[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9/26/07

Geoff Badenoch geoffb at ism.net
Mon Oct 1 21:51:03 MDT 2007

Thanks for clearing that up, Bruce. I had mistakenly recalled that Third
Street had already been designed with the future capacity upgrade.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Bender [mailto:bbender at ci.missoula.mt.us]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:23 PM
To: Janet Donahue; missoulagov at cmslists.com; Geoff Badenoch
Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9/26/07

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 <mailto:janetdonahue at msn.com> Donahue' ;
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


Janet Stevens Donahue

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20071001/01444363/attachment.htm>

More information about the MissoulaGov mailing list