 1984. "The Effect of Urban Containment Policies on Housing Prices to a Class of People," presented to Western Rural Community Assistance Conference, Vallejo, California, 1984. "Urban Growth Management Techniques Applied in Oregon," panel discussion presented at the 1984 Conference of the Urban Affairs Association. "The Perverse Effect of Urban Containment Policies on the Preservation of Farmland at the Urban Fringe," presented to the 1984 Conference of the Urban Affairs Association. "Elements of Successful Downtown and Main Street Design and Planning." Moderator of symposium sponsored by the Department of Regional and Community Planning, Kansas State University, 1984. "Planning for Small Cities within Metropolitan Regions," keynote address before the 1980 Washington County (Oregon) Planning Conference. "Mobile Home Park Planning in Oregon," Oregon Association of Mobile Horne Park Owners Annual Convention, 1980. "Water Resources Planning," panel participant at the Annual. Convention of the Oregon Association of Water Utilities, 1978. 1.8 "The Effect of Urban Growth Boundaries on Land Values inside Urban Areas," paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Association of American Geographers, 1977. "Forest Land Planning in Oregon," policy presentation given to the Forest Industry Meetings of the Portland Chamber of Commerce, 1977. "Agricultural Planning in Oregon," policy presentation delivered to the Statewide Planning Forum of the City Club of Portland, 1976. "Far Reaching Implications of Oregon's Land Use Planning Goals," paper presented to the 1975 Oregon-- Washington Planning Conference. "Preliminary Evaluations of Urban Growth Boundaries on Land Values," paper presented to the 1975 Oregon - Washington Planning Conference. SCHOLARLY AND PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS Commissioned Keynotes, Plenaries, Featured Talks The Next Billion: Implications for International Economic Development. Keynote, October 2008. Coastal Development Trends, Keynote, National Association of Flood Plain Managers, November 2007. Arizona Mega Trends. Keynote, Arizona Town Hall, October 2007. Metropolitan Atlanta Trends, Presentation and Facilitator, Regional Leadership Institute, September 2007. Emerald Coast Trends, Keynote, Committee for a Sustainable Emerald Coast, August 2007. Where Will They Live?. Keynote. Brookings Institution, April 2007. Planning in a New Era, Rocky Mountain Law Institute, keynote, March. 2007. Reshaping America's Housing, New Partners for Smart Growth, plenary, February 2007. Boomburb Downtowns, New Partners for Smart Growth, February 2007. The Next Housing Boom, Environmental Protection Agency "Large -Production Builders" symposium, January 2007. Planning for Disaster, University of Pennsylvania, November 2006. Megatrends. Prudential Commercial Mortgage, keynote, July 2006. Future Shock: Emerging Development Challenges, Builder 100, May 2006. Emerging Markets, Prudential Real Estate Investment, keynote, February 2006. Metropolitan Washington Growth Trends, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, July 2005. Development Trends for the US and Metropolitan Washington, Urban Land Institute, June 2005. The Next $50 Trillion in Real Estate Development, Commercial Mortgage Bankers International Conference, April 2005. Why are housing prices so high? Partnership for Smart Growth, Portland, January 2004. The calculus of smart growth, Growth Management Leadership Alliance, June 2003. Growth management and affordable housing. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC June 2003. Comparative urban containment regimes. Stanford University. Palo Alto, CA. May 2003. The Next $20 Trillion. Fannie Mae Corporation. Washington, DC. April 2003. Growth Management and Housing Prices. Washington Housing Forum. Seattle, WA. October 2002. Smart Growth and Governance. Government .Research Association. Portland, OR September 2002. How do you Know Smart Growth When You See it? National Association of Realtors. Madison, WI August 2002 Calling UG Bs By Another Name. University of Arizona and City of Tucson. March 2002. Urban. Containment Policy: The New Wave. Harvard University School of Design and Kennedy School of Government. March 2002. Development Impact Fees. New York University School of Law and Wagner School of Public Policy. November 2001. Smart Growth and Neighborhoods. National Neighborhood Coalition. Washington, DC. July 2001. Housing Price Effects and Landowner Speculation Effects of Urban Containment. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts. February 2000. Density, Urban Sprawl, and New Communities in Albuquerque. Shared Vision New Communities Forum. Albuquerque, New Mexico. August 1999. Is Urban Sprawl Bad? Eugene Odom Lecturer, School of Ecology, University of Georgia, 1998. Welcome to L.A. East. Atlanta Board of Realtors. Atlanta, Georgia, 1998. 19 Urban Containment in Arizona. Drachman. Institute, University of Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona, 1998. No Silver Bullets. Council of Commercial and Industrial Managers. Atlanta, Georgia, 1998. Urban Sprawl: The Good and the Bad. School of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, Georgia, 1998. National Conference on Farmland Preservation. Ohio State University and United States Department of Agriculture. Columbus, Ohio, 1998. Development Impact Fees, American -Style. Royal Society of Chartered Surveyors and Cambridge University. London, 1998. Regional Governance. Mayor's Conference on Economic Development. Birmingham, March 1997. Financing economic development. Milan, Italy conference on regional development. March 1997. Georgia Agri -Business Forum. St. Simon's Island, Georgia. Sustainable metropolitan development planning. Des Moines, Iowa, civic group. February 1997. Regional governance. National Conference on Regionalism sponsored by HUD, CUED, NCRCC, and others. New Orleans, LA. November 1.996. Planning and taxpayer equity. Greater Greensboro, NC, Council of Governments. September 1995. Public officials and planning policy. Georgia Municipal. Association. June 1995. Urban redevelopment planning and economic development. Georgia City and County Managers Association. February 1995. Planning policy. American Planning Association. Charlotte, NC, August 1994. Manufacturing location opportunities in the Southeast. Georgia Association of Economic Development Officials. Savannah, GA. September 1993. Growth management planning. Portland State University. July 1993. Determinants of urban manufacturing employment. National Council for Urban Economic Development. June 1993. T . ti United ti rr r. s impact teesn in the United Mates. Cambridge University Department of Land Economy and HM Department of the Environment, May 1992. The land use planning - facility financing link. University of Washington. January 1992. Lecture on planning in cultural diversity. Rutgers University. April 1991. Lecture on development impact fee policy. Rutgers University. April 1991. Lecture on development impact fee practice. Memphis State University and the South -Central Zoning and Planning Institute. Memphis State University. April 1991. Comparative statewide planning efforts. North Carolina legislature, 1991. Lecture on interlocal cooperative governance. University of California at Los Angeles. 1990. Impact fee theory and practice in the United States. University College of London, Department of Political Economy and HM Department of the Environment, May 1990. Lecture on urban sprawl in Florida. Florida Department of Community Affairs. December 1989. Lecture on impact fees in Florida. Florida Atlantic University. October 1989. Institutionalization of development impact fees, University of Florida Planning Department. March 1989. Lecture on economic incidence of development impact fees, University of Florida Department of Economics. March 1989. Development Impact Fees, Austin Growth Forum, Austin, Texas, December 1986. Oregon's statewide land use planning program, Austin Growth Forum, Austin, Texas, February 1.985. Commissioned Professional Planning Workshops Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. March 2008. Impact Fees in Virginia. Alexandria, Virginia. March 2008. Regional Leadership Institute. St. Simons Island, GA. Atlanta, GA. September 2007. Public -Private Partnerships. Alexandria, Virginia. March 2008. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. September 2007. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. March 2007. ..... .... ... Impact Fees. Alexandria, Virginia. April 2007. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. September 2006. American Planning Association. on Taxation and Exactions, March and June 2006. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. March. 2006. Impact Fees. Alexandria, Virginia. December 2006. 20 Regional Leadership Institute. St. Simons Island, GA. Atlanta, GA. September 2006. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. September 2005. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. March 2005. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta. Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. March 2004. Regional Leadership Institute. St. Simons island, GA. September 2003. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. September 2003. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. March 2003 Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA. March 2002. Community Planning Academy. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta, GA February, August 2002. Suburban Town Planning. Atlanta Regional Commission. Roswell, GA April 2002. Smart Growth, Georgia Planning Association, Jeykl Island, Georgia, October 2001. American Institute of Certified Planners professional education workshop, Atlanta, April 2000. State of South Carolina, Development Impact Fee Legislation and Practice, December 1999. Louisiana Planning Association, Helping Professional Planners Publish, October 1999. Georgia Planning Association, Helping Professional Planners Publish, September 1999. American Planning Association, Planning and Zoning Institute, August 1994. American Institute of Certified Planners professional education workshop, Washington, May 1992. Planning Commissioners Institute, Georgia Planning Association, September 1990. Journal of the American Planning Association symposium on new developments in real estate development for the 1989 conference of the American Planning Association. 1989. American Institute of Certified Planners professional education workshop, Atlanta, May 1989. American Institute of Certified Planners professional education workshop, New Orleans, March 1991. American Institute of Certified Planners professional education workshop, Denver, April 1990. American Institute of Certified Planners professional. education workshop, Atlanta, May 1989. American Institute of Certified Planners professional education workshop, San Antonio, May 1988. Journal of the American Planning association three-day symposium on development impact fees, New York City, May 1987. SERVICE TO SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH Journal Recognitions and Distinctions Editor, Housing Policy Debate (world's top -rated journal in urban studies). Editor, Opolis: An International Journal. of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies, since 2006. Associate Editor. Journal of the American Planning association, 2006 to present Book Review Co -Editor, Journal of the American Planning association, 2004-06 Planners Notebook Editor, Journal of the .American Planning Association, 1988-98 Associate Editor. Journal of Urban affairs, 1987-present Editorial Board. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1998-2004 Editorial Board. Journal of Planning .Literature, 1999-present Editorial Board, The Regionalist. 1995-present Contributing editor, Journal of the .American Planning association Fall 1990 Guest editor, Journal of the American Planning ,Association, winter 1.988 Guest editor, Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 1.988 Sponsored Research Refereeing Services National Science Foundation, Engineering Directorate. National Science Foundation, Social and Behavioral Science Directorate National Science Foundation, Small Business Set -Aside program. Editorial and Reviewer Work for Journals Referee, Journal of the American Planning Association. Referee, Journal of Urban Affairs. Referee, Economic Development Quarterly. Referee, Journal of Planning Education and Research. 21 Referee, Review of Regional Science. Referee, Growth and Change. Referee, International Regional Science Review. Referee, Public Administration Review. Referee, Journal of Rural Studies. Referee, .Policy Studies Review. Referee, Professional Geographer. Manuscript Reviewer, westview Press. Manuscript Reviewer, Urban Land Institute. Manuscript Consultant, University of Illinois Press. Manuscript Reviewer, Brookings Institute. Manuscript Reviewer, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Manuscript Reviewer, Island Press. Interviews with Significant Print Media USA Today Financial Times Washington Post New Fork Times Wall Street Journal Boston Globe Kansas City Star Atlanta Journal -Constitution Atlanta Business Chronicle Associated Press Technical Background Information Provided to Broadcast Media NPR, National Public Radio CNN, the Cable News Network MSNBC National Public Television Local NPR and public television affiliates EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH Planning Academy at Virginia Tech —Executive Director National Charrette Institute, May 2005, May 2006, November 2006, May 2007, national workshop attended by more than 100 people generating more than $100,000. Form. -Based Code Institute, November 2005, February 2006, March, May 2006, June 2006, September 2006, national workshop attended by more than 300 people generating more than $250,000. Local host for National Impact Fee Roundtable conference, October 2006, attended by about 200 people generating more than. $40,000. Regional and local workshops on industrial clustering, security design, impact fees and proffers, smart growth. planning, public -private partnerships for economic development, and geographic information systems attended by more than 150 people generating more than $60,000. Total since inception of Academy in middle 2005: More than 700 attendees generating more than 1,000 CEUs and more than $500,000 in revenue. Professional Education Program in Planning at Georgia Tech — Administrator The following short courses were organized and delivered from 1988 until a shift in college priorities in 1996. The courses reached more than 1,000 professionals generating more than $500,000 in current value of revenue and netting more than $100,000 for the college. October 1995 - water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Fees. Orlando October 1995 - Water, wastewater, and Stormwater Fees. San Francisco May 1994 - Development .Impact Fees. Orlando April 1994 -- Development Impact Fees. San Francisco November 1993 -- water, wastewater, and Stormwater Fees. Atlanta October 1993 - water, wastewater, and Stormwater Fees. San Francisco April 1993 - water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Fees. Atlanta October 1992 - water and 'Wastewater Connection Fees. Atlanta March 1992 - Innovative Transportation Financing. Atlanta March 1.992 - Litigating and Defending Impact Fees. San Francisco February 1992 - Litigating and Defending Impact Fees. Orlando June 1991 - Urban Planning Institute. Atlanta June 1991. -- Development Impact Fees. Seattle June 1991 - Development Impact Fees. Sacramento March 1991 - Development Impact Fees. Hilton Head February 1991 - Development Impact Fees. Denver September 1990 - Planning Commissioners Institute. Atlanta June 1990 - Urban Planning Institute. Atlanta June 1990 - Development Impact Fees. Cape Cod May 1990 - Development Impact Fees. Atlanta March 1990 - Development Impact Fees. San. Francisco February 1990 - Development Impact Fees. Dallas September 1989 - Development Impact Fees. Seattle September 1989 - Development Impact Fees. Spokane August 1989 -- Development Impact Fees. San Francisco June 1989 - Development Impact Fees. Boston June 1989 - Development Impact Fees. Washington June 1989 - Development Impact Fees. Hilton Head January 1989 - Development Impact Fees. Los Angeles November 1988 - Development Impact Fees. Boston October 1988 - Development Impact Fees. Chicago August 1988 - Development Impact Fees. Atlanta 23 FUNDED AWARDS AND CONTRACTS Nominal total exceeding $4 million with a present value of more than $5 million Title: "Urban. Development Matrix" Sponsor: Salt Lake County Position: Co -Principal Investigator. Amount: $2005000 Purpose: Create models for long --range land -use and facility planning Dates: September 2008 through August 2012 Title: "Mobility Fee Study" Sponsor: .State of Florida Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $3 0, 000 Purpose: Create new statewide model for transportation facility financing Dates: September 2008 through June 2009 Title: "Housing Policy Debate" Sponsor: Fannie .sae .Foundation Position: Co -Principal Investigator. Amount: $4955000 Purpose: Edit Mousing Policy Debate Dates: May 2007 through April 2010 Title: "Green AIexandria" Sponsor: City of Alexandria, Virginia Position.: Principal Investigator. Amount: $455900 Purpose: Facilitate production of plans and policies to reshape Alexandria's future built environment Dates: December 2007 through August 2008 Title: "Virginia Transportation Impact Fees" Sponsor: Office o_ file Governor Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $521)480 Purpose: Prepare model impact fee methodologies and implementing ordnances Dates: May 2007 through April 2008 Title: "Western Development Policy" Sponsor: Brookings Institution Position: Co -Principal Investigator. Amount: $401000 Purpose: Investigate development potential and policy options facing selected Western states.. Dates: May 2007 through December 2007. Title: "The New Planning Politics" Sponsor: Urban Land Institute Position: Co -Principal Investigator. Amount: $255000. Purpose: Assessing convergence in statewide land -use planning policy Dates: May 2007 through December 2007. 24 Title: "Regulatory Barriers to Manufactured Homes" Sponsor: US Department of Dousing and Urban Development Position: Research associate. Amount: $3005000 Purpose: Research the relationship the extent to which local regulations are barriers to manufactured housing Dates: October 2005 through February 2007. Title: "Workforce Housing Analysis" Sponsor: .MacArthur Foundation Position: Co -Principal Investigator. Amount: $265000 Purpose: Research the relationship between housing costs and job accessibility Dates: October 2006 through June 2007. Title: "Vacant, Abandoned and Contaminated Properties" Sponsor: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Position: Co --Principal Investigator. Amount: MOO Purpose: Investigate public intervention approaches to addressing vacant, abandoned and contaminated properties in the U.S. Dates: June 2006 through June 2007. Title: "Environmental Regulations and Housing Affordability" Sponsor: US Department of Dousing and Urban Development Position: Co --Principal Investigator. Amount: $3001000 Purpose: Research the relationship between. local environmental regulations and and housing affordability Dates: October 2004 through June 2006. Title: "Impact Fee Policy" Sponsor: US Department of Mousing and Urban Development Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $3001000 Purpose: Research the relationship between impact fee practice and housing affordability Dates: October 2004 through February 2006. Title: "Village Design. Template" Sponsor: Stafford County, VA Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $3 81000 Purpose: Develop template to expedite rezoning of dead and dieing malls. Dates: June 2005 through December 2006. Title: "Fiscal Impact Template" Sponsor: Albuquerque, New Mexico Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $401000 Purpose: Develop staff -friendly fiscal impact model Dates: June 2005 through May 2006. 25 Title: "Efficiency Reductions to Impact Fees" Sponsor: Albuquerque, New Mexico Position: Co -Principal Investigator. Amount: $100,000 Purpose: Generate research supporting reductions in impact fees due to location, density, and land -use configuration factors Dates: October 2005 through February 2006. Title: "Efficiency Reductions to Impact Fees" Sponsor: DeKalb County, Georgia Position.: Co --Principal Investigator. Amount: $40,000 Purpose: Generate research supporting reductions in impact fees due to location, density, and land -use configuration factors for road impact fees. Dates: October 2005 through February 2006. Title: "Impact Fees in the Planned Growth Strategy Context" Sponsor: Albuquerque, New Mexico Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $22000 Purpose: Formulate and apply impact fees to help implement the Planned Growth Strategies Dates: December 2003 through June 2004. Title: "The Effect of Urban Containment on Neighborhood and Housing Quality" Sponsor: Fannie Mae Foundation Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $245780 Purpose: Explore statistical relationship between the presence of different forms of urban containment on neighborhood and housing quality. Dates: January 2004 through December 2004. Title: "Applying Best Practices for Development Impact Fees" Sponsor: DeKalb County, Georgia Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $2001000 Purpose: Formulate and apply "best practices" for development impact fees to improve equity and efficiency in public facility delivery. Dates: March 2003 through December 2003. Title: "Urban Containment and Hazard Vulnerability" Sponsor: National Science Foundation Position: Co -Principal Investigator with Raymond J. Burby and Laura Sternberg. Amount: $14900. Purpose: Analyze the extent to which. urban containment leads to development of landscapes prone to damage through natural hazards. Dates: August 2002 through December 2003. Title: "Effect of Apartments on Single Family Housing Values" Sponsor: National Association of Realtors and National Multifamily Mousing Council. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $451000. Purpose: Estimate the association between apartment proximity and value of single family detached residential units. Dates: May 2001 through. December 2002. 26 Title: "Creating an Urban Containment Typology." Sponsor: .National Association of Realtors and Brookings Institution. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $1021000. Purpose: Identify, inventory and assess regional urban containment programs, and create an urban containment typology for use in future research. Dates: May 2001 through December 2002. Title: "Smart Growth Policies." Sponsor: Brookings Institution. Position.: Principal Investigator. Amount: $405000. Purpose: Prepare three monographs for national distribution on (1) impact fees and economic development, (2) development needs of the next 25 years, and (3) modernizing subdivision ordinances. Dates: May 2001 through June 2002. Title: "Growth Management and Housing Prices." Sponsor: Brookings Institution. Position.: Principal Investigator. Amount: $1ONO. Purpose: Prepare monograph for national distribution on growth management and housing prices. Dates: May 2001 through December 2001. Title: "Greenspace Planning." Sponsor: Trust for Public Lana'. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $215000. Purpose: Prepare plan for Georgia counties to acquire open spaces consistent with the Georgia Greenspace Act. Dates: June 2000 through. December 2000. Title: "Smart Growth Tool Kit." Sponsor: Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $255000. Purpose: Prepare tool kit for use by Georgia communities. Dates: June 2000 through June 2001. Title: "Housing Price and Landowner Behavior Effects of Urban Containment." Sponsor: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $55000. Purpose: Convene symposium on methodologies to evaluate urban. containment effects on housing prices. Dates: August 1999 through May 2000. Title: "New Community Development Code." Sponsor: City of Port Wentworth, Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $251,000 initial with continuing funding as needed. Purpose: Craft unified town planning code for new town of 5,000 acres along the Savannah River. Dates: June 1999 through May 2000. 27 Title: "Open Space Acquisition Planning." Sponsor: The Trust for Public Land. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $22,500 initial with continuing funding as needed. Purpose: Use GI S to map open spaces in Georgia, devise scheme to rate open spaces for acquisition, and design strategies to acquire such open spaces. Dates: June 1999 through May 2000. Title: "Development Exaction Systems Design." Sponsor: City of Cordele, Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $171500. Purpose: Develop system of standardized development exactions for city of Cordele, Georgia. Dates: August 1999 through December 1999. Title: "water Planning Issues in Metropolitan Atlanta." Sponsor: .Research Atlanta Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $800. Purpose: Assess the current ways in which decisions on water supply and use are conducted in metropolitan Atlanta and pose range of alternative approaches. Dates: August 1999 through May 2000. Title: "Decision -Making in Metropolitan Atlanta." Sponsor: Research Atlanta Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $81)000. Purpose: Assess the current decision --making environment for its ability to address regional issues in metropolitan Atlanta and pose range of alternative approaches Dates: July 1998 through May 1999. Title: "No Room at the Inn.." Sponsor: Fannie Mae Foundation Position: Principal. Investigator. Amount: $10,000. Purpose: Evaluate supply of downtown structures eligible for historic preservation tax credit for conversion to housing and assess policy implications of diminishing supply. Dates: October 1999 through June 2000. Title: "Central City Revitalization Through Urban Containment." Sponsor: Fannie Mae Foundation Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $25100. Purpose: Evaluate major U.S. metropolitan areas classified by natural or manmade containment characteristics for effects on central city investment. Dates: January 1999 through December 1999. Title: "Urban Design. and Greenbelt Plan, City of Oxford, Mississippi" Sponsor: City of Oxford, Mississippi Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $94100. Purpose: Prepare urban design and greenbelt preservation plan based on principles of urban containment and new theories of neo--urbanism developed through Georgia Tech. Dates: January 1998 through June 1998. 28 Title: "Metropolitan Governance". Sponsor: National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $351000. Purpose: Evaluate the economic efficiency implications of alternative forms of metropolitan governance for sabbatical. Dates: August 1996 through May 1997. Title: "Location of Professional Sports Stadia and Economic Activity" Sponsor: National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities Position.: Principal Investigator. Amount: $1.500. Purpose: Evaluate the economic impacts of locating professional sports stadia in different parts of metropolitan areas. Dates: August 1996 through May 1997. Title: "Advanced wastewater Rates". Sponsor: Calhoun, Georgia Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $251000. Purpose: Create sophisticated wastewater rate system. Dates: June 1996 through June 1997. Title: "wireless Communication Tower Planning and Policy". Sponsor: Athens -Clarke County, Georgia Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $20,000. Purpose: Evaluate impact of wireless technology on community plans and develop policy to manage it. Dates: January 1996 through December 1996. Title: "The Relationship Between Earthquake Damages and Comprehensive Plans." Sponsor: National Science Foundation. Positron: Principal Investigator. Amount: $895000. Purpose: Evaluate the relationship between comprehensive plan quality and damage during the period between the San Fernando earthquake of 1971 and the Northridge earthquake of 1994. Dates: October 1994 through September 1995. Title: "Economic Development and Geographic Information Systems." Sponsor: Economic Development Administration. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $1605000. Purpose: Provide research and training in the application of geographic information systems to economic development. Dates: October 1994 through September 1995. Title: "Benefit -Cost Analysis of Rural Transit." Sponsor: Georgia Department of Transportation. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $1001000. Purpose: Provide methodologies for evaluating the benefits and costs of providing rural transit systems. Dates: July 1993 through December 1995. 29 Title: "Parking Policies and Transit." Sponsor: National Academy of Sciences. Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $31,110. Purpose: Evaluate the effects of parking policies in Atlanta's midtown. on transit use and carpooling. Dates: July 1994 through December 1995. Title: "Transportation Impact Analysis: Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority" Sponsor: U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Position: Project Director Amount: $1.001000. Purpose: Evaluate economic development, urban. form, social and political institutional, and transportation impacts of heavy rail transit in Atlanta region. Dates: September 1994 through June 1996. Title: "Exurbanization and Residential Location Theory" Sponsor: Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) . Position: Principal Investigator. Amount: $79,034. Purpose: Evaluate socioeconomic and location behavior of exurban households in the context of urban development theory. Dates: September 1993 through March 1995. Title: "Stormwater Facility Financing" Sponsor: City of Atlanta, Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $80,000 among participating contractors. Purpose: Prepare development impact fees consistent with City's growth management objectives. Dates: May 1993 through September 1993. Title: "Financing water and Sewer Facilities" Sponsor: City of Columbus, Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $9 OK Purpose: Develop connection fees for water and sewer facilities. Dates: February 1993 through May 1993. Title: "Public Facility Financing" Sponsor: City of Atlanta., Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $370,000 among participating contractors. Purpose: Prepare development impact fees consistent with. City's growth management objectives. Dates: August 1992 through April 1993. Title: "Revitalization of the Central City" Sponsor: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Center for the Revitalization of the Central City. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $44,000 total project commitment. Purpose: Evaluate policy approaches to revitalizing central cities. Dates: November 1991 through April 1993. Title: "Private Financing of Public Facilities" Sponsor: Delfalb County, Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $84,500. Purpose: Propose development impact fees for roads, libraries, parks, water, and jails. Dates: May 1991 through December 1992. Title: "Financing Water and Sewer Facilities" Sponsor: Glynn County, Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $5,000. Purpose: Develop connection fees for water and sewer facilities. Dates: October 1992 through December 1992 Title: "Exurban Industrialization" Sponsor: U. Sr. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $1141>285. Purpose: Define the new spatial dimensions of manufacturing in the contiguous 48 states; locational and policy implications of continued exurbanization of manufacturing. Dates: November 1989 through July 1991 Title: "Public Facility Financial Analysis" Sponsor: Cobh County, Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $1900. Purpose: Propose development impact fees for roads, libraries, parks, water, and jails. Dates: October 1991 through December 1992. Title: "Graduate Cooperative Education Program" Sponsor: Central Atlanta Progress. Position: Founding Director Amount: Approximately more than $1 million since 1990. Purpose: Student placements in paid public, private and non-profit assistantships Dates: Continuous. investigation Title: "Economic Incidence of Development Impact Fees" Sponsor: Urban Land Institute. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $20100 Purpose: Evaluate the economic incidence of development impact fees to the extent they are internalized by sellers of undeveloped urban land. Dates: May 1989 through June 1990 Title: "Planning Services" Sponsor: City of Sandersville, Georgia. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $421165. Purpose: Estimate impacts of growth on land use needs; forecast land use needs; allocate growth to future annexation areas; estimate cost of extending facilities; propose alternative means of financing needs; prepare plans and programs. Dates: September 1989 through June 1992. 31 Title: "Housing Preference and Commuting Patterns of Exurban Households" Sponsor: U. S. Department of Transportation, Portland ►State University and Georgia Institute of Teelinology Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $28,000 total between participating universities. Purpose: Survey exurban and suburban households to determine their socioeconomic characteristics, location behavior, and commuting patterns. Dates: June through September 1989 Title: "Airport Industrial Park Study" Sponsor: City of Fenner, Louisiana. Position: Principal Investigator Amount: $21000 Purpose: Evaluation of New Orleans' Airport: Impacts on Neighborhoods Dates: September 1985 through December 1985 Title: "Prepare Software Adapting IMPLAN to Microcomputers for Local Economic Development Situations" Sponsor: Nortli Central Computer Institute, Nortli Central Regional Center for Dural Development, Iowa State University, Kansas ►State University Position: Co -Principal Investigator Amount $521025 Dates: September 1985 through. December 1986 Title: "Preliminary Study of Adapting U.S. Forest Service I MPLAN Model to Local Economic Development Situations" Sponsor: Nortli Central Computer Institute. Position: Co -Principal Investigator Amount: $4,000 Dates: September 1.984 through. December 1985 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE SUMMARY Full Member by Professional Qualification: College of Fellows, American Institute of Certified Planners, FAICP, 2000--present American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), Charter Member, 1978--present American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1986-present Member, Current or Recent Lambda Alpha, International Land Economics Honor Society National Association of Office and Industrial Parks International Council of Shopping Centers American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association American Agricultural Economics Association American Economics Association American Planning Association, Charter Member American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association American Society for Public Administration Association of American Geographers Association of Public Data Users National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Regional Science Association Urban Affairs Association 32 Urban Land Institute World Congress on Transportation Research Offices and Appointments Public Facility Finance Committee, American Planning Association, 2006-07 Legislative Affairs Committee, American Planning Association, 2006-07 Socioeconomic Impacts Committee, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences Vice President for Professional Development, Georgia Planning Association, 1989-present Faculty Liaison, Georgia Planning Association, 1989--present Member, Education Committee, Urban Planning and Development Division, ASCE, 1986-93 Membership and Finance Committees, Urban Affairs Association, 1991-present Member, Advisory Board, Growth Management Institute, 1992-present Civic Activities Advisor to Metropolitan Washington (DC) Council of Governments on metropolitan planning Advisor to Virginia Municipal League Virginia Association of Counties on infrastructure finance policy Advisor to Montgomery County, Maryland, on. urban containment policy Advisor to Atlanta Regional Commission on regional planning and development policies Advisor to the Mayor of Birmingham on alternative governance structures Advisor to the Cobb County Board of Commissioners on alternative governance structures Advisor to the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners on facility financing and permit administration Advisor to the legislature, agencies, local governments, and organizations on land use planning legislation, administrative rules, and procedures in Oregon Advisor to Georgia State Department of Community Affairs on solid waste planning and management pursuant to new state law Advisor to Florida State Department of Community Affairs on statewide land use planning policy Advisor to Georgia State Department of Community Affairs on developments of regional impact definition, application, and management Advisor to Georgia State Department of Community Affairs on statewide development policy Advisor, Governor's Growth Strategies Task Force on Statewide Planning Processes Member, Planning Standards and Practices Committee, Georgia Department of Community Affairs Member, Facility Finance Committee, Georgia Department of Community Affairs Advisor, Louisiana Urban Technical Assistance Center on establishing impact fees and systems development charges in St. Charles and St. Tammany Parishes, and the City of New Orleans. Advisor, Louisiana Housing Finance Authority on affordable housing Advisor, Dock Board, Port of New Orleans on port planning and economic development policy Advisor, Almonaster-Michoud Industrial District, New Orleans, LA. Economic development policy formulation for the nation's largest industrial district. Member, Task Forces, Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission Advisor, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, Sacramento, CA. Advice on housing needs of selected minority and low income populations City Club of Portland: Chair, Property Tax Subcommittee of the State Tax Structure Research Committee. Member, Standing Committee on Land Use Policy Advisor, Housing Development Corporation, Oregon. Coordinated preparation of farm labor housing grants and loans. Resolved issues relating to rental schedules and management. 33 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE Summary List of Public Advising Engagements -- Compensated and Pro Bono Publico Vice President of the United States U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Environmental Protection Agency Metropolitan 'Washington Council of Governments Montgomery County, MD Atlanta Regional Commission State of Georgia City of Atlanta, Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Georgia Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington State City of Alpharetta, Georgia State Bar Association, State of South Carolina City of Sacramento, California City of Virginia Beach, Virginia City of Gainesville and Hall County, Georgia State Legislature, California State Legislature, Oregon State Legislature, 'Washington State Legislature, North Carolina State Legislature, Georgia State Legislature, Virginia State Legislature, Florida Collier County, Florida Citrus County, Florida Martin County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Eustis, Florida DeLand, Florida Albuquerque, New Mexico Gallatin County, Montana Bozeman, Montana Hawaii County, Hawaii DeKalb County, Georgia Fulton County, Georgia Cobb County, Georgia Barrow County, Georgia City of New Orleans, Louisiana Port of New Orleans, Louisiana City of Kenner, Louisiana Department of Commerce, State of Louisiana City of Manhattan and Riley County, Kansas Economic Development Department, State of Kansas City of Portland, Oregon Columbia County, Oregon. Washington County, Oregon Lincoln County, Oregon Curry County, Oregon City of Redmond, Oregon City of Scappoose, Oregon 34 Columbia River Peoples Utility District, Oregon Community Action Team, Columbia County, Oregon Professional Consulting - Compensated and Pro Bono Publicae National Cooperative Highway Research Program consultant to Rutgers University for economic impact of alternative highway planning scenarios, 2006-08 Athens -Clarke County, Georgia, 2007-08 Olson Company, since 2006 Hanley wood Publications, since 2005. Cole Real Estate Investment Trust, presentation of research on future commercial and residential markets, 2005-07. Prudential Real Estate Investment and Prudential Investment Management, presentations on the nature of future US real estate markets, 2006. Montgomery County, M.D, facilitator of public discussions on the future of county planning, 2005-06. City of Leesburg, VA. Crafted "planning goals --achievement" assessment to guide consulting services for fiscal impact Assessment, 2006. Tindale Oliver Associates, 2000 to present: • Collier County, FL, impact fees Panama City, FL, impact fees Fort Pierce, FL, impact fees Panama City, FL, impact fees 0 Bozeman, MT, impact fees Y Volusia County, FL, impact fees 0 Volusia Cuunty, FL, review of NAHB economic impact analysis of impact fees e Citrus County, FL, impact fees S Brevard County, FL, impact fees • Indian River County, FL, impact fees Eustis, FL, impact fees DeLand, FL, impact fees Freilich, Leitner and Carlisle, 1.995 to 2005. # Expert witness in regional general welfare, Olmstead Townships v. City of Rochester MN ■ Expert witness in regional development, Fair .Dope v. Mobile County ■ Expert witness in infrastructure finance, St. Charles Community v. St. Charles County Expert services provided on a wide range of planning issues National Apartment Association, 2005 to present. Litigation research City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Preparation of development impact fees for water, wastewater, roads, stormwater, and parks, 1994 to present. Alston and Bird, expert witness in exclusionary housing, Roberts v. Cwinnett County, 1999-2001 Dillard and Galloway, 1999 to present: • Expert witness in exclusionary housing, Jones v. Henry County Expert witness in exclusionary housing, Realty Development v. City of Cumming = Expert witness in exclusionary housing, Pathway Communities v. Fayette County Southerlin Asbill, expert witness in exclusionary housing, Cowart v. City of .Roswell, 2000-2001 Martin County, Florida, 1999 to 2001: Development impact fee study Economic development element of the comprehensive plan Federal Environmental Protection Agency through the Growth Management Institute. Advising on full cost accounting of alternative development scenarious for southeastern Florida, 1997. American. Planning Association. Research and report on growth management, 1997--98. Federal National Mortgage Association. Research and reports on exurban housing development patterns and policy implications, 1993-2001. Government of Italy. Application of American -style development impact fees to metropolitan Milan, 1996-97. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities. Research and reports on central city revitalization policy effectiveness, 1993-97. National. Academy of Sciences through. the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. 35 Research and reports on parking policies and transit use, 1995-97. Florida Home Building Association. Expert witness in challenge to school impact fees assessed by Volusia County School District, 1994-97. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Advising on growth management and development impact fee issues, 1992- present. Village of Chardon Ohio. Preparation of wastewater system development charges and expert witness in impact fee litigation, 1995-98. Walt Disney Corporation. Evaluation and assessment of growth. management policies as they affect the design of Disney's America in the Washington, D.C., area, 1994-95. City of Hickory, North Carolina. Preparation of development impact fees for water, wastewater, roads, and parks, 1994-95. Gallatin County (Bozeman), Montana. Preparation of impact fees for roads, fire, police, and parks, 1994-97. Washoe County (Reno), Nevada. Preparation of alternative transportation facility financing scenarios and policy recommendations, 1994-95. State of Florida. State's expert witness in reviewing development guidance documents that fail to comply with state planning and development law, 1989-1.997: a DCA v. Wakulla County (comprehensive plan) DCA v. St. Lucie County (plan amendment) DCA v. Lee County (plan amendment) DCA v. Marion County (comprehensive plan.) Florida Association of Realtors et al. v. DCA (second urban sprawl rule challenge) • DCA v. Charlotte County (DRI challenge) DCA v. Escambia County (comprehensive plan) DCA v. Walton County (comprehensive plan) DCA v. Alachua County (comprehensive plan) • DCA v. okaloosa County (comprehensive plan) Florida/Georgia Venture Croup v. City of Ormond Beach (DRI challenge) DCA v. Lake County (comprehensive plan) ■ DCA v. Indian Diver County (comprehensive plan) DCA v. Leon County (comprehensive plan) ■ DCA v. Highlands County (comprehensive plan) • DCA v. Metropolitan Dade County (plan amendment) A DCA. v. City of Jacksonville (DRI challenge) • DCA v. Santa Rosa County (comprehensive plan) DCA v. Dixie County (comprehensive plan) • DCA v. St. Lucie County (comprehensive plan) A DCA v. Citrus County (comprehensive plan) • Florida State Home Builders Association v. DCA (first urban sprawl rule challenge) • DCA v. Lee County (comprehensive plan) • DCA v. Charlotte County (comprehensive plan) Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Denver, Colorado, expert in. school impact fee litigation, 1994-95 City of Atlanta, Georgia, preparation of development impact fees, revised comprehensive plan, revised capital improvement program, 1992-93. DeKalb County, Georgia, preparation of development impact fees, revised comprehensive plan, revised capital improvement program, 1991-93 . Cobb County, Georgia, preparation of water and wastewater systems capital expansion fees and transportation facility impact fee feasibility study, 1992-93. City of Roswell, Georgia, preparation of development impact fees, revised comprehensive plan, revised capital improvement program, 1992. ..... ..... ... City of Columbus, Georgia, preparation of development impact fees, revised comprehensive plan, revised capital improvement program, 1992-93. Glynn County, Georgia, preparation of water and wastewater systems capital expansion fees, 1992. State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, Energy Division. Formulation of new community planning policy under subcontract with Florida Atlantic University, 1992-93. 36 New Jersey Future, peer review of :Rutgers University's Center for Urban Policy Research evaluation of the New Jersey statewide land use plan, 1992. City of Virginia Beach, technical assistance in development exaction policy. 1991. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, regional planning assistance in Kansas City, Missouri. 1991. City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County. Parks and recreation development impact fee program. 1991. County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Review of development impact fee plans for the county. 1990. Chesterfield County, Virginia. Development impact fees. 1989-90. City of Atlanta. Review of Georgia state development impact fee legislation. Preparation of draft model statute. Statute revised in committee and adopted. 1989-90. John Wieland Homes. Preliminary annexation impact assessment study for Peachtree City, Georgia. 1989-90. Florida League of Cities. Urban sprawl. 1989, 1992. State of South Carolina Bar Association. Impact fee law and practice. 1988. City of Warner Robins, Georgia. Water and sewer development impact program design. 1989-90. Alpharetta, Georgia. Review of planning documents with recommendations to revise pursuant to state law and case law. Revisions to comprehensive land use plan. 1988-92. Charter Medical of Macon, Georgia: Health facilities service area analysis, 1988. Twin Cities Region, Minnesota. Created research design to investigate impacts of landfills on land values. Assisted in evaluation of data and results. 1986-1991. Housing Development Corporation of Washington. County, Oregon, 1982-1990: Advised on use of federal low income housing tax credits = Prepared federal. grant and loan package for a 50-unit farm labor housing project = Coordinated site planning, design and engineering services = Prepared management plan, operating budget, and rental assistance plan = Coordinated successful legal challenges to discriminatory housing codes = Represented the organization in its successful lobbying activities to require that city charter amendments conform to state housing policies = Coordinated preparation of a 1.2 unit addition to the farmworker housing project = Commendation for Service, 1984 Columbia Hills Development Company, 1.979 to present: • Principal planner for Hillcrest Subdivision, an 1,133 lot antiquated plat that was redesigned into acreage rural residential homesites and large acreage woodlots after six years of negotiation with state and local planning agencies. Services included: assembling lots not owned by the investors; successful lobbying for statutory and administrative rule changes that made it easier to resolve the problems of antiquated plats on resource lands; successful lobbying for statutory changes in state tax law in order to make the resolution of antiquated plats on resource lands feasible; preparing restrictive covenants and homeowner association articles and bylaws; coordinating soil testing, geologic surveys, groundwater surveys, road design and construction, utility planning, land and plat surveying, local fiscal and economic impact assessments, and marketing studies. = Principal planner for the Columbia Bend recreational project located along the western shoreline of Puget Island, Washington. Prepared master and site plans, environmental and socioeconomic impact assessment, restrictive covenants, and market studies. Negotiated and secured U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit and State of Washington Department of Ecology Development Permit. Palo Investments, Inc., 1980 to present: • Planning Consultant for Hillhurst Road Project in Ridgefield, Washington. Prepared or coordinated site planning options, soils surveys, market surveys, successful title clearing legal appeals, negotiations with regional and local planning agencies on land development restrictions. • Financial packager and manager of two executive condominiums in the Johns Landing district of Portland. Prepared quarter million dollar commercial loan application. Elected to the project's homeowners association. Chairman of HOA operations committee, responsible for preparing and implementing management programs. = Principal planner for Clatskanie Valley Homes, a twenty-two unit rural residential subdivision in northwest Oregon. Prepared or coordinated subdivision and residential site plans, soils surveys, land surveys, road design and construction, utility design and construction, restrictive covenants 37 and homeowners association articles and bylaws, market surveys, state land use planning approvals, financing packages. • Planning consultant for property at Chambers Lake in Olympia, Washington. Provided consulting opinions on land use restrictions, market, development timing, and site planning options. GrowPac, Inc., Portland, Oregon, 1984-1985: • Negotiated approval from the Oregon State Department of Economic Development to sell $4 million in industrial development revenue bonds to expand the firm's processing and marketing activities. • Prepared and represented firm's applications for conditional use permits, variances, special use permits, and non -farm use permits for fruit processing, storage, and marketing facilities. Recht Hausrath and Associates, Urban Economists, Oakland, CA, 1978-1985: • Prepared the "Economic Element" of the Sonoma County Industrial Park Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report • Prepared the "Economic Impact .Element" of an Environmental Impact Report on a comprehensive plan amendment in Nevada County, California • Assisted in the research and preparation of a memorandum on "Comparative Development Charges of Selected San Francisco Bay Area Jurisdictions" for Mobil Oil Company • Prepared "Marketing Analysis and Strategy" for Nor'West I.nc.'s mixed -type housing project in San Jose, California • Prepared the "Socioeconomic Impact Element" of an Environmental Impact Report on a mixed - use project in downtown Pacific Grove, California • Assisted in the research and preparation of the "Public Facilities Impact Element" of a Federal Environmental Impact Statement on three casinos proposed for South Lake Tahoe, Nevada Planning consultant to Trans West Company, Seattle, 1978--1993. Designed the replat of 320 lot antiquated plat in the Portland metropolitan area. The replatted 35 unit Columbia Acres Subdivision entailed plan and zone changes, legal appeals, statutory changes, and changes in state statutes and administrative rules. Planning counsel to Black, Helterline, Beck & Rappleyea, Attorneys, Portland, Oregon, 1979-1985. Provided planning counsel on: • A zone Change from agricultural to industrial along the 1-5 Freeway between Portland and Salem. • A replat of a three hundred unit PUD in St. Helens, Oregon • A zone change from agricultural to intersection commercial along the 1-5 Freeway south of Salem • A proposed planning policy for industrial development at the mouth of the Columbia River • Most statutory changes affecting land use planning and subdivision procedures considered during the 1981, 1.983, and 1985 legislative assemblies, including testimony assistance to firm's partners. Planning consultant to the Oregon Bank, Portland, Oregon, 1983--1984, on land use planning matters relating to their trustee interest in a three thousand acre ranch along the lower Columbia River. Planning consultant to the Columbia River People's Utility District, 1983-1984, on land use planning matters relating to their central offices and yards throughout their district. MRH Properties, a minority business enterprise involved in land development, Portland, Oregon, 1981--1984: • Principal planner for Tamanawus Subdivision, a twelve unit suburban in -fill housing project • Principal planner for a sixteen unit condominium PUD proposed for Gladstone, Oregon • Financial and market advisor for a Long Beach, Washington, commercial recreational campground • Advisor on the subdivision procedures involved in replatting an undeveloped suburban subdivision at the edge of the Portland metropolitan area urban growth boundary Principal planner for Sandpiper Shores, Waldport, Oregon, a residential project on sensitive coastal land, 1981-1983 . Prepared/coordinated development plan, site plans (homesite envelopes and view corridors), beach and lake impact mitigation, specialized waste treatment facility design, covenants and association articles and bylaws. Consulting Planning Director for Durham, Oregon, 1.978-1980. Retained by the city to prepare a comprehensive plan and implementing codes consistent with an LCDC enforcement order issued as part of Seaman v. City of Durham (a nationally prominent housing policy precedent). Received commendations from the Metropolitan Service District Commission and the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. Plans included precedent --setting fair share housing and transfer of development right provisions. Later evaluated development plans and represented the city in a several regional and state 38 agency decisions. Consulting planner to Dias Real Estate on a 40,000 square foot office building entailing site planning, market analysis, plan amendment, and zone change in the City of St. Helens, Oregon. Principal planner for Columbia Towne, a 70-unit project in Columbia City, Oregon, 1980--1982. Designed Oregon's highest density single --family project utilizing modern subsurface sewage disposal systems. Planning consultant for Rainbow Rock, a 120-unit Planned Unit Development in Brookings, Oregon, 1980-1983. Prepared or coordinated the preparation of a coastal mixed -use project of 120 condominiums and a commercial center entailing geologic surveys, approval by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality of a secondary treatment sewer outfall into the Pacific Ocean, approval by Coastal Zone Management agencies, and approval by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (one of only two coastal projects exempted from LCDC-imposed development moratoria). Planning consultant for Grandview Manor Village, a 350-unit mobile home park in Redmond, Oregon, 1981-1983 . Prepared variance and conditional use permits, socioeconomic impact assessments, and state housing policy opinions on the subject of mobile home parks. Planning advisor to the City of Redmond, Oregon, 1981. Prepared the Housing, Urbanization and Economic Development elements of the comprehensive plan, which survived opposition by statewide anti --growth organizations and were approved by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. Principal planner for Stratford Properties, a mixed -use coastal project in Newport, Oregon, 1981-1983. Prepared and coordinated site planning for 375 housing units, a hotel and shopping center, an office building, a sports complex, and site amenities. Also prepared view easements, covenants and association documents that are considered among the most innovative along the Oregon coast. Consulting planning manager, planning director, Columbia County, Oregon, 1976--78: • Administrator of planning, solid waste management, surface mining, and building codes Prepared county framework land use plan and directed overall economic development plan Created and managed seven community planning and 42 neighborhood planning organizations Coordinated negotiations among cities and the county on establishing urban growth boundaries and related urban containment strategies Designed county's census boundaries to correspond to spatial and demographic characteristics and planning information objectives Assisted Port of St. Helens in its industrial development planning Management consultant to Marion County, Oregon, Board of Commissioners, 1975-76: • Evaluated management operations of public works, social service, planning, and tax collection to improve personnel productivity Developed management information systems, cost control systems, performance budget procedures, and performance evaluation procedures Political Consultant, Oregon campaigns, 1973-1.977: • Responsible for raising half of the funds for a successful gubernatorial primary election campaign Road manager, speech and press writer, field organizer for statewide gubernatorial campaign. 4 Campaign manager for statewide ballot measure campaign Consultant to legislative campaigns Legislative Analyst, Metropolitan Portland Child Care Coordinating Council, 1972-73. • Evaluated regional child care facility needs including funding requirements. Assessed impact of state legislation on the provision of child care. Developed management operations procedures. Assisted board of governors in setting legislative strategies. Lobbied legislators on proposed legislation. Student Internships, 1971-1972. « Intern to the Oregon Joint Legislative Committee on Land Use to evaluate effectiveness of land use planning laws and offer recommendations for improvement; work helped justify legislation leading to the Oregon Land Use Act of 1973. • Intern to Multnomah County, Oregon, Grants Management Office; prepared grant management system and evaluated several social service agencies for grant administration purposes. 40 o cs V In 4- O ~ i Q L U U �• N N ,� M V1 0) ~ +- '� V o 4- _U 4- > L. �- C3 C3 r o� .O - a iS- L r O U L -p O - O L •0 s 3 o� v •� a L •N � � 0 i- la- t o CJ t s of U C } O rn 3 L O 3 O ° c > 4- L O 4- 3 }s J4- � r C.- x u y CJ L O N 3 H } N L 3� v 4- u CL O u L O L .E N c3 s a a. � v > X V1 p X CL in ° o n" +�- O V } } z i s } (, '- W } V 4- c3 c5 in M Q N X o L -� } = 3 0 3 � Y O } o 3 o rL o d o L > Q �C d o I_ L N o� > I :ti Y � 1 ' rIF•A r � i L 3� o +' -o r � O �S"'-� Z OHO N to U •� Ij U U t^ 1 Q.. �- M 1 c 3 a b -3, `- v1 `( R ; � Cam• � � .;� „_, Z5 ID Zr cri ^y bq - U /c/� t -a -a a a a a C o, v� Q � o� �• n v=i E is- a ♦- o u > 4—���� > aCL a a a • H• '0 3 a o � _a U Q x � �' a } •o a a 'O L aci L. o a -a o L � � s 0 t } N h in 3 0 N 3 i _� } pa' O p a" a ' n fl � s L 3 0 con a -' L p W sa 4— Z 1 } a Y } v a°�^ u Q W L d H } cp U a O 3 U L. _� a i O %". �~ �v a O CL -a V1 o X " a o °_ -- O V} a} L a .i ���•°' of } V } N U a s h 0 p i3 L cn p -0 U C. N L C 3 Q 3 N Y } 0 3 -i } o > 3 Q L 0 0) o � ¢ > � o z cScri Al 6 V ol 0 0 �'! N O CC —J e '-G 3 ci Mcn o ° tu Q� n vIf 3 44a J ° a U � � t W 7 -• • . �. j' O U Cd Nj 7� cd C r ✓ J.i U cs C O L N N N } in V } rn CJ S �- CL C a — =a N o a V O p o� 3 CL cs c L s xn } •N 'p CA) � '!n C O p� 4- 4- L. IvAJ -p -0 o L o� z '}ov a s O H H } N W 3 W O L } C } 3 �n C L 3 - > r N S O p 4- 3 } s,�01 4-+- 4— r o } Z s° cs a o�i �c 0 v N U V 0 U C O Q V > �- h o0 L. c X � o } c3 O1 NZ N } Vim} � u C C J h p- L V1 no_ O N®aL - V N 3= } Y = S } o 3 t rL a o > o 3 QJ o L Q > L CA) _I � f- V) v c -o a a a C f- L o, � N -� n S } � O o u3}} y Q O_ N + CL (� ± xn U } al u L.0 > a La a Q La — g } L p O 40— 0 . +- -� O 7 a O > 4- 3 Q a QJ vn = S } IvAJ CL N c Xn 4-o� G S } c a N a a L L. C1 3 � •L to a w c 3d�}rC� } a- Z u m N c ^ p U N fl i 04— N 3 H U� L a U OCw U O (/� X t a O } a V 4 Q p- G. N L. V rn 4- 0 0 3 L o O } s } o > o 3 w a o L L Q > F- INi0L�7 N tv,� I; a M. �I ✓, o 7� O � H o 3 z � -a Cd w� � •'r O O � N O N C O glMU u _ �- ��yy bO p bA 4 to % Fr o _ bb nc� VJ N a � U N as c� cn y ct •r � L .� VN S O d tn _ N CL L CA)0 4- � S S lw r- r- JW O - O L' V 3 o C O 0 L. '� �4— � L rn +_- Q •� X U } -ap�j i- c S m .Q o W = 3 E . S In a S � o N S a- O O O -O s- -p 0 c I u s th 3 3 L G Zn - o3i `^ °' n p of s .n +- o xn +r- H U S w N H 3 U U O ll xn w 72 _ 0 = C1 N O r- L X pX v�i 0 o } t � y � u cn N •X e -ow C- N L L — } N Q c to- �G +- } a. L n on 3 c s O o� o of CL o L. d Q � s I� �L�ld 4--v,� •3 � 0 ` O � . � � U cd• o d V' J I` 0 ( - o M V c 4 +� -e. 81) � s J .\ 4 U ^�- -- N O .� t: V U 113 �. \ � 0 M •� m is j Y L. O O IA O s cs a O 4- L o� } 0 4- -F_ i CL L. U C N rL } � to E N 4— o w d > �F- .O CL = N .O 0 _0 3 o L. C c ,� �+- o 0 v L d1 t� C X U F0 i N cn ,o L } 'N Q O 4- L > 'S t'n -0 L -aQ O . to S � '0 -0O O O .Q L -p t3 0 u s (AC 3 3 L M O c > 3 O to } 'tn 4- a o`ni s c } } o 4- N c a N N C u .� 3 _U U rL O U V > C CL 3 a 0 0 } cn LW} V } u N 0 U 'on N X O -p CL N L L N _ —_ •1-• _ = o ° a 3 W 4 }a W 0o Cc 'a 0 o L N Q 0 CA)> 4- 'O >- - • 3� •o � O � 00 / u cd o O U E �" V N O �: En MCd o \ En :t4 N v L" � M a Iv N a• �: o H o r�-•a � N oN t-- J ' U � o � UZI 1 Cd c 1-4-ITTTON RANCH PLAZA AsSOCIAT ES, LLC 13 5 HUTTON RANCH RD SUITE 10.3 NFD KALISPELL, MT 59901 R E CtE r)F 96 rz �"' Luv Ailt` as"RA' MY CLERK February 25, 2009 The Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy, Mayor Councilman Robert Hafferman Councilman Hank Olson Councilman Jiro Atkinson Councilman Tim Kluesner Councilwoman Karl Gabriel C onci loran Wayne S averud Councilman Randy Kenyon (, nirnoilmnn 111f niinnP T .arcnn t/ V LLA.iV AAAA AN.AA 1 ■ 1. Z/ %44L1R►1 .,i-.J%,&A- ►.l ►l Al City of Kalispell Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Madame Mayor and Council Members: I have made the decision that it is no longer useful for me to try and convince you that the Traffic Impact Fee Report submitted to the City by HRP is flawed, or that the adoption of traffic impact fees as proposed by City Staff is in violation of Montana's enabling statute. Instead, I will draw your attention to the chronology of the Hutton Ranch Plaza Project, explaining why none of the development within the project should be subject to traffic impact fees or for that matter any of the impact fees previously adopted by the City. I first contracted for the purchase of what is now the north half of Hutton Ranch Plaza in September 2004. Before closing on the property, I met with City Staff and asked for a detailed list of all fees and expenses that would be required to be paid in connection with the development of the property. At that time, there was not even an enabling statute in the State of Montana, much less an impact fee adopted by the City. I was given subdivision application pamphlets and a detailed fee schedule. Nowhere in any of the materials I received was there any mention of impact fees. I specifically asked if there were any impact fees and was told there were none. I closed on this property in November 2004. Subsequently, in January 2005, I closed on 109 acres to the east of what is now Hutton Ranch Plaza. This property was later exchanged for 25 acres along Highway 93, then owned by Flathead valley Community College. Based on the information provided to nee by the City and the proforma. I then prepared, I expended in excess of $7.5 million just to acquire the property. I then spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on engineering and consultants fees prior to making application to the City. 406.756.2771 (phone) 406 7562777 (fax) February 25, 2009 Page 2 In April 2005, almost a year before any Impact Fee Committee was even appointed, I made application for zoning, Annexation and Preliminary Plat approval to the City. On July 5, 2005, the Preliminary Plat was approved by the City. On January 20, 2006, a Subdivision Improvement Agreement was executed between Mutton Ranch Plaza Associates and the City, with no reference to, or required payments for, impact fees of any kind. Impact fees had not even been adopted by the Council. However, I did post a bond for more than $2.3 million to insure completion of all public improvements to the property. On May 2, 2006 (again before the adoption of any impact fees), a final Plat for Phase I was recorded, and all public improvements for Phase I and Phase II were subsequently completed. Additionally, I agreed to the construction of Hutton Ranch Road and to the granting of an easement for the future widening of the road, all at no additional cost to the City or Taxpayers. The first Impact Fees were not even adopted until December of 2006, after I had expended millions of dollars purchasing the land, and making public and private improvements to the land. Finally, on June 8, 2008, the Final Plat for Phase II of Hutton Ranch Plaza was recorded. It should be noted, however, that all of the -public improvements and dedications made necessary by both nh a ses of the development had been completed in 2007. ✓ At the last three Council Meetings I have attended, I have sat quietly and listened to a litany of no growth advocates complaining about how unfair it would be to ask the taxpayers of Kalispell to pay for the cost of road improvements they feel are made necessary by new development. This is so, even when the roads to be improved are nowhere near, and are not impacted by, the development to be charged. To the contrary, what is absolutely unfair, and I believe illegal, is to entice a developer into a community, requiring the developer to spend millions of dollars on public improvements, and then, after the developer has completed all of the requirements imposed contractually and by law, changing the requirements of the deal. This is not only unfair, it is a violation of legal due process. I would like to make one final point. My development has resulted in converting 46 acres of Agricultural and Public Land (which contributed approximately $2,500 in total real property taxes per year before development) into a developed shopping center that in 2008 has contributed over $500,000 in property taxes, and with the completion of Walrnart and Homewood Suites, will contribute approximately $1,200,000 in property taxes every year. Perhaps I am prejudiced, but I would say that growth is certainly paying for growth. Very truly yours, phili a s Presi ent of the Manager of Hutton Ranch Plaza Assoc LLC cc: Charles Harball, City Attorney Myrt Webb, Acting City Manager 406 756.2 771 (phone) 4 0 6. 7 J" 6. 2 7 7 7 (fax) Page 1 of l Theresa white From: Montboot ar aol.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:29 PM To: citycouncil(7kalispell.com; citizens@flatheadcitizens.org Subject: Transportation Impact Fees Dear Members of the City Council and Fellow Taxpayers and Residents of The Flathead, I am writing to encourage you to not only charge a Transportation Impact "Fee" (which is merely a token price for damages done to the community) but to charge the "developers" of whatever the project may be, the full cost of so-called "road improvements" that they feel are necessary to make them look good. Whether it's another mail or subdivision let them pay the full cost of road construction materials, signage, lights, drainage, fire protection, and whatever else goes along with a development. We actually do not NEED one more development anywhere in Flathead county. We need clean air and water, local productive farmers, trees and wildlife, open land and public parks for quiet recreation and enjoyment. We already have massive traffic jams all over the Valley, even on the back roads. This is causing pollution for us and dismay for the tourists who are spending their money with us as well as a lot of road rage on everyone's part. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of everything we buy being made in China (including woad products) and being sold in box stores/malls, car dealerships, etc. that are taking over fertile farm land, over cutting the forests and filling in wetlands. If you're going to allow more developers to build more, then make them PAY. Thank you for your attention, Sharlot Battin 185 Reservoir Rd. Whitefish A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See _..yours_. n_Jus1..2. eesy ste_p r 3/2/2009 Therese White From: Anne Collins anneicollins@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:40 PM To: citycou ncilkalispell.corn Subject: development Dear Sirs, Please consider having the developers pay the transportation expenses, not the Kalispell public that already pay a lot of taxes. Sincerely, Anne Collins Theresa white From: Marshall Noice [mnoicecenturytel.net Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:50 AM To: citycouncil9kalispell.corn Subject: impact fees Dear Mayor Kennedy and councilmen, Please consider my opinion regarding transportation impact fees. After a decade of unprecedented growth our traffic is getting worse and it seems there is no money to fix the road problems. I firmly believe it is time for growth to pay for growth rather than continue to have Kalispell taxpayers pay for growth. Transportation impact fees are a reasonable way to address the problem. We needed them ten years ago! Implement them now please. Marshall Noice Page 1 of I Theresa White From: Jere Jobe [JereAJobe@hotmail.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:18 PM To: citycouncilgkalispell.com Subject: Transportation impact Fees Members of the Kalispell City counsel: The city hired a good consultant to come up with a proposal for fair and reasonable impact fees that are similar to other Montana cities, and he did an excellent job. We strongly urge the city to adopt those fees, without any adjustments. While the developers cry that they can't make a profit if they have to pay their fair share, they are just trying to pad their pockets at taxpayer expense. If these developers can not make an HONEST profit, then they should go back and rethink the viability of their project. This whole thing sounds very similar to one of the FEDERAL BAILOUTS that are now sweeping our country. The only difference is that the CITY of KALISPELL can not print it's own money, and it can not go to china to borrow it. Let the developers pay their fair share and protect the taxpayers from another ill-conceived bailout scam. Respectively► Melinda and ]ere Jobe 3/2/2Uo9 Page 1 of 1 Theresa White From: Mel Paret [mel.paret@gmail.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2000 8: 1 2 AM To: citycouncil@kalispell.com Subject: Impact tees Dear City Council Members, I fully support the transportation impact fees to make all new developments contribute more to transportation projects in Kalispell. There are significant costs being born by existing taxpayers to support the new projects to accommodate growth in the area. We bought our property in Montana 10 years ago NOT to be stuck in traffic with air pollution like in most major cities. As our government leaders, you must do more to protect and preserve and provide best practices in urban planning & development. I have spent over 20 years in Northern Virginia (outside Washington DC) which has significant impact fees for transportation, water, sewer, fire & schools - it has not affected development at all. We all know that impact fees are a part of the solution to urban congestion and sprawl. The developers all have their own economic interests in mind - not the interests & well-being of the general population. Thank vnii fnr vniir r-n-ncir]arafinrti X . ICILA.J.X1. Y %_1t& lVA ] LJL�i �.+LJ1L�73Lii1LLLLlt111■ Melvin Paret 385 Buffalo Trail Somers, MT 59932 312/2009 Page 1 of 1 Theresa White From: shell Thomas [shelit@centurytel.net Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 5:35 AM To: citycouncilgkalispell.com Subject: Traffic Impact Fees City Council Members: I aim sending this email to you to urge you to adopt the full proposed traffic impact fees for new businesses and subdivisions. Growth should pay for Growth -not city taxpayers! Thank you for listening, Michele Thomas 689 Foys Canyon Rd. Kalispell 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 Theresa white From: Linda J. [rockymtnhigmontanasky.net] Sent: Sunday, March 01 , 2000 1 0.50 PM To: citycouncil@kalispell.com Subject: Do Not Waive Fees Growth should Pay for Growth! - not TaxPayers! Please do NOT ►rote to waive fees on proposals for any project between 2004 - July 2009! Sincerely, Linda Johnson, Kalispell, Montana 3/2/2009