HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 07/01/2013 south
VERMONT
AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
City Hall Conference Room
575 Dorset Street
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Regular Session 7:00P.M. Monday, July 1, 2013
1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. (7:00—7:02PM)
2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (7:02—7:12PM)
3. Announcements and City Manager's Report. (7:12—7:17PM)
• Use of Airport-Owned Properties for First Responder Training
4. Consent Agenda: (7:17—7:18PM)
A. *** Sign Disbursements
B. ***Approve Minutes for May 15, 2013 Council Meeting, June 17 Council Meeting
C. Approval of Heather Auclair to serve on IZ Open Space Committee and Evan Langfeldt to
replace John Illick on Form Based Code Committee
D. ***Resolution to Amend the South Burlington Energy Committee Structure
E. Designate Stitzel, Page & Fletcher as City Attorney Through March 10, 2014
F. ***Approve Special Event Permits:
• Magic Hat Brewery, July 12, 19, 26, 2013 Summer Concert
• GEI U, July 1-8 2U13 Company Picnic
5. *** Interviews for appointments to Boards, Committees & Commissions. (7:18— 8:18PM)
6. \**Consider a Resolution "Directing the City Manager to Undertake Planning, Engineering and
Permitting for City Center Public Infrastructure and to Present a Program for How This Will be
Accomplished." (Kevin Dorn) (8:18—8:30PM)
CZ)*** Interim Zoning-Deliberative Session: (City Council-Deliberative session on applications closed or
presently before the City Council. Deliberative sessions are not open to public comment). [Note:
Deliberations will be in open session unless due to a legal issue it is voted by Council to
deliberate in closed session] (8:30-8:45PM)
a) Interim Zoning Application#IZ-13-04, 16 IDX Drive (Paul Conner)
46 l ***Consider Recommendation from Development Review Board RE: Impact Fee Credits for Malone
Dorset Street Properties, LLC (Trader Joe's) and consider proposal for cost sharing on stormwater
treatment component of transportation improvement. Interim Zoning Application IZ-13-02. (Paul
Conner) (8:45—8:55 PM)
C-9)**Continued Public Hearing on the Recreation Impact Fee Amended Ordinance and Police Impact
Fee Ordinance. (Paul Conner) (8:55—9:05 PM)
10. ***Consider adoption of Recreation Impact Fee Amended Ordinance and Police Impact Fee
Ordinance (suggested effective date: October 15, 2013) (Paul Conner) (9:05—9:10 PM)
11. ***Reconvene as Liquor Control Board to approve the following licenses. (9:10—9:12 PM)
Interstate Shell (St. Pierre Enterprises, LLC)-Second Class Liquor and Tobacco
12. Other Business: (9:12—9:15 PM)
A. Items held from the Consent Agenda
B. Bike Rack—items Council may wish to place on a future agenda:
i. Traffic Lights and sequencing.
ii. City Street Lights (adequacy/number) at various locations.
Hi. Advertising logos or names on City Property
iv. Taser Policy
v. East Terrace Ordinance
vi. Policy regarding landscaping City-owned land and Request from Hadley Road.
vii. Council-approved Minutes Resolution
viii. Closure of Market Street
C. Other?
13. Consider entering executive session for discussion of appointments to City boards and
commissions, personnel matters, negotiations, real estate and litigation. (9:15—9:45 PM)
14. Reconvene Regular Session to consider appointments to City boards and Commissions. (9:45—
9:55 PM)
15. Adjourn (9:55 PM)
Respectfully Submitted:
Ke'viwDorn/
Kevin Dorn, Interim City Manager
***Attachments Included
South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines
City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as
open and informal as possible; but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly
and efficient meetings, we kindly request your cooperation and compliance with the following guidelines.
1. Please be respectful of each other(Council members, staff, and the public).
2. Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and
address.
Public Sign- In
July 1, 2013 City Council Meeting
Please Print
Name Namein:/Pea
Name
1 1N '4' ' ,/l,i/� 1J 18 4 35
2 AL 19 36
3I'L., ,/2441-1;34/ 20 37
4 t - rr 21 38
5 C) Yw..,1 22 39
1i 23
K O tiUlr5ty3� 40
`J
7f ( ra,( 24 41
8 l✓ . ) U %4J 25 42
9 i!
�, -� ri� lr 26 43
�
10 ,114, ll L'tr 4q,i 27 44
11 2A,-, C ka, l 1 28 45
12 ,C.CC i Atafe,Q,IC, 29 46
13 f&t' L&., ( (( 30 47
14 b1/4Nd�- itletAs 31 48
15 ei ?1-\ je p '- n 32 49
16 D,,ALL.a, Pr 33 50
17R:rL 6'1aJ 34 51
1111
southburtington
VERMDNT
To: Kevin Dom, Interim City Manager
From: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director
Subject: Consideration of a Resolution Directing the City Manager to Undertake
Planning, Engineering and Permitting for City Center Public Infrastructure,
Facilities and Amenities
Date: June 26, 2013
Background: The attached proposed resolution directs the City Manager to take the
appropriate coordination, design and engineering steps to implement City
Center subject to the contracting authority of the City Council,budgetary
authority of the voters. It also reiterates that the Council and the public will be
regularly updated on progress.
The proposed resolution signals that the City is moving forward by taking a
holistic approach to creating a downtown.
Last year,the Council adopted the Tax Increment Financing(TIF)District
Plan, created the TIF District and continued the process to update the land
regulations for City Center.
The purpose of the South Burlington TIF District is to fund public
improvements required to develop a downtown- City Center- a concept that
the City has been investing time and funds into for almost thirty years.
The TIF District and Plan are currently under consideration by the Vermont
Economic Progress Council (VEPC)and indications are that the board will be
ready to approve the district and related projects at their July meeting.
The City Center initiative proposes to build a new town center from the ground
up with many partners. Prior to expending construction funds, a multi-year
pre-development stage is anticipated due to the nature of the projects and the
added complexity of private-public partnerships. This period will require
coordination and focus across many departments to achieve successful and
timely implementation.
Factors affecting the anticipated schedule include the number of
design/engineering steps, negotiation with multiple private property owners,
environmental and structural permitting requirements, agency and stakeholder
coordination,the consultant contracting process and seasonal considerations.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
Attachments: • The TIF District Plan, City Comprehensive Plan and Official Map are
available on www.sburl.com.
• Resolution for consideration
Recommendation: Consider approval of the Resolution
Additional The State requires that if the City is to incur debt financed by the TIF District,
consideration: South Burlington will need to do so prior to March of 20I7, and will only have
five subsequent years during which to draw on these funds.
W .w
R-2013-
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE PLANNING,
ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING FOR CITY CENTER PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE,
FACILITIES AND AMENITIES
WHEREAS,the development of a downtown has been included in every one of the City of South
Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plans since 1985;and
WHEREAS,the City has undertaken significant public outreach and engaged multiple consultants to
study and plan for redevelopment of City Center including the initial City Center Planning Study(1986),
adopting a Central District zoning designation(1988)and City Center Design Review Overlay District
(2003),developing Streetscape Design Guidelines(1999),holding design charrettes on City Center(2003,
2005,2011),commissioning market studies(2004,2009,2012),creating a Conceptual Plan(2006),
developing an Environmental Assessment(approved 2010)and becoming a Vermont designated New
Town Center(2010);and
WHEREAS,the City established a process to develop Form Based Codes(2011),submitted a Tax
Increment Finance District application to the Vermont Economic Progress Council(2012)and held
ongoing consultations with property owners to evaluate the Tax Increment Financing(TIF)District Plan
financial feasibility and economic benefits;and,
WHEREAS,City Center represents an opportunity to provide long term economic vitality to the City,
region and state,establish a civic and commercial core for residents,provide for public amenities,support
transportation mode shifts to more sustainable alternatives, increase the supply of affordable housing and
reduce development pressures on more sensitive environments through infill development;and,
WHEREAS,neither the City nor the development community are able to solely provide adequate
financing to support the infrastructure required to support a compact,mixed-use downtown development;
and,
WHEREAS,in 2012,the City found that establishing a South Burlington TIF District would serve its
intended public purpose of stimulating redevelopment of the district,providing for employment
opportunities,improving and broadening the tax base and enhancing the general economic vitality of the
City,Chittenden County and the State of Vermont;and,
WHEREAS, in 2012,the City adopted a TIF District Plan that identified potential City Center projects
proposed be considered for TIF District Financing; and
WHEREAS,the City has strategically reduced debt-funded obligations to create debt capacity,
established the TIF district,adopted impact fees and funded a Capital Improvement Reserve Fund in order
to fiscally prepare for anticipated public infrastructure costs related to City Center;and,
WHEREAS,tax increment financing State approval has a finite timeline after which these funds will no
longer be accessible to the City for the purpose of constructing City Center infrastructure,facilities or
amenities;and,
WHEREAS,the construction of public infrastructure,facilities and amenities requires years of design,
engineering,permitting,negotiation,and the identification and securing of additional funding sources
prior to final decision making and actual construction on any given project.
R-2013-
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby affirms the City's intention to
build City Center as a public-private partnership; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to begin the development of the City
Center Initiative by undertaking the pre-construction design and engineering phases and to negotiate and
undertake such studies,plans,engineering projects and partner agreements as may be required to build the
public infrastructure,facilities and amenities for City Center subject to the contracting authority of the
City Council and the budgetary approval of the voters;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to develop and present to the City
Council a program of work to be undertaken related to the City Center Initiative that includes the steps to
completion,public outreach,resources,Council decision points and timelines by November of 2013; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to provide regular updates to the City
Council and the community.
APPROVED this day of ,2013.
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Pam Mackenzie,Chair Pat Nowak,Vice Chair
Chris Shaw,Clerk Helen Riehle
Rosanne Greco
#IZ-1 3-04
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
CITY COUNCIL
16 IDX DRIVE/BLACKBERRY LANE
INTERIM ZONING CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION#IZ-13-04
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Gardner&Sons Development Corp., hereafter referred to as the applicant, equests conditional use
approval under the Interim Zoning to amend a previously approved plannedunitdevelopment
consisting of eight (8)two-family dwellings. The amendment consists re ting 16"footprint lots",one
(1)for each dwelling unit, Blackberry Lane.
The City Council held a public hearing on June 17, 2013. David Burke of O'Leary BurkeAssociates and
vim
Brad Gardner represented the applicant at the hearing.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public iearinge plans and supporting materials
contained in the document file for this application,the City—CoUnctiffnds,toncludes, and decides the
following:
FINDINGS BFFACT
1. Applicant requests conditional use approvalunder the tntem Zoning to amend a previously
approved planned ullifldeleklment consisting of eight ( two-family dwellings.The
amendment consists of creates 16"footprint lots", one (1)for each dwelling unit, Blackberry
Lane.
2. The owner of record-. the subject pew is Gardner & Sons Development Corp (c/o Brad
G a rder.
3 'he application was received or1 16, 2013.
4. Thes tbject property isl ated in the Residential 4 Zoning District.
5. The plans emitted consist of a one (1) page set of plans, entitled, "Lands of Gardner&Sons
w,
Development:Corp 1DX Drive,South Burlington,Vermont Footprint Lot Preliminary Plat,"
prepared by Lamoureau & Dickenson Consulting Engineers, Inc., last dated, 1-10-13.
6. The applicant's testimony indicated that "Quickly,the Duplex PRD was an approved project prior
to IZ and will exist as originally approved regardless of IZ.The only change is the addition of
'Footprint Lots' around each Unit for Mortgage purposes to designate the Units and PUD's
rather than Condominiums."
1
F:\USERS\Planning&Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_13_04_161DXDrive-
BlackberryLn_Gardner_ffd.doc
#IZ-13-04
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I.APPLICABILITY OF INTERIM BYLAW,ADOPTED FEBURARY 21,2012
Interim Bylaw Section II: Description of Districts Affected
This Interim Bylaw shall apply to all Districts established and listed in Article 3.01(A)(1)-
(4)of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations except for:
A. Airport Industrial
B. Airport
C. Institutional Agricultural—North
D. Queen City Park
AA-
E. Lakeshore Neighborhood
F. Municipal -_
G. Park and Recreation _-
H. Southeast Quadrant—Village Commercial LL
I. Mixed Industrial and Commercial District
J. Industrial and Open Space District t v�
The proposed commercial development is vthtn the Residential Ong District and,therefore, is
subject to the Interim Bylaw.
Interim Bylaw Section III:Limitations on Land Developm
Within the areas affected b ~ #R erim Bylaw, Mop llowing shallsitrVinot be allowed:
A. New PlannedUnit Devel ments.
B. New subdNiSTalik V"
C. New principal buildings t ,require site planapproval.
D. Alterations to exis rincipa 'sgs.
E. Alterationsany othersting structures used for commercial or industrial purposes.
F.Amendment `a master a pr any related site plans or plats that deviates from an
approvedMaster Plan in o► ofthe respe set forth in Article 15.07(D)(3)(a)-(e)of the South
S.
Burlington DevelopmentReulatio
The main purposetf an interim bylaw is to temporarily preserve the existing land uses and maintain the
status quo while theunicipa ` formulates its permanent zoning bylaws. See Town of Mendon v. Ezzo,
129 Vt. 351, 356-357 �:= 1);see also Section I of the Interim Bylaw("[T]he purpose of this Interim
Bylaw is to provide the City . . .to prepare and adopt amendments to the Land Development
Regulations that implement the City's goals and objectives."). For the reasons set forth in the Purpose
of the Interim Bylaw, and to temporarily preserve the existing land uses and maintain the status quo
while the City formulates amendments to its Land Development Regulations,the City Council
determined that six types of development will or could be contrary to the amendments to the Land
Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan the City is presently contemplating.
The proposal is to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of eight (8)two-
family dwellings. The proposal of creating 16"footprint lots",one (1)for each dwelling unit, Blackberry
2
F:\USERS\Planning&Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_13_04 161DXDrive-
BlackberryLn_Gardner_ffd.doc
#IZ-13-04
Lane, is prohibited by the Interim Bylaw pursuant to Section III(A, B,and C) above, and does not qualify
for an exemption under Section IV of the Interim Bylaw.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Interim Bylaw Section VI:Review of Applications
The City Council may, upon application, authorize the issuance of permits for any type of development
as a conditional use not otherwise permitted by this Interim Bylaw,after pyhhc hearing preceded by
notice in accordance with 24 V.S.A. section 4464. The authorization by thegislative body shall be
granted only upon a finding by the Council that the proposed use is consistent with the health,safety,
and welfare of the municipality and the following standards. The proposed development shall not
result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following:
A. The capacity of existing or planned community facilities,services, ords.
B. The existing patterns and uses of development in the area.
C. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicity
D. Environmental limitations of the site or area and'ffntils_ig_n___if:rettht,,r3atural resourceareas and
sites.
E. Utilization of renewable energy resources.
F. Municipal plans and other municipalmunitipetzbylaws, ordinancesisr regulations in effect.
The applicant has submitted a complete application fdr-COditional Use approval by the City Council
pursuant to this section.
70-1
As set forth above,the posed'prcett is prohibited by the Interim Bylaw. Despite this prohibition,the
City Council may authorize issuanof a permit for any type of development as a conditional use not
otherwise permitted by the nterim Bylaw if the City Council concludes that the proposed development
is consistent with both the iTealth, saaf nd welfare of the municipality as well as the standards
identified as At t' tt F in Section III of t uteri Bylaw.
A. Is the Proposed Development Consistent with the Health,Safety,and Welfare of the City of South
Burlington?_ `-
To determine whether the proposed development is consistent with the health, safety,and welfare of
the City of South Burl ton,the-City Council considers whether the specific development proposal is the
type of development atwill or could be contrary to the amendments to the Land Development
Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan presently being contemplated by the City.
The goals discussed in the Purpose statement in Section I of the Interim Bylaw guide the City Council's
analysis of whether the proposed development is the type of development that will or could be contrary
to the anticipated amendments. The Purpose statement is a summary both of the rationale for adopting
the Interim Bylaw and of the studies and planning process that are underway in the City.
The goals include the adoption of Form Based Code-style regulations for the City Center and adjacent
Williston Road area and possibly other areas of the City;the update of the Comprehensive Plan to
3
F:\USERS\Planning&Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_13_04_161DXDrive-
BlackberryLn_Gardner_ffd.doc
#IZ-13-04
include as City goals the support of sustainable agriculture,the conservation of open space, and the
promotion of housing for people of all incomes and stages of life; and the preparation and adoption of
amendments to the Land Development Regulations that implement the City's goals and objectives.
The City is in the process of formulating Form Based Code regulations for the City Center and adjacent
Williston Road area and determining to what additional areas of the City, if any,the Form Based Code
regulations will apply. (Form Based Codes focus on physical form rather than on uses and address the
relationship between building facades and the public realm,the form and mass of buildings in relation
to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks.)
The proposed development at 16 IDX Drive/Blackberry Lane includex,1;70hVhe creation of"Footprint
Lots" and no other changes to the previously approved developmt No c es affecting open space,
sustainable agriculture, or the potential use of form based cod s are propose he establishment of
�_
"Footprint Lots" is anticipated, according to the applicant,to reduced mortgage5 r st rates for future
buyers.
Based on this analysis,the Council concludes that the proposed development is not the type of
development that will or could be contrary to the contemplandments to the Lark' Development
Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the health,safety, and welfare of the
City of South Burlington.
B. Is the Proposed Development Consistent w the Stan arils Identifiedas A through F in Section III
of the Interim Bylaw?
Even when the City Councilonclui� sthat a proposed project in consistent with the health, safety, and
welfare of the City of Burlingfmi the Council ao must conclude that the proposed development
will not result in an-`un 0 verse ffect on any ,�
of the standards listed in Section VI of the Interim
Bylaw in order for the ro d
p p � ht to rec `ve conditional use approval under the Interim
Bylaw. See 24 415(d),("
Interi 7 haw Section VI(A a prop* velopment shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
the capa Af existing or planned community facilities,services, or lands.
Interim Bylaw Section VI(B): Theproposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
the existing pattertt -and uses‘development in the area.
Interim Bylaw Section VI C): The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
Interim Bylaw Section VI(D):The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites.
Interim Bylaw Section VI(E): The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
utilization of renewable energy resources.
4
F:\USERS\Planning&Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ 13 04 161DXDrive-
BlackberryLn_Gardner ffd.doc — —
#IZ-13-04
As the proposed applicant does not change the number or type of housing units, or the overall layout of
the previously approved project, the City Council concludes that the proposed development is
consistent with the five standards and will not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the five
conditional use criteria.
Interim Bylaw Section Vl(F): The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or regulations in effect.
South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Goals (adopted March 9, 2011)
Upon review and consideration of the goals in the existing Comprehesiv ' an,the City Council
concludes that the proposed project will not result in an undue adverse of e n the Comprehensive
Plan.
Land Development Regulations (amended May 7, 2012)
If the following conditions are met,the proposed project will not result In an undue adverse effect on
the existing Land Development Regulations:
1. The applicant shall receive approval from the Development Review Board prior to issuance of
a zoning permit.
2. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit pr r to the commencement of any land
development.
All other city ordinances
If the following condition is net, the proposed project will not result in an undue adverse effect on all
other City ordinances. let
1. Applicants shall r ceive al her applicable City permits.
Subject the three conditionstdentifiet bove,the City Council finds that the proposed development
will not result in an undue adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan and other municipal bylaws,
ordinances,ormulations in efct.
For the reasons se_t forth above,the Council concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the
health,safety and v lfare of the City of South Burlington and the standards set forth in Section VI(A)-
(F)of the Interim Bylaw.__= x
DECISION
Motion by ,seconded by ,to approve Interim Zoning Conditional Use
Application #IZ-13-04 of Gardner and Sons Development, subject to the following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein.
5
F:\USERS\Planning&Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_13_04_161DXDrive-
BlackberryLn_Gardner_ffd.doc
#IZ-13-04
2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the
South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. The applicant shall receive approval from the Development Review Board prior to issuance of a
zoning permit.
4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the commencement of any land development.
5. Applicants shall receive all other applicable City permits.
,k
6. Any changes to the project plans shall require approval of the South ington City Council so long
as the Interim Bylaw remains in effect.
Pam Mackenzie—yea/nay/abstain/not present
Rosanne Greco—yea/nay/abstain/not present
Helen Riehle—yea/nay/abstain/not present
Pat Nowak—yea/nay/abstain/not present 3 6,77, =_
Chris Shaw—yea/nay/abstain/not present
Motion by a vote of=
Signed this " awv. July
Pam kenzie, Chair
Please note: An appe ethis decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decisio notice of appeall the requiteilee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental
Division. V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) opy ofe notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South
Burlington Planing and Zoning department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) ). Pleas _ contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontiu org/GTenvironmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadli fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permrttee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.
6
F:\USERS\Planning&Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_13_04_16IDXDrive-
BlackberryLn_Gardner_ffd.doc
4 I •
south- to .
PLANNING & ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council &Interim City Manager
FROM: Paul Conner,Director of Planning and Zoning
Cathyann LaRose,City Planner
SUBJECT: Patrick Malone(200 Dorset Street et al) Impact Fee Request
DATE: July 1,2013 City Council meeting
Patrick Malone of Malone Dorset Street Properties LLC is making two separate requests of the City
Council related to a proposed development at 192, 196, 200, and 222 Dorset Street.This memo outlines
the standard practices and current regulations related to such connections and identifies key
considerations for Council in making a determination on the request. For ease of reading, staff has
reviewed each separately.
1. Request: Impact Fee credit for all infrastructure improvements Trader Joe's completes that are to
become public in the future,including:
a. Dorset Street southbound left-turn lane extension (20 feet)
b. Dorset Street pedestrian signal upgrade (25%of north-south and east-west crossings)
c. Street"A" north side sidewalk, curbing, stormwater and drainage,street lighting
d. Street"A" connection to property line on east side
Eli ibilit :
Road Impact Fee Ordinance Section 8-Credits for"In-Kind" Contributions land or
A. "In-Kind"contribution shall mean provision, by a person subject to payment of an impact fee, of
equipment or construction of facilities that are included in the impact fee analyses and computations, and
which are included in or consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
B. Upon recommendation of the Development Review Board, the City Council may approve a credit against
any impact fee levied under this ordinance for the value of"In-Kind"contributions. The amount of credit
for an "In-Kind" contribution shall be based on the actual cost to the person requesting the credit of
providing or creating the facilities. The Development Review Board shall indicate the basis on which the
amount of credit is determined. The amount of credit for an "In-Kind" contribution shall not exceed the
total amount of the impact fee for that type of facility which would otherwise be levied on the proposed
development.
Details of re ug est:
The applicant is seeking a credit of up to $161,002, based on roadway improvements described
above that are anticipated to amount to $169,084. This figuresbased n the use
that part of the
proposed development as short order restaurant. The applicant
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
consider the less intensive use of general office. Even should the applicant choose the less intensive
use, the cost of the applicant's share of road improvements (again, $169,084) would exceed the
calculated$124,007 in impact fees.
Based on these figures,the applicant is eligible for a full credit of either amount requested.
Recommendations:
The Development Review Board (DRB), at its hearing on June 18 and pursuant to the Ordinance,
voted to: "recommend that the City Council, pursuant to Section 8 of the South Burlington
Impact Fee Ordinance, approve a credit against any Road Improvement Impact Fee that the
South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance requires the Applicant to pay, this list includes a 20'
southbound left turn lane, the pedestrian crossing, infrastructure north to south and east to
west, the sidewalk along future road, parking and curbing for future road, drainage system for
future road, road connection and street lighting, in an amount that equals the actual cost to the
applicant of the in-kind contributions, as defined in the Impact Fee Ordinance, and only to the
extent that the actual cost to the Applicant of the In-Kind Contributions does not exceed the
total amount of any Road Improvement Impact Fee that the Applicant must pay."
Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Development Review Board.
2. Request:City contribution towards Street"A"connection to eastern property line
Details of request:
Malone Properties has requested that the City provide a financial contribution towards the
completion of the road connection along"Street A" between the driveway entrances to Trader Joe's
and Healthy Living and the eastern edge of the property boundary—a distance of approximately
Their request is detailed in a letter from their representative, White & Burke, dated June 13, 2013
and attached.The total cost for the road connection is estimated to be$137,250.
Eligibility:
Typically in South Burlington the responsibility and cost for installation of roads serving new
development, or connecting between new developments, rests with the applicant/property owner.
The authority for this standard lies within the Land Development Regulations, where the DRB has
the authority to require dedication and construction of streets (Article 15).
The road connection may be eligible for funding via the Impact Fee Ordinance, the Tax Increment
Finance District, or City Capital expenditures, or may be the responsibility of the applicant entirely.
Portions of the connection may be eligible for funding through other City accounts, including, but
not limited to, Stormwater Utility capital funds. Some or all of these funding options are not
included in the approved FY'14 budget.Any of these would be at the discretion of the City Council.
Recommendations:
At its meeting on June 17, 2013, and after hearing input from the applicant and Staff, the City
Council asked the applicant to work with Staff and City Council Chair Mackenzie to discuss options
for cost-sharing of some part of the public infrastructure.
2
This small working group met and agreed that the management of stormwater in the City Center
area is an established priority for the City, and a fundamental component of viability of the area.
Furthermore, all felt that the road crossing of the jurisdictional ditched stream resulted in a unique
challenge to stormwater management in the area, especially held against a very short section of
roadway connection. As this area of the city is integrally related to the region's overall stormwater
infrastructure, proper planning and management will have a positive community impact.
As a result, the group recommends that the City assume the responsibility for the cost of the box
culvert and half the cost of its installation, as part of the overall City Center stormwater planning. Of
the total cost of road construction, $137,250,this would amount to approximately$79,250.
Sources of Funding:
The Road Impact Fee Ordinance, for which the public infrastructure improvement of a box culvert
would be eligible, is the most appropriate fund, should the Council choose to contribute to the cost
as recommended.The current balance of Fund 221 is approximately$884,217.
Recommended Motions:
1. That the City Council "authorizes the expenditure of no more than $79,250 for the box culvert and
half of its installation, along what is currently known as 'Street A',to be used as part of the total cost
of construction of the road connection to the westerly property line of the Malone property near
200 Dorset Street. We further authorize the City Manager to enter into a legal agreement with
Malone Dorset Street Properties, LLC, to reflect the cost sharing authorized herein and to reflect an
appropriate time frame and assurance for the completion of the work, appropriate stormwater
easements, and that any additional funds beyond this contribution shall be the applicant's
responsibility."
2. That the City Council "grants a credit against any Road Improvement Impact Fee that the South
Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance requires the Applicant to pay,to include a 20' southbound left turn
lane, the pedestrian crossing infrastructure north to south and east to west, the sidewalk, parking,
curbing, lighting, and drainage system for future road, and road connection, in an amount that
equals the actual cost to the applicant of the in-kind contributions, as defined in the Impact Fee
Ordinance, and only to the extent that the actual cost to the Applicant of the In-Kind Contributions
does not exceed the total amount of any Road Improvement Impact Fee that the Applicant must pay
in association with the current DRB application. "
3
hit
southburlington
PLANNING & ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & Interim City Manager
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning&Zoning
SUBJECT: Draft Impact Fee Ordinance Amendments Recreation & Police
DATE: July 1,2013 City Council meeting
Enclosed are draft amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance,with minor revisions recommended by the
City Attorney prior to the last meeting.
At this week's meeting,the Council will hold a continued public hearing. Following the hearing,the
Council may decide to adopt the revisions to the Ordinance and associated analysis reports,or may
identify changes to be made.Any changes will require a warning of a new hearing.
Details of the amendments can be found in the staff memo from June 3rd and June 17th.The adjustments
proposed by the City Attorney were technical in nature.
Recommended motions [if the Council is ready to adopt the ordinance]:
1. "I move to close the public hearing on the Recreation Impact Fee Amended Ordinance and
Police Impact Fee Ordinance."
2. "I move to adopt the Recreation Impact Fee Amended Ordinance and Police Impact Fee
Ordinance,together with associated analysis reports, effective October 15,2013."
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
South Burlin ton, Vermont Pro osed Amendments to the Im act Fee Ordinance
t
Proposed Amendments o th
01,i4/:4:-
CITY OF SOUTH Y B, ; N
IMPACT F
RDINANCE
"i
,., " 1995
ended: A 17, 1995
December 2, 1996
uary 2, 1998
September 7, 1999
July 16, 2001
Ni
December 3, 2007
fr.' October 19, 2009
July 1, 2013
Language to be added is highlighted as shown
Page 1
South Burlin ton, Vermont Pro osed Amendments to the In; act Fee Ordinance
KEY TO AMENDMENTS:
Proposed new text is bold and underlined
Proposed text to be removed has a
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
Section 3. Establishment of Fees
B. Recreation Impact Fee: Except as provided in Sid. .ra
described in subparagraph (1) which is issue• _ -mit und- h (5), any land development as
gland Development Regulations of .-`date this Im '. itc- City of South Burlington
becomes effective shall pay an impact feya ermined in accorda =e nance ithOrdlthe sion
forth in subparagraph (2). la set
(1)This impact fee shall a s any land dea' .. vent that results ink:"'
. increase in
dwelling units.
(2) Formula for determination ei21.1 pac
• "well structures
three
_ _ i Su uCtur e,�Eiili•,••,•••
orf= ` � a85.67p � �, less a - ���IOG
column d appropriate credits, as shown in
- - of Table REC-4.
•
- , ellings in structures containing four or
more 1 ffi .7 per uni ,
, '-
- - ss appropriate credits as shown in column 7
of Table
(3)Th-o ~).act fee for i4 a set forth in subparagraph (2) above is based on a stud and
report e d, "SOUT," URLINGTON, VERMONT: RECREATION FACILITY.98-Z y
IMPACT FE ,A LYSIb , •e• UPDATE:, prepared by Michael J. Munson, Ph.D.,
FAICP, dated e ! y 28 2013 which reports is incorporated into this
ordinance by refe`'- �ce.
(4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay
costs associated with the following recreation improvement projects which are
described in the above referenced reports:
(a) Develop Soccer Field on land in South Villa e
(b) Land acquisition for "Marceau Meadows" recreation fields property in the
vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Van Sicklen Road
Page 2
South Burlington, Vermont Proposed Amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance
(c) Development of Marceau Meadows recreation fields
(d) Development of Old Farm Road recreation
(e) Development of Dumont Park recreation area
(f) Development of recreation path as described in the above referenced 2007
Recreation Facility Impact Fee Analysis report, including:
i. Dorset Street/Hoehn connection along Dorset Street
ii. Spear Street bicycle lane
iii. Shelburne Rd/Queen City Rd imprtements
iv. Connection from Tilley Drive to mall Avenue, including
bridging. 4
v. Vale Drive to Spear &Swi ; ' re a path connection
vi. Recreation path cone ion along Air _. rt Drive extension to Lime
Kiln Road
vii. Recreation path connection from the Willis Road Holiday Inn to
Patchen Roads ` r
viii. Extension along Hinesburg RoadTilley Drive" )
(5) This impact fee shall no n*® ' and developent as described in subparagraph
i
(1) which: ,_
O
(a) is for deve 0, -e t within .ubdiv' ,-.9 - t received final plat approval under ,
the Soup;I®urlingt' Subdivisia ions I) I-r o January 9, 1995, which
subdivision pproval1ntaineda` : :itionrequiring payment of fees to the City
for the pur s off 'ng,recreat i*`.'mprovements; and )
4-
. •Free c `b spec in the s io approval were paid to the City in
41( accordant * h they .= s of the a royal; and
I
- „„a permit is I :d for tkqevelopment under the South Burlington Zoning i
ulations on-:* before January 9, 2005.
E. Police Impact Fee: @. r-_ Ida development which is issued a permit under the City of South
Burlington Land Develop ent Regulations after the date these amendments to the Impact
Fee Ordinance become effective shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the
formula set forth in subparagraph (1). This impact fee shall be based on the report entitled
POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, prepared by Michael J.
Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, and dated May 28, 2013.
(1) Formula for determination of Police impact fees
(a) Dwellings in structures containing three or fewer units: $503.88 per unit less
appropriate credits as shown in column 5 of Table PD-4.
Page 3
South Burlington, Vermont Proposed Amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance
(b) Dwellings in structures containing four or more units: $352.72 per unit less
appropriate credits as shown in column 9 of Table PD-4.
(c) Non-Residential Development: $237.76 per 1,000 square feet of floor area,
less appropriate credits as described in the above referenced Police Impact Fee
Analysis, maiking use of Tables PD-5, PD-6, and PD-7.
(2) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall only be used to
pay capital costs associated with the new police station, as described in the above
referenced report.
4:44k1:14,..' ''':41::4 -*.''''';':.:4'' -
tor
Page 4
South Burlington, Vermont Proposed Amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance
•
TABLE REG4
NET IMPACT FEES
(Per Unit)
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
DWELLING 8AS€ TOTAL NE; &485 TOTAL NET
YEAP F€E CREDITS FEE SEE ;s: CREDITS FEE
2007 51,938.75 $268.82 $1,669A3 $1, $170.14 $1,251.61
2008 $1,938.75 $282.20 $1,65649 y $178.65 $1,213.10
2009 $1,938.75 $282.37 E,38 'g $178.70 $1,213.05
2010 $1,938.75 $241.53 $1,421.75� $ '
2011 $1,938.7� $230.37 $1,421.75 72 $1,276.83
2412 :1;93817: :1731.77 F $1,921.75 $1 $1,31a.20
2413 $1,938.75 $101.14 $1,421.75 = $ 3
2014 $1,5'5.75 $66.17 $11 $4-59
2415 $1,938.75 Atc3, m $33.90
2016 $1,938.75 $1,897.41 1.75 $25.81 $ 3
2017 $1,938.75 $ 0 � d_<' $18.34 $1/103/I1
201$ $1,938.75 $ i;
$11.11 $1,410.64
y'
TA REC
3 i 9vJ5 F , '-' ' -
y.. ". PACE : ,. R ..
4
1 .,- UN I.7*` _..URES 4+UNIT STRUCTURES
•
DWELLING s �
_* � NET BASE TOTAL NET
<++ITS ,,. FEE CREDITS FEE
T
$178.06 $1,001.91$1,6856 z'' _ $1,4�;-;% $1,179.97 $186.96 $993.0120 $1,390.27 $1,179.97$1,685.67 $___.,-1: $1,179.97 $187.35 $992.62$1,685.67 A 96.06 ' $1,389.61
2010 ; 685.67. ... 4.96 $1,430.71 $1,179.97 $161.21 $1,018.76
2011 'Il ;67 .77 $1,441.90 $1,179.97 $154.07 $1,025.90
2012 16 . .17 $1,502.50 $1,179.97 $115.54 $1,064.43
2013 $1,685.6 r � .
09.60 $1,576.07 $1,179.97 $68.77 $1,111.20
2014 $1,685.67 $72.38 $1,613.29 $1,179.97 $45.08 $1,134.89
2015 $1,685.67 $58.95 $1,626.72 $1,179.97 $36.51 $1,143.46
2016 $1,685.67 $45.86 $1,639.81 $1,179.97 $28.15 $1,151.82
2017 $1,685.67 $33.07 $1,652.60 $1,179.97 $19.98 $1,159.99
2018 $1,685.67 $20.59 $1,665.08 $1,179.97 $12.00 $1,167.97
Page 5
South Burlington, Vermont Proposed Amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance
TABLE PD-4
NET RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES, PER UNIT
1 THRU 3 UNIT STRUCTURES 4+UNIT STRUCTURES
DWELLING Base Credit for Credit for Net Base Credit for Credit for Net
YEAR Fee Past taxes Future taxes Fee Fee Past taxes Future taxes Fee
2010 $503.88 $0.00 $158.93 $344.95 $352.72 6t "l0 $99.90 $252.82
o"fx2011 $503.88 $0.20 $153.60 $350.08 $352.72.�ti "' .10 $96.55 $256.07
lt
2012" $503.88 $0.73 $126.81 $376.34 352. .0.36 $79.71 $272.65
2013 $503.88 $1.26 $100.03 $402.59 3 . 3 $62.88 $289.21
2014 $503.88 $1.71 $79.39 $422.7822 12,r. $49.90 $301.96
2015 $503.88 $2.02 $68.07 433.79 .72 $1.Or $42.79 $308.92
2016 $503.88 $2.33 $57.49 444 i `352.72 $1.17 'I . $36.14 $315.42
2017 $503.88 $2.64 $47.81 $453. > 352.72 $1.32 .30.05 $321.35
2018 $503.88 $2.93 $39.20 $461.74 a,2.72 .1.47 ) 64 $326.61
2019 $503.88 $3.22 $3177 $468.89 2 r1.61 $ $331.14
2020 $503.88 $3.50 $25 5: � . ,474.80 3 $1.75 $16. $334.89
2021 $503.88 $3.93 $10.10 . '. 6 $352. .. $1.96 $6.35 $344.41
2022 $503.88 $4.19 $6.09 .,4'' i"`, � 352.72 e2.10 $3.83 $346.80
2023 $503.88 $4.44 $3.50 iii,'5.9 .- .72 � .20 2 $348.30
2024 $503.88 $4.68 �� 2.39 <.80 . 1.50 $348.87
2025 $503.88 4.9, ' z: 4°` 5 2.4 $1.58 $348.68
2026 $503.88 5 2.. 49 � '2.72 ` " .58 $1.66 $348.48
2027 $503.88 $5.4 2 7 j 495,1r 352.72 $2.71 $1.74 $348.27
2028 $503.88 $5.69 $2.9: 4° . $495 28 '4 52.72 $2.85 $1.83 $348.05
2029 503.8 `° 8 _ 4.85 '& 2.72 $2.99 $1.92 $34 .81
2030 50 . e . .72 $3.16 $0.00 $349.56
.
7
Page 6
South Burlington, Vermont Proposed Amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance
TABLE PD-5
NON-RESIDENTIAL
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2006 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0%per year
CONS- _ _ CREDITS
TRUCTION ANNUAL TAX RATE TAX ON PER$1,000 OF
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED $1000 .- ASSESSED VALUE
2010 $102,666 0.003795 $0.00
2011 $271,764 0.009848 ,,e'Nfi'vt $0.04
2012 $266,400 0.009464 "0.09 $0.15
2013 $210,316 0.007325 AA $0.07 $0.25
2014 $127,972 0.00437 $0.04 $0.34
2015 $119,296 0.003 .,tr $0.04 NV I. $0.40
2016 $109,288 0.00358 -' $0.04 .1.47
2017 $97,696 0.003144 0 I C iir.j_
2018 $85,096 0.002684 z '- $0
2019 $71,848 i" a.12222 _ 0 6Z
2020 $157,916
.I I�E`7;:88 $0.70
2021 $43,372 + 10 ; $0. $0.79
2022 $28,360 e ,$827 $0.01 $0.84
2023 , 44 0. .67 100
$0.89
20 ; 0.0 ram-I 4 $0.94
7 t nnnn to - to QA
,
202 '
` 0.00001 $0.00 $1.03
2027 0 ,:; 0.000000la $0.00 $1.08
028 7 rt 4 10000 V $0.00 $1.14
i _ 3.€r i k 0.01 $1.20
0.000.. . . $0.00 $1.27
Page 7
South Burlington, Vermont Proposed Amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance
TABLE PD-6
NON-RESIDENTIAL
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2003 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0%per year
CONS- _ _ _ CREDITS
TRUCTION ANNUAL TAX RATE TAX ON PER$1,000 OF
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED 1000 VALU ASSESSED VALUE
2010 $102,666 0.003795 0.04 •z $0.45
2011 $271,764 0.009848 0.-.l $0.44
2012 $266,400 0.009464 Jf ,• $0.36
2013 $210,316 0.007325 - $0.29
2014 $127,972 0.004370 :1� .0.04 $0.23
2015 $119,296 0.003994 $0.04 $0.19
2016 $109,288 0.00358 $0.04 ,0.16
2017 $97,696 0.003144 - $0.03 ): 4
2018 $85,096 0.002684 4 I
- • • i
2019 $71,848 4. 002222 �•;.
2020 $157,916 2 fic', 88 a -ib,
$0.07
2021
$43,372 e e no.4�,: 0 c $0.03
2022 $28,360 S 4_.e. $0.01
$0.02
2023 $12,844 0.s 24 . 0.00 $0.01
2024 •44, 0.004r :$
2025 1 0.000fr, . y L . $0.01
2026 ' ,fi0 0.00000r, $0.00
r ry � $0.01
2027 .. 0.000000 = $0.00
$0.01
i„,..„:
2028 4 4.000000J. $0.00 $0.01
® `� sg�' 6 $0.01
_ $0.01
° : :0,
.Ea.. 0.0i. 0.00 $0.00
Page 8
a
U
cn d
w ¢ 0 0 0 1-
,�
O z co`� 0000 co E
2 v). vh in c
N
c
0
U
otLUul
0: J O ' 6 ' re; Q1 Go
0 U U ri Ol coo C
tJJ LL ,� in. 4 i i /1
C
0
w > '�
O V Hco
J Qi 0 0 •
0 C
n 5 U Z N ' co N
Q LL i/f ih t�h 0
N
ei1
W CU
Qw ao oo +
Q.
-0
N z w ono Tr: +
Q' WUa ", v> vs CO
Q C.
W 0 '
C..) ...I0 0 0 0 CD
Z U. W O 0 0 0 0
LL N LL n of �c ai 0 bL
�y v1 N N r1 4. > R
42 Q Vh ;'4.4 ih -c ay
gL
o O
LL u g o 0 0
Fly Q Li N ih ci 1-
0.
O LiJ : : ' : # i.
t
Ey W z0 O.
CU
0
d
CA
W LL
Z Q a,, Lo
in N
C.)
aft ; c
O z
d O C 17 _
G O w Z ro
W = Z O z L.
E- = O t W
co
1- W
V] Q D m G1 W E
'AJ et w cc cc
Cam+." 0 Y v.) w !- 71
co N
I' ' , w W 0 0 0 Co
= W O> ) O N 0
T+ d W u 0 n G UJ W ro LO
Q 0 U OC V1
N
=
CU Z om
VI a C O t- 0 LL cu O
0 < w O D. N0
0 aLLzza z " x
Q a _Eaw
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
RECREATION FACILITY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Prepared by
Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP
Planning Consultant
UPDATED
May 28, 2013
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
1.0 Introduction
The City of South Burlington has, for many years, provided a wide array of recreation facilities.
This has enabled the city to offer a diverse set of recreation services to its residents. As the
City's population has grown over the past decades, so also has the number and type of
recreation facilities grown. As the City's population continues to growl the demands placed on
recreation facilities will continue to increase. To satisfy that growing demand, additional
facilities will be required.
Since 1993 South Burlington has been using recreation impact fees to transfer the cost of new
recreation facilities to new development which generated the need for the facilities. Those
fees were based on an analysis prepared by Michael J. Munson, dated September 3, 1993. This
analysis was updated in 2006. In 2013, another update is appropriate
Vermont's impact fee enabling statute, 24 V.S.A., Chapter 131, is quite specific regarding what
must be considered when establishing a formula for impact fees that are fair and reasonable,
and that reflect that portion of the City's costs for new facilities that is logically attributable to
the new development. For recreation impact fees it is first acknowledged that demands for
recreation facilities come from city residents, so the fees are to be levied against new
residential development. The basic formula for an impact fee to be assessed on a new dwelling
is as follows:
The City's per-person cost of providing the needed facilities multiplied by the
number of person expected to reside in a new dwelling, minus any credits that
may be needed to offset possible double payment for recreation facilities.
or
Fee = (Cost-per-person)x(persons-per-dwelling)—credits as applicable
The remainder of this report will quantify the components of this formula and calculate
the actual recreation impact fees to be assessed for new recreation facilities that are
needed to serve the residents of anticipated new residential development.
2.0 Cost-Per-Person
Recreation Facilities: The first step in calculating the cost-per-person is to identify the
anticipated recreation facility projects that will be needed to satisfy the needs of the
growing population. This is drawn directly from the City's 2006 Capital Budget and
Program. That document includes an assessment of existing recreation facilities and a
projection of future facility needs based on the expected population growth. This, in
turn, is translated into specific capital projects over the coming six plus years. Based on
1 The population projections contained in the 2006 Capital Budget and Program indicate that the City's population is expected to
grow from 17,348 in 2005 to 24,487 in 2015.
May 28, 2013
Page 1
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
the Capital Budget and Program and discussions with the Recreation Director and the
Planning Director, the following recreation projects have been identified as needed to
increase the City's overall recreation capacity in order to accommodate the City's
growing population.
1. Development of Soccer Field on 2.73 acres at South Village in 2013 at cost of
$319,250
2. Acquisition of 35 acres of land in the Marceau Meadows area for recreation fields in
fiscal year 2009 at a cost of$500,000.
3. Development of the 35 acre parcel in fiscal year 2010 at a cost of$500,000.
4. Development of a donated 11 acre parcel on Old Farm Road in fiscal year 2008 at a
cost of$100,000.
5. Development of 9 acre Dumont Park as part of City Center Recreation system in
2010 at a cost of$350,000..
These five projects all involve the acquisition and/or development of land in four parcels (2.73
acres, 35 acres, 11 acres, and 9 acres) for recreation facilities. The total cost of these projects
is estimated to be $1,769,250 and will be funded by impact fees and allocations of local tax
revenues. The City's Comprehensive Plan and the 2006 Capital Budget And Program have
established a standard that the City should provide 7.5 acres of developed recreation land per
1,000 residents. According to this ratio, the 57.73 acres to be acquired and developed will be
adequate for serving population of 7,697 persons. The cost of$1,769,250, spread over that
service population yields a cost-per-person of$229.86.
Recreation Paths: In its Comprehensive Plan and its Capital Budget and Program the City has
specified a standard of 1.0 miles of recreation paths per 1,000 city residents as being necessary
to satisfy apparent demand for these facilities. A series of eight path projects has been
identified to move towards meeting this standard. For most projects, the length of the path
was estimated and an estimate of construction cost was developed on the basis of unit costs
set forth in the recent report "Report On Shared-Use path and Sidewalk Unit Costs" by the
Vermont Agency of Transportation (updated February 10, 2006)2. The estimated costs for each
of these projects are presented in Table REC-1.
2 For the path extension along Hinesburg Road to Tilley Drive,the data were provided in the"CCRPC Sidewalk Program,fy 2013
Application—Round 2:,dated November 16,2012.
May 28, 2013 Page 2
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
TABLE REC-1
PROPOSED RECREATION PATH PROJECTS
Length Path Unit
Path name (If) Type Cost Total Cost
Hinesburg Rd (to Tilley Drive)* 800 10' wide $225/If $36,000
Dorset St. (Hoehn Prop) 400 10'wide $132/If $52,800
Bile
Spear St. Bike Lane 21120 Lane $1.70/If $36,000
Shelburne Rd (Queen City Rd) 4452 10' wide $132/If $627,264
Williston Connection 3168 10'wide $132/If
Bridge 75 12' wide $1,200/If $508,176
Farrell Sub/Swift St. 4224 10' wide $132/If $557,568
Kennedy Dr/Lime Kiln Bridge* 10560 10'wide $132/If $1,855,000
Holiday lnn/Patchen Rd 2112 10' wide $132/If $278,784
TOTALS 46911 (8.88m0 $3,951,592
* Total project cost is$180,000 but City share is 20%=$36,000
** Estimated construction cost is$1,400,000 to be financed with a ten
year bond at 5%interest,giving a total project cost of$1,855,000
The proposed projects total 8.88 miles. Using the established ratio of 1.0 miles of path per
1,000 residents, these projects can serve a total of 8,888 persons at a unit cost of $444.59 per-
person.
Adding the per-person cost of recreation paths to the per-person cost of the other recreation
facilities described above ($229.68) yields a total cost-per-person of:
$229.68+$444.59 =$674.27
This will be the basis of the recreation impact fees.
3.0 Persons-Per-Dwelling Unit
Previous impact fee analyses have recognized that different types of dwelling units have
different household sizes. For single family units the ratio used in the 1993 analysis assumed
an average of 3.0 persons-per-dwelling, and for multiple family units (all others) a ratio of 1.5
persons-pe- dwelling was assumed. In 2001 those ratios were verified. A more recent review
of 2010 census data reveals a significant increase in the number of one and two person
May 28, 2013
Page 3
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
households since 2010, probably reflecting the recent construction of a large number of
apartment structures3.
Also, in recent years residential development in South Burlington has included a substantial
number of condominium dwellings in structures containing two and three units. These
condominium units typically have three bedrooms and contain somewhere in the range of
2,000 to 2,500 square feet of floor area. These characteristics are more consistent with
single family detached dwellings than multiple-family apartments. As a result, household
size will be estimated for two categories of dwellings: Those dwelling units in structures
containing three or fewer individual dwelling units, and those dwellings in structures
containing four or more individual dwelling units.
Further consideration of these trends and data indicates that the average household size for
dwellings in structures containing three or fewer dwellings is approximately 2.5 persons, and
that the average household size for dwellings in structures containing for or more units is
1.75 persons4.
4.0 Calculation of Basic Recreation Impact Fees
Using these ratios, the basic recreation impact fees per dwelling units of different types can be
calculated as follows:
Single Family Detached dwelling: 2.50 x$674.27 =$1,685.67 per unit;
Multiple Family dwelling : 1.75 x$674.27 = $1,179.97 per unit.
4.0 Computation of Credits:
The Vermont Impact Fee Statute (24 V.S.A., Chapter 131) explicitly states that the impact fee
formula must include offsets or credits to account for other taxes or fees paid by the development
that will be used to cover the cost of the projects included in the calculation of the impact fee.This
has been interpreted as including past or future property tax payments which might be used to
fund those improvements.
The City Council has determined that the City will generally finance the planned recreation
improvement projects by annual budget allocations of tax revenues, plus impact fee revenues. In
some cases, such as the outdoor swimming pool, a bond will be used to spread the cost of large
expenditures over several years. Based on the recommended recreation improvements,an annual
allocation will be made to cover the City's share of the cost of each of the planned recreation
projects scheduled for that year. Since the portion of these expenditures not funded by impact fee
revenues will come from tax revenues, it is apparent that some of the taxes paid by the land on
which new development will occur or by the new development after it has occurred (i.e.
development having already paid impact fees) will be used for these annual allocations.
3 SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING NEEDS,VHF A,2012.
4 Assuming that"renters"are primarily occupants of dwelling units in structures of four or more units,and that"owners"are
primarily occupants of dwellings in structures containing three or fewer units,the 2010 census data show the following: Multiplying
the 5,186 owner households by an average household size of 2.5 yields an owner population of 12,965. Multiplying the 2,801 renter
households by an average household size of 1.75 yields a renter population of 4,902. Adding these together totals 17,869,which is
very close to the City's 2010 Census population of 17,251.
Page 4
May 28, 2013
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
The land on which the new residential development occurs will have been assessed property taxes,
some of which will have been used for the annual allocations for recreation facilities in years prior
to development. These payments will be called past tax payments. To compute an appropriate
credits for these past tax payments, it is necessary to estimate the current value of that stream of
past tax payments, up to the point where the new development enters the grand list.
Once the new dwelling is constructed, it will continue to make tax payments,some of which will be
used for the annual allocations for new recreation projects. These will be called future tax
payments. To compute the appropriate credit for these future tax payments, it is necessary to
estimate the present value of the stream of the dwelling's future tax payments that will go to the
annual allocations for recreation projects needed for future development from the year the
dwelling unit is built until the end of the planned expenditures.
In addition, some residential developments in the City contributed land or money to be used for
recreation purposes. The value of those contributions must be estimated on a case by case basis
and credited against the impact fees.
Thus, for any development, there will be three potential credits against the base impact fees:
• The credit for past taxes (on land) used to fund past recreation facility expenditures,
• The credit for future taxes (on the dwelling and land) used to fund future annual
appropriations for recreation facility expenditures.
• The credit for land or money( if any) contributed to the City for recreation purposes.
The value of the credits for tax payments depend on the value of the development, the value of
the land prior to development,the City's grand list,and the year that the development enters the
City's grand list.
The Value of the Development: Residential development will take the form of either dwellings in
structures containing three or fewer units, or dwellings in structures containing four or more
units. Within each of these categories, the assessed values of the individual dwelling units
fluctuate around an average that can be used for estimating the credits.
Based on review of current tax data, the following assessed values of dwelling units will be
assumed5:
• Dwellings in structures containing three or fewer units will have an average assessed
value of$316,000.
5 The Assessor noted that new dwellings enter the Grand list in values equivalent to the year of the last assessment,and will
stay at that value until there is a town wide reassessment.
May 28, 2013
Page 5
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
• Dwellings in structures containing four or more units will have an average assessed
value of$200,000 per unit.
The Value of Land: Estimates of the value of the land used for residential development were
based on a review of current tax assessments of undeveloped parcels in excess of 15 acres. On
average, the assessed value was $18,000 per acre.
In order to convert the averaged assessed value per acre to average assessed value of land per
dwelling, it was necessary to assume some gross residential densities. For single family detached
dwellings, a gross density of four units per acre was assumed. For multiple family dwellings, a
gross density of seven dwellings per acre was assumed. Thus, dwellings in structures containing
three or fewer units, the assessed value of the land is estimated to be $4,500 per unit. For
dwellings in structures containing four or more units,the assessed value per unit is estimated to be
$2,571 per unit (rounded to $2,500 per unit).
The City's Grand List: The final pieces of data pertain to the City's grand list, which the assessed
value of all taxable property in the City6. Discussion with the City Assessor indicated that the City
expects its Grand List to continue to grow at an annual rate of 2.0 percent per year.The current
(2006) Grand List is $24,994,969.
A. Credits For Past Tax Payments:
The procedure for estimating credits for past tax payments involves several steps. First,
the annual expenditure for all of the projects described above were tabulated for each year
from 2007 through 2018. Since some of these projects are planned to serve existing
residents,it was necessary to adjust the total costs to reflect only that portion intended to
accommodate future growth. In addition, it is necessary to adjust these expenditures to
reflect the amount not being offset by impact fee revenues. The process for estimating
these net recreation expenditures is described in Appendix A.
The resulting annual expenditures were then divided by the grand list for each year(with
the 2 percent annual growth factored in) to produce an effective tax rate needed for the
recreation expenditures each year. For past tax payments, the effective tax rate was
multiplied by the assumed assessed value of raw land used for a single family or multi-
family dwelling unit to estimate the tax paid on that land for each year. The credit is the
present value of this stream of tax payments from the first year of the recreation
expenditures through the year the dwelling is constructed. If a dwelling is constructed in
2015,the credit is based on the stream of payments from 2007 through 2015. Table REC-2,
on the following page, shows the annual tax payments and computed credits for past tax
payments for single family dwellings and for multi-family dwellings for the years 2007
through 2018. If a dwelling in a structure containing three or fewer units is built in 2015,
the 2015 row of Table REC-2 shows that the credit is $6.03 per dwelling unit. For a
6 Technically,the grand list is one percent of the total assessed value.This adjustment will be incorporated
into the calculations that follow.
Page 6
May 28, 2013
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
dwelling in a structure containing four or more units built in 2015, the credit is$3.01.
B. Credits For Future Tax Payments:
The procedure for estimating credits for future tax payments is similar. As described in
Appendix A, net annual expenditures for the portion of the various projects planned to
accommodate future residents were listed for each year from 2007 to 2018. These figures
were then divided by the grand list for that year to produce an effective tax rate needed
for the recreation expenditures. This effective tax rate is multiplied by the assumed
assessed value for each category of dwellings to estimate the tax on those dwellings which
would be needed to support the planned recreation expenditures.
The credits are computed as the net present value of the stream of these tax payments
from the year the dwelling is built through the last year of the planned expenditures. If a
dwelling enters the grand list in 2009, the stream would include the payments made in
2010 through 2018,adjusted by the discount rate of 5.00 percent. Table REC-3,on page 8,
presents these credits. Again,for a dwelling in a structure containing three or fewer units
constructed in 2015, the 2015 row of Table REC-3 shows that the credit for future tax
payments is$52.93 For a dwelling in a structure containing four or more units constructed
in 2015, the credit is$33.50 per unit.
TABLE REC-2
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2006 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will grow at 2.0% per year
LAND VALUE PER UNIT: 1 THRU 3 UNIT STRUCTURE $5,000
LAND VALUE: 4+ UNIT STRUCTURES $2,500
TAX PER UNIT CREDITS PER UNIT
TAX
DWELLING ANNUAL RATE 1 THRU 3 UNIT 4+ UNIT 1 THRU 3 UNIT 4+UNIT
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED STRUCTURES STRUCTURES STRUCTURES STRUCTURES
2007 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2008 $115,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.23 $0.11 $0.00 $0.00
2009 $467,784.00 $0.02 $0.90 $0.45
2010 $204,300.00 $0.01 $1.19 $0.12
$0.39 $0.19 $1.19
2011 $633,758.40 $0.02 $1.17 $0.83
$0.59 $1.66 $0.83
2012
$734,637.60 $0.03 $1.33 $0.67 $2.97 $1.49
2013 $386,827.20 $0.01 $0.69 $0.34
2014 $157,500.00 $0.01 $0.27 $0.14 $4.525 $2.73
$5.47 $2.73
2015 $151,200.00 $0.01 $0.26 $0.13
2016 $144,900.00 $0.00 $0.24 $0.12 $6.60$6.03 $3.010
2017 $138,600.00 $0.00 $0.23 $3.59
2018 $0.11 $7.18 $3.59
$132,300.00 $0.00 $0.21 $0.11 $7.78 $3.89
May 28, 2013
Page 7
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
TABLE REC-3
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2006 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will grow at 2.0% per year
PER UNIT VALUE: 1 THRU 3 UNIT STRUCTURES $316,000
PER UNIT VALUE: 4+ UNIT STRUCTURES $200,000
TAX PER UNIT CREDITS PER UNIT
TAX
DWELLING ANNUAL RATE 1 THRU 3 UNIT 4+ UNIT 1 THRU 3 UNIT 4+UNIT
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED STRUCTURES STRUCTURES STRUCTURES STRUCTURES
2007 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $281.33 $178.06
2008 $115,800.00 $0.00 $14.35 $9.08 $295.40 $186.96
2009 $467,784.00 $0.02 $56.84 $35.98 $295.82 $187.23
2010 $204,300.00 $0.01 $24.34 $15.40 $253.76 $160.61
2011 $633,758.40 $0.02 $74.02 $46.85 $242.11 $153.24
2012 $734,637.60 $0.03 $84.12 $53.24 $180.20 $114.05
2013 $386,827.20 $0.01 $43.43 $27.48 $105.09 $66.51
2014 $157,500.00 $0.01 $17.33 $10.97 $66.91 $42.35
2015 $151,200.00 $0.01 $16.31 $10.33 $52.93 $33.50
2016 $144,900.00 $0.00 $15.33 $9.70 $39.26 $24.85
2017 $138,600.00 $0.00 $14.37 $9.10 $25.89 $16.39
2018 $132,300.00 $0.00 $13.45 $8.51 $12.81 $8.11
Calculating the Net Fee:
The total credits can be determined by using Tables REC-2 and REC-3.This is done by entering the
tables at the row representing the year in which the dwelling enters the grand list.The appropriate
credits will be found in the columns representing the category of dwelling being developed. The
two credits must be summed, and then the sum must be deducted from the base impact fee.
This is a somewhat cumbersome process. To simplify it,the base recreation impact fees and the
credits from Tables REC-2 and REC-3 have been combined in Table REC-4. In most cases,Table
REC-4 is the only table necessary. By entering Table REC-4 in the row representing the year in
which the dwelling enters the grant list,the total fee per dwelling unit is found. For example, if a
dwelling in a structure containing three or fewer units is built in 2015,the 2015 row of the table
shows that the net recreation impact fee is$1,626.72. For a dwelling in a structure containing four
or more units constructed in 2015 the net fee is$1,143.46 per unit.
May 28, 2013 Page 8
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
TABLE REC-4
NET IMPACT FEES PER UNIT
1 THRU 3 UN IT STRUCTURES 4+ UNIT STRUCTURES
DWELLING BASE TOTAL NET BASE TOTAL NET
YEAR FEE CREDITS FEE FEE CREDITS FEE
2007 $1,685.67 $281.33 $1,404.34 $1,179.97 $178.06 $1,001.91
2008 $1,685.67 $295.40 $1,390.27 $1,179.97 $186.96 $993.01
2009 $1,685.67 $296.06 $1,389.61 $1,179.97 $187.35 $992.62
2010 $1,685.67 $254.96 $1,430.71 $1,179.97 $161.21 $1,018.76
2011 $1,685.67 $243.77 $1,441.90 $1,179.97 $154.07 $1,025.90
2012 $1,685.67 $183.17 $1,502.50 $1,179.97 $115.54 $1,064.43
2013 $1,685.67 $109.60 $1,576.07 $1,179.97 $68.77 $1,111.20
2014 $1,685.67 $72.38 $1,613.29 $1,179.97 $45.08 $1,134.89
2015 $1,685.67 $58.95 $1,626.72 $1,179.97 $36.51 $1,143.46
2016 $1,685.67 $45.86 $1,639.81 $1,179.97 $28.15 $1,151.82
2017 $1,685.67 $33.07 $1,652.60 $1,179.97 $19.98 $1,159.99
2018 $1,685.67 $20.59 $1,665.08 $1,179.97 $12.00 $1,167.97
Credits For Construction of All or Part of Recreation facilities: If a development subject to
these impact fees includes the dedication of land for or the construction of all or part of a
recreation facility specifically included in these recreation facility impact fee calculations, the
development shall be granted a credit against the original recreation impact fees. The credit
shall be in the amount equal to the assessed value of the dedicated land and/or the
documented cost of construction of the recreation facility, but may not exceed the amount of
the original recreation facility impact fee. For residential developments, the credit shall be
distributed equally across all new dwelling units in the development. The credit shall be
deducted from the recreation impact fee assessed against the dwelling unit at the time that
the Zoning Permit for construction of that unit is obtained. For non-residential developments,
the credit shall be deducted from the total original fee assessed against the development. If
the fee is to be paid in several payments, the credit shall be pro-rated against each payment in
accordance with that payment's share of the total original fee. Provision of easements for
recreation purposes and construction of recreation facilities not specifically identified in this
impact fee analysis shall not warrant any credits.
May 28, 2013 Page 9
City of South Burlington Updated Recreation Improvement Impact Fee Analysis
APPENDIX
LIST OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ON THE
PLANNED RECREATION PROJECTS
In order to estimate credits for past and future tax payments, it is necessary to develop a table
of annual expenditures for the specified recreation projects that are likely to be made from
general tax revenues. His is done by first taking every project and listing the total expenditure
each year, beginning when the project is scheduled in the Capital Budget and Program. In most
cases this will be a single annual expenditure.
The second step is to adjust each annual expenditure to reflect only the portion that will be
funded by general tax revenues, and not by impact fee revenues. Only the portion of a project
that is needed to provide capacity for anticipated growth is eligible for impact fee revenues.
Some of the projects, like the acquisition and development of new recreation fields, are
needed entirely to serve anticipated growth, and thus 100 percent of their costs are eligible for
impact fee revenues, and zero percent should be funded from tax revenues. The others are a
mixture, serving both the existing population and anticipated future residents. Estimates were
developed by the Planning Director of how much of each project should be allocated to future
growth and how much to meeting existing demand. The annual expenditures for each project
were adjusted downward to reflect the portion that was not eligible for impact fee funding.
Finally, expenditure for each year for all projects were summed to obtain annual totals for
recreation project expenditures not eligible for impact fee funding. Table REC-5 shows these
annual expenditure for each project, and the annual totals for all projects. The annual totals
were then entered in column 2 of Tables REC-2 and REC-3 where the credits are estimated.
May 28, 2013 Page 10
H
CO C1)
Q co 0 0 a
ci m m
O N N
Q) N Co Co
/} VT
`I.,
Al
Q.
0
EN. Co to
xi'
m
+. .-I N
_ AA I"
d
rn 0
Co
OL Z N Co Co
W IA
p WI 0 0
V:1 c O
N N
d W N ^ l VI
L W -0 v
0 LL
a U Co Co CC o o
ti Co Co
I. CZN Co Co
a
O N N
v4 C) CO o CO
O In N Ili'CO CotD N CO
.-1 N m
N th N
Ww.. co
V/ `,-Ni en o
coO Co
Li. N .-i ...0/�
ra 1 LL N co N Co
O r.
Ln
Ina
CZ O Tico
o
O LAco
1J� m v n
Z o N Co cr
W Co Co
In in
m W
Ine
< = o o m
C
N ci N Co
N N Co N0
1.4
QN i/?
Z
W N o co
aVT � �
X N N a
W 'n `^ `^
O
o CoO O 0
CO
_ m o
O V? CV m V1
N tom/? tl/} ri
t-1
SC( VT
W
Ce N
U O 0
.6
WIV
CC
Q
= s
= Z Y ` Y
ZLC as S o a
m
Y
a 0 y
o i `= oa ° au m -
- -O _ 0L c CY c
N CN 0 - ID
E
s
oLo p c xY cc
= ` m N _m a C c F-
O o m c
cn � 'B
V� cu c Q
O O f a• O O d = O o_ L - t s O 7 00
>• a > > v o v v ux Z
N
0 < C 0 cc Q al al
SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
May 28, 2013
Prepared by
Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP
MAY 28, 2013
SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
I. Introduction:
For many years the City of South Burlington has provided police services to its residents and businesses.
Since the 1980s,the police department shared a space in the City Office Building on Dorset Street, but
by the 2000 this space had become over-crowded and inadequate for the growing city. In 2010 the City
put into service a new police station, created by renovating an existing building on Gregory Drive. The
new facility was intended to be able to accommodate growing needs for next thirty years—i.e.through
2040.
Since the facility was designed to accommodate thirty years of growth, and would not be fully needed if
no growth were anticipated, it is reasonable for the City to explore ways in which the anticipated
growth would pay for the additional capacity. To that end,the City has decided to explore impact fees,
as authorized under 24 VSA, Chapter 131, as a tool for shifting a reasonable proportion of the costs of
the new police facility onto development which will occur over the coming years. This analysis is
intended to establish the foundation for, and the formulae by which,the actual impact fees are
calculated.
The Police Impact Fee will be based on the cost to the City of providing the new station needed to
provide services to current and anticipated residents and businesses. These costs will first be allocated
into service to residential portions of the City, and services to the business (or non-residential) portions
of the City. These, in turn,will be translated into costs per unit of residential development and costs per
unit of non-residential development,which will be the foundation for computation of the base impact
fees. From these base fees must be deducted any applicable credits necessary to offset any other
payments for the police station that the new development may make.
The basic conceptual structure of the impact fee formulae is that the fee will be equal to the City's cost
of providing one unit of capacity (i.e.the cost per call responded to) multiplied by the number of calls
per unit of development. From this base fee must be deducted credits to offset any double payment for
the police facility . The remainder of this analysis will describe how the variables in the formulae are
estimated.
The process for estimating the values in the formulae includes the following steps:
1) Estimation of the total cost to the City(in current, 2010, dollars) of the planned new police
station facility.
2) Estimation of the capacity of the new facility in terms of calls responded to at the end of the
facility's thirty year estimated life span.
3) Estimation of the expected residential population and residential police calls per year by the
year 2040.
MAY 28,2013 Page 1
4) Estimation of the total amount of non-residential development and the number of non-
residential calls per year by the year 2040.
5) Estimation of the total cost per unit of development (per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet
of non-residential floor area)to the City for the new police facility needed to respond to the
anticipated volume of calls in the year 2040.
Following this, it will be necessary to estimate any credits that are needed to offset any double
payments for police protection facilities.
II. Estimating the Values for the Police Impact Fee Formulae:
1. The Cost Of The New Police Facility:
The City of South Burlington recently created a new Police Station on Gregory Drive by
renovating an existing building. The total cost of the renovation, including equipment,was
$7,200,000. This was financed by a twenty year bond at varying interest rates averaging just
over 4 percent. Including interest on the bond, the total cost to the City will be$10,599,4381. In
addition, it is estimated that over the thirty year life of the structure,some spaces that have
been finished but not occupied will require additional furniture and equipment as the
department grows into the space. It is assumed that such expenditures will be$100,000 in
2020,and $125,000 in 2030. Thus,the total cost over the thirty year period will b e
$10,824,438. The new facility contained a total of 28,105 square feet of floor space and was
described as being adequate to accommodate the City's needs for thirty years—until 2040. The
total cost per square foot of floor space is$385.14'
The previous facility contained 8,569 square feet and was greatly over crowded,so a significant
part of the new facility was needed to replace existing space and remedy existing overcrowding.
2. Estimating The Capacity Of The Facility In Terms Of the number of Future Calls Responded To
which the department will respond:
The South Burlington Police Department provided tabulations of all calls to which the
department responded for 2010 and 2011. For each of these years,the total number of calls
was approximately 18,500. Thus, in the existing facility,the department was responding to
2.16 calls per square foot of floor area. As noted,the existing facility was severely over-
crowded when the new facility came on line.
After a review of the most frequent call categories 3 police officials concluded that residential
development accounted for approximately 55 percent of all activity while non-residential
development generated 45 percent. At the same time, it was acknowledged that approximately
As described in the Bond Repayment Schedule provided by the City.
2 This figure should not be confused with the construction cost per square foot since this figure includes interest
on the bond.
s There were approximately 24 call categories that accounted for 85%of all calls,and this was judged to be a very
representative sample of department activity.
MAY 28, 2013 Page 2
10 percent of activity was unrelated to development patterns. In round terms,this suggests
approximately 1,850 calls (10 percent of the total)were unrelated to development patterns,
9,250 calls (50 percent of total calls) were related to residential development,and that 7,400
calls (40 percent of total calls)were related to non-residential development.
The 9,250 residential based calls in 2010 were related to a total residential population of
17,2514. This represents a ratio of 0.54 residential calls per person. The City's Comprehensive
Plan projects residential population growth through 2020 at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.
Continuing this projection through 2040(i.e.the 30 year life span of the new police facility)
results in a 2040 population of just under 27,000 persons. If the ratio of residential calls per
person remains constant at 0.54,the department will respond to 14,580 residential calls in
2040,an increase of 57.6 percent
Assuming that the numbers of non-residential and other calls increase at the same rate as
residential calls', the department will respond to 11,662 non-residential calls and 2,915
unrelated calls in the year 2040. This amounts to a total of just over 29,000 total calls in the
year 2040. Since this represents the anticipated capacity of the facility in terms of call response,
the base ratio of cost per call can be calculated by dividing the total cost of the facility
($10,824,438) by the total estimated calls in 2040(29,000),yielding a cost per call of$373.25
This number, i.e. $373.25 per call,will be the basis of estimating the base impact fees for
residential and non-residential development.
2. Estimating The Cost per Unit Of Development And Base Impact Fees:
a. Residential Development Base Impact Fee Calculation:
As noted above, residential development is estimated to generate approximately 0.54 calls
per person. Thus,for residential development,the base impact fee will be equal to the
cost per call ($373.25),times the number of calls per person (0.54),times the number of
persons per dwelling unit.
Previous impact fee analyses have recognized that different types of dwelling units have
different household sizes. For single family units the ratio used in the 1993 impact fee
analyses assumed an average of 3.0 persons-per-dwelling, and for multiple family units (all
others) a ratio of 1.5 persons-per-dwelling was assumed. In 2001 those ratios were
verified. A more recent review of 2010 census data reveals a significant increase in the
number of one and two person households since 2010, probably reflecting the recent
construction of a large number of apartment structures'.
4 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
5 A review of grand list data for the period 2001 through 2013 indicates that the percent residential and the
percent non-residential have held relatively constant except for a major shift resulting from the reassessment in
2007. This indicates that both categories are experiencing similar growth rates.
6 SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING NEEDS,VHF A, 2012.
MAY 28,2013 Page 3
In recent years residential development in South Burlington has included a substantial
number of condominium dwellings in structures containing two and three units. These
condominium units typically have three bedrooms and contain somewhere in the range of
2,000 to 2,500 square feet of floor area. These characteristics are more consistent with
single family detached dwelling than multiple-family apartments. As a result, household
size will be estimated for two categories of dwellings: Those dwelling units in structures
containing three or fewer individual dwelling units, and those dwellings in structures
containing four or more individual dwelling units.
Further consideration of these trends and data indicates that the average household size for
dwellings in structures containing three or fewer dwellings is approximately 2.5 persons,
and that the average household size for dwellings in structures containing for or more units
is 1.75 persons'.
Using these ratios,the basic police impact fees per dwelling units in the different categories
can be calculated as follows:
Dwellings in structures containing three or fewer unit:
$373.25 x 0.54 x 2.5=$503.88 per dwelling.
Dwellings in structures containing four or more units:
$373.25 x 0.54 x 1.75 =$352.72 per dwelling.
b. Non-Residential Development Base Impact Fee Calculation:_For non-residential
development the analysis is slightly more complex. The base impact fee will be
expressed as a fee per 1,000 square feet of new floor area. This will be equal to the cost
per call ($373.25),times the number of calls per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
As shown above, in 2010/2011,the department responded to an estimated 7,400 non-
residential calls. It is estimated that the City currently contains approximately 11,617,000
square feet of non-residential spaces. With 7,400 calls,this results in an estimate of 0.637
calls per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
' Assuming that"renters"are primarily occupants of dwelling units in structures of four or more units,and that
"owners"are primarily occupants of dwellings in structures containing three or fewer units,the 2010 census data
show the following: Multiplying the 5,186 owner households by an average household size of 2.5 yields an owner
population of 12,965. Multiplying the 2,801 renter households by an average household size of 1.75 yields a renter
population of 4,902. Adding these together totals 17,869,which is very close to the City's 2010 Census
population of 17,251.
8 The assessor indicated that the City's grand list included a total value of$14,520,827 for non-residential
structural value. Converting that to assessed value by multiplying by 100 yields a total assessed value for non-
residential space of$1,452,082,700. Dividing this by an average value of$125 per square foot yields 11,616,662
square feet,which was rounded to 11,617,000.
MAY 28,2013 Page 4
The base cost per 1,000 square feet of non-residential floor area will be equal to the cost
per call ($373.25),times the number of calls per 1,000 square feet of floor area (0.637).
Inserting the above estimated values yields the following base cost:
$373.25 x 0.637=$237.76 per 1,000 square feet.
Thus,for any proposed amount of non-residential development,the total base fee will be
calculated as the total proposed floor area expressed in units of 1,000 square feet,
multiplied by the base fee of$237.76 per 1,000 square feet. For example, a proposed
development containing 15,500 square feet of floor area would be subject to a base
police impact fee of 15.5 x$237.76=$3,685.28.
III. Estimating Credits to Offset Double Payments for the Police Station Bond
When the City sold the bond to fund the new Police Station, it began making regular payments of
interest and principal to retire the bond issue over the twenty year bond repayment period. The City
also decided to set aside$360,000 each year of Rooms & Meals Tax revenues to pay the principal of this
bond, leaving only the interest to be covered by property tax revenues and impact fee revenues. The
new development for which impact fees are paid will also be paying property taxes,some of which will
be used for those bond interest expenditures. Even when the development has not yet been
constructed when the expenditures are made,taxes paid by the land eventually used for the
development will be used for those expenditures. It is necessary to eliminate these double payments by
applying credits against the base impact fees. The credits will equal to the present discounted value of
the future stream of tax payments used for those expenditures. Credits must be estimated for all bond
interest expenditures for the new police facility that are not covered by impact fee revenues.
To this end,the stream of tax payments is broken into two parts—that which occurs before the
development comes onto the grand list, and that which occurs after the development comes onto the
grand list. In the former case, prior to the payment of the impact fee,there will have been a series of
past tax payments made on the undeveloped land. In the latter case there will be a stream of future tax
payments made on the new development after the impact fee was paid.
To calculate these credits,the first step was to tabulate all annual bond payments for the police station
bond, plus the anticipated expenditures for additional furniture and equipment,that were not covered
by Rooms& Meals Tax revenues or Impact Fee revenues. This was done by tabulating the total annual
bond repayment expenditures over the life of the bond. From this is subtracted the$360,000 in annual
Rooms & Meals Tax Revenues, and an estimate of annual Impact Fee revenues. The remaining balance
is the amount that must be covered by property tax revenues. This is shown in Table PD-1. The annual
expenditures to be covered by property tax revenues in Table PD-1 are shown at the left side of Tables
PD-2, PD-3, PD-5 and PD-6.
TABLE PD-1
CALCULATION OF ANNUAL POLICE STATION EXPENDITURES TO BE COVERED BY PROPERTY TAX
REVENUES.
MAY 28,2013 Page 5
Furniture Room & Impact
Bond Bond Bond & Meals Fee From Tax
Year Interest Principal Total Equipment Revenues Revenues revenues
2010 $102,666 $0 $102,666 $0 $0 $ - $102,666
2011 $271,764 $360,000 $631,764 $0 $360,000 $ - $271,764
2012 $266,400 $360,000 $626,400 $0 $360,000 $ - $266,400
2013 $260,316 $360,000 $620,316 $0 $360,000 $ 50,000 $210,316
2014 $252,972 $360,000 $612,972 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $127,972
2015 $244,296 $360,000 $604,296 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $119,296
2016 $234,288 $360,000 $594,288 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $109,288
2017 $222,696 $360,000 $582,696 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $97,696
2018 $210,096 $360,000 $570,096 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $85,096
2019 $196,848 $360,000 $556,848 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $71,848
2020 $182,916 $360,000 $542,916 $100,000 $360,000 $125,000 $157,916
2021 $168,372 $360,000 $528,372 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $43,372
2022 $153,360 $360,000 $513,360 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $28,360
2023 $137,844 $360,000 $497,844 $0 $360,000 $125,000 $12,844
2024 $121,716 $360,000 $481,716 $0 $360,000 $125,000 -$3,284
2025 $105,228 $360,000 $465,228 $0 $360,000 $125,000 -$19,772
2026 $88,380 $360,000 $448,380 $0 $360,000 $125,000 -$36,620
2027 $71,208 $360,000 $431,208 $0 $360,000 $125,000 -$53,792
2028 $53,784 $360,000 $413,784 $0 $360,000 $125,000 -$71,216
2029 $36,108 $360,000 $396,108 $125,000 $360,000 $125,000 $36,108
2030 $18,180 $360,000 $378,180 $0 $360,000 $125,000 -$106,820
The next was to determine what tax rate would be necessary to raise an amount of money equal to the
required annual property tax payments. This is done by dividing the expenditure by the City's grand list
each year.9 This is shown in the third column of Tables PD-2, PD-3, PD-5 and PD-6.
A. Estimating Credits For New Residential Development:
The taxes paid on the land prior to the construction of the new dwelling are referred to as past
taxes. Estimating credits for past taxes is done as follows. The first step is to estimate taxes on
undeveloped land for each year. This is done by applying the needed tax rate to the assessed
value per unit of undeveloped land. An examination of the City's grand list records revealed
that undeveloped land was assessed at an average of$20,000 per acre. For dwellings in
structures containing three or fewer units, a density of four units per acre was assumed. For
multiple family dwellings in structures containing four or more units,a density of eight units per
acre was assumed.This resulted in estimates of assessed value per dwelling for undeveloped
land for single family detached units and multiple family units of$5,000 and$2,500,
respectively. These values are shown in Table PD-2.
To estimate the credit for past tax payments, it is necessary to consider only the stream of
payments made prior to the construction of the dwelling. For a dwelling constructed in 2015,
9 A discussion with the City Assessor revealed that the City's current(2006)grand list was$24,994,969,and that it
was expected that the grand list would increase by 2 percent each year.
MAY 28,2013 Page 6
that would be payments made in years 2010 through 2015. This stream of payments is
converted to the net present value in the year of construction, using a discount rate of 5
percent. The right hand columns of Table PD-2 on the following page (shown in bold)show
these present values. These are the applicable credits per unit for past tax payments. For a
dwelling in a structure containing three or fewer units constructed in 2015,the credit for past
tax payments would be$2.02 per unit. For a multiple family dwelling in a structure containing
four or more units, constructed in 2015,the credit would be$1.01 per unit.
Once the dwelling is constructed, it pays annual taxes on its new value as a dwelling.These are
called future tax payments. A review of the City's Grand List data revealed that average
assessed value of new dwelling in a structure containing three or fewer units is $350,000. For
new dwellings in structures containing four or more units,the average assessed value per unit is
$220,000. The next step is to apply the annual needed tax rates to the assessed values for single
family and multiple family dwellings. This generates the estimated tax on each type of dwelling,
as shown in columns 4 and 5 of Table PD-3 on page 9.
MAY 28,2013 Page 7
TABLE PD-2
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2006 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0% per year
LAND VALUE PER UNIT: 1 THRU 3 UNIT STRUCTURES $5,000
LAND VALUE PER UNIT:4+ UNIT STRUCTURES $2,500
TAX PER UNIT CREDITS PER UNIT
DWELLING ANNUAL TAX RATE 1 THRU 3 UNIT 4+ UNIT 1 THRU 3 UNIT 4+ UNIT
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED STRUCTURES STRUCTURES STRUCTURE STRUCTURE
2010 $102,666 0.003795 $0.19 $0.09 $0.00 $0.00
2011 $271,764 0.009848 $0.49 $0.25 $0.20 $0.10
2012 $266,400 0.009464 $0.47 $0.24 $0.73 $0.36
2013 $210,316 0.007325 $0.37 $0.18 $1.26 $0.63
2014 $127,972 0.004370 $0.22 $0.11 $1.71 $0.85
2015 $119,296 0.003994 $0.20 $0.10 $2.02 $1.01
2016 $109,288 0.003587 $0.18 $0.09 $2.33 $1.17
2017 $97,696 0.003144 $0.16 $0.08 $2.64 $1.32
2018 $85,096 0.002684 $0.13 $0.07 $2.93 $1.47
2019 $71,848 0.002222 $0.11 $0.06 $3.22 $1.61
2020 $157,916 0.004788 $0.24 $0.12 $3.50 $1.75
2021 $43,372 0.001289 $0.06 $0.03 $3.93 $1.96
2022 $28,360 0.000827 $0.04 $0.02 $4.19 $2.10
2023 $12,844 0.000367 $0.02 $0.01 $4.44 $2.22
2024 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $4.68 $2.34
2025 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $4.92 $2.46
2026 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $5.16 $2.58
2027 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $5.42 $2.71
2028 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $5.69 $2.85
2029 $36,108 0.000916 $0.05 $0.02 $5.98 $2.99
2030 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $6.33 $3.16
In this case,the relevant annual payments are those from the year the dwelling comes on the
grand list through the end of the programmed expenditures for the police station bond (2030).
The credit for these tax payments is the current value of this stream of future payments
(assuming a discount rate of 5 percent. These are shown, for units in structures containing
three or fewer units, and for units in structures containing four or more units, respectively, in
the right hand columns of Table PD-3 (shown in bold).
MAY 28,2013 Page 8
TABLE PD-3
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2006 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0% per year
PER UNIT VALUE: 1 THRU 3 UNIT STRUCTURES $350,000
PER UNIT VALUE:4+ UNIT STRUCTURES $220,000
TAX PER UNIT CREDITS PER UNIT
DWELLING ANNUAL TAX RATE 1 THRU 3 UNIT 4+ UNIT 1 THRU 3 UNIT 4+UNIT
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED STRUCTURES STRUCTURES STRUCTURES STRUCTURE
2010 $102,666 0.003795 $13.28 $8.35 $158.93 $99.90
2011 $271,764 0.009848 $34.47 $21.67 $153.60 $96.55
2012 $266,400 0.009464 $33.12 $20.82 $126.81 $79.71
2013 $210,316 0.007325 $25.64 $16.12 $100.03 $62.88
2014 $127,972 0.004370 $15.29 $9.61 $79.39 $49.90
2015 $119,296 0.003994 $13.98 $8.79 $68.07 $42.79
2016 $109,288 0.003587 $12.55 $7.89 $57.49 $36.14
2017 $97,696 0.003144 $11.00 $6.92 $47.81 $30.05
2018 $85,096 0.002684 $9.40 $5.91 $39.20 $24.64
2019 $71,848 0.002222 $7.78 $4.89 $31.77 $19.97
2020 $157,916 0.004788 $16.76 $10.53 $25.58 $16.08
2021 $43,372 0.001289 $4.51 $2.84 $10.10 $6.35
2022 $28,360 0.000827 $2.89 $1.82 $6.09 $3.83
2023 $12,844 0.000367 $1.28 $0.81 $3.50 $2.20
2024 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $2.39 $1.50
2025 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $2.51 $1.58
2026 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $2.64 $1.66
2027 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $2.77 $1.74
2028 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $2.91 $1.83
2029 $36,108 0.000916 $3.21 $2.02 $3.05 $1.92
2030 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Thus, a dwelling in a structure containing three or fewer units, constructed in 2015,would have
a credit for future tax payments of $68.07,and a multiple family in a structure containing for or
more units,constructed in 2012,would have a credit of$42.79 per unit.
For a dwelling constructed in any year,the net fee would equal the base fee minus the credit for
past tax payments from the relevant row of Table PD-2, minus the credit for future tax
payments from the relevant row of Table PD-3. The relevant row is the year the dwelling is
constructed. This can be consolidated into a single table as shown in Table PD-4.
MAY 28,2013 Page 9
TABLE PD-4
NET RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES, PER UNIT
1 THRU 3 UNIT STRUCTURES 4+ UNIT STRUCTURES
DWELLING Base Credit for Credit for Net Base Credit for Credit for Net
YEAR Fee Past taxes Future taxes Fee Fee Past taxes Future taxes Fee
2010 $503.88 $0.00 $158.93 $344.95 $352.72 $0.00 $99.90 $252.82
2011 $503.88 $0.20 $153.60 $350.08 $352.72 $0.10 $96.55 $256.07
2012 $503.88 $0.73 $126.81 $376.34 $352.72 $0.36 $79.71 $272.65
2013 $503.88 $1.26 $100.03 $402.59 $352.72 $0.63 $62.88 $289.21
2014 $503.88 $1.71 $79.39 $422.78 $352.72 $0.85 $49.90 $301.96
2015 $503.88 $2.02 $68.07 $433.79 $352.72 $1.01 $42.79 $308.92
2016 $503.88 $2.33 $57.49 $444.05 $352.72 $1.17 $36.14 $315.42
2017 $503.88 $2.64 $47.81 $453.43 $352.72 $1.32 $30.05 $321.35
2018 $503.88 $2.93 $39.20 $461.74 $352.72 $1.47 $24.64 $326.61
2019 $503.88 $3.22 $31.77 $468.89 $352.72 $1.61 $19.97 $331.14
2020 $503.88 $3.50 $25.58 $474.80 $352.72 $1.75 $16.08 $334.89
2021 $503.88 $3.93 $10.10 $489.86 $352.72 $1.96 $6.35 $344.41
2022 $503.88 $4.19 $6.09 $493.60 $352.72 $2.10 $3.83 $346.80
2023 $503.88 $4.44 $3.50 $495.94 $352.72 $2.22 $2.20 $348.30
2024 $503.88 $4.68 $2.39 $496.80 $352.72 $2.34 $1.50 $348.87
2025 $503.88 $4.92 $2.51 $496.45 $352.72 $2.46 $1.58 $348.68
2026 $503.88 $5.16 $2.64 $496.08 $352.72 $2.58 $1.66 $348.48
2027 $503.88 $5.42 $2.77 $495.69 $352.72 $2.71 $1.74 $348.27
2028 $503.88 $5.69 $2.91 $495.28 $352.72 $2.85 $1.83 $348.05
2029 $503.88 $5.98 $3.05 $494.85 $352.72 $2.99 $1.92 $347.81
2030 $503.88 $6.33 $0.00 $497.55 $352.72 $3.16 $0.00 $349.56
Thus, using Table PD-4,for a dwelling in a structure containing three or fewer units, constructed
in 2015,the 2015 row shows the base fee ($503.88) minus the credit for past tax payments
($2.02), minus the credit for future tax payments ($68.07)equals the net fee of$433.79 per
unit..
Similarly,the fee for a multi-family dwelling in a structure containing four or more units,
constructed in 2015,the 2015 row shows the base fee ($352.59) minus the credit for past tax
payments ($1.01), minus the credit for future tax payments($42.79) equals the net fee of
$308.92 per unit.
B. Estimating Credits for Non-Residential Development:
A different approach is needed to establish the base impact fee for non-residential
development. As shown on page 5,the base fee for non-residential development is expressed
as a fee per 1,000 square feet of proposed floor area. This was estimated to be $237.76 per
1,000 square feet. The total floor area to be constructed is taken directly from the application
MAY 28,2013 Page 10
for a zoning permit. Thus,a proposed development containing 15,500 square feet of floor area
would have a base fee of 15.5 times$237.76=$3,658.28. From this must be deducted the
credits for past and future tax payments.
Property tax payments are based on property values,and there are no standardized or average
values for non-residential developments. To address this problem, credits for past and future
tax payments have been estimated on the basis of a unit of$1,000 of value, using the steps
described for credits for residential development. These are shown in Tables PD-5 and PD-6.
TABLE PD-5
NON-RESIDENTIAL
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2006 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0% per year
CONS- CREDITS
TRUCTION ANNUAL TAX RATE TAX ON PER$1,000 OF
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED $1000 VALUE ASSESSED VALUE
2010 $102,666 0.003795 $0.04 $0.00
2011 $271,764 0.009848 $0.10 $0.04
2012 $266,400 0.009464 $0.09 $0.15
2013 $210,316 0.007325 $0.07 $0.25
2014 $127,972 0.004370 $0.04 $0.34
2015 $119,296 0.003994 $0.04 $0.40
2016 $109,288 0.003587 $0.04 $0.47
2017 $97,696 0.003144 $0.03 $0.53
2018 $85,096 0.002684 $0.03 $0.59
2019 $71,848 0.002222 $0.02 $0.64
2020 $157,916 0.004788 $0.05 $0.70
2021 $43,372 0.001289 $0.01 $0.79
2022 $28,360 0.000827 $0.01 $0.84
2023 $12,844 0.000367 $0.00 $0.89
2024 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.94
2025 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.98
2026 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.03
2027 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.08
2028 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.14
2029 $36,108 0.000916 $0.01 $1.20
2030 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.27
To calculate the credit for past tax payments,the assessed value of the land on which the
development is located is taken from the City's tax records. If it is part of a larger tax parcel,the
total assessed value may be based on the portion of the larger site used for the development.
Thus, a development on a five acre site that was part of an existing twenty acre parcel would
have a land value of one fourth of the assessed land value of the total site. This assessed land
MAY 28,2013 Page 11
value would be expressed in units of$1,000 of assessed value, and the credit would be
computed by multiplying the credit per$1,000 of value in the appropriate row of Table PD-5
times the number of$1,000 units. For example, a development built in 2015 with a pre-
construction land value of$150,000 (150 units)would be given a credit for past tax payments
equal to 150 x$0.40= $60.00.
The credit for future tax payments will be computed on the basis of estimated post-construction
value of the proposed development, expressed in units of$1,000. Table PD-6 presents the
credits for future tax payments per$1,000 of value for future tax payments.
TABLE PD-6
NON-RESIDENTIAL
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2003 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0% per year
CONS- CREDITS
TRUCTION ANNUAL TAX RATE TAX ON PER$1,000 OF
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED $1000 VALUE ASSESSED VALUE
2010 $102,666 0.003795 $0.04 $0.45
2011 $271,764 0.009848 $0.10 $0.44
2012 $266,400 0.009464 $0.09 $0.36
2013 $210,316 0.007325 $0.07 $0.29
2014 $127,972 0.004370 $0.04 $0.23
2015 $119,296 0.003994 $0.04 $0.19
2016 $109,288 0.003587 $0.04 $0.16
2017 $97,696 0.003144 $0.03 $0.14
2018 $85,096 0.002684 $0.03 $0.11
2019 $71,848 0.002222 $0.02 $0.09
2020 $157,916 0.004788 $0.05 $0.07
2021 $43,372 0.001289 $0.01 $0.03
2022 $28,360 0.000827 $0.01 $0.02
2023 $12,844 0.000367 $0.00 $0.01
2024 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2025 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2026 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2027 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2028 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2029 $36,108 0.000916 $0.01 $0.01
2030 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00
In order to use Table PD-6, it is first necessary to estimate the total post construction value of
the proposed development, expressed in units of$1,000 of development. The Appendix to this
report presents a method for estimating post-construction value. Thus, if the 15,500 square
foot building described above was to be a wood frame general office building,Table PD-7 in the
MAY 28,2013 Page 12
Appendix indicates that it would have an average post development value of$106.00 per square
foot,or a total post development value of$1,643,000 (1,643 units). Since it is to be built in
2015, it would receive a credit for future tax payments of$0.19 per$1,000. The credit for
future tax payments would be 1,643 times$0.19 equals$312.17.
The net fee for this development would be equal to the base fee ($3,685.28) minus the credit
for past taxes ($60.00) minus the credit for future taxes ($312.17) equals$3,313.11.
$3,685.28-$60.00-$312.17=$3,313.11
The figures presented in this analysis represent the maximum police impact fees that are justified by the
analysis. The City always has the ability to opt for a lower fee. If the City chooses to discount the fees, it
is recommended that the same proportionate discount (e.g.ten percent,twenty five percent, etc.) be
applied to both residential and non-residential fees.
MAY 28,2013 Page 13
APPENDIX: ESTIMATING POST-DEVELOPMENT VALUE
The calculation of credits against the police station impact fee requires an estimate of the post-
construction value of the proposed development. This is done using a process derived from the
"Calculator Method"set forth in the property assessment manual published by Marshall and Swift,and
used by many Vermont municipal assessors and listers.
The basic approach is to establish a ratio of post construction value per square foot of floor area that
can be applied to the floor area of proposed development to yield total value. This value was
established to include construction plus site development (parking) and basic landscaping.The value of
the property varies with the type and quality of construction and the type of use, The following four
basic construction types was identified as being typical of what will occur in South Burlington:
1) Fireproofed steel skeleton or reinforced concrete structure;
2) Masonry or concrete bearing wall structure;
3) Wood frame structure;
4) Pre-fabricated steel structure.
In addition, a uniform assumption of average quality was established.
The Marshall and Swift manual provides basic value ratios for a wide variety of different uses. For the
purposes of this analysis, a general set of eight uses was selected as representing most uses likely to be
built in Vermont. The result is a table of value per square foot ratios for eight uses and four
construction types, as shown in Table PD-7 on the following page.
Developing the values shown in Table PD-7 followed the Marshall and Swift method of starting with
basic value-per-square-foot ratios and making adjustments for climate, heating/cooling, sprinklers,
paved parking, and landscaping. General site preparation was included in the basic ratio. Adjustments
for paved parking and landscaping were based on assumed building coverage and parking ratios,
coupled with unit costs from Marshall and Swift. The resulting total values per square foot of floor
ratios are presented in Table PD-7.
Use of the table is straight forward. For a particular development,the column best representing the
proposed use is selected,along with the row representing the type of construction. The figure where
this column and row intersect is the total project value-per-square-foot-of-floor-area. Applying this
ratio to the total floor area of a proposed development yields the estimated total post construction
value of the development.
For example, a proposed 15,500 square foot general office building of wood frame construction would
have an estimated total post construction value of 15,500 square feet times$106.00 per square foot
equals a total value of$1,643,000,or 1,643 units of$1,000 value. The 1,643 units would then be
multiplied by the appropriate credit per$1,000 of value from Table PD-6 to obtain the total credit for
future tax payments for the proposed development.
MAY 28,2013 Page 14
0 0 0
LI) Q o O 0
Z L(1 N N
co co co
a1 a)LL N pC
J w o 0 0 0 a
ca w o O O o +-'
C. W Jcc Lc; M 01 OM
E o U —1 rn cm �
w U < Q L} L} L} M
0 =
0
OO
OUI- OO O C
N 06 ^ c V D cC U Z L.0 ce• < w < h i } N
0 N w
a v
J 0
J O O O O +''
cc Q O O O O LLJ v
Z w 0r1 cc Q N 1 N co
w cc L} L), in. L} -a
l7 0
c
J O O O 0 CU
LUU U O O O O -
0 Wesi N N US 6�1 >
LL W 0 c-I c-1 a--I c-I s
0 L} L} L} L} u,
o W aJ
W a =
U ›- on
a i- U < o 0 0 0
a u cc o 0 0 o CD
VI w cI O LC; cI H
CC LL Z c�-I O O
0 o a i
o (wry if). L} L} if)- Q
d LL 2
Li. I vi
LU O U U Ln
—
Z CG
H O w V) p O O O c
Q
U. w W 0 R N
LU Z CC c-I L} L} VI. LL
CC (j Q VI- 4-,
U
W < ro
CI
CC (7 c
W ! z U
a)
in J
W Q D 0 0 O O O
J FC f O 0 O 0
Q N Q 1p Lc; M M
L} L} L} L}
1— a � II
Z — Z o
W O
G2 N
a_ a)
O s
J O N
LU .— c-I
> Z a) 0
LU O a N
ci co O
W LL LUw +' 4"'
a,a H W W w D D (6 O
O U Ili U U 0
0 O. vYi
E Ct U. w z U D o=C ro 0
O z
> I-- r H o O v~i U) o X
v
c 2 z 0 Ow cc cc w w v
VI �n ° U- c H < H C a-
C W V U O 0 w Z _ U m �n .v 'M-I
i 0 M cC Z D Z cc O < N L. N
m < I- w w H ON z 0 w o' cC U Q - J O cc 4' E 'Al
Lai Z w Q a Q
o H O o V) CO o