[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9/26/07

Bruce Bender bbender at ci.missoula.mt.us
Mon Oct 1 20:22:36 MDT 2007


As Janet states impact fees can be used for the portion of the 3rd St.
that will create excess capacity for the future growth. Adding an
additional lane will create excess capacity in the road. So the costs to
construct this third lane would be eligible for impact fee funding.
Other funding will be necessary to bring the project to completion.bb





From: Janet Donahue [mailto:janetdonahue at msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:24 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com; Geoff Badenoch
Cc: Bruce Bender
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9/26/07



The improvements for S. 3rd and Russell to Reserve that would be funded
by impact fees can only be used for future growth. When that project
comes to fruition, the use of impact fees will only be used for
expanding the project as it now sits to encompass any projected impact.
Does that help? Clearly impact fees will not be used for what has been
a necessity for some time. I can see where there may have been
confusion with the Power Point but Bruce was merely showing how impact
fees could be used to enhance what is already being planning for that
project. I have cc'd Bruce for any further clarification he might add.



As far as the question about the frequency of the city/county meetings,
I was only using the OPG Interlocal agreement reference as one way to
integrate the discussion. There is no limit as to how often the city
and county can meet -- only the minimum is set.

----- Original Message -----

From: Geoff Badenoch <mailto:geoffb at ism.net>

To: 'Janet Donahue' <mailto:janetdonahue at msn.com> ;
missoulagov at cmslists.com

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:19 PM

Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9/26/07



As usual, Janet's comments are enlightening and helpful. I was
a little confused about the restriction on "financing infrastructure we
are behind on" vs. "future growth/use." Bruce Bender's PowerPoint
presentation showed an illustration of use of transportation impact fee
revenue to make improvements to S. 3rd W-Russell to Reserve that
included street widening and installation of curbs and sidewalks. I
know the public and the neighborhood did a great deal of planning work
in the '90's before Third Street was unfortunately yoked to the Russell
Street Bridge/Street project. If the City identified South Third Street
West improvements as a needed infrastructure improvement 10 years ago,
how does it become eligible for funding with transportation impact fees
in 2008 as "future growth/use?" What am I missing?



One more question...is this matter urgent enough that the City
and the County officials get together to work on it more frequently than
four times a year?



Geoff Badenoch



-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Janet Donahue
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:41 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9/26/07



As I serve on the Impact Fee Advisory Committee I have a couple
of comments that should not be construed to represent the feelings of
the committee but are meant to be informative and represent my own
thoughts.



The first is in regard to Geoff's question Or are they (meaning
the proposed impact fees) simply a means to finance the infrastructure
we are behind on?



Impact fees cannot by statute be used for financing
infrastructure we are behind on. They can only be used for addressing
future growth/use.



Other questions asked: Do builders have indifference when they
make the economic choice about where to build their homes? Do these
proposed impact fees tip the scales of development toward one choice or
another? Or neither?



The Chamber of Commerce conducted an unscientific survey with
one of the questions being: Would impact fees influence your plans to
build or expand in the City of Missoula?



Of 163 responses received for that question, 89 said yes, (55%)
and 74 said no (45%). Here are some of the comments as follows:



All costs have to be assessed if we plan a business expansion.
I don't know that it would stop us from building. It would just be one
more cost that would be put into into the overall cost of the project.
It may or may not influence the final decision to build or expand.



Yes, however, it is needed and I believe most homeowners
understand and would be willing to pay (even if the developer pays the
cost upfront). I live in the Miller Creek area and wish better access
was envisioned before so much development occurred. I would be willing
(and would have been willing when I built) to pay additional fees for
better access routes.



No, however, I do believe there is a "donut effect" that occurs
when you implement impact fees. ie) I can see building shifting outside
of the impact fee zone, and we all know those folks will still end up in
Missoula to shop, recreate, etc. Again, a more equitable solution is to
have everyone share in the cost of the improvements, not just new
construction.



They could depending upon how reasonable they are.



Its already so expensive to live in Missoula, property taxes,
etc. Need to take it from university properties that are way under
taxed for the values that have greatly increased over the last few
years.



They are a fact of life anymore. My feeling is they need to be
used to improve roads to spread traffic out more. So many people who
drive in Missoula live outside of town, so sticking it to folks who live
in town (and builders) seems a bit inappropriate.



Not if they are reasonable.



Missoula is it's own market. It costs more to live in town.



If impact fees become burdensome, urban sprawl will accelerate.
If anything it should be more expensive to build outside of the City.



It will definitely impact housing prices.



depending on the costs involved and amount of input on where
that money will be spent.



This is just a sample of the comments. As you can see, it is a
mixed bag.



Finally, there was discussion about communicating with the
county about impact fees. The Advisory committee, did indeed meet with
the county folks to discuss impact fees and the feasibility of moving
forward together. The county indicated that they were a bit behind the
city in terms of reviewing the impact fee proposal prepared by the
consultants. It was their sense that sometime in the near future they
too would be looking to propose adoption of impact fees in the county
and understood the wisdom of doing so to prevent sprawl, which they
would also not like to see occur. I believe the county is doing its due
diligence and will do what they feel best for all of their constituents.
The place for that communication to continue is in the quarterly
meetings held between the city and county elected officials via the
Interlocal agreement that establishes the Office of Planning and Grants.



Thanks,



Janet Stevens Donahue





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20071001/e2d8179a/attachment.htm>


More information about the MissoulaGov mailing list